besides its own,    or  even    bodies  of  a   different   kind    to  its own,    and hence   these
may be  only    apparent    exceptions  to  the rule    that    the soul    should  be  the
counterpart of its own embodiment.^81
“Among  races   within  the limits  of  savagery,   the general doctrine    of  souls   is
found   worked  out with    remarkable  breadth and consistency.    The souls   of
animals are recognised  by  a   natural extension   from    the theory  of  human   souls;
the souls   of  trees   and plants  follow  in  some    vague,  partial way,    and the souls   of
inanimate objects expand the general category to its extremest boundary.”^82
To  the Malay   who has arrived at  the idea    of  a   generally   animated    Nature, but has
not yet learned to  draw    scientific  distinctions,   there   appears nothing remarkable
or  unnatural   in  the idea    of  vegetation-souls,   or  even    in  that    of  mineral-souls—
rather  would   he  consider    us  Europeans   illogical   and inconsistent    were    he  told
that    we  allowed the possession  of  souls   to  one half    of  the creation    and denied  it
to  the other.
Realising   this,   we  are prepared    to  find    that    the Malay   theory  of  Animism
embraces,   at  least   partially,  the human   race,^83    animals^84  and birds,^85
vegetation^86 (trees and plants), reptiles and fishes,^87 until its extension to inert
objects,    such    as  minerals,^88    and “stocks and stones, weapons,    boats,  food,
clothes,    ornaments,  and other   objects,    which   to  us  are not merely  soulless,   but
lifeless,”  brings  us  face    to  face    with    a   conception  with    which   “we are less    likely
to  sympathise.”
Side    by  side    with    this    general conception  of  an  universally animate nature, we
find    abundant    evidences   of  a   special theory  of  Human   Origin  which   is  held    to
account not only    for the larger  mammals,    but also    for the existence   of  a   large
number  of  birds,  and even    for that    of  a   few reptiles,   fishes, trees   and plants, but
seems   to  lose    its operative   force   in  proportion  to  its descent in  the scale   of
creation,   until   in  the lowest  scale   of  all,    the theory  of  Human   Origin  disappears
from    sight,  and nothing remains but the partial application of  a   few vague
anthropomorphic attributes.^89  It  is, doubtless,  to  the prevalence  of  this    theory
that    we  owe the extraordinary   persistence of  anthropomorphic ideas   about
animals,    birds,  reptiles,   trees,  if  not of  minerals,   in  Malay   magical ceremonies;^90
and it  is  hard    to  say which   of  these   two notions—the theory  of  Human   Origin, or
the other   theory  of  Universal   Animism—is  to  be  considered  the original    form    of
