CHAPTER V.

THE MONOGAMIAN FAMILY.

THIS FAMILY COMPARATIVELY MODERN.—THE TERM FAMILIA.—FAMILY OF ANCIENT GERMANS.—OF HOMERIC GREEKS.—OF CIVILIZED GREEKS.—SECLUSION OF WIVES.—OBLIGATIONS OF MONOGAMY NOT RESPECTED BY THE MALES.—THE ROMAN FAMILY.—WIVES UNDER POWER.—ARYAN SYSTEM OF CONSANGUINITY.—IT CAME IN UNDER MONOGAMY.—PREVIOUS SYSTEM PROBABLY TURANIAN.—TRANSITION FROM TURANIAN INTO ARYAN.—ROMAN AND ARABIC SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY.—DETAILS OF THE FORMER.—PRESENT MONOGAMIAN FAMILY.—TABLE.

The origin of society has been so constantly traced to the monogamian family that the comparatively modern date now assigned to this family bears the semblance of novelty. Those writers who have investigated the origin of society philosophically, found it difficult to conceive of its existence apart from the family as its unit, or of the family itself as other than monogamian. They also found it necessary to regard the married pair as the nucleus of a group of persons, a part of whom were servile, and all of whom were under power; thus arriving at the conclusion that society began in the patriarchal family, when it first became organized. Such, in fact, was the most ancient form of the institution made known to us among the Latin, Grecian and Hebrew tribes. Thus, by relation, the patriarchal family was made the typical family of primitive society, conceived either in the Latin or Hebrew form, paternal power being the essence of the organism.

The gens, as it appeared in the later period of barbarism, was well understood, but it was erroneously supposed to be subsequent in point of time to the monogamian family. A necessity for some knowledge of the institutions of barbarous and even of savage tribes, is becoming constantly more apparent as a means for explaining our own institutions. With the assumption made that the monogamian family was the unit of organization in the social system, the gens was treated as an aggregation of families, the tribe as an aggregation of gentes, and the nation as an aggregate of tribes. The error lies in the first proposition. It has been shown that the gens entered entire in the phratry, the phratry into the tribe, and the tribe into the nation; but the family could not enter entire into the gens, because husband and wife were necessarily of different gentes. The wife, down to the latest period, counted herself of the gens of her father, and bore the name of his gens among the Romans. As all the parts must enter into the whole, the family could not become the unit of the gentile organization. That place was held by the gens. Moreover, the patriarchal family, whether of the Roman or of the Hebrew type, was entirely unknown throughout the period of savagery, through the Older, and probably through the Middle, and far into the Later Period of barbarism. After the gens had appeared, ages upon ages, and even period upon period, rolled away before the monogamian family came into existence. It was not until after civilization commenced that it became permanently established.

Its modern appearance among the Latin tribes may be inferred from the signification of the word _family_, derived from _familia_, which contains the same element as _famulus_, = servant, supposed to be derived from the Oscan _famel_, = _servus_, a slave.[478] In its primary meaning the word _family_ had no relation to the married pair or their children, but to the body of slaves and servants who labored for its maintenance, and were under the power of the _pater familias_. _Familia_ in some testamentary dispositions is used as equivalent to _patrimonium_, the inheritance which passed to the heir.[479] It was introduced in Latin society to define a new organism, the head of which held wife and children, and a body of servile persons under paternal power. Mommsen uses the phrase “body of servants” as the Latin signification of _familia_.[480] This term, therefore, and the idea it represents, are no older than the iron-clad family system of the Latin tribes, which came in after field agriculture and after legalized servitude, as well as after the separation of the Greeks and Latins. If any name was given to the anterior family it is not now ascertainable.

In two forms of the family, the consanguine and punaluan, paternal power was impossible. When the gens appeared in the midst of the punaluan group it united the several sisters, with their children and descendants in the female line, in perpetuity, in a gens, which became the unit of organization in the social system it created. Out of this state of things the syndyasmian family was gradually evolved, and with it the germ of paternal power. The growth of this power, at first feeble and fluctuating, then commenced, and it steadily increased, as the new family more and more assumed monogamian characteristics, with the upward progress of society. When property began to be created in masses, and the desire for its transmission to children had changed descent from the female line to the male, a real foundation for paternal power was for the first time established. Among the Hebrew and Latin tribes, when first known, the patriarchal family of the Hebrew type existed among the former, and of the Roman type among the latter; founded in both cases upon the limited or absolute servitude of a number of persons with their families, all of whom, with the wives and children of the patriarch in one case, and of the _pater familias_ in the other, were under paternal power. It was an exceptional, and, in the Roman family, an excessive development of paternal authority, which, so far from being universal, was restricted in the main to the people named. Gaius declares that the power of the Roman father over his children was peculiar to the Romans, and that in general no other people had the same power.[481]

It will be sufficient to present a few illustrations of the early monogamian family from classical writers to give an impression of its character. Monogamy appears in a definite form in the Later Period of barbarism. Long prior to this time some of its characteristics had undoubtedly attached themselves to the previous syndyasmian family; but the essential element of the former, an exclusive cohabitation, could not be asserted of the latter.

One of the earliest and most interesting illustrations was found in the family of the ancient Germans. Their institutions were homogeneous and indigenous; and the people were advancing toward civilization. Tacitus, in a few lines, states their usages with respect to marriage, without giving the composition of the family or defining its attributes. After stating that marriages were strict among them, and pronouncing it commendable, he further remarks, that almost alone among barbarians they contented themselves with a single wife—a very few excepted, who were drawn into plural marriages, not from passion, but on account of their rank. That the wife did not bring a dowry to her husband, but the husband to his wife, ... a caparisoned horse, and a shield, with a spear and sword. That by virtue of these gifts the wife was espoused.[482] The presents, in the nature of purchasing gifts, which probably in an earlier condition went to the gentile kindred of the bride, were now presented to the bride.

Elsewhere he mentions the two material facts in which the substance of monogamy is found:[483] firstly, that each man was contented with a single wife (_singulis uxoribus contenti sunt_); and, secondly, that the women lived fenced around with chastity (_septæ pudicitia agunt_). It seems probable, from what is known of the condition of the family in different ethnical periods, that this of the ancient Germans was too weak an organization to face alone the hardships of life; and, as a consequence, sheltered itself in a communal household composed of related families. When slavery became an institution, these households would gradually disappear. German society was not far enough advanced at this time for the appearance of a high type of the monogamian family.

With respect to the Homeric Greeks, the family, although monogamian, was low in type. Husbands required chastity in their wives, which they sought to enforce by some degree of seclusion; but they did not admit the reciprocal obligation by which alone it could be permanently secured. Abundant evidence appears in the Homeric poems that woman had few rights men were bound to respect. Such female captives as were swept into their vessels by the Grecian chiefs, on their way to Troy, were appropriated to their passions without compunction and without restraint. It must be taken as a faithful picture of the times, whether the incidents narrated in the poems were real or fictitious. Although the persons were captives, it reflects the low estimate placed upon woman. Her dignity was unrecognized, and her personal rights were insecure. To appease the resentment of Achilles, Agamemnon proposed, in a council of the Grecian chiefs, to give to him, among other things, seven Lesbian women excelling in personal beauty, reserved for himself from the spoil of that city, Briseis herself to go among the number; and should Troy be taken, the further right to select twenty Trojan women, the fairest of all next to Argive Helen.[484] “Beauty and Booty” were the watchwords of the Heroic Age unblushingly avowed. The treatment of their female captives reflects the culture of the period with respect to women in general. Men having no regard for the parental, marital or personal rights of their enemies, could not have attained to any high conception of their own.

In describing the tent life of the unwedded Achilles, and of his friend Patroclus, Homer deemed it befitting the character and dignity of Achilles as a chief to show that he slept in the recess of his well-constructed tent, and by his side lay a female, fair-cheeked Diomede, whom he had brought from Lesbos. And that Patroclus on the other side reclined, and by him also lay fair-waisted Iphis, whom noble Achilles gave him, having captured her at Scyros.[485] Such usages and customs on the part of unmarried as well as married men, cited approvingly by the great poet of the period, and sustained by public sentiment, tend to show that whatever of monogamy existed, was through an enforced constraint upon wives, while their husbands were not monogamists in the preponderating number of cases. Such a family has quite as many syndyasmian as monogamian characteristics.

The condition of woman in the Heroic Age is supposed to have been more favorable, and her position in the household more honorable than it was at the commencement of civilization, and even afterwards under their highest development. It may have been true in a far anterior period before descent was changed to the male line, but there seems to be little room for the conjecture at the time named. A great change for the better occurred, so far as the means and mode of life were concerned, but it served to render more conspicuous the real estimate placed upon her through the Later Period of barbarism.

Elsewhere attention has been called to the fact that when descent was changed from the female line to the male, it operated injuriously upon the position and rights of the wife and mother. Her children were transferred from her own gens to that of her husband, and she forfeited her agnatic rights by her marriage without obtaining an equivalent. Before the change, the members of her own gens, in all probability, predominated in the household, which gave full force to the maternal bond, and made the woman rather more than the man the center of the family. After the change she stood alone in the household of her husband, isolated from her gentile kindred. It must have weakened the influence of the maternal bond, and have operated powerfully to lower her position and arrest her progress in the social scale. Among the prosperous classes, her condition of enforced seclusion, together with the avowed primary object of marriage, to beget children in lawful wedlock (παιδοποιεῖσθαι γνησίως), lead to the inference that her position was less favorable in the Heroic Age than in the subsequent period, concerning which we are much better informed.

From first to last among the Greeks there was a principle of egotism or studied selfishness at work among the males, tending to lessen the appreciation of woman, scarcely found among savages. It reveals itself in their plan of domestic life, which in the higher ranks secluded the wife to enforce an exclusive cohabitation, without admitting the reciprocal obligation on the part of her husband. It implies the existence of an antecedent conjugal system of the Turanian type, against which it was designed to guard. So powerfully had the usages of centuries stamped upon the minds of Grecian women a sense of their inferiority, that they did not recover from it to the latest period of Grecian ascendency. It was, perhaps, one of the sacrifices required of womankind to bring this portion of the human race out of the syndyasmian into the monogamian family. It still remains an enigma that a race, with endowments great enough to impress their mental life upon the world, should have remained essentially barbarian in their treatment of the female sex at the height of their civilization. Women were not treated with cruelty, nor with discourtesy within the range of the privileges allowed them; but their education was superficial, intercourse with the opposite sex was denied them, and their inferiority was inculcated as a principle, until it came to be accepted as a fact by the women themselves. The wife was not the companion and the equal of her husband, but stood to him in the relation of a daughter; thus denying the fundamental principle of monogamy, as the institution in its highest form must be understood. The wife is necessarily the equal of her husband in dignity, in personal rights and in social position. We may thus discover at what a price of experience and endurance this great institution of modern society has been won.

Our information is quite ample and specific with respect to the condition of Grecian women and the Grecian family during the historical period. Becker, with the marvelous research for which his works are distinguished, has collected the principal facts and presented them with clearness and force.[486] His statements, while they do not furnish a complete picture of the family of the historical period, are quite sufficient to indicate the great difference between the Grecian and the modern civilized family, and also to show the condition of the monogamian family in the early stages of its development.

Among the facts stated by Becker, there are two that deserve further notice: first, the declaration that the chief object of marriage was the procreation of children in lawful wedlock; and second, the seclusion of women to insure this result. The two are intimately connected, and throw some reflected light upon the previous condition from which they had emerged. In the first place, the passion of love was unknown among the barbarians. They are below the sentiment, which is the offspring of civilization and superadded refinement. The Greeks in general, as their marriage customs show, had not attained to a knowledge of this passion, although there were, of course, numerous exceptions. Physical worth, in Grecian estimation, was the measure of all the excellences of which the female sex were capable. Marriage, therefore, was not grounded upon sentiment, but upon necessity and duty. These considerations are those which governed the Iroquois and the Aztecs; in fact they originated in barbarism, and reveal the anterior barbarous condition of the ancestors of the Grecian tribes. It seems strange that they were sufficient to answer the Greek ideal of the family relation in the midst of Grecian civilization. The growth of property and the desire for its transmission to children was, in reality, the moving power which brought in monogamy to insure legitimate heirs, and to limit their number to the actual progeny of the married pair. A knowledge of the paternity of children had begun to be realized under the syndyasmian family, from which the Grecian form was evidently derived, but it had not attained the requisite degree of certainty because of the survival of some portion of the ancient _jura conjugialia_. It explains the new usage which made its appearance in the Upper Status of barbarism; namely, the seclusion of wives. An implication to this effect arises from the circumstance that a necessity for the seclusion of the wife must have existed at the time, and which seems to have been so formidable that the plan of domestic life among the civilized Greeks was, in reality, a system of female confinement and restraint. Although the particulars cited relate more especially to the family among the prosperous classes, the spirit it evinces was doubtless general.

Turning next to the Roman family, the condition of woman is more favorable, but her subordination the same.

She was treated with respect in Rome as in Athens, but in the Roman family her influence and authority were greater. As _mater familias_ she was mistress of the family. She went into the streets freely without restraint on the part of her husband, and frequented with the men the theaters and festive banquets. In the house she was not confined to particular apartments, neither was she excluded from the table of the men. The absence of the worst restrictions placed upon Grecian females was favorable to the growth of a sense of personal dignity and of independence among Roman women. Plutarch remarks that after the peace with the Sabines, effected through the intervention of the Sabine women, many honorable privileges were conferred upon them; the men were to give them the way when they met on the street; they were not to utter a vulgar word in the presence of females, nor appear nude before them.[487] Marriage, however, placed the wife in the power of her husband (_in manum viri_); the notion that she must remain under power following, by an apparent necessity, her emancipation by her marriage from paternal power. The husband treated his wife as his daughter, and not as his equal. Moreover, he had the power of correction, and of life and death in case of adultery; but the exercise of this last power seems to have been subject to the concurrence of the council of her gens.

Unlike other people, the Romans possessed three forms of marriage. All alike placed the wife in the hand of her husband, and recognized as the chief end of marriage the procreation of children in lawful wedlock (_liberorum querendorum causa_).[488] These forms (_confarreatio_, _coëmptio_, and _usus_) lasted through the Republic, but fell out under the Empire, when a fourth form, the free marriage, was generally adopted, because it did not place the wife in the power of her husband. Divorce, from the earliest period, was at the option of the parties, a characteristic of the syndyasmian family, and transmitted probably from that source. They rarely occurred, however, until near the close of the Republic.[489]

The licentiousness which prevailed in Grecian and Roman cities at the height of civilization has generally been regarded as a lapse from a higher and purer condition of virtue and morality. But the fact is capable of a different, or at least of a modified explanation. They had never attained to a pure morality in the intercourse of the sexes from which to decline. Repressed or moderated in the midst of war and strife endangering the national existence, the license revived with peace and prosperity, because the moral elements of society had not risen against it for its extirpation. This licentiousness was, in all probability, the remains of an ancient conjugal system, never fully eradicated, which had followed down from barbarism as a social taint, and now expressed its excesses in the new channel of hetærism. If the Greeks and Romans had learned to respect the equities of monogamy, instead of secluding their wives in the gynæconitis in one case, and of holding them under power in the other, there is reason to believe that society among them would have presented a very different aspect. Since neither one nor the other had developed any higher morality, they had but little occasion to mourn over a decay of public morals. The substance of the explanation lies in the fact that neither recognized in its integrity the principle of monogamy, which alone was able to place their respective societies upon a moral basis. The premature destruction of the ethnic life of these remarkable races is due in no small measure to their failure to develop and utilize the mental, moral and conservative forces of the female intellect, which were not less essential than their own corresponding forces to their progress and preservation. After a long protracted experience in barbarism, during which they won the remaining elements of civilization, they perished politically, at the end of a brief career, seemingly from the exhilaration of the new life they had created.

Among the Hebrews, whilst the patriarchal family in the early period was common with the chiefs, the monogamian, into which the patriarchal soon subsided, was common among the people. But with respect to the constitution of the latter, and the relations of husband and wife in the family, the details are scanty.

Without seeking to multiply illustrations, it is plain that the monogamian family had grown into the form in which it appeared, at the commencement of the historical period, from a lower type; and that during the classical period it advanced sensibly, though without attaining its highest form. It evidently sprang from a previous syndyasmian family as its immediate germ; and while improving with human progress it fell short of its true ideal in the classical period. Its highest known perfection, at least, was not attained until modern times. The portraiture of society in the Upper Status of barbarism by the early writers implies the general practice of monogamy, but with attending circumstances indicating that it was the monogamian family of the future struggling into existence under adverse influences, feeble in vitality, rights and immunities, and still environed with the remains of an ancient conjugal system.

As the Malayan system expressed the relationships that existed in the consanguine family, and as the Turanian expressed those which existed in the punaluan, so the Aryan expressed those which existed in the monogamian; each family resting upon a different and distinct form of marriage.

It cannot be shown absolutely, in the present state of our knowledge, that the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian families of mankind formerly possessed the Turanian system of consanguinity, and that it fell into desuetude under monogamy. Such, however, would be the presumption from the body of ascertained facts. All the evidence points in this direction so decisively as to exclude any other hypothesis. Firstly. The organization into gentes had a natural origin in the punaluan family, where a group of sisters married to each other’s husbands furnished, with their children and descendants in the female line, the exact circumscription as well as the body of a gens in its archaic form. The principal branches of the Aryan family were organized in gentes when first known historically, sustaining the inference that, when one undivided people, they were thus organized. From this fact the further presumption arises that they derived the organization through a remote ancestry who lived in that same punaluan condition which gave birth to this remarkable and wide-spread institution. Besides this, the Turanian system of consanguinity is still found connected with the gens in its archaic form among the American aborigines. This natural connection would remain unbroken until a change of social condition occurred, such as monogamy would produce, having power to work its overthrow. Secondly. In the Aryan system of consanguinity there is some evidence pointing to the same conclusion. It may well be supposed that a large portion of the nomenclature of the Turanian system would fall out under monogamy, if this system had previously prevailed among the Aryan nations. The application of its terms to categories of persons, whose relationships would now be discriminated from each other, would compel their abandonment. It is impossible to explain the impoverished condition of the original nomenclature of the Aryan system except on this hypothesis. All there was of it common to the several Aryan dialects are the terms for father and mother, brother and sister, and son and daughter; and a common term (San., _naptar_; Lat., _nepos_; Gr., ἀνεψίος;) applied indiscriminately to nephew, grandson, and cousin. They could never have attained to the advanced condition implied by monogamy with such a scanty nomenclature of blood relationships. But with a previous system, analogous to the Turanian, this impoverishment can be explained. The terms for brother and sister were now in the abstract, and new creations, because these relationships under the Turanian system were conceived universally as elder and younger; and the several terms were applied to categories of persons, including persons not own brothers and sisters. In the Aryan system this distinction is laid aside, and for the first time these relationships were conceived in the abstract. Under monogamy the old terms were inapplicable because they were applied to collaterals. Remains of a prior Turanian system, however, still appear in the system of the Uralian family, as among the Hungarians, where brothers and sisters are classified into elder and younger by special terms. In French, also, besides _frère_, and _sœur_, we find _aîné_, elder brother, _pûné_ and _cadet_, younger brother, and _aînée_ and _cadette_, elder and younger sister. So also in Sanskrit we find _agrajar_, and _amujar_, and _agrajri_, and _amujri_ for the same relationships; but whether the latter are from Sanskrit or aboriginal sources, I am unable to state. In the Aryan dialects the terms for brother and sister are the same words dialectically changed, the Greek having substituted ἀδελφός for φράτηρ. If common terms once existed in these dialects for elder and younger brother and sister, their previous application to categories of persons would render them inapplicable, as an exclusive distinction, to own brothers and sisters. The falling out from the Aryan system of this striking and beautiful feature of the Turanian requires a strong motive for its occurrence, which the previous existence and abandonment of the Turanian system would explain. It would be difficult to find any other. It is not supposable that the Aryan nations were without a term for grandfather in the original speech, a relationship recognized universally among savage and barbarous tribes; and yet there is no common term for this relationship in the Aryan dialects. In Sanskrit we have _pitameha_, in Greek πάππος, in Latin _avus_, in Russian _djed_, in Welsh _hendad_, which last is a compound like the German _grossvader_ and the English grandfather. These terms are radically different. But with a term under a previous system, which was applied not only to the grandfather proper, his brothers, and his several male cousins, but also to the brothers and several male cousins of his grandmother, it could not be made to signify a lineal grandfather and progenitor under monogamy. Its abandonment would be apt to occur in course of time. The absence of a term for this relationship in the original speech seems to find in this manner a sufficient explanation. Lastly. There is no term for uncle and aunt in the abstract, and no special terms for uncle and aunt on the father’s side and on the mother’s side running through the Aryan dialects. We find _pitroya_, πάτρως, and _patruus_ for paternal uncle in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin; _stryc_ in Slavonic for the same, and a common term, _eam_, _oom_, and _oheim_ in Anglo-Saxon, Belgian, and German, and none in the Celtic. It is equally inconceivable that there was no term in the original Aryan speech for maternal uncle, a relationship made so conspicuous by the gens among barbarous tribes. If their previous system was Turanian, there was necessarily a term for this uncle, but restricted to the own brothers of the mother, and to her several male cousins. Its application to such a number of persons in a category, many of whom could not be uncles under monogamy, would, for the reasons stated, compel its abandonment. It is evident that a previous system of some kind must have given place to the Aryan.

Assuming that the nations of the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian families formerly possessed the Turanian system of consanguinity, the transition from it to a descriptive system was simple and natural, after the old system, through monogamy, had become untrue to descents as they would then exist. Every relationship under monogamy is specific. The new system, formed under such circumstances, would describe the persons by means of the primary terms or a combination of them: as brother’s son for nephew, father’s brother for uncle, and father’s brother’s son for cousin. Such was the original of the present system of the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian families. The generalizations they now contain were of later introduction. All the tribes possessing the Turanian system describe their kindred by the same formula, when asked in what manner one person was related to another. A descriptive system precisely like the Aryan always existed both with the Turanian and the Malayan, not as a system of consanguinity, for they had a permanent system, but as a means of tracing relationships. It is plain from the impoverished conditions of their nomenclatures that the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian nations must have rejected a prior system of consanguinity of some kind. The conclusion, therefore, is reasonable that when the monogamian family became generally established these nations fell back upon the old descriptive form, always in use under the Turanian system, and allowed the previous one to die out as useless and untrue to descents. This would be the natural and obvious mode of transition from the Turanian into the Aryan system; and it explains, in a satisfactory manner, the origin as well as peculiar character of the latter.

In order to complete the exposition of the monogamian family in its relations to the Aryan system of consanguinity, it will be necessary to present this system somewhat in detail, as has been done in the two previous cases.

A comparison of its forms in the several Aryan dialects shows that the original of the present system was purely descriptive.[490] The Erse, which is the typical Aryan form, and the Esthonian, which is the typical Uralian, are still descriptive. In the Erse the only terms for the blood relationships are the primary, namely, those for father and mother, brother and sister, and son and daughter. All the remaining kindred are described by means of these terms, but commencing in the reverse order: thus brother, son of brother, and son of son of brother. The Aryan system exhibits the actual relationships under monogamy, and assumes that the paternity of children is known.

In course of time a method of description, materially different from the Celtic, was engrafted upon the new system; but without changing its radical features. It was introduced by the Roman civilians to perfect the framework of a code of descents, to the necessity for which we are indebted for its existence. Their improved method has been adopted by the several Aryan nations among whom the Roman influence extended. The Slavonic system has some features entirely peculiar and evidently of Turanian origin.[491] To obtain a knowledge historically of our present system it is necessary to resort to the Roman, as perfected by the civilians.[492] The additions were slight, but they changed the method of describing kindred. They consisted chiefly, as elsewhere stated, in distinguishing the relationships of uncle and aunt on the father’s side from those on the mother’s side, with the invention of terms to express these relationships in the concrete; and in creating a term for grandfather to be used as the correlative of _nepos_. With these terms and the primary, in connection with suitable augments, they were enabled to systematize the relationships in the lineal and in the first five collateral lines, which included the body of the kindred of every individual. The Roman is the most perfect and scientific system of consanguinity under monogamy which has yet appeared; and it has been made more attractive by the invention of an unusual number of terms to express the marriage relationships. From it we may learn our own system, which has adopted its improvements, better than from the Anglo-Saxon or Celtic. In a table, at the end of this chapter, the Latin and Arabic forms are placed side by side, as representatives, respectively, of the Aryan and Semitic systems. The Arabic seems to have passed through processes similar to the Roman, and with similar results. The Roman only will be explained.

From _Ego_ to _tritavus_, in the lineal line, are six generations of ascendants, and from the same to _trinepos_ are the same number of descendants, in the description of which but four radical terms are used. If it were desirable to ascend above the sixth ancestor, _tritavus_ would become a new starting-point of description; thus, _tritavi pater_, the father of _tritavus_, and so upward to _tritavi tritavus_, who is the twelfth ancestor of _Ego_ in the lineal right line, male. In our rude nomenclature the phrase grandfather’s grandfather must be repeated six times to express the same relationship, or rather to describe the same person. In like manner _trinepotis trinepos_ carries us to the twelfth descendant of _Ego_ in the right lineal male line.

The first collateral line, male, which commences with brother, _frater_, runs as follows: _Fratris filius_, son of brother, _fratris nepos_, grandson of brother, _fratris pronepos_, great-grandson of brother, and on to _fratris trinepos_, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of the brother of _Ego_. If it were necessary to extend the description to the twelfth descendant, _fratris trinepos_ would become a second starting-point, from which we should have _fratris trinepotis trinepos_, as the end of the series. By this simple method _frater_ is made the root of descent in this line, and every person belonging to it is referred to him by the force of this term in the description; and we know at once that each person thus described belongs to the first collateral line, male. It is therefore specific and complete. In like manner, the same line, female, commences with sister, _soror_, giving for the series, _sororis filia_, sister’s daughter, _sororis neptis_, sister’s granddaughter, _sororis proneptis_, sister’s great-granddaughter, and on to _sororis trineptis_, her sixth descendant, and to _sororis trineptis trineptis_, her twelfth descendant. While the two branches of the first collateral line originate, in strictness, in the father, _pater_, the common bond of connection between them, yet, by making the brother and sister the root of descent in the description, not only the line but its two branches are maintained distinct, and the relationship of each person to _Ego_ is specialized. This is one of the chief excellences of the system, for it is carried into all the lines, as a purely scientific method of distinguishing and describing kindred.

The second collateral line, male, on the father’s side, commences with father’s brother, _patruus_, and is composed of him and his descendants. Each person, by the terms used to describe him, is referred with entire precision to his proper position in the line, and his relationship is indicated specifically; thus, _patrui filius_, son of paternal uncle, _patrui nepos_, grandson of, and _patrui pronepos_, great-grandson of paternal uncle, and on to _patrui trinepos_, the sixth descendant of _patruus_. If it became necessary to extend this line to the twelfth generation we should have, after passing through the intermediate degrees, _patrui trinepotis trinepos_, who is the great-grandson of the great-grandson of _patrui trinepos_, the great-grandson of the great-grandson of _patruus_. It will be observed that the term for cousin is rejected in the formal method used in the Pandects. He is described as _patrui filius_, but he was also called a brother patrual, _frater patruelis_, and among the people at large by the common term _consobrinus_, from which our term cousin is derived.[493] The second collateral line, female, on the father’s side, commences with father’s sister, _amita_, paternal aunt; and her descendants are described according to the same general plan; thus, _amitæ filia_, paternal aunt’s daughter, _amitæ neptis_, paternal aunt’s granddaughter, and on to _amitæ trineptis_, and to _amitæ trineptis trineptis_. In this branch of the line the special term for this cousin, _amitina_, is also set aside for the descriptive phrase _amitæ filia_.

In like manner the third collateral line, male, on the father’s side commences with grandfather’s brother, who is styled _patruus magnus_, or great paternal uncle. At this point in the nomenclature, special terms fail, and compounds are resorted to, although the relationship itself is in the concrete. It is evident that this relationship was not discriminated until a comparatively modern period. No existing language, so far as the inquiry has been extended, possesses an original term for this relationship, although without it this line cannot be described except by the Celtic method. If he were called simply _grandfather’s brother_, the phrase would describe a person, leaving the relationship to implication; but if he is styled a great-uncle, it expresses a relationship in the concrete. With the first person in this branch of the line thus made definite, all of his descendants are referred to him, by the form of the description, as the root of descent; and the line, the side, the particular branch, and the degree of the relationship of each person are at once fully expressed. This line also may be extended to the twelfth descendant, which would give for the series _patrui magni filius_, son of the paternal great-uncle, _patrui magni nepos_, and on to _patrui magni trinepos_, and ending with _patrui magni trinepotis trinepos_. The same line, female, commences with grandfather’s sister, _amita magna_, great paternal aunt; and her descendants are similarly described.

The fourth and fifth collateral lines, male, on the father’s side, commence, respectively, with great-grandfather’s brother, who is styled _patruus major_, greater paternal uncle, and with great-great-grandfather’s brother, _patruus maximus_, greatest paternal uncle. In extending the series we have in the fourth _patrui majoris filius_, and on to _patrui majoris trinepos_; and in the fifth _patrui maximi filius_, and on to _patrui maximi trinepos_. The female branches commence, respectively, with _amita major_, greater, and _amita maxima_, greatest paternal aunt; and the description of persons in each follows in the same order.

Thus far the lines have been on the father’s side only. The necessity for independent terms for uncle and aunt on the mother’s side to complete the Roman method of description is now apparent; the relatives on the mother’s side being equally numerous, and entirely distinct. These terms were found in _avunculus_, maternal uncle, and _matertera_, maternal aunt. In describing the relatives on the mother’s side, the lineal female line is substituted for the male, but the first collateral line remains the same. In the second collateral line, male, on the mother’s side, we have for the series _avunculus_, maternal uncle, _avunculi filius_, _avunculi nepos_, and on to _avunculi trinepos_, and ending with _avunculi trinepotis trinepos_. In the female branch, _matertera_, maternal aunt, _materteræ filia_, and on as before. The third collateral line, male and female, commence, respectively, with _avunculus magnus_, and _matertera magna_, great maternal uncle, and aunt; the fourth with _avunculus major_, and _matertera major_, greater maternal uncle, and aunt; and the fifth with _avunculus maximus_, and _matertera maxima_, greatest maternal uncle, and aunt. The descriptions of persons in each line and branch are in form corresponding with those previously given.

Since the first five collateral lines embrace as wide a circle of kindred as it was necessary to include for the practical objects of a code of descents, the ordinary formula of the Roman civilians did not extend beyond this number.

In terms for the marriage relationships, the Latin language is remarkably opulent, whilst our mother English betrays its poverty by the use of such unseemly phrases as father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, step-father, and step-son, to express some twenty very common, and very near relationships, nearly all of which are provided with special terms in the Latin nomenclature.

It will not be necessary to pursue further the details of the Roman system of consanguinity. The principal and most important of its features have been presented, and in a manner sufficiently special to render the whole intelligible. For simplicity of method, felicity of description, distinctness of arrangement by lines and branches, and beauty of nomenclature, it is incomparable. It stands in its method pre-eminently at the head of all the systems of relationship ever perfected by man, and furnishes one of many illustrations that to whatever the Roman mind had occasion to give organic form, it placed once for all upon a solid foundation.

No reference has been made to the details of the Arabic system; but, as the two forms are given in the Table, the explanation made of one will suffice for the other, to which it is equally applicable.

With its additional special terms, and its perfected method, consanguinei are assumed to be connected, in virtue of their descent, through married pairs, from common ancestors. They arrange themselves in a lineal and several collateral lines; and the latter are perpetually divergent from the former. These are necessary consequences of monogamy. The relationship of each person to the central _Ego_ is accurately defined and, except as to those who stand in an identical relationship, is kept distinct from every other by means of a special term or descriptive phrase. It also implies the certainty of the parentage of every individual, which monogamy alone could assure. Moreover, it describes the relationships in the monogamian family as they actually exist. Nothing can be plainer than that this form of marriage made this form of the family, and that the latter created this system of consanguinity. The three are necessary parts of a whole where the descriptive system is exclusive. What we know by direct observation to be true with respect to the monogamian family, its law of marriage and its system of consanguinity, has been shown to be equally true with respect to the punaluan family, its law of marriage and its system of consanguinity; and not less so of the consanguine family, its form of marriage and its system of consanguinity. Any of these three parts being given, the existence of the other two with it, at some one time, may be deduced with certainty. If any difference could be made in favor of the superior materiality of any one of the three, the preference would belong to systems of consanguinity. They have crystallized the evidence declaring the marriage law and the form of the family in the relationship of every individual person; thus preserving not only the highest evidence of the fact, but as many concurring declarations thereto as there are members united by the bond of consanguinity. It furnishes a test of the high rank of a domestic institution, which must be supposed incapable of design to pervert the truth, and which, therefore, may be trusted implicitly as to whatever it necessarily teaches. Finally, it is with respect to systems of consanguinity that our information is most complete.

The five successive forms of the family, mentioned at the outset, have now been presented and explained, with such evidence of their existence, and such particulars of their structure as our present knowledge furnishes. Although the treatment of each has been general, it has touched the essential facts and attributes, and established the main proposition, that the family commenced in the consanguine, and grew, through successive stages of development, into the monogamian. There is nothing in this general conclusion which might not have been anticipated from _à priori_ considerations; but the difficulties and the hindrances which obstructed its growth are seen to have been far greater than would have been supposed. As a growth with the ages of time, it has shared in all the vicissitudes of human experience, and now reveals more expressively, perhaps, than any other institution, the graduated scale of human progress from the abyss of primitive savagery, through barbarism, to civilization. It brings us near to the daily life of the human family in the different epochs of its progressive development, indicating, in some measure, its hardships, its struggles and also its victories, when different periods are contrasted. We should value the great institution of the family, as it now exists, in some proportion to the expenditure of time and of intelligence in its production; and receive it as the richest legacy transmitted to us by ancient society, because it embodies and records the highest results of its varied and prolonged experience.

When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is, that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still farther improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society, assuming the continuous progress of civilization, it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.

_Roman and Arabic System of Relationship._

————————————————————————————————————————+———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Description of Persons. │ Relationship in Latin. Translation. │ Relationship in Arabic. Translation. ————————————————————————————————————————+———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 gt-grandfather’s gt-grandfather │ tritavus gt-grandfather’s gt-g’dfather │ jidd jidd jiddi grandfather of g’dfather of g’dfather my 2 ” ” grandfather │ atavus ” ” grandfather │ jidd jidd abi ” ” ” father my 3 ” ” father │ abavus great-great-grandfather │ jidd jiddi ” ” grandfather my 4 ” ” mother │ abavia ” ” grandmother │ sitt sitti grandmother of grandmother my 5 great-grandfather │ proavus great-grandfather │ jidd abi grandfather of father my 6 ” grandmother │ proavia ” grandmother │ sitt abi grandmother ” ” ” 7 grandfather │ avus grandfather │ jidd grandfather my 8 grandmother │ avia grandmother │ sitti grandmother ” 9 father │ pater father │ abi father my 10 mother │ mater mother │ ummi mother ” 11 son │ filius son │ ibni son ” 12 daughter │ filia daughter │ ibneti b, binti daughter ” 13 grandson │ nepos grandson │ ibn ibni son of son my 14 granddaughter │ neptis granddaughter │ ibnet ibni daughter of son my 15 great-grandson │ pronepos great-grandson │ ibn ibn ibni son of son of son my 16 ” grandmother │ proneptis ” granddaughter │ bint bint binti daughter of daughter of daughter my 17 gt-grandson’s son │ abnepos ” great-grandson │ ibn ibn ibn ibni son of son of son of son my 18 ” ” daughter │ abneptis ” ” granddaughter │ bint bint bint binti dau of dau of dau of dau my 19 ” ” grandson │ atnepos gt-grandson’s grandson │ ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni son of son of son of son of son my 20 ” ” granddaughter │ atneptis ” ” granddaughter │ bint bint bint bint binti dau of dau of dau of dau of dau my 21 ” ” gt-grandson │ trinepos ” ” gt-grandson │ ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibni son of son of son of son of son of son my 22 ” ” ” granddaughter │ trineptis ” ” ” granddau’ter │ bint bint bint bint bint binti dau of dau of dau of dau of dau of dau my 23 brothers │ fratres brothers │ ahwati brothers my 24 sisters │ sorores sisters │ ahwâti sisters ” 25 brother │ frater brother │ akhi brother ” (First Collateral Line) │ │ 26 brother’s son │ fratris filius son of brother │ ibn akhi son of brother my 27 ” son’s wife │ fratris filii uxor wife of son of brother │ amrat ibn akhi wife of son of brother my 28 ” daughter │ fratris filia daughter of brother │ bint akhi daughter of brother my 29 ” daughter’s husband │ fratris filiae vir husband of dau’ter of brother │ zoj bint akhi husband of daughter of brother my 30 ” grandson │ fratris nepos grandson of brother │ ibn ibn ” son of son of brother my 31 ” granddaughter │ ” neptis granddaughter ” ” │ bint ibn ” daughter of son of brother my 32 ” gt-grandson │ ” pronepos gt-grandson ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn akhi son of son of son of brother my 33 ” ” granddaughter │ ” proneptis gt-granddaughter ” ” │ bint bint bint akhi dau of dau of dau of brother my 34 sister │ soror sister │ akhti sister my 35 sister’s son │ sororis filius son of sister │ ibn akhti son of sister my 36 ” son’s wife │ sororis filii uxor wife of son of sister │ amrât ibn akhti wife of son of sister my 37 ” daughter │ ” filia daughter of sister │ bint akhti daughter of sister my 38 ” daughter’s husband │ ” filiae vir husband of daughter of sister │ zoj bint akhti husband of daughter of sister my 39 ” grandson │ ” nepos sister’s grandson │ ibn akhti son of sister my 40 ” granddaughter │ ” neptis ” granddaughter │ bint akhti daughter of sister my 41 sister’s great-grandson │ sororis pronepos sister’s great-grandson │ ibn ibn akhti son of son of sister my 42 ” ” granddaughter │ ” proneptis ” ” granddaughter │ bint bint akhti daughter of daughter of sister my (Second Collateral Line) │ │ 43 father’s brother │ patruus paternal uncle │ ammi paternal uncle my 44 ” brother’s wife │ patrui uxor wife of paternal uncle│ amrât ammi wife of paternal uncle my 45 ” ” son │ ” filius son of ” ” │ ibn ammi son of ” ” ” 46 ” ” son’s wife │ ” filii uxor wife of son of ” ” │ amrât ibn ammi wife of son of ” ” ” 47 ” ” daughter │ ” filia daughter of ” ” │ bint ammi daughter of ” ” ” 48 ” ” dau’ter’s husband│ ” filiae vir husband of dau of ” ” │ zôj bint ammi husband of daughter of ” ” ” 49 ” ” grandson │ ” nepos grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn ammi son of son of ” ” ” 50 ” ” granddaughter │ ” neptis granddaughter of ” ” │ bint bint ammi daughter of daughter of ” ” ” 51 ” ” gt-grandson │ ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn ammi son of son of son of ” ” ” 52 ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” proneptis ” granddau’ter of ” ” │ bint bint bint ammi dau of dau of dau of ” ” ” 53 father’s sister │ amita paternal aunt │ ammeti paternal aunt my 54 ” sister’s husband │ amitae vir husband of paternal aunt │ arât ammeti husband of paternal aunt my 55 ” ” son │ ” filius son of ” ” │ ibn ammeti son of ” ” ” 56 ” ” son’s wife │ ” filii uxor wife of son of ” ” │ amrât ibn ammeti wife of son of ” ” ” 57 ” ” daughter │ ” filia daughter of ” ” │ bint ammeti daughter of ” ” ” 58 ” ” dau’ter’s husband │ ” filiae vir husband of dau of ” ” │ zôj bint ammeti husband of daughter of ” ” ” 59 ” ” grandson │ ” nepos grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn ammeti son of son of ” ” ” 60 ” ” granddaughter │ ” neptis granddaughter of ” ” │ bint bint ammeti daughter of daughter of ” ” ” 61 ” ” gt-grandson │ ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn ammeti son of son of son of ” ” ” 62 ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” proneptis ” granddau’ter of ” ” │ bint bint bint ammeti dau of dau of dau of ” ” ” 63 mother’s brother │ avunculus maternal uncle │ khâli maternal uncle my 64 ” brother’s wife │ avunculi uxor wife of maternal uncle │ amrat khâli wife of maternal uncle my 65 ” ” son │ ” filius son of ” ” │ ibn khâli son of ” ” ” 66 ” ” son’s wife │ ” filii uxor wife of son of ” ” │ amrat ibn khâli wife of son of ” ” ” 67 ” ” daughter │ ” filia daughter of ” ” │ bint khâli daughter of ” ” ” 68 ” ” dau’ter’s husband│ ” filiae vir husband of dau of ” ” │ zôj bint khâli husband of daughter of ” ” ” 69 ” ” grandson │ ” nepos grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn khâli son of son of ” ” ” 70 ” ” granddaughter │ ” neptis granddaughter of ” ” │ bint bint khâli daughter of daughter of ” ” ” 71 ” ” gt-grandson │ ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn khâli son of son of son of ” ” ” 72 ” ” gt-granddaughter │ ” proneptis ” granddau’ter of ” ” │ bint bint bint khâli dau of dau of dau of ” ” ” 73 mother’s sister │ matertera maternal aunt │ khâleti maternal aunt my 74 ” sister’s husband │ materterae vir husband of maternal aunt │ zôj khâleti husband of maternal aunt my 75 ” ” son │ ” filius son of ” ” │ ibn khâleti son of ” ” ” 76 ” ” son’s wife │ ” filii uxor wife of son of ” ” │ amrât ibn khâleti wife of son of ” ” ” 77 ” ” daughter │ ” filia daughter of ” ” │ bint khâleti daughter of ” ” ” 78 ” ” dau’ter’s husband │ ” filiae vir husband of dau of ” ” │ zôj bint khâleti husband of daughter of ” ” ” 79 ” ” grandson │ ” nepos grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn khâleti son of son of ” ” ” 80 ” ” granddaughter │ ” neptis granddaughter of ” ” │ bint bint khâleti daughter of daughter of ” ” ” 81 ” ” gt-grandson │ ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn khâleti son of son of son of ” ” ” 82 ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” proneptis ” granddau’ter of ” ” │ bint bint bint khâleti dau of dau of dau of ” ” ” (Third Collateral Line). │ │ 83 father’s father’s brother │ patruus magnus great paternal uncle │ amm ăbi paternal uncle of father my 84 ” ” brother’s son │ patrui magni filius son of gt pat uncle │ ibn ammi ăbi son of paternal uncle of father my 85 ” ” ” grandson │ ” ” nepos grandson of ” ” ” │ ibn ibn ammi ăbi son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 86 ” ” ” gt-grandson │ ” ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn ammi ăbi son of son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 87 ” ” sister │ amita magna great paternal aunt │ ammet ăbi paternal aunt of father my 88 ” ” sister’s daughter │ amitae magnae filia daughter of gt pat aunt │ bint ammet ăbi daughter of paternal aunt of father my 89 ” ” ” granddaughter │ amitae magnae neptis granddaughter of ” ” ” │ bint bint ammet ăbi dau of dau of ” ” ” ” ” 90 ” ” ” gt-granddau’ter │ ” ” proneptis gt-granddau’ter of ” ” ” │ bint bint bint ammet ăbi dau of dau of dau of ” ” ” ” ” 91 mother’s mother’s brother │ avunculus magnus great maternal uncle │ khâl ŭmmi maternal uncle of mother my 92 ” ” brother’s son │ avunculi magni filius son of gt mat uncle │ ibn khâl ŭmmi son of maternal uncle of mother my 93 ” ” ” grandson │ ” ” nepos grandson of ” ” ” │ ibn ibn khâl ŭmmi son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 94 ” ” ” gt-grandson │ ” ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn khâl ŭmmi son of son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 95 ” ” sister │ matertera magna great maternal aunt │ khâlet ŭmmi maternal aunt of mother my 96 ” ” sister’s daughter │ materterae magnae filia daughter of gt mat aunt │ bint khâlet ŭmmi daughter of maternal aunt of mother my 97 ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” ” neptis granddaughter of ” ” ” │ bint bint khâlet ŭmmi dau of dau of ” ” ” ” ” 98 ” ” ” gt-granddau’ter │ ” ” proneptis gt-granddau’ter of ” ” ” │ bint bint bint khâlet ŭmmi dau of dau of dau of ” ” ” ” ” (Fourth Collateral Line). │ │ 99 father’s father’s father’s brother │ patruus major paternal great-great-uncle │ amm jiddi paternal uncle of grandfather my 100 ” ” ” brother’s son │ patrui majoris filius son of pat gt-gt-uncle │ ibn amm jiddi son of paternal uncle of g f my 101 ” ” ” ” grandson │ ” ” nepos grandson of ” ” ” ” │ ibn ibn amm jiddi son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 102 ” ” ” ” gt-g’dson │ ” ” pronepos gt-grandson of ” ” ” ” │ ibn ibn ibn amm jiddi son of son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 103 ” ” ” sister │ amita major paternal great-great aunt │ ammet jiddi paternal aunt of grandfather my 104 ” ” ” sister’s │ │ daughter │ amitae majoris filia daughter of pat gt-gt-aunt │ bint ammet jiddi daughter of paternal aunt of g f my 105 father’s father’s father’s sister’s │ │ granddaughter │ amitae majoris neptis granddau’ter of pat gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint ammet jiddi dau of dau of paternal aunt of g f my 106 father’s father’s father’s sister’s │ │ great-granddaughter │ amitae majoris proneptis gt-g’ddau’ter of pat gt-gt aunt │ bint bint bint ammet jiddi dau of dau of dau of paternal aunt of g f my 107 mother’s mother’s mother’s bro’r │ avunculus major maternal great-great uncle │ khâl sitti maternal uncle of grandmother my 108 ” ” ” bro’s son │ avunculi majoris filius son of mat gt-gt-uncle │ ibn khâl sitti son of maternal uncle of g m my 109 ” ” ” ” g’dson │ ” ” nepos grandson of ” ” ” ” │ ibn ibn khâl sitti son of son of ” ” ” ” ” 110 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ brother’s great-grandson │ avunculi majoris pronepos gt-grandson of mat gt-gt-uncle │ ibn ibn ibn khâl sitti son of son of son of mat uncle of g m my 111 mother’s mother’s mother’s sister │ matertera major maternal great-great aunt │ khâlet sitti maternal aunt of grandmother my 112 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ sister’s daughter │ materterae majoris filia daughter of mat gt-gt-aunt │ bint khâlet sitti daughter of maternal aunt of g m my 113 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ sister’s granddaughter │ materterae majoris neptis granddau’ter of mat gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint khâlet sitti dau of dau of maternal aunt of g m my 114 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ sister’s great-granddaughter │ mater. major. proneptis gt-g’ddau’ter of mat gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint bint khâlet sitti dau of dau of dau of mat aunt of g m my (Fifth Collateral Line). │ │ 115 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ brother │ patruus maximus paternal gt-gt-uncle │ amm jidd ăbi paternal uncle of grandfather of father my 116 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ brother’s son │ patrui maximi filius son of paternal gt-gt-uncle │ ibn amm jidd ăbi son of paternal uncle of g f of father my 117 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ grandson │ patrui maximi nepos grandson of pat gt-gt-uncle │ ibn ibn amm jidd ăbi son of son of pat uncle of g f of father my 118 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ great-grandson │ patrui maximi pronepos gt-grandson of pat gt-gt-uncle │ ibn ibn ibn amm jidd ăbi son of son of son of pat uncle of g f of f my 119 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ sister │ amita maxima paternal gt-gt-gt-aunt │ ammet jidd ăbi paternal aunt of grandfather of father my 120 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ sister’s daughter │ amitae maximae filia daughter of pat gt-gt-gt-aunt │ bint ammet jidd ăbi daughter of pat aunt of g f of father my 121 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ sister’s granddaughter │ amitae maximae neptis g’ddau’ter of pat gt-gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint ammet jidd ăbi dau of dau of pat aunt of g f of father my 122 father’s father’s father’s father’s │ │ sister’s great-granddaughter │ amitae maximae proneptis gt-g d of pat gt-gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint bint ammet jidd ăbi dau of dau of dau of pat aunt of g f of f my 123 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s brother │ avunculus maximus maternal gt-gt-gt-uncle │ khâl sitt ŭmmi mat uncle of grandmother of mother my 124 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s brother’s son │ avunculi maximi filius son of maternal gt-gt-gt-uncle │ ibn khâl sitt ŭmmi son of mat uncle of g m of mother my 125 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s brother’s grandson │ avunculi maximi nepos g’dson of mat gt-gt-gt-uncle │ ibn ibn khâl sitt ŭmmi son of son of mat uncle of g m of mother my 126 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s brother’s gt-grandson │ avunculi maximi pronepos gt-g’dson of pat gt-gt-gt-uncle │ ibn ibn ibn khâl sitt ŭmmi s of s of s of mat uncle of g m of m my 127 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s sister │ matertera maxima maternal gt-gt-gt-aunt │ khâlet sitt ŭmmi mat aunt of grandmother of mother my 128 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s sister’s daughter │ materterae maximae filia daughter of mat gt-gt-gt-aunt │ bint khâlet sitt ŭmmi daughter of mat aunt of g m of mother my 129 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s sister’s granddaughter │ mater. maximae neptis g’ddau’ter of mat gt-gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint khâlet sitt ŭmmi dau of dau of mat aunt of g m of m my 130 mother’s mother’s mother’s │ │ mother’s sister’s gt-g’ddaughter │ mater. maximae proneptis gt-g d of mat gt-gt-gt-aunt │ bint bint bint khâlet sitt ŭmmi d of d of d of mat aunt of g m of m my (Marriage Relationships) │ │ 131 husband │ vir b, maritus husband │ zoji husband my 132 husband’s father │ socer father-in-law │ ammi uncle my 133 ” mother │ socrus mother-in-law │ amrât ammi wife of uncle my 134 ” grandfather │ socer magnus great father-in-law │ jidd zoji grandfather of husband my 135 ” grandmother │ socrus magnus ” mother-in-law │ sitt zoji grandmother ” ” ” 136 wife │ uxor b, marita wife │ amrâti wife 137 wife’s father │ socer father-in-law │ ammi uncle my 138 ” mother │ socrus mother-in-law │ amrât ammi wife of uncle my 139 ” grandfather │ socer magnus great father-in-law │ jidd amrâti grandfather of wife my 140 ” grandmother │ socrus magnus ” mother-in-law │ sitt amrâti grandmother ” ” ” │ │ 141 step-father │ vitricus step-father │ ammi uncle my 142 ” mother │ noverca ” mother │ khâleti aunt my 143 ” son │ privignus ” son │ karŭti step-son my 144 ” daughter │ privigna ” daughter │ karŭteti ” daughter my 145 son-in-law │ gener son-in-law │ khatan b, saha son-in-law 146 daughter-in-law │ nurus daughter-in-law │ kinnet daughter-in-law 147 brother-in-law (_husband’s bro’r_) │ lever brother-in-law │ ibn ămmi son of uncle my 148 ” ” ” (_sister’s husband_) │ maritus sororis ” ” ” │ zôj akhti husband of sister my 149 ” ” ” (_wife’s brother_) │ uxoris frater brother of wife │ ibn ămmi son of uncle my 150 sister-in-law (_wife’s sister_) │ ” soror sister of wife │ bint ămmi daughter of uncle my 151 ” ” ” (_husband’s sist’r_) │ gloss sister-in-law │ bint ămmi ” ” ” ” 152 ” ” ” (_brother’s wife_) │ fratria ” ” ” │ amrât akhi wife of brother my 153 widow │ vidua widow │ armelet widow 154 widower │ viduus widower │ armel widower 155 relations by father’s side │ agnati agnates │ 156 ” ” mother’s side │ cognati cognates │ 157 ” ” marriage │ affines marriage relations │