Lecture VII
Searles

Sun Sep 27 21:03:37 1998
*br*Lecture VII*p*Ancient Divisions of the Family*p**br*    'Before the establishment of the (English) common law, all*br*the possessions within the Irish territories ran either in course*br*of Tanistry or in course of Gavelkind. Every Signory or Chiefry*br*with the portion of land which passed with it went without*br*partition to the Tanist, who always came in by election or with*br*the strong hand, and not by descent; but all inferior tenanties*br*were partible between males in Gavelkind.' (Sir J. Davis'*br*Reports, 'Le Cas de Gavelkind,' Hil. 3, Jac. 1, before all the*br*Judges.)*br*    This passage occurs in one of the famous cases in which the*br*Anglo-Irish Judges affirmed the illegality of the native Irish*br*tenures of land. They declared the English common law to be in*br*force in Ireland, and thenceforward the eldest son succeeded, as*br*heir-at-law, both to lands which were attached to a Signory and*br*to estates which had been divided according to the peculiar Irish*br*custom here called Gavelkind. The Judges thoroughly knew that*br*they were making a revolution, and they probably thought that*br*they were substituting a civilised institution for a set of*br*mischievous usages proper only for barbarians. Yet there is*br*strong reason for thinking that Tanistry is the form of*br*succession from which Primogeniture descended, and that the Irish*br*Gavelkind, which they sharply distinguished from the Gavelkind of*br*Kent, was nothing more than an archaic form of this same*br*institution, of which Courts in England have always taken*br*judicial notice, and which prevailed far more widely on the*br*European Continent than succession by Primogeniture.*br*    It will be convenient that we should first consider the*br*so-called Gavelkind of Ireland, which is thus described by Sir*br*John Davis: 'By the Irish custom of Gavelkind, the inferior*br*tenanties were partible among all the males of the Sept, both*br*Bastards and Legitimate; and, after partition made, if any one of*br*the Sept had died, his portion was not divided among his sonnes,*br*but the Chief of the Sept made a new partition of all the lands*br*belonging to that Sept, and gave every one his part according to*br*his antiquity.'*br*    This statement occasions some perplexity, which does not,*br*however, arise from its being antecedently incredible. It is*br*made, you will observe, not of the Clan or Tribe in its largest*br*extension, but of the Sept. The first was a large and*br*miscellaneous body, composed in great part of men whose*br*relationship of blood with the Chief and the mass of free*br*tribesmen, was a mere fiction. The last was a much smaller body,*br*whose proximity to a common ancestor was close enough to admit of*br*their kinship either being a fact or being believed to be a fact.*br*It apparently corresponded to the small Highland communities*br*observed in Scotland, by an English officer of Engineers about*br*1730. 'They (the Highlanders) are divided into tribes or clans*br*under chiefs or chieftains, and each clan is again divided into*br*branches from the main stock, who have chieftains over them.*br*These are Subdivided into smaller branches, of fifty or sixty*br*men, who deduce their original from their particular chieftains.*br*(Quoted by Skene, 'Highlanders,' i. p. 156.) Such a body, as I*br*have already stated, seems to be the Joint Family well known to*br*the Hindoos, but continued as a corporate unit (which is very*br*rarely the case in India), through several successive*br*generations. There is no difference in principle, and little in*br*practical effect, between the mode of succession described by*br*Davis and the way in which a Hindoo Joint Family is affected by*br*the death of one of its members. All the property being held in*br*common, and all earnings being brought into the 'common chest or*br*purse,' the lapse of any one life would have the effect,*br*potentially if not actually, of distributing the dead man's share*br*among all the kindred united in the family group. And if, on a*br*dissolution of the Joint Family, the distribution of its effects*br*were not per capita but per stirpes, this would correspond to*br*what Davis probably means when he describes the Chief as giving*br*to each man 'according to his antiquity.'*br*    The special novelty of the information supplied to us by the*br*ancient Irish law consists in its revealing to us a society of*br*Aryan race, settled, indeed, on the land, and much influenced by*br*its settlement, but preserving an exceptional number of the ideas*br*and rules belonging to the time when kinship and not the land is*br*the basis of social union. There is, therefore, nothing*br*extraordinary in our finding, among the ancient usages of the*br*Irish, an institution savouring so much of the 'natural*br*communism' of the primitive forms of property as this Irish*br*Gavelkind. This 'natural communism,' I have repeatedly urged,*br*does not arise from any theory or ā priori assumption as to the*br*best or justest mode of dividing the land of a community, but*br*from the simple impossibility, according to primitive notions, of*br*making a distinction between a number of kinsmen solely connected*br*by their real or assumed descent from a common ancestor. The*br*natural solvent of this communism is the land itself upon which*br*the kindred are settled. As the common ancestry fades away into*br*indistinctness, and the community gets to consider itself less an*br*assemblage of blood-relations than a body of co-villagers, each*br*household clings with increasing tenacity to the allotment which*br*it has once obtained, and re-divisions of the land among the*br*whole community, whether at fixed periods or at a death, become*br*rarer and rarer, and at last cease altogether, or survive only as*br*a tradition. In this way the widely diffused but modified form of*br*tribal succession, which in England is called Gavelkind, is at*br*last established; the descendants of the latest holder take his*br*property, to the exclusion of everybody else, and the rights of*br*the portion of the community outside the family dwindle to a veto*br*on sales, or to a right of controlling the modes of cultivation.*br*Nevertheless, surveying the Aryan world as a whole, and looking*br*to societies in which some fragments of the ancient social*br*organisation still survive, we can discover forms of succession*br*or property which come surprisingly near to the Irish Gavelkind*br*described by Davis. The best example of this occurs in a practice*br*which existed down to our own day over a large part of Russia.*br*The principle was that each household of the village was entitled*br*to a share of the village-lands proportioned to the number of*br*adult males it contained. Every death, therefore, of a grown-up*br*man diminished pro tanto the share of the household, and every*br*member of it grown to manhood increased its lot in the cultivated*br*area. There was a fixed unit of acreage corresponding to the*br*extent of soil cultivable by one man's labour, and at the*br*periodical division each household obtained just as much land as*br*answered to its number of adult labouring men. The principal*br*distinction between this system and that which seemed so*br*monstrous and unnatural to Sir John Davis is, that under the*br*first the re-division took place, not as each death occurred, but*br*at stated intervals. I must not, indeed, be understood to say*br*that I think the distinction unimportant. It is very possible*br*that re-distributions at deaths of a common fund may mark a more*br*advanced stage in the history of Property than periodical*br*redistribution, and that the recognition of interests for an*br*entire life may have preceded and paved the way for the final*br*allotment of permanent shares to separate households. Until,*br*however, this last point has been reached, all the modes of*br*re-division known to us are plainly referable to the same*br*principle.*br*    The difficulty suggested by the recital in the 'Case of*br*Gavelkind' is thus not a difficulty in believing it if it stood*br*by itself, or if it were made with less generality. But it is*br*distinctly stated that all the lands in Ireland which did not*br*descend by the rule of Tanistry descended by the rule of*br*Gavelkind. The indications of the state of law or custom*br*furnished by the Brehon tracts certainly seem to me inconsistent*br*with this assertion. They show us proprietary rights defined with*br*a sharpness and guarded with a jealousy which is hard to*br*reconcile with the degree of 'natural communism' implied in the*br*language of Davis's Report. The Corus Bescna, of which I said*br*something before, and which deals with rights over tribal lands,*br*implies that under certain circumstances they might be*br*permanently alienated, at all events to the Church; and we shall*br*presently have to discuss, some very singular rules of*br*succession, which, however they may affect the Family, certainly*br*seem to exclude the Sept. Dr Sullivan, who appears to have*br*consulted many more original authorities than have been*br*translated or given to the world, expresses himself as if he*br*thought that the general law of succession in Ireland was newly*br*analogous to the Gavelkind of Kent. 'According to the Irish*br*custom, property descended at first only to the male heirs of the*br*body, each son receiving an equal share..... Ultimately, however,*br*daughters appear to have become entitled to inherit all, if there*br*were no sons' (Introd., p. clxx).*br*    I do not expect that the apparent contradiction between the*br*Brehon tracts and the language of Davis and his contemporaries*br*respecting the Irish law of succession to land will be fully*br*accounted for till the whole of the ancient legal literature is*br*before the world; but meanwhile it is a plausible explanation of*br*the discrepancy that the Irish and the English writers attended*br*to different sets of phenomena. I cannot doubt that the so-called*br*Irish Gavelkind was found over a great part of the country. The*br*statements of English authorities on the point are extremely*br*precise. They affirm that 'no civil habitations were erected, and*br*no enclosure or improvement was made of land where Gavelkind was*br*in use,' and they say that this was especially the case in*br*Ulster, 'which was all one wilderness.' Nevertheless it is*br*extremely probable that another set of facts justified the*br*indications given by the Brehon tracts, and that there were other*br*modes of succession known besides succession by Tanistry on the*br*one hand, and besides on the other hand the peculiarly archaic*br*system under which each lapsed share was at once divided between*br*all the members of the Sept. Such an institution as the last,*br*though exceptional circumstances may keep it alive, contains*br*within itself a principle of decay. Each household included in*br*the Joint Family gains a firmer hold on its share of the lands as*br*the distance increases from the common ancestor; and finally*br*appropriates it, transmitting it exclusively to offshoots from*br*its own branch. Nothing is more likely than that there were*br*frequent examples of Irish septs with their land-customs in this*br*condition; and it is still more probable that usages of a*br*similarly modern stamp prevailed in estates permanently severed*br*or 'booked off' from tribal possession or established at a*br*distance from the main seat of the tribe. It is true that, in*br*society based on kinship, each family separated from the rest*br*tends itself to expand into a joint family or sept; but in these*br*severed estates custom would be apt to be enfeebled and to abate*br*something of its tyranny. Thus, putting the rule of Tanistry*br*aside, I can quite conceive that the Irish Gavelkind, the modern*br*Gavelkind known to Kent, and many forms of succession*br*intermediate between the two, co-existed in Ireland. Both the*br*English and the Irish authorities on law had prejudices of their*br*own which might lead them to confine their attention to*br*particular usages. The Brehon writers seem to me distinctly*br*biassed in favour of the descent of property in individual*br*families, which commended itself to them as lawyers, as friends*br*of the Church, and (it may be) as well-wishers to their country.*br*On the other, the strange ancient form of ownership which he*br*called Gavelkind would fascinate the observation of an Englishman*br*resident in Ireland. He would assuredly have none of the*br*curiosity about it which we feel nowadays, but surprise and*br*dislike would fix his attention upon it, and perhaps prevent his*br*recognising the comparatively wide diffusion of institutions of*br*the opposite type.*br*    This interpretation of the seeming contradiction between our*br*authorities is consistent with the very little we know respecting*br*actual divisions of land in ancient Ireland. It constantly*br*happened both in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands that a Chief,*br*besides the domain which appertained to his office, had a great*br*estate held under what the English lawyers deemed the inferior*br*tenure. There are two cases on record in which Irish Chiefs of*br*considerable dignity distributed such estates among their*br*kindred. In the fourteenth century Connor More O'Brien, a chief*br*who had children of his own, is stated to have divided his land*br*on principles which must have more or less corresponded to those*br*condemned by the Anglo-Irish Judges. The bulk of the estate he*br*assigned to the various families of the Sept formed by his own*br*relatives. To himself he reserved only one-sixth of one-half of*br*one-third, and even this sixth he divided between his three sons,*br*reserving only a rent to himself. But at the end of the fifteenth*br*century Donogh O'Brien, son of Brien Duff, son of Connor, King of*br*Thomond, divided all his lands between his eleven sons, reserving*br*to himself only the mansion and the demesne in its vicinity. The*br*difference between the two cases, which (it is instructive to*br*observe) are separated by at least a century, appears to me*br*sufficiently plain. In the first the land had remained in a state*br*of indivision during several generations; in the second it had*br*been periodically divided. Connor More O'Brien was distributing*br*the inheritance of a joint family; Donogh O'Brien that of a*br*family (Vallancey, 'Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis,' i 264,*br*265.)*br*    It is worthy of observation that in the more ancient example*br*Connor More O'Brien appears to have paid regard to the various*br*stirpes or stocks into which the descendants of the orIginal*br*founder of his family had branched out. The principle he followed*br*I suppose to be the same as that pointed out by Davis when he*br*speaks of the chief dividing a lapsed share between the members*br*of a sept 'according to their antiquity.' The proceeding deserves*br*to be noted, as showing an advance on the oldest known tribal*br*customs. In the most archaic forms of the Joint Family, and of*br*the institution which grew out of it, the Village-Community,*br*these distributions are per capita; no one person who is entitled*br*takes more than another, whether the whole estate or a portion is*br*divided, and no respect is paid to the particular way in which a*br*given individual has descended from the common ancestor. Under a*br*more advanced system the distribution is per stirpes; careful*br*attention is paid to the lines into which the descendants of the*br*ancestor of the joint-family have separated, and separate rights*br*are reserved to them. Finally, the stocks themselves escape from*br*the sort of shell constituted by the Joint Family; each man's*br*share of the property, now periodically divided, is distributed*br*among his direct descendants at his death. At this point,*br*property in its modern form has been established; but the Joint*br*Family has not wholly ceased to influence successions. When*br*direct descendants fail it is even now the rules of the Joint*br*Family which determine the taking of the inheritance. Collateral*br*successions, when they are distant, follow the more primitive*br*form of the old institution, and are per capita; when they are*br*those of the nearer kindred they are adjusted to its more modern*br*shape, and are per stirpes.*br*    The remark has further to be made that both Connor O'Brien*br*and Donogh O'Brien divided their own land among their sons or*br*kindred during their own lifetime. Like Laertes in the Odyssee*br*and like Lear in the tragedy of Shakespeare, the old Chief, in*br*the decay of his vigour, parts with his power and retains but a*br*fraction of the property he had administered; and the poorer*br*freeman becomes one of those 'senior' pensioners of the tribe so*br*often referred to in the tracts. Precisely the same practice is*br*recognised, and even (as some think) enjoined, by the more*br*archaic bodies of Hindoo jurisprudence. The principle is that the*br*right of each member of a family accrues at his birth; and, as*br*the family has in theory a perpetual existence, there is no*br*particular reason why, if the property is divided at all, it*br*should be exclusively divided at a death. The power of*br*distributing inheritances vested in the Celtic chiefs has been*br*made the basis of some very doubtful theories, but I have no*br*doubt it is essentially the same institution as the humble*br*privilege which is reserved to the Hindoo father by the*br*Mitakshara. It is part of the prerogative belonging to the*br*representative of the purest blood in the joint family; but in*br*proportion at the Joint Family, Sept, or Clan becomes more*br*artificial, the power of distribution tends more and more to look*br*like mere administrative authority.*br*    Under some systems of Hindoo law, the father, when making a*br*distribution of property during his lifetime, is entitled to*br*retain a double share, and by some Indian customs the eldest son,*br*when dividing the patrimony with his brothers, takes twice at*br*much as the others. There are a good many traces of the usage in*br*this last form in a variety of communities. It is, for instance,*br*the 'birthright' of the Hebrew patriarchal history. I mention it*br*particularly because it seems to me to be sometimes improperly*br*confounded with the right conferred by what we call the rule of*br*Primogeniture. But the double share is rather given as the reward*br*or (perhaps we should say) the security for impartial*br*distribution, and we find it often coupled with the right to take*br*exclusively such things as are deemed incapable of partition, the*br*family house, for instance, and certain utensils. The proof that*br*it is not essentially a privilege of the eldest son, we find in*br*the circumstances that it is sometimes enjoyed by the father and*br*sometimes by the youngest of the sons, and in this way it is*br*connected with our own custom of Borough English, of which I*br*shall have more to say presently. There is a difference of*br*historical origin between this kind of privileged succession and*br*that which we call Primogeniture. The first is descended from a*br*custom of the Tribe; the last, to which I now pass, seems to me*br*traceable to the special position of the Chief.*br*    The Brehon tracts at present translated do not add much to*br*the knowledge which we possessed of the Irish customs*br*corresponding to the usage of exclusive succession by the eldest*br*son; and Primogeniture remains what I called it thirteen years*br*ago ('Ancient Law,' p. 227), 'one of the most difficult problems*br*of historical jurisprudence.' The first of the difficulties which*br*surround it is the total absence, before a particular epoch in*br*history, of recorded precedents for any such mode of succession*br*to property. It was unknown to the Hellenic world. It was unknown*br*to the Roman world. It was unknown to the Jews, and apparently to*br*the whole Semitic world. In the records of all these societies*br*there are vestiges of great differences between the succession of*br*males and the succession of females; but there was nothing like*br*the exclusive succession of a single son to property, although*br*the descent of sovereignties to the eldest son of the last*br*reigning king was a familiar fact, and though the Greek*br*philosophers had conjectured that, in an earlier state of society*br*than theirs, the smaller groups of men -- families and villages*br*-- had been governed by eldest son after eldest son.*br*    Even when the Teutonic races spread over Western Europe they*br*did not bring with them Primogeniture as their ordinary rule of*br*succession. The allodial property of the Teutonic freeman, that*br*share which he had theoretically received at the original*br*settlement of the brotherhood to which he belonged on their*br*domain, was divided at his death, when it was divided at all,*br*equally between his sons or equally between his sons and*br*daughters. It is quite certain, however, that the appearance of*br*Primogeniture in the West and its rapid diffusion must be*br*connected with the irruption of the barbarians, and with the*br*tribal ideas re-introduced by them into the Roman world. At this*br*point, however, we encounter another difficulty. The*br*Primogeniture which first meets us is not uniformly the*br*Primogeniture with which we are now familiar. The right of the*br*eldest son sometimes gives way to the right of the eldest male*br*relative of the deceased, and occasionally it seems as if neither*br*the succession of the eldest son nor that of the eldest relative*br*could take effect without election or confirmation by the members*br*of the aggregate group to which both belong.*br*    As usual, we have to look for living illustrations of the*br*ancient system to the usages of the Hindoos. The Family,*br*according to the Hindoo theory, is despotically governed by its*br*head; but if he dies and the Family separates at his death, the*br*property is equally divided between the sons. If, however, the*br*Family does not separate, but allows itself to expand into a*br*Joint Family, we have the exact mixture of election and doubtful*br*succession which we find in the early examples of European*br*primogeniture. The eldest son, and after him his eldest son, is*br*ordinarily the manager of the affairs of the Joint Family, but*br*his privileges theoretically depend on election by the*br*brotherhood, and may be set aside by it, and, when they are set*br*aside, it is generally in favour of a brother of the deceased*br*manager, who, on the score of greater age, is assumed to be*br*better qualified than his nephew for administration and business.*br*In ancient Irish society the Joint Family, continued through many*br*generations, has grown first into the Sept and then into the*br*Clan, contracting a greater degree of artificiality in proportion*br*to its enlargement. The importance, meanwhile, of the Chief to*br*the Tribe has rather increased than diminished, since he is no*br*longer merely administrator of its civil affairs but its leader*br*in war. The system produced from these elements appears to me*br*sufficiently intelligible. The veneration of the Tribe is not*br*attracted by individuals of the Chieftain's family, but by the*br*family itself, as representing the purest blood of the entire*br*brotherhood. It chooses its head and leader (save on the very*br*rarest occasions) from this family, and there are instances of*br*the choice being systematically made from two families in*br*alternation. But the necessity of having a military leader in the*br*vigour of his physical and mental powers is much too imperious to*br*admit of his choice being invariably deferred to the death of the*br*ruling Chief, or to allow of the election falling universally or*br*even generally on his son. 'It is a custom among all the Irish,'*br*says Spenser, 'that presently after the death of any of their*br*chief lords or captains, they do presently assemble themselves to*br*a place generally appointed and known unto them to choose another*br*in his stead, where they do nominate and elect for the most part,*br*not the eldest son, nor any of the children of the lord deceased,*br*but the next to him of blood that is eldest and worthiest, as*br*commonly the next brother if he have any, or the next cousin, and*br*so forth, as any is elder in that kindred or sept; and then, next*br*to him, they choose the next of the blood to be Tanaist, who*br*shall succeed him in the said Captaincy if he live thereunto....*br*For when their Captain dieth, if the Signory should descend to*br*his child, and he perhaps an infant, another might peradventure*br*step in between or thrust him out by strong hand being then*br*unable to defend his right and to withstand the force of a*br*forreiner; and therefore they do appoint the eldest of the kin to*br*have the Signory, for that commonly he is a man of stronger years*br*and better experience to maintain the inheritance and to defend*br*the country.... And to this end the Tanaist is always ready*br*known, if it should happen to the Captain suddenly to die, or to*br*be slain in battle, or to be out of the country, to defend and*br*keep it from all such dangers.' (Spenser's 'View of the State of*br*Ireland.')*br*    Primogeniture, therefore, considered as a rule of succession*br*to property, appears to me to be a product of tribal leadership*br*in its decay. Some such system as that represented by the Irish*br*Tanistry belonged probably at one time to all the tribal*br*communities which overran the Roman Empire, but no precise*br*assertion can be made as to the stage in their history at which*br*it began to be modified, especially since Sohm's investigations*br*(in his 'Fränkische Reichs-und Gerichtsverfassung') have shown us*br*how considerably the social organisation of some of these*br*communities had been affected by central or royal authority in*br*the interval between the observations of Tacitus and the writing*br*of the Salic Law. But I think we may safely conjecture that the*br*transition from the older to the newer Primogeniture took place*br*everywhere under circumstances nearly the reverse of those which*br*kept Tanistry so long alive in Ireland. Wherever some degree of*br*internal peace was maintained during tolerably long periods of*br*time, wherever an approach was made to the formation of societies*br*of the distinctive modern type, wherever military and civil*br*institutions began to group themselves round the central*br*authority of a king, the value of strategical capacity in the*br*humbler chiefs would diminish, and in the smaller brotherhoods*br*the respect for purity of blood would have unchecked play. The*br*most natural object of this respect is he who most directly*br*derives his blood from the last ruler, and thus the eldest son,*br*even though a minor, comes to be preferred in the succession to*br*his uncle; and, in default of sons, the succession may even*br*devolve on a woman. There are not a few indications that the*br*transformation of ideas was gradual. The disputes among great*br*Highland families about the title to the chieftaincy of*br*particular clans appear to date from a period when there was*br*still a conflict between the old principle of succession and the*br*new; and at a relatively later period, when throughout most of*br*Western Europe tribal customs have been replaced by feudal rules,*br*there is a visible uncertainty about such of these rules as*br*affect succession. Glanville, writing of English military tenures*br*in the later part of the reign of Henry the Second, observes:*br*'When anyone dies, leaving a younger son and a grandson, the*br*child of his eldest son, great doubt exists as to which of the*br*two the law prefers in the succession to the other, whether the*br*son or the grandson. Some think the younger son has more right to*br*the inheritance than the grandson... but others incline to think*br*that the grandson ought to be preferred to his uncle.'*br*(Glanville, vii. 7.) This ancient doubt has left traces of itself*br*on literature no less than on history, since it manifestly*br*affects the plot of Shakespeare's Hamlet; but the very question*br*of principle arose between the descendants of daughters in the*br*controversy between Bruce and Baliol. The succession to the Crown*br*of Scotland was ultimately settled, as it would have been in*br*earlier times, by what amounted to national election, but the*br*decision of Edward the First in favour of Baliol was undoubtedly*br*in accordance with principles which were gaining ground*br*everywhere, and I quite agree with Mr Burton (ii. 249) that the*br*celebrity of the dispute and the full consideration given to it*br*did much to settle the rule which prevailed in the end, that the*br*whole of the descendants of an elder child must be exhausted*br*before those of the younger had a title. When, however, the*br*eldest son had once taken the place of his uncle as the heir to*br*the humbler chieftaincies, he doubtless also obtained that*br*'portion of land attached to the Signory or Chiefry which went*br*without partition to the Tanaist;' and, as each community*br*gradually settled down into comparative peace under royal or*br*central authority, this demesne, as it was afterwards called,*br*must have assumed more and more the character of mere property*br*descending according to the rule of primogeniture. It may be*br*believed that in this way a principle of inheritance was formed*br*which first of all extended from the demesne to all the estates*br*of the holder of the Signory, however acquired, and ultimately*br*determined the law of succession for the privileged classes*br*throughout feudalised Europe. One vestige of this later course of*br*change may perhaps be traced in the noble tenure once widely*br*extended on the Continent, and called in French 'Parage,' under*br*which the near kinsmen of the eldest son still took an interest*br*in the family property, but held it of. him as his Peers. There*br*were, however, other causes than those just stated which led to*br*the great development of Primogeniture in the early part of the*br*Middle Ages, but for an examination of them I may be allowed to*br*refer to the work of mine which I mentioned above. ('Ancient*br*Law,' pp. 232 et seq.)*br*  (continued)
Lectures by Henry Sumner Maine
Searles
110
Sun Sep 27 16:15:58 1998