If so, tant pis pour monsieur le President.  But how does the unscientific conduct attributed to De Brosses implicate the modern anthropologist?  Do we not try to find out, and really succeed sometimes in finding out, why a savage cherishes this or that scrap as a ‘fetish’?  I give a string of explanations in Custom and Myth (pp. 229- 230).  Sometimes the so-called fetish had an accidental, which was taken to be a causal, connection with a stroke of good luck.  Sometimes the thing—­an odd-shaped stone, say—­had a superficial resemblance to a desirable object, and so was thought likely to aid in the acquisition of such objects by ‘sympathetic magic.’ {117b}

Other ‘fetishes’ are revealed in dreams, or by ghosts, or by spirits appearing in semblance of animals. {118a}

‘Telekinetic’ Origin of Fetishism

As I write comes in Melusine, viii. 7, with an essay by M. Lefebure on Les Origines du Fetichisme.  He derives some fetishistic practices from what the Melanesians call Mana, which, says Mr. Max Muller, ’may often be rendered by supernatural or magic power, present in an individual, a stone, or in formulas or charms’ (i. 294).  How, asks Mr. Lefebure, did men come to attribute this vis vivida to persons and things?  Because, in fact, he says, such an unexplored force does really exist and display itself.  He then cites Mr. Crookes’ observations on scientifically registered ‘telekinetic’ performances by Daniel Dunglas Home, he cites Despine on Madame Schmitz-Baud, {118b} with examples from Dr. Tylor, P. de la Rissachere, Dr. Gibier, {118c} and other authorities, good or bad.  Grouping, then, his facts under the dubious title of le magnetisme, M. Lefebure finds in savage observation of such facts ’the chief cause of fetishism.’

Some of M. Lefebure’s ‘facts’ (of objects moving untouched) were certainly frauds, like the tricks of Eusapia.  But, even if all the facts recorded were frauds, such impostures, performed by savage conjurers, who certainly profess {118d} to produce the phenomena, might originate, or help to originate, the respect paid to ‘fetishes’ and the belief in Mana.  But probably Major Ellis’s researches into the religion of the Tshi-speaking races throw most light on the real ideas of African fetishists.  The subject is vast and complex.  I am content to show that, whatever De Brosses did, we do not abandon a search for the motives of the savage fetishist.  Indeed, De Brosses himself did seek and find at least one African motive, ’The conjurers (jongleurs) persuade them that little instruments in their possession are endowed with a living spirit.’  So far, fetishism is spiritualism.

Civilised ‘Fetishism’