itution, a fairly world-wide institution, totemism, by the local
peculiarities of belief in isolated Australia? If, in America, to kill a
wolf was to kill Uncas or Chingachgook, I would incline to agree with Mr.
Frazer. But no such evidence is adduced. Nor does it help Mr. Frazer to
plead that the killing of an American's nagual or of a Zulu's Ihlozi
kills that Zulu or American. For a nagual, as I have shown, is one thing
and a totem is another; nor am I aware that Zulus are totemists. The
argument of Mr. Frazer is based on analogy and on a special instance.
That instance of the Australians is so archaic that it _may_ show
totemism in an early form. Mr. Frazer's may be a correct hypothesis, but
it needs corroboration. However, Mr. Frazer concludes: 'The totem, if I
am right, is simply the receptacle in which a man keeps his life.' Yet
he never shows that a Choctaw _does_ keep his life in his totem. Perhaps
the Choctaw is afraid to let out so vital a secret. The less reticent
Australian blurts it forth. Suppose the hypothesis correct. Men and
women keep their lives in their naguals, private sacred beasts. But why,
on this score, should a man be afraid to make love to a woman of the same
nagual? Have Red Indian _women_ any naguals? I never heard of them.

Since writing this I have read Miss Kingsley's Travels in West Africa.
There the 'bush-souls' which she mentions (p. 459) bear analogies to
totems, being inherited sacred animals, connected with the life of
members of families. The evidence, though vaguely stated, favours Mr.
Frazer's hypothesis, to which Miss Kingsley makes no allusion.

THE VALIDITY OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Anthropological Evidence

In all that we say of totemism, as, later, of fetishism, we rely on an
enormous mass of evidence from geographers, historians, travellers,
settlers, missionaries, explorers, traders, Civil Servants, and European
officers of native police in Australia and Burmah. Our witnesses are of
all ages, from Herodotus to our day, of many nations, of many creeds, of
different theoretical opinions. This evidence, so world-wide, so
diversified in source, so old, and so new, Mr. Max Muller impugns. But,
before meeting his case, let us clear up a personal question.

'Positions one never held'

'It is not pleasant [writes our author] to have to defend positions
which one never held, nor wishes to hold, and I am therefore all the
more grat