Page:The Ancient City- A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.djvu/110

 104 » THE FAMILT. BOOK II. for the continuation of which he had been adopted, did not cease by liis abandonment; and, to make this certain, it was necessary for him to leave this fimily a son, who should replace him. This son took charge of the wor- ship, and iaheiited the estate; the father could then return to the family of his birth, and inherit its prop- erty. But this father and son could no longer inherit from each other; they were not of the same family, they were not of kin.' We can easily see what was the idea of the old legis- lator when he established these precise rules. He did not suppose it possible that two estates could fall to the same heir, because two domestic worships could not be kept up by the same person, 5. Wills were not known originally. The right of willing — that is to say, of disposing of one's property after death, in order to make it pass to other than natural heirs — was in opposition to the re- ligious creed that was at the foundation of the law of property and the law of succession. The property being inherent in the worship, and the worship being .hereditary, could one think of a will ? Besides, prop- erty did not belong to the individual, but to the family ; for man had not acquired it by the right of laboi", but through the domestic worship. Attached to the family, it was transmitted from the dead to the living, not according to the will and choice of the dead, but by virtue of superior rules which religion had estab- lished. ' Isseus, X. Demosthenes, passim. Gaius, III. 2. In- stitvtes, III. 1, 2. It is hardly necessary to state that thes& rules were modified in the pretorian laws.