[62.2] Turner, _Samoa_, 186. Compare a number of similar taboos on the previous and subsequent pages. [62.3] Codrington, 215. [63.1] W. Bogoras, _Amer. Anthr._, N.S., iii. 97. [64.1] See _Golden Bough_3, _passim_, especially the volume on Taboo. It is needless to say that Professor Frazer does not write from the point of view here adopted, and that his interpretations frequently diverge from those which I should be inclined to. [65.1] _F. L._, xii. 186. Elsewhere Mr Weeks says: “No stigma attaches to the man who is proved guilty [of witchcraft] by the ordeal, for ‘one can have witchcraft without knowing it’” (_Cannibals_, 189). Presumably _likundu_ is here included under the general term of witchcraft. In another place he says: “The general belief is that only one in the family can bewitch a member of the family” (_ibid._, 311). Hence the evil influence of the possessor of _likundu_ extends no further. [67.1] Jevons, _Introd._, 178, 7, 390 _sqq._ [67.2] Tylor, _Prim. Cul._, i. 383. [67.3] Avebury, _Marriage_, 142. I cannot find that he commits himself to a definition of religion, though his view may perhaps be inferred from the above quotation (_cf._ his _Origin of Civilization_, 205 _sqq._). [68.1] Frazer, _Magic Art_, i. 222, 223. [68.2] Durkheim, _Formes Élémentaires_, 65. M. Salomon Reinach in a recent brilliant work on the history of religions proposes as a definition: “An assemblage (_ensemble_) of scruples which stand in the way of the free exercise of our faculties.” This reduces religion to a system of taboos. But he subsequently qualifies it by saying: “Animism on one side, taboos on the other, these are the essential factors of religions” (_Orpheus_, 4, 10). Thus qualified, however, it excludes Buddhism; and with or without the qualification it does not express the social side of religion. M. Reinach is quite conscious of these omissions. They are an illustration of the extreme difficulty found by the most able and learned enquirers in formulating an adequate definition of religion, a definition at once all-embracing and exact. [69.1] Durkheim, 323. [69.2] Frazer, _Magic Art_, i. 220. [70.1] Frazer, _op. cit._, 52. [70.2] _Ibid._, 221, 237 _sqq._ [70.3] _Ibid._, 233. Frazer has worked out the theory more completely than anyone else; but it has been more or less anticipated, or shared, by others, such as Sir Edward Tylor, Sir Alfred Lyall, and Professor Jevons. [72.1] The above is a brief summary (partly borrowed from my review in _F. L._, xv. 359) of a portion of the argument elaborated by MM. Hubert and Mauss in their “Esquisse d’une Théorie Générale de la Magie,” _L’Année Soc._, vii. 1-146. [76.1] Durkheim, _op. cit._, 61. [77.1] Spencer and Gillen, _C. T._, 549, 476. [77.2] _Ante_, p. 50. [77.3] Codrington, 133. Another example is cited subsequently, p. 144, from Borneo. [78.1] Weeks, 189; see _ante_, p. 65 note.