Criticism of the origin of the family of private property and the state. The work of F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". Vladimir MikhailovCopper pipes Ardiga

Brief summary of the work of F. Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"

Prehistoric Stages of Culture

The entire history of the development of mankind of the genus can be divided into three main eras - the era of savagery, barbarism and civilization. The first two epochs, savagery and barbarism, are further subdivided into three stages: lower, middle and higher, in accordance with the progress in the production of means of subsistence, since. all the great epochs of human progress coincide more or less directly with the epochs of the expansion of livelihoods

Along with this, the development of the family takes place, but it does not provide such characteristic signs for distinguishing between periods.

wildness

The lowest step. Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in "tropical or subtropical forests. They lived, at least in part, on trees; this is the only way to explain their existence among large predatory animals. Fruits, nuts, roots served as food for them; most importantly the achievement of this period is the emergence of articulate speech. Of all the peoples that have become known in the historical period, not one was already in this primitive state. And although it probably lasted for many millennia, we cannot prove its existence on the basis of direct evidence; but Having recognized the origin of man from the animal kingdom, it is necessary to allow such a transitional state.

Middle step. It begins with the introduction of fish food and the use of fire. The two are mutually related, since fish food is made completely fit for consumption only thanks to fire. But with this new food, people became independent of climate and locality; following the course of rivers and along the seashores, they could even settle in the wild over most of the earth's surface. Roughly made, unpolished stone tools of the early Stone Age, the so-called Paleolithic, wholly or mostly belonging to this period, are distributed on all continents and are clear evidence of these migrations. The settlement of new places and the constant active striving to search, combined with the possession of fire, produced by friction, brought new means of nutrition: starchy roots and tubers baked in hot ash or baking pits (earth ovens), game that, with the invention of the first weapon , clubs and spears, has become an additional food obtained on an occasional basis. Exclusively hunting peoples, as they are described in books, that is, those who live only by hunting, never existed; for this prey from hunting is too unreliable. Due to the constant lack of food sources at this stage, apparently, cannibalism arose, which has persisted for a long time since then. The Australians and many Polynesians are still in this middle stage of savagery.

Highest level. It begins with the invention of the bow and arrow, thanks to which game became a permanent food, and hunting became one of the usual branches of labor. The bow, bowstring, and arrow already constitute a very complex tool, the invention of which presupposes a long accumulation of experience and more developed mental faculties, and, consequently, the simultaneous acquaintance with many other inventions. Comparing with each other peoples who already know the bow and arrow, but are not yet familiar with the art of pottery (which Morgan considers the beginning of the transition to barbarism), we really find already some rudiments of settlement in villages, a certain degree of mastery of the production of means of subsistence: wooden vessels and utensils , hand weaving (without a loom) from wood fiber, wicker baskets from bast or reeds, polished (Neolithic) stone tools. Fire and a stone ax usually also make it possible to already make boats from solid wood, and in some places make logs and boards for building a dwelling. We meet all these achievements, for example, among the Indians of the North-West of America, who, although they know the bow and arrow, do not know pottery. The bow and arrow were to the age of savagery what the iron sword was to barbarism and the firearm was to civilisation, the decisive weapon.

Until the 60sThe 19th century was dominated by religious views and the patriarchal family was considered the most ancient. Family forms that exist among other peoples were not built historically and were not connected in any way. It was a time of accumulation of information about different forms of the family, especially among peoples who were lagging behind in development. The first to study the family was Bahoven (1861 "Mother's Right"). According to Bahoven, it was not the improvement of living conditions, but the people's perception of these changes that caused a change in the social status of men and women.. Bahoven's closest receiver is J. McLennan. McLennan suggested, based on the existence of similar traditions among modern peoples, that in ancient times there was a custom to kidnap wives on the side of other tribes. Lennan also defined exogamy and endogamy.. He also pointed out the wide spread of exogamy and recognized the order of descent by maternal law. initial. McLennan singled out only three types of marriage: polyandry, polygamy and monogamy.

Morgan appeared on the scientific scene in 1871. He pointed out that endogamy and exogamy should not be opposed at all. In his opinion, in case of group marriage, the tribe was divided into clans, in which sexual relations were forbidden. Morgan discovered the original genus, based on the maternal right, which preceded the paternal right of the civilized peoples.

There are two types of production: means of subsistence (food items, clothing, housing) and the person himself (procreation). Social orders depend on both types of production (on labor and on the family).

Morgan and Engels believed: exogamy and endogamy are not opposites; in group marriage, the tribe was divided into groups related on the maternal side, within which marriage was prohibited. This refutes McLennan's theories. That. the maternal genus, based on maternal right as a stage, which preceded the genus of civilized peoples based on paternal right, is of great importance for primitive history.

Prehistoric stages of culture: savagery, barbarism, civilization. Savagery and barbarism are divided into three levels (lower, middle, highest).

In primitive society, sexual relations were not limited. Proof of Existence: Modern Underdeveloped Tribes. When trying to refute, they refer to the animal world. We know almost nothing about the family and other cohabiting groups of monkeys. In the animal kingdom, only two forms of the family are known: polygamy and cohabitation by separate couples; only one spouse is allowed at a time. The jealousy of the male, which at the same time binds and limits the family of animals, brings it into conflict with the herd; because of this jealousy, the herd can suffer greatly; this is proof that the primitive and animal families are incompatible. To get out of the primitive state, it was necessary to unite the herd for joint actions. Group marriage, which left little room for jealousy, is replaced by polyandry, which also excludes jealousy, and therefore unknown to animals. According to Morgan, from a primitive state of disordered relations, very early developed:

1.consanguineous family(marital rights and obligations are excluded only between ancestors and descendants).

2. Punalual family(excluded sexual relations between brothers and sisters, between parents and descendants). With the P. family, a genus appears- the basis of social order in ancient society. A clan or several clans of sisters became the core of one community, their uterine brothers became the core of another - this is how the P. family came about.

Because in group marriage, descent can only be established from the maternal side, only the female line is recognized. Therefore, the recognition of origin is called maternal right. Group marriage is a marriage between classes, a mass marriage of a whole class of men, often scattered throughout the mainland, with an equally scattered class of women. The moral law that assigns them to each other forbids, under the threat of shameful punishment, any sexual intercourse outside the marriage classes that belong to each other. With the appearance of the custom of kidnapping women, there are signs of a transition to monogamy in the form of pair marriage. Marriage by whole classes is the original form of group marriage, while the punaluan family is the highest stage of its development.

3. couple family- a man had a chief wife among many wives, and he was her chief husband among other husbands. The bonds of marriage can be easily dissolved by either side, and the children, as before, belong only to the mother. The paired family is too weak and unstable to force a household. The communist household, in which the majority of women belong to the same genus while the men belong to different gens, is the basis of woman's dominance. A widespread form of transition from group marriage to pair marriage was ransom by which a woman acquired the right to belong to only one man. The transition to monogamy was mainly due to women. Only after the transition to pair marriage was made for women, men were able to introduce strict monogamy (only for women). With the introduction of cattle breeding, metalworking, weaving and crop farming, as wealth grew, they gave the husband a more powerful position in the family than the woman, on the one hand, and on the other gave rise to a desire to use this established position in order to change the traditional order. inheritance for children. This led to the abolition of maternal rights. The right of male descent and the right of paternal inheritance were introduced. The overthrow of motherhood was a world-historic defeat for the female sex.

4. Monogamous family - arises from a paired family, at the turn between the middle and highest stages of barbarism, based on the dominance of the husband, with the express purpose of producing children whose descent from a certain father is unquestionable. It differs from pair marriage in much greater strength (only the husband has the right to reject his wife). The Greeks had a new form of family. The Greek woman is for a man only the mother of his heirs, his chief housekeeper and overseer of his slaves. It was the existence of slavery, the presence of slaves at the complete disposal of men, that made monogamy only for women. Monogamy was the first form of family based not on natural, but on economic conditions. Thus, monogamy appears in history as the enslavement of one sex by another, the proclamation of a contradiction between the sexes.

By hetaerism, Morgan understands, along with monogamy, non-marital sexual relations of men with unmarried women. For the first time, a premise was created on the basis of which individual sexual love could develop from monogamy, which was unknown to the entire ancient world.

Marriage, in order to be valid, must be a contract entered into voluntarily by both parties, and both parties must have equal rights and obligations towards each other. With the legal equality of men and women in marriage, the introduction of the household has lost its public character, it has become a private occupation; the wife became the chief servant, was removed from participation in social production.

Three main forms of marriage corresponding to the three main stages of human development: savagery corresponds to group marriage, barbarism - double marriage, civilization - monogamy. The peculiarity of the progress that appears in this succession of forms is that women are deprived of sexual freedom, but not men.

We are heading towards a social upheaval when the existing foundations of monogamy disappear. like prostitution. The forthcoming social upheaval will transform the means of production into public ownership. Then monogamy will become a reality for men as well. The economy will turn into a social branch of labor, the care of children and their upbringing will become public. A new moment comes into play - individual sexual love. Modern sexual love presupposes mutual love in the beloved being. A criterion of reciprocity appears, which could not have existed in the ancient world. With the triumph of private property, marriage became entirely dependent on considerations of an economic nature. According to the bourgeois understanding, marriage was a legal transaction. The rising bourgeoisie began to recognize the freedom to conclude a contract also in relation to marriage. Marriage remained a class marriage, but within the class there was a certain freedom of choice. Marriage based on sexual love is, by its very nature, monogamy.. The equality of women will be infinitely more conducive to the monogamy of men than to the polyandry of women. Monogamy will lose those characteristics which its emergence from property relations imposes on it, namely the dominance of men and the indissolubility of marriage.

Morgan proved that the genus is an institution common to all peoples.

The gens consists of all persons who, by means of a punaluan marriage and in accordance with the ideas inevitably prevailing in this marriage, form the recognized offspring of one particular ancestor. (among the Iroquois): 1. gens elect their sachem and chief 2. gens depose sachem and war chief at will. 3. none of the members of the clan can marry within the clan. 4. The property of the dead passed to the rest of the members of the clan, it had to remain within the clan. 5. members of the clan were obliged to provide assistance to each other, and especially assistance in avenging damage caused by strangers. 6. The genus has certain names or groups of names. Generic rights are also associated with a family name. 7. A clan may adopt outsiders and in this way accept them as members of its tribe. 8. During religious festivals, sachems and military leaders of individual clans performed priestly functions. 9. The clan has a common burial place. The 10th clan has a council - a meeting of all adult members of the clan. The council was the supreme authority in the city. An Indian tribe in America is characterized by: 1. its own territory and its own name, 2. a special dialect peculiar only to this tribe. 3. the right to solemnly install sachems and military leaders elected by clans, 4. the right to remove them even against the desire of their clan, 5. general religious ideas and cult rites, 6. regulation of relations with other tribes, 7. among some tribes we meet the supreme leader, whose powers, however, are small. Most of the American tribes did not go further than uniting into a tribe. The main features of the few unions of tribes: 1. the eternal union of tribes related by blood on the basis of complete equality and independence in all internal affairs of the tribe. 2. the organ of the union was the allied council, which consisted of sachems 3. places for sachems were distributed among the tribes and clans. 4. The allied sachems were likewise sachems in their own tribes. 5. All resolutions of the Union Council were to be adopted unanimously. 6. Voting was carried out by tribes.7. an allied council could be convened by each of the tribal councils. 8. Jamming took place in the presence of the assembled people. 9. there was no single head in the union. 10 Union had two top military leaders with equal powers.

The main social unit is the clan, from which the system of clans, phratries and tribes develops. The later class society presented a picture of the development of a small minority at the expense of the exploitation of the majority.

The Greeks already in prehistoric times were organized according to the Americans. But the race of the Greeks is not the archaic race of the Iroquois. Mother's right gave way to father's. Private wealth made the first breach. The second gap is the obligation for a girl to marry within her family.

Many families had their own common religious rites. The system of consanguinity corresponding to the genus in its original

the initial form provided knowledge of the relationship of all members of the clan to each other. The phratry, like that of the Americans, was divided into several daughter clans and united by their original clan.

The formation of various dialects among the Greeks, crowded in a relatively small area, was less developed than in the vast American forests. Management organization: 1. council of elders 2. people's assembly 3. military leader. Sons could count on inheritance by virtue of popular election, which by no means speaks of the recognition of inheritance other than such election as legal. In the Greek system of the heroic epoch, the ancient tribal organization still existed in full force, but at the same time its destruction had begun. The right to exploitation and division into classes was approved by the state. The office of basile had judicial and judicial powers.

The change was that a central government was established in Athens. There was a merger into a single nation of neighboring tribes. The office of basile has lost its significance; at the head of the state stood elected from among the nobles - the archons. Production was carried out within the narrowest limits, but the product was entirely at the mercy of the producers. As a consequence of paternal law and monogamy, the phenomenon of the sale of children by the father appears. Each community group had a number of new common interests. New bodies were created to protect their interests and new positions were established. Such institutions created public authority, and for the first time in history divided the people for public purposes not according to kindred groups, but according to residence in one territory. The maximum size of landed property that an individual could own was established. The old consanguine associations began to be forced out. A new element is introduced into the management organization - private property. Dominant occupations: trade, craft (based on slave labor) and artistic craft. Movable property accumulated. With the introduction of a new organization of government and with the admission of a large number of slaves, the organs of the tribal system were pushed aside from public affairs; they have degenerated into private unions and religious brotherhoods.

It is generally accepted that the Roman race was the same institution as the Greek race. The device: paternal law prevailed, there were common religious festivals, a common place of burial, a woman loses her agnatic rights when she gets married, leaves her family; there was a common ownership of land, members of the clan were obliged to provide each other with protection and assistance, there was a right to bear a family name, the right to accept outsiders into the clan, the right to elect and dismiss an elder. Roman women belonging to a genus could initially marry only within their genus, i.e. the Roman genus was exogamous (according to Mommsen). Ten genera united in a phratry, which in Rome was called curia and had more important social functions than the Greek phratry. Only one who was a member of the gens, and through his gens, a member of the curia and the tribe, could belong to the Roman people. Management organization: public affairs were in charge of the senate (consisted of the elders of three hundred clans). The Senate had the right to make final decisions on many issues and preliminarily discuss the most important of them. The people gathered in curiae, in curiae - by birth. In making decisions, each of the thirty curiae had one vote. The assembly of the curias had enormous political power (including appointing the rexa - the king). The position of rexa was not hereditary, but was chosen at the suggestion of his predecessor. The Romans during the period of the kings had a military democracy based on clans, phratries and tribes. The population grew by immigration and by conquered peoples. All the inhabitants of the newly conquered peoples were personally free people. According to the new organization of management, a new people's assembly was created, in which they participated, or from which they were excludedpopulus and plebeians. The conscripted male population was divided according to their property into six classes. In the people's assembly of centuries, citizens were placed according to the military model. All the political rights of the former assembly of curiae passed to this new assembly of centuries. A new state structure was created, based on territorial division and property differences.

In the 11th century, there is cultivation of the land by villages; pair marriage has by no means been supplanted by monogamy. Women enjoyed the right to vote in popular assemblies. Irish peasants are often divided into parties - this is an artificial revival of the destroyed clans. However, in some areas, members of the genus still live together in the old territory. The Germans, up to the resettlement of peoples, were formed into clans. The mother's brother considered his nephew to be his son, a remnant of the family, organized in accordance with maternal law. Traces of maternal right are also found in the Middle Ages: they see a woman as sacred and prophetic, at home the dominance of the wife is indisputable. The form of marriage was a pair marriage, gradually approaching monogamy, polygamy of nobles was allowed, while the chastity of girls was generally strictly observed. From the tribal system followed the obligation to inherit the wergeld - an expiatory fine paid instead of blood feud for murder or damage. The settlements of the Germans did not consist of villages, but of large family communities that spanned several generations, occupied an appropriate piece of land for cultivation and used the surrounding wastelands together with their neighbors as a common brand. When the number of members of the communities increased greatly, these communities broke up, the meadows began to be divided by individual households. Everywhere there was a council of elders. The elders live partly on honorary offerings from members of the tribe in cattle, grain, and so on. The elective principle is replaced by hereditary law. There is a noble family in every kind. Military commanders were elected regardless of origin, power was concentrated in the people's assembly. The court is decided by all together, under the chairmanship of the elder, when the verdict was pronounced by the whole team. Tribal alliances formed from which most of the new nobility originate. The institution of the squad contributed to the emergence of royal power. A military leader who gained fame gathered around him a detachment of young people thirsty for prey. The appearance of squads led to the decline of the ancient people's freedom. The system of military mercenaries made it possible to create the second of the main parts of the later nobility.

The Germans were very numerous. By the 3rd century, metal processing and textile products were widespread, and there were active relations with Rome. The Germans were advancing along the entire line of the Rhine - the population was growing. In the fifth century, the way was opened to the weakened Roman Empire. Roman rule was based on the merciless exploitation of the occupied lands, agriculture acquired an increasing role, and small-scale farming spread. Slavery ceased to pay for itself and therefore died out. In the provinces, small peasants, in order to protect themselves from the arbitrariness of officials and judges, sought protection for themselves. The Germans took two-thirds of all the land from the Romans and divided it among themselves. With the mixing of the German population with the Roman, the kinship nature of the connection receded into the background before the territorial one. The blood connection in the city soon lost its importance as a result of the conquest. The organs of the tribal system have become the organs of the state. The moment has come for the transformation of the power of the military leader into royal power. The social stratification and distribution of property in the Roman Empire during the period of decline fully corresponded to the then level of production in agriculture and industry; the level of production during the next four hundred years again gave rise to the same distribution of property and the same classes of population, the city lost its dominance over the countryside.

On the lowest rung of barbarism there is no place for domination and enslavement. Man and woman are each master in their own area: woman in the house, man in the forest. The first major social division of labor occurred when the pastoral tribes separated themselves from the general mass of barbarians. This spawned a regular exchange. livestock acquired the function of money. Money begins to actively improve. Important achievements were the loom and the smelting of metal ores. A free (surplus) product appeared. With the increase in the need for daily labor costs, slavery appeared. There were exploiters and slaves. The division of labor in the family determined the distribution of property between men and women. Male autocracy develops. The family begins to oppose the clan. With the second major division of labor, handicrafts separated from agriculture. The union of kindred tribes becomes a necessity everywhere, and soon their merging becomes necessary, and thus the merging of individual tribal territories into one common territory of the whole people. The military leader appears as the head, because. an active aggressive policy is being pursued (hence the name of military democracy). Robbery becomes a permanent occupation. Predatory wars strengthen the power of the supreme commander. the foundations of hereditary royalty and hereditary nobility are being laid. The organs are transformed from instruments of the people's will into independent organs of domination and oppression. This is the frontier of civilization.

Civilization opens up with a new step forward in the division of labor and strengthens all the divisions of labor that existed before, especially by sharpening the antithesis between town and country. With the advent of civilization comes a class merchants. This new class takes over production management. Together with the merchant class, metal money appears. Following the purchase of commodities with money, there is a loan, and with the loan interest and usury. Land wealth appears. The right of individuals to own parcels of land, originally granted to them by their gens or tribes, has now been strengthened to such an extent that these parcels now belong to them on the basis of hereditary property rights. Full free ownership of land meant not only the possibility of free and unlimited possession of it, but also the possibility of alienating it. There was a mortgage. There was a concentration and centralization of wealth in the hands of a small class, and at the same time the impoverishment of the masses grew. The tribal nobility was pushed aside. As a result of the revolution in the conditions of production and the changes it caused in the social structure, new needs and interests arose not only alien to the ancient tribal system, but in all respects opposite to it. The tribal system was destroyed by the division of labor and division into classes, it was replaced by the state.

Athens represents the most classical form of the development of statehood: the state arises from class opposites that develop within the tribal society itself.

The state is a product of society at a certain stage of development.; the state is the recognition that this society is confused. The state distinguishes from the tribal organization the territorial division of its subjects, the establishment of public power, which no longer coincides directly with the population, organizing itself as an armed force and taxes necessary to maintain public power. Possessing public power and the right to levy taxes, officials become like an organ of society over society. The state arose from the need to hold the opposites of classes, and therefore it is the instrument of the most powerful of these classes. In most states known to history, the rights granted to citizens are commensurate with their property status. The highest form of state is a democratic republic.

The state does not exist forever, there were peoples who did without it, who had no idea about the state and state power. At a certain stage of development, the state becomes a necessity.

We are approaching the stage when the existence of classes becomes a hindrance to the development of production. Civilization is that stage of social development at which the division of labor, the exchange between individuals resulting from it, and the commodity production that combines both these processes, reach their full flowering and bring about a revolution in the whole of the former society. Production at all previous stages of social development was essentially collective, likewise, consumption was reduced to the direct distribution of products within larger or smaller communist communities.. Gradually, commodity production becomes the dominant form. In commodity production, products change hands. The manufacturer gives away his product. Money appears as an intermediary, merchant. The process of exchange becomes even more confusing, the ultimate fate of products even more incomprehensible. With the advent of slavery comes the exploiting and exploited classes.

The stage of commodity production from which civilization begins is economically characterized by the introduction of metal money, the appearance of merchants, the emergence of private ownership of land and mortgages, the emergence of slave labor as the dominant form of production. Civilization corresponds to monogamy. The binding force is the state. Civilization is characterized by the contradiction between the city and the countryside, the introduction of wills. Since the basis of civilization is the exploitation of one class by another, every step forward in production means a step back in the position of the oppressed class. The most striking example of this is driving, the consequences of which are well known.

The following chapters represent, to a certain extent, the execution of the testament. None other than Karl Marx was going to present the results of Morgan's research in connection with the data of his - within certain limits, I can say our - materialistic study of history, and only in this way to clarify their full significance. After all, Morgan in America, in his own way, rediscovered the materialistic conception of history, discovered by Marx forty years ago, and, guided by him, in comparing barbarism and civilization, in the main points, he arrived at the same results as Marx. And just as the sworn economists in Germany for years were as eager to write off Capital as they obstinately hushed it up, so the representatives of "prehistoric" science in England did with Morgan's Ancient Society. My work can only to a small extent replace what my late friend was not destined to do. But among his detailed extracts from Morgan, I have at my disposal critical remarks, which I, in so far as it is relevant to the topic, reproduce here.

According to the materialist understanding, the defining moment in history is ultimately the production and reproduction of immediate life. But it itself, again, is of two kinds. On the one hand, the production of means of subsistence: food, clothing, housing, and the tools necessary for this; on the other hand, the production of man himself, the continuation of the family. The social order in which people of a certain historical epoch and a certain country live is determined by both types of production: the stage of development, on the one hand, of labor, on the other, of the family. The less developed labor is, the more limited the quantity of its products, and consequently the wealth of society, the stronger the dependence of the social system on tribal ties is manifested. Meanwhile, within the framework of this gentile structure of society, the productivity of labor develops more and more, and with it private property and exchange, property differences, the possibility of using other people's labor power and thus the basis of class contradictions: new social elements that for generations they try to adapt the old social system to new conditions, until, finally, the incompatibility of both leads to a complete overturn. The old society, based on tribal associations, explodes as a result of the collision of the newly formed social classes; its place is taken by a new society, organized into a state, the lowest links of which are no longer tribal, but territorial associations - a society in which the family system is completely subordinated to property relations and in which class contradictions and class struggle are now freely unfolding, which constitute the content of all written history. up to our time.

Morgan's great merit lies in the fact that he discovered and restored in its main features this prehistoric basis of our written history and found the key to the most important, hitherto insoluble riddles of ancient Greek, Roman and German history in the ancestral ties of the North American Indians. His writing is the work of more than one day. For about forty years he worked on his material until he completely mastered it. But on the other hand, his book is one of the few works of our time that make up an era.

In the following exposition, the reader will by and large easily distinguish between what belongs to Morgan and what I have added. In the historical sections on Greece and Rome, I went beyond Morgan's data and added what was at my disposal. The sections on Celts and Germans are mostly mine; Morgan had almost only second-hand materials here, and about the Germans - except for Tacitus - only the base liberal falsifications of Mr. Firman. The business cases, which were sufficient for Morgan's goals, but wholly inadequate for my purposes, have all been revised by me. Finally, it goes without saying that I am responsible for all those conclusions that are made without direct reference to Morgan.

Printed in the book: F. Engels. "Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigent-hums und des Staats". Hottingen Zurich, 1884

Previous editions of this book, which were published in large numbers, sold out in their entirety almost half a year ago, and the publisher has long asked me to prepare a new one. More urgent work has so far prevented me from doing so. Seven years have passed since the publication of the first edition, and during these years great progress has been made in the study of the primitive forms of the family. Therefore, it was necessary to make careful corrections and additions here, especially since the proposed printing of this text from a stereotype will deprive me for some time of the opportunity to make further changes.

So, I have carefully revised the entire text and made a number of additions, which, I hope, have adequately taken into account the current state of science. I then give, later in this preface, a brief overview of the development of family history from Bachofen to Morgan; I am doing this mainly because the chauvinistic English school of primitive history is still doing its best to silence the revolution in views of primitive history brought about by Morgan's discoveries, without any hesitation, however, in taking credit for Morgan's results. Yes, and in other countries, in some places too zealously follow this English example.

My work has been translated into various foreign languages. First of all into Italian: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, translated by Pasquale Martinetti, Benevento, 1885. Then into Romanian: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, translated by Ion Nadezhde; published in the Iasian journal "Contemporanul" from September 1885 to May 1886. Further in Danish: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, an edition prepared by Gerson Trier. Copenhagen, 1888; a French translation by Henri Ravet, taken from the present German edition, is in press.

Until the early sixties, the history of the family was out of the question. Historical science in this area was still entirely under the influence of the Pentateuch of Moses. The patriarchal form of the family, depicted there in more detail than anywhere else, was not only unconditionally considered the most ancient form, but also identified - with the exception of polygamy - with the modern bourgeois family, so that the family, in fact, did not experience at all, supposedly, no historical development; at most it was admitted that in primitive times there might have been a period of disordered sexual relations. - True, in addition to monogamy, Eastern polygamy and Indian-Tibetan polyandry were also known; but these three forms could not be arranged in historical sequence, and they figured side by side without any mutual connection. That among certain peoples of the ancient world, as well as among some still existing savages, descent was considered not through the father, but through the mother, so that the female line was recognized as the only one of importance; that among many modern peoples marriages are forbidden within certain, more or less large, groups, which at that time were not yet studied in detail, and that this custom is found in all parts of the world - these facts were, it is true, known, and such examples accumulated all more. But how to approach them, no one knew, and even in the "Studies in the primitive history of mankind, etc." E. B. Taylor (1865), they figure simply as "strange customs," along with some savages' prohibition against touching a burning tree with an iron tool, and similar religious trifles.

Even invincible supermen need a vacation. Therefore, the Razil, a free agent of the Tellus intelligence service, and went with his beloved wife to the peaceful and almost deserted planet Ardig to enjoy the rest on the shores of the warm sea. But you can’t escape fate, and the married couple suddenly found themselves at the forefront of confrontation between the two most powerful worlds in the Galaxy. This time it was about domination in the Cosmos, and in such a game any means are good ...

Vladimir Mikhailov
Copper pipes Ardiga

Chapter first

1

“Still, it’s not in vain that our techies eat their bread and drink it down - I wonder what they actually drink down? Well, probably the same as we sinners do. Not in vain. Each new boat is piece work, smarter and more dexterous become machines. If even now they can do without us, then tomorrow our brother will generally be retired immediately after birth, so that their fuss does not interfere with progress. That's where we're going, brothers. But we haven't arrived yet. demand, Wirth Cap, you'll have to mess around for a while, although it's for you, I know that the knife is sharp, but be patient. Because we have you - a law-abiding creature and do not allow yourself to violate anything. We'll have to do it. You don't know how. But I can. Because the rules and regulations that you are supposed to strictly adhere to are invented by people, and they - we - are still the highest authority for you, although, I think, not for long. I myself am a man and I know the price for us, and I also know that everything invented by one person by another can, and sometimes just has to get around, because the situation requires it. Like now, for example. So once again I apologize - and this ends this dialogue with you, not even a dialogue - I say it alone, and you keep quiet in a rag. Everyone, hang up!"

This is how Genus Tavrov, commander-pilot-mechanic-crew of a distant all-elemental reconnaissance Triolet class, reasoned, or rather, he didn’t even reason, but simply allowed the stream of consciousness to flow, mentally referring to the virtual captain of the “two”, in front of the control panel of which the lieutenant was sitting Now. Not because it was part of some kind of ritual: an apology to the ship for turning it off the control system and taking everything upon yourself - there was no such ritual at all, they had not yet been invented. And now it was necessary to simply turn off your consciousness from this very process of control and rely entirely on the reflexes developed by years of operations and training. Evaluating your every action with your mind this time would mean embarking on a sure path to failure: now all maneuvers were tempo and a delay of even a fraction of a second would lead to a breakdown. So the gymnast on the crossbar cannot linger at the top point of the "sun" to think about the next action: it either continues automatically, or there is a fall, a failure. To act without thinking, and in the meantime, let common sense do anything - recall long-read poems at least, talk to a computer without counting on an answer, or try to figure out: did he forget to water the flowers before leaving home or, most likely , forgot again. And the eyes, arms, legs, and most importantly - your microcomputer, your faithful microphone, work at the right pace, performing the intended action.

And this action was a dashing and strictly forbidden maneuver to leave the Expanse, not only at the minimum distance from the planet planned for examination, but literally almost on its surface, not even in the upper layers of the atmosphere, but in the dense, lower ones, at such a height which aircraft is already starting a landing maneuver. But this exit was not needed at all for landing: Tavrov was not going to finish on this planet at all, he only wanted to make one turn - and again go to the Expanse, leaving those who would have to witness such hooliganism in deep annoyance. The lieutenant needed this maneuver for several reasons.

The first of these was, oddly enough, the preservation of his own safety: if he had gone into ordinary space, he would have been noticed in advance, and measures would have been immediately taken to destroy him.

The fate of one ship, the "Route Inspector" with fourteen crew members, made me think so, the fact of the death of which (and, in all likelihood, which) under unclear circumstances became known just yesterday. This, in fact, forced the Tellurian authorities to send a scout to the same area of ​​\u200b\u200bspace - this time with only one person, to reduce the risk.

The celestial body, near which - or on which - the "Inspector" died, was one of the many dead, uninhabitable outlying planets and the second in a short time, where something unforeseen and inexplicable began to happen, namely, the emergence of life, nothing seemed to justified. The changes obviously did not begin without the participation of people, moreover, according to some signs, it was people who were initiated thanks to some new opportunities. Epochal! But the creators of miraculous transformations clearly did not want not only the interference of outsiders in the process they had begun, but even their presence in space, at a distance from which it would be possible to observe what was happening. And in the case when someone tried to encroach on this desire of the reformers for solitude, they went to any lengths, up to the destruction of the violator of the boundaries they themselves established. At the same time, who these “they” were still remained unknown: no one was in a hurry to declare himself a miracle worker.

But with such a maneuver, for which Tavrov was preparing now, while still in Prostor, no one - neither people nor automation - would even have time to figure out what was actually happening, and even more so - to aim and use the means of destruction. So the intruder ship had every chance to escape, if not unnoticed, then at least undamaged.

This was the first reason. And the second was, in fact, the main goal of the intended action: during the flight, to record on video crystals everything that falls into the field of view of the equipment, first of all, the changes occurring on the surface, then the technical means that, undoubtedly, should have appeared there for this very transformation and which, as Tellus hoped, could then be identified, going in this way to their manufacturer, and from him, through trade channels, in the end to those who use them in these operations. And finally, since the deceased "Inspector" managed to report that there was a ship on the surface of the planet at that time, now one could hope, if not to catch the ship itself, then at least find the place of its landing and take-off and take its characteristics, according to which subsequently it will be possible to determine not only the class, but, if you're lucky, the name of the ship, and also (having already returned to the Reach) to find out its route, since at the nodes of co-space (as the Reach was officially called until now), each maneuvering ship changes the physics of this ship in a certain way. node and this trace is preserved, although not forever, but for a time sufficient to fix it. Exactly such matters were handled by the vast department of the Service - Space Intelligence. And the all-natural scout belonged to just this department and was equipped with equipment for analysis - if not fundamental, comprehensive, then, in any case, it made it possible to obtain the main characteristics of the ship being determined in express mode. That was the point of the expedition.

... Tavrov involuntarily sighed: the last seconds before the start of the maneuver, the crazy exit from the Expanse on the verge of disaster, expired; they would not even be enough to once again check whether his personal mike turned on well, which, in fact, would conduct the operation - because the mike knew everything about the lieutenant better, including the speed of reaction and the speed of performing the necessary actions. Control over the state of the pilot was carried out by him with the utmost precision, since he was, after all, inside this pilot; and besides, Mick knew everything about the operation, Wirt-cap didn’t, the authorities did not consider it necessary to enter all the information into him. In general, trusting secrets to computers, some, including General Ivanos of the Service, believed, was a dangerous and unreliable business. And so…

Five, four, three... Zero.

The hand itself, without the participation of the brain, worked. Field! An invisible cloud enveloped the ship. Move! Breakdown!..

Fog in the eyes. Dizziness. The smallest vibration not only of the body, but of the entire ship. Habitual. And it's still scary. The blackness on the screens is a breakthrough through nothingness. Nothing, it's all right. Now a wonderful starry sky will appear on the monitors ...

Current page: 2 (total book has 13 pages)

And if even these crimes were not enough to make the official school treat Morgan only coldly turning away from him, then he overflowed the cup by not only subjecting civilization - the society of commodity production, the main form of our modern society - to such criticism, which brings to mind Fourier, but also spoke about the coming transformation of this society in such expressions that Karl Marx could have uttered. Therefore, Morgan got what he deserved when McLennan indignantly reproached him that "the historical method is completely antipathetic to him," and when the Geneva professor M. Giraud-Tlon confirmed this in 1884. But this same Mr. Giraud-Tlon, back in 1874 ("The Origin of the Family") wandered helplessly in the labyrinth of McLennan exogamy, from where only Morgan brought him out!

There is no need to consider here other successes that primitive history owes to Morgan; everything you need in this regard can be found in the relevant places of my work. The fourteen years that have elapsed since the appearance of Morgan's main work have greatly enriched our material on the history of primitive human societies; Anthropologists, travelers and professional historians of primitive society were joined by lawyers dealing with comparative law, who partly provided new material, partly put forward new points of view. Some of Morgan's individual hypotheses were shaken or even refuted as a result. However, nowhere did the newly collected material lead to the need to replace its essential provisions with some other ones. The system that he introduced into primitive history, in its main features, remains valid to this day. It can even be said that she is more and more gaining general recognition for herself, and to the same extent that they try to hide that it is he who is the founder of this great progress. 6
On my way back from New York, in September 1888, I met a former congressman for the Rochester constituency who knew Lewis Morgan. Unfortunately, he could tell me little about him. Morgan lived in Rochester as a private citizen, doing only his scientific work. His brother, a colonel, served in Washington, in the War Department; with the assistance of his brother, he managed to interest the government in his research and publish several of his works at public expense; my interlocutor at the time when he was a member of Congress also, according to him, repeatedly fussed about this.

Friedrich Engels

Published in Die Neue Zeit, Bd. 2, No. 41, 1890-1891

and in the book: Friedrich Engels. "Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats". Stuttgart, 1891

THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE STATE

IN CONNECTION WITH THE STUDIES OF LEWIS G. MORGAN

I. PREHISTORIC STAGES OF CULTURE

Morgan was the first to competently attempt to introduce a certain system into the prehistory of mankind, and as long as a significant expansion of the material does not force changes, the periodization proposed by him will undoubtedly remain in force.

Of the three main eras - savagery, barbarism, civilization - it goes without saying that only the first two and the transition to the third occupy him. He divides each of these two epochs into a lower, middle, and higher stage, according to the progress in the production of means of subsistence, because, he says,

“skill in this production is decisive for the degree of human superiority and domination over nature; of all living beings, only man has managed to achieve almost unlimited dominance over the production of food. All the great epochs of human progress coincide more or less directly with the epochs of the expansion of livelihoods. 7
See also Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed., vol. 45, p. 229.

Along with this, the development of the family takes place, but it does not provide such characteristic signs for distinguishing between periods.

1. WILD

1. The lowest step. Childhood of the human race. People were still in their original places of residence, in “tropical or subtropical forests. They lived, at least in part, in trees; only this can explain their existence among large predatory animals. Their food was fruits, nuts, roots; the main achievement of this period is the emergence of articulate speech. Of all the peoples that have become known in the historical period, not one was already in this primitive state. And although it probably lasted for many millennia, we cannot prove its existence on the basis of direct evidence; but, having recognized the origin of man from the animal kingdom, it is necessary to admit such a transitional state.

2. Middle step. It begins with the introduction of fish food (where we also include crayfish, mollusks and other aquatic animals) and with the use of fire. The two are mutually related, since fish food is made completely fit for consumption only thanks to fire. But with this new food, people became independent of climate and locality; following the course of rivers and along the seashores, they could even settle in the wild over most of the earth's surface. Roughly made, unpolished stone tools of the early Stone Age, the so-called Paleolithic, wholly or mostly belonging to this period, are distributed on all continents and are clear evidence of these migrations. The settlement of new places and the constant active striving to search, combined with the possession of fire, produced by friction, brought new means of nutrition: starchy roots and tubers baked in hot ash or baking pits (earth ovens), game that, with the invention of the first weapon , clubs and spears, has become an additional food obtained on an occasional basis. Exclusively hunting peoples, as they are described in books, that is, those who live only by hunting, never existed; for this prey from hunting is too unreliable. Due to the constant lack of food sources at this stage, apparently, cannibalism arose, which has persisted for a long time since then. The Australians and many Polynesians are still in this middle stage of savagery.

3. The highest level. It begins with the invention of the bow and arrow, thanks to which game became a constant food, and hunting became one of the usual branches of labor. The bow, bowstring, and arrow already constitute a very complex tool, the invention of which presupposes a long accumulation of experience and more developed mental faculties, and, consequently, the simultaneous acquaintance with many other inventions. Comparing with each other peoples who already know the bow and arrow, but are not yet familiar with the art of pottery (which Morgan considers the beginning of the transition to barbarism), we really find already some rudiments of settlement in villages, a certain degree of mastery of the production of means of subsistence: wooden vessels and utensils , hand weaving (without a loom) from wood fiber, wicker baskets from bast or reeds, polished (Neolithic) stone tools. Fire and a stone ax usually also make it possible to already make boats from solid wood, and in some places make logs and boards for building a dwelling. We meet all these achievements, for example, among the Indians of the North-West of America, who, although they know the bow and arrow, do not know pottery. The bow and arrow were to the age of savagery what the iron sword was to barbarism and the firearm was to civilisation, the decisive weapon.

2. BABABACY

1. The lowest step. Begins with the introduction of pottery. It can be shown that in many cases and probably everywhere it was due to the coating of wicker or wooden vessels with clay in order to make them fireproof. At the same time, it was soon found that molded clay served this purpose even without an internal vessel.

Up to now we have been able to consider the course of development as completely universal, valid in a certain period for all peoples, regardless of their place of residence. But with the advent of barbarism, we have reached a stage where the difference in the natural conditions of the two great continents acquires significance. A characteristic moment of the period of barbarism is the domestication and breeding of animals and the cultivation of plants. The eastern mainland, the so-called Old World, possessed almost all domesticable animals and all kinds of crops suitable for breeding, except one; the western continent, America, of all domesticable mammals - only llama, and even then only in one part of the south, and of all cultivated cereals, only one, but the best - maize. As a result of this difference in natural conditions, the population of each hemisphere has since developed in its own special way, and the landmarks at the boundaries of the individual stages of development become different for each of the two hemispheres.

2. Middle step. In the east it begins with the domestication of domestic animals, in the west with the cultivation of edible plants by means of irrigation and with the use of adobes (raw bricks dried in the sun) and stone for buildings.

We start from the west, because here, before the conquest of America by the Europeans, they did not go further than this stage anywhere.

The Indians, who were in the lowest rung of barbarism (they belonged to everyone who lived east of the Mississippi), already knew at the time of their discovery some way of growing maize in gardens, and possibly also pumpkins, melons and other garden plants, which constituted a very substantial part of their diet; they lived in wooden houses, in fenced villages. The northwestern tribes, especially those who lived in the Columbia River basin, were still at the highest stage of savagery and did not know either pottery or any kind of plant cultivation. On the contrary, the Indians belonging to the so-called pueblos in New Mexico, the Mexicans, the inhabitants of Central America and the Peruvians, were at the time of the conquest at the middle stage of barbarism: they lived in fortress-like houses made of adobe or stone, grew maize in artificially irrigated gardens and other - various, depending on location and climate, edible plants that served as their main sources of food, and even tamed some animals: the Mexicans - the turkey and other birds, the Peruvians - the llama. In addition, they were familiar with the working of metals, but with the exception of iron, and therefore they still could not do without weapons and tools made of stone. The Spanish conquest cut short any further independent development.

In the East, the middle stage of barbarism began with the domestication of animals that gave milk and meat, while the culture of plants, apparently, remained unknown here for a very long time during this period. The domestication and breeding of cattle and the formation of large herds, apparently, caused the separation of the Aryans and Semites from the rest of the mass of barbarians. Among the European and Asian Aryans, domestic animals still have common names, but cultivated plants almost never.

The formation of herds led to pastoral life in places suitable for this: among the Semites - on the grassy plains along the Euphrates and the Tigris, among the Aryans - on similar plains of India, as well as along the Oxus and Jaxartes, the Don and the Dnieper. For the first time, domestication of animals was achieved, apparently, on the borders of such pasture areas. It seems to later generations, therefore, that the pastoral peoples originated from areas that, in reality, not only could not be the cradle of mankind, but, on the contrary, were almost unsuitable for life for their wild ancestors and even for people who stood on the lower rung of barbarism. On the contrary, after these middle-class barbarians had become accustomed to the life of a shepherd, it never occurred to them to voluntarily return from the grassy river valleys to the forested regions in which their ancestors lived. And even when the Semites and Aryans were pushed further north and west, they could not move into the Western Asian and European woodlands before the cultivation of cereals made it impossible for them to feed their cattle, especially in winter, on this less favorable soil. It is more than probable that the cultivation of cereals here was motivated primarily by the need for fodder for livestock, and only subsequently became an important source of human nutrition.

The rich meat and milk diet of the Aryans and Semites, and its especially favorable influence on the development of children, may perhaps be attributed to the more successful development of both of these races. Indeed, the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, who are forced to subsist almost exclusively on vegetable food, have a smaller brain than the Indians, who are on the lowest rung of barbarism and eat more meat and fish. In any case, at this stage, cannibalism gradually disappears and is preserved only as a religious act or, which is almost equivalent here, as a witchcraft rite.

3. The highest level. It begins with the smelting of iron ore and passes into civilization as a result of the invention of alphabetic writing and its use to record verbal creativity. This stage, which, as has already been said, was passed on its own only in the eastern hemisphere, is richer in success in the field of production than all the previous stages put together. It includes the Greeks of the heroic era, the Italic tribes shortly before the founding of Rome, the Germans of Tacitus, the Normans of the Vikings. 8
In the 1884 edition, instead of the words "Germans of Tacitus, Normans of the Viking Age", it is printed: "Germans of Caesar (or, as we would rather say, Tacitus)".

First of all, for the first time we meet here a plow with an iron share, with livestock as a draft force; thanks to him, agriculture on a large scale, field cultivation, and at the same time an increase in subsistence supplies, practically unlimited for the conditions of that time, became possible; then - uprooting the forest and turning it into arable land and meadows, which again on a large scale could not be done without an iron ax and an iron shovel. And at the same time, a rapid increase in population began, which became more dense in small spaces. Before the advent of crop farming, absolutely exceptional conditions must have developed in order for half a million people to be allowed to unite themselves under a single central leadership; this probably never happened.

The full flowering of the highest stage of barbarism appears before us in the poems of Homer, especially in the Iliad. Improved iron tools, bellows, hand mill, potter's wheel, cooking oil and winemaking, advanced metalworking, turning into artistic crafts, wagon and war chariot, building ships from logs and planks, the beginnings of architecture as an art, cities surrounded by battlements with towers, the Homeric epic and all mythology - this is the main legacy that the Greeks transferred from barbarism to civilization. Comparing with this the description of the Germans given by Caesar and even Tacitus, who were in the initial stage of that very stage of culture from which the Homeric Greeks were preparing to pass into a higher one, we see what a wealth of achievements in the development of production the highest stage of barbarism has.

The picture I have sketched here, according to Morgan, of the development of mankind through the stages of savagery and barbarism to the origins of civilization is already quite rich in new features and, more importantly, indisputable, since they are taken directly from production. And yet this picture will seem pale and pitiful compared with the one that will unfold before us at the end of our wandering; only then will it be possible to fully illuminate the transition from barbarism to civilization and the striking contrast between the two. In the meantime, we can generalize Morgan's periodization in this way: savagery - a period of predominantly appropriation of finished products of nature; products artificially created by man serve mainly as auxiliary tools for such appropriation. Barbarism - the period of introduction of cattle breeding and agriculture, the period of mastering the methods of increasing the production of natural products with the help of human activity. Civilization is the period of mastering the further processing of the products of nature, the period of industry in the proper sense of the word and art.

II. FAMILY

Morgan, who spent most of his life among the Iroquois, who still live in New York State, and was adopted by one of their tribes (the Seneca tribe), discovered that they had a kinship system that was in conflict with their actual family relationships. . They were dominated by that monogamy, easily dissolved by both parties, which Morgan refers to as a "paired family." The offspring of such a married couple was therefore known and generally recognized by everyone: there could be no doubt as to whom the designations father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister should be applied to. But the actual use of these expressions contradicts this. The Iroquois calls his sons and daughters not only his own children, but also the children of his brothers, and they call him father. He calls the children of his sisters his nephews and nieces, and they call him uncle. On the contrary, the Mohawk calls the children of her sisters, as well as her own children, her sons and daughters, and they call her mother. She calls the children of her brothers her nephews and nieces, and she herself is their aunt. In the same way, the children of brothers, as well as the children of sisters, call each other brothers and sisters. In contrast, a woman's children and her brother's children refer to each other as cousins ​​and first cousins. And these are not just meaningless names, but expressions of actually existing views on the proximity and distance, the sameness and dissimilarity of blood relationship, and these views serve as the basis of a fully developed system of kinship, which is able to express several hundred different kinship relationships of an individual. Moreover, this system operates in full force not only among all American Indians (no exception has yet been found), but is also applied almost unchanged among the most ancient inhabitants of India, the Dravidian tribes of the Deccan and the Gaura tribes of Hindustan. The kinship designations of the Tamils ​​of South India and the Iroquois of the Seneca of New York State are still the same for more than two hundred different kinship relationships. And among these Indian tribes, as well as among all American Indians, the kinship relationships arising from the existing form of the family are also in conflict with the kinship system.

How can this be explained? In view of the decisive role that kinship plays in the social system of all savage and barbarous peoples, the significance of this system, so widespread, cannot be discounted in mere phrases. A system which is common in America, which also exists in Asia among peoples of quite a different race, which is often found in more or less modified forms throughout Africa and Australia—such a system requires a historical explanation; one cannot get rid of it with words alone, as, for example, McLennan tried to do. Designations: father, child, brother, sister are not just some honorary titles, they entail quite definite, very serious mutual obligations, the totality of which constitutes an essential part of the social system of these peoples. And there was an explanation. In the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands, as far back as the first half of the present century, there existed a form of family in which there were exactly such fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, as required by the American and ancient Indian systems of kinship. But amazing! The system of kinship that operated in the Hawaiian Islands, again, did not coincide with the form of the family that actually existed there. Namely, there, without exception, all children of brothers and sisters are considered brothers and sisters and common children not only of their mother and her sisters or their father and his brothers, but of all brothers and sisters of their parents without distinction. If, therefore, the American kinship system presupposes a more primitive form of the family, no longer existing in America, which we actually still find in the Hawaiian Islands, then, on the other hand, the Hawaiian kinship system indicates an even earlier form of the family, the existence of which we currently , however, we can no longer find it anywhere, but which should have existed, since otherwise the corresponding system of kinship could not have arisen.

“Family,” says Morgan, “is an active principle; it never remains unchanged, but passes from a lower form to a higher one, as society develops from a lower stage to a higher one. In contrast, kinship systems are passive; only at long intervals do they register the progress made by the family during that time, and only undergo radical changes when the family has already changed radically.

“And exactly the same,” adds Marx, “is the case with political, legal, religious, philosophical systems in general.” 9
See: Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed., vol. 45, p. 242.

As the family continues to develop, the kinship system becomes ossified, and as long as the latter continues to exist by force of habit, the family outgrows its boundaries. But with the same certainty with which Cuvier could conclude from the marsupial bone of an animal skeleton found near Paris that this skeleton belonged to a marsupial animal and that extinct marsupial animals once lived there, we can with the same certainty according to the historical system that has come down to us. kinship to conclude that there was an extinct family form corresponding to it.

The systems of kinship and family forms mentioned above differ from those prevailing now in that each child has several fathers and mothers. Under the American system of kinship, which the Hawaiian family corresponds to, a brother and sister cannot be the father and mother of the same child; the Hawaiian system of kinship suggests a family in which, on the contrary, this was the rule. Here we have a number of forms of the family, in direct contradiction to those that have hitherto been usually considered the only ones that existed. The traditional idea knows only monogamy, along with it polygamy of one man, and, in extreme cases, polyandry of one woman, and at the same time, as befits a moralizing philistine, it is silent that the practice tacitly, but unceremoniously, transgresses the boundaries prescribed by official society. The study of primitive history, on the contrary, shows us a state in which husbands live in polygamy, and their wives simultaneously in polyandry, and therefore the children of both are considered the common children of them all, a state which, in turn, until its final transition to monogamy undergoes a number of changes. These changes are such that the circle encompassed by the common marriage bond, originally very wide, narrows more and more, until at last only the single couple remains, which is the dominant one at the present time.

Reconstructing the history of the family in this way in reverse order, Morgan, in agreement with most of his colleagues, concludes that there was a primitive state when unlimited sexual relations reigned within the tribe, so that every woman belonged to every man and equally every man to every woman. . Such a primitive state has been talked about since the last century, but limited to general phrases; only Bachofen - and this is one of his great merits - took this question seriously and began to look for traces of this state in historical and religious traditions. We now know that these traces he found do not return us at all to the social stage of disordered sexual relations, but to a much later form, to group marriage. The said primitive social stage, if it really existed, belongs to such a distant epoch that one can hardly expect to find direct evidence of its existence in the past among the social fossils, among the retarded savages. The merit of Bachofen lies in the fact that he brought to the fore the study of this issue. 10
By calling this primitive state hetaerism, Bachofen showed by this how little he understood what it was he had discovered, or rather guessed. By hetaerism, the Greeks, when they introduced the word, denoted the relations of men, single or living in monogamy, with unmarried women; this presupposes always the existence of a certain form of marriage, outside of which these ties take place, and implies, at least already as a possibility, prostitution. In another sense, this word has never been used, and in this sense I use it, along with Morgan. The most important discoveries of Bachofen are everywhere mystified to incredible mystification by his fantastic idea that the source of the historical relations between a man and a woman was always the corresponding religious ideas of people, and not the conditions of their real life.

Since recently 11
The text of this and subsequent paragraphs up to the section "Consanguineous family" was added by Engels in the 1891 edition.

It has become fashionable to deny this initial stage of human sexual life. They want to rid humanity of this "shame". And at the same time they refer not only to the absence of any direct evidence, but especially to the example of the other animal world; regarding the latter, Letourneau (The Evolution of Marriage and the Family, 1888) collected many facts showing that completely disordered sexual relations are also characteristic here of a low stage of development. However, from all these facts I can only conclude that they prove absolutely nothing in relation to man and his primitive conditions of life. Long-term paired cohabitation in vertebrates is sufficiently explained by physiological reasons: for example, in birds, by the fact that the female needs help during the period of incubation of chicks; the examples of strong monogamy found in birds do not prove anything in relation to people, since people do not come from birds. And if strict monogamy is the pinnacle of all virtue, then the palm of primacy rightfully belongs to the tapeworm, which in each of its 50-200 proglottids, or body segments, has a complete female and male reproductive apparatus and all its life only does that in each of these segments copulates with itself. If we confine ourselves to mammals, then we will find here all forms of sexual life - disordered relationships, a kind of group marriage, polygamy, monogamy; what is lacking is polyandry, which only humans could reach. Even among our closest relatives, the four-armed ones, every possible variety of groupings of males and females is found; but if we take an even narrower framework and consider only four genera of great apes, then Letourneau is only able to say that they have either monogamy or polygamy, while Saus-sur, according to Giraud-Tlon, states that they are monogamous. Westermarck's latest statements (History of Human Marriage, London, 1891) about monogamy in great apes are also far from being proof. In a word, the available data are such that the conscientious Letourneau admits:

“However, in mammals there is absolutely no strict correspondence between the degree of mental development and the form of sexual intercourse.”

And Espinas ("On the Communities of Animals", 1877) directly says:

“The herd is the highest social group that we can observe in animals. It is apparently made up of families, but from the very beginning, the family and the herd are in antagonism, there is an inverse relationship between their development.

As already seen from what has been said above, we know almost nothing definite about the family and other cohabiting groups of great apes; The available information directly contradicts each other. This is not surprising. How contradictory, and how badly in need of critical scrutiny and sifting, even the information we have about savage human tribes! And monkey communities are even more difficult to observe than human communities. For the time being, therefore, we must reject any conclusions drawn from such totally unreliable reports.

On the contrary, Espinas' position above gives us a stronger foothold. The herd and the family in the higher animals do not complement each other, but are opposed to each other. Espinas shows very well how the jealousy of males during estrus weakens the cohesion of the herd or temporarily destroys it.

“Where the family is closely united, the herd is formed only as a rare exception. On the contrary, where either free sexual intercourse or polygamy prevails, the herd forms almost by itself ... In order for a herd to form, family ties must weaken and the individual must again become free. That is why we so rarely meet organized flocks in birds... On the contrary, we find communities organized to a certain extent in mammals, precisely because the individual here is not absorbed by the family... For the feeling of herd community, therefore, when it arises, there can be no greater enemy than the feeling of family community. To put it bluntly: if a higher social form than the family has developed, then this could only happen because it has dissolved families that have undergone fundamental changes. and it cannot be ruled out that it was precisely because of this that the same families subsequently found the opportunity to organize again under infinitely more favorable conditions ”(Espinas, op. cit.; cited in Giraud-Tlon,“ The Origin of Marriage and the Family. 1884, pp. 518-520 ).

This shows that although animal communities have a certain value for retrospective inferences about human communities, this value is only negative. In higher vertebrates, as far as we know, only two forms of the family are known: polygamy and cohabitation in separate pairs; in both cases, only one adult male, only one spouse, is allowed. The jealousy of the male, which at the same time binds and limits the family of animals, brings it into conflict with the herd; because of this jealousy, the herd, a higher form of communication, in some cases ceases to exist, in others it loses cohesion or breaks up during estrus, and at best is delayed in its further development. This alone is enough to prove that the family of animals and primitive human society are incompatible things, that primitive people who got out of the animal state either did not know the family at all, or, at the most, knew one that is not found in animals. An unarmed animal like a developing man could still survive in small numbers even in an isolated existence, when the highest form of communication is cohabitation in separate pairs, as, according to Westermarck, based on the stories of hunters, gorillas and chimpanzees live. But in order to evolve out of the animal state and make the greatest progress known in nature, one more element was required: the lack of the ability of an individual to protect himself had to be compensated by the combined strength and collective actions of the herd. From the conditions under which the great apes now live, the transition to the human condition would be directly inexplicable; these monkeys give rather the impression of deviated lateral lines, doomed to gradual extinction and, in any case, in a state of decline. This alone is enough to refuse to draw any parallels between the forms of the family among them and among primitive man. After all, the mutual tolerance of adult males, the absence of jealousy, were the first condition for the formation of such larger and more durable groups, in the midst of which only the transformation of an animal into a man could take place. And indeed, what do we find as the oldest, earliest form of the family, the existence of which in history we can undeniably prove and which can still be studied here and now? Group marriage, a form of marriage in which whole groups of men and whole groups of women belong together and which leaves very little room for jealousy. And further, at a later stage of development, we find such an exceptional form as polyandry, which is even more in blatant contradiction with any feeling of jealousy and therefore is not known to animals. But the forms of group marriage known to us are associated with such peculiarly confused conditions that they necessarily point to earlier, simpler forms of sexual intercourse, and at the same time, ultimately, to a period of disordered sexual relations corresponding to the transition from the animal state to the human; hence the references to animal marriages bring us back to the exact point from which they were supposed to take us away once and for all.