Part 12

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

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

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 The line between the English grants in America, originally made to the Duke of York and to Lord Baltimore, was, after much dispute, run by two English surveyors, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, in 1763–67, and marked by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

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

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

4. BORDER SACRIFICES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More recently, Layard has testified to the prevalence of such customs. Speaking of his reception among the Yezidis, he tells of his approach to the village of Guzelder, and of his welcome there: “The head of the village of Guzelder, with the principal inhabitants, had come to invite me to eat bread in his house, and we followed him.... Before we reached Guzelder, the procession had swollen to many hundreds.... As I approached, sheep were brought into the road and slain before my horse’s feet, and as we entered the yard of Akko’s house the women and men joined in the loud and piercing ‘_tahlel_.’”[520]

Again, as Layard entered the village of Redwan, he was similarly welcomed. “I alighted,” he says, “amidst the din of music and the ‘_tahlel_’ at the house of Nazi, the chief of the whole Yezidi district; two sheep being slain before me as I took my feet from the stirrups.”[521]

When, some twenty years ago, a European prince visited the Mt. Lebanon region,[522] a generous host killed a valuable cow on the road by which the prince must come into his region. Then the royal visitor and his retinue were requested to step over, not upon, the blood of the slaughtered cow, at the threshold of that host’s domain.

On the occasion of a caravan starting out from the boundary line of a country in the East, there are border sacrifices offered, even in recent times. Thus Burckhardt tells of this ceremony, when he went from Egypt to Nubia.

The various traders going with this caravan assembled at the starting-point, having their goods with them. “At noon the camels were watered, and knelt down by the side of their respective loads. Just before the lading commenced, the Ababde women appeared with earth vessels in their hands, filled with burning coals. They set them before the several loads, and threw salt upon them.” It has already been shown that salt stands for blood, in the minds of primitive peoples. “At the rising of the bluish flame produced by the burning of the salt, they exclaimed, ‘May you be blessed in going and in coming!’”[523] And this sacrifice was supposed to secure safety against evil spirits encountered in crossing the boundary line.

Thus it would seem that, from the beginning, on the national threshold, as on the threshold of the temple and of the home, sacrifices were offered, and boundary marks were set up, in recognition of a peculiar sacredness of the border line,–which is in itself a foundation and a limit. These boundary marks were commonly a pillar or a tree, in apparent symbolism of a fructifying or a fruit-bearing agency, of the transmission or the continuance of life. And the establishment and protection of these boundary marks was deemed well pleasing to God or to the gods, and in the nature of a holy covenant service.

Footnote 471:

See, for example, Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, III., 41, 43; IV., 41; Hilprecht’s _Freibrief Nebukadnezar’s_, I., col. II., 26–60; _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, II., 165–203, 258 ff.

Footnote 472:

An unknown product of the field.

Footnote 473:

From the Michaux Stone, columns II.-IV. in Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., pl. 70; translated for this work by Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht. See illustrations in Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 762, 763. See Sayce’s _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_, p. 308.

Footnote 474:

Bühler’s “Laws of Manu,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXV., 298, 301.

Footnote 475:

Deut. 19 : 14.

Footnote 476:

Prov. 22 : 28; 23 : 10.

Footnote 477:

Job 24 : 2.

Footnote 478:

Deut. 27 : 17.

Footnote 479:

Gen. 21 : 22–33.

Footnote 480:

Gen. 31 : 43–53.

Footnote 481:

See Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, and Keightley’s _Class. Dict._, s. vv. “Hermes,” “Jupiter,” “Mercury,” “Silvanus,” “Terminus,” “Zeus.” Comp. Stengel’s _Die griechischen Sacralalterthüm_. in Iwan v. Müller’s _Handbuch der Klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft_, V., part 3, p. 13; K.F. Hermann’s _Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer der Griechen_, pp. 73, 108, note 2.

Footnote 482:

“This god was represented by a stone or a stump, and not with human features.” This would seem to have been a rude phallic form.

Footnote 483:

Ovid’s _Fasti_, Bk. II., vs. 641 ff.

Footnote 484:

Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, s. vv. “Numa,” “Terminus.”

Footnote 485:

Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._, s. v. “Terminalia.”

Footnote 486:

Stanley’s _Congo_, I., 315–317.

Footnote 487:

Turner’s _Samoa_, p. 45 f.

Footnote 488:

See “Beating the Bounds,” in Chambers’s _Edinburgh Journal_ for July 23, 1853, pp. 49–52; also _American Architect_, Vol. X., No. 293, p. 64 f.

Footnote 489:

Wallace’s _Russia_, p. 366 f.

Footnote 490:

Cited in Thompson’s _Elements of Political Economy_, p. 110.

Footnote 491:

Schrader’s _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 63, 69, 87, 99, 109, 131, 133, 135, 141, 143, 147, 155, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 181; II., 19, 35, 54, 89.

Footnote 492:

See pp. 105–108, _supra_.

Footnote 493:

See, for example, Schrader’s _Keilinshriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 69.

Footnote 494:

Rawlinson’s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17–26, col. 1, lines 63–69.

Footnote 495:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 8 f.; Villiers Stuart’s _Nile Gleanings_, Pl. xlv., p. 276.

Footnote 496:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 182 f.

Footnote 497:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 81 f.

Footnote 498:

_Ibid._, II., 78 f.

Footnote 499:

Trumbull’s _Kadesh-barnea_, p. 341, note.

Footnote 500:

Plutarch’s _Lives_, Theseus, 25.

Footnote 501:

Psa. 24 : 2.

Footnote 502:

Justinian, _Inst._, Lib. I., 12, 5.

Footnote 503:

_Ibid._

Footnote 504:

Stanley’s _Congo_, I., 1–11.

Footnote 505:

See _Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog._, VI., 412–434.

Footnote 506:

Carlyle’s _History of Frederick_, II., I., 71–74.

Footnote 507:

Rawlinson’s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17–26, Col. III., ll. 84–89.

Footnote 508:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 81.

Footnote 509:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 82.

Footnote 510:

“The Shih King,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 343, 392, 399, note, 420, 422 note.

Footnote 511:

Lacouperie’s _Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization_, pp. 79. 81.

Footnote 512:

See p. 7 f., _ante_.

Footnote 513:

Heb. 10 : 20.

Footnote 514:

I have this on the testimony of those who have often witnessed it.

Footnote 515:

See Gen. 15 : 1–21.

Footnote 516:

On this point I am assured by missionaries and other dwellers in Persia.

Footnote 517:

Morier’s _Journey to Constantinople_, p. 75.

Footnote 518:

_Ibid._, p. 84 f. See, also, Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 93 f.

Again, when the Shah of Persia was to enter Teheran, he was received outside of the walls, by prominent officials, with much ceremony. As he approached

Footnote 519:

Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 387 f.

Footnote 520:

Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), p. 35 f.

Footnote 521:

_Ibid._, p. 37.

Footnote 522:

My informant, an eye-witness of this incident, was not sure whether it was a Prussian, an Austrian, or a Russian prince.

Footnote 523:

Burckhardt’s _Travels in Nubia_, p. 157.

IV. ORIGIN OF THE RITE.

1. A NATURAL QUESTION.

A question that forces itself on the mind, in connection with the study of a world-wide primitive rite like this of the Threshold Covenant, is, What was its origin? How came it to pass, that primitive peoples, in all parts of the world, were brought to attach such exceptionally sacred significance to the threshold of a hut, or tent, or cave, or house; of a palace or temple; of a domain, local or national; and to count its crossing by blood a form of holy covenanting between the parties engaged in it, and the deity invoked in the ceremony? This question goes back to the origin of religious rites among human beings, and its answer must, in order to commend itself to all, be in accordance with the natural outgrowths and the abnormal perversions of religious rites, in the main line of human development all the world over.

However simple and elemental were man’s earliest religious ideas, they must have been from the beginning pure and uplifting, or they would not have been religious. Nothing impure or debasing in itself would have raised man’s thoughts Godward, even though man might subsequently come to degrade his best conceptions of God and his worship. Hence the answer to this question must include only such facts as were capable of being viewed reverently by primitive man, as worthy of God’s creatures in the loving service and worship of God.

2. AN ANSWER BY INDUCTION.

This threshold rite clearly goes back to the beginning of family life. The facts already presented are proof of this. The rite includes the proffer of blood at the foundation of the family as a family. It is a part of the marriage ceremonial among primitive peoples. It is also the means by which one is adopted from without into a family circle or group. It marks every stage of the progress of family life, from one pair to a community and to an empire, in its civil and religious relations. It is a form of covenanting between its participants, and between them and God; and thus it has sanctity as a religious rite.

A fair induction from these recognized facts, in their sweep and significance, would seem to indicate, as the origin of this primitive rite, the covenant union between the first pair in their instituting of the family relation. When was the first covenant made between two human beings? When was the first outpouring of blood in loving sacrifice? By what act was the first appeal made to the Author and Source of life for power for the transmission of life, by two persons who thereby entered into covenant with each other and with him? The obvious answer to these questions is an answer to the question, What was the origin of the rite of the Threshold Covenant?

Life and its transmission must have been a sacred mystery to the first thinkers about God and his human workers. Blood was early recognized as life, its outpouring as the pledge and gift of life, and its interchange as a life covenant between those who shared its substance. In view of this truth, a covenant union by blood that looked to the transmission of life must have been in itself, to a thoughtful and reverent person, an appeal to the Author of life to be a party to that covenant union, in order to give it efficiency.

When first a twain were made one in a covenant of blood, the threshold altar of the race was hallowed as a place where the Author of life met and blessed the loving union. And from this beginning there was the natural development of religious rites and ceremonies, in the family, in the temple, and in the domain, as shown alike in the history of the human race and in the main teachings of both the Old Testament and the New.

3. NO COVENANT WITHOUT BLOOD.

Flowing blood is widely deemed essential to the covenant by which two are made one in the marriage relation. This is peculiarly the case among those primitive peoples where young maidens are guarded with jealous care, and are given in marriage at a very early age. In the thought of such peoples there is no binding covenant without blood, in the family relation.[524] And a bloody hand stamp on the cloth of testimony is the primitive certificate of the marriage covenant.

Facts in illustration of this truth are numerous in the nuptial customs of Syria, Egypt, China, Dahomey, Liberia, Europe, Central America, Samoa, and other widely different regions. A few of these facts are given in the Appendix for the benefit of scientific students, in a language better suited than English for the presentation of such details.[525]

4. CONFIRMATION OF THIS VIEW.

If the view here given of the origin of this rite of the Threshold Covenant be correct, there will be found traces of the truth in the different religions of mankind. And this is the case, as shown in religious literatures, in history, and in primitive customs and beliefs.

The most ancient expression of the religious thought and feeling of the Aryan races is found in the Vedas and their accompanying literature. The Brahmanas, in this literature, deal with the sacrificial element in public and family worship, and with the rites and ceremonies pertaining to religion. In the description of the construction of the household altars and the high altars, there is abundant evidence that the woman is recognized as the primitive altar, and that the form of the woman is made the pattern of the altar form.