to include in the maegth a person who distinctly did not belong to it, and so to confuse the whole subject. The children, of course, belonged both to the maegth of the father and to that of the mother. Every person had two maegthe: that of his father, the faedren maegth, paterna generatio, or paternal kin, and that of his mother, the mêdren maegth, materna generatio, or maternal kin. These groups, entirely distinct before his birth, unite in his person, and become only subdivisions of his general maegth. Both have with him the rights and duties of kindred, but in different degrees, as will appear later.

Accepting the maegth and the household as distinct groups, the subject of family law in the Anglo-Saxon period naturally | divides itself into two branches: the law of the maegth or kindred, and the law of the household; in other words, the laws regulating the relations between members of the same maegth, and the rules obtaining when an alliance was formed between persons having different maegthe. Of course these two systems of law are closely connected. The relations between husband and wife, father and child, were modified by the fact that each member of the household was subject to the general law of the maegth; the husband to that of his maegth, the wife to that of her maegth, and the children to that of both. And on the other hand both the maegthe forming the alliance had rights and obligations toward the household.

The law of the maegth will first be considered, then the law of the household. In treating of the law of the maegth, these questions will demand attention: who were a man's kindred; how were the degrees of kinship reckoned, and what was the order of succession among the kin; what was the relative position of the paternal and maternal kin; within what degree, if within any, was kinship limited; how was the tie of kinship ended; finally, what were the rights and obligations of the kindred?

Those are kindred and belong to the same maegth who have common blood with each other or with a third, originating in lawful marriage. This is the only basis of the tie of

kinship known to the German law. It is true that adoption was often practised among the continental Germans. An instance of this adoption occurs in Beowulf,1 and the occurrence of the phrase "adoptivo parenti meo," in an Anglo-Saxon charter, proves that it existed in Anglo-Saxon law. But the early German adoption did not even place the one adopted under the parental authority of the adoptor. Much less could it create the ties of kinship between the one adopted and the kin of the adoptor. Its only effect was to give the adopted son rights of succession from his adopted father. The legitimation of natural children was permitted in none of the early German codes, except the Lombard, and was strongly opposed to the whole spirit of German family law. That the father, by symbolic forms, could acknowledge his natural child, and give him a place and protection within the household, is proved from German and Scandinavian sources. That a similar practice was known to the Anglo-Saxons may be inferred from Ine, § 27: "If any one beget a child secretly, and conceal it, let him not have the wer for his death, but his lord and the king." Clearly by acknowledging the child the father could protect him, and avenge his murder or exact satisfaction for it. If the father did not acknowledge him, the child was in the guardianship of the lord and the king. This passage, however, gives no argument for the existence of any rights of the natural child toward the father or his kin, and it is impossible that any such could have existed. Natural children could not have been reckoned among the maegth. That children born in unlawful marriage had no rights of inheritance is expressly stated in the laws of Alfred, and it may be inferred that all other rights of kindred were denied them except that of protection. If slain, their wergeld was paid to the paternal kindred and the king. Those then only were of kin, and belonged to the maegth, who had common blood originating in lawful marriage.

The method of reckoning the degrees of kinship must next be considered. In reckoning the degrees of kinship in the direct line, all systems agree in assigning one degree for each generation. The early German method of reckoning the degrees of side relationship is described in the Sachsenspiegel, in the first half of the thirteenth century. Sachsensp. I. 3, § 3 : "Now mark we where the sippe begins and where it ends. In the head it is ordered that man and wife do stand, who have come together in lawful wedlock. In the joint of the neck stand the children born of the same father and mother. Half brothers and sisters may not stand in the neck, but descend to the next. Full brothers' and sisters' children stand at the joint where shoulder and arm come together. This is the first grade of the sippe which is reckoned to the magen, -brothers' and sisters' children. In the elbow stands the next. In the wrist the third. In the first joint of the middle finger the fourth. In the next joint the fifth. In the third joint of the finger the sixth. In the seventh stands a nail, therefore ends here the sippe, and this is called the nailmage."

.

Here the degrees of kinship are reckoned by reference to the joints of the arm and hand. The common ancestors and their children standing in the head and neck are not reckoned among the magen. The first grade of the sippe is formed by cousins, who are, therefore, in the first degree of side relationship to each other. The sippe includes in all seven degrees. The family as a whole, therefore, includes nine generations.

In the Anglo-Saxon laws, two passages throw light on the method of reckoning the degrees of collateral kinship. Aethelr. VI., 12: "And aefre ne geweorde paet cristen man gewifige in vi. manna sib-faece on his agenum cynne, paet is binnan þam feorðan cneowe." "And let it never happen that a Christian man marry within the relationship of six persons of his own kin, that is within the fourth joint."1 If, in 1 Cf. Schmid, Anh. II. § 61; Cnut, I. 7.

counting six persons, only four degrees of side relationship are reckoned, it is clear that the first two generations, the common ancestors and their children, are omitted in computing the degrees, and that brothers' and sisters' children form the first grade. Schmid, Anh. VII., c. 1, § 5: "Healsfang gebyreð bearnum, broðrum and faederan; ne gebyreð nanum maege paet feoh, bute pam pe sy binnan eneowe." "Healsfang belongs to children, brothers, and paternal uncles. This money belongs to no kin except to those who are within the. joint." Thorpe's translation of cneowe in this passage by knee is misleading. As applied to relationship, eneow means always joint or degree, as in the first passage quoted above.2 The passage must mean those who are within the first joint: that is, those who are not counted on the joints at all, and who, therefore, are not reckoned among the degrees of collateral kin. These would be the descendants, the common ancestor, and his children, or (omitting the common ancestor, who would naturally be already dead) precisely those mentioned in the passage, - children, brothers, and uncles.

These passages prove that the Anglo-Saxons employed the same method of reckoning the degrees of collateral kinship as the continental Saxons. They began with brothers' and sisters' children; these formed the first grade. The use of cneow to designate grade of relationship, together with the language of the second passage quoted above, makes it almost certain that they computed the degrees by reference to the joints of the arm and hand, and if we accept the probable derivation of healsfang or halsfang, from hals meaning the neck, so called because it was paid to those standing in the neck, this conclusion becomes irresistible. Of the distinction made in the Sachsenspiegel between the full and the half blood, the Anglo-Saxon law shows no trace. The distinction is not found in the earliest German codes, and is probably only a refinement of a later time.

By the method just described, it is possible to determine the grade of relationship between two persons descended from a common ancestor: cousins were in the first grade, cousins' children in the second grade, and so on. Or the grades might be unequal: if A's grandfather were great-grandfather of B, A would be in the first grade, B in the second grade. But the rule does not suffice to determine the relative position of two persons to a third, and this must be known before the order of inheritance can be determined. According to the rule, all ancestors of a man deceased stand in the head; all children of ancestors stand in the neck; all grand-children of ancestors stand in the shoulder, that is, in the first grade of side relationship, and so on. Did all in the same grade stand in the same position; or, if not, what rule determined their relative position? Did a nearer grade from a more distant ancestor precede a more distant grade from a nearer ancestor, or was the opposite the case? In short, what was the order of inheritance?

This question has been the subject of a controversy in Germany, which in its extent, and in the heat with which in some quarters it has been carried on, has been rarely equalled in the history of German legal science. The theory of the so-called parentelen-ordnung, first established by the writings of John Christian Majer at the end of the last century,1 obtained general recognition, and for half a century was regarded as one of the most firmly established points in the history of German law. Within twenty years, however, the writings of Siegel and Wasserschleben have thrown much discredit on this theory, and have deprived it of many of its supportBut Siegel and Wasserschleben, united in opposing the