Chapter 3

The chief authorities are theLife, by W. J. Fitzpatrick (1879), and theLetters, ed. in 2 vols. by Edmund Downey (1906), neither of which, however, enables the reader to penetrate below the surface. See also Dr Garnett inDict. Nat. Biog.;Dublin Univ. Mag.(1880), 465 and 570; Anthony Trollope’sAutobiography;Blackwood(August 1862);Fortnightly Review, vol. xxxii.; Andrew Lang’sEssays in Little(1892); Henley’sViews and Reviews; Hugh Walker’sLiterature of the Victorian Era(1910);The Bookman Hist. of English Literature(1906), p. 467;Bookman(June 1906; portraits). A library edition of the novels in 37 vols. appeared 1897-1899 under the superintendence of Lever’s daughter, Julie Kate Neville.

(T. Se.)

LEVER(through O. Fr.leveour,levere, mod.levier, from Lat.levare, to lift, raise), a mechanical device for raising bodies; the “simple” lever consists of a rigid bar free to move about a fixed point, termed thefulcrum; one point of the rod is connected to the piece to be moved, and power is applied at another point (seeMechanics).

LEVERRIER, URBAIN JEAN JOSEPH(1811-1877), French astronomer, was born at St Lô in Normandy on the 11th of March 1811. His father, who held a small post under government, made great efforts to send him to Paris, where a brilliant examination gained him, in 1831, admittance to the École Polytechnique. The distinction of his career there was rewarded with a free choice amongst the departments of the public service open to pupils of the school. He selected the administration of tobaccos, addressing himself especially to chemical researches under the guidance of Gay-Lussac, and gave striking proof of ability in two papers on the combinations of phosphorus with hydrogen and oxygen, published inAnnales de Chimie et de Physique(1835 and 1837). His astronomical vocation, like that of Kepler, came from without. The place of teacher of that science at the École Polytechnique falling vacant in 1837, it was offered to and accepted by Leverrier, who, “docile to circumstance,” instantly abandoned chemistry, and directed the whole of his powers to celestial mechanics. The first fruits of his labours were contained in two memoirs presented to the Academy, September 16 and October 14, 1839. Pursuing the investigations of Laplace, he demonstrated with greater rigour the stability of the solar system, and calculated the limits within which the eccentricities and inclinations of the planetary orbits vary. This remarkable début excited much attention, and, on the recommendation of François Arago, he took in hand the theory of Mercury, producing, in 1843, vastly improved tables of that planet. The perturbations of the comets discovered, the one by H. A. E. A. Faye in November 1843, the other by Francesco de Vico a year later, were minutely investigated by Leverrier, with the result of disproving the supposed identity of the first with Lexell’s lost comet of 1770, and of the other with Tycho’s of 1585. On the other hand, he made it appear all but certain that Vico’s comet was the same with one seen by Philippe de Lahire in 1678. Recalled once more, by the summons of Arago, to planetary studies, he was this time invited to turn his attention to Uranus. Step by step, with sagacious and patient accuracy, he advanced to the great discovery which has immortalized his name. Carefully sifting all the known causes of disturbance, he showed that one previously unknown had to be reckoned with, and on the 23rd of September 1846 the planet Neptune was discerned by J. G. Galle (d. 1910) at Berlin, within one degree of the spot Leverrier had indicated (seeNeptune).

This memorable achievement was greeted with an outburst of public enthusiasm. Academies vied with each other in enrolling Leverrier among their members; the Royal Society awarded him the Copley medal; the king of Denmark sent him the order of the Dannebrog; he was named officer in the Legion of Honour, and preceptor to the comte de Paris; a chair of astronomy was created for his benefit at the Faculty of Sciences; he was appointed adjunct astronomer to the Bureau of Longitudes. Returned to the Legislative Assembly in 1849 by his native department of Manche, he voted with the anti-republican party, but devoted his principal attention to subjects connected with science and education. After thecoup d’étatof 1851 he became a senator and inspector-general of superior instruction, sat upon the commission for the reform of the École Polytechnique (1854), and, on the 30th of January 1854, succeeded Arago as director of the Paris observatory. His official work in the latter capacity would alone have strained the energies of an ordinary man. The institution had fallen into a state of lamentable inefficiency. Leverrier placed it on a totally new footing, freed it from the control of the Bureau of Longitudes, and raised it to its due rank among the observatories of Europe. He did not escape the common lot of reformers. His uncompromising measures and unconciliatory manner of enforcing them raised a storm only appeased by his removal on the 5th of February 1870. On the death of his successor Charles Eugène Delaunay (1816-1872), he was reinstated by Thiers, but with authority restricted by the supervision of a council. In the midst of these disquietudes, he executed a task of gigantic proportions. This was nothing less than the complete revision cf the planetary theories, followed by a laborious comparison of results with the most authentic observations, and the construction of tables representing the movements thus corrected. It required all his indomitable perseverance to carry through a purpose which failing health continually menaced with frustration. He had, however, the happiness of living long enough to perfect his work. Three weeks after he had affixed his signature to the printed sheets of the theory of Neptune he died at Paris on the 23rd of September 1877. By his marriage with Mademoiselle Choquet, who survived him little more than a month, he left a son and daughter.

The discovery with which Leverrier’s name is popularly identified was only an incident in his career. The elaboration of the scheme of the heavens traced out by P. S. Laplace in theMécanique célestewas its larger aim, for the accomplishment of which forty years of unremitting industry barely sufficed. He nevertheless found time to organize the meteorological service in France and to promote the present system of international weather-warnings. He founded the Association Scientifique, and was active in introducing a practical scientific element into public education. His inference of the existence, between Mercury and the sun, of an appreciable quantity of circulating matter (Comptes rendus, 1859, ii. 379), has not yet been verified. He was twice, in 1868 and 1876, the recipient of the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, London, and the university of Cambridge conferred upon him, in 1875, the honorary degree of LL.D. His planetary and solar tables were adopted by theNautical Almanac, as well as by theConnaissance des temps.TheAnnales de l’Observatoire de Paris, the publication of which was set on foot by Leverrier, contain, in vols. i.-vi. (Mémoires) (1855-1861) and x.-xiv. (1874-1877), his theories and tables of the several planets. In vol. i. will be found, besides his masterly report on the observatory, a general theory of secular inequalities, in which the development of the disturbing function was carried further than had previously been attempted.The memoirs and papers communicated by him to the Academy were summarized inComptes rendus(1839-1876), and the more important published in full either separately or in theConn. des tempsand theJournal des mathématiques. That entitledDéveloppemens sur différents points de la théorie des perturbations(1841), was translated in part xviii. of Taylor’sScientific Memoirs. For his scientific work see Professor Adams’s address,Monthly Notices, xxxvi. 232, and F. Tisserand’s review inAnn. de l’Obs.tom. xv. (1880); for a notice of his life, J. Bertrand’s “Éloge historique,”Mém. de l’Ac. des Sciences, tom, xli., 2mesérie.

TheAnnales de l’Observatoire de Paris, the publication of which was set on foot by Leverrier, contain, in vols. i.-vi. (Mémoires) (1855-1861) and x.-xiv. (1874-1877), his theories and tables of the several planets. In vol. i. will be found, besides his masterly report on the observatory, a general theory of secular inequalities, in which the development of the disturbing function was carried further than had previously been attempted.

The memoirs and papers communicated by him to the Academy were summarized inComptes rendus(1839-1876), and the more important published in full either separately or in theConn. des tempsand theJournal des mathématiques. That entitledDéveloppemens sur différents points de la théorie des perturbations(1841), was translated in part xviii. of Taylor’sScientific Memoirs. For his scientific work see Professor Adams’s address,Monthly Notices, xxxvi. 232, and F. Tisserand’s review inAnn. de l’Obs.tom. xv. (1880); for a notice of his life, J. Bertrand’s “Éloge historique,”Mém. de l’Ac. des Sciences, tom, xli., 2mesérie.

(A. M. C.)

LEVERTIN, OSCAR IVAN(1862-1906), Swedish poet and man of letters, was born of Jewish parents at Norrköping on the 17th of July 1862. He received his doctorate in letters at Upsala in 1887, and was subsequentlydocentat Upsala, and later professor of literature at Stockholm. Enforced sojourns in southern Europe on account of health familiarized him with foreign languages. He began by being an extreme follower of the naturalist school, but on his return in 1890 from a two years’ residence in Davos he wrote, in collaboration with the poet C. G. Verner von Heidenstam (b. 1859), a novel,Pepitas bröllop(1890), which was a direct attack on naturalism. His later volumes of short stories,RococonovellerandSista noveller, are fine examples of modern Swedish fiction. The lyrical beauty of his poems,Legender och visor(1891), placed him at the head of the romantic reaction in Sweden. In his poems entitledNya Dikter(1894) he drew his material partly from medieval sources, and a thirdvolume of poetry in 1902 sustained his reputation. His last poetical work (1905) wasKung Salomo och Morolf, poems founded on an eastern legend. As a critic he first attracted attention by his books on the Gustavian age of Swedish letters:Teater och drama under Gustaf III.(1889), &c. He was an active collaborator in the reviewOrd och Bild. He died in 1906, at a time when he was engaged on hisLinné, posthumously published, a fragment of a great work on Linnaeus.

LEVI, HERMANN(1839-1900), German orchestral conductor, was born at Giessen on the 7th of November 1839, and was the son of a Jewish rabbi. He was educated at Giessen and Mannheim, and came under Vincenz Lachner’s notice. From 1855 to 1858 Levi studied at the Leipzig conservatorium, and after a series of travels which took him to Paris, he obtained his first post as music director at Saarbrücken, which post he exchanged for that at Mannheim in 1861. From 1862 to 1864 he was chief conductor of the German opera in Rotterdam, then till 1872 at Carlsruhe, when he went to Munich, a post he held until 1896, when ill-health compelled him to resign. Levi’s name is indissolubly connected with the increased public appreciation of Wagner’s music. He conducted the first performance ofParsifalat Bayreuth in 1882, and was connected with the musical life of that place during the remainder of his career. He visited London in 1895.

LEVI, LEONE(1821-1888), English jurist and statistician, was born of Jewish parents on the 6th of June 1821, at Ancona, Italy. After receiving an early training in a business house in his native town, he went to Liverpool in 1844, became naturalized, and changing his faith, joined the Presbyterian church. Perceiving the necessity, in view of the unsystematic condition of the English law on the subject, for the establishment of chambers and tribunals of commerce in England, he warmly advocated their institution in numerous pamphlets; and as a result of his labours the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, of which Levi was made secretary, was founded in 1849. In 1850 Levi published hisCommercial Law of the World, being an exhaustive and comparative treatise upon the laws and codes of mercantile countries. Appointed in 1852 to the chair of commercial law in King’s College, London, he proved himself a highly competent and popular instructor, and his evening classes were a most successful innovation. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1859, and received from the university of Tübingen the degree of doctor of political science. His chief work—History of British Commerce and of the Economic Progress of the British Nation, 1763-1870, is perhaps a rather too partisan account of British economic development, being a eulogy upon the blessings of Free Trade, but its value as a work of reference cannot be gainsaid. Among his other works are:Work and Pay;Wages and Earnings of the Working Classes;International Law, with Materials for a Code. He died on the 7th of May 1888.

LEVIATHAN,the Hebrew name (livyāthān), occurring in the poetical books of the Bible, of a gigantic animal, apparently the sea or water equivalent of behemoth (q.v.), the king of the animals of the dry land. In Job xli. 15 it would seem to represent the crocodile, in Isaiah xxvii. 1 it is a crooked and piercing serpent, the dragon of the sea; cf. Psalms civ. 26. The etymology of the word is uncertain, but it has been taken to be connected with a root meaning “to twist.” Apart from its scriptural usage, the word is applied to any gigantic marine animal such as the whale, and hence, figuratively, of very large ships, and also of persons of outstanding strength, power, wealth or influence. Hobbes adopted the name as the title of his principal work, applying it to “the multitude so united in one person ... called a commonwealth.... This is the generation of that Leviathan, or rather ... of that mortal God, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence.”

LEVIRATE(Lat.levir, a husband’s brother), a custom, sometimes even a law, compelling a dead man’s brother to marry his widow. It seems to have been widespread in primitive times, and is common to-day. Of the origin and primitive purpose of the levirate marriage various explanations have been put forward:—

1. It has been urged that the custom was primarily based on the law of inheritance; a wife, regarded as a chattel, being inherited like other possessions. The social advantage of providing one who should maintain the widow doubtless aided the spread of the custom. The abandonment of a woman and her children in the nomadic stage of civilization would be equivalent to death for them; hence with some peoples the levirate became a duty rather than a right. Among the Thlinkets, for example, when a man dies, his brother or his sister’s son must marry the widow, a failure in this duty occasioning feuds. The obligation on a man to provide for his sister-in-law is analogous to other duties devolving on kinsfolk, such as the vendetta.

2. J. F. McLennan, however, would assume the levirate to be a relic of polyandry, and in his argument lays much stress on the fact that it is the dead man’sbrotherwho inherits the widow. But among many races who follow the custom, such as the Fijians, Samoans, Papuans of New Guinea, the Caroline Islanders, and some tribes in the interior of Western Equatorial Africa, the rule of inheritance is to the brother first. Thus among the Santals, “when the elder brother dies, the next younger inherits the widow, children and all the property.” Further, there is no known race where it is permitted to a son to marry his own mother. Inheriting a woman in primitive societies would be always tantamount to marrying her, and, apart from any special laws of inheritance, it would be natural for the brother to take over the widow. In polygamous countries where a man leaves many widows the son would have a right of ownership over these, and could dispose of them or keep them as he pleased, his own mother alone excepted. Thus among the Bakalai, an African tribe, widows may marry the son of their dead husband, or in default of a son, can live with the brother. The Negroes of Benin and the Gabun and the Kaffirs of Natal have similar customs. In New Caledonia every man, married or single, must immediately marry his brother’s widow. In Polynesia the levirate has the force of law, and it is common throughout America and Asia.

3. Another explanation of the custom has been sought in a semi-religious motive which has had extraordinary influence in countries where to die without issue is regarded as a terrible calamity. The fear of this catastrophe would readily arise among people who did not believe in personal immortality, and to whom the extinction of their line would be tantamount to annihilation. Or it is easily conceivable as a natural result of ancestor-worship, under which failure of offspring entailed deprivation of cherished rites and service.1Thus it is only when the dead man has no offspring that the Jewish, Hindu and Malagasy laws prescribe that the brother shall “raise up seed” to him. In this sense the levirate forms part of the Deuteronomic Code, under which, however, the obligation is restricted to the brother who “dwelleth together” (i.e.on the family estate) with the dead man, and the first child only of the levirate marriage is regarded as that of the dead man. That the custom was obsolescent seems proved by the enjoining of ceremony on any brother who wished to evade the duty, though he had to submit to an insult from his sister-in-law, who draws off his sandal and spits in his face. The biblical story of Ruth exemplifies the custom, though with further modifications (seeRuth, Book of). Finally the custom is forbidden in Leviticus, though in New Testament times the levirate law was still observed by some Jews. The ceremony ordained by Deuteronomy is still observed among the orthodox. Among the Hindus thelevirdid not take his brother’s widow as wife, but he had intercourse with her. This practice was calledniyoga.

4. Yet another suggested origin of the levirate is agrarian, the motive being to keep together under the levirate husband theproperty which would otherwise have been divided among all the brothers or next of kin.

See J. F. McLennan,Studies in Ancient History(London, 1886) and “The Levirate and Polyandry,” inThe Fortnightly Review, n.s. vol. xxi. (1877); C. N. Starcke,The Primitive Family in its Origin and Development(London, 1889); Edward Westermarck,History of Human Marriage(London, 1894), pp. 510-514, where are valuable notes containing references to numerous books of travel; H. Spencer,Principles of Sociology, ii. 649; A. H. Post,Einleitung in das Stud. d. Ethnolog. Jurisprud. (1886).

1An expression of this idea is quoted from theMahābhārata(Muir’s trans.), by Max Müller (Gifford Lectures),Anthropological Religion, p. 31—“That stage completed, seek a wifeAnd gain the fruit of wedded life,A race of sons, by rites to seal,When thou art gone, thy spirit’s weal.”

1An expression of this idea is quoted from theMahābhārata(Muir’s trans.), by Max Müller (Gifford Lectures),Anthropological Religion, p. 31—

“That stage completed, seek a wifeAnd gain the fruit of wedded life,A race of sons, by rites to seal,When thou art gone, thy spirit’s weal.”

“That stage completed, seek a wife

And gain the fruit of wedded life,

A race of sons, by rites to seal,

When thou art gone, thy spirit’s weal.”

LÉVIS(formerly Pointe Levi), the chief town of Lévis county, Quebec, Canada, situated on the precipitous south bank of the St Lawrence, opposite Quebec city. Pop. (1901) 7783. It is on the Intercolonial railway, and is the eastern terminus of the Grand Trunk and Quebec Central railways. It contains the Lorne dock, a Dominion government graving dock, 445 ft. long, 100 ft. wide, with a depth on the sill of 26½ and 20½ ft. at high water, spring and neap tides respectively. It is an important centre of the river trade, and is connected by steam ferries with the city of Quebec. It is named after the maréchal duc de Lévis, the last commander of the French troops in Canada.

LEVITES,or sons of Levi (son of Jacob by Leah), a sacred caste in ancient Israel, the guardians of the temple service at Jerusalem.1

1.Place in Ritual.—In the developed hierarchical system the ministers of the sanctuary are divided into distinct grades. All are “Levites” by descent, and are thus correlated in the genealogical and other lists, but the true priesthood is confined to the sons of Aaron, while the mass of the Levites are subordinate servants who are not entitled to approach the altar or to perform any strictly priestly function. All access to the Deity is restricted to the one priesthood and to the one sanctuary at Jerusalem; the worshipping subject is the nation of Israel as a unity, and the function of worship is discharged on its behalf by divinely chosen priests. The ordinary individual may not intrude under penalty of death; only those of Levitical origin may perform service, and they are essentially the servants and hereditary serfs of the Aaronite priests (see Num. xviii.). But such a scheme finds no place in the monarchy; it presupposes a hierocracy under which the priesthood increased its rights by claiming the privileges which past kings had enjoyed; it is the outcome of a complicated development in Old Testament religion in the light of which it is to be followed (seeHebrew Religion).

First (a), in the earlier biblical writings which describe the state of affairs under the Hebrew monarchy there is not this fundamental distinction among the Levites, and, although a list of Aaronite high-priests is preserved in a late source, internal details and the evidence of the historical books render its value extremely doubtful (1 Chron. vi. 3-15, 49-53). In Jerusalem itself the subordinate officers of the temple were not members of a holy gild, but of the royal body-guard, or bond-slaves who had access to the sacred courts, and might even be uncircumcised foreigners (Josh. ix. 27; 1 Kings xiv. 28; 2 Kings xi.; cf. Zeph. i. 8 seq.; Zech. xiv. 21). Moreover, ordinary individuals might serve as priests (1 Sam. ii II, 18, vii. 1; see 2 Sam. viii. 18, deliberately altered in 1 Chron. xviii. 17); however, every Levite was a priest, or at least qualified to become one (Deut. x. 8, xviii. 7; Judges xvii. 5-13), and when the author of 1 Kings xii. 31, wishes to represent Jeroboam’s priests as illegitimate, he does not say that they were not Aaronites, but that they were not of the sons of Levi.

The next stage (b) is connected with the suppression of the local high-places or minor shrines in favour of a central sanctuary. This involved the suppression of the Levitical priests in the country (cf. perhaps the allusion in Deut. xxi. 5); and the present book of Deuteronomy, in promulgating the reform, represents the Levites as poor scattered “sojourners” and recommends them to the charity of the people (Deut. xii. 12, 18 seq., xiv. 27, 29, xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11 sqq.). However, they are permitted to congregate at “the place which Yahweh shall choose,” where they may perform the usual priestly duties together with their brethren who “stand there before Yahweh,” and they are allowed their share of the offerings (Deut. xviii. 6-8).2The Deuteronomic history of the monarchy actually ascribes to the Judaean king Josiah (621B.C.) the suppression of the high-places, and states that the local priests were brought to Jerusalem and received support, but did not minister at the altar (2 Kings xxiii. 9). Finally, a scheme of ritual for the second temple raises this exclusion to the rank of a principle. The Levites who had been idolatrous are punished by exclusion from the proper priestly work, and take the subordinate offices which the uncircumcised and polluted foreigners had formerly filled, while the sons of Zadok, who had remained faithful, are henceforth the legitimate priests, the only descendants of Levi who are allowed to minister unto Yahweh (Ezek. xliv. 6-15, cf. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xlviii. 11). “A threefold cord is not quickly broken,” and these three independent witnesses agree in describing a significant innovation which ends with the supremacy of the Zadokites of Jerusalem over their brethren.

In the last stage (c) the exclusion of the ordinary Levites from all share in the priesthood of the sons of Aaron is looked upon as a matter of course, dating from the institution of priestly worship by Moses. The two classes are supposed to have been founded separately (Exod. xxviii., cf. xxix. 9; Num. iii. 6-10), and so far from any degradation being attached to the rank and file of the Levites, their position is naturally an honourable one compared with that of the mass of non-Levitical worshippers (see Num. i. 50-53), and they are taken by Yahweh as a surrogate for the male first-born of Israel (iii. 11-13). They are inferior only to the Aaronites to whom they are “joined” (xviii. 2, a play on the name Levi) as assistants. Various adjustments and modifications still continue, and a number of scattered details may indicate that internal rivalries made themselves felt. But the different steps can hardly be recovered clearly, although the fact that the priesthood was extended beyond the Zadokites to families of the dispossessed priests points to some compromise (1 Chron. xxiv.). Further, it is subsequently found that certain classes of temple servants, the singers and porters, who had once been outside the Levitical gilds, became absorbed as the term “Levite” was widened, and this change is formally expressed by the genealogies which ascribe to Levi, the common “ancestor” of them all, the singers and even certain families whose heathenish and foreign names show that they were once merely servants of the temple.3

2.Significance of the Development.—Although the legal basis for the final stage is found in the legislation of the time of Moses (latter part of the second millenniumB.C.), it is in reality scarcely earlier than the 5th centuryB.C., and the Jewish theory finds analogies when developments of the Levitical service are referred to David (1 Chron. xv. seq., xxiii. sqq.), Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.) and Josiah (xxxv.)—contrast the history in the earlier books of Samuel and Kings—or when the still later book of Jubilees (xxxii.) places the rise of the Levitical priesthood in the patriarchal period. The traditional theory of the Mosaic origin of the elaborate Levitical legislation cannot be maintained save by the most arbitrary and inconsequential treatment of the evidence and by an entire indifference to the historical spirit; and, although numerous points of detail still remain very obscure, the three leading stages in the Levitical institutions are now recognized by nearly all independent scholars. These stages with a number of concomitant features confirm the literary hypothesis that biblical history is in the main due to two leading recensions, the Deuteronomic and the Priestly (cf. [b] and [c] above), which have incorporated older sources.4If the hierarchical system asit existed in the post-exilic age was really the work of Moses, it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so completely lost that the degradation of the non-Zadokites in Ezekiel was a new feature and a punishment, whereas in the Mosaic law the ordinary Levites, on the traditional view, was already forbidden priestly rights under penalty of death. There is in fact no clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between priests and Levites in any Hebrew writing demonstrably earlier than the Deuteronomic stage, although, even as the Pentateuch contains ordinances which have been carried back by means of a “legal convention” to the days of Moses, writers have occasionally altered earlier records of the history to agree with later standpoints.5

No argument in support of the traditional theory can be drawn from the account of Korah’s revolt (Num. xvi. sqq., see § 3) or from the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv.; Josh. xxi.). Some of the latter were either not conquered by the Israelites until long after the invasion, or, if conquered, were not held by Levites; and names are wanting of places in which priests are actually known to have lived. Certainly the names are largely identical with ancient holy cities, which, however, are holy because they possessed noted shrines, not because the inhabitants were members of a holy tribe. Gezer and Taanach, for example, are said to have remained in the hands of Canaanites (Judges i. 27, 29; cf. 1 Kings ix. 16), and recent excavation has shown how far the cultus of these cities was removed from Mosaic religion and ritual and how long the grosser elements persisted.6On the other hand, the sanctuaries obviously had always their local ministers, all of whom in time could be called Levitical, and it is only in this sense, not in that of the late priestly legislation, that a place like Shechem could ever have been included. Further, instead of holding cities and pasture-grounds, the Levites are sometimes described as scattered and divided (Gen. xlix. 7; Deut. xviii. 6), and though they may naturally possess property as private individuals, they alone of all the tribes of Israel possess no tribal inheritance (Num. xviii. 23, xxvi. 62; Deut. x. 9; Josh. xiv. 3). This fluctuation finds a parallel in the age at which the Levites were to serve; for neither has any reasonable explanation been found on the traditional view. Num. iv. 3 fixes the age at thirty, although in i. 3 it has been reduced to twenty; but in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, David is said to have numbered them from the higher limit, whereas invv.24, 27 the lower figure is given on the authority of “the last words (or acts) of David.” In Num. viii. 23-26, the age is given as twenty-five, but twenty became usual and recurs in Ezra iii. 8 and 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. There are, however, independent grounds for believing that 1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 27, 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 belong to later insertions and that Ezr. iii. 8 is relatively late.

When, in accordance with the usual methods of Hebrew genealogical history, the Levites are defined as the descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. xxix. 34), a literal interpretation is unnecessary, and the only narrative wherein Levi appears as a person evidently delineates under the form of personification events in the history of the Levites (Gen. xxxiv.).7They take their place in Israel as the tribe set apart for sacred duties, and without entering into the large question how far the tribal schemes can be used for the earlier history of Israel, it may be observed that no adequate interpretation has yet been found of the ethnological traditions of Levi and other sons of Leah in their historical relation to one another or to the other tribes. However intelligible may be the notion of a tribereservedfor priestly service, the fact that it does not apply to early biblical history is apparent from the heterogeneous details of the Levitical divisions. The incorporation of singers and porters is indeed a late process, but it is typical of the tendency to co-ordinate all the religious classes (seeGenealogy:Biblical). The genealogies in their complete form pay little heed to Moses, although Aaron and Moses could typify the priesthood and other Levites generally (1 Chron. xxiii. 14). Certain priesthoods in the first stage (§ 1 [a]) claimed descent from these prototypes, and it is interesting to observe (1) the growing importance of Aaron in the later sources of “the Exodus,” and (2) the relation between Mosheh (Moses) and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer, on the one side, and the Levitical names Mushi (i.e.the Mosaite), Gershon and the Aaronite priest Eleazar, on the other. There are links, also, which unite Moses with Kenite, Rechabite, Calebite and Edomite families, and the Levitical names themselves are equally connected with the southern tribes of Judah and Simeon and with the Edomites.8It is to be inferred, therefore, that some relationship subsisted, or was thought to subsist, among (1) the Levites, (2) clans actually located in the south of Palestine, and (3) families whose names and traditions point to a southern origin. The exact meaning of these features is not clear, but if it be remembered (a) that the Levites of post-exilic literature represent only the result of a long and intricate development, (b) that the name “Levite,” in the later stages at least, was extended to include all priestly servants, and (c) that the priesthoods, in tending to become hereditary, included priests who were Levites by adoption and not by descent, it will be recognized that the examination of the evidence for the earlier stages cannot confine itself to those narratives where the specific term alone occurs.

3.The Traditions of the Levites.—In the “Blessing of Moses” (Deut, xxxiii. 8-11), Levi is a collective name for the priesthood, probably that of (north) Israel. He is the guardian of the sacred oracles, knowing no kin, and enjoying his privileges for proofs of fidelity at Massah and Meribah. That these places (in the district of Kadesh) were traditionally associated with the origin of the Levites is suggested by various Levitical stories, although it is in a narrative now in a context pointing to Horeb or Sinai that the Levites are Israelites who for some cause (now lost) severed themselves from their people and took up a stand on behalf of Yahweh (Exod. xxxii.). Other evidence allows us to link together the Kenites, Calebites and Danites in a tradition of some movement into Palestine, evidently quite distinct from the great invasion of Israelite tribes which predominates in the existing records. The priesthood of Dan certainly traced its origin to Moses (Judges xvii. 9, xviii. 30); that of Shiloh claimed an equally high ancestry (1 Sam. ii. 27 seq.).9Some tradition of a widespread movement appears to be ascribed to the age of Jehu, whose accession, promoted by the prophet Elisha, marks the end of the conflict between Yahweh and Baal. To a Rechabite (the clan is allied to the Kenites) is definitely ascribed a hand in Jehu’s sanguinary measures, and, though little is told of the obviously momentous events, one writer clearly alludes to a bloody period when reforms were to be effected by the sword (1 Kings xix. 17). Similarly the story of the original selection of the Levites in the wilderness mentions an uncompromising massacre of idolaters. Consequently, it is very noteworthy that popular tradition preserves the recollection of some attack by the “brothers” Levi and Simeonupon the famous holy city of Shechem to avenge their “sister” Dinah (Gen. xxxiv.), and that a detailed narrative tells of the bloodthirsty though pious Danites who sacked an Ephraimite shrine on their journey to a new home (Judges xvii. sq.).

The older records utilized by the Deuteronomic and later compilers indicate some common tradition which has found expression in these varying forms. Different religious standpoints are represented in the biblical writings, and it is now important to observe that the prophecies of Hosea unmistakably show another attitude to the Israelite priesthood. The condemnation of Jehu’s bloodshed (Hos. i. 4) gives another view of events in which both Elijah and Elisha were concerned, and the change is more vividly realized when it is found that even to Moses and Aaron, the traditional founders of Israelite religion and ritual, is ascribed an offence whereby they incurred Yahweh’s wrath (Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; Deut. ix. 20, xxxii. 51). The sanctuaries of Shiloh and Dan lasted until the deportation of Israel (Judges xviii. 30 seq.), and some of their history is still preserved in the account of the late pre-monarchical age (12th-11th centuriesB.C.). Shiloh’s priestly gild is condemned for its iniquity (1 Sam. iii. 11-14), the sanctuary mysteriously disappears, and the priests are subsequently found at Nob outside Jerusalem (1 Sam. xxi. seq.). All idea of historical perspective has been lost, since the fall of Shiloh was apparently a recent event at the close of the 7th century (Jer. vii. 12-15, xxvi. 6-9). But the tendency to ascribe the disasters of northern Israel to the priesthood (see esp. Hosea) takes another form when an inserted prophecy revokes the privileges of the ancient and honourable family, foretells its overthrow, and announces the rise of a new faithful and everlasting priesthood, at whose hands the dispossessed survivors, reduced to poverty, would beg some priestly office to secure a livelihood (1 Sam. ii. 27-36). The sequel to this phase is placed in the reign of Solomon, when David’s old priest Abiathar, sole survivor of the priests of Shiloh, is expelled to Anathoth (near Jerusalem), and Zadok becomes the first chief priest contemporary with the foundation of thefirsttemple (1 Kings ii. 27, 35). These situations cannot be severed from what is known elsewhere of the Deuteronomic teaching, of the reform ascribed to Josiah, or of the principle inculcated by Ezekiel (see § 1 [b]). The late specific tendency in favour of Jerusalem agrees with the Deuteronomic editor of Kings who condemns the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel for calf-worship (1 Kings xii. 28-31), and does not acknowledge the northern priesthood to be Levitical (1 Kings xii. 31, note the interpretation in 2 Chron. xi. 14, xiii. 9). It is from a similar standpoint that Aaron is condemned for the manufacture of the golden calf, and a compiler (not the original writer) finds its sequel in the election of the faithful Levites.10

In the third great stage there is another change in the tone. The present (priestly) recension of Gen. xxxiv. has practically justified Levi and Simeon from its standpoint of opposition to intermarriage, and in spite of Jacob’s curse (Gen. xlix. 5-7) later traditions continue to extol the slaughter of the Shechemitcs as a pious duty. Post-exilic revision has also hopelessly obscured the offence of Moses and Aaron, although there was already a tendency to place the blame upon the people (Deut. i. 37, iii. 26, iv. 21). When two-thirds of the priestly families are said to be Zadokites and one-third are of the families of Abiathar, some reconciliation, some adjustment of rivalries, is to be recognized (1 Chron. xxiv.). Again, in the composite story of Korah’s revolt, one version reflects a contest between Aaronites and the other Levites who claimed the priesthood (Num. xvi. 8-11, 36-40), while another shows the supremacy of the Levites as a caste either over the rest of the people (? cf. the prayer, Deut. xxxiii. 11), or, since the latter are under the leadership of Korah, later the eponym of a gild of singers, perhaps over the more subordinate ministers who once formed a separate class.11In the composite work Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (dating after the post-exilic Levitical legislation) a peculiar interest is taken in the Levites, more particularly in the singers, and certain passages even reveal some animus against the Aaronites (2 Chron. xxix. 34, xxx. 3). A Levite probably had a hand in the work, and this, with the evidence for the Levitical Psalms (seePsalms), gives the caste an interesting place in the study of the transmission of the biblical records.12But the history of the Levites in the early post-exilic stage and onwards is a separate problem, and the work of criticism has not advanced sufficiently for a proper estimate of the various vicissitudes. However, the feeling which was aroused among the priests when some centuries later the singers obtained from Agrippa the privilege of wearing the priestly linen dress (Josephus,Ant.xx. 9. 6), at least enables one to appreciate more vividly the scantier hints of internal jealousies during the preceding years.13

4.Summary.—From the inevitable conclusion that there are three stages in the written sources for the Levitical institutions, the next step is the correlation of allied traditions on the basis of the genealogical evidence. But the problem of fitting these into the history of Israel still remains. The assumption that the earlier sources for the pre-monarchical history, as incorporated by late compilers, are necessarily trustworthy confuses the inquiry (on Gen. xxxiv., seeSimeon), and even the probability of a reforming spirit in Jehu’s age depends upon the internal criticism of the related records (seeJews, §§ 11-14). The view that the Levites came from the south may be combined with the conviction that there Yahweh had his seat (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Judges v. 4; Hab. iii. 3), but the latter is only one view, and the traditions of the patriarchs point to another belief (cf. also Gen. iv. 26). The two are reconciled when the God of the patriarchs reveals His name for the first time unto Moses (Exod. iii. 15, vi. 3). With these variations is involved the problem of the early history of the Israelites.14Moreover, the real Judaean tendency which associates the fall of Eli’s priesthood at Shiloh with the rise of the Zadokites involves the literary problems of Deuteronomy, a composite work whose age is not certainly known, and of the twofold Deuteronomic redaction elsewhere, one phase of which is more distinctly Judaean and anti-Samaritan. There are vicissitudes and varying standpoints which point to a complicated literary history and require some historical background, and, apart from actual changes in the history of the Levites, some allowance must be made for the real character of the circles where the diverse records originated or through which they passed. The key must be sought in the exilic and post-exilic age where, unfortunately, direct and decisive evidence is lacking. It is clear that the Zadokite priests were rendered legitimate by finding a place for their ancestor in the Levitical genealogies—through Phinehas (cf. Num. xxv. 12 seq.), and Aaron—there was a feeling that a legitimate priest must be an Aaronite, but the historical reason for this is uncertain (see R. H. Kennett,Journ. Theolog. Stud., 1905, pp. 161 sqq.). Hence, it is impossible at present to trace the earlier steps which led to the grand hierarchy of post-exilic Judaism. Even the name Levite itself is of uncertain origin. Though popularly connected withlāvāh, “be joined, attached,” an ethnic from Leah has found some favour; the Assyrianlī’u“powerful, wise,” has also been suggested. The term has been more plausibly identified withl-v-’ (fem.l-v-’-t), the name given in old Arabian inscriptions (e.g.at al-‘Olā, south-east of Elath) to the priests and priestesses of the Arabian god Vadd (so especially Hommel,Anc. Heb. Trad., pp. 278 seq.). The date of the evidence, however, has not been fixed with unanimity, and this veryattractive and suggestive view requires confirmation and independent support.

Authorities.—For the argument in § 1, see Wellhausen,Prolegomena, pp. 121-151; W. R. Smith,Old Test. in Jew. Church(2nd ed., Index, s.v. “Levites”); A. Kuenen,Hexateuch, §§ 3 n. 16; 11, pp. 203 sqq.; 15 n. 15 (more technical); also the larger commentaries on Exodus-Joshua and the ordinary critical works on Old Testament literature. In § 1 and part of § 2 use has been freely made of W. R. Smith’s article “Levites” in the 9th edition of theEncy. Brit.(see the revision by A. Bertholet,Ency. Bib.col. 2770 sqq.). For the history of the Levites in the post-exilic and later ages, see the commentaries on Numbers (by G. B. Gray) and Chronicles (E. L. Curtis), and especially H. Vogelstein,Der Kampf zwischen Priestern u. Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels, with Kuenen’s review in hisGesammelte Abhandlungen(ed. K. Budde, 1894). See furtherPriest.

Back to Index Next