Letter to Paul Lafargue, May 29, 1891

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 29 May 1891


First published in: F. Engels, P. et L. Lafargue, Correspondance, t. III, Paris, 1959
Printed according to the original
Translated from the French
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 49


ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE

AT LE PERREUX

London, 29 May 1891

My dear Lafargue,

Thank you for the information contained in your letter of the 21st.[1] 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 Allemane 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[2] of the Origin of the Family I have had in front of me Les Origines du mariage et de la famille by Giraud Teulon, Paris and Geneva, 1884. It is a new, entirely revised edition of his work, Les Origines 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 Letourneau 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 inquiries at the Bibliothèque nationale (I would do this here at the British Museum but 1. I haven't a ticket, 2. Louise doesn't know enough 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 abduction or by purchase.[3] In Ancient Society,[4] as you also know, Morgan (who in his Systems of Consanguinity[5] 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 marriage 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 tribe 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 arrived 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 compare 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 subdivided into exogamous clans equivalent to Morgan's gentes.

3. (Briefly, names only), if he really did discover this, what examples 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 possible.

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[6] is very witty. There is evidently 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 constitute a catalogue of tribes.

Elôah = the Arabic Allah both etymologically and lexically. The 'a' (patâchfurtivum) is obligatory in Hebrew if the end of the word has an 'o' or 'u' before 'h' or 'ch' [rûàch Elohîm, the Spirit of Elohim in the 2nd verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis). In the plural Elôhîm the 'ä' 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 Yorkshire and Lancashire workmen and originally appeared in Huddersfield before being transplanted to London.

Give Laura a kiss from me. LOUISE SENDS HER KINDEST REGARDS.

Yours ever,

F.E.

  1. ↑ The letter contained detailed information on the massacre of the May Day demonstration in Fourmies (see Note 243).
  2. ↑ the fourth German edition
  3. ↑ J. F. McLennan, Primitive Marriage. An Inquiry into the Origin of the Form of Capture in Marriage Ceremonies.
  4. ↑ L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilisation.
  5. ↑ L. H. Morgan, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family.
  6. ↑ 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.