In becoming subdivided into families, have these little primitive clans adopted maternal filiation? This is possible; but when they came in contact with the Roman world the greater number had already the paternal family. Let us notice, however, that the Irish law, far from subjecting the mother, accorded her a position equal to that of the father.[1103] Let us also recall the following passage of Tacitus[1104] _à propos_ of the Germans: “The son of a sister is as dear to his uncle as to his father; some even think that the first of these ties is the most sacred and close; and in taking hostages they prefer nephews, as inspiring a stronger attachment, and interesting the family on more sides.” We may add to this that in Germany the mother could be the guardian of her children;[1105] that the Salic law, _non emendata_, admitted to the succession, in default of children, the father and mother, the brothers and sisters, and then the sister of the mother in preference to that of the father. Let us remember, also, that in Slav communities women have a right to vote, and may be elected to the government of the community;[1106] but this is still a long way off the matriarchate, or even uterine filiation. The Saxon law (tit. vii.), the Burgundian law (tit. xlv.), and the German law (tit. lvii. and xcii.) only admit women to the succession in default of male ascendants; the law of the Angles prefers paternal agnates, even to the fifth degree, before women. To sum up, there are only two precise testimonies that may be quoted in favour of the ancient existence of maternal filiation among the barbarians of Europe--that of Strabo, relating to the Iberians; and the case of the Picts, amongst whom the lists of kings show that fathers and sons had different names, and that brothers succeeded instead of sons.[1107] From this absence, or rather rarity, of proofs in favour of the ancient existence of the maternal family among the barbarians of Europe, must we conclude that it has never existed? Not at all; we can only say that this ancient filiation is possible, and even probable, but as yet insufficiently established. What cannot be disputed is, that always and everywhere peoples who are in process of civilisation have adopted the paternal family, according even excessive powers to the father of the family. What is probable is, that in the majority of cases paternal filiation has succeeded to maternal filiation and to more or less confused familial forms. Is this paternal or even patriarchal family the final term of familial evolution? Has evolution, never as yet arrested in its course, said its last word in regard to marriage and the family? FOOTNOTES: [1038] Lubbock, _Orig. Civil._, p. 177. [1039] L. H. Morgan, _Systems of Consanguinity_, etc., in _Smithsonian Contributions_, vol. xvii. pp. 416, 417. [1040] Morgan, _loc. cit._, p. 422. [1041] G. Eugène Simon, _La Famille Chinoise_, in _Nouvelle Revue_, 1883.