* An expression of this idea is quoted from the Mahabharata (Muir's tr.) by Max Miller, Anthrop. Rel, p. 31—
‘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’
MARRIAGE
ascribed to the dead man in virtue of the same ideas according to which, in Tibet, the eldest brother and ruler of the house was held to be the father of all the children of the household.’ This proves that a system of polyandry may sometimes nave had as an offshoot the levirate marriage, but does not preclude the possibility of its develop- ment in other quarters from other primitive prac- tices and modes of thought—e.g. the exercise of paternal authority in setting aside in certain cases the direct fatherhood (Starcke, p. 151). (3) Yet again it has been suggested that in conditions where marriage was associated with purchase, and the wife was treated as a chattel, it was natural that she should be claimed by the next of kin as part of the inheritance (Spencer, Principles o Sociology). Well, however, as this practice is vouched for, the inheritance of a wife by a sur- viving brother is widely removed from the bibli- cal theory, for the essence of the latter is the concession that the younger brother, instead of himself heiring, raises up heirs to the deceased. (4) Yet again the object of the custom has been found in an agrarian motive, the law being de- signed to keep together under the levirate hus- band the property which would otherwise have been divided among all the brothers (Meilziner, uoted by Starcke, p. 150). But, though at a late ate (Ru 45) the custom was utilized in connexion with the conservation of lands, the evidence points to its having reached back into the nomadic stage of civilization.
On the whole, the question of origin is, and probably will remain, matter of controversy. Widespread as the custom is, it may well have sprung from various roots—according as in one region an ancestor-cult prevailed, in another a system of polyandry had developed, etc. Where it meets us in Hebrew history it clearly connects itself with the natural desire for survival in pos- [ΣΎ later with the endeavour to perpetuate family property ; and if in spite of the benediction of early tradition and law it gradually fell into abeyance, the cause is to be sought in the growth of the self-consciousness and of the claims of the individual with the progress of society.
iii) MARRIAGE PROCEDURE.—1. The System of Betrothal.—The betrothal, as the first stage in the formation of a marriage union, had a prominent position among the Hebrews, as among other peoples at the same stage of social development.
The act of betrothing is described by three Heb. verbs :— 718 (Pi. of [218] ‘ pay the price,’ Dt 207, Hos 219.20), qy» ( desig- nate’) Ex 218-9, [725] (‘acquire’) Ly 1920; and by one Greek verb —prrersiuy (Mt 118, Lk 127 25), In AV the Hebrew verbs are usually rendered by ‘betroth,’ occasionally by ‘espouse’ (2S 814): the Greek verb is translated by ‘ espouse.’ In RV‘ betroth’ is exclusively used where the reference is to the initial stage (28 314, Mt 118 etc.), while ‘ espouse’ is restricted to the passages which imply completed marriage (Ex 218-9), The ceremony of betrothal has no namein OT, The Talmudists refer to it under the names of ]'~7p (consecration), ἢ Ύ ΝΣ (betrothal), and ]’31w (compact) or 0°X3N (conditions).
The custom of allowing the individuals con- cerned to arrange a marriage according to inclina- tion is a late and exceptional concession. In societies in which the family organization is stron and stable the betrothal is treated as a concern Ὁ the family group or of the tribe. The powers are vested in the head of the tribe, or they may be devolved BpSn particular members of a family
oup—under the patriarchal system upon the father or nearest paternal relative, under the matriarchal upon the maternal uncle or the eldest uterine brother (Post, Studien, pp. 163, 164). From this standpoint the betrothal is viewed in OT. In the exercise of his patriarchal function Abraham through a servant negotiates with Bethuel for the hand of Rebekah, and Laban as her brother is
MARRIAGE
taken into council (Gn 24); Hamor endeavours in treaty with Jacob and his sons to arrange a marriage on behalf of his son Shechem (Gn 34°") ; even the lawless Samson requests his father to srocure for him to wife a woman in Timnah (Jg 145). The advances, further, were made by the house of the bridegroom, except in cases where the superior rank of the bride’s family justified them in taking the first step (Ex 2”, Jos 15", 1S 1857). Resent- ment was expressed when a man repudiated the rights of the natural guardians and took the matter into his own hands (Gn 264)—a feeling strongly shared by the Arabs, who held it sufli cient ground for withholding a bride (Wellhausen, Die Ehe bei den Arabern, p. 432) ; and the protest= were not unreasonable in view of the interest of the family in the alliance that might be formed, and of the women in the bride with whom in a patriarchal society they were to be so closely associated (Gn 27%), Yet, while the system re quired that the machinery of the family should be employed, it might easily happen, as the cases of Shechem and Samson show, that it might be set in motion by a lover, and the more so that in ancient Israel the association of the sexes was comparatively unrestrained, and naturally led to personal attachments which sought satisfaction in marriage (Gn 2416 291; οὗ, 1S 18%), Among the Hebrews, in any case, the tyranny of family rule does not appear to have dispensed with the con- sent of the parties (Gn 24%), which under this regime is often treated as matter of indifference, at least as respects the bride (Post, Studien, p. 166 ff.).