odies he knows, it may be, to have
been incinerated. The explanation then is obvious that they, too, or
their souls, are separable from their bodies; and the fact that they
survive death and the destruction of the body is demonstrated by their
appearance in his dreams. About the reality of their appearance in his
dreams he has no more doubt than he has about the reality of what he
himself does and suffers in his dreams. If, however, the dead appeared
only in his dreams, their existence after death might seem to be
limited to the dream-time. But as a matter of fact they appear to him
in his waking moments also: ghosts are at least as familiar to the
savage as to the civilised man; and thus the evidence of his dreams,
which first suggested his belief, is confirmed by the evidence of his
senses.

Thus the belief in the continued existence of the soul after the death
of the body is traced back to the action of dreams and waking
hallucinations. Now, it is inevitable that the inference should be
drawn that the belief in immortality has thus been tracked to its
basis. And it is inevitable that those who start with an inclination
to regard the belief as palpably absurd should welcome this exhibition
of {39} its evolution as proof conclusive that the belief could only
have originated in and can only impose upon immature minds. To that
doubtless it is a perfectly sound reply to say that the origin of a
belief is one thing and its validity quite another. The way in which
we came to hold the belief is a matter of historical investigation, and
undoubtedly may form a very fascinating enquiry. But the question
whether the belief is true is a question which has to be considered, no
matter how I got it, just as the question whether I am committing a
trespass or not in being on a piece of ground cannot be settled by any
amount of explaining how I got there. Or, to put it in another way,
the very risky path by which I have scrambled up a cliff does not make
the top any the less safe when I have got there.

But though it is perfectly logical to insist on the distinction between
the origin and the validity of any belief, and to refuse to question or
doubt the validity of the belief in immortality merely because of the
origin ascribed to it by authorities on primitive culture,--that is no
reason why we should not examine the origin suggested for it, to see
whether it is a satisfactory origin. And that is what I propose now to
do