Chapter II (2)

[80] It can be shown with a great degree of probability, that the Valley of the Columbia was the seed land of the Ganowánian family, from which issued, in past ages, successive streams of migrating bands, until both divisions of the continent were occupied. And further, that both divisions continued to be replenished with inhabitants from this source down to the epoch of European discovery. These conclusions may be deduced from physical causes, from the relative conditions, and from the linguistic relations of the Indian tribes. The great expanse of the central prairies, which spread continuously more than fifteen hundred miles from north to south, and more than a thousand miles from east to west, interposed a barrier to a free communication between the Pacific and Atlantic sides of the continent in North America. It seems probable, therefore, that an original family commencing its spread from the Valley of the Columbia, and migrating under the influence of physical causes, would reach Patagonia sooner than they would Florida. The known facts point so strongly to this region as the original home of the Indian family, that a moderate amount of additional evidence will render the hypothesis conclusive.

The discovery and cultivation of maize did not change materially the course of events, or suspend the operation of previous causes; though it became an important factor in the progress of improvement. It is not known where this American cereal was indigenous; but the tropical region of Central America, where vegetation is intensely active, where this plant is peculiarly fruitful, and where the oldest seats of the Village Indians were found, has been assumed by common consent, as the probable place of its nativity. If, then, cultivation commenced in Central America, it would have propagated itself first over Mexico, and from thence to New Mexico and the valley of the Mississippi, and thence again eastward to the shores of the Atlantic; the volume of cultivation diminishing from the starting-point to the extremities. It would spread, independently of the Village Indians, from the desire of more barbarous tribes to gain the new subsistence; but it never extended beyond New Mexico to the Valley of the Columbia, though cultivation was practiced by the Minnitarees and Mandans of the Upper Missouri, by the Shyans on the Red River of the North, by the Hurons of Lake Simcoe in Canada, and by the Abenakies of the Kennebec, as well as generally by the tribes between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. Migrating bands from the Valley of the Columbia, following upon the track of their predecessors, would press upon the Village Indians of New Mexico and Mexico, tending to force displaced and fragmentary tribes toward and through the Isthmus into South America. Such expelled bands would carry with them the first germs of progress developed by Village Indian life. Repeated at intervals of time it would tend to bestow upon South America a class of inhabitants far superior to the wild bands previously supplied, and at the expense of the northern section thus impoverished. In the final result, South America would attain the advanced position in development, even in an inferior country, which seems to have been the fact. The Peruvian legend of Manco Capac and Mama Oello, children of the sun, brother and sister, husband and wife, shows, if it can be said to show anything, that a band of Village Indians migrating from a distance, though not necessarily from North America direct, had gathered together and taught the rude tribes of the Andes the higher arts of life, including the cultivation of maize and plants. By a simple and quite natural process the legend has dropped out the band, and retained only the leader and his wife.

[81] _Coll. Ternaux-Compans_, IX, pp. 181-183.

[82] Acosta. _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_, Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s Trans., pp. 500-503.

[83] Near the close of the last century the Seneca-Iroquois, at one of their villages on the Alleghany river, set up an idol of wood, and performed dances and other religious ceremonies around it. My informer, the late William Parker, saw this idol in the river into which it had been cast. Whom it personated he did not learn.

[84] They were admitted into the Creek Confederacy after their overthrow by the French.

[85] About 1651-5, they expelled their kindred tribes, the Eries, from the region between the Genesee river and Lake Erie, and shortly afterwards the Neutral Nations from the Niagara river, and thus came into possession of the remainder of New York, with the exception of the lower Hudson and Long Island.

[86] The Iroquois claimed that it had existed from one hundred and fifty to two hundred years when they first saw Europeans. The generations of sachems in the history by David Cusick (a Tuscarora), would make it more ancient.

[87] My friend, Horatio Hale, the eminent philologist, came, as he informed me, to this conclusion.

[88] These names signify as follows: 1. “Neutral,” or “the Shield.”

[89] “Man who Combs.”

[90] “Inexhaustible.”

[91] “Small Speech.”

[92] “At the Forks.”

[93] “At the Great River.”

[94] “Dragging his Horns.”

[95] “Even-Tempered.”

[96] “Hanging up Rattles.” The sachems in class one belonged to the Turtle tribe, in class two to the Wolf tribe, and in class three to the Bear tribe.

[97] “A Man bearing a Burden.”

[98] “A Man covered with Cat-tail Down.”

[99] “Opening through the Woods.”

[100] “A Long String.”

[101] “A Man with a Headache.”

[102] “Swallowing Himself.”

[103] “Place of the Echo.”

[104] “War-club on the Ground.”

[105] “A Man Steaming Himself.” The sachems in the first class belonged to the Wolf tribe, in the second to the Turtle tribe, and in the third to the Bear tribe.

[106] “Tangled,” Bear tribe.

[107] “On the Watch,” Bear tribe. This sachem and the one before him, were hereditary councilors of the To-do-dä´-ho, who held the most illustrious sachemship.

[108] “Bitter Body,” Snipe tribe.

[109] Turtle tribe.

[110] This sachem was hereditary keeper of the wampum; Wolf tribe.

[111] Deer tribe.

[112] Deer tribe.

[113] Turtle tribe.

[114] Bear tribe.

[115] “Having a Glimpse,” Deer tribe.

[116] “Large Mouth,” Turtle tribe.

[117] “Over the Creek,” Turtle tribe.

[118] “Man Frightened,” Deer tribe.

[119] Heron tribe.

[120] Bear tribe.

[121] Bear tribe.

[122] Turtle tribe.

[123] Not ascertained.

[124] “Very Cold,” Turtle tribe.

[125] Heron tribe.

[126] Snipe tribe.

[127] Snipe tribe.

[128] “Handsome Lake,” Turtle tribe.

[129] “Level Heavens,” Snipe tribe.

[130] Turtle tribe.

[131] “Great Forehead,” Hawk tribe.

[132] “Assistant,” Bear tribe.

[133] “Falling Day,” Snipe tribe.

[134] “Hair Burned Off,” Snipe tribe.

[135] “Open Door,” Wolf tribe.

[136] The children of brothers are themselves brothers and sisters to each other, the children of the latter were also brothers and sisters, and so downwards indefinitely; the children and descendants of sisters are the same. The children of a brother and sister are cousins, the children of the latter are cousins, and so downwards indefinitely. A knowledge of the relationships to each other of the members of the same gens is never lost.

[137] A civil council, which might be called by either nation, was usually summoned and opened in the following manner: If, for example, the Onondagas made the call, they would send heralds to the Oneidas on the east, and the Cayugas on the west of them, with belts containing an invitation to meet at the Onondaga council-grove on such a day of such a moon, for purposes which were also named. It would then become the duty of the Cayugas to send the same notification to the Senecas, and of the Oneidas to notify the Mohawks. If the council was to meet for peaceful purposes, then each sachem was to bring with him a bundle of fagots of white cedar, typical of peace; if for warlike objects then the fagots were to be of red cedar, emblematical of war.

At the day appointed the sachems of the several nations, with their followers, who usually arrived a day or two before and remained encamped at a distance, were received in a formal manner by the Onondaga sachems at the rising of the sun. They marched in separate processions from their camps to the council-grove, each bearing his skin robe and bundle of fagots, where the Onondaga sachems awaited them with a concourse of people. The sachems then formed themselves into a circle, an Onondaga sachem, who by appointment acted as master of the ceremonies, occupying the side toward the rising sun. At a signal they marched round the circle moving by the north. It may be here observed that the rim of the circle toward the north is called the “cold side,” (o-to′-wa-ga); that on the west “the side toward the setting sun,” (ha-gă-kwăs′-gwä); that on the south “the side of the high sun,” (en-de-ih′-kwä); and that on the east “the side of the rising sun,” (t´-kă-gwit-kăs′-gwä). After marching three times around on the circle single file, the head and-foot of the column being joined, the leader stopped on the rising sun side, and deposited before him his bundle of fagots. In this he was followed by the others, one at a time, following by the north, thus forming an inner circle of fagots. After this each sachem spread his skin robe in the same order, and sat down upon it, cross-legged, behind his bundle of fagots, with his assistant sachem standing behind him. The master of the ceremonies, after a moment’s pause, arose, drew from his pouch two pieces of dry wood and a piece of punk with which he proceeded to strike fire by friction. When fire was thus obtained, he stepped within the circle and set fire to his own bundle, and then to each of the others in the order in which they were laid. When they were well ignited, and at a signal from the master of the ceremonies, the sachems arose and marched three times around the Burning Circle, going as before by the north. Each turned from time to time as he walked, so as to expose all sides of his person to the warming influence of the fires. This typified that they warmed their affections for each other in order that they might transact the business of the council in friendship and unity. They then reseated themselves each upon his own robe. After this the master of the ceremonies again rising to his feet, filled and lighted the pipe of peace from his own fire. Drawing three whiffs, one after the other, he blew the first toward the zenith, the second toward the ground, and the third toward the sun. By the first act he returned thanks to the Great Spirit for the preservation of his life during the past year, and for being permitted to be present at this council. By the second, he returned thanks to his Mother, the Earth, for her various productions which had ministered to his sustenance. And by the third, he returned thanks to the Sun for his never-failing light, ever shining upon all. These words were not repeated, but such is the purport of the acts themselves. He then passed the pipe to the first upon his right toward the north, who repeated the same ceremonies, and then passed it to the next, and so on around the burning circle. The ceremony of smoking the calumet also signified that they pledged to each other their faith, their friendship, and their honor.

These ceremonies completed the opening of the council, which was then declared to be ready for the business upon which it had been convened.

[138] Tradition declares that the Onondagas deputed a wise-man to visit the territories of the tribes and select and name the new sachems as circumstances should prompt: which explains the unequal distribution of the office among the several gentes.

[139] At the beginning of the American revolution the Iroquois were unable to agree upon a declaration of war against our confederacy for want of unanimity in council. A number of the Oneida sachems resisted the proposition and finally refused their consent. As neutrality was impossible with the Mohawks, and the Senecas were determined to fight, it was resolved that each tribe might engage in the war upon its own responsibility, or remain neutral. The war against the Eries, against the Neutral Nation and Susquehannocks, and the several wars against the French, were resolved upon in general council. Our colonial records are largely filled with negotiations with the Iroquois Confederacy.

[140] δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ' ἀπαγγέλλειν με χρὴ
δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε καδμείας πόλεως.

—Æschylus, _The Seven against Thebes_, 1005.

[141] One of the Cayuga sachems.

[142] One of the Seneca sachems, and the founder of the New Religion of the Iroquois.

[143] One of the Seneca sachems.

[144] _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family._ (_Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii, 1871, p. 131.)

[145]

1. Wolf, Tor-yoh′-ne. 5. Deer, Nä-o′-geh.
2. Bear, Ne-e-ar-guy′-ee. 6. Snipe, Doo-eese-doo-we′.
3. Beaver, Non-gar-ne′-e-ar-goh. 7. Heron, Jo-äs′-seh.
4. Turtle, Gä-ne-e-ar-teh-go′-wä. 8. Hawk, Os-sweh-gä-dä-gä′-ah.
5. Deer, Nä-o′-geh.

[146]

1. Ah-na-rese′-kwä, Bone Gnawers. 5. Os-ken′-o-toh, Roaming.
2. Ah-nu-yeh′, Tree Liver. 6. Sine-gain′-see, Creeping.
3. Tso-tä′-ee, Shy Animal. 7. Ya-ra-hats′-see, Tall Tree.
4. Ge-ah′-wish, Fine Land. 8. Dä-soak′ Flying.

[147] Mr. Horatio Hale has recently proved the connection of the Tutelos with the Iroquois.

[148] Mr. Francis Parkman, author of the brilliant series of works on the colonization of America, was the first to establish the affiliation of the Susquehannocks with the Iroquois.

[149] _Travels in North America_, Phila. ed., 1796, p. 164.

[150] _Travels in North America_, p. 165.

[151]

1. Wä-sä′-be. 2. De-a-glie′-ta. 3. Na-ko-poz′-na. 4. Moh-kuh′.
5. Wä-shä′-ba. 6. Wä-zhä′-zha. 7. Noli′-ga. 8. Wali′ga.

[152]

1. Wä′-zhese-ta. 2. Ink-ka′-sa-ba. 3. Lä′-tä-dä. 4. Kä′-ih.
5. Da-thun′-da. 6. Wä-sä′-ba. 7. Hun′-ga. 8. Kun′zä.
9. Tä′-pä. 10. In-grä′-zhe-da. 11. Ish-dä′-sun-da. 12. O-non-e′-kä-gä-lia′

[153]

1. Me-je′-rä-ja. 2. Too-num′-pe. 3. Ah′-ro-whä. 4. Ho′-dash.
5. Cheh′-he-tä. 6. Lu′-chih. 7. Wä-keeh′. 8. Mä′-kotch.

ḣ represents a deep sonant guttural. It is quite common in the dialects of the Missouri tribes, and also in the Minnitaree and Crow.

[154]

1. Me-je′-rä-ja. 2. Moon′-cha. 3. Ah′-ro-whä. 4. Hoo′-ma.
5. Kḣa′-ă. 6. Lute′-ja. 7. Wä′-kä. 8. Mä′-kotch.

[155]

1. Tä-we-kä-she′-gä. 2. Sin′-ja-ye-ga. 3. Mo-e′-kwe-ah-hä.
4. Hu-e′-yă. 5. Hun-go-tin′-ga. 6. Me-hä-shun′-gă.
7. O′-pă. 8. Me-kä′. 9. Sho′-ma-koo-sa.
10. Do-ḣă-kel′-yă. 11. Mo-e′-ka-ne-kä′-she-gä. 12. Dä-sin′-ja-hă-gă.
13. Ic′-hä-she. 14. Lo-ne′-kä-she-gä.

[156]

1. Shonk-chun′-ga-dă. 2. Hone-cha′-dä. 3. Cha′-rä.
4. Wahk-cha′-he-dä. 5. Hoo-wun′-nä. 6. Chä′-rä.
7. Wä-kon′-nä. 8. Wa-kon′-cha-rä.

[157] _Travels, loc. cit._, p. 166.

[158]

1. Ilo-ra-ta′-mŭ-make. 2. Mä-to′-no-mäke. 3. See-poosh′-kä.
4. Tä-na-tsŭ′-kä. 5. Ki-tä′-ne-mäke. 6. E-stä-pa′.
7. Me-te-ah′-ke.

[159]

1. Mit-che-ro′-ka. 2. Min-ne-pä′-ta. 3. Bä-ho-ḣä′-ta.
4. Seech-ka-be-ruh-pä′-ka. 5. E-tish-sho′-ka.
6. Aḣ-naḣ-ha-nä′-me-te. 7. E-ku′-pä-be-ka.

[160]

1. A-che-pä-be′-cha. 2. E-sach′-ka-buk . 3. Ho-ka-rut′-cha.
4. Ash-bot-chee-ah. 5. Ah-shin′-nä-de′-ah. 6. Ese-kep-kä′-buk.
7. Oo-sä-bot′-see. 8. Ah-hä-chick. 9. Ship-tet′-zä.
10. Ash-kane′-na. 11. Boo-a-dă′-sha. 12. O-hot-dŭ′-sha.
13. Pet-chale-ruḣ-pä′-ka.

[161] This practice as an act of mourning is very common among the Crows, and also as a religious offering when they hold a “Medicine Lodge,” a great religious ceremonial. In a basket hung up in a Medicine Lodge for their reception as offerings, fifty, and sometimes a hundred finger joints, I have been told, are sometimes thus collected. At a Crow encampment on the Upper Missouri I noticed a number of women and men with their hands mutilated by this practice.

[162]

1. Yä′-hä. 2. No-kuse′. 3. Ku′-mu. 4. Kal-pŭt′-lŭ.
5. E′-cho. 6. Tus′-wă. 7. Kat′-chŭ. 8. Ho-tor′-lee.
9. So-päk′-tŭ. 10. Tŭk′-ko. 11. Chŭ′-lä. 12. Wo′-tko.
13. Hŭ′-hlo. 14. Ŭ′-che. 15. Ah′-ah. 16. O-che′.
17. Ok-chŭn′-wä. 18. Kŭ-wä′-ku-che. 19. Tä-mul′-kee. 20. Ak-tŭ-yä-chul′-kee.
21. Is-fä-nŭl′-ke. 22. Wä-hläk-kŭl′-kee.

[163] Sig’n = signification.

[164]

_First._ Ku-shap′. Ok′-lä.

1. Kush-ik′-sä. 2. Law-ok′-lä. 3. Lu-lak Ik′sä. 4. Lin-ok-lŭ′-sha.

_Second._ Wă-tăk-i-Hŭ-lä′-tä.

1. Chu-fan-ik′-sä. 2. Is-kŭ-la′-ni. 3. Chi′-to. 4. Shak-chuk′-la.

[165]

I. Koi.

1. Ko-in-chush. 2. Hä-täk-fu-shi. 3. Nun-ni. 4. Is-si.

II. Ish-pän-ee.

1. Shä-u-ee. 2. Ish-pän-ee. 3. Ming-ko. 4. Hush-ko-ni.
5. Tun-ni. 6. Ho-chon-chab-ba. 7. Nä-sho-lă. 8. Chuh-hlä.

[166]

1. Ah-ne-whǐ′-yä. 2. Ah-ne-who′-teh. 3. Ah-ne-ga-tä-ga′-nih.
4. Dsŭ-nǐ-li′-a-nä. 5. U-ni-sdä′-sdi. 6. Ah-nee-kä′-wih.
7. Ah-nee-sä-hok′-nih. 8. Ah-nŭ-ka-lo′-high. _ah-nee_ signifies the plural.

[167] 1. From the Ojibwa, _gǐ-tchi′_, great, and _gä′me_, lake, the aboriginal name of Lake Superior, and other great lakes.

[168]

1. My-een′-gun. 2. Mä-kwä′. 3. Ah-mik′. 4. Me-she′-kă.
5. Mik-o-noh′. 6. Me-skwä-da′-re. 7. Ah-dik′. 8. Chu-e-skwe′-ske-wă.
9. O-jee-jok′. 10. Ka-kake′. 11. O-me-gee-ze′. 12. Mong.
13. Ah-ah′-weh. 14. She-shebe′. 15. Ke-na′-big. 16. Wa-zhush′.
17. Wa-be-zhaze′. 18. Moosh-kä-oo-ze′. 19. Ah-wah-sis′-sa. 20. Nä-ma′-bin.
21. —— 22. Nă-ma′. 23. Ke-no′-zhe

[169] An Ojibwa sachem, _Ke-we′-kons_, who died about 1840, at the age of ninety years, when asked by my informant why he did not retire from office and give place to his son, replied, that his son could not succeed him; that the right of succession belonged to his nephew, _E-kwä′-ka-mik_, who must have the office. This nephew was a son of one of his sisters. From this statement it follows that descent, anciently, and within a recent period, was in the female line. It does not follow from the form of the statement that the nephew would take by hereditary right, but that he was in the line of succession, and his election was substantially assured.

[170]

1. Mo-ăh′. 2. M′-ko′. 3. Muk. 4. Mis-shă′-wă.
5. Maak. 6. K′-nou′. 7. N′-mă′. 8. N′-mă-pe-nă′.
9. M′-ge-ze′-wä. 10. Che′-kwa. 11. Wä-bo′-zo. 12. Kä-käg′-she.
13. Wake-shǐ′. 14. Pen′-nă. 15. M′-ke-tash′-she-kă-kah′.
16. O-tä′-wa.

[171] Pronounced O-tä′-wa.

[172]

1. Mo-wha′-wä. 2. Mon-gwä′. 3. Ken-da-wă′. 4. Ah-pă′-kose-e-ă.
5. Ka-no-zä′-wa. 6. Pǐ-la-wä′. 7. Ah-se-pon′-nä. 8. Mon-nă′-to.
9. Kul-swä′. 10. (Not obtained).

[173]

1. M′-wa-′. 2. Ma-gwä′. 3. M′-kwä′. 4. We-wä′-see.
5. M′-se′-pa-se. 6. M′-ath-wa′. 7. Pa-la-wä′. 8. Psake-the′.
9. Sha-pä-tă′. 10. Na-ma-thä′. 11. Ma-na-to′. 12. Pe-sa-wä′.
13. Pä-täke-e-no-the′.

[174] In every tribe the name indicated the gens. Thus, among the Sauks and Foxes _Long Horn_ is a name belonging to the Deer gens; _Black Wolf_, to the wolf. In the Eagle gens the following are specimen names: _Ka′-po-nä_, “Eagle drawing his nest;” _Ja-ka-kwä-pe_, “Eagle sitting with his head up;” _Pe-ă-tä-na-kä-hok_, “Eagle flying over a limb.”

[175]

1. Mo-whă-wis′-so-uk. 2. Ma-kwis′-so-jik. 3. Pă-sha′-ga-sa-wis-so-uk.
4. Mă-shă-wă-uk′. 5. Kă-kă-kwis′-so-uk. 6. Pă-mis′-so-uk.
7. Nă-mă-sis′-so-uk. 8. Na-nus-sus′-so-uk. 9. Nă-nă-ma′-kew-uk.
10. Ah-kuh′-ne-näk. 11. Wä-ko-a-wis′-so-jik. 12. Kă-che-kone-a-we′-so-uk.
13. Nă-mă-we′-so-uk. 14. Mă-she′-mă-täk.

[176]

1. Ki′-no. 2. Mä-me-o′-ya. 3. Ah-pe-ki′. 4. A-ne′-po.
5. Po-no-kix′.

[177]

1. Ah-ah′-pi-tä-pe. 2. Ah-pe-ki′-e. 3. Ih-po′-se-mä.
4. Ka-ka′-po-ya. 5. Mo-tă′-to-sis. 6. Kä-ti′-ya-ye-mix.
7. Kä-ta′-ge-mă-ne. 8. E-ko′-to-pis-taxe.

[178]

I. Wolf. Took′-seat.

1. Mä-an′-greet, Big Feet. 7. Pun-ar′-you, Dog standing by Fireside.
2. Wee-sow-het′-ko, Yellow Tree. 8. Kwin-eek′-cha, Long Body.
3. Pä-sa-kun-ă′-mon, Pulling Corn. 9. Moon-har-tar′-ne, Digging.
4. We-yar-nih′-kä-to, Care Enterer. 10. Non-har′-min, Pulling up Stream.
5. Toosh-war-ka′-ma, Across the River. 11. Long-ush-har-kar′-to, Brush Log.
6. O-lum′-a-ne, Vermilion. 12. Maw-soo-toh′, Bringing Along.

II. Turtle. Poke-koo-un′-go.

1. O-ka-ho′-ki, Ruler. 6. Toosh-ki-pa-kwis-i, Green Leaves.
2. Ta-ko-ong′-o-to, High Bank Shore. 7. Tung-ul-ung′-si, Smallest Turtle.
3. See-har-ong′-o-to, Drawing down Hill. 8. We-lun-ŭng-si, Little Turtle.
4. Ole-har-kar-me′-kar-to, Elector. 9. Lee-kwin-ă-i′, Snapping Turtle.
5. Mä-har-o-luk′-ti, Brave. 10. Kwis-aese-kees′-to, Deer.

The two remaining sub-gentes are extinct.

III. Turkey. Pul-la′-ook.

1. Mo-har-ä′-lä, Big Bird. 7. Tong-o-nä′-o-to, Drift Log.
2. Le-le-wa′-you, Bird’s Cry. 8. Nool-ă-mar-lar′-mo, Living in Water.
3. Moo-kwung-wa-ho′-ki, Eye Pain. 9. Muh-krent-har′-ne, Root Digger.
4. Moo-har-mo-wi-kar′-nu, Scratch the Path. 10. Muh-karm-huk-se, Red Face.
5. O-ping-ho′-ki, Opossum Ground. 11. Koo-wä-ho′-ke, Pine Region.
6. Muh-ho-we-kä′-ken, Old Shin. 12. Oo-chuk′-ham, Ground Scratcher.

[179]

I. Took-se-tuk′.

1. Ne-ḣ′-jä-o. 2. Mä′-kwä. 3. N-de-yä′-o. 4. Wä-pa-kwe′.

II. Tone-ba′-o.

1. Gak-po-mute′. 2. ——. 3. Tone-bä′-o. 4. We-saw-mä′-un.

III. Turkey.

1. Nä-ah-mä′-o. 2. Gä-ḣ′-ko. 3. ——.

[180] In _Systems of Consanguinity_, the aboriginal names of the principal Indian tribes, with their significations, may be found.

[181]

1. Mals′-sŭm. 2. Pis-suh′. 3. Ah-weḣ′-soos.
4. Skooke. 5. Ah-lunk′-soo. 6. Ta-mä′-kwa.
7. Mä-guḣ-le-loo′. 8. Kä-bäḣ′-seh. 9. Moos-kwă-suh′.
10. K′-che-gä-gong′-go. 11. Meḣ-ko-ă′. 12. Che-gwä′-lis.
13. Koos-koo′. 14. Mä-dä′-weh-soos.

[182] Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., ii, Intro., cxlix.

[183] _Alaska and its Resources_, p. 414.

[184] _Native Races of the Pacific States_, i, 109.

[185] The Shawnees formerly worshiped a Female Deity, called Go-gome-tha-mä′, “Our Grand-Mother.”

[186] _Schoolcraft’s Hist., etc., of Indian Tribes_, iv, 86.

[187] _Address_, p. 12.

[188] _General History of America_, Lond. ed., 1726. Stevens’ Trans., iii, 299.

[189] _Ib._, iv, 171.

[190] _Ib._, iii, 203.

[191] _Ib._, iv, 33.

[192] _General History of America_, iv, 171.

[193] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 287.

[194] _Gen. Hist. of Amer._, iv, 231.

[195] _Early History of Mankind_, p. 287.

[196] _Indian Tribes of Guiana_, p. 98; cited by Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 98.

[197] The histories of Spanish America may be trusted in whatever relates to the acts of the Spaniards, and to the acts and personal characteristics of the Indians; in whatever relates to their weapons, implements and utensils, fabrics, food and raiment, and things of a similar character. But in whatever relates to Indian society and government, their social relations, and plan of life, they are nearly worthless, because they learned nothing and knew nothing of either. We are at full liberty to reject them in these respects and commence anew; using any facts they may contain which harmonize with what is known of Indian society.

[198] _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_, Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s Trans., pp. 497-504.

[199] _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_, p. 499.

[200] _General History of America_, Lond. ed., 1725, Stevens’ Trans., iii, 188.

[201] _History of Mexico_, Philadelphia ed., 1817, Cullen’s Trans., i, 119.

[202] Herrera, _Hist. of Amer._, iii, 110.

[203] _History of Mexico, loc. cit._, i, 162.

[204] Clavigero, _Hist. of Mex._, i, 229: Herrera, iii, 312: Prescott, _Conq. of Mex._, i, 18.

[205] The Aztecs, like the Northern Indians, neither exchanged or released prisoners. Among the latter the stake was the doom of the captive unless saved by adoption; but among the former, under the teachings of the priesthood, the unfortunate captive was offered as a sacrifice to the principal god they worshiped. To utilize the life of the prisoner in the service of the gods, a life forfeited by the immemorial usages of savages and barbarians, was the high conception of the first hierarchy in the order of institutions. An organized priesthood first appeared among the American aborigines in the Middle Status of barbarism; and it stands connected with the invention of idols and human sacrifices, as a means of acquiring authority over mankind through the religious sentiments. It probably has a similar history in the principal tribes of mankind. Three successive usages with respect to captives appeared in the three sub-periods of barbarism. In the first he was burned at the stake, in the second he was sacrificed to the gods, and in the third he was made a slave. All alike they proceeded upon the principle that the life of the prisoner was forfeited to his captor. This principle became so deeply seated in the human mind that civilization and Christianity combined were required for its displacement.

[206] There is some difference in the estimates of the population of Mexico found in the Spanish histories; but several of them concurred in the number of houses, which, strange to say, is placed at _sixty thousand_. Zuazo, who visited Mexico in 1521, wrote _sixty thousand inhabitants_ (Prescott, _Conq. of Mex._, ii, 112, _note_); the Anonymous Conqueror, who accompanied Cortes also wrote _sixty thousand inhabitants_, “soixante mille habitans” (_H. Ternaux-Compans_, x, 92); but Gomora and Martyr wrote _sixty thousand houses_, and this estimate has been adopted by Clavigero (_Hist. of Mex._, ii, 360), by Herrera (_Hist. of Amer._, ii, 360), and by Prescott (_Conq. of Mex._, ii, 112). Solis says _sixty thousand families_ (_Hist. Conq. of Mex., l. c._, i, 393). This estimate would give a population of 300,000, although London at that time contained but 145,000 inhabitants (Black’s _London_, p. 5). Finally, Torquemada, cited by Clavigero (ii, 360, _note_), boldly writes one hundred and twenty thousand houses. There can scarcely be a doubt that the houses in this pueblo were in general large communal, or joint-tenement houses, like those in New Mexico of the same period, large enough to accommodate from ten to fifty and a hundred families in each. At either number the mistake is egregious. Zuazo and the Anonymous Conqueror came the nearest to a respectable estimate, because they did not much more than double the probable number.

[207] _League of the Iroquois_, p. 78.

[208] Herrera, iii, 194, 209.

[209] Herrera, ii, 279, 304: Clavigero, i, 146.

[210] Clavigero, i, 147; The four war-chiefs were _ex officio_ members of the Council. _Ib._, ii, 137.

[211] Herrera, ii, 310.

[212] Herrera, iii, 194.

[213] _Cronica Mexicana_, De Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc, ch. li, p. 83, Kingsborough, v, ix.

[214] _History of Mexico_, ii, 141.

[215] _History of America_, iii, 314. The above is a retranslation by Mr. Bandelier from the Spanish text.

[216] _Popol Vuh_, Intro. p. 117, _note_ 2.

[217] _History of the Indies of New Spain and Islands of the Main Land_, Mexico, 1867. Ed. by Jose F. Ramirez, p. 102. Published from the original MS. Translated by Mr. Bandelier.

[218] _The Natural and Moral History of the East and West Indies_, Lond. ed., 1604, Grimstone’s Trans., p. 485.

[219] _History of America_, iii, 224.

[220] _Cronica Mexicana_, cap. xcvii, Bandelier’s Trans.

[221] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chichimeca_, Kingsborough, _Mex. Antiq._ ix, p. 243.

[222] _History of Mexico_, ii, 132.

[223] “The title of _Teuctli_ was added in the manner of a surname to the proper name of the person advanced to this dignity, as _Chichimeca-Teuctli_, _Pil-Teuctli_, and others. The _Teuctli_ took precedency of all others in the senate, both in the order of sitting and voting, and were permitted to have a servant behind them with a seat, which was esteemed a privilege of the highest honor.”—Clavigero, ii, 137. This is a re-appearance of the sub-sachem of the Iroquois behind his principal.

[224] _Historia Chichimeca_, ch. xxxii, Kingsborough: _Mex. Antiq._, ix, 219.

[225] _History of Mexico, l. c._, ii, 136.

[226] Clavigero, ii, 126.

[227] _Historia General_, ch. xviii.

[228] In the West India Islands the Spaniards discovered that when they captured the cacique of a tribe and held him a prisoner, the Indians became demoralized and refused to fight. Taking advantage of this knowledge when they reached the main-land they made it a point to entrap the principal chief, by force or fraud, and hold him a prisoner until their object was gained. Cortes simply acted upon this experience when he captured Montezuma and held him a prisoner in his quarters; and Pizarro did the same when he seized Atahuallpa. Under Indian customs the prisoner was put to death, and if a principal chief, the office reverted to the tribe and was at once filled. But in these cases the prisoner remained alive, and in possession of his office, so that it could not be filled. The action of the people was paralyzed by novel circumstances. Cortes put the Aztecs in this position.

[229] _History of Mexico_, iii, 66.

[230] _Ib._, iii, 67.

[231] Clavigero, ii, 406

[232] _Ib._, ii, 404.

[233] Herrera, iii, 393.

[234] The phratries were not common to the Dorian tribes.—Müller’s _Dorians_, Tufnel and Law’s Trans., Oxford ed., ii, 82.

[235] Hermann mentions the confederacies of Ægina, Athens, Prasia, Nauplia, etc.—_Political Antiquities of Greece_, Oxford Trans., ch. i, s. 11.

[236] “In the ancient _Rhetra_ of Lycurgus, the tribes and obês are directed to be maintained unaltered: but the statement of O. Müller and Boeckh—that there were thirty obês in all, ten to each tribe,—rests upon no higher evidence than a peculiar punctuation in this Rhetra, which various other critics reject; and seemingly with good reason. We are thus left without any information respecting the obê, though we know that it was an old peculiar and lasting division among the Spartan people.”—Grote’s _History of Greece_, Murray’s ed., ii, 362. But see Müller’s _Dorians_, _l. c._, ii, 80.

[237]

καίτοι τίς ἔστιν ὅστις ἂν εἰς τὰ πατρῷα μνήματα τοὺς μηδὲν ἐν γένει τιθέντας ἐάσαι.

—Demosthenes, _Eubulides_, 1307.

[238] _History of Greece_, iii, 53, _et seq._

[239] _History of Greece_, iii, 60.

[240] Diogenes Laertius, _Vit. Aristotle_, v, 1.

[241] _Political Antiquities of the Greeks_, c. v, s. 100; and vide _Eubulides_ of Demosthenes, 24.

[242] _Historical Antiquities of the Greeks_, Woolrych’s Trans., Oxford ed., 1837, i, 451.

[243] _Political Antiquities_, _l. c._, cap. v, s. 100.

[244] _Charicles_, Metcalfe’s Trans., Lond. ed., 1866, p. 477; citing _Isaeus de Cir. her._ 217: _Demosthenes adv. Ebul._, 1304: _Plutarch_, _Themist._, 32: _Pausanias_, i, 7, 1: _Achill. Tat._, i, 3.

[245] Hermann, _l. c._, v, s. 100 and 101.

[246] _History of Greece_, iii, 55.

[247] “We find the Asklepiadæ in many parts of Greece—the Aleuadæ in Thessaly—the Midylidæ, Psalychidæ, Belpsiadæ, Euxenidæ, at Aegina—the Branchidæ at Miletus—the Nebridæ at Kôs—the Iamidæ and Klytiadæ at Olympia—the Akestoridæ at Argos—the Kinyradæ at Cyprus—the Penthilidæ at Mitylene—the Talthybiadæ at Sparta—not less than the Kodridæ, Eumolpidæ, Phytalidæ, Lykomêdæ, Butadæ, Euneidæ, Hesychidæ, Brytiadæ, etc., in Attica. To each of these corresponded a mythical ancestor more or less known, and passing for the first father as well as the eponymous hero of the gens—Kodrus, Eumolpus, Butes, Phytalus, Hesychus, etc.”—Grote’s _Hist. of Greece_, iii, 62.

[248] _History of Greece_, iii, 62, _et seq._

[249] _Hist. of Greece_, iii, 58, _et seq._

[250] _History of Greece_, iii, 58.

[251] Wachsmuth’s _Historical Antiquities of the Greeks, l. c._, i, 449, app. for text.

[252] _Iliad_, ii, 362.

[253] Tacitus, _Germania_, cap. vii.

[254] Grote’s _History of Greece_, iii, 55. The Court of Areopagus took jurisdiction over homicides.—_Ib._, iii, 79.

[255] Ποία δε χέρνιψ] φρατέρων προσδέξεται—_Eum._, 656.

[256] _The Ancient City_, Small’s Trans., p. 157. Boston, Lee & Shepard.

[257] Aristotle, Thucydides, and other writers, use the term basileia (βασιλεία) for the governments of the heroic period.

[258]

Ἑλληνικὸν δὲ ἄρα καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔθος ἦν. τοῖς γοῦν βασιλεῦσιν, ὅσοι τε πατρίους ἀρχὰς παραλάβοιεν καὶ ὅσους ἡ πληθὺς ἀυτὴ καταστήσαιτο ἡγεμόνας, βουλευτήριον ἦν ἐκ τῶν κρατίστων, ὡς Ὅμηρός τε καὶ οἱ παλαιότατοι τῶν ποιητῶν μαρτυροῦσι· καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνοις αὐθάδεις καὶ μονογνώμονες ἦσαν αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων βασιλέων δυναστεῖαι.—_Dionysius_, 2, xii.

[259]

δοκοῦντα καὶ δόξαντ' ἀπαγγέλλειν με χρὴ
δήμου προβούλοις τῆσδε Καδμείας πόλεως·
Ἐτεοκλέα μὲν τόνδ' ἐπ' εὐνοίᾳ χθονὸς
θάπτειν ἔδοξε γῆς φίλαις κατασκαφαῖς.

—Aeschylus, _The Seven against Thebes_, 1005.

[260] Euripides, _Orestes_, 884.

[261]

Πανδημίᾳ γὰρ χερσὶ δεξιωνύμοις
ἔφριξεν αἰθὴρ τόνδε κραινόντων λόγον.

—Aeschylus, _The Suppliants_, 607.

[262] _History of Greece_, ii, 69.

[263] _History of Greece_, ii, 69, and _Iliad_, ii, 204.

[264] Mr. Gladstone, who presents to his readers the Grecian chiefs of the heroic age as kings and princes, with the superadded qualities of gentlemen, is forced to admit that “on the whole we seem to have the custom or law of primogeniture sufficiently, but not oversharply defined.”—_Juventus Mundi_, Little & Brown’s ed., p. 428.

[265]

Οὐ μέν πως πάντες βασιλεύσομεν ἐνθάδ' Ἀχαιοί.
οὐκ for ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη· εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω,
εἷς βασιλεύς, ᾧ ἔδωκε Κρόνου παῖςἀγκυλομήτεω.
[σκῆπτρόν τ' ἠδὲ θέμιστας, ἵνα σφίσι βασιλεύῃ.]

—_Iliad_, ii, 203.

The words in brackets are not found in several MS., for example, in the commentary of Eustasius.

[266] Smith’s _Dic., Art. Rex_, p. 991.

[267] _Thucydides_, i, 13.

[268]

βασιλείας μὲν οὖν εἴδη ταῦτα τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμὸν, μία μὲν ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωϊκοὺς χρόνους· αὕτη δ' ἦν ἑκόντων μέν, ἐπὶ τισὶ δ' ὡρισμένων· στρατηγὸς γὰρ ἦν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ τῶν πρὸς θεοὺς κύριος. Δευτέρα δὲ ἡ βαρβαρικὴ αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν ἐκ γένους ἀρχὴ δεσποτικὴ κατὰ νόμον. Τρίτη δὲ ἣν αἰσυμνητίαν προσαγορεύουσιν· αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν αἱρετὴ τυραννίς. Τετάρτη δ' ἡ Λακωνικὴ τούτων· αὕτη δ' ἐστὶν, ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁπλῶς, στρατηγία κατὰ γένος ἀΐδιος.—Aristotle, _Politics_, iii, c. x.

[269] _History of Greece_, ii, 61, and see 69.

[270] _Thucydides_, lib. i, 2-13.

[271] _Thucyd._, lib. ii, c. 15. Plutarch speaks nearly to the same effect: “He settled all the inhabitants of Attica in Athens, and made them one people in one city, who before were scattered up and down, and could with difficulty be assembled on any urgent occasion for the public welfare.... Dissolving therefore the associations, the councils, and the courts in each particular town, he built one common prytaneum and court hall, where it stands to this day. The citadel with its dependencies, and the city or the old and new town, he united under the common name of Athens.”—Plutarch, _Vit. Theseus_, cap. 24.

[272] “Of the nine archons, whose number continued unaltered from 683 B. C. to the end of the democracy, three bore special titles—the Archon Eponymus, from whose name the designation of the year was derived, and who was spoken of as _the Archon_, the Archon Basileus (King), or more frequently, the Basileus; and the Polemarch. The remaining six passed by the general name of Thesmothetæ.... The Archon Eponymus determined all disputes relative to the family, the gentile, and the phratric relations: he was the legal protector of orphans and widows. The Archon Basileus (or King Archon) enjoyed competence in complaints respecting offenses against the religious sentiment and respecting homicide. The Polemarch (speaking of times anterior to Kleisthenês) was the leader of military force, and judge in disputes between citizens and non-citizens.”—Grote’s _History of Greece, l. c._, iii, 74.

[273] _Public Economy of Athens_, Lamb’s Trans., Little & Brown’s ed., p. 353.

[274] _History of Greece_, iii, 65.

[275] _History of Greece_, iii, 133.

[276] The Latin _tribus_ = tribe, signified originally “a third part,” and was used to designate a third part of the people when composed of three tribes; but in course of time, after the Latin tribes were made local instead of consanguine, like the Athenian local tribes, the term tribe lost its numerical quality, and came, like the phylon of Cleisthenes to be a local designation.—_Vide_ Mommsen’s _Hist. of Rome, l. c._, i, 71.

[277] _Anglo Saxon Law_, by Henry Adams and others, pp. 20, 23.

[278] See particularly the Orations against Eubulides, and Marcatus.

[279] Hermann’s _Political Antiquities of Greece, l. c._, p. 187, s. 96.

[280] “The primitive Grecian government is essentially monarchical, reposing on personal feeling and divine right.”—_History of Greece_, ii, 69.

[281] Sparta retained the office of basileus in the period of civilization. It was a dual generalship, and hereditary in a particular family. The powers of government were co-ordinated between the Gerousia or council, the popular assembly, the five ephors, and two military commanders. The ephors were elected annually, with powers analogous to the Roman tribunes. Royalty at Sparta needs qualification. The basileis commanded the army, and in their capacity of chief priests offered the sacrifices to the gods.

[282] “During the period when the Indo-Germanic nations which are now separated still formed one stock speaking the same language, they attained a certain stage of culture, and they had a vocabulary corresponding to it. This vocabulary the several nations carried along with them, in its conventionally established use, as a common dowry and a foundation for further structures of their own.... In this way we possess evidence of the development of pastoral life at that remote epoch in the unalterably fixed names of domestic animals; the Sanskrit _gâus_ is the Latin _bos_, the Greek βοῦς; Sanskrit _avis_, is the Latin _ovis_, the Greek ὄϊς; Sanskrit _açvas_, Latin _equus_, Greek ἵππος; Sanskrit _hañsas_, Latin _anser_, Greek χήν; ... on the other hand, we have as yet no certain proofs of the existence of agriculture at this period. Language rather favors the negative view.”—Mommsen’s _History of Rome_, Dickson’s Trans., Scribner’s ed., 1871, i, 37. In a note he remarks that “barley, wheat, and spelt were found growing together in a wild state on the right bank of the Euphrates, northwest from Anah. The growth of barley and wheat in a wild state in Mesopotamia had already been mentioned by the Babylonian historian, Berosus.”

Fick remarks upon the same subject as follows: “While pasturage evidently formed the foundation of primitive social life we can find in it but very slight beginnings of agriculture. They were acquainted to be sure with a few of the grains, but the cultivation of these was carried on very incidentally in order to gain a supply of milk and flesh. The material existence of the people rested in no way upon agriculture. This becomes entirely clear from the small number of primitive words which have reference to agriculture. These words are _yava_, wild fruit, _varka_, hoe, or plow, _rava_, sickle, together with _pio_, _pinsere_ [to bake] and _mak_, Gk. μάσσω, which give indications of threshing out and grinding of grain.”—Fick’s _Primitive Unity of Indo-European Languages_, Göttingen, 1873, p. 280. See also _Chips From a German Workshop_, ii, 42.

With reference to the possession of agriculture by the Graeco-Italic people, see Mommsen, i, p. 47, _et seq._

[283] The use of the word Romulus, and of the names of his successors, does not involve the adoption of the ancient Roman traditions. These names personify the great movements which then took place with which we are chiefly concerned.

[284] _History of Rome, l. c._, i, 241, 245.

[285] Qui sint autem gentiles, primo commentario rettulimus; et cum illic admonuerimus, totum gentilicium jus in desuetudinem abisse, superuacuum est, hoc quoque loco de ea re curiosius tractare.—_Inst._, iii, 17.

[286] Gentiles sunt, qui inter se eodem nomine sunt. Non est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non sunt deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam, Pontificem, ad hanc definitionem addidisse.—_Cicero, Topica_ 6.

[287] Gentilis dicitur et ex eodem genere ortus, et is qui simili nomine appellatur.—Quoted in Smith’s _Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Article, Gens_.

[288] The following is the text extended: Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt agnationes ac gentilitates, sic in verbis; ut enim ab Aemilio homines orti Aemilii, ac gentiles; sic ab Aemilii nomine declinatae voces in gentilitate nominali; ab eo enim, quod est impositum recto casu Aemilius, Aemilium, Aemilios, Aemiliorum; et sic reliqua, ejusdem quae sunt stirpes.—Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, lib. viii, cap. 4.

[289] Quid enim in re est aliud, si plebeiam patricius duxerit, si patriciam plebeius? Quid juris tandem mutatur? nempe patrem sequuntur liberi.—_Livy_, lib. iv, cap. 4.

[290] “When there was only one daughter in a family, she used to be called from the name of the gens; thus, Tullia, the daughter of Cicero, Julia, the daughter of Caesar; Octavia, the sister of Augustus, etc.; and they retained the same name after they were married. When there were two daughters, the one was called Major and the other Minor. If there were more than two, they were distinguished by their number: thus, Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, etc.; or more softly, Tertulla, Quartilla, Quintilla, etc.... During the flourishing state of the republic, the names of the gentes, and surnames of the familiæ, always remained fixed and certain. They were common to all the children of the family, and descended to their posterity. But after the subversion of liberty they were changed and confounded.”—Adams’s _Roman Antiquities_, Glasgow ed., 1825, p. 27.

[291] Suetonius, _Vit. Octavianus_, c. 3 and 4.

[292] Gaius, _Institutes_, lib. iii, 1 and 2. The wife was a co-heiress with the children.

[293] _Ib._, lib. iii, 9.

[294] Gaius, _Inst._, lib. iii, 17.

[295] A singular question arose between the Marcelli and Claudii, two families of the Claudian gens, with respect to the estate of the son of a freedman of the Marcelli; the former claiming by right of family, and the latter by right of gens. The law of the Twelve Tables gave the estate of a freedman to his former master, who by the act of manumission became his patron, provided he died intestate, and without _sui heredes_; but it did not reach the case of the son of a freedman. The fact that the Claudii were a patrician family, and the Marcelli were not, could not affect the question. The freedman did not acquire gentile rights in his master’s gens by his manumission, although he was allowed to adopt the gentile name of his patron; as Cicero’s freedman, Tyro, was called M. Tullius Tyro. It is not known how the case, which is mentioned by Cicero (_De Oratore_, i, 39), and commented upon by Long (Smith’s _Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Art. Gens_), and Niebuhr, was decided; but the latter suggests that it was probably against the Claudii (_Hist. of Rome_, i, 245, _note_). It is difficult to discover how any claim whatever could be urged by the Claudii; or any by the Marcelli, except through an extension of the patronal right by judicial construction. It is a noteworthy case, because it shows how strongly the mutual rights with respect to the inheritance of property were intrenched in the gens.

[296] _History of Rome_, i, 242

[297] Patricia gens Claudia ... agrum insuper trans Anienem clientibus locumque sibi ad sepulturam sub capitolio, publice accepit.—Suet., _Vit. Tiberius_, cap. 1.

[298] Vari corpus semiustum hostilis laceraverat feritas; caput ejus abscisum, latumque ad Maroboduum, et ab eo missum ad Caesarem, gentilitii tumuli sepultura honoratum est.—_Velleius Paterculus_, ii, 119.

[299] Iam tanta religio est sepulcrorum, ut extra sacra et gentem inferi fas negent esse; idque apud majores nostros A. Torquatus in gente Popilia judicavit.—_De Leg._, ii, 22.

[300] Cicero, _De Leg._, ii, 23.

[301] “There were certain sacred rites (_sacra gentilicia_) which belonged to a gens, to the observance of which all the members of a gens, as such, were bound, whether they were members by birth, adoption or adrogation. A person was freed from the observance of such _sacra_, and lost the privileges connected with his gentile rights when he lost his gens.”—Smith’s _Dic. Antiq., Gens_.

[302] Cicero, _Pro Domo_, c. 13.

[303] _History of Rome_, i, 241.

[304] Cicero, _De Leg._, ii, 23.

[305] _Dionysius_, ii, 22.

[306] _Ib._, ii, 21.

[307] Niebuhr’s _History of Rome_, i, 241.

[308] Bina jugera quod a Romulo primum diuisa [dicebantur] viritim, quae [quod] haeredem sequerentur, haeredium appellarunt.—Varro, _De Re Rustica_, lib. i, cap. 10.

[309] _History of Rome_, i, 62. He names the Camillii, Galerii, Lemonii, Pollii, Pupinii, Voltinii, Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Horatii, Menenii, Papirii, Romilii, Sergii, Veturii.—_Ib._, p. 63.

[310] _History of Rome_, i, 63.

[311] “A fixed local centre was quite as necessary in the case of such a canton as in that of a clanship; but as the members of the clan, or, in other words, the constituent elements of the canton, dwelt in villages, the centre of the canton cannot have been a town or place of joint settlement in the strict sense. It must, on the contrary, have been simply a place of common assembly, containing the seat of justice and the common sanctuary of the canton, where the members of the canton met every eighth day for purposes of intercourse and amusement, and where, in case of war, they obtained a safer shelter for themselves and their cattle than in the villages; in ordinary circumstances this place of meeting was not at all or but scantily inhabited.... These cantons accordingly, having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive political unities with which Italian history begins.... All of these cantons were in primitive times politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship based on community of descent and of language not only pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an important religious and political institution—the perpetual league of the collective Latin cantons.”—_Hist. of Rome_, i, 64-66. The statement that the canton or tribe was governed by its prince with the co-operation of the council, etc., is a reversal of the correct statement, and therefore misleading. We must suppose that the military commander held an elective office, and that he was deposable at the pleasure of the constituency who elected him. Further than this, there is no ground for assuming that he possessed any civil functions. It is a reasonable, if not a necessary conclusion, therefore, that the tribe was governed by a council composed of the chiefs of the gentes, and by an assembly of the warriors, with the co-operation of a general military commander, whose functions were exclusively military. It was a government of three powers, common in the Upper Status of barbarism, and identified with institutions essentially democratical.

[312] Ap. Claudio in vinculo ducto, C. Claudius inimicum Claudiamque omnem gentem sordidatum fuisse.—_Livy_, vi, 20.

[313] _History of Rome_, i, 242.

[314] Responsum tulisse, se collecturos, quanti damnatus esset, absolvere eum non posse.—_Liv._, v, 32.

[315] _History of Rome_, i, 242: citing _Dionysius_, ii, 10: (ἔδει τοὺς πελάτας) τῶν ἀναλωμάτων ὡς τοὺς γένει προσήκοντας μετέχειν.

[316] _History of Rome_, i, 240.

[317] “Nevertheless, affinity in blood always appeared to the Romans to lie at the root of the connection between the members of the clan, and still more between those of a family; and the Roman community can only have interfered with these groups to a limited extent consistent with the retention of their fundamental character of affinity.”—Mommsen’s _History of Rome_, i, 103.

[318] It is a curious fact that Cleisthenes of Argos changed the names of the three Dorian tribes of Sicyon, one to Hyatæ, signifying in the singular _a boar_; another to Oneatæ, signifying _an ass_, and a third to Choereatæ, signifying _a little pig_. They were intended as an insult to the Sicyonians; but they remained during his life-time, and for sixty years afterwards. Did the idea of these animal names come down through tradition?—See Grote’s _History of Greece_, iii, 33, 36.

[319] Peregrinae conditionis homines vetuit usurpare Romana nomina, duntaxat gentilicia.—Sueton., _Vit. Claudius_, cap. 25.

[320] Cicero, _Pro Domo_, cap. 13.

[321] _Livy_, xxv, 5.

[322] Smith’s _Dic., Art. Pontifex_.

[323] _History of Rome_, i, 66.

[324] _Ib._, i, 258.

[325] _Livy_, ii, 48.

[326] _Ib._, ii, 49.

[327] Trecentos sex perisse satis convenit: unum prope pubescem aetate relictum stirpem gente Fabiae, dubiisque rebus populi Romani sepe domi bellique vel maximum futurum auxilium.—_Livy_, ii, 50; and see Ovid, _Fasti_, ii, 193.

[328] Itaque, quum populum in curias triginta divideret, nomina earum curiis imposuit.—_Livy_, i, 13.

[329] φράτρα δὲ καὶ λόχος ἡ κουρία.—Dionys., _Antiq. of Rome_, ii, 7.

[330]

διῄρηντο δὲ καὶ εἰς δεκάδας αἱ φρᾶτραι πρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμὼν ἑκάστην ἐκόσμει δεκάδαρχος κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον γλῶτταν προσαγορευόμενος.—_Dionys._, ii, 7.

[331]

Ἑκάστη δὲ φυλὴ δέκα φρατρίας εἶχεν, ἃς ἔνιοι λέγουσιν ἐπωνύμους εἶναι ἐκείνων τῶν γυναικῶν.

—Plutarch, _Vit. Romulus_, cap. 20.

[332] Whether Niebuhr used the word “house” in the place of gens, or it is a conceit of the translators, I am unable to state. Thirlwall, one of the translators, applies this term frequently to the Grecian gens, which at best is objectionable.

[333] _History of Rome_, i, 244.

[334] Dionysius has given a definite and circumstantial analysis of the organization ascribed to Romulus, although a portion of it seems to belong to a later period. It is interesting from the parallel he runs between the gentile institutions of the Greeks, with which he was equally familiar, and those of the Romans. In the first place, he remarks, I will speak of the order of his polity which I consider the most sufficient of all political arrangements in peace, and also in time of war. It was as follows: After dividing the whole multitude into three divisions, he appointed the most prominent man as a leader over each of the divisions; in the next place dividing each of the three again into ten, he appointed the bravest men leaders, having equal rank; and he called the greater divisions tribes, and the less curiæ, as they are also still called according to usage. And these names interpreted in the Greek tongue would be the _tribus_, a third part, a phylê (φυλὴ); the _curia_, a phratry (φράτρα), and also a band (λόχος); and those men who exercised the leadership of the tribes were both phylarchs (φύλαρχοι) and trittyarchs (τριττύαρχοι), whom the Romans call tribunes; and those who had the command of the curiæ both phratriarchs (φρατρίαρχοι) and lochagoi (λοχαγοὶ), whom they call curiones. And the phratries were also divided into decades, and a leader called in common parlance a decadarch (δεκάδαρχος) had command of each. And when all had been arranged into tribes and phratries, he divided the land into thirty equal shares, and gave one full share to each phratry, selecting a sufficient portion for religious festivals and temples, and leaving a certain piece of ground for common use.—_Antiq. of Rome_, ii, 7.

[335] _Dionysius_, ii, 7.

[336] Smith’s _Dic., l. c., Art. Tribune_.

[337] _Dionysius_, ii, 7.

[338] The thirty curiones, as a body, were organized into a college of priests, one of their number holding the office of _curio maximus_. He was elected by the assembly of the gentes. Besides this was the college of augurs, consisting under the Ogulnian law (300 B. C.) of nine members, including their chief officer (_magister collegii_); and the college of pontiffs, composed under the same law of nine members, including the _pontifex maximus_.

[339] _Livy_, i, 8.

[340] Eo ex finitimis populis turba omnis sine discrimine, liber an servus esset, avida novarum rerum perfugit; idque primum ad coeptam magnitudinem roboris fuit.—_Livy_, i, 8.

[341] _Vit. Romulus_, cap. 20.

[342] _Antiq. of Rome_, ii, 15.

[343] _Livy_, i, 30.

[344] _Ib._, i, 33.

[345] _Livy_, i, 38.

[346] In the pueblo houses in New Mexico all the occupants of each house belonged to the same tribe, and in some cases a single joint-tenement house contained a tribe. In the pueblo of Mexico there were four principal quarters, as has been shown, each occupied by a lineage, probably a phratry; while the Tlatelulcos occupied a fifth district. At Tlascala there were also four quarters occupied by four lineages, probably phratries.

[347] _History of Rome_, i, 258.

[348] Centum creat senatores: sive quia is numerus satis erat; sive quia soli centum erant, qui creari Patres possent, Patres certe ab honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati.—_Liv._, i, 8. And Cicero: Principes, qui appellati sunt propter caritatem, patres.—_De Rep._, ii, 8.

[349] _Dionysius_, ii, 47.

[350] Nec minus regni sui firmandi, quam augendae republicae, memor, centum in Patres legit; qui deinde minorum gentium sunt appellati: factio haud dubia regis, cuius beneficio in curiam venerant.—_Liv._, i, 35.

[351] Isque [Tarquinius] ut de suo imperio legem tulit, principio duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum; et antiquos patres maiorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se adscitos, minorum.—Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 20.

[352] Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 20.

[353] This was substantially the opinion of Niebuhr. “We may go further and affirm without hesitation, that originally, when the number of houses [gentes] was complete, they were represented immediately by the senate, the number of which was proportionate to theirs. The three hundred senators answered to the three hundred houses, which was assumed above on good grounds to be the number of them; each gens sent its decurion, who was its alderman and the president of its meetings to represent it in the senate.... That the senate should be appointed by the kings at their discretion, can never have been the original institution. Even Dionysius supposes that there was an election: his notion of it, however, is quite untenable, and the deputies must have been chosen, at least originally, by the houses and not by the curiæ.”—_Hist. of Rome_, i, 258. An election by the curiæ is, in principle, most probable, if the office did not fall to the chief _ex officio_, because the gentes in a curia had a direct interest in the representation of each gens. It was for the same reason that a sachem elected by the members of an Iroquois gens must be accepted by the other gentes of the same tribe before his nomination was complete.

[354] _Livy_, i, 43. _Dionys_., ii, 14; iv, 20, 84.

[355] Numa Pompilius (Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 11; _Liv._, i, 17), Tullus Hostilius (Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 17), and Ancus Martius (Cic., _De Rep._, ii, 18; _Livy_, i, 32) were elected by the _comitia curiata_. In the case of Tarquinius Priscus, Livy observes that the people by a great majority elected him _rex_ (i, 35). It was necessarily by the _comitia curiata_. Servius Tullius assumed the office which was afterwards confirmed by the _comitia_ (Cicero, _De Rep._, ii, 21). The right of election thus reserved to the people, shows that the office of _rex_ was a popular one, and that his powers were delegated.

[356] Mr. Leonhard Schmitz, one of the ablest defenders of the theory of kingly government among the Greeks and Romans, with great candor remarks: “It is very difficult to determine the extent of the king’s powers, as the ancient writers naturally judged of the kingly period by their own republican constitution, and frequently assigned to the king, the senate, and the _comitia_ of the _curia_ the respective powers and functions which were only true in reference to the consuls, the senate and the _comitia_ of their own time.”—Smith’s _Dic. Gk. & Rom. Antiq., Art. Rex._

[357] _Dionys._, ii, 12.

[358] _Dionysius_, iv, 1.

[359] Niebuhr says: “The existence of the plebs as acknowledgedly a free and very numerous portion of the nation, may be traced back to the reign of Ancus; but before the time of Servius it was only an aggregate of unconnected parts, not a united regular whole.”—_History of Rome_, _l. c._, i, 315.

[360] _History of Rome_, i, 315.

[361] “That the clients were total strangers to the plebeian commonalty and did not coalesce with it until late, when the bond of servitude had been loosened, partly from the houses of their patrons dying off or sinking into decay, partly from the advance of the whole nation toward freedom, will be proved in the sequel of this history.”—_History of Rome_, i, 315.

[362] _Dionysius_, ii, 8.

[363] Plutarch, _Vit. Rom._, xiii, 16.