the hero again departs on a new foray, and returns this time bringing a most beautiful damsel whom he presents to his father to wed.

We regret that time will not allow us to follow Prof. Kovalefsky in his remarks on the growth of individualization and partition of family property, illustrated as these are by references to the customs of Hindus and Celts, as well as the Southern Slavs and inhabitants of Great Russia. Ossete law knew no exceptions to the rule that all the earnings of a family went into the common purse till the period of the alienation of land. The captive of war became the slave of the whole household, the acquisitions whether of men or women were treated as common property, and even the spoils of war followed the same rule, though these last together with the produce of the chase were among the earliest forms of selfacquisition. The sword, the dagger, the gun of an enemy, the horns and skin of deer and mountain goat came to be recognized as the first objects of individual ownership. With regard to land, personal labour had less to do with proprietary rights than consent. It was the consent of the tribe or family that gave a title to outlying lands occupied by one of its members. An illustration of this is afforded by contemporary Russian law when the mir or commune consents to the settlement of separate families and the erection of huts in remote parts of their possessions. And this throws light on the origin of ancient seizin.' It took place not on waste but on tribal lands, not by the choice of the individual, but with the consent of the tribe. That this is no mere theory is evident from the fact that where there is no consent of the tribe or commune, even though tacitly expressed, there is no real ownership. Under this form private ownership in

6

1 Prof. Kovalefsky tells me, there are lands in the Ukraine (S.W. Russia), known as Staraia Zaimotchnaia, i.e. anciently occupied by colonists, corresponding with the German bifang.' These are at present claimed by the Crown and taxed accordingly. Some six or seven years ago, however, lawsuits were brought before the courts of Kharkof and Sumy to test the validity of these claims, and resulted in the acknowledgment of the proprietary rights of the peasants. The government upon this prohibited any further suits of this nature upon the pretence that the historical and judicial character of these lands have not been sufficiently investigated. The question is one of great importance.

land is first met with among the Ossetes. If there be no consent and huts have been erected on land belonging to the aul or village, the community proceed to level the buildings and seize upon the property of the occupier, treating him precisely as one who had possessed himself illegally of the property of others.

Contract law, fettered as it has been in Ossetia by the joint family and the almost entire absence of personally acquired property, is in the growing stage. But the fact of its being so backward makes it all the more interesting to the student, for it supplies precisely that material which is wanting in Roman and German jurisprudence, having regard to the comparatively more modern epoch of these systems of law and the Aryan source of Ossete customs. Who were the persons capable of contracting is the question which lies at the root of this branch of archaic law, and the answer we receive in Ossetia is very remarkable. Now it is the head of the family, now his grown-up sons, who may exercise control over the family property; though the head of the family has full powers to dispose of its possessions, his contracts are voidable if the full-grown males of the household are opposed to them. He may sell the property only in the event of the interests of the family requiring such sale; but none may gainsay him if his object be to provide funeral feasts and sacrifices. When there are two buyers of a property, and one be a relative, it is the latter who must have the preference. One lot of land may be sold while another may not. For instance, the enclosure may not be alienated, but the recently constructed hut may. A cow, an ox, a horse, every kind of movable may be sold, but the caldron in which the food is cooked and the chain by which it is suspended may not. These contradictions are difficult of explanation, but a key to their solution is afforded by a comparison of Ossete customs with the laws of the Hindus and the Celts, whose institutions were likewise based on consanguinity and the indivisibility of the family property.1

1 Cf. Mayne, op. cit., chap. viii.

The principle both in India and in Ireland was that the joint family alone could bind itself by contracts, but that these were only valid if every one of its members assented to the transaction. The head of the family was, in fact, the trusted representative of the others, and was bound by the assent of all and every one of its members; as a father and husband he had uncontrolled authority over their fortunes. This union in one person of dual functions led in practice to this, that his rights of disposing of the whole property were only disputed in the event of his acts being prejudicial to the family interests. According to the commentators of Hindu law, alienation by the head of the family was valid, provided that it was occasioned by necessity. This necessity might be construed in various ways. It was advantageous in a year of famine to sell the joint property in order to provide for the wants of the family; but it was also profitable to arrange ancestral feasts and sacrifices and give presents to the clergy who attended them. Hence endowments for the benefit of the clergy were recognized as a valid ground for alienating the family property by Hindu and ancient Celtic laws. Another cause of free gift arose when the father of a family transferred his rights to one of his near relatives, with the stipulation that he should have maintenance during life, and be sacrificed to after death. In Hindu law it was always understood that the aged were to be supported by the family, but in Irish law this is one of the four express modes of alienating the family property.

Commentators have explained that the origin of this kind of transaction lay in personal insecurity and the impossibility of finding room for the amassed supplies. If a man did not prefer transferring his property to the church on the same conditions, he had no other course open to him except to renounce in favour of one of his near relatives. If he had sons, one of them would undertake the management of the family; but if childless, he might have recourse to more distant relatives. As soon as the transferee accepted, the

VOL. XX.-[NEW SERIES]

28