to eat the plant or animal that serves as totem, it is not possible to do so freely; only a little bit may be taken at a time. To go beyond this amount is a ritual fault that has grave consequences.2 Elsewhere, the prohibition remains intact for the parts that are regarded as the most precious, that is to say, as the most sacred ; for example, the eggs or the fat.3 In still other parts, consumption is not allowed except when the animal in question has not yet reached full maturity.4 In this case, they undoubtedly think that its sacred character is not yet complete. So the barrier which isolates and protects the totemic being yields but slowly and with active resistance, which bears witness to what it must have been at first.
It is true that according to Spencer and Gillen these restrictions are not the remnants of what was once a rigorous prohibition now losing hold, but the beginnings of an interdiction which is only commencing to establish itself. These writers hold5 that at first there was a complete liberty of consumption and that the limitations which were presently brought are relatively recent. They think they find the proof of their theory in the two following facts. In the first place, as we just said, there are solemn occasions when the members of the clan or their chief not only may, but must eat the totemic animal or plant. Moreover, the myths relate that the great ancestors, the founders of the clans, ate their totems regularly : now, it is said, these stories cannot be understood except as an echo of a time when the present prohibitions did not exist.
But the fact that in the course of certain solemn ceremonies a consumption of the totem, and a moderate one at that, is ritually required in no way implies that it was once an ordinary article of food. Quite on the contrary, the food that one eats at a mystical repast is essentially sacred, and consequently forbidden to the profane. As for the myths, a somewhat summary critical method is employed, if they are so readily given the
[130]
value of historical documents. In general, their object is to interpret existing rites rather than to commemorate past events;
they are an explanation of the present much more than a history. In this case, the traditions according to which the ancestors of the fabulous epoch ate their totem are in perfect accord with the beliefs and rites which are always in force. The old men and those who have attained a high religious dignity are freed from the restrictions under which ordinary men are placed : 1 they can eat the sacred thing because they are sacred themselves; this rule is in no way peculiar to totemism, but it is found in all the most diverse religions. Now the ancestral heroes were nearly gods. It is therefore still more natural that they should eat the sacred food ;2 but that is no reason why the same privilege should be awarded to the simple profane.3
However, it is neither certain nor even probable that the prohibition was ever absolute. It seems to have always been suspended in case of necessity, as; for example, when a man is famished
2Among the Kaitish, if a man of the clan eats too much of his totem, the members of the other phratry have recourse to a magic operation which is expected to kill him {Nor. Tr., p. 284 ; cf. Nat. Tr.. p. 204 : Langloh Parker, The Eujiilavi Tribe, p. 20).
3Nat. Tr.. p. 202, n. ; Strehlow, II, p. 58.
4Nor. Tr., p. 173.
5Nat. Tr., pp. 207 ff.
1See above, p. 128.
2It should also be borne in mind that in these myths the ancestors are never represented as nourishing themselves regularly with their totem. Consumption of this sort is, on the contrary, the exception. Their ordinary food, according to Strehlow, was the same as that of the corresponding animal (see Strehlow, I, p. 4).
3Also, this whole theory rests upon an entirely arbitrary hypothesis:
Spencer and Gillen, as well as Frazer, admit that the tribes of central Australia, and especially the Arunta, represent the most archaic and consequently the purest form of totemism. We shall presently say why this conjecture seems to us to be contrary to all probability. It is even probable that these authors would not have accepted their thesis so readily if they had not refused to regard totemism as a religion and if they had not consequently misunderstood the sacred character of the totem.
and has nothing else with which to nourish himself.4 A stronger reason for this is found when the totem is a form of nourishment which a man cannot do without. Thus there are a great many tribes where water is a totem ; a strict prohibition is manifestly impossible in this case. However, even here, the privilege granted is submitted to certain restrictions which greatly limit its use and which show clearly that it goes against a recognized principle. Among the Kaitish and the Warramunga, a man of this totem is not allowed to drink water freely ; he may not take it up himself; he may receive it only from the hands of a third party who must belong to the phratry of which he is not a member.5 The complexity of this procedure and the embarrassment which results from it are still another proof that access to the sacred thing is not free. This same rule is applied in certain central tribes every time that the totem is eaten, whether from
[131]
necessity or any other cause. It should also be added that when this formality is not possible, that is, when a man is alone or with members of his own phratry only, he may, on necessity, do without an intermediary. It is clear that the prohibition is susceptible of various moderations.
Nevertheless, it rests upon ideas so strongly ingrained in the mind that it frequently survives its original cause for being. We have seen that in all probability, the different clans of a phratry are only subdivisions of one original clan which has been dismembered. So there was a time when all the clans, being welded together, had the same totem ; consequently, wherever the souvenir of this common origin is not completely effaced, each clan continues to feel itself united to the others and to consider that their totems are not completely foreign to it. For this reason an individual may not eat freely of the totems held by the different clans of the phratry of which he is a member; he may touch them only if the forbidden plant or animal is given him by a member of the other phratry.1
Another survival of the same sort is the one concerning the maternal totem. There are strong reasons for believing that at first, the totem was transmitted in the uterine line. Therefore, wherever descent in the paternal line has been introduced, this probably took place only after a long period, during which the opposite principle was applied and the child had the totem of his mother along with all the restrictions attached to it. Now in certain tribes where the child inherits the paternal totem to-day, some of the interdictions which originally protected the totem of his mother still survive: he cannot eat it freely.2 In the present state of affairs, however, there is no longer anything corresponding to this prohibition.
[132]
To this prohibition of eating is frequently added that of killing the totem, or picking it, when it is a plant.1 However, here also there are exceptions and tolerations. These are especially in the
4Taplin, The Narrinyeri, p. 64 ; Howitt, Nat. Tr., pp. 145 and 147 ; Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 202 ; Grey, loc. cit. ; Curr, III, p. 462.
5Nor. Tr.. pp. 160, 167. It is not enough that the intermediary be of another totem : as we shall see, every totem of a phratry is forbidden in a certain measure for the members of the phratry who are of a different totem.
1Nor. Tr., p. 167. We can now explain more easily how it happens that when. an interdiction is not observed, it is the
other phratry which revenges this sacrilege (see above, p. 129, n. 2). It is because it has an interest in seeing that the rule is observed. In fact, they believe that when the rule is broken, the totemic species may not reproduce abundantly. Now the members of the other phratry consume it regularly : therefore it is they who are affected. That is why they revenge themselves.
2 This is the case among the Loritja (Strehlow, II, pp. 60, 6i), the Worgaia, the Warramunga, the Walpari, the Mara, the Anula and the Binbinga (Nor. Tr., pp. 166, 167, 171, l73). It may be eaten by a Warramunga or a Walpari, but only when offered by a member of the other phratry. Spencer and Gillen remark (p. 167, n.), that in this regard the paternal and the maternal totems appear to be ander different rules. It is true that in both cases the offer must come from tlie other phratry. But when it is a question of the paternal totem, or the totem properly so-called, this phratry is the one to which the totem does not belong; for the maternal totem, the contrary is the case. Probably the principle was first established for the former, then mechanically extended to the other, though the situation was different. When the rule had once become established that the prohibition protecting the totem could be neglected only on the invitation of the other phratry, it was applied also to the maternal totem.
1 For example, among the Warramunga (Nor. Tr., p. 166), the Wotjobaluk, the Buandik, the Kurnai (Howitt, pp. 146 t.) and the Narrinyeri (Taplin, The Narrinyeri, p. 63).
case of necessity, when the totem is a dangerous animal,2 for example, or when the man has nothing to eat. There are even tribes where men are forbidden to hunt the animals whose names they bear, on their own accounts, but where they may kill them for others.3 But the way in which this act is generally accomplished clearly indicates that it is something illicit. One excuses himself as though for a fault, and bears witness to the chagrin which he suffers and the repugnance which he feels,4 while precautions are taken that the animal may suffer as little as possible.5
In addition to these fundamental interdictions, certain cases of a prohibition of contact between a man and his totem are cited. Thus among the Omaha, in the clan of the Elk, no one may touch any part of the body of a male elk ; in the sub-clan of the Buffalo, no one is allowed to touch the head of this animal.6 Among the Bechuana, no man dares to clothe himself in the skin of his totem.7 But these cases are rare ; and it is natural that they should be exceptional, for normally a man must wear the image of his totem or something which brings it to mind. The tattooings and the totemic costumes would not be possible if all contact were forbidden. It has also been remarked that this prohibition has not been found in Australia, but only in those societies where totemism has advanced far from its original form ; it is therefore probably of late origin and due perhaps to the influence of ideas that are really not totemic at all.8
[233]
If we now compare these various interdictions with those whose object is the totemic emblem, contrarily to all that could be foreseen, it appears that these latter are more numerous, stricter, and more severely enforced than the former. The figures of all sorts which represent the totem are surrounded with a respect sensibly superior to that inspired by the very being whose form these figures reproduce. The churinga, the nurtunja and the waninga can never be handled by the women or the uninitiated, who are even allowed to catch glimpses of it only very exceptionally, and from a respectful distance. On the other hand, the plant or animal whose name the clan bears may be seen and touched by everybody. The churinga arc preserved in a sort of temple, upon whose threshold all noises from the profane life must cease; it is the domain of sacred things. On the contrary, the totemic animals and plants live in the profane world and are mixed up with the common everyday life Since the number and importance of the interdictions which isolate a sacred thing, and keep it apart, correspond to the degree of sacredness with which it is invested, we arrive at the remarkable conclusion that the images of totemic beings arc more sacred than the beings themselves. Also, in the ceremonies of the cult, it is the churinga and the nurtunja which have the most important place ; the animal appears there only very exceptionally. In a certain rite, of which we shall have occasion to speak,1 it serves as the substance for a religious repast, but it plays no active role. The Arunta dance around the nurtunja, and assemble before the image of their totem to adore it, but a similar demonstration is never made before the totemic being itself. If this latter were
2Even this is not always the case. An Arunta of the Mosquito totem must not kill this insect, even when it bothers him : he must confine himseU to driving it away (Strehlow, II, p. 58 ; cf. Taplin, p. 63).
3Among the Kaitish and the Unmatjera (Nor. Tr., p. 160). It even happens that in certain cases an old man gives a young one of a different totem one of his cburinga, so that he may kill the donor's totem more easily (ibid., p. 272).
4Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 146 ; Grey, of. cit., II, p. 228 ; Casalis, Basoutos. p. 221. Among these latter, " one must be purified after committing such a sacrilege."
5Strehlow, II, pp. 58, 59, 6i.
6Dorsey, Omaha Sociology, IIIrd Rep., pp. 225, 231.
7Casalis, ibid.
8Even among the Omaha, it is not certain that the interdictions of contact, certain examples of which we have just cited, are really of a totemic nature, for many of them have no direct connection with the animal that serves as totem of the clan. Thus in the sub-clan of the Eagle, the characteristic interdiction is against touching the head of a buffalo (Dorsey, op. cit., p. 239) ; in another sub-clan with the same totem, they must not touch verdigris, charcoal, etc. (ibid.,
p.245).
We do not mention other interdictions mentioned by Frazer, such as those of naming or looking at the animal or
plant, for it is still less certain that they are of totemic origin, except perhaps for certain facts observed among the 1 See Bk. Ill, ch. ii, § 2.
the primarily sacred object, it would be with it, the sacred animal or plant, that the young initiate would communicate when he is introduced into the religious life ; but we have seen that on the contrary, the most solemn moment of the initiation is the one when the novice enters into the sanctuary of the churinga. It is with them and the nurtunja that he communicates. The representations of the totem are therefore more actively powerful than the totem itself.
Bechuana (Totemism, pp. 12-13). Frazer admits too readily—and in this regard. he has imitators—that tlie prohibitions against eating or touching an animal depend upon totemic beliefs. However, there is one case in Australia, where the sight of the animal seems to be forbidden. According to Strehlow (II, p. 59), among the Arunta and the Loritja, a man who has the moon as totem must not look at it very long, or he would be likely to die at the hand of an enemy. But we believe that this is a unique case. We must not forget, also. that astronomical totems were probably not primitive in Australia, so this prohibition may be the product of a complex elaboration. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that among the Euahlayi, looking at the moon is forbidden to all mothers and children, no matter what their totems may be (L. Parker, The Euahlayi, p. 53).
[134]
II
We must now determine the place of man in the scheme of religious things.
By the force of a whole group of acquired habits and of language itself, we are inclined to consider the common man, the simple believer, as an essentially profane being. It may well happen that this conception is not literally true for any religion ;1 in any case, it is not applicable to totemism. Every member of the clan is invested with a sacred character which is not materially inferior to that which we just observed in the animal. This personal sacredness is due to the fact that the man believes that while he is a man in the usual sense of the word, he is also an animal or plant of the totemic species.
In fact, he bears its name ; this identity of name is therefore supposed to imply an identity of nature. The first is not merely considered as an outward sign of the second ; it supposes it logically. This is because the name, for a primitive, is not merely a word or a combination of sounds ; it is a part of the being, and even something essential to it. A member of the Kangaroo clan calls himself a kangaroo ; he is therefore, in one sense, an animal of this species. " The totem of any man," say Spencer and Gillen, " is regarded as the same thing as himself ; a native once said to us when we were discussing the matter with him, ' That one,' pointing to his photograph which we had taken, ' is the same thing as me ; so is a kangaroo ' (his totem)."2 So each individual has a double nature : two beings coexist within him, a man and an animal.
In order to give a semblance of intelligibility to this duality, so strange for us, the primitive has invented myths which, it is true, explain nothing and only shift the difficulty, but which, by shifting it, seem at least to lessen the logical scandal. With slight variations of detail, all are constructed on the same plan: their object is to establish genealogical connections between the man and the totemic animal, making the one a relative of the other. By this common origin, which, by the way, is represented in various manners, they believe that they account for their common nature. The Narrinyeri, for example, have imagined that certain of the first men had the power of transforming
[135]
themselves into beasts.1 Other Australian societies place at the beginning of humanity either strange
1Perhaps there is no religion which makes man an exclusively profane being. For the Christian, the soul which each of us has within him and which constitutes the very essence of our being, has something sacred about it. We shall see that this conception of the soul is as old as religious thought itself. The place of man in the hierarchy of sacred things is more or less elevated.
2Nat. Tr., p. 202.
1 Taplin, The Narrinyeri, pp. 59—61.
animals from which the men were descended in some unknown way,2 or mixed beings, half-way between the two kingdoms,3 or else unformed creatures, hardly representable, deprived of all determined organs, and even of all definite members, and the different parts of whose bodies were hardly outlined.4 Mythical powers, sometimes conceived under the form of animals, then intervened and made men out of these ambiguous and innumerable beings which Spencer and Gillen say represent " stages in the transformation of animals and plants into human beings." 5 These transformations are represented to us under the form of violent and, as it were, surgical operations. It is under the blows of an axe or, if the operator is a bird, blows of the beak, that the human individual was carved out of this shapeless mass, his members separated from each other, his mouth opened and his nostrils pierced.6 Analogous legends are found in America, except that owing to the more highly developed mentality of these peoples, the representations which they employ do not contain confusions so troublesome for the mind. Sometimes it is a legendary personage who, by an act of his power, metamorphosed the animal who gives its name to the clan into a man.7 Sometimes the myth attempts to explain how, by a series of nearly natural events and a sort of spontaneous evolution, the animal transformed himself little by little, and finally took a human form.8
[136]
It is true that there are societies (the Haida, Tlinkit, Tsim-shian) where it is no longer admitted that man was born of an animal or plant; but the idea of an affinity between the animals of the totemic species and the members of the clan has survived there nevertheless, and expresses itself in myths which, though differing from the preceding, still retain all that is essential in them. Here is one of the fundamental themes. Tlie ancestor who gives his name to the clan is here represented as a human being, but who, in the course of various wanderings, has been led to live for a while among the fabulous animals of the very species which gave the clan its name. As the result of this intimate and prolonged connection, he became so like his new companions that when he returned to men, they no longer recognized him. He was therefore given the name of the animal which he resembled. It is from his stay in this mythical land that he brought back the totemic emblem, together with the powers and virtues believed to be attached to it.1 Thus in this case, as in
2Among certain clans of the Warramunga, for example {Nor. Tr., p. 162).
3Among the Urabunna (Nor. Tr., p. 147). Even when they tell us that the first beings were men, these are really only semi-human, and have an animal nature at the same time. This is the case with certain Unmatjera (ibid., pp. 153-154). Here we find ways of thought whose confusion disconcerts us, but which must be accepted as they are. We would denature them if we tried to introduce a clarity that is foreign to them (cf. Nat. Tr.. p. 119).
4Among the Arunta (Nat. Tr., pp. 388 if.) ; and among certain Unmatjera (Nor. Tr., p. 153).
5Nat. Tr., p. 389. Cf. Strehlow, I, pp. 2-7.
6Nat, Tr., p. 389 ; Strehlow, I, pp. 2 ft. Undoubtedly there is an echo of the initiation rites in this mythical theme. The initiation also has the object of making the young man into a complete man, and on the other hand, it also implies actual surgical operations (circumcision, sub-incision, the extraction of teeth, etc.). The processes which served to form the first men would naturally be conceived on the same model.
7This the case with the nine clans of the Moqui (Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, IV, p. 86), the Crain clan among the Ojibway (Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 180), and the Nootka clans (Boas, VIth Rep. on the Л' .W. Tribes of Canada, p. 43), etc.
8It is thus that the Turtle clan of the Iroquois took form. A group o'f turtles had been forced to leave the lake where they dwelt and seek another home. One of them, which was larger than the others, stood this exercise very badly owing to the heat. It made such violent efforts that it got out of its shell. The process of transformation, being once commenced, went on by itself and the turtle finally became a man who was the ancestor of the clan (Errainnie A. Smith,
1For example, here is a legend of the Tsimshian. Jn the course of a hunt, an Indian met a black bear which took him
to its home, and taught him to catch salmon and build canoes. The man staved with the bear for two years, and ther» returned to his native village. But the people were afraid of him, because he was just like a bear. He could not talk or eat anything except raw food. Then he was rubbed with magic herbs and gradually regained his original form. After that, whenever he was in trouble, he called upon his bear friends, who came to aid him. He built a house and painted a bear on the foundation. His sister made a blanket for the dance, upon which a bear was designed. That is why the descendants of this sipter had the bear as their emblem (Boas, Kwakiull, p. 323. Cf. Vth Rc-h. on. the N.W. Tribes of Canada, pp. 23, 29 ff. ; Hill Tout, Report on the iilhnolcgy of the Statlumh of British Col'.'mbia, in J.A.I., 1905, XXXV,