[1178] On this classification, see Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of Kingship, pp. 37 ff.; Hubert and Mauss, Théorie générale de la Magie, pp. 61 ff.
[1179] We say nothing of what has been called the law of opposition, for, as MM. Hubert and Mauss have shown, a contrary produces its opposite only through the intermediacy of a similar (Théorie générale de la Magie, p. 70).
[1180] Lectures on the History of Kingship, p. 39.
[1181] It is applicable in the sense that there is really an association of the statue and the person encharmed. But it is true that this association is the simple product of an association of ideas by similarity. The true determining cause of the phenomenon is the contagiousness peculiar to religious forces, as we have shown.
[1182] For the causes determining this outward manifestation, see above, pp. 230 ff.
[1183] M. Lévy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures, pp. 61-68.
[1184] Golden Bough2, I, pp. 69-75.
[1185] We do not wish to say that there was ever a time when religion existed without magic. Probably as religion took form, certain of its principles were extended to non-religious relations, and it was thus supplemented by a more or less developed magic. But if these two systems of ideas and practices do not correspond to distinct historical phases, they have a relation of definite derivation between them. This is all we have sought to establish.
[1186] Loc. cit., pp. 108 ff.
[1187] See above, pp. 203 f.