[166] R. R. Marett, The Threshold of Religion (London, 1909), p. 58, &c.; p. 67.
[167] W. James, Confidences of a ‘Psychical Researcher’, in American Magazine (October 1909).
[168] Frazer, The Golden Bough3 (London, 1911), i. 220.
[169] Frazer, The Golden Bough,3 i. 221-2.
[170] Ib., chap. iv.
[171] See Apuleius, De Deo Socratis; Cicero, De Natura Deorum (lib. i); Iamblichus, De Mysteriis Aegypt., Chaldaeor., Assyrior.; Plato, Timaeus, Symposium, Politicus, Republic, ii. iii. x; Plutarch, De Defectu Oraculorum, The Daemon of Socrates, Isis and Osiris; Proclus, Commmentarius in Platonis Alcibiadem.
[172] Pliny, Natural History, xxx. 14.
[173] Cf. G. Dottin, La Religion des Celtes (Paris, 1904), p. 44.
[174] The neo-Platonists generally, including Porphyry, Julian, Iamblichus, and Maximus, being persuaded of man’s power to call up and control spirits, called white magic theurgy, or the invoking of good spirits, and the reverse goêty, or the calling up and controlling of evil spirits for criminal purposes. Cf. F. Lélut, Du Démon de Socrate (Paris, 1836).
If white magic be correlated with religion as religion is popularly conceived, namely the cult of supernatural powers friendly to man, and black magic be correlated with magic as magic tends to be popularly conceived, namely witchcraft and devil-worship, we have a satisfactory historical and logical basis for making a distinction between religion and magic; religion (including white magic) is a social good, magic (black magic) is a social evil. Such a distinction as Dr. Frazer makes is untenable within the field of true magic.