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 “infinite plus” always attached to the violation of taboo that puts it into the realm of the mystical, the magical.  It would seem that Dr. Frazer’s definition does not include enough.

It is when we turn to the subject of this study that we see most clearly the deficiencies in these explanations—­to the “classic well-nigh universal major taboo” of the woman shunned.  Dr. Marett uses her as his most telling argument against the inclusiveness of the concepts of Dr. Frazer and of MM.  Hubert and Mauss.  He says:  “It is difficult to conceive of sympathy, and sympathy only, as the continuous, or even the originally efficient cause of the avoidance.”  Mr Crawley had called attention to the fact that savages fear womanly characteristics, that is, effeminacy, which is identified with weakness.  While noting with great psychological insight the presence of other factors, such as the dislike of the different, he had gone so far as to express the opinion that the fear of effeminacy was probably the chief factor in the Sex Taboo.  This is probably the weakest point in Mr. Crawley’s study, for he shows so clearly the presence of other elements, notably mystery, the element that made woman the potential witch against whom suspicion concentrated in so tragical a fashion up to a late historical period.

Because of the element of mystery present in taboo we are led to conclude that taboo is more than negative magic if we accept so definite a concept as “a false association of ideas.”  The presence of power in the tabooed object turns our attention to mana as giving us a better understanding of why man must be wary.  Mana must however be liberally interpreted if we are to see to the bottom of the mystery.  It must be thought of as including good as well as evil power, as more than the “black magic” of the witch-haunted England of the 17th century, as is shown by the social position of the magicians who deal with the Mana of the Pacific and with the Orenda of the Iroquois.  It implies “wonder-working,” and may be shown in sheer luck, in individual cunning and power, or in such a form as the “uncanny” psychic qualities ascribed to women from the dawn of history.  With this interpretation of mana in mind, taboo may be conceived as negative mana; and to break taboo is to set in motion against oneself mystic wonder-working power.