re proper names" (_ib._ 147).

Now, this argument, I suggest, seeks to make, or to make much of, a
difference between fetichism and polytheism which scarcely exists, and
so far as it does exist is not the real difference between them. It
seeks to minimise, if not to deny, the personality of the fetich, in
order to exalt that of the gods of polytheism. And then this
difference in degree of personality, this transition from the one
degree to the other, is exhibited as "one of the most important
transitions in the history of religion." The question therefore is
first whether the difference is so great, and next whether it is the
real difference between fetichism and religion in the polytheistic
stage.

The difference in point of personality between the spirits of fetichism
and the gods of polytheism is not {132} absolute. The fetich,
according to Dr. Haddon, "_possesses personality_ and will, it has also
many human characters. It possesses most of the human passions, anger,
revenge, also generosity and gratitude; it is within reach of influence
and may be benevolent, is hence to be deprecated and placated, and its
aid to be enlisted" (p. 83); "the fetich is worshipped, prayed to,
sacrificed to, and talked with" (p. 89).

But, perhaps it may be said that, though the fetich does "possess
personality," it is only when it has acquired sufficient personality to
enjoy a proper name that it becomes a god, or fetichism passes into
polytheism. To this the reply is that polytheism does not wait thus
deferentially on the evolution of proper names. There was a period in
the evolution of the human race when men neither had proper names of
their own nor knew their fellows by proper names; and yet they doubted
not their personality. The simple fact is that he who is to receive a
name--whether he be a human being or a spiritual being--must be there
in order to be named. When he is there he may receive a name which has
lost all meaning, as proper names at the present day have generally
done; or one which has a meaning. {133} A mother may address her child
as "John" or as "boy," but, whichever form of address she uses, she has
no doubt that the child has a personality. The fact that a fetich has
not acquired a proper name is not a proof that it has acquired no
personality; if it can, as Dr. Haddon says it can, be "petted or
ill-treated with regard to its past or future behaviour" (p. 90), its
personality is undeniable. If it