Thanks for all your replies so far. While Frazer certainly got a few things wrong, that's not to say he got everything wrong. His analysis of magic as based upon sympathy according to two principles, one of similarity and one of contact, was rather efficient. The recent work of Pronin, Wegner, etc., hasn't really gone beyond that except to couch the whole thing in more psychological and sophisticated language - and even such esteemed Princeton and Harvard psychologists are still citing Frazer. While we may want to leave well alone, it's not possible if we are to engage with all aspects of current theorising about magic. Susan's work certainly provides an insight into current anthroplogical directions, but does it explain magic better than Frazer? Does anyone? Don't take this as some sort of championing of Frazer, it's not, I'm just interested in your thoughts on the debate.

Best wishes,

Leo

Dr Leo Ruickbie, PhD, MA, BA (Hons), AKC
Author of Witchcraft Out of the Shadows (Robert Hale, 2004)

"Witchcraft Out of the Shadows is an engaging book which deserves to be the benchmark for all future analyses of the Craft." - Alan Richardson

And Faustus: The Life and Times of a Renaissance Magician (The History Press, 2009)

"Dr Ruickbie has re-evaluated and contextualised the sources of the Faust tradition from a position of authority. The result is a work of meticulous scholarship that can be read as a gripping page-turner." - Professor Osman Durrani

For more information visit www.witchology.com