o erroneous a prepossession.

(M155) The explanation here given of the custom of killing divine persons
assumes, or at least is readily combined with, the idea that the soul of
the slain divinity is transmitted to his successor. Of this transmission I
have no direct proof except in the case of the Shilluk, among whom the
practice of killing the divine king prevails in a typical form, and with
whom it is a fundamental article of faith that the soul of the divine
founder of the dynasty is immanent in every one of his slain
successors.(537) But if this is the only actual example of such a belief
which I can adduce, analogy seems to render it probable that a similar
succession to the soul of the slain god has been supposed to take place in
other instances, though direct evidence of it is wanting. For it has been
already shewn that the soul of the incarnate deity is often supposed to
transmigrate at death into another incarnation;(538) and if this takes
place when the death is a natural one, there seems no reason why it should
not take place when the death has been brought about by violence.
Certainly the idea that the soul of a dying person may be transmitted to
his successor is perfectly familiar to primitive peoples. In Nias the
eldest son usually succeeds his father in the chieftainship. But if from
any bodily or mental defect the eldest son is disqualified for ruling, the
father determines in his lifetime which of his sons shall succeed him. In
order, however, to establish his right of succession, it is necessary that
the son upon whom his father's choice falls shall catch in his mouth or in
a bag the last breath, and with it the soul, of the dying chief. For
whoever catches his last breath is chief equally with the appointed
successor. Hence the other brothers, and sometimes also strangers, crowd
round the dying man to catch his soul as it passes. The houses in Nias are
raised above the ground on posts, and it has happened that when the dying
man lay with his face on the floor, one of the candidates has bored a 