7 1 The Magic and Drudgery in J. Z. Smith’s Theory of Comparison Ivan Strenski Tangles, Theory and Pedagogy Perhaps no more so explicitly than in his introduction to Relating Reli- gion, does Jonathan Z. Smith afirm that the heart of his intellectual efforts has always been with comparison (Smith 2004). 1 This reafirms his view from 30-odd years earlier in an essay of 1971, “Adde Parvum Parvo Magnus Cervus Erit,” (1971). There Smith attempts the (impossi- ble) task of both deining – arbitrarily, as it happens – the main types of comparison, while at the same time accounting for the historical origins of each! (Smith 1978a) Readers of Smith may recall that here is where he laid out what he took to be the essential fourfold typology of kinds of comparison. These are (1) they are “like-us,” (2) they are “not-like-us,” (3) they are “too-much-like-us,” and (4) “we are not-like-them.” Yet, this typology was almost immediately forgotten, as Smith went on to other ways of thinking about comparison. More memorable than the fourfold typology of types of comparison was, perhaps, Smith’s elusive phrase of decade or so later, “in comparison a magic dwells.” (Smith 1979). But, this assertion, like most of Smith’s theory and practice of compar- ison, remains largely unanalyzed. In particular, the “magic” in Smith’s view of comparison is sometimes totally, but understandably, miscon- strued, despite its remarkable currency in discussions of comparison. Most startling was a remark overheard at a conference that Smith’s 1. This paper represents only the irst installment to a more comprehensive study of both Smith’s work on comparison, and on the comparative study of religion, itself. See Strenski [forthcoming].