ligion have any idea of. In its various forms as they are now
classified,[83] _e.g._ contagious magic, and homoeopathic magic, the
exercise of the mysterious will-power, real or imaginary, is to be found
all the world over, accompanied usually with a spell or incantation
which is believed to enforce and increase that power--a kind of
telepathy, which seems to be the psychological basis, so far as there is
one, of the whole system. In these rites the virtue resides in some
action, which, together with the spell or incantation, enforces the
desired result by calling out the will-power, or _mana_, if we adopt the
convenient Melanesian word lately brought into use. Whatever percentage
of psychological truth may lie at the root of such performances, it is
obvious that they must in the main be wholly inadequate, and must
constantly tend to pass into mere quackery and become discredited; and
it was the special function of the religious organisation of early
society to eliminate and discredit them.

But it was a long stage in the evolution of society before man arrived
at a better knowledge of his relation to the Power manifesting itself in
the universe; before he reached the idea of a god or spirit realisable
and nameable, and thus capable of being addressed, placated, worshipped.
When this stage is reached, there supervenes almost always a strong
tendency to regulate and systematise the methods of address, placation,
and worship; and among some peoples, _e.g._ the Romans, for reasons
which it is by no means easy to explain, this tendency is much stronger
than among others. Wherever it has been strong, wherever these methods
of putting oneself in right relation with the Power have been
systematised by a central authority or priesthood, and thus made into
religious law, there, as we might naturally expect, the performances and
performers of magic have been most vigorously discountenanced and
outlawed. The interests of religion and its officials are wholly
antagonistic to those of magic and magicians. In civilised communities
and in historical times magic is in the main individualistic, not
social; magical ceremonies for the good of the community seem to be
confined to races in a very early stage of development. The examples on
which Dr. Frazer relies for his theory of the development of the public
magician into a king[84] are of this primitive kind, or are mere
survivals of magic in a higher stage of civilisation--such survivals