TheinstitutionswhichIhavetakenasmyexamplesare
institutionsofindigenousgrowth，developedprobablymoreor
lesswithinallancientsocietiesbytheexpansionofthenotion
ofkinship。Butitsometimeshappensthatawhollyforeign
institutionisintroducedfromwithoutintoasocietybasedupon
assumedconsanguinity，andthenitismostinstructivetoobserve
howclosely，insuchacase，materialwhichantecedentlywe
shouldthinklikelytoopposethemoststubbornresistancetothe
infiltrationoftribalideasassimilatesitselfneverthelessto
themodelofaFamilyorTribe。Youmaybeawarethattheancient
IrishChurchhaslongbeenapuzzletoecclesiasticalhistorians。
TherearedifficultiessuggestedbyitonwhichIdonotpretend
tothrowanynewlight，nor，indeed，couldtheyconvenientlybe
consideredhere。Amongperplexitiesofthisclassarethe
extraordinarymultiplicationofbishopsandtheirdependence，
apparentlyanalmostserviledependence，onthereligioushouses
towhichtheywereattached。Buttherelationofthevarious
ecclesiasticalbodiestooneanotherwasundoubtedlyofthe
natureoftribalrelation。TheBrehonlawseemstomefullyto
confirmtheaccountofthemattergiven，fromthepurely
ecclesiasticalliterature，byDrTodd，intheIntroductiontohis
LifeofStPatrick。OneofthegreatIrishorScotic
Missionaries，whoafterwardsnearlyinvariablyreappearsasa
Saint，obtainsagrantoflandsfromsomechieftainortribein
IrelandorCelticBritain，andfoundsamonasterythere，orit
maybethatthefounderofthereligioushouseisalreadyhimself
thechieftainofatribe。TheHousebecomestheparentofothers，
whichagainmayintheirturnthrowoutminorreligious
establishments，atoncemonasticandmissionary。Thewords
signifying’family’or’tribe’and’kinship’areappliedtoall
thereligiousbodiescreatedbythisprocess。Eachmonastic
house，withitsmonksandbishops，constitutesa’family’or
’tribe；’anditssecularorserviledependantsappeartobe
sometimesincludedunderthename。Thesameappellationisgiven
tothecollectiveassemblageofreligioushousesformedbythe
parentmonasteryandthevariouschurchesormonasticbodies
sprungfromit。Thesemakeuptogetherthe’tribeofthesaint，’
butthislastexpressionisnotexclusivelyemployedwiththis
particularmeaning。Theabbotoftheparenthouseandallthe
abbotsoftheminorhousesarethe’comharbas’orco-heirsofthe
saint，andinyetanothersensethe’family’or’tribe’ofthe
saintmeanshisactualtribesmenorblood-relatives。Iona，orHy，
was，asyouknow，thefamousreligioushousefoundedbySt
ColumbanearthecoastofthenewerScotia。’TheAbbotofHy’，
saysDrTodd，’orCo-arbofColumba，wasthecommonheadof
Durrow，Kells，Swords，Drumcliff，andotherhousesinIreland
foundedbyColumba，aswellasoftheparentmonasteryofHy，and
the“familyofColum-kille“wascomposedofthecongregationsor
inmatesanddependantsofallthosemonasteries。Thefamilies，
therefore，ofsuchmonasteriesasClomacnoisorDurrowmight
musteraveryrespectablebodyoffightingmen。’Letmeadd，that
thereisverygoodevidencethatthese’familiesofthesaints’
wereoccasionallyengagedinsanguinarylittlewars。But，’in
general’InowquoteagainfromDrTodd，’the“family“meant
onlythemonksorreligiousofthehouse。’
Itwillbeobvioustoyouthatthisapplicationofthesame
nametoallthesecomplicatedsetsofrelationsiseverynowand
thenextremelyperplexing，butthekeytothedifficultyisthe
conceptionofthekindredbranchingoffinsuccessivegenerations
fromthecommonstock，plantingthemselvesoccasionallyata
distance，butneveraltogetherbreakingthebondwhichconnected
themwiththeiroriginalfamilyandchief。Nothing，letme
observe，canbemorecuriousthanthewayinwhich，throughout
theseartificialstructures，theoriginalnaturalprincipleupon
whichtheyweremodelledstrugglestoassertitselfatthe
expenseoftheimitativesystem。Inallthemoremodernguilds，
membershipalwaystendedtobecomehereditary，andherewehave
theBrehonlawstrivingtosecureapreference，inelectionsto
theAbbacy，totheactualblood-relativesofthesaintedfounder。
Theecclesiasticalrule，weknow，requiredelectionbythemonks，
buttheCorusBescnadeclaresthat，onavacancy，the’familyof
thesaint’whichheremeansthefounder’ssept，iftherebea
qualifiedmonkamongthem，oughttobepreferredinelectionsto
theAbbacy——’thoughtherebebutapsalm-singerofthem，ifhe
befit，heshallhaveit。’Anditproceedstosaythat，ifno
relativeortribesmanofthesaintbequalified，theAbbacyshall
gotosomememberofthetribewhichoriginallygrantedtheland。
Averymodernexampleofthisplasticityofthenotionof
kinshiphasrecentlybeenbroughttomynotice。Theco-villagers
ofanIndianvillagecallthemselvesbrothers，although，asI
havefrequentlyobserved，thecompositionofthecommunityis
oftenartificialanditsoriginverymiscellaneous。The
appellation，atthesametime，isdistinctlymorethanamere
word。Now，someoftheChristianmissionarieshaverecentlytried
anexperimentwhichpromisestohavemuchsuccess，andhave
plantedinvillagesconvertscollectedfromallsortsof
differentregions。Yetthesepersons，asIaminformed，fallinto
a’brotherhood’quiteaseasilyandtalkthelanguageandassume
thehabitsappropriatetoitquiteasnaturallyasiftheyand
theirforefathershadbeenmembersfromtimeimmemorialofthis
peculiarlyIndianassociation，thevillage-community。
Thereis，however，anothersetofphenomenawhichbelongto
thesameclass，butwhichseemtometohavebeenmuch
misunderstood。Whenmen，undertheinfluenceofthecastof
thoughtwearediscussing，areplacedincircumstanceswhich
naturallybreedaffectionandsympathy，orwhentheyareplaced
inarelationwhichtheyaretaughttoconsiderespecially
sacred，notonlytheirwordsandideasbuttheirfeelings，
emotions，andprejudicesmouldthemselvesonthepatternofthose
whichnaturallyresultfromconsanguinity。Wehave，Ibelieve，a
strikingexampleoftheprocessinthehistoryoftheChristian
Church。Youknow，Idaresay，thatSpiritualRelationshiporthe
tiebetweenasponsorandabaptizedperson，orbetweenSponsors，
orevenbetweenthesponsorsandthefamilyofthebaptized，
becamebydegreesthesourceofagreatnumberofprohibitions
againstintermarriage，whichstoodonthesamelevelwiththose
basedonaffinity，andalmostwiththosefoundedon
consanguinity。Theearliestevidencewehavethatthisorderof
ideaswasstirringtheChristiancommunityis，Ibelieve，a
ConstitutionofJustinianintheCodev。4。26，whichforbids
themarriageofthesponsorwiththebaptized；butthe
prohibitionswererapidlyextendedbythevariousauthorities
whichcontributedtotheCanonlaw，andwerefinallyregulated
andsomewhatnarrowedbytheCouncilofTrent。Nowadays，Iam
toldthattheymerelysurviveformallyintheRomanCatholic
Church，andthatdispensationsrelaxingthemareobtainableasof
course。Theexplanationofthesystembytechnicaltheologiansis
thatitisbasedonthewishtogiveapeculiarsacrednesstothe
bondcreatedbysponsorship，andthisIbelievetobeatrue
accountofitsorigin。ButIdonotbelievethatSpiritual
Relationship，astructurebasedoncontract，wouldineverystage
ofthoughthaveassimilateditselftonaturalrelationship。The
systemdevelopeditselfjustwhenChristianitywasbeingdiffused
amongraceswhosesocialorganisationwasfoundedonkinship，and
IcannotbutthinkthattheirideasreactedontheChurch。With
suchracesaverysacredtiewasnecessarilyofthenatureofa
familytie，andcarriedwithitthesameassociationsandthe
sameorderoffeeling。Idonot，therefore，considerthatsuch
termsasGossipred，Godfather，Godson——towhichthereare
counterpartsinseverallanguages——werecreatedbythetheory
ofSpiritualRelationship，butratherthattheymarktheprocess
bywhichthattheorywasformed。
Itseemstomeaccordinglyinthehighestdegreenaturalthat
SpiritualRelationship，whenintroducedintoatribalsociety
likethatoftheancientIrish，shouldcloselyassimilateitself
toblood-relationship。Weknowinfactthatitdidso，andthat
thestringencyoftherelationandthewarmthoftheaffections
whichitproducedmovedthescorn，thewrath，andthe
astonishmentofseveralgenerationsofEnglishobservers，
derivingtheirideasfromasocialordernowbecomeveryunlike
thatofIreland。ButbythesideofGossipred，orSpiritual
Relationship，therestoodanothermuchmoreprimitive
institution，whichwasextraordinarilydevelopedamongthe
ancientIrish，thoughnotatallpeculiartothem。Thiswas
Fosterage，thegivingandtakingofchildrenfornurture。Ofthe
reasonswhythispractice，nowknowntohavebeenwidelydiffused
amongAryancommunities，shouldhavehadanexceptional
importanceandpopularityinireland，wecansaylittlemorethan
thattheyprobablybelongtotheaccidentsofIrishhistoryand
ofIrishsociallife。Butofthefactthereisnodoubt。An
entiresub-tractintheSenchusMorisdevotedtotheLawof
Fosterage，andsetsoutwiththegreatestminutenesstherights
anddutiesattachingtoallpartieswhenthechildrenofanother
familywerereceivedfornurtureandeducation。Itisclassed，
withGossipred，asoneoftheanomaliesorcursesofIrelandby
allherEnglishcritics，fromGiraldusCambrensisinthetwelfth
centurytoSpenserinthesixteenth。Itseemedtothemmonstrous
thatthesamemother’smilkshouldproduceinIrelandthesame
closeaffectionsasdidcommonpaternityintheirowncountry。
ThetrueexplanationwasonewhichisonlynowdawningOnus。It
was，thatFosteragewasaninstitutionwhich，thoughartificial
initscommencements，wasnaturalinitsoperations；andthatthe
relationoffoster-parentandfoster-childtended，inthatstage
offeeling，tobecomeindistinguishablefromtherelationof
fatherandson。
TheformofFosteragewhichhasmostinterestforthemodern
enquireriscalledbytheTranslatorsoftheBrehontracts
LiteraryFosterage。Itwasaninstitutionnearlyconnectedwith
theexistenceoftheBrehonLawSchools，anditconsistsofthe
variousrelationsestablishedbetweentheBrehonteacherandthe
pupilshereceivedintohishouseforinstructionintheBrehon
lore。Howeveritmaysurpriseusthattheconnectionbetween
SchoolmasterandPupilwasregardedaspeculiarlysacredbythe
ancientIrish，andascloselyresemblingnaturalfatherhood，the
Brehontractsleavenoroomfordoubtonthepoint。Itis
expresslylaiddownthatitcreatedthesamePatriaPotestasas
actualpaternity；andtheliteraryfosterfather，thoughhe
teachesgratuitously，hasaclaimthroughlifeuponportionsof
thepropertyoftheliteraryfoster-son。ThustheBrehonwithhis
pupilsconstitutednotaschoolinoursensebutatruefamily。
Whiletheordinaryfoster-fatherwasboundbythelawtogive
educationofsomekindtohisfoster-children——tothesonsof
chiefsinstructionsinriding，shootingwiththebow，swimming，
andchess-playing，andinstructiontotheirdaughtersinsewing，
cuttingout，andembroidery——theBrehontrainedhisfoster-sons
inlearningofthehighestdignity，theloreofthechief
literaryprofession。Hetookpayment，butitwasthelawwhich
settleditforhim。Itwaspartofhisstatus，andnottheresult
ofabargain。
TherearesomefainttracesofFosterageintheHindoolaw，
butsubstantiallyithasdroppedoutofthesystem。Thevestiges
ofLiteraryFosterageare，however，tolerablyabundantandvery
plain。AccordingtothegeneralcustomofIndia，theBrahmin
teacherofBrahminpupilsreceivesnopaymentforhisservices，
buttheHindoolawrepeatedlyreservestohimaremotesuccession
totheirproperty。IneachoffourBrahminicallaw-tractsof
greatauthority，theVyavaharaMayukha，theDaya-Bhaga，the
Mitakshara，andtheDaya-Krama-Sangraha，thesameancienttextis
quotedsometimesbutnotalwaysattributedtoManu，whichisto
theeffectthat’Iftherebenomaleissuethenearestkinsman
inherits；orindefaultofkindred，thepreceptor，orfailinghim
thedisciple。’Onecommentatorexplainsthatthepreceptoristhe
instructorintheVedas，andanotherdescribeshimastheperson
whoaffordsreligiousinstructiontohispupilafterinvesting
himwiththeBrahminicalthread。Thesewritersaddthatif
neitherteachernorpupilhavesurvivedthedeceasedhis
fellow-studentwillsucceed。Moderncasesturningonthese
peculiarrulesofsuccessionmaybefoundintheAnglo-IndianLaw
Reports。