The intricate Levitical genealogies betray the result of successive genealogists who sought to give effect to the development of the hierarchal system (see [Levites]). The climax is reached when all Levites are traced back to Gershon, Kehath and Merari, to which are ascribed respectively Asaph, Heman and Ethan (or Jeduthun). The last two were not originally Levites in the later accepted sense of the term (see 1 Kings iv. 31). To Kehath is reckoned an important subdivision descended from Korah, but in 2 Chron. xx. 19 the two are distinct groups, and Korah’s name is that of an Edomite clan (Gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18) related to Caleb, and thus included among the descendants of Judah (1 Chron. ii. 43). Cases of adjustment, redistribution and “Levitizing” of individuals are frequent. There are traces of varying divisions both of the singers (Neh. xi. 17) and of the Levites (Num. xxvi. 58; Ezr. ii. 40, iii. 9; 1 Chron. xv. 5-10, xxiii.), and it is noteworthy that in the case of the latter we have mention of such families as Hebroni (Hebronite), Libni (from Libnah)—ethnics of South Judaean towns. In fact, a significant number of Levitical names find their analogy in the lists of names belonging to Judah, Simeon and even Edom, or are closely connected with the family of Moses; e.g. Mushi (i.e. Mosaïte), Gershon and Eleazar (cp. Gershom and Eliezer, sons of Moses). The Levites bear a class-name, and the genealogies show that many of them were connected with the minor clans and families of South Palestine which included among them Moses and his kin. Hence, it is not unnatural that Obed-edom, for example, obviously a southerner, should have been reckoned later as a Levite, and the work ascribed by the chronicler’s history to the closing years of David’s life may be influenced by the tradition that it was through him these mixed populations first attained importance. See further [David]; [Jews]; [Levites].
In the time of Josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent, and perhaps from the time of Ezra downwards lists were carefully kept. But when Anna is called an Asherite (Luke ii. 36), or Paul a Benjamite (Rom. xi. 1), family tradition was probably the sole support to the claim, although the tribal feeling had not become entirely extinct. The genealogies of Jesus prefixed to two of the gospels are intended to prove that He was a son of David. But not that alone, for in Matt. i. he is traced back to Abraham the father of the Jews, whilst in Luke iii. He, as the second Adam, is traced back to the first man. The two lists are hopelessly inconsistent; not because one of them follows the line of Mary, but because they represent independent attempts. That in Matthew is characteristically arranged in three series of fourteen generations each through the kings of Judah, whilst Luke’s passes through an almost unknown son of David; in spite of this, however, both converge in the person of Zerubbabel.
See further, A.C. Hervey, Genealogies of Our Lord; H. von Soden, Ency. Bib. ii. col. 1666 sqq.; B.W. Bacon, Hastings’ Dict. Bib. ii. pp. 138 seq. On the subject generally see J.F. M‘Lennan’s Studies (2nd ser., ch. ix., “fabricated genealogies”); S.A. Cook, Ency. Bib. ii. col. 1657 sqq. (with references); W.R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage (2nd ed., especially ch. i.).
(S. A. C.)
2. Greek and Roman Genealogies.—A passing reference only is needed to the intricate genealogies of gods and sons of gods which form so conspicuous a feature in classical literature.[2] In every one of the numerous states into which ancient Greece was divided there were aristocratic families, whose genealogies as a rule went back to prehistoric times, their first ancestor being some hero of divine descent, from whom, or from some distinguished younger ancestor, they derived their names. Many of these families were, as families, undoubtedly of great antiquity even at the beginning of the historical period; and in several instances they continued to maintain a conspicuous and separate existence for centuries. The element of family pride is prominent in the poetry of the Megarian Theognis; and in an inscription belonging to the 2nd century B.C. the recipient of certain honours from the community of Gythium is represented as the thirty-ninth in direct descent from the Dioscuri and the forty-first from Heracles. Even in Athens, long after the constitution had become thoroughly democratic, some of the clans continued to be known as Eupatridae (of noble family); and Alcibiades, for example, as a member of the phratria of the Eurysacidae, traced his origin through many generations to Eurysaces, who was represented as having been the first of the Aeacidae to settle in Attica. The Corinthian Bacchiadae traced their descent back to Heracles, but took their name from Bacchis, a younger ancestor. It is very doubtful, however, whether such pedigrees as this were very seriously put forward by those who claimed them; and it is certain that, almost along the whole line, they were unsupported by evidence.[3] We have the authority of Pollux (viii. 111) for stating that the Athenian γένη, of which there were thirty in each φρατρία, were organized without any exclusive regard being had to blood-relationship; they were constantly receiving accessions from without; and the public written registers of births, adoptions and the like do not appear to have been preserved with such care as would have made it possible to verify a pedigree for any considerable portion even of the strictly historical period.[4]
The great antiquity of the early Roman (patrician) gentes, who universally traced themselves back to illustrious ancestors, is indisputable; and the rigid exclusiveness with which each preserved its hereditates gentiliciae or sacra gentilicia is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that towards the close of the republic there were not more than fifty patrician families (Dion. Halic. i. 85). Yet even in these it is obvious that, owing to the frequency of resort to the well-recognized practice of adoption, while there was every guarantee for the historical identity of the family, there was none (documents apart) for the personal genealogy of the individual. There is no evidence that sufficient records of pedigree were kept during the earlier centuries of the Roman commonwealth, although the leading houses drew up genealogical tables, and their family pedigree was painted on the walls of the entrance hall. In later times, it is true, even plebeian families began to establish a prescriptive right (known as the jus imaginum) to preserve in small wooden shrines in their halls the busts (or rather, wax portrait masks fastened on to busts) of those of their members who had attained to curule office, and to exhibit these in public on appropriate occasions. Under these imagines majorum[5] it became usual to inscribe on the wall their respective tituli, the relationship of each to each being indicated by means of connecting lines; and thus arose the stemmata gentilicia, which at a later time began to be copied into family records. In the case of plebeian families (whose stemmata in no case went farther back than 366 B.C.) these written genealogies were probably trustworthy enough; but in the case of patricians who went back to Aeneas,[6] so much cannot, it is obvious, be said; and from a comparatively early period it was clearly recognized that such records lent themselves too readily to the devices of the falsifier and the forger to deserve confidence or reverence (Pliny, H.N. xxxv. 2; Juv. viii. 1).
Thus, parvenus were known to place the busts of fictitious ancestors in the shrines and to engage needy literary men to trace back their descent even to Aeneas himself.
The many and great social changes which marked the closing centuries of the Western empire almost invariably militated with great strength against the maintenance of an aristocracy of birth; and from the time of Constantine the dignity of patrician ceased to be hereditary.[7]
3. Modern.—Two forces have combined to give genealogy its importance during the period of modern history: the laws of inheritance, particularly those which govern the descent of real estate, and the desire to assert the privileges of a hereditary aristocracy. But it is long before genealogies are found in the possession of private families. The succession of kings and princes are in the chronicle book; the line of the founders and patrons of abbeys are recorded by the monks with curious embellishment of legend. But the famous suit of Scrope against Grosvenor will illustrate the late appearance of private genealogies in England. In 1385 Sir Richard Scrope, lord of Bolton, displaying his banner in the host that invaded Scotland, found that his arms of a golden bend in a blue field were borne by a knight of the Chester palatinate, one Sir Robert Grosvenor. He carried the dispute to a court of chivalry, whose decision in his favour was confirmed on appeal to the king. Grosvenor asserted that he derived his right from an ancestor, Sir Gilbert Grosvenor, who had come over with the Conqueror, while an intervening claimant, a Cornish squire named Thomas Carminowe, boasted that his own ancestors had borne the like arms since the days of King Arthur’s Round Table. It is remarkable that in support of the false statements made by the claimants no written genealogy is produced. The evidence of tombs and monuments and the reports of ancient men are advanced, but no pedigree is exhibited in a case which hangs upon genealogy. It is possible that the art of pedigree-making had its first impulse in England from the many genealogies constructed to make men familiar with the claims of Edward III. to the crown of France, a second crop of such royal pedigrees being raised in later generations during the contests of York and Lancaster. But it is not until after the close of the middle ages that genealogies multiply in men’s houses and are collected into volumes. The medieval baron, knight or squire, although proud of the nobility of his race, was content to let it rest upon legend handed down the generations. The exact line of his descent was sought only when it was demanded for a plea in the king’s courts to support his title to his lands.
From the first the work of the genealogist in England had that taint of inaccuracy tempered with forgery from which it has not yet been cleansed. The medieval kings, like the Welsh gentry of later ages, traced their lines to the household of Eden garden, while lesser men, even as early as the 14th century, eagerly asserted their descent from a companion of the Conqueror. Yet beside these false imaginations we find the law courts, whose business was often a clash of pedigrees, dealing with genealogies centuries long which, constructed as it would seem from worthy evidences, will often bear the test of modern criticism.