The loose, flowing character of the Hebrew robes admitted of a variety of symbolical actions : rending them was expressive of various emotions, as grief (Gen. xxxvii, 29, 34 ; Job i, 20 ; 2 Sam. i, 2) [see MbDRniNo], fear (1 Kings xxi, 27 ; 2 Kings xxii, 11, 19), indignation (2 Kings v, 7; xi, 14; Matt, xxvi, 65), or despair (Judg. xi, 85 ; Esth. iv, 1) : generally the outer garment alone was thus rent (Gen. xxxvii, 134; Job i, 20; ii, 12), occasionally the inner (2 Sam. XV, 82), and occasionally both (Ezra ix, 8 ; Matt, xxvi, 65, compared with Mark xiv, 63). Shaking the gar- ments, or sliaking the dust off them, was a sign of re- nunciation (Acts xviii, 6) ; spreading them before a person, of loyalty and joyous reception (2 Kings ix, 18 ; Matt, xxi, 8) ; wrapping them round the head, of awe (1 Kings xix, 18) or of grief (2 Sam. xv, 30 ; Esth. vi, 12 ; Jer. xiv, 8, 4) ; casting them off, of excitement (Acts xxii, 28); laying hold of them, of supplication (1 Sam. XV, 27 ; Isa. iii, 6 ; iv, 1 ; Zech. viii, 28).
The length of the dress rendered it inconvenient for active exercise ; hence the outer garments were either left in the house by a person working close by (Matt. xxiv, 18), or were thrown off when the occasion arose (Mark x, 50 ; John xiii, 4 ; Acts vii, 58), or, if this was not possible, as in the case of a person travelling, they were girded up (1 Kings xviii, 46 ; 2 Kings iv, 29 ; ix, 1 ; 1 Pet i, 18) ; on entering a house the upper gar- ment was probably laid aside, and resumed on going out (Acts xii, 8). In a sitting posture, the garments concealed the feet ; this was held to he an act of rev- erence (Isa. vi, 2 ; see Lowth*s note). The proverbial expression in 1 Sam. xxv, 22 ; 1 Kings xiv, 10 ; xxi, 21; 2 Kings ix, 8, probably owes its origin to the length of the garments, which made another habit mora natural (comp. Herod, ii, 85 ; Xenoph. Ciprop, 1^
DRESS
892
DREY
2f 16 ; Ammian. Marcell. xxiii, 6) ; the exprefision is varioQsly understood to meun the lowett or the foW' gest of the people (GeseD. Thesaur. p. 1897 ; Jahn, AV" ckaoL i, 8, § 120). To cut the garmentB short was the grossest insalt that a Jew could receive (2 Sam. x, 4 ; the word there used yyo is peculiarly expressive of the length of the garments). To raise the border or skirt of a woman's dress was a similar insult, implying her unchastity (Isa. xlvil, 2 ; Jer. xiil, 22, 26 ; Nah. iii,6).
The putting on and off of garments, and the ease with which it was accomplished, are frequently re- ferred to ; the Hebrew expressions for the first of these operations, as regards the outer robe, are IZ92^, labash', to put on^ S^^^j <rfaA', ^^^t ^^wo*'* *nd t)I35, atapk\ lit. to cover, the latter three having special reference to the amplitude of the robes ; and for the second hd^9, pashat'y lit. to expand, which was the natural result of taking off a wide, loose garment. The ease of these operations forms the point of comparison in Psa. cii, 26 ; Jer. xliii, 12. In the case of closely -fitting robes the expression is ^an, chagar', lit. to gird, which is ap- plied to the ephod (1 Sam. ii, 18 ; 2 Sam. vi, 14), to sackcloth (2 Sam. iii, 31 ; Isa. xxxii, 11 ; Jer. iv, 8) ; the use of the term may illustrate Gen. iii, 7, where the garments used by our first parents are called rian, chagoroth' (A.V. "aprons"), probably meaning such as could be wound round the body. The con- verse term is nro, pathach', to loosen or unbind (Psa. XXX, 11 ; Isa. XX, 2).
The number of suits possessed by the Hebrews was considerable ; a single suit consisted of an under and upper garment, and was termed 0^7?? ^"?? (Sept. <rroA}) ifiaWwi/, i. e. apparatua vtstium ; Jndg. xvii, 10). Where more than one is spoken of, the suits are term^ riD'^PH (aX\a(T<r6fuvat aroXai ; A. V. ** changes of raiment;" compare Homer, Od. viii, 249,. iifiara i^tj- lioi^a). These formed in ancient times one of the most usual presents among Orientals (Harmer, Obser- vcUiofu, ii, 379 sq.) ; five (Gen. xlr, 22) and even ten changes (2 Kings v, 6) were thus presented, while as many as thirty were proposed as a wager (Judg. xiv, 12, 19). The highest token ofaffection was to present the robe actually worn by the giver (1 Sam. xviii, 4 ; oomp. Homer, //. vi, 280; Harmer, ii, 388). The pres- entution of a robe in many instances amounted to in- stallation or investiture (Gen. xli, 42 ; Eisth. viii, 16 ; Isa. xxii, 21 ; comp. Morier, Second Joumetf^ p. 98) ; on the other hand, taking it away amounted to dismissal from office (2 Mace, iv, 88). The production of the best robe was a mark of special honor in a household (Luke XV, 22). The number of robes thus received or kept in store for presents was very large, and formed one of the main elements of wealth in the East (Job xxvH, 16 ; Matt vi, 19 ; James v, 2), so that to have clothing =to be wealthy and powerful (Isa. iii, 6, 7). On grand occasions the entertainer ofl^red becoming robes to his guests (Trench on Parables, p. 281). Hence in large households a wardrobe (TrnDbQ) was required for their preservation (2 Kings x, 22 ; compare Har- mer, ii, 382), superintended by a special officer, named ^"''7??'^ "^^^t l^cper of the wardrobe (2 Chron. xxxiv, 22). Robes reserved for special occasions are termed ri:cbn^ (A.V. "changeable suits;" Isa. iii, 22; Zech. iii, 4), because laid aside when the occasion was past.