to us. Its existence is proof of the punaluan family because no other family could produce the system.

But while the punaluan family went out of existence, the system of relationship continued to last, and its terms. were used and still are used among nations and tribes among which the subsequent family prevails, namely the Syndiasmian.

3. The Syndiasmian family.

When the American aborigines were discovered, that portion of them who were in the lower status of barbarism had attained to the syndiasmian or pairing family. This family was special and peculiar. Several of them were usually found in one house, the so-called long houses, forming a communal household, in which the principle of communism in living was practiced. In many instances these households were presided over by the mother (perhaps under the system which Bachofen calls motherright). Morgan is of the opinion that the fact of the conjunction of several such families in a common household is of itself an admission that the family was too feeble an organization to face alone the hardships of life. Nevertheless it was founded upon marriage between single pairs, and possessed some of the characteristics of the monogamian family. The woman was now something more than the principal wife of the husband, she was his companion, the preparer of his food, and the mother of children whom he now began with some assurance to regard as his own.

Marriage, however, was not founded upon sentiment but upon convenience and necessity. It was left, in effect, to the mothers to arrange the marriages of their children, and they were negotiated generally without the knowl edge of the parties to be married, and without asking

their previous consent. The relation, however, continued during the pleasure of the parties and no longer. It is for this reason that it is properly distinguished as the pairing family. The husband could put away his wife at pleasure and take another without offense, and the woman enjoyed the equal right of leaving her husband and accepting another, wherein the usages of her tribe were not infringed. But a public sentiment gradually formed and grew into strength against such separations. When alienation arose between a married pair, and their separation became imminent, the kindred of each attempted a reconciliation of the parties, in which they were often successful; but if they were unable to remove the difficulty, their separation was approved. The wife then left the home of her husband, taking with her their children, who were regarded as exclusively her own, and her personal effects, upon which her husband had no claim; or, where the wife's kindred predominated in the communal household, which was usually the case, the husband left the home of his wife. Thus, the continuance of the marriage relation remained at the option of the parties. Such were the usages of the Iroquois and many other Indian tribes. Among the village Indians in the middle status of barbarism the facts were not essentially different, so far as they can be said to be known. A comparison of the usages of the American aborigines with respect to marriage and divorce shows an existing similarity sufficiently strong to imply original identity of usages. Usages similar to those prevailing among the Iroquois and other Northern tribes are reported by Spanish writers as having prevailed among the Aztecs and the Peruvians.

In all probability the Syndiasmian family sprang

from the Punaluan simply in this way that although the latter was founded upon group marriage, yet single pairs did for mere individual reasons prefer each other, so that a man had a principal wife among a number of wives, and a woman a principal husband among a number of husbands, and the tendency in the punaluan family, from the first, was in the direction of the syndiasmian.

Two forms of the family had appeared before the syndiasmian, and created two great systems of consanguinity, or rather two distinct forms of the same system, but this third family neither produced a new system nor sensibly modified the old. The syndiasmian family continued for an unknown period of time enveloped in a system of consanguinity, false, in the main, to existing relationships, and which it had no power to break. This was reserved for monogamy, the coming power, able to dissolve the fabric.

The syndiasmian family had no distinct system of consanguinity to prove its existence, like its predecessors; but such proof is unnecessary, because it has existed over large portions of the earth within the historical per iod, and still exists in numerous barbarous tribes. Among the American aborigines in the lower status of barbarism, it was the prevailing form of the family at the epoch of their discovery. Among the village Indians in the middle status, it was undoubtedly the prevailing form, although the information given by the Spanish writers is vague and general. The communal character of their joint tenement houses is of itself strong evidence that the family had not passed out of the syndiasmian form. It had neither the individuality nor the exclusiveness which monogamy implies.

Having now become acquainted with three forms of the family which existed prior to the monogamous family, two things are principally to be noted in reference to the same.

First, that these forms existed prior to civilization, and upon a stage in the progress of culture when there was little property, at least no private property to speak of, and the property idea was unknown or in its infancy. Especially is this the case as to the consanguine and the punaluan family.

Second, in the group family, of the relation between parent and child, only that between mother and child can be definitely known, but not that between father and child. Nobody can know with certainty who, among many fathers, his own father is, nor can one of the husbands of a number of wives, point out his own children. The mother's brother, the maternal uncle, was the nearest relative after the mother herself. We have many proofs for this. For instance: Chapter 24 of Genesis tells us the romance of Isaac and Rebecca. Verse 53 reads as follows: And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebecca, he also gave to her brothers, and to her mother precious things. Nothing is said of the father, of whom we hear nothing but his name. The brothers and the mother gave her away, and received presents for her.

Or another instance: Tacitus, speaking of the ancient Teutons, said: The mother-brother considers his nephew like his son, some even consider the blood-relation between the mother's brother and his nephew holier and more binding than that between father and son, so

that when hostages were demanded, the sister's son was considered to give a greater guaranty than the own son.

Although at the time of Isaac the Hebrews had, already, attained to the patriarchal family, and the Germans at the time of Tacitus to the syndiasmian, if not the monogamous family, yet these customs prove the earlier existence of the group family. They had remained after the reasons for them had ceased to exist.

The reason which caused the growth of the monogamous family out of the syndiasmian, is, according to Morgan, as follows: of the two sexes, the male, being the physically stronger, most generally procured the necessities of life. As civilization advanced and the accumulation of property became possible, the property idea arose and spread. Whether the property consisted of animals or stacks of grain or anything else, as it was accumulated by the males or fathers, it was quite natural that in course of time they desired that their property should go to their own children. This was not possible in the group family, it was scarcely possible in the syndiasmian. To accomplish this end a form of the family became necessary which enabled a father to distinguish his own children from those of other men. The problem was solved by the creation of the monogamian family.

"It is impossible," says Morgan, "to overestimate the influence of property in the civilization of mankind. It was the power that brought the Aryan and Semitic nations out of barbarism into civilization. The growth of the idea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness, and ended in becoming its master passion. Governments and laws are instituted with primary reference to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It in