PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION
...I have... submitted the whole text to a careful
revision and made a number of additions which, I hope, take due account
of the present state of knowledge. I also give in the course of this preface
a short review of the development of the history of the family from Bachofen
to Morgan; I do so chiefly because the chauvinistically inclined English
anthropologists are still striving their utmost to kill by silence the
revolution which Morgan's discoveries have effected in our conception of
primitive history, while they appropriate his results without the slightest
compunction. Elsewhere also the example of England is in some cases followed
only too closely....
Before the beginning of the ‘sixties, one cannot
speak of a history of the family. In this field, the science of history
was still completely under the influence of the five books of Moses. The
patriarchal form of the family, which was there described in greater detail
than anywhere else, was not only assumed without question to be the oldest
form, but it was also identified --minus its polygamy-- with the bourgeois
family of today, so that the family had really experienced no historical
development at all; at most it was admitted that in primitive times there
might have been a period of sexual promiscuity. It is true that in addition
to the monogamous form of the family, two other forms were known to exist-polygamy
in the Orient and polyandry in India and Tibet; but these three forms could
not be arranged in any historical order and merely appeared side by side
without any connection. That among some peoples of ancient history, as
well as among some savages still alive today, descent was reckoned, not
from the father, but from the mother, and that the female line was therefore
regarded as alone valid; that among many peoples of the present day in
every continent marriage is forbidden within certain large groups which
at that time had not been closely studied--these facts were indeed known
and fresh instances of them were continually being collected. But nobody
knew what to do with them, and even as late as E.B. Tylor's Researches
into the Early History of Mankind, etc. (1865) they are listed as mere
“curious customs,” side by side with the prohibition among some savages
against touching burning wood with an iron tool and similar religious mumbo-jumbo.
The history of the family dates from 1861, from
the publication of Bachofen's Mutterrecht... [Engels spends
several pages on the theories of Bachofen, McLennan, &
Morgan.]
Here Morgan takes the field with his main work,
Ancient
Society (1877), the work that underlies the present study. What Morgan
had only dimly guessed in 1871 is now developed in full consciousness.
There is no antithesis between endogamy and exogamy; up to the present,
the existence of exogamous “tribes” has not been demonstrated anywhere.
But at the time when group marriage still prevailed--and in all probability
it prevailed everywhere at some time--the tribe was subdivided into a number
of groups related by blood on the mother's side, gentes, within which it
was strictly forbidden to marry, so that the men of a gens, though they
could take their wives from within the tribe and generally did so, were
compelled to take them from outside their gens. Thus while each gens was
strictly exogamous, the tribe embracing all the gentes was no less endogamous.
Which finally disposed of the last remains of McLennan’s artificial constructions....
...Morgan had committed a kind of sacrilege in dissolving
all these hallowed dogmas into thin air. Into the bargain, he had done
it in such a way that it only needed saying to carry immediate conviction;
so that the McLennanites, who had hitherto been helplessly reeling to and
fro between exogamy and endogamy, could only beat their brows and exclaim:
"How could we be such fools as not to think of that for ourselves long
ago?"
As if these crimes had not already left the official
school with the option only of coldly ignoring him, Morgan filled the measure
to over-flowing by not merely criticizing civilization, the society of
commodity production, the basic form of present-day society, in a manner
reminiscent of Fourier, but also by speaking of a future transformation
of this society in words which Karl Marx might have used....
Of the other advances which primitive anthropology
owes to Morgan, I do not need to speak here; they are sufficiently discussed
in the course of this study. The fourteen years which have elapsed since
the publication of his chief work have greatly enriched the material available
for the study of the history of primitive human societies. The anthropologists,
travelers and primitive historians by profession have now been joined by
the comparative jurists, who have contributed either new material or new
points of view. As a result, some of Morgan's minor hypotheses have been
shaken or even disproved. But not one of the great leading ideas of his
work has been ousted by this new material. The order which he introduced
into primitive history still holds in its main lines today. It is, in fact,
winning recognition to the same degree in which Morgan's responsibility
for the great advance is carefully concealed.
<the complete book is on the web, here