The Ethnographical Notebooks of Karl Marx - Marxists Internet Archive

Among the most important of the materials left 

unpublished by Karl Marx is the body of his 

ethnological excerpts and commentaries compiled 

during the period 1880-1882. These include 

his notes taken from the works of Lewis Henry 

Morgan, Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Sir John 

Budd Phear and John Lubbock (Lord Avebury). 

Marx’s comments on Morgan’s Ancient Society 

have been known from the use made of them in 

the Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums 

und des Staats of Friedrich Engels; nevertheless, 

Engels applied but a small part of Marx’s materials. 

The entire corpus of Marx’s excerpts and 

notes is here brought out for the first time together 

with editorial, historical and bibliographic 

matters for their comprehension. 

The materials contain some of the most explicit 

statements of Marx in regard to the primitive 

condition of mankind, the origin of class-divided 

society in connection with the transition to civilization, 

and the formation of the State. 

Here are found Marx’s polemics against the Historical 

School of Jurisprudence (Henry Maine) 

on the one side, and the Utilitarians (Jeremy 

Bentham and John Stuart Mill) on the other. 

Further, the critique of the Analytical Theory of 

the State and Law (John Austin) is taken up 

by Marx in the development of his positions with 

regard to the state as a social institution and to 

its economic base. 

The critique of man in the state of nature, and 

in the civilized condition, which had been the 

concern of the young Marx, is here taken up 

again in his last years. Yet, whereas his early 

formulations had proceeded from the abstractions 

of a philosophical anthropology, his late 

work takes up some problems from the viewpoint 

of the science of man in the modem sense, that 

is, the ethnological accounts of concrete societies 

given by Morgan, Maine, Phear and to a lesser 

extent, Lubbock. 

The resultant work is thus a contribution to the 

study of the ideas of Marx, their internal development, 

and their relation to the writings and 

schools of the late nineteenth century. No less 

important is its contribution to the history of 

ethnology at a time when its empirical methods 

and objects were being formed and strengthened. 

On the one side Marx developed his position in 

regard to the theory of human evolution and in 

conjunction with this, to the theory of Darwin. 

On the other, Marx’s work makes an end to the 

theory of man as a self-contained atom, a theory 

given in its modern form by Thomas Hobbes, 

the Utilitarians, and Herbert Spencer; that 

theory is replaced by Marx’s conception of man 

as the ensemble of social relations, which had 

been previsioned in his Theses on Feuerbach, and 

is here given a concrete content in his critique of 

Maine.

TH E ETHNOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS 

OF K A R L M ARX

Q U ELLEN UND UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR GESCHICHTE 

DER DEUTSCHEN UND ÖSTERREICHISCHEN ARBEITERBEW EGUNG 

NEUE FOLGE 

Herausgegeben vom 

IN TER N ATIO N A AL INSTITUUT VOOR SOCIALE GESCHIEDENIS, 

AM STERDAM 

Direktor: Prof. Dr. Fr. de Jong Edz. 

I. EDUARD BERNSTEINS BRIEFW ECHSEL MIT FRIEDRICH EN G ELS 

herausgegeben von Helmut Hirsch 

n. AU GUST BEBELS BRIEFW ECHSEL MIT K ARL K A U TSK Y 

herausgegeben von Karl Kautsky Jr. 

m . THE ETHNOLOGICAL NOTEBOOKS OF KARL MARX 

(Studies of Morgan, Phear, Maine, Lubbock) 

Transcribed and edited, with an Introduction by Lawrence Krader

THE ETHNOLOGICAL 

NOTEBOOKS 

OF KARL MARX 

(STUDIES OF MORGAN, PHEAR, MAINE, LUBBOCK) 

TRANSCRIBED AND EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION 

BY 

LAWRENCE KRADER 

SECOND EDITION 

1974 

VAN GORCUM & COMP. B.V. - ASSEN, THE NETHERLANDS

Printed in the Netherlands by Van Gorcum Assen

Dedicated 

to the Memory 

o f K arl Korsch

CONTENTS 

Foreword. IX 

Introduction i 

Section i . Marx’s Excerpts from Morgan, Ancient Society 6 

The State and Civilized Society 19 

Marx’s Marginalia in the Morgan Excerpts 24 

2. Marx’s Excerpts from Phear, The Aryan Village 31 

3. Marx’s Excerpts from Maine, Lectures on the E arly 

H istory o f Institutions 34 

4. Marx’s Excerpts from Lubbock, The Origin o f 

Civilisation 43 

5. General Considerations of the Historical Placement 

of these Works 44 

6. Community, Collectivism and Individualism 58 

7. Relation of Engels to Marx and Morgan 76 

Addenda 1. Chronology. 86 

2. Varia. 89 

Technical Apparatus and Format 91 

Part I. Marx’s Excerpts from Lewis Henry Morgan Ancient 

Society. 95 

Part II. Marx’s Excerpts from John Budd Phear, The Aryan 

Village 243 

Part III. Marx’s Excerpts from Henry Sumner Maine, Lectures 

on the E arly History o f Institutions 285 

Part IV. Marx’s Excerpts from John Lubbock, The Origin 

o f C ivilisation. 337 

Notes 353 

to Introduction 3 54-397

to Part 1 . 397-414 

to Part II. 414-415 

to Part I I I . 415-420 

to Part IV 420-421 

Bibliography 423 

I. Marx’s Bibliographic Notes 425 

Notes to Bibliography I . 430 

II. General Bibliography 431 

Index of Names . 443 

Tables in Introduction 

Facsimile Pages 

I. Comments by Marx on Morgan . 12 

II. Marginal lines in the Morgan excerpts 25 

III. Marginal lines by Marx in Phear excerpts 3 3 

IV. Marx’s interpolations in the Phear excerpts 34 

V. Marginal lines in the Maine excerpts 36 

VI. References by Engels to Morgan 78 

VII. Marx’s Excerpts from Morgan in Engels 79 

Morgan. 96 

Phear. 2^ f 

Maine. 286 

Lubbock 338

Foreword 

The conception of this book was first developed in discussion with Karl 

Korsch, in 1947-195 3; it is to be regarded as an evolution therefrom. 

The International Institute of Social History, and its Director, Prof. Dr. 

Fr. de Jong Edz., were instrumental in carrying through the present 

work; without the initial support and continued cooperation of the Institute 

throughout its period of gestation it would not have been completed.* 

Those who have an idea of how a work of this nature is composed 

will jusdy appreciate the kinds and qualities of the individual contributions 

that are necessary to it. The substantive contributions of the 

members of the Institute, Mr. Ch. B. Timmer, Mr. H. P. Harstick, and 

Mr. Goetz Langkau, have been invaluable. Dr. Barbara Krader participated 

in the completion of the work, and, in its later phases, step by 

step. Many contributed their knowledge of particular fields ; here I will 

mention that of Dr. Angel Palerm on Aztec history. Drs. Stanley Diamond 

and Dell Hymes criticized the Introduction. To all those mentioned 

and others beside go the acknowledgement of their contributions and the 

expression of my thanks. 

February 1972. L. K.

The International Institute of Social History kindly made available the Notebooks of Marx 

containing his excerpts from Morgan, Lubbock, Maine and Phear. Mr. H. P. Harstick, of that 

Institute, has treated relevant portions of the Phear and Maine materials from the standpoint 

of comparative legal history in a work to appear in this series, Untersuchungen %ur Genesis des 

Marx-Engelsschen Geschichtsverständnisses (I.: Marx und Engels und die historischen Wissenschaften; 

II.: Marx’ und Engels’ rechts- und verfassungsgeschichtliche Studien; III.: Historische 

Lektüre und Exzerpte - Verzeichnis des Lesefeldes von Marx und Engels im Bereich 

der Historie).

INTRODUCTION 

The ethnological writings of Lewis Henry Morgan, John Budd Phear, 

Henry Sumner Maine, and John Lubbock (Lord Avebury) were excerpted 

and critically reviewed by Karl Marx in the period 1880-1881-1882. 

A sense of unity may be derived from the juxtaposition of the names 

of these writers on ethnology, as though they represented a common 

tradition; such a judgment would be contrary to fact, although they 

were all uncritical evolutionists in England and America, active in 

the 1870s. Marx studied a number of other works in ethnology and culture 

history in addition to these, in particular those of Georg L. Maurer 

and Maxim M. Kovalevsky. Morgan put together an account of the 

evolution of human society than which none was more coherent in its 

time; Maine was then the leading English figure in comparative and 

historical jurisprudence; Phear and Kovalevsky were both attracted to 

his doctrines, Phear on the Oriental side; Lubbock was one of the best- 

known Darwinians of that period. 

Marx left his notes in the state in which they are published here, his 

work cut short by his death in 1883. Friedrich Engels took up Marx’s 

notes on Morgan in connection with his own book, D er Ursprung der 

Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats. This portion of the materials 

was then discussed by Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, and Heinrich 

Cunow, as those associated with the German Social Democracy at the 

end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth, particularly 

in its organ, D ie Neue Z eit. 

The body of Marx’s excerpt notebooks containing his studies in 

ethnology of this time was not surveyed until the following generation. 

D. Ryazanov, the editor of the historical-critical edition of the collected 

works of Marx and Engels, gave a brief account of them, with the exception 

of the Phear materials, in a lecture before the Socialist Academy in 

Moscow, November 20, 1923, and published in the Vestnik Sotsialisti- 

cheskoy Akadem ii, in the same year; it was then brought out, under the 

editorship of Carl Griinberg, in the Archiv fu r die Geschichte des Soîalismus 

in 1925. A Russian version of the Morgan manuscript alone, with significant 

changes, was published in the A rkhiv of the Marx-Engels Institute 

1941, on the basis of photocopies of the original made by Ryazanov. 

These excerpt notebooks were again surveyed, by E. Lucas in 1964, now 

including the Phear manuscript; the Morgan manuscript materials of 

1

Marx were surveyed at this time on the basis of the Russian version of 

1941. 

Marx’s notebooks, containing the ethnological manuscript excerpts 

together with further bibliographic indications, are deposited in the 

International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam. 

We will refer to the contents of all these manuscript materials as 

relating comprehensively to the study of prehistory, proto-history and 

early history of mankind, and the ethnological study of living peoples. 

These studies were being developed in the form, and with the given 

subdivisions and nomenclature that they now have, during Marx’s lifetime, 

a development which he followed closely. Further, the empirical 

study of mankind in all these disciplines and subdisciplines was at this 

time being separated from the philosophical tradition of anthropology, 

which preceded the empirical study historically, and whose substantive 

connection to the former will be examined; Marx himself participated in 

this transition. 

The manner in which Marx took up these ethnological materials remains 

to be examined, likewise his relations to the ethnologists and the writings 

which he excerpted. 

The ground held in common by Lubbock, Maine, Morgan, Phear, 

widely shared in the later Victorian period, is that man is the product 

of his own agency, which is subject to organic development. The growth 

of human manual and mental dexterity justified an optimism in regard to 

all problems of human society; although man created and has advanced 

himself by his own efforts, the growth of the human faculties of technical 

skill and reason is subject to natural, unconscious, undirected extrahuman 

law. The opposite of a teleological, directed law of nature and 

man attracted Marx to the conceptions of Darwin.1 Human society lies 

within the natural continuum, and was conceived by Auguste Comte, 

Herbert Spencer, Paul Lilienfeld, A. E. F. Schaeffle, Oskar Hertwig, 

Maine, and Morgan as an organism subject to the laws of nature; from 

this followed the notion of Spencer that the development of specialized 

function in nature, hence, the division of labor in society, as the mechanism 

of progress is thereby vindicated; Emile Durkheim shared this 

conviction. On the other hand, the actual separation of man from 

nature, and the potentiality of his reunification therewith, was proposed 

by Marx, in connection with and at once in opposition to Hegel’s theory 

of alienation, first as a philosophical doctrine; it was then given an empirical 

direction by his ethnological researches, particularly in reference 

to the work of Darwin’s followers, as well as that of Morgan, and of 

Maine. 

At the same time, Marx opposed as a groundless utopianism the doctrine 

of general evolutionary progress then advanced by ethnologists. 

The positivist and utilitarian doctrines on the one side, the utopian on 

2

the other, were deficient in critical perspectives as they were in social and 

economic analysis and ground for social and political action. Morgan 

came up to, but not into, the critical notion that man proceeds by 

particular, empirically observable mechanisms from lower to higher forms 

of social life; moreover he vouchsafed partly objective criteria for 

ascertainment of the relations of lower and higher, which were: the 

accumulation of property, setdement on a territory, dissolution of the 

kinship bond as the primary and dominant basis of social unity; Maine’s 

theory of transition of society and law from status to contract belongs to 

this category. The criteria of higher and lower in Morgan (and in Maine) 

were in part biological: the inbreeding of a social group is unhealthy, and 

that of a small group less favorable than are large out-group breeding 

practices. In part the criteria were social and moral in Morgan: the 

status of women should be equal to that of men, whereas in some family 

systems it is not; the ancient gentes were celebrated by Morgan as 

democratic and fraternal. But in neither case did Marx’s contemporaries; 

proceed to the critique of the social institutions existing at that time, 

whose evolutionary etiology they laid bare. Morgan did not propose any 

means to overcome the limitations or distortions of the social institution of 

property; instead he proposed an act of faith in progress and optimism in 

man’s capacity for development beyond his present limitation. Lubbock, 

as Maine, Morgan, and in the following generations J. G. Frazer and 

R. B. Onians, saw the savage or barbarian peeping through the clothing 

of civilized European man. This was taken by Marx as an index that 

modern man was not without an archaic communal component, which 

includes a democratic and equalitarian formation, in his social being. The 

comparison to man’s past was a basis for critique of the present civilized 

condition for Marx. Morgan was critical of modern civilization in a 

utopian, that is, ambiguous because non-particularized way; for him as 

for the other ethnologists mentioned the comparison with the savage was 

taken as an index of how far civilized man had come from his rude past, 

hence was a ground for self-praise. 

For Marx the civilized is the limited and oppositive human condition, 

whose critique is bound to the revolutionary praxis, which is the first 

step in overcoming the condition of limitation and opposition, internal 

as well as external. Yet that condition is the sole means we have for 

overcoming our internal limitation and social division. The ethnological 

materials provided evidence of the development and its timedepth, 

documenting its stages and general direction; the concomitant changes 

in man’s physique and nature, and the human potentialities that were 

realized and made actual; the ethnological materials were weakest in 

laying bare the transition from one stage to the next in detail. Marx’s 

interest in the evolutionary doctrine was advanced for its own sake, for 

the scientific base that it provided for the determination of the deforma- 

3

tions wrought in the capitalist epoch on mankind, and as a means to 

overcome the latter. With the exception of Morgan, whose limitations 

will be discussed below, none of the evolutionary school of that period 

wrote with any relevancy to the theme of the deformation of man’s 

character by civilization, a theme later taken up by Sigmund Freud. 

The Comtean positivists, in the generation before Darwin, made a 

cult of the progress of mankind, a doctrine which was not specifically 

sloughed off by the Darwinians despite Darwin’s generally anti-teleolog- 

ical direction.2 The conceptions of T. H. Huxley, Lubbock, Maine, 

Morgan, Phear, Kovalevsky, in this regard were limited in that they had 

no way to translate the mechanisms of selection for survival from the 

order of nature to the order of culture. Marx questioned the doctrine of 

the social organism because it was related to no particular and concrete 

body of scientific data, on the one hand, and as the basis for unguided 

progress, was related to no particular human act on the other. Progress 

is located outside the human sphere, according to this set of doctrines, 

not only because of the lack of scientific data and theories; the relation 

of progress to the human sphere was not worked out, in part because the 

place of culture in the order of nature was not developed by those writers. 

The distinction made between the workings of providence and of progress 

by J. B. Bury and others is superficially attractive because divine agency 

is asserted in the former case but not in the latter.3 Progress as there 

conceived is, however, unrelated to anything that man does or knows: 

the general disposition to progress lies as much outside human control, 

as it is conceived by these thinkers in the twentieth century, as it did in 

the nineteenth, and as did the action of providence in the seventeenth. 

Progress is brought to the order of nature by man’s abstract conception, 

just as providence is brought to it by his mystical conception; the abstraction 

is found in the mystical and the mystical in the abstract orders, 

neither progress nor providence being directly connected with the actual 

processes of nature. 

Marx developed a series of positions in philosophical anthropology 

during the years 1841-1846. Those having particular relevance to the 

ethnological notebooks are in regard to the interrelations of the family, 

civil society and the State (in the Critique o f the Hegelian Philosophy o f 

Right)', the alienation of man in society and in nature (in the Economic- 

Philosophical Manuscripts') ; the doctrine of man producing himself by his 

labor and by his relations in society (in the German Ideology and the Holy 

Family); and the opposition of the concretion to the abstraction of man 

(in the Theses on Feuerbach).4 The increasingly concrete problems taken up 

in his work, his revolutionary activities during the 1848 period and his 

conclusion that the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political 

economy5 transformed his treatment of anthropology from a philosophical 

to an empirical subject. His research at the British Museum then 

4

undertook the wholly empirical study of man, to which he constantly 

returned during the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s, and intensively during 

1879-1882. His relations to philosophical and empirical anthropology 

form part of the debate over the continuity and discontinuity of his 

thought; the thesis of discontinuity has been averred by Auguste Cornu, 

that of continuity by Georg Lukacs and Jean Hyppolite. Karl Korsch 

has written that the break in continuity is indicated by his Critique o f the 

Hegelian Philosophy o f Right, but since that work was written in 1843, 

hence several years before Marx began his economic studies on the basis 

of his anatomy of civil society, it is actually an argument for continuity 

while seemingly one for discontinuity.6 

Marx took up the development of economy and society among primitive 

peoples in the Grundrisse der K ritik der Politischen Ökonomie, 7 devoting 

two passages of this work, which remained in draft form during his 

lifetime, to the primitive condition of man, returning to the theme briefly 

in the Critique o f Political Economy, 1859. His exposition of primitive as 

opposed to capitalist production was set forth in the chapter on the 

social division of labor in C apital.8 The problems dealt with in 1841-1846 

remained substantially the same during the period 1857-1867, when the 

Grundrisse and the volumes of Capital were composed; these problems 

continued into the period of his more systematic ethnological researches, 

1879-1882. The method became increasingly concrete: it was concerned 

with the evolution of civil society, with the interests of economic classes 

and their opposition, the evolution of peasant collective institutions, 

the relations of the family and civilized society, the State and society, 

the division of social labor in relation to its nonspecialization.9 In 

the Grundrisse and in Capital, primitive man is taken up as a category, 

the abstraction of the primitive condition as a means and in opposition 

to the concretion of the capitalist economy, without reference to particular 

primitive peoples. India, China, Greece, Rome, and countries of 

modern Europe and America were specified therein; the further concretion 

of the particular primitive peoples in terms of the identified social 

institutions was then developed by Marx in the notebooks of the period 

1879-1882. 

Marx’s studies of ethnology were connected with those on the rural 

community, the land and the peasant question, at once as historical and 

as current political issues, and again with the question of applications of 

science and technology in agriculture; Marx had written on the Danubian 

principalities, etc., and on Oriental questions, in particular India and 

China, during the 1850s and 1860s. His researches into Slavic, Germanic, 

Irish and South Asian peasant communities and history, and comparative 

ethnological data from authors of classical antiquity were cited in the 

Grundrisse, the Critique of 1859, afld Capital, but more extensively in the 

notebooks of the 1870s and 1880s. Marx’s correspondence with Vera 

5

Zasulich10 introduced the concrete side of his interest: the historical 

problem of the Russian peasant commune and the social relations within 

it, which had great vitality, was known to him, its like still surviving in 

his native district of Trier in his day; the peasant community was collective 

in its undertakings, wherein accumulation of private property was 

not the primary social end; the interrelation of social morality and col- 

lective-communal ethics and the non-separation of the public and the 

private spheres were characteristic of these communities. Slavic and 

other peoples with significant peasant community composition and 

institutions did not face the prospect of the necessary development of 

capitalism; this is expounded by Marx in opposition to the doctrine of 

historical fatalism, and is further to be directed against historicism in 

general and against particular historical determinisms. His ethnological 

studies during the period 1879-1882 related to the ancient States and the 

communities and tribes both ancient and modern. Morgan’s category 

of gentile societies was understood by Marx as a development of a 

concrete institution, and as an evolutionary progress in its abstract 

relation. Together with the related studies of the peasant communities, 

it provided Marx with a model of what that society which was not 

concentrated on the pursuit of personal and private wealth, but which 

developed instead collective institutions of ownership, could be. On the 

other hand, it provided a material base for the doctrine of impermanence 

of property in its particular form as private property, of the monogamous 

family and the State, already expounded in the Communist Manifesto and 

the Grundrisse, and the possibility of separate development of peoples to 

which he returned in the letters to Zasulich and against Mikhailovsky and 

Otechestvennje Zapiski. (See below, Addendum 1 and note 160.) The 

ethnological manuscripts therefore complement the positions of the 

Grundrisse and Capita/; they are also developments of Marx’s position of 

the period 1843-1845. 

1. M ARX’S EXCERPTS FROM MORGAN, A N C I E N T S O C IE T Y " 

Engels made known Marx’s study of Morgan’s work : “ ... Marx had set 

himself the task of presenting the results of Morgan’s researches in connection 

with the conclusions of his own - within certain limits I may say 

our - materialist investigations of history, and thereby to make clear their 

full significance.” 12 The nature of the presentation that Marx had in view 

remains, however, to be examined. 

Marx had received Morgan’s work from M. M. Kovalevsky, who had 

brought the book back from a trip to the United States,13 Marx having 

had it perhaps only temporarily from Kovalevsky, for Engels did not 

find it in Marx’s library.14 Marx took extensive notes from Morgan’s 

work, coupling it with his studies of Phear, Sohm, Maine, and somewhat 

6

later, of Lubbock.15 The sets of excerpts taken from Morgan, Phear, 

Maine and Lubbock will form the domain of our inquiry, considering 

also that Kovalevsky’s work on Communal Landownership, which Marx 

excerpted in 1879, is also apposite both in its contents and in its close 

chronological relation to the later materials.16 The excerpts taken from 

Morgan, Phear and Maine, together with those from Money, Sohm and 

Hospitalier, form the contents of one notebook (see note 15); the Lubbock 

excerpts are found in a second. The relations of the contents of these 

notebooks both to each other and to Marx’s other works will be discussed 

in the following pages; a special addendum on the chronology of the 

notebooks will be found at the end of this Introduction. 

In view of Marx’s extensive and ongoing work on the ethnological 

literature at that time we infer that if he had intended to present the 

results of his researches, of which those on Morgan were the most influential, 

then it was in connection with this and other ethnographic and 

historical matter from those authors mentioned, as well as from Bancroft, 

Tylor, Bachofen, Niebuhr, Grote, Mommsen, and such others as were 

cited in the notebooks.17 (On the juxtaposition of these materials to 

those on colonial questions and on technology of agriculture, see the 

paragraph following and note 15.) How Marx had intended to present 

his work, whether as a book on an ethnological subject, or as a part of 

a work on another subject is unclear; his work cannot be said to have 

taken a particular form, it was rather in the process of gestation. As to 

content, on the other hand, his views on Morgan, Maine, and other 

contemporary authors, on the current state of ethnology, on social 

evolution, prehistory and history of antiquity, on historical and evolutionary 

fatalism and necessitarianism, have been known until now only 

in outline from his correspondence and from citations drawn from the 

excerpt notebook on Morgan and incorporated in Engels’ Origin o f the 

Family. We now have the context of those citations, together with 

other comments by Marx, and the materials from the remaining authors. 

The notebook containing the excerpts from the books of Morgan, 

Phear and Maine also contains excerpts from Money’s book on Java as 

a colony (see n. 15); the Lubbock excerpt is followed directly by notes 

taken from an article on Egyptian finance; the brief excerpt from 

Hospitalier may be connected with an interest as early as April-May 1851 

in the application of electricity to increasing the fertility of the soil, an 

idea he had taken from the Economist of London.18 The notebooks are 

not to be regarded as fortuitous agglomerations; they stand as nodal 

points in which ideas related to each other were explored in various 

studies, perhaps not as lines of association in general, but in particular. 

Starting from the study of primitive society, they lead to the evolution 

of society and, to judge by their juxtaposition, to the problems of colonialism 

and technological progress in agriculture. While the focus of 

7

this present work is on the ethnological side, we note the conjunction of 

these lines of thought, at the same time the relation to the philosophical 

problems and to problems of praxis. Morgan’s writings will be discussed 

below in relation to kinship (and peasant-communal) institutions. 

Morgan’s theory of social progress was a simple material one: the 

great epochs of human progress are identified with successive enlargements 

of sources of subsistence, up to the beginnings of field agriculture. 

Morgan’s concept of ancient society refers to mankind in the states of 

savagery and barbarism; while in the states of savagery and lower barbarism 

man was without cultural and regional difference in his attainments 

of fishing, fire, the bow and arrow, then separately proceeding 

from the lower to the middle status of barbarism by two lines of progress: 

in the New World, by the invention of maize cultivation with irrigation 

and (garden) plants; in the Old World man progressed to the Middle 

Status of Barbarism by the invention of domestication of animals and 

the use of iron; in the Old World man progressed through the Upper 

Status of Barbarism to civilization, from the social plan of government 

in which personal and consanguineal bonds were the dominant ones to 

the civil plan, civitasy or the political state, based on territory and property. 

The progress along the various lines is at varying rates in their different 

chronological segments; the social life of the peoples is heterogeneous 

in its internal composition; the family changes more rapidly than the 

systems of consanguinity; the latter are therefore a fossil record of 

mankind. The family is moreover the active element effecting change in 

the organization of the life of a people, the kinship system is passive, 

changing according to the change in the form of the family. The organ- 

icist conception of parts interrelated in the whole was further noted and 

commented by Engels.19 

On the one hand, the whole according to Morgan determines the part, 

the entire social system directing the development of the family; on the 

other, Morgan conceived that the form of the family had a determining 

influence on the system of consanguinity. The social life of the people 

was conceived by Morgan to be variable both as to relations between 

peoples, the external relation of society, and internally as to the relations 

between the parts of the society. The culture of mankind was not 

conceived to be so variable by him, for it is conceived in the singular, 

and as the total product of an ethnical period, not as the means of cultivation 

of the human biological organism or of a particular society 

(see note 16). 

The general hypothesis or suggestion of Morgan is that mankind had 

a common origin in Asia. The peoples of Africa and Australia separated 

from the common stem when society still was organized on the basis of 

sex, and the family was punaluan. The migration to Polynesia occurred 

later, but without change in social form, that to America occurred later 

8

still, after the institution of gentes; this sequence is vital to the comprehension 

of Ancient Society. L. White has criticized Morgan for having, 

despite information then available to him, put Polynesia too low on the 

social scale. Morgan was forming, but had not fully developed, an idea 

that the several families of peoples, each with a common origin, history, 

society, culture and language had peopled the continents or island worlds. 

The idea was worked out only for America: the evidence of the unity of 

origin of the American Indians, or the Ganowanian family, was proved 

beyond reasonable doubt to him; the Eskimos were excluded from this 

origin. The Turanian family of peoples of Asia is referred to in the same 

terms by Morgan as the Ganowanian, but without further specification 

as to its composition. This culture geography and culture history was 

considered apart from the systems of consanguinity and affinity, although 

the one was applied as a characterizing feature in the nomenclature of 

general identification of the inhabitants of continents. 

Morgan’s materialism on the one side and his relations to Darwinism 

on the other have been much discussed. The general periodization applied 

by Morgan was, in its conception, material or technological to be sure; 

yet he conceived that the social institutions evolved out of the germs of 

thought of the human species, which is the opposite of any sense of 

materialism. On the other hand, he wrote of the succession of increasingly 

higher organizations as the result of ‘great social movements worked out 

unconsciously through natural selection.’ Morgan had not worked out 

in his own mind a system of natural philosophy, but the various elements 

of one are there to be found, propounded with a deep conviction.20 

According to Morgan, government in primitive societies is personal 

and founded upon relations that are personal. Marx, on the other hand, 

implicitly controverted this in his Maine manuscript. Maine had written 

that property in land has a twofold origin, partly from the disentanglement 

of the individual rights of the kinsmen or tribesmen from the 

collective rights of the body of kin - Maine had written Family here - 

or tribe; and partly from the growth and transmutation of the sovereignty 

of the chief. Marx responded to this: “Also nicht 2 fold origin; sondern 

nur 2 ramifications of the same source; the tribal property und tribal 

collectivity which includes the tribal chief.” (See Maine excerpts, p. 164 

and n. 15 there.) It follows from this response of Marx that the relations 

of property and government in primitive society are neither personal nor 

impersonal, but collective. Maine had criticized John Austin for positing 

the existence of the State a priori, but, Marx wrote, Maine himself, in 

making this critique had failed to distinguish between the institution of 

the State and the person of the Prince: “Der unglückliche Maine selbst 

hat keine Ahnung davon, dass da wo Staaten existiren (after the primitive 

Communities, etc.) i.e. eine politisch organisirte Gesellschaft, der Staat 

keineswegs der Prinz ist; er scheint nur so.” (Maine excerpts, p. 191.) 

9

The impersonal relation of the State has the appearance of the personal 

relation of the prince in political organized society. The existence of the 

State is established in time after that of the primitive communities, and 

develops with its establishment the difference of appearance and reality. 

(See below, section 3 on Maine in this Introduction.) Both commentaries 

of Marx in regard to Maine bear equally upon the thesis of Morgan, 

for they are strictures against any theory of primitive government 

conceived as a personal relation. The individuality is expressed and 

developed in the collective life of primitive society, the person exists as 

such, albeit not in actual opposition to the social institution. On the one 

hand, the differentiation cf the personal and the institutional relation is 

potentially that which is developed into an opposition in politically 

organized society. On the other, the personal and the institutional 

relations are actually differentiated in either society, primitive or civilized; 

it is an inconsistency to think that because the number of people in a 

primitive society is small, for which reason the members may relate to 

the chief personally, the governmental, or judiciary or other relations are 

personal. Personal acquaintance or other relations of that sort and institutional 

relations in both primitive and civilized societies are differentiated 

even where personal acquaintance, etc., is itself institutionalized. 

The individual, or personal, relation exists between rulers of States and 

their citizens, or subjects, as well, but the relation of ruler to subject is 

not changed by virtue of the personal relation; on the other hand, judgments 

of the tribal chief or of the ruler of the State may be equally 

influenced by the personal relation, or want of the same. The development 

of oppositive interests of social classes does not eradicate the 

personal relation, but imposes the distinction between its reality and 

the appearance of it. 

The system that Marx developed in this matter is the following: The 

political relation is the negation of the collective primitive relation, the 

collective relation bearing within itself both the personal and the impersonal 

relations in a more or less undifferentiated form. The differentiation 

between the personal and the impersonal relations in the 

primitive collectivity becomes the greater as the amount of tribal property 

is increased, and, in keeping with this, as the office of chief becomes more 

clearly delineated and less undifferentiated. It is therefore meaningless to 

think of the differentiation of personal and impersonal relations in 

extremely primitive societies, where the amount of property is low and 

any such distinctive office as that of the chief is barely perceptible, if at all. 

The distinction between the personal and the impersonal or objective, 

institutional relations becomes increasingly important as the amount of 

production and ownership of property increases, and offices as that of 

the chief become more sharply defined. At this point there is still no 

sharp differentiation between collective and individual property owner 

10

ship; Marx attributed the development of this differentiation to the period 

of transition to the politically organized society, as the basis for the 

development of the latter. 

Ancient Society is divided into four parts: I, Growth of Intelligence 

through Inventions and Discoveries; II, Growth of the Idea of Government; 

III, Growth of the Idea of the Family; IV, Growth of the Idea of 

Property. Marx changed Morgan’s sequence by treating of Part II, 

Government, last, thus replacing Property in the order of his manuscript. 

By doing so he brought the subject matter of the second part directly into 

conjunction with that of property, whereas it had been separated by 

Morgan through the lengthy discourse on the family. In this way, 

Morgan’s peroration on the distorting effect of property upon mankind 

and the condition of its eventual disappearance was excerpted in order, 

but without special attention, in Marx’s manuscript notes on p. 29. 

Proportionately, Marx reduced Part I to half the space that Morgan gave 

to it, chiefly by omitting chapter 3, Ratio of Human Progress, in which 

a time-scale of human evolution is proposed; proportionately, Marx 

devoted less space than Morgan to Part III: Morgan’s summaries of his 

past work given in the tables of kin terms and the note appended to this 

Part, in which McLennan’s work is controverted, were omitted by Marx, 

as well as Morgan’s Preface. Aside from these omissions, Marx excluded 

little of significance from Morgan; this last is true, in the degree that will 

be seen, of the excerpts from Phear and Maine; it is not all relevant to 

those from Lubbock.21 

Marx was generally favorable to Morgan’s work; he did not reach 

Engels’ verdict that Ancient Society is an epoch-making work, and that 

Morgan’s ‘rediscovery of the precedence of the matriarchal over the 

patriarchal gens has the same significance for prehistory that Darwin’s 

theory of evolution has for biology and Marx’s theory of surplus value 

has for political economy’.22 Yet Morgan’s doctrine became for Marx 

the basis for judgment of related matter in the writings of Niebuhr, 

Grote, Mommsen, in classical studies; he contrasted Morgan’s republicanism 

to the aristocratic inclination of Grote and Mommsen’s quest for 

princes;23 Morgan showed to Marx the limits of their understanding of 

the institutions of the gens, phratry, basileus, and those of the writings 

of Maine and Lubbock in ethnology. Marx accepted Morgan’s authority 

on the ethnology of the American Indian and other contemporary 

primitive peoples, as did Bachofen,24 hence added little to the evidence 

for Morgan’s theses from extra-European sources. Morgan, however, 

based his argument equally on texts from classical antiquity, particularly 

of Greece and Rome, to a minor extent of the Old Testament. Marx 

verified certain references to Greek and Latin authors in Morgan and 

at the end of his notes set down a number of further quotations, in 

particular on tribal lays as historical annals; 25 he added Greek etymologies 

11

(e.g. syndyasmian, excerpts, p. 3), and Latin (e.g. hortus, excerpts, p. 2), 

and searched out English ethnological terms as moccasin, squash (I.e.) 

Marx copied out or summarized Morgan’s work; he intruded himself 

but little into the excerptions, as compared, for example, with the method 

applied in his Maine manuscript. In the following table, a list of what 

may be considered his principal comments or additions is given. Some 

of these comments are already known from the use that Engels made of 

them in the Ursprung der Familie. For the sake of fuller comparison, a 

similar list showing in outline the utilization made by Engels of Marx’s 

excerpts from Morgan is given (see below, Table VII). With reference to 

the Maine excerpts, however, a different practice is followed (see below, 

Table V). (The Maine excerpts contain a proportionately and absolutely 

larger amount of material introduced by Marx, which is difficult to 

tabulate. The reader is therefore directed to the excerpts themselves, as 

he is most urgently in all cases.) 

T A B LE I. Comments by Marx in the Excerpts from Morgan’s Ancient Society 

Excerpts p. Key words 

12 

i 26 Italian tribes in Upper Status of Barbarism (!) 

2 Absolute control (? I) over nature 

6 (Mindestens officiell!) 

10 Ebenso verhält... politische Systeme, etc. 

13 Südslawen, Russian communes (2 references) 

14 Was oft anwendbar (referring to Old Britons) 

16 References to Fourier; to South Slavs; to Goddesses on Olympus 

21 Fire-making - chief invention (contra Morgan) 

24” Nicht der Fall bei Celts 

2Ö28 Fencing does not prove private ownership of land; error in Iliad citation by 

Morgan; [Achille] Loria and passion for property.“ 

28 Testamentary dispositions established by Solon? 

37 Changed form of blood-vengeance I 

38 If! it is supposed! 

41 Organized colonization! 

48 Erblichmachen der Wahl 

57 Eingeborene casuistry 

5 8 Caste formation; gens petrified in caste b 

67 Mögen Spanier__ Er hätte sagen sollen...; Stamm, phyle 

68 Savage peeps through. 

69 Klassische Schülergelehrsamkeit; Herrn Grote ferner zu bemerken... e 

70 Schulgelehrter Philister; 

71 Germanice fleischlich;6 lernten sie dies...; Das lumpige religiöse Element 

remains in the degree that real cooperation disappears...; Schulgelehrter...; 

Verkettung-Phantasiebild. 

73-4 Mr. Gladstone... 

74 Schoemann on Greek voting; Sorte militairischer demokratie A 

75 Ancient Germanic justice.

-j6 Böckh on population of Attica; Schoemann on principalities; Theseus a real 

person; Phantasie des Plutarch. 

76-7 Interessenconflict 

77 Germ of county? 

78 Bekamen entscheidende Macht; Plutarch falsch; Settlers Griechen 

79 Eigenthumsdifferenz; Schoemann contra Morgan regarding topic phyles 

80 Attic tribes 

81 Schoemann reference 

84 Clan-Geschlechter in Mommsen. Analogy I 

87 Tribun = tribal chief. Conjectur 

89 Contra Livy (Kerl vergisst...); Superlativ dies. 

90 Clients as plebs: Niebuhr right as against Morgan 

91 Bürger des Romulus (Plutarch on Numa) 

94 Mutterzunge - Fatherland. Reference to Curtius, quoted in Morgan 

95 Bachofen: spurious (I) children; lawless (!) union; unilateres in male line 

(cf. Morgan, p. 360). 

great family = Geschlechtsfamilie = gens. 

96 Bachofen on lawlessness 

0 Perhaps: Achille Loria, La rendita fondiaria e la sua elisone naturale. Milano, 1880. 

6 See below, Morgan excerpts, note 160. 

c Reference to George Grote. On Grote’s relations to Bentham, J. S. Mill and the utilitarians, 

cf. Elie Halevy, The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism (1928) 1955. 

d See below, Section 7, Relation of Engels to Marx and Morgan. 

Marx differed from Morgan chiefly over details (excerpts, pp. 1, 2, 20, 

21, 24, 26, 77, 84, 90); basic matters (excerpts, pp. 26, 38, 48, 76-79) as 

private ownership in Homer, hereditary transmission of chieftainships, 

the questions of conflict of interests in the dissolution of the gens, and 

property differences in the same condition, on the other hand, were 

developed rather as Marx’s own expressions. 

Marx completed the excerpts and notetaking at Pt. II, ch. X V of 

Morgan. After covering the beginning of that chapter, he copied out 

passages from Tacitus, Germania and Caesar, Gallic War, there given, 

added the further passages from classical authors, including the references 

from the Lipsius ed. of Tacitus (excerpts, pp. 96-98), and brought the 

Morgan notes to an end. 

Marx called into question Morgan’s statement, “Mankind are the only 

beings who may be said to have gained an absolute (?!) control over the 

production of food__ ” (Marx’s interpolation, excerpts, p. 2).29 According 

to Morgan, cultivation of cereals preceded the migration of the 

Aryan peoples from the grass plains of high Asia to the forest of West 

Asia and Europe, and this culture was forced upon them by the necessities 

of the domesticated animals now incorporated into their plan of life. 

Marx (excerpts, p. 24) suggested that this was not the case among the 

Celts.27 Morgan, on the authority of the Iliad, noted there the reference 

to fences, and on this evidence attributed private land ownership to 

13

Homeric Greece, an interpretation which Marx did not accept (Marx 

excerpts, p. 26): “Morgan irrt sich wenn er glaubt, das blosse fencing 

beweise Privatgrundeigenthum” .28 

Marx sought the origin of civilized society and the State in the dissolution 

of the primitive group. The form of this group was identified as 

the gens of Morgan’s description, as opposed to the joint family of 

Maine’s. Moreover, Marx applied Morgan’s view that in the ancient 

collectivities there existed the characteristics of society which man must 

reconstitute if he is to overcome the distortions of his character in the 

civilized condition. Marx made it clear, as Morgan did not, that this 

process of reconstitution will take place on another level than the old, 

that it is a human effort, of man for and by himself, that the antagonisms 

of civilization are not static or passive, but are comprised of social interests 

which are ranged for and against the outcome of the reconstitution, and 

this will be determined in an active and dynamic way. 

Further in reference to the relation of the institutions of ancient 

society to those of the era of civilization Marx noted that the Tribune of 

the Roman people who in the historic period defended the plebeians 

against the patricians was originally the leader of the tribe (Morgan 

excerpts, p. 87). The fraternity of the ancient gentes has been changed in 

its terms of reference and in its meaning, after the establishment of the 

social relations of civilization; it can neither be reconstituted nor reconceived 

in its ancient form. The outlines of the liberty and equality 

of ancient society were discussed by Marx passim: 

1. Morgan considered that the increasing freedom and higher social 

position of women are a measure of the progress of the family: Just as 

the future of mankind, once it has overcome the distortion of the career 

of property, will restore the liberty and equality of the ancient gentes, so 

the position of women will be restored to its earlier, higher place. Marx 

wrote in this regard (excerpts, p. 16), “ Aber das Verhältnis der Göttinnen 

im Olymp zeigt Rückerinnerung an frühere freiere und einflussreichere 

Position der Weiber.” The recollection of a prior state of greater freedom 

and influence in the position of women accounts for half of the mythology 

of Juno and Minerva. The other half of the account is that the projection 

into heaven of the ancient freedom and equality of the women is the 

inversion of their actual position in Greek society; it is also the justification 

in the mythology of their constraint in that low position, and the 

expression of the hopeful fantasy of its betterment in another world. 

2. The question of the gens in relation to the destruction of equality, 

the formation of social ranks, further, of castes, social stratification, and 

complex, oppositive society was raised by Marx in connection with the 

Kutchins, an Athapaskan people of northwestern Canada (Morgan 

excerpts, p. 5 8). According to G. Gibbs, a correspondent of Morgan, 

the Kutchins had three exogamic groups of common descent, and there 

14

with the question of caste was raised. Marx’s comment was a hypothetical 

query: can the gentes give rise to the formation of castes, 

particularly if conquest is added to the gens principle ? This concerns the 

manner in which the one is added to the other. The gentes were of 

different rank among the Kutchin; this differentiation arose out of a 

factor which is not external to the gens principle; the principle of the gens 

has the caste as its opposite. Thus, the abstract principle of the gens has 

as its opposition a concrete social organization, caste, on the one side, 

and conquest on the other. In its transition the gens, by difference in 

social rank, can petrify into its opposite, caste. The concretion, difference 

in social rank, is in conflict with the abstraction, the gens principle; the 

concrete gens is at the same time petrified in its opposite, the concrete 

caste. The bond of kinship within the gentile principle, by its existence, 

permits no perfected aristocracy to arise; the sentiment of fraternity 

continues in the gens so long as the aristocracy does not come into existence. 

The form of fraternity, however, can exist in a society with an 

aristocracy developed. 

2.a. This is the most explicitly dialectical of all of Marx’s formulations, 

in the Morgan notebook, of the transition from the primitive to the 

civilized condition of mankind, wherein the opposition between an 

abstraction, the principle of the gens, and a series of concretions, conquest, 

caste, and differentiation in social rank is posited. The transition 

from the abstraction of the gens is at the same time opposed to the concrete 

caste; thus the two transitions, from abstraction to concretion, 

and from one concretion to the next, take place at the same time; they are 

preceded by the transition of the concrete gens to its abstraction. The 

concretion of conquest is added to the abstraction of the gens as it is to a 

principle of the latter; the concretion of social rank differentiation is in 

conflict with the abstract gens principle. But can the concrete gens by 

difference in social rank concretely petrify as its opposite, the concrete 

caste? Caste is opposed to a further formation arising out of the dissolution 

of gentile society, the aristocracy; for the concretions, caste, frater- 

nity, gentile organization, and the bond of kinship, in their petrification, 

stand opposed to the development of the latter. Here a social relation 

external to the gens principle must be introduced: It is not caste as such, 

nor conquest as such, nor differentiation in rank, that destroys the bond 

of kinship and of fraternity; the gens and gentile principle pass into 

civilization, antagonistic society, and an aristocracy, subject to another 

opposition than that which is delineated here; equality, fraternity, the 

gens, conquest, the bond of kinship and differentiation in rank exist 

together while property is not unevenly accumulated and privately 

sequestered, distributed and transmitted, but for inequality in relation to 

property to come about, there must have been a quantitative increase in 

the amount of social property in the first place, the factor external to the 

15

gentile principle, already introduced by Morgan, that is operative in the 

transition from societas to civitas. 

z.b. The ancient caste is a petrification of the internal gentile differentiation. 

(Marx here examined the process of formation of caste, whereas 

in the letter to Annenkov and in volume I of K apital he regarded the 

end-result. See below, Morgan excerpts, note 160.) The aristocracy in 

its finished form is the opposite of the caste, just as its formation is the 

opposite of petrification. The formation of the caste, on the other hand, 

is achieved not out of the concretion of the gens, but out of its abstraction. 

The petrification of the gens as caste is not the eradication of the gens as 

a formal community, but it is deprived of the sentiment of equality, just 

as it is in the case of the formation of an aristocracy. In the latter case, 

however, both the form and the content of the bond of kinship are 

destroyed. Rank differentiation is nevertheless compatible with the 

formal gentile principle, not with the sentiment of equality, however. 

The rise of the aristocracy is a non-cyclical revolution, for no return to 

substantial equality and to blood-fraternity or community in its ancient 

formis possible in the given society, once it has arisen. V. Gordon Childe, 

who conceived of revolution in the archaeological period of the neolithic 

settlements in the earliest agricultural communities, considered revolution 

only in this sense. The sense of a cyclical and recycling revolution, as in 

astronomy, was already taken up by Giambattista Vico; it has been taken 

up again of late by Jean-Paul Sartre who has advanced the notion of the 

recurrence in history of the perpetual factors of the human condition, 

as scarcity. 

3. Marx noted (excerpts, p. 33) that Morgan had composed a jus 

gentilicium in regard to the Iroquois; Morgan did the same in regard to 

the Greeks and Romans (Part II, chapters II, VIII and X I of Ancient 

Society take up this theme). A jus gentilicium is an anachronism; it can 

only be written after a gentile system has come to an end; this was the 

case in ancient Rome, where a jus gentilicium was in fact conceived, but 

only after the establishment of the political society and the decline of the 

gens. From another point of view, the jus gentilicium is a contradiction 

in terms. Finally, it is a possible enterprise for the ethnologist, the 

outsider, but he is no longer composing the jus gentilicium for a particular 

society, as the Romans did for theirs; the ethnologist is writing a 

universal jus gentilicium, for the gens as an abstraction, and the gentile 

society as a general phenomenon. This was Morgan’s task, and his 

success stands or falls as the particular jus gentilicium is related to the 

generality in a concrete way, yet this side of Morgan’s work has not been 

systematically pursued. He began this task himself quasi dialectically to 

begin with, not in regard to the gens, but its opposite, the family, which 

is taken up as an active principle (Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 10) and as 

a passivity (see this Introduction, note 16, end), but he did not bring 

16

these two opposing sides together, nor did he develop the conception 

there implied with respect to the gens. Yet the relation of the gens as an 

active and as a passive principle to the gens as a concrete institution, both 

passive and active, is central to the transition to civilization. Moreover, 

the dissolution of the gens in regard to these processes and relations 

cannot be set aside. 

Marx introduced the differences from a doctrine of unilinear evolutionism 

in his Morgan excerpts, in accord with the latter. The references to the 

several lines of development in the two hemispheres brought out by 

Morgan were noted by Marx; the quest for equivalences between the 

two as well. Moreover, Morgan introduced the factor of borrowing or 

diffusion between peoples who were at different stages of development 

in his system. Marx noted this both in regard to the ancient Britons 

(excerpts, p. 14)30 and as a general phenomenon (excerpts, p. 22).31 

Morgan regarded the patriarchal family of the Hebrews and Romans as 

an exceptional case in the evolution of society and the family, hence as 

a non-unilinearity. Marx (excerpts, p. 4) noted this view; he then modified 

it to his own schema, but did not controvert it. Engels adopted the 

notion that the patriarchal family is the principal form from which the 

modern family evolved. The Oriental family according to Engels, was 

a unilinear evolution of the ancient (Hebrew and Roman) patriarchal 

family.32 The unilinear doctrine in Morgan and his contemporaries 

overshadows ail else; the variations are to be understood as subordinate 

to that doctrine; the dialectical interrelation of the one and the many 

lines of human development was not taken up at that time. 

Morgan had proposed that paternal authority developed as the family 

took on a monogamous character, whereby increase in the amount of 

property and the desire for its retention within the family caused descent 

to be changed from the female to the male line, hence a real foundation 

for that power was laid.33 (The Roman family gave the father an exceptional 

authority over the son, as Gaius had shown; Morgan regarded 

the ancient Roman family, insofar as it was a patriarchy, to be an exception.) 

Further, Morgan rested on Tacitus for evidence that the ancient 

Germans developed toward a monogamous family (Tacitus is not clear 

on this): “It seems probable... that [the family] of the ancient Germans 

was too weak an organization to face alone the hardships of life; and... 

sheltered itself in a communal household [Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 16, 

interpolated: as the south Slavs] composed of related families. When 

slavery became an institution, these households would disappear.” 34 To 

this Marx added (I.e.): “In fact, the monogamous family rests everywhere, 

in order to have an independent isolated existence, upon a domestic class 

which originally was everywhere direct slaves.” Morgan considered that 

17

the family did not carry society along, but society the family: “ German 

society was not far enough advanced at this time for the appearance of a 

high type of monogamian family.” This position is to be taken together 

with the relation of the family to the system of consanguinity (Marx, 

Morgan excerpts, p. io).35 

That the Greek, Roman, Hebrew families were of patriarchal type and 

were related to agricultural (and pastoral) services, to slavery and in the 

Roman case potentially to serfdom is an indication that the patriarchal 

family form was exceptional in human experience; the development of 

western civilization in general is exceptional, as opposed to the Oriental. 

Civilization arose in connection with the rise of the patriarchal family in 

the West, but neither wholly nor solely in connection with it, and with 

the monogamous family; it follows that civilization is itself an extraordinary 

development. This is a line of thought opened up by Fourier 

which has its root in Gaius, and which Marx further explored (Morgan 

excerpts, p. 16): “Fourier characterizes the Epoch of Civilization by 

Monogamy and Private Property in Land. The Modern family contains 

the germ not only of servitus (slavery) but also serfdom, since it contains 

from the beginning a relation to services for agriculture. It contains in 

miniature all the antagonisms within itself which are later broadly developed 

in society and its State.” Engels then put the comment on Fourier 

into a note at the end of the Origin o f the Fam ily ,36 and the remainder of 

Marx’s thought into his passage about the development of the ancient 

family.37 

The family of classical antiquity is the miniature of the society, but 

rests, in its monogamous form, upon social institutions which are external 

to the private group of kin: slaves, domestics, (in large courts, 

retainers and clients), later, serfs, etc.; therefore, the antagonisms which 

the family contains in miniature are not generated by the family in the 

way that they are generated in society, but by the society and then borne 

into the family. The family as it is here conceived is part of a society 

either on the verge of development into civilization or already in that 

status. These relations of family and society and the family as the miniature 

of the society are fundamentally different from those e.g. of the 

traditional Hawaiian family and society. Morgan wrote: “It is not 

probable that the actual family, among the Hawaiians, was a large as the 

group united in the marriage relation. Necessity would compel its 

subdivision into smaller groups for the procurement of subsistence, and 

for mutual protection; but each smaller family would be a miniature of 

the group.” 38 Morgan did not specify whether he meant that the family 

would be a miniature of the larger group united in the marriage relation 

or the smaller group within the larger, united for subsistence and defense. 

The context points to the latter, that the smaller family was the miniature 

of the smaller group in Hawaii. Marx reproduced Morgan’s wording 

18

without comment (excerpts, p. 8). The problem in this connection is that 

the word ‘miniature’ on p. 16 of Marx’s excerpts refers to a wholly 

different family and society, and the use of the same word with reference 

to the Hawaiian case has been misleading to some. The family in the 

Roman society was not a miniature of any larger social institution; the 

antagonisms within it were the miniature of the antagonisms without, 

also those of modern civilized society, with certain relations changed. 

Neither the Roman nor the modern family of civilized society bears the 

same relation to its social context that the traditional Hawaiian family did 

to the primitive social group in which it was situated. 

The State and Civilised Society 

The question of the formation of the State is raised in these passages: the 

State is an institution of society, hence it is neither extrasocial nor 

supra-social. It is an institution of internally divided and opposed society, 

hence it is not universal in human society, since some are primitive and 

more homogeneous. The State is not to be typologically separated into 

the Roman State, the modern capitalist State, etc.; it is a general institutional 

category of the type of society indicated here. The State in relation 

to society will be taken up below in connection with Marx’s note on 

Maine; it is raised in the excerpt notes from Morgan in connection with 

the transition from barbarism to civilization: 

Morgan attributed the transition of Greek society from the gentile to 

the civil (political) organization to the period between the first Olympiad 

(776 B.C.) and the time of the legislation of Cleisthenes (508 B.C.).39 

Marx (excerpts, p. 67) commented: “He should have said that political 

here has the meaning in Aristotle = urban, and political animal = citizen.” 

Aristotle’s definition of man is that he is by nature, physei, a 

political animal, a creature of the polis.40 Marx commented on Aristotie’s 

definition in the Introduction to the Grundrisse: “Man is in the most 

literal sense a %oon politikon, not only a gregarious animal but one that can 

become an individual only in society.” 41 He returned to the question in 

C apital: “ ... Man is by nature if not a political animal as Aristotle thinks, 

in any case a social animal.” To this he noted: “Aristotle’s definition is 

actually that man is by nature a town-citizen. This definition is as 

characteristic for classical antiquity as Franklin’s definition that man is 

by nature a tool-making animal is for Yankeedom.” 42 The definition of 

man given by Aristotle follows his discussion of social life in the family, 

the village, a collectivity of villages, and leads up to the discussion of the 

city-state; in this connection the Greek and barbarian governmental 

forms are compared.43 That man does not, in Aristode’s conception, 

live everywhere in cities is clear. Therefore, the political life, the life in 

the city and the city-state that Aristotle attributed to the nature of man 

is not an aspect of his actual nature, for it touched and still touches only 

*9

a small proportion of the total of humanity; it is a potentiality of man, 

his final end, his ultimate or best nature, furthest removed from the life 

of animals and of barbarians. According to Aristotle it is the life of 

human nature to which the barbarians as known to him had not yet 

attained, but to which all men aspire. Marx differentiated between man 

as a social anim al in general and a political animal in particular, noting 

that the life in the polis or in civil society was characteristic of men in that 

era, in a concrete society. The idea was formulated more abstractly by 

Marx in 1857-1858, whereby the generality of sociability was opposed to 

individuation, passing dialectically into its opposite only in society, the 

latter remaining here without particular concretion. In the formulation 

in Capital, the condition of man in society passes dialectically from its 

abstraction to a concretion in particular societies, ancient Greek in one 

case, and eighteenth century America in another. It does not pass from 

one particularity to another, but rests in each as separate concretions, 

without their historical connection. There is therefore no historical 

determination of the passage from one concretion to the other. Man is 

therefore in a dual relation, on the one hand to man in a particular, 

concrete society, and on the other to nature by the intermediation of tools; 

the positing of the problem is on the one hand the transition of a concrete 

to an abstract relation, on the other from the actual to the potential state 

of man, passing thereby from the intermediation of social relations to the 

intermediation of work-tools in the definition of human nature. Each 

criterion is at once specific and concrete in its determination, and an 

abstraction in reference to the entire species. What is excluded is the 

holistic, gestaltist abstraction of the determination of man and of human 

nature on the one hand, and the Cartesian determination of man as the 

determination of mind, on the other. 

The two societies are juxtaposed, but not as irreconcilable antinomies. 

They are at the same time exemplifications of two definitions of the 

human in Marx; they were selected as concrete expressions in their 

juxtaposition of how man becomes human: that is, by life in society and 

by the use of tools. Marx’s sixth thesis on Feuerbach defines man as the 

ensemble of social relations; the isolated individual is an abstraction.44 

(We will take up this problem below, in reference to Marx’s excerpts 

from Maine.) The Introduction to the Grundrisse further develops this 

idea, which was already adumbrated in the “ Critique of the Historical 

School of Right” (1842) and in the Critique o f the Hegelian Philosophy o f 

Right (1843). The formulation in C apital expresses it concretely, as the 

praxis of particular societies. The intermediation of tools in the development 

of man was introduced in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts 

(1844): man relates to his generic being (Gattungswesen) by his work 

upon the objective world, it is man’s generic life;45 this was given 

further concretion in The German Ideology,46 the Communist Manifesto, the 

20

Grundrisse and in C apital.47 The relation of man in society and the relation 

of man to nature are first, the interactive moments of a unified theory of 

man which is the opposite of an abstract theory of the human condition, 

of a human essence or nature. Man becomes human not only in society, 

but in a concrete society, not only by the intermediation of his tools, but 

by particular practical work upon nature by their means. The second 

dialectical moment is opposed to the first; it is that man is alienated 

a) from nature by his tools, and b) in society, as historical processes. The 

second moment was taken up in its abstraction in the Economic-Philo- 

sophical Manuscripts and with increasing concretion in the corpus of the 

successive writings; the position of the notebooks of 1880-1882 makes it 

possible to oppose the condition of primitive men in particular societies 

to the life of man in the divided, industrial, urban societies. Marx 

introduced the relations of the abstract and the concrete into what ought 

to have been said regarding the interpretation of the political state of 

Greek society, and thus stands opposed to Morgan’s abstract formulation. 

Moreover, Marx’s formulation posits the opposition of the objective and 

the subjective sides in this connection, while Morgan posited the abstract 

alone in its objectivity. 

With reference to the transition of Greek society from gentile to 

political organization, Morgan considered Theseus not as an individual 

but as representing a period or series of events,48 Marx, however, 

simply as the name of a period, etc. Morgan moreover referred to Theseus, 

or the rulers of the period, as being inclined toward the people. Marx 

wrote in this connection (excerpts, pp. 76-77): 

The expression of Plutarch that “the humble and poor readily 

followed the summons of Theseus” and the judgment of Aristode 

that Theseus “ was inclined toward the people” appear, however, 

despite Morgan, to indicate that the chiefs of the gentes etc., through 

wealth etc. had already reached a conflict of interest with the common 

people of the gentes, which is unavoidably connected through 

private property in houses, lands, herds with the monogamous 

family. 

Marx returned to the question of the division developing within the 

Greek gentile society which was then in the process of dissolution and 

transformation in connection with Morgan’s view that the unity of the 

old social system had become untenable through shifting locality:49 

“ Aside from locality: property difference within the same gens had 

transformed the unity of their interests into antagonism of its members; 

in addition, beside land and cattle, money capital had become of decisive 

importance with the development of slavery!” (Marx, excerpts, p. 79). 

Morgan had introduced property and its accumulation along with 

territory as the criterion of transition from societas to civitas, or the political 

21

organization, in the early part of his work,50 but solely on the objective 

side, without the internalization as interest, collectivity of interest and 

conflict of interest of the collectivities according to the unequal distribution 

of property. Marx noted that the criterion of property fell away 

in Morgan’s analysis of the dissolution of the gens and the formation of 

political society, and that moreover, the interrelation of the objective and 

the subjective sides as social interest was not taken up by Morgan, but is 

nevertheless an implicit part of the entire analysis. 

The difference in the amount of property and its uneven distribution 

was further particularized by Marx as land and cattle, and, with the 

development of slavery, capital in money form. The interest is then 

internalized differentially among the collectivities as capital (in money 

form or in cattle) which is more readily alienable than land, and land itself 

is improved by labor upon it of slaves, with the help of cattle, instruments 

as mechanical devices, etc. These proceed through their history as being 

first organic, and then mechanical, as Marx had noted in his comment on 

Descartes.51 The slaves are both the means of the unequal distribution of 

property, being themselves property, and the antagonistic interest in 

society against the property, being themselves human. The relation of 

master-slave, of unequal distribution of property, the individual ownership 

of property, whether land, cattle or slaves, the circulation of capital 

in money form and the antagonistic interest in society arose in the period 

of dissolution of the gens, and accomplished the transformation of 

gentile into political society. The relation of temporal juxtaposition of 

the events and participation of these in the process of transformation is 

then brought together in the formation of the subsequent form of social 

life, with predominance of private ownership of property, formation of 

antagonistic social classes, monopoly of political power by the one of 

these which has the greatest amount of property; it is at the same time 

the process of formation of social institutions of property, privative 

classes, and the State. The internalization of the social forms by the 

groups of individuals as collective interests was posited by Marx as the 

transformation of the unity of interests into the mutually antagonistic 

collectivities within the society. 

The field of religion was the classical locus of development of the 

dialectic in the post-Hegelian schools of right and left, in which Bruno 

Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach and others, such as S. Kierkegaard, played 

their parts, Marx and Engels having made great play with these conceptions 

in the Holy Family and the German Ideology. Marx applied the 

dialectic in this regard in the chapter on Commodity Fetishism in the 

first volume of Capital·, and in the last chapters of the third volume 

Engels brought out the materials by Marx on the subject of reification 

(Verdinglichung) which further developed the same ideas. The religious 

field was then subjected to dialectical critique not because it afforded the 

22

occasion for a performance of virtuosity wherein the converted spirit 

was reconverted into matter, but rather because, by the mystical formulations, 

a relation between men has been replaced by a relation between 

things, and a material interest has been substituted by its supernal representation, 

or by an abstraction. That interest is the interrelation of the 

subjective and objective sides of man in a particular social relation, but 

it has been externalized solely as a hypostasis, its ethereal form, in its 

religious representation. Both in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts 

and in C apital the relation of subjectivity-objectivity of man is shown to 

have undergone a onesided formulation, as its hypostatization on the one 

hand, and as its reification on the other; the critique was applied abstractly 

by Marx to man in general in the earlier work, and to a definite 

condition of man in western society in the latter. The continued con- 

cretization was applied by Marx, in a relatively few places to religion 

per se in primitive society, in the Morgan, rather more in the Lubbock 

excerpts; he brought out the religious element in the Morgan materials 

in regard to real cooperation and real possession of property in common, 

to the degree that gentile commonalty disappears the religious ceremonials 

of the gens increase in importance. What is understood is: to the 

extent that the gens survives (Morgan excerpts, p. 71). 

The content of Marx’s thought in the ethnological domain, its relation 

to anthropology, both empirical and philosophical, and to the practical 

aspects of political action can be approached from the formal side. The 

apparatus of his studies is constituted of his choice of books and themes, 

method of excerption, notes and comments, which are partly matters of 

content and partly matters of form; more purely formal procedures of 

the notebooks involve the relative amount of space and detail devoted 

to a given topic, the sequence of the topics, and the degree to which 

they correspond to those of the book being studied. A wholly formal and 

external approach to the content of the note-taker’s thought lies in the 

underlinings and lines and marks on the margin that he made. (These 

observations relate to the objective side of the sequence of Marx’s 

thought. The internal relations that he bore to his earlier writings on 

these and related themes are both subjective and objective.) The formal, 

technical apparatus which he applied in the ethnological notebooks of 

1880-1882 is at once the same as and different from that which he applied 

in the Critique o f the Hegelian Philosophy o f Right, and the Economic- 

Philosophical Manuscripts. The earlier technique was intensive, the latter 

extensive. They have certain characteristics in common in the matter of 

content; together with the critique of Proudhon in Marx’s Poverty o f 

Philosophy: by the critique of the individual writings and of the individuals 

to come to the positing of a social critique, and by the social critique to 

come to the critique of the individual and the individual text; in his later 

notebooks it is most fully exemplified in the Maine excerpts. Further in 

*3

egard to content, the problem of the social interests of estates or classes, 

as the landowning class, was taken up in the Critique o f the Hegelian 

Philosophy o f Right, and the problem was examined in the writings at the 

end of his life. The position on the historical school of law was likewise 

an early and a late theme, as was that of Greek social and historical 

philosophy. The formal side of the early studies was the method at once 

historical, logical and philological, applied intensively to Hegel, the 

same method being applied extensively in the last studies to the subjective 

and the objective sides of man in the opposition of the social interests of 

the collectivities. This dialectical opposition was shown in the period of 

dissolution of the ancient gentes. 

We will proceed from the formal side to the content of Marx’s thought: 

to proceed conversely would be mere speculation, since the form that we 

have has no internally determinate relation to the content, relating only 

to the works of others. The form is useful as an index of significance and 

of relative weight of the different materials excerpted, occasionally 

illuminated by comments of Marx. We have already observed the interrelation 

of Marx’s work with and upon the Morgan material and will 

take up separately that of Engels with both Morgan and Marx. This 

interrelation provides a possible frame of reference for the comprehension 

of Marx, and another perspective to Engels’ work; by following the 

sequence of Marx’s notes and excerpts a wholly objective and external use 

of the dialectic is applied. Such utilization is not wholly satisfactory, for 

it does not discover, but only weighs and measures that which has already 

been posited, the first step in the dialectic, which is a negative one. 

The Morgan excerpts were systematically reviewed by Marx, with 

frequent underlinings and marginal lines; on the other hand, there are 

relatively few interpolations in the text, as compared with the excerpt 

notes on Maine. Morgan’s organization of the parts and chapters was 

carefully noted down, but few page references were indicated. The 

technique was changed in regard to Maine where there are comparatively 

many interpolations in the text, little attention was paid to the organization 

by chapters or lectures, and page references were frequently noted 

down. Marx introduced his own doctrines and positions in the notes 

from Phear and Lubbock to a lesser degree than in those from Maine, 

whether externally or by interpolations; these notes serve rather to extend 

and develop the positions of the Morgan and Maine notes. 

M arx's Marginalia in the Morgan Excerpts 

Such passages noted down from Morgan as are singled out by lines drawn 

beside them are as a separate universe of discourse. A similar task may be 

performed on other matters of form: the phrases underlined, the proportionate 

length of the notes taken, etc.; this is left for the time. Marx 

24

signalized by means of the marginal lines some 130 passages from his 

excerpts and notes from Morgan, of which 2 5 relate to comments of his 

own (the total is rounded because some marginalia cover both his own 

interpolations and materials other than his own). Some of these have 

been made known by Engels. Their interest is manifold: they are, first, 

the passages singled out by Marx for their exceptional importance; 

second, they appear to be applied to raise certain points (against Achille 

Loria, J. G. Bachofen, etc.). If they are examined carefully from the 

viewpoint of their content, context, sequence, etc., they may provide 

some insight into the nature and form of Marx’s intention for his own 

work in this substantive field. But this is to be left for future discussion, 

in which others will participate, and here we will limit ourselves to the 

sole task of presenting the evidence and oudining the problem. A listing 

of these passages follows: 

TA B LE II. Marginal lines drawn beside 

Excerpts p. Morgan excerpts Marx’s own comments 

3 Tillage, inclosed gardens 

4 Lucretius, reference to cultivation. 

Promiscuity and horde life 

9 Herodotus on Massagetae. Common 

housing in Venezuelan tribes 

10 The same in Brazil (bohios) 

13 Communism of consanguine and South Slavs, Russians 

punaluan families, syndyasmian; (2 references) 

Communal households; Wright on 

long-houses; common property 

14 Old Britons 

15 Patriarchal authority over property Fourier, the family and the State “ 

16 Monogamous family; Gaius. Ger- South Slavs; family and slavery 

manic household 

19 Family and social system; sex equality 

20 Hetaerism 

21* Communal property of savages; 

x Inheritance 

More advanced tribes lifted those 

below. Tribal lands in Common. 

Property. 

22-23* Increase in amounts of property 

23 Metals first for ornament. Calendar 

for measuring time 

24* Accumulation of property. Communal 

property. Blankets and yarn 

25* Plutarch on Solon; State and individ- j 

ual property. Lands in common 

26* Homeric trade. Joint and individual Loria and passion for property 6 

property 

25


z6 

27 Individual property unknown 

29 Marriage Community of men and 

women ! 

32 Group marriage. Male descent and \ 

property 

33 Joint housing of Iroquois; communism 

in living 

34 Movable and non-movable property 

35 Immovable property. Community- 

built houses 

39 Gambling 

40 Funeral of Sachem. Phratry military 

force. 

41 Outflow of people. Population factor. 

Missouri tribes. 

42 Ojibwa stem tribe. Indian pottery. 

Outflow of tribes - geographic 

factor. Language and territory. 

3 natural Indian centers - geographic 

factors. 

43 Discovery of maize agriculture in 

Central America, transmitted to 

American Southwest, to northern 

South America, to Incas. Iroquois 

gentes and government. 

44 Council of Sachems and Chiefs 

45 Women’s role in Iroquois government 

46* Low population of native North 

America etc. because of precarious 

existence and warfare 

47 Unanimity in Council of Iroquois 

49* Onondaga government 

49* Iroquois Council Ceremony (3 

references) 

50 Unanimity of vote in Council 

51 Democracy in Lower and Middle 

Barbarism. Unity of language and 

government 

55 Growth of property, inheritance 

practices 

5 7 Gente subdivided. Naming of gentes. 

58* Kutchin intermarriage Gens, caste and conquest 

Caste formation 

59 Moqui origin myth 

60 Laguna land in common 

61 Aztec moneyless economy; Communal 

land tenure ; geographic factor 

in Aztec land settlement 

63 Size of Aztec settlement 

64 Aztec organization; land tenure by 

gentes


65 Aztec government organization 

67-68* Greek tribal organization 

68 Greek communal property 

69 Promiscuous group and gens 

70 Solon and reform of inheritance 

7j Achilles in Homer 

73-74 Yankee republican and Gladstone The same 

74 Schoemann on Homeric democracy 

7 5 Germanic j udicial functions. Barbarian 

settlement and fortification 

76* Attic population 

Plutarch on Theseus Phantasy of Plutarch 

77 Contra Morgan; Conflict of Interest 

77-78* Plutarch on Solon’s reforms. Ancient weights and measures. 

Language and settlement Criticism of Plutarch. 

79 Difference in ownership; 

Schoemann on deme. 

80-81* Greek tribal names, soldiery 

Kleisthenes, Pericles Schoemann; Pericles 

81 Mommsen - Rome 

84* Common property of Greeks 

85 Communism in household; tribal 

names 

87 Institutions, not man, in history Roman chronology 

88 Romulan division of Rome 

89 Security and slavery; Greek division. 

Pueblo joint tenement; Aztec 

90 Roman division of society by 

property 

91* Senators and gentes. Plutarch on Contra Plutarch 

Numa 

93 Property and democracy; private 

property 

94 Female descent; common lands 

95 Gens is great family Geschlechtsfamilie 

96-97* Tacitus, Germany Lipsius - Jordanes, Contra Bachofen’s lawlessness 

etc. Tacitus on German agriculture 

98 Caesar on Germans 

* Long passages. 

“ See Marx Engels Werke, v. 2, pp. 207-208, v. 3, pp. 498 et seq., and note 148, below. 

b See Table I, note a. 

The marginalia, few in the first pages, increase in frequency and length 

through Marx’s excerpts. Of these, 28 are found beside passages treating 

of government in the periods of savagery and barbarism, its organization, 

legislation and reform, including six that deal with primitive democracy, 

unanimity of the vote in council and the role of women in primitive 

27

government. (Morgan devoted more than half his book to the topic of 

government.) There are 27 passages referring to communal property, 

housing and land tenure in these periods marked by such lines. Next in 

numerical importance is the topic of property in other connections than 

its communal ownership or possession, of which 19 passages are marked 

out by marginal lines; these have reference to its accumulation in the 

later stages of barbarism, inheritance and ownership by individuals in 

the transition to civilization, and gambling. There are 10 passages with 

marginal lines referring to the primitive family, to the fallacy of hetaerism 

and to primordial promiscuity; nine such passages refer to the outflow 

of people from a given place in connection with the formation of new 

tribes, etc., because of population pressure, of food and other scarcities. 

There are six passages referring to forms and development of cultivation; 

four such passages refer to primitive technology (yarn, pottery, the 

calendar, and metals), while Marx gives another Morgan excerpt, that 

pertaining to the use of fire, (Morgan excerpts, p. 21), a different interpretation 

from that given by Morgan. 

Marx signalized in this way three of his own interpolations referring 

to the South Slavic and Russian peasant communes; seven passages of 

this type refer to his own comments on ancient governmental organization 

and reforms; three refer to his additions of factual matter: on ancient 

weights and measures, Roman historical and mytho-historical chronology, 

and the population of Attica. The reference to Loria (Morgan excerpts, 

p. 26) is an anti-psychologism; the reference to Bachofen (Morgan 

excerpts, p. 96) is an attack on the cultural boundedness of European 

observers, taken up again in the mss. devoted to Phear and Lubbock. 

Communal property in ancient society had as its antithesis the dissolution 

of the primitive gentes and their property; the evolvement of 

mutually antagonistic social classes; the accumulation of property by 

means of inventions and discoveries and by the application of these 

through social labor; the appropriation of the property by private individuals, 

whereby the private sphere is separated from the public, and the 

social whole is separated from both; the unequal distribution of property 

in society in the course of this appropriation. Together with the separation 

of the private from the public spheres and the unequal distribution 

of property in private hands is the unequal distribution of public power. 

These developments take place and are institutionalized, perhaps more 

than once, even in the same society, just as the settlement upon a given 

territory may take place more than once. Morgan paid insufficient 

attention to territory prior to the formation of political society, or the 

State; we shall return to this question (see note 102 of this Introduction, 

and section 6, on Community, Collectivism and Individualism below). 

Marx’s emphasis on the collective institutions of the modem peasant 

communities of the South Slavs and the Russians was taken up again 

28

within the contexts of Phear and Maine regarding the oriental communities. 

These points were made more explicit, in the ms. notes on Maine; 

they appear likewise in the Introduction to the Grundrisse, Capital, the 

correspondence with Zasulich, and the Introduction of 1882 to the 

Russian translation of the Communist Manifesto. 

The universal measure of equality and democracy by which Morgan 

judged the progress of the family and the distorting effect of property 

accumulation is not an actuality but a potentiality of the history of the 

society to which it is applied. The fact that it is not an actuality is developed 

by Marx on the one side in his positing of the alternatives open to 

the Indian and Russian rural collective institutions; this opposition was 

abstractly developed by Marx in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts, 

concretely in the Introduction to the Grundrisse, and in his ms. notes on 

Morgan and Maine. The matter is adumbrated in the Introduction to the 

Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto. 

In the depiction of the causes of the outflow of tribes from particular 

places, Morgan developed a geographic or natural determinism which 

Marx assumed in turn, whereby the economic factor is reduced to the 

ecological or the direct imposition of the forces of nature upon primitive 

man. On the other hand, Marx posited in a general way the determination 

of the economic system relative to the juridical, political, etc., in the 

primitive as well as the civilized statuses of mankind. The two positions 

were brought out separately by Marx in his notes on Morgan; in the 

Maine excerpts he added some qualifications to the determination of the 

economic in relation to Maine’s moral or traditionary factor in history; 

in effect, therefore, they were brought together. 

Marx referred to the factor of diffusion of cultural traits in the Morgan 

excerpts. The diffusion to a given society and the borrowing by it are 

moments along the same path, opposed to each other by the vectors of the 

initiative in the movement; thus, diffusion is not a wholly external factor 

in a given social development. On the one hand, it is a relation to the 

social environment of the given people. As such it is in part a passive, in 

part an active relation to that environment, for within it a selectivity of 

diffusive traits takes place; the passivity is an indirect activity, imposing a 

qualitative canon of what kinds of traits may be received or diffused, and 

a quantitative canon of the degree or amount. These passive and active 

factors and the quality and quantity of the relations are an internalization 

of their externality, and the potentiality of the given society to realize 

these potentialities and make them its own. On the other hand, it is a 

relation of a superstructure to an infrastructure, as the capacity for the 

development by diffusion of the society which takes, the diffusion proceeding 

through its own dialectical process in this way. Thus it is but 

indirectly active upon the internal developmental relations of the society; 

nevertheless it cannot be relegated to the domain of mere accident. 

29

While much has been written about military democracy as the transition 

from the gentile to the political society, Marx did not regard this transition 

as a formal historical, still less a dialectical, category. Morgan developed 

the idea of a military democracy first as an elucidation of a position 

of Aristode, and in separating the functions of the civil from the military 

leadership of the gens and tribe. Marx supported Morgan in this connection 

and likewise against the application of the idea of the military 

commander to the notion of the ancient monarchy by George Grote. 

Marx wrote, .. basileia [the office of military commander] is, together 

with the council and the agora - a sort of military democracy. Basileia is 

applied by the Greek writers to the Homeric kingship because generalship 

is the chief feature of the king.” (Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 74).52 The 

reference to the office of basileia in this way cannot be made into the 

basis of a definite stage or sub-stage of history. Engels, returning to 

Morgan’s form of expression, eliminated the word “ Sorte” from his 

formulation, which has encouraged later thinking of the issue in terms 

of a developmental stage, but does not report exactly Marx’s conception. 

Marx differed from Morgan likewise in regard to the method of election 

of the barbaric chief, basileus and rex. These were conceived by Morgan 

according to his idea of the Iroquois practices and functions; Marx 

considered that the Iroquois model had limitations, which will become 

clearer in connection with the ms. notes on Maine, in regard to the election 

of the chief. The scepticism of Marx relative to the use of the 

Iroquois data as a model for interpretation of other societies constitutes a 

further movement away from the fixity of categories, and carries the 

general loosening of the stages of evolution both forth and back in time. 

The model upon which Marx based his idea of the administration of 

barbaric justice, for instance, was that of the Germanic peoples (Morgan 

excerpts, p. 75); this is noted in passing. 

There are several points in which Morgan did not make his own system 

clear. The first is in relation to the functions of the basileia, military and 

priestly, but not civil. Yet the basileus was at the same time a judge, the 

rex a magistrate.53 Morgan’s theory was that the kingship, magistracy, 

etc., arose out of the military leadership in the status of barbarism. Yet 

how the function of the judiciary in the magistracy was excluded from 

the civil institution was not explained by Morgan; this refers to the 

beginnings of the magistracy, not its subsequent forms. Again, Morgan 

described the Roman wife as a co-heiress, but at the same time held that 

the property of. the deceased paterfamilias was kept within the gens.54 

Yet the wife came from another gens. He failed to add that the wife’s 

right in the inheritance could not pass outside the husband’s gens, but 

remained with his children and that she could not otherwise bequeath, 

devise or assign it, etc. This confusion is further expanded when Morgan 

described the Attican gens as ‘a great family of kindred persons’.66 Marx 

30

not only accepted this, but rendered it into German, ‘nenne es Geschlechtsfamilie’ 

(excerpts, p. 95). It was neither a clan-, lineage- gens- 

family, nor any other sort of family, according to Morgan’s system, for 

the family contained members of other gentes. 

Morgan66 had written that in all ages, the relation of mother and child 

was ascertainable, that of father and child, until the development of 

monogamy, was not. Marx questioned this (excerpts, p. 6) by differentiation 

between public and private relations, public ethic and private 

morality, official and unofficial ascertainment of fatherhood. The differentiation 

is posited by Hegel in his System der Sittlichkeit and in his Rechtsphilosophie, 

it is adumbrated in his Phänomenologie des Geistes, and outlined in his 

Enzyklopädie, Pt. III. The difference was not restricted by Marx to 

civilized society, but it can only be posited where the public and the 

private life are separate; it cannot be applied where they are not, as in a 

communal society, with its related family life and ethic. 

Marx added the example of the Slavic village collectivity at several 

points (excerpts, pp. 13, 16) where Morgan mentioned the communal life 

of the savage (consanguine and punaluan) and the barbaric (Germanic) 

families. Here Marx developed a different thought from Morgan who 

made communism in living a relation of a given family organization in 

these contexts. This position was more fully worked out by Marx in his 

notes on Maine, for it presupposes that the family is separate from its 

communal village collectivity, seeking shelter within it, etc. This was 

true when the collectivity in the nineteenth century had radically changed 

its communal character, but would not apply to a social relation of the 

punaluan sort, as it was posited by Morgan. Marx was directing his 

critique of the commune of the nineteenth century in rural parts of 

eastern and southeastern Europe; here the differentiation of the public 

and the private or the official and unofficial, was already made while the 

form remained, at least in a degree, communal. This is relevant to his 

position on the mir and zadruga in the Introduction to the Grundrisse and 

in Capital, rather than to Morgan. It also represents a development from 

the position of the Communist Manifesto, in the body of the Grundrisse,57 

and the background to the letter to Zasulich. 

2. M ARX’S EXCER PTS FROM PHEAR, T H E A R Y A N V I L L A G E 

Phear’s work relates directly to Marx’s interest in the oriental society, in 

particular to the oriental commune. (Marx in fact referred to Phear in 

his notes on Lubbock, excerpts, p. 4, as the author of the “Aryan Commune” 

.) Phear provided descriptive material in the first chapters of the 

agricultural, village and family institutions of the East Bengal and Ceylonese 

peasantry in the mid-nineteenth century, and their relations to the 

landlords, money-lenders, the government tax and judicial systems. None 

3i

of Phear’s studies is devoted to particular villages, all are generalized with 

respect to either of the two regions in question. His announced task was 

to describe to English readers a type specimen of an agricultural village 

in Bengal. It is not a specimen that he dealt with, but a type. Nevertheless 

Phear provided detailed accounts of household budgets, land 

accounts, tax schedules, lists of possessions which are quite concrete (see 

Phear excerpts, pp. 134, 143 and passim). The brevity of Marx’s excerpts 

from the last chapter, on the Aryan village, in addition to his comments 

on it, indicate his impatience with such hypothetical reconstructions of 

the past. Phear was well informed on rural India during the nineteenth 

century particularly in regard to deltaic Bengal, but save for a few ancient 

documents which he had interpreted for him he was not well informed 

about India prior to the Muslim conquest; yet he attempted to reconstruct 

the ‘Aryan’ village from data which he gathered in Bengal and in Singhalese 

Ceylon, to which those from Mhairwarra and Ajmere were added. 

The contrast of the position of the peasant in the land tenure system of 

India and in Europe was the last thought that Marx took from Phear’s 

book. 

Phear held Maine in high esteem; Marx was generally objective toward 

Phear, noting data derived from him, with few objections. Substantive 

issues raised by Marx in opposition to Phear, beside the speculative reconstructions 

already mentioned, concern the relation between the family 

and society in the oriental village community, and the question of the 

oriental community and society in relation to feudalism. The problem of 

the relations of the family, village and society, in particular, whether the 

society is the village on a larger scale, was critically treated by Marx who 

rejected Phear’s idea that gradations of ‘respectability and employment’59 

in Phear’s terms grew up within the village itself; a fortiori, therefore, the 

family could still less have been the ground for the development of social 

differences or economic relations. In this connection, Marx commented, 

“The asinus lets everything be founded by private families.” (Marx, 

Phear excerpts, p. 15 3). The point had already been raised in regard to 

the Morgan excerpts (see also in reference to Maine excerpts, n. 144); here 

it is further developed by Marx in terms of the difference between urban 

and rural families; the urban-rural difference is independent of the 

industrial-agricultural difference, for the latter did not come into being 

in a significant way in the oriental society of the nineteenth century. 

Phear was directed both toward and away from the idea of the oriental 

community as a social category unto itself. On the one hand he criticized 

a contemporary writer for having falsified the facts by phraseology 

borrowed from feudal Europe,60 on the other he alluded to sub-infeu- 

dation in East Bengal;61 further in this connection, Marx (Phear excerpts, 

p. 136) noted, “Dieser Esel Phear nennt die constitution des village 

feudal” .62 The application of the category of feudalism to the oriental 

32

community by cultural and social historians, ethnologists, Marxists, 

so-called Marxists, etc., is a simplistic periodization and a simplistic 

typology without reference to a chronology implicit in the periodization 

of oriental society, feudalism, etc. It is an abstraction from history and 

an ethnocentrism, whether performed by Europeans or not, casting the 

history of the world in the European mold. Since Phear developed his 

ideas within the framework of Maine,63 the question of the community, 

State and society will be taken up in the section devoted to the latter. At 

this point we will merely call attention to a judgment by Phear, “In the 

East, under the village system, the people practically governed themselves__ 

’,64 

Marx singled out for his attention by marginal lines some 65 excerpts 

from Phear’s book. Of these all but five deal with economic and agrotechnological 

matters, and these latter in about equal proportion. The 

rem aining five deal with instruction lay and religious, religious taboo, 

clothing, polyandry. Marx denoted by an X) the joint or communal 

activity of Ceylonese villagers, the interest rates and methods of debt 

collection in Bengal, the absence of money and the manner of fleecing the 

ryots. Especially long passages marked out by marginal lines deal with 

Bengal household budgets, the village smithy, the village office and 

accounts, interest rates and collection practices, and the watering of plots 

in Ceylon. 

Marx interspersed his own comments in five passages: the local agents 

of the Zamindar also act as his spies (Phear excerpts, p. 135); the idea of 

the ryot being the enemy of social reform is questioned, and the ryot’s 

desire to keep his son at work in the field instead of at school is justified 

(Phear excerpts, p. 136); Phear’s objection to government practice in 

famine control is supported (excerpts, p. 142). (The third essay in Phear’s 

book is criticized on the grounds mentioned above.) 

TA B LE HI. Marginal lines by Marx in the Phear excerpts 

P· 

129 Rice growing. Names of crops by season^ 

130 Social respect. Village buildings. Plough construction. Mahajan. 

131 Household budget. Food costs. Market. Instruction. 

132 Brahmin teachers. Cowmen. Blacksmith; iron implements. 

133 Iron from England out to India. Poor man’s worship. 

134 Rent according to soil and use. 

135 Zemindari amla. Kachahri. Gumashta. 

136 Mahajan. Interest rates and collection practices. **) Ryot fleeced.*) 

137 Widow inheritance. Absurdly small plots. 

138 Woman and sudra religious taboo. Joint family worship of deity. 

139 Trade practice of monastic orders. Mandal versus Zemindar. 

140 Zemindar not a landlord. Land tenure. Land law. 

141 Comparison of English tenant rates. 

33

142 Famine and scarcity practices. Mahajan and shopkeeper. Government measures. 

Vehicles. 

145 Hiding valuables. Clothing. Food storage. 

146 Boats. Hoes. Pools for irrigation in Ceylon. 

147 Paddy tracts. 

148 Rent in services more primitive. Village tenures. Joint labor for repairing fences 

and dams. Watering of plots. 

149 Fencing, ploughing. Joint action of villagers. ***) Vegetable plots. Sharecropping, 

half share letting. No money rent. *) Village capitalist. Mutual assistance. Land labor. 

150 Agricultural labor. Polyandry. Cooperative land cultivation. 

151 Land as commodity. 

152 Government taxes. Paddy as money. Ancient taxation. Grain levy for chief. 

153 Ceylonese payment in services and kind. Money payment. Landownership in India. 

154 Grain supply in ancient India. Land sale. Mortgages. Chief’s dues. 

T A B LE IV. Marx’s interpolations in the Phear excerpts 

P· 

135 Gumashta and potwar as spies of zamindar. 

136 Ryot would not be enemy (of bettering himself); Ryot’s fear of losing son as field 

hand. Against Oriental feudalism. 

142 Phear’s plan against famine is right. 

153 Phear ought not to speculate hypothetically. He has everything based on private 

families. 

3. M ARX’S EXCERPTS FROM MAINE, 

L E C T U R E S O N T H E E A R L Y H ISTO RY O F IN ST IT U T IO N S'* 

Maine’s book deals with law and society in Ireland as these matters are 

interpreted from the Irish lawbooks (Senchus Mor, The Great Book of 

Ancient Law, probably compiled in the eighth century, and the Book of 

Aicill).66 The system was in force down to the time of the English 

conquest in the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries. To this Maine added 

materials known to him from his judicial experience and studies in India 

and a critique of the Bentham-Austin theory of the State and law from 

the viewpoint of the historical school of jurisprudence. Marx’s organization 

of the Maine materials is precise with regard to page references, but 

passes over in virtual silence Maine’s organization by chapters (lectures); 

the materials taken from Morgan are the opposite. As to content, Marx 

sharply criticized Maine: Maine’s factual knowledge was weak (a point 

raised by Lubbock as well), his critique of the school of jurisprudence of 

John Austin and the utilitarians superficial; Morgan’s theoretical constructions 

had already gone beyond those of Maine at that time. 

In the organization of the Morgan excerpts and notes, Marx kept himself 

apart, as compared to his organization of the Maine material, making 

few comments in the former. His conceptions relative to Morgan are to 

34

e interpreted ex silentio, by his choice of materials, etc. The Maine 

materials, on the contrary, contain over 100 interpolations of exclamations, 

questions, brief comments, and lengthy passages. Of the 38 

manuscript pages devoted to Maine’s Lectures, the equivalent of eight are 

filled passim with Marx’s insertions of his own expressions or excerpts 

from other researches, which become a continuing polemic contra Maine. 

Marx’s general relation to Morgan’s theory of the gens and particular data 

which he took from Morgan were applied as counterpositions to Maine. 

Marx’s general theory of the ancient community and its communal 

practices, the origin of the State and the role of property in its formation, 

the relation of primitive and civilized society and the role of property, 

social antagonisms and the State, the equality and communality of the 

primitive collectivity, and thereby the perspective upon the future of 

society were posited briefly but explicitly. 

Instead of the juxtaposition of prehistoric and historic societies as it is 

set forth in the opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto, (“The 

history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”) 

(see below, section 7, Relation of Engels to Marx and Morgan), an 

interaction is posited between the ancient and primitive commune and 

the modern peasant commune on the one side, and on the other, the 

communal and collective social plan arising out of the capitalist era and 

opposed to it. 

Marx drew few marginal lines in the Maine manuscript, and such as 

there are chiefly demarcate the results of his researches into Irish history, 

into the meanings of Roman legal terms and into Indian marriage practices, 

parallel to the researches of Maine (excerpts, pp. 173, 174, 175, 181, 

182, 187, 191). They include notes which, we infer, were taken from 

articles (actio, lex, sponsio, restipulatio) in the Latin Dictionary of Lewis 

and Short or its forerunner, Andrews-Freund, with accompanying 

references to Varro; two articles in Samuel Johnson’s English Dictionary 

(gossipred and replevin), lengthy notes from the history “ otherwise not 

worthy of mention” of M. Haverty, and T. Strange’s Hindu Law .67 Marx 

signalized by a marginal line his opposition (excerpts, p. 177) to Maine’s 

idea of the family and the division of the inheritance ; this is a lengthy note 

in which Maine is criticized for imposing the family and inheritance form 

of the urban, well-to-do family on the poor rural family. (This will be 

taken up below in section 7, dealing with Engels, particularly in reference 

to Fourier and the civilized family. Marx raised the same point in reference 

to Phear; see above.) 

Of the score of passages with marginal lines in the Maine excerpts, one- 

third refer to Maine’s words, two-thirds to Marx’s own comments. Of 

his own comments marked out by marginal lines, the passages (excerpts, 

p. 177) opposing Maine’s theory of the family and the division of 

35

inheritance, and referring to the theoretical election of the chief, will be 

discussed below. 

In the following table, the passages singled out by Marx for his special 

attention, from Maine’s work, are listed side by side with Marx’s own 

comments. The two listings are combined into the one tabular form here, 

because there is difficulty in separating them. The difference in method 

from that applied by Marx in the Morgan and Phear manuscripts, and the 

length and substantive force of Marx’s own comments are to be noted. 

T A B LE V. Marginal lines drawn beside 

p. Maine excerpts Marx’s own comments 

160 Spenser, Davies“ 

169 (2) Irish Rent in Kind. Rent 

172 (2) Irish tenant question. Bias of 

Brehon tracts toward Chiefs 

173* Haverty quoting Curry on Conquest of 

Ireland 

174* Leges Wallicae. Spenser. Gossipred 6 

Stanihurst: fosterage 

Harris: ditto. Spenser 

175 Plantation of Ulster. Chichester 

177* Contra Maine’s theory of family and division 

of inheritance 

Theoretical election of chief 

181 Actio, etc.; lex e 

Festus, Varro; sacra mentum 

182 Sponsio, restipulatio, condico, etc.® 

183 Replevine 

184* Excessive technicality of law 

Distress as breach of peace 

186 Homesitting in Law of Alfred and 

Code Napoléon 

187 Strange: Hindu bride and marriage 

191 State is institution, not person 

* Long passage. 

0 Bibliographical only. 

6 Johnson’s Dictionary. 

e Cf. Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary. 

Approximately half of Marx’s comments in the Maine excerpts express 

his objections to Maine’s political character and scholarship; on the 

other hand, he noted certain of Maine’s points with approval. The 

theory of the development of society from status to contract, formulated 

by Maine in Ancient Law (1861) was implicitly accepted by Marx (Maine 

3

excerpts, p. 170), who cited as an example of this theory the conversion 

of personal service to slavery in Russia. The contractual obligation is a 

wholly externalized interest of both sides, of him who imposes and him 

who owes it. As external it is public, official, social; it is the final end of 

the communal and personal relation of service, which is that of status in 

Maine. A recurrent theme is Marx’s systematic and uncompromising 

rejection of race, racism and biologism generally as a determinant without 

further qualification of social affairs (Maine excerpts, pp. 162, 164, 187, 

etc.). 

Marx rejected Maine’s reconstruction of the history of Irish land tenures 

in severalty (excerpts, p. 162), the latter’s proposed relation of Roman 

and English property in land, and of Continental, English and American 

landowning practices (Maine excerpts, p. 164); likewise, he reduced 

Maine’s theory of the twofold origin of landed property to one (I.e.), in 

connection with the separation of the chief and family head by Marx. 

Marx further noted his view of interests of social groups and individuals 

(Maine excerpts, pp. 166, 178, 191), which had been given in the Morgan 

excerpts; this is developed in the Maine excerpts in relation to the use 

of fictions. 

Marx continued his systematic separation of the family from other institutions 

of primitive society, wherein he followed Morgan’s initiative, 

applying the differentiation to the separation of patriarch/paterfamilias 

from gens/ tribe chief, likewise to the relevant forms of property and its 

transmission. Private property in land is not to be directly derived in 

our theory from the collective property but came gradually to replace it 

in the transition to political society, just as control over the gens to the 

family; inheritance within the private family is opposed to the Tanaist 

rule of passage of the chiefry by election, usually to the brother and not 

the son (Maine excerpts, p. 178). At this point a public fiction is introduced 

which maintains the old rule of gentile succession as an anachronism. 

The opposition of public and private, of official and unofficial, 

which had been first expressed in the Morgan ms. notes, is here developed 

more fully in connection with the passage from barbarism to civilization, 

the formation of the State, and the dissolution of the archaic communal 

rules of inheritance and authority. The public fictions are applied then 

as the social interests become separate and antagonistic. But in Marx’s 

conception the office of the chief had been opposed to the collectivity 

within it not only in the period of the dissolution of the gens and tribe, 

but before, since, contrary to Morgan, the chief was elected only in theory 

(Maine excerpts, p. 177); the election is therefore other than any modern 

conception of it, both in reference to current practice and in reference 

to naive ideas of primitive democracy. Practically the office of chief is 

transmittable (Maine excerpts, p. 175); here the context clearly indicates 

that the opposition in Ireland of election in practice and election in 

37

theory, in Marx’s view, did not relate to the period immediately preceding 

the English conquest, but was conceived as a condition of primitive 

society prior to the dissolution of the barbaric gentes. Hence it follows 

that Marx found the opposition of theory and practice in the ancient as 

well as modern society, in connection with the dissolution of the ancient 

society and the gentile institutions. 

Again, however, given the theory of the election of the chief in gentile 

society, which had been advanced by Morgan, Marx noted that Maine 

disclosed the same practice in the Hindu joint family and in early medieval 

Europe.68 Marx commented, “This is more normal than all else, since 

the chief remains theoretically elective, to be sure, within the gens or 

tribe as the case may be.” Edmund Spenser had described the same 

practice in reference to the Irish of his day,69 which Maine then cited; 

Marx held that Maine would have interpreted Spenser more accurately 

had he known Morgan’s idea about the election of chiefs. (Marx, Maine 

excerpts, pp. 175, 177» I78.) 

In reference to the relation of Oriental to Occidental society, Phear 

had argued in Maine’s line: 

“In Europe, in contrast to the East, in place of the produce 

[in the form of] tribute [there] was substituted a dominion over the 

soil - the cultivators being turned out of their land and reduced 

to the condition of serfs or laborers. 

“In the East, under the village system, the people practically 

governed themselves, and the contest for power among the Chiefs 

of the noble class was mainly a struggle for command of the kachahri 

tabils” - the village accounts. (Marx, Phear excerpts, p. 155.) 

This line was explored by Maine, but from above, the capacity of the 

ruler, not from that of the village, in his account of the eighteenth century 

Sikh monarch, Runjeet Singh. (Marx, Maine excerpts, pp. 194-196.) 

Maine here argued that the oriental despotism was limited to tax- 

taking; on the contrary, legislation other than that of tax and military 

levies was first introduced in the Roman empire on a scale beyond the 

village community level, and thus the western European development 

was set on a different course from that of the orient. Moreover, Maine 

held that the empires of the ancient Orient, the Assyrian, Babylonian, 

Median and Persian empires were of the type of the Sikhs under Runjeet 

Singh, and that the latter would serve as a basis for insight into the 

generality of the oriental empire or despotism past and present. Maine 

wrote, “Runjeet Singh never did or could (!) have dreamed of changing 

the civil rules under which his subjects lived.” 70 (Interpolation of 

exclamation by Marx.) The fact that the oriental monarch did not alter 

local custom was accepted by Marx; according to Maine, the despot did 

little but maintain his court and wage war. Marx exclaimed not against 

the fact of noninterference in the traditions of the village by the monarch, 

38

ut against Maine’s extravagance (“never could”). It follows that in 

Marx’s conception, which was in accord with Maine’s on this point, the 

erection of great public works as palaces, temples, mausoleums, etc., 

played no important role in the political economy of traditional India, and 

that canals and other waterworks there were not the business of the 

central monarchy or of the State bureaucracy. In view of recent publication 

on the Oriental society and its form of government, the Asiatic 

mode of production, etc., the relation of Marx to the reports on India by 

Maine and Phear should be fully explored.71 

In his last two chapters, Maine criticized the theory of the State and 

law of the Analytical School of Jurists (Jeremy Bentham, John Austin; 

Thomas Hobbes as their forerunner) as follows: 

“An assertion, however, which the great Analytical Jurists cannot be 

charged with making, but which some of their disciples go very near to 

hazarding, that the Sovereign person or group actually wields the stored- 

up force of society by an uncontrolled exercise of will, is certainly never 

in accordance with fact__ The vast mass of influences, which we may 

call for shortness moral, [Marx’s interpolation, Maine excerpts, p. 191: 

“this ‘moral’ shows how little Maine understands of the matter; as far 

as these influences (economical before everything else) possess (a) ‘moral’ 

modus of existence, this is always a derived, secondary modus and never 

the prius] perpetually shapes, limits, or forbids the actual direction of 

the forces of society by its Sovereign.” 72 

The Austinian view of sovereignty is the result of abstraction, according 

to Maine. Marx tacitly accepted this, but added (I.e.): 

“ Maine ignores the much deeper point: that the seeming supreme 

independent existence of the State is itself only seeming and that it 

is in all its forms an excrescence of society; just as its appearance 

itself arises only at a certain stage of social development, it disappears 

again as soon as society has reached a stage not yet attained. 

First the tearing of the individuality loose from the originally not 

despotic chains (as blockhead Maine understands it), but rather 

satisfying and agreeable bonds of the group, of the primitive community 

- and therewith the one-sided elaboration of the individuality.” 

Further, according to Marx, the individual has interests which are 

common to social groups and which characterize them, and therefore 

individuals are class individuals, individuals of social groups which have 

economic conditions underlying them, on which the State is built, 

presupposing the economic base. The economic factor is here presented 

as basic in the first place, and as interactive with other factors in the 

second. The discussion of the economic factor in the same terms was 

already set forth in relation to the direct impact of nature on primitive 

society versus the economic factor in that kind of society (see section 1 

39

on Morgan above and Marx, excerpts from Morgan, pp. 41-42). In the 

Maine excerpts (p. 178), Marx wrote that “The predominance of the 

single family over the gens is connected with the development of private 

property in land.” This is also to be taken together with the discussion of 

the family as a miniature of the society in the primitive and civilized 

conditions. (See section 1 on Morgan in Introduction, above, and Marx, 

Morgan excerpts, p. 8 and n. 38.) 

The position of Marx is that Maine’s conception of the private family, 

as being the basis out of which the sept and clan are developed, is 

completely wrong (Maine excerpts, p. 177). In this regard, Marx is on 

the side of Morgan. The clan and clan chief are different institutions 

from Hindu joint family and the Hindu father. Maine had the English 

private family in mind. The example taken from India holds rather for 

the cities than for the countryside, and among the owners of ground rent 

rather than actual working members of a village community. Thus 

Maine idealized and generalized a partial and privileged situation in India. 

He did not understand the opposition of interests in the Indian village 

community, nor the opposition between city and countryside. This is 

both a methodological and a substantive point and bears as much upon 

Fourier as upon Maine. (See below, section 7, Relation of Engels to 

Marx and Morgan, and note 146.) On p. 177 of the Maine excerpts, 

Marx posited the opposition between social classes in the Indian village 

community; this position of Marx is to be taken in conjunction with his 

criticism of Phear who sought to found economic functions in society 

and social differences in the village on the family (see Phear excerpts, 

P· 15 3)· 

The development of the conflicting interests as the society develops 

into groupings of individual interests is expressed in the opposition of 

public and private, rural and urban, rich and poor (Marx, Maine excerpts, 

pp. 164, 177), higher and lower estates (Stände) (Maine excerpts, p. 166). 

The church, in accordance with this theory of interests becomes separated 

from secular organizations of society and joins with these as a high contracting 

party in assertion of its own interest in common with and opposed 

to others. The society becomes divided into specializations of 

labor and profession, and is separated by conflicting collectivities within 

itself; these collectivities have internalized their relations to each other 

and to themselves, and to the society, as their interests, and are at the 

same time externalized as the expression of the same. Social property 

becomes that of the lesser collectivity, the social class, individually expressed 

as interests of particular human beings. In effect, the order is at 

the same time reversed, the social property being distributed among 

individuals, and providing at the same time the basis for the interest of 

a social class; thereby the opposition of the individual and the collectivity, 

that of the individual and the collective interests in the society, and be 

40

tween the social collectivities are brought about. Hegel’s hypostatic 

formula, setting the State above civil society, destroys the dialectical 

opposition that he sought to create in the first place. Marx restored the 

opposition in its particularity, while opposing its empirical-positivist form 

as simple statement of fact, after the fashion of Hume. The unity of the 

primitive community and the chance of opposition made it difficult for 

Marx to accept Morgan’s opposition of family and gens. The oppositive 

principles in the primitive community remained to be worked out. The 

theory of Engels is in two parts, a subjective and an objective factor. 

The process of individuation is the articulation of the individual interest 

in the society and the dissolution of the community in the course of 

this ; the individuation is one-sided, without a corresponding interchange 

in the interest of the society. Thereby the society ceases to be the final 

end of the means of satisfaction of the individual, and the unity of the 

society in the society belongs to the world of seeming. The interests are 

at once a content of the individuation and their externalisation as characterizing 

forms; the interrelation of the oppositive contents and the 

external forms is the dissolution of the social unity, that of the individual 

unity and that of the unity of the individual and the society. Marx’s 

mention (excerpts, p. 191) of Losreissung, as opposed to the satisfying, 

comfortable bonds of the primitive community, presupposes these disunities, 

which are given expression in the passage of C apital dealing 

with the dismemberment of man in the early period of capitalist manufacture.73 

(See below, Introduction, section 6, Community, Collectivism 

and Individualism.) That mention is opposed to the partly rightsounding 

phraseology of Maine which brings the social tradition to bear on the 

State sovereignty as the condition of its limitation (excerpts, p. 192). The 

latter enters into the superstructure of the society. 

Sovereignty and the limitations of sovereignty are not conferred upon 

the person of the monarch but upon the office, a distinction either 

obscured or not fully comprehended by both Maine and Austin; both 

obscured the relation of society to the institution, in different ways : 

Maine caused the moral sphere of reference “for shortness” to include 

the entire tradition of the society, therefore he argued by implication for 

the non-separation of science from politics or of statements of fact from 

those of morality.74 It is opposed to the position shared by Hume, 

Bentham and Austin. Marx’s difference with Maine in this regard was 

something else : Maine in his all-embracing moral category did not allow 

for the preponderance of the economic influences (excerpts, p. 191). 

Nevertheless, Maine introduced the economic factor in his ideas on caste 

formation;75 this should be brought together with Marx’s ideas about 

caste exogamy in connection with the transformation of gentile to 

political society (see above, section 1 ; and Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 5 8 

and n. 160, below). 

4i

Civilized society is artificial, being pervaded with fictions, practices not 

found in primitive communities. The joint family has a secondary character 

and is separated from the primitive commune where there is no 

opposition of town and countryside or of rich and poor (excerpts, p. 164). 

Maine wrote76 that the power of distribution of the inheritance comes to 

resemble ‘mere administrative authority’ in the degree that ‘the Joint 

Family, Sept or Clan becomes more artificial.’ Marx commented: “The 

matter is just the reverse. For Maine, who cannot get the English private 

family out of his head after all, this quite natural function of the Chief 

of the gens, further of the tribe, natural because he is its chief, (and is 

theoretically always “elected”) appears as “artificial” and “ mere administrative 

authority” , whereas the arbitrariness of the modern paterfamilias 

is just as “artificial” as the private family itself from the archaic standpoint.” 

The artificiality, according to Maine, is by comparison with, or 

nonsuitability to, the modern situation of the family, its position in 

modern society with respect to inheritance of the estate; according to 

Marx the artificiality is by comparison to the archaic condition. In his 

argument against Maine’s reversal, Marx separated out, along Morgan’s 

line, the condition of the gens and tribe, and the chief of each, from the 

family and its head, in opposition to Maine who placed the joint family, 

sept, and clan on equal footing in the same social category. Likewise, 

Marx entered reservations against Morgan’s idea of election of the chief 

of gens or tribe, clan or sept, which office is only elective in theory, but 

transmissible in practice, as we have seen. Maine’s criterion for artificiality 

is that of anachronistic survival, Marx’s that of the social divisions 

and antagonisms of the civilized condition as such, wherein artificiality 

arises from the alienated condition of civilized man, exploited, dismembered, 

set against his fellows and against himself, by comparison with the 

archaic condition of community, satisfying, nondespotic and equal. In 

the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx had analyzed the 

human condition into its active components: the condition of man as 

alienated is that of the selfalienation of man, the alienation of man from 

thing.77 The process of Aufhebung or sublation of the selfalienation 

follows the same path as the selfalienation (Private Property and Communism).78 

In the Holy Fam ily this is further analyzed, in such a way that 

the possessing class and the proletariat present the same human selfalienation; 

it is their relation to the social alienation which differs from 

one class to the other.79 

Marx has pointed to the beginnings of the separation of theory from 

practice in the excerpts from Maine, continuing the mode of analysis 

that was noted in the Morgan excerpts, wherein the official and the unofficial 

were separated and the public from the private, in the transition 

from barbarism to civilization. 

Marx (Maine excerpts, p. 191) opposed the oldfashioned (positivist) 

42

conception of science as classification and definition, and consequently 

Hume’s separation and juxtaposition of statements of fact and of moral 

judgments. Thereby Marx opposed the separation and juxtaposition of 

science and politics, noting that both Maine and Austin separated themselves 

thereby from Hobbes: Maine was oldfashioned, but not oldfash- 

ioned enough, for Hobbes had not made the separation of science from 

politics as his followers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were 

to do. The positions of the English empiricist and the Continental 

Kantian and positivist schools were opposed by the tradition that regarded 

politics and science in their interrelation: beside Hobbes, Marx 

mentioned Machiavelli and Linguet (I.e.).80 

Morgan criticized Maine with reference to the joint family and the gens 

on two counts, i, the joint family and the gens are not the same kind of 

social institution; the gens is a unilineal descent group, while the family, 

joint or other, is composed of members of more than one line. 2, the 

patriarchal family is an exceptional, not a normal development.81 Maine 

answered Morgan, but did not meet the latter’s argument.82 [The 

contradiction noted both in Morgan and Marx regarding the relation of 

the family and the gens (see above, section 1, on Morgan, and note 5 5) is 

again propounded by Marx (Maine excerpts, p. 187): here Marx wrote 

that the family is encased (eingehiillt) in the gens, in which he followed 

Niebuhr. According to Morgan’s idea the family is never fully encased 

in the particular gens, for one of its members belongs to another gens.] 

4. M ARX’S EXCER PT NO TES FROM LUBBOCK, 

T H E O R IG IN O F C l V IL IS A T IO N 83 

The brief notes from Lubbock were set down separately and later than 

the others,84 involving the work of McLennan whom Lubbock followed 

with minor reservations. Lubbock still included lists of curious practices 

and remarkable customs, but belongs to an ethnological tradition which 

recounted the story of man as a historism, entirely earthly, which had 

been given its impetus in the eighteenth century; it became transformed 

into an evolutionary account of human development in the light of 

Darwin’s discovery of environmental adaptation and natural selection, 

and of Alfred Wallace, Huxley, Spencer, Ernst Haeckel, and the resultant 

literature of Dawkins, Lubbock, Tylor and Morgan. Lubbock accounted 

for religion on naturalistic grounds, and for the formation of the State 

in indigenous terms, without particular reference to exogenous factors 

in a particular society, as race, conquest, or the like. Lubbock was at the 

same time culture-bound, whereat Marx raised the issue of the subjective 

cultural bond in ethnological practice: Lubbock had noted,85 “Among 

many of the lower races relationship through females is the prevalent 

custom...” hence - the interpolations are by Marx (excerpts from 

43

Lubbock, p. z) the curious (!) practice that a man’s heirs [but then 

they are not the man’s heirs; these civilized asses cannot free themselves 

of their own conventionalities] are not his own, but his sister’s children.” 

Marx’s notes on Lubbock include a long extract from Cervantes, Don 

Quixote, where a point is made about delivering the great from need as 

(Marx’s parallel) in India the divinity is ransomed from his chains (excerpts, 

p. 4·)86 

Marx’s notes on Lubbock presuppose his having read Morgan, Maine, 

and Phear: thus, McLennan and Bachofen began their development of 

marriage and the family with a stage of hetaerism or communal marriage; 

to which Marx comments, “And Lubbock says, p. 70, that he believes 

this nonsense, i.e., therefore identifies communal marriage and hetaerism; 

whereas clearly hetaerism is a form which presupposes prostitution (and 

this exists only in opposition to marriage, whether communal, etc., or 

monogamic. This therefore^ hysteron proteron.” (Marx, Lubbock excerpts, 

p. 1). Engels, following Morgan, brought in hetaerism only after 

the introduction of monogamy.87 McLennan had considered that 

marriage by capture arose out of tribal exogamy. Lubbock: “I believe 

that exogamy arose from marriage by capture__ ” 88 Marx commented 

(I.e.): “ Lubb. knows nothing of the basis - the gens.” 

5. G EN ER A L CONSIDERATIONS OF TH E HISTORICAL PLACEM ENT 

OF TH ESE WORKS 

The place in the history of ethnology of the authors and works treated 

here and Marx’s relation both to them and to the ethnological field 

through them, may be examined within the tradition of the empirical 

study of living peoples and of peoples of the past. Ethnography was then 

being established by the initiation of reports by observers who set aside 

long periods of residence among the ethnographic subjects, and who had 

no obvious axe to grind in the way of demonstrating the superiority, 

innate or achieved, of race, of one mode of life, or of one religious belief 

over another. In part for this reason, the ethnographer at that time took 

on the viewpoint of an objective, distanced natural scientist, describing 

men as though his relation to them were other than that of man to man, 

which is the formicological viewpoint of Hippolyte Taine. The sciences 

of man had co-opted the field of ethnology and anthropology from the 

philosophical study of the same undertaken by Kant, Hegel, Fichte, 

Feuerbach, a tradition out of which Marx emerged, which had figured in 

his doctoral dissertation and in his Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts 

of 1844. 

The work of Phear approaches the methods of modern ethnography, 

in part is identical with it, in part falls away by its representation of an 

abstract type specimen of the agricultural village of East Bengal. It 

44

approaches the modern ethnography by the infrequency of the intrusion 

of the ethnographer, the accumulation of detail about a particular subject, 

e.g., the household accounts and the listings of the household furnishings, 

the enumerations of the types of landholdings and the dues levied on each, 

and by its spatio-temporal specificity, contradicted in turn by his asseveration 

of the type. Morgan’s work includes four chapters of description 

of the Iroquois gens, phratry, tribe and confederacy, and compendious 

descriptions of Greek and Roman institutions of the same scope. Maine 

applied the Brehon tracts to an insight into the Irish antiquities. All these 

ethnographies, after the fashion of that time, provided a knowledge in 

detail of a particular people in a particular subject matter: material culture, 

household economy, social and political organization, kinship 

organization, legal customs, with insight into the mode of life of the 

peoples whose practices were described. These concrescences were 

joined in the cases of Morgan and Maine to general theories of development 

of political and kinship organization, or legal organization. The 

work of Lubbock, in contrast, belongs to the opposite tradition of 

scattered data unrelated to ethnographic particularity, of which Herbert 

Spencer was the coeval representative, and which has since fallen into 

disuse. 

Morgan and Lubbock figure among the leading writers in ethnology of 

the late nineteenth century; Marx was no doubt well served in choosing 

them as the indicators of the state of development of the science. He 

had treated of Kovalevsky, Tylor, Maurer and Bastian in other contexts. 

(See Addendum 2 on Tylor and Bastian; see above on Maurer and 

Kovalevsky.) 

The interrelation of the abstract and the concrete data was developed 

during the late nineteenth century in ethnology, yet the subjective and 

the objective sides of the nascent science were not well formulated. Marx 

in his correspondence and in his ethnological notes drew attention to the 

cultural limitations of the observer, in which the mode of social life of 

the observer formed his object-glass. There remains to be integrated 

into the field of ethnology the relation of the human actuality to the 

potentiality of man as subject in relation to the object, man the subject 

of the ethnography, on the one side. And on the other, there remains the 

actual disunity and opposition of man in relation to the potentiality of 

unity with himself, society and nature, positions which had been set 

forth by Marx four decades earlier. 

Hegel comprehended civil society in its unity, Marx in its internal 

opposition; common to the two is the formation of civil society as the 

achievement of the civilized condition, as the condition of that condition, 

which is a process of general development on the one side, of the particular 

history on in the other, and the relation between the general and the 

particular. The achievement of civilized condition as the human agency 

45

is at the same time Marx’s comprehension of Hegel. The formation of 

mutually antagonistic collectivities, internalized as collective interests in 

their opposition to each other, is the difference between Hegel and Marx 

in their respective comprehensions of civil society. This difference is 

objective in itself, it is at the same time the difference between Hegel’s 

subjectivity and Marx’s objectivity, and is the positing of the relation of 

the subjective to the objective in society, which is wholly on the side of 

Marx. In the Morgan excerpts (pp. 76-77,87 and passim) and in the Maine 

excerpts (pp. 191-192 and passim) Marx took up the question of the 

individual in relation to the collectivity under the condition of the dissolution 

of the archaic community and the formation of civilized society. 

Here Marx examined the interrelations of objective and subjective factors 

in the relation of the individual in society to his collectivity as interests. 

G. Lukacs understood Marx’s position in regard to society solely on the 

objective side, in opposition to Hegel. For this it is necessary to go not 

only to the product of the given historical process, such as Hegel and 

Marx envisaged, that is, modern bourgeois society, but to the onset of 

the process of its formation, which is to grasp it as a temporal phenomenon. 

Marx set forth the history of the individual interests in their 

conflicting relations to each other, resolved in the collective interest 

of the social class within itself; the resolution of the conflict is not whole, 

partly because the process of establishment of the new form of society is 

incomplete, in which the former communal relations are carried forward, 

albeit pro forma (cf. Morgan excerpts, p. 71, ref. Weihrauchsduft). Pardy, 

however, the conflict is never resolved in the new form of society because 

the interest of the subject is not wholly subordinated to the objective 

interest; where property interest is at stake, man is as a shark to man, he 

knows no interest but his own, even when it is in his interest to subordinate 

it to the collective one. The interest of the subject is at the same 

time subjective and objective, the objective interest being in part internalized, 

and the subjectivity and the internalized objectivity being both 

externalized in the behavior, relations and production of the group in 

the society. Out of this internalization there is developed the partial, 

fragmentary comprehension of the individual in society as subject-object 

(v. Ernst Bloch) in mutual interrelation with the society. Yet the internalization 

itself comprises both the unity and the opposition of the 

individual in the civilized condition. The society is divided within itself, 

the individual is divided along two axes: by having internalized the social 

division whole, and by opposing the social division after having experienced 

the comforting bonds of the foregoing communal existence. 

Finally, man in the civilized condition is subdivided, as society is divided, 

in the social division of labor. We thus proceed from the social atom to 

the anatomized man in civil society, which was earlier laid bare by Marx’s 

anatomy of civil society, and now by the diachrony of its formation. 

46

Man in the civilized condition is formed as a divided individual, with 

opposing elements both within himself and to the collectivity which 

purportedly serves his interest and whose interest he purportedly serves. 

Man in all conditions, civilized or not, is at once subject and object in 

his relation in society, by his composition in that relation, and therefore 

to himself; it is by virtue of that relation that he is subject and object. 

The relation of subject and object in the individual is partial and fragmentary 

because it is not separated from its development, or its temporal 

relation. The consciousness of the relation is incomplete, for man is 

separated from nature, and from his own nature, the content of man’s 

subjectivity ill fits, fits but does not fit well, the form of his objectivity. 

The externalization of wants and their internalization as satisfactions are 

social relations on the one side and human relations with nature on the 

other, the latter being intermediated by human work with tools, which 

were conceived after Hegel by Marx as the social instruments of labor. 

The concept of culture in empirical anthropology has one of its roots 

in the Hegelian theory of mediation, given that the mediate relation of 

man to nature is at the same time the alienation of man from nature and 

the intermediation of man’s work in the natural relation; hence the 

formation of the opposition culture-nature, however empirically it is 

determined, is incomplete because onesided. The conjoint relation (or 

doubly, relations, for both singular and plural, the one and the many 

relations between human society and nature are maintained) of intermediation 

and alienation is at the same time the dialectical passage of the 

linking of man to nature and the distancing of man from nature, by 

which we mean on both sides the intervention of culture. The concept is 

still abstract in Hegel’s philosophical anthropology, and has been made 

only partially concrete in the empirical. There are to begin with two 

dialectical moments that are to be elaborated: The first is the passage 

from the concrete culture, from culture in the plural sense, the many, to 

the abstract, the actual many and the potential one, and the reverse. This 

has been already formulated in the empirical side of anthropology as the 

interrelation of the abstract relation by which man produces himself and 

his kind in general, and the concrete act of work, or the shaping of things 

of use to the given society. The second was expressed by Hegel, to whom 

culture meant the cultivation of the individual, or his life cycle of encul- 

turation; in Marx it was constituted by the socialization of the individual 

by means of his particular relations in society, concretely in the collectivities 

that make up his social environment and form his social being. 

The abstract and the concrete labor are likewise separate in Marx, and 

joined as the abstract potentiality and the concrete actuality. 

The Hegelian system is an organicism in the sense of the actualization 

of a potentiality, but as an organicism within a teleology; it is in this 

sense that Marx interpreted the Hegelian dialectic of anthropology and 

47

history both explicitly and implicitly in his later writings (vide: Preface to 

second edition of Capital, volume I ; Capital passim; references to Darwin 

in his Correspondence; Randglossen to the ‘Lehrbuch der Politischen 

Okonomie’ of A. Wagner.)89 

The Hegelian system as a whole was understood as an organicism by 

C. S. Peirce; according to this, the growth of living beings is not separate 

from the growth in nature as a whole of animate and inanimate matter; 

all nature is inseparable, in the same process. The notion has a root in the 

Stoic (Chrysippus, Stobaeus, Seneca), before that in the Heracleitian and 

hylozoist traditions, having been resumed in Aristotle’s doctrine of tel- 

eological entelechy. The idea of organic growth underlies the evolution 

of man and of culture in the nineteenth century, particularly the evolutionary 

doctrine shared by Spencer, Tylor, Morgan, for it is not the human 

individual but the collective social life that undergoes the transformation 

from the primitive to the civilized state. The growth, as all of nature, is 

an undirected, internally unfolding, self-formative process. Morgan’s 

conception, like that of Darwin, pointed to organic processes which 

were qualitative and systemically interrelated (as Morgan’s idea of the 

change in the family form bringing in its trail the changes in the system 

of consanguinity). There was another part of Morgan’s thought which 

was rather quantitative and mechanicist, as the settlement on a territory 

and the accumulation of property which accounted for the transformations 

from one mode of existence to another. This, the mechanicist part, only 

later came to be separated out from the organicist in human development. 

The organicist conceptions were wholly objective in Morgan, the subjective 

side being a projection of his desire to see the recrudescence of 

the ideals of the gens after the fall of the regime of property over mankind. 

The organicist and the mechanicist conceptions of Morgan were juxtaposed 

to each other, and were not interrelated; nevertheless, they were 

set forth with materials which were empirically concrete (Iroquois, 

certain Australian, Aztec, Greek, Roman, and Hebrew societies). Subsequent 

work on Morgan’s schema has been on the objective and mechanicist 

side, presupposing the continuation of the organicist. 

Morgan’s organicism was implicit in his notions of growth, developmental 

stages, etc.; it was at the same time literal and explicit. He made 

reference to the organic series (gens-phratry-tribe),90 to natural growth 

from gens to phratry,91 to that growth as natural or organic processes,92 

to an organic social system,93 to the organism of society,94 to living 

organizations,95 etc. This organic doctrine was conceived not as an 

analogy but as an analytic tool which enabled him to reconstruct a part 

of the social whole where direct evidence was lacking.96 Engels followed 

Morgan in this matter;97 Marx was critical of the same Cuvier whom 

Engels cited in support of his organicist reconstruction after Morgan; 

Marx expressed reservations regarding one of Morgan’s reconstructions: 

48

The latter98 had inferred that the Mohawks and Oneidas had each lost 

at least one phratry and one gens of the remaining phratry. Marx 

(excerpts, p. 38) exclaimed at Morgan’s words: ..//(!) it is supposed (!) 

that...” (Marx’s underlining). Morgan’s expertise in this matter was 

then recognized; the steps in reasoning are neither many nor do they defy 

the imagination. Yet Marx’s exclamations imply a doubt which is to be 

registered a fortiori with regard to Morgan’s more sweeping speculative 

reconstructions. 

Opposed to Morgan’s conception was that of Franz Boas, who influenced 

American anthropology in the direction of a mechanicism such 

that growth other than that of the individual biological organism and its 

organs was set down as antiscientific. This opposition was extended by 

R. H. Lowie further in the same direction of an objective, positivist, 

empirical mechanicism. On the other hand, A. L. Kroeber, together 

with W. M. Wheeler in biology, L. Mumford in the history of urbanism 

and technology, S. A. Alexander, A. N. Whitehead, C. Lloyd Morgan 

developed a conception of organicism without any relation to mechanicism. 

To the organicist doctrine were related Emile Durkheim’s 

idea of mechanical and organic solidarity, H. S. Maine’s of status and 

contract, and following him, F. Toennies’ of community and society, 

in whose work Marx figures. The closest to the Hegelian conception of 

organicism in the history of law and society was Otto Gierke’s Genossen- 

schaftsrecht,99 which we translate as law or right of societas, (== L. H. Morgan’s 

societas). Joseph Needham has redefined mechanicism in relation 

to Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, giving it the name of neomechanism; 

Needham thereby gives biological laws an ‘interim’ character 

insofar as they are different from mechanical laws, but are deprived of an 

entelechy,100 in contrast to the entelechistic deism of Whitehead, Alexander, 

and Lloyd Morgan. Marx took up the organicist doctrine from 

Hegel, but in the light of Darwin, without Hegel’s implicit pantheism. 

Aside from the specific ideas and data-interpretations that Marx took from 

L. H. Morgan and the other ethnologists, these general conceptions are 

not their common ground. Marx pointed out the way through Charles 

Fourier in regard to the negative critique of civilization, which in a 

different way was taken up by Sigmund Freud as well. On the other hand, 

L. H. Morgan was part of an American movement of thought that was 

still alive to the common egalitarian tradition out of which both the 

American and French revolutions arose. L. A. White did not find that 

L. H. Morgan sympathized with the working class and the socialist 

movements in American life in his own day; rather he was idealistic and 

utopian, anti-aristocratic and communitarian in his abstract opposition 

to property. Thus, Morgan never proposed concrete means to carry 

out the program of abolishing the thing which had aroused his distaste. 

On the contrary, Marx identified Morgan as serving in the opposed camp 

49

to his own, hence providing an objective support of Marx’s argument, 

without Morgan’s will to do so, or have it done for him. In his letter to 

Zasulich, Marx cited Morgan in support of his idea that the present 

society would return to the archaic practice of common ownership of 

property. Marx pointed out that Morgan had been supported in his 

work by the American government (this refers to Morgan’s Systems of 

Consanguinity and Affinity). Morgan did not conceive that the modern 

social system is in ‘a crisis that will end only by its elimination’ ; yet Marx 

and Morgan in different ways called for the revival of the archaic commune 

with regard to property, equality and the organization of society. 

(Ste Addendum i.) 

R. H. Lowie criticized L. H. Morgan’s conception of primitive society 

on the ground that it is atomistic101: Morgan did not take account of 

territorial and police-military associations, nor of political behavior and 

relations, of differentiation by stratification and ranking in primitive 

societies. Lowie’s criticism of Morgan’s Ancient Society has as its presupposition 

that Morgan’s work is an abstraction from primitive society, 

a criticism that can be made of Maine’s idea of status versus contract, of 

Durkheim’s idea of collective representations and of mechanical solidarity, 

of Lucien Levy-Bruhl’s idea of the pre-logical savage thought, etc. 

W. N. Fenton, who has worked among the Iroquois, has written that 

Morgan omitted mention of their village community or local territorial 

organization.102 On the other hand, Marx connected the gens and the 

village community as institutions of primitive, Greek, Roman, and 

oriental societies, but did not tax Morgan with having missed the connection. 

However, several of these criticisms when added to the general 

schema of Morgan help to reinforce the direction of Marx’s ideas: 

differentiation of the social strata according to the amount of property 

owned by each contains in germ the organization of the differentiated and 

oppositive civil society, which is the civilized condition when developed; 

likewise the territorial, military, and other nonconsanguineal associations 

contain the germ of the institutions of political society (i.e., not the germ 

of political society as such). The idea of a germinal State as the later 

development out of these earlier institutions, in addition to those contained 

in Morgan’s work (property, territorial settlement), is shared with 

him in writings of Lowie, White, M. H. Fried, M. Sahlins and the present 

writer. Boas, moreover, held that political organizations evolved from 

small to great in size over time. In the way that the evolutionary canon 

(if not the doctrine) was developed by this tradition in empirical anthropology, 

it is an organicism without teleology but it is a weak development 

of the technical-mechanicist side, as in Morgan, and without an 

interrelation of the different sides. Lowie’s criticism of Morgan as an 

atomist misses the mark because it fails to take account of the overriding 

evolutionary organicism of Morgan. 

50

The idea of R. M. Maclver and R. H. Lowie,103 that association is 

counterposed to community, as the means whereby the individual is 

loosened from the bonds of the kin and territorial community, was 

anticipated by Marx in his notes on Maine, and in controversion of the 

latter. Gierke, however, retained the notion of Genossenschaft as the 

undifferentiated institution which on further development would then 

be articulated as the community on one side and, on the other, the association. 

104 

Fortes has separated Morgan’s evolutionism from his studies of 

kinship and social organization, and together with this, has separated the 

historicist from the synchronic reconstruction of society, and the speculative 

deduction of the past, e.g., Morgan’s presupposition of an originally 

promiscuous family organization, from observation of the present.105 

Organicism as a concept, however, is not only applicable as a reconstruction 

of an organism, or of a social, historical system, etc., which is 

presumed to function like an organism, in the past; it is the presupposition 

of such an organism or its systematic analog at any time, past, 

present, or future. Opler106 distinguished between historicism proper, 

that is, the determination of a phenomenon by an earlier invention or 

discovery, and that same invention or discovery as a mark or register of 

the degree of development of a society; Morgan, according to this view, 

is not to be taken as a historicist. Fortes did not go so far as to make 

Morgan into a determinist, but conceived him as a historicist in an extended 

sense, that is, historicism as the intellectual act of .. looking for 

explanations... in terms of sequences of antecedent actions and circumstances.” 

107 This is the opposite of historicism conceived as the determination 

of that which is objectively real, and which is the usual target of 

the critics of historical determinism in particular and of historicist 

organicism in general. In keeping with this redirection, Fortes made 

relative that which Morgan had stated without qualifications; Fortes, 

however, does not substantively alter Morgan’s progressive sequence 

from societas to civitas, but rejects the diachronic aspect: 

Stripped of its historicist pretensions and restated in structural 

terms, [Morgan’s] is the problem of how kinship and polity are 

interconnected in tribal society__ “Civitas” does not identify a 

specific “ type” or “ stage” of advanced society by contrast with a 

conjecturally “primitive” or historically antecedent form of society 

founded exclusively upon ties of “blood.” “ Status,” in the sense of 

Maine’s juristic equivalent for Morgan’s “ societas” does not characterize 

primitive or archaic forms or stages of society in contradistinction 

to the principle of “ contract” which is supposed to be the 

hallmark of “progressive” societies__These antinomies and others 

that have been linked with them do not identify different forms of 

social and politico-jural organization. They represent correlative 

Ji

and interdependent institutional complexes that work together in all 

social systems. Our paradigmatic specimens exemplify this over a 

wide range of phenotypically diverse societies.... Variations in 

demographic scale, economic complexity, and politico-jural differentiation 

regulate the ways in which these complexes are manifested 

and interlinked.... Where there is society, there is both kinship and 

polity, both status and contract. What is distinctive is their relative 

elaboration, their relative weight and scope in different sectors of 

social life.108 

But if the relatively higher degree of political elaboration occurs later in 

time, and if there is a relatively lesser weight and scope of kinship as the 

relations of civitas are built up, then Morgan cannot be said to have argued 

differently. Fortes, save for a stylistic change, is close to the synchronic 

aspect of Morgan; V. G. Childe, while retaining Morgan’s terminology, 

departed from the substance of Morgan’s temporal sequence, thereby 

following out Engels’ line of thought. L. A. White has proceeded more 

directly along Morgan’s line, independently of these. The development 

and transformation of social institutions, among them the gentile, 

property and territorial, which were posited by Morgan, Genossenschaft 

by Gierke, status by Maine and F. Toennies, association and community 

by Maclver and Lowie accomplished the transition of man to the form 

of society having the State among its institutions. The common feature 

of the writers in this tradition is that the State is established primarily 

as a relation between men, secondarily as a relation between man and 

nature. Both sides have proceeded in their examination without seeking 

the interrelation between the social and the natural relations of man. 

The diachronic analysis of the given social institutions sets forth how 

the formation of the state is concretely determined as the rrieans both 

to social integration and to social opposition. Alternatively, we fall 

back upon a subjective organicism of the Hegelian right wing as an 

interpretation of the origin of the State, wherein it is conceived as 

having grown without indicating how the growth has taken place, the 

subjectivity here being conceived wholly as an abstraction. 

The stages of human progress were conceived in part by Morgan as 

benchmarks, and Opler has understood him in this way. Fortes for his 

own purposes has interpreted Morgan’s diachrony solely as a mode of 

explanation. These are partial because onesided interpretations of Morgan 

who, at the same time posited an organic series from gens to tribe 

and from societas to civitas as objectively real, as the active means of human 

progress, proper and internal to it, and not merely as its external measure 

or explanation. Morgan thereby made explicit that which had been 

implicit in the writings of Vico and Ferguson. Morgan’s theory of 

evolution was a part of the conception of ethnology as a natural science, 

which was widely held in his time, but foreign to most contemporary 

52

ethnological thought. It is an anachronism to impose our current antinaturalism 

upon the naturalism of the antecedent canon. 

Lowie,Opler, and Fortes are not alone in having joined Marx to Engels inseparably 

relative to Morgan’s work. It is now possible to reexamine that 

combination and to determine the degree and manner in which it is justified. 

The characteristic question of the nineteenth century writers is that of 

the fantasy versus the reality of periodization of societies, the subjective 

arbitrariness versus the objective necessity of periodization, the determinate 

and unique versus the optional and many kinds of stages and 

periods. Marx was more critical than either Morgan or Engels of hypothetical 

reconstructions of the past based upon organicist assumptions in 

regard to the workings of society. 

The question of periodization in Morgan’s general account of the 

progress of mankind is connected with his theory of culture (in regard to 

which see note 16 below). Each period or stage of human development, 

according to this theory, has a characteristic mode of life, culture being 

neither the matter of all mankind on the one hand, nor of a particular 

people or social group on the other; it is the matter of an ethnical period 

which groups within itself a number of peoples in different parts of the 

world. Moreover, the laws that govern the movement of the cultures, or 

modes of life, from one period to the next are organic, being of the 

natural order, and independent of the action of individuals. Thus, the 

institution of political society among the Greeks was not the work of any 

one person, such as Theseus, who instead represented a period, or a series 

of events. The process of transition from one period to the next was in 

this sense impersonal, in Morgan’s conception, therefore wholly objective. 

Morgan’s theory of primitive society posited a governmental plan 

which was constituted of personal relations; he did not proceed to the 

integration of the impersonal process, in the case of the transition 

mental plan of the period which his representation overcame. The cultures 

themselves are wholly objective in their processes and constitution, 

and were conceived as objective categories by Morgan. The cultural 

matter in this conception is inert, but it is not a passivity, for it contains 

within itself, that is, within the given mode of life of each ethnical period, 

the germ of its own dissolution and transition to the next higher ethnical 

period. The various periods are marked by inventions and discoveries, 

as fire, the bow and arrow, domestication of plants and animals, iron, 

and writing. These inventions and discoveries, however, are not the 

work of individuals, the implication being, as the process is spelled out 

by Morgan in the case of Theseus, that they are independent of individuals; 

they would be invented by someone, regardless of whether the 

particular individual to whom they are accredited was in his place at the 

time or not, and whether he was active to the given end or not. The invention 

or discovery is a matter of the ripeness of the particular ethnical 

53

period to bear that particular fruit or not, that which Aristotle called its 

entelechy was at cause, or the actualization of its potential. The question 

of the actual location of that potential in time and place, whether in the 

individual or in the social group, was not posited by Morgan. So difficult 

is the position of this problem that it was the subject of unsuccessful 

attempts by many other writers of that period, for it involves the question 

of the objective reality of the social group in independence of the individual, 

and of the same order of natural, material reality. 

The problem of periodization, together with the criteria for classification 

of concrete and particular societies in such terms, the homogeneity 

or heterogeneity of the societies in the different categories, are 

today even more complex than in the last quarter of the nineteenth 

century. We have attained a limited agreement on such generalities as 

the social evolution from societas to civitas\ but how much more can be 

said? Periodization of social evolution has been proposed as more than 

a device of classification of man’s past; it has been connected with the 

doctrine of necessitarianism, iron laws, that is, solely with the objective 

and external side of man and his changing condition of social life. The 

question is this, how can the subjective side be related to the objective 

side in this connection? Periodization as a convenience and periodization 

as a predictive device are separable. The problem Morgan posited becomes 

that of the dialectical relation of the one and the many lines of 

evolution today, but in an altered form. Those categories of change take 

up only the passive, external, objective, undirected tendencies in evolution. 

They do not take into account the directive, active, conscious acts 

of man in social change on the political side, the factors of social and 

national revolutions, nor do they take into account the introduction of 

new scientific and technological changes, both in the sphere of inanimate 

matter and in the biological sphere. Thus far these interrelations exist 

only as abstraction and as possibility, the categories having been merely 

juxtaposed. But a dialectic of the science of man has not been developed 

thereby, for those who, as J. B. S. Haldane, have taken F. Engels’ D ialectics 

of Nature as their starting point have brought out the objective 

side exclusively. The problem of involuntary evolution as objective, 

is in relation to the conscious control of the future as a subjectivity-objec- 

tivity. 

Marx raised the question of the subjective and the objective aspects of 

man and society relative to the identity of interest of the individual 

within the collectivity, which is in turn connected to the identity of the 

individual and to the process of formation of the individual in society as 

a human being: man does not become a human being in general, but 

becomes human only in a particular way, within the particular collectivities. 

In the process of formation in complex society of antagonistic 

social interests, and in the process of formation of the state he becomes 

54

an internally antagonistic creature, alienated within the collectivities from 

which he derives his particular social nature. The further question of the 

nature of human nature in the complex condition of society is thereby 

posited. Determinist periodization smuggles in a teleology by seeking to 

foretell the stage to which man must advance. That determinism does not 

differentiate between that which is brought about by the conscious intervention 

of man and that which takes place without the specifically human 

agency. Man is part of the kingdom of nature, and as such the natural 

processes take place upon and across his physical body; but this body has 

already been modified culturally. Therefore the natural processes in 

question take place in part mediately, in part immediately or directly upon 

the human organism and through it, by means of it. But the natural processes 

relate as such even less direcdy and hence both proportionately and 

absolutely more mediatively in respect of the concrete and particular 

human qualities, the characteristically human works and human social 

relations. 

Marx distinguished between the human architect and the bee, thereby 

introducing the work of the head in the role of the hand. “At the end of 

the labor process a result comes forth that was already present at its 

onset in the conceptualization (Vorstellung) of the laborer. Not only does 

he bring about a change in form of the natural realm; he realizes at the 

same time in the realm of nature his end, which he knows, which determines 

the manner and mode of his action as a law, and to which he must 

subordinate his will.” 109 

Unlike the bee, man has separated himself from nature, and has internalized 

this separation, albeit partially and incompletely, as an alienation. 

The non-internalized part of the separation is likewise an alienation, but 

it is an alienation in which we do not freely participate, for it is imposed 

upon us in our given human-infrahuman state. Man is conscious of both 

the internalized, voluntary alienation and the alienation which is not, but 

the role of the consciousness in either case is different. Man interposes, 

as Marx pointed out, the agencies of his labor between himself and nature 

in relation to an end which he has previously conceived and which he has 

carried through. Since man has at no time left the natural order the same 

forces continue to act upon him and through him as those which act 

upon and through the bee or the chimpanzee. At the same time, his brain 

and hand, which have set man aside within the natural order are interactive 

with the natural processes. Thus the same forces which have enlarged 

the brain and shaped the hand lie at once within and without the 

human being; they are not the sole forces at work upon man, but these 

natural, pre-human forces are part of the materials which -man applies in 

the shaping of his peculiarly human work tools. These human processes 

are not determinate, nor can they be considered as part of any determinism 

in a precise way. First, they are subject in part to the social variations 

55

devised by the human conceptualizations. The brain conceives in a way 

that is solely human and pan-human, but what it conceives and the materia 

that it has to work with varies from people to people. Both the universally 

and solely human culture and the particular cultural variations are 

at work in the'r interaction in the conceptualizations of the brain. Second, 

they are not determinate, still less are they deterministic, in the sense that 

our knowledge of the laws of nature and of natural workings, whether 

animate or inanimate, and of the human brain, is incomplete; thereby 

likewise a determinacy of human affairs is excluded. 

A teleology on the other hand introduces the extra-human knowledge 

of man, his works, relations to other men and to nature; it has become 

associated by those who have recognized the inadequacy of man and the 

power of his brain in the face of these problems which are insuperable at 

the given state of development of our mental and material equipment, 

with an appeal to an extra-human source of knowledge: The knower 

outside our sphere is the deity who sees the direction in which we are 

going, in some versions can change the direction on appeal, in others is 

the do-nothing god. These fables for children have occupied great minds 

as well, and the empirical anthropologists have danced up to and away 

from these tacit or open admissions of our ignorance. A teleology is 

likewise presupposed in the talk of objective laws which move mankind 

from a lower to a higher stage of development of society. They are 

rather a basis for the social morale of given political States. But the 

periodization of human progress is at once like and unlike the natural 

teleology. The political relation was conceived by the theorists of the 

natural right and social contract as' the human relation as such, that is, 

the relation in which man intervenes most closely and substantially in 

the control of his own fate. It was conceived by them as the human relation 

a fortiori because it attributes to man the power to subject his fate 

to his reason and will, which have been determined to be the particularly 

and peculiarly human faculties, shared with no other beings of the natural 

order. Thus they conceived the final human relation as the political 

relation in society, that toward which man tends, just as the technology 

which gives man control over nature is the end of man in the natural 

relation. This arbitrary divorce of society from nature is specious for it 

divorces man both from nature and from society, as we have already seen, 

making him independent of the one and prior to the other. It is a self- 

vaunting, moreover, because it presupposes a greater degree of knowledge 

of nature, society, and self, and control of these, than is in any sense 

the case. The political solution in this sense was carried forward into the 

twentieth century as an exaggerated act of self-confidence in the ability 

to control human destiny. It was criticized by Marx in relation to Bakunin, 

and by Karl Korsch in the twentieth century. It is necessary, as 

Marx showed in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts, to separate the 

56

actuality of the relations of the science of nature and of human history 

from their potentiality; in this sense the periodization of human progress 

and the natural teleology are like, as potentially they are one, while actually 

different. 

Anthropology as a discipline has become increasingly empirical and 

self-sufficient in the past century. It had successively freed itself of cultural 

bondage as a particularism, together with biological, geographic 

and cultural-abstract determinism. It has at the same time separated itself 

from its own past, each generation in turn disinheriting its forerunner; 

yet each forerunner has retained its partisans in the next. The relation of 

anthropology, not as a deterministic historicism, but as a historism, to 

wit, the recounting of the story of man which is at once an accounting for 

humanity in terms of a principle remains to be taken up; on the other 

hand, the interrelation between the actual and the potential condition of 

humanity is eschewed as a speculative fantasy. Teleology was exorcised 

as a doctrine by A. L. Kroeber’s disavowal of the organicism of the 

superorganic; there is left only the positing of man in the kingdom of 

nature. Man is an animal as any other, but requires a special discipline of 

anthropology, separated from the others. The last remnant of Carte- 

sianism remains to be exorcised, revived in its subjective side by Jean- 

Paul Sartre. Man is related in and to the kingdom of nature; the resolution 

of the subjective paradox of man’s imagined privilege and of the 

objective teleology and ideological entelechy implied therein is a problem 

outside the dialectic. 

The central figure of ethnology in these pages has been that of Morgan, 

as it was for Marx. Before all else it is needful to point to Morgan’s 

commitment to the totality of his doctrine, just as Walter Kaufmann has 

recently brought out the same in regard to Hegel, and all have in regard 

to Marx. Marx, Engels, Bachofen, White recognized this character in 

Morgan, which influenced their approaches to ethnology. The doctrine 

of Morgan was an amalgamation of scientific method, a simple materialism, 

and utopianism; it brought together what is perhaps the most 

convincing representation of man’s social development in its day. 

Morgan displayed originality and learning both in classical and contemporary 

ethnology, including reports of his own fieldwork; he argued with 

acuity, showing the royalist interest of his contemporaries as against his 

own republican interest, forming the amalgam of data and interpretation 

into an all-embracing doctrine which was particular to its time, hence 

cannot be directly translated into ours. At the same time it is part of 

the material of the present, a century later, since his issues are continuous 

from that time to ours, his methods are part of our instrumentation, his 

conceptions part of our own. A turnabout in the appraisal of Morgan has 

taken place in anthropology, beyond his continued, selective advocacy 

by White, Childe, the earlier Social Democrats and the modem Soviet 

57

School. The rejection of Morgan by Boas and Lowie has been replaced 

with a partial acceptance by Fenton, and of his synchronic analysis alone 

by Fortes, following W. H. R. Rivers and A. C. Haddon. Morgan had 

little to say about the sufferings, actual genocide and ethnocide which 

the Indians of North America were undergoing at the time of his studies ; 

this reason, when coupled with the notion that Marx found Morgan alone 

of the army of evolutionists of his day in the least critical of western 

civilization, makes his appraisal a complicated matter. This should be 

taken together with the consideration that Phear110 associated himself 

with expressions of contempt for the intellectual and artistic attainments 

of the peasants of Bengal; Marx (Phear excerpts, p. 136) was critical of 

this side of Phear, as he was of Maine’s unfeeling blandness regarding 

the fate of the Irish - save where their law was concerned. Marx likewise 

criticized Lubbock’s ethnocentrism as he did that of Grote, Gladstone, 

and Bachofen. 

6. CO M M U N ITY, C O L L E C T IV ISM A N D IN D IV ID U A LISM 

Individualism in its extreme forms of laisser faire capitalism, anarchy, 

egoism, arose among the forerunners, partisans and followers of the 

French Revolution ; it was a caricature of the doctrine of man and society 

of Thomas Hobbes’ war of each against all, itself a caricature of itself. 

Gracchus Babeuf as an extreme of the Left of the French Revolution 

advocated nothing more radical than the allocation of small parcels of 

land to individual owners, hence the proliferation of proprietorships. 

Jean Jaurès denounced the program of Babeuf as ‘communisme parcellaire’, 

an oxymoron, a contradiction between adjective and substantive. 

The communism of private properties frightened the Directory. The 

opposition inherent in this doctrine is connected directly in action and 

thought to the conflict of capitalism and socialism, and in the first instance 

to the collectivization of agriculture of the USSR and the organization 

of the agricultural communes of the Chinese People’s Republic. 

The issues both historical and actual, no less than the literature about them 

are vast. Conscious of their scope and complexity we will therefore 

review, in brief, one segment as it concerns the origins of property as 

private or collective, and of early society as individual or communal. 

Likewise, the doctrine of individualism as the absence of collective 

institutions of western society in the capitalist period being but a figment, 

we will allude to it only to set it aside while taking up some of its consequences 

as Social Darwinism. 

The origin of civilization was sought during the nineteenth century in 

an antecedent form of society whose relations both to man and to nature 

were predominantly communal. It was shown that the civilized society 

was not a primordial condition of mankind, but a comparatively recent 

58

introduction, and that the transition from the antecedent stage was an 

abrupt one, neither willed or planned, and in which neither reason nor 

consciousness directed the overall transition, as opposed to the transition 

of parts, in a significant way. Communal forms of property ownership 

were replaced by individual forms, and a collective or communal by an 

individual ethos.111 Accounting for the origin of civilized society in this 

way presupposed the dependence of the individual on society and the 

non-separation of the individual interest from that of the community in 

the anterior state, in which the society was taken as a unity and the 

community in its integral relation in society. The breaking up of the 

unity, the formation of mutually antagonistic collectivities, their perpet- 

utation in society, the opposition of bodies of individual interests, in 

connection with the loosening of the bond of the individual to the community, 

were related in etiology and occurrence. The newly formed 

social classes were developed as bodies of actually and potentially conflicting 

individual interests where there was the most sharply defined 

property interest, that is, where there was the greatest amount of property 

at stake, both in its accumulation and its transmittal. Within the bodies 

of collective interests, the internal oppositions of individual interests 

were further engendered, save that, where there was the least amount 

of property at stake, the communal interest was more likely to be continued 

into the state of civilization. 

Rousseau had conceived the individual as the unity of which the 

society was composed, without the intervening social institutions; the 

individual confronted society directly in the social contract.112 Maine 

presupposed, in opposition to this side of Rousseau’s doctrine, a communal 

life, and the priority of society over the individual. Marx presupposed 

a primitive condition in which the individuality of man was not 

separated from society, nor opposed to it; he further conceived the 

opposition of the individual and the primitive community, but not the 

priority of the one over the other; this is a unilaterality, equally on the 

part of the individualists (Hume, Rousseau, Kant) and the collectivists 

(Maine, Morgan, Kovalevsky). 

The onesided development of the individual in the state of civilization 

(cf. Marx, Maine excerpts, p. 191) is connected by Marx on the one side 

with the transition from communal to individual ownership; it is connected 

on the other with the actuality of the deprivation of the next man 

and at the same time with the potentiality of unity of the two. The onesidedness 

lies in the suppression of the potentiality of the development 

in the transition, as we shall see. The interests of the individual in the 

collectivity are opposed to each other, thus limiting by the opposition 

and its incomplete resolution within the collectivity the development of 

the individual. The interests of the collectivities are opposed to each 

other in the society, thus the development of the society is limited. The 

59

collectivities are onesided in their development in that the oppositions 

of the individuals with greater accumulations of property are more highly 

elaborated than the oppositions of the individuals with lesser accumulations. 

The onesidedness is found on both sides insofar as the influence 

of the rural and communal relations in the determination of all the social 

relations subsequently gives place to the predominant influence of the 

private, propertied, urban, industrial relations over the rural, etc. Marx 

posited, in the positive sense, the interaction throughout of the individual 

and society; in the primitive condition the interaction was between the 

individual and the group or community, in the civilized condition it was 

between the individual and the community in certain peasant groups, as 

for example in India, Ceylon, Russia (the mir), South Slavs (zadruga). He 

drew attention at the same time to the difference between the community 

in gentile society and in peasant society in civilization. The relation of 

the individual and the peasant community in civilization was different, 

in his conception, from that of the individual in the civilized urban, 

rich, etc., conditions. Factors of social class to begin with, and then of 

other collectivities, in their interaction, shaped these relations once they 

had been introduced in civilization. In the negative sense, Marx posited 

the unfreedom in the primitive condition, in contradistinction to Rousseau, 

as the non-despotic bonds of the group. Rousseau’s notion of the 

chains of civilization as opposed to the primitive state of freedom was 

reconceived by Marx as the chains of primitive bondage which were, 

rahter, satisfying and comforting. Despotic, dissatisfying, discomforting 

are the bonds of civilization. 

The primitive community in Marx’s comment on Maine was conceived 

both in continuity with and in opposition to the conceptions of Rousseau 

and Herder. According to Marx, the individual is already alienated from 

nature in the primtive condition; he is alienated both from nature and 

from his own society in the civilized state, whereby, in the working out 

of the individuality, the parturition is painful. It is the individuality and 

not civilized society that is formed by the parturition; this is the onesidedness 

in the elaboration of the transition to civilization from the 

primitive condition, and at the same time it is the onesidedness in the 

elaboration of the relation of the individual and society. The chains are 

the condition of civilized man, not the general human condition; this is 

the working out of Marx’s critique, brought out in 1842, of the historical 

school of law; the opposition to the historical school of Maine is its 

continuation but on different grounds. In the earlier critique Marx 

described the fiction of the eighteenth century which regarded the natural 

condition of man as the true condition of human nature, creating natural 

men, Papagenos, whose naivete stretched as far as their feathered skins. 

“In the last decades of that century they sensed the original wisdom of the 

primitive peoples, and from all sides we bird catchers heard the twittering 

60

song styles of the Iroquois, Indians, etc__The correct thought behind 

all these eccentricities was that the crude conditions are the naive Dutch 

pictures of the true conditions.... Herder’s opinion, that the natural men 

are poets and the holy books of the primitives are poetical books, does not 

stand in our way, although [Gustav] Hugo speaks the most trivial, jejune 

prose, for just as each century has its own nature, so it produces its own 

primitives.” 113 Each conception of primitive man is a product of its own 

era, just as each conception of man in general: we can speak, from the 

viewpoint of the twentieth century of the conceptions of the nineteenth, 

from that of the twenty-first, of the twentieth, and so forth. But at the 

same time, the social institutions and the corresponding interests are 

perceived and understood only as they become concrete; we can mark 

this progress ourselves in the progression of Marx’s thought. The 

eighteenth century had the fiction of man which Marx caricatured, the 

Robinsonade, or man taken in isolation from society, whom the classical 

economists were able to posit, without preconditions, preconceptions or 

presuppositions. This man is divorced from all social relations, hence is 

inconceivable as human. Marx opposed this abstraction of man from 

society just as he opposed the abstraction of man in his generic being as 

Feuerbach had proposed it, in the nineteenth century, and the abstraction 

of man from the primitive condition, which permitted the vacuum to be 

filled by whatever prejudice is current; he then added to this the opposition 

to the abstraction of man from society as the alienation of man in 

society. In his comments on Maine, the primitive condition is not regarded 

as an end but as a critical weapon to be applied against the 

antagonisms built into and arising out of civili2ed society. The passage of 

the objective into the subjective side is set forth by Marx first as the 

relation of the individual to the group and the formation of smaller collectivities 

on an economic basis within the social whole. The dual 

passage, of the individual and the society into the restricted class collectivities, 

is thereby posited. The interrelation of the passages bears 

upon the theory of society, social classes, their formation together with 

that of other collectivities, the collective interests of individuals in 

society, of antagonisms, and the resolution, the moral derivation, and 

the actuality and potentiality of these. 

According to Marx (Maine excerpts, pp. 191-192) the independent 

existence of the State is not real but seeming and the State is an institution 

of a given stage of social development on the one side, of a particular 

society on the other. The content of the individuality of man is shown in 

its onesided elaboration (Herausarbeitung) therefrom as internalization 

of objective interests. These interests have a formal side in relation to 

their content as the external relation between social groups of common or 

class interests of individuals, or class individualities. The class individuality 

is solely the objective and formal side of man, whereby the content 

61

of his social relations is externalized. In the opposition of human form 

and content, man has undergone the separation of his public and private 

lives, the externalization of his relations to nature and to society, and the 

formation of classes of social interest which are mutually antagonistic. 

These interests are in the first place a wholly externalized and public 

formation of social relations; wants and needs then become expressed as 

group interests; the existence of classes of individuals in society is related 

to these interests as their expression on the one side, their determination 

on the other. They are the social means to meet the wants and needs and 

the modus of their satisfaction in the given society. 

The study of the family, society and the State was taken up by Marx 

in his Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, written in the summer 

of 1843; here he set forth Hegel’s account of the State as the higher 

authority over the family and civil society, of which they are the parts, 

and which presupposes them.114 Marx did not directly oppose these 

ideas, but rather the pantheistic and mystical expression given to them 

by Hegel. However, Hegel in Para. 305 of the same work proposed that 

the family with property has as its base the natural ethic, hence is constituted 

for the political life, i.e., is capable of serving the State without 

selfserving. Marx held that this conception of Hegel’s is the barbarity of 

private property against family life, the illusion of family life, the spiritless 

family life.115 Thus, the family bears, according to Marx’s conception at 

that time, a complex relation to society and the State in civilized society. 

In the German Ideology, Marx and Engels held that the family in the life of 

savages is the sole social relation, whereas in higher social development 

increased wants create new social relations.116 This conception was 

further developed by Marx in relation to Morgan’s theory of the gens, 

particularly in reference to the family in relation to the gens. The intermediation 

of increased wants at the same time is the subjectification of 

the subject-object relation, which was later replaced by a wholly social 

conception of man already initiated in the Theses on Feuerbach by Marx. 

Hegel posited the relations of the subjective to the objective sides of 

man in his works (of the Jena period) from 1802 to 1806, the System der 

Sittlichkeit, the Naturrecht, the Realphilosophie, and in his Phänomenologie 

des Geistes, of 1807; positions were developed there in regard to labor and 

economics generally, to the system of human wants, to anthropology 

and psychology, and to the human institutions of right, law, ethics and 

morality. (See Georg Lukäcs, Der junge Hegel·, the relation of Marx to 

these Hegelian positions is there raised.) The further development by 

Marx and Engels of these matters in the Holy Family and the German 

Ideology bears directly upon the issues raised in the ethnological notebooks, 

particularly in reference to the relations of primitive and civilized man to 

nature on the one side and to the family and society on the other; the 

family is taken out of its direct subsumption under the category of 

62

nature by Marx, in contrast to Hegel. However, the matter is yet more 

complex. Bachofen, Maine, Lubbock, Morgan, McLennan, Engels, held 

in various ways that the earliest form of human life was in a promiscuous 

horde. This was modified under the term of hetairism by Lubbock and 

McLennan, which aroused Marx’s sarcasm (see below, Marx, Lubbock 

excerpts, p. i), a modification which did not change the issue substantially. 

Darwin (Descent of Man, ch. 20) on the other hand, attacked the 

concepts of primordial promiscuity and communal marriage. Marx at 

the beginning of his excerpts from Morgan’s Ancient Society, Part III, 

The Growth of the Idea of the Family, introduced phrases of his own, not 

found in Morgan at that place, (Morgan excerpts, p. 4): “ Oldest of all: 

horde organization with promiscuity; no family; only mother-right can 

have played any kind of role here.” If this is so, then the horde is a form 

of organized society; however, family and society are indistinguishable 

under these circumstances. Taken as an abstraction, this prehistory of 

family and society is then developed by Marx (Morgan excerpts, p. 8) such 

that in the first ethnical period for which there is empirical evidence, the 

family in its consanguine form is not separated from society; i.e., in this 

sense it is “ the first organized form of society” . This position is then 

proffered without further development in the Morgan excerpts, pp. 19-20. 

The problem of incest has aroused anthropological discussion for many 

centuries, including the question whether the taboo of incest is a universal 

institution of the human family and society. Without going further than 

to adumbrate this issue, we will confine our comment to the question, 

raised by Marx, of the relation of family and society in the primitive 

condition, of the family in relation to nature in reference to the procreation 

of children, their rearing, etc., and the external in relation to the 

internal composita of man in the various social contexts, or cultures, that 

is, his objective and subjective sides. 

With reference to the thematics of Marx, as developed in the writings of 

the early and middle 1840s, the positions that he took up in his ethnological 

studies continue them and in part change them. The relation of 

the family to society at the onset of the prehistoric process is interesting 

from this point of view only insofar as it is related abstractly to the 

question of the relation of the family and society in the period of gentile 

society and its transition to civilization; otherwise the question of the 

horde is entirely a conjectural matter. The comments introduced by 

Marx into the excerpts from Phear, Maine and Lubbock reveal the 

development of his thinking, and the direction that he took in the course 

of working them out: in the development of society from savagery to 

civilization, the family in its various forms was separated from society, 

and became one of the sets of relations maintained by its members. On 

the one side, the individual is developed as a human being first only in 

and through the social relation, the collective institutions, second, as he 

63

is incorporated in them. On the other side, the social relation is variable 

accordingly as the society is simply or complexly organized. The collective 

institutions of the family, community, village, gens, and associations 

of primitive societies are rather unitary, that is, they are not 

deeply riven; the effect on the individual is that they are subjectively 

comforting, objectively they are not despotic, for this would implicate 

the existence of an institution of hegemony that would contradict the 

relative simplicity of primitive social organization. Above all, they are 

not liberating : they are rather not enchaining. Formally, most, if not all 

the intermediating social institutions of community and association can 

be found in primitive societies: the difference from civilized society is 

that in the former case their interrelation is either zero or not highly 

developed, nor is their mutual opposition. On the contrary, in civilized 

society, the relations of the collectivities to each other, and the individuals 

within them, are divisive on the one side, privative on the other and the 

interests of the collectivities are opposed to each other within the same 

society. 

Hegel opposed the ‘private spheres of the family and civil society to 

the State, wherein the public sphere is the superordinate power, and is an 

external necessity in relation to the spheres of private social life. The 

private interests are subordinate to the State, and are ultimately dependent 

on it__The particular individuals have duties to the State insofar as they 

have rights against it.’ 117 This series of statements by Hegel is the forerunner 

of the theory of contract and status formulated by Maine and 

implicit in Marx. In the status aspect of the theory there is no separation 

of the private and public spheres; in the community all is one in this 

regard; the external and internal necessities of social life, and the natural 

conditions of existence, are not opposed to each other, but are the subjects 

of the same modus of social activity. With the separation of social 

life into private and public spheres, the internal needs and the external 

means of their satisfaction are objectified, the former externalized and the 

others in consequence are to be internalized. The system of rights and 

obligations arises with the increasing articulation of the individual in 

society, the separation of the spheres, and the opposition of the external 

and internal social life. The opposition of rights and obligation in their 

formal, official and public aspects is thereby presupposed. (What has 

been omitted above is Hegel’s passage from the separation of the public 

and private spheres to the State as their immanent end, wherein the 

State has its strength in the universality of the final end of the unity of 

the private spheres.) Hegel thereby assumed the State to be a category a 

priori, as did Austin, which is an anti-dialectical and hypostatical construction. 

The State is an institution of society, but of a divided society; whereas 

Hegel conceived the State as a unity and the society within which it is 

64

formed as the same, this is a subjective conception, according to Marx. 

Those who conceive of the State as having been developed in a divided 

society, but yet bridges over the division, must then recognize that the 

State cannot be successful in this because it is a unity pro forma. This 

follows from Hegel’s notion that the public sphere is the external 

necessity of the private spheres. According to Hegel, the State is an 

immanent end of the latter, but the opposition of the actuality and the 

potentiality ought to have been developed at this point and in this connection; 

the State as the immanent end of the private spheres is their 

potentiality. But if the State is external to them, as their necessity, then 

it is not actually their immanent end; this externality must be first internalized 

in order to be immanent. Hegel did not state how this is to be 

done; his dialectic is defective because incomplete in this regard. Further, 

Hegel opposed civil to political society, or the State; systematic 

development of the doctrine of the life of man in civil society apart from 

his life in political society was set forth by Hegel ; the economic institutions 

of society on the one side, the popular institutions as the nation on 

the other were separated from the State thereby.118 

Because the State was not made the dependent of society by Hegel in 

this connection, he did not interpose the dialectic of contradiction of 

interest and counterposition of forces into the structure of society and 

the State ; Hegel fell therefore into the contradiction of the non-actuality 

of the immanent, and the non-potentiality of the external. The contradiction 

is not overcome because no transition between them was indicated 

by Hegei. 

Marx made the distinction between the private and public spheres on 

the basis of both his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law and the State 

(1843) and his analysis of Morgan; on the other hand, Morgan’s identification 

of the relations between men in the condition prior to the development 

of civitas, or political society obscures two issues : social, including 

governmental, relations of the State, include the personal among others ; 

the personal, the persona, as Marcel Mauss has shown, is solely a device 

of civilization. Maine’s sequence from status to contract covers the same 

ground as the distinctions made by Hegel and Morgan, but Hegel counterposed 

the right to the obligation, in the separation of the private from 

the public spheres. 

In developing the theory of the State in opposition to that of the 

Analytical School, Marx started from the premiss that there is an objective 

locus standi of society and of social institutions, which he had 

already asserted in opposition to Hegel : The interests of the individuals 

of the society are ranged, on one plane, either for or against that institution, 

but only in their public facies, whereas the State as such has no 

private interest, being wholly objective. The private interest, however, 

is at once subjective and objective, just as it is one and many. The 

65

interest of the individual subjectivity is transformed into the objective 

interest of the collectivity, the social class, and is thereby transformed into 

a public interest, the society by this means being divided. The private 

sphere, again, is internally divided as the individual interest is transformed 

on the one hand into a public opposition of interests, for, the State being 

solely a public body, the subjective relations to it as interests must first 

be transformed into public and objective in order to interact with it, 

whether on its behalf or in opposition to it. On the other hand, the 

subjective and private interests continue as such, in their activity in 

society, in part in relation to the State, but in part on another plane. The 

Staê knows the individual only as a public and objective body, the 

individual knows the State both as a subjectivity and as an objectivity; 

thus, the relation of the individual to the State is reciprocal but it is not 

equivalent or balanced. 

The collective interest of the particular individuals is the dual relation 

of the opposition of the individual interest versus the social whole on 

the one side, and the opposition of the interests of classes of individuals 

in the society, i.e., interests of the social collectivities, to each other, to 

the society and the State, to the individuals of the society, and between 

the individuals comprising the different collectivities on the other. The 

individual in the civilized condition has no social existence other than 

that as a member of one or another of these collectivities, save in marginal 

cases, or in the cases of those who consciously renounce that membership ; 

the existence of the individual as a member of society is generally derived 

from the membership in the collectivity. The interest of the individual 

human being in the civilized condition is determined objectively by his 

relation to these collectivities, in their opposition to each other; the 

objective interests of the social class, and the individuals within it, are 

above all economically determined (Marx, Maine excerpts, p. 191). The 

subjective interest of the individual, and his composition as a subjectivity 

in relation to the objective determination, are matters calling for treatment 

in a context of their own. 

Marx developed his theory of the formation of the State in connection 

with that of the collectivity of the individual interests in the social class. 

The transition from communal to civilized society is the period of 

accumulation of the total amount of property in society, as Morgan pointed 

out, and of its unequal distribution. Retention of property in private 

hands introduced a private interest as a dual separation: of right from 

obligation on the one side, and of the private from the public spheres on 

the other. The newly formed propertied class had a collective interest 

as a collective right and a disparate set of private interests separate from 

that of the collectivity of the class, hence an internally contradictory relation, 

which is resolved now on the side of the collectivity, now on the 

side of the individuality : this is the destruction of the collectivity. The 

66

communal institutions, in the process of their dissolution, have given 

rise to the oppositions of private and public right on the one side, and 

private and collective interest on the other; together these oppositions 

have formed a set of conflicts in civilized society in its antagonistic 

internal composition, and its form of the State. The separation of 

private rights within one and the same social class thus calls for a dual 

activity of the State: the first is the subordination of all social classes to 

the organ of control of one, in which the political power is now formed 

and concentrated; at the same time, the State acts as the organ for the 

suppression of the opposed private rights and interests within the propertied 

class. The collectivity of that newly formed powerful class was 

caught in a double contradiction, the first of which is that the individuals 

can be opposed to each other in their rights, the second that their interests 

may be abstractly but are not necessarily the same as that of their 

social class concretely. Thus, that social class becomes the opposite of a 

collectivity, and the State, as its organ for the development of its rights 

and interests, becomes the opposite of a collective institution, rather it is 

a balance of conflicting forces which a leader such as Tarquinius Superbus, 

Cleisthenes or Ch’in Shih Huang Ti may achieve in the form of imposition 

from above. 

The collectivity and the collective institutions of the newly formed 

propertied class evolved more rapidly than that of the immediate producers 

in the fields, peasantry and the like, in part because of the development 

of individual and oppositive interests which it contained. The 

communal institutions and interests of the past, both in the Orient and 

in the societies of classical antiquity, remained more closely bound to the 

social relations of the peasants, etc., than to the landowners, the urban 

rich, and other propertied segments of society. The newly formed collectivity 

of the large-scale property-owners was imperfect in the second 

place because it was dedicated to the principle that the defence of the 

private interest of the individual is his right, just as much as the defence 

of the private right is his interest. On the other hand, Hegel had conceived 

the political relation as the balance of right and obligation; in 

this matter, Marx had followed him. But the separation of the private 

right and interest from the public right and interest is a separation of 

the second order; it is predicated upon the primary separation of both 

the public and private from the communal. In the community the 

balance of right and obligation is a traditional development, whereas in 

the polity the balance must be redeveloped by appeal to force, to reason, 

to sentiment or disposition, and the like; in the latter case the balance 

becomes artificial, as a device of civilization. The public interest is a 

political fiction, the common interest is a fiction, by the same reason 

a fortiori. 

The individual, under the political condition, has internalized his right 

67

as his interest, partly together with the same internalization of the 

principle by the other members of the collectivity, and to this extent the 

given social class remains a collectivity; and partly against the other 

individuals and collectivities of the society, thus defeating that very collectivity 

which maintains his private right, and the public right of which, 

as the externalization of his own interest he, under the opposite conditions, 

maintains. The conflict of the internalized interest of the propertied 

class and its wholly external resolution in the form of the State is at once 

an objective and a subjective opposition of the individual in civilized 

society. The various moments of the dialectical process of State formation 

were posited in their separation and juxtaposition and in their subjectivity 

by Hegel in his Philosophie des Rechts, as had been pointed out by 

Marx in his Critique of 1843, and by Marx together with Engels in the 

Heilige Familie and the Deutsche Ideologic. In the latter, the thesis of the 

State as an independent formation and the mythical history of the State- 

community were criticized, and the relations between the real and the 

illusory interests broken down into their parts.119 The newly introduced 

data and their systematization by Morgan gave Marx the occasion to 

return to the problem in the ethnological notebooks, to counterpose the 

objectivity to the subjectivity in their combination, which he made increasingly 

explicit in the excerpts from Morgan and in the reorganization 

of the Morgan materials; he then made his conception into an instrument 

in the notes and excerpts from Maine. Marx’s reference to society and its 

State was made to elucidate the matter for its own sake, the exposition of 

the State as a social institution in the Maine excerpts was made both for 

its own sake and in order to refute the theory of the Analytical School. 

Engels brought in the objective side of the invention of the State as an 

institution of society through the introduction of the factor of accumulation 

of property; the subjective side was brought out by Engels as greed, 

the driving spirit of civilization.120 

The State - early or late, it makes no difference - has as its object the 

regulation of conflicting interests of property both internally among its 

owners and as between them and society and the State; in this sense the 

State is the organ of dominance over the propertied class. The propertied 

interest is a contradictory one: on the one hand it is a relation of public 

obligation as a necessity, on the other it is an interest of private exception 

as a right. He who is with property wants a rule governing the payment 

of taxes or the regulation of commerce for others, a loophole for himself. 

During the period of the development of capitalism, the relation of 

landed, mercantile and manufacturing interests to public regulation (by 

the State and its organs of government) was a matter of the deepest 

consciousness: above all, in the doctrine of the categorical imperative of 

Immanuel Kant, and the political philosophy of Adam Smith, as in the 

Protestant ethic generally. The private interest has not internalized the 

68

public, the subjective has not internalized the objective, nor has the 

public and objective interest brought about the externalization of the 

subjective and private. 

The doctrine of the State set forth by Marx is in opposition to that of 

the Analytical School of John Austin and to the Historical School of 

Maine. Marx did not undertake a critique of the theory of Hobbes, which 

underlay that of Bentham and Austin. The critique of the Austinian (and 

by implication Benthamist) doctrine of the State is that Austin held the 

State to be unrelated to society, presupposed a priori; as such it is outside 

the development of society. On the contrary, Marx held the State to be a 

social institution which would disappear when society had reached a new 

stage (See Marx, Critique of Gotha Program, sect. 4; Drafts of Zasulich 

Correspondence). 

On the one hand, the notion of the freedom of the individual in civilized 

society was counterposed by Hegel to that of the positive freedom 

of primitive man by Rousseau.121 On the other, the doctrine of the 

origin of civilized society out of the communal life was counterposed to 

the doctrine of the social contract, according to which Hobbes, Spinoza, 

Locke, Pufendorf, Hume and Rousseau posited the individual as existing 

prior to society, and society as dependent for its foundation on the 

accord between individuals. But society, to the extent that it is mentioned 

at all in the latter doctrine, was an abstraction of the conditions required 

for the formation of the State, hence as an abstraction of the State. Society 

in the civilized state was taken primarily as political society, and the 

attention was withdrawn from social institutions other than those which 

led to the establishment of the State or were necessary to its functioning. 

The doctrine of the social contract posited at the same time an abstraction 

of man which had the force of law in particular societies; the abstraction is 

his reason and will, which made him a direct contracting party to the 

formation of the State. If according to Hobbes fear of pain is the force 

which drives man to form political society, then man is rational in the 

measures that he takes for its avoidance. Other determinants of society 

and of man were subordinated to those which culminated in the State, 

whereby reason and will were abstracted from their social contexts, and 

made up, at the same time, the abstract representation or composition of 

the human being. 

The philosophy of the social contract was at once an extreme individualism 

and the abstraction of the State from society for the purpose of 

political construction, for of all the social institutions the State is the 

most specifically directive of man and society; the conception of the 

State is such that society is thereby subjected to the human decisive power, 

or will. Hume, Rousseau and Kant who altered the doctrine of the social 

contract, and of the law of nature which it presupposed, did not develop 

an empirical science of man. Although their alterations were made in the 

69

light of increasing amounts of empirical data, yet they remained within 

the abstract and directive frame of political, juridical and legislative 

reference of the social contract. The writings of Vico, which express his 

notion of man’s creation of mathematics, poetry and legislative acts; of 

Ferguson, which express the paradox of the nature of man as art, already 

incorporating the mediacy of man’s relation to nature; of Herder, who 

conceived history as tradition, following Vico, and who withdrew human 

history from the political plan; of Franklin, in part by his notion of man 

the toolmaker, but more so by his practical ethic of work, helped to 

dissolve the political abstraction of man in relation to society. Adam 

Smith expressed his contempt of statesmen or politicians who were 

subjected to the fluctuations of momentary affairs.122 The view of man 

taken by Rousseau was ambivalent, for he conceived man at one time as 

a political, at another as a social animal.123 The extreme form of atomistic 

individualism of the social contract and of natural law, from which 

Rousseau was only liberated in part, was an abstraction, further, because 

man in the civilized condition is conceived by all who adhered to that 

doctrine as wholly subjected to the State, the mortal god, and none of 

man’s social institutions falls outside its power. The opposite of the 

doctrine of the social contract was developed in the nineteenth century as 

the science or sciences of man became increasingly empirical, and at the 

same time fell increasingly under the influence of the natural sciences. 

The extreme atomism and the implied abstraction of man expressed in 

the doctrine of the social contract were called into question in part wittingly 

and in part implicitly by the communal doctrines of the nineteenth 

century which had their root on the one side in the empirical tradition of 

the natural sciences. Both the antiquity of man and his continuity with 

the rest of the natural order had been established by empirical observation, 

inference, doubt, etc., of geology, palaeontology, zoology and other 

means of the natural sciences of the time. On the one hand, the communal 

doctrine was embedded in this empirical tradition, on the other, it was 

opposed to the doctrine of individualism on ideological grounds. Individualists 

such as Spencer, Maine and T. H. Huxley did not deny the 

communal origin of civilization; at the same time they affirmed the evolution 

of man toward individualism, of which the foundation was the 

private ownership of property both for consumption and for further 

social production. 

The individualism of the utilitarian doctrine of Bentham on the one 

side and the collectivism of the Utopians Fourier, Pecqueur, Owen on the 

other were polarized in the political camps early in the nineteenth century, 

but their mutual opposition was not extended into the theoretical conflict 

over the origin of civilization. Saint-Simon who praised the capitalist 

practices in finance and transportation for their contributions to collectivist 

doctrine, Max Stimer (Johann Kaspar Schmidt) who confounded 

70

anarchic individualism and the left-wing Hegelian direction to the cause 

of the people, John Stuart Mill who linked the individualism of Bentham 

to social reformism and to the collectivism of Auguste Comte, played 

ambiguous roles. The doctrine of individualism of Herbert Spencer, in 

which the last flicker of the social contract was detected by Ernest Barker, 

returned the polarizing tendency of the epoch to its normal course; at the 

same time Spencer wrote of the social organism as a collective entity, as 

had Comte before him. Spencer did not resolve this internal contradiction 

to his individualist doctrine. 

Opposed to the internationalist and socialist collectivism was the 

notion which was developed in the romanticism of the late eighteenth and 

early nineteenth centuries, of the origin of the nation out of particular 

collectivist institutions and traditions. The separation of civil from political 

society in the Hegelian doctrine was taken as the juncture from which 

the two subsequent traditions of collectivity separated : the Hegelian right 

brought out the collectivity as the womb of the nation, the Hegelian left 

brought out the collectivity as the womb of all mankind. The Slavophiles, 

Russian conservatives, arose out of the nationalist doctrine, seeking 

the basis of their cultural unity and particularity in the rural social 

traditions.124 

Maurer, Hanssen, Roscher, Tylor, Morgan, Kovalevsky, Laveleye, 

Geffroy, Viollet, Gierke, Waitz, Vinogradoff,125 together with most of 

the socialists and anarchists of the nineteenth century maintained the 

precedence of the collectivist sequence both in time and as the conceptual 

building block of society; they did so for opposed reasons: Maurer and 

Gierke were conservative patriots and nationalists; the socialists and 

anarchists were internationalists and revolutionaries. Laveleye opposed 

Marx, joined himself to J. S. Mill, as Kovalevsky to Comte and Maine, 

but also sought Marx out. 

The collectivist side was borne into the study of man in the twentieth 

century by the doctrines of Durkheim, Stein, Toennies, Frobenius, 

J. Kulischer, Bergson, and Kroeber.126 The origin of the family out of 

the promiscuous horde, expressed by J. J. Bachofen, J. F. McLennan, 

Morgan, Engels, J. Atkinson was then taken up variously by the psychoanalytic 

schools of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. In the same period, 

Simkhovich, Kaufman, Chuprov and Kachorovsky collected evidence of 

the antiquity of the rural commune and its survival into modern times 

among the Russians and other peoples of the Russian empire.127 Paul 

Lafargue, Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, and Heinrich Cunow developed 

this side of the evolution of the collectivity within the socialist 

camp.128 

Baden-Powell opposed Maine’s theory of the primacy of the collectivist 

institutions both on the ground that Maine’s use of the evidence from 

India was partial and on the ground that collectivism as a social theory 

7i

had (to him) undesirable political implications.129 Ratzel attacked the 

idea of primitive communal landownership as a generalization of science, 

in which he was followed by Schurtz. Pohlmann attacked the thesis of 

primitive communism of property ownership proposed by the socialists 

on the one side and by Maine, Morgan and Kovalevsky on the other.130 

Dopsch had rejected the idea of the folk-association or collectivity, 

Markgenossenschaft. It was defended by J. Kulischer. The earliest 

expression of the theory of the Mark-association mentioned by Kulischer 

is that of the Dane, Olufsen (1821), followed by G. Hanssen. They were 

preceded by C. A. Van Enschut (1818), who wrote of the markgenoot- 

schappen of the Netherlands peasantry, and by Vuk Karadzic, who wrote 

of the Serbian zadruga in the same year; these two were followed by 

J. Csaplowics who described the same phenomenon of the South Slavs 

(of Slavonia and Croatia) in 1819. 

An integral study of the development of the idea of the peasant commune 

in Europe and in Asia in the 19th century has not been undertaken; 

the doctrines of Karadzic and Csaplowics131 remain to be combined with 

those of Van Enschut and Olufsen. As for the Asian side, the discussion 

of the peasant community was justifiably connected to that of the European 

peasants by Maine and others, but it was marred by presuppositions 

of a common Indo-European antiquity, with an undertone of race. The 

difficulties of the linguistic interpretations alone, setting aside the juridical, 

archaeological and other institutional or material presuppositions of 

that commonalty, have been set forth by E. Benveniste, who has shown 

that the Indo-European roots *dem- ‘family’, and *dema- ‘build’, are to be 

dissociated, with nothing but homophony in common; the roots have 

been incorrectly associated by identifying the kin group (which Benveniste 

takes to be the social group) with its material habitat or dwelling.132 

Fustel de Coulanges had been an early opponent of the thesis of historical 

primacy of communal over individual ownership of the soil; in 

regard to Slavic antiquity, he was followed by J. Peisker. Durkheim in 

reviewing the controversy between Stanisic and Peisker on the proto- 

and early history of the zadruga supported the former against Fustel de 

Coulanges and Peisker. Durkheim held that Fustel de Coulanges was 

wrong in proposing that there is no historical trace of a period in which 

the soil is held in common by a local group, and that therefore it is untenable 

to conclude that individual ownership is the primordial form. 

Moreover, Durkheim considered Peisker’s conception of society to be 

artificial, for the totality preceded the individual part, or was contemporary 

with it; the part does not precede the whole.133 

The opposition of Kropotkin’s collectivism to Huxley’s individualism 

was recently brought out by Ashley Montagu.134 

The controversy has not been exhausted, but has taken a different form 

in the past generation of anthropology in the west; on the other hand, it 

7 2

has virtually disappeared from most other scholarly fields, although at 

one time philosophers, sociologists, economists took part in it. No recent 

expression on either side has been advanced with the confidence of the 

forerunners. Social Darwinism has been rejected as a biologism, together 

with the ethical trappings which it wittingly or unwittingly 

borrowed from the social doctrine of atomistic individualism of the 

preceding centuries. Since then the collectivists have added no new data 

or critical insights. The energies have been spent in the overcoming of 

ethnocentrism and avoidance of the chimeras of speculative reconstructions 

of the past; (Marx was particularly conscious of the methodological 

shortcomings of his contemporaries under these headings). 

Unsolved problems of the history of the concepts of collectivity, 

collectivism, commune, community can be noted in past and current 

usages. The differences in their use not having been systematically 

examined, the concepts and terminology of socialism and communism 

present problems of meaning and derivation in consequence. The relations 

of communism to community or Gemeinschaft and of socialism to 

society or Gesellschaft are obvious, but they are not clear. 

The primitive community as it was conceived by Marx established the 

content as well as the form of man’s primordial existence and his consequent 

and subsequent social character. It is carried into the modern era 

by the primitive and the rural where these are opposed to the urban 

institutions of recent and current times. The communal institutions 

preceded the formation of political and of industrial society, and in that 

former period formed the urban institutions and their modes of production. 

At the same time these ancient rural communal institutions have 

provided a model even in distorted form for the formation of the rural 

institutions of socialist society and the character of the internal social 

relations of the non-rural social institutions. The ancient rural form of 

collectivity has determined the modern. But the relation of content to 

form in the past example differs from that of the modern, and the same 

criticism directed against the parallel between elections in ancient and in 

modern society by Marx applies to the concepts of democracy, community 

and collectivity. The relation of actual difference to potential unity 

varies likewise in reference to theoretical parallels drawn between cooperation 

for production and distribution in the ancient commune and the 

modern; the relation of content to form differs between the types of 

commune, the parallels being drawn upon the basis of form. (See Marx, 

ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte and drafts of letters to Zasulich.) 

Marx examined the primitive and the Oriental and European peasant 

communities in the Grundrisse, the Critique of Political Economy, 1859, in 

the three volumes of Capital, and in the Theories of Surplus Value; of these, 

the most prominent are in the sections on commodities and exchange of 

the first volume of Capital. “In the modes of production of ancient Asia, 

73

classical antiquity, etc., the transformation of product into commodity, 

and hence the existence of man as commodity producer, plays a subordinate 

role, which becomes more significant as the community enters the 

stage of its decline__Those ancient social organisms of production are 

far more simple and transparent than the bourgeois, but they rest either 

on the immaturity of the individual man who has not torn free (losgeris- 

sen) from the umbilicus of the generic connection with others, or on the 

relations of mastery-servitude (Herrschaft-Knechtschaft). They are conditioned 

by a low stage of development of the productive powers of 

labor and the correspondingly constrained relations of man within their 

material process of producing their lives, hence their relations to one 

another and to nature.” 135 His example of labor in common, that is, 

directly socialized, was taken not from the communes of the dawn of 

civilization, but from the undifferentiated patriarchal industries of the 

contemporary peasants.136 At the same time he quoted in this connection 

what he had written in 1 8 5 9 on the ancient community: “It is a ridiculous 

prejudice of recent times that the form of the natural common property 

is specifically Slavic, even exclusively Russian. It is the primeval form 

whose existence we can prove among Romans, Germans, Celts, of which 

a whole sample-card can also be found today with many examples, even 

though partly in a ruined state, in India. A more exact study of the Asian, 

particularly the Indian forms of common property would prove how, 

from the different forms of natural common property, different forms of 

its dissolution are produced. Thus for instance the various original types 

of Roman and Germanic private property are to be deduced from various 

forms of Indian common property.” 137 The peoples specifically mentioned 

are all members of the Indo-European language family; their 

primordial cultural unity is presupposed, which was the combined 

cultural and linguistic presupposition of that time, still having force, 

however reduced, today, the presupposition being shared by Maine. 

Both ancient and nineteenth century India afforded examples of communal 

ownership of property, the latter in a ruined state; this community 

of ownership evolved along different lines into the Germanic and Roman 

forms of private ownership. The evolution from communal to private 

forms is unilinear in the abstract, multilinear in the concretely different 

ways. Thus the thesis of the Morgan excerpts and notes of Marx was 

developed, in part, in 18 5 9. The statement of the ruined state of the communal 

ownership restates the thesis of the travestied form of the nineteenth 

century peasant commune which had been mentioned in the 

Introduction to the Grundrisse; the Losreissung of the individual from the 

umbilicus of the community adumbrates the position developed in the 

Maine notebook. The reference to Herrschaft-Knechtschaft restates in 

Marx’s terms the Hegelian position of social reciprocity in differentiation 

(Phänomenologie des Geistes'). Marx wrote that the evolution of products 

74

into commodities arises out of exchange between communities, not between 

members of the same community. This doctrine was incorporated 

into volume 3 of Capital by Engels in 1894, with the additional note by 

the latter that ‘after the extensive investigation of the original community 

from Maurer down to Morgan, this is nowadays hardly disputed,’ 138 in 

which Engels was perhaps optimistic; aside from that, however, if the 

theory of the evolution of commodities outlined by Marx is accepted, it 

is on another basis than that of Maurer-Morgan. 

In the prehistoric community as well as in the historic peasant commune, 

labor is in common, that is, directly socialized (unmittelbar vergesellschaftet), 

whereas the collectivity that arises in the context and on the 

basis of industrial society, and which in turn provides its context and 

base, has the same form, labor in common, but it is indirectly socialized, 

for human relations to and in production are themselves mediated by the 

changed relations of industry to natural matter and energy, and by the 

changed relations of men to each other. The latter are complex, indirect, 

mediated by the complex organizational requirements, and the medium 

itself, which is the total industry in its complex organization, in turn 

imposes a new form upon collective labor. This form of labor can no 

longer be regarded as communal labor, labor in common. It is no more 

communal in the strict and ancient sense than the protohistoric or 19th 

century peasant labor was mediately socialized. The communal form in 

the strict sense had its own division of labor under the regime of age and 

sex differentiation,139 which are directly biological (i.e. natural) determinants, 

to which such others as relative degree of health, and physical 

strength should be added, and race understood only in these senses. 

These factors become mediated in the industrial regime, just as animal 

and human muscle power is replaced by machinery and the increased 

technical control of natural forces and elements. The common labor of 

the family, the community, etc., was regarded by Marx as naturwüchsig, 

a natural growth; the labor in common is the natural form of labor and 

division of labor.140 The commune, or community, is in this sense a 

natural growth. The relations between primitive and peasant man and 

nature and those between the natural form of the primitive and peasant 

family and community on the one side and the relations between industrial 

man and nature and those between men in the industrial collectivities 

are not absolutely but relatively different. The advanced industrial 

relations are found in the primitive and peasant condition as their potentiality; 

hence ‘natural’, ‘nature’, ‘naturwüchsig’ can only be taken in the 

figurative sense, for primitive men and peasants are no more natural than 

are those who can read and write. 

The collective relations of society exceed the communal relations in 

magnitude or number, ambitus, variety, and complexity, regardless of 

whether the context is a predominantly peasant or urban-industrial 

75

society, or whether it is socialist or capitalist in either case. The relation 

of the individual and society on the one side and the mutually antagonistic 

relations of the collectivities on the other cannot be separated from the 

political conflicts of western society which extend from 1789 down to the 

present; at the same time these conflicts obscure the individual and collective 

social relations. The praxis is the expression of the theory of the 

relations ; it is at once the complication of the resolution of the conflict of 

the relations in theory and the sole means for their resolution as the 

realization of the potentiality of the unity of society. The potentiality of 

that unity lies in the negation of the actual privative relation. The form 

that the potential may take can be posited, the relation of the form to the 

content, as of the objective to the subjective side and the converse, however, 

can only be adumbrated. 

There is little interest shown in empirical anthropology at present in 

the questions of the priority of the communal and the individual possession 

of the soil, or the origin of civilization out of the one or the other; 

likewise the question of the antecedence of the individual over society, 

whether as a logical or a chronological antecedence, is not often discussed. 

The manner of posing these questions is onesided; they are no more than 

half-questions. It is only by taking the individual in relation to society, 

the collectivity, or the primitive commune, and these in relation to the 

individual that the history and evolution of property, culture and civilization 

can be discussed at all. 

7. R E L A T IO N O F E N G E L S TO M A R X A N D M O R G A N 

Engels took up the primitive and communal institutions briefly in the 

writings of the 1840s (in conjunction with Marx: The Holy Family, The 

German Ideology, The Communist Manifesto), and in the last chapter of his 

Anti-Dühring (1878). On Marx’s initiative he excerpted Bancroft in 1882. 

(See Addendum 2.) In his work on the Mark, Engels dealt with the 

organization of the ancient Germans according to kinship and common 

property, his source being Maurer, treating briefly the evidence of 

Caesar and Tacitus in regard to the communal property of the Mark 

associates or members, the long duration of the collective institution and 

the transition to private property in land in the nineteenth century (the 

Bavarian Palatinate was singled out by him). Engels dealt with Germanic 

antiquities in two longer manuscripts, but returned to the question of 

the Mark, its organization and membership, property ownership only 

for review.141 

In the following year, while going through Marx’s posthumous papers 

Engels came upon Marx’s excerpts ; this discovery is adumbrated in his 

preparation of the third edition of Capital·. Marx had written ,“Innerhalb 

einer Familie, weiter entwickelt eines Stammes, entspringt eine natur- 

76

wüchsige Theilung der Arbeit aus den Geschlechts- und Altersverschiedenheiten__ 

” (“ Within a family, and after further development 

within a tribe, there springs up a natural division of labour, out of the 

differences of age and sex__ ” ) Engels added the footnote to this, “ Spätere 

sehr gründliche Studien der menschlichen Urzustände führten den Verfasser 

[des Kapital] zum Ergebniss, dass ursprünglich nicht die Familie 

sich zum Stamm ausbildet, sondern umgekehrt, der Stamm die ursprüngliche 

naturwüchsige Form der auf Blutsverwandtschaft beruhenden 

menschlichen Vergesellschaftung war, sodass aus der beginnenden 

Auflösung der Stammesbande erst später die vielfach verschiednen 

Formen der Familie sich entwickelten.” (“ Subsequent very searching 

studies of the primitive condition of man led the author [of Capital] to the 

conclusion, that it was not the family that originally developed into the 

tribe, but that, on the contrary, the tribe was the primitive and spontaneously 

developed form of human association, on the basis of blood relationship, 

and that out of the first incipient loosening of the tribal bonds, 

the many and various forms of the family were afterwards developed.”)142 

The later studies by Marx which Engels referred to were those which 

related to Morgan. Engels formulated the problem of his book on the 

Origin of the Family at the end of 1883, foreshadowed both by the footnote 

in Capital of November 1883, and his vain search for a copy of Ancient 

Society at the beginning of January 1884.143 He prepared a synopsis of 

his own work, which at first bore the title Entstehung (Development or 

Formation) der Familie, etc., on the basis of Marx’s notes, read both from 

these and from his synopsis to Bernstein who visited him at the end of 

February-beginning of March 1884. Engels acquired his own copy of 

Morgan’s work later in March,144 and finished the first eight chapters of 

the Origin of the Family two months later, reserving the last chapter for 

revisions145 (which were never carried through: these are in connection 

with the critique of civilization by Fourier).146 He considered that Marx 

himself wanted to introduce the work of Morgan to the Germans, and 

published the book in ‘execution of a bequest’, thus interpreting the 

design of Marx’s notebooks.147 

As the opening phrase of his Origin of the Family, Engels stated, 

“Morgan is the first who, with factual knowledge, sought to bring a 

definite order to the early history of mankind; so long as no significantly 

expanded material calls for changes, his classification will remain in 

force.” 148 

Engels established his own relation to the work of Morgan on the one 

side and to that of Marx on the other. The following two tables will list 

the more important points of contact between Engels’ work with that of 

Morgan, on the one hand, and with that of Marx, in this reference, on 

the other. 

77

TA B LE VI. Principal References by Engels to Morgan 

Engels 0 p. Morgan 6 p. Key words 

Preface, isted. Morgan and materialist conception of history 

Decline of Morgan’s reputation 

Reconstruction of human prehistory 

Preface, 4th ed. Development of the Family - cf. Bachofen 

Opposition to McLcnnan; group marriage 

Iroquois and other evidence of theory of gens 

Critique of civilization - cf. Fourier 

19-24 Preface, ch. 1 Stages of human progress 

25f. Iroquois family 

26-28 Pt. Ill (p. 444) Reconstruction of prehistoric family; theory of 

promiscuity 

32-74 393 et seq. Evolution of family 

75-88 61-87 Iroquois gens 

91 236 G ro tee 

91-92 239 Greek gens and G ro tee 

92 240 Marx’s summary of Morgan on Greek gens 

94 255 Gladstone 

98ff. 263-284 Athenian State 

114 293,298 Roman gens 

122 368f. Scottish clan 

109-h i 283-352 Roman gens and State 

ch. 9 passim Barbarism and civilization 

i 6z£. 5 6 if. Property 

0 Engels, Origin of the Family, op. cit. Eng. tr. 1942. 

6 Morgan, Ancient Society, 1907. 

e See Table I, note c. 

Marx’s strictures upon Morgan were generally passed over by Engels; 

alone Engels determined that Morgan went too far in regarding group 

marriage and the punaluan family as a necessary stage before the pairing 

family, in the light of later evidence.149 Engels was also disposed more 

positively toward Bachofen and Maine than was Marx.160 

Morgan counterposed the future of the liberty, equality and fraternity 

found in the ancient gens to the society of the present, its mere property 

career, and the unmanageable power of property.151 This was a step 

forward from Ralph Waldo Emerson, who had also wished to transcend 

the reign of things, but had not conceived of the question of their ownership 

and accumulation. Engels quoted part of Marx’s statement regarding 

antagonism of interest within the gens (Marx, Morgan excerpts, 

p. 79), but in connection with greed for riches which had begun to split 

the unity of the gens during the period in question.152 Engels thus took 

up the subjective side of the question, while the relation of the two sides 

78

T A B LE VII. The Utilisation by Engels of M arx’s Excerpts from Morgan 

Engels ° p. Marx ° p. Key words 

1 9 6 2 absolute control over food production 

27 10 political, philosophical, etc. systems 

35 96 Bachofen on punaluan lawlessness 

50 57 Innate casuistry of man 

51 16 Family and society in miniature 

55 16 Earlier, women were freer 

9 0 e 68 Savage peeps through 

91 e 69 Gentes older than mythology 

91 70 Pedantic philistines 

92 71 Humbler gentes - cf. Grote; Morgan’s reply to Grote 

(pedantic bookworms) 

94 73f. Gladstone and Yankee Republican 

95 d 74 The line about the scepter 

95f. e 74 Sort of military democracy 

150 79 Antagonism in gens 

“ Engels, Origin of the Family, Eng. tr., 1942. Morgan, Ancient Society, 1907. Marx, excerpt 

notes on Morgan. 

6 Insertion of „almost” by Engels reflects Marx’s exclamation at the exaggeration. 

c Engels here refers to Marx’s paraphrase of Morgan, Ancient Society, pp. 228 and 234. 

d Identified as a later added line by Eustathius. (Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 74). 

e Engels here reproduces Morgan’s thought faithfully (cf. Morgan, Ancient Society, op. cit., 

pp. 126, 256, 259, 282). 

was posited by Marx. Engels quoted Morgan about the deterioration of 

man by property and the hope of return to the ancient gens as his own 

peroration.153 Bernstein characterized Morgan’s work as being more like 

that of the socialist theoreticians of the period 1825-1840, i.e., the Utopians 

: “ He nowhere oversteps in principle the boundary which separates 

the average cultural historian from the representatives of historical 

materialism.” 154 Bernstein’s points are mutually contradictory, however. 

Morgan in truth does step over the boundary by his critique of the mere 

property career of mankind, hence is more than merely objective or 

distanced from his subject, which is implicit in the reference by Bernstein 

to the Durchschnitt der Culturhistoriker. But if Morgan’s work resembles 

that of the utopian socialists, then it cannot be regarded as wholly 

objective. The counterposition to Bernstein’s criticism of Morgan’s pure 

objectivity is Morgan’s interpenetration, however defective, of his 

scientific objectivity and his subjectivity, i.e., his hopes for the future. 

The defect in Morgan lies elsewhere: his objectivity is concrete, his 

subjectivity abstract. Thus, the dialectical passage in Morgan is one-sided 

and partially developed, but nevertheless exists, and had a positive response 

in Marx. Engels took up the line of criticism propounded by 

79

Fourier; the other possibility raised by Bernstein is irrelevant. Yet Engels 

pointed only briefly to the collective institutions of social life and property 

in their primitive context, and even more briefly to the same in their 

modern context, being chiefly concerned with these in connection with 

their dissolution in the development of civilization. The dialectical 

passage of the collectivity into its opposite, the individuality-privativity, 

is implicit in Marx’s attention to the given excerpts from Morgan; the 

nature of the collectivity in the dialectical passage from the privative was 

adumbrated by him in the ethnological notebooks and others of his 

writings. The excerpt from Morgan expressing the paramountcy of the 

social interest over the individual interest juxtaposes its antithesis to the 

unmanageable power of property and the evanescence of a mere property 

career. Engels expressed these points in their transition from one to the 

other in the last pages of The Origin of the Family; his thesis, also that of 

Marx and Morgan, was that man’s character was laid down as a collective 

and social creature over a long evolutionary period, and that this character 

was distorted in the brief career of civilization. The thesis, with the 

exception of the factor of time depth, was that of Fourier as well. 

Morgan had posited equality, democracy and universality of right as 

the measure against which the low position of the married woman, and 

the disharmony and injustice of civilized society under the regime of 

property is judged.155 His perspective rested on the optimistic judgment 

that the property career contains the elements of self-destruction. It is 

an organicism, positing no specific mechanism whereby the inequity of 

rights and the disharmony of the civilized condition is to be overcome; it 

has remained an abstraction, without a concrete course of action. As such 

it has common features of the Hegelian historical entelechy, but since it is 

limited in its organicism without the critique of the latter as that had been 

posited by Hegel, Morgan’s evolutionary progressism was already surpassed 

as an explanation of the rise of civilization in the generation prior 

to Marx. 

The positivist criticism of Morgan’s evolutionary doctrine of progress 

has rested primarily on its abstraction and its lack of concrete mechanisms 

of social development. Engels had in mind that further empirical data 

would cause the scientific categories and particular analyses of Morgan to 

be changed; but this would not change the perspective of progress which 

they shared. Engels did not overcome the objections to the utopianism 

and teleology of Morgan, nor did he overcome Morgan’s utopianism and 

teleology within his Origin of the Family. Engels’ dialectic here is the 

juxtaposition of Morgan’s idea of the evanescence of property to the 

general and, in this case implicit, unexpressed perspective known to have 

been shared by Marx and himself. In the footnote and the end of his 

Origin of the Family Engels proposed that he would take up the critique 

of civilization in the line of Fourier’s brilliancy. 

80

Engels, in his 1888 edition of the Communist Manifesto commented on 

the opening sentence (see above, section 3, Marx’s Excerpts from Maine), 

“ That is, all written history. In 1847, the prehistory of society, the social 

organization existing previous to recorded history, was all but unknown. 

Since then, Haxthausen discovered communal landownership in Russia, 

Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all German 

tribes started historically, and gradually it was found that village communities 

with possession of the land in common were the primeval form 

of society from India to Ireland. Finally, the inner organization of this 

primeval communist society was laid bare in its typical form by Morgan’s 

crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its place in the 

tribe. With the dissolution of these primeval communities, the division 

of society into separate and finally antagonistic classes begins.” The same 

point was made by Engels in the fourth edition of Socialism, Utopian and 

Scientific. 

Engels here made implicit reference to the unity of the peoples of 

Eurasia in the positing of a communal past, ‘from India to Ireland’ ; 

implicit is also Maine’s evidence thereof. On the other hand, Engels made 

explicit the theoretical presuppositions if not the factual evidence of 

Maurer and Morgan. The primeval communist society in question whose 

inner organization was laid bare by Morgan extended far beyond the 

ambitus, India to Ireland; indeed it could not have been posited at all 

on that restricted basis, since Morgan’s conceptions rested precisely on 

the evidence of the middle and lower statuses of barbarism, which was 

not to be adduced in the culture area of the Old World whose arc was 

thereby described. On the contrary, the New World alone provided the 

evidence in that scientific era, for the development of the conception of 

the gens in its relation to that of society. There was not one society in 

question here, but many; there was nevertheless one mode of inner 

organization of these many societies which were identified in the various 

statuses of barbarism by Morgan. In this connection, Engels presupposed 

here a primeval communism of property ownership as a basis for 

the primitive community and the dissolution of both the property and 

the social relation in the transition to civilization. The relation of the 

abstraction, society, to its empirical concrescence, the societies undergoing 

a shared transition was the achievement of Marx, in his anthropology, 

over the period from the 1840s to the 1880s. 

Marx worked out his system in regard to the transition of mankind 

from the primitive to the civilized social condition, but we can see no 

more than the outlines, taking as the basis of it the works that he chose 

for annotation and excerption, together with what is known of the 

scientific, political and historical positions of the authors, and the points 

he raised from their works. Morgan was his chief support, Maine his 

opponent; the comments regarding Phear and Lubbock round out these 

81

outlines, but our depth is limited. Engels accords with the position of 

Marx in general, but there are significant differences between them; 

Engels was less deep and less precise than Marx; such was the selfestimation 

of Engels as well. The system of Marx is incomplete, for he 

only sketched in his originality, the points of difference with Morgan, 

and the system raised thereon; the points that he raised in regard to Maine 

are, in their negativity, more important because more extensive; they are 

less well-known hence in their subjectivity as well, in regard to the 

critique of the historical and analytical theories of the State and Law, of 

the Oriental commune and society, of the early history of the development 

of capital and landownership in the Occident, and of the origin of 

civilization. Above all, his empirical and philosophical anthropology in 

its relation to social critique and practice, and of the social critique in its 

relation to the latter are here presented from many new sides: the interrelation 

of the interest of society, collectivity, and individuality; the 

relation of these to the formation of civil and political society, and a 

position in regard to their outcome. 

Marx wrote in 1844156, “The greatness in the Hegelian Phenomenology 

and its end-result - the dialectic of negativity as the motive and generative 

principle - is thus, first, that Hegel grasps the self-generation of man as 

a process, the position of the object as its opposition (Vergegenstànd- 

lichung als Entgegenstàndlichung), as alienation and as sublation (Auf- 

hebung) of this alienation; that he grasps the nature (Wesen) of labor and 

conceives objective man, true because actual man, as the end-result of 

his own labor” (Vergegenstàndlichung is objectification, the positing of 

the object; Entgegenstàndlichung is both opposition, standing opposite, 

and disobjectification, the disembodiment of the object. We have 

understood Wesen der Arbeit as ‘nature of labor’ because labor as process 

has no Wesen (or essence, being as such) which exists independently of 

the process leading to the product, man himself, the object destroyed by 

its objectification.) Having posited the self-generation by man as the 

process of his own labor and as its product in consequence, Hegel then 

conceived man as a being with a history, or as a participant in temporal 

processes of which history is one. To this end, Marx comprehended man 

as social man first, as having no inner essence that stands outside time, 

hence as having no essence other than his relations in society and in social 

production, including the production of himself. These temporal processes, 

as self-generation, history, and the development of the relations of 

society, self, and history, are at the same time external and internal to man. 

They develop as the relation to inner needs and drives, as the relation of 

function to external form, as that of man to the natural world. Hegel 

82

conceived the process as changing over time, and at once as temporality 

within itself, a non-organic entelechy. 

Hegel’s theory of change was conceived as an organic growth of a given 

form, the realization of potentiality by an internal process externalized 

as the negation of the anterior form of the same type, each antecedent 

bearing within itself the germ of its own suppression and transformation 

into the successive stage. It was not, however, a theory of the relations 

between typic or generic forms. Thus, Hegel did not conceive the 

process from without, as mediation worked upon the formal growth, 

hence he did not integrate the internal with the externally originating 

process into one, or the actual with the potential. In keeping with this we 

note that Hegel had formulated his notion of that which we have subsequently 

come to denominate as culture, both as the mediation of man and 

nature and the intermediation in the cultivation of the young ; but he had 

not come to the conception of the evolution of the process, still less of the 

emergence on the earth of the culture by man as a separate phenomenon, 

Moreover, he separated the particular social mechanisms from his wholly 

organic evolutionary concept as an inner process. The mediation itself is 

subject to transformation by the relation of the particular to the whole; 

it is a temporal process ; Hegel stopped short of this conception. 

Morgan’s theory of evolution, on the contrary, was wholly external, 

that which is brought about by mechanisms directing change from lower 

to higher stages through inventions and discoveries ; human intelligence 

was likewise subject in its growth to the intervention of these mechanisms. 

Marx accepted from Morgan the notion of the gens as the social institution 

mediating, in the form of a bridge, the achievement of civilization. 

The gens was at the same time conceived by Marx as the generator in its 

decline of concrete mechanisms which accomplished the transition to 

civilization. Accumulation of property was the objective factor accounted 

for by Morgan in the decline of the gens and the transition to civilization. 

The dissolution of the gens is, however, but the heading under which the 

analysis is to be promulgated, which Marx then took up as a set of 

internal and external relations. As internal, it is the transformation in 

society of common relations to property into mutually antagonistic 

relations between the peasantry in their still communal institutions, on 

the one hand, and the private rights and respective institutions of the 

otiose landowners on the other. The forms of the collectivities, poor 

and rich, were different, the modes of internalization of the conflicting 

relations were different, and the rates of social evolution within the same 

group were likewise different. These social differences were therefore 

not expressed as conflicts directly until a much later time than their first 

appearance; the opposition is directly linked with the second dialectic 

moment, that of the social opposition between the individual private 

interests. Both moments provide the basis for the formation of the State 

83

and its primary internal functions. Morgan’s objective fact was thus 

differentially internalized by the social institutions. 

Morgan’s conception of the changing relations to property as a development 

of society was taken by Marx as common ground; Engels 

conceived this as the rediscovery by Morgan of the materialist interpretation 

of history. The common ground has since been overemphasized: 

the explicit optimism and utopism of Morgan was transformed by Marx 

into the social conflict in the state of civilization. There is a second reason 

for questioning the emphasis that has been placed upon the common 

ground between Marx and Morgan: The anti-teleological element in 

Marx’s thought found support in his reading of Darwin, but thereby he 

separated the science of man from the science of nature, given both the 

respective states of both sciences and the separation of man in his actuality 

from nature. Marx criticized Darwin’s use of the model of contemporary 

English society in the study of the animal kingdom.167 From this 

it follows likewise that Morgan wrongly because onesidedly and too 

facilely proceeded from nature to man by application of the model in the 

inverse sense. 

Marx expressed a scepticism regarding the scientific doctrines of Cuvier, 

Darwin, Lubbock, Morgan, among others. The objective side of this 

scepticism is the critique of the respective sciences as doctrines internally 

to the disciplines themselves, and externally in relation to their social 

etiology and inspiration. The internal side of the critique is the laying 

bare of their implicit organicism posited as generalities without concretion 

in identified empirical processes and methods for their observation, 

control, and the like. The negative side of this internal critique is the 

speculative reconstructions detected by him in Cuvier, Morgan, Phear. 

The external critique of the sciences has as its object the internalization 

effected, even by their best representatives, of the social prejudices, 

ethnocentrisms, uncritical borrowings of the preconceptions of their 

social origins, and the return to the society in question of the scientific 

conclusions in an altered form: evolution made over into evolutionism, a 

doctrine comforting and comfortable to the sustainers of the given 

civilization as the telos of evolutionary progress; the incorporation of 

the subjective values of the civilization as the end-result of the evolution 

as the ground for self-satisfaction. The past was reconstructed to these 

ends, strengthening by the moral means derived therein the dominance 

and exploitation of one nation by another; the forceful hand of the 

colonialists was supported by the scientific-pseudoscientific apparatus. 

Marx’s reserve was, however, the withholding of total commitment, 

which did not diminish his recognition of scientific advancement in 

paleontology, systematic and evolutionary biology, ethnology and human 

evolution, and the contributions of the scientists mentioned above to one 

or another of these fields. 

84

Anti-teleology in nature is interrelated with anti-necessitarianism in 

human history, each reciprocally presupposing the other. On the one 

side, moreover, the human is wholly comprised within the natural 

history; on the other, the matter of the form and the content of each is 

without difference from the other. On the human side, Marx’s thought 

implicitly and explicitly opposed the painting of pictures of the future 

(‘Zukunftsmalerei’) as he opposed the fixity of process and determinacy 

of form into which a society develops (see note 89 of this Introduction). 

Finally, Marx, having expressed these thoughts, buried them in his 

workroom. Yet their incomplete form has nevertheless indicated the 

transition of Marx from the restriction of the abstract generic human 

being to the empirical study of particular societies. The transition made 

by Marx is likewise that of the development of society and of anthropology 

in the same period. The posthumous publication of the ethnological 

parts of his notebooks forms a portion of Marx’s legacy, at once continuous 

and discontinuous, posing anew the open questions of control of 

human development by human intervention, a wholly human teleology, 

and the natural science of man as its potentiality. The present generation 

bears an ambiguous relation to these questions; regarding the future of 

society, and the lessons to be learned from the past, we get no guidance 

save that which we can work out for ourselves. 

85

ADDENDA 

i. Chronology of materials in IISG Notebook B 146, containing excerpts 

and notes from Morgan, Phear and Maine; and Notebook B 150 containing 

excerpts and notes from Lubbock. (See below, note 15 for survey 

of notebooks.) 

The materials were worked on in the order indicated. There is no 

direct evidence in the notebooks themselves or from correspondence, 

etc., when the work was begun. There is a direct indication relative to 

the dating of the close of the materials from Notebook B 146 which are 

dealt with in the present essay; the indication, while it is direct, is not 

entirely free of problems, and hence is not firm. Marx commented on an 

Irish Coercion Bill in Parliament in his notes on Maine, p. 192, i.e. five 

pages from the end, interpolating in that connection, “Dies geschrieben 

Juni 1888.” It had been announced in January 1880 that a Coercion 

Statute then in force would be allowed to lapse on June 1, 1880. A new 

Coercion Bill was introduced by W. E. Forster, of the party of the viceroy 

of Ireland, in the British Parliament on January 24, 1881 and enacted on 

March 2, 1881, after strenuous parliamentary debate and public protest. 

“It practically enabled the viceroy to lock up anybody he pleased, and to 

detain him as long as he pleased, while the Act remained in force.” 158 

The Notebook B 146 was filled seriatim, although number 144 was 

skipped in the pagination (but not the page - see the place and note 15). 

It has generally been held that this portion of the Notebook, with the 

exception of the notes from Hospitalier, was filled within a fairly short, 

consecutive period of time. It now must be considered that the time 

period in which the materials from Morgan, Phear and Maine (as well as 

Money and Sohm) as a whole were worked on was somewhat longer than 

that which has been accepted hitherto. Following the notes taken from 

Maine he included in Notebook B 146 in or about November 1882 

those from Hospitalier’s work on electricity, which had been published 

in 1881.159 

As to when the sequence of the materials in this Notebook was begun, 

there is no direct evidence but only external and indirect indications that 

Marx worked on the first of the series, Morgan’s Ancient Society, during 

the winter, and perhaps spring of 1880-1881. Vera Zasulich had written 

to Marx concerning agrarian problems and the village commune in 

Russia160 in a letter dated February 16, 1881. Marx’s reply is dated 

86

March 8, 1881.161 In a draft which was not sent off Marx wrote, “In a 

word, [the rural commune] finds [the modern social system] in a crisis 

which will end only by its elimination, by a return of modern societies to 

an ‘archaic’ type of communal property, a form in which - as an American 

author who is not at all suspected of revolutionary tendencies, supported 

in his work by the government in Washington, says - ‘the new system’ 

toward which modern society tends ‘will be a revival in a superior form 

of an archaic social type.’ ” 162 [The American author, who is not mentioned 

by name, is L. H. Morgan, who wrote “It will be a revival, in a 

higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.” 163 

This passage from Morgan is on the same page as that cited by Engels at 

the close of the Origin of the Family.] In the same draft of the letter to 

Zasulich, Marx wrote, “ In [the time of Julius Caesar] the [arable] land 

was divided annually, but between gentes (Geschlechter) and tribus of the 

[different] Germanic confederations and not yet among the individual 

members of the commune.” (The influence of Morgan’s terminology can 

be seen here as well.) Marx also referred in this context to Maine on the 

commune.164 Hyndman, an English socialist, recorded in his memoirs 

that he had visited Marx in London on several occasions during 1880- 

1881.165 He wrote of these contacts, “ Thus, when Lewis Morgan 

proved to Marx’s satisfaction that the gens and not the family was the 

social unit of the old tribal system and ancient society generally, Marx at 

once abandoned his previous opinions based upon Niebuhr and others, 

and accepted Morgan’s view.” 166 

The generally reliable Karl M arx, Chronik seines Lebens, has given the 

chronology of the excerpts and notes from Morgan, Maine, Phear, Sohm 

(and Dawkins) by Marx as ca. December 1880 to ca. March 1881. The 

evidence cited by the editor of the Chronik for this dating is (a) the excerpts, 

dated therein 1880, and (b) Hyndman (see above).167 The first 

bit of evidence is to be set aside for it is circular; the date 1880 is what 

was to have been proved. All that we can infer from the Hyndman 

testimony is that Marx had read the Morgan and perhaps the other works. 

From the evidence of the Zasulich correspondence, known to Adoratsky 

and the staff of the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, Moscow, but not cited 

by them in this connection, it is clear that Marx had read not only Morgan 

but also Maine in relation to the study of primitive society and the formation 

of political society out of the dissolution of the ancient gentes 

and communities. On internal grounds we infer that Marx had familiarized 

himself with the content of the Morgan work before setting out 

to excerpt it, for the act of changing the sequence of the parts implies a 

prior grasp of the whole. The mastery of the contents may have taken 

place immediately or long before the actual excerptions and notes. There 

is a limited amount of internal cross-reference in Notebook B 146 itself: 

explicitly to Morgan in the Maine excerpts, pp. 163 and 186; implicitly 

87

to Morgan by reference to the Upper Status of Barbarism, a category of 

Morgan’s, in the Maine excerpts, p. 1 66 ; and to the gens, presumably also 

with Morgan in mind (Maine excerpts, pp. 161, 178). Phear is implicitly 

referred to in the Maine excerpts, p. 162; Sohm is explicitly referred to, 

together with manuscript pages, Maine excerpts, p. 193. The internal 

evidence supports the conclusion that the contents form a coherent whole, 

that the sequence was orderly and not haphazard, and that the place of 

Morgan’s ideas relative to those of Phear, Maine, etc., of Sohm in 

relation to Maine, and so on, was clear to Marx at this time. There is 

therefore no ground to differ from the chronology proposed by the 

editor of the Chronik regarding the commencement of the work in Notebook 

B 146, nor has any evidence been adduced since that time to conclude 

that this work was not carried on in a continuously organized 

fashion, which is implicit in the conceptions of Ryazanov and of Adoratsky. 

The only grounds for difference with the latter are the incompleteness 

of the evidence that Adoratsky and his staff introduced. That is, 

they knew of the Zasulich correspondence, which Ryazanov had published 

some five years earlier; and they had the Maine ms. of Marx in photocopy, 

for Ryazanov had brought this to Moscow as early as 1923. 

If the date of December 1880 (approximately) is taken as the commencement 

of the Notebook B 146, then it follows that the excerpts from 

Maine, subject to the method of work set forth above, were being brought 

to a close in June 1881. 

It is possible that we have to deal with the period from the winter 1879 

through spring and summer 1880: the possibility of reading ‘June 1880’ 

for ‘June 1888’ is supported, at least theoretically, by the fact that a 

Coercion Statute was in force in England through June 1, 1880. Marx 

implied that there was a special significance to this date. It is more 

probable that he had reference to the Coercion Bill (of 1881) than to the 

Coercion Statute (of the preceding year), and we assume that he made but 

one error, that of the year, not of the month or decade. It follows that 

he had the events of January through March 1881 in mind, hence the 

pointedness of the reference to the month. (The possibility that we are 

dealing with a time period from December 1879 to June 1881 can be 

mentioned simply to touch one more possibility, but it is not a fruitful 

one to pursue, for it is too far from the implied method of Marx’s work 

on these materials.) 

Between the two possibilities, winter 1879 to summer 1880, and winter 

1880 to summer 1881, there is a slight preponderance to the choice of 

the latter date. The choice is based on the consideration that the issues 

and contents of these excerpts were more directly reflected in Marx’s 

scientific and political work of early 1881. Moreover, the dates of publication 

of the works excerpted (the Phear and Sohm publications are both 

dated 1880) tend to support the later date as well. Therefore we propose 

88

that the parts of the notebook B 146 containing the excerpts from the 

works of Morgan, Money, Phear, Sohm, and Maine be provisionally 

assigned to the period between the end of the year 1880 and the middle 

of 1881. 

The Russian language version of Marx’s excerpts from Morgan, the 

work of the Marx-Lenin Institute, Moscow, contains the statement that 

they were in all likelihood made in the winter of 1880-1881.168 No 

grounds are given to support this, nevertheless, it cannot be far from the 

truth, given the reservations noted above. The editors in the Institute of 

Marxism-Leninism in Berlin who are responsible for Marx Engels Werke 

have based themselves on the work of the parallel body in Moscow, but 

the former have proposed the dating 1881-1882 for Marx’s work on 

Morgan,169 giving no grounds for this changed chronology. There is a 

stylistic difficulty with the date 1881-1882: it places the activity of Marx 

in reference to Hyndman and Zasulich in the past, whereas the memoir 

of Hyndman in reference to Marx, and the concerns of Marx in the 

successive drafts to Zasulich give the impression of current matters. The 

editor of the Chronik has separated the work on Lubbock from that of 

Morgan, Maine, etc., by a year and a half.170 The style and contents of 

the notebooks, insofar as these matters can be treated objectively, tend to 

support this separation. To argue ex silentio, i.e., that he did not mention 

Morgan or Maine to this person or that, in order to promulgate one 

chronology over another, is an idle speculation. To treat the matter of 

the chronology any further, in the absence of firm data, direct or indirect, 

is mere conjecture, which has, perhaps, already been spun out too far. 

Marx returned to his work in ethnology late in 1882, adding the 

excerpts from the work of Lubbock.170 

2. 1/ aria Concerning M arx's Ethnological Studies 

A . Christoph Meiners and Charles de Brosses 

Marx read C. Meiners, Allgemeine kritische Geschichte der Religionen, 1806 ; 

he took it up first in 1842, and returned to it in 185 2. Also in 1842 Marx 

read C. de Brosses, Du Culte des Dieux fétiches, 1760, in a German translation 

by Pistorius.171 De Brosses combined a belief that man had degenerated 

from a higher state with his advocacy of the progression of mankind. 

He influenced the theorizing about primitive religion in the 

nineteenth century concerning fetishism,172 while at the same time he 

expressed a critical attitude toward ‘la folle imagination du fétichisme’. 

While neither the substance of his general theory of mankind nor his 

specific theory of fetishism had any obvious effect on Marx’s thinking, 

nevertheless the formal category of fetishism, which may perhaps be 

attributed to de Brosses, played a minor role in Marx’s Grundrissellz and 

a major role in Capital.11* De Brosses’ rationalism in regard to the 

primitive religion, but not to the religion of his own civilization, is out 

89

of keeping with the ‘objective’ attitude prevalent among nineteenth 

century ethnologists with regard to the study of primitive man.175 

B . W. Cooke Taylor 

In May 1851, Marx took notes from W. Cooke Taylor, The Natural 

History of Society in the Barbarous and Civilised State. A n Essay Towards 

Discovering the Origin and Course of Human Improvement, 2 v., 1840. (I owe 

this information to Mr. Harstick.) The work describes the stages of 

social advancement prior to the writings on social evolution here discussed; 

it is the precursor of the latter. In addition to the division of 

mankind into barbarism and civilization, the work divides the barbarous 

races into hunters, shepherds and agriculturists (ch. 9). Thus it is an 

early statement of the hunter-pastoralist-farmer sequence later advanced 

by Eduard Hahn and others. Phear in the Introduction to The Aryan 

Village adopted the same sequence (see n. 58). Tylor wrote of three 

stages, savagery, barbarism, and civilization,176 as did Morgan. Hegel, 

Philosophie der Geschichte, mentions savage and barbarian peoples, but 

without developing this distinction. 

C. Adolf Bastian 

Marx in a letter to Engels, Dec. 19, i860, wrote after referring favorably 

to Darwin, “Dagegen A. Bastian, ‘Der Mensch in der Geschichte’ (3 dicke 

Bände, der Bursche junger Bremer Arzt, der mehrjährige Reise um die 

Welt gemacht) mit seinem Versuch einer ‘naturwissenschaftlichen’ Darstellung 

der Psychologie und psychologischen Darstellung der Geschichte 

schlecht, konfus, formlos. Das einzige Brauchbare darin hie 

und da ein Par ethnographische oddities. Dazu viel Prätention und 

schauderhafter Stil.” The same ground is covered in a letter of Marx to 

Lassalle, Jan. 16, 1861.177 

D . Marx and E. Ray Lankester 

Lankester, a biologist, palaeontologist and Darwinist, was in close touch 

with Marx in 1880.178 

E . Sir William Boyd Dawkins 

According to the Chronik, Marx read and excerpted Dawkins, Early Man 

in Britain and his Place in the Tertiary Period, 1880.179 Phear op. cit. used 

Dawkins’ work in his Introduction; Engels used Dawkins as the basis 

for his unpublished work Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen.180 

F . Hubert Howe Bancroft 

Engels in a letter to Marx, Dec. 8, 1882, wrote,181 “In order to clear up 

the matter of the parallel between Tacitus’ Germans and American 

Redskins, I have gently excerpted the first volur*“ of your Bancroft.” 

(Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, 5 v., San Francisco, 1874- 

1875; New York, 1874-1876.)182 

90

TECHNICAL APPARATUS AND FORMAT 

The publication of Marx’s ethnological manuscripts has the aim of 

reproducing the form and content of the materials as they were left by 

their author. For this reason, the materials from the notebooks follow 

the sequence in which they were left by him; details concerning that 

sequence are to be found in the Introduction, note 1 5. The accuracy of 

the transcription and reproduction of the materials is limited by human 

error, further by the difficulties inherent in the transfer of the writings 

from manuscript to typescript to printed page. While the reproduction 

of Marx’s manuscripts has been as faithful as possible, departures from 

this aim have been conscious in certain cases: 

1. Punctuation, including periods and commas, etc., has been occasionally 

inserted. Square and round brackets drawn by Marx have been 

closed where necessary, or made consistent, so that a bracketing 

introduced as round is closed as such, etc. These matters have been 

treated without further indication. An exception to this will be found 

in the Introduction, note 16: the matter of that note touches another 

corpus of Marx’s manuscript materials; it was treated differently, and 

the difference is set forth in that place. 

2. Marx’s note-taking style included abbreviations standardized according 

to his practice: u. = und; od. = oder; d. = any definite article of 

the German language; dch = durch, ddch = dadurch; whd = während; 

it also included non-standardized abbreviations, word-short- 

enings such as elimination of vowels, reduction of consonant 

clusters, contractions, etc. Thus, bdtde = bedeutende; df, drf = 

darauf; flgde = folgende; v., vn = von; nothwdg = nothwendig; 

wdn = werden or wurden; wf, wrf = worauf; etc. Marx rendered 

‘wahrscheinlich’ variously as whsclich, wrsclich, whrsclich, etc.; 

Gesellscft, Bildg, Verwandscft, Verwdtscft, have been left in the 

form in which they were found, the editor being persuaded that this 

will be generally obvious. 

Where there is reason to doubt whether the form of the shortened 

word will be readily understood, it has been either filled in by the use 

of angle brackets ( ) by the editor, or else it has been given in full 

within the text and annotated. More rarely, where a word appears to 

be wanting from a phrase, it has been filled in by the editor, again 

with the use of angle brackets. All square and round brackets found 

91

in the texts here published are those of Marx (but see above, under i). 

On the other hand, apart from Marx’s texts, that is, in the Introduction, 

in the notes to the texts, and in the bibliographic section, 

editorial insertions in the texts and references, etc., have been made 

by square and round brackets. 

3. Departures from Marx’s forms have been noted in reference to the 

Morgan, Maine and Lubbock texts. This is the case also regarding 

that of Phear, save that, for reasons given in the editorial note to the 

Phear text, certain terms of Indie or of so-called Anglo-Indian 

provenience have been given uniform renderings without further 

annotation. 

4. Paragraphing, spacing, and page format have been reproduced as 

Marx set them out, within the limitations noted above. 

5. Alternative readings and difficult or illegible parts of the manuscripts 

are indicated in the notes to each text. 

6. The text in the modern languages, which are chiefly German and 

English, has been left without substantive change, save as noted 

above. Citations from Greek and Latin authors of classical antiquity 

have likewise been left in their original form in the text, save where 

subsequent editions of the classical works have proposed changes of 

the forms in which Morgan, Maine, or Marx left them. Where the 

matter concerns other than a formal difference, and where it has some 

significance attached to it, this has been noted, but not in the cases 

of mere variations of form. These classical citations have likewise 

been translated into English in the notes to the texts. The citations 

and translations have been checked against some standard current 

edition, in most cases that of the Loeb Classical Library. In the case 

of Aristotle they have been checked against the edition of W. D. Ross. 

7. References to Marx’s text in the Introduction and Notes are by page 

number, following his sequence in the mss., which is indicated on 

the left margin of the page. 

8. Underlinings, marginal and interpolated lines are reproduced from 

the manuscript insofar as it is feasible to do so. 

9. The reproduction of the form of Marx’s bibliographic notes from 

Excerpt Notebook B 146 (see above, Introduction, note 15) is 

discussed in the Notes appended to that bibliographic section. 

10. Spelling of words has been left in the form that Marx gave, even 

though contemporary practice has since been changed, e.g., Theil, 

commandirt, Etablirung. Grammatical and syntactic constructions 

have been reproduced unchanged, likewise, unless noted otherwise, 

for these matters concern Marx’s peculiar and characteristic shifts 

from German to English and vice versa. No attempt has been made 

to standardize differences between spelling practices in England and 

America (e.g., ‘civilisation’, ‘civilization’); Marx accorded with either 

92

practice; occasionally, it is difficult to decide between alternatives in 

the manuscripts; such matters have been left without notice. 

Marx wore his erudition lightly. The references to the Bible, to Shakespeare 

and to Don Quixote need no comment; Pecksniff, in Martin 

Chuvglervit of Charles Dickens, needs no more comment than that. 

Where Marx has not supplied enough information to provide ground 

for firm identification of a work, as in the references to Frédéric Le Play, 

Achille Loria, Francis Parkman, Ernest Renan, James Anderson, James 

MacPherson, i.a., some bibliographic indications are offered, but marked 

as conjectural. 

93

PARTI 

M ARX’S EXCERPTS FROM LEWIS H EN RY MORGAN, 

A N C IE N T SO C IE T Y

i Lewis H . Morganr1 “ Ancient Society” . London i8 jy . 

Part /.2 Ch. I. A) I) Growth of intelligence through inventions and 

discoveries. 

I) Period of Savagery. 

i) Lower Status. Infancy of human race; lives in its original restricted 

habitat; subsists upon fruits and nuts; in this period commencement of 

articulate speech; ends with acquisition of fish subsistence and knowledge of 

use of fire. No tribes in this condition to be found in historical period 

of mankind. 

z) Middle Status: commences mit fish subsistence and use of fire. Mankind 

spreads from original habitat over greater portion of earth’s surface. 

Such tribes existing still, f.i. the Australians and greater part of the 

Polynesians, when discovered. 

3) Upper Status: commences with invention of bow and arrow, ends with 

invention of art of pottery. In this state the Athapascan tribes of the Hudson's 

Bay Territory, the tribes of the valley of Columbia u. certain coast3 

tribes of North and South America; with relation to the time of their 

discovery. 

II) Period of Barbarism 

1) Lower Status begins with art of Pottery. Für d. flgde status (middle) 

comes in Betracht the unequal endowment of the 2 hemispheres, western and 

eastern; aber to adopt equivalents. In Eastern hemisphere the domestication 

of animals, in the Western the cultivation of Maiê and plants by irrigation, 

zugleich mit use of adobe-brick and stone in house building. Im lower status 

z.B. the Indian tribes of the U.St. east of the Missouri river, and such tribes 

of Europe and A sia practising pottery, but were without domesticated 

animals. 

2) Middle Status. Commences in Eastern sphere with domestication of 

animals, in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and the use of 

adobe-brick and stone in architecture; ends with the process of smelting 

iron ore. In this state f.i. the village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, 

Central America, Peru u. tribes in the Eastern hemisphere possessing 

domestic animals, but without knowledge of iron. Ancient Britons belong 

hierhin; they knew the use of iron and other arts of life - far beyond 

the state of development of their domestic institutions - thanks to the 

vicinity of more advanced continental tribes. 

3) Upper Status. Commences with the smelting of Iron Ore, use of iron 

tools etc, ends with the invention of a phonetic alphabet, and the use of 

writing in literary composition. In the upper Status of Barbarism the 

Grecian tribes of homeric ages, Italian tribes before the founding of Rome (?). 

the German tribes of Caesar's time. 

97

Ill) Period of Civilisation. 

Begins with phonetic alphabet and production of literary records; as 

equivalent - hieroglyphical writing upon stone. 

Ueber Pottery specially to I I Period. (/) 

Flint and stone implements älter als pottery, found frequently in ancient 

repositories ohne pottery. Eh diese erfunden, commencement of village life, 

with some degree of control over subsistence, wooden vessels u. utensils, 

finger weaving with filaments of bark, basket making u. bow u. arrow vor 

appearance of pottery. Diese nicht z.B. bei d. Athapascans, the tribes of 

California u. of the valley4 of Columbia. It was unknown in Polynesia (except 

the islands of the Tongans u. Fijians), in Australia, California u. the 

Hudson’s Bay Territory. Tylor bemerkt, dass d. “ art of weaving unknown 

in most of the islands away from Asia” u. “in most of the South Sea islands 

there was no knowledge of pottery.” Flint and stone implements gave the canoe, 

wooden vessels and ustensils, and ultimately timber and plank in house architecture. 

Boiling of food - vor pottery - rudely accomplished in baskets 

coated with clay, and in ground cavities lined with skin, the boiling being effected 

with heated stones. 

The village Indians - wie d. Zunians, the A^teks u. d. Cholulans (in Period II, 

(2) state) manufactured pottery in large quantities, and in many forms of 

great excellence; the partially Village Indians of the U.St. in Period II (1) 

wie d. Iroquois, Choctas, Cherokees made it in smaller quantities u. limited 

number of forms 

Gogueth - in last century - relates of Capt. Gonneville visiting the South 

east coast of South America in 1503, that he found “ their household ustensils 

2 of wood, even their boiling pots, but plastered with | a kind of clay, a good 

finger thick, which prevented the fire from burning them” u. nach 

Goguefi daubed d. wooden combustible vessels mit clay to protect them 

(from)6 fire, till they found that clay alone would answer the purpose, and “ thus 

the art of pottery came into the world.” 

Nach Prof E . T. Cox of Indianapolis, the analyses of “ ancient pottery” 7 

...belonging to the mound-builders age, are composed of alluvial clay and 

sand, or a mixture of the former with pulverized fresh water-shells. 

Development in different tribes u. families. 

Einige so geographisch isolirt, dass sie selbstständig d. verschiednen 

Phasen dchlaufen; andere adultera

dar. When discovered, stellten sie jede der 3 conditions dar u. namentlich 

lower u. middle status of barbarism more elaborate u. complete als irgend 

andre portion of mankind. D .fa r Northern Indians u. some of the coast tribes 

of North and South America were in the Upper Status of Savagery; 

the partially Village Indians east of the Mississippi were in the Lower Status 

of Barbarism, 

the Village Indians of North and South America were in the Middle Status. 

Part I. Ch. II. A rts of Subsistence. 

Upon their (men’s) skill in this direction - arts of subsistence - the whole 

question of human supremacy on the earth depended. Mankind are the only 

beings who may be said to have gained an absolute control (?!) over the production 

of food. (19) The great epochs of human progress - identified, 

more or less directly, with the enlargement of the sources of subsistence. (I.e.) 

1) natural subsistence upon fruits or roots on a restricted habitat. Primitive 

period, invention of language. Such kind of subsistence unterstellt a, 

tropical or subtropical climate. Fruit and nutbearing forests under a 

tropical sun. (20) Were at least partially tree-living (auf Bäumen lebend) 

(Lucret. de rerum natura lib. V)9 

2) fish subsistence; first artificial food, not fully available without cooking; 

fire first utilized for this purpose - \hunt for game too precarious ever to 

have formed an exclusive means of human support.] Upon this species 

of food mankind became independent of climate and locality; by following 

the shores of the seas and lakes, and the courses of rivers could, while in the 

savage state, spread over the greater portion of the earth’s surface. 

Of the first of these migrations ... abundant evidence in the remains of 

flint and stone implements found upon all the continents. In Interval bis 

zur nächsten period important increase in the variety and amount of food; 

bread roots z.B. cooked in ground ovens; permanent addition of game through 

improved weapons, especially the bow and arrow; dies kam nach spear u. war 

club; gab the first deadly weapon for the hunt, appeared late in savagery; 

Bezeichnet (Bogen u. Pfeil) the upper status of savagery, adds iron sword to 

barbarism, firearms to the period of civilisation. Bow u. arrow were 

unknown to the Polynesians in general, and to the Australians. (21) (22) 

In Flge d. precarious nature of all these sources of food, outside of the great 

fish areas, cannibalism became the resort of mankind. The ancient universality 

of this practice is being gradually demonstrated. (22) 

3) Farinaceous food through cultivation. 

D. cultivation of cereals scheint unbekannt gewesen zu sein im lower u. bis 

nah %um Ende d. middle status of barbarism ... in der Oestlichen Hemisphäre 

den tribes of Asia u. Europe. Dagegen im Lower Status of barbarism in d. Westlichen 

Hemisphäre bekannt den American aborigenes; sie hatten horticulture. 

Beide Hemisphären ungleich endowed by nature; d. Oestliche besass alle 

Thiere, save one, adapted to domestication, u. a majority of cereals; the Western 

99

had one cereal (Mai%e) fit for cultivation, but that the best. Gave the 

advantage of condition in this period den American aborigenes. Aber als 

d. most advanced Eastern tribes, at the commencement of the middle period of 

barbarism, had domesticated animals giving meat and milk, without a knowledge 

of the cereals, ihre condition much superior to that of the American 

aborigenes mit mdiê u. plants, aber ohne domesticated animals. Mit d. 

domestication of animals scheint differen (tidytion der Semitic u. Aryan families 

3 heraus aus der Masse der Barbaren begonnen zu haben. | Dass d. discovery 

u. cultivation of cereals dch d. Aryan family später als domestication von 

animals beweisen common terms for these animals in the several dialects der 

Aryan language, and no common terms for cereals or cultivated plants, ζέα 

(einzige dieser Worte), philologisch = Sanscrit yavas (bdtet in Indian 

barley, in Greek “ spelt”). 

Horticulture preceded field culture, as the garden (hortos) das field (ager); the 

latter implies boundaries, the former signifies directly an “inclosed field ” 

[hortus an inclosed place for plants, hence a garden; from the same root 

cohors (auch cors, in einige Mscpte chors) a yard, a place walled round, a 

court, (auch cattle-yard); cf. gr. χόρτος, χορός; lat. hortus; german, garten, 

engl, garden, yard (ital. corte, french cour,10 engl. court) (ital. giardino, sp. u. 

french jardin). 

— Tillage muss aber älter sein als d. inclosed garden; erst, tilling of patches of 

open alluvial land, z) enclosed space of gardens, 3) field by means of the plow 

drawn by animal power. Ob d. Cultur solcher plants wie pea, bean, turnip, 

parsnip, beet, squash (Kürbisartige Frucht bei Massach. Indians) u. melon, 

one or more of them, preceded the cultivation of the cereals, wissen wir 

nicht. Einige v. diesen haben common terms in Latin u. Greek, aber 

keines davon common term mit Sanskrit. 

Horticulture in11 Östlicher Hemisphere seems to have originated more in 

the necessities of the domestic animals than of those of mankind. Commences 

in the Western hemisphere mit Maiê; led in America to localisation and 

village life; tended bes. under the village Indians to take the place of fish and 

game. V. cereals u. cultivated plants mankind obtained the first impression 

of the possibility of an abundance of food. - Mit farinaceous food 

verschwindet cannibalism; it survived in war, practised by war parties 

unter d. American aborigenes in the Middle Status of barbarism z. B. unter 

Iroquois u. A^teks; but the general practice had disappeared. (Wde in 

savagery practicirt upon captured enemies u. in times of famine upon friends 

and kindred) 

4) Meat and M ilk Subsistence. Absence of animals, adapted to domestication 

in Westlicher Hemisphäre ausser Llama. D. early Span, writers speak of a 

“ dumb dog” found domesticated in the West India Islands, ditto in Mexico u. 

Central America, sprechen auch von poultry u. turkeys on the American 

continent; the aborigenes had domesticated the turkey u. d. Nahuatlac tribes 

some species of wild fowl. 

100

Diese Differenz u. d. specific differences in the cereals beider Hemisphären 

producirte essential difference with that portion ihrer inhabitants who had 

attained to the Middle Status of Barbarism. 

The domestication of animals provided a permanent meat and milk 

subsistence; tribes, die sie besassen, differentiated v. d. mass of other 

barbarians. D. Village Indians ungünstig the limitation upon an essential 

species of food; haben inferior si%e of the brain verglichen mit d. Indians in 

the Lower Status of Barbarism. 

Vorzüge der Aryan u. Semitic families dch maintenance in number of 

domestic animals. D. Greeks milked their sheep as well as their cows u. 

goats (Ilias IV, 43 3)12 Aryans to noch greater extent als Semites. 

Domestication of animals - in östl. Hemisphäre - gradually introduced 

pastoral life, upon the plains of the Euphrates and of India u. d. steppes of A sia; 

on the confines of one or the other of which the domestication of animals 

first accomplished. Sie kamen so (nach)13 regions, die, so weit entfernt d. 

cradle lands der human race sein, were areas they would not have occupied as 

savages or barbarians in the Lower Status of barbarism, to whom forest areas were 

natural homes. Nachdem sie sich gewöhnt an pastoral life, unmöglich for 

either of these families to reenter the forest areas of Western Asia and of 

Europe with their flocks u. herds, without first learning to cultivate some of the 

cereals with which to subsist the latter at a distance from the grass plains. 

Sehr probable that the cultivation of the cereals originated in the necessities of 

the domestic animals, and in connection with these western migrations; and 

that the use of farinaceous food by these tribes was a consequence. 

In d. Western Hemisphere d. aborigenes advanced generally into the Lower 

Status of Barbarism, u. ein Theil davon in Middle Status ohne domestic 

animals, ausser Llama in Peru, u. upon a single cereal, maiê, mit d. adjuncts 

of bean, squash u. tobacco u. in some areas cacao, cotton u. Pepper. “ Mai%e” , 

from its growth in the hill - which favoured direct cultivation - from its 

useableness both green and ripe, from its abundant yield u. nutritive properties, 14 

was a richer endowment in aid of early human progress als all other 

cereals together; hence remarkable progress d. American aborigines ohne 

domestic animals; the Peruvians produced bronze which stands next to the 

process of smelting iron ore. \ 

4 5) Unlimited subsistence through field agriculture. The domestic animals supplemented 

human muscle with animal power, new factor of the highest 

value. Später production of iron gab Pflug mit an iron point u. a better 

spade and axe. Mit diesen u. aus d. früheren horticulture, came field 

agriculture u. damit querst unlimited subsistence. D. plow drawn by animal 

power; damit entsprang thoughts of reducing the forest and bringing wide 

fields into cultivation. (Lucret. v. 1369) Dense population on limited areas 

became possible. Vor field agriculture schwerlich dass | Million Menschen 

held together u. developed under one government in any part of the 

earth. Wo exceptions, they must have resulted from pastoral life on the 

101

plains od. von horticulture improved by irrigation, under peculiar u. exceptional 

condition. 

Morgan theilt d. Familienformationen (p. 27,28) ein in: 

1) Consanguine fam ily; intermarriage of brothers and sisters in a group; darauf 

founded (u. dient jetzt als evidence davon) das Malayan system consanguinity. 

2) Punaluan fam ily; name derived von d. Hawaiian relationship of Punalua. 

Founded upon the intermarriage of several brothers to each others ’ wives in 

a group; and of several sisters to each other’s husbands in a group. “ Brother” 

includes the first, second, third, and even more remote cousins, all 

considered as brothers; u. “ sister” includes first, 2nd, 3d, and even 

more remote female cousins, all sisters to each other.15 Auf this form 

of family ggriindet the Turanian u. Ganowanian systems of consanguinity. 

Beide Familienfor

sich vor 50 Jahren dort etablirten. Muss auch in Asien geherrscht haben, 

weil es d. Basis des dort noch existirenden Turanian system. 

Turanian system war allgemein unter d. norcLtmerik. aborigenes u. hinreichend 

auch in Südamerika nachgewiesen, found in parts of Africa, wo jedoch 

unter dessen tribes Verwandtschaftssystem sich mehr dem Malayan 

nähert. Turanisches System noch prevailing in Südindien unter d. Hindus der 

Dravidian language u. in modificirter Form in Nordindien unter d. Hindus 

sprechend dialects der Gaura language; also in Australien in partially developed 

form. In d. principal tribes der Turanian u. Ganowanian families 

producirt dch punaluan marriage in the group u. d. organisation into gentes, 

5 tending to repress consanguine marriage, by | prohibition of intermarriage 

in the gens, wdch own brothers u. sisters von marriage relation ausschloss. 

The Turanian system recognizes all the relationships known under the 

Aryan system, aber auch diesem unbekannte. In familiar u. formal salutation 

the people address each other by the term of relationship, nie by the 

personal name; wo keine relationship exists dch “ my friend.” 

Bei Entdeckung d. American aborigines war d. family aus d. punaluan in 

ihre synd{y)asmian form überggen; so dass d. relationships recognised by the 

system of consanguinity in zahlreichen Fällen nicht die waren die wirklich in d. 

synd(j)asmian family existirten; aber ebenso hatte Malayan system of consanguinity 

überdauert den Uebergang dr consanguine family in die Punaluan. 

Gradeso überdauerte Turanian system of consang. den Uebergang der 

punaluan family in d. synd(j)asmian. D. Familienform variirt schneller als 

systems of consanguinity which follow to record the family relationships. D. organisation 

in gentes war nöthig to change the Malayan system in d. Turanian; 

property in the concrete, with its rights of ownership u. inheritance, war nöthig, 

zusammen mit d. monogamian family which it created, to overthrow the 

Turanian system of consanguinity and substitute the Aryan. 

The Semitic, Aryan od. Uralian system of consanguinity - defining the 

relationships in the monogamian family - war nicht based upon the Turanian 

system, wie dies war upon the Malayan, sondern superseded it among 

civilised nations. 

Von den 5 family forms haben 4 existed in d. historic period; nur d. consanguine 

disappeared; can aber be deduced v. d. Malayan system of 

consanguinity. 

Marriage between single pairs had existed from the older period of barbarism; 

under the form of pairing during the pleasure of the parties; wurde stabiler 

mit advance of society, mit progress dch inventions and discoveries into 

higher successive conditions. Man began to exact fidelity from the wife, 

under savage penalties, but he claimed exemption for himself. So unter 

den Homeric Greeks. Ftschrtt v. Homerisch. Zeitalter bis dem von Pericles, 

with its gradual settlement into a defined institution. So moderne Familie 

höher als griech. u. röm;16 Geschichte dchgemacht in histor. Zeit von 

3000 Jahren dch d. monogamische Familie u. Ehe. D. Fortschritt d. alten 

10 3

complicirten “ conjugal" system besteht in seiner successive reduction, bis 

reduced to %ero in d. monogamian family. Jeder d. / family types belongs to 

conditions of society entirely dissimilar. D. Turanian system of consanguinity, 

which records the relationships in punaluan family, blieb wesentlich unverändert 

bis zur Etablirg der monogamian family, when it became almost totally 

untrue to the nature of descents, and even a scandal upon monogamy. Z.B. unter 

d. Malayan system nennt ein Mann seines Bruders Sohn seinen Sohn, weil 

seines Bruders Frau auch seine Frau ist; u. seiner Schwester Sohn ist auch 

sein Sohn, weil seine Schwester auch seine Frau ist. Unter d. Turanian 

system ist seines Bruder’s Sohn immer noch sein Sohn, aus dem selben Grund, 

aber seiner Schwester Sohn ist jetzt sein Neffe, weil unter d. gentile organisation 

seine Schwester aufgehört hat seine Frau zu sein. Unter d. Iroquois, wo d. 

family synd(y)asmian ist, nennt ein Mann seines Bruder’s Sohn seinen 

Sohn, obgleich seines Bruder''s Frau aufgehört hat, seine Frau zu sein u. so 

selber Incongruenz mit grosser Anzahl andrer relationships, die der 

existing form of marriage aufgehört haben zu entsprechen. D . System hat 

d. Gebräuche überlebt, worin es entsprang u. erhält sich oft unter ihnen, obgleich in 

the main untrue, for descents as they now exist. Monogamy kam auf to assure 

the paternity of children and the legitimacy of heirs. Turanian system konnte 

dch keine Reform ihm adaptirt wden; stand in schnei(d)endem Gegensatz 

zu Monogamie; d. System ward dropped; aber d. descriptive method 

stets employd dch d. Turanian tribes when they wished to make a given 

relationship specific wde substituted. They fell back upon the bare facts of 

consanguinity u. described the relationship of each person by a combination 

of the primary terms', sagten so: Bruder's Sohn, Bruder's grandson, father's 

brother, father's brother's son; each phrase described a person, leaving the 

relationship a matter of implication; so bei d. arischen Nationen, in d. 

ältesten form bei d. Griechischen, latein., sanskritischen, celtischen, semitischen 

tribes (Old testament Genealogies') Traces des Turanian system unter d. 

arischen u. semit. nations down to the historical period, aber essentially 

6 uprooted. Descriptive | substituted in its place. 

Jedes der systems of consanguinity expresses the actual relationships existing in 

the family at the time of its establishment. D. relations v. Mutter u. Kind, 

Bruder u. Schwester, Grossmutter u. grandchild were stets versicherbar (seit 

Etablirung irgendeiner Form von family), aber nicht die von Vater u. Kind, 

Grossvater u. grandchild; letzteres nur (mindestens officiell?) versicherbar 

in Monogamie. 

D. systems of consanguinity sind classificatory oder aber descriptive. Unter d. 

ersten system consanguinei “ classified?' into categories unabhängig von ihrer 

Nähe od. Entfernung in degree von Ego; d. selbe term of relationship applied to 

all the persons in the same category. Z.B. meine eignen Brüder u. d. Söhne von d. 

Brüdern meines Vaters sind alle gleichmässig meine Brüder; meine eignen 

Schwestern u. d. Töchter d. Schwestern meiner Mutter sind alle gleichmässig 

meine Schwestern; such is the classification in Malayan u. Turanian systems. 

104

Im descriptiven System dagegen d. consanguinei bezeichnet dch d. primary 

terms of relationship od. combination dieser terms, wdch d. relationship jeder 

Person specific gemacht. So im Aryan, Semitic, od. Uralian system, which 

came in with monogamy; später introducirt a small amount of classification 

dch inventions of common terms, aber d. earliest form of the system - the 

Erse u. Scandinavian - typical, purely descriptive. D. radicale Unterschied d. 

Systeme resulted von plural marriages in the group in one case, from single 

marriages between single pairs in the other. 

Relationships zweifach: i) by consanguinity or blood; diese selbst zweifach, 

a) lineal u. b) collateral; a) lineal ist d. connection unter Persons wovon 

eine von der ändern abstammt; b) collateral ist sie, wo persons descend von 

common ancestors, aber nicht von einander. 2) by affinity or marriage: 

marriage relationships exist by custom. Wo marriage between single pairs, 

each person the Ego from whom the degree of relationship of each person is 

reckoned u. to whom it returns. This position in the lineal line, which line 

is vertical. Upon it, above and below him, ancestors and descendants in 

direct series from father to son; these persons together constitute the 

right lineal male line. Out of this trunk line emerge the several collateral 

lines, male and female, numbered outwardly; in einfachster Form with 

one brother and one sister etc: 

ist collateral line: male, my brother and his descendants; female: my sister 

and her descendants 

2nd coll. line: male, my father's brother and his descendants; female: 

my father's sister u. her descendants, male, my mother's 

brother and his descendants; female: my mother's sister 

and her descendants. 

$d coll. line: on the father's side: male: my grandfather's brother and his 

descdts; female: my gdfathers sister and her descendants, 

on the mother's side: my grandmother's brother and his 

descdts; female: my gdmother's sister and her descendants. 

4th coll. line: great grandfather's brother and sister and their respective 

descendants. 

greatgrandmother's brother and sister and ... ditto ... ditto. 

Jth colL line: great-great grandfather's brother and sister and their 

respective descendants. 

great-great grandmother's brother and sister and ditto 

... ditto 

Habe ich several brothers u. sisters, so constituiren sie mit ihren descendants 

so many independent lines, aber zusam(m)en bilden sie my first collateral line 

in 2 branches, a male and a female etc etc. 

Dies Zeug einfach summirt dch d. Roman civilians [Pandects lib. X X X V III, 

title X. Degradibus etadfinibus et nominibus eorum; u. Institutes of Justini(an)17 

lib. III. title V :18 De gradibus cognationis];19 adoptirt dch principal 

European nations. 

105

Römer geben bes. Namen: patruus (for uncle on father’s side) u. amita 

(für aunt on father’s side); 

avunculus (uncle on mother’s side) u. matertera 

(for aunt on mother’s side) 

avus, grandfather, gibt avunculus (a little grandfather); Matertera 

soil herkommen v. mater u. altera = another mother. - D. Erse, 

Scandinavian u. Slavonic haben nicht diese röm. method of description 

angenommen. 

The 2 radical forms - the classificatory u. the descriptive yield nearly the 

exact line of demarcation between the barbarous u. civilised nations. 

Powerful influences existed to perpetuate the systems of consanguinity after 

the conditions under which each originated had been modified or had altogether 

7 disappeared. ) In so complicated system wie d. Turanian entwickelte sich 

natürlich divergence in minor particulars. D. system of consanguinity des Tamil 

people of South India u. das der Seneca-Iroquois, of New York, sind noch 

identisch through zoo relationships; a modified form of the system - standing 

alone - that of the Hindi, Bengali, Marathi u. other people of North India, 

ist combination d. Aryan u. Turanian systems. A civilised people, the 

Brahmins, coalesced with a barbarous stock, lost their language in the 

new vernaculars named, which retain the grammatical structure of the 

aboriginal speech, wozu d. Sanskrit 90% of its vocables gab. Ihre 2 

systems of consanguinity came into collision, the one founded on monogamy 

or syndyasmy u. the other upon plural marriages in the group. 

Unter d. Indian tribes von North America the family syndyasmian; aber lebten 

generally20 in joint-tenement houses u. practised communism within the household. 

Je mehr wir niedersteigen in d. direction d. punaluan u. consanguine 

families, the household group becomes larger, with more persons crowded 

together in the same apartmt. The coast tribes in Vene%u(e)la, wo d. 

family punaluan gewesen zu sein scheint, are represented by the Spanish 

discoverers (Herrera's: History of America) as living in bell-shaped houses, 

each containing 160 persons. Husbands u. wives lived together in a group in 

the same house. 

Part III. Ch. I I The Consanguine Family. 

Existirt in primitivster Form nicht mehr selbst unter lowest savages. Sie 

ist aber bewiesen dch a system of consanguinity and affinity welches für 

zahllose Jahrhunderte überlebt hat the marriage customs in which it 

originated. - D. Malayan system; it defines the relationships wie sie nur in 

einer consanguine family existiren konnten; es besitzt an antiquity of unknown 

duration; d. inhabitants of Polynesia included it in this system, 

obgleich d. eigtlichen Malays es in einigen Punkten modificirt haben. 

Hawaiian u. Rotuman forms typical; t(h)e simplest, therefore the oldest. 

Alle consanguinei, near u. remote, classified under 5 categories: 

ist category: Ego, my brothers u. sisters, my first, second and more remote male 

106

and fem ale cousins, are all without distinction m y brothers and 

sisters, (w ord cousin here used in our sense, the relationship 

being unknow n in Polynesia.) 

2t category: M y father and mother, together with their brothers and sisters, and 

their first, second, and more remote cousins are all my parents. 

$t category: M y grandfathers and grandmothers, on father’s side and m other’s 

side, w ith their brothers and sisters, and their several cousins, 

are m y grandparents. 

4t category: my sons and daughters, with there several cousins, are all my 

children. 

// category: my grandsons and granddaughters, w ith their several cousins, are 

all my grandchildren. 

Ferner: all the individuals o f the same grade or category are brothers and sisters 

to each other. 

T h e 5 categories or grades in the Malayan system appears auch in d. 

“ N ine Grades or relations” o f the Chinese mit 2 additional ancestors u. 

2 additional descendants. 

T he w ives o f m y several brothers, ow n and collateral, are my wives as well 

as theirs; für d. fem ale, the husbands o f her several sisters, ow n and collateral, 

are also her husbands. 

T he several collateral lines are brought into and merged in the lineal line, 

ascending as w ell as descending; so that the ancestors and descendants o f 

my collateral brothers and sisters becom e mine as w ell as theirs. 

A ll the members o f each grade are reduced to the same level in their relationships, 

w ithout regard to nearness or remoteness in numerical degrees. A uch 

bei ändern Polynesian tribes - ausser Hawaiians u. Rotum ans - dies System ; 

so unter den Marquesas Islanders u. d. M aoris of New Zealand; den Samoans, 

Kusaiens, K ing's M ill Islanders o f Micronesia; zw eifellos in every inhabitant 

island o f Pacific except where it verges upon the Turanian. 

System based auf: intermarriage %wischen own brothers and sisters, and gradually 

enfolding the collateral brothers and sisters as the range o f the conjugal system 

widened. In dieser consanguine fam ily the husbands lived in polygyny u. d. 

wives in polyandry. It w ould be difficult to show any other possible beginning 

o f the fam ily in the prim itive period. A ll traces o f it had not disappeared 

am ong the Hawaiians at the epoch o f their discovery — 

T he system also founded upon the intermarriage o f own and collateral brothers 

8 and sisters in a group. | T he husband in diesem Sinn weiss nicht ob dies 

od. jenes K in d sein eignes Fabrikat; es ist sein Kind, weil d. K in d einer 

seiner Frauen, die er mit seinen brothers, ow n od. collateral gem ein hat. 

D ie Frau kann daggen ihre K inder von denen ihrer sisters unterscheiden; 

sie wäre ihre step-mother; diese “ Categorie” existirt aber nicht im System ; 

ihrer Schwesters K inder also ihre K inder. D ie Kinder dieser gemeinsamen 

Ahnen könnten sich zw ar von mütterlicher Seite unterscheiden, aber 

nicht vo n väterlicher: sind daher alle Geschwister. 

107

T h e marriage relationship extended w herever the relationship o f brother and 

sister was recognized to exist; each brother having as many w ives as he 

had sisters, ow n or collateral, and each sister as many husbands as she 

had brothers, ow n or collateral. 

W herever the relationship o f wife is found in the collateral line, that o f 

husband must be recognized in the lineal, and vice versa. 

Unter d. Kajfern v. Südafrika d. w ives meiner Cousins - father's brother's son, 

father's sister's son, mother's brother's son, m other’s sister's son - are alike m y 

w iv e s.21 

The larger the group recognising the marriage relation, the less the evil o f close 

interbreeding. 

1820 the Am erican missions established in the Sandwich islands, w ere 

shocked22 at the sexual relations; they fanden dort die punaluan fam ily, 

w ith ow n sisters and brothers not entirely excluded, the males livin g in 

polygyny, the fem ales in polyandry, the people had not attained the organisation 

in gentes. Unwahrscheinlich dass d. actual family am ong the Hawaiians was 

as large as the group united in the marriage relation. Necessity would 

compel its subdivision into smaller groups fo r the procurement o f subsistence, and 

fo r mutual protection; individuals passed whsclich at pleasure from one o f 

these subdivisions into another in the punaluan as w ell as consanguine families, 

g ivin g rise to that apparent desertion by husbands and w ives o f each 

other and by parents o f their children mentioned by Rev. Hiram Bingham 

(M issionary A m erik., in Sandwich islands) Communism in living must have 

prevailed both in the consanguine and in the punaluan fam ily als requirement 

o f their condition. I t s till prevails generally among savage and barbarous 

tribes, [each smaller fam ily w ould be a miniature o f the group.] 

U eber Chinese system o f 9 Grades see “ Systems o f Consanguinity etc p. 415, 

p. 432. 

In Plato’s Timaeus (Ch. II) all consanguinei in the Ideal Republic to fall 

into 5 categories, in w hich the w om en w ere to be in com m on as w ives 

and the children in com m on as to parents. (.steh meine Ausgabe p . 70/ erste 

Columne) H ier dieselben 5 prim ary grades o f relations. Plato bekannt 

mit hellenischen u. pelasgischen traditions reaching back in the region 

o f barbarism etc. Seine grades exact die der Hawaiians. 

D . state o f society indicated by the consanguine fam ily points to an anterior 

condition o f promiscuous intercourse (in der H orde!) trotz D arw in (See Descent 

o f M an II, 360) Sobald d. Horde w ould break up into smaller groups for 

subsistence, it w ould fall vo n promiscuity into consanguine fam ilies, welches 

die first “ organised form o f society." 

Part I I I . Ch. I l l The Punaluan Family. 

Existed in Europe, A sia , Am erica w ithin the historical period, in Polynesia 

108

w ithin the present century; w idely prevailing in the Status o f Savagery, 

remained in some instances among tribes advanced into the Lower Status o f 

Barbarism, u. im case der Britons, am ong tribes im M iddle Status o f 

barbarism. 

G eh t hervor aus consanguine fam ily dch gradual exclusion o f own brothers and 

sisters from the marriage relation u. com m encing in (i)solated cases, in 

troduced partially at first, then becom ing general, and finally universal 

am ong the advancing tribes, still in savagery ... illustrates the operation 

o f the principle o f natural selection. 

In dem Australian class system (sieh später) evident, that their primary 

object the exclusion o f own brothers and sisters from the marriage relation, 

w hd (see the descents o f these classes p . 42/) the collateral brothers and sisters 

were retained in that relation. In d. Australian punaluan group w ie in der 

Hawaiian the brotherhood o f the husbands form ed the bases o f the marriage 

relation o f one group, and the sisterhood o f the wives o f the other ... T he 

Australian organisation into classes upon sex - which gave birth to the punaluan 

group, w hich contained the germ o f the gens - prevailed w ahrscheinlich 

unter alien tribes o f m ankind w ho afterwards fell under the 

gentile organization. V o n der organisation into gentes, w hich perm anently 

excluded brothers and sisters from the marriage relation by an organic 

law, letstere noch frequently involved in Punaluan fam ily, w ie bei d. Hawaiian, 

die keine organization in gentes noch d. Turanian system o f consanguinity 

hatten. 

1) Punaluan fam ily: i860 said Judge Lorin Andrews, o f H onolulu, in a letter 

accom panying a schedule o f the Hawaiian system o f consanguinity: “ the 

9 relationship o f pünalüa is rather amphibious. It | arose from the fact that 

2 or m ore brothers w ith their w ives, or tw o or m ore sisters w ith their 

husbands, w ere inclined to possess each other in com m on: but the m odern 

use o f the w ord is that o f dear friend, or intimate companion” . W hat Judge 

A ndrew s says they w ere inclined to do, and w hich may then have been a 

declining practice, their system o f consanguinity proves to have been once 

universal among them. W eiter bezeugt dch d. Missionäre (see p . 42/, 428) 

So schrieb Rev. Artem us Bishop, lately deceased, one o f the oldest missionaries 

in these islands, der dem M organ ebenfalls 1860 a similar schedule 

schickte “ This confusion o f relationships is the result o f the ancient custom 

among relatives o f the living together o f husbands and wives in common.” Then 

punaluan fam ily group consists of: one g ro u p : several brothers and their wives; 

other group: several sisters with their husbands; jede group including the 

children o f the marriages. 

B e i23 d. Hawaiians a man calls his w ife's sister his wife; all the sisters o f his 

w ife, ow n as w ell as collateral, are also his wives. But the husband o f his 

w ife's sister he calls pünalüa, i.e. his intimate companion; and all the husbands 

o f the several sisters o f his w ife the same. They were join tly intermarried in 

the group. D iese husbands waren probably keine Brüder, sonst w ould the 

109

lood relationship have prevailed über die affineal; but their wives were sisters, 

own and collateral, in such case the sisterhood o f the wives the basis upon which 

the group was formed, and the husbands stood to each other in the relation o f 

pünalüa. 

D ie andre group rests upon the brotherhood o f the husbands, and a w om an 

calls her husband’s brother her husband; alle Brüder ihres M annes, ow n 

and collateral, waren auch ihre husbands; but the wife o f her husbands 

brother stands to her in the relationship o f pünalüa. D iese w ives generally 

nicht sisters, obgleich zw eifellos exceptions in beiden G ruppen [so dass 

auch Brüder Schwestern u. Schwestern Brüder in com m on hatten] A lle 

diese w ives zu einander in relationship o f pünalüa. 

Brothers ceased to marry their ow n sisters, and after the gentile organization 

had w orked upon society its com plete results, their collateral 

sisters as well. B u t in the interval they shared their remaining wives in common. 

In like manner, sisters ceased m arrying their ow n brothers, and after a 

long period o f time, their collateral brothers; but they shared their 

remaining husbands in com m on. 

Marriages in pünalüan groups explain the relationships o f the Turanian 

system o f consanguinity. G iebt nun verschidne Beispiele vo n Ueberleben 

über savagery hinaus o f punaluan custom ; Caesar D e bell. gall, über 

Britons in the M iddle Period o f Barbarism; Caesar sagt: “ U xores habent dexi 

duodexique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus parentesque cum 

liberis.” 24 Barbarian m others have not 10-12 sons, die als Brüder sich 

gem einscftliche W eiber halten könn ten; aber d. Turanian system o f consanguinity 

liefert viele Brüder, weil male cousins, near and rem ote, fall in this 

category w ith Ego. D as “parentis que cum liberis” wahrscheinlich falsche 

Auffassung d. Cäsar for several sisters sharing their husbands. Herodot über 

Massagetae in M iddle Status o f Barbarism (1. I, c. 216). H erodots Phrase: 

„γυναίκα μέν γαμέει έκαστος, ταύτησι δέ έπικοινα χρέωνται.” 25 scheint 

auf Beginn d. synd

done on any part. There was no such thing as jealousy am ong them, all 

living as best pleased them, w ithout taking offense at one an o th er.. . ------ 

------- the houses they dwelt in were common to a ll, and so spacious that they 

contained 160 persons, strongly built, though covered w ith palmtree leaves, 

io and shaped like a bell.” | These tribes used earthen vessels, w ere in Lower 

State o f Barbarism. D erselbe27 Herrera, speaking o f the coast tribes o f 

B ra zil: “ T h ey live in bohios, or large thatched cottages, o f w hich there are 

about 8 in every village, full o f people, w ith their nests or ham m ocks to 

lye in they live in a beastly manner, w ithout any regard to justice 

or decency.” 

Bei d. Entdeckung of N orth Am erica in its several parts, the punaluan family 

seems to have entirely disappeared; synd(j)asm ian form o f family, aber environed 

with the remains o f the ancient conjugal system. Eine custom z.B . noch 

jetzt anerkannt in mindestens 40 N orth Am erican Indian tribes. Heirathete 

ein M ann d. älteste Tochter einer fam ily, so dch custom entitled to a ll her 

sisters as wives when they attained the m arria gea ble age. D as Recht selten 

enforced, w egen d. Schw ierigkeit several families to maintain, obgleich 

Polygyny28 allgemein anerkannt as privilege o f the males. Früher - pünalüa - 29 

ow n sisters w ent into the marriage relation on the basis o f sisterhood; 

nach Absterben d. pünalüan fam ily the right remained w ith the husband 

o f the eldest sister to becom e the husband o f all her sisters, if he chose. 

Dies genuine revival o f the ancient pünalüan custom. 

2) Origin o f the Organisation into gentes. 

P artial development o f gentes in the Status o f savagery, com plete development 

in the Lower Status o f barbarism. Germ of gentes found in the Australian 

classes w ie in d. Hawaiian punaluan group. T h e gentes are also found am ong 

the Australians, based upon the classes, with the apparent manner o f their 

organisation out o f them ------ Its (the gentile organization’s) birth must be 

sought in pre-existing elements o f society, and its maturity w ould be expected 

to occur lon g after its origination. 

Two o f the fundamental rules o f the gens in its archaic form found in the A u stra lian 

classes, the prohibition o f intermarriage between brothers and sisters, and 

descent in the fem ale30 line. ... und w hen gens appeared, the children are found 

in the gens o f their mothers. Natural adaptation o f the classes to give birth to the 

gens sufficiently obvious . . . U nd in Australien the fa ct: gens here found [actually 

in connection with an antecedent and more archaic organisation, die s till the unit 

o f a social system, Platz später dch die gens eingenommen. 

Germ o f gens ebso found in Hawaiian punaluan group, aber confined to the 

fem ale branch o f the custom , w o several sisters, ow n and collateral, shared 

their husbands in com m on. D iese Schwestern, mit ihren K indern u. 

descendants through females, liefern the exact membership o f a gens o f the 

archaic type. D escent hier nothw dg traced dch females, da paternity d. 

children nicht mit certainty ascertainable. Sobald diese specifische Form 

der Ehe in the group etablirte Institution, the foundation fo r a gens existed. 

Ill

D . Hawaiians did not turn this natural punaluan group into a gens, d.h. in 

eine Organisation beschränkt auf diese M ütter, K in der u. A bkom m en in 

der w eiblichen Linie. A b er zu einer analogen G ruppe, resting upon the 

sisterhood o f the mothers, or to the similar Australian group, resting upon 

the same principle o f union, the origin o f the gens must be ascribed. 

I t took this group as it found it, and organised certain o f its members, w ith 

certain o f their posterity, into a gens on the basis o f kin. 

T h e gens sprang up in a fam ily, w hich consisted o f a group o f persons coincident 

substantially with the membership o f a gens. 

Sobald sich d. gens voll entwickelt u. ihre fu ll influence on society ausübte “ wives 

became scarce in place o f their form er abundance,” w eil d. gens tended “ to 

contract the si%e o f the punaluan group, and finally to overthrow it.” D . 

syndyasmische Fam ilie w de gradually produced w ithin the punaluan, 

nachdem d. gentile organization became predom inant over ancient 

society. A ls d. syndyasmische Familie zu erscheinen begann u. d. punaluan 

groups zu verschwinden, w den wives sought by purchase and capture. 

O riginating in the punaluan group, sprengte d. gentile organization diese 

ihre Geburtsstätte. 

3) The Turanian or Ganowanian System o f Consanguinity. 

This system u. d. gentile organization, w hen in its archaic form , w erden 

gew öhnlich zusammen gefunden. D . fam ily active principle, steht nie 

still, passes v o n a low er form into a higher one. Systems o f consanguinity 

sind dagegen passiv; recording the progress made by the fam ily at long intervals 

apart, and only changing radically when the fam ily has radically changed. [Ebenso 

verhält es sich mit politischen, religiösen, juristischen, philosophischen Systemen 

11 überhaupt.] | D . Turanian system o f consanguinity drückt aus d. actual 

relationships wie sie in der Punaluan fam ily existiren; es bew eist seinerseits 

die Praeexistenz dieser Familie. D . System geht herab bis auf unsere Zeit 

in A sien u. Am erica, nachdem d. Familienform, hence Eheform , aus der es 

entsprang, verschw den u. d. punaluan fam ily ersetzt dch d. syndyasmische. 

D ie substantiell identischen Form en des Verwandtscftsystem

grandm other (O c’-sote), grandson (Ha-yä’-da) u. granddaughter (Ka- 

yä’-da) sind d. m ost rem ote recognized in aufsteigender u. absteigender 

Linie. 

D . relationships o f brother and sister sind nicht abstract, sondern in d. 

doppelten Form v. “ älter” u. “ jünger” , m it special terms for each: 

E lder Brother H a ’ -ge; Younger Brother - H a ’ -ga; j E lder Sister: A h ’-je; 

Younger Sister Kd-ga 

T h e relationship o f the same person to E g o in m any cases different mit 

change o f the sex o f the E go. 

1st collateral line: für male Seneca his brother’s son and daughters are his son 

and daughter (H a-ah’-wuk u. Ka-ah’-wuk) u. beide nennen ihn V ater 

(H ä-nih) Ebenso seines brother’s grandchildren his grandsons (H a-yä’-da 

(singular) u. granddaughters (K a-yä’-da); beide nennen ihn (H oc’-sote) 

grandfather. A lso his brothers children u. grandchildren in same category 

with his own. 

Ferner: für male Seneca his sister’s son and daughter are his nephew 

(Ha-yä-wan-da u. niece (.Ka-ya-wan-da), each calling him uncle (H oc- 

n o’-seh).31 So relationships o f nephew u. niece restricted to the children 

o f a man’s sisters, ow n and collateral. 

T h e children o f this nephew and niece w ere his grandchildren, as before, 

u. he their grandfather. 

Für Seneca fem ale einige dieser relationships different; her brother’s sonZi 

and daughter are her nephew (Ha-soh’-neh) and niece (K a-soh’-neh) u. 

beide nennen sie aunt (A h-ga’-hue) (andre terms als für nephew u. niece 

des male Seneca) T h e children dieser nephews u. nieces sind ihre 

grandchildren. 

H er sister’s son and daughter are her son and daughter, jeder v. beiden 

nennt sie M utter (N oh-yeh’) u. deren children sind ihre grandchildren, 

nennen sie grandmother (O c’-sote). T h e wives o f these sons and nephews are 

her daughters-in-law (Ka-sä) u. d. husbands dieser daughters u. w ives are 

her sons in law (Oc-na-hose) u. they apply to her the proper correlative. 

U nd collateral line. F or male u.fem ale Seneca: father’s brother his or her father, 

calls her son or daughter. A lso all the brothers o f a father are placed in 

the relation o f a father. T heir sons and daughters are his or her brothers 

and sisters, elder or younger. A lias: the children o f brothers are in the 

relationship o f brothers and sisters. 

Für male Seneca, the children o f these brothers are his sons and daughters, their 

children his grandchildren; die children o f these sisters his nephews and 

nieces, and the children o f the latter his grand-children. 

F ü r fem ale Seneca: the children o f these brothers her nephews u. nieces, the 

children o f these sisters her sons and daughters, and these children alike 

her grandchildren. 

D . father’s sister ist d. Seneca’s aunt, calls him nephew, if he is a male. 

T h e relationship o f aunt restricted to the father’s sister and the sisters o f 

TI3

such other persons as stand to Seneca in the relation o f a father, to the 

exclusion o f the mother's sisters. T he fa ther's sister's children are cousins 

(Ah-gare'-seh) 

F ü r male Seneca: the children o f his male cousins are his sons and daughters u. 

o f his fem ale cousins his nephews and nieces. 

F ü r fem ale Seneca the id. id. are her nephews u. nieces and ditto her sons 

and daughters. 

12 A ll children o f the latter his or her grandchildren. | 

F ü r male Seneca: mother's brother is uncle, calls him nephew; the relationship 

o f uncle hier restricted to the mother's brothers, ow n and collateral, to the 

exclusion o f the father’s brothers. H is children sind d. male Seneca’s 

cousins; the children o f his male cousins are his sons and daughters, o f his 

fem ale cousins his nephews and nieces; 

F or fem ale Seneca the children o f all her cousins are her grandchildren. 33 

F ü r male: The mother's sisters are my mothers, the mother sister's children 

m y brothers and sisters, elder and younger. T h e children o f these brothers 

are m y sons and daughters, o f these sisters m y nephews and nieces; and 

the children o f the latter my grandchildren. 

F ü r fem ale: reversed the same relationships as before. 

F or male Seneca: Each o f the wives o f these several brothers and o f these several 

male cousins is his sister-in-law, (Ah-ge-ah’-ne-ah) each o f them calls h im : 

brother-in-law (H a-ya’-o). 

Each o f the husbands o f these several sisters and fem ale cousins is m y brother- 

in-law. 

Traces o f the punaluan custom remain here and there in the marriage relationship 

o f the Am erican aborigenes; 

In Mandan m y brother’s w ife is my wife, in Pawnee u. Arickaree the sam e; 

in Crow m y husband's brother's wife is “ my comrade” ; in Creek, “ m y 

present occupant” , in Munsee “ my friend” , in Winnebago u. Achaotinne 

“ my sister” . M y wife's sister's husband is in some tribes “ my brother” , in 

others “ m y brother-in-law” , in Creek “ my little separater” whatever 

that may mean. 

I I I d collateral side: hier nur one branch (4” entsprechend den vorhergeh- 

den) considered. 

my father's fa ther's brother is m y grandfather, calls me his grandson. 

It places these brothers in the relation o f grandfathers and this prevents 

collateral ascendants from passing beyond this relationship. T he principle 

w hich merges the collateral lines in the lineal line works upwards as well as 

downwards. T h e son o f his grandfather is m y father, his children my 

brothers and sisters, the children o f these sisters are m y sons and 

daughters, o f these sisters m y nephew and nieces; and their children 

m y grandchildren. W ith E g o being a female the same relationships 

reversed as in previous cases. 

I V th collateral line. A u ch nur eine branch dieser line betrachtet. 

114

M y grandfather's father's brother is m y grandfather; his son also m y 

grandfather; the son o f the latter m y father; his son and daughter m y 

brother and sister, elder or younger; and their children and grandchildren 

fo llo w in the same relationship to E g o as in other cases. 

V col. line - classification same as in the corresponding branches o f lid , 

except o f additional ancestors. 

In Seneca-Iroquois terms for father-in-law (Oc-na’-hose), for a w ife’s 

father, and H ä-gä'-sä for a husband's father. Form er term also used for 

a son-in-law. Term s also for stepfather (H oc’-no-ese) u. stepmother 

(O c’-no-ese), stepson (Ha-no) u. stepdaughter (Ka-no) In a num ber o f 

tribes 2 fathers-in-law and 2 mothers-in-law are related, and terms to 

express the connection. 

In about one half o f all the relationships named, the Turanian system is 

identical with the Malayan. Seneca u. Tam il unterscheiden sich vo n 

Hawaiian in d. relationships w hich depended on interm arriage or 

non-intermarriage o f brothers and sisters. In d. 2 ersteren z.B. m y 

sister’s son is m y nephew, in d. latter my son. T h e change o f relationships 

resulting from the substitution der punaluan in place o f the consanguine 

fam ily turns the Malayan in (to) the Turanian system. 

In Polynesia fam ily punaluan; system o f consanguinity bleibt Malayan; 

In Northamerica fam ily syndyasmian, system o f consanguinity bleibt Turanian; 

In Europe u. Western A sia fam ily becomes monogamian, system o f consanguinity 

blieb für Zeitlang Turanian, bis fallend in decadence u. suc- 

13 ceeded by the Aryan. | T h e Malayan system must have prevailed generally 

in A sia before the Malayan migration to the Islands o f the Pacific; 

the system (Turanian) transmitted in the M alayan form to the ancestors 

o f the three families, w ith the streams o f the blood from a common 

A sia tic source; afterward modified into its present form by the remote 

ancestors o f the Turanian and Ganow anian families. 

T he principal relationships o f the Turanian system created by punaluan 

fam ily; several o f the marriage relationships have changed. T h e 

brotherhood o f the husbands and the sisterhood o f the w ives form ed 

the basis o f the relation fully expressed by the H awaiian custom o f 

pünalüa. Theoretically the fam ily o f the period was co-extensive w ith the 

group united in the marriage34 relation; but practically, it m ust have 

subdivided into a number o f smaller fam ilies for convenience o f habitation and 

subsistence. T h e brothers, by 10 and 12, o f the Britons, married to each 

other’s w ives, may indicate the si%e o f an ordinary subdivision o f a pünalüan 

group. 

I Communism in living seems to have originated in the necessities o f the 

consanguine fam ily, to have been continued in the punaluan, and transmitted 

! to the syndyasmian unter d. Am erican aborigenes, w ith w hom it re- 

! mained a practice dow n to the epoch o f their discovery - (and the South 

\ Slavonians? and even Russians to a certain degree?) 

115

P a rt I I I . C h. I V . The Syndyasmian and the Patriarchal fam ilies. 

Syndyasmian od. pairing fam ily gefunden bei E n tdeckung d. Am erican 

aborigenes unter der Portion derselben w h o w ere in the Lower State o f 

Barbarism; married pairs, form ing clearly m arked though but partially 

individualizedfam ilies. In dieser fam ily der germ der monogamian fam ily. 

Verschiedne d. Syndyasmischen fam ilies usually found in one house [wie bei 

Südslawen: der monogamischen Familien], form ing a communal household [wie 

Südslawen u. in some degree: Russian peasants v o r u. nach35 Leibeignen- 

emancption] w orin the principle o f communism in living was practised. 

D ies fact bew eist that the fam ily was too feeble an organisation to face alone 

the hardships o f life; aber founded upon marriage between single pairs. 

D . w om an w ar jetzt etwas mehr als d. principal wife o f her husband; birth o f 

children tended to cement the union and make it permanent. 

Marriage Ider founded not upon “ sentiment” , but upon convenience and 

necessity. D . mothers arranged the marriages o f their children, ohne deren 

previous consent od. know ledge; oft so strangers brought into marriage 

relation; at the proper time they w ere inform ed when the simple nuptial 

cerem ony was to be perform ed. So usages bei Iroquois u. m any other 

Indian tribes. Prior to the marriage, presents to the gentile relations o f the 

bride, partaking in the nature o f purchasing gifts, became feature o f these 

matrimonial transactions. The relation continued only at the pleasure o f the 

parties, M ann oder Frau. N ach u. nach gebild

14 “ D a s M utterrecht” , w o gynecocracy discussed. | U nter d. Iroquois, 

barbarians in Lower Status o f barbarism, but o f high mental grade, and 

am ong the equally advanced Indian tribes generally, verlangten d. 

Männer under severe penalties K euschheit v. d. W eibern, aber nicht reciprocal 

obligation. Polygamy universally recognised as the right o f the 

males, was in practice limited from inability to support the indulgence. 

In syndyasmian fam ily — absence o f exclusive cohabitation. T h e old 

conjugal system remained, but under reduced u. restricted forms. 

A ehnlich unter d. Village Indians in the M iddle Status o f barbarism. N ach 

Clavigero (H ist, o f M exico) settled the parents all marriages. “ A priest 

tied a point o f the huepilli (gow n) o f the bride w ith the tilm atli (mande 

o f the bridegroom ) and in this cerem ony the matrimonial contract 

chiefly consisted.” Herrera (H istory o f Am erica) says “ a ll that the bride 

brought was kept in m em ory, that in cases they should be unmarried again, 

as was usual am ong them, the goods m ight be parted; the man taking the 

daughters, and the wife the son, with liberty to marry again.” Polygam y a 

recognized right o f the males am ong the V illage Indians, m ore generally 

practiced than am ong the less advanced tribes. 

In the punaluan fam ily was more or less o f pairing from the necessities o f the 

social state, each man having a principal wife am ong a num ber o f w ives 

and vice versa; so that tendency in the direction o f the syndyasmian fam ily. 

D ies result hptsclich hervorgebracht dch d. organisation into gentes. 

In dieser organisation: 

1) Prohibition o f intermarriage in the gens excluded own brothers and sisters, 

and also the children o f own sisters, da diese alle in der gens. Bei subdivision 

der gens the prohibition o f intermarriage — w ith all the descendants 

in the female line o f each ancestor in the gens — follow ed its branches, 

for lon g periods o f time, as show n was the case am ong the Iroquois. 

2) T h e structure der gens created a prejudice agst the marriage o f consanguinei; 

w ar schon sehr general unter d. Am erican a(bo)rigenes zur Zeit 

ihrer Entdeckung. Z .B . unter d. Iroquois none o f the blood relations 

enumerated w ere marriageable. Since es38 w ar nöthig to seek w ives 

from other gentes they began to be acquired by negotiation u. by purchase; 

scarcity o f w ives statt previous abundance, so gradually contracted the 

numbers o f the punaluan group. Such groups how ever disappeared, 

obgleich d. system o f consanguinity remains. 

3)39 In seeking w ives they did not confine them selves to their own, nor 

even friendly tribes, captured them by force from hostile tribes; hence Indian 

usage to spare the lives o f fem ale captives, while the males were p u t to death. 

W hen w ives acquired by purchase and by capture, they not so readily 

shared as before. This tended to cut off that portion o f the theoretical 

group not immediately associatedfor subsistence; reduced still m ore the size 

o f the fam ily and the range o f the conjugal system. Practically group 

lim ited itself, from the first, to ow n brothers w h o shared their w ives 

117

in com m on and ow n sisters w h o shared their husbands in com m on. 

4) G ens created a higher structure o f society than before know n. D ie 

marriage o f unrelated persons created a m ore vigorous stock physically 

and m entally; 2 advancing tribes blended, the new sk u ll and brain would 

widen and lengthen to the sum o f the capabilities o f both. 

T h e propensity to pair, n ow so pow erful in the civilised races, also nicht 

normal to mankind, but a growth through experience, like all the great passions 

u. pow ers o f the mind. 

Warfare under barbarians — from m ore im proved weapons and stronger 

incentives — zerstört m ore life als Krieg unter savages. T h e males trieben 

stets the trade o f fighting; left females in excess; this strengthened the 

conjugal system created by marriages in the group, retarded the advancement 

der syndyasmian fam ily. D agegen improvement in subsistence, follow in g 

the cultivation o f mai%e u. plants, favored the general advancem ent der 

fam ily (bei d. Am erican aborigenes) T h e m ore stable such a fam ily, the 

more its individuality developed. H aving taken a refuge in a communal household, 

in w hich 2l group o f such fam ilies succeeded the punaluan group, it now drew 

its support from itself, from the household and the gentes to w hich the 

husbands and w ives respectively belonged. Syndyasmian fam ily springing 

up on the confines o f savagery and barbarism, it traversed the M iddle 

and greater part o f the L ater Period o f barbarism. W d superseded by a low 

form o f the monogamian. O vershadow ed b y the conjugal system o f the 

times, it gained in recognition w ith the gradual progress o f society. 

M . sagt, was oft anwendbar, vo n d. O ld Britons: (in the m iddle status o f 

barbarism), “ they seem to have been savages in their brains, while wearing the 

art apparel o f more advanced tribes.” 

Iron has been smelted from the ore by a num ber o f A frican tribes, including 

the H ottentots, as far back as our know ledge o f them extends. A fter 

producing the metal by rude processes acquired from foreign sources, they have 

15 succeeded in fabricating | rude instruments and weapons. (463) 

D . E n tw icklungen müssen studirt werden in areas where the institutions 

are homogeneous. Polynesia u. A ustralia best areas for the study o f savage 

society. N orth u. South Am erica for condition o f society in the Lower and 

M iddle Status o f Barbarism. M . nim m t an “ A sia tic origin o f the Am erican 

aborigines” Their advent in Am erica could not have40 resulted from a 

deliberate migration, but due to the accidents o f the sea, and to the great 

ocean currents from A sia to the N orthw est coast. (464) 

M iddle State of barbarism - in 16t century - (splendidly) exemplified by the 

Village Indians o f New M exico, M exico, Central Am erica, Granada, Ecuador 

and Peru, w ith its advanced arts and inventions, improved architecture, nascent 

manufactures and incipient sciences. 

Upper Status of barbarism - Grecian, Roman, and later on the German tribes. 

Patriarchalfamily o f the Sem itic tribes belongs to the L ater Period o f Barbarism 

and remained for a time after the commencement o f civilisation. Chiefs 

118

lived in polygamy; dies nicht the material principle o f the patriarchal institution. 

W as diese Familienform wesentlich charakterisirt: Organisation o f a 

number o f person, bonds and free, into a fam ily, under paternal power, fo r the 

purpose o f holding lands, and fo r the care o f flocks and herds. T hose held to 

servitude, and those employed as servants, lived in the marriage relation, and 

with the patriarch as their chief, form ed a patriarchal family. Authority over 

~~its members and over its property was the material fa ct. D . Charakteristische: 

the incorporation o f numbers in servile and dependent relations, before that time 

unknown. Paternal pow er over the group; w ith it a higher individuality 

o f persons. 

So auch d. Roman fam ily under patria potestas. M acht d. pater über Leben 

u. T o d seiner K inder u. descendants, w ie über slaves und servants w ho 

form ed the nucleus o f the fam ily and furnished its name; his absolute ownership 

o f a ll the property they created. W ithout polygam y, the Rom an pater fam ilias 

was a patriarch and his fam ily a patriarchal fam ily. In mindrem G rad selbe 

Charakteristik der ancient fam ily der Grecian tribes. 

T he patriarchal fam ily marks the peculiar epoch in human progress w hen 

the individuality o f the person began to rise above the gens, in w hich it previously 

had been m erged; its general influence tended pow erfully to the establishment 

o f the monogamian fam ily . . . Its Hebrew and Roman form s exceptional 

in human experience. Paternal authority “ impossible” in the consanguine 

and punaluan fam ilies; began to appear as a feeble influence in the 

syndyasmian fam ily, and fully established under monogamy u. beyond all 

bounds o f reason in the patriarchal fam ily o f the Roman type. 

P a rt I I I C h. V The Monogamian Family. 

M ode: patriarchal fam ily - in L atin or Hebrew form - zur typical fam ily41 

o f prim itive society zu machen. T h e gens, as it appeared in the later period 

o f barbarism, was understood, but erroneously supposed to be subsequent 

in point o f time to the monogamian fam ily. T h e gens was treated as an aggregation 

o f fam ilies; aber gens entered gami in phratry, phratry in tribe, 

tribe into the n ation ; aber fam ily could not enter entirely into the gens, because 

husband and wife were necessarily o f different gentes. T he w ife, dow n to the 

latest period, counted herself o f the gens o f her father, and bore the name 

o f his gens under the Romans. A s all the parts must enter into the w hole, 

the fam ily could not becom e the unit o f the gentile organisation, that place was 

held by the gens. 

Fam ily42 m odern appearance unter Rom an tribes; bew eist d. Bedeutg von 

fam ilia, contains same element as famulus = servant. Festus sagt: “ Fam uli 

origo ab O scis dependet, apud quod servus Fam ul nom inabun (?) tur, 

unde fam ilia vocata.” 43 A lso in seiner primairen Bedeutg fam ily unbezo- 

gen auf d. married pair od. dessen children, sondern in relation to the body 

o f slaves and servants w h o labored for its maintenance and w ere under the 

pow er o f the paterfamilias. In einigen testamentarischen dispositions ist 

Fam ilia used als Equivalent für patrimonium, the inheritance w hich passed 

”9

to the heir. Gajus instit. II, 102. “ A m ico fam iliam suam, id estpatrimonium 

suum m ancipio dabat.” 44 W de introducirt in Lateinische G esellscft to 

define a new organism , the head o f w hich held w ife and children, and a 

body o f servile persons under paternal pow er. Mommsen nennt d.fa m ilia 

a „b o d y o f servants” {Roman H ist.) D ieser term also nicht älter als the 

16 iron-cladfamily system | o f th e45 Latin tribes w hich came in after field agriculture 

and after legalised servitude, as w ell as after the separation o f the Greeks 

and Romans. [.Fourier charakterisirt E poche der Civilisation dch Monogamy 

u. Grund Privateigenthum. D . m oderne Familie enthält im K eim nicht nur 

servitus (Sklaverei) sondern auch Leibeigenscft, da sie vo n vorn herein 

Beziehg auf Dienste fü r A ckerbau. Sie enthält in M iniatur alle d. A n tagonism 

en in sich, die sich später breit entw ickeln in d. G esellscft u. 

ihrem Staat. 

M it der syndyasmischen Fam ilie46 K eim der väterlichen Autorität, entw 

ickelt sich je m ehr d. neue Familie monogamische Charactere annimmt. 

Sobald property began to be created in masses u. the desire fo r its transmission to 

children had changed descent from the fem ale line to the male, w de %uerst a rea^ 

foundation fo r paternal power gelegt. Gajus selbst sagt Inst. I, 5 5. Item in 

potestate nostra sunt liberi nostri [auch ju s vitae necisque], quos iustis nuptiis 

procreauimus. quod ius proprium ciuium Romanorum est. fere enim nulli a lii 

sunt homines qui talem in filios suos habent potestatem qualem47 nos habemus. 48 

M onogam y appears in a definite form in the L a ter Period o f Barbarism. 

O ld Germans: their institutions homogeneous and indigenous. N ach Tacitus 

marriages strict am ong them ; contented themselves with a single wife, a very 

few excepted on account o f their rank; husband brought dow ry to his w ife 

(not vice versa), näm lich a caparisoned horse and a shield', with a spear and 

sword; b y virtue o f these gifts the wife was espoused (Germania, c. 18). T he 

presents in the nature o f purchasing gift - zw eifelsohne früher fü r gentile 

kindred o f the wife - damals schon went to bride. “ Singulis uxoribus contenti 

sunt” 49 (Germania, c. 18 u. d. W eiber “ septae pudicitia agunt.” 50 

W ahrscheinlich fam ily “ sheltered” itse lf in a communal household (wie Südslaven)51 

composed o f related fam ilies. When slavery became an institution, 

these households would gradually disappear. [In fact die monogamische fam ily 

unterstellt, um selbständig isolated existence zu können, überall a do- 

— mestic class, die ursprünglich52 überall direct slaves. ] 

Homeric Greeks: Monogamian fam ily o f a low type. T h e treatment o f their 

female captives reflects the culture o f the period w ith respect to w om en 

in general; tent life53 o f A ch illes u. Patroclus; w hatever o f m onogam y 

existed, was through an enforced constraint upon wives [some degree o f 

seclusion]; 

D . change o f descent von d. fem ale line to the male schädlich für Position u. 

Rechte d. Frau u. M utter; ihre K in d er transferred vo n ihrer gens zur gens 

ihres husband; sie verlor dch marriage ihre agnatic rights, erhielt kein 

Equivalent dafür; v o r dem Change, d. Glieder ihrer eignen gens predominated 

120

in the household; dies gave full force to the maternal bond u. machte women 

rather than men the center o f the fam ily. N ach dem change stand sie allein 

im household ihres husband, isolated from her gentile kindred. U nder 

the prosperous classes her condition o f enforced seclusion u. als primary object 

der marriage to beget children in lawful wedlock. (TzaiSoTzoieiG&a.i yvTqcrico^). 

V o n A nfan g bis E n d unter d. G riechen a principle o f studied selfishness 

am ong the males, tending to lessen the appreciation o f w om en, scarcely 

found among savages. T h e usages o f centuries stamped upon the minds o f 

Grecian w om en a sense o f their inferiority. [Aber d. Verhältnis d. 

Göttinnen im Olymp zeigt Rückerinnerg an frühere freiere u. einflussreichere 

Position der W eiber. D ie Juno herrschsüchtig, die W eisheit 

— G öttin springt54 aus K o p f d. Zeus etc] Es w ar vielleicht ... dieser Race 

nöthig, um aus Syndyasmian in M onogam ian System herüberzukommen. 

G reeks blieben barbarians in their treatment o f the female sex at the height 

o f their civilization; their education superficial, intercourse w ith the 

opposite sex denied them, their inferiority inculcated as a principle upon 

them, until it came to be accepted as a fa c t by the women themselves. D . w ife not 

com panion equal to her husband, but in the relation o f a daughter. 

See Becker: Charicles. 

D a d. m oving pow er w hich brought in m onogam y was - the grow th o f 

property and the desire for its transmission to children - legitimate heirs; the 

actual progeny o f the married pair - in the Upper Status o f Barbarism sprang 

up - als protection gegen d. survival o f some portion o f the ancient ju ra 

conjugalia - the new usage: the seclusion o f wives; plan o f life am ong the 

17 civilized G reeks - a system o f female confinement and restraint. 

Roman fam ily: 

M aterfamilias was mistress o f the fam ily; w ent into the streets freely 

ohne restraint by her husband, frequented w ith the men the theaters 

and festive banquets; in the house not confined to particular appart- 

ments, nor excluded from the table o f the men. Rom an females daher 

mehr personal dignity u. independence als griechische; aber marriage 

gave them in manum viri; w ar = daughter des husband; he had the 

pow er o f correction u. o f life u. death in case o f adultery (mit concurrence 

o f the council o f her gens). 

Confarreatioy coemptio, usus^h alle 3 Form en d. röm. Ehe, gaben Frau 

in manus d. Mannes, fell out under the Em pire w hen free marriage 

generally adopted, not placing the w ife in manus d. Mannes. 

Divorce vo n frühster Period, at the option o f the parties, (whsclich 

transmitted v. Syndyasmian fam ily Period), selten in R epublik (Becker: 

Gallus). 

Licentiousness - so auffallend in Grecian and Rom an cities at the height 

o f civilization - in all probability remains o f an ancient conjugal system, 

never fully eradicated, had follow ed dow n from barbarism as a social 

taint u. now expressed its excesses in the new channel o f hetaerism.56 

D . Monogamian fam ily entsprach Aryan (Sem itic, Uralian) system o f consan- 

121

guinity and affinity. Gentes had their natural origin in the punaluan family. 

T h e principal branches o f the A ryan stock organised into gentes when first 

know n historically; zeigt, dass sie auch dort anfingen u. aus. d. punaluan 

fam ily entsprang Turanian system o f consanguinity, s till found connected with 

the gens in its archaic form am ong the Am erican aborigenes. A lso auch dies 

urspgliches System der Aryans. Im Aryan system o f consanguinity— Arm uth 

o f original nomenclature für relationship erklärt ddch dass a large portion o f 

the nomenclature o f the Turanian system wouldfall out under monogamy. Common 

unter d. several Aryan dialects nur: father u. mother, brother u. sister, son u. 

daughter, u. a common term applied indiscriminately to nephew, grandson and 

cousin (Sanscrit : nap tar, lat. nepos, Greek: àve^toç). In so advanced Cultur, 

w ie M onogam y voraussetzt, they could not have arrived mit such a 

scanty nomenclature o f blood relationships. E rklärt w ith a previous 

system w ie d. Turanian dch im poverishm ent. 

Im Turanian system brothers u. sisters - younger u. elder u. the several 

terms applied to categories o f persons including persons not ow n 

brothers and sisters. (Im ) Aryan, on basis o f monogamy, terms for brother 

u. sister now in the abstract for the first time u. inapplicable to collaterals. 

Remains o f a prior Turanian system still appear: So bei Hungarians 

brothers u. sisters classified als elder u. younger b y special terms. French 

frère (aîné älter, puînébl u. cadet jünger58); aînée u. cadette älter u. jün ger58 

sister. Sanskrit: älter Bruder u. jüngerer (agrajar u. amujar), ditto for 

Schwester (agrajri u. amujrï). I f com m on terms once existed in G reek, 

Rom an, etc dialects for elder u. younger brother and sister, their form er 

application to categories o f persons, machte sie unanwendbar als exclusiv für 

ow n brothers and sisters. 

F or grandfather no common term in the Aryan dialects. Sanskr. pitameha, 

G r. 7ia7r7roç, lat. avus, Russ, djed, Welsh hendad. D er term in a previous system 

(Turanian) was applied nicht nur zu grandfather proper, his brothers and 

several male cousins, sondern auch to brothers u. several male cousins 

o f his grandm other; konnte daher nicht be made to signify a lineal 

grandfather and progenitor under monogamy. 

Kein term fü r uncle and aunt in the abstract u. no special terms fü r uncle and aunt 

väterl. u. mütterl. Seite in d. A ryan dialects. Sanskr. pitroya, G r. 7càxpioç, 

lat. patruus, Slavonic: stryc; Anglo-Saxon, Belgian, German earn, oom, oheim 

for paternal uncle. In d. Aryan original speech no term f. O nkel mütterlicher 

Seite, a relationship made so conspicuous by the gens am ong barbarous 

tribes. I f the previous system Turanian, necessarily a term hierfür, aber 

restricted to the own brothers o f the mother, and her several male cousins; d. 

Catégorie schloss numbers o f persons ein w o vo n viele could not be 

uncles under the m onogam ian system. 

D agegen erklärt sich, bei früherer Existenz des Turanian Systems (by categories) 

d. U ebergang zu descriptive system auf Basis d. M onogam y. Jede 

relationship under m onogam y is specific; persons, under the new system, 

122

described by means o f the primary terms or combinations o f them as brother's son 

für nephew, father's brother für O n kel, father's brother's son für cousin. D ies 

w ar the original o f the present system o f the A ryan, Semitic u. Uralian 

18 families. T h e generalizations they now contain | w ere o f later origin. 

A l l the tribes, die d. M alayan u. Turanian system besessen, described their 

kindred by the same form ula, when asked in w hat manner one person was 

related to another; nicht as a system o f consanguinity, but as a means o f 

tracing relationships. Schluss daraus: nach allgemeiner E rrictg d. m onogamian 

systems unter Aryans etc, fielen diese back upon the old descriptive 

form , always in use under the Turanian system u. dropten diesselbst als 

useless u. untrue to descents. 

Beweis dass d. original des present system purely descriptive: E rse - typical A ryan 

form , Esthonian - typical Uralian - are still descriptive. In E rse the only 

terms for the blood relationships the primary: father and mother, brother 

and sister, son and daughter. A lle andre kindred described verm ittelst dieser 

terms, com m encing in the reverse order. Z .B . brother, son o f brother, son o f son 

o f brother. T h e A ryan system exhibits the actual relationships under 

m onogam y, assumes that the paternity o f children is known. 

Später a method o f description, materially different from the Celtic, was 

engrafted upon the new system: but w ithout changing its radical features; 

introduced by the Roman civilians, angenom men dch verschiedne A ryan 

nations, unter denen Rom an influence extended. Slavonic system has some 

features entirely peculiar, o f Turanian origin (see: Systems o f consanguinity 

etc p. 40) 

Römische Aenderungen: unterschieden den väterlichen u. mütterlichen O nkel 

mit besondern terms dafür, erfanden term fü r Grossvater als correlative o f 

nepos. M it diesen terms u. d. primary, in connection mit suitable augments, 

konnten sie systematize the relationships in the lineal u. the first 

5 collateral lines, which included the body o f the kindred o f each individual. 

T he A ra bic system passed through processes similar to the Rom an u. mit 

similar results. 

V o n Ego to tritavus, in the lineal line, 6 generations o f ascendants u. vo n Ego 

to trinepos the same number o f descendants, in deren description nur 4 radical 

terms used. W äre es nöthig to ascend farther, tritavus w ould becom e the 

new starting point o f description: tritavi pater bis tritavi tritavus, the 12th 

ancestor o f E g o in the lineal line, m ale; ebenso trinepotis trinepos etc. 

is t collateral line male: frater; fra tris filius; fra tris nepos; fra tris pronepos bis 

fra tris trinepos; wenn zum 12t descendant fra tris trinepotis trinepos. D ch 

diese simple M ethod frater is made the root o f descent in this line. 

Same line: fem ale: soror, sororis filia , sororis neptis, sororis proneptis bis 

sororis trineptis (6th degree) u. sororis trineptis trineptis (12th descendant) 

Beide Linien descend von pater; aber, by m aking the brother and sister 

the root o f descent in the description, the line and its tw o branches are 

123

maintained distinct, and the relationship o f each person to Ego is specialized. 

2nd collateral line: male on the father's side: father's brother, patruus; patrui 

filiu s, p . nepos, p . pronepos p . trinepos, bis patrui trinepotis trinepos, 

patrui filiu s heisst auch frater patruelis, u. im G bruch d. Volkssprache 

consobrinus (cousin) 

Pand. lib. X X X V I I I , tit. io “ Item fratres patrueles, sorores patrueles, 

id est qui quaeve ex duobus fratribus progenerantur; item consobrini 

consobrinae, id est qui quaeve ex duobus sororibus nascuntur (quasi 

co n so b rin i); item am itini amitinae, id est qui quaeve ex fratre ex sorore 

propagantur; sed fere vu lgos istos omnes com m uni appellatione 

consobrinus vocat.” 59 

fem ale on the father's side, father's sister; amita, amitae filiu s, a. neptis, 

a. trineptis, a. trineptis trineptis. Special term for amitae filia amitina. 

$d collateral line male on the father's side: grandfather’s brother - patruus 

magnus (keine existing language has an original term for this relationship); 

patrui magni filiu s, nepos, trinepos, ending w ith patrui m agni 

19 trinepotis trinepos. | Same line fem ale {on father’s side) commences w ith 

amita magna, great paternal aunt etc. 

4th and jth collateral lines on the father’s side com mence respectively mit 

patruus major (great grandfather’s brother) u. patruus maximus (great- 

great-grandfather’s brother). G eh t dann w ie vorhin : patrui majoris 

filius, bis trinepos u. patrui m axim i filius bis trinepos. 

Female branches (on paternal side) com mence respectively mit amita major 

u. amita maxima. 

F ü r d. relatives on the mother's side the first collateral line soror etc remains 

the same, w hd the fem ale lineal line is substituted fo r the male. 

Second collateral line (on mother's side): avunculus (maternal uncle), avunculi 

filius, nepos, trinepos etc 

In the fem ale branch (on m other’s side): matertera (maternal aunt), 

materterae filia , neptis, proneptis, trineptis etc 

Third collateral line, male and fem ale (on m other’s side) begin respectively 

m it: avunculus magnus u. matertera magna. 

F o u rth ------------ ... mit avunculus major u. matertera major. 

F if t h ----------------------- avunculus maximus u. matertera maxima. 

M it B ezug auf d. present monogamian fam ily: it must advance as society advances, 

and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the 

creature o f the social system ... must be supposable that it is capable o f 

still further im provem ent until the equality o f the sexes is attained. Should 

the m onogam ian fam ily in the distant future fail to answer the requirements 

o f society, assuming the continuous progress o f civilization, it is 

impossible to predict the nature o f its successor. (491, 492) 

P a rt I I I . C h. V I Sequence o f Institutions Connected with the fam ily. 

F irst stage o f sequence: I) Promiscuous Intercourse. 

124

II) Intermarriage o f Brothers and Sisters, own 

and collateral, in a group; gives: 

III) The Consanguine Family {first stage o f the 

fam ily; g iv e s : 

IV ) The Malayan System o f Consanguinity u. 

A ffinity. 

Second Stage o f Sequence: V ) The Organisation upon the Basis of S e x , and 

the Punaluan Custom, tending to check the 

intermarriage o f brothers and sisters; gives: 

V I) The Punaluan Fam ily (Second Stage o f the 

Fam ily), gives: 

V II) The Organisation into Gentes, which excluded 

brothers and sisters from marriage. G iv e s : 

V III) The Turanian and Ganowanian System o f 

Consanguinity and A ffinity. 

Third Stage o f Sequence: IX ) Increasing influence o f Gentile Organisation 

and improvement in the arts o f life, advancing 

a portion o f mankind into the Lower Status o f 

Barbarism, gives: 

X ) Marriage between single pairs, but without an 

exclusive cohabitation; gives: 

X I) Syndyasmian Family (Third Stage o f the 

Fam ily). 

Fourth Stage o f Sequence. X II) Pastoral life on the plains in lim ited areas, 

g iv e s : 

X III) Patriarchal Family (Fourth but exceptional 

stage o f fam ily) 

F ifth Stage o f Sequence: X IV ) Rise o f Property, and settlement o f lineal 

succession to estates, gives: 

X V ) The Monogamian fam ily (F ifth Stage o f the 

fam ily), gives: 

X V I) The Aryan, Sem itic and Uraltan system oj 

Consanguinity and A ffin ity, and overthrows 

the Turanian. 

i) Promiscuous intercourse. Leben in Horde; no m arriage; far below the 

low est savage n ow livin g ; T he ruder flin t implements found over part 

o f the earth’s surface, and not used by existing savages, attest extreme 

rudeness o f m an’s condition, after he had em erged from his prim itive 

habitat and commenced, as a fisherman, his spread over continental 

20 areas. - Prim itive Savage. | T h e consanguine fam ily60... recognised promiscuity 

within defined lim its, and those not the narrowest, and it points61 through its 

organism to a worse condition62 against w hich it interposes a shield. 

ad V ) In the Australian male and fem ale classes united in marriage, punaluan 

groups are found. A m on g the Hawaiians, the same group is also found, 

125

w ith the marriage custom it expresses. T h e punaluan63 fam ily included 

the same persons found in the previous (consanguine, with the exception o f own 

brothers and sisters, w h o w ere theoretically if not in every case excluded. 

ad V I I Organisation into gentes. U nter d. Australian classes, the punaluan 

group is found64 on a broad and systematic scale; the people were also 

organised in gentes. Here the punaluan fam ily older than the gens, 

because it rested upon classes w hich preceded the g e n te s__ T h e 

Turanian system requires both the punaluan fam ily and the gentile organisation 

to bring it into existence. 

ad X and X I Tendency to reduce the groups o f married persons to smaller 

proportions before the close o f savagery, because the syndyasmian fam ily 

became a constant phenom enon in the Lower Status o f Barbarism. 

Custom led the m ore advanced savage to recognise one among a number o f 

wives65 as his principal wife; this ripened in time into the custom o f 

pairing, and in m aking this w ife a com panion and associate in the 

maintenance o f fam ily__ The old conjugal system, n ow reduced to 

narrower limits b y the gradual disappearance o f punaluan group, still 

environed the advancing fam ily, w hich it was to follow to the verge 

o f civilisation__It finally disappeared into the new form o f hetaerism, which 

s till follows mankind in civilisation as a dark shadow upon the fam ily 

Syndyasmian fam ily subsequent to the gens, w hich was largely instrumental 

in its production. 

From the Columbia66 River to the Paraguay, the Indian fam ily was 

syndyasmian in general, punaluan in exceptional areas, u. monogamian 

perhaps in none. 

ad X I V It is im possible to overestim ate the influence o f property in the 

civilization o f mankind. It was the p o w er67 that brought the A ryan 

and Semitic nations out o f barbarism into civilization__Governments 

and laws are instituted w ith prim ary reference to its creation, protection 

and enjoyment. I t introduced human slavery as un instrument in its production. 

W ith the establishment o f the inheritance o f property in the children 

o f its ow ner, came the first possibility o f a strict m onogam ian family. 

ad X V The Monogamian fam ily: A s finally constituted, this fam ily 

assured the paternity o f children, substituted the individual ownership o f real 

as well as personal property fo r jo in t ownership, and an exclusive inheritance 

by children in the place o f agnatic inheritance. M odern society reposes upon 

the M onogam ian family. 

A lle älteren Burschen - darunter S ir Henry Maine - nehmen H ebrew u. 

Latin types (patriarchal family) an as producing the earliest organised 

society ... damit hängt zusammen the hypothesis o f human degradation to 

explain the existence o f barbarians and savages. A b er inventions u. discoveries 

came one by one; the know ledge o f a cord68 must precede the bow and arrow, 

w ie gunpow der the musket, steamengine the railway and steamship; 

so the arts o f subsistence follow ed each other at lon g intervals u. human 

126

tools passed through form s o fflin t and stones before they were form ed o f iron. 

Ebenso institutions 

P art I V . (The Growth o f the Idea o f Property) 

C h. I. The three rules o f inheritance. 

“ E arliest ideas (!) o f property” intimately associated m it procurement o f 

subsistence, the primary need. D . objects o f ownership verm ehren sich natürlich 

in jeder “ successive ethnical period” mit der multiplication der arts wovon 

d. Subsistenzm ittel abhängen. Wachsthum v. Eigenthum hält so schritt mit 

Fortschritt von Erfindungen u. Entdeckungen. Jede ethnische Periode zeigt 

so marked advance upon its predecessors, nicht nur in der Z a h l der Erfindungen, 

sondern ebenso in variety and amount o f property w hich resulted therefrom. 

T h e m ultiplicity o f the form s o f property w ould be accompanied by the 

growth o f certain regulations with reference to possession and inheritance. T he 

customs upon w hich these rules o f proprietary possession and inheritance depend, 

are determined by the condition and progress o f social organisation. T h e grow th 

o f property is thus closely connected w ith the increase o f inventions | and 

discoveries, and the improvements o f social institutions w hich mark the several 

ethnical periods o f human progress. (/2/, /26) 

I) Property in the Status o f Savagery. 

M ankind, w hen ignorant o f fire, w ithout articulate language, and w ithout 

artificial weapons depended ... upon the spontaneous fru its o f the earth. 

Langsam u. fast unbemerkbar, in d. Period o f savagery, avanciren sie 

von Gebärdensprache u. unvollkommnen sounds to articulate speech; vo n dem 

club (Keule), als erster W ajfey zu spear pointed w ith flint, u. schliesslich zu 

arrow u. bow; vo n fiint-knife u. -chisel to stone axe u. -hammer; vo n osier 

(K orbw eide) u. cane basket to the basket coated with clay, w hich gave a 

vessel fo r boiling food with fire; and, finally to the art o f pottery. 

In the means o f subsistence, they advanced from natural fru its in a restricted 

habitat to scale and shell fish o f the sea, and finally to bread roots and game. 

Ferner im status vo n savagery d eveloped : Rope and string-making from 

filaments o f bark; a species o f cloth made o f vegetable pulp; the tanning o f skins 

to be used as apparel and as a covering fo r tents; finally the house constructed 

o f poles and covered with bark, or made o f plank split by stone wedges. U nter 

minor inventions zählten neben fire-drill (während um gekehrt alles zum 

Feuermachen G ehörige d. H auptinvention!), moccasin (Indian w ord 

for Schuhe ohne Sohlen aus weicherm skin vo n deer etc), u. the snow-shoe. 

Während dieser Periode grosse Verm ehrung d. M enschen (im Gegensatz 

zum prim itiven Zustand) auf Basis o f verm ehrte Consum tions M ittel, 

Ausbreitung derselben über d. Continents. In socialer Organisation Fortschritt 

vo n consanguine horde zu tribes organised into gentes, so possessed o f the germs 

o f the principal governmental institutions. 

D . entwickelteste Theil der savages, had finally organised gentile society u. 

127

developed sm all tribes with villages here and there... ihre rude energies and 

ruder arts chiefly devoted to subsistence; noch nicht the village stockade 

(Pfahlwerk) fo r defence, no farinaceous food, still cannibalism. - D er progress 

was immense “potentially” , trug in sich d. rudiments o f language, govern 

ment, fam ily, religion, house architecture, property; ditto the principal 

germ s o f the arts o f life. 

Property o f savages inconsiderable; rude weapons, fabrics, ustensils, apparel, 

implements o f flin t, stone, and bone u. “personal ornaments” their chief items oj 

property. W enige Gegenstände des Besitzes, keine passion für Besitz; 

kein Studium lucri, n ow such a com m anding force in the human mind. 

Lands owned by the tribes in common, w hile tenement-houses owned join tly by 

their occupants. 

D . passion o f possession nourished its nascent pow ers upon articles purely 

personal, increasing w ith the slow progress o f inventions. T hose esteemed 

most valuable deposited in the grave o f the deceased proprietor fo r their continued 

use in spirit-land. 

x Inheritance: its first great rule came in w ith the institution of the gens, which 

distributed the effects o f a deceased person among his gentiles. Practically they 

w ere appropriated by the nearest o f kin ; but the principle general that the 

property should remain in the gens o f decedent,69 and be distributed among its 

members. \Blieb in civilisation70 v. Greek, Roman gentes\. Children inherited 

from their mother, but took nothing from their reputed father. 

II) Property in the Lower State o f Barbarism. 

Hauptinventions: art o f pottery, finger weaving and the art o f cultivation in 

Am erica w hich gave farinaceous food (maiê) u. plants b y irrigation [in 

Eastern hemisphere bginning as equivalent: domestication o f animals), 

keine great inventions. Finger weaving w ith warp and woof (K ette u. 

Einschlag) scheint dieser Periode anzugehören, ist eine der greatest 

invention s; but it cannot be certainly affirmed that the art was not attained 

in savagery. 

T h e Iroquois u. other tribes o f Am erica in the same status manufactured 

belts u. burden straps with warp and woof o f excellent quality and finish; using 

fine twine made offilaments o f elm and bass wood bark, (basswood americ. Linde). 

Principles dieser Erfindung, w hich since clothed the human fam ily, were 

perfectly realised; but sie w ere unable to extend it to the production o f the 

woven garment. 

Picture writing seems to have made its first appearance in this period; 

wenn früheren Ursprungs, erhielt es jetzt sehr beträchtliche E ntw icklung. 

D . series o f connected inventions in this department: 

i) Gesture Language or language o f personal symbols, 2) Picture writing, or 

22 idiographic symbols. 3) verte/ | 3) Hieroglyphs, or conventional symbols. 

4) Hieroglyphs o f phonetic power, or phonetic symbols used in a syllabus. 5) 

Phonetic alphabet or w ritten sounds. 

128

T h e characters on the Copan monuments apparently hieroglyphs o f the 

grade o f conventional symbols, beweisen, dass d. Am erican aborigenes, who 

practiced the j first form s, unabhängig auf W eg in direction o f a phonetic 

alphabet. 

Stockade as a means o f village defence u. o f a raw-hide shield als defence71 ggen 

arrow, w hich had n ow becom e a deadly missile, o f the several varieties o f 

war-cluby armed with an encased stone or with a point o f deerhorn, scheinen zu 

dieser Periode zu gehören. Jedenfalls waren sie in common use am ong the 

Am erican Indian Tribes in the L ow er Status o f Barbarism w hen discovered. 

D er Spear, pointed m it flin t or bone kein custom ary w eapon w ith 

the for est-tribes, though sometimes used; z.B. d. Ojibwas used the lance or 

spear, She-mä-gun, pointed w ith flint or bone. Bow u. arrow, und war-club 

H a(u)ptw affen d. Am erican Indians in diesem Status. 

Einiger Fortschritt in pottery, nämlich im increased si%e der vessels produced u. 

in their ornamentation; the Creeks made earthen vessels vo n 2 to 10 gallons; 

d. Iroquois ornamented their ja rs u. pipes m it miniature human faces attached 

as buttons; im ganzen blieb pottery extremely rude bis Ende dieser Periode. 

Bemerkbarer Fortschritt in House architecture in si%e u. mode o f construction. 

U nter minor inventions: air-gun fo r bird shooting,, wooden mortar fo r reducing 

mai%e to flour u. d. stone mortar fo r preparing paints. 

Earthen u. stone pipes, with the use o f tobacco. 

Bone and stone implements o f higher grades, w ith stone hammers and mauls 

(Mauls sind heavy w ooden hammers), the handle and upper part o f the 

stone being encased in raw hide; and moccasins u. belts ornamented with 

porcupine quills. 

Einige dieser Erfindgen wahrscheinlich geborgt from tribes in the M iddle 

Status; denn es war dch diesen Process constantly repeated that the more advanced 

tribes lifted up those below them, as fast as the latter were able to appreciate 

and appropriate the means o f progress. 

The cultivation o f maiê and plants gave the people unleavened bread, the 

Indian succotash (Specie vo n grünem Mais u. Bohnen) u. hominy (Maismuss), 

ro~ tended also to introduce a new species o f property, cultivated lands or 

ber- gardens. 

ty Obgleich lands owned in common by a tribe, a possessory right to cultivated land 

was now recognised in the individual, or in the group, which became a subject o f 

inheritance. T h e group united in a common household were mostly o f the same gens, 

and the rule o f inheritance w ould not allow it to be detached from the 

kinship. 

Inheritance: T h e property u. effects v. husband u. wife kept distinct, remained 

after their demise in 72 the gens w orin sie respective gehörten. W eib u. 

K inder nahmen nichts vo n husband u. father u. vice versa. Starb unter 

d. Iroquois ein M ann leaving w ife and children, so w de sein Eigenthum 

vertheilt unter seine gentiles so dass seine Schwestern u. deren children u. ihre 

maternal uncles w ould receive the m ost o f it; his brothers m ight receive a 

129

small portion. Starb a wife, leaving husband and children, so ihre effects 

geerbt v o n ihren Kindern, Schwestern, M utter u. Mutterschwestern; d. greater 

portion assigned to her children; in jedem Fall blieb property in der gens. 

U nter d. Ojibwas d. effects der M utter vertheilt unter ihren Kindern, 

w enn alt genug to use them ; sonst, od. in default o f children, they went 

to her sisters, ihrer M utter u. Mutterschwestern, to the exclusion of her brothers. 

O bgleich d. Ojibwas had changed descent to the male line, the inheritance 

followed the rule which prevailed when descent was in the fem ale line. 

D . variety u. amount o f property grosser als in savagery, aber noch nicht stark 

genug to develop a strong sentiment in relation to inheritance. 

In d. distributions modus germ d. 2nd great rule o f inheritance, which gave the 

property to the agnatic kindred to the exclusion o f the remaining gentiles. A gn ation 

and agnatic kindred assume jetzt descent in the male line. Princip selber 

in beiden cases, aber the persons included - different. M it descent in the 

female line, agnates Personen w ho can trace their descent through females 

23 exclusively vo n | same com m on ancestor w ith the intestate; im ändern 

Fall, w h o can trace their descent dch males exclusively. I t is the blood 

connection o f persons within the gens by direct descent, in a given line, vom selben 

common ancestor w hich lies at the foundation o f agnatic relation. 

G egen w ärtig unter advanced Indian tribes hat begun sich zu manifest 

repugnance ggen gentile inheritance, einige haben sie ganz über B ord gew orfen 

u. exclusive inheritance in children substituirt. E vidence o f this repugnance 

unter Iroquois, Creeks, Cherokees, Choctas, Menominees, Crows u. Ojibwas. 

In dieser älteren Periode o f barbarism sehr bdtende Abnahme o f cannibalism; 

w de aufgegeben als common practice; blieb als war practice in dieser u. d. 

M iddle Period. In dieser Form w ard Cannibalism gefunden in d. principal 

tribes der U .S t., M exico, u. Central Am erica. E rw erbung v. farinaceous 

food H a(u)ptm ittel to extricate m ankind vo n this savage custom. 

I) u. II) status o f savagery u. Lower Status o f Barbarism, diese 2 ethnische 

Perioden, cover mindestens 4/5 der ganzen Existenz der M enschheit auf 

der Erde. 

Im L ow er Status beginnen d. higher attributes o f mankind sich zu entw 

ickeln : Persönliche Würde, Beredsamkeit, religious sensibility, rectitude, manliness 

u. courage je t^ t common traits o f character, aber auch Grausamkeit, 

treachery, u. fanaticism . Elem ent worship in religion, w ith a dim conception o f 

personal gods, and o f a Great Sp irit, rude verse making, joint-tenement houses, 

and bread from maiê belong to this period. It produced also syndyasmian 

fam ily u. confederacy o f tribes, organised into phratries u. gentes. D . imagination, 

that great faculty so largely contributing to the elevation o f mankind, 

was now producing an unwritten literature o f myths, legends u. traditions, already 

becom e pow erful stimulus upon the race. 

III. Property in the M iddle Status o f Barbarism. 

D . E vidence dieser Periode more com pletely lost than that o f any other. 

130

It was exhibited b y the Village Indians o f N orth and South Am erica in 

barbaric splendour at the epoch o f their discovery. 

D iese E poche eröffnet in Eastern Hemisphere m it domestication o f animals, 

in d. Western mit der Erscheinung d. Village Indians, livin g in large jo in t- 

tenement houses o f adobe (Luftziegel) brick u., in some areas, o f stone laid 

in courses. 

Cultivation o f mai%e u. plants by irrigation, w hich required artificial canals, u. 

garden beds laid out in squares, with raised ridges to contain the water until 

absorbed. 

E in T heil dieser Village Indians, w hen discovered, had made bronze, 

bringing them near dem Iron sm elting process. 

T he joint-tenement house in the nature o f a fortress, hatte intermediate 

position zw ischen der stockades village o f the Lower u. the walled city o f the 

Upper Status. A ls entdeckt no cities, in the proper sense o f the w ord, 

in Am erica. 

In Kriegskunst kein grosser Fortschritt ausser in defence, dch. d. construction 

o f great houses generally im pregnable to Indian assault. 

Sie hatten erfunden: quilted mantles (escaupiles), stuffed with cotton as a further 

shield agst the arrow u. the two-edged sword (macuahuitl), each edge having a row 

o f angular flin t points imbedded in the wooden blade. T h ey still used bow u. arrow, 

spear, war club, flin t knives u. hatchets, u. stone implements, obgleich they had 

the copper axe u. chisel, w hich for some reason came never into general use. 

Z u mai%e, beans, squashes u. tobacco nun added cotton, pepper, tomato, cacao u. 

the care o f certain fru its. A beer73 was made by fermenting the juice o f the 

maguey (mexikanische Agave). D . Iroquois hatten jedoch ein ähnlich Getränk 

producirt dch fermenting maple (Ahornart) sap. 

D ch im proved methods in the ceramic art produced earthen vessels o f 

capacity to hold several gallons, o f fine texture and superior ornamentation. 

Bowls, pots, water ja rs manufactured in abundance. 

Discovery and use o f the native metals, erst fo r ornaments, finally for implements 

and ustensils, w ie copper axe and chisel, dieser Periode angehörig. M elting 

dieser metals in crucible, w ith the probable use o f blow-pipe (Blaserohr, 

Pustrohr) and charcoal, and casting them in moulds, the production o f bronze, 

rude stone sculptures, the woven garment o f cotton (H akluyt: C oll. o f Voyages. I ll, 

377), houses o f dressed stone, ideographs or hieroglyphs cut on the grave-posts o f 

deceased chiefs, the calendar fo r measuring time, the solstitial stone fo r marking 

the seasons, cyclopean walls, the domestication o f the llama, o f a species o f dog, 

o f the turkey and other fow ls belong to same period in Am erica. 

A priesthood, organized in a hierarchy, distinguished by a costume74; personal 

gods with idols to represent them, u. human sacrifices erscheinen zuerst in 

24 dieser Periode. | Two large Indian pueblos, M exico u. Cusco jetzt, containing 

über 20,000 inhabitants, num ber unknow n in the previous period. 

Aristocratic element in society, in feeble form s, am ong the chiefs, civil and 

military, through increased numbers under the same government, and the g ro w 

ing com plexity o f affairs. 

131

Eastern hemisphere: w e find its native tribes in dieser Periode, m it domestic 

animals, yielding them a m ilk and meat subsistence aber w hsclich ohne 

horticultural u. farinaceous food. W ild horse, cow, sheep, ass, sow;75 ihre 

Zähmung gab grossen Im puls; produced in herds u. flocks they became 

source o f permanent progress. D er effect wde erst allgemein, sobald pastoral 

life established for the creation u. maintenance o f flocks. Europa, als 

hauptsächlich W ald area, unadapted to the pastoral state; aber d. 

grass plains o f high A sia u. upon the Euphrates, the Tigris u. other rivers 

o f A sia, natural homes der pastoral tribes. T hither they w ou ld naturally 

tend; there the rem ote A ryan ancestors found confronting like pastoral 

Semitic tribes. 

Cultur v. cereals u. plants muss vorhergegangen sein ihrer migration von den grass 

plains in d. Forest areas v . Westasien u. Europa. D iese Cultur forced upon 

them by the necessities o f the domestic animals now incorporated into their 

plan o f life. (Dies vielleicht nicht Fall bei d. Celts') 

Woven fabrics o ffla x and wool u. bronze implements u. weapons erscheinen in 

dsr Period auch, in d. oestlichen Hemisphäre. 

T o cross the barrier into the Upper Status o f barbarism unentbehrlich 

metallic tools able to hold an edge and point; dazu nöthig Invention d. process o f 

Iron smelting. 

Eigenthum: Grosser Zuwachs v. personal property u. einige changes in the relations 

o f persons to land. D . territorial domain gehörte noch d. Tribus in common; 

aber a portion now set apart fo r support o f the government, andrer für 

religious uses, u. noch wichtigere portion - das, wovon V o lk seine Subsisten% 

beôg, divided unter the several gentes, or communities o f persons who resided in 

the same pueblo. Niem and ow ned lands or houses in his ow n right mit 

M acht zu verkaufen u. übermachen in fee simple, w em er w ollte. 

Individual ownership o f houses and lands excluded b y gemeinschftliches 

Eigenthum an lands dch gentes od communities o f persons, joint-tenement 

houses u. mode o f occupation by related fam ilies. 

Rev. Sam. Gorman, Missionäre unter d. Laguna Pueblo Indians, in address 

to the H istorical Society o f N ew M exico says: 

“ The right o f property belongs to the female part o f the fam ily, and 

descends in that line from m other to daughter. Their land is held in 

common, but after a person cultivates a lot he has personal claim to it, 

which he can sell to one o f the community. . . Their women, generally, have 

control o f the granary, are m ore provident than their Spanish neighbours 

about the future. Ordinarily they try to have a year's provision on hand.1* It 

is only w hen two years o f scarcity succeed each other, that Pueblos, as a 

community, suffer hunger. (Morgan p . jß 6 , N te . Possessory rights, existing 

in individuals or families, inalienable ausser dch inheritance to his or 

her gentile heirs. 

T h e M oqui Village Indians, ausser 7 large pueblos u. gardens, haben jetzt 

flocks o f sheep, horses and mules u. considerable other personal property; 

132

manufacture earthen vessels o f many siês u. excellent quality, u. woolen 

"T~blankets in looms u. mit yarn o f their ow n production. M ajor / . W . Powell 

' noticed the follow in g case show ing that dort still the husband acquires no 

rights over the property o f the wife, or over the children o f the marriage. A 

Zunian married an Oraybe woman, and had by her 3 children; er w ohnte mit 

ihnen zu Oraybe, bis sie f- T h e relatives o f his deceased wife ergriffen 

Besitz ihrer K inder u. household property leaving him his horse, clothing 

u. weapons, mit certain blankets, die ihm gehörten, nicht die seiner Frau. 

E r left the Pueblo m it Pow ell um nach Santa F e zu gehn u. dann to return 

to his ow n people at Z u n i. - Women as well as men, not unlikely, had a 

possessory right to such room s and sections o f the pueblo houses as they 

occupied u. überliessen sie ihren next o f kin under certain regulations. | 

25 T he Spaniards (writers) have left the land tenure o f the southern tribes 

in inextricable confusion. In unveräusserlichem common land belonging to a 

community o f persons sahn sie feudal estate, im chief the feudal lord, im people 

his vassals; sie sahen, dass d. land ow ned in com m on; nicht die community 

ihrer owners selbst - die gens od. division o f a gens. 

Descent in the fem ale line remained still in some o f the tribes o f M exico u. 

Central Am erica, w h d in ändern, probably larger Theil, übergegangen in 

a descent in the male line; letztres caused dch d. influence o f property. 

Unter d. Mayas descent was in male line, dagegen schwer zu bestimmen 

in w elcher line bei A ^tecs, Te^cucans, Tlacopans u. Tlascalans. 

Unter d. Village Indians probable descent in the male line w ith remains o f 

the A rchaic rule w ie in the case o f the office o f Teuctli. U nter ihnen zu 

erwarten the second grand rule o f inheritance, w hich distributed the property 

am ong the agnatic kindred. W ith descent in the male line children o f a 

deceased person at the head o f the Agnates, so dass sie d. greater portion (unter 

d. Agnates) erhielten. A b er waren nicht exclusive heirs (mit Ausschluss 

der ändern Agnaten.77 D . Am ericans never entered last {Upper) Period o f 

Barbarism. 

C h. I I {part I V ) The three rules o f inheritance continued 

Upper Period o f Barbarism com menced in the Eastern Hemisphere. 

Process o f smelting Iron; trotz Bronze progress arrested dch w ant o f a 

metal o f sufficient strength and hardness fo r mechanical purposes; found zuerst 

in iron. V o n da Fortschritt rapider. 

IV ) Property in the Upper Status o f Barbarism. 

Ende dieser Periode, property in masses verallgem einert - consisting in m any 

kinds, held by individual ownership - dch settled agriculture, manufactures, 

local trade, foreign commerce; aber: 

O ld common tenure o f lands had not given place, ausser in part, to Separat- 

eigenthum. 

In diesem Status entsprang Slavery; it stands directly connected with the 

production o f property. O u t o f it (slavery) came the patriarchal fam ily o f the 

Hebrew type u. the sim ilar fam ily der L a tin 78 tribes under paternal power, w ie 

133

auch a modified form o f the same fam ily unter den Grecian tribes. 

Hence, namtlich aber von increased abundance o f subsistence, through field 

agriculture, nations began to develop, zählten vielen iooonds unter one 

governm ent, w o früher nur a few iooonds. Struggle for d. possession 

der most desirable territories intensified dch. d. localisation o f tribes in fix ed 

areas, u. in fortified cities, mit d. increase der Volkszahl. A dvanced 

Kriegskunst u. verm ehrte d. rewards o f prowess. D iese changes indicate the 

approach o f civilisation. 

Ersten Gesetze der Griechen, Römer, Hebräer - nach Beginn der Civilisation - 

verw andelten chiefly nur in legal enactments the results die ihre previous 

experience verkörpert hatte in usages and customs. 

Gegen Ende der Upper Period o f Barbarism Tendenz zu 2 Formen von Ownership, 

nämlich, durch Staat u. durch Individuen. Lands, unter d. Griechen, still 

held, einige dch d. tribes in common, andre dch d. phratry in common for 

religious uses, andre dch die gens in common, aber d. bulk der lands had fallen 

under individual ownership in severally. Z u r Z e it Solon's w ar Athenian society 

noch gentil, lands in general held dch individuals w ho had learnt to mortgage 

them (P lu t. in Solon c. X V . “ Σεμνύνεται γάρ Σόλων έν τούτοις δτι τής τε 

προϋποκειμένης (verpfändeten) γης ορούς [die M arken die d. Schuldner bei 

Haus od. A ck er setzen musste, w orau f er G eld entlehnt hatte, mit einer 

Schrift, welche seinen N am en neben der Summe angab] 

"Ορους ανεΐλε πολλαχή πεπηγότας · 

πρόσθ-εν δέ δουλεύουσα, νυν έλευ&έρα.” 79 

T h e Roman tribes, from their first establishment, had a public domain, A ger 

Romanus; w hile lands w ere held b y the curia for religious uses, by the gens, 

u. b y individuals in severalty. N achdem diese social corporations ausgestor- 

ben, the lands held by them in common gradually became private property. 

D iese several form s o f ownership show dass die älteste land tenure was die in 

common dch den tribe; nach Beginn ihrer Cultivation, ein Theil der tribe lands 

divided unter d. gentes, jede w o v o n held their portion in common; diesem folgte 

im L au f der Z eit allotments to individuals u. diese allotments finally ripened 

26 into individual ownership in severalty. | Personal property, generally, was subject 

to individual ownership. 

Monogamian fam ily erschien in Upper Status o f barbarism herausentwickelt 

aus Syndyasmian fam ily, hing intimately zus. mit increase o f property u. 

usages in respect to its inheritance. Descent changed to the male line; aber alles 

Eigenthum, real u. personal, blieb, w ie seit time immemorial, hereditary in 

gens. 

Ilias. In der Ilia s (V , 20)80 mentioned fences around cultivated fields. ( I X , 

/77) an enclosure o f jo acres (πεντηκοντόγυος), half for vines, remainder for 

tillage, X I V (121) Tideus lives in a mansion rich in resources, and had 

corn producing fields in abundance. 

(Morgan irrt sich, w enn er glaubt, d. blosse fencing beweise Privatgrund- 

134

eigenthum). Breeds o f horses already distinguished for particular excellence 

(V , 261) “ sheep o f a rich man standing coundess in the fo ld ” (IV , 43 3) 

Coined money unknown, daher trade mostly barter, w ie in flgden lines: 

έν-9-εν άρ’ οίνίζοντο (οίνάζω im medium W ein kaufen) κάρη κομόωντες 

Ά χα ιώ ί, άλλοι μέν χαλκω (aere), άλλοι δ’αΐ&ωνι (splen did ) σιδήρω άλλοι δέ 

ρινοΐς (pellibus), άλλοι δ’αύτησι βόεσσιν, άλλοι δ’άνδραπόδεσσι’ (τίθεντο 

δέ δαΐτα θάλειαν)81 (II. 1. V ν. 472_75)> 

hier E rz /III Aequivalentform \; u. wine = Er% od. Eisen od. 

Eisen 'w o w ine = Geld. ' Felle od. Ochsen 

Felle = W ein 

O chsen 

Sklaven (II Equivalentform ) 

G old in bars named as passing by weight and estimated by talents. (II. X II, 

274 v. M organ citirt; steht da nicht)*2 

M entioned: manufactured articles o f gold, silver, brass and iron, textile fabrics 

o f linen and woolen in m any form s, houses, palaces etc 

Inheritance: N ach Erreichg so grosser Quantität in Upper Status o f Barbarism 

v. houses u. lands, flocks u. herds u. exchangeable commodities and held 

by individual ownership question o f inheritance pressed bis right d. facts 

entsprach. D . domestic animals a possession o f greater value than alle 

früheren A rten property zusammen, served fo r food, exchangeable fo r 

commodities, usable fo r redeeming captives, fo r paying fines, and in religious 

sacrifices; capable o f indefinite multiplication in numbers - their possession 

revealed to the human mind the first conception o f wealth. Folgte in course 

o f time the systematical cultivation o f the earth, tending to identify the fam ily 

m it d. soil, and render it a property-making organisation; fand bald expres 

sion in L a tin , Grecian, Hebrew tribes, in the patriarchal fam ily, involving 

slaves u. servants. Labor o f father and children became m ore and more 

incorporated with the land, the production o f domestic animals, and the creation 

o f merchandise, it tended to individualise the fam ily u. suggested the 

superior claims o f children to the inheritance o f the property they had assisted 

in creating. V o r d. Landkultur flocks u. herds fiel naturally under the 

jo in t ownership o f persons united in a group, on a basis o f kin, fo r subsistence. 

Agnatic inheritance was apt to assert itself in this condition. A b er sobld 

land had become the subject o f property, and allotments to individuals had 

resulted in individual ownership, was sure to supervene upon agnatic inheritance: 

Third great rule o f inheritance, giving property to the children o f the deceased 

owner. 

W hen field culture bewiesen hatte, dass d. ganê Oberfläche der Erde could be 

made the subject o f property owned by individuals in severalty u. Familienhaupt 

became the natural center o f accumulation, the new property career o f mankind 

inaugurated - , fully done before the close o f the L ater Period o f Barbarism, 

135

übte einen grossen Einfluss a u f human mind, rief new elements o f character 

w ach; property became tremendous passion im barbarian des heroic age. 

(“ booty and beauty” ). D agegen nicht haltbar archaic u. later usages. [Herr 

Loria! voila the w orkin g o f passion!)] Monogamy had assured the paternity 

27 o f | children u. maintained u. asserted their exclusive right to inherit the 

property o f their deceased fathers. 

Germans, w hen discovered, in Upper Status o f Barbarism, used iron, in 

limited quantities; had flocks and herds; cultivated cereals; manufactured 

coarse textile fabrics o f linen and woolen, had not attained the idea o f individual 

ownership in lands. F olg t daher: individual property in land unknown in A sia 

u. Europe in M iddle Period o f Barbarism, came in in Upper Period. Bei 

Hebrew tribes individual ownership in lands existed before the com m encement 

o f their civilisation. T h ey came out o f barbarism, w ie d. A ryan 

tribes, mit possession o f domestic animals u. cereals, iron u. brass, gold and 

silver, fictile wares u. textile fabrics. A b er ihre knowledge o f field agriculture 

limited in Zeit Abraham s. N ach Reconstruction d. H ebrew society, nach 

dem E xodus, on basis o f consanguine tribes, to w hich on reaching Palestine 

territorial areas w ere assigned, shows that civilisation found them under 

gentile institutions, b elow a know ledge o f politica l society. Inheritance was 

strictly in the phratry u. probably in the gens “ the house o f the father” __ 

A fter children had acquired an exclusive inheritance, daughters succeeded 

in default o f sons; marriage w ould then transfer their own property from their 

own gens to that o f their husband, unless some restraint, in the case o f heiresses, 

was put on the right. Presum ptively u. naturally marriage within the gens 

prohibited; question came before Moses as a question o f Hebrew inheritance, 

v o r Solon as a question o f Athenian inheritance, the gens claiming a param ount 

right to its retention within its membership; sie beide entschieden in demselben 

Sinn. Same question m ust have turned up in Rome u. in part met 

by the rule that a marriage o f a fem ale w orked a diminutio capitis u. w ith it 

a forfeiture o f agnatic rights. 

Andre question involved in the issue: w ar marriage to be restricted by the rule 

forbidding it within the gens, or become free, the degree, and not the fa c t o f kin, 

being the measure o f lim itation! Letztere Lösung siegte. 

Zelophehad starb, Hess Töchter, keine Söhne, u. die inheritance given to the 

former. Später diese T öch ter about to marry ausserhalb the tribe o f foseph 

w ozu sie belonged; the members o f the tribe objected to such a transfer o f 

property, brachten Suite v o r M oses. 

D iese Burschen präsentiren d. Suite so: 

“ I f they be married to any o f the sons o f the other tribes o f the children 

o f Israel, then shall the inheritance be taken from the inheritance o f our fathers, 

and shall be p u t to the inheritance o f the tribe w hereunto they are received : 

so shall it be taken from the lot o f our inheritance.” (Numbers, X X X V I , 3)83 

M oses84 antwortete: 

“ T h e tribe o f the sons o f Joseph has spoken w ell. This is the thing w hich 

136

the L ord doth com mand concerning the daughters o f Zelophehad, saying, 

“ Let them marry to w hom they think b est: only to the fam ily o f the tribe o f 

their father shall they marry. So shall not the inheritance o f the children o f 

Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for everyone o f the children o f Israel shall 

keep him self to the inheritance o f the tribe o f his fathers. AncJ every daughter 

that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe o f the children o f Israel shall 

be w ife unto one o f the fam ily o f the tribe o f her father, that the children o f 

Israel m ay enjoy every one the inheritance o f his fathers.” (Numbers 

X X X V I , 5-9) T h ey w ere required to marry into their ow n phratry, not 

necessarily into their ow n gens. T h e daughters o f Zelophehad w ere 

“ married to their father's brother's sons” (Numbers X X X V I , u ) 85 w ho w ere 

not only members o f their own phratry, but also o f86 their own gens; they 

w ere also their next agnates. 

Früher hatte Moses etablirt d. rule o f inheritance u. reversion th u s: “ A n d thou 

shalt speak to the children o f Israel, saying, I f a man die and have no son, 

then you shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughters. A n d if he have 

no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance unto his brothers. A n d if 

he have no brethren, then you shall give his inheritance unto his father's 

brethren. A n d if his father have no brethren, then you shall give it unto his 

kinsman, that is next to him o f his fam ily, and he shall possess it.” (Num bers, 

X X V I I , 8-11) 

Hier heirs: 1) the children; aber scheint that the sons took the property 

subject to the obligation o f maintaining the daughters. W ir finden elsewhere 

that the eldest son had a double portion. 

2) the agnates in their order o f nearness: a) the brethren o f the deceased, in default 

o f children des Verstorbnen; u. wenn er keine brethren hatte b) the brethren 

o f the father o f the deceased. 

3) the gentiles, also in the order o f nearness “ the kinsman that is next to 

him o f his fam ily” . T h e “fam ily o f the tribe” is the analogue o f the phratry; 

also property, in default o f children u. agnates, w ent to the nearest phrator 

des defunct owner. - D iese E rbfolge excludes cognates von inheritance; 

28 a phrator m ore distant than a | father's brother, w ould inherit in preference 

to the children o f a sister o f the deceased. D escent in the male line and the 

property must be hereditary in the gens. T he father did not inherit from 

bis son, nor the grandfather from his grandson. Hierin u. |fst in allem übrigen 

Mosaic Law agrees mit d. Law o f Twelve Tables. 

Später the Levitical law established marriage upon a new basis, independent o f 

gentile law; verbot Ehe innerhalb gewissen Grade v. consanguinity u. affinity, 

declared it free beyond these degrees; dies entwurzelte gentile usages mit 

B ezug auf E he bei d. Hebräern, w de später the rule o f Christian nations. 

Solon's Gesetze über inheritances substantiell selber w ie die vo n M oses.84 

87Bew eist, dass die früheren usages, customs, institutions d. Hebräer u. Griechen 

dieselben in Be%ug a uf Eigenthum. 

Z u Solon's Z e it, $dgreat rule o f inheritance fully established unter Athenien- 

137

sern; sons took the estate ihres deceased father mit obligation o f maintaining 

the daughters u. apportioning them suitably fo r their marriage. W enn no sons 

erbten d. Töchter equally; dadurch created heiresses (έπικλήρες) by investing 

women m it estates; Solon enacted that the heiress should marry her nearest male 

agnate, although they belonged to the same gens, and E he unter ihnen früher 

verboten dch usage. Instances occurred w o d. nächste A gnat, obgleich 

verheirathet, p u t away his wife, in order to marry the heiress, and thus gain 

the estate. Protom achus im Eubulides des Dem osthenes Beispiel. 

(Dem ost. agst Eubulides, 41). W enn keine children, estates to the agnates, 

in their default to the gentiles des defunct. Property was retained within the 

gens as inflexibly among the Athenians w ie unter Hebrews u. Romans. Solon 

turned into law, was vorher established usage. Unter Solon erschienen 

testamentary dispositions (established? by him ); Plutarch sagt es sei früher 

nicht erlaubt gewesen. (Romulus: 7 / 4 -717 a. C., 1-37 d. Stadt R om ; So Ion 

G esetzgeber A thens’ about J94 a.C.) 

Εύδοκίμησε δέ κάν τω περί διαθηκών νόμω, πρότερον γάρ ούκ έξην, άλλ’ 

έν τω γένει του τε-9-νηκότος έδει τά χρήματα καί τον οίκον καταμένειν, ό δ’ ώ 

βούλεται τις έπιτρέψας, εί μη παΐδες εΐεν αύτω, δούναι τά αύτοϋ, φιλίαν τε 

συγγενείας έτίμησε μάλλον καί χάριν άνάγκης, καί τά χρήματα κτήματα 

των έχόντων έποίησεν. 88 P lu t. V ita Solon, c. 21 

T his law recognized the absolute individual ownership o f property by the person 

while living, to w hich jetzt added testamentar. Verfügg, w hen no children da, 

aber d. gentile right remained param ount so lange children existed to represent 

him in the gens. A t all events muss d. custom früher dagewesen sein 

(testamentliche), da Solon in positive law — customary law verwandelte. 

Roman Law o f 12 tables, first prom ulgated 449 a .C h .; dch sie anerkannt: 

Intestaterbrecht: “ Intestatorum hereditates (ex) lege X II tabularum pris- 

cum ad suos heredes pertinet.” 89 (Gajus, inst, iii, 1) (mit d. children w ar wife 

des defunct coheiress). “ Si nullus sit suorum heredum, tunc hereditas 

pertinet e x eadem lege X I I tabularum ad agnatos” .90 (Gaj. III, 9) “ Si nullus 

agnatus sit, eadem le x X II tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem vocat.” 91 (ib. 

III, 17) Seems a reasonable inference dass hereditas w irklich grade in d. umgekehrten 

Ordnung prim itiv bei d. Röm ern existirt hatte als in d. 12 Tafeln; 

inheritance by gentes vo r der der A gnaten; die der Agnaten v o r der exclusiven 

der K inder. 

In d. later Period o f Barbarism kam Aristocratie auf, dch Entw icklg d. 

individuality o f persons, increase o f wealth now possessed by individuals in masses; 

slavery, b y permanently degrading a portion o f the people, tended to 

establish contrasts o f condition unknown in the previous ethnical periods; dazu, 

w ith property and official position - schuf sentiment o f aristocracy, antagonistisch 

den democratical principles fostered by the gentes. 

Im Upper Status o f Barbarism, the office o f chief in its different grades, 

138

originally hereditary in the gens and elective among its members, passed, very 

likely, unter Grecian·and Roman tribes vo n father to son as a rule. A b er 

29 kein evidence, dass so b y hereditary right. | D . blosse possession jedoch 

der offices o f archony phylo-basileus or βασιλεύς unter d. Griechen, u. v. 

princeps u. rex unter d. Römern, hatte Tendenz to strengthen in their 

families the sentiment o f aristocracy. O bgleich es permanent existence 

gewann, nicht stark genug to change essentially the democratic constitution o f 

the early governments o f these tribes. 

H eutzutag, w o property so immense u. seine forms so diversified, it has 

becom e, on the part o f the people, an unmanageable power. “ The human mind 

stands bewildered in the presence o f its own creation. T he time w ill come, 

nevertheless, when human intelligence w ill rise to the mastery over property 

. . . A mere property career is not the fin al destiny o f mankind. T he time which 

has passed away since civilisation began is but a fragm ent (u. SFar se^r kleines') 

o f the past duration o f man’s existence; and but a fragment o f the ages y et 

to come. The dissolution o f society bids fa ir to become the termination o f a career 

o f which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements 

o f self-destruction. . . It (a higher plan o f society) w ill be a revival, in a higher 

form , o f the liberty, equality and fraternity o f the ancient gentes.” (552) 

“ W ith one principal o f intelligence and one physical form , in virtue o f a 

com m on origin, the results o f human experience have been substantially 

the same in a ll times and areas in the same ethnical status.” (552) 

P art I I (Growth o f the Idea o f Government) 

C h. I. Organisation o f Society upon the Basis o f sex. 

Organisation into male and fem ale classes (also organisation upon the basis o f sex) 

now found in full vitality am ong the Australian aborigenes. L o w dow n in 

“ "savagery, community o f husbands and women, 9 2 w ithin prescribed lines, 

I was the central principle o f the social system; the m arital rights (Jura 

conjugalia) [Romans distinguish: connubiumy related to marriage as a civil 

institution, u. conjugiumy the mere physical union)\ established in the group. 

] Em ancipation vo n diesen “ rights” etc slow ly accomplished dch movements 

resulting in unconscious reformations; “ worked out unconsciously through natural 

selection.] 

In D arling River district - north o f Sydney - die nachfolgende organisation 

into classes on the basis o f sex and the inchoate organisation into gentes on the 

basis o f kin unter d. A ustralian aborigines speaking the Kamilaroi language. 

W ide spread selbiges unter other Australian tribes; evident from internal 

considerations that the male u. fem ale classes older than the gentes, die, am ong 

the K am ilaroi, are in process o f overthrowing the classes. T h e class in its male 

andfemale branches is the unit o f the social system u. the central position, w hd d. 

gentes inchoate u. advancing to completeness through encroachments upon 

*39

the former. Selbe Organisation upon sex not yet been found under savage 

tribes out o f A ustralia, w eil diese insular savages slow ly developing in their 

secluded habitat, d. most archaic (organised) form am längsten erhalten 

haben. 

T h e Kamilaroi divided in 6 gentes, standing w ith relation to (righ t o f) 

m arriage93 in 2 divisions: 

I) 1) Igana {D ult) II) 4) E m u (Dinoun) 

2) Kangaroo (M urriira) [Pady melon, a species 5) Bandicoot (Bilba) 

o f Kangaroo] 6) Blacksnake (N urai) 

3) Opossum (Mute) 

U rsprünglich d. ersten 3 gentes not allowed to intermarriage with each, w eil 

sie waren subdivisions o f one original gens, durften aber marry into either o f 

the other gentes u. vice versa. D ies nun modified unter d. K am ilaroi, 

aber nicht so w eit dass m arriage erlaubt mit allen gentes ausser der gens 

des individual. Absolute prohibition fo r males or fem ales to marry into their 

own gens. Descent in fem ale line, which assigns children to the line o f their mother. 

These features o f archaic form o f gens. 

A b er außerdem existirt weitere u. ältere division des people in 8 classes, 

4 exclusively o f males u. 4 exclusively o f fem ales. It94 is accompanied w ith a 

regulation in respect to marriage and descent w hich (obstructs) the gens (zeigt, 

dass deren organisation la te r__ M arriage is restricted to a portion o f the 

males o f one gens with a portion o f the fem ales o f another gens, w h d in entw 

ickelter gentile organisation members o f each gens allow ed to marry 

persons o f the opposite sex95 in all the gentes except their own. | 

30 D ie Klassen sind: 

M ale Female 

1) Ippai 1) Ippata 

2) Kumbo 2) Buta 

3) M urri j ) M ata 

4) Kubbi 4) Kapota 

A lle Glieder, je einer96 d. 4 männlichen Klassen, sind, o f whatever gens they 

may be, Brüder v. einander, so alle Ippais Brüder etc, w eil alle supposed 

descended from a common fem ale ancestor. 

Ebenso alle G lieder je einer der 4 weiblichen Klassen Schwestern v. einander 

fü r same reason (descent from com m on mother), to whatever gens they may 

belong. 

Ferner all(e) Ippais u. Ippatas Brüder u. Schwestern vo n einander, ob sie nun 

children der same mother or collateral consanguinei, ebenso verhält es sich für 

d. folgenden mit denselben numbers bereich (n)end Klassen. I f a K u m b o u. 

Buta meet, die sich nie vorher gesehn, begrüssen sie sich als Bruder u. 

Schwester. D . K am ilaroi sind also organised in 4 great primary groups o f 

brothers and sisters, each group being composed o f a male and fem ale branch, but 

intermingled over the areas o f their occupation. T h e classes embody the germ o f 

gens, so far as z.B. Ippai u. Ippata in fact a single class in 2 branches bilden 

140

u. not can intermarry with each other; aber keine realisirte G ens, w eil sie fall 

unter 2 names (wie Ippai u. Ippata), each o f w hich is integral for certain 

purposes; u. w eil their children take different names from their own. 

D . classes stand to each other in a different order with respect to right o f 

marriage, or rather cohabitation (since brother and sister are not allowed 

to intermarry) vi% s o : 

1) Ippai can marry 4) K apota, and no other / Später— as shown 

2) K u m b o 3) M ata hereafter, dies scheme 

3) M urri 2) Buta I so far m odified, that 

4) K u b b i 1) Ippata 1 each class o f males gets 

\ right o f intermarriage 

I mit an additional class 

I o f fem ales; dies en- 

1 croachm ent vo n gens 

\ upon class. 

Each male in the selection o f a w ife so lim ited to 1 /4 o f all the Kam ilaroi 

w ives.65 Theoret{i}sch jede K apota the w ife o f every Ippai. Q uotes 

Rev. Fison quotes vo n a letter o f M r. T . E . Lance (der lange in Australien 

gelebt): “ if a K u b b i meets a stranger Ippata, th e(y) address each other 

as Goleer = Spouse... A K u b b i thus m eeting an Ippata, even though she 

were o f another tribe, w ould treat her as his w ife, and his right to do so 

w ould be recognized by her tribe.” 

Under the conjugal system, 1 /4 aller males united in marriage w ith 1 /4 aller 

females o f the Kam ilaroi tribes. 

W hd d. Kinder blieben in gens ihrer M utter, gingen sie über in eine andre 

Klasse, in selber gens, different from that o f either parent. 

M ale Female M ale Female 

1) Ippai marries 4) Kapota: their children are j ) M urri u. f ) M ata 

2) Kumbo 3) M ata 4) Kubbi u. 4) Kapota 

3) M urri 2) Buta 1) Ippai u. i) Ippata 

4) Kubbi „ 1) Ippata „ „ „ 2) Kumbo u. 2) Buta. 

Folgt man d. fem ale line, so K apota (4) ist die M utter o f M ata (3) u. M ata (3) 

ist hin wiederum die M utter o f K apota; ebenso Buta (2) M utter vo n Ippata 

(1) u. hinwiederum Ippata (1) die M utter von Buta (2). Selbes m it male 

class; da aber descent in the fem ale line, leiten sich d. Kamilaroi tribes selbst 

ab vo n 2 supposedfemale ancestors, w hich laid the foundation for 2 original 

gentes. - B y tracing the descent still further fand that the blood o f each 

class passes through a ll classes. 

O bgleich jedes Individuum einen d. oben erwähnten class names führt, 

so daneben the single personal name com m on am ong savages as w ell as 

barbarous tribes. 

T he gentile organization supervened naturally upon the classes as an 

higher organisation, by simply enfolding them unchanged, encroaches then 

upon them. | 

141

3i T h e classes are in pairs v o n brothers u. sisters derived from each other u. d. 

gentes, verm ittelst der classes, sind auch in pairs, w ie fo lg t: 

Gentes M ale Female M ale Female 

/) Iguana a ll are M urri u. M ata oder Kubbi und Kapota 

2) Em u „ Kumbo u. Buta oder Ippai u. Ippata 

f ) Kangeroo „ M urri und M ata od. Kubbi u. Kapota 

4) Bandicoot „ Kumbo u. Buta oder Ippai u. Ippata 

j ) Opossum „ M urri u. M ata oder Kubbi u. Kapota 

6) Blacksnake „ Kumbo u. Buta od. Ippai u. Ippata 

T h e connection o f children w ith a particular gens is proven by the law o f 

marriage. So Iguana-Mata must marry Kumbo; her children are Kubbi u. 

Kapota, u. nothw endig Iguana in gens, because descent in the female line. 

Iguana-Kapota must marry Ippai, her children are M urri u. M ata u. ditto 

Iguana in gens. So Em u-Ippata must marry Kubbi, her children are Kumbo 

u. Buta u. o f the E m u gens. So die gens maintained b y keeping in its 

membership the children o f all its female members. Ebenso mit d. 

remaining gentes. Each gens is made up th(e)oretically o f 2 supposed 

fem ale ancestors, and contains 4 o f the 8 classes. W ahrscheinlich ursprünglich 

nur 2 male u. 2 female classes, set opposite to each other in 

respect to the right o f m arriage; and that the 4 afterward subdivided into 8. 

T he classes evidently as an anterior organisation nachher arranged w ithin 

the gentes, not form ed by the subdivision o f the gentes. 

D a d. Iguana, Kangaroo u. Opossum gentes are counterparts to each other in 

the classes they contain, so subdivisions o f an original gens; ebenso andrerseits 

E m u, Bandicoot u. Blacksnake; so 2 original gentes mit d. right in each to 

marry into the other, but not in itself. D ies confirm ed dch d. fact, dass 1), 

3), 5) originally nicht intermarry durften unter einander, ebenso w enig 

w ie 2), 4), 6). W hen the three were one gens intermarriage unter ihnen 

verboten; dies follow ed the subdivisions, because they w ere o f the same 

descent, although under different gentile names. Dasselbe exact gefunden 

bei den Seneca-Iroquois. 

D a marriage restricted to particular classes, w hen there w ere but 2 gentes, 

one h alf o f all the females o f one w ere the w ives o f one h alf o f all the 

males97 o f the other. A fter their subdivision into 6 the benefit o f marrying 

out o f the gens was neutralised by the presence o f the classes mit 

ihren restrictions; hence continuous in-and-in marriages, beyond the 

immediate degree o f brother and sister. 

%.B. descents o f Ippai u. Kapota g ivin g to each intermediate pair 2 children, 

a male and a female, dann: 

1) Ippai marries Kapota\ their children M urri u. M ata. D ie letztem 2 

können nicht einander heirathen. 

2) M urri marries Buta . . . their children: Ippai u. Ippata; 

M ata marries Kumbo their children: Kubbi u. Kapota; 

142

j) Ippai marries his cousin Kapota u. Kubbi marries his cousin Ippata; their 

children are respectively M urri u. M ata u. Kumbo u. Buta; vo n diesen d. 

M urris marry the Butas, second cousins, etc In this condition the classes 

not only intermarry constantly, but are com pelled to do so through this 

organisation upon sex. - T he organisation into classes seems to have been 

directed to the single object o f breaking up the intermarriage o f brothers and 

sisters. - Innovation: allow ing each triad o f gentes to intermarry w ith each 

other, to a lim ited extent; and secondly, to marry into classes, not before 

perm itted so Iguana-Murri can now marry M ata in the Kangaroo gens, 

32 his collateral sister etc Each | class o f males in each triad o f gentes seems 

now to be allow ed one additional class o f females in the 2 remaining 

gentes o f the same triad, from w hich they w ere before excluded. 

W herever the middle or low er st

selber was Am erican Indian gens. Gens, γένος u. ganas (lat. gr. Sanskr.) 

bedtn alike kin ; enthalten dasselbe Elem ent as gigno, γίγνομαι, ganamai 

(beget alle 3); im plying an immediate com m on descent o f the members o f 

a gens. A gens daher a body o f consanguinei. D escended from the same 

com m on ancestor, distinguished by a gentile name, and bound together 

b y affinities o f blood. It includes a m oyety only o f such descendants; w o 

descent in fem ale line, w ie überall in archaic period, gens zusam m engesetzt 

o f a supposed fem ale ancestor and her children, w ith the children o f her fem ale 

descendants, through females, in perpetuity; um gekehrt, w o descent in the 

male line, into which the fem ale line was changed after the appearance o f 

property in masses. D . m oderne Familienname ist selbst a survival o f the 

gentile name, w ith descent in the male line. The modern fam ily, as expressed 

by its name, is an unorganised gens; w ith the bond o f kin 98 broken, and its 

members as w idely dispersed as the fam ily name is found. F in a l form 

o f gens enthält tw o changes: 1) change from fem ale to male line o f descent; 

2) change o f the inheritance o f the property o f a deceased member from his 

gentiles to his agnatic kindred u. finally to his children. 

Gens in its archaic form now exists among the Am erican aborigenes. 

W o gentile institutions prevailed - and prior to the establishment o f political 

society - w e find peoples or nations in gentile societies and nothing beyond. 

“ The state did not exist.” (p. 67) A s the gens, the unit o f organization, was 

essentially democratical, so necessarily the phratry com posed o f gentes, the 

tribe com posed o f phratries, and the gentile society form ed by the confederations 

or (was höhere Form ) coalescing o f tribes [(wie d. 3 röm. in 

Rom , the 4 tribes o f the Athenians in A ttica , the 3 Dorian tribes in Sparta, 

all o f them on some common territory.)] 

In der archaic form der gens die children einer Frau gehören %u Ihrer gens; 

ebenso d. children ihrer Töchter, G rosstöchter etc A b er d. children ihrer 

Söhne, deren Grossöhne etc belong to other gentes, nämlich denen ihrer 

M ütter. In the M iddle Status o f Barbarism (mit Syndyasmian family) began 

d. Indian tribes to change the fem ale line to the male - selber in Upper Status 

o f Barbarism bei Greek tribes (except the Lycians) u. d. Italian tribes 

33 (except the Etruskans). | Intermarriage in Gens prohibited. D ie Gens institution 

beginnt nothwendig m it 2 gentes; the males and females o f one gens 

m arrying the females and males o f the other; the children, follow in g the 

gentes o f their respective mothers, would be divided between them. Resting on the 

bond o f kin as its cohesive principle, gens verleiht jedem individual member 

that personal protection which no other existing power could give. 

Gentes o f the Iroquois taken as standard exem plification in der Ganowanian 

family. W hen discovered the Iroquois in the lower status o f barbarism; 

manufactured nets twine and rope from filaments o f bark; wove belts and burden 

straps, w ith warp and woof, vo m selben M aterial; machten earthen99 vessels 

u. pipes vo n clay m ixed with siliceous materials u. hardened by fire, some o f 

them ornamented mit rude medallions; cultivated maiê, beans, squashes u. 

144

tobacco in garden beds, made unleavened bread von pounded maiê which they 

boiled in earthen99 vessels (these loaves or cakes about 6 inches in diameter u. 

an inch thick); tanned skins into leather w ith w hich they m anufactured 

k ilts, leggins u. moccasins; used bow and arrow and warclub als H auptw affen; 

used flin t, stone u. bone implements, w ore skin garments, w ere expert hunters u. 

fishermen. Constructed long joint-tenement houses large enough to accom 

m odate j , 10, 20 fam ilies u. each household practised communism in living; were 

unacquainted mit the use o f stone or adobe-brick in house architecture u. m it d. use 

der native metals. In mental capacity u. general advancem ent waren they 

d. representative branch dr Indian fam ily north o f New M exico. M ilitary “ their 

career was simply terrific. They were the scourge o f G od upon the aborigines o f 

the continent.” 

In lapse o f time number u. names der respective gentes have slightly varied, 

their largest num ber being 8. 

I ) Senecas: i) W olf. 2) Bear, f ) Turtle. 4) Beaver, j ) D eer. 6) Snipe. 

7) Heron. 8) H awk. 

I I ) Cayugas: 1) W olf. 2) Bear, 3) Turtle. 4) Beaver, j ) D eer. 6) Snipe. 

7) E el. 8) H awk. 

I l l ) Onondagas: 1) W olf. 2) Bear, 3) Turtle. 4) Beaver, j ) D eer. 6) Snipe. 

7) E el. 8) B a ll. 

I V ”) Oneidas. 1) W olf. 2) Bear. 3) Turtle. 

V ) Mohawks. 1) W olf. 2) Bear, 3) Turtle. 

V I ) Tuscaroras. 1) Gray W olf. 2) Bear. 3) Great Turtle. 4) Beaver, j) Yellow 

wolf. 6) Snipe. 7) E e l. 8) L ittle Turtle. 

D . Changes zeigen, dass certain gentes in some o f the tribes became 

extinct u. dass andre form ed by segmentation o f overfull gentes. D as ju s 

gentilicium besteht: 

1) T he right der gens o f selecting its sachem und chiefs. 

F

guinity entsprechend office o f Sachem passed v o n brother brother, or from 

uncle to nephew u. sehr selten vo n grandfather to grandson. T h e choice, by 

free suffrage o f both males and fem ales o f adult ages, fiel gew öhnlich auf einen 

Bruder des deceased Sachem od. einen der Söhne einer Schwester; sein eigner 

Bruder od. d. Sohn einer eignen Schwester meist preferred. Zw ischen 

several brothers, ow n or collateral, on the one hand u. d. sons o f several 

sisters, ow n or collateral, on the other, no priority o f right, da alle male 

members der gens equally eligible. 

Hatte d. gens einen gew ählt (Sachem) (unter d. Seneca-Iroquois z.B.), so 

noch erfordert assent der 7 remaining gentes. These met for the purpose 

by phratries; w enn sie d. W ahl to confirm verw eigerten, musste die gens 

neu w ählen; w de er accepted ,so election com plete, aber der neue Sachem 

musste still “ be raised up” (i.e. invested w ith his office), dch a council o f 

the confederacy, before he could enter upon his d u ty ; it was their method 

34 o f conferring the Imperium. | D e r Sachem o f a gens was ex officio a member 

o f the council o f the tribe, and o f the higher council o f the confederacy. Selbe 

m ethod o f election u. confirm ation for the office o f a chief; aber a general 

council never convened to raise up chiefs below the grade o f a sachem; they 

awaited the time w hen sachems w ere elected. 

C hiefs in each gens usually proportioned to the num ber o f its m em bers; 

unter d. Seneca-Iroquois 1 chief for about every 50 persons; der Seneca 

nun in N e w Y o rk einige 3000, haben 8 Sachems u. about 60 chiefs; the 

proportionate num ber jezt grösser als früher. A n za h l der gentes in a tribe 

meist entsprechd der B evölkerungszahl des trib e; d. Zahl d. gentes varies 

in different tribes vo n 3 unter Delawares u. Munsees to über 20 unter 

O jibw as u. Creeks; 6, 8, 10 waren gew öhnliche Anzahlen. 

2) Recht Sachems u. Chiefs abûsetên. 

Dies R echt reserved by the members o f the gens; office nom inally “ for 

life” , tenure practically “ during goo d behaviour.” D ie installation eines 

Sachem hiess: “putting on the horns” , seine A bsetzung “ taking off the horns.” 

Sobald ein Sachem od. chief in due form abgesetzt dch gens, w ar er vo n 

nun Privatperson. Council o f the tribes konnte auch Sachems u. chiefs absetên, 

ohne zu warten auf action der gens, and even against its wishes. 

3) Obligation not to marry in the gens. 

D iese rule noch inflexible bei d. Iroquois. - Bei Entstehung der gens 

brothers were intermarried to each others' wives in a group, and sisters to each 

others' husbands in a group; gens sought to exclude brothers and sisters from 

the marriage relation by prohibiting to marry in the gens. 

4) M utual rights o f inheritance o f the property o f deceased members der gens. 

In Status o f Savagery property beschränkt auf personal effects; im Lower Status 

o f Barbarism kam noch hinzu possessory rights in joint-tenement houses u. 

gardens. T he most valuable personal articles buried m it body des deceased owner. 

Im ü b rigen : property to remain in the gens and to be distributed among the 

gentiles des deceased owner. D ies theoretisch noch rule bei d. Iroquois; 

146

praktisch the effects einer deceased person appropriated by his nearest 

relations w ithin the gens. In case o f a male his own brothers and sisters and 

maternal uncle divided his effects am ongst each other; in the case o f a fem ale 

her property inherited by her children u. her sisters, to the exclusion o f her 

brothers. In beiden Fällen blieb property in gens. Deshalb nahm husband 

nichts v o n w ife u. vice versa. These mutual rights o f inheritance strengthened 

the autonomy o f the gens. 

5) Reciprocal obligations o f help, defence, and redress o f injuries. 

Individual depended for security upon his g en s; bond o f kin pow erful 

element for mutual support; to w rong a person was to w ro n g his gens. 

Herrera: “ H istory o f Am erica” erzählt von d. Mayas o f Yukatan: w o satisfaction 

to be made for damages, if he adjudged to pay was like to be 

reduced to poverty, the kindred (gens) contributed, selbe sagt v. Florida 

Indians: Stirbt ein Bruder od. Sohn, so verhungern eher the people o f 

the house than seek anything to eat during 3 months, aber kindred u. 

Trelations send it all in. Persons, removing von one village to another, could not 

transfer their possessory right to cultivated lands or to a section o f a joint-tenement 

house to a stranger; must leave them to his gentile kindred. Herrera refers to 

the usage under the Indian tribes o f Nicaragua. 

Garcilasso de la Vega [Royal Commentaries Lond. ed. 1688, R ycaufs Trans, 

(p. 1 of)] bem erkt über d. tribes der Peruvian Andes, dass “ w hen the 

commonalty, or ordinary sort, married, the communities (=gentes) o f the 

people were obliged to build and provide them houses.” 

T h e ancient practice o f blood revenge . . . had its birthplace in the gens. Tribunals 

for the trial o f criminals and laws prescribing their punishment, came late 

into existence in gentile society. U nter d. Iroquois and other Indian tribes 

generally, the obligation to avenge the murder o f a kinsman universally 

recognized. V orher Beilegungsversuch zw ischen gens o f the slayer u. gens des 

slayed; a council o f the members o f each gens held separately, propositions made 

on behalf o f the murderer for a condonation o f the act meist in Form o f 

expression o f regret u. presents o f considerable value. Z o g das alles 

nicht, w eil gentile kindred der slain person implacable, so ernannte die 

gens (des slain) unter ihren members one or more avengers, die d. criminal 

to pursue, until discovered, and then to slay him w herever he m ight be 

found. I f they did so, this no ground o f com plaint by any m em ber o f 

the gens o f the victim . | 

35 6) The right o f bestowing names upon the members o f the gens 

Unter savage u. barbaric tribes there is no name fo r the fam ily. T he 

personal names vo n individuals derselben fam ily indicate no fam ily connection 

between them. [Family name ist nicht älter als d. Civilisation] 

Indian personal names, how ever, usually indicate the gens o f the individual to 

persons o f other gentes in the same tribe. A s a rule each gens had names fo r 

persons that were its special property, and, as such, could not be used by 

other gentes in the same tribe. A gentile name conferred o f itse lf gentile rights. 

147

A fter birth o f the child his mother selected fo r him a name not in use, 

belonging to the gens, w ith the concurrence o f her nearest relatives. T he 

child not fu lly christened until its birth u. the name o f its father, had been 

announced a t the next ensuing council o f the tribe. Bei T o d einer Person, 

konnte deren Namen nicht wieder used wden in the lifetim e of his oldest surviving 

son, without the consent o f the latter [Dies w ie alles particular, w enn nicht 

direct G egentheil gesagt, gilt vo n d. Iroquois] 

Zwei classes o f names in use, one adapted to childhood, the other to aduit life ; 

one “ being taken away” (ihre expression) u. d. andere “ bestow ed.” 

Im A lter v. 16 od. 18 der erste N am e w eggenom m en, usually dch d. chief 

der gens u. einer der 2ten Klasse statt dessen gegeben. A t the next council 

o f the tribe the change o f names was publicly announced, after w hich the 

person, if a male, assumed the duties o f manhood. In some Indian tribes 

the youth w as required to go out upon the war-path and earn his second name 

b y some act o f personal bravery. A fter a severe illness nicht ungew öhnlich 

fo r a person, from superstitious considerations, to solicit and obtain 

a second change o f name. W hen a person was elected a Sachem od. a chiefs 

his name was taken awayy and a new one conferred a t the time o f his installation. 

D . Individual had no control over the question o f a change; was prerogative 

der female relatives u. der chiefs; but an adult person m ight change 

his name provided he could induce a chief to announce it in council. A 

person having the control o f a particular name, w ie der eldest son o f that o f his 

deceased father, might lend it to a frien d in another gens; but after the death 

o f the person thus bearing it the name reverted to the gens to which it belonged. 

T h e names jetzt in use unter d. Iroquois u. ändern Indian tribes meist 

ancient names handed down in the gentes from time immemorial. 

In familiar intercourse u. form al salutation the Am erican Indians address 

each other by the term o f relationship the person spoken to sustains to the 

speaker. W hen related they salute by kin; w enn nicht, they substitute 

“ my friend,.” G älte für lümmelhaft to address an Indian by his personal name, 

or to inquire bis name directly from himself. Anglo-Saxon ancestors der “ E n g 

lish” hatten bis Norman Conquest nur single personal names, no name to 

designate the fam ily. Z eig t an späte Erscheinung der Monogamie; u. Existent^ 

in früherer Periode vo n a Saxon gens, 

j ) The right o f adopting strangers into the gens. 

Captives taken in w ar either put to death, or adopted into some gens; 

letztres mit women u. children, taken prisoners, usual. Adoption not only 

conferred gentile rights, sondern auch d. nationality o f the tribe. 

T h e person adopting a captive placed him or her in the relation o f a brother 

or a sister; if a m other adopted, in that o f a son or a daughter; and ever afterwards 

treated100 the person in all respects as though born in that relation. 

Slavery, w hich in the Upper Status o f Barbarism became the fate o f the 

captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period. 

148

Captives w hen adopted w ere often assigned in the fam ily the places o f 

deceased persons slain in battle, in order to fill up the broken ranks o f 

relatives. Ausnahmsweise declining gens so replenished, z.B. A t certain 

time die H awk gens der Senecas so m uch thinned, dass dem Erlöschen nah; 

to save the gens a number o f persons from the W olf gens by mutual consent 

w ere transferred in a body by adoption to that o f 101 the H aw k. D . 

Adoptionsrecht left to the discretion o f each gens. Unter d. Iroquois d. 

Adoptionscerem onie perform ed at a public council o f the tribe, w dch 

turned practically in (to ) a religious rite.102 

8) Religious rites10* in the G ens? 

K ann kaum gesagt w den, dass any Indian gens had special religious rites; aber 

their religious worship mehr od. minder direct connection with the gentes; 

religious ideas germ inated u. form s o f w orship instituted in gens, 

36 expanded from the gens over the | tribe, statt special to remain to the gens. 

So bei den Iroquois 6 annual religious festivals [M aple, Planting, Berry, 

Green-Corn, Harvest u. New Year's Festivals] com m on to all the gentes 

united in a tribe, observed at stated seasons o f the year. 

Jede gens furnished a number o f “ Keepers o f the F aith” , male and female, 

charged m it celebration jener festivals; conducted in selben d. ceremonies 

zus. mit d. Sachems u. Chiefs der Tribes w ho, ex officio, “ Keepers o f the 

Faith.” W ith no official head, none o f the marks o f a priesthood, their 

functions equal. D ie “female keepers o f the fa ith " bes. charged m it preparation 

o f the feast, provided at all councils at the close o f each day for all 

persons in attendance. D as dinner in common. T heir w orship was one o f 

thanksgiving, w ith invocations der Great S p irit u. der Lesser Spirits to 

continue to them the blessings o f life. (C f. Morgan's: League o f the Iroquois, 

p. 182) 

9) A common burial place. 

A ncient - aber nicht exclusive- m ode o f b u rial: by scaffolding the body until 

the flesh had wasted, danach d. bones collected u. preserved in bark barrels 

in a house constructed fo r their reception. D ie belonging zur selben gens 

usually placed in the same house. Rev. D r . Cyrus Byington found these 

practices unter d. Choctas, 1827; so sagt A d a ir [H ist, o f the Americ. Indians 

p. 183] vo n d. Cherokees: “ I saw three o f them, in one o f their tow ns 

pretty near each o th er... Each house contained the bones o f one tribe 

separately, w ith the hieroglyphical figures o f each fam ily (gens) on each 

o f the oddshaped arks." D . Iroquois in ancient times used scaffolds u. 

preserved the bones o f deceased relatives in bark barrels, often keeping them in 

the house they occupied. T h ey also buried in the ground; im letzten Fall die 

same gens not always buried locally together, unless they had a common 

cemetery fo r the village. Rev. A sh er104 Wright, a missionary am ong the 

Senecas, w rote to M organ: “ I find no trace o f the influence o f clanship in 

the burial places o f the dead buried prom iscuously ... they say that 

formerly the members o f the different clans more frequently resided together than 

149

they do a t present time. A s one fam ily they were more under the influence offam ily 

feeling,, and had less o f individual interest.” 

A t the Tuscarora reservation (near Lew iston), obgleich d. Tuscaroras now 

“ Christians” , hat tribe one common cemetery aber d. individuals o f the same gens 

o f Beaver, Bear, G rey W o lf - etc are buried in a row by themselves. D o rt 

husbands u. wives separated u. buried in separate ro w s: ebenso fathers u. their 

children; aber found in the same row mothers and their children u. brothers u. 

sisters. 

Unter d. Iroquois u. ändern Indian tribes in same status o f advancement 

bei d. funeral o f a deceased gentilis, a ll the members o f the gens are mourners; 

d. addresses at the funeral, the preparation o f the grave, u. the burial o f the body 

w ere perform ed b y members o f other gentes. 

D . 'S/mage Indians v. M exico u. Central Am erica practiced a slow cremation 

[confined to chief and principal men], ebso scaffolding u. burying in the 

ground. 

10) A Council o f the Gens. 

T h e Council - instrument o f governm ent u. supreme authority über gens, 

tribe, confederacy. O rdinary affairs adjusted dch d. chiefs; those o f general 

interest submitted to the determination o f the council u. d. council sprang 

from the gentile organisation - the Council o f C hiefs; its history, gentil, tribaly 

u. confederate, bis political society intervened, changing Council in Senat. 

Sim plest u. lowestform o f the Council - that o f the Gens; a dem ocratic assembly, 

w o every adult male u. fem ale member had a voice upon all questions brought 

before it; it elected u. deposed its sachem u. chiefs, ditto “ Keepers o f the F a ith” , 

it condoned or avenged the murder o f a gentilis, it adopted persons into the 

gens. It was the germ o f the higher council o f the tribe, and o f that s till higher 

o f the confederacy, each o f which was composed exclusively o f chiefs as representa- 

37 tives o f the gentes. | So dies bei Iroquois u. selber Rechte der gentes der 

Grecian u. L a tin tribes [(save Punkte /, 2y 6, deren ancient existence doch 

presumirt w den muss)] 

A ll the members o f an Iroquois gens personally free, bound to defend each 

other'sfreedom; equal in privileges u. personal rights. Sachem u. chiefs claim ing 

no superiority; a brotherhood bound together by the ties o f kin. Liberty, Equality, 

and Fraternityy though never formulated, w ere cardinal principles der gens 

u. diese d. unit o f a social u. governmental system, the foundation wor

u. L atin tribes in der relativ späten Periode w o sie under historical notice 

komm en, were (bereits) named after persons. In einigen der tribes, w ie bei 

M oqui Village Indians o f New M exico, the members o f the gens claimed their 

descent from the animal whose name they bore - their remote ancestors having 

been transform ed by the G reat Spirit vo n animal into human form. 

Personenâhl d. gentes varied : 

3000 Senecas divided equally unter 8 gentes, w ould give an average 

v. 375 persons per gens; 

i;,ooo Ojibwas divided unter 23 gentes - (w ould give an average v .) 

6jo perss per gens. 

Cherokees w ould average m ore than 1000 to a gens. 

In d. present condition d. H aupt Indian tribes Personenzahl in jeder gens 

w ould range v. 100 to 1000. 

E x ce p t the Polynesians, every fam ily o f mankind seems to have come under the 

Gentile organisation. 

P t. I I . C h. I I I . The Iroquois Phratry. 

The phratry (cppaxpia) a brotherhood, a natural grow th from the organisation 

into gen tes; an organic union or association o f 2 or more gentes o f the same tribe 

for certain common objects. These gentes were usually such as had been form ed by 

the segmentation o f an original gens. 

U nter d. G recian gentes phratry nearly as constant as the gens; jeder d. 4 tribes 

dr Athenians organised in 3 phratries, each composed o f 30 gentes; also 4 tribes = 

12 phratries = 360 gentes, od. 4 tribes = 4 x 3 phratries = 4 x 3 x 30 

gentes. Solche numerisch symmetrische O rganization beweist, dass später 

G esetz herumgearbeitet an d. gegebnen D ivision105 v. tribes in phratries u. 

phratries in gentes. A l l the gentes o f a tribe - as a rule - o f common descent u. 

bearing a common tribal name. T h e phratric organisation had a natural foundation 

in the immediate kinship o f certain gentes as subdivisions o f an original gens 

u. auf dieser basis auch d. Grecian phratry originally form ed.106 D . spätere 

legislative numerical adjustment der Athenian tribes in phratries u. gentes 

erheischte nur incorporation o f alien gentes u. transfer by consent or constraint. 

V . d. functions d. Grecian phratry w enig bekannt: observance o f special 

religious rites; condonation or revenge o f the murder o f a phrator; 107 purification 

o f a murderer nachdem er penalty o f his crime escaped preparatory to his 

restoration to society. 7ioia Se êpviij; cppareptov 7rpocrSs^£Tai108 (Aeschylus, 

Eumenides, v. 6j6). In A then überlebte diese institution die Errichtung o f 

political society unter Cleisthenes; his fu n ction: to look after the registration o f 

citizens, w de so guardian o f descents u. o f the evidence o f citizenship. T h e wife 

upon her marriage was enrolled in the phratry o f her husband u. d. children der 

marriage w ere enrolled in the gens and phratry o f their father. T he phratry 

had s till the duty to prosecute the murderer o f a phrator in the courts o f justice 

(Veränderte Form der Blutrache!) W ären alle details know n, w e w ould 

probably find the phratry connected mit the common tables, the public 

151

games, the funerals o f distinguished men, the earliest army organisation, 109 and 

the proceedings o f councils, as w ell as observance o f religious rites and the guardian- 

38 ship o f social privileges. \ Analogue o f Greek phratry - the Rom an curia. 

” εΐη 8’ αν Έ λλάδι γλώττη τά ονόματα ταυτα μεθερμηνευόμενα φυλή μεν καί 

τριττυς ή τρίβους, φράτρα δε καί λόχος ή κουρία,110 (Dionys. 1. I I , c. V I I : 

cf. I. I I , c. i f ) Jede curia = 1 0 gentes in each o f the 3 Rom an tribes, 

m aking 30 curiae u . j 00 gentes; the curia entered directly into the govern 

ment. T h e assembly o f the gentes - comitia curiata - voted by curiae, each 

having one collective vote. This assembly the sovereign power o f the Roman 

people down to Servius Tullius. 

O f organic growth the phratry der Am erican aborigenes, w o sie existirte under 

large num ber o f tribes ; had no governmental functions w ie gens, tribe, confederacy; 

certain social functions, namtlich w ichtig when the tribe was large. 

It presents the phratry in its archaic form and in its archaic functions. 

1) The E ig h t gentes o f the Seneca-Iroquois Tribes, reintegrated in 2 phratries. 

1st) Phratry. Gentes: 1) Bear. 2) W olf, 3) Beaver. 4) Turtle. 

2nd) Phratry. Gentes: f) D eer. 6) Snipe. 7) Heron. 8) H awk. 

De-a-non-da’-a-yoh (Phratry) bedeutet brotherhood. T h e gentes in the same 

phratry are brother gentes to each other, and cousin-gentes to those o f the 

other phratry ; d. Senecas brauchen diese Ausdrücke w hen speaking o f gentes 

in relation to the phratries. Originally marriage not allow ed unter d. members 

der same phratry, aber die M embers je einer phratry konnte (ή ) 

heirathen into any gens o f the other. Dies Verbot (d. Heirath unter 

G liedern derselben Phratry) zeigt, dass d. gentes o f each phratry were subdivisions 

o f an original gens, u. d. V erb o t to marry into one’s ow n gens had 

follow ed to its subdivisions. D iese Restriction w ar seit lang verschw unden, 

ausser m it Be%ug auf marriage eines Individuums in seiner eignen gens. 

Tradition der Senecas, dass d. B är u. the D eer d. original gentes, v o n denen d. 

andren subdivisions. A lso : natural foundation der phratry - the kinship o f 

the gentes o f which it was composed. A fter their subdivision from increase o f 

numbers there was a natural tendency to their reunion in a higher organisation 

fo r objects common to them all. Dieselben gentes nicht für immer constant in a 

phratry; w enn d. equilibrium in their respective numbers disturbed, 

transfers o f particular gentes from one phratry to the other occurred. 

M it increase o f numbers in a gens, follow ed by local separation o f its members, 

segmentation occurred, and the seceding portion adopted a new gentile name. 

A b er tradition o f their form er unity remained u. became the basis o f their 

reorganisation in a phratry. 

2) Cayuga— Iroquois. 8 gentes unequally divided between 2 phratries. 

1st Phratry. Gentes. 1) Bear. 2) W olf. 3) Turtle. 4) Snipe, j ) E e l.m 

U n d Phratry. Gentes. 6) D eer 7) Beaver 8) H awk. 

Seven o f these gentes selbe w ie die der Senecas ; the Herongens verschw unden; 

E e l111 takes its place, but transferred to the other side. T h e Snipe 

152

u. Beaver gentes also have exchanged fratries. D . Cajugas nennen auch d. 

gentes der same phratry “ brother gentes” , die der opposite phratry “ Cousin 

gentes.” 

f ) Onondaga-Iroquois (8gentes, unequally divided in phratrieswie bet Cayugas.) 

1st Phratry. Gentes. i) W olf. 2) Turtle, f ) Snipe. 4) Beaver. /) B a ll. 

U n d 112 Phratry. Gentes. 6) D eer. 7) E e l. 111 8) Bear. 

H awk (bei d. Cayugas) ersetzt dch B a ll bei den Onondagas. Com position d. 

Phratries different vo n der der Senecas. 3 d. gentes in d. ist phratry selbe, 

aber Bear gens n ow found m it D eer. 

D . Onondagas have no H aw k, the Senecas no E el gens, aber fraternise w hen 

they meet, as connected w ith each other. 

D . Mohawks u. Oneidas haben nur 3 gentes: 1) Bear, 2) W olf; 3) Turtle; no 

phratries. Z u r Z e it der Bildung der Confederation seven o f the 8 Seneca 

gentes existed in the several tribes, as shown by the establishment o f Sachem- 

ships in them. B ut the Mohawks u. Oneidas had only the 3 nam ed; they had 

then lost an entire phratry, and one gens o f that remaining - if ( J ) it is supposed (!) 

39 that the original tribes were once composed | o f the same gentes. 

W hen a tribe organised in gentes u. phratries subdivides, it m ight occur 

on the line o f the phratric organisation. O bgleich d. members o f a tribe intermingled 

throughout by marriage, each gens in a phratry is composed o f 

fem ales with their children and descendants through fem ales, w h o form ed the 

body o f the phratry. W ould incline to remain locally together, and 

thus might become detached in a body. D . male members o f the gens married to 

w om en o f other gentes and remaining w ith their w ives w ould not affect 

the gens since the children o f the male do not belong to its connexion. T h e gentes 

and phratries can be follow ed through every tribe. 

T h e Tuscarora-Iroquois w den detachirt vo m main stock in unbekannter 

Periode der Vergangenheit, bew ohnten d. Neuse-river region von N orth 

Carolina zur Z eit ihrer Entdeckung. U m 1712 verjagt aus dieser A rea, 

rem oved to the country der Iroquois, w ere admitted in die Confederacy 

as 6th member. 

Tuscarora-Iroquois. 2 Phratries v. 8 gentes. 

1st Phratry. Gentes. 1) Bear 2) Beaver, j ) Great Turtle. 4) E e l 

I I Phratry. Gentes. /) Gray W olf. 6) Yellow W olf. 7) L ittle Turtle. 8) Snipe. 

Haben 6 gentes in com m on w ith Cayugas u. Onondagas, / mit Senecas, 3 mit 

Mohawks u. Oneidas. T he D eer Gens, die sie einst besassen, extinct in 

m odern times. W olf gens n ow divided in 2, Gray u. Yellow; ebenso Turtle 

Gens verdoppelt in G reat u. L ittle. 3 o f the gentes in the first phratry the 

same w ith 3 in the ist phratry der Senecas u. Cayugas, nur d. T u rtle 113 

gens double. D a several 100 years zw ischen separation der Tuscarora 

vo n u. return zu ihren congeners, Bew eis o f perm(an)ence in the existence o f 

a gens. W ie bei d. ändern tribes, d. gentes in d. same phratry called brother 

gentes, die in the other cousin gentes. 

153

Differences in the composition der Phratries zeigen ihre modification to meet 

changes o f condition, (die diese sie bildenden gentes befielen, w ie E n tvölkerg 

einiger, od. extinction etc) to preserve some degree o f equilibrium in 

the num ber o f phrators in each. Phratric organisation unter Iroquois von 

unvordenklicher Zeit, älter als the confederacy, established über ^1U centuries 

ago. Im Ganzen d. difference in their com position as to gentes small, 

bew eist permanence der Phratry sow ohl als der gens. D . Iroquois tribes 

hatten 38 gentes u. in 4 o f the tribes a total o f 8 phratries. 

Unter d. Iroquois d. Phratry theils for social, theils for religious objects. 

1) Games, gew öhnlich bei tribal u. confederate councils. Z .B . in ball game 

der Senecas they play by phratries, eine gegen d. andre, u. bet against each 

other upon the result o f the game. Each phratry puts forw ard 115 its best 

players etc. B efor(e) d. Spiel beginnt, articles o f personal property are116 

hazarded upon the results dch members der opposite phratries, are deposited 

with keepers to abide the event. 

2) A t a council o f the tribe the sachems and chiefs in each phratry usually 

seated on opposite sides o f an imaginary Council-fire u. the speakers addressed 

the 2 opposite bodies as the representatives o f the phratries. 

3) W enn murder committed erst council d. gens des slain, dann council der gens 

des M örders; aber gens o f the criminal calls oft on d. other gentes o f 

their phratry (when the slayer u. the slayed belonged to opposite phratries), to 

unite w ith them to obtain a condonation o f the andre. D ann hielt diese 

Phratry ein council u. addressed itself hierauf an d. andre Phratry to w hich 

it sent a delegation with a belt o f white wampum asking for a council o f the 

phratry u. an adjustment o f the crime. T h ey offered reparation to the 

fam ily u. gens des murdered in expressions o f regret u. presents o f value. 

N egotiations between the 2 councils, bis affirmative or negative Ent- 

scheidg erreicht. Influence einer phratry grösser als die einer gens u. by 

calling into action d. opposite phratry condonation wahrscheinlicher, 

namentlich bei extenuating circumstances. D arum Grecian phratry (vor 

Civilisation) übernahm main management o f cases o f m urder u. also o f 

purification des murderer w enn he escaped punishment; hence nach 

Errichtung117 d. p olit. society nimmt phratry an d. duty o f prosecuting the 

murderer in the courts o f justice. | 

40 4) A t funerals o f persons o f recognised importance - conspicuous functions der 

phratries (p. 95, 96) [In the case o f a defunct Sachem, the opposite phratry, 

! not his ow n, sent immediately after the funeral, the official wampum-belt 

o f the deceased ruler to the central council fire at Onondaga, as a notification 

o f his demise. This was retained until the installation o f his successor, 

upon w hom it then bestow ed as the insignia o f his office. 

5) Phratry directly concerned in the election o f sachems and Chiefs o f the 

several gentes. Hatte a gens successor ernannt für ihren deceased Sachem 

(od. elected a chief o f the 2nd grade), so expected as a matter o f course 

that the gentes o f the same phratry w ould confirm the choice; aber manchmal 

154

opposition vo n Seiten der opposite phratry. D adurch kam action of council 

o f each phratry in’s Spiel. 

6) Früher v o r m odern times had the Senecas “ Medicine118 lodges” ; letztere 

form ed a prom inent part o f their religious system; to hold a Medicine 

Lodge was to observe their highest religious rites, and to practice their 

highest religious m ysteries; they had 2 such organisations, one in each 

phratry; each was a brotherhood into w hich new members w ere admitted 

by a formal initiation. 

Unlike the Grecian phratry u. d. Roman curia this Indian phratry had no 

official head; ebenso no religious functionaries belonging to it as distinguished von 

gens u. tribe. 

M. betrachtet die 4 “ lineages” o f the Tlascalans w ho occupied the 4 quarters 

o f the pueblo o f Tlascala, als so many phratries (nicht als so many tribes, 

w eil sie occupied the same pueblo and spoke the same dialect.) Each “lineage” 

od. phratry had a distinct military organisation, a peculiar costume u. banner, 

and its head w ar-chief (Teuctli) w ho was its general military commander. 

They went forth to battle by phratries. T h e organisation o f a military force by 

phratries u. by tribes nicht unbekannt d. homerischen Griechen. Nestor sagt 

SU A.game(m)non: κρΐν' άνδρας κατά φϋλα, κατά φρήτρας, Άγάμεμνον, 

ώς φρήτρη φρήτρηφιν άρήγη, φυλα δέ φύλοις.119 {Horn. Iliad. II, 362-363.) 

D . Chocta gentes united in 2 phratries, the first called “ Divided People”, 

containing 4 gentes; the second “ Beloved People”, contains also 4 gentes. 

This separation of the people into 2 divisions by gentes created two phratries. - A 

tribe hat nie weniger als 2 gentes. T h e gens increases in number of its members, 

divides into 2; these again subdivide, and in time reunite in 2 or more 

phratries. These phratries form a tribe, and its members speak the same 

dialect. In course o f time this tribe fa lls into several by process of segmentation, 

which in turn reunite in a confederacy. Such a confederacy is a growth, through 

the tribe and phratry, from a pair o f gentes. 

Mohegan Tribe, had 3 original gentes, Wolf, Turtle, Turkey. Each o f these 

subdivided, and the subdivisions became independent gentes, but they retained 

the names o f the original subdivisions o f each gens as their respective phratric 

names, alias the subdivisions of each gens reorganised into a phratry. D ies beweist 

conclusively the natural process, w dch, in course o f time, a gens breaks up 

into several, u. diese remain united in a phratric organisation w hich is expressed 

by assuming a phratric name. 

Mohegan tribe, originally consisting aus 3 gentes, Wolf, Turtle, Turkey. 

I) W olf Phratry. 4 gentes. i) Wolf. 2) Bear, f) Dog. 4) Opossum. 

II) Turtle 4 120 gentes. j) L ittle Turtle. 6) Mud Turtle. 7) Great Turtle 

8) Yellow E e l.111 

I I I ) Turkey „ 3 gentes. 9) Turkey. 10) Crane. 11) Chicken. 

Selten unter den Am erican Indian Tribes befand sich plain evidence o f the 

155

Segmentation o f gentes, follow ed b y the formation into phratries o f their 

respective subdivisions. Shows also that the phratry founded upon the kinship 

o f the gentes. A s a rule the name o f the original gens out o f w hich others had 

form ed - unkn ow n; but in each o f these cases it remains as the name o f 

the phratry. D e r Name nur einer der Athenian phratries know n to us ; die 

der Iroquois had no name but that o f brotherhood. 

P t I I C h. I V . The Iroquois Tribe. 

Am erican aborigenes fallen in %ahtt°se tribes “ by the natural process o f 

segm entation each tribe individualized by a name, a separate dialect, a supreme 

government, a territory, occupied and defended as its own. T h e dialects as numerous 

41 as I the tribes, fo r separation nicht com plete, before dialectical variation had 

commenced. - M organ glaubt, dass all the num erous aboriginal Am erican 

tribes (minus Eskim os w h o no aborigenes) form ed out o f one original people. 

D . term N ation angew andt auf viele Indian tribes, trotz geringer V o lk szahl, 

v. w egen exclusive possession o f a dialect and o f a territory. A b er Tribe 

u. N ations nicht genaue Equivalents ; unter gentile institutions entspringt 

nation nur, w ann d. tribes, united under the same governm ent, have 

coalesced into one people, w ie d. 4 Athenian tribes in A ttica, 3 D orian tribes 

in Sparta, 3 Latin u. Sabine tribes at Rom e. Federation requires independent 

tribes in separate territorial areas; coalescence unites them b y a higher process 

in the same area, obgleich tendency to local separation by gentes u. by tribes 

w ould continue. T h e confederacy is the nearest analogue o f the nation. 

Sehr selten Fälle unter d. Am erican aborigenes, w o the tribe embraced 

peoples speaking different dialects; w o d. Fall, w ar’s Resultat der U nion eines 

schwächeren mit einem stärkeren tribe speaking a closely related dialect, w ie 

d. union der M issouris - after their overthrow - mit den Otoes. D . great body 

d. aborigenes ward gefunden in independent tribes; nur w enige hatten es 

gebracht zu conféderacy o f tribes speaking dialects o f the same stock language. 

Constant tendency to disintegration existed in the elements o f gentile organization, 

aggravated dch tendency to divergence o f speech, inseparable from their 

social state and the large area o f their occupation. A verbal language, obgleich 

m erkw ürdig persistent in its vocables u. noch mehr in its grammatical form s, - 

is incapable o f permanence. D e r Lokalen Separation - in area - flgt im L au f 

der Z eit variation in speech; dies leads to separation in interests u. to 

ultimate independence. D . grosse Z a h l von dialects u. stocklanguages in 

N ord- u. Südamerika wahrscheinlich - save d. Eskim os - abgeleitet vo n 

one original language, erheischten für ihre Bildung the time measured by 3 ethnic 

periods. 

New tribes u. new gentes w ere constantly form ing by natural g ro w th ; der 

process sensibly accelerated dch the great expanse d. Am erican continent. D . 

M ethode w ar einfach. From some overstocked geographical centre, possessing 

superior advantages in the means o f subsistence, a gradual outflow o f people. 

D ies continued jährlich, so a considerable population developed a t a distance 

vom original seat des tribe; im L au f der Z eit d. emigrants w erden distinct in 

156

interests, strangers in feeling, schliesslich divergent in speech; separation u. 

independence follow , though their territories were contiguous. D ies repeated 

itself von age %u age in newly acquired as well as in old areas__ W hen increased 

numbers pressed upon the means o f subsistence, the surplus removed to a new seat 

w o sie sich m it Leichtigkeit etablirten, weil the government was perfect in every 

gens u. in any number o f gentes united in a band. [Dies was ‘ organised colonisation' 

!] U nter d. Village Indians selber Process in etwas m odificirter Form . 

W hen a village became overcrow ded w ith numbers, a colony w ent up or 

dow n on the same stream u. commenced a new village; repeated at intervals, 

several such villages appear, each independent o f the other and selfgoverning 

b ody; but united in a league or confederacy for mutual protection; dialectical 

variation finally springing up, com pletes their growth into tribes. 

Tribes form ed by the subdivisions o f an original tribe possess a number o f 

gentes in common u. speak dialects o f the same language; have a num ber o f 

gentes selbst nach centuries o f separation. So die Hurons, jezt Wyandotes, 

haben 6 gentes desselben Namens mit 6 der gentes der Seneca-Iroquois, nach 

at least 400 J. Trennung. D ie Potawattamies haben 8 gentes selben Namens 

mit 8 unter d. Ojibwas, w hd d. form er 6 u. d. letzteren 14 different haben; 

show ing dass neue gentes form ed in each tribe by segmentation seit ihrer 

Trennung. E in noch älterer Absetzer der Ojibwas - oder eines com m on 

parent tribe beider - die M iamis, haben nur 3 gentes in com m on mit den 

former, W olf \ Loon u. Eagle. 

Illustrations from tribes in Lower State o f Barbarism. 

8 M issouri tribes, bei ihrer E ntdeckung occupy the banks des M issouri über 

1000 miles zus. mit d. banks o f its tributaries, the Kansas u. the P la tte, 

ebenso the smaller rivers o f Iowa; ebenso W est Bank o f M ississippi down 

to the Arkansas. T he dialects beweisen dass the people in 3 tribes before 

the last subdivisions, näm lich: 

1) Punkas u. Omahas; 2) low as, Otoes u. M issouris; 3) Kaws, O sages, u. 

Quappas; ihre several dialects nearer to each other than to any other dialect der 

D akotian stock language to w hich they belong; also linguistic necessity fo r 

their derivation von an original tribe, w o v o n sie subdivisions; spreading from a 

central point on the M issouri along its banks, above u. b e lo w ; m it increase o f 

distance between their settlements - separation in interests, follow ed by 

divergence o f speech u. finally by independence. E xtending along a river in a 

prairie country such a people m ight separate first in 3 tribes, dann in 8, 

the organisation o f each subdivision remaining complete. D ivision meant a 

separation into parts by natural expansion over a larger area, follow ed by a 

42 complete segmentation. D er uppermost \ tribe on the M issouri - the Punkas 

at the mouth o f the Niobrara river; the lowermost the Quappas at the mouth o f 

the A rkansas on the M ississippi; near 15 00 miles between them. T h e 

intermediate region, confined to the narrow belt o f forest upon the M issouri, was 

held by the rem aining 6 tribes. T h ey w ere strictly River Tribes. 

Tribes o f L a ke Superior. 1) Ojibwas; 2) Otawas ( = O -tä’-was); 3 ) Pottawa- 

157

tamies subdivisions o f an original trib e; die Ojibwas der original tribe, the 

stem, bleiben am original seat at the great fisheries upon the outlet o f the lake; 

they are styled “ E lder Brother” dch d. beiden ändern, d. Ottawas “ n ext elder 

brother” , die Pottawatamies - “ Younger Brother” . D ie letzteren separated 

first, die Ottawas last, as show n by the relative amount o f dialectical variation, 

that o f the Pottawattam ies being greatest. A ls entdeckt, 16 14 , d. Ojibwas 

seated at the Rapids on the outlet o f L a ke Superior, from w hich point they 

had spread along the southern shore o f the lake to the site o f Ontonagon, 

along its northeastern shore and dow n the S t. Mary River w ell toward 

L ake Huron; ihre position famos for a fish and game subsistence [They did 

not cultivate mai%e and plants]; zurückstehend keiner portion in N orth- 

america ausser dem Valley der Columbia. [D . Ojibwas m anufactured 

earthen pipes, water ja rs u. vessels in ancient times, as they now assert. 

- -Indian pottery zu verschiednen Zeiten dug up at the Sault S t. M ary, the 

_w ork o f their forefathers.] M it such advantages certain to develop a 

large Indian population u. send out successive bands o f emigrants to become independent 

tribes. 

D . Pottawa(ta)m ies occupied a region on the confines o f Upper Michigan u. 

Wisconsin, w oraus 1641 the D akotas w ere in act o f expelling them. Z u 

gleich d. Ottawas, deren earlier evidence supposed on the Ottawa river o f 

Canada, had drawn w estw ard; - damals seated upon the Georgian Bay, 

the Manitouline islands u. at Mackinaw, vo n w elchen Punkten they were 

spreading südlich über L ow er M ichigan. - Separation in place and distance 

had lon g before their discovery resulted in the form ation o f dialects, u. 

in tribal independence. D . 3 tribes, deren territories contiguous, had 

form ed an alliance for mutual protection, “ the Ottaiva Confederation” 

(offen(s)ive u. defensive league) 

V o r diesen secessions another affiliated tribe, the M iamis, had broken off 

vom O jibw a stock - the com m on parent tribe - u. m igrated to Central 

Illinois u. Western Indiana. Folgend im track dieser m igration w ere the 

Illinois, another u. later offshoot vom same stem, w h o afterwards subdivided 

in PeoriaSy Kaskaskias, Weaws u. Piankeshaws. Ihre dialects mit dem der 

M iami nearest affinity mit d. Ojibwa u. next m it the Cree [The Pottaw[at) - 

amie u. Cree have diverged about equally; whschlich Ojibwas, Ottawas u. 

Cree one people in dialect nach d. detachment dr Potawattamies\ 

Outflow aller dieser tribes from central scat at the great fisheries o f L a ke Superior - 

as a natural centre o f subsistence. D . Algonkins v. N ew England, Delaware, 

Maryland, Virginia u. Carolina sehr whsclich derived v o n same stock. 

_Each emigrating band in the nature o f a military colony, seeking to acquire 

I u. hold a new area, preserving at first, and as long as possible, a connection 

with the mother tribe; dch these successive movements they sought to expand 

their jo in t possessions u. afterward, to resist the intrusion o f alien people within 

_their lim its__ T he Indian tribes speaking dialects o f the same stock language 

I have been usually found in territorial continuity, how ever extended their 

158

com m on area. D ies gilt, in the main, vo n a ll tribes o f mankind linguistically 

united__ Spreading from one common centre they have preserved their 

connection with the motherland as a means o f succor in times o f danger, and 

as a place o f refuge in calamity. 

D am it an area in itial p a rt o f migration w erde dch gradual production o f a 

'T~surplus population required special advantages in the means o f subsistence. 

I Solche natural centres wenig zahlreich in Nordamerika in fact, nur 3. A n der 

Sp itze the Valley o f the Columbia, ausgezeichnetste region on the face o f the 

earth in the variety and amount o f subsistence it afforded, prior to the cultivation 

o f maize and plants. E xcellen t game country as m ixture o f forest u. prairie. In 

the prairies wuchs a species o f bread-root, the Kamash u. zw ar abundantly; 

in these respects it was, how ever, not superior to other areas; was es aus- 

(Z)eichnet - inexhaustible supply o f salmon im Columbia u. ändern Küstenflüssen. 

j T h ey crow ded these streams in millions, w ere taken in the season mit 

facility u. greatest abundance. A fte r being split open u. dried in the sun, they 

were packed u. removed to the villages, form ed their principal food during 

the greater pa rt o f the year. Ausserdem d. shell fisheries der Küste, supplying 

large amount o f food during the winter months. Ausserdem Clim a m ild u. 

equable throughout the year, abt that o f Virginia u. Tennessee, was the 

paradise o f tribes ohne knowledge der cereals. Es kann sehr w hclich gem acht 

werden, dass d. Valley o f Columbia the seedland o f the Ganowanian fam ily, 

w o vo n successive streams o f m igratory bands, bis both divisions des Continent 

occupied, u. dass beide divisions, bis zur E poche der europ. Entdeckung 

replenished w ith inhabitants vo n dieser Quelle. D . grosse Ausdehnung der \ 

43 Centralprairien, spreading continuously m ore than ijoo miles v. N ord nach 

Süd u. über 1000 miles von O st nach West, interposed a barrier to free communication 

zwischen Pacific u. A tla n tic sides des Continents in Nordamerika. 

W hsclich daher, dass an original fam ily com m encing its spread from the 

Valley o f the Columbia, u. m igrating under the influence o f physical causes, 

~ T w ould reach Patagonia eher als Florida. D ie Entdeckung d. M aize w ürde d. 

course o f events nicht materially change, or suspend the action o f 

" p r e v io u s causes. N icht bekannt w o das American cereal indigenous; aber 

Central Am erica, w o vegetation intensely active, w o M aize peculiarly fru itfu l, 

w o d. oldest seats dr Village Indians found probable place o f nativity o f 

M aize. V o n Centralamerica die cultivation w ould have spread to M exico, 

dann N eu M exico u. valley des M ississippi, vo n da östlich to the shores des 

A tla n tic; the volum e o f cultivation dim inishing from the starting point to 

the extremities. It w ou ld spread independently vo n d. V illage Indians, 

from the desire o f m ore barbarous tribes to gain the new subsistence; 

aber extended nie über N eu M exico to the Valley o f the Columbia, obgleich 

cultivation practiced dch d. Minnitarees u. Mandans des Upper M issouri, 

die Shyans des Red River des N orth, by the Hurons o f L a ke Simcoe in Canada, 

the Abenakies o f the Kennebek, w ie generally by a ll the tribes zwischen M ississippi 

u. A tla n tic. M igrating bands vo n d. V alley o f Colum bia w ould 

T59

press upon the village Indians o f N eu M exico u. M exico, tending to force 

displaced u. fragm entary tribes towards and through the Istmus into South 

Am erica, w o h in diese w ou ld carry the first germ s o f progress developed 

by the V illage Indians. Repeated at intervals o f time it w ould tend to 

bestow upon South Am erica a class o f inhabitants fa r superior to the wild bands 

formerly supplied, and at the expense o f the N orthern section thus im poverished. 

So South Am erica would attain the advanced position in developm ent, 

even in an inferior country, w hich seems to have been the fact. T he 

Peruvian legend o f Manco Capac u. Mama Oello, children o f the sun, brother 

and sister, husband and wife shows that a band o f village Indians, m igrating 

from a distance, though not necessarily from N orth Am erica direct, had gath- 

__ered together and taught the rude tribes o f the Andes the higher arts o f life 

I including the cultivation o f Maiê and plants; legend dropped out the band, 

retained only the leader and his wife. 

2)tes (nach Valley o f Columbia) natural initial centre: the peninsula between 

L akes Superior, H uron u. Michigan, the seat o f the Ojibwas u. nursery land o f 

many Indian tribes. 

j t ) natural in itia l centre: the L a ke region o f Minnesota, the nursery ground der 

present D akotian tribes. G rund anzunehmen, dass Minnesota was a p a rt of 

the Algonkin area v o r B esetzg dch d. D akotas. 

Sobld cultivation o f maiê u. plants erschien, it tended to localise the people u. 

support them in sm aller areas, as w ell as to increase their numbers; übertrug 

aber nicht control des Continents to the most advanced tribes der Village Indians, 

die fa s t nur von Cultivation subsisted. Horticulture spread unter d. principal 

tribes in the Lower Status o f barbarism, im proved greatly their condition. 

T h ey held, mit den non horticultural tribes, the great areas o f N orth Am erica 

w hen discovered, u. v . ihren ranks the Continent replenished m it inhabitants. 

Incessant warfare d. aborigenes mit einander; als R egel the most 

persistent warfare unter tribes speaking different stock languages, w ie z.B. 

zw ischen Iroquois u. A lgonkin tribes u. der ersteren ditto m it d. D akota 

tribes. D aggen A lgonkin u. D akota tribes lived at peace mit each other, 

gezeigt dch occupation o f continuous areas. D ie Iroquois pursued a w ar o f 

extermination gegen their kindred tribes, the E ries, N eutral N ation, the 

Hurons u. d. Susquehannocks. Tribes speaking dialects derselben stocklanguage 

können sich verständigen, com pose their differences, u. lernen, in virtue 

o f their com m on descent, sich als natural allies zu betrachten. 

Bevölkerungsâhl121 in a given area limited b y amount o f the subsistence it 

afforded; w hen fish u. game the main reliance fo r food., immense area required 

to maintain a small tribe. A ls farinaceous foo d hinzukam , area occupied b y 

a tribe s till large in proportion to the number o f the people. New York - mit 

47,000 □ miles hatte nie m ehr als 2j,ooo Indians, inclus. m it d. Iroquois d. 

Algonkins on the eastside des Hudson u. upon the Long Island u. d. E ries u. 

N eutral N ation in d. westlichen Seite des Staats. A personal government, 

gegründet upon gentes, unfähig hinreichde central power zu entw ickeln to 

160

control the increasing numbers des people, w enn sie nicht in reasonable 

44 distance vo n | einander blieben. 

Unter d. Village Indians v o n N eu M exico, M exico u. Centralamerica Wachs- 

thum der Bevölkrungs%ahl upon a sm all area hielt nicht den Process der D isintegration 

auf. W o verschiedne pueblos seated nah bei einander am selben 

Strom , the people usually o f common descent u. under a tribal or confederate 

government. [Each pueblo gew öhnlich an independent, selfgoverning com- 

munity\. A b o u t 7 stock languages, allein gesprochen in N ew M exico, jede 

mit several dialects. Z u r Z eit v. Coronado's expedition - i j 40-42 - the 

villages found numerous but small. Es waren ihrer 7 o f Cibola, Tucayan 

u. Q uivira u. Heme% u. 12 o f Tiguex, u. andre groups indicating a linguistic 

connection o f their members. Unbekannt ob each group confederated. 

D ie i M oqui Pueblos (die Tucayan villages o f C oron ado’s expedition) 

sollen jetzt confederate sein, waren es wahrsclich zur Z eit ihrer 

E ntdeckg. 

D .process o f subdivision operating unter d. Am erican aborigenes für iooode 

v. Jah(r)en, hat in N orth Am erica allein an 40 stock languages entw ickelt, 

w o v o n jede gesprochen in A nzahl v. dialects dch gleiche Zahl unabhängiger 

tribes. 

Für an Am erican Indian tribe nur a few hundreds u. höchstens a few 1000 

people erhe(i)scht, um ihn in a respectable position in Ganowanian fam ily 

zu stellen. 

Functions u. attributes o f the Indian tribes, (p. 112-121) 

1) Possession o f a territory and a name. 

The territory - their actual settlement u. so m uch o f the surrounding region als 

tribe ranged over in hunting u. fishing u. could defend gegen andre encroaching 

tribes; darüber hinaus a wide margin o f neutral grounds, separating them vo m 

nächsten Tribe, speaking a different language, and claimed by neither; less 

w ide and less clearly m arked, when they spoke dialects o f the same language. 

D ie names, die nach u. nach d. tribes individualize, in vielen cases zufällig 

w ie d. Senecas nannten sich selbst “ G reat H ill People” etc N ach Beginn der 

europäischen Colonisation im nördlichen Am erika erhielten d. Indian tribes 

Namen von ändern tribes w h o had bestow ed names upon them different 

from their own. H ence a number o f tribes know n in history under names not 

recognised by themselves. 

2) The exclusive possession o f a dialect. 

Tribe and dialect substantially co-extensive. D . 12 D akota bands jetzt 

properly tribes, aber found in vorzeitige Trennung dch advance o f 

Am ericans upon their original area w hich forced them upon the plains. 

Früher w ar ihre connexion so intimate geblieben dass nur one new dialect 

was form ing, the Tee ton, on the M issouri; the Isauntie on the M ississippi 

being the original speech. V o r einigen Jahren d. Cherokees zählten 26,000, 

largest num ber o f Indians ever found w ithin U .S t., speaking the same 

161

dialect; in the mountain districts o f Georgia a slight divergence o f speech 

had occurred. D . Ojibwas, still in the main non-horticultural, about 1 5,000, 

speak the same dialect; d. D akota tribes, 2j,ooo, 2 closely related dialects. 

D ies Ausnahm en. In U . S t. u. British Am erica zählt a tribe on average 

less than 2000. 

3) The right o f investing Sachems u. C hiefs elected b j the Gentes. 

4) The right to depose Sachems and Chiefs. 

In the Status o f Savagery and in the Lower and also in the M iddle Status o f 

barbarism, office was bestow ed for life, or during good behaviour. 

D . Sachems u. Chiefs, v. d. gentes gew ählt, w den nach T ribe Bildung, 

members d. Tribal Council; hence d. Recht v. Investitr letzteren Vorbehalten; 

(ebenso hatte er auch Absetzngsrecht; gin g, nach B ildung v. Confederation 

auf council o f confederacy über. T he offices o f sachem and chief universally 

elective north o f M exico ; evidence in other parts o f the Continent, evidence, 

dass sie es allgem ein so ursprünglich gewesen. 

5) The possession o f a religious fa ith and worship. 

“ A fte r the fashion o f barbarians the Am erican Indians were a religious people” 

(p. 115) Medicine lodge - Dancing form o f worship. 

6) A supreme government through a council o f chiefs. 

Gens represented by its chiefs. Tribe represented by the council o f the chiefs 

o f the gentes. Called together under circumstances know n to all, held in 

45 the midst o f the people, open to their orators, it was certain to | act 

under popular influence. Council (tribal) had to guard and protect the 

com m on interests o f the tribe. Q uestions and exigencies arising through 

their incessant warfare w ith other tribes. A s a general rule, the council 

open to any private individual desiring to address it on a public 

question. 

“ p T h e women allowed to express their wishes and opinions through an orator o f 

their own election. Decision given by the Council. Unanimity was a fundamental 

law o f its action among the Iroquois. M ilitary questions usually left to 

the action o f the voluntary principle. Theoretically each tribe a t war with 

every other tribe w ith w hich it had not form ed a treaty o f peace. A n y person 

at liberty to organise a war-party and conduct an expedition w ohin er 

w ollte. E r announced his project by giving a war-dance and inviting volunteers. 

I f he succeeded in form ing a party, w hich w ould consist o f such persons 

as joined him in the dance, they departed immediately, w hile enthusiasm 

was at its height. When a tribe was menaced with an attack, w ar parties were 

form ed to meet it in much the same manner. W here forces so raised were 

united in one body, each under its own war-captain and their jo in t movements 

determined by a council o f these captains. This relates to tribes in the Lower 

Status o f Barbarism. T h e A ztecs u. Tlascalans w ent out by phratries, each 

subdivision under its own captain, u. distinguished by costumes and banners. 

Confederation o f Iroquois u. that o f the A ztecs w ere the m ost remarkable for 

aggressive purposes. U nter Tribes in the Lower Status o f Barbarism, incl. the 

162

Iroquois, the m ost destructive w o rk perform ed b y inconsiderable war-parties, 

beständig form ing and m aking expeditions into distant regions. Sanction 

o f the Council for diese expeditions w eder sought, nor necessary. 

Council o f the tribe had pow er to declare war u. make peace, send and receive 

embassies, make alliances; intercourse between independent tribes conducted by 

wise men and chiefs, delegated dazu. W hen a tribe expected such a delegation, 

a council was convened fo r its reception and for the transaction o f its 

business. 

7) A . head chief o f the tribe in some instances. 

N äm lich a Sachem, superior in rank to his associates. D er Council nur 

selten in session u. urgencies m ight arise demanding the provisional action 

o f someone authorized to represent the tribe, subject to the ratification o f 

his acts b y the council. This only basis fo r the office o f head chief. Iroquois 

had none u. their confederacy had no executive officer. W o d. head chief in 

Indian tribes existed there, in a form too feeble to correspond to the conception 

o f an executive magistrate. T h e elective tenure o f the office o f ch ief and 

the liability o f the person to deposition, settle the character o f the office. 

D . Council o f Indian C h ief(s) was a governm ent o f one power, prevailing 

generally am ong the tribes in Lower Status o f Barbarism. D ies erstes Stadium. 

Zweites Stadium: a governm ent coordinated betw een a council o f chiefs and 

a general military commander, one representing the civil, the other the military 

functions. D ies form began to manifest itself in the L ow er Status o f Barbarism 

after formation of Confederacies, became definite in M iddle Status. D . 

office o f general - chief m ilitary com mander - was the germ o f that o f a chief 

executive magistrate, king, em peror, president; a government o f 2 powers. 

D rittes Stadium: governm ent o f a people or nation by a council o f chiefs, 

an assembly o f the people, and a general military commander. Appears under 

tribes w ho had attained to the Upper Status o f Barbarism, Homeric Greeks 

or Italian tribes o f the period o f Romulus. Large increase o f people united in 

a nation, their establishment in walled cities, creation o f wealth in flocks, herds, 

lands, brought in the assembly o f the people as an instrument o f governm ent. 

Councils o f chiefs became a preconsidering council; popular assembly adopted or 

rejected public measures, its action final; lasdy a general. D ies blieb bis 

Eintritt v. politica l society, w enn unter Athenians z.B ., council o f chiefs 

became Senate, the assembly o f the people the ecclesia or popular assembly. 

In M iddle Status o f Barbarism the gentes organised into tribes remained as 

before, aber confederacies more frequent. In some areas, as in the Valley o f 

M exico, keineswegs - no evidence dafür - dass politica l society established. 

It is impossible to fo(u)n d a politica l society or a state upon gentes. 

P t. I I . C h. V . The Iroquois Confederacy. 

Verbindung fo r mutual protection erst122 - einfach fact, hervorgerufen dch 

necessities (wie attack vo n aussen), dann League, dann systematic confederacy. 

Bei E n tdeckung v. Am erica existirten confederacies in verschiednen 

parts, u. a. namtlich: Iroquois confederacy o f / independent tribes, Creek 

163

46 Confederacy o f 6, Otawa Confederacy o f 3, D akota League123 o f the | “ Seven 

Council F ires” , d. M oqui Confederacy in N ew M exico o f 7 Pueblos, the A%tec 

Confederacy o f 3 tribes in the Valley o f M exico. A m leichtesten B ildg v. 

confederacy (generally difficult w egen den “ unstable geographical relations” 

für d. Village Indians im M iddle Status o f Barbarism) w egen der nearness 

ihrer pueblos zu einander u. d. smallness ihrer areas. D ie berühmtesten 

Confederacies in N ortham erica die der A ztecs, u. die der Iroquois; 

letztere genau bekannt; erstere hatte whsclich denselben Charakter o f 

systematic confederacy, aber in d. historischen (span.) Berichten erscheint sie 

mehr od. minder als blosse league o f 3 kindred tribes, offensive and defensive. 

The Confederacy had the gentes fo r its basis and centre u. stock language (w ovon d. 

dialects s till mutually intelligible') and stock language fo r its circumference; none 

found beyond the bounds o f the dialects o f a com m on language - otherw 

ise heterogeneous elements w ould have been forced into the organisation. 

Ausnahmsweis w o h l einmal die remains o f a tribe not cognate in 

speech admitted into an existing confederacy, w ie z.B. die N a t c h e after their 

overthrow b y the French, into the Creek Confederacy. There was no 

possible way o f becoming connected on equal terms with a confederacy ausser dch 

membership in a gens and tribe, and a common speech. 

Monarchy incompatible with gentilism. T h e Grecian tyrannies w ere despotisms 

founded upon usurpation - the germ out o f w hich the later kingdom s arose; 

the socalled kingdoms o f the homeric age w ere military democracies, and nothing 

more. D ie Iroquois ursprünglich emigrants from beyond the M ississippi,124 

w hclich a branch des D akota stock; erst nach valley d. S t. Lawrence, 

settled near Montreal. D ch d. hostility d. surrounding tribes gezw ungen, 

sie nach d. central region o f N ew Y o rk . M it canoes coasting d. östliche 

Gestade des See Ontario (their numbers sm all).125 Ihre erste Niederlassung 

an Mündung des Oswego river, w o sie nach ihren traditions lang blieben; 

waren damals wenigstens 3 distinct tribes, /) Mohawks, 2) Onondagas u. 

3) Senecas. E in tribe settled nachher at the head o f the Canandaigua lake, 126 

became the Seneca; andrer occupied the Onondaga127 valley, w den die 

Onondagas; dritter passed östlich, settled erst at Oneida, bei site o f Utica, 

rem oved then to Mohawk Valley, became the Mohawks. D ie die blieben, 

w den die 4) Oneidas. E in Theil der Senecas oder der O nondagas settled 

entlang dem eastern shore des Cayuga lake, w den d. Cayugas. V o r Besetzng 

dch d. Iroquois, scheint New York Theil der area der A lgon[kin\128 

tribes gewesen zu sein128; nach ihren traditions entsetzten d. Iroquois d. 

alten B ew ohner w ie sie gradually ihre N iederlassungen ausdehnten, 

östlich vo m Hudson, u. w estlich vo m Genesee. 

[A lso bis dato 5 tribes: 1) Seneca 2) Cayuga, 3) Ononondaga, 4) Oneidas 

5) Mobawk)\ 

N ach ihrer tradition lange Z eit nach ihrer N iederlassung in N e w Y o rk , 

w hd der sie com m on cause against their enemies machten, aber ehe sie 

Confederacy bildeten. Residirten in villages, gew öhnlich um geben m it 

164

stockades, lebten von fish u. game, u. d. products of a limited horticulture. Ihre 

~TAnzahl nie über 20,000. Precarious subsistence u. incessant warfare repressed 

I numbers in all the aboriginal tribes, inclus. the Village Indians. T he Iroquois 

enshrouded in great forests, then overspreading N ew York. Zuerst sie 

entdeckt 1608; um i 6j j culminating point ihrer dominion über weite 

Area, covering grösseren Theil v. New York, Pennsylvania u. Ohio. 

[(16j i -/ expelled sie their kindred tribes, d. Eries, von Area ^wischen 

Genesee river u. Lake Erie, kurz nachher d. Neutral Nations vom Niagara 

river, kamen so in Besitz des Rests von N ew York, mit Ausnahme des 

Low er Hudson u. Long Island)] u. portions of Canada, north o f lake O ntario. 

Zur Zeit ihrer Entdeckg waren sie d. highest representatives o f 

the Red Race im Norden v. (N e w )129 Mexico in Intelligenz u. advancement, 

obgleich inferior to the G u lf tribes in arts o f life. Noch 4000 Iroquois 

in N ew York, abt 1000 in Canada u. ebenso viel im Westen. 

Confederation formed about / 400-14J0 (früher nach den generations o f 

Sachems in the history o f David Cusick, 130 a Tuscarora.) The Iroquois 

lebten - die 5 tribes - in contiguous territories, sprachen einander verständliche 

dialects derselben Sprache u. hatten certain common gentes in 

the several tribes. Andre tribes in selben Umständen, aber d. Iroquois, 

dch Bildung der confederacy, zeigten ihre superiority. Nach ihrer Sage 

d. confederacy formed dch a council of wise men and chiefs der 5 tribes, meeting 

for d. purpose on the north shore of the Onondaga lake, near the site of Syracuse, 

perfected in ihrer session d. organization u. set in immediate operation. 

D . origin d. plan zugeschrieben einer traditionary person Hä-yo-wenf-hä, 

der Hiawatha Longfellow’s. D . formation d. Confederation still celebrated 

unter ihnen as a masterpiece of Indian wisdom, nach d. Iroquois 

selbst bis jetzt ftexistirende Form ihrer Organisation mit kaum irgend 

einem change. | 

47 D. general practices der Iroquois confederacy sind: 

1 ) A union of j tribes, composed o f common gentes, under one government on 

the basis o f equality; jeder tribe remaining independent in all 

matters pertaining to local self-government. 

2) A general Council of Sachems, limited in number, equal in rank u. 

authority, invested with supreme powers in all matters relating to 

the Confederacy. 

3) jo Sachemships were created and named in perpetuity in certain gentes of 

the several tribes; with power in these gentes to fill vacancies occurring, by 

election from among their respective members, u. mit power to 

depose from office for cause; the right to invest these Sachems with office 

reserved to the General Council. 

4) The Sachems o f the Confederacy also Sachems in their respective tribes, 

and with the Chiefs of these tribes formed the Council of each, which 

tribal council supreme over all matters pertaining to the tribe exclusively. 

165

T ~ 5) Unanimity in the Council made essential to every public act. 

' 6) In the General Council the Sachems voted by Tribes, each tribe had so 

a negative upon the others. (Poland!) 

7) Council of each tribe had power to convene the general council; the latter had 

no power to convene itself. 

9) The Confederacy had no chief Executive Magistrate, or offinal head. 

8) The General Council was open to the orators of the people for the discussion 

of public questions; but the Council alone decided. 

10) Experiencing the necessity for a general military commander they created the 

office in a dual form, that one might neutralize the other. The 2 principal 

warchiefs created were made equal in power. 

When the Tuscaroras später admitted, they allowed by courtesy to sit as 

equals in the General Council, but the original number of Sachems wde nicht 

increased. 

The Sachemships were distributed unequally among the j tribes, but without 

giving to either a preponderance of power, and unequally among the gentes 

of the last three tribes. 

Mohawks had 9 Sachems, Oneidas 9, Onondagas 14, Cayugas 10, Senecas 8. 

D . Sachems waren arrangirt in Klassen to facilitate the attainment of 

unanimity in the Council 

1) Mohawks, iste class. 3 (Turtle tribe). 2t class 3. (W olf tribe). 3t Classe 

3 (Bear tribe) 

2) Oneidas „ 3 (W olf tribe) 3 (Turtle tribe) „ 

3 (Bear tribe) 

3) Onondagas. ist class. 3 (ister Bear tribe. 3ter Bear tribe. Dieser u. 2ter 

were hereditary councillors of the To-do-dä-ho, who 

held the most illustrious Sachemship.) 

2te Class 3. (iste (Snipe tribe) (2t. Turtle tribe) 

3te Class. 1 (W olf tribe) This sachem was hereditary 

keeper o f the wampum. 

4te class. 4. (ister Deer tribe; 2t. Deer tribe. 3t Turtle 

tribe. 4ter Bear tribe.) 

jt class. 3. (ister Deer tribe. 2ter Turtle tribe. 3t Turtle 

tribe.) 

4) Cayugas. 1 ste class. 5. (1 ster Deer tribe. 2t Heron tribe. 3t Bear tribe. 

4t Bear tribe. 5 t Turtle tribe.) 

2t Class 3. (2t. Turtle tribe. 3t Heron tribe.) 

3 Class 2 (beide Snipe tribe.) 

5) Senecas. ist class 2. (Turtle tribe und Snipe tribe) 

2 class 2 (Turtle tribe u. Hawk tribe) 

3 class (2) (Bear tribe u. Snipe tribe) 

4 class. 2. (Snipe tribe u. W olf tribe) 

In fact besteht d. General Council nur aus 48. Hä-yo-wenf-hä u. Da-gä- 

no-we’-da d. 2 legendären Gründer consented to take the office unter d. 

166

Mohawk Sachems u. to leave their names in the list unter Bedingung that 

after their demise the 2 should remain thereafter vacant. A t all councils 

for the investiture of Sachems their names are still called. (Candidatures 

48 mortes) | Jeder Sachem hat einen aid elected by the gens of his principal from 

among its members, was installed mit same forms u. ceremonies; had to 

stand behind his superior on all occasions of ceremony, act as his messenger, 

in general subject to his directions; er hatte (d. aid) office of chief\ machte 

seine Wahl nach T od des Sachem an dessen Stelle wahrscheinlich; diese 

aids heissen: “ Braces in the Long House” (dies “Long House” symbolized 

the Confederacy) 

The names bestowed upon the original Sachems wden d. Namen 

ihrer resp. successors in perpetuity. Z .B . bei T od v. Gä-ne-o-di'-yo, 

einem der 8 Seneca Sachems, sein successor gewählt dch d. Turtle gens, 

worin Sachemship erblich u. when “ raised up” by the General Council, his 

own name would be “ taken off” u. jener ihm gegeben, was part der 

ceremony. Ihr jetziger Council noch fully organised,131 except d. 

Mohawk tribe, removing to Canada about 1775. Vacancies occurring 

their places are filled u. a general council is convened to install the new 

Sachems u. their aids. 

For tribal purposes the 5 tribes independent o f each other, their territories 

separated by fixed boundary lines, their tribal interests distinct. Als 

organisation d. tribe weder weakened noch impaired dch den Confederate 

compact; noch in vigorous life. D . Iroquois recommended to the forefathers 

der Americans (Engl.) i y j j a union of the colonies similar to their own. 

They saw in the common interests u. common speech der several colonies 

elements for a confederation. 

The Onondagas were made “Keepers of the Wampum” u. “Keepers of the 

Council Brand” , the Mohawks “ Receivers of Tribute” from subjugated tribes, 

the Senecas “Keepers of the Door” des Long House. Diese u. ähnliche 

Provisions were made for the common advantage. 

D . confederacy rested upon the tribes ostensibly, but primarily upon common 

gentes. All the members of the same gens, whether Mohawks, Oneidas, 

Onondagas, Cayugas, or Senecas were brothers and sisters to each other in virtue 

of their descent von the same ancestor. When they met, the first inquiry 

was the name of each other’s gens, and next the immediate pedigree of 

their respective sachems; dann able under their system of consanguinity 

to find ihre wechselseitige relationship. 

3 gentes, - W olf, Bear, T urtle-com m on to the 5 tribes; diese u. 3 others 

were common to 3 tribes: the W olf gens, dch division o f an original tribe 

into 5, nun in 5 divisions, wovon one in each tribe; selber mit Bear u. 

Turtle gentes. Deery Snipe u. Hawk gentes were common to Senecas, 

Cayugas u. Onondagas. [Das Erblichmachen d. Wahl d. Sachems in certain 

gentes, does it not spring davon, dass certain gentes most common alien 

tribes?] Der Mohawk des Wolf gens recognised an Oneida, Onondaga, 

167

Cayuga od. Seneca von selben gens, though its members spoke different 

dialects o f the same language, as a brother etc. In the estimation o f an 

Iroquois every member of his gens in whatever tribe was as certainly a 

kinsman as an other132 brother; dies noch in its original force; explains the 

tenacity, womit d. old confederacy zusammenhielt. Had the 5 tribes fallen 

in collision, it would have turned W olf agst W olf, Bear agst Bear etc, 

brother agst brother. So lang d. confederacy dauerte, nie Anarchie nor 

rupture der Organisation. Such persistency d. bond of kin. 

The “Long House” (Ho-de-no-sote” wde Symbol d. Confederacy; sie 

nannten sich selbst the “ People of the Long House” (Ho-de-no-sau-nee), 

der einzige Name, den sie sich gaben. 

Coalescence höhere Stufe des Processes. Z.B . d. 4 Athenian tribes coalesced 

in Attica into a nation by the intermingling of the tribes in the same area u. 

the gradual disappearance der geographical lines between them. D . tribal names u. 

organizations remained in full vitality, aber without the basis of independent 

territory. When political society was instituted on the basis of the deme or 

toivnship, u. all the residents o f the deme became a body politic, irrespective 

of their gens u. tribe, the coalescence became complete. 

The Valley of the Onondaga as the seat of the central tribe, and the place 

where the Council Brand was supposed to be perpetually burning, the usual 

aber keineswegs exclusive place for holding the councils of the confederacy 

etc. 

Ursprünglich the Hauptobject des Council to raise up sachems to fill vacancies 

(von death od. deposition), but transacted all other business mit 

Bezug auf common welfare. Nach u. nach the Council fell into 3 distinct 

kinds (nach d. functions, die er abwechselnd übt); Civil (declares war, 

49 makes peace, send u. receives | embassies, enters treaties mit foreign 

tribes, regulates the affairs o f subjugated tribes etc); Mourning Council 

(raises up Sachems, invests them mit Office); Religious Council (held for 

the observance of a general religious festival.). Nach u. nach Mourning 

Council for both purposes; jetzt d. einzige, da d. civil powers o f the 

Confederacy terminated with the supremacy over them of the State. 

A n Overture made by a foreign tribe to either of the 5 tribes; d. tribal 

council entschied ob d. affair worth while to require a council of the confederacy; 

if so, a herald sent to the nearest tribes (v. d. 5) in position, on 

east u. west, with a belt of wampum, containing a message to the effect 

that a civil council (Ho-de-os-seh) at specified place, time u. object; der 

tribe, der d. message empfing, musste es senden dem next in position, bis 

d. notification complete. Council assembled nie unless summoned under 

the prescribed forms. Wenn d. Council was to meet for peaceful purposes, 

then each sachem was to bring with him a bundle of fagots of white cedar, 

typical o f peace; if for warlike purpose, fagots of red cedar, emblematical 

of war. 

I Gesetzt d. Onondagas seien d. tribe, der d. General Council had summoned. 

168

| A m appointed day the Sachems of the several tribes, with their followers, 

who usually arrived a day or 2 before u. remained encamped at a distance, 

were received in a formal manner by the Onondaga sachems at the rising 

o f the sun. They marched in separate processions from their camps to the 

council grove, each bearing his skin robe and bundle o f fagots, w o d. 

Onondaga Sachems awaited them with a concourse o f people. The Sachems 

then formed themselves in a circle, an Onondaga sachem, acting by appointment 

as master of the ceremonies, occupying the side towards the rising 

sun. A t a signal they marched round the circle moving by the North. The 

rim o f the circle toward the North called “ the cold side” , that on the west 

“ the side toward the setting sun” , that on the south “ the side of the high sun” , 

that on the east “ the side of the rising sun” . After marching 3 times around 

on the circle single file, the head and foot of the column being joined, the 

leader stopped on the rising sun side, and deposed before him his bundle of 

fagots. In this followed by the others. X X After this each sachem spread 

his skin robe in the same order and sat down upon it, crosslegged, behind his 

bundle of fagots, with his assistant sachem standing behind him. [to X X 

formed an inner circle of faggots.] After a moment’s pause, the master of 

the ceremonies arose, drew from his pouch 2 pieces of dry wood and a piece 

of punk (Zündschwamm) with which he proceeded to strike fire by friction. 

When fire obtained, he stepped within the circle u. set fire to his own 

bundle, and then to each o f the others. When diese well-ignited, and 

at a signal from the master of the ceremonies, the sachems arose and 

marched 3 times around the Burning Circle, going as before by the North. 

Each turned v. time to time as he walked so as to expose all sides of his 

person ... then reseated themselves, each upon his own robe. Master of 

the ceremonies again rising to his feet, filled and lighted the pipe of peace 

from his own fire; drew 3 whiffs, the first toward the Zenith (bdtet thanks 

to the Great Spirit for his preservation during the last year u. for being 

permitted to be present at this council); the second toward the ground 

(means thanks to his Mother, the Earth, for the various productions which 

had ministered to his sustenance; third toward the Sun (means thanks for 

his never-failing light, ever shining upon all.) Then he passed the pipe to 

the first upon his right toward the North, who repeated the same cere- 

| monies u. so on around the burning circle. The ceremony of smoking the 

calumet bdtete auch mutual pledg(ing) o f their faith, friendship, honour. 

Mit dieser ceremony opening of the council completed, u. dieser d(arau)f 

declared ready for business. 

A u f d. opposite sides d. Council fire, sassen, auf d. einen: Mohawk, Onondaga 

u. Seneca Sachems; ihre tribes, wenn in council, were brother tribes to each 

other u. father tribes to the two other; they constituted, by extension of the 

principle, a phratry of tribes u. sachems. 

On the opposite side of the fire the Oneida u. Cayuga u. später die Tuscarora 

Sachems; a second tribal phratry; brother tribes to each other and son tribes 

o f those opposite. 

169

D. Oneidas, being a subdivision of the Mohawks, u. d. Cayugas a subdivision 

o f the Onondagas or Senecas, they were in reality younger tribes, hence their 

relations of juniors u. seniors u. application of the phratric principle. 

When the tribes named in Council, the Mohawks named first, their tribal 

epithet: “ The Shield’’'; next the Onondagas, under epithet of “ Name-Bearer” , 

because they had been appointed to select and name the jo original sachems. 

Nach d. tradition d. Onondagas deputed a wiseman to visit the territories 

o f the tribes and select and name the new Sachems je nach circumstances; 

which explains the unequal distribution of office among the several gentes; 

next in order the Senecas, the “ Doorkeeper” , were made perpetual keepers 

o f the western door of the Long House; dann d. Oneidas, the “ Great Tree” 

u. d. Cayugas the “ Great Pipe” ; the Tuscaroras named last ohne distin- 

50 guishing epithet. | D . Foreign tribe represented at the Council dch a 

delegation of wise-men u. chiefs who bore their proposition and presented 

it in person. Nach ihrer introduction, macht einer d. Sachem short 

address, thanking the Great Spirit etc, dann informing the delegates dass 

Council prepared to hear them. One of the delegates submits the proposition 

in form, sustains it by arguments; 133 nach conclusion der address, 

the delegation withdraws vom Council to wait at a distance. Nun Debate 

unter d. Sachems; when decision come to, a speaker appointed to communicate 

the answer of the council zu deren Empfang the delegation were 

recalled. Als Speaker des Council meist chosen einer von tribe, der had 

convened the council; macht förmlichen speech reviewing the whole 

question, theilt dann rejection (mit reasons) mit od. acceptance (völlig od. 

in part). Im letzteren Fall belts of wampum exchanged as evidence of the terms 

o f the agreement. 

“ This belt preserves my words” , common remark of an Iroquois chief in 

council, often delivering the belt as evidence of what he had said. Several 

such belts given in the course of a negotiation to the opposite party. In 

the reply of the latter a belt would be returned for each proposition accepted. 

Unanimity of the Sachems required upon all public questions u. essential 

to the validity o f every public act; it was a fundamental law der confed- 

I eracy; kannten nichts von majorities u. minorities in the action of councils; zur 

' Erreichg d. votes die oben angeführten classes. Kein Sachem allowed to 

express an opinion in council in the nature of a vote bevor er nicht had first 

agreed with the sachem or sachems seiner class upon the opinion to be expressed, 

and had been appointed to act as a speaker for the class. So d. 8 Seneca 

sachems in 4 classes konnten nur 4 opinions haben, u. d. 10 Cayuga 

sachems, in selber number of classes, konnten auch nur 4 opinions haben. 

Dann a cross134 consultation zwischen d. 4 sachems appointed to speak for 

the 4 classes; when they had agreed, they designated one of their number to 

express their resulting opinion, which was the answer of their tribe. Wenn so 

d. Sachems jedes-der tribes separately had become o f one mind, their 

several opinions compared u. if they agreed the decision o f the council 

170

was made. The / persons appointed to express the decision of the / tribes 

erklärt vielleicht d. functions u. appointment der 6 electors in d. A%tec 

confederacy. W ar any sachem obdurate u. unreasonable, influences brought 

to bear upon him, which he could not well resist. Seltner Fall auch. 

Beim Beginn der Amerik. Revolution konnten d. Iroquois, wegen want of 

unanimity im confederate council, nicht übereinstimmen über Kriegs- 

erklärg gegen d. neue American confederacy. Theil der Oneida Sachems 

refused. A s neutrality was impossible with the Mohawks u. d. Senecas were 

determined to fight, it was resolved that each tribe might engage in the war 

upon its own responsibility or remain neutral. The war agst the Eriesy 

the Neutral Nation and Susquehan(n)ocks, u. d. several wars gegen French, 

were resolved upon in General Council. “ Our colonial records largely 

filled mit négociations mit d. Iroquois Confederacy.” 

The induction of new Sachems into office great interest to the people u. to 

the Sachems selbst. Für d. ceremony of raising sachems the general 

council primarily instituted ; in this capacity called Mourning Council, weil 

had to lament the deceased u. to install his successor. Bei death of a 

Sachem, der tribe der ihn had lost had power to summon a General 

Council, name time u. place for meeting ; a herald sent out with a belt of 

wampum, meist the official belt of the deceased sachem which conveyed the 

message : “ the name (der des defunct’s) calls for a council” , announced also 

the day u. place o f convention. Mourning Council mit d. festivities that 

followed Hptattraction für d. Iroquois, flocking to attendance from the 

most distant localities with zeal u. enthusiasm. Bei der lamentation 

(womit proceedings opened), a procession formed, and the lament was chanted 

in verse, with responses, by the united tribes, as they marched vom place of 

reception to the place o f council. Dies ist day's proceeding; 2nd day: 

installation ceremony, lasts meist bis 4th day. 

U. a., for d. instruction d. newly raised sachem, the ancient wampum belts, into 

which, nach their expression, the structure and principles of the confederacy 

“ had been talked” , were produced u. read i.e. interpreted. A wise- 

man, not necessarily one o f the Sachems, took these belts one after the other 

u. walking to and fro between the 2 divisions o f sachems, read from them 

51 the facts which they recorded. | Nach der Indian conception, these belts can 

tell, by means o f an interpreter, the exact rule, provision or transaction talked 

into them at the time, and of which they were the exclusive record. A strand 

[Germ, strahn, one of the twists of which a rope is composed, Strähn = hank, 

skein1Zb (Gebind] o f wampum bestehend aus strings von purple u. white shell 

beads, or a belt woven with figures formed by beads of different colour, operated 

on the principle of associating a particular fact with a particular string; 

thus giving a serial arrangement to the facts as well as fidelity to the 

memory. These strands u. belts o f wampum were the only visible records der 

Iroquois; aber they required trained interpreters who could draw from their 

strings and figures the records locked up in their remembrance. One of 

171

the Onondaga Sachems was made “Keeper of the Wampum” , and 2 aids were 

raised up with him who were required to be versed in its interpretation as 

well as the sachem. The interpretation dieser several belts u. strings 

brought out, in the address of the wise-men, a connected account o f the 

occurrences at the formation o f the confederacy. The tradition was repeated 

in full, and fortified in its essential parts-by reference to the records contained 

in diesen belts. Thus the council to raise up sachems became a 

teaching council which maintained in perpetual freshness in the minds of 

the Iroquois the structure and principles dr confederacy, as well as 

the history o f its formation. These proceedings occupied the council until 

noon each day; the afternoon being devoted to games u. amusements. 

A t twilight each day a dinner in common served to the entire body in 

attendance; consisted o f soup and boiled meat cooked near the council-house, 

and served directly from the kettle in ivooden bowls, trays and ladles. Grace 

was said before the feast commenced; it was a prolonged exclamation by 

a single person on a high shrill note, falling down in cadences into 

stillness, followed by a response in chorus by the people. The evenings 

devoted to dance. After these ceremonies u. festivities - for several days - 

their sachems inducted into office. 

Ob d. right d. council to “ invest” Sachems nur functional? Jedenfalls no 

case of rejection mentioned. Obgleich in form an oligarchy, this ruling 

body of sachems a representative democracy o f the archaic type. Right of 

gentes to elect u. depose sachems u. chiefs, right of the people to be 

heard in council dch orators of their election, and the voluntary system 

in the military service. In diesem lower u. middle ethnical period democratic 

principles were the vital element of gentile society. 

Ho-yar-na-go-war, the Iroquois name for a sachem, means: “a counselor of 

the people"; analog bei d. members of the Grecian council o f chiefs; so 

bet Aeschylus, The Seven against Thebes, zoo/:136 

δοκοΰντα καί δόξαντ’ άπαγγέλλειν με χρή 

δήμου προβούλοις τησδε Καδμείας πόλεως. 

Chief of the second grade heisst: “ Ha-sa-no-wä'-na” , “an elevated name” , 

indicates appreciation dr Barbaren o f the ordinary motives for personal 

ambition. Fst ohne Ausnahme d. celebrated orators, wise-men und war-chiefs 

der Iroquois - chiefs of the 2nd grade. Office of chief bestowed for merit, 

fell necessarily auf d. ablest men (diese also excluded von General Council, 

aus dem so d. ambitious element entfernt). In American (European) 

annals fst nur berührt solche chiefs; none o f the long lines of sachems 

ausser Logan (einer dr Cayuga sachems), Handsome Lake (Seneca sachem, 

Gründer der New Religion dr Iroquois) u. at a recent day Ely S. Parker 

(Seneca sachem) 

Ind. confederacy of tribes taucht zuerst auf the office of General (Hos-gä-ä- 

geh'-da-go-wä = “ Great War Soldier” ) Entstanden von cases, when the 

172

several tribes in their confederate capacity would be engaged in war. So want felt 

for a general commander to direct the movements of the united bands. D . introduction 

of this office as a permanentfeature verhängnisvoll event in human history. 

Beginn der differentiation of the military von d. civil power, which, when completed, 

changed essentially the external manifestation o f the gvernment. 

Aber gentilism arrested usurpation; government o f one power became nun 

one of 2; the functions of gvt became in time co-ordinate between the two. 

This new office - the germ of a chief executive magistrate; out of the general 

came the king etc The office sprang v. d. military necessities of society. - \ 

5 2 The Great War Soldier dr Iroquois {lower status of barbarism), der Teuctli der 

Aztecs (middle status of barbarism), der βασιλεύς der Griechen u. rex d. Römer 

(Upper Status of barbarism) - three successive ethnic epochs - selbes office, 

das eines Generals in a military democracy. Bei Iroquois, Aztecs, Romans d. 

office elective u. confederative dch a constituency; wahrscheinlich auch bei 

d. Griechen whd d. traditionary period; auf nichts gegründet d. Behptg, dass 

es erblich bei d. homerischen tribes v. father to son; widerspricht dem 

groundwork of gentile institutions. Wenn in zahlreichen Fällen d. office 

passed von father to son, dies might have suggested the inference - 

unbegründete - of hereditary succession, now adopted as historically true. 

Hereditary succession, when first established, came from force (usurpation), 

nicht by the free consent of the people. 

Nach Stiftng d. Iroquois confederacy two permanent war-chief ship (s) 

created u. nam

in North America - as the 2 were nearly equal in power and ressources 

during the first century o f colonization - the French Scheitern in no 

small degree to be ascribed to the Iroquois 

Pt. II. Ch. V I Gentes in other tribes of the Ganowanian Family. 

Bei Entdeckung von America in several regions, the aborigines found in 2 

dissimilar conditions: 1) The Village Indians, abhängig fst ganz upon 

horticulture für Subsistence; such the tribes in this status in New Mexico, 

MexicOy Central America u. auf dem Plateau der Andes; 2) d. non-horticultural 

Indians, depending upon fish, bread-roots u. gam e; such those of the Valley 

of Columbia, o f the Hudson Bay Territory, parts Canada etc Zwischen diesen 

tribes, u. connecting the extremes by insensible gradationSy 3) the partially 

Village u. partially Horticultural Indians; such: IroquoiSy the New England 

u. Virginia IndianSy the CreekSy ChoctaSy CherokeeSy MinnitareeSy Dakotasy 

Shawnees. IFeapons, arts, usages, inventions, dances, house architecture, 

form o f government, plan of life, all bear impress of a common mind; über 

wide range zeigen sie the successive stages of development of the same 

original conceptions. 

Es w d nun (v. Europas u. American writers) erst overrated the comparative 

advance der Village Indians, underrated der der non-horticulturaly138 hence 

betrachtet als 2 different races. Aber Anzahl d. non-horticultural tribes were 

in Upper State of Savagery; the intermediate tribes in the Lower Status of 

barbarismy d. village Indians in Middle Status of Barbarism. D . evidence of 

their unity of origin now so accumulated that settled; Eskimos belong to a 

5 3 different family. | In d. “ Systems of Consanguinity etc” Morgan presented 

selbiges von 70 American Indian tribes; selbes system nachgewiesen bei 

ihnen mit evidence of its derivation von common source; er nannte sie allzusammt 

d. Ganowanian Family (“ Family of the Bow and Arrow") 

Giebt nun mit Bezug auf d. Gentes d. different tribes dieser Ganowanian 

Family: (nach Nomenclatur in “ Systems of Consanguinity” ) 

I) Hodenosaunian Tribes. 

1) Iroquois. Gentes: 1) Wolf. 2) Bear. 3) Beaver. 4) Turtle. 5) Deer. 

6) Snipe. 7) Heron. 8) Hawk. 

2) Wyandotes; remains of the ancient Hurons, separated v. Iroquois at least 

400 years. 

Gentes. 1) Wolf, 2) Bear, 3) Beaver, 4) Turtle, 5) Deer, 6) Snakey 

7) Porcupiney 8) Hawk. 

Hawk no

estowed for merit, haben 7 sachems u. 7 war chiefs; property hereditary in 

gens, children inherit their mother's (nothing from father) effects, w

i) Wolf 2) Bear 3) Cow Buffalo 4) E lk . i Descent in female line. Office 

/) Eagle. 6) Pigeon 7) Snake. 8) Owl. 

e) Kaws (Kaw-â) 

' of Sachem u. property hereiditarj 

in gens, wo intermarriage 

prohibited. 

Gentes i) Deer 2) Bear 3) Buffalo I Descent, 

4) Eagle (white) j) Eagle(black) 6) Duck I inheritance, 

7) E lk 8) Raccoon 9) PrairieWolf) marriage 

10) Turtle 11) Earth 12) Deer Tail \ regulations 

13) Tent 14) Thunder I wie bei 

\ Punkas 

54 

D . wildest der American aborigenes; intelligent; 1869 the Kaws, much reduced, 

about 7 00, giebt 5 o per gens. Osages u.Quappas (tribes) hat Morgan 

nicht besucht. - Home country aller dieser tribes along the Missouri and its 

tributaries, von Mündung des Big Sioux to the Mississippi u. down the west 

bank des letzteren bis Arkansas river. Alle speak closely related dialects 

o f the Dakotian stock language. | 

6) Winnebagoes. Gentes. 1) Wolf 2) Bear 3) Buffalo. 4) Eagle 

f) E lk . 6) Deer141 7) Snake 8) Thunder. 

When first discovered tribe resided near the lake of same name in Wisconsin; 

offshoot of the Dakotian stem, flgten in track d. Iroquois nach valley 

of St. Lawrence, progress arrested dch d. Algonkin tribes zwischen lake 

Huron u. Lake Superior. Ihre nächste affiliation mit. d. Missouri tribes. 

Descent, inheritance, marriage, wie bei Punkas. Sonderbar dass so many 

tribes o f this stock changedfemale (to) male line of descent, da, wenn entdeckt, 

property bei ihnen nur slightly über germinating stage. Whsclich all dies 

recent under American u. missionary influence. Carver fand bei d. Winnebagoes 

traces o f descent in the female line in ij8y. Sieh “ Travels I.e. p. 166) E r 

sagt: “ Some nations, when the dignity is hereditary, limit the succession in 

the female line. On the death of a chief his sister's son succeeds in preference 

to his own son; and if he happens to have no sister the nearest female relation 

assumes the dignity. This accounts for a woman being at the head of the 

Winnebago nation, 142 which before I was acquainted with their laws, 

appeared strange to me.” 

1869 the Winnebagoes numbered 1400, per gens average of 150 persons. 

3) Upper Missouri Tribes. 

1) Mandans. Gentes. 1) Wolf 2) Bear 3) Prairie Chicken 4) Good Knife. 

f) Eagle. 6) Flat head. 7) High Village. 

In intelligence u. arts o f life the Mandans ahead of all their kindred 

tribes, dafür probably indebted to the Minnitarees. Descent in female line, 

office and property hereditary in the gens, worin intermarriage prohibited. 

Zeigt, dass originally female descent in Dakotian stock. 

2) Minnitarees. This tribe u. the Upsarokas or Crows subdivisions of an 

original people, doubtful members of this branch of the Ganowanian family, 

176

placed in there from number of words common mit denen d. Missouri 

u. Dakota tribes placed with them. They carried horticulture, the 

timber-framed house u. a peculiar religious system into this area which they 

taught the Mandans; können sein descendants der Moundb(u)ilders. 

Minnitarees u. Mandans live now in the same village; among the finest 

specimens o f red men now in North America. 

3) Upsarokas143 or Crows. Gentes: 1) Prairie Dog. 2) Bad Leggins, f) 

Skunk. 4) Treacherous Lodges, j) Lost 

Lodges. 6) Bad Honors. 7) Butchers. 

8) Moving Lodges. 9) Bear's Paw Mountain. 

10) Blackfoot144 Lodges. 11) Fish 

Catchers. 12 ) Antelope, if) Raven. 

Descent, inheritance, marriage etc wie bei 

Minnitarees. 

If a person to whom any article o f property had been presented died with 

it in his possession, and the donor was dead, it reverted to the gens of the latter. 

Property made or acquired by a wife descended after her death to her 

children, that of a husband to his gentile kindred. I f a person made a 

present to a friend and died, the latter must perform some recognised act of 

mourning, such as cutting off the joint of a finger at the funeral or surrender the 

property to the gens of the donor. This act o f mourning very common unter 

d. Crows, auch as a religious offering when they hold “ Medicine lodge” , a 

great religious ceremonial. 

The Crows haben einen Ehegebrauch, den Morgan bei mindestens 40 

ändern Indian tribes gefunden: when a man marries the oldest daughter in a 

family he is entitled to all her sisters when they attain maturity. (Survival of 

custom of punalua) 

Polygamy allowed generally by usage unter allen American aborigenes, never 

prevalent in irgd bdtenden Mass wegen inability of persons to support more 

than one family. 

I IT) Gulf Tribes. 

1) Muscokees or Creeks. The Creek Confederacy consisted of 6 tribes, vis·' 

Creeks; Hitchetes; Yoochees; 145 Alabamas; Coosatees u. Natches. Mit 

Ausnahme der letzteren, admitted in ihre confederacy after their 

overthrow dch French, spoke all dialects der same language. 

Descent unter d. Creeks in female line, sachemship u. property o f deceased 

persons hereditary in gens, worin intermarriage prohibited; d. andren 

tribes hatten auch gentile organization; jetzt d. Creeks partially civilized, 

political system, in a few years traces of their gentile organization will 

55 have disappeared. | 1869 Creeks numbered abt ij,ooo, average von 

5 5 o persons to gens. 

Gentes der Creeks. (22) 1) Wolf. 2) Bear. j) Skunk. 

4) Alligator f) Deer 6) Bird. 

177

7) Tiger. 8) Wind. 9) Toad. 

10) Mole 11) Fox 12) Raccoon 

iß) Fish 14) Corn //) Potatoe 

if ) Hickory Nut. /7) Salt. 18) Wild Cat. 

19), 20) 21) 22) signification lost. 

2) Choktas. Bei ihnen each phratry named; 2) phratries mit je 4 gentes, wie bei 

Iroquois. 

1st Phratry Divided People gentes: i 1) Reed. 2) Law Okla. f) Lulak. 

) 4) Linoklusha. 

Und “ Beloved People. j 1) Beloved people. 2) small people. 

f j) Large People. 4) Cray Fish. 

Gentes o f same phratry could not intermarry, but jede mit gentes d. 

other; zeigt, dass wie bei Iroquois, the Choktas commenced mit 2 gentes, 

jede146 davon nachher subdivided into 4. Descent in female line, Property 

and Sachemship hereditary in gens. 1869 - some 12,000, gives average 

per gens = 1500. 1820 residirten sie noch in their ancient territory, east of 

Mississippi; immigrated dann in Indian territory. - Nach Chocta usages, 

property after the death of a man distributed unter his brothers and sisters 

and the children of his sisters, nicht under his children; could give his property 

to his children in his lifetime, then they could hold it against his gens. 

Viele Indian tribes haben je%t considerable property in domestic animals, houses u. 

lands, owned by individuals; unter ihnen common practice to give it to their 

children during their life147 time. Im Mass wie property wuchs, dis (inheritance 

of children began to arouse opposition to gentile inheritance u. in some of the 

tribes, u. a. bei den Choctas old usage abolished a few years since, right of inheritance 

exclusively vested in the children of defunct owner. Dies came, however, 

dch substitution of a political system in the place of gentile system, and elective 

council u. magistracy substituted to the oldgvt by chiefs. Under previous usages 

wife inherited nothing from her husband and vice versa, nor he from her; 

but the wife’s effects divided among her children u. in default of them her 

sisters. 

3) Chickasas. 2 phratries, Iste 4 gentes, lie 8. 

1st Pant(b)er Phratry. „ , 1) Wild Cat. 2) Bird, f) Fish. 4) Deer. 

Ilnd Spanish Phratry. en es' 1) Raccoon. 2) Spanish, j) Royal. 

4) Hush-ko-ni. j) Squirrel. 

6) Alligator. 7) Wolf. 

8) Blackbird. 

Descent in female line, intermarriage in gens prohibited, sachemship 

und property hereditary in gens. 

1869 they numbered jooo, average per gens about 400. 

4) Cherokees, ursprünglich 10 gentes, w ovon Acorn u. Bird now extinct. 

178

Gentes: i) Wolf 2) Red Paint 3) Long Prairie /' Descent in female 

4) Deaf (A Bird) f) Holly. 6) Deer. ' line; intermar- 

7) Blue 8) Long Hair \ riage in gens for- 

( bidden. 

1869: 14,000, average per gens = 17 5 0 .148 Jezt Cherokees u. Ojibwas 

exceed all the remaining Indians in U. St. in Anzahl of persons speaking 

the same dialect. Nicht wahrscheinlich, dass jemals in any part of North 

America 100,000 spoke same dialect; dies nur bei Aztecs, Te^cucans u. 

Tlascalans (tribes) u. selbst dies schwer zu beweisen upon Spanish evidence. 

The unusual numbers of Creeks u. Cherokees due to possession of 

domestic animals u. welldevelopedfield agriculture; now partially civilised, having 

substituted an elective constitutional gvt to the ancient gentes, unter dessen 

influence diese in raschem Verfall. 

5) Seminoles: o f Creek descent, said to be organized into gentes. 

I V Pawnee Tribes. 

Die Pawnees sollen nach Aussage des missionary Rev. Samuel A llis in 

6gentes organisirt sein : Bear, Beaver, Eagle, Buffalo, Deer, Owl. If so, auch 

d. Arickdrees (deren village near dem der Minnitarees u. die d. next 

congeners der Pawnees), d. Huecos u. 2 od. 3 andre small tribes residing on 

the Canadian river; haben alle stets west von Missouri gelebt u. sprechen an 

independent stocklanguage. | 

56 V . Algonkin Tribes. 

Bei Entdeckung dieses great stock der American aborigenes nahmen sie ein 

Area v. Rocky Mountains bis Hudson's Bay südlich von Siskatchewun, u. dann 

östlich %um Atlantic, einschliesslich beider Ufer des Lake Superior except 

at its head u. beide Seiten d. St. Lawrence, below 149 Lake Champlain. 

Südlich extended their area entlang der atlantischen Küste bis Nord Carolina 

u. down the East Bank des Mississippi v. Wisconsin, Illinois bis Kentucky. 

Innerhalb der östlichen Section dieser immense region waren d. Iroquois u. 

their affiliated tribes an intrusive people, einzige conkurrenten der A lgonkins 

innerhalb der boundaries dieser Section. 

a) Gitchigamian Tribes (From the Ojibwa, gi-tchV (great) u. gä-me (lake), 

the aboriginal name o f Lake Superior u. other great lakes. 

1) Ojibwas. Sprechen selben Dialekt, organized in gentes, wovon 

Morgan 23 gefischt. In ihrem dialect the symbol or devise o f gens 

heisst totem (ebenso oft pronounced dodaim); z.B. a W olf das totem 

der W olf Gens. Hence hat Schoolcraft (“ History of Indian Tribes” ) d. 

gentile organization “ totemic organization” getauft. 

23 gentes (bekannt)150 1) Wolf, 2) Bear, 3) Beaver \ 4) Turtle (mud) j) Turtle 

(Snapping) 6) Turtle (little) 7) Reindeer. 8) Snipe 9) Crane 1 10) Pigeon 

Hawk 11) Bald Eagle. 12) Loon I 13) Duck 14) Duck, if) Snake | 

*79

1 6) Muskrat, iy ) Marten. 1 8) Heron \ 19) Bull Head. 20) Carp 21) Cat 

Fish I 22) Sturgeon. 2$) Pike. 

Descent in male line, children belonging to their father’s gens. Ursprünglich 

female. Denn 1) d. Delawares, anerkannt dch alle Algonkin tribes als 

einer der ältesten, von allen “ Grandfathers” genannt, haben noch descent in 

female line, wie ditto etzliche andre Algonkin tribes; 2) Evidence, dass noch 

1 840 descent in the female line with respect to the Sachem. 3) American u. 

missionary influence; d. Missionaries, schien Erbfolge die d. Sohn enterbte, 

ungerecht. W o wir d. W ort “ hereditary” anwenden, z.B. für nephew 

(seiner Schwester Sohn) eines Sachern, folgt nicht, dass letzterer “ hereditary 

right” hatte im modernen Sinn, sondern dass er in line of succession (in 

dr gens) u. his election substantially secured. 

Property u. office hereditary in gens (worin intermarriage verboten); jetzt 

bekommen Kinder d. meiste to the exclusion ihrer gentile kindred. 

Property u. effects der mother pass to the children, u. in their default 

to her sisters, own u. collateral. Ein Sohn kann jetzt seinem Vater flgen 

in office; w o several sons choice determined by election; the gentiles kann nicht 

nur elect, sondern auch depose. 

Jetzt Ojibwas some 16,000; gibt average für gens about 700. 

2) Potawattamies. 15 Gentes. Alles andre wie bei Ojibwas. Die gentes sind: 

1) Wolf 2) Bear 3) Beaver \ 4) E lk . /) Loon 6) Eagle \7) Sturgeon, l Laon = 

8) Carp. 9) Bald Eagle. 10) Thunder. 11) Rabbit. 12) Crow | / Taucher- 

13) Fox. 14) Turkey. 1 j) Black Hawk. ( sorte 

3) Ojibwas, Otawas, u. Potawat(f)amies subdivisions of an original tribe, 

when first known - confederated. 

4) Crees; when discovered held northwest shore of Lake Superior, spread v. 

da zu Hudson's Bay u. dann westlich to the Red River of151 the North; 

occupy später the region of the Siskatchewun, 152 ihre gentile organisation lost; 

nearest related to the Ojibwas, gleichen ihnen closely in manners, customs, 

personal appearance. 

b) Mississippi Tribes. Western Algonkins, occupied eastern banks of Mississippi 

in Wisconsin153 u. Illinois u. südlich bis Kentucky. 

i. Miamis. 10 gentes. i) Wolf. 2) Loon. 3) Eagle. 4) Bustard. \ f) Panther. 

6) Turkey. 7) Raccoon 8) Snow | 9) Sun. 1 

Ihre immediate congeners - Weas, Piankeshaws, Peorias, KaskaskiasXf& 

early known unter collective name of Illinois, jetzt wenige, haben ihre 

alte Lebensart verloren for settled agricultural life. 

D . Miamis declining in numbers, changed condition,^«///? organisation 

quickly disappearing. When decline commenced, descent in male line, sonst 

wie vorher. | 

5 7 2) Shawnees (highly advanced); haben noch ihre gentes, obgleich sie substi- 

stuted (for) die gentilt-civil organisation. - Ihre gentes erhalten sie für 

genealogical u. social purposes, sind: \Shawnees formerly worshipped a 

180

female deity - Go-gome-tha-mä’ (our 

grandmother] 

i ) Wolf 2) Loon ß) Bear 4) Bustard \ j) Panther 6) Owl, 7) Turkey, 8) Deer I 

9) Raccoon. 10) Turtle. 11) Snake. 12) Horse \ if) Rabbit. 

Descent etc wie bei Miamis. 1869154 ihrer nur 700, about 50 per gens; 

früher 3-4000, was above the average of American Indian tribes. Shawnees 

hatten a custom - wie auch d. Miamis, ditto Sauks u. Foxes - o f naming 

children in gens v. Vather od. Mutter od. any other gens under certain restrictions. 

Unter d. Iroquois, sieh oben, hatte jede gens its own special names für 

persons which no other gens had a right to use; in every tribe daher the name 

(special, personal) indicated the gens. So unter d. Sauks u. Foxes “ Long 

Horn” is a name belonging to the Deer Gens: Black Wolf to the W olf 

Gens; in the Eagle gens the following are specimen155 names: Ka-po-nä 

(“ Eagle drawing his nest” ); Ja-ka-kwä-pe (“ Eagle sitting with his head 

up” ) ; Pe-ä-tä-na-kä-hok (“ Eagle flying over a limb) 

Unter d. Shawnees these names carried mit sich the rights o f the gens to 

which they belonged, so that the name determined the gens of the person. 

Der Sachem musste in allen Fällen zu seiner gens gehören; whsclich d. 

change von female to male line commenced thus: in erster Instanz to enable a 

son (der zur gens der Mutter gehörte) to succeed to his father, u. zweitens, to 

enable children to inherit property from their father. Empfing ein Sohn den 

Namen seines Vaters, so konnte er ihn in office nachfolgen, subject to election. 

Aber d. father had no control over the question; it was left by the gens to 

certain persons, mostly matrons to be consulted when children were to 

be named, with power to determine the name156 to be given. D ch dies arrangement 

between the Shawnee gentes these persons had this power, could so 

carry the person into the gens to which the name belonged. [Eingeborne casuistry of 

man to change things by changing names\ u. Schlupfwinkel zu finden um 

innerhalb der Tradition die Tradition zu durchbrechen, w o actual interest 

powerful motive dazu gab!] Traces der archaic rule of descent existiren unter 

den Shawnees. 

3) Sauks u. Foxes: diese tribes consolidated into one; alles andre wie Miamis; 

1869 nur 700, abt 50 per gens. Noch 14 gentes. 

1) Wolf 2) Bear ß) Deer. 4) E lk \ j) Hawk. 6) Eagle. 7) Fish. 8) Buffalo. | 

9) Thunder 10) Bone 11) Fox. 12) Sea | iß) Sturgeon. 14) Big Tree | 

4) Menominees u. Kikapoos. Diese tribes independent of each other, organised 

in gentes; property hereditary in the gens, but restricted to the 

agnatic kin in the female line. 

c) Rocky Mountain tribes. 1) Blood Blackfeet u. 2) Piegan Blackfeet. Jeder 

dieser 2 tribes in gentes getheilt, erster in 5, 2ter in 8. Namentlich 

unter d. letzteren Namen (von gens), die mehr nach Bands als gentes 

riechen, wie Web Fat, Inside Fat, Conjurers, Never Laugh^ Starving, 

H alf Dead Meat; aber nicknames for gentes superseded in some cases the 

original names. Descent in male line, intermarriage in gens prohibited. 

181

d) Atlantic Tribes. 

i ) Delawares, one of the oldest of the Algonguin Tribes; when discovered, 

their home country region around and North of Delaware Bay 

haben 3 gentes: 1) Wolf; 2) Turtle. 3) Turkey; aber jede dieser gen(te)s a 

phratry, da Wolf getheilt in 12 subgentesy each having some o f the attributes 

of a gens; Turtle in 10 subgentes (2 fernere extinct), Turkey in 12 subgentes. 

The names der subgentes are personal, u. meist, wenn nicht alle, female; sind 

betrachtet by the Delawares selbst (jezt at the Delaware Reservation in 

Kansas') betrachtet als their several eponymous ancestors. Dies zeigt zweierlei: 

1) wie d. ursprünglichen Thiernamen der gentes Platzmachen können Personennamen. 

[D. Namen der ursprünglichen Gentes bleiben wie Wolf Turtle, 

Turkey; aber d. Segmentation der gens in subgentes nach d. specific (personal) 

Namen der Stammmütter der Theile (Unterabtheilgen der Gensfamilien) 

; so werden d. ursprünglichen Thiernamen der gentes Namen von 

Phratries u. die der subgentes von Personen (Müttern) ohne dass dieser 

Change (wie bei male descent d. Antiken) anything mit hero worship (als 

Urahnen) zu thun hätte.] Zweitens: zeigt sich hier natural growth von 

Phratry dch segmentation einer gens in several subgentes. 

Descent bei d. Delawares in female line u. alles andre archaisch. (So d. 3 

original gentes could not intermarry innerhalb selber gens); in recent years the 

prohibition limited to the subgentes; so in Wolf gens157 z.B. die of same name 

cannot intermarry, wohl aber die of different names. Auch d. practice 

5 8 of naming children into the gens | of their father aufgekommen bei d. Delawares, 

has introduced the same confusion of descents wie unter Shawnees u. 

Miamis. [Dies scheint der natürliche Übergang von female to male line; 

der confusion konnte nur dch den Change Ende gemacht werden.] 

American civilisation u. intercourse gave shock to the institutions der Indians, ihr 

ethnic life so gradually breaking down. 

Weil descent in female line, bei d. Delawares wie Iroquois, office of Sachem 

v. Bruder to Bruder od. von (mütterlichen) Onkel to Nephew (Schwes- 

terssohn) 

2) Munsees: offshoot der Delawares, haben dieselben gentes: Wolf, Turtle, 

Turkey; female descent etc 

3) Mohegans: form part of the New England Indians, south of river Kennebeck, 

die all closely related in language, could understand each others’ dialects. 

Mohegans haben, wie Delawares u. Munsees - the Wolf Turtle u. Turkey, 

each of which composed of a number of gentes, also break up v. original gens 

into several which remain united in a phratry. D . phratries bet d. Mohegans 

cover the gentes o f each u. d. phratries must be stated, to explain the 

classification of the gentes. Descent in female line [auch so unter Pequots 

u. Narragansetts] 

I) Wolf Phratry 1) Wolf 2) Bear j) Dog 4) Opossum 

IT) Turtle 1) Little Turtle 2) Mud Turtle j) Great Turtle 

4) Yellow E e l. 

182

I ll ) Turkey „ „ i) Turkey 2) Crane 

4) Abanakis (bdtet “ rising sun” . Dies tribe more closely connected mit d. Micmacs 

als den New England Indians south of the Kennebeck. 14 gentes, worin 

verschiedene the same as among the Ojibwas. Descent nun in male line, 

prohibition o f intermarriage in gens now much weakened, office of 

Sachem hereditary in gens. 

V I) Athapasco-Apache Tribes 

"T~Ob d. Athapascans der Hudson’s Bay Territory u. d. Apaches of New Mexico, 

' die subdivisions eines original stock, sind organized in gentes, nicht definitely 

ascertained. - Hare and Red Knife Athapascans (in Hudson’s Bay Territ.) - 

Slave Lake Athapascans in ditto. 

D . Kutchin (Louchoux) der Yukon river Region \Northwest Territories, 

British Northamerica, südlich von den ex-russischen Küstenniederlassungen] 

sind Athapascans und bei ihnen (nach Brief o f late George Gibbs an 

M organ): unter d. Kutchin “ 3 grades or classes of society (soll heissen totem, 

die aber in rank verschieden sein mögen) [u. in d. Art, namtlich w ie158 

zum gensprincip Eroberung hinzukömmt, können nach u. nach d. gentes 

I zur Kastenbildung Anlass geben? w o dann d. Verbot d. intermarriage 

! ^wischen verschiedenen gentes ganz verkehrt die archaische rule der inter- 

1— marriage innerhalb the same gens; ] ; a man does not marry into his own class, 

but takes a wife from some other; and that a chief from the highest may marry 

with a woman of the lowest without loss of caste. [D. Begriff der caste trägt 

d. Briefschrieber hinein u. interpretirt sich so, dass ein Mann nicht in 

seiner eignen gens heirathen kann, wohl aber in gens seiner andren brother— 

od. cousin phratry; zeigt aber, dass sobald difference of rank %'wischen 

blutsverwten o/159 gentes entsteht, dieses in conflict mit d. gentilen Princip 

__ geräth u. d. gens in ihr Gegentheil, caste, versteinern kann.]160 The 

children belong to the grade of the mother [welches also d. Rangunterschied 

Swisehen gentes, Brüder u. Schwester aller gentes finden sich in gentes jedes 

Rangs. D . Verwandtschaftsband lässt keine finirte Aristokratie aufkom- 

men, fraternity bleibt in Gleichheitsgefühl] The members of the same grade 

in the different tribes do not war with each other.” 

Kolushes d. Nordwestküste, linguistisch closely related161 mit d. Athapascans, 

haben gens organisation; Gentes haben Thiernamen, descent in female line; right 

of succession in female line von uncle to nephew, except the principal chief, who 

is generally the most powerful o f the family. | 

59 V II) Indian Tribes of the Northwest Coast. 

In einigen dieser tribes - ausser d. Kolushes - prevails gentile organization. 

See: D ali: “ Alaska and its resources” u. namtlich Bancroft: Pacific 

States, I, 109. 

V III) Salish, Sahaptin u. Kootenay Tribes. 

Dies d. principal stock der tribes des Valley of the Columbia, ohne gentile 

183

organisation. Dies war d. initial point der migrations der Ganowanian 

family, spreading over both divisions des Continent; their possessors 

besassen daher gentile organization, fell into decay and finally disappeared. 

I X ) Shoshonee Tribes. 

Die Comanches of Texas, zusammen mit Utah tribes, Bonnaks162 (Panacks?), 

Shoshonees u. some other tribes gehören dazu. 

i 8j 9 (berichtet by Mathew Walker, a Wyandote halfblood, lived among the 

Comanches) hatten d. Comanches 6 gentes: 

Comanche tribe. Gentes. i) Wolf. 2) Bear. 3) E lk . I 4) Deer, j) Gopher. 

(amerik. Erdeichhörnchen) 6) Antelope \ 

Da d. Comanches gentes, so presumption, dass auch d. other tribes dieses 

stock. 

Hiermit schliesst Morgan ab mit d. Indians North of New Mexico. Ihre 

grössere Anzahl zur Zeit der europ. Entdeckung in Lower Status of 

Barbarism, d. remainder in Upper Status of Savagery. Organization into 

gentes u. descent in female line erschien ursprünglich universal. Ihr 

system purely social; unit d. gens, phratry, tribe, confederacy the remaining 

members der organic series. Selber bei Aryan u. Semitic tribes, when 

emerging from barbarism; also system universal in ancient society; inferen- 

tially had a common origin - the punaluan group, giving origin to the gentes; all - 

the Aryan, Semitic, Uralian, Turanian u. Ganowanian families of mankind 

point to a common punaluan163 stock - with organisation of gentes engrafted 

upon it - of which all were derived, and finally differentiated into families. 

X ) Village Indians 

i) Moqui Pueblo Indians; still possessed of their ancient communal houses, 7 in 

number, near the Little Colorado in Arisona, once a part of New Mexico; 

living under their ancient institutions, represent type of Indian life von 

Zuni (pueblo) (Neu Mexico) bis Cusco (North Peru) Zuni, Acoma, Taos 

u. several other New Mexico pueblos haben selbe Struktur, worin gefunden 

von Coronado (/J40-1J42). Bisher nichts Nennenswerthes studirt über 

ihre innere Organization. 

Die Moquis organized in gentes: (9), as follow s: 

1) Deer. 2) Sand. 3) Rain. I 4) Bear, j) Hare. 6) Prairie Wolf. | 7) Rattlesnake. 

8) Tobacco Plant. 9) Reed Grass \ 

D r. Ten Broeck, Assistant Surgeon, U. S. A ., lieferte dem Mr. Schoolcraft 

d. Moqui Legend über origin164 o f their villages. Ihre Grandmother165 

brought from her home, the West, 9 races of men, first the Deer u. so 

weiter d. übrigen gentes (cf. über d. Grandmother der166 Shawnees, oben 

p. 57). Nachdem sie selbe gepflanzt on the spot wo nun die villages, 

verwandelte sie selbe (nämlich D eer,141 Sand, Rain, Bear etc) in men u. diese 

built up the different pueblos u. d. distinction o f races, Deer race, Sand race, 

etc is still kept up. They believe in Metempsychosis u. say, nach T od werden 

184

sie rückverwandelt wden in bears, deer167 etc.; government hereditary, aber 

nicht necessarily to the son of the incumbent; for if the(y) prefer any other blood 

relative, he is chosen.” Here also gentile organisation found in lower state of 

barbarism, aber von diesem Punkt an, sowohl im remainder des North als 

"im ganzen Süden keine definite information except in regard to the Lagunas. 

Aber still traces Jeft in the Early Spanish writers u. direct knowledge of it in 

a few later writers. 

There are current traditions in many gentes, wie bei d. Moquis, von transformation 

ihrer ersten progenitors aus dem animal, or inanimate object, which 

became the symbol of the gens {totem), into men and women. (So bei den 

Crane gens unter d. Ojibwas). Ferner Anzahl von tribes, die abstain | 

60 from eating the animal, whose name they bear, doch dies far from universal. 

2) Lagunas. (New Mexico). Aus Address von Rev. Samuel Gorman an d. 

“ Historical Society of New Mexico” i860: 

“ Each town is classed into tribes or families (read gentes), and each of these 

groups named after some animal, bird, herb, timber, planet, or one of the 4 

elements. In pueblo of Laguna, mit about 1000 inhabitants, 17 dieser tribes; 

some are called deer, some rattlesnake, some corn, some wolf, some water etc 

Children of same tribe as their mother. And, according to ancient custom, 

2 persons of the same tribe are forbidden to marry; recently diese Gewohnheit 

nicht mehr so rigurös beobachtet wie anciently. Their land is held in common, 

but after a person cultivates a lot, he has a personal claim to it, which he can sell 

to anyone of the same community; or else when he dies it belongs to his widow 

or daughter; or, if he were a single man, it remains168 in his father's family.” 

That wife and daughter inherit from the father is doubtful. 

3) Aztecs, Te^cucans u. Tlacopans, ditto the remaining Nahuatlac tribes in 

Mexico - flgdes chapter. 

4) Mayas of Yucatan. 

Herrera: “ General History of America’ spricht oft von “ kindred” mit regard 

to the tribes in Mexico, Central America u. South America, dass gens daraus 

hervorguckt. E r u. d. ändern early Spanish observers noticed that large 

numbers of persons were bound together by the bond of kin u. mention daher 

the group als “ kindred” , weiter forschten sie nicht. 

Herrera sagt u. a. von d. Mayas (Lond. ed. 1726, Stevens transl. III, 299): 

“ they were wont to observe their pedigrees very much, and therefore (!) thought 

themselves all related and were helpful to one another They did not marry 

mothers, or sisters-in-law, nor any that bore the same name as their father, which 

was looked upon as unlawful.” The pedigree o f an Indian under their 

system of consanguinity could have no significance apart from a gens. Sagt 

Tylor in his: “ Early History of Mankind” : “ The analogy of the North American 

Indian custom is therefore with that of the Australian in making clanship on the 

female side a bar to marriage, but if we go further down into Central America, 

the reverse custom, as in China, makes its appearance. Diego de Landa says 

o f the people of Yukatan that no one took a wife of his name, on the father’s 

185

side, for this was a very vile thing among them; but they might marry 

cousins German on the mother’s side.” 

X I.) The South American Indian Tribes. 

Traces of the gens found in all parts of South America, as well as the actual 

presence of the Ganowanian system of consanguinity, aber the subject nicht fully 

inves

deren Waffen, implements u. ustensils, fabrics, food and raiment u. d. gl. Taugen 

nichts mit Bezug auf Indian society u. gvt. “ They learned nothing and 

knew nothing of either.” 

Aztecs u. their confederate tribes in middle Status of Barbarism; ohne 

~T~iron u. iron tools; ohne money; traded by barter of commodities; sicher, dass sie 

' prepared one meal each day, erst assen Männer für sich, dann Weiber u. 

Kinder für sich, hatten weder tables noch chairs. 

Commune tenure of lands; Life in large households composed of a number of 

related families u. reasons for believing that they practiced communism in 

living in the household. Andrerseits: they worked the native metals, cultivated 

by irrigation, manufactured coarse fabrics of cotton, constructed joint-tenement 

houses of adobe-bricks and of stone, made earthenware of excellent quality. Es 

existirte kein “Kingdom of Mexico” , wie es in d. älteren descriptions heisst, 

noch “ Empire of Mexico” wie in d. späteren getauft. Was d. Spanier 

fanden, simply “ Confederacy of 3 Tribes” , dessen counterpart existirte in all 

parts of the continent. D . government administered b y a Council of Chiefs 

mit cooperation eines General Commander of the military bands (principal war- 

chief). Die 3 tribes were: 1) Aztecs or Mexicans; 2) Te^cucans; 3) Tlacopans. 

D . Aztecs gehörten zu 7 tribes, migrated vom North, settled in u. near the 

valley of Mexico, were among the historical tribes dort at time o f Spanish 

Conquest. Alle diese tribes nannten sich collectively “ Nahuatlacs” in their 

traditions, sprachen dialects der Nahuatlac common (stock) language. 

Acosta (1585 auf visit in Mexico) erzählt d. current tradition ihrer successiven 

Niederlassungen. 

1) Sochimilcas “ Nation of the Seeds of Flowers” , settled beim Lake Xochimilco, 

auf südlichem slope d. valley of Mexico. 

2) Chalcas “ People of Mouths” , kamen viel später, settled neben den 1) on 

Lake Chaleo. 

3) Tepanecans. “ People of the Bridge” , settled at A%copo%alco, west of Lake 

Te^cuco, on the western slope of the valley. 

4) Culhuas. “ A Crooked People” , settled on east side of Lake Teêuco - afterwards 

known as Te^cucans. 

5) Tlatluicans. “Men of the Sierra” , finding the valley appropriated around the 

Lake, passed over the Sierra, südlich u. settled on the other side. 

6) Tlascalans. “ Men of Bread” , lebten zeitlang mit d. Tepanecans, 169 settled 

dann beyond the valley, eastward at Tlascala. 

7) Aztecs, came last, occupied the site o f the present city of Mexico. 

Acosta bemerkt, dass sie (die Aztecs!) came from far countries lying toward 

the North, wo sie nun ein kingdom gestiftet, das sie Neu Mexico nennen. 

Selbe Tradition bei Clavigero u. Herrera. 

Die Tlacopans nicht mentioned, wahrscheinlich subdivision der Tepanecans, 

remaining in the original area of that tribe, whd der remainder to a 

territory immediately South of the Tlascalans, w o gefunden under name 

of Tepeacas. 

187

Die tradition enthält 2 facts: 1) 7 tribes of common origin, speaking related 

dialects, 2) that Afcy ftzz»* /row the North. They were originally one people, 

dch segmentation naturally fallen into several tribes. 

D . Aztecs fanden d. best situations des Thals occupirt u. nach verschie- 

dentlichem Ortswechsel settled upon a small expanse of dry land in Mitte of 

marsh bordered with fields of pedregal170 u. mit natural ponds. (Teich, Weiher). 

Hier gründeten sie d. Pueblo of Mexico (Tenoch(f)itlan 132] (nach 

Clavigero), 196 J. vor Span. Conquest. Waren schwach in number u. poor 

in condition. Aber entlang ihrem site flössen in Lake Tezcuco rivulets 

v. d. Western Hills u. d. outlets der Lakes Xochimilco u. Chalco. Vermittelst 

62 causeways (Chausseen, Fahr dämmen) und | Deichen umgaben sie ihr Pueblo 

mit artificial Teich (pond) von large extent, d. Wasser being furnished by the 

named sources. D a d. Niveau d. Lake Te^cuco höher als je%t war, gab es ihnen, 

nach vollendetem Werk, d. sicherste position aller pueblos im Thal. Ihr 

mechanical engineering wdch sie dies Resultat erreichten, one o f the greatest 

achievements der Aztecs. 

Zur Zeit der span. Eroberung, / der 7 tribes - Aztecs, Te^cucans, Tlacopans, 

Sochimilcans u. Chalcans residirten im valley; dies of limited area, about 

equal to the State of Rhode Island; es war a mountain or upland basin ohne outlet, 

oval in Form, längest von N ord to Süd, 120 miles in circuit, embracing 

about 1600 □ wiles, excluding the surface covered by water; d. valley selbst 

surrounded by a series of hills, one range rising above mit depressions between, 

encompassing the valley with a mountain barrier. D . tribes residirten 

in some 30 Pueblos, wovon Mexico the largest. Abundant evidence, dass der 

Rest des modernen Mexico’s besetzt171 dch zahlreiche tribes, die vom 

Nahuatlac verschiedne Sprachen redeten, in deren Majorität unabhängig. 

Die remaining Nahuatlac tribes, die ausserhalb d. Thals v. Mexico lebten, 

waren d. Tlascalans, d. Cholulans (supposed subdivision der former), d. 

Huexotîncos, d. Me^titlans (supposed subdivision der Te^cucans) die alle 

unabhängig, endlich d. Tepeacas u. Tlatluicans, die abhängig. Bedtende Anzahl 

andrer tribes, bildend about /7 territorial groups mit ebensoviel stock languages, 

hatten diese d. Rest v. Mexico, fst dies genaue Wiederholung - in their 

state of disintegration u. independence der tribes der U. States u. British Americas, 

%ur Zeit ihrer Entdeckung ein Jahrhundert od. mehr später. 

1426 d. A%tec Confederacy formed; vorher wenig historisch wichtige events 

unter d. valley tribes; uneinig, belligerent, ohne Einfluss jenseits ihrer 

unmittelbaren Lokalitäten. Um jene Zeit bei Aztecs preponderance of 

numbers u. strength. Unter ihrem war chief It^coatl overthrown d. frühere 

supremacy der Te^cucans u. Tlacopans u. als Folge d. früheren wars gegen 

einander errichtet league oder aber confederacy. Es war Defensiv - u. 

Offensive Alliance %'wischen d. 3 tribes, mit stipulation für Vertheilung unter 

ihnen der spoils in festgesetzten Proportionen u. der tributes of subjugated 

tribes. Jezt schwierig zu bestimmen, ob d. Verbindung League (at pleasure 

verlängerbar u. auflösbar) od. confederacy, i.e. consolidated organisation wie 

188

der Bund der Iroquois. Jeder tribe blieb independent in seinem local self government; 

die 3 ein Volk nach aussen mit Be%ug auf Angriff u. Verteidigung. 

Jeder tribe hatte seinen eignen council of chiefs u. its own head war-chiej, aber 

der A%tec war-chiej war commander-in-chiej der confederate bands; to be 

inferred davon, dass Te^cucans u. Tlacopans had a voice in election u. confirmation 

des A%tec war-chief; zeigt dass A^tec influence predominated bei 

Gründung der Confederacy. 

1426-1J20 - 94 Jahre - d. Confederacy had frequent wars mit adjacent tribes 

u. besonders mit d. feeble Village Indians, südlich vom Thal v. Mexico to 

the Pacific u. östlich bis Guatemala. Sie begannen mit d. nächsten, overcame 

them; the villages in dieser area were numerous, aber small, oft nur a single 

large structure of adobe - brick or of stone, in some cases - several mit structures 

j grouped together. Diese forayx172 wiederholt mit avowed object of gathering 

spoil, imposing tribute, capturing prisoners for sacrifice, bis d. principal tribes 

in dieser area subdued (mit some exceptions) u. tributary gemacht, incl. d. 

scattered villages der Totonacs nahe bei present Vera Cru 

D. Aztecs, wie d. northern Indians, neither exchanged

Cholulans u. Huexotyincos im Südosten, u. über diese hinaus, d. tribes der 

Tabasco, der Chiapas, u. der Zapotecas (Zapotecs). In diesen verschiednen 

Richtungen erstreckte sich d. dominion der A^tec Confederacy nicht 100 

miles beyond the valley of Mexico u. a portion der surrounding area unzweifelhaft 

neutral ground trennend d. confederacy von perpetual enemies. Aus 

diesen limited materials fabricated the Kingdom of Mexico der spanischen 

Chroniken, später magnified in d. A^tec Empire of101 current history. 

D. Bevölkerung der valley u. Pueblo of Mexico excessiv angeschlagen auf 

2 jo,ooo Persons; gäbe für □ mile about 160 persons, fst 2 173 mal d. present 

average population des State of New York u. about equal to the average population 

of Rhode Island. Sie hatten weder flocks noch herds, noch field agriculture. V on 

jener Population für Pueblo v. Mexico vielleicht to be assigned 30,000. 

Phantasiesahlen:Zua%o (visiting Mexico in i j 2 i giebt ihm 60,000 Einwohner, 

ebenso der Anonymous Conqueror, who accompanied Cortes (H. Ternaux- 

Compans, X , 92); Gomora u. Martyr verwandeln d. 60,000 Einwohner in 

60.000 Häuser u. dies angenommen dch Clavigero, Herrera u. last, Prescott 

(“ Conquest of Mexico” ) Solis macht aus d. 60,000 Einwohner - des Zueô - 

60.000 families, würde geben population o f 300,000, whd London damals 

nur i4J,ooo Einw. hatte (Blacks London). Torquemada, cited by Clavigero, 

macht aus 60,000 houses - 120,000! The houses in Pueblo of Mexico were 

zweifelsohne in general large communal or joint-tenement houses wie die in 

Neu-Mexico zur selben Period, gross genug zu accom(m)odirsn von 10 bis 

jo u. 100 families in each. 

D. A^tec confederacy - in plan and symmetry - unter der der Iroquois. 

D . Pueblo of Mexico war largest in America; romantisch gelegen mitten in 

einem künstlichen See, large joint-tenement houses plastered over mit gypsum, 

wdch sie brillant weiss, schlug es v. weitem span. Imagination; hence 

d. extravagance o f opinion. 

Bei d. Aztecs found: ornamental gardens, magazines of weapons u. military 

costumes, improved apparel, manufactured fabrics of cotton o f superior workmanship, 

inproved implements u. ustensils u. increased variety of food;picture 

writing, mainly to indicate the tribute in kind every subjugated village had 

to pay (these tributes enforced mit system u. rigour o f execution were 

manufacturedfabrics u. horticultural products); a calendar for measuring time, 

open markets for barter of commodities, ferner Administrative offices to meet 

the demands of a growing municipal life; priesthood, with a temple worship 

u. a ritual including human sacrifices. Office of head war-chief had risen into 

increased importance etc. 

I. Gentes u. Phratries 

Spanish writers (contemporär d. Erobng) sahen d. A^tec Gentes nicht; 

aber for more than 200 years sahen d. Anglo-Americans sie nicht bei d. 

Iroquois; sie bemerkten früh Existenz of clans mit besdrn Thiernamen, 

aber nicht als social unit, w f tribe u. confederacy aufgebaut. Herrera (etc) 

spricht of a “ kindred” als o f group (gens) u. “ lineage” (dies phratry bei einigen 

190

writers, bei ändern gens) D . pueblo of Mexico geographisch getheilt in 

4 quarters, jedes occupied by a “ lineage” (phratry) u. jedes quarter “ subdivided” 

; each subdivision occupied by a community of persons bound together 

by some common tie (gens). [In Mexico nur i tribe; der der Aztecs. 

Selber erzählt v. Tlascalans (Herrera, Clavigero); their pueblo divided in 

4 quarters, each occupied by a “ lineage” ; each had its own Teuctli (head war 

chief), distinctive military costume, its own standard u. blazon. “ The 

four war chiefs” were ex officio members of the Council. (Clavigero) Ebenso 

Cholula getheilt in 6 quarters. 

D a d. Aztecs in their social subdivisions had arranged unter sich selbst the 

parts of the pueblo they were severally to occupy, from this their mode of 

64 settlement resulted geographical districts. | Nach Acosta giebt Herrera short 

sketch of the building of Mexico, erst “a chapel of lime and stone for the idol” . 

Idol befiehlt dann d. Priester, dass sein (das idol’s) Haus in Mitte bleiben 

soll; die chief men soll divide themselves, with their kindreds und 

followers, into ^ 174 wards or quarters, and each party to build as they liked 

best; dies d. 4 quarters of Mexico, nun called St. John, St. Mary the round, 

St. Paul u. St. Sebastian. Nachdem diese divisions made, befahl d. idol 

wieder unter sich zu distribuiren d. gods he should name, and each ward 

to appoint peculiar places where the gods should be worshipped. So every 

quarter had several smaller wards in it according to the number o f their gods 

this idol called them to adore___ Nach dieser partition, die, die sich 

injured dachten, mit kindred und followers, went away to seek some 

__other place, nämlich Tlatelueco, das in der Nähe. 

I Diese Erzählung procedirt, wie Mode, nach fertigen Resultat; erst kin in 

-1-4 divisions getheilt u. diese in smaller subdivisions. The actual process ist 

I genau d. Gegentheil; erst each body of kindred gens located into an area by 

! themselves, u. d. several bodies (phratries) in such a way as to bring those 

most nearly related in geographical connection mit einander. Also wenn 

lowest division a gens, each quarter occupied by a phratry, composed of 

related gentes. (Grecian u. Roman tribes settled in dieser A rt in towns or cities) 

Each gens of the same phratry (die 4 quarters v. Mexico) in the main locally 

by itself. Da husband u. wife of different gentes u. d. children o f gens d. 

Vaters od. d. Mutter, je nachdem gens in male or female line, the preponderating 

number in each locality would be of the same gens. 

Their military organisation based upon these social divisions. In d. Mexican 

Chronicles by the native author Tespspm°k (Morgan erhielt dies von A . F . 

Bandelier, of Highland, Illinois, engaged upon translation dieses Buchs), 

referring to a proposed invasion of Michoacan, sprach Axaycatl zu d. 

2 Mexican captains etc u. all d. ändern u. fragte ob alle “ Mexicans were 

prepared, after the usages u. customs of each ward; if so, they should begin 

to march u. that all were to unite at Matlatsjnco Toluca; ” dies indicates 

military organisation nach gentes 11. phratries. 

I Auch d. land tenure zeigt hin auf gentes. Clavigero sagt: “ the lands called 

I9 I

Altepetlalli (altepetl = pueblo), that is those o f the communities of cities 

and villages, were divided into as many parts as there were districts in a city, 

and every district possessed its own part entirely distinct from, and independent 

o f every other. These lands could not be alienated by any means whatever.” 

Jede dieser communities war a gens, whose localiâtion^NZx nothwendig. Con- 

sequenz ihres socialen systems. D . community machte d. District (Clavigero 

puts the district for the community) and which owned the lands in common. 

Das element of kin, which united the community, ausgelassen v. Clavigero, 

ist ergänzt dch Herrera. E r sagt: “ There were other lords, called major 

parents \Sachems\ whose landed property all belonged to one lineage [gens], 

which lived in one district, and there were many o f them when the lands 

were distributed at the time N ew Spain was peopled; and each lineage 

received its own, and have possessed them until n o w ; and these lands did not 

belong to anyone in particular, but to all in common, and he who possessed 

them could not sell them, although he enjoyed them for life and left them to his 

sons and heirs; and if a house (alguna casa, feudal expression d. Spaniers) died 

out, they were left to the nearest parent to whom they were given and 

to no other, who administered the same district or lineage.” 

T>. feudalen Vorstellungen d. Spaniers u. d. indianischen Verhältnisse, die er sah, 

laufen hier durch einander - aber trennbar. Der Aztec “Lord” was der 

Sachem, civil chief of a body of consanguinei of whom he is called “ the major 

parent” D . lands gehörten jenem body (gens) in common; when the chief 

died, his place (according to Hei-rera) ging über auf seinen Sohn; was 

überging war in diesem Fall d. office of Sachem, nicht d. land, das niemand 

in trust “possessed” ; hatte er keinen Sohn “ the lands were left to the nearest 

major parent” , d. h. another person was elected Sachem. 

“Lineage” kann hier nichts andres sein wie gens u. office hereditary in the gens, 

wie bei d. ändern Indians, selective unter d. members der gens; wenn 

descent in male line, choice would fall on one of the sons o f the defunct 

Sachem, own or collateral, or upon a brother, own or collateral etc 

The “ lineage“ of Herrera u. “ the communities” of Clavigero offenbar selbe 

65 organisations-Der Sachem | had no title over lands u. konnte sie 

transmit to nobody. Spanier betrachteten d. Sache so, weil he held an 

office perpetually maintained u. weil there was a body of lands perpetually 

belonging to a gens over which he was a sachem; dieser (ausser seinen 

functions of chief der gens) hatte so wenig authority über die persons (die ihm 

d. Spanier zuschreiben) wie über d. lands. 

Was sie über inheritance sagen, ebenso confus u. contradictory; nur 

wichtig hier, soweit sie show bodies of consanguinei u. the inheritance of the 

children from their fathers, in welchem Fall descent in male line. 

II) Existence u. Functions des Council of Chiefs. 

Für Existenz eines A^tec Council - evidence; fast nichts über seine Functions 

u. Anzahl seiner Glieder. 

19z

Brasseur de Bourbourg sagt “ nearly all the towns or tribes divided into 4 clans 

or quarters, whose chiefs constitute the great council” ; später sagt er, der 

A^tec Council habe aus 4 bestanden. (Bourbourg, Popul Vuh). 

Diego Dur an - (schrieb seine “ History of the Indies of New Spain and Islands 

of the Main Lands” 1 jy ^ -ij 8i , also vor Acosta u. Teôômoc.) - sagt: “ In 

Mexico, nach Wahl eines Königs wählten sie 4 lords of the brothers or near 

relations of this king whom they gave the titles of princes, and from whom 

they had to choose the king___ These 4 lords or titles after being elected 

princes, they made them the royal council, like the presidents and judges 

of the supreme council, without whose opinion nothing could be done.” Acosta175 

nennt d. same 4 offices [Tlacachcalcatl, Tlacatecal, Ezuau(u)acatl, u. 

Fillancalque], nennt d. tenants dieser officers “ electors” u. “ all these 4 

dignities were of the great council, without whose advice the king might 

not do anything o f importance.” 

Herrera places dies officers in 4 grades, sagt dann: “ These 4 sorts of 

noblemen were of the supreme council, without whose advice the king 

was to do nothing of moment, and no king could be chosen but what was one of 

these 4 orders.” “ King ” für principal war chief u. “princes” für Indian chiefs. 

Als d. Huexotîncos delegates nach Mexico sandten zum Vorschlag einer 

Allianz gegen d. Tlascalans, sagte ihnen - nach Tezozomoc - Montezuma: 

“ Brothers and sons, you are welcome, rest yourselves awhile, for although 

I am king indeed I alone cannot satisfy you, but only together with all the chiefs 

of the sacred Mexican senate.” Hier material point, wie in d. obigen accounts: 

Existence of a supreme council, with authority over the action of the principal 

war chief. D . limitation des Council to 4 unwahrscheinlich; so würde der 

Council represent nicht den A^tec tribe, sondern the small body of kinsmen 

aus welchen d. military commander was to be chosen. Aber im indianischen 

System (u. everywhere else unter gentile institution) jeder chief represents a 

constituency u. d. chiefs Together represent the tribe. Manchmal gemacht 

election from them to form a general council; dann aber stets dch an organic 

provision fixing the number, and providing for their perpetual maintenance. 

D. Te^cucan Council o f 14 members (.Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chichimeca, Kings- 

borough, Mexican Antiq. IX , p. 243); d. Council at Tlascala was a numerous 

body; wir finden ebenso a Cholulan u. a. Michoacan council, aber Clavigero 

sagt mit Beûg auf Aztecs: “ In the history of the conquest we shall find 

Montezuma in frequent deliberation with his council on the pretensions of 

the Spaniards. We do not know the number of each Council, nor do histories 

furnish us with the lights to illustrate such a subject.” 

Sofern d. A^tec Council limited to 4 members, all of the same lineage, it is 

presented in unwahrscheinlicher Form. [Mögen Spanier dem Tribal Council, 

__aus d. Chief der gentes bestehend, nicht fälschlich untergeschoben haben 

__d. gens aus der principal war chief u. vielleicht 4 andre offices %u wählen? Ganz 

wie z.B. d. wampum keeper aus bestimmter gens bey Iroquois zu 

wählen? Am t konnte hereditary an gens gekommen sein.] __ 

*93

Jeder tribe in Mexico u. Central America had its Council of chiefs. 

Die Aytec Confederacy scheint keinen General Council gehabt zu haben, 

composed of the principal chiefs of the 3 tribes, im Unterschied v. d. separate 

council jedes tribes. In diesem Fall wäre A%tec Confederacy nur League 

gewesen, offensive u. defensive, u. as such under the primary control of the 

A%tec tribes. Dies noch to elucidate. 

3) Tenure u. Functions des Office of Principal War chief. 

D . Name des office d. Montezuma - Teuctli, war chief, als member d. 

Council of chiefs er manchmal genannt Tlatoani ( = speaker). This office of 

a general military commander the highest known to the Aztecs, war sonst 

same als d. Haupt war-chief der Iroquois Confederacy. D. office machte 

seinen Träger ex officio member of the Council of chiefs. The title o f Teuctli 

added als a sort of surname wie: Chichimeca-Teuctli, Pil-Teuctli etc. | 

66 Bei Clavigero heissts: “ The teuctli took precedency of all others in the Senate, 

both in the order of sitting and voting, and were permitted to have a 

servant behind them (der subsachem dr Iroquois) with a seat, which was esteemed 

a privilege of the highest honour.” D . Spanish writers brauchen 

nie d. W ort “ teuctli” , verwandeln es in king für Montezuma u. dessen 

successors. Ixtlilxochitl, of mixed Tezcucan u. Spanish descent nennt d. 

head warchiefs of Mexico, Te^cuco u. Tlacopan nur “ warchief’ teuctli u. andrem 

W ort to indicate the tribe {teuctli = warchief = general). Obiger Ixtlilxochitl 

sagt, sprechend von der division of power zwischen d. 3 chiefs, when 

the confederacy was formed etc: 

“ The king of Te^cuco was saluted [dch d. assembled chiefs der 3 tribes] 

by the title of Aculhua Teuctli, also by that of Chichimecatl Teuctli which his 

ancestors had worn and which was the mark of the empire [das Beiwort 

tribal designation]; It%coat%in (Itzcoatl), his uncle, received the title of 

Culhua Teuctli, because he reigned over the Toltecs-Culhuas [war warchief 

o f the Aztecs, when the confederacy was form ed]; and Totoquihuatîn den 

of Tecpanuatl Teuctli, which had been the title of Azcaputzalco. Since 

that time their successors have received the same title.” 

176Die Spanier stimmen überein, dass d. office Montezuma held was 

elective with the choice confined to a particular family, u. was sie wundert, 

nicht von Vater auf Sohn, sondern v. Bruder %u Bruder, oder von Onkel auf 

Neffen. Unter d. immediate notice der conquerors fanden 2 Wahlen statt; 

die d. Montezuma folgte sein Bruder (unbekannt, ob own od. collateral) 

Cuitlahua; nach T od dieses elected177 sein Neffe Guatemoîn (own or 

collateral nephew?) Schon bei früheren Wahlen Bruder dem Bruder 

gefolgt od. Neffe dem Onkel (Clavigero). Aber wer wählte? Duran (sieh 

oben) bringt 4 chiefs as electors, denen zugefügt 1 elector von Te^cuco u. 1 

von Tlacopan, zus. 6, invested with power to choose from a particular 

family the principal war-chief. Dies entspricht nicht dem system o f an 

elective Indian office. 

Sahagun (“ Historia General etc” ch. X V III) sagt: “ When the king or lord 

194

died, all the senators called Tecutlatoques, and the old men of the trihe called 

Achcacauhti, and also the captains and old warriors called Yautequioaques, 

and other prominent captains in warlike matters, and also the priests 

called Tlenamacaques, or Papasaques - all these assembled in the royal houses. 

Then they deliberated upon and determined who had to be the lord, and 

chose out o f the most noble of the lineage of the past lords, who should be 

a valiant man, experienced in warlike matters, daring and b rave... 

When they agreed upon one they at once named him as lord, but this election 

was not made bj ballots or votes, but all together conferring at last agreed 

upon the man ... the lord once elected they also elected 4 others which were 

like senators, and had to be always with the lord, and be informed o f all 

the business o f the kingdom.” Hatten d. A^tecgentes, the office hereditary 

in a particular gens, but elective among its members; would pass (wie 

der Sahagun v. d. Aztecs oben erzählt) by election within the gens, von 

brother to brother od. von uncle to nephew, aber nie von Vater to son (nämlich 

bei descent in female line, wie bei d. Iroquois) Diese succession bei der WahJ. 

d. Aztecs v. head warchiefs beweist dass sie gentes hatten u. with respect to 

this office wenigstens noch descent in female line. 

Morgan conjectuirt: office held by Montezuma hereditary in a gens (the eagle 

was the blazon or totem on the house occupied by Montezuma), deren 

members ihn aus ihrer Zahl wählten; diese nomination then submitted 

separately to the 4 lineages (phratries) of the Aztecs for acceptance or rejection; 

auch den Te^cucans u. Tlacopans, direct interested in Wahl des 

general commander. Nachdem sie severally considered u. confirmed the 

nomination each division appointed a person to signify their concurrence; hence 

the 6 miscalled “ electors” ; d. 4 high chiefs der Aztecs, mentioned as electors, 

wahrscheinlich the 4 war-chiefs of the 4 lineages od. phratries der 

Aztecs, like the 4 war-chiefs o f the 4 lineages o f the Tlasculans; ihre 

function nicht to elect, sondern to ascertain dch Conferenz mit einander, 

ob d. choice made by the gens had been concurred in, and if so to announce 

the result. Absetûngsrecht folgt v. Wahlrecht, where the term was 

for life. Als Montezuma, dch intimidation, sich von seiner Residenz nach 

Quartier v. Cortez geleiten lässt, wo er placed under confinement, the 

Aztecs zunächst paralysed. - In d. West Indies hatten d. Herrn Spanier 

entdeckt, dass wenn der caîque eines tribe caught u. als Gefangner gehalten, 

°7 d. Indians paralysed refused to fight. Im Besitz dieser Kenntniss, | sobald 

sie auf’s Festland kamen, suchten sie d. principal chief to entrap, by force 

or fraud, u. hielten ihn gefangen bis ihr Zw eck erreicht war. So Corte\ 

mit Montezuma; so Piâarro when he seized Atahuallpa. Unter d. Indians 

selbst prisoner put to death; if a principal chief \ the office reverted to the tribe u. 

was at once filled. The Action des people (dch Spaniards) paralyzed by 

novel circumstances; prisoner hier alive u. in possession of his office. Cortez 

put the Aztecs in this position. Erst warteten sie einige Wochen, hoffend d. 

Spaniards would retire; dann aber setzten sie Montezuma ab for want of 

*95

esolution, wählten seinen Bruder an seine Stelle, assaulted gleich d(araü)f 

d. Spanish quarters mit great fury u. vertrieben sie schliesslich aus ihrem 

Pueblo. Corte% sent Marina zu Montezuma ihn zu fragen ob er glaube, sie 

hätten government in hands von new commander gegeben? (Alles dies 

Herrera) D er replied: “ they would not presume to choose a king in 

Mexico whilst he was living” , geht dann auf’s Dach des Hauses, ad- 

dressirt his countrymen, u. (nach Clavigero) er hielt Antwort von an A^tec 

warrior: “ Hold your peace, you effeminate scoundrel, born to weave and 

spin; these dogs keep you a prisoner, you are a coward” ; sie schiessen 

dann mit arrows auf ihn u. stoned ihn, er starb kürz nachher von der 

Demüthigung; d. warchief,‘ in diesem assault der Aztecs commandirend, 

war sein Bruder Cuitlahua. 

Kein Grund anzunehmen, vielmehr alles daggen, dass Montezuma had 

any power on the civil affairs der Aztecs. Aber functions of a priest u. wie 

Herrera sagt, auch of a judge, attached to his office o f principal war chief.... 

Council hatte also Recht, wie to elect, so to depose. - D . Spanier selbst erst 

anerkennen, dass d. A^tec confederacy - a league or confederacy of tribes. Wie 

konnten sie daraus A^tec monarchy fabriciren? 

Pt. II. Ch. V III. The Grecian Gens. 

About 8jo B.C. begins civilization unter Asiatic Greeks mit Homeric 

poems; unter d. European Greeks about century later mit Hesiodic peoms. 

Period vorher von several iooonds years, während deren Hellenen advancing 

dch lower Status o f Barbarism; ihre ältesten traditions finden sie 

schon established in Grecian peninsula, auf eastern border o f Mediterranean 

u. d. intermediate u. adjacent islands. Aeltere branch derselben Stock, 

w ovon Pelasgians die chief representatives, hatten vorher grösseren Theil 

derselben Area occupirt, in time either helleniêd od. forced dch Hel(e)enen 

into emigration. 

Pelasgians u. Hellenes organized in gentes, phratries (nicht common to the 

Dorian tribes. Muller's “ Dorter” ) u. tribes; in einigen Fällen d. organic 

series nicht complete, aber überall gens die unit of organisation; Council of 

chiefs; agora od. assembly of the people; βασιλεύς or military commander. 

Modifications mit Entwicklung forced upon gens, nämlich: i) change von 

female to male descent; z) intermarriage in gens permitted in case offemale orphans 

u. heiresses; 3) children had gained an exclusive inheritance of their fathers 

(property). Hellenes were in fragmentary tribes analog to Indians etc. 

Griechische society comes first under notice about /j·/178 Olympiade (jj6 B .C .) 

u. von da bis legislation of Cleisthenes (509 B.C.) vorgehend Uebergang von 

gentile in political (civiJ)Organisation. [E r hätte sagen sollen dass political hier 

Sinn des Aristoteles hat = städtisch u. politisches animal = Stadtbürger.] 

D . Township, mit d. fixed property it contained u. the people who inhabited 

for the time being, was to become the unit of organization; gentilis 

196

transformed into civis. The re’dtions of the individual to his gens, which were 

personal, had to be transferred to the township and become territorial; der 

demarch (Vorsteher der deme) der township taking in some sense the place 

of the chief of the gens. 

Property was the new element that had been gradually remoulding Grecian 

institutions to prepare for this change; nachdem several centuries elapsed in 

Versuche ihn auf Basis der gens auszuführen. Distinct schemes verschiedner 

A rt of legislation tried in the various Grecian communities who copied 

more or less each other’s experiments, all heading to the same result. 

Unter Athenians legislation of Theseus (Tradition); 624 B .C . Draco; 594 

B .C . Solon; J09 B .C . Cleisthenes. 

Bei Beginn d. historischen Periode d. Ionians of Attica divided in 4 tribes: 

Geleontes, Hopletes, Aegicores u. Argades. 

\Stamm φυλή; dann φρατρία od. φρατορία; φράτωρ Glied einer phratry; Γένος 

Geschlecht {auch: Nation u. Stamm.)] “ D . Geschlechterphylen gewöhnlich in 

Unterabtheilungen - Phratrien, diese wieder in Geschlechter [ausser Γένος 

(τό) γένω) kommt aber bei Homer Γενεά, ion. γενεή u. zwar für Stamm, 

Geburt, Familie, Nachkommenschaft.)] D . Geschlechter wieder abgetheilt 

in οΐκοι {Häuser od. Familien); d. Unterabtheilungen dagegen der topischen 

Phylen sind Gaue (δήμοι) od. Ortschaften (κώμαι) ... ursprünglich, auch wo 

68 Geschlechterphylen waren, | wohnten d. Genossen eines Stammes zusammen im 

selben Theil des Landes, ebenso d. Genossen einer Phratrie u. eines Geschlechts, 

so dass auch hier, mit d. Eintheilung d. Volks zugleich eine Eintheilung 

d. Landes in grössere od. kleinere Districte verbunden war. - Bei d. 

topischen Phylen kamen lediglich d. Wohnsitze in Betracht. Später dies doch 

nicht so streng gehalten, dass Verlegung d. Wohnsitzes aus einem Phylen- 

district in anderm nothwendig auch Versetzung in andere Phyle herbeigezogen 

hätte [134, ißJ. Schoemann, I. Einer Phyle u. in derselben einer 

Phratrie od. δήμος {Gau) anzugehören war überall wesentliches Merkmal u. 

Bedingung des Bürgerthums... wovon die nicht in jenen Abtheilungen begriffenen 

Landeseinwohner ausgeschlossen. Nähres über letztere ib. p. 135 sq.] 

Die 4 attischen tribes - Geleontes, Aegicores, Hopletes, Argades - selben 

Dialekt sprechend, occupying a common territory, had coalesced into a 

nation, waren vorher aber whsclich blosse confederacy. \Hermann {Political 

Antiquities of Greece) mentions the confederacies o f Athens, Aegina, Prasia, 

Nauplia etc Each Attic tribe composed o f ß phratries, each phratry o f 

ßo gentes, hence 4 (tribes) χ ß phr. od. 12 χ βο = β6ο gentes; phratries u. 

tribes constant, aber Anzahl d. gentes variirt. 

Dorians generally found in ß tribes - Hylleis, Pamphyli179 u. Dymanes, at 

Sparta, Argos, Sicyon,180 Corinth, Troezen etc wo sie verschiedne nations 

bildeten u. jenseits d. Peloponnes in Magareis etc. 1 or more non-Dorian 

tribes in some cases united mit ihnen, wie in Corinth, Sicyon, 180 Argos. 

In all cases d. Grecian tribe presupposes gentes, selben Dialekt redend; 

T97

Phratria kann fehlen. Z u Sparta 3 ώβη(ώβάζω lak(onian) in ώβές eintheileny 

ώβάτης Glied einer ώβή). Jeder tribe enthielt 10 ώβαι (?) Phratrien? Von 

ihrer Function nichts bekannt; in d. ancient Rhetra d. Lykurg d. tribes 

in obes directed to be maintained unaltered. 

Local system d. Athenians; 1) Γένος gens, founded upon kin; dann φρατρία, 

auch φράτρα, from segmentation o f an original gens, brotherhood of 

gentes; dann φΰλον, später φυλή, tribe composed of several phratries; dann 

people or nation composed o f several tribes. Confederacy of tribes kommt früh 

vor (d. tribes occupying independent territories') led to no important results. 

Likely dass d. 4 tribes, erst confederated, dann coalesced, after having 

collected in one territory under pressure from other tribes. 

Grote, in his “ History of Greece” stellt Sache so dar: “ Phratries u. gentes 

seem aggregations o f small primitive unities into larger ... independent of, 

and do not presuppose the tribe ... Basis of the whole the house, hearth or family 

(οίκος), a number of which, greater or less, composed the Gens (Γένος) clan, 

sept or enlarged, and partly fictitious,181 brotherhood, bound together by: 

1) common religious ceremonies, and exclusive privilege of priesthood, in honour 

of the same god supposed to be the primitive ancestor, characterised by a special 

surname; 

2) common burial place. ^ καίτοι τις εστιν 6στις άν εις τά πατρώα 

\ μνήματα τούς μηδέν ένγένειτιθέναιεΐασεν 

182 Demosth. Eubulides. 

3) mutual rights of succession to property. 

4) reciprocal obligations of help, defence, and redress of injuries; 

5) mutual right and obligation to intermarry in certain determinate cases, especially 

where there was an orphan daughter or heiress. 

~T~ 6) Possession in some cases at least of common property; an archon and treasurer 

of their own. 

Phratric union, binding together several gentes, less intimate ... doch auch 

mutual rights u. obligations o f an analogous character; especially a communion 

of particular sacred rites, and mutual privileges of prosecution in the event 

of a phrator107 being slain___A ll the phratries of the same tribe enjoyed a 

certain periodical communion of sacred rites under the presidency of a magistrate 

called the Phylo-Basileus or tribe-king selected from the Eupatrids.” 

Dch d. Grecian gens guckt d. Wilde (Iroquois z.B.) aber auch unverkennbar 

durch. 

Sonst eigentümlich to the Grecian gens: 

7) limitation of descent to male line; 8) prohibition of intermarriage in the gens 

ausser in case of heiresses; 9) Right of adopting etrangers in the gens; 10) right of 

electing u. deposing its chiefs. 

ad 7. In unsrer eignen modernen Familie, those descended from males bear 

the family name, constitute a gens, obgleich in a state of dispersion u. ohne 

bond of union ausser d. nearest in degree. D . females lose mit Heirath their 

family name, werden mit their children transferred to other gens. Herrmann 

198

sagt: “ Jedes Kind wurde einregistrirt in d. Phratrie und Geschlecht [Γένος] 

seines Vaters.” | 

69 ad 8) [Introduction o f intermarriage in gens geht hervor schon aus d. Ausnahme, 

for heiresses, wo dies erlaubt.] 

Wachsmuth: “ Die Jungfrau, die ihres Vater’s Haus verlässt, ist nicht 

länger Theilnehmer am väterlichen Opferherd, sondern enters the religious 

communion ihres Mannes, u. this gave sanctity to the marriage tie.” Hermann 

sagt: “ Jedes neu verheirathete Frauenzimmer, herself a citizen, was on this 

account enrolled in the phratry of her husbandSacra gentilicia common in 

griech. u. röm. gens. Scheint nicht, dass bei Griechen - wie bei Römern - 

the wife forfeited her agnatic rights by marriage; sie doubtless counted herself 

of the gens o f her father. 

Rule, die intermarriage in gens verbietet, dauert fort, selbst nach Gründung 

der monogamian Ehe [die solche limits auf nearest degrees to limit sucht], 

so lang gens basis des social system bleibt. Becker sagt in Charicles: 

“ relationship was, with trifling limitations, no hindrance183 to marriage, which 

could take place with all degrees of άγχιστεία, or συγγένεια, though naturally 

not in the γένος itself" 

ad 9) Adoption später practicirt, mindestens in families, doch mit public 

formalities u. limited to special cases. 

ad 10) D . right to elect and depose its chiefs gehörte unbedingt d. Grecian 

gentes in early period; each gens had its άρχός, the common name for a chief. 

Dass d. office erblich auf son in homeric period nicht anzunehmen, considering 

the free spirit der Athenian gentes down to Solon u. Cleisthenes. Presumption 

stets gegen hereditary right, w o nicht decisive evidence, da d. stärkste 

Widerspruch gegen d. archaic rule. 

Was abgeschmackt bei Grote, dass d. Basis d. social system der Greeks d. 

οίκος “ the house, hearth, or family.” E r verlegt offenbar d. Roman family 

under the ironclad rule of a paterfamilias in’s homerische Zeitalter der griech. 

Familie. Gens in origin älter als monogamian u. synd(y)asmian families, 

essentially contemporaneous mit punaluan family; aber gens nicht founded 

upon either. - Jede family, archaic or not, ist halb in, halb ausser gens, weil 

husband u. wife belong to different gentes. [Aber 184 entspringt nothwendig 

aus einer Promiscuous group; sobald innerhalb dieser schon intermarriage 

^wischen Brüdern u. Schwestern entfernt (stopped) zu werden beginnt, kann 

gens gepfropft werden auf d. group, nicht vorher; Vorausset^g d. gens, 

dass Brüder u. Schwestern (own u. collateral) bereits von ändern consan- 

guinei geschieden sind. Die gens einmal da, bleibt sie unit des social 

— system, whd d. Familie grosse changes dchläuft. 

Gens geht gan% ein in phratry, diese in tribe, diese in nation, aber family 

geht nie ganz ein in gens, sobld letztere einmal existirt; sie geht immer 

nur halb ein in gens d. Mannes u. halb in gens der Frau. 

Nicht nur Grote, sondern Niebuhr, Thirlwall, Maine, Mommsen etc - alle 

199

von klassischer Schülergelehrsamkeit - nehmen selben Stand mit Beûg 

auf monogamische Familie of patriarchal type als integer around which society 

integrated in the Grecian u. Roman systems. Family konnte ebensowenig 

- selbst d. monogamische - natural basis of gentile society bilden, wie heutzutage 

in bürgerlicher Gesellschaft the family is not the unit of the political 

system. D . Staat recognizes the counties woraus er zusammengesetzt, diese 

its townships, but the township takes no note of the family; so d. nation 

recognised its tribes, the tribes its phratries, the phratries its gentes, but the 

gens took no note of the family. 

Herrn Grote ferner zu bemerken, dass obgleich d. Griechen ihre.gentes aus 

d. Mythologie herleiten, jene älter sind als d. von ihnen selbst geschaffne 

Mythology mit ihren Göttern u. Halbgöttern. 

In the organization of gentile society, the gens is primary, forming both 

the basis u. unit d. systems; d. family auch primary u. älter als d. gens; the 

consanguine u. punaluan families having pre-existed in time; but it is not a 

member of the organic series. 

Grotelss sagt: “ Primitive religious and social union der attischen Bevölkg - im 

Unterschied v. d. political union, die wahrscheinlich (!) späterer introduction, 

represented at first dch d. trittyes u. naukraries, u. später d. io Kleisthener tribes, 

subdivided into trittyes u. demes. In the former personal relation is the essential 

u. predominant characteristic - local relation being subordinate; in the 

latter, property and residence become the chief considerations u. d. personal 

element counts only as measured along with these accompaniments___ The 

festival of Theoenia (Attic) u. Apaturia (common to all the Ionian race) 

annually brought together the members o f these phratries u. gentes for 

70 worship, festivity u, maintenance o f special sympathies.” | “ The gentes, 

both at Athens u. in other parts of Greece bore a patronymic name, the stamp 

o f their believed common paternity___Asklepiadae in many parts o f Greece; 

Aleuadae in Thessaly; Midylidae, Psalichydae, Belpsiadae, Euxenidae, at 

Aegina; Branchidae at Miletus; Nebridae at Kos, Iamidae u. Klytiadae at 

Olympia, Akestoridae at Argos, Kinyradae at Cyprus, Penthilidae at Mitylene, 

Talthybiadae at Sparta - , Kodridae, Eumolpidae, Phytalidae, Lykomedae, 

Butadae, Euneidae, Hesychidae, Brytiadae etc in Attica. T o each corresponded 

a mythical ancestor passing for the first father of all as well as the 

eponymous hero of the gens - Kodrus, Eumolpus, But es, Phytalus, Hesychus 

etc In Athen, mindestens nach der Revolution des Kleisthenes, der 

gentile name nicht employed; a man described first by his own single name, 

dann by name of his father u. next by that of the de me to which he belonged, wie 

Aeschines son of Atrometus, a Kothokid ... gens a close corporation, both as 

to property and to persons. Bis Solon's Zeit keine power of testamentary 

disposition. Wenn er ohne Kinder starb, succeeded his gennetes in sein 

Eigenthum, u. dies selbst nach Solon, i f he died intestate___If a man murdered, 

first his nearest relations, dann his gennetes u. phrators beide allowed u. 

required to prosecute the crime at law; while his fellow demots, or inhabitants 

200

of the same deme, did not possess the like right of prosecuting.186 A ll 

that we hear o f the most Ancient Athenian laws based upon the gentile and phratrie 

divisions which are treated throughout as extensions of the family ( !? ) ... this 

division is completely independent of any property qualification - rich men as well as 

poor being comprehended in the same gens___Different gentes unequal in dignity, 

arising chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed the 

hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being in some cases 

considered of pre-eminent sanctity, were therefore nationalised. Thus the 

Eumolpidae and Kerykes, who supplied the hierophant and superintendent of 

the mysteries of the Eluesinian Demeter - and the Butadae, who furnished 

the priestess o f Athene Polias, as well as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus 

in the Acropolis - seem to have been reverenced above all the other 

gentes.” 

Gens existed in the Aryan family when the Latin, Greek u. Sanskrit speaking 

tribes one people {gens, Γένος u. ganas); derived it from their barbarous ancestors 

u. more remotely from their savage progenitors. I f the Aryan family became 

as early separated as the Midlde Period of Barbarism, u. dies wahrscheinlich, 

the gens must have been transmitted to them in its Archaic form___Cf. gens of the 

Iroquois, in the lower Status of Barbarism mit gens d. Grecian in Upper Status, 

schlagend dieselbe organisation, dort in its archaic form, hier in its ultimate 

form. The differences between them forced upon the gens by the exigencies 

of human progress. 

Mit diesen mutations in gens parallel mutations in the rule of inheritance___ 

When Solon allowed the owner of property to dispose of it by will, in case he had 

no children, he made the first inroad upon the property rights of the gens. 

Herr Grote, nachdem er remarked that “ Pollux informs us distinctly that 

the members of the same gens at Athens were not commonly related” erklärt d. 

Ursprung d. Gens als Schulgelehrter Philister so: “ Gentilism is a tie by 

itself; distinct from the family ties, but presupposing their existence and 

extending them by an artificial analogy, partly founded in religious belief ’ and 

partly on positive compact, so as to comprehend strangers in blood. A ll the 

members of one gens, or even o f one phratry, believed themselves to be sprung ... 

from the same divine or heroic ancestor ... Doubtless Niebuhr is right in supposing 

the a(n)cient Roman gentes were not real families, procreated from one 

common historical ancestor. Still it is not less true ... that the idea of the gens 

involved the belief in a common first father, divine or heroic - a genealogy... 

fabulous, but consecrated and accredited187 among the members of the 

gens itself; it served as one important bond of union between them ... 

71 The natural families of course | changed from generation to generation, some 

extending others diminished, or died out; but the gens received no 

alterations, except through the procreation, extinction and subdivision of 

these component families. Accordingly the relations of the families mit 

d. gentes in perpetual course of fluctuation, and the gentile ancestralgeneal- 

ogy, adapted as it doubtless was to the early condition o f the gens, became 

2 0 1

in progress188 o f time partially obsolete and unsuitable. We hear of this 

genealogy but rarely ... only brought before the public\(in) certain cases preeminent 

and venerable. But the humbler gentes had their common rites (Sonderbar 

dies, Mr. Grote?), and common superhuman ancestor and genealogy, as 

well as the more celebrated: (how very strange this on the part of humbler 

gentes! Is it not, Mr. Grote?) The scheme and ideal (Dear Sir, not ideal, 

but carnal, Germanice fleischlich) basis was the same in all.” 

The system of consanguinity pertaining to gens in its archaic form - u. d. 

Griechen hatten diese once besessen like other mortals - preserved a 

knowledge of the relationships of all the members of the gentes to each other. 

[Lernten dies für sie entscheidend Wichtige dch Praxis v. Kindesbeinen.] 

This fell into desuetude with the monogamic family. The genteel name created a 

pedigree beside which that of a family was insignificant. It was the function 

of this name to preserve the fact of the common descent o f those who bore 

it; but the lineage of the gens so ancient that its members could not prove the 

actual relationship between them, ausser in beschränkter Zahl von cases 

through recent common ancestors. D . name itself evidence of a common 

descent and conclusive, except as it was liable to interruption through the 

adoption of strangers in blood into the previous history der gens. Dahingegen 

d. practical denial aller relationship %-wischen its members ä la Pollux u. Niebuhr, 

changing the gens into a purely fictitious creation würdig idealer, i.e. stuben- 

hockerischer Schriftgelehrter. [Weil d. Verkettung der Geschlechter, namentlich 

mit Anbruch d. Monogamie, in d. Ferne gerückt u. d. past reality 

in mythological Phantasiebild reflectirt erscheint, hence schlossen u. schlies- 

sen Philister-Biedermän(n)er, dass d. Phantasiegen(e)alogie wirkliche gentes 

schuf!] Grosse Proportion v. Gliedern der Gens konnten ihre 

Abstammung weit züruck nachweisen u. bei d. remainder the gentile name 

they bore sufficient evidence of common descent for practical purposes. 

The Grecian gens meist small body; 30 families to a gens, abgesehen 

v. den wives der Familienhäupter, would give average of 120 persons 

by gens. 

In gens the religious activity der Greeks originated, expanded over the 

phratries, culminated in periodical festivals common to all. (De Coulanges') 

[Das lumpige religiose Element wd Hauptsache bei gens, im Mass wie real 

cooperation u. common property alle werden; d. Weihrauchsduft, der übrig 

bleibt.] 

Pt. II) Ch. I X The Grecian Phratry, Tribe and Nation. 

D . griech. phratry its natural foundation in bond of kin, gentes die subdivisions 

einer common gens gebildet. Says Grote: “ A ll the contemporary 

members o f the phratry of Hekatäus had a common god for their ancestor 

at the 16th degree” ; the gentes were brother gentes literally [originally] u. 

hence their organization - phratry. D . Existenz d. letzteren erklärt sich 

202

schon Dikaearchus rationalistisch so: the practice of certain gentes in supplying 

each other with wives led to the phratrie organisation for (!) the performance of 

common religious rites. A fragment dieses Dikaearchus preserved dch 

Stephanus of Byzantium. E r braucht Tiaxpa für gens, wie Pindar oft u. Homer 

manchmal. Stephanus berichtet so : 

“ Patry is one of 3 forms of social union among Greeks, according to Dikaearchus, 

which we call respectively patry, phratry and tribe. The patry comes 

into being when relationship, originally solitary, passes over into the 

second stage [relation o f parents with children and children with parents], 

and derives its eponym from the oldest and chief member of the patry, as 

72 Aicidas, Pelopidas. But it came to be called phatria or | prahtria when certain 

ones gave their daughters to be married into another patry. For the woman who 

was given in marriage participated no longer in the paternal sacred rites, but 

was enrolled in the patry of her husband; so that for the union, formerly 

existing by affection between sisters and brothers, there was established another 

union based on community of religious rites, which they denominated a phratry; 

and so that again, while the patry took its rise in the way we have previously 

mentioned, from the blood relation between parents and children, and 

children and parents, the phratry took its rise from relationship between brothers. 

But tribe and tribesmen were so called from the coalescence into communities and 

nations so called, for each of the coalescing bodies was a tribe.” (Wachs muth: Hist. 

Antiquitäten der Griechen>y) 

Marriage out of the gens here anerkannt als custom, u. wife enrolled in the 

gens (patry) rather than the phratry o f her hu(s)band. 

Dikäarchus, ein Schüler d. Aristoteles, lebte zur Zeit wo gens existed chiefly 

as a pedigree of individuals, its powers having been transferred to new 

political powers. Intermarriages, mit common religious rites, konnten 

nicht gründen, wohl aber cement the phratrie union. Griechen wussten v. 

ihrer eignen Geschichte nichts ausser bis in Status of Upper Barbarism 

hinein. 

Sieh in array of military forces phratries u. tribes bei Homer. (Sieh oben!) 

Aus d. advice d. Nestor an Agamemnon geht hervor, dass the organization 

o f armies by phratries u. tribes had then ceased to be common. \Gens v. vorn 

herein too small a basis for organization of an army.] [Tacitus, De moribus 

Germaniae, sagt v. d. Germanen im Krieg, caput 7 : nec fortuita conglobatio 

turmam aut cuneum facit, sed familiae et propinquitates 189 

Obligation of blood revenge - turned später in duty of prosecuting the murderer 

before the legal tribunals - rested primarily upon the gens of the slain, aber stand 

auch by phratry, u. became a phratrie obligation. The extension der obligation 

d. gens zu phratry implies a common lineage of all the gentes in a phratry. 

- Unter d. Athenern überlebte phratrie organisation the overthrow of the gentes 

as the basis of a system; retained, in d. new polit. society, some control over 

the registration of citizens, the enrollment of marriages u. the prosecution of the 

murderer of a phrator before the courts. Greek gentes u. phratries liessen als by 

203

aim to the new society they were destined to found: their institutions, arts, 

inventions u. mythological (polytheistic) system. 

Wie an Spitze der gens άρχός, so an Spitze der Phratry Phratriarch (φρατ- 

ριάρχος), presided at its meetings u. officiated in the solemnisation of religious 

rites. Sagt Coulanges: “ The phratry had its assemblies and its tribunals, 

and could pass decrees. In it, as well as in the family there was a god, a 

priesthood, a legal tribunal and a government.” The religious rites of the 

phratries were an expansion of those of the gentes of which it was composed. 

A number of phratries composed the tribe; the persons in each phratry, of 

same common lineage, spoke the same dialect. The concentration of such 

Grecian tribes as had coalesced into a people, in a small area, tended to repress 

dialectal variations, which a subsequent written language tended still further 

to arrest. 

When d. several phratries of a tribe united in the commemoration of their 

religious observances, so in ihrer quality qua tribe; as such under the 

presidency of a phylo-basileus, the principal chief of the tribe; he possessed 

priestly functions, always inherent in the office of basileus, u. übte a criminal 

justice aus in cases of murder; daggen absence of civil functions; also King 

schlechter misnomer für “ basileus.” Unter d. Athenern d. tribe-basileus, 

dann selber term for the general military commander of the 4 tribes. Gentile 

institutions essentially democratical, monarchy incompatible with gentilism. 

Every gens, phratry, tribe a completely organised self-governing body; wo 

several tribes coalesced into a nation, the resulting government constituted in 

harmony with the principles animating its constituent parts. 

Tribes, coalesced into a nation, wie d. tribes d. Athenians u. Spartans, simply 

a more complex duplicate of a tribe. There was no name (social one) for the 

new organism [wo tribes took the same place in the nation as phratries in 

the tribe, gentes in the phratry]; Aristoteles, Thucydides u. andre “ moderne” 

nennen d. governments der heroic period - βασιλεία; statt dessen 

sprang up name for the people or \ nation. So bei Homer Athenians, Locrians, 

Aetolians etc, aber auch v. city od. country they came from. So, vor Lykurg 

u. Solon, 4 stages of social organization: gens, phratry, tribe u. nation. So 

gentile Grecian society a series of aggregates ofpersons, with whom the government 

dealt through their personal relations to a gens, phratry or tribe. 

Im heroic age bei Athenian nation 3 coordinate departments or powers: 1) the 

council of chiefs (βουλή); 2) αγορά, assembly o f the people; 3) βασιλεύς, 

general military commander. 

1) Council of chiefs, βουλή. Had permanence as a feature of their social system; 

its powers ultimate and supreme; wahrscheinlich auch hier composed o f the 

chiefs of gentes; selection must have been made, da ihre Anzahl meist kleiner 

als die der gentes; Council auch legislative body representing the principal 

gentes; seine importance mag abgenommen haben mit wachsender W ich 

204

tigkeit des office of βασιλεύς u. the new offices created in their military 

u. municipal affairs with their increase in numbers u. wealth; but it could 

not be overthrown without a radical change of institutions. Hence every office 

of the government muss d. Council accountable geblieben sein for its 

official acts. 

Dionysius, 2 , X I I 190 sagt: Έλληνικόν δέ άρα καί τούτο εθ-ος ήν. 

τοΐς γοϋν βασιλευσιν, δσοι τε πατρίους άρχάς παραλάβοιεν καί όσους ή 

πλη&ύς αυτή καταστήσαιτο ήγεμόνας, βουλευτήριον ήν έκ των κρατίστων, 

ώς 'Όμηρός τε καί οί παλαιότατοι των ποιητών μαρτυροϋσι· καί ούχ 

ώσπερ έν τοΐς καθ’ ήμας χρόνοις αύ&άδεις καί μονογνώμονες ήσαν αί 

τών άρχαίων βασιλέων δυναστεΐαι. 

In Aeschylus “ Έ π τ ά έπί -9-θήδας” (“ Seven against Thebes” ), wo beide fallen, 

Eteokles in command von Thebai u. sein Bruder Polynices als einer der 

7 chiefs, die d. Stadt belagern, kommt Herold des Raths u. theilt dem 

Chorus [sonst answered Antigone u. Ismene] mit das Gutachten u. Schluss 

d. Raths δοκοΰντα (was Rath facienda esse censuit) u. δόξαντα (quae 

decrevit'): δημοϋ της Καδμείας πόλεως πρόβουλοι, d. Stadtrath von Theben 

zusammengesetzt aus d. chiefs seiner vornehmsten gentes. Die Stelle bei 

Aeschylus: 

v. iooj-io: 

“ Δοκοΰντα καί δόξαντ’ απαγγελλειν με χρή 

Δήμου προβούλοις. της δε Καδμείας πόλεως 

Έτεοκλέα μέν τούδ' έπ' ευνοία χθ-ονός 

■9-άπτειν εδοξε γης φίλαις κατασκαφαΐς etc.” 191 

2) άγορά established in der heroic period - an assembly of the people. 

In Agora gehn u. in Krieg; bei Homer heisst’s vom grollenden Achilles: 

/, 490, 91 II.: “ Οΰτε ποτ’ εις άγορήν πωλέσκετο κυδιάνειραν, (d. Mann 

ehrend) ουτε ποτ’ ές πόλεμον,” 

„ E r ging weder in d. ruhmvolle {den Mann ehrende') Agora 

__ Noch in die Schlacht.” [Iliad, book I, v. 490-491] 

D. Agora - spätere Einrichtg als der Council o f chiefs [der früher wie bei 

Iroquois mit άγορά so far verbunden als die Volksleitg (auch Weiber) dort 

reden konnten u. immer Masse anwesend], hatte power to adopt or reject 

public measures submitted by the council. D. agora - bei Homer u. in 

Greek Tragedians - has some characteristics which it afterwards maintained 

in the ecclesia dr Athenians u. d. comitia curiata dr Romans. Im 

heroic age agora a constant phenomenon among the Greek tribes [ditto 

Germans in Upper Status of Barbarism]. Jeder konnte sprechen in 

A gora; sie machte in ancient times meist ihre decision kund durch show 

of hands. 

In d. “ Schut^flehenden” des Aeschylus fragt χορός:192 

2 0J

δήμου κρατούσα χειρ δπγ) πληθύνεται. 

Antwortet Δ Α Ν Α Ο Σ : 

ν. 605 εδοξεν Άργείοισιν ού διχορρόπως,___ 

ν. 607- ^ πανδημία γάρ χερσί δεξιωνύμοις 

614 ^ έφριξεν αίθ-ήρ τόνδε κραινόντων λόγον ■ etc. 

3) Der Basileus. [D. europäischen Gelehrten - meist geborne Fürstenbediente, 

machen aus d. βασιλεύς Monarch im modernen Sinn. Dagegen 

Morgan, Yankee Republican; er sagt sehr ironisch, aber true, vom öligen 

Gladstone: “ Mr. Gladstone ... presents to his readers [in “Juventus Mundi” ] 

the Grecian chiefs of the heroic age as kings and princes, with the 

superadded quality of gentlemen,” selbst er muss aber zugeben (der “ Gut- 

-74 stein” ) “ on the whole we seem to have the custom or law of primogeniture | 

— sufficiently, but not oversharply defined.” ] 

Mit Bezug auf d. Agora bei Homer sagt Schoemann I, 2 7 : 193 “ V on förmlicher 

Abstimmung des Volks ist niemals194 d. Rede; nur durch lautes 

Geschrei < ...) giebt d. Versammlung ihren Beifall oder ihr Missfallen 

über d. Vorgetragene zu erkennen, u. wenn es sich um eine Sache handelt 

zu deren Ausführung d. Mitwirkung des Volkes erforderlich ist, so 

verräth uns Homer kein Mittel, wie dasselbe gegen seinen Willen da%u gezwungen 

__ werden könne ( . . . ) ” 

Frage: ging d. office of basileus dch hereditary right von Vater auf Sohn 

über? Im Low er Status of Barbarism d. office of chief hereditary in a gens, 

d.h., vacancy, when occurring, filled from the members of the gens. When 

descent in female line - wie bei d. Iroquois - an own brother meist elected to 

succeed the deceased chief; wenn in d. male line - wie bei Ojibwas u. 

Omahas - the oldest son. In the absence of objections to the person such became the 

rule; aber d. elective principle remained. Also blosse faktische Nachfolge d. 

ältesten Sohns od. eines der Söhne (wenn mehre) beweist also nicht “hereditary 

right” \ because by usage he was in the probable line of succession by a free 

election from a constituency. Presumption daher f. d. Grecians, entsprechend 

ihren gentile inst(it)utions, either for free election od. a confirmation 

of the office by the people through their recognized organisations, 

wie bei Roman rex. In diesem Fall konnte der s.g. Nachfolger office nicht 

antreten ohne Election od. confirmation, u. d. power (Seitens d. Volks) 

to elect or confirm schloss ein right to depose. 

Was d. berühmte Stelle in Ilias, ι. II, v. 203-6 angeht (worauf auch Grote 

seine “ royalistische” Anschauung gründet): 

“ ού μέν πως πάντες βασιλεύσομεν έν&άδ' ’Αχαιοί, 

2θ6 

ούκ άγαθ-όν πολυκοιρανίη ■ εις κοίρανος εστω, 

είς βασιλεύς, ώ δώκε Κρόνου πάις άγκυλομήτεω 

[σκήπτρόν τ' ήδέ θέμιστας, ινα σφίσι βασιλεύη].” 195

So erstens t(u bemerken: Agamemnon— für den Odysseus in obiger Stelle 

spricht - erscheint in Ilias nur als d. principal war chief, commanding an 

army before a besieged city. Der Vers in brackets not found in several Ms., 

z.B. nicht im commentary v. Eustathius. 196 Ulysses hält hier keine V o rlesung 

über eine Regierungsform, kgliche od. andre, sondern verlangt 

“ Gehorsam” an chief warrior im Kriegsdienst. Considering dass Griechen 

vor Troja nur qua Heer erscheinen, geht’s in der agora demokratisch 

genug zu. Achilles, wenn er von “ Geschenken” , i.e. Austheilung d. Beute 

spricht, macht stets zum Vertheiler weder d. Agamemnon, noch einen 

ändern βασιλεύς, sondern “ d. Söhne der Achäer” , d. Volk. D. Prädicate 

“ διογενεΐς” od. “ διοτρεφεΐς” beweisen auch nichts, da jede gens von einem 

Gott herstammt. Die tribe-chiefs gens schon von “ vornehmerem” Gott, 

(hier Zeus); selbst die persönlich Unfreien - wie der Sauhirt Eumäus u. 

Rinderhirt Philoitios sind δΐοι od. δεΐοι, u. dies in Odyssee, also in viel 

späterer Zeit als die der Ilias; d. Name ήρως wird in selber Odyssee auch d. 

Herold Mulios, den blinden Sänger Demodokos beigelegt; etc. Κοίρανος, 

was Odysseus Agamemnon neben βασιλεύς anwendet, heisst noch nur 

Befehlshaber im Krieg dort, βασιλεία, angewandt v. d. griech. Schriftstellern 

für d. homerische Königtum (weil generalship his chief feature) mit βουλή 

u. agora ist - Sorte militärischer demokratie. 

Im homerischen Zeitalter lebten d. Grecian tribes in walled cities; Be- 

völkerungsâhl stieg dch field agriculture, Manufactur-industrie, flocks u. herds; 

new offices required u. some separation of their functions; new municipal system 

was growing; period of incessant military strife for the possession of the most 

desirable areas; mit increase of property wuchs the aristocratic element in society, 

war Hauptursache der disturbances in Athenian Society von Zeit d. Theseus bis 

%u Solon u. Cleisthenes. 

W hd dieser Periode u. bis zur final abolition des βασιλεύς office einige Zeit 

vor der isten Olympiade (j j 6 B.C.) wde office d. βασιλεύς more prominent u. 

powerful than das irgend einer andren Person in ihrer früheren Erfahrung. 

Functions of Priest u. Judge attached to or inherent in the office; 

er scheint ex officio a member of the council of chiefs. Powers o f general in 

Feld u. Garrison in d. walled city, gab ihm Mittel ebenso Einfluss in 

civil affairs zu gewinnen; scheint aber nicht dass er civil functions besass. 

A u f Seite d. βασιλεύς entwickelt sich nothwendig tendency to usurp additional 

75 powers, in beständigem | Kam pf mit d. council of chiefs, representative of 

the gentes. [Hence endlich d. office abgeschafft v. d. Athenern.] 

Unter d. Spartan tribes früh Einrichtung d. Ephorats to limit power of βασιλεύς. 

[D. βουλή blieb d. supreme power, unterstützt dch agora im homer. 

Zeitalter.] 

Thucydides sagt I, c. iy . Δυνατωτέρας δε γιγνομένης της Ελλάδος καί 

207

των χρημάτων την κτησιν έτι μάλλον ή πρότερον ποιουμένης τά πολλά 

τυραννίδες έν ταΐς πόλε σι. καθίσταντο, των προσόδων (Einkünfte) 

μειζόνων γιγνομένων (πρότερον δέ ήσαν | έπί ρητοΐς γέρασι (mit fest 

gesetzten powers) πατρικαί (gentiles) βασιλεΐαι), ναυτικά τε έξηρτύετο 

ή Ελλάς καί της θαλάσσης μάλλον άντείχοντο.197 

Aristoteles. Politics, III, c. X : “ βασιλείας μέν ούν εϊδη (Arten) ταϋτα, 

τέτταρα τον άριθμόν, μία μέν ή περί τους ήρωϊκούς χρόνους (αΰτη δ’ήν 

έκόντων (von Freien, over a free people) έ'πι τισί δέ (in einigem 

aber) ώρισμένοις. στρατηγός γάρ ήν καί δικαστής ό βασιλεύς, καί των 

πρός θεούς κύριος (Hauptpriester); δευτέρα δ’ή βαρβαρική (αΰτη 

δ'έστίν έκ γένους αρχή δεσποτική κατά νόμον), τρίτη (d. 3te Form) δέ 

έν αίσυμνητείαν προσαγορεύοσιν (αύτη δ', αιρετή τυραννίς (Wahl 

tyrannei). τετάρτη 8’ ή Λακωνική (αΰτη δ’έστίν ως είπεΐν άπλώς 

στρατηγία (generalship), κατά γένος άίδιος)” (erbliche generalship).193 

Aristoteles giebt dem βασιλεύς keine civil functions. [Was d. richterliche 

function angeht, muss sie wie bei d. alten Germanen gedeutet werden, als 

Vorsteher d. Gerichts, welches Versammlung ist; d. Vorsitzer stellt d. 

Frage, ist aber nicht der Urtheilfinder.\ 

D . Tyrannis war usurpation, erhielt nie a permanent footing in Greece, 

galt stets ihnen als illegitim; seine Tödtung galt für verdienstvoll. 

Cleisthenes rejected the βασιλεύς office; hielt council of chiefs bei in elective 

senate u. d. agora im people (ecclesia); elective archon folgte bei d. Athenern 

dem βασιλεύς; dieser selbst, in Upper Status of Barbarism, was in dessen 

Middle Status Teuctli (Great War Soldier verbunden mit functions of Priest) in 

d. A%tec Confederacy; dieser hinwiederum in Lower Status of Barbarism der 

Great War Soldier wie z.B. der Iroquois Confederacy, u. dieser selbst entsprang 

aus d. common warchief des tribe. 

Pt. II. Ch. X . Institution of Grecian Political Society. 

Aus der failure der gentile institutions to meet the now complicated wants of 

society, gradually all civil powers entzogen d. gentes, phratries u. tribes u. diese 

übertragen auf new constituencies. D . eine system went gradually out, d. 

andere gradually in, the two for a part of the time existing side by side. 

Stockaded village usual home of the tribe in Lower Status of Barbarism; im 

Middle Status joint-tenement houses of adobe brick and stone, in the nature of 

fortresses; im Upper Status cities surrounded mit ring embankments, schliesslich 

mit walls of dressed stone, mit towers, parapets, gates, designed to protect all 

alike and to be defended by the common strength. Cities of this grade imply 

the existence of a staple u. developed field agriculture, possession of domestic 

animals in flocks and herds, o f merchandise in masses u. of property in houses u. 

lands. A necessity generally arose for magistrates u. judges, military u. 

municipal offices o f different grades, with a mode of raising and supporting 

208

military levies which would require public revenues. Dies alles machte dem 

“ council of chiefs” d. Regieren schwer. - D . Militairgewalt, erst devolved 

upon ßocaiXeu? jezt auf general; d. captains under greater restrictions; 

judicial power jezt bei Athenians exercised dch archons u. dicasts; d. magisterial 

powers devolved upon municipal magistrates. Nach u. nach several 

powers by differentiation taken von der sum of powers des original council of chiefs, 

so weit sie vom V olk auf letzteren übergegangen waren. Diese Zeit d. 

Uebergangs erscheint bei Thucydides (lib. I, 2-13) u. other writers als Zeit 

ftwhder (fortwährender) disorders von conflict of authority u. abuse of 

powers not yet well defined u. als failure d. old systems of government, 

auch Bedürfniss v. written law für blosse usages u. customs ddch nöthig 

76 geworden. Diese transition | dauerte centuries. 

D . Theseus v. d. Athenern first attempt to subvert the gentile organisation 

zugeschrieben; man muss ihn betrachten als Namen für eine Periode od. 

Series of events. 

Die Bevölkerung v. Attica (Böckh) in seiner blütenden Zeit about \ Million; 

davon mehr als §, nämlich 36j , 000 Sklaven, ausserdem etwa 4j,ooo 

angesiedelte Fremde, bleibt für d. freie bürgerliche Bevölkerung - po,ooo\ 

Nach Schömann: Attika in mehre kleine Fürstenthümer getheilt; d. Alten 

(Strabo, b. IX , Plutarch: Theseus c. 24, 32, 36) nennen 12 Staaten; in manchem 

dieser 12 nicht eine, sondern mehrere Stadt u. Städtchen. Die Sage lässt 

d. Theseus Land u. V olk unter d. Regierung eines einzigen Fürsten vereinen, 

__Athen %um Sit% der Centralgewalt machen, d. Theilregierungen Ende machen. 

Theseus angeblich Basileus v. Athen in d. 2. Hälfte d. 13 Jhdts B .C . 

V o r Theseus (sie

Jedermann unter der Zusicherung gleicher Rechte hinzu, u. erliess dabei, 

wie man sagt, den bekannten Heroldsruf: “ Hieher kommt, alF ihr Völker!” 

verkünden; denn er wollte in Athen einen allgemeinen Völkerverein (lies 

Verein d. Attischen tribes) stiften.199 Damit aber d. herbeigeströmte gemischte 

Menge [Phantasie des Plutarch, gab damals keine solche “ Mengen” ] 

nicht Unordnung u. Verwirrung in den Freistaat brächte, theilte er d. Volk 

querst in Edle, Landbauern u. Handwerker. Den Edlen übertrug er die 

Aufsicht über d. religiösen Angelegheiten u. d. Recht, öffentliche Aemter 

%u besetzen (?), er ernannte sie zu Lehrern der Gesetze, zu Auslegern d. 

göttlichen u. menschlichen Rechte, stellte sie aber d. übrigen Bürgern 

gleich, indem d. Edlen zwar durch Ansehen, die Landbauern aber durch 

Nützlichkeit u. d. Handwerker dch Menge den Vorzug zu haben schienen. 

Dass er querst, wie Aristoteles sagt, “sich %um Volk hinneigteu. d. Allein- 

herrscft aufgab, scheint auch Homer %u bezeugen, welcher im Schiffsver- 

_ %eichniss (2’ Buch der Ilias) d. Athener eine Gemeine, Demos, nennt” ] 

Theseus theilte V olk in 3 classes, irrespective of gentes, Eupatridae (well-born), 

Geomori (husbandmen) u. “ Demiurgi” artisans. D. principal offices assigned 

to first class, both in the civil administration u. priesthood. Diese 

classification nicht nur recognition of property u. aristocratic element in government 

der society, sondern direct movement gegen d. governing power der gentes. 

Intention offenbar to unite the chiefs of the gentes mit ihren Familien u. d. 

men of wealth in the several gentes in a class by themselves, with the right to hold 

the principal offices in which the powers of society were lodged. D . 

separation ds remainder in 2 grosse classes wieder Verletzung der gentes. 

Aber gelang nicht. Die jetzt s.g. Eupatrides waren whsclich d. men der 

gentes vorher called into office. Dies scheme brach down, weil es in fact 

no transfer of power von gentes, phratries u. tribes zu d. classes u. weil such 

classes inferior den gentes as a basis200 of a system. 

[D. Aeusserung v. Plutarch, dass “ d. Niedrigen u. Armen bereitwillig der 

77 Aufforderung des Theseus \ folgtet'’ u. der von ihm citirte Ausspruch d. 

Aristoteles, dass Theseus “ sich %um Volk hinneigte” scheinen aber trotz 

Morgan darauf hinzuweisen, dass d. chiefs d. gentes etc dch Reichthum etc 

bereits in Interessenconflict mit der Masse der gentes gerathen, was unvermeidlich 

bei Privateigenthum in Häusern, lands, Herden verbunden mit 

monogamischen Familie.] 

V o r j j 6 B.C . (erste Olympiade) Am t d. Basileus in Athen abgeschafft, an 

dessen Stelle archonship, wie es scheint erblich in gens, d. ersten 12 archons 

genannt Medontidae, von Medon, angeblichem Sohn des Kodrus, des letzten 

Basileus. (Nach Morgan lebenslänglich d. archonship, hereditary in gens, 

also nicht hereditary im modernen Sinne.) 

j i i B .C . Archonship beschränkt auf 10 Jahre, bestowed by free election 

auf d. würdigst gehaltne Person; hier Anfang d. historischen Periode, mit 

election to highest office in the gift of the people. 

68ß B .C . office of archon made elective annually, their number increased to nine, 

210

lieb so bis Ende der athen. Demokratie; 

1) Archon Eponymus, von seinem Namen d. designation des Jahrs was 

derived; er determined all disputes, relative to the family, gentile u. phratric 

relations; was legal protector o f orphans u. widows. 

2) Archon Basileus; had competence in complaints respecting offences agst 

the religious sentiments and homicide. 

3) Archon Polemarch (in times prior to Kleisthenes) leader of military force u. 

judge in disputes between citizens u. non-citizens. 

4) D . 6 ändern Archonten hiessen Thesmot(Jj)etae. 

Erst war d. Attische archon chief of gens u. this office hereditary in gens; 

when descent changed v. female to male line the sons of the deceased chief201 

in the lines of the election; Athener gaben später dann d. alten Titel des 

chief o f gens - archon - dem highest magistrate, machten office elective, 

irrespective of gens etc., erst lebenslänglich, dann 10, dann i Jahr. 

624 B .C . Draco had framed a code of laws for the Athenians; shows that 

usages u. customs were to be superseded by written laws. Athenians were in 

the stage w o lawgivers appear and legislation is in a scheme or in gross, 

under the sanction of a personal name. 

J94 B .C . Solon comes into Archonship. - In seiner Zeit had schon come in 

existence der Areopagus, bestehe(n)d aus d. Exarchons mit power to try 

criminals u. censorship over morals, zugleich mit Anzahl newer offices in military, 

navalu. administrative services. - Wichtigste event: Errichtung der ναυκραρίαι 

(.Naukraries), 12 in jedem tribe, 48 in all; jede Naukrarie a local circumscription 

of householders, aus der levies drawn into military u. naval service, u from 

which taxes wahrscheinlich collected. Die naucrary was the incipient deme 

or township. Nach Böckh bestand sie schon vor Solon's Zeit, da d. presiding 

offices der naucraries (πρύτανεις των ναυκράρων) schon mentioned früher, 

Aristoteles schreibt sie dem Solon zu, weil dieser sie in seine Constitution 

aufnahm. - 12 naticraries bildeten a τριττύς (trittys), a larger territorial 

circumscription, nicht necessarily contiguous; bildete germ o f the “ county” 

(?). Council of chiefs (βουλή) dauerte fort, aber jetzt daneben agora, d. 

Court des Areopagus, u. die 9 archons. It doubtless had the general administration 

der finances. Als Solon zur archonship came, social state 

bösartig, in Folge des struggle for the possession of property. Ein Theil der 

Athener in Sklaverei gefallen, durch Verschuldung, d. Person d. Schuldners 

being liable to enslavement in default of payment; andre had mortgaged 

their lands u. were unable to remove the encumbrances. Ausser body 

von Gesetzen, wovon einige neu, but corrective of the principal financial 

difficulties, erneuerte Solon Project v. Theseus die Gesellscft in classes zu 

theilen, diesmal aber nicht nach callings, sondern nach amount of their 

property; er theilte d. Volk in 4 classes, nach measure of wealth. 

[Nach Plutarch “ Solon” c. 18: Iste C lasse: Grundertrag = joo Mass trockner 

u. flüssiger Früchte. [Gewöhnliche Mass d. Getreides ein Medimnus (etwas 

211

über Ijfi6 des Berliner Scheffels), der Flüssigkeiten ein Metrete (etwas mehr 

als 33 Berliner Quart.) Wer dazu gehörte joo Scheffler.202 Ilte Classe: 

die 300 Mass erndteten, hiessen zur Ritterschaft Steuernde. Illte Klasse: 

Die 200 Mass v. einer d. beiden Früchte. Zwiespänner (ζευγΐτοα, wohl vom 

Gespann Maulthiere, das sie hielten. (Dies geschah nachdem er Schätzung 

__ der Bürger verordnet.) Alle ändern d. IVte Klasse: Fröhner (Theten). 

78 Erhielt d. 3 ersten Klassen, i.e. d. Vermögenden, den Zugang | ‘\u allen 

obrigkeitlichen Aemtem; Theten (4te Kl.) hatten kein Am t zu verwalten, 

hatten aber an der Regierung Theil als Mitglieder der Volksversammlungen u. 

Gerichtshöfe. (Dadurch bekamen sie entscheidende Macht um so mehr) 

“ da Solon auch bei solchen Sachen, worüber d. Obrigkeit zu erkennen 

__ hatte..., eine Berufung an d. Volksgericht erlaubte.” 

Gentes weakened hierdurch, in ihr decadence eingeleitet. Aber sofern 

classes composed of persons substituted for gentes composed of persons, government 

still founded on persons u. upon relations purely personal. 

D . erste classe war allein eligible to the high offices, 2te zum Rich(f)erdienst, 

3te %ur Infanterie, 4te zu leicht bewaffneten soldiers; letzte d. Majorität; they 

paid no taxes, aber in der popular assembly hatten sie vote bei Wahl aller 

Magistrate u. Officere, mit power to bring them to an account; could 

adopt or reject all public measures. Alle freemen, wenn auch nicht connected 

with a gens u. tribe, now brought, to a certain extent, into the government, 

became citizens u. members of the public assembly. 

D . Iste (vornehmste) Klasse nicht liable to military service. 

Neben d. Areopag ein Rath (Plutarch lässt ihn falsch v. Solon gründen, er 

nahm nur d. alte βουλή in seine Constitution auf, worin er aus jedem der 

4 tribes 100 Männer wählen Hess, Vorberather d. Volks, so dass nichts ohne 

ihre vorherige Prüfung an d. Gemeine gelange. 

D . territorial element was partially incorporated dch d. naucraries, w o wahrscheinlich 

was an enrollment of citizens u. of their property to form a basis for 

military levies u. taxation. D . gentes, phratries, tribes blieben in full utility, 

though mit diminished powers. - A transitional condition. 

V on d. disturbed condition der Grecian tribes u. d. unavoidable movements 

des people in d. traditionary time vor Solon, viele Persons transferred 

themselves v. one nation to another, lost so connection mit ihrer eignen 

gens ohne Verbindung mit einer ändern zu gewinnen; dies wiederholt 

von Zeit zu Zeit, dch personal adventure, spirit of trade, exigencies of warfare, 

bis considerable number with their posterity in every tribe unconnected with any gens. 

A ll such persons without the pale o f government. Says Grote: “ The 

phratries and gentes probably never at any time included the whole population 

of the country - and the population not included tended to become larger and larger 

in the times anterior to Kleisthenes, wie nach ihm.” Schon zur Zeit des Lykurg 

bedtde immigration nach Griechenland von d. Inseln d. Mittelmeer u. d. 

Ionischen Städten seiner östlichen Küste; wenn sie mit families kamen brachten 

sie a fragment of a new gens mit sich; blieben aber aliens unless the gens admitted 

2 1 2

into a tribe, was wahrscheinlich häufig geschah; explains the unusual number 

of gentes in Greece. The poorer class would not be admitted either as a gens 

in einen tribe od. adopted in eine gens eines tribes. Zu r Zeit d. Theseus 

schon, aber mehr speciell in der des Solon Zahl der unattached class - exclusive 

of slaves - had become large ; diese class o f persons a growing element of 

dangerous discontent. Wurden deh Theseus u. Solon admitted to citizenship 

through the classes, aber blieben excluded von d. verharrenden gentes u. 

phratries. In d. Council konnten203 nur Stimmen 400, je

inhabitants for the time being yielded the element of permanence now wanting in 

the gens. 

Zur Zeit d. Solon Athenians already a civilised people, had been so for 2 

centuries; bdtend development of useful arts, commerce at sea became a national 

interest, advancement o f agriculture u. manufacture, commencement of 

written composition in verse; aber ihre institutions of government still gentile, of 

the type of the Later Period of Barbarism; beinah ein Jahrhundert nach 

Solon full of disorders. 

joy B .C . Kleisthenes’ constitution (Kern derselben lag in d. naucrary) 

dauerte bis zu Verlust der Unabhängigkeit Athens. Theilte Attica in 100 

demes or townships (wards), jedes umschrieben by metes u. bounds, u. distinguished 

by a name. Jeder citizen hatte sich selbst einûregistriren u. to cause an 

enrollment of his property in the deme wo er resided. Dies enrollment evidence 

u. foundation of his civil privileges. The deme displaced the naucrary; its 

inhabitants had powers of local self-government. Diese demotae wählten einen 

δήμαρχος who had the custody of the public register, also the power to convene the 

demotae for the election of magistrates and judges, for revising the registry of the 

citizens, u. enrolling such as became of age during the year. Sie elected a treasurer 

u. provided for the assessment and collection of taxes u. for furnishing the quota 

of troops required from the deme für state service. They also elected 30 

dicasts204 or judges, trying all causes arising in the deme below a certain sum; 

ausserdem had deme its own temple, religious worship u. own priest, der also 

elected by the deme. A ll registered citizens free u. equal except equal eligibility 

to higher offices. 

Second member der organic territorial series: 10 demes, united in a larger geographical 

district, was called a local tribe - φυλον τοπικό v. (So wde d. römische 

tribus - ursprünglich 1/3 of the people composed of 3 tribes - verwandelt 

aus numerical quality in a local designation.) Each district named after an 

Attic hero; einige der 10 demes waren205 detached (nicht locally contiguous) 

whslich in consequence o f the local separation o f portions des original consanguine 

tribe who desired to have their deme incorporated in the district 

o f their immediate kinsmen. [Morgan nennt d. topischen Phylen counties, 

Schoemann aber nennt d. Unterabtheilung der topischen Phylen auf Wohnsitze 

u. Theile der Stadt u. Landschaft gegründet, ihre Unterabteilungen 

Gaue (δήμοι) oder Ortschaften (κώμαι). E r sagt von Kleisthenes: E r theilte d. 

gesammte Land in 100 Verwaltungsbezirke, hiessen δήμοι u. d. einzelnen 

Demen wden theils nach d. kleinen Städten od. Flecken, theils nach ausgezeichneten 

Geschlechtern benannt; die nach Geschlechtern benannten 

Demen vorzugsweis in d. Theil d. Landes, der der Phyle der Gehonten 

tûgewiesen (.Hauptstadt Athen u. ihre nächste Umgebung, wo also d. 

meisten u. bdtensten Adelsfamilien lebten, wo ihre Güter gelegen. 

Lang vor Kl(e)isthenes gab es Bezirke, Städte u. Flecke die sich Demen 

nannten. Zahl der Demen stieg zuletzt auf 17 4 ; doch erinnerte an d. ursprüngliche 

Zahl d.100 Heroen, d. Eponymen d. 100 Demen. D . Phylen 

— Verbände von 10 Dem en.]206 

214

Jede Phyle od. District nach an Attic hero. D . Einwohner wählten einen 

φύλαρχος, der d. Cavallerie commandirte; ταξίαρχος, commandirte foot 

soldiers u. στρατηγός commandirte both; jeder District 5 triremes zu liefern, 

wählte wahrscheinlich as many τριήραρχος to command them. Cleisthenes207 

increased Senate to joo, assigned 50 to each district; elected by its inhabitants· 

80 (Attica kaum 40 □ miles gross.) \ Third u. last member der territorial series d· 

Athenische Staat, aus 10 local tribes bestehd, represented by Senate, 

ecclesia, Court of Areopagus, archons, judges, electd military u. naval 

commanders. 

Um Staatsbürger zu sein, musste man Mitglied eines Deme sein; um in 

Senat gewählt zu werden od. zum Command v. einer division v. army or 

navy, dch a topic phyle gewählt wden. The relations to gens or phratry 

ceased to govern the duties o f an Athenian as a citizen. The coalescence of 

the people into bodies politic in territorial areas now complete. 

Also deme, phyle, u. Staat an Stelle von Gentes, phratry, tribe etc. Sie blieben 

(letztre) jedoch for centuries as a pedigree of lineage u. fountains of religious life. 

N o executive officer existed under the system. The president of the Senate, 

elected by lot for a single day, presided over the popular assembly [konnte 

during the year nicht zur selben Würde wiedergewählt wden] and held 

the keys of the citadel and the treasury. 

Sparta retained the office o f Basileus in period o f civilization; a dual 

generalship, hereditary in a particular family; the powers of government 

co-ordinate between the Gerousia or Council, popular assembly, 5 Ephors 

(elected annually. D . Ephores mit powers analogous den Roman tri- 

bu(n)es). Die Basileis commanded the army and als chief priests offered the 

sacrifices to the gods. 

Mit Bezug auf d. 4 tribes des attischen Volks: 1) Geleontes; 2) Hopletes 

(οπλίτης schwerbewaffneter Infantarist, Soldat mit Panzer u. Schild, der 

j d. ganzen Körper deckt, δπλον, Zeug, Werkzeug, Geräth, bes. zur A us 

rüstung der Soldaten: Waffe, ferner = der grosse Schild u. Panzer des 

Schwerbewaffneten; heisst auch männliches Glied; οπλομαι-οπλίζομαι u 

j οπλίζω Zubereiten, in Stand setzen v. Speisen u. Getränken; sieh Homer: 

I ausrüsten von Schiff (Odyssee) waffnen etc) 

j 3) Aigikoreis. Ziegenhirte von αΐξ (gen. αιγός Ziege, von άισσω sich schnell 

j bewegen) u. κορέννυμι - ion. = κορίω sättigen, satt machen. (Αίγικορεΐς. 

I αίγικορεύς der Ziegenhirt) 

I 4) Argadeis. άργαδεΐς = έργάται (Plutarch) εργάτης Arbeiter, Feldarbeiter■> 

! Taglöhner; έργάω u. med. - έργάζομαι (εργον Werk, That) ich arbeite» 

I bin thätig, bes. treibe Ackerbau. 

Nach Schömann: 208 Hopletes Phyle, die hellenischen Einwandrer, die einst 

unter Xuthus für d. Attiker gegen d. euböischen Chalcodontiden209 gestritten 

u. dafür d. Tetrapolis auf der nach Euböa schonenden Küste u. beträc(h)t- 

215

liehen Theil des angrenzenden Landes zu Wohnsitz erhielten; - das 

benachbarte Hochland mit Brilessos u. Parnes bis %um Kithäron; 

Der Phyle der Aegikoreis: S i t weil hier d. Beschaffenheit des Landes 

Viehzucht zur Hauptbeschäftigung machte, in diesem Bezirk also Ziegenhirten 

d. Zahlreichsten. 

Argadeis Phyle: auf dem vom Brilessos nach West u. Süd sich hinstreckende 

Theil d. Landes, w o d. ß grossen Ebnen liegen, d. thriasische, das Pedionod. d. 

Pedias u. d. Mesogäa. (Auch d. Phyle der Geleontes hatte hier ihren Sitz. 

D. Hauptsitz d. Adels Athen (“ εύπατρίδαι ot αυτό τό άστυ οίκουντες” ) .210 

Was Schoemann weiter sagt: dass “ Hauptstadt u. nächste Umgebung” 

bekamen daher d. Namen Geleontes; er hiess d. Geleontenbeîrk, u. alle die 

in diesem Bezirk wohnten, ob Adliche od. JJnadliche, wden der Phyle der 

Geleonten zugezählt, - so zeigt dies welchen Begriff dieser Schulmeister 

von der Natur einer Phyle od. tribe hat. 

Als nach Sturz der Pisistratiden der Adel unter Isagoras eine Zeitlang d. Sieg 

gewonnen, d. V olk in Gefahr seine Freiheit zu verlieren, wenn Kleisthenes211 

nicht d. Adelspartei besiegt. (Darauf bezieht sich Herod. V 69. “ τον 

δήμον πρότερον (vor Kleisthenes unter Isagoras) άπωσμένον πάντως” ) 212 

Kleisthenes vermehrte erst d. Zahl d. Volks dch Einbürgerung vieler in 

Attica ansässigen Nichtbürger od. Metöken, wozu auch d. Freigelassenen gehörten. 

(Arist. Polit. III, 1, 10.) Seine Abscffg d. Eintheilg in 4 Geschlecht- 

phylen, tribes, theils nöthig, weil in d. alte Eintheilung d. Neuaufgenommenen 

nicht einrangirt werden konnten, andrerseits) aber verlor dadurch Adel den 

Einfluss, den er bisher (als chiefs of gentes) in d. ländlichen Districten geübt. 

Kleisthenes211 besetzte mehre u. zwar bdtende Aemter, namtlich d. Collegium 

der 9 Archonten statt wie | bisher dch Volkswahl - dch Loos, aber diese 

Losung fand nur unter Bewerbern statt aus d. 3 Oberen u. für Archonten nur 

aus d. ersten. Klasse statt. 

Kurz nach den Reformen d. Kleisthenes213 Perser kriege, worin sich d. Athener 

aller Klassen ruhmvoll bewährt. Aristides setzte nun dch, dass fortan d. 

Schranken aufgehoben, wodeh d. ärmeren (rather niedrigeren) Bürger von d. 

Staatsämtern ausgeschlossen. Plutarch, Aristides c. 22: 

γράφει ψήφισμα κοινήν είναι τήν πολιτείαν 

καί τούς άρχοντας έξ ’Αθηναίων πάντων αίρεΐσθαι.214 

(Dies letztere Wort, nach Schömann, hier nicht wählen, sondern losen, so 

auch bei Pausanias I, 15, 4.) Doch blieben gewisse Aemter nur den 

Pentakosiomedimnen, d. joo Schefflern, zugänglich. In d. pen Klasse auch 

Wohlhabende, die nur nicht so viel Landbesitz hatten als der Census der 3 oberen 

Klassen erforderte. Und diese A rt d. Wohlstands seit Solon’s Zeit bdtend 

gewachsen: Handel u. Gewerb in rascher Entwicklung, gewinnen nicht 

weniger Bdtg als Landbau. Ausserdem hatte Krieg - Attika wiederholt 

v. d. 215 Perserschaaren verheert - namentlich viele Landbesitzer ruinirt, manche 

216

verarmt, unfähig ihre niedergeb ra (ch)ten Höfe wiederaufzubauen, 

mussten sieb ihres Besitzthums entäussern, waren so in ^te Klasse gesunken: 

auch für diesen d. Aenderung d. Aristides zu gut kommend. On the 

whole aber hatte sein Gesetz d. Wirkung d. einseitige Bevorzugung d. 

ländlichen Grundbesitzer aufzuheben u. Gewerb treibenden u. Kapitalisten ohne 

Landbesitz Zutritt zu d. Aemtern zu gewähren. 

Pericles: So lange nichts bezahlt für d. Besuch der Volksversammlgen hielten 

d. Aermeren sich meist gern davon fern. V on Pericles an d. Zahlung; 

erst - unter ihm - für Besuch in Volksversammlung u. Funktion in Gerichten 

nur ein Obol> spätere Demagogen erhöhten sie aufs 3 fache. Die 

wohlhabenden Klassen waren für Frieden, d. Aermeren gingen leichter 

auf d. kriegerische Politik d. Perikies ein. 

Ephialtes - selber Richtg wie Perikies - entzog dem Areopag sein bisheriges 

Oberaufsichtrecht über d. ganze Staatsverwaltg, Hess ihn nur d. 

Blutgerichtsbarkeit. D . Areopag gehörte grössten Theils zur ruheliebenden 

u. conservativen Partei: statt seiner eingesetzt zur Beaufsichtigung 

u. Controlle des Raths, der Volksversammlung u. der Magistrate eine neue 

Behörde - Collegium von 7 Nomophy lakes od. Gesetzwächter; d. Volk 

wde mit d. Areopag einer aristokratischen Zuchtbevormundungs- 

behörde entledigt. 

Pt. II. Ch. X I . The Roman Gens. 

Bei Einwandrg in Italien v. Lannern, Sabeller, Osker u. Umbriern, wahrscheinlich 

als one people, sie in Besitz of domestic animals u. whschlich 

bekannt mit Cultur v. cereals u. plants; jedenfalls well advanced in Middle 

Status of Barbarism, u. als sie historisch erschienen in Upper Status, an 

Schwelle von Civilization. 

Nach Mommsen: “ barley, wheat, and spelt gefunden wild growing an der 

rechten Bank d. Euphrates, northwest von Anah. D . growth v. barley u. 

wheat in wild state in Mesopotamien schon erwähnt dch d. babylonischen 

historian Berosus.” Fick in: “ Primitive Unity of Indo-European Languages” 

Göttingen, 1873, sagt: “ Pasturage foundation... but very slight beginnings of 

agriculture. Sie waren bekannt mit a few grains, deren Cultivation carried on 

incidentally in order to gain a supply of milk and flesh. D . material existence 

d. people rested nicht on agriculture. Wenige primitive words bezjehn sich 

auf agriculture. Diese w ords\ yava, wild fruit; varka (hoe) (od. plow); 

__ rava (sickle); pio (pinsere) bake u. mak. Gk fiaacroo which indicates threshing 

out u. grinding of grain. 

Zur Zeit d. Romulus (7 j 4-717 B.C. od. 1-37 d. Stadt Rom) \Romulus bdtet 

hier nicht Person, sondern Zeitperiode, wie bei seinen Nachfolgern)] 

Latin tribes - on Alban hills u. ranges of the Appenines östlich von Rom - dch 

Segmentation bereits in 30 independent tribes zerfallen, still united in loose 

confederacy for mutual protection; ebenso Sabellians, Oscans, Umbrians. 

2 1 ?

Alle, wie ihre nördlichen Nachbarn, Etrusker, organized in gentes. 

Zur Zeit v. Rom's Stiftg (abt yjß B.C.) had become agricultural mit 

flocks of domestic animals, monogamian family, confederacy in form of 

League. - The Etruskan tribes confederated. 

D . Latin tribes, possessed o f numerous fortified towns u. country strongholds, 

spread over the surface of the country for agricultural purposes. 

Unter d. institutions der Latin tribes bei Beginn der historischen Periode: 

82 gentes, curiae u. tribes. Latin gentes | of same lineage, Sabine u. other gentes 

cognate, except Etruscans. Zur Zeit d. Tarquinius Priscus, 4ter von Romulus, 

the organisation brought to a numerical scale; 10 gentes to curia, 10 curiae to 

a tribe, 3 tribes, giebt 30 curiae u. 300 gentes. 

Statt confederacy of tribes, composed of gentes od. occupying separate territories 

makes Romulus them concentrate u. coalesce in one city; dies worked out 

in 5 generations. A u f u. um Mons Palatinus vereinigte Romulus 100gentes, 

organised as a tribe, die Ramnes; dann large body of Sabines added, deren 

gentes, nachher increased to 100, organized as a 2nd Tribe, Tities; (angeblich 

aufQuirinat); unter Tarquinius Priscus ßd tribe, Luceres, 100 gentes drawn 

from the surrounding tribes, inclus. Etruscans. - Senate (Council o f Chiefs), 

comitia cur(i)ata (assembly of the people) u. military commander {rex). Unter 

Servius Tullius wde Senat “ patrician” , patrician rank being conferred upon 

its members u. their posterity; ddch privileged class created, intrenched 

first in the gentile u. dann political system, ultimately overthrew the democratic 

principles inherited von gentes. 

Niebuhr, Hermann, Mommsen etc regard the gens as composed of families, whd 

gens216 composed of parts offamilies u. gens, nicht family unit d. social system. 

Man weiss wenig über ältere “ social” history of Rom ; weil power of gentes 

bereits übertragen auf new political bodies bevor römische Geschichtschreibung 

beginnt. Gajus - Institutiones III. 17 - sagt: qui sint autem 

gentiles primo commentario rettulimus, et cum illic admonuerimus 

totum gentilicium tus in desuetudinem abiisse, superuacuum est hoc quoque 

loco de ea [dem re iterum] curiosius tractare.217 

Cicero, topic a 6. Gentiles sunt inter se qui eodem nomine {toteml) sunt. N on 

est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. N e id quidem satis est. Quorum 

maiorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non sunt 

deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam pontificem 

ad hanc definitionem addidisse. 218 

Festus: “ Gentilis dicitur et ex eodem genere ortus, et is qui simili nominem 

appellatur.” 219 

Varro, “ de lingua latina” lib. V III, c. 4. “ Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt 

agnationes ac gentilitates, sic in verbis: ut enim ab Aemilio homines orti 

Aemilii, ac gentilis, sic ab Aemilii nomine declinatae voces in \gentilitate\ 

nominali: ab eo enim, quod est impositum recto casu Aemilius, (orta 

Aemilii,) Aemilium, Aemilios, Aemiliorum, et sic reliquae ejusdem quae 

sunt stirpis” 

218

D ch andre Quellen constatirt dass die nur %ur gens gehörten who could trace 

their descent dch males exclusively from an acknowledged ancestor in d. gens; 

musste d. gentile name haben (dies Cicero). 

44j B .C . In address d. Roman Tribun Canulejus, on his motion d. Gesetz 

abzusc(ha)ffen d. verbot intermarriage zwischen patricians u. plebejans, 

sagte er (Livius I V , c. 4): “ Quid enim in re est aliud, si plebejam patricius 

duxerit, si patriciam plebeius? Quid iuris tandem mutatur? nempe patrem 

sequuntur liberi.” 221 (Dies involvirt descent in male line). Als praktische 

Illustration, dass descent in male line: Julia, Schwester des Cajus Julius Caesar, 

married Marcus Attius Baibus. Ihr Name zeigt, dass sie gehörig zur Julian 

gens. Ihre Tochter Attia nahm gentile name o f her father, belonged to 

Attian gens. Attia married Cajus Octavianus, wd Mutter d. Cajus Octavianus 

(i.e. d. spätere Augustus'). Ihr Sohn nimmt Name d. Vaters, belongs to 

the Oct avian gens. 

Nach Adams, Roman Antiquities: war nur eine Tochter in family, so called 

nach Name der gens; so Tu Ilia, Tochter d. Cicero; Julia, Tochter des 

Caesar; Octavia, Schwester d. Augustus, etc. Sie behielten denselben Namen 

bei nach Verheirathg. Wenn 2 Töchter, die eine called Major, die andre Minor 

(wie bei Savages). Wenn mehr als 2, unterschieden dch ihre Zahl: Prima, 

Secunda, Tertia, Quarta, Quinta, or softer Tertulla,Quartulla,Quintilla__ 

W hd d. blühenden Zustands der Republik, d. names der gentes u. surnames d. 

families, blieben fix u. certain. They were common to all the children 

83 der family, descended to their posterity. Changed | u. confounded nach 

subversion of liberty. 

So lange wir v. Römern wissen, descent in male line. In allen oben citirten 

cases persons married out of the gens. Folgende rights u. obligations d. Roman 

gentes: 

1) Mutual right of succession to the property of deceased gentile; 2) Possession of 

common burial place; 3) common religious rites; sacra gentilicia; 4) Obligation 

not to marry in gens; 5) Common Possession of lands; 6) Reciprocal obligation 

of help, defense, and redress of injuries; 7) Right to bear the gentile name; 

8) Right to adopt strangers into the gens. 9) Right to elect and depose chiefs? 

ad 1) 4 j i B .C . Law of 12 Tables promulgated; ancient rule der inheritance 

unter gentiles bereits superseded; passed to sui heredes (children) u. in 

default of children to lineal descendants des defunct through males. 

Gajus Inst. /. I ll, 1. u. 2. (Wife was co-heiress mit children.) D. 

living children took equally, d. children of deceased sons the share of their 

father equally; the inheritance remained so in the gens; the children of female 

descendants of the intestate, who belonged to other gentes, were excluded. 

Wenn no sui heredes (ib. lib. I ll, 9) by same law - the inheritance passed to 

the Agnates; agnatic kindred all persons able to trace descent th(r)o(u)gh 

males from same common ancestor with the intestate; vonwegen dieses descent 

all bore the same gentile name, females wie males, u. were nearer in degree 

to the deceased als d. remaining gentiles. D . Agnates, nearest in degree, 

219

hatten V orzug; i) brothers u. unmarried sisters; z) paternal uncles u. 

unmarried aunts des intestate u. s. w. Aber d. children of married sisters 

ausgeschlossen - weil %u andrer gens gehörig - eben by gentile kinsmen 

(agnatic), dass ihre relation to intestate nur noch nachweisbar in gentile 

name; the gentile right predominated über consanguinity, weil d. principle, 

retaining the property in the gens, fundamental. D . Reihenfolge 

(historische) ist natürlich grade d. umgekehrte von der, wie sie in d. 12 

Tafeln erscheint. 1) D . Gentiles; 2) d. Agnates, worunter d. Kinder des 

intestate nach change o f descent v. weiblicher in male line; 3) d. Kinder, 

mit Ausschluss der Agnaten. 

Dch Heirath erlitt a female deminutio capitis, \.e. forfeited her agnatic rights; 

an unmarried sister could inherit, nicht a married, would have transferred 

the property in andre gens. 

V on d. Archaischen (principles) erhielt sich am längsten im Rom reversion 

of property in certain cases to the gentiles (bemerkt auch Niebuhr. - The 

freedman (Emancipirte) erwarb nicht gentile rights in his master’s gens dch 

manumission, aber allowed to adopt the gentile name of his patron, so Cicero’s 

freedman Tyro called M. Tullius Tyro. D . Geset% d. 12 Tafeln gave the 

estate eines freedman, der intestate starb, to his former patron. 

ad 2) Im Upper Status of Barbarism - a burial place for the exclusive use of 

members of the gens. So unter d. Romans. Z.B . d. Appius Claudius, chief d. 

Claudian gens, removed from Regili, town d. Sabini, nach Rom, w o er 

Senator wurde, mit seiner gens u. vielen Clienten - Suet, vita Tiberius, c. I 

sagt: “ Patricia gens Claudia... agrum (Theil der state lands) insuper trans 

Anienem (upon the Anio) clientibus locumqtie sibi ad sepulturam sub Capitolio, 

publice accepit.” 222 E r received burial place for the gens nach damaliger 

custom. 

D . family tomb hatte in Zeit v. Julius Caesar noch nicht gan^ das der gens 

superseded; Beweis Quintilius Varus, had lost his army in Germany, 

destroyed himself, sein Körper fiel in d. Hände der Feinde, half burnt. 

Vellejus Paterculus II, 119: Vari corpus semiustum hostilis laceraverat feritas; 

caput eius abscisum latumque ad Maroboduum et ab eo missum ad Caesarem 

gentilicii (tarnen) tumuli sepultura honoratum est.223 Cic., De Legibus II, 22. 

“ Iam tanta religio est sepulcrorum (so gross d. Heiligkeit der Begräbnisse), 

ut extra sacra et gentem inferi (ohne religious rites u. Grabstätte der gens) 

fas negent esse; idque apud majores nostros. A . Torquatus in gente Popilia 

judicavit.” 224 Zu Cicero's Zeit das family tomb nahm d. Platz ein of that 

of the gens, as the families in the gentes rose to complete autonomy. - Vor 

d. 12 Tafeln cremation u. inhumation equally practiced, (12 Tafeln verboten 

84 Verbrennen od. | Begraben innerhalb der city. Das columbarium (a sepulchre 

mit niches for urns) would usually accommodate several 100 urns, 

ad 3) Sacra privata od. sacra gentilicia, performed by the gens at stated 

periods. (Alle members der gens dazu verpflichtet, ob members by birth, 

adoption oder adrogation. A person was freedfrom them u. lost the privi- 

220

leges connected with them, when he lost his gens.) Cases erwähnt, w o d. 

expenses of maintaining these rites, Bürde für gens wden in Folge der 

verminderten Anzahl ihrer Glieder. The sacred rites - public and private 

- exclusiv under pontifical regulation, not subject to civil cognisance. 

Colleges of pontiffs, curiones u. augurs, with elaborate system o f worship 

unter diesen priesthoods, became established, aber priesthood in the main 

elective; jedes Familienhaupt auch priest des household. 

In early times of Rome hatten viele gentes their own sacellum (small unroofed 

sanctuary; a chapel; sacellum est locus parvus deo sacrata cum ara (Trebatius in 

Gell. c. 12 ; “ Sacella dicuntur loca diis sacrata sine tec to.” Festus.)225 für 

performance226 ihrer religious rites; several gentes had each special sacrifices 

to perform transmitted from generation to generation. Considered 

obligatory (Nautii to Minerva, Fabii to Hercules, etc.) 

ad 4) Gentile regulations were customs having the forms of law; so Verbot der 

intermarriage in gens; scheint zu Rom nicht später in Geset^ verwandelt 

wden zu sein; aber d. Roman genealogy beweist d. rule - marriage out 

of gens. Zeigt sich darin ferner: ohne Ausnahme: a woman by her 

marriage forfeited her agnatic right, weil became ex-gens. (Sollte property 

aus eignen gens in der ihres husband nicht transfer). Aus selbem 

Grund: exclusion d. Kinder of a female from all rights of inheritance from 

a maternal uncle or grandfather; da sie ausser gens heirathet, ihre children 

of the gens of the father - also nicht von ihrer gens, also dort auch nichts 

zu erben. 

ad f): Common property of lands, allgemein unter barbarous tribes. Darum 

natürlich bei Latin tribes; von sehr früher Periode erscheint Theil ihrer 

lands held in severalty by individuals; at first sicher nur possessory right to 

lands in actual occupation, was sich schon in Status of Lower barbarism 

findet. 

Unter d. rustic Latin tribes, lands held in common by each tribe, other lands by 

gentes, still other by households. Allotments of lands to individuals wde gewöhnlich 

in Romulus Period, später quite general. Sagt Varro, De Re 

rustica i. I, c. 10. “ Bina jugera quod a Romula primum divisa (dicebantur) 

viritim, quae heredem sequerentur, heredium appellarunt” 227 (Selbes bei 

Dionysius). Similar allotments said to have been made by Numa u. Servius 

Tullius; diese die beginnings of absolute ownership in severalty, presuppose a 

settled life etc. It was not only admeasured but granted by the government, 

form sehr verschieden von possessory right in lands growing out of an individual 

act These lands taken from those held in common by the Roman people. 

Gentes, curiae u. tribes held certain lands in common nach Beginn d. Civilization, 

ausser d. individual allotments. 

Mommsen sagt dann: “ das römische territorium in d. frühsten Zeiten 

getheilt in Anzahl von clan (heisst wohl Geschlechter bei ihm !) districts, die 

später employed in the formation d. ältesten rural wards districts (tribus 

rusticae)___Diese Namen (der Districts) nicht wie die der districts added at a 

221

later period, derived von d. localities, sondern formed ohne Ausnahme v. Ge- 

sch(Jech')ternamen wie Camilii, Galerii, Lemonii, Pollii, Pupinii, Voltinii, 

Aemilii, Cornelii, Fabii, Horatii, Menenii, Papirii, Romilii, Sergii, Voturii ” 22s 

Jede gens hielt an independent district u. was localised upon it. (Aber auch /» 

Rom selbst gentes localised in separate areas.) 

Mommsen sagt ferner: 

“ Wieyft&r Haushalt seine eigne Portion Land hatte, so d. ^»-household 

(das wohl nicht d. W ort bei Mommsen) or village, had clan lands belonging 

to it ... were managed up to a comparatively late period after 

85 the analogy (!) ojhouse-lands, that is, on the system ojcommon | possessions ... 

These clanships jedoch von Anfang an nicht betrachtet als unabhängige 

Gesellscften, sondern als integral parts of a political community {civitas popult). 

This first presents itself as an aggregate of a number of clanvillages of the same 

stock, language and manners, bound to mutual observance o f law and mutual 

legal redress and to united action in aggression and redress.” 229 Mommsen 

represents the Latin tribes anterior to the foundation of Rome as holding 

lands by households, gentes u. by tribes, zeigt the ascending series of social 

organisations in the tribes, ganz parallel230 to d. Iroquois - gens, tribe, confederacy. 

Phratry nicht mentioned. The household referred to could scarcely have been a 

single family, wahrs (chein)lich composed of related families occupying a joint- 

tenement house u. practicirend communism in living in the household, 

ad 6). Erstes feature des gentilism - dependence der gentiles upon each other for 

the protection of personal rights, verschwindet zuerst, sobald civitas 

gegründet, w o jeder Bürger sich für Protection an law u. State wendet; 

kann in historischer Periode nur noch in remains gefunden wden bei 

Römern. 

A bt 432 B .C . Appius Claudius in prison geworfen. Aber Livius V I, 20: 

“ Ap. Claudio in vinculo due to, C. Claudium inimicum (des Appius CI.) 

Claudiamque omnem gentem sordidatum (in mourning Kleidern) fuisse” 2*1 

W hd d. 2t punischen Kriegs, bemerkt Niebuhr verbanden sich d. gentes to 

ransom ihre in Gefangenscft befindlichen Genossen; der Senat verbot's ihnen; 

nach selbem Niebuhr gens verpflichtet ihren indigent gentiles beizustehen; er 

citirt dafür Dionysius: II, 10 “ εδει τούς πελάτας των άναλωμάτων ως 

I / / / 9 9 9Ί 9 

τους γενει προσηκοντας μετεχειν. 

ad 7) Zuletzt d. persons unmöglich geworden to trace their descent back to 

the founder. Niebuhr (auf diesem abgeschmackten Grund sich stützend) 

läugnet d. Existenz irgendwelcher Blutverwandtscft in a gens, weil sie nicht 

beweisen konnten a connection through a common ancestor; dana(c)h gens bios 

fictitious organization— 

Nachdem descent von female to male line changed, d. Namen d. gentes, whsclich 

taken v. animals, gave place to personal names. Irgdein Individuum, berühmt 

in d. Tradit. Geschichte der gens, ward its eponymous ancestor u. diese Person, 

nicht unlikely, at long intervals wieder ersetzt dch andre. Theilte sich a gens 

in Flge von lokaler Separation, so one division apt to take a new name; 

222

dieser change of name would not disturb the kinship w(orau)f d. gens begründet... 

Nur auf einem Weg adulteration of gentile descent - durch 

Adoption. Dies nicht häufig__ In an Iroquois gens of 500 persons - 

gens coming in with a system of consanguinity reducing all consanguinei to a 

small number of categories, and retaining their descendants indefinitely in 

the same - all its members related to each other and each person knows or 

can find its relationship to the other; so that the fact of kin was perpetually 

present in archaic gens. Mit monogamian Ehe came in a totally different system 

of consanguinity, worin d. relationships 3wischen- collateral/ rasch disappeared. 

Dies System d. Greek u. Latin tribes bei Beginn d. historischen Periode. 

1 Grote, History of Greece. Ill, 33, 36, erzählt: Cleisthenes of Argos changed 

I the names of the 3 Dorian tribes of Sicyon, einen in Hyatae (im singular: 

I a boar), 2ten in Oneatae (an ass), 3d to Choereatae, {littlepig); dies intended as 

insult gegen d. Sicyonians, blieben ihnen während seiner Lebzeit u. 60 

Jahre später. “Did the idea of these animal names come down through 

I tradition?” 233 

Nach Beginn des Verfalls der gentilen Organisation, hört auf neue Geschlechter- 

bildg dch d. process of segmentation; andre existirende died out. This tended to 

enhance the value of a gentile descent as a lineage. Zur Zeit d. Kaiserthums 

etablirten f

“ hereditary” war. Wo aber Wahlrecht - the tenure des office being for 

life - da auch Recht to depose. 

Diese chiefs of gentes od. eine selection davon, bildeten d. Council der Latin 

tribes vor Stiftung Roms. A ll of these “ cantons (read tribes) were in primitive 

times politically (asinus!) sovereign, u. each of them was governed by 

its prince [Prinzerfindender Mommsen; read chief of the tribe], and the 

cooperation of the council of elders, and the assembly of the warriors.” {Mommsen. 

It was the council, Herr Mommsen, u. nicht der military commander, Mommsen’s 

Prins·, who governed.) 

Niebuhr sagt: “In all the cities belonging to civilized nations on the coasts 

of the Mediterranean a senate was a no less essential and indispensable part of 

the state, than a popular assembly; it was a select body of elder citizens; such a 

council, says Aristoteles, there always is, whether the council be aristocratical or 

democratical; even in oligarchies, be the number of sharers in the sovereignty 

ever so small, certain councillors are appointed for preparing public 

measures.” Senate of polit. society folgte dem council of chiefs der gentile 

society. Romulus Senate 100 elders representing the 100 gentes, was office 

for life, non-hereditary, woraus folgt dass office of chief was at the time elective. 

A bt 474 B .C . d. Fabian gens schlag dem Senat vor als a gens to undertake 

the Veientian war. Ihr Antrag accepted, fielen in Embuscade. Liv. II, 

jo. [see auch Ovid, Fasti, II, 193.] “ Trecentos sex (so viel zogen aus) perisse 

satis convenit; unum prope puberem (unter age of puberty) aetate relictum 

stirpem genti Fabiae, dubiisque rebus populi Romani saepe do mi bellique vel 

maximum futurum auxilium.” 235 

D. Zahl d. 300 would indicate an equal number of females, who with the 

children of the males, would give an aggregate von at least 700 für Fabian 

gens (nicht d. eine pubes). | 

87 Pt. II, Ch. X I I . The Roman Curia, Tribe and Populus. 

Angebliche Perioden bis zur Errichtg der Republik: 1) Romulus. 7 )4-717 

B.C. {1-37 a.u.c.) 2) Numa Pompilius. 717-679 B.C. {37-7J a.u.) 3) Tullus 

Hostilius. 679-640 B.C. {7J-114 a.u.) 4) Ancus Marcius 640-618 B .C . {114- 

136 a.u.) 5) Tarquinius Priscus. 618-J78 B.C. {136-176 a.u.) 6) J78-J34 B.C. 

{176-220 a.u.) Servius Tullius. 7) J34-J09 B.C . {220-24j a.u.) Tarquinius 

— Superbus. 

Societas, founded upon gens; neben civitas, founded upon territory u. property; 

letztere Organization im Lauf v. 200 Jahren gradually supplanting 

the former; to a certain degree completed der change unter Servius Tullius 

{J78-J34 B .C . 176-220 a.u.) Curia, analogous to Greek236 phratry, = 10 

gentes; 10 curiae = 1 tribe; unter Servius Tullius war Populus Romanus = 

3 tribes, 10 curiae, 300gentes. Wurst ob Roman kings fabelhaft od. nicht; 

ebenso Wurst, ob d. legislation ascribed to either of them be fabulous or 

I true. The events of human progress embody themselves, independently of 

I particular men, in a material record, which is crystallised in institutions, usages 

224

I u. customs, u. preserved in inventions u. discoveries. 

D. numerical adjustment von gentes etc—a result of legislative procurement, not 

older in the first z tribes, than the times of Romulus. The curia der 

Romans - ungleich d. Phratry d. Greeks u. Iroquois, grew into an organization, 

having distinct governmental character engrafted upon itself. 

Wschlich d. gentes einer Curia related to each other, versahn sich einander 

dch intermarriage mit wives. (Dies Conjectur.) The organization as 

a phratry - obgleich erst mentioned in Roman history in connection mit 

legislation des Romulus, von time immemorial in Latin tribes. 

Livius I, iß. “Itaque, quam (der Romulus) populum in curias triginta 

divideret (nach dem Frieden mit den Sabinern), nomina earum (der geraubten 

Sabinerinnen) curiis imposuit.” 237 

Dionys. Antiq. of Rome, I I , 7. “ φράτρα δέ καί λόχος (Kriegerschaar, 

Rotte) ή κουρία” ; ibid. heisst's: διήρηντο δέ καί εις δεκάδας cd φρατραι 

πρός αύτοΰ, καί ήγεμών έκάστην έκόσμει δεκαδα, δεκουρίων κατά την 

έπιχώριον γλώτταν προσαγορευόμενος."238 

Plut. Vit. Rom. c. 20. Έκάστη δέ φυλή δέκα φρατρίας ειχεν λέγουσιν 

έπωνύμους είναι εκείνων των γυναικών.” 239 Was Romulus that was the 

adjustment of the number of gentes in each tribe, was er fertig bringen konnte 

dch d. accessions gained from the surrounding tribes. In d. Ramnes (ersten 

tribe) nahm er related gentes in selber curia, reached numerical symmetry by 

artibitrarily taking the excess of gentes von one natural curia to supply the deficiency 

of the other (kommt auch bei d. Red Indians vor.) D. Titles meist Sabiner; 

d. Luceres heterogenous, formed later from gradual accessions u. conquests 

; enthielten auch Etruscan gentes. In d. reconstruction gens blieb 

pure, curia made to include in some cases gentes nicht related, durchbrach 

also Schranke der natural phratry; ebenso tribe

dieser ernannte er wieder d. tüchtigsten; die (3) grössern Theile nannte er 

tribus; die kleineren Curien (κουρίας), wie sie auch jetzt noch heissen. In 

griech. Sprache interpretirt ist der tribus = φυλή od. τρίττυς; die Curia = 

φράτρα u. λόχος (Band, Kriegerrotte); die Männer an der Spitze des 

Tribus = φύλαρχοι od. τριττύαρχοι, die die Römer Tribunen nennen. 

88 \Tribun also literally d. Equivalent d. alten tribe~Chief\. | Die Vorsteher der 

Curien = φρατρίαρχοι u. λοχαγοί, welche d. Römer Curionen nennen. D_ 

Phratrien wurden wieder abgetheilt in Dekaden, u. ein Führer leitete jede 

Dekade; decourio genannt in d. Landeszunge. Nachdem aber so alle 

eingetheilt u. zusammengestellt in Phylen u. Phratrien, theilte er das Land 

in ßo gleiche Loose, gab jeder Phratrie ein Loos, nahm Land genügend für 

sacra u. Tempel, u. Hess auch gewisses Land für gemeinschaftlichen Gebrauch 

übrig (καί τίνα τω κοινω γην καταλιπών). Nur diese Theilung von Leuten 

u. Land dch Romulus, allgemeine u. grösste Gleichheit.” 

Mitglieder d. curia hiessen curiale; wählten einen priest, cur io, chief officer 

der fraternity; jede hatte its sacred rites, its sacellum as a place of worship 

u. ihren Versammlungsplat^ für transaction of business; neben d. curio 

gewählt an assistant priest flamen curialis, had the immediate charge of the 

observances; d. 'Volksversammlung comitia curiata, sovereign power in 

Rom, mehr als der Senat des gentile system. 

Vor Zeit des Romulus unter d. Latin tribes - tribal chiefs (Dionysius II, 7); 

ein tribal chief - der chief officer des tribe, whose duties magisterial (in city), 

military (in the field) u religious (administering the sacra) (Dionys. I.e.) 

Jedenfalls his office elective, whsclich gewählt dch d. curiae collected in a 

general assembly. D. “ tribal chief” whsclich genannt “ rex” vor d. Gründung 

Roms, ebenso d. Council Senate (senex) u. d. tribal assembly - comitia 

(con-ire). Nach der coalescence der ß Roman tribes - the national character of 

the tribe lost. 

Die ßo curiones as a body wden organisirt in a college of priests, einer davon 

had the office of curio maximus; was elected by the assembly of gentes. 

Daneben college of augurs, bestehend unter Ogulnian law (300 B.C.) aus 

9 members inclus. their chief - magister collegii; u. college of pontiffs, 9 

members unter demselben Gesetz, inclus. pontifex maximus. D. Gan%e, 

as organized by Romulus, nannte sich: Populus Romanus; war nichts als a 

gentile society; change ernöfhigt u. zwar fundamental one dch raschen Anwachs 

d. Bevölkg unter Romulus u. namentlich in d. Periode \ wischen ihm 

u. Servius Tullius. (7J4~Jß4)· 

Livius sagt, dass es “vetus conrilium” (Livy /, 8) alter trick of the founders 

of cities to draw to themselves an obscure and humble multitude, and 

then set up for their progeny the autocht(h)onic claim. Romulus so 

opened an asylum near the Palatine, u. invited all persons in the surrounding 

tribe

tudinem roboris f u it ( L iv . /, (P.)242 Plut. Romulus c. 20 u. Dionys. II, 15 

erwähnen auch d. asylum or grove. Zeigt, dass d. Barbarische Bevölkg Italiens 

sehr angewachsen, discontent unter ihnen, Mangel an persönlicher 

Sicherheit, existence of domestic slavery, apprehension of violence. Angriff 

seitens d. Sabiner, wegen d. ihnen gestohlnen Weiber; resultirte in Com- 

promiss, Latiner u. Sabiner coalesced into one society, jede division behielt its 

own military leader, d. Titles (Sabiner) unter Titius Tatius. - 679-640 B .C . 

Tullus Hostilius nahm d. Latin city of Alba, brachte ihre ganze Bev'6lk(e)rung 

nach Rom; sie besetzten angeblich Coelian H ill; Zahl d. citizens nun doubled 

nach Liv. I, 30. 640-618: Ancus Marcius nahm d. lat. Stadt Politorium, 

transferred the people bodily to Rome; ihnen angeblich Aventinus mons 

eingeräumt mit same privileges. Kurz nachher d. inhabitants of Tellini u. 

Ficana subdued, removed to Rome, also occupied M. Aventinus {Liv. I, jj). 

D. gentes nach Rom gebracht, blieben alle locally distinct, das thaten gentes 

überall in Middle u. Upper Status of Barbarism, sobald d. tribes began to 

gather in fortresses u. walled cities. [In the pueblo houses in New Mexico alle 

occupants of each house belonged to the same tribe u. in einigen Fällen a single 

joint-tenement house contained a tribe. A t Tlascala 4 quarters occupied by 4 

— lineages, probably phratries etc.] D. greater portion dieser new admissions 

united in the 3rd tribe Luceres, der erst completed unter Tarquinius Priscus 

(618-J78) dch Einverleibung einiger neuen Etruskischer gentes. 

Growth d. tribes in Rome under legislative constraint, not entirely free from 

the admixture of foreign elements, hence name tribus ,1/3 of the people; 

Latin language must have had a term equivalent of Phyle, became extinct; 

zeigt heterogeneous elements in Roman tribes, whd griech. Phyle pure. | 

89 D. Senate d. Romulus mit functions similar to those of the previous council 

of chiefs. Jede gens, sagt Niebuhr, sent its decurion, who was its alderman to 

represent it in the Senate. Also representative u. elective body, blieb 

elective od. selective bis zum Empire. Office der Senators lebenslänglich, 

einziger term of office then known (wie farmer bei Anglosaxon mindestens for 

one life). Liv. /, 8 sagt: “ Centum creat (Romulus) senatores: sive quia is 

numerus satis erat; (Kerl vergisst, that there were then only 100 genjtes, 

constituting the tribe der Ramnes); sive quia soli centum er ant, qui creari 

Patrespossent. (Superlativ dies von faselndem Pragmatismus). Patres certe 

ab honore [Pater, weil chief of gens], pairiciique progenies eorum appel- 

lati.” 243 Cic. de rep. II, 8: “ Principes, qui appellati sunt propter caritatem,- 

patres.” 244 D. distinction of patricians conferred upon their children u. 

lineal descendants in perpetuity schufen at once an aristocracy of rank in 

centre d. Roman social system where it became firmly intrenched; this 

aristocratic element now for the first time planted in gentilism. Nach der union 

der Sabines Senat increased to 200 dch addition v. 100 v. tribe der Tides 

(Dion. II, 47) u. when Luceres increased to 100 gentes in time der Patricians, 

a 3d 100 added v. d. gentes dieses tribe; dch Tarquinius Priscus. 

Liv. I, 3 J. “Nec minus regni sui firmandi, quam augendae re(i) publicae 

227

memor centum in patres legit (Tarquin. Priscus) qui deinde minorum gentium 

sunt appellati: factio haud dubia regis, cujus beneficio in curiam venerant.” 245 

Etwas verschieden Cic. de Rep. II, 20: “Isque (Tarquinius) ut de suo 

imperio legem tulit, principio duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum 

(dies setzt voraus, dass d. alten patres v. 200 auf 150 herabgesunken; 

waren dann 50 zu ergänzen aus Ramnes u. Tities u. 100 neu zugefügt aus 

Luceres); et antiquos patres majorum gentium appellavit [dies auch bei Iroquois, 

aber mit d. primitiven Bedtg, dass d. minores gentes Abkommen der 

majores, später daher gebildt] quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se 

adscitos, minorum.” 246 

D. Form d. statement shows, dass jeder Senator representative of a gens; 

ferner, da jede gens sicher hatte its principal chief - princeps - dies person 

chosen von gens od. 10 auf einmal v. d. 10 gentes wählend als curia. Dies 

dem Wesen nach auch Niebuhr's Ansicht. Nach d. Erric(h)t(un)g d. 

Republik (seit jo

the ultimate decision in criminal cases involving the life of a Roman citizen. 

The office of rex abolished by a popular movement. D. assembly had no power 

to convene itself; it is said to have met on the summons of the rex, oder in 

his absence, des praefectus urbis; in d. Republik dch d. consules berufen, 

od. in deren absence, dch praetor; in allen Fällen präsidirte d. berufende 

90 Person über d. deliberations der comitia. | D. rex war General u. Priest, 

aber ohne civil functions. 

Nach Abschaffung d. Königthums 2 consules an seine Stelle, wie d. 2 war- 

chiefs der Iroquois. 

D. rex as chief priest took the auspices on field of battle wie in city on 

important occasions, verrichtete auch other religious rites. Nach Abschaffg 

der Königswrde, ihre priestly functions übertragen auf d. neu geschaffne 

office des rex sacrorum od. rex sacrificulus; bei Athenern analog d. eine d. 9 

Archonten, Archon basileus, der a general supervision of religious affairs 

hatte. — D. Romans in diesen 200 years (bis Servius Tullius) had experienced 

the necessity for written laws to be enacted by themselves als Substitut for 

usages u. customs; had created ausserdem a city magistracy u. a complete 

military system, including the institution of the equestrian order. 

Unter d. new magistrates created wichtigster that of warden of the city - 

custos urbis, war zugleich Princeps senatus. Nach Dionys. II, 1 2 appointed 

by Romulus. - Nach d. Zeit d. Decemviri (4j 1-447) dies office changed to 

praefectus urbi, its powers enlarged u. it was made elective by the new 

I comitia centuriata [

Servius plebs fast so numerous247 wie populus; subject to military service, 

possessing families u. porperty. D. Constitution der gentile organisation schloss 

sie aus; hence letztre musste fliegen. 

Entstehung d. plebs, i.e., v. Personen not members of an organised gens, curia, 

tribe. Adventurers who flocked to the new city from the surrounding 

tribes, war captives afterwards set free, unattached persons mingled with 

the gentes transplanted to Rome, would rapidly furnish such a class; 

ausserdem might happen that in filling up the 100 gentes of each tribe, 

fragments of gentes and gentes having less than a prescribed number of 

persons, were excluded. Aus d. Epitheton d. Luceres “Fathers minorum 

gentium” ersichtlich dass d. old gentes reluctant ihre entire equality 

anzuerkennen. Nach filling up des 3d tribe mit d. prescribed number of 

gentes the last avenue of admission closed, wonach d. Zahl der plebejan 

class rasch anwachsend. Niebuhr läugnet, dass clients part d. plebejan 

body. 

Dionys. II, 8 u. Plut. Vit. Romuli X I I I , 16 schreiben248 Romulus d. 

Einrichtung (!) der relation v. patron u. client zu, ditto Suetonius Tiberius, c. 1. 

(Alles was diese 3 sagen beweist gefällig nichts!) [Morgan's Behauptung, 

dass d. clients v. Anfang an a part of the plebejan body - falsch, Niebuhr 

right.] 

Niebuhr u. andre nehmen an dass d. entire populus were patricians ... Nach 

Dionysius II, 8 (vgl. Plut. vit. Romuli, XIII) fand Errictg d. Patrician class 

vor Bildung d. Senats statt; nur zusammengesetzt aus Personen ausgezeichnet 

dch Tapferkeit, birth (!) u. wealth. Danach blieben aber noch 

large class in d. several gentes, die keine Patricier. 

Cic. de Rep. II, 12. “ Quum ille Romuli Senatus, qui constabat ex optimatibus, 

quibus ipse rex tantum tribuisset, ut eos patres vellet nominari, patriciosque 

91 eorum liberos, tentavit, etc.” 249 | Liv. I, 8. “ Patres certe ab honore,patriciique 

progenies eorum appellati.” 250 

D. Bildg d. Senatoren aus chiefs d. gens schliesst nur ein dass d. gewählten 

family chiefs - u. nur eine family aus d. vielen der gens hatte ihr Haupt im 

Senat, bedingt nur, dass diese Burschen Patres u. nur ihre progenies patricii, 

aber nicht alle members jeder gens, also d. gan%e populus (im Gegensatz zu 

Plebs) wie Niebuhr meint. Unter d. reges u. d. Republik individuals created 

patricians by the government. 

Vellejus Paterculus I, 8: “Hie centum homines electos appellatosque Patres 

instar habuit consilii publici. Hanc originem nomen Patriciorum habet.” 251 

There could be no patrician gens u. no plebejan gens [notabene später, als 

gentile society abolished] particular families in one gens could be patrician 

u. other plebejan. All the adult members of the Fabian gens, 306, were 

patricians; could either trace their descent from senators or to some public act, 

wdch their predecessors raised to patriciate. Vor Servius Tullius Romans 

divided in Populus u. Plebs; nachher, namentlich nach der Licinian legislation 

(j6y B.C.), wdch alle Staatwürden jedem civis zugänglich gemacht, alle 

230

freien Römer in 2 Klassen: Aristokratie u. commonalty; die ersteren bestanden 

aus senators u. deren descendants mit denen die eins der 3 curules offices 

(consul, praetor, curulis aedilis) innegehabt u. deren Nachkommen; d. 

commonalty, nur alle Roman cives; d. gentile organization verfiel u. d. old 

division nicht länger haltbar. Personen, die in d. ersten Periode zum 

Populus gehört, gehörten in der 2ten zur Aristokratie, ohne Patricier zu 

sein. Claudii u. Marcelli 2 Familien d. Claudian gens; d. ersteren patricii, 

(could trace their descent v. Appius Claudius') die 2ten Plebejer. 

D. Patrician class zahlreich; bei jeder Lücke neuer Senator gewählt, conferred 

patrician rank auf ihre Nachkommen; others v. Zeit zu Zeit zu 

patriciis gemacht dch act of the state. (Liv. IV, 4). 

Schatten d. alten JJnterscheidg v. Populus u. Plebs blieb: “ A plebe consensu 

populi consulibus negotium mandatur.” 253 (Liv. I V , j i ). Numa (717-679 

B.C.), der Nachfolger d. Romulus, tended to traverse the gentes, dch 

Eintheilung d. Volks in Klassen (wie Theseus), some 8 in number, 

entsprechend to their arts u. trades. 

Plutarch. Numa c. 17 , “ Numa bedachte nun, dass man auch Körper, die 

ursprünglich unmischbar u. spröde sind, dch Stampfen u. Zerstossen in 

Verbindung bringe, weil kleine Theile sich eher vereinen. Daher beschloss 

er dann d. gesamte Menge in mehre Theile zu scheiden, u. dch Hervorbringung 

neuer Verschiedenheiten jene erste grosse gleichsam in kleinere zu zersplittern 

u. eben dadurch aufzuheben. Er theilte also das Volk nach den Gewerben in 

I Fl(ö)tenspieler (αύλητών), Goldarbeiter (χρυσοχόων), Zimmerleute (τεκτόνων), 

Färber (βαφέων), Schuster (σκυτοτόμων), Gerber (σκυτοδεψών), Schmiede (χαλ- 

κέων),υ. Töpfer(v.zραμέωv). Die übrigen Gewerbe vereinigte er mit einander, u. 

bildete aus allen zusammen eine Zunft. Dch d. Gemeinschaften, Zusammenkünfte 

u. gottesdienstlichen Feierlichkeiten, die er für jede Zunft nach 

Gebühr anordnete, brachte er es in der Stadt dahin, dass d. Unterscheidung 

Zwischen Sabinern u. Römern, zF^scên Bürgern des Tatius u. Bürgern des 

Romulus völlig aufgehoben wde, so dass diese Absonderung eine Vereinigung u. 

__Verschmelzung Aller mit Allen bewirkte.” Da diese classes aber nicht 

invested mit d. powers exercised by the gentes, the measure failed. 

[Aber nach d. Darstellung d. Plutarch’s handelt es sich um “Bürger des 

Romulus” (Latins) u. Bürger d. Tatius (Sabiner); dies würde d. gentes als 

hauptsächlich Handwerktreibende stempeln! wenigstens die in der Stadt.\ 

Servius Tullius Periode j76-jß j B .C . folgt closely der d. Solon (jp6 B.C.) 

u. vor der des Cleisthenes (jop B.C.). Seine Constitution modeled nach der 

des Solon; was in practical operation bei Errichtg der Republik (509 B.C.) 

D. Hauptchanges, setting aside the gentes u. inaugurating political society, 

were: 1) substitution of classes formed nach individual wealth; 2) comitia 

centuriata, the new popular assembly, statt comitia curiata, assembly der 

gentes; 3) creation of 4 city wards, circumscribed by metes and bounds, u. 

named as territorial areas, wo d. residents of each ward required to enroll their 

names and register their property. 

231

Servius254 divided the whole people in j classes nach value of their property, 

wovon effect to concentrate in one class the wealthiest men of the several gentes. 

92 Property qualification war für iste class | iooyooo asses; 2/ class 75,000; 

jtclass 50,000; 4t cl. 25,000; jtclass 11,000 asses (Livy, I, 43).255 Dionysius 

fügt 6t class hinzu, consisting of one century mit 1 vote; composed of those 

without property or less than required for admission in /. class, paid no taxes 

u. dienten nicht in Krieg. (Dionys. IV, 20) (einige andre differences 

zwischen Dionys, u. Livius).256 Jede class subdivided in centuries, deren 

Anzahl willkührlich, ohne Rücksicht auf Personenzahl in der class, with 

one vote to each century in d. comitia. So iste class zählte 80 centuries, hatte 

80 votes in the comitia centuriata; 2t class, 20 centuries, wozu 2 of artisans 

attached, mit 22 votes; 3d class, 20 centuries mit 20 votes; 4th class, 20, 

wozu 2 centuries of hornblowers and trumpeters, 22 votes; jth class of 

30 centuries mit 30 votes. Ausserdem Ritter mit 18 centuries u. ebensoviel 

votes. Dadurch government, so weit beeinflussbar dch d. popular assembly, 

comitia centuriata - in hands der isten class u. der equites, hatten zusammen 

98 votes, majority d. whole. Die centuries jeder class divided into seniors, 

über 5 5 Jahr, charged mit duty as soldiers of defending the city, u. juniors, 

v. 17 Jahren bis j 4 Jahr inclus., charged with external military enterprises. 

(Dionys. IV, 16). Jede centurie agreed upon its vote separately when assembled 

in the comitia centuriata; in taking a vote upon any public question, 

equites called first, then the ist class. Stimmten sie überein in ihrem vote, 

then the question decided, u. d. übrigen centuries nicht cal(T)ed upon to vote; 

wenn they disagreed, 2nd class called upon u. sf. D. Rechte d. comitia 

curiata, etwas erweitert, übertragen auf d. comit. c(enf)uriata; elected all 

officers and magistrates upon the nomination of the Senate; enacted or rejected laws 

proposed dch letzteren; repealed existing laws auf sein Verlangen, wenn’s 

ihnen gefiel; declared war auf seine recommendation, aber Senat schloss Frieden 

ohne sie zu consultiren. An appeal to the comitia centuriata in all cases 

involving life; they had no control (die comit. centur.) over finances. - Property, 

not numbers, controlled the gvt. Meetings of the comitia jährlich held in Campus 

Martius für Wahl v. Magistrates u. officers u. zu ändern Zeiten, wenn 

nöthig. Volk assembled by centuries u. by classes under their officers, organised 

as an army (exercitus); centuries u. classes designed for civil u. military 

organization. Bei erster Musterung unter Servius Tullius 8oyooo in 

Waffen in Campus Martius, jeder Mann in seiner century, jede century 

in ihrer Klasse, jede Klasse besondert (Liv. /, 44; Dionys., der 84,700 

zählt, IV, 22.) 

Jedes member einer Centurie nun civis Romanus; dies d. Hauptresultat. 

Nach Cicero, De Rep. II, 22 wählte Servius Tullius d. Equites from the 

common mass of the people, (langte sich d. Reichsten heraus) u. divided 

the remainder into 5 classes. 

The property classes subserved the useful purpose of breaking up the gentes, which 

had become close corporations, excluding the mass of the population. The 

232

5 classes, mit some modification of the manner of voting, remained to the 

end of the republic. Servius Tullius soll auch instituirt haben d. comitia 

tribufa, a separate assembly of each local tribe or ward, deren chief duties 

relating to the assessment and collection of taxes u. to furnishing contingents of 

troops. Später elected dies assembly d. tribunes of the people. 

Einer d. ersten acts des Servius - der Census. “ Censum enim instituit, rem 

saluberrimam tanto futuro imperio; exquo belli pacisque munia non viritim ... 

sed pro habitu pecuniarum fierent.” (Liv. /, 42)257 Jede Person hatte sich 

selbst to enroll in ward of his residence, with statement of amount of his 

property, geschah in Gegenwart von Censor; the lists when completed 

furnished the basis upon which the classes were formed. Creation of 4 city wards 

gleichzeitig. Circumscribed by boundaries u. mit eignen Namen; such 

Roman ward a geographical area, mit a registry of citizens u. their property, 

a local organization, a tribune u. other elective officer u. with an assembly 

- aber nicht wie Attic deme zugleich polit. body mit complete self- 

93 government, elective magistracy, judiciary u. priesthood. | Dies Roman 

ward a newer copy of the previous Athenian naucrary, die wahrscheinlich 

auch ihr model war. Dionys. I V , 14 sagt, dass nachdem Servius Tullius 

inclosed the 7 hills mit one wall, he divided the city into 4 parts: 1) Palatina, 

2) Suburra, 3) Collina, 4) Esquilina (früher hatte d. city 3 parts); sie hätten 

nun zu diesen (diese Theile) statt nach φυλάς τάς γενικάς nach φυλάς τάς 

τοπικάς;258 setzte sie commanders über jeden tribe as phylarchs u. comarchs, 

whom he directed to note what house each inhabited. Nach Mommsen 

hatte jeder dieser 4 levy districts to furnish the 4th part nicht nur of the force 

as a whole, sondern von jeder ihrer militair(\sch&Vi) Unterabtheilungen u. jede 

century zählte gleiche Zahl von Conscribirten from each region, to merge all 

distinctions of gentile u. local nature into one common u. dch influence of 

military spirit to bind meteoci u. burgesses into one people.259 

Ebenso d. Umgegend,, under the government of Rome, organised in tribus 

rusticae, nach einigen 26, nach ändern 31, mit d. 4 city tribus in einem 

Fall 30, im ändern 35. These townships did not become integral in the sense 

of participating in the administration of the government. 

The overshadowing municipality of Rome made the centre of the State. 

Nach Einführung d. new polit. system behielten d. comitia curiata noch, 

(ausser religiösen curia dreck inaugurated certain priest(s) -) it260 

conferred the imperium upon all the higher magistrates, became in time a matter 

of form only. - After ist Punic War verloren sie alle Bdtg u. fell soon in 

oblivion; ebenso d. curiae - beide superseded rather than abolished. Gentes 

blieben lang ins empire hinein, as a pedigree u. a lineage. 

The element of property, which has controlled society to a great extent during 

the comparatively short period of civilisation, gab mankind despotism, imperialism, 

monarchy, privileged classes u. finally representative democracy. 

Pt. II. Ch. X I V . Change of Descent von Female to Male Line. 

1) Female descent: Female ancestor u. her children (sons u. daughters'); children 

233

of her daughters, and of her female descendants through females, in perpetuity. 

(Children of her sons, and of her male descendants, through males 

were excluded.) Dies bildet archaic gens. 

2) Descent in male line: gens consists of a supposed male ancestor u. his 

children, together mit d. children of his sons and of his male descendants 

through males in perpetuity. 

Bei change v. (/) %u (2) blieben alle present members der gens Mitglieder 

derselben, nur in future all children, whose fathers belonged to the gens, 

should alone remain in it u. bear the gentile name, while the children of the female 

members should be excluded. This would not break or change the kinship 

or relations of the existing gentiles; but thereafter it would retain in the 

gens the children it before excluded, and exclude261 those if before retained. 

So lang descent in female line: 1) Marriage in the gens prohibited; hence 

children in another gens than that of her reputed father. 2) Property and the office 

of chief hereditary in the gens: thus excluding children from inheriting the property 

or succeeding to the office of their reputed father. - Sobald change of condition 

(dch Entwicklg v. individual property u. monogamy namentlich) such, 

dass diese exclusions “ungerecht” erschienen, - change of descent effected. 

[.Private property in flocks u. herds u. nchdem tillage had led to the ownership 

of houses u. lands in severalty. ] With property accumulating in masses and 

assuming permanent forms, and with an increased portion of it held by individual 

ownership, descent in the female line [v. wegen inheritance] certain of overthrow. 

Change to descent in male line would leave the inheritance in the gens as 

before, but it would place children in the gens of their father u. at the head of the 

agnatic kindred. 

Probable, that when descent changed to the male line, or still earlier, animal 

names for the gentes laid aside and personal names substituted in their place. 

After this substitution, the eponymous ancestor became a shifting person. 

The more celebrated Grecian gentes made the change of names; they 

retained the name of the mother of their gentile father and ascribed his birth to her 

embracement by some particular god. So Eumolpus, d. eponymous ancestor 

94 der Attic Eumolpidae, was the reputed son of Neptune u. Chione. \ 440 B .C . 

Herodot: sagt v. d. Lycians (von denen er erzählt, dass sie sprang from 

Creta, u. nach Lykia gewandert unter Führung d. Sarpedon; dass “ihre 

customs partly Cretan, partly Carian.” “ Die Lykier haben eine sonderbare 

Gewohnheit worin sie abweichen von jeder ändern Nation in der Welt. Frage 

einen Lykier wer er ist u. er antwortet indem er seinen Eigennamen giebt, den 

seiner Mutter u. so on in the female line. Ferner, wenn eine freie Weibsperson 

einen Mann heirathet, der ein Sklave ist, so sind ihre Kinder freie Bürger; 

aber wenn ein freier Mann ein ausländisch Weib heirathet, oder cohabits with 

a concubine, selbst wenn er die first person im Staat ist, the children forfeit all 

the rights of citizenship.” 262 

j Now cfr: Wenn ein Seneca-Iroquois ein fremdes Weib heirathet, sind seine 

234

Kinder aliens; aber wenn ein(e> Seneca-Iroquois Weibsperson einen Fremden 

heirathet, od. einen Onondaga, sind ihre Kinder Iroquois of the Seneca tribe u. 

of the gens u. phratry ihrer Mutter. D. Frau überträgt ihre nationality u. her 

gens auf ihre Kinder, whoever their father. 

Flgt aus Herodot’s Stelle, dass d. Lykier organized in gentes (of archaic 

form), hence mit descent in female line. 

D. aborigines v. Creta (Kandia) waren Pelasgian, Semitic u. Hellenic tribes, 

living locally apart. Minos, der brother des Sarpedon, gilt als head der 

Pelasgians in Creta; d. Lykier zu Herodot’s Zeit ganz hellenisirt, conspicuous, 

unter d. Asiatic Greeks, for their advancement. D. Insulation 

ihrer Vorfahren auf Creta-Insel, vor ihrer migration in the legendary 

period to Lycia mag erklären ihre retention of the female line in this late 

period. 

Etrusker [nach Cramer: Description of Ancient Italy (dieser selbst quotes 

Lan%i)\y wie wir aus ihren Monumenten sehn, “Hessen ihre Weiber zu 

ihren Festen u. Banquets zu; sie beschreiben ihre parentage u. family invariably 

with reference to the mother, and not the father. Dieselben 2 customs 

noticed von Herodot bezüglich der Lykier u. Caunians v. Asia Minor.” 

Curtius {Griech. Geschichte) commenting on Lycian, Etruskan u. Cretan 

descent in female line, sagt: dies wurzle in d. primitive conditions of society, als 

Monogamie noch nicht etabHrt hinreichend to assure descent on the father's 

side. D. Gebrauch erstreckt sich daher weit über Lycian territory; occurs 

heut noch in Indien; existirte unter den alten Aegyptern; mentioned by 

Sanchoniathon (p. 16, Orell); bei Etruskansy Cretans, who called their 

fatherland - Motherland [noch immer sagt jeder: Mutter%ungey Fatherland; 

d. Sprache gehört immer noch der Mutter.] D. Stelle bei Herodot beweist 

nur, dass sich d. customs of descent in female Hne von allen related to 

the Greeks u. am längsten unter d. Lykiern erhalten__ As life became 

more regulated, relinquished u. naming children after their fathers became 

general in Greece. Cf. Bachofen Mutterrecht, Stuttgart 1861. 

Bachofen {Mutterrecht) has collected u. discussed the evidence of Mutterrecht 

u. Gyneocracy unter Lykierny Creterny Athener, Lemnierny Aegyptery 

Orchomeniansy Locriansy Lesbians u. unter östlichen Asiatischen Nationen. 

Dies aber setzt voraus - gens in its archaic form; diese would give the gens 

of the mothers the ascendancy in the household. D. family - whsclich schon 

in syndyasmi(a)n form - noch environed mit d. remains of conjugal system of 

still earlier condition. Such family - a married pair with their children - 

mit kindred families in a communal household wo d. several mothers u. ihre 

Kinder of the same gensy the reputed fathers dieser children of other gentes. 

Common lands u. joint tillage would lead to joint-tenement houses and communism 

in living; gyneocracy unterstellt für Entstehung - descent in the female line 

producirt. Women entrenched in large householdsy supplied from common storesy 

in which their own gens largely predominated in numbers__ When descent 

changed to male line mit monogamian family the joint-tenement house displaced, 

235

stellte in midst einer rein gentile society the wife and mother in a single house 

u. separated her from her gentile kindred. 

Bachofen sagt v. Cretan city of Lyktos: diese Stadt wde betrachtet als 

lacedämonische Colonie u. auch als related to the Athenians; war in beiden 

Fällen so on the mother's side, denn nur d. Mütter waren spartan. Abkunft. 

D. Athenian Verwandtschaft geht zurück auf Athenische Weiber welche d. 

Pelasgian Thyrrhenians from Brauron promontory enticed haben sollen. - Mit 

descent in male line, bemerkt treffend Morgan, wde d. lineage d. women 

unberücksichtigt geblieben sein; aber mit female line gaben d. Colonists their 

95 pedigrees through \ females only. 

Monogamy unter Greeks probably nicht vor Upper Status of Barbarism. Wie 

pragmatisch u. als echter deutscher Schulgelehrter Bachofen selbst d. 

Sache auffasst, sichtbar aus folgenden passus: 

Denn vor der Zeit des Kekrops hatten d. Kinder nur eine Mutter, keinen 

Vater; they were of one line. An keinen Mann ausschliesslich gebunden, 

brachte das Weib nur spurious (!) children zur Welt. Kekrops (!) machte (!) 

diesem Zustand der Dinge ein Ende; brachte zurück (!) die lawless (!) union 

of sexes zur Exclusivität der Ehe, gab d. Kindern einen Vater (!) u. eine 

Mutter (!) u. machte sie so from unilateres - bi later es.” (machte sie unilateres 

in male line of descent!) 

Polybius X I I . extract I I : “Die Lokrier selbst [d. 100 families of Locrians in 

Italy] haben mich versichert dass ihre eignen traditions mehr dem Bericht 

des Aristoteles entsprechen als dem des Timäus. Geben dabei folgde 

Beweise__ Alle nobility of ancestry ist unter ihnen von Weibern abgeleitet u. 

nicht von Männern. Die allein sind noble, die ihren Ursprung von d. 100 

families ableiten; diese families were noble unter d. Locrians vor ihrer 

Wanderung; u. waren in d. That dieselben von denen dch Loos 100 virgins 

taken, wie d. Orakel befohlen hatte, u. die nach Troja gesandt wurden.” 

Wahrscheinlich d. hier erwähnte Rang (Adel) connected mit office of chief 

of gens, ennobled d. besondre Familie innerhalb der gens, auf eines deren Glieder 

conferred; dies implicirt descent in the female line both as to persons u. 

office; d. office of chief hereditary in the gens u. elective unter its male members 

in archaic times; mit descent263 in female line passes v. Bruder %u Bruder u. 

von Onkel%u Nephew (Schwestersohri). 264 Aber office 265 stets passed through 

females, the eligibility der Person depending upon the gens of his mother, 

who gave him connection with the gens u. the defunct chief whose place he 

was to fill. Wo office u. rank runs through females, it requires descent in the 

female line for its explanation. 

In traditionary period d. Greeks: Salmöneus u. Kretheus own brothers, Söhne 

des Aeolus. Der erstere gab seine Tochter Tyrö in Ehe ihrem Onkel. Mit 

descent in male line Kretheus u. Tyro of the same gens, hätten nicht heirathen 

können; mit descent in female line Tyrö of gens ihrer Mutter, nicht ihres 

Vaters. Salmöneus, also of different gens als Kretheus; d. Heirath also 

within gentile usage. D. mythische Charakter d. Personen gleichgültig, the 

236

legend applies gentile usages correctly; zeigt also hin auf descent in female line 

im hohen Alterthum (griechischer) 

Nach der Zeit d. Solon konnte ein Bruder seine Halbschwester heirathen, 

wenn sie born of different mothers, nicht aber when born of different fathers 

and same mother. Mit descent in female line, they would be of different 

gentes; aber in male descent line - u. diese existirte damals faktisch - of 

the same gens, ihre Heirath daher verboten. [Dies also Ueberleben der alten 

praxis, surviving the change of descent to the male line.\ Cimon heirathete seine 

Halbschwester Elpinice, vom selben Vater, aber verschiednen Müttern. 

Im Eubulides des Demosthenes sagt Euxithius: άδελφήν γάρ ό πάππος (grandfather) 

ούμός έγημεν ούχ όμομητριάν 266 (nicht von derselben Mutter) Vgl. 

ld. Eubulides 24. 

Descent in the female line presupposes the gens to distinguish the lineage; war 

- [wozu gar keine histor. evidence weiter nöthig, nachdem dies als 

archaic form entdeckt] - ancient law d. Latin, Grecian u. other Graeco-Italian 

gentes. 

Annehmend Zahl of registered Athenians %ur Zeit Solon’s = 60,000 u. 

dividing them equally unter d .360 Attic gentes gäbe average von 160 persons 

to gens. D. gens was a great family (nenne es Geschlechtsfamilie) of kindred 

~Tpersons, with common religious rites, common burial place, u., in general, 

I common lands. Intermarriage verboten. Mit change of descent to male line, rise 

of monogamy, exclusive inheritance in the children u. appearance of heiresses way 

gradually prepared for free marriage regardless of gens, except prohibition für 

certain degrees naher Blutsverwandtschaft. Marriages began in the group, alle 

males u. females of which - ausschliesslich der Kinder - were joint husbands u. 

wives; aber husbands u. wives were of different gentes; it ended267 in marriage 

96 between single pairs with a(n> (officially) exclusive cohabitation. | 

D. Turanian Verwandtschaftsystem (Asien, Africa, Australien) [entsprechend 

dem Ganowänian in America] muss auch unter Greek u. Latin tribes in selber 

Entwicklungsperiode geherrscht haben. Ein Charactering derselben: die 

Kinder von Brüdern sind selbst Brüder u. Schwester, als solche nicht inter- 

marriable; d. Kinder von Schwestern in demselben Verhältniss, unter selber 

prohibition. [Wenn Bachofen diese punuluan Ehe lawless findet, so finde 

Mann aus dieser Periode d. meisten jetzigen Ehen zwischen nahen u. fernen 

Cousins, sei es väterlicher, sei es mütterlicher Seite, blutschänderisch, 

__nämlich als Ehen %wischen blutsverwandten Geschwistern.] Dieses erklärt 

d. Legende d. Danaiden (worauf Aeschylus seine “ Schut^ßehenden” gegründet). 

Danaus u. Aegyptus waren Brüder u. descendants der Argivischen Io. 

Danaus, von different wives hatte jo Töchter u. Aegyptus jo Söhne; letztere 

sought the first in marriage; diese nach Turanian System - Brüder u. Schwestern, 

unverheirathbar. Wenn damals descent in male line hätten sie auch zur 

selbengens gehört, andres Heirath obstacle. Die jo Danaus Töchter - Danaiden 

- fliehn v. Aegypten nach Argos, um dem unlawful u. blutschänderischen 

237

wedlock zu entfliehn. Dies event foretold to Io von Prometheus. 

(Aeschylus, (Prometheus) 8jf). 

In d. Schutzflehenden v. Aeschylus erklären d. Danaiden den kindred Argives 

(in Argos), sie seien nicht verbannt worden von Aegypten, sondern: 

“ Δίαν δέ λιπουσαι χ-9-όνα σύγχορ- σύγχορτον = conterminam, da χόρτος 

τον Συρία φεύγομεν, οΰτιν' έφ’ (hortus, cursus) auch = terminus, 

αίματι δημηλασίαν ψήφω πόλεως So χόρτος αύλής, ό της αύλής δρος, 

γνωσθ-εΐσαι άλλ' αύτογενεΐ φυξα- die Grenze des Hofes. So Eurip. 

νορία γάμον Αίγύπτου παίδων Andromache v. 17: “ σύγχορτα ναίω 

άσεβή όνοταζόμεναι ” πεδία” , Ich bewohne angrenzende 

(Aesch. Suppl. v. j sq.) Felder {Ebnen). 

— Nicht wegen Blutthat (Mord) dch Volksverbannenden Beschluss ver- 

urtheilt, sondern aus Männerfurcht, die blutsverwandte u. unheilige Ehe der 

Söhne des Aegyptus verschmähend. 

Die Stelle scheint verdorben grammatice. Sieh Schütz·, “Aeschylus” , vol. 2, 

p. 378. 

Nur wenn sie den casus der Hiketiden gehört, beschlossen d. Argiver in 

Council ihnen Schutz Zugewähren, was implicirt Existenz von Verbot solcher 

Ehen u. the validity of their objection. Zur Zeit wo diese Tragoedie 

aufgeführt in Athen erlaubte u. forderte selbst d. Athenische Gesetz marriage 

between children of brothers in case of heiresses u. orphans, obgleich diese Regel 

auf solche Ausnahmsfälle beschränkt scheint. 

Pt. II. Ch. X V . Gentes in other tribes of the Human Family. 

Celtic branch d. Aryan family {ausser deren of India) hielt länger als irgend 

andre d. Gentile Organization bei; - Scottish Clan in d. Highlands of Scotland - 

feuds u. blood revenge, localization by gentes, use of lands in common, fidelity of 

clansman to his chief and members of the Clan to each other. - Irish sept \Celtisch: 

Villein - Communities on French Estates. Andrerseits: Phis or Phrara of 

Albania; d. Familiengemeinschaften in Dalmatien u. Croatien. Die Sanscrit 

“ Ganas” (“gentes.”) 

Germans: were in Upper Status of Barbarism, when first known to the 

Romans, konnten kaum mehr developed ideas of government haben als 

Römer u. Griechen, wenn (the latter were) first known. 

Tacitus. De Moribus Germanorum, c. 2. “ Celebrant carminibus antiquis, {quod 

unum apud illos memoriae et annalium genus est), Tuistonem deum, terra 

editum, et filium Mannum originem gentes conditoresque. Manno tris 

filios adsignant, e quorum nominibus proximi Oceano - Ingaevones, medii - 

Herminones, ceteri - Istaevones vocentur. Quidam, ut in licentia vetustatis, 

pluris deo ortos plurisque “gentis” {tribe) appellationes, Marsos Gambrivios 

Suebos Vandalios adfirmant, (eaque vera et antiqua nomina). Ceterum 

Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum; quoniam qui primi Rhenum 

transgressi Gallos expulerint ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani (Wehrmann, 

238

guerriers) vocati sint; ita “nationis” nomen, non gentis evaluisse paulatim, ut 

omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox (etiam) a se ipsis invento nomine 

97 Germani vocarentur.” 268 | (natio muss hier = confederacy of tribes sein; 

jeder tribe = gens segmentated in mehre gentes. “ {Suevi} maj orem (enim) 

Germaniae partem obtinent, propriis ad huc nationibus nominibusque discreti 

(Tacit. Germ. c. ^

nämlich so indentirt) Bigatosque (v. biga, hatten empreinte d’un char attelé 

de deux chevaux). Argentum quoque magis quam aurum sequuntur, 

nulla affectione animi, sed quia numerus argenteorum (argentei numi, silver 

coils) facilior usui est promiscua ac vilia mercantibus,” 277 

Tac. Germ. c. 7. “ Reges (d. chiefs of the tribes) ex nobilitate (i.e. aus gens, 

i.e. aus more illustrious family of a gens u. mehr prominent gens), duces 

(the chief warriors) ex virtute sumunt (wie d. Iroquois). Nec regibus infinita 

ac libera potestas; et duces exemplo potius quam imperio admiratione 

praesunt.” 278 

c. X I . “De minoribus rebus principe consultant; de majoribus omnes etc.” 

(see d. weitere).279 

c. X I I . “ Licet apud concilium accusare quoque et discrimen capitis intendere__ 

Eliguntur in isdem conciliis et prncipes, qui jura per pagos (Gaue) 

vicusque (bourgades) reddunt; centeni singulis ex plebe comites concilium simul 

et auctoritas adsunt.280 

c. X X . “ Sororum filius idem apud avunculum (Oncle) qui apud patrem honor. 

Quidam sanctiorem artioremque hunc nexum sanguinis tenent arbitrantur et in 

accipiendis obsidibus magis exigunt, tamquam (ziehn d. nephews d. Söhnen 

vor) et animam firmius et domum latius teneant. Heredes tamen successoresque 

sui cuique liberi, et nullum testamentum. Si liberi sunt, proximus gradus in 

98 possessione fratres, patrui, avunculi.” 2811 

Caesar, de bello gallic. V I, c. 22. 

“ Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum victus in lacte, caseo, carne 

consistit. Neque quisquam agri modum certum aut finis habet proprios: sed 

magistratus ac principes in annos singulos gentibus cognationibusque hominum, 

qui cum una coierunt, quantum et quo loco visum est agri attribuunt atque 

anno post alio transire cogunt. Eius rei multas adferunt causas: ne assidua 

consuetudine capti studium belli gerendi agri cultura commutent; ne 

latos finis parare studeant, potentioresque humiliores possessionibus expellant; 

ne accuratius ad frigora atque aestus vitandos aedificent; ne qua oriatur pecuniae 

cupiditas, qua ex re factiones dissensionesque nascuntur; ut animi aequitate 

plebem contineant, cum suas quisque opes cum potentissimis aequari videat.” 282 

ib. c. X X I I I : 

Civitatibus maxima laus est quam latissime circum se vastatis finibus solitudines 

habere. Hoc proprium virtutis existimant, expulsos agris finitimos cedere 

neque quemquam prope audere consistere; simul hoc se fore tutiores arbitrantur, 

repentinae incursionis timore sublato. Cum bellum civitas aut inlatum defendit 

aut infert, magistratus qui ei bello praesint, ut vitae necisque habeant 

potestatem, deliguntur. In pace nullus est communis magistratus, sed principes 

regionum atque pagorum inter suos ius dicunt controversiasque minuunt.283 

D. principes regionum u. pagorum - d. Sachem - sind nicht d. warchiefs, 

sondern civil chiefs wie bei Indians ; für d. Krieg werden sie gewählt, wie 

dort ditto. [Dies zu Caesar’s Zeit.] Caesar spricht oben von “gentibus 

cognationibusque hominum, qui una coierint.” D. Aecker jährlich vertheilt von 

d. principes. 

240

Tacit. Germ. VII, wo er von Armeeformation spricht, “nec fortuiter 

conglobatio turmam (Reiterschwadron) aut cuneum (Infanteriekeil) facit, sed 

familiae et propinquitates; 189 hier tritt schon mehr familia hervor, aber 

bei Cäsar ist diese selbst bestimmt als gens. 

Ibid. X X V I . “ Faenus agitare et in usuras extendere ignotum; ideoque magis 

servatur quam si vetitum esset. Agri (les terres), pro numero cultorum (en 

raison du nombre der Bebauer Cultor, der bras), ab universus (par tous les 

peuplades) per vices (successivement) occupantur, quos mox inter se 

secundum dignationem (bei Cäsar noch gleich), partiuntur facilitatem partiendi 

camporum spatia praestant. Arva {arable field, cultivated land) per annos 

mutant, et superest ager; nec enim cum ubertate et amplitudine soli labore 

contendunt, ut pomaria conserant (so dass sie planteraient des vergers), et 

prata separent (od. feraient exclure les prairies) et hortqs rigent (od. arosera- 

ient des jardins): sola terrae seges imperatur (Iis ne demandent ä la terre 

que du ble.)” 284 

D. Mark u. Gaueintheilung (pagus) scheinen groups of settlements associated 

with reference to military levies; transitional stages, diese organizations, 

between a gentile and a political system, the grouping of the people 

still resting on consanguinity. 

Nach der form d. statement bei Cäsar scheint d. family syndyasmian gewesen 

Zu sein. 

241

P A R T E 

M ARX’S EXCERPTS FROM JOHN BUDD PHEAR, 

THE ARYAN VILLAGE

128 Sir. J . Phear: “ The Aryan Village in India and Ceylon” . 1880. 

I) Modern Village Life in Bengal. (Bis wo d. Gegentheil angezeigt, d. Zeug 

Abdrucke v. Artikeln in Calcutta Review für 1874, July and October 

numbers. 

Was der Mann beschreibt, ist “agricultural village” im Deltaic Bengal; von 

d. sea lines der Sunderbunds on the South, to the curve, which, passing 

through Dacca, Pubna, Moorscheedabad forms the lower boundary of the 

red land of the North, the whole country ist almost perfect alluvial plain; 

exhibits generally large open spaces, oft very large, limited to the eye by 

heavy masses of foliage. Diese open spaces, during the height of the 

South-West Monsoon more or less covered with water, at the end of the rains 

by green waving swarths of rice, u. in dry season to a large extent fallow 

ground, varied by plots of the different cold weather (rabi) crops. (3, 4) Fast 

no roads, ausser a few trunk roads of communication zwischen the capital u. 

district towns, sonst only irregular tracks, sometimes traversable by 

wheels, along the balks (or ails) which divide and subdivide the soil into 

small cultivated patches or khets. Die wenigen sonstigen roads sind 

kachcha (d.h. unmetalled) ausser in dry season. (West Bengal - im Gegensatz 

zu deltaic Bengal - relatively high land) liegt ausserhalb des Delta, below 

the Ghats, something like roads through and about the large villages, 

obgleich oft not fitted for wheel traffick. (p. 4) Als main roads for locomotion 

u. carriage of goods dienen innumerable khäls (canals), brandling 

out from Hooghly, Ganges, Pudda, Megna etc. rivers, intersecting the country 

in all directions. (5) Ob d. village placed on the high bank of a khal (the 

banks meist of bare, greasy mud, high enough above the water) or is 

situated inland, it invariably stands on relatively elevated ground above reach of the 

water whd Regensaison u. fst hidden, in the midst of a jungle; diese villages 

zugänglich von jeder Seite across the khets by passing along the dividing 

(ails) balks. No trace of street or any arrangement of the houses in them. (6) 

Each dwelling is a small group of huts, generally four - a homestead. The site 

of the group a carefully levelled platform, raised somewhat above the 

general elevation of the village land, roughly square in figure, and containing 

500-1000 □ yards in area. The huts made of bamboo and plastered 

over with mud, sometimes of1 mud alone, the floor of the structure also 

of mud being again raised above the level of the platform; each hut is one 

apartment only, about 20 feet long and 10 or 15 feet wide, commonly without 

a window (side walls low, roo/highly peaked, thatched with a jungle grass, 

the eaves (Dachrinnen) project considerably, thus forming low verandahs 

on the back and front of the hut. Diese huts (mostly 4) der homestead 

are ranged on the sides of the platform, facing inwards, berühren sich 

selten,22 shut aber gewissermassen in the interior space - the house-space 

(uthän) [1st Hof space. 1st Quadrangle. ] Hier spielen d. Kinder, seeds are 

spread to dry, the old women sit and spin etc. (7, 8) 

D. principal hut hat oft ausser d. Thüre which opens on this interior 

245

quadrangle a second door and well kept verandah on the opposite side opening on 

the path, by which the dwelling can be best approached; this is the 

baithakhäna (sitting room) wo strangers or men not belonging to the 

family, received, u. sehr oft auch d. Schlafzimmer der male members der 

family; the mud? floor of the hut or verandah, spread mit a mat, reicht diese 

hin etc. D. hut which faces the baithakhäna is appropriated to the women 

and children; eine der 2 ändern huts contains the chula (mud fireplace), 

serves as kitchen; endlich d. 4te Hütte ist a gola (store-room for grain). In 

einer der huts, sei es in quadrangle or outside, ist der dhenki, u. d. Hütte 

heisst dhenki ghar; dhenki ist a very large pestle (Mörserkeule) and mortar 

(Mörser)4 dessen main purpose to husk (enthülsen) Reis. Der Mörser4 

gewöhnlich ein Gefäss ausgehöhlt of a log of wood u. is sunk in the 

ground; d. pestle ist ein Hammerkopf auch aus Holz, einer horizontalen 

Hebe bar which works on a low post or support u. dessen anderer arm 

is depressed by 1 or 2 women applying their weight to it; sobald sie 

ihren Arm loslassen fällt der Hammer, pounds the paddy in the mortar u. 

dch Wiederholung dieser operation the (husk of the) grain is rubbed off. 

Paddy, the grain rice, gleicht etwas barley, u. must be husked before eaten. 

D. dhenki attains its object surprisingly (well). (8-10) 

Ist d. Familie better off als on an average, so mag d. Hüttengruppe der 

1 29 homestead mehr als 4 Hütten enthalten, | one or more, d. bullockshed, gola 

od. selbst dhenki-ghar situated ausserhalb d. quadrangle, perhaps in front of 

or near to a corner. (10-11) 

The homestead platform generally surrounded irregularly by large trees, 

wie mango, pipal, palms. In small clearings among these a few herbs u. 

vegetables are grown for family use in the curry (diese small vegetable plots 

meist wenig mehr als irregular scratchings in the midst of low jungle undergrowth; 

nothing like a garden, no flowers); d. whole area or compound belonging 

to the homestead marked off from its neighbours, generally, very 

obscurely, by most rude metes and bounds, sehr selten a neat fence; d. 

Weiber halten d. hardened mudz floor des house space, der principal huts u. 

verandahs sehr clean, often adorn the front wall des baithakhana mit 

grotesque figures in chalk; in d. Regel remainder of the homestead compound 

in a most neglected dirty state. Der modern Bengali wenig Begriff of neatness, 

ist absolut unfähig, unassisted, of drawing a straight line or an evenly curved line; 

the traces left by his plough, the edges of his little fields, die rows of his 

planted paddy etc. like inked spider legs across a sheet of paper. (11, 12) 

The ordinary agricultural village of Bengal is a closely packed aggregate of 

such homesteads ... more or less concealed among the trees of their compounds 

; hier u. da waste land in the shape of unoccupied sites for dwellings 

; auch tanks or ponds of water in the excavations, which furnished the 

earth for the construction of the homestead, plat-forms etc. (12) Diese 

Teiche (Weiher) od. Bassins oft rich in all sorts of abomination (wimmeln 

alle mit fish), overhung mit jungle, and surface covered with shiny pond 

246

weed; hier the people bathe, cleanse their body cloths, get their drinking water, 

catch fish in them, (i 3) In Bengal jeder pool of water swarms with fish, 

small or great; the very ditches, gutters and hollows dried up for months, 

on the first heavy downfall filling them, turn out to be complete preserves 

of fish. (I.e.) Manchmal has a fortunate or wealthy ryot a tank attached to 

his homestead all his own, to which his neighbours have no right to 

resort. (I.e.) Maidän (green bewachsen) 

D. land tilled by the cultivators of the village, i.e. the bulk of the inhabitants, is 

a portion of the lower lying plain outside and around the village. D. family of the 

homestead - consisting of a father and sons, or of brothers or of cousins - 

cultivates von 2 to 10 acres in the whole, made up of several plots, often lying 

at some distance from each other. D. men gehn zu ihrem work at daybreak, 

plough on shoulder, driving their cattle before them along the nearest 

village path which leads to the open; manchmal they return at noon for 

a meal and a bath in the tank u. gehn dann wieder aus for their work; 

öfter aber bleiben sie bis afternoon having some food brought them 

about midday by the women and children. (14) One man and his young son 

(still in his boyhood) with a plough and a pair of oxen will cultivate 3 acres 

(u. so - in proportion), perhaps more, with the aid received in reaping 

etc. No purely agricultural class wie in England. Small cultivators u. d. 

überflüssigen Hände einer Familie arbeiten spare times for hire on their 

neighbours' land; in some villages, wo d. occupation of a caste, z.B. the weavers’ 

caste, naturally died out, the members forced to earn their livelihood by 

manual labour, arbeiten u. a. auch auf Land for wages. Für d. Herbst ist oft 

besondres arrangement made. The paddy grown on land in one situation 

reicht oft später od. früher als paddy grown under slightly different circumstances. 

[1Crops are known by designations drawn from the months or seasons 

in which they are reaped or gathered, as Bhaduwi, Kharif, Rabi; u. diese 

respectively depend upon the season of sowing] u. so small gangs of cultivators 

— from one village or district go to help the cultivators of a distant village to 

cut their paddy, this assistance being returned if needed. The remuneration 

received for this work is usually one bundle5 out of every five, or out of every seven 

that are cut. The foreigners build a mat hut for themselves in the harvest 

field u. nach geleistetem Dienst carry home their bags of grain. (15, 16) | 

130 Grosse uniformity of life etc. in all the component classes of a village. 

(16) D. House d. wealthier or more influential man ist manchmal pakka 

or brickbuilt, (selber Plan wie bei bamboo homestead) - generally out of 

repair and partially broken down. Er hat zahlreichere Kleider u. better 

blankets; seine cooking ustensils u. d. sehr wenigen other domestic articles 

sind vielleicht of Brass statt Erdenwaare, seine hukhas (hukha od. hookha 

a form of pipe for smoking tobacco) of metal or even silver mounted 

statt eine Coconusschale, seine Weiber tragen reicheres, u. zahlreicheres 

Schmuck. Er hat vielleicht a wooden gaddi {takhtaposh) (gaddi = a seat; 

takhtaposh = a low platform or sitting place) in his receiving room, on 

247

which he u. his guests or clients may sit crosslegged, slighdy raised above 

the earthen floor. Hat vielleicht a richly carved statt a plain sanduk 

(strong box) for the custody of his valuables, or a plurality of them. 

Sonst both households gleich primitiv; fand rice in some form or other and 

curry (mit Curry sauce bereiteter Ragout) u. dies eaten by taking it out 

of the platter or off the plaintain leaf with the fingers. (17, 18) In Haus u. 

while at work most men go naked, ausser the dhoti (loin cloth) u. Kinder 

bis 7 od. 8 Jahr meist absolut nackt. (18) Wealth zeigt sich by the expenditure 

of money at family ceremonies, wie bei marriages, bei shraddhas 

(funeral obsequies) u. readings of national u. religious epics, the Bhagbuty 

Rämäyan etc. Bei shadis (shady = nuptial ceremony) u. shraddhas the cost 

is in the purchase and preparation of offerings, presents and payments 

to Brahman priests, presents to, and the feeding of, Brahmans generally. 

For the readings, the Brahman narrator (Kathak) paid very highly, u. he 

u. his audience oft maintained for several days by the employer. Then 

certain religious festivals are kept annually by such families as can afford 

it; Kali's in Kartik (October), Saraswati's or Sri Panchami's in Magh (end 

of January), and ceremonies in honour of Durga commonly performed by 

~Twell to do people. (19, 20) The Social Respect commanded by wealth, 

■ meted out in Bengal very much according to the mode or degree of magnificence 

with which these semi-public family duties (in fact spectacles') are 

performed. (20) 

Women all sehr superstitious etc., do all the menial work of the household, 

even when family of the better classes; go daily to the tanks to fetch 

water, gives opportunity for gossip etc., astrologers live in all villages als 

Auguren zur Deutung aller phenomena d. täglichen Lebens, gelenkt dch 

supernatural governors (spiritual agencies). (21-23) 

D. Boden w

is no share coulter or breast; the pointed end only stirs the earth, does not 

turn it. The whole so light that a man easily carries it over his shoulder.] 

An average pair of bullocks obtainable for Rs 20, u. the price der few 

earthen pots and pans of various sorts - constituting the necessary ustensils 

__for household purposes - may be reckoned in pice. (23, 24) So klein d. 

I accumulated capital d. villagers u. selbst]dies oft due to the mahäjan. [.Mahäjan 

= merchant, money dealer - one who makes it his business in the villages to 

131 advance money and grain to the Ryot on the pledge of crop. (24) Extreme | poverty 

of by far the largest portion, i.e. the bulk of the population in Bengal (the richest 

part of India!) seldom rightly apprehended by the English people. The 

tropical climate u. the tropical facility of producing rice admit of life and a 

certain low type of health being maintained on a minimum of means. 7 rupees a 

month a sufficient income for support of a whole family; food the principal 

item of expense, u. probably one rupee 8 annas a month in most parts of Bengal 

sufficient to feed an adult man u. 12 annas a woman even in a well to do 

establishment. D. villagers, die cultivators, have mostly sufficient rice of their 

own growth for their home consumption; the little cash they require is the 

produce of the sale of the rabi (cold weather crops). Die andren villagers buy their 

rice unhusked (paddy) from time to time in small quantities, u. alle so ihr 

Salary Taback (wenn sie ihn nicht selbst bauen), gurh (coarse sugar of date 

tree, etc., hardened into a cake - molasses), oil, masala (spice, seasoning), 

fst täglich at the general dealer’s {modi) shop. (25) Für kaufen, wie of 

curry spices the pice or */4 anna (1 anna = 1/16 silver rupee), the lowest 

piece struck by the Mint, nicht sufficiently small u. cowries (Kauri a small 

shell, Cypraea, used as money) at the rate of about /,720 to the rupee 

_universally employed to supplement the currency. (26) 

In a large village 3 or 4 modis’ shops. (Sells auch liquid articles.) Beschreibung 

solchen shops. (25-28) 

Hat or market held in most villages twice a week; meist a tolerably open 

part of the village site; meist keine stalls for the protection of the sellers or 

their goods; when so simply long narrow lines of low shed roofs covering a 

raised floor, supported on bamboo posts, without any side walls. (28, 29) 

Zum hat bringt der producer his spare paddy, mustard1-seed, betel-nuts, 

sugar-cane, gurh-treacle, his chillies, gourds, yams; the fisherman his fish, the 

seedcrusher his oils, the old widow her mats and other handy work, the 

potter his gharas ( = a necked, narrow mouthed, earthen vessel) u. gamlas 

{gamla = open earthen vessel), the hawker his piece goods, bangles, etc; 

the town traders' agents u. the local modis come to increase their stocks, the 

rural folks to supply their petty wants, all gossip, not a few stay to drink 

(not rare this accomplishment in India). Each vendor sits crosslegged on the 

ground with his wares set out around him, u. for the privilege of this primitive 

stall he pays a certain small sum or contribution in kind to the owner of 

the hat, meist der Zamindär (proprietor of the rest of the village land). 

I D. profits derived from a popular hat sufficiently considerable (relative) 

249

to the ordinary rent to induce a singular competition on the part of the 

neighbouring Zamindärs; jeder will set up a hat, verbietet d. ryots 

Besuch der andren, führt oft zu Keilereien. (29, 30) 

Ist d. village, or any substantial portion of it, inhabited by Mussulmans, 

dann a masjid (mosque) in it; of brick, wenn a member der community 

defrays the cost of erecting it, meist of mat and bamboo; the mulla who 

officiates there may be a tradesman, or modi, gifted with a smattering of 

Arabic sufficient to read the Koran; ist in theory chosen by the mahalla 

(Muhammedan quarter), aber praktisch the office hereditary, remunerated 

dch small money payments made bei marriages u. other ceremonies. (31) 

Patshäla or hedge school; along a village path a group of 10-20 almost 

naked children, squatting under a pipal tree, near a homestead, or even 

under a thatched verandah dazu gehörig, engaged in marking letters on 

a plantain or a palm leaf, or in doing sums on a broken piece of foreign 

slate, od. even on the smoothed ground before them - the indigenous 

means of educating the rising generation. Instruction here given gratis, 

for contrary to an oriental's social and religious feelings of propriety that learning 

of any sort should be directly paid for; d. teacher an elderly Brahman: Guru 

Mahasoy; eigdich sollen nur Brahmanen u. andre twice born classes unterrichten, 

thut’s aber faktisch für outside classes für reading u. writing the 

vernacular, arithmetic, etc. gelegtlich verbindet ein modi mit seinem shop 

132 auch dies business mit Bezug | auf d. children squatting under the 

eaves of his shop hut. - D. instructor erhält bei special events in d. family 

v. d. parents of his pupils small presents of rice or däl ( = split pea, or any 

other split pulse), or even a piece of cloth; ditto when an urchin achieves a 

marked stage in his progress. (3 2,33) A Brahman gets in addition his share 

of the gifts to Brahmans, so serious an item of expense in the celebration of 

die many festivals obligatory on a well-to-do Bengali. (34) 

In parts of Bengal noted for Sanscrit learning, wie Vikrampur u. Nuddea 

etwas Aehnliches gleich wie oldfashioned Engl, grammar school some 

times met with; a turn of the village path brings you to a To I; dort in 

half open mat shed sit crosslegged on the raised wood floor, dozen Brahman 

youths decently clad, mit Sanscrit manuscripts on their laps, learning 

grammar; each remains 2 or 3 or even more years at this monotonous 

occupation wie transcribing sacred rolls, until he is able to pass to the 

home of deepest learnings Nobodweep. Master of the Tol, a Brahman Pundit 

who in obedience to the Hindu principle not only teaches but maintains 

his scholars, (34, 35), personally stets poor. (35) Er u. seine disciples 

leben v. d. Gaben d. richer Hindus in neighbourhood; whd 2 Monaten 

Ferien, besucht er sie der Reihe nach, u. never leaves a roof ohne Honorar 

von i Rupee, 2, selbst 20 je nach wealth of his host. (35, 36) 

One or more specimens of the Byragi and his female companion - coarse 

licensed beggars of a religious ascetic order, (aber meist lose Vögel) in 

d. meisten villages; in seiner homestead - one of the huts, thakurbdri of 

250

Krishna (incarnation of Vishnu) wo d. members of the very numerous sect 

of Boistubs od. Vaisnabas (Vishnubites) on certain festivals lay their 

offerings. The Byragiist der minister einer der sects which owe their origin 

to the great reformer Chaitanya about 300 years since. (36, 37) 

The homestead of the godla, or cowman, wovon several in a village, wie die 

seiner neighbours, ist cultivator wie most of them. Meist the cowshed 

actually brought up to the uthän and fill(s) one of the sides. D. cows being 

litde animals often not more than 3 feet high u. miserably thin are kept 

tethered close, side by side of each other in the open shed, there fed with 

dried grass, wetted straw, ausser when under the care of a boy they can on 

the waste places abt the village, and on the fallow khäts pick up what they 

find. A ll Hindus, if they can afford it, consume milk; after rice and pulse 

(däl bhät) it the staple food of the people; keine Butter noch Käse; der godla 

verkauft nicht nur Milch in raw state, sondern compounds auch d. various 

preparations of it, thickened; eine davon, dahi gleich a mass of thick 

clotted cream with all the fluid portion omitted is daily hawked about 

from homestead to homestead by the goälas in earthen gharas, carried 

scale fashion, or bahangi (a bamboo furnished with cords at each end, by 

means of which luggage is carried slung across the shoulder), suspended 

von d. 2 extremities of a bamboo across the shoulder. (38, 39) 

Blacksmith's shop: a thatched shed, with old iron and new of small dimensions 

lying about in confusion. Im centre des mud floor is a very small 

anvil, close to the fireplace, welcher a hole sunk in the ground. The no^le of 

the very primitive bellows is also let into the ground. The headsmith, 

sitting on a low stool or on his heels, works the bellows by pulling a 

string with one hand while with a tongs in the other he manipulates the 

iron in the fire, and then, still keeping his seat, turns to the anvil with a 

small hammer in his right hand; he performs the guiding part in fashioning 

the metal, and an assistant also squatting on his heels follows his 

lead with a larger hammer. The hammer heads are long, on one side only 

of the haft, and unbalanced by any make-weight, and the anvil is exceedingly 

narrow; yet the blows struck by both workmen with unerring 

precision. The villagers brauchen nur wenig in the shape of iron work; a few 

nails, the toes of the ploughs, cultivating hoes (kudalis), billhook or cleaver 

(dao)y the bonti (a broad sickle-shaped knife blade, fixed vertically into a 

heavy wooden stand. In use, the stand is held firm by the feet, and the fish, 

vegetable, straw or other article to be cleaned, sliced, or cut up, is with 

the hand duly worked against the concave cutting edge thus made fast.) of 

domestic and other use (fixed curved blade); all diese articles made or 

repaired by the village blacksmith. His stock of iron is mainly English | 

133~Thoop iron bought at the nearest town by him (or for him) which has come 

out to India in the shape of bands round the imported piece good bales. (39-41) 

“ Professionals” im village: not seldom the kabiraf or native doctor (of the 

Vaidya caste), trägt seine Pillen in paper packets in a tolerably large bundle 

251

(cover with (in) cover) in the end of his chadr od. chadra (a sheet or cloth) mit 

sich herum; many of his pills, compounded after receipts of antiquity, 

excellent specifics; der kabiraj macht vorher in jedem einzelnen Fall 

bargain, z.B. Re i od. 2 f. d. ordinary medicine mit 2 or 3 visits in an 

obstinate case of malarious fever. (41, 42) 

Astrologer, fst in jedem principal village; ist an Acharjee (Lugu Acharjee), 

but of a somewhat low class of Brahman, whose business is to paint 

the thakurs (idols) u. d. various traditional representations der deities; 

to prepare horoscopes etc. Andre paint pictures in water colours for 

decorative use bei great ceremonies performed by the richer families; 

keine Perspective, aber outline in colour well depicted on the flat; many8 of 

these men work together on a given subject for monthly pay of Rs 20-30; 

meist aber each prepares his pictures at leisure in his own home u. presents 

them when finished to some rich person, wfür er meist ample remuneration 

erhält. (42, 43) 

Gottesworship bei d. Mahommedanern congregational u. personal; the masjid, 

public preaching, united prayer u. adoration offered by individuals collected 

in congregations d. characteristic features. (43) 

Bei d. Hindus der Cultus domestic u. vicarious; the family idol, daily service 

in worship des idol performed by a priest for the family, and the periodic 

celebration of ceremonies in honour of that manifestation of the deity which 

the family adopt, wie for the deceased ancestors' souls, die principal ingredients. 

Unter d. wealthy Hindus the hereditary spiritual guide, the hereditary 

Purchit (family priest) and the service of the jewelled thakur form the 

keystone of the joint family structure, u. d. poor folks of a country village 

dasselbe in ärmlicher Form. Jeder respectable household that can afford 

the small expense has a rude thakur, or image of its patron deity placed in a 

separate hut of the homestead u. a Brahman comes daily to perform its 

worship u. service; d. village purohits - belonging to a lower caste of im- 

perfecdy educated Brahmans - an extremely ignorant set of men. In 

some districts mosdy foreign to the village, coming there from a distance, 

residing in it for a few years, then return home for an interval, providing 

a substitute or vicar whd ihrer period of absence; erhalten remuneration 

in the shape of offerings u. small fees, haben pretty good livelihood 

by serving several families at a time. Wie d. andren Brahmanen they 

come in for a share of the gifts distributed by wealthy men bei family 

ceremonies u. festivals. Grossentheils purohit erblich, stets so bei families 

of social distinction; diese haben mehre spiritual guides exclusively for 

themselves; the guru (spiritual instructor of the individual who gives 

him the mantra — a passage from the Veda, a prayer), d. higher class purohit 

who is a(ri) Acharjee u. conducts the periodic puja (Poojah = worship) 

festivals of the family in addition to the ordinary purohit who performs 

the daily service of the thakur. (44-46) 

252

The mass of the ryots who form the population of the village too poor to 

have a family deity, müssen sich begnügen part der audience zu bilden bei 

religious festivals celebrated by their richer neighbours, u. den annual 

pujas performed at the village mandap (an open sided roofed structure or building) 

on behalf of the community. (46) 

Mandal - the village headman; the chaukidar - the village watchman, or 

constable; the barber u. the washerman auch noch wichtige Personages, 

ebenso carpenter spotter, weaver, fisherman; jalhar-wala - one who has a right 

134 of fishing; pitch-worker, etc. | 

Zeminder and Mahajan 

The wooded dwelling area (des village) is skirted by waste or common land 

of very irregular breadth u. beyond this again comes the cultivated land of 

the open plain (math). Up to a certain line - of immemorial origin but 

ordinarily well ascertained - all the land both waste u. cultivated, reckoned 

outwards from the village, belongs to the village (als possession); on the 

other side of the line begins another community land. In Theilen von Bengal 

wo portions der country in a state of nature the limits des village territory 

include jungle u. sonst unappropriated land. (48, 49) 

The village and its land als Ganzes heissen a mauâh. (49) Dies land des 

mau%ah cultivated in small patches by the resident ryots on payments of dues, 

~ r according to the nature of the soil, and the purpose of the cultivation, to the 

I Zemindar; they are most commonly variable and capable of adjustment 

from time to time zwischen Zemindar u. Ryot. (50) (they) are classified 

mit extreme minuteness according to characters attached to the land by custom, 

not all concrete. (51) 

So: 

Salt - land wholly submerged whd period of rains - of different grades; Sunay 

not submerged, also of different grades; 

Nadki, land for which rent is paid in cash per bigah; 

Bhaoli, land for which rent paid in kindpart of the produce; - ebenso Bhaoli: 

land for which rent is paid in cash per crop per bigah. 

Bhiti - raised house-site9 land. (51) 

Khudkashty lands which the residents of the village are entitled to cultivate. 

Pahikasht - land which outsiders may cultivate. (52) 

Diese characters adhere almost permanently to the same land; for each village a 

recognised rate of rent (nirkh) properly payable according to them. When 

the occupation, wie meist der Fall mit Sunaland, on an utbandi jama (rent 

according to the land actually tilled, when land tilled one year is allowed to lie 

fallow t(he) next) u. d. cultivation is by alternation of cropping u. fallow, 

Zahlt d. Ryot nur so viel von jeder Sorte of lands as he actually tills. In most 

villages by far the larger portion of land is Khudkasht. (52) 

Also the open lands der village divided up among the resident ryots in 

small allotments, oft consisting of several scattered pieces, generally com- 

253

prehending land of various qualities - rarely über 10 acres in Total u. oft viel 

weniger, ... Zahlung d. Rente dch each ryot to Zemindar nach shifting scale, 

depending upon more or less of the elements mentioned. (53) 

*54 

Abbreviated example of the year's account zwischen ryot u. iêmindar 

Description of land Quantity Rate Amount 

of Rent 

Big. Cot Rs As P R s A P 

Sali, rice land, first quality 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 

Dtto - second qual. 1 1 0 3 0 0 3 2 2 

Dtto - third qual. 0 7 J 0 2 4 0 0 1 3 10 

Bamboo 0 6 0 1 5 0 0 4 8 0 

Waste 0 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 2 4 

Homestead 0 1 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 

Compound 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 

Excavation o 5J o 1 0 0 0 4 8 

Total 4 14 15 20 n o (285) 

In extenso füllt diese Geschichte (285, 286) 40 u. oft mehr Parallele 

Columns, mit column for arrears etc. (286) Matter of fact that the Bengal 

ryot little disposed to move u. for generation after generation, from father 

to son, the same plots of land, or approximatively so, remain in the hands of 

the same family. (53) 

The Zemindari is an aggregate of many entire mauâhs. (54) 

D. jährliche Rente meist gezahlt in 3 or 4 kists (instalments) d. collection 

13 5 j dieser Rents nur | ausführbar dch an organised staff\ commonly called, both 

individually and collectively, the zemindar’s, or amla; besteht 

gewöhnlich aus: einem Tehsildar {collector of the rents; if the Zamindari large, 

one Tehsildar collects für je 3 or 4 mauzahs.) 

In jedem village od. Mau%ah a Tehsildar’s kachari [(auch called “ Cutchary”) 

nämlich a court or office ,where public business, or the business of a zemindar’s 

estate (wie hier), is done]; dort the zamindari books and papers 

relative to the village collection made up and kept. Bookkeeping von 

Hindus carried to an almost absurd extent of detail; would be tedious to 

describe all the books kept in due course of the kachahri business; the principal 

of them are: 3 or 4 books genannt Chittha (Memorandum - name of a business 

book used in the management of a Zamindar’s property, in which 

measurements and other like information are entered); dies ist in fact a 

numbered register in various ways and in minute detail of all the small 

dags or plots into which the village lands are divided, the measurement of each, 

its situation, the quality of the land, the ryot who cultivates it, etc, the last of

them being the khatiyan (an account book of the nature of a ledger), or 

ledger, which gives under each man's name all the different portions of land 

held by him, with their respective characteristics. The jama bändig a sort 

of assessment paper made up for each year, with the view of showing for 

every ryot, as against each portion of the land held by him, the rate at 

which it is held, according to quality or crop, and also to exhibiting the 

total amount which in this way becomes due from him, and the Jkists in 

which it is to be paid; and the jama-wasil-baki (resuming the principal 

statements of the jama bandi - an account paper showing simultaneously 

the full rent, the amount collected, and the amount of arrears, in respect 

of an estate, village, or district. A Bengali account book is formed by 

sewing together with a cord any number of very long narrow loose sheets 

at one of their ends, and when it is closed the free ends of the sheets are 

folded back upon the ends which are thus bound. (//-/7) 

The Gumashta (Gomashta) [generally agents one who carries on business 

for another] u. Patwar: [one who keeps the collection papers of a mauâh, 

and commonly also makes the collections of the village), or similar offices, 

whatever their different names in different districts, are charged with 

keeping up the kachahri-books according to the varying circumstances of 

the ryots’ holdings; haben daher d. ganze Jahr dch (als spies des Zemindar 

!) a sharp eye upon the ryots’ doings. As a rule diese Burschen selbst 

belong to the class of village ryots u. sind selbst cultivators. Findet 

sich hence that the plots in their hands are the best in the village; ihr “proper 

work” verhindert sie selbst to cultivate u. they are “supposed” to pay other 

ryots tilling the soil for them; sie mogeln meist dass dies gratis geschieht; 

erschleichen u. erpressen sich auch “the offer of gratifications” . In so 

weit dies office hereditary, dass generally the son succeeds the father; aber 

das meist nothwendig, weil selten mehr als i od 2 andre unter d. villagers 

das für dies Geschäft nöthige Quantum v. Lesen u. Schreiben besitzen. 

(57-59) 

D. Zamindar ist d. “ superior lord” der ryots (“ subjects”) both by habit 

and feeling glebae adscripti; seine Authorität u. die seines amla in Zaum 

gehalten dch den mandal (gewöhnlichste Bezeichnung, wechselt aber mit 

District), the village headman, mouthpiece u. representative der ryots des 

village in all matters between them and the zemindar or his officers. 

D. Mandal cultivator wie d. übrigen ryots, keineswegs d. reichste unter ihnen; 

sein office10 in theory wählbar, in fact fst invariably von father to son u. so 

hereditary aus selbem Grund dass alle occupations u. employments in India 

hereditary. Er muss hinreichend lesen u. schreiben u. d. Zamindari 

accounts verstehen können u. Bekannt sein mit d. customary rights der 

villagers; erhielt nicht directes emolument, aber d. ryots helfen ihm von 

Zeit zu Zeit gratuitously in his cultivation, zahlt oft auch geringere Rent 

als d. ändern ryots. Der mandal u. a few of the elder men constitute the 

village panchayat, by whom the most ordinary disputes u. quarrels are 

*55

adjusted. [Er erklärt Panchayat a body of five caste men, villagers or others, 

who deal (with) and settle disputes relating to caste, occupation etc.] 

In more obstinate cases the mandal and the parties go to the zemindar or 

his representative the naib [Deputy or representative - the head officer or 

steward representing the zemindar in the management of large zemin- 

136 daries] orgumashta, for discussion and | arbitration.11 So ohne d. theuren 

public courts viel Justizadministration in d. rural districts of Bengal 

abgemacht. (59-61) Residirt der Zemindar im Dorf, so oft d. barber who 

shaves the members of his family, the dhobi who washes for them, the 

head darwan (porter) and other principal servants - sind hereditary, haben 

portion of village land zu relative (ly) low rent or rent free. Der dhobi u. 

barber have the right to be employed at customary rates of pay by all the 

ryots; oft carpenter u. blacksmith in gleicher Lage; d. hereditary watchman 

(chaukidar) erhält sein Land rentfree; ebenso Brahman priest, whether of 

the Zemindar’s family, or maintained for the village pujas etc. (61, 62) 

(Dieser Esel Phear nennt d. Constitution d. village feudal). Ausserhalb 

dieser Village Constitution d. Mahajan, der village capitalist. D. village ryot 

muss periodisch Geld auslegen; z.B. a Hütte des homestead neu zu bauen 

or to repair, Pflug od. anderes Instrument zu machen, Paar bullocks zu 

kaufen, Saat für Aussaat nöthig, endlich Reis für sich u. Familie, several 

kists of his rent to be paid before all his crops can be secured and realised. Im 

western part des Delta reichen seine savings selten hin to tide him aus 

über die Periode die verfliessen muss bevor seine jährliche Produktion einkommt. 

Muss also zum Mahäjan gehn for money and for paddy as he wants them. 

Gewöhnlichste Transactions weise zwischen beiden Seiten: d. paddy for 

sowing andfor food u. auch andre Saamen, wd geliefert unter Bedingung dass 

er sie returnirt + ;o % in quantity ûr Herbstungsêit; Geld andrerseits to be 

repaid, auch at harvest time, mit 2% per Monat Zins entweder in Form von 

Equivalent of Paddy, reckoned at Bazaar prices, or in cash at the option of the 

lender. Als security für Execution dieses Uebereinkommens nimmt der 

Mahäjan häufig hypotheke auf des ryot's future crop u. er hilft sich selbst to 

the stipulated amount on the very threshing floor, in the open field. (63, 64) 

D. Zemindar - dieser falsche engl, landlord - merely a rent-charger; d. ryot 

a field-labourer, living from hand to mouth; d. mahäjan, der d. farming 

Capital liefert, d. Arbeit %ahlt u. alien Profit einsteckt, ist ein stranger, having 

no proprietary interest in the land; a creditor only, whose sole object is to 

realise his money as advantageously as possible. After setting aside in 

his go las (gola = a hut, meist circular in form, in which grain is stored) as 

much of the produce come to his hands, as he is likely to need for his next 

year's business, he deals12 with the rest simply als cornfactory sending it to the 

most remunerative market. A thriving mahäjan may have a whole mau%ah 

or more under his hand - and yet he has no legitimate proprietary status in the 

community, while those who have - the ryot ... and the %emindar for 

different reasons are apparently powerless. (64-65) Hence, d. unprogressive 

256

xx) character of an agricultural village, so beschrieben by a young zemindar, 

Bobu Peary Chund Mookerjee, Beng. Soc. Sei. Trans., v. I V , jw. /. 

“A husbandman of the present day is the primitive being he always (!) has 

been. With a piece of rag round his loins for his clothing, bare feet, a 

miserable hut to live in, and a daily fare of the coarsest description, he 

lives a life unruffled by ambition. If he gets his two meals and plain 

clothing he is content with his lot, and if he can spare a few rupees for 

purchasing jewellery for his wife and children, and a few rupees more for 

religious ceremonies, he will consider himself as happy as he can wish 

to be. He is the greatest enemy of social reform [? wäre nicht enemy of getting 

himself the rent to pay to Zemindarees, old or young!]13, and never 

dreams of throwing off the trammels which time or superstition has 

spun around him. He will not send his son to school for fear [and a very 

just one, too!] of being deprived of his manual assistance in the field; 

he will not drink the water of a good tank because he has been accustomed 

to use the water of the one14 nearer to his house; he will not sow a crop 

of potatoes or sugar-cane because his forefathers never did it; he will 

x) allow himself to be unmercifully fleeced by his hereditary priest to secure the hope 

of utter annihilation after death__ The ryots too poor (!), too ignorant, too 

disunited among themselves to effect... improvement.” (65-67) 

Domestic Life 

Wealthy enterprising %amindars sehr selten im Mofussil [or Mafassal = the 

country as opposed to the town; the subordinate as opposed to the principal]. 

137 The Hindu | gentleman of the Bengali village, the landed proprietor of the 

locality, had income von Rs 100 to Rs 200 per Jahr höchstens; nicht immer 

a pakka house; his property is probably a share of the village, or of several 

villages together, held on some tenure; his net income = d. remainder of the 

collections he has made from the ryots after he has paid thejama [od .jamma = the 

aggregate of payments made for land in the year - the total rent\ of his 

tenure to his superior or to the Government, as the case may be. (68, 69) 

Bhadralog,, respectable well to do people, who are not Brahmans; 

Andar mahäl [D. Wort Mahalla = a division of a town, a quarter], the 

portion of the house or homestead allotted to the female members of the 

family, which strangers and non-privileged males are not allowed to enter. 

Ashan = a square piece of carpet; thdla metal plate or dish;pan = a betel 

leaf. Tiffin = a refreshment; bau = young married girl; hart = a dwelling 

house, homestead. 

Universal habit in Bengal prevalent in all classes for the members of a family to 

livejoint and to enjoy the profits ofpropertyjointly. Z.B. in Ryofs family: nach 

Tod d. Vaters, seine Söhne, früher dependent members of the family 

living in the same homestead and assisting the father in the cultivation 

of his jot ( = jote = both the land which the cultivator tills, and his tenure 

of it), continue in same homestead, cultivating the same jot, but now as 

owners. Manchmal tragen sie ihre Namen collectively ein statt dessen 

257

d. Vaters in d. book of the zamindar’s kacbahri; manchmal the dead man’s 

name remains there unaltered. Jeder brother, with his wife and children, if 

possible, occupies a separate hut in the homestead, u. so oft nöthig für dies 

purpose, an additional hut added to the group. (76, 77) D. brothers by law 

entitled to equal shares of inheritance in the whole of any heritable property they 

have thus taken in common, and each has a right at any time to compel a 

~T~partition. Stirbt einer d. Brüder, his sons, wenn er keine hat, his widow, step 

' into his place and represent him in all respect(s). (77) Generation auf 

generation ftghnd würde dies a complex distribution of undivided shares 

hervorbringen; aber bei ryots kommt’s rasch zu End, the smallness of 

the original subject rendering the aliquot parts insignificant. Eh es so 

weit, d .jüngeren members der family give up or sell their shares to the others 

u. suchen sich andere Beschäftigung. Ist d. jot inheritable in its nature, 

so d. joindy living members of family actually divide the land unter einander 

--according to their shares and cultivate separately. So d. Land in some villages 

subdivided into absurdly small plots u. this evil has a natural tendency to 

increase. (78) 

In wohlhabenden Familien mit bedeutenden Besitzgen, sei es in Handel od. 

in Zamindaries u. other landed tenures, the state of “jointhood” dauert 

gewöhnlich lang. The whole property managed by one member of the 

family called the “ karta,” meist d. älteste Individuum der ältesten Branche; 

theoretisch responsible to the entire body of joint co-sharers, jeder von 

denen kann einsehn d. family books of accounts u. papers regularly kept 

in a sort of office (daftarkhana) by the family servants; selten jedoch one 

interferes, bis quarrel, dann fought out mit acrimony, partition effected, 

and accounts insisted upon. As a rule the co-sharers content to be supported 

in the family house, out of the family funds, each getting, as he 

wants, sufficient small sums of money for ordinary personal expenses. 

Das money saved nach disbursement of the general family u. proprietary 

expenses, is invested by the karta in the purchase of some addition to the 

joint property; d. Geld required for extraordinary family ceremonies or 

religious performances commonly raisd dch d. karta in the form of a 

loan charged on the common property. (78-80) Dies domestic community 

oft sehr numerous; erstens d. co-sharers, Brüder, Neffen u. male cousins 

deren fathers’ shares have devolved upon them u. d. widows or daughters of 

co-sharers, verstorben ohne Söhne oder Enkel; zweitens: the mixed dass 

of dependent members - wives and children of existing co-sharers, wives 

and daughters of former co-sharers (whose shares went to sons') and individuals 

labouring under any infirmity disqualifying them from inheriting. In 

Calcutta u. selbst im Mofussil Beispiele von familien v. 300-400 Individuen, 

incl. servants, living in one house. Meist zählt d. family 50-100. (80, 81) | 

138 Deorhi [entspricht der French conciergerie; nämlich in entrance passage of 

old family houses, oft auf beiden Seiten a raised floor mit 1 od. 2 open 

cells worin d. darwans (door keepers) sit, lie u. sleep, in fact dwell.] 

258

Puja dalan: die verandah, deren chief purpose to serve as a stage for the 

performance of religious and domestic ceremonies. 

Shamiana. (Tent ca(ri)vas stretched horizontally across, as a covering from 

side to side of a quadrangle, or from top to top of poles, firmly fixed in 

the ground-awning. 

Thakurbäriy chamber where the figure of the family deity (thakur) resides 

u. where its daily service u. worship is performed. Weiber dürfen nicht 

selbst worship the family idol or any visible thakur, ausser der clay figure 

of Siwa made for every day worship. The Shastras forbid to women and 

Sudras all knowledge and use of sacred texts. 

Hat d. Familie 3 or 4 generations removed von d. common ancestor 

erreicht, so there several heads of branches; diese branches settle themselves by 

stirpes, in separate parts of the house under their own heads; manchmal 

d. Separation so complete that the portion of the house allotted to each 

branch is parted off from the remainder of the house by blocking up of 

doors, and by the opening of a separate entrance. Each group as a rule 

messes by itself, and every adult member of it has a room to himself in 

which he lives, all the female members together in the inner apartments, 

commonly called among Europeans the Zenana. All the branches usually 

keep joint with regard to the worship of the family deity. Und selbst when the 

branches sever in everything - i.e. in foodt worship, and estate - the same family 

deity is commonly retained by all, and the worship conducted by the different 

branches in turn, each turn proportionate in duration to the owners' share in the 

joint property. Z.B. if family in its divided state is represented by 4 heads, 

2 brothers, and their 2 nephews, sons of a 3d brother deceased, the turn or 

pallas of worship would be respectively 4 months, 2 months and15 2 months 

or equimultiples of these. (85, 86) 

Nur in Calcutta u. ändern sehr large towns the family swarm continues in 

the family hive at such dimensions. Aber in country villages, wo d. Za- 

mindar’s family sich maintained for many generations, much about the 

same thing occurs. (86) 

Maidany an open grass-covered space; mandir a temple; mandap an open 

sided roofed structure, or building. Majlis an assembly.18 Mohan the 

superior of a math (an endowed temple or shrine; math dag(e)gen the 

open arable plain, forming the cultivated land of a village.) Gaddi, a seat. 

Grave and Gay. 

Inordinate love of spectacles. (89) Drinking to a considerable extent. “In a 

portion of the Veds the delights of intoxication are dwelt upon, and some 

of the tantric writings devoted to the encouragement of drink.... tari 

spirit made from many sorts of saccharine juices, especially the juice of the 

tari palm, is made largely in every village by crude native methods, is 

evidently of purely home origin. (90) 

Bengali of all ranks like gambling; cards u dice the common form prevailing 

with the middle classes. (91) 

259

In Bengal 2 distinct sects unter the Muhammedans, Sunis u. Shias; both a good 

deal given to observances u. practices of Hinduism; the Bengali Musulmdn 

is nothing but a roughly converted Hindu. In d. besten u. fruchtbarsten 

Theilen des Delta d. mohammedan. Element über 60% d. Bevölkerg,, im rest 

of Bengal Proper ist es 30-40%; in einigen districts d. villages ganz 

muhammed. od. ganz Hindu, aber more commonly hat jedes village sein 

Mahommed. Quarter u. sein Hindu quarter (91, 92) 

Viele sects auch unter d. Hindus (92) pretty universally in the rural villages 

Boistobs (mit immense number of varieties u. subdivisions), Saktas, Sivas, 

Ganapatyas etc. (93) D. chief development d. Boistobs - deren Vishnu ist 

the Brahma (Krishna eine seiner incarnations) originated mit Chaitanya, 

who preached purity, meditation, and the equality of all men, without distinction 

of sect or caste, before God. And a certain freedom from caste 

trammels, and disregard of religious observances, with an appreciation of 

the importance of conduct, still seem to characterise the sect. The Boistobs 

have been, and even now are being, recruited from all castes, but taken 

together in all their varieties ... are commonly reckoned as a sort of caste by 

themselves. (94) 

D. Saktas vielleicht d. majority der village inhabitants; jetzt a great deal 

united with the Saivas, die upon Siva (the Destroyer) look as the primary 

and more exalted form of Brahma u. d Saktas speciell verehren d. divine 

nature in its activity, the female forms of the supreme deity, as Durga od. 

139 Kali. D. Sivaite u. Sakta worship | in a marked degree a worship of 

dogma, gorgeous ceremony u. bloody sacrifices etc. D. Boistobs den 

Saktas gegenüber “Protestanten” . (94, 95) 

D. monastic order is celibate u. in great degree erratic od. mendicant, 

hat aber anchorage places u. headquarters in the maths (Ursprünglich 

Bedeutung von math scheint Cell oder Chamber wie von Eremit); 

heutzutag typisch math ist an endowed temple or shrine mit a dwelling place 

for a superior (the Mohant) u. his disciples (Chelas); d. endowment d. 

math entweder result of a private dedication, oder aber of a grant by an 

a

vestry room) occur; manchmal ist’s pakka struct(u)re, meist of bamboo u. 

thatch; ist usually kept up by the Zamindar. (I.e.) 

Rural crime. Dakait: [.Dakait one of a gang of robbers] or gang robbery 

(anglice: dacoity.) (badmashes = the bad characters of a village; pitara: a 

wicker work or other slightly-constructed box of peculiar shape] (p. 102- 

105) Verfahren (charakteristisch!) d. Polizei (105-107) D. Gericht (108- 

1 10) Mookhtar = law agent. 

Mord for vindicating family honour (relates to womankind), (m -115 ) 

Purely agrarian outrage more common than any other. “A strong sense of 

vested right unprotected by the arm of the law leads in India as elsewhere to 

the endeavour at vindicating it by violence.” (115) Krakehle (blutige) 

unter d. Ryots selbst. (115-118) Affray of the Zamindar's people on d. Mandal 

(headman of the village) a mau%ah had been sold in execution of a decree, 

a stranger had purchased it; d.new Zamindar takes measures for enhancing 

the rents of his ryots; war successful at obtaining kabulyats \kabulyat = the 

counterpart of a pottah or lease, nämlich given by the tenant to his landlord] at 

increased rates from several ryots, aber der mandald. village, dessen example 

most influential, sturdily held out and led the opposition. Gegen ihn 

schickt d. Zamindar seine retainers, with the view of capturing him and 

__carrying him off. (p. 118, 119) Endet mit Mord v. ein paar Leute, aber 

Mandal Sieger, (p. 119, 120) Andrer case wo d. Ryots gegen d. Mandal 

weil er zu sehr die Seite d. Zamindar in certain matters nehme; therefore 

resolved in “ committee” that he should be punished and warned, 

lassen ihn dch einige “ charged” damit dch prügeln, (wobei er t) (120, 

I2l) 

Faction fight zwischen d. Ryots verschiedner tenure-holders (p. 121, 123) 

(T odtschlägerei). 

Jangal (Jungle = a wood, any tract, large or small, wo d. natural growth 

of trees, bushes, and vegetation undisturbed. 

Bhat = boiled rice; bigha, a land measure, in Bengal = about 1/3 acre; 

Arhar = kind of pulse (cytisus cajan) grown for food. 

Administration and Landlord, (dies der letzte Abschnitt (VI) dieses Buchs 

der schon vorher in Calcutta Review gedrückt.) 

A Zillah district in India, fälschlich compared to an Engl, county, umfasst 

area von 2-3000 □ m. u. has population von (1 to) 2 millions, f. i.,whd 

Co. of Suffolk, z.B., hat nur area v. 1,414 □ m. w. population of some 360,000. 

Alle European officers of a Zillah höchstens a do%en [wovon 1/2 about kept 

by their duties at the Zillah station], viz. 1 magistrate and collector18 mit 

3 od. 4 joint, assistant u. deputy magistrates, 1 district and sessions judge, 1 small 

court, or subordinate judge, 1 superintendent of police, 1 assistant superintendent 

of police u. i medical officer. (125) 

[Selten “has one of them a real command of the vernacular language.” 

No tax gatherers in India (save those recently introduced mit d. imposition 

261

of a license tax); all taxes sind land revenue, stamps (needed for every proceeding 

in a court of justice or public office or copy of any paper filed in 

a court or office or document of agreement or receipt etc), Customs u. 

excise (d. tari u. Sal% für Ryot vertheuert). Kürzlich Steuervermehrung dch 

imposition of a road cess, a small rateable addition to the rent of each ryot, 

which he pays to his rentreceiver, dieser an Government. (128, 129) 

A portion of the rent, every cultivator of the soil pays for his plot, goes to 

Government as land revenue; es bezieht about 2o1/2 Millions £ St p. annum 

140I in the shape of land revenue. (133) | Vor d. Bengal setdement of 1793 

d. Zemindar bekanntlich nur Steuercollector, nicht landlord. Bursche 

Phear says: “The area of his Zamindari covered large districts of country, 

and was reckoned not by bighas but in communities of men - mauâhs” . Seine 

“money proceeds” wden nicht “ spoken of as rent, sondern als jamas 

(collections) of the included villages; seine assets were “made up of the 

_jamas of the sub-tenures, and the collections of the villages.” (135) The 

zamindar’s village kachahri (schon vor d. Engländern) was an office in 

each mau%ah, with a headman, an accountant, and a field officer. (Hatten d. 

früher beschriebnen duties d. jetzigen Collectors etc. des Zemindar). 

D. kachahris von je 5 or 6 mauzahs, je nach deren size, were supervised 

by a superior officer, say a Tehsildar, who had his own kachahriy with its 

books u. papers, either duplicates of, or made up from those of, the 

mauâh kachahris. D. collections effected by the officers of the village 

kachahri were handed over to him, and he passed them to a next high 

officer. So the money arrived at last at the Zamindar’s own kachahri; out of 

them he paid the Gvt revenue due from his Zemindari, and kept the rest 

for himself. (13 8) Each middleman was so the apex and head of a structure 

precisely like the principal structure in form and constitution, nur 

mit a smaller basis. A slightly disturbing force might serve to detach it 

and leave it standing by itself, or to put it into an appendant condition. 

(139) (See also: Hunter'. “ Orissa” ) Lang vor d. Engländern the original simplicity 

of the zemindari system lost; there were Zemindaris u. taluqs of 

several orders and designations paying revenue directly to Gvt; innerhalb 

derselben wieder subordinate taluqs u. tenures converted from the condition 

of being parts of a homogeneous collecting machine into semiindependence, 

u. zahlend in that character a recognised jama directly to 

the superior kachahri statt to send on to it in ordinary course their respective 

collections. (141) 

(By u. by) jeder subordinate jama-paying “ mahal” or tenure wde bald a 

miniature %amindari, worin gewisse jamas were taken in lieu of collections, 

and the remaining collections were made by the old machinery. Waste 

Land grants or conversions were also the origin of taluqs, both dependent and 

independent, and so, too, jaghir grants for services. (141, 142) 

Innerhalb d. village selbst - mit Bezug auf d. occupation of land - an 

analogous process came into operation. The principal persons of the 

262

zemindari amla and the headmen of the ryots (mandals), or others of influence, 

and privileged persons such as Brahmans, often got recognized as holding 

upon fixed and favourable terms larger portions of the village lands than they could 

or did cultivate. These they sublet, wholly or in part, and so arose 

varieties of “jots” u. ryottee tenures. (142) Vor d. legislation of 1793 d. 

middle tenures, wie sie damals existed, depended for their maintenance 

upon usage and the personal power and influence of the holder. The ryottee 

tenures u. jots ditto regulated by usage, the arbitrament of the village 

panchayat u. the Zamindari amla; alles customary, involving nothing of 

__personal proprietary right. (142, 143) D. Verwandlung - dch d. English 

rogues and asses - der Zemindaris in private proprietors machte eo ipso 

(wenn auch nicht in Idee jener asses) all intermediate interests zu rights in 

land, u. the owner of any such interest could encumber the land or 

alienate it within the limit of the right; seine ownership selbst konnte 

wieder d. complex Hindu joint-parcenary form annehmen. (147, 148) 

A middle tenure or interest below the revenue paying Zamindar is 

essentially the right, on payment of the proper jama to a superior holder, 

to make collections from the cultivators of land and to take the jamas from 

subordinate holders within a specified area. (148) The middle tenure of 

every degree is thus in a great measure an account book matter, and is very 

completely represented by the jamabandi paper. Will the owner of such a 

property benefit a child or a family connection, so kann er es thun by 

making him a mokarari (that which is fixed or established - permanent) 

grant, in some form, of a portion of his collections. (149) Allzumeist the 

tenure of the grantor himself amounts only to a right to a fractional share of 

the rents, etc, and then his grant [made to child etc] will pass a fraction of 

a fraction. (149-150) Such a tenure holder mag auch make a grant dieser Art 

to a stranger in consideration of a bonus or premium. Er mag’s auch thun um 

to ensure to himself, in the shape of the rent reserved on the subject of grant, the 

regular receipt of money wherewith to pay his own jama. Oder er mag, by 

way of affording security for the repayment of a loan of money made to him, 

temporarily assign to the lender unde(r) a %ar-i-peshgi ticca his tenure right of 

making collections. In these or similar modes, the Bengali tenure-holder, 

141 proprietor, %emindar, | u. whatever else the name, is obliged to deal with 

his interest where he wants to raise money, or to confer a benefit; veräussert er 

also nicht ganz u. gar the entirety of his interest, wozu er nur selten 

Zuflucht nimmt, wenn er es vermeiden kann - so klar that in each instance 

he creates a fresh set of proprietary rights. (150) 

Was ferner a middle tenure or right of land als Gegenstand of joint ownership 

angeht, so z.B. eine ganê share of a village (oder of any number of villages) 

sei = 16 annas ( = 1 Re); nun habe einer a fractional share, say a ^1/2 annas 

share; dies kann statt haben in } od. 4 verschiednen Formen. Es kann bedeuten, 

1): the tenure holder has a mokarari (permanent) right to the rents 

and dues arising out of a specified portion of the area of the village which is 

263

separated from the rest by metes and bounds, and bears to the entirety the 

proportion of ^1/2: 16. Oder: 2) in certain parts of the area covered by the 

grant he has a sole right to the rents, and in other parts to a fractional portion 

only, so arranged that in the whole he gets 91/2 out of 16 annas of the entire 

profits of the area, etc. Meist incidental to his right, dass er das ihm zuständige 

can collect by his own officers at his own kachahri; vielleicht hat er 

aber auch nur d. Recht to draw his fractional share of the net collections made 

2X2ijoint-kachahrib&\ong\.ngy so to speak, to several share-holders. (151,152) 

Aber der owner dieser mokarari tenure of ^x/2 annas of property usually a 

joint-family, or a group of persons representing an original joint-family; 

alle Glieder solcher Gruppe haben jedes seine eigne share in the tenure, which, 

although existing in a state undivided from the rest, is capable of being 

assigned to a purchaser separately from them. Ausserdem, very often, 

each member of the group can, as between himself and his shareholders, 

insist upon having an actual partition of the subject of tenure. Sobald dies 

gesichehen wird er by himself separately entided to a fraction z.B. der 91/2 

anna tenure; sage zu 1/6 derselben; dann seine besondere share of the rents 

and profits accruing from the area covered by the tenure, subject of course to the 

payment of the superior rent or jama, is 1/6 of 91/2 annas = 1 anna 7 pie. 

So d. mauâh selbst, the unit in terms of which the zamwda caculated, 

comes to be divided into small portions; u. der rent receiver who stands to 

a particular ryot in the position of %amindar kann sein u. ist oft a very small 

man indeed. Z.B. der ryot may have to pay the whole of his rent to the 

patwari of the / anna 7 pie shareholder, or to pay 1 anna 7 pie out of 16 annas 

of his rent to him, and the remainder to the other shareholders separately, 

or in groups; or he may have to pay the entirety of his rent to the joint- 

kachahri from which each shareholder will get his share on division. (153, 

*54) 

This system of sub-infeudation and subdivision of joint-interests, 

accompanied by severalty of right, prevails universally throughout Bengal. (154) 

Daher beispiellose complexity of landed interests u. keiner hat ein 

Interesse improvements d. land zu machen. (I.e.) Unter diesem System 

d. locally resident zamindars generally small shareholders of subordinate 

tenures, deren means nicht greatly superior to those of the well-to-do 

ryots. (155) 

Die lands of a village broadly unterscheidbar in 2 sets: the ryottee lands (the 

bulk of the village area, the village lands) einerseits, u. andrerseits the 

Zamindar’s [in letzter instance der dem government revenue-paying 

Zamindar] Land, %iraat, khamar, nijjot, or sir-lands (auch noch andre terms 

dafür). (155, 156) In Bengal heisst d. erstere Land meist the ryot’s “jot” . 

(156) Wenn dieser wieder sub-lets, so his lessee derives everything from 

him and goes out of possession with him whenever he goes, erhält also 

nur a sub-tenure properly so called. (157) By legislative enactment, actual 

occupation of the same land for a period of 12 years confers upon the ryot 

264

(if he has it not otherwise, by custom etc) a personal right of occupation on 

payment of a fair and reasonable rent; and occupation for 20 years at a 

uniform rate of rent generally confers a right of occupation at that rate. A 

very large number of ryots in Bengal have in one way or another acquired 

permanent right of occupancy in the land which they cultivate, but the remainder 

, a larger number, merely occupy, on payment of the rents and dues which 

usually have been paid to the zamindar’s kachahri in respect of their land; 

meist much less in rate than rents paid by agricultural tenants in Engld. Zamin- 

dar kann theoretically verlangen was ihm gutdünkt before the commencement 

of every year, u. turn this class of ryot out, if he does not agree, but 

seldom does so. (157-158) On %iraat, khamar, nij-jot, or sir-lands zamindar 

kann d. Land auf eigne Rechng bebauen, or put in cultivators on any terms 

which they agree to accept; sie sind seine tenants, er ihr landlord im 

(europäischen) ordinary sense of the word; hier hat d. zamindar unqualified 

ownership in land ... In ryottee lands the use belongs to the ryots. 

142 (158-159) I In einigen Theilen Bengals, jots od. ryottee interest in considerable 

tracts of unclaimed jungle, or otherwise waste lands, have at times been 

granted, of a perpetual character, upon insignificant rents; dies land afterwards 

sublet to cultivators. In solchen Fällen nicht zu unterscheiden between 

the jot-dar u. an ordinary middle-tenure-holder. (159) 

Ways and Means. 

Fast absence of the means of intercommunication between village and 

village, and between one portion of a rural district and another. (161) 

There is not a stone, or anything harder than clay, to be found in the soil of the 

delta; and the floods of the rainy season break down, and sometimes almost 

obliterate, such roadways as have not been expensively constructed 

by skilled engineers. (161, 162) 

The vehicle(s) in use for the carriage of goods are boats, the heads of men 

and women, little tiny bullocks, and bambu carts of very rude construction; when 

well-to-do people travel they are carried in palkis and doolies, or go by 

boat. In the dry season, the men, the bullocks, and the carts can and do go 

anywhere. The local traffick usually takes place in detail of very small 

quantities. The dana (= grain) or other seed is trodden out by the bullocks 

at the khaliän almost on the plot where it is grown. [In some districts wie 

in Chota Nagpore, a rude handflail is used for thrashing grain]; and both 

the grain and the straw are very easily carried to the homestead on the 

heads of the various members of the ryot’s family. The surplus produce, if 

any, of the ryot which does not go to his mahajan passes in little items to 

the nearer häts, and so becomes diffused over the neighbouring mau%ahs> 

or is carried on further to the larger hats, the mahajan u. the modi affording 

the only village depots. The larger hats again, or local centres of country 

produce trade, are commonly situated on roads or khäls. The produce trader 

here, by his agents, gathers in the results of his scattered purchases, and sends it 

265

away in carts or boats; and thus the outflow takes place very evenly. 

(163, 164) 

It is often said, on occasions of scarcity or famine, that the stream will not reverse 

itself when necessary. (164) Aber d. Sache die: A s long as the ryots are able 

to pay the requisite retail price, the village mahdjans u. modis will succeed in 

keeping up their stocks, whatever the local deficiency may be. (164, 165) Aber 

wenn season of scarcity approach (es) sind beide, mahajan u. modi “ inactive” . 

They know very accurately the extent of their clients’ and customers’ 

means. D. mahajan naturally enough declines to increase his stock at 

great cost to himself, when his clients are already hopelessly involved in debt to 

him; u. d. village modi for like reason will not lay in a stock at abnormal 

prices to retail it to those who cannot pay for what they purchase. This 

state of things would be completely changed if neither the mahajan nor the village 

dealer had reason to doubt the ability of the ryot to pay a remunerating price for 

imported food. (165) It is the occurrence of pauperism in the ryots, when a 

certain price of food-stuffs is reached, which throws the ordinary machinery 

__ out of gear. (166) 

Was aber in times of scarcity the Government activity betrifft etc [paralysirt 

diese sich selbst to a great extent, dies der sense of the “ Kohl” of Phear, 

aber sehr richtig dies.] Was thut Gvt in emergencies of this sort? Errichtet 

“ relief works on a large scale, where great numbers of people, 

drawn from their homes, are massed together within limited areas; grain in 

considerable quantities ist transported from the outside to certain local centres, 

for the support of those engaged on the works and for the distribution 

so far as practicable by the hands of the local committees. (166) D. 

preparations des Government für dies unusual work themselves very greatly 

hinder ordinary traffic in rural lines of route; boats and carts, etc have to be 

collected - even impressed - in all directions, and become locked up for days and 

weeks, before they are actually wanted, damit sie certainly ready when needed. 

I So, nicht nur while Gvt is importing, sondern long before it commences to do so, 

• private enterprise is left without a vehicle. (166, 167) D. Govmnt method of 

proceeding hat direct tendency to remove the pressure upon the village mahajans 

u. modis u. to make the market which they supply noch unsichrer, indem d. 

Gvt draws away as many persons as possible, u. zwar d. ablebodied rather than 

the infirm, from their homes, u. wirkt ebenso by supplying grain. - As soon 

as Gvt announces its anticipation of a famine and its intention to take 

extraordinary measures of prevention, all natural effort at the village end of 

143 the system ceases. (168) | Peon (for Piada) = footman (inferior servants of a 

Zemindar or landholder); sandük or sinduk = a wooden chest; 

Ryot = Raiyat, originally a subject, jetzt peasant; 

Rabi od. Rubbee: The March or A pril period of the year; the harvest season 

of the crops sown or planted after the cessation of the monsoon rains in September 

or October of the preceding year. 

266

Talüq = a dependency; Tehsildar or Tahsildar, one who collects rents 

or revenue. 

Top, od. tope, o

268 

pj o O O O 

2 w ^ o ■*· o 

Hr · r*. m \o w-s 

w>H ^ ° ° 

(2 S' xr 

_ _ o o 

• 3 ^ ‘ SOBQ ^ ° ° ° 

(2 o-> m N 

_ _ 

s q S n o jj « ° o o 

0* 00 ws m 

_ _ _ _. 

»IW’O ^ ° ° ° 

A o o o 

CC CO T f N 

£-o b o 

sapijJB E|og ® ° ° ° 

Ph On Tt- N 

p. o o o 

^ U I 0 0 J 3 J 0 0 3 u i . Q 0 0 

o° 

n 

• 

sspiuy 

l J oo 00 00 

fe _ 3

asins and i or 2 china plates in the case of Mahommedans, u. country 

earthenware pots and dishes to be valued at a couple of rupees. 

Baskets u. other utensils19 made of bamboo 20 or cane-work, wie jhakee, dalli, 

kulat dalla, katta u. dhama, or measure of capacity, may be valued at 1 Re. 

Bei Und class ryots the total quantity of brass about 8 or 10 seers = Rs. 8, 12, 

or 15; the other class of utensils at Rs. 2. 

A H id class ryot has generally 1 or 2 brass lotahs (tumblers), 1 or 2 thalas, 

sometimes a boughna; quantity = 5 seers, about = Rs. 8. D. earthen u. 

bamboo utensils same as in 2nd class, for the want of brass utensils to be 

supplied by these. 

Unter 1st class ryots haben nur wenige anything like the sinduk, stets in 

the house of a trading class in the village. Preis = ij-20 Rs. Statt d. 

regular family sinduks haben d. ryots dieser Klass(e) meist one small chest 

of mangoe or other inferior wood, and 1 or 2 petaras (od .pitar a, see oben) 

constructed of matted cane. In price von Rs. 2 to 4. (D. pitaras kosten 

eben so viel.) | 

145 Ausserdem haben meiste Ryots od. deren females 1 or 2 small wooden or tin 

boxes to keep cash, ornaments od. other valuables. Price davon i 1/2 Rs. 

Gesammtvalue dieser chests, boxes, etc. = 6-8 Rs. 

lie class families haben generally 1 petara and 1 small box or 2, about = 

3 or 4 Rs. 

IH d class ryots haben höchstens jhaels or small petaras in some cases, v. 

Price = about i 1^ Rs. 

T~The general custom to keep the valuables hidden in earthenware pots kept 

under the ground or outside. 

Mit sehr wenigen Ausnahmen haben d. Ryots keine Chowkees or Charpoys 

etc. Statt dessen different spreadings on the floor at night for the bedding. 

1 Re for each family average value of spreadings for all sorts of ryots. 

A ll ryots use chhalas or gunny bags to sit upon, which are, when occasion 

requires, used also to hold grains. 

Seats of various kinds made of bamboo slips, canes, and splinters of betel-nut tree, 

and of small plants called peera or low stools; so small in size that they can 

hold only one man on each. 

Each ryot male or female has 2 dhutees of coarse Manchester cloth for ordinary 

use while out of work about 12 feet long and 3 feet broad. In well to do 

families haben ausserdem namentlich d. females country sharees u. %enana 

coats, and men chaddarsy manchmal peerans. Für d. Wintersaison haben 

elderly men u. women chaddars of thick cloth, while at work they use very 

narrow and short gamchas or worn out clothes turned into smaller size. 

No difference among the different classes as to the clothes possessed by a family 

ausser so weit dies depend upon the number of individuals in each. D. average 

value of clothes belonging to each individual male u. female, about Rs 2. 

Dhutee: a piece of Manchester cloth, known in the bazaar as longcloth or 

American drill; Shari, a piece of cloth put on by women having borders of 

269

different colours; Chadors or sheet - a piece of American drill or long- 

cloth measuring about 9 feet in length; Peeratt or shirt, a coat newly introduced 

into fashion of American drill or longcloth. Gamcha or napkin, 

a piece of cloth short in breadth and length. Kantha, quilt stuffed with 

rags. 

In 1st class (ryot) family, of 12 persons, 4 of whom may be left out of consideration, 

in consideration of the different persons wearing the same clothes, the value 

d. clothes = Rs i j or 16 ; in Ilclass of about 7 persons, wo ß persons may be 

left out for same reason, average value of clothes = Rs 8 or 9 ; in I I Id class 

families of 2 or 3 individuals, cloth (es) value = Rs 4 or 5. 

In addition to these Rs ß, 2 and 1 may be taken as the average value of leps 

(quilt), kanthas, and pillows belong(ing) to a family of Ist, Und, and Hid 

class ryot(family) respectively. 

Ornaments: adult males use none; boys have sometimes brass or silver bangles 

for the hands and mandulees or patta to hang from the neck; women use 

ornaments of various kinds made of gold or silver and sometimes of brass, als da 

sind: 

Nath, or ring for the nose; Besar, an ornament hung from the nose; Dana, 

beads for the neck used by Hindus, but very seldom; Kalse ornaments for 

arms; Balia = bangles; Mul> or kharu - anklets; Churi, bracelet used by 

Mahommedans; Hasli, a large ring round the neck. - On the whole, the 

value of ornaments belonging to a 1st class family = Rs 40-50. (Women 

whose husbands are living, when Muhammedans use churi of silver or of lac, 

u. when Hindu, a pair of shell bracelets. Für Und class family about Rs ßo, 

für H id class family abt Rs 1 0 or i j . 

In cookhouse kaum article ausser pata (a flat stone) und puta (a stone mullar) 

for grinding condiments in addition to brass and earthen pots. So: ghotee, 

a brass or earthen water-pot; Raing, an earthen pot used in cooking 

rice; Patil, an earthen basin used in cooking curry; Shara, an earthen 

cover for a pot; Jhajree, an earthen vessel for straining water when washing 

rice, etc.; Hatta, an iron or wooden ladle or spoon used in cooking; Bow lee, 

an iron tongs used in catching pots when warm; Tagaree, a wooden bowl 

for holding things cooked. Diese zus. mit dhenki, ukti, u. mosal (a large 

wooden mortar u. pestle) to be valued abt ß Rs for each family. 

Ryots keep generally, according to the circumstances, a quantity of rice, 

mustard etc, for consumption during the year, and seeds for next year's cultivation: 

the value for ist class 90-100 Rs, 2nd class Rs 40-50, ßd class Rs 25. 

Cattle: 1st class family 8 or 10 cows and bullocks, mchmal a couple of 

goats or sheep; in case of Mahommedans a number of fowls; Und class 

family 4 or 5 cows; in a IH d class 2 or 3; the value of cattle for 1st Rs 70, 

Ilnd Rs 40, Hid Rs 20. 

Instruments: a 1st class family besitzt about 8-10 ploughs, u. ß or 4 harrows, 

valued a. Rs 8; for Ilnd u. H id class respectively value d. ploughs Rs 5 

u. Rs 3. I 

270

146 A 1st class family hat generally 3 daos, 4 or j kachees, 2 kodalees or spades, 

1 khuntee (a digging hoe) u. an axe; gesammt value Rs 5; Und u. H id class 

selben articles in less numbers, of value of Rs 3 u. Rs 2 respectively. 

~TBoats'. Ryots living in lowlands u. fields etc watered by annual inundation, 

' and on river side, have generally a dingee (a small boat) of value of Rs 10-30. 

Dieses Luxus “instrument” nur by Ist u. Und class ryots, sehr selten bei 

Illd class. 

The large I V class hat im allgemeinen a single house, a brass lota or thalla, or a 

stone or wooden plate and cane or bamboo basket, etc., and nothing in the way 

of a sinduk or charpoys; 1 or 2 mats and kanthas and pillows and a couple 

of dhutees, a plough, a harrow, a dao, a kodalee, a kachee u. manchmal a cow or 2 ; 

value des ganzen Krams in average may be estimated at Rs 2 j. 

~rKoddl or Kodali = a hoe, by means of which the work of the spade, the 

I shovel, and the hoe alike is done. 

Kathak = a professional story teller; one who recites traditional poems, 

etc. 

Latti, or Lattee = a stick or bludgeon, usually of bamboo, heavily ringed 

and feruled with metal; Morha, a stool. 

Mulla, or Mulana: one who has charge of the village mosque, Mahomme- 

dan schoolmaster. 

Kachcha = raw, crude, immature, incomplete; Pakka = ripe, mature, 

complete. 

Nirkh, a standard or customary rate, as of rent, etc. 

Palla, a turn (Reihe die an einen kommt) as of worship, or enjoyment of 

property. 

Dhoti = the cloth worn round the loins. Bhdt, boiled rice; 

Ghat = the landing slope, or steps, on the bank of a river, or of a tank; 

the pass up a mountain or ridge of hills, sometimes the line of the hill 

itself. 

Jagir, Jaghir, a service tenure of land or revenue; Jalkar-wala, one who has 

rights of fishing. 

Flgt nun d. 2te Abtheilung v. Phear's book über Ceylon. Dieser Bursch 

residirte 10 Jahre in Calcutta; lebte in Ceylon 18-77-1879. D. 3d Paper 

(Evolution of the Indo-Aryan Social u. Land System) was read 1872 durch 

d. Burschen vor d. Bethune Society of Calcutta. 

II. The Agricultural Community21 in Ceylon. 

1) The Village Economy. 

Island of Ceylon = a Pear; the circular portion of the Pear occupied by a 

mass of mountains rising manchmal to 7-8000 feet, bordered at its base with 

a margin of lower land which continues to the coast on all sides. (173) 

The New North Central Province, constituted on 6, Sept. 1873, f°r administrative 

purposes, covers the mid-islandportion of the Northern plain... 

Interminable jungle in a state of nature, dotted very sparsely with tiny specks 

of yellow-green cultivation mit some few pools of water or tanks The 

271

surface nicht absolutely flat, sondern mit considerable undulation an einigen 

Stellen, an ändern broken by low ridges or rounded bosses of gneiss. In d. Regel 

d. pools seem by origin nur accumulations of water in natural depressions of the 

ground as have no outlet sufficiently low to drain them ... aber their depth u. si%e 

“ pin most instances artificially increased dch an earthen bund or embankment, 

I thrown across the lower side of the depression. In d. drier seasons des 

Jahrs, as the water bulk shrinks back towards the bund, i.e. towards the 

deeper side, it withdraws from the greater portion of the tank space, so that 

thejungle is enabled to flourish there (as it also does on the embankment itself) 

ebenso vigorously als überall sonst in the surrounding tracts. Daher 

schwer den tank %u sehn, selbst wenn man in seiner Nähe. Und when d. 

tank voll, much of it closely resembles a circuit offlooded forest. (173-175). 

Anuradhdpura, the classic city of the Mahawansa, für 7-800 Jahre d. metropolis 

der successiv regierenden dynasties ruling over the larger portion 

of Ceylon, dann für eben so lange Zeit left to decay, is sehr nah d. Mittelpunkt 

d. neuen Provinz. Ihre Bevölkerung (i8 ji nur 16 to □ mi., the 

inhabitants of the rural villages u. the modern bazar counted together) für 

sehr lange Periode, bis lately, preserved by the remoteness u. inaccessibility 

of its situation v. disturbing action of foreign influences of (any) kind, 

daher dort a “living specimen typical” sehr primitiver agricultural economy 

u. civilisation. (175-6) D. People are Singhalese u. class themselves mit d. 

Kandyan or highlanders im Unterschied v. d. low-country Singhalese who 

border on the coast on22 either side; sehr verschieden von d. comparatively 

slight-limbed, black-complexioned Tamils, who constitute the population 

of the Northern portion des Island. (176, 177) D. Singhalese language 

147 belongs to the [ Aryan group, apparently sprung from a root closely allied 

to the Sanscritic prakrits of Northern India; aber d. Singhalese people haben 

Aussehn d. hindeutet auf intermixture of an Aryan with some other, 

yellow tinted, coarsely built, ethnic element; sind broadshouldered, 

deepchested, muscular, with a pronounced calf to the leg, like all Mongolian 

peoples, unlike the Aryans of India; schlagendste peculiarity - excessive 

hairiness of both male and female. Dies findet sich nicht bei d. best bekannten 

mongolischen Stämmen; aber d. Ainos, a Turanian race in the extreme east 

of Asia, possess this extraordinary capillary development in noch höherem 

Grad. (177-178) 

The Tamil inhabitants der Northern Province sind ununterscheidbar von 

their brethren of the mainland of India, with their slight build, black skin, 

thick lips, open nostrils, coarse hair; they belong unmistakably to the 

Dravidian race. (179) Exceptionally, auf d. Grenzmarken der Tamil u. 

Singhalese districts, to be found low caste villages, wo no pure type of 

either kind preserved. (I.e.) 

Ausser d. distribution der population des Districts by agricultural villages, 

Fälle of petty u. often ephemeral bazars sprung up at convenient places along 

the highways - gradually as these have been opened out through the 

272

forest, perhaps never kept by the Kandyans, sondern nur durch low country 

Singhalese, Moormen, or Tamils. (I.e.) 

Controlling element d. village - the paddy tract or paddy field which is itself 

“a function of the supply of water.” (179, 180) Meist d. field attached, or 

appended to, a tank u. ist oft strikingly tiny im Verhältnis zum si\e des 

entire tank; es wird irrigirt by the flow of water passing out from the tank 

through a masonry culvert (Abzugskanal) piercing the lowest part of the 

retaining bund u. öfter noch through a breach or cutting made in the bund 

itself, u. d. Lage (the lie) d. Feldes so, dass the outflow of water can be 

made to flood the whole of it in a succession of flats, to the lowest and most 

remote from it; the line of soil surface from side to side being almost 

always horizontal throughout. Je nach dem local Character des ground 

hat d. field more or less irregular shape, with its longer extension stretching 

away from the tank bund. Sonst ist es a single clearing in that universal jungle 

prevailing on all sides, selbst bedeckend the actual bund of the tank, and 

very much of the tank bottom itself. (180) 

Jedem Feld entspricht a gama or village, i.e. group of homesteads wo d. 

cultivators live; selten hat a village mehr als ein field; d. Gruppe steht im 

Jungle neben d. field, obscured by trees, and next the bund; exhibits 

gewöhnlich no order of arrangement. Die einzelne homestead, wenn ihr 

owner well to do, a low, thatched, mud-wattled hut, of perhaps 2 unlighted 

rooms opening upon the diminutive veranda, deren floor die earth platform 

der hut, u. deren roof its projecting eaves; in front dieser hut small, 

mud-plastered attawas, or roofed cylinders of wicker-work, raised upon supports 

for storage of grain (ist equivalent der go las of Bengal). Auf einer Seite 

steht ausserdem a large open shed, with its little loft for cattle (if the cottier 

has any), implements, curry grinder, rice pounder (the dhenki of Bengal), etc. 

Under the back eaves of hut auch a place for ploughs, the surface-smoother, 

harrows, etc. Abutting upon the litde homestead’s curtillage, or partially 

enclosing it, - a garden or loosely cultivated plot for fruit trees, condiments, 

curry vegetables (säg of Bengal) etc; the whole meist ill-kept and neglected; 

d. different homesteads der village group von einander getrennt 

durch irregular, ill-defined, muddy tracks. (181, 182) 

An Spitze a territorial head, und in diesen modem days (fälschlich!) “proprietor 

des village” genannt; er Nachfolger des primitive chieftain; er mag 

jetzt d. Krone (engl.) sein, or a religious foundation, or a private Singhalese 

—gentleman. (182) D. village field, or paddy tract, divided into portions by 

parallel balks drawn across it from side to side at right angles to the line of water- 

fiow; each such portion hereditary share of some one person or family 

resident in or belonging to the village. The principal portion or share - 

genannt Mottettuwa (Ziraat in Bengal) gehört dem head des village; alle 

ändern share holders hat dem Burschen to make some contribution of produce 

in kind, or to render him some defined and specific service, domestic or agricultural. 

Dies distinction of tenure23 - produce in kind oder aber service - ent- 

273

148 spricht genau dem raiotti (Ryott) u. lakhiraj conditions | of holding in 

Bengal. Nur d. Unterschied: in Bengal d. raiotti holding (holding by 

contributing of share of product) is the prevalent form u. lakhiraj holding 

d. exception; in Ceylon the holding by rendering of service - nilakariya - 

is (or rather was) all but universal, and the other the exception. [Dies 

beweist, dass Ceylon form d. primitivere; denn d. Dorfälteste or village 

chief war kein landlord, hatte keine “ rent” zu beziehen, wde abgefunden 

durch “ services” .] In Bengal the service or the lakhiraj holding stets free u. 

honourable, such as that of the priest, doctor, watchman, etc; in Ceylon that 

of the nilakariya is usually menial. (183, 84) 

Meist a plurality of villages have a common head, u. früher the household 

establishment of a wealthy native chieftain kept up by turns of menial 

service discharged by villagers, drafted from, the many villages in due 

order upon the footing of their land tenure obligation. Jezt the service 

tenure has so to say become freehold (?) Wo a Buddhist Vihara, or temple, 

was oft in d. North Central Province, d. personal service der hier special 

forms bekleidet, as: maintaining illuminations, thatching or doing other repairs 

to thepansala (the Buddhist priest’s residence) etc., noch in vollem Gang. 

(184, 85) 

D. administrative organisation, zur Perception d. services for d. head of the 

village, bestand aus i or 2 officials, the Gamerale (the village man), the 

Lekham (writer or accountant) etc. Some of the more wealthy of the share 

F holders in the village field, probably by reason of being by family origin of the same 

blood with the chieftain, held their share by the service of filling hereditarily one 

of these offices, or of yielding hospitality to the head of the village, when he 

comes, or to any other visitors whom the village receives. (185-86) Einige 

dieser services bestehn in doing smith's, carpenter's, dhobi's work, or even 

that of the doctor (Vederale). Im village selbst diese persons paid in their 

turn by their fellow villagers for their professional or artisan's functions, 

either by labour done for them in the tilling of their shares of the village fie ldor by 

a quota of the paddy on the payer's threshing floor, measured out and delivered 

when the harvest completed. Other service consists in supplying the village 

head mit oil, betel-nuts, honey from the jungle, game, etc. (186) 

“ ‘ Viel wichtiger the combined action on the part of the villagers for their joint 

benefit, necessitated by the exigencies of cultivation under the primitive conditions 

obtaining in the North Central Province, and indeed allgemein in Ceylon, 

2.3. fencing the village field every season against the wild animals of thejungle which 

surrounds it; kein einzelner shareholder könnte unaided execute the whole work; 

u. wenn ein Riss (Mangel, flaw) in it irgendwo so ist every shareholder's plot 

open to invasion; jeder shareholder so direct interessirt in this work, has 

“~p to bear his portion of it in proportion to his share in the field. Ebenso wenn 

a breach im bund (Damm) to be filled up, or some repair to be done to it, dies 

done by all the shareholders jointly furnishing out of their families or dependents, 

each in due proportion, a continual supply of labour in successive relays 

until the work is done. (187) 

*74

Obgleich jeder shareholder in the village paddy field, hat erbliches Recht 

in his plot u. right of cultivating it exclusively, dennoch the mode of cultivation 

which is generally pursued connects him ... in almost every step of his tilling 

with his neighbours, above and below, either in a dominant or a servant character. 

D. Process der Zubereitung u. clearing the soil for the seed sowing or 

planting, of killing the weeds and keeping them down, and of promoting the growth 

of the paddy plant, is from beginning to end in a large degree effected by the aid 

of successive submersions of the plot, which have to be varied as regards the 

depth of water according to the process and the stage of it. Commonly 3 

prolonged submersions in the course of tilling, and 7 shorter ones during the 

growth of the plant. Da d. submergence of a relatively lower plot generally means 

the submergence of the plots above it, while the paddy plant cannot be depended 

upon to grow equally fast in all the plots, hence, damit kein risk of one shareholder's 

operations destroying the young plants of his neighbours, usual rule dass 

the shareholder of the lower end of the field should commence the operations of the 

tilling season in his plot before any one else, and so get a safe start of the man 

next above him. Selbe order followed by all the others in succession. (188-89) 

— Wenn in einem Jahr, von Mangel an Wasserûfuhr od. sonst welchem 

Grund nur ein Theil des village paddy field can be effectively cultivated, wd that 

limited portion taken as the whole u. is divided unter d. village shareholders as the 

original entirety was. D. Entscheidung darüber genommen dch d. shareholders 

as a body. Dies jetzt nicht überall known in practice, aber ist oft vorge- 

sehn in the newly framed Gansabawa rules, at the instance of the villagers themselves, 

to indicate that it was a deeply rooted ancient custom. (189) | 

149 Ganz unabhängig v. d. relations zum head of the village, daher in each 

village of the North Central Province (u. in fact prevailing universally) 

Beamte, the vel vidahne u. others chosen by the shareholders to control and carry 

out the system of fencing, ploughing, sowing, shifting of allotment, when necessary, 

etc or generally the internal agricultural economy ds village. (190) 

D. Reis production d. irrigated fields nicht genügend to form even the 

principalportion of the shareholder's support in d. Mehrzahl der villages dieser 

Provinz. D. ordinary staple of life the dry grain, koraccan, grown upon the 

upland, i.e. on merely unwatered gt ound, or ground which the flow of the 

water cannot be made to reach. A piece of the forest which surrounds the 

village and the village paddy field, is felled and burnt, and a crop of karaccan 

is raised thereupon for a couple of consecutive years at most, when the clearing 

is allowed to relapse into jungle again; and this process is not repeated on the same 

spot for another 10 years at least. (190-91) This process of chena clearing is 

*** often done in *** the North Central Province by the joint action of the 

village shareholders, under the management of their own officers; and 

sometimes the whole course of cultivation which follows is also joint, with a partition 

only of the produce. Manchmal aber auch, nachdem the clearing effected, 

the land is divided u. allotted previously to the cultivation; dies immer in case 

~j~ of the plots requiredfor the growth of each household's vegetables or curry stuff. (191) 

*75

(Cabbage garden) - In d. Maritime Provinces scheint dies System of joint 

clearing unbekannt; jeder who has chena land scheint to own it absolutely, 

cultivates u. clears it himself at long intervals, or gets this done for him on 

some terms of anda letting. (191-92) 

In einigen wenigen instances, it is said,forest u. chena ground (is) recognised 

as appurtenant to the village in d. Sinn d. shareholders des village paddy field 

können ohne Erlaubniss of head of village od. Government clear and 

cultivate in obenbeschriebner Art any portion on the foundation of and in 

proportion to their village holdings. Generally the Crown (John Bull) asserts 

a paramount claim to all jungle u. waste land wherever situated, which 

has not been before appropriated to actual use; no tree (!) can be felled 

or chena cultivated thereon ausser mit Gvt license. (192) 

D. actual work of tilling meist verrichtet dch jeden villager by the hands 

of his family; paddy cultivating speciell so respectable, fst of sacred character, 

dass women unwürdig daran Theil zu nehmen, u. dürfen sich nicht 

zeigen on the threshing floor, namtlich wenn d. so-called hill paddy, or more 

highly valued sort of rice grain, is being threshed. (192-93) 

Wenn der shareholder ist Weiberperson ohne Kinder, oder er anderweitig 

beschäftigt, od. gut genug dran to be able to abstain from manual labour, 

dann common arrangement dass his share cultivated for him by another 

person upon the terms of this latter, die dann renders dem shareowner a 

specified share ofproduce; dies benamst a letting in ande; i.e. half share; meist, 

vielleicht fast immer, the agreed upon share = 1/2 the produce both in straw 

and paddy; der cultivator muss ausserdem give a share to the responsible 

servant usually sent by the shareowner to remain on the ground and look 

after his interests from the day of reaping to the day of partition, and having 

moreover to feed this man during the interval. (193-94) 

Fst alle vicarious cultivation assumes this shape; not known: letting the land 

for a money rent; existirt ditto no class of agricultural labourers, working on 

the land of another for money hire. In fact, in d. rice agricultural village of 

*) Ceylon -* practically = no money in use. Vielleicht Mehrzahl der villagers 

haben nicht paddy enough to last them for food till next season of harvest or 

for seed, oder haben no plough or no oxen. Diese erhalten sie when and as 

they are required, vom Capitalist des village, on the terms of setting apart 

for him on the threshing floor a certain stipulated quantity or share of the 

produce in return for each item of loan. Ebenso remunerated the services 

_ rdes Vederale, village blacksmith u. other artizans. Selbes mag manchmal 

Vorkommen auch in the matter of land labour, aber general custom for neighbouring 

shareholders to mutually assist one another in this particular when needed. (194- 

95) Der head of the village mit Bezug auf his muttettuwa has this cultivated 

umsonst under Aufsicht of his officers by the turns of tillage service due to him 

from those of the villagers whose tenures involve the service; cultivirt er 

in this way, so gehört ihm d. ganze Product des harvest. Aber auch er 

150 zieht I oft vor to dispense with these services u. to let out the muttettuwa 

z~l6

land in ande (ande in terms of receiving a specified, originally half share of 

the produce.) (195) D. gegebne Schilderung genommen v. North Central 

u. Kandyan provinces. (196) Erst errichtet sich a regal (!) hierarchy on the basis 

of the village; aber d. sovereign power (!), when once constituted, wird in 

course of time the instrument for generating u. developing gz neue conditions 

u. notions (!) of property in land. (I.e.) 

2) Land Tenure and State Economy 

to Adigars, Dessaves etc u. ändern chieftains by the kings conferred - nicht 

tracts of land (zum Lohn für military u. civil services) sondern grants of 

dominion over populations. Der grantee erhielt the chieftains customary 

rights over the villages u. nun appropriated lands; daher Nindegama 

(village unter private ownership) as opposed to the royal or Gabada-gama. 

(197, 198) Sub-infeudation nicht in Ceylon to any considerable extent. 

(198) [Even the Bengal subtenures did not attain their extraordinary modern 

development until after the Permanent Settlement had given the zamin- 

dars an absolute right of property in all the land of their zamindaries, - a 

right without parallel in Ceylon.] (199) Einige grants - royal or durch 

private seignior - became cultivating settlements, having the grantee (nicht 

the grantor) at their head; der grantor had no connection mit der new 

community ausser the link of service which bound the grantee to him u. 

which often in course of time wore out, became un(en)forceable. Others 

perhaps were from the beginning exclusive u. free of continuing obligation. 

(199, 200) 

Daher will Phear ableiten die sehr zahlreichen cases of cultivators u. even of 

non-cultivating proprietors, who own lands by a right of an absolute u. independent 

character, to be found in all parts of the country, speciell in the maritime 

provinces, obgleich hier the Dutch dominant authority probably effected the 

_larger part of the change which has taken place in modern times. (200) 

I So now coming into existence an agricultural labourers' class; denn wealthy 

1 native gentlemen, die Geld auf andrem Weg als Agricultur gewonnen, found 

themselves able to obtain the labour of the poorer village proprietors for daily 

money wages, u. so to “farm” their lands extensiv im English Sinn des 

term. (200, 201) 

Joint family system ebenso conspicuous in Ceylon als in Bengal, doch im 

erstem selten of so large dimensions; besdrs charakteristisch d. Ceylon 

joint-family system: 2 or probably** more brothers living together under one roof 

I will have one wife between them; practice discouraged by English legislation, 

aber keineswegs extinct; still enters as a curious factor25 in the law of 

inheritance, which has to be administered by the civil courts. (201) 

Enjoyment der property der joint-family managed by agreement, express or 

implied, aller adult joint sharers in the family property, who often 

separate themselves into smaller groups each taking its own plot of land; 

jeder dissentient sharer can claim to have his share divided off for him. (202) 

In Fällen von cocoa-nut or areca nut plantations, of jak trees u. selbst of 

277

paddy fields, usual that every gathering of the crop should be made in the presence 

of all the sharers, and the produce then and there divided according to the shares. 

H In such cases verrichten all the sharers together the necessary work incidental 

to the cultivation or the keeping up of the plantation and constitute in fact a 

cooperative society. Eine andre Praxis ist dass d. sharers let out the land or 

plantation in Ande, entweder to an outsider, or to one or more of 

themselves. Dann alle sharers to be present at the division of the produce, 

which is effected in 2 steps, first division into moieties und dann a division of 

one moiety among the sharers. (202, 203) Manchmal the enjoyment of the 

property by tatta maru succession; erst getheilt (ideell), u. every sharer 

obtaining his proper number of parts, dann takes the entirely for the same 

number of seasons as he is entitled to parts, giving it up at the end of such 

period of time to the sharer who stands next in the rota etc. Z.B. A , B , C 

joindy entitled to a paddy field in undivided shares proportionate to 2, 3, 

and 4, i.e. to a 2/9, 1/3, 4/9 share of the whole respectively, then A would 

take the whole field for 2 years, B for 3, u. schliesslich C for 4, u. then 

the set of turns repeated in the same order, for successive periods of 9 years, 

until some sharer (should) insist upon having an actual partition of the 

field. (203, 204) 

Aehnliche Sorte of Reihenfolge adoptirt in einigen villages an d. Küste zum 

151 enjoyment by the villagers of the j fishing grounds belonging to the village; 

diese are divided into localities; u. d. recognised boats of the village fish these 

localities by turns which are settled by gansabawa arrangement. Jedes 

dieser boats mit its nets is a valuable property, belonging to many co-sharers 

joindy, who are commonly members of one family, and have become 

entided to their shares by inheritance__ On a day's fishing the produce 

is drawn ashore, divided in a sufficient number of lots, each estimated to be 

worth the same assigned value, u. diese lots then so distributed, dass: 

1/60 to the owner of the land on which the fish are brought ashore; x/4 to 

those engaged in the labour; x/5 for the assistance of extra nets etc, rendered by 

third parties in the process of landing and securing the fish, which 

together = 2 + 25 + 2 0 = 47 ;die remaining 5 3 go to the owners of the 

100 100; 100 

boat and net according to their share therein. (204, 205) 

Panguwa = share of the village paddy field, das dem Singhalese nilacaraya 

zukommt. (206) 

The cultivation in ande bei d. Singhalese ist precise counterpart der batai 

cultivation der Bengalese. The deputing of the right to cultivate the soil, as 

distinguished from the letting out land as a commodity in beiden agricultural 

systems. The usufructuary mortgage, flowing from this conception, is the 

prevailing form of dealing mit the panguwa u. the jot respectively as commodities. 

(207, 208) 

In Ceylon wie in Bengal double set of village officers, one ernöthigt dch 

relation der members der little village republic to each other, andre dch 

278

elation “with their (!) lord” ; d. gamer ale, lekhama, kankaname entsprechen 

dem bengal. naib, patwari, gomashta; andrerseits der vel vidane equivalent 

dem mandal. (208) (3 t Ceylon u. Bengal p. 206-213.) batai agreement (Bengal), 

under which the tilling is done by a person not the owner - in consideration 

of a definite share of the produce being yielded to the owner. (237) 

4) The Grain Tax. Obligation des cultivator to pay to the Crown a tithe or share 

of his paddy crop if he has any, u. in some parts der country, also of his 

other grain crops. (214) 

In vielen instances villages were kept in hand by the Crown (held khas as 

it is phrased in India) for the especial support of the central establishments: 

the muttetuwa darin was service-tilled, or let out in ande, under the 

direction of royal servants; the produce thus accruing was deposited in 

kind in royal storehouses (gabedawa), arsenals (awudege), or treasuries {ar- 

ramudale), according to its sort, u. d. personal services due were rendered 

at the palace or elsewhere, to meet some immediate royal requirement. 

D. ’crown villages or lands were known under various designations, as rat- 

ninda or ande, original

nach Abzug der Government lands u. der lands held on tenure of service 

to Government. Offenbar waren private seignior und the vihara headship 

schon verschwunden vor d. Dutch. (219, 220) 

3 September 1801 durch Proclamation d. obligation to service on tenure of land 

in d. maritime provinces abgeschafft (do von 1 Mai 1802) u. solches Land 

unterworfen to payment to Gvt of V10 des produce if highland, x/5 of produce 

if lowland. Zugleich the payment of x/4 of the produce für Mallapalla, Nilla- 

palla, Ratninda or Ande lands reserved. (220) Obgleich so d. obligation to 

service divorced from land, ward dem Governor the power reserved to 

exact it by special order von persons aller castes u. conditions for adequate pay 

to be given therefore. D. exigencies of the Kandyan war gaben dem Gvt 

dann den Vorwand to renew a general claim to the services of the people, nicht 

mit Bezug auf Grundbesitz, sondern of custom and caste, payment to be 

made at rates fixed by Gvt; 1809 wde Wegbau zu gratuitous service gemacht, 

lying on the inhabitants des Districts through which they passed. (221) 

Diese enactments applied nur to the maritime provinces acquired von 

d. Dutch. 18 1 j erhielten d. Britishers dch conquest u. treaty auch d. 

Government of the Central or Kandyan province, bis dahin solely under the 

administration der native powers. 1818, dch Proclamation von 21 N ovember, 

alle duties bis dahin payable in royal storehouse, treasury, or 

arsenal, u. alle ändern duties u. taxes abgeschafft, ersetzt dch tax of1/10 of the 

produce on paddy lands, reduced to x/14 in certain specified Korles. (221, 222) 

Zugleich die services due in respect of service tenure lands (auf welche 

grade die neue Tax fiel) retained, obgleich stipulated that the services 

generally should be paid for at an established rate; aber repair u. making of 

roads, wie in d. maritime provinces, gratuitous service gemacht. (222) 

Dch Proclamation v. 2 1 Nov. 1818 auch d. liability of certain inhabitants 

of temple lands to perform service to Gvt also retained. (I.e.) 

Auf Report v. 24 December 1831 des L t. Colonel Colebrooke, (nämlich dieser 

u. Mr. Cameron waren commissioned wden die Administration von 

Ceylon to inquire into) an Order of Council d. cl. 12 A p ril 1832 erklärte, 

dass Niemand of His M’s native or Indian subjects in island liable to render 

any service in Bezug auf ihre land tenure, oder wegen ihrer Caste od. sonstwie 

zu welcher d. subjects of European birth were not liable. Aber auch diese 

Proklamation enthielt the reservation of services to the crown of holders of land 

in royal villages in the Kandyan province u. dasselbe for vihara u. private owners 

in the same province. (I.e.) 

According to Ribeyro, Knox u. 1Yalentyn2* in the Portuguese u. earlier times 

there was almost no money in the country. A ll trade which was not a 

Crown monopoly was effected by barter. Paddy was the commodity which 

commonly filled the place of coin. Die meisten presents which accompanied all 

service, took the form of paddy, and nearly all obligations by the way of 

remuneration or duty were discharged by a measure of grain drawn from the 

contents of the threshing floor at harvest. (225) Von dem librarian of 

280

the Malagava, Kandy, dem “learned” Suriyagoda Unanse, erhielt der Bursch 

Phear flgde bemerkenswerthe Notiz: 

D. frühste Erwähnung irgendeiner tax or contribution des Volks für support 

of a royal person to be found in the historical books of Ceylon, occurs in the 

Aggauna Satha (a sermon by Buddha himself) in Digha Nitraya, u. in the 

commentary thereon called Sumangali Vilasani by the learned Buddhist 

divine Buddhagosha. Der passage des sermon lautet: “ We shall give a portion 

of our paddy” Dazu commentirt Buddhagosha: “We shall give you at the 

rate of ammunan of paddy from each field of ours. [Das word “ Sali” im 

”T~Original is literally a particular kind of rice, soll aber hier stand for all grain 

I produce]. You need not follow any trade. But be you our chief.” (227, 228) 

Weiter keine tax or obligation an governing power erwähnt; nichts von 

Diensten: diese, meint Phear, späteren Ursprungs; u. the paddy cesses 

ultimately often again superimposed upon the services, came in later still, 

with an increase in the central power of exaction. (227, 228) D. Singhalese 

word “ otu” , wdch d. Gvt tax or claim meistens benamst, heisst “one” , also 

1 5 3 equivalent only to one portion or one share ohne indication | irgendeiner 

Proportion der share zum Ganzen. (228, 229) 

Also d. 1/10 im English impost scheint founded upon the practice of the 

Dutch in granting out Crown lands. D. grain tax folglich nicht älter als 

the century; in a certain sense return to the earliest u. most widely prev- 

-r-alent form of national revenue developed from the basis of the village 

I organisation, aber charakteristisch dass d. Ceylon Aryans from the same 

basis produced the service system in its stead. (229) 

III) Evolution of the Indo-Aryan Social and Landed System. 

At the present time every settlement report sent in to the Government (in 

India) will be found to furnish instances, and to describe the circumstances 

of newly created agricultural communities. (234. Phear27 hätte besser gethan 

statt seines hypothetischen Kohls description solcher instances zu geben!) 

Dieser respectable Esel bildet sich ein, dass “ there grew up, even from the 

commencement, a gradation of respectability and employment within the village 

itself.” [!] (Der asinus lässt auch28 alles dch private families gründen) 

(p. 238) 

The proprietary conception went no farther than this namely, that the 

particular plot of land which the family, or the individual claimed was the 

part of the village land, which he or it was entitled to cultivate, or to have 

cultivated for his own benefit. The business of allotment (so long as the 

practice of allotting remained), the order of cultivation, the maintenance of 

the water supply, the keeping up of fences, and all other affairs of common 

interest to the little community, were managed by the heads of families, 

entitled to their share of the village lands, in the panchayat assembled. (241) 

Each litde colony or abad. (242) nij or private lands. (243) 

Kshatria caste nur mentioned in Brahmanical pages, and it certainly has no 

reality now. (See Growse's “ Mathura” ) (p. 246) Ebenso the existence of 

281

the Vaisja (Kaufmann’s) Kaste nur evidenced by Brahmanical writers. 

(248) The great hulk o f the descendants of the original settlers (speaking o f 

villages in the mass) less careful of purity of blood, or o f preserving any 

mark of descent from the immigrant race ... mit ihnen gradually intermixed 

people of all kinds, aborigenes, run-aways from other abads for 

cause o f pauperism, feud, or otherwise, some of whom came to be even 

allowed a portion of the village lands. (248, 249) Probably the Brahman, 

Kschatria, Vaisja u. Sudra der Brahmanical codes bios Utopian class distinctions 

of a prehistoric More. (2 5 o) 

In allem there is at most conceived only the right to cultivate land, and a 

deputing o f that right to another in consideration of a share in the produce. 

(255) Selbst in seinem private land or nij d. chief had only the 

right to cultivate by himself ’ or to get somebody else to do it on condition 

of dividing the product. (2 5 6) The share of produce which the Chief could 

take from the cultivators was not regulated by his own pleasure, or 

by the making of a bargain, but by custom, or practice, in regard to which the 

village panchayat was the supreme authority, and the chief had no power 

to turn the cultivator out of possession. (257) D . Verwandlung dieser 

quotas o f produce into money payments, or their equivalent (an event which 

has not happened universally even yet) machte sie nicht zu rent paid for 

occupation and use of land as an article belonging to and at the disposal of the person 

paid, but were dues payable to a superior ruling authority___ D . Chief, 

though zamindar of all the land within the Zamindary, was at most 

landlord, (u. das nur als one merely having the right to dispose of the 

occupation and tilling of the soil) o f his nij lands, and in some instances 

probably of the wastes. Seine machinery was sein Kachahri, the centre of 

local authority, side by side womit the panchayat, i.e. the old abad self- 

government. (257, 258) 

In Manu’s Institutions nowhere a mention o f land as a subject o f property 

in the modern English sense. Private ownership of cultivated plots is recognized, 

ist aber simply the ownership of the cultivator; the land itself 

belongs to the village; no trace of rent; owner is only another name for 

cultivator. E r ist under obligation to cultivate lest the Rajah’s or lord’s 

dues in kind be shortcoming, aber er might cultivate by servants, or 

154 arrange with someone else to cultivate on a division of crops (i.e. | the batai 

system, a form of metayer). In another place o f Manu, everyone enjoined 

Tto keep a supply of grain sufficient for his household for yyears___ Almost 

I everybody so supposed to be an actual cultivator The practice of 

batai... did not in fact lead to the letting of land; u. rent in any form unknown 

to Manu. (258, 259) Selling of land, or even of the use of land, nirgendswo 

directly alluded to ___ Appropriating a field, giving a field u. seizing a field 

erscheinen alle bei Manu, aber nicht buying or selling a field. (259, 260) 

Etwas später, nach the Mitakshara, separated kinsmen had acquired 

uncontrolled power of disposing of their respective shares of the family allot- 

282

ment; dies was a mere transfer of a personal cultivating right, incidental to 

personal status in the village community, and subject to an obligation 

to render to the lord his share of the produce. Daher the transaction to 

be accompanied by specified public formalities; and an out-and-out sale discountenanced 

except for necessity. Ausserdem, when the transfer not 

absolute, but conditional by way of security for the repayment of a debt, it always 

took the form of what is now called a usufruct(u)ary mortgage. (260, 261) 

The usufruct of land by actual tillage on the footing of a right of partnership 

in the village cultivating community, and not the land itself, constituted 

the object w or(au )f sich d. word “ ownership” in d. Hindu law writers 

bezieht. (261) 

Dies auch bestätigt dch copper-plates of title, old sanads, u. ähnliche evidence ; 

sie disclose the pretty frequent grant or assignment of the right to make 

collections u. other %amindari rights proceeding from a superior lord, or the 

gift of a plot from the waste, or out o f the zamindar’s tîraat, to a Bnzhmzzn 

or other person; but no instance of private transfer by purchase and sale of 

actual land\ or even of the lease of land for a term of years in consideration of a 

rent. (261, 262) D . Sanchi tablet, wovon a translation given in the Journal 

of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, v. V I, p. 45 6, bezieht sich nicht auf purchase 

u. sale of land as between private owners ; sondern an enfranchisement of 

some sort (such as redemption of liability to pay revenue to the lord) with 

the view to the land becoming debat tar. (262, nt. 1 ) 

Mr. La Touche’s “ Settlement Report of Ajmere u. Mhairwarra” recently 

published, obgleich La Touche nach Phear d. facts verfälscht deh phraseology 

borrowed from feudal Europe. (263) Die Sache kömmt dar(auf) 

hinaus: Certain members of the village community enjoy the permanently 

cultivated or improved lands of the village by some recognised hereditary 

or customary right of cultivation, sometimes termed ownership, u. sometimes 

proprietorship; zahlen sie the customary share of the produce to the 

person entitled to receive it, so they consider themselves entided to 

continue undistrubed in the occupation and cultivation of their land, or 

even to transfer it to another ; no such thing as the letting of land on terms of 

profit; private sales of land practically unknown u. the sale of land by the 

C ivil Court (an English innovation) has been prohibited because so opposed 

to ancient custom as to be incapable of being carried into effect ; mortgages 

— are almost all of an usufructuary kind, and in Mhairwarra a kind of metayer 

system established between the mortgager and the mortgagee: the State - the 

representative o f the former superior Chief - collects the revenue (the modern 

equivalent to the old customary share of the produce) from the cultivators 

by certain agency machinery etc, ausser over lands, wo the Chief's rights 

I to collect dues, and o f other kind, were assigned by him to minor Chiefs, 

- istamrardars or jaghirdars - on conditions o f military service, or for other 

consideration; unter d. rights so exercised by the State u. its assignees, 

was the right to dispose of waste lands; obgleich within the State area of col- 

283

lection the revenue is settled in the form of a money payment in all jaghir estates 

the revenue is collected by an estimate of the produce, and money assessments 

are unknown, (p. 263-265) u. sagtLa Touche selbst: “ The land tenures are, as 

might be expected, entirely analogous to those prevailing in the adjacent Native 

15 5 S t a t e s (p. 266) | In Europe, im Unterschied vom East, in place of the 

produce {type o f) tribute was substituted a dominion over the soil - the cultivators 

being turned out of their land u. reduced to the condition o f serfs 

or labourers. (266, 267)29 

In the East, under the village system, the people practically governed them- 

selvesy and the contest for power among the Chiefs o f the noble class 

was mainly a struggle for command o f the kachahri tabils. (271) 

284

PART m 

MARX’S EXCERPTS FROM HENRY SUMNER MAINE, 

L E C T U R E S O N T H E E A R L Y H IS T O R Y O F IN S T IT U T IO N S

i6o Sir Henry Sumner Maine: “Lectures on the Early History of Institutions. 

London i8 y j.” 

In d. Uebersetzten d. Brehon Laws - an assemblage o f law tracts, wichtigsten: 

Senchus Mor (Great Book of the Ancient Law), and the Book of A icill. Nach 

M r. Whitley Stokes das erstere compiled in od. kurz vor / / Jb d t ;1 d. Buch 

v. A icill ein Jhdt früher. (12) 

Edmund Spenser: “ View of the State of Ireland” 

Sir John Davies2. 

Laws of Wales. 

Brehons a class of professional Irish Lawyers, whose occupation became 

hereditary. 

[De\ B\elld\ G\allico] Caesar. V I , i j , 14 s: 

The learned writer of one of the modern prefaces prefixed to the Third 

Volume of the Ancient Law contends that the administration of the 

Brehon system consisted in references to arbitration (p. 38) (See “ Ancient 

Laws of Ireland” ) Will ein vornehmer Mann seine Schuld (a claim upon 

him) nicht discharge, Senchus Mor tells you to “fast upon him” (I.e. Ancient 

Laws etc. vol. I, p. 113 ) Dies identisch mit was d. Hindu call “ sitting 

dharna” (39, 40). 

Alle Pfaffenautorität in Irld ging natürlich, nach d. conversion d. Irish 

Celts über an d. “ tribes of the saints” (the missionary monastic societies 

founded on all parts of the island u. d. multitude of bishops dependent 

on them. D . religious Theil der old Laws daher superseded, ausser so far 

as the legal rules exactly coincided with the rules of the new Christian code, 

the “ law of the letter” . (38) The one object of the Brehons was to force 

disputants to refer their quarrels to a Brehon, or to some person in authority 

advised by a Brehon, and thus a vast deal of the law tends to run 

into the Law of Distress, which declares the various methods by which a 

man can be compelled through seizure of his property to consent to an 

arbitration. (38, 39) The Brehon appears to have invented (dch hypothetische 

Conjecturen, i.e. purely hypothetical cases) the facts which he used 

as the framework for his legal doctrine. His invention necessarily limited by 

his experience, and hence the cases suggested in the law tracts... throw 

light on the society amid which they were composed. (43, 44) The “ law 

of nature” meint d. ancient law (custom) explained by the Brehons, u. dies 

bindend as far as it coincided with the “ law of the letter” (i.e. dem Christlichen 

Kram). (50) The Brehon did claim that St. Patrick and the other 

great Irish Saints had sanctioned the law which he declared, and that some 

of them even revised it. (51) 

Dch d. Churchmen, die mit notions of roman law [rather ditto of canonical 

law] more or less imbued, kam auch d. röm. Einfluss ( - so far as it goes -) 

on Brehon law. (55) Daraus im Interesse d. Kirche Testament derived 

287

(“ W ill” ) ; ebenso conception of “ Contract” (the “ sacredness of promises” 

etc. sehr wichtig für Pfaffen) Eine Unterabtheilg (published) des Senchus 

Mor, nämlich Corus Bescna chiefly concerned mit “ Contract” u. zeigt sich 

darin that the material interests of the Church furnished one principal motive 

for (its) compilation. (5 6) 

Nach d. Brehon law giebts 2 Sorten of “ contract” : “ a valid contract, and an 

invalid contract” ... Anciently, the power of contract is limited on all 

sides ... by the rights of family, distant kinsmen, co-villagers, tribe, Chief, 

and, if you contract (später mit Christenthum) adversely to the Church, 

by the rights of the Church. The Corus Bescna is in great part a treatise 

on these ancient limitations. (57, 58) 

4The “ Book of A icill” provides for the legitimation not only o f the bastard, 

but o f the adulterine bastard, and measures the compensation to be paid 

to the putative father. The tract on “ Social Connections” appears to assume 

that the temporary cohabitation of the sexes is part o f the accustomed order 

o f society, and on this assumption it minutely regulates the mutual rights 

o f the parties, showing an especial care for the rights of the woman, 

even to the extent of reserving to her the value of her domestic services 

during her residence in the common dwelling. (59) Dieser tract on “ Social 

Connections” notices a “first” wife.5 (61) Dies hält Maine für Kirchen- 

einfluss, kommt aber überall in higher state o f savagery vor, z.B. bei 

16 1 Red Indians. | The common view seems to have been that (d. christliche) 

chastity ... the professional virtue of a special class, (monk, bishop, etc) 

(61) (Die flgden “ Extracts” zeigen, einerseits dass Herr Maine sich noch 

nicht aneignen konnte was Morgan noch nicht gedruckt hatte, andrerseits, 

dass er Sachen die sich u. a. schon bei Niebuhr finden, darzustellen sucht 

as “ pointed out” by the identical Henry6 Sumner Maine! — : “ From the 

moment when a tribal community settles down finally (dies “ finally” ! absurd, 

da der tribe, wie w ir sehr7 oft finden,8 having once settled down, migrates 

de9 nouveau u. settles again, either voluntarily, or forced to do so somewhere 

else) upon a definite space of land, the Land begins to be the base of 

society in place of the kinship. The change is extremely gradual etc.” (72) 

[Dies zeigt nur, wie wenig er d. point of transition kennt.] E r führt fort: 

“ The Constitution of the Family through actual blood-relationship is o f 

course an observable fact, but, for all groups of men larger than the Family, 

the Land on which they live tends to become the bond of Union between 

them, at the expense of kinship, ever more and more vaguely conceived.” 

(72, 73) [Dies zeigt, wie wenig die Gens a fact observed by the identical 

Maine is!] “ Some years ago I pointed out (“ Ancient Law ” , p. 103 sq.) the 

evidence furnished by the history of International Law that the notion 

of territorial sovereignty, which is the basis of the international system, and 

which is inseparably connected with dominion over a definite area of land, 

very slowly substituted itself for the notion of tribal sovereignty.” (73) 

Nach Herrn Maine, first: Hindoo Joint Family, 2nd, Household Community of 

288

the Southern Slavonians, 3d) the true Village Community as foundfirst in Russia 

and next in India. [Dies “ first” u. “ next” bezieht sich nur auf d. relative 

periods worin diese things dem great Maine bekannt geworden.] (78) 

Ohne d. collapse der “ smaller social groups” and the decay of the authority 

which, whether popularly or autocratically governed, they possessed over 

the men composing them, wie sagt d. würdige Maine, (w e )10 “ should 

never have had several great Conceptions which lie at the base of our stock 

of thought” (86) u. zwar sind diese great conception(s): “ the conception 

o f land as an exchangeable commodity, differing only from others in the 

limitation o f the supply” (86, 87), “ the theory of Sovereignty ” , or (in other 

words) o f a portion in each community possessing unlimited coercive force over 

the rest” , “ the theory of Law as exclusively the command of a sovereign 

One or Number” , “ the ever increasing activity o f legislation” u. - [asinus!] 

- der test of the value o f legislation ... v iz : “ the greatest happiness 

of the greatest number.” (87) 

The form of private ownership in land which grew out of the appropriation 

of portions of the tribal domain to individual households of tribesmen is plainly 

recognized by the Brehon lawyers; yet the rights o f private owners are 

limited by the controlling rights of a brotherhood of kinsmen, and the 

control is in some respects even more stringent than that exercised over 

separate property by an Indian village community. (89, 90) Dasselbe 

W ort: “ Fine” or Family (?) is applied to all the subdivisions o f the Irish 

society, von d. Tribe in its largest extension u. all intermediate bodies 

down to the Family (in the present sense), and even for portions of the 

F a m i l y (Sullivan, Brehon Law. Introductiorf\) (90) Sept = sub-tribe, or 

Joint Family in d. Brehon tracts. (91) The chief for the time being was, as 

the Anglo-Irish judges called him in the famous “ Case o f Gavelkind” , the 

caput cognationis. (91) N ot only was the Tribe or Sept named after its 

eponymous ancestor, but the territory which it occupied also derived 

from him the name which was in commonest use - so wie “ O ’Brien’s 

Country” or “ Macleod’s Country” . (I.e.) V on portions des land occupied 

by fragments of the tribe some are under minor chiefs or “flaiths” (93) 

A ll the unappropriated tribe-lands are in a more especial way the property 

of the tribe as a whole, and no portion can theoretically tbe subjected to 

more than a temporary occupation. (93) Am ong the holders o f tribe-land 

are groups of men calling themselves tribesmen, bilden in reality associa- 

162 tions formed by contract, chiefly for the | purpose of pasturing cattle. 

(I.e.) A u f dem “ waste” - common tribeland not occupied - Stücke 

beständig brought under tillage or permanent pasture by settlements of 

tribesmen, and upon it cultivators o f servile status are permitted to squat, 

particularly towards the border. It is the part des territory worüber d. 

authority des Chief tends steadily to increase, u. here he settles his 

*'fuidhir” , 11 or stranger-tenants, a very important class - the outlaws and 

“ broken” men from other tribes who come to him for protection ... are 

289

only connected with their new tribe by their dependence on its chief, 

and through the responsibility which he incurs for them. (92) 

Particular families manage to elude the theoretically periodical re-division 

o f the common patrimony o f the group; others obtain allotments with 

its consent as the reward o f service or the ap(p)anage of office; and there 

is a constant transfer o f lands to the Church, and an intimate intermixture 

o f tribal rights with ecclesiastical rights Brehon law shows that by 

the time it was put into shape, causes etc. tending to result in Several 

Property ... had largely taken effect. (95) The severance of land from 

the common territory appears most complete in the case o f Chiefs, many 

of whom have large private estates held under ordinary tenure in 12 

addition to the demesne specially attached to their signory. (I.e.) 

Dieser asinus bildet sich ein dass “ modern research conveys a stronger 

impression than ever of a wide separation between the Aryan race and races of 

other stocks (!) but it suggests that many, perhaps most, of the differences 

in kind alleged to exist between Aryan sub-races are really differences 

merely in degree of development. (96) 

Anfang d. X V I I Jhdts erklärten d. Anglo-Irish Judges the English Common 

Law to be in force throughout Ireland, u. so seit dem lausigen James I 

all land to descend to the eldest son of the last owner, unless its devolution 

was otherwise determined by settlement or will. Der Sir John Davis,2 

in seinem report of the case u. d. arguments before the Court, recites that 

hitherto all land in Ireland had descended under the rule of Tanistry oder 

those of Gavelkind. Was dieser Davis 2 sich einbildet as system of inheritance, 

called Gavelkind, he (Davis)2 describes so : “ When a landowning member 

o f an Irish Sept died, its chief made a re-distribution of all the lands of the Sept. 

He did not divide the estate of the dead man among his children, but used it 

to increase the allotments o f the various households of which the Sept 

was made up. Aber was diesen English judges nur als “ systems of 

succession” erscheint, war “ ancient mode o f enjoyment during life” . (99) 

So in the Hindoo Joint Undivided Family the stirpes or stocks, dem European 

law nur bekannt as branches o f inheritors, are actual divisions of the family, 

and live together in distinct parts of the common dwelling. (Calcutta Review, 

July 1874, p. 208) (100) 

Rundale holdings in part o f Ireland; jetzt meist common form: arable land 

held in severalty (dies beschreibt d. Sache falsch!), while pasture u. bog are 

in common. Aber noch vor 50 Jahren, cases were frequent w o d. arable land 

divided in farms which shifted among the tenant-families periodically, and 

sometimes annually. (101) Nach Maine “ the Irish holdings “ in rundale” 

are not forms of property, but modes of appropriation” , 13 aber d. Bursche 

selbst bemerkt: “ archaic kinds of tenancy are constantly evidence of ancient 

forms of proprietorship___ Superior ownership arises through purchase from 

small allodial proprietors (?), through colonization o f village waste-lands 

become in time the lord’s waste, or (in an earlier stage) through the sinking 

290

of whole communities of peasants into villeinage, and through a consequent 

transformation o f the legal theory o f their rights. Aber selbst wenn a 

Chief or Lord has come to be recognized as legal owner of the whole 

tribal domain, or of great portions of it, the accustomed methods of 

occupation and cultivation” are not altered. (102) 

D . chief Brehon law tract setting forth the mutual rights of the collective 

tribe and of individual tribesmen or households of tribesmen in respect 

163 o f tribal property, is | called the Corus Bescna, printed in the third volume 

of the official edition. (103) Das was die ganze Sache verdunkelt ist the 

“ strong and palpable bias o f the compiler towards the interest of the 

Church; indeed, part of the tract is avowedly devoted to the law of Church 

property and of the organisation of religious houses. When this writer 

affirms that, under certain circumstances, a tribesman may grant or 

contract away tribal land, his ecclesiastical leaning constantly suggests a 

doubt as to his legal doctrine. (104) 

In the Germanic countries, their (d. chrisd. Pfaffen) ecclesiastical societies, 

were among the earliest and largest grantees of public or “ folk” land. 

(Stubbs: “ Constitutional History” , v. I, p. 104). The Will, the Contract, 

and the Separate Ownership, were in fact indispensible to the Church 

as the donee of pious gifts. (I.e.) A ll the Brehon writers have a bias 

towards private or several, as distinguished from collective, property. 

(io5) 

Weiter über the “ Tribe” or “ Sept” see “ Ancient Laws of Ireland” , II, 283, 

289; III, 4 9 -5 1; II, 283; III, 52, 53, 55. Ill, 47, 49. Ill, 1 7 ; III, 5. Der 

collective brotherhood of tribesmen, wie der Agnatic Kindred in Rom, 

some ultimate right of succession appears to be reserved. ( 1 1 1 , 112 ) 

The “Judgments of Co-Tenancy” is a Brehon law tract, noch unpublished 

(1875), wovon sich aber Herr Maine, der nur d. Ueberset^g kennt, nicht d. 

Text, so pfiffig war sich vor d. Publication flgdes mittheilen zu lassen: 

D. tract fragt: “ Whence does Co-Tenancy arise” ? Answers: “ From 

several heirs and from their increasing on the land” ; dann bemerkt der 

tract: the land is, in the first year, to be tilled by kinsmen just as each 

pleases; in the second year they are to exchange lots; in the 3d year the 

boundaries are to be fixed u. the whole process o j severance is to be consummated 

in the 10thyear." (112 ) Maine bemerkt richtig, dass d. Zeitbestimmgen 

ideales arrangement des Brehon law giver,14 aber d. Inhalt: “ First a Joint 

Family (dies statt gens, weil d. Herr Maine d. Joint Family wie sie in Indien 

existirt fälschlich als ursprüngliche Form betrachtet), composed of 

“ several heirs increasing on the land” , is found to have made a setdement. 

In the earliest stage the various households reclaim the land without set 

rule. (!) Next comes the system o f exchanging lots. Finally, the portions 

of land are enjoyed in severalty.” (113) 

Herr Whitley Stokes hat dem Maine 2 passages occurring in non-legal Irish 

literature mitgetheilt. The “ liber Hymnorum” (soll v. n t Jhdt sein) 

291

contains folio 5A : “ Numerous were the human beings in Ireland at that 

time (i.e. the time of the sons of A ed Slane A . D . 618-694) and such was 

their number that they used not to get but thrice 9 ridges for each man in 

Ireland to wit, 9 of bog,, and 9 of smooth (arable), and 9 of wood” (114 ) 

Another Irish Mscpt, believed of the 12. century, the “Lebor na Huidre” 

says that “ there was not ditch, nor fence, nor stonewall round land, till 

came the period o f the sons of A ed Slane, but (only) smooth fields. Because 

o f the abundance of the households in their period, therefore it is 

that they introduced boundaries in Ireland” . (114 ) Beide schreiben a 

change from a system o f collective to a system of restricted enjoyment zu 

dem “ growth of population” . The periodical allotment to each household 

of a definite portion o f bogland, wood land, u. arable land gleicht sehr 

dem apportionment o f pasture and wood and arable land still going on 

under the communal rules of the Swiss Allmenden (I.e.) 

Herr Maine als blockheaded Englishman geht nicht von gens aus, sondern 

von Patriarch, der später Chief wird etc. Albernheiten. (116 -18 ). Dies 

passt namtlich für d. älteste Form der gens! - Dieser Patriarch - z.B. bei 

164 d. Morganschen Iroquois (wo d.gens in female descent!) | D er Blödsinn 

Maine’s gipfelt in d. Satz: “ Thus all the branches o f human society may 

or may not have been developed from joint families [wo er grade die 

jetzige Hindooform der letzteren im A u g hat, dies sehr sekundären 

Character hat, u. deshalb15 auch - ausserhalb d. village communities thront, 

namentlich in d. Städten\\ which arose out of an original patriarchal cell; 

but, wherever the Joint Family is an Institution of the Aryan race (!), 

we (who ?) see it springing from such a cell, and when it dissolves, we see 

it dissolving into a number o f such cells.” (118) 

Property of land has had a twofold (?) origin ... partly from the disentanglement 

of the individual rights of the kindred or tribesmen from the collective 

rights of the Family or Tribe ... partly from the growth and transmutation of 

the Sovereignty of the Tribal Chief. [Also nicht 2 fold origin; sondern nur 2 

ramifications o f the same source; the tribal property u. tribal collective 

body, which includes the tribal chief.]1 6 ___ Beide in most of Western 

Europe passed through the crucible of feudalism___ The first (the 

sovereignty of the Chief) re-appeared in some wellmarked characteristics 

of military or knightly tenures ... the other in the principal rules of non-noble 

holdings, and amongst them of Socage, the distinctive tenure o f the free 

farmer. (120) In sehr oberflächlicher Weise: “ The Status of the Chief 

left one bequest in the rule o f Primogeniture, which, however, has long 

lost its most ancient form ; ... in the right to receive certain dues and to 

enforce certain monopolies; and drittens in a specially absolute form of property 

... once exclusively enjoyed by the chief (?), and after him by the Lord, in a 

portion of the tribal territory which formed his own dominion. Andrerseits: Out 

of tribal ownership in various forms of decay have sprung several systems of 

succession after death, among them the equal division of the land between the 

292

children u. has left another set of traces ... in a number of minute customary 

rules which govern tillage and occasionally regulate the distribution of the produce. 

(120, 12 1) Nach Arthur Young (Travels: 178 7, 88, 89, p . 407) more than 

1/3 of France small properties, that is, little farms belonging to those who cultivate 

them” (says A . Young,) Nach Toic^queville (“ Ancien Régime” ) the proportion 

was growing, dch d. extravagance der nobles which Court life fostered u. 

compelled them to sell their domains to peasants in small parcels” . (12 1, 122) 

The law of equal or nearly equal division after death was the general law of France; 

primogeniture was alLzumeist confined to lands held by knightly tenure. “ In 

Siidf (ran)k(reï)ch the custom of equal division verstärkt dch d. identical 

rule of Roman jurisprudence u. dort d. privileges des eldest son nur gesichert 

dch Anwendg d. Ausnahmsregeln des Roman law giving the benefit to 

milites (soldiers on service) when making their wills or regulating their 

successions, and by laying down that every chevalier, u. every noble o f 

higher degree, was a miles im Sinn der röm. Jurisdiction. (12 2 ) D . röm. 

Gesetz - 12 Tafeln - lässt absolute Freiheit der V erfgg d. testator; gleiche 

Theilung nur bei intestate (sui heredes), später erst d. Recht d. Kinder etc. 

Daggen (d. W illkühr17 d. testator) secured etc. Tocqueville (I, 18) “ Ancien 

Régime” has explained that the right to receive feudal dues and to enforce petty 

monopolies made up almost the entire means o f living für d. majority der 

French nobility. A certain number o f nobles had, besides their feudal 

rights, their terres (domain, belonging to them in absolute property, and 

sometimes o f enormous extent ; d. rest lived mainly, not on rent, but on their 

feudal dues, and eked out a meagre subsistence by serving the king in arms 

(123, 124) 

In Folge d. französischen18 Revolution: the land law of the people superseded 

165 the land law of the nobles; in Engld der | umgekehrte Process: primogeniture, 

once applying only to knightly holdings, came to apply to the great bulk 

of English tenures, ausser d. Gavelkind of Kent u. einige andre Lokale. 

(123, 1 24) Dieser Change was rapidly proceeding %-wischen Zeit of Glanville 

[whscheinlich 33 d 19year of Henry's reign, hence 118 6 ; Henry I I ( i i j 4-1189 )] 

u. Bracton [wahrsclich nicht later als / 2nd year of Henry II I , i.e. 12 70 ; 

Henry I I I (12 16 -12 7 2 )]. Glanville schreibt as if the general rule o f law 

caused lands held by free cultivators in socage19 to be divided equally between all 

the male children at the death of the last owner; Bracton, as if the rule of 

primogeniture applied universally to military tenures and generally to 

socage tenures. (125) Optimist Maine findet dass andrerseits “ the transmutation 

o f customary and copyhold into freehold property ... proceeding 

for about 40 years under the Conduct of the Copyhold and Enclosure Commissioners” 

u. dies betrachtet dieser comfortable Bursch as the English 

equivalent of the French Revolution. Risum teneatis! (see d. fellow p. 125) 

Dieser lächerliche Bursche macht d. röm. Form d. absolute landed 

property zur “ English form of ownership” , u. fährt dann fort: 

“ ... to the principle o f several and absolute property in land [das überall 

293

in occidental Europe mehr existirt als in Engd] I hold this country to be 

committed ... there can be no material advance in civilisation unless landed 

property is held by groups at least as small as Families; ... we are indebted 

to the “peculiarly” absolute English form of ownership for such an 

achievement as the cultivation of the soil of North America (126 , wo grade alles 

specifisch English20 in landed Property vernichtet! O D u Philister) 

The Norman nobles who first setded in Ireland are well known to have 

become in time21 Chieftains of Irish tribes... it is suggested that they were the 

first to forget their duties to their tenants and to think of nothing but 

their privileges. (128) 

Even according to the (Irish) texts apparently oldest, much of the tribal 

territory appears to have been permanently alienated to sub-tribes, families, or 

dependent chiefs d. glosses u. commentaries show that, before they 

were written, this process had gone very far indeed. (129) The power of 

the Chief grows first through the process anderswo called “ Commendation,” 

wdch the free tribesman becomes “ his marf\ and remains in a state o f 

dependence having various degrees ferner dch his increasing authority 

over the waste lands of the tribal territory u. from the servile or semi-servile 

colonies he plants there; endlich from the material strength he acquires through 

the numbers of his immediate retainers u. associates, most o f whom stand to 

him in more or less servile relations. (130) 

The Manor with its Tenemental lands held by the free tenants o f the Lord 

and with its Domain which was in immediate dependence on him, was the 

type of all feudal sovereignties in their complete form, whether the ruler acknowledged 

a superior above him or at most admitted one in the Pope, 

Emperor, or G od himself. (130 -31) 

D . abominable Freeman ^Norman Conquest” I, 88) erklärt sich d. Verw dlg 

d. tribe chiefs in feudal lords etc leicht, indem er voraussetzt was er 

entwickeln soll, nämlich dass d. privlged class always formed a distinct 

class or section of the community, sagt, I.e. “ the difference between eorl u. ceorl is 

a primary fact from which we start" (13 1) 

D . chief source o f nobility seems to have been the respect of the co-villagers 

or assemblages of kinsmen for the line of descent in which the purest blood 

of each little society was believed to be preserved. (132) “ Every chief” , 

says the text, “ rules over his land, whether it be great or whether it be 

166 small.” (132) I Aber the Brehon law shows the way in which a common 

freeman m ay22 become a chief u. zugleich ist diese position to which he attains 

“ the presidency of a group of dependents” - (später wden diese Burschen erst 

Glieder einer besondern Klasse). (133) W o aristocracy a section o f the 

community from the first besondre Umstände, die notabene selbst schon 

derivative sind, nämlich, w o an entire tribal group conquers or imposes its 

supremacy upon other tribal groups also remaining entire, oder w o an original 

body of tribesmen, villagers, or citizens, gradually gathers round itself a miscellaneous 

assemblage of protected dependents. In Scottish Highlands some entire 

294

septs or clans stated to have been enslaved to others; u. ebenso frühest in 

Ireland met a distinction between free u. rent paying tribes. (133) 

Im Brehon law a Chief vor allem a rich man (133), nämlich reich - nicht in 

Land, sondern in flocks u. herds, sheep, vor allem Ochsen. D . Opposition 

zwischen birth u. wealth, bes(onders) wealth other than landed property, ganz 

modern. See Homer’s u. Niebelungen Helden; in späterer griech. Literatur 

pride of birth identified mit pride in 7 wealthy ancestors in succession, 

έπτα πάπποι πλούσιοι, in Rom rasch d. Geldaristokratie assimilirt mit 

Blutaristokratie. (134) 

Im tract (Brehon Law s): “ Cain-Aigillne” (p. 279) heissts that “ the head of 

every tribe should be the man of the tribe who is the most experienced, 

the most noble, the most wealthy, the most learned, the most truly popular, 

the most powerful to oppose, the most steadfast to sue for profits and to be 

suedfor losses.” Also personal wealth. [Aber Herr Maine, dies only in Status 

of Upper Barbarism, far from being archaic] the principal condition 

of the Chief’s maintaining his position and authority. (134, 135) 

Brehon law zeigt dass dch d. acquisition o f such wealth the road was always 

open to chieftainship. Portion o f the Danish nobility originally peasants u. in 

early English laws some traces of a process wdch a Ceorl might become a 

Thane. (135) 

Brehon law speaks o f the Bo-A ire (the cow-nobleman). 1st simply a peasant, 

grown rich in cattle, probably through obtaining the use of large portions of 

tribe-land. (135) D . true nobles-the Aires getheilt [von d. Pfaffenjuristen, 

d. Brehons notabene; dies wie alle alten Pfaffenbücher (Menu f.i.) voller 

fictions in Interesse d. Chiefs, höheren Stände etc, schliesslich all das 

wieder in Interesse der Kirche. Ausserdem sind sie wie Juristen aller 

Sorten bei d. Hand mit fictive classifications.)] Jeder Grad unterschieden 

von dem anderen dch the amount of wealth possessed by the Chief belonging 

to it, by the weight attached to his evidence, by the power of 

binding his tribe by contracts (literally of “ knotting” ), by the dues he 

receives in kind from his vassals, by his Honor-Price, or special damages 

incurred by injuring him. A t the bottom o f the scale is the Aire-desa; u. d. 

Brehon Law provides dass wenn der Bo-Aire has acquired 2X the wealth 

of an Aire-desa, and has held it for a certain number of generations, he 

becomes an Aire-Desa himself. “ He is an inferior chief - says the Senchus 

Mor - whose father was not ;a diief” . (136) Enormous importance of 

wealth u. specially wealth in tattle reflected in the Brehon tracts. (137) 

Wahrscheinlich the first aristocracy springing from kingly favour consisted 

of the Comitatus, or Companions of the King. (138) Major Domus bei d. 

167 Franken ward K ön ig; das blood | des Steward (and Great Seneschal) of 

Scotland runs in the veins of the Kings of England. Noch in-England the 

great officers of the Royal Council u. Household haben Vorrang vor allen Pairs, 

od. mindest o f all Peers of their own degree. Alle diese hohen Würden 

[dies hat Maurer u. z. Th. schon Hüllmann lang gewusst vor M aine],23 

295

wenn nicht marking an office originally clerical, point to an occupation... at 

firs t... menial.” (139) D . Household sprang von very humble beginnings. 

(139) D . stubbige Stubbs (^Constitutional History” ) states that “ the gesiths 

of an (English) king were his guard and private council” , wobei er bemerkt, dass 

“ the free^household servants of a ceorl are also in a certain sense his gesiths” . 

D . Companions des king in the Irish legal literature nicht noble, u. associated 

mit d. king's body-guard which is essentially servile. 

Wsclich dass in a particular stage of society, der personal service to the Chief 

or King was überall rendered in expectation of a reward in the shape of a 

gift o f land. D . Companions d. Teutonic Kings shared largely in the 

Benefices, grants of Roman provincial land fully peopled u. stocked; in 

ancient Engld selbe class largest grantees (nach Pfaffen s’il vous plait) of 

public land; u. dies part o f the secret o f the mysterious change wdch a new 

nobility of Thanes, deriving dignity u. authority from the King, absorbed 

the older nobility of the Eorls. (14 1) Aber in countries lying beyond the northern 

u. western limits of the Roman Empire, or just within them (land) was 

plentiful. Es war noch im Mittelalter d. “ cheapest commodity” . D . 

practical difficulty was not to obtain land, but the instruments for making it 

productive. (14 1, 42) D . Chief (Irish) war vor allem reich in flocks u. herds; 

he was military leader; great part of his wealth was spoil of war u. in his 

civil capacity he multiplied his kine through his growing power of appropriating 

the waste for pasture, and dch a system of dispersing his herds among 

the tribesmen. D . Companion,24 der followed him to the foray etc auch 

enriched by his bounty; if already noble, he became greater; if not noble, 

the way o f nobility lay through wealth. (142) (Vergl. Dugmore: “ Compendium 

of Kaffir Laws and Customs” ) 

Whenever legal expression has to be given to the relations o f the Comita- 

tus to the Teutonic kings, the portions o f the Roman law selected are 

uniformly those which declare the semi-servile relation of the Client or 

Freedman to his Patron. Nach d. texts d. Brehon Law a Chief of high 

degree is always expected25 to surround himself with unfree dependents u. d. 

retinue eines King of Erin was to consist not only o f free tribesmen but 

of a bodyguard of men bound to him by servile obligations ... Auch ... wenn d. 

Comitatus or Companions o f the Chief (were) freemen, nicht nothwdig od. 

gewöhnlich his near kindred. (145) 

In d. Brehon Laws spielen grosse Rolle horned cattle, i. e.bulls, cows, heifers, 

and calves; auch horses, sheep, swine, dogs, bees (the latter = the producers o f 

the greatest of primitive luxuries). V o r allem aber kine (cows). Capitale - 

kine reckoned by the head, cattle has given birth to one o f the most 

famous terms o f law and one of the most famous terms o f political 

economy, Chattels and Capital. Pecunia. (147) The Primitive Roman law 

places oxen in highest class of property, mit land u. slaves as items o f the 

Res mancipi. Kine, which the most ancient Sanscrit literature shows to | 

68 have been eaten as food, became at some unknown period sacred and their 

296

flesh forbidden; two of the chief “ Things which required a Mancipation 

at Rome” , oxen and landed property, had their counterpart in the sacred 

bull of Siwa and the sacred land o f India. (148) Horned cattle showed their 

greatest value when groups of men settled on spaces of land and betook 

themselves to the cultivation of food-grain. (I.e.) Erst für ihr flesh u. milk 

valued, schon in very early times a distinct special importance belonged to 

them as instrument or medium of exchange; bei Homer sind sie a measure of 

value; traditional story dass d. earliest coined money known at Rome stamped 

with the figure o f an ox; “pecus” u. “pecunia” . (14 9 )26 In Brehon laws 

figuriren horned cattle als means of exchange; fines, dues, rents u. returns are 

calculated in live-stock, not exclusively in kine, but nearly so. Beständig 

referred to two standards of value, “ sed” u. “ cumhal” ; cumhal soil originaliter 

have meant a female slave, aber “ sed” plainly used for an amount or quantity 

of live stock. Aber, später, cattle hauptsächlich valued for their use in tillage, 

their labour and their manure. Erst nach u. nach as beasts of plough ersetzt dch 

Pferde in Western Europe (auch hier nicht überall); in still large portions of 

the world horse noch ausschliesslich employed, wie wohl ursprünglich 

überall, for war, pleasure, or the chase. (150) Oxen waren so fst einziger 

Representative of what now called Capital. (I.e.) The same causes which 

altered the position o f the ox and turned him into an animal partially 

adscriptus glebae, undoubtedly produced also a great extension of slavery 

Enormous importation o f slaves into the central territories o f the Roman 

Commonwealth, and the wholesale degradation of the free cultivating 

communities o f Western Europe into assemblages o f villeins. (150, 15 1) 

D . Schwierigkeit - in ancient Ireland - not to obtain land, but the means of 

cultivating it. D . great owners of catde were the various Chiefs, whose 

primitive superiority to the other tribesmen in this respect was probably 

owing to their natural functions as military leaders of the tribe. Andrerseits 

scheint aus d. Brehon laws zu folgen that the Chiefs pressed by the 

difficulty of finding sufficient pasture for their herds. Hatten ihrer 

growing power over the waste land dr particular group worüber sie 

präsidirten, aber die most fruitful portions of the tribal territory whsclich 

those which the free tribesmen occupied. Hence d. system of giving and 

receiving stock, to which 2 sub-tracts des Senchus Mor are devoted, the Cain- 

Saerrath u. d. Cain-Aigillne, the Law of Saer-Stock tenure u. the Law of 

Daer-Stock Tenure. (152) 

In Feudalgesellscft everybody has become the subordinate of somebody else 

higher than himself and yet exalted above him by no great distance. (153) 

Nach Stubbs (Constit. History. I, 252) Feudalism has “ grown up from 2 

great sources, the Benefice and the practice of Commendation. (154) 

Commendation, in particular, went on all over Western Europe. (155) 

D . Chief (Irish) - sei er einer d. many tribal rulers whom the Irish records 

call kings, or one of those heads of joint families whom the Anglo-Irish 

297

lawyers at a later period called the Capita Cognationum, - is not owner of 

the tribal lands. His own land he may have, consisting of private estate or 

of official domain, or of both, and over the general tribal land he has a 

general administrative authority, ever growing greater over that portion o f it 

which is unappropriated waste. He is meanwhile the military (leader) of his 

tribesmen, and probably in that capacity has acquired great wealth in 

cattle. It has somehow become of great importance to him to place out 

portions o f his herds among the tribesmen, and they on their part 

occasionally find themselves through stress of circumstance in pressing 

169 need o f cattle for employment in tillage. Thus the Chiefs appear | in the 

Brehon law as perpetually giving stock' and the tribesmen as receiving it. 

(T57) 

B y taking stock the free Irish tribesman becomes the Ceile or Kyle, the 

vassal or man of his Chief owing him not only rent but service and homage. 

The exact effects of “ commendation” are thus produced. (15 8) Je mehr 

stock der tribesman accepts from his Chief, desto tiefer der status zu dem 

er herabsinkt. Hence die 2 classes of Saer und Daer tenants (entspreche (n)d 

dem status der free und higher base tenants of an English manor). 

D . Saer Stock tenant erhält nur limited amount of stock from the Chief, 

bleibt freeman, retains his tribal rights in their integrity; the normal period 

of his tenancy was j years, and at the end of it he became entitled to the cattle 

which had been in his possession. In d. Zwischenzeit hatte er the advantage of 

employing them in tillage, and the Chief erhielt the growth and increase [i.e. 

the young and the manure\ and milk. Zugleich it is expressly laid down dass 

d. Chief überdem entitled to receive homage and manual labour; manual labour 

is explained to mean the service of the vassal in reaping the Chief's harvest and 

in assisting to build his castle or fo rt; u. it is stated that, in lieu of manual 

labour, the vassal might be required to follow his Chief to the wars. (158, 

! 59) 

Daer-stock tenancy gebildet, wenn entweder any large addition to the stock 

deposited with the Saer-Stock tenant, od. an unusual quantity accepted in 

the first instance by the tribesman. D . Daer Stock tenant had parted with some 

portion of his freedom u. his duties invariably referred to as very onerous. D. 

Stock, den er vom Chief erhielt, bestand aus 2 portions, wovon die eine 

entsprechend dem Rang des Empfängers, d. andre der rent in kind to which 

t(h)e tenant became liable. D. technical standard seines Rangs, war des 

tenant “ honor-price", d.h. the fine or damage payable for injuring him, variable 

T ”mit the dignity o f the person injured. M it Beûg auf die rent heisst’s im 

Brehon Law : “ The proportionate stock of a calf of the value of a sack 

with its accompaniments, and refections for three persons in the summer, 

and work for three days, is three “ sam-haisc"^ heifers or their value” 

(Cain-Aigillne, p. 25), in ändern Worten: Deponirt der Chief beim tenant 

3 heifers28 so wird er entitled to the calf, the refections, and the labour.” 

Ferner: “ The proportionate stock of a “ dartadh" heifer with its accompaniment, 

298

is 12 “ seds" - explained to mean 12 “ sam-haisc" heifers, or 6 cows, etc etc. 

Diese rent in kind, od. food rent, hatte in dieser ihrer ältesten Form, nichts 

%u thun mit der value of the tenant's land, but solely to the value of the Chiefs 

stock deposited with the tenant; sie entwickelte sich erst später in a rent 

payable in respect of the tenant's land. Die lästigste imposition des Daer-Stock 

tenant sind dies “ refections"; dies war nämlich d. Recht des Chief, der den 

stock gegeben hatte, to come with a company of a certain number, and 

feast at the Daer-stock tenant’s house, at particular periods, for a fixed 

number of days. D . Irish chief war wahrscheinlich, sagt Herr Maine, 

litde better housed and almost as poorly furnished out, wie seine tenants, 

and could not have managed to consume at home the provisions to which 

his gifts of stock entitled him. The Brehon law defines and limits the 

practice narrowly on all sides, but its inconvenience u. abuse manifest; 

from it doubtless descended those “ oppressions” which revolted such 

English observers of Ireland as Spenser and Davies29 (!), the “ coin and 

livery” , and “ cosherings” o f the Irish Chiefs which they [these self- 

righteous English canaille!] denounce with such indignant emphasis (!). 

Der würdige Maine, vergessend die Rundreisen d. englischen Könige 

u. ihrer Höflinge (see Anderson u. Macpherson) (vgl. auch Maurer) 30 hat d. 

Frechheit zu vermuthen: “ Perhaps there was no Irish usage which 

seemed to Englishmen (!) so amply to justify the entire judicial or | 

I7° legislative abolition of Irish customs” (!) (159 -16 1) Nach d. Brehon 

lawyers the relation out of which Daer-stock tenancy and its peculiar obligations 

arose, were not perpetual. After food-rent and service had been 

rendered for 7 years [Zeit die Jacob zu dienen hatte?], if the Chief died, the 

tenant became entitled to the stock; wenn andrerseits der tenant starb, 

waren seine heirs theilweis, obgleich nicht ganz, relieved from their 

obligation. Wahrscheinlich d. Daer-stock tenancy, beginning in the 

necessities of the tenant, was often from the same cause rendered practically 

permanent.. (162) 

The Heriot of English Copyhold tenure, the “ best beast” taken by the Lord 

on the death of a base tenant, has been explained as an acknowledgment o f31 

the Lord's ownership of the cattle with which he anciently stocked the lands 

of his villeins, just as the Heriot of the military tenant is believed to have had 

its origin in a deposit o f arms. Adam Smith recognized the great antiquity 

o f the Metayer tenancy, w ovon er noch in seiner Zeit found in Scotland 

one variety, the “ steelbone". (162) In einer der prefaces der official translation 

der Brehon laws Vergleichg gemacht zwischen Metayer tenancy u. the Saer u. 

Daer-stock tenancy of ancient Irish law. Die differences aber: In Metayage 

giebt landlord land u. stock, der tenant nur Arbeit u. skill; in Saer u. Daer 

stock tenancy the land belonged to the tenant. Ferner: d. ancient Irish 

relation produced nicht allein a contractual liability, sondern a status; the 

tenant had his social u. tribal position distinctly altered by accepting 

stock. [Wie leicht in ancient times mere contractual liability umschlägt, 

299

oder kaum zu ändern ist von status, Beweis z.B. Russld wo persönlicher 

Dienst direct in Sklaverei umschlägt u. selbst freiwillige Feldarbeit etc nur 

mit Mühe von selbem Umschlag zu schützen. Sieh darüber d. Weitere in 

d. russ. Quellen.] (163) In Ireland the acceptance of stock not always voluntary; 

a tribesman in one stage of Irish custom at all events was bound to 

receive stock from his own “ King” ... Dies the Chief of his32 tribe in its 

largest extension. In eingen cases the Tribe wzu der intending tenant 

gehörte had in some cases a veto on his adoption o f the new position. Um 

d. Tribe opportunity to geben to interpose whenever it had legal power 

to do so, the acceptance of stock had to be open and public, and the consequences 

of effecting it surreptitiously are elaborately set forth by the law. 

Hence one of the rules: “ no man should leave a rent on his land which he 

did not find there.” (163, 164) 

Gehörten der Chief der den stock gab u. der Ceile der ihn accepted zum 

selben Tribe, so relation geschaffen verschieden von d. tribal connection 

u. much more to the advantage o f the chief. Aber dieser Chief war nicht 

immer der Chief o f the tribe(s)man’s own Sept or Tribe. Brehon law 

sucht Schwierigkeiten in d. W eg zu legen wo attempt dies vassalage 

Verhältniss %u etabliren %·wischen a tribesman and a strange Chief. Aber 

abundant admission that dies vorkam. Jeder nobleman assumed to be 

as a rule rich in stock, u. having the Zw eck to disperse his herds by the 

practice of giving stock. Der enriched peasant, der Bo-aire, had Ceiles 

who accepted stock from him. Hence the new groups formed in this way 

were manchmal ganz distinct von den old groups composed of the Chief 

and his Clan. Auch die new relation nicht confined auf Aires, or noblemen, 

u. Ceiles (i.e. free but non noble tribesmen). The Bo-aire certainly 

and apparently the higher Chiefs also, accepted stock on occasion from 

chieftains more exalted than themselves, and in the end to “ give stock” 

came to mean the same thing wie anderswo “ Commendation___ By 

fiction the Brehon Law represents the King of Ireland as “ accepting stock' 

from the Emperor. Es sagt: “ When the King of E rin is without opposition 

17 1 (wovon the explanation runs: when he holds the ports of Dublin, | Waterford 

and Limerick, which were usually in the hands of the Danes - “ he 

receives stock from the King of the Romans” . (Senchus Mor.33 II, 2 2 ;). The 

commentary goes on to say, that sometimes “ it is by the successor of Patrick 

[dies statt “ Pope” ] that the stock is given to the King of Erin” . (164-166) 

This natural growth of feudalism was not, as some eminent recent writers 

have supposed, entirely distinct from the process by which the authority 

o f the Chief or Lord over the Tribe or Village was extended, but rather 

formed part o f it. While the unappropriated waste lands were falling into 

his domain, the villagers or tribesmen were coming through natural (?) 

agencies under his personal power. (167) 

The law-tracts (Brehon) give a picture of an aristocracy of wealth in its most 

primitive form ; cf. über d. Gallic Celts Caesar B. G .3 I. 4, u. V I. 13. In 

300

ancient world finden wir sehr early plebejan classes deeply indebted to aristocratic 

orders. (167) Athenian commonalty the bondslaves through debts of the 

Eupatrids; so the Roman Commons in money bondage to the Patricians. 

(167, 168) In very ancient times land was a drug, while capital was extremely 

perishable, added to with the greatest difficulty, and lodged in 

very few hands ... The ownership of the instruments of tillage other than 

the land itself was thus, in early agricultural communities, a power of the 

first order ... it may be believed (!) that a stock of the primitive capital larger 

than usual was very generally obtained by plunder ... mostly daher in the 

hands of noble classes whose occupation was war and who at all events 

had a monopoly of the profits of office. The advance of capital at usurious 

interest, and the helpless degradation of the borrowers, natural results 

of such economical conditions. (168, 169) D . Brehon writers der Cain- 

Saerrath u. Cain-Aigillne, dch their precise u. detailed statements, 

plainly intend to introduce certainty and equity into a naturally oppressive 

system. (169) 

“ Eric-fines” , or pecuniary composition for violent crime. (170) B y this 

customary law, the sept or family to which the perpetrator of a crime 

belonged etc had to pay in cattle (später Geld) dies fine. (17 1) 

Feodum, Feud, Fief, von Vieh, cattle. Ebenso Pecunia u. Pecus. Wie d. 

Roman lawyers tell that pecunia became the most comprehensive term 

for all a man’s property, so “feodum” - originally meaning “ cattle” . 

i1!1, 172) 

Nach Dr. Sullivan feodum Celtic Sprachursprung; he connects it with 

fuidhir. Nämlich d. territory jedes Irish tribe seems to have had settled 

on it, neben den Saer und Daer Ceiles, certain classes of persons deren 

status nearer to slavery than to that of the Saer u. Daer tribesmen. Diese 

classes genannt Sencleithes, Bothachs und Fuidhirs; diese 2 letzten classes 

wieder subdivided in Saer u. Daer Bothachs und Saer u. Daer Fuidhirs. 

Ersichtlich aus d. tracts u. namentlich dem noch unpublicirten “ Corus 

Fine” , dass d. servile dependents, gleich den freemen des territory, had 

a family or Tribal organisation; and indeed all fragments of a society like 

that of ancient Ireland take more or less the shape of the prevailing model. D. 

position d. classes, obscurely indicated in Domesday u. other English 

records as Cotarii und Bordarii whclich sehr ähnlich denen der Sencleithes 

u. Bothachs; in beiden Fällen had diese servile orders whsclich an origin 

distinct from that of the dominant race, and belonged to the older or aboriginal 

inhabitants of the country. Ein Theil der families or subtribes formed out 

of them were certainly in a condition of special servitude to the Chief or 

dependence on him; diese either engaged in cultivating his immediate 

domain-land and herding his cattle, or were planted by him in separate settlements 

on the waste land of the tribe; rente or service which they paid scheint von 

172 Willkühr des Chief abhängig gewesen zu sein. (172, 173) | D . wichtigste 

Theil dieser Klassen der settled by the Chief on the unappropriated tribal 

301

lands. Diese Fuidhirs u. ausserdem strangers or fugitives from other territories, 

in fact men who had broken the original tribal bond which gave 

them a place in the community. Aus Brehon law sichtbar, dass diese Klasse 

zahlreich; spricht à diverses reprises von the desertion of their lands by 

families or portions of families. Unter gewissen Umständen wden the 

rupture of the tribal bond u. d. Flucht deren who break it als “ eventualities” 

von d. Gesetz behandelt. D . 'Verantwortlichkeit von tribes, subtribes, u. 

families fo r crimes ihrer Glieder u. even to some extent of civil obligation 

derselben - might be prevented by compelling or inducing a member of the group 

to withdraw from its circle; and the Book of A icill gives the legal procedure 

which is to be observed in the expulsion, the tribe paying certain fines 

to the Chief and the Church and proclaiming the fugitive ... Result 

probably to fill the country with “ broken men” u. diese could find a home 

and protection by becoming Fuidhir tenants; alles tending to disturb the 

Ireland der Brehon Laws tended to multiply this particular class. (173, 

174) 

D. Fuidhir tenant exclusive(ly a) dependent o f the Chief u. nur dch 

letzteren connected mit d. Tribe; Chief wde auch responsible für sie; sie 

kultivirten sein Land; sie daher the first “ tenants at will” known to Ireland. 

The “ three rents” , says the Senchus Mor are the rackrent from a person of a 

strange tribe [dies person undoubtedly the Fuidhir\, a fair rent from one of 

the Tribe, and the stipulated rent which is paid equally by the tribe and the strange 

tribe” . In einer der glosses, was “ rackrent” übersetzt ist, verglichen “ to 

the milk of a cow which is compelled to give milk every month to the end of the 

year” . (174, 175) Andrerseits hatte Chief grosses Interesse to encourage 

diese Fuidhir tenants. Heisst in one of the tracts : “ He brings in Fuidhirs to 

increase his wealth” . D . interests really injured were those of the tribe... which 

suffered as a body by the curtailment of the waste land available for pasture. V gl. 

Hunter's “ Orissa” w o shown wie d. “ hereditary peasantry” of Orissa beschädigt 

dch d. broken “ migratory husbandmen” etc. (Sieh Orissa, /, /7, jS ) 

(17 5 -17 7 ) 34 Cf. Edmund Spenser (writing not later than ijp 6 ) u .** 

Für d. comfortable Maine d. Irish Tenant question “ was settled only the 

other day” . (178) M it seinem gewöhnlichen Optimismus d. Sache settled 

dch d. A ct of i8yo (!) 

**S ir John Davis2, writing before 16 1 3 . 35 

The general bias der writers der Brehon Tracts rather towards the exaggeration 

of the privileges of the Chiefs than towards overstatement o f the 

immunities of tribesmen. (180) 

The power of the Irish Chiefs u. their severity to their tenants in the 

16th century being admitted, have been accounted for by the Norman nobles 

- the Fitzgeralds, Burkes, Barrys - becoming gradually clothed with Irish 

chieftainship had first abused it u. thus set an evil example to all the 

Chiefs in Ireland. (181) Better Theory of Dr. Sullivan (in his Introduction, 

p. cxxvi) wonach dies régime determined “ by the steady multiplication of 

302

Fuidhir tenants” . (i 82) Und causes at work, powerfully u. for long periods 

o f time, to increase the numbers of this class: Danish piracies, intestine 

feuds, Anglo-Norman attempts at conquest, the existence o f36 the Pale, u. 

the policy directed from the Pale of playing off against one another the Chiefs 

beyond37 its borders. Dch dies civil war etc tribes fa r u. wide broken up, dies 

implies a multitude of broken men. (183) Dann wie in Orissa die immigrated 

cultivators at the disposal of the Zeminders make greatly rise for d. ancient 

tenantry the standard of rent u. d. exactions d. landlords - selber Einfluss 

173 d. Fuidhir tenants in Ireland; altered seriously for the worse the | ^p o rtion 

of the tenants by Saer Stock u. by Daer Stock Tenure. (183, 184) 

Spenser: “ View of the State of Ireland” . 

In d. übrigens sonst kritisch nicht erwähnenswerthen: “ History of Ireland, 

Ancient and Modern” (Dublin 1867) von Martin Haverty, wd bemerkt: 

“ tanaisteacht (or tanistry), a law of succession, bezog sich auf “ transmission 

of titles, offices, and authority.” Says Professor Curry: “ There was no invariable 

rule o f succession... but according to the general tenor of our ancient 

accounts the eldest son succeeded the father to the exclusion of all collateral 

claimants, unless it happened that he was disqualified etc. The eldest son, 

being thus recognised and the presumptive heir and successor to the dignity, 

was denominated tanaiste, that is, minor or second,, while all the other sons 

or persons that were eligible in case of his failure, were simply called 

righdhamhna, i.e. king-m aterialor king-makings. This was the origin of 

tanaiste, a successor, and Holnais Flacht, successorship. The tanaiste had a 

separate establishment,39 as well as distinct privileges and liabilities. 

He was inferior to the king or chief, but above all the other dignitaries 

of the State___ Tanistry, in the Anglo-Norm an sense, was not an 

original, essential element of the law of succession, but a condition that 

might be adopted or abandoned at any time by the parties concerned; and 

it does not appear that it was at any time universal in Erin, although it 

prevailed in many parts of it___ Alternate tanaisteacht did not involve 

any disturbance of property, or of the people, but only affected the 

position of the person himself \ whether king, chief, or professor of any of the 

liberal arts, as the case might be; ... it was often set aside by force.” [Prof. 

Curry in : “ Introduction, etc to the battle of Magh Leana” , printedfor the Celtic 

Society, Dublin, 18 j j ; quoted in Haverty, Hist, of Irld, p. 49, wo es weiter 

heisst: “ The primitive intention was that the inheritance should descend 

to the oldest and most worthy man o f the same name and blood, but 

practically this was giving it to the strongest, and family feuds and intestine 

wars were the inevitable consequence.” (Haverty, p. 49)] 

B y gavelkind (or gavail-kinne) [common also to the Britons, Anglo-Saxons, 

Francs, etc] the property was divided equally between all the sons, whether 

legitimate or otherwise . .. ; but in addition to his own equal share, which 

the eldest son obtained in common with his brothers, he received the 

dwelling house and other buildings, which would been received by the 

3 °3

father or kenfine - [Dies W ort “ kenfine” oder “ Caen-fine” was (nach Prof. 

Curry) only applied to the heads of minor families, and never to any kind 

of chieftains], if the division was made, as it frequently was, in his own 

life-time. This extra share was given to the eldest brother as head of the 

family, and in consideration o f certain liabilities which he incurred for the security 

o f the family in general. If there were no sons, the property was divided 

equally among the next male heirs of the deceased, [Nach Curry: in default 

of any male issue daughters were allowed a life interest in property.] whether 

uncles, brothers, nephews, or cousins; but the female line was excluded 

from the inheritance. Sometimes a repartition of the lands of a whole tribe, 

orfamily of several branches, became necessary, owing to the extinction of some of the 

branches; but it does not appear that any such confusion or injustice resulted 

from the law, as is represented by Sir John Davis and by other English 

lawyers who have adopted his account o f it. (p. jo . He quotes: “ Dissertation 

upon40 the Laws of the Ancient Irish, written by D r. O'Brien, author of 

the Dictionary, but published anonymously by Vallencey in the 3d number 

o f the “ Collectanea de Reb. H ib.''') 

The Tenure of land in Ireland was essentially a tribe or family right... all the 

members of a tribe or family in Ireland had an equal right to their 

proportionate share o f the land occupied by the whole. The equality 

o f tide and blood thus enjoyed by all must have created a sense of 

individual self-respect and mutual dependence, that could not have 

existed under the Germanic and Anglo-Norm an system of vassalage. | 

J74 The tenures of whole tribes were of course frequently disturbed by war; 

and whenever a tribe was driven or emigrated into a district where it had no 

hereditary claim, if it obtained land it was on the payment of a rent to the king 

of the district; these rents being in some instances so heavy as to compel 

the strangers to seek for a home elsewhere. (I.e. p. 50) (cf. ib. p. 28 N te, 

ein (angeblich) Beispiel aus d. Zeit der Queen MabX) 

D . Hünde v. Engländern - man kennt d. Humanität dieser Bestien aus d. 

Zeiten Henry's V I I I , Elizabeth's u. James 1\ - machten gross Geschrei 

über Irish compositio od. “ eric” ; vergessend dass sich selbiges findet in 

Laws of Athlestan, Leges Wallicae (Howell D da’s)41 etc. see I.e. p. / / u. 

daselbst N tef.) 

Fosterage prevailed, up to a comparatively recent period; Engl.gvt. machte 

oft stringent laws daggen, to prevent the intimate friendships which sprung 

up between the Anglo-Irish families and their “ mere” Irish fosterers. By 

the statute of Kilkenny, 40 E d . ///(a .d . 1367) wden Fosterage and gossipred 

[gossipred or compaternity, by the canon law, is a spiritual affinity, and 

the juror that was gossip to either of the parties, might, in former times, 

have been challenged as not indifferent.” \Davies on Ireland, bei Dr. 

Johnson Diet, sub voce: gossipred.)] as well as intermarriages, with the native 

Irish, declared to be treason. Says Giraldus Cambrensis (Top. H ib. Dist. 3 , 

ch. 23) “ if any love or faith is to be found among them (the Irish), you 

3°4

must look for it among the fosterers and their foster-children” . Stanihurst, 

D e reb. bib. p. 49, says, the Irish loved and confided in their foster-brothers 

more than their brothers by blood: “ Singula illis credunt; in eorum spe 

requiescunt; omnium conciliorum sunt maxime consoci. Collactanei 

etiam eos fidelissime et amantissime observant” . See also H arris's Ware 

— v. II, p. 72 (p. 51, 52 I.e.) 

E h wir ftfahren mit dem Maine, zunächst zu bemerken dass 4 Ju li 160 / 

der elende Jacob I [der zur Zeit der Elizabeth, before his accession den 

Katholikenfieund gespielt u., wie D r. Anderson: “ Royal Genealogies, p. 

786” sagt, “ assisted the Irish privately more than Spain did publicly” ] 

issued a proclamation, formally promulgating für Irland the A ct of 

Uniformity (2 E li^ .) and commanding the “ Papist clergy” to depart 

from the realm. Im selben Jahr the ancient Irish customs o f tanistry u. 

gavelkind were abolished by a judgment o f the Court of King's Bench, and 

the inheritance o f property was subjected to the rules of English law. 

(D. lumpacii affirmed the illegality o f the native Irish tenures of land; 

declared42 the English common law to be in force in Ireland, u. von da 

the eldest son succeeded, as heir-at-law, both to lands which were attached 

to a Signory and to estates which had been divided according to the 

peculiar Irish custom of gavelkind. Maine. 185] D . lausige Sir John Davis 

was K ing James Attorney-General for Ireland u. für diesen Posten war 

natürlich entsprechender Lump gewählt -ein ebenso “ vorurtheilsfreier” 

u. uninteressirter Patron wie der Elizabeths Arschkissende Poet Spenser43 

I i^State of Ireland"'). His remedy for the ills o f Ireland, the employment of 

large masses of troops “ to tread down all that standeth before them in 

foot, and lay on the ground all the stiffnecked people of that land" u. zwar 

sollte that war nicht nur im Sommer, sondern auch im Winter geführt 

werden, u. fährt dann fort: “ the end will be very short" u. describes in proof 

what he himself had witnessed in the late wars of Munster” etc. See d. 

weiteren Cannibalismus dieses Poeten bei Haverty, I.e. p. 428 Nte.) 

D . bewusste Zw eck d. James was “ looting” , was d. Bursche Colonisation 

nannte. Vertreibg u. Unterjochung d. Irish, u. confiscation ihres Lands 

u. Habe, alles das unter d. Prätext von Anti-Popery. i6oy O 'N eill u. 

O'Donnell, noch in possession of vast tracts of country, the last great 

Irish chieftains, crushed.44 1608 d. Chiefs im Norden, Sir Cahir O'Doherty 

etc crushed (ihr Revolt). Nun 6 counties of Ulster - Tyrone, Derry, Donegal, 

Fermanagh, Armagh u. Cavan - confiscated to the Crown u. parcelled out 

among adventurers from England and Scotland. Dazu benutzt Sir Arthur 

Chichester (Bacon’s plan gefiel nicht dem beasdy fool James II), the lord 

deputy, der zum Dank erhielt the wide lands o f Sir Cahir O'Doherty for 

his share in the wholesale spoliation, (see O ' Donovan, “ Four Masters". 

Die reichen Spiessbürger der London City were the largest participators in 

the plunder. They obtained 209,800 acres and rebuilt the city (i.e. Derry) 

175 since then called Londonderry. Nach d. plan finally | adopted for the 

3°5

“plantation of Ulster” the lots into which the lands were divided were 

classified into those containing 2000 acres, which were reserved for rich 

undertakers and the great servitors of the crown; those containing ijoo acres, 

which were allotted to servitors of the crown in Ireland, with permission to 

take either English or Irish tenants; and, thirdly, those containing 1000 acres, 

to be distributed with still less restriction. The exclusion of the ancient 

inhabitants, and the proscription45 of the Catholic religion, were the 

fundamental principles to be acted on as far as possible in this settlement. 

Cox says that in the instructions, printed for the direction of the settlers, it 

was especially mentioned “ that they should not suffer any laborer, that 

would not take the oath o f supremacy, to dwell upon their land” , (p. 497- 

500 I.e.) 

Irish Parlement berufen angeblich für “ Protestant Ascendancy” , aber namentlich 

auch um Geld für James I zu pressen (whose insatiable rapacity 

u. stete Geldnoth notorious, (p. 501-503 I.e.) 

D a der Raub vermittelst der “plantation so gut gelungen, suchte James I 

Sache jetzt auf andre Theile Irlands auszudehnen; appointed commission 

o f inquiry to scrutinize the titles and determine the rights of all the lands 

in Leinster; commissioners worked so rapidly, that in a little time land to 

the extent of 385,000 acres placed at James’s disposal [dieser “ silly, 

pedantic fool” , der “ British Solomon lauded by Hume] for distribution. 

(Weiteres darüber p. 501-505 I.e.) See Leland. Der puritanisch thuende 

ruffian Arthur Chichester [der für jede neue infamy additional grant of Irish 

lands erhielt u. d. T ide: Baron o f Belfast, hatte 1616 sein Werk gethan 

u. withdrew from the Irish gvnment] laid down as the punishment of 

jurors who would not findfor the king on “ sufficient evidence” 46 the Star Chamber; 

sometimes they were “ pillor

angehört; meist ältester Sohn, relativ Onkel (modificirt dch descent linie); 

ist bereits eignes head verbden mit d. function, so geht dies natürlich mit 

d. Function.] 

V on Gavelkind sagt Sir John D avis: “ By the Irish custom of Gavelkind, the 

inferior tenanties were partible among all the males of the Sept, both Bastards 

and Legitimate; and, after partition made, if any one of the Sept had died, 

his portion was not divided among his sonnes, but the Chief of the Sept made a 

new partition of all the lands belonging to that Sept, and gave everyone his part 

according to his antiquity.” (186) [D. Irish Sept = Gens.] Skene citirt observation 

eines engl. Engineer officer in d. Highlands abt 1730 : “ They 

(the Highlanders) are divided into tribes or clans under chiefs or chieftains, 

and each clan is again divided into branches from the main stock, w(fi)o have 

chieftains over them. They are subdivided into smaller branches of jo or 60 men, 

176 who deduce their originalfrom their \ particular chieftain.” {Skene: “ Highlanders” 

I, p. 156) Was Davis describes passirt ähnlich in a Hindoo Joint Family in 

case of death of one of its members. (187) Dort nämlich, all the property 

being brought into the “ common chest or purse” , the lapse of any one 

life would have the effect, potentially if not actually, of distributing the 

dead man’s share among all the kindred united in the family group. A nd 

if, on a dissolution of the Joint family, the distribution o f its effects were 

not per capita but per stirpes, this would correspond to Davis's Chief 

giving to each man ‘according to his antiquity.’ (p. 187, 188) Gavelkind 

entspringt aus d. gleichen od. period. Theilung d. Lands in rural commune 

; zuletzt “ the descendants (aber vorher dies auch schon bei Lebêit) 

o f the latest holder take his property, to the exclusion o f everybody else 

u. d. rights of the portion of the community outside the family dwindle 

to a veto on sales, or to a right of controlling the modes o f cultivation.” 

C1 89) 

Das was in D avis’s Report (sieh oben) in Widerspruch scheint mit d. 

Brehon Laws, u. a. mit Corus Bescna (which deals with rights over tribal 

lands) ist dass er ausser rule of Tanistry nur die of “ Gavelkind” kennt, 

whd in Brehon Laws andre (nicht tribal oder gentilician) “ property” 

excluding the “ Sept.” Dr. Sullivan in Introduc. (Breh. Laws p. C L X X ) 

says: “ According to the Irish custom, property descended at first only to 

the male heirs of the body, each son receiving an equal share___ Ultimately, 

however, daughters appear to have become entided to inherit all, 

if there were no sons.” (Dies analog dem Gavelkind of Kent.) Corus Bescna 

implies that under certain circumstances land might be permanently alienated, 

at all events to the Church. (19 1) Ist möglich, dass in certain time the Irish 

Gavelkind (in distinct sense d. Vertheilung unter Sept d. Landes d. defunct), 

the modern Gavelkind known to Kent, and many forms of succession 

intermediate between the two, co-existed in Ireland. The Brehon writers 

als lawyers u. friends of the Church [“ Comfortable” Maine adds in his usual 

Pecksniff unctuosity: “ and (it may be) as well wishers to their country” \] 

307

sehr biassed für descent of property in individual families. (193) Beständig 

kam vor in Irland u. schott. Highlands dass a Chief, ausser domain 

appertaining to his office, had a great estate held under what the English 

lawyers deemed the inferior tenure. D . Beispiele on record wo 2 grosse 

Irish chiefs distributed such estates among their kindred. Im 14 Jhdt Connor 

More O'Brien assigned the bulk of the estate to the various families of the Sept 

formed by his own relatives (also Gens), behielt sich nur 1/2 of a 3d = 1/6 vor, 

u. dies V6 divided er unter his 3 sons, reserving only a rent to himself. A m 

Ende d. i j Jhdts Donogh O'Brien, son of Brien Duff, son of Connor, King of 

Thomond, divided all his land unter seine 1 1 sons, reservirte für sich nur 

mansion u. the demesne in his vicinity. Diese 2 cases getrennt dch a 

century. Im ersten Fall d. land had remained in a state of indivision whd 

several generations; in 2ten had been periodically divided. Der Connor 

More O ’Brien distributed the inheritance of a Sept; Donogh O'Brien that 

of a family. ( Vallancey: “ Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis" I, 264, 265. Cf. 

Haverty. Maine exploits former Irish writers without naming them.) 

Connor More O ’Brien scheint (!) to have paid regard to the various 

stirpes or stocks, worin d. gens sich branched out; entsprechend was Davis 

sagt dass d. Chief divided a lapsed share between the members of a sept 

“ according to their antiquity". In d. most archaic form der Joint Family (soli 

heissen Gens) u. d. institution which grew out of it, the Village Community, 

diese distributions per capita, später distribution per stirpes, w o careful 

attention is paid to the lines into which the descendants of the ancestor 

o f the joint-family (read: gens) have separated, and separate rights are 

reserved to them. Finally, the stocks themselves escape from the sort of 

shell constituted by the Joint Family (gens); each man’s share of the 

property, now periodically divided, (diesen Uebergang d. period, gleichen 

Theilung erklärt Maine nicht) is distributed among his direct descendants 

at his death. A t this point, property in its modern form has been established; 

but the Joint Family has not wholly ceased to influence successions. 

[Keineswegs ist ddch “ property in its47 modern form” established; see 

Russian communes f. i.] Fehlen direct descendants, it is even now the rules 

of the Joint Family which determine the taking o f its inheritance. 

Collateral successions, when distant, follow the more primitive form - per 

capita; when they are those of the nearer kindred ... per stirpes. (194-96) | 

17 7 D . Theilung bei Lebzeiten, das sich bei beiden Chiefs findet, auch in Hindoo 

Joint-Family; auch Laertes in Odyssee, 48 the Old Chief, wenn krackschelig, 

parts with his power u. retains but part o f the property he has administered; 

daggen d. “poorer freeman" w d einer der “ senior” pensioners des 

tribe so often referred to in the tracts (Brehon). (196) 

I [Es ist modernes Vorurtheil, d. Theilung post mortem, hervorgegangen aus 

j d. testamentarischen Erbscft, als etwas Specifisches zu betrachten. D. 

j Eigenthum an Land z.B., common selbst nach Verwandlg in privates 

1 Familieneigthm, nämlich common property d. family, worin jeder seinen 

308

I ideellen Antheil hat, bleibt so nach Tod, sei es dass d. Familie zusammenbleibt, 

sei es dass sie faktisch theilt; folgt daher dass d. Theilung,, wenn der 

Chief d. family (od. wie bei Hindoo joint-family der gewählte od. erbliche 

Repräsentant der family dazu gezwungen w d dch d. co-parceners) will, 

bei seinen Lebzeiten stattfindet. D . gan^ falsche Vorstellung des Maine, 

der d. Privatfamilie, wenn in Indien auch in d. Form, worin sie dort 

existirt, - u. zwar in d. Städten mehr als auf d. Land, u. bei d. Grundrent- 

besitzern mehr als bei d. wirklichen arbeitenden Gliedern einer village 

community - als d. Basis betrachtet, woraus sich Sept u. Clan entwickeln 

etc, zeigt sich auch in flgder Phrase: Nachdem er gesagt, dass d. “power of 

distributing inheritances vested in the Celtic Chiefs” essentially dieselbe Institution 

sei, die dem “ Hindoo father” reserved ist dch die “ Mitakshara” , 

fährt er fort: “ It is part of the prerogative (eselhafter Ausdruck für die gens 

u. Tribe Verhältnisse) belonging to the representative o f the purest49 

blood in the joint family; but in proportion as the Joint Family, Sept, or 

Clan becomes more artificial, the power of distribution tends more and more to 

look like mere administrative authority” . (196, 197) D . Sache ist grad 

umgekehrt. Für Maine, der sich d. English Private family after all nicht 

aus d. K o p f schlagen kann, erscheint diese gan% natürliche Function des Chief 

of gens, weiter of Tribe, natürlich grade weil er ihr Chief ist (u. theoretisch 

immer “ gewählter” ) als “ artificial” u. “ mere administrative authority” , 

whd d. Willkühr d. modernen pater familias grade “ artificial” ist, wie d. 

__Privatfamily selbst, vom archaischen Standpunkt.] 

In einigen systems of Hindoo law, hat der Vater, der bei Lebzeiten d. Eigenthum 

vertheilt, d. Recht to retain a double share u. nach einigen Hindoo 

customs, nimmt der älteste Sohn, wenn d. patrimony theil end mit seinen 

Brüdern, 2 x grösseren Antheil als d. anderen. Aehnlich uthe birthright” 

o f the Hebrew patriarchal history. Dies nicht zu verwechseln mit Recht 

of the rule of Primogeniture. [Sieh oben Haverty, zum Beweis, dass d. irischen 

Vorgänger des Herrn Maine dies lange vor ihm constatirt hatten, w o sie 

diese Ungleichheit bei Gavelkind sehr genau scheiden von Tanistry u. auf Pflichten 

d. ältesten Sohns etc reduciren.] E r sucht sich dann the double share 

plausible zu machen [sie sei “ reward or security for impartial distribution” 

(!)] u. bemerkt das sei oft coupled with the right to take exclusively such 

things deemed incapable of division, the family house, f.i., and certain ustensils. 

Statt d. ältesten Sohns dies Privileg manchmal dem jüngsten Sohn zufallend. 

(197) Primogenitur unbekannt Griechen u. Römern u. Semiten {Juden u. a. 

auch). Aber wir finden als familiar fact dass d. letzten Königs ältester Sohn 

ihm folgt; d. griech. Philosophen speculiren auch dass in älteren states of 

society, smaller groups of men., families u. villages, governed by eldest son 

after eldest son. (198) 

Auch beim Einfall d. Teutonic Barbars in West Europa Primogenitur nicht 

d. gewöhnliche Regel der Nachfolge. D. Allodial Property d. Teutonic 

freemen - theoretisch d. share he had got bei original Erobrungssettlement 

309

d. tribe etc. wenn getheilt, gleichgetheilt ^wischen Söhnen od. auch %wischen 

Söhnen u. Töchtern. Doch erscheint erst mit diesen Barbaren Primogenitur 

rasch ausgebreitet über Westeuropa. Und nun findet Maine neue Schwierigkeit, 

die jedoch nur aus seiner Unbekanntsc(ha)ft mit Wesen der gens 

herstammt, nämlich dass statt ältesten Sohns the eldest male relative of the 

deceased eintritt (dies bei Vorherrschen d. gens d. Normale, da der eldest 

male relative - wo female descent also superseded - näher dem Vater des 

deceased als der son des deceased) oder dass neither the succession of the eldest 

son nor that of the eldest relative could take effect without election or confirmation 

by the members of the aggregate group to which they belong. (199) [Dies ist noch 

— normaler als alles andre; da d. Chief immer theoretisch elective bleibt, only 

__ selbstverständlich, within the gens, resp. within the tribe.] Um sich 

178 letzteren Punkt | klar zu machen, pflückt Herr Maine wieder in seiner 

beliebten Hindoo Joint Family, wo nach T od d. Familienhaupts, wenn d. 

Familie separates, gleiche Theilung stattfindet; wenn nicht, election, meist 

ältester Sohn; wenn dieser als improper set aside, nicht sein Sohn, sondern 

meist d. brother of deceased manager gewählt; so sort of mixture of election 

and doubtful succession, was auch gefunden wird in the early examples of 

European primogeniture. (200) So d. Tribe Chief gewählt from the Chieftain’s 

family “ as representing the purest49 blood of the entire brotherhood” 

. (Blödsinn, wenn von wirklich primitive communities Rede. See 

f.i. Red Indian Iroquois. Umgekehrt, weil meist d. Wahl traditionell in 

derselben, od. gewissen gentes ftführt, u. dann wieder in einer bestimmten 

Familie derselben gens, mag diese später, unter changed circumstances als 

“ representing the purest49 blood” gelten.) u. instances of the choice being 

systematically made from 2 families in succession. (200) Ist auch eine 

Fiktion d. Herrn Maine, dass der war chief ursprünglich der Tribe chief ist. 

Dieser wde umgekehrt nach seinen individual capacities gewählt. Spenser, 

aus dem Maine flgde Stelle citirt, ist authority good enough for stating 

the facts he saw, but their origin cannot be elucidated from Spenser’s 

plausible reasons for the facts observed. Folgendes d. Stelle aus Spenser: 

“ It is a custom among all the Irish that presently after the death o f 

any o f their chief lords or captains, they do presendy assemble themselves 

to a place generally appointed and known to them to choose another in 

his stead, where they do nominate and elect for the most part, not the eldest son, 

nor any of the children of the lord deceased, but the next to him of blood 

that is eldest and worthiest, as commonly the next brother if he have any, or 

the next cousin ( ...) as any is elder in that kindred or sept; and then, next to 

him,50 they choose the next of the blood to be Tanaist, who shall succeed him in the 

said51 Captaincy, if he live thereunto___ For when their Captain dieth, 

if the Signory should descend to his child, and he perhaps an infant, another 

might peradventure step in between or thrust him out by strong 

Hand, being then unable to defend his right and to withstand the force 

o f a forreiner; and therefore they do appoint the eldest o f the kin to have 

310

the Signory, for that commonly he is a man of stronger year(s) and 

better experience to maintain the inheritance and to defend the country... 

And to this end the Tanaist is always ready known, if it should happen to 

the Captain suddenly to die, or to be slain in battle, or to be out o f the 

country, to defend and keep it from all such dangers.” (Spenser: “ View of 

the State of Ireland” , bei Maine, p. 201, 202) [Maine, der gar nicht erwähnt 

(cp. oben Haverty) was d. Irisch writers gesagt, giebt als seine Entdek- 

kung:] “ Primogeniture, considered as a rule of succession to property, 

appears to me a product of tribal leadership in its decay. (20(2)) Glanville 

(unter Henry II, whslich n 8 6 ) hZ writes mit Bezug auf English military 

tenures: “ When anyone dies, leaving a younger son and a grandson, the 

child of his eldest son, a great doubt exists as to which of the two the law 

prefers in the succession to the other, whether the son or the grandson. 

Some think the younger son has more right to the inheritance than the 

grandson but others incline to think that the grandson might523 be 

preferred to his uncle.” (Glanville, V II. 7) Ebenso disputes among 

Highland families about the tide to the chieftaincy o f particular clans. 

(I.e. 203) Maine versteht d. ganzen case nicht; meint d. Onkel z.B. gewählt, 

weil mehr wehrhaft; daggen sobald times had become friedlicher 

unter central authority of a king “ the value of strategical capacity in the 

humbler chiefs would diminish, and in the smaller brotherhoods the respect 

for purity of blood would have unchecked play” . (203) [Dies reiner Blödsinn. 

D. Sach’ ist allmälig Ueberwigen (zusammenhängend mit Entwicklg v. 

Privatgdeigenthum) der Einêlfamilie über d. Gens. Des Vaters Bruder 

näher dem ihnen beiden gemeinscftlichen Stammhaupt, als irgendeiner 

der Söhne des Vaters; also der Onkel der Söhne näher als einer von 

diesen selbst. Nachdem schon mit Bezug auf d. Familie d. Kinder d. 

Vaters theilen, u. d. gens nur noch wenig od. gar nicht an d. Erbscft 

betheiligt, kann für öffentliche FunktionenS2b, also gens chief, tribe chief, 

etc noch d. alte gens rule vorwiegend bleiben; nothwendig entsteht aber struggle 

zwischen beiden.] Dieselbe Streitfrage arose zwischen d. descendants 

of daughters in d. controversy zwischen Bruce u. Baliol über Krone von 

Schottland. (204) (Edward I liess für Baliol entscheiden, danach d. descendants 

of an elder child must be exhausted before those of the younger 

had a title.) Sobald d. älteste Sohn statt d. Onkel folgte to “ the humbler 

chieftaincies” he doubtless also obtained that “ portion of land attached 

to the Signory which went without partition to the Tanaist.” 53 (204) 

So “ the demesne” , as it was afterwards called, assumed more and more the 

character of mere property descending according to the rule of primo- 

179 geniture” . (p. 204) | Nach u. nach dann this principle o f primogeniture 

extended from the demesne to all the estates o f the holder of the Signory, 

however acquired, and ultimately determined the law of succession for 

the privileged classes throughout feudalised Europe. (204, 5) French 

“ Parage” under which the near kinsmen o f the eldest son still took an 

311

interest in the family property, but held it of him as his Peers. (205) 

Unter act o f the 12th year of Elizabeth (1570) the Lord Deputy was empowered 

to take surrenders and regrant estates to the Irishry. “ The Irish 

Lords” , says Davis, “ made surrenders of entire counties and obtained 

grants of the whole again to themselves only, and none other, and all in 

demesne. In passing o f which grants, there was no care taken of the inferior 

septs of people___ So that upon every such surrender or grant, there was 

but one freeholder made in a whole country, which was the lord himself; all the 

rest were [made dch Elizabeth’s A ct] but tenants at will, or rather tetuints 

in villein age(bei Maine p. 207) 

In Brehon Laws (Book of A icill, namentlich Third Vol.) Irish family getheilt 

in Geil fine, Deirbhfine, Iarfine u. Indfine (wovon d. 3 letzten übersetzt: the 

True, the A fter u. d. E n d Families). D . Editor d. Third Volume (Brehon 

Laws, w ovon d. Book of Aicill) sagt: “ Within the Family, 17 members 

were organised in 4 divisions, of which the junior class, known as the 

Geilfine division, consisted of 5 persons; d. Deirbhfine - 2nd in order, lar- 

fine - 3d in order, and the Indfine - the senior of all - consisted respectively 

of 4 persons. The whole organisation consisted, and could only consist, 

o f 17 members. [(3 X 4 + 5.)]54 I f any person was born into the Geilfine 

division, its eldest member was promoted into the Deirbhfine, the eldest 

member of the Deirbhfine passed into the Iarfine, the eldest member of the 

Iarfine - moved into the Indfine, and the eldest member o f the In- 

fine, the After and the End Families. D . jte Person m d. Geilfine division 

soll sein the parent von dem d. 16 descendants spring; er scheint to be 

referred to in the tracts as the Geilfine Chief. (210) 

The Geilfine group is several times stated by the Brehon lawyers to be at 

once the highest and the youngest. Whitley Stokes told dem Maine, dass 

Geilfine = hand-family; nämlich “ G il” sei = hand (also the rendering of 

O'Curry) and sei in fact = χειρ; u. hand in several Aryan languages = 

power, namtlich für family or patriarchal power; so, in Greek, υποχείριος 

u. χέρης, for the person under the hand; latin. “ herus” (master) von an old 

word, cognate to χείρ ;55 ebenso lat. manus, in manu etc, in Celtic “ Gilla” 

312

(a servant, bei Walter Scott “ Gillie” ) (216, 217) Hence der gewaltige 

Gedanke des Maine, dass hinter dieser Irish distribution der Family d. 

Patria Potestas u. founded (d. Eintheilung) on the order of emancipation von 

Paternal authority. The Geil fine, Hand family, consists o f father u. 4 natural 

or adoptive sons immediately under his power; d. other groups of 

emancipated descendants diminishing in dignity in propertion to their 

distance from the group which ... constitutes the true or representative | 

180 family. (217) Aehnlich in Roman family, wo die enumerated members der 

family underwent a capitis deminutio. (218) 

The Irish division o f the Family seems only to have been wichtig mit 

Bezug auf law of succession after death. Aber dies rule in all societies. 

When the ancient constitution of the Family has ceased to affect anything else, 

it affects inheritance. (219) D . authors der Brehon law tracts oft compare the 

Geilfine Division der family (mit) der human hand. Dr. Sullivan says: 

“ as they represented the roots of the spreading branches of the Family, 

they were called the cuic merane fine or the ‘five fingers of the Fine'.” (p. 220) 

Patria potestas referred to in the Irish tracts as the father’s power of 

“ judgment, proof, and witness over his sons. (I.e.) See Tylor über 

‘ ‘ Finger-Counting' (in “ Primitive Culture” . Weil menschliche Hand j 

Finger zählt, 5 a primitive natural maximum number. Early English 

Township represented by the Reeve and the 4 men; the Indian punchayet. 

(221) 

“ Borough English” , unter which law the youngest son and not the eldest 

succeeds to the burgage-tenements of his father. (222) B lackstone, um dies zu 

erklären, citirt von Duhalde that the custom of descent to the youngest son 

prevails among the Tartars; sobld d. älteren sons fähig to lead a pastoral life, 

verliessen sie den father to migrate “ with a certain allotment of cattle” , and 

go to seek a new habitation. D . younges(t), who continues longest with 

his father, is naturally the heir o f his house, the rest being already provided 

for. (222) In d. Leges Wallicae, diese Gewohnheit for all Welsh cultivating 

villeins: “ Cum fratres inter se dividunt hereditatem, junior debet habere tygdyn, 

i.e., aedificia patris sui, et octo acras de terra, si habuerint.” (L . Wall. v. II, 

p. 780), ausserdem certain ustensils; - the other sons are to divide what 

remains. (223) D . youngest, remaining under patria potestas, preferred to 

the others. (I.e.) Primogeniture ... comes from the Chief (of clan); 

“ Borough English” wie “ Geilfine” dagegen von ancient conception of 

family as linked with patria potestas. (I.e.) 

D . Irish word Fine - in the Brehon Laws - used for d. family in present 

sense, for d. Sept, for Tribe etc. (231) 

Irish family liess Adoption zu; the Sept admitted strangers on stated conditions, 

the Fine Taccair; d. Tribe included refugees from other tribes, die 

nur im Zusammenhang mit ihm dch Chief. (231, 232) 

In D r. Sullivan’s introduction he traces the origin of Guilds to the gracing 

partnerships common among the ancient Irish; the same words used to 

313

describe bodies of co-partners, formed by contract, and bodies o f co-heirs 

or co-parceners formed by common descent. (232) 

“ Tribe of Saints” or Verwandtscftsideen applied to monastic houses with 

its monks and bishops, ebenso to the collective assemblage o f religious 

houses etc. (p. 236, sq.) The abbot of the parent house and all the abbots of 

the minor houses are the “ comharbas” od. co-heirs of the saint. (I.e.) A n 

entire sub-tract in the Senchus Mor devoted to the Law of Fosterage, setting 

out with the greatest minuteness the rights and duties attaching to all 

parties when the children of another family were received for nurture and 

education. (.241 sq.) This classed with “ Gossipred” , religious Verwdt§cft. 

(p. 242) [The same mother V milk given to children of different origin. 

Dies reminds one d. Mutterrecht und the rules flowing from it; but Maine 

noch unbekannt hiermit, it seems.] “Literary Fosterage, (p. 242 sq.) 

D . Brehon lawyers selbst sind betrachtet by the English writers who have 

noticed them as a caste. Nach evidence d. Irish records jedoch anyone 

who went through a particular training might become a Brehon. Zur 

Zeit w o Ireland began to be examined by English observers, the art and 

knowledge der Brehon had become hereditary in certain families attached 

to or dependent on the Chiefs of particular tribes. Dieser selbe change 

has obviously occurred with a vast number of trades andprofessions in. India, 

jetzt popularly called castes. Mit a native Indian schwer zu verstehen why 

z.B. a son should not succeed to the learning of a father, and consequently 

his office and duties. In d. States von Engl. Indien governed by native princes, 

it56 is still praktisch allgemeine rule that office is hereditary. Aber dies 

erklärt nicht the growth of those castes which are definite sections of great 

populations. N ur eine einzige dieser castes really survives in India, that of 

the Brahmins u. it is strongly suspected that the whole literary theory of Caste, 

which is of Brahmin origin, is based on the existence of the Brahmin caste alone. 

(245) Bei d. Irish gesehn wie all sorts of groups of men considered as connected 

through blood relationship (247); so “ associations o f kinsmen 

shading off into assemblages o f partners and guild-brothers-; foster 

181 parentage, spiritual parentage, and preceptorship | (Teacher and pupil) 

taking their hue from natural paternity - ecclesiastical organisation blending 

with tribal organisation. (248) 

Grösster Theil des Senchus Mor - the largest Brehon law-tract - handelt v. 

Distress. Es handelt sich hier um Procedur, die bei d. Rechtsanfängen d. 

wichtigste. 

In Anfang d. Book I V des 18 16 von Niebuhr disinterred manuscript of 

Gajus fragmentary u. imperfect account of the old Legis actiones. 

Actio generally = Handlung, Vollbringung, That. (Cic. N . D . Deos 

j spoliat motu et actione divina. actio vitae, id. Off. I, 5 ( = vital action; ferner 

actiones = public functions57 or duties, wie actio consularis; dann: 

negotiation, deliberation w ie: “ discessu consulum actio de pace sublata est etc; 

! political measures or proceedings, addresses of the magistrates to the People. Nun 

314

kommen wir aber zum sense worin legis actio: an action, suit,process with a 

defining genitive: actio furti action for theft; auch mit de: “ actio de repetundis” 

action (prosecution for refunding money extorted by magistrates), actionem 

alicui intendere, actionem instituere (bring an action agst som(e)body). 

“ Multis actiones (processes, suits) et res (the property in suit) peribant. Liv.) 

Daher allgemein: a legal formula or form of process (procedure) “ inde ilia 

actio: ope consilioque tuo, furtum aio factum esse.” actiones Manilianae, 

forms relative to purchase and sale.) “ Dare alicui actionem” , Permission to 

bring an action which was the office of the Prätor. “ Rem agere ex jure, 

lege, causa etc “ to bring an action, to manage a cause or suit. 

Lege, respective legem - agere, to proceed according to law, mode of executing law, 

to execute a sentence. “ Lege egit in hereditatem paternam ex heres filius.” 

Cic. de Orat. I, j?«?)58 

Bentham unterscheidet zwischen Substantive Law, the law declaring rights 

and duties, and Adjective Law, the rules wonach that law is administered. 

In älteren Zeiten rights and duties (were) rather the adjective of procedure 

als umgekehrt. Difficulty in such times not in conceiving what a man 

was entitled to, but in obtaining it; so that the method, violent or legal, 

by which an end was obtained, was o f more consequence than the nature of59 

the end itself___ D . wichtigste sehr lange Zeit the “ remedies” . (252) 

D . first dieser alten (Roman) actiones ist die: Legis Actio Sacramenti, the 

undoubted parent o f all the Roman actions u. daher of most of the civil 

remedies now in use in the world, [sacra mentum in law: the sum which the 

parties to a suit at first deposited with the tresviri capitales, but for which they 

subsequently gave security to the praetor, so called because the sum deposited 

by the losing party was used for religious purposes, esp. for the sacra publica; or 

rather, perhaps, because the money was deposited in a sacred place. Festus, 

“ ea pecunia, quae in judicium venit in litibus, sacramentum a sacro. Qui petebat 

et qui infitiabatur, de aliis rebus utrique quingenos aeris ad pontem 

deponebant, de aliis rebus item certo alio ligitimo numero assum; qui 

judicio vicerat, suum sacramentum e sacro auferebat, victi ad aerarium 

__ redibat.” Varro.]60 

Diese Actio sacramenti is a dramatisation o f the Origin o f Justice; 2 

Bewaffnete Männer ringen mit einander, Prätor geht vorbei, interposes to 

stop the contest; d. disputants state him their case, agree that he shall 

arbitrate; arrangirt dass der loser, ausser resigning the subject of the 

quarrel shall pay a sum of money to the umpire (the Prätor )(p. 253) 

(Dies scheint rather Dramatisation of how law disputes were becoming a 

source o f fees profit to lawyers! u. dies nennt Herr Maine, als a lawyer, 

“ the Origin of Justice” !) 

In dieser dramatisation the claimant holds a wand in his hand, der nach 

Gajus a spear repräsentirt, the emblem o f the strong man armed, served as 

the symbol of property held absolutely and agst the world (rather the symbol 

315

of Gewalt als origin of Roman u. other property!) in Roman u. several 

Western societies. Quarrel between plaintiff u. defendant [assertions u. 

reassertions - formal dialogue dabei] was a mere pretence among the 

Romans, long remained a reality in other societies u. survived in the 

Wager of Battle, der als English Institution erst “ finally abolished in our 

father’s day” . (255) 

The disputants staked a sum of money - the Sacramentum - on the merits 

of their quarrel, and the stake went into the public exchequer. The 

money thus wagered, das erscheint in a large number of archaic legal systems, 

is the earliest representative of Court Fees___ [D. Legis Actio Sacramenti so 

conducted, u. dies wieder showing the intimate nature o f the Lawyer - 

dass d. Lex, d. geschriebne Recht, aber auch literally - nicht d. Geist, 

182 sondern | der Buchstabe d. Gesetzes, d. Formel d. Wichtigste] So sagt 

Gajus: if you sued by Legis Actio for injury to your vines, and called them 

vines, you would fail; you must call them trees, because the Text of the 

12 Tables speaks only of Trees. Ebenso enthält d. alte collection of 

Teutonic legalformulas - the Malberg Gloss - provisions von genau derselben 

Natur. If you sue for a bull, you will miscarry if you describe him as a bull; 

you must give him his ancient juridical designation o f “ leader of the herd?'. 

Y o u must call the fore-finger the “ arrow" finger, the goat the “ browser upon 

leeks". (255, 256) 

Flgt bei Gajus the Condictio [in Digests: demand for restitution]; er sagt 

sie sei gegründet, soll aber nur regulated wden sein dch 2 Roman Statutes 

of the 6th Century B .C ., the L e x Silia u. the L e x Calpurnia; becam Namen 

von a notice die der Kläger dem Beklagten gab in 30 Tagen vor Prätor zu 

erscheinen, damit ein judex oder referee might be nominated, \condicere, to 

speak with, agree upon, decide, appoint, ansagen. “ condicere tempus et 

locum coeundi” . “ condicere rem” , demand restitution, “pecuniam alicui” 

Ulp. I.61 Nach d. condictio the parties entered into “ sponsio” u. restipulatio". 

Sponsio, a solemn promise or engagement, guarantee, security. 

“ sponsio appellatur omnis stipulatio promissioque.” Dig. 50 ,16 , 7.61 “ non 

foedere pax Caudina sed per sponsionem (by giving surety) facta est.” (Liv.) 

Speciell in civil Suits, ein agreement between 2 parties in a suit, dass der 

der den Process verliert should pay a certain sum to him who gains it. “ Sponsionem 

facere” . (Cic.) Endlich: a sum of money deposited according to agreement, a 

stake (Einsatz beim Spiel, bei Wette, that which is laid down, as the 

__ amount of a wager etc.)62 

Restipulatio. A counter-engagement or (counter-)obligation (Cic.) 

restipulor to stipulate or engage in return.]63 

Nachdem diese condictio gegeben, the parties entered into a “ sponsio” 

and “ restipulatio” , i.e. laid a formal wager (distinct from the so called64 

Sacramentum) on the justice of their respective contentions. D . sum so 

staked always65 = 1/3 of the amount in dispute, went in the end to the 

316

successful litigant, and not, like Sacramentum, to the State. [Hat ausserdem 

d. innern ironischen Sinne, dass die Parteien d. Processes dasselbe 

unsichre Hazardspiel treiben wie beim Wetten, ddch dies ein d. röm. 

jurisprudenz unbewusster W itz!] 

Gajus proceeds von der Condictio zur Manus Injectio u. Pignoris Capio, 

actiones legis die nichts mit modernem Begriff von actio gemein haben. 

Manus injectio ausdrücklich stated to have been originally the Roman mode 

of execution against the person of a judgment debtor; war the instrument der 

Cruelties prakticirt66 dch röm. Aristokratie on their defaulting plebejan debtors, 

gab so impetus to series of popular movements affecting the whole history of 

Roman commonwealth. D. Pignoris Capio war zuerst ein völlig extrajudicial 

proceeding. D . Person die es anwandte seized (beschlagnamte) in 

certain cases the goods of a fellow citizen, agst whom he had a claim, but 

against whom he had not instituted a suit. Dies zuerst beschränkt - diese 

power of seizure - auf soldiers against public officers bound to supply them with 

pay, horse, or forage; ditto auf seller of a beast for sacrifice against a defaulting 

purchaser; später extended to demands for overdue arrears of public revenue. 

Etwas Aehnliches in Plato's Leges, auch als remedy for breach o f public 

duties connected with military service or religious observance. (Dies 

dem Maine verrathen von Post.). Gajus sagt dass d. Pignoris Capio could 

be resorted to in the absence of the Prätor and generally of the person under 

liability, and also that it might be carried out even when the Courts were not 

sitting. (256-59) 

The Legis actio sacramenti assumes that the quarrel is at once referred to 

a present arbitrator; the Condictio, dass d. Referenz to the decision o f an 

arbitrator nach 30 days; aber meantime the parties have entered into a 

separate wager on the merits of their dispute. Noch zu Cicero’s Zeit, als 

condictio eine der most important Roman actions geworden, an independent 

penalty attached to the suitor in dieser Klage. (260) 

Glaubt dass die Pignoris Capio, obgleich dies schon veraltet zur Zeit d. 

12 Tables, taking forcible possession der moveable property des adversary and 

detain it till he submits. (260) 

So in English Law Power of Distraint or Distress - (womit connected als 

Remedy d. socalled Replevin) - z.B. heut zu Tag landlord’s right to seiê 

the goods of his tenants for unpaid rent, and the right of the lawful possessor 

of land to take and impound stray beasts which are damaging his crops or 

soil. (261, 262) Im letztren Fall cattle kept bis satisfaction made for the 

injury. (I.e.) 

Aelter als Roman Conquest in Engld the practice of Distress, - of taking 

nams, word erhalten im law-term withernam. (262, 63) Zur Zeit v. Henry I I I 

confined to certain specific claims u. wrongs. Damals: Person seizes 

1 8 3 the goods (almost always cattle) | der Person von der er sich benachtheiligt 

glaubt; treibt d. beasts to a pound (von angels(ächsisch) pyndan), an 

enclosed piece of land reserved for the purpose, and generally open to 

317

the sky ... eine d. ältesten Institutionen Englands; the Village-Pound far 

older than the K ing’s Bench, and probably than the Kingdom. While 

the cattle were on their way to the pound the owner had a limited right 

of rescue which the law recognised, but which he ran great risk in exercising. 

Once lodged within the enclosure, the impounded beasts, when 

the pound was uncovered, had to be fed by the owner and not by the distrainor; 

this rule only altered in the present reign. (263) Wenn d. Eigner d. cattle 

altogether denied the distrainor’s right to distrain, or refuse to release 

the cattle, on security being tendered to him, dann d. cattle owner might 

apply to the K ing’s Chancery for a writ commanding the Sheriff to 

“ make replevin” , or he might verbally complain himself to the Sheriff, 

who would then proceed at once to “ replevy” . (264) 

Replevin (to), Spenser, to “ replevy” , replegio Law Latin, o f re u. plevir or 

plegir, fr. to give a pledge; bdtet nach Johnson: to take back or set at liberty, 

upon security, anything seized; er citirt aus Hudibras: 

“ That you’re a beast and turn’d to grass, 

Is no strange news, nor ever was; 

A t least to me, who once, you know, 

Did from the pound replevin you.” 

In d. action of Replevin, wenn d. Sache vor Gerichtshof kam, der owner 

des distrained catde war der Kläger u. der Distrainor was the defendant. 

(265) “ Taking in withernam” of Old English Law means, wenn d.distrainor 

dem Sheriff d. distrained cattle nicht seizen wollte od. es in distance out of 

his jurisdiction removed, so erhob dieser wegen Brechen o f K ing’s Peace, 

“ hue u. cry” wider ihn u. seized von des distrainor’s cattle double the value of 

the beasts which were not forthcoming; letztres “ taking in withernam” . (I.e.) 

Dies seizure, rescue u. counterseizure ursprünglich disorderly proceeding 

which the law steps in to regulate. (I.e.) In d. Form of impounding, w o d. 

person distrained must feed the cattle (als Zeichen of deren continued 

ownership), Verbot für distrainor to work them. - Distress becomes a 

semi-orderly contrivance for extorting satisfaction. (266) Blackstone hat bemerkt, 

that the modified exemption of certain classes of goods from distraint 

- z.B. plough-oxen u. instruments of trade, ursprünglich nicht intended als 

kindness to owner, sondern weil ohne d. instruments of tillage or handicraft, 

the debtor could never pay his debt, (l.c ) D letzte - u. auch historisch 

letzt entwickelte incident des proceeding ist: the King steps in, dch his 

deputy, den Sheriff; selbst wenn dieser obtains his view, he can do nothing 

unless the cattle owner is prepared with security that he will try the question 

between himself u. den distrainor in a Court of Justice; dann erst steps 

in the judicial Power of the Commonwealth; its jurisdiction acquired 

through the act of the Sheriff in restoring the cattle upon pledge given. D . 

distrainor has lost his material security, the cattle; the owner o f the cattle 

has become personally bound; so both placed under a compulsion which 

318

drives them in the end to a judicial arbitration. (267) [D. ganze Proceeding 

implies dass d. Power of State - i.e. Court ofJustice - noch nicht so 

firmly settled, dass people de prime abord submit to its judicial authority.] 

Fast alle Leges Barbarorum refer to Pignoratio od. distraint of goods. D. 

L e x Visigothorum verbietet es ausdrücklich; d. L e x Lombardorum, permits 

it after simple demand of payment. D . Salic Law - nach d. neusten 

deutschen Autoritäten - redigirt zwischen Tacitus Zeit u. d. Zeit d. 

Invasion des Roman Empire dch d. Franken, enthält sehr genaue Bestimmungen 

die zuerst fully interpreted by Sohm. In diesem System 

Distress not yet a judicial remedy; ist noch an extrajudicial mode of redress, 

but it has been incorporated with a regular and highly complex procedure. 

Eine succession of notices to be given in solemn form dch d. complainant 

der Person über die sich der would be dist(r)ainor beklagt u. whose 

property he proposes to seize. E r kann nicht saisiren bevor er jene 

person vor d. Volksgericht geladen u. bevor d. Popular Officer dieses 

Gerichts, der Thunginus, pronuncirt hat eine Formel licensing distraint. 

Dann erst kann er distress auf seinen Gegner machen. Entsprechend eine 

Ordon(n)an% von Canut that no man is to take nams unless he has demanded 

3 times in the Hundred; erhält er d. 3t mal keine justice, so geht er zum 

Shire-gemot; d. Shire appoints him a 4th time, u. when that fails, he may 

take the distress. (269, 270) 

D . fragment of the system which has survived in the English Common Law 

(and it is to this that it probably owes its survival) was from the first 

pre-eminently a remedy by which the lord compelled his tenants to render him 

their services. Was archaischer im engl. Gesetz als in den leges barbarorum: 

notice of the intention to distrain was never in England essential to the legality 

of distress, obgleich d. Statute-law renders it necessary to make a sale of the 

distrained property legal; ebenso im ältesten state d. Common Law , 

obgleich distraint sometimes followed a proceeding in the lord’s Court, 

yet it did not necessarily presuppose or require it. (270-71) D. Frankish 

184 procedure was completely at the disposal of the complainant. | It is a 

procedure regulating extrajudicial redress. Beobachtet der complainant the 

proper forms, so ist the part of the Court in licensing seizure purely 

passive ___ When the defendant submitted or was unsuccessful in 

attacking the proceedings of the other side, he paid not only the original 

debt but various additional penalties entailed by neglect to comply with 

previous notices to discharge it. Dies founded on the assumption that 

plaintiffs are always in the right u. defendants always in the wrong, whd the 

modern principle compels the complainant to establish at all events a prima 

facie case. Früher the man most likely to be in the right the man who 

faced the manifold risks attending the effort to obtain redress, to complain 

to the Popular Assembly, to cry for justice to the king sitting in the 

gate___ In einem Fall, wo King Kläger, d. Presumption dass Kläger in 

319

the right lang aufrecht erhalten in engl. Recht u. hence the obstinate dislike 

of (Engl.) lawyers to allowing prisoners to be defended by Counsel. (271-73) 

Gajus sagt v. d. Legis Actiones im allgemeinen dass “ sie in discredit fielen, 

weil wegen der excessive subtlety der ancient lawyers things came to such 

a pass that he who committed the smallest error failed altogether.” 

Ebenso Blackstone remarks on English Law of Distress: “ The many 

particulars which attend the taking of a distress used formerly to make it 

a hazardous kind of proceeding; for, if any one irregularity was committed, 

it vitiated the whole.” (273) 

[Diese excessive technicality of ancient law zeigt67 Jurisprudenz as feather 

of the same bird, als d. religiösen Formalitäten z.B. bei A ugur’s etc, od. 

d. Hokus Pokus des medicine man der savages!] 

Nach Sohm the power of seizing a man’s property extrajudicially in satisfaction 

of your demand mit grossen risks verbunden; ging der complainant 

who sought to distress nicht dch alle acts u. words required by the law 

with the most rigorous accuracy so, besides failing in his object, incurred 

a variety of penalties, which could be just as harshly exacted as his own 

original demand. (273, 74) Ha(u)ptsache bei d. Barbaren to compel the 

appearance of the defendant and his submission to jurisdiction, was damals noch 

keineswegs selbstverständlich. (275) In d. Fränkischen Gesetz wenn in 

gewissen cases auch selbe von Anfang an bis judgment judicially tried, so 

noch nicht thejudgment by its own force operative. Hat der defendant ausdrücklich 

erklärt to obey it, the Court or royal deputy, on being properly summoned, 

will execute it; but i f no such promise has been made, the plaintiff has no remedy 

except an application to the King in person. (275) 

Später sobald d. Franks settled in Roman Empire, the royal deputy will 

execute the judgment ohne promise des defendant to submit. In England dieser 

change u. d. Macht der Courts greatly due to the development of royal justice 

at the expense of popular justice. Doch savoured Engl, judicial proceedings 

noch long of the old practices. Hence on the smallest provocation the 

K ing constantly took the lands of the defendant into his hands or seized his goods, 

simply to compel or perfect his submission to the royal jurisdiction. [See bei 

Walter Scott, dass ein Mann wegen Schulden eingesperrt wird wegen d. 

Fiction seiner contempt of the King.\ 

D . survival of distress in Engld den Herrn landlords zu lieb. The modern 

- dem Ursprünglichen ganz wiedersprechde - theory of distress: ist that a 

x landlord is allowed to distrain because x by the nature of the case he is always 

compelled to give his tenant credit, and that he can distrain without notice 

because every man is supposed to know when his rent is due. (277) 

Ursprünglich distress treated as willful breach of the peace; ausser w o it was 

connived at so far as it served to compel the submission of defendants to the 

jurisdiction of courts. (278) 

Ueber Hälfte d. Senchus Mor taken up with Law of Distress. Senchus M or 

pretends to be the Code of Irish Law prepared unter the influence of 

320

St. Patrick upon the introduction of Christianity in Ireland. (279) 

E r gleicht sehr d. Teutonic Laws u. English Common Law. Putting in a pound 

kommt noch darin von d. Speciality drin: “ I f the defendant or debtor 

were a person of chieftain grade, it was necessary not only to give 

notice, but also to fast upon him. The fasting upon him consisted in 

185 going to his residence and waiting there a certain time without | food. 

If the plaintiff did not within a certain time receive satisfaction for his 

claim, or a pledge therefore, he forthwith, accompanied by a law-agent, 

witnesses, and others, seized his distress” etc. (p. 280-81. Cf. Senchus Mor. 

ist vol. remarks of the Editor.) Erlaubte d. Schuldner nicht his cattle to 

go to pound u. gab er sufficient pledge (e.g. his son, or some article o f value, 

to the creditor, that he68 would within a certain time try the right to the 

distress by law, the creditor was bound to receive such pledge. If he did 

not go to law, as he so undertook, the pledge became forfeitedfor the original 

debt.” (p. 282. [Noch heut zu T ag bei distress in Oudh d. creditor landlord 

takes ausser cattle (dies vor allem etc) auc(h) Personen als Sklaven. See 

The Garden of India von Irwin.] [Im Wesentlichen d. Irische law hier mehr 

identisch mit d. Leges Barbarorum als mit d. Englischen.] “ The distress of 

the Senchus M or is not, like the Distress of the English Common Law , 

a remedy confined in the main to demands of the lord on his tenants; as in the 

Salic u. andren Leges Barbarorum it extends to breaches of contract u., so far 

as the Brehon law is already known, it would appear to be the universal 

method o f prosecuting claims o f all kinds.” (p. 283) The Irish stay of 

proceedings (D it him) entspricht einigen provisions in d. leges barbarorum. In 

einigen derselben when a person’s property is about to be seized he makes 

a mimic resistance; im Salic law he protests against the injustice o f the 

attempt; im Ripuarian law he goes through the formality o f standing at his 

door with a drawn sword. Thereupon the seizure is interrupted u. opportunity 

given for enquiring into the regularity of the proceedings etc. (284) 

M it d. English law hat d. Irische speciell gemein - was ganz absent from 

the Teutonic procedures - the “ impounding” , the “ taking in withernam” 

u. namtlich dass nicht required “ assistance od. permission from any Court 

of Justice. (2 84)6 9 Dies nur im Lombardic law (unter den leges barbarorum) 

(I.e.) Ferner - u. dies in England erst dch Statute Law eingeführt - im 

Brehon Law the seizure of cattle nicht nur als a method of satisfaction, 

sondern it provides for their forfeiture in discharge of the demand for which 

they are taken. (285) 

Sohm sucht zu beweisen dass d. Fränkischen Volksgerichte nicht ihre eignen 

Dekrete exequirten; versprach der defendant to submit to an award, the 

local deputy of the K ing might be required to enforce it, aber, when no 

such promise, the plaintiff was forced to petition the King in person u. in d. 

älteren Zeiten, vor full development der kgl. Gewalt, Courts o f Justice 

existed less for the purpose of doing right generally than for the purpose 

o f supplying an alternative to the violent redress of wrong___ The Norse 

321

literature (see Mr. Dasent) shows that perpetualfighting and perpetual litigation 

may go on side by side, and that a highly technical procedure may be scrupulously 

followed at a time when homicide is an everyday70 occurrence.... 

Contention in Court takes the place of contention in arms, but only gradually 

takes its place___ In our day,71 when a wild province is annexed to the 

British Indian Empire, there is ... a rush of suitors to the Courts which are 

immediately established___ The men who can no longer fight go to law 

instead ... Hasty appeals to a judge succeed hurried quarrels, and hereditary 

law-suits take the place of ancestral blood-feuds. (288,72 289) 

Im Allgem. probable that, in proportion as Courts grow stronger, they 

first take under their control the barbarous (aber d. Sache bleibt ja , auf das 

legale übersetzt) practice of making reprisals on a wrongdoer by seizing 

his property, and ultimately they absorb it into their own procedure. (290) 

D . Irish Law o f Distress offenbar in Zeit wo action o f Courts o f Justice 

feeble and intermittent. (291) Statt dieser - d. law agent (Brehon lawyer) 

d. grosse Rolle spielend. (I.e.) 

The Irish used the remedy of distress, because they knew no other remedy, u. d. 

Hunde von Engländern made it a capital felony (mit Todesstrafe) in 

186 an Irishman to follow the only law with which he | was acquainted. (294 Cp. 

Spenser. “ View of the State of Ireland.” ) Nay, those very subdeties of Old 

English Law which, as Blackstone says, made the taking of distress ‘a 

hazardous sort of proceeding’ to the civil distrainor, might bring an 

Irishman to the gallows, if in conscientiously attempting to carry out the 

foreign law he fell into the smallest mistake. {I.e. Also gehangen, wenn er 

seinem native law nach handelte, ditto gehangen wenn er sich dem aufgezwungnen 

englischen zu adoptiren suchte!) 

M it Bezug auf d. “fasting upon” the debtor heisst es in Senchus M or: “ Notice 

precedes every distress in the case of the inferior grades except it be by 

persons of distinction or upon persons o f distinction. Fasting precedes 

distress in their case. He who does not give a pledge to fasting is an evader of 

all; he who disregards all things shall not be paid by G od or Man.” 

Dies, wie Whitley Stokes zuerst pointed out, diffused over the whole East, 

entspricht dem Hindoo “ sitting dharna". (Cf. Strange-. Hindoo Law.) 

(297) Heute noch sehr striking examples davon in Persien, wo a man 

intending to enforce payment of a demand by fasting begins by sowing some barley 

at his debtor's door and sitting down in the middle. (I.e.) 

D . W ort dharna soil exact equivalent sein von Roman “ capio” , and meaning 

“ detention” or “ arrest” . Soll V IH , 49 bei Manu Vorkommen. (I.e.) Im 

Vyavahara Mayukha, Brihaspiti is cited as enumerating, among the lawful 

modes of compulsion by which the debtor can be made to pay, “ confining his 

wife, his son, or his cattle, or watching constantly at his door." (298) 

See Lord Teignmouth's description (in Forbes “ Oriental Memoirs” II, 2 f) d. 

form dieses “ watching constantly at the door” in British India vor Ende 

d. 18. Jhdts.) 

322

In einem Law of A lfred heissts : 

“ Let the man who knows his foe to be homesitting fight not before 

he have demanded justice o f him. If he have power to beset his foe 

and besiege him in his house, let him keep there for 7 days but not 

attack him if he will remain indoors. If then, after seven days, he be 

willing to surrender and give up his weapons, let him be kept safe for 

thirty days, and let notice be given to his kinsmen and friends. But 

if the plaintiff have no power o f his own, let him ride to the Ealdorman, 

and, if the Ealdorman will not aid him, let him ride to the K ing before 

he fights.” Schliesslich kommt dann a provision that if the man who 

is homesitting be really shut up in his house with the complainant's wife, daughter, 

or sister, he may be attacked and killed without c e re m o n y (Dies letztere 

auch in 324. Code Pénal des Herrn Napoleon___) The Anglo-Saxon rule 

is to be enforced by the civil power, the Ealdorman or the K in g; the 

Hindoo Brahminical rule by the fear of punishment in another world. 

(303, 4) “ Sitting dharna” placed under the ban o f the Brit, law, still 

common in the Native Indian States, u. dort hptsächlich an expedient 

resorted to by soldiers to obtain arrears of pay, wie “pignoris capio” beim Gajus 

surviving in 2 cases, w ovon einer the default of a military paymaster. 

(304, 5) 

In Lecture X I “ The Early History of the Settled Property of Married Women" 

hat comfortable Maine noch keine Bekanntscft mit Mutterrecht (Bachofen 

etc.) gemacht, hatte auch Morgan's Buch noch nich(t) für “ elegante” 

Verm öblg seinerseits. 

A man of continuous servile occupation in a Roman household wde dch Usucapio 

(was später Prescriptio) a slave o f the paterfamilias. (315) Später d. 

ordinary Roman marriage a voluntary conjugal society, terminable at the 

pleasure of either side by divorce. (317) Nach dem Ancient Irish Law women 

had some power o f dealing with their own property without the consent of their 

husbands, and this was one of the institutions expressly declared by the 

1 87 [.English blockheaded] Judges to be illegal at the beginning of the iyth century. (3 24) 

Die Brahminical Indian Lawyers haben ganz | ausgearbeitet (u. dies beginnt 

fast with Manu) the doctrine of “ Spiritual Benefit” , as they call it. 

Inasmuch as the condition of the dead could be ameliorated by proper expiatory 

rites, the property descending or devolving on a man came to be regarded by them 

partly as a fundfor paying the expenses of the ceremonial by which the soul of the 

person from whom the inheritance came could be redeemedfrom suffering or degradation, 

and partly as a rewardfor the proper performance of the sacrifices. (332,333) 

Ebenso Catholic Church: the first and best destination of a dead man's goods 

to purchase masses for his soul, u. out o f these views grew the whole testamentary 

and intestate jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. (332) 

Im Mitakshara heissts: “ The wealth of a regenerate man is designed for 

religious uses, and a woman’s succession to such property is unfit because 

she is not competent to the performance o f religious rites.” (332, 33) 

323

D . Gunst der indischen Gesetzgebung für d. Frauen, die sich bis jetzt in 

dem Stridhan (setded property o f a married woman), incapable of alienation 

by her husband, u. ebenso darin verspricht, dass d. Habe der Frau 

auf d. Töchter od. die female members ihrer family übergeht (cf. Strange: 

“ Hindoo Law ” ) etc - alles dies von Herrn Maine nicht richtig gedeutet, 

weil ihm alle Einsicht in gens u. daher auch ursprüngliche Vererbung in 

female, - nicht male, line of descent- abgeht. Der Esel sagt selbst mit welchen 

gefärbten Brillen er sieht: “ Am ong the Aryan [the devil take this “ Aryan” 

cant!] sub-races, the Hindoos may be as confidently asserted as the Romans 

to have had their society organized as a collection of patriarchally governed 

families. [Aus Niebuhr konnte er schon wissen, dass d. röm. family noch 

eingehüllt in der gens, selbst nachdem sie in ihrer specif. Form mit d. 

patria potestas ausgebildet.] If, then, (a nice “ If” only resting upon 

Maine’s own “ confident assertion) then, (dies “ then” Pecksniffian), at any 

early period, [Maine transports his “ patriarchal” Roman family into the 

very beginning of things] the married woman73 had among the Hindoos 

her property altogether enfranchised from her husband's control [“ enfranchised” , 

that is to say, from Maine’s “ confident assertion” ], it is not easy to give a 

reason w hy the obligations of the family despotism [a principal pet-doctrine of 

blockheaded John Bull to read in original “ despotism” J were relaxed in 

this one particular. (323) 

Maine citirt folgende Stelle aus d. treatise Mitakshara u. zwar Stelle schon 

citirt von Sir Thomas Strange “ Hindu Law ” (see Daselbst t. I, p. 26-32) in 

Strange’s Buch (obgleich schon 1830 publicirt citirbar als 2nd edit, seines 

W erks: “ Elements of Hindu Law ” , enthält viel vollständigereQuellenangaben^. 

Auseinandersetzg über diesen Punkt. Man ersieht ferner aus dem was 

Strange aus d. Quellen angiebt, das schon im Mitakshara, nicht zu sprechen 

von späteren Hindu juristischen Commentaren, ihr Verfasser den 

Ursprung der Stridhana nicht mehr versteht u. sich selbe ganz so falsch 

rationalistisch plausibel zu machen sucht, wie etwa d. röm. Juristen aus 

Cicero’s Zeit ihnen unverständliche altrömische (für sie “ archaische” ) 

Rechtsgebräuche od. Formeln. Eine solche rationalistische Erklärung ist 

es z.B., wenn in Mitakshara d. “fee” der Braut “ what is given her in her 

bridal procession, upon the final ceremony, when the marriage already 

contracted and solemnized, is about to be consummated, the bride having 

hitherto remained with her mother” (Strange, 1 . 1, p. 29); Strange bemerkt 

o f this domi-ductio, this bringing of the bride home, which, with the Hindoo, 

is a consequence only of the antecedent contract, that, among the Romans, 

it was an ingredient wanting to its completion; till when, the bride was a 

“ sponsa” only; becoming “ uxor” statim atque ducta est, quamvis nondum 

in cubiculum mariti venerit” ; und fährt Strange fort: “ The fee o f a Hindu 

188 wife has moreover this anomaly attending it, | that, upon her death, it descends 

in a course of inheritance peculiar to herself.” Diese “ anomaly ” ist nur 

fragmentarisches, auf bestimmten Theil d. Vermögens reducirte, survival 

324

d. alten normalen rule, die gegründet auf descent der gens in der female line, 

der74 primitiven. So verhält es sich allzuerst mit den “ Anomalien” in 

Recht etc. (In d. Sprache d. Ausnahmen auch allzuerst Ueberbleihsel d. 

älteren, ursprünglicheren) D . alte Norm erscheint in veränderten relativ 

modernen Zustand als “ Anomalie” , als unverständliche Ausnahme. 

Sämdiche indische Rechtsquellen u. Commentare verfasst, nachdem d. 

descent in female line schon seit lange übergegangen in descent in male line. 

(Aus Strange ferner ersichtbar, dass in verschiednen Theilen Indiens d. Anomalie 

mehr od. minder “ vollständiges” Ueberbleibsel.) 

Die von Maine citirte Stelle aus Mitakshara lautet: 

“ That which is given (to the wife) by the father, the mother, the husband, 

or a brother, at the time o f the wedding, before the nuptial fire.” Aber 

d. compiler o f the Mitakshara adds a proposition not found elsewhere: 

“ also property which she may have acquired by inheritance, purchase, 

partition, seizure, or finding, is denominated by Manu and the others 

“ woman's p r o p e r ty (M it. X I. 2) (p. 322) 

Hierüber heftige controversies unter d. Brahminical commentators. 

U. a. erklärt sich d. pfiffige Maine d. Sache wie folgt: 

Unter d. Aryan Communities findet76 man “ the earliest traces of the 

separate property o f women in the widely diffused ancient institution 

known as Bride-Price. Part o f this price, which was paid by the bridegroom 

either at the wedding or the day after it, went to the bride’s father 

as compensation ( !) for the Patriarchal or Family authority which was transferred 

to the husband, but another part went to the bride herself and was generally 

enjoyed by her separately and kept apart from her husband’s property. 

It further appears that under a certain number o f Aryan customs the 

proprietary rights of other kinds which women slowly acquired were assimilated 

to their rights in their portion of the Bride-Price, probably ( !) as being the 

only existing type of women’s property.” (324) Richtig dagegen was 

Maine sagt: “ There are in fact clear indications o f a sustained general 

effort on the part of the Brahminical writers on mixed law and religion, to 

limit the privileges o f women which they seem to have found recognised 

by older authorities.” (325. In Rom selbst die Stellung d. patria potestas 

vis-à-vis der Frau exaggerated in opposition to the old contrary tradition.) 

D . Sauerei der Brahminen gipfelt in d. “ Suttee” or widow burning. Dass 

diese practice “ malus usus” , nicht “ law” sagt schon Strange, da sich bei 

Manu u. other high authorities nichts davon finde; dieser “ as the condition 

on which the widow may aspire to Heaven” have simply required 

that she should, on the decease of her husband, live a life of seclusion, 

privation, and decency.” (Post, p. 245) Im Shaster auch noch d. suttee 

(Strange I.e. p. 241) nur recommended. Aber sieh oben, wie d. Brahminen 

selbst d. Sache erklären (“property designed fo r religious uses") u. d. Interesse 

der Burschen, denen sie d. Nachlassenscft zuwälzen (die dafür have to pay 

the expenses of the ceremonial). Strange spricht ausdrücklich of “ designing 

Brahmins” u. “ interested relatives” (I.e. p. 239) 

325

Näm lich: “ the wife surviving her husband, succeeds as heir to him, in default of 

male issue. (Strange, t. I, p. 236) Ausserdem “ her claim to be maintained by 

his (the defunct husband’s) representatives. (I.e. p. 246) M it Ausnahme der 

“ Stridhana” , die sie in her own right besitzt, geht das was sie von ihrem 

husband ererbt, (sofern dieser kein male issue hatte) über to her husband's 

heirs, not the immediate ones merely, but the whole living at die time.” 

(p. 247) Hier d. Sache klar: d. suttee einfacher religiöser Mord, um d. 

Erbscft theils für religiöse Feierlichkeiten (für d. Verstorbnen) in Hände 

d. Brahmanen76 (geisdichen) zu bringen, theils der dch d. brahmin. 

Gesetzgbg an Beerbung d. W itwe77 interessirten gens, nearer family 

des husband. Hence d. violence u. infamies, meist von Seiten der “ connexions” 

to bring the widow to Flammentod. (239, 240 Strange, t. I) 

Herr Maine selbst fügt dem, was man schon bei Strange findet nichts zu. 

T^9 Und selbst | wenn er generalisirt, dass: “ The Hindoo laws, religious and 

civil, have for centuries been undergoing transmutation, development, 

and, in some [! Maine always mild when speaking o f clergy and lawyers! 

and higher class people generally!] points, depravation at the hands of 

successive Brahminical expositors.” (3 26) So weiss dies Strange auch, setzt 

aber hinzu, dass d. Kirchenpfaffen es anderswo nicht besser machten! 

Das ganze Primitive fasst d. englische Philister Maine auf as “ the despotism 

of groups over the members composing them” (p. 327)! Damals hatte Bentham 

-nämlich in d. Urzeiten - noch nicht die nach Maine merkwürdig die 

Neuzeit repräsentirende Formel u. Treibwerk d. “ modernen” Gesetzgebg 

erfunden: “ The greatest happiness of the greatest n u m b e r O D u Pecksniff! 

W ir haben gesehn, dass wenn der Mann ohne issue stirbt, the widow comes 

in for her life (diese Herabsetzung auf tenure for life auch erst später, wie 

genaue Musterung des von Strange angeführten Quellen zeigt) before the 

collateral relatives (of her husband, not her own, was Maine zu sagen vergisst; 

ihre eignen Verwandten hatten beim suttee bloss d. Interesse, dass sie 

sich “ religiös” bewährte). “ A t the present moment, marriages among the 

upper classes of Hindoo being very commonly infertile, a very considerable portion 

of the wealthiest Indian province (Bengal) is in the hands of widows as tenants 

fo r life. But it was exacdy in Bengal proper that the English, on entering 

India, found the Suttee “ not merely an occasional, but a constant and almost 

universal practice with the wealthier classes.” [Strange, dessen Buch 45 Jahr 

älter als das des Maine, u. der Chief Justice of Madras gewesen war, u. 

1798 entered upon the administration of justice, at the Presidency of Madras 

(I.e. Preface V III) wie er selbst uns in Vorrede seines Buchs erzählt, sagt 

daggen mit Bezug natürlich auf d. Präsidentschft v. Madras: “ It (the 

custom of Suttee) is confined pretty much to the lower classes,” - a proof that 

it has no deeper root in the religion, than it has in the law of the country. 

T. /, p. 241)] “ and, as a rule, it was only the childless widow, and never 

the widow with minor children, who burnt herself on her husband’s 

326

funeral pyre. There is no question that there was the closest connection 

between the law and the religious custom, and the w idow was made to 

sacrifice herself in order that her tenancy for life might be got out of the way. 

The anxiety of her family [Umgekehrt: of her husband's family, die erbte; 

nur die weiblichen Glieder ihrer family waren interessirt in her Stridhana; 

im übrigen konnte ihre family nur dch religiösen Fanatismus u. Einfluss 

der Brahminen interessirt sein] that the rite should be performed, which 

seemed so striking to the first English observers o f the practice, was, in 

fact, explained by the coarsest motives; but the Brahmins [ausser d. 

ecclesiastical Brahmins could, namentlich in d. higher classes, d. Ver- 

wandtscft d. Mannes musste es gross

dent.” “ T o that superior the other members o f the society are subject; or 

on that determinate superior the other members o f the society are dependent. 

The position of its other members towards that determinate superior is a state 

of subjection or a state of dependence. The mutual relation which subsists 

between that superior and them, may be styled the relation of Sovereign 

and Subject, or the Relation o f Sovereignty and Subjection” (citirt bei 

Maine p. 348, 349) D . “ determinate human superior” so der Sovereign is 

“ an individual or a collegiate Sovereigtf ’ (diese Phrase für single person or 

group auch eine Erfindg d. Austin) (349) Herr Maine erklärt d. Aussichten 

d. Austin weiter dahin: I f the community be violently or voluntarily 

divided into a number o f separate fragments, then, as soon as each 

fragment has setded down (perhaps after an interval of anarchy) into a 

state of equilibrium, the Sovereign will exist and will be discoverable in 

each o f the now independent portions. (349, 350) Das gemeinsame 

Charaktermal aller shapes of dr S o v e r e ig n ty - whether the Sovereign 

a person or a combination of persons - ist, dass er has* the possession of 

irresistible force, not necessarily exerted but capable of being exerted. 1st d. 

Sovereign a single person, so nennt ihn Austin a Monarch; if a small group - 

Oligarchy; if a group of considerable dimensions, an Aristocracy; if very 

large and numerous, a Democracy. Austin hates the name o f “Limited 

Monarchy” , in his days more fashionable than now, u. d. Government of 

Great Britain he classes with Aristocracies. Was alle forms of Sovereignty 

gemein haben is the power (but not necessarily the will) to put compulsion 

without limit on subjects or fellow-subjects. (350) W o kein solcher sovereign 

erkennbar - Anarchie. (351) The question of determining his (the Sovereign’s) 

character [in a given society] is always a question of fa c t ... never a 

question of law or morals. (I.e.) 

D. Sovereign must be a determinate human superior. Besteht er aus mehren 

Personen,80 so he must be a number of persons capable of acting in a 

corporate or collegiate capacity ... since the Sovereign must effect his exertions 

191 of power, must issue \ his orders, by a definite exercise of his will. The possession 

of physical power unentbehrliches Merkmal. (351) The bulk of the society 

must obey the superior who is to be called Sovereign. N ot the whole of the 

Society, for in that case sovereignty would be impossible, but the bulk, the large 

majority, must obey. (3 5 2) 

The Sovereign must receive an habitual obedience from the bulk of the community. 

(3 5 3) Ferneres characteristic desselben: is immunity from the control of every 

other human superior. (I.e.) 

[Dies d. Grundtext nach, wie Maine selbst zugiebt, v. Austin, wie so 

weit damit identisch, von Bentham81 aus Hobbes (Leviathan: Ch. De Cive, 

first published in Latin, in the Elementa Philosophiae)\ 

Aber sagt Maine: Hobbes’ Object war politisch; das des Austin “ strictly 

scientific” ( j j j ) [Scientific\ doch nur in d. Bdtg, dies dies W ort im K o p f of 

blockheadish British lawyers haben kann, w o altmodische Classification, 

328

Definition etc als scientific gilt. Vgl. übrigens i) Machiavelli u. 2) Linguet.\ 

Ferner: Hobbes will origin o f Staat {Government u. Sovereignty) ergründen; 

dies Problem existirt für lawyer Austin nicht; für ihn dies fact gewisser- 

massen a priori vorhanden. Dies sagt Maine p . 3 j6 . D . unglückliche 

Maine selbst hat keine Ahnung davon, dass da w o Staaten existiren (after the 

primitive Communities etc) i.e. eine politisch organisirte Gesellschaft, der 

Staat keineswegs d. Prim% ist; er scheint nur so. 

Herr Maine bemerkt über Austin’s Ausgabe der Hobbes’schen “ force” 

theory: 

If all the members of the community had equal physical strength and were 

unarmed, the power would be a mere result from the superiority of 

numbers; but, as a matter of fact, various causes, of which much the most 

important have been the superior physical strength and the superior 

armanents of portions of the community have conferred on numerical minorities 

the power of applying irresistible pressure to the individuals who make up 

the community as a whole. (358) 

Die assertion which the great “ Analytical Jurists” (Bentham u. Austin)81 

cannot be charged with making, but which some of their disciples go very 

near to hazarding, that the Sovereign person or group actually wields the 

stored-up force of society by an uncontrolled exercise of will, is certainly never in 

accordance with fact. The vast mass of influences, which we may call for 

shortness moral, [dies “ moral” zeigt wie wenig Maine von der Sache 

versteht; so weit diese influences (economical before everything else) 

“ moral” modus of existence besitzen, ist dies immer ein abgeleiteter, 

secundärer modus u. nie das prius\ perpetually shapes, limits, or forbids 

the actual direction o f the forces o f society by its Sovereign. (359) The 

Austinian view of Sovereignty really is - that it is the result of Abstraction 

[Maine ignores das viel Tiefere: dass d. scheinbare supreme selbständige 

Existenz des Staats selbst nur scheinbar u. dass er in allen seinen Formen 

eine excrescence of society is; wie seine82 Erscheinung selbst erst auf einer 

gewissen Stufe der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung vorkömmt, so verschwindet 

sie wieder, sobld d. Gesellscft eine bisher noch nicht erreichte 

Stufe erreicht hat. E rst83 Losreissung84 85 der Individualität von d. 

ursprünglich nicht despotischen Fesseln (wie blockhead Maine es versteht), 

sondern befriedige(ti)den u. gemüthlichen Banden der Gruppe, der primitiven 

Gemeinwesen, - 86damit d. einseitige Herausarbeitung der Individualität.87 

Was aber die wahre Natur der letzteren zeigt sich erst wenn wir d. Inhalt - 

d. Interessen dieser “ letzteren” analysiren. W ir finden dann, dass diese 

Interessen selbst wieder gewissen gesellscftlichen Gruppen gemeinsame u. 

sie charakterisirende88 Interessen, Klasseninteressen etc sind, also diese 

Individualität selbst Klassen- etc Individualität ist u. diese in letzter 

Instanz haben alle ökonomische Bedingungen zur Basis. A u f diesen als Basen 

baut sich der Staat auf u. setzt sie voraus.] It is arrived at by throwing 

aside all the characteristics and attributes of Government and (!) Society 

329

except one, and by connectingallforms ofpolitical superiority together through 

their common possession of force. [Das ist nicht der Grundfehler; dieser | 

192 ist, dass d. political superiority, whatever its peculiar shape, and whatever 

the ensemble of its elements, is taken als etwas über d. Gesellschaft 

stehendes, auf sich selbst beruhendes.] The elements neglected in the 

process are always important, sometimes of extreme importance, for they 

consist of all the elements controlling human action except force directly applied 

or directly apprehended. [Z.B . die bessere Bewaffnung ist schon ein direct auf 

Fortschritt in d. Productionsmitteln (diese fallen z.B. bei Jagd u. Fischfang 

direct zusammen mit Zerstörungsmitteln, Kriegsmitteln) berühendes Element.] 

but the operation of throwing them aside for purposes of classification 

is ... perfectly legitimate.” (359) W e reject in the process o f abstraction 

by which the conception of Sovereignty is reached ... the entire history of 

each community ... the mode in which the result has been arrived at. (360) 

Seine flache Kritik,89 die er unter zum Theil richtig klingender Phraseologie 

verbirgt, windet sich ab erstens in folgender Phrase: “ It is its 

history90 (des Gemeinwesens), the entire mass of its historical antecedents, 

which in each community determines how the Sovereign shall exercise 

or forbear from exercising his irresistible coercive power,” (p. 360) 

aber diese ganze Geschichte löst sich bei Maine in socalled “ moral elements” 

auf, denn er fährt wieder, als either Jurist od.91 Ideolog unmittelbar 

fort: “ A ll that constitutes this - the whole enormous aggregate of 

opinions, sentiments, beliefs, superstitions, and prejudices of all kinds, hereditary 

and acquired, some produced by institutions and some by the constitution 

of human nature - is rejected by the Analytical Jurists. And thus it is that, 

so far as the restrictions contained in their definition of Sovereignty are 

concerned, the Queen and Parliament o f our own country might direct 

all weakly children to be put (to) death or establish a system of lettres de 

cachet” (p. 360) (such as the English now have established by their 

coercion bill in Irld. Dies geschrieben Juni 18 8 1)92 [Gutes Beispiel d. 

halb verrückte Iwan IV . W hd wüthend gegen Bojaren u. auch gegen 

rabble in Moskau, sucht er, u. muss er, sich halten als Vertreter d. 

Bauerninteressen. ] 

Daggen werden d. “ assertions” des Austin “ seif evident propositions” , 

sobld man weiss dass “ in his system the determination of Sovereignty ought to 

precede the determination of Law ” , it being once understood that the 

Austinian conception of Sovereignty has been reached through mentally 

uniting all forms of Government in a group by conceiving them to be9Z 

stripped of every attribute except coercive force” , and (hier zeigt sich wieder 

der Eselsfuss) when it is steadily born(e) in mind that the deductions from 

an abstract principle are never from the nature of the case completely exemplified 

in facts.” (362) 

Weitere Dogmen des Austin: “ Jurisprudence is the science of Positive 

Law. Positive Laws are Commands, addressed by Sovereigns to their 

33°

Subjects, imposing a Duty, or condition of obligedness, or obligation, on 

those Subjects, and threatening a Sanction, or Penalty, in the event o f 

disobedience to Command. A is the faculty or power conferred by 

the Sovereign on certain members of the community to draw down the 

sanction on a94 fellow-subject violating a D uty.” (362) 

Alle diese kindischen Trivialitäten - Höchste95 Obrigkeit ist wer d. Macht 

hat zu zwingen, Positive Gesetze sind Befehle der Obrigkeit an ihre Unter- 

thanen; sie legt dadurch diesen Unterthanen Verpflichtungen auf, u. dies 

ist Pflicht, u. droht mit Strafe für Ungehorsam gegen d. Befehl; Recht ist 

die Macht welche d. Obrigkeit gewissen Gliedern der Gesellscft überträgt 

pflichtwidrig handelnde Gesellscftsglieder zu strafen - dies Kindische, 

u. viel mehr kann selbst ein Hobbes aus der blossen obrigkeitlichen 

Gewaltstheorie nicht herausklauben - dies von John Austin ernsthaft 

doctrinair gepredigte nennt Maine eine “ Procedur” der analytischen Ju 

risten, die closely analog sei mit der in Mathematik u. d. Politischen 

193 Oekonomie befolgten u. “ stricdy scientifick” ! | Alles dreht sich hier nur 

um d .formelle Seite, die natürlich für einen Juristen überall d. Hauptsache. 

“ Sovereignty, for the purposes o f Austin’s system, has no attribute but force, 

and consequently the view here taken of “ law” , “ obligation” , u. “ right” 

is a view of them regarded exclusively as products of coercive force. The 

“ sanction” (penalty) thus becomes the primary and most important 

member o f series of notions and gives its colour to all the others” . (363) 

Niemand, sagt Maine, wd es schwer finden dies zuzugeben (“ allowing” ) 

“ that laws have the character given to them by Austin, so far as such laws 

have proceeded from formal Legislatures.” (I.e.) Aber manche Personen 

protestiren dagegen. Z .B . with regard “ to the customary law o f all 

countries which have not included their law in Codes, and specially the 

English Common Law. (I.e.) The way in which Hobbes and he (Austin, 

the great Pompejus!) bring such bodies o f rules as the Common Law 

under their system by insisting on a maxim which is o f vital importance 

to it: “ Whatever the Sovereign permits, he commands” (p. 363) Until customs 

are enforced by Courts of Justice, they are merely “ positive morality” , 

rules enforced by opinion, but, as soon as Courts of Justice enforced 

them, they become commands o f the Sovereign, conveyed through the 

Judges who are his delegates or deputies. (364) [Hier Austin ohne es zu 

wissen (sieh oben Sohm p. 155-59 )96 hat als engl. Jurist d. engl, fact in 

Knochen, dass d. normänn. Könige in Engld dch ihre normänn. courts of 

justice erzwungen (Aenderungen in Rechtsverhältnissen), die sie auf 

legislativem W eg nicht hätten erzwingen können] D . Herr Maine 

erklärt dies weiter: “ They command (d. Sovereigns) what they permit, 

“ because, being by the assumption possessed of uncontrollable force, they could 

innovate without limit at any moment. The Common Law consists of their 

commands because they can repeal or alter or re-state it at pleasure.” (364) 

Law is (by Austin) regarded as regulated force. (365) 

331

Der comfortable Maine glaubt: “ The one doctrine o f this school of 

jurists which is repugnant to laywers would lose its air of paradox if an 

assumption were made which, in itself theoretically unobjectionable (!), 

manifesdy approximates to practical truth as the course of history proceeds 

- the assumption that what the Sovereign might (!) alter, but does not alter, 

he commands. (366) Dies d. Mainesche Ausgabe von Hobbes u. his litde 

man Austin. Dies blosse scholastische Spielerei. D . Frage ist “ what he 

might alter” . Nehmen wir selbst etwas juristisch Formelles. “Laws” , 

ohne abgeschafft zu werden,97 fallen in “ desuetude” . D a “ positive laws” 

commands des sovereign, so bleiben sie sein command, so lange sie 

existiren. D a he not alters them - he “ might” do so, because the fact of 

their falling into “ desuetude” proves, that98 the social state has outgrown 

them; shall we now say, that he99 commands them, because he does not 

abrogate them, though he “ might” do so, as Maine’s panacea runs; or 

shall we say, that he commands them to fall into “ desuetude” , because he 

does not enforce them? In that case he commands that his positive commands 

shall not be obeyed, i.e. executed, which shows that his “ command” is a 

very imaginary, Active sort of command. Austin’s “ own ethical100 creed... 

was Utilitarianism in its earlier shape.” (j68. Benthamism g(an)z würdig 

des Maines) 

The 2nd, 3d, and 4th Lectures (of Austin) are occupied with an attempt to 

identify the law of God and the law of Nature (so far as these last words can 

be allowed to have any meaning) with the rules required by the theory 

of utility — The identification... is quite gratuitous and valueless for any 

purpose (369) The jurist, properly so called, has nothing to do with any 

ideal standard o f law or morals.” (p. 370. Very true this! as litde as 

theology has!) 

Lecture X I I I . Sovereignty and Empire. (Dies letzte Lecture des Maine’schen 

Buchs) 

The word “ law” has come down in close association with two notions, 

194 the notion o f “ order” and the notion o f “ force” . (371) | The principal 

writings of Austin are not much more than 40 years old. (373) 

From the point of view of the Jurist, law is only associated with order 

through the necessary condition o f every true law that it must prescribe a 

class of acts or omissions, or a number of acts or admissions determined 

generally; the law which prescribes a single act not being a true law, but being 

distinguished as an “ occasional” or “particular” command. Law , thus 

defined and limited, is the subject-matter of Jurisprudence as conceived 

by the Analytical Jurists. (375) 

Austin in his treatise examines “ a number of existing governments or (as 

he would say) forms of political superiority and inferiority, for the purpose 

o f determining the exact seat of sovereignty in each of them. (375, 376) 

Austin recognizes the existence o f communities, or aggregates o f men, in 

which no dissection could disclose a person or group answering to his 

332

definition o f a Sovereign.101 D ’abord, er, wie Hobbes (whose little man 

he is) fully allows that there is a state of anarchy. Wherever such a state is found, 

the question of Sovereignty is being actively fought out, u. er giebt als Beispiel 

that which was never absent from Hobbes’s mind, the struggle zwischen 

Charles I u. his Parliament. A n acute critic o f Hobbes u. Austin, der 

gewaltige Fitfyames102 Stephen, insists that there is a condition of dormant 

anarchy, z.B. United States (d. Beispiel v. Maine before the W ar of Secession. 

(377) Dies alles most characteristic of “ acute” English jurists! 

Grausser Maine seinerseits declares ... there may be deliberate abstinence 

from fighting out a question known to be undecided, and I (Maine him 

selber!) see no objection to call(ing) the temporary equilibrium thus 

produced a state of dormant anarchy, (p. 377) 

Austin further admits the theoretical possibility of a state of nature; 

giebt ihm nicht d. Wichtigkeit wie Hobbes u. andre, aber allows his 

existence, wherever a number of men, or o f groups not numerous enough 

to be political, have not as yet been brought under any common or 

habitually acting community. (378) 

Austin sagt, p. 237, 1st vol., 3d ed.: 

“ Let us suppose that a single family of savages lives in absolute estrangement 

from every other community. And let us suppose that the father, the 

chief o f this isolated family, receives habitual obedience from the mother 

and children. N ow , since it is not a limb o f another and larger community, 

the society formed by the parents and children, is clearly an independent 

society, and, since the rest of its members habitually obey its chief, this 

independent society would form a society political, in case the number of 

its members were not extremely minute. But since the number of its 

members is extremely minute, it would, I believe, be esteemed a society 

in a state of nature” ; that is, a society consisting of persons not in a state of 

subjection. Without an application of the terms, which would somewhat 

smack of the ridiculous, we could hardly style the society a society political 

and independent, the imperative father and chief a monarch or sovereign, 

or the obedient mother and children subjects.” (Sehr tiefe!) 

Dies so far Wasser auf d. Mühle Maine’s, “ since, wie er sagt, the form of 

authority about which it is made, the authority of the Patriarch or Paterfamilias 

over his family, is, at least according to one (Maine’s u. consorts) 

modern theory, the element or germ out of which all permanent power 

of man over man has been gradually developed” . (379) 

Aber nun kommt Maine mit “ schwerem Geschütz” . D . Punjaub, after 

passing dch every conceivable phase of anarchy and dormant anarchy, 

195 fell, about 25 Jahre vor seiner Annexation, under the tolerably | consolidated 

dominion of a half military, half religious oligarchy, known as 

the Sikhs, sie selbst reduced to subjection by a single chieftain belonging 

to their order, Runjeet Singh. Dieser allgewaltiger Despot. He took, as 

his revenue, a prodigious share of the produce of the soil. He harried 

333

villages which recalcitrated at his exactions, and he executed great 

numbers of men. He levied great armies; he had all material of power, 

and exercised it in various ways. But he never made a law. The rules which 

regulated the life o f his subjects were derived from their immemorial 

usages, and these rules were administered by domestic tribunals, in 

families or village-communities. (380, 381) Runjeet Singh never did or 

could (!) have dreamed of changing the civil rules under which his subjects 

lived. Probably he was as strong a believer in the independent obligatory 

force of such rules as the elders themselves who applied them. A n 

Eastern or Indian theorist in law, to whom the assertion was made that 

Runjeet Singh commanded these rules, would etc feel it etc absurd etc. (382) 

Dieser state d. Punjab under Runjeet Singh may be taken as the type of all 

Oriental communities in their native state during their rare intervals of 

peace and order. They have ever been despotisms etc. D . commands der 

despots at their head, harsh and cruel as they might be, implickly obeyed. 

But then these commands, save in so far as they served to organise 

administrative machinery fo r the collection of revenue, have not been true laws; 

were of the class called by Austin occasional or particular commands. 

The truth is that the one solvent of local and domestic usage . .. has been not 

the command of the Sovereign but the supposed command of the Deity. 

In India, the influence of the Brahminical treatises on mixed law and 

religion in sapping the old customary law of the country has always been great, 

and in some particulars it has become greater under English rule. 

(382, 383) 

D . Assyrian, Babylonian, Median u. Persian Empires, for occasional wars of 

conquest, levied vast armies from populations spread over immense areas; 

verlangten absolute obedience to their occasional commands, punished 

disobedience with the utmost cruelty; dethroned petty kings, transplanted 

whole communities etc. Aber mit all dem interfered but little 

with the every day religious or civil life o f the groups to which their 

subjects belonged. The “ royal statute” and “firm decree” preserved to us as 

a sample of “ law of the Medes and Persians which altereth n o f\ ist kein law 

in modernem Sinn, sondern a “ particular command” , a sudden, spasmodic, 

and temporary interference with ancient multifarious usage left in 

general undisturbed. Selbst d. Athenian empire, so weit es nicht Attica 

betraf, sondern d. subject cities u. islands, was clearly a tax-taking Empire 

wie die Asiatischen, nicht a legislating Empire. (384, 385) 

A new order o f legislation introduced into the world dch d. empire of the 

Romans. (386) 

Nach d. Burschen Maine d. origin of the political communities called States is 

that they were formed by the coalescence of groups, the original group having 

been in no case smaller than the patriarchal family. (Againl) Aber dies 

coalescence was soon arrested. (386) 

334

In a later stage, political communities ... often of very great territorial 

extent, are constructed by one community conquering another or one chieftain, 

at the head of a single community or tribe, subjugating great masses of 

population. But ... the separate local life of the small societies included 

in these great States was not extinguished or even much enfeebled. (386, 

196 387) I The “ complete trituration in modern societies of the groups which 

once lived with an independent life has proceeded concurrently with much 

greater activity in legislation(387) 

I f the powers o f the Village Council (später Athenian Ekklesia etc.) must 

be described by modern names, that which lies most in the background is 

legislative power; that which i(s) most distincdy conceived is judicial 

powers.103 The laws obeyed are regarded as having always existed, and 

usages really new are confounded with the really old. (388, 389) The 

village communities of the Aryan (! again this nonsense!) race do not 

therefore exercise true legislative power so long as they remain under 

primitive influences. N or again is legislative power exercised in any 

intelligible sense o f the w ord104 by the Sovereigns of those great States, 

now confined to the East, which preserve the primitive local groups most 

nearly intact. Legislation, as we conceive it, and the break up of local life appear 

to have universally gone on together. (389) The Roman Empire was the 

source of the influences which have led, immediately or ultimately, to 

the formation o f highly-centralised, actively legislating, States. It was 

the first great dominion which did not merely tax, but legislated also. The 

process was spread over many centuries ___ Its commencement and 

completion, I should place ... roughly at the issue of the first Edictum 

Provinciate, and at the Extension of the Roman citizenship to all subjects of the 

Empire. But, in the result, a vast and miscellaneous mass of customary 

law was broken up and replaced by new institutions___It (the Roman 

Empire) devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. 

(39°, 391) Dann wirkte d. Roman Empire u. sein law auf d. neuen dch d. 

Barbaren gegründeten Reiche etc. (391) 

Customary law ... is not obeyed, as enacted law is obeyed. When it 

obtains over small areas and in small natural groups, the penal sanctions 

on which it depends are partly opinion, partly superstition, but to a far 

greater extent an instinct almost as blind and unconscious as that which 

produces some of the movements of our bodies. The actual constraint 

which is required to secure conformity with usage is inconceivably small. 

When, however, the rules which have to be obeyed once emanate from 

an authority external to the small natural group and forming no part o f it, 

they wear a character wholly unlike that of a customary rule. They lose 

the assistance o f superstition (par exemple Christian Religion. Roman 

Church ?), probably that of opinion, certainly that o f spontaneous impulse. 

The force at the back of law comes therefore to be purely coercive force to a 

degree quite unknown in societies o f the more primitive type. Moreover, 

335

in many communities, this force has to aetata very great distance from the hulk 

of the persons exposed to it, and thus the Sovereign who wields it has to deal 

with great classes of acts and with great classes of persons, rather than with 

isolated acts and with individuals. Daher d. indifferency, inexorableness, 

u. generality ihrer “ laws” . (392, 393) 

Their generality (of the Laws) and their dependence on the coercive force 

of a Sovereign are the result o f the great territorial area of modern States, 

of the comminution o f the sub-groups which compose them, and above 

all o f the Roman Commonwealth etc. (394) 

W e have heard of a village Hampden, but a village Hobbes is inconceivable. 

Flüchtet v. England wegen civil disturbance; a(u )f continent sah d. 

Bur(s)che governments rapidly centralising (i.e. was Maine zu tief zu sagen: 

197 Richelieu, Mazarin etc), local privileges u. jurisdictions in | extreme 

decay, the old historical bodies, such as the French Parliaments, tending 

for the time to become furnaces of anarchy, the only hope discoverable in 

kingly power. These were among the palpable fruits o f the wars which 

ended in the Peace of Westphalia. The old multiform local activity o f 

feudal or quasi-feudal society was everywhere enfeebled or destroyed. 

(Dagegen hingegen Locke Holland vor Augen, ebso wie Petty). Was 

dahingegen d. graussen Bentham betrifft, was hatte er hinter sich: 

(Französ. Revol. u. Napoleon). A Sovereign who was a democrat 

commenced, and a Sovereign who was a despot completed, the Codification 

of the laws of France. There had never before in the modern world 

been so striking an exemplification of the proposition that, what the 

Sovereign permits, he commands, because he could at any time substitute 

an express command for his tacit permission, nor so impressive a lesson 

in the far-reaching and on the whole most beneficial results (!) which might 

be expected from the increased activity of Sovereigns in legislation 

proper. (396) 

336

P A R T IV 

M A R X ’S E X C E R P T S F R O M JO H N L U B B O C K , 

T H E O R IG IN O F C I V I L I S A T I O N

i Sir John Lubbock: “ The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of 

M an” London, i Sjo . 

Lubbock citirt in Vorrede Müller (F. G .) “ Geschichte der Amerikan. Urre- 

ligionerf\ M'Lennan: '‘'‘Primitive Marriage” , Bachofen: “ Das Mutterrecht,” 

Lord Karnes “ History of Man.” 

E r sagt in ch. I (Introduction) mit Bezug auf Maine's “Ancient Law ” , dass 

dieser Bursch, wenn er sich bekannter gemacht hätte mit Reisebeschreibungen 

etc. u. a. nicht als “ an obvious proposition” aufgestellt haben 

würde that: “ the organisation of primitive societies would have been 

confounded, if men had called themselves relatives of their mother’s relatives” 

while I (viz. Lubbock) shall presently show that, as indeed Mr. McLennan 

has already pointed out, relationship through females is a common custom 

o f savage communities all over the world, (p. 2, 3) 

Heisst in the People of India (by J. F. Watson and J. W . Kaye) von den 

Teehurs o f Oude, dass they “ live together almost indiscriminately in large 

communities, and even when two people are regarded as married the tie is but 

nominal” (cit. bei L. p. 60). 

McLennan, like Bachofen, starts with a stage of hetairism or communal 

marriage [u. Lubb. sagt p. 70, dass er diesen Blödsinn glaubt, i.e. also 

communal marriage u. hetairism identificirt; whd offenbar hetairism eine 

Form ist, welche Prostitution (u. diese existirt nur im Gegensatz zu marriage, 

whether communal etc or monogamic) voraussetzt. Dies also 

Hysteron Proteron.] The next stage was, in his (McLennan’s) opinion, 

that form o f polyandry in which brothers had their wives in common; afterwards 

came that o f the levirate, i.e. the system under which, when an elder 

brother died, his second brother married the widow, and so on with the 

others in succession. Thence he considers that some tribes branched off 

into endogamy, others into exogamy; that is to say, some forbade marriage 

out of, others within, the tribe. If either o f these two systems was older 

than the other, he considers that exogamy must have been the most 

ancient. Exogam y was based upon infanticide, and led to the practice o f 

marriage by capture. In a further stage the idea of female descent, producing 

as it would a division in the tribe, obviated the necessity of capture as a 

reality and reduced it to a symbol. (69, 70) 

Lubb. admits the prevalence of infanticide among savages, aber “ among the 

lowest boys were killed as frequendy as girls” , wie Eyre (d. Berüchtigte!) 

(^'Discoveries in Central Australia!’) dies z.B. express statuirt1 in Australien. 

(70) Schlagdes Beispiel der Kritik des Lubb., dass er McLennan*s Blödsinn 

mit “ Exogamie” u. “ endogamie” annimmt, aber dann als Pfifficus sich d. 

Sache so “pragmatisirt” : 

“ Communal marriage was gradually superseded by individual marriage founded 

on capture, and that this first led to exogamy and then to female infanticide; 

thus reversing McLennan’s order o f sequence. Endogam y and regulated 

polyandry, though frequent, I regard as exceptional, and as not entering 

339

into the normal progress of development, (p. 70) Even under communal 

marriage, a warrior who had captured a beautiful girl in some marauding 

expedition would claim a peculiar right to her, and, when possible, would 

set custom at defiance (!) There are other cases of the existence of 

marriage under two forms; and there is, therefore, no real difficulty in 

assuming the co-existence of communal marriage and individual marriage 

... A war captive ... was in a peculiar position: the tribe had no 

right to her; her capturer might have killed her if he chose; if he preferred 

to keep her alive he was at liberty to do so; he did as he liked, and the 

tribe was no sufferer.” (70, 71) 

He (McLennan) also considers that marriage by capture followed, and 

arose from that remarkable custom, namely, of marrying always out of the tribe, 

for which he has proposed the appropriate name of exogamy. I believe 

that exogamy arose from marriage by capture etc.” (72) Lubb. weiss 

2 also nichts v. d. Basis - der gens | die innerhalb d. tribe existirt, so wenig 

wie McLennan, obgleich er einige facts citirt, die ihm d. Sache unter 

d. Nase reiben, u. sie in d. That etwas kitzelten. 

Lubb. schreibt nun d. McLennan ab, um zu zeigen “how widely ‘capture’, 

either actual or symbolical, enters into the idea of marriage. Mr. McLennan 

was, I believe, the first to appreciate its importance. I (Lubb.) have 

taken some of the following evidence from his valuable work, adding, 

however (!), several additional cases.” (jß. Great, greatest Lubb.!) If we 

assume the case of a country in which there are four certain neighbouring 

tribes, who have the custom of exogamy, and who trace pedigrees through 

the mother, and not through the father - . . . after a certain time the result 

would be that each tribe would consist of four septs or clans, representing 

the 4 original tribes, and hence we should find communities in which 

each tribe is divided into clans, and a man must always marry a woman of 

a different clan. (75) 

Among agricultural tribes, and under setded forms of government, the 

chiefs often have very large harems, and their importance even is 

measured by the number of their wives, as in other cases by that of their 

cows or horses. (104) 

“Among many of the lower races relationship through females is the prevalent 

custom” , daher “ the curious (!) practice that a marts heirs [aber sie sind ja 

dann nicht the marts heirs; diese civilisirten Esel können ihre eignen 

conventionalities nicht los werden] are not his own, but his sister's 

children.” (105) Thus when a rich man dies in Guinea, his property, 

excepting the armour, descended to the sister's son, expressly, according 

to Smith (Smith's “ Voyage to Guinea" p. 143. See also Pinkerton's Voyages 

v. XV, p. 147, 421, 528); Astley's Collection of Voyages, v. II, p. 63, 265), 

on the ground(Pragmatisirung!) that he must certainly be a relative.” (105) 

Battel (in Pinkerton's Voyages, v. XVI, p. 330) mentions that the town of 

Longo (Loango) is governed by 4 chiefs, which are sons of the king’s 

340

sisters; for the king’s sons never come to be kings.” Quatremère {Mém. 

gêogr. sur l’Egypte et sur quelques contrées voisines, Paris, 18 11, quoted 

by Bachofen (p. 108) mentions that: “ Chez les Noubiens,la dit Abou Selah, 

lorsqu’un roi vient à mourir et qu’il laisse un fils et un neveu du côté de 

sa soeur, celui-ci monte sur le trône de préférence à l’ héritier naturel ( !)” 

{Caillié's Travels, v. I, p. 153, dieser sagt: von Central Africa: “the 

sovereignty remains always in the same family, but the son never succeeds 

his father; they choose in preference a son of the king’s sister, conceiving 

that by this method the sovereign power is more sure to be transmitted to one of 

the blood royal” (p. 105) Wenn nicht Caillié, sondern die Afrikaner selbst 

dort d. sagten, beweists, dass d. weibliche Nachfolge sich nur noch für 

die höchsten Funktionäre (chiefs) erhalten u. sie selbst d. Grund nicht 

mehr wussten). In Northern Africa we find the same custom among the 

Berbers; and Burton mentions it as existing in the East. (105) Polybius 

(maternal ancestry in the female line) bemerkt dies mit Bezug auf Locrier; 

u. on Etruscan tombs descent is stated in the female line. (p. 106) 

In India the Kasias, the Kocch, and the Nairs have the system of female 

kinship. Nach Buchanan, among the Buntar in Tulava a man’s property 

does not descend to his own children, but to those of his sister” . Nach Sir W. 

Elliot the people of Malabar, “notwithstanding the same diversity of caste 

as in other provinces, all agree in one remarkable usage - that of transmitting 

property through females only.” He adds on the authority of Lieutenant 

Conmer, that the same is the case in Travancore, among all the castes 

except the Ponans and the Namburi Brahmans. Latham states (Descriptive 

Ethnology v. II, p. 463) “ no Nair son knows2 his own father, and vice versâ, 

no Nair father knows his own son. What becomes of the property of the 

husband? It descends to the children of his sisters.” (106) 

Among the Limboos (India), a tribe near Darjeeling, the boys become the 

property of the father on his paying the mother a small sum of money, 

when the child is named, and enters his father's tribe: girls remain with the 

mother, and belong to her tribe” (Campbell, Trans. Ethn. Soc.) Marsden 

(History of Sumatra, p. 376) tells: dass among the Battas of Sumatra, “the 

succession to the chief ships does not go, in the first instance, to the son of the 

deceased, but to the nephew by a sister; and that the same extraordinary (!) 

rule, with respect to the property in general prevails also among the Malays of 

that part of the island, and even in the neighbourhood of Padang.” (106, 

107) 

Sir John Richardson {Boat Journey, v. I, p. 406) tells dass unter den Kenaiyers 

of Cooks Inlet a man’s property descendes) not to his own children, but to 

those of his sister. Selbes d. Fall mit d. Kutchin {Smithsonian Report, 1866, 

p. 326) p. 107. Carver (Travel(s) in North America) mentions dass unter 

3 den Hudson’s Bay | Indians the children “are always distinguished by the 

name of the mother; and if a woman marries several husbands, and has 

issue of each of them, they all are called after her.” (107) Similar rule 

341

prevailed in Haiti u. Mexico (F. G. Müller, Amerikan. Urreligionen, 

P· 167, 539)] (p. 107) 

Mit Be%ug auf Polynesia Mariner states dass in d. Friendly or Tonga Islands 

(in his “ Tonga Islands” , v. II, p. 89, 91) “nobility descends by ihe female line, 

for when the mother is not a noble, the children are not nobles.” (p. 107) 

Nach einem ändern passage bei Mariner3 scheint’s dass these islanders 

were passing the stage of relationship through females to that through 

males.) D. existence of inheritance through females is clearly indicated 

in the Fijian custom known as Vasu. (107, 108) So auch in Western 

Australia “ children of either sex, always take the family name of their 

mother” (Eyre) (p. 108) 

Nach Herrn Lubbock, stages in religion: 

1) Atheism; in sense, that absence of any definite idea on the subject. 

2) Fetichism; wo man supposes he can force Deity (Deity immer of bösartiger 

Natur) to comply with his desires. 3) Nature worship or Tote mismy 

wo natural objects, trees, lakes, stones, animals, etc.4 (celestial bodies etc.) 

worshipped. 4) Shamanism; wo d. superior deities are far more powerful 

than man, and of a different nature. Their place of abode also far away, u. 

accessible only to the Shamans. 5) Idolatry or Anthropomorphism; gods still 

more completely take the nature of men... more powerful; still amenable 

to persuasion; they are a part of nature, and not creators; are represented 

by images or idols. 6) Deity and Author, not merely a part, of nature; wd 

for the first time a supernatural being. [Dies meint, Herr Lubbock: wd 

ein Verstandesgespinst.] 7) Morality wd associated mit religion. (119) 

The savages almost always regard spirits as evil beings ... a member of an 

invisible tribe. (129) 

Vgl. über die dem Lubbock unbewusste Ueb

Glauben an d. Reality d. fathers or brothers (als still living), die ihnen im 

Traum erscheinen, grandfathers dagegen regarded as generally dead. (163) 

Worship of Idols characterises a somewhat higher stage of human development; 

no traces of it among the lowest races of man in Lafitau (Moeurs des 

Sauvages Américains, v. I, p. 151) sagt mit Recht: “ On peut dire en général 

que le grand nombre des peuples sauvages n’a point d’idoles” . Sind 

nicht zu verwechseln mit Fetisch; fetichism is an attack on the Deity, 

Idolatry an act of submission to him. (225) 

The idol usually assumes the human form, and idolatry is closely connected 

with that form of religion which consists in the worship of ancestors, 

(p. 228) The worship of ancestors ... more or less prevalent among all 

the aboriginal tribes of Central India. (229) The Kaffirs sacrifice and pray to 

their deceased relatives. (I.e.) Other races endeavour to preserve the 

memory of the dead by rude statues. Pallas ( Voyages, v. IV , p. 79) mentions 

that the Ostyaks of Siberia “rendent un culte à leurs morts. Ils sculptent des 

figures de bois pour représenter les Ostiakes célébrés. Dans les repas de 

commémoration on place devant ces figures une partie des mets. Les femmes qui 

ont chéri leurs maris ont de pareilles figures, les couchent avec elles, les parent, 

et ne mangent point sans leur présenter une partie de leur portion.” 

Erman (“ Travels in Siberia,” v. II p. 56) also mentions that when a man 

dies “the relatives form a rude wooden image representing, and in honour 

of, the deceased, which is set up in their yurt, and receives divine honours” 

4 for a certain time. “At every meal they set an offering | of food before 

the image etc.” (I.e.) In ordinary cases this semi-worship only lasts a few 

years, after which the image is burned. “But when a Shaman dies, this 

custom changes in his favour, into a complete and decided canonisationdann 

(fahrt Erman fort) erhält “ the dressed block of wood which represents the 

deceased” nicht nur “homage for a limited period” , sondern “the priest’s 

descendants do their best to keep him in vogue from generation to 

generation; [sieh den Phear, “ The Aryan Village,7 wo ganz dasselbe noch 

heute in Bengal für Aristocraten etc] and by well-contrived oracles and 

other arts, they manage to procure offerings for their families' penates, as 

abundant as those laid on the altars of the universally acknowledged gods. 

But that the latter (sagt Erman) also have an historical origin, that they were 

originally monuments of distinguished men, to which prescription and 

the interest of the Shamans gave by degrees an arbitrary meaning and importance, 

seems to me not liable to doubt; and this is, furthermore, 

corroborated by the circumstance (that) of all the sacred yurts dedicated to 

these saints, which have been numerous from the earliest times in the 

vicinity of the river, only one has been seen (near Samarovo) containing the 

image of a woman.” (p. 230) 

[Lubb. citirt den Salomon d. Weisen (Wisdom, ch. X I V , p. 12) wo dieser 

wiseacre flgdes orakelt über d. origin des worship of statues as of deities. 

“ 13. Neither were they from the beginning, neither shall they be 

forever. 

343

14- For by the vainglory of men they entered into the world’, and therefore 

shall they come shordy to an end. 

15. For a father afflicted with untimely mourning, when he hath 

made an image of his child soon taken away, now honoured him as a 

god, which was then a dead man, and delivered to those that were 

under him ceremonies and sacrifices. 

16. Thus, in process of time, an ungodly custom grown strong was 

kept as a law, and graven images were worshipped by the commandments of 

kings: 

17. Whom men could not honour in presence, because they dwelt far off, 

they took the counterfeit of the visage from far, and made an express image 

of a king whom they honoured, to the end that by this their forwardness, 

they might flatter him that was absent, as if he. were present; 

18. Also the singular diligence of the artificer did help to set forward 

the ignorant to more superstition. 

19. For he, (viz: the artificer), peradventure willing to please one in 

authority, forced all his skill to make the resemblance of the best fashion. 

20. And so (the) multitude, allured by the grace of the work, took him 

now for a god, which a litde before was but honoured as a man.” ] 

The idol is by no means regarded as a mere emblem. In India (Dubois, 

p. 407), when the offerings of the people have been less profuse than usual, 

the Brahmans sometimes “put the idols in irons, chaining their hands and 

feet. They exhibit them to the people in this humiliating state, into which 

they tell them they have been brought by rigorous creditors, from whom their 

gods had been obliged, in times of trouble, to borrow money to supply their wants. 

They declare that the inexorable creditors refuse to set the god at liberty, until 

the whole sum, with interest, shall have been paid. The people come forward, 

alarmed at the sight of their divinity in irons; and thinking it the most 

meritorious of all good works to contribute to his deliverance, they raise 

the sum required by the Brahmans for that purpose.” (p. 231) 

(Vgl. hierzu Don Quixote, 2 Theil, ch. X X III, wo der Brave in d. Höhle 

des Montesinos. Während er mit letzterem sich unterhält, sieht er una de 

las dos companeras de la sin Ventura Dulcinea zu ihm kommen, y llenos 

los ojos de lagrimas, con turbada y baxa vos me dixo: mi senora Dulcinea 

del Toboso besa a vuesa merced las manos, y suplica a vuesa merced se la 

haga de hacerla saber cömo estä, y que por estar en una gran necesidad, 

asimismo suplica ä vuesa merced cuan encarecidamente puede, sea servido de 

prestarle sobre este faldellin que aqui traigo de cotonia nuevo, media docena de 

reales, ö los que vuesa merced tuviere, que ella da su palabra de volverselus con 

mucha brevedad. Suspendiöme (erzählt Don Quixote dem Sancho Panza u. 

dem Studiosus) y admiröme el tal recado, y volviendome al senor 

Montesinos, le pregunte:

quiera se usa,y por to do se entiendey a todos alcanna, yam hast a los encant ados 

no perdona: y pues la senora Dulcinea del Toboso envia a pedir esos sets 

reales, y la prenda es buena, segun parece, nota y sino darselos, que sin duda 

debe de estar puesta en algun grande aprieto. Prenda no lo tomareyo (sagt 

Don Quixote), le respond!, ni menos le dare lo que pide, porque no tengo 

sino solos quatro reales, los quales le d i... y la dixe: decid, amiga mia, a 

vuesa senora, que a mime pesa en el alma de sus trabajos, y que qui siera 

ser un Fücar (Fugger) para remediarlos etc.”)8 

D. in Tyros worshipped Statue des Herkules selbst die als Gottheit betrachtet; 

daher während der Belagerung durch Alexander Magnus fast 

bound in chains to prevent htm from deserting to the enemy, (p. 231, 32) 

As civilisation advances u. die Chiefs mehr despotisch werdend, exact more 

and more respect, the people are introduced to conceptions of power and magnificence 

higher than any which they had previously entertained. (232) u. 

5 diese dann auch auf d. Götter übertragen. | Idol worship zeigt higher 

mental condition as worship of animals and even the heavenly bodies. 

Selbst sun-worship generally, though not invariably, associated with 

a lower idea of the Deity than is the case with Idolatry. [D.h. der Hofdienst 

gegen die Götter “lower” als unter idol worship]. This arises pardy 

from the fact that the gradually increasing power of chiefs and kings has 

familiarised the mind with the existence of a power greater than any which 

had been previously conceived. (I.e.) So, in Westafrika, the slave trade 

having added considerably to the wealth and consequendy to the power of 

the chiefs or kings, they maintained much state, and insisted upon being 

treated with servile homage. No man was allowed to eat with them, nor to 

approach them excepting on his knees with an appearance of fear, which no 

doubt was in many cases sufficiently well-founded. (233) These marks of 

respect so much resembled adoration, that “ the individuals of the lower 

classes are persuaded that the king’s power is not confined to the earth, 

and that he has credit enough to make rain fall from heaven etc.” (233, 

citirt aus: “ Proyart’s History of Loango” etc.) The tyrants of Natal, says 

Casalis, “ exacted almost divine homage.” (233) The king and queen of 

Tahiti were regarded as so sacred that nothing once used by them, not 

even the sounds forming their names, could be used for any ordinary 

purposes. The language of the court was characterised by the most ridiculous 

adulation. The king’s “ houses were called the aarai, the clouds of heaven 

etc.” (I.e.) 

Manworship would not long be confined to the dead. In many cases it 

extends to the living also. Indeed, the savage who worship(s) an animal 

or a tree, would see no absurdity in worshipping a man. [As if the 

civilised Englishman did not “worship” the Queen or Mr. Gladstone!] 

His chief is, in his eyes, almost as powerful, if not more so, than his Deity. Yet 

man-worship does not prevail in altogether uncivilised communities, because the 

chiefs (flacher Hund!), associating constantly with his followers, lack that 

345

mystery which religion requires, and which nocturnal animals so eminendy 

possess. As, however, civilisation progresses, and the chiefs separate 

themselves more and more from their subjects (!), this ceases to be the case and 

man-mrship becomes an important element of religion. (235) The worship of a 

great chief seems quite as natural as that of an idol. “Why, said a Mongol 

to Friar Ascelin, (Astley, Collection of Voyages, v. IV, p. 551) since you 

Christians make no scruple to adore sticks and stones, why do you refuse 

to do the same honour to Bayoth Noy, whom the Khan has ordered to be 

adored in the same manner as he is himself?” This worship fast immer 

begleitet mit a belief in higher beings. (234) 

Wo Shamanism noch nicht ganz replaced Totemism, the establishment of 

monarchical government with its usual pomp and ceremonial led to a much 

more organised worship of the old gods.9 Of this the serpent-worship in Western 

Africa, and the sun-worship in Peru, are striking examples. (235) White 

men often taken for deities, so Captain Cook in the Pacific etc. “ Tuikilakila, 

the chief of Somosomo, sagte zu Mr. Hunt: “If you die first, I shall make 

you my god” . “No certain line of demarcation between departed spirits 

and gods, nor between gods and living men, for many of the priests and 

old chiefs are considered as sacred persons, and not a few of them will also claim 

to themselves the right of divinity. “/ am a god” , Tuikilakila would 

sometimes say; and he believed it too.” (Erskine, “ Western Pacific.” p. 246) 

Lubb sagt: “It seems at first sight hard to understand how men can be regarded 

immortal [meint hier: not capable of suffering a natural death; Lubbock 

spottet seiner selbst u. weiss doch nicht wie; er findet es quite natural, 

that they are “ capable” of an unnatural death” , d.h. dass sie fortleben, 

obgleich eines natürlichen Todes verstorben]. Yet even this belief has been 

entertained in various countries” . (235) 

Merolla tells (in Pinkerton's “ Voyages” , v. XVI, p. 226 sq.), that in his time 

the wizards of Congo were called Scinghili, that is to say Gods of the Earth. 

The head of them is styled “ Ganga Chitorne, being reputed God of all 

the Earth__ He further asserts that his body is not capable of suffering 

a natural death; and,... to confirm his adorers in this opinion, whenever 

he finds his end approaching, either through age or disease, he calls for 

such a one of his disciples as he intends to succeed him, and pretends to 

communicate to him his great powers” ; lässt sich von dem hängen od. 

todtschlagen coram publico etc” (p. 23 5, 36) So d. Great Lama of Thibet. 

Sacrifices, to propitiate the Spiritual Beings for good or evil. (237) 

Erst supposed that the spirits actually eat the food offered to them; 

aber observed that animals sacrificed did not disappear; hence geschlossen 

that the Spirit ate the spiritual part of the victim, leaving the grosser part 

to his devout worshipper. Thus the Limboos near Darjeeling (India) eat 

their sacrifices, dedicating as they forcibly express it, “ the life-breath to the 

gods, the flesh to ourselves.” (p. 237) 

In New Zealand die fairies, when Te Kanawa gave them his jewels, carried 

346

off the shadows only, not caring for the earthly substance. (Sir G. Grey: 

Polynesian Mythologie) In Guinea, nach Bosman, “The idol has only 

6 the blood, | because they like the flesh very well themselves. Anderswo 

Fleisch von d. Devotees gefressen, wie bei d. Ostyaks, aber the idols 

smeared mit d. blood, on their mouths (in case d. Ostyaks). Even this 

seems at length to be replaced in some cases by - red paint; so oft (Col. 

Forbes Leslie) d. sacred stones in India; so in Congo d. fetiches daubed 

mit red every new moon etc. (237, 38) 

Bei d. great offerings of food unter den Fijians “native belief apportions 

merely the soul thereof to the gods, who are described as being enormous 

eaters; the substance is consumed by the worshippers. (Williams: Polynesian 

Researches)10 

Abendmal vorgedeutet: In many cases it seems to be a necessary portion of the 

ceremony that the victim should be eaten by those present. Thus in India 

(Dubois, p. 401) when the sacrifice “is over, the priest comes out, and 

distributes part of the articles which had been offered to the idols. This is 

received as holy, and is eaten immediately Among the Redskins, (Schoolcraft: 

“ Indian Tribes,” v. Ill, p. 61, Tanner: “Narrative” , p. 287) at the feast held 

when the hunting season begins, the victim “must be all eaten and 

nothing left.” ... Among the Algonquins ... at the same feast... not a bone 

of the victim must be broken.” (239) 

Oft curious Identification (er sagt “ Confusion”) arises between the victim 

and the Deity, and the former is worshipped before it is sacrificed and 

eaten. So in ancient Egypt, Apis the victim was also regarded as the God (Cox: 

Manual of Mythology, p. 213) u. Iphigenia was supposed by some to be same 

as Artemis. (Nicht nur d. Ox Apis, das victim, sondern auch das Opferlamm 

Christus the same as the God, his inborn son.) F. G. Müller sagt 

von Mexico, dass in gewisser Zeit des Jahrs: “Die Priester verfertigen 

nämlich ein Bild von allerlei Samen, die mit dem Blute geopferter Kinder 

zusammengebacken wurden. Mancherlei religiöse Reinigungen und 

Sühnungen, Waschungen mit Wasser, Aderlässen, Fasten, Prozessionen, 

Räucherungen, Wachtelopfer, Menschenopfer bereiteten zur Feier vor. 

Alsdann schoss ein Priester Quetâlcoatls einen Pfeil gegen jenes Bild 

Huitzilopochtlis, und durchschoss den Gott. So galt dieser nun für todt, es 

wurde ihm wie den Menschenopfern vom Priester das Her^ ausgeschnitten, 

und vom Könige, dem Stellvertreter des Gottes auf Erden, gegessen. Den 

Leib aber vertheilten sie für die verschiedenen Quartiere der Stadt so, dass 

jeder Mann ein Stückchen erhielt.” (p. 239, 40) 

Ebenso in Mexico jährlich grosses Opfer zu Ehren von Tezcatlipoca; a 

beautiful youth, meist a war captive, chosen as the victim; for a whole year 

treated and worshipped as a god etc. Anfang d. letzten Monats erhielt er 

4 schöne girls als wives; schliesslich am fatal day placed at the head of a 

solemn procession, taken to the temple, dann sacrificed with much 

ceremony and every token of respect, dann eaten by the priests and chiefs. - 

347

Unter d. Khonds of Central India ebenfalls solch Menschenopfermal. A 

stout stake is driven into the soil, and to it the victim is fastened, seated, 

and anointed with ghee, oil, and turmeric, decorated with flowers, and 

worshipped during the day by the assembly. Abends ist diese revelry11 

resumed; am jt Morgen erhält d. victim some milk to drink, when the 

presiding priest implores the goddess to shower her blessings on the 

people etc etc. The priest recounts the origin and advantage of the rite 

and concludes by stating that the goddess has been obeyed and the 

people assembled etc. After the mock ceremony, nevertheless, the 

victim is taken to the grove, where the sacrifice is to be carried out; and, 

to prevent resistance, the bones of the arms and legs are broken, or the victim 

drugged with opium or datura, when the janni wounds his victim with his 

axe .... The crowd now press forward to obtain a piece of his flesh, and 

in a moment he is stripped to the bones. (240, 241) 

So in some parts of Africa “ eating the fetish” [was auch so far bei Eidnehmen 

z.B. symbolisch geschieht, by “ rasping or grating a little of the 

fetish in water or of an edible, and so put it in their mouth without 

swallowing it” ] is a solemn ceremony, by which women swear fidelity to 

their husbands, men to their friends.” (241) 

The sacrifices as a general rule not eaten by all indiscriminately; in Fejee 

confined to the old men u. priests; women and young men being excluded 

from any share. Gradually the priests establish their claim to the whole, dies 

stimulirt d. practice of sacrifice. Affects auch the character of the worship. 

Thus, as Bosman tells, the priests encouraged offerings to the Serpent 

rather than to the Sea, weil im letzteren Fall, wie er sagt, “there happens 

no remainder to be left to them.” (241, 242) 

D. feeling, das led to the sacrifice of animals culminated naturally in that of 

men, in Guinea, Pacific Islands, war captives in Brazil; various nations 

in India, ausser d. Khonds, die bereits erwähnt; auch jezt dort in einigen 

Plätzen, wo human sacrifices nicht mehr erlaubt, machen sie human figures 

of flour, paste, or clay, and then cut off their heads in honor of their gods. 

(242) Ebso in ancient history bei Carthager, Assyrians, Greeks; bei d. 

7 Römern bis zum 2 od. 3 Jhdt nach Christ, | Peru, Mexico. In letztrem 

nach F. G. Müller, jährlich in d. Tempeln geopfert 2,500 (a moderate 

estimate) but in one year über 100,000. Bei Juden system of animal 

sacrifices on a grand scale and symbols of human sacrifices, die hindeuten that 

they were once usual. 

Japhefs daughter: see jth chapter of Leviticus. (241-43). 

Ursprünglich keine Tempel or sacred buildings; in New World nur in Central 

America u. Peru (244) In Indien the tumulus has developed into the temple. 

(Fergusson, “ Tree and Serpent Worship".) 

The Lower Races of mankind have no priests, properly so called. (244) In 

Greece priests, but no priesthood. (245) 

In the Tonga Islands the chiefs regarded as immortal, the Tooas12 or com- 

348

mon people as mortal; as to the intermediate class or Mooas12 there is a 

difference of opinion. (I.e.) 

The belief in the soul (not identical with ghosts) in an universal, independent 

and endless existence is confined to the highest (?) races of mankind. (I.e.) 

D. Reverend Lang13 in his “ The Aborigines of Australia” had a friend, the 

which friend “ tried long and patiently to make a very intelligent Australian 

understand (sollte heissen make him believe) his existence without a body, 

but the black never would keep his countenance ... for a long time he 

could not believe (“he” is the intelligent black) that the “gendeman” (i.e. 

d. Pfaffen Lang13 silly friend) was serious, and when he did realise it (that 

the gentleman was an ass in good earnest), the more serious the teacher 

was the more ludicrous the whole affair appeared to be.” (245, 246) 

(Spottet Lubbock seiner selbst u. weiss doch nicht wie.) 

Caesar assures us that among the ancient Britons money was habitually lent 

on postobits - promises to pay in another world. (248) 

Says Viech Lubbock: 

“ The immense service which science has ... rendered to the cause of religion 

... has not hitherto received the recognition which it deserves. Science is 

still regarded by many excellent, but narrow-minded (large minded 

philistine!), persons as hostile to religious truth, while in fact she is only 

opposed to religious error.” (256) 

Remarkable custom in Tahiti that the king abdicated as soon as a son was 

born to him; and the landowners under similar circumstances lost the 

fee-simple of their land, and became mere trustees for the infant possessors. 

(See Ellis, Polynesian Researches, v. II, p. 346, 47) The Basutos have a 

strict system of primogeniture, and, even during the father’s life, the eldest 

son has considerable power both over the property and the younger 

children (Casalis: Basutos14t)xxx Among the Australians15 (not like the 

American Red(s)kins (feeding) on the larger game, with only tribal 

property in land, common to hunting communities) feeding on opossums, 

reptiles, insects, roots, etc., generally only able to obtain food each on his 

own property - “ every male has some portion of land, of which he can always 

point out the exact boundaries. These properties are subdivided by a father 

among his sons during his own lifetime, and descend in almost hereditary 

succession. A man can dispose of or barter his lands to others, but a 

female never inherits, nor has primogeniture among the sons any peculiar 

rights nor advantages.” Some tracts of land peculiarly rich in gum etc., 

over which, at the period when the gum is in season, numerous families 

have an acknowledged right, although they are not allowed to come there 

at other times. (Eyre: Discoveries in Australia, v. II, p. 297; Grey's16 

Australia, v. II, p. 232, 298, 236.)— “ Even the water of the rivers is 

claimed by some Australian tribes__ Trespass for the purpose of hunting 

is in Australia considered as a capital offence.” 

In Polynesia, where cultivation was carefully attended to, as in Tahiti, 

349

every portion of land has its respective owner; and even the distinct trees on the 

land had sometimes different proprietors, and the tree, and the land it grew on, 

different owners.” (Ellis, Polynesian Researches, v. II, p. 362) In New Zealand 

there were 3 distinct tenures of land, vi%. by the tribe, by the family, and by the 

individual. The common rights of a tribe were often very extensive, and 

complicated by intermarriages__ Children, as soon as they were born, had 

a right to a share of the family property. (Taylor: New Zealand and its Inhabitants, 

p. 384) 

xxxSelbe System of Primogeniture, in combination with inheritance through 

females, is also in full force in Feejee, where it is known as Vasu; which | 

8 means a nephew or niece, “but becomes a title of office in the case of the male, 

who, in some localities, has the extraordinary privilege of appropriating 

whatever he chooses belonging to his uncle, or those under his uncle’s 

power ... However high a Feejee chief may be, if he has a nephew, he has 

a master.” (315) 

Vielleicht mit ähnlichem zusammenhängend “ the curious custom of 

naming the father after the child. In Australien sehr allgemein when a 

marts eldest child is named, the father takes “the name of the child, Kadlit- 

pinna, the father of Kadli; the mother is called Kadlingangki, or mother 

of Kadli, from ngangki, a female or woman.” In America die same habit. 

{Smithsonian Report. 1866) Thus with the “Kutchin the father takes his 

name from his son or daughter; des Vater’s Name gebildet dch addition d. 

Worts tee to the end of the son’s name; z.B. Que-ech-et may have a son 

and call him Sah-neu. The father is now called Sah-neu-tee u. his former 

name Que-ech-et is forgotten.” 

In Sumatra (Marsden, “History of Sumatra” , p. 286) the father, in many 

parts of the country is distinguished by the name of his first child, as 

“Pa-Ladin” or “Pa-Rindu” (Pa for bapa, signifying ‘the father of’) and 

loses, in this acquired, his own proper name ... The women never change 

the name given them at their birth ; yet frequently they are called through 

courtesy from their eldest child : “Ma si ano” , “the mother of such an one” , 

but rather as a polite description than a name.” 

Bei lower races of men, the chiefs scarcely take any cognisance of offences, 

unless they relate to things directly concerning, or supposed to concern, 

the interests of the community generally. As to private injuries, everyone 

must protect or avenge himself. Du Tertre (History of the Caribby Islands, 

p. 316; see also Labat: Voyage aux Isles d’Amérique, v. II,p . 8f) sagt: die 

administration der Justice “among the Caribbians, is not exercised by the 

Captain, nor by any magistrate; but, as it is among the Tapinambous, he who 

thinks himself injured gets such satisfaction of his adversary as he thinks 

fit, according as his passion dictates to him, or his strength permits him; 

the public does not concern itself at all in the punishment of criminals, 

and if anyone among them suffers an injury or affront without endeavouring 

to revenge17 himself, he is slighted by all the rest, and accounted 

a coward, and a person of no esteem.” 

350

Among the North American Indians, if a man was murdered, “the family 

of the deceased only have the right of taking satisfaction; they collect, 

consult and decree. The rulers of a town or of the nation have nothing to 

do or say in the business.” (Trans. Americ. Antiq. Society) Indeed, it 

would seem that the object of legal regulations was at first not so much 

to punish the offender, as to restrain and mitigate the vengeance inflicted 

by the aggrieved party. (317) 

The amount of legal revenge often strictly regulated. Z.B. in Australia: “crimes 

may be compounded for by the criminal appearing and submitting himself 

to the ordeal of having spears thrown at him by all such persons as perceive 

themselves to have been aggrieved, or by permitting spears to be thrust 

through certain parts of his body; such as through the thigh, or the calf of 

the leg, or under the arm. The part which is to be pierced by a spear, is fixed 

for all common crimes, and a native who has incurred this penalty sometimes 

quietly holds out his leg for the injured party to thrust his spear 

through.” So strictly is the amount of punishment limitedthat if in inflicting 

such spear wounds, a man, either through carelessness or from any other cause, 

exceeded the recognised limits - if, for instance,18 he wounded the femoral 

artery - he would in his turn become liable for punishment. 

[Shylock Affaire!] {G. Grey,16 Australia, v. II, p. 243). 

35i

NOTES

Notes to Introduction, p. 2. 

N O T E S T O IN TR O D U C T IO N 

1 Karl Marx, Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, Jan. 16, 1861. Werke, v. 30, 

1964, p. 578: “ Sehr bedeutend ist Darwins Schrift und passt mir als 

naturwissenschafdiche Unterlage des geschichdichen Klassenkampfes. 

Die grob englische Manier muss man in den Kauf nehmen. Trotz 

allem Mangelhaften ist hier zuerst der “Teleologie” in der Naturwissenschaft 

nicht nur den Todesstoss gegeben, sondern der rationelle 

Sinn derselben empirisch auseinandergelegt.” Marx mentioned 

Charles Darwin’s work, The Origin oj Species, 18 5 9, in a letter to Engels, 

Dec. 19, i860 (Werke, op.cit., p. 131) in terms of which those to 

Lassalle are the expansion. In the latter, the ‘naturhistorische Grundlage 

für unsere Ansicht’ is formulated one month later as the “naturwissenschafdiche 

Unterlage des geschichtlichen Klassenkampfes.’ 

The ‘death blow given to teleology’ is a wholly new thought in this 

connection. By teleology Marx intended a formative process which is 

wholly external to a natural object, whether animate or inanimate, or 

to nature as a whole. In Kapital, v. 1, 4th~7th ed., 1914, p. 306, Marx 

quoted Darwin in regard to general resemblance according to function 

among organs, whereby minor variations in form are suppressed 

by natural selection. It is the relation to function that determines form 

rather than an external agency that imposes the direction which change 

of form will take. (Eng. tr., 1937, p. 375). The parallel between 

Darwin’s principle applied to organs of natural, animate beings (as 

well as to knives) was then drawn by Marx in regard to human society 

(ib., p. 33 5f., Eng. ib., p. 406); here it is the history of natural technology, 

i.e., the formation of plant and animal organs as instruments 

of production for the life of plants and animals that is brought out. 

Marx added: “Does not the history of the formation (Bildungsgeschichte) 

of the productive organs of social man (Gesellschaftsmenschen), 

of the material basis of each particular (besondren) social 

organization, deserve equal attention?” (Bracketed German words 

omitted from Eng. tr. in whole or in part.) The external agency is 

unrelated to the relation of function to form, or to change of form in 

its relation to change of function. The relation of internal-external 

with reference to a natural object itself is other than the relation of a 

force or guide which is external to nature as a whole, which is the 

teleology. Darwin, op. cit., 2nd ed. and on, ch. 4, para. 2, asserted 

that he ruled out the reference to ‘natural selection as an active power 

or Deity’, hence operated entirely within the natural domain, and in 

terms of ‘the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, [or] 

354

Notes to Introduction, pp. 4-5. 

the sequence of events as ascertained by us.’ The rational meaning 

of teleology which is empirically explicated by Darwin’s natural 

scientific conceptions is set forth in this passage, as well as passim in 

his Origin of Species. 

Marx understood Hegel’s anthropology as a process of human 

self-creation. Cf. Marx, Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte (1844) 

(see note 4); this is an anti-teleological position. See below ref. note 4 

and note 156. 

2 There is no reference to supernatural design or teleology by the 

Darwinians, whether Darwin himself, T. H. Huxley or Lubbock. 

This notion was developed later by C. Lloyd Morgan and others who 

associated themselves with Darwinism and with the doctrine of 

emergent evolution. 

3 J. B. Bury, The Idea of Progress, 1932. In this distinction, Bury was 

followed by K. Löwith, Meaning in History, 1949 and M. Ginsberg, 

The Idea of Progress, 1953. 

4 Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie 

(Doctoral dissertation), 1841. Das philosophische Manifest der 

historischen Rechtsschule, Rheinische Zeitung, no. 221, 1842. Zur 

Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, 1843, to which the introduction 

alone was published in: Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844. 

Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte, 1844. Die Heilige Familie, 

1845 (with Friedrich Engels). Thesen über Feuerbach, 1845. Die 

deutsche Ideologie, 1845-1846 (with Engels). Karl Marx, Friedrich 

Engels, Historisch-Kritische Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), v. I, 1; v I, 3; 

v. I, 5, 1927-1932. Marx Engels, Werke, (MEW) 39 v. plus 2 suppl. 

1959-1969. Cited hereafter by volume and page. 

5 Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, 1859. (Critique of Political Economy, 

N. Stone, tr., 1913). 

6 D. [David Borisovich] Ryazanov, Novye Dannye o literaturnom 

nasledstve K. Marksa i F. Engel’sa. Vestnik Sotsialisticheskoy Akademii, 

no. 6, 1923, pp. 3 51-376, has raised the question of the light that these 

ethnological manuscript materials shed on the biography and character 

of Karl Marx. This question will not be discussed in these pages, 

save as it bears upon the evaluation of the ethnological materials 

themselves, for which see below, note 8 3. On continuity-discontinuity 

of Marx’s thought, cf. Auguste Cornu, La feunesse de Karl Marx, 1934; 

id., The Origins of Marxist Thought, 1957. Georg Lukäcs, Der funge 

Hegel, 1948. Jean Hyppolite, Etudes sur Marx et Hegel, 1955. Karl 

Korsch, Karl Marx, 1938. 

The turning point, according to Cornu, was the composition of 

the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844; but the erudition 

of Cornu is here caught in a trap of its own devising, that of the 

quest for origins, turning points, as a game of the intellectual history 

of a person. An even more extreme view of the rupture between the 

young and the mature Marx has been advocated by Louis Althusser 

355

Notes to Introduction, p. 5 

et al, Lire le Capital, 2 v., 1966 (see also Althusser, Pour Marx, 1966). 

On the contrary, a more reasonable account of the course of development 

of Marx’s ideas, both as continuity and as discontinuity, has 

been made by George Lichtheim, Marxism, 2nd ed., 1964. The most 

thorough exploration to date of that development, with particular 

reference to the Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, 1857- 

1858, (see note 7), as the linkage between the writings of the 1 840s by 

Marx and the composition of Kapital was made by Roman Ros- 

dolsky, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen ‘Kapital’, 2nd ed., 1969. 

See also Otto Morf, Geschichte und Dialektik in der Politischen Ökonomie, 

1970, pp. 171-236, who has proceeded in the same line as Rosdolsky. 

Marx pointed to the year 1843 in which he composed his Critique of 

the Hegelian Philosophy of Right as critical in this regard; see Einleitung 

to the Kritik of 1859, op. cit., to which Korsch has called attention. 

Marx maintained certain constant interests throughout his life while 

developing new ones, and the methods for their analysis. The study 

of society was the object of the first record that he made; in 1843-1845 

he recognized the limitations of the study of civil society, observing 

that law and the State could not be understood by themselves nor 

explained by the general progress of the human mind, that they are 

founded on the material conditions of life. The program of the study 

of man in relation to society was set forth in the manuscript of 1843, 

in the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and in the Theses on 

Feuerbach of 1845. A theory of development of the productive forces 

of society through discrete stages was made concrete as the development 

from primitive man to capitalism in the German Ideology, at the 

time when Marx engaged in his studies of political economy. The 

results, already foreshadowed in the critique of Proudhon, raise a 

further question that has yet to be fully explored: the relation between 

the Introduction to the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right (1844) 

and the Communist Manifesto. These conceptions are interrelated in 

the ethnological manuscripts here published, both in the selection 

of works and topics for excerption and in the mode of treatment of 

the topics. Finally, while recognizing the importance of the knowledge 

per se of the composita of Marx’s thought, our task is another: 

that of the interrelation of the contents of the notebooks to the 

various sciences of man, viewed in the light of their development at 

the time, and the positions known to have been taken up by Marx 

with respect to that development. 

7 Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie (Rohentwurf) 1857-1858; 

first published 1939; reprinted 1953. Einleitung, 1953, pp. 5-31, first 

brought out by Karl Kautsky in: Die Neue Zeit, 1903 (3 pts.). 

8 Marx, Kapital, 4th-7th ed., v. 1, 1914, ch. 12 (Eng. tr., 1937, ch. 14). 

9 Kapital, v. 2, 4th ed. 1910, p. 414, with reference to the difference in 

expenditure of disposible time and necessary time between primitive 

and capitalist production: E. B. Tylor, Researches into the Early History 

356


of Mankind, 1865 (cited by Marx - as Tyler - from German tr.)· 

Cf. Kapital, v. 1, op. cit., p. 53 in which it is proposed that man exchanges 

first outside the community and then within it. Cf. also ib. 

p. 5 5, and v. 3, pt. 1, 3rd ed., 19 11, p. 156. 

10 Marx-Engels Archiv, v. 1 [1926], pp. 316-342; cf. introd., D. Rjazanov, 

pp. 309-314; and Karl Marx, Chronik seines Lebens in Ein%eldaten, 

(Chronik)y 1934, V. Adoratskij, ed., p. 365. 

11 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human 

Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilisation, 1877. Reprinted 

1878, without change. Reprinted 1907 with changed pagination, 

cited hereafter unless otherwise stated. Recent English language 

editions: 1963 (E. B. Leacock, ed.) and 1964 (L. A. White, ed.) 

German tr. of Morgan, Die Urgesellschaft, by Kautsky and Eichhoff, 

1891. 

The 1877 edition of Ancient Society, and its 1878 reprint, include 

over 70 quotations in the original from Greek and Latin authors. 

They were translated into English in the 1964 edition. Most of 

these, particularly those from the Greek, were silently shorn from 

the edition of 1907 and consequently from the 1963 edition, which 

reproduces the 1907 text and pagination unchanged. The 1964 

edition incorporates changes in Morgan’s hand. Nevertheless, a 

definitive edition of Ancient Society is still to be desired. This is in 

part for its own sake: Morgan was unclear in his exposition (op. cit., 

1907, pp. 90-93) of the relations of the Tuscarora and other Iroquois 

gentes. See Marx, Morgan ms., notes 5, 57, 82, 104, 113, 206, 228, 

229, 233, 259. See below, Introduction, n. 25 regarding Homer. In 

part a new edition is desired also for the sake of its fate in the hands 

of others: Morgan referred to the missionary Ashur Wright (op. cit., 

p. 8 3 and index; A. Wright, p. 464), who has been identified as Asher 

Wright. See B. J. Stern, American Anthropologist, v. 33, 1935, pp. 

138-145, and W. N. Fenton, Ethnohistory, v. 4, 1957, pp. 302-321; 

id., Ethnology, v. 4, 1965, pp. 251-265. Marx (Morgan ms., p. 13) 

refers to Arthur Wright, an unnecessary particularization, for Morgan 

here (1907, p. 464) mentioned only A. Wright. Marx (ms. p. 36) 

followed Morgan (p. 83) in giving Ashur Wright. Engels (Origin of the 

Family) gave the name as Arthur; Morgan’s form, Ashur, was 

inserted in the Eng. tr. of Engels, p. 43. (See following note.) The 

German editions of 1931, p. 25, and of 1962, pp. 53 and 698, of 

Engels gave the name as Arthur. (See following note.) The Russian 

language edition of Marx’s excerpts from Morgan ‘corrected’ this to 

Ashur (Konspekt Knigi Liuisa G. Morgana, “ D rev nee Obshchestvo” . 

Arkhiv Marksa i Engel'sa, v. 9, 1941. M. B. Mitin, ed. pp. 26 and 70). 

Cf. E. Lucas, Die Rezeption Lewis H. Morgans durch Marx und 

Engels, Saeculum, v. 15, 1964, p. 158: “Also, the manuscript of Marx 

played a mean trick on Engels: the missionary Ashur [sic] Wright 

assumed the given name Arthur,” then referring to the Arkhiv 

357


edition, op. cit., p. 26 and to Morgan, op. cit., 1877, p. 455. 

Morgan has been the subject of biographies by B. J. Stem, Lewis 

Henry Morgan, Social Evolutionist, 1931 ; and by Carl Resek, Lewis Henry 

Morgan, American Scholar, 1960. Morgan’s work, Ancient Society, was 

the subject of a symposium, held in 1964: V II Congrès International des 

Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques, Moscow, v. IV, 1967, pp. 

441-511. 

12 Friedrich Engels, Der Ursprmg der Familie, des Privateigentums und 

des Staats im Anschluss an Lewis H . Morgans Forschungen. First ed., 

1884, fourth ed., 1892. Repr. 1931, H. Duncker ed. ; MEW 21, 1962. 

Eng. tr. of fourth ed., The Origin of the Family, Private Property and 

the State in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan, 1942, cited 

by page hereafter, unless otherwise stated. My translations. On the 

selection of the tide of the work, see below, note 147, items 7 and 11. 

The influence of Darwin in this matter is to be conjectured; the quest 

after origins was not instigated by Darwin ; in the preceding century 

Bernard Mandeville, Condillac, Francis Hutcheson, N. S. Bergier, 

Lord Monboddo, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Millar had sought 

the origins of vice, virtue, human knowledge, inequality, the pagan 

gods, language, distinction of ranks. Before them, the origins of 

money, prejudice, disobedience had been sought. In Charles Darwin’s 

work, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the 

Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 18 5 9, a different 

meaning of origin from the foregoing was posited. There followed 

in the field of ethnology and evolution : 

John Lubbock, The Origin of Civilisation, 1870. 

A. Giraud-Teulon, Les origines de la famille, 1874. 

Id., Les origines du mariage et de la famille, 1884. 

M. M. Kovalevsky, Tableau des Origines et de révolution de la famille 

et de la propriété, 1890. 

During this period, E. B. Tylor, W. H. Holmes, H. L. Roth, J. H. 

King, F. v. Schwarz, Can. Taylor sought the origins of games, art 

forms, agriculture, the supernatural, African and Aryan cultures. But 

now the quest for origins had as much a geographic and temporal 

locus in view as an abstract principle; Engels and those who worked 

in Darwin’s line were concerned with principles and not with 

geographic loci in seeking for origins. 

Those in the twentieth century who have sought for origins include 

E. Westermarck, The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, P. 

Wilhelm Schmidt, Der Ursprung der Gottesidee, R. H. Lowie, The 

Origin of the State, and C. Lévi-Strauss, L'Origine des Manières de Table ; 

these concern principles of origin, hence have proceeded in the direction 

of Darwin and Engels. Other references to origin/origins in 

Bibliography, passim. 

13 M. M. Kovalevsky, Dve Zhizni. Vestnik Evropy, 1909, no. 7, p. 11. 

The provenience of Marx’s copy of Ancient Society is of more than 

358


bibliophile interest in view of Engels’ theory of a conspiracy of its 

suppression by silence in England. (Engels, Prefaces to ist and 4th 

eds. of Origin of the Family, op. cit., and letter to Karl Kautsky of 

Feb. 16, 1884. MEW 36, p. 109.) Kovalevsky’s statement that he 

brought the book with him from America and that Marx had it from 

him must be taken together with Marx’s own bibliographic entry for 

Morgan’s book, London, 1877 (see below, note 15). According to 

D. N. Anuchin, Etnograficheskoe Obo^renie, 1916, no. 1-2, p. 11, Kovalevsky 

was advised to read Morgan by V. F. Miller, student of the 

Caucasus, an area which Kovalevsky studied. Cf. B. G. Safronov, 

M. M. Kovalevsky kak sotsiology i960, p. 32; B. A. Kaloev, M. M. 

Kovalevsky. Sovetskaya Etnografiyay 1966, no. 6, pp. 30-42; M. O. 

Kosven, M. M. Kovalevsky kak etnograf-kavkazoved. Ib. 1951, 

no. 4, pp. 116-135. 

14 Marx died March 14, 1883. On Engels’ search for Morgan’s Ancient 

Society, cf. his letter to Kautsky, February 16, 1884 (see above, n. 13); 

see also Engels, Ursprung der Familie, op. cit., preface to ist and 

4th eds. 

15 The notebooks containing the excerpts from Morgan, Maine, Lubbock 

and Phear are in the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Ge- 

schiedenis (IISG), Amsterdam. Notebook B 146 is 19.5 cm. x 15.6 

cm., bound, boards, paginated by Marx. Inside front cover and 

facing page contain further bibliographic references (see Bibliography 

I, below). The contents of the notebook (on front cover, in 

Engels’ hand) are given as follows: 

1. Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society p. 1. 

2. J. W. B. Money, Java, or How to Manage a Colony p. 99. 

3. Sir. J. Phear, The Aryan Village in India & Ceylon p. 128. 

4. Dr. Rud. Sohm, Fränkisches Recht & Römisches Recht p. 155. 

5. Sir H. S. Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions 

p. 160. 

6. E. Hospitaller, Les principales applications de l’Electricite 

p. 198. 

The table of contents of the notebook, inside back cover, in Marx’s 

hand, is: 

1. Lewis Morgan. “Ancient SocietyLondon 1877. (p. 1-98) 

2. J . W. B. Money. “Jawa' etc. 2 vis. London 1861. (p. 99-127) 

3. Sir J . Phear. “ The Aryan Village in India and Ceylon” . 1880. (p. 128- 

J 55) 

4. Dr. Rudolph Sohm. “ Fränkisches Recht u. Römisches Recht etc 

(p. 155-159) 

5. Sir Henry Sumner Maine'. “Lectures on the Early History of Institutionx” 

. Lond. 1875. (p. 160). 

P. 144 is skipped in pagination. Further details in Bibliography below. 

Notebook B 146 contains 316 lined pages, of which 260 were paginated 

by Marx, 5 9 blank, 5 6 unnumbered. 

359


Notebook B 150 is 22.5 cm. x 18.6 cm., bound, boards, paginated by 

Marx. The contents are given on front cover in Engels’ hand 

(incomplete): 

Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation - p. 1. 

Marx’s excerpts from Lubbock fill the first eight pages of the notebook, 

followed by blank pages 9-11. P. 12 bears the heading “Egypt” , 

and contains a bibliographic reference to “Mr. Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, 

a member of the Diplomatic Service, not very long ago a British 

Consul in Egypt” . (See Bibliography, below). 

This is followed by Mulhall’s article (see Bibliography), pp. 12-19. 

Five further pages of the notebook are blank, unnumbered. Many 

further pages were excised from the notebook. Facing p. 1 is a 

bibliographic entry by Marx on Watson and Kaye, The People of India, 

v. II (see Bibliography), and on Tomkin and Lemon: “Commentaries 

of Gajus” . 

On the chronology of the notebooks, see Addendum 1. 

I take this occasion to express my profound gratitude to the IISG, 

its Director and staff. In particular I am endebted for their cooperativeness 

and knowledgeability to Messrs. H. P. Harstick, G. Lang- 

kau, and Ch. B. Timmer. 

16 M. M. Kovalevsky, Obshchinnoe zewhvladenie. Prichiny, Khod i Posled- 

stviia ego Ra%lo%heniia (Communal landownership. Causes, course and 

consequences of its decline). Pt. 1, 1879. Marx’s excerpts from this 

book, IISG B 140, pp. 19-40, 59-83, are dated Sept. 1879 (Chronik, 

op. cit., p. 374). An accurate translation of the Marx ms. pp. 28-40 

and 59-83 was published in Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie, 1958, no. 3, pp. 

[3]_13 > no. 4, pp. [3]-22, no. 5, pp. [3]-28, and Problemy Vostokovede- 

niia, 1959, no. 1, pp. [3]-17. Cf. L. S. Gamayunov, and R. A. Ulyanov- 

sky, Trud russkogo sotsiologa M. M. Kovalevskogo “ Obshchinnoe 

Zemlevladenie...” i kritika ego K. Marksom. (The work of the 

Russian sociologist M. M. Kovalevsky, “ Communal landownership...” 

and its critique by K. Marx.) Trudy X X V Me%hdunarodnogo 

Kongressa Vostokovedov (i960) 1963, v. 4, pp. 38-44. 

Marx considered that Kovalevsky, like Hegel, turned the world 

upside down, asking, why does the consciousness play the role of 

causa efficiens in Kovalevsky? The latter was an adherent of the 

collectivist doctrine, the opponent of the primacy of the individual in 

the formation of man and society. At the same time Kovalevsky was 

an advocate of the theory of conquest in expansion and formation of 

complex societies. Cf. Marx, Kovalevsky ms. p. 29, and Sovetskoe 

Vostokovedenie, 1958, no. 3, p. 5: 

360 

Im Mass d[er] Entfernung von d[er] Zeit d[er] ursprünglichen 

Ansiedlung d[e]r Geschlechter innerhalb d[er] Grenzen d[es] 

von ihnen eroberten Territoriums (dass Geschlechtsgemeinde 

nothw[en]dig auf fremdem, erobertem Territorium sitzt, ist eine


willkührliche Annahme Kowalewski’s) schwächt sich nothwendig 

ab d[as] Bewusstsein der Blutsverwandtsc[ha]ft unter d[eri\ be- 

sondern Zweigen d[es\ Geschlechts. Mit dem allmähligen Verfall dieses 

Bewusstseins (warum spielt d[as] Bewusstsein hier d[ie] Rolle d[er] 

causa efficiens u[nd] nicht d[ie] faktische Raumtrennung, der mit 

d[er] Spaltu[n]g d[es] Geschlechts in “ Zweige” schon vorausgesetzt 

ist?) offenbart sich in jeder d[er\ geschlechtlichen Unterabthei- 

lungen d[er] Wunsch ihre Vermögensverhältnisse t(u regeln unabhängig 

von d[er] Sphäre d[er] Theilnahme u[nd] Einmischung 

der mehr od[er] minder ihr fremden übrigen Unterabtheilungen 

d[es] Geschlechts (es tritt vielmehr faktische Notwendigkeit d[es\ 

Aufbruchs d[er] Gemeinwirtsc\ha\ft in einzelnere Kreise ein 

u[nd] zugleich (?) verstärkt sich nothwendig die Tendenz Zur 

Individualisation d\er\ Vermögensverhältnisse innerhalb der Grenzen 

des Dorfes (poselko).) 

(Round brackets Marx, square brackets ed.) 

Marx’s position in regard to Hegel’s inversion of the world, well 

known from the preface to the second edition of Capital, v. 1, 1873, 

has its complement in the criticism of Kovalevsky. The position of 

Marx in regard to Morgan is contrasted with these. Marx, Morgan 

excerpts, p. 14: “The propensity to pair, now so powerful in the 

civilized races, also nicht normal to mankind, but a growth through 

experience, like all the great passions u[nd] powers of the mind.” 

The mind is here treated in an empirical way, subject to development 

in experience. Morgan related the physical and mental growth of man 

to each other and to the practice of gens exogamy, wherein ‘marriage 

of unrelated persons created a more vigorous stock’. This is a simplification, 

because the persons married could not have been unrelated; 

out-marriage here means only that they were not closely related. Above 

all, however, Morgan’s criteria of physical and mental growth are in 

this instance hereditary in the biological sense; nothing of the human 

social and cultural heritage has been introduced into the processes of 

growth in this connection, which contradicts Marx’s positions in 

empirical and in philosophical anthropology both in general and in 

particular. Morgan posited likewise a normalcy of biological history 

which is opposed by the normalcy of man’s mental experience, 

characterized in the civilized condition. Morgan’s biologism remains 

to be examined; the mental growth was related by him to empirical 

experience, but not to relations in society. Morgan’s reference to 

‘two advancing tribes blending’ and thereby widening and lengthening 

the skull and brain is the expression of his biologism (Marx, 

I.e.; Morgan, op. cit., p. 468). Since the day of Morgan, anthropology 

has interwoven the biological and the social factors in human 

development, rather than separated them. Kovalevsky’s position in 

regard to the mind was uncritical; Morgan’s is transitional, making 

possible subsequent critique. 

361


362 

In fact, Morgan’s schema is more complex, for he called Part I of 

Ancient Society, Growth of Intelligence through Inventions and 

Discoveries. In the first chapter he discussed the progress of inventions 

and discoveries and the unfolding of institutions from ea few 

germs of thought’ (Morgan, op. cit., p. 4). These ideas of Morgan 

remained undeveloped; they were, moreover, unrelated by him to 

the biologism mentioned previously. 

Morgan discussed in the same passages inventions and discoveries 

on the one side, and institutions on the other. The latter include: 

Subsistence, Government, Language, the Family, Religion, House 

Life and Architecture, Property. The ethnical periods, into which 

mankind is divided, are demarcated from each other by inventions 

and discoveries (Morgan, op. cit., p. 6). From this we infer that 

Morgan had the idea that man’s relation to nature and to his own 

development are to be examined as a) the productions of his activity, 

and b) as his relations in society. These were not clearly distinguished; 

some of the relations to nature, as inventions and discoveries, are 

among the institutions of subsistence, house life, property, etc. On 

the other hand, some of the institutions are not directly social 

relations, but appear as social relations in a reified form. Morgan’s 

idea of culture as the total product of an ethnical period was conceived 

as a passivity, the result of a body of relations and activities in 

regard to nature and society. The culture characterizes the mode of 

life of a particular ethnical period (Morgan, op. cit., pp. 9, 12-13); it is 

not particularly related to a given social group, nor is it a panhuman 

feature; it does not actively cultivate the human beings of that period, 

hence it is not an agent of anything. Again, the culture does not 

work upon or through particular peoples, groups, societies; hence its 

relation to actual social interaction and production is not posited. On 

the other hand, the culture does not itself generate the transition from 

one ethnical period to the next, but the forces generating the transition 

are found within it; they are nowhere else extant. The culture is 

conservative, but at the same time the transition to the next emerges 

out of the culture of the foregoing ethnical period. The culture of 

the ethnical period overrides the difference between the hemispheres, 

thereby generating its identity despite the natural differences (pp. 16- 

17). The generator of the transition between the ethnical periods lies 

within the culture, or mode of life, and outside the natural differences. 

Marx wrote in Kapital, op. cit., v. 1, p. 476, (Eng., op. cit., pp. 561- 

562), “In den Kulturanfängen sind die erworbenen Produktivkräfte 

gering— ” Here the use of the term is technical, as is that of Morgan. 

The period that Marx had in mind is generally that preceding civilization, 

a broad period without reference to a particular society. In 

the Communist Manifesto, the concept of culture is conceived as variable 

according to the social classes of modern bourgeois society, and 

is at the same time the product of all society; the culture is an activity


of man, training him to act (in this case merely as a machine), hence 

it is a human agency in general; opposed to this are the bourgeois 

notions of property, freedom, law - in which culture is ranged (ch. 2, 

Eng. ed. of 1888). This usage of the concept of culture is wholly in 

keeping with the contemporary one ; it is variable, active, interactive, 

as well as the product of activity. Hegel conceived culture as a 

development of humanity, as the interrelation with nature of the 

active and the passive, the abstract and the concrete moments of man’s 

history. The element of the absolute essence, and its relation to the 

historically particular and relative, is the absolute which Marx rejected 

in the Theses on Feuerbach, and in the Communist Manifesto. Nevertheless, 

the developmental side of Hegel’s formulation is central to 

the thesis of the Communist Manifesto, which restates that of Hegel, 

without the adversion to the metaphysical side ; the entire domain of 

history is the continuation of Hegel’s position, which Engels sought 

twice to make precise. 

Morgan, op. cit., p. 499, likewise developed this line: the family is 

the creature of the social system and reflects its culture. According 

to this view it is not the active principle, but a passive one. The social 

system is active, the family is its creature ; the family is doubly removed 

from the prime mover of society, for it reflects the culture of the 

social system. In the passage taken up by Engels (Origin, op. cit., 

pp. 26-27, quoting Morgan, ib., p. 444) the family is the active principle, 

the system of consanguinity, the passive. Morgan here posited 

a onesided because unintegrated movement. The two halves were 

never brought together; nevertheless it is the beginning of a dialectical 

moment. On Theseus as the representative of a period, or series 

of events, hence as the impersonal agency of a culture, cf. Morgan, 

op. cit., p. 265. On the objective process of transition from one social 

plane to the next, cf. ib., pp. 561-562. 

17 J. J. Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gjnaikokra- 

tie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur, 1861. N. D. 

Fustel de Coulanges, La cité antique, 1864 (The Ancient City, 1873). 

H. H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, 1875. Maurer’s 

work is cited in various places in Marx’s Kapital, Tylor’s in Kapital, 

v. 2 (see note 9 above). Vol. I of Bancroft was excerpted by Engels 

on Marx’s initiative (MEW 3 5, p. 125). On Bancroft, see Introduction, 

Addendum 2 and note 182 below. On Fustel de Coulanges, see 

Morgan, op. cit., pp. 240-241, 247, 558; also this Introd., section 6, 

Community, Collectivism and Individualism, and works there cited, 

esp. notes 132 and 133. 

The work of Bachofen has a number of mystical and mystifying 

positions; it is, above all, an inquiry into religion and society, in 

particular, the position of women in ancient society and law. Bach- 

ofen’s work has not been exhaustively examined in this regard; the 

thesis has validity in modern social anthropology, once the ethno 

363


centric naivete is discounted. Bachofen’s Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik 

der Alten, 1859, develops an idea that has a bearing on the 

contemporary study of the myth as an external manifestation: The 

myth is the exegesis of the symbol, unfolding in a series of actions 

externally connected that which the symbol bears as a unity within 

itself. The nature of the symbol should be re-examined in this connection 

as well. 

The question of how Morgan gained access to Bachofen’s Mutter- 

recht, since he knew no German, remains. See L. Krader in: American 

Anthropologist, v. 72, 1970, pp. 108-109. 

18 Chronik, pp. 104-105. 

19 Engels, op. cit., p. 27. Morgan wrote, “The family represents an 

active principle ... Systems of consanguinity... are passive; recording 

the progress made by the family at long intervals apart, and only 

changing radically when the family has changed radically.” (Ancient 

Society, p. 444.) Marx commented on this passage (ms. notes p. 10), 

“ Ebenso verhält es sich mit politischen, religiösen, juristischen, 

philosophischen Systemen überhaupt.” Engels reported both these 

statements and carried the idea further, introducing the analogy of 

society to the organic world: “ ... Just as Cuvier could deduce from 

the marsupial bone of an animal skeleton ... that it belonged to a 

marsupial animal ... so with the same certainty we can deduce from 

the historical survival of a system of consanguinity that an extinct 

form of family once existed which corresponded to it.” (Engels, I.e.) 

The German of Engels reads: “Mit derselben Sicherheit aber, mit der 

Cuvier ... schliessen konnte__ ” (MEW 21, p. 38). Engels considered 

that Morgan’s and his own method of reconstruction proceeded 

with the same certainty, or assuredness, as that of Cuvier; his formulation 

in German is definitive in positing the given preciseness of the 

biologist’s and the ethnologist’s method. 

Marx’s formulation relates to social institutions without commitment 

to an organicist model in its methodology, or even a metaphoric 

construction upon an organic model. Morgan, to be sure, had 

a general connection to an organicist conception of human society, 

bearing certain similarities to that of Herbert Spencer; Durkheim, a 

generation later, was not able to rid himself entirely of the charge of 

an organicist social theory of collective representations. Marx did 

not espouse the organicist view in this context, and rejected it in 

reference to Hegel’s theory of society (cf. Grundrisse, op. cit., Einleitung 

passim). Marx’s opinion was that Cuvier, while the best of 

geologists, expounded certain facts “in a completely distorted way.” 

(“ ... Wie die Geologen gewisse facts, selbst die besten, wie Cuvier, 

ganz verkehrt ausgelegt...... ” Letter of March 25, 1868, MEW 32, 

p. 52.) On Cuvier’s opposition to evolution and Darwinism, cf. 

A. D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology, (1896) 

i960, v. 1, pp. 63-64. 

364

That Marx had more than one opinion regarding Darwin is shown 

from his letter to Engels, Aug. 7, 1866 (MEGA, Part III, v. 3, p. 355. 

Here the work of Tremaux is advanced over that of Darwin. 

Marx generally ignored Morgan’s organicism, both as to phraseology 

and as to content in his notes and excerpts, or else he opposed it. 

20 On Morgan’s general hypothesis: op. cit., p. 390. 

On the Ganowanian cultural unity as the basis for the peopling of 

the Americas: ib., p. 156. Negative evidence on Eskimos, I.e. and 

p. 181. 

On the treatment of the Turanian and Ganowanian families in the 

same terms: ib., pp. 438, 444. 

On the evolution of germs of thought: ib., pp. 59-60. 

On natural selection: ib., p. 48. 

21 In the pagination of the New York edition of 1877-1878, the parts 

are divided as follows: 

Part I, pp. 3-45 Intelligence 

II, 49-379 Government 

III, 383-521 Family 

IV, 525-5 54· Property 

The London ed. which Marx mentioned in his Table of Contents of 

the notebook (see above, note 15) may have a different pagination; 

we have not examined this, but as our interest is in this case the 

proportions of the parts, this is not important. Marx’s rearrangement 

of the sequence of the parts is not necessarily a criticism of Morgan’s 

logic; the rearrangement of the sequence and proportions of the parts 

conforms more closely to Marx’s own interests. Marx’s sequence and 

pagination in the notebook is the following: 

Part I ms. p. 1 Total pp. 3V2) 

2o ' f u j approximately 

II 29 69% ) 

Notes to Introduction, pp. 9 -11. 

98 

On Engels, see above, Introduction, section 7, Engels’ Relation to 

Marx and Morgan, and notes 147-148. Morgan’s Tables at the end 

of Pt. Ill, ch. II, Malayan System of Consanguinity; Pt. Ill, ch. Ill, 

Turanian and Ganowanian Systems; Pt. Ill, ch. V, Roman and Arabic 

Systems. (The Hebrew type of family is discussed in the last mentioned 

chapter, while the table of Arabic terms of consanguinity is appended. 

The anomaly is not clarified by Morgan.) Tables taken from his 

Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Smithsonian 

Institution, Contributions to Human Knowledge, v. 17, 1871. J. F. McLennan, 

Studies in Ancient History, 1876, had argued against Morgan’s 

explanation of the origin of the system of the classificatory system of 

consanguinity. (Cf. Morgan, Ancient Society, note appended to 

35

Notes to Introduction, p. ιι. 

Part III, and his Systems of Consanguinity, op. cit., pp. 479-486.) Morgan 

answered McLennan in the Note mentioned. 

Regarding the brevity of the Lubbock excerpts of Marx, and its place 

in Marx’s biography, cf. n. 83 below. 

22 Engels, op. cit., preface to fourth ed. Marx emphasized the theory of 

the 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 and 

mutual support of Bachofen and Morgan is to be remarked. On 

Engels’ estimate of Bachofen cf. Origin of the Family, Preface to fourth 

ed. 

25 Taken chiefly from notes by J. Lipsius, C. Cornelii Taciti. De Situ, 

Moribus, et Populis Germaniae. Opera qvae exstant, ex Iusti Lipsi 

editione ultima. Antverpiae, apud C. Plantinum (Christophe Plantin). 

1585, 1589. Later editions known. Lipsius had published an 

edition of Tacitus in 1581 without the relevant annotations. Later 

editions of Tacitus incorporated annotations of Lipsius, Beatus 

Rhenanus, i.a.; cf.: J. P. Gronovius ed., Amsterdam, 1672. There are 

in all some 75 quotations in Latin and Greek, chiefly taken from 

Morgan’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 in 

i. X IX , 247, according to S. A. Zhebelev, in Arkhiv, op. cit., v. 9, 

p. 51. χρυσοϋ δέ Οδυσεύς δέκα πάντα τάλαντα. “ Odysseus, having 

weighed ten talents of gold in all...” 

Eginhartus/Einhard (Vita Karoli Imperatoris, cited from Lipsius 

edition 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 of 

Marx’s excerpts from Morgan; these passages cited are not found in 

Morgan. 

Questions of classical learning have led to some confusion in the 

literature dealing with Marx’s manuscript. Marx (Morgan excerpts, 

p. 73) referred to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but did not mention 

the title of the work in question, Roman Antiquities. The Russian 

language version of the Morgan excerpts (Arkhiv, op. cit., v. 9, p. 142) 

has added a tide to the reference without specifying that it is an 

insertion in the Russian edition only and is not by Marx; the work is 

here referred to as “ Roman Archaeology” . E. Lucas, Die Rezeption 

Lewis H. Morgans durch Marx und Engels, Saeculum, v. 15, 1964, 

p. 156, has supposed that the error was that of Marx, and without 

further verification, taxed him with having made it: “Im letzten Fall 

ist Marx ein Irrtum unterlaufen: der Titel des Werkes des Dionysius 

heisst nicht ‘Römische Archäologie’, sondern ‘Römische Altertümer’.” 

(Morgan, Ancient Society, op. cit., p. 251, had cited Dionysius 

by name, and Marx had done the same.) 

366

Notes to Introduction, p. 1 1 . 

There is a related matter raised on the same page of the article by 

Lucas: Morgan had written (op. cit., pp. 5 5 3-5 54; = 1877 ed., p. 544), 

“ When field agriculture had demonstrated that the whole surface of 

the earth could be made the subject of property owned by individuals 

in severalty, and it was found that the head of the family became the 

natural center of accumulation, the new property career of mankind 

was inaugurated. It was fully done before the close of the Later 

Period of Barbarism. A litde reflection must convince anyone of the 

powerful influence property would now begin to exercise upon the 

human mind, and of the great awakening of new elements of character 

it was calculated to produce” . Marx’s excerpt notes on this passage 

read: “When field culture bewiesen hatte, dass d[ie] ganze Oberfläche 

der Erde could be made the subject of property owned by 

individuals in severalty u[nd] [das] Familienhaupt became the natural 

center 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 new 

elements of character wach__ ” (Marx, excerpts, p. 26). 

The Russian edition renders this as, “When the pursuit of agriculture 

had demonstrated that the whole surface of the earth could be made 

the object of property of separate individuals and the head of the 

family became the natural center of accumulation of wealth, mankind 

entered a new, hallowed path by means of private property (Chelo- 

vechestvo vstupilo na novyi, osviashchennyi chastnoi sobstvennost’iu 

put’). It was already fully done before the later period of barbarism 

came to an end. Private property (chastnaia sobstvennost’) exercised 

a powerful influence on the human mind, awakening new elements of 

character__ ” (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 and 

it has introduced the word osviashchennyi, “ hallowed” , where neither 

Morgan nor Marx applied it. The linking of the adjective ‘private’ 

to the substantive ‘property’ by the Russian editors was perhaps 

influenced by their reading of Engels, and the reading of Marx in the 

light 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 this 

should not be interpreted as a justification of the liberty taken with 

Marx’s material. 

This change by the Russian editors, because it was unaccompanied 

by any note, has had further consequences. Lucas, op. cit., p. 156, 

wrote in this connection, “ On top of this, the matter [of Morgan] is 

not literally adhered to [by Marx], but paraphrased throughout, is 

subjectively colored (subjectiv verfärbt). A turn of phrase (Note) or 

a citation is ironically rendered and ironical interpolated remarks are 

made.” Lucas’ Note refers to the passage, “ mankind entered a new, 

367


hallowed path by means of private property.” This is offered by 

Lucas as an example of an ironical turn of phrase by Marx, and of a 

subjective coloration. It is not found in Marx. 

The word ‘osviashchennyi’, which occurs in the Russian, is rendered 

as ‘geheiligt’ by Lucas. The text of The Origin of the Family by 

Engels provides a clue to this introduction of material into Marx’s 

text without indication that it is not Marx’s own wording. Engels 

wrote (MEW 21, p. 105), “ ... eine Einrichtung ... die nicht nur das 

früher so geringschätzte Privateigentum heiligte und diese Heiligung 

... erklärte__ ” (... An arrangement... that not only hallowed private 

property that had formerly been so litde prized ... and declared this 

sanctification__ ) (Cf. Engels, Origin, Eng. tr., op. cit., p. 97). 

The Russian version is not a translation, but a rendering which 

substitutes proper Russian semantic, grammatical and syntactic constructions 

for Marx’s condensed polyglot note-taking style. 

26 Morgan, Ancient Society, 1907, p. 17, characterized the Latin tribes of 

Romulian period as die “ ... highest exemplification of the Upper 

Status of Barbarism.” 

27 Morgan, ibid., p. 544. Morgan’s notion that the banks of the Tigris, 

Euphrates, and other rivers of (southwestern) Asia were the natural 

homes of the pastoral tribes is one of the grounds for Gordon Childe’s 

proposal that the substance if not the form of Morgan’s schema be 

changed. (See below, note 148.) 

28 Morgan, ibid., p. 552. Iliad, book v, 90. Here Diomedes attacked the 

Trojans like a winter torrent that overcomes the fences and dikes 

along its banks. The context permits some interpretation about the 

technology of Homeric Greek flood control, possibly about their 

viticulture, etc., but nothing about forms of landownership, whether 

collective or private. 

Iliad v, 90-91 : o u t ’ àpa ëpxea ïayei àXàcov epi0Y)Xécov 

èXôovx’ è£a7tiv7)ç, o t ’ e7ußpicry] Sioç 6[a.ßpo^. 

.. The fenced embankments did not hold back the winter torrents, 

neither did the walls of the fruitful vineyards stay its sudden coming 

when the rains of Zeus drives it on,” etc. (Loeb ed.) ëpxoç fence, 

enclosure, epxea layzi (redupl.) keep back the torrent. ocXcoa garden, 

vineyard, orchard, prepared ground. 

29 Morgan, op. cit., p. 19. Engels, op. cit., p. 19, quoted Morgan as 

having written, “ ... almost absolute control...” , reflecting Marx’s 

exclamation at Morgan’s unqualified statement. The English translation 

of Engels restores Morgan’s text, with a note referring to 

Engels’ insertion; the German editions of 1931, H. Duncker, ed., 

and of 1962, MEW, 2 1p . 30, retain Engels’ text without change. 

30 Morgan, op. cit, p. 471. 

31 Ibid., p. 540. 

32 Engels, op. cit., p. 50. M. M. Kovalevsky, Tableau des Origines et de 

r Evolution de la Famille et de la Propriété, 1890. 

368


33 Morgan, op. cit., p. 478. 

34 Ibid., pp. 479-480. 

35 Ibid., p. 480. 

36 Engels, op. cit., p. 162. 

37 Ibid., p. 51. 

38 Morgan, op. cit., p. 42. Marx, I.e., wrote: “ each smaller family would 

be a miniature of the group.” This is rendered in the Russian version : 

“ ... kazhdaia men’shaia sem’ia dolzhna byla predstavliat’ soboi v 

miniature vsiu gruppu.” - Literally, “each smaller family would be 

in miniature the whole group” (Arkhiv op. cit., v. 9, p. 16). This 

transfers the meaning to the larger group, which was probably not 

Morgan’s intention, nor was it how Marx understood him. 

39 Morgan, ibid., p. 222. 

40 Aristotle, Politics, Book I, 2, 1253a. W. D. Ross tr., 1942. Polis is 

translated as ‘State’ by Ross. In other contexts than this it is rendered 

as city-state. 

41 Marx, Grundrisse, p. 6 (Eng. tr., Critique of 1859, Introduction, p. 268). 

42 Marx, Kapital, op. cit., v. 1, pp. 290-291. See also p. 142. (Eng. tr., 

pp. 200, 358). 

43 Aristotle, op. cit., Book I, 1-3 passim. The family and the village are 

prior in time to the polis; ibid., 1252b. Once established the polis is 

prior to the family and the individual as the whole is prior to the 

parts; ibid., p. 1253 a. Thus the chronological and the logical conditions 

of the relation between family, society and the State are 

distinguished by Aristode, the polis being the final cause of society: 

“ And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the 

state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For 

what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature__ ” Ibid., 

1252b. 

44 Cf. note 4. 

45 Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte, M EGA, v. I, pt. 3, pp. 88-89. 

46 MEW 3, pp. 20-21. 

47 L. Krader, Critique dialectique de la nature de la nature humaine. 

L'Homme et la Société, no. 10, 1968, pp. 21-38. Further references 

cited therein. 

48 Morgan, ibid., p. 265. 

49 Ibid., p. 276. 

50 Ibid., preface and p. 6. 

51 Kapital, v. I, op. cit., p. 354 (Eng., p. 426). Roman Rosdolsky, Zur 

Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen ‘Kapital', 2nd ed., 1969, v. 1, p. 147, 

has called attention to Morgan’s thought : domesticated animals were 

a possession of greater value than all earlier forms of property taken 

together. (See Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 26; Morgan op. cit., p. 553.) 

Marx added to this the factors of landownership and slaves. Maine, 

Lectures, op. cit., p. 168, suggested that it is not land as such in ancient 

times but land worked by capital (cattle in his etymology) that gave it 

369


value: ‘ownership of the instruments of tillage other than the land 

itself was a power of the first order.’ The stock was generally obtained 

by plunder (ib., p. 169). (See Marx, Maine excerpts, p. 171.) 

Marx did not object to the accounting for accumulation of stock- 

capital by plunder by Maine; he objected rather to Kovalevsky’s 

accounting for setdement on land as an act of plunder (see note 16). 

Kovalevsky assumed that a group of kinsmen, on separating from 

the main body, conquered a foreign territory for its new settlement. 

This is rarely the case, according to Maine; Marx concurred in this. 

52 Morgan, ibid., pp. 126, 256, 259, 282. 

53 Ibid., p. 316. 

54 Ibid , p. 293. 

55 Ibid., p. 363. Cf. Morgan, ib., p. 477: “ ... the family could not enter 

entire into the gens, because husband and wife were necessarily of 

different gentes.” 

56 Ibid., p. 402. 

57 Marx, Grundrisse, op. cit., p. 390 et seq. 

58 Sir John Budd Phear. The Aryan Village in India and Ceylon. 1880. 

Introduction, pp. ix-lvi. 

Modern Village Life in Bengal.1 pp. 3-169. (Marx, ms. notes, pp. 129- 

146 middle.) 

The Agricultural Community in Ceylon, pp. 173-229. (Marx: The 

Agricultural Economy in Ceylon, ms. notes pp. 146-153.) 

Evolution of the Indo-Aryan Social and Land System, pp. 233-272. 

(Marx, ms. notes, pp. 153-155.) 

Appendix. Note A. pp. 275-284. To Phear, p. 24.b 

Note B. pp. 285-286. To Phear, p. 5 3.c 

Glossary, pp. 289-295. 

The importance that Marx attached to the study of the Indian village 

community can be judged from the number of times it is discussed in 

Kapital·. v. 1, pt. 1, ch. 1 and 2; pt. 4, ch. 11 and 12 (in these two 

passages it is discussed at some length); v. 2 in connection with 

accounts; v. 3, passim in parts 6 and 7. 

59 Phear, op. cit., p. 238. 

60 Ibid., p. 263. 

61 Ibid., p. 155. 

62 Ibid., p. 62. 

63 Ibid., pp. 143, 146 in ref. Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Village Communities 

in the East and West, 1871. 

64 Phear, ibid., p. 271. 

65 H. S. Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, 1875. 412 pp. 

a Modem Village Life in Bengal. In: Calcutta Review. July, October 1874. 

b Note A. Classification of Ryots. By Baboo Ram Semdar Basack, of Dacca. Eastern Bengal. 

(Marx, excerpts, p. 143). 

0 Note B. Jama Bandi. Annual Account Book. (Marx, excerpts, p. 134). 

370


Maine organized his book in 13 Lectures: 

I. New Materials for the Early History of Institutions, p. 1 (Marx, 

excerpts, p. 160) 

II. The Ancient Irish Law, p. 24 (Marx, excerpts, p. 160) 

III. Kinship as the Basis of Society, p. 64 (Marx, excerpts, p. 161) 

IV. The Tribe and the Land, p. 98 (Marx, excerpts, p. 162) 

V. The Chief and his Order, p. 119 (Marx, excerpts, p. 164) 

VI. The Chief and the Land, p. 147 (Marx, excerpts, p. 167)* 

VII. Ancient Divisions of the Family, p. 185 (Marx, excerpts, p. 175) 

VIII. The Growth and Diffusion of Primitive Ideas, p. 225 (Marx, 

excerpts, p. 180) 

IX . The Primitive Forms of Legal Remedies I, p. 250 (Marx, 

excerpts, p. i8i)b 

X. The Primitive Forms etc. II, p. 279 (Marx, excerpts, p. 184) 

XI. The Early History of the Settled Property of Married Women, 

p. 306 (Marx, excerpts, p. i86)c 

XII. Sovereignty, p. 342 (Marx, excerpts, p. 190) 

XIII. Sovereignty and Empire, p. 371 (Marx, excerpts, p. 193)° 

66 Maine founded his conception of the early history of the Irish legal 

institutions in major part on the Senchus Mor, which he attributed, 

following Whidey Stokes, to the eleventh century, or shortly before 

(op. cit., p. 12). This dating has since been revised: J. F. Kenney, 

The Sources of the Early History of Ireland, v. 1, 1929, p. 325 n., attributes 

the Senchus More ‘probably’ to the eighth century. Cf. also John 

Cameron, Celtic Law, The “Senchus Mor” and “ The Book of AiciH” , 

i 937, p. 35. Here authorities are further cited to support the attribution 

to the eighth century of the Senchus Mor. Bibliographic 

work in this connection was done by Miss B. A. Bailey, to whom 

my thanks are due. 

67 C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary. 1st ed. 1879. Cp. Advertisement. 

Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language. 

1 st ed. 2 v. 1735. Martin Haverty, The History of Ireland, from the 

earliest period to the present time__ New York 1867. Sir Thomas A. L. 

Strange, Elements of Hindu Law, 2 v., 1825. 2nd ed., Hindu Law, 2 v. 

1830. 

68 Maine, Lectures, p. 200. 

69 Edmund Spenser, A view of the state of Ireland, 1596. Sir John Davies 

(see Maine excerpts, note 1), A discoverie of the trve cavses why 

Ireland was neuer entirely subdued, nor brought under the obedience 

a Marx reduced the first five chapters to 71/2 pages of his manuscript. Long passages from 

Haverty inserted by Marx, excerpts, pp. i73ff; Maine Lecture VI. 

b Includes Marx’s own references to Latin legal terminology, perhaps from Lewis and 

Short, Latin Dictionary, and from Johnson’s English Dictionary, 

c Lecture X I referred to by title in Marx excerpts. 

Lectures V I and V II and the last three lectures were subjected to Marx’s particular 

attention in the form of extensive excerption and critique. 

371


of the Crowne of England, vntill the beginning of His Maiesties 

happie raigne. 1612. 

70 Maine, ibid., p. 382. 

71 K. A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, 1957. E. C. Welskopf, Die Produktionsverhältnisse 

im alten Orient und in der Griechisch-Römischen Antike, 

1957. E. R. Leach, Hydraulic Society in Ceylon. Past and Present, 

no. 15, 1959, pp. 2-26. E. J. Hobsbawm, Introduction to Karl Marx, 

Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, 1964, pp. 9-65. J. Pecirka, J. 

Chesneaux, Eirene, v. 3, 1964, pp. 131-169; P. Skalnik and T. Pokora, 

ibid., v. 5, 1966, pp. 179-187; J. Pecirka, ib., v. 6, 1967, pp. 141-174. 

F. Tökei, Sur le mode de production asiatique, 1966. Y. Varga, The Asiatic 

mode of production, in: Economic Problems of Capitalism, 1966. 

Recherches Internationales'. Premières sociétés de classe et mode de production 

asiatique, no. 57-58, 1967. L. Krader, Peoples of Central Asia, 3rd ed., 

1 971, Foreword. M. Godelier, La notion de ‘mode de production asiatique’, 

s.d. D. Thomer, Marx on India and the Asiatic Mode of Production. 

Contributions to Indian Sociology. No. 9, 1966. pp. 33-66. 

72 Maine, op. cit., pp. 358-359. 

73 Kapital, op. cit., v. 1, p. 329, (Eng. tr., p. 399) and ref. G. W. F. Hegel, 

Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, 1821, para. 187, Zusatz. 

74 Maine, op. cit., p. 359. 

75 Ibid., p. 245. 

76 Ibid., pp. 196-197. 

77 M EGA v. I, pt. 3, p. 86 (ms. X X III end). 

78 Ibid., p. m . 

79 Ibid., p. 206. Marx, Capital', takes up the fetishism of labor-time, 

likewise the subdivision of the human being in the workday and in 

the process of production; the analysis has the same problematics in 

view, but these are divided into their effective parts. In the ethnological 

notebooks the grasp of the problem is related to that found in 

The Holy Family, The German Ideology, the Economic-Philosophical 

Manuscripts, and even earlier, in the Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy 

of Right·, on the other hand, the condition of civilized man was contrasted 

to that of primitive man, the process of transition from one to 

the other was posited, and the perspective of the primitive community 

was applied to the critique of the State in the later mss. The critique 

of the contemporary communal life had been briefly taken up in the 

Introduction to the Grundrisse and in CapitaI; also cf. the critique of 

the primitive condition of man, implicit in the drafts of the letter to 

Zasulich (see Addendum I). We note the relation of his writings on 

the topics of primitivity, community, civilization, together with the 

contexts in which the expressions appeared, the stages in his development 

in which they were set down, the disposition to them of the 

author, and the service in which they were applied. 

80 Niccolo Machiavelli, History of Florence, (cf. Marx-Engels, Selected 

Correspondence, 2nd ed., 1965, p. 97: Marx, letter of Sept. 25, 1857) or 

372


id., Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (cf. Chronik, 

op. cit., p. 19). Simon Nicolas Henri Linguet, Théorie des loix civiles, 

2 v. 1767. Linguet is cited in all three volumes of Kapital and on 

several occasions in each; cf. Kapital, v. 1, ch. 23 ( = ch. 25 of Eng. tr.) 

sect. 1, Linguet’s phrase, “ L ’esprit des lois, c’est la propriété.” 

81 Morgan, op. cit., p. 233 and p. 514. 

82 H. S. Maine, Dissertations on Early Law and Custom, New York, 1886, 

ch. VII, and Note A to ch. VIII. In the latter he accused Morgan of 

applying the name gens indifferendy to descent in the male and female 

lines, but did not develop his own position in regard to the family- 

gens question. Maine accepted the terminology of developmental 

stages (savagery-barbarism-civilization) and the theory of the promiscuous 

horde (p. 287). He opened up a different discussion by asserting 

that the male line did not succeed the female line, or vice versa, 

“ ... but the two co-existed from all time, and were always distinct 

from one another.” (I.e.) This view is as litde susceptible to proof of 

universality as Morgan’s view. Chiefs under the Tanaist rule were 

elected, according to Maine, but the elections were not free, the tribe 

“ ... generally choosing a successor before the chief dies, and almost 

invariably electing his brother or nearest mature male relative.” (op. 

cit., p. 145.) In the same book Maine defined Tanistry as the rule 

whereby the eldest male kinsman succeeds (p. 137), which differs from 

what he wrote in the previously cited passage, moving further away 

from the idea of pure democracy. The idealized representation of 

primitive democracy to which L. H. Morgan was devoted related to 

the Iroquois election, which was assigned in Morgan’s schema to a 

lower status of barbarism than the Irish. 

83 Sir John Lubbock [Lord Avebury], The Origin of Civilisation and the 

Primitive Condition of Man. Mental and Social Conditions of 

Savages. London, 1870. 

I. Introduction p. 1 

II. Art and Ornaments 25 

III. Marriage and Relationship 50 

IV. Religion 114 

V. Religion (continued) 15 8 

VT. Religion (concluded) 219 

VII. Character and Morals 2 5 7 

VIII. Language 273 

IX. Laws 300 

Appendix 3 2 5 

On the Primitive Condition of Man 

Notes 363 

Index 

Marx took 2 1/3 pp. of notes from L.’s chapter on Marriage and Relationship, 

4 pp. from the 3 chapters on religion, i 1/2 pp. from the 

chapter on Laws. He passed over the chapters on arts, morals and 

373


374 

language. Lubbock as a youth came under Darwin’s tutelage. See 

R. J. Pumphrey, Science, v. 129, 1959, pp. 1087-1092. Ryazanov, 

Novye Dannye, op. cit., p. 368, (Neueste Mitteilungen über den 

literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, Archiv 

für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegnug, v. 11, 1925, 

p. 399) wrote with especial bearing on these excerpts: “Marx preserved 

this methodical and systematic way in his work to the end of 

his life. If in or around 1881-1882 (k 81-82 godu) he lost the ability 

for intensive independent mental creativity, yet he never lost the 

ability for research.” In order to clear up any ambiguity that may be 

residual in Ryazanov’s text, we will relate the chronology set forth 

in his comment to the corpus of Marx’s manuscript materials on 

ethnology. The excerpt notebooks of 1880-1881, containing the 

Morgan, Phear, Maine materials are thus set on one side, the Lubbock 

notes of late 1882, hence some four months before Marx’s death, on 

the other. The time period ‘around’ or ‘towards 1881-1882’ is not 

a meaningful one. Examination of the content of the notebooks filled 

in 1880-1881 reveal that Marx was in full mental vigor; the question 

of impairment of Marx’s faculties at this time is not to be raised. All 

those, as Kautsky, Kovalevsky and Hyndman, who visited Marx 

during 1880 and 1881 have left behind correspondence and memoirs 

that testify to this (on Kovalevsky see note 13, on Hyndman, note 

165). Ryazanov’s comment has a bearing possibly on the Lubbock 

materials; yet here, Marx’s critical capacity and ability to link up the 

most far-ranging allusions, as in the Cervantes quotation (q.v.), and 

with reference to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (Lubbock ex- 

certs, p. 8), were undiminished. The comparison of the Morgan- 

Phear-Maine corpus with the Lubbock materials indicates, by the 

brevity of the latter in general and of his own positions in particular, 

that his physical endurance was lessened in the months before his 

death. 

The works of Morgan, Phear and Maine were all published between 

1875 and 1880, after the work of Lubbock. Marx followed the 

development of the theoretical constructions and apparatus of the 

empirical science of ethnology then in the process of development: 

the gens in relation to the family and tribe, and the like developments 

in regard to property ownership, community organization, justice and 

the law. Engels perceived these matters within the categories of 

Marx. The relation of the social class of the individual in society in 

the period of dissolution of the gentile institutions, the objectivity in 

relation to subjectivity of social interest, and the critique of the 

historical and cultural bondage of the romanticist and Victorian conceptions 

of society as an organicism fell outside his scope. On the 

other hand, Engels was alive to the successive accumulation of 

ethnological data, and its impact on the development both of particular 

interpretation and of general theory in the newly forming


science. Cf. Engels’ evaluations in this connection of Alexis Giraud- 

Teulon, Origines de la famille, and Lubbock’s Origin of Civilisation, in 

relation to McLennan and Morgan (Engels, Origin of the Family, 

op. cit., pp. 15, 17), as well as the first sentence of that work, in 

reference to Morgan. He pointed out the new materials, collected 

since Morgan had published his work, and how this influenced 

theoretical work, in his Prefaces. 

84 See Addendum 1 and note 15. 

85 Lubbock, op. cit., p. 105. 

86 Marx had read Don Quixote in 1854 while learning Spanish. Cf. 

Chronik, op. cit., p. 146. 

87 Morgan, op. cit., p. 511. Engels, op. cit., pp. 58-59; cf. also ibid., 

pp. 8, 26 n., 45-46. 

88 Lubbock, op. cit., p. 72. 

89 Marx, in re Darwin, cf. notes 1 and 15 7 of this Introduction. Marx, 

Randglossen zu A. Wagners ‘Lehrbuch’ etc. MEW 19, pp. 362 et seq. 

Hegel distinguished between organicism and entelechy, in which he 

followed Aristotle. And in this he anticipated the point justly made 

by W. Jaeger, Aristotle, 1962, p. 384, in which it is shown that a 

biological interpretation of Aristotle’s entelechy is a ‘vicious modernization’. 

Hegel, moreover, considered that the understanding of a development 

can only be achieved when it is over: the owl of Minerva flies at 

dusk ([Philosophie des Rechts, Vorrede); the philosopher comes after 

the festival is over: our knowledge is of the past, we cannot know 

the form of the future. As to form of foreknowledge Marx was at 

one with Hegel, opposing determinism or fatalism of the future: see 

the drafts of the letter to Vera Zasulich in this connection. 

Determinism as foreknowledge has been called historicism by Karl 

Popper, and has been imputed to Hegel and Marx conjointly by him; 

this is the extension of the meaning of the term historicism, which has 

as its root conception the specificity of a historical phenomenon 

within its context, the epoch, etc. It is a relative or derivative of the 

older idea of Zeitgeist, to which Popper added the idea of the historical 

emergence of one thing out of another; to this process he attributed a 

necessary development as a unique determination in history; whereupon 

he imposed the whole amalgam on Hegel and Marx. Failure to 

make the distinctions indicated above has led to distortion of their 

views; Popper was preceded in this interpretation by Ernst Troeltsch, 

Der Historismus und seine Probleme, 1922. (See Karl Popper, The Open 

Society and its Enemies, 2 v. 4th ed., 1962; see also his Poverty of Historicism, 

1961.) Others have shown better than I that Popper achieved 

such a position by equal attribution of misinterpretations of Hegel and 

Marx, and by suppression and interested selection of texts. (Walter 

Kaufmann, From Shakespeare to Existentialism, i960, p. 100.) 

375


90 Morgan, op. cit., pp. 68, 88, 90, 104, 123, 152, 221, 237, 

278 (territory), 287 (polity). 

91 Ibid., pp. 88, 177, 246, 287, 313 and passim. 

92 Ibid., pp. 246, 266. 

93 Ibid., p. 240. 

94 Ibid., p. 249. 

95 Ibid., p. 281. 

96 Ibid., p. 444. 

97 Engels, Origin, op. cit., pp. 27f. 

98 Morgan, op. cit., p. 92: assumed. 

99 Otto Gierke, Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht. 4 V., 1868-1913. 

100 Joseph Needham, The Sceptical Biologist, 1929. See also id., A Biologist’s 

View of Whitehead’s Philosophy. The Philosophy of A . N . Whitehead. 

P. Schilpp, ed. 1941, pp. 247-248. 

101 R. H. Lowie, Primitive Society, 1947, pp. 257, 338, 390. 

102 Fenton in Ethnology, op. cit. Morgan based his conception of politically 

organized society upon territory and property; the organization 

of society upon relations purely personal preceded the political 

organization in time. (Ancient Society, p. 6.) Morgan’s theoretical 

framework possibly prevented his exploration of territorial groupings 

in other than the political and civilized context. 

103 R. M. Maclver, The Modern State, 1926; cf. also id., Community, 1936. 

R. H. Lowie, Origin of the State, 1927. 

104 F. W. Maitland, translating Otto Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle 

Age, 1900, and Ernest Barker, translating Gierke, Natural Law and 

the Theory of Society, 1950, rendered Genossenschaft as ‘association’, 

obscuring the developmental conception of Gierke, in which they 

followed a usage of Gierke himself. (Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, I §1.) 

But Gierke, op. cit., p. 5, made a distinction: “Das Recht der deutschen 

Genossenschaft, nicht das Recht der deutschen Association überhaupt, 

soll zur Behandlung kommen. Unter ‘Genossenschaft’ im engsten 

und technischen Sinne wird... jede auf freier Vereinigung beruhende 

deutschrechtliche Körperschaft, das heisst ein Verein mit selbständiger 

Rechtspersönlichkeit, verstanden.” In the wider sense, the communities 

and the State fall within the concept of Genossenschaft. 

They also mean according to Gierke something more: in the early 

history of Germany, State and community have come partly out of 

raising the power (Potenzirung) of the Genossenschaft idea, partly 

out of raising the power of its opposite. They have preserved 

Genossenschaft elements in different degrees according to the temporal 

direction and developed these. State and community, in a 

double relation, in regard to their genesis as well as their structure 

fall within the representation of the Genossenschaft. This is a dialectic 

that is reduced to a system of mere temporal juxtapositions, but 

it is a dialectic nonetheless, wherein a development by negation and 

articulation of oppositions is, however unclearly, set forth. Both 

376


Morgan and Gierke, according to the respective system of each, 

attempted by usages that had an inherent etymological connection, to 

make conscious the relation of political society to its antecedent. 

Community was conceived by Johann Althaus (Althusius) both in 

the sense here maintained and as the germ of political society, capable 

of development into a pyramidal organization with a center external 

to any given community. The pyramidal integration here is conceived 

as real but internally contradictory, as a relation of parts at once 

discrete and centrifugal; as they are in one sense discrete they may 

form separate groups, but once having been integrated, the kind of 

economic and social conditions of existence implied thereby makes it 

impossible to conceive that they could revert to an isolated existence 

again. On the political side a state of mutual tension between alternate 

centers of power in the process of State formation is to be seen. Cf. 

D. Westermann, Die Kpelle, 1921; here an unresolved conflict in the 

traditional Kpelle society between the royal throne and the religious 

societies is described. K. Oberg (in M. Fortes and E. Evans Pritchard, 

African Political Systems, 1940) has described an unresolved state of 

conflict between the royal house of Ankole polity, and the border 

chiefs, as well as within the royal house. Cf. Lowie, Origin of the State; 

L. Krader, Formation of the State, 1968. 

105 “Morgan’s supreme vice was to leap indiscriminately from what was 

effectively synchronic observation to pseudo-historical deduction. 

But his scrupulous regard for the facts observed, coupled with his 

logical naivete, make it quite easy to separate the one from the other.” 

Meyer Fortes, Kinship and the Social Order. The Legacy of Lewis Henry 

Morgan, 1969, p. 15. Fortes overstates his case. The chronological 

sequence from societas to civitas as a generalization is not at issue 

although some subordinate theses of Morgan have since been set 

aside as unsupported reconstructions. 

106 M. E. Opler in Current Anthropology, v. 3, 1962, p. 478. 

107 Fortes, op. cit., p. 14. 

108 Ibid., pp. 219-220. 

109 Kapital, op. cit., v. 1, pp. 140-141 (Eng. tr., pp. 198-199). 

110 Phear, op. cit., pp. 65ff. 

111 Marx twice quoted Tacitus, Germania, ch. 7 (Morgan excerpts, pp. 72 

and 98), on the composition of the smaller army units of the ancient 

Germans: It is not a fortuitous agglomeration that makes up the 

mounted squadron or the wedge of infantry, but familiae and propinquitates. 

Marx commented that the familia is taken up here, but 

that in Caesar this is determined to be the gens (ms. p. 98). Propinquitas 

in Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, op. cit., is rendered 

‘nearness, vicinity, proximity, propinquity’ in the classical language, 

in which Caesar and Cicero are cited; then, ‘relationship, affinity, 

propinquity’, and ‘intimacy, friendship’. We infer that Marx had 

recourse either to Lewis and Short or to its forerunners (cf. Maine 

377


excerpts, pp. 180-181). The social relations of the ancient Germans, 

whether for military, civil, economic, or other purposes were founded 

on the familia, or rather the gens, and on propinquitas. The bond of 

kinship is covered by the reference to gens; propinquitas as a social 

institution is plainly of the communal type, in which people are 

closely bound to one another either by reason of kinship or neighborhood, 

wherefore they are joined in the squadrons and troops. 

Propinquitas is here conceived to be a concrete communal institution, 

like the family/gens, not an abstract principle of social relationship. 

Aside from what we learn of Marx’s inner thought processes in this 

connection, the historical course of the denotation of propinquus has 

been more recently given as primarily ‘proximate, nearby,’ secondarily 

‘kin’ (Walde-Hofmann, Lat. Etjm. Wörterbuch, v. II, 1954, p. 372). 

The communal institutions of ancient German life, in which the lesser 

army formations were included, were in Marx’s view the gens, the 

family, possibly the group of neighbors insofar as they were not 

already comprised in the kin groups, or else nearby kinsmen as 

opposed to kinsmen who were more distandy located. Marx differentiated 

the army from the squadron and the wedge, hence, the 

official, public formation, from the communal life of the ancient 

Germans, in which he followed Tacitus. The context of Tacitus’ 

comment emphasizes the intimacy of relations of the smaller formations 

(cries of the wives and children, etc.), hence the phrase, 

nec fortuiter conglobado: The reason for the agglomeration which 

is not left to chance is that good morale, mutual trust, the incitations 

of people known to each other, bound by strong and intimate communal 

bonds, will make for braver, more dependable conduct in war. 

Marx represented these Germans as transitional from the gentile to 

the civil system, having aspects of each in their society. See below, 

Morgan excerpts, n. 189, and Morgan, op. cit., p. 371. 

112 Jean Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, pt. I, 1: “ L ’homme est ne 

libre, et partout il est dans les fers.’' Rousseau is evidently both an 

individualist, and, as C. E. Vaughan has shown, a collectivist. (See 

note 123.) 

113 MEW i, pp. 78-79. Great play is made with the bird catcher Papageno 

in Mozart’s opera, The Magic Flute. Cf. also Korsch, op. cit., p. 50 n. 

114 Hegel, Philosophie des Rechts, op. cit., para. 261-262. Marx, Kritik der 

Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. MEW 1, pp. 203-207. Hegel expressed 

the antithesis to this relation of the State and civil society, 

ib., para. 527: “Wo bürgerliche Gesellschaft und damit Staat vorhanden 

ist, treten die Stände in ihrem Unterschiede ein__ ” The 

civil society is here presented as the leading entity, and the State 

therewith as the subordinate. The Estates in their difference are 

introduced in relation to the civil society. The conception is not 

historical; within the civil society, the differentiation into classes is 

an atemporal development. Marx introduced the differentiation into 

378


social classes as a historical development, the State as the development 

of the class-divided society, the development from Hegel as an 

opposition. 

115 Marx, op. cit., MEW 1, pp. 303-304. 

116 MEW 3, p. 29. 

117 Hegel, para. 261. 

118 Hegel, para. 261-262, 257. 

119 Marx, Kritik der Hegelschen Staatsrecht. MEW 1, pp. 244 et seq. 

(Hegel, Philosophie des Rechts, para. 291, 292). Engels and Marx, Die 

Heilige Familie, MEW 2, pp. 127-131 (State and Civil Society). 

Marx and Engels, Die Deutsche Ideologie, MEW 3, pp. 3jf. (State and 

interests), p. 36 (civil society), p. 37 (‘society as subject’). 

120 Engels, op. cit., p. 97 (accumulation of property); p. 161 (greed). Cf. 

MEW 21, pp. 106, 171. 

121 Hegel, op. cit., para. 258. 

122 Cf. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1937, p. 435, in reference to 

his opinion of statesmen or politicians. 

123 Cf. Rousseau, Discours sur /’Inégalité, pt. II, incipit(C. E. Vaughan ed., 

v. 1, pp. 169 et seq.); Contrat Social, v. I (first version), v. II (final 

version). In the fragment by Rousseau, U Etat de Guerre (Vaughan, 

v. 1, pp. 293 et seq.), the individual is conceived as being logically and 

historically prior to the society. It is not clear that this view is held 

consistently by Rousseau. Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, Book I, 2, 

enumerated four laws of nature, of which the first is peace, the 

opposite of Hobbes’ state of war; the next two are biologically 

imposed, the quest for nourishment and sexual attraction; the fourth 

is of concern to us: it is the law of nature which results from the 

desire to live in society. Montesquieu did not think through his 

position with consistency, for in Book I, 1 he had already written 

that man is formed to live in society, but might be forgetful of this 

formation, for which reason ‘legislators, by political and civil laws, 

have constrained him to his duty.’ These sentiments are more 

sensitive to man’s relation to society than those of his immediate 

predecessors and contemporaries. 

124 K. S. Aksakov as well as F. I. Leontovich. Cf. B. D. Grekov, Krestyane 

na Rust, 1946, pp. 59 et seq. 

125 G. L. v. Maurer, Einleitung %ur Geschichte der Mark-, etc., Verfassung, 

1854; Geschichte der Markenverfassung, 1856; Geschichte der Fronhôfe, 

etc., 1862-1863; Geschichte der Dorfverfassung, 1865-1866. H. S. Maine, 

Ancient Law, 1861 ; Lectures on the Early History of Institutions, op. cit., 

1874; Early Law and Custom, op. cit., 1886. Otto Gierke, Das 

Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht, op. cit. Morgan, Ancient Society, op. cit. 

Kovalevsky, Obshchinnoe Zemlevladenie, op. cit. ; id., Tableau des Origines, 

op. cit., id., Modem Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia, 1891. E. B. 

Tylor, Anthropology, 2 v., 1881 (cf. v. 2, 1930 ed., p. 145). Emile 

Laveleye, Les formes primitives de la propriété (Revue des Deux Mon- 

379


des, 1872); id., De la propriété et de ses formes primitives, 1874. Henry- 

George, Progress and Poverty, 1879. Paul Viollet, Le caractère collectif 

des premières propriétés immobilières (Bibliothèque de F Ecole des 

Chartes, v. 33, 1872). Karl Bücher, Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft, 

1893. 

Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden 

Soziologie, (1922) 1964, v. i. Part 2, ch. 3 treats of the house-community 

(Hausgemeinschaft) and its dissolution by internal and external factors, 

leading to the development of modern trading companies; in 

this, the theory of the transformation of the community into an 

association follows that of Gierke. 

Others of the collectivists include G. Nasse, L. Felix, L. Hobhouse. 

These are all divided as to whether individualism is posited as the 

final outcome of the development from the collective beginnings, 

as in the case of Herbert Spencer, T. H. Huxley, Henry Maine; or 

whether the reign of individualism is temporary, as in the case of 

Morgan. Yet others are neutral in this matter. 

Marx’s readings on the subject of the early and historical Slavic 

community were wide. Some are mentioned in a letter to Engels, of 

Feb. 29, 1856 (MEGA, pt. Ill, v. 2, pp. 112 -113, 115). Cf. also 

Chronik, op. cit., pp. 409-439. Here the works of I. D. Belyaev, 

A. Engelhardt, A. v. Haxthausen, M. Kovalevsky, V. Semevsky, 

V. I. Sergeevich, A. Skrebitsky, P. Sokolovsky, on Russian agrarian 

history and the peasant commune ; F. Demelic (who rendered V. Bo- 

gisic into French) and O. M. Utiesenovic-Ostrozinski on the peasant 

communes of the South Slavs; L. Mieroslawski on the history of the 

Polish peasant communes ; C. A. Van Enschut, G. Hanssen and G. L. 

Maurer on the Germanic peoples. 

126 L. Stein, Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie, 1897. F. Toennies, 

Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887. Leo Frobenius, Der Ursprung der 

Afrikanischen Kulturen, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1898; id. Paideuma, 

1921. Henri Bergson, Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion, 

1932. A. L. Kroeber, The Superorganic, American Anthropologist, 

v. 19, 1917, pp. 163-213. 

127 A. A. Kaufman, Russkaya Obshchina, 1908. A. Chuprov, Die Feldgemeinschaft, 

1902. K. Kachorovsky, Russkaya Obshchina, 1900. V. 

Simkhovich, Die Feldgemeinschaft in Russland, 1898. Cf. also, A. v. 

Miaskowski, Die schweizerische Allmend, 1879. J. v. Keussler, Zur 

Geschichte und Kritik des bäuerlichen Gemeindebesitzes in Russland, 1876- 

1887. The literature on this subject is vast. Further bibliography in : 

J. S. Lewinski, The Origin of Property, 1913 ; M. O. Kosven, Semeynaya 

Obshchina i Patronimiya, 1963; L. Krader, Recent Studies of the 

Russian Peasant, American Anthropologist, v. 58, 1956, pp. 716-720; 

id. Anthropology, in: Basic Russian Publications, P. L. Horecky, ed., 

1962, pp. 49-58. 

128 K. Kautsky, Die Neue Zeit, v. 3, 1885. Paul Lafargue, La Propriété, 

380


Origine et Evolution, 1895. Cf. Heinrich Cunow, Die Marxscbe Geschieht 

s-, Gesellschafts- und Staatstheorie. 2 v., 1920-1921. Id. Einleitendes 

Vorwort (1896) to G. L. Maurer, Einleitung %ur Geschichte der Mark- 

etc. Verfassung (1858), 1965, p. 345: Maurer exaggerated the extent of 

the Mark, holding that the medieval and ancient Mark were the same; 

according to Cunow, the work of L. H. Morgan on the gens showed 

the difference between the ancient and medieval (including the recent) 

Mark; Morgan’s work was applied to early German history by K. 

Lamprecht. According to Cunow, the position of Engels (see Introduction, 

section on Relation of Engels to Marx and Morgan) in his 

work on the Mark was founded on Maurer, but did not take later 

work into account, for Engels did not distinguish the ancient from 

the medieval Mark. (MEW 19, pp. 3i7ff, esp. p. 319.) 

Cunow, op. cit., p. 355, cited Kovalevsky, Tableau des Origines, op. 

cit., regarding the hypothesis that the Germanic villages arose out of 

earlier communities, wherein population increase was the active 

factor. Morgan had already written of the increase of the accumulation 

of property, etc., which both Marx and Engels took to be the 

factor in the decline of the early community, and not population 

increase. Marx, in the Einleitung (sect. 3, Methode) to the Grundrisse 

considered the idea of commencing with population to be a chaotic 

one, but this position of Marx was not known at the time that Cunow 

wrote. 

129 B. H. Baden-Powell, The Indian Village Community, 1896, ch. 1 and 10. 

130 R. v. Pöhlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der 

antiken Welt, 1912. Friedrich Ratzel, Politische Geographie, 1897. 

R. Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte auf den verschiedenen ... Kulturstufen, 1896. 

Heinrich Schurtz, Die Anfänge des Landbesitztes. Zeitschrift für 

Soîalwissenschaft, 1900. Cf. E. R. A. Seligman, The Economic Interpretation 

of History, 1902, ch. 6. (Here the role of Pöhlmann is not 

reported with preciseness.) Schurtz was Ratzel’s disciple. R. H. 

Lowie followed Schurtz in his opposition to Morgan, taking the 

institutions of men’s clubs and age-grade societies as proof of association 

among primitives other than that based on kindship (Lowie, 

Origin of the State, op. cit.). 

131 M. O. Kosven, op. cit., published a survey of the problem of the 

family community (zadruga) and the patronymic group, with a good 

review of the literature, and a useful setting of the problem; by 

separating the question of the family community from that of the 

primitive community in general he made an important distinction. 

But the late Kosven, a man of great learning, went perhaps too far in 

tracing the early history of the (European) family, having written: 

“We consider that the original connection between this term familia 

and the concept of a house (zhilishche) is in all likelihood completely 

improbable, more precisely, outdated, going back to Festus’ explanation 

of familia from famulus (slave) as it were because the great 

381


family consisted of and hence had its name in complete independence 

of the existence of slavery. The reverse is much more likely: the 

origin of the word famulus from familia, just as Russian chelyadin 

from chelyad’.” (Kosven, p. 47 n.) To this it must be counterposed: 

1) Famulus is an institutional relation of (early) civilized society, 

therefore one cannot think of an original connection, but only of an 

advanced, even if only moderately so. The distinction between the 

two types of family, without and with slaves, and of two types of 

society correspondingly, is necessary in order to comprehend this 

problem in the first place. It will be muddled, if the distinction between 

family and society is not maintained throughout. The form of 

the Roman familia was developed only because in the society the 

famulus had been developed. 2) Kosven has attempted to argue from 

a putative etymology to a history of institutions, which is a most 

unreliable method of argument. 3) Kosven’s etymology is itself shaky: 

Festus is borne out by Ernout and Meillet, Diet. Etymologique de la 

Langue Latine, 1959, and by Walde-Hofmann, Latein. Etymolog. 

Wôrterbuch, 3rd éd., v. 1, 1938. Cf. also Morgan, op. cit., pp. 447f. 

regarding familia; see also below, Marx, Morgan excerpts, note 25 5. 

The relation of family and house is more complex; see following note. 

132 E. Benveniste, Le Vocabulaire des Institutions Indo-Européennes, 1969, 

v. i, p. 307. *Dem- (‘domicile,’ Russian dom ‘id.’ are cognates) and 

*woiko- (Latin vicus, Old Slavic vtst, Gothic weihs) are fractions of 

the social whole, respectively the family and families grouped in a 

community (p. 308). Benveniste belongs to the collectivists: The 

Indo-European family in the ancient period is characterized as the 

great or extended family, where children after marriage continue to 

live : at this stage there is no individual property, no inheritance, for 

the family land remains undivided. This is described by Benveniste 

as the descent group; he writes separately (p. 309) of Greek génos, 

Latin gens. Then descent is replaced by habitat, and the new social 

division is based upon territory (I.e.) : the Achaians now live in the 

polis, or urban commune, and the kôinê. Benveniste further writes 

that Aristotle, at the beginning of his Politics codified a situation 

already established when he characterized the elements of the society 

taken as a ‘community’ ; the most archaic form of this community in 

Aristotle is that of husband and wife, at the same time of master and 

slave. This, according to Benveniste, is also the notion of the Roman 

family, (which figures in Festus). The broad outline of Benveniste’s 

representation accords well with that which Marx drew from Morgan, 

with the addition by Marx of the comment on the agricultural, slave- 

owning family of antiquity. Benveniste’s researches relate to a period 

which long antedated the time of Caesar and Tacitus; the same is true 

of the commentary of Festus, and all discussion of the prehistoric and 

protohistoric collectivities of the Germanic and Roman peoples 

should bear this relative chronology in mind. The failure to do so has 

382


beclouded the writings on both sides. J. Kulischer, Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte., 

2 v., 1928 (repr. 1958) defended the theory of communal 

landownership among European peoples of the protohistoric 

and early historic periods in the form of the Markgenossenschaft. 

Alfons Dopsch, Wirtschaftliche und Soziale Grundlagen der Europäischen 

Kulturentwicklung, 2 v. 1923-1924, had been controverted by Kulischer, 

but the English translation of Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations 

of European Civilisation, 1937, published under his supervision, 

contracted the ‘theoretical’ part of the work and did not answer him. 

R. Koebner in ch. 1 of the Cambridge Economic History of Europe, 

M. Postan, ed., (1941) 1966, set forth the facts pertaining to Tacitus 

in his relation to Caesar, and defending the individualistic side against 

the collectivists. Koebner affirmed that the Germans acquired land 

by conquest, held it collectively until it was divided individually 

according to higher or lower degree, held in perpetuity. The land 

thereafter, according to Koebner, was held by the ancient Germans 

privately in perpetuity. The mode o f . Koebner’s presentation is 

therefore a mixture of the collectivist and the individualist approach 

in regard to the interpretation of the passage of Tacitus in question, 

but it implies not an individualist past but a collectivist one; this is not 

antipathetic to the viewpoint of Kulischer, nor, once the polemic is 

stripped away, that of Dopsch (see following note). Yet it is opposed 

to the viewpoint of Fustel de Coulanges. 

The factor of conquest introduced by Koebner in reference to 

acquisition of land by the collectivity is not supported by the passage 

taken from Tacitus. J. E. Thorold Rogers, Agriculture and Prices in 

England... 7 vols., 1866-1902, had made out a case for the plentifulness 

of land in the Middle Ages in Europe. This was interpreted by Maine, 

Lectures, op. cit., pp. 141-142 and 150, to apply to the Roman period 

as well. For this reason, not land but capital = catde was the chief 

necessity, wherefore conquest of spoil was not in land but in catde; 

until the propositions of these two are overcome, land cannot be 

taken as the sole or even chief object of conquest, contrary to Koebner. 

Marx concurred in the view which was advanced by Thorold 

Rogers and Maine (Marx, Maine excerpts, pp. 167-168); he rejected 

Kovalevsky’s unqualified introduction of the factor of conquest as 

well, for he wrote, “That the community of kin necessarily settles on 

foreign, conquered territory is an arbitrary assumption of Kovalevsky.” 

(See above, note 16.) It is the generally held opinion of the 

modern writers that by the time of Tacitus the continental Germanic 

peoples had moved away from a collectivist past; the implication is 

that in the earlier antiquity, or protohistoric period, they had been 

collectivist in their undertakings (property-sharing, movement, settlement, 

etc.) C. Stephenson had grasped only the individualist end of 

this line of thought, following Dopsch’s line in this connection (The 

Common Man in Early Medieval Europe, American Historical Review, 

383


v. 51, 1946). The equation of common man with Tacitus’ German is 

a topicality of the time of Henry Wallace, which is controverted by 

Koebner: “The typical German of the Germania belongs to the 

substantial landowner class.” (op. cit., p. 14.) The controversy has 

been marred by failure to meet issues on both sides: see following 

note, and Morgan excerpts, note 255. 

133 N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, Questions historiques, 1893. Recherches sur 

quelques problèmes d'histoire, 1885. E. Durkheim, Année Sociologique, 

v. 11, 1906-1909, pp. 343-347. Cf. E. Durkheim, Division of Social 

Labor, 1933, p. 179. Fustel de Coulanges was answered by Laveleye, 

De la Propriété, op. cit., ed. 1890, preface. Laveleye argued that the 

ancient Germans had a system of annual repartition, which pointed 

to a principle of common ownership; Dopsch as well as Fustel set 

this line on one side. But Dopsch, op. cit., 1923, p. 67, wrote, “ Nicht 

einzelne, wie die römischen Grundherren, eignen sich die ‘agri’ an, 

sondern alle haben daran teil.” This is consonant with Laveleye’s 

position and Kulischer’s. See Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 98, quoting 

Tacitus, Germania, c. 26. Tacitus did not report the primitive 

Germanic condition ; he wrote a century and a half after Caesar, when 

the Germans had been long in contact with the civilizations of the 

Mediterranean, and if they still preserved traces of communal property 

ownership, these were acculturated by the contact. It is conceivable 

therefore that those Germans could have had the practice of 

annual repartition while at the same time dividing unequally, according 

to worth or social position. The partition of the land secundum 

dignationem is the great point of Fustel de Coulanges and Dopsch, but 

nothing is proved, nothing disproved thereby. The period of communal 

ownership in the system of Marx antedated that of the break-up 

of the collective institutions and the formation of political society; 

the division of society into the various worths or dignities, as set forth 

by Tacitus, is evidence that these Germans had formed a divided 

society, and either had already formed or were in the process of 

forming a State. Private property in land was developed within 

the limits set forth. 

Dopsch in fact proved too much: Tacitus scored points against 

Caesar, and moralized about the rich landowners of Rome. We conclude 

that the objectivity of Tacitus is called into question. 

The scientific issue cannot be divorced from the political, which 

is Marx’s point. Durkheim approached the matter in the same way, 

by making his conclusion and his premisses inseparably and explicitly 

part of his position : that man is a communal being and his primitive 

life a collective one was a presupposition in his general philosophy of 

society. Fustel de Coulanges, Dopsch and Stephenson may or may 

not have interpreted the ancient texts accurately; they drew inferences 

from their findings which they supposed were separated from their 

social philosophies and political ideologies. (Cf. Marx, Maine excerpts, 

384


p. 191, in opposition to separation of politics from science by Austin 

and Maine.) 

Morgan had included a brief passage on the Markgenossenschaft, 

Ancient Society, p. 371, which Marx did not excerpt. Morgan then 

commented on Tacitus’ familia and propinquitas (see Marx, Morgan 

excerpts, pp. 72 and 98, and note 189). For Maine on the Mark see his 

Village Communies East and West, 1871, Lectures I and III, and on 

Maurer, ib., Lecture III. See also Maine’s Lectures on the Early History 

of Institutions, op. cit., passim, and note 125 above. 

134 Petr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, 1902. Bound with: T. H. Huxley, The 

Struggle for Existence, 1888. Reissued, Ashley Montagu, ed., n.d. 

135 Marx, Kapital, op. cit. v. I, pp. 45-46 (Eng. p. 91). In the English of 

Engels-Moore-Aveling-Untermann, the words “In den altasiatischen, 

antiken usw. Produktionsweisen— ” are rendered “In the ancient 

Asiatic and other ancient modes of production__ ” Here the ‘antike 

Produktionsweise’ is not a general mode, but a specific one : - that of 

classical antiquity, including Greece, Rome and other related societies 

of that time, as opposed to the ancient Asiatic mode of production. 

136 Ibid., p. 44. The words ‘unmittelbar vergesellschaftet’ are rendered 

in the Eng. tr., op. cit., p. 89, as ‘directly associated.’ In the French 

tr. of J. Roy, 1872, it is ‘association immédiate.’ (Capital, Fr. tr., v. 1, 

pt. I, 1938, p. 94). Marx controlled this translation. Since Marx was 

writing about the relation of labor to society, it is socialized labor, 

that is, purposive, productive labor in a particular society, that is in 

question. The continuity and at the same time discontinuity of the 

problem of socialization in industrial society can thereby be posed 

apart from the ideology of the problem, and as its presupposition. 

Vergesellschaftung is taken up in Kapital, v. 1 (ch. 24, Die sogenannte 

ursprüngliche Akkumulation, section 7, Geschichtliche Tendenz der 

kapitalistischen Akkumulation = Eng., ch. 32), in which, as socialization, 

it is the outcome of the capitalist economy ; it is the opposite of 

direct, as in the earlier reference to labor in the primitive or peasant 

community. (It is ‘socialisation’ in the French tr. of Capital, v. 1, 

pt. 3, 1939, pp. 224 and 225). Moreover, the relation of the community 

to the society has now changed. Marx wrote in this section of 

the historical act of expropriation of property, - social to begin with, - 

by capitalist production, and the transformation of capitalist property 

which rests on the conduct of production (Produktionsbetrieb) which 

is social to begin with, (not vergesellschaftet, but gesellschaftlich) in 

fact into social property. (Cf. also ib., p. 476; Eng., ib., p. 561.) There 

are two dialectical moments in this process: the transition from immediate, 

communal to mediate socialization and the transformation of 

capitalist property to the property of the society. The production 

relations are already social, it is their ownership which is at issue, hence 

this process is separated from the other moments. The relation of the 

385


economic moments to the social-communal are directly socialized, 

those of capitalist industrial production mediately. 

137 L.c., quoting Kritik, 1859, op. cit., p. 10 (Eng. tr., p. 29 n). The 

allusion to the high antiquity of the commune follows a short space 

after a citation from Maurer, Einleitung. Marx, Kapital, op. cit., 

v. 1, p. 38 (Eng. p. 82). 

138 Marx, op. cit., v. 3 (3rd German ed.), pt. 1, p. 156. Cf. op. cit. v. 1, 

p. 54 (Eng., p. 100). 

139 Op. cit., v. 1, pp. 44, 316 (Eng. pp. 89, 386). See note 142. 

140 Marx, Critique, 1859 (see n. 137). Kapital, v. 1, op. cit., pp. 44, 54 

(pp. 89, 100 of Eng. tr.). 

141 MEW 19, 1969: Die Mark, pp. 317-330. (Published as Appendix to 

Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft, 1882). 

Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen, ib. pp. 425-473. Fränkische Zeit, 

ib. pp. 474-518. Engels here drew a continuum from the ancient 

Mark to the nineteenth century institution. (See n. 128). 

142 Kapital, v. 1, op. cit., p. 316. (Eng. tr., v. 1, 1937, p. 386.) The third 

edition, in which the footnote by Engels appears, is dated November 

7, 1883. Hence it is an indication of the stage of thinking which 

Engels had reached in formulating his own ideas about primitive 

society and economy, brought out in the following year. 

Marx’s argument in this part of his work is that the division of 

labor in primitive society arose from a twofold basis: One, a physiological 

foundation in relation to production wherein the natural division 

of labor expands its material by the extension of the size of the 

community, increase of population, and by inter-tribal conflict. Two, 

the social division of labor is likewise based on exchange between 

communities, in the primitive condition of mankind. (Marx, l.c.) 

Marx here asserted that the division of labor within the family is 

further developed in that of the tribe; he took no position that the 

family is further developed into the tribe. Marx’s statement regarding 

the relation between the division of labor in the family and in the 

tribe is indirecdy related to that of the relation of family and tribe. 

Marx’s conclusions in 1881 had gone beyond the view attributed to 

him by Engels in the footnote of 18 8 3. We infer therefore that Engels 

studied Marx’s ms. notes on Morgan only after this date. 

The issue next concerns the principle of the gens in its relation to 

that of the tribe on the one side and the family on the other. This view 

of the primitive social organization was the chief difference between 

Marx’s view developed in the Grundrisse (cf. pp. 375-378) and in 

Capital. An early position on this matter is found in the part of 

The German Ideology devoted to Feuerbach (this reference is given in 

Engels, Origin, op. cit., p. 58). In the passages cited in the Grundrisse 

Marx was concerned with the community in its relation to landowner- 

ship on the one side and to the bond of kinship on the other. In 

Engels’ note, the aspect of the blood relationship was taken up; in 

386


Marx’s drafts of the Zasulich correspondence the land and land- 

ownership side was taken up (see Introduction, Addendum I). The 

consanguineal relation is not all that there is to kinship; Marx dealt 

with the marriage ties in the Grundrisse, p. 375. 

143 See notes 14, 144-147. 

144 Engels, letter to Kautsky, March 24, 1884. MEW 36, 1967, p. 129. 

See n. 147. 

145 Engels to Bernstein and Kautsky, May 22 and to Kautsky, May 23, 

1884. Ibid., pp. 147-148. 

146 Engels, Origin, p. 162 n. Here Engels wrote, “I originally intended to 

place the brilliant criticism of civilization of Charles Fourier beside 

that of Morgan and my own. Unfortunately I have not the time. I 

will only observe that already in Fourier monogamy and private 

property in land are the chief characteristics of civilization, and that 

he calls civilization a war of the rich against the poor. The deep 

insight is likewise found already in Fourier that in all societies that 

are defective and split into oppositions, single families (les families 

incohérentes) are the economic units.” The source of Engels’ phrasing 

and possibly the line of argument to be advanced is indicated in 

Marx’s notes, given above. It is a complex line : First, the relation of 

the family to society and its State must be separated from the relation 

of the family to society without the State. The form of the family is 

likewise a variable. Second, the antagonisms of society and the State 

are only later broadly developed on the large scale, and the two kinds 

of antagonisms are therefore separated both in time and in quantity. 

Third, the family that contains a relation to services for agriculture is 

an economic unit both of production and of consumption. The single 

family of civilization includes the family in industrial society, which 

is a unit of consumption, but scarcely a unit of production. Engels’ 

reference to the single families as economic units should be understood 

within this framework. The starting point in this discussion 

of the history of the family in the strict sense is the derivation of the 

term by Varro, De Significatione Verborum, s. v. familia, from the 

Oscian, “ where the slave is called famel, whence the term for family.” 

This ethnographic notation has withstood the attempt of the grammarians 

to distinguish between servus and famulus. (A. Ernout, 

A. Meillet, op. cit., p. 215.) Marx brought out the difference, in 

reference to India, between urban and rural families and rich and poor. 

(Maine excerpts, p. 177.) The opposition, which was developed in 

the period of dissolution of the Greek and Roman gentes, appeared 

in the oppositions of the modern Orient. The limitation on the 

perspective of Fourier was posited by Marx. (See above, with reference 

to Marx’s notes on Phear.) (See also Morgan excerpts, below, 

note 255.) 

147 (“ ... Da er selbst das Buch bei den Deutschen einführen wollte, wie 

ich aus seinen sehr ausführlichen Auszügen sehe” .) Engels, letter to 

387


388 

Karl Kautsky, Feb. 16, 1884, MEW 36, pp. 109-no. Engels, Origin, 

p. 5. The connection of the remaining ms. notes and excerpts, 

particularly those from Maine, to the Morgan excerpts, raises the 

further question of the ultimate format. The question of the network 

of ideas suggested by the sequence of the notebooks’ contents, leading 

to questions of law and constitution (Sohm), to colonial questions 

(Money) and to practical agriculture has been raised. Engels recommended 

J. W. B. Money’s work on Java to Kautsky (I.e.). (See 

above, note 15.) 

Engels read to Eduard Bernstein from Marx’s notebook and from 

Engels’ own synopsis. “When I arrived in London [Engels] read to 

me, night after night ... passages from Marx’s manuscripts, and the 

synopsis of a book with which he connected Marx’s extracts from the 

American author Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society.” Eduard Bernstein, 

My Years of Exile, 1921. B. Miall, tr., p. 168. The date of Bernstein’s 

visit is important, for it shows that Engels had not only worked 

through Marx’s notes by the end of February and the beginning of 

March, 1884, but had prepared a synopsis of a book of his, Engels’, 

own. Thus we establish Engels’ preparation of the synopsis of the 

book that was later published as die Ursprung der Familie, etc., from 

the end of February. Engels’ work is divided into two parts: first, 

working from Marx’s excerpts while seeking for the book of Morgan 

(Jan. - March 1884), at which time he prepared his own synopsis; 

then, working from the end of March to end of May, with the book 

by Morgan at hand. The chronology of the composition of Engels, 

Ursprung der Familie, based on references from his correspondence 

with various persons in 1884 follows: 

(1) Letter to Kautsky, Feb. 16 (MEW 36, I.e.): “ Über die Urzustände 

der Gesellschaft existiert ein entscheidendes Buch, so entscheidend wie 

Darwin für die Biologie, es ist wieder von Marx entdeckt worden: 

Morgan: “Ancient Society” , 1877. M. sprach davon, aber ich hatte 

damals andre Sachen im Kopf, und er kam nicht wieder darauf zurück, 

was ihm gewiss angenehm war, da er seihst das Buch bei den Deutschen 

einführen wollte, wie ich aus seinen sehr ausführlichen Auszügen 

sehe. Morgan hat die Marxsche materialistische Geschichtsanschauung 

in den durch seinen Gegenstand gebotenen Grenzen 

selbständig neu entdeckt und schliesst für die heutige Gesellschaft mit 

direkt kommunistischen Postulaten ab. Die römische und griechische 

Gens wird zum ersten Mal aus der der Wilden, namentlich 

amerikanischen Indianer, vollständig aufgeklärt und damit eine feste 

Basis für die Urgeschichte gefunden. Hätte ich die Zeit, ich würde 

den Stoff, mit Marx’ Noten für’s Feuilleton des “ Sozialdemokrat]” 

oder die “ Neue Zeit” bearbeiten, aber daran ist nicht zu denken. All 

der Schwindel von Tylor, Lubbock und Co. ist definitiv kaputtgemacht, 

Endogamie, Exogamie und wie all der Blödsinn heisst.


Diese Herren unterdrücken das Buch, soviel sie können, es ist in 

Amerika gedruckt, ich hab’s seit 5 Wochen bestellt, aber nicht 

bekommen! trotzdem einer Londoner Firma als Mitverleger auf dem 

Titel steht.” 

(2) E. Bernstein’s visit to London was announced in a letter of Engels 

to Laura Lafargue, same date (ib., p. 111) and his departure in a letter 

of Engels to Kautsky, March 3, 1884 (ib., p. 117). 

(3). Letter to F. A. Sorge, March 7 (ib., p. 124). Recommends Morgan’s 

book. Morgan “ [h]at Marx’ Geschichtstheorie naturwüchsig 

neu entdeckt und schliesst mit kommunistische[n] Folgerungen für 

heute.” 

(4) Letter to Kautsky, March 24 (ib. p. 129). Has found a secondhand 

copy of the book. Proposes, if he has the time, an article for 

Die Neue Zeit, which would then be published separately as a pamphlet. 

(5) Letter to Kautsky, April 26 (ib., pp. 142-143). Has changed his 

plan from a mere review of Morgan, which would have gotten round 

Bismarck’s Sozialistengesetz. “Ich hatte mir vorgenommen und 

allgemein hier erzählt, ich würde dem Bismarck einen Streich spielen 

und etwas schreiben (Morgan) was er platterdings nicht verbieten 

könne. Aber beim besten Willen - es geht nicht. Das Kapitel über 

die Monogamie und das Schlusskapitel über das Privateigentum als 

Quelle der Klassengegensätze sowie als Hebel der Sprengung der 

alten Gemeinwesen, kann ich nicht so abfassen, dass sie unter das 

Sozialistengesetz sich fügen.” Engels will treat the matter critically 

instead, with the socialist perspectives. Fourier’s critique of civilization 

anticipated Morgan’s: a chief point. 

(6) Letter to Paul Lafargue, May 10 (ib., p. 145). Hopes to complete 

the ms. at the end of the week following, “eine sehr wichtige Arbeit.” 

(7) Letter to Bernstein, May 17 (ib., p. 146). Proposes that Kautsky 

publish the chapter on the Family, minus monogamy (ch. II, sect. 4). 

The work is 130 octavo pp., and is called “Die Entstehung der 

Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats.” (See below, item 11). 

(8) Letter to Bernstein and Kautsky, May 22 (ib., p. 147). The entire 

ms. sent off this date, save for last chapter, still in need of revision. 

(9) Letter to Kautsky, May 23 (ib., p. 148). Kautsky should have ch. 

1-8 (see below). Takes up again the matter of ch. 2, Family, sect. 1-3 

for Die Neue Zeit (see Table of Contents of the Ursprung below). 

(10) Letter to Laura Lafargue, May 26 (ib., p. 15 3). Refers to the ms. 

as having been finished, explaining his delay in correspondence. 

(11) Letter to August Bebel, June 6 (ib., p. 161). Refers to the forth- 

389


coming publication, “ Ursprung der Familie, des Eigentums und des 

Staats” , (not the definitive title) 

Table of Contents of Ursprung follows: 

Ch. I. Vorgeschichtliche Kulturstufen 

1. Wildheit 

2. Barbarei 

II. Die Familie 

1. Die Blutverwandtschaftsfamilie 

2. Die Punaluafamilie 

3. Die Paarungsfamilie 

4. Die monogame Familie 

III. Die irokesische Gens 

IV. Die griechische Gens 

V. Entstehung des athenischen Staats 

VI. Gens und Staat in Rom 

VII. Die Gens bei Kelten und Deutschen 

VIII. Die Staatsbildung der Deutschen 

IX. Barbarei und Zivilisation 

The sequence of the chapters here reflects Marx’s rearrangement 

of Morgan’s order, ch. II, Family, preceding the chapters on the 

Gens and the State. Property in Engels has no special chapter or part 

devoted to it, nor has intelligence (see above, n. 21). The most 

important topic, in length, is that of the family; the chapter in which 

it is treated occupies more than one-third of the entire work; compare 

the proportionate space that Morgan and Marx gave to the topic 

(cf. n. 21). Because of the difference in the manner of treatment of 

the various topics and their internal breakdown, further comparison 

is idle. 

148 Ibid., p. 19. Cf. V. Gordon Childe, Social Evolution, 1951, pp. 6 ff.: 

Childe considered that Morgan’s and Engels’ account of the several 

stages of ‘economic, political and kinship organization is untenable 

in detail’, ‘but remains the best of its kind.’ Childe was conscious of 

the expansion of the materials from Morgan’s day, but was attracted 

by the underlying idea of social evolution at uneven rates, that is, of 

periods of rapid change (revolutions in Childe’s terms), followed by 

periods of stability. He retained Morgan’s three-stage framework, 

therefore, but proposed new criteria for the stages. The chapter in 

Morgan, Ratio of Human Progress, is most open to Childe’s criticism. 

That chapter, however, includes a statement by Morgan, in which 

both a unilinear and multilinear approach to the problem of human 

evolution is adumbrated, bearing out the subtitle of his work, for he 

wrote of reascending the several lines of human progress (Ancient 

Society, pp. 4, 29). Sahlins has taken up this problem again in relation 

to the work of Darwin, Tylor, Morgan, and Spencer (M. Sahlins and 

E. Service, Evolution and Culture, 1959), but not particularly in Mor 

390


gan’s direction. Tylor’s perspective on the relation of general and 

specific evolution is given instead (op. cit., p. 12). 

The concept of the three stages of human evolution which had been 

developed by Morgan is to be found in Adam Ferguson, Essay on the 

History of Civil Society, 1767; ‘civil’ has another meaning here from 

that in Morgan. On Hegel, see above Addendum zB. Giambattista 

Vico, Principj di Scien%a Nuova__ (1725) 1744, had formulated the 

idea of successive stages of savagery, a heroic or barbaric age, and an 

age of civilization. His theory of the progression of man and civilization 

differs from that of Ferguson, being closer to Herder’s, particularly 

in regard to language, as his commentators have pointed out; 

Vico’s theory, moreover, is cyclical. Fourier proposed a classification 

of societies from savagery to civilization more complex than Ferguson’s 

or Morgan’s ; but it is not progressist by unconscious movement. 

The present state of civilization, to Fourier, is preharmonic. 

François Marie Charles Fourier, Théorie des quatre mouvements et des 

destinées générales, 1808; id., Traité de Vassociation domestique-agricole, 2 v., 

1822. His Oeuvres complètes include the 2nd eds. of these two texts, 

published 1841-1843, plus others as follows: Fourier, Oeuvres completes, 

v. I, Théorie des quatre mouvements etc. Vol. 2-5, Théorie de Vunité 

universelle, 4 v., of which his Traité de l'association domestique-agricole 

forms v. 2-3. Vol. 6, Le Nouveau Monde industriel et sociétaire ou invention 

des procédés d'industrie attrayante et naturelle distribuée en séries passionnées. 

2nd ed., 1845. Engels here had the references to Fourier by Marx, 

perhaps, in mind. (See Marx, Die Heilige Familie, MEW 2, pp. 207- 

208. See also Engels, ib., pp. 604 et seq.) 

149 Engels, op. cit., pp. 37-38. 

150 Ib., pp. 28, 3 5-46 (Bachofen) and 70 (Maine) ; also preface to fourth ed. 

151 Morgan, op. cit., p. 562. 

152 Engels, op. cit., p. 150. 

153 Morgan, op. cit., pp. 561-562. Engels, op. cit., pp. 162-163. 

154 Eduard Bernstein, Bemerkungen über Engels’ Ursprung der Familie. 

Vorrede zur italienischen Ausgabe. Socialistische Monatshefte, v. 4, 

1900. Cf. p. 448, “ [Morgan] überschreitet nirgends principiell die 

Grenze, die den Durchschnitt der objektivistischen Culturhistoriker 

vom Vertreter des historischen Materialismus trennt__ Morgan 

steht als Geschichtshistoriker zum historischen Materialismus in 

keinem anderen Verhältnis, wie die socialistischen Theoretiker der 

Epoche von 1825 bis 1840 zum Marx-Engelschen Socialismus.” Ib., 

p. 449: “ So viel vom historischen Materialismus wie bei Morgan, 

findet man auch bei den Theoretikern des Owenismus, Saint-Simonismus 

und Fourierismus, von denen namendich der letztere sehr 

geistreiche Vertreter hatte und Morgan wohl bekannt war.” Bernstein 

showed his lack of understanding of Morgan by classifying him with 

the Geschichtshistoriker. The relation of Morgan’s work to the 

natural sciences is confused thereby. Moreover, Bernstein invented an 

391


entirely new relation of Morgan to the Fourierists in the United 

States, having taken Engels’ intention in a way that has no support; 

it appears from Engels only that Fourier had anticipated Morgan in 

many things. “Fouriers Kritik der Zivilisation tritt erst durch 

M[organ] in ihrer ganzen Genialität hervor.” (Engels, letter to Kautsky, 

April 26, 1884. See no. 147). 

Engels had written to Kautsky moreover (I.e.), “Morgan hat 

die Marxsche materialistische Geschichtsanschauung in den durch 

seinen Gegenstand gebotenen Grenzen selbständig neu entdeckt und 

schliesst für die heutige Gesellschaft mit direkt kommunistischen 

Postulaten ab.” Bernstein sought to correct this extreme judgment 

of Engels, but was caught in a contradiction by an attempt to prove 

too much. The socialist writings at the end of the nineteenth and 

beginning of the twentieth centuries, in which Heinrich Cunow took 

part, later modified Engels’ judgment regarding Morgan. Bernstein 

did not show full understanding of the issues or the method for their 

analysis. See above, n. 128. 

155 Morgan, op. cit., pp. 537, 561-562. 

156 Marx, Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte, M EGA, v. 1, pt. 3, 

p. 156. 

157 Cf. Marx, letter to Engels, June 18, 1862. MEW 30, p. 249; “Mit dem 

Darwin, den ich wieder angesehn, amüsiert mich, dass er sagt, er 

wende die ‘Malthussche’ Theorie auch auf Pflanzen und Tiere an, als 

ob bei Herrn Malthus der Witz nicht darin bestände, dass sie nicht 

auf Pflanzen und Tiere, sondern nur auf Menschen - mit der geometrischen 

Progression - angewandt wird im Gegensatz zu Pflanzen 

und Tiere. Es ist merkwürdig, wie Darwin unter Bestien und Pflanzen 

seine englische Gesellschaft mit ihrer Teilung der Arbeit, Konkurrenz, 

Aufschluss neuer Märkte, ‘Erfindungen’ und Malthusschem 

‘Kampf ums Dasein’ wiedererkennt. Es ist Hobbes’ bellum omnium 

contra omnes, und es erinnert an Hegel in der ‘Phänomenologie’, wo 

die bürgerliche Gesellschaft als ‘geistiges Tierreich’, während bei 

Darwin das geistige Tierreich als bürgerliche Gesellschaft figuriert.” 

Marx and Engels had dealt with the bürgerliche Gesellschaft in the 

Heilige Familie as a transition from Hegel’s civil society to the bourgeois 

society which was criticized in their Communist Manifesto. 

George Lichtheim has briefly characterized Hegel’s organismic philosophy 

of nature as anti-mechanicist, linked ‘to the concept of 

society as a living entity.’ (Cf. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind, J. B. Bail- 

lie, tr., 1967, George Lichtheim’s Introd., p. xxvi.) While we can agree 

with the first part of Lichtheim’s conception, the second must be 

further discussed. The matter is further complicated by Baillie’s 

translation of Hegel’s phrase, das geistige Tierreich, as ‘Self-contained 

individuals associated as a community of animals’ (ib., p. 417), which 

obscures Hegel’s meaning, moreover missing the point brought out 

by Marx’s comment (cf. Hegel, Phänomenologie, op cit., p. 285). 

392

Notes to Introduction, p. 85-86. 

Lichtheim’s notion that Hegel conceived society as a living entity 

must look for its root elsewhere. Hegel used both Organismus and 

Organisation in regard to social institutions in the Philosophie des Rechts, 

and adopted the notion of society in the sense of a highly organized 

system throughout his works, but not in the biological sense; here 

the doctrine of Hegel is to be regarded as organicist in general, but 

not as applied in particular to human society in the way, say, of 

Lilienfeld or Schäffle; moreover, Hegel’s usage, Organismus des 

Staats, Phil. d. Rechts, §§267, 269, has no trace of biologism. On 

Hegel’s doctrine of Organismus, cf. T. L. Haering, Hegel..., v. 2 

(1938) 1963, pp. 416 et seq., 496 et seq. Baillie by his literalness missed 

the main point, and the ironic overtone of Hegel, but he brought out 

one important lateral matter: the individualities separated from society, 

independent of and logically prior to the latter, are the presuppositions 

of Hobbes’ doctrine, and the butt of Hegel’s paradoxal 

formulation. The social doctrine of unbridled individualism in 

Hobbes is actually descriptive of the relations of civil society, as Hegel 

recognized it to be. Darwin then spiritualized the animal kingdom, or 

the kingdom of nature generally, in order that it be made to figure as 

civil society. 

158 John Morley, Life of Gladstone, v. 3, 1903, p. 52. Morley was in 

contact with Marx in the 1870s. 

159 Chronik, op. cit., p. 391. 

160 Marx Engels Archiv, v. 1, op. cit., pp. 316-317; cf. introd. by Rjazanov, 

pp. 309-314. Letter against the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski and 

N. K. Mikhailovsky. Vestnik Narodnoy Voli, May 1884. See: MEW 

19, pp. 107-112 and 558-559, where its publication is dated 1886. 

For the date 1884 see: P. W. Blackstock and B. F. Hoselitz, The 

Russian Menace to Europe. A Collection of Articles, Speeches and News 

Dispatches [by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels], 1952, p. 274. 

161 Ibid., pp. 341-342. 

162 Ibid., p. 320. 

163 Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 562. 

164 Marx Engels Archiv, v. 1, op. cit., p. 320 n. Marx, in the draft mentioned, 

alludes to the medieval village commune surviving in his 

native Trier down to his own day. This is made more precise in a 

letter to Engels, March 25, 1868 (MEW 32, pp. 5 if.) “ Right in my 

own neighborhood, on the Hunsrück, the old Germanic system 

survived up till the last few years. I now remember my father talking 

about it__ ” See also Marx and Engels, Foreword to 2nd Russian 

tr. (G. Plekhanov) of Communist Manifesto (MEW 19, esp. p. 296). 

Marx had set down an opposed theory of the modern village communes 

in the Introduction to the Grundrisse (op. cit., p. 26); The higher 

form of society is the key to the lower, the anatomy of man is the key 

to the anatomy of the ape. [This direction of the reconstruction is the 

opposite of the movement in Engels, Morgan and Cuvier.] Tribute 

393


and tithes can be understood if ground rent is grasped. But these 

must not be identified. “ Further, since bourgeois society is itself but 

an oppositive form of development, therefore relations of earlier 

forms will be encountered in it often but wholly stunted, or indeed 

travestied. For example, communal property.” The Russian mir and 

the Indian community of that time are at issue here. (Cf. Korsch, 

op. cit., p. 52. On the Indian community see notes 58, 137.) 

165 H. M. Hyndman, The Record of an Adventurous Life, New York, 19 11, 

p. 256. Marx broke off contact with Hyndman (Chronik, p. 385, letter 

to F. Sorge, Dec. 15, 1881) because of a plagiarism by Hyndman. 

166 Ibid., pp. 253-254. 

167 Chronik, op. cit., p. 381: “ [1880-1881.] ca. Dezember - ca. März 1881. 

Marx treibt im Anschluss an die gründliche Durcharbeitung von 

Morgan “Ancient Society” (98 Seiten Excerpte) umfangreiche urge- 

schichtliche Studien und liest und exzerpiert u. a. Maine “Lectures on 

the early history of institutions,” Phear “ The Aryan Village in India 

and Ceylon,” Sohm “Fränkisches Recht und römisches Recht,” 

Dawkins, “ Early man in Britain...” Exzerpte 1880.” The listing does 

not correspond to the order in the notebooks (see above, n. 15). The 

dating should be modified (see Addendum I above). The Dawkins 

entry is an unresolved problem and should be set apart. M. Rubel 

Bibliographie des Oeuvres de Karl Marx, 1956, p. 196, has proposed the 

same dates as those in the Chronik, l.c. Ryazanov had written (Novye 

Dannye, l.c. - see notes 6 and 83), “He received Morgan [Ancient 

Society] in 1878. In 98 pp. of small writing (you should know that 

one page of his rapid hand always yields a minimum of 2.2 and more 

pages of print) a detailed excerption of Morgan was made.” Further, 

I.e.: “In view of the special significance of these materials I had 

photographs made, as an exception, of the Morgan excerpts and of 

two others - Lubbock and Maine. It is clear from these notebooks 

that Marx, in the second half of the 1870s was much occupied with 

the history of feudalism and landownership.” The attribution of 

Marx’s acquisition of the work by Morgan to the year 1878 has no 

bearing on the chronology of the notebooks; the scope of the works 

in question and Marx’s interest in them goes far beyond the history 

of feudalism and of landownership: these were no less than the entire 

prehistory and history of mankind, the problem of collectivism, the 

peasant community in Oriental and Western society, the division of 

society in social classes, and the formation of the State. They include 

the points raised by Ryazanov who was the first to call attention to the 

extent and the importance of the materials, and to whom we are 

deeply indebted. 

168 Arkhiv Marksa, op. cit., p. iv. This has been read as 1881-1882 by 

Lucas, op. cit., p. 154, but as this reading is erroneous, the (weak) 

support for the date there adduced (from “Karl Kautsky” , in Die 

Volkswirtschaftslehre, etc.) is irrelevant. 

394


169 The chronology of Marx’s work on the Morgan text, according to the 

editors of the Moscow edition of the Works of Marx and Engels is 

given as May 1881 to mid February 1882. (Sochineniia, 2nd ed., v. 19, 

p. 617.) At this time he was engaged in the ‘intensive study of Morgan’s 

“Ancient Society” .’ The editors of the Sochineniia add that he 

read, excerpted, and commented on Maine, Sohm, Tylor and others. 

The editors of MEW 19, p. 619, concur in this. 

The Sochineniia, ib., p. 619, have noted that c. August-September 1881, 

Marx studied the history, development and current condition of the 

colonial peoples, in particular the work ofMani [i.e. Money-see n. 15] 

on Java and Phear’s Aryan Village. (MEW, ib., p. 620.) 

The chronology of Marx’s study of Lubbock’s Origin of Civilisation 

is given in the Sochineniia, ib., p. 623-624, as October-November 1882. 

(MEW, ib., p. 624.) 

The contact between Marx and Hyndman is dated October 1880 to 

c. May 1881 (Sochineniia, ib., p. 614; MEW, ib., p. 616). The correspondence 

of Marx with Zasulich is dated from the end of February 

to the beginning of March 1881. (Sochineniia, ib., p. 616; MEW ib., 

p. 618.) The date of Marx’s work on Morgan is given as 1880-1881 in 

the Sochineniia, v. 21, p. 565, and in MEW v. 21, p. 5 5 2. It is given as 

1881-1882 in the Sochineniia, ib., p. 653 and MEW ib., p. 636. 

The editors of MEW have based themselves on the 2nd edition of the 

Sochineniia. The basis for neither of the proposed chronologies is 

given in these sources, nor is the seeming contradiction accounted for. 

In general, the dates given here are possible, but they contain, nevertheless, 

certain inherent difficulties. Thus, the second chronology 

proposed by the editors of the Sochineniia and MEW, 1881/1882, does 

not parse out fully the conjectural from the known. The references to 

Morgan in Marx’s drafts of letters to Zasulich and the references to 

Marx-Morgan in the Hyndman memoirs both antedate the period 

here proposed, which commences only in May 1881. 

The internal evidence of the notebooks likewise makes this chronology 

less probable, although it is not ruled out: In the notebook 

B 146, the Maine excerpts follow those from Phear’s work. But the 

Maine manuscript was being completed in the month of June (probably 

1881, less probably 1880, improbably 1882). The Phear manuscript 

must therefore have been completed before that time; according 

to the chronology advanced by the editors of the Sochineniia and MEW, 

the Phear manuscript would then have to have been completed in 

August or September of 1880, or 1879, thus forcing us to date the 

Morgan ms. of Marx, which predates the Phear ms., even earlier. 

This possibility has even greater intrinsic difficulties, as we have seen. 

What is to be made of the reference to Tylor in this context is another 

question, which falls outside that of the notebooks taken up in the 

present work, for, like the Dawkins, it does not appear in either of 

them. 

395


The editors of the Socbineniia and of the MEW (see above) have 

dated Engels’ discovery of Marx’s manuscript on Morgan from the 

first half of February 1884. While this is possible, it nevertheless 

leaves open the question of the basis on which Engels began his search 

for the book by Morgan at the beginning of January of that year. The 

implication of Engels’ reference to his search is that he had already 

come on Marx’s manuscript at the earlier time, and that therefore the 

time of the ‘discovery’ must be moved back. This is not a sure conclusion, 

but the alternative advanced by the editors of the Socbineniia 

and the MEW must account for this possibility, and not ignore it. 

(See above, note 147.) The editors of the Sochineniia and the MEW 

have implicidy separated the work by Marx on Morgan into two 

parts : the first contact with the Morgan work, and the later intensive 

study. This is indeed possible, and has been advanced by me on 

other grounds. They have further mentioned the concern by Marx 

with problems of Urgemeinschaft and Urgesellschaft, which is a 

welcome broadening of the issues (see above, section 6, Community, 

Collectivism and Individualism). 

The reference to Marx’s work on Lubbock in the Sochineniia and 

in the MEW does not raise a substantial issue of chronology. 

170 On dating these excerpts, see preceding note and n. 15 above. 

171 Cf. Chroniky op. cit. Meiners and de Brosses, p. 11 ; Meiners, p. 125. 

C. Meiners, Grundriss der Geschichte der Menschheit, 1785, has exercised 

some influence on the subsequent history of anthropology. Cf. R. H. 

Lowie, History of Ethnological Theory, 1937; W. E. Mühlmann, Geschichte 

der Anthropologie, 1948; A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, 

Culture etc., 1963. 

172 E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture (1871) 1958, v. 1, p. 36, and v. 2, p. 230. 

173 Grundrisse, op. cit., p. 579. 

174 Capital, op. cit., v. 1, ch. 1, sect. 4; v. 3, ch. 24 and ch. 48, sect. 3. 

175 De Brosses offered his work, Du culte des dieux fétiches, c’est-à-dire 

des objets terrestres et matériels, anim. ou inanimés, contenant le 

parallèle de l’ancienne religion de l’Egypte avec la religion actuelle 

de Nigritie, et l’examen philosophique et critique des causes auxquelles 

on a coutume d’attribuer le fétichisme, to the Académie des 

Inscriptions in 1757, which rejected it. It was published anonymously 

in 1760, Du culte des dieux fétiches, ou parallèle etc. He took up the 

subject in the Encyclopédie méthodique, Philosophie, v. 2, pp. 411-457. 

On the relation of de Brosses and Turgot see Frank Manuel, The 

prophets of Paris, 1965, pp. 32, 34; on the relation of de Brosses and 

Comte, see ib., pp. 277, 281, 282; Tylor, op cit., v. 2, p. 230; E. E. 

Evans-Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion, 1965, ch. 2. 

Stocking, Race, Culture and Evolution, p. 98, has taken Tylor to 

be de Brosses’ intellectual heir, but although Stocking’s erudition is 

impressive, his point in this regard is not convincing. Aside from the 

fact that there is no explicit acknowledgement of his debt, Tylor’s 

396

spirit of inquiry differs from that of the man of the eighteenth century; 

Tylor had no trace of degenerationism, with which he taxed de Brasses 

(I.e.). De Brosses most probably fostered the use of the terms 

fetish and fetishism in the nineteenth century; Marx probably took 

these, if not the meanings, directly from him. 

176 E. B. Tylor, Anthropology. 2 v. 1881. On the same three stages see 

also: J. G. Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, v. 1, 1919, Preface. 

177 See note 1. Adolph Bastian (P. W. A. Bastian), Der Mensch in der 

Geschichte. Zur Begründung einer psychologischen Weltanschauung. 1860. See 

R. H. Lowie, The History of Ethnological Theory, 1937, ch. 4, on 

Bastian’s anti-Darwinism and his literary style, pp. 31-32. 

178 Chronik, op cit., p. 378. Cf. Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, 1935, p. 5 54. 

Lankester attended Marx’s funeral. Lankester contributed to the 

theory of evolution by degeneration as well as by progress; to the 

theory of the division between the germ-plasm and the somatoplasm. 

On Lankester’s contributions cf. Darwin and Modern Science. A. C. 

Seward, ed. 1909. pp. 378, 427, 441, 468, etc. 

Emile Vandervelde developed the same theoretical view as Lankester 

as to degenerationism. Cf. T. K. Penniman, A Hundred Years of 

Anthropology. 1952, p. 143. 

179 Chronik, op. cit., p. 381. 

180 MEW 19, p. 425. See note 167 above. 

181 See note 17 above. 

182 Engels, Origin, op cit., quoted Bancroft on the Kaviats of Bering 

Strait, Kadiaks of Alaska, and Tinnehs (Dene), p. 3 1; on Indians of 

Lower California, p. 44; on Alaska, and Tahus of North Mexico, p. 

46; on Haidahs and Nootkas, p. 145 (MEW 21, pp. 42, 54, 56, 155 

respectively). German: Kaviat; English translation: Kadiak (I.e.). 

Bancroft, New York ed., op. cit., v. 1, pp. 73, 138: Kaviaks (or 

Kaveaks); Malemutes and Kaveaks are distinct from Eskimos (ib. 

p. 138). Bancroft mentions neither Kaviats nor (in this connection) 

Kadiaks of Bering Strait. 

N O T E S T O P A R T I 

Notes to Introduction, pp. 89-90. Notes to Morgan, p. 97. 

1 Title and title page: 

Ancient Society 

or 

Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from 

Savagery through Barbarism to 

Civilization 

by 

Lewis H. Morgan, LL.D. etc. 

New York. Henry Holt 

1877 

397

Notes to Morgan, pp. 97-113. 

2 Table of Contents: 

Part I 

Growth of Intelligence through Inventions and Discoveries 

Chapter I. 

Ethnical Periods. 

Marx began his no te-taking, op. cit., p. 9 : 

I. Lower Status of Savagery. Infancy of human race, etc. 

3 Ms.: coasts. 

4 Ms. : village. 

5 Ms.: Goquet. Morgan, op. cit., p. 13: Goquet. Morgan cited Sir 

Edward Burnett Tylor, Researches into the Early History of Mankind and 

the Development of Civilisation, 1865, p. 273. Antoine Yves Goguet, 

De rOrigine des Loix, des Arts, et des Sciences, et de leurs Progrès ches les 

anciens peuples. 3 v., 1758. Cited by Tylor, l.c. 

6 Ms. : with. 

7 u. hydraulic cements] crossed out. 

8 Ms.: and. 

9 Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, book V, 951 (Morgan, op. cit., p. 20). 

10 Ms.: court. 

11 Ms.: im. 

12 Ms. : 43 5. 

13 Ms.: von. Morgan, op. cit., p. 26: drawn to regions. 

14 qualities] crossed out. 

16 Ms. : others. 

16 Morgan, op. cit., p. 399: because woman has gained immensely in 

social position. 

17 Ms.: Justinines[?] 

18 Morgan, op. cit., p. 406 : tide VI. 

19 Morgan, l.c. : cognationem. 

20 meist] crossed out. 

21 Ms. : wifes. 

22 Ms.: chocked. 

23 In d. Punaluan] crossed out. 

24 “ Wives are shared by groups of ten to twelve men, and mostly between 

brothers, and fathers and sons.” Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 

book V, ch. 2. 

25 “ Each man marries only one woman, but they share all women in 

common.” Herodotus, History, book I, ch. 216. 

26 “ They have wives in common, and in this way are brothers to each 

other, and as members of the same household they have neither envy 

nor hate for each other.” 

27 Ms. : Terselbe. 

28 Ms. : Polyagny. 

29 all] crossed out. 

30 Ms. : family. 

31 Ms.: Hoc-no’-sch. 

398

Notes to Morgan, pp. 1 13-120. 

32 Ms.: sons. 

33 Morgan, op. cit., p. 448: “ [The maternal uncle’s] children are my 

cousins, the children of my male cousins are my sons and daughters, 

of my female cousins are my nephews and nieces; but with myself a 

female these last relationships are reversed, the children of all alike 

are my grandchildren.” From the table, op. cit., p. 458, the relations 

of Seneca in question are the following: 

male speaking: mother’s brother’s son’s son = son 

female „ = nephew 

male daughter = daughter 

female „ „ = niece 

male daughter’s son = nephew 

female „ = son 

male daughter = niece 

female „ : „ „ „ „ = daughter. 

The children of the children of these cousins are grandson and granddaughter 

to the Seneca speaking, regardless of whether male or female. 

Marx skipped one generation in the series. Morgan’s text, p. 448 is 

elliptical, the referent of ‘all alike’ being unclear. 

34 family] crossed out. 

35 Reformation] crossed out. 

36 M s.: Arthur. Morgan, op. cit., p. 464: Rev. A. Wright. Cf. B. J. Stern, 

American Anthropologist, v. 35, 1933, p. 138; W. N. Fenton, Ethnology, 

v. 4, 1965, p. 251 (see Introduction, this volume, note 11). 

37 other] repeated. 

38 they] crossed out. 

39 Morgan: Fourthly (op. cit., p. 467). Third point omitted by Morgan, 

sequence correct in Marx. 

40 M s.: have been. 

41 Ms.: form. Morgan, op. cit., p. 476: family. 

42 (modern)] crossed out. 

43 “Famuli originally comes from the Oscian, according to wliich the 

slave is called Famul, whence the term for family.” S. Pompeius 

Festus, De Significatione Verborum. 

44 “He gave his family, that is, his patrimony, as property to his friend.” 

45 Romans] crossed out. 

46 fängt] crossed out. 

47 Ms.: quod. 

48 “ Likewise in our powers are our children whom we procreate in civil 

marriage, which is a right proper to Roman citizens. Hardly any 

other men have power over their sons such as we have.” Jus vitae 

necisque - legal right of life and death. (Morgan, op. cit., p. 479 n.) 

49 “They are content with a single wife.” 

50 “Fenced in with chastity.” 

51 Ms.: Sud. 

52 M s.: in ursprüglich. 

399


53 Ms.: tentlive. 

64 die Venus etc] crossed out, including square bracket ending interpolation. 

65 Coemptio, a marriage consisting in a mutual mock sale of the parties, 

by which the wife was freed from the tutelage of her family. Confarreatio, 

an ancient solemn Roman marriage. Usus, custom. (Lewis and 

Short, Latin Diet.). 

56 M s.: haeterism. 

57 Ms.: pune. Morgan, op. cit., p. 489, pune. 

58 Ms.: junger. 

69 “Likewise, the fratres patrueles, sorores patrueles, i.e., those who are 

the children of two brothers; likewise, consobrini consobrinae, i.e., 

those born of two sisters (quasi cousins); likewise, amitini amitinae, 

i.e., those who are the children of [separate marriages of] brother and 

siter; but ordinary usage calls all of them by the common appellation 

of consobrinus.” 

60 system] crossed out. 

61 M s.: its point. 

62 constitution] crossed out. 

63 M s.: pulanuan. 

64 Ms.: fond. 

66 Ms.: wifes. 

66 Ms.: Colombian. 

67 influence] crossed out. 

68 Ms.: chord. 

69 Ms.: decendent. 

70 Ms.: civilastiv. 

71 Ms.: denfence. 

72 Ms.: to. 

73 Ms.: bear. 

74 Ms.: custom. 

75 Morgan, op. cit., p. 544, adds goat. 

76 Ms.: hands. 

77 Ms.: Magnaten. 

78 Ms.: Latine. 

79 Plutarch, Solon, ch. XV. B. Perrin, ed. Loeb Lib., 1914: The “ dis- 

burdenment” was a removal of all debt. In his poems Solon boasts 

that from the mortgaged lands 

“ He took away the record stones that everywhere were planted. 

Before the earth was in bondage, now she is free.” 

80 Morgan, op. cit., p. 5 52: V, 90. 

81 Iliad VII, 472-475: 

From that time the long-haired Achaians bought wine; 

Some for bronze, some for bright iron, 

Some for ox-hides, some for whole oxen 

Some for slaves. 

400


82 Should read: Iliad X IX , 247 (S. A. Zhebelev, Arkhiv, op. cit., v. 9, 

p. 51); Morgan, op. cit., p. 552. 

83 Ms.: Numbers, X X X V I, IV. Morgan, op. cit., p. 556. 

84 M s.: Mauses. 

85 Ms.: II. 

86 Ms.: to. 

87 Verbietet Ehe in bestimmten degrees of consanguinity u. affinity] 

crossed out. 

88 “ He was rightly esteemed also for his law concerning wills. Before 

his time, no will could be made, but the entire estate of the deceased 

must remain in his family. Whereas he, by permitting a man who had 

no children to give his property to whom he wished, ranked friendship 

above kinship, and favour above necessity, and made a man’s 

possessions his own property.” 

89 M s.: hereditate lege. “ The inheritance of intestates by the law of the 

X II Tables belongs first to those held in the potestas of the deceased 

at the time of his death.” Gaius, Institutes. 

90 “If there are no sui heredes then by the same law of the X II Tables 

the inheritance passes to the agnates.” 

91 “If there are no agnates then by that law of the X II Tables the gentiles 

succeed to the inheritance.” 

92 Morgan, op. cit., p. 47: wives. 

93 M s.: maritime. 

94 Diese organisation is accompanied] crossed out. 

95 class] crossed out. 

96 jeder d.] crossed out. 

97 M s.: females. 

98 Ms.: kind. 

99 Ms.: earthern. 

100 Ms.: threated. 

101 of] repeated. 

102 Ms.: right. 

103 Ms.: rights. 

104 Ms.: Ashur. Morgan, op. cit., p. 83: Ashur. See n. 36 above and 

Introduction, n. 11. 

105 division] repeated. 

106 founded] crossed out. 

107 Ms.: phratror. 

108 “Is there a phratry that will take him to its ritual of purification?” 

109 Ms.: organsition. 

110 “These words may be translated into Greek: phyle and trittys as tribe, 

phratry and lokhos as curia.” Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman 

Antiquities, book II, ch. 7. 

111 Ms.: Eeel. 

112 Ms.: ind. 

113 Wolf] crossed out. Morgan, op. cit., p. 93: Wolf gens. However, 

401


Morgan was unclear, for there is in his account no Wolf gens in the 

first phratry of the Tuscaroras. Thus, first phratry: 

Gentes: of Senecas of Cayugas of Tuscaroras 

1. Bear. 1. Bear. 1. Bear. 

2. Wolf. 2. Wolf. 2. Beaver. 

3. Beaver. 3. Turtle. 3. Great Turtle. 

4. Turtle. 4. Snipe. 4. Eel. 

(Morgan, p. 90) 5. Eel. (Morgan, p. 93) 

(Morgan, p. 91) 

Morgan stated (p. 91) that three of the gentes of the first Tuscarora 

phratry ‘are the same with three in the first phratry of the Senecas and 

Cayugas,’ but they are not the same three. Moreover, he stated that 

the Wolf gens is double (p. 93), but it is not in the first phratry of the 

Tuscaroras that it is double; Marx concluded that Morgan must have 

meant Turtle in this case. The Turtle gens is double (Great and Little) 

between the two phratries; the Wolf gens is double (Grey and Yellow) 

within the second only. 

114 M s.: 400. 

115 Ms.: forwards. 

116 ?[ar-]. Morgan, op. cit., p. 94: are hazarded. 

117 Ms.: Eririctg] Morgan, op. cit., p. 96: institution. 

118 Ms.: Medecine. 

119 “ Divide your men by tribes and phratries, Agamemnon, phratry 

will help phratry, tribe will help tribe.” 

120 Ms.: 8. 

121 M s.: Bevolkgunszahl. 

122 faktische League] crossed out. 

123 Confederacy] crossed out. 

124 M s.: Mississippe. 

125 V-? One word blotted. 

126 Ms.: lace. 

127 Ms.: Onondaiga. 

128 End of word blotted out. 

129 Morgan, op. cit., p. 128: New Mexico. 

130 Morgan, I.e., Cusik. 

131 Ms.: organsied. 

132 Morgan, op. cit., p. 136: own brother. 

133 Such] crossed out. [he was able] crossed out. [as] retained in ms. 

Morgan, op. cit., p. 142: “ One of the delegates then submitted their 

proposition in form, and sustained it by such arguments as he was 

able to make.” 

134 M s.: across. 

135 Ms.: skain. 

136 “I come to proclaim what has been decided and decreed by the councillors 

of the people of the city of Cadmeus.” See n. 191. 

137 M s.: games. 

402


38 M s.: nonhorticular. 

39 Ms.: extinctirt. 

40 Fourth column numbered, but names omitted. Cf. Morgan, op. cit., 

p. 159. 

41 Ms.: Dear. 

42 Ms.: family] Morgan, op. cit., p. 162, citing J. Carver, Travels in 

North America, 1796, p. 166: nation. 

43 Ms.: Upsorakas. 

44 M s.: Blackfood] ? Doubtful reading. 

45 Ms.: Youchees. 

46 Ms.: jedes. 

47 M s.: live. 

48 Ms.: 750. 

49 Ms.: südlich von. Morgan, op. cit., p. 169: below (i.e. downstream). 

50 deren Namen] crossed out. 

51 Ms.: to 

52 Ms.: Siskatchevun. 

53 M s.: Wiskonsin, Kaskascias. 

54 Ms.: 1867. Cf. Morgan, op. cit., p. 173. 

55 M s.: special. Cf. Morgan, l.c. 

56 M s.: name when to be given. 

57 Ms.: tribe. Cf. Morgan, ib., p. 177. 

58 Doubtful reading, [-ie] ? 

59 Interlinear word crossed out: Reference is to inequality of gentes. 

60 Marx had reference in a number of places to the concept of caste. Cf. 

Letter to P. V. Annenkov of December 28, 1846, MEW 27, p. 454. 

(Cf. also Marx, Poverty of Philosophy, 1963, Appendix, p. 183.) The 

issue of caste is raised here in connection with his critique of Proudhon’s 

notion of economic evolutions. In Kapital, v. 1, 4th ed., 1912, 

ch. 12, section 2, p. 304 ( = ch. 14, sect. 2 of Eng. tr.), Marx wrote in 

reference to “ ... dem Trieb früherer Gesellschaften, die Gewerbe 

erblich zu machen, sie in Kasten zu versteinern oder in Zünfte zu 

verknöchern, falls bestimmte historische Bedingungen dem Kastenwesen 

widersprechende Variabilität des Individuums erzeugen. 

Kasten und Zünfte entspringen aus demselben Naturgesetz, welches 

die Sonderung von Pflanzen und Thieren in Arten und Unterarten 

regelt, nur dass auf einem gewissen Entwicklungsgrad die Erblichkeit 

der Kasten oder die Ausschliesslichkeit der Zünfte als gesellschaftliches 

Gesetz dekretirt wird.” See also in the same chapter, sect. 5, ib., 

p. 332, where the division of labor in Plato’s Republic is considered 

as the idealization of the Egyptian caste organization. 

In Kapital, as in the comment on the Morgan excerpt, Marx regarded 

caste as an archaic institution, petrified in either case. In the 

letter to Annenkov and in Kapital, caste is related directly to the 

division of labor in society, whereas in the Morgan comment it is 

given another context, having reference to its coming into being: 

403


here the difference in rank between consanguines comes into conflict 

with the gentile principle, and can be petrified as its opposite, caste. 

There is an even greater significance to Marx’s note on caste in the 

Morgan excerpts : In Kapital Marx subsumed castes and guilds under 

the order of nature in the early level of development; they arise ‘out 

of the same natural law that regulates the separation of plants and 

animals into species and subspecies.’ He held that only when a 

certain grade of development has been attained is the hereditary 

membership in a caste or the exclusiveness of a guild decreed as a 

social law. The separation of the early caste organization from the 

later, comprising the former within the order of nature, and the latter 

within the domain of action of social legislation, stands opposed to 

Marx’s conception of caste in the Morgan commentary. In the latter 

he comprised the entire phenomenon of caste within the social order, 

leaving open the question of whether its establishment is unconsciously 

unfolded or consciously legislated. The likening of the early 

stages of development of caste to phenomena of the order of nature 

is but an analogy ; it is less compatible with his general conceptions in 

the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts, the Holy Family, the German 

Ideology, and others of his writings in which the relations of man and 

nature were taken up, than is the formulation in the Morgan notebook. 

(See above, Introduction, section 1, on Morgan.) 

161 Morgan, op. cit., p. 180: Kolushes affiliate linguistically with the 

Athapascans, though not closely. 

162 Ms. : Bonnacks. 

163 Ms. : punaluan. 

164 Morgan: legend of their origin which he obtained at one of their 

villages, op. cit., p. 183. 

165 Morgan, p. 184: Great Mother. 

166 Ms. : die 

167 Ms.: deers. 

168 Ms. : it remains it. 

169 Ms.: Tepanicans. 

170 Ms. : pedegral. 

171 Ms.: bezetzt. 

172 Ms. : forages. 

173 Ms.: 3. Cf. Morgan, op. cit., p. 200. 

174 Ms. : 4 four. 

176 Ms. : Accosta. 

178 Montezuma had civil as well as military functions] crossed out. 

177 folgte] crossed out. 

178 Ms.: itst. 

179 Ms. : Pamphili. 

180 Ms.: Siccoyn, Sicyon. 

181 Morgan, op. cit., p. 227, citing G. Grote, History of Greece', factitious. 

182 “And yet who would have permitted persons having no connection 

404


with the ancestors to be interred in the burial place of the gens?” 

Demosthenes, Eubulides, 1307. 

183 M s.: hinderance. 

184 gens erst nach Stiftung] crossed out. 

185 M s.: Groote. 

186 M s.: persecuting. 

187 Ms.: accredites. 

188 Morgan, op. cit., p. 239, quoting Grote, op. cit.: process. 

189 Tacitus, Germania, 7: “Not a fortuitous agglomeration but family 

and kin make up the mounted squadron or the wedge of infantry.” 

See Introduction, note 114. 

190 Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, bk. II, ch. 12. “ This was also a Greek 

institution. At any rate the Greek Kings (sc. basileus), both those 

who inherited the lands of their ancestors and those who were elected 

by the people themselves to be their rulers, had a council composed of 

the best men, as both Homer and the most ancient poets testify.” 

191 “ I proclaim what has been decided and decreed by the council of the 

people of the city of Cadmeus: Eteocles, for his devotion to the land, 

shall be honored with a pious funeral.” (Aeschylus, Seven against 

Thebes, v. 1005-1008. See this section, note 136. 

192 “ Chorus: What has the people by show of hands decided?” 

“ Danaos: Argos has decided by a unanimous vote__ 

The whole people with hands raised has shaken the ether in affirming 

these words,” etc. Aeschylus, Suppliant Maidens, 604-608. 

193 G. F. Schoemann, Griechische Altertümer, v. I, 1855. 

194 Schoemann: nirgends. 

19 5 “ By no means will all the Achaians rule here. The rule of many is 

not desired. Let us have one koinanos, one basileus, to whom the 

god has given the sceptre, and the divine sanctions in order that he 

may command us.” Cf. Morgan, op. cit., p. 255. 

196 M s.: Eustasius. 

197 “But as the power of Hellas grew, and the acquisition of wealth became 

more an object, the revenues of the states increasing, tyrannies 

were by their means established almost everywhere, - the old form of 

government being hereditary monarchy with definite prerogatives, - 

and Hellas began to fit out fleets and apply herself more closely to the 

sea.” Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, R. Crawley tr., 1874. 

198 “ These, then, are the four kinds of royalty. First the monarchy of 

the heroic ages; this was exercised over voluntary subjects, but limited 

to certain functions; the king was a general and a judge, and had the 

control of religion. The second is that of the barbarians, which is an 

hereditary despotic government in accordance with law. A third is 

the power of the so-called Aesymnete or Dictator; this is an elective 

tyranny. The fourth is the Lacedaemonian, which is in fact a generalship, 

hereditary and perpetual.” Aristotle, Politics. Ill, XIV. 1285 b. 

W. D. Ross tr., 1942. 

405


199 bilden] crossed out. 

200 principle] crossed out. 

201 the sons of the deceased chief(s)] repeated. 

202 5oohert Scheffler] Prussian Scheffel = 55 liters or i 1,^ bushels (c.). 

George Grote, History of Greece, v. Ill, 1847, p. 155: The medimnus 

was equivalent to one drachma in money. The metrete was equivalent 

to 40 liters or 9 gallons. The medimnus was also equal to (c.) 12 gal. 

(capacity). (Century Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary.) H. Frisk, 

Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, ΐ97°> s· ν · medimnos, about 

52V2 liters. Engels, Ursprung op. cit., MEW 21, p. 113, Medimnus = 

ca. 41 L. Eng. tr., op. cit., p. 105 = 1.16 bushels. 

203 Ms.: komnten. 

204 Ms.: discasts. 

205 waren] repeated. 

206 Schoemann, ib., p. 353: “ Sodann schaffte [Kleisthenes] die bisherige 

Eintheilung des Volkes in vier Phylen zwar nicht eigentlich ab, nahm 

ihr aber ihre frühere Bedeutung, indem er eine neue auf ganz ändern 

Grundlagen basirte Eintheilung in zehn Volksabtheilungen einführte, 

die ebenfalls Phylen hiessen, und deren jede wieder in eine Anzahl 

kleinerer Verwaltungsbezirke zerfiel, die mit einem allerdings schon 

ältern, aber in diesem Sinne neuen Namen Demen genannt wurden. 

Während aber diese Demen lediglich locale Verbände waren, in 

denen ohne Rücksicht auf Abstammung und sociale Stellung alle 

zusammenwohnenden zusammengefasst wurden, wurde in den 

neuen Phylen ein örtlicher Zusammenhang nur insoweit gewahrt, als 

das Land in dreissig Trittyes zulegt ward, zehn um die Stadt, zehn im 

Küstengebiet, zehn im Binnenland, und diese unter die zehn Phylen 

in der Weise verloost wurden, dass jede Phyle in jedem Landestheil 

eine Trittys erhielt.” The opposition of Schoemann to Morgan is 

not complete. Ib., pp. 387-388: “... theilte er das gesammte Land in 

eine nicht genau bekannte Anzahl von weit über hundert Verwaltungsbezirken, 

[Schoemann’s note: Die frühere Annahme, dass 

Kleisthenes nur hundert Demen geschaffen, ist nicht mehr haltbar— ] 

von denen wieder eine Anzahl zu einem grösseren Ganzen verbunden 

wurde. Diese letzteren nannte er Phylen, mit einem freilich für eine 

Oertlichkeit, nicht auf Abstammung basirte Eintheilung nicht eigentlich 

passenden, aber doch auch anderswo ähnlich gebrauchten Namen; 

die kleineren Bezirke hiessen δήμος, und die einzelnen Demen wurden 

theils nach den kleinen Städten und Flecken, theils nach ausgezeichneten 

Geschlechtern benannt, deren Güter in ihnen belegen waren.” 

For higher estimate of the number of Demes established by the 

reforms of Kleisthenes, see Schoemann, l.c. Cf. Morgan, op. cit., 

p. 279. 

207 Ms.: Chlistenes. 

208 Schoemann, ib., p. 327. 

209 Ms.: Chalcotondiden. 

406


210 “ The Eupatrids settling in the city itself.” 

211 Ms.: Khlistenes. 

212 “ The people from the beginning were removed from all affairs.” 

213 Khleistenes. 

214 [Aristides] introduced a decree that the administration of the city 

be the privilege of all the classes, and that the archons be chosen from 

among all Athenians.” 

215 doubtful reading.] This passage is seen from the viewpoint of the 

Greeks. 

216 gens] crossed out. M s.: family. Cf. Morgan, op. cit., p. 289. 

217 “As to who these gentiles are, we have set this forth in the first (book 

of this) commentary. And as we said there, the entire jus gentilicium 

has fallen into disuse, still it might be useful at this point to treat this 

matter afresh.” 

218 Cicero, Topica, VI, 29. “ Gentiles are those who have the same name. 

That is not enough. Who have come from free ancestors. That is 

still not enough. Whose ancestors have not been slaves. To this 

something is to be added. Who have not lost their civic rights.a 

That is perhaps enough. Scaevola the pontiff had nothing to add to 

this definition.” 

a capital diminution (Morgan, op. cit., p. 290). 

219 Festus, De Significatione Verborum, s.v. gentilis. “ Gentile is applied 

to those of the same origin, having the same name.” 

220 “As among men there are those who are agnates as well as gentiles so 

it is among words. For as from Aemilius originated the Aemiliani, 

and the gentiles, so from the name Aemilius the gens of nouns is declined. 

For from that name which was set forth in the nominative 

case as Aemilius came Aemilii, Aemilium, Aemilios, Aemiliorum, and 

all the remaining words which are related.” 

221 “What difference is there in the matter if a patrician marries a plebeian 

or a plebeian a patrician? The children still follow the father.” 

222 Suetonius, Life of Tiberius, I : “ The patrician gens Claudia ... received 

a portion of the state lands across the Anio as a burial place for its 

clients, and below the Capitol as a burial place of its own.” 

223 Velleius Paterculus, History of Rome, II, 119: “The half-burned 

(Ms.: semiustrum) corpse of Varus was mutilated by the savage enemy; 

his head was chopped off and carried to Maroboduus, and from 

him was sent to Caesar, yet it was honored with a burial in the sepulchre 

of the gens.” 

224 Cicero, “ So sacred are the graves that it is sinful to inter in them 

those not of the gens and its rites; so it was according to our ancestors. 

Aulus Torquatus so decided in regard to the Popilian gens.” 

225 Trebatius in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, VII, 12: “A sacellum is a 

small place with an altar, dedicated to a god.” 

Festus. “ Sacella is a roofless place, dedicated to a god.” (s.v.) 

226 Ms.: performans. 

407


227 “ (It is said) that the two acres which Romulus first distributed to each 

one that they be handed on to the heirs are called the hereditary allotments.” 

228 Th. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, 6th ed., 1874. v. 1, p. 35: “ Die 

römische Mark zerfiel in ältester Zeit in eine Anzahl Geschlechterbezirke, 

welche späterhin benutzt wurden um daraus die ältesten 

‘Landquartiere’ (tribus rusticae) zu bilden. Von dem claudischen 

Quartier ist es überliefert, dass es aus der Ansiedlung der claudischen 

Geschlechtsgenossen am Anio erwuchs__ Diese sind nicht, wie die 

der später hinzugefügten Districte, von Oerdichkeiten endehnt, 

sondern ohne Ausnahme von Geschlechternamen gebildet; und es 

sind die Geschlechter, die den Quartieren der ursrpünglichen römischen 

Mark die Namen gaben, so weit sie nicht gänzlich verschollen 

sind__ ” (List of names, Camilii, etc. to Voturii follows. Morgan, 

op. cit., p. 299: Veturii, Marx, ms.: Venturii.) 

229 Mommsen, ib., p. 36: “Wie zu dem Haus ein Acker, so gehört zu dem 

Geschlechtshaus oder Dorf eine Geschlechtsmark, die aber, wie 

später zu zeigen sein wird, bis in verhältnismässig späte Zeit noch 

gleichsam als Hausmark, das heisst nach dem System der Feldgemeinschaft 

bestellt wird. Ob die Geschlechtshäuser in Latium selbst sich 

zu Geschlechtsdörfern entwickelt haben oder ob die Latiner schon als 

Geschlechtsgenossenschaften in Latium eingewandert sind, ist eine 

Frage__ Von Haus aus aber galten diese Geschlechtsgenossenschaften 

nicht als selbständige Einheiten, sondern als die integriren- 

den Theile einer politischen Gemeinde (civitas, populus), welche zunächst 

auftritt als ein zu gegenseitiger Rechtsfolge und Rechtshülfe 

und zu Gemeinschaftlichkeit in Abwehr und Angriff verpflichteter 

Inbegriff einer Anzahl stamm-, sprach- und sittengleicher Geschlechtsdörfer.” 

Mommsen’s term is Geschlechtshaus, read by Morgan from Mommsen’s 

Eng. tr. as ‘clan-household’ ; Mommsen’s Geschlechtsmark is 

rendered as ‘clan-lands’ ; Geschlechtsgenossenschaften is rendered as 

‘clanships’. Morgan, I.e., civitas populi. Mommsen: civitas, populus. 

Mommsen, ‘gleichsam als Hausmark’ is translated as ‘analogy of 

houselands’, which is not acceptable. Mommsen’s phrase, ‘von Haus 

aus’, which is applied with respect to the integrating parts of a political 

community is an obscurantism: these integrating parts did not take 

part to begin with in a political community, nor did the political 

community zunächst (to begin with) come forth as the Inbegriff of 

the Geschlechtsdörfer. Mommsen made free with pseudo-temporal 

conceptions, as von Haus aus, zunächst. His thought was unclear; 

his developmental conception, however, is borne out in part in the 

form, integrirend - in the course or process of integration. The 

politische Gemeinde is an anachronism or an oxymoron. Mommsen 

wrote, ib., p. 38, “Alle diese Gaue waren in ältester Zeit politisch 

souverain und wurden von seinem Fürsten unter Mitwerkung des 

408


Rathes der Alten und der Versammlung der Wehrmänner regiert.” 

The political sovereignty and the office of prince cannot have been 

features of government in ältester Zeit; a more clearly marked out 

sequence of relative chronology was needed, but Mommsen did not 

think the matter through, persuading himself that his phrases met 

the evidence adequately, and that the evidence was adequate for the 

conclusion reached, thus solving the problem of the early political 

development of Rome. M s.: aggression and defence. 

230 Ms.: parallelism. f 

231 “ When Appius Claudius was taken to prison, Gaius Claudius, the 

enemy (of Applius Claudius) and all the Claudian gens put on mourning 

clothes.” 

232 “And to share with their patrons ... the costs incurred in their posts 

and dignities in the same way as though they were of the same gens.” 

233 The source for this account is Herodotus, History, V, 68. Cf. Morgan, 

op. cit., p. 303, where it is traced back to Grote’s History. 

234 M s.: Peregrinae conditionis homine relati usurpare Romana nomina, 

dundax et gentilicia. “ He forbade foreigners to assume Roman names, 

at least names of gentes.” - Suetonius, Life of Claudius. 

235 “Three hundred and six perished, it is commonly said; one just under 

the age of puberty survived, who was the stem of the Fabian gens and 

became the greatest future support in all internal affairs and wars of 

the Romans.” - Loeb Library, B. O. Foster, ed. Ms.: unum probe 

pubescem etc., gente Fabiae etc. 

236 Ms.: Roman. 

237 “ And thus he divided the people into thirty curiae, giving their names 

(of the Sabine women) to each.” 

238 “Phratra and lokhos (military unit) curia.” “These curiae were divided 

into decades, each under its own head, who was called decurion in 

their language.” 

239 “And each tribe had ten phratries, which were named eponymously 

after those (Sabine) women.” Plutarch, Life of Romulus, ch. 20. 

240 If Romulus is not an individual but a generalization of a kind of 

leadership in the late proto-history of Rome, and the name given to 

that phenomenon as a personalization, then the legislation in question 

should be understood differently, since the legislator’s particular 

existence is denied. 

241 Ms.: ’ίσους. 

242 “ F r o m the neighboring places a crowd of people of all kinds came for 

refuge, without distinguishing freemen from slaves, in quest for 

novelty, these were the first who came because of the (city’s) greatness.” 

243 “ He created 100 senators either because that number was sufficient or 

because there were 100 who could be made fathers; the title of Pater 

was applied to them and that of patrician to their progeny.” 

409


244 “ Leaders who out of love are called patres.” Cicero, De Republica, 

II, 8. 

245 “ He took care to assure his reign while expanding the republic by 

raising up 100 more patres who were known as those of the minor 

gentes, a faction inseparable from the king (Tarquinius Priscus), 

whose benefaction had brought them into the curia.” 

246 “Having had his royal power legitimated, (Tarquinius) firstly doubled 

the number of patres, calling the earlier patres those of the major 

gentes, whose judgment was asked first... then that of the patres of 

the minor gentes.” 

247 fast so numerous] repeated. 

248 Ms.: schreibt. 

249 “When the Senate of Romulus, which was composed of the best men, 

favored thus by the king, who wished that they be called patres and 

their children patricians etc.” 

25° “They are called patres out of respect, and their children patricians.” 

251 “These hundred men were chosen and called patres, having the form 

of a public council. This is the origin of the name Patrician.” 

252 Ms.: Fabrician. 

253 “ The plebes jointly referred the matter to the consuls.” 

254 Ms.: Solon. Morgan, ib., p. 341: “Imitating Solon, with whose plan 

of government he was doubtless familiar, Servius divided the people 

into five classes__ ” 

255 A s, a Roman monetary unit at the time of Servius Tullius equal to a 

pound of copper. “As a copper coin, the as was, acc. to the ancient 

custom of weighing money, originally a pound (asses librales or aes 

grave) ... and was uncoined (aes rude) until Servius Tullius stamped 

it with the figures of animals (hence pecunia from pecus)__ ” Lewis 

and Short, op. cit., s.v. But the as was originally an aes grave or rude, 

that is, a bronze plaque, rectangular in form, uncoined until Servius 

Tullius as above. (Ernout et Meillet, op. cit., s.v.). Pecunia was the 

exclusive property (in cattle) of the master of the household at the 

time of the Law of the 12 Tables, as opposed to familia, the common 

property of the free house-community, and to peculium, the exclusive 

property of the slaves (Walde-Hofmann, op. cit., s.v.). The system of 

Walde and Hofmann is not specified as to time and is generally too 

restricted, for peculium is the exclusive right to property of anyone 

under the potestas or dominium of the master, whether a son, a slave, 

etc. The right of ownership of a peculium was in certain cases recognized 

in accord with the master or paterfamilias, and in some cases 

without reference to him. 

These meanings are relevant both to the excerpts of Marx from 

Morgan and from Maine. The Introduction to this volume, section 6, 

Community, Collectivism and Individualism sets forth the system in 

general. On Maine, see his Lectures, op. cit., pp. 147-149, 171-172: 

pecunia, cattle, etc. See below, Marx, Maine excerpts, pp. 167-168. 

410


256 On other differences between Dionysius and Livy (Livy I, 43) see 

Morgan, ib., p. 341. 

257 “He indeed instituted the Census, a matter of such good fortune for 

the future imperium; out of this the costs of war and peace were set 

not by individual men... [as formerly] but according to their wealth.” 

Pecunia\ See note 255. 

258 “Phyle according to descent, phyle according to residence.” 

259 Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, 6th ed., 1874, v. 1, p. 91: “Jeder dieser 

vier Aushebungsdistricte hatte den vierten Theil wie der ganzen 

Mannschaft, so jeder einzelnen militärischen Abtheilung zu stellen, 

so dass jede Legion und jede Centurie gleich viel Conscribirte aus 

jedem Bezirk zählte__ ” Morgan, p. 347: “equal proportion of 

conscripts from each region.” The imprecise English translation 

found in Morgan is here corrected by Marx. 

260 Doubtful reading. Ms.: bei d]? it they]? 

261 Ms.: excluse. 

262 Herodotus, History, I, 173: “ They have, however, one singular 

custom in which they differ from every other nation in the world. 

They take the mother’s and not the father’s name. Ask a Lycian etc.” 

Second sentence omitted by Morgan, ib., p. 357. 

263 Ms.: descend. 

264 Ms.: Schwesterssohn. 

265 Ms.: officed. 

266 “ My father married his [half] sister, of the same father but not the 

same mother.” 

267 Ms.: enderd. 

268 “They celebrate in their ancient songs, which are the sole memorial 

and annals they have, the god Tuisto, who came from the Earth, and 

his son Mannus from whom they trace their descent. They ascribe 3 

sons to Mannus, after whom are called the Ingaevones, who live 

beside the Ocean, the Herminones who live inland and the Istaevones 

who live elsewhere. Some freely ascribe to Tuisto other sons who 

gave to the Marsians, Gambrivians, Suevians and Vandals their true 

and ancient names. The term Germany is recendy added, by which 

term are called the first who crossed the Rhine; those occupying 

part of Gaul who are now called Tungri were then called Germanic. 

The name of that nadon is not that of a gens, and was first set aside 

for that people, then gradually adopted by all who ascribe the same 

repute [of warriors] to themselves.” Lipsius: eos qui transgressi 

primitus Rhenum sint, esse eum ipsum populum qui nunc Tungri 

appellentur, at tunc Germani (primi Germanorum Rhenum transgressi) 

quod tarnen unius nationis peculiare nomen, paulatim trans- 

fusum ad omnes. J. Lipsius, Tacitus ed., Germania, ad c. 2. 

269 “ [The Suevians], occupying the greater part of Germany, are divided 

into separate nations with distinct names.” Ms.: c. 28. 

270 Ms.: keinen. 

411


271 “ Those who were the first to cross the Rhine.” See above, note 267. 

272 “The barbaric and most ancient songs of ancient deeds of kings and 

wars he wrote down and transmitted as annals.” Quoted from Lipsius, 

I.e. 

273 Jordanes, Getica, ed. Mommsen, 28: “And the story is commonly 

recalled in their ancient songs virtually as a historical account.” 

274 Tacitus, Annals, II, 88. “And even today the barbarians sing of him.” 

[H. Furnas ed., 1896 (citing Grimm): Irmin?] 

275 “The village songs similar to piercing bird calls.” Julian, Antio- 

khikos = Misopogon (“Beard-hater”). 

276 “ There are also among them songs, the singing of which is called 

barditus (baritus) whereby they raise their spirits.” 

277 “ The land ... is covered either with dark forests or with fearful 

marshes ... the soil is fruitful for grain, but unsuitable for fruit trees, 

rich in livestock which are small, the cattle hornless. The people 

rejoice in the number of their cattle, their sole wealth, which they 

value most highly__ Possession and use of [of gold and silver] 

are not valued as they are [among Romans]. Silver bowls are to be 

seen among them, given as presents to their ambassadors and chieftains, 

regarded no differently, from those made of clay. Yet [German 

tribes] living near the Roman frontier put a price on gold and silver in 

commercial use. They know our coinage and ask for it. [German 

tribes] of the interior they have the simple and ancient exchange of 

goods. Where money is in use it is the old coinage of serrati (serrated 

coins) and bigati (coins with the stamp of the two-horse chariot). 

They prefer silver to gold not out of affection but because silver coils 

are easier to use and identify for cheap goods.” 

278 Tacitus, Germania, ch. 7. “The chiefs are from among the nobility, 

the war leaders from among the valorous men. The power of the 

cnief is neither boundless nor free, and the war chiefs lead by example 

rather than by command ... they are admired for bravery.” 

279 Op. cit. ch. 11. “The chiefs decide oil minor matters; on major matters 

(the whole people decides.)” 

280 Op. cit. ch. 12. “The council hears accusations and judges capital 

crimes__ Chiefs are elected in these councils who render judgment 

in the districts and villages; one hundred councillors from among the 

people assist these judges in the exercise of their authority.” 

281 Op. cit. ch. 20. “The sister’s son is prized by the mother’s brother as 

much as by the father. Some of them consider that the most sacred 

bond of kinship is that of the sister’s son to the mother’s brother, and 

in taking hostages prefer to take the sister’s son over the son, as 

representing the closest connection and the widest interest of the 

family. Heirs and successors are always the sons, testaments do not 

exist. If there are ho sons, the next in line are the brothers, then the 

father’s brothers, and the mother’s brothers.” 

282 Caesar. De Bello Gallic. VI, c. 22. 

412

Notes to Morgan, p. 240. 

22 Agriculturae non student, maiorque pars eorum victus in lacte, 

caseo, carne consistit. Neque quisquam agri modum certum aut fines 

habet proprios; sed magistratus ac principes in annos singulos gentibus 

cognationibusque hominum, qui una coierunt, quantum et quo 

loco visum est agri attribuunt atque anno post alio transire cogunt. 

Eius rei multas adferunt causas: ne adsidua consuetudine capti 

studium belli gerendi agricultura commutent; ne latos fines parare 

studeant, potentioresque humiliores possessionibus expellant; ne accuratius 

ad frigora atque aestus vitandos aedificent; ne qua oriatur 

pecuniae cupiditas, qua ex re factiones dissensionesque nascuntur; ut 

animi aequitate plebem contineant, cum suas quisque opes cum 

potentissimis aequari videat. 

For agriculture they have no zeal, and the greater part of their food 

consists of milk, cheese, and flesh. No man has a definite quantity of 

land or estate of his own: the magistrates and chiefs every year assign 

to tribes and clans that have assembled together as much land and in 

such place as seems good to them, and compel the tenants after a year 

to pass on elsewhere. They adduce many reasons for that practice - 

the fear that they may be tempted by continuous association1 to 

substitute agriculture for their warrior zeal; that they may become 

zealous for the acquisition of broad territories, and so the more 

powerful may drive the lower sort from their holdings; that they may 

build with greater care to avoid the extremes of cold and heat; that 

some passion for money may arise to be the parent of parties and of 

quarrels. It is their aim to keep common people in contentment, when 

each man sees that his own wealth is equal to that of the most powerful. 

283 lb., c. 23. 

23 Civitatibus maxima laus est quam latissime circum se vastatis 

finibus solitudines habere. Hoc proprium virtutis existimant, expulsos 

agris finitimos cedere, neque quemquam prope audere consistere; 

simul hoc se fore tutiores arbitrantur repentinae incursionis 

timore sublato. Cum bellum civitas aut illatum defendit aut infert, 

magistratus, qui ei bello praesint, ut vitae necisque habeant potestatem, 

deliguntur. In pace nullus est communis magistratus, sed 

principes regionum atque pagorum inter suos ius dicunt controver- 

siasque minuunt. 

Their nations account it the highest praise by devasting their 

borders to have areas of wilderness as wide as possible around them. 

They think it the true sign of valour when the neighbours are driven 

to abandon their fields, hence no one settles near them, likewise they 

hold that they have more security by removing fear of incursions. 

When a nation defends itself or attacks, a chief officer leads it to 

whom is delegated power over their lives. In peace there is no com- 

1 i.e. with one spot which would become endeared to them. 

413

Notes to Morgan, p. 241. Notes to Phear, pp. 245-249. 

mon magistrate, but the chiefs of the regions and districts give the 

law and settle disputes. 

284 Tacitus, Germania, c. 26. “They do not know of moneylending and 

of interest, which is preferable to the prohibition of the practice. 

The lands for cultivation (arvd) are occupied by all the people (ab 

miversis) in succession (in vices or per vices)pro numéro, according to the 

number of cultivators (confiées à tous les bras), thereupon they divide 

(partiuntur) it among themselves (inter se) according to worth (secundum 

dignationem) [according to Caesar all Germans were still equal], 

the division being easy (partiendi facilitatem) because there are spacious 

fields unimproved (qui ne sont pas implantés). They change (mutant) 

the arable land (arvd) annually (per annos) and ager (unoccupied, common 

land: see below) remains over (superest). There is so much good 

land to till that they do not plant orchards, divide up meadows and 

water gardens. They ask of the earth only fields of corn.” In a letter 

to Engels of March 25, 1868, Marx wrote: “ Arva per annos mutant 

et superest ager, was heisst: sie wechseln (durch Los, daher auch 

sortes in allen Leges Barbarorum später) die Felder (arva), und es 

bleibt Gemeindeland (ager im Gegensatz von arva als ager publicus) 

übrig__ ” (MEW 32, 1965, p. 52). 

According to Marx, the Germans alternated, changed, but did not 

exchange the fields; whereby they occupied the fields successively, 

which he read as per vices, and which other editions have rendered as 

in vices, with the same meaning (Lewis and Short, op. cit., s.v.). Marx 

conceived this process as following several stages : all the cultivators 

took part in the annual redistribution of the fields ; the repartition was 

made according to worth or social position (secundum dignationem). 

Caesar was not aware of any social distinctions among the Germans, 

his observations having been made at a period 15 o years before those 

of Tacitus, and perhaps did not bear upon the same Germanic 

peoples. 

The fields were referred to by Tacitus as arva when they had been 

divided, and were occupied by those who cultivated them; ager, agri 

were the lands to be divided. Marx had interpreted this distinction as 

indicating ager to be common land or Gemeindeland in 1868. 

N O T E S T O P A R T II 

1 Ms.: with 

2 Ms.: selbst 

3 Ms.: mood 

4 Ms.: Mörtel 

5 Ms.: bundel 

6 as] repeated. 

7 Ms.: muster 

414

8 M s.: many together 

9 Ms.: side 

10 Ms.: offen 

11 M s.: representation. Phear: arbitration. 

12 Ms.: deels 

13 Ms.: joung 

14 M s.: one of the water 

16 Ms.: or 

16 M s.: assembli 

17 M s.: gewissert 

18 Ms.: 1 magistrate, 1 collector 

19 M s.: ustensles 

20 M s.: bamboos 

21 Ms.: Economy. See Introduction, note 58. 

22 Ms.: of 

23 Phear, op. cit., p. 184: tenure, or subjugation 

24 Phear, op. cit., p. 201: possibly 

25 Phear, I.e.: survival 

26 See Bibliography. 

27 Ms.: Phaer 

28 auch] repeated 

29 Ms.: 366, 367 

General remark: Phear’s text is variable in regard to transcription of 

Bengali, Ceylonese, or what has been called Anglo-Indian, terms. 

Marx’s excerpts and notes have been standardized in 28 instances 

with reference to these terms. (Not all terms of this nature have been 

treated in a standard way, because of a lack of appropriate system in 

the text of Phear.) 

N O T E S T O P A R T III 

Notes to Phear, pp. 252-284. Notes to Maine, p. 287. 

1 Subsequent research has moved the date of the compilation of the 

Senchus Mor to the eighth century. See Introduction above, note 66. 

2 Maine consistently referred to Sir John Davies, Attorney-General for 

Ireland under King James, at the time of the English Conquest, as 

Davis. See above, Maine excerpts, pp. 172 and 174. 

3 Ms. \ DBG. Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Gallic War. Book VI, 

ch. 13 describes the division of Gallic society into common and 

privileged classes, the latter again divided into priestly and military 

classes; ch. 13 and 14 describe the activity of the Druids in religious 

affairs and judicial, whence the relevance to Maine’s text. In order to 

help in his reconstruction of the early law of the Celts of the British 

Isles, in particular the Irish, but also the Scots and the Welsh, Maine 

sought out references to the institutions of the Gallic Celts, writing 

(p. 5): “The ancient organisation of the Celts of Gaul, described by 

415

Notes to Maine, pp. 288-299. 

Caesar with the greatest clearness and decisiveness, appeared to have 

entirely disappeared from France, partly because French society was 

exclusively examined for many centuries by lawyers trained either in 

Roman or in highly feudalised law, but partly also because the institutions 

of the Gallic Celts had really passed under the crushing 

machinery of Roman legislation.” Here is a theory or determination 

of history to be added to the geographic, biological, economic, etc.: 

it is the legislative and legal determination of history, wherein lawyers 

caused the Celtic institutions to disappear and lawmakers crushed 

them. 

4 Christliche Ehe nicht] crossed out. 

5 Ms.: wive 

6 Sir] crossed out. 

7 sehn] doubtful reading. 

8 Ms.: findet 

9 Ms.: du 

10 it] crossed out. 

11 M s.: fuidshir 

12 M s.: in the 

13 Maine, op. cit., p. 102: occupation 

14 lb., p. 113: lawyer 

15 Ms.: desshalb 

16 Cf. Maine excerpts, p. 191; Marx’s position is that sovereignty does 

not lie in the chief, for it is not a personal phenomenon, but a social 

institution; here it is taken as a phenomenon of the collectivity. Thus, 

in neither case is it a personal relation of the chief. This is an implicit 

criticism of Morgan who held that the form of government in societies 

before the civilized state was personal, founded on relations that were 

purely personal. See Morgan, Ancient Society, op. cit., p. 6 and passim. 

See Introduction to present work, p. 9. 

17 Ms.: Willohr 

18 Ms.: fzs 

19 Ms.: 33th. Ms.: soccage. 

20 Ms.: Englishe 

21 Ms.: times 

22 Maine, op. cit., p. 132: can. 

23 On Marx’s relations to Maurer, see Introduction. Hiillmann, perhaps: 

Carl Dietrich Hiillmann, Geschichte des Ursprungs der Deutschen 

Furstenwiirde, 1842. 

24 Ms.: Componanion 

25 Ms.: suspected 

26 See note 2 5 5 to Morgan excerpts above. 

27 Ms.: sam-haisk 

28 heifers] repeated. 

29 Maine, op. cit., p. 161: Davis. 

30 Cf. H. S. Maine, Dissertations on Early Law and Custom, 1886, pp. 181 

416


et seq., on the eyres or circuits of the Anglo-Saxon kings; ib., p. 180, 

a mild critique of Spenser’s view. Judge’s eyre = Herumreisen. On 

Anderson, see above Marx, Maine excerpts, p. 174: Dr. James Anderson, 

Royal Genealogies, or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings, and 

Princes, from Adam to these Times, etc. 2 parts, 1732. MacPherson, 

perhaps: James MacPherson, A n Introduction to the History of Great 

Britain and Ireland, etc. 1771. On Marx’s relations to Maurer, see 

Introduction to this volume. On judicial circuits, see below, n. 96. 

31 Ms.: as 

32 M s.: its 

33 M s.: More 

34 Maine developed the analogy between an Irish tribe in the process of 

transition to political society and an oriental village community. 

The analogy is not entirely inept, for both social institutions are kinds 

of collectivities bound by customary law. The analogy fails, however, 

insofar as the Indian village community had long maintained a relation 

to a superordinate political body, whereas this relation was in statu 

nascendi in Ireland at the time in question. In methodology, Maine 

here leaves the historical field in order to advance the synchronic or 

better, nontemporal, comparison. Both cases are ‘archaic’ (Maine’s 

term), but the way they are archaic in reference to their historical 

antecedence and given temporal context differs. Maine’s historism 

breaks down, and the developments of the Irish land question from 

the time of the legal tracts which he had been discussing down to the 

nineteenth century were regarded by him as a moment. (See the 

following Maine excerpt and comment of Marx.) Maine’s analogy is 

defective not because of the defect inherent in any analogical argument 

but because Maine had abandoned his historical method and the 

sense of this passage is in contradiction to the general sense of his 

school of historical jurisprudence and of this work in particular. The 

substantive point concerns the break up of the Irish tribal collectivity 

by the development of the system of rents, imposition of new rules 

on broken men and allocation of waste land or commons to the benefit 

of the chiefs. The authority or tribal power and wealth now became 

concentrated in the hands of a few and the interests of the many and 

of the few were now opposed; the political society was formed by an 

internal process. Maine had combined an institution of society which 

was in existence prior to the establishment of political society with 

one that exists under the regime of the State. 

Engels, like Maine, combined the gens, an institution of society 

in existence prior to the establishment of political society and the 

State, and which is dissolved in the formation of political society, with 

a collective institution of the latter. See Engels, Ursprung, MEW 21, 

p. 165: Der erste Geschichtsschreiber, der wenigstens eine annähernde 

Vorstellung vom Wesen der Gens hatte, war Niebuhr, und das - aber 

auch seine ohne weiteres mit übertragnen Irrtümer - verdankt er 

417


seiner Bekanntschaft mit den dithmarsischen Geschlechtern.” (Eng., 

op. cit., p. 155: “The first historian who had at any rate an approximate 

conception of the nature of the gens was Niebuhr, and for this 

he had to thank his acquaintance with the Dithmarschen families” 

[for Geschlechter!] “ though he was overhasty in transferring their 

characteristics to the gens.” ) Engels’ error is akin to Maine’s, but it 

is not as grievous as the English rendering makes it out to be. To 

group together the proto- and early historic Germanic gens and the 

mark or other collective institution of political society is to combine 

that which is to be separated historically; but it would be the most 

extreme nonsense within the system of Morgan, Marx and Engels to 

combine the family in the same sequence of thoughts. This error is 

repeatedly made in the English text to which the citation above is a 

footnote. The English, moreover has made Engels level a specific 

charge against Niebuhr, that of transferring (‘overhastily’) the characteristics 

of those families to the gens. Engels made only a general 

point, ‘ohne weiteres mit übertragnen Irrtümer’ ; he did not say what 

Niebuhr’s errors might be. 

The editors of the 1962 edition of Engels’ Ursprung propose that it 

is the Gemeindeverfassung (constitution of the communes), which lasted 

down to the second half of the 19th century, that is in question. This 

is a reasonable amendment of Engels’ argument, for Geschlechter 

(descent lines, gentes, clans, etc.) do not come into question, still less 

families. (Cf. MEW 21, p. 562.) 

35 Ms.: 1713 

36 of] repeated. 

37 Ms.: beyonds 

38 worse the] repeated 

39 M s.: separate and establishment 

40 Reading doubtful. 

41 Howel Dda (the Good) (died 950). 

42 Ms.: declared to be 

43 Ms.: Spencer 

44 vertrieben] crossed out. 

45 M s.: prescription 

46 Ms.: was 

47 Ms.: his 

48 Maine, op. cit., p. 196 also mentions Shakespeare’s Lear. 

49 M s.: poorest, poorst 

50 then, next to him] repeated. 

51 M s.: next 

52 Maine, op. cit., p. 203: in the latter part of the reign 

52a Ms.: might to 

52b Possible reading. Ms.: Fiktionen 

53 Ms.: Tanistry 

54 Ms.: 4 x 4 X 5 

418


55 A common derivation of Latin herus/erus and Greek êip is not 

probable. It is not supported in Ernout-Meillet, Diet. Etym. Longue 

Lat., op. cit., nor in Walde-Hofmann, Lat. Etym. Wbuch, op. cit., s.v. 

Also without support from the Greek side: H. Frisk, Griechisches 

Etymologisches Wörterbuch, v. II, 1970, s.v. See Walde-Hofmann, v. I, 

p. 649, and J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, v. I, 

1959, p. 447. 

56 Ms.: is 

57 M s.: functiones 

58 Cf. C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (1879) 1958: actio, 

lex. Exact citations therein. 

59 Ms.: or. Cf. Maine, op. cit., p. 252. 

60 Varro, De Lingua Latina, V, 180. “... that money which comes into 

court in lawsuits, is called sacramentum ‘sacred deposit,’ from sacrum. 

The plaintiff and the defendant each deposited with the pontifex 

5 00 copper asses for certain cases; for others the trial was conducted 

also with a deposit of some other amount fixed by law. He who won 

the decision got back his deposit from the temple, the loser’s deposit 

passed into the Treasury.” Loeb Lib., R. Kent ed., 1958. On 

asses see Morgan excerpts, note 255, above. 

61 Cf. Lewis and Short, op. cit. Exact citations therein. Condico I, 3: 

condicere pecuniam alicui, Digest, i.e. Pandects, 12, 1, 11. M s.: Paul. 

Dig. 

62 Lewis and Short, op. cit., sponsio. Exact citations therein. 

63 Ib.: s.v. Exact citation therein. 

64 Maine, op. cit., p. 257: stake called Sacramentum. 

65 M s.: almost. Cf. Maine, l.c. 

66 Ms.: praktisirt 

67 Ms.: zeigen 

68 Ms.: the 

69 Ms.: 285 

70 M s.: everydays1 

71 Ms.: days 

72 Ms.: 278 

73 M s.: women 

74 M s.: dem] [urs] crossed out. 

76 M s.: finden] [word or beginning of word crossed out] 

76 Ms.: Bramahnen 

77 M s.: Wittwe 

78 Ms.: Lectures 

79 von ihm] crossed out. 

80 in] crossed out. [aus combined collegiate or corporate form] crossed 

out. 

81 In respect to Bentham, cf. Marx, Kapital, v. 1, ch. 22, sect. 5 ( = Eng. 

tr., op. cit., ch. 24, sect. 5). 

82 diese] crossed out. 

419

Notes to Maine, pp. 329-335. Notes to Lubbock, pp. 339-341. 

83 Die] crossed out. 

84 von] crossed out. 

85 u. durch Herausarbeitung der Individualität aus d.] crossed out. 

86 u.] crossed out. Interpolated word illegible. Perhaps: [es] may have 

been intended to be crossed out. It is not part of the resultant 

sequence. 

87 zeigt] [was letztere] crossed out. 

88 charakterisindere 

89 Ansicht] crossed out. 

90 dies of the coercive authority] crossed out. 

91 Ms.: u 

92 Ms.: coercion in bill in Irld. Dies geschrieben Juni 1888)] See Introduction, 

Addendum I. 

93 Maine, op. cit., p. 362: as stripped 

94 M s.: an 

95 Regierung] crossed out. 

96 Ref. Notebook B 146, pp. 155-159. D(r). Rudolph Sohm (Prof. in 

Strassburg). “ Fränkisches Recht (u)nd Römisches Recht. Prolegomena %ur 

Deutschen Rechtsgeschichte. Weimar 1880. Ms., p. 156: 

Mit d(en) Normannen zog nach England auch d(as) norm(a)nnische> 

d.h. d(as) nordfranzösische Recht. [Sieh: Brunner'. Entstehung der 

Schwurgerichte. 1872] D(ie) Normannenkönige Gesetzgeberische 

Erlasse bewegen sich zunächst g(an)z in die Bahnen d(es) angelsächsischen 

Rechts; letzteres aber vernichtet nicht durch d(ie> 

“ Gesetzgebung” , sondern durch d(ie) “ Rechtsprechung;” des nor- 

männischen Königsgerichts, wo d(ie) normännischen Traditionen 

übermächtig u(nd), von dem Königsgericht ausgehend, waren 

d(ie) reisenden Richter, die Sendboten des Königs, welche durch ihre 

Rechtsprechung die nämlichen Traditionen über d(as) ganze 

Land verbreiteten. [68] Square brackets, Marx, Round brackets, 

ed. 

See above, n. 30. 

97 weil sie] crossed out. 

98 they have become] crossed out. 

99 Ms.: the 

100 Ms.: ethnical 

101 Ms.: Sovereigns 

102 Ms.: Fistjames 

103 Maine, I.e.: power. 

104 M s.: words 

N O T E S T O P A R T IV 

1 Ms.: statuire 

la Lubbock, op. cit., p. 105: Nubiens 

420

Notes to Lubbock, pp. 341-351. 

2 Ms.: known 

3 Ms.: Marsden 

4 Reading doubtful 

5 Reading doubtful 

6 Lubbock, op. cit., p. 160: “In one word, the Californians lived, 

salvia venia, as though they had been freethinkers and materialists.” 

7 Ms.: Commune 

8 Cervantes, Don Quixote: Even as Montesinos was speaking, one of 

the ladies attending the luckless Dulcinea [approached] and, her eyes 

filled with tears, said to me in a low and troubled voice: “My senora 

Dulcinea del Toboso kisses your honor’s hand and begs your honor 

to favor her by letting her know how you are and, being in great need, 

she likewise begs your honor if you are able to lend her on this faldel- 

lin which I am wearing here of new white cotton, half a dozen reales, 

or as much as your honor can spare, which she on her word will 

return with great speed.” Surprised and astonished to hear this I 

turned to senor Montesinos and asked him: “Is it possible, senor 

Montesinos, for nobility under a spell to be in need?” At which he 

replied to me: “ Believe me, your honor Don Quixote de la Mancha, 

that which is called need is everywhere to be found, to each and all 

and does not spare even those under a spell; and since the senora 

Dulcinea del Toboso has need of these six reales, and the security is 

good, you must give them to her, it seems to me, for she must be in 

great want.” “I will not take security,” I responded, “yet I cannot 

give what she asks, because I have only four reales, which I give her 

and say, my friend, to the senora that her troubles weigh on my 

soul, and that if I were a Fucar (Fugger) to remedy them etc.” 

9 Ms.: gold 

10 Reference is to Williams, Fiji and the Fijians, v. 1, p. 231. Cf. Lubbock, 

op. cit., p. 238. 

11 M s.: is resumed 

12 Ms.: Toas, moas 

13 Ms.: Lange 

14 M s.: Cassalis: Bassutos 

16 feeding] crossed out. 

16 Ms.: Gray 

17 Ms.: avenge 

18 if, for instance] repeated. 

421

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. M ARX’S BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES 

II. G EN ERAL BIBLIO GRAPHY

I. M ARX’S BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES IN EXCERPT NOTEBOOK 

B 146. 

On the inside cover of the notebook there are the following bibliographic notices: 

Quoted by Morgan. L. H. Morgan: Ameri- Letters on the Iroquois by Skenandoah. 

can Review, 1847: “ Letters on the American Review, 1847. February, Letters 

Iroquois by Skenandoah.” no. 1-3, pp. 177-190. March, Letters no. 

4-8, pp. 242-257. May, Letters no. 9-11, 

pp. 447-461. November, Letters no. 12-13, 

pp. 477-490. December, Letter no. 14, 

pp. 626-633. 

Lubbock: Prehistoric times \ Lubbock, John. Pre-historic Times, as 

1 illustrated by ancient remains, and the 

I Geben manners and customs of modem savages. 

Edwin B. Tylor: “ Early History Valle 1865. 

of Mankind” [ 3 Tylor, Sir Edward Burnett. Researches into 

I v jel the Early History of Mankind and the 

1 über development of Civilization. 1865. 

Peschel. “ Races of Man” / pottery Peschel, Oscar Ferdinand. The Races of 

Man......... 1876. 

Bachofen: Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart 1861. Bachofen, Johann Jakob. Das Mutterrecht. 

Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaiko- 

kratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen 

und rechtlichen Natur. 1861. 

Foster: “ Pre-historic races of the U. St.” Foster, John Wells. Pre-historic Races of the 

United States of America... 1873. 

Jones: “ Antiquities of the Southern Indians.” Jones, Charles Colcock. Antiquities of the 

Southern Indians particularly of the 

Georgia tribes. 1873. 

Adair “ History of the American Indians” Adair, James. The History of the American 

1775 Indians... 1775. 

L. H. Morgan “ Systems of Consanguinity Morgan, L. H. Systems of Consanguinity 

and Affinity of the Human Family (1871) and Affinity of the Human Family. 1871. 

Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Contributions 

to Knowledge, vol. 17. 

id. “ The League of the Iroquois” Morgan, L. H. League of the Ho-de-nosau-nee, 

or Iroquois. 1851. 

ditto, “ The American Beaver and his Works.” Morgan, L. H. The American Beaver and 

his Works. 1868. 

Rev. Hiram Bingham: “ Sandwich Islands” . Bingham, Hiram. A Residence of Twenty- 

Hartford. 1847. one Years in the Sandwich Islands... 1847. 

Dr. Bartlett: Historical Sketch of the Bartlett, Rev. Samuel Colcord. 

Missions etc. in the Sandwich Islands” . Historical sketch of the missions of the 

42 5

American Board in the Sandwich Islands, 

Micronesia, and Marquesas. 1876. 

Ueber d. Australian classes, organized upon Morgan, L. H. “Australian Kinship; with 

sex, see: Rev. Lorimer Fison (English Appendices, by Rev. Lorimer Fison.” 

missionary in Australia): “ Proceedings Proceedings of the American Academy of A rts 

o f the Amer. Ac. of Arts and Sciences, for and Sciences, v. 8, pp. 412-28; 

1872, vol. VIII, p. 4 12 ; Appendices: “ Australian Aborigenes,” 

ditto McLennan: Prehistoric Marriage (p. pp. 429-438. 

118) u. Tylor: Early Hist, of Mankind. McLennan, John Ferguson. Primitive Marriage. 

1865. 

Tylor (See above) 

Francis Parkman several works on the Parkman, Francis.2 History of the Con- 

colonization of America.1 spiracy of Pontiac, and the War of the 

North American Tribes against the 

English Colonies. 1851. 

— . The Discovery of the Great West. 5th ed. 

1869. 

— . The California and Oregon Trail. 1849. 

— . Pioneers of France in the New World. 

1865. 

Carver. “ Travels in North America.” Phil. Carver, Jonathan. Three Years Travels 

ed. 1796, p. 169 (über die “ Dakotas” ) through the Interior Parts of North- 

America... 1796. 

Schoolcraft: History of Indian Tribes. Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe. History of the 

Indian Tribes of the United States... 1857. 

Dali “ Alaska and its resources.” Dali, William Healey. Alaska and its 

Resources. 1870. 

Brett “ Indian Tribes of Guiana” . Brett, Rev. William Henry. The Indian 

Tribes of Guiana. 1852. 

Tylor “ Mexico” (Ueber deren Irrigation Tylor, Edward Burnett. Anahuac: or 

p. 157-16 1.) Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and 

modem. 1861. 

Acosta (vis

enacted by the Governor General in 

Council, at Fort William in Bengal... 

3 vols. 1805-1817. 

Grenier’s “ Reports” (Ceylon) for 1874 cp. Grenier, Sir Samuel, ed. The Appeal Reports 

Note of Mr. Nell, Appendix to Part I. for 1872 [-1874] being reports of cases 

argued and determined in the Supreme 

Court o f Ceylon. 3 vols. 

Ribeyro, Knox, Valentyn (über Ceylon) Ribeiro, Joäo. History of Ceylon... 1847. 

Knox, Robert. An Historical Relation of the 

Island Ceylon in the East-Indies... 1681. 

Valentijn, François. Oud en nieuw Oost- 

Indien... 5 vols. 1724-26. 

Growse: “ Mathura” (wegen der nonexi- Growse, Frederic Salmon. Mathura: 

stence der Kshatria caste) district memoir. 1874. 

* “ Mr. La Touche” recent: “ Settlement La Touche, Sir James John Digges. Report 

Report of Ajmere and Mhairwarra.” on the Settlement of the Ajmere & 

Mhairwarra Districts. 1875. 

* Mr. Muir (später Sir William Muir, damals 

Secretary to the Gvt of India : “ Memorandum 

on the Investigation into tenant rights 

of Oudh” (20 October 1865.) 

Gubbins : “ Account of the Mutinies in Gubbins, Martin Richard. An account of the 

Oudh.” mutinies in O udh... 1858. 

Forbes “ Oriental Memoirs” (Darin II. 25 Forbes, James. Oriental Memoirs. 4 vols. 

“ Lord Teignmouth’s description of “ sit- 1813. 2nd ed. 2 vols. 1834. 

ting dhama.” ) 

See Post for Hindu Law. Post, Albert Hermann. Die Anfänge des 

Staats- und Rechtslebens. 1878. (see below) 

See Hugo’s Naturrecht od. ähnlicher Titel Hugo, Gustav. Naturrecht als Philosophie 

(hab ihn vergessen)* des positiven Rechts. 1798. 4th ed. 1819. 

(Also) Lehrbuch des Naturrechts. 3. Versuch. 

1809. = 2nd vol. of Lehrbuch eines 

civilistischen cursus. 7 vols. 1807-1830. 

Sybel: Dtsches Königthum. Sybel, Heinrich Carl Ludolf von. Entstehung 

des deutschen Königthums. 1844. 

Sohm : “ Fränkische Reichs- u. Gerichts- Sohm, Rudolph. Die fränkische Reichs- und 

Verfassung” 4 Gerichtsverfassung. Die altdeutsche reichsund 

gerichtsverfassung. vol. 1. 1871. 

W. F. Skene : “ The Highlanders of Scot- Skene, William Forbes. The Highlanders of 

land” , 1837. Scotland, their origin, history and antiquities. 

2 vols. 1837. 

Idem: see his edit, of the Scotch chronicler John of Fordun. Chronicle of the Scottish 

Fordun (1872) - Hier, in second volume Nation. F. J. H. Skene, tr. William F. 

note on “ Tribe communities in Scotland. Skene, ed. 1872. 

nämlich his appendix dazu. 

D. Zeug des Le Play. Frederic Le Play. Les Ouvriers Européens. 

2nd ed. 6 vols. 1877-1879. 

Ancient Law of Ireland Brehon laws. Ancient laws of Ireland... Printed for 

(translation published at the expense of H. M. Stationery office. 1865-1901. vol. 1, 

Gvt, first vol. pub. 1865 2nd vol. 1869 1865; vol. 2, 1869; vol. 3, 18 73; vol. 4 

3d 1875) (various Brehon law tracts), 1879. 

4 27

Post : “ Anfänge des Staats- u. Rechts- (see above) 

lebens” . Oldenburg. 1878. 

Goguet: “ de l’origine des loix.” Goguet, Antoine Yves. De l’origine des 

loix, des arts, et des sciences... 6 vols. 

1759- 

Spencer. Sir John Davis. Prendergast. Spenser, Edmund. A view o f the state of 

Ireland. 1596. 

Davies, Sir John. A discoverie of the trve 

cavses why Ireland was neuer entirely 

subdued, nor brought under the obedience 

of the Crowne of England, vntill the beginning 

of His Maiesties happie raigne. 

1612. 

Prendergast, John Patrick. The History of 

the Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland. 1865. 

Published by the Government of Madras: 

“ Papers on Mirasi Right” (Madras, 1862.) 

Renan (Semitic tribes in Northern Africa) Renan, Ernest. * Mélanges d’histoire et de 

voyages. 1878. 

— Le désert et le Soudan. 1854. 

— La société berbère. 1873 

Patterson (Fortnightly Review. V . X C IV ) Patterson, Arthur J. “ From Agram to Zara,” 

(House Community in Croatia, Dalmatia, Fortnightly Review, v. X I, n.s., no. L X IV 

Illyria) n.s. (April 1, 1872), pp. 359-386. 

Dupin (nicht, wo! 1840 Über House Com- André Marie Jean Jacques Dupin, député 

munities in Departement of Nièvre.) de la Nièvre. 1783-1865. 

Freeman: “ Comparative Politics” Freeman, Edward Augustus. Comparative 

Politics. 1873. 

Tocqueville : “ Ancien régime” (see I. 18) Tocqueville, Alexis Charles Henri Maurice 

Clérel de. L ’ancien régime et la révolution. 

1856. 

Coote : “ Neglected Fact in English History” . Coote, Henry Charles. A Neglected Fact in 

English History. 1864. (Alleging that the 

laws and customs of Anglo-Saxon England 

were in large part of Roman origin.) 

Rev. H. Dugmore: “ Compendium of Kafir Dugmore, H. H. A Compendium of Kafir 

Laws and Customs” . Laws and Customs. 1858. 

Thorpe : “ Ancient Laws” . Ancient Laws and Institutes of England. 

Benjamin Thorpe, ed. 1840. 

Hunter. “ Orissa” . Hunter, William Wilson. Orissa. 2 vols. 

1872. 

Sullivan : edition of O ’Curry’s Lectures, at O ’Curry, Eugene. On the Manners and 

the end of which translated the Crith Customs of the ancient Irish. W. K. 

Gablach, a Brehon tract. Sullivan, ed. 3 vols. 1873. 

Dasent: “ Story of Burnt Njal.” Dasent, George Webbe. The Story of Burnt 

Njal. 1861. 

Coote: “ Neglected Fact in English History.” See above. 

Spenser: “ View of the State of Ireland.” See above. 

Sir John Davis: “ Historical Relations.” Davies, Sir John. Historical Relations: or, a 

ed. vor Year 1830 Discovery of the true causes why Ireland 

was never entirely subdued nor brought 

under the obedience of the Crown of 

4 28

England, until the beginning of the reign 

of King James of happy memory. 1664. 

See Rickards on subject of “ Castes” ; also Rickards, Robert.2 India; or facts submitted 

Bishop Heber’s “ Narrative” v. II, p. 327, to illustrate the character and condition of 

8d edit. the native inhabitants... 2 vols. 1829-1832. 

Heber, Reginald. Narrative of a Journey 

through the Upper Provinces of India... 

2 vols. 1828. 

Col. Sleeman (Reise dch Oude) (sehr wichtig) See above. 

Shore: “ Notes on Indian Affairs.” u. Id. 

“ Present State and Prospects of Oude 

(written 1835) 

Dr. Butler: “ Outlines of the Topography and 

Statistics of the Southern Districts of 

Oudh” (1837) 

Sleeman: “ Tour in Oude” (3 months march See above, 

through Oude (ist of December 1849 bis 

28 Febr. 1850; ist Analogon of Arthur 

Young’s “ Travels in France” vor d. 

French Revolution.) 

Major Evans Bell: “ Retrospects and Pros- Bell, Thomas Evans. Retrospects and 

pects of Indian Policy.” Prospects of Indian Policy. 1868. 

Pynnar: “ Survey of Ulster.” u. other original Pynnar, Nicholas. A Survey of the sin 

documents in Harris “ Hibemica” ___ escheated Counties (of Ulster). 1757. 

Harris, Walter. Hibemica: or Some antient 

pieces relating to Ireland. 1770. 

Duffy: “ Library of Ireland” : “ The Confis- MacNevin, Thomas. The Confiscation of 

cation of Ulster” by Thomas Mac Nevin. Ulster, in the reign of James the First... 

1846. 

Leland. (Mit Bezug auf Ireland u. James II): Leland, Thomas. The History of Ireland. 

“ History of Ireland” (B. IV , c. 8) 3 vols. 1773. 

Taylor: “ History of the Civil Wars in Ireland Taylor, William Cooke. History of the 

v. I, p. 243, 246. (O’Connell: “ Memoir of Civil Wars of Ireland... 2 vols. 1831. 

Ireland) Plowden: “ History of Ireland.” O ’Connell, Daniel. A Memoir on Ireland... 

1843. 

Plowden, Francis. The History of Ireland... 

2 vols. 1809 (From its Invasion to 1801) 

3 vols. 1 8 1 1 (From 1801 to 1810) 

4Z9

N O T E S T O B IB L IO G R A P H Y I 

General. 

A) Marx’s bibliographic notices and comments are to the left o f the vertical line on each page. 

The bibliographic information to the right is added by the editor. 

B) Marx’s notices are divided into three parts, separated by two horizontal lines drawn by 

him, reproduced here, and extended by the ed. to include the further bibliographic data. 

C) The first group relates to Morgan, Ancient Society, the second to Phear, The Aryan Village·, 

the third to Maine, Early History of Institutions. 

D) The references in each group were taken, in major part, by Marx from the respective 

source. 

E) They were evidently intended for future research, as opposed to research in conjunction 

with the works they were related to or derived from. 

1 Cf. Morgan, Ancient Society, 1907, p. 157 n. Reference is to name of author. 

* Titles conjectural. 

* Gustav Hugo was referred to in Marx, Das philosophische Manifest der historischen Rechts- 

schule (Rheinische Zeitung, no. 221 August 9, 1842) M EW 1, pp. 78-85. 

4 Rechtsgeschichte] crossed out. 

43°

H. G EN ERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 

A c o s t a , Jo se p h de. The natvrall and morall historie of the East and West Indies... London 

1604. 

A d a i r , Jam es. The History of the American Indians... London 1775. 

A d a m , A l e x a n d e r . Roman Antiquities. London 1825. 

A e s c h y lu s . Eumenides. 

Prometheus. 

Seven against Thebes. 

The Suppliant Maidens. 

A l e x a n d e r , S. A . Space, Time, and Deity. 2 v. London 1920. 

A l t h u s s e r , L. et al. Lire le Capital. 2 v. Paris 1966. 

A n c i e n t L a w s of I r e l a n d . . . Tr. by Dr. John O ’Donovan and Prof. Eugene O ’Curry. 

6 v. Dublin 1865-1901. 

A n d e r s o n , D r . Jam es. Royal Genealogies, or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings, 

and Princes, from Adam to these Tim es... 2 pts. London 1732. 

A n u c h in , D. N . In: Etnograficheskoe Obo^renie, 1916, no. 1-2. 

A r i s t o t l e . Politics. W. D. Ross, ed. and tr. London 1942. 

A.rkhiv Marksa i Engel’sa, v. 9. Karl Marks. Konspekt Knigi Liuisa G. Morgana, “ Drevnee 

Obshchestvo” . M. B. Mitin, ed. 1941. 

A s t l e y , T h o m as. A New General Collection of Voyages and Travels... 4 v. London 

1 745-i 747. 

A u s t in , J o h n . The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London 1832. 

A v in e r i, S h lo m o . The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge, Engl. 1968. 

B a c h o f e n , J . J . Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten 

Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur. Stuttgart 1861. 

Id. Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der Alten. Basel 1859. 

Id. Gesammelte Werke, v. 10. Briefe. Basel-Stuttgart 1967. 

B a d e n - P o w e l l, Baden Henry. The Indian Village Community. London 1896. 

B a n c r o f t , H u b e r t H o w e . The Native Races of the Pacific States. 5 v. New York 1874-1876. 

B a s t ia n , P. W. A . Der Mensch in der Geschichte. Zur Begründung einer psychologischen 

Weltanschauung. 3 v. Leipzig i860. 

B a t t e l , A n d r e w . The strange adventures of Andrew Battel, of Leigh, in Essex, sent by 

the Portuguese prisoner to Angola... See Pinkerton, v. 16. 

B e c k e r , W ilh e lm A d o lp h . Charicles. Bilder altgriechischer Sitte. Leipzig 1840. 

Id. Gallus, oder römische Scenen aus der Zeit Augusts. Leipzig 1838. 

B e n th a m , Je re m y . The Works. J . Bowring ed. 11 v . Edinburgh 1838-1843. 

B e n v e n is te , E. Le Vocabulaire des Institutions Indo-Europeennes. Paris 1969. 

B e r g s o n , H e n r i. Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion. Paris 1932. 

B e r n s t e in , E d u a r d . Bemerkungen über Engels’ Ursprung der Familie ( = Vorrede zur 

italienischen Ausgabe), Socialistische Monatshefte, v. 4, 1900. 

Id. Erinnerungen eines Sozialisten. I. Teil. Aus den Jahren meines Exils. Berlin 1918. Eng. 

tr. M y Years of Exile. B. Miall, tr. London 1921. 

B l a c k s t o c k , P a u l W. and B . F. H o s e l itz , eds. The Russian Menace to Europe. A Collection 

of Articles, Speeches, Letters and News Despatches [by Karl Marx and Friedrich 

Engels]. Glencoe, 111. 1952. 

43i

B l a c k s t o n e , S i r W illia m . Com m entaries on the L a w s o f E n g lan d . 4 v . O x fo rd 1765-1769. 

B l o c h , E r n s t . Su bjekt-O bjek t. E rläu teru n gen zu H egel, enl. ed. F ran k fu rt am M ain 1962. 

B l u n t , W i l f r i d S c a w e n . T h e E g y p tia n R e vo lu tio n : a personal narrative. The Nineteenth 

Century, v . 12 (Sept.) 1882, pp. 324-346. 

B o e c k h , A u g u s t . Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener. 2 v. Berlin 1817. 

B osm an, W ille m . A new and accurate description of the coast of Guinea... See Pinkerton, 

v. 16. 

B r a s s e u r d e B o u r b o u r g , C h a r l e s E t ie n n e . Popul Vuh. Paris 1861. 

B r e t t , R e v . W illia m H e n r y . The Indian Tribes of Guiana. New York 1852. 

B ro s s e s , C h a r l e s d e . D u Culte des Dieux fétiches, ou Parallèle de l’ancienne religion de 

l’Egypte avec la religion actuelle de Nigritie. 1760. 

B r u n n e r , H e in r ic h . Die Entstehung der Schwurgerichte. Berlin 1871. 

B ü c h e r , K a r l . Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft. Tübingen 1893. 

B u r y , J o h n B a g n e l l . The Idea of Progress. London 1920. 

C . J u l i u s C a e s a r . De Bello Gallico. Gallic War. 

C a i l l i é , R e n é . Travels through Central Africa to Timbuctoo... 2 v. London 1830. 

C a l l a w a y , H e n r y . Religious System of the Amazulu. 4 pts. Springvale, Natal 1868-1870. 

C a m e ro n , J o h n . Celtic Law. The “ Senchus Mór” and “ The Book of Aicill.” London 1937. 

C a r v e r , J o n a t h a n . Three Years Travels through the Interior Parts of North-America... 

Philadelphia 1796. 

C a s a lis , E u g è n e . T h e B a su to s; o r T w e n ty-th ree years in South A frica . L o n d o n 1861. 

C e r v a n t e s S a a v e d r a , M i g u e l d e . E l In genioso H id alg o D o n Q u ixote de la M anch a. 

C h il d e , V . G o r d o n . Social E v o lu tio n . L o n d o n 1951. 

C h u p r o v , A. See Tschuprov. 

M. T u l l i u s C ic e r o . De Deorum Natura. 

De Legibus. 

De Officiis. 

De Oratore. 

De Republica. 

Pro Doma. 

Topica 

C l a v i g e r o , F r a n c i s c o J a v i e r . The History of Mexico... 2 v. London 1787. Later editions 

known. 

C o r n u , A u g u s t e . La Jeunesse de Karl Marx. Paris 1934. 

Id. The Origins of Marxist Thought. Springfield, 111. 1957. 

Cox, G e o r g e W illia m . A Manual of Mythology. London 1867. 

C r a m e r , J. A . A Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Italy. 2 v. Oxford 1826. 

C u n o w , H e in r ic h . Die Marxsche Geschichts-, Gesellschafts- und Staatstheorie. 2 v. Berlin 

1920-1921. 

See also under G. L. Maurer, and Die Neue Zeit. 

C u r r y , E u g e n e . Introduction, etc. to ... the Battle of Magh Leana. Dublin 1855. 

Cu r r y: O ’Curry, E u g e n e . Ancient Laws of Ireland. J. O ’Donovan and E . O ’Curry, tr. 

See under title. 

C u r t iu s , E r n s t . Griechische Geschichte. 3 v. Berlin 1857-1867. 

C y f r e i t h je u H y w e l D d a a c e r a i l l , seu Leges Wallicae ecclesiasticae et civiles... Edited 

by W. Clarke. London 1730. 

D a l ’ , V la d i m i r I. Tolkovyi Slovar’ zhivogo Velikorusskogo Yazyka. 3rd ed. (1903-1909). 

Repr. Paris 1954. 

D a l l , W illia m H e a le y . Alaska and its Resources. Boston 1870. 

D a r w in , C h a r l e s . The Descent of Man and selection in relation to sex. 2 v. London 18 71. 

Id. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured 

Races in the Struggle for Life. London 1859. 

D a r w i n a n d M o d e r n S c ie n c e . A. C. Seward, ed. Cambridge 1909. 

D a s e n t , G e o r g e W ebbe. The Story of Burnt Njal. 2 v. Edinburgh 1861. 

432

D a v ie s , S i r J o h n . A discouerie of the trve cavses why Ireland was neuer entirely subdued... 

(Cf. A . W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Tide Catalogue, 1926: A discoverie of 

the true causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued...) London 1612. (See above, 

Introduction, note 68.) 

D a w k in s , S i r W illia m B o y d . Early Man in Britain and his Place in the Tertiary Period. 

London 1880. 

D e m o sth e n e s. Appeal against Eubulides. 

D i g e s t (of Justinian), i.e., Libri Pandectarum. 

D io n y siu s o f H a lic a r n a s s u s . Roman Antiquities. 

D o p s c h , A l f o n s . Wirtschafdiche und soziale Grundlagen der europäischen Kulturentwicklung... 

2 v. Vienna 1923-1924. Eng. tr. The Economic and Social Foundations of 

European Civilization. London 1937. 

D u b o is, J e a n A n t o in e . Description of the character, manners, and customs of the People 

of India... London 1817. 

D u g m o re , H. H. A Compendium of Kafir Laws and Customs. Mount Coke 1858. 

D u r â n , D ie g o . Historia de las Indias de Nueva-Espana y islas de Tierra Firm e... 2 v. and 

atlas. Mexico 1867-1880. 

D u r k h e im , E m ile . De la division du travail social. Paris 1893. The Division of Labor in 

Society. G . Simpson, tr. New York 1933. 

Id. Review (A. Stanischitsch. Über den Ursprung der Zadruga. Bern 1907), Année Sociologique, 

v. 11, 1906-1909, pp. 343-347. 

Du T e r t r e , J e a n B a p tis te . [History of the Caribby Islands. Cited in Lubbock, Origin of 

Civilisation, q.v.] 

Id. Histoire générale des isles de S. Christophe, de la Guadeloupe, de la Martinique... Paris 

1654. 

Id. Histoire naturelle et morale des îles Antilles... Rotterdam 1658. 

Id. Histoire générale des Antilles... 4 v. in 3. Paris 1671. 

E g in h a r t u s / E i n h a r d . Vita Karoli Imperatoris. 

Eirene, v. 3, 1964 (J. Pecirka, J. Chesneaux). 

v. 5, 1966 (P. Skalnik, T. Pokora). 

v. 6, 1967 (J. Pecirka). 

E l l i s , W illia m . Polynesian Researches... 2 v. London 1829. 

E n g e l s , F r i e d r i c h and K a r l M a r x . Die Heilige Familie. Frankfurt am Main 1845. M E W 2. 

E n g e l s , F r i e d r i c h . Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats im 

Anschluss an Lewis H. Morgans Forschungen. Zürich 1884. 4th ed. (1891) Stuttgart 1892. 

Repr. 19 31. M EW 21,19 62. Eng. tr. of 4th ed. The Origin of the Family, Private Property 

and the State. New York 1942. 

Id. Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft. (Anti-Dühring). 1878. M EW 20. 

Id. Dialektik der Natur. Dialectics of Nature. M E W 20. 

Id. Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft. 4th ed. 1891. M E W 19. 

Id. Die Mark. Appendix to: Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft, 

1882. M EW 19, pp. 317-330. 

Id. Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen. M EW 19, pp. 425-473. 

Id. Fränkische Zeit. Ib., pp. 474-518. 

Id. Correspondence. M E W 35, 36. 

E r m a n , G e o r g A d o lp h . Travels in Siberia... 2 v. London 1848. 

E r n o u t , A . and A . M e i l l e t . Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Latine. 4th ed. Paris 

1959· 

E r s k in e , J o h n E lp h in s t o n e . Journal of a cruise among the islands of the Western Pacific. 

London 1853. 

E u s t a t h iu s . Eustathii commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem. 4 v. Lipsiae 1827-1830. 

E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d , E . E . Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford 1965. 

E y r e , E d w a r d J o h n . Journals of Expeditions of discovery into Central Australia... 2 v. 

London 1845. 

433

F e n t o n , W. N. Seneca Indians by Asher Wright (1859). Ethnohistory, v. 4, 1957, pp. 302-321. 

Id. The Iroquois Confederacy in the Twentieth Century: A Case Study of the Theory of 

Lewis H. Morgan in “ Ancient Society.” Ethnology, v. 4, 1965, pp. 251-265. 

F e r g u s o n , A d a m . Essay on the History of Civil Society. Edinburgh 1767. 

F e r g u s s o n , Jam es. Tree and Serpent Worship... London 1868. 

S e x t . Pom peius F e s tu s . De significatione Verborum. 

F ic k , F r i e d r i c h C h r i s t i a n A u g u s t . Die ehemalige Spracheinheit der Indogermanen 

Europas. Eine sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Göttingen 1873. 

F o r b e s , Jam es. Oriental Memoirs. 4 v. London 1813. 2nd ed. 2 v. London 1834. 

F o r t e s , M e y e r . Kinship and the Social Order. The Legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan. 

Chicago 1969. 

F o u r i e r , C h a r l e s . Théorie des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales. Leipzig 1808. 

3rd. ed., 1846 = v. I of Oeuvres Complètes. 

Id. Traité de l’association domestique-agricole. 2 v. Paris 1822. 2nd ed. 1840-1843 = v. 2-3 

of Oeuvres Complètes, and v. 1-2 of his Théorie de l’unité universelle (4 v. = v. 2-5 of 

Oeuvres Complètes). 

Id. Le nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire. Paris 1829-1830. 2nd ed. 1845, 4 th ed. 1870 = 

v. 6 o f Oeuvres Complètes). 

F r a z e r , S i r Jam es G e o r g e . Folklore in the Old Testament. 3 v. London 1918. 

F re e m a n , E d w a r d A u g u s tu s . The History of the Norman Conquest of England, its causes 

and its results. 6 v. Oxford 1867-1879. 

F r is k , H j a l m a r . Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 v. Heidelberg 1960-1970. 

F r o b e n iu s , L e o . Der Ursprung der Afrikanischen Kulturen. Zeitschrift fü r Ethnologie, 1898. 

Id. Paideuma. Munich 1921. 

F u s t e l d e C o u la n g e s , N u m a -D e n is. La Cité antique, étude sur le culte, le droit, les institutions 

de la Grèce et de Rome. Paris 1864. 

Id. Questions historiques... (Les origines de la propriété.) C. Jullian, ed. Paris 1893. 

Id. Recherches sur quelques problèmes d’histoire. (Du régime des terres en Germanie.) 

Paris 1885. 

G a iu s . Institutiones Juris Civilis. 

G a m a y u n o v , L. S. and R. A . U ly a n o v s k y . Trud russkogo sotsiologa M. M. Kovalevskogo 

“ Obshchinnoe Zemlevladenie...” i kritika ego K. Marksom. Trudy X X V Mezhduna- 

rodnogo Kongressa Vostokovedov (i960) 1963, v. 4, pp. 38-44. 

G a r c i l a s s o d e l a V e g a . The Royal Commentaries of Peru... tr. by Sir P. Rycaut. London 

1688. 

A u lu s G e l l i u s . Noctes Atticae. 

G e o r g e , H e n r y . Progress and Poverty. San Francisco 1879. 

G i e r k e , O t t o v o n . Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht. 4 v. Berlin 1868-1913. Eng. tr. of 

v. 3, pp. 510-644: Political Theories of the Middle Age. F. W. Maitland, ed. Cambridge 

1900; of v. 4, pp. 276-541 : Natural Law and the Theory of Society. E . Barker, ed. 2 v. 

Cambridge 1934. 

G in s b e r g , M o r r is . The Idea of Progress. London 1953. 

G i r a l d u s C am b ren sis. See Stanihurst. 

G ir a u d - T e u lo n , A l e x i s . Les origines de la famille. Questions sur les antécédents des 

sociétés patriarcales. Genève 1874. 

Id. Les origines du mariage et de la famille. Genève-Paris 1884. 

G o g u e t , A n t o in e Y v e s . De l’Origine des Loix, des Arts et des Sciences, et de leurs Progrès 

chez les anciens peuples. 3 v. Paris 1758. 

G ö m a r a , F r a n c i s c o L o p e z d e . La Istoria de las Indias y Conquista de Mexico. 2 pts. 

Çaragoça 1 5 5 2 . 

G r e k o v , B. D. Krest’yane na Rusi. Moscow-Leningrad 1946. 

G r e y , S i r G e o r g e . Journal of Tw o Expeditions of Discovery in North-West and Western 

Australia... 2 v. London 1841. 

Id. Polynesian Mythology... London 1855. 

434

G r o t e , G e o r g e . A History of Greece. 12 v. London 1846-1856. 

G r o w s e , F r e d e r i c S a lm o n . Mathura: a district memoir. 18 7 4 . 

H a e r i n g , T. L. Hegel, sein Wollen und sein Werk. 2 v. Aalen (1929-1938) 1963. 

H a ld a n e , J. B. S. Preface and notes to F. Engels. Dialectics of Nature. New York 1940. 

H a l e v y , E m ile . The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism. Boston (1928) 1955. 

H a r r i s , W a l t e r . See Ware. 

H a ver ty, M artin. History o f Ireland, Ancient and Modem. Dublin 1860. 

H e g e l , G. W. F. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. (1821) Hamburg 1955. Eng. tr. 

Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. T. M. Knox, tr. London 1952. 

Id. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. (1830) 1959. 

Id. Jenaer Realphilosophie, 1805-1806. Hamburg (1931) 1967. 

Id. Uber die wissenschaftlichen Behandlungsarten des Naturrechts. (1802). Sämtliche Werke, 

v. 7. G . Lasson, ed. 1913. 

Id. Phänomenologie des Geistes. (1807). Hamburg 1952. Eng. tr. The Phenomenology of 

Mind. J. B. Baillie, tr. (1910), N ew York 1967. Introd. by G. Lichtheim. 

Id. System der Sittlichkeit. In: Sämtliche Werke, v. 7. Schriften zur Politik und Rechtsphilosophie. 

Leipzig 1913. 

Id. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Sämtliche Werke, v. 11. (H. Glöckner, 

ed.) Stuttgart 1949. 

H e rm a n n , C a r l F r i e d r i c h . A Manual of the Political Antiquities of Greece historically 

considered. Oxford 1836. 

H e r o d o t u s. 

H e r r e r a y T o r d e s i l l a s , A n t o n io d e . T h e G eneral H isto ry o f the vast continent and islands 

o f A m e r ic a ... 6 v . L o n d o n 1725-1726. 

H e r t w i g , W i l h e l m A u g u s t O s k a r . Die Symbiose. Jena 1883. 

Id. Die Lehre von Organismus und ihre Beziehung zur Sozialwissenschaft. Berlin 1899. 

Id. Das Werden der Organismen. Jena 1916. 

H ild e b r a n d , R ic h a r d . Recht und Sitte auf den verschiedenen wirtschafdichen Kulturstufen. 

Jena 1896. 

H obbes, T h o m a s. Leviathan. London 1651. 

Id. Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Tertia. De Cive. 1642. (Latin Works, v. 2). 

H obsbaw m , E. J. Introduction to: Karl Marx, Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations. ( = Karl 

Marx, Grundrisse, pp. 375-413. See Introduction, this volume, notes 7 and 71.) 

H o m e r, Iliad. 

H o s p it a l ie r , E d o u a r d . La Physique moderne. Les principales applications de Pelectricite. 

Paris 1 881. 

H u g o , G u s t a v . Lehrbuch eines civilistischen Cursus. v. 2. Lehrbuch des Naturrechts, als 

einer Philosophie des positiven Rechts, besonders des Privatrechts. Berlin 1798. 4th ed. 

1819. 

H ü llm a n n , C a r l D i e t r i c h . Geschichte des Ursprungs der Deutschen Fürstenwürde. Bonn 

1842. 

H u n t e r , W i lli a m W ils o n . Orissa. 2 v. London 1872. 

H uxley, T. H. The Struggle for Existence. The Nineteenth Century, February 1888. See 

Kropotkin, Mutual Aid. 

H y n d m a n , H . M. The Record of an Adventurous Life. New York 19 11. 

H y p p o lite , J e a n . Etudes sur Marx et Hegel. Paris 1955. 

I r w in , H e n r y C r o s s ly . The Garden of India. London 1880. 

J a e g e r , W e r n e r . Aristoteles. 19 2 3 . 

J e l l i n e k , G e o r g . System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte. 2nd ed. 1905. 

Jo h n s o n , S a m u e l. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2 v. London 1755. 

J o r d a n e s (Jornandes). Getica (De Gothis). 

J u lia n u s . Antiokhikos = Misopogon, “ Beardhater.” 

J USTINIANUS. Institutiones. 

K a c h o r o v s k y , K . Russkaya Obshchina. St. Petersburg 1900. 

435

K a l o e v , B. A . M. M. Kovalevsky. Sovetskaya Etnografiya, 1966, no. 6, pp. 30-42. 

K am es, H e n r y H om e, L o r d . Sketches of the History o f Man. 2 v. Edinburgh 1774. 

K a r l K a u t s k y . In: Die Volkswirtschaftslehre der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen. Felix 

Meiner, Hrsg. v. 1. Leipzig 1924. 

K a r l M a r x , Chronik seines Lebens in Einzeldaten. V . Adoratskij ed. Moscow 1934. 

K a u fm a n , A. A . Russkaya Obshchina. Moscow 1908. 

K a u fm a n n , W a l t e r . From Shakespeare to Existentialism. New York i960. 

Id. Hegel, a reinterpretation. Garden City N .Y . 1966. 

K a u t s k y , K a r l . See under Die Neue Zeit, v. 3, 1885. See also under L. H. Morgan, Ancient 

Society. 

K e n n e y , Jam es F. The Sources for the Early History of Ireland, v. 1. New York 1929. 

K e u s s l e r , J. v. Zur Geschichte und Kritik des bäuerlichen Gemeindebesitzes in Russland. 

4 v. Riga-Moscow-Odessa 1876-1887. 

K in g s b o r o u g h , E d w a r d K in g . Antiquities of M exico... 9 v. London 1830-1848. 

K n o x , R o b e r t . An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in the East-Indies... London 

1681. 

K o e b n e r , R ic h a r d . The Settlement and Colonization of Europe. In : The Cambridge Economic 

History of Europe. M. Postan, ed. 1966, pp. 1-91. (First published 1941). 

K o r s c h , K a r l . Karl Marx. London 1938. Repr. 1963. Ger. ed. G. Langkau, ed. Frankfurt- 

Vienna 1967. 

K o s v e n , M. O. M. M. Kovalevsky kak etnograf-kavkazoved. Sovetskaya Etnografiya, 1951, 

no. 4, pp. 116 -135. 

Id. Semeynaya Obshchina i Patronimiya. Moscow 1963. 

K o v a le v s k y , M a x im M . Dve Zhizni. Vestnik Evropy, 1909, no. 7. 

Id. Modem Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia. London 1891. 

Id. Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie. Prichiny, khod i posledstviia ego razlozheniia. Pt. I. Moscow 

1879. 

Id. Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la famille et de la propriété. Stockholm 1890. 

K r a d e r , L a w r e n c e . Critique dialectique de la nature de la nature humaine. UHomme et la 

Société, no. 10, 1968, pp. 21-38. 

Id. The Formation of the State. Englewood Cliffs, N .J. 1968. 

Id. Peoples of Central Asia. 3rd ed. New York. 1971. 

K r o e b e r , A. L. The Superorganic. American Anthropologist, v. 19, 1917, pp. 163-213. 

K r o e b e r , A. L. and C l y d e K lu c k h o h n . Culture, A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions 

(1952). New York 1963. 

K r o p o t k in , P e t r . Mutual Aid. New York 1902. Repr. with T. H. Huxley. The Struggle for 

Existence. Ashley Montagu, ed. n.d. 

K u l i s c h e r , J o s e f . Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte. 2 v. Munich-Berlin 1928-1929. 

L a b a t , J e a n B a p tis te . Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique... Paris 1722. 

L afargue, Pau l. La Propriété, Origine et Evolution. Paris 1895. 

L a f i t a u , Jo s e p h F r a n ç o is . Moeurs des Sauvages Amériquains comparées aux moeurs des 

premiers temps. 2 v. Paris 1724. 

L a n g , G id e o n S. The Aborigines of Australia... Melbourne 1865. 

L a t h a m , R o b e r t G o r d o n . Descriptive Ethnology. 2 v. London 1859. 

L a T o u c h e , S i r Jam e s J o h n D ig g e s . Report on the Settlement of the Ajmere Sc Mhairwarra 

Districts. Calcutta 1875. 

L a v e l e y e , E m ile d e . Les formes primitives de la propriété. Revue des D eux Mondes, 1872. 

Id. De la propriété et de ses formes primitives. Paris 1874. 

L e a c h , E . R. In: Past and Present, no. 15, 1959, pp. 2-26. 

L e g e s W a l l i c a e . See Cyfreithjeu. 

L e l a n d , T h o m a s. The History of Ireland... 3 v. London 1773. 

L e P la y , F r é d é r i c . Les ouvriers Européens. 2nd ed. 6 v. Tours 1877-1879. 

L e s l ie , F o rb e s . The Early Races of Scotland and their Monuments. 2 v. Edinburgh 1866. 

LEWinsKi, J an St . The Origin of Property. London 1913. 

436

L e w is , C h a r l t o n T. and C . S h o r t . A Latin Dictionary. Oxford 1879. Founded on Andrew’s 

edition of Freund’s Dictionary. 

L ic h th e im , G e o r g e . Marxism. 2nd. ed. London 1964. 

L i l i e n f e l d , P a u l. Gedanken über die Socialwissenschaften der Zukunft. 5 v. Mitau 1873- 

1881. 

Id. La Pathologie Sociale. Paris 1896. Pref. René Worms. 

Id. Zur Vertheidigung der organischen Methode in der Soziologie. Berlin 1898. 

L in g u e t , Sim on N i c o l a s H e n r i. Théorie des loix civiles. 2 v. London 1767. 

T it u s L i v i u s (L iv y ). 

L obkowicz, N icholas. Theory and Practice : The History of a Concept from Aristotle to 

Marx. Notre-Dame - London 1967. 

L o r i a , A c h i l l e . La rendita fondiaria e la sua elisione naturale. Milan 18 8 0 . 

L o w ie , R o b e r t H. Primitive Society. N ew York 1947. 

Id. The Origin of the State. New York 1927. 

Id. The History of Ethnological Theory. New York 1937. 

L ö w it h , K a r l . Meaning in History. Chicago 19 4 9 . 

Id. Von Hegel bis Nietzsche. Zürich 1941. Eng. tr. From Hegel to Nietzsche. D. E. Green tr. 

N ew York 1964. 

L u b b o c k , S i r J o h n (Baron Avebury). The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition 

of Man. London 1870. 

L u c a s , E r h a r d . Die Rezeption Lewis H. Morgans durch Marx und Engels. Saeculum, v. 1 5 , 

1964, pp. 153-176· 

Id. Marx’ Studien zur Frühgeschichte und Ethnologie 1880-1882. Ib., pp. 327-343. 

T. L u c r e t i u s C a r u s . De Rerum Natura. 

L u k ä c s . G e o r g . Der Junge Hegel. Zürich 1948. 

M a c h i a v e l l i , N . Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. 

Id. History of Florence. 

M a cIver, R. M. The Modern State. Oxford 1926. 

Id. Community. London 1936. 

M a c P h e r s o n , Jam es. An Introduction to the History of Great Britain and Ireland... Dublin 

1771. 

M a in e , S i r H e n r y Su m n er. Ancient Law. London 1861. 

Id. Lectures on the Early History of Institutions. London 1875. 

Id. Village-Communities in the East and West. London 1871. 

Id. Dissertations on Early Law and Custom. New York 1886. 

M a n u e l, F r a n k E d w a r d . The Prophets of Paris. New York 1965. 

M ariner, W illiam . An account of the natives of the Tonga Islands... 2 v. London 1817. 

M arks, K a rl, Konspekt Knigi Morgana. See Arkhiv Marksa i Engel’sa. 

M a r s d e n , W illia m . The History of Sumatra... London 1783. 

M a r t y r , P e t r u s . 

De orbe nouo decades. Compluti 15 30. 

De orbe nouo decades octo. Paris 1587. 

The Decades of the newe worlde or west India... tr. by Richard Eden. London 1555. 

M arx, K arl, Friedrich Engels. Historisch-Kritische Gesamtausgabe. (M EG A). 1927-1932. 

M arx, K arl, Friedrich Engels. Sochineniia. 2nd ed. Moscow, 39 v. in 42. 1955-1966. 

M arx, K a r l, Friedrich Engels. Werke. (MEW ). 39 v. plus 2 suppl. 1959-1969. 

M arx, K a r l. Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie. 1841. 

M EW , suppl. i. 

M a r x , K a r l . Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Rohentwurf, 1857-1858), 

1939-1941. Repr. 1953. 

M arx, K a r l. Excerpts from M. M. Kovalevsky, Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie. In: Sovetskoe 

Vostokovedenie, 1958, no. 3, pp. [31-13, no. 4, pp. [3]-22, no. 5, pp. [3]-^8; Problemy 

Vostokovedeniia, 1959, no. 1, pp. [31-17. 

International Institute of Social History, Notebook B-140. 

437

M a r x, K a r l. Das Kapital, v. i (1867), 4th-7th ed., 1914. Fr. tr., J. Roy, (1872) 1938-1939. 

Eng. tr. S. Moore, E. Aveling, E. Untermann. F. Engels, ed. (1886, 1906) 1937. v. 2 

(1885) 4th ed., 1910. F. Engels, ed. v. 3 (1894) 3rd ed., 191 x. F. Engels, ed. Eng. tr., 

E . Untermann, 1909. M EW 23, 24, 25. 

M arx, K a r l. Kritik des Gothaer Programms (1875). Die Neue Zeit, v. 9, no. 18, 1890-1891. 

M EW 19. 

M a r x , K a r l . Das Manifest der historischen Rechtsschule. Rheinische Zeitung, no. 221, 1842. 

M EW i. 

M a r x , K a r l . La Misère de la Philosophie. Paris 1847. M EW 4. 

M a r x , K a r l . Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte (1844). M E G A I, v. 3. M EW , suppl. 

i. 

M a r x , K a r l . Randglossen zu A . Wagners ‘Lehrbuch der politischen Ökonomie’. M EW 19. 

M a r x , K a r l . Thesen über Feuerbach, 1845. M EW 2. 

M a r x , K a r l . Theorien über den Mehrwert, 3 v. M EW 26.1, 26,2. 26.3. 

M a r x , K a r l . Die Deutsche Ideologie (with Friedrich Engels). 1845-1846. M EW 3. 

M a rx, K a r l. Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie, Einleitung. Deutsch-Französische 

Jahrbücher, 1844. M EW 1. 

M arx, K a r l. Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, 1859. M EW 13. Eng. tr. N . Stone, 1913. 

M arx, K a r l. Correspondence. M E G A III, v. 2, 3. M EW 27, 30, 32. 

M a r x , K a r l . Die Heilige Familie. See Engels, F. 

M a r x , K a r l , and F r i e d r i c h E n g e l s . Communist Manifesto (1848). Various editions. Cf. 

esp. Russ. ed. 1882; Eng. ed. 1888. 

M arx, K a r l and F ried rich E n g els. Selected Correspondence. 2nd ed. Moscow 1965. 

M arx-E n gels Archiv, v. 1 [1926]. Vera Zasulic und Karl Marx. pp. 309-342. D. Rjazanov, ed. 

M aurer, G eorg L udwig v o n . Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-, Hof-, Dorf- und Stadtverfassung 

(1854). 2nd ed. Vienna 1896, H. Cunow, ed. 3rd ed. K. Dickopf, ed. Aalen 

1966. 

Id. Geschichte der Markenverfassung in Deutschland. Erlangen 1856. Repr. Aalen 1961. 

Id. Geschichte der Dorfverfassung in Deutschland. 2 v. Erlangen 1865-1866. Repr. Aalen 

1961. 

M c L e n n a n , J. F. Primitive Marriage, an Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in 

Marriage Ceremonies. Edinburgh 1865. 2nd ed. entitled Studies in Ancient History. 

London 1876. 

M eh rin g, F r anz. Karl Marx. Leipzig 1918. Eng. tr., E. Fitzgerald, tr. N ew York 1935. 

Mein ers, C hristoph. Allgemeine kritische Geschichte der Religionen. 2 v. Hannover 1806. 

Id. Grundriss der Geschichte der Menschheit. Lemgo 1785. 

M e r o l l a , G ir o la m o . A Voyage to Congo and several other countries... See Pinkerton, 

v. 16. 

M ia s k o w sk i, A u g u s t v . Die schweizerische Allmend... Leipzig 1879. 

Mom m sen, T h e o d o r . Römische Geschichte. 3 v. Berlin 1854-1856. 

M o n e y , J. W. B. Java, or How to Manage a Colony. 2 v. London 1861. 

M o n te sq u ie u , C h a r l e s S e c o n d â t , Baron de. De l’Esprit des Lois. 

M o r f , O t t o . Geschichte und Dialektik in der Politischen Ökonomie. 2nd ed. Frankfurt- 

Wien 1970. 

M o r g a n , C. L l o y d . Emergent Evolution. London 19 2 3 . 

M o r g a n , L e w is H e n r y . Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from 

Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. New York-London 1877. New York 1878. 

Chicago 1907. Repr. E. B. Leacock, ed. Cleveland 1963. Rev. ed., L . A. White, Cambridge, 

Mass. 1964. Ger. tr. Die Urgesellschaft. K. Kautsky and W. Eichhoff, tr. Stuttgart 1891. 

Id. League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois. Rochester N .Y . 1851. 

Id. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Smithsonian Contributions 

to Knowledge, v. 17, 1871. 

M o r l e y , J o h n . The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, v. 3. London-New York 1903. 

M ü h lm a n n , W. E. Geschichte der Anthropologie. Bonn 1948. 

438

M u l h a l l , M . G. Egyptian Finance. The Contemporary Review, October 1882. 

M ü l l e r , J o h a n n G e o r g . Geschichte der amerikanischen Urreligionen. Basel 18 5 5 . 

M ü l l e r , K a r l O t f r i e d . Die Dorier, v. 2 and 3 of Geschichten Hellenischer Stämme und 

Städte. 3 v. Breslau 1820-1824. 

M u m fo r d , L e w is . The City in History. New York 1961. 

N e e d h a m , Jo se p h . The Sceptical Biologist. London 1929. 

Id. A Biologist’s View of Whitehead’s Philosophy. In : The Philosophy of A. N. Whitehead. 

P. Schilpp, ed. 1941. 

D i e N e u e Z e i t . 

Karl Kautsky. Die Indianerfrage. 3 parts, v. 3, 1885. 

Friedrich Engels. Zur Urgeschichte der Familie (Bachofen, McLennan, Morgan), v. 9, 

1891. (Preface to 4th ed. of Ursprung der Familie.) 

Heinrich Cunow. Die soziale Verfassung des Inkareichs, v. 14, 1896. 

Id. Die ökonomischen Grundlagen der Mutterherrschaft. 5 parts, v. 17, 1898. 

N ie b u h r , B a r t h o l d G e o r g . Römische Geschichte. 2 pts. Berlin 18 11, 1812. 

O b e r g , K. The Kingdom of Ankole in Uganda. In: M. Fortes and E. Evans-Pritchard, 

African Political Systems. London 1940. 

O ’ C u r r y , E u g e n e . See Curry. 

O ’D o n o v a n , J o h n and E . O ’C u r r y . Ancient Laws of Ireland. Senchus Mor etc. 1865. See 

under title. 

O ’D o n o v a n , J o h n . Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters... 7 v. Dublin 

1851. 

O n la n s , R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the 

World, Time, and Fate. Cambridge 1951. 

O p le r , M. E. In: Current Anthropology, v. 3, 1962, p. 478. 

P. O v id iu s N a s o . Fasti. 

P a l l a s , P e t e r Sim on. Voyages en différentes Provinces de PEmpire de Russie, et dans l’Asie 

Septentrionale. 5 v. Paris 1788-1793. 

P a n d e c t s . See Digest. 

P a u sa n ia s. Description. 

P e n n im an , T. K . A Hundred Years of Anthropology. Rev. ed. London 1952. 

P h e a r , S i r J o h n B u d d . The Aryan Village in India and Ceylon. London 18 8 0 . 

P in k e r t o n , J o h n . A General Collection of the best and most interesting voyages and travels 

in all parts of the world... 17 v. London 1808-1814. 

P l a t o . Timaeus. Laws. 

P l u t a r c h . Lives: 

Aristides 

Numa 

Romulus 

Solon 

Theseus 

P ö h lm a n n , R o b e r t v o n . Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken 

W elt... 2 v. Munich 1912. 

P o k o r n y , J u liu s . Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 v. Bern-Munich 1959- 

1969. 

J u l iu s P o l l u x . 

P o ly b iu s. History. 

Popper, K a r l . The Open Society and its Enemies. 4th ed. 2 v. London 1962. 

Id. The Poverty of Historicism. London 1961. 

P o s t, A l b e r t H e rm a n n . Die Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtslebens. Oldenburg 1878. 

P r e s c o t t , W i lli a m H i c k l i n g . History of the Conquest of Mexico... 3 v. London-New 

York 1843. 

P r o y a r t , A bbé L ié v a in B o n a v e n t u r e . History of Loango, Kakongo, and other kingdoms 

in Africa. See Pinkerton, v. 16. 

439

P u m p h re y, R. J. The Forgotten Man: Sir John Lubbock. Science, v. 129 ,1959, pp. 1087-1092. 

Repr. from: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, v. 13, no. 1, 1958. 

P u r c h a s , S a m u e l. Purchas his Pilgrimage... London 1613. 

Q u a tr e m è r e , E t i e n n e M a r c . Mémoires géographiques et historiques sur l’Egypte et sur 

quelques contrées voisines. 2 v. Paris 18 11. 

R a t z e l , F r i e d r i c h . Politische Geographie. Munich 18 9 7 . 

R e c h e r c h e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l e s . Premières sociétés de classe et mode de production asiatique, 

no. 57-58, 1967. 

R e l a t io n a b r é g é e s u r l a N o u v e l le - E s p a g n e et sur la grande ville de Temixtitan, Mexico, 

écrite par un gentilhomme de la suite de Fernand Cortés. In: Temaux-Compans, 

H. Voyages, relations et mémoires originaux pour servir à l’histoire de la découverte de 

l’Amérique... v. 10, 1838, pp. 49-105. 

R e sek , C a r l . Lewis Henry Morgan, American Scholar. Chicago i960. 

R ib e ir o , J o a o . History of Ceylon... Colombo 18 4 7 . 

R ichardson, Sir J ohn. Arctic Searching Expedition: a journal of a boat-voyage through 

Rupert’ s Land and the Arctic Sea... 2 v. London 1851. 

R ja z a n o v (R y a z a n o v ), D[avid Borisovich Goldendakh]. Novye Dannye o Literaturnom 

Nasledstve K. Marksa i F. Engel’sa. Vestnik Sotsialisticheskoy Akademii, no. 6, 1923, 

pp. 351-376. Germ, tr., Neueste Mitteilungen über den literarischen Nachlass von Karl 

Marx und Friedrich Engels. Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung. 

Carl Grünberg, ed. v. 11, 1925, pp. 385-400. 

R o g e r s , Jam e s E. T h o r o l d . A History of Agriculture and Prices in England... 7 v. Oxford 

1866-1902. 

R o s d o ls k y , R om an . Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen ‘Kapital’. 2nd ed. Frankfurt- 

Vienna 1969. 

R o u sse a u , J e a n J a c q u e s . D u Contrat Social. L ’Etat de Guerre. Discours sur l’inégalité. 

In: The Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau. C. E. Vaughan, ed. 2 v. Cambridge 

1915. 

R u b e l, M a x im ilie n . Bibliographie des Oeuvres de Karl Marx. Paris 1956. 

S a f r o n o v , B. G. M. M. Kovalevsky kak sotsiolog. Moscow i960. 

S a h a g u n , B e r n a r d in o d e . Historia General de las cosas de Nueva Espana. 3 v. Mexico 

18 2 9 -18 3 0 . 

S a h l i n s , M a r s h a l l and E l m a n S e r v i c e . E v o lu tio n and Culture. A n n A rb o r, M ich . 19 5 9 . 

S a r t r e , J e a n - P a u l. Critique de la raison dialectique. Paris i960. 

S c h ä f f l e , A l b e r t E. F. Bau und Leben des Socialen Körpers. 4 v. Tübingen 1875-1878. 

S c h o e m a n n , G e o r g F r i e d r i c h and J. H. Lip siu s. Griechische Alterthümer (1855). 4th ed., 

v. i, Berlin 1897. 

S c h o o l c r a f t , H e n r y R o w e . History of the Indian Tribes of the United States... Philadelphia 

1857. 

S c h u r t z , H e in r ic h . Die Anfänge des Landbesitzes. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, 190 0 . 

S c h ü t z , C h r i s t i a n G o t t f r i e d . Aeschyli Tragoediae. 5 v. Halle 1782-1821. 

S e lig m a n , E. R. A . The Economic Interpretation of History. New York 1902. 

S im k h o v ic h , V. Die Feldgemeinschaft in Russland. Jena 1898. 

S k e n e , W illia m F o rb e s . The Highlanders of Scotland, their origin, history and antiquities. 

2 v. London 1837. 

S m ith , A d am . A n Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 2 v. London 

1776. 

S m ith , W illia m . A New Voyage to Guinea. London 1744. 

Soh m , R u d o lp h . Fränkisches Recht und Römisches Recht. Prolegomena zur Deutschen 

Rechtsgeschichte. Weimar 1880. 

Id. Die altdeutsche Reichs- und Gerichtsverfassung. I. Die Fränkische Reichs- und Gerichtsverfassung. 

Weimar 1871. 

S p e n se r, E d m u n d . A view of the state of Ireland. 1596. (A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, 

A Short-Title Catalogue, 1926: In: Sir James Ware. Tw o histories of Ireland... Dublin 

1633.) 

440

S r e z n e v s k y , 1. 1. Slovar’ Drevne-Russkogo Yazyka. 3 v. Moscow 1893. 

S t a n i h u r s t , R ic h a r d . De Rebus in Hibernia gestis, Libri quattuor. Accessit... Hiberni- 

carum rerum appendix, ex S. Giraldo Cambrensi collecta. Apud C. Plantinum: 

Antverpiae, 1584. 

S t e in , L u d w ig . Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie. Stuttgart 1897. 

S te p h e n so n , C. The Common Man in Early Medieval Europe. American Historical Review, 

v. 51, 1946. 

S t e r n , B. J. In: American Anthropologist, v. 33, 1935, pp. 138-145. 

Id. Lewis Henry Morgan, Social Evolutionist. Chicago 1931. 

S t e w a r d , J u l i a n . Theory of Culture Change. Urbana, 111. 1955. 

S t o c k i n g , G e o r g e W. Race, Culture and Evolution. New York 1968. 

S t r a b o . Geography. 

S t r a n g e , S i r T h o m a s. Elements of Hindu Law. 2 v. London 1825. 2nd ed. entitled Hindu 

Law. 2 v. London 1830. 

Stu b b s, W illia m . The Constitutional History of England... 3 v. Oxford 1866. 

C. S u e to n iu s T r a n q u i l l u s . Life of Tiberius. 

Life of Claudius. 

S u l l i v a n , W. K. Brehon Law. In : O ’Curry, Eugene. On the Manners and Customs of the 

ancient Irish. W. K. Sullivan, ed. v. 3, 1873. 

C . C o r n e l iu s T a c it u s . Germania (De Situ, Moribus, et Populis Germaniae). Justus Lipsius 

ed. Antwerp 1585, 1589. J. Gronovius, ed. Amsterdam 1672. (Vide supra, Introduction, 

note 25.) 

Id. Annales. In: Lipsius ed. supra. 

T a n n e r , J o h n . A Narrative of the Captivity and Advèntures of John Tanner... New York 

1830. 

T a y l o r , P h ilip M e a d o w s . The People of India. J. F. Watson and J. W. Kaye eds. 6 v. 

London 1868-1872. 

T a y l o r , R ic h a r d . Te Ika a Maui, or, New Zealand and its Inhabitants. London 1855. 

T a y l o r , W. C o o k e . The Natural history of Society in the Barbarous and Civilized State. 2 v . 

London 1840. 

T e rn a u x -C o m p a n s. See Relation... 

T e r t r e . See under Du Tertre. 

T h i r l w a l l , C onnop . A History of Greece. 8 v . London 1835-1847. 

T h o r n e r , D a n i e l . Karl Marx on India and the Asiatic Mode of Production. Contributions 

to Indian Sociology, no. 9. 1966, pp. 33-66. 

T h u c y d i d e s . 

T OCQUEVILLE, A LEXIS C h a r l e s d e . L ’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. Paris 1856. 

T o e n n ie s, F e r d in a n d . Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Leipzig 1887. 

T ö k e i, F. Sur le mode de production asiatique. Budapest 1966. 

T r o e l t s c h , E r n s t . Der Historismus und seine Probleme (1922). Aalen 1961. 

T s c h u p r o v (C h u p ro v ), A . Die Feldgemeinschaft. Strassburg 1902. 

T y l o r , S i r E d w a r d B u r n e t t . Researches into the Early History of Mankind. London 1865. 

Id. Primitive Culture. 2 v. London 1871. 

Id. Anthropology. London 1881. 

D o m it iu s U l p ia n u s . 

V a l e n t i j n , F r a n ç o is . Oud en nieuw Oost-Indien... 5 v. Amsterdam 1724-1726. 

V a l l a n c e y ( V a l l e n c e y ) , C h a r l e s . Collectanea de Rebus Hibemicis. 6 v. Dublin 1770-1804. 

V a r g a , Y e . The Asiatic Mode of Production. In: Economic Problems of Capitalism. 

Moscow 1966. 

M. T e r e n t iu s V a r r o . De Lingua Latina. 

De Re Rustica. 

P. V e l l e i u s P a t e r c u lu s . History of Rome. 

Vico, G ia m b a ttis ta . Principi di una Scienza Nuova. Naples 1725. 

441

V i o l l e t , P a u l. Le caractère collectif des premières propriétés immobilières. Bibliothèque 

de l’Ecole de Chartes, v. 33, 1872. 

W a c h s m u th , E r n s t W ilh e lm G o t t l i e b . The Historical Antiquities of the Greeks... 

Oxford 1837. 

W a g n e r , A d o l f . Lehrbuch der politischen Ökonomie. 2nd. ed. Leipzig-Heidelberg 1879. 

W a ld e , A . and J. B. H o fm a n n . Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3rd ed. 3 v. 

Heidelberg 1938. 

W are, Sir J am es. The Whole Works of Sir James Ware concerning Ireland. 2 v. Dublin 

1739-1764. 

W a t s o n , J. F. See Taylor, Philip. 

W e b e r , M a x . Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, v. 1 

(1922). Cologne-Berlin 1964. 

W e ls k o p f. E . C. Die Produktsverhältnisse im alten Orient und in der Griechisch-Römischen 

Antike. Berlin 1957. 

W e s t e r m a n n , D i e d r i c h . D ie K p e lle ... L e ip z ig 1 9 2 1 . 

W e s t e r m a r c k , E d v a r d . The Origin and Development o f the Moral Ideas. London 1906. 

W h e e l e r , W i lli a m M o r t o n . Emergent Evolution and the Development of Societies. New 

York 1928. 

W h i t e , A . D. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. 2 v. (1896). New York 

i960. 

W h i t e , L e s l i e A . The Evolution of Culture. New York 1959. 

W h it e h e a d , A . N. The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. P. A. Schilpp, ed. Evanston- 

Chicago 1 941. 

W illia m s , T h o m a s. Fiji and the Fijians, v . 1. London 1858. 

W iTTFO G EL, K . A . Oriental Despotism. New Haven 1957. 

Y o u n g , A r t h u r . Travels [in France] during the Years 1787, 1788, 178 9 ... 2 v. Bury St. Edmunds 

1792-1794. 

V II C o n g r è s I n t e r n a t i o n a l d e s S c ie n c e s A n t h r o p o lo g iq u e s e t E t h n o l o g iq u e s (1964), 

Moscow, v. IV , 1967, pp. 4 4 1 -jii. (Symposium, L. H. Morgan). 

442

IN D EX OF NAMES

Acosta, Joseph de (ca. 1539-1600). 187, 19 1, Avebury, Lord (see John Lubbock). 

193. Axaycatl. (fl. 1469-1481). 191. 

Adair, James, (fl. 1775). 149. 

Adam, Alexander. (1741-1809). 219 Babeuf, Gracchus. (1760-1797). 58. 

Adams (see Adam). Baboo Ram Sundar Basack. (fl. ca. 1870). 267. 

Adoratsky, Vladimir Viktorovich. (1878- Babu Peary Chund Mookerjee. (fl. ca. 1870). 

1945). 87, 88, 357. 257. 

Aeschylus. (525-456 B.C.). Bachofen, Johann Jakob. (1815-1887). 7, 11, 

Eumenides. 15 1. 13, 25, 27, 28, 44, 57, 58, 63, 71, 78, 79, 

Prometheus. 238. 116 , 237, 323, 341, 391. 

Seven against Thebes. 172, 205, 405. Gesammelte Werke, v. 10. Briefe. 366. 

The Suppliant Maidens. 205-206, 237- Das Mutterrecht. 116 -117 , 235-236, 314, 

238,405. 323, 3 39» 363-364. 

Aksakov, Konstantin Sergeevich. (1817- Versuch über die Gräbersymbolik der 

i860). 379. Alten. 364. 

Alexander the Great. (356-323 B.C.). 345. Baden-Powell, Baden Henry. (1841-1901). 

Alexander, Samuel. (1859-1938). 49. 71, 381. 

Alfred the Great, king of England. (849-901). Baegert, Jakob. S.J. (1717-1772). 342. 

36, 323. Bailey, B. A. (*). 371. 

Allis, Samuel, (fl. 1870s). 179. Baillie, Sir James Black. (1872-1940). 392. 

Althaus (Althusius), Johannes. (1557-1638). Bakunin, Mikhail Aleksandrovich. (1814- 

377· 1876)- 56. 

Althusser, Louis. (1918- ). 335-356. Baliol, John de. (ca. 1250-1314). 3 11. 

Alvarado de Tezozomoc, Fernando, (fl. Bancroft, Hubert Howe. (1832-1918). 7, 76, 

1598). 191, 193. 90, 183, 363, 397. 

Ancus Marcius. (640-618 B.C.). 224, 227, 228, Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse. (1840- 

229. 1914)· 191- 

Anderson, Dr. James. (i68o?-i739). 93, 199, Barker, Sir Ernest. (1874-1960). 7 1, 376. 

305, 417. Bastian, Adolf (i.e., Philipp Wilhelm Adolf). 

Andrews, Ethan Allen. (1787-1858). 35. (1826-1905). 45, 90, 397. 

Andrews, Lorrin. (1795-1868). 109. Battel, Andrew, (fl. 1589). 340. 

Annenkov, Pavel VasiPevich. (1812-1887). Bauer, Bruno. (1809-1882). 22. 

16, 403. Bebel, August. (1840-1913). 389. 

Anonymous Conqueror, (fl. 1520s). 190. Becker, Wilhelm Adolph. (1796-1846). 121, 

Anuchin, Dmitrii Nikolaevich. (1843-1923). 199. 

359. Belyaev, Ivan Dmitrievich. (1810-1873). 380. 

Appius Claudius (founder of the gens). 220, Bentham, Jeremy. (1748-1832). 13, 34, 39, 41, 

23 1 · 69, 70, 71, 315, 326, 327, 328, 329, 336, 

Appius Claudius. 222, 409. 419. 

Aristides. (6th-5th centuries B.C.). 216, 217, Benveniste, Emile. (1902- ). 72, 382. 

407. Bergier, Nicolas Sylvestre. (1718-1790). 358. 

Aristotle. (384-322 B.C.). 19, 20, 21, 30, 48, Bergson, Henri. (1859-1941). 71, 380. 

53» 92> I 9^> 203, 204, 208, 210, 2 11,216 , Bernstein, Eduard. (1850-1932). 1, 71, 77, 79, 

224, 236, 369, 375, 382, 405. 80, 388, 389, 392. 

Arminius. (ca. 18 B.C.-ca. 19 A.D.). 239. Bemerkungen über Engels’ Ursprung der 

Ascelin, Friar Niccolo. (fl. 1247). 346. Familie. 391-392. 

Astley, Thomas, (first half 18th century). Erinnerungen eines Sozialisten (My Years 

340, 346. of Exile). 388. 

Atahualpa. (fl. 1531-1532). 195. Bingham, Hiram. (1789-1869). 108. 

Atkinson, James Jasper, (d. 1899). 71. Bishop, Artemus. (fl. 1854). 109. 

Attius Balbus, Marcus, (ist century B.C.). 219 Bismarck, Otto von. (1815-1898). 389. 

Austin, John. (1790-1859). 9, 34, 39, 41, 43, Black (Black’s London). 190. 

64, 69, 327-328, 329, 330-331, 332-333, Blacksnake, Governor (fl. 1850s). 173. 

334» 385· Blackstock, Paul W. (*). 393. 

445

Blackstone, Sir William. (1723-1780). 313, De Deorum Natura. 314. 

3 18 ,3 2 0 ,3 2 2 . De Legibus. 220. 

Bloch, Ernst. (1885- ). 46. De Officiis. 314. 

Blunt, Wilfred Scawen. (1860-1922). 360. De Oratore. 315. 

Boas, Franz. (1858-1942). 49, 50, 58. De Republica. 227, 228, 230, 232, 410. 

Bockh (see Boeckh). Pro Domo. 223. 

Boeckh, August. (1785-1867). 13, 209, 2x1. Topica. 218,407. 

Bogisic, Valtazar. (1834-1908). 380. Cimon. (ca. 505-450 B.C.). 237. 

Bosman, Willem, (fl. 1698). 347, 348. Claudius I (Tiberius Claudius Nero Germa- 

Bracton, Henry de. (d. 1268). 293. nicus). (10 B.C.-54 A.D.). 223. 

Brasseur de Bourbourg, Charles Etienne. Clavigero (Clavijero), Francisco Xavier. 

(1814-1874). 193. (1731-1787). 117 ,1 8 7 , 188,190, 191, 192, 

Brett, William Henry. (1818-1886). 186. 193, 194, 196. 

Brosses, Charles de. (1709-1777). 89, 396, Cleisthenes o f Argos (or Sicyon). (fl. 595 

397. B.C.). 223. 

Bruce, Robert de. (1274-1329). 3 11. Cleisthenes of Athens, (fl. 509 B.C.). 19, 27, 

Brunner, Heinrich. (1840-1915). 420. 67, 15 1, 196, 197, 199, 200, 207, 208, 

Buchanan. 341. 2 11, 212, 214-215, 216, 231, 406. 

Biicher, Karl. (1847-1930). 380. Codrus. 200, 210. 

Buddhagosha. (fl. 412-434). 281. Colebrooke, Lt. Col. (fl. 1831). 280. 

Burton, Sir Richard Francis. (1821-1890). Comte, Auguste. (1798-1857). 2, 71, 396. 

341. Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. (1714-1780). 

Bury, John Bagnell. (1861-1927). 4, 355. 358. 

Byington, Cyrus. (1793-1868). 149. Conmer, Lt. (19th century). 341. 

Connor, king of Thomond. (early 15 th 

Caesar, Caius Julius. (102 or 100-44 B.C.). 13, century). 308. 

27, 76, 87, 97, n o , 219, 220, 240, 241, Cook, Captain James. (1728-1779). 346. 

287, 300, 349, 366, 377, 382, 383, 384, Coriolanus, Gnaeus Marcius. (5th century 

398, 412, 414, 415, 416. B.C.). 229. 

Caillié, René. (1790-1838). 341. Cornu, Auguste. (1888- ). 5, 355. 

Callaway, Bishop Henry. (1817-1890) 342. Coronado, Francisco Vasques de. (1510- 

Cameron, John. (1883- ). 371. 1554)· 16 1, 184. 

Cameron, Mr. (fl. 1831). 280. Cortés, Hernando. (1485-1547). 190, 195. 

Campbell. 341. de Coulanges (see Fustel de Coulanges). 

Canuleius. (Roman tribune 445 B.C.). 219. Cox, Edward Travers. (1821-1907). 98. 

Canute, king of England, (d. 1035). 319. Cox, George William. (1827-1902). 306, 347. 

Carver, Jonathan. (1710-1780). 175, 176, 341, Cramer, John Anthony. (1793-1848). 235. 

403. Csaplowics, J. v. (1780-1847). 72. 

Casalis, Eugène Arnaud. (1812-1891). 345, Cuitlahua. (fl. 1520). 194, 196. 

349. Cunow, Heinrich. (1862-1936). 71, 381, 

Cecrops. 236. 392. 

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. (1547-1616). Curry (O’Curry), Eugene. (1796-1862). 36, 

44, 344*345. 374, 375, 4 “ · 3° 3, 3° 4, 3° 6· 

Charles I, king of Great Britain. (1600-1649). Curtius, Ernst. (1814-1896). 13, 235. 

333. Cusik, David, (d. ca. 1840). 165. 

Chesneaux, J. (*). 372. Cuvier, Georges (i.e., Jean Léopold Nicolas 

Chichester, Arthur. (1563-1625). 36, 305, 306. Frédéric). (1769-1832). 48, 84, 364, 393. 

Childe, V. Gordon. (1892-1952). 16, 52, 57, 

368, 390. Dali, William Healey. (1845-1927). 183. 

Chrysippus. (ca. 280-206 B.C.). 48. Darwin, Charles. (1809-1882). 2, 4, n , 43, 48, 

Chuprov, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich. (1874- 49, 63, 84, 90, 108, 354, 355, 358, 365, 

1926). 71, 380. 375, 388, 390, 392, 393, 397. 

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. (106-43 B.C.). 219, Dasent, Sir George Webbe. (1817-1896). 322, 

220, 223, 316, 317, 324, 377, 407. Davies, Sir John. (1569-1626). 36, 287, 290, 

446

299. 3°2> 3° 4» 3° 5» 3°6, 307, 308, 312, Erskine, John Elphinstone. (1806-1887). 346. 

371,415. Euripides. (480-406 B.C.). 102. 

Dawkins, Sir William Boyd. (1838-1929). 43, Eustathius, archibishop of Thessalonica. 

87, 90, 394. 395· (A- 1175)· 79. 2° 7· 

Demelié, Fedor. (1832-1900). 380. Evans Pritchard, Edward Evan. (1902- ). 

Demosthenes, (ca. 383-322 B.C.). 138, 198, 377, 396. 

237. 4° 5- Eyre, Edward John. (1815-1901). 339, 341, 

Descartes, René. (1596-1650). 22. 342, 349. 

Dickens, Charles. (1812-1870). 93. 

Dikaearchus. 202 203. 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, (fl. ca. 20 B.C.). 

Felix, Ludwig. (1&30-1906). 380. 

Fœ wmkm Nfilson ( g_ } g 

152, 205, 221, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, , 

229, 230, 232, 233, 366, 401, 405, 411. Ferguson, Adam. (1728-1816). 52, 70, 391. 

Dopsch Alfons (.868-1955). 72, }»}, 3*4- Fergusson, James. ( i , 0, . i8 «6). ,48. 

raco. ( · 24 · ·)· *97. 2 11· Festus, Sextus Pompeius. (2nd or 3rd century 

Dubois, Abbe Jean Antoine. (1765-1848). A.D.?). 36, 119, 218, 221, 315, 381. 382. 

*44, *4 7 . 

. 

Duff, Brien. (15th century). 308. 

Dugmore, Henry Hare. (1810 or 1811-1897). 

399, 407. 

Feuerbach, Ludwig. (1804-1872). 22, 44, 61, 

^ 

„ , . Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. (1762-1814). 44. 

Du Halde, Jean Baptiste (1674-1743)· 3^3- Fick> A t> (^33-1916). 217. 

Duran, Diego. (1538-1588). 193. ‘ 94- Fison> Lorimet. (l8, 2_19o7). I4i. 

Durkheim Emile. (1858-1917)· 2. 49. 5°. 71, Forbes> James. (I749. l8 l9). ?22. 

_ 1? ’ 3 , Forster, William Edward. (1818-1886). 86. 

Du Tertre, Jean Baptiste. (1610-1687). 35°. Fortes> Meyef (i9q6. } 5I.J2> ^ jg> ^ 

Edw ardI, king of England. (1239-1307). 3 » . ChafleS· 1 « ‘ V ’ * 

° 6 4.0 4.0 70. 77. 78. 80. 120. i87, 380, *QI. 

Einhard/Eginhard. * 39, Franklin, Beniamin. (1706-17,0). .9 , 7°· 

Elizabeth 1, queen o f England. (1555-6 0 5). Frazeti sir James G eorge.(i8S4-.94>)· 5. 597- 

3° 1’. . Freeman, Edward Augustus. (1823-1892). 

Elliot, Sir Walter. (1803-1887). 341. 

Ellis, William. ('794-1872). 549. 35°· Freud Sigmund. (1856-1959). 49. 7>- 

Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1805-1882). 78. Freundi w ilh dm . (,806-1894). 55. 

Engelhardt, Alexander. (1828-.895). 580. pried, Morton Herbert. ( .9 2 ,- ). 50. 

Engels, Friedrich (1820-1895). Passim, prisk Hjatoar ( > 6> 

odierw.se in relation to the following: Ffobeni U o . (.87,-1958). 71, ,80. 

Anti-Dühring. 76. - ’ v ^ ' 

1 Fugger· 345. 421· 

rrespon ence. 90, 387-39°. 392· Fustel de Coulanges, Numa Denis. (1830- 

Dialektik der Natur (The Dialectics of ig 2Q2> ^ }6}> }8}> ^ 

Nature). 54. 

Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus (Socialism, 

Utopian and Scientific). 81, 386. Gaius. (ca. 110-180). 17, 18, 25, 120, 138, 218, 

Fränkische Zeit. 386. 219, 314, 315, 316, 317, 320, 323, 360, 

Die Mark. 76, 381, 386. 401. 

Der Ursprung der Familie (Origin of the Gamayunov, Leonid Stepanovich. (*). 360. 

Family). 1, 7, 12, 18, 71, 77-80, 87, 357, Gä-ne-o-di-yo (see Handsome Lake). 

358, 359, 363, 366, 367, 368, 375, 376, Garcilasso de la Vega. (1539-1616). 147, 186. 

379. 386, 387-390, 391, 397,406,417-418 Geffroy, Auguste. (1820-1895). 71. 

Zur Urgeschichte der Deutschen. 90, 386. Gellius, Aulus. (b. ca. 130 A.D.). 221, 407. 

Enschut, Cornells Adrianus van. (1778- George, Henry. (1839-1897). 380. 

1835). 72, 380. Gibbs, George. (1815-1873). 14, 183. 

Ephialtes. (d. 462/461 B.C.). 217. Gierke, Otto Friedrich von. (1841-1921). 49, 

Erman, Georg Adolph. (1806-1877). 343. 51, 52, 71, 376-377, 379, 380. 

Ernout, Alfred. (1879- ). 382, 387, 410, 419. Ginsburg, Morris. (1889-1970). 355. 

447

Giraldus Cambrensis. (1146?-:!220?). 304- Henry III, king o f England. (1207-1272). 

305. 293, 317. 

Giraud-Teulon, Alexis. (1839-1916). 358, Henry VTQ, king of England. (1491-1547). 

375· 3°4· 

Gladstone, William E . (1809-1898). 12, 27, Herder, Johann Gottfried von. (1744-1803). 

58, 78, 79, 206, 345, 393. 60, 61, 70, 391. 

Glanville, Ranulf de. (1130-1190). 293, 3 11. Hermann, Carl Friedrich. (1804-1855). 197, 

Godelier, Maurice. (*). 372. 198-199, 218. 

Goguet, Antoine-Yves. (1716-1758). 98, 398. Herodotus, (fl. 444 B.C.). 25, n o , 216, 234, 

Gomara, Francisco Lopez de. (1510-1560?). 235, 398, 409, 4 11. 

190. Herrera y Tordesillas, Antonio de. (1559- 

Gonneville, Binot Paulmier de. (fl. 1503). 98. 1625). 106, i i o - m , 117 , 147, 185, 186, 

Gorman, Samuel, (fl. i860). 132, 185. 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196. 

Grekov, Boris Dmitrievich. (1882-195 3). 379. Hertwig, Oskar. (1849-1922). 2. 

Grey, Sir George. (1812-1898). 347, 349, 351. Hildebrand, Richard, (fl. 1890s). 381. 

Grote, George. (1794-1871). 7, 11, 1 2 ,1 3 , 30, Hobbes, Thomas. (1588-1679). 39, 43, 58, 

58, 78, 79, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202,206, 69, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 336, 

212, 223, 404, 405, 406, 409. 379, 392, 393. 

Growse, Frederic Salmon. (1836-1893). 281. Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawney. (1864-1929). 

Grünberg, Carl. (1861-1940). 1. 380. 

Guatemosin. (fl. 1520s). 194. Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1917- ). 372. 

Hofmann, Johann Baptist. (1886- ). 378, 

Haddon, Alfred Cort. (1855-1940). 58. 382, 410, 419. 

Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich Philipp August. Holmes, William Henry. (1846-1933). 358. 

(1834-1919). 43. Homer. 12, 13-14, 27, 101, 120, 134-135, 155, 

Haering, Theodor Lorenz. (1884-1964). 393 197, 203, 204, 205, 206-207, 210, 215, 

Hahn, Eduard. (1856-1928). 90. 295, 297, 308, 357, 366, 368, 400, 401, 

Hakluyt, Richard. (15 52?-i 6i 6). 131. 405. 

Haldane, J. B. S. (1892- ). 54. Horecky, P. L. 380. 

Halevy, Elie. (1870-1937). 13. Hoselitz, Berthold Frank. (19 13- ). 393. 

Handsome Lake. (1735-1815). 172. Hospitalier, Edouard. (1852-1907). 7, 85, 86, 

Hanssen, Georg. (1809-1894). 71, 72, 380. 359. 

Harris, Walter. (1686-1761). 36, 305. Howel Dda, Welsh king. (d. 950). 304, 418. 

Harstick, H. P. (1937- ). 90, 360. Hugo, Gustav. (1764-1844). 61, 427. 

Haverty, Martin. (1809-1887). 35, 36, 303, Hüllmann, Carl Dietrich. (1765-1846). 295, 

305, 306, 308, 309, 3 11, 371. 416. 

Haxthausen, August von. (1792-1866). 81, Hume, David. (1711-1776 ). 41, 43, 59, 69, 

380. 306. 

Hegel, G. W. F. (1770-1831). 2, 24, 4 1,4 4 , Hunt, Rev. Mr. (d. 1848). 346. 

45-46, 47, 49, 57, 62-63, 64-65, 67, 69, Hunter, Sir William Wilson. (1840-1900). 

80, 82-83, 355, 360, 361, 363, 364, 375, 262, 302. 

391, 392-393. Hutcheson, Francis. (1694-1746). 358. 

Enzyklopädie (Encyclopaedia). 31. Huxley, Thomas H. (1825-1895). 4, 43, 70, 

Naturrecht. 62. 72, 355, 380, 385. 

Phänomenologie des Geistes (The Phe- Hyndman, Henry Mayers. (1842-1921). 87, 

nomenology o f Mind). 31,6 2,74,8 2,392. 89, 374, 394, 395. 

Philosophie der Geschichte (The Philoso- Hyppolite, Jean (1907-1971). 5, 355. 

phy of History). 90. 

Philosophie des Rechts (Philosophy o f Irwin, Henry Crossly, (fl. 1850s). 321. 

Right). 31,6 2,6 8, 372, 375, 378-379, 393. Isagoras. (fl. 510 B.C.). 216. 

Realphilosophie. 62. Itzcoatl. (fl. 1427-1440). 194. 

System der Sittlichkeit. 31, 62. Ivan IV , Tsar of Russia. (1530-1584). 330. 

Henry II, king o f England, (d. 1189). 293, Ixtlilxochitl de Alva, Fernando, (ca. 1568- 

3 11. 1648). 193, 194. 

448

Jaeger, Werner. (1888-1961). 375. Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie (Communal 

James I, king o f Great Britain and Ireland. Landownership). 7, 360-361, 379. 

(1566-1625). 290, 304, 305, 306, 415. Tableau des origines de la famille. 358, 

Jaurès, Jean. (1859-1914). 58. 368, 379, 381. 

Johnson, Samuel. (1709-1784). 35, 36, 304, Krader, Lawrence. (1919- ). 50, 364. 

318, 371. ‘Anthropology’, in Basic Russian Publica- 

Jordanes (Jomandes). (6th century A.D.). 27, tions. 3 80. 

239, 366, 412. Critique dialectique de la nature humaine. 

Julianus (Julian the Apostate). (331-363 369. 

A.D.). 239, 366, 412. The Formation of the State. 377. 

Jung, Cari. (1875-1961). 71. Peoples of Central Asia. 372. 

Justinianus, Flavius Anicius, (482 or 483- Recent Studies o f the Russian Peasant. 380. 

565). 105. Kroeber, Alfred Louis. (1876-1960). 49, 57, 

7I· 

Kachorovsky, Karl Romanovich. (1870-t). The Superorganic. 380. 

71, 380. Culture, A Critical Review. 396. 

Kaloev, Boris Aleksandrovich. (*). 359. Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich. (1842-1921). 

Kames, Henry Home, Lord. (1696-1782). 72, 385. 

339. Kulischer, Josef. (1878-1934). 71, 72, 383, 

Kant, Immanuel. (1724-1804). 44, 59, 68, 69. 384. 

Karadzié, Vuk. (1787-1864). 72. 

Kaufman, Aleksandr Arkad’evich. (1864- 

I9I9)· 71 » 3® °· Labat, Jean Baptiste. (1663-1738). 350. 

Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. (1921- ), 57, Lafargue, Laura. (1845-1911). 389. 

375. Lafargue, Paul. (1842-1911). 71, 380, 389. 

Kautsky, Karl. (1854-1938). 1, 71, 356, 359, Lafitau, Joseph François. (i67o?-i74o?). 342, 

374, 3»°» 387, 388, 389, 392, 394. 343. 

Kaye, Sir John William. (1814-1876). 339, Lamprecht, Karl Gotthard. (1856-1915). 381. 

360. Lance, T. E . (fl. 1860s). 141. 

Kekrops (see Cecrops). Landa, Diego de. (1524-1579). 185. 

Kenney, James Francis. (1884-1946). 371. Lang, Gideon S. (fl. ca. 1865). 349. 

Keussler, Johannes von. (d. 1897). 380. Langkau, Gôtz. (1935- ). 360. 

Kierkegaard, Soren. (1813-1855). 22. Lankester, Sir Edwin Ray. (1847-1929). 90, 

King, John H. (fl. 1892). 358. 397. 

Kingsborough, Edward King. (1795-1837). Lanzi. (fl. early 19th century). 235. 

193. Lassalle, Ferdinand. (1825-1864). 90, 354. 

Kleisthenes (see Cleisthenes). Latham, Robert Gordon. (1812-1888). 341. 

Kluckhohn, Clyde. (1905-1960). 396. La Touche, Sir James John Digges. (1844- 

Knox, Robert. (i64oP-i72o). 280. 1921)· 283, 284. 

Kodrus (see Codrus). Laveleye, Emile Louis Victor de. (1822- 

Koebner, Richard. (1885-1958). 383-384. 1892). 7 1, 379, 380, 384. 

Korsch, Karl. (1889-1961). 5, 56, 355, 356, Leach, Edmund R. (1910- ). 372. 

378, 394. Leland, Thomas. (1722-1785). 306. 

Kosven, Mark Osipovich. (1885-·)·). Leontovich, Fedor Ivanovich. (1833-1911). 

M. M. Kovalevsky kak etnograf-kavkazo- 379. 

ved. 359. Le Play, Frédéric (i.e. Pierre Guillaume Fré- 

Semeynaya Obshchina i Patronimiya. 380, déric). (1806-1882). 93. 

381-382. Leslie, Forbes, (fl. 1860s?). 347. 

Kovalevsky, Maksim Maksimovich. (1851- Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1908- ). 358. 

1916). 1, 4, 6, 45, 59, 71, 72, 359, 360, Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. (1857-1939). 50. 

361, 370, 374, 380, 383. Lewinski, Jan St. (1885-1930). 380. 

Dvezhizni. 358, 359. Lewis, Charlton T . (1834-1904). 35, 36, 371, 

Modem Customs and Ancient Laws of 377, 400, 410. 414, 419, 

Russia. 379. Lichtheim, George. (1912- ). 355, 392"393· 

449

Licinius Calvus, C. (Consul 364 B. C.). 230. 

Lilienfeld, Paul. (1829-1903). 2, 393. 

Linguet, Simon Nicolas Henri. (1736-1794). 

43» 329> 373- 

Lipsius, Justus (Joest Lips). (1547-1606). 13, 

27, 239, 366, 4 11, 412. 

Livy (Titus Livius). (59 B .C.-17 A.D.). 13, 

219, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226-227, 227- 

228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 315, 316, 373, 

4 11. 

Locke, John. (1632-1704). 69, 336. 

Logan, James John. (ca. 1725-1780). 172. 

Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth. (1807-1882). 

165. 

Loria, Achille. (1857-1943). 1 2 ,1 3 , 25, 28, 93, 

136. 

Lowie, Robert H. (1883-1957). 49, 50 ,51, 52, 

53» 58· 

The History of Ethnological Theory. 396, 

397· 

The Origin of the State. 358, 376, 377, 381. 

Primitive Society. 376. 

Lowith, Karl. (1897- ). 355. 

Lubbock, John, Lord Avebury. (1834-1913). 

1-4. 34, 43-44, 45» 5», 63, 81, 84, 89, 339- 

3 5 1 » 355, 358, 366,373-375, 388,420-421. 

Lucas, Erhard. (*) 1, 357-358, 366-368, 394. 

Lucretius Cams, T. (98 or 96?-5 5 B.C.). 25, 

99, 101, 398. 

Lukacs, Georg. (1885-1971). 5, 46, 62, 355. 

Lycurgus. (fl. 343-326 B.C.). 198, 204, 212. 

Machiavelli, Niccolò. (1469-1527). 43, 329, 

372, 373· 

Maclver, Robert M. (1882-1970). 51, 52, 376. 

MacPherson, James. (1736-1796). 93, 199, 

417. 

Maine, Sir Henry Sumner. (1822-1888). 1, 2, 

3» 4» 32, 33» 49, 5°» 51 , 52, 58, 59» 60, 61, 

63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 7 1, 72, 74, 78, 81, 86, 

87, 126, 199, 373, 380, 385, 391, 395. 

Ancient Law. 36, 288, 339, 379. 

Dissertations on Early Law and Custom. 

373. 379, 416-417. 

Lectures on the Early History of Institutions. 

9, 34-43, 44, 45, 287-336, 369- 

370, 370-371, 372, 379, 383, 385, 410, 

415-420, 422. 

Village-Communities in the East and 

West. 385. 

Maitland, Frederic W. (1850-1906). 376. 

Malthus, Thomas Robert. (1766-1834). 392. 

Mandeville, Bernard. (1670-1733). 358. 

Manuel, Frank. (1910- ). 396. 

450 

Marina, (fl. 1520). 196. 

Mariner, William. (1791-1853). 342. 

Marsden, William. (1754-1836). 341, 350, 421. 

Martyr, Petrus. (145 5-15 25). 190. 

Marx, Karl. (1818-1883). Passim, and in 

relation to the following: 

Correspondence. 6, 16, 29, 31, 45, 48, 50, 

69, 73, 86, 87, 89, 90, 354, 364, 365, 372, 

375, 380, 387, 392, 393, 394, 395, 403, 

414. 

‘Dawkins, Early Man in Britain’. 87, 90, 

394, 395- 

Die Deutsche Ideologie (The German 

Ideology). 4, 20, 22, 62, 68, 76, 355, 356, 

372, 379, 386, 404· 

Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen 

Naturphilosophie. 44, 355. 

Excerpts from Hospitalier, Les principales 

applications de l’electricite. 7, 86, 359. 

Excerpts from Kovalevsky, Obshchinnoe 

zemlevladenie. 7, 360-361. 

Excerpts from Lubbock, The Origin of 

Civilisation. 1, 7, 11, 23, 24, 28, 31, 43- 

44, 63, 81, 86, 89, 92, 339-351, 360, 366, 

373-374, 394, 395, 396, 420-421. 

Excerpts from Maine, Lectures on the 

Early History of Institutions. 1, 6, 7, 9, 

11, 12, 20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34-43, 

46, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 74, 82, 

86-88, 92, 287-336, 359, 370, 371, 374, 

377-378, 383, 384-385, 387, 388, 394, 

395, 410, 415-420. 

Excerpts from Money, Java, or How to 

Manage a Colony. 7, 86, 89, 359, 388, 

395- 

Excerpts from Morgan, Ancient Society, 

i, 6-31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 46, 

49, 63, 65, 68, 74, 77-81, 86-89, 92> 97* 

241, 357, 359, 361, 364, 365, 366, 367, 

369, 374, 377, 378, 382, 384, 385, 387, 

388, 390, 394, 395, 396, 397-414, 419- 

Excerpts from Phear, The Aryan Village, 

i, 6, 7, 11, 24, 28, 29, 31-34, 36, 38, 39, 

40, 58, 63, 81, 86, 89, 92, 245-284, 

359» 374, 387, 394, 395, 414-415· 

Excerpts from Sohm, Fränkisches Recht. 

6, 7, 86, 88, 359, 388, 394, 420. 

Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie 

(Rohentwurf). 5, 6, 19, 20, 21, 29, 

3 1 , 73, 74, 89, 356, 364, 369, 370, 372, 

381, 386, 387, 393-394, 396. 

Die Heilige Familie (The Holy Family). 4, 

22, 42, 62, 68, 76, 355, 372, 379, 391, 

392, 404·

Das Kapital (Capital). 5, 6, 16, 19, 20, 21, 

22, 23, 29, 31, 41, 48, 73-74, 75, 76, 77, 

89» 354» 356, 357. 361, 362, 363, 369, 370, 

372, 373, 377. 385-386, 396, 403, 419. 

Kritik des Hegelschen Staatsrechts (see 

Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie). 

Kritik des Gothaer Programms (Critique 

o f the Gotha Program). 69. 

Das Manifest der historischen Rechtsschule. 

20, 60, 355, 422. 

Das Manifest der kommunistischen Partei 

(The Communist Manifesto). 6, 20, 29, 

31, 35, 76, 81, 356, 362-363, 392, 393. 

Marx Engels Historisch-Kritische Gesamtausgabe 

(M EG A). 355, 365, 372, 

380, 392. 

Marx Engels Sochineniia. 395, 396. 

Marx Engels Werke (MEW ). 27, 89, 354, 

355. 358, 359. 363, 364, 368, 369, 375, 

378, 379. 381, 386, 387, 388, 391. 392, 

393» 395. 396» 397, 4° 3. 406, 414, 4 *7, 

418, 422. 

La Misère de la Philosophie (The Poverty 

of Philosophy). 23, 403. 

Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte 

(Economic and Philosophie Manuscripts 

of 1844). 4, 20, 21, 23, 29, 42, 44, 56, 73, 

355, 35, 369, 372, 392,404· 

Randglossen zu A. Wagners ‘Lehrbuch der 

politischen Ökonomie’. 48, 375. 

Theorien über den Mehrwert (Theories of 

Surplus Value). 73. 

Thesen über Feuerbach (Theses on Feuerbach). 

4, 20, 62, 355, 356, 363. 

Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie 

(Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy 

of Right). 4, 5, 20, 23, 24, 62, 65, 68, 355, 

356, 372, 378-379- 

Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (A 

Contribution to the Critique of Political 

Economy). 5, 73, 355, 369, 386. 

Maurer, Georg Ludwig von. (1790-1872). 1, 

45, 71, 75, 76, 81, 295, 299, 363, 379, 

380, 381, 385, 386, 416, 417. 

Mauss, Marcel. (1872-1950). 65. 

Mazarin, Jules, cardinal. (1602-1661). 336. 

McLennan, John Ferguson. (1827-1881). 11, 

43, 44, 63, 71, 78, 339, 340, 365, 366, 

375- 

Medon. 210. 

Mehring, Franz. (1846-1919). 397. 

Meillet, Antoine. (1866-1936). 382, 387, 410, 

419. 

Meiners, Christoph. (1747-1810). 89, 396. 

Merolla, Girolamo, (fl. 1682). 346. 

Miall, B. 388. 

Miaskowski, August von. (1838-1899). 380. 

Mieroslawski, Ludwik. (1814-1878). 380. 

Mikhailovsky, Nikolai Konstantinovich. 

(1842-1904). 6, 393. 

Mill, John Stuart. (1806-1873). *3, 7 1· 

Millar, John. (1735-1801). 358. 

Miller, Vsevolod Fedorovich. (1848-1913). 

359- 

Mitin, M. B. 357. 

Mommsen, Theodor. (1817-1903). 7, 11, 13, 

27, 120, 199, 217, 218, 221-222, 224, 233, 

408-409, 4 11, 412. 

Monboddo, Lord James Burnett. (1714 - 

1799). 358. 

Money, James William B. (fl. 1870s). 7, 86, 

89, 359, 388, 395- 

Montagu, Ashley. (1905- ). 72, 385. 

Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat. 

(1689-1755). 379. 

Montezuma II. (1466-1520). 193, 194, 195. 

Morf, Otto. (1914- ). 356. 

Morgan, C. Lloyd. (1852-1936). 49, 355. 

Morgan, Lewis Henry. (1818-1881). 1-4, 6- 

31, 40, 43, 48, 49-50, 51-52, 53, 54, 57- 

58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 72, 75, 76-82, 

83-84, 86, 89, 288, 358, 361, 364, 365, 

373, 375, 377, 380, 381, 387, 390-391, 

392, 393- 

Ancient Society. 6-31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48-49, 5°, 5i, 52, 53. 

68, 77-82, 86, 87, 97-241, 323, 357-358, 

358-359, 362, 363, 364, 36 5, 366, 367, 

368, 369, 370, 373, 376, 378, 379, 381, 

382, 385, 388, 389, 390, 393, 394, 395, 

396, 397-4 14 ,4 16 ,4 22. 

League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee. 149. 

Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity. 50, 

108, 123, 365, 366. 

Morley, John. (1838-1923). 393. 

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. (1756-1791). 

378. 

Mühlmann, Wilhelm Emil. (1904- ). 396. 

Mulhall, Michael George. (1836-1900). 360. 

Müller, F. G. (see J. G. Müller). 

Müller, Johann Georg. (1800-1875). 339, 

342, 347. 348· 

Müller, Karl Otfried. (1797-1840). 196. 

Mumford, Lewis. (1895- ). 49. 

Napoleon I. (1769-1821). 36, 323, 336. 

Nasse, Erwin. (1829-1890). 380. 

451

Needham, Joseph. (1900- ). 49, 376. 

Niebuhr, Barthold Georg. (1776-1831). 7 ,11, 

13, 43, 87, 199, 201, 202, 218, 220, 222, 

224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 288, 314, 

324, 417-418. 

Numa Pompilius. (717-679 B.C.). 221, 223, 

224, 228, 231. 

Oberg, Kalervo. (1901- ). 377. 

O’Brien, Connor More. (14th century). 308. 

O’Brien, Donogh. (fl. end 15th century). 308. 

O’Brien, Dr. 304, 306. 

Octavianus. Caesar Augustus Octavius, etc. 

(63 B.C.-14 A.D.). 219. 

O’Curry, Eugene (see Curry). 

O’Doherty, Sir Cahir. (1587-1608). 305. 

O’Donovan, John. (1809-1861). 305. 

Olufsen. (Dane, fl. 1821). 72. 

Onians, Richard Broxton (1899- ). 3. 

Opler, Morris Edward. (1907- ). 51, 52, 53, 

377· 

Orelli, Johann Konrad von. (1770-1826). 235. 

Ovidius Naso, P. (Ovid). (43 B.C.-17 or 18 

A.D.). 224. 

Owen, Robert. (1771-1858). 70. 

Pallas, Peter Simon. (1741-1811). 343. 

Parker, Ely Samuel. (1828-1895). 172. 

Parkman, Francis. (1823-1893). 93. 

Patrick, saint. (373 ?-463 ?). 287, 300, 321. 

Pausanias. (2nd century A.D.). 216. 

Peèirka, J. (*). 372. 

Pecqueur, Constantin. (1801-1887). 70. 

Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1839-1914). 48. 

Peisker, Jan. (1851-1933). 72. 

Penniman, T. K. (1895- ). 397. 

Pericles, (d. 429 B.C.) 27, 103, 217. 

Petty, Sir William. (1623-1687). 336. 

Phear, Sir John Budd. (1825-1905). 1-2, 4, 

31-34, 35, 44-45, 58, 81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 

89, 90, 245-284, 343, 37°. 377, 414-415, 

422. 

Pindar, (b. 522 B.C.). 203. 

Pinkerton, John. (1758-1826). 340, 346. 

Pisarro, Francisco. (i47o?-i54i). 195. 

Pistorius. 89. 

Plato. (428-347 B.C.). 102, 108, 317, 403. 

Plekhanov, Georgii Valentinovich. (1856- 

1918). 393. 

Plutarch, (ca. 50-ca. 120 A.D.). 13, 27, 102, 

215. 

Aristides. 216. 

Numa. 13, 27, 231. 

Romulus. 225, 227, 230, 409. 

452 

Solon. 25, 27, 134, 138, 211-212, 400. 

Theseus. 13, 21, 27, 209, 210. 

Pöhlmann, Robert von. (1852-1914). 72, 381. 

Pokora, T. (*). 372. 

Pokomy, Julius. (1887- ). 419. 

Pollux, Julius. (2nd century A.D.). 201, 202. 

Polybius, (ca. 204-122 B.C.). 236, 341. 

Popper, Karl. (1902- ). 375. 

Postan, Michael. (1898- ). 383. 

Powell, Major John Wesley. (1834-1902). 

133· 

Prescott, William Hickling. (1796-1859). 190. 

Proudhon, Pierre Joseph. (1809-1865). 23, 

403. 

Proyart, Abbe Lievain Bonaventure. (1743?- 

1808). 345. 

Pufendorf, Samuel. (1632-1694). 69. 

Pumphrey, R. J. (*). 374. 

Quatremere, Etienne Marc. (1782-1857). 341. 

Ratzel, Friedrich. (1844-1904). 72, 381. 

Renan, Ernest. (1823-1892). 93. 

Resek, Carl. (*). 358. 

Ribeyro, Joao. (fl. 1655). 280. 

Richardson, Sir John. (1787-1865). 341. 

Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis, cardinal. 

(1585-1642). 336. 

Rivers, William Halse Rivers. (1864-1922). 

58. 

Rogers, J. E. Thorold. (1823-1890). 383. 

Romulus. (754-717 B.C.). 163, 2x7, 218, 221, 

224, 225-226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 409, 

410. 

Roscher, Wilhelm Georg Friedrich. (1817- 

1894). 71. 

Rosdolsky, Roman. (1898-1967). 356, 369. 

Ross, Sir William David. (1877-1971). 92, 

369, 405. 

Roth, Henry L. (1855-1925). 358. 

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1712-1778). 59, 60, 

69, 7°, 35», 378, 379· 

Rubel, Maximilien. (*). 394. 

Runjeet (Ranjit) Singh. (1780-1839). 38, 333- 

334· 

Ryazanov (Rja2anov, etc.) D[avid Borisovich 

Goldendakh]. (1870-1938). 1, 88, 

355, 357, 374, 393, 394· 

Rycaut. 147. 

Safronov, B. G. (*). 359. 

Sahagun, Bernardino de. (d. 1590). 194-195. 

Sahlins, Marshall David. (1930- ). 50, 390. 

Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de. (1760-1825). 

70.

Sanchuniathon. 235. Stanihurst, Richard. (1547-1618). 36, 305. 

Sartre, Jean Paul. (1905- ). 16, 57. Stanisic (Stanischitsch), Alexa. (fl. 1907). 72. 

Scaevola, Publius Mucius, (fl. 133 B.C.). 218. Stein, Ludwig. (1859-1930). 71, 380. 

Schaeffle, Albert Eberhard Friedrich. (18 31- Stephan of Byzantium, (fl. 6th century A.D.). 

1903). 2, 393. 203. 

Schmidt, P. Wilhelm. (1868-1954). 358. Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames. (1829-1894). 

Schoemann, Georg Friedrich. (1793-1879). 333. 

12, 13, 27, 197, 206, 209, 214, 215-216, Stephenson, Carl. (1886-1954). 383, 384. 

405, 406. Stem, Bernhard Joseph. (1894-1956). 357, 

Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe. (1793-1864). 179, 358, 399. 

184, 347. Stevens. 185. 

Schurtz, Heinrich. (1863-1903). 72, 381. Stimer, Max (Johann Kaspar Schmidt). 

Schütz, Christian Gottfried. (1747-1832). 238. (1806-1856). 70. 

Schwarz, Franz Xaver von. (1847-1903). 358. Stobaeus, Ioannes. (fl. ca. 500 A.D.). 48. 

Scott, Sir Walter. (1771-1832). 313, 320. Stocking, George W., Jr. (1928- ). 396. 

Seligman, Edwin R. A . (1861-1939). 381. Stokes, Whitley. (1830-1909). 287, 291, 312, 

Semevsky, Vasilii I. (1848-1916). 380. 322, 371. 

Seneca, L. Annaeus, (d. A .D . 65). 48. Strabo, (b. ca. 63 B.C.). 209. 

Sergeevich, Vasilii I. (1835-1911). 380. Strange, Sir Thomas. (1756-1841). 35, 36, 

Service, Elman R. (1915- ). 390. 322, 324, 325, 326, 371. 

Seward, Albert C. (1863-1941). 397. Stubbs, William. (1825-1901). 291, 296, 297. 

Shakespeare, William. (1564-1616). 93, 351, Suetonius Tranquillus. (70-121 A.D.). 220, 

374,4 18 . 223,407,409. 

Ch’in Shih Huan Ti, emperor of China. (259- Sulla, Lucius. (138-78 B.C.). 223. 

210 B.C.). 67. Sullivan, William Kirby. (1821-1890). 289, 

Short, Charles. (1821-1886). 35, 36, 371, 377, 301, 302, 307, 313. 

400, 410, 414, 419. Suriyagoda Unanse. (fl. 1877-1879). 281. 

Simkhovich, Vladimir G. (1874-1959). 71, 

380. Tacitus, C. Cornelius, (b. ca. 56 A.D.). 1 3 ,1 7 , 

Skalnik, P. (*). 372. 27, 76, 90, 120, 203, 238-241, 319, 366, 

Skene, William Forbes. (1809-1892). 307. 377, 378, 382, 383, 384, 385, 405, 4 11, 

Skrebitsky, Aleksandr Il’ich, (b. 1827). 380. 412, 414. 

Slane, Aed. (7th century A.D.). 292. Taine, Hippolyte. (1828-1893). 44. 

Smith, Adam. (1723-1790). 68, 70, 299, 379. Tanner, John. (1780?-!847). 347. 

Smith, William, (fl. 1726). 340. Tarquinius Priscus. (618-578 B.C.). 2x8, 224, 

Sohm, Rudolf. (1841-1917). 87, 88, 89, 319, 227, 228, 410. 

320, 321, 331, 395. Tarquinius Superbus. (534-509 B.C.). 67, 

Sokolovsky, Pavel Aleksandrovich. (1842- 224. 

1906). 380. Taylor, Canon. 358. 

Solis y Rivadeneira, Antonio de. (1610- Taylor, Richard, (fl. 1855). 350. 

1686). 190. Taylor, William Cooke. (1800-1849). 9°· 

Solomon. 343-344. Teignmouth, Lord. (fl. late 18th century). 

Solon, (ca. 638-ca. 558 B.C.). 12, 134, 136, 322. 

I 37, 138, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 207, Ten Broeck, Dr. (fl. 1850s). 184. 

2 11, 212, 213, 214, 216, 231, 237, 400, Ternaux-Compans, Henri. (1807-1864). 190. 

410. Tezozomoc (see Alvaredo de Tezozomoc). 

Sorge, Friedrich Albert. (1828-1906). 389, Theseus. 13, 21, 53, 197, 207, 209-210, 2 11, 

393· 2 13 ,2 3 1 ,3 6 3 . 

Spencer, Herbert. (1820-1903). 2, 43, 45, 48, Thirlwall, Connop. (1797-1875). 199. 

70, 71, 364, 380, 390. Thomer, Daniel. (*). 372. 

Spenser, Edmund. (1552?-!599). 36, 38, 287, Thucydides. (471-ca. 401 B.C.). 204, 207-208, 

299, 302, 303, 305, 310 -311, 318, 322, 209,405. 

3 7 1,4 1 7 . Timmer, Charles B. (1907- ). 360. 

Spinoza, Benedictus de. (1632-1677). 69. Titus Tatius. (8th century B.C.?). 227, 231. 

453

Tocqueville, Alexis Charles de. (1805-1859). 

293. 

Toennies, Ferdinand. (1855-1936). 49, 52, 71, 

380. 

Tòkei, Ferenc. (*). 372. 

Torquatus, Aulus. 220, 407. 

Torquatus, A . Manlius, (praetor 52 B.C.). 

220. 

Torquemada, Juan de. (fl. 1600). 190. 

Trebatius. 221, 407. 

Trémaux, Pierre, (b. 18x8). 365. 

Troeltsch, Ernst. (1865-1923). 375. 

Tullius, Servius. (578-534 B.C.). 152, 218, 

221, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232- 

233, 410. 

Tullius Tyro, M. (fl. 40 B.C.). 220. 

Tullus Hostilius. (679-640 B.C.). 224, 227, 

228. 

Turgot, Anne Robert Jacques. (1727-1781). 

396. 

Tylor, Sii Edward Bumett. (1832-19x7). 7, 

43, 45, 48, 71, 90, 98, 186, 358, 388, 390, 

391, 395» 396-397· 

Anthropology. 379, 397. 

Primitive Culture. 313, 396. 

Researches into the Early History of Mankind. 

185, 356-357, 363, 398. 

Ulpianus, Domitius, (ca. 170-228 A.D.). 316. 

Ulyanovsky, R. A . (*). 360. 

UtieSenovié-Ostroiinski, Ognieslav M. 

(1817-1890). 380. 

Valentijn, François. (1656-1727). 280. 

Vallancey, Charles. (1721-1812). 304, 308. 

Vandervelde, Emile. (1866-1938). 397. 

Varga, Y . (Evgenii). (1879-1964). 372. 

Varro, M. Terentius. (116-28 B.C.). 35, 36, 

218, 221, 315, 387, 419. 

Varus, Quintilius. (Consul 13 B.C.). 220. 

Vaughan, C. E. (1854-1922). 378, 379. 

454 

Velleius Paterculus, P. (d. ca. 31 A.D.). 220, 

230, 407. 

Vico, Giambattista. (1668-1743). 16, 52, 70, 

391· 

Vinogradoff, Sir Paul. (1854-1925). 71. 

Viollet, Paul Marie. (1840-1914). 71, 380. 

Wachsmuth, Ernst Wilhelm Gottlieb. (1784- 

1866). 199, 203. 

Waitz, Georg. (1813-1886). 71. 

Walde, Alois. (1869-1924). 378, 382, 410, 419. 

Walker, Mathew, (fl. 1859). 184. 

Wallace, Alfred Russel. (1823-1913). 43. 

Wallace, Henry. (1888-1965). 384. 

Watson, John Forbes. (1827-1892). 339, 360. 

Weber, Max. (1864-1920), 380. 

Welskopf, Elisabeth Charlotte. (1901- ). 

372· 

Westermann, Diedrich. (1875-1956). 377. 

Westermarck, Edvard A . (1862-1939). 358. 

Wheeler, William Morton. (1865-1937). 49. 

White, Andrew Dickson. (1832-1918). 364. 

White, Leslie A . (1900- ). 9, 49, 50, 52, 57. 

Whitehead, Alfred North. (1861-1947). 49, 

376. 

Williams, Thomas, (fl. 1850s). 347, 421. 

Wittfogel, Karl August. (1896- ). 372. 

Wright, Asher. (1803-1875). 25, 116, 149, 

357» 399· 

Xuthus. 215. 

Young, Arthur. (1741-1820). 293. 

Zasulich, Vera. (1851-1919). 6, 29, 31, 50, 69, 

73» 86, 87, 89, 372, 375, 387, 395. 

Zhebelev, Sergei Aleksandrovich. (1867- 

1941). 366, 401. 

Zuazo, Alonso de. (1466-1527). 190. 

(*) Living

Q U E L L E N U N D U N T E R S U C H U N G E N Z U R 

G E S C H IC H T E D E R D E U T S C H E N U N D 

Ö S T E R R E IC H IS C H E N A R B E IT E R B E W E G U N G / 

Neue Folge 

Herausgegeben vom Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale 

Geschiedenis, Amsterdam 

Band I 

E D U A R D B E R N S T E IN S B R IE F W E C H S E L M IT 

F R IE D R IC H E N G E L S 

herausgegeben von Helmut Hirsch 

1970. 480 Seiten. 2 Abb. 

Friedrich Engels’ strategische und taktische Bemerkungen 

bilden, wie Eduard Bernstein sicher selbst zuzugeben 

bereit gewesen wäre, die Glanzstücke dieser Briefsammlung. 

Band II 

A U G U S T B E B E LS B R IE F W E C H S E L M IT 

K A R L K A U T S K Y 

herausgegeben von Karl Kautsky jr. 

1971. 496 Seiten. 6 Abb. 

Dieser Briefwechsel zwischen dem praktischen Politiker 

und dem Theoretiker der deutschen Sozialdemokratie 

vor dem ersten Weltkrieg erstreckt sich über mehr als 

ein Vierteljahrhundert, von 1879 bis zu Bebels Tod 

1913. 

Band IV 

W IL H E L M L IE B K N E C H T S B R IE F W E C H S E L M IT 

D E U T S C H E N S O Z IA L D E M O K R A T E N , Band I 

(1862- 1878) 

herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Georg Eckert 

1973. 960 Seiten 

Dieser Briefwechsel enthält viele hundert Briefe aus 

den Jahren 1862 bis 1878, darunter Schreiben fast aller 

führenden Funktionäre und daneben Briefe zahlreicher 

unbekannter Arbeiterfunktionäre. Eine wichtige 

Quelle für die Erforschung der ’unteren Ebene’, der 

’Basis’ der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung in den so entscheidenden 

60er und 70er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts. 

In Kürze erscheint: 

Band V 

D IE K O N S T IT U IE R U N G D E R D E U T S C H E N 

A R B E IT E R B E W E G U N G 1862/63 

Darstellung und Dokumentation 

Herausgegeben von S. N a ’aman 

unter Mitwirkung von H . P. Harstick 

Diese Dokumentation belegt die Anfänge des organisatorischen 

Wachstums der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 

der sechziger Jahre, aber bezeugt gleichzeitig mit der 

Intensität der sozialen und politischen Impulse deren 

Verschiedenartigkeit. 

Zu beziehen durch alle Buchhandlungen oder direkt 

vom Verlag 

V A N G O R C U M & CO M P. B.V., A S S E N , 

N IE D E R L A N D E

The Ethnographical Notebooks of Karl Marx - Marxists Internet Archive

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?