Magic and Religio7i 1 1 1
we come to the question of what is meant by magic, and this must be discussed with reference to the actual practice of behevers in magic, i.e. by examining their classification of the facts, and that by a classification of the facts as we view them.
To frame an adequate definition of magic it is necessary to survey the whole field of primitive rites and to group the facts according to their natural affinities without regard to the terminology of the reporter. In only too many cases the native view cannot be discovered ; failing some knowledge of the language the observer falls back on his own preconceptions, and while we get a good account of the details of a rite, we get none of the atmosphere with which the native mind surrounds it.
The foregoing discussion has made it quite clear that it is not by approval or condemnation, not even by the intention, that magic is distinguished. In our own witch- craft trials, we can find records of witches being taught to heal as well as to poison. Brand actually distinguishes three classes. So far as witchcraft is concerned, it seems to be regarded as magical, not because it is evil but because it is, as it were, in a kind of subordinate position, or perhaps because it is a cult of an evil deity. It must, however, be recognised that its association with the devil, though not necessarily with a deity, must be post-Christian ; if the original objects of the cult were pagan deities, it was not originally either evil or magical ; it is a matter for enquiry how far syncretism has been at work, for the witches' Sabbath is known in West Africa, where there is no question of any deity. If there has been a combination of an ancient European cult with witchcraft, some features seem to be adequately explained ; others demand a close examination of the evidence for witch beliefs in relation to the theological prepossessions of the inquisitors, and a knowledge of the possibilities by suggestion.
With these problems before us it is clear that we cannot
