Magic and religion are very generally held to be not only distinct from one another, but antithetical. There is, however, a tendency among certain living students to regard them as analogous phenomena, both being expressions of a belief in a power or energy which may be designated by the Melanesian term “mana,” or the American “orenda.” It has more than once been pointed out that it is in some cases very hard—perhaps impossible—to determine whether certain actions can be classed as either magical or religious, as they appear to belong to both categories. As in the case of religion from the ethnological standpoint, magic has been investigated in the field, and immediate references to it are to be found in ethnological literature—the comparative study of magic has to some extent been undertaken by Frazer, Jevons, and others; but one of the most important contributions to the subject is by Hubert and Mauss,[110] who treat it from a sociological aspect. Footnote 108: _An Introduction to Social Psychology_, 1908. Footnote 109: _Congress of Arts and Sci., St. Louis_, 1904, v. (1906), p. 869. Footnote 110: H. Hubert et M. Mauss, “Esquisse d’une théorie générale de la magie,” _L’Année sociologique_, vii., 1904. M. Mauss, “L’Origine des pouvoirs magiques dans les sociétés Australiennes,” _École pratique des Haute Études_ (Sec. Relig.), 1904. [Sidenote: =Anthropology and Religion.=] Parson Thwackum in _Tom Jones_ says: “When I mention religion I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England.” Anthropology, by a reverse process, passes “in larger sympathy from specific creeds to partake of the universal spirit which every creed tries to embody.”[111] The interest of Anthropology in religion was defined by Huxley.[112] “Anthropology has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of religion—it holds itself absolutely and entirely aloof from such questions—but the natural history of religion, and the origin and growth of the religions entertained by the different tribes of the human race, are within its proper and legitimate province.” Footnote 111: Clodd, _Animism_, 1905, p. 11. Footnote 112: Address to Dept. of Anthrop., Brit. Ass. Dublin, 1878. This is not the place to attempt a definition of religion—a task which has led to so many failures. We must be content with the statement that it most frequently presents itself under the aspects of ritual, myth, and belief. Anthropology has hitherto practically confined its attention to ritual and myth, and but too frequently exclusively to the last.