xxvii. 1 it is a crooked and piercing serpent, the dragon of the sea;

cf. Psalms civ. 26. The etymology of the word is uncertain, but it has been taken to be connected with a root meaning "to twist." Apart from its scriptural usage, the word is applied to any gigantic marine animal such as the whale, and hence, figuratively, of very large ships, and also of persons of outstanding strength, power, wealth or influence. Hobbes adopted the name as the title of his principal work, applying it to "the multitude so united in one person ... called a commonwealth.... This is the generation of that Leviathan, or rather ... of that mortal God, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence."

LEVIRATE (Lat. _levir_, a husband's brother), a custom, sometimes even a law, compelling a dead man's brother to marry his widow. It seems to have been widespread in primitive times, and is common to-day. Of the origin and primitive purpose of the levirate marriage various explanations have been put forward:--

1. It has been urged that the custom was primarily based on the law of inheritance; a wife, regarded as a chattel, being inherited like other possessions. The social advantage of providing one who should maintain the widow doubtless aided the spread of the custom. The abandonment of a woman and her children in the nomadic stage of civilization would be equivalent to death for them; hence with some peoples the levirate became a duty rather than a right. Among the Thlinkets, for example, when a man dies, his brother or his sister's son must marry the widow, a failure in this duty occasioning feuds. The obligation on a man to provide for his sister-in-law is analogous to other duties devolving on kinsfolk, such as the vendetta.

2. J. F. McLennan, however, would assume the levirate to be a relic of polyandry, and in his argument lays much stress on the fact that it is the dead man's _brother_ who inherits the widow. But among many races who follow the custom, such as the Fijians, Samoans, Papuans of New Guinea, the Caroline Islanders, and some tribes in the interior of Western Equatorial Africa, the rule of inheritance is to the brother first. Thus among the Santals, "when the elder brother dies, the next younger inherits the widow, children and all the property." Further, there is no known race where it is permitted to a son to marry his own mother. Inheriting a woman in primitive societies would be always tantamount to marrying her, and, apart from any special laws of inheritance, it would be natural for the brother to take over the widow. In polygamous countries where a man leaves many widows the son would have a right of ownership over these, and could dispose of them or keep them as he pleased, his own mother alone excepted. Thus among the Bakalai, an African tribe, widows may marry the son of their dead husband, or in default of a son, can live with the brother. The Negroes of Benin and the Gabun and the Kaffirs of Natal have similar customs. In New Caledonia every man, married or single, must immediately marry his brother's widow. In Polynesia the levirate has the force of law, and it is common throughout America and Asia.

3. Another explanation of the custom has been sought in a semi-religious motive which has had extraordinary influence in countries where to die without issue is regarded as a terrible calamity. The fear of this catastrophe would readily arise among people who did not believe in personal immortality, and to whom the extinction of their line would be tantamount to annihilation. Or it is easily conceivable as a natural result of ancestor-worship, under which failure of offspring entailed deprivation of cherished rites and service.[1] Thus it is only when the dead man has no offspring that the Jewish, Hindu and Malagasy laws prescribe that the brother shall "raise up seed" to him. In this sense the levirate forms part of the Deuteronomic Code, under which, however, the obligation is restricted to the brother who "dwelleth together" (i.e. on the family estate) with the dead man, and the first child only of the levirate marriage is regarded as that of the dead man. That the custom was obsolescent seems proved by the enjoining of ceremony on any brother who wished to evade the duty, though he had to submit to an insult from his sister-in-law, who draws off his sandal and spits in his face. The biblical story of Ruth exemplifies the custom, though with further modifications (see RUTH, BOOK OF). Finally the custom is forbidden in Leviticus, though in New Testament times the levirate law was still observed by some Jews. The ceremony ordained by Deuteronomy is still observed among the orthodox. Among the Hindus the _levir_ did not take his brother's widow as wife, but he had intercourse with her. This practice was called _niyoga_.

4. Yet another suggested origin of the levirate is agrarian, the motive being to keep together under the levirate husband the property which would otherwise have been divided among all the brothers or next of kin.

See J. F. McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_ (London, 1886) and "The Levirate and Polyandry," in _The Fortnightly Review_, n.s. vol. xxi. (1877); C. N. Starcke, _The Primitive Family in its Origin and Development_ (London, 1889); Edward Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_ (London, 1894), pp. 510-514, where are valuable notes containing references to numerous books of travel; H. Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, ii. 649; A. H. Post, _Einleitung in das Stud. d. Ethnolog. Jurisprud_. (1886).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] An expression of this idea is quoted from the _Mahabharata_ (Muir's trans.), by Max Müller (Gifford Lectures), _Anthropological Religion_, 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."

LÉVIS (formerly Pointe Levi), the chief town of Lévis county, Quebec, Canada, situated on the precipitous south bank of the St Lawrence, opposite Quebec city. Pop. (1901) 7783. It is on the Intercolonial railway, and is the eastern terminus of the Grand Trunk and Quebec Central railways. It contains the Lorne dock, a Dominion government graving dock, 445 ft. long, 100 ft. wide, with a depth on the sill of 26½ and 20½ ft. at high water, spring and neap tides respectively. It is an important centre of the river trade, and is connected by steam ferries with the city of Quebec. It is named after the maréchal duc de Lévis, the last commander of the French troops in Canada.

LEVITES, or sons of Levi (son of Jacob by Leah), a sacred caste in ancient Israel, the guardians of the temple service at Jerusalem.[1]

1. _Place in Ritual._--In the developed hierarchical system the ministers of the sanctuary are divided into distinct grades. All are "Levites" by descent, and are thus correlated in the genealogical and other lists, but the true priesthood is confined to the sons of Aaron, while the mass of the Levites are subordinate servants who are not entitled to approach the altar or to perform any strictly priestly function. All access to the Deity is restricted to the one priesthood and to the one sanctuary at Jerusalem; the worshipping subject is the nation of Israel as a unity, and the function of worship is discharged on its behalf by divinely chosen priests. The ordinary individual may not intrude under penalty of death; only those of Levitical origin may perform service, and they are essentially the servants and hereditary serfs of the Aaronite priests (see Num. xviii.). But such a scheme finds no place in the monarchy; it presupposes a hierocracy under which the priesthood increased its rights by claiming the privileges which past kings had enjoyed; it is the outcome of a complicated development in Old Testament religion in the light of which it is to be followed (see HEBREW RELIGION).

First (a), in the earlier biblical writings which describe the state of affairs under the Hebrew monarchy there is not this fundamental distinction among the Levites, and, although a list of Aaronite high-priests is preserved in a late source, internal details and the evidence of the historical books render its value extremely doubtful (1 Chron. vi. 3-15, 49-53). In Jerusalem itself the subordinate officers of the temple were not members of a holy gild, but of the royal body-guard, or bond-slaves who had access to the sacred courts, and might even be uncircumcised foreigners (Josh. ix. 27; 1 Kings xiv. 28; 2 Kings xi.; cf. Zeph. i. 8 seq.; Zech. xiv. 21). Moreover, ordinary individuals might serve as priests (1 Sam. ii II, 18, vii. 1; see 2 Sam. viii. 18, deliberately altered in 1 Chron. xviii. 17); however, every Levite was a priest, or at least qualified to become one (Deut. x. 8, xviii. 7; Judges xvii. 5-13), and when the author of 1 Kings xii. 31, wishes to represent Jeroboam's priests as illegitimate, he does not say that they were not Aaronites, but that they were not of the sons of Levi.

The next stage (b) is connected with the suppression of the local high-places or minor shrines in favour of a central sanctuary. This involved the suppression of the Levitical priests in the country (cf. perhaps the allusion in Deut. xxi. 5); and the present book of Deuteronomy, in promulgating the reform, represents the Levites as poor scattered "sojourners" and recommends them to the charity of the people (Deut. xii. 12, 18 seq., xiv. 27, 29, xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. 11 sqq.). However, they are permitted to congregate at "the place which Yahweh shall choose," where they may perform the usual priestly duties together with their brethren who "stand there before Yahweh," and they are allowed their share of the offerings (Deut. xviii. 6-8).[2] The Deuteronomic history of the monarchy actually ascribes to the Judaean king Josiah (621 B.C.) the suppression of the high-places, and states that the local priests were brought to Jerusalem and received support, but did not minister at the altar (2 Kings xxiii. 9). Finally, a scheme of ritual for the second temple raises this exclusion to the rank of a principle. The Levites who had been idolatrous are punished by exclusion from the proper priestly work, and take the subordinate offices which the uncircumcised and polluted foreigners had formerly filled, while the sons of Zadok, who had remained faithful, are henceforth the legitimate priests, the only descendants of Levi who are allowed to minister unto Yahweh (Ezek. xliv. 6-15, cf. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xlviii. 11). "A threefold cord is not quickly broken," and these three independent witnesses agree in describing a significant innovation which ends with the supremacy of the Zadokites of Jerusalem over their brethren.

In the last stage (c) the exclusion of the ordinary Levites from all share in the priesthood of the sons of Aaron is looked upon as a matter of course, dating from the institution of priestly worship by Moses. The two classes are supposed to have been founded separately (Exod. xxviii., cf. xxix. 9; Num. iii. 6-10), and so far from any degradation being attached to the rank and file of the Levites, their position is naturally an honourable one compared with that of the mass of non-Levitical worshippers (see Num. i. 50-53), and they are taken by Yahweh as a surrogate for the male first-born of Israel (iii. 11-13). They are inferior only to the Aaronites to whom they are "joined" (xviii. 2, a play on the name Levi) as assistants. Various adjustments and modifications still continue, and a number of scattered details may indicate that internal rivalries made themselves felt. But the different steps can hardly be recovered clearly, although the fact that the priesthood was extended beyond the Zadokites to families of the dispossessed priests points to some compromise (1 Chron. xxiv.). Further, it is subsequently found that certain classes of temple servants, the singers and porters, who had once been outside the Levitical gilds, became absorbed as the term "Levite" was widened, and this change is formally expressed by the genealogies which ascribe to Levi, the common "ancestor" of them all, the singers and even certain families whose heathenish and foreign names show that they were once merely servants of the temple.[3]

2. _Significance of the Development._--Although the legal basis for the final stage is found in the legislation of the time of Moses (latter part of the second millennium B.C.), it is in reality scarcely earlier than the 5th century B.C., and the Jewish theory finds analogies when developments of the Levitical service are referred to David (1 Chron. xv. seq., xxiii. sqq.), Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.) and Josiah (xxxv.)--contrast the history in the earlier books of Samuel and Kings--or when the still later book of Jubilees (xxxii.) places the rise of the Levitical priesthood in the patriarchal period. The traditional theory of the Mosaic origin of the elaborate Levitical legislation cannot be maintained save by the most arbitrary and inconsequential treatment of the evidence and by an entire indifference to the historical spirit; and, although numerous points of detail still remain very obscure, the three leading stages in the Levitical institutions are now recognized by nearly all independent scholars. These stages with a number of concomitant features confirm the literary hypothesis that biblical history is in the main due to two leading recensions, the Deuteronomic and the Priestly (cf. [b] and [c] above), which have incorporated older sources.[4] If the hierarchical system as it existed in the post-exilic age was really the work of Moses, it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so completely lost that the degradation of the non-Zadokites in Ezekiel was a new feature and a punishment, whereas in the Mosaic law the ordinary Levites, on the traditional view, was already forbidden priestly rights under penalty of death. There is in fact no clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between priests and Levites in any Hebrew writing demonstrably earlier than the Deuteronomic stage, although, even as the Pentateuch contains ordinances which have been carried back by means of a "legal convention" to the days of Moses, writers have occasionally altered earlier records of the history to agree with later standpoints.[5]

No argument in support of the traditional theory can be drawn from the account of Korah's revolt (Num. xvi. sqq., see § 3) or from the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv.; Josh. xxi.). Some of the latter were either not conquered by the Israelites until long after the invasion, or, if conquered, were not held by Levites; and names are wanting of places in which priests are actually known to have lived. Certainly the names are largely identical with ancient holy cities, which, however, are holy because they possessed noted shrines, not because the inhabitants were members of a holy tribe. Gezer and Taanach, for example, are said to have remained in the hands of Canaanites (Judges i. 27, 29; cf. 1 Kings ix. 16), and recent excavation has shown how far the cultus of these cities was removed from Mosaic religion and ritual and how long the grosser elements persisted.[6] On the other hand, the sanctuaries obviously had always their local ministers, all of whom in time could be called Levitical, and it is only in this sense, not in that of the late priestly legislation, that a place like Shechem could ever have been included. Further, instead of holding cities and pasture-grounds, the Levites are sometimes described as scattered and divided (Gen. xlix. 7; Deut. xviii. 6), and though they may naturally possess property as private individuals, they alone of all the tribes of Israel possess no tribal inheritance (Num. xviii. 23, xxvi. 62; Deut. x. 9; Josh. xiv. 3). This fluctuation finds a parallel in the age at which the Levites were to serve; for neither has any reasonable explanation been found on the traditional view. Num. iv. 3 fixes the age at thirty, although in i. 3 it has been reduced to twenty; but in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, David is said to have numbered them from the higher limit, whereas in vv. 24, 27 the lower figure is given on the authority of "the last words (or acts) of David." In Num. viii. 23-26, the age is given as twenty-five, but twenty became usual and recurs in Ezra iii. 8 and 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. There are, however, independent grounds for believing that 1 Chron. xxiii. 24, 27, 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 belong to later insertions and that Ezr. iii. 8 is relatively late.

When, in accordance with the usual methods of Hebrew genealogical history, the Levites are defined as the descendants of Levi, the third son of Jacob by Leah (Gen. xxix. 34), a literal interpretation is unnecessary, and the only narrative wherein Levi appears as a person evidently delineates under the form of personification events in the history of the Levites (Gen. xxxiv.).[7] They take their place in Israel as the tribe set apart for sacred duties, and without entering into the large question how far the tribal schemes can be used for the earlier history of Israel, it may be observed that no adequate interpretation has yet been found of the ethnological traditions of Levi and other sons of Leah in their historical relation to one another or to the other tribes. However intelligible may be the notion of a tribe _reserved_ for priestly service, the fact that it does not apply to early biblical history is apparent from the heterogeneous details of the Levitical divisions. The incorporation of singers and porters is indeed a late process, but it is typical of the tendency to co-ordinate all the religious classes (see GENEALOGY: _Biblical_). The genealogies in their complete form pay little heed to Moses, although Aaron and Moses could typify the priesthood and other Levites generally (1 Chron. xxiii. 14). Certain priesthoods in the first stage (§ 1 [a]) claimed descent from these prototypes, and it is interesting to observe (1) the growing importance of Aaron in the later sources of "the Exodus," and (2) the relation between Mosheh (Moses) and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer, on the one side, and the Levitical names Mushi (i.e. the Mosaite), Gershon and the Aaronite priest Eleazar, on the other. There are links, also, which unite Moses with Kenite, Rechabite, Calebite and Edomite families, and the Levitical names themselves are equally connected with the southern tribes of Judah and Simeon and with the Edomites.[8] It is to be inferred, therefore, that some relationship subsisted, or was thought to subsist, among (1) the Levites, (2) clans actually located in the south of Palestine, and (3) families whose names and traditions point to a southern origin. The exact meaning of these features is not clear, but if it be remembered (a) that the Levites of post-exilic literature represent only the result of a long and intricate development, (b) that the name "Levite," in the later stages at least, was extended to include all priestly servants, and (c) that the priesthoods, in tending to become hereditary, included priests who were Levites by adoption and not by descent, it will be recognized that the examination of the evidence for the earlier stages cannot confine itself to those narratives where the specific term alone occurs.

3. _The Traditions of the Levites._--In the "Blessing of Moses" (Deut,