RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Familiar Spirit
Family and Marriage Relation
Rotterdam, Emden, Cologne, and Paris, but in all these places the community seems to have survived only a short time, the last certain mention 3f them dating from 1604.
In England the influence of the Familists was
deeper and more lasting. The entering wedge
seems to have been a Dutch congrega-
The tion in London, with whom Niclaes
Familists came in contact, especially as this in community included adherents of
England. David Joris (q.v.) and similar fanatics. Christopher Vitel, a native of Delft, the city of Joris, was, moreover, long the lead of the English Familists, but the movement loon spread to genuinely English soil, and the most )f the writings of Niclaes were translated into English. In 1574 the English government proseeded against the Familists, whereupon they iddressed to Parliament An Apology for the Service if Love and the People that Own it, and in the folowing year issued A Brief Rehearsal of the Belief >/ the Goodwilling in England, which are named the family of Love. They were answered by John Rogers and John Knewstub, and on Oct. 3, 1580, Elizabeth issued a proclamation against them vhich condemned their books and directed that the lectaries themselves be imprisoned. A week later i formula of abjuration was promulgated, and aws against the Familists soon followed. The iect did not disappear, however, and James I. was i-ddressed by them in petitions soon after his ac- :ession, but in vain. The new monarch was extremely antagonistic to them, and had declared as ;arly as the preface to his Basilicon dor on in 1599, hat they were responsible for the rise of Puritanism, ifter the fall of the Stuarts, they were opposed by (ohn Etherington, but in the Republican period nany of the works of Niclaes were reprinted, vhile it has been suggested that Bunyan's Piltrim's Progress owes its inspiration to Familist vritings. They were also closely connected with he Ranters of the Commonwealth. After the Restoration the Familists vanished, and by the >eginning of the eighteenth century but one aged nember of the sect was known to be alive.
Niclaes' faithless disciple Hendrik Jansen of
Barreveldt, writing under the pseudonym of Hiel,
long survived his teacher. Of his
The life little is known, although in his
Successor later years he himself says that he of Niclaes. led the life of a wanderer. He was closely associated with Plantin and lis family, who printed the greater part of his vritings, his chief work being Het Boeck der Gheuygenissen van den verborgen Ackerschat, published >y Plantin at Antwerp in Flemish and French about 580. Hiel discarded the hierarchic and ceremonial raditions of his master, and declared all external vorship a matter of indifference, thus rendering it )ossible for the famous Antwerp printer to remain ormally in the Roman Catholic Church, and to >elong to the Spanish Catholic party despite his ympathy with the Familists. (F Loofs.)
Bibliography: The fundamental work for a study of Niclaes and his sect is F. Nippold, Heinrich Niclaes und das Haus der Liebe, in ZHT, xxxii (1862), 323-402, 473-
IV.-18
563, which uses original and newly discovered sources, all of which and others are noted by J. H. Hessels, Notes and Queries, Oct.-Nov., 1869. The article in DNB, xl 427-431 is exceedingly valuable. Consult further: G. Arnold, Kirchen- unl Ketzer-Historie, ii. 123 sqq., 4 vols., Frankfort, 1700-15; C. A. Tiele, Christophe Plantin et le sectaire mystique Henrik Niclaes, in Le Bibliophile Beige, iii (1868), 121-138 (uses original sources partly the same as Nippold's, ut sup.); M. Rooses, Christophe Plantin, pp. 441 sqq., Antwerp, 1882 (sets forth Plantin's relation to Niclaes and the sect); A. J. van der Aa, Biographisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden, xiii. 177-185, Haarlem, 1868; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, , pp. 158-160, Philadelphia, 1874 (useful for references to books treating of the sect in England).
FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS, HEBREW
Patriarchal Constitution of the Family (§ 1 ).
Marriage Effected by Purchase (§ 2).
The Wife's Property Rights (§ 3).
Polygamy the Rule (§ 4).
Tendency toward Monogamy (§ 5).
Ethical and Social Limitations and Preferences (§ 6).
Divorce (§ 7).
Legal Status of Woman (§ 8).
Social Position of Woman (§ 9).
Wedding Customs (§ 10).
Legal Position of the Widow (§ 11).
The Levirate (§ 12).
Desire for Children (§ 13).
Customs at Birth (§ 14).
Legal Status and Training of Children (§ 15).
Position of the First-born (§ 16).
In historical times the Israelite family was patriarchal, i.e., kinship, tribal affinity, and inheritance were determined by descent from the father; though there was a time when matriarchy existed among the Semites, these relations then being determined by the mother. And it must be admitted i. Patri- that among the Hebrews traces are archal Con- found of former matriarchal constitution of ditions, e.g., the position occupied by the Family, such women as Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah, Keturah, and Hagar. Expressions found in Gen. xlii. 38, xliii. 29, xliv. 20 (cf. Judges ix. 2) show how long the feeling persisted that relationship was determined by the mother. Descent from the same mother but not from the father formed a barrier to marriage. This is shown by marriage with half-sister, stepmother, and daughter-in-law, a practise which continued till the exile (Ezek. xxii. 10-11). Characteristics of the matriarchy were: derivation of name from the mother (Gen. xxx. 3), inheritance ■ through her (Gen. xxi. 10), marriage of the girl through the brother's initiative (not the father's; Gen. xxiv.; only in verse 50 is Bethuel's name added), and marriage of the man into the family of the wife (Gen. xxiv. 5; Judges xiv., xv. 2).
Marriage was effected by purchase. The legal relation was founded upon an engagement accomplished by the payment of purchase-money. The engaged girl became the property of the man, and in case of rape or infidelity was treated as a married woman. Written marriage-contracts, 2. Marriage which were customary among the an- Effected by cient Babylonians (Code of Hammu- Purchase. rabi, § 128), are not mentioned until a late period (Tobit vii. 14). The father received the purchase-money; but in course of time this custom changed and a part of the
Family and Marriage Relations THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
money went to the bride. On an average the price was about fifty shekels (Deut. xxii. 29; cf. Ex. xxii. 16-17; Code of Hammurabi, § 139). This obligation could also be met in other ways: Jacob served as a hired hand (Gen.xxix. 15 sqq.), others accomplished feats of war (Josh. xv. 16; I Sam. xvii. 25. xviii. 20 sqq.). While not explicitly stated in the Old Testament, it is implied that the unjustifiable withdrawal of the bridegroom caused him to lose the purchase-price. If the father-inlaw withdrew, he had to repay the money twofold {Code of Hammurabi, §§ 159, 160).
All that the wife brought with her were the presents, if any, received from the groom (Gen. xxiv. 53, xxxiv. 12; cf. Code of Hammurabi, § 159), and those from her family (Josh. xv. 16 sqq.), including
particularly slaves for her personal
3. The service (Gen. xvi. 2, xxiv. 59, xxix.
Wife's 24 sqq.). There is no mention of a
Property dowry, properly speaking, until after
Rights, the exile (Tobit viii. 21; Ecclus. xxv.
22; I Kings ix. 16 proves only the Egyptian custom). Daughters could not inherit paternal property; but whatever they brought into matrimony with them remained theirs. The husband had no authority over the personal slaves of the wife (Gen. xvi. 6, xxx. 3 sqq.). In the absence of any express statement to the contrary, it must be assumed that in case of separation or death oit the husband, the wife received back her original property (cf. Code of Hammurabi, §§ 137, 138, 171, 172).
The consent of the girl was not necessary to the engagement, though it is probable that she was usually consulted (Gen. xxiv. 58). The negotiations were conducted by the girl's father or guardian (Gen. xxiv. 50, xxix. 23, xxxiv. 12); for the unmarried daughter belonged to her father, who had the right to sell her (Ex. xxi. 7). The seduction of a girl was a trespass against the father, who could demand of the offender the usual price of a wife without being required to give the girl in marriage to the seducer (Ex. xxii. 16-17).
In contrast to the custom in ancient Babylon, polygamy was the rule in Israel. In Babylon {Code of Hammurabi) a man could marry only one
principal wife, but he was allowed
4. Polygamy to keep another woman in addition,
the Rule, unless his wife gave him one of her
slaves as a concubine. In Israel the only limit to the number of wives was ability to support them. Wealthy men made extensive use of their rights (cf. II Sam. v 13; I Kings xi. 1 sqq.); still the law of the kingdom, referring covertly to Solomon, forbade the King to take many wives (Deut. xvii. 17). The Talmudists allow to the king not more than eighteen wives at one time, to a man of the people not more than four. Presumably the commoner in Israel, like the modern peasant in Palestine, was content with one or two wives. If the first wife remained barren, the husband was entitled to either another wife or a concubine, in which case the wife might voluntarily give him her handmaid (Gen. xvi. 1 sqq., xxx. 3 sqq.; cf. Code of Hammurabi, § 144).
But even this limited polygamy caused much
inconvenience, particularly in the status of the childless wife (Gen. xvi. 4 sqq.; cf. xxx.; I Sam. i. 1 sqq.). The later law took the part of the discarded wife (Deut. xxi. 15 sqq.); and 5. Tendency the former custom of marrying two toward sisters at the same time was pro- Monogamy, hibited (Lev. xviii. 18). The development was toward monogamy; and Gen. ii. 18 sqq., as well as passages in the Prophets where the relation of God to his people is characterized as one of marriage, shows that monogamy was regarded as the normal state. The praise of the virtuous wife in the Proverbs and elsewhere proves that the later period saw in monogamy the ideal marriage (Ps. cxxviii.; Prov. xii. 4, xviii. 22 xix. 14, xxxi. 10 sqq.; Ecclus. xxv. 1 sqq., etc.).
Impediments to marriage were unknown to ancient custom, except that marriage between father and daughter or mother and son was always looked upon as an abomination. Theoretically the young man might choose a wife wherever he pleased; practically, he was limited. Since it was a question of admitting a woman into the family, marriage became a family affair. The father chose the bride for his son (Gen. xxiv. 2 sqq., xxviii. 1 sqq., xxxviii. 6), and it was unseemly 6. Ethical for the son to marry against the will and Social of his parents (Gen. xxvi. 34-3.5, Limitations xxvii. 46). Yet the preferences of and the young people were taken into Preferences, account; and, since there were no particular restraints on the social intercourse of the sexes, there was ample opportunity for the development of such attachments (Gen. xxiv. 58; Ex. ii. 16; I Sam. ix. 11, etc.). Yet by custom, marriages outside of the tribe were interdicted, while marriages with relations were preferred (Gen. xxix. 19; Num. xxvi. 59, and often in patriarchal history). Particularly the cousin on the father's side was chosen as a girl's wooer (cf. the cases of Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel), a custom that still exists. To be sure, settlement in Canaan brought changes, and marriages with Canaanites and other foreigners were not infrequent (Judges hi. 6; II Sam. iii. 3; I Kings xi. 1, etc.). In the regal period friendship for the Canaanites turned to hatred, and marriages with heathen peoples, except the Egyptians and the Edomites, were prohibited (Deut. vii. 1 sqq., xxiii. 4 sqq.; cf. Ex. xxxiv. 16). Still, the law was not carried out, and no lasting change was effected till the time of Ezra (Ezra ix. and x.). The law sought also to limit marriages with relations and forbade marriage with stepmother, with, sister or half-sister, and with mother-in-law (Deut. xxvii. 20, 22). But even this did not break the popular custom (Ezek. xxii. 10-11). Finally, the priest-code forbade marriage with mother or stepmother, niece or aunt, with the wife of an uncle on the faher's side, with mother-in-law or daughterin-law, or with the wife of a brother (Lev. xviii. 6 sqq.; cf. xx. 11 sqq.). The prohibition of marriage with a daughter is probably omitted through error in the text. Thus, union between uncle and niece, between nephew and widow of the mothers brother, and between the children of brothers and