Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

(a) It is generally recognized that H, in its present form, is
incomplete. The original code must, it is felt, have included many
other subjects now passed over in silence. These, possibly, were
omitted by the compiler of P, because they had already been dealt with
elsewhere, or they may have been transferred to other connexions. This
latter possibility is one that has appealed to many scholars, who have
accordingly claimed many other passages of P as parts of H. We have
already accepted xi. 43 ff. as an undoubted excerpt from H, but, with
the exception of Num. xv. 37-41 (on fringes), the other passages of
the Hexateuch which have been attributed to H do not furnish
sufficient evidence to justify us in assigning them to that
collection. Moore (_Ency. Bibl._ col. 2787) rightly points out that
"resemblance in the subject or formulation of laws to _toroth_
incorporated in H may point to a relation to the _sources_ of H, but
is not evidence that these laws were ever included in that
collection."

(b) The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is hard to
determine. That chaps. xvii.-xxvi. display a marked affinity to
Deuteronomy cannot be denied. Like D, they lay great stress on the
duties of humanity and charity both to the Israelite and to the
stranger (Deut. xxiv.; Lev. xix.; compare also laws affecting the poor
in Deut. xv.; Lev. xxv.), but in some respects the legislation of H
appears to reflect a more advanced stage than that of D, e.g. the
rules for the priesthood (chap. xxi.), the feasts (xxiii. 9-20,
39-43), the Sabbatical year (xxv. 1-7, 18-22), weights and measures
(xix. 35 f.). It must be remembered, however, that these laws have
passed through more than one stage of revision and that the original
regulations have been much obscured by later glosses and additions; it
is therefore somewhat hazardous to base any argument on their present
form. "The mutual independence of the two (codes) is rather to be
argued from the absence of laws identically formulated, the lack of
agreement in order either in the whole or in smaller portions, and the
fact that of the peculiar motives and phrases of R_{D} there is no
trace in H (Lev. xxiii. 40 is almost solitary). It is an unwarranted
assumption that all the fragments of Israelite legislation which have
been preserved lie in one serial development" (Moore, _Ency. Bibl._
col. 2790).

The relation of H to Ezekiel is remarkably close, the resemblances
between the two being so striking that many writers have regarded
Ezekiel as the author of H. Such a theory, however, is excluded by the
existence of even greater differences of style and matter, so that the
main problem to be decided is whether Ezekiel is prior to H or vice
versa. The main arguments brought forward by those who maintain the
priority of Ezekiel are (1) the fact that H makes mention of a high
priest, whereas Ezekiel betrays no knowledge of such an official, and
(2) that the author of Lev. xxvi. presupposes a condition of exile and
looks forward to a restoration from it. Too much weight, however, must
not be attached to these points; for (1) the phrase used in Lev. xxi.
10 (_literally_, "he who is greater than his brethren") cannot be
regarded as the equivalent of the definitive "chief priest" of P, and
is rather comparable with the usage of 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff., xxv. 18
("the chief priest"), cf. "the priest" in xi. 9 ff., xvi. 10 ff.; and
(2) the passages in Lev. xxvi. (vv. 34 f., 39-45), which are
especially cited in support of the exilic standpoint of the writer,
are just those which, on other grounds, show signs of later
interpolation. The following considerations undoubtedly suggest the
priority of H: (1) there is no trace in H of the distinction between
priests and Levites first introduced by Ezekiel; (2) Ezekiel xviii.,
xx., xxii., xxiii. appear to presuppose the laws of Lev. xviii.-xx.;
(3) the calendar of Lev. xxiii. represents an earlier stage of
development than the fixed days and months of Ezek. xlv.; (4) the sin-
and trespass-offerings are not mentioned in H (cf. Ezek. xl. 39, xlii.
13, xliv. 29, xlvi. 20); (5) the parallels to H, which are found
especially in Ezek. xviii., xx., xxii. f., include both the paraenetic
setting and the laws; and lastly, (6) a comparison of Lev. xxvi. with
Ezekiel points to the greater originality of the former. Baentsch,
however, who is followed by Bertholet, adopts the view that Lev. xxvi.
is rather an independent hortatory discourse modelled on Ezekiel. The
same writer further maintains that H consists of three separate
elements, viz. chaps. xvii.; xviii.-xx., with various ordinances in
chaps. xxiii.-xxv.; and xxii., xxiii., of which the last is certainly
later than Ezekiel, while the second is in the main prior to that
author. But the arguments which he adduces in favour of the threefold
origin of H are not sufficient to outweigh the general impression of
unity which the code presents.

Chap. xvii. comprises four main sections which are clearly marked off
by similar introductory and closing formulae: (1) vv. 3-7, prohibition
of the slaughter of domestic animals, unless they are presented to
Yahweh; (2) vv. 8, 9, sacrifices to be offered to Yahweh alone; (3)
vv. 10-12, prohibition of the eating of blood; (4) vv. 13, 14, the
blood of animals not used in sacrifice to be poured on the ground. The
chapter as a whole is to be assigned to H. At the same time it
exhibits many marks of affinity with P, a phenomenon most easily
explained by the supposition that older laws of H have been expanded
and modified by later hands in the spirit of P. Clear instances of
such revision may be seen in the references to "the door of the tent
of meeting" (vv. 4, 5, 6, 9) and "the camp" (v. 3), as well as in vv.
6, 11, 12-14; vv. 15, 16 (prohibiting the eating of animals that die a
natural death or are torn by beasts) differ formally from the
preceding paragraphs, and are to be assigned to P. What remains after
the excision of later additions, however, is not entirely uniform, and
points to earlier editorial work on the part of the compiler of H.
Thus vv. 3-7 reflect two points of view, vv. 3, 4 drawing a contrast
between profane slaughter and sacrifice, while vv. 5-7 distinguish
between sacrifices offered to Yahweh and those offered to demons.

Chap. xviii. contains laws on prohibited marriages (vv. 6-18) and
various acts of unchastity (vv. 19-23) embedded in a paraenetic
setting (vv. 1-5 and 24-30), the laws being given in the 2nd pers.
sing., while the framework employs the 2nd pers. plural. With the
exception of v. 21 (on Molech worship), which is here out of place,
and has possibly been introduced from xx. 2-5, the chapter displays
all the characteristics of H.

Chap. xix. is a collection of miscellaneous laws, partly moral, partly
religious, of which the fundamental principle is stated in v. 2 ("Ye
shall be holy"). The various laws are clearly defined by the formula
"I am Yahweh," or "I am Yahweh your God," phrases which are especially
characteristic of chaps. xviii.-xx. The first group of laws (vv. 3 f.)
corresponds to the first table of the decalogue, while vv. 11-18 are
analogous to the second table; vv. 5-8 (on peace-offerings) are
obviously out of place here, and are possibly to be restored to the
cognate passage xxii. 29 f., while the humanitarian provisions of vv.
9 and 10 (cf. xxiii. 22) have no connexion with the immediate context;
similarly v. 20 (to which a later redactor has added vv. 21, 22, in
accordance with vi. 6 f.) appears to be a fragment from a penal code;
the passage resembles Exod. xxi. 7 ff., and the offence is clearly one
against property, the omission of the punishment being possibly due to
the redactor who added vv. 21, 22.

Chap. xx. Prohibitions against Molech worship, vv. 2-5, witchcraft,
vv. 6 and 27, unlawful marriages and acts of unchastity, vv. 10-21.
Like chap. xviii., the main body of laws is provided with a paraenetic
setting, vv. 7, 8 and 22-24; it differs from that chapter, however, in
prescribing the death penalty in each case for disobedience. Owing to
the close resemblance between the two chapters, many critics have
assumed that they are derived from the same source and that the latter
chapter was added for the purpose of supplying the penalties. This
view, however, is not borne out by a comparison of the two chapters,
for four of the cases mentioned in chap. xviii. (vv. 7, 10, 17b, 18)
are ignored in chap. xx., while the order and in part the terminology
are also different; further, it is difficult on this view to explain
why the two chapters are separated by chap. xix. A more probable
explanation is that the compiler of H has drawn from two parallel, but
independent, sources. Signs of revision are not lacking, especially in
vv. 2-5, where vv. 4 f. are a later addition intended to reconcile the
inconsistency of v. 2 with v. 3 (R_{H}); v. 6, which is closely
connected with xix. 31, appears to be less original than v. 27, and
may be ascribed to the same hand as v. 3; v. 9 can hardly be in its
original context--it would be more suitable after xxiv. 15. The
paraenetic setting (vv. 7, 8 and 22-24) is to be assigned to the
compiler of H, who doubtless prefaced the parallel version with the
additional laws of vv. 2-6. Verses 25, 26 apparently formed the
conclusion of a law on clean and unclean animals similar to that of
chap. xi., and very probably mark the place where H's regulations on
that subject originally stood.

Chaps. xxi., xxii. A series of laws affecting the priests and
offerings, viz. (1) regulations ensuring the holiness of (a) ordinary
priests, xxi. 1-9, and (b) the chief priest, vv. 10-15; (2) a list of
physical defects which exclude a priest from exercising his office,
vv. 16-24; (3) the enjoyment of sacred offerings limited to (a)
priests, if they are ceremonially clean, xxi. 1-9, and (b) members of
a priestly family, vv. 10-16; (4) animals offered in sacrifice must be
without blemish, vv. 17-25; (5) further regulations with regard to
sacrifices, vv. 26-30, with a paraenetic conclusion, vv. 31-33.

These chapters present considerable difficulty to the literary critic;
for while they clearly illustrate the application of the principle of
"holiness," and in the main exhibit the characteristic phraseology of
H, they also display many striking points of contact with P and the
later strata of P, which have been closely interwoven into the
original laws. These phenomena can be best explained by the
supposition that we have here a body of old laws which have been
subjected to more than one revision. The nature of the subjects with
which they deal is one that naturally appealed to the priestly
schools, and owing to this fact the laws were especially liable to
modification and expansion at the hands of later legislators who
wished to bring them into conformity with later usage. Signs of such
revision may be traced back to the compiler of H, but the evidence
shows that the process must have been continued down to the latest
period of editorial activity in connexion with P. To redactors of the
school of P belong such phrases as "the sons of Aaron" (xxi. 1, 24,
xxii. 2, 18), "the seed of Aaron" (xxi. 21, xxii. 4 and "thy seed," v.
17; cf. xxii. 3), "the offerings of the Lord made by fire" (xxi. 6,
21, xxii. 22, 27), "the most holy things" (xxi. 22; cf. xxii. 3 ff.
"holy things" only), "throughout their (or your) generations" (xxi. 7,
xxii. 3), the references to the anointing of Aaron (xxi. 10, 12) and
the Veil (xxi. 23), the introductory formulae (xxi. 1, 16 f., xxii. 1
f., 17 f., 26) and the subscription (xxi. 24). Apart from these
redactional additions, chap. xxi. is to be ascribed to H, vv. 6 and 8
being possibly the work of R_{H}. Most critics detect a stronger
influence of P in chap. xxii., more especially in vv. 3-7 and 17-25,
29, 30; most probably these verses have been largely recast and
expanded by later editors, but it is noticeable that they contain no
mention of either sin- or trespass-offerings.

Chap. xxiii. A calendar of sacred seasons. The chapter consists of two
main elements which can easily be distinguished from one another, the
one being derived from P and the other from H. To the former belongs
the fuller and more elaborate description of vv. 4-8, 21, 23-38; to
the latter, vv. 9-20, 22, 39-44. Characteristic of the priestly
calendar are (1) the enumeration of "holy convocations," (2) the
prohibition of all work, (3) the careful determination of the date by
the day and month, (4) the mention of "the offerings made by fire to
Yahweh," and (5) the stereotyped form of the regulations. The older
calendar, on the other hand, knows nothing of "holy convocations," nor
of abstinence from work; the time of the feasts, which are clearly
connected with agriculture, is only roughly defined with reference to
the harvest (cf. Exod. xxiii. 14 ff., xxxiv. 22; Deut. xvi. 9 ff.).

The calendar of P comprises (a) the Feast of Passover and the
Unleavened Cakes, vv. 4-8; (b) a fragment of Pentecost, v. 21; (c) the
Feast of Trumpets, vv. 23-25; (d) the Day of Atonement, vv. 26-32; and
(e) the Feast of Tabernacles, vv. 33-36, with a subscription in vv.
37, 38. With these have been incorporated the older regulations of H
on the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, vv. 9-20, which have been
retained in place of P's account (cf. v. 21), and on the Feast of
Tabernacles, vv. 39-44, the latter being clearly intended to
supplement vv. 33-36. The hand of the redactor who combined the two
elements may be seen partly in additions designed to accommodate the
regulations of H to P (e.g. v. 39a, "on the fifteenth day of the
seventh month," and 39b, "and on the eighth day shall be a solemn
rest"), partly in the later expansions corresponding to later usage,
vv. 12 f., 18, 19a, 21b, 41. Further, vv. 26-32 (on the Day of
Atonement, cf. xvi.) are a later addition to the P sections.

Chap. xxiv. affords an interesting illustration of the manner in which
the redactor of P has added later elements to the original code of H.
For the first part of the chapter, with its regulations as to (a) the
lamps in the Tabernacle, vv. 1-4, and (b) the Shewbread, vv. 5-9, is
admittedly derived from P, vv. 1-4, forming a supplement to Exod. xxv.
31-40 (cf. xxvii. 20 f.) and Num. viii. 1-4, and vv. 5-9 to Exod. xxv.
30. The rest of the chapter contains old laws (vv. 15b-22) derived
from H on blasphemy, manslaughter and injuries to the person, to which
the redactor has added an historical setting (vv. 10-14, 23) as well
as a few glosses.

Chap. xxv. lays down regulations for the observance of (a) the
Sabbatical year, vv. 1-7, 19-22, and (b) the year of Jubilees, vv.
8-18, 23, and then applies the principle of redemption to (1) land and
house property, vv. 24-34, and (2) persons, vv. 35-55. The rules for
the Sabbatical year (vv. 1-7) are admittedly derived from H, and vv.
19-22 are also from the same source. Their present position after vv.
8-18 is due to the redactor who wished to apply the same rules to the
year of Jubilee. But though the former of the two sections on the year
of Jubilee (vv. 8-18, 23) exhibits undoubted signs of P, the traces of
H are also sufficiently marked to warrant the conclusion that the
latter code included laws relating to the year of Jubilee, and that
these have been modified by R_{P} and then connected with the
regulations for the Sabbatical year. Signs of the redactor's handiwork
may be seen in vv. 9, 11-13 (the year of Jubilee treated as a fallow
year) and 15, 16 (cf. the repetition of "ye shall not wrong one
another," vv. 14 and 17). Both on historical and on critical grounds,
however, it is improbable that the principle of restitution underlying
the regulations for the year of Jubilee was originally extended to
_persons_ in the earlier code. For it is difficult to harmonize the
laws as to the release of Hebrew slaves with the other legislation on
the same subject (Exod. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv.), while both the secondary
position which they occupy in this chapter and their more elaborate
and formal character point to a later origin for vv. 35-55. Hence
these verses in the main must be assigned to R_{P}. In this connexion
it is noticeable that vv. 35-38, 39-40a, 43, 47, 53, 55, which show
the characteristic marks of H, bear no special relation to the year of
Jubilee, but merely inculcate a more humane treatment of those
Israelites who are compelled by circumstances to sell themselves
either to their brethren or to strangers. It is probable, therefore,
that they form no part of the original legislation of the year of
Jubilee, but were incorporated at a later period. The present form of
vv. 24-34 is largely due to R_{P}, who has certainly added vv. 32-34
(cities of the Levites) and probably vv. 29-31.

Chap. xxvi. The concluding exhortation. After reiterating commands to
abstain from idolatry and to observe the Sabbath, vv. 1, 2, the
chapter sets forth (a) the rewards of obedience, vv. 3-13, and (b) the
penalties incurred by disobedience to the preceding laws, vv. 14-46.
The discourse, which is spoken throughout in the name of Yahweh, is
similar in character to Exod. xxiii. 20-33 and Deut. xxviii., more
especially to the latter. That it forms an integral part of H is shown
both by the recurrence of the same distinctive phraseology and by the
emphasis laid on the same motives. At the same time it is hardly
doubtful that the original discourse has been modified and expanded by
later hands, especially in the concluding paragraphs. Thus vv. 34, 35,
which refer back to xxv. 2 ff., interrupt the connexion and must be
assigned to the priestly redactor, while vv. 40-45 display obvious
signs of interpolation. With regard to the literary relation of this
chapter with Ezekiel, it must be admitted that Ezekiel presents many
striking parallels, and in particular makes use, in common with chap.
xxvi., of several expressions which do not occur elsewhere in the Old
Testament. But there are also points of difference both as regards
phraseology and subject-matter, and in view of these latter it is
impossible to hold that Ezekiel was either the author or compiler of
this chapter.

Chap. xxvii. On the commutation of vows and tithes. The chapter as a
whole must be assigned to a later stratum of P, for while vv. 2-25 (on
vows) presuppose the year of Jubilee, the section on tithes, vv.
30-33, marks a later stage of development than Num. xviii. 21 ff. (P);
vv. 26-29 (on firstlings and devoted things) are supplementary
restrictions to vv. 2-25.

LITERATURE.--_Commentaries_: Dillmann-Ryssel, _Die Bücher Exodus und
Leviticus_ (1897); Driver and White, _SBOT. Leviticus_ (English,
1898); B. Baentsch, _Exod. Lev. u. Num._ (HK, 1900); Bertholet,
_Leviticus_ (KHC, 1901). _Criticism_: The Introductions to the Old
Testament by Kuenen, Holzinger, Driver, Cornill, König and the
archaeological works of Benzinger and Nowack. Wellhausen, _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs_, &c. (1899); Kayser, _Das vorexilische
Buch der Urgeschichte Isr._ (1874); Klostermann, _Zeitschrift für
Luth. Theologie_ (1877); Horst, _Lev. xvii.-xxvi. and Hezekiel_
(1881); Wurster, _ZATW_ (1884); Baentsch, _Das Heiligkeitsgesetz_
(1893); L. P. Paton, "The Relation of Lev. 20 to Lev. 17-19,"
_Hebraica_ (1894); "The Original Form of Leviticus," _JBL_ (1897,
1898); "The Holiness Code and Ezekiel," _Pres. and Ref. Review_
(1896); Carpenter, _Composition of the Hexateuch_ (1902). Articles on
Leviticus by G. F. Moore, Hastings's _Diet. Bib._, and G. Harford
Battersby, _Ency. Bib._ (J. F. St.)

LEVY, AMY (1861-1889), English poetess and novelist, second daughter of Lewis Levy, was born at Clapham on the 10th of November 1861, and was educated at Newnham College, Cambridge. She showed a precocious aptitude for writing verse of exceptional merit, and in 1884 she published a volume of poems, _A Minor Poet and Other Verse_, some of the pieces in which had already been printed at Cambridge with the title _Xantippe and Other Poems_. The high level of this first publication was maintained in _A London Plane Tree and Other Poems_, a collection of lyrics published in 1889, in which the prevailing pessimism of the writer's temperament was conspicuous. She had already in 1888 tried her hand at prose fiction in _The Romance of a Shop_, which was followed by _Reuben Sachs_, a powerful novel. She committed suicide on the 10th of September 1889.

LEVY, AUGUSTE MICHEL (1844- ), French geologist, was born in Paris on the 7th of August 1844. He became inspector-general of mines, and director of the Geological Survey of France. He was distinguished for his researches on eruptive rocks, their microscopic structure and origin; and he early employed the polarizing microscope for the determination of minerals. In his many contributions to scientific journals he described the granulite group, and dealt with pegmatites, variolites, eurites, the ophites of the Pyrenees, the extinct volcanoes of Central France, gneisses, and the origin of crystalline schists. He wrote _Structures et classification des roches éruptives_ (1889), but his more elaborate studies were carried on with F. Fouqué. Together they wrote on the artificial production of felspar, nepheline and other minerals, and also of meteorites, and produced _Minéralogie micrographique_ (1879) and _Synthèse des minéraux et des roches_ (1882). Levy also collaborated with A. Lacroix in _Les Minéraux des roches_ (1888) and _Tableau des minéraux des roches_ (1889).

LEVY (Fr. _levée_, from _lever_, Lat. _levare_, to lift, raise), the raising of money by the collection of an assessment, &c., a tax or compulsory contribution; also the collection of a body of men for military or other purposes. When all the able-bodied men of a nation are enrolled for service, the French term _levée en masse_, levy in mass, is frequently used.

LEWALD, FANNY (1811-1889), German author, was born at Königsberg in East Prussia on the 24th of March 1811, of Jewish parentage. When seventeen years of age she embraced Christianity, and after travelling in Germany, France and Italy, settled in 1845 at Berlin. Here, in 1854, she married the author, Adolf Wilhelm Theodor Stahr (1805-1876), and removed after his death in 1876 to Dresden, where she resided, engaged in literary work, until her death on the 5th of August 1889. Fanny Lewald is less remarkable for her writings, which are mostly sober, matter-of-fact works, though displaying considerable talent and culture, than for her championship of "women's rights," a question which she was practically the first German woman to take up, and for her scathing satire on the sentimentalism of the Gräfin Hahn Hahn. This authoress she ruthlessly attacked in the exquisite parody (_Diogena, Roman von Iduna Gräfin H.... H...._ (2nd ed., 1847). Among the best known of her novels are _Klementine_ (1842); _Prinz Louis Ferdinand_ (1849; 2nd ed., 1859); _Das Mädchen von Hela_ (1860); _Von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht_ (8 vols., 1863-1865); _Benvenuto_ (1875), and _Stella_ (1883; English by B. Marshall, 1884). Of her writings in defence of the emancipation of women _Osterbriefe für die Frauen_ (1863) and _Für und wider die Frauen_ (1870) are conspicuous. Her autobiography, _Meine Lebensgeschichte_ (6 vols., 1861-1862), is brightly written and affords interesting glimpses of the literary life of her time.

A selection of her works was published under the title _Gesammelte
Schriften_ in 12 vols. (1870-1874). Cf. K. Frenzel, _Erinnerungen und
Strömungen_ (1890).

LEWANIKA (c. 1860- ), paramount chief of the Barotse and subject tribes occupying the greater part of the upper Zambezi basin, was the twenty-second of a long line of rulers, whose founder invaded the Barotse valley about the beginning of the 17th century, and according to tradition was the son of a woman named Buya Mamboa by a god. The graves of successive ruling chiefs are to this day respected and objects of pilgrimage for purposes of ancestor worship. Lewanika was born on the upper Kabompo in troublous times, where his father--Letia, a son of a former ruler--lived in exile during the interregnum of a foreign dynasty (Makololo), which remained in possession from about 1830 to 1865, when the Makololo were practically exterminated in a night by a well-organized revolt. Once more masters of their own country, the Barotse invited Sepopa, an uncle of Lewanika, to rule over them. Eleven years of brutality and licence resulted in the tyrant's expulsion and subsequent assassination, his place being taken by Ngwana-Wina, a nephew. Within a year abuse of power brought about this chief's downfall (1877), and he was succeeded by Lobosi, who assumed the name of Lewanika in 1885. The early years of his reign were also stained by many acts of blood, until in 1884 the torture and murder of his own brother led to open rebellion, and it was only through extreme presence of mind that the chief escaped with his life into exile. His cousin, Akufuna or Tatela, was then proclaimed chief. It was during his brief reign that François Coillard, the eminent missionary, arrived at Lialui, the capital. The following year Lewanika, having collected his partisans, deposed the usurper and re-established his power. Ruthless revenge not unmixed with treachery characterized his return to power, but gradually the strong personality of the high-minded François Coillard so far influenced him for good that from about 1887 onward he ruled tolerantly and showed a consistent desire to better the condition of his people. In 1890 Lewanika, who two years previously had proposed to place himself under the protection of Great Britain, concluded a treaty with the British South Africa Company, acknowledging its supremacy and conceding to it certain mineral rights. In 1897 Mr R. T. Coryndon took up his position at Lialui as British agent, and the country to the east of 25° E. was thrown open to settlers, that to the west being reserved to the Barotse chief. In 1905 the king of Italy's award in the Barotse boundary dispute with Portugal deprived Lewanika of half of his dominions, much of which had been ruled by his ancestors for many generations. In 1902 Lewanika attended the coronation of Edward VII. as a guest of the nation. His recognized heir was his eldest son Letia.

See BAROTSE, and the works there cited, especially _On the Threshold
of Central Africa_ (London, 1897), by François Coillard.
(A. St. H. G.)

LEWES, CHARLES LEE (1740-1803), English actor, was the son of a hosier in London. After attending a school at Ambleside he returned to London, where he found employment as a postman; but about 1760 he went on the stage in the provinces, and some three years later began to appear in minor parts at Covent Garden Theatre. His first rôle of importance was that of "Young Marlow" in _She Stoops to Conquer_, at its production of that comedy in 1773, when he delivered an epilogue specially written for him by Goldsmith. He remained a member of the Covent Garden company till 1783, appearing in many parts, among which were "Fag" in _The Rivals_, which he "created," and "Sir Anthony Absolute" in the same comedy. In 1783 he removed to Drury Lane, where he assumed the Shakespearian rôles of "Touchstone," "Lucio" and "Falstaff." In 1787 he left London for Edinburgh, where he gave recitations, including Cowper's "John Gilpin." For a short time in 1792 Lewes assisted Stephen Kemble in the management of the Dundee Theatre; in the following year he went to Dublin, but he was financially unsuccessful and suffered imprisonment for debt. He employed his time in compiling his _Memoirs_, a worthless production published after his death by his son. He was also the author of some poor dramatic sketches. Lewes died on the 23rd of July 1803. He was three times married; the philosopher, George Henry Lewes, was his grandson.

See John Genest, _Some Account of the English Stage_ (Bath, 1832).

LEWES, GEORGE HENRY (1817-1878), British philosopher and literary critic, was born in London in 1817. He was a grandson of Charles Lee Lewes, the actor. He was educated in London, Jersey, Brittany, and finally at Dr Burney's school in Greenwich. Having abandoned successively a commercial and a medical career, he seriously thought of becoming an actor, and between 1841 and 1850 appeared several times on the stage. Finally he devoted himself to literature, science and philosophy. As early as 1836 he belonged to a club formed for the study of philosophy, and had sketched out a physiological treatment of the philosophy of the Scottish school. Two years later he went to Germany, probably with the intention of studying philosophy. In 1840 he married a daughter of Swynfen Stevens Jervis (1798-1867), and during the next ten years supported himself by contributing to the quarterly and other reviews. These articles discuss a wide variety of subject, and, though often characterized by hasty impulse and imperfect study, betray a singularly acute critical judgment, enlightened by philosophic study. The most valuable are those on the drama, afterwards republished under the title _Actors and Acting_ (1875). With this may be taken the volume on _The Spanish Drama_ (1846). The combination of wide scholarship, philosophic culture and practical acquaintance with the theatre gives these essays a high place among the best efforts in English dramatic criticism. In 1845-1846 he published _The Biographical History of Philosophy_, an attempt to depict the life of philosophers as an ever-renewed fruitless labour to attain the unattainable. In 1847-1848 he made two attempts in the field of fiction--_Ranthrope_, and _Rose, Blanche and Violet_--which, though displaying considerable skill both in plot, construction and in characterization, have taken no permanent place in literature. The same is to be said of an ingenious attempt to rehabilitate Robespierre (1849). In 1850 he collaborated with Thornton Leigh Hunt in the foundation of the _Leader_, of which he was the literary editor. In 1853 he republished under the title of _Comte's Philosophy of the Sciences_ a series of papers which had appeared in that journal. In 1851 he became acquainted with Miss Evans (George Eliot) and in 1854 left his wife. Subsequently he lived with Miss Evans as her husband (see ELIOT, GEORGE).

The culmination of Lewes's work in prose literature is the _Life of Goethe_ (1855), probably the best known of his writings. Lewes's many-sidedness of mind, and his combination of scientific with literary tastes, eminently fitted him to appreciate the large nature and the wide-ranging activity of the German poet. The high position this work has taken in Germany itself, notwithstanding the boldness of its criticism and the unpopularity of some of its views (e.g. on the relation of the second to the first part of _Faust_), is a sufficient testimony to its general excellence. From about 1853 Lewes's writings show that he was occupying himself with scientific and more particularly biological work. He may be said to have always manifested a distinctly scientific bent in his writings, and his closer devotion to science was but the following out of early impulses. Considering that he had not had the usual course of technical training, these studies are a remarkable testimony to the penetration of his intellect. The most important of these essays are collected in the volumes _Seaside Studies_ (1858), _Physiology of Common Life_ (1859), _Studies in Animal Life_ (1862), and _Aristotle, a Chapter from the History of Science_ (1864). They are much more than popular expositions of accepted scientific truths. They contain able criticisms of authorized ideas, and embody the results of individual research and individual reflection. He made a number of impressive suggestions, some of which have since been accepted by physiologists. Of these the most valuable is that now known as the doctrine of the functional indifference of the nerves--that what are known as the specific energies of the optic, auditory and other nerves are simply differences in their mode of action due to the differences of the peripheral structures or sense-organs with which they are connected. This idea was subsequently arrived at independently by Wundt (_Physiologische Psychologie_, 2nd ed., p. 321). In 1865, on the starting of the _Fortnightly Review_, Lewes became its editor, but he retained the post for less than two years, when he was succeeded by John Morley. This date marks the transition from more strictly scientific to philosophic work. He had from early youth cherished a strong liking for philosophic studies; one of his earliest essays was an appreciative account of Hegel's _Aesthetics_. Coming under the influence of positivism as unfolded both in Comte's own works and in J. S. Mill's _System of Logic_, he abandoned all faith in the possibility of metaphysic, and recorded this abandonment in the above-mentioned _History of Philosophy_. Yet he did not at any time give an unqualified adhesion to Comte's teachings, and with wider reading and reflection his mind moved away further from the positivist standpoint. In the preface to the third edition of his _History of Philosophy_ he avowed a change in this direction, and this movement is still more plainly discernible in subsequent editions of the work. The final outcome of this intellectual progress is given to us in _The Problems of Life and Mind_, which may be regarded as the crowning work of his life. His sudden death on the 28th of November 1878 cut short the work, yet it is complete enough to allow us to judge of the author's matured conceptions on biological, psychological and metaphysical problems. Of his three sons only one, Charles (1843-1891), survived him; in the first London County Council Election (1888) he was elected for St Pancras; he was also much interested in the Hampstead Heath extension.

_Philosophy._--The first two volumes on _The Foundations of a Creed_
lay down what Lewes regarded as the true principles of philosophizing.
He here seeks to effect a _rapprochement_ between metaphysic and
science. He is still so far a positivist as to pronounce all inquiry
into the ultimate nature of things fruitless. What matter, form,
spirit are in themselves is a futile question that belongs to the
sterile region of "metempirics." But philosophical questions may be so
stated as to be susceptible of a precise solution by scientific
method. Thus, since the relation of subject to object falls within our
experience, it is a proper matter for philosophic investigation. It
may be questioned whether Lewes is right in thus identifying the
methods of science and philosophy. Philosophy is not a mere extension
of scientific knowledge; it is an investigation of the nature and
validity of the knowing process itself. In any case Lewes cannot be
said to have done much to aid in the settlement of properly
philosophical questions. His whole treatment of the question of the
relation of subject to object is vitiated by a confusion between the
scientific truth that mind and body coexist in the living organism and
the philosophic truth that all knowledge of objects implies a knowing
subject. In other words, to use Shadworth Hodgson's phrase, he mixes
up the question of the _genesis_ of mental forms with the question of
their _nature_ (see _Philosophy of Reflexion_, ii. 40-58). Thus he
reaches the "monistic" doctrine that mind and matter are two aspects
of the same existence by attending simply to the parallelism between
psychical and physical processes given as a fact (or a probable fact)
of our experience, and by leaving out of account their relation as
subject and object in the cognitive act. His identification of the two
as phases of one existence is open to criticism, not only from the
point of view of philosophy, but from that of science. In his
treatment of such ideas as "sensibility," "sentience" and the like, he
does not always show whether he is speaking of physical or of
psychical phenomena. Among the other properly philosophic questions
discussed in these two volumes the nature of the casual relation is
perhaps the one which is handled with most freshness and
suggestiveness. The third volume, _The Physical Basis of Mind_,
further develops the writer's views on organic activities as a whole.
He insists strongly on the radical distinction between organic and
inorganic processes, and on the impossibility of ever explaining the
former by purely mechanical principles. With respect to the nervous
system, he holds that all its parts have one and the same elementary
property, namely, sensibility. Thus sensibility belongs as much to the
lower centres of the spinal cord as to the brain, contributing in this
more elementary form elements to the "subconscious" region of mental
life. The higher functions of the nervous system, which make up our
conscious mental life, are merely more complex modifications of this
fundamental property of nerve substance. Closely related to this
doctrine is the view that the nervous organism acts as a whole, that
particular mental operations cannot be referred to definitely
circumscribed regions of the brain, and that the hypothesis of nervous
activity passing in the centre by an isolated pathway from one
nerve-cell to another is altogether illusory. By insisting on the
complete coincidence between the regions of nerve-action and
sentience, and by holding that these are but different aspects of one
thing, he is able to attack the doctrine of animal and human
automatism, which affirms that feeling or consciousness is merely an
incidental concomitant of nerve-action and in no way essential to the
chain of physical events. Lewes's views in psychology, partly opened
up in the earlier volumes of the _Problems_, are more fully worked out
in the last two volumes (3rd series). He discusses the method of
psychology with much insight. He claims against Comte and his
followers a place for introspection in psychological research. In
addition to this subjective method there must be an objective, which
consists partly in a reference to nervous conditions and partly in the
employment of sociological and historical data. Biological knowledge,
or a consideration of the organic conditions, would only help us to
explain mental _functions_, as feeling and thinking; it would not
assist us to understand differences of mental _faculty_ as manifested
in different races and stages of human development. The organic
conditions of these differences will probably for ever escape
detection. Hence they can be explained only as the products of the
social environment. This idea of dealing with mental phenomena in
their relation to social and historical conditions is probably Lewes's
most important contribution to psychology. Among other points which he
emphasizes is the complexity of mental phenomena. Every mental state
is regarded as compounded of three factors in different
proportions--namely, a process of sensible affection, of logical
grouping and of motor impulse. But Lewes's work in psychology consists
less in any definite discoveries than in the inculcation of a sound
and just method. His biological training prepared him to view mind as
a complex unity, in which the various functions interact one on the
other, and of which the highest processes are identical with and
evolved out of the lower. Thus the operations of thought, "or the
logic of signs," are merely a more complicated form of the elementary
operations of sensation and instinct or "the logic of feeling." The
whole of the last volume of the _Problems_ may be said to be an
illustration of this position. It is a valuable repository of
psychological facts, many of them drawn from the more obscure regions
of mental life and from abnormal experience, and is throughout
suggestive and stimulating. To suggest and to stimulate the mind,
rather than to supply it with any complete system of knowledge, may be
said to be Lewes's service in philosophy. The exceptional rapidity and
versatility of his intelligence seems to account at once for the
freshness in his way of envisaging the subject-matter of philosophy
and psychology, and for the want of satisfactory elaboration and of
systematic co-ordination. (J. S.; X.)

LEWES, a market-town and municipal borough and the county town of Sussex, England, in the Lewes parliamentary division, 50 m. S. from London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. (1901) 11,249. It is picturesquely situated on the slope of a chalk down falling to the river Ouse. Ruins of the old castle, supposed to have been founded by King Alfred and rebuilt by William de Warenne shortly after the Conquest, rise from the height. There are two mounds which bore keeps, an uncommon feature. The castle guarded the pass through the downs formed by the valley of the Ouse. In one of the towers is the collection of the Sussex Archaeological Society. St Michael's church is without architectural merit, but contains old brasses and monuments; St Anne's church is a transitional Norman structure; St Thomas-at-Cliffe is Perpendicular; St John's, Southover, of mixed architecture, preserves some early Norman portions, and has some relics of the Warenne family. In the grounds of the Cluniac priory of St Pancras, founded in 1078, the leaden coffins of William de Warenne and Gundrada his wife were dug up during an excavation for the railway in 1845. There is a free grammar school dating from 1512, and among the other public buildings are the town hall and corn exchange, county hall, prison, and the Fitzroy memorial library. The industries include the manufacture of agricultural implements, brewing, tanning, and iron and brass founding. The municipal borough is under a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 1042 acres.

The many neolithic and bronze implements that have been discovered, and the numerous tumuli and earthworks which surround Lewes, indicate its remote origin. The town Lewes (Loewas, Loewen, Leswa, Laquis, Latisaquensis) was in the royal demesne of the Saxon kings, from whom it received the privilege of a market. Æthelstan established two royal mints there, and by the reign of Edward the Confessor, and probably before, Lewes was certainly a borough. William I. granted the whole barony of Lewes, including the revenue arising from the town, to William de Warenne, who converted an already existing fortification into a place of residence. His descendants continued to hold the barony until the beginning of the 14th century. In default of male issue, it then passed to the earl of Arundel, with whose descendants it remained until 1439, when it was divided between the Norfolks, Dorsets and Abergavennys. By 1086 the borough had increased 30% in value since the beginning of the reign, and its importance as a port and market-town is evident from Domesday. A gild merchant seems to have existed at an early date. The first mention of it is in a charter of Reginald de Warenne, about 1148, by which he restored to the burgesses the privileges they had enjoyed in the time of his grandfather and father, but of which they had been deprived. In 1595 a "Fellowship" took the place of the old gild and in conjunction with two constables governed the town until the beginning of the 18th century. The borough seal probably dates from the 14th century. Lewes was incorporated by royal charter in 1881. The town returned two representatives to parliament from 1295 until deprived of one member in 1867. It was disfranchised in 1885. Earl Warenne and his descendants held the fairs and markets from 1066. In 1792 the fair-days were the 6th of May, Whit-Tuesday, the 26th of July (for wool), and the 2nd of October. The market-day was Saturday. Fairs are now held on the 6th of May for horses and cattle, the 20th of July for wool, and the 21st and 28th of September for Southdown sheep. A corn-market is held every Tuesday, and a stock-market every alternate Monday. The trade in wool has been important since the 14th century.

Lewes was the scene of the battle fought on the 14th of May 1264 between Henry III. and Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. Led by the king and by his son, the future king Edward I., the royalists left Oxford, took Northampton and drove Montfort from Rochester into London. Then, harassed on the route by their foes, they marched through Kent into Sussex and took up their quarters at Lewes, a stronghold of the royalist Earl Warenne. Meanwhile, reinforced by a number of Londoners, Earl Simon left London and reached Fletching, about 9 m. north of Lewes, on the 13th of May. Efforts at reconciliation having failed he led his army against the town, which he hoped to surprise, early on the following day. His plan was to direct his main attack against the priory of St Pancras, which sheltered the king and his brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, king of the Romans, while causing the enemy to believe that his principal objective was the castle, where Prince Edward was. But the surprise was not complete and the royalists rushed from the town to meet the enemy in the open field. Edward led his followers against the Londoners, who were gathered around the standard of Montfort, put them to flight, pursued them for several miles, and killed a great number of them. Montfort's ruse, however, had been successful. He was not with his standard as his foes thought, but with the pick of his men he attacked Henry's followers and took prisoner both the king and his brother. Before Edward returned from his chase the earl was in possession of the town. In its streets the prince strove to retrieve his fortunes, but in vain. Many of his men perished in the river, but others escaped, one band, consisting of Earl Warenne and others, taking refuge in Pevensey Castle. Edward himself took sanctuary and on the following day peace was made between the king and the earl.

LEWES, a town in Sussex county, Delaware, U.S.A., in the S.E. part of the state, on Delaware Bay. Pop. (1910), 2158. Lewes is served by the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington (Pennsylvania System), and the Maryland, Delaware & Virginia railways. Its harbour is formed by the Delaware Breakwater, built by the national government and completed in 1869, and 2¼ m. above it another breakwater was completed in December 1901 by the government. The cove between them forms a harbour of refuge of about 550 acres. At the mouth of Delaware Bay, about 2 m. below Lewes, is the Henlopen Light, one of the oldest lighthouses in America. The Delaware Bay pilots make their headquarters at Lewes. Lewes has a large trade with northern cities in fruits and vegetables, and is a subport of entry of the Wilmington Customs District. The first settlement on Delaware soil by Europeans was made near here in 1631 by Dutch colonists, sent by a company organized in Holland in the previous year by Samuel Blommaert, Killian van Rensselaer, David Pieterszen de Vries and others. The settlers called the place Zwaanendael, valley of swans. The settlement was soon entirely destroyed by the Indians, and a second body of settlers whom de Vries, who had been made director of the colony, brought in 1632 remained for only two years. The fact of the settlement is important; because of it the English did not unite the Delaware country with Maryland, for the Maryland Charter of 1632 restricted colonization to land within the prescribed boundaries, uncultivated and either uninhabited or inhabited only by Indians. In 1658 the Dutch established an Indian trading post, and in 1659 erected a fort at Zwaanendael. After the annexation of the Delaware counties to Pennsylvania in 1682, its name was changed to Lewes, after the town of that name in Sussex, England. It was pillaged by French pirates in 1698. One of the last naval battles of the War of Independence was fought in the bay near Lewes on the 8th of April 1782, when the American privateer "Hyder Ally" (16), commanded by Captain Joshua Barnes (1759-1818), defeated and captured the British sloop "General Monk" (20), which had been an American privateer, the "General Washington," had been captured by Admiral Arbuthnot's squadron in 1780, and was now purchased by the United States government and, as the "General Washington," was commanded by Captain Barnes in 1782-1784. In March 1813 the town was bombarded by a British frigate.

See the "History of Lewes" in the _Papers_ of the Historical Society
of Delaware, No. xxxviii. (Wilmington, 1903); and J. T. Scharf,
_History of Delaware_ (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1888).