property，totheexclusionofeverybodyelse，andtherightsof
theportionofthecommunityoutsidethefamilydwindletoaveto
onsales，ortoarightofcontrollingthemodesofcultivation。
Nevertheless，surveyingtheAryanworldasawhole，andlooking
tosocietiesinwhichsomefragmentsoftheancientsocial
organisationstillsurvive，wecandiscoverformsofsuccession
orpropertywhichcomesurprisinglyneartotheIrishGavelkind
describedbyDavis。Thebestexampleofthisoccursinapractice
whichexisteddowntoourowndayoveralargepartofRussia。
Theprinciplewasthateachhouseholdofthevillagewasentitled
toashareofthevillage-landsproportionedtothenumberof
adultmalesitcontained。Everydeath，therefore，ofagrown-up
mandiminishedprotantotheshareofthehousehold，andevery
memberofitgrowntomanhoodincreaseditslotinthecultivated
area。Therewasafixedunitofacreagecorrespondingtothe
extentofsoilcultivablebyoneman’slabour，andatthe
periodicaldivisioneachhouseholdobtainedjustasmuchlandas
answeredtoitsnumberofadultlabouringmen。Theprincipal
distinctionbetweenthissystemandthatwhichseemedso
monstrousandunnaturaltoSirJohnDavisis，thatunderthe
firstthere-divisiontookplace，notaseachdeathoccurred，but
atstatedintervals。Imustnot，indeed，beunderstoodtosay
thatIthinkthedistinctionunimportant。Itisverypossible
thatre-distributionsatdeathsofacommonfundmaymarkamore
advancedstageinthehistoryofPropertythanperiodical
redistribution，andthattherecognitionofinterestsforan
entirelifemayhaveprecededandpavedthewayforthefinal
allotmentofpermanentsharestoseparatehouseholds。Until，
however，thislastpointhasbeenreached，allthemodesof
re-divisionknowntousareplainlyreferabletothesame
principle。
Thedifficultysuggestedbytherecitalinthe’Caseof
Gavelkind’isthusnotadifficultyinbelievingitifitstood
byitself，orifitweremadewithlessgenerality。Butitis
distinctlystatedthatallthelandsinIrelandwhichdidnot
descendbytheruleofTanistrydescendedbytheruleof
Gavelkind。Theindicationsofthestateoflaworcustom
furnishedbytheBrehontractscertainlyseemtomeinconsistent
withthisassertion。Theyshowusproprietaryrightsdefinedwith
asharpnessandguardedwithajealousywhichishardto
reconcilewiththedegreeof’naturalcommunism’impliedinthe
languageofDavis’sReport。TheCorusBescna，ofwhichIsaid
somethingbefore，andwhichdealswithrightsovertriballands，
impliesthatundercertaincircumstancestheymightbe
permanentlyalienated，atalleventstotheChurch；andweshall
presentlyhavetodiscuss，someverysingularrulesof
succession，which，howevertheymayaffecttheFamily，certainly
seemtoexcludetheSept。DrSullivan，whoappearstohave
consultedmanymoreoriginalauthoritiesthanhavebeen
translatedorgiventotheworld，expresseshimselfasifhe
thoughtthatthegenerallawofsuccessioninIrelandwasnewly
analogoustotheGavelkindofKent。’AccordingtotheIrish
custom，propertydescendedatfirstonlytothemaleheirsofthe
body，eachsonreceivinganequalshare……Ultimately，however，
daughtersappeartohavebecomeentitledtoinheritall，ifthere
werenosons’Introd。，p。clxx。
Idonotexpectthattheapparentcontradictionbetweenthe
BrehontractsandthelanguageofDavisandhiscontemporaries
respectingtheIrishlawofsuccessiontolandwillbefully
accountedfortillthewholeoftheancientlegalliteratureis
beforetheworld；butmeanwhileitisaplausibleexplanationof
thediscrepancythattheIrishandtheEnglishwritersattended
todifferentsetsofphenomena。Icannotdoubtthattheso-called
IrishGavelkindwasfoundoveragreatpartofthecountry。The
statementsofEnglishauthoritiesonthepointareextremely
precise。Theyaffirmthat’nocivilhabitationswereerected，and
noenclosureorimprovementwasmadeoflandwhereGavelkindwas
inuse，’andtheysaythatthiswasespeciallythecasein
Ulster，’whichwasallonewilderness。’Neverthelessitis
extremelyprobablethatanothersetoffactsjustifiedthe
indicationsgivenbytheBrehontracts，andthattherewereother
modesofsuccessionknownbesidessuccessionbyTanistryonthe
onehand，andbesidesontheotherhandthepeculiarlyarchaic
systemunderwhicheachlapsedsharewasatoncedividedbetween
allthemembersoftheSept。Suchaninstitutionasthelast，
thoughexceptionalcircumstancesmaykeepitalive，contains
withinitselfaprincipleofdecay。Eachhouseholdincludedin
theJointFamilygainsafirmerholdonitsshareofthelandsas
thedistanceincreasesfromthecommonancestor；andfinally
appropriatesit，transmittingitexclusivelytooffshootsfrom
itsownbranch。Nothingismorelikelythanthattherewere
frequentexamplesofIrishseptswiththeirland-customsinthis
condition；anditisstillmoreprobablethatusagesofa
similarlymodernstampprevailedinestatespermanentlysevered
or’bookedoff’fromtribalpossessionorestablishedata
distancefromthemainseatofthetribe。Itistruethat，in
societybasedonkinship，eachfamilyseparatedfromtherest
tendsitselftoexpandintoajointfamilyorsept；butinthese
severedestatescustomwouldbeapttobeenfeebledandtoabate
somethingofitstyranny。Thus，puttingtheruleofTanistry
aside，IcanquiteconceivethattheIrishGavelkind，themodern
GavelkindknowntoKent，andmanyformsofsuccession
intermediatebetweenthetwo，co-existedinIreland。Boththe
EnglishandtheIrishauthoritiesonlawhadprejudicesoftheir
ownwhichmightleadthemtoconfinetheirattentionto
particularusages。TheBrehonwritersseemtomedistinctly
biassedinfavourofthedescentofpropertyinindividual
families，whichcommendeditselftothemaslawyers，asfriends
oftheChurch，anditmaybeaswell-wisherstotheircountry。
Ontheother，thestrangeancientformofownershipwhichhe
calledGavelkindwouldfascinatetheobservationofanEnglishman
residentinIreland。Hewouldassuredlyhavenoneofthe
curiosityaboutitwhichwefeelnowadays，butsurpriseand
dislikewouldfixhisattentionuponit，andperhapspreventhis
recognisingthecomparativelywidediffusionofinstitutionsof
theoppositetype。
Thisinterpretationoftheseemingcontradictionbetweenour
authoritiesisconsistentwiththeverylittleweknowrespecting
actualdivisionsoflandinancientIreland。Itconstantly
happenedbothinIrelandandtheScottishHighlandsthataChief，besidesthedomainwhichappertainedtohisoffice，hadagreat###第20章estateheldunderwhattheEnglishlawyersdeemedtheinferior
tenure。TherearetwocasesonrecordinwhichIrishChiefsof
considerabledignitydistributedsuchestatesamongtheir
kindred。InthefourteenthcenturyConnorMoreO’Brien，achief
whohadchildrenofhisown，isstatedtohavedividedhisland
onprincipleswhichmusthavemoreorlesscorrespondedtothose
condemnedbytheAnglo-IrishJudges。Thebulkoftheestatehe
assignedtothevariousfamiliesoftheSeptformedbyhisown
relatives。Tohimselfhereservedonlyone-sixthofone-halfof
one-third，andeventhissixthhedividedbetweenhisthreesons，
reservingonlyarenttohimself。Butattheendofthefifteenth
centuryDonoghO’Brien，sonofBrienDuff，sonofConnor，Kingof
Thomond，dividedallhislandsbetweenhiselevensons，reserving
tohimselfonlythemansionandthedemesneinitsvicinity。The
differencebetweenthetwocases，whichitisinstructiveto
observeareseparatedbyatleastacentury，appearstome
sufficientlyplain。Inthefirstthelandhadremainedinastate
ofindivisionduringseveralgenerations；inthesecondithad
beenperiodicallydivided。ConnorMoreO’Brienwasdistributing
theinheritanceofajointfamily；DonoghO’Brienthatofa
familyVallancey，’CollectaneadeRebusHibernicis，’i264，
Itisworthyofobservationthatinthemoreancientexample
ConnorMoreO’Brienappearstohavepaidregardtothevarious
stirpesorstocksintowhichthedescendantsoftheorIginal
founderofhisfamilyhadbranchedout。Theprinciplehefollowed
IsupposetobethesameasthatpointedoutbyDaviswhenhe
speaksofthechiefdividingalapsedsharebetweenthemembers
ofasept’accordingtotheirantiquity。’Theproceedingdeserves
tobenoted，asshowinganadvanceontheoldestknowntribal
customs。InthemostarchaicformsoftheJointFamily，andof
theinstitutionwhichgrewoutofit，theVillage-Community，
thesedistributionsarepercapita；noonepersonwhoisentitled
takesmorethananother，whetherthewholeestateoraportionis
divided，andnorespectispaidtotheparticularwayinwhicha
givenindividualhasdescendedfromthecommonancestor。Undera
moreadvancedsystemthedistributionisperstirpes；careful
attentionispaidtothelinesintowhichthedescendantsofthe
ancestorofthejoint-familyhaveseparated，andseparaterights
arereservedtothem。Finally，thestocksthemselvesescapefrom
thesortofshellconstitutedbytheJointFamily；eachman’s
shareoftheproperty，nowperiodicallydivided，isdistributed
amonghisdirectdescendantsathisdeath。Atthispoint，
propertyinitsmodernformhasbeenestablished；buttheJoint
Familyhasnotwhollyceasedtoinfluencesuccessions。When
directdescendantsfailitisevennowtherulesoftheJoint
Familywhichdeterminethetakingoftheinheritance。Collateral
successions，whentheyaredistant，followthemoreprimitive
formoftheoldinstitution，andarepercapita；whentheyare
thoseofthenearerkindredtheyareadjustedtoitsmoremodern
shape，andareperstirpes。
TheremarkhasfurthertobemadethatbothConnorO’Brien
andDonoghO’Briendividedtheirownlandamongtheirsonsor
kindredduringtheirownlifetime。LikeLaertesintheOdyssee
andlikeLearinthetragedyofShakespeare，theoldChief，in
thedecayofhisvigour，partswithhispowerandretainsbuta
fractionofthepropertyhehadadministered；andthepoorer
freemanbecomesoneofthose’senior’pensionersofthetribeso
oftenreferredtointhetracts。Preciselythesamepracticeis
recognised，andevenassomethinkenjoined，bythemore
archaicbodiesofHindoojurisprudence。Theprincipleisthatthe
rightofeachmemberofafamilyaccruesathisbirth；and，as
thefamilyhasintheoryaperpetualexistence，thereisno
particularreasonwhy，ifthepropertyisdividedatall，it
shouldbeexclusivelydividedatadeath。Thepowerof
distributinginheritancesvestedintheCelticchiefshasbeen
madethebasisofsomeverydoubtfultheories，butIhaveno
doubtitisessentiallythesameinstitutionasthehumble
privilegewhichisreservedtotheHindoofatherbythe
Mitakshara。Itispartoftheprerogativebelongingtothe
representativeofthepurestbloodinthejointfamily；butin
proportionattheJointFamily，Sept，orClanbecomesmore
artificial，thepowerofdistributiontendsmoreandmoretolook
likemereadministrativeauthority。
UndersomesystemsofHindoolaw，thefather，whenmakinga
distributionofpropertyduringhislifetime，isentitledto
retainadoubleshare，andbysomeIndiancustomstheeldestson，
whendividingthepatrimonywithhisbrothers，takestwiceat
muchastheothers。Thereareagoodmanytracesoftheusagein
thislastforminavarietyofcommunities。Itis，forinstance，
the’birthright’oftheHebrewpatriarchalhistory。Imentionit
particularlybecauseitseemstometobesometimesimproperly
confoundedwiththerightconferredbywhatwecalltheruleof
Primogeniture。Butthedoubleshareisrathergivenasthereward
orperhapsweshouldsaythesecurityforimpartial
distribution，andwefinditoftencoupledwiththerighttotake
exclusivelysuchthingsasaredeemedincapableofpartition，the
familyhouse，forinstance，andcertainutensils。Theproofthat
itisnotessentiallyaprivilegeoftheeldestson，wefindin
thecircumstancesthatitissometimesenjoyedbythefatherand
sometimesbytheyoungestofthesons，andinthiswayitis
connectedwithourowncustomofBoroughEnglish，ofwhichI
shallhavemoretosaypresently。Thereisadifferenceof
historicaloriginbetweenthiskindofprivilegedsuccessionand
thatwhichwecallPrimogeniture。Thefirstisdescendedfroma
customoftheTribe；thelast，towhichInowpass，seemstome
traceabletothespecialpositionoftheChief。
TheBrehontractsatpresenttranslateddonotaddmuchto
theknowledgewhichwepossessedoftheIrishcustoms
correspondingtotheusageofexclusivesuccessionbytheeldest
son；andPrimogenitureremainswhatIcalleditthirteenyears
ago’AncientLaw，’p。227，’oneofthemostdifficultproblems
ofhistoricaljurisprudence。’Thefirstofthedifficultieswhich
surrounditisthetotalabsence，beforeaparticularepochin
history，ofrecordedprecedentsforanysuchmodeofsuccession
toproperty。ItwasunknowntotheHellenicworld。Itwasunknown
totheRomanworld。ItwasunknowntotheJews，andapparentlyto
thewholeSemiticworld。Intherecordsofallthesesocieties
therearevestigesofgreatdifferencesbetweenthesuccessionof
malesandthesuccessionoffemales；buttherewasnothinglike
theexclusivesuccessionofasinglesontoproperty，although
thedescentofsovereigntiestotheeldestsonofthelast
reigningkingwasafamiliarfact，andthoughtheGreek
philosophershadconjecturedthat，inanearlierstateofsociety
thantheirs，thesmallergroupsofmen——familiesandvillages