which, notwithstanding their common name, are not to be looked upon as families sprung from the same ancestors; but as the descendants of those persons, who at the foundation of the state were united in a corporation of this kind. This is expressly stated in Pollux, undoubtedly from Aristotle, wherein it is asserted that the _Gennetæ_ were called from the γένη; and that they were connected not by descent (γένει μὲν οὐ προσήκοντες) but by ἱερά which they had in common. Then we have also the evidence of Harpocration concerning the Homerides in Chios; he says that they were a _genos_ in that island, but that according to the opinion of the well-informed they had no relationship whatever with Homer. These γένη are just like the Arabian tribes, the Beni Tai are ten thousand families who cannot all descend from Edid Tai; or like the clans of the Highlanders, who were named after individuals; yet it was only in a poetical sense that they spoke of themselves as the kinsmen and descendants of these. In the Highlands there were five thousand Campbells able to bear arms, who looked upon the Duke of Argyle as their cousin. Concerning the Roman _gentes_ we have no positive evidence, like that of Pollux and Harpocration (such perhaps as Verrius Flaccus would have given), that they were corporations without relationship; but we have an important definition of Cicero’s in the _Topica_. He there gives the word _gentiles_ as a difficult subject for definition; and such it was, because in fact time in its course had wrought a thorough change in the original institution. The _gentes_ in Cicero’s days had lost much of their former consequence, and their constitution had been affected by law decisions. He says, _Gentiles sunt, qui inter se, eodem nomine sunt. Non satis est. 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._ According to this, the Scipios and Sulla were _gentiles_; for they are _eodem nomine_, &c. Suppose that one of the Cornelii had been _addictus_ as liable to a debt, or condemned to death for a crime, then he was _capite deminutus_, and ousted from his tribe, exactly what the English in feudal language call “corruption of blood.” And should he now as an addictus beget children, these also were outcasts, and did not belong to the _gens_. By the added clause _quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit_, all the _Libertini_ and their descendants were excluded, although bearing the gentile name of their patrons; yet all the _Peregrini_ were left, whom one might admit if one chose. But this in all likelihood is an addition which was unknown to the old gentile law. For, in my opinion, there was in the earlier times no difference whatever with regard to the Libertini: they belonged to the _gens_ as well as the patrons. Yet this was a moot point, as is shown by the remarkable lawsuit between the patrician and plebeian