{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49216/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49216","id":"gutenberg_49216","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49216","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Covenants -- Religious aspects"],"text":"This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_.\n\nMinor errors or inconsistencies in punctuation and formatting have been\nsilently corrected. Please see the transcriber\u2019s note at the end of this\ntext for details regarding the handling of any other textual issues\nencountered during its preparation.\n\nThe few Hebrew words and phrases in the text cannot be correctly\nrendered in this media format. The Hebrew characters are therefore\nreplaced with a direct transliteration rendered in a bold font. Each\nword is transliterated by the author as well. There were no vowel marks\nin the text.\n\nFootnotes have been resequenced to be unique, and were moved to the end\nof the chapter or section. Any references to those notes in the text\nhave been amended as well.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n THE\n THRESHOLD COVENANT\n\n OR\n\n THE BEGINNING OF RELIGIOUS RITES\n\n BY\n\n H. CLAY TRUMBULL\n\n Author of \u201cKadesh-barnea,\u201d \u201cThe Blood Covenant,\u201d\n \u201cStudies in Oriental Social Life,\u201d etc.\n\n NEW YORK\n\n CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n\n 1896\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n COPYRIGHT, 1896\n BY\n H. CLAY TRUMBULL\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\nThis work does not treat of the origin of man\u2019s religious faculty, or of\nthe origin of the sentiment of religion; nor does it enter the domain of\ntheological discussion. It simply attempts to show the beginning of\nreligious rites, by which man evidenced a belief, however obtained, in\nthe possibility of covenant relations between God and man; and the\ngradual development of those rites, with the progress of the race toward\na higher degree of civilization and enlightenment. Necessarily the\nvolume is not addressed to a popular audience, but to students in the\nlessons of primitive life and culture.\n\nIn a former volume, \u201cThe Blood Covenant,\u201d I sought to show the origin of\nsacrifice, and the significance of transferred or proffered blood or\nlife. The facts given in that work have been widely accepted as lying at\nthe basis of fundamental doctrines declared in the Hebrew and Christian\nScriptures, and have also been recognized as the source of perverted\nviews which have had prominence in the principal ethnic religions of the\nworld. Scholars of as divergent schools of thought as Professors William\nHenry Green of Princeton, Charles A. Briggs of New York, George E. Day\nof Yale, John A. Broadus of Louisville, Samuel Ives Curtiss of Chicago,\nPresident Mark Hopkins of Williams, Rev. Drs. Alfred Edersheim of Oxford\nand Cunningham Geikie of Bournemouth, Professor Fr\u00e9deric Godet of\nNeuchatel, and many others, were agreed in recognizing the freshness and\nimportance of its investigations, and the value of its conclusions.\nProfessor W. Robertson Smith, of Cambridge, in thanking me for that\nwork, expressed regret that he had not seen it before writing his\n\u201cKinship and Marriage in Early Arabia.\u201d He afterwards made repeated\nmention of the work as an authority in its field, in his Burnett\nLectures on the \u201cReligion of the Semites.\u201d\n\nThis volume grew out of that one. It looks back to a still earlier date.\nThat began as it were with Cain and Abel, while this begins with Adam\nand Eve. It was while preparing a Supplement for a second edition of\nthat volume that the main idea of this work assumed such importance in\nmy mind that I was led to make a separate study of it, and present it\nindependently. The special theory here advanced is wholly a result of\ninduction. The theory came out of the gathered facts, instead of the\nfacts being gathered in support of the theory.\n\nOf course, these facts are not new, but it is believed that their\nsynthetic arrangement is. It has been a favorite method with students of\nprimitive religions to point out widely different objects of primitive\nworship and their corresponding cults among different peoples, and then\nto try to show how the ceremonials of the Hebrew and Christian\nScriptures were made up from these primitive cults. But the course of\ninvestigation here pursued seems to show that the earlier cult was the\nsimple one, which has been developed in the line of the Bible story, and\nthat the other cults, even those baser and more degraded, are only\nnatural perversions of the original simple one. This is a reversal of\nthe usual order in studies of primitive religious rites. Here it is\nfirst the simple, then the complex; first the one germ, then the many\nvarieties of growth from that germ.\n\nAs this particular subject of investigation seems to be a hitherto\nuntrodden field, I am unable to refer to any published works as my\nprincipal sources of information. But I have gathered important related\nfacts from various directions, giving full credit in explicit\nfoot-notes, page by page. Many added facts confirmatory of my position\nmight, undoubtedly, have been found through yet wider and more\ndiscerning research, and they will be brought to light by other gleaners\nin the same field. Indeed, a chief value of this volume will be in the\nfresh study it provokes on the part of those whom it stimulates to more\nthorough investigation in the direction here pointed out. And if such\nstudy shows an added agreement between some of the main facts of modern\nscientific investigation and those disclosed in the Bible narrative,\nthat will not be a matter of regret to any fair-minded scholar.\n\nIn my earlier studies for this work, I had valuable assistance from the\nlate Mr. John T. Napier; and in my later researches I have been\nmaterially assisted by Professors Herman V. Hilprecht, E. Washburn\nHopkins, William R. Lamberton, John Henry Wright, Robert Ellis Thompson,\nMorris Jastrow, Jr., D.G. Brinton, Adolph Erman, W. Max M\u00fcller, W. Hayes\nWard, M.B. Riddle, Minton Warren, Alfred Gudeman, John P. Peters, M.W.\nEaston, and A.L. Frothingham, Jr., President George Washburn, Rev. Drs.\nMarcus Jastrow, H.H. Jessup, George A. Ford, William W. Eddy, and\nBenjamin Labaree, Rev. William Ewing, Rev. Paulus Moort, Dr. Talcott\nWilliams, Dr. J. Solis Cohen, Dr. A.T. Clay, Dr. T.H. Powers Sailer,\nJudge Mayer Sulzberger, Mr. S. Schecter, Mr. Frank Hamilton Cushing,\nCaptain John G. Bourke, Mr. Khaleel Sarkis, Mr. John T. Haddad, Mr.\nMontague Cockle, Mr. Le Roy Bliss Peckham, the late Mr. William John\nPotts, and other specialists. To all these I return my sincere thanks.\n\nFacts and suggestions that came to my notice after the main work was\ncompleted, or that, while known to me before, did not seem to have a\nplace in the direct presentation of the argument, have been given a\nplace in the Appendix. These may prove helpful to scholars who would\npursue the investigation beyond my limits of treatment.\n\nComments of eminent specialists in Europe and America, to whom the\nproof-sheets of the volume were submitted before publication, are given\nin a Supplement. Important additions are thus made to the results of my\nresearches, which are sure to be valued accordingly.\n\n H.C.T.\n\n PHILADELPHIA,\n _Passover Week, 1896_.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n ------------------\n\n\n I.\n\n PRIMITIVE FAMILY ALTAR.\n\n(1.) A BLOOD WELCOME AT THE DOOR, 3. (2.) REVERENCE FOR THE THRESHOLD\nALTAR, 10. (3.) THRESHOLD COVENANTING IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY, 25. (4.)\nSTEPPING OR BEING LIFTED ACROSS THE THRESHOLD, 36. (5.) LAYING\nFOUNDATIONS IN BLOOD, 45. (6.) APPEALS AT THE ALTAR, 57. (7.) COVENANT\nTOKENS ON THE DOORWAY, 66. (8.) SYMBOL OF THE RED HAND, 74. (9.) DEITIES\nOF THE DOORWAY, 94.\n\n II.\n\n EARLIEST TEMPLE ALTAR.\n\n(1.) FROM HOUSE TO TEMPLE, 99. (2.) SACREDNESS OF THE DOOR, 102. (3.)\nTEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ASIA, 108. (4.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AFRICA, 126.\n(5.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN EUROPE, 132. (6.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN\nAMERICA, 144. (7.) TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ISLANDS OF THE SEA, 148. (8.)\nONLY ONE FOUNDATION, 153.\n\n III.\n\n SACRED BOUNDARY LINE.\n\n(1.) FROM TEMPLE TO DOMAIN, 165. (2.) LOCAL LANDMARKS, 166. (3.)\nNATIONAL BORDERS, 177. (4.) BORDER SACRIFICES, 184.\n\n IV.\n\n ORIGIN OF THE RITE.\n\n(1.) A NATURAL QUESTION, 193. (2.) AN ANSWER BY INDUCTION, 194. (3.) NO\nCOVENANT WITHOUT BLOOD, 196. (4.) CONFIRMATION OF THIS VIEW, 197.\n\n V.\n\n HEBREW PASS-OVER, OR CROSS-OVER, SACRIFICE.\n\n(1.) NEW MEANING IN AN OLD RITE, 203. (2.) A WELCOME WITH BLOOD, 204.\n(3.) BASON, OR THRESHOLD, 206. (4.) PASS-OVER OR PASS-BY, 209. (5.)\nMARRIAGE OF JEHOVAH WITH ISRAEL, 212.\n\n VI.\n\n CHRISTIAN PASSOVER.\n\n(1.) OLD COVENANT AND NEW, 215. (2.) PROFFERED WELCOME BY THE FATHER,\n216. (3.) BRIDEGROOM AND BRIDE, 218. (4.) SURVIVALS OF THE RITE, 221.\n\n VII.\n\n OUTGROWTHS AND PERVERSIONS OF THIS RITE.\n\n(1.) ELEMENTAL BEGINNINGS, 223. (2.) MAIN OUTGROWTHS, 225. (3.) CHIEF\nPERVERSIONS, 228.\n\n APPENDIX.\n\nSIGNIFICANCE OF BLOOD IN THE MARRIAGE RITE, 243. EXHIBITING THE\nEVIDENCES, 245. SUBSTITUTE BLOOD FOR DECEPTION, 248. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE\nOF THE RITE, 250. BIBLE TESTIMONY, 251. WOMAN AS A DOOR, 252. SYMBOLISM\nOF THE TWO SEXES, 257. SYMBOLISM OF TREE AND SERPENT, 258. COVENANT OF\nTHRESHOLD-CROSSING, 259. DOORKEEPER, AND CARRIER, 263. PASSING OVER INTO\nA COVENANT, 266. ENGLAND\u2019S CORONATION STONE, 268.\n\n INDEXES.\n\nTOPICAL INDEX, 273. SCRIPTURAL INDEX, 301.\n\n SUPPLEMENT.\n\n COMMENTS OF SPECIALISTS.\n\nFROM THE REV. DR. MARCUS JASTROW, 307. FROM PROFESSOR DR. HERMAN V.\nHILPRECHT, 309. FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL, 313. FROM PROFESSOR DR.\nA.H. SAYCE, 314. FROM PROFESSOR DR. W. MAX M\u00dcLLER, 315. FROM PROFESSOR\nDR. C.P. TIELE, 317. FROM PROFESSOR DR. E. WASHBURN HOPKINS, 318. FROM\nTHE REV. DR. WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS, 319. FROM PROFESSOR DR. JOHN P.\nMAHAFFY, 324. FROM PROFESSOR DR. WILLIAM A. LAMBERTON, 326. FROM\nPROFESSOR DR. DANIEL G. BRINTON, 328. FROM THE REV. DR. EDWARD T.\nBARTLETT, 329. FROM PROFESSOR DR. T.K. CHEYNE, 330. ADDITIONAL FROM\nPROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL, 333.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n THE THRESHOLD COVENANT.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n I.\n PRIMITIVE FAMILY ALTAR.\n\n ------------------\n\n 1. A BLOOD WELCOME AT THE DOOR.\n\nThe primitive altar of the family would seem to have been the threshold,\nor door-sill, or entrance-way, of the home dwelling-place. This is\nindicated by surviving customs, in the East and elsewhere among\nprimitive peoples, and by the earliest historic records of the human\nrace. It is obvious that houses preceded temples, and that the\nhouse-father was the earliest priest. Sacrifices for the family were,\ntherefore, within or at the entrance of the family domicile.\n\nIn Syria and in Egypt, at the present time, when a guest who is worthy\nof special honor is to be welcomed to a home, the blood of a\nslaughtered, or a \u201csacrificed,\u201d animal is shed on the threshold of that\nhome, as a means of adopting the new-comer into the family, or of making\na covenant union with him. And every such primitive covenant in blood\nincludes an appeal to the protecting Deity to ratify it as between the\ntwo parties and himself.[1] While the guest is still outside, the host\ntakes a lamb, or a goat, and, tying its feet together, lays it upon the\nthreshold of his door. Resting his left knee upon the bound victim, the\nhost holds its head by his left hand, while with his right he cuts its\nthroat. He retains his position until all the blood has flowed from the\nbody upon the threshold. Then the victim is removed, and the guest steps\nover the blood, across the threshold; and in this act he becomes, as it\nwere, a member of the family by the Threshold Covenant.\n\nThe flesh of the slaughtered animal is usually given to the neighbors,\nalthough in the case of humbler persons it is sometimes used for the\nmeal of the guest in whose honor it is sacrificed. It may be a larger\noffering than a lamb or a goat, or it may be a smaller one. Sometimes\nseveral sheep are included in the sacrifice. Again, the offering may be\na bullock or a heifer, or simply a fowl or a pair of pigeons. The more\ncostly the gift, in proportion to the means of the host, the greater the\nhonor to him who is welcomed.\n\nAs illustrative of this idea, a story is commonly told in Syria of a\nlarge-hearted man who gave proof of his exceptional devotedness to an\nhonored guest. He had a horse which he prized as only an Oriental can\nprize and love one. This horse he sent to meet his guest, in order that\nit might bring him to the home of its owner. When the guest reached the\nhouse and dismounted, he spoke warm words in praise of the noble animal.\nAt once the host led the horse to the house door, and cut its throat\nover the threshold, asking the guest to step over the blood of this\ncostly offering, in acceptance of the proffered Threshold Covenant.\n\n\u201cIf you know that one is coming whom you would honor and welcome, you\nmust make ready to have the blood on the threshold when he appears,\u201d\nsaid a native Syrian. In case an honored guest arrives unexpectedly, so\nthat there is no time to prepare the customary sacrifice, salt, as\nrepresenting blood, may be sprinkled on the threshold, for the guest to\npass over; or again coffee, as the Muhammadan substitute for the \u201cblood\nof the grape,\u201d[2] may be poured on it.[3]\n\nCrossing the threshold, or entering the door, of a house, is in itself\nan implied covenant with those who are within, as shown by the earlier\nlaws of India. He who goes in by the door must count himself, and must\nbe recognized, as a guest, subject to the strictest laws of hospitality.\nBut if he enters the house in some other way, not crossing the\nthreshold, there is no such implied covenant on his part. He may then\neven despoil or kill the head of the house he has entered, without any\nbreach of the law of hospitality, or of the moral law as there\nunderstood.[4] Illustrations of this truth are found in the Mahabharata,\nas applicable to both a house and a city.[5] \u201cIt is in accordance with\nthe strict law of all the law books,\u201d of ancient India, \u201cthat one may\nenter his foe\u2019s house by _a-dv\u0101ra_, \u2018not by door,\u2019 but his friend\u2019s\nhouse only \u2018by door.\u2019\u201d[6]\n\nIt would seem to have been in accordance with this primitive law of the\nEast that Jesus said: \u201cHe that entereth not by the door into the fold of\nthe sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a\nrobber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the\nsheep.... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved,\nand shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture. The thief cometh\nnot, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy: I came that they may\nhave life, and may have it abundantly.\u201d[7]\n\nIt is possible that there is an explanation, in this law of the doorway,\nor threshold, of the common practice among primitive Scandinavians of\nattacking the inmates of an enemy\u2019s house through the roof instead of by\nthe door;[8] also, of the custom in Greece of welcoming a victor in the\nOlympian games into his city through a breach in the walls, instead of\ncausing him to enter by the gates, with its implied subjection to all\nthe laws of hospitality.[9] (See Appendix.)\n\nExamples of the blood welcome at the threshold abound in modern Egyptian\ncustoms. When the new khedive came to his palace, in 1882, a threshold\nsacrifice was offered as his welcome. \u201cAt the entrance to the palace six\nbuffaloes were slaughtered, two being killed just as the khedive\u2019s\ncarriage reached the gateway. The blood of the animals was splashed\nacross the entrance, so that the horses\u2019 hoofs and wheels of the\ncarriage passed through it. The flesh was afterwards distributed among\nthe poor.\u201d[10]\n\nWhen General Grant was at Assioot, on the Upper Nile, during his journey\naround the world, he was doubly welcomed as a guest by the American\nvice-consul, who was a native of Egypt. A bullock was sacrificed at the\nsteamer landing, and its head was laid on one side of the gang-plank,\nand its body on the other. The outpoured blood was between the head and\nthe body, under the gang-plank, so that, in stepping from the steamer to\nthe shore, General Grant would cross over it. When he reached the house\nof the vice-consul, a sheep was similarly sacrificed at the threshold,\nin such a way that General Grant passed over the blood in entering.[11]\n\nIt is also said in Egypt: \u201cIf you buy a dahabiyeh,\u201d and therefore are to\ncross its threshold for the occupancy of your new home on the water,\n\u201cyou must kill a sheep, letting the blood flow on the deck, or side, of\nthe boat, in order that it may be lucky. Your friends will afterwards\nhave to dine on the sheep.\u201d[12] There seems, indeed, to be a survival of\nthis idea in the custom of \u201cchristening\u201d a ship at the time of its\nlaunching, in England and America, a bottle of wine\u2013the \u201cblood of the\ngrape\u201d[13]\u2013being broken on the bow of the vessel as it crosses the\nthreshold of the deep. And a feast usually follows this ceremony\nalso.[14]\n\nIn Zindero, or Gingiro, or Zinder, in Central Africa, a new king is\nwelcomed at the royal residence with a bloody threshold offering.\n\u201cBefore he enters his palace two men are to be slain; one at the foot of\nthe tree by which his house is chiefly supported; the other at the\nthreshold of his door, which is besmeared with the blood of the victim.\nAnd it is said ... that the particular family, whose privilege it is to\nbe slaughtered, so far from avoiding it, glory in the occasion, and\noffer themselves willingly to meet it.\u201d[15]\n\nAmong the Arabs in Central Africa, the blood welcome of a guest at the\nthreshold of a home is a prevailing custom. \u201cThe usual welcome upon the\narrival of a traveler, who is well received in an Arab camp, is the\nsacrifice of a fat sheep, that should be slaughtered at the door of the\nhut or tent, so that the blood flows to the threshold.\u201d[16]\n\nOn the arrival of strangers among the primitive tribes of Liberia, in\nWest Africa, a fowl is killed, and its blood is sprinkled at the\ndoorway.[17]\n\nReceiving an honored guest with bread and salt, at the threshold of the\nhouse he enters, is common in Russia. Bread and salt are symbolic, in\nprimitive thought, of flesh and blood; and this threshold welcome seems\nto be a survival of the threshold sacrifice.[18]\n\nTo step over or across the blood, or its substitute, on the door-sill,\nis to accept or ratify the proffered covenant; but to trample upon the\nsymbol of the covenant is to show contempt for the host who proffers it,\nand no greater indignity than this is known in the realm of primitive\nsocial intercourse.\n\n 2. REVERENCE FOR THE THRESHOLD ALTAR.\n\nThe threshold, as the family altar on which the sacrificial blood of a\ncovenant welcome is poured out, is counted sacred, and is not to be\nstepped upon, or passed over lightly; but it is to be crossed over\nreverently, as in recognition of Him to whom all life belongs. \u201cOn\npassing the threshold,\u201d in Arabia, \u201cit is proper to say, \u2018Bismillah,\u2019\nthat is, \u2018In the name of God.\u2019 Not to do so would be looked upon as a\nbad augury, alike for him who enters and for those within.\u201d[19] In Syria\nthe belief prevails \u201cthat it is unlucky to tread on a threshold.\u201d When\nthey receive a new member to their sect, the Bektashi derwishes of Syria\nbring him to the threshold, and prayers and sacrifices are offered \u201con\nthe door-sill.\u201d[20]\n\n\u201cThe khaleefs of Bagdad required all those who entered their palace to\nprostrate themselves on the threshold of the gate, where they had\ninserted a fragment of the black stone of the temple at Meccah, in order\nto render it [the threshold] more venerable to those who had been\naccustomed to press their foreheads against it. The threshold was of\nsome height, and it was a crime to set foot upon it.\u201d In the advice\nwhich Nurshivan gives to his son Hormuz, he recommends him to betake\nhimself to the threshold of the Lord; that is, to the \u201cpresence of God,\nin the same fashion in which the poor do, at the gates of the rich.\n\u2018Since you are his slave,\u2019 he says, \u2018set your forehead on his\nthreshold.\u2019\u201d[21]\n\nAmong the Hindoos, \u201cthe threshold is ... sacred in private houses; it is\nnot propitious for a person to remain on it; neither to eat, sneeze,\nyawn, nor spit whilst there.\u201d[22]\n\nA double welcome is sometimes given to one who is in an official\nposition. Thus, a Syrian, who held a commission from the chief officer\nof customs in Upper Syria, was surprised at having two sheep sacrificed\nbefore him as he approached the door of a house east of the Sea of\nGalilee; and he graciously protested against the excessive honor shown\nhim. \u201cOne sheep is to welcome yourself as a man, and the other is to\nwelcome you as an officer of the government,\u201d was the answer. Loyalty as\nwell as hospitality was indicated in these threshold sacrifices.\n\nSacredness attaches to the threshold in Persia. It must not be trodden\non; but it is often kissed by those who would step over it.[23]\n\nA man should always cross himself when he steps over a threshold in\nRussia; and, in some portions of the realm, it is believed that he ought\nnot to sit down on the threshold.[24]\n\nHigh sills, or thresholds, so that one must step over, and not on, them,\nare in the houses of Finland, and in the houses of many Finns in the\nUnited States.[25] The same was true of many Teutonic houses.[26]\n\nTo shake hands across a threshold, instead of crossing it, is said, in\nFinland, to ensure a quarrel.[27] To step over a threshold is, in\nLapland, to bring one under the protection of the family within, and of\nits guardian deity.[28] The same is true among the Magyars.[29]\n\nThe ancient Pythagoreans quoted various maxims, supposed to be from the\nsayings of their great founder, as teaching important lessons for all\ntime. In these maxims there were indications of a peculiar reverence for\nthe threshold and doorway. Thus: \u201cHe who strikes his foot against the\nthreshold should go back;\u201d it were unsafe to pursue a movement so\ninauspiciously begun. And, again: \u201cThe doors should be kissed fondly by\nthose who enter or depart.\u201d[30]\n\n\u201cTreading on the threshold was ... tabooed by the Tatars.\u201d[31] Again, on\nthe other side of the globe, in Samoa, to spill water on the door-step,\nor threshold, when food is brought in, is a cause of anger to the\nprotecting deity of the family. It may drive him away.[32]\n\nIn Europe and in America it is by many counted an ill omen to tread upon\nthe threshold of the door on entering a house. To the present day, in\nportions of Scotland, the idea popularly prevails, that to tread\ndirectly upon the boundary lines of division between ordinary flagstones\nis to endanger one\u2019s soul; hence the very children are careful to avoid\nstepping upon those lines, in their walking across the courtyards or\nalong the streets, in their every-day passing.\n\nMany a person in the United States, who knows nothing of any\nsuperstition connected with this, avoids, if possible, stepping on,\ninstead of over, the cracks or seams of a board walk, or even the seams\nof a carpet.\n\nAll these customs seem to be a survival of the feeling that the\nthreshold is sacred as the primitive altar.\n\nApart from the reverence for the threshold demanded of those who pass\nover it, there is an obvious sanctity of the threshold recognized in the\nplacing of images and amulets underneath it, and in the sacrifices and\nofferings placed on it, as a means of guarding the dwelling within.\n\nIn the building of private houses, as well as temples, and city\ngateways, in ancient Assyria, images of various kinds and sizes, \u201cin\nbronze, red jasper, yellow stone, and baked earth, ... are buried\nbeneath the stones of the threshold, so as to bar the entrance to all\ndestructive spirits.\u201d Invocations are graven upon these figures.[33]\n\nHerodotus mentions[34] that, in the annual feast in honor of the god\nOsiris, \u201cevery Egyptian sacrifices a hog before the door of his house\u201d\non the evening before the festival. Osiris was the god who was the judge\nof the soul after death, and who in a peculiar sense stood for the truth\nof the life to come. Every Egyptian desired, above all, to be in loving\ncovenant with Osiris, and when he would offer a welcoming sacrifice to\nhim, he did so before the door of his own house, as before the primitive\nfamily altar. That it was the _blood_ poured out at the threshold which\nwas the essential act of covenanting in this sacrifice to Osiris, is\nevidenced in the fact that the animal sacrificed was not eaten in the\nfamily of the sacrificer, but was carried away by the swineherd who\nfurnished it.\n\nBunches of grass dipped in blood, and touched by the king, as if made\nrepresentative of his dignity and power, are to-day placed on the\nthreshold, as an offering, and as averters of evil, in Equatorial\nAfrica. This is known there as an ancient custom. In Uganda, \u201cevery\nhouse has charms hung on the door, and others laid on the threshold.\u201d An\noffering to the _lubare_, or local spirit, must be thrown across the\nthreshold, from within the house, before a native ventures to leave his\nhome in the morning.[35] Charms for this purpose are kept behind the\ndoor.\n\nOne of the requirements in the Vedic law (the sacred law of the Hindoos)\nwas, that \u201con the door-sill (a bali must be placed) with a mantra\naddressed to Antariksha (the air),\u201d[36] by a house father, in his\nhome;[37] that is, that an offering, with an invocation to a deity,\nshould be a sacrifice at the threshold altar. Other references in the\nHindoo laws seem to demand bali offerings \u201cat all the doors, as many as\nthey are,\u201d in a house, and evidence the importance and sacredness\nattaching to the doorway.[38]\n\nThe threshold seems to have special reverence in Northwestern India, in\nconnection with the seasons of seedtime and harvest. At seedtime \u201ca cake\nof cowdung formed into a cup\u201d is placed on the threshold of the\nhouseholder; it is filled with corn, and then water is poured over it as\na libation to the deities. Cowdung is not only a means of enrichment to\nthe soil, but it is a gift from the sacred cow, and so, in a sense,\nrepresents or stands for the life of the cow. It is laid on the\nthreshold altar as an offering of life. The libation of water is an\naccompaniment of that offering; water is essential to life and growth,\nand it is a gift of the gods accordingly. Seed-sowing is recognized as\nan act which needs the blessing of the gods, and on which that blessing\nis sought in covenant relations.\n\nAt early harvest time the first-fruits of the grain-field are not taken\nto the threshing-floor, but are brought home to be presented to the gods\nat the household altar, and afterwards eaten by the family, with a\nportion given to the Brahmans. The first bundle of corn is deposited at\nthe threshold of the home, and a libation of water is made as a\ncompletion of its offering. The grain being taken from the ear, of a\nportion of this first-fruits, is mixed with milk and sugar, and every\nmember of the family tastes it seven times.[39]\n\nAmong the Prabhus of Bombay, at the time of the birth of a child, an\niron crowbar is placed \u201calong the threshold of the room of confinement,\nas a check against the crossing of any evil spirit.\u201d This is in\naccordance with a Hindoo belief that evil spirits keep aloof from iron,\n\u201cand even nowadays pieces of horseshoe can be seen nailed to the bottom\nsills of doors of native houses.\u201d[40] Iron seems, in various lands, to\nbe deemed of peculiar value as a guard against evil spirits, and the\nthreshold to be the place for its efficacious fixing.\n\nSimilarly, \u201cin East Bothnia, when the cows are taken out of their winter\nquarters for the first time, an iron bar is laid before the threshold,\nover which all the cows must pass; for, if they do not, there will be\nnothing but trouble with them all the following summer.\u201d[41]\n\nAmong the folk customs in the line of exorcism and divination in Italy,\nthe threshold has prominence. \u201cIn Tuscany, much taking of magical\nmedicine is done on the threshold; it also plays a part in other\nsorcery.\u201d[42] A writer mentions a method of exorcism with incense, where\nthree pinches of the best incense, and three of the second quality, are\nput in a row on the threshold of the door, and then, after other incense\nis burned within the house in an earthen fire-dish, these \u201clittle piles\nof incense on the threshold of the door\u201d are lighted, with words of\ninvocation. This process is repeated three times over.[43]\n\nA method of curing a disorder of the wrist prevalent in harvest time, in\nNorth Germany, is by taking \u201cthree pieces of three-jointed straw,\u201d and\nso laying them \u201cside by side as to correspond joint by joint,\u201d then\nchopping through the first joint into the block beneath. This \u201cceremony\nis performed on the threshold, and ends with the sign of the cross.\u201d[44]\n\nObservances with reference to the threshold are numerous in Russia. \u201cOn\nit a cross is drawn to keep off _maras_ (hags). Under it the peasants\nbury stillborn children. In Lithuania, when a new house is being built,\na wooden cross, or some article which has been handed down from past\ngenerations, is placed under the threshold. There also when a newly\nbaptized child is being brought back from church, it is customary for\nits father to hold it for a while over the threshold, \u2018so as to place\nthe new member of the family under the protection of the domestic\ndivinities\u2019 [bringing it newly into the family covenant at the threshold\naltar].... Sick children, who are supposed to have been afflicted by an\nevil eye, are washed on the threshold of their cottage, in order that,\nwith the help of the Penates who reside there, the malady may be driven\nout of doors.\u201d[45]\n\nAt the annual feast known as \u201cDeath Week,\u201d among Slavonic peoples,\nmarking the close of winter and the beginning of spring, the peasants in\nrural Russia combine for a sacrifice to appease the \u201cVodyaoui,\u201d or\naroused water-spirit of the thawing streams. They also prepare a\nsacrifice for the \u201cDomovoi\u201d or house-spirit. A fat black pig is killed,\nand cut into as many pieces as there are residents in the place. \u201cEach\nresident receives one piece, which he straightway buries under the\ndoor-step at the entrance to his house. In some parts, it is said, the\ncountry folk bury a few eggs beneath the threshold of the dwelling to\npropitiate the \u2018Domovoi.\u2019\u201d[46]\n\nWhen a Magyar maiden would win the love of a young man, or would bring\nevil on him because of his reluctance, she seeks influence over him by\nmeans of the sacred threshold. \u201cShe must steal something from the young\nman, and take it to a witch, who adds to it three beans, three bulbs of\ngarlic, a few pieces of dry coal, and a dead frog. These are all put\ninto an earthenware pot, and placed under the threshold,\u201d with a prayer\nfor the object of her desire.[47]\n\nA superstition is prevalent in Roumania, that if a bat, together with a\ngold coin, be buried under the threshold, there is \u201cgood luck\u201d to the\nhouse.[48] Various superstitions, in connection with the bat are found\namong primitive peoples.[49]\n\nIn Japan, the threshold of the door is sprinkled with salt, after a\nfuneral, and as a propitiatory sacrifice in time of danger.[50] Salt\nrepresents blood.\n\nAmong the Dyaks of Borneo, a pig\u2019s blood is sprinkled at the doorway to\natone for the sin of unchastity by a daughter of the family. Again, the\nblood of a fowl is sprinkled there at the annual festival of\nseed-sowing, with prayers for fecundity and fertility.[51]\n\n\u201cOn New Year\u2019s morning, along the coast [in Aberdeenshire] where seaweed\nis gathered, a small quantity is laid down at each door of the\nfarm-steading [the buildings of the homestead], as a means of bringing\ngood luck.\u201d And fire and salt are put on the threshold of the byre-door\nbefore a cow leaves the building after giving birth to a calf.[52]\n\nOf portions of Ireland, it was said, early in this century: \u201cOn the 11th\nof November, every family of a village kills an animal of some kind or\nother; those who are rich kill a cow or sheep, others a goose or a\nturkey; while those who are poor ... kill a hen or a cock, and sprinkle\nthe threshold with the blood, and do the same in the four corners of the\nhouse; ... to exclude every kind of evil spirit from the dwelling.\u201d[53]\n\nHoles bored in the door-sill, and plugged with pieces of paper on which\nare written incantations, a broom laid across the door-sill, or \u201cthree\nhorseshoes nailed on the door-step with toes up,\u201d are supposed to be a\nguard against witches or evil spirits in portions of Pennsylvania\nto-day.[54] Many a Pennsylvanian is unwilling to cross, for the first\ntime, the threshold of a new home, without carrying salt and a Bible.\n\nAmong the Indians in ancient Mexico there was an altar near the door of\nevery house, with instruments of sacrifice, and accompanying idols.[55]\n\n\u201cThreshold\u201d and \u201cfoundation\u201d are terms that are used interchangeably in\nprimitive life. The sacredness of the threshold-stone of a building\npivots on its position as a foundation stone, a beginning stone, a\nboundary stone. Hence the foundation stone of any house, or other\nstructure was sacred as the threshold of that building. According to Dr.\nH.V. Hilprecht, in the earlier buildings of Babylonia the inscriptions\nand invocations and deposits were at the threshold, and later under the\nfour corners of the building; but when they were at the threshold they\nwere not under the corners, and _vice versa_. It would seem from this\nthat the corner-stone was recognized as the beginning, or the limit, or\nthe threshold, of the building. It may be, therefore, that the modern\nceremonies at the laying of a \u201ccorner-stone\u201d are a survival of the\nprimitive sacredness of a threshold-laying.[56]\n\nIt would seem, moreover, as if the sanctity of the threshold as the\nprimitive altar were, in many places, in the course of time transferred\nto the family hearth. In the primitive tent the household fire was at\nthe entrance way, as it is in the tents of the East to-day. Where Arabs\nhave camped on an Eastern desert, the place of the shaykh\u2019s tent can\nalways be known by the blackened hearthstones at its entrance, or\nthreshold, where he welcomed guests to the hospitality of his tribe and\nfamily by the sharing of bread and salt, or by the outpouring of the\nblood of a slaughtered lamb or kid.\n\nIf, indeed, the earliest dwelling of man was a cave, rather than a tent,\nthe household fire was still at its entrance; and the threshold was the\nhearthstone. When, in the progress of building-changes, the hearthstone\nwas removed to the center of the building, or of the inner court, its\nsanctity went with it, as the place of the family fire. Thus, for\nexample, in Russia, the Domovoi, or household deity, who is honored and\ninvoked at the threshold, \u201cis supposed to live behind the stove now, but\nin early times he, or the spirits of the dead ancestors, of whom he is\nnow the chief representative, were held to be in even more direct\nrelations with the fire on the hearth; as were the Penates of the\nRomans, who were sometimes spoken of as at the threshold, and again as\nat the hearth.\u201d[57]\n\nA recognition of the peculiar sacredness of the threshold is shown, in\ndifferent lands, by the popular unwillingness to have the dead carried\nover it on the way to burial. In India, the body of one dying in certain\nphases of the moon can in no wise be carried over the threshold. The\nhouse wall must be broken for its removal.[58] When Chinese students are\nattending the competitive examinations for promotion, they are shut up\nin rooms until their work is completed. If one of them dies at such a\ntime, \u201cthe body is removed over the back wall, as the taking out openly\nthrough the front door would be regarded as an evil omen.\u201d[59]\n\nIn the capital of Korea there is a small gate in the city wall known as\nthe \u201cGate of the Dead,\u201d through which alone a dead body can be carried\nout. But no one can ever enter through that passage-way.[60]\n\nThere is a recognition, in Russian folk-tales, of safety to the spirit\nof one who dies in a house, if his body be passed out _under_ the\nthreshold of the outer door.[61]\n\nIt is not allowable to carry out a corpse through the main door of a\nhouse in Italy. There is a smaller door, in the side wall, known as the\n_porta di morti_, which is kept closed except as it is opened for the\nremoval of a body at the time of a funeral.[62]\n\nIn Alaska, it is deemed an evil omen for the dead to be carried over the\nthreshold. \u201cTherefore the dying one, instead of being allowed to rest in\npeace in his last hours, is hastily lifted from his couch and put out of\ndoors [or out of the house] by a hole in the rear wall\u201d so as not to\nhave a corpse pass the threshold.[63]\n\nIn some communities, in both Europe and America, the coffin is passed\nout of the house through the window, instead of through the door, at a\nfuneral. And again, the front door is closed and a window is opened at\nthe time of a death, in order that the spirit may pass out of the house\nin some other way than over the threshold.[64]\n\nEven though the dead may not be lifted over the threshold altar, the\ndead may be buried underneath it. In both the far East and the far West,\nburials under the threshold are known. And in Christian churches of\nEurope, a grave underneath the altar is an honored grave for saint or\necclesiastic.\n\nIn the Apocalypse the seer beheld \u201cunderneath the altar the souls of\nthem that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony\nwhich they held: and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O\nMaster, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on\nthem that dwell on the earth?\u201d[65]\n\n 3. THRESHOLD COVENANTING IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY.\n\nMarriage customs in various parts of the world, in ancient and modern\ntimes, illustrate this idea of the sacredness of the threshold as the\nfamily altar.\n\nIn portions of Syria, when a bride is brought to her husband\u2019s home, a\nlamb or a kid is sacrificed on the threshold, and she must step across\nthe outpoured blood.[66] This marks her adoption into that family.\n\nAmong the wide-spreading \u02beAnazeh Bed\u00b4ween, the most prominent and\nextensive tribe of desert Arabs, whose range is from the Sinaitic\nPeninsula to the upper Desert of Syria, \u201cwhen the marriage day is fixed,\nthe bridegroom comes with a lamb in his arms to the tent of the father\nof his bride, and then, before witnesses, he cuts its throat. As soon as\nthe blood falls upon the earth [and the earth is the only threshold of a\ntent], the marriage ceremony is regarded as complete.\u201d[67] \u201cIn Egypt,\nthe Copts sacrifice a sheep as the bride steps into the bridegroom\u2019s\nhouse, and she is compelled to step over the blood which flows upon the\nthreshold in the doorway.\u201d[68] It is evident, moreover, that this custom\nis not confined to the Copts.[69]\n\nBlood on the threshold, as an accompaniment of a marriage, is still\ncounted important among Armenian Christians in Turkey. After the formal\nmarriage ceremony at the church, the wedded pair, with their friends,\nproceed to the bridegroom\u2019s home. \u201cAt the moment of their arrival a\nsheep is sacrificed on the threshold, over the blood of which the\nwedding party steps to enter the house.\u201d[70]\n\nIn the island of Cyprus, a bridegroom is borne to the house of his bride\non the wedding morning, in a living chair formed by the crossed hands of\nhis neighbor friends. Dismounting at her door, \u201cas he is about to pass\nin, a fowl is brought and held down by head and feet upon the threshold\nof the door; the bridegroom takes an axe, cuts off the head, and only\nthen may he enter.\u201d[71]\n\nLike customs are found among yet more primitive peoples. Thus, for\ninstance, with the western Somali tribes, in east Central Africa: \u201cOn\nreaching the bridegroom\u2019s house a low-caste man sacrifices a goat or\nsheep on the threshold; and the bride steps over it;\u201d and again when the\nbridegroom returns from his devotions at a neighboring _masjid_ (a place\nof public prayer) to claim his bride, as he reaches his threshold,\n\u201canother goat is sacrificed, and he steps over it in the same way as his\nbride.\u201d[72] Again the bridegroom himself brings the bride from her\nfather\u2019s hut to his own, accompanied by young men and maidens dancing\nand singing. \u201cOn reaching the new hut, the bride holds a goat or sheep\nin the doorway, while the bridegroom cuts its throat in the orthodox\nmanner with his _jambia_ (long knife). The bride dips her finger in the\nblood, smears it on her forehead, ... and then enters the _g\u00far\u00ed_,\nstepping over the blood. The bridegroom follows her, also stepping over\nthe blood, and is accompanied by some of his nearest male\nrelatives.\u201d[73]\n\nThere are traces of such customs, also, among the natives of South\nAfrica,[74] and elsewhere.\n\nBesides the bloody sacrifices at the threshold, in the marriage\nceremony, there are, in different countries, various forms of making\nofferings at the threshold, and of surmounting obstacles at that point,\nas an accompaniment of the wedding covenant. All these point to the\nimportance and sanctity of the threshold and doorway in the primitive\nmind.\n\nA bride, in portions of Upper Syria, on reaching her husband\u2019s house, is\nlifted up so that she can press against the door-lintel a piece of\ndough, prepared for the purpose, and handed to her at the time. This\nsoft dough, thus pressed against the plastered or clay wall, adheres\nfirmly, and is left there as long as it will remain. The open hand of\nthe bride stamps the dough as it is fixed in place, and in some cases\nthe finger points are pricked before the stamping, so that the blood\nwill appear as a sign manual on the cake of dough.[75]\n\nWhen a bride reaches the door of her husband\u2019s house, among the\nfellaheen of Palestine, a jar of water is placed on her head. She must\ncall on the name of God as she crosses the threshold; and, at the same\nmoment, her husband strikes the jar from her head, and causes the water\nto flow as a libation.[76]\n\nAmong the Wallachians there is a marriage rite, said to be of Latin\norigin, because there was a similar rite among the old Latins. The\nWallachian bride is borne on horseback, with an accompanying procession,\nto the house of the bridegroom. \u201cAt the moment when the betrothed maiden\ndismounts from her steed, and is about to cross the threshold, they\npresent to her butter, or sometimes honey, and with this she smears the\ndoor-posts.\u201d[77]\n\nAn observer says of this rite: \u201cFor the same reason among the Latins,\nthe word for wife, _uxor_, originally _unxor_, was derived from the verb\n_ungere_, \u2018to anoint,\u2019 because the maidens when they reached the\nthreshold of their future husbands, were similarly accustomed to anoint\nthe door-posts.\u201d In support of this fanciful etymology, old-time\ncommentators on Terence and Virgil are cited;[78] which shows, at least,\nthat this ceremony at the threshold of the husband\u2019s home has long been\nrecognized as of vital importance in the marriage contract and relation.\n\nIt is customary, among the Greeks in Turkey, for the mother of the\nbridegroom, as he leaves his home to go for his bride on the morning of\nhis wedding, to lay across his pathway a girdle, over which he steps,\nand to pour a libation of water before him.[79]\n\nIn the Morea, in the vicinity of Sparta, it is said that, when the bride\nis brought to her new home, the mother of the bridegroom \u201cstands waiting\nat the door, holding a glass of honey and water in her hand. From this\nglass the bride must drink; ... while the lintel of the door is smeared\nwith the remainder; ... in the meantime one of the company breaks a\npomegranate on the threshold.\u201d[80] In Rhodes, when the newly married\ncouple enter the doorway of their new home, the husband \u201cdips his finger\nin a cup of honey, and traces a cross over the door.... A pomegranate is\nplaced on the threshold, which the young husband crushes with his foot\nas he enters, followed by his wife, over whom the wedding guests throw\ncorn and cotton seeds and orange flower water.\u201d[81]\n\nOn Skarpanto (Carpathos), an island lying between Rhodes and Crete, when\nthe bridegroom reaches the door of the bride\u2019s house \u201che is greeted by\nthe mother of the bride, who touches the nape of his neck with a censer\ncontaining incense.... She further gives him a present called\n_embatikon_,\u2013that is to say, \u2018the gift of in-going,\u2019\u2013and then places on\nthe threshold a rug or blanket folded, with a stick resting on one of\nthe corners. The bridegroom advances his right foot, breaks the stick\nand passes in.\u201d[82]\n\nAmong the Morlacchi, in Dalmatia, it is, or was, a custom for a bride to\nkneel and kiss the threshold of her husband\u2019s home, before crossing it\nfor the first time. Her mother-in-law, or some other near relative of\nher husband, at the same time presented her with a sieve full of\ndifferent kinds of grain, nuts, and small fruits, which the bride\nscattered behind her back as she passed in.[83]\n\nIt is a custom in portions of Russia, when the bride is about to leave\nher father\u2019s home to meet the bridegroom, for the friends of the\nbridegroom to appear at the door, and request that the bride be brought\nto them. \u201cAfter their request has been many times repeated, the\n\u2018princess\u2019 [as the bride is called] appears, attended by her relatives\nand attendants, but stops short at the door. Again the bridegroom\u2019s\nfriends demand the bride, but are told first to \u2018cleanse the threshold;\nthen will the young princess cross the threshold.\u2019\u201d Thereupon gifts are\nmade by the bridegroom\u2019s friend, and the bride crosses the threshold to\ngo to the bridegroom.[84]\n\nAmong the Mordvins (or, Mordevins), a Finnish people on the Volga, there\nare various customs in connection with marriage, tending to confirm the\nidea that the threshold is the household altar. In a ceremony of\nbetrothal, with a conference over the terms of dowry, a prayer is\noffered to the \u201cgoddess of the homestead,\u201d and the \u201cgoddess of the\ndwelling-house;\u201d \u201cthe girl\u2019s father then cuts off the corner of a loaf\nof bread with three slashes of a knife, salts it, and places it under\nthe threshold, where the Penates are believed to frequent. This is\ncalled the \u2018gods\u2019 portion.\u2019\u201d Bread and salt are factors in a sacred\ncovenant, and their proffer to the household gods, at the threshold\naltar, would seem to be an invitation to those gods to be a party to the\nnew marriage covenant. Again, after the terms of betrothal are agreed\non, there is the feast of \u201chand-striking,\u201d or ratification of the\nbetrothal. On that occasion also the \u201cgods\u2019 portion\u201d is offered; and \u201ca\nlittle brandy is spilt under the threshold. Bread and salt are once more\nplaced under the threshold by the bride\u2019s father, who carries it from\nthe table to the household altar \u201con the point of the knife\u2013under no\ncircumstances in his hands.\u201d[85]\n\nA custom of strewing the threshold of the home of a new-married couple\nprevailed in Holland until recent times.[86] This was obviously a form\nof offering at the household altar.\n\nOn the evening before the marriage ceremony, in the rural districts and\nsmaller towns of Northern Germany, the boys and girls, and others in the\nneighborhood, are accustomed to appear at the door of the bride\u2019s house,\nand smash on the threshold earthen pots and jars, with loud cries of\njoy. \u201cSometimes, whole car-loads of broken pottery have to be removed\nfrom the door the next morning.\u201d And when the young couple return to\ntheir home, after the ceremony at the church, poor boys and girls are\naccustomed to stretch a colored cord across the door of the house, to\nprevent a passage over the threshold, unless the bridegroom throws a\nhandful of small coins among those who bar the way.[87]\n\nTraces of the sacredness of the threshold altar seem to exist in the\nwedding ceremonies in villages on the coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland.\n\u201cAfter the marriage is solemnized, ... the bride\u2019s guests are\nentertained at her home, and the bridegroom\u2019s at his.... When the bride\nreturns to her father\u2019s house, after the marriage, broken bread of\nvarious sorts is thrown over her before she enters. The same ceremony is\ngone through with the bridegroom at his father\u2019s door.\u201d[88]\n\nWhen a girl among the Sea Dyaks of Borneo is married, the wedding takes\nplace at her house. The marriage rite includes the erecting an altar\nbefore the door of the house, and placing on it an offering of prepared\nareca-nut, covered with a red cloth, the color of blood. The families of\nthe bride and the groom then partake of that offering in covenant\nconclave.[89]\n\nA lover, among the Woolwas, in Central America, when wooing a bride,\nwould bring a deer\u2019s carcass, and a bundle of firewood, and deposit it\noutside of her house door. If she accepted these, and took them over the\nthreshold, it was a betrothal.[90] The covenant seemed to consist in the\nreaching across the threshold and accepting a proffered offering in a\nspirit of loving agreement.\n\nAmong the Towkas, in the same part of the world, a bridegroom would go\nwith his friends to the home of his bride, carrying a bundle of gifts\nfor her. Sitting down outside of the door, he would call on her family\nto open to him. There being no response, music would then be tried by\nhis friends. At this the door would be opened just far enough for him to\nput a gift inside over the threshold. One by one his gifts would be\npassed in, in this way, while the door opened wider and wider. When the\nlast gift was over the threshold, the lover would spring within, and,\nseizing the bride, would carry her across the threshold, and take her to\na temporary hut erected within a charmed circle near by, while his\nfriends guarded him from intrusion.[91]\n\nAnd thus, in various ways, among widely different primitive peoples, the\nmarriage customs go to show that the home threshold cannot be passed\nexcept by overcoming a barrier of some kind, and making an offering,\nbloody or bloodless, at this primal family altar. An essential part of\nthe covenant of union is a halting at, and then passing over, the\nthreshold of the new home, with an accompanying sacrifice.\n\n 4. STEPPING OR BEING LIFTED ACROSS THE THRESHOLD.\n\nEven more widespread and prominent than the custom of offering blood, or\nof making a libation, or of overcoming a special barrier, at the\nthreshold, or of anointing or stamping the posts or lintel of the\ndoorway as a sign of the covenant, at the time of a marriage, and as a\npart of the ceremony, is the habit of causing the bride to cross the\nthreshold with care, without stepping upon it. This custom is of\nwell-nigh world-wide observance, and it has attracted the attention of\nanthropologists and students of primitive customs. A favorite method of\nexplaining it has been by calling it a survival of the practice of\n\u201cmarriage by capture;\u201d but this is nothing more than an unscientific\nguess, in defiance of the truth that persistent popular customs have\ntheir origin in a sentiment, and not in a passing historic practice. The\nearliest mentions of this custom, of the bride\u2019s crossing the threshold\nwithout stepping on it, show it as a voluntary religious rite; and there\nare traces of its recognition in this light from the earliest times\nuntil now.\n\nIn the Vedic Sutras, or the sacrificial rules of the ancient Hindoo\nliterature, it is specifically declared that a bride, on entering her\nhusband\u2019s home, shall step across the threshold, and not upon it. She is\nnot lifted over the door-sill, but she voluntarily crosses it. Thus it\nis said: \u201cWhen (the bridegroom with his bride) has come to his house, he\nsays to her, \u2018Cross (the threshold) with thy right foot first; do not\nstand on the threshold.\u2019\u201d[92] In this ancient ceremony, grains of rice\nare poured on the heads of the bridegroom and his bride.[93] This modern\ncustom has, therefore, a very early origin. And again: \u201cHe makes her\nenter the house (which she does) with her right foot. And she does not\nstand on the threshold.\u201d[94]\n\nPutting the right foot forward seems to be a matter of importance in\nvarious primitive religions. \u201cPut your right foot first\u201d is a maxim\nascribed to Pythagoras.[95] In his description of the proportions of a\ntemple, the Roman architect Vitruvius said: \u201cThe number of steps in\nfront should always be odd, since, in that case, the right foot, which\nbegins the ascent, will be that which first alights on the landing of\nthe temple.\u201d[96] A Muhammadan is always careful to put his right foot\nfirst in crossing over the threshold of a mosk.[97]\n\nAmong the Albanians, when the bride is taken to the home of the\nbridegroom, accompanied by the _vlam_, or \u201cthe friend of the\nbridegroom,\u201d it is said that \u201cparticular care is taken that the\nthreshold should be crossed with the right foot foremost.\u201d[98] Here, as\nin India, the crossing of the threshold is a voluntary act. The bride is\nnot lifted over, but crosses of her own accord. If she be veiled, the\nlifting is a necessity.\n\nIn Madagascar, \u201con entering a house, especially a royal house, it is\nimproper to use the left foot on first stepping into it. One must \u2018put\none\u2019s best (or right) foot foremost.\u2019\u201d[99]\n\nThe bride, in Upper Syria, is sometimes carried across the threshold of\nthe bridegroom\u2019s house by friends of the bridegroom.[100] She, of\ncourse, is veiled.\n\nWhen the bride reaches the outer gate of her husband\u2019s residence, in\nEgypt, the bridegroom meets her, enveloped as she is in her cashmere\nshawl, clasps her in his arms, and carries her across the threshold, and\nup to the doorway of the female apartments.[101]\n\nIn portions of Abyssinia, the bridegroom carries his bride from her home\nto his, bearing her across the threshold as he enters his house.[102]\n\nSo, also, it is among the more primitive tribes in West Africa. The\nbride is carried over the threshold in a rude chair, or on the shoulders\nof her friends, into her new home.[103]\n\nThere are traces of a similar custom in the marriage ceremonies of\nancient Assyria.[104]\n\nAgain, it is said to be found among the Khonds of Orissa,[105] the\nTatars,[106] and the Eskimos.[107]\n\nIn ancient Greece[108] and in ancient Rome[109] the lifting of the bride\nover the threshold of her new home was an important part of the marriage\nceremony. Classic writers had their explanations of this custom, as\ncertain modern anthropologists have theirs, but the origin of the\nceremony was earlier than they imagined.\n\nIn unchanging China the use of fire on the threshold altar, in\nconnection with the marriage ceremony, is continued to the present day.\nThe bride is borne in a sedan-chair to the house of the bridegroom,\naccompanied by a procession of friends and musicians. \u201cOn arriving at\nthe portal of the house, the bridegroom taps the door of the sedan-chair\nwith his fan, and in response, the instructress of matrimony, who\nprompts every act of the bride, opens the door and hands out the still\nenshrouded young lady, who is carried bodily over a pan of lighted\ncharcoal, or a red-hot coulter laid on the threshold, while at the same\nmoment a servant offers for her acceptance some rice and preserved\nprunes.\u201d[110]\n\nAgain, it is burning straw that is thrown upon the door-sill, and is\nhalf extinguished before the Chinese bride is led to step across it. The\ninstructress says at this point:\n\n \u201cNow, fair young bride, the smoke bestride;\n This year have joy, next year a boy.\u201d[111]\n\nFire, like blood, stands for life in the primitive mind; and fire, like\nblood, has its place on the altar. Indeed, as the first threshold altar\nwas the hearthstone, it was the place of the household fire. The\nsacredness of the domestic fire is recognized in all the Hindoo\nreligious literature; and a Hindoo couple, on beginning their married\nlife, must have a care to enter a new home bringing their sacred altar\nfire with them.[112] In ancient Greece, the mother of the bride\naccompanied her daughter to the threshold of her new home, bearing a\nflaming torch \u201ckindled at the parental hearth, according to custom\nimmemorial.\u201d[113] A torch was similarly borne in the Roman marriage\nceremonies.[114] This custom is referred to in the term \u201chymen\u2019s torch,\u201d\nor the \u201cnuptial torch.\u201d \u201cIn Cicero\u2019s time, they did not distinguish the\nhearth-fire from the Penates, nor the Penates from the Lares.\u201d[115] The\nbride, in India, in China, in Greece, and in Rome, worshiped at the\naltar-fire of her new home.\n\nA connecting link between the altar fire and the nuptial torch is found\nin a marriage custom of the Erza, of the Mordvins, in Russia. On the eve\nof the wedding day the bridegroom\u2019s family make ready for the bride. \u201cA\nthick candle, and several thinner ones, have ... been made ready for the\noccasion. The bridegroom\u2019s father lights the smaller ones before the\nholy pictures [in use in families of the Greek Church], but sets up the\nlarge one on the threshold. It is called \u2018the house candle.\u2019\u201d The father\nthen prays for the new couple.[116]\n\nA survival of an ancient Slavic custom, of covenanting together by\ncrossing together an altar fire, would also seem to exist in Russia in\nthe practices of young people at the \u201cMidsummer Day\u201d festival. A Russian\nwriter says of these festivals: \u201cMore than once have I had an\nopportunity of being present at these nightly meetings, held at the end\nof June, in commemoration of a heathen divinity. They usually take place\nclose to a river or pond; large fires are lighted, and over them young\ncouples, bachelors and unmarried girls, jump barefoot.\u201d[117]\n\nThere is a custom of wooing among the Moksha, of the Mordvins, that\nbrings the threshold-altar idea into prominence. The parents of the\nwooer first make gifts, at their home, to the household goddesses.\n\u201cThese gifts consist of dough figures of domestic animals, which are\nplaced under the threshold of the house and of the outside gate, while\nprayer is made to the goddesses and to deceased ancestors. The father\n[of the bridegroom] then cuts off a corner of a loaf placed on the\ntable, and at the time of the offering scoops out the inside and fills\nit with honey. At midnight he drives in profound secrecy to the house of\nthe bride elect, places the honeyed bread on the gate-post [of her\nhouse], strikes the window with his whip, and shouts: \u2018_Seta!_ I,\n_Veshnak Mazakoff_, make a match between thy daughter and my son _Uru_.\nTake the honeyed bread from thy gate-post, and pray.\u2019\u201d[118] The images\nof domestic animals would here seem to stand for the slaughtered animals\nformerly offered at the threshold altar; and the linking of the altars\nof the two homes by offerings and prayer would seem to indicate the\ndesire for a sacred covenant. When the bride is received at the\nbridegroom\u2019s house, a notch is cut \u201cwith an ax in the door-post to mark\nthe arrival of a new addition to the family.\u201d\n\nAmong the Erza, of the same province, the bride, on the day of \u201cthe\ngirl\u2019s feast,\u201d preceding her marriage, \u201ctakes mould [earth] from under\nthe threshold [of her parental home] with her finger-tips, and thrusts\nit into her bosom,\u201d as she goes out to seek a farewell blessing from her\nfriends. In the bridegroom\u2019s home, meanwhile, a lighted candle is placed\non the threshold of the door; and, in some regions, when he and his\nfriends go to the bride\u2019s house to bring her to his home, he and they\nare met at the door by her parents with the covenanting bread and salt,\nand the words, \u201cBe welcome, come within.\u201d As the bride is borne out of\nher old home to go to her new one, she and her party \u201call halt and bow\nto the gate, for there, or in the courtyard, is the abode of the god\nthat protects the dwelling-place. The following prayer is made to him:\n\u2018_Kardas Sarks_, the nourisher, god of the house, do not abandon her\nthat is about to depart; always be near her just as thou art here.\u2018\u201d\nWhen she reaches her new home, she is carried (over the threshold), in\nthe arms of some of her party, into the house of the bridegroom,\ncarrying a lighted candle.[119]\n\nThe custom survived in portions of Scotland, as recently as the\nbeginning of this century, of lifting a bride over the threshold, or the\nfirst step of the door. A cake of bread, prepared for the occasion, was,\nat the same time, broken by the bridegroom\u2019s mother over the head of the\nbride. The bride was then led directly to the hearth, and the poker and\ntongs, and sometimes the broom, were put into her hands \u201cas symbols of\nher office and duty.\u201d\n\nLifting the bride over the threshold has been practiced in recent times,\nin England, Ireland, and the United States.[120]\n\nBoth bride and bridegroom were carried, on the shoulders of their\nelders, across the threshold of their new home, and laid on their bridal\nbed, in the marriage ceremonies of some of the tribes of Central\nAmerica. And again the bridegroom carried his bride in this way.[121] In\neither case, it was the crossing of the threshold without stepping on it\nthat was the thing aimed at.\n\n 5. LAYING FOUNDATIONS IN BLOOD.\n\nIn the building of a house, as a new home, the prominence given to the\nlaying of the threshold, or to its dedicating by blood, is another\nindication, or outcome, of its altar-like sacredness. In Upper Syria a\nsacrifice is often made at the beginning of the building of a new house,\nand again at the first crossing of its threshold. \u201cWhen a new house is\nbuilt,\u201d among the Met\u00e2wileh, \u201cthe owner will not reside in it until,\nwith certain formalities, a black hen has been carried several times\nround the house and slaughtered within the door,\u201d as if in covenant\ndedication of the house.[122]\n\nAmong the Copts in Egypt, when the threshold of a new house is laid, the\nowner slaughters a sheep or a goat on the threshold, and steps over the\nblood, as if in covenant for himself and his household with Him to whom\nall blood, as life, belongs. Then he divides the sacrificed victim among\nhis neighbors; and they in turn come and step across the blood on the\nthreshold, invoking as they do so a blessing on the new house and its\nowner, while coming into covenant with him.[123]\n\nThe foundation-stone of a new building is, in a sense, the threshold of\nthat structure. Hence to lay the foundations in blood is to proffer\nblood at the threshold. Traces of this custom are to be found in the\npractices or the legends of peoples wellnigh all the world over.[124]\nApparently the earlier sacrifices were of human beings.[125] Later they\nwere of animals substituted for persons. The idea seems to have been\nthat he who covenanted by blood with God, or with the gods, when his\nhouse, or his city, was builded, was guarded, together with his\nhousehold, while he and they were dwellers there; but, if he failed to\nproffer a threshold sacrifice, his first-born, or the first person who\ncrossed the bloodless threshold, would be claimed by the ignored or\ndefied deity.\n\nThere is, indeed, a suggestion of this idea in the curse pronounced by\nJoshua, when he destroyed the doomed city of Jericho, against him who\nshould rebuild its walls, he not being in covenant with and obedient to\nthe Lord. \u201cCursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and\nbuildeth this city Jericho: with the loss of his firstborn shall he lay\nthe foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he\nset up the gates of it.\u201d[126] A later record tells of the fulfilment of\nthis curse. It says of the reign of Ahab: \u201cIn his days did Hiel the\nBethel-ite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof with the loss\nof Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof with the loss of\nhis youngest son Segub; according to the word of the Lord, which he\nspake by the hand of Joshua the son of Nun.\u201d[127]\n\nHuman sacrifices, in order to furnish blood at the foundations of a\nhouse, or of a public structure, have been continued down to recent\ntimes, or to the present, in some portions of the world; and there are\nindications in popular tradition that they were frequent in a not remote\npast.\n\nIt is said that at the building of Scutari, in Asia Minor, \u201cthe workmen\nwere engaged on its fortifications for three years, but the walls would\nnot stand. Then they protested that the only possible way to succeed was\nto lay under or in them a living human being. They accordingly laid hold\nof a young woman who brought them dinner, and immured her.\u201d[128]\n\nAccording to a story in China, when the bridge leading to the site of\nSt. John\u2019s College, in Shanghai, was in process of building, an official\npresent took off his shoes, as indicating his rank, and threw them into\nthe stream, in order to stay the current, and enable the workmen to lay\nthe foundations. Finding this unavailing, he took off his garments and\nthrew them in. Finally he threw himself in, and as his life went out the\nworkmen were enabled to go on with their building. To this day the\nbelief is general that that structure stands fast because of this\nsacrifice.[129]\n\n\u201cWhen the walls of Algiers were built of blocks of concrete [by\nMuhammadans], in the sixteenth century, a Christian captive named\nGeronimo was placed in one of the blocks and the rampart built over and\nabout him. Since the French occupation of Algiers a subsidence in the\nwall led to an examination of the blocks, and one was found to have\ngiven way. It was removed, and the cast of Geronimo was discovered in\nthe block. The body had gone to dust, and the superincumbent weight had\ncrushed in the stone sarcophagus.\u201d[130]\n\nA story told among the Danes is, that \u201cmany years ago, when the ramparts\nwere being raised round Copenhagen, the wall always sank, so that it was\nnot possible to get it to stand firm. They therefore took a little\ninnocent girl, placed her in a chair by a table, and gave her playthings\nand sweetmeats. While she thus sat enjoying herself, twelve masons built\nan arch over her, which, when completed, they covered with earth to the\nsound of drums and trumpets. By this process the walls were made\nsolid.\u201d[131]\n\n\u201cThuringian legend declares that to make the castle of Liebenstein fast\nand impregnable, a child was bought for hard money of its mother, and\nwalled in. It was eating a cake while the masons were at work, the story\ngoes, and it cried, \u2018Mother, I see thee still;\u2019 then later, \u2018Mother, I\nsee thee a little still;\u2019 and as they put in the last stone, \u2018Mother,\nnow I see thee no more.\u2019\u201d[132]\n\nA similar story is told of a Slavic town on the Danube. A plague\ndevastated it, and it was determined to build it anew, with a new\ncitadel. \u201cActing on the advice of their wisest men, they sent out\nmessengers before sunrise one morning in all directions, with orders to\nseize upon the first living creature they should meet. The victim proved\nto be a child (_Dyetina_, archaic form of _Ditya_), who was buried alive\nunder the foundation-stone of the new citadel. The city was on that\naccount called Dyetinets [or Detinetz], a name since applied to any\ncitadel.\u201d[133]\n\nIt is even said that \u201cwhen, a few years ago, the Bridge Gate of the\nBremen city walls was demolished, the skeleton of a child was found\nimbedded in the foundations.\u201d[134]\n\nA Scottish legend tells that St. Columba found himself unable to build a\ncathedral on the island of Iona unless he would secure its stability and\nsafety by the blood of a human sacrifice. Thereupon he took his\ncompanion, Oran, and buried him alive at the foundations of the\nstructure, having no trouble after that.[135]\n\nAnd it is said that under the walls of the only two round towers of the\nancient Irish examined, human skeletons were found buried.[136]\n\nUntil the transfer of Alaska to the United States, in 1867, by the\nRussian government, human sacrifices at the foundation of a new house\nwere common in that portion of America. The ceremonies are thus\ndescribed by one familiar with them: \u201cThe rectangular space for the\nbuilding is ... cleared, a spot for the fireplace designated, and four\nholes dug, wherein the corner posts are to be set.... A slave, either\nman or woman who has been captured in war or is even a descendant of\nsuch a slave, is blindfolded and compelled to lie down face uppermost,\nin the place selected for the fireplace [the site of the domestic\naltar]. A sapling is then cut, laid across the throat of the slave, and,\nat a given signal, the two nearest relatives of the host sit upon the\nrespective ends of the sapling, thereby choking the unhappy wretch to\ndeath. But the corner posts must receive their baptism; so four slaves\nare blindfolded, and one is forced to stand in each post-hole, when, at\na given signal, a blow on the forehead is dealt with a peculiar club\nornamented with the host\u2019s coat of arms.\u201d It is said that even to the\npresent time, on the building of a house in Alaska, \u201cthe same ceremonies\nare enacted, with the exception of the sacrifices, which are prevented\nby the United States authorities.\u201d[137]\n\nIn Hindoostan, Burmah, Tennasserin, Borneo, Japan, Galam, Yarriba,\nPolynesia, and elsewhere, there are modern survivals of this\nfoundation-laying in blood.[138] It would seem, indeed, to have been\nwellnigh universal as a primitive usage.\n\nPopular ballads give other indications of such customs, in various\nlands. \u201cIn a song, of which there are several versions, of the building\nof the bridge of Arta, it is told how the bridge fell down as fast as it\nwas built, until at last the master-builder dreamed a dream that it\nwould only stand if his own wife were buried alive in the foundations.\nHe therefore sends for her, bidding her dress in festival attire, and\nthen finds an excuse to make her descend into the central pile,\nwhereupon they heap the earth over her, and thus the bridge stands\nfast.\u201d[139]\n\n\u201cIn another song the same story is told of the Bridge of Tricha, with\nthe difference only that it is a little bird that whispers in the\narchitect\u2019s ear how the pile may be made to stand. A similar\nsuperstition connected with the building of the monastery Curtea de\nArgest, in Wallachia, forms the subject of a fine poem by the Roumanian\npoet Alexandri.\u201d[140]\n\nThere is an indication of a like custom among the Vlachs in Turkey, as\nshown in their folk-poetry. The ballad of the \u201cMonastery of Argis\u201d tells\nof such an incident, in which the master-builder Manoli plays a\npart.[141]\n\nVarious substitutes for human offerings at the laying of a\nfoundation-stone, or a threshold, have been adopted in different\ncountries. Thus, in modern Greece, \u201cafter the ground has been cleared\nfor the foundations of a new house, the future owner, his family, and\nthe workmen attend, together with the _pappas_ [the priest] in full\ncanonicals, accompanied by incense, holy water, and all due accessories.\nA prayer is said, and those present are aspersed, and the site is\nsprinkled with the consecrated water. Then a fowl or a lamb, which you\nhave noticed lying near with the feet tied together, is taken by one of\nthe workmen, killed and decapitated, the _pappas_ standing by all the\nwhile, and even giving directions; the blood is then smeared on the\nfoundation-stone, in the fulfilment of the popular adage that \u2018there\nmust be blood in the foundation.\u2019\u201d[142]\n\nThe modern Greek term for this ceremony, _stoicheionein_, would seem to\nindicate a sacrifice to the deity of the threshold, or the foundation.\n\n\u201cThe Bulgarians, it is said, when laying a house foundation, take a\nthread, and measure the shadow of some casual passer-by. The measure is\nthen buried under the foundation-stone, and it is expected that the man\nwhose shadow has been thus treated will soon become but a shade\nhimself.... Sometimes a victim is put to death on the occasion; the\nfoundations being sprinkled with the blood of a fowl, or a lamb, or some\nother species of scapegoat.\u201d[143]\n\nAmong the Russian peasants the idea prevails that the building of a new\nhouse \u201cis apt to be followed by the death of the head of the family for\nwhich the new dwelling is constructed, or that the member of the family\nwho is the first to enter it will soon die. In accordance with a custom\nof great antiquity, the oldest member of a migrating household enters\nthe new house first; and in many places, as, for instance, in the\nGovernment of Archangel, some animal is killed and buried on the spot on\nwhich the first log or stone is laid.\u201d[144]\n\nThe \u201cupper corner\u201d of a house, in Russia, is peculiarly sacred, having\neven more honor than the doorway threshold in the ordinary home. Yet\nthis upper corner seems to be in a sense the real threshold, or\nfoundation corner, of the building. A cock is the ordinary victim\nsacrificed \u201con the spot which a projected house is to cover.\u201d The head\nof this cock is buried \u201cexactly where the \u2018upper corner\u2019 of the building\nis to stand.\u201d And this corner is thenceforward a sacred corner. Opposite\nto it is the stove. It is called the \u201cgreat\u201d and the \u201cbeautiful\u201d corner.\nThe family meal is eaten before it, and every one who enters the cottage\nmakes obeisance toward it. Formerly ancestral images are supposed to\nhave been in that corner, and now holy pictures are there.[145] It would\nseem to be in accordance with this idea that the foundation-stone, or\nthreshold, of a new building, which in civilized lands is now laid with\nimposing ceremonies, is known as the \u201ccorner-stone.\u201d Yet the\n\u201ccorner-stone\u201d of a modern building is sometimes at the corner of the\ncentral doorway.[146]\n\nIt is worthy of note that in ancient Egypt the one door of an ordinary\ndwelling-house was placed at one side, or end, of the front wall, and\nnot in the center; so that the corner-stone of the building was\nliterally a portion of the threshold.[147] The same was true of many an\nold-time New England house; the \u201cfront door\u201d was at the left-hand side\n(as one approached the house) of the gable end. Thus the threshold of\nthe door was often the corner-stone.\n\nAncient Romans were accustomed to place statues and images, instead of\nliving persons, under the foundations of their buildings, as has been\nshown by recent researches in and about Rome.[148] In one instance,\nwhere a fine statue of colossal size and in perfect preservation was\nunearthed, at the foundations of a convent which was being enlarged, \u201cby\norder of the monks, it was buried again,\u201d as if in deference to the\nprimitive belief that it was essential to the stability of the\nstructure.[149]\n\nThere is a Swedish tradition \u201cthat under the altar in the first\nChristian churches a lamb was usually buried, which imparted security\nand duration to the edifice.\u201d[150] And, \u201caccording to Danish accounts, a\nlamb was buried under every altar, and a living horse was laid in every\nchurchyard before a human corpse was laid in it. Both lamb and horse are\nto be seen occasionally in the church- or grave-yard, and betoken death.\nUnder other houses pigs and hens were buried alive.\u201d[151]\n\nA new sacrificial stone, or altar of sacrifice, laid on the summit of a\nMexican temple, in 1512, was consecrated by Montezuma by the blood of\nmore than twelve thousand captives.[152]\n\nWhen the new railroad was built between Jaffa and Jerusalem, a few years\nago, there were sacrifices of sheep at its beginning. And there were\nsimilar sacrifices at the foundations of the Turkish building, at the\nColumbian Exposition at Chicago.\n\nIn all these facts or legends, blood on the threshold of the building,\nin the foundation-stones of the structure, is shown to have been deemed\nan essential factor in a covenant with, or in propitiation of, the deity\nof the place.\n\n 6. APPEALS AT THE ALTAR.\n\nBecause the threshold is recognized as an altar, nearness to the altar\nis nearness to God, or to the gods worshiped at that altar. Hence\nappeals are made and justice is sought at the gate, or at the threshold,\nas in the presence of deity.\n\nTo present one\u2019s self at the tent doorway, or to lay hold of the\nsupports, or cords, at the entrance of an Arab\u2019s \u201chouse of hair,\u201d is\nrecognized as an ever-effective appeal for hospitality in the East. Even\nan enemy can thus secure the protection of the home sanctuary.[153]\n\nIn the excavation of Tell-el-Hesy, in Southwestern Palestine, supposed\nto cover the remains of ancient Lachish,[154] Dr. Petrie discovered\nvarious ornamented door-jambs. In one case a simple volute on a pilaster\nslab suggested to Dr. Petrie \u201ca ram\u2019s horn nailed up against a wooden\npost;\u201d and \u201che sees in this the origin of the type of the \u2018horns of the\naltar,\u2019[155] so often mentioned in temple architecture.\u201d[156] If Dr.\nPetrie be correct in this thought, the horns of the altar were first of\nall at the house doorway, above the threshold altar.\n\nOne of the fundamental laws of the Afghans makes it incumbent on a host\nto \u201cshelter and protect any one who in extremity may flee to his\nthreshold, and seek an asylum under his roof.\u201d Property or life must be\nsacrificed in his behalf, if need be. \u201cAs soon as you have crossed the\nthreshold of an Afghan you are sacred to him, though you were his deadly\nfoe, and he will give up his own life to save yours.\u201d A favorite poem of\nthe Afghan, entitled, \u201cAdam Khan and Durkhani,\u201d tells of a son who\nkilled his father because that father had betrayed a refugee who sought\nthe sanctuary of his threshold. And all Afghans honor the memory of that\nson.[157]\n\nAmong the Arabs of the Syrian desert, when a man would leave his own\ntribe and join himself to another, he takes a lamb or a goat with him,\nand presents himself at the entrance of the tent of the shaykh of the\ntribe he would find a home in. Slaying the animal there, and allowing\nits blood to run out on the ground at the threshold of the tent, he\nmakes his appeal to the shaykh to accept him as a member of his tribe,\nor as a son by adoption. And this appeal has peculiar force, as a voice\nby blood.[158]\n\nWhen a man among these tribes is in peril of his life, pursued by an\nenemy, he can similarly make an appeal for sanctuary at the threshold\naltar of a shaykh\u2019s tent, with a like outpouring of the blood of an\nanimal brought by him; and protection must be granted him by the shaykh.\nIt is as though he had laid hold of the \u201chorns of the altar.\u201d So, again,\nwhen a man would be reconciled with an enemy who has cause for bitter\nhostility, he goes to the tent of that enemy and sacrifices an animal at\nthe threshold, with an appeal for forgiveness. This offering of a\nthreshold sacrifice secures his safety.\n\nIn other portions of Arabia this same idea finds a different but similar\nexpression. \u201cWith bare and shaven head the offender appears at the door\nof the injured person, holding a knife in each hand, and, reciting a\nformula provided for the purpose, strikes his head several times with\nthe sharp blades. Then drawing his hands over his bloody scalp, he wipes\nthem on the door-post. The other must then come out and cover the\nsuppliant\u2019s head with a shawl [covering the offense, in covering the\noffender], after which he kills a sheep, and they sit down together at a\nfeast of reconciliation.\u201d[159]\n\nA record on a Babylonian clay tablet, of the twenty-eighth year of\nNebuchadrezzar, affirms that \u201con the second day of the month of Ab\u201d a\ncertain \u201cImbi\u02bfa shall bring his witness to the gate of the house of the\nchief Bel-iddin, and let him testify\u201d as to a certain matter.[160] The\ngate of the chief man, or local magistrate, would here seem to have been\nthe recognized court of justice.\n\nIn the palace ruins at Persepolis and Susa, the great doorways show, in\ntheir architecture, the influence of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt. And\nin the relief sculpture of those doorways there is seen a representation\nof \u201cthe king sitting on his throne rendering justice at his palace\ngate.\u201d[161]\n\nAt one of the gates of modern Cairo, the writer has seen a venerable\nArab sitting in judgment on a case submitted to him by the contestants.\nAnd such a scene may be often witnessed at the gates of an Oriental\ncity.\n\nIn accordance with this primitive idea, it became a custom in India for\none who would obtain justice from another to seat himself at the door of\na house, or a tent, and refuse to move from that position until he\nstarved to death, unless his claim were heeded. If the suitor died at\nthe door, or the household altar, the sin of his death rested upon the\nhouseholder. The suitor\u2019s blood cried out against the evil-doer.\n\nEven to the present time appeals at the household altar are made in\nblood, in portions of India. A case recently before the British court in\nKathiawar involved an illustration of such an appeal. One of the\nCharaus, a caste of heralds, had become responsible with his life,\naccording to custom, for the repayment of a loan made to a land owner.\nThe land owner delayed payment, and seemed disposed to avoid it. \u201cThe\nherald and his brother, with their old mother for a sacrifice, went to\nthe door of the debtor\u2019s house and demanded payment, as their family\nhonor was at stake. When the land owner would not pay, the herald struck\noff the head of his mother with his sword before the door, the brother\nat the same time wounded (intending to kill) the debtor, and the two\nbrothers sprinkled the mingled blood of the sacrifice on the\nhouseholder\u2019s door-posts. The land owner, smitten by public infamy and\nthe guilt of the matricide, starved himself to death.\u201d[162] References\nto this responsibility of the heralds are found in the Mahabharata.[163]\n\nEven where the primitive custom of sacrificing at the doorway has died\nout, there sometimes seems to be a survival of it in popular\nphraseology. Talcott Williams, of Philadelphia, relates an incident of\nhis experiences in Morocco, which illustrates this. He says: \u201cAs I was\nriding through the Soko at Tangier on a morning in June, 1889, a servant\nstopped me, and said: \u2018Four men, from near Azila (a town on the seacoast\nof Morocco, about thirty miles away), are waiting for you at the gate of\nthe house of Mr. Perdicarus, and they have killed a sheep.\u2019 \u2018What have\nthey killed a sheep for?\u2019 said I. \u2018Oh!\u2019 said the servant, \u2018I don\u2019t mean\nthat they have actually killed a sheep, but they are sitting at the\ngate, asking for your help, and expect you to aid them in their trouble,\nbecause they have heard that you have influence with the American\nconsul, and are a man of importance in your own country, and we call\nthat \u201ckilling a sheep.\u201d\u2019 I think he added \u2018at the gate,\u2019 but my memory\nis not perfectly clear at this point. I rode on to the house of my\nfriend, where I was stopping, and found there the kinsman of a sheikh,\nwho had been imprisoned by the American consul. They seized my horse\u2019s\nbridle, and, with the usual Oriental signs of respect, refused to let me\ndismount until I had heard them and their plea for help.\n\n\u201cI was told by my own servant and the other Orientals there, that this\nplea \u2018at the gate,\u2019 accompanied as it was by the readiness to \u2018kill a\nsheep,\u2019 was one which no man in Morocco would dream of disregarding. I\nmade some inquiry on the subject afterwards, and found that the habit of\nsitting at the gate waiting for a man of supposed influence or\nauthority, while absent, to return to his house, often actually\naccompanied, though less frequently at present, by the slaughter of a\nsheep, whose blood is poured across the road over which he must pass,\nwas a form used only in cases of dire necessity, and one to which a man\nwith whom other pleas would avail nothing, felt compelled to give\nattention. I am glad to add that in my own case this ancient rite was\nnot without its fruits to those who had used it.\u201d[164]\n\nSee the Bible references to this idea. Moses stood \u201cin the gate of the\ncamp,\u201d at a crisis hour in Israel\u2019s history, when he would execute\njudgment in the Lord\u2019s cause.[165] All Israel was aroused to do judgment\nagainst the sinning Benjamites because of the appeal of the dying woman\nwho fell at the door of the house, \u201cwith her hands upon the\nthreshold.\u201d[166] Boaz \u201cwent up to the gate,\u201d to meet the elders there,\nwhen he would covenant to do justice by Ruth and the kinsman of\nNaomi.[167] Absalom sat in \u201cthe way of the gate\u201d when he would show\nfavor to those who came there with their appeals for justice.[168] And\nwhen Absalom was dead, David as king was again sitting in the gate.[169]\nZedekiah, the king of Judah, was sitting in the gate of Benjamin when\nEbed-melech appealed to him in behalf of Jeremiah.[170] Daniel\u2019s post of\nhonor in Babylon was \u201cin the gate of the king,\u201d as a judge in the king\u2019s\nname.[171]\n\nWisdom, personified, says of him who would seek help where it is to be\nobtained:\n\n \u201cBlessed is the man that heareth me,\n Watching daily at my gates,\n Waiting at the posts of my doors.\u201d[172]\n\nThe Lord\u2019s call to Israel, through the prophets, was: \u201cEstablish\njudgment in the gate,\u201d[173] and \u201cExecute the judgment of truth and peace\nin your gates.\u201d[174] A reference to a just and righteous man is to \u201chim\nthat reproveth in the gate.\u201d[175]\n\nLazarus in his need is laid daily at the gate of the rich Dives, seeking\nhelp.[176] So, again, the poor man who was a cripple from his birth was\n\u201claid daily at the door of the temple ... called Beautiful, to ask alms\nof them that entered into the temple.\u201d[177]\n\nIt is written in the Mosaic law, that, when a bondman would bind himself\nand his family in permanent servitude to his loved master, \u201chis master\nshall bring him unto God [or to the place of judgment and of covenant],\nand shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master\nshall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall [thenceforward]\nserve him forever;\u201d[178] or, as it is elsewhere said, the master shall\nthrust the awl \u201cthrough his ear, unto [or into] the door.\u201d[179] Here,\napparently, the master and servant appeal together at the household\naltar, in witness of their sacred covenant.\n\nThe high court of Turkey is still called the \u201cSublime Porte,\u201d the\n\u201cExalted Gateway;\u201d and the subjects of the Sultan seek imperial favor at\nhis palace door. He, or his representative, administers justice there,\nto those who are waiting at his gate.\n\nA promise to Abraham was: \u201cThy seed shall possess the gate of his\nenemies.\u201d[180] And again Jesus says of his Church, that \u201cthe gates of\nHades shall not prevail against it.\u201d[181] In both these cases \u201cgates\u201d\nare obviously equivalent to the power of those who are within the gates.\nThus, also, when the overthrow of a city is foretold in prophecy, it is\nsaid, that \u201cthe gate is smitten with destruction.\u201d[182]\n\n 7. COVENANT TOKENS ON THE DOORWAY.\n\nBecause the threshold of the doorway is the primitive altar of the\nhousehold, the doorway itself is, as it were, a framework above the\naltar; and the side-posts and lintel of the doorway fittingly bear\ntokens or inscriptions in testimony to the sacredness of the passage\ninto the home sanctuary. It would seem that originally the blood poured\nout in sacrifice on the threshold was made use of for marking the\ndoor-posts and lintel with proofs of the covenant entered into between\nthe in-comer and the host; and that afterwards other symbols of life,\nand appropriate inscriptions, were substituted for the blood itself.\n\nThere are survivals in the East, at the present time, of the original\nmethod of blood-marking the frame of the doorway; and there are traces\nof its practice in ancient times in both the East and the West.\nPresident Washburn, of Robert College, Constantinople, says:[183] \u201cI\nremember, after the great fire in Stamboul, in 1865, going over the\nruins, and coming to a house that the fire had spared; a sheep had been\nsacrificed on the threshold, and a hand dipped in the blood and struck\nupon the two door-posts.\u201d\n\nThis appears, also, in the installing of a Chief Rabbi in modern\nJerusalem. In the welcome to the Hakham B\u00e2shi, or the \u201cFirst in\nZion,\u201d[184] \u201cthe multitude of those gathered together accompany him to\nhis house, but before he sets the sole of his foot upon the threshold of\nthe outer gate [or court] one of the shokheteem [or official\nslaughterers] slays a perfect beast, and pronounces the sacrificial\nblessing, and all those present answer, Amen. Then the rabbi, the Hakham\nB\u00e2shi, steps over the beast which has been slain, and the shokhet dips\nthe two palms of his hands into the blood, and marks first the vessels\nof the rabbi\u2019s house. And, with his hands stained with blood, he forms\nthe semblance of a hand above the lintel of the door;\u2013in their trust\nthat this thing is good [the proper thing] for the evil eye;\u2013and the\nflesh of the beast they distribute to the poor.\u201d[185]\n\nA custom in this same line is noted among the Jews in Morocco, in\nconnection with wedding observances. \u201cWhilst the bullock, or other\nanimal, is being slaughtered for the evening\u2019s festivities, a number of\nboys dip their hands in the blood, and make an impression of an\noutspread hand on the door-posts and walls of the bride\u2019s house;\u201d\nsupposedly \u201cfor the purpose of keeping off the \u2018evil eye,\u2019 and thus\nensuring good luck to the newly married couple.\u201d[186]\n\nThere are indications of such a custom in ancient times. Layard says of\nhis researches in Assyria: \u201cOn all the slabs forming entrances in the\noldest palaces of Nimroud, were marks of a black fluid resembling blood,\nwhich appeared to be daubed on the stone. I have not been able to\nascertain the nature of this fluid; but its appearance cannot fail to\ncall to mind the Jewish ceremony of placing the blood of the sacrifice\non the lintel of the doorway.\u201d[187]\n\nIn ancient Egypt there were inscriptions, together with the name of the\nowner, on the side-posts and lintels of the dwellings. \u201cBesides the\nowner\u2019s name,\u201d says Wilkinson,[188] \u201cthey sometimes wrote a lucky\nsentence over the entrance of the house, for a favorable omen, as \u2018The\nGood Abode,\u2019 the _m\u00fanzel mob\u00e1rak_ of the modern Arabs, or something\nsimilar; and the lintels and imposts of the doors in the royal mansions\nwere frequently covered with hieroglyphics, containing the ovals and\ntitles of the monarch. It was, perhaps, at the dedication of the house,\nthat these sentences were affixed; and we may infer, from the early\nmention of this custom among the Jews, that it was derived from\nEgypt.\u201d[189]\n\nWhen it is understood that the inscribing, on the doorways, of\ndedications to protecting deities, was common among primitive peoples,\nit would seem to be in accordance with that custom that the Hebrews were\ncommanded to dedicate their doorways to the one living God. It is said\nof the words of the covenant of God with his people, as recorded in\nDeuteronomy 6 : 4\u20139 and 11 : 13\u201321, \u201cThou shalt write them upon the door\nposts of thy house, and upon thy gates.\u201d To this day, among stricter\nJews, these covenant words inscribed on parchment, and enclosed in a\ncylinder of glass, or a case of metal or of wood, are affixed to the\nside-posts of every principal door in the house. This case and\ninscription are called the \u201cmezuza.\u201d On the outside of the written\nscroll, the divine name, _Shaddai_,\u2013\u201cthe Almighty,\u201d\u2013is so inscribed that\nit may be in sight through an opening in the case or cylinder. This name\nstands for \u201cthe Guardian of the dwellings of Israel,\u201d whose protection\nis thus invoked above the primitive altar of the household on the\nthreshold of the entrance way.[190]\n\n\u201cEvery pious Jew, as often as he passes the mezuza, touches the divine\nname with the finger of his right hand, puts it to his mouth and kisses\nit, saying in Hebrew, \u2018The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy\ncoming in, from this time forth, and for evermore;\u2019[191] and when\nleaving on a business expedition he says, after touching it, \u2018In thy\nname, _kuzu bemuchsaz kuzu_ (=God), I go out and shall prosper.\u2019\u201d[192]\nIn some cases the covenant words are inscribed directly upon the\ndoor-posts, instead of being written on parchment and enclosed in a\ncase.\n\nOn the lintels of the ancient synagogues in Palestine there were\nsculptured symbolic figures, such as the paschal lamb, a pot of manna, a\nvine, or a bunch of grapes, together with inscriptions; and the\ndoor-posts were ornamented more or less richly.[193] Evidences of this\nare still abundant.\n\nSpeaking of the writing over the door and all round the room at the\noffice of the consul in Sidon, Dr. Thomson says that Muhammadans \u201cnever\nset up a gate, cover a fountain, build a bridge, or erect a house,\nwithout writing on it choice sentences from the Koran, or from their\nbest poets. Christians also do the same.\u201d[194] These writings are deemed\na protection against harm from evil spirits.\n\nIn Persia, both the Muhammadans and the Armenians inscribe passages from\ntheir sacred books above their doorways, with ornamental adornings, in\n\u201cstrange, fantastic patterns.\u201d[195] The palace doorways in ancient\nPersia were inscribed and ornamented in a high degree.[196]\n\nAt the present time, in China, coins are put under the door-sill at the\ntime of its laying, and charms are fastened above the door;[197] the\ngods of the threshold are invoked at the doorway by shrines and\ninscriptions, while sentences, as in ancient Egypt, are written on the\nside-posts and lintel.[198] At the festival of the fifth month of the\nChinese year, \u201ccharms, consisting of yellow paper of various sizes, on\nwhich are printed images of idols, or of animals, or Chinese characters,\nare pasted upon the doors and door-posts of houses, in order to expel\nevil spirits.\u201d In times of pestilence, sentences written in human blood\nare fastened on the door-posts for protection from disease.[199]\n\nDescribing a ceremony on a large Chinese junk when starting out on a\nlong voyage, an observer tells of the sacrifice of a fowl in honor of\nthe divinity called Loong-moo, or the Dragon\u2019s Mother. A temporary altar\nwas erected at the bow of the vessel, as its beginning, or threshold,\nand the blood of the sacrificed fowl was shed there. Pieces of silver\npaper were \u201csprinkled with the blood [of the fowl], and then fastened to\nthe door-posts and lintels of the cabin.\u201d[200] The cabin door is the\nhome door of the voyager.\n\nAbove the house door of almost every home, in large portions of Japan,\nthere is suspended the shimenawa, or a thin rope of rice straw, which is\none of the sacred symbols of ancient Shintoism. Above the doors of high\nShinto officials, this symbol is of great size and prominence. Its\npresence is as a sign of a covenant with the gods.[201]\n\nThe Greeks certainly recognized the entrance of the house as the place\nfor an altar to the protecting deity. \u201cBefore each house stood, usually,\nits own peculiar altar of Apollo Agyieus, or an obelisk rudely\nrepresenting the god himself;\u201d and that over the house door, \u201cfor good\nluck,\u201d or as a talisman, \u201can inscription was often placed.\u201d[202] And on\noccasions, as when a bride entered her husband\u2019s house, the doorway was\n\u201cornamented with festive garlands.\u201d[203] Theocritus refers to a Greek\ncustom of smearing the side-posts of the gateway with the juice of magic\nherbs, as a method of appeal to the guardian deity to influence the\nheart of the dweller within toward the suppliant at the door.[204]\n\nRoman householders affixed to the lintels and side-posts of their doors\nthe spoils and trophies taken by them in battle. Branches, and wreaths\nof bay and laurel, were hung by them in the doorway on a marriage\noccasion; and lamps and torches were displayed at their doors at other\ntimes of rejoicing; while cypresses were shown there at the time of a\ndeath.[205]\n\nTexts of Scripture, and other inscriptions, as a means of invoking a\nblessing at the doorway, are frequently found at the present time above\nthe entrance of houses in South Germany.\n\nIn Central America and in South America the blood of sacrificial\nofferings was smeared on the doorways of houses as well as of temples,\nas a means of covenanting with the local deities. Illustrations of this\nare found in the records and remains of Peru[206] and Guatemala.[207]\n\nIn both Europe and America, the practice of nailing horseshoes on the\nside-posts of a doorway, for \u201cgood luck,\u201d or as a means of guarding the\ninmates of the house from evil, is very common. So lately as the\nseventeenth century it was said: \u201cMost houses of the West End of London\nhave the horseshoe on the threshold.\u201d[208] Even at the threshold of\nChristian churches, in recent years, the symbol of the horseshoe was to\nbe found as a means of protection.[209] The horseshoe is often to be\nfound on a ship\u2019s mast. At the present time, horseshoes of various\nsizes, for use as doorway guards against evil, are found on sale in\nPhiladelphia, and other centers of civilization.\n\n 8. SYMBOL OF THE RED HAND.\n\nIt would seem that, in primitive practice, the hand of the covenanter\ndipped in the sacrificial blood on the threshold, and stamped on the\ndoor-posts and lintel, was the sign-manual of the covenant between the\ncontracting party or parties, and God, or the gods, invoked in the\nsacrifice. Illustrations of this custom, as still surviving in the East,\nhave been given, from Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Morocco.[210]\nNaturally, therefore, the sign-manual by itself came to stand for, or to\nsymbolize, the covenant of the threshold altar; and the stamp of the red\nhand became a token of trust in God or the gods covenanted with in\nsacrifice, and of power or might resulting from this covenant relation.\nWherever the red hand was shown, or found, it was a symbol of covenant\nfavor with Deity, and it came to be known, accordingly, as the \u201chand of\nmight.\u201d\n\nIn the region of ancient Babylonia, also, the red-hand stamp is still to\nbe seen on houses and on animals, apparently as the symbol of their\ncovenant consecration by their owner. Dr. Hilprecht says: \u201cOver all the\ndoors of the rooms in the large khan of Hillah, on the Euphrates, partly\nbuilt upon the ruins of ancient Babylon, I noticed the red impression of\nan outspread hand, when I was there in January, 1889. Several white\nhorses in our caravan from Bagd\u00e2d to Nippur had the stamp of a red hand\non their haunches.\u201d\n\nThis symbol is much used in Jerusalem. Referring to its frequency, Major\nConder says: \u201cThe \u2018hand of might\u2019 is another Jewish belief which may be\nsupposed to have an Aryan origin. This hand is drawn on the lintel or\nabove the arch of the door. Sometimes it is carved in relief, and before\none house in the Jews\u2019 quarter, in Jerusalem, there is an elaborate\nspecimen, carefully sculptured and colored with vermilion. Small glass\ncharms, in the form of the hand, are also worn, and the symbol is\nsupposed to bring good luck. The Jewish and Arab masons paint the same\nmark on houses in course of construction; and, next to the\nseven-branched candlestick, it is probably the commonest house-mark in\nJerusalem.\u201d[211]\n\nA Jerusalem Jew thus tells of its use among a portion of his\nco-religionists in that city: \u201cOur brethren the Sephardeem [the Spanish\nJews], like all the remnant of the sons of the East, consider the\nsemblance of a hand as good against the power of the evil eye in a man.\nAnd they draw this shape upon the doors of their houses with a red\nfinger. So, too, they place upon the heads of their children a hand\nwrought in silver, saying that this hand\u2013or this picture of the five\nfingers\u2013is noxious to the man who delights to bring the evil upon the\nchild, or upon those dwelling in the house. So, again, when men quarrel,\nthe one sets his five fingers before the other\u2019s evil eye, saying that\nthis sign neutralizes the evil.\u201d[212]\n\nThis sign of the hand is \u201cfound on the houses of Jews, Muslims, and\nChristians, in various parts of Palestine.\u201d It is generally painted on\nor above the door, often in blue; but frequently, especially when a Jew\nor a Muhammadan enters a new house, a lamb is sacrificed at the door,\nand the stamp of the hand in the fresh blood is affixed to the post or\nto the walls.[213] No one claims to know the origin of this symbol, but\nall recognize its importance.\n\nIn its ruder form the figure of the hand is much like a five-branched\ncandlestick. Indeed, it has sometimes been mistaken for that symbol.\nThis was the case when such a figure was noticed, not long ago, by Dr.\nNoetling, on Jewish houses in Safed, and reported to a European journal.\nThis symbol is sometimes called the \u201cHand of Moses.\u201d A similar figure on\nMuslim houses is said to represent the \u201cHand of the Prophet;\u201d while in\nSyria, among Christians, it is called the _Kef Miryam_, the \u201cVirgin\nMary\u2019s Hand.\u201d[214] Obviously these terms suggest the idea of power\nthrough divinely derived strength.\n\nOne of the sights in the Mosk of St. Sophia, in Constantinople, is the\nstamp of a red hand. It is said that when Sultan Muhammad II. entered\nthis sanctuary as a conqueror, he dipped his right hand in the blood of\nthe slaughtered Christians, and stamped it on the wall, as if to seal\nhis victory, and to pledge his covenant devotion to his God.[215]\nWhether this story be fact or legend, it is a witness to the idea of\nsuch a custom in the minds of Oriental peoples.\n\nAn open hand is, or was, a common symbol on a banner, as also on a\nprayer-rug, in both Turkey[216] and Persia. At the annual festival in\nPersia in commemoration of the death of Hossein, son of Alee, two large\nbanners, each surmounted with an open hand, are borne in front of the\nrepresentation of the tomb of Hossein; and the same symbol appears in\nvarious ways during the celebration.[217]\n\n\u201cIn the East Indies, to this day, the figure of a hand is the emblem of\npower and governmental sway. When the Nabob of Arcot was the viceroy of\nfive provinces, if he appeared in public there were carried before him\ncertain little banners, each with a hand painted on it, and a larger\nbanner with five hands.\u201d[218]\n\nSiva, the destroyer, in the Hindoo triad, is also the re-creator; since\ndeath is only the entrance into a new life. One of Siva\u2019s well-known\nsymbols is a hand, which is a token of might and life.\n\nThe uplifted open hand was prominent on or above the doors in ancient\nCarthage.[219] And a traveler in Northern Africa, writing of the Jews in\nTunis, near the site of Carthage, says: \u201cWhat struck me most in all the\nhouses was the impression of an open bleeding hand on every wall of each\nfloor. However white the walls, this repulsive sign was to be seen\neverywhere. A Jewess never goes out here without taking with her a hand\ncarved in coral or ivory\u2013she thinks it a talisman against the \u2018evil\neye,\u2019 or \u2018_mal occhio_.\u2019... When his children\u2019s pictures or horses are\npraised, the Tunisian Jew extends his five fingers, or pronounces the\nnumber \u2018five;\u2019 he tries by this means to prevent the praise doing\ndamage.\u201d[220]\n\nThis symbol of the open hand is frequently found above the graves in the\nvicinity of Tunis. It is also seen in old Jewish cemeteries in Europe,\nas, for instance, in Prague.[221]\n\nAn open hand, in stone, or metal, or enamel, or bone, used as a talisman\nor an amulet, to guard the wearer against evil, was in common use in\nancient Egypt. Specimens of these can be seen in museums in Europe and\nAmerica to-day.\n\nIt is a noteworthy fact that the uplifted hand is prominent in the\nrepresentation of the deities of Babylonia, Assyria, Phenicia, and\nEgypt, especially of the gods of life, or of fertility, who have\ncovenant relations with men. And the same is true of the representations\nof sovereigns, in the ancient East, who are supposed to be in peculiar\ncovenant relations with the gods.\n\nThus, on the seal of Ur-Gur, the earliest ruler of \u201cUr of the\nChaldees,\u201d[222] the ruler and his attendants appear with uplifted hands\nbefore the moon-god Sin, who in turn is represented with his hand\nuplifted, as if he were making covenant with them.[223] It is the same\nwith the sun-god Shamash and his worshipers.[224]\n\nWhen a king of ancient Babylon was recognized as having a right to the\nthrone, he must lift up his hand and clasp the hand of the image of\nBel-Merodach, in order to show that he had \u201cbecome the adopted son of\nthe true ruler of the city.\u201d This giving and taking of the hand was a\nsymbol of covenanting in Babylonia. In this way a child was adopted into\na family, and a husband and a wife covenanted to become one.[225]\n\nThe god Asshur, and his worshipers, kings or princes, are similarly\nrepresented in Assyria with the hand uplifted. And it is the same there\nwith other deities and their worshipers.[226] In Phenicia, and its\ncolonies, the same idea has prominence.[227]\n\nDeities of ancient Egypt are frequently represented with the uplifted\nhand, and their accepted worshipers appear before them with the right\nhand uplifted.[228] As showing that this is not the attitude of\nsupplication or of adoration, like the bowed form, the crossed arms, or\nthe upturned palms, it is to be noted that in the representation of\nAmenophis IV., or Khuen-aten, with his family, before the aten-ra or the\nsolar disk, the worshipers stand with their right hands uplifted, while\nthe sun-god reaches down a series of open hands, as if in covenant\nproffer to the uplifted hands below.[229]\n\nIn the county of Roscommon, in Ireland, there is a stone known as \u201ca\ndruidical altar,\u201d which the common people say was thrown there by the\ngiant Fin-mac-Coole, \u201cthe print of whose five fingers, they say, is to\nbe seen on it.\u201d The hand-print is pointed to confidently as the proof of\nauthenticity, as if it were the veritable signature of the giant.[230]\n\nAmong the ruins in Central America, there were found at the doorways and\non the walls of many of the ruined buildings of Yucatan the stamp of a\nred hand on the plaster or on the stone. \u201cThey were the prints of a red\nhand, with the thumb and fingers extended, not drawn or painted, but\nstamped by the living hand, the pressure of the palm upon the stone. He\nwho made it had stood before it alive, ... and pressed his hand,\nmoistened with red paint, hard against the stone. The seams and creases\nof the palm were clear and distinct in the impression.\u201d As showing the\nidea prevalent among the natives of that region with reference to the\nsource and meaning of these signs-manual, the Indians of Yucatan said\nthat the stamp was of \u201cthe hand of the owner of the building,\u201d as if he\nhad affixed it to his dwelling in token of his covenant with its\nguardian deity; and, again, it was thought that \u201cthese impressions were\nplaced there in a formal act of consecration to the gods.\u201d[231]\n\nThere is a clear recognition of this idea in many Bible references to\nthe lifting up of the hands unto God, as if in covenant relations with\nhim. Thus, Abraham says to the king of Sodom, \u201cI have lift up my hand\nunto the Lord;\u201d[232] as if he would say, I have pledged myself to him. I\nhave given him my hand. And the Psalmist says: \u201cI will lift up my hands\nin thy name.\u201d[233] God himself says, by his prophet: \u201cI will lift up\nmine hand to the nations;\u201d[234] that is, I will covenant with them.[235]\nAnd so in many another case. Indeed, the Assyrian word for swearing\n(_nish_) is literally \u201clifting up the hand;\u201d[236] and the Hebrew word\n_nasa_ means to lift up the hand or to swear.[237] The uplifted hand in\na judicial oath seems to be a survival of the same thought, that an\nappeal is thus made to God, as one\u2019s covenant God.\n\nAgain, there may be a reference to the \u201chand of might\u201d in a covenant\nrelation, in those passages where God is spoken of as bringing his\npeople out of Egypt by \u201ca strong hand,\u201d or \u201ca mighty hand,\u201d and as\ndealing with them afterwards in the same way.[238]\n\nAn uplifted hand is a symbol found also on the stepped pyramid temples\nof Polynesia.[239]\n\nThis sign of the red hand is still a familiar one among the aborigines\nof America. It is stamped on robes and skins, and on Indian tents.[240]\nSchoolcraft says of it: \u201cThe figure of the human hand is used by the\nNorth American Indians to denote supplication to the Deity or Great\nSpirit, and it stands in the system of picture-writing as the symbol for\nstrength, power, or mastery, thus derived [through a covenant relation].\nIn a great number of instances which I have met with of its being\nemployed, both in the ceremonial of their dances and in their pictorial\nrecords, I do not recollect a single one in which this sacred character\nis not assigned to it.\u201d[241]\n\nA frequent use of the hand-print among the American Indians is as \u201ca\nsymbol applied to the naked body after its preparation and decoration\nfor sacred and festive dances.\u201d These preparations are \u201cgenerally made\nin the arcanum of the medicine, or secret lodge, or some private place,\nand with all the skill of the priest\u2019s, the medicine-man\u2019s, or the\njuggler\u2019s art. The mode of applying it in these cases is by smearing the\nhand of the operator with white or colored clay, and impressing it on\nthe breast, the shoulder, or other part of the body. The idea is thus\nconveyed that a secret influence, a charm, a mystic power, is given to\nthe dancer, arising from his sanctity, or his proficiency in the occult\narts.\u201d Schoolcraft, speaking of this custom, says: \u201cThe use of the hand\nis not confined to a single tribe or people. I have noticed it alike\namong the Dacotah, the Winnebagoes, and other Western tribes, as among\nthe numerous branches of the red race still located east of the\nMississippi River, above the latitude of 42\u00b0, who speak dialects of the\nAlgonquin language.\u201d[242]\n\nIs there possibly any connection with this idea in the custom of \u201cthe\nlaying on of hands,\u201d as a symbol of imparting virtue or power to one\nnewly in covenant relations with those who are God\u2019s representatives, so\nfrequently referred to in the Bible?[243] This would seem to be\nindicated by the power imparted to an Egyptian king by the touch of the\nuplifted hand of the deity, as shown in the representations on the\nmonuments of Egypt. It was known as \u201cthe imposition of the Sa,\u201d or\nincreased vitality.[244]\n\nA remarkable illustration of the use of the red-hand print among\nAmerican Indians is given in the story of a famous Omaha chief, who,\nwhen dying, enjoined it upon his followers to carry his body to a\nprominent look-out bluff above the Missouri River, and bury him there,\nfull armed, on the back of his favorite war-horse, who was to be buried\nalive, that he might watch from that place the passing of the whites up\nand down the river. It would seem as if he wanted to be known as dying\nin the faith of his covenant relations with the Great Spirit, for\nhimself and for his people.\n\nBecause of this request, in the presence of his assembled tribe \u201che was\nplaced astride his horse\u2019s back, with his bow in his hand, and his\nshield and quiver slung; with his pipe and his medicine bag; with his\nsupply of dried meat, and his tobacco pouch replenished; ... with his\nflint and steel, and his tinder, to light his pipe by the way. The\nscalps that he had taken ... were hung to the bridle of his horse. He\nwas in full dress and equipped; and on his head waved ... his beautiful\nhead-dress of the war-eagle\u2019s plumes.\u201d As he stood thus on the threshold\nof the life beyond, when the last funeral honors were performed by the\nmedicine-men, \u201cevery warrior of his band painted the palm and fingers of\nhis right hand with vermilion, which was stamped and perfectly impressed\non the milk-white sides of his devoted horse,\u201d\u2013as if in covenant pledge\nof fidelity to their chief in the sight of the Great Spirit.[245]\n\nThere is another phase of the red-hand symbolism among the American\nIndians, which has been noted by Frank H. Cushing, who is so experienced\nand careful an observer of their customs and ceremonies. This phase\nconnects the symbol directly with the idea of life and its transmission.\nMr. Cushing says:[246]\n\n\u201cBy reference to the paintings (and writings, to some extent) of such\nmen as Catlin and Stanley, and to the works of Schoolcraft, Matthews,\nBourke, and others, you will find that the red-hand symbol was painted\non the lodges, sometimes on the clothing and person, and sometimes on\nthe shields of various of the hunter tribes of the plains,\u2013as, for\nexample, of the Ioways, Sauks and Foxes, Sioux, Arickarees, Cheyennes,\nArapahos, and Comanches. Precisely what the significance of the symbol\nwas, with these peoples and others like them, I am not able to say, save\nthat in some cases it was connected with war, in others with treaties,\nand in yet others as expressive of power. There were yet other meanings\nattached to the sign; but neither the former significances nor these\nlatter were, I take it, as definite or fixed [with the hunter tribes] as\nwith the more advanced and settled tribes of the farther south.\n\n\u201cOf these tribes, the typical Pueblos and the peoples more or less\ndirectly influenced by them\u2013such as the Jicarillas on the north and\neast, and the Apaches to the south and west[247]\u2013made frequent use of\nnot only the red-hand symbol, but also of the black-hand symbol. I have\nseen both, not only in the modern but also in the very ancient\npueblos\u2013as those of the Pecos, and those of the great cliff-dweller\ntowns in the Chelly and other canyons. In the Pecos ruins, to give a\nspecial example, I copied beautiful hand-paintings and prints from the\nrafters, as well as from the walls of ordinary dwelling-rooms. Sometimes\nthese paintings were in red, but more often in black. They invariably\nrepresented the hands of women, as could be seen by their delicacy and\nsmallness of outline and by their shapeliness. There was, I think, a\nreason for this, which the following facts will explain.\n\n\u201cIt was my good fortune to witness, early in the eighties, a ceremonial\ncelebrating the attainment to puberty, or womanhood, of a young girl of\nthe Jicarilla Apaches. The latter people are not to be confounded with\nthe Apaches proper. They are a mixed people, descended not only from the\nApaches, but also the Comanches, and in large part also from the Pueblos\nof the north, the so-called Ta\u00f1oans of whom the Pecos people were a\nbranch. It was clear from the character of the masks and other\nparaphernalia used in the ceremonials I witnessed, that the latter were\nalmost, if not quite, wholly derived from the pueblo, rather than from\nthe wilder, ancestry of the Jicarillas who performed them.\n\n\u201cThe ceremonial in question was performed by four medicine-men, or\npriests, as one might call them, within and around a rectangular\nenclosure of evergreen boughs set in the plain near to the village.\nInside of this enclosure, which was designed to screen from view the\nmore secret operations of the priest dancers in question, stood a little\nconical skin lodge, the snow-white top of which appeared above the\nscreen of evergreen, and within which the young girl, over whom these\nrites were being enacted, was ensconced, together with one or two old\nwomen of the tribe. As I have said before, each of the priests, on\nappearing (and this they did successively; that is, the first on the\nfirst day, the second on the second day, and so on), wore a conical mask\nor helmet, which entirely concealed, not only the face, but also the\nhead. This mask was painted black or red, and upon the face of it\nappeared one of these hand symbols. Unfortunately, I did not see the\nmask as worn by the first priest, but, as worn by the second priest on\nthe morning of the second day, it bore upon its face the symbol of the\nred hand; and as worn upon the third day, this symbol recurred, but, if\nI remember aright, was surrounded by an outline of another color, either\nblack or yellow, whilst the hand painted on the mask as worn on the\nfourth day was black surrounded by white, that it might stand out more\nconspicuously; and in turn, below it, were two or more dots alternating\nwith dotted circles.\n\n\u201cMy means of communicating with these people were but limited, but on\nlearning that the ceremonials they were performing were designed to\ncelebrate the attainment to maturity, or womanhood, of a virgin, I had\nlittle difficulty in understanding the significance of the succession of\nthese various hand symbols. I recognized in the ceremonial as a whole\nthe dramatic epitomization, to state it briefly, of the four ages of a\nwoman\u2019s life. Thus the white hand (which I was told had been painted on\nthe mask of the first day) symbolized her infancy and girlhood, the\nconsummation of which was effected by the first day\u2019s ceremonial\nperformed by the medicine-man of the white hand.\n\n\u201cThe red hand was obviously significant of this girl\u2019s attainment to\nyoung womanhood, the color in this case symbolizing the blood of her\nperfected life. I imagine that the black hand painted on the mask as\nworn during the third day\u2019s ceremonial was significant of not only the\nbetrothal of the girl, which was said to have taken place during that\nday of the ceremonial, but also of her prospective maternity; the change\nof color, in the hand, from red to black, being naturally a symbolic\nrepresentation of the change from red to black in blood that has been\nexposed to the sunlight and dried, and has thus become black, and is no\nlonger virgin. Likewise the hand painted on the mask as worn during the\nfourth day\u2019s ceremonial, which was wholly black, doubtless represented\nthe fuller life of not only a matron but a grandmother. From this I\nwould infer that the signs of the red and black hands found in the\nruined pueblos like those of Pecos, and on the cliffs at the mouths of\ncaves, or in the houses of the cliff villages, symbolized respectively\nvirginity, and maternity or betrothal.\n\n\u201cWhat would seem to indicate the correctness of this conclusion is the\nfact that, as I have mentioned before, there were below the signs of the\nblack hand of the last day\u2019s ceremonial of the Jicarillas dots and\ndotted circles. It is well known that these dots and dotted circles\nrepresent, primarily, grains of corn, male and female; and, secondarily,\nchildren, male and female. Their occurrence, then, below the painted\nblack hand or symbol of maternity, would indicate that in this case they\nrepresented the children and perhaps grandchildren, male and female, of\nthe matron it was hoped this young girl might become.\n\n\u201cThe hand symbol as occurring amongst the Zu\u00f1i, with whom, of course, I\nam much more familiar, has not only some such significances as these,\nbut also many others,\u2013the significance of a given symbol depending upon\nthe ceremonial with which it is associated, and particularly upon the\ncoloring which is given to it, the colors being as various as are the\nwell-known seven sacramental colors employed to symbolize the seven\nregions of the world by the priesthood of these people.\n\n\u201cI will only add, that the hand symbol painted upon the walls of the\nestufas, or Kiva temples, or upon the little sacred sand mounds, which\nare made to symbolize mythic mountains of the six regions during the\nceremonials of initiation performed once every four years over the new\nchildren of the pueblo, are designed to signify the various ritualistic\nprecepts which are taught to the children according as they are held to\npertain to one or another of these little sand mounds or so-called\nmountains of generation.\n\n\u201cIn the case above described I was told, although I did not myself see\nit, that the symbol of the red hand was painted by the side of the\nentrance to the little tent in which the girl sat through the\nceremonials, and that later the same symbol in black was added to the\nother side of the entrance to this tent. In the case of the Pueblos the\nposition of the hand symbols depends, as, no doubt, you have already\ninferred, upon the sort of ceremonial which is being performed in\nconnection with them.\n\n\u201cIt would seem, however, that the placing of these symbols at the\n_entrance_ of the cave villages would correspond to such usages as I\nhave above described as pertaining to the Jicarilla ceremonial, and that\nthe painting of them on the rafters of rooms in ancient pueblos had a\nlike connection; for it must be remembered that in the older pueblos\nthere were no doorways proper [hence no thresholds]. The rooms were\nentered by means of ladders through scuttles in the roof.\u201d[248]\n\nA hand-print is a signature. A hand-print in blood is a pledge of life\nin a sacred covenant. A hand-print in the blood of life is symbolic of a\ncovenant of life with a view to the transmission of life. When a woman\nof Korea is married, she affixes her sign manual to the covenanting\ncontract by placing her hand on the paper and having \u201cthe outline drawn\nround the fingers and wrist with a fine brush dipped in Chinese ink,\u201d or\nagain she employs \u201cthe simpler process of smearing her hand with black\npaint, and hitting the document with it.[249]\n\nFormal documents have often been signed by a hand stamp, or a finger\nstamp, in blood or in ink. The monks of the convent of St. Catharine at\nMt. Sinai, for instance, show a copy of the certificate of protection\ngiven to them by the Prophet of Islam, the signature to which is an\nimpression of Muhammad\u2019s open hand. A letter to Muhammad Issoof, from\nthe king of Mysore, in 1754, was sealed with the king\u2019s seal, \u201cand on\nthe back was stamped the print of a hand, a form equivalent, with the\nMysoreans, to an oath.\u201d[250]\n\nThe very term \u201csign manual,\u201d employed for a veritable signature, may\npoint to an origin in this custom. Indeed, may it not be that the large\nred seal attached to important documents, at the present time, is a\nsurvival of the signature and seal of the bloody hand?\n\n 9. DEITIES OF THE DOORWAY.\n\nOriginally the covenant sacrifice at the threshold was with the one God\nof life. But as monotheism degenerated into polytheism, the idea came to\nprevail of different deities in different portions of the door, or of\ndifferent deities in different districts of country or in different\noffices of life.\n\nEach gate of an Assyrian city was dedicated to a special god, and named\nafter it,\u2013as the gate of Bel, the gate of Beltis, the gate of Anu, the\ngate of Ishtar. At the entrance-way of every gate gigantic winged bulls\nwith human heads stood on guard, accompanied by winged genii.[251] And\nthe central doorway to the king\u2019s palace was similarly guarded.[252] In\nevery house a special deity was appealed to at different portions of the\ndoorway; Nergal on the top of the wall and beneath the threshold; Ea and\nMerodach in the passage to the right and left of the gate.[253]\n\nThe idea of an offering, or of a dedication, to the local divinity, at\nthe time the threshold is laid, is of wide acceptance. In India, \u201cthe\ngod V\u0101ttu, or V\u0101ttuma [a son of Vishnoo], is said to recline and live in\nthe threshold, changing his position every month.... On the day when the\ndoor-frame and threshold of a new house or temple are fixed, the\n_V\u0101ttuma santhe_ [the tribute to V\u0101ttuma] is offered.\u201d[254]\n\nIn China, \u201cShintu and Yuhlui are named as two tutelar gods to whom the\nguardianship of the house is entrusted; and either the names or\ngrotesque representations of these \u2018gods of the threshold\u2019 are at the\ngate of the house, with shrines to them upon the left of the entrance\nway.\u201d[255]\n\nIt is said of these \u201cChinese gods of the threshold,\u201d that \u201cin full\nstature, and presumably in primeval strength, they flank the doors of\nmonasteries and the entrances to the halls of justice. Much reduced in\nsize and perched high on shelves, they face each other in the vestibules\nof the Chinese home; and in their most diminutive aspect they become\nlittle images, occasionally two-headed, which are carried about the\nperson as charms, or hang from the eaves of Chinese houses.\u201d[256]\n\nOver the doors of almost all the houses of Japan are to be seen small\nprints of the \u201cgigantic _Ni-o_, the Booddhist Gog and Magog,\u201d who are\nsupposed to guard the entrance way of the holy places.[257] Private\nbuildings as well as public need this spiritual protection.\n\nThe inscriptions at the doorways of the houses of ancient Egypt showed\nthat every building was \u201cplaced under the protection of a tutelary\ndeity.\u201d This custom \u201cis retained by the modern Egyptians in the\nprotecting genius said to preside over the different quarters of\nCairo.\u201d[258]\n\nTertullian, a Christian Father who wrote before the close of the second\ncentury, in warning believers against the seducements of idolatry,\nemphasized the clustering of deities at the doors and gates in the\nreligions of Greece and Rome.[259] He says that \u201camong the Greeks ... we\nread of Apollo Thyr\u00e6us (that is, of the door), and the Antelii (or,\nAnthelii) demons, as presiders over entrances;\u201d while among the Romans\nthere are other \u201cgods of entrances; Cardea (Hinge-goddess), called after\nhinges; and Forculus (Door-god) after doors; and Limentinus\n(Threshold-god) after the threshold; and Janus (Gate-god) himself after\nthe gate.\u201d\n\nAlthough a Christian might not recognize these gods as gods, he is told\nto beware lest he seem to give them honor by adorning his gates with\nlamps or wreaths. \u201cIndeed, a Christian will not even dishonor his own\ngate with laurel crowns,\u201d says Tertullian, \u201cif so be he knows how many\ngods the devil has attached to doors.\u201d And his words of warning are:\n\u201cSince there are beings who are adored in entrances [doorways], it is to\nthem that both the lamps and laurels will pertain. To an idol you will\nhave done whatever you shall have done to an entrance [or doorway].\u201d \u201cIf\nyou have renounced [heathen] temples, make not your own gate a [heathen]\ntemple.\u201d Yet, in proof of the prevalence of this heathen custom among\nChristians, Tertullian testifies: \u201c\u2018Let your works shine,\u2019 says He; but\nnow all our shops and gates shine! You will now-a-days find more doors\nof heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians.\u201d\n\nIn Guatemala, in Central America, \u201cthe god of houses\u201d is called\nChahalka; and the blood of sacrifices to him is sprinkled on the door of\nthe houses as an assurance of his protection.[260]\n\nIt was much the same in the Old World as in the New. In ancient and in\nmodern times, and in widely different portions of the world, there are\nindications that the threshold of the home was the primitive altar; and\nthat the side-posts and lintel of the doorway above the threshold bore\nsymbols or inscriptions in proof of the sacredness of the entrance to\nthe family home, and in token of an accomplished covenant with its\nguardian God, or gods.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n See Trumbull\u2019s _Blood Covenant_, passim.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n See Trumbull\u2019s _Blood Covenant_, pp. 191 f., 370; also Frazer\u2019s\n _Golden Bough_, I., 183\u2013185.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n These facts I have obtained at different times in personal\n conversations with intelligent natives of Syria and of Egypt. It will\n be seen, later, how they are verified in the record of similar customs\n elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n See Hopkins\u2019s _Religions of India_, p. 362 f.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n _Ibid._, with references to Mahabharata, II., 21, 14, 53; X., 8, 10.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n _Ibid._, with references to Laws of Manu, IV., 73, and to Gaut. 9 :\n 32.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n John 10 : 1, 2, 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n See Lund\u2019s _Every-day Life in Scandinavia in the Sixteenth Century_,\n p. 16, with note 36; also, the _Njals Saga_.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n See Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq._, s. vv. \u201cAthletae\u201d and\n \u201cOlympic Games;\u201d also Gardner\u2019s _New Chapters in Greek History_, p.\n 299.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n See London _Folk-Lore Journal_, I., 92.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n These facts were given me by a member of the vice-consul\u2019s family, who\n witnessed the ceremony. The preparations were made before the arrival\n of General Grant; and they were not prominent in the sight of himself\n or party. They were simply the customs of the country.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Prof. A.H. Sayce, in London _Folk-Lore_, I., 523.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n Comp. with p. 5, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n Comp. with p. 71 f., _infra_.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n Bruce\u2019s _Travels_, Bk. II., p. 514.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n Baker\u2019s _Nile Tributaries of Abyssinia_, p. 137; comp. 126 f.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n On the testimony of a Liberian colored clergyman.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n See, for example, Sir Robert Ker Porter\u2019s _Travels_, p. 36 f.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n Palgrave\u2019s _Personal Narrative of a Journey through Central and\n Eastern Arabia_, I., 51.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n Conder\u2019s _Heth and Moab_, pp. 290, 293.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n D\u2019Herbelot\u2019s _Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale_, s. v. \u201cBab,\u201d p. 157.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n Roberts\u2019s _Oriental Illus. of Scrip._, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n Morier\u2019s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 254.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 137.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n On the testimony of a Finnish American.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n Lund\u2019s _Every-day Life in Scandinavia in the Sixteenth Century_, p. 12\n f.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n Jones and Kropf\u2019s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 410, note.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 410 f.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 259.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n _Fragmenta Philosophorum Gr\u00e6corum_ (ed. Mullach), I., 510.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n See \u201cMarriage Customs of the Mordvins,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,\n 459, note; also, Bergeron\u2019s \u201cVoyage de Calpin,\u201d cap. 10, cited in\n Burder\u2019s _Oriental Customs_ (2d ed.), p. 24.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n Turner\u2019s _Samoa_, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n See Maspero\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, pp. 195, 219.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n Rawlinson\u2019s _History of Herodotus_, II., 47, 48.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Mackay\u2019s _Mackay of Uganda_, pp. 112 f., 177.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n See \u201cSacred Laws of the Aryas,\u201d II., 2, 4, in _Sacred Books of the\n East_, II., 107.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n \u201cA _bali_ is an offering of any sort, such as a handful of rice, flung\n to birds or spirits or waters, or to any supernatural beings. A\n _mantra_ is a Vedic text, a verse muttered during a religious\n ceremony; often used in incantations, or in legitimate services to a\n god.\u201d\u2013PROF. DR. E.W. HOPKINS.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n See \u201cSacred Laws of the Aryas,\u201d V., 12, in _Sacred Books of the East_,\n II., 200, 233.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n See Sir Henry M. Elliot\u2019s _Races of the Northwestern Provinces of\n India_ (Beames\u2019s ed.), I., 197.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n See report of a meeting of the Bombay Anthropological Society, in\n London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., p. 77.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n Jones and Kropf\u2019s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 410 f., note.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Leland\u2019s _Etruscan Roman Remains in Popular Tradition_, p. 282.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 321 f.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n Jones and Kropf\u2019s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 332 f.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 136 f.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n See \u201cDeath Week in Russia,\u201d in _The Spectator_ (London), for June 18,\n 1892.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Jones and Kropf\u2019s _Folk-Tales of Magyars_, p. 332.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n On the testimony of a native Roumanian.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n See, for example, Turner\u2019s _Samoa_, pp. 21, 56 f., 74 f., 216, 241;\n also Strack\u2019s _Der Blutaberglaube_ (4th ed.), p. 39.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n Griffis\u2019s _Mikado\u2019s Empire_, pp. 467, 470; also, Isabella Bird\u2019s\n _Untrodden Tracks in Japan_, I., 392.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n St. John\u2019s _Life in the Far East_, I., 64, 157 f.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n See London _Folk-Lore Journal_, II., 330 f.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n Dr. Strean in Mason\u2019s _Statistical Account, or Parochial Survey of\n Ireland_, II., 75.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n See J.G. Owens on \u201cFolk-Lore from Buffalo Valley, Central\n Pennsylvania,\u201d in _Journal of American Folk-Lore_, IV., 126.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n B. Biaz\u2019s \u201cMemoirs:\u201d cited in Spencer\u2019s _Descriptive Sociology_, II.,\n 23.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n See pp. 51, 55, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n See Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 120.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n See Du Bois\u2019s _Description of the Character, Manners, and Customs of\n the Peoples of India_, II., 27. Compare pp. 5\u20137, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n Nevius\u2019s _China and the Chinese_, p. 60.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n Landor\u2019s _Corea or Cho-sen_, p. 118.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n See Ralston\u2019s _Russian Folk-Tales_, p. 28 f.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n On the testimony of Professor Dr. A.L. Frothingham, Jr.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Julia McNair Wright\u2019s _Among the Alaskans_, p. 313.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n Comp. Plutarch\u2019s _Roman Questions_, Q. 5.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n Rev. 6 : 9\u201310.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n On the testimony of an eye-witness.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n Palmer\u2019s _Desert of the Exodus_, I., 90.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n Burckhardt\u2019s _Bed. u. Wahaby_, p. 214, note.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n Lane\u2019s _Modern Egyptians_, II., 293.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n Garnett\u2019s _Women of Turkey and their Folk-Lore_ (\u201cChristian Women\u201d),\n p. 239.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n Rodd\u2019s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 101.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n Capt. King\u2019s \u201cNotes\u201d in London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 121, 123.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n Capt. King\u2019s \u201cNotes\u201d in London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 121, 123.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n Shooter\u2019s Kafirs of Natal, pp. 71\u201378; and Andersson\u2019s _Lake Ngami_, p.\n 220 f.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n On the testimony of a native eye-witness. See, also, Conder\u2019s _Heth\n and Moab_, p. 285.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n See article by P.J. Baldensperger, in _Quarterly Statement_ of\n Palestine Exploration Fund for April, 1894, p. 136.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n Heuzey\u2019s _Le Monte Olympe et L\u2019Acarnanie_, p. 278.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n See citations from Donatus, on the \u201cHecyra\u201d of Terence, I., 2, 60, and\n Servius on Virgil\u2019s \u201cAeneid,\u201d IV., 459, in Heuzey\u2019s _Le Monte Olympe\n et Acarnanie_, p. 278; also, Marquardt\u2019s _Privatleben der R\u00f6mer_, p.\n 53.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n Garnett\u2019s _Women of Turkey_ (\u201cChristian Women\u201d), p. 82.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n Rodd\u2019s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 95 f.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n Rodd\u2019s _Customs and Love of Modern Greece_, p. 99 f.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 46.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n See Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 277 f.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n See \u201cMarriage Customs of the Mordvins,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,\n 422\u2013427; also P. von Stenin, in _Globus_, LXV., 181\u2013183.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 13.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n On the testimony of Dr. H.V. Hilprecht.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n Walter Gregor in London _Folk-Lore Journal_, I., 119 f.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n St. John\u2019s _Life in the Forests of the Far East_, I., 62.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, I., 663.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, I., 732\u2013734.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n \u201cGrihya-Sutras,\u201d or Rules of Vedic Domestic Ceremonies, in _Sacred\n Books of the East_, XXX., 193.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 263.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n _Fragmenta Philosophorum Gr\u00e6corum_ (ed. Mullach), I., 510.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n Gwilt\u2019s _Architecture of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio_, p. 89.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n See Hughes\u2019s _Dictionary of Islam_, art. \u201cMasjid;\u201d also Lane\u2019s _Modern\n Egyptians_, I., 105; and Conder\u2019s _Heth and Moab_, p. 293 f.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n Rodd\u2019s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 104.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n Sibree, on \u201cMalagasy Folk-Lore and Popular Superstition\u201d in London\n _Folk-Lore Record_, II., p. 37.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n As told me by a native eye-witness.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n Burckhardt\u2019s _Arabic Proverbs_, p. 137 f.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n Bruce\u2019s \u201cTravels,\u201d VII., 67 (ed. 1804); cited in McLennan\u2019s _Studies\n in Ancient History_, p. 188.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n On the testimony of a colored clergyman from Liberia.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n See Maspero\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, p. 232.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n Campbell\u2019s \u201cPersonal Narrative;\u201d cited in McLennan\u2019s _Studies in\n Ancient History_, p. 14.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n Pinkerton\u2019s \u201cCollection,\u201d VI., 183; cited in _Ibid._, p. 177.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n Hayes\u2019s \u201cOpen Polar Sea,\u201d p. 432; cited in Lubbock\u2019s _Origin of\n Civilization_ (Am. ed.), p. 78.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n Rous\u2019s _Arch\u00e6ologia Attica_, Lib. IV., cap. 7.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n See \u201cRoman Questions,\u201d Q. 29, in Goodwin\u2019s _Plutarch\u2019s Morals_, II.,\n 220 f.; also Godwyn\u2019s _Rom. Hist. Anthol._, Lib. II., \u00a7 2; citation of\n authorities in Becker\u2019s _Gallus_, p. 161, and in Marquardt\u2019s\n _Privatleben der R\u00f6mer_, I., 53 f.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n Douglas\u2019s _Society in China_, p. 201. See, also, Williams\u2019s _Middle\n Kingdom_, I., 790; Gray\u2019s _China_, I., 205; and \u201cMarriage Ceremonies\n of the Manchus,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore_, I., 487.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n Adele M. Fielde\u2019s _Corner of Cathay_, p. 39.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n \u201cGrihya-Sutras,\u201d or Rules of Vedic Domestic Ceremonies, in _Sacred\n Books of the East_, XXX., 193, 201.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n Guhl and Koner\u2019s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 192.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n See \u201cRoman Questions,\u201d Q. 1, 2, in Goodwin\u2019s _Plutarch\u2019s Morals_, I.,\n 204; also authorities cited in Becker\u2019s _Gallus_, p. 162 f., and\n Marquardt\u2019s _Privatleben der R\u00f6mer_, I., 53 f.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n See Coulange\u2019s _Ancient City_, pp. 29\u201341, 55\u201358, with citations.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n See \u201cMarriage Customs of the Mordvins,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,\n 437. See, also, the reference to burning incense on the threshold in\n Tuscany, at p. 17 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n See Kowalewsky\u2019s \u201cMarriage among the Early Slavs,\u201d in London\n _Folk-Lore_, I., 467.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n From \u201cMarriage Customs of the Mordvins,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,\n 423, 447.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n From \u201cMarriage Customs of the Mordvins,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore_, I.,\n 434\u2013443.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Napier\u2019s _Folk-Lore in the West of Scotland_, p. 51; also Wood\u2019s\n _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 59 f.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, I., 662, 703, 730\u2013734.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n On the testimony of the Rev. William Ewing, a missionary in Palestine.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n A daughter of a native Copt described to me this ceremony, as she\n witnessed it at the building of her father\u2019s house in 1878. He was\n formerly a Coptic priest, but was now a Protestant Christian.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n See Tylor\u2019s _Primitive Culture_, I., 104\u2013108.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Strack\u2019s _Der Blutaberglaube_, p. 68.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n Josh. 6 : 26.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n 1 Kings 16 : 34.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n See article \u201cOn Kirk-Grims\u201d in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,\n 1887, p. 196.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n On the testimony of a native Chinese clergyman.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n See article \u201cOn Kirk-Grims\u201d in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,\n 1887.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n See article \u201cOn Kirk Grims\u201d in _The Cornhill Magazine_, for February,\n 1887, p. 191.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n Tylor\u2019s _Primitive Culture_, I., 104 f.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 128.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n See article \u201cOn Kirk-Grims\u201d in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,\n 1887, p. 191.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n See Gomme\u2019s article on \u201cTraditions Connected with Buildings,\u201d in _The\n Antiquary_, III., 11.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n See Coote\u2019s \u201cA Building Superstition,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore Journal_,\n I., 22 f.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n See W.G. Chase\u2019s \u201cNotes from Alaska,\u201d in _Journal of American\n Folk-Lore_, VI., 51.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n See Tylor\u2019s _Primitive Culture_, I., 104\u2013108.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n Rodd\u2019s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 168 f.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n Garnett\u2019s _Women of Turkey_ (\u201cChristian Women\u201d), p. 22.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n Rodd\u2019s _Customs and Lore of Modern Greece_, p. 148.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n See Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 126.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 127.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n Ralston\u2019s _Songs of the Russian People_, p. 135 f.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n This is the case with the Church House in Philadelphia,\u2013the\n \u201ccorner-stone\u201d of which was laid while this page was writing.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n See Erman\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 175.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n See Coote\u2019s \u201cA Building Superstition,\u201d in London _Folk-Lore Journal_,\n I., 22.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n Lanciani\u2019s _Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries_, p. 225\n f.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n See article \u201cOn Kirk-Grims\u201d in _The Cornhill Magazine_ for February,\n 1887, p. 192.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 195.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, V., 471.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n See Trumbull\u2019s _Studies in Oriental Social Life_, pp. 98, 112\u2013131.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n See Josh. 10 : 3\u201335; 12 : 11; 15 : 39; 2 Kings 14 : 19; 18 : 14\u201319,\n etc.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n See, for example, 1 Kings 2 : 28.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n See Bliss\u2019s _Mound of Many Cities_, p. 77 f.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n See \u201cAfghan Life in Afghan Songs,\u201d in Darmesteter\u2019s _Selected Essays_,\n p. 117.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n On the testimony of a native Syrian of wide experience in the region\n referred to.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n W. Robertson Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 319.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n _Strassmaier Nabuchodonosor_, No. 183.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n Dieulafoy\u2019s \u201cL\u2019art antique de la Perse;\u201d cited in Babelon\u2019s _Manual of\n Oriental Antiquities_, p. 152.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n See _The Times_ (London) for July 12, 1894.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n See Hopkins\u2019s _Religions of India_, p. 361, note.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n In a personal letter to the Author.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n Exod. 32 : 26.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n Judg. 19 : 25\u201330.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n Ruth 4 : 1\u201310.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n 2 Sam. 15 : 2\u20134.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n 2 Sam. 19 : 8.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Jer. 38 : 7\u20139.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n Dan. 2 : 49.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n Prov. 8 : 34.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n Amos 5 : 15.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n Zech. 8 : 16.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n Isa. 29 : 21.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n Luke 16 : 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n Acts 3 : 3, 10.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n Exod. 21 : 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n Deut. 14 : 17.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n Gen. 22 : 17.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n Matt. 16 : 18.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n Isa. 24 : 12.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n In a personal letter to the Author.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n See Finn\u2019s _Stirring Times_, I., 102 f.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n A.M. Luncz, in _Jerushalayim_, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n _Home and Synagogue of the Modern Jew_, p. 30.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n _Nineveh and its Remains_ (Am. ed.), II., 202.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n _Ancient Egyptians_, I., 346, 361 f.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n Comp. Deut. 6 : 9 and 20 : 5.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n See art. \u201cMezuza,\u201d by Ginsburg, in Kitto\u2019s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n Psa. 121 : 8.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n See art. \u201cMezuza,\u201d by Ginsburg, in Kitto\u2019s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n See, for example, _Memoirs of Survey of Western Palestine_, I.,\n 230\u2013234, 257 f., 398\u2013402, 407 f., 416 f.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n _The Land and the Book_, I., 140 f.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n See Sir Robert Ker Porter\u2019s _Travels_, I., 440.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n See, for example, Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Persia_, pp.\n 127, 129, 294, 357; also, Benjamin\u2019s _Persia and the Persians_, pp.\n 17, 58, 61.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n Doolittle\u2019s _Social Life of the Chinese_, II., 75, 310 f.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n Williams\u2019s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 731.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n Adele M. Fielde\u2019s _Pagoda Shadows_, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n Gray\u2019s _China_, II., 271. Comp. with p. 8.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n Hearn\u2019s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, II., 397; also, Isabella\n Bird\u2019s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, II., 287.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n See Becker\u2019s _Charicles_, p. 260, with citations; also, Guhl and\n Koner\u2019s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 80.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n Becker\u2019s _Charicles_, p. 487.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n Theocritus, _Idyl_ II., 63.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n See articles \u201cAra\u201d and \u201cJanua,\u201d in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and Roman\n Antiquities_, with reference to classical authorities.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n See R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 183.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n See Rowan in \u201cXimenes,\u201d p. 183; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Des. Soc._, II.,\n 22.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n Aubrey\u2019s \u201cMiscellanies;\u201d cited in _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_ for 1823, Pt.\n II., p. 412.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n See _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_ for 1867, Pt. I., pp. 307\u2013322.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n See p. 62 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n _Heth and Moab_, p. 275 f.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n A.M. Luncz, in _Jerushalayim_, p. 19.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n On the testimony of the Rev. W. Ewing, a missionary in Palestine.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n In _Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pal\u00e6stina Vereins_, VIII., 335 ff.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n See De Amicis\u2019s _Constantinople_, p. 185.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n One of these old-time prayer-rugs with the open hand embroidered on\n it, is in the possession of Dr. Hilprecht.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n See Morier\u2019s _Second Journey through Persia_, pp. 75\u2013184.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n Rosenm\u00fcller\u2019s _Das Alte und Neue Morgenland_, II., 92 f.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n See, for example, Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _History of Art in Ph\u0153nicia_,\n I., 54, 263.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n De Hesse-Wartegg\u2019s _Tunis: The Land and the People_, p. 127.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n On the testimony of Professor Dr. Morris Jastrow, Jr.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n Gen. 11 : 31; 15 : 7.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Chald. and Assy._, I., 38; see,\n also, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 203.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n Sayce\u2019s _Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians_, p. 52 f.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art. in Chald. and Assy._, I., p. 196.\n See, also, pp. 87, 143, 212; II., 99, 111, 169, 211, 215, 227, 231,\n 257, 261, 266, 267, 273, 275, 279. See, also, _Collection de Clercq_,\n passim.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Ph\u0153nicia_, I., 53, 54, 69, 320;\n II., 61, 113, 161, 228, 247, 248, 255, 257.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt_, III., 3, 8, 24, 48, 53, 100, 192, 208, 218,\n 228, 232, 235, 240, 362, 370, 425.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n _Ibid._, III., 53.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Mason\u2019s _Statistical Account or Parochial Survey of Ireland_, II.,\n 322.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n Stephens\u2019s _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_, I., 177 f.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n Gen. 14 : 22.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Psa. 63 : 4.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n Isa. 49 : 22.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n Comp. Exod. 6 : 8; Num. 14 : 30; Neh. 9 : 15.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n See Tallquist\u2019s _Die Sprache Contracte Nab\u00fb-N\u00e2\u2019ido_, p. 108.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n See Gesenius\u2019s _Heb. Lex._, s. v. \u201cNasa.\u201d\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n See, for example, Exod. 3 : 19; 13 : 3, 14, 16; 32 : 11; Deut. 3 : 24;\n 4 : 34; 5 : 15; 6 : 21; 7 : 8, 19; 9 : 26; 11 : 2, etc.; 2 Chron. 6 :\n 32; Ezek. 20 : 34; Dan. 9 : 15.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n Ellis\u2019s _Polynesian Researches_, II., 207, illustration.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n Stephens\u2019s _Incidents of Travels in Yucatan_, II., 46 f.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n Stephens\u2019s _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_, Appendix, II., 476\u2013478.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n _Ibid._, II., 477.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n See Gen. 49 : 8\u201317; Num. 27 : 22 f.; Acts 4 : 4; 6 : 6; 8 : 18; 13 :\n 3; 19 : 6; Heb. 6 : 2; 1 Tim. 4 : 14.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n See, for example, \u201ca scene in the hypostyle hall at L\u00fbxor,\u201d in\n Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 111.; also, illustration in\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Anc. Egypt_, I., 45.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n Catlin\u2019s \u201cEight Years amongst the North American Indians,\u201d II., pp.\n 5\u20137; cited in Donaldson\u2019s _George Catlin Indian Gallery_, p. 263.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n In a personal letter to the Author.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n See Bourke\u2019s _Medicine Men of the Apaches_, Ninth Annual Report of the\n Bureau of Ethnology.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n Variae nationes, inter quas Americ\u00e6 aborigines sunt, sanguinem\n menstrualem sacrissimum atque in eo boni malique vim esse putant, quia\n non solum modo omnis sanguinis vita ipsa sit, sed vitae humanae\n germina vel ova quibus species hominum transmittuntur in se contineat.\n Quod quam verum sit quantamque vim ad foedieris liminis notionem\n principalem intellegendam habeat infra videtur.\n\n For illustrations of this truth see H. Ploss\u2019s _Das Weib in der Natur.\n und V\u00f6lkerkunde_ (2d ed.), I., chap. 39; Strack\u2019s _Der Blutaberglaube_\n (4th ed.), pp. 14\u201318; Spivak\u2019s _Menstruation_, pp. 6\u201312; and Frazer\u2019s\n _Golden Bough_, I., 170; II., 225\u2013240. These illustrations are\n gathered from Asia, Africa, Europe, America, and the Islands of the\n Sea; and they include citations from Pliny, the Talmud, the Christian\n Fathers, medieval writers, and down to writers of this century.\n\n \u201cApud populum Nov\u00e6 Zeland\u00e6 creditur sanguinem utero sub tempus\n menstruale effusum continere germina hominis; et secundum pr\u00e6cepta\n veteris superstitionis panniculus sanguine menstruali imbutus\n habebatur sacer (_tapu_), haud aliter quam si formam humanam\n accepisset. Mulierum autem mos est hos panniculos intra juncos\n parietum abdere: et h\u00e2c de caus\u00e2 paries est dom\u00fbs pars adeo sacra ut\n nemo illi innixus sedere audeat. Opinio animis N. Zelandorum\n insita\u2013nempe sanguinem menstruum germina human\u00e6 speciei\n continere\u2013opinionibus hodiernis convenit: multi enim physiologi\u00e6\n scientissimi credunt rumpi vesiculam gr\u00e4afianam, et ex ill\u00e2 ova delabi\n circa tempora menstrualia.\u201d\u2013Shortland\u2019s _Traditions and Superstitions\n of the New Zealanders_, p. 292.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n Landor\u2019s _Corea or Cho-sen_, p. 156.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n Orme\u2019s _Hist. of Milit. Trans. of British in Indostan_, V., 348.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n Maspero\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt and Assyria_, pp. 198\u2013200.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 204.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 220.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n Roberts\u2019s _Oriental Illustrations of the Scriptures_, p. 148 f.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Williams\u2019s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 731.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n See McDowell\u2019s \u201cA New Light on the Chinese,\u201d in _Harper\u2019s Magazine_\n for Dec., 1893, with illustration of \u201cThe Gods of the Threshold.\u201d\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n Isabella Bird\u2019s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 117, 273.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n Wilkinson\u2019s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, I., 362\n f., and note.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n See Tertullian \u201cOn Idolatry,\u201d and \u201cOn the Soldier\u2019s Chaplet,\u201d in\n _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, XI., 164 f., 353.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n Tr. Rowan, in \u201cXimenes,\u201d p. 183; cited in Spencer\u2019s _Descrip. Soc._,\n II., 22.\n\n-----\n\n\n\n\n II.\n EARLIEST TEMPLE ALTAR.\n\n 1. FROM HOUSE TO TEMPLE.\n\nA temple is only a more prominent house. As a house was the dwelling of\nthe earlier priest of his household, who was in covenant for himself and\nhis family with the guardian deity of that household; so, afterwards, a\ntemple was a dwelling for the deity guarding an aggregation of families,\nand for the priests who stood between him and the community.\n\nThis is no new or strange truth; it is obvious. \u201cIn the Vedas, Yama, as\nthe first man, is the first priest too; he brought worship here below as\nwell as life, and \u2018first he stretched out the thread of\nsacrifice.\u2019\u201d[261] The fire-altar of the home was first the center of\nworship in the family in India;[262] as later the fire-altar was the\ncenter of the worship of the community.\n\nThe same cuneiform characters in old Babylonian stand for great house,\nfor palace, and for temple;[263] as similarly, in ancient Egypt, the\nsame hieroglyph represented house or temple,\u2013a simple quadrangular\nenclosure, with its one doorway.[264]\n\nThe oldest form of an Egyptian temple known to us through the\ninscriptions of the Ancient Empire indicates that the prehistoric houses\nof worship in that land were mere hovels of wood and lattice-work, over\nthe doors of which was a barbaric ornamentation of bent pieces of\nwood.[265] The private house became the public temple.\n\n\u201cThe design of the Greek temple in its highest perfection was ... a\ngradual development of the dwelling-house.\u201d[266] Palace and temple were,\nindeed, often identical in ancient Greece.[267]\n\nStrictly speaking, there were no temples in ancient Persia, any more\nthan in early India. But the fire-altars that were first on the home\nhearth, or threshold, were made more and more prominent on their\nuplifted stepped bases, until they towered loftily in the sight of their\nworshipers.[268]\n\nIt is the same Hebrew word, _ohel_, that stands for the \u201ctent\u201d of\nAbraham, and for the \u201cTent\u201d or Tabernacle of the congregation of\nIsrael.[269]\n\nIn China \u201ctemple architecture differs little from that of the\nhouses.\u201d[270] The house of a god is as the house of a man, only grander\nand more richly ornamented. And Japanese antiquaries say that the\narchitecture of Shinto temples is on the model of the primeval Japanese\nhut. The temples of Ise, the most sacred of the Shinto sanctuaries, are\nsaid to represent this primitive architecture in its purest form.[271]\n\nThe father of the family was the primitive priest in the Samoan Islands,\nand his house was the first place of worship. Then \u201cthe great house of\nthe village,\u201d or the place of popular assembling, was used as a temple;\nand afterwards there were special temple structures with attendant\npriests.[272]\n\nThe transition from house to temple seems to have been a gradual one in\nthe primitive world. The fire-altar of the family came to be the\nfire-altar of the community of families. The house of a king became both\npalace and temple, and so again the house of a priest; for the offices\nof king and of priest were in early times claimed by the same\nperson.[273]\n\n 2. SACREDNESS OF THE DOOR.\n\nIn all stages of the transition from house to temple, the sacredness of\nthe threshold, of the door, of the entrance-way, of the gate, was\nrecognized in architecture and in ceremonial. Often the door, or the\ngate, stood for the temple, and frequently the threshold was an altar,\nor an altar was at the threshold.\n\nThere are, indeed, reasons for supposing that the very earliest form of\na primitive temple, or sanctuary, or place of worship, was a rude\ndoorway, as covering or as localizing the threshold altar. This would\nseem to be indicated by prehistoric remains in different parts of the\nworld, as well as in the later development of the idea in the earlier\nhistoric ages. The only exception to this was where, as in India or\nPersia, the fire-altar on an uplifted threshold stood alone as a place\nof worship.\n\nTwo upright stone posts, with or without an overlaying stone across\nthem, and with or without an altar stone between or before them, are\namong the most ancient remains of primitive man\u2019s handiwork; and a\nsimilar design is to be recognized, all the way along in the course of\nhistory, down to the elaborate doorway standing by itself as a memorial\nof the revered dead,[274] or to the monumental triumphal arch as an\naccompaniment of the highest civilization. And the very name of door, or\ngate, attaches persistently to the loftiest temple and to the most\nexalted personage. As the earliest altar was the threshold, the earliest\ntemple was a doorway above the altar at the threshold.\n\nWhen the first dwellers on the plains of Chaldea, after the Deluge,\ngathered themselves for the building of a common structure reaching\nGod-ward,[275] they, in their phraseology, called that structure Bab-el,\nor B\u00e2b-ilu, or B\u00e2bi-ilu, the Door of God.[276] Ancient Egyptians called\nthe sovereign head of their national family \u201c_Per-ao_\u201d (Pharaoh), the\nexalted House, or Gate, or Door;[277] as to-day the Sultan, who is\nspiritual father of the faithful Muhammadans, and autocrat of his realm,\nis widely known as the \u201cSublime Porte,\u201d or the Exalted Door.[278] The\nmodern Babists, in Persia and beyond, look up to their spiritual head as\nthe \u201cBab,\u201d or the \u201cDoor.\u201d[279] \u201cThroughout the East this word [\u2018Bab\u2019]\nsignifies the court of a prince [as a ruler by divine right].... The\nthreshold of the gate is used in the same sense, and frequently it is\nqualified by some epithet of nobility, loftiness, or goodness.\u201d[280]\n\nJesus Christ did not hesitate to say of himself as the Way to God: \u201cI am\nthe Door: by me if any man enter in he shall be saved.\u201d[281]\n\nIn China, Japan, Korea, Siam, and India, a gate, or doorway, usually\nstands before Confucian and Booddhist and Shinto temples, but apart from\nthe temple, and always recognized as of peculiar sacredness. These\ndoorways, in many places, are painted blood-color.[282] They stand \u201cat\nthe entrance of temple grounds, in front of shrines and sacred trees,\nand in every place associated with the native _kami_\u201d\u2013or gods.[283] Yet,\nagain, in all these countries, the temple gateway is a main feature, or\na prominent one, in the chief sanctuaries.[284]\n\nSwinging doors, or gates, are represented, in the religious symbolism of\nancient Babylonia, as opening to permit the god Shamash, or the sun, to\nstart out on his daily circuit of the heavens.[285] A door, or a\ndoorway, appears as a shrine for a god in various cylinders from this\nregion; and the god is shown standing within it, just beyond the\nthreshold.[286] Indeed, the doorway shrine is a common form on the\nBabylonian and the Assyrian monuments, as a standing-place for the gods,\nand for the kings as representative of the gods.[287] Illustrations of\nthis are found on the Balawat gates,[288] and the sculptures on the\nrocks at Nahr-el-Kelb[289]\u2013which is itself a gateway of the nations,\nbetween the mountains and the sea, on the route between Egypt and\nCanaan, and both the East and the West.\n\nIn ancient Egypt the doorway shrine of the gods was prominent, as in\nBabylonia.[290] Moreover, a false door was represented in the earlier\nmastabahs, or tombs, of the Old Empire of Egypt. This representation of\na door was toward the west, in which direction Osiris, the god of the\nunder-world, was supposed to enter his realm as the sun went down. On or\naround this false door were memorial inscriptions, and prayers for the\ndead; and before it was a table, or altar, for offerings to the _ka_, or\nsoul, of the dead.[291] Gradually this false door came to be recognized\nas the monumental slab, tablet, or stele, on which were inscribed the\nmemorials of the deceased. As a doorway or a niche, square-topped, or\narched, it was the shrine of the one worshiped; and as a panel, or\nindependent stele, it was the place of record of the object of\nreverence.\n\n\u201cEven at the beginning of the Middle Empire the door form disappeared\ncompletely, and the whole space of the stone was taken up with the\nrepresentation of the deceased sitting before a table of offerings,\nreceiving gifts from his relatives and servants. Soon afterwards it\nbecame the custom to round off the stone at the top, and when, under the\nNew Empire, pictures of a purely religious character took the place of\nthe former representations, no one looking at the tomb stele could have\nguessed that it originated from the false door.\u201d[292]\n\nA \u201cfalse door\u201d was, in ancient Egypt, a valued gift from a sovereign to\nan honored subject. Doors of this kind were sometimes richly carved and\npainted, and were deemed of priceless value by the recipient.[293]\n\nIn Phenicia,[294] Carthage,[295] Cyprus,[296] Sardinia,[297]\nSicily,[298] and in Abyssinia,[299] a like prominence was given to the\ndoor as a door, in temple and in tomb, and as a niche for the figure of\na deity or for the representation of one who had crossed the threshold\nof the new life. And the door-form is a sacred memorial of the dead in\nprimitive lands in various parts of the world, from the rudest trilithon\nto the more finished structures of a high civilization.[300]\n\nIn primitive New Zealand the gateway, or doorway, of a village, a\ncemetery, or a public building, is both a sacred image and a sacred\npassage-way. It is in the form of a superhuman personage, and it has its\nguardians on either hand.[301]\n\nA doorway with an altar between its posts was a symbol of religious\nworship in ancient Mexico, as in the far East.[302]\n\nIt would seem that the \u201cmihrab,\u201d or prayer niche, pointing toward\nMeccah, in Muhammadan lands, and the Chinese honorary portals and\nancestral tablets,[303] as well as the niches for images of saints in\nchurches or at wayside shrines, or for heroes in public halls, in\nChristian lands, are a survival of the primitive doorway in a tomb.\n\nAnd wherever the door is prominent as a door, the threshold is\nrecognized and honored as the floor of the door, and as the primitive\naltar above which the door is erected. To pass through the door is to\ncross over the threshold of the door.\n\n 3. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ASIA.\n\nIn all the modern excavations in the region of Babylonia and Assyria,\nincluding Tello, Nippur, Sippara, Borsippa, Khorsabad, and Nineveh, it\nhas been found that the threshold, or foundation-stone, of the temple\ndoorway is marked with inscriptions that show its peculiar sanctity;\nwhile underneath it, or near it, are frequently buried images and\nsymbols and other treasures in evidence of its altar-like sacredness. On\nthis point evidence has been furnished by Botta,[304] Bonomi,[305]\nLayard,[306] George Smith,[307] Lenormant,[308] and yet more fully by\nDr. Hilprecht, in his later and current researches.\n\nBonomi suggests that the word \u201cteraphim,\u201d as an image of a household\ndivinity, has its connection with the threshold or the boundary limit;\nand that the phrase \u201cthy going out, and thy coming in,\u201d which is common\nin Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hebrew[309] literature, has reference to\nthe threshold and its protecting deities.[310] The outgoing and the\nincoming are clearly across the threshold and through the door.\n\nThe inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar II., concerning his building of the\nwalls of Babylon, comprise various references to the foundations, to the\nthresholds, and to their guardians. He says: \u201cOn the thresholds of the\ngates I set up mighty bulls of bronze, and mighty snakes standing\nupright.\u201d[311] Again of the gates of Imgur-B\u00eal and Nimitti-Bel, of these\nwalls of Babylon, he says: \u201cTheir foundations I laid at the surface\n(down at) the water, with pitch and bricks. With blue enameled tiles\nwhich were adorned with bulls and large snakes, I built their interior\ncleverly. Strong cedars I laid over them as their covering (or roof).\nDoors of cedarwood with a covering of copper, a threshold (_askuppu_)\nand hinges of bronze, I set up in their gates. Strong bulls of bronze,\nand powerful snakes standing upright, I set upon (or at) their threshold\n(_sippu_). Those gates I filled with splendor for the astonishment of\nall mankind.\u201d[312]\n\nIn a similar manner Nebuchadrezzar describes his work at the gates of\n\u201cthe royal castle of all mankind,\u201d at Babylon,[313] and of his\npalace.[314] In connection with the shrine or chapel of Nebo (Ezida),\nwithin the walls of the temple of Merodach, in Babylon, he says: \u201cIts\nthreshold (_sippu_), its lock and its key, I plated with gold, and made\nthe temple shine daylike.\u201d[315] When he built Ezida (the \u201ceternal\nhouse\u201d), the temple of Borsippa, Nebuchadrezzar says: \u201cThe bulls and the\ndoors of the gate of the sanctuary, the threshold (_sippu_), the lock,\nthe hinge, I plated with _zar\u00eeru_\u201d[316] (an unknown metal, a kind of\nbronze).\n\nReferences to the foundations, to the thresholds, to the gates and\ndoorways, and to bulls and upright serpents, as the guardians of the\nthreshold of the temples and palaces of Babylonia and Assyria, are\nnumerous on unearthed cylinders and tablets, and always in such a way as\nto indicate their peculiar sacredness. In the recent unearthing, at\nNippur, of a small building or shrine, between two great temples, an\naltar was found in the eastern doorway.\n\nIt is to be borne in mind that many early temples in Babylonia, as in\nMesopotamia, in Egypt, in Mexico, Central America, and Peru, and in the\nSouth Sea Islands, were in the form of a stepped pyramid, or a staged\ntower, with either inclined planes or stairways from each lower stage to\nthe next higher, and with an altar, or a sanctuary or shrine, at the\nsummit.[317] Herodotus, describing one of these temples in Babylon, says\nthat the altars, larger and smaller, were outside the temple.[318]\n\nLight is thrown on the dream of Jacob at Bethel by the shape of the\nancient temple in the East. In his vision it was probably not a ladder,\nbut a conventional stepped-temple structure, with its stairways rising\nheavenward, and its sanctuary, that Jacob saw.[319] The angel ministers\nwere passing up and down the steps, in the service of the Most High God,\nwho himself appeared above the structure. When Jacob waked he said:\n\u201cSurely the Lord is in this place [or sanctuary]; and I knew it not....\nHow dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and\nthis is the gate of heaven;\u201d and he took the stone which had been his\npillow at the threshold of that sanctuary, and set it up for an altar\npillar.[320]\n\nIn the literature and legends of Babylonia, as of other portions of the\nancient world, there is prominent the idea that an entrance into the\nlife beyond this, as in the entrance into this life, the crossing of a\nthreshold from the one world to the other, from the earlier state and\nthe passing of a door, or gate, marks the change to the later, from the\nsacred to the more sacred. This is peculiarly illustrated in the famous\nlegend of Ishtar\u2019s descent into the under-world in order to bring back\nto earth her lover Dumuzi.\n\nThe Hades of the Babylonians was surrounded by seven high walls, and was\napproached through seven gates, each of which was guarded by a pitiless\nwarder. Two deities ruled within it\u2013Nergal, \u201cthe lord of the great\ncity,\u201d and Beltis-Allat, \u201cthe lady of the great land,\u201d\u2013whither\neverything which had breathed in this world descended after death. Allat\nwas the actual sovereign of the country; and even the gods themselves\ncould enter her realm only on the condition of submitting to death, like\nmortals, and of humbly avowing themselves her slaves.[321] \u201cThe\n_threshold_ of Allat\u2019s palace stood upon a spring, which had the\nproperty of restoring to life all who bathed in it or drank of its\nwaters.\u201d Yet it was needful that another life should be given for one\nwho would be reborn into this life, after crossing the threshold of the\nregions beyond.[322]\n\nIn the descent of the goddess Ishtar into Allat\u2019s realm, in pursuit of\nher lover Dumuzi, Ishtar was gradually stripped of her garments and\nadornings at the successive gates, until she appeared naked, as at\nbirth, at the final threshold of the new state.[323] But she was held\ncaptive by Allat until Ea, chief among the gods, exerted himself in her\nbehalf, and sent his messenger to secure for both Ishtar and Dumuzi the\nwaters of life which were underneath the threshold of Allat\u2019s\nrealm,\u2013which must be broken in order to their outflowing.[324]\n\nThere would seem to be a reference to this primitive idea of the waters\nof life flowing from under the threshold of the temple, in the vision of\nthe prophet Ezekiel, writing in Babylonia, concerning restored Jerusalem\nand its holy temple. \u201cBehold, waters issued out from under the threshold\nof the house eastward, for the forefront of the house was toward the\neast: and the waters came down from under, from the right side of the\nhouse, on the south of the altar.\u201d (Evidently the altar in this temple\nwas near the threshold.) These flowing waters from under the threshold\nwere life-giving. \u201cUpon the bank of the river,\u201d as it swelled in its\nprogress, \u201cwere very many trees on the one side and on the other;\u201d and\nit was said of this stream: \u201cIt shall come to pass, that every living\ncreature which swarmeth, in every place whither the rivers come, shall\nlive; and there shall be a very great multitude of fish: for these\nwaters are come thither, ... and every thing shall live whithersoever\nthe river cometh.\u201d[325] In a curse pronounced against Assyria by the\nprophet Zephaniah, it was declared that \u201cdrought shall be in the\nthresholds,\u201d[326] instead of life-giving waters.\n\nSo, again, the waters of the life-giving Jordan flow out from the\nthreshold of the grotto of Pan, a god of life.[327] And both at the\nbeginning of the Old Testament, and at the close of the New, the waters\nof life start from the sanctuary of the Author of life.[328]\n\nThis Dumuzi of Babylonia has linkings with Tammuz of Syria, with Osiris\nof Egypt, and with Adonis of Greece, and there are correspondences in\nall these legends in the references to the door and the threshold of the\nunder-world and the life beyond. Thus, for instance, the Lord\u2019s prophet\ncounts as most heinous of all idolatries the transfer of the weeping\nworship of Tammuz from the door in the hole of the temple wall to the\ndoor of the temple sanctuary.[329]\n\nAt the right hand of the entrance of the larger temple unearthed at\nNineveh by Layard, a sculptured image of the Assyrian king, with his arm\nuplifted, was on a doorway stele just outside. And an altar for\nofferings was in front of that image. Altars\n\nwere found similarly situated, just outside the doorway, in a smaller\ntemple in the same region.[330]\n\nAn exceptional reverence is shown to the doorway and threshold of their\nsanctuary, or temple, by the sect of the Yezidis, in the neighborhood of\nancient Nineveh, at the present time. Describing an evening service\nwhich he attended, Layard says: \u201cWhen the prayers were ended, those who\nmarched in procession kissed, as they passed by, the right side of the\ndoorway leading into the temple, where a serpent is figured on the\nwall.\u201d Again, \u201cSoon after sunrise, on the following morning, the sheikhs\nand cawals offered up a short prayer in the court of the temple.... Some\nprayed in the sanctuary, frequently kissing the threshold and holy\nplaces within the building.\u201d[331]\n\nWhen the sacred ark of the Hebrews was captured by the Philistines, and\nbrought into the house of the god Dagon, the record is: \u201cWhen they of\nAshdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face\nto the ground before the ark of the Lord. And they took Dagon, and set\nhim in his place again. And when they arose early on the morrow morning,\nbehold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of\nthe Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut\noff upon the threshold.\u201d It is added, in our present Bible text:\n\u201cTherefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon\u2019s\nhouse, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod, unto this day.\u201d[332]\n\nIt would seem, from the words \u201cunto this day,\u201d that this added statement\nwas a gloss by a later writer or copyist. The original force of the\nwonder was in Dagon\u2019s being overthrown at his very shrine, falling\nmaimed on the threshold altar of his temple. But the suggestion of the\ngloss is that the unwillingness of the Philistines to tread on the\nthreshold of the temple (which appears to have been of primitive origin)\ndid not exist among the worshipers of Dagon prior to this incident. The\nSeptuagint adds,[333] concerning the later practice of the Philistines\nat the threshold, \u201cbecause leaping they leap over it.\u201d\n\nLeaping over the threshold is at times spoken of in the Bible as if it\nhad a taint of idolatry. Thus Zephaniah, foretelling, in the name of the\nLord, the divine judgments on idolaters, says: \u201cIn that day I will\npunish all those that leap over the threshold.\u201d[334] This is explained\nin the Targum as \u201cthose that walk in the customs of the Philistines.\u201d\nYet the Bible sometimes refers to the temple threshold as a fitting\nplace of worship, and its recognition as a holy altar as commendable.\n\nEzekiel prophesies that the restored Prince of Israel \u201cshall worship at\nthe threshold of the gate\u201d[335] of the Lord\u2019s house; and he sees, in\nvision, \u201cthe glory of the Lord ... over the threshold of the\nhouse.\u201d[336] Again the Lord complains of the profanation of his temple\nby idolaters \u201cin their setting of their threshold by my threshold, and\ntheir door-post beside my door-post, and there was but the wall between\nme and them.\u201d[337]\n\nThat it was the threshold or doorway of the tabernacle which was counted\nsacred, is evident from the wording of the Levitical laws concerning the\noffering of blood in sacrifices. \u201cThis is the thing which the Lord hath\ncommanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that\nkilleth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without\nthe camp, and hath not brought it _unto the door of the tent of\nmeeting_, to offer it as an oblation unto the Lord before the tabernacle\nof the Lord: blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood;\nand that man shall be cut off from among his people: to the end that the\nchildren of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in\nthe open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, _unto the\ndoor of the tent of meeting_, unto the priest, and sacrifice them for\nsacrifices of peace offerings unto the Lord. And the priest shall\nsprinkle the blood _upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent\nof meeting_, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord....\nWhatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that\nsojourn among them, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, and\nbringeth it not _unto the door of the tent of meeting_, to sacrifice it\nunto the Lord; even that man shall be cut off from his people.\u201d[338]\n\nIt was _at the doorway_ of the tent of meeting that Aaron and his sons\nwere consecrated to the holy priesthood;[339] and it was there that the\nbullock was sacrificed, and its blood was poured out as an offering at\nthe base of the altar.[340] It was _at the doorway_ of that tent, above\nthe threshold, that the pillar of cloud descended in token of the Lord\u2019s\npresence, when Moses met the Lord there in loving communion, while the\npeople stood watching from the doorways of their own tents.[341] The\naltar of burnt offering, at the base or foundation of which the blood of\nthe offerings was outpoured, was itself at the doorway of the tent of\nmeeting, and he who offered a sacrifice to the Lord offered it at that\nthreshold.[342]\n\nA post of honor in the temple was as a guardian of the threshold, as was\nalso the place of a keeper of the gate. In the assignment of the priests\nand Levites to service, by Jehoiada the priest, in the days of Athaliah,\na third part of them were in attendance at the \u201cthreshold,\u201d and a third\npart \u201cat the gate of the foundation.\u201d[343] Later, in the days of Josiah\nand Hilkiah, the guardians of the threshold had the care of the money\ncollected for the repairs of the Lord\u2019s house.[344] And a keeper of the\nthreshold, or of the door, of the house of God, was always mentioned\nwith honor.[345] When the Psalmist contrasts the house of God with the\ntents of wickedness, he speaks of the honor of a post at the temple\nthreshold, not of the humble place of a temple janitor, when he says:\n\n \u201cFor a day in thy courts is better than a thousand [elsewhere].\n I had rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God,\n Than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.\u201d[346]\n\nIn the Temple at Jerusalem, the altar of burnt offering was before the\nthreshold of the Holy Place; and those who came with sacrifices must\nstop at that threshold, and proffer the blood of their offering to the\npriests, who then reverently poured it out at the altar-threshold\u2019s\nbase.[347]\n\nWhen offerings were accepted for the repairs of the temple, in the days\nof Jehoash, king of Judah, it is said that \u201cJehoiada the priest took a\nchest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar,\non the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord. And the\npriests that kept [or guarded] the threshold put therein all the money\nthat was brought into the house of the Lord.\u201d[348] This would seem to\ndecide the position of the altar as at the threshold, where \u201cone cometh\ninto the house of the Lord.\u201d\n\nAn altar stood at the doorway, or before the door, of temples of later\ndate in Phenicia and Phrygia, as shown on contemporary medals and\ncoins.[349] And so in temples in other lands.\n\nAmong the early Christian remains unearthed in Asia Minor are\nindications of the former position of an altar on the threshold of a\nsanctuary. At the site of ancient Aphrodisias, \u201csome of the sarcophagi\nof the Byzantine age are richly wrought, and although many are of\nChristian date, they appear to have retained the pagan devices.\u201d At the\nend of one of these sarcophagi \u201cappears an altar burning in front of a\ndoor,\u201d standing indeed on the very threshold.[350]\n\nAn oath of peculiar sacredness among Hindoos is at the threshold of a\ntemple, as at its primal altar. \u201cIs a man accused of a great crime? He\ngoes to the temple [threshold], makes his prostrations; he pauses, then\nsteps over it, declaring at the same time that he is not guilty of the\ncrime laid to his charge. It is therefore very common to ask a person\nwho denies anything that he is suspected to have done, \u2018Will you step\nover the threshold of the temple?\u2019\u201d[351]\n\nAmong the stories told in India of judgments at the temple threshold, is\none of a thieving goldsmith, who had secreted himself in a pagoda of\nVishnoo, in order to take from the sacred image one of its jewel eyes.\nHaving obtained the precious stone, he waited for the opening of the\npagoda doors in the morning, in order to escape with his booty. But as\nhe attempted to cross the threshold, when the door was opened, he was\nstricken with death by Vishnoo \u201cat the very threshold.\u201d[352] Justice was\nadministered at the very seat of justice.\n\nBloody sacrifices are still known at the temple thresholds in India,\nnotwithstanding the prejudice of Hindoos against the shedding of blood.\nWithin recent times an English gentleman, in an official position in\nIndia, discovered a decapitated child at the very door of a celebrated\npagoda; and an investigation showed that a father had there sacrificed\nhis son to avert an impending evil.[353]\n\nWhen a famous idol was destroyed in the temple of Somnauth, during the\nMuhammadan conquest of India, pieces of the shattered image were sent by\nthe conquerors to the mosks of Meccah, Medina, and Ghuznee, to be thrown\ndown at the thresholds of their gates, there to be trodden under foot by\ndevout and zealous Mussulmans.[354] The accursed idol fragments might be\ntrampled on at the threshold, even while the threshold itself was\ncounted sacred.\n\nIn Muhammadan mosks generally the threshold is counted sacred. Across\nthe threshold proper, at the beginning of the sacred portion of the\ninterior, \u201cis a low barrier, a few inches high.\u201d[355] Before this\nbarrier the worshiper stops, removes his shoes, and steps over it, with\nthe right foot first. In some smaller mosks a rod above the outer\ndoor-sill stands for this barrier.\n\nDescribing his visit to one of the mosks in Persia, Morier says: \u201cHere\nwe remarked the veneration of the Persians for the threshold of a holy\nplace.... Before they ventured to cross it, they knelt down and kissed\nit, whilst they were very careful not to touch it with their feet.\u201d[356]\n\nOn the tomb of the kings of Persia, at Com, the inscription appears:\n\u201cHappy and glorious the believing one who in reverence bows his head\nupon the threshold of this gate, in imitation of the sun and moon.[357]\nAll that _he_ will ask with faith in this gate, shall be as the arrow\nthat reaches the mark.\u201d[358] And on the tomb of Alee, son-in-law of\nMuhammad and one of his successors, there stands the declaration: \u201cThe\nangel messenger of the truth, Gabriel, kisses every day the threshold of\nthy gate; for that is the only way by which one can come to the throne\nof Muhammad.\u201d[359]\n\nEven among Christians in this primitive region, this reverence for the\nthreshold as the earliest altar of the temple and the church manifests\nitself in various ways. Dr. Grant, an American missionary, tells of\nseeing the Nestorian Christians kissing the threshold of the church on\nentering the sanctuary for the Lord\u2019s Day service.[360]\n\nAt Baveddeen, near Bokhara, is the tomb of Baha-ed-deen Nakishbend, the\nnational saint of Turkestan, which is a place of pilgrimage second only\nto the tomb of Muhammad. \u201cIn the front of the tomb,\u201d as a threshold, \u201cis\nthe famous _senghi murad_,\u201d the \u201cstone of desire,\u201d \u201cwhich has been\ntolerably ground away, and made smooth, by the numerous foreheads of\npious pilgrims that have been rubbed upon it.\u201d[361]\n\nA peculiar sacrifice in Tibet is the disemboweling of a devotee in the\npresence of a great multitude, as an act of worship. An altar on which\nthis act is performed is erected for the occasion \u201cin front of the\ntemple gate.\u201d[362]\n\nIn the more sacred shrines of Japan and Korea, Shinto or Booddhist\ntemples, pilgrim worshipers are permitted to go no farther than the\nthreshold of the inner sanctuary. There they may deposit their offerings\nand may prostrate themselves in prayer, but they cannot pass beyond.\n\nAt Kitzuki, \u201cthe most ancient shrine of Japan,\u201d multitudes of pilgrims\ngather for worship. They are coming and going ceaselessly, but all pause\nbefore the threshold of the inner sanctuary. \u201cNone enter there: all\nstand before the dragon-swarming doorway, and cast their offerings into\nthe money-chest placed before the threshold; many making contributions\nof small coin, the very poorest throwing only a handful of rice into the\nbox. Then they clap their hands, and bow their heads before the\nthreshold, and reverently gaze through the hall of prayer at the loftier\nedifice, the holy of holies beyond it. Each pilgrim remains but a little\nwhile, and claps his hands but four times; yet so many are coming and\ngoing that the sound of the clapping is like the sound of a\ncataract.\u201d[363] The same is true of \u201cthe great Shrines of Is\u00e9, chief\nMecca of the Shint\u014d faith,\u201d[364] of those of famous Nikk\u014d, and of other\ncenters of worship.[365]\n\n 4. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AFRICA.\n\nThe oldest temple discovered in Egypt is little more than a doorway with\nan altar at its threshold, and with a stele on either side of the altar.\nThis temple is near the base of the stepped pyramid of Meydoom, dating\nback probably to the beginning of the fourth dynasty.[366]\n\nLater, in Egypt, as in early Babylonia, the doorway, above the\nthreshold, had peculiar sacredness, in the temples and in the approaches\nto the under-world. The pylon, or propylon, of an Egyptian temple, was a\nmonumental gateway before the temple, and exalted honor attached to it.\nIt frequently gave its name to the entire temple.[367] The side towers\nof this gateway are said to have represented Isis and Nephthys, and the\ndoor itself between these towers stood for Osiris, the judge of the\nliving and the dead.[368]\n\nThere was indeed a temple in Thebes which bore the name of \u201cSilver\nThreshold.\u201d This temple \u201cis mentioned in the time of the twenty-first\ndynasty; and it cannot have been earlier than the eighteenth dynasty,\nwhen silver was growing cheaper in Egypt.\u201d[369] But the prominence of\nthe \u201cthreshold\u201d in the designation of the \u201ctemple\u201d is aside from the\nquestion of the time of the use of silver.\n\n\u201cThe winged sun disk was placed above all the doors into the temples,\nthat the image of Horus might drive away all unclean spirits from the\nsacred building.\u201d[370] These overshadowing wings marked the special\nsacredness of the doors beneath them.\n\nWhen an Egyptian priest opened the door of the shrine\u2013the holy of holies\nof the temple\u2013he must prostrate himself at the threshold in reverent\nworship. \u201cAccording to the Theban rite, ... as soon as he saw the image\nof the god he had to \u2018kiss the ground, throw himself on his face, throw\nhimself entirely on his face, kiss the ground with his face turned\ndownward, offer incense,\u2019 and then greet the god with a short\npetition.\u201d[371] This priestly worship was at the threshold of the\nshrine.\n\nThe Egyptian idea of the future life, and of the world beyond this, had\nmarked correspondences with the Babylonian. Osiris presided over the\nunder-world, as, indeed, he was the chief object of worship in\nthis.[372] He had been slain in a conflict with evil, and in his new\nlife he was the friend and helper of those who struggled against\nevil.[373] He was in a peculiar sense the door of the life beyond this,\n\u201cOsiris, opening the ways of the two worlds;\u201d[374] and those who passed\nthat door safely were identified with himself in the under-world.[375]\n\nA closed door toward the west, in a tomb, represented the deceased on\nhis way to Osiris.[376] And as shown in the \u201cBook of the Dead\u201d the\napproach to Osiris was by a series of doors, which could be passed only\nby one who showed his identification with Osiris, and his worthiness as\nsuch.[377] At the entrance to the Hall of the Two Truths, or of the\nTwo-fold Ma\u0101t,[378] as the place of final judgment, the deceased was\nchallenged by the threshold of the door, by the two side-posts, by the\nlock, by the key, and by the door itself; and he could not pass these\nunless he proved his oneness with Osiris by his knowledge of their names\nseverally.[379]\n\nA saint\u2019s tomb, called a _wely_, is a common place of worship in Egypt.\nSometimes a mosk is built over it, and sometimes it serves as a\nsubstitute for a mosk, where no mosk is near. \u201cAt least one such\nbuilding forms a conspicuous object close by, or within, almost every\nArab village;\u201d and these tombs are frequently visited by those who would\nmake supplication for themselves, or intercession for others, or who\nwould do a worthy act, and merit a correspondent blessing. \u201cMany a\nvisitor, on entering the tomb, kisses the threshold, or touches it with\nhis right hand, which he then kisses.\u201d[380] Similar customs prevail in\nArabia and Syria.\n\nAt Carthage, which was a Phenician colony but which impressed its\ncharacter on northern Africa, the chief temple gave prominence to the\nthreshold, rising in steps as an altar before a statue of the Queen of\nHeaven. Virgil, describing the arrival of \u00c6neas at the court of Queen\nDido, says:\n\n \u201cThere stood a grove within the city\u2019s midst,\n Delicious for its shade; where when they came\n First to this place, by waves and tempest tossed,\n The Carthaginians from the earth dug up\n An omen royal Juno had foretold\n That they should find, a noble horse\u2019s head;\n Thus intimating that this race would shine,\n Famous in war, and furnished with supplies\n For ages. Here the great Sidonian queen\n A temple built to Juno, rich in gifts,\n And in the presence of the goddess blessed.\n A brazen threshold rose above the steps,[381]\n With brazen posts connecting, and the hinge\n Creaked upon brazen doors.\u201d[382]\n\nThe churches of Abyssinia always stand on a hill, and in a grove\u2013like\nthe temple at Carthage. \u201cWhen you go to the church you put off your\nshoes before your first entering the outer precinct.... At entry, you\nkiss the threshold and two door-posts, go in and say what prayer you\nplease; that finished you come out again, and your duty is over.\u201d[383]\n\nThe yard of an Abyssinian church has been compared to \u201cthe _lucus_ or\nsacred grove of the pagan temple.\u201d \u201cThe church itself is square, and\nbuilt of stone with beams stuck in to support them. At the porch, the\nwooden lintels, which the pious kiss with intense earnestness,\u2013in fact,\nkissing the walls and lintels of a church is a great feature in\nAbyssinian devotion, so much so that, instead of speaking of \u2018going to\nchurch,\u2019 they say \u2018kissing the church,\u2019\u2013are carved with quaint and\nelaborate devices.\u201d[384]\n\nAt Yeha, near Aksum, are the remains of a ruined temple, within the area\nof which a church was at one time built. \u201cIn front of the vestibule\nstood two rude monoliths, at the base of one of which is an altar with a\ncircular disk on it, presumably, from the analogy of those at Aksum, for\nreceiving the blood of slaughtered victims.\u201d Obviously, the altar of\nthis temple was at its threshold.\n\nMarriages are said to be celebrated in Abyssinia at the church door\u2013the\nwedding covenant being thus made before the threshold altar.[385]\n\nAnd so in the earlier temples of Egypt, of Carthage, and of Abyssinia,\nand in Christian and Muhammadan places of worship, the doorway is held\nsacred, and, most of all, the threshold, or \u201cfloor of the door.\u201d\n\n 5. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN EUROPE.\n\nTraces of the primitive sacredness of the doorway and the threshold, in\nplaces of worship, are to be found in Europe, ancient and modern, as in\nAsia and Africa.\n\nThe term \u201cthreshold\u201d occurs in such prominence in connection with\ntemples, in the earliest Greek literature, as to show that its primitive\nmeaning included the idea of altar, or of sanctuary foundation. Thus the\nHouse of Zeus on Olympus is repeatedly spoken of as the \u201cHouse of the\nBronze Threshold.\u201d[386] In these references, \u201cthe nature of the\noccurrences, the uniformity of the phrase, the position of the words in\nthe verse, all point to this as an old hieratic phrase, and the meaning\nevidently is, \u2018the house that is stablished forever.\u2019\u201d[387]\n\nThis term \u201cbronze threshold\u201d occurs more than once in reference to the\ntemple-palace of Alcino\u00fcs.[388] Tartarus is described as having gates of\niron and a \u201cbronze threshold.\u201d[389] Night and day meet as they cross the\n\u201cgreat threshold of bronze;\u201d and Atlas upholds heaven at the threshold\nof the under-world.[390]\n\nThe treasures of Delphi are described as \u201cwithin the stone threshold of\nthe archer god, Phoebus Apollo, in Rocky Pytho.\u201d[391] And he who seeks\ncounsel at that oracle is spoken of as one who crosses \u201cthe stone\nthreshold.\u201d[392]\n\nIn Sophocles\u2019 \u201cOedipus at Colonus\u201d the Athenian warns the stranger\nOedipus that he is on holy ground, in the realm of Poseidon, and that\nthe spot where he now treads is \u201ccalled the brazen threshold of the\nland, the stay of Athens.\u201d[393] In other words, the bronze threshold is\nan archaic synonym for the enduring border, or outer limit, of spiritual\ndomain.\n\nThis prominence given to the threshold in earlier Greek literature is\nnot, it is true, continued in later writings; yet there are traces of it\nstill in occasional poetic references to the \u201cthreshold of life,\u201d and\nthe \u201cthreshold of the year,\u201d and the \u201cthreshold of old age.\u201d When Homer\nrefers \u201cto houses, to rooms in houses, or to courtyards, the \u2018threshold\u2019\nis constantly spoken of: a man steps over a threshold, stands at a\nthreshold, sits at a threshold, etc. And so important is the threshold\nthat its material is almost regularly mentioned; it is ash, oak, stone,\nbronze, etc. In later times all these locutions disappear; men go\nthrough doorways, enter, stand in porches, etc., instead.\u201d[394] Yet it\nis the archaic use that points to the primitive prominence of the\nthreshold.\n\nIn historic times, however, as in earlier, the altar of sacrifice was to\nbe found, in Grecian and Roman temples, near the threshold of the door.\nWhile there were smaller altars, for the offering of incense and\nbloodless sacrifices, in the interior of temples, the larger and more\nimportant altars, for the offering of animal sacrifices, whether of\nbeasts or of men, were before the temple, in front of the\nthreshold,\u2013_bomoi pronaoi_.[395]\n\nA ruined temple of Artemis Propyl\u00e6a, at Eleusis, shows the main altar\nimmediately before the threshold, between the ant\u00e6. The altar of the\ntemple of Apollo at Delphi was in a like position; as shown in the fact\nthat \u201cwhen Neoptolemus is attacked by Orestes in the vestibule of the\ntemple at Delphi, he seizes the arms which were suspended by means of\nnails or pins from one of the ant\u00e6, takes his station upon the altar,\nand addresses the people in his own defense.\u201d[396]\n\nWhen the \u201cpriest of Jupiter, whose temple was before the city\u201d of\nLystra, would have given divine honors to Paul and Barnabas, he brought\nthe garlanded oxen \u201cunto the gates,\u201d to sacrifice them there. At the\ngate of the city, within which the supposed gods were to be found,\nseemed the proper place of sacrifice.[397]\n\nThere are references in classic story, as in Babylonian legends, in\nPhenician and Syrian beliefs, and in the Hebrew prophetic visions, to\nlife-giving waters flowing out from under the threshold of the\nsanctuary. In the garden of the palace-temple of Alcino\u00fcs \u201care two\nsprings, the one ripples through the whole garden, the other opposite it\ngushes under the threshold of the courtyard to the lofty house, and from\nit the citizens draw their water.\u201d[398] On \u201cthe apple-growing shores of\nthe Hesperides,\u201d where Atlas upholds \u201cthe holy threshold of heaven,\u201d\naccording to the poets, \u201csprings of ambrosia pour from the chamber of\nZeus, from his bedside,\u201d and give a rich blessing to the life-giving\nearth.[399] And of Delphi it is said: \u201cGoing toward the temple we come\nupon the spring Cassotis: there is a low wall about it, and you ascend\nto the spring through the walls. The water of this Cassotis they say\nsinks underground, and in the shrine of the god [Apollo] makes the woman\nprophetic [is inspiration to her.]\u201d[400]\n\nIn the early churches of Europe, the threshold marked a sacred boundary\nof the edifice, to cross which indicated a certain covenant right to\nparticipate in the privileges of the house of God. As the structure of\nthe churches changed, in the progress of the centuries, the threshold of\nthe sanctuary came to be in a different portion of the building, or\nseries of buildings; but its sacredness remained, wherever it was\nsupposed to be. The term \u201caltar\u201d also changed, from the border line of\nthe place of worship, to the holy table within the sanctuary.\n\nSpeaking of the growth of the early church buildings, Bingham says: \u201cIn\nthe strictest sense, including only the buildings within the walls, they\nwere commonly divided into three parts: (1.) The _narthex_ or\nante-temple, where the penitents and catechumens stood. (2.) The _naos_\nor temple, where the communicants had their respective places. And (3.)\nthe _b\u0113ma_ or sanctuary, where the clergy stood to officiate at the\naltar. But in a larger sense there was another ante-temple or _narthex_\nwithout the walls, under which was comprised the propyl\u00e6a, or\n_vestibulum_, the outward porch; then the _atrium_ or area, the court\nleading from that to the temple, surrounded with porticos or\ncloisters.... There were also several _exedr\u00e6_, such as the baptistery,\nthe _diaconicum_, the _pastophoria_, and other adjacent buildings, which\nwere reckoned to be either without or within the church, according as it\nwas taken in a stricter or a larger acceptation.\u201d[401]\n\nIn the early churches, the place of baptism was outside of the church\nproper, or the _naos_, it is said. \u201cThere is nothing more certain than\nthat for many ages the baptistery was a distinct place from the body of\nthe church, and reckoned among the _exedr\u00e6_, or places adjoining to the\nchurch.\u201d[402] \u201cThe first ages all agreed in this, that, whether they had\nbaptisteries or not, the place of baptism was always without the\nchurch.\u201d[403] Even in medi\u00e6val times, in the churches of England,\nbaptisms were on the outer side of the threshold of the church proper,\n\u201cthe child being held without the doors of the church\u201d[404] until\nbaptized. In many churches of Europe at the present time the baptismal\nfont is at or near the door of the church.\n\nIn 1661, a formal reply of the Church of England bishops to a request of\nthe Presbyterians that the font might be placed before the congregation,\nthat all might see it, was: \u201cThe font usually stands, as it did in\nprimitive times, at or near the church door, to signify that baptism was\nthe entrance into the church mystical.\u201d[405]\n\nMarriages, like baptisms, were at the church porch or outside of the\nthreshold. \u201cThe old missals direct the placing of the man and the woman\nat the church door during the service, and that at the end of it they\nshall proceed within up to the altar.\u201d[406] The idea would seem to be\nthat a holy covenant like marriage, which is the foundation of a new\nfamily, must be solemnized at the primitive family altar,\u2013the threshold.\n\nDescribing the marriage rites of Germany in the middle ages,\nBaring-Gould says: \u201cIn a Ritual of Rennes, of the eleventh century, we\nfind a rubric to this effect: \u2018The priest shall go before the door of\nthe church in surplice and stole, and ask the bridegroom and bride\nprudently whether they desire to be legally united; and then he shall\nmake the parents give her away, according to the usual custom, and the\nbridegroom shall fix the dower, announcing before all present what\n(witthum) he intends to give the bride. Then the priest shall make him\nbetroth her with a ring, and give her an honorarium of gold or silver\naccording to his means. Then let him give the prescribed benediction.\nAfter which, entering into the church, let him begin mass; and let the\nbridegroom and bride hold lighted candles, and make an oblation at the\noffertory; and before the Pax let the priest bless them before the altar\nunder a pall or other covering [the wedding canopy], according to\ncustom; and lastly, let the bridegroom receive the kiss of peace from\nthe priest, and pass it on to his bride.\u2019\u201d[407]\n\n\u201cIn ancient times the people of France were married, not within the\nchurch at the altar as now, but at the outer door. This was the case in\n1599, in which year Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry II., was married to\nPhilip II. of Spain; and the Bishop of Paris performed the ceremony at\nthe door of the cathedral of Notre Dame. Another instance of this kind\noccurred in 1599 in France. Henrietta Maria was married to King Charles\nby proxy at the door of Notre Dame, and the bride, as soon as the\nceremony was over entered the church, and assisted at [attended]\nmass.\u201d[408]\n\n\u201cThe pre-Reformation rule was to begin the marriage service at the door\nof the church. In his \u2018Wyf of Bathe,\u2019 Chaucer [in the days of Edward\nIII.] refers to this custom:\u2013\n\n \u2018Housbandes atte chirche dore I have had fyve.\u2019\n\nThis old usage was abandoned by authority in the time of Edward VI. Yet\nthere is reason for thinking that it was not entirely given up. \u201cThere\nis a poem of Herrick\u2019s, written about 1640, which is entitled, \u2018The\nEntertainment or Porch Verse at the Marriage of Mr. Hen. Northly.\u2019\u201d[409]\n\n\u201cWhen Edward I. married Marguerite of France, in 1299, he endowed her at\nthe door of Canterbury Cathedral.\u201d Selden declares that \u201cdower could be\nlawfully assigned only at the door;\u201d and Littleton affirms to the same\neffect.[410]\n\n\u201cAt Witham in Essex it is, or was, the custom to perform the first part\nof the marriage service at the font [near the door]. When the Rev. A.\nSnell was appointed to the benefice in 1873, he spoke to a bridegroom\nabout this usage, and he (the bridegroom) particularly requested that he\nmight be married at the font, as he liked old customs.\u201d[411]\n\nAnother survival of the primitive rite of threshold covenanting seems to\nbe shown in certain customs observed in various parts of Europe, which\nlook like the substitution of an altar-stone for a threshold altar, in\nthe marriage ceremony.\n\n\u201cThus in the old temple of Upsal [in Sweden], wedding couples stood upon\na broad stone which was believed to cover the tomb of St. Eric.\u201d[412]\nCorresponding customs in other regions would go to show that the earlier\npractice was to leap over the stone, as a mode of threshold covenanting,\ninstead of standing on it. The latter was a change without a reason for\nit.\n\nFor instance, just outside \u201cthe ruined church, or abbey, of Lindisfarne,\nis the socket or foot-stone, in which was mortised a ponderous stone\ncross, erected by Ethelwold, and broken down by the Danes. This socket\nstone is now called the \u201cpetting stone,\u201d and whenever a marriage is\nsolemnized in the neighborhood, after the ceremony the bride is obliged\nto step upon it; and if she cannot stride to the end thereof, the\nmarriage is deemed likely to prove unfortunate and fruitless.\u201d While\nthis would seem to point to the custom of standing upon the stone, in\nthe modern marriage customs of the same region, a barrier is \u201cerected at\nthe churchyard gate, consisting of a large paving-stone which was placed\non its edge and supported by two smaller stones. On either side stood a\nvillager, who made the couple and every one else jump over it.\u201d[413]\n\n\u201cIn Lantevit Major Church was a stone called the \u2018marriage stone,\u2019 with\nmany knots and flourishes, and the head of a person upon it, and this\ninscription:\n\n \u2018_Ne Petra calcetur\n Qu[a]e subjacet ista tuetur_,\u2019\n\nBrides usually stood upon this stone at their marriages.\u201d[414] Yet the\ninscription itself:\n\n \u201cLet not the stone be trodden upon;\n What it lies under, it guards,\u201d\n\nforbids standing upon this threshold altar; and it is probable that in\nearlier times it was stepped over in marriage covenant, and not upon.\n\nAt Belford, in Northumberland, it is still the custom to make the\nbridal pair, with their attendants, leap over a stone placed in their\npath outside the church porch. This stone also is called the \u201cpetting\nstone,\u201d or the \u201clouping stone.\u201d At the neighboring village of\nEmbleton, in the same county, two stout young lads place a wooden\nbench across the door of the church porch, and assist the bride and\ngroom and their attendants to surmount the obstacle; for which\nassistance a gift of money is expected. In some places a stick has\nbeen held by the groomsmen at the church door for the bride to jump\nover. And again a stool has been placed at the churchyard gate, over\nwhich the whole bridal party must jump one by one; and this stool has\nbeen called the \u201cparting-stool.\u201d[415]\n\nA \u201cmode of marriage\u201d current in Ireland, until recent times, was that of\njumping over a form of the cross;[416] and jumping over a broomstick as\na form of marriage would seem to be a survival of this custom of leaping\nacross the threshold-stone, in token of a covenant. \u201cJumping the\nbroomstick\u201d is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent of marriage.\n\nThese various obstacles to progress, at wedding time, would seem to be\nas suggestions of the threshold altar, which must be passed in the\nmarriage covenant. The church threshold, like the home threshold, is a\ntemporary hindrance to an advance. Unless it is stepped across, the\ncovenant is incomplete.\n\nAn illustration of the popular idea of the sacredness of the church\nthreshold, and of the impropriety of stepping on it, in its passing, is\nfound in a Finnish mode of judging a clergyman. \u201cIn Finland, it is\nregarded as unlucky if a clergyman steps on the threshold, when he comes\nto preach at a church.\u201d A writer on this subject says: \u201cA Finnish friend\ntold me of one of his relations going to preach at a church, a few years\nago,\u2013he being a candidate for the vacant living,\u2013and the people most\nanxiously watched if he stepped on the threshold as he came in. Had he\ndone so, I fear a sermon never so eloquent would have counted but little\nagainst so dire an omen.\u201d[417] Here is a new peril for pulpit\ncandidates, if this primitive test becomes widely popular!\n\nEven to the present time, it is customary, in portions of Europe, for\nJews to rub their fingers on the posts of a synagogue doorway, and then\nkiss their fingers. Quite an indentation in the stone at the door of the\nsynagogue in Worms is to be seen, as due to this constant sacred\nrubbing.[418]\n\n 6. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AMERICA.\n\nIn the West, as in the East, traces of the primitive sacredness of the\nthreshold and the doorway are to be found. The stepped pyramid, or\nuplifted threshold, with the sanctuary at its summit, was the earliest\nform of temple or place of worship in Mexico, and in Central and South\nAmerica. In the later and more elaborate temples there was no altar\nwithin the building, although an image of the god was there.\n\nThe altar, or stone of sacrifice, was without, before the door of the\nsanctuary.[419] When a sacrifice was offered on the altar, the blood of\nthat sacrifice was smeared on the doors of the temple of the god.[420]\nHuman sacrifices were included in these offerings, in earlier\ntimes.[421] Even when larger temples were erected, and altars were\nenclosed within them, human victims were brought to the temple entrance\ninto the hands of the priests; and from the threshold they were borne by\nthe priests themselves, to be laid on the altar.[422]\n\nAmong the Pipiles, a Maya people, in Central America, there were \u201ctwo\nprincipal and very solemn sacrifices; one at the commencement of summer,\nand the other at the beginning of winter.\u201d Little boys, from six to\ntwelve years old, were the victims of sacrifice. At the sound of\ntrumpets and drums, which assembled the people, four priests came out of\nthe temple with braziers of coals on which incense was burning, and\nafter various ceremonies and religious exercises they proceeded to the\nhouse of the high-priest, near the temple, and took from it the boy\nvictim of the sacrifice. He was then conducted four times round the\ncourt of the temple, with dancing and singing.\n\nWhen this ceremony was finished, the high-priest came out of his house\nwith the second priest and his major-domo, and they proceeded to the\ntemple steps, accompanied by the principal men of the locality, who,\nhowever, stopped at the threshold of the temple. Then and there the four\npriests \u201cseized the victim by his extremities, and the major-domo coming\nout, with little bells on his wrists and ankles, opened the left breast\nof the boy, tore out his heart, and handed it to the high-priest, who\nput it into a little embroidered purse, which he closed.\u201d\n\nThe blood of the victim was received by the priests in a vessel made of\na gourd, and was by them sprinkled in the direction of the four cardinal\npoints. Then the heart, in its purse, was put back into the body of the\nvictim, and the body itself was interred inside of the temple. This\nsacrifice, at the threshold altar, was performed at the threshold, or\nthe beginning, of each of the two chief seasons of the year.[423]\n\nIn the temples of Central America, generally, the doorway was hardly\nless prominent than in the temples of Egypt. There were massive\ndecorations on and above the lintels; the door jams were richly\nsculptured; and there were male and female figures, or figures of\nanimals, as guardians on either side of the entrance. In some instances\na winged globe was above the door; and the uplifted hand was found over\nthe doorway or at the sides.[424]\n\nAmong the Natchez Indians, along the lower Mississippi, there was an\nannual \u201cHarvest Festival,\u201d or \u201cFestival of New Fire,\u201d which was\ncelebrated with great ceremony. An altar was in front of the temple,\njust before the door. On this occasion the priest of the sun stood on\nthe threshold of the temple in the early morning, watching for the first\nrays of the rising sun. The chiefs, and braves old and young, stood near\nthe altar. The women with infants in their arms stood in a semicircle\nfacing the priest. When he gave the signal of his recognition of the\nsun, by rubbing two pieces of wood to start a new fire for the altar,\nthey faced about to the east and held up their infants to the sun. Other\nexercises of worship followed. The priest\u2019s place in this ceremony was\non the threshold, before the altar of that temple.[425]\n\nIn America, as in the other continents, there are survivals of the\nprimal sacredness of the threshold of a place of public worship, in the\nformal ceremonies attending the laying of the corner-stone, or\nthreshold-stone, of a new church building of any denomination; and in\nthe use of holy water at the doorway on entering Roman Catholic\nchurches. More or less importance is attached in Protestant Episcopal\nchurches to the location of the baptismal font near the door, and to the\nbeginning of the marriage service before the bridal party approaches the\nthreshold of the sanctuary proper.\n\nIf indeed, there be found no trace of the fountain of life flowing from\nunder the threshold sanctuary of the gods worshiped by the aborigines of\nAmerica, such a fountain was searched for in this land by Ponce de Leon\nand his followers.\n\n 7. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ISLANDS OF THE SEA.\n\nThere is a certain resemblance in the plan of some of the temples of the\nSouth Sea Islands to those of Central America. A stepped pyramid in a\nlarge court was the central shrine; \u201cin front of which the images were\nkept, and the altars fixed.\u201d[426] In both cases the altars were outside\nof the shrine,\u2013at its threshold, as it were. A method of sacrificing was\nby bleeding a pig to death before the altar, \u201cwashing the carcass with\nthe blood, and then placing it in a crouching position on the\naltar.\u201d[427] An uplifted hand was one of the symbols on these stepped\npyramid shrines.[428] The temple foundation, or the threshold of the\nsacred building, was formerly laid in human blood.[429]\n\nA recognition of the threshold, in a sacred service, and in a form of\ncovenanting, is found in the ceremonies of circumcision as observed in\nMadagascar. This rite is not at infancy, as among the Jews, but is at\nthe threshold of young manhood. Its period is fixed by the king, who, on\n\u201can application from the parents or the friends of any number of\nchildren in a given province, appoints a time, and orders the observance\nof the rite.\u201d He is the \u201chigh-priest on this occasion.\u201d The rite marks\nthe transition of the boy from his dependence on his parents to his\npersonal service of the king, as a member of the community.\n\nHoly water is brought from a distance to the house of the master of\nceremonies, as the sanctuary for the occasion. A sheep is killed\nimmediately before this house, and the boys are caused to step across\nits blood. This sacrifice is called \u201cfahazza,\u201d or \u201ccausing\nfruitfulness,\u201d and it is supposed to be the means of causing\nfruitfulness in all the women who obtain a share of it.\n\nA tree is planted at the northeast corner of the house, and a lamp is\nfixed on it. Honey and water are poured upon the tree, and the boys\npartake of this mixture. The next day the persons present walk three\ntimes round the house, with various ceremonies, and then stop at the\ndoorway. The rite of circumcision is performed on each boy as he sits on\na drum at \u201cthe threshold of the door,\u201d held firmly by several men. The\nknife with which it is performed is previously dipped in the blood of a\nyoung bullock, an ear of which is slit by the operator. A covenant of\nfealty to the king is entered into by the youth on this occasion.\nSacrifices and feasting follow this ceremony.[430]\n\nOne of the ancient gods of Maui, an island of Hawaii, was Keoroeva. \u201cIn\nall the temples dedicated to its worship, the image was placed within\nthe inner apartment, on the left-hand side of the door; and immediately\nbefore it stood the altar, on which the offerings of every kind were\nusually placed.\u201d[431] The altar was at the doorway, in this case, as so\ngenerally elsewhere. Tiha was a female idol, as Keoroeva was a male, and\nmuch \u201cthe same homage and offerings\u201d were given to her as to him.[432]\n\nIn Kohala, one of the large divisions of Hawaii, stood a prominent\ntemple called Bukoh\u014dla, built by King Kamehameha, at the time of his\nconquest of the Sandwich Islands. \u201cAt the south end of this great\nedifice was a kind of inner court, which might be called the _sanctum\nsanctorum_ of the temple, where the principal idol used to stand,\nsurrounded by a number of images of inferior deities.\u201d \u201cOn the outside,\nnear the entrance to the inner court [at the threshold of the _sanctum\nsanctorum_] was the place of the _rere_ [or _l\u00e9l\u00e9_] (altar), on which\nhuman and other sacrifices were offered.\u201d[433]\n\nHuman victims were ordinarily slain in sacrifice outside of the\nsanctuary proper, and then their bodies, carefully preserved whole, were\ntaken within to be presented to the idol.[434]\n\nThere were Hawaiian cities of refuge, or _puhonuas_, as sanctuaries for\nguilty fugitives. A thief, or a murderer, might be pursued to the very\ngateway of one of those cities, but as soon as he crossed the threshold\nof that gate, even though the gate were open, and no barrier hindered\npursuit, he was safe, as at the city altar. When once within the sacred\ncity, the fugitive\u2019s first duty was to present himself before the idol,\nand return thanks for his protection.[435] This was substantially the\nHebrew law as to the cities of refuge.[436] Safety was only within the\nthreshold.\n\nThere are traces of the primitive idea of a spring of life-giving waters\nflowing from under the threshold of the goddess of life, in the Islands\nof the Sea. According to the myths of that region, Vari, or\n\u201cThe-very-beginning\u201d of life was a woman. She plucked off a piece of her\nright side and it became a man, or part man and part fish, known as\nV\u0101tea, or Avatea. From the under-world there came to V\u0101tea a\nsupernatural woman called Papa, or Foundation. From this union the human\nrace began. Rongo was the first-born son. The Hades of Polynesia is\nAvaika, or Hawaika. In the days of Rongo, and later, there was an\nopening from earth to Avaika; but because of the misdoings of the\ndenizens of that realm, coming up through that passage-way, Tiki, a\nlovely woman, a descendant of Rongo, \u201crolled herself alive down into the\ngloomy opening, which immediately closed upon her.\u201d She was the first to\ndie. And now \u201cTiki sits at the threshold\u201d of her home below, to welcome\nthe descendants of Rongo, who bring her an offering. A sacred stream of\nwater, \u201cVairorongo,\u201d comes up from below into the sacred grove devoted\nto the worship of Rongo, and near that stream it is possible for a\nspirit to be returned to life and to a home on earth again.[437]\n\nIt is obvious that the idea of the sacredness of the threshold, in home,\nin temple, or in sanctuary, is not of any one time or of any one people,\nbut is of human nature as human nature everywhere. It shows itself all\nthe world over, and always. And it has to do with life, and its\nperpetuation or reproduction.\n\n 8. ONLY ONE FOUNDATION.\n\nAn idea tangent to, rather than identical with, the thought of the altar\nsacredness of the temple threshold, as found among primitive peoples, is\nthat the first temple foundation is the foundation for all subsequent\ntemple building at that place. And it has already been shown that the\nthreshold, or hearthstone, or corner-stone, is considered the\nfoundation.[438]\n\nIn ancient Babylonia a temple, however grand and extensive, was supposed\nto be built on the foundation of an earlier temple; the one threshold\nbeing the first threshold and the latest. If, indeed, there was a\nvariation from the original foundation in the construction of a new\ntemple, there was confusion and imperfectness in consequence, and the\nonly hope of reformation was in finding the first temple threshold and\nrebuilding on it.\n\nThere is an illustration of this in an inscription discovered in the\nfoundation of a temple at \u201cUr of the Chaldees.\u201d[439] Nabonidus (556\u2013538\nB.C.), the last Babylonian king, tells with interest of his search for\nthe old foundation, or outline plan, of the ancient temple, Eulbar, or,\nmore properly, Eulmash, of the goddess Istar of Agade, as follows:[440]\n\nThe foundation of Eulmash in Agade had not been found from Sargon, king\nof Babylon (3800 B.C.), and Nar\u00e2m-Sin, his son, kings living formerly,\nuntil the government of Nabuna\u02beid king of Babylon.\n\nKing Kurigalzu (II.), about 1300 B.C., had, in his reign, searched for\nthis foundation, but had failed to find it, and he had left this record:\n\u201cThe foundation of Eulmash I sought, but did not find it.\u201d Later on,\nEsarhaddon, king of Assyria and Babylonia (681\u2013669 B.C.), searched for\nit, but without success. Again, Nebuchadrezzar (605\u2013561 B.C.) mobilized\nhis large armies, and ordered them to search for the foundation stone,\nor threshold, but all his efforts were in vain. Finally Nabuna\u02beid, the\nlast king of Babylon before its fall under Cyrus, gathered his many\nsoldiers, and ordered them to search for the foundation stone. For\n\u201cthree years in the tracks of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,\u201d says\nNabuna\u02beid, \u201cI sought right and left, before and behind, but did not find\nit.\u201d\n\nEncouraged by a prompting from the moon-god Sin, Nabuna\u02beid tried at\nanother time and in another place, and this time with success. He found\nthe inscription of King Shagarakti-Buriash (1350 B.C.), which tells that\nhe had laid a new foundation exactly upon the old one of King Zab\u00fb\n(about 2300 B.C.). Then Nabuna\u02beid made sure to preserve the exact\noutline of the old shrine. He laid the foundation, and restored the\nancient temple, so that \u201cit did not deviate an inch to the outside or\nthe inside.\u201d[441]\n\nThere are indications of the same high value set upon the primal\nfoundation of a temple in the records of ancient Egypt. A temple at its\nhighest grandeur is in the location of a prehistoric sanctuary. \u201cThe\nsite on which it is built is generally _holy ground_,[442] that is, a\nspot on which since the memory of man an older sanctuary of the god had\nstood. Even those Egyptian temples which seem most modern have usually a\nlong history,\u2013the edifice may have seemed very insignificant, but as the\nprestige of the god increased larger buildings were erected, which\nagain, in the course of centuries, were enlarged and rebuilt in such a\nway that the original plan could no longer be traced. This is the\nhistory of nearly all Egyptian temples, and explains the fact that we\nknow so little of the temples of the Old and of the Middle Empire; they\nhave all been metamorphosed into the vast buildings of the New\nEmpire.\u201d[443]\n\nWhile early Vedic and Brahmanic religion makes no mention of temples as\nsuch, fire from an ancestral altar was borne to a newly erected altar,\nin order to secure a continuance of the sacred influences issuing from\nthat original family threshold.[444] And Vishnooism takes old temples\nfrom Booddhism for its centers of worship, prizing the old sacred\nfoundation.\n\n\u201cBuddha-Gaya,\u201d or \u201cBodhi-Gaya,\u201d in Upper India, is famous as the\nlocality of the holy pipal tree, or the Booddha-drum (\u201cTree of\nKnowledge\u201d), under which for six years sat Sakya Sinha, in meditation,\nbefore he attained to Booddha-hood. A temple still standing on that site\nis supposed to have been rebuilt A.D. 1306, on the remains of one\nvisited by Hwen Thsang, a Chinese traveler, in the seventh century of\nour era, which, in turn, had been built by Amara Sinha, or Amara Deva,\nabout A.D. 500. This earlier temple is said to have been built by a\ncommand of Booddha himself conveyed in a vision, or by a command of the\nBrahmanical Mah\u00e2deva, on the site of a still earlier sanctuary, or\nmonastery, erected by Asoka between 259 and 241 B.C., on the site of\nBooddha\u2019s meditations, about 300 B.C.[445] The existing temple has been\ncalled at different times \u201cBuddha-pad\u201d and \u201cVishnu-pad,\u201d \u201cBooddha\u2019s\nfoot\u201d and \u201cVishnoo\u2019s foot.\u201d\n\nKuru-Kshetra, or the \u201cPlain of Kuru,\u201d near Delhi, India, has been deemed\nholy ground from time immemorial. At Th\u00e2vesar, on this plain, a temple\nof Siva was built on a site that was sacred long before Sivaism was\nknown. It is even believed that the sacredness of this site runs back to\nthe ancient times of the Rig Veda. The boundaries of this \u201cHoly Land\u201d\nare given in the great Hindoo epic, the Mahabharata. This plain is said\nto comprise three hundred and sixty holy shrines, each of which is\nerected on a foundation sacred from the times of the gods\nthemselves.[446]\n\nSo general, in India, is this habit of building a sanctuary on an old\nsacred foundation, that it is said that \u201cthe erection of a mosk by a\nMuhammadan conqueror always implies the previous destruction of a Hindu\ntemple.\u201d[447] Thus a mosk erected by the emperor Altamash, A D. 1232, is\nsupposed to have been on the foundation of a temple of the sun, built\nfor Raja Pasupati about A.D. 300.[448] Not a new foundation, but an old\none, was sought, in India, for a new temple, even to a god newly\nworshiped there.\n\nFourteen centuries before Christ, Pan-K\u0103ng, an emperor of China, moved\nhis capital from north of the Ho to south of it because he had\nascertained that the original foundation was attempted to be laid there\nby his ancestor Thang in the Shing dynasty, seventeen reigns before him;\nhence the removal back to that first foundation would renew the blessing\nof Thang upon his descendants.[449]\n\nA temple has added sacredness in China according as its foundation is on\na spot originally chosen or honored by a representative of Heaven as a\nthreshold of a place of worship. Thus Tai Shan, or the \u201cGreat Mount,\u201d in\nthe province of Shantung, China, is mentioned in the Shoo King, or Book\nof Records, as the site of the great Emperor Shun\u2019s altar of sacrifice\nto Heaven, 2254 B.C., or, say, three centuries before the time of\nAbraham. On this holy mountain, as the earliest historic foundation of\nChinese worship, \u201cis the great rendezvous of devotees, every sect has\nthere its temples and idols, scattered up and down its sides;\u201d and great\nmultitudes come thither to worship from near and far.[450]\n\nThis idea shows itself in modern discoveries among the ruins of ancient\nGreece. It appears that when Pericles (437 B.C.) began his building of\nthe new Propyl\u00e6a on the Acropolis, he would have cleared away the\nremains of such ancient sacred structures as stood within its outline.\n\u201cThe plan of Mnesikles the architect was very simple, and is still clear\nenough, though it was never fully carried out.\u201d \u201cThat the original plan\nof Mnesikles had undergone modifications was long ago seen by every\narchitect who made the Propyl\u00e6a matter of serious study.\u201d Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld\nthinks he has discovered how the plan was modified, and why. The\nenforced departure from the original plan seems to have been because\nthat plan involved the destruction of shrines on an earlier foundation,\nwith a threshold that might not be moved. The gate of Cimon, with its\n\u201cstatue of some guardian god of the gate,\u2013it may be Hermes Propylaios\nhimself,\u201d\u2013was within that outline, and also other sacred sites.\n\n\u201cAgainst such intrusion it is very likely the priesthood rose and\nprotested, and, before even the foundations were laid, he had to give\nup, at least for the time, the whole of the southeast hall, and a part\nof the southwest wing.\u201d This conclusion is the result of recent\ninvestigation by careful scholars, and it is in accordance with the\nascertained fact that in primitive thought an original foundation for a\ntemple or shrine is counted sacred for all time as the foundation there\nfor such a place of worship, not to be swept away or ignored in any\nrebuilding or new building.[451]\n\nWhen from any reason, in early Europe, an ancient shrine must be removed\nfrom its primitive foundation, it was deemed desirable to remove to the\nnew site a portion of the foundation itself, as well as the sanctuary or\naltar above that foundation. Thus, for example, when Thorolf of Norway,\nwho had charge of the temple of Thor in Mostur, removed to Iceland in\nA.D. 833, he took with him the temple posts and furniture \u201cand the very\nearth on which the altar of that idol had been erected.\u201d And when he\nlanded in Iceland, Thorolf built a new temple of Thor, with an altar on\nthe foundation which he had brought from the earlier shrine. A thousand\nyears after this the foundation-site of that second temple was still\npointed out near Hofstad, in Iceland.[452]\n\nBible language and narrative abound with incidental evidence of the\ncommonness of this primitive idea. When Jacob, on his way to Haran, came\nto Beth-el\u2013a House of God\u2013he lighted on \u201cthe place\u201d (_hammaq\u00e2m_)\nwhere,[453] long before, his ancestor Abraham had worshiped, as he came\nfrom Egypt by way of the Negeb.[454] And yet earlier Abraham himself, as\nhe came a pilgrim from Haran and Ur, had there \u201cbuilded an altar unto\nthe Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.\u201d[455] And if that place\nwere already known as Beth-el it must have been a sanctuary before\nAbraham\u2019s day.\n\nMoses, in the wilderness of Sinai, is told that the ground whereon he\nstands is \u201choly ground,\u201d and that he is to bring the Hebrews out of\nEgypt to worship God in that mountain.[456] And the Egyptian records\ngive reason for supposing that that region of Mt. Sinai, perhaps of the\nmoon-god \u201cSin,\u201d was known as holy ground, and as the \u201cland of God,\u201d or\nof the gods, before the days of Moses.[457]\n\nAt Jerusalem the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah, where the ark of the\ncovenant rested after its return from Philistia,[458] and where David\nerected an altar to the Lord after the staying of the pestilence from\nIsrael.[459] And it is supposed that this same Mt. Moriah was where\nAbraham offered a sacrifice to God on an altar he had built for the\nsacrifice of his son.[460] And this site of the Temple at Jerusalem is\nheld sacred to-day, in view of its being deemed by multitudes a holy\nplace from the beginning of the world.[461]\n\nWhen Naaman the Syrian was healed of leprosy by Elisha, the prophet of\nIsrael, he desired thenceforth to worship Jehovah in his Syrian home. To\nthis end he asked of Elisha the gift of \u201ctwo mules\u2019 burden of earth\u201d\nfrom Samaria, in order that he might on that sacred foundation erect in\nSyria an altar to Jehovah.[462]\n\nIn a prophecy of the Messiah as the foundation, or threshold, of a new\ntemple, it was declared by the Lord: \u201cBehold, I lay [or, I have laid] in\nZion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone of\nsure foundation.\u201d[463] Again, it was the promise of God to the\nIsraelites that they should be restorers of worship on former\nfoundations. \u201cThey that shall be of thee shall build the old waste\nplaces: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and\nthou shalt be called The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths\nto dwell in.\u201d[464]\n\nNew Testament phraseology makes frequent reference to this same idea.\n\u201cAccording to the grace which was given unto me, as a wise\nmaster-builder, I laid a foundation,\u201d says Paul. \u201cBut let each man take\nheed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than\nthat is laid, which is Christ Jesus.\u201d[465] The Christian saints of the\n\u201chousehold of God,\u201d as \u201cliving stones,\u201d[466] are \u201cbuilt upon the\nfoundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the\nchief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed\ntogether, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.\u201d[467]\n\nMuhammadanism, which shows many survivals of primitive ideas and\nprimitive customs, emphasizes the importance of the first foundation as\nthe only foundation, in the traditions and legends of the holy places of\nits most sacred city. Every _masjid_, or \u201cplace of prostration,\u201d in that\nvicinity is on a site counted holy long centuries before the days of the\nProphet of Islam.\n\nThe Ka\u02bfbah, or Holy House, in the mosk at Meccah is said to have been\nbuilt by Adam himself, on the model of a similar structure in heaven. It\nwould seem as if no earthly foundation, or threshold, could have been\nearlier than that; indeed, the Qur\u00e2n declares: \u201cThe first house\nappointed unto men to worship in was that which was in Beccah [or\nMeccah];\u201d[468] yet there is a tradition that Adam erected a place of\nprayer even before he built the Ka\u02bfbah. In the Deluge the Holy House was\ndestroyed; but Abraham was directed to rebuild it, and on digging\nbeneath the surface of its site he discovered the original foundation,\nand the Ka\u02bfbah was newly built up on that.\n\nAccording to Muhammadan traditions, it was while Hagar was near the site\nof the Holy House, with her famishing son Ishmael, that a spring of\nwater gushed forth with its life-giving stream from beneath that holy\nsite. And that spring is the well Zemzem, or Zamzam, whose waters are\ndeemed sacred and life-giving to-day.\n\nMount Arafat, a holy hill near Meccah, is another place of pilgrimage,\nand its sacredness dates from even an earlier day than the laying of the\nfirst foundation of the Holy House at Meccah by Adam. When our first\nparents were cast out of their heavenly paradise, Adam lighted in\nCeylon, and Eve in Arabia. Seeking each other, they met on Mount Arafat,\nor the Mount of Recognition, and therefore that spot of their reunion\nand new covenanting is a place of pilgrimage and worship for the\nfaithful of all the world at this time.[469] Adam is said to have built\na _madaa_, a place of prayer, on Mount Arafat, before he built the\nKa\u02bfbah.[470] The religion of Islam thus teaches its subjects to worship\nat the earliest threshold laid by our first parents in their primal\ncovenanting, and all other religions recognize the importance of a\nsimilar idea.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n Darmesteter\u2019s translation of _Zend Avesta_, in \u201cSacred Books of the\n East,\u201d IV., 12, note.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n De Coulange\u2019s _Ancient City_, pp. 32\u201335, 46 f.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n Compare Friedrich Delitzsch\u2019s _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, s. v.\n \u201c\u00cakallu.\u201d\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n Wilkinson\u2019s _Egyptians in the Times of the Pharaohs_, p. 141.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 279 f.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n Guhl and Koner\u2019s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 297.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n See, for example, _Odyssey_, VII., 80.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Persia_, pp. 240\u2013254.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n Comp. Gen. 18 : 1\u20139, and Exod. 26 : 1\u201314; 39 : 32, etc.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n Douglas\u2019s _Society in China_, p. 343.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n See Chamberlain\u2019s _Things Japanese_, pp. 37, 226 f., 378; Griffis\u2019s\n _Mikado\u2019s Empire_, p. 90; Isabella Bird\u2019s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_,\n II., 282.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n Turner\u2019s _Samoa_, pp. 18\u201320.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 703 f.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n See Fergusson\u2019s _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 100, 411\u2013413.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n Gen. 11 : 1\u20139.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n See M\u00fchlau and Volck\u2019s Gesenius\u2019s _Heb. und Aram. Handw\u00f6rterbuch_\n (12th ed.), s. v. \u201cBabel;\u201d also Schrader, in Richon\u2019s _Dict. of Bib.\n Antiq._ (2d ed.).\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n See Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 63; also, Erman\u2019s _Life\n in Ancient Egypt_, p. 58.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n See Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _History of Art in Chal. and Assy._, II., 72.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n See Count de Gobineau\u2019s _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l\u2019Asie\n Centrale_; also Browne\u2019s _Year among the Persians, and Traveller\u2019s\n Narrative to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab_.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n _Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale_, s. v. \u201cBab.\u201d\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n John 10 : 9.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n See, for example, Griffis\u2019s _Mikado\u2019s Empire_, p. 419; Isabella Bird\u2019s\n _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 295 f.; II., 367 f.; Gray\u2019s _China_,\n I., 90; Fergusson\u2019s _Rude Stone Monuments_, p. 413.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n See Chamberlain\u2019s _Things Japanese_, p. 429 f.; and, Lowell\u2019s\n _Chos\u00f6n_, pp. 262\u2013266, for a fuller explanation of the origin and\n signification of this primitive entrance way.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n See, for example, Douglas\u2019s _Society in China_, p. 411; Isabella\n Bird\u2019s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 64; Fergusson\u2019s _Tree and\n Serpent Worship_, frontispiece, plates iv-ix, xxi.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n See Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 656.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 569. The doorway in the engraving from the intaglio is\n clearly one of the doorway shrines, with the guardians of the doorway\n on either side, and not, as has been supposed, an opening into the\n ark.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 657, 662, 759, 762; also Perrot\n and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Chal. and Assy._, I., 203, 212; II.,\n 95, 163, 210, 211.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n _Ibid._, II., facing p. 212.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Chal. and Assy._, II., 231;\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Ph\u0153nicia and Cyprus_, I., 9.\n See, also, note in Rawlinson\u2019s _Herodotus_, II., pp. 148\u2013151.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt_, III., 349; Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, pp.\n 274, 283; and Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 189, 239.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 311; Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of\n Civilization_, pp. 237, 250, 253, 262, 316, 413.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 314. See, also, illustrations in\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Anc. Egypt_, I., 131, 140, 175.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 319.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Ph\u0153nicia and Cyprus_, I., 256;\n II., 31, 57, 147, 178.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 53, 54.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 287; II., 147.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 264, 321.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 320.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n Bent\u2019s _Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, pp. 185\u2013193.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n See, for example, Fergusson\u2019s _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 100, 168 f.,\n 217, 233, 335, 337, 344, 385, 388, 398\u2013401, 411\u2013413, 441, 464, 468,\n 484, 532.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n See illustrations in Sherrin\u2019s _Early History of New Zealand_, pp.\n 406, 514, 648.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, IV., 481.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n See, for example, Williams\u2019s _Middle Kingdom_, I., frontispiece;\n Gray\u2019s _China_, I., 11 f.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n See citation in Bonomi\u2019s _Nineveh and its Palaces_ (2d ed.), pp.\n 157\u2013160, 174.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n _Nineveh and its Remains_ (Am. ed.), II., 202.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n _Assyrian Discoveries_, pp. 75, 78, 429.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n _Chaldean Magic_, pp. 47, 48, 54.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n See, for example, 1 Sam. 29 : 6; 2 Sam. 3 : 25; 2 Kings 19 : 27; Psa.\n 121 : 7, 8; Isa. 37 : 28; Ezek. 43 : 11.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n See references to the Mezuza of the Hebrews at page 69 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n Grotefend Cylinder, Col. I., ll. 44\u201346. See, also, Rawlinson\u2019s\n _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, Vol. I., p. 65, Col. I., ll.\n 19\u201321.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n _East India House Inscription_, Col. III., ll. 48\u201350.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n _Ibid._, Col. VIII., ll. 5\u20139.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n _Ibid._, Col. IX., ll. 9\u201316.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n Grotefend Cylinder, Col. I., ll. 36\u201338.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n _East India House Inscr._, col. II., ll. 48\u201350.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n See Layard\u2019s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), p. 424; Perrot and\n Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Chald. and Assy._, I., 366\u2013392; Rawlinson\u2019s\n _Herodotus_, Bk. II., Chap. 99, 125; Sayce\u2019s _Religion of the Ancient\n Babylonians_, p. 96; Mariette Bey\u2019s _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 79\n f.; Bunsen\u2019s _Egypt\u2019s Place in Universal History_, II., 378\u2013386;\n Rawlinson\u2019s _History of Ancient Egypt_, I., 188\u2013194; R\u00e9ville\u2019s\n _Religions of Mexico and Peru_, pp. 41 f., 179 f., Ellis\u2019s _Polynesian\n Researches_, II., 207.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n Rawlinson\u2019s _Herodotus_, Bk. I., Chap. 181\u2013183.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n The word \u201c_sullam_,\u201d here translated \u201cladder,\u201d is a derivative from\n \u201c_salal_,\u201d \u201cto raise up in a pile, to exalt by heaping up as in the\n construction of a mound or highway.\u201d Comp. Isa. 57 : 14; 62 : 10; Jer.\n 50 : 26. See Bush\u2019s _Notes on Genesis_, in loco.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n Gen. 28 : 10\u201322.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n See Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 691\u2013696, with citation of\n authorities at foot of p. 693, and note at p. 695.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n _Ibid._; also, Sayce\u2019s _Relig. of the Anc. Babyl._, pp. 221\u2013278; 286,\n note 3.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n Comp. Job 1 : 21; Eccl. 5 : 15; 1 Tim. 6 : 7.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 696.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n Ezek. 47 : 1\u20139.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n Zeph. 2 : 13, 14, with margin.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n See _Survey of Western Palestine_, \u201cMemoirs,\u201d I., 107.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n See Gen. 2 : 8\u201310; Rev. 22 : 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Ezek. 8 : 8\u201316.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n Layard\u2019s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), pp. 302\u2013311.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 69 f.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n 1 Sam. 5 : 1\u20135.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n _In loco._\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n Zeph. 1 : 9.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n Ezek. 46 : 2.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n _Ibid._, 10 : 4; 9 : 3.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n _Ibid._, 43 : 8.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n Lev. 17 : 2\u20139.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n Exod. 29 : 4.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n _Ibid._, 29 : 10\u201312.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n Exod. 33 : 8\u201310; see, also, Num. 12 : 5; 20 : 6; Deut. 31 : 15.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n See, for example, Exod. 40 : 6, 29; Lev. 1 : 3, 5; 3 : 2; 4 : 4, 7; 8\n : 1\u201336; 12 : 6; 14 : 11, 23; 15 : 14, 29; 16 : 7; 17 : 4\u20139; 19 : 21;\n Num. 6 : 10\u201318.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n 2 Chron. 23 : 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n _Ibid._, 34 : 8, 9 (see margin).\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n 1 Chron. 15 : 23, 24; Jer. 35 : 4; 52 : 24, etc.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n Psa. 84 : 10 (see margin).\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n See Edersheim\u2019s _The Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 191; also,\n Ginsburg\u2019s art. \u201cPassover,\u201d in Kitto\u2019s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._, p. 426.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n See 2 Kings 12 : 9; 22 : 4; 23 : 4; 25 : 18.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n See, for example, representation and description of temples at Byblus\n and Baalbec, in Donaldson\u2019s _Architectura Numismatica_, pp. 105 f.,\n 122\u2013128.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n Fellows\u2019s _Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_, p. 256.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n Roberts\u2019s _Oriental Illus. of Scrip._, p. 148 f.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n Maurice\u2019s _Indian Antiquities_, V., 89.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n Maurice\u2019s _Indian Antiquities_, V., 79 f., note. Compare Trumbull\u2019s\n _Blood Covenant_, pp. 157\u2013164.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n Maurice\u2019s _Modern Hist. of Hindostan_, Pt. I., Bk. 2, chap. 3, p. 296\n f.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n Hughes\u2019s _Dictionary of Islam_, art. \u201cMasjid;\u201d also Conder\u2019s _Heth and\n Moab_, p. 293 f.; also Lane\u2019s _The Modern Egyptians_, I., 105.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n Morier\u2019s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 254.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n The moon is said to have thus bowed before Muhammad, at the threshold\n of the Kaabeh at Meccah. _Anecdotes Arabes et Mussulmans_, p. 22 f.\n (By J.F. de la Croix, Paris, 1772.)\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n Chardin\u2019s _Voyage_, I., 282.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 292.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n Laurie\u2019s _Dr. Grant and the Mountain Nestorians_, p. 134 f.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n Vamb\u00e9ry\u2019s _Travels in Central Asia_, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n Huc\u2019s _Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China_, I., 191.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n Hearn\u2019s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, I., 188.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n Lowell\u2019s _Occult Japan_, pp. 270\u2013273; also, Isabella Bird\u2019s _Unbeaten\n Tracks in Japan_, II., 278\u2013285.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n _Ibid._, I., 111\u2013119; II., 286\u2013288.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n See Petrie\u2019s _Ten Years\u2019 Digging in Egypt_, pp. 138\u2013142; also,\n Mariette\u2019s _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 107 f., and Maspero\u2019s _Dawn\n of Civilization_, pp. 358\u2013361.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 67.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n See Wilkinson\u2019s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, I.,\n xiv.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n This is on the testimony of Prof. W. Max M\u00fcller, who adds that \u201cso far\n the Egyptologists have not paid any attention to the threshold;\u201d hence\n there is a lack of material yet available as showing its peculiar\n sacredness.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 272.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n Lemm\u2019s \u201cRitual Book,\u201d p. 29 ff., 47; cited in Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc.\n Egypt_, p. 274 f.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, pp. 260, 308 f.; Mariette Bey\u2019s\n _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 26.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n Wilkinson\u2019s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 65\u201386.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n _Book of the Dead_, CXLII.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n Renouf\u2019s _Relig. of Anc. Egypt_, p. 191 f.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n See p. 106, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n _Book of the Dead_, CXLV., CXLVI.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n Renouf\u2019s _Religion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 202 f.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n _Book of the Dead_, CXXV.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n Lane\u2019s _Thousand and One Nights_. Notes to Chapter 3, Vol. I., p. 215\n f. See, also, Stanley Lane\u2019s _Arabian Society in the Middle Ages_, p.\n 73.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n Or, \u201cby steps,\u201d\u2013\u201c_gradibus_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n Cranch\u2019s _\u00c6neid of Virgil_, I., 572\u2013585; _\u00c6neis_, I., 441\u2013449.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n Bruce\u2019s _Travels_ (Dublin ed.), III., 644, Bk. IV., chap. 12.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n Bent\u2019s _Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, p. 40 f.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n See Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 17.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n See, for example, _Iliad_, I., 426; XIV., 173; XXI., 427, 505;\n _Odyssey_, VIII., 321.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n Professor W.A. Lamberton, in a personal note to the author.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n _Odyssey_, XIII., 4; VII., 83, 87, 89.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n _Iliad_, VIII., 15.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n See Hesiod\u2019s _Theogony_, V., 749.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n _Iliad_, IX., 404.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n _Odyssey_, VIII., 80.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n _Oedipus at Colonus_, 54 ff. See, also, 1591. Comp. Hesiod\u2019s\n _Theogony_, 811.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n Prof. W.A. Lamberton.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n \u00c6schylus\u2019s \u201cSuppliants,\u201d p. 497; cited in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and\n Roman Antiq._, s. v. \u201cAra.\u201d See, also, Donaldson\u2019s _Architectura\n Numismatica_, pp. xvi, xvii, 33, 54.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n Euripides, _Androm._, 1098. Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._,\n s. v. \u201cAnt\u00e6.\u201d\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n Acts 14 : 8\u201314.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n _Odyssey_, VII., 130.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n Euripides, _Hippolytus_, 741.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n _Pausanias_, Bk. X., 24, 5.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n Bingham\u2019s _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, Bk. VIII., chap. 3.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n _Ibid._, Bk. VIII., chap. 4.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n _Ibid._, Bk. VIII., chap. 7.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n Blunt\u2019s _Annotated Book of Common Prayer_, p. 210.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 217.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n See Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 15 f.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n Baring-Gould\u2019s _Germany, Present and Past_ (Am. ed.), p. 105.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 14 f.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n Vaux\u2019s _Church Folk-Lore_, p. 99.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 16.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n Vaux\u2019s _Church Folk-Lore_, p. 98.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 17.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 254.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n Wood\u2019s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 255.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n See Henderson\u2019s _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties of England and the\n Borders_, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n Curtin\u2019s _Myths and Folk-Lore of Ireland_, p. 177.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n See Jones\u2019s and Kropf\u2019s _Folk-Tales of the Magyars_, p. 410.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n On the eye-witness testimony of Prof. Dr. Morris Jastrow, Jr.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 41, 179 f., 207; also\n Bancroft\u2019s _Mex._, I., 296.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, p. 183; Bancroft\u2019s _Mex._,\n I., 162.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 31, 184, 207 f.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 83.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_, \u201cCivilized Nations,\u201d II., 706 f.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races and Antiquities_, IV., 209 f., 314, 321,\n 323, 332, 338, 351, 531, 801, 803, 805. See also, Stephens\u2019s\n _Incidents of Travels in Yucatan_, I., 137, 167\u2013176, 303, 306,\n 403\u2013407, 411\u2013413; II., 42, 54, 56, 72, 122.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n Chateaubraud\u2019s _Voyage en Am\u00e9rique_, pp. 130\u2013136; cited in Frazer\u2019s\n _Golden Bough_, II., 383.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n Ellis\u2019s _Polynesian Researches_, II., 206.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n _Ibid._, II., 211 f.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n _Ibid._, II., 207, illustration.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n _Ibid._, II., 212 f.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n Ellis\u2019s _Hist. of Madagascar_, I., 176\u2013187.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n Ellis\u2019s _Through Hawaii_, p. 73 f.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 75.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n Ellis\u2019s _Through Hawaii_, p. 81 f.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 135 f.; also, Isabella Bird\u2019s _Six Months in the Sandwich\n Islands_, p. 196.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n Ellis\u2019s _Through Hawaii_, p. 153 f. See, also, Isabella Bird\u2019s _Six\n Months in the Sandwich Islands_, p. 135 f.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n Num. 35 : 6\u201332; Deut. 4 : 41\u201343; 19 : 1\u201313; Josh. 20 : 1\u20139.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n Comp. Gill\u2019s _Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, pp. 3, 4, 7,\n 14, 18, 20, 26, 152, 155, 158, 160, 170; also Turner\u2019s _Samoa_, p.\n 259.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n See pp. 21\u201323, 45 f., 55, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n Gen. 11 : 28; Neh. 9 : 7.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n Rawlinson\u2019s _Inscript. of W. Asia_, Vol. I., pl. 69, Col. II., l. 29\n ff.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n See Hilprecht\u2019s _Assyriaca_, pp. 54, 55, 97.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n Inscription in the temple of Rameses III. at Karnak.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n Erman\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 279.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n See \u201cGrihya-Sutras,\u201d in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXX., 193\u2013201;\n also De Coulange\u2019s _Ancient City_, pp. 36, 47 f.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n See Julien\u2019s _M\u00e9moires de Hionen-Thsang_, I., 459\u2013466; Cunningham\u2019s\n _Arch\u00e6ological Survey of India_, I., 1\u201312; Sir Monier\n Monier-Williams\u2019s _Buddhism_, pp. 390\u2013401.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n Cunningham\u2019s _Arch\u00e6ological Survey of India_, II., 212, 213.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n _Ibid._, II., 353 f.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n \u201cThe Shih King,\u201d Bk. 7, \u00a7 3, in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 111.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n Williams\u2019s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 90 f.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n Harrison and Verrall\u2019s _Myth. and Monu. of Anc. Athens_, pp. 353\u2013361.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n Henderson\u2019s _Iceland_, II., 64\u201367; also _ibid._, I., xiv.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n Gen. 28 : 10\u201322.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n _Ibid._, 13 : 1\u20133.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n _Ibid._, 12 : 1\u20138.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n Exod. 3 : 1\u201312.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 411.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n 2 Sam. 6 : 1\u201319.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n _Ibid._, 24 : 15\u201325.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n Gen. 22 : 1\u201313.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n As evidenced in the traditional claim that the grave of Adam was under\n the cross.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n 2 Kings 5 : 17.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n Isa. 28 : 16; 1 Pet. 2 : 6.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n Isa. 58 : 12.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n 1 Cor. 3 : 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n 1 Pet. 2 : 5.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n Eph. 2 : 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n _Sura_ 3 : 90.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n See Sale\u2019s _Koran_, \u201cPreliminary Discourse,\u201d Sect. IV.; Burton\u2019s\n _Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah_, III., 149\u2013222; Hughes\u2019s\n _Dictionary of Islam_, s. vv. \u201cAbraham,\u201d \u201cAdam,\u201d \u201cAraf\u0101t,\u201d \u201cHagar,\u201d\n \u201cIshmael,\u201d \u201cKa\u02bfbah,\u201d \u201cMasjidu \u02bel-Har\u0101m,\u201d \u201cZamzam;\u201d Sprenger\u2019s _Life of\n Mohammad_, pp. 46\u201362; Muir\u2019s _Mahomet and Islam_, pp. 12\u201317, 215\u2013219.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n Burton\u2019s _Pilgrimage_, III., 260.\n\n-----\n\n\n\n\n III.\n SACRED BOUNDARY LINE.\n\n 1. FROM TEMPLE TO DOMAIN.\n\nMan\u2019s first dwelling-place was the cave, or the tent, or the hut, in\nwhich he made a home with his family. The threshold and hearth of that\ndwelling-place was the boundary of his earthly possessions. It was the\nsacred border or limit of the portion of the earth\u2019s surface over which\nhe claimed control, and where he and his were under the special\nprotection of the deity with whom he was in covenant. Therefore the\nthreshold hearth was hallowed as a place of covenant worship.\n\nAs families were formed into tribes and communities, they came to have a\ncommon ruler or priest, and his dwelling-place was counted by all as the\ncommon center of covenant with their common deity; and when they would\nworship that deity there, they worshiped at the threshold altar of his\nsanctuary. So it was that the threshold was the place of the hearth-fire\nand altar, in both house and temple.\n\nWhen man acquired property rights beyond his dwelling-place, and\ncommunities and peoples gained control over portions of country more or\nless extensive, the boundary limits of their possessions were extended,\nbut were no less real and positive than before. The protecting deity of\nthe region thus bounded was recognized as having sway in that domain;\nand those who were dwellers there were in covenant relations with him.\nTherefore it was that the boundary line of such domain was deemed its\nthreshold, and as such was held sacred as a place of worship and of\nsacrifice.\n\n 2. LOCAL LANDMARKS.\n\nA private landmark was a sacred boundary, and was a threshold altar for\nits possessor. To remove or to disregard such a local threshold, was an\noffense not only against its owner, but against the deity in whose name\nit had been set up.\n\nAmong the earliest remains from unearthed Babylonia are local landmarks,\nor threshold boundary stones, inscribed, severally, with a dedication\nand an appeal to the deity honored by him who erected the stone. These\nlocal landmarks were ordinarily in the form of a phallus; as phallic\nforms were numerous under Babylonian temple thresholds. Among the\nrecords of those peoples are writings, showing the importance attached\nto such threshold stones, in the contracts accompanying their setting\nup, and in the sacred ceremonies on that occasion.\n\nIllustrations of the importance attached by the ancient Babylonians to a\nboundary stone, or threshold landmark, are found in the records of the\nimprecations inscribed on these phallic pillars, as directed against the\nviolator of their sacredness.[471] For example, a Babylonian, Sir-usur\n[\u201cO snake-god protect\u201d], a descendant of the house of Habban, presented\na valuable tract of land to his daughter on her betrothal to\nT\u00e2bash\u00e2p-Marduk. The withering curse inscribed on the conventional\nboundary-stone pillar is as follows:\n\n\u201cFor all future time: Whosoever, of the brothers, sons, family,\nrelatives, descendants, servants purchased or house-born, of the house\nof Habban, be he a prefect, or an overseer, or anybody else, shall rise\nand stand up to take this field away, or to remove this boundary stone,\nand causes this field to be presented to a god, or sends some one to\ntake it away [for the state], or brings it into his own possession; who\nchanges the area, the limit, or the boundary stone, divides it into\npieces, or takes a piece from it, saying, \u2018The field and _mulugi_[472]\nhave not been presented;\u2019 or who on account of the dire curse [written]\non this boundary stone, sends a fool, a deaf man, a blind man, a\nreckless man, an enemy, an alien, an ignorant man, and causes this\ninscribed stone to be removed, throws it into the water, hides it in the\nearth, crushes it with a stone, burns it with fire, effaces it and\nwrites something else on it, or puts it into a place where nobody can\nsee it,\u2013upon this man may the great gods Anu, B\u00eal, Ea, and Nusku, look\nwrathfully, uproot his foundation, and destroy his offspring. May\nMarduk, the great lord, cause him to carry dropsy as an ever-entangling\nnet; may Shamash the judge, greatest of heaven and earth, decide all his\nlawsuits, standing relentlessly against him; may Sin, the light dwelling\nin the brilliant heavens, cover him with leprosy as a garment; like a\nwild ass may he lie down at the wall surrounding his city; may Ishtar,\nmistress of heaven and earth, lead him into evil daily before the god\nand the king; may Ninib, born in the temple Ekura, the sublime son of\nB\u00eal, uproot his area, his limit, and his boundary stone; may Gula, the\ngreat physician, consort of the god Ninib, put never-ceasing poison into\nhis body till he urinates blood and pus like water; may Ramm\u00e2n, first of\nheaven and earth, the strong son of the god Anu, inundate his field, and\ndestroy the corn, that thorns may shoot up, and may his feet tread down\nvegetation and pasturage; may Nab\u00fb, the sublime messenger, bring want\nand famine upon him, and whatsoever he desires for the hole of his mouth\nmay he not obtain; and may the great gods, as many names as are\nmentioned on this inscribed stone, curse him with a dire curse that\ncannot be removed, and destroy his seed for ever and ever.\u201d[473]\n\nProminence is given, in the ancient laws of India, to the manner in\nwhich disputed boundaries between villages, and between land owners,\nshall be settled; and it is made evident that a peculiar sacredness\nattaches to these landmarks. The king was to decide the dispute, after\nhearing testimony and examining evidence. Trees, and mounds, or heaps of\nearth, were preferred as landmarks; and tanks, wells, cisterns, and\nfountains, as also temples, were desired on boundary lines.[474]\n\nEmphasis was laid on the sacredness of the local landmark, in the laws\nof the Hebrews; and a curse was pronounced against him who dared remove\nthis threshold altar. \u201cThou shalt not remove thy neighbor\u2019s landmark,\nwhich they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt\ninherit, in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee,\u201d was an\ninjunction in the fundamental law of the Promised Land.[475] And it\npassed into a proverb of duty: \u201cRemove not the ancient landmark, which\nthy fathers have set.\u201d[476] It was a reproach to a people that there\nwere those among them who would \u201cremove the landmarks\u201d and disregard\nsacred property rights.[477] And among the curses which were to be\nspoken from the summit of Ebal, when Israel took possession of Canaan,\nwas this: \u201cCursed be he that removeth his neighbor\u2019s landmark. And,\u201d it\nwas added, \u201call the people shall say, Amen.\u201d[478]\n\nAbraham and Abimelech found that their followers were quarreling over\nthe boundary line between their respective domains on the borders of the\nNegeb. Abraham claimed the well at Beer-sheba as his by right, but the\nservants of Abimelech forcibly took possession of it. So the two\nchieftains met and agreed upon a border line, and made a covenant with\naccompanying sacrifices. \u201cAnd Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in\nBeer-sheba\u201d as his border landmark, \u201cand called there on the name of the\nLord, the Everlasting God.\u201d[479] Border landmarks were in the form of a\npillar, a tree, a heap, or a stele, in Oriental countries generally.\n\nWhen Jacob and Laban agreed to part in peace after their stormy meeting\nin Gilead, they set up a heap of stones and a stone pillar as a monument\nof witness of their mutual covenant, and as a landmark of their agreed\nterritorial boundary. This memorial of their covenant was called\n\u201cGaleed,\u201d or \u201cWitness Heap,\u201d and \u201cMizpah,\u201d or \u201cWatch Tower.\u201d \u201cAnd Laban\nsaid to Jacob, Behold this heap, and behold the pillar, which I have set\nbetwixt me and thee. This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness,\nthat I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not\npass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm. The God of\nAbraham, and the God of Nahor, the God [or, gods] of their father, judge\nbetwixt us.\u201d[480] The new boundary mark was a token of a sacred\ncovenant.\n\nIn classic literature and customs the sacred boundary landmark is\nprominent as devoted to, or as representing, various deities, at\ndifferent times. Zeus and Hermes among the Greeks; Jupiter, Mercury,\nSilvanus, and Terminus, among the Romans, are sometimes interchangeably\nreferred to in this connection. The legends and symbols employed seem to\nindicate that life and its transmission took their start at the\nthreshold boundary, and therefore a pillar or a phallus marked every new\nbeginning along a road or at a territorial boundary.\n\nAn image of Zeus, or Jupiter, was sometimes employed as a boundary\nlandmark, and an image of Hermes, or Mercury, was at the starting-point\nof a road, and again at various points along the road. Zeus, or Jupiter,\nwas chief of gods as the arbiter of life. Hermes, or Mercury, was\nearliest known as the fertilizing god of earth, and hence was the\npromoter of all forms of life, as guardian of flocks, fish, fields, and\nfruits. He also guarded those who went out from the threshold.\nSacrifices were offered to him by Athenian generals as they started on\ntheir expeditions. He was even spoken of as the inventor of sacrifices\nand the promoter of commerce and of enrichment.[481]\n\nOf Terminus, Ovid say: \u201cWhen the night shall have passed away [and the\nthreshold of a new day is to be crossed], let the god who by his\nlandmark divides the fields be worshiped with the accustomed honors.\nTerminus,[482] whether thou art a stone, or whether a stock sunk deep in\nthe field by the ancients, yet even in this form thou dost possess\ndivinity.\u201d[483] This symbol of Terminus was regularly \u201csprinkled with\nthe blood of a slain lamb,\u201d in recognition of its sacredness.\n\nIt is said that Numa, the second king of Rome, who was revered by the\nRomans as the author of their whole system of religious worship,\ndirected that every one should mark the boundaries of his landed\nproperty by stones consecrated to Jupiter, and that yearly sacrifices\nshould be offered at these boundary stones, at the festival of the\nTerminalia.[484] At this festival the two owners of adjacent property\ncrowned the statue or stone pillar with garlands, and raised a rude\naltar, on which they offered up corn, honeycombs, and wine, and\nsacrificed a lamb or a sucking pig, with accompanying praises to the\ngod.[485]\n\nSilvanus also was a god of the boundary. He was represented by a tree\ngrove, as Terminus was by a pillar, and offerings of fruit, grain, and\nmilk, and of pigs, were made to him. When he would be guarded against as\na source of evil in a home, the protectors of the inmates would perform\ncertain ceremonies at the threshold of the house.\n\nA tree, and sometimes a grove, was the sacred landmark of a village\nboundary in primitive lands. Such trees and groves are still to be found\nin Equatorial Africa. Describing some of these in Zinga and its\nvicinity, Stanley expresses surprise that they have so long remained\nuntouched in \u201ca country left to the haphazard care of patriarchal chiefs\nignorant of written laws.\u201d[486] But reverence for a threshold landmark\nseems to be in the very nature of a primitive people, as truly as any\nprimitive sentiment; and sentiment is in itself a dominant law.\n\nAt the boundary line between two villages in Samoa, in olden time, there\nwere two stones said to have been two living beings. When any quarrel\narose, those engaged in it were told, \u201cGo and settle it at the stones;\u201d\nand they went to those boundary line stones and fought out their\ncontest.[487]\n\nTrees and stone pillars are still known as boundary landmarks between\nparishes and townships in Europe and America, as in Asia, Africa, and\nPolynesia in more primitive days; and their importance is recognized as\npeculiar, even if not always absolutely sacred. The annual custom of\n\u201cbeating the bounds\u201d of a parish by the parish authorities survives in\nsome parts of England to-day. A procession makes the circuit of the\nparish boundary, under the care of a \u201cselect vestryman,\u201d or other parish\nofficial, halting at every landmark to identify it and carefully to\nobserve its location.\n\nIn former times it was customary to take the boys of the parish on this\nround, and beat them at every landmark, in order to impress upon their\nmemories its precise position. More recently the boys are permitted to\ncarry willow wands peeled white, and with these to beat the landmarks.\nThe later plan is certainly more satisfactory to the boys, and it is\nquite as likely to impress their memories. Formerly this ceremony was\naccompanied by religious services, in which the clergyman invoked curses\non him who \u201ctransgresseth the bounds and doles of his neighbor,\u201d and\nblessings on him who regarded the landmarks.[488]\n\nIt has been suggested that this fixing and honoring of the landmarks by\nan annual festival goes back to the Roman Terminalia, in the days of\nNuma, but there is reason to believe that it was far earlier than that.\nThere are traces of it in primitive times, among various primitive\npeoples.\n\nIn Russia, the Cossacks long had a custom somewhat like this, in the\ncase of a disputed boundary line. When the boundary had been formally\ndetermined, all the boys of the two contiguous stanitsas, or land\ndivisions, were collected, and driven by the people along the frontier\nline. \u201cAt each landmark a number of boys were soundly whipped and\nallowed to run home,\u201d in order that in later years they might be able to\ntestify as to the spot where that landmark stood. In cases where the\nboys\u2019 memory failed to be accurate, an arbiter was chosen from the older\ninhabitants, and sworn to act honestly to the best of his knowledge; and\nhis decision was accepted as final.[489]\n\nA similar custom of beating the bounds under a \u201cselectman\u201d of the town\nhas existed in portions of New England until recently, and perhaps it\nhas not yet died out there. Thus Ralph Waldo Emerson speaks of the\nselectmen of Concord perambulating the bounds of its township \u201conce in\nfive years,\u201d up to 1858.[490] Is there not a survival of this old custom\nin the habit of striking a child on his birthday as many blows as he has\npassed years, when he comes to the threshold of another year of his\nlife?\n\nMile-posts would seem to have been originally landmarks separating the\npublic way from private lands, being placed at regular distances along\nthe road for convenience of measurement and locating. They marked the\nthreshold of the \u201cking\u2019s highway\u201d to and from his capital in the Roman\nempire, as trees marked the border-lines of the principal roads in\nGreece.\n\n 3. NATIONAL BORDERS.\n\nStone pillars marking the exact boundaries of states or nations, whether\nsettled by a joint commission or by a conqueror\u2019s fiat, are not a modern\ninvention, although they are in use to-day. They are of old time, and of\nprimitive ages. And these boundaries of a country are by their very\nnature its thresholds.\n\nIn Babylonia, the name of Nebuchadrezzar meant literally, \u201cNebo protect\nthe boundary!\u201d The threshold of the empire was sacred; and the deity,\nwith whom the Babylonian king was in covenant, was the protector of that\nboundary, and of those who dwelt within it. From the earliest times\nonward an Oriental sovereign would set up a pillar, or pillars, or\nstele, at the extreme limits of his newly extended dominion, as the\nouter threshold or doorway of his empire.\n\nFrom Tiglath-Pileser I. to Esarhaddon, from about 1100 B.C. to 669 B.C.,\nthe great Assyrian kings tell us, in their inscriptions, that whenever\nthey restored an old boundary of their predecessors that had been lost\nto them, or extended their boundary beyond its former limits, they had\nset up a large stele bearing their image at this threshold of their\nempire.[491] Frequently these stele doorways,[492] with the king\nrepresented on the threshold, had inscriptions on them giving the story\nof the new conquests, with an ascription of honor to the covenant god by\nwhose power they had been wrought. Prominent mountain peaks, sources of\nrivers, the temples or market-places of conquered cities, the banks of\nlakes, or the shores of the sea, are chosen as conspicuous places for\nsuch steles. National boundary marks of this character are still to be\nseen on the rocks of Nahr-el-Kelb, above Beyroot, on the shores of the\nMediterranean, and at the sources of the Tigris and the Euphrates.[493]\n\nAshurn\u00e2sirapli (king of Assyria, 885\u2013860 B.C.) tells of such a new\nboundary mark set up by him at the farthest point of his conquests,\n\u201cwhither nobody of my royal ancestors had advanced.... At that time I\nmade a picture [a stele] of my person. The glory of my power I wrote\nupon it. On the mountain Eki, in the city Ashurn\u00e2sirapli [named after\nthe king], at a spring I set it up.\u201d[494]\n\nA similar custom would seem to have prevailed with the rulers of ancient\nEgypt. Sneferu, a king of the fourth dynasty, greatest among the very\nearly names of the Old Empire (say, about 4000 B.C.), went down as a\nconqueror into the Peninsula of Sinai, and left there inscribed a\nmammoth figure of himself, on the granite hills above the famous copper\nand turquoise mines of Wady Magharah. He is styled in the accompanying\ninscription the \u201cvanquisher of a foreign people.\u201d[495]\n\nAs early as the twelfth dynasty of ancient Egypt, before the days of\nAbraham, stone thresholds marked the upper border of that mighty empire.\n\u201cTwo huge pillars of stone, covered with long inscriptions, served\nformerly as boundary marks between the Egyptian empire and the\nnegro-land called Heh.\u201d[496] King Usurtasen III., who set up these\nlandmarks, says in an inscription on the second of them: \u201cEvery one of\nmy sons who maintains this boundary which I have fixed, he shall be\ncalled my son who was born of me. My son is like the protector of his\nfather (that is Horus), like the preserver of the boundary of his father\n(that is Osiris.) But if he abandons it, so that he does not fight upon\nit, he is not my son, he is not then born of me. I have caused my own\nimage to be set up, on this boundary which I have fixed, not that ye may\n(only) worship it (the image of the founder), but that ye may fight upon\nit.\u201d\n\nOn the oldest map in the world, a map of the gold districts in Nubia, in\nthe nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, there is a mention of the \u201cmemorial\nstone of King Mineptah I. Seti I.\u201d And that memorial stone, of this new\nthreshold of domain, marked the boundary line of empire in that\ndirection.[497]\n\nRameses II. had it recorded on the walls of the rock grotto of\nBayt-el-Walli concerning his threshold extensions: \u201cThe deeds of victory\nare inscribed a hundred thousand times on the glorious Persea. As the\nchastiser of the foreigners, _who has placed his boundary-marks\naccording to his pleasure_ in the land of the Ruthennu, he is in truth\nthe son of Ra, and his very image.\u201d[498]\n\nOn the eastern border of Lower Egypt, the main passage way from the\nDelta into Arabia, the great gateway of the empire toward the north and\nthe east, is still known as _El Gisr_, or \u201cThe Threshold.\u201d[499] This\npoint is near Lake Timsah, on the line of the modern Suez Canal.\n\nIn ancient Greece, Theseus \u201cset up a pillar,\u201d as a threshold stone\nbetween Peloponnesus and Attica,\u2013then called Ionia,\u2013\u201cwriting upon it an\nepigram in two trimeters, bounding the land. Of these [inscriptions] the\none toward the east side said, \u2018This is not Pelopennesus, but Ionia,\u2019\nand that toward the west, \u2018This is Pelopennesus, not Ionia.\u2019\u201d[500]\n\nEven the term, the \u201cPillars of Hercules,\u201d as the boundaries of the\nGrecian empire and the then known world, is an indication of this idea\nin the classic age, as well as in the primitive mind. Calp\u00eb and Abyla\nwere the door-posts of the great outer passage way, and the threshold\nbetween those pillars was founded upon the seas, and established upon\nthe floods.[501]\n\nAs showing that the term \u201cthreshold\u201d is not applied to these boundary\nstones merely by accommodation, it is sufficient to quote from Justinian\nin the case. He declares specifically that \u201cas the threshold makes a\ncertain boundary in a house, so also the ancients designed that the\nboundary of the empire should be its threshold; hence it is called the\n\u2018threshold,\u2019 as if it were a certain bound and term.\u201d[502] Speaking of\none who has been in foreign captivity, and who desires a resumption, or\na restoration, of his civil rights, on his coming back to his country,\nJustinian says that such a return \u201cis called _postliminium_ [a\nrecrossing of the threshold], because at that same threshold the thing\nwhich he has lost is restored to him.\u201d[503]\n\nWhen the old Portuguese navigators started out on their voyages of\ndiscovery, they were accustomed to take with them stone pillars to set\nup in a prominent place at the farthest limits of their newly claimed\nterritory as the national door-posts or threshold in that direction.\nSuch a pillar was erected at the mouth of the Congo River, at the time\nof its discovery by Diego C\u00e3o, or Cam, in 1484\u201385. On this account, the\nriver was known for a time as the \u201cRio de Padr\u00e3o,\u201d or \u201cPillar\nRiver.\u201d[504] It might, indeed, have been called the \u201cRiver of the\nThreshold.\u201d\n\nThis custom of setting up stone pillars as boundary marks along the\nborders of countries, nations, and states, has been continued down to\nthe present day. Such landmarks are still to be seen along the borders\nof the great divisions of Europe, and they are on the lines of the\nseveral states of the United States of America. The line between the\nEnglish grants in America, originally made to the Duke of York and to\nLord Baltimore, was, after much dispute, run by two English surveyors,\nCharles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, in 1763\u201367, and marked by stone\npillars at intervals of five miles. This was generally known as \u201cMason\nand Dixon\u2019s line;\u201d it separated Pennsylvania from Delaware, Maryland,\nand Virginia, and was the dividing line between the free and the slave\nstates before the Civil War of 1861\u201365. One of those early stone\nlandmarks on that line is still to be seen near Oxford, in Chester\nCounty, Pennsylvania, as an illustration of a practice beginning in\nBabylonia as far back as 4000 B.C., and continued in America down to\nA.D. 1895.[505]\n\nEuropean titles of rank bear traces of the importance formerly attached\nto national boundary lines and their preservation. The old German title\nof \u201cmarkgraf,\u201d the \u201cgraf\u201d or count or warden of the marches, designated\na representative or servant of the king who was in charge of the\n\u201cmarches,\u201d or \u201cmarks,\u201d or \u201cborder lines,\u201d which guarded the thresholds\nof the empire in different directions. It was under \u201cHenry the Fowler,\u201d\nearly in the tenth century, that this title, as a title, first gained\nprominence. Afterwards it became hereditary; \u201cand hence have come the\ninnumerable margraves, marquises, and such like of modern times.\u201d[506]\n\n\u201cLetters of marque\u201d were letters of commission, or permission, granted\nby the government to individuals, in time of war, to pass over the\nboundary mark, or national threshold, for purposes of seizure or\nreprisal. And a \u201cmarquee\u201d is primarily a tent over, or before, the\nthreshold of a military commander\u2019s tent.\n\n 4. BORDER SACRIFICES.\n\nAn altar would have no meaning unless sacrifices were offered at it. If,\ntherefore, the boundary threshold of an empire were an altar for that\nempire, sacrifices would surely be offered there; and the records of\nhistory, and the customs of old times and later, show this to have been\nthe case.\n\nSacrifices were offered at the new boundary of an empire, by ancient\nAssyrian and Egyptian kings, when they set up a pillar, or stele, at the\nfreshly acquired threshold in that direction. Thus, for example,\nAshurn\u00e2sirapli (king of Assyria, 885\u2013860 B.C.), telling of his\nfar-reaching conquests, says that he marched with his armies to the\nslopes of the Lebanon, and to the great sea of the Westland, and that at\nthe mountains of Ammanus he made and set up a stele of victory, and\noffered sacrifices unto his gods.[507]\n\nAt the Egyptian boundary line in the Sinaitic Peninsula, there was a\ntemple with its sacrifices to \u201cthe sublime Hathor, queen of heaven and\nearth and the dark depths below, whom the Egyptians worshiped as the\nprotectress of the land of Mafkat.\u201d There were other temples with their\nsacrifices at that point.[508] On the southern boundary of Egypt, in the\ngold district of Nubia, there was \u201cthe temple of Amon in the holy\nmountain,\u201d where threshold sacrifices were offered.[509]\n\nOne of the most ancient of Chinese classics is the Shih King. Its age is\nnot known, but it is certain that it was a classic in the days of\nConfucius, five centuries before the Christian era. This work contains\nfrequent references to sacrifices at the border altars, or the altars of\nthe boundary. There were public sacrifices at the \u201cborder altar\u201d in the\nbeginning of every new year; and again when a ruler crossed his border\nline on a warlike mission.[510]\n\nWhen, in ancient times, a Chinese emperor passed over the outer\nthreshold of his empire, he offered a sacrifice of a dog, by running\nover it with the wheels of his chariot. This is supposed to have\nbeen a propitiatory offering to the dog-shaped guardians of the\nroadway threshold, known also among the Indo-Aryans and the\nAssyro-Babylonians.[511]\n\nFrom what is known of modern customs in this line, and from occasional\nhistorical references to the matter, it would seem that where there were\nno gateways, or double columns to stand for door-posts, or doorway\nstele, it was the practice to divide or separate the animals offered in\nsacrifice, so as to make a passage-way between them, as through a door\nor gate, and to pour out the blood of the victims on the earth between\nthe two portions, so that the offerer, or the one welcomed, might pass\nover, or step across, that blood, as in a threshold covenant.\n\nIt has already been noted that when General Grant came to the border\nline of Assioot, in Upper Egypt, as he landed from his Nile boat, a\nbullock was sacrificed in covenant welcome, its head being put on one\nside of the gang-plank, and its body on the other; while its blood was\nbetween the two, so that it should be stepped over in the act of\nlanding.[512] And every year, when the great Hajj procession returns\nfrom Meccah to Syria, it is welcomed, as it approaches Damascus, by just\nsuch sacrifices as this. Sheep and oxen are sacrificed before the\ncaravan, their blood being poured out in the middle of the road, and\ntheir bodies being divided and placed on either side of the way. Then\nthose who approach by this \u201cnew and living way,\u201d[513] on the boundary\nline of their country, renew their covenant with those within, by\npassing over the blood.[514]\n\nThere seems to be a reference to such a mode of boundary sacrifices, in\nthe description of the Lord\u2019s covenant welcome to Abraham, on the border\nof the land promised to him for a possession.[515] Abraham was near the\nsouthern boundary of Canaan. He had the promise of the Lord, that he and\nhis seed should possess that land; but as yet he was childless, and he\nhad no control over any portion of the land. He naturally desired some\ntangible assurance, in accordance with the customs of mankind, that the\nLord\u2019s promises to him would be made good. Therefore when the Lord said\nto him, \u201cI am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to\ngive thee this land to inherit it,\u201d Abraham replied with the question,\n\u201cO Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?\u201d\n\nThen the Lord responded with these directions, apparently in accordance\nwith a well-known mode of covenanting among men: \u201cTake me an heifer of\nthree years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three\nyears old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.\u201d Abraham seems to have\nunderstood what was to be done with these victims for sacrifice. \u201cAnd he\ntook him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half\nover against the other: but the birds divided he not.\u201d The blood of the\nvictims was doubtless poured out on the earth where they were\nsacrificed, midway between the places of the divided portions, as is the\npresent custom.\n\n\u201cAnd it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark,\nbehold a smoking furnace [or brazier, or censer], and a flaming torch [a\nfire and a light as a symbol of the Divine presence] that passed\n[covenant-crossed the blood on the threshold] between these pieces.\u201d And\nthe record adds: \u201cIn that day the Lord made a covenant [a border-altar\ncovenant] with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from\nthe river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: the\nKenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the\nPerizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the\nGirgashite, and the Jebusite.\u201d\n\nThus Abram was assured that the Lord had covenanted to protect his\nboundaries; as Nebuchadrezzar long afterward desired that his god Nebo\nwould protect his empire boundary or threshold. As to the fact of\nboundary sacrifices in these lands and elsewhere, in those days and\nearlier, there would seem to be no room for question.\n\nIt is not to be expected that border sacrifices would at all times, and\nin all places, be just alike; but a common primitive symbolism would be\nlikely to show itself in them all. In Persia, these sacrifices are still\ncommon, when one is to be received with honors at the border of a new\nterritory or jurisdiction.[516] Morier, describing his journey through\nPersia, in the early part of this century, speaks of the first entrance\nof a new ruler into the territory he was to govern. \u201cThe khan, with all\nhis attendants, accompanied us about two miles. He was preparing to\nenter Bushire, his new government, with all splendor. From the town to\nthe swamps [from the territorial border to the border of the capital]\nwere erected stages on which bullocks were to be sacrificed, and from\nwhich their heads were to be thrown under his horse\u2019s feet as he\nadvanced; a ceremony, indeed, appropriated to princes alone, and to them\nonly on particular occasions.\u201d[517]\n\nOn another occasion, when the British envoy approached Kauzeroon, on a\nvisit of ceremony, he was welcomed at the threshold of the town by a\ncorresponding ceremony. \u201cA bottle which contained sugar candy was broken\nunder the feet of the envoy\u2019s horse, a ceremony never practiced in\nPersia to any but to royal personages.\u201d[518]\n\nthe gates \u201coxen and sheep in great numbers were sacrificed just as he\npassed, and their heads thrown under his horse\u2019s feet.\u201d And \u201cglass vases\nfilled with sugar were broken before him.\u201d On this occasion the Shah\nfrequently looked at a watch, \u201canxious that he should enter the gates\nexactly at the time prescribed by the astrologers\u201d for his crossing the\nthreshold.[519]\n\nMore recently, Layard has testified to the prevalence of such customs.\nSpeaking of his reception among the Yezidis, he tells of his approach to\nthe village of Guzelder, and of his welcome there: \u201cThe head of the\nvillage of Guzelder, with the principal inhabitants, had come to invite\nme to eat bread in his house, and we followed him.... Before we reached\nGuzelder, the procession had swollen to many hundreds.... As I\napproached, sheep were brought into the road and slain before my horse\u2019s\nfeet, and as we entered the yard of Akko\u2019s house the women and men\njoined in the loud and piercing \u2018_tahlel_.\u2019\u201d[520]\n\nAgain, as Layard entered the village of Redwan, he was similarly\nwelcomed. \u201cI alighted,\u201d he says, \u201camidst the din of music and the\n\u2018_tahlel_\u2019 at the house of Nazi, the chief of the whole Yezidi district;\ntwo sheep being slain before me as I took my feet from the\nstirrups.\u201d[521]\n\nWhen, some twenty years ago, a European prince visited the Mt. Lebanon\nregion,[522] a generous host killed a valuable cow on the road by which\nthe prince must come into his region. Then the royal visitor and his\nretinue were requested to step over, not upon, the blood of the\nslaughtered cow, at the threshold of that host\u2019s domain.\n\nOn the occasion of a caravan starting out from the boundary line of a\ncountry in the East, there are border sacrifices offered, even in recent\ntimes. Thus Burckhardt tells of this ceremony, when he went from Egypt\nto Nubia.\n\nThe various traders going with this caravan assembled at the\nstarting-point, having their goods with them. \u201cAt noon the camels were\nwatered, and knelt down by the side of their respective loads. Just\nbefore the lading commenced, the Ababde women appeared with earth\nvessels in their hands, filled with burning coals. They set them before\nthe several loads, and threw salt upon them.\u201d It has already been shown\nthat salt stands for blood, in the minds of primitive peoples. \u201cAt the\nrising of the bluish flame produced by the burning of the salt, they\nexclaimed, \u2018May you be blessed in going and in coming!\u2019\u201d[523] And this\nsacrifice was supposed to secure safety against evil spirits encountered\nin crossing the boundary line.\n\nThus it would seem that, from the beginning, on the national threshold,\nas on the threshold of the temple and of the home, sacrifices were\noffered, and boundary marks were set up, in recognition of a peculiar\nsacredness of the border line,\u2013which is in itself a foundation and a\nlimit. These boundary marks were commonly a pillar or a tree, in\napparent symbolism of a fructifying or a fruit-bearing agency, of the\ntransmission or the continuance of life. And the establishment and\nprotection of these boundary marks was deemed well pleasing to God or to\nthe gods, and in the nature of a holy covenant service.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n See, for example, Rawlinson\u2019s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western\n Asia_, III., 41, 43; IV., 41; Hilprecht\u2019s _Freibrief Nebukadnezar\u2019s_,\n I., col. II., 26\u201360; _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, II., 165\u2013203, 258\n ff.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n An unknown product of the field.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n From the Michaux Stone, columns II.-IV. in Rawlinson\u2019s _Cuneiform\n Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., pl. 70; translated for this work by\n Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht. See illustrations in Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of\n Civilization_, pp. 762, 763. See Sayce\u2019s _Religion of the Ancient\n Babylonians_, p. 308.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n B\u00fchler\u2019s \u201cLaws of Manu,\u201d in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXV., 298,\n 301.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n Deut. 19 : 14.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n Prov. 22 : 28; 23 : 10.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n Job 24 : 2.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n Deut. 27 : 17.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n Gen. 21 : 22\u201333.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n Gen. 31 : 43\u201353.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n See Smith\u2019s _Classical Dictionary_, and Keightley\u2019s _Class. Dict._, s.\n vv. \u201cHermes,\u201d \u201cJupiter,\u201d \u201cMercury,\u201d \u201cSilvanus,\u201d \u201cTerminus,\u201d \u201cZeus.\u201d\n Comp. Stengel\u2019s _Die griechischen Sacralalterth\u00fcm_. in Iwan v.\n M\u00fcller\u2019s _Handbuch der Klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft_, V., part\n 3, p. 13; K.F. Hermann\u2019s _Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterth\u00fcmer\n der Griechen_, pp. 73, 108, note 2.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n \u201cThis god was represented by a stone or a stump, and not with human\n features.\u201d This would seem to have been a rude phallic form.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n Ovid\u2019s _Fasti_, Bk. II., vs. 641 ff.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n Smith\u2019s _Classical Dictionary_, s. vv. \u201cNuma,\u201d \u201cTerminus.\u201d\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._, s. v. \u201cTerminalia.\u201d\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n Stanley\u2019s _Congo_, I., 315\u2013317.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n Turner\u2019s _Samoa_, p. 45 f.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n See \u201cBeating the Bounds,\u201d in Chambers\u2019s _Edinburgh Journal_ for July\n 23, 1853, pp. 49\u201352; also _American Architect_, Vol. X., No. 293, p.\n 64 f.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n Wallace\u2019s _Russia_, p. 366 f.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n Cited in Thompson\u2019s _Elements of Political Economy_, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n Schrader\u2019s _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 63, 69, 87, 99, 109,\n 131, 133, 135, 141, 143, 147, 155, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 181; II.,\n 19, 35, 54, 89.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n See pp. 105\u2013108, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n See, for example, Schrader\u2019s _Keilinshriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 69.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n Rawlinson\u2019s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17\u201326, col. 1, lines\n 63\u201369.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 8 f.; Villiers Stuart\u2019s\n _Nile Gleanings_, Pl. xlv., p. 276.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 182 f.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 81 f.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n _Ibid._, II., 78 f.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n Trumbull\u2019s _Kadesh-barnea_, p. 341, note.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n Plutarch\u2019s _Lives_, Theseus, 25.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n Psa. 24 : 2.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n Justinian, _Inst._, Lib. I., 12, 5.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n Stanley\u2019s _Congo_, I., 1\u201311.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n See _Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog._, VI., 412\u2013434.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n Carlyle\u2019s _History of Frederick_, II., I., 71\u201374.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n Rawlinson\u2019s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17\u201326, Col. III., ll.\n 84\u201389.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 81.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n Brugsch\u2019s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 82.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n \u201cThe Shih King,\u201d in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 343, 392, 399,\n note, 420, 422 note.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n Lacouperie\u2019s _Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization_, pp.\n 79. 81.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n See p. 7 f., _ante_.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n Heb. 10 : 20.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n I have this on the testimony of those who have often witnessed it.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n See Gen. 15 : 1\u201321.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n On this point I am assured by missionaries and other dwellers in\n Persia.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n Morier\u2019s _Journey to Constantinople_, p. 75.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 84 f. See, also, Morier\u2019s _Second Journey through Persia_,\n p. 93 f.\n\n Again, when the Shah of Persia was to enter Teheran, he was received\n outside of the walls, by prominent officials, with much ceremony. As\n he approached\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n Morier\u2019s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 387 f.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n Layard\u2019s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), p. 35 f.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n My informant, an eye-witness of this incident, was not sure whether it\n was a Prussian, an Austrian, or a Russian prince.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n Burckhardt\u2019s _Travels in Nubia_, p. 157.\n\n-----\n\n\n\n\n IV.\n ORIGIN OF THE RITE.\n\n 1. A NATURAL QUESTION.\n\nA question that forces itself on the mind, in connection with the study\nof a world-wide primitive rite like this of the Threshold Covenant, is,\nWhat was its origin? How came it to pass, that primitive peoples, in all\nparts of the world, were brought to attach such exceptionally sacred\nsignificance to the threshold of a hut, or tent, or cave, or house; of a\npalace or temple; of a domain, local or national; and to count its\ncrossing by blood a form of holy covenanting between the parties engaged\nin it, and the deity invoked in the ceremony? This question goes back to\nthe origin of religious rites among human beings, and its answer must,\nin order to commend itself to all, be in accordance with the natural\noutgrowths and the abnormal perversions of religious rites, in the main\nline of human development all the world over.\n\nHowever simple and elemental were man\u2019s earliest religious ideas, they\nmust have been from the beginning pure and uplifting, or they would not\nhave been religious. Nothing impure or debasing in itself would have\nraised man\u2019s thoughts Godward, even though man might subsequently come\nto degrade his best conceptions of God and his worship. Hence the answer\nto this question must include only such facts as were capable of being\nviewed reverently by primitive man, as worthy of God\u2019s creatures in the\nloving service and worship of God.\n\n 2. AN ANSWER BY INDUCTION.\n\nThis threshold rite clearly goes back to the beginning of family life.\nThe facts already presented are proof of this. The rite includes the\nproffer of blood at the foundation of the family as a family. It is a\npart of the marriage ceremonial among primitive peoples. It is also the\nmeans by which one is adopted from without into a family circle or\ngroup. It marks every stage of the progress of family life, from one\npair to a community and to an empire, in its civil and religious\nrelations. It is a form of covenanting between its participants, and\nbetween them and God; and thus it has sanctity as a religious rite.\n\nA fair induction from these recognized facts, in their sweep and\nsignificance, would seem to indicate, as the origin of this primitive\nrite, the covenant union between the first pair in their instituting of\nthe family relation. When was the first covenant made between two human\nbeings? When was the first outpouring of blood in loving sacrifice? By\nwhat act was the first appeal made to the Author and Source of life for\npower for the transmission of life, by two persons who thereby entered\ninto covenant with each other and with him? The obvious answer to these\nquestions is an answer to the question, What was the origin of the rite\nof the Threshold Covenant?\n\nLife and its transmission must have been a sacred mystery to the first\nthinkers about God and his human workers. Blood was early recognized as\nlife, its outpouring as the pledge and gift of life, and its interchange\nas a life covenant between those who shared its substance. In view of\nthis truth, a covenant union by blood that looked to the transmission of\nlife must have been in itself, to a thoughtful and reverent person, an\nappeal to the Author of life to be a party to that covenant union, in\norder to give it efficiency.\n\nWhen first a twain were made one in a covenant of blood, the threshold\naltar of the race was hallowed as a place where the Author of life met\nand blessed the loving union. And from this beginning there was the\nnatural development of religious rites and ceremonies, in the family, in\nthe temple, and in the domain, as shown alike in the history of the\nhuman race and in the main teachings of both the Old Testament and the\nNew.\n\n 3. NO COVENANT WITHOUT BLOOD.\n\nFlowing blood is widely deemed essential to the covenant by which two\nare made one in the marriage relation. This is peculiarly the case among\nthose primitive peoples where young maidens are guarded with jealous\ncare, and are given in marriage at a very early age. In the thought of\nsuch peoples there is no binding covenant without blood, in the family\nrelation.[524] And a bloody hand stamp on the cloth of testimony is the\nprimitive certificate of the marriage covenant.\n\nFacts in illustration of this truth are numerous in the nuptial customs\nof Syria, Egypt, China, Dahomey, Liberia, Europe, Central America,\nSamoa, and other widely different regions. A few of these facts are\ngiven in the Appendix for the benefit of scientific students, in a\nlanguage better suited than English for the presentation of such\ndetails.[525]\n\n 4. CONFIRMATION OF THIS VIEW.\n\nIf the view here given of the origin of this rite of the Threshold\nCovenant be correct, there will be found traces of the truth in the\ndifferent religions of mankind. And this is the case, as shown in\nreligious literatures, in history, and in primitive customs and beliefs.\n\nThe most ancient expression of the religious thought and feeling of the\nAryan races is found in the Vedas and their accompanying literature. The\nBrahmanas, in this literature, deal with the sacrificial element in\npublic and family worship, and with the rites and ceremonies pertaining\nto religion. In the description of the construction of the household\naltars and the high altars, there is abundant evidence that the woman is\nrecognized as the primitive altar, and that the form of the woman is\nmade the pattern of the altar form.\n\nIt is distinctly declared as to the shape of the altar, standing east\nand west, that it \u201cshould be broader on the west side, contracted on the\nmiddle, and broad again on the east side; for thus shaped they praise a\nwoman: \u2018broad about the hips, somewhat narrower between the shoulders,\nand contracted in the middle [or about the waist].\u2019\u201d Again, it is said,\nin explanation, that \u201cthe altar (_vedi_, feminine) is female, and the\nfire (_agni_, masculine) is male.\u201d[526] This identifying of the altar\nwith the woman, of the offering with the man, and of their union with\nworship and covenanting, is repeatedly found in the Brahmanas.[527]\n\nEven as far back as the Vedas themselves the term _yoni_, or doorway of\nphysical life, is used as synonymous with altar.[528] And the production\nof sacred fire, for purposes of worship, by twisting a stick in softened\nwood, is described in the Rig-Vedas as a form of this covenant rite.\nThese facts point to this origin of the threshold altar of covenant and\nsacrifice.\n\nAt present in India the most widely recognized visible aid in worship is\nthe representation of the _linga_ and the _yoni_ combined. This symbol\nnominally stands for Siva; but that seems to be only because Saivism\npredominates in modern Hindooism. The idea of this symbolic combination\nlong antedates this prominence of Siva worship.[529]\n\nA form of Booddhist prayer in Tibet, said to be repeated more frequently\nthan any other known among men, is \u201cthe six-syllabled sentence, \u2018_Om\nmani padme H\u016bm_,\u2019\u2013\u2018Om! the Jewel in the Lotus! Hum!\u2019\u201d This prayer is\nsimply a euphemism for the primitive Threshold Covenant, as here\nexplained, with an ejaculatory invocation and ascription before and\nafter it.[530] It seems to be a survival of the thought that here was\nthe beginning of religious rites, and that all covenant worship must\ncontinue in its spirit and power.\n\nEvery repetition of that prayer, by speech or by mechanism, is supposed\nto affect the progress of a soul in its crossing the threshold of one of\nthe stages of being in the universe. It is a help to a new birth for\nsome soul somewhere.\n\nThere would thus appear to be no room for doubt in this matter in the\nlanguage and customs of the primitive Aryan peoples, and there are also\nconfirmations of the idea among the Semites. A legend that has a place\namong the Jews and the Muhammadans, tells of a visit of Abraham to the\nhome of Hagar and Ishmael in Arabia.[531] An Amalekite wife of Ishmael\nrefused hospitality to Abraham, and in consequence Abraham left a\nmessage to Ishmael to \u201cchange his threshold.\u201d This message Ishmael\nunderstood to mean the putting away of his wife and the taking of\nanother, and he acted accordingly. In the Arabic \u201ca wife\u201d is one of the\nmeanings of the term \u201cthreshold.\u201d[532]\n\nAnd the term \u201cgate,\u201d or \u201cdoor,\u201d had among the rabbis a specific\napplication to the altar of family covenanting. Thus Buxtorf, in his\ndefinings of \u201c_janua_\u201d and \u201c_ostium_,\u201d says plainly: \u201c_Apud rabbinos\netiam est \u2018ostium ventris muliebris.\u2019_\u201d And he quotes the saying of a\ndisappointed bridegroom : \u201c_Ostium apertum inveni._\u201d[533]\n\nAmong the early Babylonians and Egyptians, as among other primitive\npeoples, the twofold symbols of sex are counted the sacred emblem of\nlife, and as such are borne by the gods of life, and by those who have\nthe power of life and death from those gods. The circle and rod, or ring\nand bolt, conjoined, are in the right hand of the Babylonian sun-god\nShamash;[534] as, in the _ankh_, or _crux ansata_, they are in the right\nhand of every principal deity of ancient Egypt.[535] It is much the same\nwith the Ph\u0153nicians and others.[536]\n\nIn the innermost shrine of the most sacred Shinto temples of Japan, the\ncircular mirror, and the straight dagger, with the same meaning as the\ncircle and rod in Babylonia and Egypt and Ph\u0153nicia, are the only\nindications of the presence of deity; and the worshipers in those\ntemples can come no farther than the threshold of the shrine containing\nthese emblems.[537]\n\nWherever, among the primitive peoples in America, as elsewhere, the red\nhand is found as a symbol of covenant, and of life and strength through\ncovenant, it would seem to point to this primal meaning of the hand\nstamp of blood at the doorway of life in a sacred covenant. There are\nindications in Central American sculptures of the sacredness attaching\nto the covenant rite between the first pair; and the combined symbols of\nsex are represented there as in the East.[538]\n\nIt is a well-known fact that the public exhibit of the primitive\nThreshold Covenant, as here explained, has been continued as a mode of\nreverent worship among primitive peoples in the South Sea Islands, down\nto modern times. The testimony of Captain Cook, the famous navigator, is\nspecific on this point.[539] It is also to be noted that in these\nislands the two supports of the altar, or table of sacrifice, are\nseemingly symbols of the two sexes, similar to those used in the far\nEast.[540]\n\nAll of the gathered facts concerning the Threshold Covenant in different\nlands and in different times, as presented in the foregoing pages, would\nseem to be in accordance with this view of the origin of the rite, as\nwith no other that can be suggested. The main symbolism of both the Old\nand the New Testament also seem to indicate the same beginning.\n\n\n\n\n V.\n HEBREW PASS-OVER, OR CROSS-OVER,\n SACRIFICE.\n\n 1. NEW MEANING IN AN OLD RITE.\n\nHow the significance of the Hebrew passover rite stands out in the light\nof this primitive custom! It is not that this rite had its origin in the\ndays of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, but that Jehovah then and there\nemphasized the meaning and sacredness of a rite already familiar to\nOrientals. In dealing with his chosen people, God did not invent a new\nrite or ceremonial at every stage of his progressive revelation to them;\nbut he took a rite with which they were already familiar, and gave to it\na new and deeper significance in its new use and relations.\n\nLong before that day, a covenant welcome was given to a guest who was to\nbecome as one of the family, or to a bride or bridegroom in marriage, by\nthe outpouring of blood on the threshold of the door, and by staining\nthe doorway itself with the blood of the covenant. And now Jehovah\nannounced that he was to visit Egypt on a designated night, and that\nthose who would welcome him should prepare a threshold covenant, or a\npass-over sacrifice, as a proof of that welcome; for where no such\nwelcome was made ready for him by a family, he must count the household\nas his enemy.[541]\n\nIn announcing this desire for a welcoming sacrifice by the Hebrews, God\nspoke of it as \u201cJehovah\u2019s passover,\u201d as if the pass-over rite was a\nfamiliar one, which was now to be observed as a welcome to Jehovah.[542]\nMoses, in reporting the Lord\u2019s message to the Hebrews, did not speak of\nthe proposed sacrifice as something of which they knew nothing until\nnow, but he first said to them, \u201cDraw out, and take you lambs according\nto your families, and kill the passover\u201d\u2013or the threshold\ncross-over;[543] and then he added details of special instruction for\nthis new use of the old rite.\n\n 2. A WELCOME WITH BLOOD.\n\nA lamb was the chosen sacrifice in the welcome to Jehovah. Each\nhousehold, or family, was to take one lamb for this offering. No\ndirections were given as to the place or manner of its sacrifice; for\nthat seems to have been understood by all, because of the very term\n\u201cpass-over,\u201d or threshold cross-over. This is implied, indeed, in the\ndirections for the use of the blood when it was poured out: \u201cKill the\npassover,\u201d in the usual place; \u201cand ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and\ndip it in the blood that is at the _threshold_ [Hebrew, _saph_], and\nstrike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is at the\n_threshold_.\u201d[544]\n\nIn that welcome with blood there was covenant protection from Jehovah as\nhe came into Egypt to execute judgment on his enemies. The Egyptians had\nalready refused him allegiance, and put themselves in open defiance of\nhis authority. They were now to be visited in judgment.[545] But in\norder to the distinguishing of the Lord\u2019s people from his enemies, the\nHebrews were to prepare a blood welcome at their doorway, and the Lord\nwould honor this welcome by covenanting with those who proffered it.\n\n\u201cAnd Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into\nthe midst of Egypt: and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall\ndie, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even\nunto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all\nthe firstborn of cattle.... But against any of the children of Israel\nshall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know\nhow that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and\nIsrael.\u201d[546]\n\nIn furtherance of this purpose, the Lord asked for the sacrifice of the\nthreshold cross-over by the Hebrews: \u201cFor the Lord will pass through\n[the land] to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the\nlintel, and on the two side posts [of the Hebrew homes], the Lord will\npass over [cross-over or through] the door, and will not suffer the\ndestroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.\u201d[547] Obviously the\nfigure here employed is of a sovereign accompanied by his executioner, a\nfamiliar figure in the ancient East. When he comes to a house marked by\ntokens of the welcoming covenant, the sovereign will covenant-cross that\nthreshold, and enter the home as a guest, or as a member of the family;\nbut where no such preparation has been made for him, his executioner\nwill enter on his mission of judgment.[548]\n\n 3. BASON, OR THRESHOLD.\n\nIt is strange that the Hebrew word for \u201cthreshold\u201d (_saph_) in this\nnarrative is translated \u201cbason\u201d in our English Bible. It is because of\nthis that the identity of the passover sacrifice with the primitive\nThreshold Covenant is so generally lost sight of. This word _saph_\noccurs many times in the Old Testament text, and in nine cases out of\nten it is translated \u201cthreshold,\u201d or \u201cdoor,\u201d or \u201cdoor-post,\u201d or the\nlike.[549] It would seem that it should be so translated in this\ninstance.\n\nIn some cases where _saph_ is translated \u201cbason,\u201d or \u201ccup,\u201d the term\n\u201cthreshold\u201d would be more appropriate, as when included in an\nenumeration of the temple furniture.[550] Bronze and silver thresholds\nwere often mentioned in the furniture of Babylonian and Assyrian\ntemples;[551] and they might well have had mention among the Hebrews. It\nis possible, however, that there was a cavity, as a blood receptacle, in\nthe threshold of houses or temples where sacrifices were so frequent;\nand this would account for the use of the word _saph_ as \u201cbason,\u201d even\nwhere it referred to the threshold of the door.\n\nThe translators of the Septuagint, living in Egypt and familiar with the\ncustoms of that land, rendered _saph_ by _thyra_, \u201cdoorway,\u201d[552] in the\nstory of the exodus. Jerome, with his understanding of Oriental life,\ngives _limen_, \u201cthreshold,\u201d for _saph_, at this point.[553] Philo\nJud\u00e6us, out of his Egyptian Jewish experiences, describing the Jewish\npassover festival, speaks of it as \u201cthe feast _diabateria_, which the\nJews called _paskha_.\u201d[554] \u201c_Diabateria_\u201d are \u201cofferings before\ncrossing a border,\u201d[555] or threshold sacrifices. Rabbi Ishmael, a\nTalmudist, in explaining the passage descriptive of the institution of\nthe passover in Egypt, says: \u201cOne dug a hole in the [earthen] threshold,\nand slaughtered into that,\u201d \u201cfor _saph_ signifies here nothing else than\nthreshold.\u201d[556]\n\nA striking illustration of the error of translating _saph_ \u201ca bason\u201d or\n\u201ca cup,\u201d is shown in the rendering of Zechariah 12 : 1\u20133 in our English\nBible. The Lord is there promising to protect the borders of Jerusalem\nagainst all besiegers. \u201cThus saith the Lord, which ... layeth the\nfoundation of the earth:... Behold, I will make Jerusalem a _threshold_\n[or, boundary stone, Hebrew, _saph_] of reeling unto all the peoples\nround about.... I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the\npeoples.\u201d The figure seems to be that of the besiegers staggering as\nthey come against that foundation, or threshold stone, which the Lord\nhas established. Yet _saph_ is here translated \u201ccup,\u201d and the passage\nthereby rendered meaningless.\n\nThere would seem, indeed, to be little room for doubt that _saph_ should\nbe translated \u201cthreshold\u201d in the description of the pass-over sacrifice.\nIn Assyrian, the word _sippu_, from the same root as the Hebrew _saph_,\nmeans only threshold, not bason or cup.[557]\n\n 4. PASS-OVER OR PASS-BY.\n\nThe common understanding of the term \u201cpassover,\u201d in connection with the\nHebrew exodus from Egypt, is that it was, on the Lord\u2019s part, a passing\nby those homes where the doorways were blood-stained, without entering\nthem. Yet this meaning is not justified by the term itself, nor by the\nsignificance of the primitive rite. Jehovah did not merely spare his\npeople when he visited judgment on the Egyptians. He covenanted anew\nwith them by passing over, or crossing over, the blood-stained threshold\ninto their homes, while his messenger of death went into the houses of\nthe Lord\u2019s enemies and claimed the first-born as belonging to\nJehovah.[558]\n\nThis word _pesakh_, translated \u201cpassover,\u201d is a peculiar one. Its\netymology and root meaning have been much in discussion. It is derived\nfrom the root _p\u0101s\u0103kh_ \u201cto cross over,\u201d a meaning which is still\npreserved in the Hebrew word _Tiphsakh_, the name of a city on the banks\nof the Euphrates,[559] the Hebrew equivalent of the classical\nThapsacus.[560] _Tiphsakh_ means \u201ccrossing,\u201d apparently so called from\nthe ford of the Euphrates at that place.\n\nLater Jewish traditions and customs point to the meaning of the original\npassover rite as a crossing over the threshold of the Hebrew homes by\nJehovah, and not of his passing by his people in order to their sparing.\nA custom by which a Hebrew slave became one of the family in a Hebrew\nhousehold, through having his ear bored with an awl at the door-post of\nthe house, and thereby blood staining the doorway,[561] is connected\nwith the passover rite by the rabbis. \u201cThe Deity said: The door and the\nside-posts were my witnesses in Egypt, in the hour when I passed-over\nthe lintel and the two side-posts, and I said that to Me the children of\nIsrael shall be slaves, and not slaves to slaves; I brought them out\nfrom bondage to freedom; and this man who goeth and taketh a lord to\nhimself shall be bored through before these witnesses.\u201d[562]\n\nAccording to Jewish traditions, it was on a passover night when Jehovah\nentered into a cross-over covenant with Abraham on the boundary of his\nnew possessions in Canaan.[563] It was on a passover night that Lot\nwelcomed the angel visitors to his home in Sodom.[564] It was at the\npassover season that the Israelites crossed the threshold of their new\nhome in Canaan, when the walls of Jericho fell down, and the\nblood-colored thread on the house of Rahab was a symbol of the covenant\nof the Hebrew spies with her and her household.[565] The protection of\nthe Israelites against the Midianites,[566] and the Assyrians,[567] and\nthe Medes and the Persians,[568] and again the final overthrow of\nBabylon,[569] all these events were said to have been at the passover\nseason.[570] These traditions would seem to show that the pass-over\ncovenant was deemed a cross-over covenant, and a covenant of welcome at\nthe family and the national threshold.\n\nIn the passover rite as observed by modern Jews, at a certain stage of\nthe feast the outer door is opened, and an extra cup and chair are\narranged at the table, in the hope that God\u2019s messenger will cross the\nthreshold, and enter the home as a welcome guest.[571] All this points\nto the meaning of \u201ccross-over,\u201d and not of \u201cpass-by.\u201d\n\nIn some parts of northern and eastern Europe there is a custom still\npreserved among the Jews of jumping over a tub of water on passover\nnight, which is said to be symbolic of crossing the Red Sea, but which\nshows that the passover feast was a feast of crossing over.[572]\n\n 5. MARRIAGE OF JEHOVAH WITH ISRAEL.\n\nIt seems clear that the Egyptian passover rite was a rite of threshold\ncovenanting, as ordered of God and as understood by the Israelites. Its\nsacrifice was on the threshold of the homes of the Hebrews on the\nthreshold of a new year,[573] and on the threshold of a new nationality.\nThen Israel began anew in all things. Moreover, it was recognized as the\nrite of marriage between Jehovah and Israel; as the very Threshold\nCovenant had its origin in the rite of primitive marriage.\n\nThat first passover night was the night when Jehovah took to himself in\ncovenant union the \u201cVirgin of Israel,\u201d and became a Husband unto her.\nFrom that time forward any recognition of, or affiliation with, another\nGod, is called \u201cwhoredom,\u201d \u201cadultery,\u201d or \u201cfornication.\u201d[574] In this\nlight it is that the prophets always speak of idolatry.\n\nJeremiah recognizes the first passover night as the time of this\nmarriage covenant, when he says:\n\n \u201cBehold, the days come, saith Jehovah,\n That I will make a new covenant\n With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:\n Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers\n In the day that I took them by the hand\n To bring them out of the land of Egypt;\n Which my covenant they brake,\n Although I was an husband unto them, saith Jehovah.\u201d[575]\n\nAnd Jehovah, speaking through Ezekiel of his loving choice of the Hebrew\ndaughter of the Amorite and the Hittite, says: \u201cNow when I passed by\nthee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I\nspread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto\nthee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and\nthou becamest mine.\u201d[576]\n\nIt seems to be in recognition of the truth that the Egyptian passover\nwas the rite of marriage between Jehovah and Israel, that the Song of\nSongs, the epithalamium of the Hebrew Scriptures, is always read in the\nsynagogue at the passover service. This idea of the relation of Jehovah\nand Israel runs through the entire Old Testament, and shows itself in\nthe Jewish ritual of to-day.\n\nIn the primitive marriage rite the stamp of the red hand of the\nbridegroom is the certification of the covenant union, at the doorway of\nthe family. But in the Egyptian passover it was the virgin of Israel who\ncertified to the marriage covenant by the bloody stamp on the doorway.\nHence it was a feminine symbol, in a bush of hyssop, that was dipped in\nthe blood and used for this stamping.[577] The tree, or bush, is a\nuniversal symbol of the feminine in nature. This is shown, for example,\nin the tree or brush-topped pole as the symbol of Ashtaroth,\n\u201cwife,\u201d[578] as over against the pillar or obelisk as the symbol of\nBaal, or \u201clord,\u201d or \u201chusband.\u201d[579]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n The recognition of this truth is a reason for the infibulation of\n female children among primitive peoples. (See, for example, Captain\n J.S. King\u2019s \u201cNotes on the Folk-Lore, and some Social Customs of the\n Western Somali Tribes,\u201d in the London _Folk-Lore Journal_, VI., 124;\n also Dr. Remondino\u2019s _History of Circumcision_, p. 51.)\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n See Appendix.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n See \u201cSatapatha Br\u00e2hmana,\u201d 1. K\u00e2nda, 2 Adhy\u00e2ya, 5 Br\u00e2hmana, 14\u201316, in\n _Sacred Books of the East_, XII., 62 f.; also \u201cSatapatha Br\u00e2hmana,\u201d\n III., 5, 1, 11, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XXVI., 113.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n \u201cSatapatha Br\u00e2hmana,\u201d I., 3, 1, 18; I., 9, 2, 5\u201311, 21\u201324; II., 1, 1,\n 4, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XII., 74, 257, 262, 277; also \u201cSatapatha\n Br\u00e2hmana,\u201d III., 3, 1, 11; III., 8, 4, 7\u201318, in _Sac. Bks. of East_,\n XXVI., 61, 211\u2013214.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n See _Rig-Veda_, II., 36, 4; X., 18, 7. Comp. \u201cSatapatha Br\u00e2hmana,\u201d I.,\n 7, 2, 14, in _Sac. Bks. of East_, XII., 194; also \u201cSatapatha\n Br\u00e2hmana,\u201d IV., 1, 2, 9; IV., 1, 3, 19, with note, in _Sac. Bks. of\n East_, XXVI., 260, 269. See, also, Hopkins\u2019s _Religions of India_, p.\n 490, and note.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n Compare Sir Monier Monier-Williams\u2019s _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, pp.\n 33, 54 f., 223 f., and Wilkins\u2019s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 233 f.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n Sir Monier Monier-Williams\u2019s _Buddhism_, pp. 371\u2013373. This writer,\n speaking of the prominence in India of the symbolism of the _linga_\n and _yoni_ combined, ascribes it to the theory of the two essences,\n \u201cSpirit regarded as a male principle, and Matter, or the germ of the\n external world, regarded as a female.\u201d He says: \u201cWithout the union of\n the two no creation takes place. To any one imbued with these\n dualistic conceptions the _linga_ and the _yoni_ are suggestive of no\n improper ideas. They are either types of the two mysterious creative\n forces ... or symbols of one divine power delegating procreative\n energy to male and female organisms. They are mystical\n representatives, and perhaps the best impersonal representatives, of\n the abstract expressions \u2018paternity\u2019 and \u2018maternity,\u2019\u201d [and their\n conjunction in marital union]. (_Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p. 224 f.)\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n This legend is found in _Pirqe de R. Eliezer_, Chap. XXX. The Hebrew\n words _saph_ and _miphtan_ are here employed for \u201cthreshold.\u201d It is\n also given in Ma\u00e7oudi\u2019s _Les Prairies d\u2019Or_, chap. 39, p. 94. Here the\n Arabic is _\u02bfatabah_, for \u201cthreshold.\u201d See, also, Sprenger\u2019s _Life of\n Mohammad_, p. 53 f.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n See Lane\u2019s _Arabic-English Lexicon_, s. v. \u201c\u02bfAtabah.\u201d and Dozy\u2019s\n _Suppl\u00e9ment aux Dictionnaires_ Arabes, s. v. \u201c\u02bfAtabah.\u201d\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n Buxtorf\u2019s _Lex. Chald. Tal. et Rabb._, s. v. \u201cPethakh.\u201d See, also, the\n Talmudic treatise _Nidd\u00e2_, \u201cMishna,\u201d \u00a7 2, 5.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n See, for example, illustration in Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civil._, p. 657;\n also Sayce\u2019s _Relig. of Anc. Babyl._, p. 285.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n Wilkinson\u2019s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 3, 8, 14, 18, 21, 22, 31, 36,\n 37, 40, 41, 45, 46, 60, 63, 66, 87, 100, 107, 109, 115, 118, 122, 129,\n 133, 135, 137, 146, 156, 158, 163, 170, 172, 175, 177, 179, 180, etc.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n See Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _Hist. of Art in Ph\u0153nicia and Cyprus_, I.,\n 80, 320. See, also, Layard\u2019s _Nineveh and its Remains_, II., 168\u2013170\n (Am. ed.); and an article by Hommel, in \u201cProceedings of the Society of\n Biblical Arch\u00e6ology\u201d for January, 1893.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n Hearn\u2019s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, II., 397, note; Lowell\u2019s\n _Occult Japan_, pp. 270\u2013273.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n See Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races and Antiq._, III., 504\u2013506.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n _Voyages of Capt. James Cook_, \u201cFirst Voyage\u201d at May 14, 1769. Also\n Voltaire\u2019s _Les Oreilles du Comte de Chesterfield_, Ch. VI. See\n Appendix.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n See Cook\u2019s _Voyage to Pacific Ocean_, volume of plates; also Ellis\u2019s\n _Poly. Res._, II., 217.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n See Exod. 12 : 1\u201320.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n Exod. 12 : 11.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n Exod. 12 : 21, 27.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n Exod. 12 : 22.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n Exod. 2 : 23\u201325; 3 : 7\u201310; 5 : 1, 2; 6 : 1\u20137; 10 : 21\u201329.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n Exod. 11 : 4\u20137.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n Exod. 12 : 23.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n Compare Josh. 2 : 1\u201321; 6 : 16\u201325.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n See, for example, Judg. 19 : 27; 1 Kings 14 : 17; 2 Kings 12 : 9, 13;\n 22 : 4; 23 : 4; 25 : 18; 1 Chron. 9 : 19, 22; 2 Chron. 3 : 7; 23 : 4;\n 34 : 9; Esther 2 : 21; 6 : 2; Isa. 6 : 4; Jer. 35 : 4; 52 : 19, 24;\n Ezek. 40 : 6, 7; 41 : 16; 43 : 8; Amos 9 : 1; Zeph. 2 : 14; Zech. 12 :\n 2.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n See, for example, Jer. 52 : 19.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n See pp. 109\u2013111, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n See _Septuagint_, in loco.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n See _Vulgate_, in loco.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n Philo\u2019s _Opera_, Mangey, 2 : 292.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n Liddell and Scott\u2019s _Greek-English Lexicon_, s. v.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n Cited in Levy\u2019s _Neuheb. W\u00f6rterb._, s. v. \u201cSaph.\u201d\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n This on the authority of Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n Among primitive peoples it was a common thought that the first fruits\n of life in any sphere belonged of right to God, or the gods. This was\n true of the fields, of the flocks and herds, and of the family. (See,\n for example, Frazer\u2019s _Golden Bough_, II., 68\u201378, 373\u2013384; also W.\n Robertson Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 443\u2013446.) As in Egypt\n particular gods were supposed to have power over men and beasts in\n special localities, the first-born belonged to them, and stood as\n representing their power and protection; yet Jehovah claimed to be\n Lord over all. And now, at the close of the contest between God and\n the gods, Jehovah took to himself out of the homes of his enemies the\n devoted first-born of man and of beast, in evidence of the truth that\n the gods of Egypt could not protect them.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n 1 Kings 4 : 24, \u201cTiphsah.\u201d\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n See Gesenius\u2019s _Hebr. und Aram. Handw\u00f6rterbuch_ (12th ed.), s. v.\n \u201cTiphsakh.\u201d\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n Exod. 21 : 2\u20136.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n Talmud Babyl., _Qiddusheen_, fol. 22, b.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n Gen. 15 : 1\u201321. See pp. 186\u2013188, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n Gen. 19 : 1\u201325.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n Compare Josh. 2 : 1\u201320; 5 : 10\u201312; 6 : 12\u201317.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n Judg. 7 : 1\u201325.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n 2 Kings 19 : 20\u201336; 2 Chron. 32 : 1\u201322.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n Esther 9 : 12\u201319.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n Dan. 5 : 1\u201330.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n Edersheim\u2019s _Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 196 f.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n Edersheim\u2019s _The Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 197; _Home and\n Synagogue of Modern Jew_, pp. 159\u2013161; Ginsburg\u2019s art. \u201cPassover,\u201d in\n Kitto\u2019s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n On the testimony of Rev. Dr. Marcus Jastrow.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n Exod. 12 : 1, 2; Lev. 23 : 5; 9 : 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n See, for example, Exod. 34 : 12\u201316; Lev. 17 : 7; 20 : 5\u20138; Num. 15 :\n 39, 40; Deut. 31 : 16; Judg. 2 : 17; 8 : 27, 33; 2 Kings 9 : 22, 23; 1\n Chron. 5 : 25; 2 Chron. 21 : 11; Psa. 73 : 27; 106 : 38, 39; Isa. 57 :\n 3; Jer. 3 : 1\u201315, 20; 13 : 27; Ezek. 6 : 9; 16 : 1\u201363; 20 : 30; 23 :\n 1\u201349; Hos. 1 : 2; 2 : 2; 3 : 1; 4 : 12\u201319; 5 : 3, 4; 6 : 6, 7, 10.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n Jer. 31 : 31, 32; also Heb. 8 : 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n Ezek. 16 : 8.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n Exod. 12 : 22.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n W. Robertson Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_, pp. 169\u2013176, and\n Stade\u2019s _Geschichte_, p. 460.\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n Compare Exod. 34 : 12\u201316; Deut. 7 : 5; 12 : 3; Judg. 3 : 7; 2 Kings 23\n : 4; 2 Chron. 33 : 3, etc.\n\n-----\n\n\n\n\n VI.\n CHRISTIAN PASSOVER.\n\n 1. OLD COVENANT AND NEW.\n\nIn the New Testament the rites and symbols of the Old Testament find\nrecognition and explanation. This is peculiarly true of the passover\nservice. It was a central fact in the gospel story. The sacrifice, or\noffering, of Jesus Christ as the Saviour, was made at that season;[580]\nand it was evident that he himself felt that it was essential that this\nbe so. He held back from Jerusalem until the approach of the passover\nfeast, when he knew that his death was at hand.[581] And his last\npassover meal was made the basis of the new memorial and symbolic\ncovenant meal with his disciples.[582] The passover sacrifice is as\nprominent in the New Testament as in the Old.\n\nPaul, familiar with Jewish customs by study and experience, writing to\nCorinthian Christians of their duty and privileges as members of the\nhousehold of faith, urges them to make a new beginning in their lives,\nas the Israelites made a new beginning on the threshold of every year at\nthe passover festival, with its accompanying feast of unleavened bread,\nwhen all the lay-over leaven from a former state was put away. \u201cPurge\nout the old leaven,\u201d he says, \u201cthat ye may be a new lump, even as ye are\nunleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even\nChrist.\u201d[583]\n\n 2. PROFFERED WELCOME BY THE FATHER.\n\nThe primitive passover sacrifice was an offering of blood by the head of\nthe household on the threshold of his home, as a token of his welcome to\nthe guest who would cross over that blood and thereby become one with\nthe family within. It was not an outsider or a stranger who proffered a\nthreshold sacrifice, but it was the house-father who thus extended a\nwelcome to one who was yet outside. The welcoming love was measured by\nthe preciousness of the sacrifice. The richer the offering, the heartier\nthe welcome.[584]\n\nIn the Egyptian passover the threshold sacrifice was a proffer of\nwelcome to Jehovah by the collective family in each Hebrew home. In the\nChristian passover it was the sacrifice of the Son of God on the\nthreshold of the Father\u2019s home, the home of the family of the redeemed,\nas a proffer of welcome to whoever outside would cross the outpoured\nblood, and become a member of the family within. Therefore it is\nwritten: \u201cGod so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,\nthat whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal\nlife.\u201d[585] And \u201cfor this cause,\u201d says Paul, \u201cI bow my knees unto the\nFather, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.\u201d[586]\n\nAmong primitive peoples, as among the Jews, no indignity could equal the\nrefusal of a proffered guest-welcome, in a rude trampling on the blood\nof the threshold sacrifice, instead of crossing over it reverently as a\nmode of its acceptance. Hence the peculiar force of the words of the\nJewish-Christian writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the\nmistreatment of God\u2019s threshold sacrifice, in the Son of God offered as\nour passover: \u201cA man that hath set at nought Moses\u2019 law dieth without\ncompassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer\npunishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath _trodden under\nfoot the Son of God_, and hath counted the blood of the covenant,\nwherewith he was sanctified [separated from the outside world], an\nunholy [a common] thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of\ngrace?\u201d[587]\n\n 3. BRIDEGROOM AND BRIDE.\n\nAll through the New Testament, Jesus, the outpouring of whose blood is\n\u201cour passover\u201d welcome from the Father, is spoken of as the Bridegroom,\nand his church as the Bride. His coming to earth is referred to as the\ncoming of the Bridegroom\u2013as was the coming of Jehovah to the Virgin of\nIsrael in Egypt. He likened himself to a bridegroom. And his coming\nagain to his church is foretold as the meeting of the Bridegroom and the\nBride.\n\nJohn the Baptist, forerunner of Jesus, speaking of his mission as\nclosing, and that of Jesus as opening out gloriously, says: \u201cYe\nyourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that\nI am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the\nfriend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth\ngreatly because of the bridegroom\u2019s voice: this my joy therefore is\nfulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.\u201d[588]\n\nJesus, referring to the charge against his disciples, that they did not\nfast, as did the disciples of John, said: \u201cCan the sons of the\nbride-chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the\ndays will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and\nthen will they fast.\u201d[589]\n\nPaul repeatedly refers to this relation between Christ and his church:\n\u201cThe head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;\nand the head of Christ is God.\u201d[590] \u201cThe husband is the head of the\nwife, as Christ also is the head of the church.... Husbands, love your\nwives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for\nit.... He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated\nhis own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the\nchurch; because we are members of his body. For this cause shall a man\nleave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain\nshall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of\nChrist and of the church.\u201d[591]\n\nIn the Apocalypse, the inspired seer looking into the future, at the\nconsummation of the present age, tells of the glorious vision before\nhim, when Christ shall come to claim his own: \u201cI heard as it were the\nvoice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the\nvoice of mighty thunders, saying, Hallelujah: for the Lord our God, the\nAlmighty, reigneth. Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us\ngive the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his\nwife hath made herself ready. And it was given unto her that she should\narray herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the\nrighteous acts of the saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are\nthey which are bidden to the marriage supper of the Lamb.\u201d[592]\n\nAnd again he says: \u201cI saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out\nof heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband....\nAnd there came one of the seven angels; ... and he spake with me,\nsaying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.\nAnd he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and\nshewed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,\nhaving the glory of God: ... having a wall great and high; having twelve\ngates. And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and\nthe Lamb, are the temple thereof.... And the gates thereof shall in no\nwise be shut by day (for there shall be no night there): and they shall\nbring the glory and the honor of the nations into it: and there shall in\nno wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination\nand a lie: but only they which are written in the Lamb\u2019s book of\nlife.\u201d[593]\n\nA closing declaration of the seer is, that the church as the Bride, with\nthe representative of the Bridegroom until his coming, waits and calls\nfor his return: \u201cThe Spirit and the bride say, Come.... Come, Lord\nJesus.\u201d[594] And so, from the Pentateuch to the Apocalypse, the\nScriptures, Hebrew and Christian, recognize and emphasize the primitive\nThreshold Covenant as the beginning of religious rites, and as symbolic\nof the spirit of all true covenant worship.\n\n 4. SURVIVALS OF THE RITE.\n\nSurvivals of the primitive Threshold Covenant are found in various\ncustoms among Oriental Christians, and Christians the world over. Thus\nEaster is still looked at in some regions as the continuance of\nPassover, and the blood on the threshold is an accompaniment of the\nfeast. Among the modern Greeks, each family, as a rule, buys a lamb,\nkills it, and eats it on Easter Sunday. \u201cIn some country districts the\nblood [of the lamb] is sometimes smeared on the threshold of the\nhouse.\u201d[595] Easter, like the Jewish Passover, is the threshold of the\nnew ecclesiastical year.\n\nAt the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, in Jerusalem, a principal incident\nin the Easter festivities is the bringing down of fire from heaven at\nthe opening of the new ecclesiastical year.[596] This ceremony seems to\nbe a survival of the primitive custom of seeking new life, in its symbol\nof fire, at the threshold of the home and of the new year, in the East\nand in the West.[597]\n\nIn the sacredness of the rite of the primitive Threshold Covenant there\nis added emphasis to the thought which causes both the Roman Catholic\nChurch and the Greek Church to count marriage itself a sacrament. And\nthus again to the claim that a virgin who is devoted to a religious life\nis a \u201cspouse of Christ,\u201d and that her marriage to an earthly husband is\nadultery.[598] Many another religious custom points in the same\ndirection.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n Matt. 26 : 1\u20135; John 13 : 1.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n Matt. 16 : 21; 26 : 17, 18; John 2 : 13; 7 : 1\u20139.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n Matt. 26 : 17\u201330; Mark 14 : 12\u201328; Luke 22 : 7\u201320.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n 1 Cor. 5 : 7, 8.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n See pp. 3\u20135, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n John 3 : 16.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n Eph. 3 : 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n Heb. 10 : 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n John 3 : 28\u201330.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n Matt. 9 : 14, 15; Mark 2 : 19, 20; Luke 5 : 34, 35.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n 1 Cor. 11 : 3.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n Eph. 5 : 23\u201333.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n Rev. 19 : 6\u20139.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n Rev. 21 : 1, 2\u20139, 12, 22\u201327.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n _Ibid._, 22 : 17, 20.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n J.G. Frazer in _Folk-Lore Journal_, I., 275.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n See Maundrell\u2019s _Journey_, pp. 127\u2013131; Hasselquist\u2019s _Voyages and\n Travels_, pp. 136\u2013138; Thomson\u2019s _Land and Book_, II., 556 f.;\n Stanley\u2019s _Sinai and Palestine_, pp. 464\u2013469.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n See pp. 22 f., 39\u201344, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n See Smith and Cheetham\u2019s _Dict. of Christian Antiq._, art. \u201cNun.\u201d\n\n-----\n\n\n\n\n VII.\n OUTGROWTHS AND PERVERSIONS\n OF THIS RITE.\n\n 1. ELEMENTAL BEGINNINGS.\n\nApart from the mooted question of the origin and development of man as\nman,\u2013whether it be held that he came into being as an incident in the\nevolutionary progress of the ages, or that his creation was by a special\nfiat of the Author of all things,\u2013it is obvious that there was a\nbeginning, when man first appeared as a higher order of being than the\nlower animals then in existence. The distinguishing attribute of man, as\ndistinct from the lower animals at their best, is the capacity to\nconceive of spiritual facts and forces. Even at his lowest estate man is\nnever without an apprehension of immaterial and supernatural\npersonalities, intangible yet real and potent. The lower animals at\ntheir highest, and under the most effective training, give no indication\nof the possibility of such a conception on their part.\n\nBoth the Bible record and the disclosed facts of science show man at the\nstart in a primitive state, with only elemental beginnings of knowledge\nor thought or skill. No claim is made for him, by any advocate of his\npre-eminence in creation, that he then had skill in the arts, or\nattainment in civilization, or that he was possessed of a religious\ntheory or ritual of even the simplest character. It is a matter of\ninterest and importance to trace the course of man\u2019s progress from the\nfirst to the present time, and to see how the good and the evil showed\nthemselves along the line, from the same germs of thought and conduct\nrightly used or misused. The primitive rite of the Threshold Covenant,\nhere brought out as initial and germinative, seems to present a\nreasonable solution of the observed course in religious development and\nin religious perversions in the history of mankind from the beginning\nuntil now.\n\nBefore primitive man could have concerned himself seriously with the\ncourse of the heavenly bodies, or the changes of the seasons, or the\npoints of compass and the correspondent shifting of the winds, he must\nhave recognized the sacred mystery of life and its transmission. It\nwould seem that a covenant involved in the union of twain made one over\noutpoured blood, with power from the Author of life for the transmission\nof life, must have been the primal religious rite that brought man\u2019s\npersonal action into the clear light of a covenant relation with his\nCreator. Every subsequent development of the religious idea, good and\nbad, pure and impure, would seem to be traceable as an outgrowth, or as\na perversion, of this elemental religious rite.\n\n 2. MAIN OUTGROWTHS\n\nIt would seem clear that the primal idea of a covenant union between two\npersons, and between those persons and their God, was found in the\ninitial and primitive rite of marriage, with its outpoured blood, or\ngift of life, on the threshold of being; and that this rite contained in\nitself the germs of covenanting and of sacrifice, and the idea of an\naltar and a sacrament, where, and by which, man and God were brought\ninto loving communion and union. Thus the beginning of religious rites\nwas found in the primal Threshold Covenant as here portrayed.\n\nOut of this beginning came all that is best and holiest in the thought\nof sacrifice and sacrament and spiritual communion. The very highest\ndevelopment of religious truth, under the guidance of progressive\nrevelation from God, and of man\u2019s growth in thought and knowledge with\nthe passing ages, is directly in the line of this simple and germinal\nidea. Both the Bible record and the record of outside history tend to\nconfirm this view of religious rites in their beginning and progress.\n\nNew life as a consequence of blood, or life, surrendered in holy\ncovenanting, is a natural inference or outgrowth of the truth of the\nprimal Threshold Covenant. Thus the thought of life after death, in the\nresurrection or in metempsychosis, comes with the recognition of the\nsimple fact of the results of covenant union in the sight, and with the\nblessing, of the Author of life, in the rite of the Threshold\nCovenant.[599]\n\nThe transference of the altar of threshold covenanting, from the persons\nof the primary pair in the family to the hearthstone or entrance\nthreshold of the home or family doorway, with the accompaniment of fire\nas a means of giving and sustaining life to those who sat at the common\ntable or altar, in the covenant meal or sacrament of hospitality,\nbrought about the custom of sacramental communion feasts with guests\nhuman and divine. And so, also, there came the rites of worship, with\nthe altar of burnt sacrifice or of incense, and the marriage torch, and\nthe doorway fire, and the threshold or hearthstone covenant at a\nwedding. Out of this thought there came gradually and naturally the\nprominence of the altar and the altar fire in private and public\nworship, as it obtains both in the simpler and in the more gorgeous\necclesiastical rituals.[600]\n\nIn conjunction with the place of fire on the family altar in the\nThreshold Covenant, there came naturally the recognition of fire and\nwarmth and light as gifts of God for the promotion and preservation of\nlife to those who were dependent on him. Thus the sun as the life-giving\nfire of the universe came to be recognized as a manifestation of God\u2019s\npower and love. Its agency in bringing new life after death, in the\ncourse of the changing seasons, led men to connect the movements of the\nheavenly bodies with God\u2019s dealings with man in the line of his covenant\nlove. The too common mistake has been of thinking of this view of\ncelestial nature as the origin of man\u2019s religious rites, instead of as\nan outgrowth of the primal religious rite, which antedated man\u2019s study\nof, or wonder over, the workings of the elements and the course of the\nheavenly bodies.\n\nIn summing up the results of such a study as this, of primitive customs\nand their outgrowth, it is necessary only to suggest a few of the more\nprominent lines of progress from the elemental beginning, leaving it to\nthe student and thinker to follow out these, and to find others, in his\nmore careful and further consideration of the subject in its varied\nramifications. It is sufficient now to affirm that the Old Testament and\nthe New point to this primitive rite of the Threshold Covenant as a\nbasis of their common religious ritual; and that gleams of the same\ngerminal idea show themselves in the best features of all the sacred\nbooks of the ages. It would be easy, did time and space allow, to follow\nout in detail the indications that all modes of worship in sacrifice, in\noblation, in praise, and prayer, in act and in word, are but natural\nexpressions of desire for covenant union with Deity, and of joy in the\nthought of its possession, as based on the fact of such covenanting\nsought and found in the primal religious rite of the human race.\n\n 3. CHIEF PERVERSIONS.\n\nWith the world as it is, and with man as he is, every possibility of\ngood has a corresponding possibility of evil. Good perverted becomes\nevil. Truth which, rightly used, proves a savor of life, will, when\nmisused, prove a savor of death.[601] And that which is a symbol of\ntruth becomes a means of misleading when looked at as if it were in\nitself the truth.\n\nThe primitive Threshold Covenant as an elemental religious rite was holy\nand pure, and had possibilities of outgrowth in the direction of high\nspiritual attainment and aspiring. But the temptation to uplift the\nagencies in this rite into objects deemed of themselves worthy of\nworship resulted in impurity and deterioration, by causing the symbol to\nhide the truth instead of disclosing it.\n\nAmong the earliest forms of a temple as a place of worship was the\nziggurat, or stepped pyramid, erected as a mighty altar, with its\nshrine, or holy of holies, at the summit, wherein a bride of the gods\nawaited the coming of the deity to solemnize the primal Threshold\nCovenant in expression of his readiness to enter into loving communion\nwith the children of men.[602] From this custom the practice of\nThreshold Covenanting at the temple doorways became incumbent on women\nof all conditions of society at certain times, and under certain\ncircumstances, in certain portions of the world, as a proof of their\nreligious devotion,[603] and thus there grew up all the excesses of\nsacred prostitution in different portions of the world.[604]\n\nThe prominence given to the two factors in the primitive Threshold\nCovenant as a sacred religious act, led to the perversion of the\noriginal idea by making the factors themselves objects of reverence and\nworship; and separately, or together, they came to be worshiped with\nimpure and degrading accompaniments.\n\nReverence for the phallus, or for phallic emblems, shows itself in the\nearliest historic remains of Babylonia, Assyria, India, China, Japan,\nPersia, Phrygia, Phoenicia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Greece, Rome, Germany,\nScandinavia, France, Spain, Great Britain, North and South America, and\nthe Islands of the Sea. It were needless to attempt detailed proof of\nthis statement, in view of all that has been written on the subject by\nhistorians, arch\u00e6ologists, and students of comparative religions.[605]\nIt is enough to suggest that the mistake has too often been made of\nsupposing that this \u201cphallic worship\u201d was a primitive conception of a\nreligious truth, instead of a perversion of the earlier and purer idea\nwhich is at the basis of the highest religious conceptions, from the\nbeginning until now.\n\nQuite as widely extended, in both time and space, as the worship of the\nphallus as the symbol of masculine potency, is the recognition of the\ntree of life as the symbol of feminine nature in its fruit-bearing\ncapacity. A single tree, or a grove of trees, or the lotus flower, the\nfig, or the pomegranate, with the peculiar form of their seed capsules,\nappear in all the earlier religious symbolisms, over against the phallus\nin its realistic or its conventional forms, as representative of\nreproductive life.[606]\n\nIn ancient Assyrian sculpture the most familiar representation of\nspiritual blessing was of a winged deity with a basket and a palm cone,\ntouching with the cone a sacred tree, or again the person of a\nsovereign, as if imparting thereby some special benefit or power. This\nrepresentation was long a mystery to the archeologist, but a recent\nscholar has shown that it is an illustration of a practice common in the\nEast to-day, of carrying a cone of the male palm to a female palm tree,\nin order to vitalize it by the pollen.[607] The cone is one of the\nconventional forms of the phallus, worshiped as a symbol in the temples\nof the goddesses of the East in earlier days and later.[608] Hence this\nancient Assyrian representation is an illustration of the truth that the\nprimitive threshold covenant was recognized as the type of divine power,\nand covenant blessing, imparted to God\u2019s representative, under the\nfigure of the phallus and the tree.\n\nIt would seem, indeed, that the pillar and the tree came to be the\nconventional symbols of the male and female elements erected in front of\nan altar of worship,[609] and that, in the deterioration of the ages,\nthese symbols themselves were worshiped, and their symbolism was an\nincentive to varied forms of impurity, instead of to holy covenanting\nwith God and in God\u2019s service. Therefore these symbols were deemed by\ntrue worshipers a perversion of an originally sacred rite, and their\ndestruction was a duty with those who would restore God\u2019s worship to its\npristine purity.\n\nThus the command to Jehovah\u2019s people as to their treatment of the people\nof Canaan was: \u201cTake heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the\ninhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in\nthe midst of thee: but ye shall break down their altars, and dash in\npieces their pillars [or male symbols], and ye shall cut down their\nAsherim [or trees as a female symbol]: for thou shalt worship no other\ngod: for the Lord [Jehovah], whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:\nlest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go\na whoring after their gods.\u201d[610] Here is a distinct reference to the\nprimitive Threshold Covenant in its purity and sacredness, and to its\nperversion in the misuse of the phallus and tree in their symbolism.\n\nAgain the command was explicit to the Israelites: \u201cThou shalt not plant\nthee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord thy\nGod, which thou shalt make thee. Neither shalt thou set thee up a\npillar; which the Lord thy God hateth.\u201d[611]\n\nFrom the earliest historic times the serpent seems to have been accepted\nas a symbol of the nexus of union between the two sexes, and to be\nassociated, therefore, with the pillar and the tree, as suggestive of\nthe desire that may be good or evil, according to its right or wrong\ndirection and use. Its place as a symbol has been at the threshold of\npalace and temple and home, with limitless powers of evil in its\nmisuse.[612]\n\n\u201cMighty snakes standing upright,\u201d together with \u201cmighty bulls of bronze\u201d\nwere \u201con the threshold of the gates\u201d in ancient Babylon.[613] A serpent\nwreathed the phallus boundary stone (as if suggestive of its being a\nthing of life) on the threshold of Babylonian domains.[614] As a symbol\nof life and life-giving power the serpent stood erect above the head of\nthe mightiest kings of Egypt, who gave and took life at their\npleasure,[615] and it even accompanied the winged sun-orb in its\nmanifestation of light and warmth and life over the grandest temples of\nancient Thebes.[616] The Egyptian goddess Ket, or Kadesh, \u201cMistress of\nHeaven,\u201d a divinity borrowed from the Semites, was represented as\nstanding on a lioness, with lotus flowers, their stems coiled in\ncircular form, in her right hand, and two serpents in her left hand, as\nshe came with her offering to Min, or Khem, the god of generative\nforce.[617] A similar representation of a goddess of life is found in\nancient Assyrian remains.\n\nIn the representation of Nergal, the lord of the under world, in the\nancient Babylonian mythology, the phallus and the serpent were\nidentical.[618] Beltis-Allat, consort of Nergal, and lady of the under\nworld, brandished a serpent in either hand. She was guardian of the\nwaters of life which were under the threshold of the entrance of her\nrealm.[619]\n\nThat which was primarily a holy instinct became, in its perversion, a\nsource of evil and a cause of dread; hence the serpent became a\nrepresentative of evil itself, and the conflict with it was the conflict\nbetween good and evil, between light and darkness. This is shown in the\nreligions of ancient Babylonia, Egypt, and India, and Ph\u0153nicia and\nGreece, and Mexico and Peru, and various other countries.[620]\n\nVishnoo and his wife Lakshmi, from whom, according to Hindoo teachings,\nthe world was produced, and by whom it continues or must cease, are\nrepresented as seated on a serpent, as the basis of their life and\npower.[621] Siva, also, giver and destroyer of life, is crowned with a\nserpent, and a serpent is his necklace, while the symbol of his worship\nis the _linga in yoni_.[622] A mode of Hindoo worship includes the\nplacing of a stone _linga_ between two serpents, and under two trees,\nthe one a male tree and the other a female tree.[623] And in various\nways the serpent appears, in connection with different Hindoo deities,\nas the agent of life-giving or of life-destroying.[624] A suggestive\nrepresentation of Booddha as the conqueror of desire shows him seated\nrestfully on a coiled serpent, the hooded head of which is a screen or\ncanopy above his head.[625]\n\nApollo, son of Zeus, was the slayer of the man-destroying serpent at\nDelphi; yet the serpent, when conquered, became a means of life and\ninspiration to others.[626] \u00c6sculapius, the god of healing, a son of\nApollo, was represented by the serpent because he gave new life to those\nwho were dying. Serpents were everywhere connected with his worship as a\nmeans of healing.[627] The female oracle who represented Apollo at\nDelphi sat on a tripod formed of entwined serpents.[628] Serpents on the\nhead of Medusa were a means of death to the beholder; and these serpents\nwere given to Medusa instead of hair because of her faithlessness and\nsacrilege in the matter of the Threshold Covenant.[629] Thus the good\nand the evil in that which the serpent symbolized were shown in the\nreligions of the nations of antiquity, and serpent worship became one of\nthe grossest perversions of the idea of the primitive Threshold\nCovenant.\n\nAs in the matter of phallic worship and tree worship, so in this of the\nworship of the serpent, it would seem unnecessary to multiply\nillustrations of its prominence in various lands, when so many special\ntreatises on the subject are already available.[630] It is only\nnecessary to emphasize anew the fact that the evident thought of the\nsymbol is an outgrowth or a perversion of the idea of the primitive\nThreshold Covenant.\n\nThe form of the Bible narrative, portraying the first temptation and the\nfirst sin, seems to show how early the symbolism of the tree and the\nserpent was accepted in popular speech. From that narrative as it stands\nit would appear that the first act of human disobedience was\nincontinence, in transgression of a specific command to abstain, at\nleast for a time, from carnal intercourse. Desire, as indicated by the\nserpent, prompted to an untimely partaking of the fruit of the forbidden\ntree, and the consequences of sin followed. The results of this act of\ndisobedience, as recorded in the sacred text,[631] make evident the\ncorrectness of this view of the case. When the Bible narrative was first\nwritten, whenever that was, the terms \u201ctree,\u201d[632] \u201cfruit\u201d of the\ntree,[633] \u201cknowledge,\u201d[634] \u201cserpent,\u201d were familiar figures of speech\nor euphemisms, and their use in the Bible narrative would not have been\nmisunderstood by readers generally. Probably there was no question as to\nthis for many centuries. It was not until the dull prosaic literalism of\nthe Western mind obscured the meaning of Oriental figures of speech that\nthere was any general doubt as to what was affirmed in the Bible story\nof the first temptation and disobedience.[635]\n\nPhilo Jud\u00e6us at the beginning of the Christian era, seems to understand\nthis as the meaning of the narrative in Genesis, and he applies the\nteachings of that narrative accordingly.[636] There are indications that\nthe rabbis looked similarly at the meaning of the Bible text. There are\ntraces of this traditional view in different Jewish writings.[637]\n\nEvidently the original meaning was still familiar in the early Christian\nages. But its becoming connected with false doctrines and heresies, as\ntaught by the Ophites and other Gnostic sects, seems to have brought the\ntruth itself into disrepute, and finally led to its repudiation in favor\nof a dead literalism.[638] The curse resting on the serpent, in\nconsequence of the first sin of incontinence, was the degradation of the\nprimitive impulse,[639] unless uplifted again by divine\ninspiration.[640] Because of their breach of the covenant of divine love\nour first parents were expelled from their home of happiness, and the\nguardians of the threshold forbade their return to it.[641]\n\nIn the closing chapters of the New Testament, as in the opening chapters\nof the Old, the symbolism of the tree and the serpent, and the covenant\nrelations involved in crossing the threshold, appear as familiar and\nwell-understood figures of speech. \u201cThe dragon, the old serpent, which\nis the Devil and Satan,\u201d[642] representing unholy desire, is shut out\nfrom the precincts of the New Jerusalem. Within the gates of that city\nis there the tree of life watered by the stream that flows from under\nthe throne of power.[643] The city threshold is the dividing line\nbetween light and darkness, good and evil, life and death. \u201cBlessed are\nthey that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the\ntree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are\nthe dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and\nthe idolators, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.\u201d[644]\n\nThus it is in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, at their beginning\nand at their close. And there are traces of the same truth in the\nteachings of the various religions, and of the more primitive customs\nand symbolisms. The all-dividing threshold separates the within from the\nwithout; and a covenant welcome there gives one a right to enter in\nthrough the gates into the eternal home, to be a partaker of the tree of\nlife, with its ever-renewing and revivifying fruits.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n See \u201cBlood Covenant,\u201d pp. 310\u2013313.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n See pp. 22 f., 39-44, 99-164, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n 2 Cor. 2 : 16.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n See, for example, Herodotus\u2019s _History_, Bk. I., chaps. 181, 182. See\n pp. 111 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n Herodotus\u2019s _History_, Bk. I., chap. 199.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n See Deut. 25 : 1\u20139. See, also, chapter on \u201cSacred Prostitution\u201d in\n Wake\u2019s _Serpent Worship_; and Professor W.M. Ramsay\u2019s \u201cHoly City of\n Phrygia,\u201d in _Contemporary Review_ for October, 1893.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n See, for example, Squier\u2019s _Serpent Symbol_; Forling\u2019s _Rivers of\n Life_; Westropp\u2019s and Wake\u2019s _Ancient Symbol Worship_; Knight\u2019s\n _Worship of Priapus_; Jennings\u2019s _Phallicism_; Frazer\u2019s _Golden\n Bough_; Monier-Williams\u2019s _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, and his\n _Buddhism_; Griffis\u2019s _Religions of Japan_, etc.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n See, for example, in addition to the books just cited, Fergusson\u2019s\n _Tree and Serpent Worship_; Ohnefalach-Richter\u2019s _Kypros, die Bibel\n und Homer_; Hopkins\u2019s _Religions of India_, pp. 527 f., 533, 540, 542.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n See Dr. E.B. Tyler\u2019s article on \u201cThe Winged Figures of the Assyrian\n and other Ancient Monuments,\u201d in _Proceedings of the Soc. of Bib.\n Arch._, XII., Part 8, pp. 383\u2013393; Dr. Bonavia\u2019s articles on \u201cSacred\n Trees,\u201d in _Babylonian and Oriental Record_, III., Nos. 1\u20134; IV., Nos.\n 4, 5; and De Lacouperie\u2019s articles on Trees, _ibid._, IV., Nos. 5, 10,\n 11.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n See, for example, Ohnefalach-Richter\u2019s _Kypros_, Tafel-Band, pl.\n lxxxii., figures 7, 8; Donaldson\u2019s _Architectural Medals of Classic\n Antiquity_, pp. 105\u2013109; Von L\u00f6her and Joyner\u2019s _Cyprus: Historical\n and Descriptive_, p. 153 f., Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _History of Art in\n Ph\u0153nicia and Cyprus_, I., 123, 276 f., 281, 284, 331 f.; W. Robertson\n Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 191.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n Compare W. Robertson\u2019s Smith\u2019s _Religion of the Semites_, p. 437 f.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n Exod. 34 : 12\u201315; Deut. 7 : 5.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n Deut. 16 : 21, 22.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n There seems, indeed, to be a connection between the Hebrew words,\n _miphtan_, \u201cthreshold,\u201d and _pethen_, \u201casp,\u201d \u201cadder,\u201d or \u201cserpent,\u201d as\n first pointed out to me by Mr. Montague Cockle. Although the verbal\n root is not preserved in the Hebrew, there is no valid reason for\n doubting that they go back to the same root. In Arabic, the verb is\n preserved as _pathana_, \u201cto tempt.\u201d Its derivatives indicate the same\n meaning. This would seem to confirm the connection of the primitive\n threshold, the serpent, and temptation. In Leland\u2019s _Etruscan Roman\n Remains_ (p. 131 f.) are citations from several ancient works, and\n references to current Italian traditions, showing the supposed\n connection of the serpent with the threshold, the phallus, and married\n life, that are in obvious confirmation of the views here expressed.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n See p. 109 f., _supra_; also, Schrader\u2019s _Keilinschriftliche\n Bibliothek_, Vol. III., Pt. 2, p. 72 f.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n See, for example, Rawlinson\u2019s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western\n Asia_, III., p. 45.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n See Erman\u2019s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 60.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n _Ibid._, p. 259, vignette illustration.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n See Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc. Egypt._, III., 235, pl. lv., fig. 2. Prisse\u2019s\n _Mon. Egypt_, pl. xxxvii.; also Layard\u2019s _Nineveh and its Remains_, p.\n 169 (Am. ed.), and W. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s _Asien und Europa_, p. 314.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n See Perrot and Chipiez\u2019s _History of Art in Chaldea and Assyria_, I.,\n 349 f. See, also, Layard\u2019s _Monuments_, Series ii., pl. 5, for\n representation of the conflict between Marduk and Tiamat. The serpent\n is there shown on the feminine Tiamat where it appears on the\n masculine Nergal.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n See Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 690\u2013696; Sayce\u2019s _Relig. of\n Anc. Babylonia_, p. 286.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n See Sayce\u2019s _Relig. of Anc. Babylonia_, pp. 281\u2013283; Wilkinson\u2019s _Anc.\n Egypt._, III., 141\u2013155; Fergusson\u2019s _Tree and Serpent Worship_, pp.\n 5\u201372; Squier\u2019s _Serpent Symbol_, pp. 137\u2013254; R\u00e9ville\u2019s _Native\n Religions of Mexico and Peru_, pp. 29\u201332, 53, 166.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n See Wilkins\u2019s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 99.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n See Wilkins\u2019s _Hindu Mythology_, p. 218.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n Maurice\u2019s _Indian Antiq._, V. 182 f.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n _Ibid._, V.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n See frontispiece of Sir Monier Monier-Williams\u2019s Buddhism; see, also,\n Fergusson\u2019s article on \u201cThe Amravati Tope\u201d in \u201cJournal of the Royal\n Asiatic Society,\u201d Vol. III., Pt. 1, pp. 132\u2013166.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n See Keightley\u2019s _Mythology_, art. \u201cPh\u0153bus-Apollo.\u201d\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n See \u201c\u00c6sculapius,\u201d in Smith\u2019s _Classical Dictionary_.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n See Herodotus\u2019s _History_, Bk. IX., chap. 81.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n See \u201cGorgones,\u201d in Smith\u2019s _Classical Dictionary_.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n See, for example, Maurice\u2019s _Indian Antiquities_; Fergusson\u2019s _Tree\n and Serpent Worship_; Forlong\u2019s _Rivers of Life_, I., 93\u2013322; Wake\u2019s\n _Serpent Worship_, pp. 81\u2013106.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n Gen. 3 : 7, 10\u201313, 16.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n See, for example, Psa. 128 : 3; Prov. 3 : 18; 11 : 30; Ezek. 19 : 10.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n See, for example, Gen. 30 : 2; Deut. 7 : 13; 28 : 4, 18, 53; 30 : 9;\n Psa. 127 : 3; 132 : 11; Song of Songs 4 : 16; Isa. 13 : 18; Micah 6 :\n 7; Acts 2 : 30.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n See, for example, Gen. 4 : 1, 17, 25; 38 : 26; Judg. 11 : 39; 19 : 25;\n 1 Sam. 1 : 19; 1 Kings 1 : 4; Matt. 1 : 25.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n Gen. 3 : 1\u201313.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n See, for example, Philo Jud\u00e6us\u2019s _Works_, \u201cOn the Creation,\u201d I.,\n 53\u201360; \u201cOn the Allegories of the Sacred Laws,\u201d I., 15\u201320; \u201cQuestions\n and Solutions,\u201d I., 31\u201341.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n See, for example, _Midrasch Bereschit Rabba_, pararshah 18, \u00a7 6, in\n comments on Gen. 2 : 25; Weber\u2019s _Die Lehren d. Talmud_ (ed. 1866),\n pp. 210\u2013213.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n See Clement of Alexandria\u2019s _Miscellanies_, III., 17; also Iren\u00e6us\u2019s\n _Against Heresies_, I., 30.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n Gen. 3 : 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n Compare Num. 21 : 4\u20139; 2 Kings 18 : 4; John 3 : 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n Gen. 3 : 22\u201324.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n Rev. 20 : 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n _Ibid._, 21 : 1\u201327; 22 : 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n _Ibid._, 22 : 14, 15.\n\n-----\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n APPENDIX.\n\n SIGNIFICANCE OF BLOOD IN THE MARRIAGE RITE.[645]\n\nIn \u00c6gypto Superiori, quemadmodum in aliis regionibus, ubi mores prisci\npraeservati vigent, matrimonium eousque non consummatur, donec, examine\ninstituto, sponsus sanguinem, ceu testimonium virginitatis sponsae\nelicuerit. Linteolum quoddam singulare, mucinii vel mappae speciem prae\nse ferens, a parentibus sponsae ad obryssam hanc praeparatur.\n\nQuum sponsus vigilia nuptiarum sponsam convenit, linteolum istud digito\ncircumvolvit, atque periculum virginitatis instituit. Sanguis linteolum\nmaculis cruentans fit insigne ac testimonium sponsi autographum\nvirginitatis sponsae intemeratae atque comprobatae, necnon tessera eius\nin uxorem accitae. Ipsum linteolum, manu sua cruenta quasi sigillo\nsignatum, parentibus, qui illud, tamquam indubitatum castitatis filiae\nsuae virginalis servatae testimonium, insimul et pignus sacri foederis\nsui connubii custodiant, thesauri instar recondendum redditur. Receptio\npignoris evidentiaeque tarn castitatis illibatae quam matrimonii iuncti,\ninter amicos, qui prae foribus cubiculi nuptialis adventum linteoli\npraestolantur, causa exsistit gaudii laetitiaeque exsultantis.\n\nVerumenimvero si nec manamen sanguinis, nec rubrum manus cruentatae\nvestigium occasione istiusmodi se prodiderint, turba amicorum in limine\nconclavis nuptialis praestolantium, loco exsultationis laetae moerore\ntristi luget atque plangorem eiulatumque saevum ciet; aut vero\nsilentium, eloquens luctus indicium, inter eos regnat, nam dolor est\nillatus domui decore honoris orbatae, cuius parem ne mors ipsa quidem\ngignere possit. Si res sic se habent, sponsa libello repudii, absque\nvinculo connubii, a sponso dimittitur. Ast si digitus suus tactu cruore\nmanante contaminetur, ab ipso eo momento sua fit uxor, etiamsi\nconsummatio coniugii, ut moris est, ad usque triduum aut hebdomadem\ndifferatur.[646]\n\nId quod foedus inter se suamque sponsam figit atque sancit, est cruoris\ntactu sponsi eliciti profluvium. Meatum in penetralia suae essentiae\nincisione aperiens, sponsus \u201ccaedit foedus\u201d cum ea in conspectu sui\nCreatoris, ad litteram.[647] Sponsus \u201cnocte nuptiarum sanguinem\nvirginalem offerens,\u201d fit sponsus sanguineus, \u201ckhatan damim.\u201d[648] In\nhoc rerum statu divulsio est quod coniungit, atque vestigium manus\ncruentum est quod instrumentum foederis subministrat.\n\nSponsus, loco proprii digiti ansa interdum clavis ianuae ligneae\npristinae, specie digito simili, quae linteolo hoc obvolvitur, examen\ninstituit, eo quod haec, _aperiendo_ penetralia intemerata, quae\npenetrare[649] praeter se liceat nemini, actum _reseratus_ imagine\nquadam symbolica significet. Signaculum tamen cruentum in linteolo\nutroque in casu eiusdem omnino est momenti.\n\nPari modo camisia sponsae communis, loco mucinii vel telae, soluit notam\nmanus cruentae recipere, quae ut testimonium matrimonii identidem\ncustodiri consuevit. Caeterum hae sunt moris vigentis variationes\nexiliores, nec quae referantur dignae, nisi ut declarent, quam sint\ntestimonia variorum, qui haec perhibuerint, secum pugnantia.[650]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n See p. 196, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n Vide Lane\u2019s _Mod. Egypt._, II, 241; item Skertchley\u2019s _Dahomey As It\n Is_, p. 499.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n Foedus pangere Hebraice _Karath_ idem sonat ac \u201ccaedere.\u201d Vide Gen. 15\n : 17\u201319; 21 : 22\u201324, etc. Vide etiam Trumbull\u2019s _Blood Covenant_, pp.\n 265\u2013267, 322 _et seq._, Lane\u2019s _Arab. Eng. Lex._, et Freytag\u2019s _Lex.\n Arab. Latin_, s. vv. \u201cKhatan,\u201d \u201cKhatana.\u201d\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n Vide Fuerst\u2019s _Heb. Lex._, s. v. \u201cKhatan;\u201d etiam Exod. 4 : 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n Burckhardt, in suis _Proverbiis Arabicis_ (pp. 139 _seqq._), moris\n huius meminit; Lane autem in suo _Modern Egyptians_ (I, 218) idem\n perhibet. Verum ego loquar de quaestione e fontibus fide dignis\n testium integerrimorum. Burckhardt enim asserit \u201cclavim\u201d magis idoneam\n putari a plebecula in \u00c6gypto Superiori in examine hoc instituendo quam\n digitum.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n Burckhardt meminit differentiae cuiusdam huiusmodi; constat tamen eum\n morem camisiam sponsae adhibendi nonnisi cognovisse.\n\n-----\n\n EXHIBITING THE EVIDENCES.\n\nIn Syria, veluti in \u00c6gypto, tela cruenta, vel indusium sanguine\nmaculatum loco probae castitatis testimoniique matrimonii habetur. In\nSinis \u201clinteolum\u201d ferculo a famulo offertur sponso, ubi is cubiculum\nnuptiale primum intrat, quod his thalamo insternit, parentibus sponsae,\nsanguine inquinatum ad praeservandum traditurus.[651] Apud Dahomeanos\nthalamus, nocte nuptiarum gossypina nova impressa (vulgo \u201ccalico\u201d)\nconsternitur, postero autem die, si cuncta e sententia successerint,\n_godo_ (ligatura, quae Anglis \u201cT bandage\u201d sonat) ad amicos sponsae cum\ntriumpho deportatur ... dum sponsus lodiculam thalami exhibet.[652]\n\nIn \u00c6gypto indumenta nuptialia, vestigiis manus cruentae notata, \u201cerant\npost nuptias supra fores domus rustici suspensa.\u201d[653] Alias sponsa\npoterat postridie nuptiarum amicis se sistere indusio sanguine maculato\nsupra alias vestes induta, atque in responsum coram eis congratulantibus\nsaltare rogata.[654] Soluit, porro, indusium hoc amicis visum\nvenientibus exhiberi, aut vero ad examinandum a vicinis in domos\ncircumferri.[655] Mores consimiles in quibusdam etiam Syriae partibus\nusuvenerunt.\n\nUbi mappa vel pannus specialis in \u00c6gypto Superiori adhibetur, haec,\nquamprimum madere cruore contingat, a sponso mulieribus praestolantibus\nforas exporrigitur. Mater sponsae, eam obtentam marito tradit, hic autem\ntiarae (Turcis _turban_) suae apponit, seque primoribus senioribusque\npopuli in aedibus suis ut hospites congregatis sistit. Hi, testimonium\nistud illibatae filiae suae castitatis servatae intelligentes, atque\ninsimul eam nunc foedere matrimonii in uxorem accitam, inclinatione\nreverenter facta, ei apprecantes aiunt: \u201cFidem facio.\u201d[656]\n\nIn oris Africae occiduis, apud populos magis primaevos, indumentum\nsanguine commaculatum vicinis exhiberi consuevit. Quinimo et apud\nhumaniores Christianorum gentes mos viget vestem hanc die Solis post\nnuptias in fana, ut a cunctis cernatur, deferendi atque exhibendi.[657]\nSiquidem absque veste hac cruentata indicium matrimonii est nullum.\n\nRitus nuptiales apud veteres Aztec atque Nahuas, gentes Americae\nCentralis, a ritibus Ariorum priscorum haud fuerunt absimiles. Quum enim\nsponsa a suis amicis ad novum deduceretur domicilium, ibidem a sponso\nexcipiebatur. Utrisque erat thuribulum thusque cremabant, in matta coram\nfocum domesticum simul sedentes. Tum sacerdos accessit, atque eos ritu\nsacro in matrimonium coniugavit. Hinc se in fanum contulerunt, in limine\ncuius sacerdotes praestolantes eos exceperunt. In cubiculo proprio in\nfano morantes, triduum tresque noctes exercitiis pietatis dediti, secum\nipsis transigere debebant, tribus vetulis custoditi atque invigilati.\nNocte quarta, quum connubium consummandum erat, sacerdotes duo thalamum\nsuum praepararunt, tumque relicti sunt secum ipsi soli. \u201cNonnullis in\nlocis proba virginitatis iuvencae postridie nuptiarum postulabatur. In\nquibuslibet nuptiis moris erat ut sponsores cubiculum, ubi nupturientes\npernoctassent, intrarent, atque camisiam sponsae tradi postularent;\nquam, si cruore infectam reperissent, foras proferrent, perticae\nappenderent, atque ceu testimonium, sponsam virginem fuisse, visui\nexhiberent; tum choreae institutae totaque loca peragrata saltando,\ndebacchando summaque laetitia exsultando; quae omnia \u2018camisiam saltare\u2019\nappellari consueverunt. Si quando camisiam sanguine non maculari\ncontigerit, gaudia lacrymis ac plangori cesserunt locum, non secus ac\nmaledicta, sugillationes dicteriaque soluerunt in sponsam iactari,\ninsimul vero et marito ius erat eam libello repudii donare.\u201d[658]\n\n\u201cSi Muhammadanus puellam in uxorem ducit, atque lege pacti connubialis\neam virginem castam esse oportere stipulaverit, indicia eiusdem interdum\nexigere consuevit. Quandoquidem familia eam, casu quo indicio hoc\ncaruerit, repudio remittendam exspectare debeat, pater sollicita cura\ncavebit ut habeat quo se, si forte filia sua iacturam indicii\nvirginitatis fecisset, purgare possit. Halebii versanti mihi audire\ncontigit Arabem quemdam a Cadi documentum impetrasse, atque a testibus\nsubsignari curasse, quo ostenderetur filiam camelo delapsam detrimentum\ntulisse.\n\n\u201cMuhammadani, de foeminis suis interrogati, aegre invitique respondent.\nAttamen post longam diuturnamque cum iis consuetudinem, data occasione,\ncontigit mihi hac de re cum quibusdam eorum disseruisse, ex quo\nintellexi Arabes humaniores linteaminibus sordidatis parum fidei\npraestare.... Viri interdum deliquium cruoris, velut testimonium\ndebilitatis propriae, vulgo innotescere abnuunt.\n\n\u201cMuhammadanis in Iemen atque in India persuasum est aiuntque lintea\ninfecta visui offerre viro perquam dedecere. Nec profecto, nisi\ncuriositas muliebris atque agnati, res huiusmodi insectantur. A mente\nsana neminem tam alienum existimandum arbitrantur quam quibus haec\npraeservanda videantur. Proinde linteum hoc apud eos eluitur traditurque\nut usui consueto inter linteamina domestica restituatur. Percontanti\nmihi Iudaeus quidam de Iudaeis et Muhammadanis Muscatensibus,\nChristianus vero aliquis de Christianis et Muhammadanis Halebitis idem\nsignificaverat. Busrae tamen audisse mihi licuit dari mulieres ordinis\nplebeii, quae tesseram hanc pristinae suae castitatis velut vindicias\npraeservare solitae sint, nequis ganeo protervus de eius post pubertatem\nmoribus quasi ambiguis sermocinari sibi praesumpserit.\u201d[659]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n Gray\u2019s _China_, I, 207.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n Skertchley\u2019s _Dahomey As It Is_, p. 499.\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n Lane\u2019s _Modern Egyptians_, I, 221, nota.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n Burckhardt\u2019s _Arabic Proverbs_, p. 140.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n Facta haec a testibus fide dignis teneo.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n Haec testimonio sacerdotis \u00c6thiopici in Liberia nituntur.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n Bancroft\u2019s _Native Races_ (\u201cCivilized Nations\u201d), II, 256\u2013261.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n Niebuhr\u2019s _Beschreibung von Arabien_, pp. 35\u201339.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n Vide, exempli causa, Burtonii _Alf Laila va Laila_, II, 50; III, 289.\n\n-----\n\n SUBSTITUTE BLOOD FOR DECEPTION.\n\nQuum in Arabia sponsa quaedam virginitatis orba sponso a parentibus\nimponitur, mater sponsae turturillam clam iugulat, eiusque sanguine\ncamisiam sponsae, antequam illa amicis visui exhibeatur, tingit atque\ncommaculat. Ad mores hos in fabulis \u201cNoctium Mille et Unius\u201d haud tam\ninfrequenter referimur.[660] Burton haec interpretans ait: \u201cVetus ac\nvenerabilis consuetudo linteum nuptiale visendi in plurimis Orientis\nregionibus pietate quadam religiosa adhuc praeservata viget; in familiis\nenim Muhammedanis, moribus priscis addictis, linteum hoc in gynaeceo, ut\ncernatur, expositum prostat, ut ... filiam marito illibatam se obtulisse\nostendat testeturque.... Opinio popularis praevalet nullam sanguinem\nposse peritos, _h. e_. matronas iuratrices, fallere, praeterquam sanguis\nturturillae, utpote qui sanguini hymenaeo existimetur esse simillimus,\nnisi indages adminiculo microscopii instituatur. Fides haec apud Europae\nAustralis populos bene universa est, tum etiam de re eadem in Anglia\nquoque me audisse memini.\u201d[661] Burton porro subiungit: \u201cArabes atque\nIndi in diebus nostris linteum nuptiale indagare, quemadmodum apud\nIudaeos Persasque usuvenit, raro sinunt. Sponsa mucinium candidum secum\nin lectum sumit, ut habeat quo cruorem manantem sopiat, postridie autem\nmane maculae in gynaeceo propalantur. In Darfuria vero, regione Africae,\nhoc ipsum a sponso perficitur.\u201d[662]\n\nApud Morduinos, gentem Fennicam, accolas Rha, mores prisci vigent.[663]\nConsuetudinem testimonium virginitatis exhibendi, vel in eius locum\nsanguinem pulli gallinacei substituendi, velut in partibus Asiae atque\nAfricae, in his Europae Septemtrione-Orientalis plagis ad usque modo\nreperiri licet. \u201cIn comitatu Crasnaslobodsceno, Provinciae Pensae,\nmulier neo-nupta e thalamo arcessitur, atque in camisia sua cruore\ncommaculata (si opus sit, etiam sanguine pulli gallinacei) a duabus\namicis labrum vacuum secum baiulantibus, vetulaque panem secum portante,\nad fluvium proximum deducitur. In iis autem regionibus, ubi Morduini\nRussorum moribus sunt magis imbuti, hospites nuptiales, quamprimum\nvirginitas sit comprobata, quidquid ipsis sub manus cadat, ut suum\ngaudium reverentiamque rite significent, confringunt atque\ncomminuunt.\u201d[664]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n Vide, exempli causa, Burtonii _Alf Laila va Laila_, II, 50, nota.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n _Ibid._, III, 289, nota.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n Vide p. 32-dam supra.\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n P. von Stenin: \u201cDie Ehe bei den Mordwinen,\u201d in _Globus_, Vol. LXV, No.\n 11 (1894), p. 183.\n\n-----\n\n PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF THE RITE.\n\nNavarchus Cook, in Chronico sui primi circum orbem itineris de F\u0153dere\nLiminari, ceu modo cultus publici in Otaheita, seu Tahiti, sequentia\nrefert:\n\n\u201cDie 14-mo (Maii), qui erat Solis, in castris cultum divinum celebrandum\niussi; maximopere desiderabamus ut principes Indorum huic interessent,\nat hi, quum hora appropinquasset, domum discesserunt. Verumtamen D\u00f1us\nBanks, traiecto flumine, Tuburai Tamaide suamque uxorem Tomio, secum\nreduxit, fore enim sperabat, ut cultus noster ab iis percontationes\nquasdam eliceret, non secus ac nobis instrui liceret: quum eos\ndiscumbere iussisset, ipse in medio eorum discubuit, qui durantibus\nceremoniis suum agendi modum summa animadversione sunt prosecuti\nactionesque imitati; stantes, considentes, genua flectentes, prout eum\nfacere videbant: haud erant nimirum ignari apud nos quiddam solemnis agi\natque serii, ut hoc vel inde concludi potuerit, quod hi suos populares\npraeter castra tripudiantes clamando ad silentiam servandum cohortati\nfuissent; attamen cultu absoluto, neuter percontabatur quid rei gestum\nesset, nec ullis volebant tentaminibus res gestas explicandi aures\npraebere.\n\n\u201cTalia erant nostra officia matutina; Indi vero nostri vesperas toto\ncoelo diversas iudicarunt esse offerendas. Vir quidam iuvenis, procerus,\nfere sex pedes, ritus Veneris cum pupula vix undenorum vel duodenorum\nannorum, pluribus nostrum magnoque popularium numero coram intuentibus,\nperfecit, quin actum dedecere, vel bonis adversari moribus senserit;\nverum, ut concludere licuit, moribus illius regionis omnino congruenter.\nErant autem in turba inspectante non paucae mulieres ordinum superiorum,\nin specie autem Oberea (mulier principalis illius Insulae, quae primum\nregina esse reputabatur), quae ad ceremonias ministrasse iure dici\npotest; nam mulieres hae puellam monendo instituebant quemadmodum vidl.\nsibi sua parte muneris obeundum esset.\u201d[665]\n\nQuum apud Samoanos nuptiae cuiusdam optimatum in diebus primaevis\ncelebrabantur, partes agnatique sponsae in _maroe_, seu foro publico\ncongregabantur, ubi sponsus, cunctis intuentibus, primam virginitatis\nsponsae obryssam instituit. Si documentum virginitatis ab eo exhiberi\npotuerat, coetus omnis exsurrexit complosisque manibus sponsae\ngratulabundus acclamavit; at, si quo casu proba haec defuerit, eam\nprobris scommatibusque lacessiverant. Apud plebem humilem ritus his in\naedibus privatis, nec tanta pompa celebrabatur.[666]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n _Voyages of Capt. James Cook_, I, 56.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n Turner\u2019s _Samoa a Hundred Years Ago_, pp. 93\u201395.\n\n-----\n\n BIBLE TESTIMONY.\n\nA distinct reference to the proofs of chastity, in the blood-stamped\ncloth, is found in the Bible record of the ancient law of Israel. \u201cIf\nany man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and lay shameful\nthings to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I\ntook this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the\ntokens of virginity: then shall the father of the damsel, and her\nmother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel\u2019s virginity unto\nthe elders of the city in the gate: and the damsel\u2019s father shall say\nunto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth\nher; and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I\nfound not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the\ntokens of my daughter\u2019s virginity. And they shall spread the garment [or\ncloth, Hebrew _simlah_] before the elders of the city.\n\n\u201cAnd the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him; and\nthey shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them\nunto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name\nupon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her\naway all his days. But if this thing be true, that the tokens of\nvirginity were not found in the damsel: then they shall bring out the\ndamsel to the doors of her father\u2019s house, and the men of the city shall\nstone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in\nIsrael, to play the harlot in her father\u2019s house.\u201d[667]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n Deut. 22 : 13\u201321.\n\n-----\n\n WOMAN AS A DOOR.\n\nIn different languages and among various peoples there is, as already\nsuggested,[668] an apparent connection between the terms, and the\ncorresponding ideas, of \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cdoor,\u201d that would seem to be a\nconfirmation of the fact that the earliest altar was at the threshold of\nthe woman, and of the door.\n\nThus, in the Song of Songs 8 : 8, 9:\u2013\n\n \u201cWe have a little sister,\n And she hath no breasts:\n What shall we do for our sister\n In the day when she shall be spoken for?\n If she be a wall,\n We will build upon her a turret of silver:\n And if she be a door,\n We will inclose her with boards of cedar.\u201d\n\nJob, cursing the day of his birth, says (Job 3 : 1\u201310):\n\n \u201cLet the day perish wherein I was born,\n And the night which said, There is a man child conceived....\n Neither let it behold the eyelids of the morning:\n Because it shut not up the doors of my mother\u2019s womb,\n Nor hid trouble from mine eyes.\u201d\n\nReferring to this passage, the Babylonian Talmud (Treatise Bechoroth, 45\na) quotes Rabbi Eliezer as saying, \u201cJust as a house has doors, so also a\nwoman has doors.\u201d Others say: \u201cJust as a house has keys [_miphteakh_,\nliterally \u2018opener\u2019], so the woman has a key; for it is said (Gen. 30 :\n22) \u2018God hearkened to her, and opened [a play upon _patakh_, \u2018to open,\u2019\nand _miphteakh_, \u2018key\u2019] her womb.\u2019\u201d The famous Rabbi Akibah says: \u201cJust\nas a house has hinges, so there are hinges to a wife; for it is written\n(1 Sam. 4 : 19), \u2018She kneeled and gave birth, for her hinges had turned\u2019\n[translating _\u1e63\u00eer\u00eem_ (or _tseereem_) as \u2018hinges\u2019 instead of \u2018pains\u2019; the\nword has the former meaning in Proverbs 26 : 14, \u2018As the door turneth\nupon its hinges, so doth the sluggard upon his bed.\u2019]\u201d\n\nThe Talmudic treatise Midd\u00e2 (Mishna \u00a7 2, 5) explains the different parts\nof the womb under the metaphors _kh\u0115d\u0115r_, \u201cinterior chamber;\u201d\n_p\u02berosd\u00f4r_, \u201cvestibule;\u201d _\u02bfal\u00eeyy\u00e2_, \u201cupper story.\u201d[669] Professor Dr.\nMorris Jastrow, Jr., in citing these metaphors, suggests that they\ncoincide with the Arabic and Egyptian custom of using a key in the\nmarriage rite, as described at page 244.\n\nCritics have long puzzled over the seemingly contradictory uses of the\nHebrew word _p\u00f4th_ in two places in the Old Testament; and the\nconnection of \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cdoor\u201d with the parts thereof, above\nsuggested, may aid in resolving the difficulty. At 1 Kings 7 : 50, in a\nlist of the holy vessels of the house of the Lord, there are mentioned\n\u201cthe hinges (Heb., _p\u00f4th\u00f4th_), both for the doors of the inner house,\nthe most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the\ntemple, of gold.\u201d At Isaiah 3 : 17 the same word _poth_ is translated\n\u201ctheir secret parts,\u201d in a reference to the humiliation of \u201cthe\ndaughters of Zion.\u201d It has been suggested by some that there was a\ncorruption of the text in Isaiah. (See Delitzsch and Dillmann, in their\ncommentaries at this place.) Yet in view of the rabbinical uses of\nlanguage, the text would seem to be trustworthy. _P\u00f4th_ is an \u201copening,\u201d\nof a _woman_ or of a _door_. Additional light is thrown on the use of\nthe term _p\u00f4th_ as \u201copening\u201d and as \u201chinge,\u201d or \u201csocket,\u201d when we bear\nin mind that the hinge of an Oriental door was a hole, or cavity, or\ndoor socket, on which the door turned, in order to give an opening or\nentrance. Often these door sockets were made of metal,\u2013bronze, silver,\nor gold.[670] Sometimes the entire thresholds, in which were these\nsockets or \u201cbasons,\u201d were of metal. If, however, the threshold was of\nstone or wood, the socket, or a plate with a depression in it, was of\nmetal. The _p\u00f4th_, therefore, when referring to a door, was the metal\nplate or socket in the threshold on which the door turned as on a hinge.\n\nIt is, indeed, possible that the opening or cavity in the ancient stone\nor metal threshold was sometimes the bason, or vessel, into which the\ncovenanting blood was poured.[671] In that case, the correspondence of\nthe opening of the woman, and the socket of the threshold, would be more\nobvious. Important inscriptions are usually found at or around these\nso-called \u201cdoor sockets,\u201d in Babylonian relics; and there is still doubt\nin many minds whether these cavities were always hinge sockets.\n\nThe word \u201chinges,\u201d or \u201changers,\u201d is at the best an inaccurate and\nmisleading term, as applied to the pivots or knuckles on which an\nancient door swung in its socket. Ancient doors were not hung on hinges,\nbut they swung on pivots. Instead of a hinge, there was a knuckle or\npintle, with a corresponding socket, or cavity, or opening, in the\nthreshold or door-sill. Both Gesenius[672] and Stade[673] give \u201csocket\u201d\nas one of the meanings of _p\u00f4th_. The plural, _p\u00f4thoth_, of course,\nrefers to the sockets of two leaves of a double door on one threshold.\n\nWhen Samson was shut in at Gaza by the Philistines, the double leaves of\nthe city gate were held together by a bar, without the lifting of which\nthe doors could not be opened. \u201cAnd Samson lay till midnight, and arose\nat midnight, and laid hold of the doors of the gate of the city, and the\ntwo posts [the upright stiles, at the bottom of which were the knuckles\nthat turned in the threshold sockets], and plucked them up, bar\n[cross-bar or latch] and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and\ncarried them up to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron.\u201d[674]\n\nI have in my possession a bronze door-socket and knuckle of an ancient\ngate or door, unearthed from a mound in the vicinity of Ghuzzeh, the\nsite of \u1f21 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7ancient Gaza, that meets this description.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nIn primitive symbolism, as shown in Babylonia, Egypt, and India, the\ncircle or ring, like this socket, represents woman.\n\nIt would be interesting, in this connection, to follow out the meanings\nand uses of the Greek words \u03c0\u03c5\u03b8\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd (_puthm\u0113n_), root \u03c6\u03c5 (_phu_); and\n\u03c6\u03bb\u03b9\u03ae (_phli\u0113_), doorpost, root \u03c6\u03bb\u03b9 (_phli_); compare \u03c6\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 (_phle\u014d_),\n\u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 (_philos_). It is evident that the twofold idea of the threshold\nof life, and the threshold, or sockets, of the door, is in the uses of\nthese terms and their derivatives in earlier and later Greek. But only\nthis suggestion can be made here.\n\nThe correspondence of \u201cwoman\u201d and \u201cdoor,\u201d or of \u201cwife\u201d and \u201cthreshold,\u201d\nin the Arabic, has already been pointed out.[675] A similar suggestion\nis in Sanskrit terms.[676]\n\nIn Germany, even at the present time, a common term for \u201cwoman\u201d is\n\u201cwoman chamber\u201d (_frauenzimmer_), as in Arabic _hareema_ is a woman,\nwhile _hareem_ is the women\u2019s apartment. A remark attributed to a\nprominent American clergyman, as showing the naturalness of the figure\nof woman as a door, is: \u201cHe who marries a wife opens a door, through\nwhich unborn generations shall troop.\u201d\n\nA Chinese character is the representation of \u201cthreshold,\u201d of \u201cdoor,\u201d and\nalso of \u201cwoman.\u201d[677] It is suggested by the lexicographer that the\norigin of this character was a small door in a large gate, as the inner\ndoor to the hareem or women\u2019s apartments; but it seems probable, from\nthe correspondence of this twofold idea with the primitive thought of\nwoman as the door of humanity, that the Chinese character must have had\nan origin prior to that degree of civilization which recognized such a\nclassification in household apartments. The combination of \u201cdoor\u201d and\n\u201cborder\u201d is another Chinese character[678] that stands for \u201cthreshold\u201d\nor \u201cdoor-sill.\u201d[679] Confucius said that this\n\nthreshold \u201cshould not be trodden on when walking through\u201d the door.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n See, for example, 197 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n See also citations from Buxtorf at p. 200, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n See pp. 127, 132 f., 207 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n See p. 207 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n _Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, M\u00fclhan and Volck, 11th ed., s. v.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n _Woerterbuch u. Alt. Test._, s. v.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n Judges 16 : 3.\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n See p. 200, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n See p. 197 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n _\u2019kw\u2019 un_\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n _y\u00fc_\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n See S. Wells Williams\u2019s _Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language_,\n pp. 496, 1141.\n\n-----\n\n SYMBOLISM OF THE TWO SEXES.\n\nAs showing the antiquity, as well as the universality, of the symbolism\nof the two sexes as the source of life, in connection with reverent\nworship, an illustration of the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead is\nnoteworthy. In a vignette on Chapter CXXV, in the Papyrus Ani, a\nworshiper, is represented before the throne of Osiris, in the Hall of\nRighteousness, with uplifted hands, in token of covenant worship, while\nhis offering is a lotus flower, the symbol of fecundity, laid on the\nconventional phallus, the symbol of virility.[680] This vignette is\nreproduced on the cover of this volume. The lotus flower has the same\nsignification in Assyria and India as in Egypt.[681]\n\nThe pine cone, which, as the symbol of virility and vitalizing force,\nwas prominent in the ancient Assyrian sculptures, as also in the\nPhenician and Grecian cults,[682] was likewise to be found in ancient\nRome. An enormous bronze pine cone, eleven feet high, probably older\nthan the Christian era, still ornaments a fountain in the gardens of the\nVatican. Lanciani says: \u201cPope Symmachus, who did so much toward the\nembellishment of sacred edifices in Rome (between 498 and 514), removed\nthe pine cone from its ancient place, most probably from Agrippa\u2019s\nartificial lake in the Campus Martius, and used it for adorning the\nmagnificent fountain which he had built in the center of the so-called\n\u2018Paradise\u2019 of S. Peter\u2019s, viz., in the center of the square portico in\nfront of the basilica.\u201d[683]\n\nAmong the Pompeian relics in the Royal Museum at Naples is a\nrepresentation of a woman making an offering to Priapus in order to be\ncured of sterility. She brings a pine cone, while her husband is near\nher.[684]\n\nEvidences of the fact that boundary posts, landmarks, and milestones\nwere intended to represent the phallus at the threshold in the Roman\nempire, as in the far East, abound among the same relics in the\nNeapolitan Museum.[685]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n Le Page Renouf\u2019s Book of the Dead in _Proceedings of the Society of\n Biblical Archaeology_, for November, 1895. Plate xxxi.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n See pp. 199, 234, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n See Barker\u2019s _Lares and Penates; Or, Cilicia and its Governors_, p.\n 217 f.; also see p. 231 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n Lanciani\u2019s _Ancient Rome_, p. 286 f.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n Ain\u00e9\u2019s _Herculaneum et Pomp\u00e9i_, Tome VIII, Planche 56, facing p. 221.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n _Ibid._, Pl. 24, 25, 27, 30, 39, 41, 44, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59.\n\n-----\n\n SYMBOLISM OF TREE AND SERPENT.\n\nA striking confirmation of the view taken in this work of the symbolism\nof the serpent, as the nexus between the two sexes, the female being\nrepresented by the fig-tree, and the male by the upright stone, or\npole,[686] is found in an ancient religious custom in Mysore, India.\nCaptain J.S.F. Mackenzie contributed an interesting paper on this\nsubject to the \u201cIndian Antiquary.\u201d[687] \u201cRound about Bangalore, more\nespecially towards the Lal Bagh and _Petta_,\u2013as the native town is\ncalled,\u2013three or more stones are to be found together, having\nrepresentations of serpents carved upon them. These stones are erected\nalways under the sacred fig-tree by some pious person, whose means and\npiety determine the care and finish with which they are executed.\nJudging from the number of the stones, the worship of the serpent\nappears to be more prevalent in the Bangalore district than in other\nparts of the province. No priest is ever in charge of them. There is no\nobjection to men doing so, but from custom, or for some reason,\u2013perhaps\nbecause the serpent is supposed to confer fertility on barren women,\u2013the\nworshiping of the stones, which takes place during the Gauri feast, is\nconfined to women of all Hindu classes and creeds. The stones, when\nproperly erected, ought to be on a built-up stone platform facing the\nrising sun, and under the shade of two _peepul_ (_Ficus religiosa_)\ntrees,\u2013a male and female growing together, and wedded by ceremonies, in\nevery respect the same as in the case of human beings,\u2013close by, and\ngrowing in the same platform a nimb (_margosa_) and _bipatra_ (a kind of\nwood-apple), which are supposed to be living witnesses of the marriage.\nThe expense of performing the marriage ceremony is too heavy for\nordinary persons, and so we generally find only one _peepul_ and a\n_nimb_ on the platform. By the common people these two are supposed to\nrepresent man and wife.\u201d\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n See pp. 230\u2013240, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n Cited in _Notes and Queries_, fifth series, Vol. IV, p. 463.\n\n-----\n\n COVENANT OF THRESHOLD-CROSSING.\n\nAn American gentleman traveling among the Scandinavian immigrants in\nWisconsin and Minnesota, was surprised to see their house doors quite\ngenerally standing open, as if they had no need of locks and bolts. He\nargued from this that they were an exceptionally honest people, and that\nthey had no fear of thieves and robbers. A Scandinavian clergyman, being\nasked about this, said that they had thieves in that region, but that\nthieves would not cross a threshold, or enter a door, with evil intent,\nbeing held back by a superstitious fear of the consequences of such a\nviolation of the covenant obligation incurred in passing over the\nthreshold.\n\nI asked a native Syrian woman, \u201cIf a thief wanted to get into your house\nto steal from you, would he come in at the door, if he saw that open?\u201d\n\u201cOh, no!\u201d she answered, \u201che would come in at the window, or would dig in\nfrom behind.\u201d \u201cWhy wouldn\u2019t he come in at the door?\u201d I asked. \u201cBecause\nhis _reverence_ would keep him from that,\u201d she said, in evident\nreference to the superstitious dread of crossing a threshold with evil\nintent,\u2013a dread growing out of an inborn survival of reverence for the\nprimitive altar, with the sacredness of a covenant entered into by its\ncrossing.\n\nThe very term commonly employed in the New Testament for thieving\nindicates the \u201cdigging through\u201d a building, instead of entering by the\ndoor. \u201cLay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth\nand rust doth consume, and where thieves break through [literally, dig\nthrough; Greek, _dioruss\u014d_ and steal.\u201d[688] \u201cIf the master of the house\nhad known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched, and\nnot have left his house to be digged through.\u201d[689]\n\nCanon Tristram tells of an Adwan shaykh who was proud of being a\n\u201crobber,\u201d a \u201chighwayman,\u201d but who resented the idea that he was a\n\u201cthief,\u201d\u2013a \u201csneak thief.\u201d \u201cI am not a thief,\u201d he said; \u201cI do not dig\ninto the houses of fellaheen in the night. I would scorn it. I only take\nby force in the day time. And, if God gives me strength, shall I not use\nit?\u201d Canon Tristram adds: \u201cA \u2018thief,\u2019 as distinguished from a \u2018robber,\u2019\nwould never think of attempting to force the door, but would noiselessly\ndig through a wall in the rear,\u2013a work of no great labor, as the walls\nare generally of earth, or sun-dried bricks, or, at best, of stone\nimbedded in turf instead of in mortar.\u201d[690]\n\nA former missionary in Palestine[691] says: \u201cDigging through the wall is\nthe common method pursued by housebreakers in Palestine, and, save in\nthe cities, the operation is not one of great difficulty. Windows, in\nour sense, do not exist in the houses of the villagers; ... but the\nwalls, built of roughly broken stones and mud, are easily, and by a\nskilled hand almost noiselessly, penetrated. One night, about midnight,\nI was driven from my resting-place under a stunted olive-tree in the\nplain of Sharon by a terrific thunderstorm, and took refuge in the\nmiserable fellahy village of Kalansaweh. A good woman unbarred her door\nand admitted me to a single apartment, in which, on the ground level,\nwere several sheep and cattle, with an ass, and on the higher level a\npretty large family asleep, all dimly discerned by the light of a little\noil lamp stuck in a crevice of the wall. The atmosphere was awful. I\nasked why they did not have a window or opening in the wall. The woman\nheld up her hands in amazement. \u2018What!\u2019 she exclaimed, \u2018and assist the\nrobbers [\u201cthieves\u201d]?\u2019... The robbers [\u2018thieves\u2019], she explained, were\nthe Arabs in the plain. Greater rascals do not exist. They were great\nexperts, she explained, in \u2018digging through\u2019 the houses; to put a window\nin the wall would only tempt them, and facilitate their work.\u201d\n\nNow, as of old, among the more primitive pastoral people of Palestine,\n\u201cHe that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but\nclimbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.... The\nthief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy.\u201d[692]\n\nI remember now, what I did not realize the meaning of at the time, that\nwhile I was journeying in Arabia we did not set a watch before the\nentrance of our tents, when we were near a village; but the guards were\nat the rear of the tents, to watch against thieves, who would crawl\nunderneath the canvas to steal what they might.\n\nIt seems to have been a custom in medieval times, and probably earlier,\nfor the besiegers in war time to endeavor to enter a city which they\nwould sack through a breach in the walls, or by scaling the walls,\nrather than by entering the gates. On the other hand, if a conqueror\nwould protect the inhabitants of a captured city, he would pass in\nthrough the opened gates. To deliver up the keys of the city gates to a\nhostile commander was equivalent to capitulating or making formal terms\nof surrender. In the military museum at Berlin are preserved the keys of\ncities captured by the emperors of Germany at various times along the\ncenturies.\n\nThere is a trace of this custom of besiegers, even in Old Testament\ntimes, in the injunctions to Israel with reference to its warfares:\n\u201cWhen thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim\npeace unto it [proffer quarter]. And it shall be, if it make thee answer\nof peace, and open [the gates] unto thee, then it shall be, that all the\npeople that is found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall\nserve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war\nagainst thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God\ndelivereth it into thine hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with\nthe edge of the sword.\u201d[693]\n\nIt has been suggested on a former page,[694] but perhaps not\nsufficiently explained, that this idea of subjecting one\u2019s self to the\ncovenant obligations of citizenship by passing through the city gates,\nover the threshold, had to do with the Grecian custom of welcoming back\nto his own city the victor in the Olympian games through a breach in the\nwalls, instead of through the gate. The meaning of this Greek custom\n(continued in Rome) was not clear in the days of Plutarch, and he, in\nseeking to account for it, suggests that it may have been intended to\nshow that a city having such men among its citizens needed no walls of\ndefense.[695] But, as they rebuilt their walls after the entrance of the\nvictor, this explanation is not satisfactory. The world-wide recognition\nof the covenant obligations of a passage through a gate over the\nthreshold is a more satisfactory explanation. If the victor, on\nreturning in triumph from the games, were to enter his city through the\ngates, like any other citizen, he would be subject to the laws of the\ncity as a citizen or a guest; but if the city would recognize him as a\nconqueror, at home as well as at Olympia, they would let him come in\nthrough a breach in the walls. In this act the citizens nominally\nsubmitted themselves to him; and a city thus entered, and, as it were,\ncaptured, often felt that it received more honor from its victor than it\ncould confer upon him.[696]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n Matt. 6 : 19; also Matt. 6 : 20.\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n Luke 12 : 39; also Matt. 24 : 43; Exod. 22 : 2; Ezek. 12 : 2\u20137.\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n See The Sunday School Times for March 7, 1896.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n The Rev. William Ewing, in The Sunday School Times for March 7, 1896.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n John 10 : 1, 10.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n Deut. 20 : 10\u201313.\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n See pp. 5\u20137, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n Plutarch, _Symp._, Bk. ii, Quest. 5, \u00a7 2.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n See Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq._, s. vv. \u201cAthlet\u00e6,\u201d and\n \u201cOlympic Games;\u201d Gardner\u2019s _New Chapters in Greek History_, pp.\n 297\u2013302.\n\n-----\n\n DOORKEEPER, AND CARRIER.\n\nA \u201cporter\u201d and a \u201cporter\u201d are two very different persons, as the terms\nare employed in both Europe and America. We speak of a porter as a\nmenial who carries burdens, such as parcels or baggage, a mere carrier\nfor hire. Again, we speak of a porter as the attendant at, or the\ncustodian of, the entrance gate of a mansion or public building. In the\none case the porter is a very humble personage, in the other case he is\na person of responsibility and importance. How it came about that the\nsame term is applied to both these personages is worth considering, in\nview of its bearing on the importance of the door and the gate.\n\nIt is said to have been a custom of the ancient Etruscans and Romans,\nand perhaps of older peoples, in laying out the foundations of a city,\nto mark first the compass of the whole city with a plow. When they came\nto those places where they were to have the gates of the city, they took\nup the plow and carried it across the gateway, \u201ctransported\u201d the plow at\nthat space. It is said that from this custom the Latin word _porta_ came\nto apply to \u201ca gate,\u201d \u201c_a portando aratrum_,\u201d \u201cfrom carrying the\nplow,\u201d\u2013_porta_, in Latin, meaning \u201cto carry.\u201d Whether or not the\ntraditional custom referred to had a historical basis, it will be seen\nthat the mere fact of the tradition will account for the twofold use, in\nlanguages derived from the Latin, of the word \u201cporter\u201d as a carrier, and\nagain as a doorkeeper, or a gate watcher, or a guardian of the\nthreshold. Apart from the question of the origin of the terms, we find\nthat the porter or carrier is one who goes through the gate as the place\nof entrance or exit in his carryings; or, again, the porter or guardian\nof the gate is one who watches the place of carryings, and of outgoing\nand incoming.\n\nAmong the stories told of the founding of Rome by Romulus, it is said\nthat at the threshold of this enterprise the people kindled fires before\ntheir tents, and then leaped through or over the flames.[697] In\nconnection with this ceremony sacrifices were offered, and offerings of\nthe first-fruits of forest and field were made to the gods.[698] A\nheifer and a bull were yoked to the plow, as in symbol of marriage, and\nafterwards were offered in sacrifice, thus supplying the symbolic blood\non the threshold of the new city.[699] Plutarch, it is true, thinks\nthat, in consequence of this custom of laying out a city, the walls of a\ncity, _except the gates_, were counted sacred; but in this, as in other\nmatters relating to the threshold,[700] it is evident that Plutarch was\nnot sure to be correct as to the meaning of archaic customs.\n\nThere seems to be force in the suggestion that the two Latin words,\n_porta_ and _porto_, like the Greek _poros_, were derived from the\ncommon Aryan root _par_ or _por_, \u201cto go,\u201d \u201cto bring over,\u201d \u201cto pass\nthrough.\u201d[701] However this may be, we have the common English use of\nthe term \u201cport\u201d in words meaning a door or entrance, and again a\ncarrying or a place of carriage, as \u201cexport,\u201d \u201cimport,\u201d \u201ctransport,\u201d\n\u201cportico,\u201d \u201cporthole,\u201d \u201cportfolio,\u201d etc.\n\nAn illustration of the twofold use of the word is found in the word \u201ca\nportage\u201d or \u201ca carry\u201d as the designation of \u201ca break in a chain of water\ncommunication over which goods, boats, etc., have to be carried, as from\none lake or river to another.\u201d It is not merely that this is a place\nwhere a canoe, or other luggage, must be carried, but it is the definite\n\u201ccarry\u201d or \u201cportage,\u201d the bridge, or isthmus, or door, or\nthreshold,[702] by which they enter another region. This is the common\nAmerican use of the term in pioneer life.[703]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n A primitive wedding ceremony. See pp. 39\u201342, 142 f., 212, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n See, again, pp. 16 f., 46 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n See _Plutarch\u2019s Lives_, \u201cRomulus;\u201d also references to Strabo, and\n Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in Hooke\u2019s _Roman History_, I., 42.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n See references at pp. 39, 263, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n See Skeat\u2019s _Etymological Dictionary_ and the _Century Dictionary_, s.\n v.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n See p. 180 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n See \u201cportage\u201d in _The Century Dictionary_, with examples of usage.\n\n-----\n\n PASSING OVER INTO A COVENANT.\n\nAs these pages are going to press, Dr. Sailer calls my attention to the\nphrase \u05dc\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea _la\u02bfabhor bibereeth_, to enter, or pass over, into a\ncovenant. This phrase, as Dr. Driver[704] points out, is found only in\none place, at Deuteronomy 29 : 12. \u201cThat thou shouldest enter [or pass]\ninto the covenant of the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord\nthy God maketh with thee this day.\u201d\n\nIt is evident that here is the idea of passing over a line or boundary,\nor threshold limit, into another region, or state or condition. Until\nthat threshold is crossed, the person is outside of the covenant with\nits privileges and benefits; but when it is crossed, or passed, the\nperson is a partaker of all that is within.\n\nThis word _\u02bfabhar_ corresponds with, while it differs from, the word\n_pasakh_. The two words have, indeed, been counted by some\nlexicographers as practically equivalents. Thus F\u00fcrst[705] gives\n\u201c_pasakh_=_\u02bfabhar_.\u201d In the covenant which Jehovah makes with Abraham,\nfor himself and his posterity (Gen. 15 : 1\u201321), when the heifer and the\nshe goat and the ram had been slaughtered and divided, and the pieces\nlaid over against each other as two walls, or sides of a door, with the\nblood probably poured out on the earth as a threshold between, \u201ca\nsmoking furnace and a flaming torch,\u201d\u2013representing the divine\npresence\u2013\u201cpassed,\u201d or covenant-crossed, the blood on the threshold\n\u201cbetween these pieces,\u201d between these fleshly walls or door-posts of the\nsacrifice.[706]\n\nIn Jeremiah 34 : 18, the word appears in its twofold signification, in\nconjunction with a similar double use of the word _karath_ (\u201cto cut\u201d).\nJehovah says, \u201cI will give the men that have transgressed [_\u02bfabhar_,\ncrossed or passed] my covenant, ... which they made [cut] before me when\nthey cut the calf in twain and passed [over its blood] between the parts\nthereof.\u201d Again, in Amos 7 : 8, Jehovah says of his reprobate people, \u201cI\nwill not again pass by [_\u02bfabhar_] them [covenant-cross them] any more.\u201d\n\nThere seems to be a trace of this cross-over, or pass-over, covenant\nidea in the references to the passing through the fire in the worship of\nfalse gods, as at 2 Kings 16 : 3, where King Ahaz is said to have\n\u201cwalked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass\nthrough [_\u02bf\u02bfabhar_] the fire, according to the abominations of the\nheathen.\u201d[707] It is evident that this passing through the fire in honor\nof a false god was not the being thrown into the fire as a burnt\noffering; for such sacrifices are referred to by themselves, as at\nDeuteronomy 12 : 31, where it is said of the people of Jehovah that\n\u201ceven their sons and their daughters do they burn [_saraph_] in the fire\nto their gods.\u201d[708] In the same chapter of 2 Kings (17 : 17, 31) the\ntwo phrases of causing children to \u201cpass through\u201d the fire, and of\n\u201cburning\u201d children in the fire, are separately referred to, in\nillustration of the fact that they are not one and the same thing.\n\nIt has already been shown[709] that jumping across, or being lifted\nover, a fire, at the threshold, is an ancient mode of covenanting, still\nsurviving in many marriage or other customs; and that the blood of both\nhuman and substitute sacrifices has often been poured out at the same\nprimitive altar.\n\nUnder the figure of a marriage covenant Jehovah speaks, in Ezekiel 16 :\n8, of entering into a covenant, when he takes the virgin Israel as his\nbride: \u201cYea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee,\nsaith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.\u201d Here the more common word\n_bo_ is used for the idea of entering; but its connection with the\ncovenant of marriage would seem to connect it, like the other words,\n_pasach_ and _\u02bfabhar_, with the thought of crossing over the threshold\nor barrier into a new state.\n\n ENGLAND\u2019S CORONATION STONE.\n\nA notable survival of the primitive reverence for the one foundation, or\nthe original threshold, as the earliest place of sacrifice and\ncovenanting,[710] is shown in the famous \u201cCoronation Stone\u201d in\nWestminster Abbey. This stone is under the chair in which all the\nsovereigns of England from Edward I. to Victoria have been crowned. It\nwas brought by Edward I. to England from Scone, the coronation seat of\nthe kings of Scotland. The legend attached to it was that it was the\nstone pillar on which Jacob rested at Bethel,\u2013the House of God where\nAbraham worshiped, and where Jacob covenanted with God for all his\ngenerations.[711]\n\n\u201cIn it, or upon it, the Kings of Scotland were placed by the Earls of\nFife. From it Scone became the \u2018_sedis principalis_\u2019 of Scotland, and\nthe kingdom of Scotland the kingdom of Scone.\u201d Since the days of Edward\nI., it has never been removed from Westminster Abbey, except when\nCromwell was installed as Lord Protector in Westminster Hall, on which\noccasion it was brought out in order that he might be placed on it.\n\nAs in ancient Babylonia, in Egypt, in Syria, in India, in China, in\nArabia, in Greece, in Scandinavia, the one primitive foundation was\ndeemed the only foundation on which to build securely with Divine\napproval, so in the very center of the highest modern civilization the\nreputed foundation stone of the kingdom of the \u201cFather of the Faithful\u201d\nis deemed the only secure coronation, or installation, seat of King,\nQueen, or Lord Protector. Is it not reasonable to suppose that this\nfeeling has a basis in primitive religious convictions and customs?\n\nDean Stanley, referring to this Coronation Stone as \u201cprobably the chief\nobject of attraction to the innumerable visitors to the Abbey,\u201d says of\nit: \u201cIt is the one primeval monument which binds together the whole\nEmpire. The iron rings, the battered surface, the crack which has all\nbut rent its solid mass asunder, bear witness to its long migrations. It\nis thus embedded in the heart of the English monarchy\u2013an element of\npoetic, patriarchal, heathen times, which, like Araunah\u2019s rocky\nthreshing-floor in the midst of the Temple of Solomon, carries back our\nthoughts to races and customs now almost extinct; a link which unites\nthe Throne of England to the traditions of Tara and Iona, and connects\nthe charm of our complex civilization with the forces of our mother\nearth,\u2013the stocks and stones of savage nature.\u201d[712]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n Driver\u2019s _Deuteronomy_, p. 323.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n _Heb. Chald. Lex._, s. v.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n See p. 187 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n See, also, 2 Kings 21 : 6; 23 : 10; 2 Chron. 33 : 6; Ezek. 16 : 21; 20\n : 26, 31; 23 : 37.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n See, also, Jer. 7 : 31; 19 : 5.\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n See pp. 39\u201342, 142 f., 212, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n See pp. 153\u2013164, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n See Dean Stanley\u2019s _Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, first\n edition, pp. 59\u201367; also, Appendices, pp. 492\u2013502.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n See Dean Stanley\u2019s _Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, first\n edition, pp. 64\u201366.\n\n-----\n\n INDEXES.\n\n TOPICAL INDEX.\n\n Aaron and his sons consecrated at doorway, 119.\n Aberdeenshire:\n New Year\u2019s custom in, 20 f.;\n sacredness of threshold in, 34.\n Abimelech and Abraham settling disputed boundary, 170.\n Abiram, Jericho\u2019s foundation laid in blood of, 47.\n Aborigines of America, worship of, 148.\n Abraham:\n promise that his seed should possess gate of enemies, 65;\n lifting up his hand to God, 82;\n coming from Haran and Ur, 160;\n his offering on Mt. Moriah, 161;\n directed to rebuild holy house at Meccah, 163;\n and Abimelech settling disputed boundary, 170;\n the Lord\u2019s covenant welcome to, 187;\n his visit to home of Ishmael in Arabia, 200;\n covenant with, 211.\n Absalom in \u201cway of the gate\u201d to do judgment, 64.\n Abyla and Calp\u00eb as boundary marks, 181.\n Abyssinia:\n bride carried to her new home in, 38;\n prominence of door in, 107;\n churches of, on hill or in grove, 130 f.;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Acropolis, Propyl\u00e6a built by Pericles on, 158.\n Adam as builder of Holy House at Meccah, 163.\n \u201cAdam Khan and Durkhani,\u201d poem of Afghans, 58.\n Adonis of Greece, reference to, 115.\n Adoption:\n of guest in Egypt and Syria, 3;\n of bride by stepping over blood at threshold, 26;\n among Arabs accompanied by sacrifice at door, 59.\n \u201cAdultery,\u201d affiliation with any but true God called, 213.\n \u00c6neas at court of Queen Dido, 130.\n \u00c6schylus, reference to, 134.\n \u00c6sculapius represented by serpent, 236.\n Afghans, protection for all at threshold among, 58.\n Africa:\n human sacrifice in Central, 8 f.;\n fowl sacrificed for guest in West, 9;\n sheep sacrificed for guest in Central, 9;\n bloody grass on threshold in Equatorial, 15;\n sacrifices at threshold among Somalis of, 27;\n threshold customs in South, 28;\n bride carried over threshold in West, 39;\n bloody hand in North, 78 f.;\n bloody hand in, 93;\n primitive sacredness of doorway in, 132;\n boundary lines in, 174;\n trees as boundaries in Equatorial, 174;\n exhibit of blood stains in western, 246.\n Agade, Istar of, 153.\n _Agni_, masculine, 198.\n Ahab, reference to time of, 47.\n Ain\u00e9\u2019s _Herc. at Pomp._: cited, 258.\n Akibah, Rabbi: cited, 253.\n Alaska:\n dead not carried over threshold in, 24;\n human sacrifices at foundation of houses in, 50 f.\n Albanians, crossing threshold right foot foremost, 37 f.\n Alcino\u00fcs, temple palace of, 132, 135.\n Alee, kissing threshold of tomb of, 124.\n Alexandri, poem by, regarding foundation sacrifice, 52.\n Algiers, walls of, laid in blood of Christian captive, 48.\n Algonquins, prominence of hand among, 84.\n _\u02bfAl\u00eeyy\u00e2_, symbolic meaning of, 253.\n Allat, sovereign of Hades, life restored at threshold of, 113 f.\n Altamash, emperor of India, building mosk, 157.\n Altar:\n primitive family, 3;\n reverence for threshold, 10-25;\n offering of life on threshold, 16;\n near door in Mexico, 21;\n sanctity of threshold as primitive, 22;\n reference to souls under, 25;\n saint or ecclesiastic buried under, in Europe, 25;\n threshold, in Russia, 31 f.;\n offerings at threshold, in Holland, 33;\n before door at marriage in Borneo, 34;\n sacredness of threshold in Scotland, 34;\n fire taken over threshold among Hindoos, 40 f.;\n lamb buried under, in Swedish tradition, 56;\n before Greek houses, 72;\n at or before threshold, 102, 136;\n in doorway of temple at Nippur, 111;\n of burnt offering, blood poured out at, 119;\n at doorway, in Jerusalem, Phenicia, Phrygia, Aphrodisias, 121;\n at threshold in Egyptian temple, 126;\n at Yeha, 131;\n _l\u00e9l\u00e9_, name for, 150 f.\n Altar-fire:\n connecting link between nuptial torch and, 41;\n crossing, in Russia, 42;\n references to, 39 f., 99-102, 226.\n Amara Deva, temple builder, 156.\n Amara Sinha, temple builder, 156.\n Amenophis IV. before Aten-ra, 81.\n America, Central:\n bridal couple carried over threshold in, 45;\n blood of sacrificial offerings smeared on doorways in, 73;\n earliest form of temple in, 144;\n boys sacrificed in, 145;\n temples of, 145, 148;\n nuptial customs of, 196;\n sculptures indicating covenant rite between first pair in, 202;\n marriage ceremonies in, 246.\n America, North:\n survival of sacrifice in, 8;\n treading on threshold in, 13;\n coffin passed out window of house in, 25;\n window opened and door closed at death in, 25;\n nailing horseshoes on side-posts of doorway in, 73 f.;\n symbol of open hands in museums of, 79;\n red hand among aborigines of, 83 f., 93;\n laying of corner-stones in, 147;\n survival of primitive sacredness of threshold in, 147;\n aborigines of, religious worship of, 148;\n boundary lines in, 174;\n symbol of covenant among primitive peoples in, 201;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n America, South:\n blood smeared on doorway in, 73;\n earliest form of temple in, 144;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n serpent as religious symbol in, 235.\n America, United States of:\n vice-consul of, in Egypt, reference to, 7 f.;\n boundary marks in, 126, 182 f.\n American Architect, reference to the, 175.\n American Indians, red-hand symbolism among, 85-93.\n Amon, temple of, reference to, 185.\n Amorite, daughter of, 213.\n \u02beAnazeh Bed\u00b4ween, sacrifice at threshold among, 26.\n Andersson, Charles John: cited, 28.\n Ani before throne of Osiris, 257.\n Animals:\n images of, on Mordvin door-posts, 42 f.;\n substituted for human beings in sacrifice, 46;\n lower, as distinguished from man, 223.\n Animals sacrificed. See _Sacrifice_.\n _Ankh_, or _crux ansata_, 201.\n Anointing door-posts among Latins, 29 f.\n Antariksha invoked on door-sill, 15.\n Antelii presiding over entrance, 97.\n Antiquary, The, reference to, 50.\n Anu, gate of, reference to, 95\n Apaches:\n prominence of red hand among, 87;\n reference to, 88.\n Aphrodisias, altar on threshold in ancient, 121.\n Apollo:\n temple of, at Delphi, 134;\n represented by female oracle, 236;\n slayer of serpent, 236.\n Apollo Agyieus, altar of, placed before house among Greeks, 72.\n Apollo Thyr\u00e6us, at entrance, 97.\n Arabia:\n crossing threshold in, 10;\n blood at door-post to secure protection in, 59 f.;\n kissing threshold in, 129;\n Eve settling in, 164;\n Abraham\u2019s visit to Ishmael in, 200;\n use of pigeon poult\u2019s blood in, 248.\n Arabic term for woman, 256.\n Arabs:\n of Central Africa, blood welcome among, 9;\n sacrifice at threshold among, 26;\n \u201chouse of hair\u201d of, 57;\n of Syrian Desert, doorway sacrifice in joining another tribe, 58 f.;\n red hand on houses of, in Jerusalem, 76;\n _wely_ common as place of worship for, in Egypt, 129;\n exhibit of evidences among, 249.\n Arafat near Meccah, 163 f.\n Arapahoes, red hand among, 87.\n Arch, memorial, meaning of, 103.\n Archangel, foundation sacrifice in, 54.\n Architecture:\n influence of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt in doorway, 60;\n of temples in China and Japan, 101;\n sacredness of threshold recognized in, 102.\n Arcot, Nabob of, banners with painted hands carried before, 78.\n Areca-nut eaten in marriage covenant in Borneo, 34.\n Arickarees, red hand among, 87.\n Ark of Hebrews in house of Dagon, 116.\n Armenian Christians, blood on threshold among, 26.\n Armenians, sacred inscriptions above doorway of, 71.\n Arta, bridge of, story of burying women alive to secure, 52.\n Artemis Propyl\u00e6a at Eleusis, 134.\n Aryan origin of red hand, 75.\n Aryan races:\n reference to, 197;\n language and customs of, 199.\n Asherah, command to Israelites concerning, 233.\n Ashtaroth, symbol of, 214.\n Ashurn\u00e2sirapli, references to, 178, 184.\n Asia:\n bloody hand in marriage in, 93;\n traces of primitive sacredness of doorway found in, 132;\n boundary lines in, 174.\n See, also, _China_, _India_, _Japan_.\n Asia Minor:\n human sacrifice in, 47 f.;\n references to, 93, 132, 174;\n altar on threshold in early Christian remains in, 121.\n _Askuppu_, word for threshold, 110.\n Asshur and his worshipers represented with uplifted hands, 80.\n Assioot:\n threshold sacrifice at, 7 f.;\n General Grant at border line of, 186.\n Assyria:\n images buried under threshold in, 14;\n crossing threshold in marriage in ancient, 39;\n influence of, shown in architecture of doorways, 60;\n uplifted hand in representing deities of, 79;\n inscriptions at doorway in, 108 f.;\n guardians of threshold in, 111;\n Zephaniah\u2019s curse on, 115;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Assyrian:\n word _nish_\u2013lifting up hand, 83;\n city gates named after special god, 95;\n god Nergal beneath threshold, 95;\n gods Ea and Merodach at gate of house, 95;\n monuments on doorway shrine, 105;\n king, sculptured image of, with arms uplifted, 115;\n kings and boundary lines, 177;\n kings offering sacrifices at boundaries of empire, 184;\n temples, furniture of, 207;\n sculpture, testimony of, 231, 257.\n Assyro-Babylonians and boundary lines, 185.\n Athaliah, priests assigned to service at threshold in days of, 120.\n Athenian generals offering sacrifices to Mercury, 172.\n Atlas upholding heaven, 132.\n Attica and Peloponnesus, boundary between, 180.\n Aubrey, John: cited, 74.\n Avaika, or under world, 152.\n Avatea, part man and part fish, 152.\n Azila, reference to, 62.\n Aztecs, marriage ceremonies among, 246.\n\n\n Baal, symbol of, 214.\n \u201cBab,\u201d or Door, spiritual head of Babists, 103.\n Babel, tower of, or door of God, 103.\n Babelon, Ernest, reference to, 60.\n B\u00e2b-ilu, B\u00e2bi-ilu, Bab-el, Door of God, 103.\n Babist sect in Persia, 103 f.\n Babylon:\n Daniel as judge in, 64;\n reference to, 75;\n king of, recognized by uplifted hand, 80;\n building of walls of, 109 f.;\n gates dedicated to gods in, 110;\n temples with altars outside in, 111 f.;\n kings of, 154;\n final overthrow of, 211;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n ancient, in religious symbolism, 234.\n Babylonia:\n inscriptions placed at threshold in, 22;\n influence shown in architecture of doorways, 60;\n red hand on houses and animals in, 75;\n uplifted hand in representing deities of, 79;\n swinging doors in religious symbolism of, 105;\n sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;\n guardians of threshold in, 111;\n crossing threshold in death in literature and legends of, 112 f.;\n sacredness of doorway above threshold in, 126 f.;\n temple building in, 153;\n boundaries in, 177;\n indications of presence of deity in, 201;\n ancient, religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235.\n Babylonian:\n tablet of Nebuchadrezzar on gate as place of justice, 60;\n character for house, palace, and temple identical, 99 f.;\n monuments on doorway shrine, 105;\n literature, reference to, 109;\n Hades surrounded by seven walls with seven gates, 113;\n idea of future life, 128;\n king, reference to last, 153;\n sun-god Shamash, 201;\n temples, furniture of, 207.\n Babylonian and Oriental Record, reference to, 231.\n Babylonian Talmud, reference to, 253.\n Babylonians, twofold symbols among, 200.\n Bagdad, khaleefs of, threshold custom of, 10.\n Baker, Sir Samuel W., quotation from, 9.\n Balawat gates, gods and kings at, 105.\n Baldensperger, P.J.: cited, 29.\n _Bali_:\n meaning of word, 15;\n placed on door-sill among Hindoos, 15;\n offering demanded at all doors, 15.\n Ballads, popular, on human sacrifice in foundation building, 52.\n Baltimore, Lord, boundary lines reported to, 182.\n Bancroft, H.H.:\n cited, 34 f., 45, 56, 144, 146, 202, 247;\n reference to, 108.\n Bangalore, serpent worship in, 258 f.\n Banks of lakes as boundaries, 178.\n Banners inscribed with open hand in Turkey and Persia, 78.\n Baptism, place of, in early churches, 137.\n Baptismal custom with reference to threshold, 18 f.\n Baptismal font, location of, in Protestant Episcopal churches, 147.\n Baptist, John the, mission of, 218.\n Baring-Gould, Rev. S.: quotation from, 138 f.\n Barker, W.B., reference to, 257.\n Barnabas and Paul at Lystra, 135.\n \u201cBason\u201d word for _saph_ in English Bible, 206.\n Bat:\n under threshold in Roumania, 20;\n superstitions among primitive peoples regarding, 20.\n Baveddeen, famous threshold stone at, 124.\n Bay and laurel in doorway at marriage among Romans, 73.\n Bayt-el-Walli, rock grotto of, 180.\n Beans under threshold, among Magyars, 19 f.\n \u201cBeating the bounds:\u201d\n in England, 174;\n in New England, 176.\n Beccah. See _Meccah_.\n Becker, W.A.: cited, 37, 41, 72 f.\n Beer-sheba, well at, in dispute, 170.\n Beginning of religious rites, 199, 225.\n Beirut. See _Beyroot_.\n Bektashi derwishes of Syria, threshold custom of, 10.\n Bel, gate of, reference to, 95.\n Bel-Merodach, new king of ancient Babylon adopted by, 80.\n Belford, marriage customs at, 142.\n Beltis, gate of, reference to, 95.\n Beltis-Allat:\n \u201clady of the great hand,\u201d 113;\n brandishing serpent in either hand, 235.\n Benjamin, S.G.W.: cited, 71.\n Bent, J. Theodore: cited, 107, 131.\n Bergeron, Pierre: cited, 13.\n Berlin, keys of captured cities in museum of, 262.\n Beth-el: Jacob at, 160; meaning of, 160.\n Betrothal:\n ceremony in Russia, 32;\n threshold custom in Central America, 34.\n Beyroot, boundary marks near, 178.\n Biaz, B.: cited, 21.\n Bible:\n carried into new home in Pennsylvania, 21;\n references to lifting up hands unto God, 82 f.;\n references to leaping over threshold, 117;\n reference to temple threshold as fitting place of worship, 117;\n its record of man, 224.\n Bingham, Joseph:\n cited, 136;\n quotation from, 136 f.\n Bird, Isabella: cited, 20, 72, 96, 101, 104 f., 126, 151.\n Birth:\n custom in Bombay, 17;\n new, help to, 199.\n Birthday, striking child on his, 176.\n Bishop, Isabella Bird. See _Isabella Bird_.\n Bishop of Paris, reference to, 139.\n \u201cBismillah,\u201d use of word, on passing threshold, 10.\n Black hand:\n among Pecos, 87 f.,\n Jicarilla Apaches, 89 f.;\n in Korea, 93 f.\n Black stone of Meccah, reference to, 10.\n Blessing, spiritual, represented in Assyrian sculpture, 231.\n Bliss, Dr. Frederick J.: cited, 58.\n Blood:\n welcome at door in Syria and Egypt, 3-10;\n stepping over, in East, 4 f., 7 f., 26;\n coffee as substitute for, 5;\n salt as substitute for, 5, 9, 20;\n in threshold in Central Africa, 8 f.;\n poured out on threshold in covenanting, 14 f.;\n threshold sprinkled with, in Ireland, 21;\n hospitality in outpoured, among Arabs, 23;\n at threshold in marriage ceremony in desert of Sinai, in Egypt, in\n Turkey, 26;\n stepping over, in marriage in Cyprus, 27;\n wedding-party to step over, among Armenians, 27;\n stepping over in Central Africa, 28;\n and fire, significance of, 40;\n world-wide custom of laying foundations in, 46;\n foundation-laying in, in Hindostan, Burmah, Tennasserin, Borneo,\n Japan, Galam, Yarriba, Polynesia, 51 f.;\n on foundation-stone in Greece, 53;\n of thousands of captives at consecration of altar in Mexico, 56;\n on threshold deemed essential factor in covenant with deity, 57;\n voice of, among Arabs, 59;\n poured across road to secure help in necessity in Morocco, 63;\n hand dipped in, struck upon door-posts in Stamboul, 66 f.;\n on lintel and door-posts, 66;\n of wedding sacrifice placed on door-posts, 67 f.;\n sentences in, on door-posts as protection from disease in China, 71;\n on bow, or threshold, of Chinese junk, 72;\n affixed to post or walls of new house in Palestine, 76 f.;\n of Christians, hand dipped in, stamped on wall to seal victory over\n them, 77;\n or ink used in hand or finger stamp, 93 f.;\n of sacrifice sprinkled on door in Guatemala, 98;\n of sacrifice at base of altar at Yeha, 131;\n proffer of, foundation of family, 194;\n stains exhibited in Western Africa, 246.\n \u201cBlood of the grape,\u201d in covenant, 5, 8.\n Blood-color, doorways painted, 104.\n Bloody grass representing dignity and power, 15.\n Bloody hand:\n stamped in dough placed on lintel, 28 f.;\n on lintel of temple at Jerusalem, 67;\n on walls among Jews in Tunis, 78 f.;\n red seal on modern documents probably survival of, 94;\n in testimony to covenant, 244 f.\n See, also, _Red hand_.\n Bloody sacrifices at temple thresholds in India, 122.\n Blue hands on houses in Palestine, 76.\n Blunt, J.H.: cited, 137.\n Boaz meeting elders at gate in justice to Ruth and Naomi, 64.\n \u201cBodhi-Gaya,\u201d reference to, 156.\n Body, not to cross threshold, 23-25.\n Bombay Anthropological Society, reference to, 17.\n Bombay, birth custom at, 17.\n _Bomoi pronaioi_, 134.\n Bonavia, Dr., reference to, 231.\n Bonomi, Joseph: his suggestion regarding word \u201cteraphim,\u201d 109.\n Booddha:\n commanding temple to be built, 156;\n and serpent, 236.\n Booddha-drum, reference to, 156.\n Booddha-hood, Sakya Sinha attaining to, 156.\n \u201cBooddha\u2019s foot,\u201d 156.\n Booddhism concerning temple, 156.\n Booddhist:\n Gog and Magog of, 96;\n temples, doorways apart from, 104;\n temples, pilgrims at threshold of, 125;\n prayer in Tibet, 199.\n Book of Records, Chinese, reference to, 158.\n \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d Egyptian, references to, 128 f., 257.\n Border landmarks, form of, 170 f.\n Border lines referred to, 183.\n Borneo:\n pig\u2019s blood sprinkled at door in, 20;\n marriage custom in, 34;\n survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.\n Borsippa:\n sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;\n temple of, threshold plated with zar\u00eeru, 111.\n Bothnia, East, iron bar on threshold for cows to cross, 17.\n Botta, P.E.: cited, 109.\n Boundary:\n references to, 13, 17, 154, 165-192, 234;\n as place of worship and sacrifice, 166;\n stones, importance of, 167;\n Nebo protector of, 177.\n Bourke, Capt. J.G.: cited, 87.\n Bowing:\n to gate on leaving bride\u2019s home in Russia, 44;\n before threshold, 126.\n Boys sacrificed in Central America, 145.\n Brahmanas, reference to, 197.\n Brahmanic religion concerning temples, 155 f.\n Brahmanical Mah\u00e2deva, commanding temple to be built, 156.\n Brandy offered to threshold gods in Russia, 32 f., 43 f.\n Bread:\n placed under threshold as \u201cgods\u2019\u201d portion, 32;\n thrown over bride at door in Scotland, 34, 44;\n and honey placed on bride\u2019s gate-post in Russia, 42 f.\n Bread and salt:\n at threshold in Russia, 9;\n in hospitality among Arabs, 22;\n as factors in sacred covenant, 32.\n \u201cBreaking the stick\u201d at threshold in Skarpanto, 31.\n Bremen, skeleton of child found in walls of Bridge Gate of, 50.\n Bridal couple carried across threshold in Central America, 45.\n Bride:\n made to step over blood of sacrifice in Syria, 26;\n in Central Africa, 27 f.;\n called \u201cprincess\u201d at wedding in Russia, 32;\n bread thrown over, at door in Scotland, 34, 44;\n carried over threshold among Towkas, 35,\n in Abyssinia, Egypt, and Upper Syria, 38,\n in West Africa, 39,\n in Russia, 44;\n to step over threshold among Hindoos, 36 f.;\n not lifted over threshold in India, 38;\n borne in sedan-chair to new home, 39 f.;\n carried over fire in China, 40;\n worshiping at altar-fire of new home in India, China, Greece, and\n Rome, 41;\n inducted into household office at hearth, 44;\n represented by the Church, 218, 221.\n Bridegroom:\n to step over blood at threshold in Central Africa, 27 f.;\n bread thrown over, at door, 34;\n Jesus called, 218;\n of blood, 244.\n British envoy welcomed at threshold of Kauzeroon, 189.\n Bronze bulls on gates of Babylon, 109 f.\n \u201cBronze threshold,\u201d reference to, 132.\n Broom laid across door-sill in Pennsylvania, 21.\n Browne, Edward G., reference to, 104.\n Bruce, James:\n quotation from, 9;\n cited, 38, 130.\n Brugsch Bey: references to, 103, 127, 161, 179 f., 184 f.\n Brush-topped pole as symbol, 214.\n \u201cBuddha-Gaya,\u201d reference to, 156.\n \u201cBuddha-pad,\u201d reference to, 156.\n Buffaloes sacrificed in Egypt, 7.\n B\u00fchler, G.: cited, 169.\n Bukoh\u014dla temple in Sandwich Islands, 150.\n Bulgarian foundation custom, 53.\n Bullock:\n sacrificed at door for guest, 4;\n sacrifice of, 7 f.\n Bulls:\n winged, with human heads to guard entrance way, 95;\n of bronze on gates of Babylon, 109 f.;\n as guardians of threshold in Babylonia, 110 f.;\n of bronze, in Babylon, 234.\n Bunsen, Chevalier, reference to, 111.\n Burckhardt, John Lewis: cited, 26, 38, 191, 244-246.\n Burder, Samuel: cited, 13.\n Burials made under threshold in East and West, 25.\n Buried images, symbols and treasures under temple doorways, 109.\n Burmah, survival of foundation laying in blood in, 51 f.\n Burton, Richard F.:\n cited, 164;\n quotation from, 248 f.\n Burying women and children in foundation, 18, 50.\n Bush as symbol of feminine in nature, 214.\n Bush, George, reference to, 112.\n Busrah, women exhibiting evidences at, 248.\n Butter or honey smeared on door-posts among Wallachians, 29.\n Buxtorf, John: cited, 200, 253.\n \u201cBy door,\u201d entering house, 6.\n Byzantine age, sarcophagi of, showing altar at threshold, 121.\n\n\n Cairo:\n Arab sitting in judgment at gate of, 60;\n protecting genius of different quarters of, 96 f.\n Calling on name of God at threshold, 29.\n Calp\u00eb and Abyla as boundary marks, 181.\n Cam, Diego, discoverer of Congo River, 182.\n Campbell, John: cited, 39.\n Canaan:\n gateway between Egypt and, 105;\n Israelites entering into, 211;\n people of, treatment of, 232.\n Candle on threshold in Russia, 41-44.\n Candlestick, five branched, similar to sign of hand, 77.\n C\u00e3o, Diego, reference to, 182.\n Cardea, Hinge-goddess of Romans, 97.\n Carlyle, Thomas: cited, 183.\n Carpathos. See _Skarpanto_.\n Carthage:\n uplifted hand above door in, 78;\n prominence of door in, 107;\n prominence of temple threshold in, 130.\n Cassotis spring, reference to, 135.\n Catholic Church, Roman:\n holy water in, 147;\n on marriage, 222.\n Catlin, George: quotation from, and reference to, 86.\n Cave, fire at entrance of, 23.\n Central America:\n threshold custom in, 34;\n blood smeared on doorways in, 72;\n red hand stamped on doorways and walls in, 81 f.;\n \u201cthe god of houses\u201d in, 98;\n sacrifice of boys in, 145.\n Ceremony:\n wedding threshold in North Germany, 18;\n of laying threshold in India, 95.\n Ceylon, Adam settling in, 164.\n Chahalka, \u201cthe god of houses,\u201d in Central America, 98.\n Chamberlain, Basil Hall: cited, 101, 104.\n Chambers\u2019s Journal, reference to, 175.\n Charans, appeal at threshold for justice among, 61.\n Chardin, Sir John: cited, 124.\n Charms:\n on threshold and door in Uganda, 15;\n under door-step in Russia, 19;\n fastened above door in China, 71;\n on doors and door-posts in China, 71, 95;\n worn in Jerusalem, 75 f.\n Chase, W.G., quotation from, 51.\n Chateaubraud, Viscount de: cited, 147.\n Chaucer, Geoffrey, quotation from, 139.\n Cheetham, Samuel. See _Smith and Cheetham_.\n Chelly canyon, red-hand symbol in, 87.\n Cheyennes, red hand among, 87.\n Chicago, Columbian Exposition at, reference to, 57.\n Chief rabbi, in Jerusalem, sacrifice at threshold in installing, 67.\n Child:\n held over threshold after baptism, 18 f.;\n buried in ramparts of Copenhagen, 49;\n buried under citadel of Dyetinets, 50;\n adopted into family by clasping hands in Babylonia, 80;\n striking, on birthday, 176.\n Children:\n custom of, relative to boundary lines, 13;\n buried under threshold in Russia, 18;\n buried in foundations, 49 f.;\n sacrifice of, in Central America, 145.\n China:\n body to be removed over wall, 23;\n fire on threshold in marriage in, 39;\n bride worshiping at altar-fire in, 41;\n human sacrifice to make sure foundations in, 48;\n coins and charms under door-sill in, 71;\n sacred inscriptions on side-posts and lintel in, 71;\n tutelar gods of threshold in, 95 f.;\n temple and house in architecture, 101;\n doorways apart from temples in, 104;\n sacredness of temple in, 158;\n nuptial customs of, 196;\n phallic emblems in, 230;\n marriage customs in, 245.\n Chinese:\n custom of avoiding threshold, 23 f.;\n native clergyman, testimony of, 48;\n year, festival of fifth month of, 71;\n junk, sacrifice on bow of, 71 f.;\n honorary portals and ancestral tablets, 108;\n classics, most ancient of, 185;\n emperor passing boundary line of empire, 185;\n characters for threshold, door, border, and woman, 256.\n \u201cChinese gods of the threshold,\u201d 96.\n Chipiez, Charles. See _Perrot and Chipiez_.\n \u201cChrist, spouse of,\u201d 222.\n \u201cChristening\u201d ship, custom of, 8.\n Christian:\n lands, niches for heroes in, survival primitive doorway in tomb in,\n 108;\n passover, reference to, 216.\n Christian churches:\n of Europe, burials under altar of, 25;\n tradition of burial of lamb under altar of, 56;\n symbol of horseshoe at threshold of, 74.\n Christian Fathers, reference to, 97.\n Christians:\n inscribed gates of, in East, 70;\n in Syria, sign of hand among, 76 f.;\n warned not to dishonor their gates with laurel crowns, 97;\n admonished not to make their gates heathen temples, 98;\n kissing threshold of church in Persia, 124.\n Church House in Philadelphia, reference to, 55.\n Church of England bishops replying to Presbyterians on position of\n baptismal font, 137.\n Churches always on hill or in grove in Abyssinia, 130 f.\n Cicero, hearth-fire and Penates in time of, 41.\n Cimon, gate of, in Propyl\u00e6a, 159.\n Circumcision as practiced in Madagascar, 149.\n Cities of refuge:\n Hebrew law as to, 151;\n in Hawaii, 151.\n Clapping of hands at threshold in Japan, 126.\n Classic writers: their explanation of threshold custom, 39.\n \u201cCleansing the threshold\u201d at wedding in Russia, 32.\n Clement of Alexandria, reference to, 239.\n Clothing stamped with red hand, 87.\n Coal under threshold among Magyars, 19 f.\n Cock sacrificed:\n in Ireland, 21;\n at foundation in Russia, 54 f.\n Cockle, Montague, reference to, 233.\n Coffee as Muhammadan substitute for blood, 5.\n Columbian Exposition, reference to, 57.\n Com, tomb of kings of Persia at, 124.\n Comanches:\n prominence of red hand among, 87;\n reference to, 88.\n Communion feasts, origin of, 226.\n Concord, beating bounds in, 176.\n Conder, Maj. C.R.:\n quotation from, 10, 28 f.:\n cited, 123.\n Confucius, reference to, 256 f.\n Confucian temple, doorways apart from, 104.\n Congo River, boundary pillar erected in mouth of, 182.\n Constantinople, red hand stamp in, 77.\n Contemporary Review, reference to, 229.\n Convent, trace of foundation sacrifice in rebuilding, 56.\n Cook, Capt. James:\n cited, 202;\n quotation from, 250 f.\n Coote, H.C.: cited, 50, 55 f.\n Copenhagen, immuring of child in ramparts of, 49.\n Copts, sacrifice of sheep at threshold among, 26, 45.\n Coral hand as talisman among Jews at Tunis, 79.\n Cord stretched across door to prevent bridal couple entering, 33 f.\n Corn:\n and water used in threshold ceremony, 16 f.;\n mixed with milk and sugar as offering, 17;\n thrown on bride at threshold in Rhodes, 31.\n Corner-stone:\n laying as survival of primitive sacredness, 22;\n recognized as beginning or limit of threshold of Babylonian\n buildings, 22;\n ceremonies in civilized lands, 55;\n laying of, in America, 55, 147.\n Cornhill Magazine, reference to, 48-50, 56.\n Corinthian Christians, Paul to, 216.\n Corpse:\n not to cross threshold in India, China, and Italy, 23 f.,\n in Alaska, 24;\n passed out under threshold in Russia, 24.\n Correspondences of legends of Babylonia, Syria, Egypt and Greece as to\n door and threshold, 115.\n Cossacks, disputes over boundary lines among, 175.\n Cotton seeds thrown on bride at threshold in Rhodes, 31.\n Coulanges, Numa D.F. de: cited, 41, 99, 156.\n Covenant:\n through blood in Egypt, 3;\n Syria, 3-5;\n symbolized by uplifted hand, 81;\n sacrifice at threshold with God of life, 94;\n worship place of, 165.\n Covenanting:\n by crossing threshold, 5-10;\n by stepping over blood on door-sill, 9.\n Cow:\n gift from sacred, in India, 16;\n driven over iron bar on threshold, 17;\n sacrifice of, in Ireland, 21.\n Cowdung cake at seed-time in India, 16.\n Cranch, C.P., quotation from, 130.\n Croix, de la, J.F., reference to, 124.\n Cross:\n sign of, in curing disorder, 18;\n drawn on threshold to keep off hags, 18;\n under threshold of new house in Lithuania, 18.\n Crowbar at threshold, 17.\n _Crux ansata_ or _ankh_, 201.\n Cunningham, Alexander: reference to, 156 f.\n Curse:\n for removing threshold altar, 169 f.;\n for removal of neighbor\u2019s landmark, 170.\n Curtea de Argest, superstition regarding sacrifice at building of, 52.\n Curtin, Jeremiah: cited, 142 f.\n Cushing, Frank H., communication from, 86-93.\n Cyprus:\n fowl sacrificed at door in, 27;\n prominence of door in, 107.\n Cyrus, reference to, 154.\n\n\n Dacotahs, symbol of hand among, 84.\n Dagon, his overthrow, 116 f.\n Dahabiyeh, threshold custom on purchasing, 8.\n Dahomey, nuptial customs of, 245.\n Dalmatia, kissing threshold in, 31.\n Damascus, Hajj procession approaching, 186.\n Dances of American Indians, prominence of hand in, 83 f.\n Dancing custom in Central America, 247.\n Danes:\n immuring of girl in city walls among, 49;\n lamb buried under every altar of, 56.\n Daniel in gate of king, 64.\n Darfour, marriage ceremonies in, 249.\n Darmesteter, James:\n cited, 58;\n reference to, 99.\n David:\n sitting in gate, 64;\n erecting altar to Lord, 161.\n De Amicis, Edmondo: cited, 77.\n De Coulanges, Numa D.F. de:\n cited, 41, 156;\n reference to, 99.\n De Hesse-Wartegg, Chevalier: cited, 79.\n Dead:\n not to cross threshold in India, China, 23 f.,\n Korea, Russia, Italy, Alaska, 24;\n taken over wall in China, 23 f.;\n taken under threshold in Russia, 24;\n prayers for, inscribed on false door of tombs of Egypt, 106.\n \u201cDead, Book of the,\u201d references to, 128 f., 257.\n \u201cDead, Gate of the,\u201d in Korea, 24.\n Death following building of new house, 54.\n \u201cDeath Week\u201d among Slavonic peoples, 19.\n Dedications on doorways by primitive peoples, 69.\n Deer carried over threshold in betrothal in Central America, 34.\n Deity:\n appeal to, in East, 3 f.;\n of ancient Egypt with uplifted hands, 81;\n of threshold, reference to, 109;\n of gates of Hades, 113.\n Delhi and serpent, 236.\n Delitzsch, Franz, reference to, 254.\n Delitzsch, Friedrich, reference to, 100.\n Delphi:\n treasures of, described, 133;\n Neoptolemus attacking Orestes in, 134;\n temple of Apollo at, 134 f.;\n Apollo at, represented by female oracle, 236.\n Deluge:\n reference to, 103;\n destruction of Holy House in, 163.\n Detinetz, burial in foundations in, 50.\n Development and origin of man, 223.\n D\u2019Herbelot, quotation from, 10 f.\n _Diabateria_, meaning of, 208.\n Dido, Queen, \u00c6neas at court of, 130.\n Dieulafoy, M.: cited, 60.\n \u201cDigging through\u201d in New Testament, 260.\n Dillmann, Christian F.A., reference to, 254.\n _Ditya_, reference to, 50.\n Dives, Lazarus at gate of, 64.\n Divination and exorcism in Italy, 17.\n Documents signed in blood or ink, 94.\n Domestic divinities, protection from, in Lithuania, 18 f.\n \u201cDomovoi:\u201d\n household deity of Russia, sacrifice for, 19;\n invoked at threshold, 23.\n Donaldson, T., reference to, 86.\n Donaldson, T.L., references to, 121, 134, 231.\n Donatus: cited, 29 f.\n Doolittle, Rev. Justus: cited, 71.\n Door:\n animal sacrifices at house-door in Egypt, 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15,\n among Pythagoreans, 12 f.,\n among Slavonic peoples, 19,\n among Dyaks of Borneo, 20,\n in Ireland, 21,\n among Arabs, 22 f.,\n in Syria, 26, 45,\n in Turkey, Cyprus, and Central Africa, 27,\n in Egypt, 45,\n all over world, 46,\n in Greece, 53,\n in Russia, 54,\n in Arabia, 58-60,\n in Morocco, 63, 67,\n in Turkey, 66 f.,\n in Jerusalem, 67,\n in China, 72,\n in Palestine, 76,\n in tabernacle in Wilderness, 118 f.,\n in South Sea Islands, 148;\n blood welcome at, in Syria and Egypt, 3-10,\n Central Africa, 8 f.,\n West Africa, 9,\n Egypt, 7, 205;\n charms placed at, in Uganda, 15,\n in Russia, 19,\n in China, 71,\n in Jerusalem, 75 f.;\n dead not to pass out of, 23-25;\n human sacrifice at, in Central Africa, 8 f.,\n references to, 46-48, 51 f., 144 f.,\n in China and Algiers, 48,\n in Denmark and Thuringia, 49,\n on Danube and in Alaska, 49 f.,\n in Bremen, Scotland, and Ireland, 50,\n in Arta, Tricha, and Wallachia, 52,\n in Turkey, 52 f.,\n in India, 61, 122 f.,\n in Tibet, 125,\n in Central America, 145 f.;\n kissing right hand at, 69 f., 144,\n serpent at, in Yezidis temple, 116,\n of holy places, 116,\n at mosk in Persia, 123 f.,\n at tomb of Alee, 124;\n sacredness of, 10-25, 102, 174, 260,\n in Persia, 12, 123 f.,\n references to, 25-36,\n among Nestorians, 124,\n among Scandinavians in America, 259 f.,\n in Bible times, 261;\n stepping over blood at, in Syria and Egypt, 4 f., 7 f., 26, 45 f.,\n in West Africa, 9,\n in marriage in Cyprus, 27,\n among Armenians, 27,\n in Central Africa, 28;\n reference to, 254, 256.\n Door-key, finger-shaped, symbolic use of, 244.\n D\u00f6rpfeld, Dr., reference to, 159.\n Dough:\n on door-lintel in Upper Syria, 28 f.;\n under threshold among Moksha, 42.\n Douglas, Robert K.:\n cited, 40;\n reference to, 105.\n Dozy, Reinhart, reference to, 200.\n Dragon representing unholy desire, 240.\n Du Bois, Abb\u00e9 J.A.: cited, 23.\n Dumuzi and Ishtar, legend of, 113, 115.\n Dwelling-place, man\u2019s first, 165.\n Dyaks of Borneo:\n blood sprinkled at door among, 20;\n marriage custom among, 34.\n _Dyetina_, reference to, 50.\n Dyetinets, burial in foundations in, 50.\n Dying person passed through hole in wall in Alaska, 24.\n\n\n Ea, god of right side of gate, 95.\n Early churches, position of altar in, 136.\n Easter:\n continuance of Passover, 221;\n festivities in Jerusalem, 221;\n threshold of new Ecclesiastical Year, 221.\n Ebed-melech: his appeal in behalf of Jeremiah, 64.\n Edersheim, Dr. Alfred, references to, 120, 211 f.\n Edward I., marriage of, at door, 140.\n Eggs under threshold in Russia, 19.\n Egypt:\n blood welcome at door in, 3;\n sacrifice of buffaloes in, 7;\n threshold sacrifice of sheep in, 7 f.;\n sacrifice at threshold in, 26;\n bride met at gate of husband\u2019s residence in, 38;\n door at one side of dwelling in, 55;\n its influence shown in architecture of doorways, 60;\n inscribed doors in, 68, 96;\n uplifted hand in representing deities of, 79, 81, 85;\n God bringing out of, with strong hand, 83;\n and Canaan, gateway between, 105;\n prominence of doorway shrine in, 106;\n false door as gift in, 107;\n literature of, 109;\n oldest temple in, 126;\n sacredness of doorway in, 126;\n saints\u2019 tomb as place of worship in, 129;\n temples of, 145;\n concerning temple foundations of, 155;\n boundary customs among, 178;\n ancient stone thresholds in, 179;\n Lower, boundary of, 180;\n southern boundary of, 184;\n nuptial customs of, 196;\n ancient deities of, 201;\n presence of deity in, 201;\n Virgin of Israel in, 218;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n kings of, and serpent, 234;\n and serpent as symbol, 235;\n bloody cloth in marriage in Upper, 243;\n marriage customs in, 243, 245.\n Egyptian:\n sacrifice before door, 14;\n king, power imparted to, by touch, 85;\n hieroglyph for house or temple identical, 100;\n temple, oldest form of, 100,\n monumental temple gateway, 127,\n history of, 155;\n priest, prostrations of, at threshold of shrine, 127 f.;\n idea of future life, 128;\n \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d 128 f., 257;\n empire and Heh, boundary marks between, 179;\n sacrifices at boundaries of empire, 184;\n twofold sex symbols, 200;\n attitude towards Jehovah, 205;\n passover rite, 212, 214, 216.\n Eki as boundary mark, 178.\n _El Gisr_ or threshold, 180.\n Eleusis, temple of Artemis Propyl\u00e6a at, 134.\n Eliezer, Rabbi, references to, 200, 253.\n Elisha and Naaman, Syrian, 161.\n Elliot, Sir Henry M.: cited, 16 f.\n Ellis, Rev. William: cited, 83, 111, 148, 150 f., 202.\n _Embatikon_, gift of in-going, 31.\n Embleton, wedding custom at, 142.\n Emerson, Ralph Waldo: cited, 176.\n Enemy, appeal of, for protection among Arabs, 59.\n Entering \u201cnot by door,\u201d 6.\n Entrance-way, importance of, 3.\n Episcopal, Protestant, churches, location of baptismal font in, 147.\n Epithalamium of Hebrew Scriptures, 214.\n Erman, Adolf:\n cited, 55, 100, 103, 106, 127, 234;\n quotation from, 106 f., 155;\n reference to, 128.\n Erzas:\n marriage custom of, 41;\n earth from under threshold for bride, 43.\n Esarhaddon, his search for boundary lines, 154, 177.\n Eskimos, importance of threshold among, 39.\n Eulmash, ancient Babylonian temple, 153.\n Eulbar, ancient Babylonian temple, 153.\n Euphrates, boundary marks at, 178.\n Euripides: cited, 134 f.\n Europe:\n treading on threshold in, 13;\n burials under altar in Christian churches in, 25;\n coffin passed out window of house in, 25;\n window opened and door closed at death in, 25;\n horseshoes on side-posts in, 73 f.;\n symbols of open hand found in museums and Jewish cemeteries of, 79;\n hand-print in marriage in, 93;\n traces of primitive sacredness of doorway found in, 122;\n ancient shrines in, 150;\n boundary lines in, 174;\n great divisions of landmarks along borders of, 182;\n nuptial customs of, 196;\n Jews of, observing passover, 212.\n Evil eye:\n references to, 19, 67;\n averted by bloody hand, 67 f.;\n by five fingers held up to, 76;\n image of hand as talisman against, 79.\n Evil spirits in Pennsylvania, guard against, 21.\n Ewing, Rev. William:\n testimony of, 45, 261;\n cited, 77.\n \u201cExalted Gateway,\u201d high court of Turkey called, 65, 103.\n Exalted House, Gate, or Door, meaning of Pharaoh, 103.\n Exorcism and divination in Italy, 17 f.\n Eye, evil. See _Evil eye_.\n Ezekiel:\n his reference to waters from under threshold of temple, 114;\n his prophecy that Prince of Israel should worship at threshold of\n gate, 118;\n his vision of glory of Lord over threshold, 118;\n Jehovah speaking through, 213.\n Ezida (Nebo) shrine of, 110.\n\n\n \u201cFahazza\u201d in Madagascar, 149.\n False door:\n of tombs in ancient Egypt, 106 f.;\n as gift from sovereign to subject in Egypt, 107.\n Family:\n altar and sacrifices for, in primitive times, 3;\n offering itself for sacrifice in Central Africa, 8 f.;\n life, beginning of, in threshold rite, 194.\n Fathers, Christian, reference to, 93.\n Feast after sacrifice: 4, 7;\n at beginning of spring among Slavonic peoples, 19;\n of \u201chand-striking\u201d at betrothal, 32 f.\n Fecundity, lotus flower symbol of, 257.\n Fellaheen threshold custom in Palestine, 29.\n Fellows, Sir Charles: cited, 121.\n Feminine in nature, symbol of, 214, 230, 258.\n Fergusson, Dr. James: references to, 103-105, 107, 231, 235-237.\n \u201cFestival, Harvest,\u201d among Indians of lower Mississippi, 147.\n \u201cFestival of New Fire,\u201d 147.\n _Ficus religiosa_, reference to, 259.\n Fielde, Adele M.: cited, 40, 71.\n Fig:\n in religious symbolisms, 230;\n tree representing female, 258.\n Figures of speech, Oriental, obscured by literalism of Western mind,\n 238.\n Finger-shaped door-key used in wedding ceremony, 244.\n Finland:\n shaking hands across threshold in, 12;\n high thresholds in, 12;\n threshold as altar in, 32;\n clergyman to step over threshold in, 143.\n Finmac-Coole, print of hand of, 81.\n Finn, James: cited, 67.\n Fire:\n and salt on threshold, 21;\n at entrance to cave or tent, in primitive times, 22 f.;\n on threshold altar in China, 39;\n and blood, significance of, 40;\n reference to, 41 f.;\n references to, 54-56, 158;\n masculine symbol, 198;\n production of sacred, 198;\n doorway, origin of, 226;\n as gift of God, 227.\n Fire-altar:\n center of public worship, 99;\n in Persia, 100,\n in India, 102;\n of family developed into that of community, 101;\n origin of, 226.\n First-fruits of grain-field offered at threshold, 16 f.\n Five:\n fingers held before evil eye, 76,\n extended on receiving praise, 79;\n pronouncing word, in response to praise, 79.\n Flaming torch in Roman marriage ceremonies, 41.\n Flesh:\n of sacrificed animal distributed, 4;\n and blood symbolized by bread and salt, 9.\n \u201cFloor of the door\u201d held sacred in Abyssinia, 131.\n Folk-Lore, London, references to, 8, 40, 42-44.\n Folk-Lore Journal, reference to, 221.\n Folk-Lore Journal, London, references to, 21, 27 f., 34, 50, 56, 196.\n Folk-Lore Record, London, reference to, 38.\n Foot:\n against threshold, \u201cunlucky\u201d to strike, 12 f.;\n importance placed on use of right, 36-38.\n Forculus, door-god of Romans, 97.\n Forlong, Gen. J.G.R.: references to, 230, 237.\n \u201cFornication,\u201d idolatry called, 213.\n \u201cFoundation:\u201d\n and \u201cthreshold\u201d interchangeable terms, 21 f.;\n references to, 47, 50, 53, 158;\n laying in blood in Galam, 51 f.;\n sacrifice in Algiers, 48,\n among Vlachs in Turkey, 52 f.;\n in Archangel, 54;\n in inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar II., 109 f.;\n or Papa, 152.\n Foundation-stone as threshold of building, 46.\n Fountain of life sought for, 148.\n Fowl:\n sacrificed at door, 4, 9, 21, 27, 45, 54 f.;\n sacrificed at foundation-laying in Greece, 53,\n in Bulgaria, 54;\n sacrificed on Chinese junk starting on long voyage, 71 f.\n Foxes, tribe of, red hand among, 87.\n France:\n marriages in ancient times in, 139;\n Marguerite of, married to Edward I. at door in, 140;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Frazer, J.G.:\n references to, 5, 93, 209, 230;\n cited, 147, 221.\n Freytag, G.W., reference to, 244.\n Friend of bridegroom:\n gifts made at threshold by, in Russia, 32;\n among Albanians, 37 f.\n Frog under threshold among Magyars, 19 f.\n Frothingham, Prof. A.L., Jr., testimony of, 24.\n Fruit:\n presented to bride at threshold in Dalmatia, 31;\n in Bible narrative, 238.\n Fuerst, Julius: cited, 244.\n Funeral:\n salt on threshold in Japan after, 20;\n coffin passed out window at, in Europe and America, 25.\n\n\n Gabriel kissing threshold of gate, 124.\n Galam, survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.\n \u201cGaleed,\u201d memorial of covenant between Jacob and Laban, 171.\n Galilee, Sea of, reference to, 11.\n Gardner, Dr. Percy:\n cited, 7;\n reference to, 263.\n Garlic placed under threshold among Magyars, 19 f.\n Garnett, L.M.J.:\n cited, 27, 30;\n quotation from, 53.\n Gate:\n justice at palace, in Persepolis, 60;\n of camp of Israel, Moses at, 63;\n inscribed, among Muhammadans, 70;\n dishonoring, among Greeks, 97;\n image as gate in New Zealand, 107 f.;\n gods of, 95, 110, 113, 127-129;\n of Beltis, 95,\n at Medina, at Ghuznee, of mosk at Meccah, images trodden upon at,\n 123;\n keys of captured cities preserved in Germany, 262.\n \u201cGate of the Dead\u201d in Korea, 24.\n Gate-god of Romans, 97.\n \u201cGate of heaven\u201d in Jacob\u2019s dream at Bethel, 112.\n Gateway:\n sacredness of, among Greeks, 7;\n of city, images buried under, 14.\n Gauri feast, worship of serpent at, 259.\n Gaza, gates of, carried off by Samson, 255.\n Genesis, the temptation in narrative of:\n as understood by Philo Jud\u00e6us, 238;\n teaching of Gnostic sects on, 239.\n Genii, winged, and winged bulls at entrance, 95.\n Gentleman\u2019s Magazine, reference to, 74.\n Germany:\n threshold cure in North, 18;\n pottery broken on threshold on marriage eve in North, 33;\n South, Scripture inscriptions above entrance of houses in, 73;\n marriage rites of, 138;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n term for women in, 256;\n emperors of, preserving keys of captured cities, 262.\n Geronimo sacrificed in building walls of Algiers, 48.\n Gesenius, Wilhelm:\n cited, 83;\n references to, 103, 210, 255.\n Ghuzzeh, ancient site of Gaza, 255.\n \u201cGift of in-going\u201d for bridegroom in Skarpanto, 31.\n Gifts at threshold:\n at wedding in Russia, 32;\n at marriage among Towkas, 35.\n Gilead, Jacob and Laban in, 171.\n Gill, Rev. W.W.: cited, 152.\n Gingiro, bloody threshold offering in, 8 f.\n Ginsburg, Dr. Christian D.:\n cited, #69.f190# f.;\n references to, 120, 212.\n Gnostic sects, teaching of, on narrative in Genesis, 239.\n Goat sacrificed:\n at threshold for guest, 4;\n in Central Africa, 27 f.;\n among Copts in Egypt, 45;\n on Arab joining new tribe, 59.\n Gobineau, Count de: reference to, 104.\n God:\n of household party to marriage covenant, 32;\n of life and fertility, 79;\n of threshold in China, 71, 95 f.,\n in India, 95,\n in Japan, 96,\n in Egypt, 96 f.,\n in Greece and Rome, 97,\n in Guatemala, 98;\n of doorways in China, Japan, Korea, Siam, India, 104;\n Asshur and his worshipers with uplifted hands, 89;\n doorway shrine as standing-place for, 105;\n of under-world, false door of tomb for, 106;\n of gates in Babylonia, 113;\n Ea in legend of Ishtar and Dumuzi, 114;\n Isis, guardian of gateway, 127;\n Nephthys, guardian of gateway, 127;\n Osiris\u2013judge of living and dead, at door of gateway, 127-129.\n \u201cGoddess of the homestead,\u201d prayer to, in betrothal in Russia, 32.\n \u201cGoddess of the dwelling-house,\u201d reference to, 32.\n Goddess Ishtar, descent of, into Allat\u2019s realm, 113 f.\n _Godo_ preserved from wedding night in Dahomey, 245.\n \u201cGods of entrances\u201d among Romans, 97.\n \u201cGods\u2019 portion:\u201d\n salted bread under threshold in betrothal in Russia, 32;\n of brandy spilt under threshold in Russia, 33.\n Godwyn, Thomas: cited, 39.\n \u201cGoing out and coming in,\u201d reference to threshold and deities, 109.\n Gold:\n under threshold in Roumania, 20;\n threshold plated with, 110.\n Goldsmith struck dead at threshold, 122.\n Gomme, George L., 50.\n \u201cGood Abode, The,\u201d inscribed on door-posts of dwelling, 68.\n \u201cGood luck\u201d from horseshoes on side-posts of doorway, 73 f.\n Goodwin, William W.: cited, 39, 41.\n Goose sacrificed in Ireland, 21.\n \u201cGraf,\u201d meaning of, 183.\n Grain, nuts, and fruit presented to bride at threshold in Dalmatia,\n 31.\n Grant, General:\n threshold sacrifice in honor of, 7 f.;\n at border line of Assioot, 186.\n Grant-Bey, Dr. J.A.S., reference to, 124.\n \u201cGrape, blood of the,\u201d among Muhammadans, 5.\n Grass dipped in blood representing dignity and power, 15.\n Graves, symbol of open hand above, 79.\n Gray, Archdeacon:\n cited, 40, 72;\n references to, 104, 108, 245.\n Great Britain, reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Greece:\n lifting bride over threshold in, 39;\n bride worshiping at altar-fire in, 41;\n flaming torch to accompany foundation sacrifice in, 53;\n reference to religion of, 97;\n palace and temple often identical in, 100;\n position of altar in temples of, 134;\n ancient ruins on sacred foundations of, 158;\n trees marking border lines in, 176;\n boundaries in ancient, 180;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235;\n prominence of pine-cone in ancient, 257.\n Greek Church, marriage sacrament in, 222.\n Greeks:\n sacredness of city gates among, 7;\n in Turkey, wedding custom among, 30;\n altars before houses among, 72;\n doorway ornamented for bride among, 72 f.;\n appealing to guardian deity at gateway among, 73;\n smearing side-posts of gateway with magic herbs among, 73;\n deities of doors and gates among, 97;\n temple of, developed from dwelling-house, 100;\n earliest literature of, in reference to threshold, 132;\n modern Easter observance among, 221.\n Gregor, Walter, quotation from, 34.\n Griffis, William Elliot:\n cited, 20;\n references to, 101, 104, 230.\n Grove of trees:\n sacred landmark of boundary in primitive times, 173 f.;\n in religious symbolisms, 230.\n Guardian deity\u2019s protection secured by stepping over threshold, 12.\n \u201cGuardian of the dwellings of Israel, the,\u201d 69.\n Guardian of threshold as post of honor, 119 f.\n Guarding dwelling by placing sacrifices on threshold, 14.\n Guatemala:\n blood smeared on doorway in, 73;\n \u201cthe god of houses\u201d in, 98.\n Guest:\n adopted by bloody sacrifice at door in Syria and Egypt, 3;\n welcomed by stepping over blood at door of host, 4;\n by blood among Arabs of Central Africa, 9;\n by sacrifice of fowl in Liberia, 9;\n refusal of welcome to, 217.\n Guhl and Koner: cited, 40 f., 72, 100.\n Guzelder, reference to, 190.\n Gwilt, Joseph: cited, 36.\n\n\n Hades, Babylonian conception of, 113.\n Hagar:\n and Holy House, tradition of, 163;\n Abraham\u2019s visit to home of, 200.\n Hags kept off by cross drawn on threshold, 18.\n Hajj procession returning from Meccah, 186.\n Hakham B\u00e2shi, welcome to, 67.\n Haleb:\n reference to, 247;\n marriage customs among Christians at, 248.\n Hall of the Two Truths, deceased challenged at entrance to, 129.\n Hall of Two-fold Maat, place of final judgment, 129.\n _Hammaq\u00e2m_ or place of worship, 160.\n Hand:\n stamped on door-lintel in Upper Syria, 28 f.;\n wrought in silver placed on children\u2019s necks, 76;\n figure of, similar to five-branched candlestick, 77;\n as symbol on banner and prayer-rug in Turkey and Persia, 78;\n as symbol of Siva, the destroyer, 78;\n as emblem of power in East Indies, 78;\n inscribed on or above door in ancient Carthage, 78;\n carved in coral or ivory carried by Jewess, 79;\n open, made in stone, metal, enamel, or bone, common in ancient\n Egypt, 79;\n symbol of open, found above graves near Tunis, 79;\n symbol of uplifted, in Babylonia, 79 f.,\n Assyria and Phenicia, 80,\n Egypt, 81, 85,\n Polynesia, 83, 148,\n Central America, 148;\n clasping in covenant in Babylonia, 80;\n print of, giant Finmac-Coole as signature, 81;\n of clay impressed on human body among American Indians, 84;\n print of, as symbol on naked body, 84;\n of bride traced in ink in covenant in Korea, 93 f.;\n print of, as signature, 93 f.;\n of Muhammad signed to certificate of protection, 94.\n \u201cHand of might,\u201d red hand as, 75.\n \u201cHand of Moses,\u201d red hand called, 77.\n \u201cHand-striking\u201d feast at betrothal, 32 f.\n Haran, reference to, 160.\n _Hareema_, Arabic term for woman, 256.\n Harper\u2019s Magazine, reference to, 96.\n Harrison and Verrall, reference to, 159.\n Harvest threshold ceremony in India, 16 f.\n \u201cHarvest Festival\u201d among Indians of lower Mississippi, 147.\n Hasselquist, F., reference to, 222.\n Hathor, Queen, reference to, 184.\n Hawaii:\n ancient gods of, 150;\n cities of refuge in, 151.\n Hayes, Isaac I.: cited, 39.\n Hearth:\n as primitive altar, 22;\n Penates of Romans at, 23;\n bride taken to, in Scotland, 44.\n Hearthstone:\n of Arab shaykh\u2019s tent, 22;\n as first threshold altar, 40.\n Hearn, Lafcadio:\n cited, 72, 201;\n quotation from, 125 f.\n Hebrew:\n word _nasa_\u2013to lift up or to swear, 83;\n word for tent and tabernacle, 101;\n literature, reference to, 109;\n law as to cities of refuge, 151,\n as to local landmarks, 169;\n new year, 212.\n Hebrews:\n commanded to dedicate doorways to living God, 69;\n sacred ark of, in house of god Dagon, 116 f.\n Hebrews, Epistle to, on threshold sacrifice, 217.\n Hebron, reference to, 255.\n Heh and Egyptian empire, boundary marks between, 179.\n Heifer sacrificed at door for guest, 4.\n Hen:\n sacrificed in Ireland, 21;\n sacrificed at new houses among Met\u00e2wileh, 45;\n buried alive under house, 56.\n Henderson, William: cited, 142, 160.\n Herald in India responsible with life for repayment of debt, 61 f.\n Herbs, juice of magic, smeared on door-posts among Greeks, 73.\n \u201cHercules, Pillars of,\u201d 181.\n Hermann, K.F.: cited, 172.\n Hermes, reference to, concerning boundary lines, 171 f.\n Hermes Propylaios, reference to, 159.\n Herodotus:\n quotation from, 14;\n cited, 111;\n references to, 229, 236.\n Herrick, R.: his poem on marriage, 139 f.\n Hesiod, reference to, 132 f.\n Hesperides, shores of, 135.\n Heuzey, L\u00e9on: cited, 29 f.\n Hiel, Jericho\u2019s foundation laid in blood of son of, 47.\n Hieroglyphics placed on door-posts and lintels in Egypt, 68 f.\n High thresholds in houses of Finland and United States, and in\n Teutonic houses, 12.\n Highway, king\u2019s, reference to, 176.\n Hilkiah, duties of guardians of threshold in days of, 120.\n Hillah, red hand over doors of large khan of, 75.\n Hilprecht, Dr. H.V.:\n cited, 22, 78, 109, 155, 209;\n testimony of, 33 f.;\n on use of red hand over doors in Babylonia, 75;\n quotation from, 167-169.\n Hindooism, modern, Saivism predominating in, 198.\n Hindoos:\n sacredness of threshold among, 11;\n law regarding door-sill, 15;\n belief that evil spirits keep aloof from iron, 17;\n rules requiring right foot to cross threshold first, 36 f.;\n sacredness of fire recognized by, 40;\n sacredness of oath taken at threshold of temple among, 121 f.;\n prejudice against shedding blood, sacrifices in spite of, 122 f.;\n worship of, 236;\n exhibit of evidence among, 249.\n Hindoostan, survivals of foundation-laying in blood, 50.\n Hinge-goddess of Romans, 97.\n Hinges, reference to, 254.\n Hittite, reference to, 213.\n Hofstad, temple in, 160.\n Hog sacrificed before door in Egypt, 14.\n Holland, strewing of threshold in, 33.\n Holy water at doorway of Roman Catholic churches in America, 147.\n Holy Sepulcher, Church of, 221.\n Homer: cited, 100;f267#, #132 f., 135.\n Hommel, Prof. Fritz: cited, 201.\n Honey:\n smeared on door-posts among Wallachians, 29;\n and water for bride at threshold in Morea, 30;\n and bread placed on bride\u2019s gate-post, 42 f.\n Hooke, N., reference to, 265.\n Hopkins, Prof. Dr. E.W.:\n cited, 6, 62, 198, 231;\n quotation from, 15.\n Hormuz, son of Nurshivan, reference to, 11.\n \u201cHorns of the altar,\u201d meaning of, 58.\n Horus, image of, over temple door to drive away unclean spirits, 127;\n reference to, 179.\n Horse:\n sacrificed at threshold in Syria, 4 f.;\n passing through blood of sacrifice, 7;\n laid in churchyard before burial in Sweden, 56;\n stamped with red hand in Babylonia, 75;\n covered with red hands buried with Indian chief, 85 f.\n Horseshoe:\n nailed to door-sills in Bombay, 17,\n on door-step in Pennsylvania, 21,\n to side-posts for \u201cgood luck\u201d in Europe and America, 73 f.;\n often found on ship\u2019s mast, 74.\n Hospitality:\n law of, in India, 5 f.;\n among Arabs, 22.\n Hossein, banners with open hand at commemoration of death of, 78.\n House:\n preceding temple, 3;\n corners of, sprinkled with blood, in Ireland, 21;\n wall broken for removal of body, in India, 23;\n earliest form of Egyptian temple, 100;\n of king both palace and temple, 101 f.;\n to temple, gradual transition from, 101 f.\n House-father:\n as earliest priest, 3;\n among Hindoos, 15.\n House of the Bronze Threshold, 132.\n Household \u201cteraphim,\u201d 109.\n Hovel earliest form of Egyptian temple, 100.\n Huc, Abb\u00e9: cited, 125.\n Hughes, Thomas P.:\n cited, 37, 123;\n reference to, 164.\n Human nature and sacredness of threshold, 152.\n Human sacrifice:\n in Zindero and Central Africa, 8 f.,\n in China, 48,\n in Alaska, 50 f.,\n in Mexico, 56,\n at pagoda door in India, 122 f.,\n on altar at temple gate in Tibet, 125;\n in modern times, 47;\n various substitutes for, 53 f.;\n reference to, 144.\n Human skeletons found under towers of ancient Irish, 50 f.\n Hut earliest form of Japanese temple, 101.\n Hwen Thsang, reference to, 156.\n \u201cHymen\u2019s torch\u201d in marriage ceremony, 41.\n Hyssop, significance of, 214.\n\n\n Iceland, Thorolf of Norway in, 160.\n Idolaters, threshold and door-post of, beside Lord\u2019s, 118.\n Idols:\n at door-altar in Mexico, 21;\n destroyed at gate in Meccah, Medina, and Ghuznee, 123.\n Image as gateway of village or cemetery in New Zealand, 107 f.\n Images:\n buried under threshold of houses, temples, and city gates, 14;\n in sacred \u201cupper corner\u201d of building in Russia, 55;\n under foundations in ancient Rome, 55 f.;\n of gods of threshold in China, 96.\n Imbi\u02bea, reference to, 60.\n Imgur-B\u00eal gate in walls of Babylon, 110.\n \u201cImposition of the Sa, the,\u201d touch of uplifted hand of deity, 85.\n Incantations:\n mantra used in, 15;\n on paper placed in door-sill in Pennsylvania, 21.\n Incense:\n placed on threshold, 18;\n exorcism with, 18;\n burned on threshold in Tuscany, 42;\n origin of, 226.\n India:\n law of threshold in, 5 f.;\n sacredness of threshold in, 16;\n body not to cross threshold, 23;\n body removed through wall, 23;\n crossing threshold by bride in, 38;\n bride at altar-fire in, 41;\n appeals in blood at household altar in, 61;\n refusal to move from threshold until claim is heeded in, 61;\n offering to threshold god V\u0101ttu in, 95;\n fire-altar center of worship in, 99;\n no temples in early, 100;\n fire-altar on threshold as place of worship in, 102;\n doorways apart from temples in, 104;\n judgments at temple threshold in, 122;\n bloody sacrifices at temple threshold in, 122;\n holy trees in Upper, 156;\n habit of building sanctuary in, 157;\n landmarks in, 169;\n laws of, regarding disputed boundaries, 169;\n visible aid of worship in, 198;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n serpent as religious symbol in, 235;\n marriage ceremonies in, 248;\n lotus symbol in, 257;\n religious custom in, 258.\n Indian Antiquary, reference to, 258.\n Indians:\n of Mexico, reference to, 21;\n of Yucatan, reference to, 82;\n red hand among American, 85-93;\n Natchez, religious ceremonies among, 147.\n Indies, East, hand as emblem of power in, 78.\n Indo-Aryans and boundary lines, 185.\n Inscription:\n and invocation placed at corner of building in Babylonia, 22;\n on gates and houses deemed protection against evil spirits, 70;\n at doorway in China, 71;\n among Greeks, 72;\n on tomb of kings of Persia, 124;\n showing sanctity of temple doorways in Asia, 109.\n Instructress in matrimony in China, 40.\n Invocations:\n on images buried under threshold, 14;\n and deposits at threshold in Babylonia, 22.\n Iona cathedral built in human blood, 50.\n Ionia, pillar as threshold stone in, 180.\n Ioways, red hand among, 87.\n Ireland:\n sacrifice in, 21;\n lifting bride over threshold in, 44;\n human skeletons in round towers in, 50;\n print of five fingers on \u201cdruidical altar\u201d in, 81;\n mode of marriage in, 142 f.\n Iren\u00e6us: cited, 239.\n Iron as guard against evil spirits, 17.\n Is\u00e9:\n temples of, modeled on primeval hut, 101;\n great shrines of, chief Meccah of Shint\u014d faith, 126.\n Ishmael:\n and Holy House, tradition of, 163;\n and Hagar, Abraham\u2019s visit to home of, 200.\n Ishmael, Rabbi: cited, 208.\n Ishtar:\n gate of, 95;\n legend of, 113.\n Isis, guardian of Egyptian temple, 127.\n Islands, South Sea, temples of, 148.\n Israel:\n executing judgment against Benjamites for disregard of appeal at\n door, 63 f.;\n called to \u201cestablish judgment at the gate,\u201d 64.\n Israelites:\n protected against Medes, Persians, Midianites, and Assyrians, 211;\n reference to, 216;\n command to, concerning Asherah and pillar, 233;\n exhibiting evidences among, 249.\n Istar of Agade, 153. See, also, _Ishtar_.\n Italy:\n prominence of threshold in folk customs of, 17 f.;\n corpse not to pass main door of house in, 24.\n Ivory hand as talisman among Jews at Tunis, 79.\n\n\n Jacob:\n at Bethel, 160;\n and Laban agreeing on landmark, 171;\n his pillar, 268 f.\n \u201cJacob\u2019s ladder\u201d probably stepped-temple structure, 112.\n Jaffa, sacrifices of sheep at beginning of railroad at, 56.\n \u201c_Janua_,\u201d reference to, 200.\n Janus, Gate-god of Romans, 97.\n Japan:\n salt sprinkled on threshold in, 20;\n survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.;\n shimenawa suspended above door in, 72;\n gods of Ni-o guarding threshold in, 96;\n temples of, on model of primeval huts, 101;\n doorways apart from temples in, 104;\n pilgrims at threshold of sacred shrines of, 125;\n Shinto temples of, 201;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Jastrow, Prof. Dr. Morris, Jr.: cited, 79, 144, 253.\n Jastrow, Rev. Dr. Marcus, testimony of, 212.\n Jehoash, altar at threshold in days of, 121.\n Jehoiada:\n chest for offerings placed at temple door and altar, 121;\n his assignment of priests to threshold, 120.\n Jennings, Hargrave: cited, 230.\n Jeremiah, references to, 64, 213.\n Jericho:\n curse of Joshua on rebuilder of walls of, 46 f.;\n walls of, falling down, 211.\n Jerome: his translation of _saph_, 207.\n Jerusalem:\n and Jaffa railroad, sacrifice at beginning of, 57;\n blood placed on lintel of temple at, 67;\n red hand in Jews\u2019 quarter of, 75;\n waters issuing from under threshold of temple at, 114;\n altar of burnt offering at threshold of temple at, 120;\n temple site at, 161;\n presence of Christ at, 215;\n Church of Holy Sepulcher at, 221.\n Jesus:\n reference of, to door, 6,\n to gates of Hades, 65;\n the Door, 104.\n Jews:\n red hand on houses of, in Jerusalem, 76,\n on houses at Safed, 77;\n open hand found over graves of, in Europe, 79;\n in Morocco, bloody hand on door-posts among, 67 f.;\n sign of hand found in houses of, 76;\n sacrifice of lamb at door of new house of, 76 f.;\n in Tunis, bloody hand among, 78 f.;\n hand as talisman against evil eye among, 79;\n rubbing fingers on synagogue door-posts among, 144;\n modern, observing passover, 211 f.\n Jicarilla Apaches:\n prominence of red hand among, 87;\n celebration of attainment to puberty among, 88-92.\n John the Baptist, reference to, 218 f.\n Jones and Kropf:\n cited, 12, 18, 20 f., 143;\n quotation from, 17.\n Jordan, source of, at threshold of grotto of Pan, 115.\n Joshua:\n his curse on rebuilder of Jericho, 46 f.;\n guardians of threshold in days of, 120.\n Journal of American Folk-Lore, references to, 5, 21.\n Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, reference to, 236.\n Joyner. See _Von L\u00f6her and Joyner_.\n Judicial oath, uplifted hand in, 83.\n Julien, Stanislas: cited, 156.\n \u201cJumping the broomstick,\u201d 143.\n Juno, Virgil\u2019s reference to brazen threshold in temple of, 130.\n Jupiter:\n priest of, at Lystra, 134 f.;\n reference to boundary lines, 171;\n image of, as boundary mark, 172.\n Justice sought at gate:\n among Arabs, 57-59;\n in Arabia, 59 f.;\n in Babylonia and Elam, 60;\n in Egypt, 60 f.;\n in India, 61;\n in Morocco, 62 f.;\n among Israelites, 63 f.;\n in Turkey, 65.\n Justinian, Emperor: cited, 181.\n\n\n Ka, or soul, of dead, offerings to, 106.\n Ka\u02bfbah in mosk at Meccah, 163.\n Kadesh, Egyptian goddess, 234.\n Kadi, reference to, 247.\n Kamehameha, king of Sandwich Islands, 150.\n _Kami_, gods of doorways, 104.\n _Kardas Sarks_, god of house, prayer to, 44.\n Kathiawar, human sacrifice at threshold at, 61.\n Kauzeroon, British envoy approaching, 189.\n Keeper of gate, honorable position, 119 f.\n _Kef Miryam_, name of sign of hand, 77.\n Keightley, Thomas, references to, 172, 236.\n Keoroeva, ancient gods of Maui, 150.\n Ket, uses of the Egyptian goddess, 234.\n Key, uses of the Hebrew word for, 253.\n Khaleefs of Bagdad, threshold custom of, 10.\n Khedive, threshold sacrifice to welcome new, 7.\n Khem, god of generative force, 234.\n Khonds of Orissa, crossing threshold in wedding among, 39.\n Khorsabad, sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.\n Kid:\n outpoured blood of, in hospitality among Arabs, 23;\n sacrificed on threshold in Syria, 26.\n King, Capt. J.S.:\n quotations from, #27f72# f.;\n cited, 196.\n King:\n human sacrifice to welcome, 8 f.;\n and priest, offices claimed by same person, 101 f.\n Kings of Scotland crowned on Coronation Stone, 268.\n King\u2019s highway, 176.\n Kissing:\n threshold in Persia, 12;\n doors among Pythagoreans, 13;\n threshold among Morlacchi in Dalmatia, 31;\n doorway serpent in Yezidis\u2019 temple, 116;\n threshold of mosk in Persia, 123 f.;\n threshold of gate of tomb of Alee, 124;\n threshold of _wely_, 129;\n threshold and door-posts of church in Abyssinia, 130 f.\n \u201cKissing the church\u201d in Abyssinia, 131.\n Kitto, John, references to, 120, 212.\n Kitzuki, sacredness of threshold among pilgrims at, 125 f.\n Kiva temples, hand on walls of, 92.\n Knight, Richard Payne: cited, 230.\n \u201cKnowledge, Tree of,\u201d reference to, 156.\n \u201cKnowledge,\u201d in Bible narrative, 238.\n Kohala, temple in, 150.\n Koner. See _Guhl and Koner_.\n Koran, See _Quran_.\n Korea:\n dead taken through hole in city wall in, 24;\n marriage covenant made by tracing woman\u2019s hand on contract, 93;\n doorways apart from temples in, 104;\n pilgrims at threshold in sacred shrines of, 125.\n Kowalewsky, M.: cited, 42.\n Krasnoslobodsk, marriage customs in, 249.\n Kropf, Lewis L.:\n cited, 12, 18, 20.\n See, also, _Jones and Kropf_.\n Kurigalzu II., king of Babylon, 154.\n Kuru-Kshetra, holy ground, 156.\n \u201c_Kuza bemuchsaz Kuzu_\u201d\u2013name of God, 70.\n\n\n Laban and Jacob agreeing about landmark, 171.\n Lachish, Tell el-Hesy, site of ancient, 58.\n Lacouperie, Terrien de: cited, 185, 231.\n Ladder, Jacob\u2019s, probably stepped-temple structure, 112.\n \u201cLady of the great land,\u201d\u2013Beltis Allat, 113.\n Lakshmi, wife of Vishnoo, represented as seated on serpent, 235.\n Lamb:\n sacrificed at door for guest, in Egypt, 4,\n in Syria, 4, 26;\n outpoured blood of, in hospitality among Arabs, 23;\n sacrificed at foundation-laying in Greece, 53;\n buried under altar in first Christian churches in Swedish tradition,\n 56;\n sacrificed on Arab joining another tribe, 58 f.;\n sacrificed at door of new house of Jew or Muhammadan in Palestine,\n 76 f.\n Lamberton, Prof. W.A.: cited, 132, 134.\n Lamps and laurels on gates in Tertullian\u2019s time, 97 f.\n Lanciani, Dr. Rodolfo: cited, 56, 257 f.\n Landmark:\n sacred boundary of private, 166;\n local, in form of phallus, 166;\n in Babylonia, 166;\n in laws of Hebrews, 169;\n in India, 169;\n fixing and honoring of, origin of, 175.\n Landor, A. Henry Savage-: cited, 24, 94.\n Lane, Edward William:\n cited, 26, 37, 129, 245;\n references to, 123, 244.\n Lane-Poole, Stanley: cited, 129, 200.\n Lantevit Major Church, wedding customs at, 141.\n Lapland, significance of stepping over threshold in, 12.\n Lares and Penates in Cicero\u2019s time, 41.\n Latins, marriage custom among, 29.\n Launching custom of \u201cchristening\u201d in England and America, 8.\n Laurel:\n wreaths hung in doorway at marriage among Romans, 73;\n Christians warned against placing, on their gates, 97.\n Laurie, Dr. Thomas: cited, 124.\n Law of doorway, 5-10.\n Laws of Manu, reference to, 6.\n Layard, Sir Austen H.:\n cited, 68, 109, 111, 190, 201, 234 f.;\n his discovery of sculptured image of Assyrian king, 115 f.\n \u201cLaying on of hands, the,\u201d as symbol of imparting power, 85.\n Lazarus at gate of Dives, 64.\n Leaping over threshold, 117.\n Lebanon, Mt., region receiving European prince, 191.\n Legend and fact as contributors to proof of custom among Orientals,\n 77.\n Legends:\n of Dumuzi, Tammuz, Osiris, and Adonis, correspondences in, 115;\n and symbols employed concerning boundary lines, 171 f.\n Leland, Charles Godfrey: cited, 17 f., 233.\n _L\u00e8l\u00e8_, name for altar, 150 f.\n Lemm, Oscar von: cited, 128.\n Lenormant, Fran\u00e7ois: cited, 109.\n Levites and priests assigned to threshold and foundation, 120.\n Levitical laws concerning sacrifice not made at \u201cdoor of tent of\n meeting,\u201d 118 f.\n Levy, Rabbi Jacob: cited, 208.\n Libation of water offered on threshold, 16 f., 29.\n Liberia:\n fowl sacrificed to welcome guest in, 9;\n nuptial customs of, 196.\n Liberian clergyman\u2019s testimony regarding threshold custom, 39.\n Liddell and Scott: cited, 208.\n Liebenstein, castle of, made fast by burying child, 49.\n Life:\n new, outgrowth of truth of primal threshold covenant, 226;\n tree of, symbol of feminine nature, 230;\n goddess of, in Egypt and Assyria, 234.\n Lifting bride over threshold:\n among Towkas, 35;\n in Abyssinia, Egypt, Syria, 38;\n in Greece, Rome, and West Africa. 39;\n in Russia, England, Scotland, Ireland, and United States, 44;\n in Central America, 45.\n _Limen_, Jerome\u2019s word for _saph_, 207.\n Limentinus, threshold god of Romans, 97.\n Lindisfarne Abbey, marriage customs at, 141.\n _Linga in yoni_, symbol of Siva\u2019s worship, 198, 236.\n Lintel:\n hand in dough impressed on, in Upper Syria, 28 f.;\n smeared with honey and water, 30;\n blood on, 66, 68;\n inscriptions as to sacredness of, 66, 68;\n blood stains above, 67;\n symbolic figures on, 70;\n sentences written on, in China, 71;\n Romans affixing spoils of battle on, 73;\n red hand on, 74;\n red hand on, in Babylonia, 75;\n ornamentation of, in ancient Egypt, 100;\n image of Horus on, 127;\n kissed by pious in Abyssinia, 131;\n decorations on, and above, 146;\n blood on, as protection for house, 206;\n and two side-posts, God passing over, 210.\n Lithuania, wooden cross placed under threshold in, 18.\n Littleton, Sir Thomas: cited, 140.\n London, horseshoes on threshold of houses in ancient, 74.\n Loong-moo, sacrifice of fowl in honor of divinity, among Chinese, 71\n f.\n \u201cLord of the great city,\u201d god Nergal as, 113.\n Lot welcoming angels, 211.\n Lotus flower:\n in religious symbolisms, 230;\n reference to, 234;\n symbol of fecundity, 257.\n \u201cLouping stone,\u201d 142.\n Lowell, Percival: cited, 104, 126, 201.\n _Lubare_, offering to, in Uganda, 15.\n Lubbock, Sir John: cited, 39.\n Luncz, A.M., quotations from, 67, 76.\n Lund\u2019s Every-day Life in Scandinavia: reference to, 7, 12.\n Lystra, temple of Jupiter at, reference to, 135.\n\n\n McDowell, Henry B.: cited, 96.\n McLennan, Dr. John F.: cited, 39.\n Mackay, Alexander: cited, 15.\n Mackenzie, Capt. J.S.F., quotation from, 258 f.\n Ma\u00e7oudi\u2019s _Les Prairies d\u2019Or_, reference to, 200.\n _Madaa_, place of prayer, 164.\n Madagascar, importance of right foot in, 38;\n circumcision in, 149.\n Mafkat, land of, 184.\n Magharah, Wady, boundary marks in, 179.\n Magyars:\n stepping over threshold among, 12;\n custom to win love, 19 f.\n Mahabharata:\n cited, 6;\n on responsibility of heralds, 62;\n Hindoo epic, 157.\n _Mal occhis_, or evil eye, 79.\n Male represented by stone or pole, 258.\n Man, origin and development of, 223.\n Manoli in \u201cMonastery of Argis,\u201d story of, 52 f.\n _Mantra_, meaning of word, 15.\n Manu, Laws of, reference to, 6.\n _Maras_ kept off by cross on threshold, 18.\n \u201cMarches,\u201d reference to, 183.\n Marduk, reference to, 235.\n _Margosa_, reference to, 259.\n Margrave, origin of, 183.\n Mariette Bey, references to, 111, 126, 128.\n Market-places as boundaries, 178.\n \u201cMarkgraf,\u201d meaning of, 183.\n \u201cMarks,\u201d reference to, 183.\n Marquardt, Joachim: cited, 30, 39, 41.\n \u201cMarque, Letters of,\u201d meaning of, 183.\n \u201cMarquee,\u201d meaning of, 183.\n Marquises, origin of, 183.\n Marriage:\n threshold covenanting in, 25-35;\n by outpoured blood at threshold, 26;\n customs among Somalis in Central Africa, 27,\n among Wallachians, 29,\n in Egypt, 243, 245,\n in China, Dahomey, 245,\n in Syria, 246,\n in Asia and Africa, in Krasnoslobodsk, among Mordvins, in Pensa,\n 249,\n in Samoa, 251;\n not \u201cby capture,\u201d 36;\n celebrated at church door in Abyssinia, 131;\n where solemnized, 138;\n Pre-Reformation rule of, 139;\n services in Protestant Episcopal churches, 148;\n covenant, primitive certificate of, 196;\n primitive rite of, 214, 225;\n sacrament of, in Roman Catholic Church, 222;\n torch, origin of, 226;\n certificate in Syria, 245,\n in Upper Egypt, 245;\n ceremonies among Muhammedans, 247;\n ceremonies among Christians at Haleb, 248;\n ceremonies in Darfour, 249.\n See, also, _Wedding ceremonies_.\n \u201cMary\u2019s Hand, Virgin,\u201d among Christians of Syria, 77.\n Masjid:\n bridegroom\u2019s visit to, in Central Africa, 27;\n place of prostration, 163.\n Mask marked with hand among Jicarilla Apaches, 89.\n Mason, William Shaw: cited, 21, 81.\n \u201cMason and Dixon\u2019s line,\u201d 182.\n Maspero, Prof. G.:\n cited, 14, 39, 85;\n references to, 95, 102, 105 f., 113 f., 126, 169, 201, 235.\n Massachusetts, beating bounds in, 176.\n Mastabahs, false doors in ancient Egypt, 106 f.\n Matthews, Washington, reference to, 87.\n Maundrell, Henry, reference to, 222.\n Maui, Island of, ancient god of, 150.\n Maurice, Thomas:\n cited, 122;\n references to, 123, 236 f.\n Maya people, sacrifices among, 145.\n Meccah:\n black stone of, reference to, 10;\n prayer niche toward, 108;\n mosk of, image thrown down at gate of, 123;\n mosk at, reference to, 163;\n Hajj procession from, 186.\n Medals showing altar at threshold, 121.\n Medicine taken on threshold in Tuscany, 17 f.\n Medina, mosk of, pieces of idol thrown down at gate of, 123.\n Mediterranean, boundary marks on shores of, 178.\n Medusa and serpents, 237.\n Memorials in door form, in various lands, 107.\n Mercury:\n reference to, concerning boundary lines, 171;\n image of, as boundary landmark, 172.\n Merodach:\n god of left side of gate, 95;\n temple of, threshold plated with gold, 110.\n Met\u00e2wileh, hen sacrificed at building of house among, 45.\n Metempsychosis connected with threshold covenant, 226.\n Mexico:\n Indians of ancient, reference to, 21;\n sacrificial stone of temple of, 56;\n ancient, altar in doorway, 108;\n earliest form of temple in, 144;\n religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235.\n Meydoom, stepped pyramid of, in Egypt, 126.\n \u201cMezuza,\u201d covenant record at door-way, 69 f.\n Middle Empire of Egypt:\n disappearance of door form in, 106;\n temples of, 155.\n \u201cMidsummer Day\u201d festival in Russia, 42.\n \u201cMihrab,\u201d or prayer niche, probable origin of its form, 108.\n Mile-posts as landmarks, 176.\n Min, Egyptian god of generative force, 234.\n Mineptah I., memorial stone of, 180.\n Minnesota, threshold custom among Scandinavians in, 259.\n Mississippi, lower, religious ceremonies among Indians along, 147.\n \u201cMizpah,\u201d memorial of covenant, 171.\n Mnesikles, architect, plan of, 158.\n Moksha, wooing custom among, 42.\n \u201cMonastery of Argis,\u201d foundation sacrifice in, 52 f.\n Monier-Williams, Sir Monier: cited, 156, 198 f., 230, 236.\n Monoliths in front of door of temple at Yeha, 131.\n Montezuma: his consecration of altar by blood of captives, 56.\n Moon-god Sin:\n Ur-Gur with uplifted hands before, 80;\n reference to, 161.\n Mordevins. See _Mordvins_.\n Mordvins:\n threshold as altar among, 32;\n marriage customs of, 41, 249.\n Morea, threshold custom in, 30.\n Morier, James:\n cited, 11 f., 78, 123;\n quotation from, 189 f.\n Morlacchi custom of kissing threshold, 31.\n Morocco, survival of sacrificing at door-way in, 62.\n Mosaic law, appeal to altar in covenant in, 65.\n Moses:\n at gate of camp, 63;\n meeting Jehovah at doorway, 119;\n in wilderness of Sinai, 160 f.\n \u201cMoses, Hand of,\u201d red hand called, 77.\n Mosk of St. Sophia, stamp of red hand in, 77.\n Mostur, temple of Thor in, 160.\n Mt. Lebanon region, European prince received in, 191.\n Mt. Moriah:\n temple on, reference to, 161;\n and Abraham\u2019s offering, 161.\n Mt. Sinai, reference to, 94.\n Mountain peaks as boundaries, 178.\n Muhammad:\n certificate of protection signed with impression of open hand of,\n 94;\n throne of, reached only by kissing threshold, 124.\n Muhammad II.: his victory over Christians sealed by bloody hand, 77.\n Muhammad Issoof, letter from king of Mysore to, 94.\n Muhammadan:\n substitute for \u201cblood of the grape,\u201d 5;\n conquest of India, reference to, 123.\n Muhammadans:\n to place right foot first in crossing threshold, 36;\n inscribe gates, fountains, bridges, and houses, 70;\n sacred inscriptions placed above doorways by, 71;\n sign of hand among, 76;\n lamb sacrificed at door of new house of, 76 f.;\n \u201cHand of the Prophet\u201d on houses of, 77;\n sultan as father of faithful, 103;\n prayer niche among, 108;\n treading on idol at gate, 123;\n threshold of mosks counted sacred among, 123;\n their estimate of first foundations, 162;\n marriage customs of, 247;\n reticent on matters concerning women, 247 f.\n Muir, Sir William, reference to, 164.\n M\u00fclhau and Volck, reference to, 255.\n M\u00fcller, Ivan V., reference to, 172.\n M\u00fcller, Prof. W. Max: cited, 127, 234.\n Muslims. See _Muhammadans_.\n Mussulmans. See _Muhammadans_.\n Mysore:\n king of, hand-print on back of letter written by, 94;\n ancient religious custom at, 258.\n Mysoreans, hand-print equivalent to oath among, 94.\n\n\n Naaman, reference to, 161.\n Nabob of Arcot, banners of, inscribed with hand, 78.\n Nabonidus, king of Babylon, 153.\n Nabuna\u02beid, king of Babylon, 154.\n Nahr-el-Kelb:\n as gateway of nations, 105;\n boundary marks at, 178.\n Nahuas, marriage ceremonies of, 246.\n Nakishbend, tomb of, threshold stone at, 124 f.\n Naomi, reference to, 64.\n Napier, James: cited, 44.\n Naples, pine cone among Pompeian relics at, 257.\n Nar\u00e2m-Sin, reference to, 154.\n _Nasa_, meaning of Hebrew word, 83.\n Natchez Indians, religious ceremonies among, 147.\n Nations or states, boundaries of, 177.\n Neapolitan Museum, information concerning threshold at, 258.\n Nebo:\n shrine of, 110;\n references to, 177, 188.\n Nebuchadrezzar I.:\n meaning of name, 177;\n his empire boundary, 188.\n Nebuchadrezzar II.:\n inscriptions of, 109;\n his description of building walls of Babylon, 109-111;\n reference to, 154.\n Negeb:\n reference to, 160;\n boundary dispute on borders of, 170.\n Neoptolemus and Orestes in temple at Delphi, 134.\n Nephthys, guardian of gateway of Egyptian temple, 127.\n Nergal, threshold god among Assyrians, 95, 113, 235.\n Nestorians kissing threshold on entering church, 124.\n Nevius, Rev. J.W.: cited, 24.\n New Empire of Egypt:\n religious pictures on stele in tombs of, 107;\n buildings of, 155.\n New England:\n door at corner of house in, 55;\n \u201cbeating the bounds\u201d in, 176.\n \u201cNew Fire, Festival of,\u201d 147.\n New Testament, symbols of Old Testament explained in, 215.\n New Year:\n threshold custom in Aberdeenshire, 20 f.;\n of Hebrews, 212;\n Easter beginning new Ecclesiastical, 221.\n New Zealand, sacred image as gateway in, 107 f.\n Niche:\n as shrine in Egypt, 106;\n survival of tomb doorways, 108;\n prominence of, in Egypt, 106 f.,\n in New Zealand, 107 f.,\n in Muhammadan and Christian lands and in China, 108.\n Niebuhr, C.: cited, 248.\n Nikk\u014d, shrines of, 126.\n Nile, Gen Grant on Upper, 7 f.\n Nimb tree, reference to, 259.\n Nimitti-Bel, gate of, in walls of Babylon, 110.\n Nimroud, blood-stained slabs at entrance to palace of, 68.\n Nineveh:\n sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;\n sculpture of Assyrian king with uplifted arm found at, 115.\n Ni-o, prints of gods placed over doors in Japan, 95.\n Nippur:\n sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.;\n altar found between temples in, 111.\n _Nish_, Assyrian word for swearing, 83.\n Noetling, Dr., reference to, 77.\n Northly, Hen., reference to, 140.\n Norway, Thorolf of, removing to Iceland, 160.\n \u201cNot by door,\u201d entering house, 6.\n Notre Dame, marriage at door of church of, 130.\n November 11 as sacrifice day in Ireland, 21.\n Nubia:\n ancient map of gold districts in, 180;\n reference to, 185.\n Numa, directions of, concerning boundaries, 173.\n Nuptial torch in marriage ceremony, 41.\n Nurshivan and Hormuz, reference to, 11.\n Nuts presented to bride at threshold in Dalmatia, 31.\n\n\n Oath, uplifted hand in judicial, 83.\n Obelisk, symbol of Baal, 214.\n Oberea, queen of Otaheite, 250 f.\n Offerings:\n at threshold, 28, 118 f.;\n to local divinity at threshold-laying, 95;\n for dead pictured on stele of Middle Empire of Egypt, 106.\n _Ohel_, applied to private tent and to sacred tabernacle, 101.\n Ohnefalach-Richter, reference to, 231.\n Old Empire of Egypt:\n false door in early tombs of, 106;\n temples of, 155.\n Old Testament and New:\n waters of life in, 115;\n rites and symbols of, 215.\n Oldest member of household first to enter new house, 54.\n Olympian games, references to, 7, 263.\n Olympus, House of Zeus, 132.\n _Om mani padme H\u016bm_, 199.\n Omaha chief, burial of, 85 f.\n Ophites, teaching of, 239.\n Oracle at Delphi, 236.\n Oran buried alive in foundation of cathedral in Iona, 50.\n Orestes and Neoptolemus at Delphi, 134.\n Oriental:\n sovereigns and boundaries, 177;\n Christians, covenanting at threshold among, 221;\n figures of speech obscured by literalism of Western mind, 238.\n Orissa, importance of threshold in marriage in, 39.\n Orme, R.: cited, 94.\n Osiris:\n annual feast in honor of, 14 f.;\n references to, 106, 115, 128 f., 179;\n door of gateway, 127.\n \u201c_Ostium_\u201d defined, 200.\n Otaheite, primitive threshold in, 250.\n Ovid: cited, 172 f.\n Owens, J.G.: cited, 21.\n Oxford, Penn., stone landmark at, 183.\n\n\n Palestine:\n spilling water on threshold in, 29;\n sacrifice at beginning railroad in, 57;\n blood on lintel, 67;\n red hand in, 75;\n hand printed in blue in houses of, 76.\n Palgrave, William G.: cited, 10.\n Palm cone, symbolism of, 231.\n Palmer, Prof. E.H., quotation from, 26.\n Pan, threshold of grotto of, 115.\n Pan-k\u0103ng, emperor of China, reference to, 157.\n Paper sprinkled with blood in China, 72.\n \u201cParting-stool,\u201d reference to, 142.\n _P\u0101s\u0103kha_, meaning of, 208, 210, 266.\n Paul:\n with Barnabas at Lystra, 135;\n his reference to foundations, 162;\n to Corinthian Christians, 215;\n on Christian passover, 217;\n on relation between Christ and his church, 219.\n Pausanias: cited, 135.\n Pecos, red-hand symbol in ancient Pueblos of, 87 f.\n Peepul tree, in Upper India, 156, 259.\n Peloponnesus and Attica, boundary between, 180.\n Penates:\n reference to, 19;\n of Romans at threshold, 23;\n appeased by bread and salt, 32;\n and Lares in Cicero\u2019s time, 41.\n Pennsylvania:\n threshold custom in, 21;\n corner-stone at door in, 55;\n horseshoes as doorway guards in, 74;\n stone landmark in, 183.\n Pennsylvania Magazine of History, reference to, 183.\n Pensa, marriage customs in, 249.\n \u201c_Per-ao_\u201d (Pharaoh), meaning of, 103.\n Pericles building new Propyl\u00e6a, 158.\n Perrot and Chipiez:\n cited, 71, 78, 80, 85, 100, 103, 105, 111, 201, 231, 235;\n quotation from, 106 f.\n Persea, reference to, 180.\n Persepolis, justice at palace gate of, 60.\n Persia:\n sacredness of threshold in, 11 f.;\n sacred passages inscribed over doorways in, 71;\n banners and prayer-rugs inscribed with open hand in, 78;\n no temples in ancient, 100;\n fire-altar on uplifted threshold as place of worship in, 100, 102;\n veneration for threshold of mosks in, 123 f.;\n border sacrifices in, 188;\n shah of, entering Teheran, 189;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n marriage customs in, 249;\n phallus represented by boundary posts, 258.\n Peru:\n blood smeared on doorway in, 73;\n stepped pyramid temples in, 111;\n religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235.\n _Pesakh_. See _P\u0101s\u0103kh_.\n Petrie, Dr. W.M. Flinders:\n his discovery of ornamental door-jams, 58;\n reference to, 126.\n \u201cPetting stone,\u201d at Lindisfarne Abbey, 141.\n Phallus, reverence for, in Babylonia, Assyria, India, China, Japan,\n Persia, Phrygia, Phenicia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Greece, Rome, Germany,\n Scandinavia, France, Spain, Great Britain, North and South America,\n Islands of the Sea, 230.\n \u201cPharaoh,\u201d meaning of, 103.\n Phenicia:\n uplifted hand of deities of, 79 f.;\n prominence of door in, 107;\n altar at threshold in, 121;\n indications of presence of deity in, 201;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n religions of, and serpent as symbol, 235;\n pine cone symbol in, 257.\n Philip II. of Spain, reference to, 139.\n Philistines, sacredness of threshold among, 11 f.\n Philo Jud\u00e6us:\n cited, 208, 238;\n reference to, 239.\n _Philos_, _Phle\u014d_, and _Phli\u0113_, meanings and uses of, 255 f.\n Ph\u0153bus Apollo, reference to, 133.\n Phrygia:\n threshold altar in, 121;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Pig:\n sacrifice of black, in Russia, 19;\n blood of, sprinkled at door in Borneo, 20;\n buried alive under houses, 56;\n as sacrifice, 148.\n Pigeon-poult\u2019s blood in Arabia, 248.\n Pigeons sacrificed at door, 4.\n Pilgrims at threshold in Japan, in Korea, in Shinto and Booddhist\n temple, 125.\n Pillar:\n of cloud at doorway of tent of meeting, 119;\n of Baal, 214;\n and tree in religious symbolism, 232;\n command to Israelites concerning, 233.\n \u201cPillars of Herculus,\u201d 181.\n Pine cone: in ancient Assyrian sculptures, in Grecian and Phenician\n cults, and in ancient Rome, 257.\n Pinkerton, John: cited, 39.\n Pipal tree. See _Peepul tree_.\n Pipiles, sacrifices among, 146.\n \u201cPlain of Kuru,\u201d 156.\n Pliny, reference to, 93.\n Ploss, H., reference to, 93.\n Plutarch: cited, 25, 39, 41, 180 f., 263, 265.\n Pole, brush-topped, symbolism of, 214, 258.\n Polynesia:\n survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.;\n uplifted hand found in stepped-pyramid temples of, 83;\n boundary lines in, 174.\n Pomegranate:\n on threshold in Morea, 30, in Rhodes, 30 f.;\n in religious symbolisms, 230.\n Pompeian relics at Naples, 257.\n Ponce de Leon and fountain of life, 148.\n Poole. See _Lane-Poole_.\n _Poros_, derivation of, 265.\n _Porta_ and _Porto_, derivation of, 265.\n _Porta di morti_ in Italian houses for corpse, 24.\n Porter, Sir Robert Kerr: cited, 9, 71.\n Porter, twofold use of word, 263-265.\n Portuguese navigators and boundary pillars, 180 f.\n _Postliminium_, a recrossing of threshold, 181.\n _P\u00f4th_:\n uses of Hebrew word, 253;\n as hinge or socket, 254.\n Prabhus of Bombay, birth custom among, 17.\n Prague, open hand above graves in, 79.\n Prayer:\n on burying articles under threshold, 20;\n offered to \u201cgoddess of the homestead\u201d in betrothal in Russia, 32;\n for dead at door of Egyptian tombs, 106;\n Booddhist in Tibet, 199;\n meaning of, 228.\n Prayer-rug in Turkey and Persia, 78.\n Priest:\n house-father as earliest, 3;\n among Jicarilla Apaches, 89;\n as ruler, 165;\n of Dagon not to tread on threshold, 117.\n Primitive:\n altar of family, 3;\n threshold customs, 35;\n temple as rude door-way, 102;\n man and his knowledge, 224.\n Prisse\u2019s Monuments of Egypt, reference to, 234.\n Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology, references to, 201,\n 231, 257.\n Propylon:\n of Egyptian temple, 127;\n of Greek temple on Acropolis, 158.\n _P\u02berosd\u00f4r_, rabbinical meaning of, 253.\n Prostitution, sacred, origin of, 229.\n Prostrating:\n at gate of palace in Bagdad, 10;\n at threshold of shrines of Egypt, 127 f.\n Protection:\n for enemy at home sanctuary, 57;\n at threshold among Afghans, 58.\n Protestant Episcopal churches:\n baptismal font in, 147;\n marriage ceremonies in, 148.\n Psalmist:\n his reference to lifting up hand, 82;\n to honorable position of doorkeeper, 120.\n Puberty celebrated among Jicarilla Apaches, 88-91.\n Pueblos:\n prominence of red hand among, 87;\n references to, 88, 92.\n Puhonuas, cities of refuge in Hawaii, 151.\n Purity of primitive threshold covenant, 233.\n \u201cPut your right foot first,\u201d 37 f.\n _Puthm\u0113n_, meanings and uses of, 255.\n Pylon. See _Propylon_.\n Pyramid, stepped:\n many early temples in form of, 83, 111;\n of Meydoom, 126;\n references to, 144, 148, 229.\n Pythagoras: cited, 37.\n Pythagoreans, reverence for threshold among, 12 f.\n\n\n Quarrels as result of shaking hands over threshold in Finland, 12.\n Quarterly Statement of Palestine Exploration Fund, reference to, 29.\n Queen of Heaven, statue of, in Carthage, 130.\n Qur\u00e2n, sentences from:\n on gates, fountains, bridges, and houses, 70;\n on houses of worship, 163.\n\n .p2\n Rahab, blood-colored thread on house of, 211.\n Raja Pasupati, reference to, 157.\n Ralston, W.R.S.:\n cited, 12, 19, 24, 32, 54 f.;\n quotation from, 23.\n Rameses II., reference to, 180.\n Ram\u2019s horn on door-post in Tell-el-Hesy, 58.\n Ramsay, Prof. W.M.: cited, 229.\n Rawlinson, George: cited, 14, 105, 111 f.\n Rawlinson, Sir Henry C.:\n cited, 110, 153, 178, 184, 234;\n quotation from, 167-169.\n Recognition, Mount of, reference to, 164.\n Records, Book of, or Shoo King, reference to, 158.\n Red cloth on altar at marriage, 34.\n Red hand:\n as sign of covenant, 74 f.;\n in Morocco, 74;\n in Palestine, 74-76;\n in Turkey, 74, 77;\n in Babylonia, 75;\n on lintel, 75;\n Aryan origin of, 75;\n among Sephardeem, 76;\n in Mosk of St. Sophia, 77;\n in Central America, 81 f.;\n among aborigines of America, 83;\n among Dacotahs, Winnebagoes, 84;\n among Omahas, 85;\n among Ioways, Sauks, Foxes, Sioux, Arickarees, Cheyennes, Arapahoes,\n Comanches, Apaches, Jicarillas, and Pueblos, 87;\n among Pecos, 87 f.;\n among cliff-dwellers of Chelly Canyon, 87.\n See, also, _Bloody hand_.\n Red seal on documents, probable meaning of, 94.\n Redwan, village of, 190.\n Refuge, cities of, 151.\n Remondino, Dr. P.C.: cited, 196.\n Renouf, Le Page: cited, 128 f., 257.\n _Rere_, name for altar, 150 f.\n R\u00e9ville, Albert: cited, 73, 111, 144 f., 235.\n Rhodes, doorway marked with honey in, 30.\n Rice:\n as offering among Hindoos, 15;\n on heads of bridal couple among Hindoos, 36;\n presented to bride in China, 40;\n as offering at threshold in Japan, 125 f.\n Richon\u2019s Dic. of Bib. Antiq., reference to, 103.\n Rig Veda:\n reference to, 157;\n on production of sacred fire, 198.\n Right foot first to cross threshold of mosk, 123.\n Rio de Padr\u0101o, or Pillar River, 182.\n Rites:\n religious, beginning of, 36, 199, 225;\n and symbols of New Testament, 215.\n Ritual of Old and New Testament, basis of, 228.\n Rituals, ecclesiastical, origin of, 226.\n River of Threshold, 182.\n Roberts, Joseph: cited, 95, 122.\n Robes stamped with red hand among American Indians, 83.\n Rocky Pytho, reference to, 133.\n Rod at door, stepping over, 123.\n Rodd, Rennell:\n cited, 27, 30 f., 38;\n quotation from, 52 f.\n Roman:\n Penates at threshold or hearth, 23;\n architect on proportions of temple, 36;\n custom of placing statues under foundations, 55 f.;\n custom of affixing spoils and trophies of war to lintels, 73;\n temples, position of altar in, 134;\n empire, mile-posts in, 176;\n empire, threshold of, 258.\n Roman Catholic Church on marriage, 222.\n Roman Catholic churches, holy water in, in America, 147.\n Rome:\n lifting bride over threshold in, 39;\n bride worshiping at altar-fire in, 41;\n images under foundations in, 55 f.;\n \u201cgods of entrances\u201d in, 97;\n reference to religion of, 97;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n pine cone found in, 257;\n ceremonies at founding of, 264 f.\n Romulus, founder of Rome, 264 f.\n Rongo, first-born son of Vatea and Papa, reference to, 152.\n Roscommon, county of, Druidical altar in, 81.\n Rosenm\u00fcller, Ernst F.K.: cited, 78.\n Roumania, bat and coin under threshold in, 20.\n Rous\u2019s Arch\u00e6ologia Attica, reference to, 39.\n Rubbing foreheads on \u201cstone of desire\u201d at Baveddeen, 125.\n Russia:\n welcoming guest with bread and salt in, 9;\n reverence for threshold in, 12;\n threshold observances in, 18, 31 f.;\n stillborn children buried under threshold in, 18;\n sacrifice to \u201cVodyaour\u201d in, 19;\n household deity abiding behind stove in, 23;\n concerning dead and threshold in, 24;\n marriage custom among Mordvins in, 41;\n crossing altar-fire in, 42;\n death following building of new house in, 54;\n \u201cupper corner\u201d of house sacred in, 54 f.;\n disputed boundary lines in, 175.\n Ruth, reference to, 64.\n Ruthennu, land of the, reference to, 180.\n\n\n \u201cSA, the imposition of the,\u201d representations on monuments of, 85.\n Sacrament of marriage in Greek and Roman Catholic churches, 222.\n Sacramental communion feasts, 226.\n Sacred corner of building in Russia, 54 f.\n Sacredness:\n of threshold among Scandinavians, 6 f.;\n of city gates among Greeks, 7;\n among Hindoos, 11;\n of boundary landmark in classic literature, 17;\n of threshold recognized in architecture and ceremonial, 22, 102;\n among Muhammadans, 123;\n in Persia, 123 f.;\n in Japan, 124 f.;\n in Babylonia and in Egypt, 126 f.;\n of doorway above threshold in Babylonia and Egypt, 126 f.\n Sacrifice:\n for family first made in home, 3 f.;\n in Syria, 3-5;\n at threshold in Egypt, 3, 7 f.;\n in Africa, 9, 27 f.;\n among Arabs, 9, 26, 59;\n among Pipiles, 144;\n in Mexico and Ireland, 21;\n in Morocco, 63;\n at door, of heifer, 4,\n pigeons, 4,\n horse, 4 f.,\n bullock, 4, 7 f.,\n sheep, 4, 7-9, 11, 21, 23, 26 f., 45, 53, 58 f., 63, 76 f.,\n fowl, 4, 9, 21, 27, 45, 53-56, 71 f.,\n goat, 4, 27 f., 45, 59,\n buffaloes, 7,\n human, 8 f., 46-48, 50-54, 56, 122 f., 125, 144 f.,\n pig, 14, 19, 148,\n cow, goose, 21;\n of salt in Japan, 26;\n at threshold to reconcile enemies, 59;\n altar of, location of, 134;\n offered at boundary of empire, 183;\n origin of, 228.\n Sacrificial rules of ancient Hindoos on stepping over threshold, 36 f.\n Safed, sign of hand in houses at, 77.\n Sailer, Dr. T.H.P.: cited, 266.\n St. Catharine, convent of, reference to, 94.\n St. Columba, human sacrifice in walls of cathedral of, 50.\n St. Eric, tomb of, reference to, 140.\n St. John, Spencer: cited, 20, 34.\n St. John\u2019s College, reference to, 48.\n St. Sophia, mosk of, stamp of red hand in, 77.\n Saint\u2019s tomb as place of worship in Egypt, 129.\n Saivism, or Sivaism, predominating in modern Hindooism, 198.\n Sakya Sinha, attaining to Booddha-hood, 156.\n Sale, G.: cited, 164.\n Salt:\n as substitute for blood, 5, 20;\n on threshold in Syria, 5, in Japan, 20;\n stepping over, 5;\n and bread to welcome guest in Russia, 9,\n among Arabs, 22,\n among Erza, 43 f.;\n and fire in Scotland, 21;\n carried into new home in Pennsylvania, 21;\n under threshold in Russia, 32 f.\n Samoa:\n spilling water on doorstep in, 12;\n nuptial customs of, 196, 251;\n boundary lines in, 174;\n father as primitive priest in, 101.\n Samson carrying off gates of Gaza, 255.\n Sandwich Islands, temples in, 150.\n _Saph_, meaning of, 205, 207 f.\n Sarcophagi of Byzantine age showing altar on threshold, 121.\n Sardinia, prominence of door in, 107.\n Sargon I., reference to, 154.\n Sauks, red hand among, 87.\n Savage-Landor, A. Henry. See _Landor_.\n Sayce, Prof. A.H.: cited, 8, 80, 111, 113, 169, 201, 235.\n Scandinavia:\n sacredness of door in, 6 f.;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Scandinavians in America, importance of threshold among, 259.\n Schoolcraft, Dr. Henry R.:\n quotation from, 83 f.;\n reference to, 87.\n Schrader, Dr. Eberhard: cited, 103, 177 f., 234.\n Scotland:\n treading upon boundary lines in, 13;\n New Year\u2019s threshold custom in, 20 f.;\n sacredness of threshold in, 34;\n lifting bride over threshold in, 44;\n crowning of kings of, 268.\n Scott, Robert. See _Liddell and Scott_.\n Scottish legend of burying of human being in walls of cathedral, 50.\n Sculpture:\n on lintel in Palestine, 70;\n palm cone in Assyrian, 231;\n pine cone in Assyrian, 257.\n Scutari, woman immured in walls of, 47 f.\n Sea Dyaks, marriage custom among, 34.\n Sea, Islands of:\n spring of life-giving waters in, 151;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Seashore as boundary, 178.\n Seaweed laid on threshold in Aberdeenshire, 20 f.\n Sedan-chair to convey bride to her husband\u2019s home in China, 39 f.\n Seed-sowing, blood sprinkled at door at festival of, 20.\n Seed-time ceremony at threshold, 16.\n Segub, Jericho\u2019s foundation laid in blood of, 47.\n Selden, John: cited, 140.\n _Senghi murad_, \u201cstone of desire,\u201d at Baveddeen, 125.\n Sentiment as origin of persistent popular customs, 36.\n Sephardeem, red hand among, 76.\n Septuagint, references to, 117, 207.\n Sepulcher, Holy, Church of, 221.\n Serpent:\n as guardian of thresholds in Babylon, 110 f.;\n on temple doorway kissed by worshipers, 116;\n as symbol of life, 233 f., 236;\n on boundary stone in Babylonian domains, 234;\n and phallus in Babylonian mythology, 235;\n representative of evil, 235;\n and \u00c6sculapius, 236;\n with Hindoo deities, 236;\n and Medusa, 237;\n worship perversion of threshold covenant, 237;\n indicating desire, 238;\n curse resting on, 239;\n worship in Bangalore, 258 f.\n Servius, Maurus H.: cited, 29 f.\n Seti I., memorial stone of, 180.\n Shagarakti-Buriash, inscription of, 154.\n Shah of Persia entering Teheran, 189.\n Shaking hands across threshold cause of quarrel, 12.\n Shamash, sun-god:\n and his worshipers with uplifted hands, 80;\n gates open for his daily circuit, 105;\n reference to, 201.\n Shanghai, human sacrifice in, 48.\n Shaykhs kissing temple threshold near Nineveh, 116.\n Sheep, sacrifice of:\n on threshold for guest, in Syria, 3 f.;\n in Egypt, 3 f., 8;\n in Central Africa, 9, 27;\n east of Sea of Galilee, 11;\n in Ireland, 21;\n among Copts, 26, 45;\n among Armenian Christians, 27;\n at beginning of railroad at Jaffa, 57;\n to reconcile enemies in Arabia, 60.\n Sherrin, R.R.A.: cited, 107 f.\n Shields painted with red hand among American Indians, 87.\n Shih King, Chinese, on border sacrifices, 185.\n Shimenawa suspended above doors in Japan, 72\n Shint\u014d temples:\n modeled on primitive Japanese hut, 101;\n doorways apart from, 104;\n pilgrims at threshold of, 125;\n reference to, 201.\n Shint\u014dism, sacred symbol of, suspended above door, 72.\n Shintu, tutelar gods of threshold in China, 95 f.\n Ship, horseshoe on mast of, 74.\n Shoes removed at threshold:\n of mosks, 123;\n of churches in Abyssinia, 130.\n Shoo King, Chinese, reference to, 158.\n Shooter, Joseph: cited, 28.\n Shores of sea as boundaries, 178.\n Shortland, Edward, quotation from, 93.\n Shrines:\n sacred doorways in front of, in China, Japan, Korea, 104;\n in Siam, India, 105;\n at doorway in Babylonia, in Assyria, 105;\n in Egypt, 106;\n of Kitzuki, of Is\u00e9, of Kikk\u014d, threshold customs at, 125 f.\n Siam, doorways near temples in, 104.\n Sibree, James: cited, 38.\n Sicily, prominence of door in, 107.\n Sidon, consul at, reference to, 70.\n Sign of red hand. See _Red hand_.\n Silvanus, god of boundaries, 171, 173.\n Silver hand worn by children, 76.\n \u201cSilver Threshold,\u201d temple of, in Thebes, 127.\n Sin, Moon-god, references to, 80, 154.\n Sinai:\n Moses in wilderness of, 160 f.;\n peninsula of, boundary marks in, 179, 184.\n Sioux, red hand among, 87.\n Sippara, sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.\n _Sippu_, Assyrian word for threshold, 110 f., 209.\n _Sirim_, Hebrew for hinges, 253.\n Sitting on threshold not allowed in Russia, 12.\n Siva:\n hand as symbol of, 78, 198;\n temple of, at Th\u00e2vesar, 157;\n crowned with serpent, 236.\n Skarpanto, threshold custom in, 31.\n Skeat, Rev. Walter W.: cited, 265.\n Skertchley, J.A.: cited, 245.\n Skins stamped with red hand among American Indians, 83.\n Slave, Hebrew, adoption of, as member of family, 210.\n Slavic:\n custom of covenanting, 42;\n citadel made firm by immuring child in walls, 50;\n peoples, \u201cDeath Week\u201d among, 19.\n Smith, Dr. William:\n cited, 7, 73, 134, 172 f., 236 f., 263.\n See, also, _Smith and Cheetham_.\n Smith, W. Robertson:\n quotation from, 59 f.;\n cited, 209, 214, 231 f.\n Smith, George: cited, 109.\n Smith and Cheetham: cited, 222.\n Snakes. See _Serpents_.\n Sneezing on threshold unpropitious, 11.\n Sneferu in Sinaitic Peninsula, 178 f.\n Snell, Rev. A., reference to, 140.\n Sodom:\n reference to king of, 82;\n angels welcomed in, 211.\n Soko at Tangier, reference to, 52.\n Somali tribes, sacrifice at threshold among, 27.\n Somnauth, idol in temple of, shattered and placed under threshold,\n 123.\n Sophocles: cited, 133.\n Sorcery, prominence of threshold in, 17 f.\n Sources of rivers as boundaries, 178.\n South America:\n doorways smeared with blood in, 73;\n earliest form of temple in, 144;\n reverence for phallic emblems in, 230;\n serpent as religious symbol in, 235.\n South Sea Islands, temples of, 148.\n Sovereigns in ancient East represented by uplifted hand, 79 f.\n Spain, reverence for phallic emblems in, 230.\n Spanish Jews, significance of red hand among, 76.\n Spectator, The, reference to, 19.\n Spencer, Herbert, references to, 21, 98.\n Spiritual forces, conception of, characteristic of man, 223.\n Spitting on threshold unpropitious, 11.\n Spivak, Dr.: cited, 93.\n Sprenger, A: cited, 164, 200.\n Squier, Hon. E.G.: cited, 230, 235.\n Stade, Dr. Bernard: cited, 214, 255.\n Stamboul, sacrifice on threshold of house spared in great fire in, 66\n f.\n Stanitsas, or land divisions among Cossacks, 175 f.\n Stanley, Henry M.: cited, 86, 174, 182.\n Stanley, Dean: cited, 222, 268 f.\n States or nations, boundaries of, 177.\n Statues in foundations in Rome, 55 f.\n Stele:\n memorial of dead inscribed on, 106;\n monumental, origin of, 107;\n containing sculptured image of Assyrian king, 115;\n set up on boundary line, 177;\n as doorways, 178.\n Stengel\u2019s _Die griech. Sac._, reference to, 172.\n Stenin, P. von: cited, 249.\n Stephens, John L.: cited, 82-84, 146.\n Stepped pyramid:\n temples with altar or shrine at summit, 111;\n in Jacob\u2019s dream at Bethel, 112;\n of Meydoom in Egypt, 126 f.;\n reference to, 144;\n as place of worship, 148.\n Stepping over:\n blood on threshold, 4 f., 26, 45 f.;\n salt on threshold, 5;\n threshold to insure protection of guardian deity, 12;\n girdle in marriage among Greeks, 30;\n threshold, a bride having care to, 36;\n threshold to prove innocence from crime among Hindoos, 121 f.\n Stillborn children buried under threshold in Russia, 18.\n _Stoicheionein_, Greek term for foundation ceremony, 53 f.\n Stone:\n sacrificial, laid on summit of Mexican temple, 56;\n posts most ancient remains of primitive man\u2019s handiwork, 102;\n pillars marking boundaries of states or nations, 177;\n upright, significance of, 258.\n \u201cStone, Coronation,\u201d in Westminster Abbey, 268.\n \u201cStone of desire\u201d at Baveddeen, 125.\n Stove, Russian household deity located near, 23.\n Strack, Dr. H.L.: cited, 20, 46, 93.\n Straw cure for disorder in North Germany, 18.\n Strean, Dr., quotation from, 21.\n Stuart, Villiers: cited, 179.\n \u201cSublime Porte:\u201d\n high court of Turkey called, 65;\n meaning of, 103.\n Suez Canal, reference to, 180.\n Sultan:\n justice administered at gate by, 65;\n as spiritual father of faithful Muhammadans, 103.\n Sultan Muhammad II., bloody hand of, stamped on mosk, 77.\n Sun disk, winged, over doors of temples in Egypt, 127.\n Sun-god Shamash:\n and his worshipers with uplifted hands, 80 f.;\n gates open to allow of daily circuits of, 105.\n Sun-orb, winged, with serpent, 234.\n Sunday School Times, The, references to, 260 f.\n Survivals of threshold covenant in America and Europe, 3, 8, 13, 221.\n Susa, king rendering justice at palace gate of, 60.\n Swedish tradition of burial of lamb under altar, 56.\n Symbol:\n of feminine in nature, tree or bush, 214;\n misusing, results of, 229;\n of evil in religions of Babylonia, Egypt, India, Phenicia, Greece,\n Mexico, and Peru, 235;\n of virginity, 243 f.\n Symbols:\n buried under foundation-stone, 109;\n and legends concerning boundary lines, 171 f.\n Syria:\n sacrifices on threshold in, 3-5;\n treading on threshold in, 10;\n reference to, 11;\n stepping over sacrifice at threshold in, 26;\n bride carried across threshold in, 38, 45;\n name for sign of hand among Christians in, 77;\n kissing threshold in, 129;\n nuptial customs of, 196, 246;\n marriage certificate in, 245;\n sacredness of threshold, 259 f.\n Syrian:\n derwishes, threshold custom of, 10;\n officer\u2019s welcome at threshold, 11;\n testimony of native, 59.\n\n\n Tablets, ancestral, of China, 108.\n Tahiti, primitive threshold in, 250.\n Tai Shan, reference to, 158.\n Talisman, open hand as, in Europe, Africa, and America, 79.\n Tallquist\u2019s rendering of Assyrian word, 83.\n Talmud:\n Jewish, references to, 93, 200, 208, 210 f., 239;\n Babylonian, references to, 211, 253.\n Tammuz of Syria, reference to, 115.\n Tangier, reference to, 62.\n Ta\u00f1oans, reference to, 88.\n Targum, reference to, 117.\n Tatars:\n treading on threshold among, 13;\n importance of threshold among, 39.\n Teheran, Shah of Persia entering, 189.\n Tell el-Hesy, ram\u2019s horn on doorway in, 58.\n Tello, sanctity of doorway in, 108 f.\n Temple:\n waters of life flowing from under threshold of, 114;\n doorway oldest form of, in Egypt, 126;\n at Carthage, prominence of threshold in, 130;\n in Greece, 134;\n earliest form of, in Mexico, Central and South America, 144;\n building in Babylonia, 153;\n of Thor, in Iceland, 160;\n at Jerusalem, site of, 161;\n earliest forms of, 229.\n Temples:\n preceded by houses, 3;\n images under threshold of, 14;\n as dwelling for deity, 99;\n called \u201cgreat house of the village\u201d in Samoa, 101;\n in form of stepped pyramid in Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mexico,\n Central America, Peru, and South Sea Islands, 111;\n in Jacob\u2019s dream, 112;\n in Carthage, 130;\n Egyptian, history of, 155;\n as boundaries, 178.\n Temptation, first, and symbol of tree and serpent, 237.\n Tennasserin, survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.\n Tent:\n fire at entrance of, 22 f.;\n laying hold of, as appeal for hospitality in East, 57;\n stamped with red hand among American Indians, 83.\n \u201cTeraphim\u201d connected with threshold, 109.\n Terence: cited, 30.\n Terminalia, festival of, 173.\n Terminus: god, represented by pillar, 171-173.\n Tertullian: his warning against deities at doors and gates, 97 f.\n Teutonic thresholds made high, 12.\n Thang, emperor of China, 157.\n Thapsacus, equivalent of Tiphsakh, 210.\n Th\u00e2vesar, temple of Siva at, 157.\n Theban rite, kissing ground at threshold of shrine in, 128.\n Thebes:\n temple of \u201cSilver Threshold\u201d at, 127;\n symbols on temples of ancient, 234.\n Theocritus: cited, 73.\n Theseus setting up pillar, 180 f.\n Thief and robber, reference to word, 260.\n Thieving goldsmith struck dead at threshold, 122.\n Thomson, Dr. W.M.: cited, 70, 222.\n Thompson, President Robert Ellis: cited, 176.\n Thor, temple of, in Iceland, 160.\n Thorolf, reference to, 160.\n Thousand and One Nights, reference to, 248.\n Thuringian legend of burying child in foundation, 49.\n _Thyra_, a translation of _saph_, 207.\n Tiamat, reference to, 235.\n Tiba, female god of Maui, 150.\n Tibet:\n disemboweling of devotee in, 125;\n Booddhist prayer in, 199.\n Tiglath-Pileser I. and boundary lines, 177.\n Tigris, sources of, boundary marks at, 178.\n Tiki, descendant of Rongo, 152.\n Times, The, London, reference to, 61 f.\n Timsah, Lake, reference to, 180.\n _Tiphsakh_, meaning of, 210.\n Tokens:\n covenant, 66-74;\n of virginity, 243 f.\n Tomb:\n false door of, in Old Empire of Egypt, 106 f.;\n of kings of Persia, inscription relating to sacredness of gate in,\n 124;\n of Alee, kissing threshold of, 124;\n of Baha-ed-deen Nakishbend, threshold stone of, 124 f.;\n closed door in, representing deceased going to Osiris, 128.\n Torch, marriage, origin of, 226.\n Touching name of God with finger by Jews, 69 f.\n Towkas, marriage custom at threshold among, 35.\n Treading on threshold forbidden:\n in Persia, Russia, Finland, United States, and among Teutons, 11 f.;\n in Europe and America, 13;\n tabooed by Tatars, 13.\n Tree:\n human sacrifices at foot of, 8 f.;\n pipal, in Upper India, 156;\n a boundary landmark in primitive times, 173 f.;\n symbol of feminine in nature, 214, 230, 238;\n and pillar, symbolism of, 232;\n references to, 237, 259.\n \u201cTree of Knowledge,\u201d reference to, 156.\n Trees, sacred:\n near doorways in China, Japan, Korea, Siam, and India, 104, 156;\n grove of, in religious symbolisms, 230.\n Tricha, bridge of, story of sacrifice in building of, 52.\n Tristram, H.B.: cited, 260.\n Trumbull, H. Clay: cited, 3-5, 57, 123, 180, 226, 244.\n _Tseereem_, Hebrew word for hinges, 253.\n Tunis:\n bloody hand on walls in, 78 f.;\n symbol of open hand on graves near, 79;\n Jewish custom in, on receiving praise, 79.\n Turkestan, threshold stone at tomb of national saint of, 125.\n Turkey, sacrifice of, in Ireland, 21.\n Turkey:\n blood on threshold in marriage in, 26;\n marriage custom among Greeks in, 30;\n high court of, at palace door, 65;\n banners and prayer-rugs inscribed with open hand in, 78.\n Turkish building at Columbian Exposition, sacrifices at foundation of,\n 57.\n Turner, Dr. George: cited, 13, 20, 101, 174, 251 f.\n Tuscany:\n threshold in folk customs in, 17 f.;\n exorcism with incense in, 18;\n burning incense on threshold in, 42.\n Tutelary deity, every building in Egypt placed under protection of, 96\n f.\n Tylor, Dr. E.B.: cited, 46, 49, 51 f., 231.\n\n\n Uganda, charms on threshold and door in, 15.\n Unchastity atoned for by sprinkling blood on threshold among Dyaks,\n 20.\n _Ungere_, Latin for \u201cto anoint,29 #$2#.\n United States:\n \u201cChristening\u201d a ship in, 8;\n high thresholds in houses of, 12;\n stepping over cracks in pavements in, 13;\n Bible and salt carried over threshold in, 21;\n lifting bride over threshold in, 44;\n situation of front door in, 55;\n foundation sacrifice in, 57;\n horseshoes on door-posts in, 73 f.;\n survivals of primal sacredness of threshold in, 147 f.;\n boundary marks in, 182;\n sacredness of threshold among Scandinavians of, 259.\n Unleavened bread, feast of, 216.\n _Unxor_, meaning of Latin word, 29.\n Uplifted hand:\n in Carthage, 78;\n in Tunis, 78 f.;\n represented among deities of Babylonia, Assyria, Phenicia, and\n Egypt, 79 f.;\n in seal of Ur-Gur, earliest ruler of \u201cUr of the Chaldees,\u201d 80;\n gods Sin, Shamash, and Asshur, with, 80;\n Babylonian king recognized by, 80;\n Amenophis IV. before Aten-ra with, 81;\n Abraham with, 82;\n Psalmist\u2019s reference to, 82;\n Isaiah\u2019s reference to God\u2019s, 82;\n Assyrian and Hebrew words for swearing by, 83;\n in judicial oath, 83;\n found on stepped pyramid temples of Polynesia, 83;\n power imparted to Egyptian king by touch of, 85;\n in South Sea Islands, 148.\n Uplifted threshold, 144.\n Upsal, wedding customs in old temple of, 140.\n \u201cUr of the Chaldees:\u201d\n uplifted hand in seal of earliest ruler of, 80;\n temple at, 153;\n Abraham at, 160.\n Ur-Gur, with uplifted hands before moon-god Sin, 80.\n Usurtasen III., King: cited, 179.\n _Uxor_, meaning of Latin word, 29.\n\n\n Vairorongo, sacred stream of under-world, in Islands of Sea, 152.\n Vamb\u00e9ry, Arminius: cited, 125.\n Vari, or \u201cThe-very-beginning,\u201d in Islands of Sea, 151.\n V\u0101tea, part man and part fish, in Islands of Sea, 152.\n Vatican, bronze pine cone in gardens of, 257.\n V\u0101ttu, god of threshold in India, 75.\n V\u0101ttuma, god of threshold in India, 95.\n _V\u0101ttuma Santhe_, tribute to, god of threshold in India, 95.\n Vaux, J. Edward: cited, 140.\n Vedas, references to, 99, 197.\n Vedi, feminine in Sanskrit, 197.\n Vedic:\n law of door-sill, 15;\n Sutras on stepping over threshold, 36 f.;\n teachings concerning temples, 155 f.\n Vermilion paint for sign of red hand among Omahas, 85.\n Verrall, Margaret de G. See _Harrison and Verrall_.\n Victor in Olympian games avoiding city gates, 7.\n Virgil:\n cited, 29 f.;\n his description of arrival of \u00c6neas at court of Queen Dido, 130.\n \u201cVirgin Mary\u2019s Hand\u201d among Christians in Syria, 77.\n \u201cVirgin of Israel,\u201d 213, 218.\n Virginity:\n tokens of, 243 f.;\n Bible testimony of tokens of, 251.\n Vishnoo, god:\n reference to, 95;\n pagoda of, reference to, 121;\n foot of, 156;\n seated on serpent, 235.\n Vishnooism, concerning temples, 156.\n \u201cVishnu-pad,\u201d reference to, 156.\n Vitruvius: his description of temple, 36.\n Vlachs, indication of foundation sacrifice in ballad of, 52.\n _Vlam_, name for \u201cfriend of the bridegroom\u201d among Albanians, 37 f.\n \u201cVodyaoni,\u201d sacrifice to, in Russia, 19.\n Volck. See _M\u00fclhau and Volck_.\n Volga, altar as threshold among people on, 32.\n Voltaire: cited, 202.\n Von L\u00f6her and Joyner: reference to, 231.\n Vulgate: reference to, 207.\n\n\n Wake, C. Staniland. See _Westropp and Wake_.\n Wallace, Donald M.: reference to, 176.\n Wallachia, story of foundation sacrifice in, 52.\n Wallachians, marriage rite among, 29.\n Washburn, President, of Robert College: cited, 66 f.\n Water:\n and corn offered on threshold, 16 f.;\n and honey for bride at threshold, 30;\n poured out in pathway of bridegroom among Greeks of Turkey, 30;\n of life underneath threshold, in legend of Ishtar, 114;\n in temple at Jerusalem, 114;\n holy, at doorway of Roman Catholic churches, 147.\n Water-spirit, appeasing, in Russia, 19.\n Weber\u2019s _Die Lehren d. Talmud_, reference to, 239.\n Wedding ceremonies:\n among \u02beAnazeh Bed\u00b4ween, and Armenians in Turkey, 26;\n in Syria, 26, 28 f., 38, 196;\n in Egypt, 26, 38, 196;\n in Cyprus, 27;\n among Somalis in Central Africa, 27 f.;\n in South Africa, 28;\n among fellaheen of Palestine, and Wallachians, 29;\n among Greeks of Turkey, and in Morea, 30;\n in Rhodes, 30 f.;\n in island of Skarpanto and among Morlacchi, in Dalmatia, 31;\n in portions of Russia, 31 f.;\n among Mordvins of Russia, 32 f., 41-44;\n in Holland, 33;\n in Germany, 33 f., 138 f.;\n among Sea Dyaks of Borneo, 34;\n in Central America, 34 f., 45;\n in Scotland, 34, 44;\n among Towkas, 35;\n among Hindoos, 36-38, 40 f.;\n among Albanians, 37 f.;\n in India, 38, 40 f.;\n in Madagascar, 38;\n in Abyssinia, 38 f., 131;\n among tribes of West Africa, in ancient Assyria, among Khonds of\n Orissa, among Tatars, and among Eskimos, 39;\n in ancient Rome, 39-41;\n in China, 39-41, 196;\n in ancient Greece, 39, 41;\n in England, 44, 139-142;\n in Ireland, 44, 142;\n in United States, 44, 147 f.;\n in France, 139;\n in Sweden, 140 f.;\n in Dahomey, Liberia, in various parts of Europe, and in Samoa, 196;\n among Muhammadans, 247;\n among Christians at Haleb, 248;\n in Darfour, 249;\n in Samoa, 251.\n Wedding:\n sacrifice in Cyprus, 27;\n threshold custom in Skarpanto, 31;\n in Russia, 31 f.;\n threshold or hearthstone covenant at, 226.\n Weeping worship of Tammuz, 115.\n _Wely_, a saint\u2019s tomb, as place of worship in Egypt, 129.\n Westropp and Wake: cited, 230.\n White hand among American Indians, 90.\n Wife:\n word for, among Latins, 29;\n and threshold in Arabic, 200, 256;\n brush-topped pole, symbol of, 214.\n Wilkins, W.J.G.: cited, 198, 235 f.\n Wilkinson, Sir J.G.:\n quotation from, 68 f.;\n cited, 81, 96 f., 100, 106, 127 f., 201, 234 f.\n Williams, S. Wells: cited, 40, 71, 96, 108, 158.\n Williams, Talcott, quotation from, 62 f.\n Window:\n coffin passed out of, to avoid threshold, in Europe and America, 25;\n opened and door closed at death in Europe and America, 25.\n Winged sun disk:\n over doors of temples in Egypt, 127;\n and serpent in Egypt, 234.\n Winnebagoes, prominence of hand among, 84.\n Winter, feast at close of, among Slavonic peoples, 19.\n Wisconsin, sacredness of threshold among Scandinavians in, 259.\n Witham in Essex, marriage custom at, 140.\n \u201cWitness Heap\u201d of covenant between Jacob and Laban, 171.\n Woman:\n buried in foundation of bridge of Arta, 52;\n four ages of, symbolized among American Indians, 89 f.;\n recognized as primitive altar, 197;\n form of, pattern of altar form, 197;\n and door in Hebrew Scriptures, 253;\n in Arabic and German, 256.\n Wood, Edward J.:\n cited, 31, 44, 131, 138, 140-142;\n quotation from, 139.\n Wood-apple as witness of marriage, 259.\n Woolwas, betrothal custom at threshold among, 34.\n Worms, door of synagogue in, 144.\n Worship:\n at door in Egypt, 127 f.;\n covenant, spirit of all true, 221;\n origin of rites of, 226;\n phallic, perversion of purer idea, 230;\n Hindoo, mode of, 236;\n of serpent in Bangalore, 258 f.\n Wright, Julia McNair: cited, 24.\n\n\n Ximenez, Francisco, missionary: cited, 73, 98.\n\n\n Yama as first man and first priest in India, 99.\n Yarriba, survival of foundation-laying in blood in, 51 f.\n Yawning on threshold unpropitious, 11.\n Yeha, monoliths in front of temple at, 131.\n Yemen, marriage ceremonies in, 248.\n Yezidis:\n kissing doorway of temple among, 116;\n reference to, 190.\n _Yoni_, doorway of physical life, 198.\n Y\u00fc, Chinese for threshold, 256.\n Yucatan, doorways inscribed with red hand in, 81 f.\n Yuhlui, tutelar god of threshold in China, 95 f.\n\n\n Zab\u00fb, King, reference to, 154.\n Zamzam, sacred spring at Meccah, 163.\n _Zariru_, Babylonian gate plated with metal called, 111.\n Zedekiah, king of Judah, sitting in gate of Benjamin, 64.\n Zephaniah:\n his curse on Assyria, and his reference to \u201cdrought in thresholds,\u201d\n 115;\n foretelling punishment on those that leap over threshold, 117.\n Zeus:\n House of, on Olympus, 132;\n reference to, concerning boundary lines, 171;\n image of, as boundary landmark, 172.\n Ziggurat, early form of temple, 229.\n Zindero, bloody threshold offering in, 8 f.\n Zinga, boundaries in, 174.\n Zion, laying foundation stone in, 162.\n Zu\u00f1i Indians, red hand among, 91.\n\n SCRIPTURAL INDEX.\n\n\n GENESIS.\n\n TEXT PAGE\n 2 : 8\u201310 115\n 2 : 25 239\n 3 : 1\u201313, 16 238\n 3 : 14, 15, 22\u201324 239\n 4 : 1, 17, 25 238\n 11 : 1\u20139 103\n 11 : 28 153\n 11 : 31 80\n 12 : 1\u20138 160\n 13 : 1\u20133 160\n 14 : 22 82\n 15 : 1\u20136 187, 211, 266\n 15 : 8\u201316, 20, 21 187, 211, 266\n 15 : 7 80, 187, 211, 266\n 15 : 17\u201319 187, 211, 244, 266\n 18 : 1\u20139 101\n 19 : 1\u201325 211\n 21 : 22\u201324 170, 244\n 21 : 25\u201333 170\n 22 : 1\u201313 161\n 22 : 17 65\n 25 : 17\u201319 244\n 28 : 10\u201322 112, 160\n 28 : 36 238\n 30 : 2 238\n 30 : 22 253\n 31 : 43\u201353 171\n 49 : 8\u201317 85\n\n EXODUS.\n\n 2 : 23\u201325 205\n 3 : 1\u20136, 11, 12 161\n 3 : 7\u201310 161, 205\n 3 : 19 83\n 4 : 25, 26 244\n 5 : 1, 2 205\n 6 : 1\u20137 205\n 6 : 8 82\n 10 : 21, 29 205\n 11 : 4\u20137 206\n 12 : 1, 2 204, 212\n 12 : 3\u201321, 27 204\n 12 : 22 205, 214\n 12 : 23 206\n 13 : 3, 14, 16 83\n 21 : 2\u20134 210\n 21 : 5, 6 65, 210\n 22 : 2 260\n 23 : 8\u201310 119\n 26 : 1\u201314 101\n 29 : 4, 10\u201312 119\n 32 : 11 83\n 32 : 26 63\n 34 : 12\u201315 213, 214, 233\n 34 : 16 213, 214\n 39 : 32 101\n 40 : 6, 29 119\n\n LEVITICUS.\n\n 1 : 3, 5 119\n 3 : 2 119\n 4 : 4, 7 119\n 8 : 1\u201336 119\n 9 : 1, 2 212\n 12 : 6 119\n 14 : 11, 23 119\n 15 : 14, 29 119\n 16 : 7 119\n 17 : 2\u20136, 8, 9 119\n 17 : 7 119, 213\n 19 : 21 119\n 20 : 5\u20138 213\n 23 : 5 212\n\n NUMBERS.\n\n 6 : 10\u201318 119\n 12 : 5 119\n 14 : 30 82\n 15 : 39, 40 213\n 20 : 6 119\n 21 : 4\u20139 239\n 27 : 22, 23 85\n 35 : 6, 32 151\n\n DEUTERONOMY.\n\n 3 : 24 83\n 4 : 34 83\n 4 : 41\u201343 151\n 5 : 15 83\n 6 : 4\u20139 69\n 6 : 9 69\n 6 : 21 83\n 7 : 5 214, 233\n 7 : 8, 19 83\n 7 : 13 238\n 9 : 26 83\n 11 : 2 83\n 11 : 13\u201321 96\n 12 : 3 214\n 12 : 31 267\n 14 : 17 65\n 16 : 21, 22 233\n 19 : 1\u201313 151\n 19 : 14 170\n 20 : 5 69\n 20 : 10\u201313 262\n 22 : 13\u201321 252\n 25 : 1\u20139 229\n 27 : 17 170\n 28 : 4, 18, 53 238\n 29 : 12 266\n 30 : 9 238\n 31 : 15 119\n 31 : 16 213\n\n JOSHUA.\n\n 2 : 1\u201320 206, 211\n 2 : 21 206\n 5 : 10\u201312 211\n 6 : 12\u201315 211\n 6 : 16, 17 206, 211\n 6 : 18\u201325 206\n 6 : 26 47\n 10 : 3\u201335 58\n 12 : 11 58\n 15 : 39 58\n 20 : 1\u20139 151\n\n JUDGES.\n\n 2 : 17 213\n 3 : 7 214\n 7 : 1\u201325 211\n 8 : 27, 33 213\n 11 : 39 238\n 16 : 3 255\n 19 : 25 64, 238\n 19 : 26, 28\u201330 64\n 19 : 27 64, 207\n\n RUTH.\n\n 4 : 1\u201310 64\n\n 1 SAMUEL.\n\n 1 : 19 238\n 4 : 19 253\n 5 : 1\u20135 117\n 29 : 6 109\n\n 2 SAMUEL.\n\n 3 : 25 109\n 6 : 1\u201319 161\n 15 : 2\u20134 64\n 19 : 8 64\n 24 : 15\u201325 161\n\n 1 KINGS.\n\n 1 : 4 238\n 2 : 28 58\n 4 : 24 210\n 7 : 50 253\n 14 : 17 207\n 16 : 34 47\n\n 2 KINGS.\n\n 5 : 17 161\n 9 : 22, 23 213\n 12 : 9 121, 207\n 12 : 13 207\n 14 : 19 58\n 16 : 3 267\n 17 : 17, 31 267\n 18 : 4 239\n 18 : 14\u201319 58\n 19 : 20\u201326, 28\u201336 211\n 19 : 27 109, 211\n 21 : 6 267\n 22 : 4 121, 207\n 23 : 10 267\n 23 : 4 121, 207, 214\n 25 : 18 121, 207\n\n 1 CHRONICLES.\n\n 5 : 25 213\n 9 : 19, 22 207\n 15 : 23, 24 120\n\n 2 CHRONICLES.\n\n 3 : 7 207\n 6 : 32 83\n 21 : 11 213\n 23 : 4 120, 207\n 23 : 5 120\n 32 : 1\u201322 211\n 33 : 3 214\n 33 : 6 267\n 33 : 8 120\n 34 : 9 120, 207\n\n NEHEMIAH.\n\n 9 : 7 153\n 9 : 15 82\n\n ESTHER.\n\n 2 : 21 207\n 6 : 2 207\n 9 : 12\u201319 211\n\n JOB.\n\n 1 : 21 114\n 3 : 1\u201310 252\n 24 : 2 170\n\n PSALMS.\n\n 24 : 2 181\n 63 : 4 82\n 73 : 27 213\n 84 : 10 120\n 121 : 7 109\n 121 : 8 70, 109\n 127 : 3 238\n 128 : 3 238\n 132 : 11 238\n 136 : 38, 39 213\n\n PROVERBS.\n\n 3 : 18 238\n 8 : 34 64\n 11 : 30 238\n 22 : 28 170\n 23 : 10 170\n 26 : 14 253\n\n ECCLESIASTES.\n\n 5 : 15 144\n\n SONG OF SONGS.\n\n 4 : 16 238\n 8 : 8, 9 252\n\n ISAIAH.\n\n 3 : 17 253\n 6 : 4 207\n 13 : 18 238\n 24 : 12 66\n 28 : 16 162\n 29 : 21 64\n 37 : 28 109\n 49 : 22 82\n 57 : 3 213\n 57 : 14 112\n 58 : 12 162\n 62 : 10 112\n\n JEREMIAH.\n\n 3 : 1\u201315, 20 213\n 7 : 31 267\n 13 : 27 213\n 19 : 5 267\n\n 31 : 31, 32 213\n 34 : 18 266\n 35 : 4 120, 207\n\n 38 : 7\u20139 64\n 50 : 26 112\n 52 : 19 207\n 52 : 24 120, 207\n\n EZEKIEL.\n\n 6 : 9 213\n 9 : 3 118\n 10 : 4 118\n 12 : 2\u20137 260\n 16 : 1\u20137, 9\u201320, 22\u201363 213\n 16 : 8 268\n 16 : 21 213, 267\n 19 : 10 238\n 20 : 26, 31 267\n 20 : 30 213\n 20 : 34 83\n 23 : 1\u201336, 38\u201349 213\n 23 : 37 213, 267\n 40 : 6, 7 207\n 41 : 16 207\n 43 : 8 118, 207\n 43 : 11 109\n 46 : 2 118\n 47 : 1\u20139 115\n\n DANIEL.\n\n 2 : 49 64\n 5 : 1\u201330 211\n 9 : 15 83\n\n HOSEA.\n\n 1 : 2 213\n 2 : 2 213\n 3 : 1 213\n 4 : 12\u201319 213\n 5 : 3, 4 213\n 6 : 6, 7, 10 213\n\n AMOS.\n 5 : 15 64\n 7 : 8 267\n 9 : 1 107\n\n\n MICAH.\n 6 : 7 238\n\n ZEPHANIAH.\n\n 1 : 9 117\n 2 : 13 115\n 2 : 14 115, 207\n\n ZECHARIAH.\n\n 8 : 16 64\n 12 : 1, 3 208\n 12 : 2 207, 208\n\n MATTHEW.\n\n 1 : 25 238\n 6 : 19, 20 260\n 9 : 14, 15 219\n 16 : 18 65\n 16 : 21 215\n 24 : 43 260\n 26 : 1\u20135, 17\u201330 215\n\n MARK.\n\n 2 : 19, 20 219\n 14 : 12\u201328 215\n\n LUKE.\n\n 5 : 34, 35 219\n 12 : 39 260\n 17 : 19, 20 64\n 22 : 7\u201320 215\n\n JOHN.\n\n 2 : 13 215\n 3 : 14, 15 239\n 3 : 16 217\n 3 : 28\u201330 218\n 7 : 1\u20139 215\n 10 : 1, 10 6, 261\n 10 : 2 6\n 10 : 9 6, 104\n 13 : 1 215\n\n ACTS.\n\n 2 : 30 238\n 3 : 3, 10 55\n 4 : 4 85\n 6 : 6 85\n 8 : 18 85\n 13 : 3 85\n 14 : 8\u201314 135\n 19 : 6 85\n\n 1 CORINTHIANS.\n\n 3 : 10, 11 162\n 5 : 7, 8 216\n 11 : 3 219\n\n 2 CORINTHIANS.\n\n 2 : 16 228\n\n EPHESIANS.\n\n 2 : 20, 21 162\n 3 : 14, 15 217\n 5 : 23\u201333 219\n\n 1 TIMOTHY.\n 4 : 14 85\n 6 : 7 114\n\n HEBREWS.\n\n 6 : 2 85\n 8 : 8, 9 213\n 10 : 20 186\n 10 : 28, 29 218\n\n 1 PETER.\n\n 2 : 5, 6 162\n\n REVELATION.\n\n 6 : 9, 10 25\n 19 : 6\u20139 220\n 20 : 1, 2 240\n 21 : 1\u20139, 12, 22\u201327 221, 240\n 21 : 10, 11, 13\u201321 240\n 22 : 1, 2 115, 240\n 22 : 14, 15 240\n 22 : 17, 20 221\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n SUPPLEMENT.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n SUPPLEMENT.\n COMMENTS OF SPECIALISTS.\n\n\nBefore their publishing, the proof-sheets of this volume were submitted\nto a number of prominent scholars in Europe and America, for their\nexamination and comment, in order to ascertain if the main thought of\nthe work seemed justified by the facts known to them in their several\nspecial fields of knowledge and study. Some of the opinions and\nsuggestions of these scholars as given herewith will have deservedly, in\nthe eyes of many readers, a weight and value beyond anything that could\nbe said by the author of this work.\n\n FROM THE REV. DR. MARCUS JASTROW.\n\nAs a Jewish clergyman, and as a conservative Bible scholar, the Rev. Dr.\nJastrow is honored on both sides of the Atlantic for his special\nattainments in Talmudic and Rabbinical lore. His great work, \u201cA\nDictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the\nMidrashic Literature,\u201d is a monument of his learning and ability in\nthese fields. He writes:\n\n\u201cI have read your interesting work, \u2018The Threshold Covenant,\u2019 with great\nattention, and derived from it more information than I can possibly\nthank you for.\n\n\u201cAs I am unable to form an independent opinion on the bearing of your\nevidences on the thesis of your work, I can refer only to those parts of\nit which treat of Jewish customs and ideas, and, here, I feel it a\nprivilege to be permitted to say that I admire your ingenious conception\nof the passover covenant in Egypt. Especially interesting, and\nundoubtedly correct, is your interpretation of Exodus 12 : 23, according\nto which the Lord passes over the threshold in order to visit the\nIsraelitish house, and will not allow the destroyer to enter.\n\n\u201cIt may not be out of place here to direct your attention to a passage\nin Talmud Yerushalmi, Aboda Zara III, 42 d, where it is said about the\nPhilistines: \u2018They revered the threshold (_miftan_) more than the\nDagon,\u2019 to which is added, \u2018All other nations made (worshiped) only one\n_miftan_, but the Israelites made many _miftanoth_,\u2019 which explains the\nverse, \u2018And I will visit punishment on him who leaps, and on the\n_miftan_\u2019 (Zeph. 1 : 9). You will observe that the Talmud quotes the\nverse different from the Massoretic text, which reads, \u2018on every one who\nleaps over the _miftan_.\u2019 I am unable to decide whether the deviation\nfrom the Massoretic text is owing to a different text before the\nTalmudic authority under consideration, or merely to a slip of memory,\nsuch as often occurs with those who quote from memory.\n\n\u201cIn Talmud Babli, referring to the Philistines in relation to the Dagon,\nit is said: \u2018They let alone the Dagon and worshiped the _miftan_, for\nthey said, His prince (genius) has abandoned the Dagon and has come to\nsit on the _miftan_.\u2019 All of which proves that there lingered yet in the\nmemory of the Talmudists the traditional recollection of _miftan_\nworship.\u201d\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. HERMAN V. HILPRECHT.\n\nOldest among civilizations of which we have any sure record is that of\nBabylonia. Among the foremost scholars in that realm is Dr. Hilprecht,\nformerly of the University of Erlangen, and now Professor of Assyriology\nin the University of Pennsylvania. His prominence is recognized in\nEurope as fully as in America. His labors, in the field and in the\nstudy, in connection with the successful Babylonian Expedition of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania, and his monumental work, still in course of\npublication, on the Cuneiform Texts brought to light by that expedition,\nhave added to his reputation on both sides of the ocean, and confirmed\nhis high standing among the best scholars of the world in his special\ndepartment of knowledge.\n\nIt was while on his way to Constantinople, to examine the latest \u201cfinds\u201d\nin Babylonia brought to the Imperial Museum there, with which museum\nProfessor Hilprecht has an official connection, that he examined the\nproof-sheets of \u201cThe Threshold Covenant.\u201d Of the work in its entirety he\nwrites in generous appreciation as follows:\n\n\u201cYour latest book, \u2018The Threshold Covenant,\u2019 accompanied me on my trip\nto Constantinople. Before we had crossed the Atlantic I had studied it\nthree times from beginning to end. I take the first opportunity, at\nSouthampton, to send you these lines, in order to express to you my full\nappreciation of what you have offered to the scientific world in your\nmagnificent work.\n\n\u201cIf in your former book, \u2018The Blood Covenant,\u2019 you made [as was\nsuggested by an eminent German theologian] the first successful attempt\nto write a theology of the blood, you have given us in your most recent\nwork a thorough investigation on the significance and history of the\nprimitive altar upon which blood was shed by men entering into a\ncovenant with God or their fellow-men. Surely your two books \u2018The Blood\nCovenant,\u2019 and \u2018The Threshold Covenant\u2019 belong together, and should\ntherefore be studied together. One supplements the other, and the former\nfurnishes the key to a full understanding of the facts presented in the\nlatter; and so again on the other side.\n\n\u201cIt must have cost you decenniums to gather all the material which you\nlay before the reader in such a systematic form. All the nations of the\nworld, civilized and uncivilized, ancient and modern, seem to have\ncontributed their share to your stately structure, which has my full\nadmiration. Viewed in this light alone, your book will always prove a\nregular storehouse of knowledge for students of primitive rites and\nreligions, and of various other kindred subjects.\n\n\u201cIt is, of course, impossible for any specialist in one certain line to\nfully estimate the hundreds of new features presented in your recent\nwork. It would be bold on my part, at least, to express an opinion on\nquestions with which I am not entirely familiar. As, however, you treat\nfacts which bear closely upon my special line of investigation,\u2013the\noldest history, languages, and civilization of the Euphrates valley, and\nof their rites in general,\u2013I can heartily assure you that, according to\nmy examination, you have proved your main points beyond question.\n\n\u201cIt is first of all sure that you are the first who fully recognized,\nand in fact rediscovered, the world-wide importance and fundamental\nsignificance of the threshold in all ancient religions. You have\nre-established an ancient rite which was practically entirely forgotten\nby modern scholars. By restoring the threshold to its proper place in\nprimitive religions, you have rendered a great service to comparative\nreligion, archeology, and even philology. Many a statement by ancient\nwriters was obscure to us, many a word puzzling as to its original\netymology and significance, and not a few facts brought to light by\nrecent excavations remained incoherent and mysterious, because we had\nlost sight of the significance of the threshold, which, very\nappropriately, you style the first altar of the human race.\n\n\u201cIn reading your book I could not help wondering that all these\ncombinations which appear quite clear and plausible now were not made a\nlong while ago by other investigators. The earliest inscribed monuments\nof ancient Babylonia, dating from the fifth millennium before Christ,\nare door-sockets which bear ample witness to the correctness of your\ntheory. Professor Hommel\u2019s recent ingenious analysis of the Assyrian\nword for \u201cto pray,\u201d which was a result of his study of your \u2018Threshold\nCovenant,\u2019 is one of the strongest evidences in favor of your arguments.\nOur own recent excavations of the lowest strata of the temple of B\u00eal in\nNippur, which takes us back to 7000 B.C., testify in the same direction.\n\n\u201cOf the greatest importance for the study of the Old Testament religion\nis your doubtless correct explanation of the Passover. It is entirely in\nharmony with ancient customs, with philology, and with common sense.\nAccording to the old interpretation this rite hangs, so to speak, in the\nair, without any connection, and yet we know from many other instances\nthat Old Testament rites of the Hebrews stand in the closest possible\nconnection with those practiced by surrounding nations. In the light of\nyour investigations I regard it as an established fact, and as one of\nthe chief results of your labors, that Jehovah in entering into covenant\nwith his \u2018bride Israel\u2019 did not invent a new rite, but took one with\nwhich his chosen people were already familiar, and gave to it a new and\ndeeper significance in its new use and relations.\n\n\u201cYour final chapter, \u2018Outgrowths and Perversions of this Rite,\u2019 is\nlikewise full of thought and new suggestions. One cannot help wishing\nyou might have gone beyond the scope of your book and expressed yourself\nmore in detail as to the precise connection in which tree and phallus\nworship stand to the threshold in each of the principal ancient\nreligions, and what _r\u00f4le_ the snake played in the further development\nor determination of the primitive rite so excellently discussed by you.\nThere is no doubt in my mind that all these different rites, however\nindependent of each other they may appear in later times, are but\ndifferent outgrowths of the same original root and later perversions of\noriginal uplifting thought,\u2013search for unity between men and God. But as\nyou yourself have given only brief indications of this, I wisely abstain\nfrom entering into details.\n\n\u201cPermit me to congratulate you upon the completion of a work which, in\nthe nature of things, must attract the general attention of scholars.\nWhatever may be the interpretation of certain details contained in your\nbook, the one fact remains sure: it will always be your great merit to\nhave penetrated into the long-forgotten secrets of one of the most\nancient rites of humanity, and, by pointing out its great importance for\nand its connection with other rites, to have constructed a solid basis\nfor further investigations, and to have put loose facts together, and\ngiven them a well-defined place in a regular system.\u201d\n\nIt is undoubtedly true that the fresh material from the excavations at\nNippur will furnish additional illustrations of the main thesis of this\nwork. Dr. Hilprecht will be sure to note these.\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.\n\nAs an Arabist as well as an Assyriologist, and as a bright thinker and\nlearned scholar, in various departments of knowledge, Dr. Fritz Hommel,\nProfessor of Semitic Languages in the University of Munich, has a\ndeservedly high standing. His great illustrated \u201cHistory of Babylonia\nand Assyria\u201d is a marvelous treasure-house of information concerning the\nhistory of the earlier civilizations of the East; and his later studies\nin connection with the researches of Dr. Edward Glaser in South Arabia\nhave poured a flood of light on the influence of ancient Arabia in the\nOriental world. In the realm of Semitic philology Dr. Hommel is acute\nminded, and peculiarly alert and suggestive.\n\nHaving read the earlier pages of \u201cThe Threshold Covenant,\u201d Professor\nHommel wrote briefly of his interest in the main thought of the work,\nand promised further comments when he has completed its examination. The\nnecessity of putting these pages to press forbids the waiting for his\nvalued conclusions. His first comments are:\n\n\u201cI am now reading with great interest the proof-sheets of your new book,\nwhich you were kind enough to send me. Although at this moment\noverburdened with other work, I have already got as far as page 70, and\nhope in the course of a fortnight to be able to send you my judgment.\n\n\u201cTo page 60 I wish now to note that already in the time of Hammurabi\ndisputes were settled at the _gate_, and, indeed, of the gate of the\ntemple. See Strassmaier\u2019s Warka Tablets, 30 (B. 57) in Meissner\u2019s\n_Beitr\u00e4ze zum Altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 42 f.\n\n\u201cAn interesting discovery, of which perhaps you still may make use, I\nmade yesterday. It is that the Babylonian _supp\u00fb_ (\u2018to pray,\u2019 \u2018to\nentreat\u2019) is originally merely the verb formed from the noun _sippu_, \u2018a\nthreshold.\u2019 The first sense, indeed, of _supp\u00fb_ is \u2018to sacrifice,\u2019\nbecause that was done at the threshold. To find a parallel for this\ntransference from the meaning \u2018to offer\u2019 to the meaning \u2018to pray,\u2019\ncompare the Arabic _\u2018\u0103t\u0103r\u0103_, to sacrifice,\u2019 with the Hebrew _\u2018\u0101t\u0103r_, to\npray.\u2019[713] To this discovery I, of course, came through your deductions\nwith regard to the importance of the threshold.\u201d\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. A.H. SAYCE.\n\nNo Oriental scholar and archeologist is more widely known in Europe and\nAmerica, and beyond, or is surer of a hearing on any subject of which he\nwrites, from both those who agree and those who differ with him, than\nProfessor Sayce of Oxford University. The numerous published works of\nProfessor Sayce have made him extensively known among scholars, and\npopularly. Prominent among these are the Hibbert Lectures on \u201cThe\nReligion of the Ancient Babylonians,\u201d \u201cThe Ancient Empires of the East,\u201d\n\u201cFresh Light from Ancient Monuments,\u201d \u201cThe Life and Times of Isaiah,\u201d\n\u201cThe Hittites,\u201d \u201cPatriarchal Palestine,\u201d and \u201cThe Egypt of the Hebrews.\u201d\nHe now writes from Luxor, in Egypt, while passing the winter, as usual,\non the Nile, in his dahabiyeh Istar:\n\n\u201cA thousand thanks for the advance sheets of \u2018The Threshold Covenant.\u2019\nLike all your work, it is brimful of accurate knowledge and new points\nof view, and is written so charmingly that a child could understand and\nfollow you. I need not say I have been devouring the pages and admiring\ntheir wealth of references. While I read, you carried me along with you,\nand, if you had asked my opinion as I went on, I should have said that\nyou had made out your case step by step. But now that I come to look\nback upon the work as a whole, the skeptical side of my nature comes\nuppermost, and I have an uneasy feeling that the proof is too complete.\nThat you have made out your case to a large extent is clear, but whether\nallowance ought not to be made for other elements is not so clear to me.\nHuman nature is complex, and we still know so little about the early\nhistory of civilized man! And between civilized and uncivilized man the\ngulf seems to have always been as great as it is today.\u201d\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. W. MAX M\u00dcLLER.\n\nAs an Egyptologist, Professor M\u00fcller is recognized for his scholarship\nand learning on both sides of the Atlantic. A favorite pupil of Georg\nEbers, he continued his studies at the University of Berlin under Adolf\nErman, and soon made a mark for himself. His _Asien und Europa nach\nAlt\u00e4gypt Denkmaller_,\u2013\u201cAsia and Europe from the Egyptian Monuments,\u201d\u2013at\nonce gave him high standing in that field. Expressing his regret that he\nwas not able to give more time to the examination of \u201cThe Threshold\nCovenant\u201d in its proof-sheets, he says:\n\n\u201cYou did not hear from me earlier because my too close occupation\nprevented my studying your book as thoroughly as I wished, and\ncontributing, as I hoped to, something on the threshold question. Even\nnow I have to write hastily.\n\n\u201cI have found your book most interesting and suggestive, so that I\nheartily recommend its publication. I hope to be able to read it more\ncarefully, and to give a more detailed criticism, after a while.\n\n\u201cA few remarks:\n\n\u201cPage 103.\u2013_Per-ao_ [Pharaoh]\u2013gate, door. Not to be proved. Strangely,\nthe root _pire_ means \u2018to go out.\u2019 Originally _pr_ may have been \u2018door,\u2019\nbut not in historic times.\n\n\u201cPage 161.\u2013[Calling the region of Sinai, the \u2018land of God\u2019.] A mistake!\nThe \u2018land of God\u2019 is only the land on the Red Sea. No such records known\nof Mt. Sinai.\n\n\u201cPage 180, line 5.\u2013[A memorial stone spoken of as marking the boundary\nline.] How do you know it was a boundary stone?\n\n\u201cThere is rich material of better and earlier passages on boundary\nstones than that given on page 180.\n\n\u201c_El gisr_ means \u2018bridge.\u2019 The dictionaries do not give \u2018threshold.\u2019\n\n\u201cPage 184.\u2013Sinai, an \u2018Egyptian boundary line\u2019? Still less did the \u2018holy\nmountain\u2019 (p. 185) ever mark the southern frontier. The threshold\nsacrifices are evidently a mistake. But I do not have at hand Brugsch\u2019s\nbook\u2013a very fanciful and unreliable book.\n\n\u201cI hope that as soon as a very pressing work has been finished, I shall\nbe able to revise all your passages bearing on Egypt. But even if I\nshould find some more of these minor faults, they would not change the\ngood general impression of the book.\u201d\n\nIt will be seen that none of the points questioned by Professor M\u00fcller\nare vital to the main thesis of the book, or essential to its\nillustration of the prevalence of the threshold covenant customs in\nEgypt. Moreover, it will be observed, by a reference to my authorities\nat the pages mentioned, that the facts and opinions I have presented at\nthese points are on the authority of Brugsch Bey and other scholars. The\nscholarship of Professor M\u00fcller, of course, gives him the right to\nquestion the testimony of any other Egyptologist.\n\nAs to the boundary line of Egypt in the Sinaitic peninsula, that simply\nrefers to the famous tablet and inscription, in Wady Maghara, of Snefru,\nthe great king of the fourth dynasty, when he had first extended his\ndominions thus far.[714] What was then Egypt\u2019s boundary line of conquest\nin that direction may, indeed, not have continued to be so. The same may\nbe said of the southern boundary of Egypt on the Nubian frontier.[715]\n\nMy reasons for giving \u201cthe threshold\u201d as a meaning of _el gisr_ are to\nbe found in full in my \u201cKadesh-barnea,\u201d at pages 50, 339, 341 f.\n\nIt is to be noted that Professor M\u00fcller had already pointed out to me\nthe existence of a temple at Thebes bearing the name of the \u201cSilver\nThreshold,\u201d[716] after the days of the eighteenth dynasty. He promises\nother notes in this direction when he has time for further research.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n This is the discovery to which Professor Hilprecht refers in his\n letter, Professor Hommel\u2019s note having been received just before\n Professor Hilprecht sailed for Constantinople.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n See Erman\u2019s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 468 f.; Maspero\u2019s _Dawn of\n Civilization_, pp. 242, note, 391.\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n See Erman, pp. 467, 503, and Maspero, pp. 484, 490.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n See p. 127, _supra_.\n\n-----\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. C.P. TIELE.\n\nAs an Orientalist, and as a student of religions, Professor Tiele,\nProfessor of the History of Religions in the University of Leyden, has a\nposition of eminence before the world. His publications of importance\nare numerous, prominent among which stand \u201cThe Religion of Zarathustra\n[Zoroaster];\u201d \u201cComparative History of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian\nReligions;\u201d \u201cThe Place of the Religions of Savages in the History of\nReligion;\u201d \u201cHistory of Religions of Antiquity to the Time of Alexander\nthe Great;\u201d and \u201cBabylonian-Assyrian History.\u201d A word from Professor\nTiele, on the theme of this book, has exceptional weight. He says:\n\n\u201cI thank you very much for your kindness in sending me your most\ninteresting book, \u2018The Threshold Covenant.\u2019... As far as I can judge,\nyou have not only given a clear exposition of the facts pertaining to\nthis widespread custom, but you have also shown the right way to catch\nthe meaning underlying those strange usances.\n\n\u201cOf late I have been mostly occupied by the study of the religions of\ncivilized people; nevertheless, I ever take a lively interest in the\nstudy of primitive man and the origin of religious rites. I have to say\nsomething on these questions in the Gifford Lectures, which I have been\ninvited to deliver before the University of Edinburgh next term. So your\nbook came just in time to know your meaning on the subject, and to\nrevise my opinion by comparing it with yours.\u201d\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. E. WASHBURN HOPKINS.\n\nThe successor, at Yale University, of Professor William D. Whitney, in\nthe chair of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, is Professor E.\nWashburn Hopkins, who before held the same chair in Bryn Mawr College.\nThis fact in itself is an indication of his position as a scholar; and\nhis latest work, \u201cThe Religions of India,\u201d in the series of \u201cHandbooks\non the History of Religions,\u201d bears testimony to his learning and\nability in that realm. Of the matters treated in this volume he says:\n\n\u201cI have read your \u2018Threshold Covenant\u2019 with great interest and pleasure.\nThe statements made in respect of Hindu rites all appear to me to be\ncorrect, and some of them might be made stronger, notably in the case of\nthe functions of the altar.\n\n\u201cI cannot say that I agree with you in all respects in your inductions\nfrom the ceremonial of the Door, but I have at least been furnished with\nmuch food for reflection and hints for observation in future\ninvestigation on these lines. Your work is a storehouse of useful data,\nand illustrates many strange customs of India by parallels from other\ncountries, though I should hesitate to refer so much to one primitive\nprinciple.\n\n\u201cBut, at all events, the facts of the religious phase which you\nemphasize have been set forth clearly, correctly, and fully, as regards\nIndia, to whatever conclusion they may point. I have had great pleasure\nin following your argument through to the end.\u201d\n\nIt may be mentioned that the added facts as to the Door, given in the\nAppendix, were not in the proof-sheets submitted to Professor Hopkins.\n\n FROM THE REV. DR. WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS.\n\nNo American scholar is better fitted than the Rev. Dr. William Elliot\nGriffis to speak of Japanese manners and customs, and of the religions\nand modes of thought of the people of Japan. After an extended residence\nin that country in connection with the Imperial University of Tokio, he\nhas studied and written of it and of its inhabitants. \u201cThe Mikado\u2019s\nEmpire,\u201d \u201cThe Religions of Japan,\u201d \u201cJapan in History, Folk Lore, and\nArt,\u201d are among the best known and most valuable of his works in that\nfield. Of \u201cThe Threshold Covenant\u201d he says heartily, after an\nexamination of its pages:\n\n\u201cYour general theory is abundantly confirmed in the early life and\ncustoms of Chinese Asia, and especially in the history of early Japan. I\nshould, of course, be glad to call together a council of native Japanese\nfriends, and some of my returned countrymen, and talk over your book,\nbut this is impossible at present, and press of many duties prevents me\nfrom doing justice to the work, as I should like to do. Such\nobservations as I may throw out, though imperfect, will, I trust, be\nsuggestive. I have read the book twice, and consider it a work of the\nfirst order of value.\n\n\u201cIn medi\u00e6val and modern Japan, it must be remembered, many of the\nancient customs and primitive native ideas have been not only changed,\nbut obliterated, by Buddhism, which, by its excessive reverence for\nlife, put an end to those customs which had in them the shedding of\nblood, or the taking of life. In ancient days it was the pretty nearly\nuniversal custom to build human beings alive in the walls of castles or\nstrongholds, and the piers or foundations of bridges. Many are the\nplaces rich in traditions of the _hito-gashira_, or human pillars, who\nwere lowered into the sea to be drowned (to appease the dragon, etc.),\nor made, as it were, cement for the foundation-stone,\u2013to which I have\nalluded in my \u2018Religions of Japan.\u2019\n\n\u201cWhat may be called the \u2018gate etiquette\u2019 in Japan is elaborate and\ndetailed. More than once have the foreign teachers, denizens, and\ntourists, had quarrels with the Japanese school, municipal, and national\nauthorities, because they unwittingly often violated ancient Japanese\ntraditions and customs. I myself remember how the _mom-ban_, or\ngate-keeper, used to refuse admittance to my _jin-riki-sha_ because I\nhad sitting with me a Japanese student or lad, who could not, in native\nideas of propriety, share with me (a guest) the honor of riding inside\nthe chief gate of mansion or college. Concerning troubles with native\nservants and others, who were inclined to shelter themselves under the\nforeigners\u2019 prestige and privilege, I need not speak in detail. The term\n\u2018Mikado,\u2019 as you may know, is literally Sublime Porte, Awful Gate, or\nPortal of Majesty. I believe there is profound significance in the idea\nof having the gateway to a Buddhist temple a structure which is in many\ncases almost as imposing as the sacred edifice itself. Each Shint\u014d\nshrine has before it, at some distance, a _tori-i_; and every little\nwayside shrine, in size from a doll-house to a one-room cottage, has\nalmost invariably a little _tori-i_, or gateway, before it.\n\n\u201cThe most elaborate ceremonies and gradations of honor are connected\nwith the threshold of the Imperial Palace, and for a thousand years or\nmore were rigorously observed in Kioto, and doubtless to great extent\nare yet in the new palace in Tokio.\n\n\u201cIn a Japanese marriage, when conducted on the old order of ceremonies,\nthe origin of which goes back into primeval twilight, the bride goes\nfrom her own home always to be married in her husband\u2019s home and to\nbecome a part of it. As she approaches her new home, fires are lighted\non either side of the threshold or door of entrance of the bridegroom\u2019s\nhouse. The name of these fires is \u2018garden torches.\u2019 As she proceeds up\nthe corridor, inside the house, two pairs of men and women, one on each\nside, have mortars in which they pound rice. As the palanquin passes,\nthe two mortars are moved together, and the meal from the two is mixed\nso as to become one mess. During the same time two candles have been\nlighted on either side of the passage way, and after the passing of the\npalanquin, the two flames are first joined in one and then blown out. Of\ncourse, these ceremonies are _now_ used only among the higher classes.\n\n\u201cIn all the Buddhist temples beside the great gateway and the ordinary\ntemple entrance there is a distinctly marked sill, behind which is the\naltar, and over which the worshiper must not come.\n\n\u201cI am very much inclined to believe that there is a significance which\nallies itself to \u2018The Threshold Covenant\u2019 in the _ye-bumi_ or \u2018trampling\non the cross,\u2019 observed during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and\nnineteenth centuries in Japan in order to eradicate all traces of\nChristianity. The pagan authorities made a copper engraving of the\ncrucifix, and putting it on the ground, between a structure that was\nevidently meant for the doorway with a threshold under it, they\ncompelled every one\u2013man, woman, and child\u2013to step upon the figure of\nChrist and the cross in token of their rejection of everything belonging\nto Christianity.\n\n\u201cIn ancient Japan, and all through her history, great care was taken\nwith boundaries and boundary marks, the latter being sometimes masses of\ncharcoal buried in the earth, or inscribed pillars, the bases of which\nwere charred. Mr. Ernest Satow, the first authority on things Japanese,\nbelieves that these boundary pillars, which, in some cases (as in Corea\ntoday), were carved to represent certain gods, afterwards became phallic\nemblems. Before most of the Buddhist temples of importance are to be\nfound the two guardian deities Ni-\u014d (two kings), and before many\nthousands of shrines of both Shint\u014d and Buddhism is the _ama-inu_\n(heavenly dogs), which are the guardians of the entrance to the temple.\n\n\u201cTime would fail me to tell of the various fetiches placed over and\nbeside the doorways and gates. Beside the very elaborate New Year\u2019s\nsymbolism signifying prosperity, longevity, congratulations, etc., there\nis always, on the last night of the year, a sort of \u2018purging out of the\nold leaven,\u2019 cleaning up of the house, and exorcism, by means of beans\nas projectiles, of all evil and evil spirits. Then bunches of thorny\nleaves, like holly, are affixed outside on the door lintel. Over the\ndoorway of almost every house of country folk and many of the\ntownspeople, one can see the wooden charms nailed up. These are bought\nin the temples of the priests as well as the packages of sacred paper\nwith Sanskrit letters or monograms for the better class of houses.\n\n\u201cBesides the red cord with which almost every present in Japan is tied,\nthe stamp of the red hand on or at the side of the door, either on the\nwood itself or on a sheet of paper, nailed up beside the door, is very\ncommon at particular times.\n\n\u201cThe Mecca of Japanese Shint\u014d is at Is\u00e9, where the temples have had from\ntime immemorial \u2018only one foundation.\u2019 The buildings are renewed every\ntwenty years on the same spot. For many centuries it has been the custom\nto rebuild Buddhist temples on the same foundation when destroyed by\nfire, or when \u2018captured\u2019 from Shintoist to Buddhist ownership....\n\n\u201cLet me call your attention to the idea underlying the political and\nreligious covenant of the great Iroquois Confederacy\u2013the most remarkable\npolitical structure of North American Indian life. The five tribes\n(later a sixth was added) called their dwelling-place in New York,\nbetween Niagara and the Hudson \u2018the Long House\u2019 after the typical\nIroquois dwelling in which lived many families. Few Iroquois lived east\nof Schenectady, though they went to fish in the Hudson River, which they\nthen named (a) \u2018Schenectady.\u2019 Schenectady (which in the Indian\nconception was the region in their extreme east) means, when analyzed,\n\u2018just outside the threshold,\u2019 or \u2018without the door.\u2019 While Onondaga was\nthe central fore-place of the Confederacy, the site of Schenectady had\nspecial sacredness in the minds of the Iroquois, and the Mohawks, who\noccupied this portion of the country, were called \u2018the guardians of the\nthreshold.\u2019\n\n\u201cVan Curler (Arendt Van Curler), one of the real \u2018makers of America,\u2019\nwho knew the Indians so well, and who made that great covenant with them\nwhich kept the Iroquois, despite all French intrigue, bribery, and\nopposition, faithful (for two centuries, till the Revolution divided\neven the white men), first to the Dutch, then to the English, knew this\nIndian reverence for the threshold, and took a just advantage of it. The\nfact that \u2018The Covenant of Corlear\u2019 was made on the threshold of their\nLong House gave it such sacredness in the eyes of the Indians that it\nwas _never broken_. In all their later oratory, for two centuries they\nreferred to this covenant. Besides calling the governors of New York\n\u2018Corlear\u2019 (the only instance, as Francis Parkman once wrote me, in which\nthe Indians applied a _personal_ name instead of making use of a\nmaterial object, figuratively, to a governor,\u2013\u2018fish,\u2019 \u2018pen,\u2019 \u2018big\nmountain,\u2019 etc.), the Mohawks of Canada to this day, as I heard them\nspeak it after personal inquiry, call Queen Victoria \u2018Kora Kowa,\u2019 that\nis, \u2018the great Corlear\u2019 (Van Curler).\u201d\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. JOHN P. MAHAFFY.\n\nAs an authority in the field of Greek antiquities, as well as a scholar\nof wide learning in various other fields, Professor Mahaffy, of Dublin\nUniversity, stands in high repute. Among his many published works, in\nproof of this, are his \u201cTwelve Lectures on Primitive Civilization,\u201d\n\u201cProlegomena to Ancient History,\u201d \u201cSocial Life in Greece from Homer to\nMenander,\u201d \u201cGreek Antiquities,\u201d \u201cRambles and Studies in Greece,\u201d \u201cGreek\nLife and Thought from Alexander to the Roman Conquest,\u201d \u201cThe Greek World\nunder Roman Sway,\u201d and \u201cThe Empire of the Ptolemies.\u201d Returning the\nproof-sheets of \u201cThe Threshold Covenant\u201d to the author, he says\ngenerously: \u201cYour learning is to me quite astonishing, and I could not\nventure to criticise you except in a passing way, as I read your proofs\nhastily. But you will find [on them] rough notes in pencil, only to show\nwhat I thought at the moment.\u201d\n\nIn comment on the custom, in many lands, of carrying out the dead from a\nhouse or a city through a special door or gate, instead of over the\nthreshold at the principal entrance,[717] he says: \u201cAt present, in the\nfarmhouses about Hoorn, in Holland, there is a state door opened only\nfor marriages and funerals. The family use a side or back door\nonly.\u201d[718] Again, \u201cthe \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 (_hiera pule_, \u2018sacred gate\u2019) at\nAthens seems to have been an accursed gate, through which criminals only\nwere led out.\u201d\n\nIn confirmation of the claim that human life, or blood, was deemed\nessential in the foundation, or the threshold laying of a city,[719]\nProfessor Mahaffy says: \u201cGreat Hellenistic cities, as, for instance,\nAntioch, had a girl sacrificed at their foundation. It was she,\napparently, that afterwards appeared as the personification of the city,\n\u1f21 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7 [_h\u0113 tuch\u0113_, \u2018the fortune,\u2019] as it was called.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe \u2018red hand of the O\u2019Neills\u2019 is a famous coat-of-arms well known in\nIreland. Lord O\u2019Neill now bears it.\u201d\n\nAs to my assumption that the first hearthstone must have been, in the\nnature of things, at the threshold of the cave or tent or hut, as it\nstill is among primitive peoples, and that the first stone laid at the\ncorner, or at the doorway, of a house or building, was, by the very fact\nof its first laying, the threshold of that structure, Professor Mahaffy\nsays: \u201cI don\u2019t believe in the identification of (1) foundation stone,\n(2) threshold, (3) house corner, (4) hearthstone, without clear proof.\u201d\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n See pp. 23\u201325, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n This was so in parts of New England, fifty years ago. I have seen the\n main hall or front \u201centry\u201d of a farmhouse in Connecticut used as a\n bedroom, with a high-post state bedstead against the front door. In\n case of a funeral or wedding the bedstead would be removed, in order\n that the door might be opened.\u2013H.C.T.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n See pp. 45\u201357, _supra_.\n\n-----\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. WILLIAM A. LAMBERTON.\n\nIn Dr. Lamberton, Professor of Greek, and Dean of the Department of\nPhilosophy, the University of Pennsylvania has a scholar as acute and\ndiscerning in his observations as he is full and accurate in knowledge\nin his special field of classic Greek. He has been familiar with the\nresults of my researches during my progress of recent years, and he has\nthis to say, after examining the proof-sheets of the completed work:\n\n\u201cYour induction seems to me to be very wide, and to include in its sweep\nall phases of civilization, which is practically as much as to say all\nperiods of human existence, from the most primitive on.\n\n\u201cThe significance of the threshold as altar, place of covenanting and\nworship, in house, temple, and domain, I think is completely made out.\n\n\u201cVery striking is the smiting of the blood, as sign of the covenant\nrelation, upon the posts of the doorway; and in particular the mark of\nthe red hand. The connection you endeavor to show between all this and\nthe marriage rite is, to say the least of it, suggestive. The mystery of\nthe gift and transmission of life, it has always seemed to me, early\nstruck man; and that it did not have its issue only in perverted forms,\nis clear from the fragmentary glimpses we get into the Eleusinian\nmysteries, celebrated in honor of divinities of productivity.\nPurification from sin and blessedness in the next world appear to have\nbeen among the hopes of the initiated.\n\n\u201cMay I call your attention to one or two points? The Greek word for\naltar, \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 (_bomos_), altar, from root \u03b2\u03b1 (_ba_), seen in \u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n(_bainein_), \u2018to step.\u2019\n\n\u201cMay not the whipping of the boys mentioned on page 175 be a\nmisinterpreted substitute for sacrifices at the boundary posts, perhaps\neven at one time human sacrifices? Such later modifications of sacrifice\ninto symbolic whippings are not unheard of elsewhere.\u201d\n\nProfessor Lamberton\u2019s suggestion that the Greek word for altar has its\norigin in a \u201cstep\u201d has confirmation in the fact, already noted, that the\nearliest temples were a shrine at the summit of a series of steps, as in\na step-pyramid, in Babylonia, Egypt, Canaan, Mexico, Peru, and the South\nSea Islands.[720] Is there not a reference to this ordinary mode of\nbuilding an altar among the outside nations, in the divine command to\nIsrael in the wilderness as to the building of an altar to Jehovah?\n\u201cNeither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness\nbe not discovered thereon.\u201d[721]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n See p. 111 f., _supra_.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n Exod. 20 : 26.\n\n-----\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. DANIEL G. BRINTON.\n\nIn the realm of American antiquities, and of anthropology generally, Dr.\nBrinton, Professor of American Arch\u00e6ology and Linguistics in the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania, stands foremost. He has been President of\nthe American Association for the Advancement of Science; and his\nknowledge and his work have had marked recognition in the International\nOriental Congresses, in the American Philosophical Society, in the\nAcademy of Natural Sciences, and in other learned bodies. He writes:\n\n\u201cI have gone over, with constantly increasing interest, your pages on\n\u2018The Threshold Covenant,\u2019 an interest associated with admiration of the\nwide reading you have brought to bear on the theme, and the temperate\nand enlightened spirit in which you have presented the facts.\n\n\u201cYou have, without question, established the practical universality of\nthe rites and ceremonies you describe, and the ideas from which they\ntook their origin. Your volume is another and powerful witness to the\nparallelisms of culture, and to the unity in the forms of expression of\nthe human mind.\n\n\u201cThese analogies and identities are, as you well know, open to several\ninterpretations or explanations. The main one offered by you seems to\nme, as a fact, quite probable; certainly it was constantly associated\nwith such rites.\n\n\u201cI am not able altogether to agree with the point of view expressed in\nyour Preface, and on pages 193\u2013195, in reference to the general origin\nand trend of religious ideas; but possibly I should find myself closer\nto your position were I to see it more amply defined. I cannot think the\nearliest religions were, as a rule, more \u2018uplifting\u2019 than the later\nones; I think there was a general progress upwards.\n\n FROM THE REV. DR. EDWARD T. BARTLETT.\n\nDean Bartlett, of the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church\nof Philadelphia, is prominent as a devout and careful Bible scholar, who\nhas the confidence of the Christian community to a rare degree. He was\nthe first president of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, and\nhe is the vice-president of the Society of Biblical Literature and\nExegesis. His work, on the \u201cScriptures Hebrew and Christian,\u201d as an\nintroduction to the study of the Bible, won for him commendation from\neminent scholars. Having read the proof-sheets of this book, Dean\nBartlett writes:\n\n\u201cI thank you for the opportunity to read your book \u2018The Threshold\nCovenant.\u2019 And I also want to thank you for allowing me to know\nsomething of the growth of your thought on the subject, in the frequent\nconversations we have had about it during the years past. Ever since I\ncame into the privilege of calling you friend I have been a witness of\nthe truth of your statement in the Preface, that your theory is wholly a\nresult of induction, that it came to you out of the gathered facts,\ninstead of the facts being gathered in support of the theory. What I\nknow as to your method would lead me to expect a result that must stand,\nand there are few writers who would be for me as authoritative as you in\nmatters which I could not verify for myself. But here you furnish the\nmeans of verification.\n\n\u201cAs the subject has come up between us from time to time and part by\npart, I have been led to think over what you told me, and it has seemed\nto me that nothing could exceed the care with which you advanced in your\ninduction. And now that I review the work as a whole, I am convinced\nthat you have demonstrated your theory. In doing so, you have thrown a\nwhole flood of new bright light on primitive culture, on some of the\nsacredest phases of human life in all ages, on many places of Scripture\nfrom the first chapter to the last, and on the central sacraments of the\nOld and New Covenants.\n\n\u201cIf this light came to me now for the first time in all its fulness, I\nam not sure whether I should be startled and almost blinded by it, or\nwhether I should, at first at least, altogether fail to appreciate it.\nBut you have been giving it to me gradually as it came to you, and so I\nhave been in a position to become adjusted to it, and also to test its\nillumining quality. I find that it is not transitory, but permanent, not\na flash but a steady light, in which the great objects of our Christian\nfaith stand clearly revealed.\n\n\u201cI sincerely congratulate you upon the completion of such an important\nand illuminating work.\u201d\n\n FROM PROFESSOR DR. T.K. CHEYNE.\n\nJust as the final pages of this volume are going to press, a valued\ncommunication concerning them is received from Professor Cheyne, of\nOxford University. Professor Cheyne is Oriel Professor of the\nInterpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, and Canon of Rochester. He\nis well known on both sides of the Atlantic as a prominent English\nrepresentative of the school of modern \u201chigher criticism,\u201d or\n\u201chistorical criticism.\u201d He was a member of the Old Testament Revision\nCompany, and he contributed many important articles on biblical subjects\nto the ninth edition of the \u201cEncyclop\u00e6dia Britannica.\u201d In 1889 he\ndelivered the Bampton Lectures on \u201cThe Historical Origin and Religious\nIdeas of the Psalter,\u201d and his various works on Old Testament\nliterature, including Job, the Psalms, Solomon, Isaiah, and Jeremiah,\nhave made him familiar to English readers the world over. The kindly,\nfrank, and courteous comments of Professor Cheyne on \u201cThe Threshold\nCovenant\u201d are the more highly valued in view of the fact that he has had\noccasion to suppose that the author\u2019s standpoint of biblical criticism\nwas not quite the same as his own. He says:\n\n\u201cI am delighted to have been able to make early acquaintance with a book\nso full of facts which really illuminate the dark places of primitive\ntimes. That the explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures profits much by it,\nis clear. Thank you for having devoted so much patient and thoughtful\ncare to the accumulation and interpretation of the facts. I have never\ndoubted your singular capacity for archeological work, and have only\nregretted that there has not been greater fellow-feeling with the\ncritics (in the popular sense,\u2013for you, too, are critical, though not\nquite in the right sense and to the extent required, if I may personally\nsay this).\n\n\u201cI notice on page 46 f. a reference to the foundation of Jericho by\nHiel. It appears to me that the idea suggested by archeology is only\ndefensible on the principles generally associated with \u2018historical\ncriticism.\u2019 If this idea is in any way historically connected with the\nact of Hiel related in 1 Kings 16 : 34 (wanting in LXX), and pointed to,\nwhether in reality or in the honest, though faulty, imagination of the\nwriter, in Joshua 6 : 26, we must suppose that the act of Hiel was\nmisunderstood by the critics of these two passages. For the deaths of\nAbiram and Segub are referred to as divine _judgments_ upon Hiel for his\nviolation of the _\u1e25erem_, or ban, laid upon the site of Jericho,\nwhereas, according to the archeological theory, Hiel offered his\nchildren as foundation sacrifices, believing that he could thus bring a\nblessing on the city of Jericho. No plain reader will understand the\nconnection of the archeological idea and the two passages of Old\nTestament\u2013as it appears to me.\n\n\u201cThe connection has been surmised by others before you,\u2013probably you can\ntell me who first struck out the idea. Is it in Tylor, or where? I\ncannot remember. Winckler (_Geschichte Israel_, Part I, 1895) expresses\nhis adhesion to it. Kuenen (Onderzoek, I [1886], p. 233) holds that\nthere was a misunderstanding of the traditional facts on the part of the\nauthor of the prediction in Joshua 6 : 26 in its present form, and of\nthe author of the notice in 1 Kings 16 : 34; he thinks that Hiel\nsacrificed his two sons, but does not appear to recall the archeological\nfacts. I think he ought to have recalled them. But he is right in the\nmain, as it seems to me.\n\nI have no prejudice against archeological illustrations of customs or of\nphraseology. On the contrary, I delight in them. I have for many years\nbeen on the archeological side, as well as on the critical....\n\n\u201cRobertson Smith took the right course, at once critical and\narcheological. Only he could not do everything, and he purposed to limit\nhimself, to a great extent, to those branches of archeology which he\nknew at first hand, or in which he could trust the experts. He would not\ntrust the English (biblical) archeologists, because they were not\ncritical.\n\n\u201cAre you right about (God\u2019s) \u2018strong hand,\u2019 etc., page 83? And what\nconnection has _teraphim_ with _threshold_ (p. 109)? Bonomi is no\ncritic. You are very convincing about the passover blood.\n\n\u201cI will write again if any special notes suggest themselves. A number of\nreferences in the Old Testament and the New Testament must be open to\ndivers interpretations; _but I habitually act upon your own principles_.\nPhrases which seem to us simple, are often full of references which\narcheology alone can explain. _Macte esto._\u201d\n\n ADDITIONAL FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.\n\nBefore this Supplement is finally printed, there comes a second\ncommunication from Professor Hommel of Munich, as already promised by\nhim.[722] In this new communication are suggestions and words of\nappreciation that will be welcomed by many readers, as coming from such\na source. Professor Hommel says:\n\n\u201cOnly a few days ago I finished reading your highly interesting little\nbook, \u2018The Threshold Covenant,\u2019 and I hasten to write to you, that I\nhave read it with ever-increasing interest, and have learned infinitely\nmuch from it. Our views regarding the high antiquity and the unity of\nhuman culture receive entirely new light through this work; in addition,\na large number of old oriental and biblical ways and customs now become\nintelligible and clear.\n\n\u201cManifestly correct, and indeed most happy, is your derivation of the\nthreshold cult, and of sacrifice in general, from the first human blood\nshed on crossing the threshold of woman; also the important explanation\nof the signs for life, which I have compared: Egyptian, Babylonian,\n(Compare _vulva_.) Moreover, your explanation of the passover is much\nmore satisfactory than taking _pesakh_ in the sense of \u2018to pass by.\u2019\n\n\u201cPermit me now to offer a few remarks, of which you may still be able to\navail yourself.\n\n\u201cWith the symbol of the red hand may also be compared the hands upon the\nSabaean bronze tablets (_Z.D.M.G._, Vol. 19, plate XI., and especially\nplate VII.), where fourteen hands of seven gods are pictured above the\ninscription. Furthermore, see Pinches\u2019 Inscribed Babylonian Tablets,\nbelonging to the collection of Sir Henry Peek, Part III., p. 66; a seal\ncylinder, on which appears a raised hand between the god and the priest.\n\n\u201cOn page 100 [of your book].\u2013More accurately, I is _house_ as well as\ntemple; I-GAL is palace (_\u00ed-gal \u00edkallu_); but Hebrew and Arabic _hekal_\nis \u2018temple,\u2019 \u2018Holy of Holies\u2019 (Hebrew, also \u2018palace\u2019).\n\n\u201cOn page 105.\u2013That the design in question, on the old Babylonian seal\ncylinder, represents the sun gates, is a discovery made by your own\ncountryman, Dr. W. Hayes Ward (American Journal of Archeology, III.,\nnos. 1\u20132, p. 52).\n\n\u201cOn page 108.\u2013The Arabic _mihr\u00e2b_ is a loan word from the South Arabic\nand Ethiopic, _mikr\u00e2b_, temple; literally, \u2018praying-place.\u2019\n\n\u201cOn page 171.\u2013In South Arabic inscriptions _wathan_ signifies\n\u2018boundary-pillar,\u2019 and at the same time \u2018statue of god,\u2019 \u2018idol.\u2019\n\n\u201cOn page 180.\u2013_El gisr_ is literally \u2018bridge.\u2019 The bridge was also\nlooked upon as a gate, as leading from one shore to the other.\n\n\u201cOn page 229.\u2013Sacred prostitution. Compare Babylonia _kadishtu_\n(literally, holy person), Hebrew _k\u0101dusha_, \u2018harlot.\u2019\n\n\u201cOn page 233 (note).\u2013The Babylonian _pat\u00e2nu_, \u2018to hold the sacrificial\nmeal,\u2019 \u2018to eat,\u2019 _naptanu_, \u2018meal,\u2019 is connected with Hebrew _miphtan_.\nI am inclined to believe also that the Babylonian _\u02bfgish-da=pitnu_,\nreally means \u2018threshold;\u2019 also that _gish-sa_, _ush-sa_, a bridal gift,\nis originally \u2018threshold.\u2019\n\n\u201cOn page 234.\u2013The \u2018serpent\u2019 of the boundary stone was originally the\nMilky Way. The other symbols are animals of the Zodiac.\n\n\u201cOn page 235 (note 3).\u2013Compare, also, Hommel, _Babylonische Ursprung der\n\u00c6gypt. Kultur_ (fight of Merodach with the serpent=fight of R\u00ea \u2018with\n\u02bfApep\u2019).\n\n\u201cOn page 238.\u2013_Nekhusht\u00e2n_, the name the serpent of Moses, is derived\nfrom \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\u05ea, \u2018_vulva_,\u2019 or, at all events, is related to this word.\u201d\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n See p. 313, _supra_.\n\n-----\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nMinor errors or inconsistencies of punctuation or formatting have been\ncorrected silently. There were a number of occasions where quotation\nmarks were not balanced. Where possible the cited source has been\nconsulted. It was not always possible to surmise the scope of quoted\nmaterial, in which case it is noted below, but unchanged in the text.\n\nIn at least one case, on p. 125, the quotation from \u00c1rmin V\u00e1mb\u00e9ry\u2019s\n_Travels in Central Asia_ (see note 361) was incorrectly marked.\nQuotation marks have been added in order to properly denote those\nportions which directly follow the source.\n\nIn the scriptural index, on p. 303, the entries for 1 Timothy are\ncorrupt, with the chapter appearing at the end of the entry, rather than\nat the beginning:\n\n ------------------\n\n 1 TIMOTHY.\n : 14 854\n : 7 1146\n\n ------------------\n\nThese have been corrected as\n\n 1 TIMOTHY.\n 4 : 14 85\n 6 : 7 114\n\n ------------------\n\nThis table summarizes the corrections specifically to the Topical Index,\nwhich on occasion has entries which are spelled differently in the text\nitself, or are otherwise faulty. To facilitate searches, it is assumed\nthat the text is correct, and the entries were changed. The sole\nexception is the transliteration of the Greek word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, which is\ngiven in the text on p. 154 as _pronaoi_, but correctly in the index as\n_pronaioi_ (vestibule). In this case, the text has been corrected.\n\n Entry Correction/Comment\n\n Altar: _l\u00e8l\u00e8_, name for accents reversed from the text\n (\u201cl\u00e9l\u00e9\u201d).\n\n Ashurn\u00e2sira[f]i Ashurn\u00e2sira[p]li on both\n referenced pages.\n\n Avai[t]a Avai[k]a\n\n Bay[e]t-el-Walli Bayt-el-Walli\n\n Boundary: references to, may be p. 17 or p. 117. In any\n case, neither page seems to\n have a relevant remark.\n\n \u201cDead, Book of the,\u201d appears twice, the second\n being out of the alphabetic\n sequence. That has been\n removed.\n\n Boodha-drum/ Booddha-drum/ Booddha-drum/\n Boodha-hood/Boodha\u2019s foot Booddha\u2019s foot\n\n British envoy welcomed at British envoy welcomed at\n threshold of Ka[n]zeroon threshold of Ka[u]zeroon\n\n Buk[a]h\u014dla Bukoh\u014dla\n\n He[li] Heh\n\n Eu[e]lmash Eulmash\n\n Gapriel Gabriel\n\n Jastrow, Prof. Dr. Morris, The first citation appears on\n Jr.: cited, [97] p. 79 in n. 418.\n\n Kurigalz[a] II., king of Kurigalz[u] II., king of\n Babylon Babylon\n\n Kuz[a] bemuchsaz Kuzu Kuz[u] bemuchsaz Kuzu\n\n Maspero, Prof. G.: references Note 473 occurs on p. 169.\n to, ... 126, 16[0]\n\n ------------------\n\nThis table summarizes any other corrections which were made to the text.\n\n p. 22 hea[r]thstones Added.\n\n p. 32 by the bridegroom\u2019s [friend] _Sic._\n\n p. 33 \u201ca little brandy is spilt _Sic._\n under the threshold.[\u201d]\n\n p. 43 and thrusts it into her Added.\n bosom,[\u201d]\n\n p. 61 Chara[u/n]s Corrected\n\n [\u201c/\u2018]The herald and his Corrected.\n brother\n\n p. 79 n. 220 De Hesse-Warteg[g]\u2019s Added.\n\n p. 82 that is, I will covenant with Removed.\n them.[\u201d]\n\n p. 90 [\u201c]The red hand was Added.\n\n p. 100 as simil[i]arly, in ancient Removed\n Egypt\n\n p. 104 n. 279 Les Religions et les Corrected.\n Philosophies dans l\u2019Asi[a/e]\n\n p. 144 n. 417 See Jones\u2019s and K[n/r]opf\u2019s Corrected.\n\n p. 200 n. 531 Suppl\u00e9ment aux Corrected.\n Dictionn[aries/aires]\n\n p. 200 or [\u201c]door,\u201d Added.\n\n p. 222 n. 596 See Maundrel[l]\u2019s _Journey_ Added.\n\n p. 227 conju[n]ction Added.\n\n p. 246 \u00c6gyp[t]o Superiori Added.\n\n p. 255 n. 672 M\u00fclha[n/u] and Volck Corrected.\n\n p. 273 Christ[ai/ia]n captive Transposed.\n\n p. 281 Entrance-way, importance of, Corrected.\n [2/3]. There is no p.\n 2.\n\n p. 293 among Sep[h]ardeem Added.\n\n p. 299 Die Lehr[a/e]n d. Talmud Corrected.\n\n p. 314 \u2018to pray,[\u2019] Added.\n\n [\u201c]Patriarchal Palestine,\u201d Added.","title":"The Threshold Covenant; or, The Beginning of Religious Rites","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":95364}