have a healthy custom.  Though it may go about the business in a queer and roundabout fashion, it must hit off the general requirements of the situation.  Therefore I shall not waste time, as I might easily do, in piling up instances of outlandish “superstitions,” whether horrible and disgusting, from our more advanced point of view, or merely droll and silly.  On the contrary, I would rather make it my working assumption that, with all its apparent drawbacks, the religion of a human society, if the latter be a going concern, is always something to be respected.

In considering, however, the relation of religion to custom, we are met by the apparent difficulty that, whereas custom implies “Do,” the prevailing note of primitive religion would seem rather to consist in “Do not.”  But there is really no antagonism between them on this account.  As the old Greek proverb has it, “There is only one way of going right, but there are infinite ways of going wrong.”  Hence, a nice observance of custom of itself involves endless taboos.  Since a given line of conduct is lucky, then this or that alternative course of behaviour must be unlucky.  There is just this difference between positive customs or rites, which cause something to be done, and negative customs or rites, which cause something to be left undone, that the latter appeal more exclusively to the imagination for their sanction, and are therefore more conspicuously and directly a part of religion.  “Why should I do this?” is answered well-nigh sufficiently by saying, “Because it is the custom, because it is right.”  It seems hardly necessary to add, “Because it will bring luck.”  But “Why should I not do something else instead?” meets, in the primitive society, with the invariable answer, “Because, if you do, something awful will happen to us all.”  What precise shape the ill-luck will take need not be specified.  The suggestion rather gains than loses by the indefiniteness of its appeal to the imagination.

* * * * *

To understand more clearly the difference between negative and positive types of custom as associated with religion, let us examine in some detail an example of each.  It will be well to select our cases from amongst those that show the custom and the religion to be quite inseparable—­to be, in short, but two aspects of one and the same fact.  Now nothing could be more commonplace and secular a custom than that of providing for one’s dinner.  Yet for primitive society this custom tends to be likewise a rite—­a rite which may, however, be mainly negative and precautionary, or mainly positive and practical in character, as we shall now see.