Fetishism is defined as ‘the worship of inanimate objects,’ the worship of stocks and stones, ‘the religious worship of material objects’ (61, 61), ‘tangible and inanimate objects worshipped for themselves alone’ (15, 196), and a fetish is defined as ‘differing from an idol in that it is worshipped in its own character, not as the symbol, image, or occasional residence of a deity’ (_New English Dictionary_, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1901). The account of the native of Fida given by Bosman (54, xvi. 493) is often quoted as the classic example of fetishism:— ‘I once asked a negro with whom I could talk very freely ... how they celebrated their divine worship, and what number of gods they had; he, laughing, answered that I had puzzled him; and assured me that nobody in the whole country could give me an exact account of it. “For, as for my own part, I have a very large number of gods, and doubt not but that others have as many.” “For any of us being resolved to undertake anything of importance, we first of all search out a god to prosper our designed undertaking; and going out of doors with the design, take the first creature that presents itself to our eyes, whether dog, cat, or the most contemptible creature in the world for our god: or perhaps instead of that, any inanimate that falls in our way, whether a stone, a piece of wood, or anything else of the same nature. This new-chosen god is immediately presented with an offering, which is accompanied by a solemn vow, that if it pleaseth him to prosper our undertakings, for the future we will always worship and esteem him as a god. If our design prove successful, we have discovered a new and assisting god, which is daily presented with a fresh offering; but if the contrary happen, the new god is rejected as a useless tool, and consequently returns to his primitive estate.” “We make and break our gods daily, and consequently are the masters and inventors of what we sacrifice to.”’ Bosman goes on to say:— ‘I was very well pleased to hear the negro talk in this manner concerning his country gods; but, having conversed with him for some time, I observed that he ridiculed his own country gods, for, having lived amongst the French, whose language he perfectly understood and spoke, he had amongst them imbibed the principles of the Christian religion, and somewhat towards a just notion of the true God and how he is to be worshipped, ... wherefore he no further concerned himself with the gods of the country than as engaged to it for quietness’ sake, or to make his friends easy.’