the ethnological notebooks of karl marx - Marxists Internet Archive

Notes to Introduction, p. 1 1 .There is a related matter raised on the same page of the article byLucas: Morgan had written (op. cit., pp. 5 5 3-5 54; = 1877 ed., p. 544),“ When field agriculture had demonstrated that the whole surface ofthe earth could be made the subject of property owned by individualsin severalty, and it was found that the head of the family became thenatural center of accumulation, the new property career of mankindwas inaugurated. It was fully done before the close of the LaterPeriod of Barbarism. A litde reflection must convince anyone of thepowerful influence property would now begin to exercise upon thehuman mind, and of the great awakening of new elements of characterit was calculated to produce” . Marx’s excerpt notes on this passageread: “When field culture bewiesen hatte, dass d[ie] ganze Oberflächeder Erde could be made the subject of property owned byindividuals in severalty u[nd] [das] Familienhaupt became the naturalcenter of accumulation, the new property career of mankind inaugurated·,fully done before the close of the Later Period of Barbarism,übte einen grossen Einfluss auf [the] human mind, rief newelements of character wach__ ” (Marx, excerpts, p. 26).The Russian edition renders this as, “When the pursuit of agriculturehad demonstrated that the whole surface of the earth could be madethe object of property of separate individuals and the head of thefamily became the natural center of accumulation of wealth, mankindentered a new, hallowed path by means of private property (Chelovechestvovstupilo na novyi, osviashchennyi chastnoi sobstvennost’iuput’). It was already fully done before the later period of barbarismcame to an end. Private property (chastnaia sobstvennost’) exerciseda powerful influence on the human mind, awakening new elements ofcharacter__ ” (Arkhiv, op. cit., v. 9, p. 52).The Russian version has here changed Marx’s excerpt in three particulars.It has rendered “property” as “private property” twice andit has introduced the word osviashchennyi, “ hallowed” , where neitherMorgan nor Marx applied it. The linking of the adjective ‘private’to the substantive ‘property’ by the Russian editors was perhapsinfluenced by their reading of Engels, and the reading of Marx in thelight of Engels’ book bearing its title in mind. (See also Arkhiv,op. cit., p. 10, where a change in Marx’s ms., p. 5, of identical nature,is made.) There is therefore some sort of explanation, although thisshould not be interpreted as a justification of the liberty taken withMarx’s material.This change by the Russian editors, because it was unaccompaniedby any note, has had further consequences. Lucas, op. cit., p. 156,wrote in this connection, “ On top of this, the matter [of Morgan] isnot literally adhered to [by Marx], but paraphrased throughout, issubjectively colored (subjectiv verfärbt). A turn of phrase (Note) ora citation is ironically rendered and ironical interpolated remarks aremade.” Lucas’ Note refers to the passage, “ mankind entered a new,367