FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the derivation of "Levi" see below § 4 end.

[2] The words "beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony"

(lit. "his sellings according to the fathers") are obscure; they seem

to imply some additional source of income which the Levite enjoys at

the central sanctuary.

[3] For the _nethinim_ ("given") and "children of the slaves of

Solomon" (whose hereditary service would give them a pre-eminence

over the temple slaves), see art. NETHINIM, and Benzinger, _Ency.

Bib._ cols. 3397 sqq.

[4] In defence of the traditional view, see S. I. Curtiss, _The

Levitical Priests_ (1877), with which his later attitude should be

contrasted (see _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_, pp. 14, 50, 133

seq., 171, 238 sqq., 241 sqq.); W. L. Baxter, _Sanctuary and

Sacrifice_ (1895); A. van Hoonacker, _Le Sacerdoce lévitique_ (1899);

and J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ (1905). These and other apologetic

writings have so far failed to produce any adequate alternative

hypothesis, and while they argue for the traditional theory, later

revision not being excluded, the modern critical view accepts late

dates for the literary sources in their present form, and explicitly

recognizes the presence of much that is ancient. Note the curious old

tradition that Ezra wrote out the law which had been burnt (2 Esdr.

xiv. 21 sqq.).

[5] For example, in 1 Kings viii. 4, there are many indications that

the context has undergone considerable editing at a fairly late date.

The Septuagint translators did not read the clause which speaks of

"priests and Levites," and 2 Chron. v. 5 reads "the Levite priests,"

the phrase characteristic of the Deuteronomic identification of

priestly and Levitical ministry. 1 Sam. vi. 15, too, brings in the

Levites, but the verse breaks the connexion between 14 and 16. For

the present disorder in the text of 2 Sam. xv. 24, see the

commentaries.

[6] See Father H. Vincent, O.P., _Canaan d'après l'exploration

récente_ (1907), pp. 151, 200 sqq., 463 sq.

[7] So Gen. xxxiv. 7, Hamor has wrought folly "in Israel" (cf. Judges

xx. 6 and often), and in v. 30 "Jacob" is not a personal but a

collective idea, for he says, "I am a few men," and the capture and

destruction of a considerable city is in the nature of things the

work of more than two individuals. In the allusion to Levi and Simeon

in Gen. xlix. the two are spoken of as "brothers" with a communal

assembly. See, for other examples of personification, GENEALOGY:

_Biblical_.

[8] See E. Meyer, _Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_, pp. 299 sqq.

(passim); S. A. Cook, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1665 seq.; _Crit. Notes on

O.T. History_, pp. 84 sqq., 122-125.

[9] The second element of the name Abiathar is connected with Jether

or Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, and even Ichabod (1 Sam. iv.

21) seems to be an intentional reshaping of Jochebed, which is

elsewhere the name of the mother of Moses. Phinehas, Eli's son,

becomes in later writings the name of a prominent Aaronite priest in

the days of the exodus from Egypt.

[10] With this development in Israelite religion, observe that

Judaean cult included the worship of a brazen serpent, the

institution of which was ascribed to Moses, and that, according to

the compiler of Kings, Hezekiah was the first to destroy it when he

suppressed idolatrous worship in Judah (2 Kings xviii. 4). It may be

added that the faithful Kenites (found in N. Palestine, Judges iv.

11) appear in another light when threatened with captivity by Asshur

(Num. xxiv. 22; cf. fall of Dan and Shiloh), and if their eponym is

Cain (q.v.), the story of Cain and Abel serves, amid a variety of

purposes, to condemn the murder of the settled agriculturist by the

nomad, but curiously allows that any retaliation upon Cain shall be

avenged (see below, note 5).

[11] The name Korah itself is elsewhere Edomite (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14,

18) and Calebite (1 Chron. ii. 43). See _Ency. Bib._, s.v.

[12]: The musical service of the temple has no place in the

Pentateuch, but was considerably developed under the second temple

and attracted the special attention of Greek observers (Theophrastus,

_apud_ Porphyry, _de Abstin._ ii. 26); see on this subject, R.

Kittel's _Handkommentar_ on Chronicles, pp. 90 sqq.

[13] Even the tithes enjoyed by the Levites (Num. xviii. 21 seq.)

were finally transferred to the priests (so in the Talmud: see

_Yebamoth_, fol. 86a, Carpzov, _App. ad Godw._ p. 624; Hottinger, _De

Dec._ vi. 8, ix. 17).

[14] For some suggestive remarks on the relation between nomadism and

the Levites, and their influence upon Israelite religion and literary

tradition, see E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_

(1906), pp. 82-89, 138; on the problems of early Israelite history,

see SIMEON (end), JEWS, §§ 5, 8, and PALESTINE, _History_.

LEVITICUS, in the Bible, the third book of the Pentateuch. The name is

derived from that of the Septuagint version ([Greek: to]) [Greek:

leu[e]itikon] (sc. [Greek: biblion]), though the English form is due to

the Latin rendering, _Leviticus_ (sc. _liber_). By the Jews the book is

called _Wayyikra_ ([Hebrew: Wayykra]) from the first word of the Hebrew

text, but it is also referred to (in the Talmud and Massorah) as _Torath

kohanim_ ([Hebrew: Totath kohanim], law of the priests), _Sepher

kohanim_ ([Hebrew: Sepher k´´], book of the priests), and _Sepher

korbanim_ ([Hebrew: Sepher korbanim], book of offerings). As a

descriptive title _Leviticus_, "the Levitical book," is not

inappropriate to the contents of the book, which exhibits an elaborate

system of sacrificial worship. In this connexion, however, the term

"Levitical" is used in a perfectly general sense, since there is no

reference in the book itself to the Levites themselves.

The book of Leviticus presents a marked contrast to the two preceding

books of the Hexateuch in that it is derived from one document only,

viz. the Priestly Code (P), and contains no trace of the other documents

from which the Hexateuch has been compiled. Hence the dominant interest

is a priestly one, while the contents are almost entirely legislative as

opposed to historical. But though the book as a whole is assigned to a

single document, its contents are by no means homogeneous: in fact the

critical problem presented by the legislative portions of Leviticus,

though more limited in scope, is very similar to that of the other books

of the Hexateuch. Here, too, the occurrence of repetitions and

divergencies, the variations of standpoint and practice, and, at times,

the linguistic peculiarities point no less clearly to diversity of

origin.

The historical narrative with which P connects his account of the sacred

institutions of Israel is reduced in Leviticus to a minimum, and

presents no special features. The consecration of Aaron and his sons

(viii. ix.) resumes the narrative of Exod. xl., and this is followed by

a brief notice of the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and later by an

account of the death of the blasphemer (xxiv. 10 f.). Apart from these

incidents, which, in accordance with the practice of P, are utilized for

the purpose of introducing fresh legislation, the book consists of three

main groups or collections of ritual laws: (1) chaps, i.-vii., laws of

sacrifice; (2) chaps, xi.-xv., laws of purification, with an appendix

(xvi.) on the Day of Atonement; (3) chaps, xvii.-xxvi., the Law of

Holiness, with an appendix (xxvii.) on vows and tithes. In part these

laws appear to be older than P, but when examined in detail the various

collections show unmistakably that they have undergone more than one

process of redaction before they assumed the form in which they are now

presented. The scope of the present article does not permit of an

elaborate analysis of the different sections, but the evidence adduced

will, it is hoped, afford sufficient proof of the truth of this

statement.

I. _The Laws of Sacrifice._--Chaps. i.-vii. This group of laws clearly

formed no part of the original narrative of P since it interrupts the

connexion of chap. viii. with Exod. xl. For chap. viii. describes how

Moses carried out the command of Exod. xl. 12-15 in accordance with the

instructions given in Exod. xxix. 1-35, and bears the same relation to

the latter passage that Exod. xxxv. ff. bears to Exod. xxv. ff. Hence we

can only conclude that Lev. i.-vii. were added by a later editor. This

conclusion does not necessarily involve a late date for the laws

themselves, many of which have the appearance of great antiquity,

though their original form has been considerably modified. But though

these chapters form an independent collection of laws, and were

incorporated as such in P, a critical analysis of their contents shows

that they were not all derived from the same source.

The collection falls into two divisions, (a) i.-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 26),

and (b) vi. 8 (Heb. vi. 1)-vii., the former being addressed to the

people and the latter to the priests. The laws contained in (a) refer

to (1) burnt-offerings, i.; (2) meal-offerings, ii.; (3)

peace-offerings, iii.; (4) sin-offerings, iv. (on v. 1-13 see below);

(5) trespass-offerings, v. 14-vi. 7 (Heb. v. 14-26). The laws in (b)

cover practically the same ground--(1) burnt-offerings, vi. 8-13 (Heb.

vv. 1-6); (2) meal-offerings, vi. 14-18 (Heb. vv. 7-11); (3) the

meal-offering of the priest, vi. 19-23 (Heb. vv. 12-16); (4)

sin-offerings, vi. 24-30 (Heb. vv. 17-23); (5) trespass-offerings,

vii. 1-7, together with certain regulations for the priest's share of

the burnt- and meal-offerings (vv. 8-10); (6) peace-offerings, vii.

11-21. Then follow the prohibition of eating the fat or blood (vv.

22-28), the priest's share of the peace-offerings (vv. 29-34), the

priest's anointing-portion (vv. 35, 36), and the subscription (vv. 37,

38). The second group of laws is thus to a certain extent

supplementary to the first, and was, doubtless, intended as such by

the editor of chaps. i.-vii. Originally it can hardly have formed part

of the same collection; for (a) the order is different, that of the

second group being supported by its subscription, and (b) the laws in

vi. 8-vii. are regularly introduced by the formula "This is the law

(_torah_) of...." Most probably the second group was excerpted by the

editor of chaps. i.-vii. from another collection for the purpose of

supplementing the laws of i.-v., more especially on points connected

with the functions and dues of the officiating priests.

Closer investigation, however, shows that both groups of laws contain

heterogeneous elements and that their present form is the result of a

long process of development. Thus i. and iii. seem to contain

genuinely old enactments, though i. 14-17 is probably a later

addition, since there is no reference to birds in the general heading

v. 2. Chap. ii. 1-3, on the other hand, though it corresponds in form

to i. and iii., interrupts the close connexion between those chapters,

and should in any case stand after iii.: the use of the second for the

third person in the remaining verses points to a different source. As

might be expected from the nature of the sacrifice with which it

deals, iv. (sin-offerings) seems to belong to a relatively later

period of the sacrificial system. Several features confirm this view:

(1) the blood of the sin-offering of the "anointed priest" and of the

whole congregation is brought within the veil and sprinkled on the

altar of incense, (2) the sin-offering of the congregation is a

bullock, and not, as elsewhere, a goat (ix. 15; Num. xv. 24), (3) the

altar of incense is distinguished from the altar of burnt-offering (as

opposed to Exod. xxix.; Lev. viii. ix.). Chap. v. 1-13 have usually

been regarded as an appendix to iv., setting forth (a) a number of

typical cases for which a sin-offering is required (vv. 1-6), and (b)

certain concessions for those who could not afford the ordinary

sin-offering (vv. 7-13). But vv. 1-6, which are not homogeneous (vv. 2

and 3 treating of another question and interrupting vv. 1, 4, 5 f.),

cannot be ascribed to the same author as iv.: for (1) it presents a

different theory of the sin-offering (contrast v. 1 f. with iv. 2),

(2) it ignores the fourfold division of offerings corresponding to the

rank of the offender, (3) it fails to observe the distinction between

sin- and trespass-offering (in vv. 6, 7, "his guilt-offering"

([Hebrew: ashamo]) appears to have the sense of a "penalty" or

"forfeit," unless with Baentsch we read [Hebrew: korbano] "his

oblation" in each case; cf. v. 11, iv. 23 ff. Verses 7-13, on the

other hand, form a suitable continuation of iv., though probably they

are secondary in character. Chap. v. 14 (Heb. v. 26)-vi. 7 contain

regulations for the trespass-offering, in which the distinctive

character of that offering is clearly brought out. The cases cited in

vi. 1-7 (Heb. v. 20-26) are clearly analogous to those in v. 14-16,

from which they are at present separated by vv. 17-19. These latter

prescribe a trespass-offering for the same case for which in iv. 22 f.

a sin-offering is required: it is noticeable also that no restitution,

the characteristic feature of the _asham_, is prescribed. It is hardly

doubtful that the verses are derived from a different source to that

of their immediate context, possibly the same as v. 1-6.

The subscription (vii. 37, 38) is our chief guide to determining the

original extent of the second group of laws (vi. 8 [Heb. vi. 1]-vii.

36). From it we infer that originally the collection only dealt with

the five chief sacrifices (vi. 8-13; 14-18; 24, 25, 27-30; vii. 1-6;

11-21) already discussed in i.-v., since only these are referred to in

the colophon where they are given in the same order (the

consecration-offering [v. 37] is probably due to the same redactor who

introduced the gloss "in the day when he is anointed" in vi. 20). Of

the remaining sections vi. 19-23 (Heb. 12-16), the daily meal-offering

of the (high-) priest, betrays its secondary origin by its absence

from the subscription, cf. also the different introduction. Chaps. vi.

26 (Heb. 19) and vii. 7 assign the offering to the officiating priest

in contrast to vi. 18 (Heb. 11), 29 (Heb. 22), vii. 6 ("every male

among the priests"), and possibly belong, together with vii. 8-10, to

a separate collection which dealt especially with priestly dues. Chap.

vii. 22-27, which prohibit the eating of fat and blood, are addressed

to the community at large, and were, doubtless, inserted here in

connexion with the sacrificial meal which formed the usual

accompaniment of the peace-offering. Chap. vii. 28-34 are also

addressed to the people, and cannot therefore have formed part of the

original priestly manual; v. 33 betrays the same hand as vi. 26 (Heb.

19) and vii. 7, and with 35a may be assigned to the same collection as

those verses; to the redactor must be assigned vv. 32 (a doublet of v.

33), 34, 35b and 36.

Chaps. viii.-x. As stated, these chapters form the original sequel to

Exod. xl. They describe (a) the consecration of Aaron and his sons, a

ceremony which lasted seven days (viii.), and (b) the public worship

on the eighth day, at which Aaron and his sons officiated for the

first time as priests (ix.); then follow (c) an account of the death

of Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire (x. 1-5); (d) various

regulations affecting the priests (vv. 12-15), and (e) an explanation,

in narrative form, of the departure in ix. 15 from the rules for the

sin-offering given in vi. 30 (vv. 16-20).

According to Exod. xl. 1-15 Moses was commanded to set up the

Tabernacle and to consecrate the priests, and the succeeding verses

(16-38) describe how the former command was carried out. The execution

of the second command, however, is first described in Lev. viii., and

since the intervening chapters exhibit obvious traces of belonging to

another source, we may conclude with some certainty that Lev. viii.

formed the immediate continuation of Exod. xl. in the original

narrative of P. But it has already been pointed out (see Exodus) that

Exod. xxxv.-xl. belong to a later stratum of P than Exod. xxv.-xxix,

hence it is by no means improbable that Exod. xxxv-xl. have superseded

an earlier and shorter account of the fulfilment of the commands in

Exod. xxv.-xxix. If this be the case, we should naturally expect to

find that Lev. viii., which bears the same relation to Exod. xxix.

1-35 as Exod. xxxv. ff. to Exod. xxv. ff. also belonged to a later

stratum. But Lev. viii., unlike Exod xxxv. ff., only mentions one

altar, and though in its present form the chapter exhibits marks of

later authorship, these marks form no part of the original account,

but are clearly the work of a later editor. These additions, the

secondary character of which is obvious both from the way in which

they interrupt the context and also from their contents, are (1), v.

10, the anointing of the Tabernacle in accordance with Exod. xxx. 26

ff.: it is not enjoined in Exod. xxix.; (2) v. 11, the anointing of

the altar and the laver (cf. Exod. xxx. 17 ff.) as in Exod. xxix. 36b,

xxx. 26 ff.; (3) v. 30, the sprinkling of blood and oil on Aaron and

his sons. Apart from these secondary elements, which readily admit of

excision, the chapter is in complete accord with P as regards point of

view and language, and is therefore to be assigned to that source.

The consecration of Aaron and his sons was, according to P, a

necessary preliminary to the offering of sacrifice, and chap. ix.

accordingly describes the first solemn act of worship. The ceremony

consists of (a) the offerings for Aaron, and (b) those for the

congregation; then follows the priestly blessing (v. 22), after which

Moses and Aaron enter the sanctuary, and on reappearing once more

bless the people. The ceremony terminates with the appearance of the

glory of Yahweh, accompanied by a fire which consumes the sacrifices

on the altar. Apart from a few redactional glosses the chapter as a

whole belongs to P. The punishment of Nadab and Abihu by death for

offering "strange fire" (x. 1-5) forms a natural sequel to chap. ix.

To this incident a number of disconnected regulations affecting the

priests have been attached, of which the first, viz. the prohibition

of mourning to Aaron and his sons (vv. 6, 7), alone has any connexion

with the immediate context; as it stands, the passage is late in form

(cf. xxi. 10 ff.). The second passage, vv. 8, 9, which prohibits the

use of wine and strong drink to the priest when on duty, is clearly a

later addition. The connexion between these verses and the following

is extremely harsh, and since vv. 10, 11 relate to an entirely

different subject (cf. xi. 47), the latter verses must be regarded as

a misplaced fragment. Verses 12-15 relate to the portions of the meal-

and peace-offerings which fell to the lot of the priests, and connect,

therefore, with chap. ix.; possibly they have been wrongly transferred

from that chapter. In the remaining paragraph, x. 16-20, we have an

interesting example of the latest type of additions to the Hexateuch.

According to ix. 15 (cf. v. 11) the priests had burnt the flesh of the

sin-offering which had been offered on behalf of the congregation,

although its blood had not been taken into the inner sanctuary (cf.

iv. 1-21, vi. 26). Such treatment, though perfectly legitimate

according to the older legislation (Exod. xxix. 14; cf. Lev. viii.

17), was in direct contradiction to the ritual of vi. 24 ff., which

prescribed that the flesh of ordinary sin-offerings should be eaten by

the priests. Such a breach of ritual on the part of Aaron and his sons

seemed to a later redactor to demand an explanation, and this is

furnished in the present section.

II. _The Laws of Purification._--Chaps. xi.-xv. This collection of laws

comprises four main sections relating to (1) clean and unclean beasts

(xi.), (2) childbirth (xii.), (3) leprosy (xiii. xiv.), and (4) certain

natural secretions (xv.). These laws, or _toroth_, are so closely allied

to each other by the nature of their contents and their literary form

(cf. especially the recurring formula "This is the law of ..." xi. 46,

xii. 7, xiii. 59, xiv. 32, 54, 57, xv. 32) that they must originally

have formed a single collection. The collection, however, has clearly

undergone more than one redaction before reaching its final form. This

is made evident not only by the present position of chap. xii. which in

v. 2 presupposes chap. xv. (cf. xv. 19), and must originally have

followed after that chapter, but also by the contents of the different

sections, which exhibit clear traces of repeated revision. At the same

time it seems, like chaps. i.-vii., xvii.-xxvi., to have been formed

independently of P and to have been added to that document by a later

editor; for in its present position it interrupts the main thread of P's

narrative, chap. xvi. forming the natural continuation of chap. x.; and,

further, the inclusion of Aaron as well as Moses in the formula of

address (xi. 1, xiii. 1, xiv. 33, xv. 1) is contrary to the usage of P.

1. Chap. xi. consists of two main sections, of which the first (vv.

1-23, 41-47) contains directions as to the clean and unclean animals

which may or may not be used for food, while the second (vv: 24-40)

treats of the defilement caused by contact with the carcases of

unclean animals (in v. 39 f. contact with clean animals after death is

also forbidden), and prescribes certain rites of purification. The

main interest of the chapter, from the point of view of literary

criticism, centres in the relation of the first section to the Law of

Holiness (xvii.-xxvi.) and to the similar laws in Deut. xiv. 3-20.

From xx. 25 it has been inferred with considerable probability that H,

or the Law of Holiness, originally contained legislation of a similar

character with reference to clean and unclean animals; and many

scholars have held that the first section (vv. 1 [or 2]-23 and 41-47)

really belongs to that code. But while vv. 43-45 may unhesitatingly be

assigned to H, the remaining verses fail to exhibit any of the

characteristic features of that code. We must assign them, therefore,

to another source, though, in view of xx. 25 and xi. 43-45, it is

highly probable that they have superseded similar legislation

belonging to H.

The relation of Lev. xi. 2-23 to Deut. xiv. 4-20 is less easy to

determine, since the phenomena presented by the two texts are somewhat

inconsistent. The two passages are to a large extent verbally

identical, but while Deut. xiv. 4b, 5 both defines and exemplifies the

clean animals (as opposed to Lev. xi. 3; which only defines them), the

rest of the Deuteronomic version is much shorter than that of

Leviticus. Thus, except for vv. 4b, 5, the Deuteronomic version, which

in its general style, and to a certain extent in its phraseology (cf.

[Hebrew: min] _kind_, vv. 13, 15, 18, and [Hebrew: sheretz] _swarm_,

v. 19), shows traces of a priestly origin, might be regarded as an

abridgment of Lev. xi. But the Deuteronomic version uses [Hebrew:

tame] _unclean_ throughout (vv. 7, 10. 19), while Lev xi. from v. 11

onwards employs the technical term [Hebrew: sheketz] _detestable

thing_, and it is at least equally possible to treat the longer

version of Leviticus as an expansion of Deut. xiv. 4-20. The fact that

Deut. xiv. 21 permits the stranger ([Hebrew: gher]) to eat the flesh

of any animal that dies a natural death, while Lev. xvii. 25 places

him on an equal footing with the Israelite, cannot be cited in favour

of the priority of Deuteronomy since v. 21 is clearly supplementary;

cf. also Lev. xi. 39. On the whole it seems best to accept the view

that both passages are derived separately from an earlier source.

2. Chap. xii. prescribes regulations for the purification of a woman

after the birth of (a) a male and (b) a female child. It has been

already pointed out that this chapter would follow more suitably after

chap. xv., with which it is closely allied in regard to

subject-matter. The closing formula (v. 7) shows clearly that, as in

the case of v. 7-13 (cf. i. 14-17), the concessions in favour of the

poorer worshipper are a later addition.

3. Chaps. xiii., xiv. The regulations concerning leprosy fall readily

into four main divisions: (a) xiii. 1-46a, an elaborate description of

the symptoms common to the earlier stages of leprosy and other skin

diseases to guide the priest in deciding as to the cleanness or

uncleanness of the patient; (b) xiii. 47-59, a further description of

different kinds of mould or fungus growth affecting stuffs and

leather; (c) xiv. 1-32, the rites of purification to be employed after

the healing of leprosy; and (d) xiv. 33-53, regulations dealing with

the appearance of patches of mould or mildew on the walls of a house.

Like other collections the group of laws on leprosy easily betrays its

composite character and exhibits unmistakable evidence of its gradual

growth. There is, however, no reason to doubt that a large portion of

the laws is genuinely old since the subject is one that would

naturally call for early legislation; moreover, Deut. xxiv. 8

presupposes the existence of regulations concerning leprosy,

presumably oral, which were in the possession of the priests. The

earliest sections are admittedly xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, the ritual

of the latter being obviously of a very archaic type. The secondary

character of xiii. 47-59 is evident: it interrupts the close connexion

between xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, and further it is provided with its

own colophon in v. 59. A similar character must be assigned to the

remaining verses of chap. xiv., with the exception of the colophon in

v. 57b; the latter has been successively expanded in vv. 54-57a so as

to include the later additions. Thus xiv. 9-20 prescribes a second and

more elaborate ritual of purification after the healing of leprosy,

though the leper, according to v. 8a, is already clean; its secondary

character is further shown by the heightening of the ceremonial which

seems to be modelled on that of the consecration of the priest (viii.

23 ff.), the multiplication of sacrifices and the minute regulations

with regard to the blood and oil. The succeeding section (vv. 21-32)

enjoins special modifications for those who cannot afford the more

costly offerings of vv. 9-20, and like v. 7-13, xii. 8 is clearly a

later addition; cf. the separate colophon, v. 32. The closing section

xiv. 33-53 is closely allied to xiii. 47-59, though probably later in

date: probably the concluding verses (48-53), in which the same rites

are prescribed for the purification of a house as are ordained for a

person in vv. 3-8a, were added at a still later period.

4. Chap. xv. deals with the rites of purification rendered necessary

by various natural secretions, and is therefore closely related to

chap. xii. On the analogy of the other laws it is probable that the

old _torah_, which forms the basis of the chapter, has been

subsequently expanded, but except in the colophon (vv. 32-34), which

displays marks of later redaction, there is nothing to guide us in

separating the additional matter.

Chap. xvi. It may be regarded as certain that this chapter consists of

three main elements, only one of which was originally connected with

the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement, and that it has passed through

more than one stage of revision. Since the appearance of Benzinger's

analysis _ZATW_ (1889), critics in the main have accepted the division

of the chapter into three independent sections: (1) vv. 1-4, 6, 12,

13, 34b (probably vv. 23, 24 also form part of this section),

regulations to be observed by Aaron whenever he might enter "the holy

place within the veil." These regulations are the natural outcome of

the death of Nadab and Abihu (x. 1-5), and their object is to guard

Aaron from a similar fate; the section thus forms the direct

continuation of chap. x.; (2) vv. 29-34a, rules for the observance of

a yearly fast day, having for their object the purification of the

sanctuary and of the people; (3) vv. 5, 7-10, 14-22, 26-28, a later

expansion of the blood-ritual to be performed by the high-priest when

he enters the Holy of Holies, with which is combined the strange

ceremony of the goat which is sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

The matter common to the first two sections, viz. the entrance of the

high priest into the Holy of Holies, was doubtless the cause of their

subsequent fusion; beyond this, however, the sections have no

connexion with one another, and must originally have been quite

independent. Doubtless, as Benzinger suggests, the rites to be

performed by the officiating high priest on the annual Day of

Atonement, which are not prescribed in vv. 29-34a, were identical with

those laid down in chap. ix. That the third section belongs to a later

stage of development and was added at a later date is shown by (a) the

incongruity of vv. 14 ff. with v. 6--according to the latter the

purification of Aaron is a preliminary condition of his entrance

within the veil--and (b) the elaborate ceremonial in connexion with

the sprinkling of the blood. The first section, doubtless, belongs to

the main narrative of P; it connects directly with chap. x. and

presupposes only one altar (cf. v. 12, Exod. xxviii. 35). The second

and third sections, however, must be assigned to a later stratum of P,

if only because they appear to have been unknown to Ezra (Neh. ix. 1);

the fact that Ezra's fast day took place on the twenty-fourth day of

the seventh month (as opposed to Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 26 f.) acquires

an additional importance in view of the agreement between Neh. viii.

23 f. and Lev. xxiii. 33 f. as to the date of the Feast of

Tabernacles. No mention is made of the Day of Atonement in the

pre-exilic period, and it is a plausible conjecture that the present

law arose from the desire to turn the spontaneous fasting of Neh. ix.

1 into an annual ceremony; in any case directions as to the annual

performance of the rite must originally have preceded vv. 29 ff.

Possibly the omission of this introduction is due to the redactor who

combined (1) and (2) by transferring the regulations of (1) to the

ritual of the annual Day of Atonement. At a later period the ritual

was further developed by the inclusion of the additional ceremonial

contained in (3).

III. _The Law of Holiness._--Chaps. xvii.-xxvi. The group of laws

contained in these chapters has long been recognized as standing apart

from the rest of the legislation set forth in Leviticus. For, though

they display undeniable affinity with P, they also exhibit certain

features which closely distinguish them from that document. The most

noticeable of these is the prominence assigned to certain leading ideas

and motives, especially to that of _holiness_. The idea of holiness,

indeed, is so characteristic of the entire group that the title "Law of

Holiness," first given to it by Klostermann (1877), has been generally

adopted. The term "holiness" in this connexion consists positively in

the fulfilment of ceremonial obligations and negatively in abstaining

from the defilement caused by heathen customs and superstitions, but it

also includes obedience to the moral requirements of the religion of

Yahweh.

On the literary side also the chapters are distinguished by the

paraenetic setting in which the laws are embedded and by the use of a

special terminology, many of the words and phrases occurring rarely,

if ever, in P (for a list of characteristic phrases cf. Driver,

_L.O.T._^6, p. 49). Further, the structure of these chapters, which

closely resembles that of the other two Hexateuchal codes (Exod. xx.

22-xxiii. and Deut. xii.-xxviii.), may reasonably be adduced in

support of their independent origin. All three codes contain a

somewhat miscellaneous collection of laws; all alike commence with

regulations as to the place of sacrifice and close with an

exhortation. Lastly, some of the laws treat of subjects which have

been already dealt with in P (cf. xvii. 10-14 and vii. 26 f., xix. 6-8

and vii. 15-18). It is hardly doubtful also that the group of laws,

which form the basis of chaps. xvii.-xxvi., besides being independent

of P, represent an older stage of legislation than that code. For the

sacrificial system of H (= Law of Holiness) is less developed than

that of P, and in particular shows no knowledge of the sin- and

trespass-offerings; the high priest is only _primus inter pares_ among

his brethren, xxi. 10 (cf. Lev. x. 6, 7, where the same prohibition is

extended to all the priests); the distinction between "holy" and "most

holy" things (Num. xviii. 8) is unknown to Lev. xxii. (Lev. xxi. 22 is

a later addition). It cannot be denied, however, that chaps.

xvii.-xxvi. present many points of resemblance with P, both in

language and subject-matter, but on closer examination these points of

contact are seen to be easily separable from the main body of the

legislation. It is highly probable, therefore, that these marks of P

are to be assigned to the compiler who combined H with P. But though

it may be regarded as certain that H existed as an independent code,

it cannot be maintained that the laws which it contains are all of the

same origin or belong to the same age. The evidence rather shows that

they were first collected by an editor before they were incorporated

in P. Thus there is a marked difference in style between the laws

themselves and the paraenetic setting in which they are embedded; and

it is not unnatural to conjecture that this setting is the work of the

first editor.

Two other points in connexion with H are of considerable importance:

(a) the possibility of other remains of H, and (b) its relation to

Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.

(a) It is generally recognized that H, in its present form, is

incomplete. The original code must, it is felt, have included many

other subjects now passed over in silence. These, possibly, were

omitted by the compiler of P, because they had already been dealt with

elsewhere, or they may have been transferred to other connexions. This

latter possibility is one that has appealed to many scholars, who have

accordingly claimed many other passages of P as parts of H. We have

already accepted xi. 43 ff. as an undoubted excerpt from H, but, with

the exception of Num. xv. 37-41 (on fringes), the other passages of

the Hexateuch which have been attributed to H do not furnish

sufficient evidence to justify us in assigning them to that

collection. Moore (_Ency. Bibl._ col. 2787) rightly points out that

"resemblance in the subject or formulation of laws to _toroth_

incorporated in H may point to a relation to the _sources_ of H, but

is not evidence that these laws were ever included in that

collection."

(b) The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is hard to

determine. That chaps. xvii.-xxvi. display a marked affinity to

Deuteronomy cannot be denied. Like D, they lay great stress on the

duties of humanity and charity both to the Israelite and to the

stranger (Deut. xxiv.; Lev. xix.; compare also laws affecting the poor

in Deut. xv.; Lev. xxv.), but in some respects the legislation of H

appears to reflect a more advanced stage than that of D, e.g. the

rules for the priesthood (chap. xxi.), the feasts (xxiii. 9-20,

39-43), the Sabbatical year (xxv. 1-7, 18-22), weights and measures

(xix. 35 f.). It must be remembered, however, that these laws have

passed through more than one stage of revision and that the original

regulations have been much obscured by later glosses and additions; it

is therefore somewhat hazardous to base any argument on their present

form. "The mutual independence of the two (codes) is rather to be

argued from the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of

agreement in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the

fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of R_{D} there is no

trace in H (Lev. xxiii. 40 is almost solitary). It is an unwarranted

assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which have

been preserved lie in one serial development" (Moore, _Ency. Bibl._

col. 2790).

The relation of H to Ezekiel is remarkably close, the resemblances

between the two being so striking that many writers have regarded

Ezekiel as the author of H. Such a theory, however, is excluded by the

existence of even greater differences of style and matter, so that the

main problem to be decided is whether Ezekiel is prior to H or vice

versa. The main arguments brought forward by those who maintain the

priority of Ezekiel are (1) the fact that H makes mention of a high

priest, whereas Ezekiel betrays no knowledge of such an official, and

(2) that the author of Lev. xxvi. presupposes a condition of exile and

looks forward to a restoration from it. Too much weight, however, must

not be attached to these points; for (1) the phrase used in Lev. xxi.

10 (_literally_, "he who is greater than his brethren") cannot be

regarded as the equivalent of the definitive "chief priest" of P, and

is rather comparable with the usage of 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff., xxv. 18

("the chief priest"), cf. "the priest" in xi. 9 ff., xvi. 10 ff.; and

(2) the passages in Lev. xxvi. (vv. 34 f., 39-45), which are

especially cited in support of the exilic standpoint of the writer,

are just those which, on other grounds, show signs of later

interpolation. The following considerations undoubtedly suggest the

priority of H: (1) there is no trace in H of the distinction between

priests and Levites first introduced by Ezekiel; (2) Ezekiel xviii.,

xx., xxii., xxiii. appear to presuppose the laws of Lev. xviii.-xx.;

(3) the calendar of Lev. xxiii. represents an earlier stage of

development than the fixed days and months of Ezek. xlv.; (4) the sin-

and trespass-offerings are not mentioned in H (cf. Ezek. xl. 39, xlii.

13, xliv. 29, xlvi. 20); (5) the parallels to H, which are found

especially in Ezek. xviii., xx., xxii. f., include both the paraenetic

setting and the laws; and lastly, (6) a comparison of Lev. xxvi. with

Ezekiel points to the greater originality of the former. Baentsch,

however, who is followed by Bertholet, adopts the view that Lev. xxvi.

is rather an independent hortatory discourse modelled on Ezekiel. The

same writer further maintains that H consists of three separate

elements, viz. chaps. xvii.; xviii.-xx., with various ordinances in

chaps. xxiii.-xxv.; and xxii., xxiii., of which the last is certainly

later than Ezekiel, while the second is in the main prior to that

author. But the arguments which he adduces in favour of the threefold

origin of H are not sufficient to outweigh the general impression of

unity which the code presents.

Chap. xvii. comprises four main sections which are clearly marked off

by similar introductory and closing formulae: (1) vv. 3-7, prohibition

of the slaughter of domestic animals, unless they are presented to

Yahweh; (2) vv. 8, 9, sacrifices to be offered to Yahweh alone; (3)

vv. 10-12, prohibition of the eating of blood; (4) vv. 13, 14, the

blood of animals not used in sacrifice to be poured on the ground. The

chapter as a whole is to be assigned to H. At the same time it

exhibits many marks of affinity with P, a phenomenon most easily

explained by the supposition that older laws of H have been expanded

and modified by later hands in the spirit of P. Clear instances of

such revision may be seen in the references to "the door of the tent

of meeting" (vv. 4, 5, 6, 9) and "the camp" (v. 3), as well as in vv.

6, 11, 12-14; vv. 15, 16 (prohibiting the eating of animals that die a

natural death or are torn by beasts) differ formally from the

preceding paragraphs, and are to be assigned to P. What remains after

the excision of later additions, however, is not entirely uniform, and

points to earlier editorial work on the part of the compiler of H.

Thus vv. 3-7 reflect two points of view, vv. 3, 4 drawing a contrast

between profane slaughter and sacrifice, while vv. 5-7 distinguish

between sacrifices offered to Yahweh and those offered to demons.

Chap. xviii. contains laws on prohibited marriages (vv. 6-18) and

various acts of unchastity (vv. 19-23) embedded in a paraenetic

setting (vv. 1-5 and 24-30), the laws being given in the 2nd pers.

sing., while the framework employs the 2nd pers. plural. With the

exception of v. 21 (on Molech worship), which is here out of place,

and has possibly been introduced from xx. 2-5, the chapter displays

all the characteristics of H.

Chap. xix. is a collection of miscellaneous laws, partly moral, partly

religious, of which the fundamental principle is stated in v. 2 ("Ye

shall be holy"). The various laws are clearly defined by the formula

"I am Yahweh," or "I am Yahweh your God," phrases which are especially

characteristic of chaps. xviii.-xx. The first group of laws (vv. 3 f.)

corresponds to the first table of the decalogue, while vv. 11-18 are

analogous to the second table; vv. 5-8 (on peace-offerings) are

obviously out of place here, and are possibly to be restored to the

cognate passage xxii. 29 f., while the humanitarian provisions of vv.

9 and 10 (cf. xxiii. 22) have no connexion with the immediate context;

similarly v. 20 (to which a later redactor has added vv. 21, 22, in

accordance with vi. 6 f.) appears to be a fragment from a penal code;

the passage resembles Exod. xxi. 7 ff., and the offence is clearly one

against property, the omission of the punishment being possibly due to

the redactor who added vv. 21, 22.

Chap. xx. Prohibitions against Molech worship, vv. 2-5, witchcraft,

vv. 6 and 27, unlawful marriages and acts of unchastity, vv. 10-21.

Like chap. xviii., the main body of laws is provided with a paraenetic

setting, vv. 7, 8 and 22-24; it differs from that chapter, however, in

prescribing the death penalty in each case for disobedience. Owing to

the close resemblance between the two chapters, many critics have

assumed that they are derived from the same source and that the latter

chapter was added for the purpose of supplying the penalties. This

view, however, is not borne out by a comparison of the two chapters,

for four of the cases mentioned in chap. xviii. (vv. 7, 10, 17b, 18)

are ignored in chap. xx., while the order and in part the terminology

are also different; further, it is difficult on this view to explain

why the two chapters are separated by chap. xix. A more probable

explanation is that the compiler of H has drawn from two parallel, but

independent, sources. Signs of revision are not lacking, especially in

vv. 2-5, where vv. 4 f. are a later addition intended to reconcile the

inconsistency of v. 2 with v. 3 (R_{H}); v. 6, which is closely

connected with xix. 31, appears to be less original than v. 27, and

may be ascribed to the same hand as v. 3; v. 9 can hardly be in its

original context--it would be more suitable after xxiv. 15. The

paraenetic setting (vv. 7, 8 and 22-24) is to be assigned to the

compiler of H, who doubtless prefaced the parallel version with the

additional laws of vv. 2-6. Verses 25, 26 apparently formed the

conclusion of a law on clean and unclean animals similar to that of

chap. xi., and very probably mark the place where H's regulations on

that subject originally stood.

Chaps. xxi., xxii. A series of laws affecting the priests and

offerings, viz. (1) regulations ensuring the holiness of (a) ordinary

priests, xxi. 1-9, and (b) the chief priest, vv. 10-15; (2) a list of

physical defects which exclude a priest from exercising his office,

vv. 16-24; (3) the enjoyment of sacred offerings limited to (a)

priests, if they are ceremonially clean, xxi. 1-9, and (b) members of

a priestly family, vv. 10-16; (4) animals offered in sacrifice must be

without blemish, vv. 17-25; (5) further regulations with regard to

sacrifices, vv. 26-30, with a paraenetic conclusion, vv. 31-33.

These chapters present considerable difficulty to the literary critic;

for while they clearly illustrate the application of the principle of

"holiness," and in the main exhibit the characteristic phraseology of

H, they also display many striking points of contact with P and the

later strata of P, which have been closely interwoven into the

original laws. These phenomena can be best explained by the

supposition that we have here a body of old laws which have been

subjected to more than one revision. The nature of the subjects with

which they deal is one that naturally appealed to the priestly

schools, and owing to this fact the laws were especially liable to

modification and expansion at the hands of later legislators who

wished to bring them into conformity with later usage. Signs of such

revision may be traced back to the compiler of H, but the evidence

shows that the process must have been continued down to the latest

period of editorial activity in connexion with P. To redactors of the

school of P belong such phrases as "the sons of Aaron" (xxi. 1, 24,

xxii. 2, 18), "the seed of Aaron" (xxi. 21, xxii. 4 and "thy seed," v.

17; cf. xxii. 3), "the offerings of the Lord made by fire" (xxi. 6,

21, xxii. 22, 27), "the most holy things" (xxi. 22; cf. xxii. 3 ff.

"holy things" only), "throughout their (or your) generations" (xxi. 7,

xxii. 3), the references to the anointing of Aaron (xxi. 10, 12) and

the Veil (xxi. 23), the introductory formulae (xxi. 1, 16 f., xxii. 1

f., 17 f., 26) and the subscription (xxi. 24). Apart from these

redactional additions, chap. xxi. is to be ascribed to H, vv. 6 and 8

being possibly the work of R_{H}. Most critics detect a stronger

influence of P in chap. xxii., more especially in vv. 3-7 and 17-25,

29, 30; most probably these verses have been largely recast and

expanded by later editors, but it is noticeable that they contain no

mention of either sin- or trespass-offerings.

Chap. xxiii. A calendar of sacred seasons. The chapter consists of two

main elements which can easily be distinguished from one another, the

one being derived from P and the other from H. To the former belongs

the fuller and more elaborate description of vv. 4-8, 21, 23-38; to

the latter, vv. 9-20, 22, 39-44. Characteristic of the priestly

calendar are (1) the enumeration of "holy convocations," (2) the

prohibition of all work, (3) the careful determination of the date by

the day and month, (4) the mention of "the offerings made by fire to

Yahweh," and (5) the stereotyped form of the regulations. The older

calendar, on the other hand, knows nothing of "holy convocations," nor

of abstinence from work; the time of the feasts, which are clearly

connected with agriculture, is only roughly defined with reference to

the harvest (cf. Exod. xxiii. 14 ff., xxxiv. 22; Deut. xvi. 9 ff.).

The calendar of P comprises (a) the Feast of Passover and the

Unleavened Cakes, vv. 4-8; (b) a fragment of Pentecost, v. 21; (c) the

Feast of Trumpets, vv. 23-25; (d) the Day of Atonement, vv. 26-32; and

(e) the Feast of Tabernacles, vv. 33-36, with a subscription in vv.

37, 38. With these have been incorporated the older regulations of H

on the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, vv. 9-20, which have been

retained in place of P's account (cf. v. 21), and on the Feast of

Tabernacles, vv. 39-44, the latter being clearly intended to

supplement vv. 33-36. The hand of the redactor who combined the two

elements may be seen partly in additions designed to accommodate the

regulations of H to P (e.g. v. 39a, "on the fifteenth day of the

seventh month," and 39b, "and on the eighth day shall be a solemn

rest"), partly in the later expansions corresponding to later usage,

vv. 12 f., 18, 19a, 21b, 41. Further, vv. 26-32 (on the Day of

Atonement, cf. xvi.) are a later addition to the P sections.

Chap. xxiv. affords an interesting illustration of the manner in which

the redactor of P has added later elements to the original code of H.

For the first part of the chapter, with its regulations as to (a) the

lamps in the Tabernacle, vv. 1-4, and (b) the Shewbread, vv. 5-9, is

admittedly derived from P, vv. 1-4, forming a supplement to Exod. xxv.

31-40 (cf. xxvii. 20 f.) and Num. viii. 1-4, and vv. 5-9 to Exod. xxv.

30. The rest of the chapter contains old laws (vv. 15b-22) derived

from H on blasphemy, manslaughter and injuries to the person, to which

the redactor has added an historical setting (vv. 10-14, 23) as well

as a few glosses.

Chap. xxv. lays down regulations for the observance of (a) the

Sabbatical year, vv. 1-7, 19-22, and (b) the year of Jubilees, vv.

8-18, 23, and then applies the principle of redemption to (1) land and

house property, vv. 24-34, and (2) persons, vv. 35-55. The rules for

the Sabbatical year (vv. 1-7) are admittedly derived from H, and vv.

19-22 are also from the same source. Their present position after vv.

8-18 is due to the redactor who wished to apply the same rules to the

year of Jubilee. But though the former of the two sections on the year

of Jubilee (vv. 8-18, 23) exhibits undoubted signs of P, the traces of

H are also sufficiently marked to warrant the conclusion that the

latter code included laws relating to the year of Jubilee, and that

these have been modified by R_{P} and then connected with the

regulations for the Sabbatical year. Signs of the redactor's handiwork

may be seen in vv. 9, 11-13 (the year of Jubilee treated as a fallow

year) and 15, 16 (cf. the repetition of "ye shall not wrong one

another," vv. 14 and 17). Both on historical and on critical grounds,

however, it is improbable that the principle of restitution underlying

the regulations for the year of Jubilee was originally extended to

_persons_ in the earlier code. For it is difficult to harmonize the

laws as to the release of Hebrew slaves with the other legislation on

the same subject (Exod. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv.), while both the secondary

position which they occupy in this chapter and their more elaborate

and formal character point to a later origin for vv. 35-55. Hence

these verses in the main must be assigned to R_{P}. In this connexion

it is noticeable that vv. 35-38, 39-40a, 43, 47, 53, 55, which show

the characteristic marks of H, bear no special relation to the year of

Jubilee, but merely inculcate a more humane treatment of those

Israelites who are compelled by circumstances to sell themselves

either to their brethren or to strangers. It is probable, therefore,

that they form no part of the original legislation of the year of

Jubilee, but were incorporated at a later period. The present form of

vv. 24-34 is largely due to R_{P}, who has certainly added vv. 32-34

(cities of the Levites) and probably vv. 29-31.

Chap. xxvi. The concluding exhortation. After reiterating commands to

abstain from idolatry and to observe the Sabbath, vv. 1, 2, the

chapter sets forth (a) the rewards of obedience, vv. 3-13, and (b) the

penalties incurred by disobedience to the preceding laws, vv. 14-46.

The discourse, which is spoken throughout in the name of Yahweh, is

similar in character to Exod. xxiii. 20-33 and Deut. xxviii., more

especially to the latter. That it forms an integral part of H is shown

both by the recurrence of the same distinctive phraseology and by the

emphasis laid on the same motives. At the same time it is hardly

doubtful that the original discourse has been modified and expanded by

later hands, especially in the concluding paragraphs. Thus vv. 34, 35,

which refer back to xxv. 2 ff., interrupt the connexion and must be

assigned to the priestly redactor, while vv. 40-45 display obvious

signs of interpolation. With regard to the literary relation of this

chapter with Ezekiel, it must be admitted that Ezekiel presents many

striking parallels, and in particular makes use, in common with chap.

xxvi., of several expressions which do not occur elsewhere in the Old

Testament. But there are also points of difference both as regards

phraseology and subject-matter, and in view of these latter it is

impossible to hold that Ezekiel was either the author or compiler of

this chapter.

Chap. xxvii. On the commutation of vows and tithes. The chapter as a

whole must be assigned to a later stratum of P, for while vv. 2-25 (on

vows) presuppose the year of Jubilee, the section on tithes, vv.

30-33, marks a later stage of development than Num. xviii. 21 ff. (P);

vv. 26-29 (on firstlings and devoted things) are supplementary

restrictions to vv. 2-25.

LITERATURE.--_Commentaries_: Dillmann-Ryssel, _Die Bücher Exodus und

Leviticus_ (1897); Driver and White, _SBOT. Leviticus_ (English,

1898); B. Baentsch, _Exod. Lev. u. Num._ (HK, 1900); Bertholet,

_Leviticus_ (KHC, 1901). _Criticism_: The Introductions to the Old

Testament by Kuenen, Holzinger, Driver, Cornill, König and the

archaeological works of Benzinger and Nowack. Wellhausen, _Die

Composition des Hexateuchs_, &c. (1899); Kayser, _Das vorexilische

Buch der Urgeschichte Isr._ (1874); Klostermann, _Zeitschrift für

Luth. Theologie_ (1877); Horst, _Lev. xvii.-xxvi. and Hezekiel_

(1881); Wurster, _ZATW_ (1884); Baentsch, _Das Heiligkeitsgesetz_

(1893); L. P. Paton, "The Relation of Lev. 20 to Lev. 17-19,"

_Hebraica_ (1894); "The Original Form of Leviticus," _JBL_ (1897,

1898); "The Holiness Code and Ezekiel," _Pres. and Ref. Review_

(1896); Carpenter, _Composition of the Hexateuch_ (1902). Articles on

Leviticus by G. F. Moore, Hastings's _Diet. Bib._, and G. Harford

Battersby, _Ency. Bib._ (J. F. St.)

LEVY, AMY (1861-1889), English poetess and novelist, second daughter of

Lewis Levy, was born at Clapham on the 10th of November 1861, and was

educated at Newnham College, Cambridge. She showed a precocious aptitude

for writing verse of exceptional merit, and in 1884 she published a

volume of poems, _A Minor Poet and Other Verse_, some of the pieces in

which had already been printed at Cambridge with the title _Xantippe and

Other Poems_. The high level of this first publication was maintained in

_A London Plane Tree and Other Poems_, a collection of lyrics published

in 1889, in which the prevailing pessimism of the writer's temperament

was conspicuous. She had already in 1888 tried her hand at prose fiction

in _The Romance of a Shop_, which was followed by _Reuben Sachs_, a

powerful novel. She committed suicide on the 10th of September 1889.

LEVY, AUGUSTE MICHEL (1844- ), French geologist, was born in Paris on

the 7th of August 1844. He became inspector-general of mines, and

director of the Geological Survey of France. He was distinguished for

his researches on eruptive rocks, their microscopic structure and

origin; and he early employed the polarizing microscope for the

determination of minerals. In his many contributions to scientific

journals he described the granulite group, and dealt with pegmatites,

variolites, eurites, the ophites of the Pyrenees, the extinct volcanoes

of Central France, gneisses, and the origin of crystalline schists. He

wrote _Structures et classification des roches éruptives_ (1889), but

his more elaborate studies were carried on with F. Fouqué. Together they

wrote on the artificial production of felspar, nepheline and other

minerals, and also of meteorites, and produced _Minéralogie

micrographique_ (1879) and _Synthèse des minéraux et des roches_ (1882).

Levy also collaborated with A. Lacroix in _Les Minéraux des roches_

(1888) and _Tableau des minéraux des roches_ (1889).

LEVY (Fr. _levée_, from _lever_, Lat. _levare_, to lift, raise), the

raising of money by the collection of an assessment, &c., a tax or

compulsory contribution; also the collection of a body of men for

military or other purposes. When all the able-bodied men of a nation are

enrolled for service, the French term _levée en masse_, levy in mass, is

frequently used.

LEWALD, FANNY (1811-1889), German author, was born at Königsberg in East

Prussia on the 24th of March 1811, of Jewish parentage. When seventeen

years of age she embraced Christianity, and after travelling in Germany,

France and Italy, settled in 1845 at Berlin. Here, in 1854, she married

the author, Adolf Wilhelm Theodor Stahr (1805-1876), and removed after

his death in 1876 to Dresden, where she resided, engaged in literary

work, until her death on the 5th of August 1889. Fanny Lewald is less

remarkable for her writings, which are mostly sober, matter-of-fact

works, though displaying considerable talent and culture, than for her

championship of "women's rights," a question which she was practically

the first German woman to take up, and for her scathing satire on the

sentimentalism of the Gräfin Hahn Hahn. This authoress she ruthlessly

attacked in the exquisite parody (_Diogena, Roman von Iduna Gräfin H....

H...._ (2nd ed., 1847). Among the best known of her novels are

_Klementine_ (1842); _Prinz Louis Ferdinand_ (1849; 2nd ed., 1859); _Das

Mädchen von Hela_ (1860); _Von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht_ (8 vols.,

1863-1865); _Benvenuto_ (1875), and _Stella_ (1883; English by B.

Marshall, 1884). Of her writings in defence of the emancipation of women

_Osterbriefe für die Frauen_ (1863) and _Für und wider die Frauen_

(1870) are conspicuous. Her autobiography, _Meine Lebensgeschichte_ (6

vols., 1861-1862), is brightly written and affords interesting glimpses

of the literary life of her time.

A selection of her works was published under the title _Gesammelte

Schriften_ in 12 vols. (1870-1874). Cf. K. Frenzel, _Erinnerungen und

Strömungen_ (1890).

LEWANIKA (c. 1860- ), paramount chief of the Barotse and subject tribes

occupying the greater part of the upper Zambezi basin, was the

twenty-second of a long line of rulers, whose founder invaded the

Barotse valley about the beginning of the 17th century, and according to

tradition was the son of a woman named Buya Mamboa by a god. The graves

of successive ruling chiefs are to this day respected and objects of

pilgrimage for purposes of ancestor worship. Lewanika was born on the

upper Kabompo in troublous times, where his father--Letia, a son of a

former ruler--lived in exile during the interregnum of a foreign dynasty

(Makololo), which remained in possession from about 1830 to 1865, when

the Makololo were practically exterminated in a night by a

well-organized revolt. Once more masters of their own country, the

Barotse invited Sepopa, an uncle of Lewanika, to rule over them. Eleven

years of brutality and licence resulted in the tyrant's expulsion and

subsequent assassination, his place being taken by Ngwana-Wina, a

nephew. Within a year abuse of power brought about this chief's downfall

(1877), and he was succeeded by Lobosi, who assumed the name of Lewanika

in 1885. The early years of his reign were also stained by many acts of

blood, until in 1884 the torture and murder of his own brother led to

open rebellion, and it was only through extreme presence of mind that

the chief escaped with his life into exile. His cousin, Akufuna or

Tatela, was then proclaimed chief. It was during his brief reign that

François Coillard, the eminent missionary, arrived at Lialui, the

capital. The following year Lewanika, having collected his partisans,

deposed the usurper and re-established his power. Ruthless revenge not

unmixed with treachery characterized his return to power, but gradually

the strong personality of the high-minded François Coillard so far

influenced him for good that from about 1887 onward he ruled tolerantly

and showed a consistent desire to better the condition of his people. In

1890 Lewanika, who two years previously had proposed to place himself

under the protection of Great Britain, concluded a treaty with the

British South Africa Company, acknowledging its supremacy and conceding

to it certain mineral rights. In 1897 Mr R. T. Coryndon took up his

position at Lialui as British agent, and the country to the east of 25°

E. was thrown open to settlers, that to the west being reserved to the

Barotse chief. In 1905 the king of Italy's award in the Barotse boundary

dispute with Portugal deprived Lewanika of half of his dominions, much

of which had been ruled by his ancestors for many generations. In 1902

Lewanika attended the coronation of Edward VII. as a guest of the

nation. His recognized heir was his eldest son Letia.

See BAROTSE, and the works there cited, especially _On the Threshold

of Central Africa_ (London, 1897), by François Coillard.

(A. St. H. G.)

LEWES, CHARLES LEE (1740-1803), English actor, was the son of a hosier

in London. After attending a school at Ambleside he returned to London,

where he found employment as a postman; but about 1760 he went on the

stage in the provinces, and some three years later began to appear in

minor parts at Covent Garden Theatre. His first rôle of importance was

that of "Young Marlow" in _She Stoops to Conquer_, at its production of

that comedy in 1773, when he delivered an epilogue specially written for

him by Goldsmith. He remained a member of the Covent Garden company till

1783, appearing in many parts, among which were "Fag" in _The Rivals_,

which he "created," and "Sir Anthony Absolute" in the same comedy. In

1783 he removed to Drury Lane, where he assumed the Shakespearian rôles

of "Touchstone," "Lucio" and "Falstaff." In 1787 he left London for

Edinburgh, where he gave recitations, including Cowper's "John Gilpin."

For a short time in 1792 Lewes assisted Stephen Kemble in the management

of the Dundee Theatre; in the following year he went to Dublin, but he

was financially unsuccessful and suffered imprisonment for debt. He

employed his time in compiling his _Memoirs_, a worthless production

published after his death by his son. He was also the author of some

poor dramatic sketches. Lewes died on the 23rd of July 1803. He was

three times married; the philosopher, George Henry Lewes, was his

grandson.

See John Genest, _Some Account of the English Stage_ (Bath, 1832).

LEWES, GEORGE HENRY (1817-1878), British philosopher and literary

critic, was born in London in 1817. He was a grandson of Charles Lee

Lewes, the actor. He was educated in London, Jersey, Brittany, and

finally at Dr Burney's school in Greenwich. Having abandoned

successively a commercial and a medical career, he seriously thought of

becoming an actor, and between 1841 and 1850 appeared several times on

the stage. Finally he devoted himself to literature, science and

philosophy. As early as 1836 he belonged to a club formed for the study

of philosophy, and had sketched out a physiological treatment of the

philosophy of the Scottish school. Two years later he went to Germany,

probably with the intention of studying philosophy. In 1840 he married a

daughter of Swynfen Stevens Jervis (1798-1867), and during the next ten

years supported himself by contributing to the quarterly and other

reviews. These articles discuss a wide variety of subject, and, though

often characterized by hasty impulse and imperfect study, betray a

singularly acute critical judgment, enlightened by philosophic study.

The most valuable are those on the drama, afterwards republished under

the title _Actors and Acting_ (1875). With this may be taken the volume

on _The Spanish Drama_ (1846). The combination of wide scholarship,

philosophic culture and practical acquaintance with the theatre gives

these essays a high place among the best efforts in English dramatic

criticism. In 1845-1846 he published _The Biographical History of

Philosophy_, an attempt to depict the life of philosophers as an

ever-renewed fruitless labour to attain the unattainable. In 1847-1848

he made two attempts in the field of fiction--_Ranthrope_, and _Rose,

Blanche and Violet_--which, though displaying considerable skill both

in plot, construction and in characterization, have taken no permanent

place in literature. The same is to be said of an ingenious attempt to

rehabilitate Robespierre (1849). In 1850 he collaborated with Thornton

Leigh Hunt in the foundation of the _Leader_, of which he was the

literary editor. In 1853 he republished under the title of _Comte's

Philosophy of the Sciences_ a series of papers which had appeared in

that journal. In 1851 he became acquainted with Miss Evans (George

Eliot) and in 1854 left his wife. Subsequently he lived with Miss Evans

as her husband (see ELIOT, GEORGE).

The culmination of Lewes's work in prose literature is the _Life of

Goethe_ (1855), probably the best known of his writings. Lewes's

many-sidedness of mind, and his combination of scientific with literary

tastes, eminently fitted him to appreciate the large nature and the

wide-ranging activity of the German poet. The high position this work

has taken in Germany itself, notwithstanding the boldness of its

criticism and the unpopularity of some of its views (e.g. on the

relation of the second to the first part of _Faust_), is a sufficient

testimony to its general excellence. From about 1853 Lewes's writings

show that he was occupying himself with scientific and more particularly

biological work. He may be said to have always manifested a distinctly

scientific bent in his writings, and his closer devotion to science was

but the following out of early impulses. Considering that he had not had

the usual course of technical training, these studies are a remarkable

testimony to the penetration of his intellect. The most important of

these essays are collected in the volumes _Seaside Studies_ (1858),

_Physiology of Common Life_ (1859), _Studies in Animal Life_ (1862), and

_Aristotle, a Chapter from the History of Science_ (1864). They are much

more than popular expositions of accepted scientific truths. They

contain able criticisms of authorized ideas, and embody the results of

individual research and individual reflection. He made a number of

impressive suggestions, some of which have since been accepted by

physiologists. Of these the most valuable is that now known as the

doctrine of the functional indifference of the nerves--that what are

known as the specific energies of the optic, auditory and other nerves

are simply differences in their mode of action due to the differences of

the peripheral structures or sense-organs with which they are connected.

This idea was subsequently arrived at independently by Wundt

(_Physiologische Psychologie_, 2nd ed., p. 321). In 1865, on the

starting of the _Fortnightly Review_, Lewes became its editor, but he

retained the post for less than two years, when he was succeeded by John

Morley. This date marks the transition from more strictly scientific to

philosophic work. He had from early youth cherished a strong liking for

philosophic studies; one of his earliest essays was an appreciative

account of Hegel's _Aesthetics_. Coming under the influence of

positivism as unfolded both in Comte's own works and in J. S. Mill's

_System of Logic_, he abandoned all faith in the possibility of

metaphysic, and recorded this abandonment in the above-mentioned

_History of Philosophy_. Yet he did not at any time give an unqualified

adhesion to Comte's teachings, and with wider reading and reflection his

mind moved away further from the positivist standpoint. In the preface

to the third edition of his _History of Philosophy_ he avowed a change

in this direction, and this movement is still more plainly discernible

in subsequent editions of the work. The final outcome of this

intellectual progress is given to us in _The Problems of Life and Mind_,

which may be regarded as the crowning work of his life. His sudden death

on the 28th of November 1878 cut short the work, yet it is complete

enough to allow us to judge of the author's matured conceptions on

biological, psychological and metaphysical problems. Of his three sons

only one, Charles (1843-1891), survived him; in the first London County

Council Election (1888) he was elected for St Pancras; he was also much

interested in the Hampstead Heath extension.

_Philosophy._--The first two volumes on _The Foundations of a Creed_

lay down what Lewes regarded as the true principles of philosophizing.

He here seeks to effect a _rapprochement_ between metaphysic and

science. He is still so far a positivist as to pronounce all inquiry

into the ultimate nature of things fruitless. What matter, form,

spirit are in themselves is a futile question that belongs to the

sterile region of "metempirics." But philosophical questions may be so

stated as to be susceptible of a precise solution by scientific

method. Thus, since the relation of subject to object falls within our

experience, it is a proper matter for philosophic investigation. It

may be questioned whether Lewes is right in thus identifying the

methods of science and philosophy. Philosophy is not a mere extension

of scientific knowledge; it is an investigation of the nature and

validity of the knowing process itself. In any case Lewes cannot be

said to have done much to aid in the settlement of properly

philosophical questions. His whole treatment of the question of the

relation of subject to object is vitiated by a confusion between the

scientific truth that mind and body coexist in the living organism and

the philosophic truth that all knowledge of objects implies a knowing

subject. In other words, to use Shadworth Hodgson's phrase, he mixes

up the question of the _genesis_ of mental forms with the question of

their _nature_ (see _Philosophy of Reflexion_, ii. 40-58). Thus he

reaches the "monistic" doctrine that mind and matter are two aspects

of the same existence by attending simply to the parallelism between

psychical and physical processes given as a fact (or a probable fact)

of our experience, and by leaving out of account their relation as

subject and object in the cognitive act. His identification of the two

as phases of one existence is open to criticism, not only from the

point of view of philosophy, but from that of science. In his

treatment of such ideas as "sensibility," "sentience" and the like, he

does not always show whether he is speaking of physical or of

psychical phenomena. Among the other properly philosophic questions

discussed in these two volumes the nature of the casual relation is

perhaps the one which is handled with most freshness and

suggestiveness. The third volume, _The Physical Basis of Mind_,

further develops the writer's views on organic activities as a whole.

He insists strongly on the radical distinction between organic and

inorganic processes, and on the impossibility of ever explaining the

former by purely mechanical principles. With respect to the nervous

system, he holds that all its parts have one and the same elementary

property, namely, sensibility. Thus sensibility belongs as much to the

lower centres of the spinal cord as to the brain, contributing in this

more elementary form elements to the "subconscious" region of mental

life. The higher functions of the nervous system, which make up our

conscious mental life, are merely more complex modifications of this

fundamental property of nerve substance. Closely related to this

doctrine is the view that the nervous organism acts as a whole, that

particular mental operations cannot be referred to definitely

circumscribed regions of the brain, and that the hypothesis of nervous

activity passing in the centre by an isolated pathway from one

nerve-cell to another is altogether illusory. By insisting on the

complete coincidence between the regions of nerve-action and

sentience, and by holding that these are but different aspects of one

thing, he is able to attack the doctrine of animal and human

automatism, which affirms that feeling or consciousness is merely an

incidental concomitant of nerve-action and in no way essential to the

chain of physical events. Lewes's views in psychology, partly opened

up in the earlier volumes of the _Problems_, are more fully worked out

in the last two volumes (3rd series). He discusses the method of

psychology with much insight. He claims against Comte and his

followers a place for introspection in psychological research. In

addition to this subjective method there must be an objective, which

consists partly in a reference to nervous conditions and partly in the

employment of sociological and historical data. Biological knowledge,

or a consideration of the organic conditions, would only help us to

explain mental _functions_, as feeling and thinking; it would not

assist us to understand differences of mental _faculty_ as manifested

in different races and stages of human development. The organic

conditions of these differences will probably for ever escape

detection. Hence they can be explained only as the products of the

social environment. This idea of dealing with mental phenomena in

their relation to social and historical conditions is probably Lewes's

most important contribution to psychology. Among other points which he

emphasizes is the complexity of mental phenomena. Every mental state

is regarded as compounded of three factors in different

proportions--namely, a process of sensible affection, of logical

grouping and of motor impulse. But Lewes's work in psychology consists

less in any definite discoveries than in the inculcation of a sound

and just method. His biological training prepared him to view mind as

a complex unity, in which the various functions interact one on the

other, and of which the highest processes are identical with and

evolved out of the lower. Thus the operations of thought, "or the

logic of signs," are merely a more complicated form of the elementary

operations of sensation and instinct or "the logic of feeling." The

whole of the last volume of the _Problems_ may be said to be an

illustration of this position. It is a valuable repository of

psychological facts, many of them drawn from the more obscure regions

of mental life and from abnormal experience, and is throughout

suggestive and stimulating. To suggest and to stimulate the mind,

rather than to supply it with any complete system of knowledge, may be

said to be Lewes's service in philosophy. The exceptional rapidity and

versatility of his intelligence seems to account at once for the

freshness in his way of envisaging the subject-matter of philosophy

and psychology, and for the want of satisfactory elaboration and of

systematic co-ordination. (J. S.; X.)

LEWES, a market-town and municipal borough and the county town of

Sussex, England, in the Lewes parliamentary division, 50 m. S. from

London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. (1901)

11,249. It is picturesquely situated on the slope of a chalk down

falling to the river Ouse. Ruins of the old castle, supposed to have

been founded by King Alfred and rebuilt by William de Warenne shortly

after the Conquest, rise from the height. There are two mounds which

bore keeps, an uncommon feature. The castle guarded the pass through the

downs formed by the valley of the Ouse. In one of the towers is the

collection of the Sussex Archaeological Society. St Michael's church is

without architectural merit, but contains old brasses and monuments; St

Anne's church is a transitional Norman structure; St Thomas-at-Cliffe is

Perpendicular; St John's, Southover, of mixed architecture, preserves

some early Norman portions, and has some relics of the Warenne family.

In the grounds of the Cluniac priory of St Pancras, founded in 1078, the

leaden coffins of William de Warenne and Gundrada his wife were dug up

during an excavation for the railway in 1845. There is a free grammar

school dating from 1512, and among the other public buildings are the

town hall and corn exchange, county hall, prison, and the Fitzroy

memorial library. The industries include the manufacture of agricultural

implements, brewing, tanning, and iron and brass founding. The municipal

borough is under a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 1042

acres.

The many neolithic and bronze implements that have been discovered, and

the numerous tumuli and earthworks which surround Lewes, indicate its

remote origin. The town Lewes (Loewas, Loewen, Leswa, Laquis,

Latisaquensis) was in the royal demesne of the Saxon kings, from whom it

received the privilege of a market. Æthelstan established two royal

mints there, and by the reign of Edward the Confessor, and probably

before, Lewes was certainly a borough. William I. granted the whole

barony of Lewes, including the revenue arising from the town, to William

de Warenne, who converted an already existing fortification into a place

of residence. His descendants continued to hold the barony until the

beginning of the 14th century. In default of male issue, it then passed

to the earl of Arundel, with whose descendants it remained until 1439,

when it was divided between the Norfolks, Dorsets and Abergavennys. By

1086 the borough had increased 30% in value since the beginning of the

reign, and its importance as a port and market-town is evident from

Domesday. A gild merchant seems to have existed at an early date. The

first mention of it is in a charter of Reginald de Warenne, about 1148,

by which he restored to the burgesses the privileges they had enjoyed in

the time of his grandfather and father, but of which they had been

deprived. In 1595 a "Fellowship" took the place of the old gild and in

conjunction with two constables governed the town until the beginning of

the 18th century. The borough seal probably dates from the 14th century.

Lewes was incorporated by royal charter in 1881. The town returned two

representatives to parliament from 1295 until deprived of one member in

1867. It was disfranchised in 1885. Earl Warenne and his descendants

held the fairs and markets from 1066. In 1792 the fair-days were the 6th

of May, Whit-Tuesday, the 26th of July (for wool), and the 2nd of

October. The market-day was Saturday. Fairs are now held on the 6th of

May for horses and cattle, the 20th of July for wool, and the 21st and

28th of September for Southdown sheep. A corn-market is held every

Tuesday, and a stock-market every alternate Monday. The trade in wool

has been important since the 14th century.

Lewes was the scene of the battle fought on the 14th of May 1264 between

Henry III. and Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. Led by the king and

by his son, the future king Edward I., the royalists left Oxford, took

Northampton and drove Montfort from Rochester into London. Then,

harassed on the route by their foes, they marched through Kent into

Sussex and took up their quarters at Lewes, a stronghold of the royalist

Earl Warenne. Meanwhile, reinforced by a number of Londoners, Earl Simon

left London and reached Fletching, about 9 m. north of Lewes, on the

13th of May. Efforts at reconciliation having failed he led his army

against the town, which he hoped to surprise, early on the following

day. His plan was to direct his main attack against the priory of St

Pancras, which sheltered the king and his brother Richard, earl of

Cornwall, king of the Romans, while causing the enemy to believe that

his principal objective was the castle, where Prince Edward was. But the

surprise was not complete and the royalists rushed from the town to meet

the enemy in the open field. Edward led his followers against the

Londoners, who were gathered around the standard of Montfort, put them

to flight, pursued them for several miles, and killed a great number of

them. Montfort's ruse, however, had been successful. He was not with his

standard as his foes thought, but with the pick of his men he attacked

Henry's followers and took prisoner both the king and his brother.

Before Edward returned from his chase the earl was in possession of the

town. In its streets the prince strove to retrieve his fortunes, but in

vain. Many of his men perished in the river, but others escaped, one

band, consisting of Earl Warenne and others, taking refuge in Pevensey

Castle. Edward himself took sanctuary and on the following day peace was

made between the king and the earl.

LEWES, a town in Sussex county, Delaware, U.S.A., in the S.E. part of

the state, on Delaware Bay. Pop. (1910), 2158. Lewes is served by the

Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington (Pennsylvania System), and the

Maryland, Delaware & Virginia railways. Its harbour is formed by the

Delaware Breakwater, built by the national government and completed in

1869, and 2¼ m. above it another breakwater was completed in December

1901 by the government. The cove between them forms a harbour of refuge

of about 550 acres. At the mouth of Delaware Bay, about 2 m. below

Lewes, is the Henlopen Light, one of the oldest lighthouses in America.

The Delaware Bay pilots make their headquarters at Lewes. Lewes has a

large trade with northern cities in fruits and vegetables, and is a

subport of entry of the Wilmington Customs District. The first

settlement on Delaware soil by Europeans was made near here in 1631 by

Dutch colonists, sent by a company organized in Holland in the previous

year by Samuel Blommaert, Killian van Rensselaer, David Pieterszen de

Vries and others. The settlers called the place Zwaanendael, valley of

swans. The settlement was soon entirely destroyed by the Indians, and a

second body of settlers whom de Vries, who had been made director of the

colony, brought in 1632 remained for only two years. The fact of the

settlement is important; because of it the English did not unite the

Delaware country with Maryland, for the Maryland Charter of 1632

restricted colonization to land within the prescribed boundaries,

uncultivated and either uninhabited or inhabited only by Indians. In

1658 the Dutch established an Indian trading post, and in 1659 erected a

fort at Zwaanendael. After the annexation of the Delaware counties to

Pennsylvania in 1682, its name was changed to Lewes, after the town of

that name in Sussex, England. It was pillaged by French pirates in 1698.

One of the last naval battles of the War of Independence was fought in

the bay near Lewes on the 8th of April 1782, when the American privateer

"Hyder Ally" (16), commanded by Captain Joshua Barnes (1759-1818),

defeated and captured the British sloop "General Monk" (20), which had

been an American privateer, the "General Washington," had been captured

by Admiral Arbuthnot's squadron in 1780, and was now purchased by the

United States government and, as the "General Washington," was commanded

by Captain Barnes in 1782-1784. In March 1813 the town was bombarded by

a British frigate.

See the "History of Lewes" in the _Papers_ of the Historical Society

of Delaware, No. xxxviii. (Wilmington, 1903); and J. T. Scharf,

_History of Delaware_ (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1888).

LEWIS, SIR GEORGE CORNEWALL, BART. (1806-1863), English statesman and

man of letters, was born in London on the 21st of April 1806. His

father, Thomas F. Lewis, of Harpton Court, Radnorshire, after holding

subordinate office in various administrations, became a poor-law

commissioner, and was made a baronet in 1846. Young Lewis was educated

at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, where in 1828 he took a

first-class in classics and a second-class in mathematics. He then

entered the Middle Temple, and was called to the bar in 1831. In 1833 he

undertook his first public work as one of the commissioners to inquire

into the condition of the poor Irish residents in the United Kingdom.[1]

In 1834 Lord Althorp included him in the commission to inquire into the

state of church property and church affairs generally in Ireland. To

this fact we owe his work on _Local Disturbances in Ireland, and the

Irish Church Question_ (London, 1836), in which he condemned the

existing connexion between church and state, proposed a state provision

for the Catholic clergy, and maintained the necessity of an efficient

workhouse organization. During this period Lewis's mind was much

occupied with the study of language. Before leaving college he had

published some observations on Whately's doctrine of the predicables,

and soon afterwards he assisted Thirlwall and Hare in starting the

_Philological Museum_. Its successor, the _Classical Museum_, he also

supported by occasional contributions. In 1835 he published an _Essay on

the Origin and Formation of the Romance Languages_ (re-edited in 1862),

the first effective criticism in England of Raynouard's theory of a

uniform romance tongue, represented by the poetry of the troubadours. He

also compiled a glossary of provincial words used in Herefordshire and

the adjoining counties. But the most important work of this earlier

period was one to which his logical and philological tastes contributed.

_The Remarks on the Use and Abuse of some Political Terms_ (London,

1832) may have been suggested by Bentham's _Book of Parliamentary

Fallacies_, but it shows all that power of clear sober original thinking

which marks his larger and later political works. Moreover, he

translated Boeckh's _Public Economy of Athens_ and Müller's _History of

Greek Literature_, and he assisted Tufnell in the translation of

Müller's _Dorians_. Some time afterwards he edited a text of the

_Fables_ of Babrius. While his friend Hayward conducted the _Law

Magazine_, he wrote in it frequently on such subjects as secondary

punishments and the penitentiary system. In 1836, at the request of Lord

Glenelg, he accompanied John Austin to Malta, where they spent nearly

two years reporting on the condition of the island and framing a new

code of laws. One leading object of both commissioners was to associate

the Maltese in the responsible government of the island. On his return

to England Lewis succeeded his father as one of the principal poor-law

commissioners. In 1841 appeared the _Essay on the Government of

Dependencies_, a systematic statement and discussion of the various

relations in which colonies may stand towards the mother country. In

1844 Lewis married Lady Maria Theresa Lister, sister of Lord Clarendon,

and a lady of literary tastes. Much of their married life was spent in

Kent House, Knightsbridge. They had no children. In 1847 Lewis resigned

his office. He was then returned for the county of Hereford, and Lord

John Russell appointed him secretary to the Board of Control, but a few

months afterwards he became under-secretary to the Home Office. In this

capacity he introduced two important bills, one for the abolition of

turnpike trusts and the management of highways by a mixed county board,

the other for the purpose of defining and regulating the law of

parochial assessment. In 1850 he succeeded Hayter as financial secretary

to the treasury. About this time, also, appeared his _Essay on the

Influence of Authority in Matters of Opinion_. On the dissolution of

parliament which followed the resignation of Lord John Russell's

ministry in 1852, Lewis was defeated for Herefordshire and then for

Peterborough. Excluded from parliament he accepted the editorship of the

_Edinburgh Review_, and remained editor until 1855. During this period

he served on the Oxford commission, and on the commission to inquire

into the government of London. But its chief fruits were the _Treatise

on the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics_, and the

_Enquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History_,[2] in which

he vigorously attacked the theory of epic lays and other theories on

which Niebuhr's reconstruction of that history had proceeded. In 1855

Lewis succeeded his father in the baronetcy. He was at once elected

member for the Radnor boroughs, and Lord Palmerston made him chancellor

of the exchequer. He had a war loan to contract and heavy additional

taxation to impose, but his industry, method and clear vision carried

him safely through. After the change of ministry in 1859 Sir George

became home secretary under Lord Palmerston, and in 1861, much against

his wish, he succeeded Sidney Herbert (Lord Herbert of Lea) at the War

Office. The closing years of his life were marked by increasing

intellectual vigour. In 1859 he published an able _Essay on Foreign

Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals_, a subject to which the

attempt on Napoleon's life, the discussions on the Conspiracy Bill, and

the trial of Bernard, had drawn general attention. He advocated the

extension of extradition treaties, and condemned the principal idea of

_Weltrechtsordnung_ which Mohl of Heidelberg had proposed. His two

latest works were the _Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients_, in

which, without professing any knowledge of Oriental languages, he

applied a sceptical analysis to the ambitious Egyptology of Bunsen; and

the _Dialogue on the Best Form of Government_, in which, under the name

of Crito, the author points out to the supporters of the various systems

that there is no one abstract government which is the best possible for

all times and places. An essay on the _Characteristics of Federal,

National, Provincial and Municipal Government_ does not seem to have

been published. Sir George died in April 1863. A marble bust by Weekes

stands in Westminster Abbey.

Lewis was a man of mild and affectionate disposition, much beloved by a

large circle of friends, among whom were Sir E. Head, the Grotes, the

Austins, Lord Stanhope, J. S. Mill, Dean Milman, the Duff Gordons. In

public life he was distinguished, as Lord Aberdeen said, "for candour,

moderation, love of truth." He had a passion for the systematic

acquirement of knowledge, and a keen and sound critical faculty. His

name has gone down to history as that of a many-sided man, sound in

judgment, unselfish in political life, and abounding in practical good

sense.

A reprint from the _Edinburgh Review_ of his long series of papers on

the _Administration of Great Britain_ appeared in 1864, and his

_Letters to various Friends_ (1870) were edited by his brother

Gilbert, who succeeded him in the baronetcy.