VOLUME XI SLICE V Gassendi, Pierre to Geocentric (continued 7)

The interpretation of ethnological or statistical genealogies may easily be pushed too far. Every case has to be judged upon its own merits, and due allowance must be made both for the ambition of the weaker to claim or to strengthen an alliance with the stronger, and for the not unnatural desire of clans or individuals to magnify the greatness of their ancestry. The first step must always be the careful comparison of related lists in order to test the consistency of the tradition. Next, these must be critically studied in the light of all available historical material, though indeed such evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Finally, (a) literary criticism must be employed to determine if possible the dates of such lists, since obviously a contemporary register is more trustworthy than one which is centuries later; (b) a critical estimate of the character of the names and of their use in various periods of Old Testament history is of importance in estimating the antiquity of the list1—for example, many of the names in Chronicles attributed to the time of David are indubitably exilic or post-exilic; and (c) principles of ordinary historical probability are as necessary here as in dealing with the genealogies of other ancient peoples, and attention must be paid to such features as fluctuation in the number of links, representation of theories inconsistent with the growth of national life, schemes of relationship not in accordance with sociological conditions, &c.

The Biblical genealogies commence with “the generations of the heaven and earth,” and by a process of elimination pass from Adam and Eve by successive steps to Jacob and to his sons (the tribes), and finally to the subdivisions of each tribe (cp. 1 Chron. i.-ix. 1). According to this theory every Israelite could trace back his descent to Jacob, the common father of the whole nation (Josh. vii. 17 seq., 1 Sam. x. 21). Such a scheme, however, is full of manifest improbabilities. It demands that every tribe and every clan should have been a homogeneous group which had preserved its unity from the earliest times, that family records extending back for several centuries were in existence, and that such a tribe as Simeon was able to maintain its independence in spite of the tradition that it lost its autonomy in very early times (Gen. xlix. 7). The whole conception of the unity of the tribes cannot be referred to a date previous to the time of David, and in the older writings a David or a Jeroboam was sufficiently described as the son of Jesse or of Nebat. The genealogical zeal as represented in the Old Testament is chiefly of later growth, and the exceptions are due to interpolation (Josh. vii. 1 18, contrast v. 24), or to the desire to modify or qualify an older notice. This, in the case of Saul (1 Sam. ix. 1), has led to textual corruption; a list of such a length as his should have reached back to one of the “sons” of Benjamin (cf. e.g. Gen. xlvi. 21), else it were purposeless. The genealogies, too, are often inconsistent amongst themselves and in contradiction to their object. They show, for example, that the population of southern Judah, so far from being “Israelite” was half-Edomite (see Judah), and several of the clans in this district bear names which indicate their original affinity with Midian or Edom. Moreover, there was a free intermixture of races, and many cities had a Canaanite (i.e. pre-Israelite) population which must have been gradually absorbed by the Israelites (cf. Judg. 1.). That spirit of religious exclusiveness which marked later Judaism did not become prominent before the Deuteronomic reformation (see Deuteronomy), and it is under its influence that the writings begin to emphasize the importance of maintaining the purity of Israelite blood, although by this time the fusion was complete (see Judg. iii. 6) and for practical purposes a distinction between Canaanites and Israelites within the borders of Palestine could scarcely be discerned.

Many of the genealogical data are intricate. Thus, the interpretation of Gen. xxxiv. is particularly obscure (see Levites ad fin.; Simeon). As regards the sons of Jacob, it is difficult to explain their division among the four wives of Jacob; viz. (a) the sons of Leah are Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah (S. Palestine), Issachar and Zebulun (in the north), and Dinah (associated with Shechem); (b) of Leah’s maid Zilpah, Gad and Asher (E. and N. Palestine); (c) of Rachel, Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim, i.e. central Palestine) and Benjamin; (d) of Rachel’s maid Bilhah, Dan and Naphtali (N. Palestine). It has been urged that (b) and (d) stood upon a lower footing than the rest, or were of later origin; or that Bilhan points to an old clan associated with Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 22) or Edom (Bilhan, Gen. xxxvi. 27), whilst Zilpah represents an Aramaean strain. Tradition may have combined distinct schemes, and the belief that the wives were Aramaean at least coincides with the circumstance that Aramaean elements predominated in certain of the twelve tribes. The number “twelve” is artificial and can be obtained only by counting Manasseh and Ephraim as one or by omitting Levi, and a careful study of Old Testament history makes it extremely difficult to recover the tribes as historical units. See, on these points, the articles on the several tribes, B. Luther, Zeit. d. alttest. Wissens. (1901), pp. 1 sqq.; G.B. Gray, Expositor (March 1902), pp. 225-240, and in Ency. Bib., art. “Tribes”; and H.W. Hogg’s thorough treatment of the tribes in the last-mentioned work.

The ideal of purity of descent shows itself conspicuously in portions of Deuteronomic law (Deut. vii. 1-3, xxiii. 2-8), and in the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra (Ezr. ix. 1-4, 11 sqq.; Neh. xiii. 1-3). The desire to prove the continuity of the race, enforced by the experience of the exile, gave the impetus to genealogical zeal, and many of the extant lists proceed from this age when the true historical succession of names was a memory of the past. This applies with special force to the lists in Chronicles which present finished schemes of the Levitical divisions by the side of earlier attempts, with consequent confusion and contradiction. Thus the immediate ancestors of Ethan appear in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix. 12), but he with Asaiah and Heman are contemporaries of David, and their genealogies from Levi downwards contain a very unequal number of links (1 Chron. vi.). By another application of genealogical method the account of the institution of priests and Levites by David (1 Chron. xxiv.) presents many names which belong solely to post-exilic days, thus suggesting that the scribes desired to show that the honourable families of their time were not unknown centuries previously. Everywhere we find the results of much skill and labour, often in accordance with definite theories, but a thorough investigation reveals their weakness and often quite incidentally furnishes valuable evidence of another nature.

The intricate Levitical genealogies betray the result of successive genealogists who sought to give effect to the development of the hierarchal system (see Levites). The climax is reached when all Levites are traced back to Gershon, Kehath and Merari, to which are ascribed respectively Asaph, Heman and Ethan (or Jeduthun). The last two were not originally Levites in the later accepted sense of the term (see 1 Kings iv. 31). To Kehath is reckoned an important subdivision descended from Korah, but in 2 Chron. xx. 19 the two are distinct groups, and Korah’s name is that of an Edomite clan (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18) related to Caleb, and thus included among the descendants of Judah (1 Chron. ii. 43). Cases of adjustment, redistribution and “Levitizing” of individuals are frequent. There are traces of varying divisions both of the singers (Neh. xi. 17) and of the Levites (Num. xxvi. 58; Ezr. ii. 40, iii. 9; 1 Chron. xv. 5-10, xxiii.), and it is noteworthy that in the case of the latter we have mention of such families as Hebroni (Hebronite), Libni (from Libnah)—ethnics of South Judaean towns. In fact, a significant number of Levitical names find their analogy in the lists of names belonging to Judah, Simeon and even Edom, or are closely connected with the family of Moses; e.g. Mushi (i.e. Mosaïte), Gershon and Eleazar (cp. Gershom and Eliezer, sons of Moses). The Levites bear a class-name, and the genealogies show that many of them were connected with the minor clans and families of South Palestine which included among them Moses and his kin. Hence, it is not unnatural that Obed-edom, for example, obviously a southerner, should have been reckoned later as a Levite, and the work ascribed by the chronicler’s history to the closing years of David’s life may be influenced by the tradition that it was through him these mixed populations first attained importance. See further David; Jews; Levites.

In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent, and perhaps from the time of Ezra downwards lists were carefully kept. But when Anna is called an Asherite (Luke ii. 36), or Paul a Benjamite (Rom. xi. 1), family tradition was probably the sole support to the claim, although the tribal feeling had not become entirely extinct. The genealogies of Jesus prefixed to two of the gospels are intended to prove that He was a son of David. But not that alone, for in Matt. i. he is traced back to Abraham the father of the Jews, whilst in Luke iii. He, as the second Adam, is traced back to the first man. The two lists are hopelessly inconsistent; not because one of them follows the line of Mary, but because they represent independent attempts. That in Matthew is characteristically arranged in three series of fourteen generations each through the kings of Judah, whilst Luke’s passes through an almost unknown son of David; in spite of this, however, both converge in the person of Zerubbabel.

See further, A.C. Hervey, Genealogies of Our Lord; H. von Soden, Ency. Bib. ii. col. 1666 sqq.; B.W. Bacon, Hastings’ Dict. Bib. ii. pp. 138 seq. On the subject generally see J.F. M‘Lennan’s Studies (2nd ser., ch. ix., “fabricated genealogies”); S.A. Cook, Ency. Bib. ii. col. 1657 sqq. (with references); W.R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage (2nd ed., especially ch. i.).

(S. A. C.)

2. Greek and Roman Genealogies.—A passing reference only is needed to the intricate genealogies of gods and sons of gods which form so conspicuous a feature in classical literature.2 In every one of the numerous states into which ancient Greece was divided there were aristocratic families, whose genealogies as a rule went back to prehistoric times, their first ancestor being some hero of divine descent, from whom, or from some distinguished younger ancestor, they derived their names. Many of these families were, as families, undoubtedly of great antiquity even at the beginning of the historical period; and in several instances they continued to maintain a conspicuous and separate existence for centuries. The element of family pride is prominent in the poetry of the Megarian Theognis; and in an inscription belonging to the 2nd century B.C. the recipient of certain honours from the community of Gythium is represented as the thirty-ninth in direct descent from the Dioscuri and the forty-first from Heracles. Even in Athens, long after the constitution had become thoroughly democratic, some of the clans continued to be known as Eupatridae (of noble family); and Alcibiades, for example, as a member of the phratria of the Eurysacidae, traced his origin through many generations to Eurysaces, who was represented as having been the first of the Aeacidae to settle in Attica. The Corinthian Bacchiadae traced their descent back to Heracles, but took their name from Bacchis, a younger ancestor. It is very doubtful, however, whether such pedigrees as this were very seriously put forward by those who claimed them; and it is certain that, almost along the whole line, they were unsupported by evidence.3 We have the authority of Pollux (viii. 111) for stating that the Athenian γένη, of which there were thirty in each φρατρία, were organized without any exclusive regard being had to blood-relationship; they were constantly receiving accessions from without; and the public written registers of births, adoptions and the like do not appear to have been preserved with such care as would have made it possible to verify a pedigree for any considerable portion even of the strictly historical period.4

The great antiquity of the early Roman (patrician) gentes, who universally traced themselves back to illustrious ancestors, is indisputable; and the rigid exclusiveness with which each preserved its hereditates gentiliciae or sacra gentilicia is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that towards the close of the republic there were not more than fifty patrician families (Dion. Halic. i. 85). Yet even in these it is obvious that, owing to the frequency of resort to the well-recognized practice of adoption, while there was every guarantee for the historical identity of the family, there was none (documents apart) for the personal genealogy of the individual. There is no evidence that sufficient records of pedigree were kept during the earlier centuries of the Roman commonwealth, although the leading houses drew up genealogical tables, and their family pedigree was painted on the walls of the entrance hall. In later times, it is true, even plebeian families began to establish a prescriptive right (known as the jus imaginum) to preserve in small wooden shrines in their halls the busts (or rather, wax portrait masks fastened on to busts) of those of their members who had attained to curule office, and to exhibit these in public on appropriate occasions. Under these imagines majorum5 it became usual to inscribe on the wall their respective tituli, the relationship of each to each being indicated by means of connecting lines; and thus arose the stemmata gentilicia, which at a later time began to be copied into family records. In the case of plebeian families (whose stemmata in no case went farther back than 366 B.C.) these written genealogies were probably trustworthy enough; but in the case of patricians who went back to Aeneas,6 so much cannot, it is obvious, be said; and from a comparatively early period it was clearly recognized that such records lent themselves too readily to the devices of the falsifier and the forger to deserve confidence or reverence (Pliny, H.N. xxxv. 2; Juv. viii. 1).

Thus, parvenus were known to place the busts of fictitious ancestors in the shrines and to engage needy literary men to trace back their descent even to Aeneas himself.

The many and great social changes which marked the closing centuries of the Western empire almost invariably militated with great strength against the maintenance of an aristocracy of birth; and from the time of Constantine the dignity of patrician ceased to be hereditary.7

3. Modern.—Two forces have combined to give genealogy its importance during the period of modern history: the laws of inheritance, particularly those which govern the descent of real estate, and the desire to assert the privileges of a hereditary aristocracy. But it is long before genealogies are found in the possession of private families. The succession of kings and princes are in the chronicle book; the line of the founders and patrons of abbeys are recorded by the monks with curious embellishment of legend. But the famous suit of Scrope against Grosvenor will illustrate the late appearance of private genealogies in England. In 1385 Sir Richard Scrope, lord of Bolton, displaying his banner in the host that invaded Scotland, found that his arms of a golden bend in a blue field were borne by a knight of the Chester palatinate, one Sir Robert Grosvenor. He carried the dispute to a court of chivalry, whose decision in his favour was confirmed on appeal to the king. Grosvenor asserted that he derived his right from an ancestor, Sir Gilbert Grosvenor, who had come over with the Conqueror, while an intervening claimant, a Cornish squire named Thomas Carminowe, boasted that his own ancestors had borne the like arms since the days of King Arthur’s Round Table. It is remarkable that in support of the false statements made by the claimants no written genealogy is produced. The evidence of tombs and monuments and the reports of ancient men are advanced, but no pedigree is exhibited in a case which hangs upon genealogy. It is possible that the art of pedigree-making had its first impulse in England from the many genealogies constructed to make men familiar with the claims of Edward III. to the crown of France, a second crop of such royal pedigrees being raised in later generations during the contests of York and Lancaster. But it is not until after the close of the middle ages that genealogies multiply in men’s houses and are collected into volumes. The medieval baron, knight or squire, although proud of the nobility of his race, was content to let it rest upon legend handed down the generations. The exact line of his descent was sought only when it was demanded for a plea in the king’s courts to support his title to his lands.

From the first the work of the genealogist in England had that taint of inaccuracy tempered with forgery from which it has not yet been cleansed. The medieval kings, like the Welsh gentry of later ages, traced their lines to the household of Eden garden, while lesser men, even as early as the 14th century, eagerly asserted their descent from a companion of the Conqueror. Yet beside these false imaginations we find the law courts, whose business was often a clash of pedigrees, dealing with genealogies centuries long which, constructed as it would seem from worthy evidences, will often bear the test of modern criticism.

Genealogies in great plenty are found in manuscripts and printed volumes from the 16th century onward. Remarkable among these are the descents recorded in the Visitation Books of the heralds, who, armed with commissions from the crown, the first of which was issued in 20 Hen. VIII., perambulated the English counties, viewing arms and registering pedigrees. The notes in their register books range from the simple registration of a man’s name and arms to entries of pedigrees many generations long. To the heralds these visitations were rare opportunities of obtaining fees from the visited, and the value of the pedigrees registered is notably unequal. Although it has always been the boast of the College of Arms that Visitation records may be produced as evidence in the law courts, few of these officially recorded genealogies are wholly trustworthy. Many of the officers of arms who recorded them were, even by the testimony of their comrades, of indifferent character, and even when the visiting herald was an honourable man and an industrious he had little time to spare for the investigation of any single genealogy. Deeds and evidences in private hands may have been hastily examined in some instances—indeed, a herald’s summons invites their production—and monuments were often viewed in the churches, but for the most part men’s memories and the hearsay of the country-side made the backbone of the pedigree. The further the pedigree is carried beyond the memory of living men the less trustworthy does it become. The principal visitations took place in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I. and Charles II. No commission has been issued since the accession of William and Mary, but from that time onwards large numbers of genealogies have been recorded in the registers of the College of Arms, the modern ones being compiled with a care which contrasts remarkably with the unsupported statements of the Tudor heralds.

Outside the doors of the College of Arms genealogy has now been for some centuries a favourite study of antiquaries, whose researches have been of the utmost value to the historian, the topographer and the biographer. County histories, following the example of Dugdale’s Warwickshire folios, have given much space to the elucidation of genealogies and to the amassing of material from which they may be constructed. Dugdale’s great work on the English baronage heads another host of works occupied with the genealogy of English noble families, and the second edition of “G.E.C.’s” Complete Peerage shows the mighty advance of the modern critical spirit. Nevertheless, the 20th century has not yet seen the abandoning of all the genealogical fables nourished by the Elizabethan pedigree-mongers, and the ancestry of many noble houses as recorded in popular works of reference is still derived from mythical forefathers. Thus the dukes of Norfolk, who, by their office of earl marshal are patrons of the heralds, are provided with a 10th-century Hereward for an ancestor; the dukes of Bedford, descendants of a 15th-century burgess of Weymouth, are traced to the knightly house of Russell of Kingston Russell, and the dukes of Westminster to the mythical Gilbert le Grosvenor who “came over in the train of the Conqueror.”

Genealogical research has, however, made great advance during the last generation. The critical spirit shown in such works as Round’s Studies in Peerage and Family History (1901) has assailed with effective ridicule the methods of dishonest pedigree-makers. Much raw material of genealogy has been made available for all by the publication of parish registers, marriage-licence allegations, monumental inscriptions and the like, and above all by the mass of evidences contained in the volumes issued by the Public Record Office.

Within a small space it is impossible to set forth in detail the methods by which an English genealogy may be traced. But those who are setting out upon the task may be warned at the outset to avoid guesswork based upon the possession of a surname which may be shared by a dozen families between whom is no tie of kinship. A man whose family name is Howard may be presumed to descend from an ancestor for whom Howard was a personal name: it may not be presumed that this ancestor was he in whom the dukes of Norfolk have their origin. A genealogy should not be allowed to stray from facts which can be supported by evidence. A man may know that his grandfather was John Stiles who died in 1850 at the age of fifty-five. It does not follow that this John is identical with the John Stiles who is found as baptized in 1795 at Blackacre, the son of William Stiles. But if John the grandfather names in his letters a sister named Isabel Nokes, while the will of William Stiles gives legacies to his son and daughter John Stiles and Isabel Nokes, we may agree that reasonable proof has been given of the added generation. A new pedigree should begin with the carefully tested statements of living members of a family. The next step should be to collate such family records as bible entries, letters and diaries, and inscriptions on mourning rings, with monumental inscriptions of acknowledged members of the family. From such beginnings the genealogist will continue his search through the registers of parishes with which the family has been connected; wills and administrations registered in the various probate courts form, with parish registers, the backbone of most middle-class family histories. Court rolls of manors in which members of the family were tenants give, when existing and accessible, proofs which may carry back a line, however obscure, through many descents. When these have been exhausted the records of legal proceedings, and notably those of the court of chancery, may be searched. Few English households have been able in the past to avoid an appeal to the chancery court, and the bill and answer of a chancery plaintiff and defendant will often tell the story of a family quarrel in which a score of kinsfolk are involved, and the pleadings may contain the material for a family tree of many branching generations. Coram Rege and De Banco rolls may even, in the course of a dispute over a knight’s fee or a manor carry a pedigree to the Conquest of England, although such good fortune can hardly be expected by the searcher out of an undistinguished line. In proving a genealogy it must be remembered that in the descent of an estate in land must be sought the best evidence for a pedigree.

At the present time the study of genealogy grows rapidly in English estimation. It is no less popular in America, where societies and private persons have of late years published a vast number of genealogies, many of which combine the results of laborious research in American records with extravagant and unfounded claims concerning the European origin of the families dealt with. A family with the surname of Cuthbert has been known to hail St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne as its progenitor, and one surnamed Eberhardt has incorporated in its pedigree such German princes of old times as were found to have Eberhardt for a Christian name.

Genealogy in modern France has, with a few honourable exceptions, fallen into the hands of the popular pedigree-makers, whose concern is to gratify the vanity of their employers. Italy likewise has not yet shaken off the influence of those venal genealogists who, three hundred years ago, sold pedigrees cheaply to all comers. But much laborious genealogical inquiry had been made in Germany since the days of Hübner, and even in Russia there has been some attempt to apply modern standards of criticism to the chronicles of the swarming descendants of the blood of Rurik.

In no way is the gap made by the Dark Ages between ancient and modern history more marked than by the fact that no European family makes a serious claim to bridge it with its genealogy. The unsupported claim of the Roman house of Massimo to a descent from Fabius Maximus is respectable beside such legends as that which made Lévis-Mirepoix head of the priestly tribe of Levi, but even the boast of such remote ancestry has now become rare. The ancient sovereign houses of Europe are, for the most part, content to attach themselves to some ancestor who, when the mist that followed the fall of the Western empire begins to lift, is seen rallying with his sword some group of spearmen.

Authorities.—Genealogical works have been published in such abundance that the bibliographies of the subject are already substantial volumes. Amongst the earlier books from the press may be noted Benvenuto de San Georgio’s Montisferrati marchionum et principum regiae propagium successionumque series (1515); Pingonius’s Arbor gentilitiae Sabaudiae Saxoniaeque domus (1521); Gebweiler’s Epitome regii ac vetustissimi ortus Caroli V. et Ferdinandi I., omniumque archiducum Austriae et comitum Habsburgiensium (1527): Meyer’s work on the counts of Flanders (1531), and Du Boulay’s genealogies of the dukes of Lorraine (1547). Later in the same century Reineck of Helmstadt put forth many works having a wider genealogical scope, and we may cite Henninges’s Genealogiae Saxonicae (1587) and Theatrum genealogicum (1598), and Reusner’s Opus genealogicum catholicum (1589-1592). For the politically inconvenient falseness of François de Rosières’ Stemmata Lotharingiae ac Barri ducum (1580), wherein the dukes of Lorraine were deduced from the line of Charlemagne, the author was sent to the Bastille by the parlement of Paris and his book suppressed.

The 17th century saw the production in England of Dugdale’s great Baronage (1675-1676), a work which still holds a respectable place by reason of its citation of authorities, and of Sandford’s history of the royal house. In the same century André Duchesne, the historian of the Montmorencys, Pierre d’Hozier, the chronicler of the house of La Rochefoucauld, Rittershusius, Imhoff, Spener, Lohmeier and many others contribute to the body of continental genealogies. Pierre de Guibours, known as Père Anselme de Ste Marie, published in 1674 the first edition of his magnificent Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de France, des pairs, grands officiers de la couronne et de la maison du roy et des anciens barons du royaume. Of this encyclopaedic work a third and complete edition appeared in 1726-1733. A modern edition under the editorship of M. Potier de Courcy began to be issued in 1873, but remains incomplete. Among 18th-century work Johann Hübner’s Bibliotheca genealogica (1729) and Genealogische Tabellen (1725-1733), with Lenzen’s commentary on the latter work (c. 1756), may be signalized, with Gatterer’s Handbuch der Genealogie (1761) and his Abriss der Genealogie (1788), the latter an early manual on the science of genealogy. Hergott’s Genealogia diplomatica augustae gentis Habsburgicae (1737) is the imperial genealogy compiled by the emperor’s own historiographer.

Modern peerages in England may be said to date from that of Arthur Collins, whose one-volume first edition was published in 1709. The fifth edition appeared in 1778, in eight volumes, to be republished in 1812 by Sir Egerton Brydges, the “Baptist Hatton” of Disraeli’s novel, who corrected many legendary pedigrees, besides inserting his own forged descent from a common ancestor with the dukes of Chandos. From this work and from the Irish peerage of Lodge (as re-edited by Archdall) most of the later peerages have quarried their material. With these may be named the baronetages of Wotton and Betham. Of modern popular peerages and baronetages that of Burke has been published since 1822 in many editions and now appears yearly. Most important for the historian are the Complete Peerage of G.E. C[ockayne] (2nd ed., 1910), and the Complete Baronetage of the same author. The Peerage of Scotland (1769) of Sir Robert Douglas of Glenbervie came to a second edition in 1813, edited by J.P. Wood, and the whole work has been revised and re-edited by Sir James Balfour Paul (1904, &c.). Of the popular manuals of English untitled families, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Commoners (1833-1838) is now brought up to date from time to time and reissued as the Landed Gentry.

Lists of pedigrees in English printed works are supplied by Marshall’s Genealogist’s Guide (1903), while pedigrees in the manuscript collections of the British Museum are indexed in the list of R. Sims (1849). Valuable genealogical material will be found in such periodicals as the Genealogist, the Herald and Genealogist, the Topographer and Genealogist, Collectanea topographica et genealogica, Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica and the Ancestor. In Germany the Deutscher Herold is the organ of the Berlin Heraldic and Genealogical Society. The Nederlandsche Leeuw is a similar publication in the Low Countries.

Modern criticism of the older genealogical methods will be found in J.H. Round’s Peerage and Pedigree, 2 vols. (London, 1910), and in other volumes by the same author. The Harleian Society has published many volumes of the Herald’s Visitations; and the British Record Society’s publications, supplying a key to a vast mass of wills, Chancery suits and marriage licences, are of still greater importance. The Victoria History of the Counties of England includes genealogies of the ancient English county families still among the land-owning classes. English pedigrees of the age before the Conquest are collected in W.G. Searle’s Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (1899).

Genealogical dictionaries of noble French families include Victor de Saint Allais’s Nobiliaire universel (21 vols., 1872-1877) and Aubert de la Chenaye-Desbois’ Dictionnaire de la noblesse (15 vols., 1863-1876). A sumptuous work on the genealogy and heraldry of the ancient duchy of Savoy by Count Amédée de Foras began to appear in 1863. Spain has Lopez de Haro’s Nobiliario genealogico de los reyes y títulos de España. Italy has the Teatro araldico of Tettoni and Saladini (1841-1848), Litti’s Famiglie celebri and an Annuario della nobilità. Such annuals are now published more or less intermittently in many European countries. Finland has a Ridderscap och Adels Kalender, Belgium the Annuaire de la noblesse, the Dutch Netherlands an Adelsboek, Denmark the Adels-Garbog and Russia the Annuaire of Ermerin. But chief of all such publications is the ancient Almanach de Gotha, containing the modern kinship of royal and princely houses, and now accompanied by volumes dealing with the houses of German and Austrian counts and barons, and with houses ennobled in modern times by patent. A useful modern reference book for students of history is Stokvis’s Manuel d’histoire et de généalogie de tous les états du globe (1888-1893). The best manual for the English genealogist is Walter Rye’s Records and Record Searching (1897), while an ill-arranged but valuable bibliography of English and foreign works on the subject is that of George Gatfield (1892).

(O. Ba.)

1 G.B. Gray’s Hebrew Proper Names (1896), with his article in the Expositor (Sept. 1897), pp. 173-190, should be consulted for the application and range of Hebrew names in O. T. genealogies and lists.

2 On the subject generally see articles “Genos” and “Gens,” by A.H. Greenidge, in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd ed., 1890), where the chief authorities are given.

3 The fondness of Euripides for genealogies is ridiculed by Aristophanes (Acharnians, 47).

4 All the earlier Greek historians appear to have constructed their narratives on assumed genealogical bases. The four books of Hecataeus of Miletus dealt respectively with the traditions about Deucalion, about Heracles and the Heraclidae, about the early settlements in Peloponnesus, and about those in Asia Minor; he further made a pedigree for himself, in which his sixteenth ancestor was a god. The works of Hellanicus of Lesbos bore titles (Δευκαλιώνεια and the like) which sufficiently explain their nature; his disciple, Damastes of Sigeum, was the author of genealogical histories of Trojan heroes; Apollodorus of Athens made use of three books of Γενεαλογικά by Acusilaus of Argos; Pherecydes of Leros also wrote γενεαλογίαι. See J.A.F. Töpffer, Attische Genealogie (1889); also J.H. Schubart, Quaestt. geneal. historicae (1832); G. Marckscheffel, De genealogica Graecorum poësi (1840).

5 The chief authority on this subject is Polybius (vi. 53); see also T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. (1887), p. 442.

6 At the funeral of Drusus the images of Aeneas, of the Alban kings, of Romulus, of the Sabine nobles, of Attus Clausus, and of “the rest of the Claudians” were exhibited (Tac. Ann. iv. 9).

7 The Roman stemmata had, as will be seen afterwards, great interest for the older modern genealogists. Reference may be made to J. Glandorp’s Descriptio gentis Antoniae (1557); to the Descriptio gentis Juliae (1576) of the same author; and to J. Hübner’s Genealogische Tabellen. See also G.A. Ruperti’s Tabulae genealogicae sive stemmata nobiliss. gent. Rom. (1794).

(X.)

GENELLI, GIOVANNI BUONAVENTURA (1798-1868), German painter, was born at Berlin on the 28th of September 1798. He was the son of Janus Genelli, a painter whose landscapes are still preserved in the Schloss at Berlin, and grandson to Joseph Genelli, a Roman embroiderer employed to found a school of gobelins by Frederick the Great. Buonaventura Genelli first took lessons from his father and then became a student of the Berlin academy. After serving his time in the guards he went with a stipend to Rome, where he lived ten years, a friend and assistant to Koch the landscape painter, a colleague of the sculptor Ernst Hähnel (1811-1891), Reinhart, Overbeck and Führich, all of whom made a name in art. In 1830 he was commissioned by Dr Härtel to adorn a villa at Leipzig with frescoes, but quarrelling with this patron he withdrew to Munich, where he earned a scanty livelihood at first, though he succeeded at last in acquiring repute as an illustrative and figure draughtsman. In 1859 he was appointed a professor at Weimar, where he died on the 13th of November 1868. Genelli painted few pictures, and it is very rare to find his canvases in public galleries, but there are six of his compositions in oil in the Schack collection at Munich. These and numerous water-colours, as well as designs for engravings and lithographs, reveal an artist of considerable power whose ideal was the antique, but who was also fascinated by the works of Michelangelo. Though a German by birth, his spirit was unlike that of Overbeck or Führich, whose art was reminiscent of the old masters of their own country. He seemed to hark back to the land of his fathers and endeavour to revive the traditions of the Italian Renaissance. Subtle in thought and powerfully conceived, his compositions are usually mythological, but full of matter, energetic and fiery in execution, and marked almost invariably by daring effects of foreshortening. Impeded by straitened means, the artist seems frequently to have drawn from imagination rather than from life, and much of his anatomy of muscle is in consequence conventional and false. But none the less Genelli merits his reputation as a bold and imaginative artist, and his name deserves to be remembered beyond the narrow limits of the early schools of Munich and Weimar.

GENERAL (Lat. generalis, of or relating to a genus, kind or class), a term which, from its pointing to all or most of the members of a class, the whole of an area, &c. as opposed to “particular” or to “local,” is hence used in various shades of meaning, for that which is prevalent, usual, widespread or miscellaneous, indefinite, vague. It has been added to the titles of various officials, military officers and others; thus the head of a religious order is the “superior-general,” more usually the “general,” and we find the same combination in such offices as that of “accountant-general,” “postmaster-general,” “attorney-” or “solicitor-general,” and many others, the additional word implying that the official in question is of superior rank, as having a wider authority or sphere of activity. This is the use that accounts for the application of the term, as a substantive, to a military officer of superior rank, a “general officer,” or “general,” who commands or administers bodies of troops larger than a regiment, or consisting of more than one arm of the service (see also Officers). It was towards the end of the 16th century that the word began to be used in its present sense as a noun, and in the armies of the time the “general” was commander-in-chief, the “lieutenant-general” commander of the horse and second in command of the army, and the “major-general” (strictly “sergeant-major-general”) commander of the foot and chief of the staff. Field marshals, who have now the highest rank, were formerly subordinate to the general officers. These titles—general, lieutenant-general and major-general—are still applied in most armies to the first, second and third grades of general officer, and in the French service until 1870 the chief of the staff of the army bore the title of major-general. In the German and Russian services the three grades are qualified by the addition of the words “of cavalry,” “of infantry” and “of artillery.” The French service possesses only two grades, “general of brigade” and “general of division.” The Austrian service has two ranks of general officers peculiar to itself, “lieutenant field marshal,” equivalent to lieutenant-general, and Feldzeugmeister (master of the ordnance), equivalent to the German general of infantry or artillery. There is also the rank of “general of cavalry.” The Spanish army still retains the old term “captain-general.” In the German service General Oberst (colonel-general) and General Feldzeugmeister (master-general of ordnance) are ranks intermediate between that of full general and that of general field marshal. It may be noted that during the 17th century “general” was not confined to a commanding officer of an army, and was also equivalent to “admiral”; thus when under the Protectorate the office of lord high admiral was put into commission, the three first commissioners, Blake, Edward Popham and Richard Deane, were styled “generals at sea.”

GENERATION (from Lat. generare, to beget, procreate; genus, stock, race), the act of procreation or begetting, hence any one of the various methods by which plants, animals or substances are produced. As applied to the result of procreation, “generation” is used of the offspring of the same parents, taken as one degree in descent from a common ancestor, or, widely, of the body of living persons born at or near the same time; thus the word is also used of the age or period of a generation, usually taken as about thirty years, or three generations to a century. As a term in biology or physiology, generation is synonymous with the Gr. βιογένεσις and the Ger. Zeugung, and may comprehend the whole history of the first origin and continued reproduction of living bodies, whether plants or animals; but it is frequently restricted to the sexual reproduction of animals. The subject may be divided into the following branches, viz.: (1) the first origin of life and living beings, (2) non-sexual or agamic reproduction, and (3) gamic or sexual reproduction. For the first two of these topics see Abiogenesis, Biogenesis and Biology; for the third and more extensive division, including (1) the formation and fecundation of the ovum, and (2) the development of the embryo in different animals, see Reproduction and Embryology.

GENESIS (Gr. γένεσις, becoming; the term being used in English as a synonym for origin or process of coming into being), the name of the first book in the Bible, which derives its title from the Septuagint rendering of ch. ii. 4. It is the first of the five books (the Pentateuch), or, with the inclusion of Joshua, of the six (the Hexateuch), which cover the history of the Hebrews to their occupation of Canaan. The “genesis” of Hebrew history begins with records of antediluvian times: the creation of the world, of the first pair of human beings, and the origin of sin (i.-iii.), the civilization and moral degeneration of mankind, the history of man to the time of Noah (iv.-vi. 8), the flood (vi. 9-ix.), the confusion of languages and the divisions of the human race (x.-xi.). Turning next to the descendants of Shem, the book deals with Abraham (xii.-xxv. 18), Isaac and Jacob (xxv. 19-xxxv.), the “fathers” of the tribes of Israel, and concludes with the personal history of Joseph, and the descent of his father Jacob (or Israel) and his brethren into the land of Egypt (xxxvii.-l.). The book of Genesis, as a whole, is closely connected with the subsequent oppression of the sons of Israel, the revelation of Yahweh the God of their fathers (Ex. iii. 6, 15 seq., vi. 2-8), the “exodus” of the Israelites to the land promised to their fathers (Ex. xiii. 5, Deut. i. 8, xxvi. 3 sqq., xxxiv. 4) and its conquest (Josh. i. 6, xxiv.); cf. also the summaries Neh. ix. 7 sqq., Ps. cv. 6 sqq.

The words, “these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created” (ii. 4), introduce an account of the creation of the world, which, however, is preceded by a relatively later and less primitive record (i. 1-ii. 3). The Analysis. differences between the two accounts lie partly in the style and partly in the form and contents of the narratives. i. 1-ii. 3 is marked by stereotyped formulae (“and God [Elōhīm] said ... and it was so ... and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there was morning,” &c.); it is precise and detailed, whereas ii. 4b-iii. is less systematic, fresher and more anthropomorphic. The former is cosmic, the latter is local. It is the latter which mentions the mysterious garden and the wonderful trees which Yahweh planted, and depicts Yahweh conversing with man and walking in the garden in the cool of the evening. The former, on the other hand, has an enlightened conception of Elōhīm; the Deity, though grand, is a lifeless figure; several antique ideas are nevertheless preserved. The account of the creation, too, is different; for example, in chap. i. man and woman are created together, whereas in ii. man is at first alone. The naiveness of the story of the creation of woman is in line with the interest which this more popular source takes in the origin or existence of phenomena, customs and contemporary beliefs (the garden, the naming of animals, &c.). The primitive record is continued in the story of Cain and Abel (iv.), where the old-time problem of Cain’s wife and the reference to other human beings (iv. 14 seq.) gave rise in pre-critical days to the theory of pre-Adamites, as though Adam and Eve were not the only inhabitants of the earth. But all the indications go to show that there were at least two distinct popular narratives, one of which ignores the flood. Cain the murderer, doomed to be a wanderer, now becomes the builder of a city, and his descendants introduce various arts (iv. 16b-24).1 (See the articles Abel; Adam; Cain; Cosmogeny; Enoch; Eve; Lamech.) From the “generations” of the heavens and the earth (which one would have expected at the head of ch. i.) we pass to the “generations of Adam” (v. 1). The list of the “Sethites,” with its characteristically stereotyped framework, has an older parallel in iv. 25 seq. (with the origin of the worship of Yahweh contrast Ex. vi. 2. seq.), and a fragment from the same source is found in v. 29.

After the birth of Noah the son of Lamech (v. 29, contrast iv. 19 sqq.) comes the brief story of the demigods (vi. 1-4). It is no part of the account of the fall or of the flood (note verse 4 and Num. xiii. 33), least of all does it furnish grounds for the old view of the division of the human race into evil Cainites and God-fearing Sethites. The excerpt with its description of the fall of the angels is used to form a prelude to the wickedness of man and the avenging flood (vi. 5). Noah, the father of Ham, Shem and Japheth, appears as the hero in the Hebrew version of the flood (see Deluge; Noah). Duplicates (vi. 5-8, 9-13) and discrepancies (vi. 19 sq. contrasted with vii. 2; or vii. 11, viii. 14 contrasted with viii. 8, 10, 12) point to the use of two sources (harmonizing passages in vii. 3, 7-9). The later narrative, which begins with “the generations” of Noah (vi. 9-22; vii. 6, 11, 13-17a, 18-21, 24; viii. 1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; ix. 1-17), is almost complete; note the superscription and the length of the flood (365 days; according to other notices the flood apparently lasted only 61 or 68 days). In the earlier source Noah collects seven pairs of clean animals, one of each kind; he sacrifices after leaving the ark, and Yahweh promises not to curse the ground or to smite living things again. But in the later, he takes only one pair, and subsequently Elōhīm blesses Noah and makes a covenant never again to destroy all flesh by a flood.2 The covenant (characteristic of the latest narratives in Genesis) also prohibits the shedding of blood (cf. the story of Cain and Abel in the earlier source). Mankind is now made to descend from the three sons of Noah. The older story, however, continues with another step in the history of civilization, and to Noah is ascribed the cult of the vine, the abuse of which leads to the utterance of a curse upon Canaan and a blessing upon Shem and Japheth (ix. 20-27). The table of nations in x. (“the generations of the sons of Noah”) preserves several signs of composite origin (contrast e.g. x. 7 with vv. 28 sq., Ludim v. 13 with v. 22, and the Canaanite families v. 16 with the dispersion “afterwards,” v. 18, &c.); see Canaan; Genealogy; Nimrod. The history of the primitive age concludes with the story of the tower of Babel (xi. 1-9), which, starting from a popular etymology of Babel (“gate of God”), as though from Balbel (“confusion”), tells how Yahweh feared lest mankind should become too powerful (cf. iii. 22-24), and seeks to explain the origin of the numerous languages in use. It is independent of x., which already assumes a confusion of tongues (vv. 5, 20, 31), the existence of Babel (v. 10), and gives a different account of the rise of the various races. This incident in the journey eastwards (xi. 2) is equally independent of the story of the Deluge and of Noah’s family (see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 316). The continuation of the chapter, “the generations of Shem” (xi. 10-27, see the Shemite genealogy in x. 21 sqq., and contrast the ages with vi. 3), is in the same stereotyped style as ch. v., and prepares the way for the history of the patriarchs.

The “generations of Terah” (xi. 27) lead to the introduction of the first great patriarch Abraham (q.v.).3 There is a twofold account of his migration to Bethel with his nephew Lot; the more statistical form in xi. 31 sq., xii. 4b, 5 belongs to the latest source. The statement that the Canaanite was then in the land (xii. 6, cf. xiii. 7) points to a time long after the Israelite conquest, when readers needed such a reminder (so Hobbes in his Leviathan, 1651). A famine forces him to descend into Egypt, where a story of Sarai (here at least 65 years of age; see xii. 4, xvii. 17) is one of three variants of a similar peculiar incident (cf. xx. 1-17, xxvi. 6-14). The passage is an insertion (xii. 10-xiii. 2; xii. 9, xiii. 3 seq. being harmonistic). The thread is resumed in the account of the separation of the patriarch and his nephew Lot, who divide the land between them. Abraham occupies Canaan, but moves south to Hebron, which, according to Josh. xiv. 15, was formerly known as Kirjath-Arba. Lot dwells in the basin of the Jordan, and his history is continued in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (xviii.-xix.; Hos. xi. 8, Deut. xxix. 23 speak of Admah and Zeboim). Lot is saved and becomes the ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites, who are thus closely related to the descendants of Abraham (note xix. 37, “unto this day”). The great war with Amraphel and Chedorlaomer—the defeat of a world-conquering army by 318 men—with the episode of Melchizedek, noteworthy for the reference to Jerusalem (xiv. 18, cf. Ps. lxxvi. 2), has nothing in common with the context (see Abraham; Melchizedek). It treats as individuals the place-names Mamre and Eshcol (xiv. 13, cf. Num. xiii. 23 seq.), and by mentioning Dan (v. 14) anticipates the events in Josh. xix. 47, Judg. xviii. 29.4 A cycle of narratives deals with the promise that the barren Sarai (Sarah) should bear a child whose descendants would inhabit the land of Canaan. The importance of the tradition for the history of Israel explains both the prominence given to it (cf. already xii. 7, xiii. 14-17) and their present complicated character (due to repeated revision). The older narratives comprise (a) the promise that Abraham shall have a son of his own flesh (xv.)—the account is composite;5 (b) the birth of Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar, their exile, and Yahweh’s promise (xvi., with a separate framework in vv. 1a. 3, 15 seq.)—before the birth of Isaac; and (c) the promise of a son to Sarai (xviii. 1-15), now combined with the story of Lot and the overthrow of Sodom. The latest source (xvii.) is marked by the solemn covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, the revelation of God Almighty (El-Shaddai, cf. Ex. vi. 3), and the institution of circumcision (otherwise treated in Ex. iv. 26, Josh. v. 2 seq.). The more elevated character of this source as contrasted with xv. and xviii. is as striking as the difference of religious tone in the two accounts of the creation (above). Abraham now travels thence (xx. 1, Hebron, see xviii. 1), and his adventure in the land of Abimelech, king of Gerar (xx.), is a duplicate of xii. (above). It is continued in xxi. 22-34, which has a close parallel in the life of Isaac (xxvi., below). Isaac is born in accordance with the divine promise (xviii. 10 at Hebron); the scene is the south of Palestine. The story of the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael, and the revelation (xxi. 8-21) cannot be separated from xvi. 4-14, where vv. 9 seq. are intended to harmonize the passages. Although about sixteen years intervene (see xvi. 16; xxi. 5, 8), Ishmael is a young child who has to be carried (xxi. 15), but the Hebrew text of xxi. 14 (not, however, the Septuagint) endeavours to remove the discrepancy.6 “After these things” comes the offering of Isaac which implicitly annuls the sacrifice of the first-born, a not unfamiliar rite in Palestine as the denunciations prove (cf. Ezek. xvi. 20 seq., xx. 26; Mic. vi. 7; Is. lvii. 5), and thus marks an advance, e.g. upon the story of Jephthah’s daughter (Judg. xi.). The story may be contrasted with the Phoenician account of the sacrifice by Cronos (to be identified with El) of his only son, which practically justified the horrid custom. The detailed account of the purchase of the cave of Machpelah (contrast the brevity of xxxiii. 19) is of great importance for the traditions of the patriarchs, and, like the references to the death of Sarah and Abraham, belongs to the latest source (xxiii., xxv. 7-11a).7 The idyllic picture of life in xxiv. presupposes that Isaac is sole heir (v. 36); since this is first stated in xxv. 5, it is probable that xxv. 5, 11b (and perhaps vv. 6, 18) are out of place. It is noteworthy that the district is Abraham’s native place (xxiv. 4, 7, 10; contrast the Babylonian home specified in xi. 28, 31; xv. 7). In xxv. 1 sqq. Abraham takes as wife (but concubine, 1 Chron. i. 32 seq.) Keturah (“incense”) and becomes the father of various Arab tribes, e.g. Sheba and Dedan (grandsons of Cush in x. 7).

After “the generations of Ishmael” (xxv. 12 sqq.) the narrative turns to “the generations of Isaac” (xxv. 19 sqq.). The story of the events at the court of Abimelech (xxvi.) finds a parallel in the now disjointed xx., xxi. 22-34; note the new explanation of Beersheba, the reference in xxvi. 1 to the parallel story in xii., the absence of allusion to xx., and the apparent editorial references to xxi. in vv. 15, 18. On the whole, the story of Isaac’s wife at Gerar is briefer and not so elevated as that of Sarah, but the parallel to xxi. 22-34 is more detailed. The birth of Esau and Jacob (xxv. 21-34) introduces the story of Jacob’s craft when Isaac is on the point of death (xxvii.). Jacob flees to Laban at Haran to escape Esau’s hatred (xxvii. 41-45); but, according to the latest source (P), he is charged by Isaac to go to Paddan-Aram, and take a wife there, and his father transfers to him the blessing of Abraham (xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9). On his way to Haran he stops at Bethel (formerly Luz, according to Judg. i. 22-26), where a vision prompts him to accept the God of the place should he return in peace to his father’s home (xxviii. 10-22). He passes to the land of “the children of the east” (xxix. 1), and the scenes which follow are scarcely situated at Haran, the famous and ancient seat of the worship of the moon-god, but in the desert. Here he resides fifteen years or more, and by the daughters of Laban and their handmaidens becomes the “father” of the tribes of Israel. There are numerous traces of composition from different sources, but a satisfactory analysis is impossible.8 The flight of Jacob and his household (from Paddan-Aram, xxxi. 18 P) leads over “the River” (v. 21, i.e. the Euphrates); though the seven days’ journey of this concourse of men and cattle suggests that he came to Gilead, not from Haran (300 m. distant), but from some nearer locality. This is to be taken with the evidence against Haran already noticed, with the use of the term “children of the east” (xxix. 1; cf. Jer. xlix. 28; Ezek. xxv. 4, 10), and with the details of Laban’s kindred (xxii. 20-24).9 The arrival at Mahanaim (“[two?] camps”) gives rise to specific allusions to the meaning of the name (xxxii. 1 seq., 7-12, 13-21); cf. also the plays upon Jabbok, Israel and Peniel in xxxii. 22-32. He meets Esau (xxxii. 3-21, xxxiii. 1-16, another reference to Peniel, “face of God,” in v. 10), but they part. Jacob now comes to Shechem “in peace” (cf. the phrase in xxviii. 21), where he buys land and erects an altar (xxxiii. 18-20, cf. Abraham in xii. 6 seq.). There is a remarkable story of the violation of his daughter Dinah by Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite (xxxiv.). It has been heavily revised; note the alternating prominence of Hamor and Shechem, the condemnation of Simeon and Levi for their vengeance (cf. the curse in xlix. 5-7), the destruction of the city Shechem by all the sons of Jacob, and the survival of the Hamorites as a family centuries later (xxxiii. 19, Judg. ix. 28). The narrative continues with Jacob’s journey to Bethel, the death of Deborah (who accompanied Rebekah to Palestine 140 years previously, see xxiv. 59, and the latest source in xxv. 20, xxxv. 28), the death of Rachel (xxxv. 16-20, contrast xxxvii. 10), and ceases abruptly in the middle of a sentence (xxxv. 22, but see xlix. 3-4). The latest source (xxxv. 9-13, 15, 22b-29) gives another account of the origin of the names Israel (cf. xxxii. 28) and Bethel (cf. xxviii. 19), and the genealogy wrongly includes Benjamin among the sons born outside Palestine (vv. 24-26). In narrating Jacob’s leisurely return to Isaac at Hebron, the writers quite ignore the many years which have elapsed since he left his father at the point of death in Beersheba (xxvii. 1, 2, 7, 10, 41).

“The generations of Esau, the same is Edom,” provide much valuable material for the study of Israel’s rival (xxxvi.). The chapter gives yet another account of the separation of Jacob and Esau (with vv. 6-8, cf. Abraham and Lot, xiii. 5 seq.), and describes the latter’s withdrawal to Seir (cf. already xxxii. 3; xxxiii. 14, 16). It includes lists of diverse origin (e.g. vv. 2-5, contrast xxvi. 34, xxviii. 9); various “dukes” (R.V. marg. “chiefs”), or rather “thousands” or “clans”; and also the “sons” of Seir the Horite, i.e. Horite clans (vv. 20 seq. and vv. 29 seq.). A summary of Edomite kings is ascribed to the period before the Israelite monarchy (vv. 31-39), and the record concludes with the “dukes” of Esau, the father of the Edomites (vv. 40-43, cf. names in vv. 10-14, 15-19).10

Finally, Genesis turns from the patriarchs to the “generations of Jacob” (xxxvii. 2), and we have stories of the “sons,” the ancestors of the tribes. (In xxxiv. the incidents which primarily concerned Simeon and Levi alone have, however, been adjusted to the general history of Jacob and his family.) The first place is given to Joseph (xxxvii.), although xxxviii. crowds the early history of the family of Judah into the twenty-two years between xxxvii. 2 and Jacob’s descent into Egypt (see xli. 46, 47; xlv. 6).11 In xxxvii., xxxix. sqq. we have an admirable specimen of writing quite distinct in stamp from the patriarchal stories. The romance which has here been utilized shows an acquaintance with Egypt; the narratives are discursive, not laconic, everything is more detailed, and more under the influence of literary art. The Reuben and Simeon which appear in it are not the characters which we meet in xxxiv., xxxv. 22, or in the poem xlix. 3-7; and the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh do not scruple to claim ancestry from Joseph and the daughter of an Egyptian priest at the seat of the worship of the sun-god (xli. 45). The narratives are composite. Joseph incurs the ill-will of his brethren because of Israel’s partiality or because of his significant dreams. He is at Shechem or at Dothan; and when the brothers seek to slay him, Judah proposes that he should be sold to Ishmaelites, or Reuben suggests that he should be cast into a pit, where Midianites find and kidnap him (xxxvii., cf. xl. 15). The latter sell him to the eunuch Potiphar, but he appears in the service of a married householder (xxxix., the second clause of v. 1 harmonizes). Among other signs of dual origin are the alternation of “Jacob” and “Israel,” and the prominence of Judah (xliii. 3, 8; xliv. 14, 18) or of Reuben (xlii. 22, 37). The money is found in a “bag” as the brothers encamp (xlii. 27, 28a; xliii.), or in a “sack” when they reach home (xlii. 8-26, 29-35, 28b, 36 sq.). When Israel and his family descend into Egypt, the latest source gives a detailed list which agrees in the main with the Israelite subdivisions (xlvi. 6-27, cf. Num. xxvi. and 1 Chron. ii.-viii.). The families dwell in the land of Goshen, east of the Delta, “for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians” (xlv. 10; xlvi. 28-34; xlvii. 1-6); or they are in the “land of Rameses” (xlvii. 11, and Septuagint in xlvi. 28);12 Joseph’s policy during the famine is next described (xlvii. 13-26), although it would have been more in place after xli. (see ib. 34). There are several difficulties in Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph (xlviii.).13 The blessing in xlix. is a collection of poetical passages praising or blaming the various tribes, and must certainly date after the Israelite settlement in Palestine; see further the articles on the tribes. Jacob’s dying instructions to Joseph (xlvii. 29-31) are continued in l. 1 sqq., his charge to his sons (xlix. 28 sqq., P) in l. 12 seq. It is significant that Jacob’s body is taken to Palestine, but the brethren return to Egypt; in spite of a possible allusion to the famine in v. 21, the late chronological scheme would imply that it had long ceased (see xlv. 6, xlvii. 28). The book closes with the death of Joseph about fifty years later, after the birth of the children of Machir, who himself was a contemporary of Moses forty years after the Exodus (Num. xxxii. 39-41). Joseph’s body is embalmed, but it is not until the concluding chapter of the book of Joshua (xxiv. 32) that his bones find their last resting-place.

Only on the assumption that the book of Genesis is a composite work is it possible to explain the duplication of events, the varying use of the divine names Yahweh and Elōhīm, the linguistic and stylistic differences, the internal intricacies A composite work. of the subject matter, and the differing standpoints as regards tradition, chronology, morals and religion.14 The cumulative effect of the whole evidence is too strong to be withstood, and already in the 17th century it was recognized that the book was of composite origin. Immense labour has been spent in the critical analysis of the contents, but it is only since the work of Graf (1866) and Wellhausen (1878) that a satisfactory literary hypothesis has been found which explained the most obvious intricacies. The Graf-Wellhausen literary theory has gained the assent of almost all trained and unbiased biblical scholars, it has not been shaken by the more recent light from external evidence, and no alternative theory has as yet been produced. The internal features of Genesis demand some formulated theory, more precise than the indefinite concessions of the 17th century, beyond which the opponents of modern literary criticism scarcely advance, and the Graf-Wellhausen theory, in spite of the numerous difficulties which it leaves untouched, is the only adequate starting-point for the study of the book. According to this, Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint, but much less markedly from one and another.15 These sources can be traced elsewhere in the Pentateuch and Joshua, and P itself is related to the post-exilic works Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. In its present form Genesis is an indispensable portion of the biblical history, and consequently its literary growth cannot be viewed apart from that of the books which follow. On internal grounds it appears that the Pentateuch and Joshua, as they now read, virtually come in between an older history by “Deuteronomic” compilers (easily recognizable in Judges and Kings), and the later treatment of the monarchy in Chronicles, where the influence of the circle which produced P and the present Mosaic legislation is quite discernible. There have been stages where earlier extant sources have been cut down, adjusted or revised by compilers who have incorporated fresh material, and it is the later compilers of Genesis who have made the book a fairly knit whole. The technical investigation of the literary problems (especially the extent of the earlier sources) is a work of great complexity, and, for ordinary purposes, it is more important to obtain a preliminary appreciation of the general features of the contents of Genesis.

That the records of the pre-historic ages in Gen. i.-xi. are at complete variance with modern science and archaeological research is unquestionable.16 But although it is impossible to regard them any longer either as genuine Value of traditions. history or as subjects for an allegorical interpretation (which would prove the accuracy of any record) they are of distinct value as human documents. They reflect the ideas and thoughts of the Hebrews, they illustrate their conceptions of God and the universe, and they furnish material for a comparison of the moral development of the Hebrews with that of other early races. Some of the traditions are closely akin to those current in ancient Babylonia, but a careful and impartial comparison at once illustrates in a striking manner the relative moral and spiritual superiority of our writers. On these subjects see further Cosmogony; Deluge.17

The records of the patriarchal age, xii.-l. are very variously estimated, although the great majority of scholars agree that they are not contemporary and that they cannot be used, as they stand, for pre-Mosaic times. Apart from the ordinary arguments of historical criticism, it is to be noticed that external evidence does not support the assumption that the records preserve genuine pre-Mosaic history. There are no grounds for any arbitrary distinction between the “pre-historic” pre-Abrahamic age and the later age. External evidence, which recognizes no universal deluge and no dispersal of mankind in the third millennium B.C., throws its own light upon the opening centuries of the second. It has revealed conditions which are not reflected in Genesis, and important facts upon which the book is silent—unless, indeed, there is a passing allusion to the great Babylonian monarch Khammurabi in the Amraphel of Gen. xiv. Any careful perusal of modern attempts to recover historical facts or an historical outline from the book will show how very inadequate the material proves to be, and the reconstructions will be found to depend upon an interpretation of the narratives which is often liberal and not rarely precarious, and to imply such reshaping and rewriting of the presumed facts that the cautious reader can place little reliance on them. Whatever future research may bring, it cannot remove the internal peculiarities which combine to show that Genesis preserves, not literal history, but popular traditions of the past. External evidence has proved the antiquity of various elements, but not that of the form or context in which they now appear; and the difference is an important one. We have now a background upon which to view the book, and, on the one hand, it has become obvious that the records preserve—as is only to be expected—Oriental customs, beliefs and modes of thought. But it has not been demonstrated that these are exclusively pre-Mosaic. On the other hand, a better acquaintance with the ancient political, sociological and religious conditions has made it increasingly difficult to interpret the records as a whole literally, or even to find a place in pre-Mosaic Palestine for the lives of the patriarchs as they are depicted.18 Nevertheless, though one cannot look to Genesis for the history of the early part of the second millennium B.C., the study of what was thought of the past, proves in this, as in many other cases, to be more instructive than the facts of the past, and it is distinctly more important for the biblical student and the theologian to understand the thought of the ages immediately preceding the foundation of Judaism in the 5th century B.C. than the actual history of many centuries earlier.

A noteworthy feature is the frequent personification of peoples, tribes or clans (see Genealogy: Biblical). Midian (i.e. the Midianites) is a son of Abraham; Canaan is a son of Ham (ix. 22), and Cush the son of Ham is the father Fusion of diverse features. of Ramah and grandfather of the famous S. Arabian state Sheba and the traders of Dedan (x. 6 sq., cf. Ezek. xxvii. 20-22). Bethuel the father of Rebekah is the brother of the tribal names Uz and Buz (xxii. 21 sqq., cf. Jer. xxv. 20, 23). Jacob is otherwise known as Israel and becomes the father of the tribes of Israel; Joseph is the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, and incidents in the life of Judah lead to the birth of Perez and Zerah, Judaean clans. This personification is entirely natural to the Oriental, and though “primitive” is not necessarily an ancient trait.19 It gives rise to what may be termed the “prophetical interpretation of history” (S.R. Driver, Genesis, p. 111), where the character, fortunes or history of the apparent individual are practically descriptive of the people or tribe which, according to tradition, is named after or descended from him. The utterance of Noah over Canaan, Shem and Japheth (ix. 25 sqq.), of Isaac over Esau and Jacob (xxvii.), of Jacob over his sons (xlix.) or grandsons (xlviii.), would have no meaning to Israelites unless they had some connexion with and interest for contemporary life and thought. Herein lies the force of the description of the wild and independent Ishmael (xvi. 12), the “father” of certain well-known tribes (xxv. 13-15); or the contrast between the skilful hunter Esau and the quiet and respectable Jacob (xxv. 27), and between the tiller Cain who becomes the typical nomad and the pastoral Abel (iv. 1-15). The interest of the struggles between Jacob and Esau lay, not in the history of individuals of the distant past, but in the fact that the names actually represented Israel and its near rival Edom. These features are in entire accordance with Oriental usage and give expression to current belief, existing relationships, or to a poetical foreshadowing of historical vicissitudes. But in the effort to understand them as they were originally understood it is very obvious that this method of interpretation can be pressed too far. It would be precarious to insist that the entrances into Palestine of Abraham and Jacob (or Israel) typified two distinct immigrations. The separation of Abraham from Lot (cf. Lotan, an Edomite name), of Isaac from Hagar-Ishmael, or of Jacob from Esau-Edom scarcely points to the relative antiquity of the origin of these non-Israelite peoples who, to judge from the evidence, were closely related. Or, if the “sons” of Jacob had Aramaean mothers, to prove that those which are derived from the wives were upon a higher level than the “sons” of the concubines is more difficult than to allow that certain of the tribes must have contained some element of Aramaean blood (cf. 1 Chron. vii. 14, and see Asher; Gad; Manasseh). Some of the names are clearly not those of known clans or tribes (e.g. Abraham, Isaac), and many of the details of the narratives obviously have no natural ethnological meaning. Stories of heroic ancestors and of tribal eponyms intermingle; personal, tribal and national traits are interwoven. The entrance of Jacob or Israel with his sons suggests that of the children of Israel. The story of Simeon and Levi at Shechem is clearly not that of two individuals, sons of the patriarch Israel; in fact the story actually uses the term “wrought folly in Israel” (cf. Jud. xx. 6, 10), and the individual Shechem, the son of Hamor, cannot be separated from the city, the scene of the incidents. Yet Jacob’s life with Laban has many purely individual traits. And, further, there intervenes a remarkable passage with an account of his conflict with the divine being who fears the dawn and is unwilling to reveal his name. In a few verses the “wrestling” (’-b -ḳ) of Jacob (yă’ăqōb) is associated with the Jabbok (yabbōq); his “striving” explains his name Israel; at Peniel he sees “the face of God,” and when touched on his vulnerable spot—the hollow of the thigh—he is lamed, hence “the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh unto this day” (xxxii. 24-32). Other examples of the fusion of different features can be readily found. Three divine beings appear to Abraham at the sacred tree of Hebron, and when the birth of Isaac (from ṣāḥaq, “laugh”) is foretold, the account of Sarah’s behaviour is merely a popular and trivial story suggested by the child’s name (xviii. 12-15; see also xvii. 17, xxi. 6, 9). An extremely fine passage then describes the patriarch’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah, and the narrative passes on to the catastrophe which explains the Dead Sea and its desert region and has parallels elsewhere (e.g. the Greek legend of Zeus and Hermes in Phrygia). Lot escapes to Zoar, the name gives rise to the pun on the “little” city (xix. 20), and his wife, on looking back, becomes one of those pillars of salt which still invite speculation. Finally the names of his children Moab and Ammon are explained by an incident when he is a cave-dweller on a mountain.

To primitive minds which speculated upon the “why and wherefore” of what they saw around them, the narratives of Genesis afforded an answer. They preserve, in fact, some of the popular philosophy and belief of the Hebrews. They furnish what must have been a satisfactory origin of the names Edom, Moab and Ammon, Mahanaim and Succoth, Bethel, Beersheba, &c. They explain why Shechem, Bethel and Beersheba were ancient sanctuaries (see further below); why the serpent writhes along the ground (iii. 14); and why the hip sinew might not be eaten (xxxii. 32). To these and a hundred other questions the national and tribal stories—of which no doubt only a few have survived, and of which other forms, earlier or later, more crude or more refined, were doubtless current—furnish an evidently adequate answer. Myth and legend, fact and fiction, the common stock of oral tradition, have been handed down, and thus constitute one of the most valuable sources for popular Hebrew thought.

The book is not to be judged from any one-sided estimate of its contents. By the side of much that seems trivial, and even non-moral—for the patriarchs themselves are not saints—it is noteworthy how frequently the narratives are didactic. The characteristic sense of collective responsibility, which appears more incidentally in xx. 7, is treated with striking intensity in a passage (xviii. 23-33) which uses the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah as a vehicle for the statement of a familiar problem (cf. Ezek. xviii., Ps. lxxiii., Job). It will be observed that interviews with divine beings presented as little difficulty to the primitive minds of old as to the modern native; even the idea of intercourse of supernatural beings with mortals (vi. 1-4) is to-day equally intelligible. The modern untutored native has a not dissimilar undeveloped and childlike attitude towards the divine, a naive theology and a simple cultus. The most circumstantial tales are told of imaginary figures, and the most incredible details clothe the lives of the historical heroes of the past. So abundant is the testimony of modern travellers to the extent to which Eastern custom and thought elucidate the interpretation of the Bible, that it is very important to notice those features which illustrate Genesis. “The Oriental,” writes S.I. Curtiss (Bibl. sacra, Jan. 1901, pp. 103 sqq.), “is least of all a scientific historian. He is the prince of story-tellers, narratives, real and imaginative, spring from his lips, which are the truest portraiture of composite rather than individual Oriental life, though narrated under forms of individual experience.” There are, therefore, many preliminary points which combine to show that the critical student cannot isolate the book from Oriental life and thought; its uniqueness lies in the manner in which the material has been shaped and the use to which it has been put.

The Book of Jubilees (not earlier than the 2nd century B.C.) presents the history in another form. It retains some of the canonical matter, often with considerable reshaping, omits many details (especially those to which exception Questions of date. could be taken), and adds much that is novel. The chronological system of the latest source in Genesis becomes an elaborate reckoning of heavenly origin. Written under the obvious influence of later religious aims, it is especially valuable because one can readily compare the two methods of presenting the old traditions.20 There is the same kind of personification, fresh examples of the “prophetical interpretation of history,” and by the side of the older “primitive” thought are ideas which can only belong to this later period. In each case we have merely a selection of current traditional lore. For example, Gen. vi. 1-4 mentions the marriage of divine beings with the daughters of men and the birth of Nephīlīm or giants (cf. Num. xiii. 33). Later allusions to this myth (e.g. Baruch iii. 26-28, Book of Enoch vi. sqq., 2 Peter ii. 4, &c.) are not based upon this passage; the fragment itself is all that remains of some more organic written myth which, as is well-known, has parallels among other peoples.21 Old myths underlie the account of the creation and the garden of Eden, and traces of other versions or forms appear elsewhere in the Old Testament. Again, the Old Testament throws no light upon the redemption of Abraham (Is. xxix. 22), although the Targums and other sources profess to be well-informed. The isolated reference to Jacob’s conquest of Shechem in Gen. xlviii. 22 must have belonged to another context, and later writings give in a later and thoroughly incredible form allied traditions. In Hosea xii. 4, Jacob’s wrestling is mentioned before the scene at Bethel (Gen. xxxii. 24 sqq., xxviii. 11 sqq.). The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah is described in Genesis (xviii. seq.), but Hosea refers only to that of Admah and Zeboim (xi. 8, cf. Deut. xxix. 23, Gen. x. 19)—different versions of the great catastrophe were doubtless current. Consequently investigation must start with the particular details which happen to be preserved, and these not necessarily in their original or in their only form. Since the antiquity of elements of tradition is independent of the shape in which they appear before us, a careful distinction must be drawn between those details which do not admit of being dated or located and those which do. There is evidence for the existence of the names Abram, Jacob and Joseph previous to 900 B.C., but this does not prove the antiquity of the present narratives encircling them. Babylonian tablets of the creation date from the 7th century B.C., but their contents are many centuries earlier (viz. the age of Khammurabi), whereas the Phoenician myths of the origin of things are preserved in a late form by the late writers Damascius and Philo of Byblus. Gen. xiv., which may preserve some knowledge of the reign of Khammurabi, is on internal literary grounds of the post-exilic age, and it is at least a coincidence that the Babylonian texts, often quoted in support of the genuineness of the narrative, belong to about the same period and use early Babylonian history for purely didactic purposes.22 In general, just as the Book of Jubilees, while presenting many elements of old tradition, betrays on decisive internal grounds an age later than Genesis itself, so, in turn, there is sufficient conclusive evidence that Genesis in its present form includes older features, but belongs to the age to which (on quite independent grounds) the rest of the Pentateuch must be ascribed.

Popular tradition often ignores events of historical importance, or, as repeated experience shows, will represent them in such a form that the true historical kernel could never have been recovered without some external clue. The Historical backgrounds. absence of definite references to the events of the Israelite monarchy does not necessarily point to the priority of the traditions in Genesis or their later date. Nevertheless, some allusion to national fortunes is reflected in the exaltation of Jacob (Israel) over Esau (Edom), and in the promise that the latter should break the yoke from his neck.23 Israelite kings are foreshadowed (xvii. 6, xxxv. 11, P), and Israel’s kingdom has the ideal limits as ascribed to Solomon (xv. 18, see 1 Kings iv. 21; but cf. art. Solomon). Judah is promised a world-wide king (xlix. 8-10), though elsewhere the supremacy of Joseph rouses the jealousy of his “brothers” (xxxvii. 8). Different dates and circles of interest are thus manifest. The cursing and dispersion of Simeon and Levi (xlix. 5-7) recall the fact that Simeon’s cities were in the territory of Judah (Josh. xix. 1, 9), and that the Levitical priests are later scattered and commended to the benevolence of the Israelites. But the curse obviously represents an attitude quite opposed to the blessing pronounced upon Levi by Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 8-11). The Edomite genealogies (xxxvi.) represent a more extensive people than the references in the popular stories suggest, and the latter by no means indicate that Edom had so important a career as we actually gather from a few allusions to its kings (xxxvi. 31-39).24 The references to Philistines are anachronistic for the pre-Mosaic age, and it is clear that the tradition of a solemn covenant with a Philistine king and his general (xxi. 22 seq., xxvi. 26 sqq.) does not belong to the age or the circle which remembered the grievous oppressions of the Philistines or felt contempt for these “uncircumcised” enemies of Israel25. Finally, the thread of the tradition unmistakably represents a national unity of the twelve sons (tribes) of Israel; but this unity was not felt at certain periods of disorganization, and the idea of including Judah among the sons of Israel could not have arisen at a time when Israel and Judah were rival kingdoms.26 In so far as the traditions can be read in the light of biblical history it is evident that they belong to different ages and represent different national, tribal, or local standpoints.

Another noteworthy feature is the interest taken in sacred sites. Certain places are distinguished by theophanies or by the erection of an altar (lit. place of sacrificial slaughter), and incidents are narrated with a very intelligible Interest in holy places. purpose. Mizpah in Gilead is the scene of a covenant or treaty between Jacob and his Aramaean relative commemorated by a pillar (Maṣṣēbah). It was otherwise known for an annual religious ceremony, the traditional origin of which is related in the story of Jephthah’s vow and sacrifice (Judg. xi.), and its priests are denounced by Hosea (v. i). Shechem, the famous city of the Samaritans (“the foolish nation,” Ecclus. I. 26), where Joseph was buried (Josh. xxiv. 32), had a sanctuary and a sacred pillar and tree. It was the scene of the coronation (a religious ceremony) of Abimelech (Judg. ix.), and Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 1). The pillar was ascribed to Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 26 seq.), and although Jacob set up at Shechem an “altar,” the verb suggests that the original object was a pillar (Gen. xxxiii. 20). The first ancestor of Israel, on the other hand, is merely associated with a theophany at an oracular tree (xii. 6). The Benjamite Bethel was especially famous in Israelite religious history. The story tells how Jacob discovered its sanctity,—it was the gate of heaven,—made a covenant with its God, established the sacred pillar, and instituted its tithes (xxviii.). The prophetess Deborah dwelt under a palm-tree near Bethel (Judg. iv. 5), and her name is also that of the foster-mother of Rebekah who was buried near Bethel beneath the “oak of weeping” (xxxv. 8). Bochim (“weeping”) elsewhere receives its name when an angel appeared to the Israelites (Judg. ii. 1, Septuagint adds Bethel). To the prophets Hosea and Amos the cultus of Bethel was superstitious and immoral, even though it was Yahweh himself who was worshipped there (see Bethel). South of Hebron lay Beersheba, an important centre and place of pilgrimage, with a special numen by whom oaths were taken (Amos viii. 14, see Sept. and the commentaries). Isaac built its altar, and Isaac’s God guarded Jacob in his journeying (xxxi. 29, xlvi. 1). This patriarch and his “brother” Ishmael are closely associated with the district south of Judah, both are connected with Beer-lahai-roi (xxiv. 62, Sept. xxv. 11), whose fountain was the scene of a theophany (xvi.), and their traditions are thus localized in the district of Kadesh famous in the events of the Exodus (cf. xvi. 14, xxi. 21, xxv. 18, Ex. xv. 22). (See Exodus, The.) Abraham planted a sacred tree at Beersheba and invoked “the everlasting God” (xxi. 33). But the patriarch is more closely identified with Hebron, which had a sanctuary (cf. 2 Sam. xv. 7 seq.), and an altar which he built “unto Yahweh” (xiii. 18). The sacred oak of Mamre was famous in the time of Josephus (B. J. iv. 9, 7), it was later a haunt of “angels” (Sozomen), and Constantine was obliged to put down the heathenish cultus. The place still has its holy tree. Beneath the oak there appeared the three divine beings, and in the cave of Machpelah the illustrious ancestor and his wife were buried. The story of his descent into Egypt and the plaguing of Pharaoh is a secondary insertion (xii. 10-xiii. 2), and where the patriarch appears at Beersheba it is in incidents which tend to connect him with his “son” Isaac. There is a very distinct tendency to emphasize the importance of Hebron. Taken from primitive giants by the non-Israelite clan Caleb (q.v.) it has now become predominant in the patriarchal traditions. Jacob leaves his dying father at Beersheba (xxviii. 10), but according to the latest source he returns to him at Hebron (xxxv. 27), and here, north of Beersheba, he continues to live (xxxvii. 14, xlvi. 1-5). The cave of Machpelah became the grave of Isaac, Rebekah and Leah (but not Rachel); and though Jacob appears to be buried beyond the Jordan, it is the latest source which places his grave at Hebron (1. i-11 and 12 seq.). So in still later tradition, all the sons of Jacob with the exception of Joseph find their last resting-place at Hebron, and in Jewish prayers for the dead it is besought that their souls may be bound up with those of the patriarchs, or that they may go to the cave of Machpelah and thence to the Cherubim.27 The increasing prominence of the old Calebite locality is not the least interesting phase in the comparative study of the patriarchal traditions.

The association of the ancestors of Israel with certain sites is a feature which finds analogies even in modern Palestine. There are old centres of cult which have never lost the veneration of the people; the shrines are known as the tombs of saints or walis (patrons) with such orthodox names as St George, Elijah, &c. Traditions justify the reputation for sanctity, and not only are similar stories told of distinct figures, but there are varying traditions of a single figure.28 The places have retained their sacred character despite political and religious vicissitudes; they are far older than their present names, and such is the conservatism of the east that it is not surprising when, for example, a sacred tomb at Gezer stands quite close to the site of an ancient holy place, about 3000 years old, the existence of which was first made known in the course of excavation. Genesis preserves a selection of traditions relating to a few of the old Palestinian centres of cult. We cannot suppose that these first gained their sacred character in the pre-Mosaic “patriarchal” age; there is in any case the obvious difficulty of bridging the gap between the descent into Egypt and the Exodus, and it is clear that when the Israelites entered Palestine they came among a people whose religion, tradition and thought were fully established. It is only in accordance with analogy if stories were current in Israel of the institution of the sacred places, and closer study shows that we do not preserve the original version of these traditions.29

A venerated tree in modern Palestine will owe its sanctity to some tradition, associating it, it may be, with some saint; the Israelites in their turn held the belief that the sacred tree at Hebron was one beneath which their first ancestor sat when three divine beings revealed themselves to him. But it is noteworthy that Yahweh alone is now prominent; the tradition has been revised, apparently in writing, and, later, the author of Jubilees (xvi.) ignores the triad. At Beer-lahai-roi an El (“god”) appeared to Hagar, whence the name of her child Ishmael; but the writer prefers the unambiguous proper name Yahweh, and, what is more, the divine being is now Yahweh’s angel—the Almighty’s subordinate (xvi.). The older traits show themselves partly in the manifestation of various Els, and partly in the cruder anthropomorphism of the earlier sources. Later hands have by no means eliminated or modified them altogether, and in xxxi. 53 one can still perceive that the present text has endeavoured to obscure the older belief that the God of Abraham was not the God of his “brother” Nahor (see the commentaries). The sacred pillar erected by Jacob at Bethel was solemnly anointed with oil, and it (and not the place) was regarded as the abode of the Deity (xxviii. 18, 22). This agrees with all that is known of stone-cults, but it is quite obvious that this interesting example of popular belief is far below the religious ideas of the writer of the chapter in its present form.30 There were many places where it could be said that Yahweh had recorded his name and would bless his worshippers (Ex. xx. 24). They were abhorrent to the advanced ethical teaching of prophets and of those imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy (cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4 with v. 22), and it is patent from Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Is. lvi.-lxvi. that even at a late date opinion varied as to how Yahweh was to be served.31 It is significant, therefore, that the narratives in Genesis (apart from P) reflect a certain tolerant attitude; there is much that is contrary to prophetical thought, but even the latest compilers have not obliterated all features that, from a strict standpoint, could appear distasteful. Although the priestly source shows how the lore could be reshaped, and Jubilees represents later efforts along similar lines, it is evident that for ordinary readers the patriarchal traditions could not be presented in an entirely new form, and that to achieve their aims the writers could not be at direct variance with current thought.

It will now be understood why several scholars have sought to recover earlier forms of the traditions, the stages through which the material has passed, and the place of the earlier forms and stages in the history and religion of Israel. These labours are indispensable for scientific biblical study, and are most fruitful when they depend upon comprehensive methods of research. When, for example, one observes the usual forms of hero-cult and the tendency to regard the occupant of the modern sacred shrine as the ancestor of his clients, deeper significance is attached to the references to the protective care of Abraham and Israel (Is. lxiii. 16), or to the motherly sympathy of Rachel (Jer. xxxi. 15). And, again, when one perceives the tendency to look upon the alleged ancestor or weli as an almost divine being, there is much to be said for the view that the patriarchal figures were endowed by popular opinion with divine attributes. But here the same external evidence warns us that these considerations throw no light upon the original significance of the patriarchs. It is impossible to recover the earliest traditions from the present narratives, and these alone offer sufficiently perplexing problems.32

From a careful survey of all the accessible material it is beyond doubt that Genesis preserves only a selection of traditions of various ages and interests, and often not in their original form. We have relatively little tradition Southern interests. from North Israel; Beersheba, Beer-lahai-roi and Hebron are more prominent than even Bethel or Shechem, while there are no stories of Gilgal, Shiloh or Dan. Yet in the nature of the case, there must have been a great store of local tradition accessible to some writers and at some periods.33 Interest is taken not in Phoenicia, Damascus or the northern tribes, but in the east and south, in Gilead, Ammon, Moab and Ishmael. Particular attention is paid to Edom and Jacob, and there is good evidence for a close relationship between Edomite and allied names and those of South Palestine (including Simeon and Judah). Especially significant, too, is the interest in traditions which affected the South of Palestine, that district which is of importance for the history of Israel in the wilderness and of the Levites.34 It is noteworthy, therefore, that while different peoples had their own theories of their earliest history, the first-born of the first human pair is Cain, the eponym of the Kenites, and the ancestor of the beginnings of civilization (iv. 17, 20-22). This “Kenite” version had its own view of the institution of the worship of Yahweh (iv. 26); it appears to have ignored the Deluge, and it implies the existence of a fuller corpus of written tradition. Elsewhere, in the records of the Exodus, there are traces of specific traditions associated with Kadesh, Kenites, Caleb and Jerahmeel, and with a movement into Judah, all originally independent of their present context. Like the prominence of the traditions of Hebron and its hero Abraham, these features cannot be merely casual.35

The fact that one is not dealing with literal history complicates the question of the nomadic or semi-nomadic life of the Israelite ancestors.36 They are tent-dwellers, shepherds, sojourners (xvii. 8, xxiii. 4, xxviii. 4, xxxvi. 7, xxxvii. 1), and we breathe the air of the open country. But the impression gained from the narratives is of course due to the narrators. The movements of the patriarchs serve mainly to connect them with traditions which were originally independent. When Abraham separates from Lot he settles in “the land of Canaan,” while Lot dwells in “the cities of the plain” (xiii. 12). Isaac at Beersheba enters into an alliance with the Philistines (xxvi. 12 sqq.), while Jacob seems to settle at Shechem (xxxiv.), and there or at Dothan, a few miles north, his sons pasture their father’s flock (xxxvii. 12 sqq.).37 Indeed, according to an isolated fragment Jacob conquered Shechem and gave it to Joseph (xlviii. 22), and this tradition underlies (and has not given birth to) the late and fantastic stories of his warfare (Jub. xxxiv. 1-9, Test. of Judah iii.). Judah, also, is represented as settling among the Canaanites (xxxviii.), and Simeon marries a Canaanite—according to late tradition, a woman of Zephath (xlvi. 10; Jub. xxxiv. 20, xliv. 13; see Judg. i. 17). These representations have been subordinated to others, in particular to the descent into Egypt of Jacob (Israel) and his sons, and the Exodus of the Israelites. But the critical study of these events raises very serious historical problems. Abraham’s grandson, with his family—a mere handful of people—went down into Egypt during a famine (cf. Abraham xii. 10, and Isaac xxvi. 1 seq.); 400 years pass, all memory of which is practically obliterated, and the Israelite nation composed of similar subdivisions returns. Although the later genealogies from Jacob to Moses allow only four generations (cf. Gen. xv. 16), the difficulties are not removed. Joseph lived to see the children of Machir (l. 23, note Ex. i. 8), though Machir received Gilead from the hands of Moses (Num. xxxii. 40); Levi descended with Kehath, who became the grandfather of Aaron and Moses, while Aaron married a descendant in the fifth generation from Judah (Ex. vi. 23). On the other hand the genealogies in 1 Chron. ii. sqq. are independent of the Exodus; Ephraim’s children raid Gath, his daughter founds certain cities, and Manasseh has an Aramaean concubine who becomes the mother of Machir (1 Chron. vii. 14, 20-24).38 Moreover the whole course of the invasion and settlement of Israel (under Joshua) has no real connexion with pre-Mosaic patriarchal history. If we reinterpret the history of the family and its descent into Egypt, and belittle its increase into a nation, and if we figure to ourselves a more gradual occupation of Palestine, we destroy the entire continuity of history as it was understood by those who compiled the biblical history, and we have no evidence for any confident reconstruction. With such thoroughness have the compilers given effect to their views that only on closer examination is it found that even at a relatively late period fundamentally differing traditions still existed, and that those which belonged to circles which did not recognize the Exodus have been subordinated and adjusted by writers to whom this was the profoundest event in their past.39