Lecture　III
  Kinship　as　the　Basis　of　Society
  The　most　recent　researches　into　the　primitive　history　of
  society　point　to　the　conclusion　that　the　earliest　tie　which
  knitted　men　together　in　communities　was　Consanguinity　or　Kinship。
  The　subject　has　been　approached　of　late　years　from　several
  different　sides；　and　there　has　been　much　dispute　as　to　what　the
  primitive　blood…relationship　implied；　and　how　it　arose；　but　there
  has　been　general　agreement　as　to　the　fact　I　have　stated。　The
  caution　is　perhaps　needed　that　we　must　not　form　too　loose　a
  conception　of　the　kinship　which　once　stood　in　the　place　of　the
  multiform　influences　which　are　now　the　cement　of　human　societies。
  It　was　regarded　as　an　actual　bond　of　union；　and　in　no　respect　as
  a　sentimental　one。　The　notion　of　what；　for　want　of　a　better
  phrase；　I　must　call　a　moral　brotherhood　in　the　whole　human　race
  has　been　steadily　gaining　ground　during　the　whole　course　of
  history；　and　we　have　now　a　large　abstract　term　answering　to　this
  notion　　Humanity；　he　most　powerful　of　the　agencies　which　have
  brought　about　this　broader　and　laxer　view　of　kinship　has
  undoubtedly　been　Religion；　and　indeed　one　great　Eastern　religion
  extended　it　until　for　some　purposes　it　embraced　all　sentient
  nature。　All　this　modern　enlargement　of　the　primitive　conception
  of　kinship　must　be　got　rid　of　before　we　can　bring　it　home　to
  ourselves。　There　was　no　brotherhood　recognised　by　our　savage
  forefathers　except　actual　consanguinity　regarded　as　a　fact。　If　a
  man　was　not　of　kin　to　another　there　was　nothing　between　them。　He
  was　an　enemy　to　be　slain；　or　spoiled；　or　hated；　as　much　as　the
  wild　beasts　upon　which　the　tribe　made　war；　as　belonging　indeed　to
  the　craftiest　and　the　cruellest　order　of　wild　animals。　It　would
  scarcely　be　too　strong　an　assertion　that　the　dogs　which　followed
  the　camp　had　more　in　common　with　it　than　the　tribesmen　of　an
  alien　and　unrelated　tribe。
  The　tribes　of　men　with　which　the　student　of　jurisprudence　is
  concerned　are　exclusively　those　belonging　to　the　races　now
  universally　classed；　on　the　ground　of　linguistic　affinities；　as
  Aryan　and　Semitic。　Besides　these　he　has　at　most　to　take　into
  account　that　portion　of　the　outlying　mass　of　mankind　which　has
  lately　been　called　Uralian；　the　Turks；　Hungarians；　and　Finns。　The
  characteristic　of　all　these　races；　when　in　the　tribal　state；　is
  that　the　tribes　themselves；　and　all　subdivisions　of　them；　are
  conceived　by　the　men　who　compose　them　as　descended　from　a　single
  male　ancestor。　Such　communities　see　the　Family　group　with　which
  they　are　familiar　to　be　made　up　of　the　descendants　of　a　single
  living　man；　and　of　his　wife　or　wives；　and　perhaps　they　are
  accustomed　to　that　larger　group；　formed　of　the　descendants　of　a
  single　recently　deceased　ancestor；　which　still　survives　in　India
  as　a　compact　assemblage　of　blood…relatives；　though　it　is　only
  known　to　us　through　the　traces　it　has　left　in　our　Tables　of
  Inheritance。　The　mode　of　constituting　groups　of　kinsmen　which
  they　see　proceeding　before　their　eyes　they　believe　to　be
  identical　with　the　process　by　which　the　community　itself　was
  formed。　Thus　the　theoretical　assumption　is　that　all　the　tribesmen
  are　descended　from　some　common　ancestor；　whose　descendants　have
  formed　sub…groups；　which　again　have　branched　off　into　others；
  till　the　smallest　group　of　all；　the　existing　Family；　is　reached。
  I　believe　I　may　say　that　there　is　substantial　agreement　as　to　the
  correctness　of　these　statements　so　long　as　they　are　confined　to
  the　Aryan；　Semitic；　and　Uralian　races。　At　most　it　is　asserted
  that；　among　the　recorded　usages　of　portions　of　these　races；　there
  are　obscure　indications　of　another　and　an　earlier　state　of
  things。　But　then　a　very　different　set　of　assertions　from　these
  are　made　concerning　that　large　part　of　the　human　race　which
  cannot　be　classed　as　Aryan；　Semitic；　or　Uralian。　It　is；　first　of
  all；　alleged　that　there　is　evidence　of　the　wide　prevalence　among
  them　of　ideas　on　the　subject　of　Consanguinity　which　are
  irreconcileable　with　the　assumption　of　common　descent　from　a
  single　ancestor。　Next；　it　is　pointed　out　that　some　small；
  isolated；　and　very　barbarous　communities　　perhaps　long　hidden
  in　inaccessible　Indian　valleys；　or　within　the　ring　of　a　coral
  reef　in　the　　Southern　Seas　　still　follow　practices　which　it
  would　be　incorrect　and　unjust　to　call　immoral；　because；　in　the
  view　we　are　considering；　they　are　older　than　morality。　The
  suggestion　is　finally　made　that　if　these　practices　were；　in　an
  older　stage　of　the　world's　history；　very　much　more　widely
  extended　than　at　present；　the　abnormal；　non…Aryan；　non…Semitic；
  non…Uralian　notions　about　kinship　of　which　I　have　spoken　would
  find　their　explanation。　If；　indeed；　the　conclusion　here　pointed
  at　expresses　the　truth；　and　if　these　practices　were　really　at　one
  time　universal；　it　would　be　an　undeserved　compliment　to　the　human
  race　to　say　that　it　once　followed　the　ways　of　the　lower　animals；
  since；　in　point　of　fact；　all　the　lower　animals　do　not　follow　the
  practices　thus　attributed　to　them。　But；　whatever　be　the　interest
  of　such　enquiries；　they　do　not　concern　us　till　the　Kinship　of　the
  higher　races　can　be　distinctly　shown　to　have　grown　out　of　the
  Kinship　now　known　only　to　the　lower；　and　even　then　they　concern
  us　only　remotely。　No　doubt　several　recent　writers　do　believe　in
  the　descent　of　one　form　of　consanguinity　from　the　other。　Mr　Lewis
  Morgan；　of　New　York；　the　author　of　a　remarkable　and　very
  magnificent　volume　on　'Systems　of　Consanguinity　and　Affinity　in
  the　Human　Family；'　published　by　the　Smithsonian　Institute　at
  Washington；　reckons　no　less　than　ten　stages　（p：　486）　through
  which　communities　founded　on　kinship　have　passed　before　that　form
  of　the　family　was　developed　out　of　which　the　Aryan　tribes
  conceive　themselves　to　have　sprung。　But　Mr　Morgan　also　says　of
  the　system　known　upon　the　evidence　actually　to　prevail　among　the
  Aryan；　Semitic；　and　Uralian　divisions　of　mankind　that　（p。　469）　it
  'manifestly　proceeds　upon　the　assumption　of　the　existence　of
  marriage　between　single　pairs；　and　of　the　certainty　of　parentage
  through　the　marriage　relation。'　'Hence；'　he　adds；　'it　must　have
  come　into　existence　after　the　establishment　of　marriage　between
  single　pairs。'
  A　remark　of　considerable　importance　to　the　student　of　early
  usage　has　now　to　be　made　respecting　the　bond　of　union　recognised
  by　these　greater　races。　Kinship；　as　the　tie　binding　communities
  together；　tends　to　be　regarded　as　the　same　thing　with　subjection
  to　a　common　authority。　The　notions　of　Power　and　Consanguinity
  blend；　but　they　in　nowise　SUpersede　one　another。　We　have　a
  familiar　example　of　this　mixture　of　ideas　in　the　subjection　of
  the　smallest　group；　the　Family；　to　its　patriarchal　head。　Wherever
  we　have　evidence　of　such　a　group；　it　becomes　difficult　to　say
  whether　the　persons　compiled　in　it　are　most　distinctly　regarded
  as　kinsmen；　or　as　servile　or　semi…servile　dependents　of　the
  person　who　was　the　source　of　their　kinship。　The　confusion；
  however；　if　we　may　so　style　it；　of　kinship　with　subjection　to
  patriarchal　power　is　observable　also　in　the　larger　groups　into
  which　the　Family　expands。　In　some　cases　the　Tribe　can　hardly　be
  otherwise　described　than　as　the　group　of　men　subject　to　some　one
  chieftain。　This　peculiar　blending　of　ideas　is　undoubtedly
  connected　with　the　extension　（a　familiar　fact　to　most　of　us）　of
  the　area　of　ancient　groups　of　kindred　by　artifices　or　fictions。
  Just　as　we　find　the　Family　recruited　by　strangers　brought　under
  the　paternal　power　of　its　head　by　adoption；　so　we　find　the　Tribe；
  or　Clan；　including　a　number　of　persons；　in　theory　of　kin　to　it；
  yet　in　fact　connected　with　it　only　by　common　dependence　on　the
  Chief。　I　do　not　affect　to　give　any　sim