Ritual and belief : $b Studies in the history of religionHartland, Edwin Sidney
Religion
Ritual and belief : $b Studies in the history of religion
Hartland, Edwin Sidney
Ethnopsychology; Magic; Religion; Rites and ceremonies
Like religion, the chief factor in magic--that by which it
accomplishes its ends--is the mystic force that is released and set at
work by the rite or the spell. Behind the sympathetic formula, behind
the notions of property and of spirits, there is another notion still
more mysterious, the notion of power, vague, impersonal, always
operating, irresistible, or depending for its efficaciousness on
conditions not altogether at command. The investigations of the last
chapter have disclosed to us what this power is. By its very vagueness
and impersonality it enshrines possibilities illimitable. It may be
materialized, localized, personalized; but it ceases not to be
spiritual, to act at a distance, and that by direct connection, if not
by contact, to be mobile and to move without movement, to be
impersonal though clothed in personal forms, to be divisible yet
continuous. It is this notion that accounts in the last resort for the
phenomena of magic. Without it, magic is incomprehensible; like a
sentence without the copula, the action, the affirmation is wanting.
All this is equally true of religion. The authors see therefore that
magic is, like religion, a social phenomenon; it has parallel rites
with those of religion; it has parallel postulates and beliefs. To
distinguish it from religion they are driven to erect into a test the
individualistic aims of its practitioners, or of those on whose behalf
it is called in aid. Its true distinction is, according to this, that
it tends to be isolated, to be furtive, to be put into motion on
behalf of individuals and against the community; its methods become
arbitrary; it ceases to be a common obligation. Individuals in magic
have appropriated the ideas and the collective forces generated by
{76} religion, and turned them to their own ends. Religion, in short,
is social in its aims, magic is antisocial. That is the only
difference between them. In this distinction Professor Durkheim
agrees. Everywhere, he says, religious life has for its substratum a
definite group; even what are called private cults are celebrated by
the family or the corporation or society to which they are restricted.
On the other hand, though magical beliefs are widely diffused and
practised by large classes of a population, their effect is not to
bind together those who adhere to them and unite them into a group
having one common life: there is no magical Church. Between the
magician and those who consult him there is no durable bond. He has
clients, not a church. His relations with them are accidental, not
permanent; and they may have no relations with one another; they may
even be ignorant of one another’s existence.[76.1]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account