Part 25

No American scholar is better fitted than the Rev. Dr. William Elliot Griffis to speak of Japanese manners and customs, and of the religions and modes of thought of the people of Japan. After an extended residence in that country in connection with the Imperial University of Tokio, he has studied and written of it and of its inhabitants. “The Mikado’s Empire,” “The Religions of Japan,” “Japan in History, Folk Lore, and Art,” are among the best known and most valuable of his works in that field. Of “The Threshold Covenant” he says heartily, after an examination of its pages:

“Your general theory is abundantly confirmed in the early life and customs of Chinese Asia, and especially in the history of early Japan. I should, of course, be glad to call together a council of native Japanese friends, and some of my returned countrymen, and talk over your book, but this is impossible at present, and press of many duties prevents me from doing justice to the work, as I should like to do. Such observations as I may throw out, though imperfect, will, I trust, be suggestive. I have read the book twice, and consider it a work of the first order of value.

“In mediæval and modern Japan, it must be remembered, many of the ancient customs and primitive native ideas have been not only changed, but obliterated, by Buddhism, which, by its excessive reverence for life, put an end to those customs which had in them the shedding of blood, or the taking of life. In ancient days it was the pretty nearly universal custom to build human beings alive in the walls of castles or strongholds, and the piers or foundations of bridges. Many are the places rich in traditions of the _hito-gashira_, or human pillars, who were lowered into the sea to be drowned (to appease the dragon, etc.), or made, as it were, cement for the foundation-stone,–to which I have alluded in my ‘Religions of Japan.’

“What may be called the ‘gate etiquette’ in Japan is elaborate and detailed. More than once have the foreign teachers, denizens, and tourists, had quarrels with the Japanese school, municipal, and national authorities, because they unwittingly often violated ancient Japanese traditions and customs. I myself remember how the _mom-ban_, or gate-keeper, used to refuse admittance to my _jin-riki-sha_ because I had sitting with me a Japanese student or lad, who could not, in native ideas of propriety, share with me (a guest) the honor of riding inside the chief gate of mansion or college. Concerning troubles with native servants and others, who were inclined to shelter themselves under the foreigners’ prestige and privilege, I need not speak in detail. The term ‘Mikado,’ as you may know, is literally Sublime Porte, Awful Gate, or Portal of Majesty. I believe there is profound significance in the idea of having the gateway to a Buddhist temple a structure which is in many cases almost as imposing as the sacred edifice itself. Each Shintō shrine has before it, at some distance, a _tori-i_; and every little wayside shrine, in size from a doll-house to a one-room cottage, has almost invariably a little _tori-i_, or gateway, before it.

“The most elaborate ceremonies and gradations of honor are connected with the threshold of the Imperial Palace, and for a thousand years or more were rigorously observed in Kioto, and doubtless to great extent are yet in the new palace in Tokio.

“In a Japanese marriage, when conducted on the old order of ceremonies, the origin of which goes back into primeval twilight, the bride goes from her own home always to be married in her husband’s home and to become a part of it. As she approaches her new home, fires are lighted on either side of the threshold or door of entrance of the bridegroom’s house. The name of these fires is ‘garden torches.’ As she proceeds up the corridor, inside the house, two pairs of men and women, one on each side, have mortars in which they pound rice. As the palanquin passes, the two mortars are moved together, and the meal from the two is mixed so as to become one mess. During the same time two candles have been lighted on either side of the passage way, and after the passing of the palanquin, the two flames are first joined in one and then blown out. Of course, these ceremonies are _now_ used only among the higher classes.

“In all the Buddhist temples beside the great gateway and the ordinary temple entrance there is a distinctly marked sill, behind which is the altar, and over which the worshiper must not come.

“I am very much inclined to believe that there is a significance which allies itself to ‘The Threshold Covenant’ in the _ye-bumi_ or ‘trampling on the cross,’ observed during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries in Japan in order to eradicate all traces of Christianity. The pagan authorities made a copper engraving of the crucifix, and putting it on the ground, between a structure that was evidently meant for the doorway with a threshold under it, they compelled every one–man, woman, and child–to step upon the figure of Christ and the cross in token of their rejection of everything belonging to Christianity.

“In ancient Japan, and all through her history, great care was taken with boundaries and boundary marks, the latter being sometimes masses of charcoal buried in the earth, or inscribed pillars, the bases of which were charred. Mr. Ernest Satow, the first authority on things Japanese, believes that these boundary pillars, which, in some cases (as in Corea today), were carved to represent certain gods, afterwards became phallic emblems. Before most of the Buddhist temples of importance are to be found the two guardian deities Ni-ō (two kings), and before many thousands of shrines of both Shintō and Buddhism is the _ama-inu_ (heavenly dogs), which are the guardians of the entrance to the temple.

“Time would fail me to tell of the various fetiches placed over and beside the doorways and gates. Beside the very elaborate New Year’s symbolism signifying prosperity, longevity, congratulations, etc., there is always, on the last night of the year, a sort of ‘purging out of the old leaven,’ cleaning up of the house, and exorcism, by means of beans as projectiles, of all evil and evil spirits. Then bunches of thorny leaves, like holly, are affixed outside on the door lintel. Over the doorway of almost every house of country folk and many of the townspeople, one can see the wooden charms nailed up. These are bought in the temples of the priests as well as the packages of sacred paper with Sanskrit letters or monograms for the better class of houses.

“Besides the red cord with which almost every present in Japan is tied, the stamp of the red hand on or at the side of the door, either on the wood itself or on a sheet of paper, nailed up beside the door, is very common at particular times.

“The Mecca of Japanese Shintō is at Isé, where the temples have had from time immemorial ‘only one foundation.’ The buildings are renewed every twenty years on the same spot. For many centuries it has been the custom to rebuild Buddhist temples on the same foundation when destroyed by fire, or when ‘captured’ from Shintoist to Buddhist ownership....

“Let me call your attention to the idea underlying the political and religious covenant of the great Iroquois Confederacy–the most remarkable political structure of North American Indian life. The five tribes (later a sixth was added) called their dwelling-place in New York, between Niagara and the Hudson ‘the Long House’ after the typical Iroquois dwelling in which lived many families. Few Iroquois lived east of Schenectady, though they went to fish in the Hudson River, which they then named (a) ‘Schenectady.’ Schenectady (which in the Indian conception was the region in their extreme east) means, when analyzed, ‘just outside the threshold,’ or ‘without the door.’ While Onondaga was the central fore-place of the Confederacy, the site of Schenectady had special sacredness in the minds of the Iroquois, and the Mohawks, who occupied this portion of the country, were called ‘the guardians of the threshold.’

“Van Curler (Arendt Van Curler), one of the real ‘makers of America,’ who knew the Indians so well, and who made that great covenant with them which kept the Iroquois, despite all French intrigue, bribery, and opposition, faithful (for two centuries, till the Revolution divided even the white men), first to the Dutch, then to the English, knew this Indian reverence for the threshold, and took a just advantage of it. The fact that ‘The Covenant of Corlear’ was made on the threshold of their Long House gave it such sacredness in the eyes of the Indians that it was _never broken_. In all their later oratory, for two centuries they referred to this covenant. Besides calling the governors of New York ‘Corlear’ (the only instance, as Francis Parkman once wrote me, in which the Indians applied a _personal_ name instead of making use of a material object, figuratively, to a governor,–‘fish,’ ‘pen,’ ‘big mountain,’ etc.), the Mohawks of Canada to this day, as I heard them speak it after personal inquiry, call Queen Victoria ‘Kora Kowa,’ that is, ‘the great Corlear’ (Van Curler).”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. JOHN P. MAHAFFY.

As an authority in the field of Greek antiquities, as well as a scholar of wide learning in various other fields, Professor Mahaffy, of Dublin University, stands in high repute. Among his many published works, in proof of this, are his “Twelve Lectures on Primitive Civilization,” “Prolegomena to Ancient History,” “Social Life in Greece from Homer to Menander,” “Greek Antiquities,” “Rambles and Studies in Greece,” “Greek Life and Thought from Alexander to the Roman Conquest,” “The Greek World under Roman Sway,” and “The Empire of the Ptolemies.” Returning the proof-sheets of “The Threshold Covenant” to the author, he says generously: “Your learning is to me quite astonishing, and I could not venture to criticise you except in a passing way, as I read your proofs hastily. But you will find [on them] rough notes in pencil, only to show what I thought at the moment.”

In comment on the custom, in many lands, of carrying out the dead from a house or a city through a special door or gate, instead of over the threshold at the principal entrance,[717] he says: “At present, in the farmhouses about Hoorn, in Holland, there is a state door opened only for marriages and funerals. The family use a side or back door only.”[718] Again, “the ἱερὰ πύλη (_hiera pule_, ‘sacred gate’) at Athens seems to have been an accursed gate, through which criminals only were led out.”

In confirmation of the claim that human life, or blood, was deemed essential in the foundation, or the threshold laying of a city,[719] Professor Mahaffy says: “Great Hellenistic cities, as, for instance, Antioch, had a girl sacrificed at their foundation. It was she, apparently, that afterwards appeared as the personification of the city, ἡ τύχη [_hē tuchē_, ‘the fortune,’] as it was called.”

“The ‘red hand of the O’Neills’ is a famous coat-of-arms well known in Ireland. Lord O’Neill now bears it.”

As to my assumption that the first hearthstone must have been, in the nature of things, at the threshold of the cave or tent or hut, as it still is among primitive peoples, and that the first stone laid at the corner, or at the doorway, of a house or building, was, by the very fact of its first laying, the threshold of that structure, Professor Mahaffy says: “I don’t believe in the identification of (1) foundation stone, (2) threshold, (3) house corner, (4) hearthstone, without clear proof.”

Footnote 717:

See pp. 23–25, _supra_.

Footnote 718:

This was so in parts of New England, fifty years ago. I have seen the main hall or front “entry” of a farmhouse in Connecticut used as a bedroom, with a high-post state bedstead against the front door. In case of a funeral or wedding the bedstead would be removed, in order that the door might be opened.–H.C.T.

Footnote 719:

See pp. 45–57, _supra_.

FROM PROFESSOR DR. WILLIAM A. LAMBERTON.

In Dr. Lamberton, Professor of Greek, and Dean of the Department of Philosophy, the University of Pennsylvania has a scholar as acute and discerning in his observations as he is full and accurate in knowledge in his special field of classic Greek. He has been familiar with the results of my researches during my progress of recent years, and he has this to say, after examining the proof-sheets of the completed work:

“Your induction seems to me to be very wide, and to include in its sweep all phases of civilization, which is practically as much as to say all periods of human existence, from the most primitive on.

“The significance of the threshold as altar, place of covenanting and worship, in house, temple, and domain, I think is completely made out.

“Very striking is the smiting of the blood, as sign of the covenant relation, upon the posts of the doorway; and in particular the mark of the red hand. The connection you endeavor to show between all this and the marriage rite is, to say the least of it, suggestive. The mystery of the gift and transmission of life, it has always seemed to me, early struck man; and that it did not have its issue only in perverted forms, is clear from the fragmentary glimpses we get into the Eleusinian mysteries, celebrated in honor of divinities of productivity. Purification from sin and blessedness in the next world appear to have been among the hopes of the initiated.

“May I call your attention to one or two points? The Greek word for altar, βωμός (_bomos_), altar, from root βα (_ba_), seen in βαίνειν (_bainein_), ‘to step.’

“May not the whipping of the boys mentioned on page 175 be a misinterpreted substitute for sacrifices at the boundary posts, perhaps even at one time human sacrifices? Such later modifications of sacrifice into symbolic whippings are not unheard of elsewhere.”

Professor Lamberton’s suggestion that the Greek word for altar has its origin in a “step” has confirmation in the fact, already noted, that the earliest temples were a shrine at the summit of a series of steps, as in a step-pyramid, in Babylonia, Egypt, Canaan, Mexico, Peru, and the South Sea Islands.[720] Is there not a reference to this ordinary mode of building an altar among the outside nations, in the divine command to Israel in the wilderness as to the building of an altar to Jehovah? “Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.”[721]

Footnote 720:

See p. 111 f., _supra_.

Footnote 721:

Exod. 20 : 26.

FROM PROFESSOR DR. DANIEL G. BRINTON.

In the realm of American antiquities, and of anthropology generally, Dr. Brinton, Professor of American Archæology and Linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania, stands foremost. He has been President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and his knowledge and his work have had marked recognition in the International Oriental Congresses, in the American Philosophical Society, in the Academy of Natural Sciences, and in other learned bodies. He writes:

“I have gone over, with constantly increasing interest, your pages on ‘The Threshold Covenant,’ an interest associated with admiration of the wide reading you have brought to bear on the theme, and the temperate and enlightened spirit in which you have presented the facts.

“You have, without question, established the practical universality of the rites and ceremonies you describe, and the ideas from which they took their origin. Your volume is another and powerful witness to the parallelisms of culture, and to the unity in the forms of expression of the human mind.

“These analogies and identities are, as you well know, open to several interpretations or explanations. The main one offered by you seems to me, as a fact, quite probable; certainly it was constantly associated with such rites.

“I am not able altogether to agree with the point of view expressed in your Preface, and on pages 193–195, in reference to the general origin and trend of religious ideas; but possibly I should find myself closer to your position were I to see it more amply defined. I cannot think the earliest religions were, as a rule, more ‘uplifting’ than the later ones; I think there was a general progress upwards.

FROM THE REV. DR. EDWARD T. BARTLETT.

Dean Bartlett, of the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Philadelphia, is prominent as a devout and careful Bible scholar, who has the confidence of the Christian community to a rare degree. He was the first president of the American Institute of Sacred Literature, and he is the vice-president of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. His work, on the “Scriptures Hebrew and Christian,” as an introduction to the study of the Bible, won for him commendation from eminent scholars. Having read the proof-sheets of this book, Dean Bartlett writes:

“I thank you for the opportunity to read your book ‘The Threshold Covenant.’ And I also want to thank you for allowing me to know something of the growth of your thought on the subject, in the frequent conversations we have had about it during the years past. Ever since I came into the privilege of calling you friend I have been a witness of the truth of your statement in the Preface, that your theory is wholly a result of induction, that it came to you out of the gathered facts, instead of the facts being gathered in support of the theory. What I know as to your method would lead me to expect a result that must stand, and there are few writers who would be for me as authoritative as you in matters which I could not verify for myself. But here you furnish the means of verification.

“As the subject has come up between us from time to time and part by part, I have been led to think over what you told me, and it has seemed to me that nothing could exceed the care with which you advanced in your induction. And now that I review the work as a whole, I am convinced that you have demonstrated your theory. In doing so, you have thrown a whole flood of new bright light on primitive culture, on some of the sacredest phases of human life in all ages, on many places of Scripture from the first chapter to the last, and on the central sacraments of the Old and New Covenants.

“If this light came to me now for the first time in all its fulness, I am not sure whether I should be startled and almost blinded by it, or whether I should, at first at least, altogether fail to appreciate it. But you have been giving it to me gradually as it came to you, and so I have been in a position to become adjusted to it, and also to test its illumining quality. I find that it is not transitory, but permanent, not a flash but a steady light, in which the great objects of our Christian faith stand clearly revealed.

“I sincerely congratulate you upon the completion of such an important and illuminating work.”

FROM PROFESSOR DR. T.K. CHEYNE.

Just as the final pages of this volume are going to press, a valued communication concerning them is received from Professor Cheyne, of Oxford University. Professor Cheyne is Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, and Canon of Rochester. He is well known on both sides of the Atlantic as a prominent English representative of the school of modern “higher criticism,” or “historical criticism.” He was a member of the Old Testament Revision Company, and he contributed many important articles on biblical subjects to the ninth edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica.” In 1889 he delivered the Bampton Lectures on “The Historical Origin and Religious Ideas of the Psalter,” and his various works on Old Testament literature, including Job, the Psalms, Solomon, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, have made him familiar to English readers the world over. The kindly, frank, and courteous comments of Professor Cheyne on “The Threshold Covenant” are the more highly valued in view of the fact that he has had occasion to suppose that the author’s standpoint of biblical criticism was not quite the same as his own. He says:

“I am delighted to have been able to make early acquaintance with a book so full of facts which really illuminate the dark places of primitive times. That the explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures profits much by it, is clear. Thank you for having devoted so much patient and thoughtful care to the accumulation and interpretation of the facts. I have never doubted your singular capacity for archeological work, and have only regretted that there has not been greater fellow-feeling with the critics (in the popular sense,–for you, too, are critical, though not quite in the right sense and to the extent required, if I may personally say this).

“I notice on page 46 f. a reference to the foundation of Jericho by Hiel. It appears to me that the idea suggested by archeology is only defensible on the principles generally associated with ‘historical criticism.’ If this idea is in any way historically connected with the act of Hiel related in 1 Kings 16 : 34 (wanting in LXX), and pointed to, whether in reality or in the honest, though faulty, imagination of the writer, in Joshua 6 : 26, we must suppose that the act of Hiel was misunderstood by the critics of these two passages. For the deaths of Abiram and Segub are referred to as divine _judgments_ upon Hiel for his violation of the _ḥerem_, or ban, laid upon the site of Jericho, whereas, according to the archeological theory, Hiel offered his children as foundation sacrifices, believing that he could thus bring a blessing on the city of Jericho. No plain reader will understand the connection of the archeological idea and the two passages of Old Testament–as it appears to me.

“The connection has been surmised by others before you,–probably you can tell me who first struck out the idea. Is it in Tylor, or where? I cannot remember. Winckler (_Geschichte Israel_, Part I, 1895) expresses his adhesion to it. Kuenen (Onderzoek, I [1886], p. 233) holds that there was a misunderstanding of the traditional facts on the part of the author of the prediction in Joshua 6 : 26 in its present form, and of the author of the notice in 1 Kings 16 : 34; he thinks that Hiel sacrificed his two sons, but does not appear to recall the archeological facts. I think he ought to have recalled them. But he is right in the main, as it seems to me.

I have no prejudice against archeological illustrations of customs or of phraseology. On the contrary, I delight in them. I have for many years been on the archeological side, as well as on the critical....

“Robertson Smith took the right course, at once critical and archeological. Only he could not do everything, and he purposed to limit himself, to a great extent, to those branches of archeology which he knew at first hand, or in which he could trust the experts. He would not trust the English (biblical) archeologists, because they were not critical.

“Are you right about (God’s) ‘strong hand,’ etc., page 83? And what connection has _teraphim_ with _threshold_ (p. 109)? Bonomi is no critic. You are very convincing about the passover blood.

“I will write again if any special notes suggest themselves. A number of references in the Old Testament and the New Testament must be open to divers interpretations; _but I habitually act upon your own principles_. Phrases which seem to us simple, are often full of references which archeology alone can explain. _Macte esto._”

ADDITIONAL FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.

Before this Supplement is finally printed, there comes a second communication from Professor Hommel of Munich, as already promised by him.[722] In this new communication are suggestions and words of appreciation that will be welcomed by many readers, as coming from such a source. Professor Hommel says: