[85.1] Reference may be made here to Mr Ernest Crawley, who writes like Professor Jevons from a distinctly theological standpoint. I can find no formal definition of religion in his book on the subject. He says: “The vital instinct, the feeling of life, the will to live, the instinct to preserve it, is the source of, or rather is identical with, the religious impulse, and is the origin of religion” (_Tree of Life_, 214). But, as Professor Leuba has rightly observed, “the love and lust of life is the source of all human conduct and not of religion alone” (_Psychol. Study_, 48). Elsewhere Mr Crawley observes that religion is not a department, like law or science, having a special subject-matter; it is “a tone or spirit.” It “chiefly concerns itself with elemental interests--life and death, birth and marriage are typical cases” (_op. cit._, 204 _sq._). Nor can I find any definition of magic, though he maintains in opposition to Professor Frazer that “it seems impossible to separate magic and religion in their early forms.” “Indeed,” he adds, “the practical meaning of magic, when worked in connection with religion, is control of the supernatural, which is thus not superior to man” (186). What is magic when not “worked in connection with religion”? He identifies _mana_ with the force “which underlies magical processes generally,” but apparently not religious processes. A religious process he defines as “that of making a thing sacred” (231 _sq._). He opposes magic to sacredness. “Sacredness is a result of the application of religious impulse and of nothing else” (208 _sq._). Compare Professor Durkheim’s definition of religion (_supra_, p. 68). Mr Crawley takes insufficient account of the social aspect of religion. [87.1] Southey, _The Curse of Kehama_, preface. [87.2] Augustine, _Civ. Dei_, x. 11, citing Porphyry. [91.1] Marett, _Threshold_, 44 _sqq._ [92.1] J. M. M. van der Burgt, 55. [92.2] Hewitt, _Am. Anthr._, N.S., iv., 40. [93.1] E. H. Man, _J. A. I._, xii. 161, 163, 353, etc. [95.1] Codrington, 192. [98.1] The primary authority on the Arunta and neighbouring tribes is Messrs Spencer and Gillen, _C. T._ and _N. T._, and _Rep. Horn Exped._, but Strehlow’s researches (_Aranda- und Loritja-stämme_) are important. The results of the latter are divergent to some extent from those of the former, but in most respects are not irreconcilable. See, _e.g._, Professor Durkheim’s valuable discussion of the different versions of reincarnation, _op. cit._, 357 _sqq._ I have stated above in a summary manner what seems to be the result of the criticism of both authorities. [99.1] Spencer and Gillen, _N. T._, 498; Strehlow, ii. 1. _Cf._ _Rep. Horn Exped._, iv. 183. [99.2] Strehlow, i. 1. [100.1] Spencer and Gillen, _N. T._, 227, 232, 238. [100.2] _Ibid._, 227. [100.3] _Ibid._, 252.