WesternEuropetribalcustomshavebeenreplacedbyfeudalrules，
thereisavisibleuncertaintyaboutsuchoftheserulesas
affectsuccession。Glanville，writingofEnglishmilitarytenures
inthelaterpartofthereignofHenrytheSecond，observes：
’Whenanyonedies，leavingayoungersonandagrandson，the
childofhiseldestson，greatdoubtexistsastowhichofthe
twothelawprefersinthesuccessiontotheother，whetherthe
sonorthegrandson。Somethinktheyoungersonhasmorerightto
theinheritancethanthegrandson……butothersinclinetothink
thatthegrandsonoughttobepreferredtohisuncle。’
Glanville，vii。7。Thisancientdoubthaslefttracesofitself
onliteraturenolessthanonhistory，sinceitmanifestly
affectstheplotofShakespeare’sHamlet；buttheveryquestion
ofprinciplearosebetweenthedescendantsofdaughtersinthe
controversybetweenBruceandBaliol。ThesuccessiontotheCrown
ofScotlandwasultimatelysettled，asitwouldhavebeenin
earliertimes，bywhatamountedtonationalelection，butthe
decisionofEdwardtheFirstinfavourofBaliolwasundoubtedly
inaccordancewithprincipleswhichweregainingground
everywhere，andIquiteagreewithMrBurtonii。249thatthe
celebrityofthedisputeandthefullconsiderationgiventoit
didmuchtosettletherulewhichprevailedintheend，thatthe
wholeofthedescendantsofanelderchildmustbeexhausted
beforethoseoftheyoungerhadatitle。When，however，the
eldestsonhadoncetakentheplaceofhisuncleastheheirto
thehumblerchieftaincies，hedoubtlessalsoobtainedthat
’portionoflandattachedtotheSignoryorChiefrywhichwent
withoutpartitiontotheTanaist；’and，aseachcommunity
graduallysettleddownintocomparativepeaceunderroyalor
centralauthority，thisdemesne，asitwasafterwardscalled，
musthaveassumedmoreandmorethecharacterofmereproperty
descendingaccordingtotheruleofprimogeniture。Itmaybe
believedthatinthiswayaprincipleofinheritancewasformed
whichfirstofallextendedfromthedemesnetoalltheestates
oftheholderoftheSignory，howeveracquired，andultimately
determinedthelawofsuccessionfortheprivilegedclasses
throughoutfeudalisedEurope。Onevestigeofthislatercourseof
changemayperhapsbetracedinthenobletenureoncewidely
extendedontheContinent，andcalledinFrench’Parage，’under
whichthenearkinsmenoftheeldestsonstilltookaninterest
inthefamilyproperty，buthelditof。himashisPeers。There
were，however，othercausesthanthosejuststatedwhichledto
thegreatdevelopmentofPrimogenitureintheearlypartofthe
MiddleAges，butforanexaminationofthemImaybeallowedto
refertotheworkofminewhichImentionedabove。’Ancient
Law，’pp。232etseq。
Idonotthinkthatthedisaffirmationofthelegalityof
Tanistry，andthesubstitutionforitoftheruleof
Primogeniture，canjustlybereckonedamongthemistakesor
crimesoftheEnglishinIreland。Thepracticehadbeen
perpetuatedinthecountrybyitsdisorders，whichpreserved
littlegroupsofkinsmenandtheirpettychiefsinanunnatural
vitality；andprobablySirJohnDavisdoesnotspeaktooharshly
ofitwhenhechargesitwith’makingallpossessionsuncertain，
andbringingconfusion，barbarism，andincivility。’Thedecision
againsttheIrishGavelkindwasfarlessjustifiable。Evenifthe
institutionwereexactlywhatDavissupposedittobe，therewas
in。justiceinsuddenlydisappointingtheexpectationsofthe
distantkindredwhoformedtheseptofthelastholder：butitis
probablethatseveraldifferentmodesofsuccessionwere
confoundedunderthenameofGavelkind，andthatinmanycasesa
numberofchildrenwereunjustifiablydeprivedoftheir
inheritancefortheadvantageofone。Allthatcanbesaidfor
theauthorsoftherevolutionisthattheyseemtohavesincerely
believedthemischievousnessoftheinstitutionstheywere
destroying；anditissomeevidenceofthisthat，whentheir
descendantsacenturylaterreallywishedtoinflictaninjuryon
themajorityofIrishmen，theyre-introducedGavelkind，though
notinitsmostancientshape。They’gavelled’thelandsof
Papistsandmadethemdescendibletoallthechildrenalike。
Thereseemstomeamelancholyresemblancebetweensomeofthe
mistakeswhich，attwowidelydistantepochs，werecommittedby
Englishmen，apparentlywiththeverybestintentions，whenthey
werebroughtintocontactwithstagesinthedevelopmentof
institutionsearlierthanthatwhichtheirowncivilisationhad
reached。SirJohnDavis’slanguageonthesubjectoftheIrish
customofGavelkindmightbethatofanAnglo-Indianlawyerwho
shouldviolentlycensuretheBrahminicaljuristsfornot
confoundingfamilieswithjointundividedfamilies。Idonotknow
thatanysuchmistakehasbeenmadeinIndia，thoughundoubtedly
thedissolutionoftheJointFamilywasintheearlydaysofour
governmentundulyencouragedbyourCourts。Butthereisacloser
andmoreunfortunatesimilaritybetweensomeoftheEnglish
experimentsinIrelandandthosetriedinIndia。UnderanActof
thetwelfthyearofQueenElizabeththeLordDeputywasempowered
totakesurrendersandregrantestatestotheIrishry。TheIrish
lords，saysDavis，’madesurrendersofentirecountries，and
obtainedgrantsofthewholeagaintothemselvesonly，andnone
other，andallindemesne。Inpassingofwhichgrants，therewas
nocaretakenoftheinferiorseptsofpeople……Sothatupon
everysuchsurrenderorgrant，therewasbutonefreeholdermade
inawholecountry，whichwasthelordhimself；alltherestwere
buttenantsatwill，orrathertenantsinvillenage。’Thereare
believedtobemanyindianjoint-familiesorseptswhich，in
theirlaterformofvillage-communities，hadthewholeoftheir
landssimilarlyconferredonasinglefamilyoutoftheirnumber，
oronaroyaltax-gathereroutsidethem，undertheearliest
Indiansettlements。Theerrorwasnotinintroducingabsolute
ownershipintoIrelandorIndia，butintheapportionmentofthe
rightsofwhichpropertyismadeup。How，indeed，this
apportionmentshallbewiselyandjustlymade，whenthetimehas
fullycomeforputtingindividualpropertyintheplaceof
collectivepropertybyaconsciousactoftheState，isaproblem
whichtaxestotheutmostthestatesmanshipofthemostadvanced
era，whenanimatedbythehighestbenevolenceandinformedwith
thewidestknowledge。Ithasbeenreservedforourowngeneration
towitnesstheleastunsatisfactoryapproachwhichhashitherto
beenmadetowardsthesettlementofthisgravequestioninthe
greatmeasurescollectivelyknownastheenfranchisementofthe
Russianserfs。
TheIrishpracticeofTanistryconnectsitselfwiththerule
ofPrimogeniture，andtheIrishGavelkindwiththerulesof
successionmostwidelyfollowedamongboththeEasternand
WesternbranchesoftheAryanrace；buttherearesomepassages
intheBrehontractswhichdescribeaninternaldivisionofthe
IrishFamily，aclassificationofitsmembersandacorrespondingsystemofsuccessiontoproperty，extremelyunlikeany###第23章arrangementwhichwe，withourideas，canconceiveasgrowingout
ofblood-relationship。Possibly，onlyafewyearsago，these
passageswouldhavebeenregardedaspossessingtoolittle
interestinproportiontotheirdifficultyforittobeworth
anybody’swhiletobestowmuchthoughtupontheirinterpretation。
Butsomereasonsmaybegivenwhywecannotwhollyneglectthem。
ThedistributionoftheIrishFamilyintotheGeilfine，the
Deirbhfine，theIarfine，andtheIndfine——ofwhichexpressions
thethreelastaretranslatedtheTrue，theAfter，andtheEnd
Families——isobscurelypointedatinseveraltextsofthe
earliervolumesofthetranslations；buttheBookofAicill，in
theThirdVolume，suppliesusforthefirsttimewithstatements
concerningithavingsomeapproachtoprecision。Thelearned
Editorofthisvolume，whohascarefullyexaminedthem，describes
theireffectinthefollowinglanguage：’WithintheFamily，
seventeenmemberswereorganisedinfourdivisions，ofwhichthe
juniorclass，knownastheGeilfinedivision，consistedoffive
persons；theDeirbhfine，thesecondinorder；theIarfine，the
thirdinorder；andtheIndfine，theseniorofall，consisted
respectivelyoffourpersons。Thewholeorganisationconsisted，
andcouldonlyconsist，ofseventeenmembers。Ifanypersonwas
bornintotheGeilfinedivision，itseldestmemberwaspromoted
intotheDeirbhfine，theeldestmemberoftheDeirbhfinepassed
intotheIarfine；theeldestmemberoftheIarfinemovedintothe
Indfine；andtheeldestmemberoftheIndfinepassedoutofthe
organisationaltogether。Itwouldappearthatthistransition
fromalowertoahighergradetookplaceupontheintroduction
ofanewmemberintotheGeilfinedivision，andtherefore
dependedupontheintroductionofnewmembers，notuponthedeath
oftheseniors。’Itseemsaninferencefromallthepassages
bearingonthesubjectthatanymemberoftheJoint-familyor
Septmightbeselectedasthestarting-point，andmightbecomea
rootfromwhichsprungasmanyofthesegroupsofseventeenmen
ashehadsons。Assoonasanyoneofthesonshadfourchildren，
afullGeilfinesub-groupoffivepersonswasformed；butany
freshbirthofamalechildtothissonortoanyofhismale
descendantshadtheeffectofsendinguptheeldestmemberofthe
Geilfinesub-group，providedalwayshewerenotthepersonfrom
whomithadsprung，intotheDeirbhfine。Asuccessionofsuch
birthscompletedintimetheDeirbhfinedivision，andwentonto
formtheIarfineandtheIndfine，theAfterandtheEndFamilies。
Theessentialprincipleofthesystemseemstomeadistribution
intofours。ThefifthpersonintheGeilfinedivisionItaketo
betheparentfromwhomthesixteendescendantsspring，andit
willbeseen，fromtheprovisowhichIinsertedabove，thatIdo
notconsiderhisplaceintheorganisationtohavebeenever
changed。Heappearstobereferredtointhetractsasthe
GeilfineChief。
Theinterestofthisdistributionofthekinsmenconsistsin
this：whateverelseitis，itisnotaclassificationofthe
membersofthefamilyfoundedondegreesofconsanguinity，aswe
understandthem。And，evenifwewentnofartherthanthis，the
factwouldsuggestthegeneralreflectionwhichoftenoccursto
thestudentofthehistoryoflaw，thatmanymatterswhichseem
tousaltogethersimple，natural，andthereforeprobably
universal，areinrealityartificialandconfinedtolimited
spheresofapplication。WhenoneofusopenshisPrayer-bookand
glancesattheTableofProhibitedDegrees，orwhenthelaw
studentturnstohisBlackstoneandexaminestheTableof
Descents，hepossiblyknowsthatdisputeshavearisenaboutthe
rightsanddutiespropertobeadjustedtothesescalesof
relationship，butitperhapshasneveroccurredtohimthatany
otherviewofthenatureofrelationshipthanthatuponwhich
theyarebasedcouldpossiblybeentertained。Yethereinthe
BookofAicillisaconceptionofkinshipandoftherights
flowingfromitaltogetherdifferentfromthatwhichappearsin
theTablesofDegreesandofDescents。Thegroupsarenotformed
uponthesameprinciples，nordistinguishedfromoneanotheron
thesameprinciples。TheEnglishTablesarebasedupona
classificationbydegrees，uponidentityinthenumberof
descentsbywhichagivenclassofpersonsareremovedfroma
givenperson。ButtheancientIrishclassificationobviously
turnsuponnothingofthesort。AGeilfineclassmayconsistofa
fatherandfoursonswhoarenotinthesamedegree，andthe
Brehonwritersevenspeakofitsconsistingofafather，son，
grandson，great-grandson，andgreat-great-grandson，whichisa
conceivablecaseofGeilfinerelationship，thoughitcanscarcely
havebeenacommonone。Now，eachoftheserelativesisina
differentdegreefromtheothers。Yetthisdistributionofthe
familyundoubtedlyaffectedthelawofinheritance，andthe
Geilfineclass，tooureyessoanomalous，mightsucceedin
certaineventualitiestothepropertyoftheotherclasses，of
whichthecompositionisinoureyesequallyarbitrary。
Thissingularfamilyorganisationsuggests，however，a
questionwhich，inthepresentstateofenquiryonthesubject
whichoccupiesus，cannotfairlybeavoided。Ihavespokenbefore
ofavolumeon’SystemsofConsanguinityandAffinityinthe
HumanFamily，’publishedbytheSmithsonianinstituteat
Washington。Theauthor，MrLewisMorgan，isoneofthe
comparativelyfewAmericanswhohaveperceivedthat，ifonlyon
thescoreoftheplainextantevidencesofthecivilisationwhich
wasonceenjoyedandlostbysomebranchesoftheirstock，the
customsandideasoftheRedIndiansdeserveintelligentstudy。
InprosecutinghisresearchesMrMorganwasstruckwiththefact
thattheconceptionofKinshipentertainedbytheIndians，though
extremelyclearandprecise，andregardedbythemasofmuch
importance，wasextremelyunlikethatwhichprevailsamongthe
nowcivilisedraces。Hethencommencedalaboriousinvestigation
ofthewholesubject，chieflythroughcommunicationswith
correspondentsinallpartsoftheworld。Theresultatwhichhe
arrivedwasthattheideasonthesubjectofrelationship
entertainedbythehumanfamilyasawholewereextraordinarily
various，butthatageneralisationwaspossible，andthatthese
ideascouldbereferredtooneorotheroftwodistinctsystems，
whichMrMorgancallsrespectivelytheDescriptiveandthe
Classificatorysystem。Thetimeatourcommandwillonlyallowme
toexplainhismeaningverybriefly。TheDescriptivesystemis
thattowhichweareaccustomed。IthascometousfromtheCanon
law，orelsefromtheRomanlaw，moreparticularlyasdeclaredin
the118thNovelofJustinian，butitisnotatallconfinedto
societiesdeeplyaffectedbyCivilandCanonlaw。Itsessence
consistsinthegivingofseparatenamestotheclassesof
relativeswhichareformedbythemembersofthefamilywhoare
removedbythesamenumberofdescentsfromyourself，theegoor
propositus，orfromsomecommonancestor。Thus，yourunclestands
toyouinthethirddegree，therebeingonedegreeorstepfrom
yourselftoyourfatherormother，asecondfromyourfatherormothertotheirparents，athirdfromthoseparentstotheir###第24章otherchildren，amongwhomareyouruncles。And’uncle’isa
generalnameforallmalerelativesstandingtoyouinthisthird
degree。TheothernamesemployedundertheDescriptivesystemare
amongthewordsinmostcommonuse；yetitistobenotedthat
thesystemcannotinpracticebecarriedveryfar。Wespeakof
uncle，aunt，nephew，niece，cousin；butthenwegetto
great-uncle，grand-nephew，andsoforth，andatlengthloseour
wayamidcomplicationsof’great’and’grand’untilweceaseto
distinguishourdistantkindredbyparticulardesignations。The
Romantechnicallawwentconsiderablyfartherthanwedowiththe
specificnomenclatureofrelatives；yetthereisreasontothink
thatthepopulardialectsofLatinweremorebarren，andno
Descriptivesystemcangoonindefinitelywiththeprocess。On
theotherhand，theClassificatorysystemgroupstherelativesin
classes，oftenlargeones，whichhavenonecessaryconnection
withdegrees。Underitaman’sfatherandhisunclesaregrouped
together，sometimeshisunclesonhisfather’sside，sometimeson
themother’sside，sometimesonboth；andperhapstheyareall
inherentlycalledhisfathers。Similarly，aman’sbrothersand
allhismalecousinsmaybeclassedtogetherandcalledhis
brothers。Theeffectofthesystemisingeneraltobringwithin
yourmentalgraspamuchgreaternumberofyourkindredthanis
possibleunderthesystemtowhichweareaccustomed。This
advantageisgained，itistrue，attheexpenseofthepowerof
discriminatingbetweenthemembersoftheseveralclasses，but
stillitmaybeveryimportantincertainstatesofsociety，
sinceeachoftheclassesusuallystandsundersomesortof
conjointresponsibility。
Iamnotnowconcernedwiththeexplanationofthe
ClassificatorysystemofKinship。Mr。Morganandtheschoolto
whichhebelongsfindit，asIsaidbefore，inastateofsexual
relations，allegedtohaveonceprevaileduniversallythroughout
thehumanrace，andknownnowtooccurinsomeobscurefragments
ofit。Thefullestaccountoftheconditionofsocietyinwhich
theseviewsofrelationshiparebelievedtohavegrownupmaybe
readinMrMcLennan’smostoriginalworkonPrimitiveMarriage。
Thepointbeforeus，however，iswhetherwehaveatraceofthe
ClassificatorysystemintheIrishdivisionoftheFamilyinto
foursmallgroups，nooneofwhichisnecessarilycomposedof
relativesofthesamedegree，andeachofwhichhasdistinct
rightsofitsown，andstandsunderdefiniteresponsibilities。
Undoubtedly，theDescriptivesystemwasthatwhichtheancient
Irishgenerallyfollowed；butstillitwouldbeaninteresting，
and，intheopinionofpre-historicwriters，animportantfact，
ifadistributionoftheFamilyonlyintelligibleasarelicof
theClassificatorysystemremainedasa’survival’amongthe
institutionsreflectedbytheBrehonLaws。Myownopinion，which
Iwillstateatonce，isthattheresemblancebetweentheIrish
classificationofkindredandthemodesofclassification
describedbyMrMorganisonlysuperficialandaccidental。The
lastexplanationMr。Morganwouldadmitoftheremarkableideas
concerningkinshipwhichformthesubjectofhisbookwouldbe
thattheyareconnectedwiththePatriaPotestas，thatfamous
institutionwhichheldtogetherwhatheandhisschoolconsider
tobearelativelymodernformoftheFamily。Ithink，however，I
canassignsomeatleastplausiblereasonsforbelievingthat
thisperplexingfour-folddivisionoftheCelticFamilyis
neitherameresurvivalfromimmemorialbarbarismnor，asmost
personswhohavenoticedithavesupposed，apurelyarbitrary
arrangement，butamonumentofthatPoweroftheFatherwhichis
thefirstandgreatestland-markinthecourseoflegalhistory。
LetmerepeatthattheIrishFamilyisassumedtoconsistof
threegroupsoffourpersonsandonegroupoffivepersons。I
havealreadystatedthatIconsiderthefifthpersoninthegroup
offivetobetheparentfromwhomalltheothermembersofthe
fourdivisionsspring，orwithwhomtheyareconnectedby
adoptivedescent。Thus，thewholeofthenaturaloradoptive
descendantsaredistributedintofourgroupsoffourpersons
each，theirrankintheFamilybeingintheinverseorderof
theirseniority。TheGeilfinegroupisseveraltimesstatedby
theBrehonlawyerstobeatoncethehighestandtheyoungest。
Now，MrWhitleyStokeshasconveyedtomehisopinionthat
’Geilfine，means’hand-family。’AsIhavereasontobelievethat
adifferentversionofthetermhasbeenadoptedbyeminent
authority，IwillgivethereasonsforMrStokes’sview。’Gil’
means’hand’——thiswasalsotherenderingofO’Curry——andit
is，infact，theGreekwordcheir。InseveralAryanlanguagesthe
termsignifying’hand’isanexpressiveequivalentforPower，and
speciallyforFamilyorPatriarchalPower。Thus，inGreekwehave
upocheiriosandcherus，forthepersonunderthehand。InLatin
wehaveherus’master，’fromanoldword，cognatetocheir；and
wehavealsooneofthecardinaltermsofancientRomanFamily
Law，manus，orhand，inthesenseofPatriarchalauthority。In
Romanlegalphraseology，thewifewhohaSbecomeinlawher
husband’sdaughterbymarriageisinmanu。Thesondischarged
fromPaternalPowerisemancipated。Thefreepersonwhohas
undergonemancipationisinmancipio。IntheCelticlanguageswe
have，withotherwords，’Gilla，’aservant，awordfamiliarto
sportsmenandtravellersintheHighlandsandtoreadersofScott
initsAnglicisedshape，’Gillie。’
Mysuggestion，then，isthatthekeytotheIrish
distributionoftheFamily，astosomanyotherthingsinancient
law，mustbesoughtinthePatriaPotestas。Itseemstometobe
foundedontheorderofemancipationfromPaternalauthority。The
Geilfine，theHand-family，consistsoftheparentandthefour
naturaloradoptivesonsimmediatelyunderhispower。Theother
groupsconsistofemancipateddescendants，diminishingindignity
inproportiontotheirdistancefromthegroupwhich，according
toarchaicnotions，constitutesthetrueorrepresentative
family。
TheremainswhichwepossessoftheoldestRomanlawpointto
arangeofideasverysimilartothatwhichappearstohave
producedtheIrishinstitution。TheFamilyunderPatriaPotestas
was，withthePater-Familias，thetrueRomanFamily。Thechildren
whowereemancipatedfromPaternalPowermayhavegaineda
practicaladvantage，buttheyundoubtedlylostintheoretical
dignity。Theyunderwentthatlossofstatuswhichinancient
legalphraseologywascalledacapitisdeminutio。Weknowtoo
that，accordingtoprimitiveRomanlaw，theylostallrightsof
inheritance，andthesewereonlygraduallyrestoredtothembya
relativelymoderninstitution，theEquityoftheRomanPraetor。
Neverthelesstherearehintsonallsidesthat，asageneral
rule，sonsastheyadvancedinyearswereenfranchishedfrom
PaternalPower，andnodoubtthispracticesuppliesapartial
explanationofthedurabilityofthePatriaPotestasasaRoman
institution。Thestatements，therefore，whichwefindconcerning
theCelticFamilywouldnotbeveryuntrueoftheRoman。The
youngestchildrenwerefirstindignity。
OfcourseIamnotcontendingforanexactresemblance
betweentheancientRomanandancientCelticFamily。Wehaveno
traceofanysystematiseddischargeofthesonsfromtheRoman
PatriaPotestas；theirenfranchisementseemsalwaystohavebeen
dependentonthewillofthePater-Familias。Thedivisionsofthe
CelticFamilyseem，ontheotherhand，tohavebeendeterminedby
aself-actingprinciple。Anevenmoreremarkabledistinctionis
suggestedbypassagesintheBookofAicillwhichseemtoshow
thattheparent，whoretainedhisplaceintheGeilfinegroup，
mighthimselfhaveafatheralive。Thepeculiarity，whichhasno
analogyinancientRomanlaw，maypossiblyhaveitsexplanation
inusageswhichmanyallusionsintheBrehonlawshowtohave
beenfollowedbytheCelts，astheywerebyseveralotherancient
societies。TheoldermembersoftheFamilyorJointFamilyseem
inadvancedagetohavebecomepensionersonit，and，like
LaertesintheOdyssee，tohavevacatedtheirprivilegesof
ownershiporofauthority。Onsuchpoints，however，itissafest
tosuspendthejudgmenttilltheBrehonlawhasbeenmore
thoroughlyandcriticallyexamined。
AtthedateatwhichtheBookofAicillwasputtogetherthe
IrishdivisionoftheFamilyseemsonlytohavehadimportancein
thelawofsuccessionafterdeath。This，however，istherulein
allsocieties。WhentheancientconstitutionoftheFamilyhas
ceasedtoaffectanythingelse，itaffectsinheritance。Alllaws
ofinheritanceare，infact，madeupofthed閎risofthevarious
formswhichtheFamilyhasassumed。Oursystemofsuccessionto
personalty，andthewholeFrenchlawofinheritance，arederived
fromRomanlaw，whichinitslatestconditionisamixtureof
ruleshavingtheirorigininsuccessiveascertainablestagesof
theRomanFamily，andisasortofcompromisebetweenthem。
TheauthorsoftheBrehonLawTractsfrequentlycomparethe
GeilfinedivisionoftheFamilytothehumanhand，butwiththem
thecomparisonhasatfirstsighttheairofbeingpurely
fanciful。TheGeilfinegrouphasfivemembers，andthehandhas
fivefingers。DrSullivan——who，however，conceivestheGeilfine
inawaymateriallydifferentfromtheauthoritieswhomIfollow——
tellsusthat’astheyrepresentedtherootsofthespreading
branchesoftheFamily，theywerecalledthecuicmeranaFine，
orthe’fivefingersoftheFine。’Iftheexplanationof
’Geilfine’whichIhavepartlytakenfromMrWhitleyStokesbe
correct，wemustsupposethat，atthetimeatwhichtheBrehon
tractswerethrownintotheirpresentform，thePatriaPotestas
oftheancientIrish，thoughfrequentlyreferredtointhetracts
asthefather’spowerof’judgment，proof，andwitness，overhis
sons，hadneverthelessconsiderablydecayed，asitisapttodo
inallsocietiesunderunfavourablecircumstances，andthatwith
thisdecaytheassociationoftheGeilfinegroupwith’hand’in
thesenseofPaternalPowerhadalsobecomefaint。Thereis，
however，arealconnectionofanotherkindbetweentheGeilfine
groupandthefivefingersofthehand。Ifyouaskwhyinalarge
numberofancientsocietiesFiveistherepresentativenumber，no
answercanbegivenexceptthattherearefivefingersonthe
humanhand。IcommendtoyourattentiononthispointMrTylor’s
mostinstructivechapterontheinfancyoftheArtofCounting，
inthefirstvolumeofhis’PrimitiveCulture。’
’Finger-counting，’heobserves，’isnotonlyfoundamongsavages
anduneducatedmen，carryingonapartoftheirmentaloperations
wherelanguageisonlypartlyabletofollowit，butitalso
retainsaplaceandanundoubteduseamongthemostcultured
nationsasapreparationandmeansofacquiringhigher
arithmeticalmethods，I。246。Fiveisthusaprimitivenatural
maximumnumber。YouwillrecollectthattheearlyEnglish
TownshipwasrepresentedbytheReeveandthefourmen。The
CouncilofanindianVillageCommunitymostcommonlyconsistsof
fivepersons，andthroughouttheEastthenormalnumberofaJury
orBoardofarbitratorsisalwaysfive——thepunchayetfamiliar
toallwhohavethesmallestknowledgeofIndia。TheGeilfine，
therepresentativegroupoftheIrishFamily，consistingofthe
ParentandthefourdescendantsstillretainedunderhisPatria
Potestas，fallsinwiththiswidelyextendedconceptionof
representation。
ThePatriaPotestasseemstomethemostprobablesourceofa
well-knownEnglishcustomwhichhasoccasionednolittlesurprise
tostudentsofourlaw。’BoroughEnglish，’underwhichthe
youngestsonandnottheeldestsucceedstotheburgage-tenements
ofhisfather，hasfromtimeimmemorialbeingrecognisedasa
widelydisusedusageofwhichitisthedutyofourCourtsto
takejudicialnotice，andmanywritersonourrealpropertylaws，
fromLittletondownwards，haveattemptedtoaccountforit。
Littletonthoughthesawitsorigininthetenderageofthe
youngestson，whowasnotsowellabletohelphimselfasthe
restofthebrethren。Otherauthors，asBlackstonetellsus，
explaineditbyasupposedrightoftheSeigneurorlord，now
verygenerallyregardedasapocryphal，whichraisedapresumption
oftheeldestson’sillegitimacy。Blackstonehimselfgoesasfar
a-fieldasNorth-EasternAsiaforanexplanation。Hequotesfrom
Duhaldethestatementthatthecustomofdescenttotheyoungest
sonprevailsamongtheTartars。’Thatnation，’hesays，’is
composedtotallyofshepherdsandherdsmen；andtheeldersons，
assoonastheyarecapableofleadingapastorallife，migrate
fromtheirfatherwithacertainallotmentofcattle，andgoto
seekanewhabitation。Theyoungestson，therefore，whocontinues
longestwiththefather，isnaturallytheheirofhishouse，the
restbeingalreadyprovidedfor。Andthuswefindthat，among
manyotherNorthernnations，itwasthecustomforallthesons
butonetomigratefromthefather，whichonenowbecamehis
heir。’Theexplanationwasreallythebestwhichcouldbegiven
inBlackstone’sday，butitwasnotnecessarytogoforitsofar
fromhome。Itisaremarkablecircumstancethataninstitution
closelyresemblingBoroughEnglishisfoundintheLawsofWales，
givingtheruleofdescentforallcultivatingvilleins。’Cum
fratresintersedividanthaereditatem，’saysaruleofthat
portionoftheWelshLawwhichhassurvivedinLatin；’junior
debethaberetygdyn，i。e。aedificiapatrissui，etoctoacrasde
terr*，sihabuerint，L。Wall。，vol。ii。p。780。And，whenthe
youngestsonhashadthepaternaldwelling-house，eightacresof
landandcertaintoolsandutensils，theothersonsaretodivide
whatremains。Itappearstomethattheinstitutionisfoundedon
thesameideasasthosewhichgaveapreferencetotheGeilfine
divisionoftheCelticfamily。Thehome-staying，unemancipated
son，stillretainedunderPatriaPotestas，ispreferredtothe
others。Ifthisbeso，thereisnoroomforthesurprisewhich
thecustomofBoroughEnglishhasexcited，andwhicharisesfrom
contrastingitwiththeruleofPrimogeniture。Butthetwo
institutionshaveadifferentorigin。Primogenitureisnota
naturaloutgrowthofthefamily。Itisapoliticalnotatribal
institution，andcomestousnotfromtheclansmenbutfromthe
Chief。ButtheruleofBoroughEnglish，liketheprivilegesof
theGeilfine，iscloselyconnectedwiththeancientconceptionof
theFamilyaslinkedtogetherbyPatriaPotestas。Thosewhoare
mostemphaticallypartoftheFamilywhenitisdissolvedbythe
deathofitsheadarepreferredintheinheritanceaccordingto
ideaswhichappeartohavebeenoncecommontotheprimitive
Romans，totheIrishandWelshCelts，andtotheoriginal
observers，whoevertheywere，oftheEnglishcustom。###第25章TheGrowthandDiffusionofPrimitiveIdeas
MrTylorhasjustlyobservedthatthetruelessonofthenew
scienceofComparativeMythologyisthebarrennessinprimitive
timesofthefacultywhichwemostassociatewithmental
fertility，theImagination。ComparativeJurisprudence，asmight
beexpectedfromthenaturalstabilityoflawandcustom，yet
morestronglysuggeststhesameinference，andpointstothe
fewnessofideasandtheslownessofadditionstothemental
stockasamongthemostgeneralcharacteristicsofmankindinits
infancy。
Thefactthatthegenerationofnewideasdoesnotproceedin
allstatesofsocietyasrapidlyasinthattowhichwebelong，
isonlynotfamiliartousthroughourinveteratehabitof
confiningourobservationofhumannaturetoasmallportionof
itsphenomena。Whenweundertaketoexamineit，weareveryapt
tolookexclusivelyatapartofWesternEuropeandperhapsof
theAmericanContinent。WeconstantlyleaveasideIndia，China，
andthewholeMahometanEast。Thislimitationofourfieldof
visionisperfectlyjustifiablewhenweareoccupiedwiththe
investigationofthelawsofProgress。Progressis，infact，the
samethingasthecontinuedproductionofnewideas，andwecan
onlydiscoverthelawofthisproductionbyexaminingsequences
ofideaswheretheyarefrequentandofconsiderablelength。But
theprimitiveconditionoftheprogressivesocietiesisbest
ascertainedfromtheobservableconditionofthosewhichare
non-progressive；andthusweleaveaseriousgapinourknowledge
whenweputasidethementalstateofthemillionsuponmillions
ofmenwhofillwhatwevaguelycalltheEastasaphenomenonof
littleinterestandofnoinstructiveness。Thefactisnot
unknowntomostofusthat，amongthesemultitudes，Literature，
Religion，andArt——orwhatcorrespondstothem——movealways
withinadistinctlydrawncircleofunchangingnotions；butthe
factthatthisconditionofthoughtisrathertheinfancyofthe
humanmindprolongedthanadifferentmaturityfromthatmost
familiartous，isveryseldombroughthometouswitha
clearnessrenderingitfruitfulofinstruction。
Idonot，indeed，denythatthedifferencebetweentheEast
andtheWest，inrespectofthedifferentspeedatwhichnew
ideasareproduced，isonlyadifferenceofdegree。Therewere
newideasproducedinIndiaevenduringthedisastrousperiod
justbeforetheEnglishenteredit，andintheearlieragesthis
productionmusthavebeenrapid。Theremusthavebeenaseriesof
agesduringwhichtheprogressofChinawasverysteadily
maintained，anddoubtlessourassumptionoftheabsolute
immobilityoftheChineseandothersocietiesisinpartthe
expressionofourignorance。Conversely，Iquestionwhethernew
ideascomeintobeingintheWestasrapidlyasmodernliterature
andconversationsometimessuggest。Itcannot，indeed，bedoubted
thatcauses，unknowntotheancientworld，leadamongustothe
multiplicationofideas。Amongthemaretheneverceasing
discoveryofnewfactsofnature，inventionschangingthe
circumstancesandmaterialconditionsoflife，andnewrulesof
socialconduct；thechiefofthislastclass，andcertainlythe
mostpowerfulinthedomainoflawproper，Itaketobethe
famousmaximthatallinstitutionsshouldbeadaptedtoproduce
thegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumber。Nevertheless，
therearenotafewsignsthatevenconsciouseffortstoincrease
thenumberofideashaveaverylimitedsuccess。LookatPoetry
andFiction。Fromtimetotimeonemindendowedwiththe
assemblageofqualitiescalledgeniusmakesagreatandsudden
additiontothecombinationsofthought，word，andsoundwhichit
istheprovinceofthoseartstoproduce；yetassuddenly，after
oneorafewsuchefforts，theproductiveactivityofboth
branchesofinventionceases，andtheysettledowninto
imitativenessforperhapsacenturyatatime。Anhumblerexample
maybesoughtinrulesofsocialhabit。Wespeakofthecaprices
ofFashion；yet，onexaminingthemhistorically，wefindthem
singularlylimited，somuchso，thatwearesometimestemptedto
regardFashionaspassingthroughcyclesofformeverrepeating
themselves。Thereare，infact，morenaturallimitationsonthe
fertilityofintellectthanwealwaysadmittoourselves，and
these，reflectedinbodiesofmen，translatethemselvesintothat
wearinessofnoveltywhichseemsatintervalstoovertakewhole
Westernsocieties，includingmindsofeverydegreeofinformation
andcultivation。
Mypresentobjectistopointoutsomeoftheresultsof
mentalsterilityatatimewhensocietyisinthestagewhichwe
havebeenconsidering。Then，therelationsbetweenmanandman
weresummedupinkinship。Thefundamentalassumptionwasthat
allmen，notunitedwithyoubyblood，wereyourenemiesoryour
slaves。Graduallytheassumptionbecameuntrueinfact，andmen，
whowerenotbloodrelatives，becamerelatedtooneanotheron
termsofpeaceandmutualtoleranceormutualadvantageYetno
newideascameintobeingexactlyharmonisingwiththenew
relation，norwasanynewphraseologyinventedtoexpressit。The
newmemberofeachgroupwasspokenofasakintoit，wastreated
asakintoit，wasthoughtofasakintoit。Solittlewereideas
changedthat，asweshallsee，theveryaffectionsandemotions
whichthenaturalbondevokedwerecalledforthinextraordinary
strengthbytheartificialtie。Theclearapprehensionofthese
factsthrowslightonseveralhistoricalproblems，andamongthem
onsomeofIrishhistory。Yettheyoughtnotgreatlytosurprise
us，since，inamodifiedform，theymakepartofoureveryday
experience。Almosteverybodycanobservethat，whennew
circumstancesarise，weuseouroldideastobringthemhometo
us；itisonlyafterwards，andsometimeslongafterwards，that
ourideasarefoundtohavechanged。AnEnglishCourtofJustice
isingreatpartanengineforworkingoutthisprocess。New
combinationsofcircumstanceareconstantlyarising，butinthe
firstinstancetheyareexclusivelyinterpretedaccordingtoold
legalideas。Alittlelaterlawyersadmitthattheoldideasare
notquitewhattheywerebeforethenewcircumstancesarose。
Theslowgenerationofideasinancienttimesmayfirstbe
adducedasnecessarytotheexplanationofthatgreatfamilyof
Fictionswhichmeetusonthethresholdofhistoryandhistorical
jurisprudence。Specimensofthesefictionsmaybecollectedon
allsidesfrombodiesofarchaiccustomorrudimentarysystemsof
law，butthosemosttoourpresentpurposearefictitious
assumptionsofblood-relationship。ElsewhereIhavepointedout
thestrangeconflictbetweenbeliefortheoryandwhatseemsto
usnotoriousfact，whichisobservableinearlyRomanand
Hellenicsociety。’Itmaybeaffirmedofearlycommonwealthsthat
theircitizensconsideredallthegroupsinwhichtheyclaimed
membershiptobefoundedoncommonlineage。Whatwasobviously
trueoftheFamilywasbelievedtobetruefirstoftheHouse，
nextoftheTribe，lastlyoftheState。Andyetwefindthat，
alongwiththisbelief，eachcommunitypreservedrecordsor
traditionswhichdistinctlyshowedthatthefundamental
assumptionwasfalse。WhetherwelooktotheGreekStates，orto
Rome，ortotheTeutonicaristocraciesinDitmarshwhich
furnishedNiebuhrwithsomanyvaluableillustrations，ortothe
Celticclanassociations，ortothatstrangesocialorganisation
oftheSclavonicRussiansandPoleswhichhasonlylately
attractednotice，everywherewediscovertracesofpassagesin
theirhistorywhenmenofaliendescentwereadmittedto，and
amalgamatedwith，theoriginalbrotherhood。AdvertingtoRome
singly，weperceivethattheprimarygroup，theFamily，wasbeing
constantlyadulteratedbythepracticeofadoption，whilestories
seemtohavebeenalwayscurrentrespectingtheexoticextraction
ofoneoftheoriginalTribes，andconcerningalargeadditionto
theHousesmadebyoneoftheearlyKings。Thecompositionofthe
Stateuniformlyassumedtobenaturalwasneverthelessknownto
beingreatmeasureartificial。’AncientLaw，pp。129，130。The
keytothesesingularphenomenahasbeenrecentlysoughtinthe
ancientreligions，andhasbeensupposedtobefoundinthe
allegeduniversalpracticeofworshippingdeadancestors。Very
strikingillustrationsofthemare，however，suppliedbythelaw
andusageofIrelandafterithadbeenChristianisedfor
centuries，andlongafteranyEponymousprogenitorcanbe
conceivedasworshipped。TheFamily，House，andTribeofthe
Romans——and，sofarasmyknowledgeextends，alltheanalogous
divisionsofGreekcommunities——weredistinguishedbyseparate
specialnames。ButintheBrehonLaw，thesameword，Fineor
’family’，isusedfortheFamilyasweordinarilyunderstandit——
thatis，forthechildrenofalivingparentandtheir
descendants——fortheSeptor，inphraseofIndianlaw，the
JointUndividedFamily，thatis，thecombineddescendantsofan
ancestorlongsincedead——fortheTribe，whichwasthe
politicalunitofancientIreland，andevenforthelargeTribes
inwhichthesmallerunitsweresometimesabsorbed。Nevertheless
theIrishFamilyundoubtedlyreceivedadditionsthroughAdoption。
TheSept，orlargergroupofkindred，hadadefiniteplacefor
strangersadmittedtoitonstatedconditions，theFineTaccair。
TheTribeavowedlyincludedanumberofpersons，mostlyrefugees
fromotherTribes，whoseonlyconnectionwithitwascommon
allegiancetoitsChief。MoreovertheTribeinitslargest
extensionandconsideredapoliticalaswellasasocialunit
mighthavebeenabsorbedwithothersinaGreatorArchTribe，
andherethesolesourceofthekinshipstilltheoretically
maintainedisConquest。Yetallthesegroupswereinsomesense
orotherFamilies。
Nordoestheartificialitysolelyconsistintheextensionof
thesphereofkinshiptoclassesknowntohavebeenoriginally
alientothetruebrotherhood。Anevenmoreinterestingexample
ofitpresentsitselfwhentheideasofkinshipandthe
phraseologypropertoconsanguinityareextendedtoassociations
whichweshouldnowcontemplateasexclusivelyfoundedon
contract，suchaspartnershipsandguilds。Therearenomore
interestingpagesinDrSullivan’sIntroductionpp。ccviet
seq。thanthoseinwhichhediscussesthetribaloriginof
Guilds。HeclaimsfortheworditselfaCelticetymology，andhe
tracestheinstitutiontothegrazingpartnershipscommonamong
theancientIrish。Howeverthismaybe，itismostinstructiveto
findthesamewordsusedtodescribebodiesofco-partners，
formedbycontract，andbodiesofco-heirsorco-parcenersformed
bycommondescent。Eachassemblageofmenseemstohavebeen
conceivedasaFamily。AsregardsGuilds，Icertainlythink，asI
thoughtthreeyearsago，thattheyhavebeenmuchtooconfidently
attributedtoarelativelymodernorigin；andthatmanyofthem，
andmuchwhichiscommontoallofthem，maybesuspectedtohave
grownoutoftheprimitivebrotherhoodsofco-villagersand
kinsmen。Thetradingguildswhichsurviveinourowncountryhave
undergoneeverysortoftransmutationwhichcandisguisetheir
parentage。Theyareartificialtobeginwith，thoughthe
hereditaryprinciplehasacertaintendencytoassertitself。
Theyhavelongsincerelinquishedtheoccupationswhichgavethem
aname。Theymostlytracetheirprivilegesandconstitutionto
someroyalcharter；andkinglygrants，realorfictitious，are
thegreatcauseofinterruptioninEnglishHistory。Yetanybody
who，withaknowledgeofprimitivelawandhistory，examinesthe
internalmechanismandproceedingsofaLondonCompanywillsee
inmanypartsofthemplaintracesoftheancientbrotherhoodof
kinsmen，’jointinfood，worship，andestate；’andIsupposethat
thenearestapproachtoanancienttribalholdinginIrelandis
tobefoundinthoseconfiscatedlandswhicharenowtheproperty
ofseveraloftheseCompanies。
TheearlyhistoryofContract，Ineedscarcelytellyou，is
almostexclusivelytobesoughtinthehistoryofRomanlaw。Some
yearsagoIpointedtotheentanglementwhichprimitiveRoman
institutionsdisclosebetweentheconveyanceofpropertyandthe
contractofsale。Letmenowobservethatoneortwoothersof
thegreatRomancontractsappeartome，whencloselyexamined，to
affordevidenceoftheirhavingbeengraduallyevolvedthrough
changesinthemechanismofprimitivesociety。Youhaveseenhow
brotherhoodsofkinsmentransformthemselvesintoalliances
betweenpersonswhomwecanonlycallpartners，butstillat
firstsightthelinkismissingwhichwouldenableustosaythat
herewehavethebeginningofthecontractofpartnership。Look，
however，atthepeculiarcontractcalledbytheRomans’societas
omniumoruniversorumbonorum。’Itiscommonlytranslated
’partnershipwithunlimitedliability，’andthereisnodoubt
thattheelderformofpartnershiphashadgreateffectonthe
newerform。Butyouwillfindthat，inthesocietasomnium
bonorum，notonlywerealltheliabilitiesofthepartnershipthe
liabilitiesoftheseveralpartners，butthewholeofthe
propertyofeachpartnerwasbroughtintothecommonstockand
wasenjoyedasacommonfund。Nosucharrangementasthisis
knowninthemodernworldastheresultofordinaryagreement，
thoughinsomecountriesitmaybetheeffectofmarriage。It
appearstomethatwearecarriedbacktothejointbrotherhoods
ofprimitivesociety，andthattheirdevelopmentmusthavegiven
risetothecontractbeforeus。Letusturnagaintothecontract
ofMandatumorAgency。Theonlycompleterepresentationofone
manbyanotherwhichtheRomanlawallowedwastherepresentation
ofthePaterfamiliasbythesonorslaveunderhispower。The
representationofthePrincipalbytheAgentismuchmore
incomplete，anditseemstomeprobablethatwehaveinita
shadowofthatthoroughcoalescencebetweentwoindividualswhich
wasonlypossibleancientlywhentheybelongedtothesame
family。