The practice of the Ossetes reveals its importance, and explains certain characteristics of ancient legislation. For instance, Solon or rather Draco, the editor of Athenian criminal law, did not speak of the parricide, and seems hardly to have thought a crime of such enormity possible. This reason may have satisfied moralists like Plutarch, but edifying histories cannot explain ancient laws. The true reason is that parricide was committed in the bosom of the family, and therefore did not admit of vengeance. Excommunication and exile were the only penalties in such cases. Most of the laws of the barbarians preserve the same silence on this head as Athenian law, and evidently for the same reason. The parricide could not be brought under the criminal law till the system of blood vengeance had given place to another, that of a penalty inflicted in the name of society. Primitive criminal law only knew a small number of crimes. Crimes against the state or against religion considered as a political institution, and most of the torts or wrongs against private property, are creations of a later date. To speak accurately theft is no crime; among the Ossetes at all events it gave rise only to a civil process, and the restitution of the thing stolen; their customs did not distinguish between manifest theft and that which is not manifest, or, to illustrate our meaning by contemporary English law, between robbery and burglary; it was indifferent as to whether the robbery were committed by day or night. The robber caught in the act may be beaten, but may in no case be killed, as his family would exact the price of blood. The only distinction made by custom was that a robbery committed in an inhabited house is considered more serious than one in the fields, the former being an attempt not only against property, but also against domicile. But robbery committed within the family or rather the gens was a different thing. The restitution imposed in this case by the head of the family might be triple or even seven times the value of the thing stolen. In this way the repression of robbery began to assume a penal character. Among wrongs against the person three are suggestive of interesting remark. First, blows and wounds are regulated by a tariff less complicated than those of the Germanic codes. The size of the wound is measured by grains of barley placed end to end, a singular arrangement, probably borrowed from the code of Vakhtang. Next are the injuries or attempts against the honour of the individual. The greatest outrage which a man can do to another is to kill a dog on the tomb of his ancestors. In former times this outrage could only have been washed out with blood. An attempt upon the chain suspended above the domestic hearth was also considered as an unpardonable injury (cf. ante, p. 384). At the present day these matters are more easily settled. It is the same with the adulterer. His was also in former times an inexpiable crime. The outraged husband might kill the seducer found in flagrante delicto, and was not liable to pay the price of blood. Modern manners have modified these affairs. But the position of the adulterous wife is very different. Her crime is committed within the family, and is therefore subject to domestic jurisdiction. Mounted on an ass she is promenaded in shame through the streets, exposed to the insults of all, and at length is put to death by her husband and his relatives. This is the common law of all IndoFor instance, the Brahmanical codes describe the same practice with the only difference that a monkey is substituted for the donkey. European nations. This part of the Ossete criminal law throws a great light on the history of criminal law in general. It shows whence were derived the first penalties inflicted in the name of society, and how the State came to take the place of the gens. Domestic jurisdiction served criminal legislation with its earliest types, while the law of vengeance has gradually been abolished in international relations. The customs of the Ossetes have been officially proved 1 The code of Vakhtang, Prince of Georgia, was revised in 1723, according to M. Dareste, who, in an earlier number of the same volume of the Journal des Savants, reviews both the Armenian and Georgian systems of jurisprudence and their close connexion with Ossete customs. Cf. l.c. p. 169. and classified at various epochs, notably in 1836, 1844 and 1866. They vary in the several cantons, presenting matter well worthy of study in detail. M. Dareste has only lightly touched on the subject. We will conclude, he remarks, in emphasizing Prof. Kovalefsky's remark that the criminal law of the Ossetes offers a perfect analogy with ancient IndoEuropean codes, and particularly with the ancient laws of Ireland recently published. All these monuments of the past illustrate and explain each other, and the points of comparison met with among the people of the Caucasus are all the more precious because they show us living institutions. I need only say a few more words in conclusion. I am indebted to the present article for an acquaintance with its author, Prof. Kovalefsky, who has kindly read over my MS., and suggested two or three notes by way of elucidation. His knowledge of jurisprudence, of which he was for many years Professor at the University of Moscow, enables him to speak with great authority on all the customs of the semicivilized inhabitants of the Caucasus, among whom he has made several journeys. The results of his last year's travels are published in some pamphlets on the Pshaves and Khevsurs, and he has also communicated some results of his earlier observation in two articles published in the Vestnik Evropii. ART. X.-The Languages spoken in the Zarafshan Valley in Russian Turkistan. By R. N. CUST, LL.D., M.R.A.S. IN the course of my reading preparatory to my proposed trip in September next to Orenberg and the Steppes of Central Asia, I came upon the valuable book by Dr. Radloff, "Aus Siberien," Leipzig, 1884. His account of the languages spoken in the Zarafshan Valley, of which the famous city of Samarkand is the capital, seems so important, that I have had it translated from the German for publication in the Journal. In Vol. XVIII. of the Journal, 1886, pp. 177-195, I communicated a paper on the Geographical Distribution of the Túrki Languages, but some points required elucidation, which are cleared up by Dr. Radloff's remarks. His statements with regard to the Tájik or Persian portion of the population of the Valley is very important, as being fresh, and no doubt accurate. May 10th, 1888. ROBERT N. CUST, Hon. Secretary. The population of the Zarafshan Valley may be divided into two groups, according to its languages: 1stly, races speaking Túrki languages, and 2ndly, races speaking Persian. The former constitute the largest portion of the population, while the latter are scattered about in various parts. The Persian-speaking inhabitants as a rule go by the name of Tájik; even the uncultured country people and nomad tribes call the Persian language Tájik-til (Tájik language). The Tájik generally only inhabit the towns, and only busy themselves with commerce and handicraft. They have |