OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 55 



plan of consanguinity of the two families is identical in Avhatever is radical, and with 

 the further fact extremely probable that it had become established in each at a 

 time long anterior to their civilization, the final inference is encouraged that it pre- 

 vailed in the two original nations from which these families were respectively 

 derived. Standing alone, without any contrasting form, the descriptive system of 

 the two families would scarcely attract attention. But it so happens that in other 

 portions of the human family a system of relationship now exists radically different 

 in its structure and elaborate and complicated in its forms, which is spread out over 

 large areas of human speech, and which has ^perpetuated itself through equal 

 periods of time as well as changes of condition. The conditions of society, then, 

 may have some influence in determining the system of relationship. In other 

 words, the descriptive form is not inevitable ; neither is it fortuitous. Some form 

 of consanguinity was an indispensable necessity of each family. Its formation 

 involved an arrangement of kindred into lines of descent, with the adoption of 

 a method for distinguishing one kinsman from another. Whatever plan was 

 finally adopted would acquire the stability of a domestic institution as sodn as 

 it came in general use and had proved its sufficiency. A little reflection will dis- 

 cover the extreme difficulty of innovating upon a system once established. Founded 

 upon common consent, it could only be changed by the influence of motives as uni- 

 versal as the usage. The choice of a descriptive method for the purpose of special- 

 izing each relationship, by the Semitic family, and the adoption of the classificatory 

 by the Turanian, for the purpose of arranging consanguine! into groups, and 

 placing the members of each group in the same relationship to Ego, were severally 

 acts of intelligence and knowledge. A system of relationship is to a certain extent 

 necessarily affirmative. Those parts which embody definite ideas and show man's 

 work are capable of yielding affirmative testimony concerning the ethnic connection 

 of nations among whom these ideas have been perpetuated. The descriptive sys- 

 tem is simple in its elements, and embraces but a few fundamental conceptions. It 

 is therefore incapable of affording such a body of evidence upon these questions as 

 the classificatory : but it does not follow that it is entirely without significance. It 

 is something that the Aryan and Semitic families have a system which can be defi- 

 nitely traced to the same original form, and to a period of time when each family, 

 in all probability, existed in a single nation. It is something more that this sys- 

 tem has positive elements as a product of human intelligence ; and that it has 

 perpetuated itself through so many centuries of time, in so many independent 

 channels, and under such eventful changes of condition. To these may be added 

 the further fact that the several systems of the Aryan nations, taken in connection 

 with the terms of relationship as vocables, demonstrate the unity of origin of these 

 nations, and their descent from the same stem of the human family. In like 

 manner, the systems of the several Semitic nations, considered in connection with 

 the terms as vocables, demonstrate the unity of origin of the latter nations, and 

 perform this work in the most simple and direct way. Upon the present showing 

 it will not be claimed, against the testimony of the vocables, and in the face of 

 the radical differences in the grammatical structure of the Aryan and Semitic lan- 

 guages, that it affords any positive evidence of the unity of origin of the two 



