troduced human slavery as an instrument in its production, and after the experience of several thousand years, it caused the abolition of slavery upon the discovery that a freeman was a better property-making machine. The cruelty inherent in the heart of man, which civilization has softened without eradicating, still betrays the savage origin of mankind, and in no way more pointedly than in the practice of human slavery through all the centuries of recorded history. With the establishment of the inheritance of property in the children of its owner came the first possibility of a strict monogamian family. Gradually, though slowly, this form of marriage, with an exclusive cohabitation, became the rule, but it was not until civilization had commenced, that it became permanently established.”

As finally constituted, this family secured the paternity of children, substituted the individual ownership of real as well as personal property for joint ownership, and an exclusive inheritance by children in the place of agnatic inheritance. It was a slow growth, planting its roots far back in the period of savagery, a' final result, toward which the experience of the ages steadily tended. Although essentially modern, it was the product of a vast and varied experience.

Before proceeding farther in the consideration of the monogamian family, I wish to say a few words concerning the patriarchal family. I have not more than mentioned it so far. Our principal knowledge of this family comes from the Bible. It prevailed principally among the ancient Hebrews, but no doubt also among other Semitic tribes. It created no system of relationship and had no general existence. It belongs to the upper period of barbarism and remained for a time after the com

mencement of civilization. The chiefs, and perhaps others, lived in polygamy, but this was not the special characteristic of it. It was the organization of a number of persons, bond and free, into a family under paternal power, for the purpose of holding lands, and for the care of flocks and herds. The chief had authority over its members and its property. Those held to servitude, and those employed as servants lived in the marriage relation. It was the incorporation of numbers in servile and dependent relation, before that time unknown, rather than polygamy, that stamped the patriarchal family with attributes of an original organization. The nations, among whom it was prevalent, had, as far as we know, led at a time, a nomadic life, and it was, probably, produced by the peculiarities and the necessities growing out of such a life.

Returning to the monogamian family, we must not presume that it was from its beginning the same that it is now. It was growing into its present state by degrees. Among the Grecians in the Homeric age, as well as later on in the historic period, we find that chastity was required of the wife only, and that the position of the wife in the household as well as in public life was very inferior, so much so that hetaerism was, if not approved, at least not censured and not considered a violation of matrimonial rights. Marriage among the Greeks 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. 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 women, scarcely found among savages. It reveals itself in their plan of domestic life which, in the higher ranks, secluded the wife for the purpose of enforcing 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.

All of this has reference to the Athenians. Among the Spartans, however, who were far behind the Athenians in culture and refinement, the position of women and the purity of family life were far better than in Athens. Which, to say the least, proves that culture and refinement alone are not a sufficient agency for the elevation of the status of woman and family life.

In Rome, the condition of women was more favorable, but their subordination the same. Marriage placed the wife in the power of her husband. The husband treated his wife as his daughter, and not as his equal. He had the power of correction, and of life and death in case of adultery. Divorce, from the earliest period, was at the option of the parties, a characteristic of the Syndiasmian family, and transmitted, probably from that source.

Of the domestic life of the ancient Teutons we know comparatively little. When they first came into contact with the Romans they were in the upper status of barbarism, approaching civilization. Tacitus remarks that they almost alone among barbarians contented themselves with a single wife. This points to monogamy. The remark that women lived fenced up with chastity, and the custom of giving a present in the nature of a purchasing gift to the bride, and the severe punishment

of wives for unchastity permits the conclusion that the wife was to a degree the property of the husband. However, as I said, our knowledge of the married life of the ancient Germans is too limited to allow any definite conclusions.

Altogether, we may assume that the monogamian family grew in degrees to its present status and that, for a long time, it retained customs' prevailing under the syndiasmian form.

I have so far followed Morgan, frequently using his own words, but I do not agree with all of his hypotheses. I do not believe that' it was solely the desire of establishing fathership with certainty, for the purpose of inheritance, which led to the growth of the monogamian family, because, although connected with property, it would be too much of a sentimental reason which, alone, could hardly have had such a far reaching influence among barbarians. I also do not believe that his description of the group family gives us a true and perfect picture of these ancient forms of the family. Mr. Morgan believes that the organization of gentes was, probably, preceded by an organization into marriage classes, such as the Australians have, that the object of this organization was the prevention of cohabitation between near bloodrelatives, and that this object was under the gentile organization accomplished by the prohibition of marriage within the gens. However, the Australian marriage classes exist alongside of the gentes (frequently called by writers totem-groups), and of the Australian ageclasses Morgan seems to have had no knowledge whatever. Among the still existing savage peoples, the Australians take the lowest rank in point of civilization, and their different tribes differ even in degrees. Their

customs are, therefore, of great interest and importance in the study of the development of the human race and its institutions.

Their marriage-classes were known to Morgan, but incompletely. To acquaint the reader with them, I will describe the social organization of one of the most advanced tribes, the Kamilaroi. They are divided into six gentes or totem-groups, their names being Duli, Muriira, Mute, Dinoun, Bilba, Nurai, all being names of animals. The first three form a larger group, called Dilbi, believed to have a common female ancestor and to stand to each other in blood-relationship. The same is the case with the other three gentes, except that the name of the larger group is Kupathin. They are not allowed to marry within their own gens, and formerly they were not even allowed to marry within their large group, or phratry.

Irrespective of this organization they are divided into four marriage-classes, each of which has a male and a female division; these classes are:

Each Kamilaroi belongs to one of these classes and is allowed to marry only one of a definite other class. An Ippai can marry only a Kubbota, a Kumbo only a Mata, a Murri only a Buta, and a Kubbi only an Ippata.

The children receive names different from that of the mother. The father's name is not considered at all. The rule is as fellows: