I02 Mane and Relizio7i
enough that we students should realise the difference ; it must be in the mind of the man whom we study.
The difference between the appeal to a god and the spell that binds him and holds him to our use is a real one and may be of value in comparative religion ; but if we regard the one as religious and the other as magical, we are setting up our own standards, in the absence of any evidence that the distinction is realised by those who offer the prayer and utter the spell.
At the same time there seems to be some justification in popular usage for this setting up of our own standards ; for witchcraft has usually been regarded as magical by those who do not accept it ; if, however, witchcraft is really a superseded religion in Europe, i.e. a false religion in the eyes of those who term it magical, it is clear that a standard is recognised, if we are right in calling it magic, which is not that of the adherent of witchcraft. It must, however, be observed that those who regard witchcraft as magical, though they may not be adherents of the false rite, nevertheless concede a certain reality to it ; the object of the witch's worship is a real personage, though he may be in nature utterly opposed to the normal object of the religious cult. The worship of gods regarded by those who do not worship them as non-existent does not appear to be classed as witchcraft nor regarded as magical. Thus the modern comparative theologian who wishes to classify the spell as magical, because it is intended to coerce, must, if he cites this popular view of witchcraft as his authority, justify his position by accepting the reality of the influence exerted by the spell.
Leaving out of account for the present the spell, it may be admitted that in the magico-religious sphere the illicit tends to be regarded as magical ; this does not, however, mean that all illicit rites are so labelled ; and Dr. Jevons, rightly or wrongly, has not even argued that the two classes are conterminous. Rites may be illicit without
