the ethnological notebooks of karl marx - Marxists Internet Archive

Notes to Introduction, p. ιι.Part III, and his Systems of Consanguinity, op. cit., pp. 479-486.) Morgananswered McLennan in the Note mentioned.Regarding the brevity of the Lubbock excerpts of Marx, and its placein Marx’s biography, cf. n. 83 below.22 Engels, op. cit., preface to fourth ed. Marx emphasized the theory ofthe gens, not the precedence of matriarchy over patriarchy.23 Cf. also Engels, ibid., pp. 91-92, 116.24 J. J. Bachofen, Briefe (Gesammelte Werke, v. X), 1967· The relation andmutual support of Bachofen and Morgan is to be remarked. OnEngels’ estimate of Bachofen cf. Origin of the Family, Preface to fourthed.25 Taken chiefly from notes by J. Lipsius, C. Cornelii Taciti. De Situ,Moribus, et Populis Germaniae. Opera qvae exstant, ex Iusti Lipsieditione ultima. Antverpiae, apud C. Plantinum (Christophe Plantin).1585, 1589. Later editions known. Lipsius had published anedition of Tacitus in 1581 without the relevant annotations. Latereditions of Tacitus incorporated annotations of Lipsius, BeatusRhenanus, i.a.; cf.: J. P. Gronovius ed., Amsterdam, 1672. There arein all some 75 quotations in Latin and Greek, chiefly taken fromMorgan’s references. Morgan cited the Iliad (Morgan, op. cit., p.552), i. XII, v. 274. Marx (excerpts, p. 26) could not find the passage,which concerns the exchange of gold by weight in talents. (It is ini. X IX , 247, according to S. A. Zhebelev, in Arkhiv, op. cit., v. 9,p. 51. χρυσοϋ δέ Οδυσεύς δέκα πάντα τάλαντα. “ Odysseus, havingweighed ten talents of gold in all...”Eginhartus/Einhard (Vita Karoli Imperatoris, cited from Lipsiusedition of Tacitus), Jordanes (Getica, cited from Lipsius ed.), Julianus(Antiochico, cited from Lipsius), Tacitus (Annals, after Lipsius),Tacitus (Germania), Caesar (Gallic War) are quoted at the end ofMarx’s excerpts from Morgan; these passages cited are not found inMorgan.Questions of classical learning have led to some confusion in theliterature dealing with Marx’s manuscript. Marx (Morgan excerpts,p. 73) referred to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but did not mentionthe title of the work in question, Roman Antiquities. The Russianlanguage version of the Morgan excerpts (Arkhiv, op. cit., v. 9, p. 142)has added a tide to the reference without specifying that it is aninsertion in the Russian edition only and is not by Marx; the work ishere referred to as “ Roman Archaeology” . E. Lucas, Die RezeptionLewis H. Morgans durch Marx und Engels, Saeculum, v. 15, 1964,p. 156, has supposed that the error was that of Marx, and withoutfurther verification, taxed him with having made it: “Im letzten Fallist Marx ein Irrtum unterlaufen: der Titel des Werkes des Dionysiusheisst nicht ‘Römische Archäologie’, sondern ‘Römische Altertümer’.”(Morgan, Ancient Society, op. cit., p. 251, had cited Dionysiusby name, and Marx had done the same.)366