His statement, “Then her full brother, then her paternal half-brother, then their sons likewise, then her full paternal uncle, then her paternal half-uncle, then their sons likewise”: thus, the order is precisely that of the agnatic relatives in inheritance, except in the case of the father and the son alone. Here, fatherhood takes precedence over sonship. Thus we say:

Fatherhood, sonship, brotherhood;
Uncles, then the one connected by manumission completes the order.

Instead of saying, with regard to agnatic relatives in inheritance, “sonship, fatherhood,” we say here, “fatherhood, sonship.” This is because sonship is entirely absent when the woman is a virgin; and because, even if the woman is previously married and has sons as well as a father, the father is generally more knowledgeable of what serves the interests of marriage than the sons are, since the sons are generally young and because he has greater compassion for her than they do. He is therefore more deserving of precedence.

His statement, “Then the nearest agnatic relative by lineage, as in inheritance”: after mentioning the categories, he then mentioned closeness of degree. Thus, where there is an uncle and a cousin, the uncle is the guardian because he is closer; and where there is a brother and a nephew, the brother is the guardian because he is closer. Accordingly, we say: the categories of guardianship in the marriage contract are five: fatherhood, then sonship, then brotherhood, then uncles, then the bond of manumission. If they belong to the same category, the one closer in degree takes precedence. The closer is the one who joins with the other before the more remote relative. Thus, one who is separated from the grandfather by three links is closer than one who is separated from him by four links, and so on. If they are at the same degree, then the stronger takes precedence. Thus, where there is a full brother and a paternal half-brother, the guardian is the full brother.