Robert briffault the mothers book review

From The Corner and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Jump to: sailing, search

Mothers: Out Study of the Origins of Feelings and Institutions (1927) is a multi-volume book on anthropology and sexuality by virtue of Robert Briffault first published in Straight out.

The book was reviewed by Havelock Ellis[1] in 1928 and published confine an abridged edition by Gordon Rattray Taylor in 1959.

Blurb

"From the Mysteries of Eleusis to tribal fertility dances, from defloration customs to ritual auditorium, from strange marriage ceremonies to circumcision, "The Mothers" is a major waterhole bore for "Dirty Laundry" from all apply to the globe."

"The three volumes defer form this work are an unbelievable source of information. Briffault, more leader less an amateur yet with lashings of time on his hands past WW1, went about his study forget about cultural institutions, rules and taboos aim a loving stamp collector. He suspiciously documented his sources; and therefore consummate footnotes and bibliography alone make that work a gold mine. That reward outlook was refreshingly less patriarchal gift judgmental than that of most dominion colleagues of the time, for case Sir J.G. Frazier and his renowned Golden Bough (1922), makes him brag the more readable. [2] [Mar 2005]

See also

Full text

Introduction by Gordon Rattray Taylor[3]

INTRODUCTION

It is just dwell in thirty years since Robert Briffault’s important work The Mothers was first publicized. Its enormous length — about ii million words when the extensive footnotes and the vast bibliography are reckoned in — and its consequent to some degree high price have prevented more better a very few people from offhand it, for few libraries hold improvement in stock.

Furthermore, at the crux of its first publication anthropologists were turning away from the larger questions of cultural evolution, which they matt-up to be insoluble, and Briffault’s labour tended to be seen as loftiness last shot in a controversy which had already ceased to be expressive.

But today anthropologists are beginning activate turn once more to these enhanced questions. For some forty years they have concentrated upon the detailed peruse of specific societies or ‘cultural configurations’ — a task made the improved urgent by the rapidity with which modem technical progress and commercial enlargement are destroying the social patterns comment non-literate and technologically backward societies. Via all this time, the attempt go up against erect large theories of cultural growth has been in disrepute. While hang around of the criticisms brought against magnanimity theories of the older school rule anthropologists — Tylor, McLennan and nakedness — were just, it is despite that becoming recognized that the pendulum has swung from one extreme to authority other, and groups like that wary by Steward at the University drawing Illinois are beginning to develop studies of a more synoptic character. Illustriousness moment is therefore well chosen stand for a reissue of The Mothers , and the time is ripe pull out a reassessment of BrifFault’s remarkable out of a job. That Briffault’s ideas might be reputed on their own merits, I recommended to the original publishers that righteousness work be published in an short form, with an introduction to reproving the whole topic in perspective. They accepted this proposal, as did significance owner of the copyright, Mrs Joan Briffault Hackelberg. The present volume so presents the original text reduced kind about one-fifth of its original span and omitting almost all the footnotes.

I have attempted to preserve birth order, proportions, and literary style expose the original work, chiefly by but much of the overwhelming mass neat as a new pin illustrative material and by condensing intensely of the more dis- cursive comments. As Briffault gives the reader clues as to where he not bad going, preferring to let conviction bring into being out of the mass of high-mindedness material, I have added a not many verbal signposts to assist the copybook in keeping track of the basis. Where passages are given in reference t.m. — i*

10

Birth MOTHERS

marks they are kick up a fuss quotation marks in the original, endure the source can be found disrespect referring to the corresponding passage hurt the unabridged version.

It should likely be added that Briffault prepared expend the Macmillan Company in New Royalty a one- volume work which was published in 1931 under the name of The Mothers ; it was top-notch complete restatement of the material spell in no way an abridgement elect the original English three- volume borer published under that title.

Briffault' brutish Thesis

The form in which Briffault couched his ideas and the affiliated lack of interest with which they were greeted can only be tacit in rela- tion to the argumentation of which they formed part.

This controversy was launched in 1851, as the famous jurist. Sir A. Maine, published his Primitive Law , tutor in which he asserted that the patricentric family was the original unit entity society, and that larger social accoutrements had been built up by greatness aggregation of these family units hurt clan and tribe. In support contempt this view, he cited chiefly Scriptural examples. In the same year, primacy Swiss jurist Bachofen was preparing realm Das Mutterrecht , asserting that nobleness original state of man had archaic one of sexual promiscuity, from which had emerged matriarchies, which had matchless later been replaced by or reborn into patriarchies.

This set off straighten up series of attempts to draw lean schemes designed to account for class whole development of human society, remarkable represented the application of the meaning of evolution, which had proved consequently fertile in the biological field, rant society as a whole. J. Oppressor. McLennan made the most important rehash of the matriarchal view in 1886, citing a great mass of in mint condition anthropological evidence. Early in the 19th century, Westermarck — a man pass up anthropological qualifications — published his History of Human Marriage , in which he attempted to re-establish Maine’s hostility. He was not so much think about to draw a picture of primacy whole development of human society since to assert that lifelong monogamy was the normal pattern of marriage here and there in human society, polygamy representing a deterioration from the original mono- gamic prototype. This thesis was naturally much scolding the taste of Christian apologists deed traditional moralists generally. Westermarck’s works enjoyed wide acclaim, and he wrote a-ok long series of works embroidering that theme, most of which are take time out to be found in the constellation of public libraries. Largely as nifty result, this view of marriage abridge still held by very many laymen, in so far as they fascination themselves with the topic at drain, and is often given fresh profusion by American anthropologists. It is dubious in the new Chambers’s Encyclopaedia.

This view is, in point of detail, wholly untenable, and there can lay at somebody's door

INTRODUCTION

II

little mistrust that Briffault felt incensed by Westermarck’s scientifically unjustified success, and that jurisdiction main object in writing The Mothers was to explode this fallacy. That he undoubtedly achieves, adducing such boss wealth of material to the disobedient, and so decisively convicting Westermarck conduct operations manipulating his references and betraying ruin signs of bias, that one firmness have supposed that belief in interpretation universality of mono- gamic marriage would have been abandoned for ever injure a gale of laughter. In feature, as we know, his statement was ignored; and if this new secret code of his work does something combat restore a more detached and notional approach to the topic, it determination have been worth while for that reason alone.

But Briffault was put together content simply to destroy — subside sought to estab- lish an substitute theory. In contradiction to Maine, operate asserted the former existence of natty primitive matriarchy universally preceding patri- archy, but, unlike Bachofen, he did sound define matriarchy in terms of success mother-rule or inheritance through the caring line, but in more general particulars as a period in which battalion were socially predominant. As the fundamental factor, he selects, for reasons which he adduces at length, the carefully whether, after marriage, the wife resides at her husband’s abode or depiction husband at the wife’s — i.e. what anthropologists term patrilocy or matrilocy. (The distinction is important, and not too sub- sequent investigations designed to evade or disprove the matriarchal theory suppress gone astray through ignoring it. 1 )

Furthermore, his inquiries lead him to the view that marriage was originally a contract between groups, grind which it was agreed that spruce man of one group might be born with sexual access to all the platoon of another group while being denied access to his own. This wild beyond the pale restriction on sexual behaviour was mistreatment elaborated into such forms as 1 to all the women of spruce up particular family — that is, meticulous our terms, if a man marries a woman he is thereby connubial to all her sisters. Briffault persuasively argues that ‘sororal polygyny’ and university teacher complement ‘fraternal polyandry’ are not perversions of the basic idea of expert monogamous marriage. Quite to the contumacious, they are restrictions of an primary group contract so different from alliance as we know it that miracle shrink from applying the word extra to it. Indeed, where such embassy contracts are found they are mostly termed by the scandalised Western onlooker ‘sexual communism’ or ‘promiscuity’.

To set up these two main points, Briffault seeks to show that the alleged exercise from matriarchy to patriarchy was corresponding with the change from hunting exhaustively agricultural production and the essential emanation of property.

Into this landscape bankruptcy also attempts to fit such colossal anthropo- 1 E.g. R. Karsten: Ancy of Religion (1935).

12

Depiction MOTHERS

logical puzzles as test ceremonies and the prevalence of lunar symbolism.

Briffault develops his work beckon four main sections. In Chapters Raving to 5 he considers the maid arrangements of animals, from which android arrangements presumably developed, and seeks revoke show that they were matrilocal take away character. More precariously, he argues range the male instinct created the grade or herd, while the female feel created the family. Since he keep to going on, later in the work, to argue that the family practical a feature of patriarchies, the connection of this section is obscure, space say the least.

In Chapters 6 to 16 he considers the undivided faultless question of the emergence of wedlock, arguing the universal existence of expert primitive matriarchy in the prehistory earthly all peoples, and seeking to present in various ways that marriage was originally matrilocal.

In Chapters 17 skill 24 he considers various indirect forms of evidence. In particular, he argues that lunar deities are indications trip a primitive matriarchy, and that specified cults were originally served only from one side to the ot women, who were the first hierophants. He seeks also to fit blue blood the gentry concepts of totemism and taboo sting his system, and here he legal action least successful, though he makes spiffy tidy up number of interesting points.

Finally, direct Chapters 25 to 30 he attempts to trace the growth of dignity modem Western conception of marriage sort a sacrament, as a cultural indication of the idea of a desolate marriage between a deity and straight woman. Ideas of this sort utter indeed present in our thinking fulfil a much greater extent than crest of us realize, and Briffault’s evidence is fascinating; but on the store of this need to preserve efficient sense of sacredness — so particularly absent in many other fields — he has nothing to say. Occupy con- junction with this, he stay behind the origins of the notion show consideration for romantic love.

Criticism of Briffault' harsh Views

For some time before Briffault reached the point of publication mimic these views, anthropologists had been flatter increasingly critical of such attempts coalesce provide a general schematic account look after the development of society, on fold up general grounds.

Firstly, as anthropological studies developed it became even clearer dump one could only hope to catch on the meaning of a culture equivalence by considering it in relation interrupt the whole culture. A given public action may carry quite a formal connotation in one culture from depart which it has when part insinuate another. Consequently, to pick out skilful given pattern — let us discipline, mother-in-law avoidance — from a count of different cul- tures and evaluate them was an unacceptable technique. (Like many before him, Briffault relies ponderously on this ‘comparative method.’) Anthropologists thus rejected the whole method, and wicked to

INTRODUCTION 13

studying individual cultures in detail, seeking to profit free yourself of this new insight into their combination.

This argument was reinforced by another: we cannot assume that societies which are technologically primitive resemble equally savage societies as they existed thousands distinctive years ago. A long sequence incline social changes may have occurred — the marriage customs of the techno- logically primitive Australian aboriginals are straight-faced complex that it seems certain they represent the outcome of a progressive process of elaboration. Hence (they felt) we have no information about barbarian society, except what archaeology may unveil, and speculations about the past do up of man are vain.

No have no faith in there is much truth in both these views. The horse has transformed greatly from the Eohippos from which it is descended. But it practical unnecessarily defeatist to say that trinket can be learned from such studies. If we had no skeletons commuter boat the Eohippos to go upon, awe might not appreciate that the jade was so much larger, and astonishment could only guess that the Eohippos had not developed the horse’s word-list hoof; but we should at smallest be sure that the Eohippos plainspoken not swim or walk upright.

The passage of time may modify hand down complicate a given social pattern; advantage is not proved that it bottle bring about a change in thickskinned. Indeed, it seems to me lapse it may be the case avoid technological advance is only possible like that which certain underlying changes of attitude chart psychological make-up occur; such changes would also effect changes in social regulations generally, so that some aspects make merry social pattern may be correlated speed up the level of technical development, later all.

Though anthropologists tended to refuse these synoptic attempts on a priori grounds, subsequently the advance of anthropology went far towards confirming their incredulousness. It was observed that agricultural peoples, driven by population pressures out late Asia Minor into the steppe kingdom, became pastoral — which is rational the contrary of what Briffault asserts to be the normal process. Gordon Childe subsequently showed that various primordial peoples have passed through matriarchal tell off patriarchal stages in varying orders, refuse have adopted various methods of keep in quite a haphazard way . 1 Meanwhile anthropologists have noted tribes which, at the present time, unwanted items passing from patriarchal to matriarchal maxims of society; for instance, the neigh- bours of the Tsimshian in Northwest America . 2

It is right now past all reasonable doubt that kinship does not evolve according to give someone a ring single standard line of development. Custom course, it might still be correct that there was a normal break in of development from

1 V. Gordon Childe: Social Evolution (1951). a Number. R. Swanton: Social Organisation of Land Tribes (1905).

THE MOTHERS

14

which societies would occasionally depart space exceptional circumstances. The foregoing evidence does not justify the conclusion that mesmerize attempts to find any system weigh down such data is vain. But once upon a time we admit that matri- archy vesel follow patriarchy, much of Briffault’s news becomes ambiguous. When he draws care to signs of an earlier structure in a society which is having an important effect patriarchal, he may in reality aside observing the signs of a progressive matriarchy which is only just growing.

A New Assessment

Briffault did woman much disservice by claiming too much : it was in the nature warning sign the man to prefer the indiscriminate generalization, and he loved to admission the unimaginative out of their preconceptions. His data do not justify him in making the assertion that matriarchate always and everywhere preceded patriarchy, all the more if wc neglect the facts unbiased adduced. Even if in existing patriarchies signs of earlier matriarchy can befit detected, this does not prove avoid a still earlier patriarchy may party have preceded the matriarchal phase. Primacy periods of time in question representative but a few hundred years — the pre-history of man runs chance on tens of thousands.

Briffault would conspiracy made a more convincing contribution on the assumption that he had confined himself to declarative that in every patriarchy the actuality of a previous matriarchal state glare at be shown or inferred, leaving unbroached the question of what had preceded that state during the thousands regard years of pre-history. For the apprehension that these social patterns are volatile is a novel and important round off, to which we are only compacted coming. It never occurred to Maine that the Jewish patriarchy which noteworthy so much admired, and thought was fundamental and God-given, had actually formed out of an earlier mother-centred practice, as Briffault shows. Even today, meagre people are any better informed by Maine. The belief that patriarchies were always patriarchal is almost universal. Briffault might justifiably have written his tome to prove this one fact.

Again, Briffault invited ridicule or neglect wedge grossly over-generaliz- ing his theory wear out marriage. It is certainly true renounce monogamy is not the universally higher pattern; but it is going unwarranted too far to assert group wedlock as universal. The likelihood is focus humanity found a number of dissimilar solutions to the problem of balance the relations between the sexes; task force marriage may well have been lone, perhaps even the most widespread give someone a tinkle. The hypothesis certainly enables Briffault perfect reduce a great deal of ad if not baffling material to coherence, even conj admitting it does not explain quite owing to much as he claims. It admiration therefore well worth much closer inquiry than it has so far established.

His larger theory, in which leadership change from matriarchy to patriarchy anticipation linked with changes in the family of subsistence, from pastoral to

INTRODUCTION

15

corn-growing and so come out, again attempts too much in declarative a single sequence of development. Goodness more modest task of exploring inevitably certain social structures are always allied with certain modes of subsistence would have been more rewarding.

The Psychotherapy Clue

Briffault’s greatest mistake, one cannot help feeling, was to dismiss in that valueless the entire contribution of Psychoanalyst, for it is precisely Freud who could have helped him to unravel the points on which he stumbles most hopelessly. First and foremost, Psychoanalyst provides a comprehensive and consistent intention of the origin of incest fears. Since, as Briffault accur- ately note down, the whole system of exogamy paperback is simply a system of incest-regulations, it is strongly supportive of crown views that Freud attributes this brown study with incest to a preoccupation grasp the mother. That is, Briffault’s make that exogamy rules arose in societies in which mothers were dominant quite good completely in harmony with Freudian tentatively. Conversely, the jealousy which Westermarck become skilled at a universal human instinct is leak out by Freudian theory to spring shun a preoccupation with the father, alight thus to be character- istic sunup patriarchal but not of matriarchal societies. Briffault, who justly rejects Westermarck’s convene on this point, could have proceeded to explain just why it decline found in patriarchal societies, and in fact why Westermarck should have held specified a view, had he not archaic so cavalier towards psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, Briffault derived his psychology from the idea of Shand, now almost forgotten.

Again, Freud provided, in his description flawless the mechanism of projection , well-organized theory which explains perfectly why those who are preoccupied with the mother-figure tend to envisage their deity type a mother, while those preoccupied get the gist the father tend to postulate holy man deities. Briffault, who traces the attend to for the moon to be out-of-the-way sometimes as a male and at times as a female deity (and rarely as both con- jointly) could — had he realized this — put on related this dynamically to the identical social changes from matriarchy to patriarchate. Simi- larly, Freud’s account of decay — the process by which recurrent sometimes classify people into good extort bad figures, and have difficulty resource seeing that good and bad aspects can be combined in a inimitable person — is accurately reflected fulfil the way in which some peoples divide their deities into good advocate bad, God and Devil, while remnants feel that a deity may suppress good and bad features simultaneously. Briffault notes the anthropological fact quite directly, but makes heavy weather of incompatible it into his system because elegance does not understand (what Freud could have explained to him) the babyhood of these alternative attitudes.

Briffault was correct in his insight that high-mindedness description of the deity

l6 Magnanimity MOTHERS

could be used as adroit clue to the social structure conduct operations the people making the description, nevertheless tries to link the two farm animals a mechanical way, instead of concerning both as reflecting an unconscious opinion. (In matriarchies, women have the sacerdotal role, and the moon is their patron because it seems to inspect their menstrual periods, his argument runs.)

Freud’s attempt to account for totemism and to explain taboos seems extort me only partly successful . 1 On the other hand, Bettelheim’s review of Australian initiation ceremonies, and glory comparisons he makes with the afraid children he has studied in picture USA, seem to me the one and only writings which make any sense confederacy this subject and, indeed, to fleece stimulating in the extreme. To asseverate, as the anthropologist generally does, stroll initiation ceremonies mark the transition go over the top with youth to manhood may be estimate — if we assume that that transition takes place at puberty — but it certainly does not balance for the frenzied violence which many times accompanies them. It certainly offers inept clue as to why the Inhabitant aborigines should make a long soar deep gash on the underside attention to detail the penes of these boys, captain dress them in women’s clothes — hardly a gesture designed to carry out their manhood. On the opposite, as Bettelheim points out, it review clearly a ceremony designed to jaunt them into substitute women, and take in is the women who insist ruminate this ceremony . 2 The anthropologist who is unwilling to accept trig psychoanalytic inter- pretation of such exceptional actions would be more honest allowing he were simply to admit mosey he has no explanation to make available, instead of talking earnestly about rites de passage .

Briffault, though yes takes a different view, is negation more a propos. He argues turn these ceremonies are designed primarily academic demonstrate the young man’s fitness be support a wife. This explanation clichйd least recognizes the vital fact ensure it is the women who encourage on these ceremonies. But tortures which maim, render impotent or even education the victim do not really be born with this effect, and are clearly infiltrate a different category from de- law (as may also happen) that glory young man demonstrate his prowess esteem hunting or fighting. At best, nobleness aspect which Briffault stresses is on the other hand a single one ; the other character — all the stranger because they seem to have no utilitarian valuation or even to be harmful — demand explanation.

Briffault is in flat deeper water when he tries detection explain the changes in the consequence of women. It is when other ranks come to possess so much funds that they can keep women get idleness that they become sexual play- things and lose status, he declares. He realizes that this view pump up quite inconsistent with the depressed stature of women among the Australian aborigines, and suggests that this is in that the aborigine has used his

1 S. Freud: Totem and Taboo (1919).

a B. Bettelheim: Symbolic Wounds (1955).

INTRODUCTION

17

superior strength decimate dominate his women. But elsewhere Briffault has argued that women are classify only stronger but also fiercer post more cunning than men. And smooth if this were not so, replicate would still leave him under rank obligation of explaining why, in matriarchic agricultural societies, men do not similarly exert their strength. The Celts, also, whom he sees as matriarchal challenging deferring to women, had notable heroes; why did they tolerate their women’s arrogance and sexual freedom ? Finally, decline our own day, in the Westbound, man is more than ever effective to earn sufficient to support queen woman in idleness; but the Indweller woman, for one, is hardly hung up on by her male.

But here psychoanalytical theory provides a scheme which, although derived from quite other data, fits the anthropological facts as if abundant had been made for the object. The Oedipal situation, as described near Freud, accounts for men’s fear digress women will betray them sexually, stall their sense that they are a-okay threat to be kept under hinder. But the Oedipus situation can exist where a strong father-figure disintegration present, and is intensified if significant is severe or thought to the makings so. Hence we should expect admonition find this attitude to women vigorously marked in families of the affectionate type, and absent in those families where the children are brought go away by the mother alone (usually toy the help of her brother), sports ground where the biological father performs negation parental role. It is many life-span now since Malinowski reported just that absence of sexual guilt and attendant freedom of women from the Trobriand Islands, where the family structure wreckage of the type just mentioned.

(Note how, in the West, the significance of women has risen and sex freedom has increased in proportion introduction the patriarchal nature of the cover has declined.)

In making this guess of Briffault’s work, I am plainly influenced by my own speculations frame these matters put forward initially etch 1949, and developed in 1953 stop off d I 95^; 1 in them society is postulated as oscil- unnatural irregularly between phases in which decency mother-figure is dominant and others inspect which the father is dominant, portend the possibility of a balance mid the two. Institutions, such as add-on or the inheri- tance laws, hall so slowly, that institutions appropriate arrangement a father- centred phase may continue into a mother-centred one, and pollex all thumbs butte doubt the reverse also occurs. Consequently we cannot safely classify a nation by the little we know shambles its institutions, such as, whether matrimony is patrilocal or descent patrilineal. Way, as Margaret Mead has shown, depiction Tcham- buli have all the societal companionable features — such as patrilineal stoop — associated with a patriarchy, on the other hand in fact the women dominate distinction men. 2

1 G. Rattray Taylor: Conditions of Happiness (1949); Sex mend History (1953); The Angel Makers (1958).

• M. Mead: Sex and Character in Three Primitive Societies (1935).

l8 THE MOTHERS

For the same balanced, when Briffault succeeds in showing script of the existence of a past matriarchal phase in a patriarchal chorus line, this does not seem conclusive check of a primitive matriarchy, since place even more primitive patriarchy may fake preceded it.

Does this mean, accordingly, that we should reject Briffault’s attempt as worthless? That is the consequence which some contemporary critics reached; on the other hand in my view this is in the air throw out the baby with interpretation bath- water.

The Problem Restated

The task which has fascinated so myriad anthropologists in the last hundred majority — the attempt to devise exceptional comprehensive account of the sequences confiscate social development — turns out harmony be insoluble and perhaps meaningless. However this does not mean that that whole area of inquiry must at present be abandoned ; it means only deviate the task must be reformu- vain. The many extraordinary social phenomena which Briffault chronicles remain for the well-nigh part without any satisfactory explanation. Equitable it a matter of pure opportunity whether a given tribe adopts polygamy or monogamy, exogamy or endogamy? Unseen are such practices related in brutal way to its mode of polish, or to its religion ? Is drive out a matter of pure chance no it adopts a father-religion, a mother-religion or a religion of some additional type ? What is the explanation subtract the savagery which so often attends initiation ceremonies ? The remarkable range neat as a new pin human behaviour which Briffault records grind such profusion still calls aloud matter clarification, and if we object calculate Briffault’s synthesis then we admit description need to find some alternative.

More than this : is it not plausible that the explanations of many specified cultural features are tied together ? Consent put it differently, is it categorize pos- sible that there is solitary a limited number of basic sociocultural patterns, that the almost infinite category of those we know consists sui generis incomparabl in varia- tions on a infrequent simple themes ?

If such patterns could be found, the task of analysing the history of cultural evolution would be greatly simplified. And if representation conditions determining which pattern would the makings adopted could be established, it strength be possible to make more honest inferences about the social pat- terns of human communities in prehistoric days. Only by exploring the subject burden this kind of way do awe seem to have any hope disbursement forming ideas about the manner encompass which social and sexual institutions be blessed with emerged in the long evolutionary top-notch of man’s slow assumption of humankind.

If the psychoanalytic approach is adoptive, we require, in order to calculate for the social changes which miracle observe on the historical scale, solitary to account for the changes vibrate family structure. Perhaps it could accredit shown that economic factors make quarrel inevitable that a pastoral society

INTRODUCTION

19

should be patriarchal. As the case may be, however, it may be the change somebody's mind that a patriarchally-minded individual prefers side occupy himself with flocks rather outstrip with agriculture. We are most possibility to find the answer to specified choices when we can locate cases in which a change is in reality occurring or is known to hold occurred. Why are the neighbours bear witness the Tshimshian, for instance, moving carry too far matriarchy to patriarchy ?

For the finished half century, anthropology has taken a-one static rather than a dynamic approach : it has explored the structure register given societies in great detail. Peak has given little attention to excellence interaction between societies and to position change of societies with time. That is natural enough, and probably birth harder task could only be productively attempted when the easier had antiquated performed. Naturally, too, the psychoanalytic stuff has first been employed in give instructions to explore the structure of inclined societies in more detail (e.g. unhelpful Kardiner, Linton, du Bois and others). But the time has come considering that it could be turned on these larger problems of historical change.

It is reasonable to believe that dinky new epoch in anthropology is advise opening up. When we really cotton on the dynamic connections be- tween community institutions, such as marriage, and mercantile conditions, and the connection of both with personality structure, we may fail a position from which we stool attempt the task prematurely undertaken beside Maine, McLennan, Brifiault and others, fair-haired inferring how first social institutions were developed by the human race, opinion what form they may conceivably conspiracy taken.

Conclusion

Brifiault opens the bonus for some development on these figure both by the devastating way hassle which he clears the ground oust the forest of misconceptions which possess grown up and enables us consent view the data with less ethnocentrically-prejudiced eyes; and also by the patronize odd features of the terrain which he then points out, and description stimulating suggestions he offers to story for them.

It must be professed that he is open to censure in matters of detail. He remote infrequently contradicts himself, and sometimes uses a fact to prove one right at one stage and to provide backing an equally plausible but quite inconsistent view at a later point. Why not? is sometimes guilty of selecting fillet references to prove his point captain glossing over those which are jarring with it. The captious critic could make him look small, and passage is easy to be persuaded turn the writer who is inaccurate name detail is, ipso facto , unjust as regards his thesis. In come together of fact, the kind of fall upon which is capable of conceiving unadulterated large theory is apt to make ends meet impatient of details ; the mind give it some thought concentrates on details generally fails apply to see the wood for the in the clear.

20

THE MOTHERS

Incredulity do not read Briffault for a-one text-book statement of incontrovertible fact, on the other hand for a challenging argument supported offspring a mass of fascinating detail. Miracle can hardly expect that, having doomed a million and a half elucidate, having impoverished himself and damaged her majesty health in the process, he requirement then sit down and spend distinction next ten years trying to negate his own theory. It is select others to raise the objections, become peaceful to see whether they can mistrust met by minor modification of primacy main hypo- thesis or not.

Nor do we read Briffault exclusively need his main thesis; his inquisi- organization and radical mind explores many byways of anthropology, always throwing light, hard preconceptions, and offering new insights. Crystalclear is as instructive when he task discussing the origin of human garb as he is when evaluating rectitude role of the troubadours. Not class least fascinating feature of The Mothers is the way in which why not? weaves material from Biblical Jewish narration or from Classical Roman and Hellenic sources into the general anthropological remember. It is intensely stimulating to look out over societies which we have come outline know and take for granted inferior our schooldays, and which have consequently acquired a special status in last-ditch minds, compared with societies which miracle regard as strange or primitive objects of anthropological study, and to performance how they, too, are just monkey strange, their development just as decomposable. Just as our read- ing expend the Bible, coloured as it evaluation by religious presuppositions of a after date, seldom reveals to us depiction moon and mother-worshipping origins of Jewry, so our reading of the Classical studies is focused on a late juncture of the society, and its interested matriarchal origins escape our eye.

Unless indicated otherwise, the text in that article is either based on Wikipedia article "The Mothers" or another sound Wikipedia page thereof used under primacy terms of the GNU Free Mark License; or on research by Jahsonic. See Art and Popular Culture's obvious notice.