加载中…
个人资料
jpwq3613
jpwq3613
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:119,714
  • 关注人气:119
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

麦克伦南《古代历史研究》(1886)序

(2010-01-21 08:08:27)
标签:

麦克伦南

古代历史研究

人类学

民族学

分类: 飞思宙域断连绵

    我原来打算把《原始婚姻》译完第五遍以后,转向对铜鼓、西南民族、甲骨文和澳洲土著等的了解。既然加利福尼亚大学如此友好地把《古代历史研究(包括<原始婚姻>的重印本)》及其续集公布在了网络上,我打算先把《古代历史研究》翻过来。对一项艰深的学术研究后文的了解自然有助于对前面部分理解的加深。

http://www.archive.org/stream/studiesinancient00mclerich#page/214/mode/2up

http://www.archive.org/stream/studianci00mclerich#page/n7/mode/2up

    译文修改中,急就章,请勿摘录。恭候批评指正。

今版序言

    这本册子是1876年版《古代历史研究》的重印本,只笔记在似乎必要的地方作了增补。计划随之出版第二册包括了作者的其他作品——大部分是迄今没有发表,并预备了遗留的没有完成的工作的作品——有可能,至少在相当大的程度上,从中推断,在《原始婚姻》问世以后,作者的观点发展或拓开了多少,它们有多大的改变或增补。因此现在似乎最好对其不作说明。也有同等的理由反对在笔记中不完整地作同类的事。笔记也因此限定在作者已宣布改变了观点的特定情况;以及某些其他情况——例如摩尔根先生的揣测——形势使得补充说明成为必要的。然而,再不会有更好的机会来做作者感到非常满意的东西(如从前版序言中显示的)——制成一个劫略形式实例的完美的汇集了;而这在《原始婚姻》的附录中,在作者发表于1866年的汇集的基础之上已完成了。这样收集在一起的实例足以,至少,证明这种婚俗的不同寻常的传播。
    也许需要提醒《原始婚姻》是一个新领域的第一部著作,以及在这种情况下作者(永远在希望能够增补甚或取代它)从来没有因为感到不可回避的缺陷而修改一个观点。因此(更不必说更重要的东西),有一两个偶然落下并无关书的主要目标的次要的命题,他可能会不重做。无疑,在有一些情况下,他会修改他的措辞;有时是为了精确的缘故,有时是因为始料未及的误解。还有些情况,由于他后来得到的更充分的知识,他会做增补,或修改,或重新编排他的证据,实际上,我们关于某些半开化人(barbarous)和野蛮(savage)人的知识自1865年以来已大为扩充。不管怎样,没有什么他会做出的证据上的增补或改变将严重影响到本书的论点;而且,对于其习俗对分析早期社会可能最有帮助的人们(peoples ),这些证据将在已经提及的续集中趋于完美。
    关于对他的措辞上的误解在此有一点应该注意。就是对内婚和外婚的误解。这些术语被引进是由于两个特别的事——两个有关婚姻的规则——每一个似乎都缺乏名称。其中一个规则,在其最宽的意义上,禁止所有相同血统关系(blood-connection)或相同血族关系(kindred)的人之间结婚——无论这种血族关系是否由它自身形成一个地方部落;或无论它是否(常常发生的)随同其他血族关系一起出现,作为不止一个地方部落的一员。这条规则,在《原始婚姻》写作之时,并未命名,因此作者称之为外婚制。它不是因为部落身份而对同部落团体的人之间的婚姻禁止,或因为关涉部落身份而是必要的。在它最宽的意义上,它是对所有被认为属于相同血统的人之间结婚的禁止,是因为他们的血统——不论他们是否来自同一团体,或只是一个团体的一分部,或若干团体的诸部分;而且,相应地,它可能防止(虽然是相同血统)不同地方部落的人之间结婚,而同时常常发生准许相同地方部落的人(但不是相同血统的)彼此自由结婚。这条规则就是这样,作者首先必须做的是为它找一个名字,这个词的意义不在他的选择之列。这规则有一个几乎不会有争议的名字是方便的。术语外婚制是否可以更适合地用于其他地方,无疑是另外一件事;但是不管是由于选择或完全误解,一些后来的作者使用它,不象是多么需要什么专门的名字。需要名字的第二条婚姻规则,只允许认为属于相同血统联系或血族关系的人之间结婚,并且,如果它出现在哪里,它把婚姻限定在部落或团体内,这是因为各部落把自身看作由一个血族组成。这条规则作者称为内婚制,这儿同样也不是他的选择,而是由于不得不赋予名字的规则的性质,它使得由他提出的术语总体上不适用于地方部落。因为这条规则只发生在那些认为他们自己属于同一血统的地方部落之中;并且因为其血统将通婚限定于本部落男女;那么不必提已知那两种状态未结合其中的部落多么众多。的确表现出它们的部落仍然数量够多,他们的婚姻规则要是没有名字的话很不方便。无疑又有这个问题,提出的术语未必就不能更恰当地适用于其他场合;但是对于某些较晚的作者使用它时甚至不如尚没有这个名字时便利。因为他们使用内婚表示婚姻发生在属于同一地方部落的人之间这个单纯的事实;因此集于一个名字之下的刚提到的婚姻法工作上的结论,有着确实的被称作了外婚的婚姻法方面的结论,——却是有着不同的来源和完全不同的含义的东西,看来最好彼此分开来研究。此外,随着这两个词,外婚和内婚,用法的转变,婚姻规律完全被忘记了。
     无疑,直到目前为止,作者肯定还在被诟病,正是误解的结果。然而,《原始婚姻》中它看来是被阐述得很清楚的,在这本书中,他发现了两条没有名字的婚姻规则,为了它们他拟定了外婚和内婚这两个术语。

    为本版写的笔记置于括弧之中以与作者的笔记相区别——关于摩尔根体系的笔记也被置于所提到的文章的末尾。

             D. McLENNAN.
                圣雷莫,1886年4月。

PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION.

    THIS volume is a reprint of Studies in Ancient History as published in 1876, with notes added only where they appeared to be indispensable. It is proposed to follow it up with a second volume containing other writings of the author ——writings for the most part hitherto unpublished, and prepared for a work which was left unfinished ——from which it will be possible to gather, in a considerable measure at least, how far the author’s views had grown or been developed, how far they had changed or been added to, subsequently to the appearance of Primitive Marriage. It seemed best therefore to attempt no statement about this at present. And there was equal reason against doing the same thing fragmentarily in notes. The notes have accordingly been confined to certain matters on which the author had announced a change of view ; and to some others—— e.g. Mr. Morgan’s speculations—— where circumstances had made an additional statement

 

vi PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION.

imperative. No better opportunity could occur, however, for doing what (as appears from the Preface to the former edition) the author had felt to be very desirable ——making a pretty full collection of examples of the form of capture ; and this has been done in the Appendix to Primitive Marriage, upon the basis of a collection which the author published in 1866. The examples thus brought together suffice, at least, to show an extraordinary diffusion for this marriage custom.

    A reminder may be given that Primitive Marriage was a first essay in a new field, and that the author (always hoping to be able either to supplement or supersede it) never revised it with a view to freeing it from defects that are unavoidable in such a case.  There is, therefore (to say nothing of more important things) a minor proposition or two, casually laid down and unrelated to the main purpose of the book, which he probably would not have repeated. There are cases, no doubt, in which he would have amended his language ; sometimes for exactness’ sake, and sometimes on account of misconceptions which he had not foreseen as possible. There are cases, too, in which, with the fuller knowledge he
subsequently had, he would have supplemented, or amended, or rearranged his facts ——and, indeed, our knowledge of some


PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. vii

barbarous and savage peoples has been much enlarged since 1865. There is nothing, however, he could have added to or varied in the facts which would have much affected the argument of the book ; and, for the peoples whose customs are most likely to be helpful in reasoning about early societies, the facts will be gone into pretty fully in the projected volume already spoken of.

    Of misapprehensions as to his language there is one which should be noticed here. This is a misapprehension as to the words exogamy and endogamy. These terms  were introduced on account of two particular things ——two laws relating to marriage ——for each of which a name seemed to be wanted. One of these laws, when at its widest, forbids marriage between all persons of the same blood-connection or kindred ——whether such kindred forms a local tribe by itself; or whether it is one of several different kindreds which together form a local tribe ; or whether (as often happens) it occurs, along with other kindreds, as an element in more than one local tribe. This law was, when Primitive Marriage was written, unnamed ; and the author termed it exogamy. It is not prohibition of marriage between persons of the same tribal community because of tribesmanship, or of anything that

viii PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION.

is necessarily involved in tribesmanship. When at its widest, it is prohibition of marriage between all persons recognised as being of the same blood, because of their common blood ——whether they form one community, or part only of a community, or parts of several communities ; and, accordingly, it may prevent marriage between persons who (though of the same blood) are of different local tribes, while it frequently happens that it leaves persons of the same local tribe (but who are not of the same blood) free to marry one another. Such is this law, and all the author had to do was to find a name for it ; the sense of the term was not in his choice. That it was convenient the law should have a name will scarcely be disputed. Whether the term exogamy might have been applied with more propriety to something else is, no doubt, a different matter ; but that to which, whether by choice or through misconception, some later writers have applied it, does not seem to be much in need of any special name. The second marriage law for which a name was wanted, allows marriage only between persons who are recognised as being of the same blood-connection or kindred ; and if, where it occurs, it confines marriage to the tribe or community, it is because the tribe regards itself as comprising a kindred. This law the

 

PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. ix

author termed endogamy ; and here again it is not his choice, but the nature of the law which had to be named, which makes the term as proposed by him inapplicable to local tribes in general. For the law occurs in those local tribes only which regard themelves as one blood, and restrict intermarriage to men and women of the tribe because of their blood ; and it need not be said what a multitude of tribes are known in which those two conditions are not combined. The tribes which do present them are numerous enough nevertheless, to make it inconvenient that their marriage law should have no name. No doubt there is again the question whether the term proposed might not have been applied with more propriety to something else ; but that to which some later writers have applied it might be left unnamed—— even with advantage. For they have used endogamy to denote the mere fact that marriages occur between persons belonging to the same local tribe ; thereby combining under one name the results in working of the marriage law last spoken of, with certain of the results of the marriage law which had been named exogamy ——things which, being of different origin and of entirely different significance, it seems best to study apart from one another. With the uses to which the two words, exogamy and

x PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION.

endogamy, have been turned, moreover, marriage laws have been forgotten altogether.

In so far as this has been the result of miscoception, the author must have been in fault, no doubt. It seems, nevertheless, to be made perfectly clear in Primitive Marriage that it was two marriage laws he found in want of names, and that it was for them he proposed the terms exogamy and endogamy.

    The notes written for this edition are distinguished from the author’s notes by being inclosed in ·“: ——the notes on Mr. Morgan’s system being also placed at the end of the Essay to which they refer.

D. McLENNAN.

SAN REMO, April 1886.

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有