There were two forms in which these various objects might be attained; these were, subordinate organizations of men, not excessive in number, or too widely dispersed, and founded either upon the bond of blood or the ties of family, including that of adoption, or merely upon an arbitrary numerical definition. Each of these plans had advantages as well as defects: the family bond alone did not secure a sufficient territorial unity, although in practice it had at first considerable influence upon the location of individual households; moreover it gave rise to an inequality continually on the increase, and necessarily threatening to the independence of the free men. On the other hand, any merely arbitrary, numerical classification would have excluded a most important social element, the responsibility of man to man in the bond of kindred, the feelings and engagements of family affection, family honour and family ambition. The problem was finally solved by a partial union of the two methods: in all probability, the law of compromise which reigns throughout all history, gradually brought about a fusion of two separate principles, widely differing in point of antiquity, and thus superinduced the artificial upon the natural bond, without entirely destroying the influence of the latter. For I think it unquestionable that the artificial bond was really later in point of time: since, in the first place, indefinite and vague arrangements usually precede the definite and settled; and next, because Tacitus takes no notice whatever of any but the family bond, which he represents as stringent in the highest degree. We have already seen that Caesar declares the divisions of the land to have taken place according to families or relationships, _cognationes_[434], from which we may infer at first a considerable amount of territorial unity. From his far more observant successor we learn that the military organization was based upon the same principle; that the composition of the troop or regiment depended upon no accidental arrangement, but was founded upon families or relationships[435]; and that every man was bound to take up the enmities as well as the friendships of his father or kinsman[436]. But leaving these earlier evidences, it still seems that the Mǽgburh or _Family-bond_ is an institution whose full comprehension is necessary to a clear conception of the Anglosaxon public and private life. ----- Footnote 434: See above, p. 39, note 1. Footnote 435: “Quodque praecipuum fortitudinis incitamentum est, non casus nec fortuita conglobatio turmam aut cuneum facit, sed familiae et propinquitates.” Germ. vii. Footnote 436: “Suscipere tam inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amicitias necesse est.” Germ. xxi. -----