The literature[2] of primitive marriage and the family is already formidable; and, however contradictory and discouraging, on first examination, its conclusions may appear, there can be little doubt that they demonstrate the possibilities of the comparative method[3] in the domain of social institutions. It is in this field, indeed, that evolutional science bids fair to achieve its most signal triumph. At last, in the laboratory of science, there is some prospect that man may come really to know himself. On the other hand, it is precisely in the study of primitive marriage that the "perils of historical narrative" are most clearly revealed.[4] Nowhere, perhaps, can there be found rasher inference[5] and more sweeping generalization from inadequate data. Too often economic and psychological laws have been slighted; and, in a field where their careful observance is so vitally important, the fundamental principles of organic evolution--such, for instance, as natural selection--have frequently been ignored.[6] A vast mass of interesting facts relating to man's social development, highly important for him to know, has been disclosed. But, with a few notable exceptions, the signal failure of investigators thus far has been the attempt to sustain theories of uniform social progress. The criticism, especially, to which the writings of Bachofen, Maine, Morgan, and McLennan have given rise has greatly weakened the faith of scholars in the doctrine of universal stages of evolution through which all mankind has run.[7] [2] A brief and clear account of some of the more important works is given by BERNHÖFT, "Zur Geschichte des europäischen Familienrechts," _ZVR._, VIII, 4 ff., 384 ff. Compare the criticisms of Spencer, Starcke, and Westermarck contained throughout their respective treatises. [3] For a proof of the efficiency with which the "statistical method" may be applied to anthropological and sociological questions, see the paper of DR. TYLOR, "On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions, Applied to Laws of Marriage and Descent," _Journal of the Anthropolog. Institute_, Feb., 1889, 245-69. _Cf._ WESTERMARCK, _Human Marriage_, 1-7; STARCKE, _Primitive Family_, 1-16; BERNHÖFT, _op. cit._, 1-4. [4] See the suggestive paper of WINSOR, "The Perils of Historical Narrative," _Atlantic Monthly_ (Sept., 1890), LXVI, 289-97. [5] BERNHÖFT, _op. cit._, 1-4, has noted the danger of inference, especially from written laws, where there has been a mixture of races and institutions: "Denn die Rechtsinstitute sind eben nicht aus einem einheitlichen Prinzip erwachsen, sondern aus einem Kompromiss verschiedener Prinzipien entstanden, welche sich gegenseitig einschränken und durchbrechen." [6] It is a merit of Westermarck's book that he has "put particular stress upon psychological causes which have often been deplorably overlooked."--_Op. cit._, 5. _Cf._ also STARCKE, _op. cit._, 4.