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 [Greek: genê], of which there were thirty in each [Greek: phratria], 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.

Genealogies in great plenty are found in manuscripts and printed volumes from the 16th century onward. Remarkable among these are the descents recorded in the Visitation Books of the heralds, who, armed with commissions from the crown, the first of which was issued in 20 Hen. VIII., perambulated the English counties, viewing arms and registering pedigrees. The notes in their register books range from the simple registration of a man's name and arms to entries of pedigrees many generations long. To the heralds these visitations were rare opportunities of obtaining fees from the visited, and the value of the pedigrees registered is notably unequal. Although it has always been the boast of the College of Arms that Visitation records may be produced as evidence in the law courts, few of these officially recorded genealogies are wholly trustworthy. Many of the officers of arms who recorded them were, even by the testimony of their comrades, of indifferent character, and even when the visiting herald was an honourable man and an industrious he had little time to spare for the investigation of any single genealogy. Deeds and evidences in private hands may have been hastily examined in some instances--indeed, a herald's summons invites their production--and monuments were often viewed in the churches, but for the most part men's memories and the hearsay of the country-side made the backbone of the pedigree. The further the pedigree is carried beyond the memory of living men the less trustworthy does it become. The principal visitations took place in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I. and Charles II. No commission has been issued since the accession of William and Mary, but from that time onwards large numbers of genealogies have been recorded in the registers of the College of Arms, the modern ones being compiled with a care which contrasts remarkably with the unsupported statements of the Tudor heralds.

Outside the doors of the College of Arms genealogy has now been for some centuries a favourite study of antiquaries, whose researches have been of the utmost value to the historian, the topographer and the biographer. County histories, following the example of Dugdale's Warwickshire folios, have given much space to the elucidation of genealogies and to the amassing of material from which they may be constructed. Dugdale's great work on the English baronage heads another host of works occupied with the genealogy of English noble families, and the second edition of "G.E.C.'s" _Complete Peerage_ shows the mighty advance of the modern critical spirit. Nevertheless, the 20th century has not yet seen the abandoning of all the genealogical fables nourished by the Elizabethan pedigree-mongers, and the ancestry of many noble houses as recorded in popular works of reference is still derived from mythical forefathers. Thus the dukes of Norfolk, who, by their office of earl marshal are patrons of the heralds, are provided with a 10th-century Hereward for an ancestor; the dukes of Bedford, descendants of a 15th-century burgess of Weymouth, are traced to the knightly house of Russell of Kingston Russell, and the dukes of Westminster to the mythical Gilbert le Grosvenor who "came over in the train of the Conqueror."

Genealogical research has, however, made great advance during the last generation. The critical spirit shown in such works as Round's _Studies in Peerage and Family History_ (1901) has assailed with effective ridicule the methods of dishonest pedigree-makers. Much raw material of genealogy has been made available for all by the publication of parish registers, marriage-licence allegations, monumental inscriptions and the like, and above all by the mass of evidences contained in the volumes issued by the Public Record Office.

Within a small space it is impossible to set forth in detail the methods by which an English genealogy may be traced. But those who are setting out upon the task may be warned at the outset to avoid guesswork based upon the possession of a surname which may be shared by a dozen families between whom is no tie of kinship. A man whose family name is Howard may be presumed to descend from an ancestor for whom Howard was a personal name: it may not be presumed that this ancestor was he in whom the dukes of Norfolk have their origin. A genealogy should not be allowed to stray from facts which can be supported by evidence. A man may know that his grandfather was John Stiles who died in 1850 at the age of fifty-five. It does not follow that this John is identical with the John Stiles who is found as baptized in 1795 at Blackacre, the son of William Stiles. But if John the grandfather names in his letters a sister named Isabel Nokes, while the will of William Stiles gives legacies to his son and daughter John Stiles and Isabel Nokes, we may agree that reasonable proof has been given of the added generation. A new pedigree should begin with the carefully tested statements of living members of a family. The next step should be to collate such family records as bible entries, letters and diaries, and inscriptions on mourning rings, with monumental inscriptions of acknowledged members of the family. From such beginnings the genealogist will continue his search through the registers of parishes with which the family has been connected; wills and administrations registered in the various probate courts form, with parish registers, the backbone of most middle-class family histories. Court rolls of manors in which members of the family were tenants give, when existing and accessible, proofs which may carry back a line, however obscure, through many descents. When these have been exhausted the records of legal proceedings, and notably those of the court of chancery, may be searched. Few English households have been able in the past to avoid an appeal to the chancery court, and the bill and answer of a chancery plaintiff and defendant will often tell the story of a family quarrel in which a score of kinsfolk are involved, and the pleadings may contain the material for a family tree of many branching generations. Coram Rege and De Banco rolls may even, in the course of a dispute over a knight's fee or a manor carry a pedigree to the Conquest of England, although such good fortune can hardly be expected by the searcher out of an undistinguished line. In proving a genealogy it must be remembered that in the descent of an estate in land must be sought the best evidence for a pedigree.

At the present time the study of genealogy grows rapidly in English estimation. It is no less popular in America, where societies and private persons have of late years published a vast number of genealogies, many of which combine the results of laborious research in American records with extravagant and unfounded claims concerning the European origin of the families dealt with. A family with the surname of Cuthbert has been known to hail St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne as its progenitor, and one surnamed Eberhardt has incorporated in its pedigree such German princes of old times as were found to have Eberhardt for a Christian name.

Genealogy in modern France has, with a few honourable exceptions, fallen into the hands of the popular pedigree-makers, whose concern is to gratify the vanity of their employers. Italy likewise has not yet shaken off the influence of those venal genealogists who, three hundred years ago, sold pedigrees cheaply to all comers. But much laborious genealogical inquiry had been made in Germany since the days of Hübner, and even in Russia there has been some attempt to apply modern standards of criticism to the chronicles of the swarming descendants of the blood of Rurik.

In no way is the gap made by the Dark Ages between ancient and modern history more marked than by the fact that no European family makes a serious claim to bridge it with its genealogy. The unsupported claim of the Roman house of Massimo to a descent from Fabius Maximus is respectable beside such legends as that which made Lévis-Mirepoix head of the priestly tribe of Levi, but even the boast of such remote ancestry has now become rare. The ancient sovereign houses of Europe are, for the most part, content to attach themselves to some ancestor who, when the mist that followed the fall of the Western empire begins to lift, is seen rallying with his sword some group of spearmen.

AUTHORITIES.--Genealogical works have been published in such abundance that the bibliographies of the subject are already substantial volumes. Amongst the earlier books from the press may be noted Benvenuto de San Georgio's _Montisferrati marchionum et principum regiae propagium successionumque series_ (1515); Pingonius's _Arbor gentilitiae Sabaudiae Saxoniaeque domus_ (1521); Gebweiler's _Epitome regii ac vetustissimi ortus Caroli V. et Ferdinandi I., omniumque archiducum Austriae et comitum Habsburgiensium_ (1527): Meyer's work on the counts of Flanders (1531), and Du Boulay's genealogies of the dukes of Lorraine (1547). Later in the same century Reineck of Helmstadt put forth many works having a wider genealogical scope, and we may cite Henninges's _Genealogiae Saxonicae_ (1587) and _Theatrum genealogicum_ (1598), and Reusner's _Opus genealogicum catholicum_ (1589-1592). For the politically inconvenient falseness of François de Rosières' _Stemmata Lotharingiae ac Barri ducum_ (1580), wherein the dukes of Lorraine were deduced from the line of Charlemagne, the author was sent to the Bastille by the parlement of Paris and his book suppressed.

The 17th century saw the production in England of Dugdale's great _Baronage_ (1675-1676), a work which still holds a respectable place by reason of its citation of authorities, and of Sandford's history of the royal house. In the same century André Duchesne, the historian of the Montmorencys, Pierre d'Hozier, the chronicler of the house of La Rochefoucauld, Rittershusius, Imhoff, Spener, Lohmeier and many others contribute to the body of continental genealogies. Pierre de Guibours, known as Père Anselme de Ste Marie, published in 1674 the first edition of his magnificent _Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de France, des pairs, grands officiers de la couronne et de la maison du roy et des anciens barons du royaume_. Of this encyclopaedic work a third and complete edition appeared in 1726-1733. A modern edition under the editorship of M. Potier de Courcy began to be issued in 1873, but remains incomplete. Among 18th-century work Johann Hübner's _Bibliotheca genealogica_ (1729) and _Genealogische Tabellen_ (1725-1733), with Lenzen's commentary on the latter work (c. 1756), may be signalized, with Gatterer's _Handbuch der Genealogie_ (1761) and his Abriss der Genealogie (1788), the latter an early manual on the science of genealogy. Hergott's _Genealogia diplomatica augustae gentis Habsburgicae_ (1737) is the imperial genealogy compiled by the emperor's own historiographer.

Modern peerages in England may be said to date from that of Arthur Collins, whose one-volume first edition was published in 1709. The fifth edition appeared in 1778, in eight volumes, to be republished in 1812 by Sir Egerton Brydges, the "Baptist Hatton" of Disraeli's novel, who corrected many legendary pedigrees, besides inserting his own forged descent from a common ancestor with the dukes of Chandos. From this work and from the Irish peerage of Lodge (as re-edited by Archdall) most of the later peerages have quarried their material. With these may be named the baronetages of Wotton and Betham. Of modern popular peerages and baronetages that of Burke has been published since 1822 in many editions and now appears yearly. Most important for the historian are the _Complete Peerage_ of G.E. C[ockayne] (2nd ed., 1910), and the _Complete Baronetage_ of the same author. The _Peerage of Scotland_ (1769) of Sir Robert Douglas of Glenbervie came to a second edition in 1813, edited by J.P. Wood, and the whole work has been revised and re-edited by Sir James Balfour Paul (1904, &c.). Of the popular manuals of English untitled families, Burke's _Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Commoners_ (1833-1838) is now brought up to date from time to time and reissued as the _Landed Gentry_.

Lists of pedigrees in English printed works are supplied by Marshall's _Genealogist's Guide_ (1903), while pedigrees in the manuscript collections of the British Museum are indexed in the list of R. Sims (1849). Valuable genealogical material will be found in such periodicals as the _Genealogist_, the _Herald and Genealogist_, the _Topographer and Genealogist_, _Collectanea topographica et genealogica_, _Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica_ and the _Ancestor_. In Germany the _Deutscher Herold_ is the organ of the Berlin Heraldic and Genealogical Society. The _Nederlandsche Leeuw_ is a similar publication in the Low Countries.

Modern criticism of the older genealogical methods will be found in J.H. Round's _Peerage and Pedigree_, 2 vols. (London, 1910), and in other volumes by the same author. The Harleian Society has published many volumes of the Herald's Visitations; and the British Record Society's publications, supplying a key to a vast mass of wills, Chancery suits and marriage licences, are of still greater importance. The _Victoria History of the Counties of England_ includes genealogies of the ancient English county families still among the land-owning classes. English pedigrees of the age before the Conquest are collected in W.G. Searle's _Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles_ (1899).

Genealogical dictionaries of noble French families include Victor de Saint Allais's _Nobiliaire universel_ (21 vols., 1872-1877) and Aubert de la Chenaye-Desbois' _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_ (15 vols., 1863-1876). A sumptuous work on the genealogy and heraldry of the ancient duchy of Savoy by Count Amédée de Foras began to appear in 1863. Spain has Lopez de Haro's _Nobiliario genealogico de los reyes y títulos de España_. Italy has the _Teatro araldico_ of Tettoni and Saladini (1841-1848), Litti's _Famiglie celebri_ and an _Annuario della nobilità_. Such annuals are now published more or less intermittently in many European countries. Finland has a _Ridderscap och Adels Kalender_, Belgium the _Annuaire de la noblesse_, the Dutch Netherlands an _Adelsboek_, Denmark the _Adels-Garbog_ and Russia the _Annuaire_ of Ermerin. But chief of all such publications is the ancient _Almanach de Gotha_, containing the modern kinship of royal and princely houses, and now accompanied by volumes dealing with the houses of German and Austrian counts and barons, and with houses ennobled in modern times by patent. A useful modern reference book for students of history is Stokvis's _Manuel d'histoire et de généalogie de tous les états du globe_ (1888-1893). The best manual for the English genealogist is Walter Rye's _Records and Record Searching_ (1897), while an ill-arranged but valuable bibliography of English and foreign works on the subject is that of George Gatfield (1892). (O. Ba.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] G.B. Gray's _Hebrew Proper Names_ (1896), with his article in the _Expositor_ (Sept. 1897), pp. 173-190, should be consulted for the application and range of Hebrew names in O. T. genealogies and lists.

[2] On the subject generally see articles "Genos" and "Gens," by A.H. Greenidge, in Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_ (3rd ed., 1890), where the chief authorities are given.

[3] The fondness of Euripides for genealogies is ridiculed by Aristophanes (_Acharnians_, 47).

[4] All the earlier Greek historians appear to have constructed their narratives on assumed genealogical bases. The four books of Hecataeus of Miletus dealt respectively with the traditions about Deucalion, about Heracles and the Heraclidae, about the early settlements in Peloponnesus, and about those in Asia Minor; he further made a pedigree for himself, in which his sixteenth ancestor was a god. The works of Hellanicus of Lesbos bore titles ([Greek: Deukaliôneia] and the like) which sufficiently explain their nature; his disciple, Damastes of Sigeum, was the author of genealogical histories of Trojan heroes; Apollodorus of Athens made use of three books of [Greek: Genealogika] by Acusilaus of Argos; Pherecydes of Leros also wrote [Greek: genealogiai]. See J.A.F. Töpffer, _Attische Genealogie_ (1889); also J.H. Schubart, _Quaestt. geneal. historicae_ (1832); G. Marckscheffel, _De genealogica Graecorum poësi_ (1840).

[5] The chief authority on this subject is Polybius (vi. 53); see also T. Mommsen, _Römisches Staatsrecht_, i. (1887), p. 442.

[6] At the funeral of Drusus the images of Aeneas, of the Alban kings, of Romulus, of the Sabine nobles, of Attus Clausus, and of "the rest of the Claudians" were exhibited (Tac. _Ann._ iv. 9).

[7] The Roman stemmata had, as will be seen afterwards, great interest for the older modern genealogists. Reference may be made to J. Glandorp's _Descriptio gentis Antoniae_ (1557); to the _Descriptio gentis Juliae_ (1576) of the same author; and to J. Hübner's _Genealogische Tabellen_. See also G.A. Ruperti's _Tabulae genealogicae sive stemmata nobiliss_. gent. Rom. (1794). (X.)

GENELLI, GIOVANNI BUONAVENTURA (1798-1868), German painter, was born at Berlin on the 28th of September 1798. He was the son of Janus Genelli, a painter whose landscapes are still preserved in the Schloss at Berlin, and grandson to Joseph Genelli, a Roman embroiderer employed to found a school of gobelins by Frederick the Great. Buonaventura Genelli first took lessons from his father and then became a student of the Berlin academy. After serving his time in the guards he went with a stipend to Rome, where he lived ten years, a friend and assistant to Koch the landscape painter, a colleague of the sculptor Ernst Hähnel (1811-1891), Reinhart, Overbeck and Führich, all of whom made a name in art. In 1830 he was commissioned by Dr Härtel to adorn a villa at Leipzig with frescoes, but quarrelling with this patron he withdrew to Munich, where he earned a scanty livelihood at first, though he succeeded at last in acquiring repute as an illustrative and figure draughtsman. In 1859 he was appointed a professor at Weimar, where he died on the 13th of November 1868. Genelli painted few pictures, and it is very rare to find his canvases in public galleries, but there are six of his compositions in oil in the Schack collection at Munich. These and numerous water-colours, as well as designs for engravings and lithographs, reveal an artist of considerable power whose ideal was the antique, but who was also fascinated by the works of Michelangelo. Though a German by birth, his spirit was unlike that of Overbeck or Führich, whose art was reminiscent of the old masters of their own country. He seemed to hark back to the land of his fathers and endeavour to revive the traditions of the Italian Renaissance. Subtle in thought and powerfully conceived, his compositions are usually mythological, but full of matter, energetic and fiery in execution, and marked almost invariably by daring effects of foreshortening. Impeded by straitened means, the artist seems frequently to have drawn from imagination rather than from life, and much of his anatomy of muscle is in consequence conventional and false. But none the less Genelli merits his reputation as a bold and imaginative artist, and his name deserves to be remembered beyond the narrow limits of the early schools of Munich and Weimar.

GENERAL (Lat. _generalis_, of or relating to a _genus_, kind or class), a term which, from its pointing to all or most of the members of a class, the whole of an area, &c. as opposed to "particular" or to "local," is hence used in various shades of meaning, for that which is prevalent, usual, widespread or miscellaneous, indefinite, vague. It has been added to the titles of various officials, military officers and others; thus the head of a religious order is the "superior-general," more usually the "general," and we find the same combination in such offices as that of "accountant-general," "postmaster-general," "attorney-" or "solicitor-general," and many others, the additional word implying that the official in question is of superior rank, as having a wider authority or sphere of activity. This is the use that accounts for the application of the term, as a substantive, to a military officer of superior rank, a "general officer," or "general," who commands or administers bodies of troops larger than a regiment, or consisting of more than one arm of the service (see also OFFICERS). It was towards the end of the 16th century that the word began to be used in its present sense as a noun, and in the armies of the time the "general" was commander-in-chief, the "lieutenant-general" commander of the horse and second in command of the army, and the "major-general" (strictly "sergeant-major-general") commander of the foot and chief of the staff. Field marshals, who have now the highest rank, were formerly subordinate to the general officers. These titles--general, lieutenant-general and major-general--are still applied in most armies to the first, second and third grades of general officer, and in the French service until 1870 the chief of the staff of the army bore the title of major-general. In the German and Russian services the three grades are qualified by the addition of the words "of cavalry," "of infantry" and "of artillery." The French service possesses only two grades, "general of brigade" and "general of division." The Austrian service has two ranks of general officers peculiar to itself, "lieutenant field marshal," equivalent to lieutenant-general, and _Feldzeugmeister_ (master of the ordnance), equivalent to the German general of infantry or artillery. There is also the rank of "general of cavalry." The Spanish army still retains the old term "captain-general." In the German service _General Oberst_ (colonel-general) and _General Feldzeugmeister_ (master-general of ordnance) are ranks intermediate between that of full general and that of general field marshal. It may be noted that during the 17th century "general" was not confined to a commanding officer of an army, and was also equivalent to "admiral"; thus when under the Protectorate the office of lord high admiral was put into commission, the three first commissioners, Blake, Edward Popham and Richard Deane, were styled "generals at sea."

GENERATION (from Lat. _generare_, to beget, procreate; _genus_, stock, race), the act of procreation or begetting, hence any one of the various methods by which plants, animals or substances are produced. As applied to the result of procreation, "generation" is used of the offspring of the same parents, taken as one degree in descent from a common ancestor, or, widely, of the body of living persons born at or near the same time; thus the word is also used of the age or period of a generation, usually taken as about thirty years, or three generations to a century. As a term in biology or physiology, generation is synonymous with the Gr. [Greek: biogenesis] and the Ger. _Zeugung_, and may comprehend the whole history of the first origin and continued reproduction of living bodies, whether plants or animals; but it is frequently restricted to the sexual reproduction of animals. The subject may be divided into the following branches, viz.: (1) the first origin of life and living beings, (2) non-sexual or agamic reproduction, and (3) gamic or sexual reproduction. For the first two of these topics see ABIOGENESIS, BIOGENESIS and BIOLOGY; for the third and more extensive division, including (1) the formation and fecundation of the ovum, and (2) the development of the embryo in different animals, see REPRODUCTION and EMBRYOLOGY.

GENESIS (Gr. [Greek: genesis], becoming; the term being used in English as a synonym for origin or process of coming into being), the name of the first book in the Bible, which derives its title from the Septuagint rendering of ch. ii. 4. It is the first of the five books (the Pentateuch), or, with the inclusion of Joshua, of the six (the Hexateuch), which cover the history of the Hebrews to their occupation of Canaan. The "genesis" of Hebrew history begins with records of antediluvian times: the creation of the world, of the first pair of human beings, and the origin of sin (i.-iii.), the civilization and moral degeneration of mankind, the history of man to the time of Noah (iv.-vi. 8), the flood (vi. 9-ix.), the confusion of languages and the divisions of the human race (x.-xi.). Turning next to the descendants of Shem, the book deals with Abraham (xii.-xxv. 18), Isaac and Jacob (xxv. 19-xxxv.), the "fathers" of the tribes of Israel, and concludes with the personal history of Joseph, and the descent of his father Jacob (or Israel) and his brethren into the land of Egypt (xxxvii.-l.). The book of Genesis, as a whole, is closely connected with the subsequent oppression of the sons of Israel, the revelation of Yahweh the God of their fathers (Ex. iii. 6, 15 seq., vi. 2-8), the "exodus" of the Israelites to the land promised to their fathers (Ex. xiii. 5, Deut. i. 8, xxvi. 3 sqq., xxxiv. 4) and its conquest (Josh. i. 6, xxiv.); cf. also the summaries Neh. ix. 7 sqq., Ps. cv. 6 sqq.

Analysis.

The words, "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" (ii. 4), introduce an account of the creation of the world, which, however, is preceded by a relatively later and less primitive record (i. 1-ii. 3). The differences between the two accounts lie partly in the style and partly in the form and contents of the narratives. i. 1-ii. 3 is marked by stereotyped formulae ("and God [_Elohim_] said ... and it was so ... and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there was morning," &c.); it is precise and detailed, whereas ii. 4b-iii. is less systematic, fresher and more anthropomorphic. The former is cosmic, the latter is local. It is the latter which mentions the mysterious garden and the wonderful trees which Yahweh planted, and depicts Yahweh conversing with man and walking in the garden in the cool of the evening. The former, on the other hand, has an enlightened conception of _Elohim_; the Deity, though grand, is a lifeless figure; several antique ideas are nevertheless preserved. The account of the creation, too, is different; for example, in chap. i. man and woman are created together, whereas in ii. man is at first alone. The naiveness of the story of the creation of woman is in line with the interest which this more popular source takes in the origin or existence of phenomena, customs and contemporary beliefs (the garden, the naming of animals, &c.). The primitive record is continued in the story of Cain and Abel (iv.), where the old-time problem of Cain's wife and the reference to other human beings (iv. 14 seq.) gave rise in pre-critical days to the theory of pre-Adamites, as though Adam and Eve were not the only inhabitants of the earth. But all the indications go to show that there were at least two distinct popular narratives, one of which ignores the flood. Cain the murderer, doomed to be a wanderer, now becomes the builder of a city, and his descendants introduce various arts (iv. 16b-24).[1] (See the articles ABEL; ADAM; CAIN; COSMOGENY; ENOCH; EVE; LAMECH.) From the "generations" of the heavens and the earth (which one would have expected at the head of ch. i.) we pass to the "generations of Adam" (v. 1). The list of the "Sethites," with its characteristically stereotyped framework, has an older parallel in iv. 25 seq. (with the origin of the worship of Yahweh contrast Ex. vi. 2. seq.), and a fragment from the same source is found in v. 29.

After the birth of Noah the son of Lamech (v. 29, contrast iv. 19 sqq.) comes the brief story of the demigods (vi. 1-4). It is no part of the account of the fall or of the flood (note verse 4 and Num.