the basis of his definition of magic as "a misapplication of the ideas
of association by similarity and contiguity," Dr. Frazer divided magic
into "positive magic," or charms, and "negative magic," or taboo.
"Positive magic says, 'Do this in order that so and so may happen.'
Negative magic or taboo says 'Do not do this lest so and so should
happen.'"[4, p.111, v.I.]

But Dr. Frazer's conclusion, which he himself considered only tentative,
was not long left unassailed. Prof. R.R. Marett in his essay "Is Taboo a
Negative Magic?"[5] called attention to the very evident fact that Dr.
Frazer's definition would not cover the characteristics of some of the
best known taboos, the food taboos of Prof. Tylor to which we have
previously alluded in this study, as a consequence of which "the flesh
of timid animals is avoided by warriors, but they love the meat of
tigers, boars, and stags, for their courage and speed."[3, p.131.] Are
not these food taboos rather, Dr. Marett asks, a "misapplication of the
ideas of association by similarity and contiguity" amounting to the
sympathetic taboos so carefully described by such writers on Magic as
MM. Hubert and Mauss of L'Année Sociologique? Still another kind of
taboos mentioned by Dr. Frazer but amplified by Mr. Crawley in "The
Mystic Rose," the taboos on knots at childbirth, marriage, and death,
are much better described by the term "sympathetic taboo." Moreover, if
taboo were a form of magic as defined by Dr. Frazer, it would be a
somewhat definite and measurable quantity; whereas the distinguishing
characteristic of taboo everywhere is the "infinite plus of awfulness"
always accompanying its violation. As Dr. Marett observes, there may be
certain definite results, such as prescribed punishment for violations
against which a legal code is in process of growth. There may be also
social "growlings," showing the opposition of public opinion to which
the savage is at least as keenly sensitive as the modern. But it is the