[70] Although the married son possessed a hearth and was a free member of the gens, "his house did not become fully independent in religious and property matters till the death of the father and the final division of the property."—Botsford, Athenian Constitution, 27, and the sources there cited. Cf. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 326 ff.; Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Gentium, 124.
[71] McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, chaps. xvi, xvii; Leist, op. cit., 124, 504 ff.
[72] Leist, op. cit., 496-508; Kohler, "Indisches Ehe- und Familienrecht," ZVR., III, 424 ff.
[73] Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, 95, 96. Lack of space prevents any attempt at a detailed discussion of the old Aryan or Indic family and matrimonial law; a general reference must suffice: Leist, Alt-arisches Jus Gentium, 59 ff., 496 ff.; Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, 7 ff., 57 ff., passim; Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, 379-95; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 305-36; Jolly, Rechtliche Stellung, 1 ff.; idem, Hindu Law of Partition, 70 ff.; Kohler, "Indisches Ehe- und Familienrecht," ZVR., III, 342-442; and his various articles, ibid., VI, 344-46 (Indian Archipelago and Caroline Islands); VII, 201-39 (Punjab); VIII, 89-147, 262-73 (Indian customary law); IX, 323-36 (Bengal); X, 66-134 (Bombay); XI, 163-74 (Indian North-west Provinces); Botsford, Athenian Constitution, 2-67 (excellent); Wake, Marriage and Kinship, 159 ff., 355 ff., index; Bernhöft, "Altindisches Familienorganisation," ZVR., IX, 1-45; McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, 50 ff., 96 ff., especially the chapters on "sonship among the Hindoos," 266-339, combating the view of Maine, Early Law and Custom, 78-121, 232 ff.; Early Hist. of Inst., 116-18, 310 ff.; and Mayne, Hindu Law and Usage, 50 ff., 60 ff., passim; Starcke, Primitive Family, 100 ff.; Letourneau, L'évolution du mariage, index; Hearn, Aryan Household; Unger, Die Ehe, 21-27; Bader, La femme dans l'Inde antique, 39 ff.; Jacolliot, La femme dans l'Inde, 7 ff.
[74] Botsford, Athenian Constitution, 50; Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, 59 ff. Westermarck, Human Marriage, 230, justly observes that the power of the father among the Greeks, Germans, and Celts, "to expose his children when they were very young and to sell his marriageable daughters, does not imply the possession of a sovereignty like that which the Roman house-father exercised over his descendants at all ages."
[75] Leist, op. cit., 60, and 59 ff., for his discussion of the Aryan custom of exposing new-born children.
[76] Botsford, op. cit., 51; Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, 118, 120, notes; Plutarch, Solon, 13.
[77] Botsford, op. cit., 52; Leist, op. cit., 57, 58, 64, 11 ff.
[78] Ibid., 57-102.
[79] In the post-Homeric age agnation did not exist; see Botsford, op. cit., 73. In general on the Greek family see Hruza, Ehebegründung nach attischem Rechte, 8 ff.; McLennan, Studies, I, 121-23, especially the essay on "Kinship in Ancient Greece," ibid., 195-246 (favoring the maternal system); Botsford, op. cit., chaps. i, ii, iii, supporting the patriarchal theory; but Dr. Botsford's patriarchal family is not that of Sir Henry Maine; Lasaulx, Zur Gesch. u. Philos. der Ehe bei den Griechen, 3 ff.; Dargun, Mutterrecht und Raubehe, 2, 3, 14; Giraud-Teulon, Les origines, etc., 286-301; Wake, Marriage and Kinship, 24 ff., 355 ff., 366 ff., who criticises McLennan's view in detail for the Aryan peoples; Kovalevsky, Tableau, 35, 36; Bernhöft, "Das Gesetz von Gortyn," ZVR., VI, 281-304, 430-40; and his "Ehe- und Erbrecht der griechischen Heroenzeit," ibid., XI, 326-64, both articles being of great value; Kohler, "Die Ionsage und Vaterrecht," ibid., V, 407-14, who proves the existence of "judicial" fatherhood; Westermarck, Human Marriage, 232, 233; Unger, Die Ehe, 52-65; Bader, La femme grecque, I, 41 ff.; II, 1 ff. See also Hearn, Aryan Household, and Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, for much valuable matter.
[80] McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, 120-31; Studies, I, 68 ff., 118; Giraud-Teulon, Les origines, etc., 329-32; Kovalevsky, Tableau, 31, 32; Maine, Early Hist. of Inst., 216 ff., passim.
[81] The South Slavonian house community is an early institution; see Krauss, Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven, 2 ff., 64-128; Botsford, op. cit., 12-21; Giraud-Teulon, op. cit., 340, 341; McLennan, op. cit., 71-119; Maine, Ancient Law, 118; Early Law and Custom, 232-82. But it is not primitive. Kovalevsky, Mod. Customs and Anc. Laws of Russia, chaps. i, ii, finds many survivals, as he believes, of an earlier maternal system of kinship and succession.
[82] The question for the Germans will be again referred to; see chap. vi, below.
[83] Gaius, I, 55, Poste, 61.
[84] Such is the view of McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, 136-40, 181 ff., 205 ff., 214, 260-62, where Maine's theory of agnation is criticised.
[85] "The last vestiges of the two disappeared from the law together. But, in fact, agnation went first. The paternal powers were susceptible of abridgment and restriction in various ways short of extinction. The wife might become free from them; the children also; and yet they might remain for the slaves. And it was thus gradually that they perished. But agnation is perfect, or it ceases to be agnation. And the moment the ties of blood through women received civil effects agnation was no more."—Patriarchal Theory, 182. On the decay of agnation and patria potestas see Sohm, Institutes, 357, 358, 389-93, 438-47; Puchta, Institutionen, II, 18, 384 ff., 431 ff., 457 ff.; Muirhead, Introduction to the Private Law of Rome, 422 ff., 343-49; Maine, Ancient Law, chap. v; Morey, Roman Law, 78, 129, 150, 240-43, 248.
[86] McLennan, Patriarchal Theory, 190.
[87] Ibid., 194, 195.
[88] Ibid., 204-14. Cf. Muirhead, Introduction to the Private Law of Rome, 43.
[89] Plutarch, Roman Questions, VI, tells us that "in early times the prohibition of marriage extended as far as the tie of blood; and, if this be received, it involves—since the gentiles considered themselves to be of the same blood—that there could not be marriage between persons of the same gens."—McLennan, op. cit., 206, 207.