[214] Plutarch, Quæst. Rom., vi. Cf. M‘Lennan, The Patriarchal Theory, pp. 206-208.
[215] Cf. Maine, Early Law and Custom, pp. 227, 228.
[216] Domestic Manners of the Chinese, i. 99.
[217] Fortnightly Review, June 1, 1877.
[218] Cf. Sir John Lubbock, Origin of Civilisation, pp. 104, 125 et seq.
[219] We do not, however, make this presumption. Considering what sort of affair truly primitive marriage must have been, there may have risen a prejudice against it within the group. Any one acquainted with New Caledonian and Arab marriage usages will understand this suggestion.
[220] Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 169. Natives call these objects their kin, ‘of one flesh’ with them.
[221] Studies, p. 112.
[222] From The Patriarchal Theory (Preface, p. vii.) it appears that Mr. M‘Lennan gave up his hypothesis and ceased to have any view on the origin of totemism.
[223] Some critics have understood me to maintain that traces of Aryan totemism survive. I merely point out indications which appear (when taken with other evidence) to point in that direction. What other equally plausible explanation is offered?