Chapter 15

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 orwelias 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 traditionSouthern 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.33Interest 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.34It 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.36They 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.).37Indeed, 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).38Moreover 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 thefamilyand its descent into Egypt, and belittle its increase into anation, 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

That the journey of Jacob-Israel from his Aramaean relatives into Palestine hints at some pre-Mosaic immigration is possible, but has not been either proved or disproved. The details point rather to a reflection of the entrance ofThe Southern nucleus.the children of Israel, elsewhere ascribed to the leadership of Joshua (q.v.). Though the latter proceeded to Gilgal, a variant tradition, now almost lost, seems to have recorded an immediate journey to Shechem (Deut. xxvii. 1-10, Josh. viii. 30-35) previous to Joshua’s great campaigns (Josh. x. seq., cf. Jacob’s wars). His religious gathering at Shechembefore the dismissal of the tribes finds its parallel in Jacob’s reforms before leaving for Bethel (xxiv.; cf. v. 26, Gen. xxxv. 4). Owing, perhaps, to the locale of the writers, we hear relatively little of the northern tribes. Judah and Simeon are the first to conquer their lot, and the “house of Joseph” proceeds south to Bethel, where the story of the “weeping” at Bochim finds a parallel in the “oak of weeping” (Gen. xxxv. 8). In Gen. xxxviii. “at that time Judah went down from his brethren”—in xxxvii. they are at Shechem or Dothan—and settled among Canaanites, and there is a fragmentary allusion to a similar alliance of Simeon (xlvi. 10). The trend of the two series of traditions is too close to be accidental, yet the present sequence of the narratives in Joshua and Judges associates them with the Exodus. Further, Jacob’s move to Shechem, Bethel and the south is parallel to that of Abraham, but his history actually represents a twofold course. On the one hand, he is the Aramaean (Deut. xxvi. 5), the favourite son of his Aramaean mother. On the other, Rebekah is brought to Beer-lahai-roi (xxiv.), Jacob belongs to the south and he leaves Beersheba for his lengthy sojourn beyond the Jordan. His separation from Esau, the revelation at Bethel, and the new name Israel are recorded twice, and if the entrance into Palestine reflects one ethnological tradition, the possibility that his departure from Beersheba reflects another, finds support (a) in the genealogies which associate the nomad “father” of the southern clans Caleb and Jerahmeel with Gilead (1 Chron. ii. 21), and (b) in the hints of an “exodus” from the district of Kadesh northwards.

The history of an immigration into Palestine from beyond the Jordan would take various shapes in local tradition. In Genesis it is preserved from the southern point of view. The northern standpoint appears when Rachel, mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is the favoured wife in contrast to the despised Leah, mother of Judah and Simeon; when Joseph is supreme among his brethren; and when Judah is included among the “sons” of Israel. It is possible that the application of the traditional immigration to the history of the tribes is secondary. This at all events suggests itself when xxxiv. extends to the history of all the sons, incidents which originally concerned Simeon and Levi alone, and which may have represented the Shechemite version of a “Levitical” tradition (seeLevites). However this may be, it is necessary to account for the nomadic colouring of the narratives (cf. Meyer, pp. 305, 472) and the prominence of southern interests, and it would be in accordance with biblical evidence elsewhere if northern tradition had been taken over and adapted to the standpoint of the southern members of Israel, with the incorporation of local tradition which could only have originated in the south.40These and other indications point to a late date in biblical history. There is a manifest difference between the religious importance of Shechem in the traditions of Joshua (xxiv.) and Jacob’s reforms when he leaves behind him the heathen symbols before journeying to the holy site of Bethel (Gen. xxxv. 4). There is even some polemic against marriage with Shechemites (xxxiv.; more emphatic in Jub. xxx.), while in the story of the Hebronite Abraham, Bethel itself is avoided and Shechem is of little significance. Again, the present object of xxxviii. is to trace the origin of certain Judaean subdivisions after the death of the wicked Er and Onan. It is purely local and is interested in Shelah, and more especially in Perez and Zerah, names of families or clans of the post-exilic age.41Elsewhere, in 1 Chron. ii. and iv., the genealogies represent a Judah composed of clans from the south (Caleb and Jerahmeel) and of small families or guilds, Shelah included. It is not the Judah of the monarchy or of the post-exilic Babylonian-Israelite community. But the mixed elements were ultimately reckoned among the descendants of Judah, through Hezron the “father” of Caleb and Jerahmeel, and just as the southern groups finally became incorporated in Israel, so it is to be observed that although Hebron and Abraham have gained the first place in the patriarchal history, the traditions are no longer specifically Calebite, but are part of the common Israelite heritage.

We are taken to a period in biblical history when, though the historical sources are almost inexplicably scanty, the narratives of the past were approaching their present shape. Some time after the fall of Jerusalem (587B.C.) there was a movement from the south of Judah northwards to the vicinity of Jerusalem (Bethlehem, Kirjath-jearim, &c.), where, as can be gathered from 1 Chron. ii., were congregated Kenite and Rechabite communities and families of scribes. Names related to those of Edomite and kindred groups are found in the late genealogies of both Judah and Benjamin, and recur even among families of the time of Nehemiah.42The same obscure period witnessed the advent of southern families,43the revival of the Davidic dynasty and its mysterious disappearance, the outbreak of fierce hatred of Edom, the return of exiles from Babylonia, the separation of Judah from Samaria and the rise of bitter anti-Samaritan feeling. It closes with the reorganization associated with Ezra and Nehemiah and the compilation of the historical books in practically their present form. It contains diverse interests and changing standpoints by which it is possible to explain the presence of purely southern tradition, the southern treatment of national history, and the antipathy to northern claims. As has already been mentioned, the specifically southern writings have everywhere been modified or adjusted to other standpoints, or have been almost entirely subordinated, and it is noteworthy, therefore, that in narratives elsewhere which reflect rivalries and conflicts among the priestly families, there is sometimes an animus against those whose names and traditions point to a southern origin (seeLevites).

Thus the book of Genesis represents the result of efforts to systematize the earliest history, and to make it a worthy prelude to the Mosaic legislation which formed the charter of Judaism as it was established in or about the 5thSummary.centuryB.C.It goes back to traditions of the most varied character, whose tone was originally more in accord with earlier religion and thought. Though these have been made more edifying, they have not lost their charm and interest. The latest source, it is true, is without their freshness and life, but it is a matter for thankfulness that the simple compilers were conservative, and have neither presented a work entirely on the lines of P, nor rewritten their material as was done by the author of Jubilees and by Josephus. It is obvious that from Jubilees alone it would have been impossible to conceive the form which the traditions had taken a few centuries previously—viz. in Genesis. Also, from P alone it would have been equally impossible to recover the non-priestly forms. But while there is no immeasurable gulf between the canonical book of Genesis and Jubilees, the internal study of the former reveals traces of earlier traditions most profoundly different as regards thought and contents. Itis not otherwise when one looks below the traditional history elsewhere (e.g.Samuel, Kings). An explanation may be found in the vicissitudes of the age. The movement from the south, which seems to account for a considerable cycle of the patriarchal traditions, belongs to the age after the downfall of the Israelite and (later) the Judaean monarchies when there were vital political and social changes. The removal of prominent inhabitants, by Assyria and later by Babylonia, the introduction of colonists from distant lands, and the movements of restless tribes around Palestine were more fatal to the continuity of trustworthy tradition than to the persistence of popular thought. New conditions arose as the population was reorganized, a new Israel claimed to be the heirs of the past (cf.e.g.the Samaritans, Ezr. iv. 2, Joseph.Antiq. ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6), and not until after these vicissitudes did the book of Genesis begin to assume its present shape.44(SeeJews;Palestine:History.)

The above pages handle only the more important details for the study of a book which, as regards contents and literary history, cannot be separated from the series to which it forms the introduction. As regards the literary-critical problems it is clear that with the elimination of P we have the sources (minor adjustment and revision excepted) which were accessible to the last compiler in the post-exilic age. Most critics have inclined to date these sources (J and E) as early as possible, whereas the admitted presence of secondary and of relatively late passages (e.g.xviii. 22 sqq., J; xxii., E) shows that one must work back from the sources as known in P’s age, and that one can rely only upon those criteria which can be approximately dated. It is usual to regard the more primitive character of J and E as a mark of antiquity; but this ignores the regular survival of primitive modes of thought and of popular tradition outside more cultured circles. It is also recognized that J and E are non-prophetical and non-Deuteronomic, but it has not been proved that the present J and E are earlier than the prophets or the Deuteronomic reforms of Josiah (2 Kings xxii. seq.). J and E are linguistically almost identical (in contrast to P), and differ from P in features which are often not of chronological but of sociological significance (e.g.the mentality of the writers). Their language is without some of the phenomena found in narratives which emanate from the north (e.g.Judges v., stories of Elijah and Elisha), and their stylistic variations may be, as Gunkel suggests, the mark of a district or region; for this district one would look in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The conclusion that P’s narratives and laws in the Pentateuch are post-exilic was found by biblical scholars to be a necessary correction to the original hypothesis of Graf (1866) that P’snarrativeswere to be retained (with J and E) at an early date. This view was influenced by the close connexion between the subject-matter, J, E and P representing the same trend of tradition. But by still ascribing J and E as written sources to about the 9th or 8th century (individual opinion varies), many difficulties and inconsistencies are involved. The present J and E reflect a reshaping and readjustment of earlier tradition which is found elsewhere, and the suggestion that they are not far removed from the age of the priestly writers and redactors does not conflict with what is known of language, forms of religious thought, or tendencies of tradition. We reach thus approximately the age when post-Deuteronomic editors were able to utilize such records as Judg. i., xvii. sqq., 2 Sam. ix.-xx. (seeJudges;Samuel, Books of), which are equally valuable as specimens of current thought and of written tradition. In conclusion, the tendency of criticism has been to recognize “schools” of J and E extending into the exile, thus making the three sources J, E and P more nearly contemporaneous. The most recent conservative authority also inclines to a similar contemporaneity (“collaboration” or “co-operation”), but at an impossibly early date (J. Orr,Problem of the O. T., 1905, pp. 216, 345, 354, 375 seq., 527). By admitting possible revision in the post-exilic age (pp. 226, 369, 375 seq.), the conservative theory recalls the old legend that Ezra rewrote the Old Testament (2 Esd. xiv.) and thus restored the Law which had been lost; a view which, through the early Christian Fathers, gained currency and has enjoyed a certain popularity to the present day. But when once revision or rewriting is conceded, there is absolutely no guarantee that the present Pentateuch is in any way identical with the five books which tradition ascribed to Moses (q.v.), and the necessity for a comprehensive critical investigation of thepresentcontents makes itself felt.45Literature.—Only a few of the numerous works can be mentioned. Of those written from a conservative or traditional standpoint the most notable are: W.H. Green’sUnity of Genesis(1895); and J. Orr,Problem of the O. T. (which is nevertheless a great advance upon earlier non-critical literature). S.R. Driver’s commentary (Westminster Series) deals thoroughly with all preliminary problems of criticism, and is the best for the ordinary reader; that of A. Dillmann (6th ed.; Eng. trans.) is more technical, that of W.H. Bennett (Century Bible) is more concise and popular. G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of Genesis, and C.J. Ball (in Haupt’sSacred Books of the O. T.) appeal to Hebrew students. W.E. Addis,Documents of the Hexateuch, Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,The Hexateuch, and C.F. Kent,Beginnings of Hebrew History, are more important for the literary analysis. J. Wellhausen’s sketch in hisProleg. to Hist. of Israel(Eng. trans., pp. 259-342) is admirable, as also is the general Introduction (trans. by W.H. Carruth, 1907) to H. Gunkel’s valuable commentary. Of recent works bearing upon the subject-matter reference may be made to J.P. Peters,Early Hebrew Story(1904), A.R. Gordon,Early Traditions of Genesis(1907), and T.K. Cheyne,Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel(1907). Special mention must be made of Eduard Meyer and B. Luther, to whoseDie Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme(1906) the present writer is indebted for many valuable suggestions and hints. Fuller bibliographical information will be found in the works already mentioned, in the articles in theEncy. Bib. (G.F. Moore), and Hastings’sDict. (G.A. Smith), and in the volume by J. Skinner in the elaborate and encyclopaedicInternational Critical Series.

Literature.—Only a few of the numerous works can be mentioned. Of those written from a conservative or traditional standpoint the most notable are: W.H. Green’sUnity of Genesis(1895); and J. Orr,Problem of the O. T. (which is nevertheless a great advance upon earlier non-critical literature). S.R. Driver’s commentary (Westminster Series) deals thoroughly with all preliminary problems of criticism, and is the best for the ordinary reader; that of A. Dillmann (6th ed.; Eng. trans.) is more technical, that of W.H. Bennett (Century Bible) is more concise and popular. G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of Genesis, and C.J. Ball (in Haupt’sSacred Books of the O. T.) appeal to Hebrew students. W.E. Addis,Documents of the Hexateuch, Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,The Hexateuch, and C.F. Kent,Beginnings of Hebrew History, are more important for the literary analysis. J. Wellhausen’s sketch in hisProleg. to Hist. of Israel(Eng. trans., pp. 259-342) is admirable, as also is the general Introduction (trans. by W.H. Carruth, 1907) to H. Gunkel’s valuable commentary. Of recent works bearing upon the subject-matter reference may be made to J.P. Peters,Early Hebrew Story(1904), A.R. Gordon,Early Traditions of Genesis(1907), and T.K. Cheyne,Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel(1907). Special mention must be made of Eduard Meyer and B. Luther, to whoseDie Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme(1906) the present writer is indebted for many valuable suggestions and hints. Fuller bibliographical information will be found in the works already mentioned, in the articles in theEncy. Bib. (G.F. Moore), and Hastings’sDict. (G.A. Smith), and in the volume by J. Skinner in the elaborate and encyclopaedicInternational Critical Series.

(S. A. C.)

1The abrupt introduction of a small poem (iv. 23 seq.) was long ago regarded as due to the use of separate sources (so the Calvinist Isaac de la Peyrère, 1654).2The divergences of detail, with corresponding stylistic variations, were recognized long ago (e.g.by Father Simon in 1682).3As early as 1685 Jean le Clerc observed that Ur of the Chaldees (Chasdim) in xi. 28 anticipatesChesedin xxii. 22, and implied some knowledge of the land of the Chaldaeans (cf. Ezek. i. 3, xi. 24).4The Catholic priest Andrew du Maes (1570) already pointed to the names Hebron and Dan as signs of post-Mosaic date.5Note the repetitions in vv. 2 and 3; Abraham’s faith, vv. 4-6, and his request,v.8; contrast the time of day,v.5 andv.12, and the dates,v.13 andv.16. Invv.12-15 there is a reference to the bondage in Egypt.6These and other chronological embarrassments, now recognized as due to the framework of the post-exilic writer (P), have long been observed—by Spinoza, 1671.7Points of resemblance in xxiii. with Babylonian usage have often been exaggerated; comparison “shows noteworthy differences” (T.G. Pinches,The Old Testament, p. 238); see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,Hexateuch, i. 64, Driver, Gen. p. 230, andAddenda.8Note,e.g., the sudden introduction of xxix. 15, the curious position ofv.24 (due to P), the double play upon the names Zebulun and Joseph, xxx. 20, 23 seq., the internal intricacies in the agreement,ib.vv.31-43; the difficulties in the reference to the latter in xxxi. 6 sqq. (especially v. 10).9See Ed. Meyer (and B. Luther),Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme(1906), pp. 238 sqq.; also the shrewd remarks of C.T. Beke,Origines biblicae(1834), pp. 123 sqq.10It is interesting to find that the Spanish Rabbi Isaac (of Toledo,A.D.982-1057), noticing that the royal list must be later than the time of Saul (also recognized by Martin Luther and others), proposed to assign the chapter to the age of Jehoshaphat.11But the chronology is hopeless, and only ten years are allowed according to another and later scheme (xxv. 26, xxxv. 28, xlvii. 9).12Cf. the account of the Israelites in Egypt, where they are in Goshen, unaffected by the plagues (Ex. viii. 22, ix. 26), or, according to another view, are living in the midst of the Egyptians (e.g.xii. 23).13V. 7 breaks the context; there is repetition invv.10band 13b; interchange of the names Jacob and Israel;v.12 suggests a blessing upon Joseph himself; and withvv.15 seq. (the blessing of the sons, not of Joseph), contrast vv. 20 sqq. (the singular “in thee,” v. 20).14Only the more noticeable peculiarities have been mentioned in the preceding columns.15On the course of modern criticism and on the various sources: P, J (Judaean or Yahwist), E (Ephraimite or Elohist), seeBible(Old Test. Criticism). The passages usually assigned to P in Genesis are: i. 1-ii. 4a;v.1-28, 30-32; vi. 9-22; vii. 6 (and parts of 7-9), 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24; viii. 1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; ix. 1-17, 28-29; x. 1-7, 20, 22-23, 31-32; xi. 10-27, 31-32; xii. 4b-5; xiii. 6, 11b-12a; xvi. 1a, 3, 15-16; xvii.; xix. 29; xxi. 1b, 2b-5; xxiii.; xxv. 7-11a, 12-17, 19-20, 26b; xxvi. 34-35; xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9; xxix. 24, 28b, 29; xxxi. 18b; xxxiii. 18a; xxxiv. 1-2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, part of 25, 27-29; xxxv. 9-13, 15, 22b-29; xxxvi. (in the main); xxxvii. 1-2a; xli. 46; xlvi. 6-27; xlvii. 5-6a, 7-11, 27b-28; xlviii. 3-7; xlix. 1a, 28b-33, l. 12-13.16See on this, especially, S.R. Driver’sGenesisin the “Westminster Commentaries” (seventh ed., 1909).17The above is typical of modern biblical criticism which is compelled to recognize the human element (and can thus have no a priori preconceptions in approaching the Old Testament), but at the same time reveals ever more decisively the presence of purifying influences, without which the records of Israel would have had no permanent interest or value. They thus gain a new value which cannot be impaired when it is realized that their significance is quite independent of their origins.18See the remarks of W.R. Smith,Eng. Hist. Rev.(1888), pp. 128 seq. (from the sociological side), and for general considerations, A.A. Bevan,Crit. Rev.(1893), pp. 138 sqq.; S.R. Driver,Genesis, pp. xliii. sqq.19Cf. Amos i. 11; 1 Chron. ii. iv. (note iv. 10), the Book of Jubilees (see above), and also Arabian usage (W.R. Smith,Kinship and Marriage, ch. i.). For modern examples, see E. Littmann,Orient. Stud. Theodor Nöldeke(ed. Bezold, 1906), pp. 942-958.20The Book of Jubilees also enables the student to test the arguments based upon any study restricted to Genesis alone. Thus it shows that the “primitive” features of Genesis afford a criterion which is sociological rather than chronological. This is often ignored. For example, the conveyance of the field of Machpelah (xxiii.) is conspicuous for the absence of any reference to a written contract in contrast to the “business” methods in Jer. xxxii. This does not prove that Gen. xxiii. is early, because writing was used in Palestine about 1400B.C., and, on the other hand, the more simple forms of agreement are still familiar after the time of Jeremiah (e.g.Ruth, Proverbs). Similarly, no safe argument can be based upon the institution of blood-revenge in Gen. iv., when one observes the undeveloped conditions among the Trachonites of the time of Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 9, 1), or the varying usages among modern tribes.21On the Jewish forms, see R.H. Charles,Book of Jubilees(1902), pp. 33 seq.22A.H. Sayce,Proc. of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch.(1907), pp. 13-17.23xxvii. 27-29, 39 seq. This is significantly altered in the later writings (Jub. xxvi. 34 and the Targums). It is worth noticing that in Jub. xxvi. 35 a new turn is given to Gen. xxvii. 41 by changing Isaac’s approaching death (which raises serious difficulties in the history of Jacob) into Esau’s wish that it may soon come.24See E. Meyer (and B. Luther),Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme(1906), pp. 386-389, 442-446.25SeePhilistines. The covenant with Abimelech may be compared with the friendship between David and Achish (1 Sam. xxvii.), who is actually called Abimelech in the heading of Ps. xxxiv. (see 1 Sam. xxi. 10). If this is a mistake (and not a variant tradition) it is a very remarkable one. The treatment of the covenant by the author of Jubilees (xxiv. 28 sqq.), on the other hand, is only intelligible when one recalls the attitude of Judah to the Philistine cities in the 2nd centuryB.C.; see R.H. Charles, ad loc.26In 2 Sam. xix. 43 (original text) the men of Israel claim to be the first-born rather than Judah; cf. 1 Chron. v. 1 seq., where the birthright (after Reuben was degraded) is explicitly conferred upon Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh).27Cf. Josephus,Antiq.ii. 8, 2;Test. of xii. Patriarchs; Acts vii. 16 (where Shechem is an error); Oesterley and Box,Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 340 seq.; M.G. Dampier, inChurch and Synagogue(1909), p. 78.28See J.P. Peters,Early Heb. Story(1904), pp. 81 sqq.; S.A. Cook,Relig. of Anc. Palestine(1908), pp. 19 sqq.29In like manner the Babylonian story of the flood has been revised and adapted to the Hebrew Noah (cf.Nippur, ad fin.).30The writer in Jub. xxvii. 27 treats the pillar as a “sign.” Another useful example of revision is to be found in Josh. xxii., where what was regarded (by a reviser) as an object unworthy of the religion of Yahweh is now merely commemorative.31For popular religious thought and practice (often described as pre-prophetical, though non-prophetical would be a safer term), seeHebrew Religion.32Among recent efforts to find and explain mythical elements, see especially Stucken,Astralmythen: H. Winckler,Geschichte Israëls, vol. ii.; and P. Jensen,Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltlitteratur.33Again the analogy of the modern East is instructive. Especially interesting are the traditions associating the same figure or incident with widely separated localities.34SeeExodus, The;Levites. On this feature see Luther and Meyer, op. cit. pp. 158 seq., 227 sqq., 259, 279, 305, 386, 443. Their researches on this subject are indispensable for a critical study of Genesis.35The notion of an Eve (hawwah, “serpent”) as the first woman may be conjecturally associated with (a) the frequent traditions of the serpent-origin of clans, and (b) with evidence which seems to connect the Levites and allied families with some kind of serpent-cult (see Meyer, op. cit. pp. 116, 426 seq., 443, and art.Serpent-worship). The account of mankind as it now reads (ii. seq.) is in several respects less primitive (contrast vi. 1 seq.), and the present story of Cain and his murder of Abel really places the former in an unfavourable light.36See the discussion between B.D. Eerdmans and G.A. Smith in theExpositor(Aug.-Oct. 1908), and the former’sAlttest. Studien, ii. (1908),passim.37xxxiv. (note v. 9) indicates a possible alliance with Shechemites, and xxxv. 4 (taken literally) implies a residence long enough for a religious reform to be necessary. Yet the present aim of the narratives is to link together the traditions and emphasize Jacob’s return from Laban to his dying father (xxviii. 21; xxxi. 3, 13, 18; xxxii. 9; xxxv. 1, 27).38Cf. Benjamin’s descendants in 1 Chron. viii. 6 seq. and see on the naive and primitive character of these traditions, Kittel, comment.ad loc.39That there are traditions in Genesis which do not form the prelude to Exodus is very generally recognized by those who agree that the Israelites after entering Palestine took over some of the indigenous lore (whether from the Canaanites or from a presumed earlier layer of Israelites). This adoption of native tradition by new settlers, however, cannot be confined to any single period. See further, Luther and Meyer,op. cit.pp. 108, 110, 156, 227 seq., 254 seq., 414 seq., 433; on traditions related to the descent into Egypt,ib.122 sqq., 151 seq., 260; and on the story of Joseph (ch. xxxv., xxxvii. sqq.), as an independent cycle used to form a connecting link, Luther,ib.pp. 142-154.40Cf. the late “Deuteronomic” form of Judges where a hero of Kenizzite origin (and therefore closely connected with Caleb) stands at the head of the Israelite “judges”; also, from another aspect, the specifically Judaean and anti-Israelite treatment of the history of the monarchy. But in each case the feature belongs to a relatively late stage in the literary history of the books; seeJudges;Samuel, Books of;Kings.41Mahalalel (son of Kenan, another form of Cain, v. 12) is also a prominent ancestor in Perez (Neh. xi. 4), and Zerah claimed the renowned sages of Solomon’s day (1 Chron. ii. 6, 1 Kings iv. 31). The story implies that Perez surpassed his “brother” clan Zerah (xxxviii. 27-30), and in fact Perez is ultimately reckoned the head of the Judaean subdivisions (1 Chron. ii. 4 sqq.), and thus is the reputed ancestor of the Davidic dynasty (Ruth iv. 12, 18 sqq.).The sympathies of these traditions are as suggestive as their presence in the canonical history, which, it must be remembered, ultimately passed through the hands of Judaean compilers.42Neh. iii. 9, 14; see Meyer, pp. 300, 430; S.A. Cook,Critical Notes on O. T. History, p. 58 n. 2. While the evidence points to an early close relationship among S. Palestinian groups (Edom, Ishmael, &c.; cf. Meyer, p. 446), there are many allusions to subsequent treacherous attacks which made Edom execrable. Here again biblical criticism cannot at present determine precisely when or precisely why the changed attitude began; seeEdom;Jews, §§ 20, 22.43Although the movement reflected in 1 Chron. ii. is scarcely pre-exilic, yet naturally there had always been a close relation between Judah and the south, as the Assyrian inscriptions of the latter part of the 8th centuryB.C.indicate.44The south of Palestine, if less disturbed by these changes, may well have had access to older authoritative material.45For Orr’s other concessions bearing upon Genesis, seeop. cit., pp. 9 seq., 87, 93, and (on J, E, P) 196, 335, 340. These, like the concessions of other apologetic writers, far outweigh the often hypercritical, irrelevant, and superficial objections brought against the literary and historical criticism of Genesis.

1The abrupt introduction of a small poem (iv. 23 seq.) was long ago regarded as due to the use of separate sources (so the Calvinist Isaac de la Peyrère, 1654).

2The divergences of detail, with corresponding stylistic variations, were recognized long ago (e.g.by Father Simon in 1682).

3As early as 1685 Jean le Clerc observed that Ur of the Chaldees (Chasdim) in xi. 28 anticipatesChesedin xxii. 22, and implied some knowledge of the land of the Chaldaeans (cf. Ezek. i. 3, xi. 24).

4The Catholic priest Andrew du Maes (1570) already pointed to the names Hebron and Dan as signs of post-Mosaic date.

5Note the repetitions in vv. 2 and 3; Abraham’s faith, vv. 4-6, and his request,v.8; contrast the time of day,v.5 andv.12, and the dates,v.13 andv.16. Invv.12-15 there is a reference to the bondage in Egypt.

6These and other chronological embarrassments, now recognized as due to the framework of the post-exilic writer (P), have long been observed—by Spinoza, 1671.

7Points of resemblance in xxiii. with Babylonian usage have often been exaggerated; comparison “shows noteworthy differences” (T.G. Pinches,The Old Testament, p. 238); see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby,Hexateuch, i. 64, Driver, Gen. p. 230, andAddenda.

8Note,e.g., the sudden introduction of xxix. 15, the curious position ofv.24 (due to P), the double play upon the names Zebulun and Joseph, xxx. 20, 23 seq., the internal intricacies in the agreement,ib.vv.31-43; the difficulties in the reference to the latter in xxxi. 6 sqq. (especially v. 10).

9See Ed. Meyer (and B. Luther),Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme(1906), pp. 238 sqq.; also the shrewd remarks of C.T. Beke,Origines biblicae(1834), pp. 123 sqq.

10It is interesting to find that the Spanish Rabbi Isaac (of Toledo,A.D.982-1057), noticing that the royal list must be later than the time of Saul (also recognized by Martin Luther and others), proposed to assign the chapter to the age of Jehoshaphat.

11But the chronology is hopeless, and only ten years are allowed according to another and later scheme (xxv. 26, xxxv. 28, xlvii. 9).

12Cf. the account of the Israelites in Egypt, where they are in Goshen, unaffected by the plagues (Ex. viii. 22, ix. 26), or, according to another view, are living in the midst of the Egyptians (e.g.xii. 23).

13V. 7 breaks the context; there is repetition invv.10band 13b; interchange of the names Jacob and Israel;v.12 suggests a blessing upon Joseph himself; and withvv.15 seq. (the blessing of the sons, not of Joseph), contrast vv. 20 sqq. (the singular “in thee,” v. 20).

14Only the more noticeable peculiarities have been mentioned in the preceding columns.

15On the course of modern criticism and on the various sources: P, J (Judaean or Yahwist), E (Ephraimite or Elohist), seeBible(Old Test. Criticism). The passages usually assigned to P in Genesis are: i. 1-ii. 4a;v.1-28, 30-32; vi. 9-22; vii. 6 (and parts of 7-9), 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24; viii. 1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; ix. 1-17, 28-29; x. 1-7, 20, 22-23, 31-32; xi. 10-27, 31-32; xii. 4b-5; xiii. 6, 11b-12a; xvi. 1a, 3, 15-16; xvii.; xix. 29; xxi. 1b, 2b-5; xxiii.; xxv. 7-11a, 12-17, 19-20, 26b; xxvi. 34-35; xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9; xxix. 24, 28b, 29; xxxi. 18b; xxxiii. 18a; xxxiv. 1-2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, part of 25, 27-29; xxxv. 9-13, 15, 22b-29; xxxvi. (in the main); xxxvii. 1-2a; xli. 46; xlvi. 6-27; xlvii. 5-6a, 7-11, 27b-28; xlviii. 3-7; xlix. 1a, 28b-33, l. 12-13.

16See on this, especially, S.R. Driver’sGenesisin the “Westminster Commentaries” (seventh ed., 1909).

17The above is typical of modern biblical criticism which is compelled to recognize the human element (and can thus have no a priori preconceptions in approaching the Old Testament), but at the same time reveals ever more decisively the presence of purifying influences, without which the records of Israel would have had no permanent interest or value. They thus gain a new value which cannot be impaired when it is realized that their significance is quite independent of their origins.

18See the remarks of W.R. Smith,Eng. Hist. Rev.(1888), pp. 128 seq. (from the sociological side), and for general considerations, A.A. Bevan,Crit. Rev.(1893), pp. 138 sqq.; S.R. Driver,Genesis, pp. xliii. sqq.

19Cf. Amos i. 11; 1 Chron. ii. iv. (note iv. 10), the Book of Jubilees (see above), and also Arabian usage (W.R. Smith,Kinship and Marriage, ch. i.). For modern examples, see E. Littmann,Orient. Stud. Theodor Nöldeke(ed. Bezold, 1906), pp. 942-958.

20The Book of Jubilees also enables the student to test the arguments based upon any study restricted to Genesis alone. Thus it shows that the “primitive” features of Genesis afford a criterion which is sociological rather than chronological. This is often ignored. For example, the conveyance of the field of Machpelah (xxiii.) is conspicuous for the absence of any reference to a written contract in contrast to the “business” methods in Jer. xxxii. This does not prove that Gen. xxiii. is early, because writing was used in Palestine about 1400B.C., and, on the other hand, the more simple forms of agreement are still familiar after the time of Jeremiah (e.g.Ruth, Proverbs). Similarly, no safe argument can be based upon the institution of blood-revenge in Gen. iv., when one observes the undeveloped conditions among the Trachonites of the time of Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 9, 1), or the varying usages among modern tribes.

21On the Jewish forms, see R.H. Charles,Book of Jubilees(1902), pp. 33 seq.

22A.H. Sayce,Proc. of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch.(1907), pp. 13-17.

23xxvii. 27-29, 39 seq. This is significantly altered in the later writings (Jub. xxvi. 34 and the Targums). It is worth noticing that in Jub. xxvi. 35 a new turn is given to Gen. xxvii. 41 by changing Isaac’s approaching death (which raises serious difficulties in the history of Jacob) into Esau’s wish that it may soon come.

24See E. Meyer (and B. Luther),Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme(1906), pp. 386-389, 442-446.

25SeePhilistines. The covenant with Abimelech may be compared with the friendship between David and Achish (1 Sam. xxvii.), who is actually called Abimelech in the heading of Ps. xxxiv. (see 1 Sam. xxi. 10). If this is a mistake (and not a variant tradition) it is a very remarkable one. The treatment of the covenant by the author of Jubilees (xxiv. 28 sqq.), on the other hand, is only intelligible when one recalls the attitude of Judah to the Philistine cities in the 2nd centuryB.C.; see R.H. Charles, ad loc.

26In 2 Sam. xix. 43 (original text) the men of Israel claim to be the first-born rather than Judah; cf. 1 Chron. v. 1 seq., where the birthright (after Reuben was degraded) is explicitly conferred upon Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh).

27Cf. Josephus,Antiq.ii. 8, 2;Test. of xii. Patriarchs; Acts vii. 16 (where Shechem is an error); Oesterley and Box,Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 340 seq.; M.G. Dampier, inChurch and Synagogue(1909), p. 78.

28See J.P. Peters,Early Heb. Story(1904), pp. 81 sqq.; S.A. Cook,Relig. of Anc. Palestine(1908), pp. 19 sqq.

29In like manner the Babylonian story of the flood has been revised and adapted to the Hebrew Noah (cf.Nippur, ad fin.).

30The writer in Jub. xxvii. 27 treats the pillar as a “sign.” Another useful example of revision is to be found in Josh. xxii., where what was regarded (by a reviser) as an object unworthy of the religion of Yahweh is now merely commemorative.

31For popular religious thought and practice (often described as pre-prophetical, though non-prophetical would be a safer term), seeHebrew Religion.

32Among recent efforts to find and explain mythical elements, see especially Stucken,Astralmythen: H. Winckler,Geschichte Israëls, vol. ii.; and P. Jensen,Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltlitteratur.

33Again the analogy of the modern East is instructive. Especially interesting are the traditions associating the same figure or incident with widely separated localities.

34SeeExodus, The;Levites. On this feature see Luther and Meyer, op. cit. pp. 158 seq., 227 sqq., 259, 279, 305, 386, 443. Their researches on this subject are indispensable for a critical study of Genesis.

35The notion of an Eve (hawwah, “serpent”) as the first woman may be conjecturally associated with (a) the frequent traditions of the serpent-origin of clans, and (b) with evidence which seems to connect the Levites and allied families with some kind of serpent-cult (see Meyer, op. cit. pp. 116, 426 seq., 443, and art.Serpent-worship). The account of mankind as it now reads (ii. seq.) is in several respects less primitive (contrast vi. 1 seq.), and the present story of Cain and his murder of Abel really places the former in an unfavourable light.

36See the discussion between B.D. Eerdmans and G.A. Smith in theExpositor(Aug.-Oct. 1908), and the former’sAlttest. Studien, ii. (1908),passim.

37xxxiv. (note v. 9) indicates a possible alliance with Shechemites, and xxxv. 4 (taken literally) implies a residence long enough for a religious reform to be necessary. Yet the present aim of the narratives is to link together the traditions and emphasize Jacob’s return from Laban to his dying father (xxviii. 21; xxxi. 3, 13, 18; xxxii. 9; xxxv. 1, 27).

38Cf. Benjamin’s descendants in 1 Chron. viii. 6 seq. and see on the naive and primitive character of these traditions, Kittel, comment.ad loc.

39That there are traditions in Genesis which do not form the prelude to Exodus is very generally recognized by those who agree that the Israelites after entering Palestine took over some of the indigenous lore (whether from the Canaanites or from a presumed earlier layer of Israelites). This adoption of native tradition by new settlers, however, cannot be confined to any single period. See further, Luther and Meyer,op. cit.pp. 108, 110, 156, 227 seq., 254 seq., 414 seq., 433; on traditions related to the descent into Egypt,ib.122 sqq., 151 seq., 260; and on the story of Joseph (ch. xxxv., xxxvii. sqq.), as an independent cycle used to form a connecting link, Luther,ib.pp. 142-154.

40Cf. the late “Deuteronomic” form of Judges where a hero of Kenizzite origin (and therefore closely connected with Caleb) stands at the head of the Israelite “judges”; also, from another aspect, the specifically Judaean and anti-Israelite treatment of the history of the monarchy. But in each case the feature belongs to a relatively late stage in the literary history of the books; seeJudges;Samuel, Books of;Kings.

41Mahalalel (son of Kenan, another form of Cain, v. 12) is also a prominent ancestor in Perez (Neh. xi. 4), and Zerah claimed the renowned sages of Solomon’s day (1 Chron. ii. 6, 1 Kings iv. 31). The story implies that Perez surpassed his “brother” clan Zerah (xxxviii. 27-30), and in fact Perez is ultimately reckoned the head of the Judaean subdivisions (1 Chron. ii. 4 sqq.), and thus is the reputed ancestor of the Davidic dynasty (Ruth iv. 12, 18 sqq.).

The sympathies of these traditions are as suggestive as their presence in the canonical history, which, it must be remembered, ultimately passed through the hands of Judaean compilers.

42Neh. iii. 9, 14; see Meyer, pp. 300, 430; S.A. Cook,Critical Notes on O. T. History, p. 58 n. 2. While the evidence points to an early close relationship among S. Palestinian groups (Edom, Ishmael, &c.; cf. Meyer, p. 446), there are many allusions to subsequent treacherous attacks which made Edom execrable. Here again biblical criticism cannot at present determine precisely when or precisely why the changed attitude began; seeEdom;Jews, §§ 20, 22.

43Although the movement reflected in 1 Chron. ii. is scarcely pre-exilic, yet naturally there had always been a close relation between Judah and the south, as the Assyrian inscriptions of the latter part of the 8th centuryB.C.indicate.

44The south of Palestine, if less disturbed by these changes, may well have had access to older authoritative material.

45For Orr’s other concessions bearing upon Genesis, seeop. cit., pp. 9 seq., 87, 93, and (on J, E, P) 196, 335, 340. These, like the concessions of other apologetic writers, far outweigh the often hypercritical, irrelevant, and superficial objections brought against the literary and historical criticism of Genesis.

GENET, typically a south European carnivorous mammal referable to theViverridaeor family of civets, but also taken to include several allied species from Africa. The true genet (Genetta vulgarisorGenetta genetta) occurs throughout the south of Europe and in Palestine, as well as North Africa. The fur is of a dark-grey colour, thickly spotted with black, and having a dark streak along the back, while the tail, which is nearly as long as the body, is ringed with black and white. The genet is rare in the south of France, but commoner in Spain, where it frequents the banks of streams, and feeds on small mammals and birds. It differs from the true civets in that the anal pouch is a mere depression, and contains only a faint trace of the highly characteristic odour of the former. In south-western Europe and North Africa it is sought for its soft and beautifully spotted fur. In some parts of Europe, the genet, which is easily tamed, is kept like a cat for destroying mice and other vermin.

GENEVA, a city of Ontario county, New York, U.S.A., at the N. end of Seneca Lake, about 52 m. S.E. of Rochester. Pop. (1890) 7557; (1900) 10,433 (of whom 1916 were foreign-born); (1910 census) 12,446. It is served by the New York Central & Hudson River, and the Lehigh Valley railways, and by the Cayuga & Seneca Canal. It is an attractively built city, and has good mineral springs. Malt, tinware, flour and grist-mill products,boilers, stoves and ranges, optical supplies, wall-paper, cereals, canned goods, cutlery, tin cans and wagons are manufactured, and there are also extensive nurseries. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $4,951,964, an increase of 82.3% since 1900. Geneva has a public library, a city hospital and hygienic institute. It is the seat of the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station and of Hobart College (non-sectarian), which was first planned in 1812, was founded in 1822 (the majority of its incorporators being members of the Protestant Episcopal church) as successor to Geneva Academy, received a full charter as Geneva College in 1825, and was renamed Hobart Free College in 1852 and Hobart College in 1860, in honour of Bishop John Henry Hobart. The college had in 1908-1909 107 students, 21 instructors, and a library of 50,000 volumes and 15,000 pamphlets. A co-ordinate woman’s college, the William Smith school for women, opened in 1908, was endowed in 1906 by William Smith of Geneva, who at the same time provided for a Hall of Science and for further instruction in science, especially in biology and psychology. In 1888 the Smith Observatory was built at Geneva, being maintained by William Smith, and placed in charge of Dr William Robert Brooks, professor of astronomy in Hobart College. The municipality owns its water-supply system. Geneva was first settled about 1787 almost on the site of the Indian village of Kanadasega, which was destroyed in 1779 during Gen. John Sullivan’s expedition against the Indians in western New York. It was chartered as a city in 1898.

GENEVA(Fr.Genève, Ger.Genf, Ital.Ginevra, Late Lat.Gebenna, thoughGenavain good Latin), a city and canton of Switzerland, situated at the extreme south-west corner both of the country and of the Lake of Geneva or Lake Leman. The canton is, save Zug, the smallest in the Swiss Confederation, while the city, long the most populous in the land, is now surpassed by Zürich and by Basel.

The canton has an area of 108.9 sq. m., of which 88.5 sq. m. are classed as “productive” (forests covering 9.9 sq. m. and vineyards 6.8 sq. m., the rest being cultivated land). Of the “unproductive” 20.3 sq. m., 11½ are accounted forThe canton.by that portion of the Lake of Geneva which belongs to the canton. It is entirely surrounded by French territory (the department of Haute Savoie lying to the south, and that of the Ain to the west and the north), save for about 3½ m. on the extreme north, where it borders on the Swiss canton of Vaud. The Rhone flows through it from east to west, and then along its south-west edge, the total length of the river in or within the canton being about 13 m., as it is very sinuous. The turbid Arve is by far its largest tributary (left), and flows from the snows of the chain of Mont Blanc, the only other affluent of any size being the London (right). Market gardens, orchards, and vineyards occupy a large proportion of the soil (outside the city), the apparent fertility of which is largely due to the unremitting industry of the inhabitants. In 1901 there were 6586 cows, 3881 horses, 2468 swine and 2048 bee-hives in the canton. Besides building materials, such as sandstone, slate, &c., the only mineral to be found within the canton is bituminous shale, the products of which can be used for petroleum and asphalt. The broad-gauge railways in the canton have a length of 18¾ m., and include bits of the main lines towards Paris and Lausanne (for Bern or the Simplon), while there are also 72¾ m. of electric tramways. The canton was admitted into the Swiss Confederation in 1815 only, and ranks as the junior of the 22 cantons. In 1815-1816 it was created by adding to the old territory belonging to the city (just around it, with the outlying districts of Jussy, Genthod, Satigny and Cartigny) 16 communes (to the south and east, including Carouge and Chêne) ceded by Savoy, and 6 communes (to the north, including Versoix), cut off from the French district of Gex.

In 1900 there were, not counting the city, 27,813 inhabitants in the canton, or, including the city, 132,609, the city alone having thus a population of 104,796. (In the following statistics those for the city are enclosed within brackets.) In 1900 this populationStatistics of canton and city.was thus divided in point of religion: Romanists, 67,162 (49,965), Protestants, 62,400 (52,121), and Jews 1119 (1081). In point of language 109,741 (84,259) were French-speaking, 13,343 (12,004) German-speaking, and 7345 (6574) Italian-speaking, while there were also 89 (76) Romonsch-speaking persons. More remarkable are the results as to nationality: 43,550 (31,607) were Genevese citizens, and 36,415 (30,582) Swiss citizens of other cantons. Of the 52,644 (42,607) foreigners, there were 34,277 (26,018) French, 10,211 (9126) Italians, 4653 (4283) subjects of the German empire, 583 (468) British subjects, 832 (777) Russians, and 285 (251) citizens of the United States of America. In the canton there were 10,821 (5683) inhabited houses, while the number of separate households was 35,450 (28,621). Two points as to these statistics deserve to be noted. The number of foreign residents is steadily rising, for in 1900 there were only 79,965 (62,189) Swiss in all as against 52,644 (42,607) foreigners. One result of this foreign immigration, particularly from France and Italy, has been the rapid increase of Romanists, who now form the majority in the canton, while in the city they were still slightly less numerous than the Protestants in 1900; later (local) statistics give in the Canton 75,400 Romanists to 64,200 Protestants, and in the city 52,638 Romanists to 51,221 Protestants. Geneva has always been a favourite residence of foreigners, though few can ever have expected to hear that the “protestant Rome” has now a Romanist majority as regards its inhabitants. Galiffe (Genève hist. et archéolog.) estimates the population in 1356 at 5800, and in 1404 at 6490, in both cases within the fortifications. In 1536 the old city acquired the outlying districts mentioned above, as well as the suburb of St Gervais on the right bank of the Rhone, so that in 1545 the number is given as 12,500, reduced by 1572 to 11,000. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) it rose, by 1698, to 16,934. Thenceforward the progress was fairly steady: 18,500 (1711); 24,712 (1782); 26,140 (1789). After the creation of the canton (1815) the numbers were (those for the city are enclosed within brackets) 48,489 (25,289), the city rising in 1837 to 33,714, and in 1843 to 36,452. The result of the Federal censuses (begun in 1850) are as follows: in 1850, 64,146 (42,127); in 1860, 82,876 (59,826); in 1870, 88,791 (65,606); in 1880, 99,712 (76,197), and in 1888, 105,509 (81,407).

The canton comprises 3 administrative districts: the 13 communes on the right bank and the 34 on the left bank each form one, while the city proper, on both sides of the river, forms one district and one commune. FromGovernment.1815 to 1842 the city and the cantonal government was the same. But at that date the city obtained its independence, and is now ruled by a town council of 41 members, and an executive of 5 members, the election in each case being made direct by the citizens, and the term of office being 4 years. The existing cantonal constitution dates, in most of its main features, from 1847. The legislature orGrand Conseil(now composed of 100 members) is elected (in the proportion of 1 member for every 1000 inhabitants or fraction over 500) for 3 years by a direct popular vote, subject (since 1892) to the principles of proportional representation, while the executive orconseild’état(7 members) is elected (no proportional representation) by a popular vote for 3 years. By the latest enactments (one dating from 1905) 2500 citizens can claim a vote (“facultative referendum”) as to any legislative project, or can exercise the “right of initiative” as to any such project or as to the revision of the cantonal constitution. The canton sends 2 members (elected by a popular vote) to the FederalStänderath, and 7 to the FederalNationalrath.

The Consistory rules the Established Protestant Church, and is now composed of 31 members, 25 being laymen and 6 (formerly 15) clerics, while the “venerable company of pastors” (pastors actually holding cures) has greatly lost itsReligion.former importance and can now only submit proposals to the Consistory. The Christian Catholic Church is also “established” at Geneva (since 1873) and is governed by theconseil supérieur, composed of 25 lay members and 5 clerics. No other religious denominations are “established” at Geneva. But the Romanists (who form 13% of the electors) are steadily growing in numbersand in influence, while the Christian Catholics are losing ground rapidly, the highest number of votes received by a candidate for theconseil supérieurhaving fallen from 2003 in 1874 to 806 in 1890 and 507 in 1906, while they are abandoning the country churches (some were lost as early as 1892) which they had taken from the Romanists in the course of theKulturkampf.

The fairs of Geneva (held 4 times a year) are mentioned as early as 1262, and attained the height of their prosperity about 1450, but declined after Louis XI.’s grants of 1462-1463 in favour of the fairs of Lyons. Among theIndustry.chief articles brought to these fairs (which were largely frequented by Italian, French and Swiss merchants) were cloth, silk, armour, groceries, wine, timber and salt, this last coming mainly from Provence. The manufacturers of Geneva formed in 1487 no fewer than 38 gilds, including tailors, hatters, mercers, weavers, tanners, saddle-makers, furriers, shoe-makers, painters on glass, &c. Goldsmiths are mentioned as early as 1290. Printing was introduced in 1478 by Steinschaber of Schweinfurth, and flourished much in the 16th century, though the rigorous supervision exercised by the Consistory greatly hampered the Estiennes (Stephanus) in their enterprises. Nowadays the best known industry at Geneva is that of watchmaking, which was introduced in 1587 by Charles Cusin of Autun, and two years later regulations as to the trade were issued. In 1685 there were in Geneva 100 master watchmakers, employing 300 work-people, who turned out 5000 pieces a year, while in 1760 this trade employed 4000 work-people. Of recent years its prosperity has diminished greatly, so that the watchmaking and jewelry trades in 1902 numbered respectively but 38 and 32 of the 394 establishments in Geneva which were subject to the factory laws. Lately, huge establishments have been constructed for the utilization of the power contained in the Rhone. The local commerce of Geneva is much aided by the fact that the city is nearly entirely surrounded by “free zones,” in which no customs duties are levied, though the districts are politically French: this privilege was given to Gex in 1814, and to the Savoyard districts in 1860, when they were also neutralized.

Considering the small size of Geneva, till recently, it is surprising how many celebrated persons have been connected with it as natives or as residents. Here are a few of the principal, special articles being devoted to many of them in thisCelebrities.work. In the 16th century, besides Calvin and Bonivard, we have Isaac Casaubon, the scholar; Robert and Henri Estienne, the printers, and, from 1572 to 1574, Joseph Scaliger himself, though but for a short time. J.J. Rousseau is, of course, the great Genevese of the 18th century. At that period, and in the 19th century, Geneva was a centre of light, especially in the case of various of the physical sciences. Among the scientific celebrities were de Saussure, the most many-sided of all; de Candolle and Boissier, the botanists; Alphonse Favre and Necker, the geologists; Marignac, the chemist; Deluc, the physicist, and Plantamour, the astronomer. Charles Bonnet was both a scientific man and a philosopher, while Amiel belonged to the latter class only. Pradier and Chaponnière, the sculptors; Arlaud, Diday and Calame, the artists; Mallet, who revealed Scandinavia to the literary world; Necker, the minister; Sismondi, the historian of the Italian republics; General Dufour, author of the great survey which bears the name of the “Dufour Map,” have each a niche in the Temple of Fame. Of a less severe type were Cherbuliez, the novelist; Töpffer, who spread a taste for pedestrianism among Swiss youth; Duchosal, the poet; Marc Monnier, the littérateur; not to mention the names of any persons still living, or of politicians of any date.

The city of Geneva is situated at the south-western extremity of the beautiful lake of the same name, whence the “arrowy Rhone” flows westwards under the seven bridges by which the two halves of the town communicate withThe city and its buildings.each other. To the south is the valley of the Arve (descending from the snows of the Mont Blanc chain), which unites with that of the Rhone a little below the town; while behind the Arve the grey and barren rocks of the Petit Salève rise like a wall, which in turn is overtopped by the distant and ethereal snows of Mont Blanc. Yet the actual site of the town is not as picturesque as that of several other spots in Switzerland. Though the cathedral crowns the hillock round which clusters the old part of the town, a large portion of the newer town is built on the alluvial flats on either bank of the Rhone. Since the demolition of the fortifications in 1849 the town has extended in every direction, and particularly on the right bank of the Rhone. It possesses many edifices, public and private, which are handsome or elegant, but it has almost nothing to which the memory reverts as a masterpiece of architectural art. It is possible that this is, in part, due to the artistic blight of the Calvinism which so long dominated the town. But, while lacking the medieval appearance of Fribourg or Bern, or Sion or Coire, the great number of modern fine buildings in Geneva, hotels, villas, &c., gives it an air of prosperity and comfort that attracts many visitors, though on others modern French architecture produces a blinding glare. On the other hand, there are broad quays along the river, while public gardens afford grateful shade.

The cathedral (Protestant) of St Pierre is the finest of the older buildings in the city, but is a second-rate building, though as E.A. Freeman remarks, “it is an excellent example of a small cathedral of its own style and plan, with unusually little later alteration.” The hillock on which it rises was no doubt the site of earlier churches, but the present Transitional building dates only from the 12th and 13th centuries, while its portico was built in the 18th century, after the model of the Pantheon at Rome. It contains a few sepulchral monuments, removed from the cloisters (pulled down in 1721), and a fine modern organ, but the historical old bellLa Clémencehas been replaced by a newer and larger one which bears the same name. More interesting than the church itself is the adjoining chapel of the Maccabees, built in the 15th century, and recently restored. Near the cathedral are the arsenal (now housing the historical museum, in which are preserved many relics of the “Escalade” of 1602, including the famous ladders), and the maison de ville or town hall. The latter building is first mentioned in 1448, but most of the present building dates from far later times, though the quaint paved spiral pathway (taking the place of a staircase in the interior) was made in the middle of the 16th century. In theSalle du Conseil d’Étatsome curious 15th-century frescoes have lately been discovered, while the old Salle des Festins is now known as the Salle de l’Alabama, in memory of the arbitration tribunal of 1872. In the 15th-century Tour Baudet, adjoining the Town Hall, are preserved the rich archives of the city. Not far away is the palais de justice, built in 1709 as a hospital, but used as a court house since 1858. On the Île in the Rhone stands the tower (built c. 1219) of the old castle belonging to the bishop. Among the modern buildings we may mention the following: the University (founded in 1559, but raised to the rank of a University in 1873 only), the Athénée, the Conservatoire de Musique, the Victoria Hall (a concert hall, presented in 1904 to the city by Mr Barton, formerly H.B.M.’s Consul), the theatre, the Salle de la Réformation (for religious lectures and popular concerts), the Bâtiment Electoral, the Russian church and the new post office. At present the museums of various kinds at Geneva are widely dispersed, but a huge new building in course of construction (1906) will ultimately house most of them. The Musée Rath contains pictures and sculptures; the Musée Fol, antiquities of various dates; the Musée des Arts Décoratifs,inter alia, a fine collection of prints; the Musée Industriel, industrial objects and models; the Musée Archéologique, prehistoric and archaeological remains; the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle, scientific collections; and the Musée Epigraphique, a considerable number of inscriptions. Some way out of the town is the Musée Ariana (extensive art collections), left, with a fine park, in 1890 to the city by a rich citizen, Gustave Revilliod. The public library is in the university buildings and contains many valuable MSS. and printed books. Geneva boasts also of a fine observatory and of a number of technical schools (watchmaking, chemistry, medicine, commerce, fine arts, &c.), some of which are really annexes of the university, which in June 1906 was attended by 1158 matriculated students, of whom 903were non-Swiss, the Russians (475 in number) forming the majority of the foreign students. Geneva is well supplied with charitable institutions, hospitals, &c. Among other remarkable sights of the city may be mentioned the great hydraulic establishment (built 1882-1899) of theForces Motrices du Rhône(turbines), the singular monument set up to the memory of the late duke of Brunswick who left his fortune to the city in 1873, and the Île Jean-Jacques Rousseau now connected with the Pont des Bergues. The house occupied by Rousseau is No. 40 in the Grand’ Rue, while No. 13 in the same street is on the site of Calvin’s house, though not the actual dwelling inhabited by him.

The real name of the city isGenava, that being the form under which it appears in almost all the known documents up to the 7th century,A.D., the variationGenua(which has led to great confusion with Genoa) being also found in the 6thHistory.century. ButGenevaandGebennaare of later date. The first mention of the city is made by Caesar (Bell. Galli. i. 6-7) who tells us that it was the lastoppidumof the Allobroges, and the nearest to the territory of the Helvetii, with which it was connected by a bridge that, for military reasons, he was forced to destroy. Inscriptions of later date state that it was only avicusof the Viennese province, while mentioning the fact that a gild of boatmen flourished there. But the many Roman remains found on the original site (in the region of the cathedral) of the city show that it must have been of some importance, and that it possessed a considerable commerce. About 400 theNotitia Galliarumcalls it acivitas(so that it then had a municipal administration of its own), and reckons it as first among those of the Viennese. Probably this rise in dignity was connected with the establishment of a bishop’s see there, the first bishop certainly known, Isaac, being heard of about 400 in a letter addressed by St Eucherius to Salvius, while, in 450, a letter of St Leo states that the see was then a suffragan of the archbishopric of Vienne. It is possible that there may be some ground for the local tradition that Christianity was introduced into this region by Dionysius and Paracodus, who successively occupied the see of Vienne, but another tradition that the first bishop was named St Nazarius rests on a confusion, as that saint belongs to Genoa and not to Geneva.

About the middle of the 5th centuryA.D.it came into the possession of the Burgundians, who held it as late as 527 (thus leaving no room for any occupation by the Ostrogoths), and in 534 passed into the hands of the Franks. The Burgundian kings seem to have made Geneva one of their principal residences, and theNotitia(above named) tells us that the city wasrestaurataby King Gundibald (d. 516) which is generally supposed to mean that he first surrounded it with a wall, the city then comprising little more than the hill on which the present cathedral stands. That building is of course of much later date, but it seems certain that when (c.513-516) Sigismund, son of King Gundibald, built a stone church on the site, it took the place of an earlier wooden church, constructed on Roman foundations, all three layers being clearly visible at the present day. We know that St Avitus, archbishop of Vienne (d. 518), preached a sermon (preserved to us) at the dedication of a church at Geneva which had been built on the site of one burnt by the enemy, and the bits of half-burnt wood found in the second of the two layers mentioned above, seem to make it probable that the reference is to Sigismund’s church. But Geneva was in no sense one of the great cities of the region, though it is mentioned in theAntonine Itineraryand in thePeutinger Table(both 4th centuryA.D.), no doubt owing to its important position on the bank of the Rhone, which then rose to the foot of the hill on which the original city stood. This is no doubt the reason why, apart from some passing allusions (for instance, Charles the Great held a council of war there in 773, on his first journey to Italy), we hear very little about it.

In 1032, with the rest of the kingdom of Burgundy or Arles, it reverted to the emperor Conrad II., who was crowned king at Payerne in 1033, and in 1034 was recognized as such at Geneva by a great assembly of nobles from Germany, Burgundy and Italy, this rather unwilling surrender signifying the union of those 3 kingdoms. It is said that Conrad granted the temporal sovereignty of the city to the bishop, who, in 1162, was raised to the rank of a prince of the Holy Roman Empire, being elected, from 1215, by the chapter, but, after 1418, named directly by the pope himself.

Like many other prince-bishops, the ruler of Geneva had to defend his rights: without against powerful neighbours, and within against the rising power of the citizens. These struggles constitute the entire political history of Geneva up to about 1535, when a new epoch of unrest opens with the adoption of Protestantism. The first foe without was the family of the counts of the Genevois (the region south of the city and in the neighbourhood of Annecy), who were also “protectors” (advocati) of the church of Geneva, and are first heard of in the 11th and 12th centuries. Their influence was probably never stronger than during the rule as bishop (1118-1119) of Guy, the brother of the reigning count. But his successor, Humbert de Grammont, resumed the grants made to the count, and in 1125 by the Accord of Seyssel, the count fully acknowledged the suzerainty of the bishop. A fresh struggle under Bishop Ardutius (1135-1185) ended in the confirmation by Frederick Barbarossa, as emperor, of the position of the bishop as subject to no one but himself (1153), this declaration being strengthened by the elevation of the bishop and his successors to the rank of princes of the empire (1162).

In 1250 the counts of Savoy first appear in connexion with Geneva, being mortgagees of the Genevois family, and, in 1263, practically their heirs as “protectors” of the city. It was thus natural that the citizens should invoke the aid of Savoy against their bishop, Robert of the Genevois (1276-1287). But Count Amadeus of Savoy not merely seized (1287) the castle built by the bishops (about 1219) on the Île, but also (1288) the office ofvicedominus[vidomne], the official through whom the bishop exercised his minor judicial rights. The new bishop, William of Conflans (1287-1295) could recover neither, and in 1290 had to formally recognize the position of Savoy (which was thus legalized) in his own cathedral city. It was during this struggle that about 1287 (these privileges were finally sanctioned by the bishop in 1300) the citizens organized themselves into a commune or corporation, elected 4 syndics, and showed their independent position by causing a seal for the city to be prepared. The bishop was thus threatened on two sides by foes of whom the influence was rising, and against whom his struggles were of no avail. In 1365 the count obtained from the emperor the office of imperial vicar over Geneva, but the next bishop William of Marcossay (1366-1377: he began the construction of a new wall round the greatly extended city, a process not completed till 1428) secured the withdrawal of this usurpation (1366-1367), which the count finally renounced (1371). One of that bishop’s successors, Adhémar Fabri (1385-1388) codified and confirmed all the franchises, rights and privileges of the citizens (1387), this grant being theMagna Cartaof the city of Geneva. In 1401 Amadeus VIII. of Savoy bought the county of the Genevois, as the dynasty of its rulers had become extinct. Geneva was now surrounded on all sides by the dominions of the house of Savoy.

Amadeus did homage, in 1405, to the bishop for those of the newly acquired lands which he held from the bishop. But, after his power had been strengthened by his elevation (1417) by the emperor to the rank of a duke, and by his succession to the principality of Piedmont (1418, long held by a cadet branch of his house), Amadeus tried to purchase Geneva from its bishop, John of Pierre-Scisé or Rochetaillée (1418-1422). This offer was refused both by the bishop and by the citizens, while in 1420 the emperor Sigismund declared that he alone was the suzerain of the city, and forbade any one to attack it or harm it in any fashion. Oddly enough Amadeus did in the end get hold of the city, for, having been elected pope under the name of Felix V., he named himself to the vacant see of Geneva (1444), and kept it, after his resignation of the Papacy in 1449, till his death in 1451. For the most part of this period he resided in Geneva. From 1451 to 1522 the see was almost continuously held by a cadet of the house of Savoy, which thus treated it as a kind of appange.

Most probably Geneva would soon have become an integral part of the realms of the house of Savoy had it not been for the appearance of a new protector on the scene—the Swiss confederation. In the early 15th century the town of Fribourg made an alliance with Geneva for commercial purposes (the cloth warehouses of Fribourg at Geneva being enlarged in 1432 and 1465), as the cloth manufactured at Fribourg found a market in the fairs of Geneva (which are mentioned as early as 1262, and were at the height of their prosperity about 1450). The duke, however, was no better inclined towards the Swiss than towards Geneva. He struck a blow at both, when, in 1462-1463, he induced his son-in-law, Louis XI. of France, to forbid French merchants to attend the fairs of Geneva, altering also the days of the fairs at Lyons (established in 1420 and increased in number in 1463) so as to make them clash with those fixed for the fairs of Geneva. This nearly ruined Geneva, which, too, in 1477 had to pay a large indemnity to the Swiss army that, after the defeat of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, advanced to take vengeance on the dominions of his ally, Yolande, dowager duchess of Savoy and sister of Louis XI., as well as on the bishop of Geneva, her brother-in-law. But, after this payment, the bishop made an alliance with the Swiss. A prolonged attempt was made (1517-1530) by the reigning duke of Savoy, Charles III. (1504-1553), to secure Geneva for his family, at first with the help of his bastard cousin John (1513-1522), the last of his house to hold the see. In this struggle the syndic, Philibert Berthelier, succeeded in concluding (1519) an alliance with Fribourg, which, however, had to be given up almost immediately. It split the citizens into two parties; theEidgenotsrelying on the Swiss, while theMamelus(mamelukes) supported the duke. Berthelier was executed in 1519, and Amé Lévrier in 1524, but Bezanson Hugues (d. 1532) took their place, and in 1526 succeeded in renewing the alliance with Fribourg and adding to it one with Bern. This much enraged the duke, who took active steps against the citizens, and tried (1527) to carry off the bishop, Pierre de la Baume (1522-1544), who soon found it best to make his submission.

The Genevese, thus abandoned by their natural protector, looked to the Swiss for help. They sent (October 1530) a considerable army to save the city. This armed intervention compelled the duke to sign the treaty of St Julien (19th October) by which he engaged not to trouble the Genevese any more, agreeing that if he did so the two towns of Fribourg and Bern should have the right to occupy his barony of Vaud. The two towns also, by the decision given as arbitrators at Payerne (30th December 1530), upheld their alliance with Geneva, condemned the duke to pay all the expenses of the war, and confirmed the clause as to their right to occupy Vaud; they also surrounding the exercise of the powers ofvidomneby the duke with so many restrictions that in 1532 the duke, after much resistance, formally agreed to recognize the alliance of Geneva with the two towns and not to annoy the Genevese any more. Thus a legal tie between Geneva and two of the Swiss cantons was established, while the duke did not any longer venture to annoy the Genevese, as he clung to his fine barony of Vaud. In the course of this struggle (and especially after the last episcopalvidomnehad left the town in 1526) the municipal authorities of the city greatly developed, agrand conseilof 200 members being set up in imitation of those at Bern and at Fribourg, while within the larger assembly there was apetit conseilof 60 members for more confidential business. Thus 1530 marks the date at which Geneva became its own mistress within, while allied externally with the Swiss confederation. But hardly had this settlement been reached when a fresh element of discord threatened to wholly upset matters—the adoption of Protestant principles by the city. Just before this event, however, the fortifications were once more (1534) rebuilt (bits still remain) and extended so as to take in several new suburbs, including that of St Gervais on the right bank of the Rhone which, till then, seems to have been unenclosed (1511-1527).

In 1532 William Farel, a Protestant preacher from Dauphiné, who had converted Vaud, &c. to the new belief, first came to Geneva and settled there in 1533. But although Bern supported the Reform, Fribourg did not, and in 1534 withdrew from its alliance with Geneva, while directly afterwards the duke of Savoy made a fresh attempt to seize the city. On the 10th of August 1535 the Protestant faith was formally adopted by Geneva, but an offer of help from France having been refused, as the city was unwilling to give up any of its sovereign rights, the duke’s party continued its intrigues. Finally Bern, fearing that Geneva might fall to France instead of to itself, sent an army to protect the city (January 1536), but, not being able to persuade the citizens to give up their freedom, had to content itself with the conquest of the barony of Vaud and of the bishopric of Lausanne, thus acquiring rich territories, while becoming close neighbours of Geneva (January and March 1536). Meanwhile Farel had been advancing the cause of religious reform, which was definitively adopted on the 21st of May 1536. In July 1536 a French refugee, John Calvin (q.v.), came to Geneva for a night, but was detained by Farel who found in him a powerful helper. The opposition party of theLibertinssucceeded in getting them both exiled in 1538, but, in September 1541, Calvin was recalled (Farel spending the rest of his life at Neuchâtel, where he died 1565) to Geneva. Born in 1509, he was then about 32 years of age. He set up this theocracy in Geneva, and ruled the reorganized republic with a strong hand till his death in 1564, when he was succeeded by the milder Théodore de Beza (1519-1605).

Back to Index Next