organization on a clan basis. Not only is it impossible, as we have already pointed out, to define it except in connection with the clan, but it even seems as though the clan could not exist, in the form it has taken in a great number of Australian societies, without the totem. For the members of a single clan are not united to each other either by a common habitat or by common blood, as they are not necessarily consanguineous and are frequently scattered over different parts of the tribal territory. Their unity comes solely from their having the same name and the same emblem, their believing that they have the same relations with the same categories of things, their practising the same rites, or, in a word, from their participating in the same totemic cult. Thus totemism and the clan mutually imply each other, in so far, at least, as the latter is not confounded with the local group. Now the social organization on a clan basis is the simplest which we know. In fact, it exists in all its essential elements from the moment when the society includes two primary clans ; consequently, we may say that there are none more rudimentary, as long as societies reduced to a single clan have not been discovered, and we believe that up to the present no traces of such have been found. A religion so closely connected to a social system surpassing all others in simplicity may well
[167]
[168]
be regarded as the most elementary religion we can possibly know. If we succeed in discovering the origins of the beliefs which we have just analysed, we shall very probably discover at the same time the causes leading to the rise of the religious sentiment in humanity.
But before treating this question for ourselves, we must examine the most authorized solutions of it which have already been proposed.
I
In the first place, we find a group of scholars who believe that they can account for totemism by deriving it from some previous religion;
For Tyior 1 and Wilken,2 totemism is a special form of the cult of the ancestors ; it was the widespread doctrine of the transmigration of souls that served as a bridge between these two religious systems. A large number of peoples believe that after death, the soul does not remain disincarnate for ever, but presently animates another living body ; on the other hand, " the lower psychology, drawing no definite line of demarcation between the souls of men and of beasts, can at least admit without difficulty the transmigration of human souls into the bodies of the lower animals." 3 Tyior cites a certain number of cases.4 Under these circumstances, the religious respect inspired by the ancestor is quite naturally attached to the animal or plant with which he is presently confounded. The animal thus serving as a receptacle for a venerated being becomes a holy thing, the object of a cult, that is, a totem, for all the descendants of the ancestor, who form the clan descended from him.
Facts pointed out by Wilken among the societies of the Malay Archipelago would tend to prove that it really was in this manner that the totemic beliefs originated. In Java and Sumatra, crocodiles are especially honoured ; they are regarded as benevolent protectors who must not be killed ; offerings are made to them. Now the cult thus rendered to them is due to their being supposed to incarnate the souls of ancestors. The Malays of the Philippines consider the crocodile their grandfather ; the tiger is treated in the same way for the same reasons. Similar beliefs have been observed among the Bantous.5 In Melanesia
1Primitive Culture, I, p. 402 ; II, p. 237 ; Remarks on Totemism, with especial reference to some modern theories concerning it, in J.A.I., XXVIII, and I, New Series, p. 138.
2Het Animisme bij den Volken van den indischen Archipel, pp. 69-75.
3Tyior, Primitive Culture. II, p. 6.
4Tyior, ibid., II, pp. 6-18.
5G. I^cCall Theal, Records of South-Eastern Africa, VII. We are acquainted with this work only through an article by Frazer, South African Totemism, published in Man. 1901, No. ill.
[169]
it sometimes happens that an influential man, at the moment of death, announces his desire to reincarnate himself in a certain animal or plant ; it is easily understood how the object thus chosen as his posthumous residence becomes sacred for his whole family.1 So, far from being a primitive fact, totemism would seem to be the product of a more complex religion which preceded it.2
But the societies from which these facts were taken had already arrived at a rather advanced stage of culture ; in any case, they had passed the stage of pure totemism. They have families and not totemic clans.3 Even the majority of the animals to which religious honours are thus rendered are venerated, not by special groups of families, but by the tribes as a whole. So if these beliefs and practices do have some connection with ancient totemic cults, they now represent only altered forms of them4 and are consequently not very well fitted for showing us their origins. It is not by studying an institution at the moment when it is in full decadence that we can learn how it was formed. If we want to know how totemism originated, it is neither in Java nor Sumatra nor Melanesia that we must study it, but in Australia. Here we find neither a cult of the dead5 nor the doctrine of transmigration. Of course they believe that the mythical heroes, the founders of the clan, reincarnate themselves periodically ; but this is in human bodies only ; each birth, as we shall see, is the product of one of these reincarnations. So if the animals of the totemic species are the object of rites, it is not because the ancestral souls are believed to reside in them. It is true that the first ancestors are frequently represented under the form of an animal, and this very common representation is an important fact for which we must account; but it was not the belief in metempsychosis which gave it birth, for this belief is unknown among Australian societies.
Moreover, far from being able to explain totemism, this belief takes for granted one of the fundamental principles upon which this rests ; that is to say, it begs the question to be explained. It, just as much as totemism, implies that man is
[170]
considered a close relative of the animal ; for if these two kingdoms were clearly distinguished in the mind, men would never believe that a human soul could pass so easily from one into the other. It is even necessary that the body of the animal be considered its true home, for it is believed to go there as soon as it regains its liberty. Now while the doctrine of transmigration postulates this singular affinity, it offers no explanation of it. The only explanation offered by Tyior is that men sometimes resemble in certain traits the anatomy and physiology of the animal. " The half-human features and actions and characters of animals are watched with wondering sympathy by the savage, as by the child. The beast is the very incarnation of familiar qualities of man : and such names as lion, bear, fox, owl, parrot, viper, worm, when we apply them as epithets to men, condense into a word some leading features of a human life."1 But even if these resemblances are met with, they are uncertain and exceptional ; before all else, men resemble their relatives and companions, and not plants and animals. Such rare and questionable analogies could not overcome such unanimous proofs, nor could they lead a man to think of himself and his forefathers in forms contradicted by daily experience. So this question remains untouched, and as long as it is not answered, we cannot
1Codrington, The Melanesians, pp. 32 f., and a personal letter by the same author cited by Tyior in J.A.I., XXVIII, p. 147.
2This is practically the solution adopted by Wundt (Mythus und Religion, II. p. 269).
3It is true that according to Tyior's theory, a clan is only an enlarged family; therefore whatever may be said of one of these groups is, in his theory, applicable to the other (J.A.I., XXVIII, p. 157). But this conception is exceedingly contestable ; only the clan presupposes a totem, which has its whole meaning only in and through the clan.
4For this same conception, sec A. Lang, Social Origins, p. 150.
5See above, p. 63.
1 Primitive Culture. II, p. 17.
say that totemism is explained.2
Finally, this whole theory rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding. For Tyior as for Wundt, totemism is only a particular case of the cult of animals.3 But we, on the contrary, know that
[171]
it is something very different from a sort of animal-worship.1 The animal is never adored ; the man is nearly its equal and sometimes even treats it as his possession, so far is he from being subordinate to it like a believer before his god. If the animals of the totemic species are really believed to incarnate the ancestors, the members of foreign clans would not be allowed to eat their flesh freely. In reality, it is not to the animal as such that the cult is addressed, but to the emblem and the image of the totem. Now between this religion of the emblem and the ancestor-cult, there is no connection whatsoever.
While Tyior derives totemism from the ancestor-cult, Jevons derives it from the naturecult,2 and here is how he does so.
When, under the impulse of the surprise occasioned by the irregularities observed in the course of phenomena, men had once peopled the world with supernatural beings,3 they felt the need of making agreements with these redoubtable forces with which they had surrounded themselves. They understood that the best way to escape being overwhelmed by them was to ally themselves to some of them, and thus make sure of their aid. But at this period of history men knew no other form of alliance and association than the one resulting from kinship. All the members of a single clan aid each other mutually because they are kindred or, as amounts to the same thing, because they think they are; on the other hand, different clans treat each other as enemies because they are of different blood. So the only way of assuring themselves of the support of these supernatural beings was to adopt them as kindred and to be adopted by them in the same quality : the well-known processes of the blood-covenant permitted them to attain -ihis result quite easily. But since at this period, the individual did not yet have a real personality, and was regarded only as a part of his group, or clan, it was the clan as a whole, and not the individual, which collectively contracted this relationship. For the same reason, it was contracted, not with a particular object, but with the natural group or species of which this object was a part ; for men think of the world as they think of themselves, and just as they could not conceive themselves apart from their clans, so they were unable to conceive of anything else as distinct from the species to which it belonged. Now a species of things united to a clan by a bond of kinship is, says Jevons, a totem.
In fact, it is certain that totemism implies the close association of a clan to a determined
2Wundt, who has revived the theory of Tyior in its essential lines, has tried to explain this mysterious relationship of the man and the animal in a different way : it was the sight of the corpse in decomposition which suggested the idea. When they saw worms coming out of the body, they thought that the soul was incarnate in them and escaped with them. Worms, and by extension, reptiles (snakes, lizards, etc.), were therefore the first animals to serve as receptacles for the souls of the dead, and consequently they were also the first to be venerated and to play the role of totems. It was only subsequently that other animals and plants and even inanimate objects were elevated to the same dignity. But this hypothesis does not have even the shadow of a proof. Wundt affirms [Mythus und Religion, II, p. 290) that reptiles are much more common totems than other animals ; from this, he concludes that they are the most primitive. But we cannot see what justifies this assertion, in the support of which the author cites no facts. The lists of totems gathered either in Australia or in America do not show that any special species of animal has played a preponderating role. Totems vary from one region to another with the flora and fauna. Moreover, if the circle of possible totems was so closely limited at first, we cannot see how totemism was able to satisfy the fundamental principle which says that the two clans or subclans of a tribe must have two different totems.
3" Sometimes men adore certain animals," says Tyior, " because they regard them as the reincarnation of the divine souls of the ancestors ; this belief is a sort of bridge between the cult rendered to shades and that rendered to animals " {Primitive Culture, II, p. 805, cf. 309, in fine}. Likewise, Wundt presents totemism as a section of animalism (II, p. 234).
1See above, p. 28.
2See above, p. 139.
3Introduction to the History of Religions, pp. 97 ff.
category of objects. But that this
[172]
association was contracted with a deliberate design and in the full consciousness of an end sought after, as Jevons would have us believe, is a statement having but little harmony with what history teaches. Religions are too complex, and answer to needs that are too many and too obscure, to have their origin in a premeditated act of the will. And while it sins through over-simplicity, this hypothesis is also highly improbable. It says that men sought to assure themselves of the aid of the supernatural beings upon which things depend. Then they should preferably have addressed themselves to the most powerful of these, and to those whose protection promised to be the most beneficial.1 But quite on the contrary, the beings with whom they have formed this mystic kinship are often among the most humble which exist. Also, if it were only a question of making allies and defenders, they would have tried to make as many as possible ; for one cannot be defended too well. Yet as a matter of fact, each clan systematically contents itself with a single totem, that is to say, with one single protector, leaving the other clans to enjoy their own in perfect liberty. Each group confines itself within its own religious domain, never seeking to trespass upon that of its neighbours. This reserve and moderation are inexplicable according to the hypothesis under consideration.
II
Moreover, all these theories are wrong in omitting one question which dominates the whole subject. We have seen that there are two sorts of totemism : that of the individual and that of the clan. There is too evident a kinship between the two for them not to have some connection with each other. So we may well ask if one is not derived from the other, and, in the case of an affirmative answer, which is tlie more primitive ; according to the solution accepted, the problem of the origins of totemism will be posed in different terms. This question becomes all the more necessary because of its general interest. Individual totemism is an individual aspect of the totemic cult. Then»ti it was the primitive fact, we must say that religion is born in the consciousness of the individual, that before all else, it answers to individual aspirations, and that its collective form is merely secondary.
The desire for an undue simplicity, with which ethnologists and sociologists are too frequently inspired, has naturally led many scholars to explain, here as elsewhere, the complex by the
[173]
simple, the totem of the group by that of the individual. Such, in fact, is the theory sustained by Frazer in his Golden Bough1 by Hill Tout,2 by Miss Fletcher,3 by Boas4 and by Swanton.5 It has the additional advantage of being in harmony with the conception of religion which is currently held ; this is quite generally regarded as something intimate and personal. From this point of view, the totem of the clan can only be an individual totem which has become generalized. Some eminent man, having found from experience the value of a totem he chose for himself by his own free will, transmitted it to his descendants ; these latter, multiplying as time went on, finally formed the
1 Jevons recognizes this himself, saying, " It is to be presumed that in the choice of an ally he would prefer . . . the kind or species which possessed the greatest power " (p. 101).
12nd Edition, III, pp. 416 ff. ; see especially p. 419, n. 5. In more recent articles, to be analysed below, Frazer exposes a different theory, but one which does not. in his opinion, completely exclude the one in the Golden Bough,
2The Origin of the Totemism of the Aborigines of British Columbia, in Proc. and Transact, of the Roy. Soc. of Canada, and series, VII, § 2, pp. 3 ff. Also, Report on the Ethnology of the Statlumh. J.A.I.. XXXV, p. 141. Hill Tout has replies to various objections made to his theory in Vol. IX of the Transact, of the Roy. Soc. of Canada, pp. 61-99.
3 Alice С. Fletcher, The Import of the Totem, in Smithsonian Report for 1897. PP-. 577-5S6. « The Kwakiuti Indians, pp. 323 ff.. 336-338, 393. the Development of the Clan System, in Amur. Anthrop. N.S. VI, 1904, PP477-
486.« J.A.I.. XXXV,-p. 142.
4 |
The Development of the Clan System, in Amur. Anthrop. N.S. VI, 1904, PP- 477-486. « J.A.I.. XXXV,-p. 142. |
5 |
Ibid.. p. 150. Cf. Vth Rep. on the . . . N.W. |
extended family known as a clan, and thus the totem became collective.
Hill Tout believes that he has found a proof supporting this theory in the way totemism has spread among certain societies of North-western America, especially among the Salish and certain Indians on the Thompson River. Individual totemism and the clan totemism are both found among these peoples ; but they either do not co-exist in the same tribe, or else, when they do co-exist, they are not equally developed. They vary in an inverse proportion to each other ; where the clan totem tends to become the general rule, the individual totem tends to disappear, and vice versa. Is that not as much as to say that the first is a more recent form of the second, which excludes it by replacing it?6 Mythology seems to confirm this interpretation. In these same societies, in fact, the ancestor of the clan is not a totemic animal; the founder of the group is generally represented in the form of a human being who, at a certain time, had entered into familiar relations with a fabulous animal from whom he received his totemic emblem. This emblem, together with the special powers which are attached to it, was then passed on to the descendants of this mythical hero by right of heritage. So these people themselves seem to consider the collective totem as an individual one, perpetuated in the same family.7
[174]
Moreover, it still happens to-day that a father transmits his own totem to his children. So if we imagine that the collective totem had, in a general way, this same origin, we are assuming that the same thing took place in the past which is still observable to-day.1
It is still to be explained whence the individual totem comes, The reply given to this question varies with different authors.
Hill Tout considers it a particular case of fetishism. Feeling himself surrounded on all sides by dreaded spirits, the individual experienced that sentiment which we have just seen Jevons attribute to the clan : in order that he might continue to exist, he sought some powerful protector in this mysterious world. Thus the use of a personal totem became established.2 For Frazer, this same institution was rather a subterfuge or trick of war, invented by men that they might escape from certain dangers. It is known that according to a belief which is very widespread in a large number of inferior societies, the human soul is able, without great inconvenience, to quit the body it inhabits for a while ; howsoever far away it may be, it continues to animate this body by a sort of detached control. Then, in certain critical moments, when life is supposed to be particularly menaced, it may be desirable to withdraw the soul from the body and lead it to some place or into some object where it will be in greater security. In fact, there are a certain number of practices whose object is to withdraw the soul in order to protect it from some danger, either real or imaginary. For example, at the moment when men are going to enter a newly-built house, a magician removes their souls and puts them in a sack, to be saved and returned to their proprietors after the door-sill has been crossed. This is because the moment when one enters a new house is exceptionally critical; one may have disturbed, and consequently offended, the spirits who reside in the ground and especially under the sill, and if precautions are not taken, these could make a man pay dearly for his audacity. But when this danger is once passed, and one has been able to anticipate their anger and even to make sure of their favour through the accomplishment of certain rites, the souls may safely retake their accustomed place.3 It is this same belief which gave birth to the personal totem. To protect themselves from sorcery, men thought it wise to hide their souls in the anonymous crowd of some species of animal or vegetable. But after these relations had once been
[175]
established, each individual found himself closely united to the animal or plant where his own vital
6Tribes of Canada. B.A.A.S.. P- 24.
7A myth of this sort has been quoted above.
1j.a.i.. xxxv, p. 147.
2Proc. and Transact., etc.., VII, § 2, p. 12.
3See The Golden Bought III, pp. 351 ff. Wilkcn had already pointed out similar facts in De Simsonsage, in DeGids.
1890; -De Betrekking tusschen Menschen-Dteren en Plantenleven, in Indische Gids, 1884, l888 ; Ueber das Haaropfer, in Revue Coloniale Internationale. 1886—1887.