the golden bough-第235部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


The　jealous　protection　thus　afforded　by　Australian　men　and　women　to　bats　and　owls　respectively　（for　bats　and　owls　seem　to　be　the　creatures　usually　allotted　to　the　two　sexes）　is　not　based　upon　purely　selfish　considerations。　For　each　man　believes　that　not　only　his　own　life　but　the　lives　of　his　father；　brothers；　sons；　and　so　on　are　bound　up　with　the　lives　of　particular　bats；　and　that　therefore　in　protecting　the　bat　species　he　is　protecting　the　lives　of　all　his　male　relations　as　well　as　his　own。　Similarly；　each　woman　believes　that　the　lives　of　her　mother；　sisters；　daughters；　and　so　forth；　equally　with　her　own；　are　bound　up　with　the　lives　of　particular　owls；　and　that　in　guarding　the　owl　species　she　is　guarding　the　lives　of　all　her　female　relations　besides　her　own。　Now；　when　men's　lives　are　thus　supposed　to　be　contained　in　certain　animals；　it　is　obvious　that　the　animals　can　hardly　be　distinguished　from　the　men；　or　the　men　from　the　animals。　If　my　brother　John's　life　is　in　a　bat；　then；　on　the　one　hand；　the　bat　is　my　brother　as　well　as　John；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　John　is　in　a　sense　a　bat；　since　his　life　is　in　a　bat。　Similarly；　if　my　sister　Mary's　life　is　in　an　owl；　then　the　owl　is　my　sister　and　Mary　is　an　owl。　This　is　a　natural　enough　conclusion；　and　the　Australians　have　not　failed　to　draw　it。　When　the　bat　is　the　man's　animal；　it　is　called　his　brother；　and　when　the　owl　is　the　woman's　animal；　it　is　called　her　sister。　And　conversely　a　man　addresses　a　woman　as　an　owl；　and　she　addresses　him　as　a　bat。　So　with　the　other　animals　allotted　to　the　sexes　respectively　in　other　tribes。　For　example；　among　the　Kurnai　all　emu…wrens　were　brothers　of　the　men；　and　all　the　men　were　emu…wrens；　all　superb　warblers　were　sisters　of　the　women；　and　all　the　women　were　superb　warblers。

But　when　a　savage　names　himself　after　an　animal；　calls　it　his　brother；　and　refuses　to　kill　it；　the　animal　is　said　to　be　his　totem。　Accordingly　in　the　tribes　of　South…Eastern　Australia　which　we　have　been　considering　the　bat　and　the　owl；　the　emu…wren　and　the　superb　warbler；　may　properly　be　described　as　totems　of　the　sexes。　But　the　assignation　of　a　totem　to　a　sex　is　comparatively　rare；　and　has　hitherto　been　discovered　nowhere　but　in　Australia。　Far　more　commonly　the　totem　is　appropriated　not　to　a　sex；　but　to　a　clan；　and　is　hereditary　either　in　the　male　or　female　line。　The　relation　of　an　individual　to　the　clan　totem　does　not　differ　in　kind　from　his　relation　to　the　sex　totem；　he　will　not　kill　it；　he　speaks　of　it　as　his　brother；　and　he　calls　himself　by　its　name。　Now　if　the　relations　are　similar；　the　explanation　which　holds　good　of　the　one　ought　equally　to　hold　good　of　the　other。　Therefore；　the　reason　why　a　clan　revere　a　particular　species　of　animals　or　plants　（for　the　clan　totem　may　be　a　plant）　and　call　themselves　after　it；　would　seem　to　be　a　belief　that　the　life　of　each　individual　of　the　clan　is　bound　up　with　some　one　animal　or　plant　of　the　species；　and　that　his　or　her　death　would　be　the　consequence　of　killing　that　particular　animal；　or　destroying　that　particular　plant。　This　explanation　of　totemism　squares　very　well　with　Sir　George　Grey's　definition　of　a　totem　or　kobong　in　Western　Australia。　He　says：　A　certain　mysterious　connexion　exists　between　a　family　and　its　kobong；　so　that　a　member　of　the　family　will　never　kill　an　animal　of　the　species　to　which　his　kobong　belongs；　should　he　find　it　asleep；　indeed　he　always　kills　it　reluctantly；　and　never　without　affording　it　a　chance　to　escape。　This　arises　from　the　family　belief　that　some　one　individual　of　the　species　is　their　nearest　friend；　to　kill　whom　would　be　a　great　crime；　and　to　be　carefully　avoided。　Similarly；　a　native　who　has　a　vegetable　for　his　kobong　may　not　gather　it　under　certain　circumstances；　and　at　a　particular　period　of　the　year。　Here　it　will　be　observed　that　though　each　man　spares　all　the　animals　or　plants　of　the　species；　they　are　not　all　equally　precious　to　him；　far　from　it；　out　of　the　whole　species　there　is　only　one　which　is　specially　dear　to　him；　but　as　he　does　not　know　which　the　dear　one　is；　he　is　obliged　to　spare　them　all　from　fear　of　injuring　the　one。　Again；　this　explanation　of　the　clan　totem　harmonises　with　the　supposed　effect　of　killing　one　of　the　totem　species。　One　day　one　of　the　blacks　killed　a　crow。　Three　or　four　days　afterwards　a　Boortwa　（crow）　＇i。e。　a　man　of　the　Crow　clan＇　named　Larry　died。　He　had　been　ailing　for　some　days；　but　the　killing　of　his　wingong　＇totem＇　hastened　his　death。　Here　the　killing　of　the　crow　caused　the　death　of　a　man　of　the　Crow　clan；　exactly　as；　in　the　case　of　the　sex…totems；　the　killing　of　a　bat　causes　the　death　of　a　Bat…man　or　the　killing　of　an　owl　causes　the　death　of　an　Owl…woman。　Similarly；　the　killing　of　his　nagual　causes　the　death　of　a　Central　American　Indian；　the　killing　of　his　bush　soul　causes　the　death　of　a　Calabar　negro；　the　killing　of　his　tamaniu　causes　the　death　of　a　Banks　Islander；　and　the　killing　of　the　animal　in　which　his　life　is　stowed　away　causes　the　death　of　the　giant　or　warlock　in　the　fairy　tale。

Thus　it　appears　that　the　story　of　The　giant　who　had　no　heart　in　his　body　may　perhaps　furnish　the　key　to　the　relation　which　is　supposed　to　subsist　between　a　man　and　his　totem。　The　totem；　on　this　theory；　is　simply　the　receptacle　in　which　a　man　keeps　his　life；　as　Punchkin　kept　his　life　in　a　parrot；　and　Bidasari　kept　her　soul　in　a　golden　fish。　It　is　no　valid　objection　to　this　view　that　when　a　savage　has　both　a　sex　totem　and　a　clan　totem　his　life　must　be　bound　up　with　two　different　animals；　the　death　of　either　of　which　would　entail　his　own。　If　a　man　has　more　vital　places　than　one　in　his　body；　why；　the　savage　may　think；　should　he　not　have　more　vital　places　than　one　outside　it？　Why；　since　he　can　put　his　life　outside　himself；　should　he　not　transfer　one　portion　of　it　to　one　animal　and　another　to　another？　The　divisibility　of　life；　or；　to　put　it　otherwise；　the　plurality　of　souls；　is　an　idea　suggested　by　many　familiar　facts；　and　has　commended　itself　to　philosophers　like　Plato；　as　well　as　to　savages。　It　is　only　when　the　notion　of　a　soul；　from　being　a　quasi…scientific　hypothesis；　becomes　a　theological　dogma　that　its　unity　and　indivisibility　are　insisted　upon　as　essential。　The　savage；　unshackled　by　dogma；　is　free　to　explain　the　facts　of　life　by　the　assumption　of　as　many　souls　as　he　thinks　necessary。　Hence；　for　example；　the　Caribs　supposed　that　there　was　one　soul　in　the　head；　another　in　the　heart；　and　other　souls　at　all　the　places　where　an　artery　is　felt　pulsating。　Some　of　the　Hidatsa　Indians　explain　the　phenomena　of　gradual　death；　when　the　extremities　appear　dead　first；　by　supposing　that　man　has　four　souls；　and　that　they　quit　the　body；　not　simultaneously；　but　one　after　the　other；　dissolution　being　only　complete　when　all　four　have　departed。　Some　of　the　Dyaks　of　Borneo　and　the　Malays　of　the　Peninsula　believe　that　every　man　has　seven　souls。　The　Alfoors　of　Poso　in　Celebes　are　of　opinion　that　he　has　three。　The　natives　of　Laos　suppose　that　the　body　is　the　seat　of　thirty　spirits；　which　reside　in　the　hands；　the　feet；　the　mouth；　the　eyes；　and　so　on。　Hence；　from　the　primitive　point　of　view；　it　is　perfectly　possible　that　a　savage　should　have　one　soul　in　his　sex　totem　and　another　in　his　clan　totem。　However；　as　I　have　observed；　sex　totems　have　been　found　nowhere　but　in　Australia；　so　that　as　a　rule　the　savage　who　practises　totemism　need　not　have　more　than　one　soul　out　of　his　body　at　a　time。

If　this　explanation　of　the　totem　as　a　receptacle　in　which　a　man　keeps　his　soul　or　one　of　his　souls　is　correct；　we　should　expect　to　find　some　totemic　people　of　whom　it　is　expressly　said　that　every　man　amongst　them　is　believed　to　keep　at　least　one　soul　permanently　out　of　his　body；　and　that　the　destruction　of　this　external　soul　is　supposed　to　entail　the　death　of　its　owner。　Such　a　people　are　the　Bataks　of　Sumatra。　The　Bataks　are　divided　into　exogamous　clans　（margas）　with　descent　in　the　male　line；　and　each　clan　is　forbidden　to　eat　the　flesh　of　a　particular　animal。　One　clan　may　not　eat　the　tiger；　another　the　ape；　another　the　crocodile；　another　the　dog；　another　the　cat；　another　the　dove；　another　the　white　buffalo；　and　another　the　locust。　The　reason　given　by　members　of　a　clan　for　abstaining　from　the　flesh　of　the　particular　animal　is　either　that　they　are　descended　from　animals　of　that　species；　and　that　their　souls　after　death　may　transmigrate　into　the　animals；　or　that　they　or　their　forefathers　have　been　under　certain　obligations　to　the　creatures。　Sometimes；　but　not　always；　the　clan　bears　the　name　of　the　animal。　Thus　the　Bataks　have　totemism　in　full。　But；　further；　each　Batak　believes　that　he　has　seven　or；　on　a　more　moderate　computation；　three　souls。　One　of　these　souls　is　always　outside　the　body；　but　nevertheless　whenever　it　dies；　however　far　away　it　may　be　at　the　time；　that　same　moment　the　man　dies　also。　The　writer　who　mentions　this　belief　says　nothing　about　the　Batak　totems；　but　on　the　analogy　of　the　Australian；　Central　American；　and　African　evidence　we　may　conjecture　that　the　external　soul；　whose　death　entails　the　death　of　the　man；　is　housed　in　the　totemic　animal　or　plant。

Against　this　view　it　can　hardly　be　thought　to　militate　that　the　Batak　does　not　in　set　terms　affirm　his　external　soul　to　be　in　his　totem；　but　alleges　other　grounds　f