The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
{"WorkMasterId":5783,"WpPageId":270968,"ParentWpPageId":193817,"Slug":"the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-engels/the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-engels/the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":530135,"CleanHtmlLength":474025,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State","Deck":"Engels connects kinship, property, gender hierarchy, class society, and state power to material social development.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to Friedrich Engels","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-engels/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"Friedrich Engels","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-engels/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/friedrich-engels-01-mi-young-pencil-portrait.jpg","ImageAlt":"Friedrich Engels young pencil portrait","FilterTerra":"Western Europe","ClickText":"Friedrich Engels","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-engels/","Copies":["1820 CE – 1895 CE","Barmen, Rhine Province, Prussia","German socialist philosopher, political economist, and cofounder of Marxism whose historical materialism, capitalism critique, dialectics, class analysis, and later editorial work shaped modern socialist theory."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:4","Title":"Modern History","DateText":"1800 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:11","Title":"Long 19th Century","DateText":"1870 CE – 1913 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-long-19th-century/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1884 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Published in 1884 CE, drawing on Morgan and Marx\u0027s notes; HasFullText remains false.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:3"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:DEU:1"}],"OriginalTitle":"Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats","Language":"German / English","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:political-philosophy"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:ethics"}],"Tradition":"Marxism / historical materialism","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #33111 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Engels connects kinship, property, gender hierarchy, class society, and state power to material social development."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State","KeyConcepts":"Friedrich Engels; Karl Marx; historical materialism; dialectics; class struggle; capitalism; socialism; communism; political economy; ideology; state; family; science; nature; religion; Manchester; Barmen","Methodology":"Historical analysis, political economy, social investigation, polemic, dialectical materialist reconstruction, journalism, and collaborative Marxist theory.","Structure":"The page records an approved Engels work with visible date, coauthorship, posthumous, unfinished, essay, or transmission notes where needed."},"Arguments":["Engels connects kinship, property, gender hierarchy, class society, and state power to material social development."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"Karl Marx, Hegel, Feuerbach, Moses Hess, British political economy, Manchester industrial capitalism, Chartism, and German radical criticism.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Included as one of the direct or coauthored Engels work pages approved for the Friedrich Engels full-process update.","The work documents Engels\u0027s role in historical materialism, political economy, socialism, class analysis, science, religion critique, family theory, and Marxist reception."],"EvidenceNote":["Direct or coauthored work page approved in the Friedrich Engels update. Marx-only works, Engels-edited Marx volumes, collected editions, correspondence, individual letters, journalism fragments, military articles, modern translations, anthologies, catalog rows, biographies, and scholarship remain evidence/Other Voices."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #33111\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33111\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Engels connects kinship, property, gender hierarchy, class society, and state power to material social development."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"Friedrich Engels; Karl Marx; historical materialism; dialectics; class struggle; capitalism; socialism; communism; political economy; ideology; state; family; science; nature; religion; Manchester; Barmen"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Historical analysis, political economy, social investigation, polemic, dialectical materialist reconstruction, journalism, and collaborative Marxist theory."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"The page records an approved Engels work with visible date, coauthorship, posthumous, unfinished, essay, or transmission notes where needed."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Engels connects kinship, property, gender hierarchy, class society, and state power to material social development."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"Karl Marx, Hegel, Feuerbach, Moses Hess, British political economy, Manchester industrial capitalism, Chartism, and German radical criticism."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Marxism, social democracy, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Western Marxism, socialist historiography, materialist social theory, and philosophy of science debates."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Included as one of the direct or coauthored Engels work pages approved for the Friedrich Engels full-process update.","The work documents Engels\u0027s role in historical materialism, political economy, socialism, class analysis, science, religion critique, family theory, and Marxist reception."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Direct or coauthored work page approved in the Friedrich Engels update. Marx-only works, Engels-edited Marx volumes, collected editions, correspondence, individual letters, journalism fragments, military articles, modern translations, anthologies, catalog rows, biographies, and scholarship remain evidence/Other Voices."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33111\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #33111\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003ch1\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTHE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003ePRIVATE PROPERTY\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003eAND THE STATE\u003c/span\u003e\r\n\u003cspan id=\"id1\"\u003eBY\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003eFREDERICK ENGELS\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"tbrk\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"bold\"\u003e\u003ci\u003eTRANSLATED BY ERNEST UNTERMANN\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"tbrk\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"center\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-logo.jpg\" width=\u0027188\u0027 height=\u002765\u0027 alt=\"Logo\" /\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"tbrk\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"bold\"\u003eCHICAGO\u003cbr /\u003eCHARLES H. KERR \u0026amp; COMPANY\u003cbr /\u003e1908\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_2\" id=\"Page_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-003.png\"\u003e2\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"tbrk\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"bold\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eCopyright, 1902\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nBy Charles H. Kerr \u0026amp; Company\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"tbrk\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_3\" id=\"Page_3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-004.png\"\u003e3\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"bold2\"\u003eTABLE OF CONTENTS.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ctable summary=\"CONTENTS\"\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003ePage.\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eTranslator\u0027s Preface\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_5\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eAuthor\u0027s Prefaces\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_9\"\u003e9-12\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003ePrehistoric Stages\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_27\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eThe Family\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_35\"\u003e35\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eThe Iroquois Gens\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_102\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eThe Grecian Gens\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_120\"\u003e120\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eOrigin of the Attic State\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_131\"\u003e131\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eGens and State in Rome\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_145\"\u003e145\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eThe Gens Among Celts and Germans\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_158\"\u003e158\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n \u003ctr\u003e\r\n \u003ctd class=\"left\"\u003eThe Rise of the State Among Germans\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Page_176\"\u003e176\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\r\n \u003c/tr\u003e\r\n\u003c/table\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_4\" id=\"Page_4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-005.png\"\u003e4\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"tbrk\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_5\" id=\"Page_5\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-006.png\"\u003e5\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003eTRANSLATOR\u0027S PREFACE.\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\"An eternal being created human society as it is to-day, and submission\r\nto \u0027superiors\u0027 and \u0027authority\u0027 is imposed on the \u0027lower\u0027 classes by\r\ndivine will.\" This suggestion, coming from pulpit, platform and press,\r\nhas hypnotized the minds of men and proves to be one of the strongest\r\npillars of exploitation. Scientific investigation has revealed long ago\r\nthat human society is not cast in a stereotyped mould. As organic life\r\non earth assumes different shapes, the result of a succession of\r\nchemical changes, so the group life of human beings develops different\r\nsocial institutions as a result of increasing control over environment,\r\nespecially of production of food, clothing and shelter. Such is the\r\nmessage which the works of men like Bachofen, Morgan, Marx, Darwin, and\r\nothers, brought to the human race. But this message never reached the\r\ngreat mass of humanity. In the United States the names of these men are\r\npractically unknown. Their books are either out of print, as is the case\r\nwith the fundamental works of Morgan, or they are not translated into\r\nEnglish. Only a few of them are accessible to a few individuals on the\r\ndusty shelves of some public libraries. Their message is dangerous to\r\nthe existing order, and it will not do to give it publicity at a time\r\nwhen further intellectual progress of large bodies of men means the doom\r\nof the ruling class. The capitalist system has progressed so far, that\r\nall farther progress must bring danger to it and to those who are\r\nsupreme through it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut the forces, which have brought about the \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_6\" id=\"Page_6\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-007.png\"\u003e6\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003epresent social order,\r\ncontinue their work regardless of the wishes of a few exploiters. A\r\ncomprehensive work summarizing our present knowledge of the development\r\nof social institutions is, therefore, a timely contribution to socialist\r\npropaganda. In order to meet the requirements of socialists, such a\r\nsummary must be written by a socialist. All the scientists who devoted\r\nthemselves to the study of primeval society belonged to the privileged\r\nclasses, and even the most radical of them, Lewis Morgan, was prevented\r\nby his environment from pointing out the one fact, the recognition of\r\nwhich distinguishes the socialist position from all others\u0026mdash;THE\r\nEXISTENCE OF A CLASS STRUGGLE.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe strongest allusion to this fact is found in the following passage of\r\n\"Ancient Society\": \"Property and office were the foundations upon which\r\naristocracy planted itself. Whether this principle shall live or die has\r\nbeen one of the great problems with which modern society has been\r\nengaged…. As a question between equal rights and unequal rights,\r\nbetween equal laws and unequal laws, between the rights of wealth, of\r\nrank and of official position, and the power of justice and\r\nintelligence, there can be little doubt of the ultimate result\" (page 551).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eYet Morgan held that \"several thousand years have passed away without\r\nthe overthrow of the privileged classes, excepting in the United\r\nStates.\" But in the days of the trusts, of government by injunction, of\r\nsets of 400 with all the arrogance and exclusiveness of European\r\nnobility, of aristocratic branches of the Daughters of the Revolution,\r\nand other gifts of capitalist development, the modern American\r\nworkingman will hardly share Morgan\u0027s optimistic view that there are no\r\nprivileged classes in the United States. It must be admitted, however,\r\nthat to this day Morgan\u0027s work is the most fundamental and exhaustive\r\nof\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_7\" id=\"Page_7\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-008.png\"\u003e7\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e any written on the subject of ancient social development.\r\nWestermarck\u0027s \"History of Human Marriage\" treats the question mainly\r\nfrom the standpoint of Ethnology and Natural History. As a scientific\r\ntreatise it is entirely inadequate, being simply a compilation of data\r\nfrom all parts of the world, arranged without the understanding of\r\ngentile organizations or of the materialistic conception of history, and\r\nused for wild speculations. Kovalevsky\u0027s argument turns on the\r\nproposition that the patriarchal household is a typical stage of\r\nsociety, intermediate between the matriarchal and monogamic family.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNone of these men could discuss the matter from the proletarian point of\r\nview. For in order to do this, it is necessary to descend from the hills\r\nof class assumption into the valley of proletarian class-consciousness.\r\nThis consciousness and the socialist mind are born together. The key to\r\nthe philosophy of capitalism is the philosophy of socialism. With the\r\nrays of this searchlight, Engels exposed the pious \"deceivers,\" property\r\nand the state, and their \"lofty\" ideal, covetousness. And the monogamic\r\nfamily, so far from being a divinely instituted \"union of souls,\" is\r\nseen to be the product of a series of material and, in the last\r\nanalysis, of the most sordid motives. But the ethics of property are\r\nworthy of a system of production that, in its final stage, shuts the\r\noverwhelming mass of longing humanity out from the happiness of home and\r\nfamily life, from all evolution to a higher individuality, and even\r\ndrives progress back and forces millions of human beings into irrevocable degeneration.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe desire for a higher life cannot awake in a man, until he is\r\nthoroughly convinced that his present life is ugly, low, and capable of\r\nimprovement by himself. The present little volume is especially adapted\r\nto assist the exploited of both sexes in recognizing the actual causes\r\nwhich brought about their present \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_8\" id=\"Page_8\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-009.png\"\u003e8\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003econdition. By opening the eyes of the\r\ndeluded throng and reducing the vaporings of their ignorant or selfish\r\nwould-be leaders in politics and education to sober reality, it will\r\nshow the way out of the darkness and mazes of slavish traditions into\r\nthe light and freedom of a fuller life on earth.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese are the reasons for introducing this little volume to English\r\nspeaking readers. Without any further apology, we leave them to its\r\nperusal and to their own conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"right\"\u003eERNEST UNTERMANN.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eChicago, August, 1902.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_9\" id=\"Page_9\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-010.png\"\u003e9\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003eAUTHOR\u0027S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, 1884.\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe following chapters are, in a certain sense, executing a bequest. It\r\nwas no less a man than Karl Marx who had reserved to himself the\r\nprivilege of displaying the results of Morgan\u0027s investigations in\r\nconnection with his own materialistic conception of history\u0026mdash;which I\r\nmight call ours within certain limits. He wished thus to elucidate the\r\nfull meaning of this conception. For in America, Morgan had, in a\r\nmanner, discovered anew the materialistic conception of history,\r\noriginated by Marx forty years ago. In comparing barbarism and\r\ncivilization, he had arrived, in the main, at the same results as Marx.\r\nAnd just as \"Capital\" was zealously plagiarized and persistently passed\r\nover in silence by the professional economists in Germany, so Morgan\u0027s\r\n\"Ancient Society\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_1_1\" id=\"FNanchor_1_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_1_1\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e was treated by the spokesmen of \"prehistoric\"\r\nscience in England.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMy work can offer only a meager substitute for that which my departed\r\nfriend was not destined to accomplish. But in his copious extracts from\r\nMorgan, I have critical notes which I herewith reproduce as fully as feasible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the materialistic conception, the decisive element of\r\nhistory is pre-eminently the production and reproduction of life and its\r\nmaterial requirements. This implies, on the one hand, the production of\r\nthe means of existence (food, clothing, shelter and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_10\" id=\"Page_10\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-011.png\"\u003e10\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the necessary\r\ntools); on the other hand, the generation of children, the propagation\r\nof the species. The social institutions, under which the people of a\r\ncertain historical period and of a certain country are living, are\r\ndependent on these two forms of production; partly on the development of\r\nlabor, partly on that of the family. The less labor is developed, and\r\nthe less abundant the quantity of its production and, therefore, the\r\nwealth of society, the more society is seen to be under the domination\r\nof sexual ties. However, under this formation based on sexual ties, the\r\nproductivity of labor is developed more and more. At the same time,\r\nprivate property and exchange, distinctions of wealth, exploitation of\r\nthe labor power of others and, by this agency, the foundation of class\r\nantagonism, are formed. These new elements of society strive in the\r\ncourse of time to adapt the old state of society to the new conditions,\r\nuntil the impossibility of harmonizing these two at last leads to a\r\ncomplete revolution. The old form of society founded on sexual relations\r\nis abolished in the clash with the recently developed social classes. A\r\nnew society steps into being, crystallized into the state. The units of\r\nthe latter are no longer sexual, but local groups; a society in which\r\nfamily relations are entirely subordinated to property relations,\r\nthereby freely developing those class antagonisms and class struggles\r\nthat make up the contents of all written history up to the present time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMorgan deserves great credit for rediscovering and re-establishing in\r\nits main outlines this foundation of our written history, and of finding\r\nin the sexual organizations of the North American Indians the key that\r\nopens all the unfathomable riddles of most ancient Greek, Roman and\r\nGerman history. His book is not the work of a short day. For more than\r\nforty years he grappled with the subject, until he \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_11\" id=\"Page_11\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-012.png\"\u003e11\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003emastered it fully.\r\nTherefore his work is one of the few epochal publications of our time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the following demonstrations, the reader will, on the whole, easily\r\ndistinguish what originated with Morgan and what was added by myself. In\r\nthe historical sections on Greece and Rome, I have not limited myself to\r\nMorgan\u0027s material, but have added as much as I could supply. The\r\nsections on Celts and Germans essentially belong to me. Morgan had only\r\nsources of minor quality at his disposal, and for German\r\nconditions\u0026mdash;aside from Tacitus\u0026mdash;only the worthless, unbridled\r\nfalsifications of Freeman. The economic deductions, sufficient for\r\nMorgan\u0027s purpose, but wholly inadequate for mine, were treated anew by\r\nmyself. And lastly I am, of course, responsible for all final\r\nconclusions, unless Morgan is expressly quoted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"right\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eFrederick Engels.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_12\" id=\"Page_12\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-013.png\"\u003e12\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003eAUTHOR\u0027S PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, 1891.\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe first large editions of this work have been out of print for nearly\r\nsix months, and the publisher has for some time requested of me the\r\narrangement of a new edition. Urgent duties have hitherto prevented me.\r\nSeven years have passed, since the first edition made its appearance;\r\nduring this time, the study of primeval forms of the family has made\r\nconsiderable progress. Hence it became necessary to apply diligently the\r\nimproving and supplementing hand, more especially, as the proposed\r\nstereotyping of the present text will make further changes impossible for some time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently, I have subjected the whole text to a thorough revision and\r\nmade a number of additions which, I hope, will give due recognition to\r\nthe present stage of scientific progress. Furthermore, I give in the\r\ncourse of this preface a short synopsis of the history of the family as\r\ntreated by various writers from Bachofen to Morgan. I am doing this\r\nmainly because the English prehistoric school, tinged with chauvinism,\r\nis continually doing its utmost to kill by its silence the revolution in\r\nprimeval conceptions effected by Morgan\u0027s discoveries. At the same time\r\nthis school is not at all backward in appropriating to its own use the\r\nresults of Morgan\u0027s study. In certain other circles also this English\r\nexample is unhappily followed rather extensively.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMy work has been translated into different languages. First into\r\nItalian; L\u0027origine della famiglia, della propriet\u0026aacute; privata e dello\r\nstato, versione riveduta dall\u0027 autore, di Pasquale Martignetti;\r\nBenevento, 1885.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_13\" id=\"Page_13\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-014.png\"\u003e13\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e Then into Roumanian: Origina familei, proprietatei\r\nprivate si a statului, traducere de Ivan Nadejde, in the Jassy\r\nperiodical \"Contemporanul,\" September, 1885, to May, 1886. Furthermore\r\ninto Danish: Familjens, Privatejendommens og Statens Oprindelse, Dansk,\r\naf Forfatteren gennemgaaet Udgave, bes\u0026ouml;rget af Gerson Trier,\r\nKjoebenhavn, 1888. A French translation by Henri Rav\u0026eacute;, founded on the\r\npresent German edition, is under the press.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eUp to the beginning of the sixties, a history of the family cannot be\r\nspoken of. This branch of historical science was then entirely under the\r\ninfluence of the decalogue. The patriarchal form of the family,\r\ndescribed more exhaustively by Moses than by anybody else, was not only,\r\nwithout further comment, considered as the most ancient, but also as\r\nidentical with the family of our times. No historical development of the\r\nfamily was even recognized. At best it was admitted that a period of\r\nsexual license might have existed in primeval times.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo be sure, aside from monogamy, oriental polygamy and Indo-Tibethan\r\npolyandry were known; but these three forms could not be arranged in any\r\nhistorical order and stood side by side without any connection. That\r\nsome nations of ancient history and some savage tribes of the present\r\nday did not trace their descent to the father, but to the mother, hence\r\nconsidered the female lineage as alone valid; that many nations of our\r\ntime prohibit intermarrying inside of certain large groups, the extent\r\nof which was not yet ascertained and that this custom is found in all\r\nparts of the globe\u0026mdash;these facts were known, indeed, and more examples\r\nwere continually collected. But nobody knew how to make use of them.\r\nEven in E. B. Taylor\u0027s \"Researches into the Early History of Mankind,\"\r\netc. (1865), they are only mentioned as \"queer customs\" together with\r\nthe usage of some savage tribes\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_14\" id=\"Page_14\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-015.png\"\u003e14\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e to prohibit the touching of burning\r\nwood with iron, tools, and similar religious absurdities.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis history of the family dates from 1861, the year of the publication\r\nof Bachofen\u0027s \"Mutterrecht\" (maternal law). Here the author makes the following propositions:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. That in the beginning people lived in unrestricted sexual\r\nintercourse, which he dubs, not very felicitously, hetaerism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. That such an intercourse excludes any absolutely certain means of\r\ndetermining parentage; that consequently descent could only be traced by\r\nthe female line in compliance with maternal law\u0026mdash;and that this was\r\nuniversally practiced by all the nations of antiquity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. That consequently women as mothers, being the only well known parents\r\nof younger generations, received a high tribute of respect and\r\ndeference, amounting to a complete women\u0027s rule (gynaicocracy),\r\naccording to Bachofen\u0027s idea.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. That the transition to monogamy, reserving a certain woman\r\nexclusively to one man, implied the violation of a primeval religious\r\nlaw (i. e., practically a violation of the customary right of all other\r\nmen to the same woman), which violation had to be atoned for or its\r\npermission purchased by the surrender of the women to the public for a limited time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBachofen finds the proofs of these propositions in numerous quotations\r\nfrom ancient classics, collected with unusual diligence. The transition\r\nfrom \"hetaerism\" to monogamy and from maternal to paternal law is\r\naccomplished according to him\u0026mdash;especially by the Greeks\u0026mdash;through the\r\nevolution of religious ideas. New gods, the representatives of the new\r\nideas, are added to the traditional group of gods, the representatives\r\nof old ideas; the latter are forced to the background more and more by\r\nthe former. \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_15\" id=\"Page_15\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-016.png\"\u003e15\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eAccording to Bachofen, therefore, it is not the development\r\nof the actual conditions of life that has effected the historical\r\nchanges in the relative social positions of man and wife, but the\r\nreligious reflection of these conditions in the minds of men. Hence\r\nBachofen represents the Oresteia of Aeschylos as the dramatic\r\ndescription of the fight between the vanishing maternal and the paternal\r\nlaw, rising and victorious during the time of the heroes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eKlytaemnestra has killed her husband Agamemnon on his return from the\r\nTrojan war for the sake of her lover Aegisthos; but Orestes, her son by\r\nAgamemnon, avenges the death of his father by killing his mother.\r\nTherefore he is persecuted by the Erinyes, the demonic protectors of\r\nmaternal law, according to which the murder of a mother is the most\r\nhorrible, inexpiable crime. But Apollo, who has instigated Orestes to\r\nthis act by his oracle, and Athene, who is invoked as arbitrator\u0026mdash;the\r\ntwo deities representing the new paternal order of things\u0026mdash;protect him.\r\nAthene gives a hearing to both parties. The whole question is summarized\r\nin the ensuing debate between Orestes and the Erinyes. Orestes claims\r\nthat Klytemnaestra has committed a twofold crime: by killing her husband\r\nshe has killed his father. Why do the Erinyes persecute him and not her\r\nwho is far more guilty?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe reply is striking:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\"She was not related by blood to the man whom she slew.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe murder of a man not consanguineous, even though he be the husband of\r\nthe murderess, is expiable, does not concern the Erinyes; it is only\r\ntheir duty to prosecute the murder of consanguineous relatives.\r\nAccording to maternal law, therefore, the murder of a mother is the most\r\nheinous and inexpiable crime. Now Apollo speaks in defense of Orestes.\r\nAthene then calls on the areopagites\u0026mdash;the jurors of Athens\u0026mdash;to\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_16\" id=\"Page_16\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-017.png\"\u003e16\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e vote;\r\nthe votes are even for acquittal and for condemnation. Thereupon Athene\r\nas president of the jury casts her vote in favor of Orestes and acquits\r\nhim. Paternal law has gained a victory over maternal law, the deities of\r\nthe \"younger generation,\" as the Erinyes call them, vanquish the latter.\r\nThese are finally persuaded to accept a new office under the new order of things.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis new, but decidedly accurate interpretation of the Oresteia is one\r\nof the most beautiful and best passages in the whole book, but it proves\r\nat the same time that Bachofen himself believes as much in the Erinyes,\r\nin Apollo and in Athene, as Aeschylos did in his day. He really\r\nbelieves, that they performed the miracle of securing the downfall of\r\nmaternal law through paternal law during the time of the Greek heroes.\r\nThat a similar conception, representing religion as the main lever of\r\nthe world\u0027s history, must finally lead to sheer mysticism, is evident.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore it is a troublesome and not always profitable task to work\r\nyour way through the big volume of Bachofen. Still, all this does not\r\ncurtail the value of his fundamental work. He was the first to replace\r\nthe assumption of an unknown primeval condition of licentious sexual\r\nintercourse by the demonstration that ancient classical literature\r\npoints out a multitude of traces proving the actual existence among\r\nGreeks and Asiatics of other sexual relations before monogamy. These\r\nrelations not only permitted a man to have intercourse with several\r\nwomen, but also left a woman free to have sexual intercourse with\r\nseveral men without violating good morals. This custom did not disappear\r\nwithout leaving as a survival the form of a general surrender for a\r\nlimited time by which women had to purchase the right of monogamy. Hence\r\ndescent could originally only be traced by the female line, from mother\r\nto mother. The sole legality\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_17\" id=\"Page_17\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-018.png\"\u003e17\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of the female line was preserved far into\r\nthe time of monogamy with assured, or at least acknowledged, paternity.\r\nConsequently, the original position of the mothers as the sole\r\nabsolutely certain parents of their children secured for them and for\r\nall other women a higher social level than they have ever enjoyed since.\r\nAlthough Bachofen, biased by his mystic conceptions, did not formulate\r\nthese propositions so clearly, still he proved their correctness. This\r\nwas equivalent to a complete revolution in 1861.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBachofen\u0027s big volume was written In German, i. e., in the language of a\r\nnation that cared less than any other of its time for the history of the\r\npresent family. Therefore he remained unknown. The man next succeeding\r\nhim in the same field made his appearance in 1865 without having ever heard of Bachofen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis successor was J. F. McLennan, the direct opposite of his\r\npredecessor. Instead of the talented mystic, we have here the dry\r\njurist; in place of the rank growth of poetical imagination, we find the\r\nplausible combinations of the pleading lawyer. McLennan finds among many\r\nsavage, barbarian and even civilized people of ancient and modern times\r\na type of marriage forcing the bride-groom, alone or in co-operation\r\nwith his friends, to go through the form of a mock forcible abduction of\r\nthe bride. This must needs be a survival of an earlier custom when men\r\nof one tribe actually secured their wives by forcible abduction from\r\nanother tribe. How did this \"robber marriage\" originate? As long as the\r\nmen could find women enough in their own tribe, there was no occasion\r\nfor robbing. It so happens that we frequently find certain groups among\r\nundeveloped nations (which in 1865 were often considered identical with\r\nthe tribes themselves), inside of which intermarrying was prohibited. In\r\nconsequence the men (or women) of a certain group were forced to choose\r\ntheir wives (or husbands) outside of\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_18\" id=\"Page_18\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-019.png\"\u003e18\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e their group. Other tribes again\r\nobserve the custom of forcing their men to choose their women inside of\r\ntheir own group only. McLennan calls the first exogamous, the second\r\nendogamous, and construes forthwith a rigid contrast between exogamous\r\nand endogamous \"tribes.\" And though his own investigation of exogamy\r\nmakes it painfully obvious that this contrast in many, if not in most or\r\neven in all cases, exists in his own imagination only, he nevertheless\r\nmakes it the basis of his entire theory. According to the latter,\r\nexogamous tribes can choose their women only from other tribes. And as\r\nin conformity with their savage state a condition of continual warfare\r\nexisted among such tribes, women could only be secured by abduction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMcLennan further asks: Whence this custom of exogamy? The idea of\r\nconsanguinity and rape could not have anything to do with it, since\r\nthese conceptions were developed much later. But it was a widely spread\r\ncustom among savages to kill female children immediately after their\r\nbirth. This produced a surplus of males in such a tribe which naturally\r\nresulted in the condition where several men had one woman\u0026mdash;polyandry.\r\nThe next consequence was that the mother of a child could be\r\nascertained, but not its father; hence: descent only traced by the\r\nfemale line and exclusion of male lineage\u0026mdash;maternal law. And a second\r\nconsequence of the scarcity of women in a certain tribe\u0026mdash;a scarcity that\r\nwas somewhat mitigated, but not relieved by polyandry\u0026mdash;was precisely the\r\nforcible abduction of women from other tribes. \"As exogamy and polyandry\r\nare referable to one and the same cause\u0026mdash;a want of balance between the\r\nsexes\u0026mdash;we are forced to regard all the exogamous races as having\r\noriginally been polyandrous…. Therefore we must hold it to be beyond\r\ndispute that among exogamous races the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_19\" id=\"Page_19\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-020.png\"\u003e19\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e first system of kinship was that\r\nwhich recognized blood-ties through mothers only.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_2_2\" id=\"FNanchor_2_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_2_2\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is the merit of McLennan to have pointed out the general extent and\r\nthe great importance of what he calls exogamy. However, he has by no\r\nmeans discovered the fact of exogamous groups; neither did he understand\r\ntheir presence. Aside from earlier scattered notes of many\r\nobservers\u0026mdash;from which McLennan quoted\u0026mdash;Latham had accurately and\r\ncorrectly described this institution among the Indian Magars\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_3_3\" id=\"FNanchor_3_3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_3_3\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[3]\u003c/a\u003e and\r\nstated that it was widespread and practiced in all parts of the globe.\r\nMcLennan himself quotes this passage. As early as 1847, our friend\r\nMorgan had also pointed out and correctly described the same custom in\r\nhis letters on the Iroquois (in the American Review) and in 1851 in \"The\r\nLeague of the Iroquois.\" We shall see, how the lawyer\u0027s instinct of\r\nMcLennan has introduced more disorder into this subject than the mystic\r\nimagination of Bachofen did into the field of maternal law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt must be said to McLennan\u0027s credit that he recognized the custom of\r\ntracing decent by maternal law as primeval, although Bachofen has\r\nanticipated him in this respect. McLennan has admitted this later on.\r\nBut here again he is not clear on the subject. He always speaks of\r\n\"kinship through females only\" and uses this expression, correctly\r\napplicable to former stages, in connection with later stages of\r\ndevelopment, when descent and heredity were still exclusively traced\r\nalong female lines, but at the same time kinship on the male side began\r\nto be recognized and expressed. It is the narrow-mindedness of the\r\njurist, establishing a fixed legal expression and employing it\r\nincessantly\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_20\" id=\"Page_20\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-021.png\"\u003e20\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e to denote conditions to which it should no longer be\r\napplied.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn spite of its plausibility, McLennan\u0027s theory did not seem too well\r\nfounded even in the eyes of its author. At least he finds it remarkable\r\nhimself \"that the form of capture is now most distinctly marked and\r\nimpressive just among those races which have male kinship.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_4_4\" id=\"FNanchor_4_4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_4_4\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[4]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd again: \"It is a curious fact that nowhere now, that we are aware of,\r\nis infanticide a system where exogamy and the earliest form of kinship\r\nco-exists.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_5_5\" id=\"FNanchor_5_5\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_5_5\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[5]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBoth these facts directly disprove his method of explanation, and he can\r\nonly meet them with new and still more complicated hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn spite of this, his theory found great approval and favor in England.\r\nHere McLennan was generally considered as the founder of the history of\r\nthe family and as the first authority on this subject. His contrast of\r\nexogamous and endogamous \"tribes\" remained the recognized foundation of\r\nthe customary views, however much single exceptions and modifications\r\nwere admitted. This antithesis became the eye-flap that rendered\r\nimpossible any free view of the field under investigation and,\r\ntherefore, any decided progress. It is our duty to confront this\r\noverrating of McLennan, practised in England and copied elsewhere, with\r\nthe fact that he has done more harm with his ill-conceived contrast of\r\nexogamous and endogamous tribes than he has done good by his investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, in the course of time more and more facts became known that\r\ndid not fit into his neat frame. McLennan knew only three forms of\r\nmarriage: polygamy, polyandry and monogamy. But once attention had been\r\ndirected to this point, then more and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_21\" id=\"Page_21\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-022.png\"\u003e21\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e more proofs were found that among\r\nundeveloped nations there were connubial forms in which a group of men\r\npossessed a group of women. Lubbock in his \"Origin of Civilization\"\r\n(1870) recognized this \"communal marriage\" as a historical fact.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eImmediately after him, in 1871, Morgan appeared with fresh and, in many\r\nrespects, conclusive material. He had convinced himself that the\r\npeculiar system of kinship in vogue among the Iroquois was common to all\r\nthe aborigines of the United States, and practised all over the\r\ncontinent, although it was in direct contradiction with all the degrees\r\nof relation arising from the connubial system in practice there. He\r\nprevailed on the federal government to collect information on the\r\nsystems of kinship of other nations by the help of question blanks and\r\ntables drawn up by himself. The answers brought the following results:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The kinship system of the American Indians is also in vogue in Asia,\r\nand in a somewhat modified form among numerous tribes of Africa and Australia.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. This system finds a complete explanation in a certain form of\r\ncommunal marriage now in process of decline in Hawaii and some Australian islands.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. By the side of this marital form, there is in practice on the same\r\nislands a system of kinship only explicable by a still more primeval and\r\nnow extinct form of communal marriage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe collected data and the conclusions of Morgan were published in his\r\n\"Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity,\" 1871, and discussion\r\ntransferred to a far more extensive field. Taking his departure from the\r\nsystem of affinity he reconstructed the corresponding forms of the\r\nfamily, thereby opening a new road to scientific investigation and\r\nextending the retrospective view into prehistoric periods of human life.\r\nOnce this view gained \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_22\" id=\"Page_22\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-023.png\"\u003e22\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003erecognition, then the frail structure of\r\nMcLennan, would vanish into thin air.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMcLennan defended his theory in the new edition of \"Primitive Marriage\"\r\n(Studies in Ancient History, 1875). While he himself most artificially\r\ncombines into a history of the family a number of hypotheses, he not\r\nonly demands proofs from Lubbock and Morgan for every one of their\r\npropositions, but insists on proofs of such indisputable validity as is\r\nsolely recognized in a Scotch court. And this is done by the same man\r\nwho unhesitatingly concludes that the following people practiced\r\npolyandry: The Germans, on account of the intimate relation between\r\nuncle and nephew (mother\u0027s brother and sister\u0027s son); the Britons,\r\nbecause Cesar reports that the Britons have ten to twelve women in\r\ncommon; barbarians, because all other reports of the old writers on\r\ncommunity of women are misinterpreted by him! One is reminded of a\r\nprosecuting attorney who takes all possible liberty in making up his\r\ncase, but who demands the most formal and legally valid proof for every\r\nword of the lawyer for the defense.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHe asserts that communal marriage is purely the outgrowth of\r\nimagination, and in so doing falls far behind Bachofen. He represents\r\nMorgan\u0027s systems of affinity as mere codes of conventional politeness,\r\nproven by the fact that Indians address also strangers, white people, as\r\nbrother or father. This is like asserting that the terms father, mother,\r\nbrother, sister are simply meaningless forms of address, because\r\nCatholic priests and abbesses are also addressed as father and mother,\r\nand monks and nuns, or even free-masons and members of English\r\nprofessional clubs in solemn session, as brother and sister. In short,\r\nMcLennan\u0027s defense was extremely weak.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne point still remained that had not been attacked. The contrast of\r\nexogamous and endogamous tribes,\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_23\" id=\"Page_23\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-024.png\"\u003e23\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e on which his whole system was founded,\r\nwas not only left unchallenged, but was even generally regarded as the\r\npivotal point of the entire history of the family. It was admitted that\r\nMcLennan\u0027s attempt to explain this contrast was insufficient and in\r\ncontradiction with the facts enumerated by himself. But the contrast\r\nitself, the existence of two diametrically opposed forms of independent\r\nand absolute groups, one of them marrying the women of its own group,\r\nthe other strictly forbidding this habit, was considered irrefutable\r\ngospel. Compare e. g. Giraud-Teulon\u0027s \"Origines de la famille\" (1874)\r\nand even Lubbock\u0027s \"Origin of Civilization\" (4th edition, 1882).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt this point Morgan\u0027s main work, \"Ancient Society\" (1877), inserts its\r\nlever. It is this work on which the present volume is based. Here we\r\nfind clearly demonstrated what was only dimly perceived by Morgan in\r\n1871. There is no antithesis between endogamy and exogamy; no exogamous\r\n\"tribes\" have been found up to the present time. But at the time when\r\ncommunal marriage still existed\u0026mdash;and in all probability it once existed\r\neverywhere\u0026mdash;a tribe was subdivided into a number of\r\ngroups\u0026mdash;\"gentes\"\u0026mdash;consanguineous on the mother\u0027s side, within which\r\nintermarrying was strictly forbidden. The men of a certain \"gens,\"\r\ntherefore, could choose their wives within the tribe, and did so as a\r\nrule, but had to choose them outside of the \"gens.\" And while thus the\r\n\"gens\" was strictly exogamous, the tribe comprising an aggregate of\r\n\"gentes\" was equally endogamous. This fact gave the final blow to\r\nMcLennan\u0027s artificial structure.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut Morgan did not rest here. The \"gens\" of the American Indians\r\nfurthermore assisted him in gaining another important step in the field\r\nunder investigation. He found that this \"gens,\" organized in conformity\r\nwith maternal law, was the original form out\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_24\" id=\"Page_24\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-025.png\"\u003e24\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of which later on the\r\n\"gens\" by paternal law developed, such as we find it among the civilized\r\nnations of antiquity. The Greek and Roman \"gens,\" an unsolved riddle to\r\nall historians up to our time, found its explanation in the Indian\r\n\"gens.\" A new foundation was discovered for the entire primeval history.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe repeated discovery that the original maternal \"gens\" was a\r\npreliminary stage of the paternal \"gens\" of civilized nations has the\r\nsame signification for primeval history that Darwin\u0027s theory of\r\nevolution had for biology and Marx\u0027s theory of surplus value for\r\npolitical economy. Morgan was thereby enabled to sketch the outline of a\r\nhistory of the family, showing in bold strokes at least the classic\r\nstages of development, so far as the available material will at present\r\npermit such a thing. It is clearly obvious that this marks a new epoch\r\nin the treatment of primeval history. The maternal \"gens\" has become the\r\npivot on which this whole science revolves. Since its discovery we know\r\nin what direction to continue our researches, what to investigate and\r\nhow to arrange the results of our studies. In consequence, progress in\r\nthis field is now much more rapid than before the publication of Morgan\u0027s book.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe discoveries of Morgan are now universally recognized, or rather\r\nappropriated, even by the archaeologists of England. But hardly one of\r\nthem openly admits that we owe this revolution of thought to Morgan. His\r\nbook is ignored in England as much as possible, and he himself is\r\ndismissed with condescending praise for the excellence of his former\r\nworks. The details of his discussion are diligently criticised, but his\r\nreally great discoveries are covered up obstinately. The original\r\nedition of \"Ancient Society\" is out of print; there is no paying market\r\nfor a work of this kind in America; in England, it appears, the book was\r\nsystematically suppressed, and the only\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_25\" id=\"Page_25\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-026.png\"\u003e25\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e edition of this epochal work\r\nstill circulating in the market is\u0026mdash;the German translation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhence this reserve? We can hardly refrain from calling it a conspiracy\r\nto kill by silence, especially in view of the numerous meaningless and\r\npolite quotations and of other manifestations of fellowship in which the\r\nwritings of our recognized archaeologists abound. Is it because Morgan\r\nis an American, and because it is rather hard on the English\r\narchaeologists to be dependent on two talented foreigners like Bachofen\r\nand Morgan for the outlines determining the arrangement and grouping of\r\ntheir material, in spite of all praiseworthy diligence in accumulating\r\nmaterial. They could have borne with the German, but an American? In\r\nface of an American, every Englishman becomes patriotic. I have seen\r\namusing illustrations of this fact in the United States. Moreover, it\r\nmust be remembered that McLennan was, so to say, the official founder\r\nand leader of the English prehistoric school. It was almost a\r\nrequirement of good prehistoric manners to refer in terms of highest\r\nadmiration to his artificial construction of history leading from\r\ninfanticide through polyandry and abduction to maternal law. The least\r\ndoubt in the strictly independent existence of exogamous and endogamous\r\ntribes was considered a frivolous sacrilege. According to this view,\r\nMorgan, in reducing all these sacred dogmas to thin air, committed an\r\nact of wanton destruction. And worse still, his mere manner of reducing\r\nthem sufficed to show their instability, so that the admirers of\r\nMcLennan, who hitherto had been stumbling about helplessly between\r\nexogamy and endogamy, were almost forced to slap their foreheads and\r\nexclaim: \"How silly of us, not to have found that out long ago!\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eJust as if Morgan had not committed crimes enough against the official\r\narchaeologists to justify them in discarding all fair methods and\r\nassuming an attitude\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_26\" id=\"Page_26\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-027.png\"\u003e26\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of cool neglect, he persisted in filling their cup\r\nto overflowing. Not only does he criticise civilization, the society of\r\nproduction for profit, the fundamental form of human society, in a\r\nmanner savoring of Fourier, but he also speaks of a future\r\nreorganization of society in language that Karl Marx might have used.\r\nConsequently, he receives his just deserts, when McLennan indignantly\r\ncharges him with a profound antipathy against historical methods, and\r\nwhen Professor Giraud-Teulon of Geneva endorses the same view in 1884.\r\nFor was not the same Professor Giraud-Teulon still wandering about\r\naimlessly in the maze of McLennan\u0027s exogamy in 1874 (Origines de la\r\nfamille)? And was it not Morgan who finally had to set him free?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is not necessary to dwell in this preface on the other forms of\r\nprogress which primeval history owes to Morgan. Reference to them will\r\nbe found in the course of my work. During the fourteen years that have\r\nelapsed since the publication of his main work, the material\r\ncontributing to the history of primeval society has been considerably\r\nenriched. Anthropologists, travelers and professional historians were\r\njoined by comparative jurists who added new matter and opened up new\r\npoints of view. Here and there, some special hypothesis of Morgan has\r\nbeen shaken or even become obsolete. But in no instance has the new\r\nmaterial led to a weakening of his leading propositions. The order he\r\nestablished in primeval history still holds good in its main outlines to\r\nthis day. We may even say that this order receives recognition in the\r\nexact degree, in which the authorship of this great progress is concealed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eLondon, June 16th, 1891.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"right\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"smcap\"\u003eFrederick Engels.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTES:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_1_1\" id=\"Footnote_1_1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_1_1\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[1]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human\r\nProgress from Savagery, through Barbarism, to Civilization. By Lewis H.\r\nMorgan. Henry Holt \u0026amp; Co. 1877. The book, printed in America, was\r\nsingularly difficult to obtain in London. The author died a few years ago.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_2_2\" id=\"Footnote_2_2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_2_2\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[2]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e McLennan, Studies in Ancient History, 1886. Primitive\r\nMarriage, p. 124.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_3_3\" id=\"Footnote_3_3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_3_3\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[3]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Latham, Descriptive Ethnology, 1859.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_4_4\" id=\"Footnote_4_4\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_4_4\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[4]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e McLennan, Studies In Ancient History, 1886. Primitive\r\nMarriage, p. 140.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_5_5\" id=\"Footnote_5_5\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_5_5\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[5]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Ibidem, p. 146.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_27\" id=\"Page_27\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-028.png\"\u003e27\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003eTHE ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER I.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003ePREHISTORIC STAGES.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMorgan was the first to make an attempt at introducing a logical order\r\ninto the history of primeval society. Until considerably more material\r\nis obtained, no further changes will be necessary and his arrangement\r\nwill surely remain in force.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf the three main epochs\u0026mdash;savagery, barbarism and\r\ncivilization\u0026mdash;naturally only the first two and the transition to the\r\nthird required his attention. He subdivided each of these into a lower,\r\nmiddle and higher stage, according to the progress in the production of\r\nthe means of sustenance. His reason for doing so is that the degree of\r\nhuman supremacy over nature is conditioned on the ability to produce the\r\nnecessities of life. For of all living beings, man alone has acquired an\r\nalmost unlimited control over food production. All great epochs of human\r\nprogress, according to Morgan, coincide more or less directly with times\r\nof greater abundance in the means that sustain life. The evolution of\r\nthe family proceeds in the same measure without, however, offering\r\nequally convenient marks for sub-division.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch3\u003eI. SAVAGERY.\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. Lower Stage. Infancy of the human race. Human beings still dwelt in\r\ntheir original habitation, in tropical or subtropical forests. They\r\nlived at least part of the time in trees, for only in this way they\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_28\" id=\"Page_28\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-029.png\"\u003e28\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncould escape the attacks of large beasts of prey and survive. Fruit,\r\nnuts, and roots served as food. The formation of articulated speech is\r\nthe principal result of this period. Not a single one of all the nations\r\nthat have become known in historic times dates back to this primeval stage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the latter may extend over thousands of years, we have no means\r\nof proving its existence by direct evidence. But once the descent of man\r\nfrom the Animal Kingdom is acknowledged, the acceptance of this stage of\r\ntransition becomes inevitable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. Middle Stage: Commencing with the utilization of fish (including\r\ncrabs, mollusks and other aquatic animals) and the use of fire. Both\r\nthese things belong together, because fish becomes thoroughly palatable\r\nby the help of fire only. With this new kind of food, human beings\r\nbecame completely independent of climate and locality. Following the\r\ncourse of rivers and coastlines, they could spread over the greater part\r\nof the earth even in the savage state. The so-called palaeolithic\r\nimplements of the early stone age, made of rough, unsharpened stones,\r\nbelong almost entirely to this period. Their wide distribution over all\r\nthe continents testifies to the extent of these wanderings. The\r\nunceasing bent for discovery, together with the possession of fire\r\ngained by friction, created new products in the lately occupied regions.\r\nSuch were farinaceous roots and tubers, baked in hot ashes or in baking\r\npits (ground ovens). When the first weapons, club and spear, were\r\ninvented, venison was occasionally added to the bill of fare. Nations\r\nsubsisting exclusively by hunting, such as we sometimes find mentioned\r\nin books, have never existed; for the proceeds of hunting are too\r\nuncertain. In consequence of continued precariousness of the sources of\r\nsustenance, cannibalism seems to arise at this stage. It continues in\r\nforce for a long while. Even in our day, Australians\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_29\" id=\"Page_29\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-030.png\"\u003e29\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e and Polynesians\r\nstill remain in this middle stage of savagery.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. Higher Stage: Coming with the invention of bow and arrow, this stage\r\nmakes venison a regular part of daily fare and hunting a normal\r\noccupation. Bow, arrow and cord represent a rather complicated\r\ninstrument, the invention of which presupposes a long and accumulated\r\nexperience and increased mental ability; incidentally they are\r\nconditioned on the acquaintance with a number of other inventions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn comparing the nations that are familiar with the use of bow and\r\narrow, but not yet with the art of pottery (from which Morgan dates the\r\ntransition to barbarism), we find among them the beginnings of village\r\nsettlements, a control of food production, wooden vessels and utensils,\r\nweaving of bast fibre by hand (without a loom), baskets made of bast or\r\nreeds, and sharpened (neolithic) stone implements. Generally fire and\r\nthe stone ax have also furnished the dugout and, here and there, timbers\r\nand boards for house-building. All these improvements are found, e. g.,\r\namong the American Indians of the Northwest, who use bow and arrows, but\r\nknow nothing as yet about pottery. Bow and arrows were for the stage of\r\nsavagery what the iron sword was for barbarism and the fire-arm for\r\ncivilization; the weapon of supremacy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch3\u003eII. BARBARISM.\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. Lower Stage. Dates from the introduction of the art of pottery. The\r\nlatter is traceable in many cases, and probably attributable in all\r\ncases, to the custom of covering wooden or plaited vessels with clay in\r\norder to render them fire-proof. It did not take long to find out that\r\nmoulded clay served the same purpose without a lining of other material.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHitherto we could consider the course of evolution as being equally\r\ncharacteristic, in a general way, for\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_30\" id=\"Page_30\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-031.png\"\u003e30\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e all the nations of a certain\r\nperiod, without reference to locality. But with the beginning of\r\nbarbarism, we reach a stage where the difference in the natural\r\nresources of the two great bodies of land makes itself felt. The salient\r\nfeatures of this stage of barbarism is the taming and raising of animals\r\nand the cultivation of plants. Now the eastern body of land, the\r\nso-called old world, contained nearly all the tamable animals and all\r\nthe cultivable species of grain but one; while the western continent,\r\nAmerica, possessed only one tamable mammal, the llama (even this only in\r\na certain part of the South), and only one, although the best, species\r\nof grain: the corn. From now on, these different conditions of nature\r\nlead the population of each hemisphere along divergent roads, and the\r\nlandmarks on the boundaries of the various stages differ in both cases.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. Middle Stage. Commencing in the East with the domestication of\r\nanimals, in the West with the cultivation and irrigation of foodplants;\r\nalso with the use of adobes (bricks baked in the sun) and stones for buildings.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe begin in the West, because there this stage was never outgrown up to\r\nthe time of the conquest by Europeans.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt the time of their discovery, the Indians in the lower stage of\r\nbarbarism (all those living east of the Mississippi) carried on\r\ncultivation on a small scale in gardens. Corn, and perhaps also\r\npumpkins, melons and other garden truck were raised. A very essential\r\npart of their sustenance was produced in this manner. They lived in\r\nwooden houses, in fortified villages. The tribes of the Northwest,\r\nespecially those of the region along the Columbia river, were still in\r\nthe higher stage of savagery, ignorant of pottery and of any cultivation\r\nof plants whatever. But the so-called Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, the\r\nMexicans, \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_31\" id=\"Page_31\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-032.png\"\u003e31\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eCentral-Americans and Peruvians, were in the middle-stage of\r\nbarbarism. They lived in fortlike houses of adobe or stone, cultivated\r\ncorn and other plants suitable to various conditions of localities and\r\nclimate in artificially irrigated gardens that represented the main\r\nsource of nourishment, and even kept a few tamed animals\u0026mdash;the Mexicans\r\nthe turkey and other birds, the Peruvians the llama. Furthermore they\r\nwere familiar with the use of metals\u0026mdash;iron excepted, and for this reason\r\nthey could not get along yet without stone weapons and stone implements.\r\nThe conquest by the Spaniards cut short all further independent development.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the East, the middle stage of barbarism began with the taming of milk\r\nand meat producing animals, while the cultivation of plants seems to\r\nhave remained unknown far into this period. It appears that the taming\r\nand raising of animals and the formation of large herds gave rise to the\r\nseparation of Aryans and Semites from the rest of the barbarians. Names\r\nof animals are still common to the languages of European and Asian\r\nAryans, while this is almost never the case with the names of cultivated plants.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn suitable localities, the formation of herds led to a nomadic life, as\r\nwith the Semites in the grassy plains of the Euphrates and Tigris, the\r\nAryans in the plains of India, of the Oxus, Jaxartes, Don and Dnieper.\r\nAlong the borders of such pasture lands, the taming of animals must have\r\nbeen accomplished first. But later generations conceived the mistaken\r\nidea that the nomadic tribes had their origin in regions supposed to be\r\nthe cradle of humanity, while in reality their savage ancestors and even\r\npeople in the lower stage of barbarism would have found these regions\r\nalmost unfit for habitation. On the other hand, once these barbarians of\r\nthe middle stage were accustomed to nomadic life, nothing could have\r\ninduced them to\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_32\" id=\"Page_32\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-033.png\"\u003e32\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e return voluntarily from the grassy river plains to the\r\nforests that had been the home of their ancestors. Even when Semites and\r\nAryans were forced further to the North and West, it was impossible for\r\nthem to occupy the forest regions of Western Asia and Europe, until they\r\nwere enabled by agriculture to feed their animals on this less favorable\r\nsoil and especially to maintain them during the winter. It is more than\r\nprobable that the cultivation of grain was due primarily to the demand\r\nfor stock feed, and became an important factor of human sustenance at a later period.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe superior development of Aryans and Semites is, perhaps, attributable\r\nto the copious meat and milk diet of both races, more especially to the\r\nfavorable influence of such food on the growth of children. As a matter\r\nof fact, the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico who live on an almost purely\r\nvegetarian diet, have a smaller brain than the Indians in the lower\r\nstage of barbarism who eat more meat and fish. At any rate, cannibalism\r\ngradually disappears at this stage and is maintained only as a religious\r\nobservance or, what is here nearly identical, as a magic remedy.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_6_6\" id=\"FNanchor_6_6\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_6_6\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[6]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. Higher Stage. Beginning with the melting of iron ore and merging into\r\ncivilization by the \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_33\" id=\"Page_33\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-034.png\"\u003e33\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003einvention of letter script and its utilization for\r\nwriting records. This stage which is passed independently only on the\r\nEastern Hemisphere, is richer in improvements of production than all\r\npreceding stages together. It is the stage of the Greek heroes, the\r\nItalian tribes shortly before the foundation of Rome, the Germans of\r\nTacitus, the Norsemen of the Viking age.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe are here confronted for the first time with the iron ploughshare\r\ndrawn by animals, rendering possible agriculture on a large scale, in\r\nfields, and hence a practically unlimited increase in the production of\r\nfood for the time being. The next consequence is the clearing of forests\r\nand their transformation into arable land and meadows\u0026mdash;which process,\r\nhowever, could not be continued on a larger scale without the help of\r\nthe iron ax and the iron spade. Naturally, these improvements brought a\r\nmore rapid increase of population and a concentration of numbers into a\r\nsmall area. Before the time of field cultivation a combination of half a\r\nmillion of people under one central management could have been possible\r\nonly under exceptionally favorable conditions; most likely this was never the case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe greatest attainments of the higher stage of barbarism are presented\r\nin Homer\u0027s poems, especially in the Iliad. Improved iron tools; the\r\nbellows; the hand-mill; the potter\u0027s wheel; the preparation of oil and\r\nwine; a well developed fashioning of metals verging on artisanship; the\r\nwagon and chariot; ship-building with beams and boards; the beginning of\r\nartistic architecture; towns surrounded by walls with turrets and\r\nbattlements; the Homeric epos and the entire mythology\u0026mdash;these are the\r\nprincipal bequests transmitted by the Greeks from barbarism to\r\ncivilization. In comparing these attainments with the description given\r\nby Cesar or even Tacitus of Germans, who were in\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_34\" id=\"Page_34\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-035.png\"\u003e34\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the beginning of the\r\nsame stage of evolution which the Greeks were preparing to leave for a\r\nhigher one, we perceive the wealth of productive development comprised\r\nin the higher stage of barbarism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe sketch which I have here produced after Morgan of the evolution of\r\nthe human race through savagery and barbarism to the beginning of\r\ncivilization is even now rich in new outlines. More still, these\r\noutlines are incontrovertible, because traced directly from production.\r\nNevertheless, this sketch will appear faint and meagre in comparison to\r\nthe panorama unrolled to our view at the end of our pilgrimage. Not\r\nuntil then will it be possible to show in their true light both the\r\ntransition from barbarianism to civilization and the striking contrast\r\nbetween them. For the present we can summarize Morgan\u0027s arrangement in\r\nthe following manner: Savagery\u0026mdash;time of predominating appropriation of\r\nfinished natural products; human ingenuity invents mainly tools useful\r\nin assisting this appropriation. Barbarism\u0026mdash;time of acquiring the\r\nknowledge of cattle raising, of agriculture and of new methods for\r\nincreasing the productivity of nature by human agency. Civilization:\r\ntime of learning a wider utilization, of natural products, of\r\nmanufacturing and of art.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTE:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_6_6\" id=\"Footnote_6_6\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_6_6\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[6]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nAdvocates of vegetarianism may, of course, challenge this statement and\r\nshow that all the testimony of anthropology is not in favor of the\r\nmeat-eaters. It must also be admitted that diet is not the only\r\nessential factor in environment which influences the development of\r\nraces. And there is no conclusive evidence to prove the absolute\r\nsuperiority of one diet over another. Neither have we any proofs that\r\ncannibalism ever was in general practice. It rather seems to have been\r\nconfined to limited groups of people in especially ill-favored\r\nlocalities or to times of great scarcity of food. Hence we can neither\r\nrefer to cannibalism as a typical stage in human history, nor are we\r\nobliged to accept the vegetarian hypothesis of a transition from a meat\r\ndiet to a plant diet as a condition sine qua non of higher human\r\ndevelopment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_35\" id=\"Page_35\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-036.png\"\u003e35\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER II.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eTHE FAMILY.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMorgan, who spent the greater part of his life among the Iroquois in the\r\nState of New York and who had been adopted into one of their tribes, the\r\nSenecas, found among them a system of relationship that was in\r\ncontradiction with their actual family relations. Among them existed\r\nwhat Morgan terms the syndyasmian or pairing family, a monogamous state\r\neasily dissolved by either side. The offspring of such a couple was\r\nidentified and acknowledged by all the world. There could be no doubt to\r\nwhom to apply the terms father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister.\r\nBut the actual use of these words was not in keeping with their\r\nfundamental meaning. For the Iroquois addresses as sons and daughters\r\nnot only his own children, but also those of his brothers; and he is\r\ncalled father by all of them. But the children of his sisters he calls\r\nnephews and nieces, and they call him uncle. Vice versa, an Iroquois\r\nwoman calls her own children as well as those of her sisters sons and\r\ndaughters and is addressed as mother by them. But the children of her\r\nbrothers are called nephews and nieces, and they call her aunt. In the\r\nsame way, the children of brothers call one another brothers and\r\nsisters, and so do the children of sisters. But the children of a sister\r\ncall those of her brother cousins, and vice versa. And these are not\r\nsimply meaningless terms, but expressions of actually existing\r\nconceptions of proximity and remoteness, equality or inequality of consanguinity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese conceptions serve as the fundament of a perfectly elaborated\r\nsystem of relationship, capable of\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_36\" id=\"Page_36\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-037.png\"\u003e36\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e expressing several hundred different\r\nrelations of a single individual. More still, this system is not only\r\nfully accepted by all American Indians\u0026mdash;no exception has been found so\r\nfar\u0026mdash;but it is also in use with hardly any modifications among the\r\noriginal inhabitants of India, among the Dravidian tribes of the Dekan\r\nand the Gaura tribes of Hindostan.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe terms of relationship used by the Tamils of Southern India and by\r\nthe Seneca-Iroquois of New York State are to this day identical for more\r\nthan two hundred different family relations. And among these East Indian\r\ntribes also, as among all American Indians, the relations arising out of\r\nthe prevailing form of the family are not in keeping with the system of kinship.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow can this be explained? In view of the important role played by\r\nkinship in the social order of all the savage and barbarian races, the\r\nsignificance of such a widespread system cannot be obliterated by phrases.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA system that is generally accepted in America, that also exists in Asia\r\namong people of entirely different races, that is frequently found in a\r\nmore or less modified form all over Africa and Australia, such a system\r\nrequires a historical explanation and cannot be talked down, as was\r\nattempted, e. g., by McLennan. The terms father, child, brother, sister\r\nare more than mere honorary titles; they carry in their wake certain\r\nwell-defined and very serious obligations, the aggregate of which\r\ncomprises a very essential part of the social constitution of those\r\nnations. And the explanation was found. In the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii)\r\nthere existed up to the first half of the nineteenth century a family\r\nform producing just such fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters,\r\nuncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, as the old Indo-American system of\r\nkinship. But how remarkable! The Hawaiian system of kinship again did\r\nnot agree with the family form\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_37\" id=\"Page_37\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-038.png\"\u003e37\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e actually prevailing there. For there all\r\nthe children of brothers and sisters, without any exception, are\r\nconsidered brothers and sisters, and regarded as the common children not\r\nonly of their mother or her sisters, or their father and his brothers,\r\nbut of all the brothers and sisters of their parents without\r\ndistinction. While thus the American system of kinship presupposes an\r\nobsolete primitive form of the family, which is still actually existing\r\nin Hawaii, the Hawaiian system on the other hand points to a still more\r\nprimitive form of the family, the actual existence of which cannot be\r\nproved any more, but which must have existed, because otherwise such a\r\nsystem of kinship could not have arisen. According to Morgan, the family\r\nis the active element; it is never stationary, but in progression from a\r\nlower to a higher form in the same measure in which society develops\r\nfrom a lower to a higher stage. But the systems of kinship are passive.\r\nOnly in long intervals they register the progress made by the family in\r\ncourse of time, and only then are they radically changed, when the\r\nfamily has done so. \"And,\" adds Marx, \"it is the same with political,\r\njuridical, religious and philosophical systems in general.\" While the\r\nfamily keeps on growing, the system of kinship becomes ossified. The\r\nlatter continues in this state and the family grows beyond it. With the\r\nsame certainty which enabled Cuvier to conclude from some bones of\r\nMarsupialia found near Paris that extinct marsupialia had lived there,\r\nwith this same certainty may we conclude from a system of kinship\r\ntransmitted by history that the extinct form of the family corresponding\r\nto this system was once in existence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe systems of kinship and forms of the family just mentioned differ\r\nfrom the present systems in that every child has several fathers and\r\nmothers. Under the American system to which the Hawaiian system\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_38\" id=\"Page_38\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-039.png\"\u003e38\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ncorresponds, brother and sister cannot be father and mother of the same\r\nchild; but the Hawaiian system presupposes a family, in which, on the\r\ncontrary, this was the rule. We are here confronted by a series of\r\nfamily forms that are in direct contradiction with those that were\r\ncurrently regarded as alone prevailing. The conventional conception\r\nknows only monogamy, furthermore polygamy of one man, eventually also\r\npolyandry of one woman. But it passes in silence, as is meet for a\r\nmoralizing philistine, that the practice silently but without\r\ncompunction supersedes these barriers sanctioned officially by society.\r\nThe study of primeval history, however, shows us conditions, where men\r\npracticed polygamy and women at the same time polyandry, so that their\r\nchildren were considered common to all; conditions that up to their\r\nfinal transition into monogamy underwent a whole series of\r\nmodifications. These modifications slowly and gradually contract the\r\ncircle comprised by the common tie of marriage until only the single\r\ncouple remains which prevails to-day.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn thus constructing backward the history of the family, Morgan, in\r\nharmony with the majority of his colleagues, arrives at a primeval\r\ncondition, where unrestricted sexual intercourse existed within a tribe,\r\nso that every woman belonged to every man, and vice versa.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMuch has been said about this primeval state of affairs since the\r\neighteenth century, but only in general commonplaces. It is one of\r\nBachofen\u0027s great merits to have taken the subject seriously and to have\r\nsearched for traces of this state in historical and religious\r\ntraditions. To-day we know that these traces, found by him, do not lead\r\nback to a stage of unlimited sexual intercourse, but to a much later\r\nform, the group marriage. The primeval stage, if it really ever existed,\r\nbelongs to so remote a period, that we can hardly\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_39\" id=\"Page_39\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-040.png\"\u003e39\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e expect to find direct\r\nproofs of its former existence among these social fossils, backward\r\nsavages. Bachofen\u0027s merit consists in having brought this question to\r\nthe fore.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_7_7\" id=\"FNanchor_7_7\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_7_7\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[7]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt has lately become a fashion to deny the existence of this early stage\r\nof human sex life, in order to spare us this \"shame.\" Apart from the\r\nabsence of all direct proof, the example of the rest of animal life is\r\ninvoked. From the latter, Letourneau (Evolution du mariage et de la\r\nfamille, 1888) quoted numerous facts, alleged to prove that among\r\nanimals also an absolutely unlimited sexual intercourse belongs to a\r\nlower stage. But I can only conclude from all these facts that they\r\nprove absolutely nothing for man and the primeval conditions of his\r\nlife. The mating of vertebrates for a lengthy term is sufficiently\r\nexplained by physiological causes, e. g., among birds by the\r\nhelplessness of the female during brooding time. Examples of faithful\r\nmonogamy among birds do not furnish any proofs for men, for we are not\r\ndescended from birds.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd if strict monogamy is the height of virtue, then the palm belongs to\r\nthe tapeworm that carries a complete male and female sexual apparatus in\r\neach of its 50 to 200 sections and passes its whole lifetime in\r\nfertilizing itself in every one of its sections. But if we confine\r\nourselves to mammals, we find all forms of sexual intercourse, license,\r\nsuggestions of group \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_40\" id=\"Page_40\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-041.png\"\u003e40\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003emarriage, polygamy and monogamy. Only polyandry is\r\nmissing;\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_8_8\" id=\"FNanchor_8_8\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_8_8\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[8]\u003c/a\u003e that could be accomplished by men only. Even our next\r\nrelations, the quadrumana, exhibit all possible differences in the\r\ngrouping of males and females. And if we draw the line still closer and\r\nconsider only the four anthropoid apes, Letourneau can only tell us,\r\nthat they are now monogamous, now polygamous; while Saussure contends\r\naccording to Giraud-Teulon that they are monogamous. The recent\r\ncontentions of Westermarck\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_9_9\" id=\"FNanchor_9_9\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_9_9\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[9]\u003c/a\u003e in regard to monogamy among anthropoid\r\napes are far from proving anything. In short, the information is such\r\nthat honest Letourneau admits: \"There exists no strict relation at all\r\nbetween the degree of intellectual development and the form of sexual\r\nintercourse among mammals.\" And Espinas says frankly:\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_10_10\" id=\"FNanchor_10_10\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_10_10\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[10]\u003c/a\u003e \"The herd is\r\nthe highest social group found among animals. It seems to be composed of\r\nfamilies, but from the outset the family and the herd are antagonistic;\r\nthey develop in directly opposite ratio.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is evident from the above that we know next to nothing of the family\r\nand other social groups of anthropoid apes; the reports are directly\r\ncontradictory. How full of contradiction, how much in need of critical\r\nscrutiny and research are the reports even on savage human tribes! But\r\nmonkey tribes are far more difficult to observe than human tribes. For\r\nthe present, therefore, we must decline all final conclusions from such\r\nabsolutely unreliable reports.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_41\" id=\"Page_41\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-042.png\"\u003e41\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe quotation from Espinas, however, offers a better clue. Among higher\r\nanimals, the herd and family are not supplements of one another, but\r\nantitheses. Espinas demonstrates very nicely, how the jealousy of the\r\nmales loosens or temporarily dissolves every herd during mating time.\r\n\"Where the family is closely organized, herds are formed only in\r\nexceptional cases. But wherever free sexual intercourse or polygamy are\r\nexisting, the herd appears almost spontaneously…. In order that a herd\r\nmay form, family ties must be loosened and the individual be free. For\r\nthis reason we so rarely find organized herds among birds…. Among\r\nmammals, however, we find groups organized after a fashion, just because\r\nhere the individual is not merged in the family…. The rising sense of\r\ncohesion in a herd cannot, therefore, have a greater enemy than the\r\nconsciousness of family ties. Let us not shrink from pronouncing it: the\r\ndevelopment of a higher form of society than the family can be due only\r\nto the fact that it admitted families which had undergone a thorough\r\nchange. This does not exclude the possibility that these same families\r\nwere thus enabled to reorganize later on under infinitely more favorable\r\ncircumstances.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_11_11\" id=\"FNanchor_11_11\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_11_11\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[11]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt becomes apparent from this, that animal societies may indeed have a\r\ncertain value in drawing conclusions in regard to human life\u0026mdash;but only\r\nnegatively. The higher vertebrate knows, so far as we may ascertain,\r\nonly two forms of the family: polygamy or pairs. In both of them there\r\nis only one grown male, only one husband. The jealousy of the male, at\r\nthe same time tie and limit of the family, creates an opposition between\r\nthe animal family and the herd. The latter, a higher social form, is\r\nhere rendered impossible, there loosened or dissolved during mating\r\ntime, and at\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_42\" id=\"Page_42\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-043.png\"\u003e42\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e best hindered in its development by the jealousy of the\r\nmale. This in itself is sufficient proof that the animal family and\r\nprimeval human society are irreconcilable; that ancient man, struggling\r\nupward from the animal stage, either had no family at all or at the most\r\none that does not exist among animals. A being so defenceless as\r\nevolving man might well survive in small numbers though living in an\r\nisolated state, the highest social form of which is that of pairs such\r\nas Westermarck, relying on hunter\u0027s reports, attributes to the gorilla\r\nand the chimpanzee. Another element is necessary for the elevation out\r\nof the animal stage, for the realization of the highest progress found\r\nin nature: the replacing of the defencelessness of the single individual\r\nby the united strength and co-operation of the whole herd. The\r\ntransition from beast to man out of conditions of the sort under which\r\nthe anthropoid apes are living to-day would be absolutely unexplainable.\r\nThese apes rather give the impression of stray sidelines gradually\r\napproaching extinction, and at all events in process of decline. This\r\nalone is sufficient to reject all parallels between their family forms\r\nand those of primeval man. But mutual tolerance of the grown males,\r\nfreedom from jealousy, was the first condition for the formation of such\r\nlarge and permanent groups, within which alone the transformation from\r\nbeast to man could be accomplished. And indeed, what do we find to be\r\nthe most ancient and original form of the family, undeniably traceable\r\nby history and even found to-day here and there? The group marriage,\r\nthat form in which whole groups of men and whole groups of women\r\nmutually belong to one another, leaving only small scope for jealousy.\r\nAnd furthermore we find at a later stage the exceptional form of\r\npolyandry which still more supersedes all sentiments of jealousy and\r\nhence is unknown to animals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_43\" id=\"Page_43\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-044.png\"\u003e43\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut all the forms of the group marriage known to us are accompanied by\r\nsuch peculiarly complicated circumstances that they of necessity point\r\nto a preceding simpler form of sexual intercourse and, hence, in the\r\nlast instance to a period of unrestricted sexual intercourse\r\ncorresponding to a transition from the animal to man. Therefore the\r\nreferences to animal marriages lead us back to precisely that point,\r\nfrom which they were intended to remove us forever.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat does the term \"unrestricted sexual intercourse\" mean? Simply, that\r\nthe restrictions in force now were not observed formerly. We have\r\nalready seen the barrier of jealousy falling. If anything is certain, it\r\nis that jealousy is developed at a comparatively late stage. The same is\r\ntrue of incest. Not only brother and sister were originally man and\r\nwife, but also the sexual intercourse between parents and children is\r\npermitted to this day among many nations. Bancroft testifies to the\r\ntruth of this among the Kaviats of the Behring Strait, the Kadiaks of\r\nAlaska, the Tinnehs in the interior of British North America; Letourneau\r\ncompiled reports of the same fact in regard to the Chippeway Indians,\r\nthe Coocoos in Chile, the Caribeans, the Carens in Indo-China, not to\r\nmention the tales of ancient Greeks and Romans about the Parthians,\r\nPersians, Scythians, Huns and so forth. Before incest was invented (and\r\nit is an invention, a really valuable one indeed), sexual intercourse\r\nbetween parents and children could not be any more repulsive than\r\nbetween other persons belonging to different generations, which takes\r\nplace even in our day among the most narrow-minded nations without\r\ncausing any horror. Even old \"maids\" of more than sixty years sometimes,\r\nif they are rich enough, marry young men of about thirty. Eliminating\r\nfrom the primeval forms of the family known to us those conceptions of\r\nincest\u0026mdash;conceptions totally different from\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_44\" id=\"Page_44\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-045.png\"\u003e44\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e ours and often enough in\r\ndirect contradiction with them\u0026mdash;we arrive at a form of sexual\r\nintercourse that can only be designated as unrestricted. Unrestricted in\r\nthe sense that the barriers drawn later on by custom did not yet exist.\r\nThis in no way necessarily implies for practical purposes an injudicious\r\npell-mell intercourse. The separate existence of pairs for a limited\r\ntime is not out of the question, and even comprises the majority of\r\ncases in the group marriage of our days. And if the latest repudiator of\r\nsuch a primeval state, Westermarck, designates as marriage every case,\r\nwhere both sexes remain mated until the birth of the offspring, then\r\nthis is equivalent to saying that this kind of marriage may well exist\r\nduring a stage of unrestricted intercourse without contradicting\r\nlicense, i. e., absence of barriers drawn by custom for sexual\r\nintercourse. Westermarck bases himself on the opinion that \"license\r\nincludes the suppression of individual affections\" so that \"prostitution\r\nis its most genuine form.\" To me it rather seems that any understanding\r\nof primeval conditions is impossible as long as we look at them through\r\nbrothel spectacles. We shall return to this point in the group marriage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Morgan, the following forms developed from this primeval\r\nstate at an apparently early stage:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch3\u003e1. THE CONSANGUINE FAMILY.\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Consanguine Family is the first step toward the family. Here the\r\nmarriage groups are arranged by generations: all the grand-fathers and\r\ngrand-mothers within a certain family are mutually husbands and wives;\r\nand equally their children, the fathers and mothers, whose children form\r\na third cycle of mutual mates. The children of these again, the\r\ngreat-grandchildren of the first cycle, will form a fourth. In this form\r\nof the family, then, only ancestors and descendants are excluded from\r\nwhat we would call the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_45\" id=\"Page_45\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-046.png\"\u003e45\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e rights and duties of marriage. Brothers and\r\nsisters, male and female cousins of the first, second and more remote\r\ngrades, are all mutually brothers and sisters and for this reason mutual\r\nhusbands and wives. The relation of brother and sister quite naturally\r\nincludes at this stage the practice of sexual intercourse.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_12_12\" id=\"FNanchor_12_12\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_12_12\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[12]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe typical form of such a family would consist of the offspring of one\r\npair, representing again the descendants of each grade as mutual\r\nbrothers and sisters and, therefore, mutual husbands and wives. The\r\nconsanguine family is extinct. Even the crudest nations of history do\r\nnot furnish any proofs of it. But the Hawaiian system of kinship, in\r\nforce to this day in\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_46\" id=\"Page_46\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-047.png\"\u003e46\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e all Polynesia, compels us to acknowledge its\r\nformer existence, for it exhibits grades of kinship that could only\r\noriginate in this form of the family. And the whole subsequent\r\ndevelopment of the family compels us to admit this form as a necessary step.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch3\u003e2. THE PUNALUAN FAMILY.\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the first step of organization consisted in excluding parents and\r\nchildren from mutual sexual intercourse, the second was the erection of\r\na barrier between brother and sister. This progress was much more\r\nimportant on account of the greater equality in the ages of the parties\r\nconcerned, but also far more difficult. It was accomplished gradually,\r\nprobably beginning with the exclusion of the natural sister (i. e., on\r\nthe mother\u0027s side) from sexual intercourse, first in single cases, then\r\nbecoming more and more the rule (in Hawaii exceptions were still noted\r\nduring the nineteenth century), and finally ending with the prohibition\r\nof marriage even among collateral brothers and sisters, i. e., what we\r\nnow term brother\u0027s and sister\u0027s children, grandchildren, and\r\ngreat-grandchildren. This progress offers, according to Morgan, an\r\nexcellent illustration how the principle of natural selection works.\r\nWithout question, the tribes limiting inbreeding by this progress\r\ndeveloped faster and more completely than those retaining the marriage\r\nbetween brothers and sisters as a rule and law. And how powerfully the\r\ninfluence of this progress was felt, is shown by the institution of the\r\ngens, directly attributable to it and passing far beyond the goal. The\r\ngens is the foundation of the social order of most, if not all,\r\nbarbarian nations, and in Greece and Rome we step immediately from it to civilization.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eEvery primeval family necessarily had to divide after a few generations.\r\nThe originally communistic\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_47\" id=\"Page_47\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-048.png\"\u003e47\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e and collective household existing far into\r\nthe middle stage of barbarism, involved a certain maximum size of the\r\nfamily, variable according to conditions, but still limited in a degree.\r\nAs soon as the conception of the impropriety of sexual intercourse\r\nbetween children of the same mother arose, it naturally became effective\r\non such occasions as the division of old and the foundation of new\r\nhousehold communities (which, however, did not necessarily coincide with\r\nthe family group). One or more series of sisters became the center of\r\none group, their natural brothers that of another. In this or a similar\r\nmanner that form which Morgan styles the Punaluan family developed from\r\nthe consanguine family. According to Hawaiian custom, a number of\r\nsisters, natural or more remote (i. e., cousins of the first, second and\r\nmore remote degrees) were the mutual wives of their mutual husbands,\r\ntheir natural brothers excepted. These men now no longer addressed one\r\nanother as \"brother\"\u0026mdash;which they no longer had to be\u0026mdash;but as \"Punalua,\"\r\ni. e., intimate companion, associate as it were. Likewise a series of\r\nnatural or more remote brothers lived in mutual marriage with a number\r\nof women, not their natural sisters, and these women referred to each\r\nother as \"Punalua.\" This is the classical form of a family, which later\r\nadmitted of certain variations. Its fundamental characteristic was\r\nmutual community of husbands and wives within a given family with the\r\nexclusion of the natural brothers (or sisters) first, and of the more\r\nremote grades later.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis form of the family, now, furnishes with complete accuracy the\r\ndegrees of kinship expressed by the American system. The children of the\r\nsisters of my mother still are her children; likewise the children of\r\nthe brothers of my father still his children; and all of them are my\r\nbrothers and sisters. But the children of the brothers of my mother are\r\nnow her nephews\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_48\" id=\"Page_48\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-049.png\"\u003e48\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e and nieces, the children of the sisters of my father\r\nhis nephew and nieces, and they are all my cousins. For while the\r\nhusbands of the sisters of my mother are still her husbands, and\r\nlikewise the wives of the brothers of my father still his\r\nwives\u0026mdash;legally, if not always in fact\u0026mdash;the social proscription of sexual\r\nintercourse between brothers and sisters has now divided those relatives\r\nwho were formerly regarded without distinction as brothers and sisters,\r\ninto two classes. In one category are those who remain (more remote)\r\nbrothers and sisters as before; in the other the children of the brother\r\non one hand or the sister on the opposite, who can be brothers and\r\nsisters no longer. The latter have mutual parents no more, neither\r\nfather nor mother nor both together. And for this reason the class of\r\nnephews and nieces, male and female cousins, here becomes necessary for\r\nthe first time. Under the former family order this would have been\r\nabsurd. The American system of kinship, which appears absolutely\r\nparadoxical in any family form founded on monogamy, is rationally\r\nexplained and naturally confirmed in its most minute details by the\r\nPunaluan family. Wherever this system of kinship was in force, there the\r\nPunaluan family or at least a form akin to it must also have existed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis family form, the existence of which in Hawaii was actually\r\ndemonstrated, would have been transmitted probably by all Polynesia, if\r\nthe pious missionaries, similar to the Spanish monks in America, could\r\nhave looked upon such anti-Christian relations as being something more\r\nthan simply a \"horror.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_13_13\" id=\"FNanchor_13_13\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_13_13\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[13]\u003c/a\u003e\r\n\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_49\" id=\"Page_49\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-050.png\"\u003e49\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eCesar\u0027s report to the effect that the\r\nBritons, who then were in the middle stage of barbarism, \"have ten or\r\ntwelve women in common, mostly brothers with brothers and parents with\r\nchildren,\" is best explained by group marriage. Barbarian mothers have\r\nnot ten or twelve sons old enough to keep women in common, but the\r\nAmerican system of kinship corresponding to the Punaluan family\r\nfurnishes many brothers, because all near and remote cousins of a\r\ncertain man are his brothers. The term \"parents with children\" may arise\r\nfrom a wrong conception of Cesar, but this system does not absolutely\r\nexclude the existence of father and son, mother or daughter in the same\r\ngroup. It does exclude, however, father and daughter or mother and son.\r\nThis or a similar form of group marriage also furnishes the easiest\r\nexplanation of the reports of Herodotus and other ancient writers\r\nconcerning community of women among savage and barbarian nations. This\r\nis true, furthermore, of Watson\u0027s and Kaye\u0027s\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_14_14\" id=\"FNanchor_14_14\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_14_14\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[14]\u003c/a\u003e tale about the Tikurs\r\nof Audh (north of the Ganges): \"They live together (i. e., sexually)\r\nalmost indiscriminately in large communities, and though two persons may\r\nbe considered as being married, still the tie is only nominal.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe institution of the gens seems to have its origin in the majority of\r\ncases in the Punaluan family. True, the Australian class system also\r\noffers a starting point for it; the Australians have gentes, but not yet\r\na Punaluan family, only a cruder form of group marriage.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_15_15\" id=\"FNanchor_15_15\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_15_15\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[15]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn all forms of the group family it is uncertain who is the father of a\r\nchild, but certain, who is its mother. Although she calls all the\r\nchildren of the aggregate family her children and has the duties of a\r\nmother toward them, still she knows her natural children from\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_50\" id=\"Page_50\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-051.png\"\u003e50\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e others.\r\nIt is also obvious that, as far as group marriage exists, descent can\r\nonly be traced on the mother\u0027s side and, hence, only female lineage be\r\nacknowledged. This is actually the case among all savage tribes and\r\nthose in the lower stage of barbarism. To have discovered this first is\r\nthe second great merit of Bachofen. He designates this exclusive\r\nrecognition of descent from the female line and the hereditary relations\r\nresulting therefrom in course of time as \"maternal law.\" I retain this\r\nterm for the sake of brevity, although it is distorted; for at this\r\nsocial stage there is no sign yet of any law in the juridic sense.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf we now take one of the two standard groups of a Punaluan family,\r\nnamely that of a series of natural and remote sisters (i. e., first,\r\nsecond and more remote descendants of natural sisters), their children\r\nand their natural or remote brothers on the mother\u0027s side (who according\r\nto our supposition are not their husbands), we have exactly that circle\r\nof persons who later appear as members of a gens, in the original form\r\nof this institution. They all have a common ancestress, by virtue of the\r\ndescent that makes the different female generations sisters. But the\r\nhusbands of these sisters cannot be chosen among their brothers any\r\nmore, can no longer come from the same ancestress, and do not,\r\ntherefore, belong to the consanguineous group of relatives, the gens of\r\na later time. The children of these same sisters, however, do belong to\r\nthis group, because descent from the female line alone is conclusive,\r\nalone is positive. As soon as the proscription of sexual intercourse\r\nbetween all relatives on the mother\u0027s side, even the most remote of\r\nthem, is an accomplished fact, the above named group has become a gens,\r\ni. e., constitutes a definite circle of consanguineous relatives of\r\nfemale lineage who are not permitted to marry one another. Henceforth\r\nthis circle is more and more fortified by other mutual \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_51\" id=\"Page_51\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-052.png\"\u003e51\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003einstitutions of\r\na social or religious character and thus distinguished from other gentes\r\nof the same tribe. Of this more anon.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFinding, as we do, that the gens not only necessarily, but also as a\r\nmatter of course, develops from the Punaluan family, it becomes obvious\r\nto us to assume as almost practically demonstrated the prior existence\r\nof this family form among all those nations where such gentes are\r\ntraceable, i. e., nearly all barbarian and civilized nations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Morgan wrote his book, our knowledge of group marriage was very\r\nlimited. We knew very little about the group marriages of the\r\nAustralians organized in classes, and furthermore Morgan had published\r\nas early as 1871 the information he had received about the Punaluan\r\nfamily of Hawaii. This family on one hand furnished a complete\r\nexplanation of the system of kinship in force among the American\r\nIndians, which had been the point of departure for all the studies of\r\nMorgan. On the other hand it formed a ready means for the deduction of\r\nthe maternal law gens. And finally it represented a far higher stage of\r\ndevelopment than the Australian classes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is, therefore, easy to understand how Morgan could regard this form\r\nas the stage necessarily preceding the pairing family and attribute\r\ngeneral extension in former times to it. Since then we have learned of\r\nseveral other forms of the group marriage, and we know that Morgan went\r\ntoo far in this respect. But it was nevertheless his good fortune to\r\nencounter in his Punaluan family the highest, the classical, form of\r\ngroup marriage, that form which gave the simplest clue for the\r\ntransition to a higher stage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe most essential contribution to our knowledge of the group marriage\r\nwe owe to the English missionary, Lorimer Fison, who studied this form\r\nof the family for years on its classical ground, Australia. He found\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_52\" id=\"Page_52\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-053.png\"\u003e52\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nthe lowest stage of development among the Papuans near Mount Gambier in\r\nSouth Australia. Here the whole tribe is divided into two great classes,\r\nKroki and Kumite.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_16_16\" id=\"FNanchor_16_16\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_16_16\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[16]\u003c/a\u003e Sexual intercourse within each of these classes is\r\nstrictly prohibited. But every man of one class is by birth the husband\r\nof every woman of the other class, and vice versa. Not the individuals\r\nare married to one another, but the whole groups, class to class. And\r\nmark well, no caution is made anywhere on account of difference of age\r\nor special consanguinity, unless it is resulting from the division into\r\ntwo exogamous classes. A Kroki has for his wife every Kumite woman. And\r\nas his own daughter, being the daughter of a Kumite woman, is also\r\nKumite according to maternal law, she is therefore the born wife of\r\nevery Kroki, including her father. At least, the class organization, as\r\nwe know it, does not exclude this possibility. Hence this organization\r\neither arose at a time when, in spite of all dim endeavor to limit\r\ninbreeding, sexual intercourse between parents and children was not yet\r\nregarded with any particular horror; in this case the class system would\r\nbe directly evolved from a condition of unrestricted sexual relations.\r\nOr the intercourse between parents and children was already proscribed\r\nby custom, when the classes were formed; and in this case the present\r\ncondition points back to the consanguine family and is the first step\r\nout of it. The latter case is the more probable. So far as I know, no\r\nmention is made of any sexual intercourse between parents and children\r\nin Australia. Even the later form of exogamy, the maternal law gens, as\r\na rule silently presupposes that the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_53\" id=\"Page_53\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-054.png\"\u003e53\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e prohibition of this intercourse\r\nwas an accomplished fact at the time of its institution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe system of two classes is not only found near Mount Gambier in South\r\nAustralia, but also farther east along Darling River, and in the\r\nnortheast of Queensland. It is, consequently, widespread. It excludes\r\nonly marriage between brothers and sisters, between brothers\u0027 children\r\nand between sisters\u0027 children of the mother\u0027s side, because these belong\r\nto the same class; but the children of a sister can marry those of a\r\nbrother and vice versa. A further step for preventing inbreeding is\r\nfound among the Kamilaroi on the Darling River in New South Wales, where\r\nthe two original classes are split into four, and every one of these is\r\nmarried as a whole to a certain other class. The first two classes are\r\nhusbands and wives by birth. According to the place of the mother in the\r\nfirst or second class, the children belong to the third and fourth. The\r\nchildren of these two classes, who are also married to one another,\r\nagain belong to the first and second class. So that a certain generation\r\nbelongs to the first and second class, the next to the third and fourth\r\nand the following again to the first and second. Hence the children of\r\nnatural brothers and sisters (on the mother\u0027s side) cannot marry one\r\nanother, but their grandchildren can do so. This peculiarly complicated\r\norder of things is still more entangled by the inoculation\u0026mdash;evidently at\r\na later stage\u0026mdash;with maternal law gentes. But we cannot discuss this\r\nfurther. Enough, the desire to prevent inbreeding again and again\r\ndemands recognition, but feeling its way quite spontaneously, without a\r\nclear conception of the goal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe group marriage is represented in Australia by class marriage, i. e.,\r\nmass marriage of a whole class of men frequently scattered over the\r\nwhole breadth of the continent to an equally widespread class of\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_54\" id=\"Page_54\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-055.png\"\u003e54\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e women.\r\nA close view of this group marriage does not offer quite such a horrible\r\nspectacle as the philistine imagination accustomed to brothel conditions\r\ngenerally pictures to itself. On the contrary, long years passed, before\r\nits existence was even suspected, and quite recently it is once more\r\ndenied. To the casual observer it makes the impression of a loose\r\nmonogamy and in certain places of polygamy, with occasional breach of\r\nfaith. Years are required before one can discover, like Fison and\r\nHowitt, the law regulating these marital conditions that rather appeal\r\nin their practicability to the average European; the law enabling the\r\nstrange Papuan, thousands of miles from his home and among people whose\r\nlanguage he does not understand, to find frequently, from camp to camp\r\nand from tribe to tribe, women who will without resistance and\r\nguilelessly surrender to him; the law according to which a man with\r\nseveral women offers one to his guest for the night. Where the European\r\nsees immorality and lawlessness, there in reality a strict law is\r\nobserved. The women belong to the marriage class of the stranger and,\r\ntherefore, they are his wives by birth. The same moral law assigning\r\nboth to one another forbids under penalty of proscription all sexual\r\nintercourse outside of the two marriage classes. Even when women are\r\nabducted, as is frequently the case in certain regions, the class law is carefully respected.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the abduction of women, by the way, a trace of transition to monogamy\r\nis found even here, at least in the form of the pairing family. If a\r\nyoung man has abducted a girl with the help of his friends, they hold\r\nsexual intercourse with her one after another. But after that the girl\r\nis regarded as the wife of the young man who planned the abduction. And\r\nagain, if an abducted woman deserts her husband and is caught by another\r\nman, she becomes the wife of the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_55\" id=\"Page_55\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-056.png\"\u003e55\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e latter and the first has lost his\r\nprivilege. Alongside of and within the generally existing group marriage\r\nsuch exclusive relations are formed, pairing for a shorter or longer\r\nterm by the side of polygamy, so that here also group marriage is\r\ndeclining. The question is only which will first disappear under the\r\npressure of European influence: group marriage or the Papuans addicted to it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe marriage in whole classes, such as is in force in Australia, is no\r\ndoubt a very low and primitive form of group marriage, while the\r\nPunaluan family, so far as we know, is its highest stage of development.\r\nThe former seems to be corresponding to the social stage of roving\r\nsavages, the latter requires relatively settled communistic bodies and\r\nleads directly to the next higher stage of development. Between these\r\ntwo, we shall no doubt find many an intermediate stage. Here lies a\r\nbarely opened, hardly entered field of investigation.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_17_17\" id=\"FNanchor_17_17\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_17_17\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[17]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_56\" id=\"Page_56\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-057.png\"\u003e56\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch3\u003e3. THE PAIRING FAMILY.\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA certain pairing for a longer or shorter term took place even during\r\nthe group marriage or still earlier. A man had his principal wife (one\r\ncan hardly call it favorite wife as yet) among many women, and he was to\r\nher the principal husband among others. This fact in no small degree\r\ncontributed to the confusion among missionaries, who regarded group\r\nmarriage now as a disorderly community of women, now as an arbitrary\r\nadultery. Such a habitual pairing would gain ground the more the gens\r\ndeveloped and the more numerous the classes of \"brothers\" and \"sisters\"\r\nbecame who were not permitted to marry one another. The impulse to\r\nprevent marriage of consanguineous relatives started by the gens went\r\nstill further. Thus we find that among the Iroquois and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_57\" id=\"Page_57\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-058.png\"\u003e57\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e most of the\r\nIndians in the lower stage of barbarism marriage is prohibited between\r\nall the relatives of their system of kinship, and this comprises several\r\nhundred kinds. By this increasing complication of marriage restrictions,\r\ngroup marriage became more and more impossible; it was displaced by the\r\npairing family. At this stage one man lives with one woman, but in such\r\na manner that polygamy, and occasional adultery, remain privileges of\r\nmen, although the former occurs rarely for economic reasons. Women,\r\nhowever, are generally expected to be strictly faithful during the time\r\nof living together, and adultery on their part is cruelly punished. But\r\nthe marriage-tie may be easily broken by either party, and the children\r\nbelong to the mother alone, as formerly.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_58\" id=\"Page_58\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-059.png\"\u003e58\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this ever more extending restriction of marriage between\r\nconsanguineous relations, natural selection also remains effective. As\r\nMorgan expresses it: \"Marriages between gentes that were not\r\nconsanguineous produced a more vigorous race, physically and mentally;\r\ntwo progressive tribes intermarried, and the new skulls and brains\r\nnaturally expanded until they comprised the faculties of both.\" Thus\r\ntribes composed of gentes necessarily either gained the supremacy over\r\nthe backward ones or, by their example, carried them along in their wake.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe development of the family, then, is founded on the continual\r\ncontraction of the circle, originally comprising the whole tribe, within\r\nwhich marital intercourse between both sexes was general. By the\r\n\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_59\" id=\"Page_59\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-060.png\"\u003e59\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003econtinual, exclusion, first of near, then of ever remoter relatives,\r\nincluding finally even those who were simply related legally, all group\r\nmarriage becomes practically impossible. At last only one couple,\r\ntemporarily and loosely united, remains; that molecule, the dissolution\r\nof which absolutely puts an end to marriage. Even from this we may infer\r\nhow little the sexual love of the individual in the modern sense of the\r\nword had to do with the origin of monogamy. The practice of all nations\r\nof that stage still more proves this. While in the previous form of the\r\nfamily the men were never embarrassed for women, but rather had more\r\nthan enough of them, women now became scarce and were sought after. With\r\nthe pairing family, therefore, the abduction and barter of women\r\nbegan\u0026mdash;widespread symptoms, and nothing but that, of a new and much more\r\nprofound change. The pedantic Scot, McLennan, however, transmuted these\r\nsymptoms, mere methods of obtaining women, into separate classes of the\r\nfamily under the head of \"marriage by capture\" and \"marriage by barter.\"\r\nMoreover among American Indians and other nations in the same stage, the\r\nmarriage agreement is not the business of the parties most concerned,\r\nwho often are not even asked, but of their mothers. Frequently two\r\npersons entirely unknown to one another are thus engaged to be married\r\nand receive no information of the closing of the bargain, until the time\r\nfor the marriage ceremony approaches. Before the wedding, the bridegroom\r\nbrings gifts to the maternal relatives of the bride (not to her father\r\nor his relatives) as an equivalent for ceding the girl to him. Either of\r\nthe married parties may dissolve the marriage at will. But among many\r\ntribes, as, e. g., the Iroquois, public opinion has gradually become\r\naverse to such separations. In case of domestic differences the gentile\r\nrelatives of both parties endeavor to bring about a reconciliation, and\r\nnot until\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_60\" id=\"Page_60\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-061.png\"\u003e60\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e they are unsuccessful a separation takes place. In this case\r\nthe woman keeps the children, and both parties are free to marry again.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe pairing family, being too weak and too unstable to make an\r\nindependent household necessary or even desirable, in no way dissolves\r\nthe traditional communistic way of housekeeping. But household communism\r\nimplies supremacy of women in the house as surely as exclusive\r\nrecognition of a natural mother and the consequent impossibility of\r\nidentifying the natural father signify high esteem for women, i. e.,\r\nmothers. It is one of the most absurd notions derived from eighteenth\r\ncentury enlightenment, that in the beginning of society woman was the\r\nslave of man. Among all savages and barbarians of the lower and middle\r\nstages, sometimes even of the higher stage, women not only have freedom,\r\nbut are held in high esteem. What they were even in the pairing family,\r\nlet Arthur Wright, for many years a missionary among the Seneca\r\nIroquois, testify: \"As to their families, at a time when they still\r\nlived in their old long houses (communistic households of several\r\nfamilies) … a certain clan (gens) always reigned, so that the women\r\nchoose their husbands from other clans (gentes)…. The female part\r\ngenerally ruled the house; the provisions were held in common; but woe\r\nto the luckless husband or lover who was too indolent or too clumsy to\r\ncontribute his share to the common stock. No matter how many children or\r\nhow much private property he had in the house, he was liable at any\r\nmoment to receive a hint to gather up his belongings and get out. And he\r\ncould not dare to venture any resistance; the house was made too hot for\r\nhim and he had no other choice, but to return to his own clan (gens) or,\r\nas was mostly the case, to look for another wife in some other clan. The\r\nwomen were the dominating power in the clans (gentes) and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_61\" id=\"Page_61\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-062.png\"\u003e61\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e everywhere\r\nelse. Occasionally they did not hesitate to dethrone a chief and degrade\r\nhim to a common warrior.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe communistic household, in which most or all the women belong to one\r\nand the same gens, while the husbands come from different gentes, is the\r\ncause and foundation of the general and widespread supremacy of women in\r\nprimeval times. The discovery of this fact is the third merit of Bachofen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy way of supplement I wish to state that the reports of travelers and\r\nmissionaries concerning the overburdening of women among savages and\r\nbarbarians do not in the least contradict the above statements. The\r\ndivision of labor between both sexes is caused by other reasons than the\r\nsocial condition of women. Nations, where women have to work much harder\r\nthan is proper for them in our opinion, often respect women more highly\r\nthan Europeans do. The lady of civilized countries, surrounded with sham\r\nhomage and a stranger to all real work stands on a far lower social\r\nlevel than a hard-working barbarian woman, regarded as a real lady\r\n(frowa-lady-mistress) and having the character of such.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhether or not the pairing family has in our time entirely supplanted\r\ngroup marriage in America, can be decided only by closer investigations\r\namong those nations of northwestern and especially of southern America\r\nthat are still in the higher stage of savagery. About the latter so many\r\nreports of sexual license are current that the assumption of a complete\r\ncessation of the ancient group marriage is hardly warranted. Evidently\r\nall traces of it have not yet disappeared. In at least forty North\r\nAmerican tribes the man marrying an elder sister has the right to make\r\nall her sisters his wives as soon as they are of age, a survival of the\r\ncommunity of men for the whole series of sisters. And Bancroft relates\r\nthat the Indians of\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_62\" id=\"Page_62\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-063.png\"\u003e62\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the Californian peninsula celebrate certain\r\nfestivities uniting several \"tribes\" for the purpose of unrestricted\r\nsexual intercourse. These are evidently gentes that have preserved in\r\nthese festivities a vague recollection of the time when the women of one\r\ngens had for their common husbands all the men of another gens, and vice\r\nversa. The same custom is still observed in Australia. Among certain\r\nnations it sometimes happens that the older men, the chief and\r\nsorcerer-priests, exploit the community of women for their own benefits\r\nand monopolize all the women. But in their turn they must restore the\r\nold community during certain festivities and great assemblies,\r\npermitting their wives to enjoy themselves with the young men. A whole\r\nseries of examples of such periodical saturnalia restoring for a short\r\ntime the ancient sexual freedom is quoted by Westermarck:\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_18_18\" id=\"FNanchor_18_18\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_18_18\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[18]\u003c/a\u003e among the\r\nHos, the Santals, the Punjas and Kotars in India, among some African\r\nnations, etc. Curiously enough Westermarck concludes that this is a\r\nsurvival, not of group marriage, the existence of which he denies,\r\nbut\u0026mdash;of a rutting season which primitive man had in common with other animals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere we touch Bachofen\u0027s fourth great discovery: the widespread form of\r\ntransition from group marriage to pairing family. What Bachofen\r\nrepresents as a penance for violating the old divine laws\u0026mdash;the penalty\r\nwith which a woman redeems her right to chastity, is in fact only a\r\nmystical expression for the penalty paid by a woman for becoming exempt\r\nfrom the ancient community of men and acquiring the right of\r\nsurrendering to one man only. This penalty consists in a limited\r\nsurrender: Babylonian women had to surrender once a year in the temple\r\nof Mylitta; other nations of Western Asia sent their young women\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_63\" id=\"Page_63\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-064.png\"\u003e63\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e for\r\nyears to the temple of Anaitis, where they had to practice free love\r\nwith favorites of their own choice before they were allowed to marry.\r\nSimilar customs in a religious disguise are common to nearly all Asiatic\r\nnations between the Mediterranean and the Ganges. The penalty for\r\nexemption becomes gradually lighter in course of time, as Bachofen\r\nremarks: \"The annually repeated surrender gives place to a single\r\nsacrifice; the hetaerism of the matrons is followed by that of the\r\nmaidens, the promiscuous intercourse during marriage to that before\r\nwedding, the indiscriminate intercourse with all to that with certain\r\nindividuals.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_19_19\" id=\"FNanchor_19_19\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_19_19\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[19]\u003c/a\u003e Among some nations the religious disguise is missing.\r\nAmong others\u0026mdash;Thracians, Celts, etc., in classic times, many primitive\r\ninhabitants of India, Malay nations, South Sea Islanders and many\r\nAmerican Indians to this day\u0026mdash;the girls enjoy absolute sexual freedom\r\nbefore marriage. This is especially true almost everywhere in South\r\nAmerica, as everybody can confirm who penetrates a little into the\r\ninterior. Agassiz, e. g., relates\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_20_20\" id=\"FNanchor_20_20\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_20_20\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[20]\u003c/a\u003e an anecdote of a wealthy family of\r\nIndian descent. On being introduced to the daughter he asked something\r\nabout her father, presuming him to be her mother\u0027s husband, who was in\r\nthe war against Paraguay. But the mother replied, smiling: \"Nao tem pai,\r\nhe filha da fortuna\"\u0026mdash;she hasn\u0027t any father; she is the daughter of\r\nchance. \"It is the way the Indian or half-breed women here always speak\r\nof their illegitimate children; and though they say it without an\r\nintonation of sadness or of blame, apparently as unconscious of any\r\nwrong or shame as if they said the father was absent or dead, it has the\r\nmost melancholy significance; it seems to speak of such absolute\r\ndesertion. So far is this from being an\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_64\" id=\"Page_64\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-065.png\"\u003e64\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e unusual case, that among the\r\ncommon people the opposite seems the exception. Children are frequently\r\nquite ignorant of their parentage. They know about their mother, for all\r\nthe care and responsibility falls upon her, but they have no knowledge\r\nof their father; nor does it seem to occur to the woman that she or her\r\nchildren have any claim upon him.\" What seems so strange to the\r\ncivilized man, is simply the rule of maternal law and group marriage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAgain, among other nations the friends and relatives of the bridegroom\r\nor the wedding guests claim their traditional right to the bride, and\r\nthe bridegroom comes last. This custom prevailed in ancient times on the\r\nBaleares and among the African Augilers; it is observed to this day by\r\nthe Bareas in Abyssinia. In still other cases, an official person\u0026mdash;the\r\nchief of a tribe or a gens, the cazique, shamane, priest, prince or\r\nwhatever may be his title\u0026mdash;represents the community and exercises the\r\nright of the first night. All modern romantic whitewashing\r\nnotwithstanding, this jus primae noctis, is still in force among most of\r\nthe natives of Alaska,\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_21_21\" id=\"FNanchor_21_21\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_21_21\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[21]\u003c/a\u003e among the Tahus of northern Mexico\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_22_22\" id=\"FNanchor_22_22\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_22_22\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[22]\u003c/a\u003e and\r\nsome other nations. And during the whole of the middle ages it was\r\npracticed at least in originally Celtic countries, where it was directly\r\ntransmitted by group marriage, e. g. in Aragonia. While in Castilia the\r\npeasant was never a serf, the most disgraceful serfdom existed in\r\nAragonia, until abolished by the decision of Ferdinand the Catholic in\r\n1486. In this document we read: \"We decide and declare that the\r\naforesaid \u0027senyors\u0027 (barons) … shall neither sleep the first night\r\nwith the wife of a peasant, nor shall they in the first night after the\r\nwedding, when the woman has gone to bed, step over said woman or\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_65\" id=\"Page_65\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-066.png\"\u003e65\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e bed as\r\na sign of their authority. Neither shall the aforesaid senyors use the\r\ndaughter or the son of any peasant, with or without pay, against their\r\nwill.\" (Quoted in the Catalonian original by Sugenheim, \"Serfdom,\"\r\nPetersburg, 1861, page 35.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBachofen, furthermore, is perfectly right in contending that the\r\ntransition from what he calls \"hetaerism\" or \"incestuous generation\" to\r\nmonogamy was brought about mainly by women. The more in the course of\r\neconomic development, undermining the old communism and increasing the\r\ndensity of population, the traditional sexual relations lost their\r\ninnocent character suited to the primitive forest, the more debasing and\r\noppressive they naturally appeared to women; and the more they\r\nconsequently longed for relief by the right of chastity, of temporary or\r\npermanent marriage with one man. This progress could not be due to men\r\nfor the simple reason that they never, even to this day, had the least\r\nintention of renouncing the pleasures of actual group marriage. Not\r\nuntil the women had accomplished the transition to the pairing family\r\ncould the men introduce strict monogamy\u0026mdash;true, only for women.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe pairing family arose on the boundary line between savagery and\r\nbarbarism, generally in the higher stage of savagery, here and there in\r\nthe lower stage of barbarism. It is the form of the family\r\ncharacteristic for barbarism, as group marriage is for savagery and\r\nmonogamy for civilization. In order to develop it into established\r\nmonogamy, other causes than those active hitherto were required. In the\r\npairing family the group was already reduced to its last unit, its\r\nbiatomic molecule: one man and one woman. Natural selection, had\r\naccomplished its purpose by a continually increasing restriction of\r\nsexual intercourse. Nothing remained to be done in this direction.\r\nUnless new social forces became active, there was no reason why\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_66\" id=\"Page_66\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-067.png\"\u003e66\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e a new\r\nform of the family should develop out of the pairing family. But these\r\nforces did become active.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe now leave America, the classic soil of the pairing family. No sign\r\npermits the conclusion that a higher form of the family was developed\r\nhere, that any established form of monogamy ever existed anywhere in the\r\nNew World before the discovery and conquest. Not so in the Old World.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the latter, the domestication of animals and the breeding of flocks\r\nhad developed a hitherto unknown source of wealth and created entirely\r\nnew social conditions. Up to the lower stage of barbarism, fixed wealth\r\nwas almost exclusively represented by houses, clothing, rough ornaments\r\nand the tools for obtaining and preparing food: boats, weapons and\r\nhousehold articles of the simplest kind. Nourishment had to be secured\r\nafresh day by day. But now, with their herds of horses, camels, donkeys,\r\ncattle, sheep, goats and hogs, the advancing nomadic nations\u0026mdash;the Aryans\r\nin the Indian Punjab, in the region of the Ganges and the steppes of the\r\nOxus and Jaxartes, then still more rich in water-veins than now; the\r\nSemites on the Euphrates and Tigris\u0026mdash;had acquired possessions demanding\r\nonly the most crude attention and care in order to propagate themselves\r\nin ever increasing numbers and yield the most abundant store of milk and\r\nmeat. All former means of obtaining food were now forced to the\r\nbackground. Hunting, once a necessity, now became a sport.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut who was the owner of this new wealth? Doubtless it was originally\r\nthe gens. However, private ownership of flocks must have had an early\r\nbeginning. It is difficult to say whether to the author of the so-called\r\nfirst book of Moses Father Abraham appeared as the owner of his flocks\r\nby virtue of his privilege as head of a communistic family or of his\r\ncapacity as gentile chief by actual descent. So much is certain:\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_67\" id=\"Page_67\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-068.png\"\u003e67\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e we\r\nmust not regard him as a proprietor in the modern sense of the word. It\r\nis furthermore certain that everywhere on the threshold of documentary\r\nhistory we find the flocks in the separate possession of chiefs of\r\nfamilies, exactly like the productions of barbarian art, such as metal\r\nware, articles of luxury and, finally, the human cattle\u0026mdash;the slaves.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor now slavery was also invented. To the barbarian of the lower stage a\r\nslave was of no use. The American Indians, therefore, treated their\r\nvanquished enemies in quite a different way from nations of a higher\r\nstage. The men were tortured or adopted as brothers into the tribe of\r\nthe victors. The women were married or likewise adopted with their\r\nsurviving children. The human labor power at this stage does not yet\r\nproduce a considerable amount over and above its cost of subsistence.\r\nBut the introduction of cattle raising, metal industry, weaving and\r\nfinally agriculture wrought a change. Just as the once easily obtainable\r\nwives now had an exchange value and were bought, so labor power was now\r\nprocured, especially since the flocks had definitely become private\r\nproperty. The family did not increase as rapidly as the cattle. More\r\npeople were needed for superintending; for this purpose the captured\r\nenemy was available and, besides, he could be increased by breeding like the cattle.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch riches, once they had become the private property of certain\r\nfamilies and augmented rapidly, gave a powerful impulse to society\r\nfounded on the pairing family and the maternal gens. The pairing family\r\nhad introduced a new element. By the side of the natural mother it had\r\nplaced the authentic natural father who probably was better\r\nauthenticated than many a \"father\" of our day. According to the division\r\nof labor in those times, the task of obtaining food and the tools\r\nnecessary for this purpose fell to\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_68\" id=\"Page_68\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-069.png\"\u003e68\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the share of the man; hence he owned\r\nthe latter and kept them in case of a separation, as the women did the\r\nhousehold goods. According to the social custom of that time, the man\r\nwas also the owner of the new source of existence, the cattle, and later\r\non of the new labor power, the slaves. But according to the same custom,\r\nhis children could not inherit his property, for the following reasons:\r\nBy maternal law, i. e., while descent was traced only along the female\r\nline, and by the original custom of inheriting in the gens, the gentile\r\nrelatives inherited the property of their deceased gentile relative. The\r\nwealth had to remain in the gens. In view of the insignificance of the\r\nobjects, the property may have gone in practice to the closest gentile\r\nrelatives, i. e., the consanguine relatives on the mother\u0027s side. The\r\nchildren of the dead man, however, did not belong to his gens, but to\r\nthat of their mother. They inherited first together with the other\r\nconsanguine relatives of the mother, later on perhaps in preference to\r\nthe others. But they could not inherit from their father, because they\r\ndid not belong to his gens, where his property had to remain. Hence,\r\nafter the death of a cattle owner, the cattle would fall to his\r\nbrothers, sisters and the children of his sisters, or to the offspring\r\nof the sisters of his mother. His own children were disinherited.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the measure of the increasing wealth man\u0027s position in the family\r\nbecame superior to that of woman, and the desire arose to use this\r\nfortified position for the purpose of overthrowing the traditional law\r\nof inheritance in favor of his children. But this was not feasible as\r\nlong as maternal law was valid. This law had to be abolished, and it\r\nwas. This was by no means as difficult as it appears to us to-day. For\r\nthis revolution\u0026mdash;one of the most radical ever experienced by\r\nhumanity\u0026mdash;did not have to touch a single living member of the gens. All\r\nits members could remain\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_69\" id=\"Page_69\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-070.png\"\u003e69\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e what they had always been. The simple\r\nresolution was sufficient, that henceforth the offspring of the male\r\nmembers should belong to the gens, while the children of the female\r\nmembers should be excluded by transferring them to the gens of their\r\nfather. This abolished the tracing of descent by female lineage and the\r\nmaternal right of inheritance, and instituted descent by male lineage\r\nand the paternal right of inheritance. How and when this revolution was\r\naccomplished by the nations of the earth, we do not know. It belongs\r\nentirely to prehistoric times. That it was accomplished is proven more\r\nthan satisfactorily by the copious traces of maternal law collected\r\nespecially by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished we may observe in\r\na whole series of Indian tribes, that recently passed through or are\r\nstill engaged in it, partly under the influence of increasing wealth and\r\nchanged modes of living (transfer from forests to the prairie), partly\r\nthrough the moral pressure of civilization and missionaries. Six out of\r\neight Missouri tribes have male descent and inheritance, while only two\r\nretain female descent and inheritance. The Shawnees, Miamis and\r\nDelawares follow the custom of placing their children into the male gens\r\nby giving them a gentile name belonging to the father\u0027s gens, so that\r\nthey may be entitled to inherit. \"Innate casuistry of man, to change the\r\nobjects by changing their names, and to find loopholes for breaking\r\ntradition inside of tradition where a direct interest was a sufficient\r\nmotive.\" (Marx.) This made confusion worse confounded, which could be\r\nand partially was remedied alone by paternal law. \"This seems to be the\r\nmost natural transition.\" (Marx.) As to the opinion of the comparative\r\njurists, how this transition took place among the civilized nations of\r\nthe old world\u0026mdash;although only in hypotheses\u0026mdash;compare M. Kovalevsky,\r\nTableau\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_70\" id=\"Page_70\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-071.png\"\u003e70\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e des origines et de l\u0027\u0026eacute;volution de la famille et de la\r\npropri\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute;, Stockholm, 1890.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe downfall of maternal law was the historic defeat of the female sex.\r\nThe men seized the reins also in the house, the women were stripped of\r\ntheir dignity, enslaved, tools of men\u0027s lust and mere machines for the\r\ngeneration of children. This degrading position of women, especially\r\nconspicuous among the Greeks of heroic and still more of classic times,\r\nwas gradually glossed over and disguised or even clad in a milder form.\r\nBut it is by no means obliterated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe first effect of the established supremacy of men became now visible\r\nin the reappearance of the intermediate form of the patriarchal family.\r\nIts most significant feature is not polygamy, of which more anon, but\r\n\"the organization of a certain number of free and unfree persons into\r\none family under the paternal authority of the head of the family. In\r\nthe Semitic form this head of the family lives in polygamy, the unfree\r\nmembers have wife and children, and the purpose of the whole\r\norganization is the tending of herds in a limited territory.\" The\r\nessential points are the assimilation of the unfree element and the\r\npaternal authority. Hence the ideal type of this form of the family is\r\nthe Roman family. The word familia did not originally signify the\r\ncomposite ideal of sentimentality and domestic strife in the present day\r\nphilistine mind. Among the Romans it did not even apply in the beginning\r\nto the leading couple and its children, but to the slaves alone. Famulus\r\nmeans domestic slave, and familia is the aggregate number of slaves\r\nbelonging to one man. At the time of Gajus, the familia, id est\r\npatrimonium (i. e., paternal legacy), was still bequeathed by testament.\r\nThe expression was invented by the Romans in order to designate a new\r\nsocial organism, the head of which had a wife, children and a number of\r\nslaves under his paternal\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_71\" id=\"Page_71\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-072.png\"\u003e71\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e authority and according to Roman law the\r\nright of life and death over all of them. \"The word is, therefore, not\r\nolder than the ironclad family system of the Latin tribes, which arose\r\nafter the introduction of agriculture and of lawful slavery, and after\r\nthe separation of the Aryan Itali from the Greeks.\" Marx adds: \"The\r\nmodern family contains the germ not only of slavery (servitus), but also\r\nof serfdom, because it has from the start a relation to agricultural\r\nservice. It comprises in miniature all those contrasts that later on\r\ndevelop more broadly in society and the state.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch a form of the family shows the transition from the pairing family\r\nto monogamy. In order to secure the faithfulness of the wife, and hence\r\nthe reliability of paternal lineage, the women are delivered absolutely\r\ninto the power of the men; in killing his wife, the husband simply\r\nexercises his right.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith the patriarchal family we enter the domain of written history, a\r\nfield in which comparative law can render considerable assistance. And\r\nhere it has brought about considerable progress indeed. We owe to Maxim\r\nKovalevsky (Tableau etc. de la famille et de la propri\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute;, Stockholm,\r\n1890, p. 60-100) the proof, that the patriarchal household community,\r\nfound to this day among Serbians and Bulgarians under the names of\r\nZ\u0026aacute;druga (friendly bond) and Bratstvo (fraternity), and in a modified\r\nform among oriental nations, formed the stage of transition between the\r\nmaternal family derived from group marriage and the monogamous family of\r\nthe modern world. This seems at least established for the historic\r\nnations of the old world, for Aryans and Semites.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Z\u0026aacute;druga of southern Slavonia offers the best still existing\r\nillustration of such a family communism. It comprises several\r\ngenerations of the father\u0027s descendants, together with their wives, all\r\nliving \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_72\" id=\"Page_72\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-073.png\"\u003e72\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003etogether on the same farm, tilling their fields in common,\r\nliving and clothing themselves from the same stock, and possessing\r\ncollectively the surplus of their earnings. The community is managed by\r\nthe master of the house (dom\u0026aacute;cin), who acts as its representative, may\r\nsell inferior objects, has charge of the treasury and is responsible for\r\nit as well as for a proper business administration. He is chosen by vote\r\nand is not necessarily the oldest man. The women and their work are\r\ndirected by the mistress of the house (dom\u0026aacute;cica), who is generally the\r\nwife of the dom\u0026aacute;cin. She also has an important, and often final, voice\r\nin choosing a husband for the girls. But the highest authority is vested\r\nin the family council, the assembly of all grown companions, male and\r\nfemale. The dom\u0026aacute;cin is responsible to this council. It takes all\r\nimportant resolutions, sits in judgment on the members of the household,\r\ndecides the question of important purchases and sales, especially of land, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is only about ten years since the existence of such family communism\r\nin the Russia of to-day was proven. At present it is generally\r\nacknowledged to be rooted in popular Russian custom quite as much as the\r\nobscina or village community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is found in the oldest Russian code, the Pravda of Jaroslav, under\r\nthe same name (vervj) as in the Dalmatian code, and may also be traced\r\nin Polish and Czech historical records.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eLikewise among Germans, the economic unit according to Heussler\r\n(Institutions of German law) is not originally the single family, but\r\nthe \"collective household,\" comprising several generations or single\r\nfamilies and, besides, often enough unfree individuals. The Roman family\r\nis also traced to this type, and hence the absolute authority of the\r\nmaster of the house and the defenselessness of the other members in\r\nregard to him is strongly questioned of late. \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_73\" id=\"Page_73\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-074.png\"\u003e73\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eSimilar communities are\r\nfurthermore said to have existed among the Celts of Ireland. In France\r\nthey were preserved up to the time of the Revolution in Nivernais under\r\nthe name of \"par\u0026ccedil;onneries,\" and in the Franche Comt\u0026eacute; they are not quite\r\nextinct yet. In the region of Louhans (Sa\u0026ocirc;ne et Loire) we find large\r\nfarmhouses with a high central hall for common use reaching up to the\r\nroof and surrounded by sleeping rooms accessible by the help of stairs\r\nwith six to eight steps. Several generations of the same family live\r\ntogether in such a house.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn India, the household community with collective agriculture is already\r\nmentioned by Nearchus at the time of Alexander the Great, and it exists\r\nto this day in the same region, in the Punjab and the whole Northwest of\r\nthe country. In the Caucasus it was located by Kovalevski himself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn Algeria it is still found among the Kabyles. Even in America it is\r\nsaid to have existed. It is supposed to be identical with the\r\n\"Calpullis\" described by Zurita in ancient Mexico. In Peru, however,\r\nCunow (Ausland, 1890, No. 42-44) has demonstrated rather clearly that at\r\nthe time of the conquest a sort of a constitution in marks (called\r\ncuriously enough marca), with a periodical allotment of arable soil, and\r\nconsequently individual tillage, was in existence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt any rate, the patriarchal household community with collective tillage\r\nand ownership of land now assumes an entirely different meaning than\r\nheretofore. We can no longer doubt that it played an important role\r\namong the civilized and some other nations of the old world in the\r\ntransition from the maternal to the single family. Later on we shall\r\nreturn to Kovaleski\u0027s further conclusion that it was also the stage of\r\ntransition from which developed the village or mark community with\r\nindividual tillage and first periodical, then permanent allotment of\r\narable and pasture lands.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_74\" id=\"Page_74\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-075.png\"\u003e74\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn regard to the family life within these household communities it must\r\nbe remarked that at least in Russia the master of the house has the\r\nreputation of strongly abusing his position against the younger women of\r\nthe community, especially his daughters-in-law, and of transforming them\r\ninto a harem for himself. Russian popular songs are very eloquent on this point.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBefore taking up monogamy, which rapidly developed after the downfall of\r\nmaternal law, let me say a few words about polygamy and polyandry. Both\r\nforms of the family can only be exceptions, historical products of\r\nluxury so to speak, unless they could be found side by side in the same\r\ncountry, which is apparently not the case. As the men excluded from\r\npolygamy cannot find consolation in the women left over by polyandry,\r\nthe number of men and women being hitherto approximately equal without\r\nregard to social institutions, it becomes of itself impossible to confer\r\non any one of these two forms the distinction of general preference.\r\nIndeed, the polygamy of one man was evidently the product of slavery,\r\nconfined to certain exceptional positions. In the Semitic patriarchal\r\nfamily, only the patriarch himself, or at best a few of his sons,\r\npractice polygamy, the others must be satisfied with one wife. This is\r\nthe case to-day in the whole Orient. Polygamy is a privilege of the\r\nwealthy and distinguished, and is mainly realized by purchase of female\r\nslaves. The mass of the people live in monogamy. Polyandry in India and\r\nThibet is likewise an exception. Its surely not uninteresting origin\r\nfrom group marriage requires still closer investigation. In its practice\r\nit seems, by the way, much more tolerant than the jealous Harem\r\nestablishment of the Mohammedans. At least among the Nairs of India,\r\nthree, four or more men have indeed one woman in common; but every one\r\nof them may\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_75\" id=\"Page_75\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-076.png\"\u003e75\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e have a second woman in common with three or more other men;\r\nand in the same way a third, fourth, etc. It is strange that McLennan\r\ndid not discover the new class of \"club marriage\" in these marital\r\nclubs, in several of which one may be a member and which he himself\r\ndescribes. This marriage club business is, however, by no means actual\r\npolyandry. It is on the contrary, as Giraud-Teulon already remarks, a\r\nspecialized form of group marriage. The men live in polygamy, the women\r\nin polyandry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch3\u003e4. THE MONOGAMOUS FAMILY.\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt develops from the pairing family, as we have already shown, during\r\nthe time of transition from the middle to the higher stage of barbarism.\r\nIts final victory is one of the signs of beginning civilization. It is\r\nfounded on male supremacy for the pronounced purpose of breeding\r\nchildren of indisputable paternal lineage. The latter is required,\r\nbecause these children shall later on inherit the fortune of their\r\nfather. The monogamous family is distinguished from the pairing family\r\nby the far greater durability of wedlock, which can no longer be\r\ndissolved at the pleasure of either party. As a rule, it is only the man\r\nwho can still dissolve it and cast off his wife. The privilege of\r\nconjugal faithlessness remains sanctioned for men at least by custom\r\n(the Code Napoleon concedes it directly to them, as long as they do not\r\nbring their concubines into the houses of their wives). This privilege\r\nis more and more enjoyed with the increasing development of society. If\r\nthe woman remembers the ancient sexual practices and attempts to revive\r\nthem, she is punished more severely than ever.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe whole severity of this new form of the family confronts us among the\r\nGreeks. While, as Marx observes, the position of the female gods in\r\nmythology shows an earlier period, when women still occupied\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_76\" id=\"Page_76\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-077.png\"\u003e76\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e a freer\r\nand more respected plane, we find woman already degraded by the\r\nsupremacy of man and the competition of slaves during the time of the\r\nheroes. Read in the Odysseia how Telemachos reproves and silences his\r\nmother. The captured young women, according to Homer, are delivered to\r\nthe sensual lust of the victors. The leaders in the order of their rank\r\nselect the most beautiful captives. The whole Iliad notoriously revolves\r\naround the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon about such a captured\r\nwoman. In mentioning any hero of importance, the captured girl sharing\r\nhis tent and bed is never omitted. These girls are also taken into the\r\nhero\u0027s home country and his house, as Kassandra by Agamemnon in\r\nAeschylos. Boys born by these female slaves receive a small share of the\r\npaternal heirloom and are regarded as free men. Teukros is such an\r\nillegitimate son and may use his father\u0027s name. The wife is expected to\r\nput up with everything, while herself remaining chaste and faithful.\r\nAlthough the Greek woman of heroic times is more highly respected than\r\nshe of the civilized period, still she is for her husband only the\r\nmother of his legal heirs, his first housekeeper and the superintendent\r\nof the female slaves, whom he can and does make his concubines at will.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is this practice of slavery by the side of monogamy, the existence of\r\nyoung and beautiful female slaves belonging without any restriction to\r\ntheir master, which from the very beginning gives to monogamy the\r\nspecific character of being monogamy for women only, but not for men.\r\nAnd this character remains to this day.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFor the Greeks of later times we must make a distinction between Dorians\r\nand Ionians. The former, with Sparta as their classic example, have in\r\nmany respects still more antiquated marriage customs than even Homer\r\nillustrates. In Sparta existed a form of\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_77\" id=\"Page_77\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-078.png\"\u003e77\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the pairing family modified by\r\nthe contemporaneous ideas of the state and still recalling group\r\nmarriage in many ways. Sterile marriages were dissolved. King\r\nAnaxandridas (about 650 before Christ) took another wife besides his\r\nchildless one and kept two households. About the same time King Ariston\r\nadded another wife to two childless ones, one of which he dismissed.\r\nFurthermore, several brothers could have one wife in common; a friend\r\nwho liked his friend\u0027s wife better than his own could share her with\r\nhim, and it was not considered indecent to place a wife at the disposal\r\nof a sturdy \"stallion,\" as Bismarck would have said, even though he\r\nmight not be a citizen. A certain passage in Plutarch, where a Spartan\r\nmatron refers a lover, who persists in making offers to her, to her\r\nhusband, seems to indicate\u0026mdash;according to Schoemann\u0026mdash;even a still greater\r\nsexual freedom. Also adultery, faithlessness of a wife behind her\r\nhusband\u0027s back, was unheard of. On the other hand, domestic slavery in\r\nSparta, at least during the best time, was unknown, and the serf Helots\r\nlived on separate country seats. Hence there was less temptation for a\r\nSpartan to hold intercourse with other women. As was to be expected\r\nunder such circumstances, the women of Sparta occupied a more highly\r\nrespected place than those of other Greeks. Spartan women and the\r\nAthenian hetaerae were the only Greek women of whom the ancients speak\r\nrespectfully and whose remarks they considered worthy of notice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eQuite a different condition among Ionians, whose representative is\r\nAthens. The girls learned only to spin, weave and sew, at the most a\r\nlittle reading and writing. They were practically shut in and had only\r\nthe company of other women.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe women\u0027s room formed a separate part of the house, on the upper floor\r\nor in a rear building, where men, especially strangers, did not easily\r\nenter and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_78\" id=\"Page_78\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-079.png\"\u003e78\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e whither the women retreated when male visitors came. The\r\nwomen did not leave the house without being accompanied by a female\r\nslave. At home they were strictly guarded. Aristophanes speaks of\r\nMolossian dogs that were kept to frighten off adulterers. And at least\r\nin the Asiatic towns, eunuchs were kept for guarding women. Even at\r\nHerodotus\u0027 time these eunuchs were manufactured for the trade, and\r\naccording to Wachsmuth not for barbarians alone. By Euripides woman is\r\ndesignated as \"oikurema,\" a neuter signifying an object for\r\nhousekeeping, and beside the business of breeding children she served to\r\nthe Athenian for nothing but his chief house maid. The man had his\r\ngymnastic exercises, his public meetings, from which the women were\r\nexcluded. Besides, the man very often had female slaves at his disposal,\r\nand during the most flourishing time of Athens an extensive prostitution\r\nwhich was at least patronized by the state. It was precisely on the\r\nbasis of this prostitution that the unique type of Ionic women\r\ndeveloped; the hetaerae. They rose by esprit and artistic taste as far\r\nabove the general level of antique womanhood as the Spartan women by\r\ntheir character. But that it was necessary to become a hetaera before\r\none could be a woman, constitutes the severest denunciation of the Athenian family.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Athenian family became in the course of time the model after which\r\nnot only the rest of the Ionians, but gradually all the Greeks at home\r\nand abroad molded their domestic relations. Nevertheless, in spite of\r\nall seclusion and watching, the Grecian ladies found sufficient\r\nopportunity for deceiving their husbands. The latter who would have been\r\nashamed of betraying any love for their wives, found recreation in all\r\nkinds of love affairs with hetaerae. But the degradation of the women\r\nwas avenged in the men and degraded them also, until they sank into\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_79\" id=\"Page_79\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-080.png\"\u003e79\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the\r\nabomination of boy-love. They degraded their gods and themselves by the myth of Ganymedes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch was the origin of monogamy, as far as we may trace it in the most\r\ncivilized and most highly developed nation of antiquity. It was by no\r\nmeans a fruit of individual sex-love and had nothing to do with the\r\nlatter, for the marriages remained as conventional as ever. Monogamy was\r\nthe first form of the family not founded on natural, but on economic\r\nconditions, viz.: the victory of private property over primitive and\r\nnatural collectivism. Supremacy of the man in the family and generation\r\nof children that could be his offspring alone and were destined to be\r\nthe heirs of his wealth\u0026mdash;these were openly avowed by the Greeks to be\r\nthe sole objects of monogamy. For the rest it was a burden to them, a\r\nduty to the gods, the state and their own ancestors, a duty to be\r\nfulfilled and no more. In Athens the law enforced not only the marriage,\r\nbut also the fulfillment of a minimum of the so-called matrimonial\r\nduties on the man\u0027s part.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMonogamy, then, does by no means enter history as a reconciliation of\r\nman and wife and still less as the highest form of marriage. On the\r\ncontrary, it enters as the subjugation of one sex by the other, as the\r\nproclamation of an antagonism between the sexes unknown in all preceding\r\nhistory. In an old unpublished manuscript written by Marx and myself in\r\n1846, I find the following passage: \"The first division of labor is that\r\nof man and wife in breeding children.\" And to-day I may add: The first\r\nclass antagonism appearing in history coincides with the development of\r\nthe antagonism of man and wife in monogamy, and the first class\r\noppression with that of the female by the male sex. Monogamy was a great\r\nhistorical progress. But by the side of slavery and private property it\r\nmarks at the same time that\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_80\" id=\"Page_80\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-081.png\"\u003e80\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e epoch which, reaching down to our days,\r\ntakes with all progress also a step backwards, relatively speaking, and\r\ndevelops the welfare and advancement of one by the woe and submission of\r\nthe other. It is the cellular form of civilized society which enables us\r\nto study the nature of its now fully developed contrasts and contradictions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe old relative freedom of sexual intercourse by no means disappeared\r\nwith the victory of the pairing or even of the monogamous family. \"The\r\nold conjugal system, now reduced to narrower limits by the gradual\r\ndisappearance of the punaluan groups, still environed the advancing\r\nfamily, which it was to follow to the verge of civilization…. It\r\nfinally disappeared in the new form of hetaerism, which still follows\r\nmankind in civilization as a dark shadow upon the family.\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_23_23\" id=\"FNanchor_23_23\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_23_23\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[23]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy hetaerism Morgan designates sexual intercourse of men with unmarried\r\nwomen outside of the monogamous family, flourishing, as is well known,\r\nduring the whole period of civilization in many different forms and\r\ntending more and more to open prostitution. This hetaerism is directly\r\nderived from group marriage, from the sacrificial surrender of women for\r\nthe purpose of obtaining the right to chastity. The surrender for money\r\nwas at first a religious act; it took place in the temple of the goddess\r\nof love and the money flowed originally into the treasury of the temple.\r\nThe hierodulae of Anaitis in Armenia, of Aphrodite in Corinth and the\r\nreligious dancing girls of India attached to the temples, the so-called\r\nbajaderes (derived from the Portuguese \"bailadera,\" dancing girl), were\r\nthe first prostitutes. The surrender, originally the duty of every\r\nwoman, was later on practiced by these priestesses alone in\r\n\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_81\" id=\"Page_81\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-082.png\"\u003e81\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003erepresentation of all others. Among other nations, hetaerism is derived\r\nfrom the sexual freedom permitted to girls before marriage\u0026mdash;also a\r\nsurvival of the group marriage, only transmitted by another route. With\r\nthe rise of different property relations, in the higher stage of\r\nbarbarism, wage labor appears sporadically by the side of slavery, and\r\nat the same time its unavoidable companion, professional prostitution of\r\nfree women by the side of the forced surrender of female slaves. It is\r\nthe heirloom bequeathed by group marriage to civilization, a gift as\r\nambiguous as everything else produced by ambiguous, double-faced,\r\nschismatic and contradictory civilization. Here monogamy, there\r\nhetaerism and its most extreme form, prostitution. Hetaerism is as much\r\na social institution as all others. It continues the old sexual\r\nfreedom\u0026mdash;for the benefit of the men. In reality not only permitted, but\r\nalso assiduously practised by the ruling class, it is denounced only\r\nnominally. Still in practice this denunciation strikes by no means the\r\nmen who indulge in it, but only the women. These are ostracised and cast\r\nout by society, in order to proclaim once more the fundamental law of\r\nunconditional male supremacy over the female sex.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, a second contradiction is thereby developed within monogamy\r\nitself. By the side of the husband, who is making his life pleasant by\r\nhetaerism, stands the neglected wife. And you cannot have one side of\r\nthe contradiction without the other, just as you cannot have the whole\r\napple after eating half of it. Nevertheless this seems to have been the\r\nidea of the men, until their wives taught them a lesson. Monogamy\r\nintroduces two permanent social characters that were formerly unknown:\r\nthe standing lover of the wife and the cuckold. The men had gained the\r\nvictory over the women, but the vanquished \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_82\" id=\"Page_82\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-083.png\"\u003e82\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003emagnanimously provided the\r\ncoronation. In addition to monogamy and hetaerism, adultery became an\r\nunavoidable social institution\u0026mdash;denounced, severely punished, but\r\nirrepressible. The certainty of paternal parentage rested as of old on\r\nmoral conviction at best, and in order to solve the unreconcilable\r\ncontradiction, the code Napol\u0026eacute;on decreed in its article 312: \"L\u0027enfant\r\ncon\u0026ccedil;u pendant le mariage a pour p\u0026egrave;re le mari;\" the child conceived\r\nduring marriage has for its father\u0026mdash;the husband. This is the last result\r\nof three thousand years of monogamy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus we have in the monogamous family, at least in those cases that\r\nremain true to historical development and clearly express the conflict\r\nbetween man and wife created by the exclusive supremacy of men, a\r\nminiature picture of the contrasts and contradictions of society at\r\nlarge. Split by class-differences since the beginning of civilization,\r\nsociety has been unable to reconcile and overcome these antitheses. Of\r\ncourse, I am referring here only to those cases of monogamy, where\r\nmatrimonial life actually remains in accord with the original character\r\nof the whole institution, but where the wife revolts against the rule of\r\nthe man. Nobody knows better than your German philistine that not all\r\nmarriages follow such a course. He does not understand how to maintain\r\nthe control of his own home any better than that of the State, and his\r\nwife is, therefore, fully entitled to wearing the trousers, which he\r\ndoes not deserve. But he thinks himself far superior to his French\r\ncompanion in misery, who more frequently fares far worse.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe monogamous family, by the way, did not everywhere and always appear\r\nin the classic severe form it had among the Greeks. Among the Romans,\r\nwho as future conquerors of the world had a sharper although less\r\nrefined eye than the Greeks, the women\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_83\" id=\"Page_83\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-084.png\"\u003e83\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e were freer and more respected. A\r\nRoman believed that the conjugal faith of his wife was sufficiently\r\nsafeguarded by his power over her life and death. Moreover, the women\r\ncould voluntarily dissolve the marriage as well as the men. But the\r\nhighest progress in the development of monogamy was doubtless due to the\r\nentrance of the Germans into history, probably because on account of\r\ntheir poverty their monogamy had not yet fully outgrown the pairing\r\nfamily. Three facts mentioned by Tacitus favor this conclusion: In the\r\nfirst place, although marriage was held very sacred\u0026mdash;\"they are satisfied\r\nwith one wife, the women are protected by chastity\"\u0026mdash;still polygamy was\r\nin use among the distinguished and the leaders of the tribes, as was the\r\ncase in the pairing families of the American Indians. Secondly, the\r\ntransition from maternal to paternal law could have taken place only a\r\nshort while before, because the mother\u0027s brother\u0026mdash;the next male relative\r\nin the gens by maternal law\u0026mdash;was still considered almost a closer\r\nrelative than the natural father, also in accordance with the standpoint\r\nof the American Indians. The latter furnished to Marx, according to his\r\nown testimony, the key to the comprehension of German primeval history.\r\nAnd thirdly, the German women were highly respected and also influenced\r\npublic affairs, a fact directly opposed to monogamic male supremacy. In\r\nall these things the Germans almost harmonize with the Spartans, who, as\r\nwe saw, also had not fully overcome the pairing family. Hence in this\r\nrespect an entirely new element succeeded to the world\u0027s supremacy with\r\nthe Germans. The new monogamy now developing the ruins of the Roman\r\nworld from the mixture of nations endowed male rule with a milder form\r\nand accorded to women a position that was at least outwardly far more\r\nrespected and free than classical antiquity ever knew.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_84\" id=\"Page_84\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-085.png\"\u003e84\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e Not until now\r\nwas there a possibility of developing from monogamy\u0026mdash;in it, by the side\r\nof it or against it, as the case might be\u0026mdash;the highest ethical progress\r\nwe owe to it: the modern individual sexlove, unknown to all previous ages.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis progress doubtless arose from the fact that the Germans still lived\r\nin the pairing family and inoculated monogamy as far as possible with\r\nthe position of women corresponding to the former. It was in no way due\r\nto the legendary and wonderfully pure natural qualities of the Germans.\r\nThese qualities were limited to the simple fact that the pairing family\r\nindeed does not create the marked moral contrasts of monogamy. On the\r\ncontrary, the Germans, especially those who wandered southeast among the\r\nnomadic nations of the Black Sea, had greatly degenerated morally.\r\nBeside the equestrian tricks of the inhabitants of the steppe they had\r\nalso acquired some very unnatural vices. This is expressly confirmed of\r\nthe Thaifali by Ammianus and of the Heruli by Prokop.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough monogamy was the only one of all known forms of the family in\r\nwhich modern sexlove could develop, this does not imply that it\r\ndeveloped exclusively or even principally as mutual love of man and\r\nwife. The very nature of strict monogamy under man\u0027s rule excluded this.\r\nAmong all historically active, i. e., ruling, classes matrimony remained\r\nwhat it had been since the days of the pairing family\u0026mdash;a conventional\r\nmatter arranged by the parents. And the first historical form of sexlove\r\nas a passion, as an attribute of every human being (at least of the\r\nruling classes), the specific character of the highest form of the\r\nsexual impulse, this first form, the love of the knights in the middle\r\nages, was by no means matrimonial love, but quite the contrary. In its\r\nclassic form, among the Proven\u0026ccedil;als, it heads with full sails\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_85\" id=\"Page_85\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-086.png\"\u003e85\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e for\r\nadultery and their poets extol the latter. The flower of Proven\u0026ccedil;al love\r\npoetry, the Albas, describe in glowing colors how the knight sleeps with\r\nhis adored\u0026mdash;the wife of another\u0026mdash;while the watchman outside calls him at\r\nthe first faint glow of the morning (alba) and enables him to escape\r\nunnoticed. The poems culminate in the parting scene. Likewise the\r\nFrenchmen of the north and also the honest Germans adopted this style of\r\npoetry and the manner of knightly love corresponding to it. Old Wolfram\r\nvon Eschenbach has left us three wonderful \"day songs\" treating this\r\nsame questionable subject, and I like them better than his three heroic epics.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eCivil matrimony in our day is of two kinds. In Catholic countries, the\r\nparents provide a fitting spouse for their son as of old, and the\r\nnatural consequence is the full development of the contradictions\r\ninherent to monogamy: voluptuous hetaerism on the man\u0027s part, voluptuous\r\nadultery of the woman. Probably the Catholic church has abolished\r\ndivorce for the simple reason that it had come to the conclusion, there\r\nwas as little help for adultery as for death. In Protestant countries,\r\nagain, it is the custom to give the bourgeois son more or less liberty\r\nin choosing his mate. Hence a certain degree of love may be at the\r\nbottom of such a marriage and for the sake of propriety this is always\r\nassumed, quite in keeping with Protestant hypocrisy. In this case\r\nhetaerism is carried on less strenuously and adultery on the part of the\r\nwoman is not so frequent. But as human beings remain under any form of\r\nmarriage what they were before marrying, and as the citizens of\r\nProtestant countries are mostly philistines, this Protestant monogamy on\r\nthe average of the best cases confines itself to the community of a\r\nleaden ennui, labeled wedded bliss. The best mirror of these two species\r\nof marriage is the novel, the French\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_86\" id=\"Page_86\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-087.png\"\u003e86\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e novel for the Catholic, the German\r\nnovel for the Protestant brand. In both of these novels they \"get one\r\nanother:\" in the German novel the man gets the girl, in the French novel\r\nthe husband gets the horns. It does not always go without saying which\r\nof the two deserves the most pity. For this reason the tediousness of\r\nthe German novels is abhorred as much by the French bourgeois as the\r\n\"immorality\" of the French novels by the German philistine. Of late,\r\nsince Berlin became cosmopolitan, the German novel begins to treat\r\nsomewhat timidly of the hetaerism and adultery that a long time ago\r\nbecame familiar features of that city.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn both cases the marriage is influenced by the class environment of the\r\nparticipants, and in this respect it always remains conventional. This\r\nconventionalism often enough results in the most pronounced\r\nprostitution\u0026mdash;sometimes of both parties, more commonly of the woman. She\r\nis distinguished from a courtisane only in that she does not offer her\r\nbody for money by the hour like a commodity, but sells it into slavery\r\nfor once and all. Fourier\u0027s words hold good with respect to all\r\nconventional marriages: \"As in grammar two negatives make one\r\naffirmative, so in matrimonial ethics, two prostitutions are considered\r\nas one virtue.\" Sexual love in man\u0027s relation to woman becomes and can\r\nbecome the rule among the oppressed classes alone, among the\r\nproletarians of our day\u0026mdash;no matter whether this relation is officially sanctioned or not.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere all the fundamental conditions of classic monogamy have been\r\nabolished. Here all property is missing and it was precisely for the\r\nprotection and inheritance of this that monogamy and man rule were\r\nestablished. Hence all incentive to make this rule felt is wanting here.\r\nMore still, the funds are missing. Civil law protecting male rule\r\napplies only to\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_87\" id=\"Page_87\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-088.png\"\u003e87\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the possessing classes and their intercourse with\r\nproletarians. Law is expensive and therefore the poverty of the laborer\r\nmakes it meaningless for his relation to his wife. Entirely different\r\npersonal and social conditions decide in this case. And finally, since\r\nthe great industries have removed women from the home to the labor\r\nmarket and to the factory, the last remnant of man rule in the\r\nproletarian home has lost its ground\u0026mdash;except, perhaps, a part of the\r\nbrutality against women that has become general since the advent of\r\nmonogamy. Thus the family of the proletarian is no longer strictly\r\nmonogamous, even with all the most passionate love and the most\r\nunalterable loyalty of both parties, and in spite of any possible\r\nclerical or secular sanction. Consequently the eternal companions of\r\nmonogamy, hetaerism and adultery, play an almost insignificant role\r\nhere. The woman has practically regained the right of separation, and if\r\na couple cannot agree, they rather separate. In short, the proletarian\r\nmarriage is monogamous in the etymological sense of the word, but by no\r\nmeans in a historical sense.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTrue, our jurists hold that the progress of legislation continually\r\nlessens all cause of complaint for women. The modern systems of civil\r\nlaw recognize, first that marriage, in order to be legal, must be a\r\ncontract based on voluntary consent of both parties, and secondly that\r\nduring marriage the relations of both parties shall be founded on equal\r\nrights and duties. These two demands logically enforced will, so they\r\nclaim, give to women everything they could possibly ask.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis genuinely juridical argumentation is exactly the same as that used\r\nby the radical republican bourgeois to cut short and dismiss the\r\nproletarian. The labor contract is said to be voluntarily made by both\r\nparties. But it is considered as voluntary when the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_88\" id=\"Page_88\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-089.png\"\u003e88\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e law places both\r\nparties on equal terms on paper. The power conferred on one party by the\r\ndivision of classes, the pressure thereby exerted on the other party,\r\nthe actual economic relation of the two\u0026mdash;all this does not concern the\r\nlaw. Again, during the term of the contract both parties are held to\r\nhave equal rights, unless one has expressly renounced his right. That\r\nthe economic situation forces the laborer to give up even the last\r\nsemblance of equality, that is not the fault of the law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn regard to marriage, even the most advanced law is completely\r\nsatisfied after both parties have formally declared their willingness.\r\nWhat passes behind the juridical scenes where the actual process of\r\nliving is going on, and how this willingness is brought about, that\r\ncannot be the business of the law and the jurist. Yet the simplest legal\r\ncomparison should show to the jurist what this willingness really means.\r\nIn those countries where a legitimate portion of the parental wealth is\r\nassured to children and where these cannot be disinherited\u0026mdash;in Germany,\r\nin countries with French law, etc.\u0026mdash;the children are bound to secure the\r\nconsent of their parents for marrying. In countries with English law,\r\nwhere the consent of the parents is by no means a legal qualification of\r\nmarriage, the parents have full liberty to bequeath their wealth to\r\nanyone and may disinherit their children at will. Hence it is clear that\r\namong classes having any property to bequeath the freedom to marry is\r\nnot a particle greater in England and America than in France and Germany.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe legal equality of man and woman in marriage is by no means better\r\nfounded. Their legal inequality inherited from earlier stages of society\r\nis not the cause, but the effect of the economic oppression of women. In\r\nthe ancient communistic household comprising many married couples and\r\ntheir children, the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_89\" id=\"Page_89\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-090.png\"\u003e89\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e administration of the household entrusted to women\r\nwas just as much a public function, a socially necessary industry, as\r\nthe procuring of food by men. In the patriarchal and still more in the\r\nmonogamous family this was changed. The administration of the household\r\nlost its public character. It was no longer a concern of society. It\r\nbecame a private service. The woman became the first servant of the\r\nhouse, excluded from participation in social production. Only by the\r\ngreat industries of our time the access to social production was again\r\nopened for women\u0026mdash;for proletarian women alone, however. This is done in\r\nsuch a manner that they remain excluded from public production and\r\ncannot earn anything, if they fulfill their duties in the private\r\nservice of the family; or that they are unable to attend to their family\r\nduties, if they wish to participate in public industries and earn a\r\nliving independently. As in the factory, so women are situated in all\r\nbusiness departments up to the medical and legal professions. The modern\r\nmonogamous family is founded on the open or disguised domestic slavery\r\nof women, and modern society is a mass composed of molecules in the form\r\nof monogamous families. In the great majority of cases the man has to\r\nearn a living and to support his family, at least among the possessing\r\nclasses. He thereby obtains a superior position that has no need of any\r\nlegal special privilege. In the family, he is the bourgeois, the woman\r\nrepresents the proletariat. In the industrial world, however, the\r\nspecific character of the economic oppression weighing on the\r\nproletariat appears in its sharpest outlines only after all special\r\nprivileges of the capitalist class are abolished and the full legal\r\nequality of both classes is established. A democratic republic does not\r\nabolish the distinction between the two classes. On the contrary, it\r\noffers the battleground on which this \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_90\" id=\"Page_90\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-091.png\"\u003e90\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003edistinction can be fought out.\r\nLikewise the peculiar character of man\u0027s rule over woman in the modern\r\nfamily, the necessity and the manner of accomplishing the real social\r\nequality of the two, will appear in broad daylight only then, when both\r\nof them will enjoy complete legal equality. It will then be seen that\r\nthe emancipation of women is primarily dependent on the re-introduction\r\nof the whole female sex into the public industries. To accomplish this,\r\nthe monogamous family must cease to be the industrial unit of society.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"center\"\u003e*\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;*\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have, then, three main forms of the family, corresponding in general\r\nto the three main stages of human development. For savagery group\r\nmarriage, for barbarism the pairing family, for civilization monogamy\r\nsupplemented by adultery and prostitution. Between the pairing family\r\nand monogamy, in the higher stage of barbarism, the rule of men over\r\nfemale slaves and polygamy is inserted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs we proved by our whole argument, the progress visible in this chain\r\nof phenomena is connected with the peculiarity of more and more\r\ncurtailing the sexual freedom of the group marriage for women, but not\r\nfor men. And group marriage is actually practised by men to this day.\r\nWhat is considered a crime for women and entails grave legal and social\r\nconsequences for them, is considered honorable for men or in the worst\r\ncase a slight moral blemish born with pleasure. But the more traditional\r\nhetaerism is changed in our day by capitalistic production and conforms\r\nto it, the more hetaerism is transformed into undisguised prostitution,\r\nthe more demoralizing are its effects. And it demoralizes men far more\r\nthan women. Prostitution does not degrade the whole female sex, but only\r\nthe luckless women that become its victims, and even those not\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_91\" id=\"Page_91\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-092.png\"\u003e91\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e to the\r\nextent generally assumed. But it degrades the character of the entire\r\nmale world. Especially a long engagement is in nine cases out of ten a\r\nperfect training school of adultery.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe are now approaching a social revolution, in which the old economic\r\nfoundations of monogamy will disappear just as surely as those of its\r\ncomplement, prostitution. Monogamy arose through the concentration of\r\nconsiderable wealth in one hand\u0026mdash;a man\u0027s hand\u0026mdash;and from the endeavor to\r\nbequeath this wealth to the children of this man to the exclusion of all\r\nothers. This necessitated monogamy on the woman\u0027s, but not on the man\u0027s\r\npart. Hence this monogamy of women in no way hindered open or secret\r\npolygamy of men. Now, the impending social revolution will reduce this\r\nwhole care of inheritance to a minimum by changing at least the\r\noverwhelming part of permanent and inheritable wealth\u0026mdash;the means of\r\nproduction\u0026mdash;into social property. Since monogamy was caused by economic\r\nconditions, will it disappear when these causes are abolished?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne might reply, not without reason: not only will it not disappear, but\r\nit will rather be perfectly realized. For with the transformation of the\r\nmeans of production into collective property, wage labor will also\r\ndisappear, and with it the proletariat and the necessity for a certain,\r\nstatistically ascertainable number of women to surrender for money.\r\nProstitution disappears and monogamy, instead of going out of existence,\r\nat last becomes a reality\u0026mdash;for men also.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt all events, the situation will be very much changed for men. But also\r\nthat of women, and of all women, will be considerably altered. With the\r\ntransformation of the means of production into collective property the\r\nmonogamous family ceases to be the economic unit of society. The private\r\nhousehold changes to a social industry. The care and \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_92\" id=\"Page_92\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-093.png\"\u003e92\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eeducation of\r\nchildren becomes a public matter. Society cares equally well for all\r\nchildren, legal or illegal. This removes the care about the\r\n\"consequences\" which now forms the essential social factor\u0026mdash;moral and\r\neconomic\u0026mdash;hindering a girl to surrender unconditionally to the beloved\r\nman. Will not this be sufficient cause for a gradual rise of a more\r\nunconventional intercourse of the sexes and a more lenient public\r\nopinion regarding virgin honor and female shame? And finally, did we not\r\nsee that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution, though\r\nantitheses, are inseparable and poles of the same social condition? Can\r\nprostitution disappear without engulfing at the same time monogamy?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere a new element becomes active, an element which at best existed only\r\nin the germ at the time when monogamy developed: individual sexlove.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBefore the middle ages we cannot speak of individual sexlove. It goes\r\nwithout saying that personal beauty, intimate intercourse, harmony of\r\ninclinations, etc., awakened a longing for sexual intercourse in persons\r\nof different sex, and that it was not absolutely immaterial to men and\r\nwomen, with whom they entered into such most intimate intercourse. But\r\nfrom such a relation to our sexlove there is a long way yet. All through\r\nantiquity marriages were arranged for the participants by the parents,\r\nand the former quietly submitted. What little matrimonial love was known\r\nto antiquity was not subjective inclination, but objective duty; not\r\ncause, but corollary of marriage. Love affairs in a modern sense\r\noccurred in classical times only outside of official society. The\r\nshepherds whose happiness and woe in love is sung by Theocritos and\r\nMoschus, such as Daphnis and Chlo\u0026euml; of Longos, all these were slaves who\r\nhad no share in the state and in the daily sphere of the free citizen.\r\nOutside of slave circles we find\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_93\" id=\"Page_93\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-094.png\"\u003e93\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e love affairs only as products of\r\ndisintegration of the sinking old world. Their objects are women who\r\nalso are standing outside of official society, hetaerae that are either\r\nforeigners or liberated slaves: in Athens since the beginning of its\r\ndecline, in Rome at the time of the emperors. If love affairs really\r\noccurred between free male and female citizens, it was only in the form\r\nof adultery. And to the classical love poet of antiquity, the old\r\nAnakreon, sexlove in our sense was so immaterial, that he did not even\r\ncare a fig for the sex of the beloved being.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eOur sexlove is essentially different from the simple sexual craving, the\r\nEros, of the ancients. In the first place it presupposes mutual love. In\r\nthis respect woman is the equal of man, while in the antique Eros her\r\npermission is by no means always asked. In the second place our sexlove\r\nhas such a degree of intensity and duration that in the eyes of both\r\nparties lack of possession and separation appear as a great, if not the\r\ngreatest, calamity. In order to possess one another they play for high\r\nstakes, even to the point of risking their lives, a thing heard of only\r\nin adultery during the classical age. And finally a new moral standard\r\nis introduced for judging sexual intercourse. We not only ask: \"Was it\r\nlegal or illegal?\" but also: \"Was it caused by mutual love or not?\" Of\r\ncourse, this new standard meets with no better fate in feudal or\r\nbourgeois practice than all other moral standards\u0026mdash;it is simply ignored.\r\nBut neither does it fare worse. It is recognized just as much as the\r\nothers\u0026mdash;in theory, on paper. And that is all we can expect at present.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhere antiquity left off with its attempts at sexual love, there the\r\nmiddle ages resumed the thread: with adultery. We have already described\r\nthe love of the knights that invented the day songs. From this love\r\nendeavoring to break through the bonds of marriage\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_94\" id=\"Page_94\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-095.png\"\u003e94\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e to the love destined\r\nto found marriage, there is a long distance which was never fully\r\ntraversed by the knights. Even in passing on from the frivolous Romanic\r\nrace to the virtuous Germans, we find in the Nibelungen song Kriemhild,\r\nwho secretly is no less in love with Siegfried than he with her, meekly\r\nreplying to Gunther\u0027s announcement that he has pledged her in troth to a\r\ncertain knight whom he does not name: \"You need not beg for my consent;\r\nas you will demand, so I shall ever be; whomever you, sir, will select\r\nfor my husband, I shall willingly take in troth.\" It does not enter her\r\nhead at all that her love could find any consideration. Gunther asks for\r\nBrunhild, Etzel for Kriemhild without ever having seen one another. The\r\nsame is true of the suit of Gutrun Sigebant of Ireland for the Norwegian\r\nUte and of Hetel of Hegelingen for Hilda of Ireland. When Siegfried of\r\nMorland, Hartmut of Oranien and Herwig of Sealand court Gutrun, then it\r\nhappens for the first time that the lady voluntarily decides, favoring\r\nthe last named knight. As a rule the bride of the young prince is\r\nselected by his parents. Only when the latter are no longer alive, he\r\nchooses his own bride with the advice of the great feudal lords who in\r\nall cases of this kind have a decisive voice. Nor could it be otherwise.\r\nFor the knight and the baron as well as for the ruler of the realm\r\nhimself, marriage is a political act, an opportunity for increasing\r\ntheir power by new federations. The interest of the house must decide,\r\nnot the arbitrary inclination of the individual. How could love have a\r\nchance to decide the question of marriage in the last instance under such conditions?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe same held good for the bourgeois of the medieval towns, the members\r\nof the guilds. Precisely the privileges protecting them, the clauses and\r\nrestrictions of the guild charters, the artificial lines of \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_95\" id=\"Page_95\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-096.png\"\u003e95\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003edivision\r\nseparating them legally, here from the other guilds, there from their\r\njourneymen and apprentices, drew a sufficiently narrow circle for the\r\nselection of a fitting bourgeois spouse. Under such a complicated\r\nsystem, the question of fitness was unconditionally decided, not by\r\nindividual inclination, but by family interests.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the overwhelming majority of cases the marriage contract thus\r\nremained to the end of the middle ages what it had been from the outset:\r\na matter that was not decided by the parties most interested. In the\r\nbeginning one was already married from his birth\u0026mdash;married to a whole\r\ngroup of the other sex. In the later forms of group marriage, a similar\r\nrelation was probably maintained, only under a continual narrowing of\r\nthe group. In the pairing family it is the rule for mothers to exchange\r\nmutual pledges for the marriage of their children. Here also the main\r\nconsideration is given to new ties of relationship that will strengthen\r\nthe position of the young couple in the gens and the tribe. And when\r\nwith the preponderance of private property over collective property and\r\nwith the interest for inheritance paternal law and monogamy assumed the\r\nsupremacy, then marriage became still more dependent on economic\r\nconsiderations. The form of purchase marriage disappears, but the\r\nessence of the transaction is more and more intensified, so that not\r\nonly the woman, but also the man have a fixed price\u0026mdash;not according to\r\nhis qualities, but to his wealth. That mutual fondness of the marrying\r\nparties should be the one factor dominating all others had always been\r\nunheard of in the practice of the ruling classes. Such a thing occurred\r\nat best in romances or\u0026mdash;among the oppressed classes that were not counted.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis was the situation encountered by capitalist production when it\r\nbegan to prepare, since the epoch\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_96\" id=\"Page_96\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-097.png\"\u003e96\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of geographical discoveries, for the\r\nconquest of the world by international trade and manufacture. One would\r\nthink that this mode of making the marriage contract would have been\r\nextremely acceptable to capitalism, and it was. And yet\u0026mdash;the irony of\r\nfate is inexplicable\u0026mdash;capitalist production had to make the decisive\r\nbreach through this mode. By changing all things into commodities, it\r\ndissolved all inherited and traditional relations and replaced time\r\nhallowed custom and historical right by purchase and sale, by the \"free\r\ncontract.\" And the English jurist, H. S. Maine, thought he had made a\r\nstupendous discovery by saying that our whole progress over former\r\nepochs consisted in arriving from status to contract, from inherited to\r\nvoluntarily contracted conditions. So far as this is correct, it had\r\nalready been mentioned in the Communist Manifesto.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut in order to make contracts, people must have full freedom over their\r\npersons, actions and possessions. They must furthermore be on terms of\r\nmutual equality. The creation of these \"free\" and \"equal\" people was\r\nprecisely one of the main functions of capitalistic production. What\r\nthough this was done at first in a half-conscious way and, moreover, in\r\na religious disguise? Since the Lutheran and Calvinist reformation the\r\nthesis was accepted that a human being is fully responsible for his\r\nactions only then, when these actions were due to full freedom of will.\r\nAnd it was held to be a moral duty to resist any compulsion for an\r\nimmoral action. How did this agree with the prevailing practice of\r\nmatch-making? Marriage according to bourgeois conception was a contract,\r\na legal business affair, and the most important one at that, because it\r\ndecided the weal and woe of body and spirit of two beings for life. At\r\nthat time the agreement was formally voluntary; without the consent of\r\nthe contracting parties nothing could be\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_97\" id=\"Page_97\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-098.png\"\u003e97\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e done. But it was only too well\r\nknown how this consent was obtained and who were really the contracting\r\nparties. If, however, perfect freedom of decision is demanded for all\r\nother contracts, why not for this one? Did not the two young people who\r\nwere to be coupled together have the right freely to dispose of\r\nthemselves, of their bodies and the organs of these? Had not sexual love\r\nbecome the custom through the knights and was not, in opposition to\r\nknightly adultery, the love of married couples its proper bourgeois\r\nform? And if it was the duty of married couples to love one another, was\r\nit not just as much the duty of lovers to marry each other and nobody\r\nelse? Stood not the right of lovers higher than the right of parents,\r\nrelatives and other customary marriage brokers and matrimonial agents?\r\nIf the right of free personal investigation made its way unchecked into\r\nthe church and religion, how could it bear with the insupportable claims\r\nof the older generation on the body, soul, property, happiness and\r\nmisfortune of the younger generation?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese questions had to be raised at a time when all the old ties of\r\nsociety were loosened and all traditional conceptions tottering. The\r\nsize of the world had increased tenfold at a bound. Instead of one\r\nquadrant of one hemisphere, the whole globe now spread before the eyes\r\nof West Europeans who hastened to take possession of the other seven\r\nquadrants. And the thousand-year-old barriers of conventional medieval\r\nthought fell like the old narrow obstacles to marriage. An infinitely\r\nwider horizon opened out before the outer and inner eyes of humanity.\r\nWhat mattered the well-meaning propriety, what the honorable privilege\r\nof the guild overcome through generations to the young man tempted by\r\nthe gold and silver mines of Mexico and Potosi?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt was the knight errant time of the bourgeoisie.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_98\" id=\"Page_98\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-099.png\"\u003e98\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e It had its own\r\nromances and love dreams, but on a bourgeois footing and, in the last\r\ninstance, with bourgeois aims.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus it came about that the rising bourgeoisie more and more recognized\r\nthe freedom of contracting in marriage and carried it through in the\r\nmanner described above, especially in Protestant countries, where\r\nexisting institutions were most strongly shaken. Marriage remained class\r\nmarriage, but within the class a certain freedom of choice was accorded\r\nto the contracting parties. And on paper, in moral theory as in poetical\r\ndescription, nothing was more unalterably established than the idea that\r\nevery marriage was immoral unless founded on mutual sex-love and\r\nperfectly free agreement of husband and wife. In short, the love match\r\nwas proclaimed as a human right, not only as droit de l\u0027homme\u0026mdash;man\u0027s\r\nright\u0026mdash;but also for once as droit de femme\u0026mdash;woman\u0027s right.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this human right differed from all other so-called human rights\r\nin one respect. While in practice other rights remained the privileges\r\nof the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and were directly or indirectly\r\ncurtailed for proletarians, the irony of history once more asserted\r\nitself in this case. The ruling class remains subject to well-known\r\neconomic influences and, therefore, shows marriage by free selection\r\nonly in exceptional cases. But among the oppressed class, love matches\r\nare the rule, as we have seen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHence the full freedom of marriage can become general only after all\r\nminor economic considerations, that still exert such a powerful\r\ninfluence on the choice of a mate for life, have been removed by the\r\nabolition of capitalistic production and of the property relations\r\ncreated by it. Then no other motive will remain but mutual fondness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_99\" id=\"Page_99\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-100.png\"\u003e99\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince sexlove is exclusive by its very nature\u0026mdash;although this\r\nexclusiveness is at present realized for women alone\u0026mdash;marriage founded\r\non sexlove must be monogamous. We have seen that Bachofen was perfectly\r\nright in regarding the progress from group marriage to monogamy mainly\r\nas the work of women. Only the advance from the pairing family to\r\nmonogamy must be charged to the account of men. This advance implied,\r\nhistorically, a deterioration in the position of women and a greater\r\nopportunity for men to be faithless. Remove the economic considerations\r\nthat now force women to submit to the customary disloyalty of men, and\r\nyou will place women on a equal footing with men. All present\r\nexperiences prove that this will tend much more strongly to make men\r\ntruly monogamous, than to make women polyandrous.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, those peculiarities that were stamped upon the face of monogamy\r\nby its rise through property relations, will decidedly vanish, namely\r\nthe supremacy of men and the indissolubility of marriage. The supremacy\r\nof man in marriage is simply the consequence of his economic superiority\r\nand will fall with the abolition of the latter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe indissolubility of marriage is partly the consequence of economic\r\nconditions, under which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the time\r\nwhere the connection between this economic situation and monogamy, not\r\nyet clearly understood, was carried to extremes by religion. To-day, it\r\nhas been perforated a thousand times. If marriage founded on love is\r\nalone moral, then it follows that marriage is moral only as long as love\r\nlasts. The duration of an attack of individual sexlove varies\r\nconsiderably according to individual disposition, especially in men. A\r\npositive cessation of fondness or its replacement by a new passionate\r\nlove makes a separation a \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_100\" id=\"Page_100\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-101.png\"\u003e100\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eblessing for both parties and for society.\r\nBut humanity will be spared the useless wading through the mire of a divorce case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat we may anticipate about the adjustment of sexual relations after\r\nthe impending downfall of capitalist production is mainly of a negative\r\nnature and mostly confined to elements that will disappear. But what\r\nwill be added? That will be decided after a new generation has come to\r\nmaturity: a race of men who never in their lives have had any occasion\r\nfor buying with money or other economic means of power the surrender of\r\na woman; a race of women who have never had any occasion for\r\nsurrendering to any man for any other reason but love, or for refusing\r\nto surrender to their lover from fear of economic consequences. Once\r\nsuch people are in the world, they will not give a moment\u0027s thought to\r\nwhat we to-day believe should be their course. They will follow their\r\nown practice and fashion their own public opinion about the individual\r\npractice of every person\u0026mdash;only this and nothing more.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut let us return to Morgan from whom we moved away a considerable\r\ndistance. The historical investigation of social institutions developed\r\nduring the period of civilization exceeds the limits of his book. Hence\r\nthe vicissitudes of monogamy during this epoch occupy him very briefly.\r\nHe also sees in the further development of the monogamous family a\r\nprogress, an approach to perfect equality of the sexes, without\r\nconsidering this aim fully realized. But he says: \"When the fact is\r\naccepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and\r\nis now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be\r\npermanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it\r\nmust advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as\r\nit has done in the past. It is the creature of the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_101\" id=\"Page_101\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-102.png\"\u003e101\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e social system, and\r\nwill reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly\r\nsince the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern\r\ntimes, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still farther\r\nimprovement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the\r\nmonogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements\r\nof society, assuming the continuous progress of civilization, it is\r\nimpossible to predict the nature of its successor.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTES:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_7_7\" id=\"Footnote_7_7\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_7_7\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[7]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nHow little Bachofen understood what he had discovered, or rather\r\nguessed, is proved by the term \"hetaerism,\" which he applies to this\r\nprimeval stage. Hetaerism designated among the Greeks an intercourse of\r\nmen, single or living in monogamy, with unmarried women. It always\r\npresupposes the existence of a well defined form of marriage, outside of\r\nwhich this intercourse takes place, and includes the possibility of\r\nprostitution. In another sense this word was never used, and I use it in\r\nthis sense with Morgan. Bachofen\u0027s very important discoveries are\r\neverywhere mystified in the extreme by his idea that the historical\r\nrelations of man and wife have their source in the religious conceptions\r\nof a certain period, not in the economic conditions of life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_8_8\" id=\"Footnote_8_8\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_8_8\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[8]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe female of the European cuckoo (cuculus canorus) keeps intercourse\r\nwith several males in different districts during the same season. Still,\r\nthis is far from the human polyandry, in which the men and one women all\r\nlive together in the same place, the men mutually tolerating one\r\nanother, which male cuckoos do not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_9_9\" id=\"Footnote_9_9\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_9_9\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[9]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, London, 1891.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_10_10\" id=\"Footnote_10_10\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_10_10\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[10]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Espinas, Des Societes Animales, 1877.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_11_11\" id=\"Footnote_11_11\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_11_11\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[11]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Espinas, l. c., quoted by Giraud-Teulon, Origines du\r\nmariage et de la famille, 1884, p. 518-20.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_12_12\" id=\"Footnote_12_12\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_12_12\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[12]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note. In the spring of 1882, Marx expressed\r\nhimself in the strongest terms on the total misrepresentation of\r\nprimeval times by Wagner\u0027s Nibelungen text: \"Who ever heard of a brother\r\nembracing his sister as a bride?\" To these lascivious Wagnerian gods who\r\nin truly modern style are rendering their love quarrels more spicy by a\r\nlittle incest, Marx replies: \"In primeval times the sister was the wife\r\nand that was moral.\" (To the fourth edition.) A French friend and\r\nadmirer of Wagner does not consent to this foot note, and remarks that\r\neven in the Oegisdrecka, the more ancient Edda on which Wagner built,\r\nLoki denounces Freya: \"Before the gods you embraced your own brother.\"\r\nThis, he says, proves that marriage between brother and sister was\r\ninterdicted even then. But the Oegisdrecka is the expression of a time\r\nwhen the belief in the old myths was totally shaken; it is a truly\r\nLucian satire on the gods. If Loki as Mephisto denounces Freya in this\r\nmanner, then it is rather a point against Wagner. Loki also says, a few\r\nverses further on, to Niordhr: \"With your sister you generated (such) a\r\nson\" (\"vidh systur thinni gatzu slikan mog\"). Niordhr is not an Asa, but\r\na Vana, and says in the Ynglinga Saga that marriages between brothers\r\nand sisters are sanctioned in Vanaland, which is not the case among the\r\nAsas. This would indicate that the Vanas are older gods than the Asas.\r\nAt any rate Niordhr lived on equal terms with the Asas, and the\r\nOegisdrecka is thus rather a proof that at the time of the origin of the\r\nNorwegian mythology the marriage of brother and sister was not yet\r\nrepulsive, at least not to the gods. In trying to excuse Wagner it might\r\nbe better to quote Goethe instead of the Edda. This poet commits a\r\nsimilar error in his ballad of the god and the bajadere in regard to the\r\nreligious surrender of women and approaches modern prostitution far too closely.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_13_13\" id=\"Footnote_13_13\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_13_13\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[13]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e There is no longer any doubt that the traces of\r\nunrestricted sexual intercourse, which Bachofen alleges to have\r\nfound\u0026mdash;called \"incestuous generation\" by him\u0026mdash;are traceable to group\r\nmarriage. If Bachofen considers those Punaluan marriages \"lawless,\" a\r\nman of that period would look upon most of our present marriages between\r\nnear and remote cousins on the father\u0027s or mother\u0027s side as incestuous,\r\nbeing marriages between consanguineous relatives.\u0026mdash;Marx.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_14_14\" id=\"Footnote_14_14\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_14_14\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[14]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The People of India.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_15_15\" id=\"Footnote_15_15\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_15_15\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[15]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e See translator\u0027s note, p. 55.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_16_16\" id=\"Footnote_16_16\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_16_16\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[16]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nAccording to Cunow, Kroki and Kumite are phratries. See \"Die\r\nVerwandschaftsorganizationen der Australneger,\" by Heinrich Cunow.\r\nStuttgart, Dietz Verlag, 1894.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_17_17\" id=\"Footnote_17_17\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_17_17\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[17]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nHeinrich Cunow has given us the results of his most recent\r\ninvestigations in his \"Verwandschaftsorganisationen der Australneger.\"\r\nHe sums up his studies in these words: \"While Morgan and Fison regard\r\nthe system of marriage classes as an original organization preceding the\r\nso-called Punaluan family, I have found that the class is indeed older\r\nthan the gens, having its origin in the different strata of generations\r\ncharacteristic of the \"consanguine family\" of Morgan; but the present\r\nmode of classification in force among Kamilaroi, Kabi, Yuipera, etc.,\r\ncannot have arisen until a much later time, when the gentile institution\r\nhad already grown out of the horde. This system of classification does\r\nnot represent the first timid steps of evolution; it is not the most\r\nprimitive of any known forms of social organization, but an intermediate\r\nform that takes shape together with the gentile society, a stage of\r\ntransition to a pure gentile organization. In this stage, the generic\r\nclassification in strata of different ages belonging to the so-called\r\nconsanguine family runs parallel for a while with the gentile order….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt would have been easy for me to quote the testimony of travelers and\r\nethnologists in support of the conclusions drawn by me from the forms of\r\nrelationship among Australian negroes. But I purposely refrain from\r\ndoing this, with a few exceptions, first because I do not wish to write\r\na general history of the primitive family, and, secondly, because I\r\nconsider all references of this kind as very doubtful testimony, unless\r\nthey are accompanied by an analysis of the entire organization. We\r\nfrequently find analogies to the institutions of a lower stage in a high\r\nstage, and yet they are founded on radically different premises and\r\ncauses. The evolution of the Australian aborigines shows that. Among the\r\nAustralians of the lower stage, e. g., the hordes are endogamous, among\r\nthose of the middle stage they are exogamous, and in the higher stage\r\nthey are again endogamous. But while in the one instance the marriage in\r\nthe horde is conditioned on the fact that the more remote relatives are\r\nnot yet excluded from sexual intercourse, it is founded in the other\r\ncase on the difference between local and sexual organization.\r\nFurthermore, the marriage between daughter and father is permitted in\r\nthe lower stage, and again in that higher stage, where the class\r\norganization of the Kamilaroi is on the verge of dissolution. But in\r\nboth cases the circle of those who are regarded as fathers is entirely\r\ndifferent. The character of an institution can only be perfectly\r\nunderstood, if we examine its connection with the entire organization,\r\nand, if possible, trace its metamorphoses in the preceding stages….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe characteristic feature of the class system is that by the side of\r\nthe gentile order, such as is found among the North American Indians,\r\nthere is always another system of four marriage classes for the purpose\r\nof limiting sexual intercourse between certain groups of relatives.\r\nNeither the phratry nor the gens of the Kamilaroi forms a distinct\r\nterritorial community. Their members are scattered among different\r\nroving hordes, and they only meet occasionally, e. g., to celebrate a\r\nfeast or dance….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe origin of gentile systems out of Punaluan groups has never been\r\nproven, while we see among the Australian negroes that the classes are\r\nclearly and irrefutably in existence among the first traces of\r\ngentilism….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe class system in its original form is a conclusive proof of Morgan\u0027s\r\ntheory, that the first step in the formation of systems of relationship\r\nconsisted in prohibiting sexual intercourse between parents and children\r\n(in a wider sense)….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nIt has been often disputed that the Punaluan family ever existed outside\r\nof the Sandwich Islands. But the marriage institutions of certain\r\nAustralian tribes named by me prove the contrary. The Pirrauru of the\r\nDieyerie is absolutely identical with the Punalua of the Hawaiians; and\r\nthese institutions were not described by travelers who rushed through\r\nthe territories of those tribes without knowing their language, but by\r\nmen who lived among them for decades and fully mastered their\r\ndialects….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nI have shown how far the class system corresponds to the Hawaiian\r\nsystem. It is and remains a fact, that it contains a long series of\r\nterms that cannot be explained by the relations in the so-called\r\nconsanguine family, and the use of which creates confusion, if applied\r\nto this family. But that simply shows that Morgan was mistaken about the\r\nage and present structure of the Hawaiian system. It does not prove that\r\nit could not have grown on the basis assumed by him….\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nIf the opponents of Morgan dispute that the so-called consanguine family\r\nis based on blood kinship, they are right, unless we wish to assign an\r\nexceptional position to the Australian strata of generations. But if\r\nthey go further and declare that the subsequent restrictions of\r\ninbreeding and the gentile order have arisen independently of\r\nrelationships, they commit a far greater mistake than Morgan. They block\r\ntheir way to an understanding of subsequent organizations and force\r\nthemselves to all sorts of queer assumptions that at once appear as the\r\nfruits of imagination, when compared with the actual institutions of\r\nprimitive peoples.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThis explanation of the phases of development of family institutions\r\ncontradicts present day views on the matter. Since the scientific\r\ninvestigations of the last decade have demonstrated beyond doubt that\r\nthe so-called patriarchal family was preceded by the matriarchal family,\r\nit has become the custom to regard descent by females as a natural\r\ninstitution belonging to the very first stages of development which is\r\nexplained by the modes of existence and thought among savages. Paternity\r\nbeing a matter of speculation, maternity of actual observation, it is\r\nsupposed to follow that descent by females was always recognized. But\r\nthe development of the Australian systems of relationship shows that\r\nthis is not true, at least not in regard to Australians. The fact cannot\r\nbe disputed away, that we find female lineage among all those higher\r\ndeveloped tribes that have progressed to the formation of gentile\r\norganizations, but male lineage among all those that have no gentile\r\norganizations or where these are only in process of formation. Not a\r\nsingle tribe has been discovered so far, where female lineage was not\r\ncombined with gentile organization, and I doubt that any will ever be\r\nfound.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_18_18\" id=\"Footnote_18_18\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_18_18\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[18]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e The History of Human Marriage, p. 28-29.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_19_19\" id=\"Footnote_19_19\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_19_19\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[19]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Mutterrecht, p. xix.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_20_20\" id=\"Footnote_20_20\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_20_20\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[20]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e A Journey in Brazil. Boston and New York, 1886. Page 266.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_21_21\" id=\"Footnote_21_21\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_21_21\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[21]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Bancroft, Native Races, I., 81.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_22_22\" id=\"Footnote_22_22\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_22_22\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[22]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Ibidem, p. 584.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_23_23\" id=\"Footnote_23_23\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_23_23\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[23]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 504.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_102\" id=\"Page_102\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-103.png\"\u003e102\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER III.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eTHE IROQUOIS GENS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe now come to another discovery of Morgan that is at least as important\r\nas the reconstruction of the primeval form of the family from the\r\nsystems of kinship. It is the proof that the sex organizations within\r\nthe tribe of North American Indians, designated by animal names, are\r\nessentially identical with the genea of the Greeks and the gentes of the\r\nRomans; that the American form is the original from which the Greek and\r\nRoman forms were later derived; that the whole organization of Greek and\r\nRoman society during primeval times in gens, phratry and tribe finds its\r\nfaithful parallel in that of the American Indians; that the gens is an\r\ninstitution common to all barbarians up to the time of civilization\u0026mdash;at\r\nleast so far as our present sources of information reach. This\r\ndemonstration has cleared at a single stroke the most difficult passages\r\nof remotest ancient Greek and Roman history. At the same time it has\r\ngiven us unexpected information concerning the fundamental outlines of\r\nthe constitution of society in primeval times\u0026mdash;before the introduction\r\nof the state. Simple as the matter is after we have once found it out,\r\nstill it was only lately discovered by Morgan. In his work of 1871 he\r\nhad not yet unearthed this mystery. Its revelation has completely\r\nsilenced for the time being those generally so overconfident English\r\nauthorities on primeval history.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Latin word gens, used by Morgan generally for the designation of\r\nthis sex organization, is derived,\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_103\" id=\"Page_103\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-104.png\"\u003e103\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e like the equivalent Greek word\r\ngenos, from the common Aryan root gan, signifying to beget. Gens, genos,\r\nSanskrit dschanas, Gothic kuni, ancient Norse and Anglesaxon kyn,\r\nEnglish kin, Middle High German k\u0026uuml;nne, all signify lineage, descent.\r\nGens in Latin, genos in Greek, specially designate that sex organization\r\nwhich boasted of common descent (from a common sire) and was united into\r\na separate community by certain social and religious institutions, but\r\nthe origin and nature of which nevertheless remained obscure to all our historians.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eElsewhere, in speaking of the Punaluan family, we saw how the gens was\r\nconstituted in its original form. It consisted of all individuals who by\r\nmeans of the Punaluan marriage and in conformity with the conceptions\r\nnecessarily arising in it made up the recognized offspring of a certain\r\nancestral mother, the founder of that gens. Since fatherhood is\r\nuncertain in this form of the family, female lineage is alone valid. And\r\nas brothers must not marry their sisters, but only women of foreign\r\ndescent, the children bred from these foreign women do not belong to the\r\ngens, according to maternal law. Hence only the offspring of the\r\ndaughters of every generation remain in the same sex organization. The\r\ndescendants of the sons are transferred to the gentes of the new\r\nmothers. What becomes of this group of kinship when it constitutes\r\nitself a separate group, distinct from similar groups in the same tribe?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs the classical form of this original gens Morgan selects that of the\r\nIroquois, more especially that of the Seneca tribe. This tribe has eight\r\ngentes named after animals: 1. Wolf. 2. Bear. 3. Turtle. 4. Beaver. 5.\r\nDeer. 6. Snipe. 7. Heron. 8. Hawk. Every gens observes the following customs:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. The gens elects its sachem (official head during peace) and its chief\r\n(leader in war). The sachem\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_104\" id=\"Page_104\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-105.png\"\u003e104\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e must be selected within the gens and his\r\noffice was in a sense hereditary. It had to be filled immediately after\r\na vacancy occurred. The chief could be selected outside of the gens, and\r\nhis office could even be temporarily vacant. The son never followed his\r\nfather in the office of sachem, because the Iroquois observed maternal\r\nlaw, in consequence of which the son belonged to another gens. But the\r\nbrother or the son of a sister was often elected as a successor. Men and\r\nwomen both voted in elections. The election, however, had to be\r\nconfirmed by the other seven gentes, and then only the sachem-elect was\r\nsolemnly invested, by the common council of the whole Iroquois\r\nfederation. The significance of this will be seen later. The power of\r\nthe sachem within the tribe was of a paternal, purely moral nature. He\r\nhad no means of coercion at his command. He was besides by virtue of his\r\noffice a member of the tribal council of the Senecas and of the federal\r\ncouncil of the whole Iroquois nation. The Chief had the right to command\r\nonly in times of war.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. The gens can retire the sachem and the chief at will. This again is\r\ndone by men and women jointly. The retired men are considered simple\r\nwarriors and private persons like all others. The tribal council, by the\r\nway, can also retire the sachems, even against the will of the tribe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. No member is permitted to marry within the gens. This is the\r\nfundamental rule of the gens, the tie that holds it together. It is the\r\nnegative expression of the very positive blood relationship, by virtue\r\nof which the individuals belonging to it become a gens. By the discovery\r\nof this simple fact Morgan for the first time revealed the nature of the\r\ngens. How little the gens had been understood before him is proven by\r\nformer reports on savages and barbarians, in which the different\r\norganizations of which\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_105\" id=\"Page_105\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-106.png\"\u003e105\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the gentile order is composed are jumbled\r\ntogether without understanding and distinction as tribe, clan, thum,\r\netc. Sometimes it is stated that intermarrying within these\r\norganizations is forbidden. This gave rise to the hopeless confusion, in\r\nwhich McLennan could pose as Napoleon and establish order by the decree:\r\nAll tribes are divided into those that forbid intermarrying (exogamous)\r\nand those that permit it (endogamous). And after he had thus made\r\nconfusion worse confounded, he could indulge in deep meditations which\r\nof his two preposterous classes was the older: exogamy or endogamy. By\r\nthe discovery of the gens founded on affinity of blood and the resulting\r\nimpossibility of its members to intermarry, this nonsense found a\r\nnatural end. It is self understood that the marriage interdict within\r\nthe gens was strictly observed at the stage in which we find the Iroquois.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. The property of deceased members fell to the share of the other\r\ngentiles; it had to remain in the gens. In view of the insignificance of\r\nthe objects an Iroquois could leave behind, the nearest gentile\r\nrelations divided the heritage. Was the deceased a man, then his natural\r\nbrothers, sisters and the brothers of the mother shared in his property.\r\nWas it a woman, then her children and natural sisters shared, but not\r\nher brothers. For this reason husband and wife could not inherit from\r\none another, nor the children from the father.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. The gentile members owed to each other help, protection and\r\nespecially assistance in revenging injury inflicted by strangers. The\r\nindividual relied for his protection on the gens and could be assured of\r\nit. Whoever injured the individual, injured the whole gens. From this\r\nblood kinship arose the obligation to blood revenge that was\r\nunconditionally recognized by the Iroquois. If a stranger killed a\r\ngentile\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_106\" id=\"Page_106\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-107.png\"\u003e106\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e member, the whole gens of the slain man was pledged to revenge\r\nhis death. First mediation was tried. The gens of the slayer deliberated\r\nand offered to the gentile council of the slain propositions for\r\natonement, consisting generally in expressions of regret and presents of\r\nconsiderable value. If these were accepted, the matter was settled. In\r\nthe opposite case the injured gens appointed one or more avengers who\r\nwere obliged to pursue the slayer and to kill him. If they succeeded,\r\nthe gens of the slayer had no right to complain. The account was squared.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. The gens had certain distinct names or series of names, which no\r\nother gens in the whole tribe could use, so that the name of the\r\nindividual indicated to what gens he belonged. A gentile name at the\r\nsame time bestowed gentile rights.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. The gens may adopt strangers who thereby are adopted into the whole\r\ntribe. The prisoners of war who were not killed became by adoption into\r\na gens tribal members of the Senecas and thus received full gentile and\r\ntribal rights. The adoption took place on the motion of some gentile\r\nmembers, of men who accepted the stranger as a brother or sister, of\r\nwomen who accepted him as a child. The solemn introduction into the gens\r\nwas necessary to confirm the adoption. Frequently certain gentes that\r\nhad shrunk exceptionally were thus strengthened by mass adoptions from\r\nanother gens with the consent of the latter. Among the Iroquois the\r\nsolemn introduction into the gens took place in a public meeting of the\r\ntribal council, whereby it actually became a religious ceremony.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe existence of special religious celebrations among Indian gentes can\r\nhardly be demonstrated. But the religious rites of the Indians are more\r\nor less connected with the gens. At the six annual religious festivals\r\nof the Iroquois the sachems and chiefs of\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_107\" id=\"Page_107\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-108.png\"\u003e107\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the different gentes were\r\nadded to the \"Keepers of the Faith\" and had the functions of priests.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e9. The gens had a common burial place. Among the Iroquois of the State\r\nof New York, who are crowded by white men all around them, the burial\r\nplace has disappeared, but it existed formerly. Among other Indians it\r\nis still in existence, e. g., among the Tuscaroras, near relatives of\r\nthe Iroquois, where every gens has a row by itself in the burial place,\r\nalthough they are Christians. The mother is buried in the same row as\r\nher children, but not the father. And among the Iroquois the whole gens\r\nof the deceased attends the funeral, prepares the grave and provides the addresses, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e10. The gens had a council, the democratic assembly of all male and\r\nfemale gentiles of adult age, all with equal suffrage. This council\r\nelected and deposed its sachems and chiefs; likewise the other \"Keepers\r\nof the Faith.\" It deliberated on gifts of atonement or blood revenge for\r\nmurdered gentiles and it adopted strangers into the gens. In short, it\r\nwas the sovereign power in the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe following are the rights and privileges of the typical Indian gens,\r\naccording to Morgan: \"All the members of an Iroquois gens were\r\npersonally free, and they were bound to defend each other\u0027s freedom;\r\nthey were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachems and\r\nchiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound\r\ntogether by ties of kin. Liberty, equality and fraternity, though never\r\nformulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are\r\nmaterial, because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental\r\nsystem, the foundation upon which Indian society was organized. A\r\nstructure composed of such units would of necessity bear the impress of\r\ntheir character, for as the unit, so the compound. It serves to explain\r\nthat sense\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_108\" id=\"Page_108\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-109.png\"\u003e108\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of independence and personal dignity universally an\r\nattribute of Indian character.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt the time of the discovery the Indians of entire North America were\r\norganized in gentes by maternal law. Only \"in some tribes, as among the\r\nDakotas, the gentes had fallen out; in others as among the Ojibwas, the\r\nOmahas and the Mayas of Yucatan, descent had been changed from the\r\nfemale to the male line.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong many Indian tribes with more than five or six gentes we find\r\nthree, four or more gentes united into a separate group, called phratry\r\nby Morgan in accurate translation of the Indian name by its Greek\r\nequivalent. Thus the Senecas have two phratries, the first comprising\r\ngentes one to four, the second gentes five to eight. Closer\r\ninvestigation shows that these phratries generally represent the\r\noriginal gentes that formed the tribe in the beginning. For the marriage\r\ninterdict necessitated the existence of at least two gentes in a tribe\r\nin order to realize its separate existence. As the tribe increased,\r\nevery gens segmented into two or more new gentes, while the original\r\ngens comprising all the daughter gentes, lived on in the phratry. Among\r\nthe Senecas and most of the other Indians \"the gentes in the same\r\nphratry are brother gentes to each other, and cousin gentes to those of\r\nthe other phratry\"\u0026mdash;terms that have a very real and expressive meaning\r\nin the American system of kinship, as we have seen. Originally no Seneca\r\nwas allowed to marry within his phratry, but this custom has long become\r\nobsolete and is now confined to the gens. According to the tradition\r\namong the Senecas, the bear and the deer were the two original gentes,\r\nfrom which the others were formed by segmentation. After this new\r\ninstitution had become well established it was modified according to\r\ncircumstances. If certain gentes became extinct, it\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_109\" id=\"Page_109\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-110.png\"\u003e109\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e sometimes happened\r\nthat by mutual consent the members of one gens were transferred in a\r\nbody from other phratries. Hence we find the gentes of the same name\r\ndifferently grouped in the phratries of the different tribes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\"The phratry, among the Iroquois, was partly for social and partly for\r\nreligious objects.\" 1. In the ball game one phratry plays against\r\nanother. Each one sends its best players, the other members, upon\r\ndifferent sides of the field, watch the game and bet against one another\r\non the result. 2. In the tribal council the sachems and chiefs of each\r\nphratry are seated opposite one another, every speaker addressing the\r\nrepresentatives of each phratry as separate bodies. 3. When a murder had\r\nbeen committed in the tribe, the slayer and the slain belonging to\r\ndifferent phratries, the injured gens often appealed to its brother\r\ngentes. These held a phratry council which in a body addressed itself to\r\nthe other phratry, in order to prevail on the latter to assemble in\r\ncouncil and effect a condonation of the matter. In this case the phratry\r\nre-appears in its original gentile capacity, and with a better prospect\r\nof success than the weaker gens, its daughter. 4. At the funeral of\r\nprominent persons the opposite phratry prepared the interment and the\r\nburial rites, while the phratry of the deceased attended the funeral as\r\nmourners. If a sachem died, the opposite phratry notified the central\r\ncouncil of the Iroquois that the office of the deceased had become\r\nvacant. 5. In electing a sachem the phratry council also came into\r\naction. Endorsement by the brother gentes was generally considered a\r\nmatter of fact, but the gentes of the other phratry might oppose. In\r\nsuch a case the council of this phratry met, and if it maintained its\r\nopposition, the election was null and void. 6. Formerly the Iroquois had\r\nspecial \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_110\" id=\"Page_110\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-111.png\"\u003e110\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003ereligious mysteries, called medicine lodges by the white men.\r\nThese mysteries were celebrated among the Senecas by two religious\r\nsocieties that had a special form of initiation for new members; each\r\nphratry was represented by one of these societies. 7. If, as is almost\r\ncertain, the four lineages occupying the four quarters of Tlascal\u0026aacute; at\r\nthe time of the conquest were four phratries, then it is proved that the\r\nphratries were at the same time military units, as were the Greek\r\nphratries and similar sex organizations of the Germans. Each of these\r\nfour lineages went into battle as a separate group with its special\r\nuniform and flag and its own leader.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eJust as several genres form a phratry so in the classical form several\r\nphratries form a tribe. In some cases the middle group, the phratry, is\r\nmissing in strongly decimated tribes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat constitutes an Indian tribe in America? 1. A distinct territory and\r\na distinct name. Every tribe had a considerable hunting and fishing\r\nground beside the place of its actual settlement. Beyond this territory\r\nthere was a wide neutral strip of land reaching over to the boundaries\r\nof the next tribe; a smaller strip between tribes of related languages,\r\na larger between tribes of foreign languages. This corresponds to the\r\nboundary forest of the Germans, the desert created by Caesar\u0027s Suevi\r\naround their territory, the is\u0026acirc;rnholt (Danish jarnved, Latin limei\r\nDanicus) between Danes and Germans, the sachsen wald (Saxon forest) and\r\nthe Slavish branibor between Slavs and Germans giving the province of\r\nBrandenburg its name. The territory thus surrounded by neutral ground\r\nwas the collective property of a certain tribe, recognized as such by\r\nother tribes and defended against the invasion of others. The\r\ndisadvantage of undefined boundaries became of \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_111\" id=\"Page_111\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-112.png\"\u003e111\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003epractical importance\r\nonly after the population had increased considerably.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe tribal names generally seem to be more the result of chance than of\r\nintentional selection. In course of time it frequently happened that a\r\ntribe designated a neighboring tribe by another name than that chosen by\r\nitself. In this manner the Germans received their first historical name from the Celts.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. A distinct dialect peculiar to this tribe. As a matter of fact the\r\ntribe and the dialect are co-extensive. In America, the formation of new\r\ntribes and dialects by segmentation was in progress until quite\r\nrecently, and doubtless it is still going on. Where two weak tribes\r\namalgamated into one, there it exceptionally happened that two closely\r\nrelated dialects were simultaneously spoken in the same tribe. The\r\naverage strength of American tribes is less than 2,000 members. The\r\nCherokees, however, number about 26,000, the greatest number of Indians\r\nin the United States speaking the same dialect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. The right to solemnly invest the sachems and chiefs elected by the gentes, and\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. The right to depose them, even against the will of the gens. As these\r\nsachems and chiefs are members of the tribal council, these rights of\r\nthe tribe explain themselves. Where a league of tribes had been formed\r\nand all the tribes were represented in a feudal council, the latter\r\nexercised these rights.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. The possession of common religious conceptions (mythology) and rites.\r\n\"After the fashion of barbarians the American Indians were a religious\r\npeople.\" Their mythology has not yet been critically investigated. They\r\nmaterialized their religious conceptions\u0026mdash;spirits of all sorts\u0026mdash;in human\r\nshapes, but the lower stage of barbarism in which they lived, knows\r\nnothing as yet of so-called idols. It is a cult of nature and of the\r\nelements, in process of evolution\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_112\" id=\"Page_112\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-113.png\"\u003e112\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e to pantheism. The different tribes\r\nhad regular festivals with prescribed forms of worship, mainly dances\r\nand games. Especially dancing was an essential part of all religious\r\ncelebrations. Every tribe celebrated by itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. A tribal council for public affairs. It was composed of all the\r\nsachems and chiefs of the different gentes, real representatives because\r\nthey could be deposed at any moment. It deliberated in public,\r\nsurrounded by the rest of the tribal members, who had a right to take\r\npart in the discussions and claim attention. The council decided. As a\r\nrule any one present gained a hearing on his demand. The women could\r\nalso present their views by a speaker of their choice. Among the\r\nIroquois the final resolution had to be passed unanimously, as was also\r\nthe case in some resolutions of German mark (border) communities. It was\r\nthe special duty of the tribal council to regulate the relations with\r\nforeign tribes. The council received and despatched legations, declared\r\nwar and made peace. War was carried on principally by volunteers.\r\n\"Theoretically, each tribe was at war with every other tribe with which\r\nit had not formed a treaty of peace.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eExpeditions against such enemies were generally organized by certain\r\nprominent warriors. They started a war dance, and whoever took part in\r\nit thereby declared his intention to join the expedition. Ranks were\r\nformed and the march began immediately. The defense of the attacked\r\ntribal territory was also generally carried on by volunteers. The exodus\r\nand the return of such columns was always the occasion of public\r\nfestivities. The consent of the tribal council for such expeditions was\r\nnot required, and was neither asked nor given. This corresponds to the\r\nprivate war expeditions of German followers described by Tacitus. Only\r\nthese German\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_113\" id=\"Page_113\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-114.png\"\u003e113\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e groups of followers had already assumed a more permanent\r\ncharacter, forming a standing center organized during peace, around\r\nwhich the other volunteers gathered in case of war. Such war columns\r\nwere rarely strong in numbers. The most important expeditions of the\r\nIndians, even for long distances, were undertaken by insignificant\r\nforces. If more than one group joined for a great expedition, every\r\ngroup obeyed its own leader. The uniformity of the campaign plan was\r\nsecured as well as possible by a council of these leaders. This is the\r\nmode of warfare among the Allemani in the fourth century on the Upper\r\nRhine, as described by Ammianus Marcellinus.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. In some tribes we find a head chief, whose power, however, is\r\nlimited. He is one of the sachems who has to take provisional measures\r\nin cases requiring immediate action, until the council can assemble and\r\ndecide. He represents a feeble, but generally undeveloped prototype of\r\nan official with executive power. The latter, as we shall see, developed\r\nin most cases out of the highest war chief.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe great majority of American Indians did not go beyond the league of\r\ntribes. With a few tribes of small membership, separated by wide\r\nboundary tracts, weakened by unceasing warfare, they occupied an immense\r\nterritory. Leagues were now and then formed by kindred tribes as the\r\nresult of momentary necessity and dissolved again under more favorable\r\nconditions. But in certain districts, tribes of the same kin had again\r\nfound their way out of disbandment into permanent federations, making\r\nthe first step towards the formation of nations. In the United States we\r\nfind the highest form of such a league among the Iroquois. Emigrating\r\nfrom their settlements west of the Mississippi, where they probably\r\nformed a branch of the great Dakota family, they settled at last after\r\nlong wanderings in the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_114\" id=\"Page_114\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-115.png\"\u003e114\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e present State of New York. They had five tribes:\r\nSenecas, Cayugas, Onondagas, Oneidas and Mohawks. They lived on fish,\r\nvenison, and the products of rough gardening, inhabiting villages\r\nprotected by stockades. Their number never exceeded 20,000, and certain\r\ngentes were common to all five tribes. They spoke closely related\r\ndialects of the same language and occupied territories contiguous to one\r\nanother. As this land was won by conquest, it was natural for these\r\ntribes to stand together against the expelled former inhabitants. This\r\nled, not later than the beginning of the fifteenth century, to a regular\r\n\"eternal league,\" a sworn alliance that immediately assumed an\r\naggressive character, relying on its newly won strength. About 1675, at\r\nthe summit of its power, it had conquered large districts round about\r\nand partly expelled the inhabitants, partly made them tributary. The\r\nIroquois League represented the most advanced social organization\r\nattained by Indians that had not passed the lower stage of barbarism.\r\nThis excludes only the Mexicans, New Mexicans and Peruvians.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe fundamental provisions of the league were:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. Eternal federation of the five consanguineous tribes on the basis of\r\nperfect equality and independence in all internal tribal matters. This\r\nconsanguinity formed the true fundament of the league. Three of these\r\ntribes, called father tribes, were brothers to one another; the other\r\ntwo, also mutual brothers, were called son tribes. The three oldest\r\ngentes were represented by living members in all five tribes, and these\r\nmembers were all regarded as brothers. Three other gentes were still\r\nalive in three tribes, and all of their members called one another\r\nbrothers. The common language, only modified by variations of dialect,\r\nwas the expression and proof of their common descent.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_115\" id=\"Page_115\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-116.png\"\u003e115\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. The official organ of the league was a federal council of fifty\r\nsachems, all equal in rank and prominence. This council had the supreme\r\ndecision in all federal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. On founding this league the fifty sachems had been assigned to the\r\ndifferent tribes and gentes as holders of new offices created especially\r\nfor federal purposes. Vacancies were filled by new elections in the\r\ngens, and the holders of these offices could be deposed at will. But the\r\nright of installation belonged to the federal council.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. These federal sachems were at the same time sachems of their tribe\r\nand had a seat and a vote in the tribal council.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. All decisions of the federal council had to be unanimous.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. The votes were cast by tribes, so that every tribe and the council\r\nmembers of each tribe had to vote together in order to adopt a final resolution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. Any one of the five tribes could convoke the federal council, but the\r\ncouncil could not convene itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e8. Federal meetings were held publicly in the presence of the assembled\r\npeople. Every Iroquois could have the word, but the final decision\r\nrested with the council.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e9. The league had no official head, no executive chief.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e10. It had, however, two high chiefs of war, both with equal functions\r\nand power (the two \"kings\" of Sparta, the two consuls of Rome).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis was the whole constitution, under which the Iroquois lived over\r\nfour hundred years and still live. I have described it more fully after\r\nMorgan, because we have here an opportunity for studying the\r\norganization of a society that does not yet know a state. The state\r\npresupposes a public power of co\u0026euml;rcion\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_116\" id=\"Page_116\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-117.png\"\u003e116\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e separated from the aggregate\r\nbody of its members. Maurer, with correct intuition, recognized the\r\nconstitution of the German Mark as a purely social institution,\r\nessentially different from that of a state, though furnishing the\r\nfundament on which a state constitution could be erected later on. Hence\r\nin all of his writings, he traced the gradual rise of the public power\r\nof co\u0026euml;rcion from and by the side of primordial constitutions of marks,\r\nvillages, farms and towns. The North American Indians show how an\r\noriginally united tribe gradually spreads over an immense continent; how\r\ntribes by segmentation become nations, whole groups of tribes; how\r\nlanguages change so that they not only become unintelligible to one\r\nanother, but also lose every trace of former unity; how at the same time\r\none gens splits up into several gentes, how the old mother gentes are\r\npreserved in the phratries and how the names of these oldest gentes\r\nstill remain the same in widely distant and long separated tribes. Wolf\r\nand bear still are gentile names in a majority of all Indian tribes. And\r\nthe above named constitution is essentially applicable to all of them,\r\nexcept that many did not reach the point of forming leagues of related tribes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut once the gens was given as a social unit, we also see how the whole\r\nconstitution of gentes, phratries and tribes developed with almost\r\nunavoidable necessity\u0026mdash;because naturally\u0026mdash;from the gens. All three of\r\nthem are groups of differentiated consanguine relations. Each is\r\ncomplete in itself, arranges its own local affairs and supplements the\r\nother groups. And the cycle of functions performed by them includes the\r\naggregate of the public affairs of men in the lower stage of barbarism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWherever we find the gens as the social unit of a nation, we are\r\njustified in searching for a tribal organization similar to the one\r\ndescribed above. And\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_117\" id=\"Page_117\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-118.png\"\u003e117\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e whenever sufficient material is at hand, as in\r\nGreek and Roman history, there we shall not only find such an\r\norganization, but we may also be assured, that the comparison with the\r\nAmerican sex organizations will assist us in solving the most perplexing\r\ndoubts and riddles in places where the material forsakes us.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow wonderful this gentile constitution is in all its natural\r\nsimplicity! No soldiers, gendarmes and policemen, no nobility, kings,\r\nregents, prefects or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits, and still affairs\r\nrun smoothly. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the entire\r\ncommunity involved in them, either the gens or the tribe or the various\r\ngentes among themselves. Only in very rare cases the blood revenge is\r\nthreatened as an extreme measure. Our capital punishment is simply a\r\ncivilized form of it, afflicted with all the advantages and drawbacks of\r\ncivilization. Not a vestige of our cumbersome and intricate system of\r\nadministration is needed, although there are more public affairs to be\r\nsettled than nowadays: the communistic household is shared by a number\r\nof families, the land belongs to the tribe, only the gardens are\r\ntemporarily assigned to the households. The parties involved in a\r\nquestion settle it and in most cases the hundred-year-old traditions\r\nhave settled everything beforehand. There cannot be any poor and\r\ndestitute\u0026mdash;the communistic households and the gentes know their duties\r\ntoward the aged, sick and disabled. All are free and equal\u0026mdash;the women\r\nincluded. There is no room yet for slaves, nor for the subjugation of\r\nforeign tribes. When about 1651 the Iroquois had vanquished the Eries\r\nand the \"Neutral Nation,\" they offered to adopt them into the league on\r\nequal terms. Only when the vanquished declined this offer they were\r\ndriven out of their territory.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat splendid men and women were produced by such a society! All the\r\nwhite men who came into\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_118\" id=\"Page_118\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-119.png\"\u003e118\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e contact with unspoiled Indians admired the\r\npersonal dignity, straightforwardness, strength of character and bravery\r\nof these barbarians.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe lately received proofs of such bravery in Africa. A few years ago the\r\nZulus, and some months ago the Nubians, both of which tribes still\r\nretain the gentile organization, did what no European army can do. Armed\r\nonly with lances and spears, without any firearms, they advanced under a\r\nhail of bullets from breechloaders up to the bayonets of the English\r\ninfantry\u0026mdash;the best of the world for fighting in closed ranks\u0026mdash;and threw\r\nthem into confusion more than once, yea, even forced them to retreat in\r\nspite of the immense disparity of weapons, and in spite of the fact that\r\nthey have no military service and don\u0027t know anything about drill. How\r\nenduring and able they are, is proved by the complaints of the English\r\nwho admit that a Kaffir can cover a longer distance in twenty-four hours\r\nthan a horse. The smallest muscle springs forth, hard and tough like a\r\nwhiplash, says an English painter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch was human society and its members, before the division into classes\r\nhad taken place. And a comparison of that social condition with the\r\ncondition of the overwhelming majority of present day society shows the\r\nenormous chasm that separates our proletarian and small farmer from the\r\nfree gentile of old.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThat is one side of the question. We must not overlook, however, that\r\nthis organization was doomed. It did not pass beyond the tribe. The\r\nleague of tribes marked the beginning of its downfall, as we shall see,\r\nand as the attempts of the Iroquois at subjugating others showed.\r\nWhatever went beyond the tribe, went outside of gentilism. Where no\r\ndirect peace treaty existed, there war reigned from tribe to tribe. And\r\nthis war was carried on with the particular cruelty\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_119\" id=\"Page_119\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-120.png\"\u003e119\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e that distinguishes\r\nman from other animals, and that was modified later on simply by self-interest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe gentile constitution in its most flourishing time, such as we saw it\r\nin America, presupposed a very undeveloped state of production, hence a\r\npopulation thinly scattered over a wide area. Man was almost completely\r\ndominated by nature, a strange and incomprehensible riddle to him. His\r\nsimple religious conceptions clearly reflect this. The tribe remained\r\nthe boundary line for man, as well in regard to himself as to strangers\r\noutside. The gens, the tribe and their institutions were holy and\r\ninviolate. They were a superior power instituted by nature, and the\r\nfeelings, thoughts and actions of the individual remained\r\nunconditionally subject to them. Commanding as the people of this epoch\r\nappear to us, nothing distinguishes one from another. They are still\r\nattached, as Marx has it, to the navel string of the primordial community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe power of these natural and spontaneous communities had to be broken,\r\nand it was. But it was done by influences that from the very beginning\r\nbear the mark of degradation, of a downfall from the simple moral\r\ngrandeur of the old gentile society. The new system of classes is\r\ninaugurated by the meanest impulses: vulgar covetousness, brutal lust,\r\nsordid avarice, selfish robbery of common wealth. The old gentile\r\nsociety without classes is undermined and brought to fall by the most\r\ncontemptible means: theft, violence, cunning, treason. And during all\r\nthe thousands of years of its existence, the new society has never been\r\nanything else but the development of the small minority at the expense\r\nof the exploited and oppressed majority. More than ever this is true at present.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_120\" id=\"Page_120\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-121.png\"\u003e120\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER IV.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eTHE GRECIAN GENS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eGreeks, Pelasgians and other nations of the same tribal origin were\r\nconstituted since prehistoric times on the same systematic plan as the\r\nAmericans: gens, phratry, tribe, league of tribes. The phratry might be\r\nmissing, as e. g. among the Dorians; the league of tribes might not be\r\nfully developed in every case; but the gens was everywhere the unit. At\r\nthe time of their entrance into history, the Greeks were on the\r\nthreshold of civilization. Two full periods of evolution are stretching\r\nbetween the Greeks and the above named American tribes. The Greeks of\r\nthe heroic age are by so much ahead of the Iroquois. For this reason the\r\nGrecian gens no longer retains the archaic character of the Iroquois\r\ngens. The stamp of group marriage is becoming rather blurred. Maternal\r\nlaw had given way to paternal lineage. Rising private property had thus\r\nmade its first opening in the gentile constitution. A second opening\r\nnaturally followed the first: Paternal law being now in force, the\r\nfortune of a wealthy heiress would have fallen to her husband in the\r\ncase of her marriage. That would have meant the transfer of her wealth\r\nfrom her own gens to that of her husband. In order to avoid this, the\r\nfundament of gentile law was shattered. In such a case, the girl was not\r\nonly permitted, but obliged to intermarry within the gens, in order to\r\nretain the wealth in the latter.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Grote\u0027s History of Greece, the gens of Attica was held\r\ntogether by the following bonds:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. Common religious rites and priests installed \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_121\" id=\"Page_121\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-122.png\"\u003e121\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eexclusively in honor of\r\na certain divinity, the alleged gentile ancestor, who was designated by\r\na special by-name in this capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. A common burial ground. (See Demosthenes\u0027 Eubulides.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. Right of mutual inheritance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. Obligation to mutually help, protect and assist one another in case of violence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. Mutual right and duty to intermarry in the gens in certain cases,\r\nespecially for orphaned girls or heiresses.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. Possession of common property, at least in some cases, and an archon\r\n(supervisor) and treasurer elected for this special case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe phratry united several gentes, but rather loosely. Still we find in\r\nit similar rights and duties, especially common religious rites and the\r\nright of avenging the death of a phrator. Again, all the phratries of a\r\ntribe had certain religious festivals in common that recurred at regular\r\nintervals and were celebrated under the guidance of a phylobasileus\r\n(tribal head) selected from the ranks of the nobles (eupatrides).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSo far Grote. And Marx adds: \"The savage (e. g. the Iroquois) is still\r\nplainly visible in the Grecian gens.\" On further investigation we find\r\nadditional proofs of this. For the Grecian gens has also the following attributes:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. Paternal Lineage.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e8. Prohibition of intermarrying in the gens except in the case of\r\nheiresses. This exception formulated as a law clearly proves the\r\nvalidity of the old rule. This is further substantiated by the\r\nuniversally accepted custom that a woman in marrying renounced the\r\nreligious rites of her gens and accepted those of her husband\u0027s gens.\r\nShe was also registered in his phratry. According to this custom and to\r\na famous quotation in Dikaearchos, marriage outside of the gens\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_122\" id=\"Page_122\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-123.png\"\u003e122\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e was the\r\nrule. Becker in \"Charikles\" directly assumes that nobody was permitted\r\nto intermarry in the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e9. The right to adopt strangers in the gens. It was exercised by\r\nadoption into the family under public formalities; but it was used sparingly.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e10. The right to elect and depose the archons. We know that every gens\r\nhad its archon. As to the heredity of the office, there is no reliable\r\ninformation. Until the end of barbarism, the probability is always\r\nagainst strict heredity. For it is absolutely incompatible with\r\nconditions where rich and poor had perfectly equal rights in the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNot alone Grote, but also Niebuhr, Mommsen and all other historians of\r\nclassical antiquity, were foiled by the gens. Though they chronicled\r\nmany of its distinguishing marks correctly, still they always regarded\r\nit as a group of families and thus prevented their understanding the\r\nnature and origin of gentes. Under the gentile constitution, the family\r\nnever was a unit of organization, nor could it be so, because man and\r\nwife necessarily belonged to two different gentes. The gens was wholly\r\ncomprised in the phratry, the phratry in the tribe. But the family\r\nbelonged half to the gens of the man, and half to that of the woman. Nor\r\ndoes the state recognize the family in public law. To this day, the\r\nfamily has only a place in private law. Yet all historical records take\r\ntheir departure from the absurd supposition, which was considered almost\r\ninviolate during the eighteenth century, that the monogamous family, an\r\ninstitution scarcely older than civilization, is the nucleus around\r\nwhich society and state gradually crystallized.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\"Mr. Grote will also please note,\" throws in Marx, \"that the gentes,\r\nwhich the Greeks traced to their mythologies, are older than the\r\nmythologies. The latter together with their gods and demi-gods were\r\ncreated by the gentes.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_123\" id=\"Page_123\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-124.png\"\u003e123\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrote is quoted with preference by Morgan as a prominent and quite\r\ntrustworthy witness. He relates that every Attic gens had a name derived\r\nfrom its alleged ancestor; that before Solon\u0027s time, and even after, it\r\nwas customary for the gentiles (genn\u0026ecirc;tes) to inherit the fortunes of\r\ntheir intestate deceased; and that in case of murder first the relatives\r\nof the victim had the duty and the right to prosecute the criminal,\r\nafter them the gentiles and finally the phrators. \"Whatever we may learn\r\nabout the oldest Attic laws is founded on the organization in gentes and phratries.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe descent of the gentes from common ancestors has caused the\r\n\"schoolbred philistines,\" as Marx has it, much worry. Representing this\r\ndescent as purely mythical, they are at a loss to explain how the gentes\r\ndeveloped out of independent and wholly unrelated families. But this\r\nexplanation must be given, if they wish to explain the existence of the\r\ngentes. They then turn around in a circle of meaningless gibberish and\r\ndo not get beyond the phrase: the pedigree is indeed a fable, but the\r\ngens is a reality. Grote finally winds up\u0026mdash;the parenthetical remarks are\r\nby Marx: \"We rarely hear about this pedigree, because it is used in\r\npublic only on certain very festive occasions. But the less prominent\r\ngentes had their common religious rites (very peculiar, Mr. Grote!) and\r\ntheir common superhuman ancestor and pedigree just like the more\r\nprominent gentes (how very peculiar this, Mr. Grote, in less prominent\r\ngentes!); and the ground plan and the ideal fundament (my dear sir! Not\r\nideal, but carnal, anglice \"fleshly\") was the same in all of them.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMarx sums up Morgan\u0027s reply to this as follows: \"The system of\r\nconsanguinity corresponding to the archaic form of the gens\u0026mdash;which the\r\nGreeks once possessed like other mortals\u0026mdash;preserved the knowledge of the\r\nmutual relation of all members of the gens.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_124\" id=\"Page_124\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-125.png\"\u003e124\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e They learned this important\r\nfact by practice from early childhood. With the advent of the monogamous\r\nfamily this was gradually forgotten. The gentile name created a pedigree\r\nby the side of which that of the monogamous family seemed insignificant.\r\nThis name had now the function of preserving the memory of the common\r\ndescent of its bearers. But the pedigree of the gens went so far back\r\nthat the gentiles could no longer actually ascertain their mutual\r\nkinship, except in a limited number of more recent common ancestors. The\r\nname itself was the proof of a common descent and sufficed always except\r\nin cases of adoption. To actually dispute all kinship between gentiles\r\nafter the manner of Grote and Niebuhr, who thus transform the gens into\r\na purely hypothetical and fictitious creation of the brain, is indeed\r\nworthy of \"ideal\" scientists, that is book worms. Because the relation\r\nof the generations, especially on the advent of monogamy, is removed to\r\nthe far distance, and the reality of the past seems reflected in\r\nphantastic imaginations, therefore the brave old philistines concluded\r\nand conclude that the imaginary pedigree created real gentes!\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe phratry was, as among the Americans, a mother-gens comprising\r\nseveral daughter gentes, and often traced them all to the same ancestor.\r\nAccording to Grote \"all contemporaneous members of the phratry of\r\nHekataeos were descendants in the sixteenth degree of one and the same\r\ndivine ancestor.\" All the gentes of this phratry were therefore\r\nliterally brother gentes. The phratry is mentioned by Homer as a\r\nmilitary unit in that famous passage where Nestor advises Agamemnon:\r\n\"Arrange the men by phratries and tribes so that phratry may assist\r\nphratry, and tribe the tribe.\" The phratry has the right and the duty to\r\nprosecute the death of a phrator, hence in former times the duty of\r\nblood revenge. It has,\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_125\" id=\"Page_125\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-126.png\"\u003e125\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e furthermore, common religious rites and\r\nfestivals. As a matter of fact, the development of the entire Grecian\r\nmythology from the traditional old Aryan cult of nature was essentially\r\ndue to the gentes and phratries and took place within them. The phratry\r\nhad an official head (phratriarchos) and also, according to De\r\nCoulanges, meetings and binding resolutions, a jurisdiction and\r\nadministration. Even the state of a later period, while ignoring the\r\ngens, left certain public functions to the phratry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe tribe consisted of several kindred phratries. In Attica there were\r\nfour tribes of three phratries each; the number of gentes in each\r\nphratry was thirty. Such an accurate division of groups reveals the fact\r\nof a conscious and well-planned interference with the natural order.\r\nHow, when and why this was done is not disclosed by Grecian history. The\r\nhistorical memory of the Greeks themselves does not reach beyond the heroic age.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eClosely packed in a comparatively small territory as the Greeks were,\r\ntheir dialectic differences were less conspicuous than those developed\r\nin the wide American forests. Yet even here we find only tribes of the\r\nsame main dialect united in a larger organization. Little Attica had its\r\nown dialect which later on became the prevailing language in Grecian prose.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the epics of Homer we generally find the Greek tribes combined into\r\nsmall nations, but so that their gentes, phratries and tribes retained\r\ntheir full independence. They already lived in towns fortified by walls.\r\nThe population increased with the growth of the herds, with agriculture\r\nand the beginnings of the handicrafts. At the same time the differences\r\nin wealth became more marked and gave rise to an aristocratic element\r\nwithin the old primordial democracy. The individual little nations\r\ncarried on an unceasing warfare for the possession of the best land and\r\nalso\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_126\" id=\"Page_126\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-127.png\"\u003e126\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e for the sake of looting. Slavery of the prisoners of war was\r\nalready well established.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe constitution of these tribes and nations was as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. A permanent authority was the council (bule), originally composed of\r\nthe gentile archons, but later on, when their number became too great,\r\nrecruited by selection in such a way that the aristocratic element was\r\ndeveloped and strengthened. Dionysios openly speaks of the council at\r\nthe time of the heroes as being composed of nobles (kratistoi). The\r\ncouncil had the final decision in all important matters. In Aeschylos,\r\ne. g. the council of Thebes decides that the body of Eteokles be buried\r\nwith full honors, the body of Polynikes, however, thrown out to be\r\ndevoured by the dogs. With the rise of the state this council was\r\ntransformed into the senate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. The public meeting (agora). We saw how the Iroquois, men and women,\r\nattended the council meetings, taking an orderly part in the discussions\r\nand influencing them. Among the Homeric Greeks, this attendance had\r\ndeveloped to a complete public meeting. This was also the case with the\r\nGermans of the archaic period. The meeting was called by the council.\r\nEvery man could demand the word. The final vote was taken by hand\r\nraising (Aeschylos in \"The Suppliants,\" 607), or by acclamation. The\r\ndecision of the meeting was supreme and final. \"Whenever a matter is\r\ndiscussed,\" says Schoemann in \"Antiquities of Greece,\" \"which requires\r\nthe participation of the people for its execution, Homer does not\r\nindicate any means by which the people could be forced to it against\r\ntheir will.\" It is evident that at a time when every able-bodied member\r\nof the tribe was a warrior, there existed as yet no public power apart\r\nfrom the people that might have been used against them. The primordial\r\ndemocracy was still in full force, and by this\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_127\" id=\"Page_127\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-128.png\"\u003e127\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e standard the influence\r\nand position of the council and of the basileus must be judged.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. The military chief (basileus). Marx makes the following comment: \"The\r\nEuropean scientists, mostly born servants of princes, represent the\r\nbasileus as a monarch in the modern sense. The Yankee republican Morgan\r\nobjects to this. Very ironically but truthfully he says of the oily\r\nGladstone and his \"Juventus Mundi\": \u0027Mr. Gladstone, who presents to his\r\nreaders the Grecian chiefs of the heroic age as kings and princes, with\r\nthe superadded qualities of gentlemen, is forced to admit that, on the\r\nwhole we seem to have the custom or law of primogeniture sufficiently,\r\nbut not oversharply defined.\u0027 As a matter of fact, Mr. Gladstone himself\r\nmust have perceived that a primogeniture resting on a clause of\r\n\u0027sufficient but not oversharp\u0027 definition is as bad as none at all.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe saw how the law of heredity was applied to the offices of sachems and\r\nchiefs among the Iroquois and other Indians. All offices were subject to\r\nthe vote of the gentiles and for this reason hereditary in the gens. A\r\nvacancy was filled preferably by the next gentile relative\u0026mdash;the brother\r\nor the sister\u0027s son\u0026mdash;unless good reasons existed for passing him. That\r\nin Greece, under paternal law, the office of basileus was generally\r\ntransmitted to the son or one of the sons, indicates only that the\r\nprobability of succession by public election was in favor of the sons.\r\nIt implies by no means a legal succession without a vote of the people.\r\nWe here perceive simply the first rudiments of segregated families of\r\naristocrats among Iroquois and Greeks, which led to a hereditary\r\nleadership or monarchy in Greece. Hence the facts are in favor of the\r\nopinion that among Greeks the basileus was either elected by the people\r\nor at last was subject to the indorsement of their appointed organs, the\r\ncouncil or agora, as was the case with the Roman king (rex).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_128\" id=\"Page_128\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-129.png\"\u003e128\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Iliad the ruler of men, Agamemnon, does not appear as the\r\nsupreme king of the Greeks, but as general in chief of a federal army\r\nbesieging a city. And when dissensions had broken out among the Greeks,\r\nit is this quality which Odysseus points out in a famous passage: \"Evil\r\nis the rule of the many; let one be the ruler, one the chief\" (to which\r\nthe popular verse about the scepter was added later on). Odysseus does\r\nnot lecture on the form of government, but demands obedience to the\r\ngeneral in chief.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering that the Greeks before Troy appear only in the character of\r\nan army, the proceedings of the agora are sufficiently democratic. In\r\nreferring to presents, that is the division of the spoils, Achilles\r\nalways leaves the division, not to Agamemnon or some other basileus, but\r\nto the \"sons of the Achaeans,\" the people. The attributes, descendant of\r\nZeus, bred by Zeus, do not prove anything, because every gens is\r\ndescended from some god\u0026mdash;the gens of the leader of the tribe from a\r\n\"prominent\" god, in this case Zeus. Even those who are without personal\r\nfreedom, as the swineherd Eumaeos and others, are \"divine\" (dioi or\r\ntheioi), even in the Odyssey, which belongs to a much later period than\r\nthe Iliad. In the same Odyssey, the name of \"heros\" is given to the\r\nherald Mulios as well as to the blind bard Demodokos. In short, the word\r\n\"basileia,\" with which the Greek writers designate the so-called\r\nmonarchy of Homer (because the military leadership is its distinguishing\r\nmark, by the side of which the council and the agor\u0026acirc; are existing),\r\nmeans simply\u0026mdash;military democracy (Marx).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe basileus had also sacerdotal and judiciary functions beside those of\r\na military leader. The judiciary functions are not clearly defined, but\r\nthe functions of priesthood are due to his position of chief\r\nrepresentative of the tribe or of the league of tribes. There is never\r\nany mention of civil, administrative functions.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_129\" id=\"Page_129\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-130.png\"\u003e129\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e But it seems that he\r\nwas ex-officio a member of the council. The translation of basileus by\r\nking is etymologically quite correct, because king (Kuning) is derived\r\nfrom Kuni, K\u0026uuml;nne, and signifies chief of a gens. But the modern meaning\r\nof the word king in no way designates the functions of the Grecian\r\nbasileus. Thucydides expressly refers to the old basileia as patrik\u0026ecirc;,\r\nthat is \"derived from the gens,\" and states that it had well defined\r\nfunctions. And Aristotle says that the basileia of heroic times was a\r\nleadership of free men and that the basileus was a military chief, a\r\njudge and a high priest. Hence the basileus had no governmental power in\r\na modern sense.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_24_24\" id=\"FNanchor_24_24\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_24_24\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[24]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Grecian constitution of heroic times, then, we still find the old\r\ngentilism fully alive, but we also perceive the beginnings of the\r\nelements that undermine it; paternal law and inheritance of property by\r\nthe father\u0027s children, favoring accumulation of wealth in the family and\r\ngiving to the latter a power apart from the gens; influence of the\r\ndifference of wealth on the constitution by the formation of the first\r\nrudiments of hereditary nobility and monarchy; slavery, first limited to\r\nprisoners of war, but already paving the way to the enslavement of\r\ntribal and gentile associates; degeneration of the old feuds between\r\ntribes a regular mode of existing by systematic plundering on\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_130\" id=\"Page_130\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-131.png\"\u003e130\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e land and\r\nsea for the purpose of acquiring cattle, slaves, and treasures. In\r\nshort, wealth is praised and respected as the highest treasure, and the\r\nold gentile institutions are abused in order to justify the forcible\r\nrobbery of wealth. Only one thing was missing: an institution that not\r\nonly secured the newly acquired property of private individuals against\r\nthe communistic traditions of the gens, that not only declared as sacred\r\nthe formerly so despised private property and represented the protection\r\nof this sacred property as the highest purpose of human society, but\r\nthat also stamped the gradually developing new forms of acquiring\r\nproperty, of constantly increasing wealth, with the universal sanction\r\nof society. An institution that lent the character of perpetuity not\r\nonly to the newly rising division into classes, but also to the right of\r\nthe possessing classes to exploit and rule the non-possessing classes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd this institution was found. The state arose.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTE:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_24_24\" id=\"Footnote_24_24\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_24_24\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[24]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nJust as the Grecian basileus, so the Aztec military chief was\r\nmisrepresented as a modern prince. Morgan was the first to submit to\r\nhistorical criticism the reports of the Spaniards who first\r\nmisapprehended and exaggerated, and later on consciously misrepresented\r\nthe functions of this office. He showed that the Mexicans were in the\r\nmiddle stage of barbarism, but on a higher plane than the New Mexican\r\nPueblo Indians, and that their constitution, so far as the garbled\r\naccounts show, corresponded to this stage: a league of three tribes\r\nwhich had made a number of others tributary and was administered by a\r\nfederal council and a federal chief of war, whom the Spaniards construed\r\ninto an \"emperor.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_131\" id=\"Page_131\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-132.png\"\u003e131\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER V.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eORIGIN OF THE ATTIC STATE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow the state gradually developed by partly transforming the organs of\r\nthe gentile constitution, partly replacing them by new organs and\r\nfinally installing real state authorities; how the place of the nation\r\nin arms defending itself through its gentes, phratries and tribes, was\r\ntaken by an armed public power of co\u0026euml;rcion in the hands of these\r\nauthorities and available against the mass of the people; nowhere can we\r\nobserve the first act of this drama so well as in ancient Athens. The\r\nessential stages of the various transformations are outlined by Morgan,\r\nbut the analysis of the economic causes producing them is largely added by myself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the heroic period, the four tribes of the Athenians were still\r\ninstalled in separate parts of Attica. Even the twelve phratries\r\ncomposing them seem to have had separate seats in the twelve different\r\ntowns of Cecrops. The constitution was in harmony with the period: a\r\npublic meeting (agor\u0026acirc;), a council (b\u0026ucirc;l\u0026ecirc;) and a basileus.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs far back as we can trace written history we find the land divided up\r\nand in the possession of private individuals. For during the last period\r\nof the higher stage of barbarism the production of commodities and the\r\nresulting trade had well advanced. Grain, wine and oil were staple\r\narticles. The sea trade on the Aegean Sea drifted more and more out of\r\nthe hands of the Phoenicians into those of the Athenians. By the\r\npurchase and sale of land, by continued division of labor between\r\nagriculture and industry, trade\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_132\" id=\"Page_132\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-133.png\"\u003e132\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e and navigation, the members of gentes,\r\nphratries and tribes very soon intermingled. The districts of the\r\nphratry and the tribe received inhabitants who did not belong to these\r\nbodies and, therefore, were strangers in their own homes, although they\r\nwere countrymen. For during times of peace, every phratry and every\r\ntribe administered its own affairs without consulting the council of\r\nAthens or the basileus. But inhabitants not belonging to the phratry or\r\nthe tribe could not take part in the administration of these bodies.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the well-regulated functions of the gentile organs became so\r\ndisarranged that relief was already needed during the heroic period. A\r\nconstitution attributed to Theseus was introduced. The main feature of\r\nthis change was the institution of central administration in Athens. A\r\npart of the affairs that had so long been conducted autonomously by the\r\ntribes was declared collective business and transferred to a general\r\ncouncil in Athens. This step of the Athenians went farther than any ever\r\ntaken by the nations of America. For the simple federation of autonomous\r\ntribes was now replaced by the conglomeration of all tribes into one\r\nsingle body. The next result was a common Athenian law, standing above\r\nthe legal traditions of the tribes and gentes. It bestowed on the\r\ncitizens of Athens certain privileges and legal protection, even in a\r\nterritory that did not belong to their tribe. This meant another blow to\r\nthe gentile constitution; for it opened the way to the admission of\r\ncitizens who were not members of any Attic tribe and stood entirely\r\noutside of the Athenian gentile constitution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA second institution attributed to Theseus was the division of the\r\nentire nation into three classes regardless of the gentes, phratries and\r\ntribes: eupatrides or nobles, geomoro\u0026igrave; or farmers, and demiurgoi or\r\n\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_133\" id=\"Page_133\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-134.png\"\u003e133\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003etradesmen. The exclusive privilege of the nobles to fill the offices\r\nwas included in this innovation. Apart from this privilege the new\r\ndivision remained ineffective, as it did not create any legal\r\ndistinctions between the classes. But it is important, because it shows\r\nus the new social elements that had developed in secret. It shows that\r\nthe habitual holding of gentile offices by certain families had already\r\ndeveloped into a practically uncontested privilege; that these families,\r\nalready powerful through their wealth, began to combine outside of their\r\ngentes into a privileged class; and that the just arising state\r\nsanctioned this assumption. It shows furthermore that the division of\r\nlabor between farmers and tradesmen had grown strong enough to contest\r\nthe supremacy of the old gentile and tribal division of society. And\r\nfinally it proclaims the irreconcilable opposition of gentile society to\r\nthe state. The first attempt to form a state broke up the gentes by\r\ndividing their members against one another and opposing a privileged\r\nclass to a class of disowned belonging to two different branches of production.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe ensuing political history of Athens up to the time of Solon is only\r\nincompletely known. The office of basileus became obsolete. Archons\r\nelected from the ranks of the nobility occupied the leading position in\r\nthe state. The power of the nobility increased continually, until it\r\nbecame unbearable about the year 600 before Christ. The principal means\r\nfor stifling the liberty of the people were\u0026mdash;money and usury. The main\r\nseat of the nobility was in and around Athens. There the sea trade and\r\nnow and then a little convenient piracy enriched them and concentrated\r\nthe money into their hands. From this point the gradually arising money\r\npower penetrated like corrugating acid into the traditional modes of\r\nrural existence founded on natural economy. The gentile constitution is\r\nabsolutely irreconcilable with money rule. The\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_134\" id=\"Page_134\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-135.png\"\u003e134\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e ruin of the Attic\r\nfarmers co\u0026iuml;ncided with the loosening of the old gentile bonds that\r\nprotected them. The debtor\u0027s receipt and the pawning of the\r\nproperty\u0026mdash;for the mortgage was also invented by the Athenians\u0026mdash;cared\r\nneither for the gens nor for the phratry. But the old gentile\r\nconstitution knew nothing of money, advance and debt. Hence the ever\r\nmore virulently spreading money rule of the nobility developed a new\r\nlegal custom, securing the creditor against the debtor and sanctioning\r\nthe exploitation of the small farmer by the wealthy. All the rural\r\ndistricts of Attica were crowded with mortgage columns bearing the\r\nlegend that the lot on which they stood was mortgaged to such and such\r\nfor so much. The fields that were not so designated had for the most\r\npart been sold on account of overdue mortgages or interest and\r\ntransferred to the aristocratic usurers. The farmer could thank his\r\nstars, if he was granted permission to live as a tenant on one-sixth of\r\nthe product of his labor and to pay five-sixths to his new master in the\r\nform of rent. Worse still, if the sale of the lot did not bring\r\nsufficient returns to cover the debt, or if such a debt had been\r\ncontracted without a lien, then the debtor had to sell his children into\r\nslavery abroad in order to satisfy the claim of the creditor. The sale\r\nof the children by the father\u0026mdash;that was the first fruit of paternal law\r\nand monogamy! And if that did not satisfy the bloodsuckers, they could\r\nsell the debtor himself into slavery. Such was the pleasant dawn of\r\ncivilization among the people of Attica.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFormerly, while the condition of the people was in keeping with gentile\r\ntraditions, a similar downfall would have been impossible. But here it\r\nhad come about, nobody knew how. Let us return for a moment to the\r\nIroquois. The state of things that had imposed itself on the Athenians\r\nalmost without their doing, so to say, and assuredly against their will,\r\nwas \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_135\" id=\"Page_135\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-136.png\"\u003e135\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003einconceivable among the Indians. There the ever unchanging mode of\r\nproduction could at no time generate such conflicts as a distinction\r\nbetween rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, caused by external\r\nconditions. The Iroquois were far from controlling the forces of nature,\r\nbut within the limits drawn for them by nature they dominated their own\r\nproduction. Apart from a failure of the crops in their little gardens,\r\nthe exhaustion of the fish supply in their lakes and rivers or of the\r\ngame stock in their forests, they always knew what would be the outcome\r\nof their mode of gaining a living. A more or less abundant supply of\r\nfood, that would come of it. But the outcome could never be any\r\nunpremeditated social upheavals, breaking of gentile bonds or division\r\nof the gentiles against one another by conflicting class interests.\r\nProduction was carried on in the most limited manner; but\u0026mdash;the producers\r\ncontrolled their own product. This immense advantage of barbarian\r\nproduction was lost in the transition to civilization. To win it back on\r\nthe basis of man\u0027s present gigantic control of nature and of the free\r\nassociation rendered possible by it, that will be the task of the next generations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNot so among the Greeks. The advent of private property in herds of\r\ncattle and articles of luxury led to an exchange between individuals, to\r\na transformation of products into commodities. Here is the root of the\r\nentire revolution that followed. When the producers did no longer\r\nconsume their own product, but released their hold of it in exchange for\r\nanother\u0027s product, then they lost the control of it. They did not know\r\nany more what became of it. There was a possibility that the product\r\nmight be turned against the producers for the purpose of exploiting and\r\noppressing them. No society can, therefore, retain for any length of\r\ntime the control of its own \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_136\" id=\"Page_136\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-137.png\"\u003e136\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eproduction and of the social effects of the\r\nmode of production, unless it abolishes exchange between individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow rapidly after the establishment of individual exchange and after the\r\ntransformation of products into commodities the product manifests its\r\nrule over the producer, the Athenians were soon to learn. Along with the\r\nproduction of marketable commodities came the tilling of the soil by\r\nindividual cultivators for their own account, soon followed by\r\nindividual ownership of the land. Along came also the money, that\r\ngeneral commodity for which all others could be exchanged. But when men\r\ninvented money they little suspected that they were creating a new\r\nsocial power, that one universal power before which the whole of society\r\nmust bow down. It was this new power, suddenly sprung into existence\r\nwithout the forethought and intention of its own creators, that vented\r\nits rule on the Athenians with the full brutality of youth.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat was to be done? The old gentile organization had not only proved\r\nimpotent against the triumphant march of money: it was also absolutely\r\nincapable of containing within its confines any such thing as money,\r\ncreditors, debtors and forcible collection of debts. But the new social\r\npower was upon them and neither pious wishes nor a longing for the\r\nreturn of the good old times could drive money and usury from the face\r\nof the earth. Moreover, gentile constitution had suffered a number of\r\nminor defeats. The indiscriminate mingling of the gentiles and phrators\r\nin the whole of Attica, and especially in Athens, had assumed larger\r\nproportions from generation to generation. Still even now a citizen of\r\nAthens was not allowed to sell his residence outside of his gens,\r\nalthough he could do so with plots of land. The division of labor\r\nbetween the different branches of production\u0026mdash;agriculture, trades,\r\nnumberless specialties within the trades, \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_137\" id=\"Page_137\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-138.png\"\u003e137\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003ecommerce, navigation,\r\netc.\u0026mdash;had developed more fully with the progress of industry and\r\ntraffic. The population was now divided according to occupations into\r\nrather well defined groups, everyone of which had separate interests not\r\nguarded by the gens or phratry and therefore necessitating the creation\r\nof new offices. The number of slaves had increased considerably and must\r\nhave surpassed by far that of the free Athenians even at this early\r\nstage. Gentile society originally knew no slavery and was, therefore,\r\nignorant of any means to hold this mass of bondsmen in check. And\r\nfinally, commerce had attracted a great many strangers who settled in\r\nAthens for the sake of the easier living it afforded. According to the\r\nold constitution, the strangers had neither civil rights nor the\r\nprotection of the law. Though tacitly admitted by tradition, they\r\nremained a disturbing and foreign element.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn short, gentile constitution approached its doom. Society was daily\r\ngrowing more and more beyond it. It was powerless to stop or allay even\r\nthe most distressing evils that had grown under its very eyes. But in\r\nthe meantime the state had secretly developed. The new groups formed by\r\ndivision of labor, first between city and country, then between the\r\nvarious branches of city industry, had created new organs for the care\r\nof their interests. Public offices of every description had been\r\ninstituted. And above all the young state needed its own fighting\r\nforces. Among the seafaring Athenians this had to be at first only a\r\nnavy, for occasional short expeditions and the protection of the\r\nmerchant vessels. At some uncertain time before Solon, the naukrariai\r\nwere instituted, little territorial districts, twelve in each tribe.\r\nEvery naukraria had to furnish, equip and man a war vessel and to detail\r\ntwo horsemen. This arrangement was a twofold attack on the gentile\r\nconstitution. In the first place it created\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_138\" id=\"Page_138\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-139.png\"\u003e138\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e a public power of co\u0026euml;rcion\r\nthat did no longer absolutely coincide with the entirety of the armed\r\nnation. In the second place it was the first division of the people for\r\npublic purposes, not by groups of kinship, but by local residence. We\r\nshall soon see what that signified.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs the gentile constitution could not come to the assistance of the\r\nexploited people, they could look only to the rising state. And the\r\nstate brought help in the form of the constitution of Solon. At the same\r\ntime it added to its own strength at the expense of the old\r\nconstitution. Solon opened the series of so-called political revolutions\r\nby an infringement on private property. We pass over the means by which\r\nthis reform was accomplished in the year 594 B. C. or thereabout. Ever\r\nsince, all revolutions have been revolutions for the protection of one\r\nkind of property against another kind of property. They cannot protect\r\none kind without violating another. In the great French revolution the\r\nfeudal property was sacrificed for the sake of saving bourgeois\r\nproperty. In Solon\u0027s revolution, the property of the creditors had to\r\nmake concessions to the property of the debtors. The debts were simply\r\ndeclared illegal. We are not acquainted with the accurate details, but\r\nSolon boasts in his po\u0026euml;ms that he removed the mortgage columns from the\r\nindented lots and enabled all who had fled or been sold abroad for debts\r\nto return home. This was only feasible by an open violation of private\r\nproperty. And indeed, all so-called political revolutions were started\r\nfor the protection of one kind of property by the confiscation, also\r\ncalled theft, of another kind of property. It is absolutely true that\r\nfor more than 2,500 years private property could only be protected by\r\nthe violation of private property.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut now a way had to be found to avoid the return of such an enslavement\r\nof the free Athenians. This\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_139\" id=\"Page_139\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-140.png\"\u003e139\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e was first attempted by general measures, e.\r\ng., the prohibition of contracts giving the person of the debtor in\r\nlien. Furthermore a maximum limit was fixed for the amount of land any\r\none individual could own, in order to keep the craving of the nobility\r\nfor the land of the farmers within reasonable bounds. Constitutional\r\namendments were next in order. The following deserve special consideration:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe council was increased to four hundred members, one hundred from each\r\ntribe. Here, then, the tribe still served as a basis. But this was the\r\nonly remnant of the old constitution that was transferred to the new\r\nbody politic. For otherwise Solon divided the citizens into four classes\r\naccording to their property in land and its yield. Five hundred, three\r\nhundred and one hundred and fifty medimnoi of grain (1 medimnos equals\r\n1.16 bushels) were the minimum yields of the first three classes.\r\nWhoever had less land or none at all belonged to the fourth class. Only\r\nmembers of the first three classes could hold office; the highest\r\noffices were filled by the first class. The fourth class had only the\r\nright to speak and vote in the public council. But here all officials\r\nwere elected, here they had to give account, here all the laws were\r\nmade, and here the fourth class was in the majority. The aristocratic\r\nprivileges were partly renewed in the form of privileges of wealth, but\r\nthe people retained the decisive power. The four classes also formed the\r\nbasis for the reorganization of the fighting forces. The first two\r\nclasses furnished the horsemen; the third had to serve as heavy\r\ninfantry; the fourth was employed as light unarmored infantry and had to\r\nman the navy. Probably the last class also received wages in this case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAn entirely new element is thus introduced into the constitution:\r\nprivate property. The rights and duties of the citizens are graduated\r\naccording to their property in land. Wherever the classification by\r\nproperty\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_140\" id=\"Page_140\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-141.png\"\u003e140\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e gains ground, there the old groups of blood relationship give\r\nway. Gentile constitution has suffered another defeat.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the gradation of political rights according to private property\r\nwas not one of those institutions without which a state cannot exist. It\r\nmay have been ever so important in the constitutional development of\r\nsome states. Still a good many others, and the most completely developed\r\nat that, had no need of it. Even in Athens it played only a passing\r\nrole. Since the time of Aristides, all offices were open to all the citizens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the next eighty years the Athenian society gradually drifted into\r\nthe course on which it further developed in the following centuries. The\r\noutrageous land speculation of the time before Solon had been fettered,\r\nlikewise the excessive concentration of property in land. Commerce,\r\ntrades and artisan handicrafts, which were carried on in an ever larger\r\nscale as slave labor increased, became the ruling factors in gaining a\r\nliving. Public enlightenment advanced. Instead of exploiting their own\r\nfellow citizens in the old brutal style, the Athenians now exploited\r\nmainly the slaves and the customers outside. Movable property, wealth in\r\nmoney, slaves and ships, increased more and more. But instead of being a\r\nsimple means for the purchase of land, as in the old stupid times, it\r\nhad now become an end in itself. The new class of industrial and\r\ncommercial owners of wealth now waged a victorious competition against\r\nthe old nobility. The remnants of the old gentile constitution lost\r\ntheir last hold. The gentes, phratries and tribes, the members of which\r\nnow were dispersed all over Attica and completely intermixed, had thus\r\nbecome unavailable as political groups. A great many citizens of Athens\r\ndid not belong to any gens. They were immigrants who had been adopted\r\ninto citizenship, but not\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_141\" id=\"Page_141\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-142.png\"\u003e141\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e into any of the old groups of kinship.\r\nBesides, there was a steadily increasing number of foreign immigrants\r\nwho were only protected by traditional sufferance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile the struggles of the parties proceeded. The nobility tried to\r\nregain their former privileges and for a short time recovered their\r\nsupremacy, until the revolution of Kleisthenes (509 B. C.) brought their\r\nfinal downfall and completed the ruin of gentile law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn his new constitution, Kleisthenes ignored the four old tribes founded\r\non the gentes and phratries. Their place was taken by an entirely new\r\norganization based on the recently attempted division of the citizens\r\ninto naukrariai according to residence. No longer was membership in a\r\ngroup of kindred the dominant fact, but simply local residence. Not the\r\nnation, but the territory was now divided; the inhabitants became mere\r\npolitical fixtures of the territory.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe whole of Attica was divided into one hundred communal districts,\r\nso-called demoi, every one of which was autonomous. The citizens living\r\nin a demos (demotoi) elected their official head (demarchos), treasurer\r\nand thirty judges with jurisdiction in minor cases. They also received\r\ntheir own temple and divine guardian or heros, whose priest they\r\nelected. The control of the demos was in the hands of the council of\r\ndemoto\u0026igrave;. This is, as Morgan correctly remarks, the prototype of the\r\nautonomous American township. The modern state in its highest\r\ndevelopment ended in the same unit with which the rising state began its\r\ncareer in Athens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTen of these units (demoi) formed a tribe, which, however, was now\r\ndesignated as local tribe in order to distinguish it from the old sex\r\ntribe. The local tribe was not only an autonomous political, but also a\r\nmilitary group. It elected the phylarchos or tribal head who commanded\r\nthe horsemen, the taxiarchos \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_142\" id=\"Page_142\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-143.png\"\u003e142\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003ecommanding the infantry and the strategic\r\nleader, who was in command of the entire contingent raised in the tribal\r\nterritory by conscription. The local tribe furthermore furnished,\r\nequipped and fully manned five war vessels. It was designated by the\r\nname of the Attic hero who was its guardian deity. It elected fifty\r\ncouncilmen into the council of Athens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus we arrive at the Athenian state, governed by a council of five\r\nhundred elected by and representing the ten tribes and subject to the\r\nvote of the public meeting, where every citizen could enter and vote.\r\nArchons and other officials attended to the different departments of\r\nadministration and justice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBy this new constitution and by the admission of a large number of\r\naliens, partly freed slaves, partly immigrants, the organs of gentile\r\nconstitution were displaced in public affairs. They became mere private\r\nand religious clubs. But their moral influence, the traditional\r\nconceptions and views of the old gentile period, survived for a long\r\ntime and expired only gradually. This was evident in another state institution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have seen that an essential mark of the state consists in a public\r\npower of co\u0026euml;rcion divorced from the mass of the people. Athens possessed\r\nat that time only a militia and a navy equipped and manned directly by\r\nthe people. These afforded protection against external enemies and held\r\nthe slaves in check, who at that time already made up the large majority\r\nof the population. For the citizens, this co\u0026euml;rcive power at first only\r\nexisted in the shape of the police, which is as old as the state. The\r\ninnocent Frenchmen of the 18th century, therefore, had the habit of\r\nspeaking not of civilized, but of policed nations (nations polic\u0026eacute;es).\r\nThe Athenians, then, provided for a police in their new state, a\r\nveritable \"force\" of bowmen on foot\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_143\" id=\"Page_143\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-144.png\"\u003e143\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e and horseback. This police force\r\nconsisted\u0026mdash;of slaves. The free Athenian regarded this police duty as so\r\ndegrading that he preferred being arrested by an armed slave rather than\r\nlending himself to such an ignominious service. That was still a sign of\r\nthe old gentile spirit. The state could not exist without a police, but\r\nas yet it was too young and did not command sufficient moral respect to\r\ngive prestige to an occupation that necessarily appeared ignominious to the old gentiles.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow well this state, now completed in its main outlines, suited the\r\nsocial condition of the Athenians was apparent by the rapid growth of\r\nwealth, commerce and industry. The distinction of classes on which the\r\nsocial and political institutions are resting was no longer between\r\nnobility and common people, but between slaves and freemen, aliens and\r\ncitizens. At the time of the greatest prosperity the whole number of\r\nfree Athenian citizens, women and children included, amounted to about\r\n90,000; the slaves of both sexes numbered 365,000 and the\r\naliens\u0026mdash;foreigners and freed slaves\u0026mdash;45,000. Per capita of each adult\r\ncitizen there were, therefore, at least eighteen slaves and more than\r\ntwo aliens. The great number of slaves is explained by the fact that\r\nmany of them worked together in large factories under supervision. The\r\ndevelopment of commerce and industry brought about an accumulation and\r\nconcentration of wealth in a few hands. The mass of the free citizens\r\nwere impoverished and had to face the choice of either competing with\r\ntheir own labor against slave labor, which was considered ignoble and\r\nvile, besides promising little success, or to be ruined. Under the\r\nprevailing circumstances they necessarily chose the latter course and\r\nbeing in the majority they ruined the whole Attic state. Not democracy\r\ncaused the downfall of Athens, as the European glorifiers of princes and\r\nlickspittle\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_144\" id=\"Page_144\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-145.png\"\u003e144\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e schoolmasters would have us believe, but slavery\r\nostracizing the labor of the free citizen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe origin of the state among the Athenians presents a very typical form\r\nof state organization. For it took place without any marring external\r\ninterference or internal obstruction\u0026mdash;the usurpation of Pisistratos left\r\nno trace of its short duration. It shows the direct rise of a highly\r\ndeveloped form of a state, the democratic republic, out of gentile\r\nsociety. And finally, we are sufficiently acquainted with all the\r\nessential details of the process.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_145\" id=\"Page_145\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-146.png\"\u003e145\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER VI.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eGENS AND STATE IN ROME.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe legend of the foundation of Rome sets forth that the first\r\ncolonization was undertaken by a number of Latin gentes (one hundred, so\r\nthe legend says) united into one tribe. A Sabellian tribe (also said to\r\nconsist of one hundred gentes) soon followed, and finally a third tribe\r\nof various elements, but again numbering one hundred gentes, joined\r\nthem. The whole tale reveals at the first glance that little more than\r\nthe gens was borrowed from reality, and that the gens itself was in\r\ncertain cases only an offshoot of an old mother gens still existing at\r\nhome. The tribes bear the mark of artificial composition on their\r\nforeheads; still they were made up of kindred elements and after the\r\nmodel of the old spontaneous, not artificial tribe. At the same time it\r\nis not impossible that a genuine old tribe formed the nucleus of every\r\none of these three tribes. The connecting link, the phratry, contained\r\nten gentes and was called curia. Hence there were thirty curiae.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Roman gens is recognized as an institution identical with the\r\nGrecian gens. The Grecian gens being a continuation of the same social\r\nunit, the primordial form of which we found among the American Indians,\r\nthe same holds naturally good of the Roman gens, and we can be more\r\nconcise in its treatment.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt least during the most ancient times of the city, the Roman gens had\r\nthe following constitution:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e1. Mutual right of inheritance for gentiles; the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_146\" id=\"Page_146\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-147.png\"\u003e146\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e wealth remained in the\r\ngens. Paternal law being already in force in the Roman the same as in\r\nthe Grecian gens, the offspring of female lineage were excluded.\r\nAccording to the law of the twelve tablets, the oldest written law of\r\nRome known to us, the natural children had the first title to the\r\nestate; in case no natural children existed, the agnati (kin of male\r\nlineage) took their place; and last in line came the gentiles. In all\r\ncases the property remained in the gens. Here we observe the gradual\r\nintroduction of new legal provisions, caused by increased wealth and\r\nmonogamy, into the gentile practice. The originally equal right of\r\ninheritance of the gentiles was first limited in practice to the agnati,\r\nno doubt at a very remote date, and afterwards to the natural children\r\nand their offspring of male lineage. Of course this appears in the\r\nreverse order on the twelve tablets.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e2. Possession of a common burial ground. The patrician gens Claudia, on\r\nimmigrating into Rome from Regilli, was assigned to a separate lot of\r\nland and received its own burial ground in the city. As late as the time\r\nof Augustus, the head of Varus, who had been killed in the Teutoburger\r\nWald, was brought to Rome and interred in the gentilitius tumulus; hence\r\nhis gens (Quinctilia) still had its own tomb.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e3. Common religious rites. These are well-known under the name of sacra gentilitia.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e4. Obligation not to intermarry in the gens. It seems that this was\r\nnever a written law in Rome, but the custom remained. Among the\r\ninnumerable names of Roman couples preserved for us there is not a\r\nsingle case, where husband and wife had the same gentile name. The law\r\nof inheritance proves the same rule. By marrying, a woman loses her\r\nagnatic privileges, discards her gens, and neither she nor her children\r\nhave any title to her father\u0027s estate nor to that of his brothers,\r\nbecause otherwise the gens of her father\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_147\" id=\"Page_147\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-148.png\"\u003e147\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e would lose his property. This\r\nrule has a meaning only then when the woman is not permitted to marry a gentile.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e5. A common piece of land. In primeval days this was always obtained\r\nwhen the tribal territory was first divided. Among the Latin tribes we\r\nfind the land partly in the possession of the tribe, partly of the gens,\r\nand partly of the households that could hardly represent single families\r\nat such an early date. Romulus is credited with being the first to\r\nassign land to single individuals, about 2.47 acres (two jugera) per\r\nhead. But later on we still find some land in the hands of the gentes,\r\nnot to mention the state land, around which turns the whole internal\r\nhistory of the republic.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e6. Duty of the gentiles to mutually protect and assist one another.\r\nWritten history records only remnants of this law. The Roman state from\r\nthe outset manifested such superior power, that the duty of protection\r\nagainst injury devolved upon it. When Appius Claudius was arrested, his\r\nwhole gens, including his personal enemies, dressed in mourning. At the\r\ntime of the second Punic war the gentes united for the purpose of\r\nransoming their captured gentiles. The senate vetoed this.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e7. Right to bear the gentile name. This was in force until the time of\r\nthe emperors. Freed slaves were permitted to assume the gentile name of\r\ntheir former master, but this did not bestow any gentile rights on them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e8. Right of adopting strangers into the gens. This was done by adoption\r\ninto the family (the same as among the Indians) which brought with it\r\nthe adoption into the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e9. The right to elect and depose chiefs is not mentioned anywhere. But\r\ninasmuch as during the first years of Rome\u0027s existence all offices were\r\nfilled by election or nomination, from the king downward, and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_148\" id=\"Page_148\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-149.png\"\u003e148\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e as the\r\ncuriae elected also their own priests, we are justified in assuming the\r\nsame in regard to gentile chiefs (principes)\u0026mdash;no matter how well\r\nestablished the rule of choosing the candidates from the same family have been.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSuch were the constitutional rights of a Roman gens. With the exception\r\nof the completed transition to paternal law, they are the true image of\r\nthe rights and duties of an Iroquois gens. Here, also, \"the Iroquois is\r\nstill plainly visible.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow confused the ideas of our historians, even the most prominent of\r\nthem, are when it comes to a discussion of the Roman gens, is shown by\r\nthe following example: In Mommsen\u0027s treatise on the Roman family names\r\nof the Republican and Augustinian era (R\u0026ouml;mische Forschungen, Berlin,\r\n1864, Vol. I.) he writes: \"The gentile name was not only borne by all\r\nmale gentiles including all adopted and wards, except, of course, the\r\nslaves, but also by the women…. The tribe (so Mommsen translates gens)\r\nis a common organization resulting from a common\u0026mdash;actual, assumed or\r\neven invented\u0026mdash;ancestor and united by common rites, burial grounds and\r\ncustoms of inheritance. All free individuals, hence women also, may and\r\nmust claim membership in them. But the definition of the gentile name of\r\nthe married women offers some difficulty. This is indeed obviated, as\r\nlong as women were not permitted to marry any one but their gentiles.\r\nAnd we have proofs that for a long time the women found it much more\r\ndifficult to marry outside than inside of the gens. This right of\r\nmarrying outside, the gentis enuptio, was still bestowed as a personal\r\nprivilege and reward during the sixth century…. But wherever such\r\noutside marriages occurred in primeval times, the woman must have been\r\ntransferred to the tribe of her husband. Nothing is more certain than\r\nthat by the old religious marriage woman\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_149\" id=\"Page_149\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-150.png\"\u003e149\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e was completely adopted into\r\nthe legal and sacramental group of her husband and divorced from her\r\nown. Who does not know that the married woman releases her active and\r\npassive right of inheritance in favor of her gentiles, but enters the\r\nlegal group of her husband, her children and his gentiles? And if her\r\nhusband adopts her as his child into his family, how can she remain\r\nseparated from his gens?\" (Pages 9-11.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere Mommsen asserts that the Roman women belonging to a certain gens\r\nwere originally free to marry only within their gens; the Roman gens,\r\naccording to him, was therefore endogamous, not exogamous. This opinion\r\nwhich contradicts the evidence of all other nations, is principally, if\r\nnot exclusively, founded on a single much disputed passage of Livy (Book\r\nxxxix, c. 19). According to this passage, the senate decreed in the year\r\n568 of the city, i. e., 186 B. C., (uti Feceniae Hispallae dati\u0026oacute;,\r\ndeminutio, gentis enuptio, tutoris optio idem esset quasi ei vir\r\ntestamento dedisset; utique ei ingenuo nubere liceret, neu quid ei qui\r\neam duxisset, ob id fraudi ignominiaeve esset)\u0026mdash;that Fecenia Hispalla\r\nshall have the right to dispose of her property, to diminish it, to\r\nmarry outside of the gens, to choose a guardian, just as if her (late)\r\nhusband had conferred this right on her by testament; that she shall be\r\npermitted to marry a freeman and that for the man who marries her this\r\nshall not constitute a misdemeanor or a shame.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWithout a doubt Fecenia, a freed slave, here obtains permission to marry\r\noutside of the gens. And equally doubtless the husband here has the\r\nright to confer on his wife by testament the right to marry outside of\r\nthe gens after his death. But outside of which gens?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf a woman had to intermarry in the gens, as Mommsen assumes, then she\r\nremained in this gens after her marriage. But in the first place, this\r\nassertion of an endogamous gens must be proven. And in the second\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_150\" id=\"Page_150\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-151.png\"\u003e150\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nplace, if the women had to intermarry in the gens, then the men had to\r\ndo the same, otherwise there could be no marriage. Then we arrive at the\r\nconclusion that the man could bequeath a right to his wife, which he did\r\nnot have for himself. This is a legal impossibility. Mommsen feels this\r\nvery well, and hence he supposes: \"The marriage outside of the gens most\r\nprobably required not only the consent of the testator, but of all\r\ngentiles.\" (Page 10, footnote.) This is not only a very daring\r\nassertion, but contradicts also the clear wording of the passage. The\r\nsenate gives her this right as a proxy of her husband; they expressly\r\ngive her no more and no less than her husband could have given her, but\r\nwhat they do give is an absolute right, independent of all limitations,\r\nso that, if she should make use of it, her new husband shall not suffer\r\nin consequence. The senate even instructs the present and future consuls\r\nand praetors to see that no inconvenience arise to her from the use of\r\nthis right. Mommsen\u0027s supposition is therefore absolutely inadmissible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThen again: suppose a woman married a man from another gens, but\r\nremained in her own gens. According to the passage quoted above, her\r\nhusband would then have had the right to permit his wife to marry\r\noutside of her own gens. That is, he would have had the right to make\r\nprovisions in regard to the affairs of a gens to which he did not belong\r\nat all. The thing is so utterly unreasonable that we need not lose any\r\nwords about it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNothing remains but to assume that the woman in her first marriage\r\nwedded a man from another gens and thereby became a member of her\r\nhusband\u0027s gens. Mommsen admits this for such cases. Then the whole\r\nmatter at once explains itself. The woman, torn away from her old gens\r\nby her marriage and adopted into the gentile group of her husband,\r\noccupies a peculiar\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_151\" id=\"Page_151\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-152.png\"\u003e151\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e position in the new gens. She is now a gentile, but\r\nnot a kin by blood. The manner of her entrance from the outset excludes\r\nall prohibition of intermarrying in the gens, into which she has come by\r\nmarriage. She is adopted into the family relations of the gens and\r\ninherits some of the property of her husband when he dies, the property\r\nof a gentile. What is more natural than that this property should remain\r\nin the gens and that she should be obliged to marry a gentile of her\r\nhusband and no other? If, however, an exception is to be made, who is so\r\nwell entitled to authorize her as her first husband who bequeathed his\r\nproperty to her? At the moment when he bequeathes on her a part of his\r\nproperty and simultaneously gives her permission to transfer this\r\nproperty by marriage or as a result of marriage to a strange gens, he\r\nstill is the owner of this property, hence he literally disposes of his\r\npersonal property. As for the woman and her relation to the gens of her\r\nhusband, it is he who by an act of his own free will\u0026mdash;the\r\nmarriage\u0026mdash;introduced her into his gens. Therefore it seems quite natural\r\nthat he should be the proper person to authorize her to leave this gens\r\nby another marriage. In short, the matter appears simple and obvious, as\r\nsoon as we discard the absurd conception of an endogamous Roman gens and\r\naccept Morgan\u0027s originally exogamous gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is still another view which has probably found the greatest number\r\nof advocates. According to them the passage in Livy only means \"that\r\nfreed slave girls (libertae) cannot without special permission, e gente\r\nenubere (marry outside of the gens) or undertake any of the steps which,\r\ntogether with capitis deminutio minima\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_25_25\" id=\"FNanchor_25_25\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_25_25\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[25]\u003c/a\u003e (the loss of family rights)\r\nwould lead to a\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_152\" id=\"Page_152\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-153.png\"\u003e152\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e transfer of the liberta to another gens.\" (Lange,\r\nR\u0026ouml;mische Alterth\u0026uuml;mer, Berlin, 1856, I, p. 185, where our passage from\r\nLivy is explained by a reference to Huschke.) If this view is correct,\r\nthen the passage proves still less for the relations of free Roman\r\nwomen, and there is so much less ground for speaking of their obligation\r\nto intermarry in the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe expression enuptio gentis (marriage outside of the gens) occurs only\r\nin this single passage and is not found anywhere else in the entire\r\nRoman literature. The word enubere (to marry outside) is found only\r\nthree times likewise in Livy, and not in reference to the gens. The\r\nphantastic idea that Roman women had to intermarry in the gens owes its\r\nexistence only to this single passage. But it cannot be maintained. For\r\neither the passage refers to special restrictions for freed slave women,\r\nin which case it proves nothing for free women (ingenuae). Or it applies\r\nalso to free women, in which case it rather proves that the women as a\r\nrule married outside of the gens and were transferred by their marriage\r\nto their husbands\u0027 gens. This would be a point for Morgan against Mommsen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAlmost three hundred years after the foundation of Rome the gentile\r\nbonds were still so strong that a patrician gens, the Fabians, could\r\nobtain permission from the senate to undertake all by itself a war\r\nexpedition against the neighboring town of Veii. Three hundred and six\r\nFabians are said to have marched\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_153\" id=\"Page_153\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-154.png\"\u003e153\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e and to have been killed from ambush.\r\nOnly one boy was left behind to propagate the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTen gentes, we said, formed a phratry, named curia. It was endowed with\r\nmore important functions than the Grecian phratry. Every curia had its\r\nown religious rites, sacred possessions and priests. The priests of one\r\ncuria in a body formed one of the Roman clerical collegiums. Ten curiae\r\nformed a tribe which probably had originally its own elected\r\nchief\u0026mdash;leader in war and high priest\u0026mdash;like the rest of the Latin tribes.\r\nThe three tribes together formed the populus Romanus, the Roman people.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHence nobody could belong to the Roman people, unless he was a member of\r\na Roman gens, and thus a member of a curia and tribe. The first\r\nconstitution of the Roman people was as follows. Public affairs were\r\nconducted by the Senate composed, as Niebuhr was the first to state\r\ncorrectly, of the chiefs of the three hundred gentes. Because they were\r\nthe elders of the gentes they were called patres, fathers, and as a body\r\nsenatus, council of elders, from senex, old. Here also the customary\r\nchoice of men from the same family of the gens brought to life the first\r\nhereditary nobility. These families were called patricians and claimed\r\nthe exclusive right to the seats in the senate and to all other offices.\r\nThe fact that in the course of time the people admitted this claim so\r\nthat it became an actual privilege is confirmed by the legendary report\r\nthat Romulus bestowed the rank of patrician and its privileges on the\r\nfirst senators. The senate, like the Athenian boul\u0026ecirc;, had to make the\r\nfinal decision in many affairs and to undertake the preliminary\r\ndiscussion of more important matters, especially of new laws. These were\r\nsettled by the public meeting, the so-called comitia curiata (assembly\r\nof curiae.) The people met in curiae, probably grouped by gentes, and\r\nevery one of the thirty curiae had one vote. The\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_154\" id=\"Page_154\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-155.png\"\u003e154\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e assembly of curiae\r\nadopted or rejected all laws, elected all higher officials including the\r\nrex (so-called king), declared war (but the senate concluded peace), and\r\ndecided as a supreme court, on appeal, all cases involving capital\r\npunishment of Roman citizens. By the side of the senate and the public\r\nmeeting stood the rex, corresponding to the Grecian basileus, and by no\r\nmeans, such an almost absolute king as Mommsen would have it.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_26_26\" id=\"FNanchor_26_26\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_26_26\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[26]\u003c/a\u003e The\r\nrex was also a military leader, a high priest and a chairman of certain\r\ncourts. He had no other functions, nor any power over life, liberty and\r\nproperty of the citizens, except such as resulted from his disciplinary\r\npower as military leader or from his executive power as president of a\r\ncourt. The office of rex was not hereditary. On the contrary, he was\r\nelected, probably on the suggestion of his predecessor, by the assembly\r\nof curiae and then solemnly invested by a second assembly. That he could\r\nalso be deposed is proved by the fate of Tarquinius Superbus.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs the Greeks at the time of the heroes, so the Romans at the time of\r\nthe so-called kings lived in a military democracy based on and developed\r\nfrom a constitution of gentes, phratries and tribes. What though the\r\ncuriae and tribes were partly artificial formations, they were moulded\r\nafter the genuine and spontaneous models of a society from which they\r\noriginated and that still surrounded them on all sides.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_155\" id=\"Page_155\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-156.png\"\u003e155\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e And though the\r\nsturdy patrician nobility had already gained ground, though the reges\r\nattempted gradually to enlarge the scope of their functions\u0026mdash;all this\r\ndoes not change the elementary and fundamental character of the\r\nconstitution, and this alone is essential.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMeantime the population of the city of Rome and of the Roman territory,\r\nenlarged by conquest, increased partly by immigration, partly through\r\nthe inhabitants of the annexed districts, Latins most of them. All these\r\nnew members of the state (we disregard here the clients) stood outside\r\nof the old gentes, curiae and tribes and so did not form a part of the\r\npopulus Romanus, the Roman people proper. They were personally free,\r\ncould own land, had to pay taxes and were subject to military service.\r\nBut they were not eligible to office and could neither take part in the\r\nassembly of curiae nor in the distribution of conquered state lands.\r\nThey made up the mass of people excluded from all public rights, the\r\nplebs. By their continually growing numbers, their military training and\r\narmament they became a threat for the old populus who now closed their\r\nranks hermetically against all new elements. The land seems to have been\r\nabout evenly divided between populus and plebs, while the mercantile and\r\nindustrial wealth, though as yet not very considerable, may have been\r\nmainly in the hands of the plebs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn view of the utter darkness that enwraps the whole legendary origin of\r\nRome\u0027s historical beginning\u0026mdash;a darkness that was rendered still more\r\nintense by the rationalistic and overofficious interpretations and\r\nreports of the juristically trained authors that wrote on the\r\nsubject\u0026mdash;it is impossible to make any definite statements about the\r\ntime, the course and the motive of the revolution that put an end to the\r\nold gentile constitution. We are certain only that the causes\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_156\" id=\"Page_156\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-157.png\"\u003e156\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e arose out\r\nof the fights between the plebs and the populus.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe new constitution, attributed to rex Servius Tullius and following\r\nthe Grecian model, more especially that of Solon, created a new public\r\nassembly including or excluding all the members of populus and plebs\r\naccording to whether they rendered military service or not. The whole\r\npopulation, subject to enlistment, was divided into six classes\r\naccording to wealth. The lowest limitis in the five highest classes\r\nwere: I., 100,000 ass; II., 75,000; III., 50,000; IV., 25,000; V.,\r\n11,000; which according to Dureau de la Malle is equal to about $3,155,\r\n$2,333, $1,555, $800, and $388. The sixth class, the proletarians,\r\nconsisted of those who possessed less and were exempt from military\r\nservice and taxes. In this new assembly of centuriae (comitia\r\ncenturiata) the citizens formed ranks after the manner of soldiers, in\r\ncompanies of one hundred (centuria), and every centuria had one vote.\r\nNow the first class placed 80 centuriae in the field; the second 22, the\r\nthird 20, the fourth 22, the fifth 30 and the sixth, for propriety\u0027s\r\nsake, one. To this were added 18 centuriae of horsemen composed of the\r\nmost wealthy. Hence, there were 193 centuriae, giving a lowest majority\r\nvote of 97. Now the horsemen and the first class alone had together 98\r\nvotes. Being in the majority, they had only to agree, and they could\r\npass any resolution without asking the consent of the other classes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis new assembly of centuriae assumed all the political rights of the\r\nformer assembly of curiae, a few nominal privileges excepted. The curiae\r\nand the gentes composing them now were degraded to mere private and\r\nreligious congregations, analogous to their Attic prototypes, and as\r\nsuch they vegetated on for a long time. But the assembly of curiae soon\r\nbecame obsolete. In order to drive also the three old tribes out\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_157\" id=\"Page_157\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-158.png\"\u003e157\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of\r\nexistence, a system of four local tribes was introduced. Every tribe was\r\nassigned to one quarter of the city and received certain political rights.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThus the old social order of blood kinship was destroyed also in Rome\r\neven before the abolition of the so-called royalty. A new constitution,\r\nfounded on territorial division and difference of wealth took its place\r\nand virtually created the state. The public power of co\u0026euml;rcion consisted\r\nhere of citizens liable to military duty, to be used against the slaves\r\nand the so-called proletarians who were excluded from military service\r\nand general armament.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the expulsion of the last rex, Tarquinius Superbus, who had really\r\nusurped royal power, the new constitution was further improved by the\r\ninstitution of two military leaders (consuls) with equal powers,\r\nanalogous to the custom of the Iroquois. The whole history of the Roman\r\nrepublic moves inside of this constitution: the struggles between\r\npatricians and plebs for admission to office and participation in the\r\nallotment of state lands, the merging of the patrician nobility in the\r\nnew class of large property and money owners; the gradual absorption by\r\nthe latter of all the land of the small holders who had been ruined by\r\nmilitary service; the cultivation of these enormous new tracts by\r\nslaves; the resulting depopulation of Italy which not only opened the\r\ndoors to the imperial tyrants, but also to their successors, the German barbarians.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTES:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_25_25\" id=\"Footnote_25_25\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_25_25\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[25]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe term caput received the meaning of legal right of a person from the\r\nlegal status of the head of a family…. Legal science extended the\r\nmeaning of the term so that it related not alone to slaves, but also to\r\nminors and women. This legal right, so conceived, could be curtailed in\r\nthree ways: Capitis deminutio maxima was the loss of the status\r\nlibertatis (personal liberty), which included the loss of the status\r\ncivitatis and familiae (civil and family rights); the capitis deminutio\r\nminor or media was the loss of the status civitatis (civil rights),\r\nincluding the loss of the status familiae (family rights); the capitis\r\ndeminutio minima was the loss of the status familiae (family rights).\r\nLange, R\u0026ouml;mische Alterth\u0026uuml;mer, Berlin, 1876, Vol. I., p. 204.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_26_26\" id=\"Footnote_26_26\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_26_26\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[26]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe Latin rex is equivalent to the Celtic-Irish righ (tribal chief) and\r\nthe Gothic reiks. That this, like the German F\u0026uuml;rst, English first and\r\nDanish forste, originally signified gentile or tribal chief is evident\r\nfrom the fact that the Goths in the fourth century already had a special\r\nterm for the king of later times, the military chief of a whole nation,\r\nviz., thiudans. In Ulfila\u0027s translation of the Bible Artaxerxes and\r\nHerod are never called reiks, but thiudans, and the empire of the\r\nemperor Tiberius not reiki, but thiudinassus. In the name of the Gothic\r\nthiudans, or king as we inaccurately translate, Thiudareiks (Theodoric,\r\nGerman Dietrich), both names flow together.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_158\" id=\"Page_158\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-159.png\"\u003e158\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER VII.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eTHE GENS AMONG CELTS AND GERMANS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSpace forbids a consideration of the gentile institutions found in a\r\nmore or less pure form among the savage and barbarian races of the\r\npresent day; or of the traces of such institutions, discovered in the\r\nancient history of civilized nations in Asia. One or the other are met\r\neverywhere. A few illustrations may suffice: Even before the gens had\r\nbeen recognized, it was pointed out and accurately described in its main\r\noutlines by the man who took the greatest pains to misunderstand it,\r\nMcLennan, who wrote of this institution among the Kalmucks, the\r\nCircassians, the Samoyeds and three Indian nations: the Warals, the\r\nMagars and the Munnipurs. Recently it was described by M. Kovalevsky,\r\nwho discovered it among the Pshavs, Shevsurs, Svanets and other\r\nCaucasian tribes. A few short notes about the existence of the gens\r\namong Celts and Germans may find a place here.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe oldest Celtic laws preserved for us still show the gens in full\r\nbloom. In Ireland, it is alive in the popular instinct to this day,\r\nafter it has been forced out of actual existence by the English. It was\r\nin full force in Scotland until the middle of the eighteenth century,\r\nand here it also succumbed only to the weapons, laws and courts of the English.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe old Welsh laws, written several centuries before the English\r\ninvasion, not later than the 11th century, still show collective\r\nagriculture of whole villages, although only exceptionally and as the\r\nsurvival of a former universal custom. Every family had five acres for\r\nits special use; another lot was at the same time\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_159\" id=\"Page_159\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-160.png\"\u003e159\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e cultivated\r\ncollectively and its yield divided among the different families. In view\r\nof Irish and Scotch analogies it cannot be doubted that these village\r\ncommunities represent gentes or subdivisions of gentes, even though a\r\nrepeated investigation of the Welsh laws, which I cannot undertake from\r\nlack of time (my notes are from 1869), should not directly corroborate\r\nthis. One thing, however, is plainly proven by the Welsh and Irish laws,\r\nnamely that the pairing family had not yet given way to monogamy among\r\nthe Celts of the 11th century. In Wales, marriage did not become\r\nindissoluble by divorce, or rather by notification, until after seven\r\nyears. Even if no more than three nights were lacking to make up the\r\nseven years, a married couple could still separate. Their property was\r\ndivided among them: the woman made the division, the man selected his\r\nshare. The furniture was divided according to certain very funny rules.\r\nIf the marriage was dissolved by the man, he had to return the woman\u0027s\r\ndowry and a few other articles; if the woman wished a separation, then\r\nshe received less. Of three children the man took two, the woman one,\r\nviz., the second child. If the woman married again after her divorce,\r\nand her first husband claimed her back, she was obliged to follow him,\r\neven if she had one foot in her new husband\u0027s bed. But if two had lived\r\ntogether for seven years, they were considered man and wife, even\r\nwithout the preliminaries of a formal marriage. Chasteness of the girls\r\nbefore marriage was by no means strictly observed, nor was it required.\r\nThe regulations regarding this subject are of an extremely frivolous\r\nnature and in contradiction with civilized morals. When a woman\r\ncommitted adultery, her husband had a right to beat her\u0026mdash;this was one of\r\nthree cases when he could do so without incurring a penalty\u0026mdash;but after\r\nthat he could not demand any other satisfaction, for \"the same crime\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_160\" id=\"Page_160\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-161.png\"\u003e160\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nshall either be atoned for or avenged, but not both.\" The reasons that\r\nentitled a woman to a divorce without curtailing her claims to a fair\r\nsettlement were of a very diverse nature: bad breath of the man was\r\nsufficient. The ransom to be paid to the chief or king for the right of\r\nthe first night (gobr merch, hence the medieval name marcheta, French\r\nmarquette) plays a conspicuous part in the code of laws. The women had\r\nthe right to vote in the public meetings. Add to this that similar\r\nconditions are vouched for in Ireland; that marriage on time was also\r\nquite the custom there, and that the women were assured of liberal and\r\nwell defined privileges in case of divorce, even to the point of\r\nremuneration for domestic services; that a \"first wife\" existed by the\r\nside of others, and that legal and illegal children without distinction\r\nreceived a share of their deceased parent\u0027s property\u0026mdash;and we have a\r\npicture of the pairing family among the Celts. The marriage laws of the\r\nAmerican Indians seem strict in comparison to the Celtic, but this is\r\nnot surprising when we remember that the Celts were still living in\r\ngroup marriage at Cesar\u0027s time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Irish gens (Sept; the tribe was called clainne, clan) is confirmed\r\nand described not alone by the ancient law codes, but also by the\r\nEnglish jurists of the 17th century who were sent across for the purpose\r\nof transforming the clan lands into royal dominions. Up to this time,\r\nthe soil had been the collective property of the gens or the clan,\r\nexcept where the chiefs had already claimed it as their private\r\ndominion. When a gentile died, and a household was thus dissolved, the\r\ngentile chief (called caput cognationis by the English jurists) made a\r\nnew assignment of the whole gentile territory to the rest of the\r\nhousehold. This division of land probably took place according to such\r\nrules as were observed in Germany. Until about fifty years ago,\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_161\" id=\"Page_161\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-162.png\"\u003e161\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e village\r\nmarks were quite frequent, and some of these so-called rundales may be\r\nfound to this day. The farmers of a rundale, individual tenants on the\r\nsoil that once was the collective property of the gens, but had been\r\nconfiscated by the English conquerors, each pay the rent for his\r\nrespective parcel. But they all combine their lands and parcel it off\r\naccording to situation and quality. These parcels, called \"Gewanne\" on\r\nthe German river Mosel, are cultivated collectively and their yield is\r\ndivided into shares. Marshland and pastures are used in common. Fifty\r\nyears ago, new divisions were still made occasionally, sometimes\r\nannually. The field map of such a rundale village looks exactly like\r\nthat of a German \"Geh\u0026ouml;ferschaft\" (farming commune) on the Mosel or in\r\nthe Hochwald. The gens also survives in the \"factions.\" The Irish\r\nfarmers often form parties that seem to be founded on absolutely\r\ncontradictory or senseless distinctions, quite incomprehensible to\r\nEnglishmen. The only purpose of these factions is apparently to rally\r\nfor the popular sport of hammering the life out of one another. They are\r\nartificial reincarnations, modern substitutes for the dispersed gentes\r\nthat demonstrate the continuation of the old gentile instinct in their\r\nown peculiar manner. By the way, in some localities the gentiles are\r\nstill living together on what is practically their old territory. During\r\nthe thirties, for instance, the great majority of the inhabitants of the\r\nold county of Monaghan had only four family names, i. e., they were\r\ndescended from four gentes or tribes (clans).\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_27_27\" id=\"FNanchor_27_27\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_27_27\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[27]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_162\" id=\"Page_162\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-163.png\"\u003e162\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe downfall of the gentile order in Scotland dates from the\r\nsuppression of the revolt in 1745. What link of this order the Scotch\r\nclan represented remains to be investigated; that it is a link, is\r\nbeyond doubt. Walter Scott\u0027s novels bring this Scotch highland clan\r\nvividly before our eyes. It is, as Morgan says, \"an excellent type of\r\nthe gens in organization and in spirit, and an extraordinary\r\nillustration of the power of the gentile life over its members…. We\r\nfind in their feuds and blood revenge, in their localization by gentes,\r\nin their use of lands in common, in the fidelity of the clansman to his\r\nchief and of the members of the clan to each other, the usual and\r\npersistent features of gentile society…. Descent was in the male line,\r\nthe children of the males remaining members of the clan, while the\r\nchildren of its female members belonged to the clans of their respective\r\nfathers.\" The fact that matriarchal law was formerly in force in\r\nScotland is proved by the royal family of the Picts, who according to\r\nBeda observed female lineage. Even a survival of the Punaluan family had\r\nbeen preserved among the Scots, as among the Welsh. For until the middle\r\nages, the chief of the clan or king, the last representatives of the\r\nformer common husbands, had the right to claim the first night with\r\nevery bride, unless a ransom was given.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is an indisputable fact, that the Germans were\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_163\" id=\"Page_163\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-164.png\"\u003e163\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e organized in gentes\r\nup to the time of the great migrations. The territory between the\r\nDanube, the Rhine, the Vistula and the northern seas was evidently\r\noccupied by them only a few centuries before Christ. The Cimbri and\r\nTeutons were then still in full migration, and the Suebi did not settle\r\ndown until Cesar\u0027s time. Cesar expressly states that they settled down\r\nin gentes and kins (gentibus cognatibusque), and in the mouth of a Roman\r\nof the gens Julia this term gentibus has a definite meaning, that no\r\namount of disputation can obliterate. This holds good for all Germans.\r\nIt seems that even the provinces taken by them from the Romans were\r\nsettled by distribution to gentes. The Alemanian code of laws affirms\r\nthat the people settled in gentes (genealogiae) on the conquered land\r\nsouth of the Danube. Genealogia is used in exactly the same sense as was\r\nlater on Mark\u0026mdash;or Dorfgenossenschaft (mark or village community).\r\nKovalevsky recently maintained that these genealogiae were the great\r\nhousehold communities among which the land was divided, and from which\r\nthe village communities developed later on. The same may be true of the\r\nfara, by which term the Burgundians and Langobards\u0026mdash;a Gothic and a\r\nHerminonian or High German tribe\u0026mdash;designated nearly, if not exactly, the\r\nsame thing as the Alemanian genealogiae. Whether this is really the gens\r\nor the household community, must be settled by further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe language records leave us in doubt, whether all the Germans had a\r\ncommon expression for gens or not, and as to what this term was.\r\nEtymologically, the Gothic, kuni, middle High German k\u0026uuml;nne, corresponds\r\nto the Grecian genos and the Latin gens, and is used in the same sense.\r\nWe are led back to the time of matriarchy by the terms for \"woman\" which\r\nare derived from the same root: Greek gyn\u0026ecirc;, Slav zen\u0026acirc;, Gothic qvino,\r\nNorse kona, kuna.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_164\" id=\"Page_164\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-165.png\"\u003e164\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong Langobards and Burgundians, I repeat, we find the term fara which\r\nGrimm derives from the hypothetical root fisan, to beget. I should\r\nprefer to trace it to the more obvious root faran, German fahren, to\r\nride or to wander, in order to designate a certain well defined section\r\nof the wandering corps, composed quite naturally of relatives. As a\r\nresult of centuries of wanderings from West to East and back again, this\r\nterm was gradually applied to the sex group itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere is furthermore the Gothic sibja, Anglosaxon sib, old High German\r\nsippia, sippa, High German sippe. Old Norse has only the plural sifjar,\r\nthe relatives; the singular occurs only as the name of a goddess, Sif.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, another expression occurs in the Hildebrand Song, where\r\nHildebrand asks Hadubrand \"who is your father among the men of the\r\nnation … or what is your kin?\" (eddo hu\u0026ecirc;llihhes cnuosles du s\u0026icirc;s).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf there was a common German term for gens, it was presumably the Gothic\r\nkuni. This is not only indicated by its identity with the corresponding\r\nterm in related languages, but also by the fact that the word kuning,\r\nGerman K\u0026ouml;nig, English king, is derived from it, all of which originally\r\nsignified chief of gens or tribe. Sibja, German Sippe (relationship),\r\ndoes not appear worthy of consideration. In old Norse, at least, sifjar\r\nsignifies not alone kin by blood, but also kin through marriage; hence\r\nit comprises the members of at least two gentes, and the term sif cannot\r\nhave been applied to the gens itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the order of battle, the Germans, like the Mexicans and Greeks,\r\narranged the horsemen as well as the wedge-like columns of the troops on\r\nfoot by gentes. Tacitus\u0027 indefinite expression, \"by families and\r\nkinships,\" is explained by the fact that at his time the gens had long\r\nceased to be a living body in Rome.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_165\" id=\"Page_165\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-166.png\"\u003e165\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother passage of Tacitus is decisive. There he says: \"The mother\u0027s\r\nbrother regards his nephew as his son; some even hold that the bond of\r\nblood between the maternal uncle and the nephew is more sacred and close\r\nthan that between father and son, so that when persons are demanded as\r\nsecurities, the sister\u0027s son is considered a better security than the\r\nnatural son of the man whom they desire to place under bonds.\" Here we\r\nhave a living proof of the matriarchal, and hence natural, gens, and it\r\nis described as a characteristic mark of the Germans.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_28_28\" id=\"FNanchor_28_28\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_28_28\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[28]\u003c/a\u003e If a member of\r\nsuch a gens gave his own son as a security for the fulfillment of a vow\r\nand this son became the victim of his father\u0027s breach of faith, that was\r\nthe concern of the father alone. But when the son of a sister was\r\nsacrificed, then the most sacred gentile law was violated. The next\r\nrelative who was bound above all others to protect the boy or young man,\r\nwas held responsible for his death; either he should not have given the\r\nboy in bail or he should have kept the contract. If we had no other\r\ntrace of gentile law among the Germans, this one passage would be\r\nsufficient proof of its existence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut there is another passage in the Old Norse song of the \"Dawn of the\r\nGods\" and the \"End of the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_166\" id=\"Page_166\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-167.png\"\u003e166\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e World,\" the V\u0026ouml;lusp\u0026acirc;, which is still stronger\r\nevidence, because it is 800 years younger. In this \"Vision of the\r\nSeeress,\" in which Bang and Bugge have now demonstrated the existence of\r\nChristian elements, also, the description of the time of general\r\ndegeneration and corruption inaugurating the great catastrophe contains\r\nthis passage:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"poem\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"stanza\"\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003eBroedbr munu berjask ok at b\u0026ouml;num verdask\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003cdiv\u003eMunu systrungar sifjum spilla.\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\"Brothers will wage war against one another and become each other\u0027s\r\nmurderers, and sisters\u0027 children will break the bonds of blood.\"\r\nSystrungr means the son of the mother\u0027s sister, and an abnegation of the\r\nblood kinship from that side surpasses in the eyes of the poet even the\r\ncrime of fratricide. There is a deliberate climax in that systrungar,\r\nemphasizing the maternal kinship. If the term syskina-b\u0026ouml;rn, brother\u0027s\r\nand sister\u0027s children, or syskina-synir, brother\u0027s and sister\u0027s sons,\r\nhad been used, there would have been a weakening of the effect, instead\r\nof a climax. That shows that even at the time of the Vikings, when the\r\nV\u0026ouml;lusp\u0026acirc; was composed, the recollection of maternal law was not yet blotted out.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the Germans with whom Tacitus was familiar maternal law had\r\nalready given way to paternal lineage. The children were the next heirs\r\nof the father; in the absence of children, the brothers and uncles on\r\nboth sides were next in line. The admission of the mother\u0027s brother to\r\nthe inheritance is a relic of maternal law and proves that paternal law\r\nhad only recently been introduced by the Germans. Traces of maternal law\r\nwere preserved until late in the middle ages. It seems that even at this\r\nlate date people still felt certain misgivings about the reliability of\r\nfatherhood, especially among serfs. For when a feudal lord demanded the\r\nreturn of a fugitive serf from a city, it was first required, for\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_167\" id=\"Page_167\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-168.png\"\u003e167\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\ninstance in Augsburg, Basel and Kaiserslautern, that the fact of his\r\nserfdom should be established by the oaths of six of his next blood\r\nrelations, all of whom had to belong to his mother\u0027s kin. (Maurer,\r\nSt\u0026auml;dteverfassung, I, page 381.)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnother relic of declining matriarchy was the (from the Roman\r\nstandpoint) almost inexplicable respect of the Germans for the female\r\nsex. Young girls of noble family were considered the safest bonds to\r\nsecure the keeping of contracts with Germans. In battle, nothing\r\nstimulated their courage so much as the horrible thought that their\r\nwives and daughters might be captured and carried into slavery. A woman\r\nwas to them something holy and prophetical, and they listened to her\r\nadvice in the most important matters. Veleda, the Bructerian priestess\r\non the river Lippe, was the soul of the insurrection of the Batavians,\r\nin which Civilis at the head of German and Belgian tribes shook the\r\nfoundations of Roman rule in Gaul. The women held undisputed sway in the\r\nhouse. If we may believe Tacitus, they, together with the old men and\r\nchildren, had to do all the work, for the men went hunting, drank and\r\nloafed. But as Tacitus does not say who cultivated the fields, and as\r\naccording to his explicit statement the slaves paid only tithes, but did\r\nnot work under compulsion, it seems that the adult men would have had to\r\ndo what little agricultural work was required.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe form of marriage, as stated above, was the pairing family in gradual\r\ntransition to monogamy. It was not yet strict monogamy, for polygamy was\r\npermitted for the wealthy. Chasteness of the girls was in general\r\ncarefully maintained, different from the custom of the Celts. Tacitus\r\nspeaks with special ardor of the sacredness of the matrimonial bond\r\namong the Germans. Adultery of the woman is alone quoted by him as a\r\nreason for a divorce. But\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_168\" id=\"Page_168\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-169.png\"\u003e168\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e his treatment of this subject leaves many a\r\nflaw and besides, it too openly holds up the mirror of virtue to the\r\ndissipated Romans. So much is certain: Granted that the Germans were\r\nsuch exceptional models of virtue in their forests, it required only a\r\nshort contact with the outer world to bring them down to the level of\r\nthe other average Europeans. In the whirl of Roman life the last trace\r\nof pure morals disappeared even faster than the German language. Just\r\nread Gregorius of Tours. It is obvious that in the primeval forests of\r\nGermany no such hyper-refined voluptuousness could exist as in Rome.\r\nThat implies fully enough superiority of the Germans over the Roman\r\nworld, and there is no necessity for ascribing to them a moderation and\r\nchastity that have never been the qualities of any nation as a whole.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA result of gentile law is the obligation to inherit the enmities as\r\nwell as the friendships of one\u0027s father and relatives; so is furthermore\r\nthe displacement of blood revenge by the Wergeld, a fine to be paid in\r\natonement of manslaughter and injuries. A generation ago this Wergeld\r\nwas considered a specifically German institution, but it has since been\r\nfound that hundreds of nations introduced this mitigation of gentile\r\nblood revenge. Like the obligatory hospitality, it is found, for\r\ninstance, among the American Indians. Tacitus\u0027 description of the manner\r\nin which hospitality was observed (Germania, chapt. 21) is almost\r\nidentical with Morgan\u0027s.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe hot and ceaseless controversy as to whether or not the Germans had\r\nalready made a definite repartition of the cultivated land at Tacitus\u0027\r\ntime, and how the passages relating to this question should be\r\ninterpreted, is now a thing of the past. After the following facts had\r\nbeen established: that the cultivated land of nearly all nations was\r\ntilled \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_169\" id=\"Page_169\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-170.png\"\u003e169\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003ecollectively by the gens and later on by communistic family\r\ngroups, a practice which Cesar still found among the Suebi; that as a\r\nresult of this practice the land was re-apportioned periodically; and\r\nthat this periodical repartition of the cultivated land was preserved in\r\nGermany down to our days\u0026mdash;after such evidence we need not waste any more\r\nbreath on the subject. A transition within 150 years from collective\r\ncultivation, such as Cesar expressly attributes to the Suebi, to\r\nindividual cultivation with annual repartition of the soil, such as\r\nTacitus found among the Germans, is surely progress enough for any one.\r\nThe further transition from this stage to complete private ownership of\r\nland during such a short period and without any external intervention\r\nwould involve an absolute impossibility. Hence I can only read in\r\nTacitus what he states in so many words: They change (or re-divide) the\r\ncultivated land every year, and enough land is left for common use. It\r\nis the stage of agriculture and appropriation of the soil which exactly\r\ntallies with the contemporaneous gentile constitution of the Germans.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eI leave the preceding paragraph unchanged, just as it stood in former\r\neditions. Meantime the question has assumed another aspect. Since\r\nKovalevsky has demonstrated that the patriarchal household community\r\nexisted nearly everywhere, perhaps even everywhere, as the connecting\r\nlink between the matriarchal communistic and the modern isolated family,\r\nthe question is no longer \"Collective property or private property?\" as\r\ndiscussed between Maurer and Waitz, but \"What was the form of that\r\ncollective property?\" Not alone is there no doubt whatever, that the\r\nSuebi were the collective owners of their land at Cesar\u0027s time, but also\r\nthat they tilled the soil collectively. The questions, whether their\r\neconomic unit was the gens, or the household, or an \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_170\" id=\"Page_170\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-171.png\"\u003e170\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eintermediate\r\ncommunistic group, or whether all three of these groups existed at the\r\nsame time as a result of different local conditions, may remain\r\nundecided for a long while yet. Kovalevsky maintains that the conditions\r\ndescribed by Tacitus were not founded on the mark or village community,\r\nbut on the household community, which developed much later into the\r\nvillage community by the growth of the population.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHence the settlements of the Germans on the territory they occupied at\r\nthe time of the Romans, and on territory later taken by them from the\r\nRomans, would not have consisted of villages, but of large co-operative\r\nfamilies comprising several generations, who cultivated a sufficient\r\npiece of land and used the surrounding wild land in common with their\r\nneighbors. If this was the case, then the passage in Tacitus regarding\r\nthe changing of the cultivated land would indeed have an agronomic\r\nmeaning, viz., that the co-operative household cultivated a different\r\npiece of land every year, and the land cultivated during the previous\r\nyear was left untilled or entirely abandoned. The scarcity of the\r\npopulation would have left enough spare wild lands to make all dispute\r\nabout land unnecessary. Only after the lapse of centuries, when the\r\nmembers of the family had increased so that the collective cultivation\r\nbecame incompatible with the prevailing conditions of production, the\r\nhousehold communities were dissolved. The former common fields and\r\nmeadows were then divided in the well-known manner among the various\r\nindividual families that had now formed. The division of farm lands was\r\nfirst periodical, but later final, while forest, pasture and\r\nwatercourses remained common property.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt seems that this process of development has been fully established for\r\nRussia by historical investigation. As for Germany and, in the second\r\nplace, for\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_171\" id=\"Page_171\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-172.png\"\u003e171\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e other German countries, it cannot be denied that this view\r\naffords in many instances a better interpretation of historical\r\nauthorities and a readier solution of difficulties than the idea of\r\ntracing the village community to the time of Tacitus. The oldest\r\ndocuments, e. g. of the Codex Laureshamensis, are easier explained by\r\nthe help of the household than of the village community. On the other\r\nhand, new difficulties now arise and new questions pose themselves. It\r\nwill require further investigations to arrive at definite conclusions.\r\nHowever, I cannot deny that the probability is very much in favor of the\r\nintermediate stage of the household community.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_29_29\" id=\"FNanchor_29_29\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_29_29\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[29]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the Germans of Cesar\u0027s time had either just taken up settled\r\nabodes, or were still looking for them, they had been settled for a full\r\ncentury at the time of Tacitus. As a result there is a manifest progress\r\nin the production of necessities. The Germans lived in block houses;\r\ntheir clothing was still as primitive as their forests, consisting of\r\nrough woolen cloaks, animal skins and linen underclothing\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_172\" id=\"Page_172\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-173.png\"\u003e172\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e for the women\r\nand the wealthy. They lived on milk, meat, wild fruit and, as Pliny\r\nadds, oatmeal porridge which is the Celtic national dish in Ireland and\r\nScotland to-day. Their wealth consisted in cattle of an inferior race.\r\nThe kine were small, of unattractive appearance and without horns; the\r\nhorses, little ponies, were not fast runners. Money, Roman coin only,\r\nwas rarely used. They did not make ornaments of gold and silver, nor did\r\nthey value these metals. Iron was scarce and, at least among the tribes\r\non the Rhine and the Danube, was apparently only imported, not mined by\r\nthemselves. The Runen script (imitations of Greek and Latin letters) was\r\nonly used as a cipher and exclusively for religious sorcery. Human\r\nsacrifices were still in vogue. In short, they were a nation just\r\nemerged out of the middle stage of barbarism into the upper stage. But\r\nwhile the tribes whose immediate contact with the Romans facilitated the\r\nimport of Roman products, were thereby prevented from acquiring a metal\r\nand textile industry of their own, there is not the least doubt that the\r\ntribes of the Northeast, on the Baltic, developed these industries. The\r\npieces of armor found in the bogs of Sleswick\u0026mdash;a long iron sword, a coat\r\nof mail, a silver helmet, etc., together with Roman coins from the close\r\nof the second century\u0026mdash;, and the German metal ware spread by the\r\nmigrations represent a peculiar type of a superior finish, even such as\r\nwere modeled after Roman originals. With the exception of England, the\r\nemigration into the civilized Roman empire everywhere put an end to this\r\nhome industry. How simultaneously this industry arose and developed, is\r\nshown e. g. by the bronze spangles. The specimens found in Burgundy, in\r\nRoumania and on the Sea of Asow, might have been manufactured in the\r\nsame shop with those\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_173\" id=\"Page_173\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-174.png\"\u003e173\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e found in England or Sweden and are of undoubted\r\nGerman origin.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe German constitution was also in keeping with the upper stage of\r\nbarbarism. According to Tacitus, the council of chiefs (principes)\r\nuniversally decided matters of minor importance and prepared important\r\nmatters for the decision of the public meetings. So far as we know\r\nanything of the public meeting in the lower stage of barbarism, viz.,\r\namong the American Indians, it was only held by gentes, not by tribes or\r\nleagues of tribes. The chiefs of peace (principes) were still sharply\r\ndistinguished from the chiefs of war (duces), just as among the\r\nIroquois. The peace chiefs were already living in part on honorary\r\ndonations of the gentiles, such as cattle, grain, etc. They were\r\ngenerally elected from the same family, analogous to America. The\r\ntransition to paternal law favored, as in Greece and Rome, the gradual\r\ntransformation of office by election into hereditary office. A \"noble\"\r\nfamily was thus gradually raised in each gens. Most of this hereditary\r\nnobility came to grief during the migrations or shortly after. The\r\nmilitary leaders were elected solely on their merits. They had little\r\npower and were obliged to rely on the force of their example. The actual\r\ndisciplinary power in the army was held by the priests, as Tacitus\r\nimplicitly states. The public meeting was the real executive. The king\r\nor chief of the tribe presided. The people decided. A murmur signified\r\n\"No,\" acclamation and clanging of weapons meant \"Yes.\" The public\r\nmeeting was at the same time a court of justice. Complaints were here\r\nbrought forth and decided, and death sentences pronounced. Only\r\ncowardice, treason and unnatural lust were capital crimes. The gentes\r\nand other subdivisions decided in a body under the chairmanship of the\r\nchief, who in all original German courts was only the manager\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_174\" id=\"Page_174\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-175.png\"\u003e174\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e of the\r\ntransactions and questioner. Among Germans, the sentence has ever and\r\neverywhere been pronounced by the community.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eLeagues of tribes came into existence since Cesar\u0027s time. Some of them\r\nalready had kings. The first chief of war began to covet the usurper\u0027s\r\nplace, as among Greeks and Romans, and sometimes succeeded in obtaining\r\nit. Such successful usurpers were by no means absolute rulers. But still\r\nthey began to break through the bonds of the gens. While freed slaves\r\ngenerally occupied an inferior position, because they could not be\r\nmembers of any gens, they often gained rank, wealth and honors as\r\nfavorites of the new kings. The same thing took place after the conquest\r\nof the Roman empire by those military leaders who had now become kings\r\nof great countries. Among the Frankons, slaves and freed slaves of the\r\nking played a leading role first at the court, then in the state. A\r\nlarge part of the new nobility were descended from them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThere was one institution that especially favored the rise of royalty:\r\nthe military following. We have already seen, how among the American\r\nredskins private war groups were formed independently of the gens. Among\r\nthe Germans, these private groups had developed into standing bodies.\r\nThe military leader who had acquired fame, gathered around his person a\r\nhost of booty loving young warriors. They were pledged to personal\r\nfaithfulness by their leader who in return pledged himself to them. He\r\nfed them, gave them presents and organized them on hierarchic\r\nprinciples: a body guard and a troop for immediate emergencies and short\r\nexpeditions, a trained corps of officers for larger enterprises. These\r\nfollowings must have been rather insignificant, in fact we find them so\r\nlater under Odoaker in Italy, still they portended the decay of the old\r\ngentile liberty, and the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_175\" id=\"Page_175\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-176.png\"\u003e175\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e events during and after the migrations proved\r\nthat military retainers were heralds of evil. For in the first place,\r\nthey fostered the growth of royalty. In the second place, Tacitus\r\naffirms that they could only be held together by continual warfare and\r\nplundering expeditions. Robbery became their life purpose. If the leader\r\nfound nothing to do in his neighborhood, he marched his troops to other\r\ncountries, where a prospect of war and booty allured him. The German\r\nauxiliaries, many of whom fought under the Roman standard even against\r\nGermans, had been largely recruited among such followings. They\r\nrepresent the first germs of the \"Landsknecht\" profession, the shame and\r\ncurse of the Germans. After the conquest of the Roman empire, these\r\nretainers of kings together with the unfree Roman courtiers formed the\r\nother half of the nobility of later days.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, then, the German tribes combined into nations had the same\r\nconstitution that had developed among the Greeks of the heroic era and\r\nthe Romans at the time of the so-called kings: public meetings, councils\r\nof gentile chiefs and military leaders who coveted actual royal power.\r\nIt was the highest constitution which the gentile order could produce;\r\nit was the standard constitution of the higher stage of barbarism. If\r\nsociety passed the limits for which this constitution sufficed, then the\r\nend of the gentile order had come. It collapsed and the state took its place.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTES:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_27_27\" id=\"Footnote_27_27\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_27_27\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[27]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note to the fourth edition.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nDuring a few days passed in Ireland, I once more became conscious to\r\nwhat extent the rural population is still living in the conceptions of\r\nthe gentile period. The great landholder, whose tenant the farmer is,\r\nstill enjoys a position similar to that of a clan chief, who has to\r\nsupervise the cultivation of the soil in the interest of all, who is\r\nentitled to a tribute from the farmer in the form of rent, but who also\r\nhas to assist the farmer in cases of need. Likewise everyone in\r\ncomfortable circumstances is considered under obligation to help his\r\npoorer neighbors whenever they are in need. Such assistance is not\r\ncharity, it is simply the prerogative of the poor gentile, which the\r\nrich gentile or the chief of the clan must respect. This explains why\r\nthe professors of political economy and the jurists complain of the\r\nimpossibility of imparting the idea of the modern private property to\r\nthe Irish farmers. Property that has only rights, but no duties, is\r\nabsolutely beyond the ken of the Irishman. No wonder that so many\r\nIrishmen who are suddenly cast into one of the modern great cities of\r\nEngland and America, among a population with entirely different moral\r\nand legal standards, despair of all morals and justice, lose all hold\r\nand become an easy prey to demoralization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_28_28\" id=\"Footnote_28_28\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_28_28\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[28]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe Greeks know this special sacredness of the bond between the mother\u0027s\r\nbrother and his nephew, a relic of maternal law found among many\r\nnations, only in the mythology of heroic times. According to Diodorus\r\nIV., 34, Meleagros kills the sons of Thestius, the brother of his mother\r\nAlthaia. The latter regards this deed as such a heinous crime that she\r\ncurses the murderer, her own son, and prays for his death. \"It is said\r\nthat the gods fulfilled her wish and ended the life of Meleagros.\"\r\nAccording to the same Diordorus, IV., 44, the Argonauts under Herakles\r\nland in Thracia and there find that Phineus, at the instigation of his\r\nsecond wife, shamefully maltreats his two sons, the offspring of his\r\nfirst deserted wife, the Boread Kleopatra. But among the Argonauts there\r\nare also some Boreads, the brothers of Kleopatra, the uncles of the\r\nmaltreated boys. They at once champion their nephews, set them free and\r\nkill their guards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_29_29\" id=\"Footnote_29_29\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_29_29\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[29]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe household community is still a distinct stage of production in\r\nGeorgia (South Russia). The northern boundary of Georgia is the\r\nCaucasus. The Georgians, a people of high intelligence, have for\r\ncenturies maintained their independence against Persians, Arabs, Turcs\r\nand Tartars. Dr. Philipp Gogitshayshvili gives the following interesting\r\ndescription of their condition in an article, entitled \"Das Gewerbe in\r\nGeorgien\" (Zeitschrift f\u0026uuml;r die gesammte Staatswissenschaft,\r\nErg\u0026auml;nzungsheft I., T\u0026uuml;bingen, 1901). \"The Swanians (a district of Georgia\r\nis called Swania) have all the necessities of life. They weave their own\r\nclothing, make their own weapons, powder and even silver, and gold\r\nornaments. There is no modern trading…. They are acquainted with\r\nexchange, but only of products for products. Money does not circulate\r\nand there are neither shops nor markets…. There is not a single\r\nbeggar, not a single man who asks for charity. With the exception of\r\niron, salt and chintz, the Swanians produce all they need themselves.\r\nThey prepare their linen from hemp, their clothing from skins of wild\r\nanimals and wool, their footwear from hides and leather. They make\r\nfeltcaps, household goods, weapons, saddles, bridles and agricultural\r\nimplements.\"\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_176\" id=\"Page_176\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-177.png\"\u003e176\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER VIII.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eTHE RISE OF THE STATE AMONG GERMANS.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Tacitus the German nation was very strong in numbers. An\r\napproximate idea of the strength of individual German nations is given\r\nby Caesar. He states that the number of Usipetans and Tencterans who\r\ncrossed over to the left bank of the Rhine amounted to 180,000,\r\nincluding women and children. About 100,000\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_30_30\" id=\"FNanchor_30_30\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_30_30\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[30]\u003c/a\u003e members to a single\r\nnation is considerably more than e. g. the Iroquois numbered in their\r\nprime, when 20,000 of them became the terror of the whole country, from\r\nthe Great Lakes to the Ohio and Potomac. If we attempt to place the\r\nbetter known nations of the Rhine country by the help of historical\r\nreports, we find that a single nation occupies on the map the average\r\narea of a Prussian government district, about 10,000 square\r\nkilometers\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_31_31\" id=\"FNanchor_31_31\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_31_31\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[31]\u003c/a\u003e or 182 German geographical square miles.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_32_32\" id=\"FNanchor_32_32\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_32_32\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[32]\u003c/a\u003e The Germania\r\nMagna of the Romans, reaching to the Vistula, comprised about 500,000\r\nsquare kilometers. Counting an average of 100,000\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_177\" id=\"Page_177\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-178.png\"\u003e177\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e for any single\r\nnation, the total population of Germania Magna would have amounted to\r\nfive millions. This is a rather high figure for a barbarian group of\r\nnations, although 10 inhabitants to the square kilometer or 550 to the\r\ngeographical square mile is very little when compared to present\r\nconditions. But this does not include the whole number of Germans then\r\nliving. We know that German nations of the Gothic race, Bastarnians,\r\nPeukinians and others, lived all along the Carpathian mountains away\r\ndown to the mouth of the Danube. They were so numerous that Pliny\r\ndesignated them as the fifth main division of the Germans. As much as\r\n180 years B. C. they were mercenaries of the Macedonian King Perseus,\r\nand during the first years of Augustus they were still pushing their way\r\nas far as the vicinity of Adrianople. Assuming them to have been one\r\nmillion strong we find that at least six millions was the probable\r\npopulation of Germany at the beginning of the Christian era.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the final settlement in Germany, the population must have grown\r\nwith increasing rapidity. The industrial progress mentioned above would\r\nbe sufficient to prove it. The objects found in the bogs of Sleswick, to\r\njudge by the Roman coins found with them, are from the third century.\r\nHence at that time the metal and textile industry was already well\r\ndeveloped on the Baltic, a lively traffic with the Roman empire was\r\ncarried on, and the wealthier class enjoyed a certain luxury\u0026mdash;all of\r\nwhich indicates that the population had increased. But at the same time\r\nthe general war of aggression against the Romans commenced along the\r\nwhole line of the Rhine, of the Roman wall and of the Danube, a line\r\nstretching from the North Sea to the Black Sea. This is another proof of\r\nthe ever growing outward pressure of the population. During the struggle\r\nwhich lasted three\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_178\" id=\"Page_178\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-179.png\"\u003e178\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e centuries, the whole main body of the Gothic\r\nnations, with the exception of the Scandinavian Goths and the\r\nBurgundians, marched to the Southeast and formed the left wing of the\r\nlong line of attack. The High Germans (Herminonians) on the Upper Danube\r\nfought in the center, and the Iskaevonians on the Rhine, now called\r\nFranks, advanced on the right wing. The conquest of Brittany fell to the\r\nlot of the Ingaevonians.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_33_33\" id=\"FNanchor_33_33\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_33_33\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[33]\u003c/a\u003e At the end of the fifth century, the\r\nexhausted, bloodless, and helpless Roman empire lay open to the Germans.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn former chapters we stood at the cradle of antique Greek and Roman\r\ncivilization. Now we are standing at its grave. The equalizing plane of\r\nRoman world power had been gliding for centuries over all the\r\nMediterranean countries. Where the Greek language did not offer any\r\nresistance, all national idioms had been crushed by a corrupted Latin.\r\nThere were no longer any distinctions of nationality, no more Gauls,\r\nIberians, Ligurians, Noricans; they had all become Romans. Roman\r\nadministration and Roman law had everywhere dissolved the old gentile\r\nbodies and thus crushed the last remnant of local and national\r\nindependence. The new type of Romans offered no compensation for this\r\nloss, for it did not express any nationality, but only the lack of a\r\nnationality. The elements for the formation of new nations were present\r\neverywhere. The Latin dialects of the different provinces differentiated\r\nmore and more. But the natural boundaries that had once made Italy,\r\nGaul, Spain, Africa independent territories, were still present and made\r\nthemselves felt. Yet there was no strength anywhere for combining\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_179\" id=\"Page_179\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-180.png\"\u003e179\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e these\r\nelements into new nations. Nowhere was there the least trace of any\r\ncapacity for development, nor any power of resistance, much less any\r\ncreative power. The immense human throng of that enormous territory was\r\nheld together by one bond alone: the Roman state. But this state had in\r\ntime become the worst enemy and oppressor of its subjects. The provinces\r\nhad ruined Rome. It had become a provincial town like all others,\r\nprivileged, but no longer ruling, no longer the center of the world\r\nempire, no longer even the seat of the emperors and subregents who lived\r\nin Constantinople, Treves and Milan. The Roman state had become an\r\nimmense complicated machine, designed exclusively for the exploitation\r\nof its subjects. Taxes, state imposts and tithes of all sorts drove the\r\nmass of the people deeper and deeper into poverty. By the blackmailing\r\npractices of the regents, tax collectors and soldiers, the pressure was\r\nincreased to such a point that it became insupportable. This was the\r\noutcome of Rome\u0027s world power. The right of the state to existence was\r\nfounded on the preservation of order in the interior and the protection\r\nagainst the barbarians outside. But this order was worse than the most\r\ndisgusting disorder, and the barbarians against whom the state pretended\r\nto protect its citizens, were hailed by them as saviors.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe condition of society was no less desperate. During the last years of\r\nthe republic, the Roman rulers had already contrived the pitiless\r\nexploitation of the conquered provinces. The emperors had not abolished,\r\nbut organized this exploitation. The more the empire fell to pieces, the\r\nhigher rose the taxes and tithes, and the more shamelessly did the\r\nofficials rob and blackmail. Commerce and industry had never been a\r\nstrong point of the domineering Romans. Only in usury they had excelled\r\nall other \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_180\" id=\"Page_180\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-181.png\"\u003e180\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003enations before and after them. What commerce had managed to\r\nexist, had been ruined by official extortion. Only in the East, in the\r\nGrecian part of the empire, some commerce still vegetated, but this is\r\noutside of the scope of our study. Universal reduction to poverty,\r\ndecrease of traffic, of handicrafts, of art, of population, decay of the\r\ntowns, return of agriculture to a lower stage\u0026mdash;that had been the final\r\nresult of Roman world supremacy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut now agriculture, the most prominent branch of production in the\r\nwhole Old World, was again supreme, and more than ever. In Italy, the\r\nimmense estates (latifundiae) that comprised nearly the whole country\r\nsince the end of the republic, had been utilized in two ways: either as\r\npastures on which the population had been replaced by sheep and oxen,\r\nthe care of which required only a few slaves; or as country seats, on\r\nwhich masses of slaves carried on horticulture on a large scale, partly\r\nfor the luxury of the owner, partly for sale on the markets of the\r\ntowns. The great pastures had been preserved and even extended in\r\ncertain parts. But the country seats and their horticulture had gone to\r\nruin through the impoverishment of their owners and the decay of the\r\ntowns. Latifundian economy based on slave labor was no longer\r\nprofitable; but in its time it had been the only possible form of\r\nagriculture on a large scale. Now, however, small production had again\r\nbecome the only lucrative form. One country seat after the other was\r\nparceled and leased in small lots to hereditary tenants who paid a fixed\r\nrent, or to partiarii, more administrators than tenants who received\r\none-sixth or even only one-ninth of a year\u0027s product in remuneration for\r\ntheir work. But these little lots were principally disposed of to\r\ncolonists who paid a fixed sum annually and could be transferred by sale\r\ntogether with their lots. Although no\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_181\" id=\"Page_181\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-182.png\"\u003e181\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e slaves, still these colonists\r\nwere not free; they could not marry free citizens, and marriages with\r\nmembers of their own class were not regarded as valid, but as mere\r\nconcubinages like those of the slaves. The colonists were the prototypes\r\nof the medieval serfs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe ancient slavery had lost its vitality. Neither in the country in\r\nlarge scale agriculture, nor in the manufactories of the towns did it\r\nyield any more returns\u0026mdash;the market for its products had disappeared. And\r\nsmall scale production and artisanship, to which the gigantic production\r\nof the flourishing time of the empire was now reduced, did not leave any\r\nroom for numerous slaves. Only house and luxury slaves of the rich were\r\nstill retained by society. But this declining slavery was as yet\r\nsufficiently strong to brand productive labor as slave work, as below\r\nthe dignity of free Romans; and everybody was now a free Roman. An\r\nincreasing number of superfluous slaves who had become a drug on their\r\nowners were dismissed, while on the other hand the number of colonists\r\nand of beggared free men (similar to the poor whites in the slave states\r\nof America) grew continuously. Christianity is perfectly innocent of\r\nthis gradual decline of ancient slavery. For it had taken part in the\r\nslavery of the Roman empire for centuries. It never prevented the slave\r\ntrade of Christians later on, neither of the Germans in the North, nor\r\nof the Venetians on the Mediterranean, nor the negro traffic of later\r\nyears.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_34_34\" id=\"FNanchor_34_34\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_34_34\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[34]\u003c/a\u003e Slavery died, because it did not pay any longer. But it left\r\nbehind its poisonous sting by branding as ignoble the productive labor\r\nof free men.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_182\" id=\"Page_182\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-183.png\"\u003e182\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e This brought the Roman world into a closed alley from\r\nwhich it could not escape. Slave labor was economically impossible and\r\nthe labor of free men was under a moral ban. The one could exist no\r\nlonger, the other could not yet be the fundamental form of social\r\nproduction. There was no other help but a complete revolution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe provinces were not any better off. The most complete reports on this\r\nsubject are from Gaul. By the side of the colonists, free farmers still\r\nexisted there. In order to protect themselves against the brutal\r\nblackmail of the officials, judges and usurers, they frequently placed\r\nthemselves under the protectorate of a man of influence and power. Not\r\nonly single individuals did so, but whole communities, so that the\r\nemperors of the fourth century often issued decrees prohibiting this\r\npractice. But what good did protection do to the clients? The patron\r\nimposed the condition that they should transfer the title of their lots\r\nto him, and in return he assured them of the free enjoyment of their\r\nland for life\u0026mdash;a trick which the holy church remembered and freely\r\nimitated during the ninth and tenth century, for the greater glory of\r\nGod. In the fifth century, however, about the year 475, Bishop Salvianus\r\nof Marseilles still vehemently denounced such robbery and relates that\r\nthe methods of the Roman officials and great landlords became so\r\noppressive that many \"Romans\" fled to the districts occupied by the\r\nbarbarians and feared nothing so much as a return under Roman rule. That\r\npoor parents frequently sold their children into slavery, is proved by a\r\nlaw forbidding this practice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn return for liberating the Romans from their own state, the barbarians\r\nappropriated two-thirds of the entire land and divided it among\r\nthemselves. The distribution was made by gentile rules. As the number of\r\nthe conquerors was relatively small, large\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_183\" id=\"Page_183\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-184.png\"\u003e183\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e tracts remained undivided in\r\nthe possession of the nation, the tribe or the gens. Every gens\r\ndistributed the land for cultivation and pastures to the individual\r\nhouseholds by drawing lots. We do not know whether repeated divisions\r\ntook place at that time. At any rate, this practice was soon discarded\r\nin the Roman provinces, and the individual lot became salable private\r\nproperty, a so-called freehold (allodium). Forests and pastures remained\r\nundivided for collective use. This use and the mode of cultivating the\r\ndivided land was regulated by tradition and the will of the community.\r\nThe longer the gens lived in its village, and the better Germans and\r\nRomans became amalgamated in the course of time, the more did the\r\ncharacter of kinship lose ground before territorial bounds. The gens\r\ndisappeared in the mark commune, the members of which, however, still\r\nexhibited traces of kinship. In the countries where mark communes were\r\nstill preserved\u0026mdash;in the North of France, in England, Germany and\r\nScandinavia\u0026mdash;the gentile constitution gradually merged into a local\r\nconstitution and thus acquired the capacity of being fitted into a\r\nstate. Nevertheless this local constitution retained some of the\r\nprimeval democratic character which distinguishes the whole gentile\r\norder, and thus preserved a piece of gentilism even in its enforced\r\ndegeneration of later times. This left a weapon in the hands of the\r\noppressed, ready to be wielded by them even in the present time.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe rapid loss of the bonds of blood in the gens as a result of conquest\r\ncaused the degeneration of the tribal and national organs of gentilism.\r\nWe know that the rule over subjugated people does not agree with the\r\ngentile constitution. Here we have an opportunity to observe this on a\r\nlarge scale. The German nations, masters of the Roman provinces, had to\r\norganize their conquests. But they could\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_184\" id=\"Page_184\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-185.png\"\u003e184\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e neither adopt the Romans as a\r\nbody into their gentes, nor rule them by the help of gentile organs. A\r\nsubstitute for them had to be placed at the head of the Roman\r\nadministrative bodies that were largely retained in local affairs, and\r\nthis substitute could only be another state. Hence the organs of the\r\ngentile constitution had to become organs of the state, and under the\r\npressure of the moment this took place very rapidly. Now the first\r\nrepresentative of the conquering nation was the military leader. The\r\ninternal and external security of the conquered territory demanded that\r\nhis power should be strengthened. The moment had arrived for the\r\ntransition from war leadership to monarchy. And the change took place.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTake e. g. the realm of the Franks. The victorious Salians had not only\r\ncome into possession of the extensive Roman state dominions, but also of\r\nall the large tracts that had not been assigned to the more or less\r\nsmall mark communities, especially of all large forest tracts. The first\r\nthing which the king of the Franks, now a real monarch, did was to\r\nchange this national property into royal property, to steal it from the\r\npeople and to donate or give it in lien to his retainers. This retinue,\r\noriginally composed of his personal war followers and of the\r\nsubcommanders of the army, was increased by Romans, i. e., romanized\r\nGauls who quickly became invaluable to the king through their knowledge\r\nof writing, their education and their familiarity with the language and\r\nlaws of the country, and with the language of Latin literature. But\r\nslaves, serfs and freed slaves also became his courtiers. From among all\r\nthese he chose his favorites. At first they received donations of public\r\nland, and later on these benefits were generally conferred for the\r\nlifetime of the king. The foundation of a new nobility was thus laid at\r\nthe expense of the people.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_185\" id=\"Page_185\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-186.png\"\u003e185\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut this was not all. The wide expanse of the empire could not be\r\ngoverned by means of the old gentile constitution. The council of\r\nchiefs, if it had not become obsolete long ago, could not have held any\r\nmore meetings. It was soon displaced by the standing retinue of the\r\nking. A pretense at the old public meeting was still kept up, but it\r\nalso was more and more limited to the meeting of the subcommanders of\r\nthe army and the rising nobles.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eJust as formerly, the Roman farmers during the last period of the\r\nrepublic, so now the free land-owning peasants, the mass of the Frank\r\npeople, were exhausted and reduced to penury by continual civil feuds\r\nand wars of conquest. They who once had formed the whole army and, after\r\nthe conquest of France, its picked body, were so impoverished at the end\r\nof the ninth century that hardly more than every fifth man could go to\r\nwar. The former army of free peasants, convoked directly by the king,\r\nwas replaced by an army composed of dependents of the new nobles. Among\r\nthese servants were also villeins, the descendants of the peasants who\r\nhad acknowledged no master but the king and a little earlier not even a\r\nking. Under Charlemagne\u0027s successors the ruin of the Frank peasantry was\r\naggravated by internal wars, weakness of the royal power and\r\ncorresponding overbearance of the nobles. The latter had received\r\nanother addition to their ranks through the installation by Charlemagne\r\nof \"Gau\"\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_35_35\" id=\"FNanchor_35_35\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_35_35\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[35]\u003c/a\u003e (district) counts who strove to make their offices\r\nhereditary. The invasions of the Normans completed the wreck of the\r\npeasantry. Fifty years after the death of Charlemagne, France lay as\r\nresistless at the feet of the Normans, as four hundred years \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_186\" id=\"Page_186\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-187.png\"\u003e186\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eprevious\r\nthe Roman empire had lain at the feet of the Franks.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eNot only was the external impotence almost the same, but also the\r\ninternal order or rather disorder of society. The free Frank peasants\r\nfound themselves in a similar position as their predecessors, the Roman\r\ncolonists. Ruined by wars and robberies, they had been forced to seek\r\nthe protection of the nobles or the church, because the royal power was\r\ntoo weak to shield them. But they had to pay dearly for this protection.\r\nLike the Gallic farmers, they had to transfer the titles of their land\r\nto their patrons, and received it back from them as tenants in different\r\nand varying forms, but always only in consideration of services and\r\ntithes. Once driven into this form of dependence, they gradually lost\r\ntheir individual liberty. After a few generations most of them became\r\nserfs. How rapidly the free peasants sank from their level is shown by\r\nthe land records of the abbey Saint Germain des Pr\u0026eacute;s, then near, now in,\r\nParis. On the vast holdings of this abbey in the surrounding country\r\n2788 households, nearly all of them Franks with German names, were\r\nliving at Charlemagne\u0027s time; 2080 of them were colonists, 35 lites,\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_36_36\" id=\"FNanchor_36_36\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_36_36\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[36]\u003c/a\u003e\r\n220 slaves and only 8 freeholders. The practice of the patrons to demand\r\nthe transfer of the land titles to themselves and give the former owners\r\nthe use of the land for life, denounced as ungodly by Salvianus, was now\r\nuniversally practiced by the Church in its dealings with the peasants.\r\nThe compulsory labor that now came more and more into vogue, had been\r\nmoulded as much after the Roman angariae, compulsory service for the\r\nstate, as after the services of the German mark men in bridge and road\r\nbuilding and other work for common \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_187\" id=\"Page_187\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-188.png\"\u003e187\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003epurposes. By all appearances, then,\r\nthe mass of the population had arrived at the same old goal after four hundred years.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThat proved two things: Firstly, that the social differentiation and the\r\ndivision of property in the sinking Roman empire corresponded perfectly\r\nto the contemporaneous stage of production in agriculture and industry,\r\nand hence was unavoidable; secondly, that this stage of production had\r\nnot been essentially altered for better or worse during four hundred\r\nyears, and therefore had necessarily produced the same division of\r\nproperty and the same classes of population. The town had lost its\r\nsupremacy over the country during the last centuries of the Roman\r\nempire, and had not regained it during the first centuries of German\r\nrule. This presupposes a low stage of agriculture and industry. Such a\r\ngeneral condition produces of necessity the domination of great\r\nproprietors and the dependence of small farmers. How impossible it was\r\nto graft either the slave labor of Roman latifundian economy or the\r\ncompulsory labor of the new large scale production into such a society,\r\nis proved by Charlemagne\u0027s very extensive experiments with his famous\r\nimperial country residences that left hardly a trace. These experiments\r\nwere continued only by the convents and brought results only for them.\r\nBut the convents were abnormal social institutions, founded on celibacy.\r\nThey could do exceptional work, but they had to remain exceptions\r\nthemselves for this very reason.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eYet some progress had been made during these four hundred years.\r\nAlthough in the end we find the same main classes as in the beginning,\r\nstill the human beings that made up these classes had changed. The\r\nancient slavery had disappeared; gone were also the beggared freemen who\r\nhad despised work as slavish. Between the Roman colonist and\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_188\" id=\"Page_188\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-189.png\"\u003e188\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the new\r\nserf, there had been the free Frank peasant. The \"useless remembrance\r\nand the vain feud\" of the decaying Roman nation was dead and gone. The\r\nsocial classes of the ninth century had been formed during the travail\r\nof a new civilization, not in the demoralization of a sinking one. The\r\nnew race, masters and servants, were a race of men as compared to their\r\nRoman predecessors. The relation of powerful landlords to serving\r\npeasants, which had been the unavoidable result of collapse in the\r\nantique world, was for the Franks the point of departure on a new line\r\nof development. Moreover, unproductive as these four hundred years may\r\nappear, they left behind one great product: the modern nationalities,\r\nthe reorganization and differentiation of West European humanity for the\r\ncoming history. The Germans had indeed infused a new life into Europe.\r\nTherefore the dissolution of the states in the German period did not end\r\nin a subjugation after the Norse-Saracene plan, but in a continued\r\ndevelopment of the estate of the royal beneficiaries and an increasing\r\nsubmission (commendatio) to feudalism, and in such a tremendous increase\r\nof the population, that no more than two centuries later the bloody\r\ndrain of the crusades could be sustained without injury.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat was the mysterious charm by which the Germans infused a new life\r\ninto decrepit Europe? Was it an innate magic power of the German race,\r\nas our jingo historians would have it? By no means. Of course, the\r\nGermans were a highly gifted Aryan branch and, especially at that time,\r\nin full process of vigorous development. They did not, however,\r\nrejuvenate Europe by their specific national properties, but simply by\r\ntheir barbarism, their gentile constitution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTheir personal efficiency and bravery, their love of liberty, and their\r\ndemocratic instinct which \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_189\" id=\"Page_189\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-190.png\"\u003e189\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eregarded all public affairs as its own\r\naffairs, in short all those properties which the Romans had lost and\r\nwhich were alone capable of forming new states and raising new\r\nnationalities out of the muck of the Roman world\u0026mdash;what were they but\r\ncharacteristic marks of the barbarians in the upper stage, fruits of the\r\ngentile constitution?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf they transformed the antique form of monogamy, mitigated the male\r\nrule in the family and gave a higher position to women than the classic\r\nworld had ever known, what enabled them to do so, unless it was their\r\nbarbarism, their gentile customs, their living inheritance of the time of maternal law?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf they could safely transmit a trace of the genuine gentile order, the\r\nmark communes, to the feudal states of at least three of the most\r\nimportant countries\u0026mdash;Germany, North of France, and England\u0026mdash;and thus\r\ngive a local coherence and the means of resistance to the oppressed\r\nclass, the peasants, even under the hardest medieval serfdom; means\r\nwhich neither the slaves of antiquity nor the modern proletarian found\r\nready at hand\u0026mdash;to whom did they owe this, unless it was again their\r\nbarbarism, their exclusively barbarian mode of settling in gentes?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd in conclusion, if they could develop and universally introduce the\r\nmild form of servitude which they had been practicing at home, and which\r\nmore and more displaced slavery also in the Roman empire\u0026mdash;to whom was it\r\ndue, unless it was again their barbarism, thanks to which they had not\r\nyet arrived at complete slavery, neither in the form of the ancient\r\nlabor slaves, nor in that of the oriental house slaves?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis milder form of servitude, as Fourier first stated, gave to the\r\noppressed the means of their gradual emancipation as a class (fournit\r\naux cultivateurs des moyens d\u0027affranchissement collectif et\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_190\" id=\"Page_190\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-191.png\"\u003e190\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e progressif)\r\nand is therefore far superior to slavery, which permits only the\r\nimmediate enfranchisement of the individual without any transitory\r\nstage. Antiquity did not know any abolition of slavery by rebellion, but\r\nthe serfs of the middle ages gradually enforced their liberation as a class.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eEvery vital and productive germ with which the Germans inoculated the\r\nRoman world, was due to barbarism. Indeed, only barbarians are capable\r\nof rejuvenating a world laboring under the death throes of unnerved\r\ncivilization. And the higher stage of barbarism, to which and in which\r\nthe Germans worked their way up previous to the migrations, was best\r\ncalculated to prepare them for this work. That explains everything.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTES:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_30_30\" id=\"Footnote_30_30\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_30_30\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[30]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe number assumed here is confirmed by a passage of Diodorus on the\r\nCelts of Gaul: \"Many nations of unequal strength are living in Gaul. The\r\nstrongest of them numbers about 200,000, the weakest 50,000.\" (Diodorus\r\nSiculus, V., 25.) That gives an average of 125,000. The individual\r\nnations of Gaul, being more highly developed, should be gauged more\r\nnumerous than those of Germany.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_31_31\" id=\"Footnote_31_31\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_31_31\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[31]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\n3861 square statute miles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_32_32\" id=\"Footnote_32_32\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_32_32\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[32]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e A German geographical mile contains 7,420.44 meters, or\r\n7.42044 kilometers; hence a German geographical square mile contains\r\n55.0629 square kilometers, equal to 21.2598 square statute miles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_33_33\" id=\"Footnote_33_33\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_33_33\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[33]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe Ingaevonians comprised the Friesians, the Saxons, the Jutes and the\r\nAngles, living on the coast of the North Sea from the Zuider Zee to\r\nDenmark.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_34_34\" id=\"Footnote_34_34\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_34_34\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[34]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nAccording to Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, the main industry of Verdun in\r\nthe tenth century, in the so-called Holy German Empire, was the\r\nmanufacture of eunuchs, who were exported with great profit to Spain for\r\nthe harems of the Moors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_35_35\" id=\"Footnote_35_35\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_35_35\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[35]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe \"Gau\" is a larger territory than the \"Mark.\" Caesar and Tacitus\r\ncalled it pagus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_36_36\" id=\"Footnote_36_36\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_36_36\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[36]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe name given in ancient law to dependent farmers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_191\" id=\"Page_191\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-192.png\"\u003e191\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch2\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCHAPTER IX.\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"smaller\"\u003eBARBARISM AND CIVILIZATION.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHaving observed the dissolution of the gentile order in the three\r\nconcrete cases of the Greek, Roman, and German nations, we may now\r\ninvestigate in conclusion the general economic conditions that began by\r\nundermining the gentile organization of society during the upper stage\r\nof barbarism and ended by doing away with it entirely at the advent of\r\ncivilization. Marx\u0027s \"Capital\" will be as necessary for the successful\r\ncompletion of this task as Morgan\u0027s \"Ancient Society.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eA growth of the middle stage and a product of further development during\r\nthe upper stage of savagery, the gens reached its prime, as near as we\r\ncan judge from our sources of information, in the lower stage of\r\nbarbarism. With this stage, then, we begin our investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn our standard example, the American redskins of that time, we find the\r\ngentile constitution fully developed. A tribe had differentiated into\r\nseveral gentes, generally two. Through the increase of the population,\r\nthese original gentes again divided into several daughter gentes, making\r\nthe mother gens a phratry. The tribe itself split up into several\r\ntribes, in each of which we again meet a large number of representatives\r\nof the old gentes. In certain cases a federation united the related\r\ntribes. This simple organization fully sufficed for the social\r\nconditions out of which it had grown. It was nothing else than the\r\ninnate, spontaneous expression of those conditions, and it was well\r\ncalculated to smooth over all internal difficulties that could arise in\r\nthis social\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_192\" id=\"Page_192\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-193.png\"\u003e192\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e organization. External difficulties were settled by war.\r\nSuch a war could end in the annihilation of a tribe, but never in its\r\nsubjugation. It is the grandeur and at the same time the limitation of\r\nthe gentile order that it has no room either for masters or servants.\r\nThere were as yet no distinctions between rights and duties. The\r\nquestion whether he had a right to take part in public affairs, to\r\npractice blood revenge or to demand atonement for injuries would have\r\nappeared as absurd to an Indian, as the question whether it was his duty\r\nto eat, sleep, and hunt. Nor could any division of a tribe or gens into\r\ndifferent classes take place. This leads us to the investigation of the\r\neconomic basis of those conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe population was very small in numbers. It was collected only on the\r\nterritory of the tribe. Next to this territory was the hunting ground\r\nsurrounding it in a wide circle. A neutral forest formed the line of\r\ndemarcation from other tribes. The division of labor was quite\r\nprimitive. The work was simply divided between the two sexes. The men\r\nwent to war, hunted, fished, provided the raw material for food and the\r\ntools necessary for these pursuits. The women cared for the house, and\r\nprepared food and clothing; they cooked, weaved and sewed. Each sex was\r\nmaster of its own field of activity; the men in the forest, the women in\r\nthe house. Each sex also owned the tools made and used by it; the men\r\nwere the owners of the weapons, of the hunting and fishing tackle, the\r\nwomen of the household goods and utensils. The household was\r\ncommunistic, comprising several, and often many, families.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_37_37\" id=\"FNanchor_37_37\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_37_37\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[37]\u003c/a\u003e Whatever\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_193\" id=\"Page_193\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-194.png\"\u003e193\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nwas produced and used collectively, was regarded as common property: the\r\nhouse, the garden, the long boat. Here, and only here, then, do we find\r\nthe \"self-earned property\" which jurists and economists have falsely\r\nattributed to civilized society, the last deceptive pretext of legality\r\non which modern capitalist property is leaning.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut humanity did not everywhere remain in this stage. In Asia they found\r\nanimals that could be tamed and propagated in captivity. The wild\r\nbuffalo cow had to be hunted down; the tame cow gave birth to a calf\r\nonce a year, and also furnished milk. Some of the most advanced\r\ntribes\u0026mdash;Aryans, Semites, perhaps also Turanians\u0026mdash;devoted themselves\r\nmainly to taming, and later to raising and tending, domestic animals.\r\nThe segregation of cattle raising tribes from the rest of the barbarians\r\nconstitutes the first great division of social labor. These stock\r\nraising tribes did not only produce more articles of food than the rest\r\nof the barbarians, but also different kinds of products. They were ahead\r\nof the others by having at their disposal not alone milk, milk products,\r\nand a greater abundance of meat, but also skins, wool, goat\u0027s hair, and\r\nthe spun and woven goods which the growing abundance of the raw material\r\nbrought into common use. This for the first time made a regular exchange\r\nof products possible. In former stages, exchange could only take place\r\noccasionally, and an exceptional ability in manufacturing weapons and\r\ntools may have led to a transient division of labor. For example,\r\nunquestionable remains of workshops for stone implements of the\r\nneolithic period have been found in many places. The artists who\r\ndeveloped their ability in those shops, most probably worked for the\r\ncollectivity, as did the artisans of the Indian gentile order. At any\r\nrate, no other exchange than that within the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_194\" id=\"Page_194\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-195.png\"\u003e194\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e tribe could exist in that\r\nstage, and even that was an exception. But after the segregation of the\r\nstock raising tribes we find all the conditions favorable to an exchange\r\nbetween groups of different tribes, and to a further development of this\r\nmode of trading into a fixed institution. Originally, tribe exchanged\r\nwith tribe through the agency of their tribal heads. But when the herds\r\ndrifted into the hands of private individuals, then the exchange between\r\nindividuals prevailed more and more, until it became the established\r\nform. The principal article of exchange which the stock raising tribes\r\noffered to their neighbors was in the form of domestic animals. Cattle\r\nbecame the favorite commodity by which all other commodities were\r\nmeasured in exchange. In short, cattle assumed the functions of money\r\nand served in this capacity as early as that stage. With such necessity\r\nand rapidity was the demand for a money commodity developed at the very\r\nbeginning of the exchange of commodities.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHorticulture, probably unknown to the Asiatic barbarians of the lower\r\nstage, arose not later than the middle stage of barbarism, as the\r\nforerunner of agriculture. The climate of the Turanian Highland does not\r\nadmit of a nomadic life without a supply of stock feed for the long and\r\nhard winter. Hence the cultivation of meadows and grain was\r\nindispensable. The same is true of the steppes north of the Black Sea.\r\nOnce grain had been grown for cattle, it soon became human food. The\r\ncultivated land belonged as yet to the tribe and was assigned first to\r\nthe gens, which in its turn distributed it to the households, and\r\nfinally to individuals; always for use only, not for possession. The\r\nusers may have had certain claims to the land, but that was all.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTwo of the industrial acquisitions of this stage are especially\r\nimportant. The first is the weaving\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_195\" id=\"Page_195\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-196.png\"\u003e195\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e loom, the second the melting of\r\nmetal ore and the use of metals in manufacture. Copper, tin, and their\r\nalloy, bronze, were the most essential of them. Bronze furnished tools\r\nand weapons, but could not displace stone implements. Only iron could\r\nhave done that, but the production of iron was as yet unknown. Gold and\r\nsilver were already used for ornament and decoration, and must have been\r\nfar more precious than copper and bronze.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe increase of production in all branches\u0026mdash;stock raising, agriculture,\r\ndomestic handicrafts\u0026mdash;enabled human labor power to produce more than was\r\nnecessary for its maintenance. It increased at the same time the amount\r\nof daily work that fell to the lot of every member of a gens, a\r\nhousehold, or a single family. The addition of more labor power became\r\ndesirable. It was furnished by war; the captured enemies were\r\ntransformed into slaves. Under the given historical conditions, the\r\nfirst great division of social labor, by increasing the productivity of\r\nlabor, adding to the wealth, and enlarging the field of productive\r\nactivity, necessarily carried slavery in its wake. Out of the first\r\ngreat division of social labor arose the first great division of society\r\ninto two classes: masters and servants, exploiters and exploited.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHow and when the herds were transferred from the collective ownership of\r\nthe tribe or gens to the proprietorship of the heads of the families, is\r\nnot known to us. But it must have been practically accomplished in this\r\nstage. The herds and the other new objects of wealth brought about a\r\nrevolution in the family. Procuring the means of existence had always\r\nbeen the man\u0027s business. The tools of production were manufactured and\r\nowned by him. The herds were the new tools of production, and their\r\ntaming and tending was his work. Hence he owned\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_196\" id=\"Page_196\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-197.png\"\u003e196\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the cattle and the\r\ncommodities and slaves obtained in exchange for them. All the surplus\r\nnow resulting from production fell to the share of the man. The woman\r\nshared in its fruition, but she could not claim its ownership. The\r\n\"savage\" warrior and hunter had been content to occupy the second place\r\nin the house, to give precedence to the woman. The \"gentler\" shepherd,\r\nstanding on his wealth, assumed the first place and forced the woman\r\nback into the second place. And she had no occasion to complain. The\r\ndivision of labor in the family had regulated the distribution of\r\nproperty between man and wife. This division of labor remained\r\nunchanged. Yet the former domestic relation was now reversed, simply\r\nbecause the division of labor outside of the family had been altered.\r\nThe same cause that once had secured the supremacy in the house for\r\nwomen, viz., the confining of women\u0027s activity to domestic labor, now\r\nassured the supremacy of the men in the households. The domestic labor\r\nof women was considered insignificant in comparison to men\u0027s work for a\r\nliving. The latter was everything, the former a negligible quantity. At\r\nthis early stage we can already see that the emancipation of women and\r\ntheir equality with men are impossible and remain so, as long as women\r\nare excluded from social production and restricted to domestic labor.\r\nThe emancipation of women becomes feasible only then when women are\r\nenabled to take part extensively in social production, and when domestic\r\nduties require their attention in a minor degree. This state of things\r\nwas brought about by the modern great industries, which not only admit\r\nof women\u0027s liberal participation in production, but actually call for it\r\nand, besides, endeavor to transform domestic work also into a public industry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eMan\u0027s advent to practical supremacy in the \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_197\" id=\"Page_197\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-198.png\"\u003e197\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003ehousehold marked the removal\r\nof the last barrier to his universal supremacy. His unlimited rule was\r\nemphasized and endowed with continuity by the downfall of matriarchy,\r\nthe introduction of patriarchy, and the gradual transition from the\r\npairing family to the monogamic family. This made a breach in the old\r\ngentile order. The monogamic family became a power and lifted a\r\nthreatening hand against the gens.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe next step brings us to the upper stage of barbarism, that period in\r\nwhich all nations of civilization go through their heroic era. It is the\r\ntime of the iron sword, but also of the iron plow share and axe. The\r\niron had become the servant of man. It is the last and most important of\r\nall raw products that play a revolutionary role in history; the last\u0026mdash;if\r\nwe except the potato.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIron brought about agriculture on a larger scale and the clearing of\r\nextensive forest tracts for cultivation. It gave to the craftsman a tool\r\nof such hardness and sharpness that no stone, no other known metal,\r\ncould withstand it. All this came about gradually. The first iron was\r\noften softer than bronze. Therefore stone implements disappeared very\r\nslowly. Not only in the Hildebrand Song, but also at Hastings in 1066,\r\nstone axes were still used in fighting. But progress was now\r\nirresistible, less interrupted and more rapid. The town, inclosing\r\nhouses of stone or tiles within its turreted and crested stone walls,\r\nbecame the central seat of the tribe or federation of tribes. It showed\r\nan astounding progress of architecture, but also an increase of danger\r\nand of the demand for protection. Wealth increased rapidly, but it was\r\nthe wealth of private individuals. Weaving, metal work and other more\r\nand more differentiating industries developed an increasing variety and\r\ndisplay of art in \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_198\" id=\"Page_198\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-199.png\"\u003e198\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eproduction. Agriculture furnished not alone grain,\r\npeas, beans and fruit, but also oil and wine, the preparation of which\r\nhad now been learned. Such a diversity of action could not be displayed\r\nby any single individual. The second great division of labor took place:\r\nhandicrafts separated from agriculture. The growing intensity of\r\nproduction and the increased productivity enhanced the value of human\r\nlabor power. Slavery, which had been a rising and sporadic factor in the\r\npreceding stage, now became an essential part of the social system. The\r\nslaves ceased to be simple assistants. They were now driven in scores to\r\nthe work in the fields and shops. The division of production into two\r\ngreat branches, agriculture and handicrafts, gave rise to production for\r\nexchange, the production of commodities. Trade arose at the same time,\r\nnot only in the interior and on the tribal boundaries, but also in the\r\nform of maritime exchange. All this was as yet in a very undeveloped\r\nstate. The precious metals gained preference as a universal money\r\ncommodity, but still uncoined and exchanged merely by dead weight.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe distinction between rich and poor was added to that between free men\r\nand slaves. This and the new division of labor constitute a new division\r\nof society into classes. The differences in the amount of property\r\nbelonging to the several family heads broke up the old communistic\r\nhouseholds one by one, wherever they might have been preserved thus far.\r\nThis made an end to the collective cultivation of the soil for the\r\naccount of the community. The cultivated land was assigned for use to\r\nthe several families, first for a limited time, later for once and all.\r\nThe transition to full private property was accomplished gradually and\r\nsimultaneously with the transition from the pairing family to monogamy.\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_199\" id=\"Page_199\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-200.png\"\u003e199\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe monogamous family began to be the economic unit of society.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe increase of population necessitated a closer consolidation against\r\ninternal and external foes. The federation of related tribes became\r\nunavoidable. Their amalgamation, and thence the amalgamation of the\r\nseparate tribal territories to one national territory, was the following\r\nstep. The military leader\u0026mdash;rex, basileus, thiudans\u0026mdash;became an\r\nindispensable and standing official. The public meeting was introduced\r\nwherever it did not yet exist. The military leader, the council of\r\nchiefs, and the public meeting formed the organs of the military\r\ndemocracy that had grown out of the gentile constitution. Military\r\ndemocracy\u0026mdash;for now war and organization for war were regular functions\r\nof social life. The wealth of the neighbors excited the greed of nations\r\nthat began to regard the acquisition of wealth as one of the main\r\npurposes of their life. They were barbarians: robbing appeared to them\r\neasier and more honorable than producing. War, once simply a revenge for\r\ntransgressions or a means for enlarging a territory that had become too\r\nnarrow, was now waged for the sake of plunder alone and became a regular\r\nprofession. Not in vain did threatening walls cast a rigid stare all\r\naround the new fortified towns: their yawning ditches were the tomb of\r\nthe gentile constitution, and their turrets already reached up into\r\ncivilization. The internal affairs underwent a similar change. The\r\nplundering wars increased the power of the military leader and of the\r\nsubcommanders. The habitual election of the successors from the same\r\nfamily was gradually transformed into hereditary succession, first by\r\nsufferance, then by claim, and finally by usurpation. Thus the\r\nfoundation of hereditary royalty and nobility was laid. In this manner\r\nthe organs of the gentile constitution\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_200\" id=\"Page_200\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-201.png\"\u003e200\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e were gradually torn away from\r\ntheir roots in the nation, tribe, phratry and gens, and the whole\r\ngentile order reversed into its antithesis. The organization of tribes\r\nfor the purpose of the free administration of affairs was turned into an\r\norganization for plundering and oppressing their neighbors. The organs\r\nof gentilism changed from servants of the public will to independent\r\norgans of rule oppressing their own people. This could not have\r\nhappened, if the greed for wealth had not divided the gentiles into rich\r\nand poor; if the \"difference of property in a gens had not changed the\r\ncommunity of interest into antagonism of the gentiles\" (Karl Marx); and\r\nif the extension of slavery had not begun by branding work for a living\r\nas slavish and more ignominious than plundering.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have now reached the threshold of civilization. This stage is\r\ninaugurated by a new progress in the division of labor. In the lower\r\nstage of barbarism production was carried on for use only; any acts of\r\nexchange were confined to single cases when a surplus was accidentally\r\nrealized. In the middle stage of barbarism we find that the possession\r\nof cattle gave a regular surplus to the nomadic nations with\r\nsufficiently large herds. At the same time there was a division of labor\r\nbetween nomadic nations and backward nations without herds. The\r\nexistence of two different stages of production side by side furnished\r\nthe conditions necessary for a regular exchange. The upper stage of\r\nbarbarism introduced a new division of labor between agriculture and\r\nhandicrafts, resulting in the production of a continually increasing\r\namount of commodities for the special purpose of exchange, so that\r\nexchange between individuals became a vital function of society.\r\nCivilization strengthened and intensified all the established\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_201\" id=\"Page_201\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-202.png\"\u003e201\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e divisions\r\nof labor, especially by rendering the contrast between city and country\r\nmore pronounced. Either the town may have the economic control over the\r\ncountry, as during antiquity, or vice versa, as in the middle ages. A\r\nthird division of labor was added by civilization: it created a class\r\nthat did not take part in production, but occupied itself merely with\r\nthe exchange of products\u0026mdash;the merchants. All former attempts at class\r\nformation were exclusively concerned with production. They divided the\r\nproducers into directors and directed, or into producers on a more or\r\nless extensive scale. But here a class appears for the first time that\r\ncaptures the control of production in general and subjugates the\r\nproducers to its rule, without taking the least part in production. A\r\nclass that makes itself the indispensable mediator between two producers\r\nand exploits them both under the pretext of saving them the trouble and\r\nrisk of exchange, of extending the markets for their products to distant\r\nregions, and of thus becoming the most useful class in society; a class\r\nof parasites, genuine social ichneumons, that skim the cream off\r\nproduction at home and abroad as a reward for very insignificant\r\nservices; that rapidly amass enormous wealth and gain social influence\r\naccordingly; that for this reason reap ever new honors and ever greater\r\ncontrol of production during the period of civilization, until they at\r\nlast bring to light a product of their own\u0026mdash;periodical crises in industry.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt the stage of production under discussion, our young merchant class\r\nhad no inkling as yet of the great future that was in store for them.\r\nBut they continued to organize, to make themselves invaluable, and that\r\nwas sufficient for the moment. At the same time metal coins came into\r\nuse, and through them a new device for controlling the producers and\r\ntheir products. The commodity of commodities that was\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_202\" id=\"Page_202\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-203.png\"\u003e202\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e hiding all other\r\ncommodities in its mysterious bosom had been discovered, a charm that\r\ncould be transformed at will into any desirable or coveted thing.\r\nWhoever held it in his possession had the world of production at his\r\ncommand. And who had it above all others? The merchant. In his hands the\r\ncult of money was safe. He took care to make it plain that all\r\ncommodities, and hence all producers, must prostrate themselves in\r\nadoration before money. He proved by practice that all other forms of\r\nwealth are reduced to thin wraiths before this personification of\r\nriches. Never again did the power of money show itself in such\r\nprimordial brutality and violence as in its youthful days. After the\r\nsale of commodities for money came the borrowing of money, resulting in\r\ninterest and usury. And no legislation of any later period stretches the\r\ndebtor so mercilessly at the feet of the speculating creditor as the\r\nantique Grecian and Roman codes\u0026mdash;both of them spontaneous products of\r\nhabit, without any other than economic pressure.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe wealth in commodities and slaves was now further increased by large\r\nholdings in land. The titles of the individuals to the lots of land\r\nformerly assigned to them by the gens or tribe had become so well\r\nestablished, that these lots were now owned and inherited. What the\r\nindividuals had most desired of late was the liberation from the claim\r\nof the gentiles to their lots, a claim which had become a veritable\r\nfetter for them. They were rid of this fetter\u0026mdash;but soon after they were\r\nalso rid of their lots. The full, free ownership of the soil implied not\r\nonly the possibility of uncurtailed possession, but also of selling the\r\nsoil. As long as the soil belonged to the gens, this was impossible. But\r\nwhen the new land owner shook off the chains of the priority claim of\r\nthe gens and tribe, he also tore the bond that had so\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_203\" id=\"Page_203\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-204.png\"\u003e203\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e long tied him\r\nindissolubly to the soil. What that meant was impressed on him by the\r\nmoney invented simultaneously with the advent of private property in\r\nland. The soil could now become a commodity to be bought and sold.\r\nHardly had private ownership of land been introduced, when the mortgage\r\nput in its appearance (see Athens). As hetaerism and prostitution clung\r\nto the heels of monogamy, so does from now on the mortgage to private\r\nownership in land. You have clamored for free, full, saleable land.\r\nWell, then, there you have it\u0026mdash;tu l\u0027as voulu, Georges Dandin; it was\r\nyour own wish, George Dandin.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIndustrial expansion, money, usury, private land, and mortgage thus\r\nprogressed with the concentration and centralization of wealth in the\r\nhands of a small class, accompanied by the increasing impoverishment of\r\nthe masses and the increasing mass of paupers. The new aristocracy of\r\nwealth, so far as it did not coincide with the old tribal nobility,\r\nforced the latter permanently into the background (in Athens, in Rome,\r\namong the Germans). And this division of free men into classes according\r\nto their wealth was accompanied, especially in Greece, by an enormous\r\nincrease in the number of slaves\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_38_38\" id=\"FNanchor_38_38\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_38_38\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[38]\u003c/a\u003e whose forced labor formed the basis\r\non which the whole superstructure of society was reared.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us now see what became of the gentile constitution through this\r\nrevolution of society. Gentilism stood powerless in the face of the new\r\nelements that had grown without its assistance. It was dependent on the\r\ncondition that the members of a gens, or of a tribe, should live\r\ntogether in the same territory and be its exclusive inhabitants. That\r\nhad long ceased\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_204\" id=\"Page_204\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-205.png\"\u003e204\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e to be the case. Gentes and tribes were everywhere\r\nhopelessly intermingled, slaves, clients, and foreigners lived among\r\ncitizens. The capacity for settling down permanently which had only been\r\nacquired near the end of the middle stage of barbarism, was time and\r\nagain sidetracked by the necessity of changing the abode according to\r\nthe dictates of commerce, different occupations and the transfer of\r\nland. The members of the gentile organizations could no longer meet for\r\nthe purpose of taking care of their common interests. Only matters of\r\nlittle importance, such as religious festivals, were still observed in\r\nan indifferent way. Beside the wants and interests for the care of which\r\nthe gentile organs were appointed and fitted, new wants and interests\r\nhad arisen from the revolution of the conditions of existence and the\r\nresulting change in social classification. These new wants and interests\r\nwere not only alien to the old gentile order, but thwarted it in every\r\nway. The interests of the craftsmen created by division of labor, and\r\nthe special necessities of a town differing from those of the country,\r\nrequired new organs. But every one of these groups was composed of\r\npeople from different gentes, phratries, and tribes; they included even\r\nstrangers. Hence the new organs necessarily had to form outside of the\r\ngentile constitution. But by the side of it meant against it. And again,\r\nin every gentile organization the conflict of interests made itself felt\r\nand reached its climax by combining rich and poor, usurers and debtors,\r\nin the same gens and tribe. There was furthermore the mass of\r\ninhabitants who were strangers to the gentiles. These strangers could\r\nbecome very powerful, as in Rome, and they were too numerous to be\r\ngradually absorbed by the gentes and tribes. The gentiles confronted\r\nthese masses as a compact body of privileged individuals. What had once\r\nbeen a \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_205\" id=\"Page_205\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-206.png\"\u003e205\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003enatural democracy, had been transformed into an odious\r\naristocracy. The gentile constitution had grown out of a society that\r\ndid not know any internal contradictions, and it was only adapted to\r\nsuch a society. It had no co\u0026euml;rcive power except public opinion. But now\r\na society had developed that by force of all its economic conditions of\r\nexistence divided humanity into freemen and slaves, and exploiting rich\r\nand exploited poor. A society that not only could never reconcile these\r\ncontradictions, but drove them ever more to a climax. Such a society\r\ncould only exist by a continual open struggle of all classes against one\r\nanother, or under the supremacy of a third power that under a pretense\r\nof standing above the struggling classes stifled their open conflict and\r\npermitted a class struggle only on the economic field, in a so-called\r\n\"legal\" form. Gentilism had ceased to live. It was crushed by the\r\ndivision of labor and by its result, the division of society into\r\nclasses. It was replaced by the State.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn preceding chapters we have shown by three concrete examples the three\r\nmain forms in which the state was built up on the ruins of gentilism.\r\nAthens represented the simplest, the classic type: the state grew\r\ndirectly and mainly out of class divisions that developed within gentile\r\nsociety. In Rome the gentile organization became an exclusive\r\naristocracy amid a numerous plebs of outsiders who had only duties, but\r\nno rights. The victory of the plebs burst the old gentile order asunder\r\nand erected on its remains the state which soon engulfed both gentile\r\naristocracy and plebs. Finally, among the German conquerors of the Roman\r\nempire, the state grew as a direct result of the conquest of large\r\nforeign territories which the gentile constitution was powerless to\r\ncontrol. But this conquest did not necessitate either\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_206\" id=\"Page_206\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-207.png\"\u003e206\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e a serious fight\r\nwith the former population or a more advanced division of labor.\r\nConquerors and conquered were almost in the same stage of economic\r\ndevelopment, so that the economic basis of society remained undisturbed.\r\nHence gentilism could preserve for many centuries an unchanged\r\nterritorial character in the form of mark communes, and even rejuvenate\r\nitself in the nobility and patrician families of later years, or in the\r\npeasantry, as e. g. in Dithmarsia.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_39_39\" id=\"FNanchor_39_39\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_39_39\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[39]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe state, then, is by no means a power forced on society from outside;\r\nneither is it the \"realization of the ethical idea,\" \"the image and the\r\nrealization of reason,\" as Hegel maintains. It is simply a product of\r\nsociety at a certain stage of evolution. It is the confession that this\r\nsociety has become hopelessly divided against itself, has entangled\r\nitself in irreconcilable contradictions which it is powerless to banish.\r\nIn order that these contradictions, these classes with conflicting\r\neconomic interests, may not annihilate themselves and society in a\r\nuseless struggle, a power becomes necessary that stands apparently above\r\nsociety and has the function of keeping down the conflicts and\r\nmaintaining \"order.\" And this power, the outgrowth of society, but\r\nassuming supremacy over it and becoming more and more divorced from it, is the state.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe state differs from gentilism in that it first divides its members by\r\nterritories. As we have seen, the old bonds of blood kinship uniting the\r\ngentile bodies had become inefficient, because they were dependent on\r\nthe condition, now no longer a fact, that all gentiles should live on a\r\ncertain territory. The\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_207\" id=\"Page_207\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-208.png\"\u003e207\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e territory was the same; but the human beings had\r\nchanged. Hence the division by territories was chosen as the point of\r\ndeparture, and citizens had to exercise their rights and duties wherever\r\nthey chose their abode without regard to gens and tribe. This\r\norganization of inhabitants by localities is a common feature of all\r\nstates. It seems natural to us now. But we have seen what long and hard\r\nfighting was required before it could take, in Athens and Rome, the\r\nplace of the old organization by blood kinship.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the second place, the state created a public power of co\u0026euml;rcion that\r\ndid no longer coincide with the old self-organized and armed population.\r\nThis special power of co\u0026euml;rcion is necessary, because a self-organized\r\narmy of the people has become impossible since the division of society\r\ninto classes took place. For the slaves belonged also to society. The\r\n90,000 citizens of Athens formed only a privileged class compared to the\r\n365,000 slaves. The popular army of the Athenian democracy was an\r\naristocratic public power designed to keep the slaves down. But we have\r\nseen that a police force became also necessary to maintain order among\r\nthe citizens. This public power of co\u0026euml;rcion exists in every state. It is\r\nnot composed of armed men alone, but has also such objects as prisons\r\nand correction houses attached to it, that were unknown to gentilism. It\r\nmay be very small, almost infinitesimal, in societies with feebly\r\ndeveloped class antagonisms and in out of the way places, as was once\r\nthe case in certain regions of the United States. But it increases in\r\nthe same ratio in which the class antagonisms become more pronounced,\r\nand in which neighboring states become larger and more populous. A\r\nconspicuous example is modern Europe, where the class struggles and wars\r\nof conquest have nursed the public power to such a size that it\r\nthreatens to swallow the whole society and the state itself.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_208\" id=\"Page_208\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-209.png\"\u003e208\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to maintain this public power, contributions of the citizens\r\nbecome necessary\u0026mdash;the taxes. These were absolutely unknown in gentile\r\nsociety. But to-day we get our full measure of them. As civilization\r\nmakes further progress, these taxes are no longer sufficient to cover\r\npublic expenses. The state makes drafts on the future, contracts loans,\r\npublic debts. Old Europe can tell a story of them.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn possession of the public power and of the right of taxation, the\r\nofficials in their capacity as state organs are now exalted above\r\nsociety. The free and voluntary respect that was accorded to the organs\r\nof gentilism does not satisfy them any more, even if they might have it.\r\nRepresentatives of a power that is divorced from society, they must\r\nenforce respect by exceptional laws that render them specially sacred\r\nand inviolable.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_40_40\" id=\"FNanchor_40_40\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_40_40\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[40]\u003c/a\u003e The lowest police employee of the civilized state\r\nhas more \"authority\" than all the organs of gentilism combined. But the\r\nmightiest prince and the greatest statesman or general of civilization\r\nmay look with envy on the spontaneous and undisputed esteem that was the\r\nprivilege of the least gentile sachem. The one stands in the middle of\r\nsociety, the other is forced to assume a position outside and above it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe state is the result of the desire to keep down class conflicts. But\r\nhaving arisen amid these conflicts, it is as a rule the state of the\r\nmost powerful economic class that by force of its economic supremacy\r\nbecomes also the ruling political class and thus acquires new means of\r\nsubduing and exploiting the oppressed masses. The antique state was,\r\ntherefore, the state of the slave owners for the purpose of \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_209\" id=\"Page_209\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-210.png\"\u003e209\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eholding the\r\nslaves in check. The feudal state was the organ of the nobility for the\r\noppression of the serfs and dependent farmers. The modern representative\r\nstate is the tool of the capitalist exploiters of wage labor. At certain\r\nperiods it occurs exceptionally that the struggling classes balance each\r\nother so nearly that the public power gains a certain degree of\r\nindependence by posing as the mediator between them. The absolute\r\nmonarchy of the seventeenth and eighteenth century was in such a\r\nposition, balancing the nobles and the burghers against one another. So\r\nwas the Bonapartism of the first, and still more of the second, empire,\r\nplaying the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and vice versa. The\r\nlatest performance of this kind, in which ruler and ruled appear equally\r\nridiculous, is the new German empire of Bismarckian make, in which\r\ncapitalists and laborers are balanced against one another and equally\r\ncheated for the benefit of the degenerate Prussian cabbage junkers.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_41_41\" id=\"FNanchor_41_41\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_41_41\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[41]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn most of the historical states, the rights of the citizens are\r\ndifferentiated according to their wealth. This is a direct confirmation\r\nof the fact that the state is organized for the protection of the\r\npossessing against the non-possessing classes. The Athenian and Roman\r\nclassification by incomes shows this. It is also seen in the medieval\r\nstate of feudalism in which the political power depended on the quantity\r\nof real estate. It is again seen in the electoral qualifications of the\r\nmodern representative state. The political recognition of the\r\ndifferences in wealth is by no means essential. On the contrary, it\r\nmarks a low stage of state development. The highest form of the state,\r\nthe democratic republic, knows officially \u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_210\" id=\"Page_210\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-211.png\"\u003e210\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003enothing of property\r\ndistinctions.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_42_42\" id=\"FNanchor_42_42\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_42_42\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[42]\u003c/a\u003e It is that form of the state which under modern\r\nconditions of society becomes more and more an unavoidable necessity.\r\nThe last decisive struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie can only\r\nbe fought out under this state form.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_43_43\" id=\"FNanchor_43_43\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_43_43\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[43]\u003c/a\u003e In such a state, wealth exerts\r\nits power indirectly, but all the more safely. This is done partly in\r\nthe form of direct corruption of officials, after the classical type of\r\nthe United States, or in the form of an alliance between government and\r\nbankers which is established all the more easily when the public debt\r\nincreases and when corporations concentrate in their hands not only the\r\nmeans of transportation, but also production itself, using the stock\r\nexchange as a center. The United States and the latest French republic\r\nare striking examples, and good old Switzerland has contributed its\r\nshare to illustrate this point. That a democratic republic is not\r\nnecessary for this fraternal bond between stock exchange and government\r\nis proved by England and last, not least, Germany, where it is doubtful\r\nwhether Bismarck or Bleichroeder was more favored by the introduction of\r\nuniversal suffrage.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_44_44\" id=\"FNanchor_44_44\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_44_44\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[44]\u003c/a\u003e The possessing class rules\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_211\" id=\"Page_211\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-212.png\"\u003e211\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e directly through\r\nuniversal suffrage. For as long as the oppressed class, in this case the\r\nproletariat, is not ripe for its economic emancipation, just so long\r\nwill its majority regard the existing order of society as the only one\r\npossible, and form the tail, the extreme left wing, of the capitalist\r\nclass. But the more the proletariat matures toward its\r\nself-emancipation, the more does it constitute itself as a separate\r\nclass and elect its own representatives in place of the capitalists.\r\nUniversal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It\r\ncan and will never be anything else but that in the modern state. But\r\nthat is sufficient. On the day when the thermometer of universal\r\nsuffrage reaches its boiling point among the laborers, they as well as\r\nthe capitalists will know what to do.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe state, then, did not exist from all eternity. There have been\r\nsocieties without it, that had no idea of any state or public power. At\r\na certain stage of economic development, which was of necessity\r\naccompanied by a division of society into classes, the state became the\r\ninevitable result of this division. We are now rapidly approaching a\r\nstage of evolution in production, in which the existence of classes has\r\nnot only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive fetter on\r\nproduction. Hence these classes must fall as inevitably as they once\r\narose. The state must irrevocably fall with them. The society that is to\r\nreorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of\r\nthe producers, will transfer the machinery of state where it will then\r\nbelong: into the\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_212\" id=\"Page_212\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-213.png\"\u003e212\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e Museum of Antiquities by the side of the spinning\r\nwheel and the bronze ax.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr class=\"smler\" /\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eCivilization is, as we have seen, that stage of society, in which the\r\ndivision of labor, the resulting exchange between individuals, and the\r\nproduction of commodities combining them, reach their highest\r\ndevelopment and revolutionize the whole society.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe production of all former stages of society was mainly collective,\r\nand consumption was carried on by direct division of products within\r\nmore or less small communes. This collective production was confined\r\nwithin the narrowest limits. But it implied the control of production\r\nand of the products by the producers. They knew what became of their\r\nproduct: it did not leave their hands until it was consumed by them. As\r\nlong as production moved on this basis, it could not grow beyond the\r\ncontrol of the producers, and it could not create any strange ghostly\r\nforces against them. Under civilization, however, this is the inevitable rule.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eInto the simple process of production, the division of labor was\r\ngradually interpolated. It undermined the communism of production and\r\nconsumption, it made the appropriation of products by single individuals\r\nthe prevailing rule, and thus introduced the exchange between\r\nindividuals, in the manner mentioned above. Gradually, the production of\r\ncommodities became the rule.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis mode of production for exchange, not for home consumption,\r\nnecessarily passes the products on from hand to hand. The producer gives\r\nhis product away in exchange. He does no longer know what becomes of it.\r\nWith the advent of money and of the trader who steps in as a middleman\r\nbetween the producers, the process of exchange becomes still more\r\ncomplicated. The fate of the products becomes still more\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_213\" id=\"Page_213\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-214.png\"\u003e213\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e uncertain. The\r\nnumber of merchants is great and one does not know what the other is\r\ndoing. The products now pass not only from hand to hand, but also from\r\nmarket to market. The producers have lost the control of the aggregate\r\nproduction in their sphere of life, and the merchants have not yet\r\nacquired this control. Products and production become the victims of\r\nchance. But chance is only one pole of an interrelation, the other pole\r\nof which is called necessity. In nature, where chance seems to reign\r\nalso, we have long ago demonstrated the innate necessity and law that\r\ndetermines the course of chance on every line. But what is true of\r\nnature, holds also good of society. Whenever a social function or a\r\nseries of social processes become too powerful for the control of man,\r\nwhenever they grow beyond the grasp of man and seem to be left to mere\r\nchance, then the peculiar and innate laws of such processes shape the\r\ncourse of chance with increased elementary necessity. Such laws also\r\ncontrol the vicissitudes of the production and exchange of commodities.\r\nFor the individual producer and exchanger, these laws are strange, and\r\noften unknown, forces, the nature of which must be laboriously\r\ninvestigated and ascertained. These economic laws of production are\r\nmodified by the different stages of this form of production. But\r\ngenerally speaking, the entire period of civilization is dominated by\r\nthese laws. To this day, the product controls the producer. To this day,\r\nthe aggregate production of society is managed, not on a uniform plan,\r\nbut by blind laws, that rule with elementary force and find their final\r\nexpression in the storms of periodical commercial crises.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have seen that human labor power is enabled at a very early stage of\r\nproduction to produce considerably more than is needed to maintain the\r\n\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_214\" id=\"Page_214\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-215.png\"\u003e214\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003eproducer. We have found that this stage co\u0026iuml;ncided in general with the\r\nfirst appearance of the division of labor and of exchange between\r\nindividuals. Now, it was not long before the great truth was discovered\r\nthat man may himself be a commodity, and that human labor power may be\r\nexchanged and exploited by transforming a man into a slave. Hardly had\r\nexchange between men been established, when men themselves were also\r\nexchanged. The active asset became a passive liability, whether man\r\nwanted it or not.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSlavery, which reaches its highest development in civilization,\r\nintroduced the first great division of an exploited and an exploiting\r\nclass into society. This division continued during the whole period of\r\ncivilization. Slavery is the first form of exploitation, characteristic\r\nof the antique world. Then followed feudalism in the middle ages, and\r\nwage labor in recent times. These are the three great forms of\r\nservitude, characteristic of the three great epochs of civilization.\r\nTheir invariable mark is either open or, in modern times, disguised slavery.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe stage of commodity production introducing civilization is marked\r\neconomically by the introduction of (1) metal coins and, thus, of money\r\nas capital, of interest, and of usury; (2) merchants as middlemen\r\nbetween producers; (3) private property and mortgage; (4) slave labor as\r\nthe prevailing form of production. The form of the family corresponding\r\nto civilization and becoming its pronounced custom is monogamy, the\r\nsupremacy of man over woman, and the monogamous family as the economic\r\nunit of society. The aggregation of civilized society is the state,\r\nwhich throughout all typical periods is the state of the ruling class,\r\nand in all cases mainly a machine for controlling the oppressed and\r\nexploited class. Civilization is furthermore characterized on one side\r\nby\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_215\" id=\"Page_215\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-216.png\"\u003e215\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e the permanent introduction of the contrast between city and country\r\nas the basis of the entire division of social labor; on the other side\r\nby the introduction of the testament by which the property holder is\r\nenabled to dispose of his property beyond the hour of his death. This\r\ninstitution is a direct blow at the gentile constitution, and was\r\nunknown in Athens until the time of Solon. In Rome it was introduced\r\nvery early, but we do not know when.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_45_45\" id=\"FNanchor_45_45\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_45_45\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[45]\u003c/a\u003e In Germany it was originated by\r\nthe priests in order that the honest German might bequeath his property\r\nto the church without any interference.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWith this fundamental constitution, civilization had accomplished things\r\nfor which the old gentile society was no match whatever. But these\r\nexploits were accomplished by playing on the most sordid passions and\r\ninstincts of man, and by developing them at the expense of all his other\r\ngifts. Barefaced covetousness was the moving spirit of civilization from\r\nits first dawn to the present day; wealth, and again wealth, and for the\r\nthird time wealth; wealth, not of society, but of the puny individual,\r\nwas its only and final aim. If nevertheless the advanced development of\r\nscience, and at repeated times the highest flower of art, fell into its\r\nlap, this was only due to the fact\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_216\" id=\"Page_216\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-217.png\"\u003e216\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e that without them the highest\r\nemoluments of modern wealth would have been missing. Exploitation of one\r\nclass by another being the basis of civilization, its whole development\r\ninvolves a continual contradiction. Every progress of production is at\r\nthe same time a retrogression in the condition of the oppressed class,\r\nthat is of the great majority. Every benefit for one class is\r\nnecessarily an evil for the other, every new emancipation of one class a\r\nnew oppression for the other. The most drastic proof of this is\r\nfurnished by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are\r\nwell known to-day. And while there is hardly any distinction between\r\nrights and duties among barbarians, as we have seen, civilization makes\r\nthe difference between these two plain even to the dullest mind. For now\r\none class has nearly all the rights, the other class nearly all the duties.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut this is not admitted. What is good for the ruling class, is alleged\r\nto be good for the whole of society with which the ruling class\r\nidentifies itself. The more civilization advances, the more it is found\r\nto cover with the cloak of charity the evils necessarily created by it,\r\nto excuse them or to deny their existence, in short to introduce a\r\nconventional hypocrisy that culminates in the declaration: The\r\nexploitation of the oppressed class is carried on by the exploiting\r\nclass solely in the interest of the exploited class itself. And if the\r\nlatter does not recognize this, but even becomes rebellious, it is\r\nsimply the worst ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters.\u003ca name=\"FNanchor_46_46\" id=\"FNanchor_46_46\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#Footnote_46_46\" class=\"fnanchor\"\u003e[46]\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\u0027pagenum\u0027\u003e\u003ca name=\"Page_217\" id=\"Page_217\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e[\u003ca href=\"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/gutenberg-the-origin-of-the-family-private-property-and-the-state-218.png\"\u003e217\u003c/a\u003e]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd now, in conclusion, let me add Morgan\u0027s judgment of civilization\r\n(Ancient Society, page 552):\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\"Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so\r\nimmense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its\r\nmanagement so intelligent in the interest of its owners that it has\r\nbecome, on the part of the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind\r\nstands bewildered in the presence of its own creation. The time will\r\ncome, nevertheless, when human intelligence will rise to the mastery\r\nover property, and define the relations of the state to the property it\r\nprotects, as well as the obligations and the limits of the rights of its\r\nowners. The interests of society are paramount to individual interests,\r\nand the two must be brought into just and harmonious relations. A mere\r\nproperty career is not the final destiny of mankind, if progress is to\r\nbe the law of the future as it has been of the past. The time which has\r\npassed away since civilization began is but a fragment of the past\r\nduration of man\u0027s existence; and but a fragment of the ages yet to come.\r\nThe dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a\r\ncareer of which property is the end and aim, because such a career\r\ncontains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government,\r\nbrotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal\r\neducation, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which\r\nexperience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be\r\na revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.\"\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=\"bold2\"\u003eTHE END.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnotes\"\u003e\u003ch3\u003eFOOTNOTES:\u003c/h3\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_37_37\" id=\"Footnote_37_37\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_37_37\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[37]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nEspecially on the northwest coast of America; see Bancroft. Among the\r\nHaidahs of the Queen Charlotte Islands some households gather as many as\r\n700 members under one roof. Among the Nootkas whole tribes lived under\r\none roof.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_38_38\" id=\"Footnote_38_38\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_38_38\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[38]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe number of slaves in Athens was 365,000. In Corinth it was 460,000 at\r\nthe most flourishing time, and 470,000 in Aegina; in both cases ten\r\ntimes the number of free citizens.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_39_39\" id=\"Footnote_39_39\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_39_39\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[39]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe first historian who had at least a vague conception of the nature of\r\nthe gens was Niebuhr, thanks to his familiarity with the Dithmarsian\r\nfamilies. The same source, however, is also responsible for his errors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_40_40\" id=\"Footnote_40_40\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_40_40\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[40]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nThe recent demand for a law declaring the person of the U. S. President\r\nsacred above all other representatives of the public power and making an\r\nassault on him an exceptional crime is a very good case in point.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_41_41\" id=\"Footnote_41_41\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_41_41\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[41]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\n\"Junker\" is a contemptuous term for the land-owning nobility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_42_42\" id=\"Footnote_42_42\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_42_42\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[42]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nIn the United States, the poll tax is an indirect property\r\nqualification, as it strikes those who, through lack of employment,\r\nsickness or invalidity, are unable to spare the amount, however small,\r\nof this tax. Furthermore, the laws requiring a continuous residence in\r\nthe precinct, the town, the county, and the State as a qualification for\r\nvoters have the effect of disqualifying a great number of workingmen who\r\nare forced to change their abode according to their opportunities for\r\nemployment. And the educational qualifications which especially the\r\nSouthern States are rigidly enforcing tend to disfranchise the great\r\nmass of the negroes, who form the main body of the working class in\r\nthose States.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_43_43\" id=\"Footnote_43_43\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_43_43\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[43]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nIn Belgium, where the proletariat is now on the verge of gaining\r\npolitical supremacy, the battle cry is: \"S. U. et R. P.\" (Suffrage\r\nUniverselle et Representation Proportionelle).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_44_44\" id=\"Footnote_44_44\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_44_44\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[44]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Translator\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nSuffrage in Germany, though universal for men is by no means equal, but\r\nfounded on property qualifications. In Prussia, e. g., a three class\r\nsystem of voting is in force which is best illustrated by the following\r\nfigures: In 1898 there were 6,447,253 voters; 3.26 per cent belonged to\r\nthe first class, 11.51 per cent to the second class, and 85.35 per cent\r\nto the third class. But the 947,218 voters of the first and second\r\nclasses had twice as many votes as the five and a half millions of the\r\nthird class.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_45_45\" id=\"Footnote_45_45\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_45_45\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[45]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nLassalle\u0027s \"System of Acquired Rights\" argues in its second part mainly\r\nthe proposition that the Roman testament is as old as Rome itself, and\r\nthat there has never been in Roman history \"a time without a testament.\"\r\nAccording to him, the testament had its origin in pre-Roman times in the\r\ncult of the departed. Lassalle, as a convinced Hegelian of the old\r\nschool, derives the provisions of the Roman law, not from the social\r\ncondition of the Romans, but from the \"speculative conception\" of will,\r\nand thus arrives at this totally anti-historic conclusion. This is not\r\nto be wondered at in a book that draws from the same speculative\r\nconception the conclusion that the transfer of property was purely a\r\nside issue in Roman inheritance. Lassalle not only believed in the\r\nillusions of Roman jurists, especially of the earlier ones, but he\r\noutstripped their fancy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=\"footnote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca name=\"Footnote_46_46\" id=\"Footnote_46_46\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"#FNanchor_46_46\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"label\"\u003e[46]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Author\u0027s note.\r\n\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\r\nI first intended to place the brilliant critique of civilization,\r\nscattered through the works of Fourier, by the side of Morgan\u0027s and of\r\nmy own. Unluckily I cannot spare the time. I only wish to remark that\r\nFourier already considers monogamy and private property in land the main\r\ncharacteristics of civilization, and that he calls them a war of the\r\nrich against the poor. We also find with him the deep perception that\r\nthe individual families (les families incoherentes) are the economic\r\nunits of all faulty societies divided by opposing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}