“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have
set.” (Proverbs 22:28)
The above biblical verse has always been one of my favourites, and since the King James Version was the translation of my childhood, it is the above rendering that is implanted in my mind. I have always taken it as an affirmation of conservative principles, saying broadly that we ought to be wary of changing settled ways and customs. I suppose I understood it that way on the basis of a certain interpretation of the word “landmark”. There are at least three ways one could understand that term, each yielding a slightly different variation on a moral theme, and it is the first that I usually have in mind when I think of this proverb.
- Landmark as monument. Think of it as a statue or other public work of art. Removing it, even for seemingly justifiable reasons, erases a piece of public memory and of our understanding of who we are as a people, warts and all. We would be culturally confused or lost if we were to lightly go about tearing our monuments down. It is mainly this interpretation that comes to mind when I think of Proverbs 22:28. I would add that, in my mind, “fathers” always means something like “forefathers”, those who went before us, regardless of whether they were genetic or familial ancestors. Think of the Founding Fathers, or (in Canada) the Fathers of Confederation.
- Landmark as wayfinding device. Here, the landmark could be thought of as a sort of milestone, marking location. A certain stone, purposely placed, tells us that we are five miles from Bethlehem, or are a certain distance along the Appian Way. If the stone were removed, wayfarers might find themselves lost. But again, this could lead us to a figurative reading akin to the one above: “lost” might mean culturally lost or confused.
- Landmark as boundary. Here we think of the landmark as a pile of stones marking off one farmer’s field from another’s. On this reading, the proverb supports the institution of private property: when we remove the landmark, we can no longer tell where one field ends and another begins. Again, the result is confusion, but also contention and strife.
So textually speaking, which of the above readings has the most warrant? Well, although the first resonates the most with me, as does a figurative reading of the second, it is the third that has the most textual support.
If we turn to the Vulgate (Latin) translation of the bible, the proverb reads “Ne transgrediaris terminos antiquos, quos posuerunt patres tui.” Here, the word which the King James translators rendered as “landmark” is the Latin word terminus, meaning “boundary, limit, end”. And the word for “fathers” is patres. Now, depending on the context this could have the extended sense of “forefathers”, but if that is what was intended, I think the word maiores would be used instead of patres. In other words, “fathers” means “ancestors” in the more narrow genetic or familial sense. Additionally, the Latin for “remove” is transgredior, “to cross, to go, to move, to travel over, to go across.” So, a literal translation of the Latin might be something like “Do not cross the property line which your [genetic/familial] fathers established.”
So far, it seems that the third – narrow – interpretation of “landmark” is the correct one, and that Proverbs 22:28 is intended as supporting private property. But an even narrower sense is also possible. To see this, we must turn to the Hebrew.
I have no Hebrew, so I will rely on Robert Alter’s translation (with fascinating commentary) of the Hebrew bible. Here is his rendering: “Do not shift the age-old boundary stone that your forefathers set up.” Again, it supports the private property interpretation. But in Alter’s view, it supports a specific version of private property. In his footnote, he says “This injunction, which has a close parallel in the Egyptian source-text, reflects the general view that real property should be inalienable” [my italics].
The concept of inalienable property is somewhat… well, alien to the modern mind. But it was common in ancient legal systems, where land had a sort of corporate character, ownership being more akin to a trusteeship, passed on by one’s ancestors and exercised for the benefit of one’s descendants. For more on this, I would direct the reader to Sir Henry Maine’s classic Ancient Law (1861).
In any case, since the above Biblical verse no longer means quite what I wish it did, I need a new one. So far, the one that best seems to capture the sentiment for me is “meddle not with them that are given to change” (Proverbs 24:21). I welcome other suggestions.
