Starting Out with C++ Early Objects 9th Edition

Gaddis Test Bank download

http://testbankbell.com/product/starting-out-with-c-early-
objects-9th-edition-gaddis-test-bank/

Explore and download more test bank or solution manual

at testbankbell.com
Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankbell.com

Test Bank Starting Out with Java: Early Objects, 5/E Tony
Gaddis

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-starting-out-with-java-
early-objects-5-e-tony-gaddis/

Solution Manual for Starting Out with C++: Early Objects,

6th Edition, Tony Gaddis, Judy Walters, Godfrey Muganda

http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-starting-out-with-
c-early-objects-6th-edition-tony-gaddis-judy-walters-godfrey-muganda/

Solution Manual for Starting Out with C++ from Control

Structures to Objects, 9th Edition, Tony Gaddis

http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-starting-out-with-
c-from-control-structures-to-objects-9th-edition-tony-gaddis/

Test Bank for Fundamentals of Human Physiology, 1st

Edition: Stuart Ira Fox

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-fundamentals-of-human-
physiology-1st-edition-stuart-ira-fox/
Test Bank for Introduction to Criminal Justice, 15th
Edition

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-introduction-to-
criminal-justice-15th-edition/

Microeconomics An Intuitive Approach with Calculus 2nd

Edition Thomas Nechyba Solutions Manual

http://testbankbell.com/product/microeconomics-an-intuitive-approach-
with-calculus-2nd-edition-thomas-nechyba-solutions-manual/

Solution Manual for Fundamentals of Human Resource

Management, 7th Edition, Raymond Noe, John Hollenbeck,
Barry Gerhart Patrick Wright
http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-fundamentals-of-
human-resource-management-7th-edition-raymond-noe-john-hollenbeck-
barry-gerhart-patrick-wright/

Solutions Manual to accompany Physics 4th by James S.

Walker 032190303X / 9780321903037

http://testbankbell.com/product/solutions-manual-to-accompany-
physics-4th-by-james-s-walker-032190303x-9780321903037/

Test Bank for Advanced EMT: A Clinical-Reasoning Approach,

1st Edition, Melissa R. Alexander, Richard Belle

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-advanced-emt-a-clinical-
reasoning-approach-1st-edition-melissa-r-alexander-richard-belle/
Test Bank for Molecular Diagnostics Fundamentals Methods
and Clinical Applications, 1st Edition: Buckingham

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-molecular-diagnostics-
fundamentals-methods-and-clinical-applications-1st-edition-buckingham/
 Starting Out with C++ Early Objects 9th
Edition Gaddis Test Bank
Download full chapter at:
https://testbankbell.com/product/starting-out-with-c-early-
objects-9th-edition-gaddis-test-bank/

Starting Out with C++: Early Objects, 9th ed. (Gaddis, Walters & Muganda)
Chapter 2 Introduction to C++
Chapter 2 Test 1 Key

1) In a C++ program, two slash marks ( // ) indicate the beginning of

A) a block of code.
B) a comment.
C) a variable definition.
D) a program.
E) none of the above.
Answer: B

2) #include <iostream> is an example of a(n)

A) comment.
B) I/O statement.
C) preprocessor directive.
D) stream directive.
E) compiler option.
Answer: C

3) True/False: C++ is a case-sensitive language.

Answer: TRUE

4) The is used to display information on the computer's screen.

A) < symbol
B) cin object
C) cout object D)
print object E)
output object
Answer: C

5) Which of the following will cause the next output to begin on a new line?
A) cout << endl;
B) cout << "endl";
C) cout << "/n";
D) All of the above
E) A and C, but not B
Answer: A

1
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
6) The directive causes the contents of another file to be inserted into a program.
A) #getfile
B) #library
C) #insert
D) #include
E) None of the above
Answer: D

7) True/False: A variable of the char data type can hold a set of characters like "January".
Answer: FALSE

2
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
8) You must have a(n) for every variable you include in a program.
A) purpose
B) definition
C) comment
D) numeric value
E) output statement
Answer: B

9) Which of the following is/are valid C++ identifiers?

A) June-2010
B) June.2010
C) June_2010
D) 2010June
E) Both C and D.
Answer: C

10) are data items whose values cannot change while the program is running.
A) Literals
B) Variables
C) Fixed data
D) Integers
E) None of the above
Answer: A

11) True/False: The following two C++ statements perform the same operation.
wages = regPay + overTime;
regPay + overTime = wages;
Answer: FALSE

12) Which of the following definitions will allow the variable total to hold floating-point values?
A) float total;
B) double total;
C) auto total = 0.0;
D) All of the above
E) A and B, but not C
Answer: D

13) What value will be assigned to the variable number by the following statement?
int number = 7.8;
A) 7
B) 8
C) 7.8
D) None of the above.
E) It's unpredictable. That's the problem.
Answer: A

14) If number is an int variable, both of the following statements will print out its value:
cout << number;
cout << "number";
Answer: FALSE

3
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
15) What value will be assigned to the variable number by the following statement?
int number = 7.8;
A) 7
B) 8
C) 7.8
D) None of the above.
E) It's unpredictable. That's the problem.
Answer: A

16) A C++ character literal is enclosed in quotation marks, whereas a string literal is enclosed in
quotation marks.
A) double, single
B) triple, double
C) open, closed
D) single, double
E) no, some
Answer: D

17) C++ automatically places at the end of a string literal.

A) a semicolon
B) quotation marks
C) the null terminator
D) a newline escape sequence
E) a blank
Answer: C

18) The bool data type

A) can be used to store a single character.
B) has only two values: true and false.
C) is used to store extra-large numbers.
D) is used to represent numbers in E notation.
E) does none of the above.
Answer: B

19) The expression 5 / 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 2
C) 2.5
D) 5.2
E) 10
Answer: B

20) The expression 5 % 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 2
C) 2.5
D) 5.2
E) 10
Answer: A

4
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 2 Test 2 Key

1) Every C++ program must have

A) comments.
B) variables.
C) literals.
D) a function called main..
E) all of the above.
Answer: D

2) A is used to mark the end of a complete C++ programming statement.

A) comment
B) period
C) semicolon
D) closing brace
E) new line
Answer: C

3) Which of the following will cause the next output to begin on a new line?
A) cout << endl;
B) cout << "endl";
C) cout << "/n";
D) All of the above
E) A and C, but not B
Answer: A

4) In programming terms, a group of characters inside a set of double quotation marks (" ") is called
A) a character literal.
B) a string literal.
C) a character set.
D) none of the above.
E) any of the above.
Answer: B

5) True/False: The following two statements could be used interchangeably in a C++ program.
// Program Payroll
/* Program Payroll */
Answer: TRUE

6) A variable must be defined

A) in every program.
B) and initialized at the same time.
C) in order to perform output.
D) before it can be used.
E) in all of the above cases.
Answer: D

5
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
7) True/False: The following statements both declare the variable num to be an integer.
int num;
INT num;
Answer: FALSE

8) Which of the following definitions will allow the variable average to hold floating-point values?
A) float average;
B) double average;
C) auto average = 0.0;
D) All of the above
E) A and B, but not C
Answer: D

9) What literal(s) appear in the following C++ statement?

int number = 4 + 8;
A) number
B) 4
C) 8
D) 12
E) both B and C
Answer: E

10) Which of the following is/are valid C++ identifiers?

A) department_9
B) aVeryLongVariableName
C) last-name
D) All of the above.
E) Both A and B, but not C.
Answer: E

11) Which of the following keywords is/are the names of C++ data types?
A) short
B) long
C) double
D) bool
E) All of the above
Answer: E

12) must be included in a program in order to use the cout object.

A) Opening and closing braces
B) The iostream header file
C) A cout declaration
D) Strings
E) None of the above
Answer: B

13) True/False: The following is a legal C++ statement to define and initialize a variable.
char firstName = "Jack";
Answer: FALSE

6
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
14) A variable can hold only one of two values: true or false.
A) binary
B) single precision
C) T/F
D) char
E) bool
Answer: E

15) True/False: If a variable is defined as

int sum;
it may be written in the program code as sum or Sum, but not SUM.
Answer: FALSE

16) An operation that copies a value into a variable is called a(n) operation.
A) assignment
B) equals
C) copy
D) declaration
E) cout
Answer: A

17) What value will be assigned to the variable number by the following statement?
int number = 3.75;
A) 3
B) 4
C) 3.75
D) None of the above.
E) It's unpredictable. That's the problem.
Answer: A

18) True/False: The following two statements both assign the value 5 to the variable dept.
5 = dept;
dept = 5;
Answer: FALSE

19) The expression 7 % 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 3
C) 3.5
D) 7.2
E) 14
Answer: A

20) The expression 7 / 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 3
C) 3.5
D) 7.2
E) 14
Answer: B

6
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
Starting Out with C++: Early Objects, 9th ed. (Gaddis, Walters & Muganda)
Chapter 2 Introduction to C++
Chapter 2 Test 1

1) In a C++ program, two slash marks ( // ) indicate the beginning of

A) a block of code.
B) a comment.
C) a variable definition.
D) a program.
E) none of the above.

2) #include <iostream> is an example of a(n)

A) comment.
B) I/O statement.
C) preprocessor directive.
D) stream directive.
E) compiler option.

3) True/False: C++ is a case-sensitive language.

4) The is used to display information on the computer's screen.

A) < symbol
B) cin object
C) cout object D)
print object E)
output object

5) Which of the following will cause the next output to begin on a new line?
A) cout << endl;
B) cout << "endl";
C) cout << "/n";
D) All of the above
E) A and C, but not B

6) The directive causes the contents of another file to be inserted into a program.
A) #getfile
B) #library
C) #insert
D) #include
E) None of the above

7) True/False: A variable of the char data type can hold a set of characters like "January".

1
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
8) You must have a(n) for every variable you include in a program.
A) purpose
B) definition
C) comment
D) numeric value
E) output statement

9) Which of the following is/are valid C++ identifiers?

A) June-2010
B) June.2010
C) June_2010
D) 2010June
E) Both C and D.

10) are data items whose values cannot change while the program is running.
A) Literals
B) Variables
C) Fixed data
D) Integers
E) None of the above

11) True/False: The following two C++ statements perform the same operation.
wages = regPay + overTime;
regPay + overTime = wages;

12) Which of the following definitions will allow the variable total to hold floating-point values?
A) float total;
B) double total;
C) auto total = 0.0;
D) All of the above
E) A and B, but not C

13) What value will be assigned to the variable number by the following statement?
int number = 7.8;
A) 7
B) 8
C) 7.8
D) None of the above.
E) It's unpredictable. That's the problem.

14) If number is an int variable, both of the following statements will print out its value:
cout << number;
cout << "number";

2
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
15) What value will be assigned to the variable number by the following statement?
int number = 7.8;
A) 7
B) 8
C) 7.8
D) None of the above.
E) It's unpredictable. That's the problem.

16) A C++ character literal is enclosed in quotation marks, whereas a string literal is enclosed in
quotation marks.
A) double, single
B) triple, double
C) open, closed
D) single, double
E) no, some

17) C++ automatically places at the end of a string literal.

A) a semicolon
B) quotation marks
C) the null terminator
D) a newline escape sequence
E) a blank

18) The bool data type

A) can be used to store a single character.
B) has only two values: true and false.
C) is used to store extra-large numbers.
D) is used to represent numbers in E notation.
E) does none of the above.

19) The expression 5 / 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 2
C) 2.5
D) 5.2
E) 10

20) The expression 5 % 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 2
C) 2.5
D) 5.2
E) 10

3
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
Visit https://testbankbell.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
Chapter 2 Test 2

1) Every C++ program must have

A) comments.
B) variables.
C) literals.
D) a function called main..
E) all of the above.

2) A is used to mark the end of a complete C++ programming statement.

A) comment
B) period
C) semicolon
D) closing brace
E) new line

3) Which of the following will cause the next output to begin on a new line?
A) cout << endl;
B) cout << "endl";
C) cout << "/n";
D) All of the above
E) A and C, but not B

4) In programming terms, a group of characters inside a set of double quotation marks (" ") is called
A) a character literal.
B) a string literal.
C) a character set.
D) none of the above.
E) any of the above.

5) True/False: The following two statements could be used interchangeably in a C++ program.
// Program Payroll
/* Program Payroll */

6) A variable must be defined

A) in every program.
B) and initialized at the same time.
C) in order to perform output.
D) before it can be used.
E) in all of the above cases.

4
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
7) True/False: The following statements both declare the variable num to be an integer.
int num;
INT num;

8) Which of the following definitions will allow the variable average to hold floating-point values?
A) float average;
B) double average;
C) auto average = 0.0;
D) All of the above
E) A and B, but not C

9) What literal(s) appear in the following C++ statement?

int number = 4 + 8;
A) number
B) 4
C) 8
D) 12
E) both B and C

10) Which of the following is/are valid C++ identifiers?

A) department_9
B) aVeryLongVariableName
C) last-name
D) All of the above.
E) Both A and B, but not C.

11) Which of the following keywords is/are the names of C++ data types?
A) short
B) long
C) double
D) bool
E) All of the above

12) must be included in a program in order to use the cout object.

A) Opening and closing braces
B) The iostream header file
C) A cout declaration
D) Strings
E) None of the above
Answer: B

13) True/False: The following is a legal C++ statement to define and initialize a variable.
char firstName = "Jack";

5
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
14) A variable can hold only one of two values: true or false.
A) binary
B) single precision
C) T/F
D) char
E) bool

15) True/False: If a variable is defined as

int sum;
it may be written in the program code as sum or Sum, but not SUM.

16) An operation that copies a value into a variable is called a(n) operation.
A) assignment
B) equals
C) copy
D) declaration
E) cout

17) What value will be assigned to the variable number by the following statement?
int number = 3.75;
A) 3
B) 4
C) 3.75
D) None of the above.
E) It's unpredictable. That's the problem.

18) True/False: The following two statements both assign the value 5 to the variable dept.
5 = dept;
dept = 5;

19) The expression 7 % 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 3
C) 3.5
D) 7.2
E) 14

20) The expression 7 / 2 evaluates to

A) 1
B) 3
C) 3.5
D) 7.2
E) 14

6
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Education, Inc.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
themselves into the bodies of the pregnant women of their families.
"So when a woman dreams, during pregnancy, of some deceased
relative, she believes that the soul of this latter has penetrated into
her. If the young child has some characteristic mark which the dead
man had before, they believe that it is the dead man himself come
back to earth, and his name is given to the child."[841] This belief is
also general among the Haida. It is the shaman who reveals which
relative it was who reincarnated himself in the child and what name
should consequently be given to him.[842] Among the Kwakiutl it is
believed that the latest member of a family who died comes back to
life in the person of the first child to be born in that family.[843] It is
the same with the Hurons, the Iroquois, the Tinneh, and many other
tribes of the United States.[844]

The universality of these conceptions extends, of course, to the

conclusion which we have deduced from them, that is, to the
explanation of the idea of the soul which we have proposed. Its
general acceptability is also proved by the following facts.
We know[845] that each individual contains within him something
of that anonymous force which is diffused in the sacred species; he
is a member of this species himself. But as an empirical and visible
being, he is not, for, in spite of the symbolic designs and marks with
which he decorates his body, there is nothing in him to suggest the
form of an animal or plant. So it must be that there is another being
in him, in whom he recognizes himself, but whom he represents in
the form of an animal or vegetable species. Now is it not evident
that this double can only be the soul, since the soul is, of itself,
already a double of the subject whom it animates? The justification
of this identification is completed by the fact that the organs where
the fragment of the totemic principle contained in each individual
incarnates itself the most eminently are also those where the soul
resides. This is the case with the blood. The blood contains
something of the nature of the totem, as is proved by the part it
takes in the totemic ceremonies.[846] But at the same time, the
blood is one of the seats of the soul; or rather, it is the soul itself,
seen from without. When blood flows, life runs out and, in the same
process, the soul escapes. So the soul is confused with the sacred
principle which is imminent in the blood.
Regarding matters from another point of view, if our explanation is
well-founded, the totemic principle, in penetrating into the individual
as we suppose, should retain a certain amount of autonomy there,
since it is quite distinct from the subject in whom it is incarnated.
Now this is just what Howitt claims to have observed among the
Yuin: "That in this tribe the totem is thought to be in some way part
of a man is clearly seen by the case of Umbara, before mentioned,
who told me that, many years ago, someone of the Lace-lizard
totem sent it while he was asleep, and that it went down his throat
and almost ate his totem, which was in his breast, so that he nearly
died."[847] So it is quite true that the totem is broken up in
individualizing itself and that each of the bits thus detached plays
the part of a spirit or soul residing in the body.[848]
But there are other more clearly demonstrative facts. If the soul is
only the totemic principle individualized, it should have, in certain
cases at least, rather close relations with the animal or vegetable
species whose form is reproduced by the totem. And, in fact, "the
Geawe-Gal (a tribe of New South Wales) had a superstition that
everyone had within himself an affinity to the spirit of some bird,
beast or reptile. Not that he sprung from the creature in any way,
but that the spirit which was in him was akin to that of the
creature."[849]
There are even cases where the soul is believed to emanate
directly from the animal or vegetable serving as totem. Among the
Arunta, according to Strehlow, when a woman has eaten a great
deal of fruit, it is believed that she will give birth to a child who will
have this fruit as totem. If, at the moment when she felt the first
tremblings of the child, she was looking at a kangaroo, it is believed
that the ratapa of the kangaroo has entered her body and fertilized
her.[850] H. Basedow reported the same fact from the Wogait.[851]
We know, also, that the ratapa and the soul are almost
indistinguishable things. Now, such an origin could never have been
attributed to the soul if men did not think that it was made out of
the same substances as the plants and animals of the totemic
species.
Thus the soul is frequently represented in an animal form. It is
known that in inferior societies, death is never considered a natural
event, due to the action of purely physical causes; it is generally
attributed to the evil workings of some sorcerer. In a large number
of Australian societies, in order to determine who is the responsible
author of this murder, they work on the principle that the soul of the
murderer must inevitably come to visit its victim. Therefore, the
body is placed upon a scaffolding; then, the ground under the
corpse and all around it is carefully smoothed off so that the
slightest mark becomes easily perceptible. They return the next day;
if an animal has passed by there during the interval, its tracks are
readily recognizable. Their form reveals the species to which it
belongs, and from that, they infer the social group of which the
guilty man is a member. They say that it is a man of such a class or
such a clan,[852] according to whether the animal is the totem of this
or that class or clan. So the soul is believed to have come in the
form of the totemic animal.
In other societies where totemism has weakened or disappeared,
the soul still continues to be thought of in an animal form. The
natives of Cape Bedford (North Queensland) believe that the child,
at the moment of entering the body of its mother, is a curlew if it is
a girl, or a snake if it is a boy.[853] It is only later that it takes a
human form. Many of the Indians of North America, says the Prince
of Wied, say that they have an animal in their bodies.[854] The
Bororo of Brazil represent the soul in the form of a bird, and
therefore believe that they are birds of the same variety.[855] In
other places, it is thought of as a snake, a lizard, a fly, a bee, etc.
[856]
 But it is especially after death that this animal nature of the soul is
manifested. During life, this characteristic is partially veiled, as it
were, by the very form of the human body. But when death has
once set it free, it becomes itself again. Among the Omaha, in at
least two of the Buffalo clans, it is believed that the souls of the
dead go to rejoin the buffalo, their ancestors.[857] The Hopi are
divided into a certain number of clans, whose ancestors were
animals or beings with animal forms. Now Schoolcraft tells us that
they say that at death, they take their original form again; each
becomes a bear or deer, according to the clan to which he belongs.
[858] Very frequently the soul is believed to reincarnate itself in the

body of an animal.[859] It is probably from this that the widely-

spread doctrine of metempsychosis was derived. We have already
seen how hard pressed Tylor is to account for it.[860] If the soul is an
essentially human principle, what could be more curious than this
marked predilection which it shows, in so large a number of
societies, for the animal form? On the other hand, everything is
explained if, by its very constitution, the soul is closely related to the
animal, for in that case, when it returns to the animal world at the
close of this life, it is only returning to its real nature. Thus the
generality of the belief in metempsychosis is a new proof that the
constituent elements of the idea of the soul have been taken largely
from the animal kingdom, as is presupposed by the theory which we
have just set forth.

IV

Thus the notion of the soul is a particular application of the beliefs

relative to sacred beings. This is the explanation of the religious
character which this idea has had from the moment when it first
appeared in history, and which it still retains to-day. In fact, the soul
has always been considered a sacred thing; on this ground, it is
opposed to the body which is, in itself, profane. It is not merely
distinguished from its material envelope as the inside from the
outside; it is not merely represented as made out of a more subtle
and fluid matter; but more than this, it inspires those sentiments
which are everywhere reserved for that which is divine. If it is not
made into a god, it is at least regarded as a spark of the divinity.
This essential characteristic would be inexplicable if the idea of the
soul were only a pre-scientific solution given to the problem of
dreams; for there is nothing in the dream to awaken religious
emotions, so the cause by which these are explained could not have
such a character. But if the soul is a part of the divine substance, it
represents something not ourselves that is within us; if it is made of
the same mental matter as the sacred beings, it is natural that it
should become the object of the same sentiments.
And the sacred character which men thus attribute to themselves
is not the product of a pure illusion either; like the notions of
religious force and of divinity, the notion of the soul is not without a
foundation in reality. It is perfectly true that we are made up of two
distinct parts, which are opposed to one another as the sacred to
the profane, and we may say that, in a certain sense, there is
divinity in us. For society, this unique source of all that is sacred,
does not limit itself to moving us from without and affecting us for
the moment; it establishes itself within us in a durable manner. It
arouses within us a whole world of ideas and sentiments which
express it but which, at the same time, form an integral and
permanent part of ourselves. When the Australian goes away from a
religious ceremony, the representations which this communal life has
aroused or re-aroused within him are not obliterated in a second.
The figures of the great ancestors, the heroic exploits whose
memory these rites perpetuate, the great deeds of every sort in
which he, too, has participated through the cult, in a word, all these
numerous ideals which he has elaborated with the co-operation of
his fellows, continue to live in his consciousness and, through the
emotions which are attached to them and the ascendancy which
they hold over his entire being, they are sharply distinguished from
the vulgar impressions arising from his daily relations with external
things. Moral ideas have the same character. It is society which
forces them upon us, and as the respect inspired by it is naturally
extended to all that comes from it, its imperative rules of conduct
are invested, by reason of their origin, with an authority and a
dignity which is shared by none of our internal states: therefore, we
assign them a place apart in our psychical life. Although our moral
conscience is a part of our consciousness, we do not feel ourselves
on an equality with it. In this voice which makes itself heard only to
give us orders and establish prohibitions, we cannot recognize our
own voices; the very tone in which it speaks to us warns us that it
expresses something within us that is not of ourselves. This is the
objective foundation of the idea of the soul: those representations
whose flow constitutes our interior life are of two different species
which are irreducible one into another. Some concern themselves
with the external and material world; others, with an ideal world to
which we attribute a moral superiority over the first. So we are really
made up of two beings facing in different and almost contrary
directions, one of whom exercises a real pre-eminence over the
other. Such is the profound meaning of the antithesis which all men
have more or less clearly conceived between the body and the soul,
the material and the spiritual beings who coexist within us. Moralists
and preachers have often maintained that no one can deny the
reality of duty and its sacred character without falling into
materialism. And it is true that if we have no idea of moral and
religious imperatives, our psychical life will all be reduced to one
level,[861] all our states of consciousness will be on the same plane,
and all feeling of duality will perish. To make this duality intelligible,
it is, of course, in no way necessary to imagine a mysterious and
unrepresentable substance, under the name of the soul, which is
opposed to the body. But here, as in regard to the idea of
sacredness, the error concerns the letter of the symbol employed,
not the reality of the fact symbolized. It remains true that our nature
is double; there really is a particle of divinity in us because there is
within us us a particle of these great ideas which are the soul of the
group.
 So the individual soul is only a portion of the collective soul of the
group; it is the anonymous force at the basis of the cult, but
incarnated in an individual whose personality it espouses; it is mana
individualized. Perhaps dreams aided in determining certain
secondary characteristics of the idea. The inconsistency and
instability of the images which fill our minds during sleep, and their
remarkable aptitude for transforming themselves into one another,
may have furnished the model for this subtile, transparent and
Protean matter out of which the soul is believed to be made. Also,
the facts of swooning, catalepsy, etc., may have suggested the idea
that the soul was mobile, and quitted the body temporarily during
this life; this, in its turn, has served to explain certain dreams. But all
these experiences and observations could have had only a secondary
and complimentary influence, whose very existence it is difficult to
establish. All that is really essential in the idea comes from
elsewhere.
But does not this genesis of the idea of the soul misunderstand its
essential characteristic? If the soul is a particular form of the
impersonal principle which is diffused in the group, the totemic
species and all the things of every sort which are attached to these,
at bottom it is impersonal itself. So, with differences only of degree,
it should have the same properties as the force of which it is a
special form, and particularly, the same diffusion, the same aptitude
for spreading itself contagiously and the same ubiquity. But quite on
the contrary, the soul is voluntarily represented as a concrete,
definite being, wholly contained within itself and not communicable
to others; it is made the basis of our personality.
But this way of conceiving the soul is the product of a late and
philosophic elaboration. The popular representation, as it is
spontaneously formed from common experience, is very different,
especially at first. For the Australian, the soul is a very vague thing,
undecided and wavering in form, and spread over the whole
organism. Though it manifests itself especially at certain points,
there are probably none from which it is totally absent. So it has a
diffusion, a contagiousness and an omnipresence comparable to
those of the mana. Like the mana, it is able to divide and duplicate
itself infinitely, though remaining entire in each of its parts; it is from
these divisions and duplications that the plurality of souls is derived.
On the other hand, the doctrine of reincarnation, whose generality
we have established, shows how many impersonal elements enter
into the idea of the soul and how essential those are. For if the same
soul is going to clothe a new personality in each generation, the
individual forms in which it successively develops itself must all be
equally external to it, and have nothing to do with its true nature. It
is a sort of generic substance which individualizes itself only
secondarily and superficially. Moreover, this conception of the soul is
by no means completely gone. The cult of relics shows that for a
host of believers even to-day, the soul of a saint, with all its essential
powers, continues to adhere to his different bones; and this implies
that he is believed to be able to diffuse himself, subdivide himself
and incorporate himself in all sorts of different things simultaneously.
Just as the characteristic attributes of the mana are found in the
soul, so secondary and superficial changes are enough to enable the
mana to individualize itself in the form of a soul. We pass from the
first idea to the second with no break of continuity. Every religious
force which is attached in a special way to a determined being
participates in the characteristics of this being, takes on its
appearance and becomes its spiritual double. Tregear, in his Maori-
Polynesian dictionary, has thought it possible to connect the word
mana with another group of words, such as manawa, manamana,
etc., which seem to belong to the same family, and which signify
heart, life, consciousness.[862] Is this not equivalent to saying that
some sort of kinship ought to exist between the corresponding ideas
as well, that is to say, between the idea of impersonal force and
those of internal life, mental force and, in a word, of the soul? This is
why the question whether the churinga is sacred because it serves
as the residence of a soul, as Spencer and Gillen believe, or because
it has impersonal virtues, as Strehlow thinks, seems to us to have
little interest and to be without sociological importance. Whether the
efficacy of a sacred object is represented in an abstract form in the
mind or is attributed to some personal agent does not really matter.
The psychological roots of both beliefs are identical: an object is
sacred because it inspires, in one way or another, a collective
sentiment of respect which removes it from profane touches. In
order to explain this sentiment, men sometimes fall back on to a
vague and imprecise cause, and sometimes on to a determined
spiritual being endowed with a name and a history; but these
different interpretations are superadded to one fundamental
phenomenon which is the same in both cases.
This, moreover, is what explains the singular confusions, examples
of which we have met with as we have progressed. The individual,
the soul of the ancestor which he reincarnates or from which his
own is an emanation, his churinga and the animals of the totemic
species are, as we have said, partially equivalent and
interchangeable things. This is because in certain connections, they
all affect the collective consciousness in the same way. If the
churinga is sacred, it is because of the collective sentiments of
respect inspired by the totemic emblem carved upon its surface;
now the same sentiment attaches itself to the animals or plants
whose outward form is reproduced by the totem, to the soul of the
individual, for it is thought of in the form of the totemic being, and
finally to the ancestral soul, of which the preceding one is only a
particular aspect. So all these various objects, whether real or ideal,
have one common element by which they arouse a single affective
state in the mind, and through this, they become confused. In so far
as they are expressed by one and the same representation, they are
indistinct. This is how the Arunta has come to regard the churinga as
the body common to the individual, the ancestor and even the
totemic being. It is his way of expressing the identity of the
sentiments of which these different things are the object.
However, it does not follow from the fact the idea of the soul is
derived from the idea of mana that the first has a relatively later
origin, or that there was a period in history when men were
acquainted with religious forces only in their impersonal forms.
When some wish to designate by the word preanimist an historical
period during which animism was completely unknown, they build up
an arbitrary hypothesis;[863] for there is no people among whom the
ideas of the soul and of mana do not coexist side by side. So there is
no ground for imagining that they were formed at two distinct times;
everything, on the contrary, goes to show that the two are coeval.
Just as there is no society without individuals, so those impersonal
forces which are disengaged from the group cannot establish
themselves without incarnating themselves in the individual
consciousnesses where they individualize themselves. In reality, we
do not have two different developments, but two different aspects of
one and the same development. It is true that they do not have an
equal importance; one is more essential than the other. The idea of
mana does not presuppose the idea of the soul; for if the mana is
going to individualize itself and break itself up into the particular
souls, it must first of all exist, and what it is in itself does not depend
upon the forms it takes when individualized. But on the contrary, the
idea of the soul cannot be understood except when taken in
connection with the idea of mana. So on this ground, it is possible to
say that it is the result of a secondary formation; but we are
speaking of a secondary formation in the logical, not the
chronological, sense of the word.

But how does it come that men have believed that the soul
survives the body and is even able to do so for an indefinite length
of time?
From the analysis which we have made, it is evident that the
belief in immortality has not been established under the influence of
moral ideas. Men have not imagined the prolongation of their
existence beyond the tomb in order that a just retribution for moral
acts may be assured in another life, if it fails in this one; for we have
seen that all considerations of this sort are foreign to the primitive
conception of the beyond.
 Nor is the other hypothesis any better, according to which the
other life was imagined as a means of escaping the agonizing
prospect of annihilation. In the first place, it is not true that the need
of personal survival was actively felt at the beginning. The primitive
generally accepts the idea of death with a sort of indifference. Being
trained to count his own individuality for little, and being accustomed
to exposing his life constantly, he gives it up easily enough.[864]
More than that, the immortality promised by the religions he
practices is not personal. In a large number of cases, the soul does
not continue the personality of the dead man, or does not continue
it long, for, forgetful of its previous existence, it goes away, after a
while, to animate another body and thus becomes the vivifying
principle of a new personality. Even among the most advanced
peoples, it was only a pale and sad existence that shades led in
Sheol or Erebus, and could hardly attenuate the regrets occasioned
by the memories of the life lost.
A more satisfactory explanation is the one attaching the
conception of a posthumous life to the experiences of dreams. Our
dead friends and relatives reappear to us in dreams: we see them
act, we hear them speak; it is natural to conclude that they continue
to exist. But if these observations were able to confirm the idea after
it had once been born, they hardly seem capable of creating it out of
nothing. Dreams in which we see departed persons living again are
too rare and too short and leave only too vague recollections of
themselves, to have been able to suggest so important a system of
beliefs to men all by themselves. There is a remarkable lack of
proportion between the effect and the cause to which it is attributed.
What makes this question embarrassing is the fact that in itself,
the idea of the soul does not imply that of its survival, but rather
seems to exclude it. In fact, we have seen that the soul, though
being distinguished from the body, is believed, nevertheless, to be
closely united to it: it ages along with the body, it feels a reaction
from all the maladies that fall upon the body; so it would seem
natural that it should die with the body. At least, men ought to have
believed that it ceased to exist from the moment when it definitely
lost its original form, and when it was no longer what it had been.
Yet it is at just this moment that a new life opens out before it.
The myths which we have already described give the only possible
explanation of this belief. We have seen that the souls of new-born
children are either emanations of the ancestral souls, or these souls
themselves reincarnated. But in order that they may either
reincarnate themselves, or periodically give off new emanations,
they must have survived their first holders. So it seems as though
they admitted the survival of the dead in order to explain the birth of
the living. The primitive does not have the idea of an all-powerful
god who creates souls out of nothing. It seems to him that souls
cannot be made except out of souls. So those who are born can only
be new forms of those who have been; consequently, it is necessary
that these latter continue to exist in order that others may be born.
In fine, the belief in the immortality of the soul is the only way in
which men were able to explain a fact which could not fail to attract
their attention; this fact is the perpetuity of the life of the group.
Individuals die, but the clan survives. So the forces which give it life
must have the same perpetuity. Now these forces are the souls
which animate individual bodies; for it is in them and through them
that the group is realized. For this reason, it is necessary that they
endure. It is even necessary that in enduring, they remain always
the same; for, as the clan always keeps its characteristic appearance,
the spiritual substance out of which it is made must be thought of as
qualitatively invariable. Since it is always the same clan with the
same totemic principle, it is necessary that the souls be the same,
for souls are only the totemic principle broken up and particularized.
Thus there is something like a germinative plasm, of a mystic order,
which is transmitted from generation to generation and which
makes, or at least is believed to make, the spiritual unity of the clan
through all time. And this belief, in spite of its symbolic character, is
not without a certain objective truth. For though the group may not
be immortal in the absolute sense of the word, still it is true that it
endures longer than the individuals and that it is born and
incarnated afresh in each new generation.
 A fact confirms this interpretation. We have seen that according to
the testimony of Strehlow, the Arunta distinguish two sorts of souls:
on the one hand are those of the ancestors of the Alcheringa, on the
other, those of the individuals who actually compose the active body
of the tribe at each moment in history. The second sort only survive
the body for a relatively short time; they are soon totally annihilated.
Only the former are immortal; as they are uncreated, so they do not
perish. It is also to be noticed that they are the only ones whose
immortality is necessary to explain the permanence of the group; for
it is upon them, and upon them alone, that it is incumbent to assure
the perpetuity of the clan, for every conception is their work. In this
connection, the others have no part to play. So souls are not said to
be immortal except in so far as this immortality is useful in rendering
intelligible the continuity of the collective life.
Thus the causes leading to the first beliefs in a future life had no
connections with the functions to be filled at a later period by the
institutions beyond the tomb. But when that had once appeared,
they were soon utilized for other purposes besides those which had
been their original reasons for existence. Even in the Australian
societies, we see them beginning to organize themselves for this
other purpose. Moreover, there was no need of any fundamental
transformation for this. How true it is that the same social institution
can successively fulfil different functions without changing its nature!

VI

The idea of the soul was for a long time, and still is in part, the
popular form of the idea of personality.[865] So the genesis of the
former of these ideas should aid us in understanding how the
second one was formed.
From what has already been said, it is clear that the notion of
person is the product of two sorts of factors. One of these is
essentially impersonal: it is the spiritual principle serving as the soul
of the group. In fact, it is this which constitutes the very substance
of individual souls. Now this is not the possession of any one in
particular: it is a part of the collective patrimony; in it and through it,
all consciousnesses communicate. But on the other hand, in order to
have separate personalities, it is necessary that another factor
intervene to break up and differentiate this principle: in other words,
an individualizing factor is necessary. It is the body that fulfils this
function. As bodies are distinct from each other, and as they occupy
different points of space and time, each of them forms a special
centre about which the collective representations reflect and colour
themselves differently. The result is that even if all the
consciousnesses in these bodies are directed towards the same
world, to wit, the world of the ideas and sentiments which brings
about the moral unity of the group, they do not all see it from the
same angle; each one expresses it in its own fashion.
Of these two equally indispensable factors, the former is certainly
not the less important, for this is the one which furnishes the original
matter for the idea of the soul. Perhaps some will be surprised to
see so considerable a rôle attributed to the impersonal element in
the genesis of the idea of personality. But the philosophical analysis
of the idea of person, which has gone far ahead of the sociological
analysis, has reached analogous results on this point. Among all the
philosophers, Leibniz is one of those who have felt most vividly what
a personality is; for before all, the nomad is a personal and
autonomous being. Yet, for Leibniz, the contents of all the monads is
identical. In fact, all are consciousnesses which express one and the
same object, the world; and as the world itself is only a system of
representations, each particular consciousness is really only the
reflection of the universal consciousness. However, each one
expresses it from its own point of view, and in its own manner. We
know how this difference of perspectives comes from the fact that
the monads are situated differently in relation to each other and to
the whole system which they constitute.
Kant expresses the same sentiment, though in a different form.
For him, the corner-stone of the personality is the will. Now the will
is the faculty of acting in conformity with reason, and the reason is
that which is most impersonal within us. For reason is not my
reason; it is human reason in general. It is the power which the
mind has of rising above the particular, the contingent and the
individual, to think in universal forms. So from this point of view, we
may say that what makes a man a personality is that by which he is
confounded with other men, that which makes him a man, not a
certain man. The senses, the body and, in a word, all that
individualizes, is, on the contrary, considered as the antagonist of
the personality by Kant.
This is because individuation is not the essential characteristic of
the personality. A person is not merely a single subject distinguished
from all the others. It is especially a being to which is attributed a
relative autonomy in relation to the environment with which it is
most immediately in contact. It is represented as capable of moving
itself, to a certain degree: this is what Leibniz expressed in an
exaggerated way when he said that the monad was completely
closed to the outside. Now our analysis permits us to see how this
conception was formed and to what it corresponds.
In fact, the soul, a symbolic representation of the personality, has
the same characteristic. Although closely bound to the body, it is
believed to be profoundly distinct from it and to enjoy, in relation to
it, a large degree of independence. During life, it may leave it
temporarily, and it definitely withdraws at death. Far from being
dependent upon the body, it dominates it from the higher dignity
which is in it. It may well take from the body the outward form in
which it individualizes itself, but it owes nothing essential to it. Nor is
the autonomy which all peoples have attributed to the soul a pure
illusion; we know now what its objective foundation is. It is quite
true that the elements which serve to form the idea of the soul and
those which enter into the representation of the body come from
two different sources that are independent of one another. One sort
are made up of the images and impressions coming from all parts of
the organism; the others consist in the ideas and sentiments which
come from and express society. So the former are not derived from
the latter. There really is a part of ourselves which is not placed in
immediate dependence upon the organic factor: this is all that which
represents society in us. The general ideas which religion or science
fix in our minds, the mental operations which these ideas suppose,
the beliefs and sentiments which are at the basis of our moral life,
and all these superior forms of psychical activity which society
awakens in us, these do not follow in the trail of our bodily states, as
our sensations and our general bodily consciousness do. As we have
already shown, this is because the world of representations in which
social life passes is superimposed upon its material substratum, far
from arising from it; the determinism which reigns there is much
more supple than the one whose roots are in the constitution of our
tissues and it leaves with the actor a justified impression of the
greatest liberty. The medium in which we thus move is less opaque
and less resistant: we feel ourselves to be, and we are, more at our
ease there. In a word, the only way we have of freeing ourselves
from physical forces is to oppose them with collective forces.
But whatever we receive from society, we hold in common with
our companions. So it is not at all true that we are more personal as
we are more individualized. The two terms are in no way
synonymous: in one sense, they oppose more than they imply one
another. Passion individualizes, yet it also enslaves. Our sensations
are essentially individual; yet we are more personal the more we are
freed from our senses and able to think and act with concepts. So
those who insist upon all the social elements of the individual do not
mean by that to deny or debase the personality. They merely refuse
to confuse it with the fact of individuation.[866]

CHAPTER IX

THE IDEA OF SPIRITS AND GODS

 When we come to the idea of the soul, we have left the circle of
purely impersonal forces. But above the soul the Australian religions
already recognize mythical personalities of a superior order: spirits,
civilizing heroes and even gods who are properly so-called. While it
will be unnecessary to enter into the detail of the mythologies, we
must at least seek the form in which these three categories of
spiritual beings are presented in Australia, and the way in which they
are connected with the whole religious system.

A soul is not a spirit. In fact, it is shut up in a determined

organism; though it may leave it at certain moments, it is ordinarily
a prisoner there. It definitely escapes only at death, and we have
already seen the difficulties under which the separation is
accomplished. A spirit, on the contrary, though often tied by the
closest bonds to some particular object, such as a spring, a rock, a
tree, a star, etc., and though residing there by preference, may go
away at will and lead an independent existence in free space. So it
has a more extended circle of action. It can act upon the individuals
who approach it or whom it approaches. The soul, on the contrary,
has almost no influence except over the body it animates; it is very
exceptional that it succeeds in influencing outside objects during the
course of its terrestrial life.
But if the soul does not have the distinctive characteristics of the
spirit, it acquires them, at least in part, at death. In fact, when it has
been disincarnated, so long as it does not descend into a body
again, it has the same liberty of movement as a spirit. Of course,
after the rites of mourning have been accomplished, it is thought to
go to the land of souls, but before this it remains about the tomb for
a rather long time. Also, even after it has definitely departed, it is
believed to prowl about in the brush near the camp.[867] It is
generally represented as a rather beneficent being, especially for the
surviving members of its family; we have seen that the soul of the
father comes to aid the growth of his children or his grandchildren.
But it also happens sometimes that it shows signs of a veritable
cruelty; everything depends upon its humour and the manner in
which it is treated by the living.[868] So it is recommended,
especially to women and children, not to venture outside of the
camp during the night so as not to expose oneself to dangerous
encounters.[869]
However, a ghost is not a real spirit. In the first place, it generally
has only a limited power of action; also, it does not have a definite
province. It is a vagabond, upon whom no determined task is
incumbent, for the effect of death has been to put it outside of all
regular forms; as regards the living, it is a sort of a exile. A spirit, on
the other hand, always has a power of a certain sort and it is by this
that it is defined; it is set over a certain order of cosmic or social
phenomena; it has a more or less precise function to fulfil in the
system of the universe.
But there are some souls which satisfy this double condition and
which are consequently spirits, in the proper sense of the word.
These are the souls of the mythical personages whom popular
imagination has placed at the beginning of time, the
Altjirangamitjina or the men of the Alcheringa among the Arunta;
the Mura-mura among the tribes of Lake Eyre; the Muk-Kurnai
among the Kurnai, etc. In one sense, they are still souls, for they are
believed to have formerly animated bodies from which they
separated themselves at a certain moment. But even when they led
a terrestrial life, they already had, as we have seen, exceptional
powers; they had a mana superior to that of ordinary men, and they
have kept it. Also, they are charged with definite functions.
In the first place, whether we accept the version of Spencer and
Gillen or that of Strehlow, it is to them that the care of assuring the
periodical recruiting of the clan falls. They have charge of the
phenomena of conception.
Even when the conception has been accomplished, the task of the
ancestor is not yet completed. It is his duty to guard over the new-
born child. Later, when the child has become a man, he accompanies
him in the hunt, brings game to him, warns him by dreams of the
dangers he may run, protects him against his enemies, etc. On this
point, Strehlow is entirely in accord with Spencer and Gillen.[870] It
is true that someone may ask how it is possible, according to the
version of these latter, for the ancestor to fulfil this function; for,
since he reincarnates himself at the moment of conception, it seems
as though he should be confounded with the soul of the child and
should therefore be unable to protect it from without. But the fact is
that he does not reincarnate himself entirely; he merely duplicates
himself. One part of him enters the body of the woman and fertilizes
her; another part continues to exist outside and, under the special
name of Arumburinga, fulfils the office of guardian genius.[871]
Thus we see how great a kinship there is between this ancestral
spirit and the genius of the Latins or the δαίμων of the Greeks.[872]
The identification of function is complete. In fact, at first the genius
is the one who begets, qui gignit; he expresses and personifies the
powers of generation.[873] But at the same time, he is the protector
and director of the particular individual to whose person he is
attached.[874] He is finally confused with the personality itself of this
individual; he represents the totality of the proclivities and
tendencies which characterize him and give him a distinctive
appearance among other men.[875] Hence come the well-known
expressions indulgere genio, defraudere genium with the sense of to
follow one's natural temperament. At bottom, the genius is another
form or double of the soul of the individual. This is proved by the
partial synonomy of genius and manes.[876] The manes is the genius
after death; but it is also all that survives of the dead man, that is to
say, his soul. In the same way, the soul of the Arunta and the
ancestral spirit which serves as his genius are only two different
aspects of one and the same being.
But it is not only in relation to persons that the ancestor has a
definite situation; he also has one in relation to things. Though he is
believed to have his real residence under the ground, they think that
he is always haunting the place where his nanja-tree or rock is, or
the water-hole which was spontaneously formed at the exact spot
where he disappeared into the ground, having terminated his first
existence. As this tree or rock is believed to represent the body of
the hero, they imagine that the soul itself is constantly coming back
there, and lives there more or less permanently; it is by the
presence of this soul that they explain the religious respect inspired
by these localities. No one can break the branch of a nanja-tree
without a risk of falling sick.[877] "Formerly the act of breaking it
down or injuring it was punished with death. An animal or bird
taking refuge there could not be killed. Even the surrounding bushes
had to be respected: the grass could not be burned, the rocks also
had to be treated with respect. It was forbidden to remove them or
break them."[878] As this sacred character is attributed to the
ancestor, he appears as the spirit of this tree or rock, of this water-
hole or spring.[879] If the spring is thought of as having some
connection with rain,[880] he will become a spirit of rain. Thus, the
same souls which serve as protecting geniuses for men also fulfil
cosmic functions at the same time. It is undoubtedly in this sense
that we must understand the text of Roth where he says that in
northern Queensland, the spirits of nature are the souls of the dead
who have chosen to live in the forests or caves.[881]
So we have here some spiritual beings that are different from the
wandering souls with no definite powers. Strehlow calls them gods;
[882] but this expression is inexact, at least in the great majority of
cases. If it were true, then in a society like the Arunta where each
one has his protecting ancestor, there would be as many or more
gods than there are individuals. It would merely introduce confusion
into our terminology to give the name of god to a sacred being with
only one worshipper. It may be, of course, that the figure of the
ancestor grows to a point where it resembles a real divinity. Among
the Warramunga, as we have already pointed out,[883] the clan as a
whole is thought to be descended from one sole and unique
ancestor. It is easily seen how this collective ancestor might, under
certain circumstances, become the object of a collective devotion. To
choose a notable example, this is what has happened to the snake
Wollunqua.[884] This mythical beast, from whom the clan of the
same name is held to be descended, continues to live, they believe,
in water-holes which are therefore surrounded with a religious
respect. Thus it becomes the object of a cult which the clan
celebrates collectively: through determined rites, they attempt to
please him and to win his favours, and they address to him all sorts
of prayers, etc. So we may say that he is like a god of the clan. But
this is a very exceptional case, or even, according to Spencer and
Gillen, a unique one. Normally, the word "spirits" is the only one
suitable for designating these ancestral personages.
As to the manner in which this conception has been formed, we
may say that it is evident from what has preceded.
As we have already shown, the existence of individual souls, when
once admitted, cannot be understood unless one imagines an
original supply of fundamental souls at the origin of things, from
which all the others were derived. Now these architype souls had to
be conceived as containing within them the source of all religious
efficacy; for, since the imagination does not go beyond them, it is
from them and only from them that all sacred things are believed to
come, both the instruments of the cult, the members of the clan and
the animals of the totemic species. They incarnate all the sacredness
diffused in the whole tribe and the whole world, and so they are
attributed powers noticeably superior to those enjoyed by the simple
souls of men. Moreover, time by itself increases and reinforces the
sacred character of things. A very ancient churinga inspires much
more respect than a new one, and is supposed to have more virtues.
[885] The sentiments of veneration of which it has been the object
during the series of successive generations who have handled it are,
as it were, accumulated in it. For the same reason, the personages
who for centuries have been the subject of myths respectfully
passed on from mouth to mouth, and periodically put into action by
the rites, could not fail to take a very especial place in the popular
imagination.
 But how does it happen that, instead of remaining outside of the
organized society, they have become regular members of it?
This is because each individual is the double of an ancestor. Now
when two beings are related as closely as this, they are naturally
conceived as incorporated together; since they participate in the
same nature, it seems as though that which affects one ought to
affect the other as well. Thus the group of mythical ancestors
became attached to the society of the living; the same interests and
the same passions were attributed to each; they were regarded as
associates. However, as the former had a higher dignity than the
latter, this association takes, in the public mind, the form of an
agreement between superiors and inferiors, between patrons and
clients, benefactors and recipients. Thus comes this curious idea of a
protecting genius who is attached to each individual.
The question of how this ancestor came to have relations not only
with men, but also with things, may appear more embarrassing; for,
at the first glance, we do not see what connection there can be
between a personage of this sort and a rock or tree. But a fact which
we owe to Strehlow furnishes us with a solution of this problem,
which is at least probable.
These trees and rocks are not situated at any point in the tribal
territory, but, for the most part, they are grouped around the
sanctuaries, called ertnatulunga by Spencer and Gillen and
arknanaua by Strehlow, where the churinga of the clan is kept.[886]
We know the respect with which these localities are enhaloed from
the mere fact that the most precious instruments of the cult are
there. Each of these spreads sanctity all about it. It is for this reason
that the neighbouring trees and rocks appear sacred, that it is
forbidden to destroy or harm them, and that all violence used
against them is a sacrilege. This sacred character is really due to a
simple phenomenon of psychic contagiousness; but in order to
explain it, the native must admit that these different objects have
relations with the different beings in whom he sees the source of all
religious power, that is to say, with the ancestors of the Alcheringa.
Hence comes the system of myths of which we have spoken. They
imagined that each ertnatulunga marked the spot where a group of
ancestors entered into the ground. The mounds or trees which
covered the ground were believed to represent their bodies. But as
the soul retains, in a general way, a sort of affinity for the body in
which it dwelt, they were naturally led to believe that these ancestral
souls continued to frequent these places where their material
envelope remained. So they were located in the rocks, the trees or
the water-holes. Thus each of them, though remaining attached to
some determined individual, became transformed into a sort of
genius loci and fulfilled its functions.[887]
The conceptions thus elucidated enable us to understand a form
of totemism which we have left unexplained up to the present: this
is individual totemism.
An individual totem is defined, in its essence, by the two following
characteristics: (1) it is a being in an animal or vegetable form
whose function is to protect an individual; (2) the fate of this
individual and that of his patron are closely united: all that touches
the latter is sympathetically communicated to the former. Now the
ancestral spirits of which we have just been speaking answer to this
same definition. They also belong, at least in part, to the animal or
vegetable kingdoms. They, too, are protecting geniuses. Finally, a
sympathetic bond unites each individual to his protecting ancestor.
In fact, the nanja-tree, representing the mystical body of this
ancestor, cannot be destroyed without the man's feeling himself
menaced. It is true that this belief is losing its force to-day, but
Spencer and Gillen have observed it, and in any case, they are of the
opinion that formerly it was quite general.[888]
The identity of these two conceptions is found even in their
details.
The ancestral souls reside in trees or rocks which are considered
sacred. Likewise, among the Euahlayi, the spirit of the animal
serving as individual totem is believed to inhabit a tree or stone.[889]
This tree or stone is sacred; no one may touch it except the
proprietor of the totem; when it is a stone or rock, this interdiction is
still absolute.[890] The result is that they are veritable places of
refuge.
Finally, we have seen that the individual soul is only another
aspect of the ancestral spirit, according to Strehlow, this serves after
a fashion, as a second self.[891] Likewise, following an expression of
Mrs. Parker, the individual totem of the Euahlayi, called Yunbeai, is
the alter ego of the individual: "The soul of a man is in his Yunbeai
and the soul of his Yunbeai is in him."[892] So at bottom, it is one
soul in two bodies. The kinship of these two notions is so close that
they are sometimes expressed by one and the same word. This is
the case in Melanesia and in Polynesia: atai in the island Mota,
tamaniu in the island Aurora, and talegia in Motlaw all designate
both the soul of the individual and his personal totem.[893] It is the
same with aitu in Samoa.[894] This is because the individual totem is
merely the outward and visible form of the ego or the personality, of
which the soul is the inward and invisible form.[895]
Thus the individual totem has all the essential characteristics of
the protecting ancestor and fills the same rôle: this is because it has
the same origin and proceeds from the same idea.
Each of them, in fact, consists in a duplication of the soul. The
totem, as the ancestor, is the soul of the individual, but externalized
and invested with powers superior to those it is believed to possess
while within the organism. Now this duplication is the result of a
psychological necessity; for it only expresses the nature of the soul
which, as we have seen, is double. In one sense, it is ours: it
expresses our personality. But at the same time, it is outside of us,
for it is only the reaching into us of a religious force which is outside
of us. We cannot confound ourselves with it completely, for we
attribute to it an excellence and a dignity by which it rises far above
us and our empirical individuality. So there is a whole part of
ourselves which we tend to project into the outside. This way of
thinking of ourselves is so well established in our nature that we
cannot escape it, even when we attempt to regard ourselves without
having recourse to any religious symbols. Our moral consciousness is
like a nucleus about which the idea of the soul forms itself; yet when
it speaks to us, it gives the effect of an outside power, superior to
us, which gives us our law and judges us, but which also aids and
sustains us. When we have it on our side, we feel ourselves to be
stronger against the trials of life, and better assured of triumphing
over them, just as the Australian who, when trusting in his ancestor
or his personal totem, feels himself more valiant against his
enemies.[896] So there is something objective at the basis of these
conceptions, whether we have in mind the Roman genius, the
individual totem, or the Alcheringa ancestor; and this is why they
have survived, in various forms, up to the present day. Everything
goes just as if we really had two souls; one which is within us, or
rather, which is us; the other which is above us, and whose function
it is to control and assist the first one. Frazer thought that the
individual totem was an external soul; but he believed that this
exteriority was the result of an artifice and a magic ruse. In reality, it
is implied in the very constitution of the idea of the soul.[897]

II

The spirits of which we have just been speaking are essentially

benefactors. Of course they punish a man if he does not treat them
in a fitting manner;[898] but it is not their function to work evil.
However, a spirit is in itself just as capable of doing evil as good.
This is why we find a class of evil geniuses forming itself naturally, in
opposition to these auxiliary and protecting spirits, which enables
men to explain the permanent evils that they have to suffer, their
nightmares[899] and illnesses,[900] whirlwinds and tempests,[901]
etc. Of course this is not saying that all these human miseries have
appeared as things too abnormal to be explained in any way except
by supernatural forces; but it is saying that these forces are thought
of under a religious form. As it is a religious principle which is
considered the source of life, so, all the events which disturb or
destroy life ought logically to be traced to a principle of the same
sort.
These harmful spirits seem to have been conceived on the same
model as the good spirits of which we have just been speaking. They
are represented in an animal form, or one that is half-animal, half-
man;[902] but men are naturally inclined to give them enormous
dimensions and a repulsive aspect.[903] Like the souls of the
ancestors, they are believed to inhabit trees, rocks, water-holes and
subterranean caverns.[904] Taking the Arunta as a particular
example, Spencer and Gillen say expressly that these evil geniuses,
known under the name of Oruncha, are beings of the Alcheringa.
[905] Many are represented as the souls of persons who had led a

terrestrial life.[906] Among the personages of the fabulous epoch,

there were, in fact, many different temperaments: some had cruel
and evil instincts which they retained;[907] others were naturally of a
bad constitution; they were thin and emaciated; so after they had
entered into the ground, the nanja rocks to which they gave birth
were considered the homes of dangerous influences.[908]
Yet they are distinguished by special characteristics from their
confrères, the heroes of the Alcheringa. They do not reincarnate
themselves; among living men, there is no one who represents
them; they are without human posterity.[909] When, judging from
certain signs, they believe that a child is the result of their work, it is
put to death as soon as born.[910] Also, these belong to no
determined totemic group; they are outside the social organization.
[911] By all these traits, they are recognized as magic powers rather
than religious ones. And in fact, it is especially with the magician
that they have relations; very frequently it is from them that he gets
his powers.[912] So we have now arrived at the point where the
world of religion stops and that of magic commences; and as this
latter is outside the field of our research, we need not push our
researches further.[913]
 III

The appearance of the notion of spirits marks an important step in

advance in the individualization of religious forces.
However, the spiritual beings of whom we have been speaking up
to the present are as yet only secondary personages. They are either
evil-working geniuses who belong to magic rather than religion, or
else, being attached to determined individuals or places, they cannot
make their influence felt except within a circle of a very limited
radius. So they can only be the objects of private and local rites. But
after the idea has once been established, it naturally spreads to the
higher spheres of the religious life, and thus mythical personalities of
a superior order are born.
Though the ceremonies of the different clans differ from one
another, they all belong to the same religion, none the less; also, a
certain number of essential similarities exist between them. Since all
the clans are only parts of one and the same tribe, the unity of the
tribe cannot fail to make itself felt through this diversity of particular
cults. In fact, there is no totemic group that does not have churinga
and bull-roarers, and these are used everywhere in the same way.
The organization of the tribe into phratries, matrimonial classes and
clans, and the exogamic interdictions attached to them, are veritable
tribal institutions. The initiation celebrations all include certain
fundamental practices, the extraction of a tooth, circumcision,
subincision, etc., which do not vary with the totems within a single
tribe. The uniformity on this point is the more easily established as
the initiation always takes place in the presence of the tribe, or at
least, before an assembly to which the different clans have been
summoned. The reason for this is that the object of the initiation is
to introduce the neophyte into the religious life, not merely of the
clan into which he was born, but of the tribe as a whole; so it is
necessary that the various aspects of the tribal religion be
represented before him and take place, in a way, under his very
eyes. It is on this occasion that the moral and religious unity of the
tribe is affirmed the best.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

testbankbell.com