The Threshold Covenant - or, The Beginning of Religious Rites

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Threshold Covenant - or, The Beginning of Religious Rites
Author: Trumbull, H. Clay (Henry Clay)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Threshold Covenant - or, The Beginning of Religious Rites" ***

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.

Minor errors or inconsistencies in punctuation and formatting have been
silently corrected. Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of this
text for details regarding the handling of any other textual issues
encountered during its preparation.

The few Hebrew words and phrases in the text cannot be correctly
rendered in this media format. The Hebrew characters are therefore
replaced with a direct transliteration rendered in a bold font. Each
word is transliterated by the author as well. There were no vowel marks
in the text.

Footnotes have been resequenced to be unique, and were moved to the end
of the chapter or section. Any references to those notes in the text
have been amended as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE
THRESHOLD COVENANT

THE BEGINNING OF RELIGIOUS RITES

H. CLAY TRUMBULL

Author of “Kadesh-barnea,” “The Blood Covenant,”
“Studies in Oriental Social Life,” etc.

NEW YORK

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

1896

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE.

This work does not treat of the origin of man’s religious faculty, or of
the origin of the sentiment of religion; nor does it enter the domain of
theological discussion. It simply attempts to show the beginning of
religious rites, by which man evidenced a belief, however obtained, in
the possibility of covenant relations between God and man; and the
gradual development of those rites, with the progress of the race toward
a higher degree of civilization and enlightenment. Necessarily the
volume is not addressed to a popular audience, but to students in the
lessons of primitive life and culture.

In a former volume, “The Blood Covenant,” I sought to show the origin of
sacrifice, and the significance of transferred or proffered blood or
life. The facts given in that work have been widely accepted as lying at
the basis of fundamental doctrines declared in the Hebrew and Christian
Scriptures, and have also been recognized as the source of perverted
views which have had prominence in the principal ethnic religions of the
world. Scholars of as divergent schools of thought as Professors William
Henry Green of Princeton, Charles A. Briggs of New York, George E. Day
of Yale, John A. Broadus of Louisville, Samuel Ives Curtiss of Chicago,
President Mark Hopkins of Williams, Rev. Drs. Alfred Edersheim of Oxford
and Cunningham Geikie of Bournemouth, Professor Fréderic Godet of
Neuchatel, and many others, were agreed in recognizing the freshness and
importance of its investigations, and the value of its conclusions.
Professor W. Robertson Smith, of Cambridge, in thanking me for that
work, expressed regret that he had not seen it before writing his
“Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia.” He afterwards made repeated
mention of the work as an authority in its field, in his Burnett
Lectures on the “Religion of the Semites.”

This volume grew out of that one. It looks back to a still earlier date.
That began as it were with Cain and Abel, while this begins with Adam
and Eve. It was while preparing a Supplement for a second edition of
that volume that the main idea of this work assumed such importance in
my mind that I was led to make a separate study of it, and present it
independently. The special theory here advanced is wholly a result of
induction. The theory came out of the gathered facts, instead of the
facts being gathered in support of the theory.

Of course, these facts are not new, but it is believed that their
synthetic arrangement is. It has been a favorite method with students of
primitive religions to point out widely different objects of primitive
worship and their corresponding cults among different peoples, and then
to try to show how the ceremonials of the Hebrew and Christian
Scriptures were made up from these primitive cults. But the course of
investigation here pursued seems to show that the earlier cult was the
simple one, which has been developed in the line of the Bible story, and
that the other cults, even those baser and more degraded, are only
natural perversions of the original simple one. This is a reversal of
the usual order in studies of primitive religious rites. Here it is
first the simple, then the complex; first the one germ, then the many
varieties of growth from that germ.

As this particular subject of investigation seems to be a hitherto
untrodden field, I am unable to refer to any published works as my
principal sources of information. But I have gathered important related
facts from various directions, giving full credit in explicit
foot-notes, page by page. Many added facts confirmatory of my position
might, undoubtedly, have been found through yet wider and more
discerning research, and they will be brought to light by other gleaners
in the same field. Indeed, a chief value of this volume will be in the
fresh study it provokes on the part of those whom it stimulates to more
thorough investigation in the direction here pointed out. And if such
study shows an added agreement between some of the main facts of modern
scientific investigation and those disclosed in the Bible narrative,
that will not be a matter of regret to any fair-minded scholar.

In my earlier studies for this work, I had valuable assistance from the
late Mr. John T. Napier; and in my later researches I have been
materially assisted by Professors Herman V. Hilprecht, E. Washburn
Hopkins, William R. Lamberton, John Henry Wright, Robert Ellis Thompson,
Morris Jastrow, Jr., D.G. Brinton, Adolph Erman, W. Max Müller, W. Hayes
Ward, M.B. Riddle, Minton Warren, Alfred Gudeman, John P. Peters, M.W.
Easton, and A.L. Frothingham, Jr., President George Washburn, Rev. Drs.
Marcus Jastrow, H.H. Jessup, George A. Ford, William W. Eddy, and
Benjamin Labaree, Rev. William Ewing, Rev. Paulus Moort, Dr. Talcott
Williams, Dr. J. Solis Cohen, Dr. A.T. Clay, Dr. T.H. Powers Sailer,
Judge Mayer Sulzberger, Mr. S. Schecter, Mr. Frank Hamilton Cushing,
Captain John G. Bourke, Mr. Khaleel Sarkis, Mr. John T. Haddad, Mr.
Montague Cockle, Mr. Le Roy Bliss Peckham, the late Mr. William John
Potts, and other specialists. To all these I return my sincere thanks.

Facts and suggestions that came to my notice after the main work was
completed, or that, while known to me before, did not seem to have a
place in the direct presentation of the argument, have been given a
place in the Appendix. These may prove helpful to scholars who would
pursue the investigation beyond my limits of treatment.

Comments of eminent specialists in Europe and America, to whom the
proof-sheets of the volume were submitted before publication, are given
in a Supplement. Important additions are thus made to the results of my
researches, which are sure to be valued accordingly.

H.C.T.

PHILADELPHIA,
_Passover Week, 1896_.

CONTENTS.

------------------

PRIMITIVE FAMILY ALTAR.

(1.) A BLOOD WELCOME AT THE DOOR, 3. (2.) REVERENCE FOR THE THRESHOLD
ALTAR, 10. (3.) THRESHOLD COVENANTING IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY, 25. (4.)
STEPPING OR BEING LIFTED ACROSS THE THRESHOLD, 36. (5.) LAYING
FOUNDATIONS IN BLOOD, 45. (6.) APPEALS AT THE ALTAR, 57. (7.) COVENANT
TOKENS ON THE DOORWAY, 66. (8.) SYMBOL OF THE RED HAND, 74. (9.) DEITIES
OF THE DOORWAY, 94.

II.

EARLIEST TEMPLE ALTAR.

(1.) FROM HOUSE TO TEMPLE, 99. (2.) SACREDNESS OF THE DOOR, 102. (3.)
TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ASIA, 108. (4.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AFRICA, 126.
(5.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN EUROPE, 132. (6.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN
AMERICA, 144. (7.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ISLANDS OF THE SEA, 148. (8.)
ONLY ONE FOUNDATION, 153.

III.

SACRED BOUNDARY LINE.

(1.) FROM TEMPLE TO DOMAIN, 165. (2.) LOCAL LANDMARKS, 166. (3.)
NATIONAL BORDERS, 177. (4.) BORDER SACRIFICES, 184.

IV.

ORIGIN OF THE RITE.

(1.) A NATURAL QUESTION, 193. (2.) AN ANSWER BY INDUCTION, 194. (3.) NO
COVENANT WITHOUT BLOOD, 196. (4.) CONFIRMATION OF THIS VIEW, 197.

HEBREW PASS-OVER, OR CROSS-OVER, SACRIFICE.

(1.) NEW MEANING IN AN OLD RITE, 203. (2.) A WELCOME WITH BLOOD, 204.
(3.) BASON, OR THRESHOLD, 206. (4.) PASS-OVER OR PASS-BY, 209. (5.)
MARRIAGE OF JEHOVAH WITH ISRAEL, 212.

VI.

CHRISTIAN PASSOVER.

(1.) OLD COVENANT AND NEW, 215. (2.) PROFFERED WELCOME BY THE FATHER,
216. (3.) BRIDEGROOM AND BRIDE, 218. (4.) SURVIVALS OF THE RITE, 221.

VII.

OUTGROWTHS AND PERVERSIONS OF THIS RITE.

(1.) ELEMENTAL BEGINNINGS, 223. (2.) MAIN OUTGROWTHS, 225. (3.) CHIEF
PERVERSIONS, 228.

APPENDIX.

SIGNIFICANCE OF BLOOD IN THE MARRIAGE RITE, 243. EXHIBITING THE
EVIDENCES, 245. SUBSTITUTE BLOOD FOR DECEPTION, 248. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE
OF THE RITE, 250. BIBLE TESTIMONY, 251. WOMAN AS A DOOR, 252. SYMBOLISM
OF THE TWO SEXES, 257. SYMBOLISM OF TREE AND SERPENT, 258. COVENANT OF
THRESHOLD-CROSSING, 259. DOORKEEPER, AND CARRIER, 263. PASSING OVER INTO
A COVENANT, 266. ENGLAND’S CORONATION STONE, 268.

INDEXES.

TOPICAL INDEX, 273. SCRIPTURAL INDEX, 301.

SUPPLEMENT.

COMMENTS OF SPECIALISTS.

FROM THE REV. DR. MARCUS JASTROW, 307. FROM PROFESSOR DR. HERMAN V.
HILPRECHT, 309. FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL, 313. FROM PROFESSOR DR.
A.H. SAYCE, 314. FROM PROFESSOR DR. W. MAX MÜLLER, 315. FROM PROFESSOR
DR. C.P. TIELE, 317. FROM PROFESSOR DR. E. WASHBURN HOPKINS, 318. FROM
THE REV. DR. WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS, 319. FROM PROFESSOR DR. JOHN P.
MAHAFFY, 324. FROM PROFESSOR DR. WILLIAM A. LAMBERTON, 326. FROM
PROFESSOR DR. DANIEL G. BRINTON, 328. FROM THE REV. DR. EDWARD T.
BARTLETT, 329. FROM PROFESSOR DR. T.K. CHEYNE, 330. ADDITIONAL FROM
PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL, 333.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE THRESHOLD COVENANT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.
PRIMITIVE FAMILY ALTAR.

------------------

1. A BLOOD WELCOME AT THE DOOR.

The primitive altar of the family would seem to have been the threshold,
or door-sill, or entrance-way, of the home dwelling-place. This is
indicated by surviving customs, in the East and elsewhere among
primitive peoples, and by the earliest historic records of the human
race. It is obvious that houses preceded temples, and that the
house-father was the earliest priest. Sacrifices for the family were,
therefore, within or at the entrance of the family domicile.

In Syria and in Egypt, at the present time, when a guest who is worthy
of special honor is to be welcomed to a home, the blood of a
slaughtered, or a “sacrificed,” animal is shed on the threshold of that
home, as a means of adopting the new-comer into the family, or of making
a covenant union with him. And every such primitive covenant in blood
includes an appeal to the protecting Deity to ratify it as between the
two parties and himself.[1] While the guest is still outside, the host
takes a lamb, or a goat, and, tying its feet together, lays it upon the
threshold of his door. Resting his left knee upon the bound victim, the
host holds its head by his left hand, while with his right he cuts its
throat. He retains his position until all the blood has flowed from the
body upon the threshold. Then the victim is removed, and the guest steps
over the blood, across the threshold; and in this act he becomes, as it
were, a member of the family by the Threshold Covenant.

The flesh of the slaughtered animal is usually given to the neighbors,
although in the case of humbler persons it is sometimes used for the
meal of the guest in whose honor it is sacrificed. It may be a larger
offering than a lamb or a goat, or it may be a smaller one. Sometimes
several sheep are included in the sacrifice. Again, the offering may be
a bullock or a heifer, or simply a fowl or a pair of pigeons. The more
costly the gift, in proportion to the means of the host, the greater the
honor to him who is welcomed.

As illustrative of this idea, a story is commonly told in Syria of a
large-hearted man who gave proof of his exceptional devotedness to an
honored guest. He had a horse which he prized as only an Oriental can
prize and love one. This horse he sent to meet his guest, in order that
it might bring him to the home of its owner. When the guest reached the
house and dismounted, he spoke warm words in praise of the noble animal.
At once the host led the horse to the house door, and cut its throat
over the threshold, asking the guest to step over the blood of this
costly offering, in acceptance of the proffered Threshold Covenant.

“If you know that one is coming whom you would honor and welcome, you
must make ready to have the blood on the threshold when he appears,”
said a native Syrian. In case an honored guest arrives unexpectedly, so
that there is no time to prepare the customary sacrifice, salt, as
representing blood, may be sprinkled on the threshold, for the guest to
pass over; or again coffee, as the Muhammadan substitute for the “blood
of the grape,”[2] may be poured on it.[3]

Crossing the threshold, or entering the door, of a house, is in itself
an implied covenant with those who are within, as shown by the earlier
laws of India. He who goes in by the door must count himself, and must
be recognized, as a guest, subject to the strictest laws of hospitality.
But if he enters the house in some other way, not crossing the
threshold, there is no such implied covenant on his part. He may then
even despoil or kill the head of the house he has entered, without any
breach of the law of hospitality, or of the moral law as there
understood.[4] Illustrations of this truth are found in the Mahabharata,
as applicable to both a house and a city.[5] “It is in accordance with
the strict law of all the law books,” of ancient India, “that one may
enter his foe’s house by _a-dvāra_, ‘not by door,’ but his friend’s
house only ‘by door.’”[6]

It would seem to have been in accordance with this primitive law of the
East that Jesus said: “He that entereth not by the door into the fold of
the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a
robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the
sheep.... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,
and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture. The thief cometh
not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy: I came that they may
have life, and may have it abundantly.”[7]

It is possible that there is an explanation, in this law of the doorway,
or threshold, of the common practice among primitive Scandinavians of
attacking the inmates of an enemy’s house through the roof instead of by
the door;[8] also, of the custom in Greece of welcoming a victor in the
Olympian games into his city through a breach in the walls, instead of
causing him to enter by the gates, with its implied subjection to all
the laws of hospitality.[9] (See Appendix.)

Examples of the blood welcome at the threshold abound in modern Egyptian
customs. When the new khedive came to his palace, in 1882, a threshold
sacrifice was offered as his welcome. “At the entrance to the palace six
buffaloes were slaughtered, two being killed just as the khedive’s
carriage reached the gateway. The blood of the animals was splashed
across the entrance, so that the horses’ hoofs and wheels of the
carriage passed through it. The flesh was afterwards distributed among
the poor.”[10]

When General Grant was at Assioot, on the Upper Nile, during his journey
around the world, he was doubly welcomed as a guest by the American
vice-consul, who was a native of Egypt. A bullock was sacrificed at the
steamer landing, and its head was laid on one side of the gang-plank,
and its body on the other. The outpoured blood was between the head and
the body, under the gang-plank, so that, in stepping from the steamer to
the shore, General Grant would cross over it. When he reached the house
of the vice-consul, a sheep was similarly sacrificed at the threshold,
in such a way that General Grant passed over the blood in entering.[11]

It is also said in Egypt: “If you buy a dahabiyeh,” and therefore are to
cross its threshold for the occupancy of your new home on the water,
“you must kill a sheep, letting the blood flow on the deck, or side, of
the boat, in order that it may be lucky. Your friends will afterwards
have to dine on the sheep.”[12] There seems, indeed, to be a survival of
this idea in the custom of “christening” a ship at the time of its
launching, in England and America, a bottle of wine–the “blood of the
grape”[13]–being broken on the bow of the vessel as it crosses the
threshold of the deep. And a feast usually follows this ceremony
also.[14]

In Zindero, or Gingiro, or Zinder, in Central Africa, a new king is
welcomed at the royal residence with a bloody threshold offering.
“Before he enters his palace two men are to be slain; one at the foot of
the tree by which his house is chiefly supported; the other at the
threshold of his door, which is besmeared with the blood of the victim.
And it is said ... that the particular family, whose privilege it is to
be slaughtered, so far from avoiding it, glory in the occasion, and
offer themselves willingly to meet it.”[15]

Among the Arabs in Central Africa, the blood welcome of a guest at the
threshold of a home is a prevailing custom. “The usual welcome upon the
arrival of a traveler, who is well received in an Arab camp, is the
sacrifice of a fat sheep, that should be slaughtered at the door of the
hut or tent, so that the blood flows to the threshold.”[16]

On the arrival of strangers among the primitive tribes of Liberia, in
West Africa, a fowl is killed, and its blood is sprinkled at the
doorway.[17]

Receiving an honored guest with bread and salt, at the threshold of the
house he enters, is common in Russia. Bread and salt are symbolic, in
primitive thought, of flesh and blood; and this threshold welcome seems
to be a survival of the threshold sacrifice.[18]

To step over or across the blood, or its substitute, on the door-sill,
is to accept or ratify the proffered covenant; but to trample upon the
symbol of the covenant is to show contempt for the host who proffers it,
and no greater indignity than this is known in the realm of primitive
social intercourse.

2. REVERENCE FOR THE THRESHOLD ALTAR.

The threshold, as the family altar on which the sacrificial blood of a
covenant welcome is poured out, is counted sacred, and is not to be
stepped upon, or passed over lightly; but it is to be crossed over
reverently, as in recognition of Him to whom all life belongs. “On
passing the threshold,” in Arabia, “it is proper to say, ‘Bismillah,’
that is, ‘In the name of God.’ Not to do so would be looked upon as a
bad augury, alike for him who enters and for those within.”[19] In Syria
the belief prevails “that it is unlucky to tread on a threshold.” When
they receive a new member to their sect, the Bektashi derwishes of Syria
bring him to the threshold, and prayers and sacrifices are offered “on
the door-sill.”[20]

“The khaleefs of Bagdad required all those who entered their palace to
prostrate themselves on the threshold of the gate, where they had
inserted a fragment of the black stone of the temple at Meccah, in order
to render it [the threshold] more venerable to those who had been
accustomed to press their foreheads against it. The threshold was of
some height, and it was a crime to set foot upon it.” In the advice
which Nurshivan gives to his son Hormuz, he recommends him to betake
himself to the threshold of the Lord; that is, to the “presence of God,
in the same fashion in which the poor do, at the gates of the rich.
‘Since you are his slave,’ he says, ‘set your forehead on his
threshold.’”[21]

Among the Hindoos, “the threshold is ... sacred in private houses; it is
not propitious for a person to remain on it; neither to eat, sneeze,
yawn, nor spit whilst there.”[22]

A double welcome is sometimes given to one who is in an official
position. Thus, a Syrian, who held a commission from the chief officer
of customs in Upper Syria, was surprised at having two sheep sacrificed
before him as he approached the door of a house east of the Sea of
Galilee; and he graciously protested against the excessive honor shown
him. “One sheep is to welcome yourself as a man, and the other is to
welcome you as an officer of the government,” was the answer. Loyalty as
well as hospitality was indicated in these threshold sacrifices.

Sacredness attaches to the threshold in Persia. It must not be trodden
on; but it is often kissed by those who would step over it.[23]

A man should always cross himself when he steps over a threshold in
Russia; and, in some portions of the realm, it is believed that he ought
not to sit down on the threshold.[24]

High sills, or thresholds, so that one must step over, and not on, them,
are in the houses of Finland, and in the houses of many Finns in the
United States.[25] The same was true of many Teutonic houses.[26]

To shake hands across a threshold, instead of crossing it, is said, in
Finland, to ensure a quarrel.[27] To step over a threshold is, in
Lapland, to bring one under the protection of the family within, and of
its guardian deity.[28] The same is true among the Magyars.[29]

The ancient Pythagoreans quoted various maxims, supposed to be from the
sayings of their great founder, as teaching important lessons for all
time. In these maxims there were indications of a peculiar reverence for
the threshold and doorway. Thus: “He who strikes his foot against the
threshold should go back;” it were unsafe to pursue a movement so
inauspiciously begun. And, again: “The doors should be kissed fondly by
those who enter or depart.”[30]

“Treading on the threshold was ... tabooed by the Tatars.”[31] Again, on
the other side of the globe, in Samoa, to spill water on the door-step,
or threshold, when food is brought in, is a cause of anger to the
protecting deity of the family. It may drive him away.[32]

In Europe and in America it is by many counted an ill omen to tread upon
the threshold of the door on entering a house. To the present day, in
portions of Scotland, the idea popularly prevails, that to tread
directly upon the boundary lines of division between ordinary flagstones
is to endanger one’s soul; hence the very children are careful to avoid
stepping upon those lines, in their walking across the courtyards or
along the streets, in their every-day passing.

Many a person in the United States, who knows nothing of any
superstition connected with this, avoids, if possible, stepping on,
instead of over, the cracks or seams of a board walk, or even the seams
of a carpet.

All these customs seem to be a survival of the feeling that the
threshold is sacred as the primitive altar.

Apart from the reverence for the threshold demanded of those who pass
over it, there is an obvious sanctity of the threshold recognized in the
placing of images and amulets underneath it, and in the sacrifices and
offerings placed on it, as a means of guarding the dwelling within.

In the building of private houses, as well as temples, and city
gateways, in ancient Assyria, images of various kinds and sizes, “in
bronze, red jasper, yellow stone, and baked earth, ... are buried
beneath the stones of the threshold, so as to bar the entrance to all
destructive spirits.” Invocations are graven upon these figures.[33]

Herodotus mentions[34] that, in the annual feast in honor of the god
Osiris, “every Egyptian sacrifices a hog before the door of his house”
on the evening before the festival. Osiris was the god who was the judge
of the soul after death, and who in a peculiar sense stood for the truth
of the life to come. Every Egyptian desired, above all, to be in loving
covenant with Osiris, and when he would offer a welcoming sacrifice to
him, he did so before the door of his own house, as before the primitive
family altar. That it was the _blood_ poured out at the threshold which
was the essential act of covenanting in this sacrifice to Osiris, is
evidenced in the fact that the animal sacrificed was not eaten in the
family of the sacrificer, but was carried away by the swineherd who
furnished it.

Bunches of grass dipped in blood, and touched by the king, as if made
representative of his dignity and power, are to-day placed on the
threshold, as an offering, and as averters of evil, in Equatorial
Africa. This is known there as an ancient custom. In Uganda, “every
house has charms hung on the door, and others laid on the threshold.” An
offering to the _lubare_, or local spirit, must be thrown across the
threshold, from within the house, before a native ventures to leave his
home in the morning.[35] Charms for this purpose are kept behind the
door.

One of the requirements in the Vedic law (the sacred law of the Hindoos)
was, that “on the door-sill (a bali must be placed) with a mantra
addressed to Antariksha (the air),”[36] by a house father, in his
home;[37] that is, that an offering, with an invocation to a deity,
should be a sacrifice at the threshold altar. Other references in the
Hindoo laws seem to demand bali offerings “at all the doors, as many as
they are,” in a house, and evidence the importance and sacredness
attaching to the doorway.[38]

The threshold seems to have special reverence in Northwestern India, in
connection with the seasons of seedtime and harvest. At seedtime “a cake
of cowdung formed into a cup” is placed on the threshold of the
householder; it is filled with corn, and then water is poured over it as
a libation to the deities. Cowdung is not only a means of enrichment to
the soil, but it is a gift from the sacred cow, and so, in a sense,
represents or stands for the life of the cow. It is laid on the
threshold altar as an offering of life. The libation of water is an
accompaniment of that offering; water is essential to life and growth,
and it is a gift of the gods accordingly. Seed-sowing is recognized as
an act which needs the blessing of the gods, and on which that blessing
is sought in covenant relations.

At early harvest time the first-fruits of the grain-field are not taken
to the threshing-floor, but are brought home to be presented to the gods
at the household altar, and afterwards eaten by the family, with a
portion given to the Brahmans. The first bundle of corn is deposited at
the threshold of the home, and a libation of water is made as a
completion of its offering. The grain being taken from the ear, of a
portion of this first-fruits, is mixed with milk and sugar, and every
member of the family tastes it seven times.[39]

Among the Prabhus of Bombay, at the time of the birth of a child, an
iron crowbar is placed “along the threshold of the room of confinement,
as a check against the crossing of any evil spirit.” This is in
accordance with a Hindoo belief that evil spirits keep aloof from iron,
“and even nowadays pieces of horseshoe can be seen nailed to the bottom
sills of doors of native houses.”[40] Iron seems, in various lands, to
be deemed of peculiar value as a guard against evil spirits, and the
threshold to be the place for its efficacious fixing.

Similarly, “in East Bothnia, when the cows are taken out of their winter
quarters for the first time, an iron bar is laid before the threshold,
over which all the cows must pass; for, if they do not, there will be
nothing but trouble with them all the following summer.”[41]

Among the folk customs in the line of exorcism and divination in Italy,
the threshold has prominence. “In Tuscany, much taking of magical
medicine is done on the threshold; it also plays a part in other
sorcery.”[42] A writer mentions a method of exorcism with incense, where
three pinches of the best incense, and three of the second quality, are
put in a row on the threshold of the door, and then, after other incense
is burned within the house in an earthen fire-dish, these “little piles
of incense on the threshold of the door” are lighted, with words of
invocation. This process is repeated three times over.[43]

A method of curing a disorder of the wrist prevalent in harvest time, in
North Germany, is by taking “three pieces of three-jointed straw,” and
so laying them “side by side as to correspond joint by joint,” then
chopping through the first joint into the block beneath. This “ceremony
is performed on the threshold, and ends with the sign of the cross.”[44]

Observances with reference to the threshold are numerous in Russia. “On
it a cross is drawn to keep off _maras_ (hags). Under it the peasants
bury stillborn children. In Lithuania, when a new house is being built,
a wooden cross, or some article which has been handed down from past
generations, is placed under the threshold. There also when a newly
baptized child is being brought back from church, it is customary for
its father to hold it for a while over the threshold, ‘so as to place
the new member of the family under the protection of the domestic
divinities’ [bringing it newly into the family covenant at the threshold
altar].... Sick children, who are supposed to have been afflicted by an
evil eye, are washed on the threshold of their cottage, in order that,
with the help of the Penates who reside there, the malady may be driven
out of doors.”[45]

At the annual feast known as “Death Week,” among Slavonic peoples,
marking the close of winter and the beginning of spring, the peasants in
rural Russia combine for a sacrifice to appease the “Vodyaoui,” or
aroused water-spirit of the thawing streams. They also prepare a
sacrifice for the “Domovoi” or house-spirit. A fat black pig is killed,
and cut into as many pieces as there are residents in the place. “Each
resident receives one piece, which he straightway buries under the
door-step at the entrance to his house. In some parts, it is said, the
country folk bury a few eggs beneath the threshold of the dwelling to
propitiate the ‘Domovoi.’”[46]

When a Magyar maiden would win the love of a young man, or would bring
evil on him because of his reluctance, she seeks influence over him by
means of the sacred threshold. “She must steal something from the young
man, and take it to a witch, who adds to it three beans, three bulbs of
garlic, a few pieces of dry coal, and a dead frog. These are all put
into an earthenware pot, and placed under the threshold,” with a prayer
for the object of her desire.[47]

A superstition is prevalent in Roumania, that if a bat, together with a
gold coin, be buried under the threshold, there is “good luck” to the
house.[48] Various superstitions, in connection with the bat are found
among primitive peoples.[49]

In Japan, the threshold of the door is sprinkled with salt, after a
funeral, and as a propitiatory sacrifice in time of danger.[50] Salt
represents blood.

Among the Dyaks of Borneo, a pig’s blood is sprinkled at the doorway to
atone for the sin of unchastity by a daughter of the family. Again, the
blood of a fowl is sprinkled there at the annual festival of
seed-sowing, with prayers for fecundity and fertility.[51]

“On New Year’s morning, along the coast [in Aberdeenshire] where seaweed
is gathered, a small quantity is laid down at each door of the
farm-steading [the buildings of the homestead], as a means of bringing
good luck.” And fire and salt are put on the threshold of the byre-door
before a cow leaves the building after giving birth to a calf.[52]

Of portions of Ireland, it was said, early in this century: “On the 11th
of November, every family of a village kills an animal of some kind or
other; those who are rich kill a cow or sheep, others a goose or a
turkey; while those who are poor ... kill a hen or a cock, and sprinkle
the threshold with the blood, and do the same in the four corners of the
house; ... to exclude every kind of evil spirit from the dwelling.”[53]

Holes bored in the door-sill, and plugged with pieces of paper on which
are written incantations, a broom laid across the door-sill, or “three
horseshoes nailed on the door-step with toes up,” are supposed to be a
guard against witches or evil spirits in portions of Pennsylvania
to-day.[54] Many a Pennsylvanian is unwilling to cross, for the first
time, the threshold of a new home, without carrying salt and a Bible.

Among the Indians in ancient Mexico there was an altar near the door of
every house, with instruments of sacrifice, and accompanying idols.[55]

“Threshold” and “foundation” are terms that are used interchangeably in
primitive life. The sacredness of the threshold-stone of a building
pivots on its position as a foundation stone, a beginning stone, a
boundary stone. Hence the foundation stone of any house, or other
structure was sacred as the threshold of that building. According to Dr.
H.V. Hilprecht, in the earlier buildings of Babylonia the inscriptions
and invocations and deposits were at the threshold, and later under the
four corners of the building; but when they were at the threshold they
were not under the corners, and _vice versa_. It would seem from this
that the corner-stone was recognized as the beginning, or the limit, or
the threshold, of the building. It may be, therefore, that the modern
ceremonies at the laying of a “corner-stone” are a survival of the
primitive sacredness of a threshold-laying.[56]

It would seem, moreover, as if the sanctity of the threshold as the
primitive altar were, in many places, in the course of time transferred
to the family hearth. In the primitive tent the household fire was at
the entrance way, as it is in the tents of the East to-day. Where Arabs
have camped on an Eastern desert, the place of the shaykh’s tent can
always be known by the blackened hearthstones at its entrance, or
threshold, where he welcomed guests to the hospitality of his tribe and
family by the sharing of bread and salt, or by the outpouring of the
blood of a slaughtered lamb or kid.

If, indeed, the earliest dwelling of man was a cave, rather than a tent,
the household fire was still at its entrance; and the threshold was the
hearthstone. When, in the progress of building-changes, the hearthstone
was removed to the center of the building, or of the inner court, its
sanctity went with it, as the place of the family fire. Thus, for
example, in Russia, the Domovoi, or household deity, who is honored and
invoked at the threshold, “is supposed to live behind the stove now, but
in early times he, or the spirits of the dead ancestors, of whom he is
now the chief representative, were held to be in even more direct
relations with the fire on the hearth; as were the Penates of the
Romans, who were sometimes spoken of as at the threshold, and again as
at the hearth.”[57]

A recognition of the peculiar sacredness of the threshold is shown, in
different lands, by the popular unwillingness to have the dead carried
over it on the way to burial. In India, the body of one dying in certain
phases of the moon can in no wise be carried over the threshold. The
house wall must be broken for its removal.[58] When Chinese students are
attending the competitive examinations for promotion, they are shut up
in rooms until their work is completed. If one of them dies at such a
time, “the body is removed over the back wall, as the taking out openly
through the front door would be regarded as an evil omen.”[59]

In the capital of Korea there is a small gate in the city wall known as
the “Gate of the Dead,” through which alone a dead body can be carried
out. But no one can ever enter through that passage-way.[60]

There is a recognition, in Russian folk-tales, of safety to the spirit
of one who dies in a house, if his body be passed out _under_ the
threshold of the outer door.[61]

It is not allowable to carry out a corpse through the main door of a
house in Italy. There is a smaller door, in the side wall, known as the
_porta di morti_, which is kept closed except as it is opened for the
removal of a body at the time of a funeral.[62]

In Alaska, it is deemed an evil omen for the dead to be carried over the
threshold. “Therefore the dying one, instead of being allowed to rest in
peace in his last hours, is hastily lifted from his couch and put out of
doors [or out of the house] by a hole in the rear wall” so as not to
have a corpse pass the threshold.[63]

In some communities, in both Europe and America, the coffin is passed
out of the house through the window, instead of through the door, at a
funeral. And again, the front door is closed and a window is opened at
the time of a death, in order that the spirit may pass out of the house
in some other way than over the threshold.[64]

Even though the dead may not be lifted over the threshold altar, the
dead may be buried underneath it. In both the far East and the far West,
burials under the threshold are known. And in Christian churches of
Europe, a grave underneath the altar is an honored grave for saint or
ecclesiastic.

In the Apocalypse the seer beheld “underneath the altar the souls of
them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony
which they held: and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O
Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on
them that dwell on the earth?”[65]

3. THRESHOLD COVENANTING IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY.

Marriage customs in various parts of the world, in ancient and modern
times, illustrate this idea of the sacredness of the threshold as the
family altar.

In portions of Syria, when a bride is brought to her husband’s home, a
lamb or a kid is sacrificed on the threshold, and she must step across
the outpoured blood.[66] This marks her adoption into that family.

Among the wide-spreading ʾAnazeh Bed´ween, the most prominent and
extensive tribe of desert Arabs, whose range is from the Sinaitic
Peninsula to the upper Desert of Syria, “when the marriage day is fixed,
the bridegroom comes with a lamb in his arms to the tent of the father
of his bride, and then, before witnesses, he cuts its throat. As soon as
the blood falls upon the earth [and the earth is the only threshold of a
tent], the marriage ceremony is regarded as complete.”[67] “In Egypt,
the Copts sacrifice a sheep as the bride steps into the bridegroom’s
house, and she is compelled to step over the blood which flows upon the
threshold in the doorway.”[68] It is evident, moreover, that this custom
is not confined to the Copts.[69]

Blood on the threshold, as an accompaniment of a marriage, is still
counted important among Armenian Christians in Turkey. After the formal
marriage ceremony at the church, the wedded pair, with their friends,
proceed to the bridegroom’s home. “At the moment of their arrival a
sheep is sacrificed on the threshold, over the blood of which the
wedding party steps to enter the house.”[70]

In the island of Cyprus, a bridegroom is borne to the house of his bride
on the wedding morning, in a living chair formed by the crossed hands of
his neighbor friends. Dismounting at her door, “as he is about to pass
in, a fowl is brought and held down by head and feet upon the threshold
of the door; the bridegroom takes an axe, cuts off the head, and only
then may he enter.”[71]

Like customs are found among yet more primitive peoples. Thus, for
instance, with the western Somali tribes, in east Central Africa: “On
reaching the bridegroom’s house a low-caste man sacrifices a goat or
sheep on the threshold; and the bride steps over it;” and again when the
bridegroom returns from his devotions at a neighboring _masjid_ (a place
of public prayer) to claim his bride, as he reaches his threshold,
“another goat is sacrificed, and he steps over it in the same way as his
bride.”[72] Again the bridegroom himself brings the bride from her
father’s hut to his own, accompanied by young men and maidens dancing
and singing. “On reaching the new hut, the bride holds a goat or sheep
in the doorway, while the bridegroom cuts its throat in the orthodox
manner with his _jambia_ (long knife). The bride dips her finger in the
blood, smears it on her forehead, ... and then enters the _gúrí_,
stepping over the blood. The bridegroom follows her, also stepping over
the blood, and is accompanied by some of his nearest male
relatives.”[73]

There are traces of such customs, also, among the natives of South
Africa,[74] and elsewhere.

Besides the bloody sacrifices at the threshold, in the marriage
ceremony, there are, in different countries, various forms of making
offerings at the threshold, and of surmounting obstacles at that point,
as an accompaniment of the wedding covenant. All these point to the
importance and sanctity of the threshold and doorway in the primitive
mind.

A bride, in portions of Upper Syria, on reaching her husband’s house, is
lifted up so that she can press against the door-lintel a piece of
dough, prepared for the purpose, and handed to her at the time. This
soft dough, thus pressed against the plastered or clay wall, adheres
firmly, and is left there as long as it will remain. The open hand of
the bride stamps the dough as it is fixed in place, and in some cases
the finger points are pricked before the stamping, so that the blood
will appear as a sign manual on the cake of dough.[75]

When a bride reaches the door of her husband’s house, among the
fellaheen of Palestine, a jar of water is placed on her head. She must
call on the name of God as she crosses the threshold; and, at the same
moment, her husband strikes the jar from her head, and causes the water
to flow as a libation.[76]

Among the Wallachians there is a marriage rite, said to be of Latin
origin, because there was a similar rite among the old Latins. The
Wallachian bride is borne on horseback, with an accompanying procession,
to the house of the bridegroom. “At the moment when the betrothed maiden
dismounts from her steed, and is about to cross the threshold, they
present to her butter, or sometimes honey, and with this she smears the
door-posts.”[77]

An observer says of this rite: “For the same reason among the Latins,
the word for wife, _uxor_, originally _unxor_, was derived from the verb
_ungere_, ‘to anoint,’ because the maidens when they reached the
threshold of their future husbands, were similarly accustomed to anoint
the door-posts.” In support of this fanciful etymology, old-time
commentators on Terence and Virgil are cited;[78] which shows, at least,
that this ceremony at the threshold of the husband’s home has long been
recognized as of vital importance in the marriage contract and relation.

It is customary, among the Greeks in Turkey, for the mother of the
bridegroom, as he leaves his home to go for his bride on the morning of
his wedding, to lay across his pathway a girdle, over which he steps,
and to pour a libation of water before him.[79]

In the Morea, in the vicinity of Sparta, it is said that, when the bride
is brought to her new home, the mother of the bridegroom “stands waiting
at the door, holding a glass of honey and water in her hand. From this
glass the bride must drink; ... while the lintel of the door is smeared
with the remainder; ... in the meantime one of the company breaks a
pomegranate on the threshold.”[80] In Rhodes, when the newly married
couple enter the doorway of their new home, the husband “dips his finger
in a cup of honey, and traces a cross over the door.... A pomegranate is
placed on the threshold, which the young husband crushes with his foot
as he enters, followed by his wife, over whom the wedding guests throw
corn and cotton seeds and orange flower water.”[81]

On Skarpanto (Carpathos), an island lying between Rhodes and Crete, when
the bridegroom reaches the door of the bride’s house “he is greeted by
the mother of the bride, who touches the nape of his neck with a censer
containing incense.... She further gives him a present called
_embatikon_,–that is to say, ‘the gift of in-going,’–and then places on
the threshold a rug or blanket folded, with a stick resting on one of
the corners. The bridegroom advances his right foot, breaks the stick
and passes in.”[82]

Among the Morlacchi, in Dalmatia, it is, or was, a custom for a bride to
kneel and kiss the threshold of her husband’s home, before crossing it
for the first time. Her mother-in-law, or some other near relative of
her husband, at the same time presented her with a sieve full of
different kinds of grain, nuts, and small fruits, which the bride
scattered behind her back as she passed in.[83]

It is a custom in portions of Russia, when the bride is about to leave
her father’s home to meet the bridegroom, for the friends of the
bridegroom to appear at the door, and request that the bride be brought
to them. “After their request has been many times repeated, the
‘princess’ [as the bride is called] appears, attended by her relatives
and attendants, but stops short at the door. Again the bridegroom’s
friends demand the bride, but are told first to ‘cleanse the threshold;
then will the young princess cross the threshold.’” Thereupon gifts are
made by the bridegroom’s friend, and the bride crosses the threshold to
go to the bridegroom.[84]

Among the Mordvins (or, Mordevins), a Finnish people on the Volga, there
are various customs in connection with marriage, tending to confirm the
idea that the threshold is the household altar. In a ceremony of
betrothal, with a conference over the terms of dowry, a prayer is
offered to the “goddess of the homestead,” and the “goddess of the
dwelling-house;” “the girl’s father then cuts off the corner of a loaf
of bread with three slashes of a knife, salts it, and places it under
the threshold, where the Penates are believed to frequent. This is
called the ‘gods’ portion.’” Bread and salt are factors in a sacred
covenant, and their proffer to the household gods, at the threshold
altar, would seem to be an invitation to those gods to be a party to the
new marriage covenant. Again, after the terms of betrothal are agreed
on, there is the feast of “hand-striking,” or ratification of the
betrothal. On that occasion also the “gods’ portion” is offered; and “a
little brandy is spilt under the threshold. Bread and salt are once more
placed under the threshold by the bride’s father, who carries it from
the table to the household altar “on the point of the knife–under no
circumstances in his hands.”[85]

A custom of strewing the threshold of the home of a new-married couple
prevailed in Holland until recent times.[86] This was obviously a form
of offering at the household altar.

On the evening before the marriage ceremony, in the rural districts and
smaller towns of Northern Germany, the boys and girls, and others in the
neighborhood, are accustomed to appear at the door of the bride’s house,
and smash on the threshold earthen pots and jars, with loud cries of
joy. “Sometimes, whole car-loads of broken pottery have to be removed
from the door the next morning.” And when the young couple return to
their home, after the ceremony at the church, poor boys and girls are
accustomed to stretch a colored cord across the door of the house, to
prevent a passage over the threshold, unless the bridegroom throws a
handful of small coins among those who bar the way.[87]

Traces of the sacredness of the threshold altar seem to exist in the
wedding ceremonies in villages on the coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
“After the marriage is solemnized, ... the bride’s guests are
entertained at her home, and the bridegroom’s at his.... When the bride
returns to her father’s house, after the marriage, broken bread of
various sorts is thrown over her before she enters. The same ceremony is
gone through with the bridegroom at his father’s door.”[88]

When a girl among the Sea Dyaks of Borneo is married, the wedding takes
place at her house. The marriage rite includes the erecting an altar
before the door of the house, and placing on it an offering of prepared
areca-nut, covered with a red cloth, the color of blood. The families of
the bride and the groom then partake of that offering in covenant
conclave.[89]

A lover, among the Woolwas, in Central America, when wooing a bride,
would bring a deer’s carcass, and a bundle of firewood, and deposit it
outside of her house door. If she accepted these, and took them over the
threshold, it was a betrothal.[90] The covenant seemed to consist in the
reaching across the threshold and accepting a proffered offering in a
spirit of loving agreement.

Among the Towkas, in the same part of the world, a bridegroom would go
with his friends to the home of his bride, carrying a bundle of gifts
for her. Sitting down outside of the door, he would call on her family
to open to him. There being no response, music would then be tried by
his friends. At this the door would be opened just far enough for him to
put a gift inside over the threshold. One by one his gifts would be
passed in, in this way, while the door opened wider and wider. When the
last gift was over the threshold, the lover would spring within, and,
seizing the bride, would carry her across the threshold, and take her to
a temporary hut erected within a charmed circle near by, while his
friends guarded him from intrusion.[91]

And thus, in various ways, among widely different primitive peoples, the
marriage customs go to show that the home threshold cannot be passed
except by overcoming a barrier of some kind, and making an offering,
bloody or bloodless, at this primal family altar. An essential part of
the covenant of union is a halting at, and then passing over, the
threshold of the new home, with an accompanying sacrifice.

4. STEPPING OR BEING LIFTED ACROSS THE THRESHOLD.

Even more widespread and prominent than the custom of offering blood, or
of making a libation, or of overcoming a special barrier, at the
threshold, or of anointing or stamping the posts or lintel of the
doorway as a sign of the covenant, at the time of a marriage, and as a
part of the ceremony, is the habit of causing the bride to cross the
threshold with care, without stepping upon it. This custom is of
well-nigh world-wide observance, and it has attracted the attention of
anthropologists and students of primitive customs. A favorite method of
explaining it has been by calling it a survival of the practice of
“marriage by capture;” but this is nothing more than an unscientific
guess, in defiance of the truth that persistent popular customs have
their origin in a sentiment, and not in a passing historic practice. The
earliest mentions of this custom, of the bride’s crossing the threshold
without stepping on it, show it as a voluntary religious rite; and there
are traces of its recognition in this light from the earliest times
until now.

In the Vedic Sutras, or the sacrificial rules of the ancient Hindoo
literature, it is specifically declared that a bride, on entering her
husband’s home, shall step across the threshold, and not upon it. She is
not lifted over the door-sill, but she voluntarily crosses it. Thus it
is said: “When (the bridegroom with his bride) has come to his house, he
says to her, ‘Cross (the threshold) with thy right foot first; do not
stand on the threshold.’”[92] In this ancient ceremony, grains of rice
are poured on the heads of the bridegroom and his bride.[93] This modern
custom has, therefore, a very early origin. And again: “He makes her
enter the house (which she does) with her right foot. And she does not
stand on the threshold.”[94]

Putting the right foot forward seems to be a matter of importance in
various primitive religions. “Put your right foot first” is a maxim
ascribed to Pythagoras.[95] In his description of the proportions of a
temple, the Roman architect Vitruvius said: “The number of steps in
front should always be odd, since, in that case, the right foot, which
begins the ascent, will be that which first alights on the landing of
the temple.”[96] A Muhammadan is always careful to put his right foot
first in crossing over the threshold of a mosk.[97]

Among the Albanians, when the bride is taken to the home of the
bridegroom, accompanied by the _vlam_, or “the friend of the
bridegroom,” it is said that “particular care is taken that the
threshold should be crossed with the right foot foremost.”[98] Here, as
in India, the crossing of the threshold is a voluntary act. The bride is
not lifted over, but crosses of her own accord. If she be veiled, the
lifting is a necessity.

In Madagascar, “on entering a house, especially a royal house, it is
improper to use the left foot on first stepping into it. One must ‘put
one’s best (or right) foot foremost.’”[99]

The bride, in Upper Syria, is sometimes carried across the threshold of
the bridegroom’s house by friends of the bridegroom.[100] She, of
course, is veiled.

When the bride reaches the outer gate of her husband’s residence, in
Egypt, the bridegroom meets her, enveloped as she is in her cashmere
shawl, clasps her in his arms, and carries her across the threshold, and
up to the doorway of the female apartments.[101]

In portions of Abyssinia, the bridegroom carries his bride from her home
to his, bearing her across the threshold as he enters his house.[102]

So, also, it is among the more primitive tribes in West Africa. The
bride is carried over the threshold in a rude chair, or on the shoulders
of her friends, into her new home.[103]

There are traces of a similar custom in the marriage ceremonies of
ancient Assyria.[104]

Again, it is said to be found among the Khonds of Orissa,[105] the
Tatars,[106] and the Eskimos.[107]

In ancient Greece[108] and in ancient Rome[109] the lifting of the bride
over the threshold of her new home was an important part of the marriage
ceremony. Classic writers had their explanations of this custom, as
certain modern anthropologists have theirs, but the origin of the
ceremony was earlier than they imagined.

In unchanging China the use of fire on the threshold altar, in
connection with the marriage ceremony, is continued to the present day.
The bride is borne in a sedan-chair to the house of the bridegroom,
accompanied by a procession of friends and musicians. “On arriving at
the portal of the house, the bridegroom taps the door of the sedan-chair
with his fan, and in response, the instructress of matrimony, who
prompts every act of the bride, opens the door and hands out the still
enshrouded young lady, who is carried bodily over a pan of lighted
charcoal, or a red-hot coulter laid on the threshold, while at the same
moment a servant offers for her acceptance some rice and preserved
prunes.”[110]

Again, it is burning straw that is thrown upon the door-sill, and is
half extinguished before the Chinese bride is led to step across it. The
instructress says at this point:

“Now, fair young bride, the smoke bestride;
This year have joy, next year a boy.”[111]

Fire, like blood, stands for life in the primitive mind; and fire, like
blood, has its place on the altar. Indeed, as the first threshold altar
was the hearthstone, it was the place of the household fire. The
sacredness of the domestic fire is recognized in all the Hindoo
religious literature; and a Hindoo couple, on beginning their married
life, must have a care to enter a new home bringing their sacred altar
fire with them.[112] In ancient Greece, the mother of the bride
accompanied her daughter to the threshold of her new home, bearing a
flaming torch “kindled at the parental hearth, according to custom
immemorial.”[113] A torch was similarly borne in the Roman marriage
ceremonies.[114] This custom is referred to in the term “hymen’s torch,”
or the “nuptial torch.” “In Cicero’s time, they did not distinguish the
hearth-fire from the Penates, nor the Penates from the Lares.”[115] The
bride, in India, in China, in Greece, and in Rome, worshiped at the
altar-fire of her new home.

A connecting link between the altar fire and the nuptial torch is found
in a marriage custom of the Erza, of the Mordvins, in Russia. On the eve
of the wedding day the bridegroom’s family make ready for the bride. “A
thick candle, and several thinner ones, have ... been made ready for the
occasion. The bridegroom’s father lights the smaller ones before the
holy pictures [in use in families of the Greek Church], but sets up the
large one on the threshold. It is called ‘the house candle.’” The father
then prays for the new couple.[116]

A survival of an ancient Slavic custom, of covenanting together by
crossing together an altar fire, would also seem to exist in Russia in
the practices of young people at the “Midsummer Day” festival. A Russian
writer says of these festivals: “More than once have I had an
opportunity of being present at these nightly meetings, held at the end
of June, in commemoration of a heathen divinity. They usually take place
close to a river or pond; large fires are lighted, and over them young
couples, bachelors and unmarried girls, jump barefoot.”[117]

There is a custom of wooing among the Moksha, of the Mordvins, that
brings the threshold-altar idea into prominence. The parents of the
wooer first make gifts, at their home, to the household goddesses.
“These gifts consist of dough figures of domestic animals, which are
placed under the threshold of the house and of the outside gate, while
prayer is made to the goddesses and to deceased ancestors. The father
[of the bridegroom] then cuts off a corner of a loaf placed on the
table, and at the time of the offering scoops out the inside and fills
it with honey. At midnight he drives in profound secrecy to the house of
the bride elect, places the honeyed bread on the gate-post [of her
house], strikes the window with his whip, and shouts: ‘_Seta!_ I,
_Veshnak Mazakoff_, make a match between thy daughter and my son _Uru_.
Take the honeyed bread from thy gate-post, and pray.’”[118] The images
of domestic animals would here seem to stand for the slaughtered animals
formerly offered at the threshold altar; and the linking of the altars
of the two homes by offerings and prayer would seem to indicate the
desire for a sacred covenant. When the bride is received at the
bridegroom’s house, a notch is cut “with an ax in the door-post to mark
the arrival of a new addition to the family.”

Among the Erza, of the same province, the bride, on the day of “the
girl’s feast,” preceding her marriage, “takes mould [earth] from under
the threshold [of her parental home] with her finger-tips, and thrusts
it into her bosom,” as she goes out to seek a farewell blessing from her
friends. In the bridegroom’s home, meanwhile, a lighted candle is placed
on the threshold of the door; and, in some regions, when he and his
friends go to the bride’s house to bring her to his home, he and they
are met at the door by her parents with the covenanting bread and salt,
and the words, “Be welcome, come within.” As the bride is borne out of
her old home to go to her new one, she and her party “all halt and bow
to the gate, for there, or in the courtyard, is the abode of the god
that protects the dwelling-place. The following prayer is made to him:
‘_Kardas Sarks_, the nourisher, god of the house, do not abandon her
that is about to depart; always be near her just as thou art here.‘”
When she reaches her new home, she is carried (over the threshold), in
the arms of some of her party, into the house of the bridegroom,
carrying a lighted candle.[119]

The custom survived in portions of Scotland, as recently as the
beginning of this century, of lifting a bride over the threshold, or the
first step of the door. A cake of bread, prepared for the occasion, was,
at the same time, broken by the bridegroom’s mother over the head of the
bride. The bride was then led directly to the hearth, and the poker and
tongs, and sometimes the broom, were put into her hands “as symbols of
her office and duty.”

Lifting the bride over the threshold has been practiced in recent times,
in England, Ireland, and the United States.[120]

Both bride and bridegroom were carried, on the shoulders of their
elders, across the threshold of their new home, and laid on their bridal
bed, in the marriage ceremonies of some of the tribes of Central
America. And again the bridegroom carried his bride in this way.[121] In
either case, it was the crossing of the threshold without stepping on it
that was the thing aimed at.

5. LAYING FOUNDATIONS IN BLOOD.

In the building of a house, as a new home, the prominence given to the
laying of the threshold, or to its dedicating by blood, is another
indication, or outcome, of its altar-like sacredness. In Upper Syria a
sacrifice is often made at the beginning of the building of a new house,
and again at the first crossing of its threshold. “When a new house is
built,” among the Metâwileh, “the owner will not reside in it until,
with certain formalities, a black hen has been carried several times
round the house and slaughtered within the door,” as if in covenant
dedication of the house.[122]

Among the Copts in Egypt, when the threshold of a new house is laid, the
owner slaughters a sheep or a goat on the threshold, and steps over the
blood, as if in covenant for himself and his household with Him to whom
all blood, as life, belongs. Then he divides the sacrificed victim among
his neighbors; and they in turn come and step across the blood on the
threshold, invoking as they do so a blessing on the new house and its
owner, while coming into covenant with him.[123]

The foundation-stone of a new building is, in a sense, the threshold of
that structure. Hence to lay the foundations in blood is to proffer
blood at the threshold. Traces of this custom are to be found in the
practices or the legends of peoples wellnigh all the world over.[124]
Apparently the earlier sacrifices were of human beings.[125] Later they
were of animals substituted for persons. The idea seems to have been
that he who covenanted by blood with God, or with the gods, when his
house, or his city, was builded, was guarded, together with his
household, while he and they were dwellers there; but, if he failed to
proffer a threshold sacrifice, his first-born, or the first person who
crossed the bloodless threshold, would be claimed by the ignored or
defied deity.

There is, indeed, a suggestion of this idea in the curse pronounced by
Joshua, when he destroyed the doomed city of Jericho, against him who
should rebuild its walls, he not being in covenant with and obedient to
the Lord. “Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and
buildeth this city Jericho: with the loss of his firstborn shall he lay
the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he
set up the gates of it.”[126] A later record tells of the fulfilment of
this curse. It says of the reign of Ahab: “In his days did Hiel the
Bethel-ite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof with the loss
of Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof with the loss of
his youngest son Segub; according to the word of the Lord, which he
spake by the hand of Joshua the son of Nun.”[127]

Human sacrifices, in order to furnish blood at the foundations of a
house, or of a public structure, have been continued down to recent
times, or to the present, in some portions of the world; and there are
indications in popular tradition that they were frequent in a not remote
past.

It is said that at the building of Scutari, in Asia Minor, “the workmen
were engaged on its fortifications for three years, but the walls would
not stand. Then they protested that the only possible way to succeed was
to lay under or in them a living human being. They accordingly laid hold
of a young woman who brought them dinner, and immured her.”[128]

According to a story in China, when the bridge leading to the site of
St. John’s College, in Shanghai, was in process of building, an official
present took off his shoes, as indicating his rank, and threw them into
the stream, in order to stay the current, and enable the workmen to lay
the foundations. Finding this unavailing, he took off his garments and
threw them in. Finally he threw himself in, and as his life went out the
workmen were enabled to go on with their building. To this day the
belief is general that that structure stands fast because of this
sacrifice.[129]

“When the walls of Algiers were built of blocks of concrete [by
Muhammadans], in the sixteenth century, a Christian captive named
Geronimo was placed in one of the blocks and the rampart built over and
about him. Since the French occupation of Algiers a subsidence in the
wall led to an examination of the blocks, and one was found to have
given way. It was removed, and the cast of Geronimo was discovered in
the block. The body had gone to dust, and the superincumbent weight had
crushed in the stone sarcophagus.”[130]

A story told among the Danes is, that “many years ago, when the ramparts
were being raised round Copenhagen, the wall always sank, so that it was
not possible to get it to stand firm. They therefore took a little
innocent girl, placed her in a chair by a table, and gave her playthings
and sweetmeats. While she thus sat enjoying herself, twelve masons built
an arch over her, which, when completed, they covered with earth to the
sound of drums and trumpets. By this process the walls were made
solid.”[131]

“Thuringian legend declares that to make the castle of Liebenstein fast
and impregnable, a child was bought for hard money of its mother, and
walled in. It was eating a cake while the masons were at work, the story
goes, and it cried, ‘Mother, I see thee still;’ then later, ‘Mother, I
see thee a little still;’ and as they put in the last stone, ‘Mother,
now I see thee no more.’”[132]

A similar story is told of a Slavic town on the Danube. A plague
devastated it, and it was determined to build it anew, with a new
citadel. “Acting on the advice of their wisest men, they sent out
messengers before sunrise one morning in all directions, with orders to
seize upon the first living creature they should meet. The victim proved
to be a child (_Dyetina_, archaic form of _Ditya_), who was buried alive
under the foundation-stone of the new citadel. The city was on that
account called Dyetinets [or Detinetz], a name since applied to any
citadel.”[133]

It is even said that “when, a few years ago, the Bridge Gate of the
Bremen city walls was demolished, the skeleton of a child was found
imbedded in the foundations.”[134]

A Scottish legend tells that St. Columba found himself unable to build a
cathedral on the island of Iona unless he would secure its stability and
safety by the blood of a human sacrifice. Thereupon he took his
companion, Oran, and buried him alive at the foundations of the
structure, having no trouble after that.[135]

And it is said that under the walls of the only two round towers of the
ancient Irish examined, human skeletons were found buried.[136]

Until the transfer of Alaska to the United States, in 1867, by the
Russian government, human sacrifices at the foundation of a new house
were common in that portion of America. The ceremonies are thus
described by one familiar with them: “The rectangular space for the
building is ... cleared, a spot for the fireplace designated, and four
holes dug, wherein the corner posts are to be set.... A slave, either
man or woman who has been captured in war or is even a descendant of
such a slave, is blindfolded and compelled to lie down face uppermost,
in the place selected for the fireplace [the site of the domestic
altar]. A sapling is then cut, laid across the throat of the slave, and,
at a given signal, the two nearest relatives of the host sit upon the
respective ends of the sapling, thereby choking the unhappy wretch to
death. But the corner posts must receive their baptism; so four slaves
are blindfolded, and one is forced to stand in each post-hole, when, at
a given signal, a blow on the forehead is dealt with a peculiar club
ornamented with the host’s coat of arms.” It is said that even to the
present time, on the building of a house in Alaska, “the same ceremonies
are enacted, with the exception of the sacrifices, which are prevented
by the United States authorities.”[137]

In Hindoostan, Burmah, Tennasserin, Borneo, Japan, Galam, Yarriba,
Polynesia, and elsewhere, there are modern survivals of this
foundation-laying in blood.[138] It would seem, indeed, to have been
wellnigh universal as a primitive usage.

Popular ballads give other indications of such customs, in various
lands. “In a song, of which there are several versions, of the building
of the bridge of Arta, it is told how the bridge fell down as fast as it
was built, until at last the master-builder dreamed a dream that it
would only stand if his own wife were buried alive in the foundations.
He therefore sends for her, bidding her dress in festival attire, and
then finds an excuse to make her descend into the central pile,
whereupon they heap the earth over her, and thus the bridge stands
fast.”[139]

“In another song the same story is told of the Bridge of Tricha, with
the difference only that it is a little bird that whispers in the
architect’s ear how the pile may be made to stand. A similar
superstition connected with the building of the monastery Curtea de
Argest, in Wallachia, forms the subject of a fine poem by the Roumanian
poet Alexandri.”[140]

There is an indication of a like custom among the Vlachs in Turkey, as
shown in their folk-poetry. The ballad of the “Monastery of Argis” tells
of such an incident, in which the master-builder Manoli plays a
part.[141]

Various substitutes for human offerings at the laying of a
foundation-stone, or a threshold, have been adopted in different
countries. Thus, in modern Greece, “after the ground has been cleared
for the foundations of a new house, the future owner, his family, and
the workmen attend, together with the _pappas_ [the priest] in full
canonicals, accompanied by incense, holy water, and all due accessories.
A prayer is said, and those present are aspersed, and the site is
sprinkled with the consecrated water. Then a fowl or a lamb, which you
have noticed lying near with the feet tied together, is taken by one of
the workmen, killed and decapitated, the _pappas_ standing by all the
while, and even giving directions; the blood is then smeared on the
foundation-stone, in the fulfilment of the popular adage that ‘there
must be blood in the foundation.’”[142]

The modern Greek term for this ceremony, _stoicheionein_, would seem to
indicate a sacrifice to the deity of the threshold, or the foundation.

“The Bulgarians, it is said, when laying a house foundation, take a
thread, and measure the shadow of some casual passer-by. The measure is
then buried under the foundation-stone, and it is expected that the man
whose shadow has been thus treated will soon become but a shade
himself.... Sometimes a victim is put to death on the occasion; the
foundations being sprinkled with the blood of a fowl, or a lamb, or some
other species of scapegoat.”[143]

Among the Russian peasants the idea prevails that the building of a new
house “is apt to be followed by the death of the head of the family for
which the new dwelling is constructed, or that the member of the family
who is the first to enter it will soon die. In accordance with a custom
of great antiquity, the oldest member of a migrating household enters
the new house first; and in many places, as, for instance, in the
Government of Archangel, some animal is killed and buried on the spot on
which the first log or stone is laid.”[144]

The “upper corner” of a house, in Russia, is peculiarly sacred, having
even more honor than the doorway threshold in the ordinary home. Yet
this upper corner seems to be in a sense the real threshold, or
foundation corner, of the building. A cock is the ordinary victim
sacrificed “on the spot which a projected house is to cover.” The head
of this cock is buried “exactly where the ‘upper corner’ of the building
is to stand.” And this corner is thenceforward a sacred corner. Opposite
to it is the stove. It is called the “great” and the “beautiful” corner.
The family meal is eaten before it, and every one who enters the cottage
makes obeisance toward it. Formerly ancestral images are supposed to
have been in that corner, and now holy pictures are there.[145] It would
seem to be in accordance with this idea that the foundation-stone, or
threshold, of a new building, which in civilized lands is now laid with
imposing ceremonies, is known as the “corner-stone.” Yet the
“corner-stone” of a modern building is sometimes at the corner of the
central doorway.[146]

It is worthy of note that in ancient Egypt the one door of an ordinary
dwelling-house was placed at one side, or end, of the front wall, and
not in the center; so that the corner-stone of the building was
literally a portion of the threshold.[147] The same was true of many an
old-time New England house; the “front door” was at the left-hand side
(as one approached the house) of the gable end. Thus the threshold of
the door was often the corner-stone.

Ancient Romans were accustomed to place statues and images, instead of
living persons, under the foundations of their buildings, as has been
shown by recent researches in and about Rome.[148] In one instance,
where a fine statue of colossal size and in perfect preservation was
unearthed, at the foundations of a convent which was being enlarged, “by
order of the monks, it was buried again,” as if in deference to the
primitive belief that it was essential to the stability of the
structure.[149]

There is a Swedish tradition “that under the altar in the first
Christian churches a lamb was usually buried, which imparted security
and duration to the edifice.”[150] And, “according to Danish accounts, a
lamb was buried under every altar, and a living horse was laid in every
churchyard before a human corpse was laid in it. Both lamb and horse are
to be seen occasionally in the church- or grave-yard, and betoken death.
Under other houses pigs and hens were buried alive.”[151]

A new sacrificial stone, or altar of sacrifice, laid on the summit of a
Mexican temple, in 1512, was consecrated by Montezuma by the blood of
more than twelve thousand captives.[152]

When the new railroad was built between Jaffa and Jerusalem, a few years
ago, there were sacrifices of sheep at its beginning. And there were
similar sacrifices at the foundations of the Turkish building, at the
Columbian Exposition at Chicago.

In all these facts or legends, blood on the threshold of the building,
in the foundation-stones of the structure, is shown to have been deemed
an essential factor in a covenant with, or in propitiation of, the deity
of the place.

6. APPEALS AT THE ALTAR.

Because the threshold is recognized as an altar, nearness to the altar
is nearness to God, or to the gods worshiped at that altar. Hence
appeals are made and justice is sought at the gate, or at the threshold,
as in the presence of deity.

To present one’s self at the tent doorway, or to lay hold of the
supports, or cords, at the entrance of an Arab’s “house of hair,” is
recognized as an ever-effective appeal for hospitality in the East. Even
an enemy can thus secure the protection of the home sanctuary.[153]

In the excavation of Tell-el-Hesy, in Southwestern Palestine, supposed
to cover the remains of ancient Lachish,[154] Dr. Petrie discovered
various ornamented door-jambs. In one case a simple volute on a pilaster
slab suggested to Dr. Petrie “a ram’s horn nailed up against a wooden
post;” and “he sees in this the origin of the type of the ‘horns of the
altar,’[155] so often mentioned in temple architecture.”[156] If Dr.
Petrie be correct in this thought, the horns of the altar were first of
all at the house doorway, above the threshold altar.

One of the fundamental laws of the Afghans makes it incumbent on a host
to “shelter and protect any one who in extremity may flee to his
threshold, and seek an asylum under his roof.” Property or life must be
sacrificed in his behalf, if need be. “As soon as you have crossed the
threshold of an Afghan you are sacred to him, though you were his deadly
foe, and he will give up his own life to save yours.” A favorite poem of
the Afghan, entitled, “Adam Khan and Durkhani,” tells of a son who
killed his father because that father had betrayed a refugee who sought
the sanctuary of his threshold. And all Afghans honor the memory of that
son.[157]

Among the Arabs of the Syrian desert, when a man would leave his own
tribe and join himself to another, he takes a lamb or a goat with him,
and presents himself at the entrance of the tent of the shaykh of the
tribe he would find a home in. Slaying the animal there, and allowing
its blood to run out on the ground at the threshold of the tent, he
makes his appeal to the shaykh to accept him as a member of his tribe,
or as a son by adoption. And this appeal has peculiar force, as a voice
by blood.[158]

When a man among these tribes is in peril of his life, pursued by an
enemy, he can similarly make an appeal for sanctuary at the threshold
altar of a shaykh’s tent, with a like outpouring of the blood of an
animal brought by him; and protection must be granted him by the shaykh.
It is as though he had laid hold of the “horns of the altar.” So, again,
when a man would be reconciled with an enemy who has cause for bitter
hostility, he goes to the tent of that enemy and sacrifices an animal at
the threshold, with an appeal for forgiveness. This offering of a
threshold sacrifice secures his safety.

In other portions of Arabia this same idea finds a different but similar
expression. “With bare and shaven head the offender appears at the door
of the injured person, holding a knife in each hand, and, reciting a
formula provided for the purpose, strikes his head several times with
the sharp blades. Then drawing his hands over his bloody scalp, he wipes
them on the door-post. The other must then come out and cover the
suppliant’s head with a shawl [covering the offense, in covering the
offender], after which he kills a sheep, and they sit down together at a
feast of reconciliation.”[159]

A record on a Babylonian clay tablet, of the twenty-eighth year of
Nebuchadrezzar, affirms that “on the second day of the month of Ab” a
certain “Imbiʿa shall bring his witness to the gate of the house of the
chief Bel-iddin, and let him testify” as to a certain matter.[160] The
gate of the chief man, or local magistrate, would here seem to have been
the recognized court of justice.

In the palace ruins at Persepolis and Susa, the great doorways show, in
their architecture, the influence of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt. And
in the relief sculpture of those doorways there is seen a representation
of “the king sitting on his throne rendering justice at his palace
gate.”[161]

At one of the gates of modern Cairo, the writer has seen a venerable
Arab sitting in judgment on a case submitted to him by the contestants.
And such a scene may be often witnessed at the gates of an Oriental
city.

In accordance with this primitive idea, it became a custom in India for
one who would obtain justice from another to seat himself at the door of
a house, or a tent, and refuse to move from that position until he
starved to death, unless his claim were heeded. If the suitor died at
the door, or the household altar, the sin of his death rested upon the
householder. The suitor’s blood cried out against the evil-doer.

Even to the present time appeals at the household altar are made in
blood, in portions of India. A case recently before the British court in
Kathiawar involved an illustration of such an appeal. One of the
Charaus, a caste of heralds, had become responsible with his life,
according to custom, for the repayment of a loan made to a land owner.
The land owner delayed payment, and seemed disposed to avoid it. “The
herald and his brother, with their old mother for a sacrifice, went to
the door of the debtor’s house and demanded payment, as their family
honor was at stake. When the land owner would not pay, the herald struck
off the head of his mother with his sword before the door, the brother
at the same time wounded (intending to kill) the debtor, and the two
brothers sprinkled the mingled blood of the sacrifice on the
householder’s door-posts. The land owner, smitten by public infamy and
the guilt of the matricide, starved himself to death.”[162] References
to this responsibility of the heralds are found in the Mahabharata.[163]

Even where the primitive custom of sacrificing at the doorway has died
out, there sometimes seems to be a survival of it in popular
phraseology. Talcott Williams, of Philadelphia, relates an incident of
his experiences in Morocco, which illustrates this. He says: “As I was
riding through the Soko at Tangier on a morning in June, 1889, a servant
stopped me, and said: ‘Four men, from near Azila (a town on the seacoast
of Morocco, about thirty miles away), are waiting for you at the gate of
the house of Mr. Perdicarus, and they have killed a sheep.’ ‘What have
they killed a sheep for?’ said I. ‘Oh!’ said the servant, ‘I don’t mean
that they have actually killed a sheep, but they are sitting at the
gate, asking for your help, and expect you to aid them in their trouble,
because they have heard that you have influence with the American
consul, and are a man of importance in your own country, and we call
that “killing a sheep.”’ I think he added ‘at the gate,’ but my memory
is not perfectly clear at this point. I rode on to the house of my
friend, where I was stopping, and found there the kinsman of a sheikh,
who had been imprisoned by the American consul. They seized my horse’s
bridle, and, with the usual Oriental signs of respect, refused to let me
dismount until I had heard them and their plea for help.

“I was told by my own servant and the other Orientals there, that this
plea ‘at the gate,’ accompanied as it was by the readiness to ‘kill a
sheep,’ was one which no man in Morocco would dream of disregarding. I
made some inquiry on the subject afterwards, and found that the habit of
sitting at the gate waiting for a man of supposed influence or
authority, while absent, to return to his house, often actually
accompanied, though less frequently at present, by the slaughter of a
sheep, whose blood is poured across the road over which he must pass,
was a form used only in cases of dire necessity, and one to which a man
with whom other pleas would avail nothing, felt compelled to give
attention. I am glad to add that in my own case this ancient rite was
not without its fruits to those who had used it.”[164]

See the Bible references to this idea. Moses stood “in the gate of the
camp,” at a crisis hour in Israel’s history, when he would execute
judgment in the Lord’s cause.[165] All Israel was aroused to do judgment
against the sinning Benjamites because of the appeal of the dying woman
who fell at the door of the house, “with her hands upon the
threshold.”[166] Boaz “went up to the gate,” to meet the elders there,
when he would covenant to do justice by Ruth and the kinsman of
Naomi.[167] Absalom sat in “the way of the gate” when he would show
favor to those who came there with their appeals for justice.[168] And
when Absalom was dead, David as king was again sitting in the gate.[169]
Zedekiah, the king of Judah, was sitting in the gate of Benjamin when
Ebed-melech appealed to him in behalf of Jeremiah.[170] Daniel’s post of
honor in Babylon was “in the gate of the king,” as a judge in the king’s
name.[171]

Wisdom, personified, says of him who would seek help where it is to be
obtained:

“Blessed is the man that heareth me,
Watching daily at my gates,
Waiting at the posts of my doors.”[172]

The Lord’s call to Israel, through the prophets, was: “Establish
judgment in the gate,”[173] and “Execute the judgment of truth and peace
in your gates.”[174] A reference to a just and righteous man is to “him
that reproveth in the gate.”[175]

Lazarus in his need is laid daily at the gate of the rich Dives, seeking
help.[176] So, again, the poor man who was a cripple from his birth was
“laid daily at the door of the temple ... called Beautiful, to ask alms
of them that entered into the temple.”[177]

It is written in the Mosaic law, that, when a bondman would bind himself
and his family in permanent servitude to his loved master, “his master
shall bring him unto God [or to the place of judgment and of covenant],
and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master
shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall [thenceforward]
serve him forever;”[178] or, as it is elsewhere said, the master shall
thrust the awl “through his ear, unto [or into] the door.”[179] Here,
apparently, the master and servant appeal together at the household
altar, in witness of their sacred covenant.

The high court of Turkey is still called the “Sublime Porte,” the
“Exalted Gateway;” and the subjects of the Sultan seek imperial favor at
his palace door. He, or his representative, administers justice there,
to those who are waiting at his gate.

A promise to Abraham was: “Thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies.”[180] And again Jesus says of his Church, that “the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it.”[181] In both these cases “gates”
are obviously equivalent to the power of those who are within the gates.
Thus, also, when the overthrow of a city is foretold in prophecy, it is
said, that “the gate is smitten with destruction.”[182]

7. COVENANT TOKENS ON THE DOORWAY.

Because the threshold of the doorway is the primitive altar of the
household, the doorway itself is, as it were, a framework above the
altar; and the side-posts and lintel of the doorway fittingly bear
tokens or inscriptions in testimony to the sacredness of the passage
into the home sanctuary. It would seem that originally the blood poured
out in sacrifice on the threshold was made use of for marking the
door-posts and lintel with proofs of the covenant entered into between
the in-comer and the host; and that afterwards other symbols of life,
and appropriate inscriptions, were substituted for the blood itself.

There are survivals in the East, at the present time, of the original
method of blood-marking the frame of the doorway; and there are traces
of its practice in ancient times in both the East and the West.
President Washburn, of Robert College, Constantinople, says:[183] “I
remember, after the great fire in Stamboul, in 1865, going over the
ruins, and coming to a house that the fire had spared; a sheep had been
sacrificed on the threshold, and a hand dipped in the blood and struck
upon the two door-posts.”

This appears, also, in the installing of a Chief Rabbi in modern
Jerusalem. In the welcome to the Hakham Bâshi, or the “First in
Zion,”[184] “the multitude of those gathered together accompany him to
his house, but before he sets the sole of his foot upon the threshold of
the outer gate [or court] one of the shokheteem [or official
slaughterers] slays a perfect beast, and pronounces the sacrificial
blessing, and all those present answer, Amen. Then the rabbi, the Hakham
Bâshi, steps over the beast which has been slain, and the shokhet dips
the two palms of his hands into the blood, and marks first the vessels
of the rabbi’s house. And, with his hands stained with blood, he forms
the semblance of a hand above the lintel of the door;–in their trust
that this thing is good [the proper thing] for the evil eye;–and the
flesh of the beast they distribute to the poor.”[185]

A custom in this same line is noted among the Jews in Morocco, in
connection with wedding observances. “Whilst the bullock, or other
animal, is being slaughtered for the evening’s festivities, a number of
boys dip their hands in the blood, and make an impression of an
outspread hand on the door-posts and walls of the bride’s house;”
supposedly “for the purpose of keeping off the ‘evil eye,’ and thus
ensuring good luck to the newly married couple.”[186]

There are indications of such a custom in ancient times. Layard says of
his researches in Assyria: “On all the slabs forming entrances in the
oldest palaces of Nimroud, were marks of a black fluid resembling blood,
which appeared to be daubed on the stone. I have not been able to
ascertain the nature of this fluid; but its appearance cannot fail to
call to mind the Jewish ceremony of placing the blood of the sacrifice
on the lintel of the doorway.”[187]

In ancient Egypt there were inscriptions, together with the name of the
owner, on the side-posts and lintels of the dwellings. “Besides the
owner’s name,” says Wilkinson,[188] “they sometimes wrote a lucky
sentence over the entrance of the house, for a favorable omen, as ‘The
Good Abode,’ the _múnzel mobárak_ of the modern Arabs, or something
similar; and the lintels and imposts of the doors in the royal mansions
were frequently covered with hieroglyphics, containing the ovals and
titles of the monarch. It was, perhaps, at the dedication of the house,
that these sentences were affixed; and we may infer, from the early
mention of this custom among the Jews, that it was derived from
Egypt.”[189]

When it is understood that the inscribing, on the doorways, of
dedications to protecting deities, was common among primitive peoples,
it would seem to be in accordance with that custom that the Hebrews were
commanded to dedicate their doorways to the one living God. It is said
of the words of the covenant of God with his people, as recorded in
Deuteronomy 6 : 4–9 and 11 : 13–21, “Thou shalt write them upon the door
posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.” To this day, among stricter
Jews, these covenant words inscribed on parchment, and enclosed in a
cylinder of glass, or a case of metal or of wood, are affixed to the
side-posts of every principal door in the house. This case and
inscription are called the “mezuza.” On the outside of the written
scroll, the divine name, _Shaddai_,–“the Almighty,”–is so inscribed that
it may be in sight through an opening in the case or cylinder. This name
stands for “the Guardian of the dwellings of Israel,” whose protection
is thus invoked above the primitive altar of the household on the
threshold of the entrance way.[190]

“Every pious Jew, as often as he passes the mezuza, touches the divine
name with the finger of his right hand, puts it to his mouth and kisses
it, saying in Hebrew, ‘The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy
coming in, from this time forth, and for evermore;’[191] and when
leaving on a business expedition he says, after touching it, ‘In thy
name, _kuzu bemuchsaz kuzu_ (=God), I go out and shall prosper.’”[192]
In some cases the covenant words are inscribed directly upon the
door-posts, instead of being written on parchment and enclosed in a
case.

On the lintels of the ancient synagogues in Palestine there were
sculptured symbolic figures, such as the paschal lamb, a pot of manna, a
vine, or a bunch of grapes, together with inscriptions; and the
door-posts were ornamented more or less richly.[193] Evidences of this
are still abundant.

Speaking of the writing over the door and all round the room at the
office of the consul in Sidon, Dr. Thomson says that Muhammadans “never
set up a gate, cover a fountain, build a bridge, or erect a house,
without writing on it choice sentences from the Koran, or from their
best poets. Christians also do the same.”[194] These writings are deemed
a protection against harm from evil spirits.

In Persia, both the Muhammadans and the Armenians inscribe passages from
their sacred books above their doorways, with ornamental adornings, in
“strange, fantastic patterns.”[195] The palace doorways in ancient
Persia were inscribed and ornamented in a high degree.[196]

At the present time, in China, coins are put under the door-sill at the
time of its laying, and charms are fastened above the door;[197] the
gods of the threshold are invoked at the doorway by shrines and
inscriptions, while sentences, as in ancient Egypt, are written on the
side-posts and lintel.[198] At the festival of the fifth month of the
Chinese year, “charms, consisting of yellow paper of various sizes, on
which are printed images of idols, or of animals, or Chinese characters,
are pasted upon the doors and door-posts of houses, in order to expel
evil spirits.” In times of pestilence, sentences written in human blood
are fastened on the door-posts for protection from disease.[199]

Describing a ceremony on a large Chinese junk when starting out on a
long voyage, an observer tells of the sacrifice of a fowl in honor of
the divinity called Loong-moo, or the Dragon’s Mother. A temporary altar
was erected at the bow of the vessel, as its beginning, or threshold,
and the blood of the sacrificed fowl was shed there. Pieces of silver
paper were “sprinkled with the blood [of the fowl], and then fastened to
the door-posts and lintels of the cabin.”[200] The cabin door is the
home door of the voyager.

Above the house door of almost every home, in large portions of Japan,
there is suspended the shimenawa, or a thin rope of rice straw, which is
one of the sacred symbols of ancient Shintoism. Above the doors of high
Shinto officials, this symbol is of great size and prominence. Its
presence is as a sign of a covenant with the gods.[201]

The Greeks certainly recognized the entrance of the house as the place
for an altar to the protecting deity. “Before each house stood, usually,
its own peculiar altar of Apollo Agyieus, or an obelisk rudely
representing the god himself;” and that over the house door, “for good
luck,” or as a talisman, “an inscription was often placed.”[202] And on
occasions, as when a bride entered her husband’s house, the doorway was
“ornamented with festive garlands.”[203] Theocritus refers to a Greek
custom of smearing the side-posts of the gateway with the juice of magic
herbs, as a method of appeal to the guardian deity to influence the
heart of the dweller within toward the suppliant at the door.[204]

Roman householders affixed to the lintels and side-posts of their doors
the spoils and trophies taken by them in battle. Branches, and wreaths
of bay and laurel, were hung by them in the doorway on a marriage
occasion; and lamps and torches were displayed at their doors at other
times of rejoicing; while cypresses were shown there at the time of a
death.[205]

Texts of Scripture, and other inscriptions, as a means of invoking a
blessing at the doorway, are frequently found at the present time above
the entrance of houses in South Germany.

In Central America and in South America the blood of sacrificial
offerings was smeared on the doorways of houses as well as of temples,
as a means of covenanting with the local deities. Illustrations of this
are found in the records and remains of Peru[206] and Guatemala.[207]

In both Europe and America, the practice of nailing horseshoes on the
side-posts of a doorway, for “good luck,” or as a means of guarding the
inmates of the house from evil, is very common. So lately as the
seventeenth century it was said: “Most houses of the West End of London
have the horseshoe on the threshold.”[208] Even at the threshold of
Christian churches, in recent years, the symbol of the horseshoe was to
be found as a means of protection.[209] The horseshoe is often to be
found on a ship’s mast. At the present time, horseshoes of various
sizes, for use as doorway guards against evil, are found on sale in
Philadelphia, and other centers of civilization.

8. SYMBOL OF THE RED HAND.

It would seem that, in primitive practice, the hand of the covenanter
dipped in the sacrificial blood on the threshold, and stamped on the
door-posts and lintel, was the sign-manual of the covenant between the
contracting party or parties, and God, or the gods, invoked in the
sacrifice. Illustrations of this custom, as still surviving in the East,
have been given, from Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Morocco.[210]
Naturally, therefore, the sign-manual by itself came to stand for, or to
symbolize, the covenant of the threshold altar; and the stamp of the red
hand became a token of trust in God or the gods covenanted with in
sacrifice, and of power or might resulting from this covenant relation.
Wherever the red hand was shown, or found, it was a symbol of covenant
favor with Deity, and it came to be known, accordingly, as the “hand of
might.”

In the region of ancient Babylonia, also, the red-hand stamp is still to
be seen on houses and on animals, apparently as the symbol of their
covenant consecration by their owner. Dr. Hilprecht says: “Over all the
doors of the rooms in the large khan of Hillah, on the Euphrates, partly
built upon the ruins of ancient Babylon, I noticed the red impression of
an outspread hand, when I was there in January, 1889. Several white
horses in our caravan from Bagdâd to Nippur had the stamp of a red hand
on their haunches.”

This symbol is much used in Jerusalem. Referring to its frequency, Major
Conder says: “The ‘hand of might’ is another Jewish belief which may be
supposed to have an Aryan origin. This hand is drawn on the lintel or
above the arch of the door. Sometimes it is carved in relief, and before
one house in the Jews’ quarter, in Jerusalem, there is an elaborate
specimen, carefully sculptured and colored with vermilion. Small glass
charms, in the form of the hand, are also worn, and the symbol is
supposed to bring good luck. The Jewish and Arab masons paint the same
mark on houses in course of construction; and, next to the
seven-branched candlestick, it is probably the commonest house-mark in
Jerusalem.”[211]

A Jerusalem Jew thus tells of its use among a portion of his
co-religionists in that city: “Our brethren the Sephardeem [the Spanish
Jews], like all the remnant of the sons of the East, consider the
semblance of a hand as good against the power of the evil eye in a man.
And they draw this shape upon the doors of their houses with a red
finger. So, too, they place upon the heads of their children a hand
wrought in silver, saying that this hand–or this picture of the five
fingers–is noxious to the man who delights to bring the evil upon the
child, or upon those dwelling in the house. So, again, when men quarrel,
the one sets his five fingers before the other’s evil eye, saying that
this sign neutralizes the evil.”[212]

This sign of the hand is “found on the houses of Jews, Muslims, and
Christians, in various parts of Palestine.” It is generally painted on
or above the door, often in blue; but frequently, especially when a Jew
or a Muhammadan enters a new house, a lamb is sacrificed at the door,
and the stamp of the hand in the fresh blood is affixed to the post or
to the walls.[213] No one claims to know the origin of this symbol, but
all recognize its importance.

In its ruder form the figure of the hand is much like a five-branched
candlestick. Indeed, it has sometimes been mistaken for that symbol.
This was the case when such a figure was noticed, not long ago, by Dr.
Noetling, on Jewish houses in Safed, and reported to a European journal.
This symbol is sometimes called the “Hand of Moses.” A similar figure on
Muslim houses is said to represent the “Hand of the Prophet;” while in
Syria, among Christians, it is called the _Kef Miryam_, the “Virgin
Mary’s Hand.”[214] Obviously these terms suggest the idea of power
through divinely derived strength.

One of the sights in the Mosk of St. Sophia, in Constantinople, is the
stamp of a red hand. It is said that when Sultan Muhammad II. entered
this sanctuary as a conqueror, he dipped his right hand in the blood of
the slaughtered Christians, and stamped it on the wall, as if to seal
his victory, and to pledge his covenant devotion to his God.[215]
Whether this story be fact or legend, it is a witness to the idea of
such a custom in the minds of Oriental peoples.

An open hand is, or was, a common symbol on a banner, as also on a
prayer-rug, in both Turkey[216] and Persia. At the annual festival in
Persia in commemoration of the death of Hossein, son of Alee, two large
banners, each surmounted with an open hand, are borne in front of the
representation of the tomb of Hossein; and the same symbol appears in
various ways during the celebration.[217]

“In the East Indies, to this day, the figure of a hand is the emblem of
power and governmental sway. When the Nabob of Arcot was the viceroy of
five provinces, if he appeared in public there were carried before him
certain little banners, each with a hand painted on it, and a larger
banner with five hands.”[218]

Siva, the destroyer, in the Hindoo triad, is also the re-creator; since
death is only the entrance into a new life. One of Siva’s well-known
symbols is a hand, which is a token of might and life.

The uplifted open hand was prominent on or above the doors in ancient
Carthage.[219] And a traveler in Northern Africa, writing of the Jews in
Tunis, near the site of Carthage, says: “What struck me most in all the
houses was the impression of an open bleeding hand on every wall of each
floor. However white the walls, this repulsive sign was to be seen
everywhere. A Jewess never goes out here without taking with her a hand
carved in coral or ivory–she thinks it a talisman against the ‘evil
eye,’ or ‘_mal occhio_.’... When his children’s pictures or horses are
praised, the Tunisian Jew extends his five fingers, or pronounces the
number ‘five;’ he tries by this means to prevent the praise doing
damage.”[220]

This symbol of the open hand is frequently found above the graves in the
vicinity of Tunis. It is also seen in old Jewish cemeteries in Europe,
as, for instance, in Prague.[221]

An open hand, in stone, or metal, or enamel, or bone, used as a talisman
or an amulet, to guard the wearer against evil, was in common use in
ancient Egypt. Specimens of these can be seen in museums in Europe and
America to-day.

It is a noteworthy fact that the uplifted hand is prominent in the
representation of the deities of Babylonia, Assyria, Phenicia, and
Egypt, especially of the gods of life, or of fertility, who have
covenant relations with men. And the same is true of the representations
of sovereigns, in the ancient East, who are supposed to be in peculiar
covenant relations with the gods.

Thus, on the seal of Ur-Gur, the earliest ruler of “Ur of the
Chaldees,”[222] the ruler and his attendants appear with uplifted hands
before the moon-god Sin, who in turn is represented with his hand
uplifted, as if he were making covenant with them.[223] It is the same
with the sun-god Shamash and his worshipers.[224]

When a king of ancient Babylon was recognized as having a right to the
throne, he must lift up his hand and clasp the hand of the image of
Bel-Merodach, in order to show that he had “become the adopted son of
the true ruler of the city.” This giving and taking of the hand was a
symbol of covenanting in Babylonia. In this way a child was adopted into
a family, and a husband and a wife covenanted to become one.[225]

The god Asshur, and his worshipers, kings or princes, are similarly
represented in Assyria with the hand uplifted. And it is the same there
with other deities and their worshipers.[226] In Phenicia, and its
colonies, the same idea has prominence.[227]

Deities of ancient Egypt are frequently represented with the uplifted
hand, and their accepted worshipers appear before them with the right
hand uplifted.[228] As showing that this is not the attitude of
supplication or of adoration, like the bowed form, the crossed arms, or
the upturned palms, it is to be noted that in the representation of
Amenophis IV., or Khuen-aten, with his family, before the aten-ra or the
solar disk, the worshipers stand with their right hands uplifted, while
the sun-god reaches down a series of open hands, as if in covenant
proffer to the uplifted hands below.[229]

In the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, there is a stone known as “a
druidical altar,” which the common people say was thrown there by the
giant Fin-mac-Coole, “the print of whose five fingers, they say, is to
be seen on it.” The hand-print is pointed to confidently as the proof of
authenticity, as if it were the veritable signature of the giant.[230]

Among the ruins in Central America, there were found at the doorways and
on the walls of many of the ruined buildings of Yucatan the stamp of a
red hand on the plaster or on the stone. “They were the prints of a red
hand, with the thumb and fingers extended, not drawn or painted, but
stamped by the living hand, the pressure of the palm upon the stone. He
who made it had stood before it alive, ... and pressed his hand,
moistened with red paint, hard against the stone. The seams and creases
of the palm were clear and distinct in the impression.” As showing the
idea prevalent among the natives of that region with reference to the
source and meaning of these signs-manual, the Indians of Yucatan said
that the stamp was of “the hand of the owner of the building,” as if he
had affixed it to his dwelling in token of his covenant with its
guardian deity; and, again, it was thought that “these impressions were
placed there in a formal act of consecration to the gods.”[231]

There is a clear recognition of this idea in many Bible references to
the lifting up of the hands unto God, as if in covenant relations with
him. Thus, Abraham says to the king of Sodom, “I have lift up my hand
unto the Lord;”[232] as if he would say, I have pledged myself to him. I
have given him my hand. And the Psalmist says: “I will lift up my hands
in thy name.”[233] God himself says, by his prophet: “I will lift up
mine hand to the nations;”[234] that is, I will covenant with them.[235]
And so in many another case. Indeed, the Assyrian word for swearing
(_nish_) is literally “lifting up the hand;”[236] and the Hebrew word
_nasa_ means to lift up the hand or to swear.[237] The uplifted hand in
a judicial oath seems to be a survival of the same thought, that an
appeal is thus made to God, as one’s covenant God.

Again, there may be a reference to the “hand of might” in a covenant
relation, in those passages where God is spoken of as bringing his
people out of Egypt by “a strong hand,” or “a mighty hand,” and as
dealing with them afterwards in the same way.[238]

An uplifted hand is a symbol found also on the stepped pyramid temples
of Polynesia.[239]

This sign of the red hand is still a familiar one among the aborigines
of America. It is stamped on robes and skins, and on Indian tents.[240]
Schoolcraft says of it: “The figure of the human hand is used by the
North American Indians to denote supplication to the Deity or Great
Spirit, and it stands in the system of picture-writing as the symbol for
strength, power, or mastery, thus derived [through a covenant relation].
In a great number of instances which I have met with of its being
employed, both in the ceremonial of their dances and in their pictorial
records, I do not recollect a single one in which this sacred character
is not assigned to it.”[241]

A frequent use of the hand-print among the American Indians is as “a
symbol applied to the naked body after its preparation and decoration
for sacred and festive dances.” These preparations are “generally made
in the arcanum of the medicine, or secret lodge, or some private place,
and with all the skill of the priest’s, the medicine-man’s, or the
juggler’s art. The mode of applying it in these cases is by smearing the
hand of the operator with white or colored clay, and impressing it on
the breast, the shoulder, or other part of the body. The idea is thus
conveyed that a secret influence, a charm, a mystic power, is given to
the dancer, arising from his sanctity, or his proficiency in the occult
arts.” Schoolcraft, speaking of this custom, says: “The use of the hand
is not confined to a single tribe or people. I have noticed it alike
among the Dacotah, the Winnebagoes, and other Western tribes, as among
the numerous branches of the red race still located east of the
Mississippi River, above the latitude of 42°, who speak dialects of the
Algonquin language.”[242]

Is there possibly any connection with this idea in the custom of “the
laying on of hands,” as a symbol of imparting virtue or power to one
newly in covenant relations with those who are God’s representatives, so
frequently referred to in the Bible?[243] This would seem to be
indicated by the power imparted to an Egyptian king by the touch of the
uplifted hand of the deity, as shown in the representations on the
monuments of Egypt. It was known as “the imposition of the Sa,” or
increased vitality.[244]

A remarkable illustration of the use of the red-hand print among
American Indians is given in the story of a famous Omaha chief, who,
when dying, enjoined it upon his followers to carry his body to a
prominent look-out bluff above the Missouri River, and bury him there,
full armed, on the back of his favorite war-horse, who was to be buried
alive, that he might watch from that place the passing of the whites up
and down the river. It would seem as if he wanted to be known as dying
in the faith of his covenant relations with the Great Spirit, for
himself and for his people.

Because of this request, in the presence of his assembled tribe “he was
placed astride his horse’s back, with his bow in his hand, and his
shield and quiver slung; with his pipe and his medicine bag; with his
supply of dried meat, and his tobacco pouch replenished; ... with his
flint and steel, and his tinder, to light his pipe by the way. The
scalps that he had taken ... were hung to the bridle of his horse. He
was in full dress and equipped; and on his head waved ... his beautiful
head-dress of the war-eagle’s plumes.” As he stood thus on the threshold
of the life beyond, when the last funeral honors were performed by the
medicine-men, “every warrior of his band painted the palm and fingers of
his right hand with vermilion, which was stamped and perfectly impressed
on the milk-white sides of his devoted horse,”–as if in covenant pledge
of fidelity to their chief in the sight of the Great Spirit.[245]

There is another phase of the red-hand symbolism among the American
Indians, which has been noted by Frank H. Cushing, who is so experienced
and careful an observer of their customs and ceremonies. This phase
connects the symbol directly with the idea of life and its transmission.
Mr. Cushing says:[246]

“By reference to the paintings (and writings, to some extent) of such
men as Catlin and Stanley, and to the works of Schoolcraft, Matthews,
Bourke, and others, you will find that the red-hand symbol was painted
on the lodges, sometimes on the clothing and person, and sometimes on
the shields of various of the hunter tribes of the plains,–as, for
example, of the Ioways, Sauks and Foxes, Sioux, Arickarees, Cheyennes,
Arapahos, and Comanches. Precisely what the significance of the symbol
was, with these peoples and others like them, I am not able to say, save
that in some cases it was connected with war, in others with treaties,
and in yet others as expressive of power. There were yet other meanings
attached to the sign; but neither the former significances nor these
latter were, I take it, as definite or fixed [with the hunter tribes] as
with the more advanced and settled tribes of the farther south.

“Of these tribes, the typical Pueblos and the peoples more or less
directly influenced by them–such as the Jicarillas on the north and
east, and the Apaches to the south and west[247]–made frequent use of
not only the red-hand symbol, but also of the black-hand symbol. I have
seen both, not only in the modern but also in the very ancient
pueblos–as those of the Pecos, and those of the great cliff-dweller
towns in the Chelly and other canyons. In the Pecos ruins, to give a
special example, I copied beautiful hand-paintings and prints from the
rafters, as well as from the walls of ordinary dwelling-rooms. Sometimes
these paintings were in red, but more often in black. They invariably
represented the hands of women, as could be seen by their delicacy and
smallness of outline and by their shapeliness. There was, I think, a
reason for this, which the following facts will explain.

“It was my good fortune to witness, early in the eighties, a ceremonial
celebrating the attainment to puberty, or womanhood, of a young girl of
the Jicarilla Apaches. The latter people are not to be confounded with
the Apaches proper. They are a mixed people, descended not only from the
Apaches, but also the Comanches, and in large part also from the Pueblos
of the north, the so-called Tañoans of whom the Pecos people were a
branch. It was clear from the character of the masks and other
paraphernalia used in the ceremonials I witnessed, that the latter were
almost, if not quite, wholly derived from the pueblo, rather than from
the wilder, ancestry of the Jicarillas who performed them.

“The ceremonial in question was performed by four medicine-men, or
priests, as one might call them, within and around a rectangular
enclosure of evergreen boughs set in the plain near to the village.
Inside of this enclosure, which was designed to screen from view the
more secret operations of the priest dancers in question, stood a little
conical skin lodge, the snow-white top of which appeared above the
screen of evergreen, and within which the young girl, over whom these
rites were being enacted, was ensconced, together with one or two old
women of the tribe. As I have said before, each of the priests, on
appearing (and this they did successively; that is, the first on the
first day, the second on the second day, and so on), wore a conical mask
or helmet, which entirely concealed, not only the face, but also the
head. This mask was painted black or red, and upon the face of it
appeared one of these hand symbols. Unfortunately, I did not see the
mask as worn by the first priest, but, as worn by the second priest on
the morning of the second day, it bore upon its face the symbol of the
red hand; and as worn upon the third day, this symbol recurred, but, if
I remember aright, was surrounded by an outline of another color, either
black or yellow, whilst the hand painted on the mask as worn on the
fourth day was black surrounded by white, that it might stand out more
conspicuously; and in turn, below it, were two or more dots alternating
with dotted circles.

“My means of communicating with these people were but limited, but on
learning that the ceremonials they were performing were designed to
celebrate the attainment to maturity, or womanhood, of a virgin, I had
little difficulty in understanding the significance of the succession of
these various hand symbols. I recognized in the ceremonial as a whole
the dramatic epitomization, to state it briefly, of the four ages of a
woman’s life. Thus the white hand (which I was told had been painted on
the mask of the first day) symbolized her infancy and girlhood, the
consummation of which was effected by the first day’s ceremonial
performed by the medicine-man of the white hand.

“The red hand was obviously significant of this girl’s attainment to
young womanhood, the color in this case symbolizing the blood of her
perfected life. I imagine that the black hand painted on the mask as
worn during the third day’s ceremonial was significant of not only the
betrothal of the girl, which was said to have taken place during that
day of the ceremonial, but also of her prospective maternity; the change
of color, in the hand, from red to black, being naturally a symbolic
representation of the change from red to black in blood that has been
exposed to the sunlight and dried, and has thus become black, and is no
longer virgin. Likewise the hand painted on the mask as worn during the
fourth day’s ceremonial, which was wholly black, doubtless represented
the fuller life of not only a matron but a grandmother. From this I
would infer that the signs of the red and black hands found in the
ruined pueblos like those of Pecos, and on the cliffs at the mouths of
caves, or in the houses of the cliff villages, symbolized respectively
virginity, and maternity or betrothal.

“What would seem to indicate the correctness of this conclusion is the
fact that, as I have mentioned before, there were below the signs of the
black hand of the last day’s ceremonial of the Jicarillas dots and
dotted circles. It is well known that these dots and dotted circles
represent, primarily, grains of corn, male and female; and, secondarily,
children, male and female. Their occurrence, then, below the painted
black hand or symbol of maternity, would indicate that in this case they
represented the children and perhaps grandchildren, male and female, of
the matron it was hoped this young girl might become.

“The hand symbol as occurring amongst the Zuñi, with whom, of course, I
am much more familiar, has not only some such significances as these,
but also many others,–the significance of a given symbol depending upon
the ceremonial with which it is associated, and particularly upon the
coloring which is given to it, the colors being as various as are the
well-known seven sacramental colors employed to symbolize the seven
regions of the world by the priesthood of these people.

“I will only add, that the hand symbol painted upon the walls of the
estufas, or Kiva temples, or upon the little sacred sand mounds, which
are made to symbolize mythic mountains of the six regions during the
ceremonials of initiation performed once every four years over the new
children of the pueblo, are designed to signify the various ritualistic
precepts which are taught to the children according as they are held to
pertain to one or another of these little sand mounds or so-called
mountains of generation.

“In the case above described I was told, although I did not myself see
it, that the symbol of the red hand was painted by the side of the
entrance to the little tent in which the girl sat through the
ceremonials, and that later the same symbol in black was added to the
other side of the entrance to this tent. In the case of the Pueblos the
position of the hand symbols depends, as, no doubt, you have already
inferred, upon the sort of ceremonial which is being performed in
connection with them.

“It would seem, however, that the placing of these symbols at the
_entrance_ of the cave villages would correspond to such usages as I
have above described as pertaining to the Jicarilla ceremonial, and that
the painting of them on the rafters of rooms in ancient pueblos had a
like connection; for it must be remembered that in the older pueblos
there were no doorways proper [hence no thresholds]. The rooms were
entered by means of ladders through scuttles in the roof.”[248]

A hand-print is a signature. A hand-print in blood is a pledge of life
in a sacred covenant. A hand-print in the blood of life is symbolic of a
covenant of life with a view to the transmission of life. When a woman
of Korea is married, she affixes her sign manual to the covenanting
contract by placing her hand on the paper and having “the outline drawn
round the fingers and wrist with a fine brush dipped in Chinese ink,” or
again she employs “the simpler process of smearing her hand with black
paint, and hitting the document with it.[249]

Formal documents have often been signed by a hand stamp, or a finger
stamp, in blood or in ink. The monks of the convent of St. Catharine at
Mt. Sinai, for instance, show a copy of the certificate of protection
given to them by the Prophet of Islam, the signature to which is an
impression of Muhammad’s open hand. A letter to Muhammad Issoof, from
the king of Mysore, in 1754, was sealed with the king’s seal, “and on
the back was stamped the print of a hand, a form equivalent, with the
Mysoreans, to an oath.”[250]

The very term “sign manual,” employed for a veritable signature, may
point to an origin in this custom. Indeed, may it not be that the large
red seal attached to important documents, at the present time, is a
survival of the signature and seal of the bloody hand?

9. DEITIES OF THE DOORWAY.

Originally the covenant sacrifice at the threshold was with the one God
of life. But as monotheism degenerated into polytheism, the idea came to
prevail of different deities in different portions of the door, or of
different deities in different districts of country or in different
offices of life.

Each gate of an Assyrian city was dedicated to a special god, and named
after it,–as the gate of Bel, the gate of Beltis, the gate of Anu, the
gate of Ishtar. At the entrance-way of every gate gigantic winged bulls
with human heads stood on guard, accompanied by winged genii.[251] And
the central doorway to the king’s palace was similarly guarded.[252] In
every house a special deity was appealed to at different portions of the
doorway; Nergal on the top of the wall and beneath the threshold; Ea and
Merodach in the passage to the right and left of the gate.[253]

The idea of an offering, or of a dedication, to the local divinity, at
the time the threshold is laid, is of wide acceptance. In India, “the
god Vāttu, or Vāttuma [a son of Vishnoo], is said to recline and live in
the threshold, changing his position every month.... On the day when the
door-frame and threshold of a new house or temple are fixed, the
_Vāttuma santhe_ [the tribute to Vāttuma] is offered.”[254]

In China, “Shintu and Yuhlui are named as two tutelar gods to whom the
guardianship of the house is entrusted; and either the names or
grotesque representations of these ‘gods of the threshold’ are at the
gate of the house, with shrines to them upon the left of the entrance
way.”[255]

It is said of these “Chinese gods of the threshold,” that “in full
stature, and presumably in primeval strength, they flank the doors of
monasteries and the entrances to the halls of justice. Much reduced in
size and perched high on shelves, they face each other in the vestibules
of the Chinese home; and in their most diminutive aspect they become
little images, occasionally two-headed, which are carried about the
person as charms, or hang from the eaves of Chinese houses.”[256]

Over the doors of almost all the houses of Japan are to be seen small
prints of the “gigantic _Ni-o_, the Booddhist Gog and Magog,” who are
supposed to guard the entrance way of the holy places.[257] Private
buildings as well as public need this spiritual protection.

The inscriptions at the doorways of the houses of ancient Egypt showed
that every building was “placed under the protection of a tutelary
deity.” This custom “is retained by the modern Egyptians in the
protecting genius said to preside over the different quarters of
Cairo.”[258]

Tertullian, a Christian Father who wrote before the close of the second
century, in warning believers against the seducements of idolatry,
emphasized the clustering of deities at the doors and gates in the
religions of Greece and Rome.[259] He says that “among the Greeks ... we
read of Apollo Thyræus (that is, of the door), and the Antelii (or,
Anthelii) demons, as presiders over entrances;” while among the Romans
there are other “gods of entrances; Cardea (Hinge-goddess), called after
hinges; and Forculus (Door-god) after doors; and Limentinus
(Threshold-god) after the threshold; and Janus (Gate-god) himself after
the gate.”

Although a Christian might not recognize these gods as gods, he is told
to beware lest he seem to give them honor by adorning his gates with
lamps or wreaths. “Indeed, a Christian will not even dishonor his own
gate with laurel crowns,” says Tertullian, “if so be he knows how many
gods the devil has attached to doors.” And his words of warning are:
“Since there are beings who are adored in entrances [doorways], it is to
them that both the lamps and laurels will pertain. To an idol you will
have done whatever you shall have done to an entrance [or doorway].” “If
you have renounced [heathen] temples, make not your own gate a [heathen]
temple.” Yet, in proof of the prevalence of this heathen custom among
Christians, Tertullian testifies: “‘Let your works shine,’ says He; but
now all our shops and gates shine! You will now-a-days find more doors
of heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians.”

In Guatemala, in Central America, “the god of houses” is called
Chahalka; and the blood of sacrifices to him is sprinkled on the door of
the houses as an assurance of his protection.[260]

It was much the same in the Old World as in the New. In ancient and in
modern times, and in widely different portions of the world, there are
indications that the threshold of the home was the primitive altar; and
that the side-posts and lintel of the doorway above the threshold bore
symbols or inscriptions in proof of the sacredness of the entrance to
the family home, and in token of an accomplished covenant with its
guardian God, or gods.

-----

Footnote 1:

See Trumbull’s _Blood Covenant_, passim.

Footnote 2:

See Trumbull’s _Blood Covenant_, pp. 191 f., 370; also Frazer’s
_Golden Bough_, I., 183–185.

Footnote 3:

These facts I have obtained at different times in personal
conversations with intelligent natives of Syria and of Egypt. It will
be seen, later, how they are verified in the record of similar customs
elsewhere.

Footnote 4:

See Hopkins’s _Religions of India_, p. 362 f.

Footnote 5:

_Ibid._, with references to Mahabharata, II., 21, 14, 53; X., 8, 10.

Footnote 6:

_Ibid._, with references to Laws of Manu, IV., 73, and to Gaut. 9 :
32.

Footnote 7:

John 10 : 1, 2, 9, 10.

Footnote 8:

See Lund’s _Every-day Life in Scandinavia in the Sixteenth Century_,
p. 16, with note 36; also, the _Njals Saga_.

Footnote 9:

See Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq._, s. vv. “Athletae” and
“Olympic Games;” also Gardner’s _New Chapters in Greek History_, p.
299.

Footnote 10:

See London _Folk-Lore Journal_, I., 92.

Footnote 11:

These facts were given me by a member of the vice-consul’s family, who
witnessed the ceremony. The preparations were made before the arrival
of General Grant; and they were not prominent in the sight of himself
or party. They were simply the customs of the country.

Footnote 12:

Prof. A.H. Sayce, in London _Folk-Lore_, I., 523.

Footnote 13:

Comp. with p. 5, _supra_.

Footnote 14:

Comp. with p. 71 f., _infra_.

Footnote 15:

Bruce’s _Travels_, Bk. II., p. 514.

Footnote 16:

Baker’s _Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia_, p. 137; comp. 126 f.

Footnote 17:

On the testimony of a Liberian colored clergyman.

Footnote 18:

See, for example, Sir Robert Ker Porter’s _Travels_, p. 36 f.

Footnote 19:

Palgrave’s _Personal Narrative of a Journey through Central and
Eastern Arabia_, I., 51.

Footnote 20:

Conder’s _Heth and Moab_, pp. 290, 293.

Footnote 21:

D’Herbelot’s _Bibliothèque Orientale_, s. v. “Bab,” p. 157.

Footnote 22:

Roberts’s _Oriental Illus. of Scrip._, p. 149.

Footnote 23:

Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 254.

Footnote 24:

Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 137.

Footnote 25:

On the testimony of a Finnish American.

Footnote 26:

Lund’s _Every-day Life in Scandinavia in the Sixteenth Century_, p. 12
f.

Footnote 27:

Jones and Kropf’s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 410, note.

Footnote 28:

_Ibid._, p. 410 f.

Footnote 29:

_Ibid._, p. 259.

Footnote 30:

_Fragmenta Philosophorum Græcorum_ (ed. Mullach), I., 510.

Footnote 31:

See “Marriage Customs of the Mordvins,” in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,
459, note; also, Bergeron’s “Voyage de Calpin,” cap. 10, cited in
Burder’s _Oriental Customs_ (2d ed.), p. 24.

Footnote 32:

Turner’s _Samoa_, p. 37.

Footnote 33:

See Maspero’s _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, pp. 195, 219.

Footnote 34:

Rawlinson’s _History of Herodotus_, II., 47, 48.

Footnote 35:

Mackay’s _Mackay of Uganda_, pp. 112 f., 177.

Footnote 36:

See “Sacred Laws of the Aryas,” II., 2, 4, in _Sacred Books of the
East_, II., 107.

Footnote 37:

“A _bali_ is an offering of any sort, such as a handful of rice, flung
to birds or spirits or waters, or to any supernatural beings. A
_mantra_ is a Vedic text, a verse muttered during a religious
ceremony; often used in incantations, or in legitimate services to a
god.”–PROF. DR. E.W. HOPKINS.

Footnote 38:

See “Sacred Laws of the Aryas,” V., 12, in _Sacred Books of the East_,
II., 200, 233.

Footnote 39:

See Sir Henry M. Elliot’s _Races of the Northwestern Provinces of
India_ (Beames’s ed.), I., 197.

Footnote 40:

See report of a meeting of the Bombay Anthropological Society, in
London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., p. 77.

Footnote 41:

Jones and Kropf’s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 410 f., note.

Footnote 42:

Leland’s _Etruscan Roman Remains in Popular Tradition_, p. 282.

Footnote 43:

_Ibid._, p. 321 f.

Footnote 44:

Jones and Kropf’s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 332 f.

Footnote 45:

Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 136 f.

Footnote 46:

See “Death Week in Russia,” in _The Spectator_ (London), for June 18,
1892.

Footnote 47:

Jones and Kropf’s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 332.

Footnote 48:

On the testimony of a native Roumanian.

Footnote 49:

See, for example, Turner’s _Samoa_, pp. 21, 56 f., 74 f., 216, 241;
also Strack’s _Der Blutaberglaube_ (4th ed.), p. 39.

Footnote 50:

Griffis’s _Mikado’s Empire_, pp. 467, 470; also, Isabella Bird’s
_Untrodden Tracks in Japan_, I., 392.

Footnote 51:

St. John’s _Life in the Far East_, I., 64, 157 f.

Footnote 52:

See London _Folk-Lore Journal_, II., 330 f.

Footnote 53:

Dr. Strean in Mason’s _Statistical Account, or Parochial Survey of
Ireland_, II., 75.

Footnote 54:

See J.G. Owens on “Folk-Lore from Buffalo Valley, Central
Pennsylvania,” in _Journal of American Folk-Lore_, IV., 126.

Footnote 55:

B. Biaz’s “Memoirs:” cited in Spencer’s _Descriptive Sociology_, II.,
23.

Footnote 56:

See pp. 51, 55, _infra_.

Footnote 57:

See Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 120.

Footnote 58:

See Du Bois’s _Description of the Character, Manners, and Customs of
the Peoples of India_, II., 27. Compare pp. 5–7, _supra_.

Footnote 59:

Nevius’s _China and the Chinese_, p. 60.

Footnote 60:

Landor’s _Corea or Cho-sen_, p. 118.

Footnote 61:

See Ralston’s _Russian Folk-Tales_, p. 28 f.

Footnote 62:

On the testimony of Professor Dr. A.L. Frothingham, Jr.

Footnote 63:

Julia McNair Wright’s _Among the Alaskans_, p. 313.

Footnote 64:

Comp. Plutarch’s _Roman Questions_, Q. 5.

Footnote 65:

Rev. 6 : 9–10.

Footnote 66:

On the testimony of an eye-witness.

Footnote 67:

Palmer’s _Desert of the Exodus_, I., 90.

Footnote 68:

Burckhardt’s _Bed. u. Wahaby_, p. 214, note.

Footnote 69:

Lane’s _Modern Egyptians_, II., 293.

Footnote 70:

Garnett’s _Women of Turkey and their Folk-Lore_ (“Christian Women”),
p. 239.

Footnote 71:

Rodd’s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 101.

Footnote 72:

Capt. King’s “Notes” in London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 121, 123.

Footnote 73:

Capt. King’s “Notes” in London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 121, 123.

Footnote 74:

Shooter’s Kafirs of Natal, pp. 71–78; and Andersson’s _Lake Ngami_, p.
220 f.

Footnote 75:

On the testimony of a native eye-witness. See, also, Conder’s _Heth
and Moab_, p. 285.

Footnote 76:

See article by P.J. Baldensperger, in _Quarterly Statement_ of
Palestine Exploration Fund for April, 1894, p. 136.

Footnote 77:

Heuzey’s _Le Monte Olympe et L’Acarnanie_, p. 278.

Footnote 78:

See citations from Donatus, on the “Hecyra” of Terence, I., 2, 60, and
Servius on Virgil’s “Aeneid,” IV., 459, in Heuzey’s _Le Monte Olympe
et Acarnanie_, p. 278; also, Marquardt’s _Privatleben der Römer_, p.
53.

Footnote 79:

Garnett’s _Women of Turkey_ (“Christian Women”), p. 82.

Footnote 80:

Rodd’s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 95 f.

Footnote 81:

Rodd’s _Customs and Love of Modern Greece_, p. 99 f.

Footnote 82:

_Ibid._, p. 102.

Footnote 83:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 46.

Footnote 84:

See Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 277 f.

Footnote 85:

See “Marriage Customs of the Mordvins,” in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,
422–427; also P. von Stenin, in _Globus_, LXV., 181–183.

Footnote 86:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 13.

Footnote 87:

On the testimony of Dr. H.V. Hilprecht.

Footnote 88:

Walter Gregor in London _Folk-Lore Journal_, I., 119 f.

Footnote 89:

St. John’s _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, I., 62.

Footnote 90:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, I., 663.

Footnote 91:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, I., 732–734.

Footnote 92:

“Grihya-Sutras,” or Rules of Vedic Domestic Ceremonies, in _Sacred
Books of the East_, XXX., 193.

Footnote 93:

_Ibid._

Footnote 94:

_Ibid._, p. 263.

Footnote 95:

_Fragmenta Philosophorum Græcorum_ (ed. Mullach), I., 510.

Footnote 96:

Gwilt’s _Architecture of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio_, p. 89.

Footnote 97:

See Hughes’s _Dictionary of Islam_, art. “Masjid;” also Lane’s _Modern
Egyptians_, I., 105; and Conder’s _Heth and Moab_, p. 293 f.

Footnote 98:

Rodd’s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 104.

Footnote 99:

Sibree, on “Malagasy Folk-Lore and Popular Superstition” in London
_Folk-Lore Record_, II., p. 37.

Footnote 100:

As told me by a native eye-witness.

Footnote 101:

Burckhardt’s _Arabic Proverbs_, p. 137 f.

Footnote 102:

Bruce’s “Travels,” VII., 67 (ed. 1804); cited in McLennan’s _Studies
in Ancient History_, p. 188.

Footnote 103:

On the testimony of a colored clergyman from Liberia.

Footnote 104:

See Maspero’s _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, p. 232.

Footnote 105:

Campbell’s “Personal Narrative;” cited in McLennan’s _Studies in
Ancient History_, p. 14.

Footnote 106:

Pinkerton’s “Collection,” VI., 183; cited in _Ibid._, p. 177.

Footnote 107:

Hayes’s “Open Polar Sea,” p. 432; cited in Lubbock’s _Origin of
Civilization_ (Am. ed.), p. 78.

Footnote 108:

Rous’s _Archæologia Attica_, Lib. IV., cap. 7.

Footnote 109:

See “Roman Questions,” Q. 29, in Goodwin’s _Plutarch’s Morals_, II.,
220 f.; also Godwyn’s _Rom. Hist. Anthol._, Lib. II., § 2; citation of
authorities in Becker’s _Gallus_, p. 161, and in Marquardt’s
_Privatleben der Römer_, I., 53 f.

Footnote 110:

Douglas’s _Society in China_, p. 201. See, also, Williams’s _Middle
Kingdom_, I., 790; Gray’s _China_, I., 205; and “Marriage Ceremonies
of the Manchus,” in London _Folk-Lore_, I., 487.

Footnote 111:

Adele M. Fielde’s _Corner of Cathay_, p. 39.

Footnote 112:

“Grihya-Sutras,” or Rules of Vedic Domestic Ceremonies, in _Sacred
Books of the East_, XXX., 193, 201.

Footnote 113:

Guhl and Koner’s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 192.

Footnote 114:

See “Roman Questions,” Q. 1, 2, in Goodwin’s _Plutarch’s Morals_, I.,
204; also authorities cited in Becker’s _Gallus_, p. 162 f., and
Marquardt’s _Privatleben der Römer_, I., 53 f.

Footnote 115:

See Coulange’s _Ancient City_, pp. 29–41, 55–58, with citations.

Footnote 116:

See “Marriage Customs of the Mordvins,” in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,
437. See, also, the reference to burning incense on the threshold in
Tuscany, at p. 17 f., _supra_.

Footnote 117:

See Kowalewsky’s “Marriage among the Early Slavs,” in London
_Folk-Lore_, I., 467.

Footnote 118:

From “Marriage Customs of the Mordvins,” in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,
423, 447.

Footnote 119:

From “Marriage Customs of the Mordvins,” in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,
434–443.

Footnote 120:

Napier’s _Folk-Lore in the West of Scotland_, p. 51; also Wood’s
_Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 59 f.

Footnote 121:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, I., 662, 703, 730–734.

Footnote 122:

On the testimony of the Rev. William Ewing, a missionary in Palestine.

Footnote 123:

A daughter of a native Copt described to me this ceremony, as she
witnessed it at the building of her father’s house in 1878. He was
formerly a Coptic priest, but was now a Protestant Christian.

Footnote 124:

See Tylor’s _Primitive Culture_, I., 104–108.

Footnote 125:

Strack’s _Der Blutaberglaube_, p. 68.

Footnote 126:

Josh. 6 : 26.

Footnote 127:

1 Kings 16 : 34.

Footnote 128:

See article “On Kirk-Grims” in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,
1887, p. 196.

Footnote 129:

On the testimony of a native Chinese clergyman.

Footnote 130:

See article “On Kirk-Grims” in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,
1887.

Footnote 131:

See article “On Kirk Grims” in _The Cornhill Magazine_, for February,
1887, p. 191.

Footnote 132:

Tylor’s _Primitive Culture_, I., 104 f.

Footnote 133:

Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 128.

Footnote 134:

See article “On Kirk-Grims” in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,
1887, p. 191.

Footnote 135:

See Gomme’s article on “Traditions Connected with Buildings,” in _The
Antiquary_, III., 11.

Footnote 136:

See Coote’s “A Building Superstition,” in London _Folk-Lore Journal_,
I., 22 f.

Footnote 137:

See W.G. Chase’s “Notes from Alaska,” in _Journal of American
Folk-Lore_, VI., 51.

Footnote 138:

See Tylor’s _Primitive Culture_, I., 104–108.

Footnote 139:

Rodd’s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 168 f.

Footnote 140:

_Ibid._

Footnote 141:

Garnett’s _Women of Turkey_ (“Christian Women”), p. 22.

Footnote 142:

Rodd’s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 148.

Footnote 143:

See Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 126.

Footnote 144:

_Ibid._, p. 127.

Footnote 145:

Ralston’s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 135 f.

Footnote 146:

This is the case with the Church House in Philadelphia,–the
“corner-stone” of which was laid while this page was writing.

Footnote 147:

See Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 175.

Footnote 148:

See Coote’s “A Building Superstition,” in London _Folk-Lore Journal_,
I., 22.

Footnote 149:

Lanciani’s _Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries_, p. 225
f.

Footnote 150:

See article “On Kirk-Grims” in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,
1887, p. 192.

Footnote 151:

_Ibid._, p. 195.

Footnote 152:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, V., 471.

Footnote 153:

See Trumbull’s _Studies in Oriental Social Life_, pp. 98, 112–131.

Footnote 154:

See Josh. 10 : 3–35; 12 : 11; 15 : 39; 2 Kings 14 : 19; 18 : 14–19,
etc.

Footnote 155:

See, for example, 1 Kings 2 : 28.

Footnote 156:

See Bliss’s _Mound of Many Cities_, p. 77 f.

Footnote 157:

See “Afghan Life in Afghan Songs,” in Darmesteter’s _Selected Essays_,
p. 117.

Footnote 158:

On the testimony of a native Syrian of wide experience in the region
referred to.

Footnote 159:

W. Robertson Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 319.

Footnote 160:

_Strassmaier Nabuchodonosor_, No. 183.

Footnote 161:

Dieulafoy’s “L’art antique de la Perse;” cited in Babelon’s _Manual of
Oriental Antiquities_, p. 152.

Footnote 162:

See _The Times_ (London) for July 12, 1894.

Footnote 163:

See Hopkins’s _Religions of India_, p. 361, note.

Footnote 164:

In a personal letter to the Author.

Footnote 165:

Exod. 32 : 26.

Footnote 166:

Judg. 19 : 25–30.

Footnote 167:

Ruth 4 : 1–10.

Footnote 168:

2 Sam. 15 : 2–4.

Footnote 169:

2 Sam. 19 : 8.

Footnote 170:

Jer. 38 : 7–9.

Footnote 171:

Dan. 2 : 49.

Footnote 172:

Prov. 8 : 34.

Footnote 173:

Amos 5 : 15.

Footnote 174:

Zech. 8 : 16.

Footnote 175:

Isa. 29 : 21.

Footnote 176:

Luke 16 : 19, 20.

Footnote 177:

Acts 3 : 3, 10.

Footnote 178:

Exod. 21 : 5, 6.

Footnote 179:

Deut. 14 : 17.

Footnote 180:

Gen. 22 : 17.

Footnote 181:

Matt. 16 : 18.

Footnote 182:

Isa. 24 : 12.

Footnote 183:

In a personal letter to the Author.

Footnote 184:

See Finn’s _Stirring Times_, I., 102 f.

Footnote 185:

A.M. Luncz, in _Jerushalayim_, p. 17.

Footnote 186:

_Home and Synagogue of the Modern Jew_, p. 30.

Footnote 187:

_Nineveh and its Remains_ (Am. ed.), II., 202.

Footnote 188:

_Ancient Egyptians_, I., 346, 361 f.

Footnote 189:

Comp. Deut. 6 : 9 and 20 : 5.

Footnote 190:

See art. “Mezuza,” by Ginsburg, in Kitto’s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._

Footnote 191:

Psa. 121 : 8.

Footnote 192:

See art. “Mezuza,” by Ginsburg, in Kitto’s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._

Footnote 193:

See, for example, _Memoirs of Survey of Western Palestine_, I.,
230–234, 257 f., 398–402, 407 f., 416 f.

Footnote 194:

_The Land and the Book_, I., 140 f.

Footnote 195:

See Sir Robert Ker Porter’s _Travels_, I., 440.

Footnote 196:

See, for example, Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Persia_, pp.
127, 129, 294, 357; also, Benjamin’s _Persia and the Persians_, pp.
17, 58, 61.

Footnote 197:

Doolittle’s _Social Life of the Chinese_, II., 75, 310 f.

Footnote 198:

Williams’s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 731.

Footnote 199:

Adele M. Fielde’s _Pagoda Shadows_, p. 88.

Footnote 200:

Gray’s _China_, II., 271. Comp. with p. 8.

Footnote 201:

Hearn’s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, II., 397; also, Isabella
Bird’s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, II., 287.

Footnote 202:

See Becker’s _Charicles_, p. 260, with citations; also, Guhl and
Koner’s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 80.

Footnote 203:

Becker’s _Charicles_, p. 487.

Footnote 204:

Theocritus, _Idyl_ II., 63.

Footnote 205:

See articles “Ara” and “Janua,” in Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Roman
Antiquities_, with reference to classical authorities.

Footnote 206:

See Réville’s _Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 183.

Footnote 207:

See Rowan in “Ximenes,” p. 183; cited in Spencer’s _Des. Soc._, II.,
22.

Footnote 208:

Aubrey’s “Miscellanies;” cited in _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1823, Pt.
II., p. 412.

Footnote 209:

See _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1867, Pt. I., pp. 307–322.

Footnote 210:

See p. 62 f., _supra_.

Footnote 211:

_Heth and Moab_, p. 275 f.

Footnote 212:

A.M. Luncz, in _Jerushalayim_, p. 19.

Footnote 213:

On the testimony of the Rev. W. Ewing, a missionary in Palestine.

Footnote 214:

In _Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palæstina Vereins_, VIII., 335 ff.

Footnote 215:

See De Amicis’s _Constantinople_, p. 185.

Footnote 216:

One of these old-time prayer-rugs with the open hand embroidered on
it, is in the possession of Dr. Hilprecht.

Footnote 217:

See Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, pp. 75–184.

Footnote 218:

Rosenmüller’s _Das Alte und Neue Morgenland_, II., 92 f.

Footnote 219:

See, for example, Perrot and Chipiez’s _History of Art in Phœnicia_,
I., 54, 263.

Footnote 220:

De Hesse-Wartegg’s _Tunis: The Land and the People_, p. 127.

Footnote 221:

On the testimony of Professor Dr. Morris Jastrow, Jr.

Footnote 222:

Gen. 11 : 31; 15 : 7.

Footnote 223:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chald. and Assy._, I., 38; see,
also, p. 84.

Footnote 224:

_Ibid._, I., 203.

Footnote 225:

Sayce’s _Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians_, p. 52 f.

Footnote 226:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art. in Chald. and Assy._, I., p. 196.
See, also, pp. 87, 143, 212; II., 99, 111, 169, 211, 215, 227, 231,
257, 261, 266, 267, 273, 275, 279. See, also, _Collection de Clercq_,
passim.

Footnote 227:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia_, I., 53, 54, 69, 320;
II., 61, 113, 161, 228, 247, 248, 255, 257.

Footnote 228:

Wilkinson’s _Anc. Egypt_, III., 3, 8, 24, 48, 53, 100, 192, 208, 218,
228, 232, 235, 240, 362, 370, 425.

Footnote 229:

_Ibid._, III., 53.

Footnote 230:

Mason’s _Statistical Account or Parochial Survey of Ireland_, II.,
322.

Footnote 231:

Stephens’s _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_, I., 177 f.

Footnote 232:

Gen. 14 : 22.

Footnote 233:

Psa. 63 : 4.

Footnote 234:

Isa. 49 : 22.

Footnote 235:

Comp. Exod. 6 : 8; Num. 14 : 30; Neh. 9 : 15.

Footnote 236:

See Tallquist’s _Die Sprache Contracte Nabû-Nâ’ido_, p. 108.

Footnote 237:

See Gesenius’s _Heb. Lex._, s. v. “Nasa.”

Footnote 238:

See, for example, Exod. 3 : 19; 13 : 3, 14, 16; 32 : 11; Deut. 3 : 24;
4 : 34; 5 : 15; 6 : 21; 7 : 8, 19; 9 : 26; 11 : 2, etc.; 2 Chron. 6 :
32; Ezek. 20 : 34; Dan. 9 : 15.

Footnote 239:

Ellis’s _Polynesian Researches_, II., 207, illustration.

Footnote 240:

Stephens’s _Incidents of Travels in Yucatan_, II., 46 f.

Footnote 241:

Stephens’s _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_, Appendix, II., 476–478.

Footnote 242:

_Ibid._, II., 477.

Footnote 243:

See Gen. 49 : 8–17; Num. 27 : 22 f.; Acts 4 : 4; 6 : 6; 8 : 18; 13 :
3; 19 : 6; Heb. 6 : 2; 1 Tim. 4 : 14.

Footnote 244:

See, for example, “a scene in the hypostyle hall at Lûxor,” in
Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 111.; also, illustration in
Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Anc. Egypt_, I., 45.

Footnote 245:

Catlin’s “Eight Years amongst the North American Indians,” II., pp.
5–7; cited in Donaldson’s _George Catlin Indian Gallery_, p. 263.

Footnote 246:

In a personal letter to the Author.

Footnote 247:

See Bourke’s _Medicine Men of the Apaches_, Ninth Annual Report of the
Bureau of Ethnology.

Footnote 248:

Variae nationes, inter quas Americæ aborigines sunt, sanguinem
menstrualem sacrissimum atque in eo boni malique vim esse putant, quia
non solum modo omnis sanguinis vita ipsa sit, sed vitae humanae
germina vel ova quibus species hominum transmittuntur in se contineat.
Quod quam verum sit quantamque vim ad foedieris liminis notionem
principalem intellegendam habeat infra videtur.

For illustrations of this truth see H. Ploss’s _Das Weib in der Natur.
und Völkerkunde_ (2d ed.), I., chap. 39; Strack’s _Der Blutaberglaube_
(4th ed.), pp. 14–18; Spivak’s _Menstruation_, pp. 6–12; and Frazer’s
_Golden Bough_, I., 170; II., 225–240. These illustrations are
gathered from Asia, Africa, Europe, America, and the Islands of the
Sea; and they include citations from Pliny, the Talmud, the Christian
Fathers, medieval writers, and down to writers of this century.

“Apud populum Novæ Zelandæ creditur sanguinem utero sub tempus
menstruale effusum continere germina hominis; et secundum præcepta
veteris superstitionis panniculus sanguine menstruali imbutus
habebatur sacer (_tapu_), haud aliter quam si formam humanam
accepisset. Mulierum autem mos est hos panniculos intra juncos
parietum abdere: et hâc de causâ paries est domûs pars adeo sacra ut
nemo illi innixus sedere audeat. Opinio animis N. Zelandorum
insita–nempe sanguinem menstruum germina humanæ speciei
continere–opinionibus hodiernis convenit: multi enim physiologiæ
scientissimi credunt rumpi vesiculam gräafianam, et ex illâ ova delabi
circa tempora menstrualia.”–Shortland’s _Traditions and Superstitions
of the New Zealanders_, p. 292.

Footnote 249:

Landor’s _Corea or Cho-sen_, p. 156.

Footnote 250:

Orme’s _Hist. of Milit. Trans. of British in Indostan_, V., 348.

Footnote 251:

Maspero’s _Life in Anc. Egypt and Assyria_, pp. 198–200.

Footnote 252:

_Ibid._, p. 204.

Footnote 253:

_Ibid._, p. 220.

Footnote 254:

Roberts’s _Oriental Illustrations of the Scriptures_, p. 148 f.

Footnote 255:

Williams’s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 731.

Footnote 256:

See McDowell’s “A New Light on the Chinese,” in _Harper’s Magazine_
for Dec., 1893, with illustration of “The Gods of the Threshold.”

Footnote 257:

Isabella Bird’s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 117, 273.

Footnote 258:

Wilkinson’s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, I., 362
f., and note.

Footnote 259:

See Tertullian “On Idolatry,” and “On the Soldier’s Chaplet,” in
_Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, XI., 164 f., 353.

Footnote 260:

Tr. Rowan, in “Ximenes,” p. 183; cited in Spencer’s _Descrip. Soc._,
II., 22.

-----

II.
EARLIEST TEMPLE ALTAR.

1. FROM HOUSE TO TEMPLE.

A temple is only a more prominent house. As a house was the dwelling of
the earlier priest of his household, who was in covenant for himself and
his family with the guardian deity of that household; so, afterwards, a
temple was a dwelling for the deity guarding an aggregation of families,
and for the priests who stood between him and the community.

This is no new or strange truth; it is obvious. “In the Vedas, Yama, as
the first man, is the first priest too; he brought worship here below as
well as life, and ‘first he stretched out the thread of
sacrifice.’”[261] The fire-altar of the home was first the center of
worship in the family in India;[262] as later the fire-altar was the
center of the worship of the community.

The same cuneiform characters in old Babylonian stand for great house,
for palace, and for temple;[263] as similarly, in ancient Egypt, the
same hieroglyph represented house or temple,–a simple quadrangular
enclosure, with its one doorway.[264]

The oldest form of an Egyptian temple known to us through the
inscriptions of the Ancient Empire indicates that the prehistoric houses
of worship in that land were mere hovels of wood and lattice-work, over
the doors of which was a barbaric ornamentation of bent pieces of
wood.[265] The private house became the public temple.

“The design of the Greek temple in its highest perfection was ... a
gradual development of the dwelling-house.”[266] Palace and temple were,
indeed, often identical in ancient Greece.[267]

Strictly speaking, there were no temples in ancient Persia, any more
than in early India. But the fire-altars that were first on the home
hearth, or threshold, were made more and more prominent on their
uplifted stepped bases, until they towered loftily in the sight of their
worshipers.[268]

It is the same Hebrew word, _ohel_, that stands for the “tent” of
Abraham, and for the “Tent” or Tabernacle of the congregation of
Israel.[269]

In China “temple architecture differs little from that of the
houses.”[270] The house of a god is as the house of a man, only grander
and more richly ornamented. And Japanese antiquaries say that the
architecture of Shinto temples is on the model of the primeval Japanese
hut. The temples of Ise, the most sacred of the Shinto sanctuaries, are
said to represent this primitive architecture in its purest form.[271]

The father of the family was the primitive priest in the Samoan Islands,
and his house was the first place of worship. Then “the great house of
the village,” or the place of popular assembling, was used as a temple;
and afterwards there were special temple structures with attendant
priests.[272]

The transition from house to temple seems to have been a gradual one in
the primitive world. The fire-altar of the family came to be the
fire-altar of the community of families. The house of a king became both
palace and temple, and so again the house of a priest; for the offices
of king and of priest were in early times claimed by the same
person.[273]

2. SACREDNESS OF THE DOOR.

In all stages of the transition from house to temple, the sacredness of
the threshold, of the door, of the entrance-way, of the gate, was
recognized in architecture and in ceremonial. Often the door, or the
gate, stood for the temple, and frequently the threshold was an altar,
or an altar was at the threshold.

There are, indeed, reasons for supposing that the very earliest form of
a primitive temple, or sanctuary, or place of worship, was a rude
doorway, as covering or as localizing the threshold altar. This would
seem to be indicated by prehistoric remains in different parts of the
world, as well as in the later development of the idea in the earlier
historic ages. The only exception to this was where, as in India or
Persia, the fire-altar on an uplifted threshold stood alone as a place
of worship.

Two upright stone posts, with or without an overlaying stone across
them, and with or without an altar stone between or before them, are
among the most ancient remains of primitive man’s handiwork; and a
similar design is to be recognized, all the way along in the course of
history, down to the elaborate doorway standing by itself as a memorial
of the revered dead,[274] or to the monumental triumphal arch as an
accompaniment of the highest civilization. And the very name of door, or
gate, attaches persistently to the loftiest temple and to the most
exalted personage. As the earliest altar was the threshold, the earliest
temple was a doorway above the altar at the threshold.

When the first dwellers on the plains of Chaldea, after the Deluge,
gathered themselves for the building of a common structure reaching
God-ward,[275] they, in their phraseology, called that structure Bab-el,
or Bâb-ilu, or Bâbi-ilu, the Door of God.[276] Ancient Egyptians called
the sovereign head of their national family “_Per-ao_” (Pharaoh), the
exalted House, or Gate, or Door;[277] as to-day the Sultan, who is
spiritual father of the faithful Muhammadans, and autocrat of his realm,
is widely known as the “Sublime Porte,” or the Exalted Door.[278] The
modern Babists, in Persia and beyond, look up to their spiritual head as
the “Bab,” or the “Door.”[279] “Throughout the East this word [‘Bab’]
signifies the court of a prince [as a ruler by divine right].... The
threshold of the gate is used in the same sense, and frequently it is
qualified by some epithet of nobility, loftiness, or goodness.”[280]

Jesus Christ did not hesitate to say of himself as the Way to God: “I am
the Door: by me if any man enter in he shall be saved.”[281]

In China, Japan, Korea, Siam, and India, a gate, or doorway, usually
stands before Confucian and Booddhist and Shinto temples, but apart from
the temple, and always recognized as of peculiar sacredness. These
doorways, in many places, are painted blood-color.[282] They stand “at
the entrance of temple grounds, in front of shrines and sacred trees,
and in every place associated with the native _kami_”–or gods.[283] Yet,
again, in all these countries, the temple gateway is a main feature, or
a prominent one, in the chief sanctuaries.[284]

Swinging doors, or gates, are represented, in the religious symbolism of
ancient Babylonia, as opening to permit the god Shamash, or the sun, to
start out on his daily circuit of the heavens.[285] A door, or a
doorway, appears as a shrine for a god in various cylinders from this
region; and the god is shown standing within it, just beyond the
threshold.[286] Indeed, the doorway shrine is a common form on the
Babylonian and the Assyrian monuments, as a standing-place for the gods,
and for the kings as representative of the gods.[287] Illustrations of
this are found on the Balawat gates,[288] and the sculptures on the
rocks at Nahr-el-Kelb[289]–which is itself a gateway of the nations,
between the mountains and the sea, on the route between Egypt and
Canaan, and both the East and the West.

In ancient Egypt the doorway shrine of the gods was prominent, as in
Babylonia.[290] Moreover, a false door was represented in the earlier
mastabahs, or tombs, of the Old Empire of Egypt. This representation of
a door was toward the west, in which direction Osiris, the god of the
under-world, was supposed to enter his realm as the sun went down. On or
around this false door were memorial inscriptions, and prayers for the
dead; and before it was a table, or altar, for offerings to the _ka_, or
soul, of the dead.[291] Gradually this false door came to be recognized
as the monumental slab, tablet, or stele, on which were inscribed the
memorials of the deceased. As a doorway or a niche, square-topped, or
arched, it was the shrine of the one worshiped; and as a panel, or
independent stele, it was the place of record of the object of
reverence.

“Even at the beginning of the Middle Empire the door form disappeared
completely, and the whole space of the stone was taken up with the
representation of the deceased sitting before a table of offerings,
receiving gifts from his relatives and servants. Soon afterwards it
became the custom to round off the stone at the top, and when, under the
New Empire, pictures of a purely religious character took the place of
the former representations, no one looking at the tomb stele could have
guessed that it originated from the false door.”[292]

A “false door” was, in ancient Egypt, a valued gift from a sovereign to
an honored subject. Doors of this kind were sometimes richly carved and
painted, and were deemed of priceless value by the recipient.[293]

In Phenicia,[294] Carthage,[295] Cyprus,[296] Sardinia,[297]
Sicily,[298] and in Abyssinia,[299] a like prominence was given to the
door as a door, in temple and in tomb, and as a niche for the figure of
a deity or for the representation of one who had crossed the threshold
of the new life. And the door-form is a sacred memorial of the dead in
primitive lands in various parts of the world, from the rudest trilithon
to the more finished structures of a high civilization.[300]

In primitive New Zealand the gateway, or doorway, of a village, a
cemetery, or a public building, is both a sacred image and a sacred
passage-way. It is in the form of a superhuman personage, and it has its
guardians on either hand.[301]

A doorway with an altar between its posts was a symbol of religious
worship in ancient Mexico, as in the far East.[302]

It would seem that the “mihrab,” or prayer niche, pointing toward
Meccah, in Muhammadan lands, and the Chinese honorary portals and
ancestral tablets,[303] as well as the niches for images of saints in
churches or at wayside shrines, or for heroes in public halls, in
Christian lands, are a survival of the primitive doorway in a tomb.

And wherever the door is prominent as a door, the threshold is
recognized and honored as the floor of the door, and as the primitive
altar above which the door is erected. To pass through the door is to
cross over the threshold of the door.

3. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ASIA.

In all the modern excavations in the region of Babylonia and Assyria,
including Tello, Nippur, Sippara, Borsippa, Khorsabad, and Nineveh, it
has been found that the threshold, or foundation-stone, of the temple
doorway is marked with inscriptions that show its peculiar sanctity;
while underneath it, or near it, are frequently buried images and
symbols and other treasures in evidence of its altar-like sacredness. On
this point evidence has been furnished by Botta,[304] Bonomi,[305]
Layard,[306] George Smith,[307] Lenormant,[308] and yet more fully by
Dr. Hilprecht, in his later and current researches.

Bonomi suggests that the word “teraphim,” as an image of a household
divinity, has its connection with the threshold or the boundary limit;
and that the phrase “thy going out, and thy coming in,” which is common
in Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hebrew[309] literature, has reference to
the threshold and its protecting deities.[310] The outgoing and the
incoming are clearly across the threshold and through the door.

The inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar II., concerning his building of the
walls of Babylon, comprise various references to the foundations, to the
thresholds, and to their guardians. He says: “On the thresholds of the
gates I set up mighty bulls of bronze, and mighty snakes standing
upright.”[311] Again of the gates of Imgur-Bêl and Nimitti-Bel, of these
walls of Babylon, he says: “Their foundations I laid at the surface
(down at) the water, with pitch and bricks. With blue enameled tiles
which were adorned with bulls and large snakes, I built their interior
cleverly. Strong cedars I laid over them as their covering (or roof).
Doors of cedarwood with a covering of copper, a threshold (_askuppu_)
and hinges of bronze, I set up in their gates. Strong bulls of bronze,
and powerful snakes standing upright, I set upon (or at) their threshold
(_sippu_). Those gates I filled with splendor for the astonishment of
all mankind.”[312]

In a similar manner Nebuchadrezzar describes his work at the gates of
“the royal castle of all mankind,” at Babylon,[313] and of his
palace.[314] In connection with the shrine or chapel of Nebo (Ezida),
within the walls of the temple of Merodach, in Babylon, he says: “Its
threshold (_sippu_), its lock and its key, I plated with gold, and made
the temple shine daylike.”[315] When he built Ezida (the “eternal
house”), the temple of Borsippa, Nebuchadrezzar says: “The bulls and the
doors of the gate of the sanctuary, the threshold (_sippu_), the lock,
the hinge, I plated with _zarîru_”[316] (an unknown metal, a kind of
bronze).

References to the foundations, to the thresholds, to the gates and
doorways, and to bulls and upright serpents, as the guardians of the
threshold of the temples and palaces of Babylonia and Assyria, are
numerous on unearthed cylinders and tablets, and always in such a way as
to indicate their peculiar sacredness. In the recent unearthing, at
Nippur, of a small building or shrine, between two great temples, an
altar was found in the eastern doorway.

It is to be borne in mind that many early temples in Babylonia, as in
Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Mexico, Central America, and Peru, and in the
South Sea Islands, were in the form of a stepped pyramid, or a staged
tower, with either inclined planes or stairways from each lower stage to
the next higher, and with an altar, or a sanctuary or shrine, at the
summit.[317] Herodotus, describing one of these temples in Babylon, says
that the altars, larger and smaller, were outside the temple.[318]

Light is thrown on the dream of Jacob at Bethel by the shape of the
ancient temple in the East. In his vision it was probably not a ladder,
but a conventional stepped-temple structure, with its stairways rising
heavenward, and its sanctuary, that Jacob saw.[319] The angel ministers
were passing up and down the steps, in the service of the Most High God,
who himself appeared above the structure. When Jacob waked he said:
“Surely the Lord is in this place [or sanctuary]; and I knew it not....
How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and
this is the gate of heaven;” and he took the stone which had been his
pillow at the threshold of that sanctuary, and set it up for an altar
pillar.[320]

In the literature and legends of Babylonia, as of other portions of the
ancient world, there is prominent the idea that an entrance into the
life beyond this, as in the entrance into this life, the crossing of a
threshold from the one world to the other, from the earlier state and
the passing of a door, or gate, marks the change to the later, from the
sacred to the more sacred. This is peculiarly illustrated in the famous
legend of Ishtar’s descent into the under-world in order to bring back
to earth her lover Dumuzi.

The Hades of the Babylonians was surrounded by seven high walls, and was
approached through seven gates, each of which was guarded by a pitiless
warder. Two deities ruled within it–Nergal, “the lord of the great
city,” and Beltis-Allat, “the lady of the great land,”–whither
everything which had breathed in this world descended after death. Allat
was the actual sovereign of the country; and even the gods themselves
could enter her realm only on the condition of submitting to death, like
mortals, and of humbly avowing themselves her slaves.[321] “The
_threshold_ of Allat’s palace stood upon a spring, which had the
property of restoring to life all who bathed in it or drank of its
waters.” Yet it was needful that another life should be given for one
who would be reborn into this life, after crossing the threshold of the
regions beyond.[322]

In the descent of the goddess Ishtar into Allat’s realm, in pursuit of
her lover Dumuzi, Ishtar was gradually stripped of her garments and
adornings at the successive gates, until she appeared naked, as at
birth, at the final threshold of the new state.[323] But she was held
captive by Allat until Ea, chief among the gods, exerted himself in her
behalf, and sent his messenger to secure for both Ishtar and Dumuzi the
waters of life which were underneath the threshold of Allat’s
realm,–which must be broken in order to their outflowing.[324]

There would seem to be a reference to this primitive idea of the waters
of life flowing from under the threshold of the temple, in the vision of
the prophet Ezekiel, writing in Babylonia, concerning restored Jerusalem
and its holy temple. “Behold, waters issued out from under the threshold
of the house eastward, for the forefront of the house was toward the
east: and the waters came down from under, from the right side of the
house, on the south of the altar.” (Evidently the altar in this temple
was near the threshold.) These flowing waters from under the threshold
were life-giving. “Upon the bank of the river,” as it swelled in its
progress, “were very many trees on the one side and on the other;” and
it was said of this stream: “It shall come to pass, that every living
creature which swarmeth, in every place whither the rivers come, shall
live; and there shall be a very great multitude of fish: for these
waters are come thither, ... and every thing shall live whithersoever
the river cometh.”[325] In a curse pronounced against Assyria by the
prophet Zephaniah, it was declared that “drought shall be in the
thresholds,”[326] instead of life-giving waters.

So, again, the waters of the life-giving Jordan flow out from the
threshold of the grotto of Pan, a god of life.[327] And both at the
beginning of the Old Testament, and at the close of the New, the waters
of life start from the sanctuary of the Author of life.[328]

This Dumuzi of Babylonia has linkings with Tammuz of Syria, with Osiris
of Egypt, and with Adonis of Greece, and there are correspondences in
all these legends in the references to the door and the threshold of the
under-world and the life beyond. Thus, for instance, the Lord’s prophet
counts as most heinous of all idolatries the transfer of the weeping
worship of Tammuz from the door in the hole of the temple wall to the
door of the temple sanctuary.[329]

At the right hand of the entrance of the larger temple unearthed at
Nineveh by Layard, a sculptured image of the Assyrian king, with his arm
uplifted, was on a doorway stele just outside. And an altar for
offerings was in front of that image. Altars

were found similarly situated, just outside the doorway, in a smaller
temple in the same region.[330]

An exceptional reverence is shown to the doorway and threshold of their
sanctuary, or temple, by the sect of the Yezidis, in the neighborhood of
ancient Nineveh, at the present time. Describing an evening service
which he attended, Layard says: “When the prayers were ended, those who
marched in procession kissed, as they passed by, the right side of the
doorway leading into the temple, where a serpent is figured on the
wall.” Again, “Soon after sunrise, on the following morning, the sheikhs
and cawals offered up a short prayer in the court of the temple.... Some
prayed in the sanctuary, frequently kissing the threshold and holy
places within the building.”[331]

When the sacred ark of the Hebrews was captured by the Philistines, and
brought into the house of the god Dagon, the record is: “When they of
Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face
to the ground before the ark of the Lord. And they took Dagon, and set
him in his place again. And when they arose early on the morrow morning,
behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of
the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut
off upon the threshold.” It is added, in our present Bible text:
“Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon’s
house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod, unto this day.”[332]

It would seem, from the words “unto this day,” that this added statement
was a gloss by a later writer or copyist. The original force of the
wonder was in Dagon’s being overthrown at his very shrine, falling
maimed on the threshold altar of his temple. But the suggestion of the
gloss is that the unwillingness of the Philistines to tread on the
threshold of the temple (which appears to have been of primitive origin)
did not exist among the worshipers of Dagon prior to this incident. The
Septuagint adds,[333] concerning the later practice of the Philistines
at the threshold, “because leaping they leap over it.”

Leaping over the threshold is at times spoken of in the Bible as if it
had a taint of idolatry. Thus Zephaniah, foretelling, in the name of the
Lord, the divine judgments on idolaters, says: “In that day I will
punish all those that leap over the threshold.”[334] This is explained
in the Targum as “those that walk in the customs of the Philistines.”
Yet the Bible sometimes refers to the temple threshold as a fitting
place of worship, and its recognition as a holy altar as commendable.

Ezekiel prophesies that the restored Prince of Israel “shall worship at
the threshold of the gate”[335] of the Lord’s house; and he sees, in
vision, “the glory of the Lord ... over the threshold of the
house.”[336] Again the Lord complains of the profanation of his temple
by idolaters “in their setting of their threshold by my threshold, and
their door-post beside my door-post, and there was but the wall between
me and them.”[337]

That it was the threshold or doorway of the tabernacle which was counted
sacred, is evident from the wording of the Levitical laws concerning the
offering of blood in sacrifices. “This is the thing which the Lord hath
commanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that
killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without
the camp, and hath not brought it _unto the door of the tent of
meeting_, to offer it as an oblation unto the Lord before the tabernacle
of the Lord: blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood;
and that man shall be cut off from among his people: to the end that the
children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in
the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, _unto the
door of the tent of meeting_, unto the priest, and sacrifice them for
sacrifices of peace offerings unto the Lord. And the priest shall
sprinkle the blood _upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent
of meeting_, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord....
Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn among them, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, and
bringeth it not _unto the door of the tent of meeting_, to sacrifice it
unto the Lord; even that man shall be cut off from his people.”[338]

It was _at the doorway_ of the tent of meeting that Aaron and his sons
were consecrated to the holy priesthood;[339] and it was there that the
bullock was sacrificed, and its blood was poured out as an offering at
the base of the altar.[340] It was _at the doorway_ of that tent, above
the threshold, that the pillar of cloud descended in token of the Lord’s
presence, when Moses met the Lord there in loving communion, while the
people stood watching from the doorways of their own tents.[341] The
altar of burnt offering, at the base or foundation of which the blood of
the offerings was outpoured, was itself at the doorway of the tent of
meeting, and he who offered a sacrifice to the Lord offered it at that
threshold.[342]

A post of honor in the temple was as a guardian of the threshold, as was
also the place of a keeper of the gate. In the assignment of the priests
and Levites to service, by Jehoiada the priest, in the days of Athaliah,
a third part of them were in attendance at the “threshold,” and a third
part “at the gate of the foundation.”[343] Later, in the days of Josiah
and Hilkiah, the guardians of the threshold had the care of the money
collected for the repairs of the Lord’s house.[344] And a keeper of the
threshold, or of the door, of the house of God, was always mentioned
with honor.[345] When the Psalmist contrasts the house of God with the
tents of wickedness, he speaks of the honor of a post at the temple
threshold, not of the humble place of a temple janitor, when he says:

“For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand [elsewhere].
I had rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God,
Than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.”[346]

In the Temple at Jerusalem, the altar of burnt offering was before the
threshold of the Holy Place; and those who came with sacrifices must
stop at that threshold, and proffer the blood of their offering to the
priests, who then reverently poured it out at the altar-threshold’s
base.[347]

When offerings were accepted for the repairs of the temple, in the days
of Jehoash, king of Judah, it is said that “Jehoiada the priest took a
chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar,
on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord. And the
priests that kept [or guarded] the threshold put therein all the money
that was brought into the house of the Lord.”[348] This would seem to
decide the position of the altar as at the threshold, where “one cometh
into the house of the Lord.”

An altar stood at the doorway, or before the door, of temples of later
date in Phenicia and Phrygia, as shown on contemporary medals and
coins.[349] And so in temples in other lands.

Among the early Christian remains unearthed in Asia Minor are
indications of the former position of an altar on the threshold of a
sanctuary. At the site of ancient Aphrodisias, “some of the sarcophagi
of the Byzantine age are richly wrought, and although many are of
Christian date, they appear to have retained the pagan devices.” At the
end of one of these sarcophagi “appears an altar burning in front of a
door,” standing indeed on the very threshold.[350]

An oath of peculiar sacredness among Hindoos is at the threshold of a
temple, as at its primal altar. “Is a man accused of a great crime? He
goes to the temple [threshold], makes his prostrations; he pauses, then
steps over it, declaring at the same time that he is not guilty of the
crime laid to his charge. It is therefore very common to ask a person
who denies anything that he is suspected to have done, ‘Will you step
over the threshold of the temple?’”[351]

Among the stories told in India of judgments at the temple threshold, is
one of a thieving goldsmith, who had secreted himself in a pagoda of
Vishnoo, in order to take from the sacred image one of its jewel eyes.
Having obtained the precious stone, he waited for the opening of the
pagoda doors in the morning, in order to escape with his booty. But as
he attempted to cross the threshold, when the door was opened, he was
stricken with death by Vishnoo “at the very threshold.”[352] Justice was
administered at the very seat of justice.

Bloody sacrifices are still known at the temple thresholds in India,
notwithstanding the prejudice of Hindoos against the shedding of blood.
Within recent times an English gentleman, in an official position in
India, discovered a decapitated child at the very door of a celebrated
pagoda; and an investigation showed that a father had there sacrificed
his son to avert an impending evil.[353]

When a famous idol was destroyed in the temple of Somnauth, during the
Muhammadan conquest of India, pieces of the shattered image were sent by
the conquerors to the mosks of Meccah, Medina, and Ghuznee, to be thrown
down at the thresholds of their gates, there to be trodden under foot by
devout and zealous Mussulmans.[354] The accursed idol fragments might be
trampled on at the threshold, even while the threshold itself was
counted sacred.

In Muhammadan mosks generally the threshold is counted sacred. Across
the threshold proper, at the beginning of the sacred portion of the
interior, “is a low barrier, a few inches high.”[355] Before this
barrier the worshiper stops, removes his shoes, and steps over it, with
the right foot first. In some smaller mosks a rod above the outer
door-sill stands for this barrier.

Describing his visit to one of the mosks in Persia, Morier says: “Here
we remarked the veneration of the Persians for the threshold of a holy
place.... Before they ventured to cross it, they knelt down and kissed
it, whilst they were very careful not to touch it with their feet.”[356]

On the tomb of the kings of Persia, at Com, the inscription appears:
“Happy and glorious the believing one who in reverence bows his head
upon the threshold of this gate, in imitation of the sun and moon.[357]
All that _he_ will ask with faith in this gate, shall be as the arrow
that reaches the mark.”[358] And on the tomb of Alee, son-in-law of
Muhammad and one of his successors, there stands the declaration: “The
angel messenger of the truth, Gabriel, kisses every day the threshold of
thy gate; for that is the only way by which one can come to the throne
of Muhammad.”[359]

Even among Christians in this primitive region, this reverence for the
threshold as the earliest altar of the temple and the church manifests
itself in various ways. Dr. Grant, an American missionary, tells of
seeing the Nestorian Christians kissing the threshold of the church on
entering the sanctuary for the Lord’s Day service.[360]

At Baveddeen, near Bokhara, is the tomb of Baha-ed-deen Nakishbend, the
national saint of Turkestan, which is a place of pilgrimage second only
to the tomb of Muhammad. “In the front of the tomb,” as a threshold, “is
the famous _senghi murad_,” the “stone of desire,” “which has been
tolerably ground away, and made smooth, by the numerous foreheads of
pious pilgrims that have been rubbed upon it.”[361]

A peculiar sacrifice in Tibet is the disemboweling of a devotee in the
presence of a great multitude, as an act of worship. An altar on which
this act is performed is erected for the occasion “in front of the
temple gate.”[362]

In the more sacred shrines of Japan and Korea, Shinto or Booddhist
temples, pilgrim worshipers are permitted to go no farther than the
threshold of the inner sanctuary. There they may deposit their offerings
and may prostrate themselves in prayer, but they cannot pass beyond.

At Kitzuki, “the most ancient shrine of Japan,” multitudes of pilgrims
gather for worship. They are coming and going ceaselessly, but all pause
before the threshold of the inner sanctuary. “None enter there: all
stand before the dragon-swarming doorway, and cast their offerings into
the money-chest placed before the threshold; many making contributions
of small coin, the very poorest throwing only a handful of rice into the
box. Then they clap their hands, and bow their heads before the
threshold, and reverently gaze through the hall of prayer at the loftier
edifice, the holy of holies beyond it. Each pilgrim remains but a little
while, and claps his hands but four times; yet so many are coming and
going that the sound of the clapping is like the sound of a
cataract.”[363] The same is true of “the great Shrines of Isé, chief
Mecca of the Shintō faith,”[364] of those of famous Nikkō, and of other
centers of worship.[365]

4. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AFRICA.

The oldest temple discovered in Egypt is little more than a doorway with
an altar at its threshold, and with a stele on either side of the altar.
This temple is near the base of the stepped pyramid of Meydoom, dating
back probably to the beginning of the fourth dynasty.[366]

Later, in Egypt, as in early Babylonia, the doorway, above the
threshold, had peculiar sacredness, in the temples and in the approaches
to the under-world. The pylon, or propylon, of an Egyptian temple, was a
monumental gateway before the temple, and exalted honor attached to it.
It frequently gave its name to the entire temple.[367] The side towers
of this gateway are said to have represented Isis and Nephthys, and the
door itself between these towers stood for Osiris, the judge of the
living and the dead.[368]

There was indeed a temple in Thebes which bore the name of “Silver
Threshold.” This temple “is mentioned in the time of the twenty-first
dynasty; and it cannot have been earlier than the eighteenth dynasty,
when silver was growing cheaper in Egypt.”[369] But the prominence of
the “threshold” in the designation of the “temple” is aside from the
question of the time of the use of silver.

“The winged sun disk was placed above all the doors into the temples,
that the image of Horus might drive away all unclean spirits from the
sacred building.”[370] These overshadowing wings marked the special
sacredness of the doors beneath them.

When an Egyptian priest opened the door of the shrine–the holy of holies
of the temple–he must prostrate himself at the threshold in reverent
worship. “According to the Theban rite, ... as soon as he saw the image
of the god he had to ‘kiss the ground, throw himself on his face, throw
himself entirely on his face, kiss the ground with his face turned
downward, offer incense,’ and then greet the god with a short
petition.”[371] This priestly worship was at the threshold of the
shrine.

The Egyptian idea of the future life, and of the world beyond this, had
marked correspondences with the Babylonian. Osiris presided over the
under-world, as, indeed, he was the chief object of worship in
this.[372] He had been slain in a conflict with evil, and in his new
life he was the friend and helper of those who struggled against
evil.[373] He was in a peculiar sense the door of the life beyond this,
“Osiris, opening the ways of the two worlds;”[374] and those who passed
that door safely were identified with himself in the under-world.[375]

A closed door toward the west, in a tomb, represented the deceased on
his way to Osiris.[376] And as shown in the “Book of the Dead” the
approach to Osiris was by a series of doors, which could be passed only
by one who showed his identification with Osiris, and his worthiness as
such.[377] At the entrance to the Hall of the Two Truths, or of the
Two-fold Maāt,[378] as the place of final judgment, the deceased was
challenged by the threshold of the door, by the two side-posts, by the
lock, by the key, and by the door itself; and he could not pass these
unless he proved his oneness with Osiris by his knowledge of their names
severally.[379]

A saint’s tomb, called a _wely_, is a common place of worship in Egypt.
Sometimes a mosk is built over it, and sometimes it serves as a
substitute for a mosk, where no mosk is near. “At least one such
building forms a conspicuous object close by, or within, almost every
Arab village;” and these tombs are frequently visited by those who would
make supplication for themselves, or intercession for others, or who
would do a worthy act, and merit a correspondent blessing. “Many a
visitor, on entering the tomb, kisses the threshold, or touches it with
his right hand, which he then kisses.”[380] Similar customs prevail in
Arabia and Syria.

At Carthage, which was a Phenician colony but which impressed its
character on northern Africa, the chief temple gave prominence to the
threshold, rising in steps as an altar before a statue of the Queen of
Heaven. Virgil, describing the arrival of Æneas at the court of Queen
Dido, says:

“There stood a grove within the city’s midst,
Delicious for its shade; where when they came
First to this place, by waves and tempest tossed,
The Carthaginians from the earth dug up
An omen royal Juno had foretold
That they should find, a noble horse’s head;
Thus intimating that this race would shine,
Famous in war, and furnished with supplies
For ages. Here the great Sidonian queen
A temple built to Juno, rich in gifts,
And in the presence of the goddess blessed.
A brazen threshold rose above the steps,[381]
With brazen posts connecting, and the hinge
Creaked upon brazen doors.”[382]

The churches of Abyssinia always stand on a hill, and in a grove–like
the temple at Carthage. “When you go to the church you put off your
shoes before your first entering the outer precinct.... At entry, you
kiss the threshold and two door-posts, go in and say what prayer you
please; that finished you come out again, and your duty is over.”[383]

The yard of an Abyssinian church has been compared to “the _lucus_ or
sacred grove of the pagan temple.” “The church itself is square, and
built of stone with beams stuck in to support them. At the porch, the
wooden lintels, which the pious kiss with intense earnestness,–in fact,
kissing the walls and lintels of a church is a great feature in
Abyssinian devotion, so much so that, instead of speaking of ‘going to
church,’ they say ‘kissing the church,’–are carved with quaint and
elaborate devices.”[384]

At Yeha, near Aksum, are the remains of a ruined temple, within the area
of which a church was at one time built. “In front of the vestibule
stood two rude monoliths, at the base of one of which is an altar with a
circular disk on it, presumably, from the analogy of those at Aksum, for
receiving the blood of slaughtered victims.” Obviously, the altar of
this temple was at its threshold.

Marriages are said to be celebrated in Abyssinia at the church door–the
wedding covenant being thus made before the threshold altar.[385]

And so in the earlier temples of Egypt, of Carthage, and of Abyssinia,
and in Christian and Muhammadan places of worship, the doorway is held
sacred, and, most of all, the threshold, or “floor of the door.”

5. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN EUROPE.

Traces of the primitive sacredness of the doorway and the threshold, in
places of worship, are to be found in Europe, ancient and modern, as in
Asia and Africa.

The term “threshold” occurs in such prominence in connection with
temples, in the earliest Greek literature, as to show that its primitive
meaning included the idea of altar, or of sanctuary foundation. Thus the
House of Zeus on Olympus is repeatedly spoken of as the “House of the
Bronze Threshold.”[386] In these references, “the nature of the
occurrences, the uniformity of the phrase, the position of the words in
the verse, all point to this as an old hieratic phrase, and the meaning
evidently is, ‘the house that is stablished forever.’”[387]

This term “bronze threshold” occurs more than once in reference to the
temple-palace of Alcinoüs.[388] Tartarus is described as having gates of
iron and a “bronze threshold.”[389] Night and day meet as they cross the
“great threshold of bronze;” and Atlas upholds heaven at the threshold
of the under-world.[390]

The treasures of Delphi are described as “within the stone threshold of
the archer god, Phoebus Apollo, in Rocky Pytho.”[391] And he who seeks
counsel at that oracle is spoken of as one who crosses “the stone
threshold.”[392]

In Sophocles’ “Oedipus at Colonus” the Athenian warns the stranger
Oedipus that he is on holy ground, in the realm of Poseidon, and that
the spot where he now treads is “called the brazen threshold of the
land, the stay of Athens.”[393] In other words, the bronze threshold is
an archaic synonym for the enduring border, or outer limit, of spiritual
domain.

This prominence given to the threshold in earlier Greek literature is
not, it is true, continued in later writings; yet there are traces of it
still in occasional poetic references to the “threshold of life,” and
the “threshold of the year,” and the “threshold of old age.” When Homer
refers “to houses, to rooms in houses, or to courtyards, the ‘threshold’
is constantly spoken of: a man steps over a threshold, stands at a
threshold, sits at a threshold, etc. And so important is the threshold
that its material is almost regularly mentioned; it is ash, oak, stone,
bronze, etc. In later times all these locutions disappear; men go
through doorways, enter, stand in porches, etc., instead.”[394] Yet it
is the archaic use that points to the primitive prominence of the
threshold.

In historic times, however, as in earlier, the altar of sacrifice was to
be found, in Grecian and Roman temples, near the threshold of the door.
While there were smaller altars, for the offering of incense and
bloodless sacrifices, in the interior of temples, the larger and more
important altars, for the offering of animal sacrifices, whether of
beasts or of men, were before the temple, in front of the
threshold,–_bomoi pronaoi_.[395]

A ruined temple of Artemis Propylæa, at Eleusis, shows the main altar
immediately before the threshold, between the antæ. The altar of the
temple of Apollo at Delphi was in a like position; as shown in the fact
that “when Neoptolemus is attacked by Orestes in the vestibule of the
temple at Delphi, he seizes the arms which were suspended by means of
nails or pins from one of the antæ, takes his station upon the altar,
and addresses the people in his own defense.”[396]

When the “priest of Jupiter, whose temple was before the city” of
Lystra, would have given divine honors to Paul and Barnabas, he brought
the garlanded oxen “unto the gates,” to sacrifice them there. At the
gate of the city, within which the supposed gods were to be found,
seemed the proper place of sacrifice.[397]

There are references in classic story, as in Babylonian legends, in
Phenician and Syrian beliefs, and in the Hebrew prophetic visions, to
life-giving waters flowing out from under the threshold of the
sanctuary. In the garden of the palace-temple of Alcinoüs “are two
springs, the one ripples through the whole garden, the other opposite it
gushes under the threshold of the courtyard to the lofty house, and from
it the citizens draw their water.”[398] On “the apple-growing shores of
the Hesperides,” where Atlas upholds “the holy threshold of heaven,”
according to the poets, “springs of ambrosia pour from the chamber of
Zeus, from his bedside,” and give a rich blessing to the life-giving
earth.[399] And of Delphi it is said: “Going toward the temple we come
upon the spring Cassotis: there is a low wall about it, and you ascend
to the spring through the walls. The water of this Cassotis they say
sinks underground, and in the shrine of the god [Apollo] makes the woman
prophetic [is inspiration to her.]”[400]

In the early churches of Europe, the threshold marked a sacred boundary
of the edifice, to cross which indicated a certain covenant right to
participate in the privileges of the house of God. As the structure of
the churches changed, in the progress of the centuries, the threshold of
the sanctuary came to be in a different portion of the building, or
series of buildings; but its sacredness remained, wherever it was
supposed to be. The term “altar” also changed, from the border line of
the place of worship, to the holy table within the sanctuary.

Speaking of the growth of the early church buildings, Bingham says: “In
the strictest sense, including only the buildings within the walls, they
were commonly divided into three parts: (1.) The _narthex_ or
ante-temple, where the penitents and catechumens stood. (2.) The _naos_
or temple, where the communicants had their respective places. And (3.)
the _bēma_ or sanctuary, where the clergy stood to officiate at the
altar. But in a larger sense there was another ante-temple or _narthex_
without the walls, under which was comprised the propylæa, or
_vestibulum_, the outward porch; then the _atrium_ or area, the court
leading from that to the temple, surrounded with porticos or
cloisters.... There were also several _exedræ_, such as the baptistery,
the _diaconicum_, the _pastophoria_, and other adjacent buildings, which
were reckoned to be either without or within the church, according as it
was taken in a stricter or a larger acceptation.”[401]

In the early churches, the place of baptism was outside of the church
proper, or the _naos_, it is said. “There is nothing more certain than
that for many ages the baptistery was a distinct place from the body of
the church, and reckoned among the _exedræ_, or places adjoining to the
church.”[402] “The first ages all agreed in this, that, whether they had
baptisteries or not, the place of baptism was always without the
church.”[403] Even in mediæval times, in the churches of England,
baptisms were on the outer side of the threshold of the church proper,
“the child being held without the doors of the church”[404] until
baptized. In many churches of Europe at the present time the baptismal
font is at or near the door of the church.

In 1661, a formal reply of the Church of England bishops to a request of
the Presbyterians that the font might be placed before the congregation,
that all might see it, was: “The font usually stands, as it did in
primitive times, at or near the church door, to signify that baptism was
the entrance into the church mystical.”[405]

Marriages, like baptisms, were at the church porch or outside of the
threshold. “The old missals direct the placing of the man and the woman
at the church door during the service, and that at the end of it they
shall proceed within up to the altar.”[406] The idea would seem to be
that a holy covenant like marriage, which is the foundation of a new
family, must be solemnized at the primitive family altar,–the threshold.

Describing the marriage rites of Germany in the middle ages,
Baring-Gould says: “In a Ritual of Rennes, of the eleventh century, we
find a rubric to this effect: ‘The priest shall go before the door of
the church in surplice and stole, and ask the bridegroom and bride
prudently whether they desire to be legally united; and then he shall
make the parents give her away, according to the usual custom, and the
bridegroom shall fix the dower, announcing before all present what
(witthum) he intends to give the bride. Then the priest shall make him
betroth her with a ring, and give her an honorarium of gold or silver
according to his means. Then let him give the prescribed benediction.
After which, entering into the church, let him begin mass; and let the
bridegroom and bride hold lighted candles, and make an oblation at the
offertory; and before the Pax let the priest bless them before the altar
under a pall or other covering [the wedding canopy], according to
custom; and lastly, let the bridegroom receive the kiss of peace from
the priest, and pass it on to his bride.’”[407]

“In ancient times the people of France were married, not within the
church at the altar as now, but at the outer door. This was the case in
1599, in which year Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry II., was married to
Philip II. of Spain; and the Bishop of Paris performed the ceremony at
the door of the cathedral of Notre Dame. Another instance of this kind
occurred in 1599 in France. Henrietta Maria was married to King Charles
by proxy at the door of Notre Dame, and the bride, as soon as the
ceremony was over entered the church, and assisted at [attended]
mass.”[408]

“The pre-Reformation rule was to begin the marriage service at the door
of the church. In his ‘Wyf of Bathe,’ Chaucer [in the days of Edward
III.] refers to this custom:–

‘Housbandes atte chirche dore I have had fyve.’

This old usage was abandoned by authority in the time of Edward VI. Yet
there is reason for thinking that it was not entirely given up. “There
is a poem of Herrick’s, written about 1640, which is entitled, ‘The
Entertainment or Porch Verse at the Marriage of Mr. Hen. Northly.’”[409]

“When Edward I. married Marguerite of France, in 1299, he endowed her at
the door of Canterbury Cathedral.” Selden declares that “dower could be
lawfully assigned only at the door;” and Littleton affirms to the same
effect.[410]

“At Witham in Essex it is, or was, the custom to perform the first part
of the marriage service at the font [near the door]. When the Rev. A.
Snell was appointed to the benefice in 1873, he spoke to a bridegroom
about this usage, and he (the bridegroom) particularly requested that he
might be married at the font, as he liked old customs.”[411]

Another survival of the primitive rite of threshold covenanting seems to
be shown in certain customs observed in various parts of Europe, which
look like the substitution of an altar-stone for a threshold altar, in
the marriage ceremony.

“Thus in the old temple of Upsal [in Sweden], wedding couples stood upon
a broad stone which was believed to cover the tomb of St. Eric.”[412]
Corresponding customs in other regions would go to show that the earlier
practice was to leap over the stone, as a mode of threshold covenanting,
instead of standing on it. The latter was a change without a reason for
it.

For instance, just outside “the ruined church, or abbey, of Lindisfarne,
is the socket or foot-stone, in which was mortised a ponderous stone
cross, erected by Ethelwold, and broken down by the Danes. This socket
stone is now called the “petting stone,” and whenever a marriage is
solemnized in the neighborhood, after the ceremony the bride is obliged
to step upon it; and if she cannot stride to the end thereof, the
marriage is deemed likely to prove unfortunate and fruitless.” While
this would seem to point to the custom of standing upon the stone, in
the modern marriage customs of the same region, a barrier is “erected at
the churchyard gate, consisting of a large paving-stone which was placed
on its edge and supported by two smaller stones. On either side stood a
villager, who made the couple and every one else jump over it.”[413]

“In Lantevit Major Church was a stone called the ‘marriage stone,’ with
many knots and flourishes, and the head of a person upon it, and this
inscription:

‘_Ne Petra calcetur
Qu[a]e subjacet ista tuetur_,’

Brides usually stood upon this stone at their marriages.”[414] Yet the
inscription itself:

“Let not the stone be trodden upon;
What it lies under, it guards,”

forbids standing upon this threshold altar; and it is probable that in
earlier times it was stepped over in marriage covenant, and not upon.

At Belford, in Northumberland, it is still the custom to make the
bridal pair, with their attendants, leap over a stone placed in their
path outside the church porch. This stone also is called the “petting
stone,” or the “louping stone.” At the neighboring village of
Embleton, in the same county, two stout young lads place a wooden
bench across the door of the church porch, and assist the bride and
groom and their attendants to surmount the obstacle; for which
assistance a gift of money is expected. In some places a stick has
been held by the groomsmen at the church door for the bride to jump
over. And again a stool has been placed at the churchyard gate, over
which the whole bridal party must jump one by one; and this stool has
been called the “parting-stool.”[415]

A “mode of marriage” current in Ireland, until recent times, was that of
jumping over a form of the cross;[416] and jumping over a broomstick as
a form of marriage would seem to be a survival of this custom of leaping
across the threshold-stone, in token of a covenant. “Jumping the
broomstick” is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent of marriage.

These various obstacles to progress, at wedding time, would seem to be
as suggestions of the threshold altar, which must be passed in the
marriage covenant. The church threshold, like the home threshold, is a
temporary hindrance to an advance. Unless it is stepped across, the
covenant is incomplete.

An illustration of the popular idea of the sacredness of the church
threshold, and of the impropriety of stepping on it, in its passing, is
found in a Finnish mode of judging a clergyman. “In Finland, it is
regarded as unlucky if a clergyman steps on the threshold, when he comes
to preach at a church.” A writer on this subject says: “A Finnish friend
told me of one of his relations going to preach at a church, a few years
ago,–he being a candidate for the vacant living,–and the people most
anxiously watched if he stepped on the threshold as he came in. Had he
done so, I fear a sermon never so eloquent would have counted but little
against so dire an omen.”[417] Here is a new peril for pulpit
candidates, if this primitive test becomes widely popular!

Even to the present time, it is customary, in portions of Europe, for
Jews to rub their fingers on the posts of a synagogue doorway, and then
kiss their fingers. Quite an indentation in the stone at the door of the
synagogue in Worms is to be seen, as due to this constant sacred
rubbing.[418]

6. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AMERICA.

In the West, as in the East, traces of the primitive sacredness of the
threshold and the doorway are to be found. The stepped pyramid, or
uplifted threshold, with the sanctuary at its summit, was the earliest
form of temple or place of worship in Mexico, and in Central and South
America. In the later and more elaborate temples there was no altar
within the building, although an image of the god was there.

The altar, or stone of sacrifice, was without, before the door of the
sanctuary.[419] When a sacrifice was offered on the altar, the blood of
that sacrifice was smeared on the doors of the temple of the god.[420]
Human sacrifices were included in these offerings, in earlier
times.[421] Even when larger temples were erected, and altars were
enclosed within them, human victims were brought to the temple entrance
into the hands of the priests; and from the threshold they were borne by
the priests themselves, to be laid on the altar.[422]

Among the Pipiles, a Maya people, in Central America, there were “two
principal and very solemn sacrifices; one at the commencement of summer,
and the other at the beginning of winter.” Little boys, from six to
twelve years old, were the victims of sacrifice. At the sound of
trumpets and drums, which assembled the people, four priests came out of
the temple with braziers of coals on which incense was burning, and
after various ceremonies and religious exercises they proceeded to the
house of the high-priest, near the temple, and took from it the boy
victim of the sacrifice. He was then conducted four times round the
court of the temple, with dancing and singing.

When this ceremony was finished, the high-priest came out of his house
with the second priest and his major-domo, and they proceeded to the
temple steps, accompanied by the principal men of the locality, who,
however, stopped at the threshold of the temple. Then and there the four
priests “seized the victim by his extremities, and the major-domo coming
out, with little bells on his wrists and ankles, opened the left breast
of the boy, tore out his heart, and handed it to the high-priest, who
put it into a little embroidered purse, which he closed.”

The blood of the victim was received by the priests in a vessel made of
a gourd, and was by them sprinkled in the direction of the four cardinal
points. Then the heart, in its purse, was put back into the body of the
victim, and the body itself was interred inside of the temple. This
sacrifice, at the threshold altar, was performed at the threshold, or
the beginning, of each of the two chief seasons of the year.[423]

In the temples of Central America, generally, the doorway was hardly
less prominent than in the temples of Egypt. There were massive
decorations on and above the lintels; the door jams were richly
sculptured; and there were male and female figures, or figures of
animals, as guardians on either side of the entrance. In some instances
a winged globe was above the door; and the uplifted hand was found over
the doorway or at the sides.[424]

Among the Natchez Indians, along the lower Mississippi, there was an
annual “Harvest Festival,” or “Festival of New Fire,” which was
celebrated with great ceremony. An altar was in front of the temple,
just before the door. On this occasion the priest of the sun stood on
the threshold of the temple in the early morning, watching for the first
rays of the rising sun. The chiefs, and braves old and young, stood near
the altar. The women with infants in their arms stood in a semicircle
facing the priest. When he gave the signal of his recognition of the
sun, by rubbing two pieces of wood to start a new fire for the altar,
they faced about to the east and held up their infants to the sun. Other
exercises of worship followed. The priest’s place in this ceremony was
on the threshold, before the altar of that temple.[425]

In America, as in the other continents, there are survivals of the
primal sacredness of the threshold of a place of public worship, in the
formal ceremonies attending the laying of the corner-stone, or
threshold-stone, of a new church building of any denomination; and in
the use of holy water at the doorway on entering Roman Catholic
churches. More or less importance is attached in Protestant Episcopal
churches to the location of the baptismal font near the door, and to the
beginning of the marriage service before the bridal party approaches the
threshold of the sanctuary proper.

If indeed, there be found no trace of the fountain of life flowing from
under the threshold sanctuary of the gods worshiped by the aborigines of
America, such a fountain was searched for in this land by Ponce de Leon
and his followers.

7. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ISLANDS OF THE SEA.

There is a certain resemblance in the plan of some of the temples of the
South Sea Islands to those of Central America. A stepped pyramid in a
large court was the central shrine; “in front of which the images were
kept, and the altars fixed.”[426] In both cases the altars were outside
of the shrine,–at its threshold, as it were. A method of sacrificing was
by bleeding a pig to death before the altar, “washing the carcass with
the blood, and then placing it in a crouching position on the
altar.”[427] An uplifted hand was one of the symbols on these stepped
pyramid shrines.[428] The temple foundation, or the threshold of the
sacred building, was formerly laid in human blood.[429]

A recognition of the threshold, in a sacred service, and in a form of
covenanting, is found in the ceremonies of circumcision as observed in
Madagascar. This rite is not at infancy, as among the Jews, but is at
the threshold of young manhood. Its period is fixed by the king, who, on
“an application from the parents or the friends of any number of
children in a given province, appoints a time, and orders the observance
of the rite.” He is the “high-priest on this occasion.” The rite marks
the transition of the boy from his dependence on his parents to his
personal service of the king, as a member of the community.

Holy water is brought from a distance to the house of the master of
ceremonies, as the sanctuary for the occasion. A sheep is killed
immediately before this house, and the boys are caused to step across
its blood. This sacrifice is called “fahazza,” or “causing
fruitfulness,” and it is supposed to be the means of causing
fruitfulness in all the women who obtain a share of it.

A tree is planted at the northeast corner of the house, and a lamp is
fixed on it. Honey and water are poured upon the tree, and the boys
partake of this mixture. The next day the persons present walk three
times round the house, with various ceremonies, and then stop at the
doorway. The rite of circumcision is performed on each boy as he sits on
a drum at “the threshold of the door,” held firmly by several men. The
knife with which it is performed is previously dipped in the blood of a
young bullock, an ear of which is slit by the operator. A covenant of
fealty to the king is entered into by the youth on this occasion.
Sacrifices and feasting follow this ceremony.[430]

One of the ancient gods of Maui, an island of Hawaii, was Keoroeva. “In
all the temples dedicated to its worship, the image was placed within
the inner apartment, on the left-hand side of the door; and immediately
before it stood the altar, on which the offerings of every kind were
usually placed.”[431] The altar was at the doorway, in this case, as so
generally elsewhere. Tiha was a female idol, as Keoroeva was a male, and
much “the same homage and offerings” were given to her as to him.[432]

In Kohala, one of the large divisions of Hawaii, stood a prominent
temple called Bukohōla, built by King Kamehameha, at the time of his
conquest of the Sandwich Islands. “At the south end of this great
edifice was a kind of inner court, which might be called the _sanctum
sanctorum_ of the temple, where the principal idol used to stand,
surrounded by a number of images of inferior deities.” “On the outside,
near the entrance to the inner court [at the threshold of the _sanctum
sanctorum_] was the place of the _rere_ [or _lélé_] (altar), on which
human and other sacrifices were offered.”[433]

Human victims were ordinarily slain in sacrifice outside of the
sanctuary proper, and then their bodies, carefully preserved whole, were
taken within to be presented to the idol.[434]

There were Hawaiian cities of refuge, or _puhonuas_, as sanctuaries for
guilty fugitives. A thief, or a murderer, might be pursued to the very
gateway of one of those cities, but as soon as he crossed the threshold
of that gate, even though the gate were open, and no barrier hindered
pursuit, he was safe, as at the city altar. When once within the sacred
city, the fugitive’s first duty was to present himself before the idol,
and return thanks for his protection.[435] This was substantially the
Hebrew law as to the cities of refuge.[436] Safety was only within the
threshold.

There are traces of the primitive idea of a spring of life-giving waters
flowing from under the threshold of the goddess of life, in the Islands
of the Sea. According to the myths of that region, Vari, or
“The-very-beginning” of life was a woman. She plucked off a piece of her
right side and it became a man, or part man and part fish, known as
Vātea, or Avatea. From the under-world there came to Vātea a
supernatural woman called Papa, or Foundation. From this union the human
race began. Rongo was the first-born son. The Hades of Polynesia is
Avaika, or Hawaika. In the days of Rongo, and later, there was an
opening from earth to Avaika; but because of the misdoings of the
denizens of that realm, coming up through that passage-way, Tiki, a
lovely woman, a descendant of Rongo, “rolled herself alive down into the
gloomy opening, which immediately closed upon her.” She was the first to
die. And now “Tiki sits at the threshold” of her home below, to welcome
the descendants of Rongo, who bring her an offering. A sacred stream of
water, “Vairorongo,” comes up from below into the sacred grove devoted
to the worship of Rongo, and near that stream it is possible for a
spirit to be returned to life and to a home on earth again.[437]

It is obvious that the idea of the sacredness of the threshold, in home,
in temple, or in sanctuary, is not of any one time or of any one people,
but is of human nature as human nature everywhere. It shows itself all
the world over, and always. And it has to do with life, and its
perpetuation or reproduction.

8. ONLY ONE FOUNDATION.

An idea tangent to, rather than identical with, the thought of the altar
sacredness of the temple threshold, as found among primitive peoples, is
that the first temple foundation is the foundation for all subsequent
temple building at that place. And it has already been shown that the
threshold, or hearthstone, or corner-stone, is considered the
foundation.[438]

In ancient Babylonia a temple, however grand and extensive, was supposed
to be built on the foundation of an earlier temple; the one threshold
being the first threshold and the latest. If, indeed, there was a
variation from the original foundation in the construction of a new
temple, there was confusion and imperfectness in consequence, and the
only hope of reformation was in finding the first temple threshold and
rebuilding on it.

There is an illustration of this in an inscription discovered in the
foundation of a temple at “Ur of the Chaldees.”[439] Nabonidus (556–538
B.C.), the last Babylonian king, tells with interest of his search for
the old foundation, or outline plan, of the ancient temple, Eulbar, or,
more properly, Eulmash, of the goddess Istar of Agade, as follows:[440]

The foundation of Eulmash in Agade had not been found from Sargon, king
of Babylon (3800 B.C.), and Narâm-Sin, his son, kings living formerly,
until the government of Nabunaʾid king of Babylon.

King Kurigalzu (II.), about 1300 B.C., had, in his reign, searched for
this foundation, but had failed to find it, and he had left this record:
“The foundation of Eulmash I sought, but did not find it.” Later on,
Esarhaddon, king of Assyria and Babylonia (681–669 B.C.), searched for
it, but without success. Again, Nebuchadrezzar (605–561 B.C.) mobilized
his large armies, and ordered them to search for the foundation stone,
or threshold, but all his efforts were in vain. Finally Nabunaʾid, the
last king of Babylon before its fall under Cyrus, gathered his many
soldiers, and ordered them to search for the foundation stone. For
“three years in the tracks of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,” says
Nabunaʾid, “I sought right and left, before and behind, but did not find
it.”

Encouraged by a prompting from the moon-god Sin, Nabunaʾid tried at
another time and in another place, and this time with success. He found
the inscription of King Shagarakti-Buriash (1350 B.C.), which tells that
he had laid a new foundation exactly upon the old one of King Zabû
(about 2300 B.C.). Then Nabunaʾid made sure to preserve the exact
outline of the old shrine. He laid the foundation, and restored the
ancient temple, so that “it did not deviate an inch to the outside or
the inside.”[441]

There are indications of the same high value set upon the primal
foundation of a temple in the records of ancient Egypt. A temple at its
highest grandeur is in the location of a prehistoric sanctuary. “The
site on which it is built is generally _holy ground_,[442] that is, a
spot on which since the memory of man an older sanctuary of the god had
stood. Even those Egyptian temples which seem most modern have usually a
long history,–the edifice may have seemed very insignificant, but as the
prestige of the god increased larger buildings were erected, which
again, in the course of centuries, were enlarged and rebuilt in such a
way that the original plan could no longer be traced. This is the
history of nearly all Egyptian temples, and explains the fact that we
know so little of the temples of the Old and of the Middle Empire; they
have all been metamorphosed into the vast buildings of the New
Empire.”[443]

While early Vedic and Brahmanic religion makes no mention of temples as
such, fire from an ancestral altar was borne to a newly erected altar,
in order to secure a continuance of the sacred influences issuing from
that original family threshold.[444] And Vishnooism takes old temples
from Booddhism for its centers of worship, prizing the old sacred
foundation.

“Buddha-Gaya,” or “Bodhi-Gaya,” in Upper India, is famous as the
locality of the holy pipal tree, or the Booddha-drum (“Tree of
Knowledge”), under which for six years sat Sakya Sinha, in meditation,
before he attained to Booddha-hood. A temple still standing on that site
is supposed to have been rebuilt A.D. 1306, on the remains of one
visited by Hwen Thsang, a Chinese traveler, in the seventh century of
our era, which, in turn, had been built by Amara Sinha, or Amara Deva,
about A.D. 500. This earlier temple is said to have been built by a
command of Booddha himself conveyed in a vision, or by a command of the
Brahmanical Mahâdeva, on the site of a still earlier sanctuary, or
monastery, erected by Asoka between 259 and 241 B.C., on the site of
Booddha’s meditations, about 300 B.C.[445] The existing temple has been
called at different times “Buddha-pad” and “Vishnu-pad,” “Booddha’s
foot” and “Vishnoo’s foot.”

Kuru-Kshetra, or the “Plain of Kuru,” near Delhi, India, has been deemed
holy ground from time immemorial. At Thâvesar, on this plain, a temple
of Siva was built on a site that was sacred long before Sivaism was
known. It is even believed that the sacredness of this site runs back to
the ancient times of the Rig Veda. The boundaries of this “Holy Land”
are given in the great Hindoo epic, the Mahabharata. This plain is said
to comprise three hundred and sixty holy shrines, each of which is
erected on a foundation sacred from the times of the gods
themselves.[446]

So general, in India, is this habit of building a sanctuary on an old
sacred foundation, that it is said that “the erection of a mosk by a
Muhammadan conqueror always implies the previous destruction of a Hindu
temple.”[447] Thus a mosk erected by the emperor Altamash, A D. 1232, is
supposed to have been on the foundation of a temple of the sun, built
for Raja Pasupati about A.D. 300.[448] Not a new foundation, but an old
one, was sought, in India, for a new temple, even to a god newly
worshiped there.

Fourteen centuries before Christ, Pan-Kăng, an emperor of China, moved
his capital from north of the Ho to south of it because he had
ascertained that the original foundation was attempted to be laid there
by his ancestor Thang in the Shing dynasty, seventeen reigns before him;
hence the removal back to that first foundation would renew the blessing
of Thang upon his descendants.[449]

A temple has added sacredness in China according as its foundation is on
a spot originally chosen or honored by a representative of Heaven as a
threshold of a place of worship. Thus Tai Shan, or the “Great Mount,” in
the province of Shantung, China, is mentioned in the Shoo King, or Book
of Records, as the site of the great Emperor Shun’s altar of sacrifice
to Heaven, 2254 B.C., or, say, three centuries before the time of
Abraham. On this holy mountain, as the earliest historic foundation of
Chinese worship, “is the great rendezvous of devotees, every sect has
there its temples and idols, scattered up and down its sides;” and great
multitudes come thither to worship from near and far.[450]

This idea shows itself in modern discoveries among the ruins of ancient
Greece. It appears that when Pericles (437 B.C.) began his building of
the new Propylæa on the Acropolis, he would have cleared away the
remains of such ancient sacred structures as stood within its outline.
“The plan of Mnesikles the architect was very simple, and is still clear
enough, though it was never fully carried out.” “That the original plan
of Mnesikles had undergone modifications was long ago seen by every
architect who made the Propylæa matter of serious study.” Dr. Dörpfeld
thinks he has discovered how the plan was modified, and why. The
enforced departure from the original plan seems to have been because
that plan involved the destruction of shrines on an earlier foundation,
with a threshold that might not be moved. The gate of Cimon, with its
“statue of some guardian god of the gate,–it may be Hermes Propylaios
himself,”–was within that outline, and also other sacred sites.

“Against such intrusion it is very likely the priesthood rose and
protested, and, before even the foundations were laid, he had to give
up, at least for the time, the whole of the southeast hall, and a part
of the southwest wing.” This conclusion is the result of recent
investigation by careful scholars, and it is in accordance with the
ascertained fact that in primitive thought an original foundation for a
temple or shrine is counted sacred for all time as the foundation there
for such a place of worship, not to be swept away or ignored in any
rebuilding or new building.[451]

When from any reason, in early Europe, an ancient shrine must be removed
from its primitive foundation, it was deemed desirable to remove to the
new site a portion of the foundation itself, as well as the sanctuary or
altar above that foundation. Thus, for example, when Thorolf of Norway,
who had charge of the temple of Thor in Mostur, removed to Iceland in
A.D. 833, he took with him the temple posts and furniture “and the very
earth on which the altar of that idol had been erected.” And when he
landed in Iceland, Thorolf built a new temple of Thor, with an altar on
the foundation which he had brought from the earlier shrine. A thousand
years after this the foundation-site of that second temple was still
pointed out near Hofstad, in Iceland.[452]

Bible language and narrative abound with incidental evidence of the
commonness of this primitive idea. When Jacob, on his way to Haran, came
to Beth-el–a House of God–he lighted on “the place” (_hammaqâm_)
where,[453] long before, his ancestor Abraham had worshiped, as he came
from Egypt by way of the Negeb.[454] And yet earlier Abraham himself, as
he came a pilgrim from Haran and Ur, had there “builded an altar unto
the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.”[455] And if that place
were already known as Beth-el it must have been a sanctuary before
Abraham’s day.

Moses, in the wilderness of Sinai, is told that the ground whereon he
stands is “holy ground,” and that he is to bring the Hebrews out of
Egypt to worship God in that mountain.[456] And the Egyptian records
give reason for supposing that that region of Mt. Sinai, perhaps of the
moon-god “Sin,” was known as holy ground, and as the “land of God,” or
of the gods, before the days of Moses.[457]

At Jerusalem the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah, where the ark of the
covenant rested after its return from Philistia,[458] and where David
erected an altar to the Lord after the staying of the pestilence from
Israel.[459] And it is supposed that this same Mt. Moriah was where
Abraham offered a sacrifice to God on an altar he had built for the
sacrifice of his son.[460] And this site of the Temple at Jerusalem is
held sacred to-day, in view of its being deemed by multitudes a holy
place from the beginning of the world.[461]

When Naaman the Syrian was healed of leprosy by Elisha, the prophet of
Israel, he desired thenceforth to worship Jehovah in his Syrian home. To
this end he asked of Elisha the gift of “two mules’ burden of earth”
from Samaria, in order that he might on that sacred foundation erect in
Syria an altar to Jehovah.[462]

In a prophecy of the Messiah as the foundation, or threshold, of a new
temple, it was declared by the Lord: “Behold, I lay [or, I have laid] in
Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone of
sure foundation.”[463] Again, it was the promise of God to the
Israelites that they should be restorers of worship on former
foundations. “They that shall be of thee shall build the old waste
places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and
thou shalt be called The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths
to dwell in.”[464]

New Testament phraseology makes frequent reference to this same idea.
“According to the grace which was given unto me, as a wise
master-builder, I laid a foundation,” says Paul. “But let each man take
heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”[465] The Christian saints of the
“household of God,” as “living stones,”[466] are “built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the
chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed
together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.”[467]

Muhammadanism, which shows many survivals of primitive ideas and
primitive customs, emphasizes the importance of the first foundation as
the only foundation, in the traditions and legends of the holy places of
its most sacred city. Every _masjid_, or “place of prostration,” in that
vicinity is on a site counted holy long centuries before the days of the
Prophet of Islam.

The Kaʿbah, or Holy House, in the mosk at Meccah is said to have been
built by Adam himself, on the model of a similar structure in heaven. It
would seem as if no earthly foundation, or threshold, could have been
earlier than that; indeed, the Qurân declares: “The first house
appointed unto men to worship in was that which was in Beccah [or
Meccah];”[468] yet there is a tradition that Adam erected a place of
prayer even before he built the Kaʿbah. In the Deluge the Holy House was
destroyed; but Abraham was directed to rebuild it, and on digging
beneath the surface of its site he discovered the original foundation,
and the Kaʿbah was newly built up on that.

According to Muhammadan traditions, it was while Hagar was near the site
of the Holy House, with her famishing son Ishmael, that a spring of
water gushed forth with its life-giving stream from beneath that holy
site. And that spring is the well Zemzem, or Zamzam, whose waters are
deemed sacred and life-giving to-day.

Mount Arafat, a holy hill near Meccah, is another place of pilgrimage,
and its sacredness dates from even an earlier day than the laying of the
first foundation of the Holy House at Meccah by Adam. When our first
parents were cast out of their heavenly paradise, Adam lighted in
Ceylon, and Eve in Arabia. Seeking each other, they met on Mount Arafat,
or the Mount of Recognition, and therefore that spot of their reunion
and new covenanting is a place of pilgrimage and worship for the
faithful of all the world at this time.[469] Adam is said to have built
a _madaa_, a place of prayer, on Mount Arafat, before he built the
Kaʿbah.[470] The religion of Islam thus teaches its subjects to worship
at the earliest threshold laid by our first parents in their primal
covenanting, and all other religions recognize the importance of a
similar idea.

-----

Footnote 261:

Darmesteter’s translation of _Zend Avesta_, in “Sacred Books of the
East,” IV., 12, note.

Footnote 262:

De Coulange’s _Ancient City_, pp. 32–35, 46 f.

Footnote 263:

Compare Friedrich Delitzsch’s _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_, s. v.
“Êkallu.”

Footnote 264:

Wilkinson’s _Egyptians in the Times of the Pharaohs_, p. 141.

Footnote 265:

Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 279 f.

Footnote 266:

Guhl and Koner’s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 297.

Footnote 267:

See, for example, _Odyssey_, VII., 80.

Footnote 268:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Persia_, pp. 240–254.

Footnote 269:

Comp. Gen. 18 : 1–9, and Exod. 26 : 1–14; 39 : 32, etc.

Footnote 270:

Douglas’s _Society in China_, p. 343.

Footnote 271:

See Chamberlain’s _Things Japanese_, pp. 37, 226 f., 378; Griffis’s
_Mikado’s Empire_, p. 90; Isabella Bird’s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_,
II., 282.

Footnote 272:

Turner’s _Samoa_, pp. 18–20.

Footnote 273:

Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 703 f.

Footnote 274:

See Fergusson’s _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 100, 411–413.

Footnote 275:

Gen. 11 : 1–9.

Footnote 276:

See Mühlau and Volck’s Gesenius’s _Heb. und Aram. Handwörterbuch_
(12th ed.), s. v. “Babel;” also Schrader, in Richon’s _Dict. of Bib.
Antiq._ (2d ed.).

Footnote 277:

See Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 63; also, Erman’s _Life
in Ancient Egypt_, p. 58.

Footnote 278:

See Perrot and Chipiez’s _History of Art in Chal. and Assy._, II., 72.

Footnote 279:

See Count de Gobineau’s _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l’Asie
Centrale_; also Browne’s _Year among the Persians, and Traveller’s
Narrative to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab_.

Footnote 280:

_Bibliothèque Orientale_, s. v. “Bab.”

Footnote 281:

John 10 : 9.

Footnote 282:

See, for example, Griffis’s _Mikado’s Empire_, p. 419; Isabella Bird’s
_Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 295 f.; II., 367 f.; Gray’s _China_,
I., 90; Fergusson’s _Rude Stone Monuments_, p. 413.

Footnote 283:

See Chamberlain’s _Things Japanese_, p. 429 f.; and, Lowell’s
_Chosön_, pp. 262–266, for a fuller explanation of the origin and
signification of this primitive entrance way.

Footnote 284:

See, for example, Douglas’s _Society in China_, p. 411; Isabella
Bird’s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 64; Fergusson’s _Tree and
Serpent Worship_, frontispiece, plates iv-ix, xxi.

Footnote 285:

See Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 656.

Footnote 286:

_Ibid._, p. 569. The doorway in the engraving from the intaglio is
clearly one of the doorway shrines, with the guardians of the doorway
on either side, and not, as has been supposed, an opening into the
ark.

Footnote 287:

Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 657, 662, 759, 762; also Perrot
and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chal. and Assy._, I., 203, 212; II.,
95, 163, 210, 211.

Footnote 288:

_Ibid._, II., facing p. 212.

Footnote 289:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chal. and Assy._, II., 231;
Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I., 9.
See, also, note in Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, II., pp. 148–151.

Footnote 290:

Wilkinson’s _Anc. Egypt_, III., 349; Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, pp.
274, 283; and Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 189, 239.

Footnote 291:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 311; Maspero’s _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 237, 250, 253, 262, 316, 413.

Footnote 292:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 314. See, also, illustrations in
Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Anc. Egypt_, I., 131, 140, 175.

Footnote 293:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 319.

Footnote 294:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I., 256;
II., 31, 57, 147, 178.

Footnote 295:

_Ibid._, I., 53, 54.

Footnote 296:

_Ibid._, I., 287; II., 147.

Footnote 297:

_Ibid._, I., 264, 321.

Footnote 298:

_Ibid._, I., 320.

Footnote 299:

Bent’s _Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, pp. 185–193.

Footnote 300:

See, for example, Fergusson’s _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 100, 168 f.,
217, 233, 335, 337, 344, 385, 388, 398–401, 411–413, 441, 464, 468,
484, 532.

Footnote 301:

See illustrations in Sherrin’s _Early History of New Zealand_, pp.
406, 514, 648.

Footnote 302:

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, IV., 481.

Footnote 303:

See, for example, Williams’s _Middle Kingdom_, I., frontispiece;
Gray’s _China_, I., 11 f.

Footnote 304:

See citation in Bonomi’s _Nineveh and its Palaces_ (2d ed.), pp.
157–160, 174.

Footnote 305:

_Ibid._

Footnote 306:

_Nineveh and its Remains_ (Am. ed.), II., 202.

Footnote 307:

_Assyrian Discoveries_, pp. 75, 78, 429.

Footnote 308:

_Chaldean Magic_, pp. 47, 48, 54.

Footnote 309:

See, for example, 1 Sam. 29 : 6; 2 Sam. 3 : 25; 2 Kings 19 : 27; Psa.
121 : 7, 8; Isa. 37 : 28; Ezek. 43 : 11.

Footnote 310:

See references to the Mezuza of the Hebrews at page 69 f., _supra_.

Footnote 311:

Grotefend Cylinder, Col. I., ll. 44–46. See, also, Rawlinson’s
_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, Vol. I., p. 65, Col. I., ll.
19–21.

Footnote 312:

_East India House Inscription_, Col. III., ll. 48–50.

Footnote 313:

_Ibid._, Col. VIII., ll. 5–9.

Footnote 314:

_Ibid._, Col. IX., ll. 9–16.

Footnote 315:

Grotefend Cylinder, Col. I., ll. 36–38.

Footnote 316:

_East India House Inscr._, col. II., ll. 48–50.

Footnote 317:

See Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), p. 424; Perrot and
Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chald. and Assy._, I., 366–392; Rawlinson’s
_Herodotus_, Bk. II., Chap. 99, 125; Sayce’s _Religion of the Ancient
Babylonians_, p. 96; Mariette Bey’s _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 79
f.; Bunsen’s _Egypt’s Place in Universal History_, II., 378–386;
Rawlinson’s _History of Ancient Egypt_, I., 188–194; Réville’s
_Religions of Mexico and Peru_, pp. 41 f., 179 f., Ellis’s _Polynesian
Researches_, II., 207.

Footnote 318:

Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, Bk. I., Chap. 181–183.

Footnote 319:

The word “_sullam_,” here translated “ladder,” is a derivative from
“_salal_,” “to raise up in a pile, to exalt by heaping up as in the
construction of a mound or highway.” Comp. Isa. 57 : 14; 62 : 10; Jer.
50 : 26. See Bush’s _Notes on Genesis_, in loco.

Footnote 320:

Gen. 28 : 10–22.

Footnote 321:

See Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 691–696, with citation of
authorities at foot of p. 693, and note at p. 695.

Footnote 322:

_Ibid._; also, Sayce’s _Relig. of the Anc. Babyl._, pp. 221–278; 286,
note 3.

Footnote 323:

Comp. Job 1 : 21; Eccl. 5 : 15; 1 Tim. 6 : 7.

Footnote 324:

Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 696.

Footnote 325:

Ezek. 47 : 1–9.

Footnote 326:

Zeph. 2 : 13, 14, with margin.

Footnote 327:

See _Survey of Western Palestine_, “Memoirs,” I., 107.

Footnote 328:

See Gen. 2 : 8–10; Rev. 22 : 1, 2.

Footnote 329:

Ezek. 8 : 8–16.

Footnote 330:

Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), pp. 302–311.

Footnote 331:

_Ibid._, p. 69 f.

Footnote 332:

1 Sam. 5 : 1–5.

Footnote 333:

_In loco._

Footnote 334:

Zeph. 1 : 9.

Footnote 335:

Ezek. 46 : 2.

Footnote 336:

_Ibid._, 10 : 4; 9 : 3.

Footnote 337:

_Ibid._, 43 : 8.

Footnote 338:

Lev. 17 : 2–9.

Footnote 339:

Exod. 29 : 4.

Footnote 340:

_Ibid._, 29 : 10–12.

Footnote 341:

Exod. 33 : 8–10; see, also, Num. 12 : 5; 20 : 6; Deut. 31 : 15.

Footnote 342:

See, for example, Exod. 40 : 6, 29; Lev. 1 : 3, 5; 3 : 2; 4 : 4, 7; 8
: 1–36; 12 : 6; 14 : 11, 23; 15 : 14, 29; 16 : 7; 17 : 4–9; 19 : 21;
Num. 6 : 10–18.

Footnote 343:

2 Chron. 23 : 4, 5.

Footnote 344:

_Ibid._, 34 : 8, 9 (see margin).

Footnote 345:

1 Chron. 15 : 23, 24; Jer. 35 : 4; 52 : 24, etc.

Footnote 346:

Psa. 84 : 10 (see margin).

Footnote 347:

See Edersheim’s _The Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 191; also,
Ginsburg’s art. “Passover,” in Kitto’s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._, p. 426.

Footnote 348:

See 2 Kings 12 : 9; 22 : 4; 23 : 4; 25 : 18.

Footnote 349:

See, for example, representation and description of temples at Byblus
and Baalbec, in Donaldson’s _Architectura Numismatica_, pp. 105 f.,
122–128.

Footnote 350:

Fellows’s _Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_, p. 256.

Footnote 351:

Roberts’s _Oriental Illus. of Scrip._, p. 148 f.

Footnote 352:

Maurice’s _Indian Antiquities_, V., 89.

Footnote 353:

Maurice’s _Indian Antiquities_, V., 79 f., note. Compare Trumbull’s
_Blood Covenant_, pp. 157–164.

Footnote 354:

Maurice’s _Modern Hist. of Hindostan_, Pt. I., Bk. 2, chap. 3, p. 296
f.

Footnote 355:

Hughes’s _Dictionary of Islam_, art. “Masjid;” also Conder’s _Heth and
Moab_, p. 293 f.; also Lane’s _The Modern Egyptians_, I., 105.

Footnote 356:

Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 254.

Footnote 357:

The moon is said to have thus bowed before Muhammad, at the threshold
of the Kaabeh at Meccah. _Anecdotes Arabes et Mussulmans_, p. 22 f.
(By J.F. de la Croix, Paris, 1772.)

Footnote 358:

Chardin’s _Voyage_, I., 282.

Footnote 359:

_Ibid._, I., 292.

Footnote 360:

Laurie’s _Dr. Grant and the Mountain Nestorians_, p. 134 f.

Footnote 361:

Vambéry’s _Travels in Central Asia_, p. 233.

Footnote 362:

Huc’s _Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China_, I., 191.

Footnote 363:

Hearn’s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, I., 188.

Footnote 364:

Lowell’s _Occult Japan_, pp. 270–273; also, Isabella Bird’s _Unbeaten
Tracks in Japan_, II., 278–285.

Footnote 365:

_Ibid._, I., 111–119; II., 286–288.

Footnote 366:

See Petrie’s _Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt_, pp. 138–142; also,
Mariette’s _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 107 f., and Maspero’s _Dawn
of Civilization_, pp. 358–361.

Footnote 367:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 67.

Footnote 368:

See Wilkinson’s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, I.,
xiv.

Footnote 369:

This is on the testimony of Prof. W. Max Müller, who adds that “so far
the Egyptologists have not paid any attention to the threshold;” hence
there is a lack of material yet available as showing its peculiar
sacredness.

Footnote 370:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 272.

Footnote 371:

Lemm’s “Ritual Book,” p. 29 ff., 47; cited in Erman’s _Life in Anc.
Egypt_, p. 274 f.

Footnote 372:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, pp. 260, 308 f.; Mariette Bey’s
_Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 26.

Footnote 373:

Wilkinson’s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 65–86.

Footnote 374:

_Book of the Dead_, CXLII.

Footnote 375:

Renouf’s _Relig. of Anc. Egypt_, p. 191 f.

Footnote 376:

See p. 106, _supra_.

Footnote 377:

_Book of the Dead_, CXLV., CXLVI.

Footnote 378:

Renouf’s _Religion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 202 f.

Footnote 379:

_Book of the Dead_, CXXV.

Footnote 380:

Lane’s _Thousand and One Nights_. Notes to Chapter 3, Vol. I., p. 215
f. See, also, Stanley Lane’s _Arabian Society in the Middle Ages_, p.
73.

Footnote 381:

Or, “by steps,”–“_gradibus_.”

Footnote 382:

Cranch’s _Æneid of Virgil_, I., 572–585; _Æneis_, I., 441–449.

Footnote 383:

Bruce’s _Travels_ (Dublin ed.), III., 644, Bk. IV., chap. 12.

Footnote 384:

Bent’s _Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, p. 40 f.

Footnote 385:

See Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 17.

Footnote 386:

See, for example, _Iliad_, I., 426; XIV., 173; XXI., 427, 505;
_Odyssey_, VIII., 321.

Footnote 387:

Professor W.A. Lamberton, in a personal note to the author.

Footnote 388:

_Odyssey_, XIII., 4; VII., 83, 87, 89.

Footnote 389:

_Iliad_, VIII., 15.

Footnote 390:

See Hesiod’s _Theogony_, V., 749.

Footnote 391:

_Iliad_, IX., 404.

Footnote 392:

_Odyssey_, VIII., 80.

Footnote 393:

_Oedipus at Colonus_, 54 ff. See, also, 1591. Comp. Hesiod’s
_Theogony_, 811.

Footnote 394:

Prof. W.A. Lamberton.

Footnote 395:

Æschylus’s “Suppliants,” p. 497; cited in Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and
Roman Antiq._, s. v. “Ara.” See, also, Donaldson’s _Architectura
Numismatica_, pp. xvi, xvii, 33, 54.

Footnote 396:

Euripides, _Androm._, 1098. Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._,
s. v. “Antæ.”

Footnote 397:

Acts 14 : 8–14.

Footnote 398:

_Odyssey_, VII., 130.

Footnote 399:

Euripides, _Hippolytus_, 741.

Footnote 400:

_Pausanias_, Bk. X., 24, 5.

Footnote 401:

Bingham’s _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, Bk. VIII., chap. 3.

Footnote 402:

_Ibid._, Bk. VIII., chap. 4.

Footnote 403:

_Ibid._, Bk. VIII., chap. 7.

Footnote 404:

Blunt’s _Annotated Book of Common Prayer_, p. 210.

Footnote 405:

_Ibid._, p. 217.

Footnote 406:

See Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 15 f.

Footnote 407:

Baring-Gould’s _Germany, Present and Past_ (Am. ed.), p. 105.

Footnote 408:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 14 f.

Footnote 409:

Vaux’s _Church Folk-Lore_, p. 99.

Footnote 410:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 16.

Footnote 411:

Vaux’s _Church Folk-Lore_, p. 98.

Footnote 412:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 17.

Footnote 413:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 254.

Footnote 414:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 255.

Footnote 415:

See Henderson’s _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties of England and the
Borders_, p. 38.

Footnote 416:

Curtin’s _Myths and Folk-Lore of Ireland_, p. 177.

Footnote 417:

See Jones’s and Kropf’s _Folk-Tales of the Magyars_, p. 410.

Footnote 418:

On the eye-witness testimony of Prof. Dr. Morris Jastrow, Jr.

Footnote 419:

Réville’s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 41, 179 f., 207; also
Bancroft’s _Mex._, I., 296.

Footnote 420:

Réville’s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, p. 183; Bancroft’s _Mex._,
I., 162.

Footnote 421:

Réville’s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 31, 184, 207 f.

Footnote 422:

_Ibid._, p. 83.

Footnote 423:

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, “Civilized Nations,” II., 706 f.

Footnote 424:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races and Antiquities_, IV., 209 f., 314, 321,
323, 332, 338, 351, 531, 801, 803, 805. See also, Stephens’s
_Incidents of Travels in Yucatan_, I., 137, 167–176, 303, 306,
403–407, 411–413; II., 42, 54, 56, 72, 122.

Footnote 425:

Chateaubraud’s _Voyage en Amérique_, pp. 130–136; cited in Frazer’s
_Golden Bough_, II., 383.

Footnote 426:

Ellis’s _Polynesian Researches_, II., 206.

Footnote 427:

_Ibid._, II., 211 f.

Footnote 428:

_Ibid._, II., 207, illustration.

Footnote 429:

_Ibid._, II., 212 f.

Footnote 430:

Ellis’s _Hist. of Madagascar_, I., 176–187.

Footnote 431:

Ellis’s _Through Hawaii_, p. 73 f.

Footnote 432:

_Ibid._, p. 75.

Footnote 433:

Ellis’s _Through Hawaii_, p. 81 f.

Footnote 434:

_Ibid._, p. 135 f.; also, Isabella Bird’s _Six Months in the Sandwich
Islands_, p. 196.

Footnote 435:

Ellis’s _Through Hawaii_, p. 153 f. See, also, Isabella Bird’s _Six
Months in the Sandwich Islands_, p. 135 f.

Footnote 436:

Num. 35 : 6–32; Deut. 4 : 41–43; 19 : 1–13; Josh. 20 : 1–9.

Footnote 437:

Comp. Gill’s _Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, pp. 3, 4, 7,
14, 18, 20, 26, 152, 155, 158, 160, 170; also Turner’s _Samoa_, p.
259.

Footnote 438:

See pp. 21–23, 45 f., 55, _supra_.

Footnote 439:

Gen. 11 : 28; Neh. 9 : 7.

Footnote 440:

Rawlinson’s _Inscript. of W. Asia_, Vol. I., pl. 69, Col. II., l. 29
ff.

Footnote 441:

See Hilprecht’s _Assyriaca_, pp. 54, 55, 97.

Footnote 442:

Inscription in the temple of Rameses III. at Karnak.

Footnote 443:

Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 279.

Footnote 444:

See “Grihya-Sutras,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXX., 193–201;
also De Coulange’s _Ancient City_, pp. 36, 47 f.

Footnote 445:

See Julien’s _Mémoires de Hionen-Thsang_, I., 459–466; Cunningham’s
_Archæological Survey of India_, I., 1–12; Sir Monier
Monier-Williams’s _Buddhism_, pp. 390–401.

Footnote 446:

Cunningham’s _Archæological Survey of India_, II., 212, 213.

Footnote 447:

_Ibid._, II., 353 f.

Footnote 448:

_Ibid._

Footnote 449:

“The Shih King,” Bk. 7, § 3, in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 111.

Footnote 450:

Williams’s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 90 f.

Footnote 451:

Harrison and Verrall’s _Myth. and Monu. of Anc. Athens_, pp. 353–361.

Footnote 452:

Henderson’s _Iceland_, II., 64–67; also _ibid._, I., xiv.

Footnote 453:

Gen. 28 : 10–22.

Footnote 454:

_Ibid._, 13 : 1–3.

Footnote 455:

_Ibid._, 12 : 1–8.

Footnote 456:

Exod. 3 : 1–12.

Footnote 457:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 411.

Footnote 458:

2 Sam. 6 : 1–19.

Footnote 459:

_Ibid._, 24 : 15–25.

Footnote 460:

Gen. 22 : 1–13.

Footnote 461:

As evidenced in the traditional claim that the grave of Adam was under
the cross.

Footnote 462:

2 Kings 5 : 17.

Footnote 463:

Isa. 28 : 16; 1 Pet. 2 : 6.

Footnote 464:

Isa. 58 : 12.

Footnote 465:

1 Cor. 3 : 10, 11.

Footnote 466:

1 Pet. 2 : 5.

Footnote 467:

Eph. 2 : 20, 21.

Footnote 468:

_Sura_ 3 : 90.

Footnote 469:

See Sale’s _Koran_, “Preliminary Discourse,” Sect. IV.; Burton’s
_Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah_, III., 149–222; Hughes’s
_Dictionary of Islam_, s. vv. “Abraham,” “Adam,” “Arafāt,” “Hagar,”
“Ishmael,” “Kaʿbah,” “Masjidu ʾl-Harām,” “Zamzam;” Sprenger’s _Life of
Mohammad_, pp. 46–62; Muir’s _Mahomet and Islam_, pp. 12–17, 215–219.

Footnote 470:

Burton’s _Pilgrimage_, III., 260.

-----

III.
SACRED BOUNDARY LINE.

1. FROM TEMPLE TO DOMAIN.

Man’s first dwelling-place was the cave, or the tent, or the hut, in
which he made a home with his family. The threshold and hearth of that
dwelling-place was the boundary of his earthly possessions. It was the
sacred border or limit of the portion of the earth’s surface over which
he claimed control, and where he and his were under the special
protection of the deity with whom he was in covenant. Therefore the
threshold hearth was hallowed as a place of covenant worship.

As families were formed into tribes and communities, they came to have a
common ruler or priest, and his dwelling-place was counted by all as the
common center of covenant with their common deity; and when they would
worship that deity there, they worshiped at the threshold altar of his
sanctuary. So it was that the threshold was the place of the hearth-fire
and altar, in both house and temple.

When man acquired property rights beyond his dwelling-place, and
communities and peoples gained control over portions of country more or
less extensive, the boundary limits of their possessions were extended,
but were no less real and positive than before. The protecting deity of
the region thus bounded was recognized as having sway in that domain;
and those who were dwellers there were in covenant relations with him.
Therefore it was that the boundary line of such domain was deemed its
threshold, and as such was held sacred as a place of worship and of
sacrifice.

2. LOCAL LANDMARKS.

A private landmark was a sacred boundary, and was a threshold altar for
its possessor. To remove or to disregard such a local threshold, was an
offense not only against its owner, but against the deity in whose name
it had been set up.

Among the earliest remains from unearthed Babylonia are local landmarks,
or threshold boundary stones, inscribed, severally, with a dedication
and an appeal to the deity honored by him who erected the stone. These
local landmarks were ordinarily in the form of a phallus; as phallic
forms were numerous under Babylonian temple thresholds. Among the
records of those peoples are writings, showing the importance attached
to such threshold stones, in the contracts accompanying their setting
up, and in the sacred ceremonies on that occasion.

Illustrations of the importance attached by the ancient Babylonians to a
boundary stone, or threshold landmark, are found in the records of the
imprecations inscribed on these phallic pillars, as directed against the
violator of their sacredness.[471] For example, a Babylonian, Sir-usur
[“O snake-god protect”], a descendant of the house of Habban, presented
a valuable tract of land to his daughter on her betrothal to
Tâbashâp-Marduk. The withering curse inscribed on the conventional
boundary-stone pillar is as follows:

“For all future time: Whosoever, of the brothers, sons, family,
relatives, descendants, servants purchased or house-born, of the house
of Habban, be he a prefect, or an overseer, or anybody else, shall rise
and stand up to take this field away, or to remove this boundary stone,
and causes this field to be presented to a god, or sends some one to
take it away [for the state], or brings it into his own possession; who
changes the area, the limit, or the boundary stone, divides it into
pieces, or takes a piece from it, saying, ‘The field and _mulugi_[472]
have not been presented;’ or who on account of the dire curse [written]
on this boundary stone, sends a fool, a deaf man, a blind man, a
reckless man, an enemy, an alien, an ignorant man, and causes this
inscribed stone to be removed, throws it into the water, hides it in the
earth, crushes it with a stone, burns it with fire, effaces it and
writes something else on it, or puts it into a place where nobody can
see it,–upon this man may the great gods Anu, Bêl, Ea, and Nusku, look
wrathfully, uproot his foundation, and destroy his offspring. May
Marduk, the great lord, cause him to carry dropsy as an ever-entangling
net; may Shamash the judge, greatest of heaven and earth, decide all his
lawsuits, standing relentlessly against him; may Sin, the light dwelling
in the brilliant heavens, cover him with leprosy as a garment; like a
wild ass may he lie down at the wall surrounding his city; may Ishtar,
mistress of heaven and earth, lead him into evil daily before the god
and the king; may Ninib, born in the temple Ekura, the sublime son of
Bêl, uproot his area, his limit, and his boundary stone; may Gula, the
great physician, consort of the god Ninib, put never-ceasing poison into
his body till he urinates blood and pus like water; may Rammân, first of
heaven and earth, the strong son of the god Anu, inundate his field, and
destroy the corn, that thorns may shoot up, and may his feet tread down
vegetation and pasturage; may Nabû, the sublime messenger, bring want
and famine upon him, and whatsoever he desires for the hole of his mouth
may he not obtain; and may the great gods, as many names as are
mentioned on this inscribed stone, curse him with a dire curse that
cannot be removed, and destroy his seed for ever and ever.”[473]

Prominence is given, in the ancient laws of India, to the manner in
which disputed boundaries between villages, and between land owners,
shall be settled; and it is made evident that a peculiar sacredness
attaches to these landmarks. The king was to decide the dispute, after
hearing testimony and examining evidence. Trees, and mounds, or heaps of
earth, were preferred as landmarks; and tanks, wells, cisterns, and
fountains, as also temples, were desired on boundary lines.[474]

Emphasis was laid on the sacredness of the local landmark, in the laws
of the Hebrews; and a curse was pronounced against him who dared remove
this threshold altar. “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark,
which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt
inherit, in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee,” was an
injunction in the fundamental law of the Promised Land.[475] And it
passed into a proverb of duty: “Remove not the ancient landmark, which
thy fathers have set.”[476] It was a reproach to a people that there
were those among them who would “remove the landmarks” and disregard
sacred property rights.[477] And among the curses which were to be
spoken from the summit of Ebal, when Israel took possession of Canaan,
was this: “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s landmark. And,” it
was added, “all the people shall say, Amen.”[478]

Abraham and Abimelech found that their followers were quarreling over
the boundary line between their respective domains on the borders of the
Negeb. Abraham claimed the well at Beer-sheba as his by right, but the
servants of Abimelech forcibly took possession of it. So the two
chieftains met and agreed upon a border line, and made a covenant with
accompanying sacrifices. “And Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in
Beer-sheba” as his border landmark, “and called there on the name of the
Lord, the Everlasting God.”[479] Border landmarks were in the form of a
pillar, a tree, a heap, or a stele, in Oriental countries generally.

When Jacob and Laban agreed to part in peace after their stormy meeting
in Gilead, they set up a heap of stones and a stone pillar as a monument
of witness of their mutual covenant, and as a landmark of their agreed
territorial boundary. This memorial of their covenant was called
“Galeed,” or “Witness Heap,” and “Mizpah,” or “Watch Tower.” “And Laban
said to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold the pillar, which I have set
betwixt me and thee. This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness,
that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not
pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. The God of
Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God [or, gods] of their father, judge
betwixt us.”[480] The new boundary mark was a token of a sacred
covenant.

In classic literature and customs the sacred boundary landmark is
prominent as devoted to, or as representing, various deities, at
different times. Zeus and Hermes among the Greeks; Jupiter, Mercury,
Silvanus, and Terminus, among the Romans, are sometimes interchangeably
referred to in this connection. The legends and symbols employed seem to
indicate that life and its transmission took their start at the
threshold boundary, and therefore a pillar or a phallus marked every new
beginning along a road or at a territorial boundary.

An image of Zeus, or Jupiter, was sometimes employed as a boundary
landmark, and an image of Hermes, or Mercury, was at the starting-point
of a road, and again at various points along the road. Zeus, or Jupiter,
was chief of gods as the arbiter of life. Hermes, or Mercury, was
earliest known as the fertilizing god of earth, and hence was the
promoter of all forms of life, as guardian of flocks, fish, fields, and
fruits. He also guarded those who went out from the threshold.
Sacrifices were offered to him by Athenian generals as they started on
their expeditions. He was even spoken of as the inventor of sacrifices
and the promoter of commerce and of enrichment.[481]

Of Terminus, Ovid say: “When the night shall have passed away [and the
threshold of a new day is to be crossed], let the god who by his
landmark divides the fields be worshiped with the accustomed honors.
Terminus,[482] whether thou art a stone, or whether a stock sunk deep in
the field by the ancients, yet even in this form thou dost possess
divinity.”[483] This symbol of Terminus was regularly “sprinkled with
the blood of a slain lamb,” in recognition of its sacredness.

It is said that Numa, the second king of Rome, who was revered by the
Romans as the author of their whole system of religious worship,
directed that every one should mark the boundaries of his landed
property by stones consecrated to Jupiter, and that yearly sacrifices
should be offered at these boundary stones, at the festival of the
Terminalia.[484] At this festival the two owners of adjacent property
crowned the statue or stone pillar with garlands, and raised a rude
altar, on which they offered up corn, honeycombs, and wine, and
sacrificed a lamb or a sucking pig, with accompanying praises to the
god.[485]

Silvanus also was a god of the boundary. He was represented by a tree
grove, as Terminus was by a pillar, and offerings of fruit, grain, and
milk, and of pigs, were made to him. When he would be guarded against as
a source of evil in a home, the protectors of the inmates would perform
certain ceremonies at the threshold of the house.

A tree, and sometimes a grove, was the sacred landmark of a village
boundary in primitive lands. Such trees and groves are still to be found
in Equatorial Africa. Describing some of these in Zinga and its
vicinity, Stanley expresses surprise that they have so long remained
untouched in “a country left to the haphazard care of patriarchal chiefs
ignorant of written laws.”[486] But reverence for a threshold landmark
seems to be in the very nature of a primitive people, as truly as any
primitive sentiment; and sentiment is in itself a dominant law.

At the boundary line between two villages in Samoa, in olden time, there
were two stones said to have been two living beings. When any quarrel
arose, those engaged in it were told, “Go and settle it at the stones;”
and they went to those boundary line stones and fought out their
contest.[487]

Trees and stone pillars are still known as boundary landmarks between
parishes and townships in Europe and America, as in Asia, Africa, and
Polynesia in more primitive days; and their importance is recognized as
peculiar, even if not always absolutely sacred. The annual custom of
“beating the bounds” of a parish by the parish authorities survives in
some parts of England to-day. A procession makes the circuit of the
parish boundary, under the care of a “select vestryman,” or other parish
official, halting at every landmark to identify it and carefully to
observe its location.

In former times it was customary to take the boys of the parish on this
round, and beat them at every landmark, in order to impress upon their
memories its precise position. More recently the boys are permitted to
carry willow wands peeled white, and with these to beat the landmarks.
The later plan is certainly more satisfactory to the boys, and it is
quite as likely to impress their memories. Formerly this ceremony was
accompanied by religious services, in which the clergyman invoked curses
on him who “transgresseth the bounds and doles of his neighbor,” and
blessings on him who regarded the landmarks.[488]

It has been suggested that this fixing and honoring of the landmarks by
an annual festival goes back to the Roman Terminalia, in the days of
Numa, but there is reason to believe that it was far earlier than that.
There are traces of it in primitive times, among various primitive
peoples.

In Russia, the Cossacks long had a custom somewhat like this, in the
case of a disputed boundary line. When the boundary had been formally
determined, all the boys of the two contiguous stanitsas, or land
divisions, were collected, and driven by the people along the frontier
line. “At each landmark a number of boys were soundly whipped and
allowed to run home,” in order that in later years they might be able to
testify as to the spot where that landmark stood. In cases where the
boys’ memory failed to be accurate, an arbiter was chosen from the older
inhabitants, and sworn to act honestly to the best of his knowledge; and
his decision was accepted as final.[489]

A similar custom of beating the bounds under a “selectman” of the town
has existed in portions of New England until recently, and perhaps it
has not yet died out there. Thus Ralph Waldo Emerson speaks of the
selectmen of Concord perambulating the bounds of its township “once in
five years,” up to 1858.[490] Is there not a survival of this old custom
in the habit of striking a child on his birthday as many blows as he has
passed years, when he comes to the threshold of another year of his
life?

Mile-posts would seem to have been originally landmarks separating the
public way from private lands, being placed at regular distances along
the road for convenience of measurement and locating. They marked the
threshold of the “king’s highway” to and from his capital in the Roman
empire, as trees marked the border-lines of the principal roads in
Greece.

3. NATIONAL BORDERS.

Stone pillars marking the exact boundaries of states or nations, whether
settled by a joint commission or by a conqueror’s fiat, are not a modern
invention, although they are in use to-day. They are of old time, and of
primitive ages. And these boundaries of a country are by their very
nature its thresholds.

In Babylonia, the name of Nebuchadrezzar meant literally, “Nebo protect
the boundary!” The threshold of the empire was sacred; and the deity,
with whom the Babylonian king was in covenant, was the protector of that
boundary, and of those who dwelt within it. From the earliest times
onward an Oriental sovereign would set up a pillar, or pillars, or
stele, at the extreme limits of his newly extended dominion, as the
outer threshold or doorway of his empire.

From Tiglath-Pileser I. to Esarhaddon, from about 1100 B.C. to 669 B.C.,
the great Assyrian kings tell us, in their inscriptions, that whenever
they restored an old boundary of their predecessors that had been lost
to them, or extended their boundary beyond its former limits, they had
set up a large stele bearing their image at this threshold of their
empire.[491] Frequently these stele doorways,[492] with the king
represented on the threshold, had inscriptions on them giving the story
of the new conquests, with an ascription of honor to the covenant god by
whose power they had been wrought. Prominent mountain peaks, sources of
rivers, the temples or market-places of conquered cities, the banks of
lakes, or the shores of the sea, are chosen as conspicuous places for
such steles. National boundary marks of this character are still to be
seen on the rocks of Nahr-el-Kelb, above Beyroot, on the shores of the
Mediterranean, and at the sources of the Tigris and the Euphrates.[493]

Ashurnâsirapli (king of Assyria, 885–860 B.C.) tells of such a new
boundary mark set up by him at the farthest point of his conquests,
“whither nobody of my royal ancestors had advanced.... At that time I
made a picture [a stele] of my person. The glory of my power I wrote
upon it. On the mountain Eki, in the city Ashurnâsirapli [named after
the king], at a spring I set it up.”[494]

A similar custom would seem to have prevailed with the rulers of ancient
Egypt. Sneferu, a king of the fourth dynasty, greatest among the very
early names of the Old Empire (say, about 4000 B.C.), went down as a
conqueror into the Peninsula of Sinai, and left there inscribed a
mammoth figure of himself, on the granite hills above the famous copper
and turquoise mines of Wady Magharah. He is styled in the accompanying
inscription the “vanquisher of a foreign people.”[495]

As early as the twelfth dynasty of ancient Egypt, before the days of
Abraham, stone thresholds marked the upper border of that mighty empire.
“Two huge pillars of stone, covered with long inscriptions, served
formerly as boundary marks between the Egyptian empire and the
negro-land called Heh.”[496] King Usurtasen III., who set up these
landmarks, says in an inscription on the second of them: “Every one of
my sons who maintains this boundary which I have fixed, he shall be
called my son who was born of me. My son is like the protector of his
father (that is Horus), like the preserver of the boundary of his father
(that is Osiris.) But if he abandons it, so that he does not fight upon
it, he is not my son, he is not then born of me. I have caused my own
image to be set up, on this boundary which I have fixed, not that ye may
(only) worship it (the image of the founder), but that ye may fight upon
it.”

On the oldest map in the world, a map of the gold districts in Nubia, in
the nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, there is a mention of the “memorial
stone of King Mineptah I. Seti I.” And that memorial stone, of this new
threshold of domain, marked the boundary line of empire in that
direction.[497]

Rameses II. had it recorded on the walls of the rock grotto of
Bayt-el-Walli concerning his threshold extensions: “The deeds of victory
are inscribed a hundred thousand times on the glorious Persea. As the
chastiser of the foreigners, _who has placed his boundary-marks
according to his pleasure_ in the land of the Ruthennu, he is in truth
the son of Ra, and his very image.”[498]

On the eastern border of Lower Egypt, the main passage way from the
Delta into Arabia, the great gateway of the empire toward the north and
the east, is still known as _El Gisr_, or “The Threshold.”[499] This
point is near Lake Timsah, on the line of the modern Suez Canal.

In ancient Greece, Theseus “set up a pillar,” as a threshold stone
between Peloponnesus and Attica,–then called Ionia,–“writing upon it an
epigram in two trimeters, bounding the land. Of these [inscriptions] the
one toward the east side said, ‘This is not Pelopennesus, but Ionia,’
and that toward the west, ‘This is Pelopennesus, not Ionia.’”[500]

Even the term, the “Pillars of Hercules,” as the boundaries of the
Grecian empire and the then known world, is an indication of this idea
in the classic age, as well as in the primitive mind. Calpë and Abyla
were the door-posts of the great outer passage way, and the threshold
between those pillars was founded upon the seas, and established upon
the floods.[501]

As showing that the term “threshold” is not applied to these boundary
stones merely by accommodation, it is sufficient to quote from Justinian
in the case. He declares specifically that “as the threshold makes a
certain boundary in a house, so also the ancients designed that the
boundary of the empire should be its threshold; hence it is called the
‘threshold,’ as if it were a certain bound and term.”[502] Speaking of
one who has been in foreign captivity, and who desires a resumption, or
a restoration, of his civil rights, on his coming back to his country,
Justinian says that such a return “is called _postliminium_ [a
recrossing of the threshold], because at that same threshold the thing
which he has lost is restored to him.”[503]

When the old Portuguese navigators started out on their voyages of
discovery, they were accustomed to take with them stone pillars to set
up in a prominent place at the farthest limits of their newly claimed
territory as the national door-posts or threshold in that direction.
Such a pillar was erected at the mouth of the Congo River, at the time
of its discovery by Diego Cão, or Cam, in 1484–85. On this account, the
river was known for a time as the “Rio de Padrão,” or “Pillar
River.”[504] It might, indeed, have been called the “River of the
Threshold.”

This custom of setting up stone pillars as boundary marks along the
borders of countries, nations, and states, has been continued down to
the present day. Such landmarks are still to be seen along the borders
of the great divisions of Europe, and they are on the lines of the
several states of the United States of America. The line between the
English grants in America, originally made to the Duke of York and to
Lord Baltimore, was, after much dispute, run by two English surveyors,
Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, in 1763–67, and marked by stone
pillars at intervals of five miles. This was generally known as “Mason
and Dixon’s line;” it separated Pennsylvania from Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia, and was the dividing line between the free and the slave
states before the Civil War of 1861–65. One of those early stone
landmarks on that line is still to be seen near Oxford, in Chester
County, Pennsylvania, as an illustration of a practice beginning in
Babylonia as far back as 4000 B.C., and continued in America down to
A.D. 1895.[505]

European titles of rank bear traces of the importance formerly attached
to national boundary lines and their preservation. The old German title
of “markgraf,” the “graf” or count or warden of the marches, designated
a representative or servant of the king who was in charge of the
“marches,” or “marks,” or “border lines,” which guarded the thresholds
of the empire in different directions. It was under “Henry the Fowler,”
early in the tenth century, that this title, as a title, first gained
prominence. Afterwards it became hereditary; “and hence have come the
innumerable margraves, marquises, and such like of modern times.”[506]

“Letters of marque” were letters of commission, or permission, granted
by the government to individuals, in time of war, to pass over the
boundary mark, or national threshold, for purposes of seizure or
reprisal. And a “marquee” is primarily a tent over, or before, the
threshold of a military commander’s tent.

4. BORDER SACRIFICES.

An altar would have no meaning unless sacrifices were offered at it. If,
therefore, the boundary threshold of an empire were an altar for that
empire, sacrifices would surely be offered there; and the records of
history, and the customs of old times and later, show this to have been
the case.

Sacrifices were offered at the new boundary of an empire, by ancient
Assyrian and Egyptian kings, when they set up a pillar, or stele, at the
freshly acquired threshold in that direction. Thus, for example,
Ashurnâsirapli (king of Assyria, 885–860 B.C.), telling of his
far-reaching conquests, says that he marched with his armies to the
slopes of the Lebanon, and to the great sea of the Westland, and that at
the mountains of Ammanus he made and set up a stele of victory, and
offered sacrifices unto his gods.[507]

At the Egyptian boundary line in the Sinaitic Peninsula, there was a
temple with its sacrifices to “the sublime Hathor, queen of heaven and
earth and the dark depths below, whom the Egyptians worshiped as the
protectress of the land of Mafkat.” There were other temples with their
sacrifices at that point.[508] On the southern boundary of Egypt, in the
gold district of Nubia, there was “the temple of Amon in the holy
mountain,” where threshold sacrifices were offered.[509]

One of the most ancient of Chinese classics is the Shih King. Its age is
not known, but it is certain that it was a classic in the days of
Confucius, five centuries before the Christian era. This work contains
frequent references to sacrifices at the border altars, or the altars of
the boundary. There were public sacrifices at the “border altar” in the
beginning of every new year; and again when a ruler crossed his border
line on a warlike mission.[510]

When, in ancient times, a Chinese emperor passed over the outer
threshold of his empire, he offered a sacrifice of a dog, by running
over it with the wheels of his chariot. This is supposed to have
been a propitiatory offering to the dog-shaped guardians of the
roadway threshold, known also among the Indo-Aryans and the
Assyro-Babylonians.[511]

From what is known of modern customs in this line, and from occasional
historical references to the matter, it would seem that where there were
no gateways, or double columns to stand for door-posts, or doorway
stele, it was the practice to divide or separate the animals offered in
sacrifice, so as to make a passage-way between them, as through a door
or gate, and to pour out the blood of the victims on the earth between
the two portions, so that the offerer, or the one welcomed, might pass
over, or step across, that blood, as in a threshold covenant.

It has already been noted that when General Grant came to the border
line of Assioot, in Upper Egypt, as he landed from his Nile boat, a
bullock was sacrificed in covenant welcome, its head being put on one
side of the gang-plank, and its body on the other; while its blood was
between the two, so that it should be stepped over in the act of
landing.[512] And every year, when the great Hajj procession returns
from Meccah to Syria, it is welcomed, as it approaches Damascus, by just
such sacrifices as this. Sheep and oxen are sacrificed before the
caravan, their blood being poured out in the middle of the road, and
their bodies being divided and placed on either side of the way. Then
those who approach by this “new and living way,”[513] on the boundary
line of their country, renew their covenant with those within, by
passing over the blood.[514]

There seems to be a reference to such a mode of boundary sacrifices, in
the description of the Lord’s covenant welcome to Abraham, on the border
of the land promised to him for a possession.[515] Abraham was near the
southern boundary of Canaan. He had the promise of the Lord, that he and
his seed should possess that land; but as yet he was childless, and he
had no control over any portion of the land. He naturally desired some
tangible assurance, in accordance with the customs of mankind, that the
Lord’s promises to him would be made good. Therefore when the Lord said
to him, “I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to
give thee this land to inherit it,” Abraham replied with the question,
“O Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?”

Then the Lord responded with these directions, apparently in accordance
with a well-known mode of covenanting among men: “Take me an heifer of
three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three
years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” Abraham seems to have
understood what was to be done with these victims for sacrifice. “And he
took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half
over against the other: but the birds divided he not.” The blood of the
victims was doubtless poured out on the earth where they were
sacrificed, midway between the places of the divided portions, as is the
present custom.

“And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark,
behold a smoking furnace [or brazier, or censer], and a flaming torch [a
fire and a light as a symbol of the Divine presence] that passed
[covenant-crossed the blood on the threshold] between these pieces.” And
the record adds: “In that day the Lord made a covenant [a border-altar
covenant] with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from
the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: the
Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the
Perizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the
Girgashite, and the Jebusite.”

Thus Abram was assured that the Lord had covenanted to protect his
boundaries; as Nebuchadrezzar long afterward desired that his god Nebo
would protect his empire boundary or threshold. As to the fact of
boundary sacrifices in these lands and elsewhere, in those days and
earlier, there would seem to be no room for question.

It is not to be expected that border sacrifices would at all times, and
in all places, be just alike; but a common primitive symbolism would be
likely to show itself in them all. In Persia, these sacrifices are still
common, when one is to be received with honors at the border of a new
territory or jurisdiction.[516] Morier, describing his journey through
Persia, in the early part of this century, speaks of the first entrance
of a new ruler into the territory he was to govern. “The khan, with all
his attendants, accompanied us about two miles. He was preparing to
enter Bushire, his new government, with all splendor. From the town to
the swamps [from the territorial border to the border of the capital]
were erected stages on which bullocks were to be sacrificed, and from
which their heads were to be thrown under his horse’s feet as he
advanced; a ceremony, indeed, appropriated to princes alone, and to them
only on particular occasions.”[517]

On another occasion, when the British envoy approached Kauzeroon, on a
visit of ceremony, he was welcomed at the threshold of the town by a
corresponding ceremony. “A bottle which contained sugar candy was broken
under the feet of the envoy’s horse, a ceremony never practiced in
Persia to any but to royal personages.”[518]

the gates “oxen and sheep in great numbers were sacrificed just as he
passed, and their heads thrown under his horse’s feet.” And “glass vases
filled with sugar were broken before him.” On this occasion the Shah
frequently looked at a watch, “anxious that he should enter the gates
exactly at the time prescribed by the astrologers” for his crossing the
threshold.[519]

More recently, Layard has testified to the prevalence of such customs.
Speaking of his reception among the Yezidis, he tells of his approach to
the village of Guzelder, and of his welcome there: “The head of the
village of Guzelder, with the principal inhabitants, had come to invite
me to eat bread in his house, and we followed him.... Before we reached
Guzelder, the procession had swollen to many hundreds.... As I
approached, sheep were brought into the road and slain before my horse’s
feet, and as we entered the yard of Akko’s house the women and men
joined in the loud and piercing ‘_tahlel_.’”[520]

Again, as Layard entered the village of Redwan, he was similarly
welcomed. “I alighted,” he says, “amidst the din of music and the
‘_tahlel_’ at the house of Nazi, the chief of the whole Yezidi district;
two sheep being slain before me as I took my feet from the
stirrups.”[521]

When, some twenty years ago, a European prince visited the Mt. Lebanon
region,[522] a generous host killed a valuable cow on the road by which
the prince must come into his region. Then the royal visitor and his
retinue were requested to step over, not upon, the blood of the
slaughtered cow, at the threshold of that host’s domain.

On the occasion of a caravan starting out from the boundary line of a
country in the East, there are border sacrifices offered, even in recent
times. Thus Burckhardt tells of this ceremony, when he went from Egypt
to Nubia.

The various traders going with this caravan assembled at the
starting-point, having their goods with them. “At noon the camels were
watered, and knelt down by the side of their respective loads. Just
before the lading commenced, the Ababde women appeared with earth
vessels in their hands, filled with burning coals. They set them before
the several loads, and threw salt upon them.” It has already been shown
that salt stands for blood, in the minds of primitive peoples. “At the
rising of the bluish flame produced by the burning of the salt, they
exclaimed, ‘May you be blessed in going and in coming!’”[523] And this
sacrifice was supposed to secure safety against evil spirits encountered
in crossing the boundary line.

Thus it would seem that, from the beginning, on the national threshold,
as on the threshold of the temple and of the home, sacrifices were
offered, and boundary marks were set up, in recognition of a peculiar
sacredness of the border line,–which is in itself a foundation and a
limit. These boundary marks were commonly a pillar or a tree, in
apparent symbolism of a fructifying or a fruit-bearing agency, of the
transmission or the continuance of life. And the establishment and
protection of these boundary marks was deemed well pleasing to God or to
the gods, and in the nature of a holy covenant service.

-----

Footnote 471:

See, for example, Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia_, III., 41, 43; IV., 41; Hilprecht’s _Freibrief Nebukadnezar’s_,
I., col. II., 26–60; _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, II., 165–203, 258
ff.

Footnote 472:

An unknown product of the field.

Footnote 473:

From the Michaux Stone, columns II.-IV. in Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., pl. 70; translated for this work by
Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht. See illustrations in Maspero’s _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 762, 763. See Sayce’s _Religion of the Ancient
Babylonians_, p. 308.

Footnote 474:

Bühler’s “Laws of Manu,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXV., 298,
301.

Footnote 475:

Deut. 19 : 14.

Footnote 476:

Prov. 22 : 28; 23 : 10.

Footnote 477:

Job 24 : 2.

Footnote 478:

Deut. 27 : 17.

Footnote 479:

Gen. 21 : 22–33.

Footnote 480:

Gen. 31 : 43–53.

Footnote 481:

See Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, and Keightley’s _Class. Dict._, s.
vv. “Hermes,” “Jupiter,” “Mercury,” “Silvanus,” “Terminus,” “Zeus.”
Comp. Stengel’s _Die griechischen Sacralalterthüm_. in Iwan v.
Müller’s _Handbuch der Klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft_, V., part
3, p. 13; K.F. Hermann’s _Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer
der Griechen_, pp. 73, 108, note 2.

Footnote 482:

“This god was represented by a stone or a stump, and not with human
features.” This would seem to have been a rude phallic form.

Footnote 483:

Ovid’s _Fasti_, Bk. II., vs. 641 ff.

Footnote 484:

Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, s. vv. “Numa,” “Terminus.”

Footnote 485:

Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._, s. v. “Terminalia.”

Footnote 486:

Stanley’s _Congo_, I., 315–317.

Footnote 487:

Turner’s _Samoa_, p. 45 f.

Footnote 488:

See “Beating the Bounds,” in Chambers’s _Edinburgh Journal_ for July
23, 1853, pp. 49–52; also _American Architect_, Vol. X., No. 293, p.
64 f.

Footnote 489:

Wallace’s _Russia_, p. 366 f.

Footnote 490:

Cited in Thompson’s _Elements of Political Economy_, p. 110.

Footnote 491:

Schrader’s _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 63, 69, 87, 99, 109,
131, 133, 135, 141, 143, 147, 155, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 181; II.,
19, 35, 54, 89.

Footnote 492:

See pp. 105–108, _supra_.

Footnote 493:

See, for example, Schrader’s _Keilinshriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 69.

Footnote 494:

Rawlinson’s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17–26, col. 1, lines
63–69.

Footnote 495:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 8 f.; Villiers Stuart’s
_Nile Gleanings_, Pl. xlv., p. 276.

Footnote 496:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 182 f.

Footnote 497:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 81 f.

Footnote 498:

_Ibid._, II., 78 f.

Footnote 499:

Trumbull’s _Kadesh-barnea_, p. 341, note.

Footnote 500:

Plutarch’s _Lives_, Theseus, 25.

Footnote 501:

Psa. 24 : 2.

Footnote 502:

Justinian, _Inst._, Lib. I., 12, 5.

Footnote 503:

_Ibid._

Footnote 504:

Stanley’s _Congo_, I., 1–11.

Footnote 505:

See _Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog._, VI., 412–434.

Footnote 506:

Carlyle’s _History of Frederick_, II., I., 71–74.

Footnote 507:

Rawlinson’s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17–26, Col. III., ll.
84–89.

Footnote 508:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 81.

Footnote 509:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 82.

Footnote 510:

“The Shih King,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 343, 392, 399,
note, 420, 422 note.

Footnote 511:

Lacouperie’s _Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization_, pp.
79. 81.

Footnote 512:

See p. 7 f., _ante_.

Footnote 513:

Heb. 10 : 20.

Footnote 514:

I have this on the testimony of those who have often witnessed it.

Footnote 515:

See Gen. 15 : 1–21.

Footnote 516:

On this point I am assured by missionaries and other dwellers in
Persia.

Footnote 517:

Morier’s _Journey to Constantinople_, p. 75.

Footnote 518:

_Ibid._, p. 84 f. See, also, Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_,
p. 93 f.

Again, when the Shah of Persia was to enter Teheran, he was received
outside of the walls, by prominent officials, with much ceremony. As
he approached

Footnote 519:

Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 387 f.

Footnote 520:

Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), p. 35 f.

Footnote 521:

_Ibid._, p. 37.

Footnote 522:

My informant, an eye-witness of this incident, was not sure whether it
was a Prussian, an Austrian, or a Russian prince.

Footnote 523:

Burckhardt’s _Travels in Nubia_, p. 157.

-----

IV.
ORIGIN OF THE RITE.

1. A NATURAL QUESTION.

A question that forces itself on the mind, in connection with the study
of a world-wide primitive rite like this of the Threshold Covenant, is,
What was its origin? How came it to pass, that primitive peoples, in all
parts of the world, were brought to attach such exceptionally sacred
significance to the threshold of a hut, or tent, or cave, or house; of a
palace or temple; of a domain, local or national; and to count its
crossing by blood a form of holy covenanting between the parties engaged
in it, and the deity invoked in the ceremony? This question goes back to
the origin of religious rites among human beings, and its answer must,
in order to commend itself to all, be in accordance with the natural
outgrowths and the abnormal perversions of religious rites, in the main
line of human development all the world over.

However simple and elemental were man’s earliest religious ideas, they
must have been from the beginning pure and uplifting, or they would not
have been religious. Nothing impure or debasing in itself would have
raised man’s thoughts Godward, even though man might subsequently come
to degrade his best conceptions of God and his worship. Hence the answer
to this question must include only such facts as were capable of being
viewed reverently by primitive man, as worthy of God’s creatures in the
loving service and worship of God.

2. AN ANSWER BY INDUCTION.

This threshold rite clearly goes back to the beginning of family life.
The facts already presented are proof of this. The rite includes the
proffer of blood at the foundation of the family as a family. It is a
part of the marriage ceremonial among primitive peoples. It is also the
means by which one is adopted from without into a family circle or
group. It marks every stage of the progress of family life, from one
pair to a community and to an empire, in its civil and religious
relations. It is a form of covenanting between its participants, and
between them and God; and thus it has sanctity as a religious rite.

A fair induction from these recognized facts, in their sweep and
significance, would seem to indicate, as the origin of this primitive
rite, the covenant union between the first pair in their instituting of
the family relation. When was the first covenant made between two human
beings? When was the first outpouring of blood in loving sacrifice? By
what act was the first appeal made to the Author and Source of life for
power for the transmission of life, by two persons who thereby entered
into covenant with each other and with him? The obvious answer to these
questions is an answer to the question, What was the origin of the rite
of the Threshold Covenant?

Life and its transmission must have been a sacred mystery to the first
thinkers about God and his human workers. Blood was early recognized as
life, its outpouring as the pledge and gift of life, and its interchange
as a life covenant between those who shared its substance. In view of
this truth, a covenant union by blood that looked to the transmission of
life must have been in itself, to a thoughtful and reverent person, an
appeal to the Author of life to be a party to that covenant union, in
order to give it efficiency.

When first a twain were made one in a covenant of blood, the threshold
altar of the race was hallowed as a place where the Author of life met
and blessed the loving union. And from this beginning there was the
natural development of religious rites and ceremonies, in the family, in
the temple, and in the domain, as shown alike in the history of the
human race and in the main teachings of both the Old Testament and the
New.

3. NO COVENANT WITHOUT BLOOD.

Flowing blood is widely deemed essential to the covenant by which two
are made one in the marriage relation. This is peculiarly the case among
those primitive peoples where young maidens are guarded with jealous
care, and are given in marriage at a very early age. In the thought of
such peoples there is no binding covenant without blood, in the family
relation.[524] And a bloody hand stamp on the cloth of testimony is the
primitive certificate of the marriage covenant.

Facts in illustration of this truth are numerous in the nuptial customs
of Syria, Egypt, China, Dahomey, Liberia, Europe, Central America,
Samoa, and other widely different regions. A few of these facts are
given in the Appendix for the benefit of scientific students, in a
language better suited than English for the presentation of such
details.[525]

4. CONFIRMATION OF THIS VIEW.

If the view here given of the origin of this rite of the Threshold
Covenant be correct, there will be found traces of the truth in the
different religions of mankind. And this is the case, as shown in
religious literatures, in history, and in primitive customs and beliefs.

The most ancient expression of the religious thought and feeling of the
Aryan races is found in the Vedas and their accompanying literature. The
Brahmanas, in this literature, deal with the sacrificial element in
public and family worship, and with the rites and ceremonies pertaining
to religion. In the description of the construction of the household
altars and the high altars, there is abundant evidence that the woman is
recognized as the primitive altar, and that the form of the woman is
made the pattern of the altar form.

It is distinctly declared as to the shape of the altar, standing east
and west, that it “should be broader on the west side, contracted on the
middle, and broad again on the east side; for thus shaped they praise a
woman: ‘broad about the hips, somewhat narrower between the shoulders,
and contracted in the middle [or about the waist].’” Again, it is said,
in explanation, that “the altar (_vedi_, feminine) is female, and the
fire (_agni_, masculine) is male.”[526] This identifying of the altar
with the woman, of the offering with the man, and of their union with
worship and covenanting, is repeatedly found in the Brahmanas.[527]

Even as far back as the Vedas themselves the term _yoni_, or doorway of
physical life, is used as synonymous with altar.[528] And the production
of sacred fire, for purposes of worship, by twisting a stick in softened
wood, is described in the Rig-Vedas as a form of this covenant rite.
These facts point to this origin of the threshold altar of covenant and
sacrifice.

At present in India the most widely recognized visible aid in worship is
the representation of the _linga_ and the _yoni_ combined. This symbol
nominally stands for Siva; but that seems to be only because Saivism
predominates in modern Hindooism. The idea of this symbolic combination
long antedates this prominence of Siva worship.[529]

A form of Booddhist prayer in Tibet, said to be repeated more frequently
than any other known among men, is “the six-syllabled sentence, ‘_Om
mani padme Hūm_,’–‘Om! the Jewel in the Lotus! Hum!’” This prayer is
simply a euphemism for the primitive Threshold Covenant, as here
explained, with an ejaculatory invocation and ascription before and
after it.[530] It seems to be a survival of the thought that here was
the beginning of religious rites, and that all covenant worship must
continue in its spirit and power.

Every repetition of that prayer, by speech or by mechanism, is supposed
to affect the progress of a soul in its crossing the threshold of one of
the stages of being in the universe. It is a help to a new birth for
some soul somewhere.

There would thus appear to be no room for doubt in this matter in the
language and customs of the primitive Aryan peoples, and there are also
confirmations of the idea among the Semites. A legend that has a place
among the Jews and the Muhammadans, tells of a visit of Abraham to the
home of Hagar and Ishmael in Arabia.[531] An Amalekite wife of Ishmael
refused hospitality to Abraham, and in consequence Abraham left a
message to Ishmael to “change his threshold.” This message Ishmael
understood to mean the putting away of his wife and the taking of
another, and he acted accordingly. In the Arabic “a wife” is one of the
meanings of the term “threshold.”[532]

And the term “gate,” or “door,” had among the rabbis a specific
application to the altar of family covenanting. Thus Buxtorf, in his
definings of “_janua_” and “_ostium_,” says plainly: “_Apud rabbinos
etiam est ‘ostium ventris muliebris.’_” And he quotes the saying of a
disappointed bridegroom : “_Ostium apertum inveni._”[533]

Among the early Babylonians and Egyptians, as among other primitive
peoples, the twofold symbols of sex are counted the sacred emblem of
life, and as such are borne by the gods of life, and by those who have
the power of life and death from those gods. The circle and rod, or ring
and bolt, conjoined, are in the right hand of the Babylonian sun-god
Shamash;[534] as, in the _ankh_, or _crux ansata_, they are in the right
hand of every principal deity of ancient Egypt.[535] It is much the same
with the Phœnicians and others.[536]

In the innermost shrine of the most sacred Shinto temples of Japan, the
circular mirror, and the straight dagger, with the same meaning as the
circle and rod in Babylonia and Egypt and Phœnicia, are the only
indications of the presence of deity; and the worshipers in those
temples can come no farther than the threshold of the shrine containing
these emblems.[537]

Wherever, among the primitive peoples in America, as elsewhere, the red
hand is found as a symbol of covenant, and of life and strength through
covenant, it would seem to point to this primal meaning of the hand
stamp of blood at the doorway of life in a sacred covenant. There are
indications in Central American sculptures of the sacredness attaching
to the covenant rite between the first pair; and the combined symbols of
sex are represented there as in the East.[538]

It is a well-known fact that the public exhibit of the primitive
Threshold Covenant, as here explained, has been continued as a mode of
reverent worship among primitive peoples in the South Sea Islands, down
to modern times. The testimony of Captain Cook, the famous navigator, is
specific on this point.[539] It is also to be noted that in these
islands the two supports of the altar, or table of sacrifice, are
seemingly symbols of the two sexes, similar to those used in the far
East.[540]

All of the gathered facts concerning the Threshold Covenant in different
lands and in different times, as presented in the foregoing pages, would
seem to be in accordance with this view of the origin of the rite, as
with no other that can be suggested. The main symbolism of both the Old
and the New Testament also seem to indicate the same beginning.

V.
HEBREW PASS-OVER, OR CROSS-OVER,
SACRIFICE.

1. NEW MEANING IN AN OLD RITE.

How the significance of the Hebrew passover rite stands out in the light
of this primitive custom! It is not that this rite had its origin in the
days of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, but that Jehovah then and there
emphasized the meaning and sacredness of a rite already familiar to
Orientals. In dealing with his chosen people, God did not invent a new
rite or ceremonial at every stage of his progressive revelation to them;
but he took a rite with which they were already familiar, and gave to it
a new and deeper significance in its new use and relations.

Long before that day, a covenant welcome was given to a guest who was to
become as one of the family, or to a bride or bridegroom in marriage, by
the outpouring of blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining
the doorway itself with the blood of the covenant. And now Jehovah
announced that he was to visit Egypt on a designated night, and that
those who would welcome him should prepare a threshold covenant, or a
pass-over sacrifice, as a proof of that welcome; for where no such
welcome was made ready for him by a family, he must count the household
as his enemy.[541]

In announcing this desire for a welcoming sacrifice by the Hebrews, God
spoke of it as “Jehovah’s passover,” as if the pass-over rite was a
familiar one, which was now to be observed as a welcome to Jehovah.[542]
Moses, in reporting the Lord’s message to the Hebrews, did not speak of
the proposed sacrifice as something of which they knew nothing until
now, but he first said to them, “Draw out, and take you lambs according
to your families, and kill the passover”–or the threshold
cross-over;[543] and then he added details of special instruction for
this new use of the old rite.

2. A WELCOME WITH BLOOD.

A lamb was the chosen sacrifice in the welcome to Jehovah. Each
household, or family, was to take one lamb for this offering. No
directions were given as to the place or manner of its sacrifice; for
that seems to have been understood by all, because of the very term
“pass-over,” or threshold cross-over. This is implied, indeed, in the
directions for the use of the blood when it was poured out: “Kill the
passover,” in the usual place; “and ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and
dip it in the blood that is at the _threshold_ [Hebrew, _saph_], and
strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is at the
_threshold_.”[544]

In that welcome with blood there was covenant protection from Jehovah as
he came into Egypt to execute judgment on his enemies. The Egyptians had
already refused him allegiance, and put themselves in open defiance of
his authority. They were now to be visited in judgment.[545] But in
order to the distinguishing of the Lord’s people from his enemies, the
Hebrews were to prepare a blood welcome at their doorway, and the Lord
would honor this welcome by covenanting with those who proffered it.

“And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into
the midst of Egypt: and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall
die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even
unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all
the firstborn of cattle.... But against any of the children of Israel
shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know
how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and
Israel.”[546]

In furtherance of this purpose, the Lord asked for the sacrifice of the
threshold cross-over by the Hebrews: “For the Lord will pass through
[the land] to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the
lintel, and on the two side posts [of the Hebrew homes], the Lord will
pass over [cross-over or through] the door, and will not suffer the
destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”[547] Obviously the
figure here employed is of a sovereign accompanied by his executioner, a
familiar figure in the ancient East. When he comes to a house marked by
tokens of the welcoming covenant, the sovereign will covenant-cross that
threshold, and enter the home as a guest, or as a member of the family;
but where no such preparation has been made for him, his executioner
will enter on his mission of judgment.[548]

3. BASON, OR THRESHOLD.

It is strange that the Hebrew word for “threshold” (_saph_) in this
narrative is translated “bason” in our English Bible. It is because of
this that the identity of the passover sacrifice with the primitive
Threshold Covenant is so generally lost sight of. This word _saph_
occurs many times in the Old Testament text, and in nine cases out of
ten it is translated “threshold,” or “door,” or “door-post,” or the
like.[549] It would seem that it should be so translated in this
instance.

In some cases where _saph_ is translated “bason,” or “cup,” the term
“threshold” would be more appropriate, as when included in an
enumeration of the temple furniture.[550] Bronze and silver thresholds
were often mentioned in the furniture of Babylonian and Assyrian
temples;[551] and they might well have had mention among the Hebrews. It
is possible, however, that there was a cavity, as a blood receptacle, in
the threshold of houses or temples where sacrifices were so frequent;
and this would account for the use of the word _saph_ as “bason,” even
where it referred to the threshold of the door.

The translators of the Septuagint, living in Egypt and familiar with the
customs of that land, rendered _saph_ by _thyra_, “doorway,”[552] in the
story of the exodus. Jerome, with his understanding of Oriental life,
gives _limen_, “threshold,” for _saph_, at this point.[553] Philo
Judæus, out of his Egyptian Jewish experiences, describing the Jewish
passover festival, speaks of it as “the feast _diabateria_, which the
Jews called _paskha_.”[554] “_Diabateria_” are “offerings before
crossing a border,”[555] or threshold sacrifices. Rabbi Ishmael, a
Talmudist, in explaining the passage descriptive of the institution of
the passover in Egypt, says: “One dug a hole in the [earthen] threshold,
and slaughtered into that,” “for _saph_ signifies here nothing else than
threshold.”[556]

A striking illustration of the error of translating _saph_ “a bason” or
“a cup,” is shown in the rendering of Zechariah 12 : 1–3 in our English
Bible. The Lord is there promising to protect the borders of Jerusalem
against all besiegers. “Thus saith the Lord, which ... layeth the
foundation of the earth:... Behold, I will make Jerusalem a _threshold_
[or, boundary stone, Hebrew, _saph_] of reeling unto all the peoples
round about.... I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the
peoples.” The figure seems to be that of the besiegers staggering as
they come against that foundation, or threshold stone, which the Lord
has established. Yet _saph_ is here translated “cup,” and the passage
thereby rendered meaningless.

There would seem, indeed, to be little room for doubt that _saph_ should
be translated “threshold” in the description of the pass-over sacrifice.
In Assyrian, the word _sippu_, from the same root as the Hebrew _saph_,
means only threshold, not bason or cup.[557]

4. PASS-OVER OR PASS-BY.

The common understanding of the term “passover,” in connection with the
Hebrew exodus from Egypt, is that it was, on the Lord’s part, a passing
by those homes where the doorways were blood-stained, without entering
them. Yet this meaning is not justified by the term itself, nor by the
significance of the primitive rite. Jehovah did not merely spare his
people when he visited judgment on the Egyptians. He covenanted anew
with them by passing over, or crossing over, the blood-stained threshold
into their homes, while his messenger of death went into the houses of
the Lord’s enemies and claimed the first-born as belonging to
Jehovah.[558]

This word _pesakh_, translated “passover,” is a peculiar one. Its
etymology and root meaning have been much in discussion. It is derived
from the root _pāsăkh_ “to cross over,” a meaning which is still
preserved in the Hebrew word _Tiphsakh_, the name of a city on the banks
of the Euphrates,[559] the Hebrew equivalent of the classical
Thapsacus.[560] _Tiphsakh_ means “crossing,” apparently so called from
the ford of the Euphrates at that place.

Later Jewish traditions and customs point to the meaning of the original
passover rite as a crossing over the threshold of the Hebrew homes by
Jehovah, and not of his passing by his people in order to their sparing.
A custom by which a Hebrew slave became one of the family in a Hebrew
household, through having his ear bored with an awl at the door-post of
the house, and thereby blood staining the doorway,[561] is connected
with the passover rite by the rabbis. “The Deity said: The door and the
side-posts were my witnesses in Egypt, in the hour when I passed-over
the lintel and the two side-posts, and I said that to Me the children of
Israel shall be slaves, and not slaves to slaves; I brought them out
from bondage to freedom; and this man who goeth and taketh a lord to
himself shall be bored through before these witnesses.”[562]

According to Jewish traditions, it was on a passover night when Jehovah
entered into a cross-over covenant with Abraham on the boundary of his
new possessions in Canaan.[563] It was on a passover night that Lot
welcomed the angel visitors to his home in Sodom.[564] It was at the
passover season that the Israelites crossed the threshold of their new
home in Canaan, when the walls of Jericho fell down, and the
blood-colored thread on the house of Rahab was a symbol of the covenant
of the Hebrew spies with her and her household.[565] The protection of
the Israelites against the Midianites,[566] and the Assyrians,[567] and
the Medes and the Persians,[568] and again the final overthrow of
Babylon,[569] all these events were said to have been at the passover
season.[570] These traditions would seem to show that the pass-over
covenant was deemed a cross-over covenant, and a covenant of welcome at
the family and the national threshold.

In the passover rite as observed by modern Jews, at a certain stage of
the feast the outer door is opened, and an extra cup and chair are
arranged at the table, in the hope that God’s messenger will cross the
threshold, and enter the home as a welcome guest.[571] All this points
to the meaning of “cross-over,” and not of “pass-by.”

In some parts of northern and eastern Europe there is a custom still
preserved among the Jews of jumping over a tub of water on passover
night, which is said to be symbolic of crossing the Red Sea, but which
shows that the passover feast was a feast of crossing over.[572]

5. MARRIAGE OF JEHOVAH WITH ISRAEL.

It seems clear that the Egyptian passover rite was a rite of threshold
covenanting, as ordered of God and as understood by the Israelites. Its
sacrifice was on the threshold of the homes of the Hebrews on the
threshold of a new year,[573] and on the threshold of a new nationality.
Then Israel began anew in all things. Moreover, it was recognized as the
rite of marriage between Jehovah and Israel; as the very Threshold
Covenant had its origin in the rite of primitive marriage.

That first passover night was the night when Jehovah took to himself in
covenant union the “Virgin of Israel,” and became a Husband unto her.
From that time forward any recognition of, or affiliation with, another
God, is called “whoredom,” “adultery,” or “fornication.”[574] In this
light it is that the prophets always speak of idolatry.

Jeremiah recognizes the first passover night as the time of this
marriage covenant, when he says:

“Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah,
That I will make a new covenant
With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
In the day that I took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
Which my covenant they brake,
Although I was an husband unto them, saith Jehovah.”[575]

And Jehovah, speaking through Ezekiel of his loving choice of the Hebrew
daughter of the Amorite and the Hittite, says: “Now when I passed by
thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I
spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto
thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and
thou becamest mine.”[576]

It seems to be in recognition of the truth that the Egyptian passover
was the rite of marriage between Jehovah and Israel, that the Song of
Songs, the epithalamium of the Hebrew Scriptures, is always read in the
synagogue at the passover service. This idea of the relation of Jehovah
and Israel runs through the entire Old Testament, and shows itself in
the Jewish ritual of to-day.

In the primitive marriage rite the stamp of the red hand of the
bridegroom is the certification of the covenant union, at the doorway of
the family. But in the Egyptian passover it was the virgin of Israel who
certified to the marriage covenant by the bloody stamp on the doorway.
Hence it was a feminine symbol, in a bush of hyssop, that was dipped in
the blood and used for this stamping.[577] The tree, or bush, is a
universal symbol of the feminine in nature. This is shown, for example,
in the tree or brush-topped pole as the symbol of Ashtaroth,
“wife,”[578] as over against the pillar or obelisk as the symbol of
Baal, or “lord,” or “husband.”[579]

-----

Footnote 524:

The recognition of this truth is a reason for the infibulation of
female children among primitive peoples. (See, for example, Captain
J.S. King’s “Notes on the Folk-Lore, and some Social Customs of the
Western Somali Tribes,” in the London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 124;
also Dr. Remondino’s _History of Circumcision_, p. 51.)

Footnote 525:

See Appendix.

Footnote 526:

See “Satapatha Brâhmana,” 1. Kânda, 2 Adhyâya, 5 Brâhmana, 14–16, in
_Sacred Books of the East_, XII., 62 f.; also “Satapatha Brâhmana,”
III., 5, 1, 11, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XXVI., 113.

Footnote 527:

“Satapatha Brâhmana,” I., 3, 1, 18; I., 9, 2, 5–11, 21–24; II., 1, 1,
4, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XII., 74, 257, 262, 277; also “Satapatha
Brâhmana,” III., 3, 1, 11; III., 8, 4, 7–18, in _Sac. Bks. of East_,
XXVI., 61, 211–214.

Footnote 528:

See _Rig-Veda_, II., 36, 4; X., 18, 7. Comp. “Satapatha Brâhmana,” I.,
7, 2, 14, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XII., 194; also “Satapatha
Brâhmana,” IV., 1, 2, 9; IV., 1, 3, 19, with note, in _Sac. Bks. of
East_, XXVI., 260, 269. See, also, Hopkins’s _Religions of India_, p.
490, and note.

Footnote 529:

Compare Sir Monier Monier-Williams’s _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, pp.
33, 54 f., 223 f., and Wilkins’s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 233 f.

Footnote 530:

Sir Monier Monier-Williams’s _Buddhism_, pp. 371–373. This writer,
speaking of the prominence in India of the symbolism of the _linga_
and _yoni_ combined, ascribes it to the theory of the two essences,
“Spirit regarded as a male principle, and Matter, or the germ of the
external world, regarded as a female.” He says: “Without the union of
the two no creation takes place. To any one imbued with these
dualistic conceptions the _linga_ and the _yoni_ are suggestive of no
improper ideas. They are either types of the two mysterious creative
forces ... or symbols of one divine power delegating procreative
energy to male and female organisms. They are mystical
representatives, and perhaps the best impersonal representatives, of
the abstract expressions ‘paternity’ and ‘maternity,’” [and their
conjunction in marital union]. (_Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p. 224 f.)

Footnote 531:

This legend is found in _Pirqe de R. Eliezer_, Chap. XXX. The Hebrew
words _saph_ and _miphtan_ are here employed for “threshold.” It is
also given in Maçoudi’s _Les Prairies d’Or_, chap. 39, p. 94. Here the
Arabic is _ʿatabah_, for “threshold.” See, also, Sprenger’s _Life of
Mohammad_, p. 53 f.

Footnote 532:

See Lane’s _Arabic-English Lexicon_, s. v. “ʿAtabah.” and Dozy’s
_Supplément aux Dictionnaires_ Arabes, s. v. “ʿAtabah.”

Footnote 533:

Buxtorf’s _Lex. Chald. Tal. et Rabb._, s. v. “Pethakh.” See, also, the
Talmudic treatise _Niddâ_, “Mishna,” § 2, 5.

Footnote 534:

See, for example, illustration in Maspero’s _Dawn of Civil._, p. 657;
also Sayce’s _Relig. of Anc. Babyl._, p. 285.

Footnote 535:

Wilkinson’s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 3, 8, 14, 18, 21, 22, 31, 36,
37, 40, 41, 45, 46, 60, 63, 66, 87, 100, 107, 109, 115, 118, 122, 129,
133, 135, 137, 146, 156, 158, 163, 170, 172, 175, 177, 179, 180, etc.

Footnote 536:

See Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I.,
80, 320. See, also, Layard’s _Nineveh and its Remains_, II., 168–170
(Am. ed.); and an article by Hommel, in “Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archæology” for January, 1893.

Footnote 537:

Hearn’s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, II., 397, note; Lowell’s
_Occult Japan_, pp. 270–273.

Footnote 538:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races and Antiq._, III., 504–506.

Footnote 539:

_Voyages of Capt. James Cook_, “First Voyage” at May 14, 1769. Also
Voltaire’s _Les Oreilles du Comte de Chesterfield_, Ch. VI. See
Appendix.

Footnote 540:

See Cook’s _Voyage to Pacific Ocean_, volume of plates; also Ellis’s
_Poly. Res._, II., 217.

Footnote 541:

See Exod. 12 : 1–20.

Footnote 542:

Exod. 12 : 11.

Footnote 543:

Exod. 12 : 21, 27.

Footnote 544:

Exod. 12 : 22.

Footnote 545:

Exod. 2 : 23–25; 3 : 7–10; 5 : 1, 2; 6 : 1–7; 10 : 21–29.

Footnote 546:

Exod. 11 : 4–7.

Footnote 547:

Exod. 12 : 23.

Footnote 548:

Compare Josh. 2 : 1–21; 6 : 16–25.

Footnote 549:

See, for example, Judg. 19 : 27; 1 Kings 14 : 17; 2 Kings 12 : 9, 13;
22 : 4; 23 : 4; 25 : 18; 1 Chron. 9 : 19, 22; 2 Chron. 3 : 7; 23 : 4;
34 : 9; Esther 2 : 21; 6 : 2; Isa. 6 : 4; Jer. 35 : 4; 52 : 19, 24;
Ezek. 40 : 6, 7; 41 : 16; 43 : 8; Amos 9 : 1; Zeph. 2 : 14; Zech. 12 :
2.

Footnote 550:

See, for example, Jer. 52 : 19.

Footnote 551:

See pp. 109–111, _supra_.

Footnote 552:

See _Septuagint_, in loco.

Footnote 553:

See _Vulgate_, in loco.

Footnote 554:

Philo’s _Opera_, Mangey, 2 : 292.

Footnote 555:

Liddell and Scott’s _Greek-English Lexicon_, s. v.

Footnote 556:

Cited in Levy’s _Neuheb. Wörterb._, s. v. “Saph.”

Footnote 557:

This on the authority of Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht.

Footnote 558:

Among primitive peoples it was a common thought that the first fruits
of life in any sphere belonged of right to God, or the gods. This was
true of the fields, of the flocks and herds, and of the family. (See,
for example, Frazer’s _Golden Bough_, II., 68–78, 373–384; also W.
Robertson Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 443–446.) As in Egypt
particular gods were supposed to have power over men and beasts in
special localities, the first-born belonged to them, and stood as
representing their power and protection; yet Jehovah claimed to be
Lord over all. And now, at the close of the contest between God and
the gods, Jehovah took to himself out of the homes of his enemies the
devoted first-born of man and of beast, in evidence of the truth that
the gods of Egypt could not protect them.

Footnote 559:

1 Kings 4 : 24, “Tiphsah.”

Footnote 560:

See Gesenius’s _Hebr. und Aram. Handwörterbuch_ (12th ed.), s. v.
“Tiphsakh.”

Footnote 561:

Exod. 21 : 2–6.

Footnote 562:

Talmud Babyl., _Qiddusheen_, fol. 22, b.

Footnote 563:

Gen. 15 : 1–21. See pp. 186–188, _supra_.

Footnote 564:

Gen. 19 : 1–25.

Footnote 565:

Compare Josh. 2 : 1–20; 5 : 10–12; 6 : 12–17.

Footnote 566:

Judg. 7 : 1–25.

Footnote 567:

2 Kings 19 : 20–36; 2 Chron. 32 : 1–22.

Footnote 568:

Esther 9 : 12–19.

Footnote 569:

Dan. 5 : 1–30.

Footnote 570:

Edersheim’s _Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 196 f.

Footnote 571:

Edersheim’s _The Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 197; _Home and
Synagogue of Modern Jew_, pp. 159–161; Ginsburg’s art. “Passover,” in
Kitto’s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._

Footnote 572:

On the testimony of Rev. Dr. Marcus Jastrow.

Footnote 573:

Exod. 12 : 1, 2; Lev. 23 : 5; 9 : 1, 2.

Footnote 574:

See, for example, Exod. 34 : 12–16; Lev. 17 : 7; 20 : 5–8; Num. 15 :
39, 40; Deut. 31 : 16; Judg. 2 : 17; 8 : 27, 33; 2 Kings 9 : 22, 23; 1
Chron. 5 : 25; 2 Chron. 21 : 11; Psa. 73 : 27; 106 : 38, 39; Isa. 57 :
3; Jer. 3 : 1–15, 20; 13 : 27; Ezek. 6 : 9; 16 : 1–63; 20 : 30; 23 :
1–49; Hos. 1 : 2; 2 : 2; 3 : 1; 4 : 12–19; 5 : 3, 4; 6 : 6, 7, 10.

Footnote 575:

Jer. 31 : 31, 32; also Heb. 8 : 8, 9.

Footnote 576:

Ezek. 16 : 8.

Footnote 577:

Exod. 12 : 22.

Footnote 578:

W. Robertson Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 169–176, and
Stade’s _Geschichte_, p. 460.

Footnote 579:

Compare Exod. 34 : 12–16; Deut. 7 : 5; 12 : 3; Judg. 3 : 7; 2 Kings 23
: 4; 2 Chron. 33 : 3, etc.

-----

VI.
CHRISTIAN PASSOVER.

1. OLD COVENANT AND NEW.

In the New Testament the rites and symbols of the Old Testament find
recognition and explanation. This is peculiarly true of the passover
service. It was a central fact in the gospel story. The sacrifice, or
offering, of Jesus Christ as the Saviour, was made at that season;[580]
and it was evident that he himself felt that it was essential that this
be so. He held back from Jerusalem until the approach of the passover
feast, when he knew that his death was at hand.[581] And his last
passover meal was made the basis of the new memorial and symbolic
covenant meal with his disciples.[582] The passover sacrifice is as
prominent in the New Testament as in the Old.

Paul, familiar with Jewish customs by study and experience, writing to
Corinthian Christians of their duty and privileges as members of the
household of faith, urges them to make a new beginning in their lives,
as the Israelites made a new beginning on the threshold of every year at
the passover festival, with its accompanying feast of unleavened bread,
when all the lay-over leaven from a former state was put away. “Purge
out the old leaven,” he says, “that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are
unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even
Christ.”[583]

2. PROFFERED WELCOME BY THE FATHER.

The primitive passover sacrifice was an offering of blood by the head of
the household on the threshold of his home, as a token of his welcome to
the guest who would cross over that blood and thereby become one with
the family within. It was not an outsider or a stranger who proffered a
threshold sacrifice, but it was the house-father who thus extended a
welcome to one who was yet outside. The welcoming love was measured by
the preciousness of the sacrifice. The richer the offering, the heartier
the welcome.[584]

In the Egyptian passover the threshold sacrifice was a proffer of
welcome to Jehovah by the collective family in each Hebrew home. In the
Christian passover it was the sacrifice of the Son of God on the
threshold of the Father’s home, the home of the family of the redeemed,
as a proffer of welcome to whoever outside would cross the outpoured
blood, and become a member of the family within. Therefore it is
written: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal
life.”[585] And “for this cause,” says Paul, “I bow my knees unto the
Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.”[586]

Among primitive peoples, as among the Jews, no indignity could equal the
refusal of a proffered guest-welcome, in a rude trampling on the blood
of the threshold sacrifice, instead of crossing over it reverently as a
mode of its acceptance. Hence the peculiar force of the words of the
Jewish-Christian writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the
mistreatment of God’s threshold sacrifice, in the Son of God offered as
our passover: “A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without
compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer
punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath _trodden under
foot the Son of God_, and hath counted the blood of the covenant,
wherewith he was sanctified [separated from the outside world], an
unholy [a common] thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of
grace?”[587]

3. BRIDEGROOM AND BRIDE.

All through the New Testament, Jesus, the outpouring of whose blood is
“our passover” welcome from the Father, is spoken of as the Bridegroom,
and his church as the Bride. His coming to earth is referred to as the
coming of the Bridegroom–as was the coming of Jehovah to the Virgin of
Israel in Egypt. He likened himself to a bridegroom. And his coming
again to his church is foretold as the meeting of the Bridegroom and the
Bride.

John the Baptist, forerunner of Jesus, speaking of his mission as
closing, and that of Jesus as opening out gloriously, says: “Ye
yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that
I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the
friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth
greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is
fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.”[588]

Jesus, referring to the charge against his disciples, that they did not
fast, as did the disciples of John, said: “Can the sons of the
bride-chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the
days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and
then will they fast.”[589]

Paul repeatedly refers to this relation between Christ and his church:
“The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;
and the head of Christ is God.”[590] “The husband is the head of the
wife, as Christ also is the head of the church.... Husbands, love your
wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for
it.... He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated
his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the
church; because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain
shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of
Christ and of the church.”[591]

In the Apocalypse, the inspired seer looking into the future, at the
consummation of the present age, tells of the glorious vision before
him, when Christ shall come to claim his own: “I heard as it were the
voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the
voice of mighty thunders, saying, Hallelujah: for the Lord our God, the
Almighty, reigneth. Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us
give the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his
wife hath made herself ready. And it was given unto her that she should
array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the
righteous acts of the saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are
they which are bidden to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”[592]

And again he says: “I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out
of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband....
And there came one of the seven angels; ... and he spake with me,
saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.
And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and
shewed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
having the glory of God: ... having a wall great and high; having twelve
gates. And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and
the Lamb, are the temple thereof.... And the gates thereof shall in no
wise be shut by day (for there shall be no night there): and they shall
bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it: and there shall in
no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination
and a lie: but only they which are written in the Lamb’s book of
life.”[593]

A closing declaration of the seer is, that the church as the Bride, with
the representative of the Bridegroom until his coming, waits and calls
for his return: “The Spirit and the bride say, Come.... Come, Lord
Jesus.”[594] And so, from the Pentateuch to the Apocalypse, the
Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian, recognize and emphasize the primitive
Threshold Covenant as the beginning of religious rites, and as symbolic
of the spirit of all true covenant worship.

4. SURVIVALS OF THE RITE.

Survivals of the primitive Threshold Covenant are found in various
customs among Oriental Christians, and Christians the world over. Thus
Easter is still looked at in some regions as the continuance of
Passover, and the blood on the threshold is an accompaniment of the
feast. Among the modern Greeks, each family, as a rule, buys a lamb,
kills it, and eats it on Easter Sunday. “In some country districts the
blood [of the lamb] is sometimes smeared on the threshold of the
house.”[595] Easter, like the Jewish Passover, is the threshold of the
new ecclesiastical year.

At the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, in Jerusalem, a principal incident
in the Easter festivities is the bringing down of fire from heaven at
the opening of the new ecclesiastical year.[596] This ceremony seems to
be a survival of the primitive custom of seeking new life, in its symbol
of fire, at the threshold of the home and of the new year, in the East
and in the West.[597]

In the sacredness of the rite of the primitive Threshold Covenant there
is added emphasis to the thought which causes both the Roman Catholic
Church and the Greek Church to count marriage itself a sacrament. And
thus again to the claim that a virgin who is devoted to a religious life
is a “spouse of Christ,” and that her marriage to an earthly husband is
adultery.[598] Many another religious custom points in the same
direction.

-----

Footnote 580:

Matt. 26 : 1–5; John 13 : 1.

Footnote 581:

Matt. 16 : 21; 26 : 17, 18; John 2 : 13; 7 : 1–9.

Footnote 582:

Matt. 26 : 17–30; Mark 14 : 12–28; Luke 22 : 7–20.

Footnote 583:

1 Cor. 5 : 7, 8.

Footnote 584:

See pp. 3–5, _supra_.

Footnote 585:

John 3 : 16.

Footnote 586:

Eph. 3 : 14, 15.

Footnote 587:

Heb. 10 : 28, 29.

Footnote 588:

John 3 : 28–30.

Footnote 589:

Matt. 9 : 14, 15; Mark 2 : 19, 20; Luke 5 : 34, 35.

Footnote 590:

1 Cor. 11 : 3.

Footnote 591:

Eph. 5 : 23–33.

Footnote 592:

Rev. 19 : 6–9.

Footnote 593:

Rev. 21 : 1, 2–9, 12, 22–27.

Footnote 594:

_Ibid._, 22 : 17, 20.

Footnote 595:

J.G. Frazer in _Folk-Lore Journal_, I., 275.

Footnote 596:

See Maundrell’s _Journey_, pp. 127–131; Hasselquist’s _Voyages and
Travels_, pp. 136–138; Thomson’s _Land and Book_, II., 556 f.;
Stanley’s _Sinai and Palestine_, pp. 464–469.

Footnote 597:

See pp. 22 f., 39–44, _supra_.

Footnote 598:

See Smith and Cheetham’s _Dict. of Christian Antiq._, art. “Nun.”

-----

VII.
OUTGROWTHS AND PERVERSIONS
OF THIS RITE.

1. ELEMENTAL BEGINNINGS.

Apart from the mooted question of the origin and development of man as
man,–whether it be held that he came into being as an incident in the
evolutionary progress of the ages, or that his creation was by a special
fiat of the Author of all things,–it is obvious that there was a
beginning, when man first appeared as a higher order of being than the
lower animals then in existence. The distinguishing attribute of man, as
distinct from the lower animals at their best, is the capacity to
conceive of spiritual facts and forces. Even at his lowest estate man is
never without an apprehension of immaterial and supernatural
personalities, intangible yet real and potent. The lower animals at
their highest, and under the most effective training, give no indication
of the possibility of such a conception on their part.

Both the Bible record and the disclosed facts of science show man at the
start in a primitive state, with only elemental beginnings of knowledge
or thought or skill. No claim is made for him, by any advocate of his
pre-eminence in creation, that he then had skill in the arts, or
attainment in civilization, or that he was possessed of a religious
theory or ritual of even the simplest character. It is a matter of
interest and importance to trace the course of man’s progress from the
first to the present time, and to see how the good and the evil showed
themselves along the line, from the same germs of thought and conduct
rightly used or misused. The primitive rite of the Threshold Covenant,
here brought out as initial and germinative, seems to present a
reasonable solution of the observed course in religious development and
in religious perversions in the history of mankind from the beginning
until now.

Before primitive man could have concerned himself seriously with the
course of the heavenly bodies, or the changes of the seasons, or the
points of compass and the correspondent shifting of the winds, he must
have recognized the sacred mystery of life and its transmission. It
would seem that a covenant involved in the union of twain made one over
outpoured blood, with power from the Author of life for the transmission
of life, must have been the primal religious rite that brought man’s
personal action into the clear light of a covenant relation with his
Creator. Every subsequent development of the religious idea, good and
bad, pure and impure, would seem to be traceable as an outgrowth, or as
a perversion, of this elemental religious rite.

2. MAIN OUTGROWTHS

It would seem clear that the primal idea of a covenant union between two
persons, and between those persons and their God, was found in the
initial and primitive rite of marriage, with its outpoured blood, or
gift of life, on the threshold of being; and that this rite contained in
itself the germs of covenanting and of sacrifice, and the idea of an
altar and a sacrament, where, and by which, man and God were brought
into loving communion and union. Thus the beginning of religious rites
was found in the primal Threshold Covenant as here portrayed.

Out of this beginning came all that is best and holiest in the thought
of sacrifice and sacrament and spiritual communion. The very highest
development of religious truth, under the guidance of progressive
revelation from God, and of man’s growth in thought and knowledge with
the passing ages, is directly in the line of this simple and germinal
idea. Both the Bible record and the record of outside history tend to
confirm this view of religious rites in their beginning and progress.

New life as a consequence of blood, or life, surrendered in holy
covenanting, is a natural inference or outgrowth of the truth of the
primal Threshold Covenant. Thus the thought of life after death, in the
resurrection or in metempsychosis, comes with the recognition of the
simple fact of the results of covenant union in the sight, and with the
blessing, of the Author of life, in the rite of the Threshold
Covenant.[599]

The transference of the altar of threshold covenanting, from the persons
of the primary pair in the family to the hearthstone or entrance
threshold of the home or family doorway, with the accompaniment of fire
as a means of giving and sustaining life to those who sat at the common
table or altar, in the covenant meal or sacrament of hospitality,
brought about the custom of sacramental communion feasts with guests
human and divine. And so, also, there came the rites of worship, with
the altar of burnt sacrifice or of incense, and the marriage torch, and
the doorway fire, and the threshold or hearthstone covenant at a
wedding. Out of this thought there came gradually and naturally the
prominence of the altar and the altar fire in private and public
worship, as it obtains both in the simpler and in the more gorgeous
ecclesiastical rituals.[600]

In conjunction with the place of fire on the family altar in the
Threshold Covenant, there came naturally the recognition of fire and
warmth and light as gifts of God for the promotion and preservation of
life to those who were dependent on him. Thus the sun as the life-giving
fire of the universe came to be recognized as a manifestation of God’s
power and love. Its agency in bringing new life after death, in the
course of the changing seasons, led men to connect the movements of the
heavenly bodies with God’s dealings with man in the line of his covenant
love. The too common mistake has been of thinking of this view of
celestial nature as the origin of man’s religious rites, instead of as
an outgrowth of the primal religious rite, which antedated man’s study
of, or wonder over, the workings of the elements and the course of the
heavenly bodies.

In summing up the results of such a study as this, of primitive customs
and their outgrowth, it is necessary only to suggest a few of the more
prominent lines of progress from the elemental beginning, leaving it to
the student and thinker to follow out these, and to find others, in his
more careful and further consideration of the subject in its varied
ramifications. It is sufficient now to affirm that the Old Testament and
the New point to this primitive rite of the Threshold Covenant as a
basis of their common religious ritual; and that gleams of the same
germinal idea show themselves in the best features of all the sacred
books of the ages. It would be easy, did time and space allow, to follow
out in detail the indications that all modes of worship in sacrifice, in
oblation, in praise, and prayer, in act and in word, are but natural
expressions of desire for covenant union with Deity, and of joy in the
thought of its possession, as based on the fact of such covenanting
sought and found in the primal religious rite of the human race.

3. CHIEF PERVERSIONS.

With the world as it is, and with man as he is, every possibility of
good has a corresponding possibility of evil. Good perverted becomes
evil. Truth which, rightly used, proves a savor of life, will, when
misused, prove a savor of death.[601] And that which is a symbol of
truth becomes a means of misleading when looked at as if it were in
itself the truth.

The primitive Threshold Covenant as an elemental religious rite was holy
and pure, and had possibilities of outgrowth in the direction of high
spiritual attainment and aspiring. But the temptation to uplift the
agencies in this rite into objects deemed of themselves worthy of
worship resulted in impurity and deterioration, by causing the symbol to
hide the truth instead of disclosing it.

Among the earliest forms of a temple as a place of worship was the
ziggurat, or stepped pyramid, erected as a mighty altar, with its
shrine, or holy of holies, at the summit, wherein a bride of the gods
awaited the coming of the deity to solemnize the primal Threshold
Covenant in expression of his readiness to enter into loving communion
with the children of men.[602] From this custom the practice of
Threshold Covenanting at the temple doorways became incumbent on women
of all conditions of society at certain times, and under certain
circumstances, in certain portions of the world, as a proof of their
religious devotion,[603] and thus there grew up all the excesses of
sacred prostitution in different portions of the world.[604]

The prominence given to the two factors in the primitive Threshold
Covenant as a sacred religious act, led to the perversion of the
original idea by making the factors themselves objects of reverence and
worship; and separately, or together, they came to be worshiped with
impure and degrading accompaniments.

Reverence for the phallus, or for phallic emblems, shows itself in the
earliest historic remains of Babylonia, Assyria, India, China, Japan,
Persia, Phrygia, Phoenicia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Greece, Rome, Germany,
Scandinavia, France, Spain, Great Britain, North and South America, and
the Islands of the Sea. It were needless to attempt detailed proof of
this statement, in view of all that has been written on the subject by
historians, archæologists, and students of comparative religions.[605]
It is enough to suggest that the mistake has too often been made of
supposing that this “phallic worship” was a primitive conception of a
religious truth, instead of a perversion of the earlier and purer idea
which is at the basis of the highest religious conceptions, from the
beginning until now.

Quite as widely extended, in both time and space, as the worship of the
phallus as the symbol of masculine potency, is the recognition of the
tree of life as the symbol of feminine nature in its fruit-bearing
capacity. A single tree, or a grove of trees, or the lotus flower, the
fig, or the pomegranate, with the peculiar form of their seed capsules,
appear in all the earlier religious symbolisms, over against the phallus
in its realistic or its conventional forms, as representative of
reproductive life.[606]

In ancient Assyrian sculpture the most familiar representation of
spiritual blessing was of a winged deity with a basket and a palm cone,
touching with the cone a sacred tree, or again the person of a
sovereign, as if imparting thereby some special benefit or power. This
representation was long a mystery to the archeologist, but a recent
scholar has shown that it is an illustration of a practice common in the
East to-day, of carrying a cone of the male palm to a female palm tree,
in order to vitalize it by the pollen.[607] The cone is one of the
conventional forms of the phallus, worshiped as a symbol in the temples
of the goddesses of the East in earlier days and later.[608] Hence this
ancient Assyrian representation is an illustration of the truth that the
primitive threshold covenant was recognized as the type of divine power,
and covenant blessing, imparted to God’s representative, under the
figure of the phallus and the tree.

It would seem, indeed, that the pillar and the tree came to be the
conventional symbols of the male and female elements erected in front of
an altar of worship,[609] and that, in the deterioration of the ages,
these symbols themselves were worshiped, and their symbolism was an
incentive to varied forms of impurity, instead of to holy covenanting
with God and in God’s service. Therefore these symbols were deemed by
true worshipers a perversion of an originally sacred rite, and their
destruction was a duty with those who would restore God’s worship to its
pristine purity.

Thus the command to Jehovah’s people as to their treatment of the people
of Canaan was: “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in
the midst of thee: but ye shall break down their altars, and dash in
pieces their pillars [or male symbols], and ye shall cut down their
Asherim [or trees as a female symbol]: for thou shalt worship no other
god: for the Lord [Jehovah], whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go
a whoring after their gods.”[610] Here is a distinct reference to the
primitive Threshold Covenant in its purity and sacredness, and to its
perversion in the misuse of the phallus and tree in their symbolism.

Again the command was explicit to the Israelites: “Thou shalt not plant
thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord thy
God, which thou shalt make thee. Neither shalt thou set thee up a
pillar; which the Lord thy God hateth.”[611]

From the earliest historic times the serpent seems to have been accepted
as a symbol of the nexus of union between the two sexes, and to be
associated, therefore, with the pillar and the tree, as suggestive of
the desire that may be good or evil, according to its right or wrong
direction and use. Its place as a symbol has been at the threshold of
palace and temple and home, with limitless powers of evil in its
misuse.[612]

“Mighty snakes standing upright,” together with “mighty bulls of bronze”
were “on the threshold of the gates” in ancient Babylon.[613] A serpent
wreathed the phallus boundary stone (as if suggestive of its being a
thing of life) on the threshold of Babylonian domains.[614] As a symbol
of life and life-giving power the serpent stood erect above the head of
the mightiest kings of Egypt, who gave and took life at their
pleasure,[615] and it even accompanied the winged sun-orb in its
manifestation of light and warmth and life over the grandest temples of
ancient Thebes.[616] The Egyptian goddess Ket, or Kadesh, “Mistress of
Heaven,” a divinity borrowed from the Semites, was represented as
standing on a lioness, with lotus flowers, their stems coiled in
circular form, in her right hand, and two serpents in her left hand, as
she came with her offering to Min, or Khem, the god of generative
force.[617] A similar representation of a goddess of life is found in
ancient Assyrian remains.

In the representation of Nergal, the lord of the under world, in the
ancient Babylonian mythology, the phallus and the serpent were
identical.[618] Beltis-Allat, consort of Nergal, and lady of the under
world, brandished a serpent in either hand. She was guardian of the
waters of life which were under the threshold of the entrance of her
realm.[619]

That which was primarily a holy instinct became, in its perversion, a
source of evil and a cause of dread; hence the serpent became a
representative of evil itself, and the conflict with it was the conflict
between good and evil, between light and darkness. This is shown in the
religions of ancient Babylonia, Egypt, and India, and Phœnicia and
Greece, and Mexico and Peru, and various other countries.[620]

Vishnoo and his wife Lakshmi, from whom, according to Hindoo teachings,
the world was produced, and by whom it continues or must cease, are
represented as seated on a serpent, as the basis of their life and
power.[621] Siva, also, giver and destroyer of life, is crowned with a
serpent, and a serpent is his necklace, while the symbol of his worship
is the _linga in yoni_.[622] A mode of Hindoo worship includes the
placing of a stone _linga_ between two serpents, and under two trees,
the one a male tree and the other a female tree.[623] And in various
ways the serpent appears, in connection with different Hindoo deities,
as the agent of life-giving or of life-destroying.[624] A suggestive
representation of Booddha as the conqueror of desire shows him seated
restfully on a coiled serpent, the hooded head of which is a screen or
canopy above his head.[625]

Apollo, son of Zeus, was the slayer of the man-destroying serpent at
Delphi; yet the serpent, when conquered, became a means of life and
inspiration to others.[626] Æsculapius, the god of healing, a son of
Apollo, was represented by the serpent because he gave new life to those
who were dying. Serpents were everywhere connected with his worship as a
means of healing.[627] The female oracle who represented Apollo at
Delphi sat on a tripod formed of entwined serpents.[628] Serpents on the
head of Medusa were a means of death to the beholder; and these serpents
were given to Medusa instead of hair because of her faithlessness and
sacrilege in the matter of the Threshold Covenant.[629] Thus the good
and the evil in that which the serpent symbolized were shown in the
religions of the nations of antiquity, and serpent worship became one of
the grossest perversions of the idea of the primitive Threshold
Covenant.

As in the matter of phallic worship and tree worship, so in this of the
worship of the serpent, it would seem unnecessary to multiply
illustrations of its prominence in various lands, when so many special
treatises on the subject are already available.[630] It is only
necessary to emphasize anew the fact that the evident thought of the
symbol is an outgrowth or a perversion of the idea of the primitive
Threshold Covenant.

The form of the Bible narrative, portraying the first temptation and the
first sin, seems to show how early the symbolism of the tree and the
serpent was accepted in popular speech. From that narrative as it stands
it would appear that the first act of human disobedience was
incontinence, in transgression of a specific command to abstain, at
least for a time, from carnal intercourse. Desire, as indicated by the
serpent, prompted to an untimely partaking of the fruit of the forbidden
tree, and the consequences of sin followed. The results of this act of
disobedience, as recorded in the sacred text,[631] make evident the
correctness of this view of the case. When the Bible narrative was first
written, whenever that was, the terms “tree,”[632] “fruit” of the
tree,[633] “knowledge,”[634] “serpent,” were familiar figures of speech
or euphemisms, and their use in the Bible narrative would not have been
misunderstood by readers generally. Probably there was no question as to
this for many centuries. It was not until the dull prosaic literalism of
the Western mind obscured the meaning of Oriental figures of speech that
there was any general doubt as to what was affirmed in the Bible story
of the first temptation and disobedience.[635]

Philo Judæus at the beginning of the Christian era, seems to understand
this as the meaning of the narrative in Genesis, and he applies the
teachings of that narrative accordingly.[636] There are indications that
the rabbis looked similarly at the meaning of the Bible text. There are
traces of this traditional view in different Jewish writings.[637]

Evidently the original meaning was still familiar in the early Christian
ages. But its becoming connected with false doctrines and heresies, as
taught by the Ophites and other Gnostic sects, seems to have brought the
truth itself into disrepute, and finally led to its repudiation in favor
of a dead literalism.[638] The curse resting on the serpent, in
consequence of the first sin of incontinence, was the degradation of the
primitive impulse,[639] unless uplifted again by divine
inspiration.[640] Because of their breach of the covenant of divine love
our first parents were expelled from their home of happiness, and the
guardians of the threshold forbade their return to it.[641]

In the closing chapters of the New Testament, as in the opening chapters
of the Old, the symbolism of the tree and the serpent, and the covenant
relations involved in crossing the threshold, appear as familiar and
well-understood figures of speech. “The dragon, the old serpent, which
is the Devil and Satan,”[642] representing unholy desire, is shut out
from the precincts of the New Jerusalem. Within the gates of that city
is there the tree of life watered by the stream that flows from under
the throne of power.[643] The city threshold is the dividing line
between light and darkness, good and evil, life and death. “Blessed are
they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the
tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are
the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and
the idolators, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.”[644]

Thus it is in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, at their beginning
and at their close. And there are traces of the same truth in the
teachings of the various religions, and of the more primitive customs
and symbolisms. The all-dividing threshold separates the within from the
without; and a covenant welcome there gives one a right to enter in
through the gates into the eternal home, to be a partaker of the tree of
life, with its ever-renewing and revivifying fruits.

-----

Footnote 599:

See “Blood Covenant,” pp. 310–313.

Footnote 600:

See pp. 22 f., 39-44, 99-164, _supra_.

Footnote 601:

2 Cor. 2 : 16.

Footnote 602:

See, for example, Herodotus’s _History_, Bk. I., chaps. 181, 182. See
pp. 111 f., _supra_.

Footnote 603:

Herodotus’s _History_, Bk. I., chap. 199.

Footnote 604:

See Deut. 25 : 1–9. See, also, chapter on “Sacred Prostitution” in
Wake’s _Serpent Worship_; and Professor W.M. Ramsay’s “Holy City of
Phrygia,” in _Contemporary Review_ for October, 1893.

Footnote 605:

See, for example, Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_; Forling’s _Rivers of
Life_; Westropp’s and Wake’s _Ancient Symbol Worship_; Knight’s
_Worship of Priapus_; Jennings’s _Phallicism_; Frazer’s _Golden
Bough_; Monier-Williams’s _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, and his
_Buddhism_; Griffis’s _Religions of Japan_, etc.

Footnote 606:

See, for example, in addition to the books just cited, Fergusson’s
_Tree and Serpent Worship_; Ohnefalach-Richter’s _Kypros, die Bibel
und Homer_; Hopkins’s _Religions of India_, pp. 527 f., 533, 540, 542.

Footnote 607:

See Dr. E.B. Tyler’s article on “The Winged Figures of the Assyrian
and other Ancient Monuments,” in _Proceedings of the Soc. of Bib.
Arch._, XII., Part 8, pp. 383–393; Dr. Bonavia’s articles on “Sacred
Trees,” in _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, III., Nos. 1–4; IV., Nos.
4, 5; and De Lacouperie’s articles on Trees, _ibid._, IV., Nos. 5, 10,
11.

Footnote 608:

See, for example, Ohnefalach-Richter’s _Kypros_, Tafel-Band, pl.
lxxxii., figures 7, 8; Donaldson’s _Architectural Medals of Classic
Antiquity_, pp. 105–109; Von Löher and Joyner’s _Cyprus: Historical
and Descriptive_, p. 153 f., Perrot and Chipiez’s _History of Art in
Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I., 123, 276 f., 281, 284, 331 f.; W. Robertson
Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 191.

Footnote 609:

Compare W. Robertson’s Smith’s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 437 f.

Footnote 610:

Exod. 34 : 12–15; Deut. 7 : 5.

Footnote 611:

Deut. 16 : 21, 22.

Footnote 612:

There seems, indeed, to be a connection between the Hebrew words,
_miphtan_, “threshold,” and _pethen_, “asp,” “adder,” or “serpent,” as
first pointed out to me by Mr. Montague Cockle. Although the verbal
root is not preserved in the Hebrew, there is no valid reason for
doubting that they go back to the same root. In Arabic, the verb is
preserved as _pathana_, “to tempt.” Its derivatives indicate the same
meaning. This would seem to confirm the connection of the primitive
threshold, the serpent, and temptation. In Leland’s _Etruscan Roman
Remains_ (p. 131 f.) are citations from several ancient works, and
references to current Italian traditions, showing the supposed
connection of the serpent with the threshold, the phallus, and married
life, that are in obvious confirmation of the views here expressed.

Footnote 613:

See p. 109 f., _supra_; also, Schrader’s _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, Vol. III., Pt. 2, p. 72 f.

Footnote 614:

See, for example, Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia_, III., p. 45.

Footnote 615:

See Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 60.

Footnote 616:

_Ibid._, p. 259, vignette illustration.

Footnote 617:

See Wilkinson’s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 235, pl. lv., fig. 2. Prisse’s
_Mon. Egypt_, pl. xxxvii.; also Layard’s _Nineveh and its Remains_, p.
169 (Am. ed.), and W. Max Müller’s _Asien und Europa_, p. 314.

Footnote 618:

See Perrot and Chipiez’s _History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria_, I.,
349 f. See, also, Layard’s _Monuments_, Series ii., pl. 5, for
representation of the conflict between Marduk and Tiamat. The serpent
is there shown on the feminine Tiamat where it appears on the
masculine Nergal.

Footnote 619:

See Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 690–696; Sayce’s _Relig. of
Anc. Babylonia_, p. 286.

Footnote 620:

See Sayce’s _Relig. of Anc. Babylonia_, pp. 281–283; Wilkinson’s _Anc.
Egypt._, III., 141–155; Fergusson’s _Tree and Serpent Worship_, pp.
5–72; Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_, pp. 137–254; Réville’s _Native
Religions of Mexico and Peru_, pp. 29–32, 53, 166.

Footnote 621:

See Wilkins’s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 99.

Footnote 622:

See Wilkins’s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 218.

Footnote 623:

Maurice’s _Indian Antiq._, V. 182 f.

Footnote 624:

_Ibid._, V.

Footnote 625:

See frontispiece of Sir Monier Monier-Williams’s Buddhism; see, also,
Fergusson’s article on “The Amravati Tope” in “Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society,” Vol. III., Pt. 1, pp. 132–166.

Footnote 626:

See Keightley’s _Mythology_, art. “Phœbus-Apollo.”

Footnote 627:

See “Æsculapius,” in Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_.

Footnote 628:

See Herodotus’s _History_, Bk. IX., chap. 81.

Footnote 629:

See “Gorgones,” in Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_.

Footnote 630:

See, for example, Maurice’s _Indian Antiquities_; Fergusson’s _Tree
and Serpent Worship_; Forlong’s _Rivers of Life_, I., 93–322; Wake’s
_Serpent Worship_, pp. 81–106.

Footnote 631:

Gen. 3 : 7, 10–13, 16.

Footnote 632:

See, for example, Psa. 128 : 3; Prov. 3 : 18; 11 : 30; Ezek. 19 : 10.

Footnote 633:

See, for example, Gen. 30 : 2; Deut. 7 : 13; 28 : 4, 18, 53; 30 : 9;
Psa. 127 : 3; 132 : 11; Song of Songs 4 : 16; Isa. 13 : 18; Micah 6 :
7; Acts 2 : 30.

Footnote 634:

See, for example, Gen. 4 : 1, 17, 25; 38 : 26; Judg. 11 : 39; 19 : 25;
1 Sam. 1 : 19; 1 Kings 1 : 4; Matt. 1 : 25.

Footnote 635:

Gen. 3 : 1–13.

Footnote 636:

See, for example, Philo Judæus’s _Works_, “On the Creation,” I.,
53–60; “On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws,” I., 15–20; “Questions
and Solutions,” I., 31–41.

Footnote 637:

See, for example, _Midrasch Bereschit Rabba_, pararshah 18, § 6, in
comments on Gen. 2 : 25; Weber’s _Die Lehren d. Talmud_ (ed. 1866),
pp. 210–213.

Footnote 638:

See Clement of Alexandria’s _Miscellanies_, III., 17; also Irenæus’s
_Against Heresies_, I., 30.

Footnote 639:

Gen. 3 : 14, 15.

Footnote 640:

Compare Num. 21 : 4–9; 2 Kings 18 : 4; John 3 : 14, 15.

Footnote 641:

Gen. 3 : 22–24.

Footnote 642:

Rev. 20 : 1, 2.

Footnote 643:

_Ibid._, 21 : 1–27; 22 : 1, 2.

Footnote 644:

_Ibid._, 22 : 14, 15.

-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX.

SIGNIFICANCE OF BLOOD IN THE MARRIAGE RITE.[645]

In Ægypto Superiori, quemadmodum in aliis regionibus, ubi mores prisci
praeservati vigent, matrimonium eousque non consummatur, donec, examine
instituto, sponsus sanguinem, ceu testimonium virginitatis sponsae
elicuerit. Linteolum quoddam singulare, mucinii vel mappae speciem prae
se ferens, a parentibus sponsae ad obryssam hanc praeparatur.

Quum sponsus vigilia nuptiarum sponsam convenit, linteolum istud digito
circumvolvit, atque periculum virginitatis instituit. Sanguis linteolum
maculis cruentans fit insigne ac testimonium sponsi autographum
virginitatis sponsae intemeratae atque comprobatae, necnon tessera eius
in uxorem accitae. Ipsum linteolum, manu sua cruenta quasi sigillo
signatum, parentibus, qui illud, tamquam indubitatum castitatis filiae
suae virginalis servatae testimonium, insimul et pignus sacri foederis
sui connubii custodiant, thesauri instar recondendum redditur. Receptio
pignoris evidentiaeque tarn castitatis illibatae quam matrimonii iuncti,
inter amicos, qui prae foribus cubiculi nuptialis adventum linteoli
praestolantur, causa exsistit gaudii laetitiaeque exsultantis.

Verumenimvero si nec manamen sanguinis, nec rubrum manus cruentatae
vestigium occasione istiusmodi se prodiderint, turba amicorum in limine
conclavis nuptialis praestolantium, loco exsultationis laetae moerore
tristi luget atque plangorem eiulatumque saevum ciet; aut vero
silentium, eloquens luctus indicium, inter eos regnat, nam dolor est
illatus domui decore honoris orbatae, cuius parem ne mors ipsa quidem
gignere possit. Si res sic se habent, sponsa libello repudii, absque
vinculo connubii, a sponso dimittitur. Ast si digitus suus tactu cruore
manante contaminetur, ab ipso eo momento sua fit uxor, etiamsi
consummatio coniugii, ut moris est, ad usque triduum aut hebdomadem
differatur.[646]

Id quod foedus inter se suamque sponsam figit atque sancit, est cruoris
tactu sponsi eliciti profluvium. Meatum in penetralia suae essentiae
incisione aperiens, sponsus “caedit foedus” cum ea in conspectu sui
Creatoris, ad litteram.[647] Sponsus “nocte nuptiarum sanguinem
virginalem offerens,” fit sponsus sanguineus, “khatan damim.”[648] In
hoc rerum statu divulsio est quod coniungit, atque vestigium manus
cruentum est quod instrumentum foederis subministrat.

Sponsus, loco proprii digiti ansa interdum clavis ianuae ligneae
pristinae, specie digito simili, quae linteolo hoc obvolvitur, examen
instituit, eo quod haec, _aperiendo_ penetralia intemerata, quae
penetrare[649] praeter se liceat nemini, actum _reseratus_ imagine
quadam symbolica significet. Signaculum tamen cruentum in linteolo
utroque in casu eiusdem omnino est momenti.

Pari modo camisia sponsae communis, loco mucinii vel telae, soluit notam
manus cruentae recipere, quae ut testimonium matrimonii identidem
custodiri consuevit. Caeterum hae sunt moris vigentis variationes
exiliores, nec quae referantur dignae, nisi ut declarent, quam sint
testimonia variorum, qui haec perhibuerint, secum pugnantia.[650]

-----

Footnote 645:

See p. 196, _supra_.

Footnote 646:

Vide Lane’s _Mod. Egypt._, II, 241; item Skertchley’s _Dahomey As It
Is_, p. 499.

Footnote 647:

Foedus pangere Hebraice _Karath_ idem sonat ac “caedere.” Vide Gen. 15
: 17–19; 21 : 22–24, etc. Vide etiam Trumbull’s _Blood Covenant_, pp.
265–267, 322 _et seq._, Lane’s _Arab. Eng. Lex._, et Freytag’s _Lex.
Arab. Latin_, s. vv. “Khatan,” “Khatana.”

Footnote 648:

Vide Fuerst’s _Heb. Lex._, s. v. “Khatan;” etiam Exod. 4 : 25, 26.

Footnote 649:

Burckhardt, in suis _Proverbiis Arabicis_ (pp. 139 _seqq._), moris
huius meminit; Lane autem in suo _Modern Egyptians_ (I, 218) idem
perhibet. Verum ego loquar de quaestione e fontibus fide dignis
testium integerrimorum. Burckhardt enim asserit “clavim” magis idoneam
putari a plebecula in Ægypto Superiori in examine hoc instituendo quam
digitum.

Footnote 650:

Burckhardt meminit differentiae cuiusdam huiusmodi; constat tamen eum
morem camisiam sponsae adhibendi nonnisi cognovisse.

-----

EXHIBITING THE EVIDENCES.

In Syria, veluti in Ægypto, tela cruenta, vel indusium sanguine
maculatum loco probae castitatis testimoniique matrimonii habetur. In
Sinis “linteolum” ferculo a famulo offertur sponso, ubi is cubiculum
nuptiale primum intrat, quod his thalamo insternit, parentibus sponsae,
sanguine inquinatum ad praeservandum traditurus.[651] Apud Dahomeanos
thalamus, nocte nuptiarum gossypina nova impressa (vulgo “calico”)
consternitur, postero autem die, si cuncta e sententia successerint,
_godo_ (ligatura, quae Anglis “T bandage” sonat) ad amicos sponsae cum
triumpho deportatur ... dum sponsus lodiculam thalami exhibet.[652]

In Ægypto indumenta nuptialia, vestigiis manus cruentae notata, “erant
post nuptias supra fores domus rustici suspensa.”[653] Alias sponsa
poterat postridie nuptiarum amicis se sistere indusio sanguine maculato
supra alias vestes induta, atque in responsum coram eis congratulantibus
saltare rogata.[654] Soluit, porro, indusium hoc amicis visum
venientibus exhiberi, aut vero ad examinandum a vicinis in domos
circumferri.[655] Mores consimiles in quibusdam etiam Syriae partibus
usuvenerunt.

Ubi mappa vel pannus specialis in Ægypto Superiori adhibetur, haec,
quamprimum madere cruore contingat, a sponso mulieribus praestolantibus
foras exporrigitur. Mater sponsae, eam obtentam marito tradit, hic autem
tiarae (Turcis _turban_) suae apponit, seque primoribus senioribusque
populi in aedibus suis ut hospites congregatis sistit. Hi, testimonium
istud illibatae filiae suae castitatis servatae intelligentes, atque
insimul eam nunc foedere matrimonii in uxorem accitam, inclinatione
reverenter facta, ei apprecantes aiunt: “Fidem facio.”[656]

In oris Africae occiduis, apud populos magis primaevos, indumentum
sanguine commaculatum vicinis exhiberi consuevit. Quinimo et apud
humaniores Christianorum gentes mos viget vestem hanc die Solis post
nuptias in fana, ut a cunctis cernatur, deferendi atque exhibendi.[657]
Siquidem absque veste hac cruentata indicium matrimonii est nullum.

Ritus nuptiales apud veteres Aztec atque Nahuas, gentes Americae
Centralis, a ritibus Ariorum priscorum haud fuerunt absimiles. Quum enim
sponsa a suis amicis ad novum deduceretur domicilium, ibidem a sponso
excipiebatur. Utrisque erat thuribulum thusque cremabant, in matta coram
focum domesticum simul sedentes. Tum sacerdos accessit, atque eos ritu
sacro in matrimonium coniugavit. Hinc se in fanum contulerunt, in limine
cuius sacerdotes praestolantes eos exceperunt. In cubiculo proprio in
fano morantes, triduum tresque noctes exercitiis pietatis dediti, secum
ipsis transigere debebant, tribus vetulis custoditi atque invigilati.
Nocte quarta, quum connubium consummandum erat, sacerdotes duo thalamum
suum praepararunt, tumque relicti sunt secum ipsi soli. “Nonnullis in
locis proba virginitatis iuvencae postridie nuptiarum postulabatur. In
quibuslibet nuptiis moris erat ut sponsores cubiculum, ubi nupturientes
pernoctassent, intrarent, atque camisiam sponsae tradi postularent;
quam, si cruore infectam reperissent, foras proferrent, perticae
appenderent, atque ceu testimonium, sponsam virginem fuisse, visui
exhiberent; tum choreae institutae totaque loca peragrata saltando,
debacchando summaque laetitia exsultando; quae omnia ‘camisiam saltare’
appellari consueverunt. Si quando camisiam sanguine non maculari
contigerit, gaudia lacrymis ac plangori cesserunt locum, non secus ac
maledicta, sugillationes dicteriaque soluerunt in sponsam iactari,
insimul vero et marito ius erat eam libello repudii donare.”[658]

“Si Muhammadanus puellam in uxorem ducit, atque lege pacti connubialis
eam virginem castam esse oportere stipulaverit, indicia eiusdem interdum
exigere consuevit. Quandoquidem familia eam, casu quo indicio hoc
caruerit, repudio remittendam exspectare debeat, pater sollicita cura
cavebit ut habeat quo se, si forte filia sua iacturam indicii
virginitatis fecisset, purgare possit. Halebii versanti mihi audire
contigit Arabem quemdam a Cadi documentum impetrasse, atque a testibus
subsignari curasse, quo ostenderetur filiam camelo delapsam detrimentum
tulisse.

“Muhammadani, de foeminis suis interrogati, aegre invitique respondent.
Attamen post longam diuturnamque cum iis consuetudinem, data occasione,
contigit mihi hac de re cum quibusdam eorum disseruisse, ex quo
intellexi Arabes humaniores linteaminibus sordidatis parum fidei
praestare.... Viri interdum deliquium cruoris, velut testimonium
debilitatis propriae, vulgo innotescere abnuunt.

“Muhammadanis in Iemen atque in India persuasum est aiuntque lintea
infecta visui offerre viro perquam dedecere. Nec profecto, nisi
curiositas muliebris atque agnati, res huiusmodi insectantur. A mente
sana neminem tam alienum existimandum arbitrantur quam quibus haec
praeservanda videantur. Proinde linteum hoc apud eos eluitur traditurque
ut usui consueto inter linteamina domestica restituatur. Percontanti
mihi Iudaeus quidam de Iudaeis et Muhammadanis Muscatensibus,
Christianus vero aliquis de Christianis et Muhammadanis Halebitis idem
significaverat. Busrae tamen audisse mihi licuit dari mulieres ordinis
plebeii, quae tesseram hanc pristinae suae castitatis velut vindicias
praeservare solitae sint, nequis ganeo protervus de eius post pubertatem
moribus quasi ambiguis sermocinari sibi praesumpserit.”[659]

-----

Footnote 651:

Gray’s _China_, I, 207.

Footnote 652:

Skertchley’s _Dahomey As It Is_, p. 499.

Footnote 653:

Lane’s _Modern Egyptians_, I, 221, nota.

Footnote 654:

_Ibid._

Footnote 655:

Burckhardt’s _Arabic Proverbs_, p. 140.

Footnote 656:

Facta haec a testibus fide dignis teneo.

Footnote 657:

Haec testimonio sacerdotis Æthiopici in Liberia nituntur.

Footnote 658:

Bancroft’s _Native Races_ (“Civilized Nations”), II, 256–261.

Footnote 659:

Niebuhr’s _Beschreibung von Arabien_, pp. 35–39.

Footnote 660:

Vide, exempli causa, Burtonii _Alf Laila va Laila_, II, 50; III, 289.

-----

SUBSTITUTE BLOOD FOR DECEPTION.

Quum in Arabia sponsa quaedam virginitatis orba sponso a parentibus
imponitur, mater sponsae turturillam clam iugulat, eiusque sanguine
camisiam sponsae, antequam illa amicis visui exhibeatur, tingit atque
commaculat. Ad mores hos in fabulis “Noctium Mille et Unius” haud tam
infrequenter referimur.[660] Burton haec interpretans ait: “Vetus ac
venerabilis consuetudo linteum nuptiale visendi in plurimis Orientis
regionibus pietate quadam religiosa adhuc praeservata viget; in familiis
enim Muhammedanis, moribus priscis addictis, linteum hoc in gynaeceo, ut
cernatur, expositum prostat, ut ... filiam marito illibatam se obtulisse
ostendat testeturque.... Opinio popularis praevalet nullam sanguinem
posse peritos, _h. e_. matronas iuratrices, fallere, praeterquam sanguis
turturillae, utpote qui sanguini hymenaeo existimetur esse simillimus,
nisi indages adminiculo microscopii instituatur. Fides haec apud Europae
Australis populos bene universa est, tum etiam de re eadem in Anglia
quoque me audisse memini.”[661] Burton porro subiungit: “Arabes atque
Indi in diebus nostris linteum nuptiale indagare, quemadmodum apud
Iudaeos Persasque usuvenit, raro sinunt. Sponsa mucinium candidum secum
in lectum sumit, ut habeat quo cruorem manantem sopiat, postridie autem
mane maculae in gynaeceo propalantur. In Darfuria vero, regione Africae,
hoc ipsum a sponso perficitur.”[662]

Apud Morduinos, gentem Fennicam, accolas Rha, mores prisci vigent.[663]
Consuetudinem testimonium virginitatis exhibendi, vel in eius locum
sanguinem pulli gallinacei substituendi, velut in partibus Asiae atque
Africae, in his Europae Septemtrione-Orientalis plagis ad usque modo
reperiri licet. “In comitatu Crasnaslobodsceno, Provinciae Pensae,
mulier neo-nupta e thalamo arcessitur, atque in camisia sua cruore
commaculata (si opus sit, etiam sanguine pulli gallinacei) a duabus
amicis labrum vacuum secum baiulantibus, vetulaque panem secum portante,
ad fluvium proximum deducitur. In iis autem regionibus, ubi Morduini
Russorum moribus sunt magis imbuti, hospites nuptiales, quamprimum
virginitas sit comprobata, quidquid ipsis sub manus cadat, ut suum
gaudium reverentiamque rite significent, confringunt atque
comminuunt.”[664]

-----

Footnote 661:

Vide, exempli causa, Burtonii _Alf Laila va Laila_, II, 50, nota.

Footnote 662:

_Ibid._, III, 289, nota.

Footnote 663:

Vide p. 32-dam supra.

Footnote 664:

P. von Stenin: “Die Ehe bei den Mordwinen,” in _Globus_, Vol. LXV, No.
11 (1894), p. 183.

-----

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF THE RITE.

Navarchus Cook, in Chronico sui primi circum orbem itineris de Fœdere
Liminari, ceu modo cultus publici in Otaheita, seu Tahiti, sequentia
refert:

“Die 14-mo (Maii), qui erat Solis, in castris cultum divinum celebrandum
iussi; maximopere desiderabamus ut principes Indorum huic interessent,
at hi, quum hora appropinquasset, domum discesserunt. Verumtamen Dñus
Banks, traiecto flumine, Tuburai Tamaide suamque uxorem Tomio, secum
reduxit, fore enim sperabat, ut cultus noster ab iis percontationes
quasdam eliceret, non secus ac nobis instrui liceret: quum eos
discumbere iussisset, ipse in medio eorum discubuit, qui durantibus
ceremoniis suum agendi modum summa animadversione sunt prosecuti
actionesque imitati; stantes, considentes, genua flectentes, prout eum
facere videbant: haud erant nimirum ignari apud nos quiddam solemnis agi
atque serii, ut hoc vel inde concludi potuerit, quod hi suos populares
praeter castra tripudiantes clamando ad silentiam servandum cohortati
fuissent; attamen cultu absoluto, neuter percontabatur quid rei gestum
esset, nec ullis volebant tentaminibus res gestas explicandi aures
praebere.

“Talia erant nostra officia matutina; Indi vero nostri vesperas toto
coelo diversas iudicarunt esse offerendas. Vir quidam iuvenis, procerus,
fere sex pedes, ritus Veneris cum pupula vix undenorum vel duodenorum
annorum, pluribus nostrum magnoque popularium numero coram intuentibus,
perfecit, quin actum dedecere, vel bonis adversari moribus senserit;
verum, ut concludere licuit, moribus illius regionis omnino congruenter.
Erant autem in turba inspectante non paucae mulieres ordinum superiorum,
in specie autem Oberea (mulier principalis illius Insulae, quae primum
regina esse reputabatur), quae ad ceremonias ministrasse iure dici
potest; nam mulieres hae puellam monendo instituebant quemadmodum vidl.
sibi sua parte muneris obeundum esset.”[665]

Quum apud Samoanos nuptiae cuiusdam optimatum in diebus primaevis
celebrabantur, partes agnatique sponsae in _maroe_, seu foro publico
congregabantur, ubi sponsus, cunctis intuentibus, primam virginitatis
sponsae obryssam instituit. Si documentum virginitatis ab eo exhiberi
potuerat, coetus omnis exsurrexit complosisque manibus sponsae
gratulabundus acclamavit; at, si quo casu proba haec defuerit, eam
probris scommatibusque lacessiverant. Apud plebem humilem ritus his in
aedibus privatis, nec tanta pompa celebrabatur.[666]

-----

Footnote 665:

_Voyages of Capt. James Cook_, I, 56.

Footnote 666:

Turner’s _Samoa a Hundred Years Ago_, pp. 93–95.

-----

BIBLE TESTIMONY.

A distinct reference to the proofs of chastity, in the blood-stamped
cloth, is found in the Bible record of the ancient law of Israel. “If
any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and lay shameful
things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I
took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the
tokens of virginity: then shall the father of the damsel, and her
mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto
the elders of the city in the gate: and the damsel’s father shall say
unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth
her; and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I
found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the
tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the garment [or
cloth, Hebrew _simlah_] before the elders of the city.

“And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him; and
they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them
unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name
upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her
away all his days. But if this thing be true, that the tokens of
virginity were not found in the damsel: then they shall bring out the
damsel to the doors of her father’s house, and the men of the city shall
stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in
Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house.”[667]

-----

Footnote 667:

Deut. 22 : 13–21.

-----

WOMAN AS A DOOR.

In different languages and among various peoples there is, as already
suggested,[668] an apparent connection between the terms, and the
corresponding ideas, of “woman” and “door,” that would seem to be a
confirmation of the fact that the earliest altar was at the threshold of
the woman, and of the door.

Thus, in the Song of Songs 8 : 8, 9:–

“We have a little sister,
And she hath no breasts:
What shall we do for our sister
In the day when she shall be spoken for?
If she be a wall,
We will build upon her a turret of silver:
And if she be a door,
We will inclose her with boards of cedar.”

Job, cursing the day of his birth, says (Job 3 : 1–10):

“Let the day perish wherein I was born,
And the night which said, There is a man child conceived....
Neither let it behold the eyelids of the morning:
Because it shut not up the doors of my mother’s womb,
Nor hid trouble from mine eyes.”

Referring to this passage, the Babylonian Talmud (Treatise Bechoroth, 45
a) quotes Rabbi Eliezer as saying, “Just as a house has doors, so also a
woman has doors.” Others say: “Just as a house has keys [_miphteakh_,
literally ‘opener’], so the woman has a key; for it is said (Gen. 30 :
22) ‘God hearkened to her, and opened [a play upon _patakh_, ‘to open,’
and _miphteakh_, ‘key’] her womb.’” The famous Rabbi Akibah says: “Just
as a house has hinges, so there are hinges to a wife; for it is written
(1 Sam. 4 : 19), ‘She kneeled and gave birth, for her hinges had turned’
[translating _ṣîrîm_ (or _tseereem_) as ‘hinges’ instead of ‘pains’; the
word has the former meaning in Proverbs 26 : 14, ‘As the door turneth
upon its hinges, so doth the sluggard upon his bed.’]”

The Talmudic treatise Middâ (Mishna § 2, 5) explains the different parts
of the womb under the metaphors _khĕdĕr_, “interior chamber;”
_pʾrosdôr_, “vestibule;” _ʿalîyyâ_, “upper story.”[669] Professor Dr.
Morris Jastrow, Jr., in citing these metaphors, suggests that they
coincide with the Arabic and Egyptian custom of using a key in the
marriage rite, as described at page 244.

Critics have long puzzled over the seemingly contradictory uses of the
Hebrew word _pôth_ in two places in the Old Testament; and the
connection of “woman” and “door” with the parts thereof, above
suggested, may aid in resolving the difficulty. At 1 Kings 7 : 50, in a
list of the holy vessels of the house of the Lord, there are mentioned
“the hinges (Heb., _pôthôth_), both for the doors of the inner house,
the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the
temple, of gold.” At Isaiah 3 : 17 the same word _poth_ is translated
“their secret parts,” in a reference to the humiliation of “the
daughters of Zion.” It has been suggested by some that there was a
corruption of the text in Isaiah. (See Delitzsch and Dillmann, in their
commentaries at this place.) Yet in view of the rabbinical uses of
language, the text would seem to be trustworthy. _Pôth_ is an “opening,”
of a _woman_ or of a _door_. Additional light is thrown on the use of
the term _pôth_ as “opening” and as “hinge,” or “socket,” when we bear
in mind that the hinge of an Oriental door was a hole, or cavity, or
door socket, on which the door turned, in order to give an opening or
entrance. Often these door sockets were made of metal,–bronze, silver,
or gold.[670] Sometimes the entire thresholds, in which were these
sockets or “basons,” were of metal. If, however, the threshold was of
stone or wood, the socket, or a plate with a depression in it, was of
metal. The _pôth_, therefore, when referring to a door, was the metal
plate or socket in the threshold on which the door turned as on a hinge.

It is, indeed, possible that the opening or cavity in the ancient stone
or metal threshold was sometimes the bason, or vessel, into which the
covenanting blood was poured.[671] In that case, the correspondence of
the opening of the woman, and the socket of the threshold, would be more
obvious. Important inscriptions are usually found at or around these
so-called “door sockets,” in Babylonian relics; and there is still doubt
in many minds whether these cavities were always hinge sockets.

The word “hinges,” or “hangers,” is at the best an inaccurate and
misleading term, as applied to the pivots or knuckles on which an
ancient door swung in its socket. Ancient doors were not hung on hinges,
but they swung on pivots. Instead of a hinge, there was a knuckle or
pintle, with a corresponding socket, or cavity, or opening, in the
threshold or door-sill. Both Gesenius[672] and Stade[673] give “socket”
as one of the meanings of _pôth_. The plural, _pôthoth_, of course,
refers to the sockets of two leaves of a double door on one threshold.

When Samson was shut in at Gaza by the Philistines, the double leaves of
the city gate were held together by a bar, without the lifting of which
the doors could not be opened. “And Samson lay till midnight, and arose
at midnight, and laid hold of the doors of the gate of the city, and the
two posts [the upright stiles, at the bottom of which were the knuckles
that turned in the threshold sockets], and plucked them up, bar
[cross-bar or latch] and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and
carried them up to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron.”[674]

I have in my possession a bronze door-socket and knuckle of an ancient
gate or door, unearthed from a mound in the vicinity of Ghuzzeh, the
site of ἡ τύχηancient Gaza, that meets this description.

[Illustration]

In primitive symbolism, as shown in Babylonia, Egypt, and India, the
circle or ring, like this socket, represents woman.

It would be interesting, in this connection, to follow out the meanings
and uses of the Greek words πυθμήν (_puthmēn_), root φυ (_phu_); and
φλιή (_phliē_), doorpost, root φλι (_phli_); compare φλέω (_phleō_),
φίλος (_philos_). It is evident that the twofold idea of the threshold
of life, and the threshold, or sockets, of the door, is in the uses of
these terms and their derivatives in earlier and later Greek. But only
this suggestion can be made here.

The correspondence of “woman” and “door,” or of “wife” and “threshold,”
in the Arabic, has already been pointed out.[675] A similar suggestion
is in Sanskrit terms.[676]

In Germany, even at the present time, a common term for “woman” is
“woman chamber” (_frauenzimmer_), as in Arabic _hareema_ is a woman,
while _hareem_ is the women’s apartment. A remark attributed to a
prominent American clergyman, as showing the naturalness of the figure
of woman as a door, is: “He who marries a wife opens a door, through
which unborn generations shall troop.”

A Chinese character is the representation of “threshold,” of “door,” and
also of “woman.”[677] It is suggested by the lexicographer that the
origin of this character was a small door in a large gate, as the inner
door to the hareem or women’s apartments; but it seems probable, from
the correspondence of this twofold idea with the primitive thought of
woman as the door of humanity, that the Chinese character must have had
an origin prior to that degree of civilization which recognized such a
classification in household apartments. The combination of “door” and
“border” is another Chinese character[678] that stands for “threshold”
or “door-sill.”[679] Confucius said that this

threshold “should not be trodden on when walking through” the door.

-----

Footnote 668:

See, for example, 197 f., _supra_.

Footnote 669:

See also citations from Buxtorf at p. 200, _supra_.

Footnote 670:

See pp. 127, 132 f., 207 f., _supra_.

Footnote 671:

See p. 207 f., _supra_.

Footnote 672:

_Handwörterbuch_, Mülhan and Volck, 11th ed., s. v.

Footnote 673:

_Woerterbuch u. Alt. Test._, s. v.

Footnote 674:

Judges 16 : 3.

Footnote 675:

See p. 200, _supra_.

Footnote 676:

See p. 197 f., _supra_.

Footnote 677:

_’kw’ un_

Footnote 678:

_yü_

Footnote 679:

See S. Wells Williams’s _Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language_,
pp. 496, 1141.

-----

SYMBOLISM OF THE TWO SEXES.

As showing the antiquity, as well as the universality, of the symbolism
of the two sexes as the source of life, in connection with reverent
worship, an illustration of the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead is
noteworthy. In a vignette on Chapter CXXV, in the Papyrus Ani, a
worshiper, is represented before the throne of Osiris, in the Hall of
Righteousness, with uplifted hands, in token of covenant worship, while
his offering is a lotus flower, the symbol of fecundity, laid on the
conventional phallus, the symbol of virility.[680] This vignette is
reproduced on the cover of this volume. The lotus flower has the same
signification in Assyria and India as in Egypt.[681]

The pine cone, which, as the symbol of virility and vitalizing force,
was prominent in the ancient Assyrian sculptures, as also in the
Phenician and Grecian cults,[682] was likewise to be found in ancient
Rome. An enormous bronze pine cone, eleven feet high, probably older
than the Christian era, still ornaments a fountain in the gardens of the
Vatican. Lanciani says: “Pope Symmachus, who did so much toward the
embellishment of sacred edifices in Rome (between 498 and 514), removed
the pine cone from its ancient place, most probably from Agrippa’s
artificial lake in the Campus Martius, and used it for adorning the
magnificent fountain which he had built in the center of the so-called
‘Paradise’ of S. Peter’s, viz., in the center of the square portico in
front of the basilica.”[683]

Among the Pompeian relics in the Royal Museum at Naples is a
representation of a woman making an offering to Priapus in order to be
cured of sterility. She brings a pine cone, while her husband is near
her.[684]

Evidences of the fact that boundary posts, landmarks, and milestones
were intended to represent the phallus at the threshold in the Roman
empire, as in the far East, abound among the same relics in the
Neapolitan Museum.[685]

-----

Footnote 680:

Le Page Renouf’s Book of the Dead in _Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology_, for November, 1895. Plate xxxi.

Footnote 681:

See pp. 199, 234, _supra_.

Footnote 682:

See Barker’s _Lares and Penates; Or, Cilicia and its Governors_, p.
217 f.; also see p. 231 f., _supra_.

Footnote 683:

Lanciani’s _Ancient Rome_, p. 286 f.

Footnote 684:

Ainé’s _Herculaneum et Pompéi_, Tome VIII, Planche 56, facing p. 221.

Footnote 685:

_Ibid._, Pl. 24, 25, 27, 30, 39, 41, 44, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59.

-----

SYMBOLISM OF TREE AND SERPENT.

A striking confirmation of the view taken in this work of the symbolism
of the serpent, as the nexus between the two sexes, the female being
represented by the fig-tree, and the male by the upright stone, or
pole,[686] is found in an ancient religious custom in Mysore, India.
Captain J.S.F. Mackenzie contributed an interesting paper on this
subject to the “Indian Antiquary.”[687] “Round about Bangalore, more
especially towards the Lal Bagh and _Petta_,–as the native town is
called,–three or more stones are to be found together, having
representations of serpents carved upon them. These stones are erected
always under the sacred fig-tree by some pious person, whose means and
piety determine the care and finish with which they are executed.
Judging from the number of the stones, the worship of the serpent
appears to be more prevalent in the Bangalore district than in other
parts of the province. No priest is ever in charge of them. There is no
objection to men doing so, but from custom, or for some reason,–perhaps
because the serpent is supposed to confer fertility on barren women,–the
worshiping of the stones, which takes place during the Gauri feast, is
confined to women of all Hindu classes and creeds. The stones, when
properly erected, ought to be on a built-up stone platform facing the
rising sun, and under the shade of two _peepul_ (_Ficus religiosa_)
trees,–a male and female growing together, and wedded by ceremonies, in
every respect the same as in the case of human beings,–close by, and
growing in the same platform a nimb (_margosa_) and _bipatra_ (a kind of
wood-apple), which are supposed to be living witnesses of the marriage.
The expense of performing the marriage ceremony is too heavy for
ordinary persons, and so we generally find only one _peepul_ and a
_nimb_ on the platform. By the common people these two are supposed to
represent man and wife.”

-----

Footnote 686:

See pp. 230–240, _supra_.

Footnote 687:

Cited in _Notes and Queries_, fifth series, Vol. IV, p. 463.

-----

COVENANT OF THRESHOLD-CROSSING.

An American gentleman traveling among the Scandinavian immigrants in
Wisconsin and Minnesota, was surprised to see their house doors quite
generally standing open, as if they had no need of locks and bolts. He
argued from this that they were an exceptionally honest people, and that
they had no fear of thieves and robbers. A Scandinavian clergyman, being
asked about this, said that they had thieves in that region, but that
thieves would not cross a threshold, or enter a door, with evil intent,
being held back by a superstitious fear of the consequences of such a
violation of the covenant obligation incurred in passing over the
threshold.

I asked a native Syrian woman, “If a thief wanted to get into your house
to steal from you, would he come in at the door, if he saw that open?”
“Oh, no!” she answered, “he would come in at the window, or would dig in
from behind.” “Why wouldn’t he come in at the door?” I asked. “Because
his _reverence_ would keep him from that,” she said, in evident
reference to the superstitious dread of crossing a threshold with evil
intent,–a dread growing out of an inborn survival of reverence for the
primitive altar, with the sacredness of a covenant entered into by its
crossing.

The very term commonly employed in the New Testament for thieving
indicates the “digging through” a building, instead of entering by the
door. “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth
and rust doth consume, and where thieves break through [literally, dig
through; Greek, _diorussō_ and steal.”[688] “If the master of the house
had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched, and
not have left his house to be digged through.”[689]

Canon Tristram tells of an Adwan shaykh who was proud of being a
“robber,” a “highwayman,” but who resented the idea that he was a
“thief,”–a “sneak thief.” “I am not a thief,” he said; “I do not dig
into the houses of fellaheen in the night. I would scorn it. I only take
by force in the day time. And, if God gives me strength, shall I not use
it?” Canon Tristram adds: “A ‘thief,’ as distinguished from a ‘robber,’
would never think of attempting to force the door, but would noiselessly
dig through a wall in the rear,–a work of no great labor, as the walls
are generally of earth, or sun-dried bricks, or, at best, of stone
imbedded in turf instead of in mortar.”[690]

A former missionary in Palestine[691] says: “Digging through the wall is
the common method pursued by housebreakers in Palestine, and, save in
the cities, the operation is not one of great difficulty. Windows, in
our sense, do not exist in the houses of the villagers; ... but the
walls, built of roughly broken stones and mud, are easily, and by a
skilled hand almost noiselessly, penetrated. One night, about midnight,
I was driven from my resting-place under a stunted olive-tree in the
plain of Sharon by a terrific thunderstorm, and took refuge in the
miserable fellahy village of Kalansaweh. A good woman unbarred her door
and admitted me to a single apartment, in which, on the ground level,
were several sheep and cattle, with an ass, and on the higher level a
pretty large family asleep, all dimly discerned by the light of a little
oil lamp stuck in a crevice of the wall. The atmosphere was awful. I
asked why they did not have a window or opening in the wall. The woman
held up her hands in amazement. ‘What!’ she exclaimed, ‘and assist the
robbers [“thieves”]?’... The robbers [‘thieves’], she explained, were
the Arabs in the plain. Greater rascals do not exist. They were great
experts, she explained, in ‘digging through’ the houses; to put a window
in the wall would only tempt them, and facilitate their work.”

Now, as of old, among the more primitive pastoral people of Palestine,
“He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but
climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.... The
thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy.”[692]

I remember now, what I did not realize the meaning of at the time, that
while I was journeying in Arabia we did not set a watch before the
entrance of our tents, when we were near a village; but the guards were
at the rear of the tents, to watch against thieves, who would crawl
underneath the canvas to steal what they might.

It seems to have been a custom in medieval times, and probably earlier,
for the besiegers in war time to endeavor to enter a city which they
would sack through a breach in the walls, or by scaling the walls,
rather than by entering the gates. On the other hand, if a conqueror
would protect the inhabitants of a captured city, he would pass in
through the opened gates. To deliver up the keys of the city gates to a
hostile commander was equivalent to capitulating or making formal terms
of surrender. In the military museum at Berlin are preserved the keys of
cities captured by the emperors of Germany at various times along the
centuries.

There is a trace of this custom of besiegers, even in Old Testament
times, in the injunctions to Israel with reference to its warfares:
“When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim
peace unto it [proffer quarter]. And it shall be, if it make thee answer
of peace, and open [the gates] unto thee, then it shall be, that all the
people that is found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall
serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war
against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God
delivereth it into thine hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with
the edge of the sword.”[693]

It has been suggested on a former page,[694] but perhaps not
sufficiently explained, that this idea of subjecting one’s self to the
covenant obligations of citizenship by passing through the city gates,
over the threshold, had to do with the Grecian custom of welcoming back
to his own city the victor in the Olympian games through a breach in the
walls, instead of through the gate. The meaning of this Greek custom
(continued in Rome) was not clear in the days of Plutarch, and he, in
seeking to account for it, suggests that it may have been intended to
show that a city having such men among its citizens needed no walls of
defense.[695] But, as they rebuilt their walls after the entrance of the
victor, this explanation is not satisfactory. The world-wide recognition
of the covenant obligations of a passage through a gate over the
threshold is a more satisfactory explanation. If the victor, on
returning in triumph from the games, were to enter his city through the
gates, like any other citizen, he would be subject to the laws of the
city as a citizen or a guest; but if the city would recognize him as a
conqueror, at home as well as at Olympia, they would let him come in
through a breach in the walls. In this act the citizens nominally
submitted themselves to him; and a city thus entered, and, as it were,
captured, often felt that it received more honor from its victor than it
could confer upon him.[696]

-----

Footnote 688:

Matt. 6 : 19; also Matt. 6 : 20.

Footnote 689:

Luke 12 : 39; also Matt. 24 : 43; Exod. 22 : 2; Ezek. 12 : 2–7.

Footnote 690:

See The Sunday School Times for March 7, 1896.

Footnote 691:

The Rev. William Ewing, in The Sunday School Times for March 7, 1896.

Footnote 692:

John 10 : 1, 10.

Footnote 693:

Deut. 20 : 10–13.

Footnote 694:

See pp. 5–7, _supra_.

Footnote 695:

Plutarch, _Symp._, Bk. ii, Quest. 5, § 2.

Footnote 696:

See Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq._, s. vv. “Athletæ,” and
“Olympic Games;” Gardner’s _New Chapters in Greek History_, pp.
297–302.

-----

DOORKEEPER, AND CARRIER.

A “porter” and a “porter” are two very different persons, as the terms
are employed in both Europe and America. We speak of a porter as a
menial who carries burdens, such as parcels or baggage, a mere carrier
for hire. Again, we speak of a porter as the attendant at, or the
custodian of, the entrance gate of a mansion or public building. In the
one case the porter is a very humble personage, in the other case he is
a person of responsibility and importance. How it came about that the
same term is applied to both these personages is worth considering, in
view of its bearing on the importance of the door and the gate.

It is said to have been a custom of the ancient Etruscans and Romans,
and perhaps of older peoples, in laying out the foundations of a city,
to mark first the compass of the whole city with a plow. When they came
to those places where they were to have the gates of the city, they took
up the plow and carried it across the gateway, “transported” the plow at
that space. It is said that from this custom the Latin word _porta_ came
to apply to “a gate,” “_a portando aratrum_,” “from carrying the
plow,”–_porta_, in Latin, meaning “to carry.” Whether or not the
traditional custom referred to had a historical basis, it will be seen
that the mere fact of the tradition will account for the twofold use, in
languages derived from the Latin, of the word “porter” as a carrier, and
again as a doorkeeper, or a gate watcher, or a guardian of the
threshold. Apart from the question of the origin of the terms, we find
that the porter or carrier is one who goes through the gate as the place
of entrance or exit in his carryings; or, again, the porter or guardian
of the gate is one who watches the place of carryings, and of outgoing
and incoming.

Among the stories told of the founding of Rome by Romulus, it is said
that at the threshold of this enterprise the people kindled fires before
their tents, and then leaped through or over the flames.[697] In
connection with this ceremony sacrifices were offered, and offerings of
the first-fruits of forest and field were made to the gods.[698] A
heifer and a bull were yoked to the plow, as in symbol of marriage, and
afterwards were offered in sacrifice, thus supplying the symbolic blood
on the threshold of the new city.[699] Plutarch, it is true, thinks
that, in consequence of this custom of laying out a city, the walls of a
city, _except the gates_, were counted sacred; but in this, as in other
matters relating to the threshold,[700] it is evident that Plutarch was
not sure to be correct as to the meaning of archaic customs.

There seems to be force in the suggestion that the two Latin words,
_porta_ and _porto_, like the Greek _poros_, were derived from the
common Aryan root _par_ or _por_, “to go,” “to bring over,” “to pass
through.”[701] However this may be, we have the common English use of
the term “port” in words meaning a door or entrance, and again a
carrying or a place of carriage, as “export,” “import,” “transport,”
“portico,” “porthole,” “portfolio,” etc.

An illustration of the twofold use of the word is found in the word “a
portage” or “a carry” as the designation of “a break in a chain of water
communication over which goods, boats, etc., have to be carried, as from
one lake or river to another.” It is not merely that this is a place
where a canoe, or other luggage, must be carried, but it is the definite
“carry” or “portage,” the bridge, or isthmus, or door, or
threshold,[702] by which they enter another region. This is the common
American use of the term in pioneer life.[703]

-----

Footnote 697:

A primitive wedding ceremony. See pp. 39–42, 142 f., 212, _supra_.

Footnote 698:

See, again, pp. 16 f., 46 f., _supra_.

Footnote 699:

See _Plutarch’s Lives_, “Romulus;” also references to Strabo, and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in Hooke’s _Roman History_, I., 42.

Footnote 700:

See references at pp. 39, 263, _supra_.

Footnote 701:

See Skeat’s _Etymological Dictionary_ and the _Century Dictionary_, s.
v.

Footnote 702:

See p. 180 f., _supra_.

Footnote 703:

See “portage” in _The Century Dictionary_, with examples of usage.

-----

PASSING OVER INTO A COVENANT.

As these pages are going to press, Dr. Sailer calls my attention to the
phrase לעבר בברית _laʿabhor bibereeth_, to enter, or pass over, into a
covenant. This phrase, as Dr. Driver[704] points out, is found only in
one place, at Deuteronomy 29 : 12. “That thou shouldest enter [or pass]
into the covenant of the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord
thy God maketh with thee this day.”

It is evident that here is the idea of passing over a line or boundary,
or threshold limit, into another region, or state or condition. Until
that threshold is crossed, the person is outside of the covenant with
its privileges and benefits; but when it is crossed, or passed, the
person is a partaker of all that is within.

This word _ʿabhar_ corresponds with, while it differs from, the word
_pasakh_. The two words have, indeed, been counted by some
lexicographers as practically equivalents. Thus Fürst[705] gives
“_pasakh_=_ʿabhar_.” In the covenant which Jehovah makes with Abraham,
for himself and his posterity (Gen. 15 : 1–21), when the heifer and the
she goat and the ram had been slaughtered and divided, and the pieces
laid over against each other as two walls, or sides of a door, with the
blood probably poured out on the earth as a threshold between, “a
smoking furnace and a flaming torch,”–representing the divine
presence–“passed,” or covenant-crossed, the blood on the threshold
“between these pieces,” between these fleshly walls or door-posts of the
sacrifice.[706]

In Jeremiah 34 : 18, the word appears in its twofold signification, in
conjunction with a similar double use of the word _karath_ (“to cut”).
Jehovah says, “I will give the men that have transgressed [_ʿabhar_,
crossed or passed] my covenant, ... which they made [cut] before me when
they cut the calf in twain and passed [over its blood] between the parts
thereof.” Again, in Amos 7 : 8, Jehovah says of his reprobate people, “I
will not again pass by [_ʿabhar_] them [covenant-cross them] any more.”

There seems to be a trace of this cross-over, or pass-over, covenant
idea in the references to the passing through the fire in the worship of
false gods, as at 2 Kings 16 : 3, where King Ahaz is said to have
“walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass
through [_ʿʿabhar_] the fire, according to the abominations of the
heathen.”[707] It is evident that this passing through the fire in honor
of a false god was not the being thrown into the fire as a burnt
offering; for such sacrifices are referred to by themselves, as at
Deuteronomy 12 : 31, where it is said of the people of Jehovah that
“even their sons and their daughters do they burn [_saraph_] in the fire
to their gods.”[708] In the same chapter of 2 Kings (17 : 17, 31) the
two phrases of causing children to “pass through” the fire, and of
“burning” children in the fire, are separately referred to, in
illustration of the fact that they are not one and the same thing.

It has already been shown[709] that jumping across, or being lifted
over, a fire, at the threshold, is an ancient mode of covenanting, still
surviving in many marriage or other customs; and that the blood of both
human and substitute sacrifices has often been poured out at the same
primitive altar.

Under the figure of a marriage covenant Jehovah speaks, in Ezekiel 16 :
8, of entering into a covenant, when he takes the virgin Israel as his
bride: “Yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee,
saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.” Here the more common word
_bo_ is used for the idea of entering; but its connection with the
covenant of marriage would seem to connect it, like the other words,
_pasach_ and _ʿabhar_, with the thought of crossing over the threshold
or barrier into a new state.

ENGLAND’S CORONATION STONE.

A notable survival of the primitive reverence for the one foundation, or
the original threshold, as the earliest place of sacrifice and
covenanting,[710] is shown in the famous “Coronation Stone” in
Westminster Abbey. This stone is under the chair in which all the
sovereigns of England from Edward I. to Victoria have been crowned. It
was brought by Edward I. to England from Scone, the coronation seat of
the kings of Scotland. The legend attached to it was that it was the
stone pillar on which Jacob rested at Bethel,–the House of God where
Abraham worshiped, and where Jacob covenanted with God for all his
generations.[711]

“In it, or upon it, the Kings of Scotland were placed by the Earls of
Fife. From it Scone became the ‘_sedis principalis_’ of Scotland, and
the kingdom of Scotland the kingdom of Scone.” Since the days of Edward
I., it has never been removed from Westminster Abbey, except when
Cromwell was installed as Lord Protector in Westminster Hall, on which
occasion it was brought out in order that he might be placed on it.

As in ancient Babylonia, in Egypt, in Syria, in India, in China, in
Arabia, in Greece, in Scandinavia, the one primitive foundation was
deemed the only foundation on which to build securely with Divine
approval, so in the very center of the highest modern civilization the
reputed foundation stone of the kingdom of the “Father of the Faithful”
is deemed the only secure coronation, or installation, seat of King,
Queen, or Lord Protector. Is it not reasonable to suppose that this
feeling has a basis in primitive religious convictions and customs?

Dean Stanley, referring to this Coronation Stone as “probably the chief
object of attraction to the innumerable visitors to the Abbey,” says of
it: “It is the one primeval monument which binds together the whole
Empire. The iron rings, the battered surface, the crack which has all
but rent its solid mass asunder, bear witness to its long migrations. It
is thus embedded in the heart of the English monarchy–an element of
poetic, patriarchal, heathen times, which, like Araunah’s rocky
threshing-floor in the midst of the Temple of Solomon, carries back our
thoughts to races and customs now almost extinct; a link which unites
the Throne of England to the traditions of Tara and Iona, and connects
the charm of our complex civilization with the forces of our mother
earth,–the stocks and stones of savage nature.”[712]

-----

Footnote 704:

Driver’s _Deuteronomy_, p. 323.

Footnote 705:

_Heb. Chald. Lex._, s. v.

Footnote 706:

See p. 187 f., _supra_.

Footnote 707:

See, also, 2 Kings 21 : 6; 23 : 10; 2 Chron. 33 : 6; Ezek. 16 : 21; 20
: 26, 31; 23 : 37.

Footnote 708:

See, also, Jer. 7 : 31; 19 : 5.

Footnote 709:

See pp. 39–42, 142 f., 212, _supra_.

Footnote 710:

See pp. 153–164, _supra_.

Footnote 711:

See Dean Stanley’s _Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, first
edition, pp. 59–67; also, Appendices, pp. 492–502.

Footnote 712:

See Dean Stanley’s _Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, first
edition, pp. 64–66.

-----

INDEXES.

TOPICAL INDEX.

Aaron and his sons consecrated at doorway, 119.
Aberdeenshire:
New Year’s custom in, 20 f.;
sacredness of threshold in, 34.
Abimelech and Abraham settling disputed boundary, 170.
Abiram, Jericho’s foundation laid in blood of, 47.
Aborigines of America, worship of, 148.
Abraham:
promise that his seed should possess gate of enemies, 65;
lifting up his hand to God, 82;
coming from Haran and Ur, 160;
his offering on Mt. Moriah, 161;
directed to rebuild holy house at Meccah, 163;
and Abimelech settling disputed boundary, 170;
the Lord’s covenant welcome to, 187;
his visit to home of Ishmael in Arabia, 200;
covenant with, 211.
Absalom in “way of the gate” to do judgment, 64.
Abyla and Calpë as boundary marks, 181.
Abyssinia:
bride carried to her new home in, 38;
prominence of door in, 107;
churches of, on hill or in grove, 130 f.;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Acropolis, Propylæa built by Pericles on, 158.
Adam as builder of Holy House at Meccah, 163.
“Adam Khan and Durkhani,” poem of Afghans, 58.
Adonis of Greece, reference to, 115.
Adoption:
of guest in Egypt and Syria, 3;
of bride by stepping over blood at threshold, 26;
among Arabs accompanied by sacrifice at door, 59.
“Adultery,” affiliation with any but true God called, 213.
Æneas at court of Queen Dido, 130.
Æschylus, reference to, 134.
Æsculapius represented by serpent, 236.
Afghans, protection for all at threshold among, 58.
Africa:
human sacrifice in Central, 8 f.;
fowl sacrificed for guest in West, 9;
sheep sacrificed for guest in Central, 9;
bloody grass on threshold in Equatorial, 15;
sacrifices at threshold among Somalis of, 27;
threshold customs in South, 28;
bride carried over threshold in West, 39;
bloody hand in North, 78 f.;
bloody hand in, 93;
primitive sacredness of doorway in, 132;
boundary lines in, 174;
trees as boundaries in Equatorial, 174;
exhibit of blood stains in western, 246.
Agade, Istar of, 153.
_Agni_, masculine, 198.
Ahab, reference to time of, 47.
Ainé’s _Herc. at Pomp._: cited, 258.
Akibah, Rabbi: cited, 253.
Alaska:
dead not carried over threshold in, 24;
human sacrifices at foundation of houses in, 50 f.
Albanians, crossing threshold right foot foremost, 37 f.
Alcinoüs, temple palace of, 132, 135.
Alee, kissing threshold of tomb of, 124.
Alexandri, poem by, regarding foundation sacrifice, 52.
Algiers, walls of, laid in blood of Christian captive, 48.
Algonquins, prominence of hand among, 84.
_ʿAlîyyâ_, symbolic meaning of, 253.
Allat, sovereign of Hades, life restored at threshold of, 113 f.
Altamash, emperor of India, building mosk, 157.
Altar:
primitive family, 3;
reverence for threshold, 10-25;
offering of life on threshold, 16;
near door in Mexico, 21;
sanctity of threshold as primitive, 22;
reference to souls under, 25;
saint or ecclesiastic buried under, in Europe, 25;
threshold, in Russia, 31 f.;
offerings at threshold, in Holland, 33;
before door at marriage in Borneo, 34;
sacredness of threshold in Scotland, 34;
fire taken over threshold among Hindoos, 40 f.;
lamb buried under, in Swedish tradition, 56;
before Greek houses, 72;
at or before threshold, 102, 136;
in doorway of temple at Nippur, 111;
of burnt offering, blood poured out at, 119;
at doorway, in Jerusalem, Phenicia, Phrygia, Aphrodisias, 121;
at threshold in Egyptian temple, 126;
at Yeha, 131;
_lélé_, name for, 150 f.
Altar-fire:
connecting link between nuptial torch and, 41;
crossing, in Russia, 42;
references to, 39 f., 99-102, 226.
Amara Deva, temple builder, 156.
Amara Sinha, temple builder, 156.
Amenophis IV. before Aten-ra, 81.
America, Central:
bridal couple carried over threshold in, 45;
blood of sacrificial offerings smeared on doorways in, 73;
earliest form of temple in, 144;
boys sacrificed in, 145;
temples of, 145, 148;
nuptial customs of, 196;
sculptures indicating covenant rite between first pair in, 202;
marriage ceremonies in, 246.
America, North:
survival of sacrifice in, 8;
treading on threshold in, 13;
coffin passed out window of house in, 25;
window opened and door closed at death in, 25;
nailing horseshoes on side-posts of doorway in, 73 f.;
symbol of open hands in museums of, 79;
red hand among aborigines of, 83 f., 93;
laying of corner-stones in, 147;
survival of primitive sacredness of threshold in, 147;
aborigines of, religious worship of, 148;
boundary lines in, 174;
symbol of covenant among primitive peoples in, 201;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
America, South:
blood smeared on doorway in, 73;
earliest form of temple in, 144;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
serpent as religious symbol in, 235.
America, United States of:
vice-consul of, in Egypt, reference to, 7 f.;
boundary marks in, 126, 182 f.
American Architect, reference to the, 175.
American Indians, red-hand symbolism among, 85-93.
Amon, temple of, reference to, 185.
Amorite, daughter of, 213.
ʾAnazeh Bed´ween, sacrifice at threshold among, 26.
Andersson, Charles John: cited, 28.
Ani before throne of Osiris, 257.
Animals:
images of, on Mordvin door-posts, 42 f.;
substituted for human beings in sacrifice, 46;
lower, as distinguished from man, 223.
Animals sacrificed. See _Sacrifice_.
_Ankh_, or _crux ansata_, 201.
Anointing door-posts among Latins, 29 f.
Antariksha invoked on door-sill, 15.
Antelii presiding over entrance, 97.
Antiquary, The, reference to, 50.
Anu, gate of, reference to, 95
Apaches:
prominence of red hand among, 87;
reference to, 88.
Aphrodisias, altar on threshold in ancient, 121.
Apollo:
temple of, at Delphi, 134;
represented by female oracle, 236;
slayer of serpent, 236.
Apollo Agyieus, altar of, placed before house among Greeks, 72.
Apollo Thyræus, at entrance, 97.
Arabia:
crossing threshold in, 10;
blood at door-post to secure protection in, 59 f.;
kissing threshold in, 129;
Eve settling in, 164;
Abraham’s visit to Ishmael in, 200;
use of pigeon poult’s blood in, 248.
Arabic term for woman, 256.
Arabs:
of Central Africa, blood welcome among, 9;
sacrifice at threshold among, 26;
“house of hair” of, 57;
of Syrian Desert, doorway sacrifice in joining another tribe, 58 f.;
red hand on houses of, in Jerusalem, 76;
_wely_ common as place of worship for, in Egypt, 129;
exhibit of evidences among, 249.
Arafat near Meccah, 163 f.
Arapahoes, red hand among, 87.
Arch, memorial, meaning of, 103.
Archangel, foundation sacrifice in, 54.
Architecture:
influence of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt in doorway, 60;
of temples in China and Japan, 101;
sacredness of threshold recognized in, 102.
Arcot, Nabob of, banners with painted hands carried before, 78.
Areca-nut eaten in marriage covenant in Borneo, 34.
Arickarees, red hand among, 87.
Ark of Hebrews in house of Dagon, 116.
Armenian Christians, blood on threshold among, 26.
Armenians, sacred inscriptions above doorway of, 71.
Arta, bridge of, story of burying women alive to secure, 52.
Artemis Propylæa at Eleusis, 134.
Aryan origin of red hand, 75.
Aryan races:
reference to, 197;
language and customs of, 199.
Asherah, command to Israelites concerning, 233.
Ashtaroth, symbol of, 214.
Ashurnâsirapli, references to, 178, 184.
Asia:
bloody hand in marriage in, 93;
traces of primitive sacredness of doorway found in, 132;
boundary lines in, 174.
See, also, _China_, _India_, _Japan_.
Asia Minor:
human sacrifice in, 47 f.;
references to, 93, 132, 174;
altar on threshold in early Christian remains in, 121.
_Askuppu_, word for threshold, 110.
Asshur and his worshipers represented with uplifted hands, 80.
Assioot:
threshold sacrifice at, 7 f.;
General Grant at border line of, 186.
Assyria:
images buried under threshold in, 14;
crossing threshold in marriage in ancient, 39;
influence of, shown in architecture of doorways, 60;
uplifted hand in representing deities of, 79;
inscriptions at doorway in, 108 f.;
guardians of threshold in, 111;
Zephaniah’s curse on, 115;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Assyrian:
word _nish_–lifting up hand, 83;
city gates named after special god, 95;
god Nergal beneath threshold, 95;
gods Ea and Merodach at gate of house, 95;
monuments on doorway shrine, 105;
king, sculptured image of, with arms uplifted, 115;
kings and boundary lines, 177;
kings offering sacrifices at boundaries of empire, 184;
temples, furniture of, 207;
sculpture, testimony of, 231, 257.
Assyro-Babylonians and boundary lines, 185.
Athaliah, priests assigned to service at threshold in days of, 120.
Athenian generals offering sacrifices to Mercury, 172.
Atlas upholding heaven, 132.
Attica and Peloponnesus, boundary between, 180.
Aubrey, John: cited, 74.
Avaika, or under world, 152.
Avatea, part man and part fish, 152.
Azila, reference to, 62.
Aztecs, marriage ceremonies among, 246.

Baal, symbol of, 214.
“Bab,” or Door, spiritual head of Babists, 103.
Babel, tower of, or door of God, 103.
Babelon, Ernest, reference to, 60.
Bâb-ilu, Bâbi-ilu, Bab-el, Door of God, 103.
Babist sect in Persia, 103 f.
Babylon:
Daniel as judge in, 64;
reference to, 75;
king of, recognized by uplifted hand, 80;
building of walls of, 109 f.;
gates dedicated to gods in, 110;
temples with altars outside in, 111 f.;
kings of, 154;
final overthrow of, 211;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
ancient, in religious symbolism, 234.
Babylonia:
inscriptions placed at threshold in, 22;
influence shown in architecture of doorways, 60;
red hand on houses and animals in, 75;
uplifted hand in representing deities of, 79;
swinging doors in religious symbolism of, 105;
sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;
guardians of threshold in, 111;
crossing threshold in death in literature and legends of, 112 f.;
sacredness of doorway above threshold in, 126 f.;
temple building in, 153;
boundaries in, 177;
indications of presence of deity in, 201;
ancient, religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235.
Babylonian:
tablet of Nebuchadrezzar on gate as place of justice, 60;
character for house, palace, and temple identical, 99 f.;
monuments on doorway shrine, 105;
literature, reference to, 109;
Hades surrounded by seven walls with seven gates, 113;
idea of future life, 128;
king, reference to last, 153;
sun-god Shamash, 201;
temples, furniture of, 207.
Babylonian and Oriental Record, reference to, 231.
Babylonian Talmud, reference to, 253.
Babylonians, twofold symbols among, 200.
Bagdad, khaleefs of, threshold custom of, 10.
Baker, Sir Samuel W., quotation from, 9.
Balawat gates, gods and kings at, 105.
Baldensperger, P.J.: cited, 29.
_Bali_:
meaning of word, 15;
placed on door-sill among Hindoos, 15;
offering demanded at all doors, 15.
Ballads, popular, on human sacrifice in foundation building, 52.
Baltimore, Lord, boundary lines reported to, 182.
Bancroft, H.H.:
cited, 34 f., 45, 56, 144, 146, 202, 247;
reference to, 108.
Bangalore, serpent worship in, 258 f.
Banks of lakes as boundaries, 178.
Banners inscribed with open hand in Turkey and Persia, 78.
Baptism, place of, in early churches, 137.
Baptismal custom with reference to threshold, 18 f.
Baptismal font, location of, in Protestant Episcopal churches, 147.
Baptist, John the, mission of, 218.
Baring-Gould, Rev. S.: quotation from, 138 f.
Barker, W.B., reference to, 257.
Barnabas and Paul at Lystra, 135.
“Bason” word for _saph_ in English Bible, 206.
Bat:
under threshold in Roumania, 20;
superstitions among primitive peoples regarding, 20.
Baveddeen, famous threshold stone at, 124.
Bay and laurel in doorway at marriage among Romans, 73.
Bayt-el-Walli, rock grotto of, 180.
Beans under threshold, among Magyars, 19 f.
“Beating the bounds:”
in England, 174;
in New England, 176.
Beccah. See _Meccah_.
Becker, W.A.: cited, 37, 41, 72 f.
Beer-sheba, well at, in dispute, 170.
Beginning of religious rites, 199, 225.
Beirut. See _Beyroot_.
Bektashi derwishes of Syria, threshold custom of, 10.
Bel, gate of, reference to, 95.
Bel-Merodach, new king of ancient Babylon adopted by, 80.
Belford, marriage customs at, 142.
Beltis, gate of, reference to, 95.
Beltis-Allat:
“lady of the great hand,” 113;
brandishing serpent in either hand, 235.
Benjamin, S.G.W.: cited, 71.
Bent, J. Theodore: cited, 107, 131.
Bergeron, Pierre: cited, 13.
Berlin, keys of captured cities in museum of, 262.
Beth-el: Jacob at, 160; meaning of, 160.
Betrothal:
ceremony in Russia, 32;
threshold custom in Central America, 34.
Beyroot, boundary marks near, 178.
Biaz, B.: cited, 21.
Bible:
carried into new home in Pennsylvania, 21;
references to lifting up hands unto God, 82 f.;
references to leaping over threshold, 117;
reference to temple threshold as fitting place of worship, 117;
its record of man, 224.
Bingham, Joseph:
cited, 136;
quotation from, 136 f.
Bird, Isabella: cited, 20, 72, 96, 101, 104 f., 126, 151.
Birth:
custom in Bombay, 17;
new, help to, 199.
Birthday, striking child on his, 176.
Bishop, Isabella Bird. See _Isabella Bird_.
Bishop of Paris, reference to, 139.
“Bismillah,” use of word, on passing threshold, 10.
Black hand:
among Pecos, 87 f.,
Jicarilla Apaches, 89 f.;
in Korea, 93 f.
Black stone of Meccah, reference to, 10.
Blessing, spiritual, represented in Assyrian sculpture, 231.
Bliss, Dr. Frederick J.: cited, 58.
Blood:
welcome at door in Syria and Egypt, 3-10;
stepping over, in East, 4 f., 7 f., 26;
coffee as substitute for, 5;
salt as substitute for, 5, 9, 20;
in threshold in Central Africa, 8 f.;
poured out on threshold in covenanting, 14 f.;
threshold sprinkled with, in Ireland, 21;
hospitality in outpoured, among Arabs, 23;
at threshold in marriage ceremony in desert of Sinai, in Egypt, in
Turkey, 26;
stepping over, in marriage in Cyprus, 27;
wedding-party to step over, among Armenians, 27;
stepping over in Central Africa, 28;
and fire, significance of, 40;
world-wide custom of laying foundations in, 46;
foundation-laying in, in Hindostan, Burmah, Tennasserin, Borneo,
Japan, Galam, Yarriba, Polynesia, 51 f.;
on foundation-stone in Greece, 53;
of thousands of captives at consecration of altar in Mexico, 56;
on threshold deemed essential factor in covenant with deity, 57;
voice of, among Arabs, 59;
poured across road to secure help in necessity in Morocco, 63;
hand dipped in, struck upon door-posts in Stamboul, 66 f.;
on lintel and door-posts, 66;
of wedding sacrifice placed on door-posts, 67 f.;
sentences in, on door-posts as protection from disease in China, 71;
on bow, or threshold, of Chinese junk, 72;
affixed to post or walls of new house in Palestine, 76 f.;
of Christians, hand dipped in, stamped on wall to seal victory over
them, 77;
or ink used in hand or finger stamp, 93 f.;
of sacrifice sprinkled on door in Guatemala, 98;
of sacrifice at base of altar at Yeha, 131;
proffer of, foundation of family, 194;
stains exhibited in Western Africa, 246.
“Blood of the grape,” in covenant, 5, 8.
Blood-color, doorways painted, 104.
Bloody grass representing dignity and power, 15.
Bloody hand:
stamped in dough placed on lintel, 28 f.;
on lintel of temple at Jerusalem, 67;
on walls among Jews in Tunis, 78 f.;
red seal on modern documents probably survival of, 94;
in testimony to covenant, 244 f.
See, also, _Red hand_.
Bloody sacrifices at temple thresholds in India, 122.
Blue hands on houses in Palestine, 76.
Blunt, J.H.: cited, 137.
Boaz meeting elders at gate in justice to Ruth and Naomi, 64.
“Bodhi-Gaya,” reference to, 156.
Body, not to cross threshold, 23-25.
Bombay Anthropological Society, reference to, 17.
Bombay, birth custom at, 17.
_Bomoi pronaioi_, 134.
Bonavia, Dr., reference to, 231.
Bonomi, Joseph: his suggestion regarding word “teraphim,” 109.
Booddha:
commanding temple to be built, 156;
and serpent, 236.
Booddha-drum, reference to, 156.
Booddha-hood, Sakya Sinha attaining to, 156.
“Booddha’s foot,” 156.
Booddhism concerning temple, 156.
Booddhist:
Gog and Magog of, 96;
temples, doorways apart from, 104;
temples, pilgrims at threshold of, 125;
prayer in Tibet, 199.
Book of Records, Chinese, reference to, 158.
“Book of the Dead,” Egyptian, references to, 128 f., 257.
Border landmarks, form of, 170 f.
Border lines referred to, 183.
Borneo:
pig’s blood sprinkled at door in, 20;
marriage custom in, 34;
survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.
Borsippa:
sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;
temple of, threshold plated with zarîru, 111.
Bothnia, East, iron bar on threshold for cows to cross, 17.
Botta, P.E.: cited, 109.
Boundary:
references to, 13, 17, 154, 165-192, 234;
as place of worship and sacrifice, 166;
stones, importance of, 167;
Nebo protector of, 177.
Bourke, Capt. J.G.: cited, 87.
Bowing:
to gate on leaving bride’s home in Russia, 44;
before threshold, 126.
Boys sacrificed in Central America, 145.
Brahmanas, reference to, 197.
Brahmanic religion concerning temples, 155 f.
Brahmanical Mahâdeva, commanding temple to be built, 156.
Brandy offered to threshold gods in Russia, 32 f., 43 f.
Bread:
placed under threshold as “gods’” portion, 32;
thrown over bride at door in Scotland, 34, 44;
and honey placed on bride’s gate-post in Russia, 42 f.
Bread and salt:
at threshold in Russia, 9;
in hospitality among Arabs, 22;
as factors in sacred covenant, 32.
“Breaking the stick” at threshold in Skarpanto, 31.
Bremen, skeleton of child found in walls of Bridge Gate of, 50.
Bridal couple carried across threshold in Central America, 45.
Bride:
made to step over blood of sacrifice in Syria, 26;
in Central Africa, 27 f.;
called “princess” at wedding in Russia, 32;
bread thrown over, at door in Scotland, 34, 44;
carried over threshold among Towkas, 35,
in Abyssinia, Egypt, and Upper Syria, 38,
in West Africa, 39,
in Russia, 44;
to step over threshold among Hindoos, 36 f.;
not lifted over threshold in India, 38;
borne in sedan-chair to new home, 39 f.;
carried over fire in China, 40;
worshiping at altar-fire of new home in India, China, Greece, and
Rome, 41;
inducted into household office at hearth, 44;
represented by the Church, 218, 221.
Bridegroom:
to step over blood at threshold in Central Africa, 27 f.;
bread thrown over, at door, 34;
Jesus called, 218;
of blood, 244.
British envoy welcomed at threshold of Kauzeroon, 189.
Bronze bulls on gates of Babylon, 109 f.
“Bronze threshold,” reference to, 132.
Broom laid across door-sill in Pennsylvania, 21.
Browne, Edward G., reference to, 104.
Bruce, James:
quotation from, 9;
cited, 38, 130.
Brugsch Bey: references to, 103, 127, 161, 179 f., 184 f.
Brush-topped pole as symbol, 214.
“Buddha-Gaya,” reference to, 156.
“Buddha-pad,” reference to, 156.
Buffaloes sacrificed in Egypt, 7.
Bühler, G.: cited, 169.
Bukohōla temple in Sandwich Islands, 150.
Bulgarian foundation custom, 53.
Bullock:
sacrificed at door for guest, 4;
sacrifice of, 7 f.
Bulls:
winged, with human heads to guard entrance way, 95;
of bronze on gates of Babylon, 109 f.;
as guardians of threshold in Babylonia, 110 f.;
of bronze, in Babylon, 234.
Bunsen, Chevalier, reference to, 111.
Burckhardt, John Lewis: cited, 26, 38, 191, 244-246.
Burder, Samuel: cited, 13.
Burials made under threshold in East and West, 25.
Buried images, symbols and treasures under temple doorways, 109.
Burmah, survival of foundation laying in blood in, 51 f.
Burton, Richard F.:
cited, 164;
quotation from, 248 f.
Burying women and children in foundation, 18, 50.
Bush as symbol of feminine in nature, 214.
Bush, George, reference to, 112.
Busrah, women exhibiting evidences at, 248.
Butter or honey smeared on door-posts among Wallachians, 29.
Buxtorf, John: cited, 200, 253.
“By door,” entering house, 6.
Byzantine age, sarcophagi of, showing altar at threshold, 121.

Cairo:
Arab sitting in judgment at gate of, 60;
protecting genius of different quarters of, 96 f.
Calling on name of God at threshold, 29.
Calpë and Abyla as boundary marks, 181.
Cam, Diego, discoverer of Congo River, 182.
Campbell, John: cited, 39.
Canaan:
gateway between Egypt and, 105;
Israelites entering into, 211;
people of, treatment of, 232.
Candle on threshold in Russia, 41-44.
Candlestick, five branched, similar to sign of hand, 77.
Cão, Diego, reference to, 182.
Cardea, Hinge-goddess of Romans, 97.
Carlyle, Thomas: cited, 183.
Carpathos. See _Skarpanto_.
Carthage:
uplifted hand above door in, 78;
prominence of door in, 107;
prominence of temple threshold in, 130.
Cassotis spring, reference to, 135.
Catholic Church, Roman:
holy water in, 147;
on marriage, 222.
Catlin, George: quotation from, and reference to, 86.
Cave, fire at entrance of, 23.
Central America:
threshold custom in, 34;
blood smeared on doorways in, 72;
red hand stamped on doorways and walls in, 81 f.;
“the god of houses” in, 98;
sacrifice of boys in, 145.
Ceremony:
wedding threshold in North Germany, 18;
of laying threshold in India, 95.
Ceylon, Adam settling in, 164.
Chahalka, “the god of houses,” in Central America, 98.
Chamberlain, Basil Hall: cited, 101, 104.
Chambers’s Journal, reference to, 175.
Charans, appeal at threshold for justice among, 61.
Chardin, Sir John: cited, 124.
Charms:
on threshold and door in Uganda, 15;
under door-step in Russia, 19;
fastened above door in China, 71;
on doors and door-posts in China, 71, 95;
worn in Jerusalem, 75 f.
Chase, W.G., quotation from, 51.
Chateaubraud, Viscount de: cited, 147.
Chaucer, Geoffrey, quotation from, 139.
Cheetham, Samuel. See _Smith and Cheetham_.
Chelly canyon, red-hand symbol in, 87.
Cheyennes, red hand among, 87.
Chicago, Columbian Exposition at, reference to, 57.
Chief rabbi, in Jerusalem, sacrifice at threshold in installing, 67.
Child:
held over threshold after baptism, 18 f.;
buried in ramparts of Copenhagen, 49;
buried under citadel of Dyetinets, 50;
adopted into family by clasping hands in Babylonia, 80;
striking, on birthday, 176.
Children:
custom of, relative to boundary lines, 13;
buried under threshold in Russia, 18;
buried in foundations, 49 f.;
sacrifice of, in Central America, 145.
China:
body to be removed over wall, 23;
fire on threshold in marriage in, 39;
bride worshiping at altar-fire in, 41;
human sacrifice to make sure foundations in, 48;
coins and charms under door-sill in, 71;
sacred inscriptions on side-posts and lintel in, 71;
tutelar gods of threshold in, 95 f.;
temple and house in architecture, 101;
doorways apart from temples in, 104;
sacredness of temple in, 158;
nuptial customs of, 196;
phallic emblems in, 230;
marriage customs in, 245.
Chinese:
custom of avoiding threshold, 23 f.;
native clergyman, testimony of, 48;
year, festival of fifth month of, 71;
junk, sacrifice on bow of, 71 f.;
honorary portals and ancestral tablets, 108;
classics, most ancient of, 185;
emperor passing boundary line of empire, 185;
characters for threshold, door, border, and woman, 256.
“Chinese gods of the threshold,” 96.
Chipiez, Charles. See _Perrot and Chipiez_.
“Christ, spouse of,” 222.
“Christening” ship, custom of, 8.
Christian:
lands, niches for heroes in, survival primitive doorway in tomb in,
108;
passover, reference to, 216.
Christian churches:
of Europe, burials under altar of, 25;
tradition of burial of lamb under altar of, 56;
symbol of horseshoe at threshold of, 74.
Christian Fathers, reference to, 97.
Christians:
inscribed gates of, in East, 70;
in Syria, sign of hand among, 76 f.;
warned not to dishonor their gates with laurel crowns, 97;
admonished not to make their gates heathen temples, 98;
kissing threshold of church in Persia, 124.
Church House in Philadelphia, reference to, 55.
Church of England bishops replying to Presbyterians on position of
baptismal font, 137.
Churches always on hill or in grove in Abyssinia, 130 f.
Cicero, hearth-fire and Penates in time of, 41.
Cimon, gate of, in Propylæa, 159.
Circumcision as practiced in Madagascar, 149.
Cities of refuge:
Hebrew law as to, 151;
in Hawaii, 151.
Clapping of hands at threshold in Japan, 126.
Classic writers: their explanation of threshold custom, 39.
“Cleansing the threshold” at wedding in Russia, 32.
Clement of Alexandria, reference to, 239.
Clothing stamped with red hand, 87.
Coal under threshold among Magyars, 19 f.
Cock sacrificed:
in Ireland, 21;
at foundation in Russia, 54 f.
Cockle, Montague, reference to, 233.
Coffee as Muhammadan substitute for blood, 5.
Columbian Exposition, reference to, 57.
Com, tomb of kings of Persia at, 124.
Comanches:
prominence of red hand among, 87;
reference to, 88.
Communion feasts, origin of, 226.
Concord, beating bounds in, 176.
Conder, Maj. C.R.:
quotation from, 10, 28 f.:
cited, 123.
Confucius, reference to, 256 f.
Confucian temple, doorways apart from, 104.
Congo River, boundary pillar erected in mouth of, 182.
Constantinople, red hand stamp in, 77.
Contemporary Review, reference to, 229.
Convent, trace of foundation sacrifice in rebuilding, 56.
Cook, Capt. James:
cited, 202;
quotation from, 250 f.
Coote, H.C.: cited, 50, 55 f.
Copenhagen, immuring of child in ramparts of, 49.
Copts, sacrifice of sheep at threshold among, 26, 45.
Coral hand as talisman among Jews at Tunis, 79.
Cord stretched across door to prevent bridal couple entering, 33 f.
Corn:
and water used in threshold ceremony, 16 f.;
mixed with milk and sugar as offering, 17;
thrown on bride at threshold in Rhodes, 31.
Corner-stone:
laying as survival of primitive sacredness, 22;
recognized as beginning or limit of threshold of Babylonian
buildings, 22;
ceremonies in civilized lands, 55;
laying of, in America, 55, 147.
Cornhill Magazine, reference to, 48-50, 56.
Corinthian Christians, Paul to, 216.
Corpse:
not to cross threshold in India, China, and Italy, 23 f.,
in Alaska, 24;
passed out under threshold in Russia, 24.
Correspondences of legends of Babylonia, Syria, Egypt and Greece as to
door and threshold, 115.
Cossacks, disputes over boundary lines among, 175.
Cotton seeds thrown on bride at threshold in Rhodes, 31.
Coulanges, Numa D.F. de: cited, 41, 99, 156.
Covenant:
through blood in Egypt, 3;
Syria, 3-5;
symbolized by uplifted hand, 81;
sacrifice at threshold with God of life, 94;
worship place of, 165.
Covenanting:
by crossing threshold, 5-10;
by stepping over blood on door-sill, 9.
Cow:
gift from sacred, in India, 16;
driven over iron bar on threshold, 17;
sacrifice of, in Ireland, 21.
Cowdung cake at seed-time in India, 16.
Cranch, C.P., quotation from, 130.
Croix, de la, J.F., reference to, 124.
Cross:
sign of, in curing disorder, 18;
drawn on threshold to keep off hags, 18;
under threshold of new house in Lithuania, 18.
Crowbar at threshold, 17.
_Crux ansata_ or _ankh_, 201.
Cunningham, Alexander: reference to, 156 f.
Curse:
for removing threshold altar, 169 f.;
for removal of neighbor’s landmark, 170.
Curtea de Argest, superstition regarding sacrifice at building of, 52.
Curtin, Jeremiah: cited, 142 f.
Cushing, Frank H., communication from, 86-93.
Cyprus:
fowl sacrificed at door in, 27;
prominence of door in, 107.
Cyrus, reference to, 154.

Dacotahs, symbol of hand among, 84.
Dagon, his overthrow, 116 f.
Dahabiyeh, threshold custom on purchasing, 8.
Dahomey, nuptial customs of, 245.
Dalmatia, kissing threshold in, 31.
Damascus, Hajj procession approaching, 186.
Dances of American Indians, prominence of hand in, 83 f.
Dancing custom in Central America, 247.
Danes:
immuring of girl in city walls among, 49;
lamb buried under every altar of, 56.
Daniel in gate of king, 64.
Darfour, marriage ceremonies in, 249.
Darmesteter, James:
cited, 58;
reference to, 99.
David:
sitting in gate, 64;
erecting altar to Lord, 161.
De Amicis, Edmondo: cited, 77.
De Coulanges, Numa D.F. de:
cited, 41, 156;
reference to, 99.
De Hesse-Wartegg, Chevalier: cited, 79.
Dead:
not to cross threshold in India, China, 23 f.,
Korea, Russia, Italy, Alaska, 24;
taken over wall in China, 23 f.;
taken under threshold in Russia, 24;
prayers for, inscribed on false door of tombs of Egypt, 106.
“Dead, Book of the,” references to, 128 f., 257.
“Dead, Gate of the,” in Korea, 24.
Death following building of new house, 54.
“Death Week” among Slavonic peoples, 19.
Dedications on doorways by primitive peoples, 69.
Deer carried over threshold in betrothal in Central America, 34.
Deity:
appeal to, in East, 3 f.;
of ancient Egypt with uplifted hands, 81;
of threshold, reference to, 109;
of gates of Hades, 113.
Delhi and serpent, 236.
Delitzsch, Franz, reference to, 254.
Delitzsch, Friedrich, reference to, 100.
Delphi:
treasures of, described, 133;
Neoptolemus attacking Orestes in, 134;
temple of Apollo at, 134 f.;
Apollo at, represented by female oracle, 236.
Deluge:
reference to, 103;
destruction of Holy House in, 163.
Detinetz, burial in foundations in, 50.
Development and origin of man, 223.
D’Herbelot, quotation from, 10 f.
_Diabateria_, meaning of, 208.
Dido, Queen, Æneas at court of, 130.
Dieulafoy, M.: cited, 60.
“Digging through” in New Testament, 260.
Dillmann, Christian F.A., reference to, 254.
_Ditya_, reference to, 50.
Dives, Lazarus at gate of, 64.
Divination and exorcism in Italy, 17.
Documents signed in blood or ink, 94.
Domestic divinities, protection from, in Lithuania, 18 f.
“Domovoi:”
household deity of Russia, sacrifice for, 19;
invoked at threshold, 23.
Donaldson, T., reference to, 86.
Donaldson, T.L., references to, 121, 134, 231.
Donatus: cited, 29 f.
Doolittle, Rev. Justus: cited, 71.
Door:
animal sacrifices at house-door in Egypt, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15,
among Pythagoreans, 12 f.,
among Slavonic peoples, 19,
among Dyaks of Borneo, 20,
in Ireland, 21,
among Arabs, 22 f.,
in Syria, 26, 45,
in Turkey, Cyprus, and Central Africa, 27,
in Egypt, 45,
all over world, 46,
in Greece, 53,
in Russia, 54,
in Arabia, 58-60,
in Morocco, 63, 67,
in Turkey, 66 f.,
in Jerusalem, 67,
in China, 72,
in Palestine, 76,
in tabernacle in Wilderness, 118 f.,
in South Sea Islands, 148;
blood welcome at, in Syria and Egypt, 3-10,
Central Africa, 8 f.,
West Africa, 9,
Egypt, 7, 205;
charms placed at, in Uganda, 15,
in Russia, 19,
in China, 71,
in Jerusalem, 75 f.;
dead not to pass out of, 23-25;
human sacrifice at, in Central Africa, 8 f.,
references to, 46-48, 51 f., 144 f.,
in China and Algiers, 48,
in Denmark and Thuringia, 49,
on Danube and in Alaska, 49 f.,
in Bremen, Scotland, and Ireland, 50,
in Arta, Tricha, and Wallachia, 52,
in Turkey, 52 f.,
in India, 61, 122 f.,
in Tibet, 125,
in Central America, 145 f.;
kissing right hand at, 69 f., 144,
serpent at, in Yezidis temple, 116,
of holy places, 116,
at mosk in Persia, 123 f.,
at tomb of Alee, 124;
sacredness of, 10-25, 102, 174, 260,
in Persia, 12, 123 f.,
references to, 25-36,
among Nestorians, 124,
among Scandinavians in America, 259 f.,
in Bible times, 261;
stepping over blood at, in Syria and Egypt, 4 f., 7 f., 26, 45 f.,
in West Africa, 9,
in marriage in Cyprus, 27,
among Armenians, 27,
in Central Africa, 28;
reference to, 254, 256.
Door-key, finger-shaped, symbolic use of, 244.
Dörpfeld, Dr., reference to, 159.
Dough:
on door-lintel in Upper Syria, 28 f.;
under threshold among Moksha, 42.
Douglas, Robert K.:
cited, 40;
reference to, 105.
Dozy, Reinhart, reference to, 200.
Dragon representing unholy desire, 240.
Du Bois, Abbé J.A.: cited, 23.
Dumuzi and Ishtar, legend of, 113, 115.
Dwelling-place, man’s first, 165.
Dyaks of Borneo:
blood sprinkled at door among, 20;
marriage custom among, 34.
_Dyetina_, reference to, 50.
Dyetinets, burial in foundations in, 50.
Dying person passed through hole in wall in Alaska, 24.

Ea, god of right side of gate, 95.
Early churches, position of altar in, 136.
Easter:
continuance of Passover, 221;
festivities in Jerusalem, 221;
threshold of new Ecclesiastical Year, 221.
Ebed-melech: his appeal in behalf of Jeremiah, 64.
Edersheim, Dr. Alfred, references to, 120, 211 f.
Edward I., marriage of, at door, 140.
Eggs under threshold in Russia, 19.
Egypt:
blood welcome at door in, 3;
sacrifice of buffaloes in, 7;
threshold sacrifice of sheep in, 7 f.;
sacrifice at threshold in, 26;
bride met at gate of husband’s residence in, 38;
door at one side of dwelling in, 55;
its influence shown in architecture of doorways, 60;
inscribed doors in, 68, 96;
uplifted hand in representing deities of, 79, 81, 85;
God bringing out of, with strong hand, 83;
and Canaan, gateway between, 105;
prominence of doorway shrine in, 106;
false door as gift in, 107;
literature of, 109;
oldest temple in, 126;
sacredness of doorway in, 126;
saints’ tomb as place of worship in, 129;
temples of, 145;
concerning temple foundations of, 155;
boundary customs among, 178;
ancient stone thresholds in, 179;
Lower, boundary of, 180;
southern boundary of, 184;
nuptial customs of, 196;
ancient deities of, 201;
presence of deity in, 201;
Virgin of Israel in, 218;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
kings of, and serpent, 234;
and serpent as symbol, 235;
bloody cloth in marriage in Upper, 243;
marriage customs in, 243, 245.
Egyptian:
sacrifice before door, 14;
king, power imparted to, by touch, 85;
hieroglyph for house or temple identical, 100;
temple, oldest form of, 100,
monumental temple gateway, 127,
history of, 155;
priest, prostrations of, at threshold of shrine, 127 f.;
idea of future life, 128;
“Book of the Dead,” 128 f., 257;
empire and Heh, boundary marks between, 179;
sacrifices at boundaries of empire, 184;
twofold sex symbols, 200;
attitude towards Jehovah, 205;
passover rite, 212, 214, 216.
Eki as boundary mark, 178.
_El Gisr_ or threshold, 180.
Eleusis, temple of Artemis Propylæa at, 134.
Eliezer, Rabbi, references to, 200, 253.
Elisha and Naaman, Syrian, 161.
Elliot, Sir Henry M.: cited, 16 f.
Ellis, Rev. William: cited, 83, 111, 148, 150 f., 202.
_Embatikon_, gift of in-going, 31.
Embleton, wedding custom at, 142.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo: cited, 176.
Enemy, appeal of, for protection among Arabs, 59.
Entering “not by door,” 6.
Entrance-way, importance of, 3.
Episcopal, Protestant, churches, location of baptismal font in, 147.
Epithalamium of Hebrew Scriptures, 214.
Erman, Adolf:
cited, 55, 100, 103, 106, 127, 234;
quotation from, 106 f., 155;
reference to, 128.
Erzas:
marriage custom of, 41;
earth from under threshold for bride, 43.
Esarhaddon, his search for boundary lines, 154, 177.
Eskimos, importance of threshold among, 39.
Eulmash, ancient Babylonian temple, 153.
Eulbar, ancient Babylonian temple, 153.
Euphrates, boundary marks at, 178.
Euripides: cited, 134 f.
Europe:
treading on threshold in, 13;
burials under altar in Christian churches in, 25;
coffin passed out window of house in, 25;
window opened and door closed at death in, 25;
horseshoes on side-posts in, 73 f.;
symbols of open hand found in museums and Jewish cemeteries of, 79;
hand-print in marriage in, 93;
traces of primitive sacredness of doorway found in, 122;
ancient shrines in, 150;
boundary lines in, 174;
great divisions of landmarks along borders of, 182;
nuptial customs of, 196;
Jews of, observing passover, 212.
Evil eye:
references to, 19, 67;
averted by bloody hand, 67 f.;
by five fingers held up to, 76;
image of hand as talisman against, 79.
Evil spirits in Pennsylvania, guard against, 21.
Ewing, Rev. William:
testimony of, 45, 261;
cited, 77.
“Exalted Gateway,” high court of Turkey called, 65, 103.
Exalted House, Gate, or Door, meaning of Pharaoh, 103.
Exorcism and divination in Italy, 17 f.
Eye, evil. See _Evil eye_.
Ezekiel:
his reference to waters from under threshold of temple, 114;
his prophecy that Prince of Israel should worship at threshold of
gate, 118;
his vision of glory of Lord over threshold, 118;
Jehovah speaking through, 213.
Ezida (Nebo) shrine of, 110.

“Fahazza” in Madagascar, 149.
False door:
of tombs in ancient Egypt, 106 f.;
as gift from sovereign to subject in Egypt, 107.
Family:
altar and sacrifices for, in primitive times, 3;
offering itself for sacrifice in Central Africa, 8 f.;
life, beginning of, in threshold rite, 194.
Fathers, Christian, reference to, 93.
Feast after sacrifice: 4, 7;
at beginning of spring among Slavonic peoples, 19;
of “hand-striking” at betrothal, 32 f.
Fecundity, lotus flower symbol of, 257.
Fellaheen threshold custom in Palestine, 29.
Fellows, Sir Charles: cited, 121.
Feminine in nature, symbol of, 214, 230, 258.
Fergusson, Dr. James: references to, 103-105, 107, 231, 235-237.
“Festival, Harvest,” among Indians of lower Mississippi, 147.
“Festival of New Fire,” 147.
_Ficus religiosa_, reference to, 259.
Fielde, Adele M.: cited, 40, 71.
Fig:
in religious symbolisms, 230;
tree representing female, 258.
Figures of speech, Oriental, obscured by literalism of Western mind,
238.
Finger-shaped door-key used in wedding ceremony, 244.
Finland:
shaking hands across threshold in, 12;
high thresholds in, 12;
threshold as altar in, 32;
clergyman to step over threshold in, 143.
Finmac-Coole, print of hand of, 81.
Finn, James: cited, 67.
Fire:
and salt on threshold, 21;
at entrance to cave or tent, in primitive times, 22 f.;
on threshold altar in China, 39;
and blood, significance of, 40;
reference to, 41 f.;
references to, 54-56, 158;
masculine symbol, 198;
production of sacred, 198;
doorway, origin of, 226;
as gift of God, 227.
Fire-altar:
center of public worship, 99;
in Persia, 100,
in India, 102;
of family developed into that of community, 101;
origin of, 226.
First-fruits of grain-field offered at threshold, 16 f.
Five:
fingers held before evil eye, 76,
extended on receiving praise, 79;
pronouncing word, in response to praise, 79.
Flaming torch in Roman marriage ceremonies, 41.
Flesh:
of sacrificed animal distributed, 4;
and blood symbolized by bread and salt, 9.
“Floor of the door” held sacred in Abyssinia, 131.
Folk-Lore, London, references to, 8, 40, 42-44.
Folk-Lore Journal, reference to, 221.
Folk-Lore Journal, London, references to, 21, 27 f., 34, 50, 56, 196.
Folk-Lore Record, London, reference to, 38.
Foot:
against threshold, “unlucky” to strike, 12 f.;
importance placed on use of right, 36-38.
Forculus, door-god of Romans, 97.
Forlong, Gen. J.G.R.: references to, 230, 237.
“Fornication,” idolatry called, 213.
“Foundation:”
and “threshold” interchangeable terms, 21 f.;
references to, 47, 50, 53, 158;
laying in blood in Galam, 51 f.;
sacrifice in Algiers, 48,
among Vlachs in Turkey, 52 f.;
in Archangel, 54;
in inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar II., 109 f.;
or Papa, 152.
Foundation-stone as threshold of building, 46.
Fountain of life sought for, 148.
Fowl:
sacrificed at door, 4, 9, 21, 27, 45, 54 f.;
sacrificed at foundation-laying in Greece, 53,
in Bulgaria, 54;
sacrificed on Chinese junk starting on long voyage, 71 f.
Foxes, tribe of, red hand among, 87.
France:
marriages in ancient times in, 139;
Marguerite of, married to Edward I. at door in, 140;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Frazer, J.G.:
references to, 5, 93, 209, 230;
cited, 147, 221.
Freytag, G.W., reference to, 244.
Friend of bridegroom:
gifts made at threshold by, in Russia, 32;
among Albanians, 37 f.
Frog under threshold among Magyars, 19 f.
Frothingham, Prof. A.L., Jr., testimony of, 24.
Fruit:
presented to bride at threshold in Dalmatia, 31;
in Bible narrative, 238.
Fuerst, Julius: cited, 244.
Funeral:
salt on threshold in Japan after, 20;
coffin passed out window at, in Europe and America, 25.

Gabriel kissing threshold of gate, 124.
Galam, survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.
“Galeed,” memorial of covenant between Jacob and Laban, 171.
Galilee, Sea of, reference to, 11.
Gardner, Dr. Percy:
cited, 7;
reference to, 263.
Garlic placed under threshold among Magyars, 19 f.
Garnett, L.M.J.:
cited, 27, 30;
quotation from, 53.
Gate:
justice at palace, in Persepolis, 60;
of camp of Israel, Moses at, 63;
inscribed, among Muhammadans, 70;
dishonoring, among Greeks, 97;
image as gate in New Zealand, 107 f.;
gods of, 95, 110, 113, 127-129;
of Beltis, 95,
at Medina, at Ghuznee, of mosk at Meccah, images trodden upon at,
123;
keys of captured cities preserved in Germany, 262.
“Gate of the Dead” in Korea, 24.
Gate-god of Romans, 97.
“Gate of heaven” in Jacob’s dream at Bethel, 112.
Gateway:
sacredness of, among Greeks, 7;
of city, images buried under, 14.
Gauri feast, worship of serpent at, 259.
Gaza, gates of, carried off by Samson, 255.
Genesis, the temptation in narrative of:
as understood by Philo Judæus, 238;
teaching of Gnostic sects on, 239.
Genii, winged, and winged bulls at entrance, 95.
Gentleman’s Magazine, reference to, 74.
Germany:
threshold cure in North, 18;
pottery broken on threshold on marriage eve in North, 33;
South, Scripture inscriptions above entrance of houses in, 73;
marriage rites of, 138;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
term for women in, 256;
emperors of, preserving keys of captured cities, 262.
Geronimo sacrificed in building walls of Algiers, 48.
Gesenius, Wilhelm:
cited, 83;
references to, 103, 210, 255.
Ghuzzeh, ancient site of Gaza, 255.
“Gift of in-going” for bridegroom in Skarpanto, 31.
Gifts at threshold:
at wedding in Russia, 32;
at marriage among Towkas, 35.
Gilead, Jacob and Laban in, 171.
Gill, Rev. W.W.: cited, 152.
Gingiro, bloody threshold offering in, 8 f.
Ginsburg, Dr. Christian D.:
cited, #69.f190# f.;
references to, 120, 212.
Gnostic sects, teaching of, on narrative in Genesis, 239.
Goat sacrificed:
at threshold for guest, 4;
in Central Africa, 27 f.;
among Copts in Egypt, 45;
on Arab joining new tribe, 59.
Gobineau, Count de: reference to, 104.
God:
of household party to marriage covenant, 32;
of life and fertility, 79;
of threshold in China, 71, 95 f.,
in India, 95,
in Japan, 96,
in Egypt, 96 f.,
in Greece and Rome, 97,
in Guatemala, 98;
of doorways in China, Japan, Korea, Siam, India, 104;
Asshur and his worshipers with uplifted hands, 89;
doorway shrine as standing-place for, 105;
of under-world, false door of tomb for, 106;
of gates in Babylonia, 113;
Ea in legend of Ishtar and Dumuzi, 114;
Isis, guardian of gateway, 127;
Nephthys, guardian of gateway, 127;
Osiris–judge of living and dead, at door of gateway, 127-129.
“Goddess of the homestead,” prayer to, in betrothal in Russia, 32.
“Goddess of the dwelling-house,” reference to, 32.
Goddess Ishtar, descent of, into Allat’s realm, 113 f.
_Godo_ preserved from wedding night in Dahomey, 245.
“Gods of entrances” among Romans, 97.
“Gods’ portion:”
salted bread under threshold in betrothal in Russia, 32;
of brandy spilt under threshold in Russia, 33.
Godwyn, Thomas: cited, 39.
“Going out and coming in,” reference to threshold and deities, 109.
Gold:
under threshold in Roumania, 20;
threshold plated with, 110.
Goldsmith struck dead at threshold, 122.
Gomme, George L., 50.
“Good Abode, The,” inscribed on door-posts of dwelling, 68.
“Good luck” from horseshoes on side-posts of doorway, 73 f.
Goodwin, William W.: cited, 39, 41.
Goose sacrificed in Ireland, 21.
“Graf,” meaning of, 183.
Grain, nuts, and fruit presented to bride at threshold in Dalmatia,
31.
Grant, General:
threshold sacrifice in honor of, 7 f.;
at border line of Assioot, 186.
Grant-Bey, Dr. J.A.S., reference to, 124.
“Grape, blood of the,” among Muhammadans, 5.
Grass dipped in blood representing dignity and power, 15.
Graves, symbol of open hand above, 79.
Gray, Archdeacon:
cited, 40, 72;
references to, 104, 108, 245.
Great Britain, reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Greece:
lifting bride over threshold in, 39;
bride worshiping at altar-fire in, 41;
flaming torch to accompany foundation sacrifice in, 53;
reference to religion of, 97;
palace and temple often identical in, 100;
position of altar in temples of, 134;
ancient ruins on sacred foundations of, 158;
trees marking border lines in, 176;
boundaries in ancient, 180;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235;
prominence of pine-cone in ancient, 257.
Greek Church, marriage sacrament in, 222.
Greeks:
sacredness of city gates among, 7;
in Turkey, wedding custom among, 30;
altars before houses among, 72;
doorway ornamented for bride among, 72 f.;
appealing to guardian deity at gateway among, 73;
smearing side-posts of gateway with magic herbs among, 73;
deities of doors and gates among, 97;
temple of, developed from dwelling-house, 100;
earliest literature of, in reference to threshold, 132;
modern Easter observance among, 221.
Gregor, Walter, quotation from, 34.
Griffis, William Elliot:
cited, 20;
references to, 101, 104, 230.
Grove of trees:
sacred landmark of boundary in primitive times, 173 f.;
in religious symbolisms, 230.
Guardian deity’s protection secured by stepping over threshold, 12.
“Guardian of the dwellings of Israel, the,” 69.
Guardian of threshold as post of honor, 119 f.
Guarding dwelling by placing sacrifices on threshold, 14.
Guatemala:
blood smeared on doorway in, 73;
“the god of houses” in, 98.
Guest:
adopted by bloody sacrifice at door in Syria and Egypt, 3;
welcomed by stepping over blood at door of host, 4;
by blood among Arabs of Central Africa, 9;
by sacrifice of fowl in Liberia, 9;
refusal of welcome to, 217.
Guhl and Koner: cited, 40 f., 72, 100.
Guzelder, reference to, 190.
Gwilt, Joseph: cited, 36.

Hades, Babylonian conception of, 113.
Hagar:
and Holy House, tradition of, 163;
Abraham’s visit to home of, 200.
Hags kept off by cross drawn on threshold, 18.
Hajj procession returning from Meccah, 186.
Hakham Bâshi, welcome to, 67.
Haleb:
reference to, 247;
marriage customs among Christians at, 248.
Hall of the Two Truths, deceased challenged at entrance to, 129.
Hall of Two-fold Maat, place of final judgment, 129.
_Hammaqâm_ or place of worship, 160.
Hand:
stamped on door-lintel in Upper Syria, 28 f.;
wrought in silver placed on children’s necks, 76;
figure of, similar to five-branched candlestick, 77;
as symbol on banner and prayer-rug in Turkey and Persia, 78;
as symbol of Siva, the destroyer, 78;
as emblem of power in East Indies, 78;
inscribed on or above door in ancient Carthage, 78;
carved in coral or ivory carried by Jewess, 79;
open, made in stone, metal, enamel, or bone, common in ancient
Egypt, 79;
symbol of open, found above graves near Tunis, 79;
symbol of uplifted, in Babylonia, 79 f.,
Assyria and Phenicia, 80,
Egypt, 81, 85,
Polynesia, 83, 148,
Central America, 148;
clasping in covenant in Babylonia, 80;
print of, giant Finmac-Coole as signature, 81;
of clay impressed on human body among American Indians, 84;
print of, as symbol on naked body, 84;
of bride traced in ink in covenant in Korea, 93 f.;
print of, as signature, 93 f.;
of Muhammad signed to certificate of protection, 94.
“Hand of might,” red hand as, 75.
“Hand of Moses,” red hand called, 77.
“Hand-striking” feast at betrothal, 32 f.
Haran, reference to, 160.
_Hareema_, Arabic term for woman, 256.
Harper’s Magazine, reference to, 96.
Harrison and Verrall, reference to, 159.
Harvest threshold ceremony in India, 16 f.
“Harvest Festival” among Indians of lower Mississippi, 147.
Hasselquist, F., reference to, 222.
Hathor, Queen, reference to, 184.
Hawaii:
ancient gods of, 150;
cities of refuge in, 151.
Hayes, Isaac I.: cited, 39.
Hearth:
as primitive altar, 22;
Penates of Romans at, 23;
bride taken to, in Scotland, 44.
Hearthstone:
of Arab shaykh’s tent, 22;
as first threshold altar, 40.
Hearn, Lafcadio:
cited, 72, 201;
quotation from, 125 f.
Hebrew:
word _nasa_–to lift up or to swear, 83;
word for tent and tabernacle, 101;
literature, reference to, 109;
law as to cities of refuge, 151,
as to local landmarks, 169;
new year, 212.
Hebrews:
commanded to dedicate doorways to living God, 69;
sacred ark of, in house of god Dagon, 116 f.
Hebrews, Epistle to, on threshold sacrifice, 217.
Hebron, reference to, 255.
Heh and Egyptian empire, boundary marks between, 179.
Heifer sacrificed at door for guest, 4.
Hen:
sacrificed in Ireland, 21;
sacrificed at new houses among Metâwileh, 45;
buried alive under house, 56.
Henderson, William: cited, 142, 160.
Herald in India responsible with life for repayment of debt, 61 f.
Herbs, juice of magic, smeared on door-posts among Greeks, 73.
“Hercules, Pillars of,” 181.
Hermann, K.F.: cited, 172.
Hermes, reference to, concerning boundary lines, 171 f.
Hermes Propylaios, reference to, 159.
Herodotus:
quotation from, 14;
cited, 111;
references to, 229, 236.
Herrick, R.: his poem on marriage, 139 f.
Hesiod, reference to, 132 f.
Hesperides, shores of, 135.
Heuzey, Léon: cited, 29 f.
Hiel, Jericho’s foundation laid in blood of son of, 47.
Hieroglyphics placed on door-posts and lintels in Egypt, 68 f.
High thresholds in houses of Finland and United States, and in
Teutonic houses, 12.
Highway, king’s, reference to, 176.
Hilkiah, duties of guardians of threshold in days of, 120.
Hillah, red hand over doors of large khan of, 75.
Hilprecht, Dr. H.V.:
cited, 22, 78, 109, 155, 209;
testimony of, 33 f.;
on use of red hand over doors in Babylonia, 75;
quotation from, 167-169.
Hindooism, modern, Saivism predominating in, 198.
Hindoos:
sacredness of threshold among, 11;
law regarding door-sill, 15;
belief that evil spirits keep aloof from iron, 17;
rules requiring right foot to cross threshold first, 36 f.;
sacredness of fire recognized by, 40;
sacredness of oath taken at threshold of temple among, 121 f.;
prejudice against shedding blood, sacrifices in spite of, 122 f.;
worship of, 236;
exhibit of evidence among, 249.
Hindoostan, survivals of foundation-laying in blood, 50.
Hinge-goddess of Romans, 97.
Hinges, reference to, 254.
Hittite, reference to, 213.
Hofstad, temple in, 160.
Hog sacrificed before door in Egypt, 14.
Holland, strewing of threshold in, 33.
Holy water at doorway of Roman Catholic churches in America, 147.
Holy Sepulcher, Church of, 221.
Homer: cited, 100;f267#, #132 f., 135.
Hommel, Prof. Fritz: cited, 201.
Honey:
smeared on door-posts among Wallachians, 29;
and water for bride at threshold in Morea, 30;
and bread placed on bride’s gate-post, 42 f.
Hooke, N., reference to, 265.
Hopkins, Prof. Dr. E.W.:
cited, 6, 62, 198, 231;
quotation from, 15.
Hormuz, son of Nurshivan, reference to, 11.
“Horns of the altar,” meaning of, 58.
Horus, image of, over temple door to drive away unclean spirits, 127;
reference to, 179.
Horse:
sacrificed at threshold in Syria, 4 f.;
passing through blood of sacrifice, 7;
laid in churchyard before burial in Sweden, 56;
stamped with red hand in Babylonia, 75;
covered with red hands buried with Indian chief, 85 f.
Horseshoe:
nailed to door-sills in Bombay, 17,
on door-step in Pennsylvania, 21,
to side-posts for “good luck” in Europe and America, 73 f.;
often found on ship’s mast, 74.
Hospitality:
law of, in India, 5 f.;
among Arabs, 22.
Hossein, banners with open hand at commemoration of death of, 78.
House:
preceding temple, 3;
corners of, sprinkled with blood, in Ireland, 21;
wall broken for removal of body, in India, 23;
earliest form of Egyptian temple, 100;
of king both palace and temple, 101 f.;
to temple, gradual transition from, 101 f.
House-father:
as earliest priest, 3;
among Hindoos, 15.
House of the Bronze Threshold, 132.
Household “teraphim,” 109.
Hovel earliest form of Egyptian temple, 100.
Huc, Abbé: cited, 125.
Hughes, Thomas P.:
cited, 37, 123;
reference to, 164.
Human nature and sacredness of threshold, 152.
Human sacrifice:
in Zindero and Central Africa, 8 f.,
in China, 48,
in Alaska, 50 f.,
in Mexico, 56,
at pagoda door in India, 122 f.,
on altar at temple gate in Tibet, 125;
in modern times, 47;
various substitutes for, 53 f.;
reference to, 144.
Human skeletons found under towers of ancient Irish, 50 f.
Hut earliest form of Japanese temple, 101.
Hwen Thsang, reference to, 156.
“Hymen’s torch” in marriage ceremony, 41.
Hyssop, significance of, 214.

Iceland, Thorolf of Norway in, 160.
Idolaters, threshold and door-post of, beside Lord’s, 118.
Idols:
at door-altar in Mexico, 21;
destroyed at gate in Meccah, Medina, and Ghuznee, 123.
Image as gateway of village or cemetery in New Zealand, 107 f.
Images:
buried under threshold of houses, temples, and city gates, 14;
in sacred “upper corner” of building in Russia, 55;
under foundations in ancient Rome, 55 f.;
of gods of threshold in China, 96.
Imbiʾa, reference to, 60.
Imgur-Bêl gate in walls of Babylon, 110.
“Imposition of the Sa, the,” touch of uplifted hand of deity, 85.
Incantations:
mantra used in, 15;
on paper placed in door-sill in Pennsylvania, 21.
Incense:
placed on threshold, 18;
exorcism with, 18;
burned on threshold in Tuscany, 42;
origin of, 226.
India:
law of threshold in, 5 f.;
sacredness of threshold in, 16;
body not to cross threshold, 23;
body removed through wall, 23;
crossing threshold by bride in, 38;
bride at altar-fire in, 41;
appeals in blood at household altar in, 61;
refusal to move from threshold until claim is heeded in, 61;
offering to threshold god Vāttu in, 95;
fire-altar center of worship in, 99;
no temples in early, 100;
fire-altar on threshold as place of worship in, 102;
doorways apart from temples in, 104;
judgments at temple threshold in, 122;
bloody sacrifices at temple threshold in, 122;
holy trees in Upper, 156;
habit of building sanctuary in, 157;
landmarks in, 169;
laws of, regarding disputed boundaries, 169;
visible aid of worship in, 198;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
serpent as religious symbol in, 235;
marriage ceremonies in, 248;
lotus symbol in, 257;
religious custom in, 258.
Indian Antiquary, reference to, 258.
Indians:
of Mexico, reference to, 21;
of Yucatan, reference to, 82;
red hand among American, 85-93;
Natchez, religious ceremonies among, 147.
Indies, East, hand as emblem of power in, 78.
Indo-Aryans and boundary lines, 185.
Inscription:
and invocation placed at corner of building in Babylonia, 22;
on gates and houses deemed protection against evil spirits, 70;
at doorway in China, 71;
among Greeks, 72;
on tomb of kings of Persia, 124;
showing sanctity of temple doorways in Asia, 109.
Instructress in matrimony in China, 40.
Invocations:
on images buried under threshold, 14;
and deposits at threshold in Babylonia, 22.
Iona cathedral built in human blood, 50.
Ionia, pillar as threshold stone in, 180.
Ioways, red hand among, 87.
Ireland:
sacrifice in, 21;
lifting bride over threshold in, 44;
human skeletons in round towers in, 50;
print of five fingers on “druidical altar” in, 81;
mode of marriage in, 142 f.
Irenæus: cited, 239.
Iron as guard against evil spirits, 17.
Isé:
temples of, modeled on primeval hut, 101;
great shrines of, chief Meccah of Shintō faith, 126.
Ishmael:
and Holy House, tradition of, 163;
and Hagar, Abraham’s visit to home of, 200.
Ishmael, Rabbi: cited, 208.
Ishtar:
gate of, 95;
legend of, 113.
Isis, guardian of Egyptian temple, 127.
Islands, South Sea, temples of, 148.
Israel:
executing judgment against Benjamites for disregard of appeal at
door, 63 f.;
called to “establish judgment at the gate,” 64.
Israelites:
protected against Medes, Persians, Midianites, and Assyrians, 211;
reference to, 216;
command to, concerning Asherah and pillar, 233;
exhibiting evidences among, 249.
Istar of Agade, 153. See, also, _Ishtar_.
Italy:
prominence of threshold in folk customs of, 17 f.;
corpse not to pass main door of house in, 24.
Ivory hand as talisman among Jews at Tunis, 79.

Jacob:
at Bethel, 160;
and Laban agreeing on landmark, 171;
his pillar, 268 f.
“Jacob’s ladder” probably stepped-temple structure, 112.
Jaffa, sacrifices of sheep at beginning of railroad at, 56.
“_Janua_,” reference to, 200.
Janus, Gate-god of Romans, 97.
Japan:
salt sprinkled on threshold in, 20;
survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.;
shimenawa suspended above door in, 72;
gods of Ni-o guarding threshold in, 96;
temples of, on model of primeval huts, 101;
doorways apart from temples in, 104;
pilgrims at threshold of sacred shrines of, 125;
Shinto temples of, 201;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Jastrow, Prof. Dr. Morris, Jr.: cited, 79, 144, 253.
Jastrow, Rev. Dr. Marcus, testimony of, 212.
Jehoash, altar at threshold in days of, 121.
Jehoiada:
chest for offerings placed at temple door and altar, 121;
his assignment of priests to threshold, 120.
Jennings, Hargrave: cited, 230.
Jeremiah, references to, 64, 213.
Jericho:
curse of Joshua on rebuilder of walls of, 46 f.;
walls of, falling down, 211.
Jerome: his translation of _saph_, 207.
Jerusalem:
and Jaffa railroad, sacrifice at beginning of, 57;
blood placed on lintel of temple at, 67;
red hand in Jews’ quarter of, 75;
waters issuing from under threshold of temple at, 114;
altar of burnt offering at threshold of temple at, 120;
temple site at, 161;
presence of Christ at, 215;
Church of Holy Sepulcher at, 221.
Jesus:
reference of, to door, 6,
to gates of Hades, 65;
the Door, 104.
Jews:
red hand on houses of, in Jerusalem, 76,
on houses at Safed, 77;
open hand found over graves of, in Europe, 79;
in Morocco, bloody hand on door-posts among, 67 f.;
sign of hand found in houses of, 76;
sacrifice of lamb at door of new house of, 76 f.;
in Tunis, bloody hand among, 78 f.;
hand as talisman against evil eye among, 79;
rubbing fingers on synagogue door-posts among, 144;
modern, observing passover, 211 f.
Jicarilla Apaches:
prominence of red hand among, 87;
celebration of attainment to puberty among, 88-92.
John the Baptist, reference to, 218 f.
Jones and Kropf:
cited, 12, 18, 20 f., 143;
quotation from, 17.
Jordan, source of, at threshold of grotto of Pan, 115.
Joshua:
his curse on rebuilder of Jericho, 46 f.;
guardians of threshold in days of, 120.
Journal of American Folk-Lore, references to, 5, 21.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, reference to, 236.
Joyner. See _Von Löher and Joyner_.
Judicial oath, uplifted hand in, 83.
Julien, Stanislas: cited, 156.
“Jumping the broomstick,” 143.
Juno, Virgil’s reference to brazen threshold in temple of, 130.
Jupiter:
priest of, at Lystra, 134 f.;
reference to boundary lines, 171;
image of, as boundary mark, 172.
Justice sought at gate:
among Arabs, 57-59;
in Arabia, 59 f.;
in Babylonia and Elam, 60;
in Egypt, 60 f.;
in India, 61;
in Morocco, 62 f.;
among Israelites, 63 f.;
in Turkey, 65.
Justinian, Emperor: cited, 181.

Ka, or soul, of dead, offerings to, 106.
Kaʿbah in mosk at Meccah, 163.
Kadesh, Egyptian goddess, 234.
Kadi, reference to, 247.
Kamehameha, king of Sandwich Islands, 150.
_Kami_, gods of doorways, 104.
_Kardas Sarks_, god of house, prayer to, 44.
Kathiawar, human sacrifice at threshold at, 61.
Kauzeroon, British envoy approaching, 189.
Keeper of gate, honorable position, 119 f.
_Kef Miryam_, name of sign of hand, 77.
Keightley, Thomas, references to, 172, 236.
Keoroeva, ancient gods of Maui, 150.
Ket, uses of the Egyptian goddess, 234.
Key, uses of the Hebrew word for, 253.
Khaleefs of Bagdad, threshold custom of, 10.
Khedive, threshold sacrifice to welcome new, 7.
Khem, god of generative force, 234.
Khonds of Orissa, crossing threshold in wedding among, 39.
Khorsabad, sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.
Kid:
outpoured blood of, in hospitality among Arabs, 23;
sacrificed on threshold in Syria, 26.
King, Capt. J.S.:
quotations from, #27f72# f.;
cited, 196.
King:
human sacrifice to welcome, 8 f.;
and priest, offices claimed by same person, 101 f.
Kings of Scotland crowned on Coronation Stone, 268.
King’s highway, 176.
Kissing:
threshold in Persia, 12;
doors among Pythagoreans, 13;
threshold among Morlacchi in Dalmatia, 31;
doorway serpent in Yezidis’ temple, 116;
threshold of mosk in Persia, 123 f.;
threshold of gate of tomb of Alee, 124;
threshold of _wely_, 129;
threshold and door-posts of church in Abyssinia, 130 f.
“Kissing the church” in Abyssinia, 131.
Kitto, John, references to, 120, 212.
Kitzuki, sacredness of threshold among pilgrims at, 125 f.
Kiva temples, hand on walls of, 92.
Knight, Richard Payne: cited, 230.
“Knowledge, Tree of,” reference to, 156.
“Knowledge,” in Bible narrative, 238.
Kohala, temple in, 150.
Koner. See _Guhl and Koner_.
Koran, See _Quran_.
Korea:
dead taken through hole in city wall in, 24;
marriage covenant made by tracing woman’s hand on contract, 93;
doorways apart from temples in, 104;
pilgrims at threshold in sacred shrines of, 125.
Kowalewsky, M.: cited, 42.
Krasnoslobodsk, marriage customs in, 249.
Kropf, Lewis L.:
cited, 12, 18, 20.
See, also, _Jones and Kropf_.
Kurigalzu II., king of Babylon, 154.
Kuru-Kshetra, holy ground, 156.
“_Kuza bemuchsaz Kuzu_”–name of God, 70.

Laban and Jacob agreeing about landmark, 171.
Lachish, Tell el-Hesy, site of ancient, 58.
Lacouperie, Terrien de: cited, 185, 231.
Ladder, Jacob’s, probably stepped-temple structure, 112.
“Lady of the great land,”–Beltis Allat, 113.
Lakshmi, wife of Vishnoo, represented as seated on serpent, 235.
Lamb:
sacrificed at door for guest, in Egypt, 4,
in Syria, 4, 26;
outpoured blood of, in hospitality among Arabs, 23;
sacrificed at foundation-laying in Greece, 53;
buried under altar in first Christian churches in Swedish tradition,
56;
sacrificed on Arab joining another tribe, 58 f.;
sacrificed at door of new house of Jew or Muhammadan in Palestine,
76 f.
Lamberton, Prof. W.A.: cited, 132, 134.
Lamps and laurels on gates in Tertullian’s time, 97 f.
Lanciani, Dr. Rodolfo: cited, 56, 257 f.
Landmark:
sacred boundary of private, 166;
local, in form of phallus, 166;
in Babylonia, 166;
in laws of Hebrews, 169;
in India, 169;
fixing and honoring of, origin of, 175.
Landor, A. Henry Savage-: cited, 24, 94.
Lane, Edward William:
cited, 26, 37, 129, 245;
references to, 123, 244.
Lane-Poole, Stanley: cited, 129, 200.
Lantevit Major Church, wedding customs at, 141.
Lapland, significance of stepping over threshold in, 12.
Lares and Penates in Cicero’s time, 41.
Latins, marriage custom among, 29.
Launching custom of “christening” in England and America, 8.
Laurel:
wreaths hung in doorway at marriage among Romans, 73;
Christians warned against placing, on their gates, 97.
Laurie, Dr. Thomas: cited, 124.
Law of doorway, 5-10.
Laws of Manu, reference to, 6.
Layard, Sir Austen H.:
cited, 68, 109, 111, 190, 201, 234 f.;
his discovery of sculptured image of Assyrian king, 115 f.
“Laying on of hands, the,” as symbol of imparting power, 85.
Lazarus at gate of Dives, 64.
Leaping over threshold, 117.
Lebanon, Mt., region receiving European prince, 191.
Legend and fact as contributors to proof of custom among Orientals,
77.
Legends:
of Dumuzi, Tammuz, Osiris, and Adonis, correspondences in, 115;
and symbols employed concerning boundary lines, 171 f.
Leland, Charles Godfrey: cited, 17 f., 233.
_Lèlè_, name for altar, 150 f.
Lemm, Oscar von: cited, 128.
Lenormant, François: cited, 109.
Levites and priests assigned to threshold and foundation, 120.
Levitical laws concerning sacrifice not made at “door of tent of
meeting,” 118 f.
Levy, Rabbi Jacob: cited, 208.
Libation of water offered on threshold, 16 f., 29.
Liberia:
fowl sacrificed to welcome guest in, 9;
nuptial customs of, 196.
Liberian clergyman’s testimony regarding threshold custom, 39.
Liddell and Scott: cited, 208.
Liebenstein, castle of, made fast by burying child, 49.
Life:
new, outgrowth of truth of primal threshold covenant, 226;
tree of, symbol of feminine nature, 230;
goddess of, in Egypt and Assyria, 234.
Lifting bride over threshold:
among Towkas, 35;
in Abyssinia, Egypt, Syria, 38;
in Greece, Rome, and West Africa. 39;
in Russia, England, Scotland, Ireland, and United States, 44;
in Central America, 45.
_Limen_, Jerome’s word for _saph_, 207.
Limentinus, threshold god of Romans, 97.
Lindisfarne Abbey, marriage customs at, 141.
_Linga in yoni_, symbol of Siva’s worship, 198, 236.
Lintel:
hand in dough impressed on, in Upper Syria, 28 f.;
smeared with honey and water, 30;
blood on, 66, 68;
inscriptions as to sacredness of, 66, 68;
blood stains above, 67;
symbolic figures on, 70;
sentences written on, in China, 71;
Romans affixing spoils of battle on, 73;
red hand on, 74;
red hand on, in Babylonia, 75;
ornamentation of, in ancient Egypt, 100;
image of Horus on, 127;
kissed by pious in Abyssinia, 131;
decorations on, and above, 146;
blood on, as protection for house, 206;
and two side-posts, God passing over, 210.
Lithuania, wooden cross placed under threshold in, 18.
Littleton, Sir Thomas: cited, 140.
London, horseshoes on threshold of houses in ancient, 74.
Loong-moo, sacrifice of fowl in honor of divinity, among Chinese, 71
f.
“Lord of the great city,” god Nergal as, 113.
Lot welcoming angels, 211.
Lotus flower:
in religious symbolisms, 230;
reference to, 234;
symbol of fecundity, 257.
“Louping stone,” 142.
Lowell, Percival: cited, 104, 126, 201.
_Lubare_, offering to, in Uganda, 15.
Lubbock, Sir John: cited, 39.
Luncz, A.M., quotations from, 67, 76.
Lund’s Every-day Life in Scandinavia: reference to, 7, 12.
Lystra, temple of Jupiter at, reference to, 135.

McDowell, Henry B.: cited, 96.
McLennan, Dr. John F.: cited, 39.
Mackay, Alexander: cited, 15.
Mackenzie, Capt. J.S.F., quotation from, 258 f.
Maçoudi’s _Les Prairies d’Or_, reference to, 200.
_Madaa_, place of prayer, 164.
Madagascar, importance of right foot in, 38;
circumcision in, 149.
Mafkat, land of, 184.
Magharah, Wady, boundary marks in, 179.
Magyars:
stepping over threshold among, 12;
custom to win love, 19 f.
Mahabharata:
cited, 6;
on responsibility of heralds, 62;
Hindoo epic, 157.
_Mal occhis_, or evil eye, 79.
Male represented by stone or pole, 258.
Man, origin and development of, 223.
Manoli in “Monastery of Argis,” story of, 52 f.
_Mantra_, meaning of word, 15.
Manu, Laws of, reference to, 6.
_Maras_ kept off by cross on threshold, 18.
“Marches,” reference to, 183.
Marduk, reference to, 235.
_Margosa_, reference to, 259.
Margrave, origin of, 183.
Mariette Bey, references to, 111, 126, 128.
Market-places as boundaries, 178.
“Markgraf,” meaning of, 183.
“Marks,” reference to, 183.
Marquardt, Joachim: cited, 30, 39, 41.
“Marque, Letters of,” meaning of, 183.
“Marquee,” meaning of, 183.
Marquises, origin of, 183.
Marriage:
threshold covenanting in, 25-35;
by outpoured blood at threshold, 26;
customs among Somalis in Central Africa, 27,
among Wallachians, 29,
in Egypt, 243, 245,
in China, Dahomey, 245,
in Syria, 246,
in Asia and Africa, in Krasnoslobodsk, among Mordvins, in Pensa,
249,
in Samoa, 251;
not “by capture,” 36;
celebrated at church door in Abyssinia, 131;
where solemnized, 138;
Pre-Reformation rule of, 139;
services in Protestant Episcopal churches, 148;
covenant, primitive certificate of, 196;
primitive rite of, 214, 225;
sacrament of, in Roman Catholic Church, 222;
torch, origin of, 226;
certificate in Syria, 245,
in Upper Egypt, 245;
ceremonies among Muhammedans, 247;
ceremonies among Christians at Haleb, 248;
ceremonies in Darfour, 249.
See, also, _Wedding ceremonies_.
“Mary’s Hand, Virgin,” among Christians of Syria, 77.
Masjid:
bridegroom’s visit to, in Central Africa, 27;
place of prostration, 163.
Mask marked with hand among Jicarilla Apaches, 89.
Mason, William Shaw: cited, 21, 81.
“Mason and Dixon’s line,” 182.
Maspero, Prof. G.:
cited, 14, 39, 85;
references to, 95, 102, 105 f., 113 f., 126, 169, 201, 235.
Massachusetts, beating bounds in, 176.
Mastabahs, false doors in ancient Egypt, 106 f.
Matthews, Washington, reference to, 87.
Maundrell, Henry, reference to, 222.
Maui, Island of, ancient god of, 150.
Maurice, Thomas:
cited, 122;
references to, 123, 236 f.
Maya people, sacrifices among, 145.
Meccah:
black stone of, reference to, 10;
prayer niche toward, 108;
mosk of, image thrown down at gate of, 123;
mosk at, reference to, 163;
Hajj procession from, 186.
Medals showing altar at threshold, 121.
Medicine taken on threshold in Tuscany, 17 f.
Medina, mosk of, pieces of idol thrown down at gate of, 123.
Mediterranean, boundary marks on shores of, 178.
Medusa and serpents, 237.
Memorials in door form, in various lands, 107.
Mercury:
reference to, concerning boundary lines, 171;
image of, as boundary landmark, 172.
Merodach:
god of left side of gate, 95;
temple of, threshold plated with gold, 110.
Metâwileh, hen sacrificed at building of house among, 45.
Metempsychosis connected with threshold covenant, 226.
Mexico:
Indians of ancient, reference to, 21;
sacrificial stone of temple of, 56;
ancient, altar in doorway, 108;
earliest form of temple in, 144;
religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235.
Meydoom, stepped pyramid of, in Egypt, 126.
“Mezuza,” covenant record at door-way, 69 f.
Middle Empire of Egypt:
disappearance of door form in, 106;
temples of, 155.
“Midsummer Day” festival in Russia, 42.
“Mihrab,” or prayer niche, probable origin of its form, 108.
Mile-posts as landmarks, 176.
Min, Egyptian god of generative force, 234.
Mineptah I., memorial stone of, 180.
Minnesota, threshold custom among Scandinavians in, 259.
Mississippi, lower, religious ceremonies among Indians along, 147.
“Mizpah,” memorial of covenant, 171.
Mnesikles, architect, plan of, 158.
Moksha, wooing custom among, 42.
“Monastery of Argis,” foundation sacrifice in, 52 f.
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier: cited, 156, 198 f., 230, 236.
Monoliths in front of door of temple at Yeha, 131.
Montezuma: his consecration of altar by blood of captives, 56.
Moon-god Sin:
Ur-Gur with uplifted hands before, 80;
reference to, 161.
Mordevins. See _Mordvins_.
Mordvins:
threshold as altar among, 32;
marriage customs of, 41, 249.
Morea, threshold custom in, 30.
Morier, James:
cited, 11 f., 78, 123;
quotation from, 189 f.
Morlacchi custom of kissing threshold, 31.
Morocco, survival of sacrificing at door-way in, 62.
Mosaic law, appeal to altar in covenant in, 65.
Moses:
at gate of camp, 63;
meeting Jehovah at doorway, 119;
in wilderness of Sinai, 160 f.
“Moses, Hand of,” red hand called, 77.
Mosk of St. Sophia, stamp of red hand in, 77.
Mostur, temple of Thor in, 160.
Mt. Lebanon region, European prince received in, 191.
Mt. Moriah:
temple on, reference to, 161;
and Abraham’s offering, 161.
Mt. Sinai, reference to, 94.
Mountain peaks as boundaries, 178.
Muhammad:
certificate of protection signed with impression of open hand of,
94;
throne of, reached only by kissing threshold, 124.
Muhammad II.: his victory over Christians sealed by bloody hand, 77.
Muhammad Issoof, letter from king of Mysore to, 94.
Muhammadan:
substitute for “blood of the grape,” 5;
conquest of India, reference to, 123.
Muhammadans:
to place right foot first in crossing threshold, 36;
inscribe gates, fountains, bridges, and houses, 70;
sacred inscriptions placed above doorways by, 71;
sign of hand among, 76;
lamb sacrificed at door of new house of, 76 f.;
“Hand of the Prophet” on houses of, 77;
sultan as father of faithful, 103;
prayer niche among, 108;
treading on idol at gate, 123;
threshold of mosks counted sacred among, 123;
their estimate of first foundations, 162;
marriage customs of, 247;
reticent on matters concerning women, 247 f.
Muir, Sir William, reference to, 164.
Mülhau and Volck, reference to, 255.
Müller, Ivan V., reference to, 172.
Müller, Prof. W. Max: cited, 127, 234.
Muslims. See _Muhammadans_.
Mussulmans. See _Muhammadans_.
Mysore:
king of, hand-print on back of letter written by, 94;
ancient religious custom at, 258.
Mysoreans, hand-print equivalent to oath among, 94.

Naaman, reference to, 161.
Nabob of Arcot, banners of, inscribed with hand, 78.
Nabonidus, king of Babylon, 153.
Nabunaʾid, king of Babylon, 154.
Nahr-el-Kelb:
as gateway of nations, 105;
boundary marks at, 178.
Nahuas, marriage ceremonies of, 246.
Nakishbend, tomb of, threshold stone at, 124 f.
Naomi, reference to, 64.
Napier, James: cited, 44.
Naples, pine cone among Pompeian relics at, 257.
Narâm-Sin, reference to, 154.
_Nasa_, meaning of Hebrew word, 83.
Natchez Indians, religious ceremonies among, 147.
Nations or states, boundaries of, 177.
Neapolitan Museum, information concerning threshold at, 258.
Nebo:
shrine of, 110;
references to, 177, 188.
Nebuchadrezzar I.:
meaning of name, 177;
his empire boundary, 188.
Nebuchadrezzar II.:
inscriptions of, 109;
his description of building walls of Babylon, 109-111;
reference to, 154.
Negeb:
reference to, 160;
boundary dispute on borders of, 170.
Neoptolemus and Orestes in temple at Delphi, 134.
Nephthys, guardian of gateway of Egyptian temple, 127.
Nergal, threshold god among Assyrians, 95, 113, 235.
Nestorians kissing threshold on entering church, 124.
Nevius, Rev. J.W.: cited, 24.
New Empire of Egypt:
religious pictures on stele in tombs of, 107;
buildings of, 155.
New England:
door at corner of house in, 55;
“beating the bounds” in, 176.
“New Fire, Festival of,” 147.
New Testament, symbols of Old Testament explained in, 215.
New Year:
threshold custom in Aberdeenshire, 20 f.;
of Hebrews, 212;
Easter beginning new Ecclesiastical, 221.
New Zealand, sacred image as gateway in, 107 f.
Niche:
as shrine in Egypt, 106;
survival of tomb doorways, 108;
prominence of, in Egypt, 106 f.,
in New Zealand, 107 f.,
in Muhammadan and Christian lands and in China, 108.
Niebuhr, C.: cited, 248.
Nikkō, shrines of, 126.
Nile, Gen Grant on Upper, 7 f.
Nimb tree, reference to, 259.
Nimitti-Bel, gate of, in walls of Babylon, 110.
Nimroud, blood-stained slabs at entrance to palace of, 68.
Nineveh:
sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;
sculpture of Assyrian king with uplifted arm found at, 115.
Ni-o, prints of gods placed over doors in Japan, 95.
Nippur:
sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;
altar found between temples in, 111.
_Nish_, Assyrian word for swearing, 83.
Noetling, Dr., reference to, 77.
Northly, Hen., reference to, 140.
Norway, Thorolf of, removing to Iceland, 160.
“Not by door,” entering house, 6.
Notre Dame, marriage at door of church of, 130.
November 11 as sacrifice day in Ireland, 21.
Nubia:
ancient map of gold districts in, 180;
reference to, 185.
Numa, directions of, concerning boundaries, 173.
Nuptial torch in marriage ceremony, 41.
Nurshivan and Hormuz, reference to, 11.
Nuts presented to bride at threshold in Dalmatia, 31.

Oath, uplifted hand in judicial, 83.
Obelisk, symbol of Baal, 214.
Oberea, queen of Otaheite, 250 f.
Offerings:
at threshold, 28, 118 f.;
to local divinity at threshold-laying, 95;
for dead pictured on stele of Middle Empire of Egypt, 106.
_Ohel_, applied to private tent and to sacred tabernacle, 101.
Ohnefalach-Richter, reference to, 231.
Old Empire of Egypt:
false door in early tombs of, 106;
temples of, 155.
Old Testament and New:
waters of life in, 115;
rites and symbols of, 215.
Oldest member of household first to enter new house, 54.
Olympian games, references to, 7, 263.
Olympus, House of Zeus, 132.
_Om mani padme Hūm_, 199.
Omaha chief, burial of, 85 f.
Ophites, teaching of, 239.
Oracle at Delphi, 236.
Oran buried alive in foundation of cathedral in Iona, 50.
Orestes and Neoptolemus at Delphi, 134.
Oriental:
sovereigns and boundaries, 177;
Christians, covenanting at threshold among, 221;
figures of speech obscured by literalism of Western mind, 238.
Orissa, importance of threshold in marriage in, 39.
Orme, R.: cited, 94.
Osiris:
annual feast in honor of, 14 f.;
references to, 106, 115, 128 f., 179;
door of gateway, 127.
“_Ostium_” defined, 200.
Otaheite, primitive threshold in, 250.
Ovid: cited, 172 f.
Owens, J.G.: cited, 21.
Oxford, Penn., stone landmark at, 183.

Palestine:
spilling water on threshold in, 29;
sacrifice at beginning railroad in, 57;
blood on lintel, 67;
red hand in, 75;
hand printed in blue in houses of, 76.
Palgrave, William G.: cited, 10.
Palm cone, symbolism of, 231.
Palmer, Prof. E.H., quotation from, 26.
Pan, threshold of grotto of, 115.
Pan-kăng, emperor of China, reference to, 157.
Paper sprinkled with blood in China, 72.
“Parting-stool,” reference to, 142.
_Pāsăkha_, meaning of, 208, 210, 266.
Paul:
with Barnabas at Lystra, 135;
his reference to foundations, 162;
to Corinthian Christians, 215;
on Christian passover, 217;
on relation between Christ and his church, 219.
Pausanias: cited, 135.
Pecos, red-hand symbol in ancient Pueblos of, 87 f.
Peepul tree, in Upper India, 156, 259.
Peloponnesus and Attica, boundary between, 180.
Penates:
reference to, 19;
of Romans at threshold, 23;
appeased by bread and salt, 32;
and Lares in Cicero’s time, 41.
Pennsylvania:
threshold custom in, 21;
corner-stone at door in, 55;
horseshoes as doorway guards in, 74;
stone landmark in, 183.
Pennsylvania Magazine of History, reference to, 183.
Pensa, marriage customs in, 249.
“_Per-ao_” (Pharaoh), meaning of, 103.
Pericles building new Propylæa, 158.
Perrot and Chipiez:
cited, 71, 78, 80, 85, 100, 103, 105, 111, 201, 231, 235;
quotation from, 106 f.
Persea, reference to, 180.
Persepolis, justice at palace gate of, 60.
Persia:
sacredness of threshold in, 11 f.;
sacred passages inscribed over doorways in, 71;
banners and prayer-rugs inscribed with open hand in, 78;
no temples in ancient, 100;
fire-altar on uplifted threshold as place of worship in, 100, 102;
veneration for threshold of mosks in, 123 f.;
border sacrifices in, 188;
shah of, entering Teheran, 189;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
marriage customs in, 249;
phallus represented by boundary posts, 258.
Peru:
blood smeared on doorway in, 73;
stepped pyramid temples in, 111;
religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235.
_Pesakh_. See _Pāsăkh_.
Petrie, Dr. W.M. Flinders:
his discovery of ornamental door-jams, 58;
reference to, 126.
“Petting stone,” at Lindisfarne Abbey, 141.
Phallus, reverence for, in Babylonia, Assyria, India, China, Japan,
Persia, Phrygia, Phenicia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Greece, Rome, Germany,
Scandinavia, France, Spain, Great Britain, North and South America,
Islands of the Sea, 230.
“Pharaoh,” meaning of, 103.
Phenicia:
uplifted hand of deities of, 79 f.;
prominence of door in, 107;
altar at threshold in, 121;
indications of presence of deity in, 201;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235;
pine cone symbol in, 257.
Philip II. of Spain, reference to, 139.
Philistines, sacredness of threshold among, 11 f.
Philo Judæus:
cited, 208, 238;
reference to, 239.
_Philos_, _Phleō_, and _Phliē_, meanings and uses of, 255 f.
Phœbus Apollo, reference to, 133.
Phrygia:
threshold altar in, 121;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Pig:
sacrifice of black, in Russia, 19;
blood of, sprinkled at door in Borneo, 20;
buried alive under houses, 56;
as sacrifice, 148.
Pigeon-poult’s blood in Arabia, 248.
Pigeons sacrificed at door, 4.
Pilgrims at threshold in Japan, in Korea, in Shinto and Booddhist
temple, 125.
Pillar:
of cloud at doorway of tent of meeting, 119;
of Baal, 214;
and tree in religious symbolism, 232;
command to Israelites concerning, 233.
“Pillars of Herculus,” 181.
Pine cone: in ancient Assyrian sculptures, in Grecian and Phenician
cults, and in ancient Rome, 257.
Pinkerton, John: cited, 39.
Pipal tree. See _Peepul tree_.
Pipiles, sacrifices among, 146.
“Plain of Kuru,” 156.
Pliny, reference to, 93.
Ploss, H., reference to, 93.
Plutarch: cited, 25, 39, 41, 180 f., 263, 265.
Pole, brush-topped, symbolism of, 214, 258.
Polynesia:
survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.;
uplifted hand found in stepped-pyramid temples of, 83;
boundary lines in, 174.
Pomegranate:
on threshold in Morea, 30, in Rhodes, 30 f.;
in religious symbolisms, 230.
Pompeian relics at Naples, 257.
Ponce de Leon and fountain of life, 148.
Poole. See _Lane-Poole_.
_Poros_, derivation of, 265.
_Porta_ and _Porto_, derivation of, 265.
_Porta di morti_ in Italian houses for corpse, 24.
Porter, Sir Robert Kerr: cited, 9, 71.
Porter, twofold use of word, 263-265.
Portuguese navigators and boundary pillars, 180 f.
_Postliminium_, a recrossing of threshold, 181.
_Pôth_:
uses of Hebrew word, 253;
as hinge or socket, 254.
Prabhus of Bombay, birth custom among, 17.
Prague, open hand above graves in, 79.
Prayer:
on burying articles under threshold, 20;
offered to “goddess of the homestead” in betrothal in Russia, 32;
for dead at door of Egyptian tombs, 106;
Booddhist in Tibet, 199;
meaning of, 228.
Prayer-rug in Turkey and Persia, 78.
Priest:
house-father as earliest, 3;
among Jicarilla Apaches, 89;
as ruler, 165;
of Dagon not to tread on threshold, 117.
Primitive:
altar of family, 3;
threshold customs, 35;
temple as rude door-way, 102;
man and his knowledge, 224.
Prisse’s Monuments of Egypt, reference to, 234.
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, references to, 201,
231, 257.
Propylon:
of Egyptian temple, 127;
of Greek temple on Acropolis, 158.
_Pʾrosdôr_, rabbinical meaning of, 253.
Prostitution, sacred, origin of, 229.
Prostrating:
at gate of palace in Bagdad, 10;
at threshold of shrines of Egypt, 127 f.
Protection:
for enemy at home sanctuary, 57;
at threshold among Afghans, 58.
Protestant Episcopal churches:
baptismal font in, 147;
marriage ceremonies in, 148.
Psalmist:
his reference to lifting up hand, 82;
to honorable position of doorkeeper, 120.
Puberty celebrated among Jicarilla Apaches, 88-91.
Pueblos:
prominence of red hand among, 87;
references to, 88, 92.
Puhonuas, cities of refuge in Hawaii, 151.
Purity of primitive threshold covenant, 233.
“Put your right foot first,” 37 f.
_Puthmēn_, meanings and uses of, 255.
Pylon. See _Propylon_.
Pyramid, stepped:
many early temples in form of, 83, 111;
of Meydoom, 126;
references to, 144, 148, 229.
Pythagoras: cited, 37.
Pythagoreans, reverence for threshold among, 12 f.

Quarrels as result of shaking hands over threshold in Finland, 12.
Quarterly Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund, reference to, 29.
Queen of Heaven, statue of, in Carthage, 130.
Qurân, sentences from:
on gates, fountains, bridges, and houses, 70;
on houses of worship, 163.

.p2
Rahab, blood-colored thread on house of, 211.
Raja Pasupati, reference to, 157.
Ralston, W.R.S.:
cited, 12, 19, 24, 32, 54 f.;
quotation from, 23.
Rameses II., reference to, 180.
Ram’s horn on door-post in Tell-el-Hesy, 58.
Ramsay, Prof. W.M.: cited, 229.
Rawlinson, George: cited, 14, 105, 111 f.
Rawlinson, Sir Henry C.:
cited, 110, 153, 178, 184, 234;
quotation from, 167-169.
Recognition, Mount of, reference to, 164.
Records, Book of, or Shoo King, reference to, 158.
Red cloth on altar at marriage, 34.
Red hand:
as sign of covenant, 74 f.;
in Morocco, 74;
in Palestine, 74-76;
in Turkey, 74, 77;
in Babylonia, 75;
on lintel, 75;
Aryan origin of, 75;
among Sephardeem, 76;
in Mosk of St. Sophia, 77;
in Central America, 81 f.;
among aborigines of America, 83;
among Dacotahs, Winnebagoes, 84;
among Omahas, 85;
among Ioways, Sauks, Foxes, Sioux, Arickarees, Cheyennes, Arapahoes,
Comanches, Apaches, Jicarillas, and Pueblos, 87;
among Pecos, 87 f.;
among cliff-dwellers of Chelly Canyon, 87.
See, also, _Bloody hand_.
Red seal on documents, probable meaning of, 94.
Redwan, village of, 190.
Refuge, cities of, 151.
Remondino, Dr. P.C.: cited, 196.
Renouf, Le Page: cited, 128 f., 257.
_Rere_, name for altar, 150 f.
Réville, Albert: cited, 73, 111, 144 f., 235.
Rhodes, doorway marked with honey in, 30.
Rice:
as offering among Hindoos, 15;
on heads of bridal couple among Hindoos, 36;
presented to bride in China, 40;
as offering at threshold in Japan, 125 f.
Richon’s Dic. of Bib. Antiq., reference to, 103.
Rig Veda:
reference to, 157;
on production of sacred fire, 198.
Right foot first to cross threshold of mosk, 123.
Rio de Padrāo, or Pillar River, 182.
Rites:
religious, beginning of, 36, 199, 225;
and symbols of New Testament, 215.
Ritual of Old and New Testament, basis of, 228.
Rituals, ecclesiastical, origin of, 226.
River of Threshold, 182.
Roberts, Joseph: cited, 95, 122.
Robes stamped with red hand among American Indians, 83.
Rocky Pytho, reference to, 133.
Rod at door, stepping over, 123.
Rodd, Rennell:
cited, 27, 30 f., 38;
quotation from, 52 f.
Roman:
Penates at threshold or hearth, 23;
architect on proportions of temple, 36;
custom of placing statues under foundations, 55 f.;
custom of affixing spoils and trophies of war to lintels, 73;
temples, position of altar in, 134;
empire, mile-posts in, 176;
empire, threshold of, 258.
Roman Catholic Church on marriage, 222.
Roman Catholic churches, holy water in, in America, 147.
Rome:
lifting bride over threshold in, 39;
bride worshiping at altar-fire in, 41;
images under foundations in, 55 f.;
“gods of entrances” in, 97;
reference to religion of, 97;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
pine cone found in, 257;
ceremonies at founding of, 264 f.
Romulus, founder of Rome, 264 f.
Rongo, first-born son of Vatea and Papa, reference to, 152.
Roscommon, county of, Druidical altar in, 81.
Rosenmüller, Ernst F.K.: cited, 78.
Roumania, bat and coin under threshold in, 20.
Rous’s Archæologia Attica, reference to, 39.
Rubbing foreheads on “stone of desire” at Baveddeen, 125.
Russia:
welcoming guest with bread and salt in, 9;
reverence for threshold in, 12;
threshold observances in, 18, 31 f.;
stillborn children buried under threshold in, 18;
sacrifice to “Vodyaour” in, 19;
household deity abiding behind stove in, 23;
concerning dead and threshold in, 24;
marriage custom among Mordvins in, 41;
crossing altar-fire in, 42;
death following building of new house in, 54;
“upper corner” of house sacred in, 54 f.;
disputed boundary lines in, 175.
Ruth, reference to, 64.
Ruthennu, land of the, reference to, 180.

“SA, the imposition of the,” representations on monuments of, 85.
Sacrament of marriage in Greek and Roman Catholic churches, 222.
Sacramental communion feasts, 226.
Sacred corner of building in Russia, 54 f.
Sacredness:
of threshold among Scandinavians, 6 f.;
of city gates among Greeks, 7;
among Hindoos, 11;
of boundary landmark in classic literature, 17;
of threshold recognized in architecture and ceremonial, 22, 102;
among Muhammadans, 123;
in Persia, 123 f.;
in Japan, 124 f.;
in Babylonia and in Egypt, 126 f.;
of doorway above threshold in Babylonia and Egypt, 126 f.
Sacrifice:
for family first made in home, 3 f.;
in Syria, 3-5;
at threshold in Egypt, 3, 7 f.;
in Africa, 9, 27 f.;
among Arabs, 9, 26, 59;
among Pipiles, 144;
in Mexico and Ireland, 21;
in Morocco, 63;
at door, of heifer, 4,
pigeons, 4,
horse, 4 f.,
bullock, 4, 7 f.,
sheep, 4, 7-9, 11, 21, 23, 26 f., 45, 53, 58 f., 63, 76 f.,
fowl, 4, 9, 21, 27, 45, 53-56, 71 f.,
goat, 4, 27 f., 45, 59,
buffaloes, 7,
human, 8 f., 46-48, 50-54, 56, 122 f., 125, 144 f.,
pig, 14, 19, 148,
cow, goose, 21;
of salt in Japan, 26;
at threshold to reconcile enemies, 59;
altar of, location of, 134;
offered at boundary of empire, 183;
origin of, 228.
Sacrificial rules of ancient Hindoos on stepping over threshold, 36 f.
Safed, sign of hand in houses at, 77.
Sailer, Dr. T.H.P.: cited, 266.
St. Catharine, convent of, reference to, 94.
St. Columba, human sacrifice in walls of cathedral of, 50.
St. Eric, tomb of, reference to, 140.
St. John, Spencer: cited, 20, 34.
St. John’s College, reference to, 48.
St. Sophia, mosk of, stamp of red hand in, 77.
Saint’s tomb as place of worship in Egypt, 129.
Saivism, or Sivaism, predominating in modern Hindooism, 198.
Sakya Sinha, attaining to Booddha-hood, 156.
Sale, G.: cited, 164.
Salt:
as substitute for blood, 5, 20;
on threshold in Syria, 5, in Japan, 20;
stepping over, 5;
and bread to welcome guest in Russia, 9,
among Arabs, 22,
among Erza, 43 f.;
and fire in Scotland, 21;
carried into new home in Pennsylvania, 21;
under threshold in Russia, 32 f.
Samoa:
spilling water on doorstep in, 12;
nuptial customs of, 196, 251;
boundary lines in, 174;
father as primitive priest in, 101.
Samson carrying off gates of Gaza, 255.
Sandwich Islands, temples in, 150.
_Saph_, meaning of, 205, 207 f.
Sarcophagi of Byzantine age showing altar on threshold, 121.
Sardinia, prominence of door in, 107.
Sargon I., reference to, 154.
Sauks, red hand among, 87.
Savage-Landor, A. Henry. See _Landor_.
Sayce, Prof. A.H.: cited, 8, 80, 111, 113, 169, 201, 235.
Scandinavia:
sacredness of door in, 6 f.;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Scandinavians in America, importance of threshold among, 259.
Schoolcraft, Dr. Henry R.:
quotation from, 83 f.;
reference to, 87.
Schrader, Dr. Eberhard: cited, 103, 177 f., 234.
Scotland:
treading upon boundary lines in, 13;
New Year’s threshold custom in, 20 f.;
sacredness of threshold in, 34;
lifting bride over threshold in, 44;
crowning of kings of, 268.
Scott, Robert. See _Liddell and Scott_.
Scottish legend of burying of human being in walls of cathedral, 50.
Sculpture:
on lintel in Palestine, 70;
palm cone in Assyrian, 231;
pine cone in Assyrian, 257.
Scutari, woman immured in walls of, 47 f.
Sea Dyaks, marriage custom among, 34.
Sea, Islands of:
spring of life-giving waters in, 151;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Seashore as boundary, 178.
Seaweed laid on threshold in Aberdeenshire, 20 f.
Sedan-chair to convey bride to her husband’s home in China, 39 f.
Seed-sowing, blood sprinkled at door at festival of, 20.
Seed-time ceremony at threshold, 16.
Segub, Jericho’s foundation laid in blood of, 47.
Selden, John: cited, 140.
_Senghi murad_, “stone of desire,” at Baveddeen, 125.
Sentiment as origin of persistent popular customs, 36.
Sephardeem, red hand among, 76.
Septuagint, references to, 117, 207.
Sepulcher, Holy, Church of, 221.
Serpent:
as guardian of thresholds in Babylon, 110 f.;
on temple doorway kissed by worshipers, 116;
as symbol of life, 233 f., 236;
on boundary stone in Babylonian domains, 234;
and phallus in Babylonian mythology, 235;
representative of evil, 235;
and Æsculapius, 236;
with Hindoo deities, 236;
and Medusa, 237;
worship perversion of threshold covenant, 237;
indicating desire, 238;
curse resting on, 239;
worship in Bangalore, 258 f.
Servius, Maurus H.: cited, 29 f.
Seti I., memorial stone of, 180.
Shagarakti-Buriash, inscription of, 154.
Shah of Persia entering Teheran, 189.
Shaking hands across threshold cause of quarrel, 12.
Shamash, sun-god:
and his worshipers with uplifted hands, 80;
gates open for his daily circuit, 105;
reference to, 201.
Shanghai, human sacrifice in, 48.
Shaykhs kissing temple threshold near Nineveh, 116.
Sheep, sacrifice of:
on threshold for guest, in Syria, 3 f.;
in Egypt, 3 f., 8;
in Central Africa, 9, 27;
east of Sea of Galilee, 11;
in Ireland, 21;
among Copts, 26, 45;
among Armenian Christians, 27;
at beginning of railroad at Jaffa, 57;
to reconcile enemies in Arabia, 60.
Sherrin, R.R.A.: cited, 107 f.
Shields painted with red hand among American Indians, 87.
Shih King, Chinese, on border sacrifices, 185.
Shimenawa suspended above doors in Japan, 72
Shintō temples:
modeled on primitive Japanese hut, 101;
doorways apart from, 104;
pilgrims at threshold of, 125;
reference to, 201.
Shintōism, sacred symbol of, suspended above door, 72.
Shintu, tutelar gods of threshold in China, 95 f.
Ship, horseshoe on mast of, 74.
Shoes removed at threshold:
of mosks, 123;
of churches in Abyssinia, 130.
Shoo King, Chinese, reference to, 158.
Shooter, Joseph: cited, 28.
Shores of sea as boundaries, 178.
Shortland, Edward, quotation from, 93.
Shrines:
sacred doorways in front of, in China, Japan, Korea, 104;
in Siam, India, 105;
at doorway in Babylonia, in Assyria, 105;
in Egypt, 106;
of Kitzuki, of Isé, of Kikkō, threshold customs at, 125 f.
Siam, doorways near temples in, 104.
Sibree, James: cited, 38.
Sicily, prominence of door in, 107.
Sidon, consul at, reference to, 70.
Sign of red hand. See _Red hand_.
Silvanus, god of boundaries, 171, 173.
Silver hand worn by children, 76.
“Silver Threshold,” temple of, in Thebes, 127.
Sin, Moon-god, references to, 80, 154.
Sinai:
Moses in wilderness of, 160 f.;
peninsula of, boundary marks in, 179, 184.
Sioux, red hand among, 87.
Sippara, sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.
_Sippu_, Assyrian word for threshold, 110 f., 209.
_Sirim_, Hebrew for hinges, 253.
Sitting on threshold not allowed in Russia, 12.
Siva:
hand as symbol of, 78, 198;
temple of, at Thâvesar, 157;
crowned with serpent, 236.
Skarpanto, threshold custom in, 31.
Skeat, Rev. Walter W.: cited, 265.
Skertchley, J.A.: cited, 245.
Skins stamped with red hand among American Indians, 83.
Slave, Hebrew, adoption of, as member of family, 210.
Slavic:
custom of covenanting, 42;
citadel made firm by immuring child in walls, 50;
peoples, “Death Week” among, 19.
Smith, Dr. William:
cited, 7, 73, 134, 172 f., 236 f., 263.
See, also, _Smith and Cheetham_.
Smith, W. Robertson:
quotation from, 59 f.;
cited, 209, 214, 231 f.
Smith, George: cited, 109.
Smith and Cheetham: cited, 222.
Snakes. See _Serpents_.
Sneezing on threshold unpropitious, 11.
Sneferu in Sinaitic Peninsula, 178 f.
Snell, Rev. A., reference to, 140.
Sodom:
reference to king of, 82;
angels welcomed in, 211.
Soko at Tangier, reference to, 52.
Somali tribes, sacrifice at threshold among, 27.
Somnauth, idol in temple of, shattered and placed under threshold,
123.
Sophocles: cited, 133.
Sorcery, prominence of threshold in, 17 f.
Sources of rivers as boundaries, 178.
South America:
doorways smeared with blood in, 73;
earliest form of temple in, 144;
reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;
serpent as religious symbol in, 235.
South Sea Islands, temples of, 148.
Sovereigns in ancient East represented by uplifted hand, 79 f.
Spain, reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.
Spanish Jews, significance of red hand among, 76.
Spectator, The, reference to, 19.
Spencer, Herbert, references to, 21, 98.
Spiritual forces, conception of, characteristic of man, 223.
Spitting on threshold unpropitious, 11.
Spivak, Dr.: cited, 93.
Sprenger, A: cited, 164, 200.
Squier, Hon. E.G.: cited, 230, 235.
Stade, Dr. Bernard: cited, 214, 255.
Stamboul, sacrifice on threshold of house spared in great fire in, 66
f.
Stanitsas, or land divisions among Cossacks, 175 f.
Stanley, Henry M.: cited, 86, 174, 182.
Stanley, Dean: cited, 222, 268 f.
States or nations, boundaries of, 177.
Statues in foundations in Rome, 55 f.
Stele:
memorial of dead inscribed on, 106;
monumental, origin of, 107;
containing sculptured image of Assyrian king, 115;
set up on boundary line, 177;
as doorways, 178.
Stengel’s _Die griech. Sac._, reference to, 172.
Stenin, P. von: cited, 249.
Stephens, John L.: cited, 82-84, 146.
Stepped pyramid:
temples with altar or shrine at summit, 111;
in Jacob’s dream at Bethel, 112;
of Meydoom in Egypt, 126 f.;
reference to, 144;
as place of worship, 148.
Stepping over:
blood on threshold, 4 f., 26, 45 f.;
salt on threshold, 5;
threshold to insure protection of guardian deity, 12;
girdle in marriage among Greeks, 30;
threshold, a bride having care to, 36;
threshold to prove innocence from crime among Hindoos, 121 f.
Stillborn children buried under threshold in Russia, 18.
_Stoicheionein_, Greek term for foundation ceremony, 53 f.
Stone:
sacrificial, laid on summit of Mexican temple, 56;
posts most ancient remains of primitive man’s handiwork, 102;
pillars marking boundaries of states or nations, 177;
upright, significance of, 258.
“Stone, Coronation,” in Westminster Abbey, 268.
“Stone of desire” at Baveddeen, 125.
Stove, Russian household deity located near, 23.
Strack, Dr. H.L.: cited, 20, 46, 93.
Straw cure for disorder in North Germany, 18.
Strean, Dr., quotation from, 21.
Stuart, Villiers: cited, 179.
“Sublime Porte:”
high court of Turkey called, 65;
meaning of, 103.
Suez Canal, reference to, 180.
Sultan:
justice administered at gate by, 65;
as spiritual father of faithful Muhammadans, 103.
Sultan Muhammad II., bloody hand of, stamped on mosk, 77.
Sun disk, winged, over doors of temples in Egypt, 127.
Sun-god Shamash:
and his worshipers with uplifted hands, 80 f.;
gates open to allow of daily circuits of, 105.
Sun-orb, winged, with serpent, 234.
Sunday School Times, The, references to, 260 f.
Survivals of threshold covenant in America and Europe, 3, 8, 13, 221.
Susa, king rendering justice at palace gate of, 60.
Swedish tradition of burial of lamb under altar, 56.
Symbol:
of feminine in nature, tree or bush, 214;
misusing, results of, 229;
of evil in religions of Babylonia, Egypt, India, Phenicia, Greece,
Mexico, and Peru, 235;
of virginity, 243 f.
Symbols:
buried under foundation-stone, 109;
and legends concerning boundary lines, 171 f.
Syria:
sacrifices on threshold in, 3-5;
treading on threshold in, 10;
reference to, 11;
stepping over sacrifice at threshold in, 26;
bride carried across threshold in, 38, 45;
name for sign of hand among Christians in, 77;
kissing threshold in, 129;
nuptial customs of, 196, 246;
marriage certificate in, 245;
sacredness of threshold, 259 f.
Syrian:
derwishes, threshold custom of, 10;
officer’s welcome at threshold, 11;
testimony of native, 59.

Tablets, ancestral, of China, 108.
Tahiti, primitive threshold in, 250.
Tai Shan, reference to, 158.
Talisman, open hand as, in Europe, Africa, and America, 79.
Tallquist’s rendering of Assyrian word, 83.
Talmud:
Jewish, references to, 93, 200, 208, 210 f., 239;
Babylonian, references to, 211, 253.
Tammuz of Syria, reference to, 115.
Tangier, reference to, 62.
Tañoans, reference to, 88.
Targum, reference to, 117.
Tatars:
treading on threshold among, 13;
importance of threshold among, 39.
Teheran, Shah of Persia entering, 189.
Tell el-Hesy, ram’s horn on doorway in, 58.
Tello, sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.
Temple:
waters of life flowing from under threshold of, 114;
doorway oldest form of, in Egypt, 126;
at Carthage, prominence of threshold in, 130;
in Greece, 134;
earliest form of, in Mexico, Central and South America, 144;
building in Babylonia, 153;
of Thor, in Iceland, 160;
at Jerusalem, site of, 161;
earliest forms of, 229.
Temples:
preceded by houses, 3;
images under threshold of, 14;
as dwelling for deity, 99;
called “great house of the village” in Samoa, 101;
in form of stepped pyramid in Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mexico,
Central America, Peru, and South Sea Islands, 111;
in Jacob’s dream, 112;
in Carthage, 130;
Egyptian, history of, 155;
as boundaries, 178.
Temptation, first, and symbol of tree and serpent, 237.
Tennasserin, survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.
Tent:
fire at entrance of, 22 f.;
laying hold of, as appeal for hospitality in East, 57;
stamped with red hand among American Indians, 83.
“Teraphim” connected with threshold, 109.
Terence: cited, 30.
Terminalia, festival of, 173.
Terminus: god, represented by pillar, 171-173.
Tertullian: his warning against deities at doors and gates, 97 f.
Teutonic thresholds made high, 12.
Thang, emperor of China, 157.
Thapsacus, equivalent of Tiphsakh, 210.
Thâvesar, temple of Siva at, 157.
Theban rite, kissing ground at threshold of shrine in, 128.
Thebes:
temple of “Silver Threshold” at, 127;
symbols on temples of ancient, 234.
Theocritus: cited, 73.
Theseus setting up pillar, 180 f.
Thief and robber, reference to word, 260.
Thieving goldsmith struck dead at threshold, 122.
Thomson, Dr. W.M.: cited, 70, 222.
Thompson, President Robert Ellis: cited, 176.
Thor, temple of, in Iceland, 160.
Thorolf, reference to, 160.
Thousand and One Nights, reference to, 248.
Thuringian legend of burying child in foundation, 49.
_Thyra_, a translation of _saph_, 207.
Tiamat, reference to, 235.
Tiba, female god of Maui, 150.
Tibet:
disemboweling of devotee in, 125;
Booddhist prayer in, 199.
Tiglath-Pileser I. and boundary lines, 177.
Tigris, sources of, boundary marks at, 178.
Tiki, descendant of Rongo, 152.
Times, The, London, reference to, 61 f.
Timsah, Lake, reference to, 180.
_Tiphsakh_, meaning of, 210.
Tokens:
covenant, 66-74;
of virginity, 243 f.
Tomb:
false door of, in Old Empire of Egypt, 106 f.;
of kings of Persia, inscription relating to sacredness of gate in,
124;
of Alee, kissing threshold of, 124;
of Baha-ed-deen Nakishbend, threshold stone of, 124 f.;
closed door in, representing deceased going to Osiris, 128.
Torch, marriage, origin of, 226.
Touching name of God with finger by Jews, 69 f.
Towkas, marriage custom at threshold among, 35.
Treading on threshold forbidden:
in Persia, Russia, Finland, United States, and among Teutons, 11 f.;
in Europe and America, 13;
tabooed by Tatars, 13.
Tree:
human sacrifices at foot of, 8 f.;
pipal, in Upper India, 156;
a boundary landmark in primitive times, 173 f.;
symbol of feminine in nature, 214, 230, 238;
and pillar, symbolism of, 232;
references to, 237, 259.
“Tree of Knowledge,” reference to, 156.
Trees, sacred:
near doorways in China, Japan, Korea, Siam, and India, 104, 156;
grove of, in religious symbolisms, 230.
Tricha, bridge of, story of sacrifice in building of, 52.
Tristram, H.B.: cited, 260.
Trumbull, H. Clay: cited, 3-5, 57, 123, 180, 226, 244.
_Tseereem_, Hebrew word for hinges, 253.
Tunis:
bloody hand on walls in, 78 f.;
symbol of open hand on graves near, 79;
Jewish custom in, on receiving praise, 79.
Turkestan, threshold stone at tomb of national saint of, 125.
Turkey, sacrifice of, in Ireland, 21.
Turkey:
blood on threshold in marriage in, 26;
marriage custom among Greeks in, 30;
high court of, at palace door, 65;
banners and prayer-rugs inscribed with open hand in, 78.
Turkish building at Columbian Exposition, sacrifices at foundation of,
57.
Turner, Dr. George: cited, 13, 20, 101, 174, 251 f.
Tuscany:
threshold in folk customs in, 17 f.;
exorcism with incense in, 18;
burning incense on threshold in, 42.
Tutelary deity, every building in Egypt placed under protection of, 96
f.
Tylor, Dr. E.B.: cited, 46, 49, 51 f., 231.

Uganda, charms on threshold and door in, 15.
Unchastity atoned for by sprinkling blood on threshold among Dyaks,
20.
_Ungere_, Latin for “to anoint,29 #$2#.
United States:
“Christening” a ship in, 8;
high thresholds in houses of, 12;
stepping over cracks in pavements in, 13;
Bible and salt carried over threshold in, 21;
lifting bride over threshold in, 44;
situation of front door in, 55;
foundation sacrifice in, 57;
horseshoes on door-posts in, 73 f.;
survivals of primal sacredness of threshold in, 147 f.;
boundary marks in, 182;
sacredness of threshold among Scandinavians of, 259.
Unleavened bread, feast of, 216.
_Unxor_, meaning of Latin word, 29.
Uplifted hand:
in Carthage, 78;
in Tunis, 78 f.;
represented among deities of Babylonia, Assyria, Phenicia, and
Egypt, 79 f.;
in seal of Ur-Gur, earliest ruler of “Ur of the Chaldees,” 80;
gods Sin, Shamash, and Asshur, with, 80;
Babylonian king recognized by, 80;
Amenophis IV. before Aten-ra with, 81;
Abraham with, 82;
Psalmist’s reference to, 82;
Isaiah’s reference to God’s, 82;
Assyrian and Hebrew words for swearing by, 83;
in judicial oath, 83;
found on stepped pyramid temples of Polynesia, 83;
power imparted to Egyptian king by touch of, 85;
in South Sea Islands, 148.
Uplifted threshold, 144.
Upsal, wedding customs in old temple of, 140.
“Ur of the Chaldees:”
uplifted hand in seal of earliest ruler of, 80;
temple at, 153;
Abraham at, 160.
Ur-Gur, with uplifted hands before moon-god Sin, 80.
Usurtasen III., King: cited, 179.
_Uxor_, meaning of Latin word, 29.

Vairorongo, sacred stream of under-world, in Islands of Sea, 152.
Vambéry, Arminius: cited, 125.
Vari, or “The-very-beginning,” in Islands of Sea, 151.
Vātea, part man and part fish, in Islands of Sea, 152.
Vatican, bronze pine cone in gardens of, 257.
Vāttu, god of threshold in India, 75.
Vāttuma, god of threshold in India, 95.
_Vāttuma Santhe_, tribute to, god of threshold in India, 95.
Vaux, J. Edward: cited, 140.
Vedas, references to, 99, 197.
Vedi, feminine in Sanskrit, 197.
Vedic:
law of door-sill, 15;
Sutras on stepping over threshold, 36 f.;
teachings concerning temples, 155 f.
Vermilion paint for sign of red hand among Omahas, 85.
Verrall, Margaret de G. See _Harrison and Verrall_.
Victor in Olympian games avoiding city gates, 7.
Virgil:
cited, 29 f.;
his description of arrival of Æneas at court of Queen Dido, 130.
“Virgin Mary’s Hand” among Christians in Syria, 77.
“Virgin of Israel,” 213, 218.
Virginity:
tokens of, 243 f.;
Bible testimony of tokens of, 251.
Vishnoo, god:
reference to, 95;
pagoda of, reference to, 121;
foot of, 156;
seated on serpent, 235.
Vishnooism, concerning temples, 156.
“Vishnu-pad,” reference to, 156.
Vitruvius: his description of temple, 36.
Vlachs, indication of foundation sacrifice in ballad of, 52.
_Vlam_, name for “friend of the bridegroom” among Albanians, 37 f.
“Vodyaoni,” sacrifice to, in Russia, 19.
Volck. See _Mülhau and Volck_.
Volga, altar as threshold among people on, 32.
Voltaire: cited, 202.
Von Löher and Joyner: reference to, 231.
Vulgate: reference to, 207.

Wake, C. Staniland. See _Westropp and Wake_.
Wallace, Donald M.: reference to, 176.
Wallachia, story of foundation sacrifice in, 52.
Wallachians, marriage rite among, 29.
Washburn, President, of Robert College: cited, 66 f.
Water:
and corn offered on threshold, 16 f.;
and honey for bride at threshold, 30;
poured out in pathway of bridegroom among Greeks of Turkey, 30;
of life underneath threshold, in legend of Ishtar, 114;
in temple at Jerusalem, 114;
holy, at doorway of Roman Catholic churches, 147.
Water-spirit, appeasing, in Russia, 19.
Weber’s _Die Lehren d. Talmud_, reference to, 239.
Wedding ceremonies:
among ʾAnazeh Bed´ween, and Armenians in Turkey, 26;
in Syria, 26, 28 f., 38, 196;
in Egypt, 26, 38, 196;
in Cyprus, 27;
among Somalis in Central Africa, 27 f.;
in South Africa, 28;
among fellaheen of Palestine, and Wallachians, 29;
among Greeks of Turkey, and in Morea, 30;
in Rhodes, 30 f.;
in island of Skarpanto and among Morlacchi, in Dalmatia, 31;
in portions of Russia, 31 f.;
among Mordvins of Russia, 32 f., 41-44;
in Holland, 33;
in Germany, 33 f., 138 f.;
among Sea Dyaks of Borneo, 34;
in Central America, 34 f., 45;
in Scotland, 34, 44;
among Towkas, 35;
among Hindoos, 36-38, 40 f.;
among Albanians, 37 f.;
in India, 38, 40 f.;
in Madagascar, 38;
in Abyssinia, 38 f., 131;
among tribes of West Africa, in ancient Assyria, among Khonds of
Orissa, among Tatars, and among Eskimos, 39;
in ancient Rome, 39-41;
in China, 39-41, 196;
in ancient Greece, 39, 41;
in England, 44, 139-142;
in Ireland, 44, 142;
in United States, 44, 147 f.;
in France, 139;
in Sweden, 140 f.;
in Dahomey, Liberia, in various parts of Europe, and in Samoa, 196;
among Muhammadans, 247;
among Christians at Haleb, 248;
in Darfour, 249;
in Samoa, 251.
Wedding:
sacrifice in Cyprus, 27;
threshold custom in Skarpanto, 31;
in Russia, 31 f.;
threshold or hearthstone covenant at, 226.
Weeping worship of Tammuz, 115.
_Wely_, a saint’s tomb, as place of worship in Egypt, 129.
Westropp and Wake: cited, 230.
White hand among American Indians, 90.
Wife:
word for, among Latins, 29;
and threshold in Arabic, 200, 256;
brush-topped pole, symbol of, 214.
Wilkins, W.J.G.: cited, 198, 235 f.
Wilkinson, Sir J.G.:
quotation from, 68 f.;
cited, 81, 96 f., 100, 106, 127 f., 201, 234 f.
Williams, S. Wells: cited, 40, 71, 96, 108, 158.
Williams, Talcott, quotation from, 62 f.
Window:
coffin passed out of, to avoid threshold, in Europe and America, 25;
opened and door closed at death in Europe and America, 25.
Winged sun disk:
over doors of temples in Egypt, 127;
and serpent in Egypt, 234.
Winnebagoes, prominence of hand among, 84.
Winter, feast at close of, among Slavonic peoples, 19.
Wisconsin, sacredness of threshold among Scandinavians in, 259.
Witham in Essex, marriage custom at, 140.
“Witness Heap” of covenant between Jacob and Laban, 171.
Woman:
buried in foundation of bridge of Arta, 52;
four ages of, symbolized among American Indians, 89 f.;
recognized as primitive altar, 197;
form of, pattern of altar form, 197;
and door in Hebrew Scriptures, 253;
in Arabic and German, 256.
Wood, Edward J.:
cited, 31, 44, 131, 138, 140-142;
quotation from, 139.
Wood-apple as witness of marriage, 259.
Woolwas, betrothal custom at threshold among, 34.
Worms, door of synagogue in, 144.
Worship:
at door in Egypt, 127 f.;
covenant, spirit of all true, 221;
origin of rites of, 226;
phallic, perversion of purer idea, 230;
Hindoo, mode of, 236;
of serpent in Bangalore, 258 f.
Wright, Julia McNair: cited, 24.

Ximenez, Francisco, missionary: cited, 73, 98.

Yama as first man and first priest in India, 99.
Yarriba, survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.
Yawning on threshold unpropitious, 11.
Yeha, monoliths in front of temple at, 131.
Yemen, marriage ceremonies in, 248.
Yezidis:
kissing doorway of temple among, 116;
reference to, 190.
_Yoni_, doorway of physical life, 198.
Yü, Chinese for threshold, 256.
Yucatan, doorways inscribed with red hand in, 81 f.
Yuhlui, tutelar god of threshold in China, 95 f.

Zabû, King, reference to, 154.
Zamzam, sacred spring at Meccah, 163.
_Zariru_, Babylonian gate plated with metal called, 111.
Zedekiah, king of Judah, sitting in gate of Benjamin, 64.
Zephaniah:
his curse on Assyria, and his reference to “drought in thresholds,”
115;
foretelling punishment on those that leap over threshold, 117.
Zeus:
House of, on Olympus, 132;
reference to, concerning boundary lines, 171;
image of, as boundary landmark, 172.
Ziggurat, early form of temple, 229.
Zindero, bloody threshold offering in, 8 f.
Zinga, boundaries in, 174.
Zion, laying foundation stone in, 162.
Zuñi Indians, red hand among, 91.

SCRIPTURAL INDEX.

GENESIS.

TEXT PAGE
2 : 8–10 115
2 : 25 239
3 : 1–13, 16 238
3 : 14, 15, 22–24 239
4 : 1, 17, 25 238
11 : 1–9 103
11 : 28 153
11 : 31 80
12 : 1–8 160
13 : 1–3 160
14 : 22 82
15 : 1–6 187, 211, 266
15 : 8–16, 20, 21 187, 211, 266
15 : 7 80, 187, 211, 266
15 : 17–19 187, 211, 244, 266
18 : 1–9 101
19 : 1–25 211
21 : 22–24 170, 244
21 : 25–33 170
22 : 1–13 161
22 : 17 65
25 : 17–19 244
28 : 10–22 112, 160
28 : 36 238
30 : 2 238
30 : 22 253
31 : 43–53 171
49 : 8–17 85

EXODUS.

2 : 23–25 205
3 : 1–6, 11, 12 161
3 : 7–10 161, 205
3 : 19 83
4 : 25, 26 244
5 : 1, 2 205
6 : 1–7 205
6 : 8 82
10 : 21, 29 205
11 : 4–7 206
12 : 1, 2 204, 212
12 : 3–21, 27 204
12 : 22 205, 214
12 : 23 206
13 : 3, 14, 16 83
21 : 2–4 210
21 : 5, 6 65, 210
22 : 2 260
23 : 8–10 119
26 : 1–14 101
29 : 4, 10–12 119
32 : 11 83
32 : 26 63
34 : 12–15 213, 214, 233
34 : 16 213, 214
39 : 32 101
40 : 6, 29 119

LEVITICUS.

1 : 3, 5 119
3 : 2 119
4 : 4, 7 119
8 : 1–36 119
9 : 1, 2 212
12 : 6 119
14 : 11, 23 119
15 : 14, 29 119
16 : 7 119
17 : 2–6, 8, 9 119
17 : 7 119, 213
19 : 21 119
20 : 5–8 213
23 : 5 212

NUMBERS.

6 : 10–18 119
12 : 5 119
14 : 30 82
15 : 39, 40 213
20 : 6 119
21 : 4–9 239
27 : 22, 23 85
35 : 6, 32 151

DEUTERONOMY.

3 : 24 83
4 : 34 83
4 : 41–43 151
5 : 15 83
6 : 4–9 69
6 : 9 69
6 : 21 83
7 : 5 214, 233
7 : 8, 19 83
7 : 13 238
9 : 26 83
11 : 2 83
11 : 13–21 96
12 : 3 214
12 : 31 267
14 : 17 65
16 : 21, 22 233
19 : 1–13 151
19 : 14 170
20 : 5 69
20 : 10–13 262
22 : 13–21 252
25 : 1–9 229
27 : 17 170
28 : 4, 18, 53 238
29 : 12 266
30 : 9 238
31 : 15 119
31 : 16 213

JOSHUA.

2 : 1–20 206, 211
2 : 21 206
5 : 10–12 211
6 : 12–15 211
6 : 16, 17 206, 211
6 : 18–25 206
6 : 26 47
10 : 3–35 58
12 : 11 58
15 : 39 58
20 : 1–9 151

JUDGES.

2 : 17 213
3 : 7 214
7 : 1–25 211
8 : 27, 33 213
11 : 39 238
16 : 3 255
19 : 25 64, 238
19 : 26, 28–30 64
19 : 27 64, 207

RUTH.

4 : 1–10 64

1 SAMUEL.

1 : 19 238
4 : 19 253
5 : 1–5 117
29 : 6 109

2 SAMUEL.

3 : 25 109
6 : 1–19 161
15 : 2–4 64
19 : 8 64
24 : 15–25 161

1 KINGS.

1 : 4 238
2 : 28 58
4 : 24 210
7 : 50 253
14 : 17 207
16 : 34 47

2 KINGS.

5 : 17 161
9 : 22, 23 213
12 : 9 121, 207
12 : 13 207
14 : 19 58
16 : 3 267
17 : 17, 31 267
18 : 4 239
18 : 14–19 58
19 : 20–26, 28–36 211
19 : 27 109, 211
21 : 6 267
22 : 4 121, 207
23 : 10 267
23 : 4 121, 207, 214
25 : 18 121, 207

1 CHRONICLES.

5 : 25 213
9 : 19, 22 207
15 : 23, 24 120

2 CHRONICLES.

3 : 7 207
6 : 32 83
21 : 11 213
23 : 4 120, 207
23 : 5 120
32 : 1–22 211
33 : 3 214
33 : 6 267
33 : 8 120
34 : 9 120, 207

NEHEMIAH.

9 : 7 153
9 : 15 82

ESTHER.

2 : 21 207
6 : 2 207
9 : 12–19 211

JOB.

1 : 21 114
3 : 1–10 252
24 : 2 170

PSALMS.

24 : 2 181
63 : 4 82
73 : 27 213
84 : 10 120
121 : 7 109
121 : 8 70, 109
127 : 3 238
128 : 3 238
132 : 11 238
136 : 38, 39 213

PROVERBS.

3 : 18 238
8 : 34 64
11 : 30 238
22 : 28 170
23 : 10 170
26 : 14 253

ECCLESIASTES.

5 : 15 144

SONG OF SONGS.

4 : 16 238
8 : 8, 9 252

ISAIAH.

3 : 17 253
6 : 4 207
13 : 18 238
24 : 12 66
28 : 16 162
29 : 21 64
37 : 28 109
49 : 22 82
57 : 3 213
57 : 14 112
58 : 12 162
62 : 10 112

JEREMIAH.

3 : 1–15, 20 213
7 : 31 267
13 : 27 213
19 : 5 267

31 : 31, 32 213
34 : 18 266
35 : 4 120, 207

38 : 7–9 64
50 : 26 112
52 : 19 207
52 : 24 120, 207

EZEKIEL.

6 : 9 213
9 : 3 118
10 : 4 118
12 : 2–7 260
16 : 1–7, 9–20, 22–63 213
16 : 8 268
16 : 21 213, 267
19 : 10 238
20 : 26, 31 267
20 : 30 213
20 : 34 83
23 : 1–36, 38–49 213
23 : 37 213, 267
40 : 6, 7 207
41 : 16 207
43 : 8 118, 207
43 : 11 109
46 : 2 118
47 : 1–9 115

DANIEL.

2 : 49 64
5 : 1–30 211
9 : 15 83

HOSEA.

1 : 2 213
2 : 2 213
3 : 1 213
4 : 12–19 213
5 : 3, 4 213
6 : 6, 7, 10 213

AMOS.
5 : 15 64
7 : 8 267
9 : 1 107

MICAH.
6 : 7 238

ZEPHANIAH.

1 : 9 117
2 : 13 115
2 : 14 115, 207

ZECHARIAH.

8 : 16 64
12 : 1, 3 208
12 : 2 207, 208

MATTHEW.

1 : 25 238
6 : 19, 20 260
9 : 14, 15 219
16 : 18 65
16 : 21 215
24 : 43 260
26 : 1–5, 17–30 215

MARK.

2 : 19, 20 219
14 : 12–28 215

LUKE.

5 : 34, 35 219
12 : 39 260
17 : 19, 20 64
22 : 7–20 215

JOHN.

2 : 13 215
3 : 14, 15 239
3 : 16 217
3 : 28–30 218
7 : 1–9 215
10 : 1, 10 6, 261
10 : 2 6
10 : 9 6, 104
13 : 1 215

ACTS.

2 : 30 238
3 : 3, 10 55
4 : 4 85
6 : 6 85
8 : 18 85
13 : 3 85
14 : 8–14 135
19 : 6 85

1 CORINTHIANS.

3 : 10, 11 162
5 : 7, 8 216
11 : 3 219

2 CORINTHIANS.

2 : 16 228

EPHESIANS.

2 : 20, 21 162
3 : 14, 15 217
5 : 23–33 219

1 TIMOTHY.
4 : 14 85
6 : 7 114

HEBREWS.

6 : 2 85
8 : 8, 9 213
10 : 20 186
10 : 28, 29 218

1 PETER.

2 : 5, 6 162

REVELATION.

6 : 9, 10 25
19 : 6–9 220
20 : 1, 2 240
21 : 1–9, 12, 22–27 221, 240
21 : 10, 11, 13–21 240
22 : 1, 2 115, 240
22 : 14, 15 240
22 : 17, 20 221

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENT.
COMMENTS OF SPECIALISTS.

Before their publishing, the proof-sheets of this volume were submitted
to a number of prominent scholars in Europe and America, for their
examination and comment, in order to ascertain if the main thought of
the work seemed justified by the facts known to them in their several
special fields of knowledge and study. Some of the opinions and
suggestions of these scholars as given herewith will have deservedly, in
the eyes of many readers, a weight and value beyond anything that could
be said by the author of this work.

FROM THE REV. DR. MARCUS JASTROW.

As a Jewish clergyman, and as a conservative Bible scholar, the Rev. Dr.
Jastrow is honored on both sides of the Atlantic for his special
attainments in Talmudic and Rabbinical lore. His great work, “A
Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature,” is a monument of his learning and ability in
these fields. He writes:

“I have read your interesting work, ‘The Threshold Covenant,’ with great
attention, and derived from it more information than I can possibly
thank you for.

“As I am unable to form an independent opinion on the bearing of your
evidences on the thesis of your work, I can refer only to those parts of
it which treat of Jewish customs and ideas, and, here, I feel it a
privilege to be permitted to say that I admire your ingenious conception
of the passover covenant in Egypt. Especially interesting, and
undoubtedly correct, is your interpretation of Exodus 12 : 23, according
to which the Lord passes over the threshold in order to visit the
Israelitish house, and will not allow the destroyer to enter.

“It may not be out of place here to direct your attention to a passage
in Talmud Yerushalmi, Aboda Zara III, 42 d, where it is said about the
Philistines: ‘They revered the threshold (_miftan_) more than the
Dagon,’ to which is added, ‘All other nations made (worshiped) only one
_miftan_, but the Israelites made many _miftanoth_,’ which explains the
verse, ‘And I will visit punishment on him who leaps, and on the
_miftan_’ (Zeph. 1 : 9). You will observe that the Talmud quotes the
verse different from the Massoretic text, which reads, ‘on every one who
leaps over the _miftan_.’ I am unable to decide whether the deviation
from the Massoretic text is owing to a different text before the
Talmudic authority under consideration, or merely to a slip of memory,
such as often occurs with those who quote from memory.

“In Talmud Babli, referring to the Philistines in relation to the Dagon,
it is said: ‘They let alone the Dagon and worshiped the _miftan_, for
they said, His prince (genius) has abandoned the Dagon and has come to
sit on the _miftan_.’ All of which proves that there lingered yet in the
memory of the Talmudists the traditional recollection of _miftan_
worship.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. HERMAN V. HILPRECHT.

Oldest among civilizations of which we have any sure record is that of
Babylonia. Among the foremost scholars in that realm is Dr. Hilprecht,
formerly of the University of Erlangen, and now Professor of Assyriology
in the University of Pennsylvania. His prominence is recognized in
Europe as fully as in America. His labors, in the field and in the
study, in connection with the successful Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania, and his monumental work, still in course of
publication, on the Cuneiform Texts brought to light by that expedition,
have added to his reputation on both sides of the ocean, and confirmed
his high standing among the best scholars of the world in his special
department of knowledge.

It was while on his way to Constantinople, to examine the latest “finds”
in Babylonia brought to the Imperial Museum there, with which museum
Professor Hilprecht has an official connection, that he examined the
proof-sheets of “The Threshold Covenant.” Of the work in its entirety he
writes in generous appreciation as follows:

“Your latest book, ‘The Threshold Covenant,’ accompanied me on my trip
to Constantinople. Before we had crossed the Atlantic I had studied it
three times from beginning to end. I take the first opportunity, at
Southampton, to send you these lines, in order to express to you my full
appreciation of what you have offered to the scientific world in your
magnificent work.

“If in your former book, ‘The Blood Covenant,’ you made [as was
suggested by an eminent German theologian] the first successful attempt
to write a theology of the blood, you have given us in your most recent
work a thorough investigation on the significance and history of the
primitive altar upon which blood was shed by men entering into a
covenant with God or their fellow-men. Surely your two books ‘The Blood
Covenant,’ and ‘The Threshold Covenant’ belong together, and should
therefore be studied together. One supplements the other, and the former
furnishes the key to a full understanding of the facts presented in the
latter; and so again on the other side.

“It must have cost you decenniums to gather all the material which you
lay before the reader in such a systematic form. All the nations of the
world, civilized and uncivilized, ancient and modern, seem to have
contributed their share to your stately structure, which has my full
admiration. Viewed in this light alone, your book will always prove a
regular storehouse of knowledge for students of primitive rites and
religions, and of various other kindred subjects.

“It is, of course, impossible for any specialist in one certain line to
fully estimate the hundreds of new features presented in your recent
work. It would be bold on my part, at least, to express an opinion on
questions with which I am not entirely familiar. As, however, you treat
facts which bear closely upon my special line of investigation,–the
oldest history, languages, and civilization of the Euphrates valley, and
of their rites in general,–I can heartily assure you that, according to
my examination, you have proved your main points beyond question.

“It is first of all sure that you are the first who fully recognized,
and in fact rediscovered, the world-wide importance and fundamental
significance of the threshold in all ancient religions. You have
re-established an ancient rite which was practically entirely forgotten
by modern scholars. By restoring the threshold to its proper place in
primitive religions, you have rendered a great service to comparative
religion, archeology, and even philology. Many a statement by ancient
writers was obscure to us, many a word puzzling as to its original
etymology and significance, and not a few facts brought to light by
recent excavations remained incoherent and mysterious, because we had
lost sight of the significance of the threshold, which, very
appropriately, you style the first altar of the human race.

“In reading your book I could not help wondering that all these
combinations which appear quite clear and plausible now were not made a
long while ago by other investigators. The earliest inscribed monuments
of ancient Babylonia, dating from the fifth millennium before Christ,
are door-sockets which bear ample witness to the correctness of your
theory. Professor Hommel’s recent ingenious analysis of the Assyrian
word for “to pray,” which was a result of his study of your ‘Threshold
Covenant,’ is one of the strongest evidences in favor of your arguments.
Our own recent excavations of the lowest strata of the temple of Bêl in
Nippur, which takes us back to 7000 B.C., testify in the same direction.

“Of the greatest importance for the study of the Old Testament religion
is your doubtless correct explanation of the Passover. It is entirely in
harmony with ancient customs, with philology, and with common sense.
According to the old interpretation this rite hangs, so to speak, in the
air, without any connection, and yet we know from many other instances
that Old Testament rites of the Hebrews stand in the closest possible
connection with those practiced by surrounding nations. In the light of
your investigations I regard it as an established fact, and as one of
the chief results of your labors, that Jehovah in entering into covenant
with his ‘bride Israel’ did not invent a new rite, but took one with
which his chosen people were already familiar, and gave to it a new and
deeper significance in its new use and relations.

“Your final chapter, ‘Outgrowths and Perversions of this Rite,’ is
likewise full of thought and new suggestions. One cannot help wishing
you might have gone beyond the scope of your book and expressed yourself
more in detail as to the precise connection in which tree and phallus
worship stand to the threshold in each of the principal ancient
religions, and what _rôle_ the snake played in the further development
or determination of the primitive rite so excellently discussed by you.
There is no doubt in my mind that all these different rites, however
independent of each other they may appear in later times, are but
different outgrowths of the same original root and later perversions of
original uplifting thought,–search for unity between men and God. But as
you yourself have given only brief indications of this, I wisely abstain
from entering into details.

“Permit me to congratulate you upon the completion of a work which, in
the nature of things, must attract the general attention of scholars.
Whatever may be the interpretation of certain details contained in your
book, the one fact remains sure: it will always be your great merit to
have penetrated into the long-forgotten secrets of one of the most
ancient rites of humanity, and, by pointing out its great importance for
and its connection with other rites, to have constructed a solid basis
for further investigations, and to have put loose facts together, and
given them a well-defined place in a regular system.”

It is undoubtedly true that the fresh material from the excavations at
Nippur will furnish additional illustrations of the main thesis of this
work. Dr. Hilprecht will be sure to note these.

FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.

As an Arabist as well as an Assyriologist, and as a bright thinker and
learned scholar, in various departments of knowledge, Dr. Fritz Hommel,
Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Munich, has a
deservedly high standing. His great illustrated “History of Babylonia
and Assyria” is a marvelous treasure-house of information concerning the
history of the earlier civilizations of the East; and his later studies
in connection with the researches of Dr. Edward Glaser in South Arabia
have poured a flood of light on the influence of ancient Arabia in the
Oriental world. In the realm of Semitic philology Dr. Hommel is acute
minded, and peculiarly alert and suggestive.

Having read the earlier pages of “The Threshold Covenant,” Professor
Hommel wrote briefly of his interest in the main thought of the work,
and promised further comments when he has completed its examination. The
necessity of putting these pages to press forbids the waiting for his
valued conclusions. His first comments are:

“I am now reading with great interest the proof-sheets of your new book,
which you were kind enough to send me. Although at this moment
overburdened with other work, I have already got as far as page 70, and
hope in the course of a fortnight to be able to send you my judgment.

“To page 60 I wish now to note that already in the time of Hammurabi
disputes were settled at the _gate_, and, indeed, of the gate of the
temple. See Strassmaier’s Warka Tablets, 30 (B. 57) in Meissner’s
_Beiträze zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 42 f.

“An interesting discovery, of which perhaps you still may make use, I
made yesterday. It is that the Babylonian _suppû_ (‘to pray,’ ‘to
entreat’) is originally merely the verb formed from the noun _sippu_, ‘a
threshold.’ The first sense, indeed, of _suppû_ is ‘to sacrifice,’
because that was done at the threshold. To find a parallel for this
transference from the meaning ‘to offer’ to the meaning ‘to pray,’
compare the Arabic _‘ătără_, to sacrifice,’ with the Hebrew _‘ātăr_, to
pray.’[713] To this discovery I, of course, came through your deductions
with regard to the importance of the threshold.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. A.H. SAYCE.

No Oriental scholar and archeologist is more widely known in Europe and
America, and beyond, or is surer of a hearing on any subject of which he
writes, from both those who agree and those who differ with him, than
Professor Sayce of Oxford University. The numerous published works of
Professor Sayce have made him extensively known among scholars, and
popularly. Prominent among these are the Hibbert Lectures on “The
Religion of the Ancient Babylonians,” “The Ancient Empires of the East,”
“Fresh Light from Ancient Monuments,” “The Life and Times of Isaiah,”
“The Hittites,” “Patriarchal Palestine,” and “The Egypt of the Hebrews.”
He now writes from Luxor, in Egypt, while passing the winter, as usual,
on the Nile, in his dahabiyeh Istar:

“A thousand thanks for the advance sheets of ‘The Threshold Covenant.’
Like all your work, it is brimful of accurate knowledge and new points
of view, and is written so charmingly that a child could understand and
follow you. I need not say I have been devouring the pages and admiring
their wealth of references. While I read, you carried me along with you,
and, if you had asked my opinion as I went on, I should have said that
you had made out your case step by step. But now that I come to look
back upon the work as a whole, the skeptical side of my nature comes
uppermost, and I have an uneasy feeling that the proof is too complete.
That you have made out your case to a large extent is clear, but whether
allowance ought not to be made for other elements is not so clear to me.
Human nature is complex, and we still know so little about the early
history of civilized man! And between civilized and uncivilized man the
gulf seems to have always been as great as it is today.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. W. MAX MÜLLER.

As an Egyptologist, Professor Müller is recognized for his scholarship
and learning on both sides of the Atlantic. A favorite pupil of Georg
Ebers, he continued his studies at the University of Berlin under Adolf
Erman, and soon made a mark for himself. His _Asien und Europa nach
Altägypt Denkmaller_,–“Asia and Europe from the Egyptian Monuments,”–at
once gave him high standing in that field. Expressing his regret that he
was not able to give more time to the examination of “The Threshold
Covenant” in its proof-sheets, he says:

“You did not hear from me earlier because my too close occupation
prevented my studying your book as thoroughly as I wished, and
contributing, as I hoped to, something on the threshold question. Even
now I have to write hastily.

“I have found your book most interesting and suggestive, so that I
heartily recommend its publication. I hope to be able to read it more
carefully, and to give a more detailed criticism, after a while.

“A few remarks:

“Page 103.–_Per-ao_ [Pharaoh]–gate, door. Not to be proved. Strangely,
the root _pire_ means ‘to go out.’ Originally _pr_ may have been ‘door,’
but not in historic times.

“Page 161.–[Calling the region of Sinai, the ‘land of God’.] A mistake!
The ‘land of God’ is only the land on the Red Sea. No such records known
of Mt. Sinai.

“Page 180, line 5.–[A memorial stone spoken of as marking the boundary
line.] How do you know it was a boundary stone?

“There is rich material of better and earlier passages on boundary
stones than that given on page 180.

“_El gisr_ means ‘bridge.’ The dictionaries do not give ‘threshold.’

“Page 184.–Sinai, an ‘Egyptian boundary line’? Still less did the ‘holy
mountain’ (p. 185) ever mark the southern frontier. The threshold
sacrifices are evidently a mistake. But I do not have at hand Brugsch’s
book–a very fanciful and unreliable book.

“I hope that as soon as a very pressing work has been finished, I shall
be able to revise all your passages bearing on Egypt. But even if I
should find some more of these minor faults, they would not change the
good general impression of the book.”

It will be seen that none of the points questioned by Professor Müller
are vital to the main thesis of the book, or essential to its
illustration of the prevalence of the threshold covenant customs in
Egypt. Moreover, it will be observed, by a reference to my authorities
at the pages mentioned, that the facts and opinions I have presented at
these points are on the authority of Brugsch Bey and other scholars. The
scholarship of Professor Müller, of course, gives him the right to
question the testimony of any other Egyptologist.

As to the boundary line of Egypt in the Sinaitic peninsula, that simply
refers to the famous tablet and inscription, in Wady Maghara, of Snefru,
the great king of the fourth dynasty, when he had first extended his
dominions thus far.[714] What was then Egypt’s boundary line of conquest
in that direction may, indeed, not have continued to be so. The same may
be said of the southern boundary of Egypt on the Nubian frontier.[715]

My reasons for giving “the threshold” as a meaning of _el gisr_ are to
be found in full in my “Kadesh-barnea,” at pages 50, 339, 341 f.

It is to be noted that Professor Müller had already pointed out to me
the existence of a temple at Thebes bearing the name of the “Silver
Threshold,”[716] after the days of the eighteenth dynasty. He promises
other notes in this direction when he has time for further research.

-----

Footnote 713:

This is the discovery to which Professor Hilprecht refers in his
letter, Professor Hommel’s note having been received just before
Professor Hilprecht sailed for Constantinople.

Footnote 714:

See Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 468 f.; Maspero’s _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 242, note, 391.

Footnote 715:

See Erman, pp. 467, 503, and Maspero, pp. 484, 490.

Footnote 716:

See p. 127, _supra_.

-----

FROM PROFESSOR DR. C.P. TIELE.

As an Orientalist, and as a student of religions, Professor Tiele,
Professor of the History of Religions in the University of Leyden, has a
position of eminence before the world. His publications of importance
are numerous, prominent among which stand “The Religion of Zarathustra
[Zoroaster];” “Comparative History of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian
Religions;” “The Place of the Religions of Savages in the History of
Religion;” “History of Religions of Antiquity to the Time of Alexander
the Great;” and “Babylonian-Assyrian History.” A word from Professor
Tiele, on the theme of this book, has exceptional weight. He says:

“I thank you very much for your kindness in sending me your most
interesting book, ‘The Threshold Covenant.’... As far as I can judge,
you have not only given a clear exposition of the facts pertaining to
this widespread custom, but you have also shown the right way to catch
the meaning underlying those strange usances.

“Of late I have been mostly occupied by the study of the religions of
civilized people; nevertheless, I ever take a lively interest in the
study of primitive man and the origin of religious rites. I have to say
something on these questions in the Gifford Lectures, which I have been
invited to deliver before the University of Edinburgh next term. So your
book came just in time to know your meaning on the subject, and to
revise my opinion by comparing it with yours.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. E. WASHBURN HOPKINS.

The successor, at Yale University, of Professor William D. Whitney, in
the chair of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, is Professor E.
Washburn Hopkins, who before held the same chair in Bryn Mawr College.
This fact in itself is an indication of his position as a scholar; and
his latest work, “The Religions of India,” in the series of “Handbooks
on the History of Religions,” bears testimony to his learning and
ability in that realm. Of the matters treated in this volume he says:

“I have read your ‘Threshold Covenant’ with great interest and pleasure.
The statements made in respect of Hindu rites all appear to me to be
correct, and some of them might be made stronger, notably in the case of
the functions of the altar.

“I cannot say that I agree with you in all respects in your inductions
from the ceremonial of the Door, but I have at least been furnished with
much food for reflection and hints for observation in future
investigation on these lines. Your work is a storehouse of useful data,
and illustrates many strange customs of India by parallels from other
countries, though I should hesitate to refer so much to one primitive
principle.

“But, at all events, the facts of the religious phase which you
emphasize have been set forth clearly, correctly, and fully, as regards
India, to whatever conclusion they may point. I have had great pleasure
in following your argument through to the end.”

It may be mentioned that the added facts as to the Door, given in the
Appendix, were not in the proof-sheets submitted to Professor Hopkins.

FROM THE REV. DR. WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS.

No American scholar is better fitted than the Rev. Dr. William Elliot
Griffis to speak of Japanese manners and customs, and of the religions
and modes of thought of the people of Japan. After an extended residence
in that country in connection with the Imperial University of Tokio, he
has studied and written of it and of its inhabitants. “The Mikado’s
Empire,” “The Religions of Japan,” “Japan in History, Folk Lore, and
Art,” are among the best known and most valuable of his works in that
field. Of “The Threshold Covenant” he says heartily, after an
examination of its pages:

“Your general theory is abundantly confirmed in the early life and
customs of Chinese Asia, and especially in the history of early Japan. I
should, of course, be glad to call together a council of native Japanese
friends, and some of my returned countrymen, and talk over your book,
but this is impossible at present, and press of many duties prevents me
from doing justice to the work, as I should like to do. Such
observations as I may throw out, though imperfect, will, I trust, be
suggestive. I have read the book twice, and consider it a work of the
first order of value.

“In mediæval and modern Japan, it must be remembered, many of the
ancient customs and primitive native ideas have been not only changed,
but obliterated, by Buddhism, which, by its excessive reverence for
life, put an end to those customs which had in them the shedding of
blood, or the taking of life. In ancient days it was the pretty nearly
universal custom to build human beings alive in the walls of castles or
strongholds, and the piers or foundations of bridges. Many are the
places rich in traditions of the _hito-gashira_, or human pillars, who
were lowered into the sea to be drowned (to appease the dragon, etc.),
or made, as it were, cement for the foundation-stone,–to which I have
alluded in my ‘Religions of Japan.’

“What may be called the ‘gate etiquette’ in Japan is elaborate and
detailed. More than once have the foreign teachers, denizens, and
tourists, had quarrels with the Japanese school, municipal, and national
authorities, because they unwittingly often violated ancient Japanese
traditions and customs. I myself remember how the _mom-ban_, or
gate-keeper, used to refuse admittance to my _jin-riki-sha_ because I
had sitting with me a Japanese student or lad, who could not, in native
ideas of propriety, share with me (a guest) the honor of riding inside
the chief gate of mansion or college. Concerning troubles with native
servants and others, who were inclined to shelter themselves under the
foreigners’ prestige and privilege, I need not speak in detail. The term
‘Mikado,’ as you may know, is literally Sublime Porte, Awful Gate, or
Portal of Majesty. I believe there is profound significance in the idea
of having the gateway to a Buddhist temple a structure which is in many
cases almost as imposing as the sacred edifice itself. Each Shintō
shrine has before it, at some distance, a _tori-i_; and every little
wayside shrine, in size from a doll-house to a one-room cottage, has
almost invariably a little _tori-i_, or gateway, before it.

“The most elaborate ceremonies and gradations of honor are connected
with the threshold of the Imperial Palace, and for a thousand years or
more were rigorously observed in Kioto, and doubtless to great extent
are yet in the new palace in Tokio.

“In a Japanese marriage, when conducted on the old order of ceremonies,
the origin of which goes back into primeval twilight, the bride goes
from her own home always to be married in her husband’s home and to
become a part of it. As she approaches her new home, fires are lighted
on either side of the threshold or door of entrance of the bridegroom’s
house. The name of these fires is ‘garden torches.’ As she proceeds up
the corridor, inside the house, two pairs of men and women, one on each
side, have mortars in which they pound rice. As the palanquin passes,
the two mortars are moved together, and the meal from the two is mixed
so as to become one mess. During the same time two candles have been
lighted on either side of the passage way, and after the passing of the
palanquin, the two flames are first joined in one and then blown out. Of
course, these ceremonies are _now_ used only among the higher classes.

“In all the Buddhist temples beside the great gateway and the ordinary
temple entrance there is a distinctly marked sill, behind which is the
altar, and over which the worshiper must not come.

“I am very much inclined to believe that there is a significance which
allies itself to ‘The Threshold Covenant’ in the _ye-bumi_ or ‘trampling
on the cross,’ observed during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and
nineteenth centuries in Japan in order to eradicate all traces of
Christianity. The pagan authorities made a copper engraving of the
crucifix, and putting it on the ground, between a structure that was
evidently meant for the doorway with a threshold under it, they
compelled every one–man, woman, and child–to step upon the figure of
Christ and the cross in token of their rejection of everything belonging
to Christianity.

“In ancient Japan, and all through her history, great care was taken
with boundaries and boundary marks, the latter being sometimes masses of
charcoal buried in the earth, or inscribed pillars, the bases of which
were charred. Mr. Ernest Satow, the first authority on things Japanese,
believes that these boundary pillars, which, in some cases (as in Corea
today), were carved to represent certain gods, afterwards became phallic
emblems. Before most of the Buddhist temples of importance are to be
found the two guardian deities Ni-ō (two kings), and before many
thousands of shrines of both Shintō and Buddhism is the _ama-inu_
(heavenly dogs), which are the guardians of the entrance to the temple.

“Time would fail me to tell of the various fetiches placed over and
beside the doorways and gates. Beside the very elaborate New Year’s
symbolism signifying prosperity, longevity, congratulations, etc., there
is always, on the last night of the year, a sort of ‘purging out of the
old leaven,’ cleaning up of the house, and exorcism, by means of beans
as projectiles, of all evil and evil spirits. Then bunches of thorny
leaves, like holly, are affixed outside on the door lintel. Over the
doorway of almost every house of country folk and many of the
townspeople, one can see the wooden charms nailed up. These are bought
in the temples of the priests as well as the packages of sacred paper
with Sanskrit letters or monograms for the better class of houses.

“Besides the red cord with which almost every present in Japan is tied,
the stamp of the red hand on or at the side of the door, either on the
wood itself or on a sheet of paper, nailed up beside the door, is very
common at particular times.

“The Mecca of Japanese Shintō is at Isé, where the temples have had from
time immemorial ‘only one foundation.’ The buildings are renewed every
twenty years on the same spot. For many centuries it has been the custom
to rebuild Buddhist temples on the same foundation when destroyed by
fire, or when ‘captured’ from Shintoist to Buddhist ownership....

“Let me call your attention to the idea underlying the political and
religious covenant of the great Iroquois Confederacy–the most remarkable
political structure of North American Indian life. The five tribes
(later a sixth was added) called their dwelling-place in New York,
between Niagara and the Hudson ‘the Long House’ after the typical
Iroquois dwelling in which lived many families. Few Iroquois lived east
of Schenectady, though they went to fish in the Hudson River, which they
then named (a) ‘Schenectady.’ Schenectady (which in the Indian
conception was the region in their extreme east) means, when analyzed,
‘just outside the threshold,’ or ‘without the door.’ While Onondaga was
the central fore-place of the Confederacy, the site of Schenectady had
special sacredness in the minds of the Iroquois, and the Mohawks, who
occupied this portion of the country, were called ‘the guardians of the
threshold.’

“Van Curler (Arendt Van Curler), one of the real ‘makers of America,’
who knew the Indians so well, and who made that great covenant with them
which kept the Iroquois, despite all French intrigue, bribery, and
opposition, faithful (for two centuries, till the Revolution divided
even the white men), first to the Dutch, then to the English, knew this
Indian reverence for the threshold, and took a just advantage of it. The
fact that ‘The Covenant of Corlear’ was made on the threshold of their
Long House gave it such sacredness in the eyes of the Indians that it
was _never broken_. In all their later oratory, for two centuries they
referred to this covenant. Besides calling the governors of New York
‘Corlear’ (the only instance, as Francis Parkman once wrote me, in which
the Indians applied a _personal_ name instead of making use of a
material object, figuratively, to a governor,–‘fish,’ ‘pen,’ ‘big
mountain,’ etc.), the Mohawks of Canada to this day, as I heard them
speak it after personal inquiry, call Queen Victoria ‘Kora Kowa,’ that
is, ‘the great Corlear’ (Van Curler).”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. JOHN P. MAHAFFY.

As an authority in the field of Greek antiquities, as well as a scholar
of wide learning in various other fields, Professor Mahaffy, of Dublin
University, stands in high repute. Among his many published works, in
proof of this, are his “Twelve Lectures on Primitive Civilization,”
“Prolegomena to Ancient History,” “Social Life in Greece from Homer to
Menander,” “Greek Antiquities,” “Rambles and Studies in Greece,” “Greek
Life and Thought from Alexander to the Roman Conquest,” “The Greek World
under Roman Sway,” and “The Empire of the Ptolemies.” Returning the
proof-sheets of “The Threshold Covenant” to the author, he says
generously: “Your learning is to me quite astonishing, and I could not
venture to criticise you except in a passing way, as I read your proofs
hastily. But you will find [on them] rough notes in pencil, only to show
what I thought at the moment.”

In comment on the custom, in many lands, of carrying out the dead from a
house or a city through a special door or gate, instead of over the
threshold at the principal entrance,[717] he says: “At present, in the
farmhouses about Hoorn, in Holland, there is a state door opened only
for marriages and funerals. The family use a side or back door
only.”[718] Again, “the ἱερὰ πύλη (_hiera pule_, ‘sacred gate’) at
Athens seems to have been an accursed gate, through which criminals only
were led out.”

In confirmation of the claim that human life, or blood, was deemed
essential in the foundation, or the threshold laying of a city,[719]
Professor Mahaffy says: “Great Hellenistic cities, as, for instance,
Antioch, had a girl sacrificed at their foundation. It was she,
apparently, that afterwards appeared as the personification of the city,
ἡ τύχη [_hē tuchē_, ‘the fortune,’] as it was called.”

“The ‘red hand of the O’Neills’ is a famous coat-of-arms well known in
Ireland. Lord O’Neill now bears it.”

As to my assumption that the first hearthstone must have been, in the
nature of things, at the threshold of the cave or tent or hut, as it
still is among primitive peoples, and that the first stone laid at the
corner, or at the doorway, of a house or building, was, by the very fact
of its first laying, the threshold of that structure, Professor Mahaffy
says: “I don’t believe in the identification of (1) foundation stone,
(2) threshold, (3) house corner, (4) hearthstone, without clear proof.”

-----

Footnote 717:

See pp. 23–25, _supra_.

Footnote 718:

This was so in parts of New England, fifty years ago. I have seen the
main hall or front “entry” of a farmhouse in Connecticut used as a
bedroom, with a high-post state bedstead against the front door. In
case of a funeral or wedding the bedstead would be removed, in order
that the door might be opened.–H.C.T.

Footnote 719:

See pp. 45–57, _supra_.

-----

FROM PROFESSOR DR. WILLIAM A. LAMBERTON.

In Dr. Lamberton, Professor of Greek, and Dean of the Department of
Philosophy, the University of Pennsylvania has a scholar as acute and
discerning in his observations as he is full and accurate in knowledge
in his special field of classic Greek. He has been familiar with the
results of my researches during my progress of recent years, and he has
this to say, after examining the proof-sheets of the completed work:

“Your induction seems to me to be very wide, and to include in its sweep
all phases of civilization, which is practically as much as to say all
periods of human existence, from the most primitive on.

“The significance of the threshold as altar, place of covenanting and
worship, in house, temple, and domain, I think is completely made out.

“Very striking is the smiting of the blood, as sign of the covenant
relation, upon the posts of the doorway; and in particular the mark of
the red hand. The connection you endeavor to show between all this and
the marriage rite is, to say the least of it, suggestive. The mystery of
the gift and transmission of life, it has always seemed to me, early
struck man; and that it did not have its issue only in perverted forms,
is clear from the fragmentary glimpses we get into the Eleusinian
mysteries, celebrated in honor of divinities of productivity.
Purification from sin and blessedness in the next world appear to have
been among the hopes of the initiated.

“May I call your attention to one or two points? The Greek word for
altar, βωμός (_bomos_), altar, from root βα (_ba_), seen in βαίνειν
(_bainein_), ‘to step.’

“May not the whipping of the boys mentioned on page 175 be a
misinterpreted substitute for sacrifices at the boundary posts, perhaps
even at one time human sacrifices? Such later modifications of sacrifice
into symbolic whippings are not unheard of elsewhere.”

Professor Lamberton’s suggestion that the Greek word for altar has its
origin in a “step” has confirmation in the fact, already noted, that the
earliest temples were a shrine at the summit of a series of steps, as in
a step-pyramid, in Babylonia, Egypt, Canaan, Mexico, Peru, and the South
Sea Islands.[720] Is there not a reference to this ordinary mode of
building an altar among the outside nations, in the divine command to
Israel in the wilderness as to the building of an altar to Jehovah?
“Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness
be not discovered thereon.”[721]

-----

Footnote 720:

See p. 111 f., _supra_.

Footnote 721:

Exod. 20 : 26.

-----

FROM PROFESSOR DR. DANIEL G. BRINTON.

In the realm of American antiquities, and of anthropology generally, Dr.
Brinton, Professor of American Archæology and Linguistics in the
University of Pennsylvania, stands foremost. He has been President of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and his
knowledge and his work have had marked recognition in the International
Oriental Congresses, in the American Philosophical Society, in the
Academy of Natural Sciences, and in other learned bodies. He writes:

“I have gone over, with constantly increasing interest, your pages on
‘The Threshold Covenant,’ an interest associated with admiration of the
wide reading you have brought to bear on the theme, and the temperate
and enlightened spirit in which you have presented the facts.

“You have, without question, established the practical universality of
the rites and ceremonies you describe, and the ideas from which they
took their origin. Your volume is another and powerful witness to the
parallelisms of culture, and to the unity in the forms of expression of
the human mind.

“These analogies and identities are, as you well know, open to several
interpretations or explanations. The main one offered by you seems to
me, as a fact, quite probable; certainly it was constantly associated
with such rites.

“I am not able altogether to agree with the point of view expressed in
your Preface, and on pages 193–195, in reference to the general origin
and trend of religious ideas; but possibly I should find myself closer
to your position were I to see it more amply defined. I cannot think the
earliest religions were, as a rule, more ‘uplifting’ than the later
ones; I think there was a general progress upwards.

FROM THE REV. DR. EDWARD T. BARTLETT.

Dean Bartlett, of the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church
of Philadelphia, is prominent as a devout and careful Bible scholar, who
has the confidence of the Christian community to a rare degree. He was
the first president of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, and
he is the vice-president of the Society of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis. His work, on the “Scriptures Hebrew and Christian,” as an
introduction to the study of the Bible, won for him commendation from
eminent scholars. Having read the proof-sheets of this book, Dean
Bartlett writes:

“I thank you for the opportunity to read your book ‘The Threshold
Covenant.’ And I also want to thank you for allowing me to know
something of the growth of your thought on the subject, in the frequent
conversations we have had about it during the years past. Ever since I
came into the privilege of calling you friend I have been a witness of
the truth of your statement in the Preface, that your theory is wholly a
result of induction, that it came to you out of the gathered facts,
instead of the facts being gathered in support of the theory. What I
know as to your method would lead me to expect a result that must stand,
and there are few writers who would be for me as authoritative as you in
matters which I could not verify for myself. But here you furnish the
means of verification.

“As the subject has come up between us from time to time and part by
part, I have been led to think over what you told me, and it has seemed
to me that nothing could exceed the care with which you advanced in your
induction. And now that I review the work as a whole, I am convinced
that you have demonstrated your theory. In doing so, you have thrown a
whole flood of new bright light on primitive culture, on some of the
sacredest phases of human life in all ages, on many places of Scripture
from the first chapter to the last, and on the central sacraments of the
Old and New Covenants.

“If this light came to me now for the first time in all its fulness, I
am not sure whether I should be startled and almost blinded by it, or
whether I should, at first at least, altogether fail to appreciate it.
But you have been giving it to me gradually as it came to you, and so I
have been in a position to become adjusted to it, and also to test its
illumining quality. I find that it is not transitory, but permanent, not
a flash but a steady light, in which the great objects of our Christian
faith stand clearly revealed.

“I sincerely congratulate you upon the completion of such an important
and illuminating work.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. T.K. CHEYNE.

Just as the final pages of this volume are going to press, a valued
communication concerning them is received from Professor Cheyne, of
Oxford University. Professor Cheyne is Oriel Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, and Canon of Rochester. He
is well known on both sides of the Atlantic as a prominent English
representative of the school of modern “higher criticism,” or
“historical criticism.” He was a member of the Old Testament Revision
Company, and he contributed many important articles on biblical subjects
to the ninth edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica.” In 1889 he
delivered the Bampton Lectures on “The Historical Origin and Religious
Ideas of the Psalter,” and his various works on Old Testament
literature, including Job, the Psalms, Solomon, Isaiah, and Jeremiah,
have made him familiar to English readers the world over. The kindly,
frank, and courteous comments of Professor Cheyne on “The Threshold
Covenant” are the more highly valued in view of the fact that he has had
occasion to suppose that the author’s standpoint of biblical criticism
was not quite the same as his own. He says:

“I am delighted to have been able to make early acquaintance with a book
so full of facts which really illuminate the dark places of primitive
times. That the explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures profits much by it,
is clear. Thank you for having devoted so much patient and thoughtful
care to the accumulation and interpretation of the facts. I have never
doubted your singular capacity for archeological work, and have only
regretted that there has not been greater fellow-feeling with the
critics (in the popular sense,–for you, too, are critical, though not
quite in the right sense and to the extent required, if I may personally
say this).

“I notice on page 46 f. a reference to the foundation of Jericho by
Hiel. It appears to me that the idea suggested by archeology is only
defensible on the principles generally associated with ‘historical
criticism.’ If this idea is in any way historically connected with the
act of Hiel related in 1 Kings 16 : 34 (wanting in LXX), and pointed to,
whether in reality or in the honest, though faulty, imagination of the
writer, in Joshua 6 : 26, we must suppose that the act of Hiel was
misunderstood by the critics of these two passages. For the deaths of
Abiram and Segub are referred to as divine _judgments_ upon Hiel for his
violation of the _ḥerem_, or ban, laid upon the site of Jericho,
whereas, according to the archeological theory, Hiel offered his
children as foundation sacrifices, believing that he could thus bring a
blessing on the city of Jericho. No plain reader will understand the
connection of the archeological idea and the two passages of Old
Testament–as it appears to me.

“The connection has been surmised by others before you,–probably you can
tell me who first struck out the idea. Is it in Tylor, or where? I
cannot remember. Winckler (_Geschichte Israel_, Part I, 1895) expresses
his adhesion to it. Kuenen (Onderzoek, I [1886], p. 233) holds that
there was a misunderstanding of the traditional facts on the part of the
author of the prediction in Joshua 6 : 26 in its present form, and of
the author of the notice in 1 Kings 16 : 34; he thinks that Hiel
sacrificed his two sons, but does not appear to recall the archeological
facts. I think he ought to have recalled them. But he is right in the
main, as it seems to me.

I have no prejudice against archeological illustrations of customs or of
phraseology. On the contrary, I delight in them. I have for many years
been on the archeological side, as well as on the critical....

“Robertson Smith took the right course, at once critical and
archeological. Only he could not do everything, and he purposed to limit
himself, to a great extent, to those branches of archeology which he
knew at first hand, or in which he could trust the experts. He would not
trust the English (biblical) archeologists, because they were not
critical.

“Are you right about (God’s) ‘strong hand,’ etc., page 83? And what
connection has _teraphim_ with _threshold_ (p. 109)? Bonomi is no
critic. You are very convincing about the passover blood.

“I will write again if any special notes suggest themselves. A number of
references in the Old Testament and the New Testament must be open to
divers interpretations; _but I habitually act upon your own principles_.
Phrases which seem to us simple, are often full of references which
archeology alone can explain. _Macte esto._”

ADDITIONAL FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.

Before this Supplement is finally printed, there comes a second
communication from Professor Hommel of Munich, as already promised by
him.[722] In this new communication are suggestions and words of
appreciation that will be welcomed by many readers, as coming from such
a source. Professor Hommel says:

“Only a few days ago I finished reading your highly interesting little
book, ‘The Threshold Covenant,’ and I hasten to write to you, that I
have read it with ever-increasing interest, and have learned infinitely
much from it. Our views regarding the high antiquity and the unity of
human culture receive entirely new light through this work; in addition,
a large number of old oriental and biblical ways and customs now become
intelligible and clear.

“Manifestly correct, and indeed most happy, is your derivation of the
threshold cult, and of sacrifice in general, from the first human blood
shed on crossing the threshold of woman; also the important explanation
of the signs for life, which I have compared: Egyptian, Babylonian,
(Compare _vulva_.) Moreover, your explanation of the passover is much
more satisfactory than taking _pesakh_ in the sense of ‘to pass by.’

“Permit me now to offer a few remarks, of which you may still be able to
avail yourself.

“With the symbol of the red hand may also be compared the hands upon the
Sabaean bronze tablets (_Z.D.M.G._, Vol. 19, plate XI., and especially
plate VII.), where fourteen hands of seven gods are pictured above the
inscription. Furthermore, see Pinches’ Inscribed Babylonian Tablets,
belonging to the collection of Sir Henry Peek, Part III., p. 66; a seal
cylinder, on which appears a raised hand between the god and the priest.

“On page 100 [of your book].–More accurately, I is _house_ as well as
temple; I-GAL is palace (_í-gal íkallu_); but Hebrew and Arabic _hekal_
is ‘temple,’ ‘Holy of Holies’ (Hebrew, also ‘palace’).

“On page 105.–That the design in question, on the old Babylonian seal
cylinder, represents the sun gates, is a discovery made by your own
countryman, Dr. W. Hayes Ward (American Journal of Archeology, III.,
nos. 1–2, p. 52).

“On page 108.–The Arabic _mihrâb_ is a loan word from the South Arabic
and Ethiopic, _mikrâb_, temple; literally, ‘praying-place.’

“On page 171.–In South Arabic inscriptions _wathan_ signifies
‘boundary-pillar,’ and at the same time ‘statue of god,’ ‘idol.’

“On page 180.–_El gisr_ is literally ‘bridge.’ The bridge was also
looked upon as a gate, as leading from one shore to the other.

“On page 229.–Sacred prostitution. Compare Babylonia _kadishtu_
(literally, holy person), Hebrew _kādusha_, ‘harlot.’

“On page 233 (note).–The Babylonian _patânu_, ‘to hold the sacrificial
meal,’ ‘to eat,’ _naptanu_, ‘meal,’ is connected with Hebrew _miphtan_.
I am inclined to believe also that the Babylonian _ʿgish-da=pitnu_,
really means ‘threshold;’ also that _gish-sa_, _ush-sa_, a bridal gift,
is originally ‘threshold.’

“On page 234.–The ‘serpent’ of the boundary stone was originally the
Milky Way. The other symbols are animals of the Zodiac.

“On page 235 (note 3).–Compare, also, Hommel, _Babylonische Ursprung der
Ægypt. Kultur_ (fight of Merodach with the serpent=fight of Rê ‘with
ʿApep’).

“On page 238.–_Nekhushtân_, the name the serpent of Moses, is derived
from נחשת, ‘_vulva_,’ or, at all events, is related to this word.”

-----

Footnote 722:

See p. 313, _supra_.

-----

Transcriber’s Note:

Minor errors or inconsistencies of punctuation or formatting have been
corrected silently. There were a number of occasions where quotation
marks were not balanced. Where possible the cited source has been
consulted. It was not always possible to surmise the scope of quoted
material, in which case it is noted below, but unchanged in the text.

In at least one case, on p. 125, the quotation from Ármin Vámbéry’s
_Travels in Central Asia_ (see note 361) was incorrectly marked.
Quotation marks have been added in order to properly denote those
portions which directly follow the source.

In the scriptural index, on p. 303, the entries for 1 Timothy are
corrupt, with the chapter appearing at the end of the entry, rather than
at the beginning:

------------------

1 TIMOTHY.
: 14 854
: 7 1146

------------------

These have been corrected as

1 TIMOTHY.
4 : 14 85
6 : 7 114

------------------

This table summarizes the corrections specifically to the Topical Index,
which on occasion has entries which are spelled differently in the text
itself, or are otherwise faulty. To facilitate searches, it is assumed
that the text is correct, and the entries were changed. The sole
exception is the transliteration of the Greek word προναιοι, which is
given in the text on p. 154 as _pronaoi_, but correctly in the index as
_pronaioi_ (vestibule). In this case, the text has been corrected.

Entry Correction/Comment

Altar: _lèlè_, name for accents reversed from the text
(“lélé”).

Ashurnâsira[f]i Ashurnâsira[p]li on both
referenced pages.

Avai[t]a Avai[k]a

Bay[e]t-el-Walli Bayt-el-Walli

Boundary: references to, may be p. 17 or p. 117. In any
case, neither page seems to
have a relevant remark.

“Dead, Book of the,” appears twice, the second
being out of the alphabetic
sequence. That has been
removed.

Boodha-drum/ Booddha-drum/ Booddha-drum/
Boodha-hood/Boodha’s foot Booddha’s foot

British envoy welcomed at British envoy welcomed at
threshold of Ka[n]zeroon threshold of Ka[u]zeroon

Buk[a]hōla Bukohōla

He[li] Heh

Eu[e]lmash Eulmash

Gapriel Gabriel

Jastrow, Prof. Dr. Morris, The first citation appears on
Jr.: cited, [97] p. 79 in n. 418.

Kurigalz[a] II., king of Kurigalz[u] II., king of
Babylon Babylon

Kuz[a] bemuchsaz Kuzu Kuz[u] bemuchsaz Kuzu

Maspero, Prof. G.: references Note 473 occurs on p. 169.
to, ... 126, 16[0]

------------------

This table summarizes any other corrections which were made to the text.

p. 22 hea[r]thstones Added.

p. 32 by the bridegroom’s [friend] _Sic._

p. 33 “a little brandy is spilt _Sic._
under the threshold.[”]

p. 43 and thrusts it into her Added.
bosom,[”]

p. 61 Chara[u/n]s Corrected

[“/‘]The herald and his Corrected.
brother

p. 79 n. 220 De Hesse-Warteg[g]’s Added.

p. 82 that is, I will covenant with Removed.
them.[”]

p. 90 [“]The red hand was Added.

p. 100 as simil[i]arly, in ancient Removed
Egypt

p. 104 n. 279 Les Religions et les Corrected.
Philosophies dans l’Asi[a/e]

p. 144 n. 417 See Jones’s and K[n/r]opf’s Corrected.

p. 200 n. 531 Supplément aux Corrected.
Dictionn[aries/aires]

p. 200 or [“]door,” Added.

p. 222 n. 596 See Maundrel[l]’s _Journey_ Added.

p. 227 conju[n]ction Added.

p. 246 Ægyp[t]o Superiori Added.

p. 255 n. 672 Mülha[n/u] and Volck Corrected.

p. 273 Christ[ai/ia]n captive Transposed.

p. 281 Entrance-way, importance of, Corrected.
[2/3]. There is no p.
2.

p. 293 among Sep[h]ardeem Added.

p. 299 Die Lehr[a/e]n d. Talmud Corrected.

p. 314 ‘to pray,[’] Added.

[“]Patriarchal Palestine,” Added.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Threshold Covenant - or, The Beginning of Religious Rites" ***

Home