AT LE PERREUX 
London, 29 May 1891 

My dear Lafargue, 

Thank you for the information contained in your letter of the 
21st.2°° I have passed it on to Aveling for submission to the London 
press. 

Whatever you may say, the fact remains that the Possibilists * have 
ousted you from your own committee and that Vaillant and Alle- 
mane and Dumay acted in concert and spoke at the Mur des Fédérés, 
whereas not a word is said about speeches made by you or Guesde.?*! 
In the provinces you are in a majority, but it is now openly asserted 
that in Paris you are, for the time being, in A HOPELESS MINORITY. And 
that is an assertion for which you yourselves are accountable. 

Now for another matter. To help me in the preparation of the new 
edition * of the Origin of the Family 1 have had in front of me Les Origi- 
nes du mariage et de la famille by Giraud Teulon, Paris and Ge- 
neva, 1884. It is a new, entirely revised edition of his work, Les Origr- 
nes de la famille, 1874 (Geneva). In his later work, dated 1884, he 
advances some claim to having anticipated, in the edition of 1874, the 
discoveries made by Morgan. Unfortunately the 1874 edition is out of 
print. But Lavrov or Létourneau will be bound to possess one. As it is 
essential for me to clear up this point, could you not procure me one 
of these copies for a few days only and send it to me ‘registered’ (the 
1874 book, the Origines de la famille)? If, by chance, neither of 
them has it, could you get a copy for me from a second-hand 
bookseller? And if that will take too much time (for the thing has 
brought me up short), would you be good enough to make a few in- 
quiries at the Bibliothéque nationale (I would do this here at the Brit- 
ish Museum but 1. I haven’t a ticket, 2. Louise doesn’t know enough 

* the fourth German edition 

French, 3. Tussy isn’t sufficiently up in such matters). The problem is 
this. 

McLennan is, as you know, the proponent of exogamous tribes 
who are obliged to obtain their wives from outside either by abduc- 
tion or by purchase.* In Ancient Society,” as you also know, Morgan 
(who in his Systems of Consanguinity“ still describes the exogamous gens 
as ‘tribe’) has proved that the exogamous tribe does not exist, that 
exogamy is an attribute of one fraction or subdivision of the tribe, i. e. 
of the gens, and that within the tribe there are no restrictions on mar- 
riage provided it takes place outside of the gens. 

Now here is what Giraud Teulon has to say on p. 104, footnote: 

‘Morgan, in his later works, while recognising the necessity of not confusing érebe 

with clan’ (in Giraud Teulon clan is the equivalent of Morgan’s gens), ‘has abandoned 
his definition of tribe without, however, seeking to provide a new one.’ 

And he then proceeds to give a description of the tribe divided into 
clans (gentes) exactly as Morgan does, but as though this had been ar- 
rived at quite independently of Morgan and was attributable to him, 
Giraud Teulon. 

The manner in which he presents his claims is so equivocal that it 
doesn’t inspire me with much confidence. But since this concerns 
a discovery that has entirely revolutionised the science of prehistory, 
perhaps you would be good enough (should occasion arise) to com- 
pare the 1874 edition and tell me 

1. What alternative he suggests to McLennan’s exogamous tribe. 

2. If in 1874 he has already discovered that the tribe was subdi- 
vided into exogamous clans equivalent to Morgan’s gentes. 

3. (Briefly, names only), if he really did discover this, what exam- 
ples does he cite? Does he acknowledge that his clan is identical with 
the Greek or Roman gens? 

As to 1. and 2., the relevant passages in his own words if that is pos- 
sible. 

Old Harney is pretty ill; he is suffering from chronic bronchitis — at 
75! He intends to move from Richmond to Ventnor. I trust he arrives 
there safe and sound and that it will do him good. 

Your article on Adam and Eve‘ is very witty. There is evidently 

* J.F. McLennan, Primitive Marriage. An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in 
Marriage Ceremonies.- L.H. Morgan, Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human 
Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilisation. -° L.H. Morgan, Systems of Con- 
sanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family.-* P. Lafargue, ‘Der Mythus von Adam und 
Eva. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Mythologie’, Die Neue Zeit, 9. Jg. 1890/91, 2. Bd., 
Nr. 34, 35. 

some truth in it, but perhaps you go too far in your interpretation, 
especially in your catalogue of Noah’s ancestors. Although in the case 
of Noah’s descendants there can be no doubt whatever that they con- 
stitute a catalogue of tribes. 

Elodh = the Arabic Allah both etymologically and_ lexically. 
The ‘a’ (pathach furtivum) * is obligatory in Hebrew if the end of the word 
has an ‘o’ or ‘u’ before ‘h’ or ‘ch’ (ruach Elohim, the Spirit of Elohim 
in the 2nd verse of the Ist chapter of Genesis). In the plural Elohim 
the ‘a’ disappears. 

I am sending you The Workman’s Times, a non-political working- 
class paper which calls for the formation of a working men’s party!! The 
best of the working men’s or so-called working men’s papers over 
here. As regards facts it is admirable. ‘The paper was founded by York- 
shire and Lancashire workmen and originally appeared in Hud- 
dersfield before being transplanted to London. 

Give Laura a kiss from me. Louise sends HER KINDEST REGARDS. 

Yours ever, 

F.E.