GENDARMERIE, originally a body of troops in France composed of gendarmes or men-at-arms. In the days of chivalry they were mounted and armed cap-à-pie, exactly as were the lords and knights, with whom they constituted the most important part of an army. They were attended each by five soldiers of inferior rank and more lightly armed. In the later middle ages the men-at-arms were furnished by owners of fiefs. But after the Hundred Years’ War this feudal gendarmerie was replaced by the compagnies d’ordonnance which Charles VII. formed when the English were driven out of France, and which were distributed throughout the whole extent of the kingdom for preserving order and maintaining the king’s authority. These companies, fifteen in number, were composed of 100 lances or gendarmes fully equipped, each of whom was attended by at least three archers, one coutillier (soldier armed with a cutlass) and one varlet (soldier’s servant). The states-general of Orleans (1439) had voted a yearly subsidy of 1,200,000 livres in perpetuity to keep up this national soldiery, which replaced, and in fact was recruited chiefly amongst, the bands of mercenaries who for about a century had made France their prey. The number and composition of the compagnies d’ordonnance were changed more than once before the reign of Louis XIV. This sovereign on his accession to the throne found only eight companies of gendarmes surviving out of an original total of more than one hundred, but after the victory of Fleurus (1690), which had been decided by their courage, he increased their number to sixteen. The four first companies (which were practically guard troops) were designated by the names of Gendarmes écossais, Gendarmes anglais, Gendarmes bourguignons and Gendarmes flamands, from the nationality of the soldiers who had originally composed them; but at that time they consisted entirely of French soldiers and officers. These four companies had a captain-general, who was the king. The fifth company was that of the queen; and the others bore the name of the princes who respectively commanded them. This organization was dissolved in 1788. The Revolution swept away all these institutions of the monarchy, and, with the exception of a short revival of the Gendarmes de la garde at the Restoration, henceforward the word “gendarmerie” possesses an altogether different significance—viz. military police.
GENEALOGY (from the Gr. γένος, family, and λόγος, theory), a pedigree or list of ancestors, or the study of family history.
1. Biblical Genealogies.—The aims and methods of ancient genealogists require to be carefully considered before the value of the numerous ancestral lists in the Bible can be properly estimated. Many of the old “genealogies,” like those of Greece, have arisen from the desire to explain the origin of the various groups which they include. Information relating to the subdivision of tribes, their relation to each other, the intermingling of populations and the like are thus frequently represented in the form of genealogies. The “sons” of a “father” often stand merely for the branches of a family as they existed at some one period, and since in course of time tribal relations would vary, lists which have originated at different periods will present discrepancies. It is obvious that many of the Biblical names are nothing more than personifications of nations, tribes, towns, &c., which are grouped together to convey some idea of the bond by which they were believed to be connected.
For the personification of a people or tribe, cp. Gen. xxxiv. 30 (“Jacob said ... I am a few men”), Josh. xvii. 14 (“the children of Joseph said ... I am a numerous people”), Ex. xiv. 25 (“Egypt said, let me flee”), Jos. ix. 7, 1 Sam. v. 10, &c.; see G.B. Gray on Numbers, xx. 14 (Internat. Crit. Comm.). Thus we find among the “sons” of Japhet: (the nations) Gomer, Javan, Tubal; Canaan “begat” Sidon and Heth; the “sons” of Ishmael include the well-known tribes Kedar and Jetur; Jacob, or the synonym Israel, personifies the “children of Israel” (cf. use of “I,” “thou” of the Israelites in Deut., and in poetical passages). The recognition of this characteristic usage often furnishes an ethnological interpretation to those genealogical stories which obviously do not relate to persons, but to tribes or peoples personified. The Edomites and Israelites are regarded as “brothers” (cf. Num. xx. 14, Deut. ii. 4, Am. i. 11), and since Esau (Edom) was born before Jacob (Israel) it would appear that the Edomites were held to be the older nation. The union of two clans is expressed as a marriage, or the wife is the territory which is dominated by the husband (tribe); see [Caleb]. If the woman is not of noble blood, but is a handmaiden or concubine, her children are naturally not upon the same footing as those of the wife; consequently the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Hagar (Sarah’s maid), are inferior to Isaac and his descendants, whilst the children of Keturah (“incense”), Abraham’s concubine, are still lower—from the Israelite point of view. This application of the terms of relationship is characteristic of the Semites. The “father” of the Rechabites is their head or founder (cf. 1 Sam. x. 12: “who is their father?”), and a common bond, which is not necessarily physical, unites all “sons,” whether they are “sons of the prophets” (members of prophetic guilds) or “sons of Belial” (worthless men).
The interpretation of ethnological or statistical genealogies may easily be pushed too far. Every case has to be judged upon its own merits, and due allowance must be made both for the ambition of the weaker to claim or to strengthen an alliance with the stronger, and for the not unnatural desire of clans or individuals to magnify the greatness of their ancestry. The first step must always be the careful comparison of related lists in order to test the consistency of the tradition. Next, these must be critically studied in the light of all available historical material, though indeed such evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Finally, (a) literary criticism must be employed to determine if possible the dates of such lists, since obviously a contemporary register is more trustworthy than one which is centuries later; (b) a critical estimate of the character of the names and of their use in various periods of Old Testament history is of importance in estimating the antiquity of the list[1]—for example, many of the names in Chronicles attributed to the time of David are indubitably exilic or post-exilic; and (c) principles of ordinary historical probability are as necessary here as in dealing with the genealogies of other ancient peoples, and attention must be paid to such features as fluctuation in the number of links, representation of theories inconsistent with the growth of national life, schemes of relationship not in accordance with sociological conditions, &c.
The Biblical genealogies commence with “the generations of the heaven and earth,” and by a process of elimination pass from Adam and Eve by successive steps to Jacob and to his sons (the tribes), and finally to the subdivisions of each tribe (cp. 1 Chron. i.-ix. 1). According to this theory every Israelite could trace back his descent to Jacob, the common father of the whole nation (Josh. vii. 17 seq., 1 Sam. x. 21). Such a scheme, however, is full of manifest improbabilities. It demands that every tribe and every clan should have been a homogeneous group which had preserved its unity from the earliest times, that family records extending back for several centuries were in existence, and that such a tribe as Simeon was able to maintain its independence in spite of the tradition that it lost its autonomy in very early times (Gen. xlix. 7). The whole conception of the unity of the tribes cannot be referred to a date previous to the time of David, and in the older writings a David or a Jeroboam was sufficiently described as the son of Jesse or of Nebat. The genealogical zeal as represented in the Old Testament is chiefly of later growth, and the exceptions are due to interpolation (Josh. vii. 1 18, contrast v. 24), or to the desire to modify or qualify an older notice. This, in the case of Saul (1 Sam. ix. 1), has led to textual corruption; a list of such a length as his should have reached back to one of the “sons” of Benjamin (cf. e.g. Gen. xlvi. 21), else it were purposeless. The genealogies, too, are often inconsistent amongst themselves and in contradiction to their object. They show, for example, that the population of southern Judah, so far from being “Israelite” was half-Edomite (see Judah), and several of the clans in this district bear names which indicate their original affinity with Midian or Edom. Moreover, there was a free intermixture of races, and many cities had a Canaanite (i.e. pre-Israelite) population which must have been gradually absorbed by the Israelites (cf. Judg. 1.). That spirit of religious exclusiveness which marked later Judaism did not become prominent before the Deuteronomic reformation (see [Deuteronomy]), and it is under its influence that the writings begin to emphasize the importance of maintaining the purity of Israelite blood, although by this time the fusion was complete (see Judg. iii. 6) and for practical purposes a distinction between Canaanites and Israelites within the borders of Palestine could scarcely be discerned.
Many of the genealogical data are intricate. Thus, the interpretation of Gen. xxxiv. is particularly obscure (see [Levites] ad fin.; [Simeon]). As regards the sons of Jacob, it is difficult to explain their division among the four wives of Jacob; viz. (a) the sons of Leah are Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah (S. Palestine), Issachar and Zebulun (in the north), and Dinah (associated with Shechem); (b) of Leah’s maid Zilpah, Gad and Asher (E. and N. Palestine); (c) of Rachel, Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim, i.e. central Palestine) and Benjamin; (d) of Rachel’s maid Bilhah, Dan and Naphtali (N. Palestine). It has been urged that (b) and (d) stood upon a lower footing than the rest, or were of later origin; or that Bilhan points to an old clan associated with Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 22) or Edom (Bilhan, Gen. xxxvi. 27), whilst Zilpah represents an Aramaean strain. Tradition may have combined distinct schemes, and the belief that the wives were Aramaean at least coincides with the circumstance that Aramaean elements predominated in certain of the twelve tribes. The number “twelve” is artificial and can be obtained only by counting Manasseh and Ephraim as one or by omitting Levi, and a careful study of Old Testament history makes it extremely difficult to recover the tribes as historical units. See, on these points, the articles on the several tribes, B. Luther, Zeit. d. alttest. Wissens. (1901), pp. 1 sqq.; G.B. Gray, Expositor (March 1902), pp. 225-240, and in Ency. Bib., art. “Tribes”; and H.W. Hogg’s thorough treatment of the tribes in the last-mentioned work.
The ideal of purity of descent shows itself conspicuously in portions of Deuteronomic law (Deut. vii. 1-3, xxiii. 2-8), and in the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra (Ezr. ix. 1-4, 11 sqq.; Neh. xiii. 1-3). The desire to prove the continuity of the race, enforced by the experience of the exile, gave the impetus to genealogical zeal, and many of the extant lists proceed from this age when the true historical succession of names was a memory of the past. This applies with special force to the lists in Chronicles which present finished schemes of the Levitical divisions by the side of earlier attempts, with consequent confusion and contradiction. Thus the immediate ancestors of Ethan appear in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix. 12), but he with Asaiah and Heman are contemporaries of David, and their genealogies from Levi downwards contain a very unequal number of links (1 Chron. vi.). By another application of genealogical method the account of the institution of priests and Levites by David (1 Chron. xxiv.) presents many names which belong solely to post-exilic days, thus suggesting that the scribes desired to show that the honourable families of their time were not unknown centuries previously. Everywhere we find the results of much skill and labour, often in accordance with definite theories, but a thorough investigation reveals their weakness and often quite incidentally furnishes valuable evidence of another nature.