08. § 6. Remarks on Government, Manners, and Culture
§ 6. Remarks on Government, Manners, and Culture The power of an Arabian Emir differs only from that of a king in one respect, viz. that he possesses no fixed territory. For the rest, his sway is free and unlimited. It was the same among the patriarchs. A single glance at the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, suffices to show that they did not live as subjects in Palestine. Abraham had 318 servants born in the house, whom he exercised in arms; or, more correctly, he took only 318 with him to battle, leaving others for the protection of his herds. He had also a probably far greater number of other newly-gained servants. As an independent prince, he carries on war with five minor kings. He, as well as his son, concludes treaties with kings in Palestine as their equal. Jacob’s sons destroy a whole city, without any attempt being made on the part of the Canaanites to bring them to judgment and punishment. The heads of the tribes exercised judicial power to its full extent. Thus Judah pronounces judgment of death on his daughter-in-law Tamar; and reverses it himself when he is convinced of her innocence. Genesis 38. The government of the Bedouin Arabs forms a good illustration of that in the time of the patriarchs. It is excellently described in Arvieux’ remarkable account of his travels, part iii.: and again in Burchhardt’s English work on the Bedouins, 2 vols.; by Michaud, and Poujoulat-Lamartine.
Respecting the rights of the patriarchs we have but little information. It is certain ‘they exercised many rights which were afterwards sanctioned by Moses. The Levirate-law prevailed among them: according to this, if a man died without children, his unmarried brother was to marry the widow, and the first son of this marriage belonged, not to the natural father, but to the deceased brother, and received his inheritance. This law was carried out with such strictness, that there were no means of eluding it, as appears from the story told in Genesis 38 of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar. The root of this right or custom, which the patriarchs doubtless brought with them from earlier relations, lies in the want of a clear insight into the future life. An eager longing for perpetuity is implanted in man; and so long as this desire does not receive the true satisfaction which the mere doctrine of immortality is totally unable to afford, he seeks to satisfy it by all kinds of substitutes. One of these substitutes was the Levirate. It was regarded as a duty of love towards the deceased brother to use every possible means to preserve his name and memory. We see how deeply rooted the custom was already in the pre-Mosaic time, from the circumstance that Moses was obliged to make an exception in its favour among those laws on marriage within near relationship to which the custom ran counter,—an exception, indeed, which has reference only to one case belonging to the extreme limit. Only in such a case was an exception possible. In most, prevailing customs had to be reformed by violent measures. He took care, however, by the arrangement recorded in Deuteronomy 25, that the custom should no longer exist as an inviolable law, establishing a form under which a dispensation from it could be obtained. Polygamy certainly appears in Genesis; but only among the godless race, except in cases where there was some special motive: the patriarchs followed it only when they believed themselves necessitated to do so by circumstances, and the result showed that they were wrong. We are scarcely justified in saying that polygamy was not sin at that time, because there was no special command against it. If this were so, it would not be sin now. Such a command does not exist in all Scripture. But it is given in marriage itself: hence polygamy is always sin, more or less to be charged only according to the various degrees of development. That the essence of marriage was understood in its deep meaning even at that time, is seen by the examples of Isaac and Rebekah; and even apart from these, it must necessarily follow from the religious standpoint of the patriarchs. Heavenly, stands in the closest connection with earthly, marriage; and upon this connection is based the prevailing scriptural representation of the former under the image of the latter. Only sons participated in the inheritance; daughters were entirely excluded from it. Laban’s daughters knew that they had no part in their father’s house. It seems to have been left to the father’s option whether he would give the inheritance altogether to the sons of the true wife, or allow the sons of the maids to have a share in it. There was yet no settled custom in this respect. Abraham constituted Isaac his sole heir, and gave but presents to the sons of his maids. Jacob’s inheritance, on the other hand, was shared by the sons of his maids as well as by the rest. But we must remember that in this case the sons of the maids had been adopted by the wives of the first rank. The mode of life followed by the patriarchs was very simple. The wives lived in a separate tent, but quite near that of the men. The tent of the chief ruler stood, as it does now among the Arabs, in the centre of the great circle formed by the tents of his subjects. The nature of their tents is not accurately described, but we may assume that the description given of the tents of the Arabs by a recent writer will apply to it: “The commonest and all but universal tents of the Arabs are either round, supported by a long pole in the middle, or extended lengthways, like the tents of galleys. They are covered with thick woven cloth made of black goats’ hair. The tents of the Emirs are of the same material, and are distinguished from those of the others only by size and height. They are strong and thick, stretched out in such a way that the most continuous and heavy rain cannot penetrate them. The princes have many tents for their wives, children, and domestic servants, as well as for kitchens, storerooms,and stables. The form of the camp is always round; between the tent of the prince and the tents of his subjects a distance is left of thirty feet. They encamp on hills, and prefer those places where there are no trees which might intercept their view of comers and goers at a distance. (In this respect the peaceful patriarchs differed from these waylayers. Abraham dwelt under the oak of Mamre at Hebron, according to Genesis 18, and planted a grove of tamarisks at Beersheba, according to Genesis 21:33.) They choose places where there are springs, and in whose neighbourhood are valleys and meadows for the maintenance of their cattle. The want of this often obliged them to change their camp, sometimes every fourteen days or every month.” See Arvieux, p. 214, etc. Although this mode of life is very troublesome, shepherd-nations manifest a strong attachment towards it. The Arab Bedouins despise all dwellers in towns, and are no longer willing to acknowledge as brethren those of their number who settle there. But the natural restlessness of man has a great deal to do with this prejudice. “It leads him to roam through field and forest.” He who has an inward inclination to rest, seeks as far as possible to bring rest and stability into his outward life also. Even now an excessive love of wandering is the sign of a heart without peace. “Qui multum peregrinantur,” says Thomas à Kempis, “raro sanctificantur.” Among the patriarchs it is quite evident that nomadic life was only the result of circumstances, the natural consequence of their residence in a land in which property was in the hands of the former inhabitants. When it was at all possible, the nomadic mode of life was forsaken. Abraham does not wander in the district surrounding Egypt, but repairs at once to the court of the king. Afterwards he settles down in Hebron; comp. Genesis 23. Isaac sojourns in the principal town of the Philistines, and occupies there a house opposite to the king’s palace, Genesis 26:8. There he sows a field, Genesis 26:12. Jacob builds a house for himself after his return from Mesopotamia, Genesis 33:17. Thus we already perceive a tendency to change the mode of life. A partial change did afterwards take place in Egypt; and in Canaan the former mode of life was entirely abandoned. The cattle-wealth of the patriarchs consisted in sheep, goats, cows, asses, and camels; they had no horses. The breeding of horses was very ancient in Egypt, but was not practised in Canaan till late. In the time of Joshua and the Judges the horse was not used at all; it did not become general until the period of the Kings. Everything else which the patriarchs wanted, they either got in exchange for their cattle, or bought for the silver obtained by the sale of cattle. Silver money was in use even at that time. Abraham bought a sepulchre for four hundred shekels; and Abimelech made Sarah a present of one thousand shekels. At that time, however, silver was not coined, but weighed out. Thus, in Genesis 23:16, Abraham weighs the purchase money when he buys a field. Even in Egypt, according to all accounts, there was no coined metal in use among the old Pharaohs; although it was common among the Greeks, Romans, and other nations of antiquity. According to old monuments, the Egyptians, in trading, made use of metal in the form of a ring. This was weighed in the act of contract itself; and therefore its value was decided according to weight; Rosellini, ii. 3, p. 187 et seq. Kesitah, mentioned in Genesis 33:19, was probably a similar substitute for a coin. It occurs afterwards in the book of Job, where it is borrowed from Genesis. Besides these, only silver was used for money: its name points to this purpose—