[513] Thus the line of demarcation between the animal protectors and fetishes, which Frazer has attempted to establish, does not exist. According to him, fetishism commences when the protector is an individual object and not a class (Totemism, p. 56); but it frequently happens in Australia that a determined animal takes this part (see Howitt, Australian Medicine Men, J.A.I., XVI, p. 34). The truth is that the ideas of fetish and fetishism do not correspond to any definite thing.
[514] Brinton, Nagualism, in Proceed. Amer. Philos. Soc., XXXIII, p. 32.
[515] Charlevoix, VI, p. 67.
[516] Hill Tout, Rep. on the Ethnol. of the Statlumh of British Columbia, J.A.I., XXXV, p. 142.
[517] Hill Tout, Ethnol. Rep. on the Stseelis and Skaulits Tribes, J.A.I., XXXIV, pp. 311 ff.
[518] Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 133.
[519] Langloh Parker, op. cit., p. 20.
[520] J. W. Powell, An American View of Totemism, in Man, 1902, No. 84; Tylor, ibid., No. 1; Andrew Lang has expressed analogous ideas in Social Origins, pp. 133-135. Also Frazer himself, turning from his former opinion, now thinks that until we are better acquainted with the relations existing between collective totems and "guardian spirits," it would be better to designate them by different names (Totemism and Exogamy, III, p. 456).
[521] This is the case in Australia among the Yuin (Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 81), and the Narrinyeri (Meyer, Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the Encounter Bay Tribe, in Woods, pp. 197 ff.).
[522] "The totem resembles the patron of the individual no more than an escutcheon resembles the image of a saint," says Tylor (op. cit., p. 2). Likewise, if Frazer has taken up the theory of Tylor, it is because he refuses all religious character to the totem of the clan (Totemism and Exogamy, III, p. 452).