1 Heb. I said I will reveal in thine ear. 2 Deut. 25. 7, 9. 3 Or, get thee riches, or, power. Gen. 38. 29. 1 Chron. 2. 4. Matth. 1.3. 6 Heb. caused to cease unto thee. 7 Or, redeemer. 10 1 Chron. 2. 4. Matth. 1. 3. 11 Or, Salmah.

Verse 4. "There is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee."-The law on which the usages described in the early part of this chapter are based will be found in Deut. xxv. There is indeed considerable difference in the details there stated, and the practice here followed; but there is a general identity, which will render the same statement applicable to the illustration of both passages. This law, commonly called the Levirate law, was, in substance, to the effect, that, if a brother died without children, his next surviving brother, or, if he had no brother, his nearest kinsman, was bound to marry the widow to raise up children to the deceased; that is to say, his firstborn son by this widow was to be considered as the son of the deceased, his name, as such, was to be inserted in the genealogical registers, and he

was to receive the estate which in that character devolved upon him. This law did not originate with Moses. It existed long before his time; for we find it fully and rigidly in force in the time of Jacob (Gen. xxxviii). It is therefore to be regarded as one of those prevalent usages which the law of Moses subjected to certain limitations and directions which did not previously exist. For instance, we see by the earlier instance that the surviving brother had no choice but to marry the widow; whereas the law of Moses did not absolutely compel him to do so. If his dislike to the woman, or to the duty which devolved upon him; or if his being already married indisposed him to take another wife were stronger considerations than his duty to his brother; the law provided an alternative, easy in itself, although attended with some degree of ignominy. The woman was in public court to take off his shoe, spit in his face (or on the ground before his face, we are not certain which), and say, "So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house;" and, probably, the fact of this refusal was stated in the genealogical registers in connection with his name; which is probably what is meant by, "His name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed" (see Deut. xxv). Under other circumstances, (that is, if the deceased had left children of his own) marriage with a brother's widow was strictly forbidden (Lev. xviii. 16; xx. 21). Analogous usages have prevailed among different nations, ancient and modern, particularly in Western Asia. The law is almost literally the same, in principle, among the Arabians, the Druses of Lebanon, and the Circassians-not to mention others. It existed in Scotland so late as the eleventh century, according to Lord Hales. Among the Arabians, indeed, the obligation is not indispensable upon the surviving brother. He generally offers his hand to his deceased brother's widow; but custom does not oblige either party to make this match, nor can the brother prevent the widow from marrying another man. "It seldom happens, however," says Burckhardt," that he refuses; for by such an union the family property is kept together." The custom of marrying the brother's widow has long been discontinued by the Jews themselves, like several others no longer suited to the condition in which they are now placed as a dispersed people without inheritance. Nothing therefore now remains among them of the original institution, except the ceremony of releasing both parties from a connection which is no longer permitted to be formed. (Buxtorf, Synag.' c. 30; Allen's Modern Judaism,' p. 432.) 7. "Plucked off his shoe."-In the law (Deut. xxv.), this act is directed to be performed by the woman; but here it seems to be done by the man himself, who gives his shoe to Boaz. In the former instance, the man refusing to perform his duty without coming to any arrangement with the next of kin to act for him, his shoe was taken from him with some ignominy; but here, as he does not absolutely refuse without caring for the result, but makes over his right to Boaz, the ignominy is spared, and the matter is treated as an amicable transfer of right. The use of the shoe in this transaction is sufficiently intelligible; the taking off the shoe denoting the relinquishment of the right and the dissolution of the obligation, in the one instance, and its transfer in the other. The shoe is regarded as constituting possession; nor is this idea unknown to ourselves, it being expressed in the homely proverbial expression by which one man is said "to stand in the shoes" of another. There are therefore two ways of considering this act: one as dissolving a right, the other as giving that right to another. In the former respect, the practice of the modern Jews in dissolving the claim, may be taken as a fair illustration of the ancient practice. When the form of dissolving the mutual claim in question is to be gone through, three rabbies, with two witnesses, proceed, after morning prayers at the synagogue, to a place fixed the previous evening, attended by others of the congregation as auditors and spectators. The parties are then called forward, and declare that they come to be released from each other. The chief rabbi then interrogates the man, and finding him determined not to marry the widow, orders him to put on a shoe of black list, which is exclusively used for this purpose. The woman then says: "My husband's brother refuseth to raise up his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother." Then the brother says: "I like not to take her." The woman then unties the shoe, takes it off, and throws it on the ground. This she does with the right hand: "but,” says old Purchas, "if she want a right hand, it putteth the rabbínes out of their wits to skan whether with her teeth or how else it may be done." Having thrown down the shoe, she spits on the ground before him, saying, "So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother's house: and his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed." The persons present then exclaim three times: "His shoe is loosed." The chief rabbi then declares the woman at liberty to marry any other, and gives her a certificate to that effect. See Allen's Modern Judaism;' Hyam Isaacs' 'Ceremonies;' and 'Purchas his Pilgrimage,' p. 233. Isaacs' account differs somewhat from that of Allen, chiefly as to the treatment of the shoe, which, according to the former, is knitted in a peculiar manner, and must be unravelled by the man.

Even at the present time, the use of the shoe as a token of right or occupancy, may be traced very extensively in the East; and however various and dissimilar the instances may seem at first view, the leading idea may still be detected in all. Thus, among the Bedouins, when a man permits his cousin to marry another (see the note on Gen. xxix. 19), or when a husband divorces his runaway wife, he usually says, "She was my slipper; I have cast her off." (Burckhardt's 'Bedouins,' p. 65.) Sir F. Henniker, in speaking of the difficulty he had in persuading the natives to descend into the crocodile mummy pits, in consequence of some men having lost their lives there, says, "Our guides, as if preparing for certain death, took leave of their children; the father took the turban from his own head and put it upon that of his son; or put him in his place by giving him his shoes-' a dead man's shoes.'" This was an act of transfer: the father delegating to his son that charge of the family, which he feared he was about to leave destitute. Messrs. Tyerman and Bennet, speaking of the termagants of Benares, say: "If domestic or other business calls off one of the combatants, before the affair is duly settled, she coolly thrusts her shoe under her basket, and leaves both on the spot to signify that she is not satisfied." What the woman meant, doubtless, was to denote, by leaving her shoe, that she kept possession of the ground and the argument during her unavoidable absence. The shoe was the symbol of possession. In Western Asia, slippers left at the door of an apartment denote that the master or mistress is engagedthat other persons are in possession of their attention-and later comers do not then think fit to intrude, unless specially invited. Even a husband does not venture to enter his wife's apartments while he sees the slippers of visiters at her door. These may serve as specimens of numerous instances which might be cited, in which the shoe is the symbol o possession, or of delegation or transfer, which are the ideas which we believe to be conveyed by the Hebrew use of the shoe, in the present and other instances. In fact, this employment of the shoe may, in some respects, be considered analogous to that which prevailed in the middle ages, of giving a glove as a token of investiture in bestowing lands and dignities; whence, also, the taking away of gloves was, at least in some cases, a ceremony of degradation or deprivation. 8. “ Shoe.”—The same Hebrew word y, naal) denotes both a sandal and a shoe; more generally, doubtless, the former than the latter, although always rendered "shoe" in our version of the Old Testament, in which the word "sandal" does not once occur. It must, indeed, generally be left to the context to determine which is intended; and this the context does not often enable us to say. It is very likely, however, that shoes, properly so called, were in use before this time, for it is probable that we are to understand, from the mention of "rams' skins dyed red," in the

books of Moses (see the note on Exod xxv. 5), that the Hebrews had the art of preparing and colouring leather. If so, shoes were probably confined to the more comfortable classes of the people; for not only were sandals of the earliest date but, so far as a covering for the feet was employed at all, continued in general use for ages after the invention of shoes. Indeed, down to the present time, shoes have by no means superseded sandals in the East.When men first thought of some contrivance to defend their feet from being cut by sharp stones, or injured by cold, or scorched by the hot sand, they fastened to the bottom of their feet soles of bark, wood, raw hide, and, ultimately, tanned leather, by means of straps or thongs variously disposed-but most generally by two, one of which was joined to the sole at the heel or hollow of the foot, and after passing round the ancle, had fastened to it another which passed between the great and the second toe. (See the note on Gen. xiv. 23.) With some variation, this is the general form of the simpler kind of sandals in different nations ancient and modern; and it is well illustrated by the third and fourth figures of Egyptian sandals, in a cut to Deut. xxix. The latter, however, is prolonged in a sharp, peaked point much beyond the toes, as is at present the case in a large proportion of modern Oriental shoes and sandals. The other Egyptian sandals (figs. 1 and 2 of the same cut) also deserve attention. They are such as appear on a large sitting figure now in the British Museum. "They seem fastened by a strap passing between the great toe and its neighbour, and attached to an upper part, perhaps of wood, which crosses the instep and descends to the sole of the sandal on each side. The sole of the sandal and the wooden part which crosses the instep are evidently one piece, in this instance. (Egyptian Antiquities,' vol. ii. p. 16.) Among the same people the sandals of the priests were, according to Herodotus, made of papyrus. There is a figure in the British Museum which appears to have sandals of this sort, and which is thus mentioned in the work (in the Lib. of Ent. Knowledge') just cited:-These sandals "must be considered as made of a flexible material, for they are represented bending exactly as the sole of the foot is bent at the toes, owing to the kneeling attitude of the figure. The bottom of the sole is also marked with transverse lines, showing that it is composed of separate small parts, the whole of which are kept together by a rim of similar strips, running all round and forming the margin of the sole. It is in fact a shoe of papyrus, or some other flexible material" (see fig. a in the following cut). These facts are of particular importance on account of the proximity of the Hebrews to, and their connection with, the Egyptians, and the exhibition which they offer of an early and simple form of the sandal.

a, b, c, Egyptian; d, e, f, g, h, i, Persian; k, Asiatic; l, n, Phrygian; m, q, r, s, Dacian; o, p, Grecian.

The progressive history of the sandal will be better illustrated by our cuts than by written explanation. From these, t will be seen that it ultimately became an elaborate and ornamental article, with a more complete sole, bound to the foot and leg with lacings in multiplied convolutions, and sometimes decorated with costly ornaments of various kinds. Attention to the sandals became a foppery in the end; and we see that Philopomen, in recommending soldiers to give more attention to their warlike accoutrements than to their common dress, advises them to be less nice about their shoes and sandals, and more careful in observing that their greaves were kept bright and fitted well to their legs.

(Polybius, xi.) The Jewish ladies seem to have been very particular about their sandals, if we may judge from what is said of the bride in Sol. Song, vii. 1:-"How beautiful are thy feet with sandals, O prince's daughter!" and in the instance of Judith, in the Apocrypha, we observe that it was not so much the general splendour of her attire-her rich bracelets, rings, and necklaces, that attracted most strongly the attention of the fierce Holofernes; but it was "her sandals" that "ravished his eyes." (Jud. xvi. 9.)

Some of the customs connected equally with sandals and shoes, we have formerly noticed; such as that frequent washing of the feet which they rendered necessary, and the custom of taking them off on entering a sacred place, or even a house. We need therefore only further mention, that to loose or unbind the sandals was usually the business of the lowest servants. Disciples, however, performed this duty for their teachers; but the Rabbins advised them not to do it before strangers, lest they should be mistaken for servants. It was also the business of an inferior servant, not only to loose, but to carry his master's sandals or shoes, when not immediately in use; whence the proverbial expressions of John the Baptist, in speaking of Christ-"Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear" (Matt. iii. 11);"The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose" (Mark, i. 7).

The Talmudists have some instructive remarks on the sandal, which we the rather cite here, as, being intended to mark the distinction between it and the shoe, it serves well to connect with the preceding observations the few further remarks which we have to offer on shoes, properly so called. "Shoes were of more delicate use, sandals were more ordinary and fitter for service; a shoe was of softer leather, a sandal of harder. There were sandals also whose sole or lower part was of wood, the upper of leather, and these were fastened together with nails. Some sandals were made of rushes, or of the bark of palm trees, and they were open both ways, so that one might put in his foot either before or behind. Those of a violet or purple colour were most valued, and worn by persons of the first quality and dis

tection for the foot, was too obvious to be delayed for any considerable length of time. Indeed, at the present day, the shoes generally used in the East remain something between a complete shoe and a sandal, or, as we may say, slippers. Many of them have no quarters, and scarcely do more than cover the toes; yet the natives walk in them with extreme ease, and almost never let them slip from the feet. The common shoe in Turkey and Arabia is like our slipper with quarters, except that it has a sharp and prolonged toe turned up. No shoes in Western Asia have ears, and they are generally of coloured leather-red or yellow morocco in Turkey and Arabia, and green shagreen in Persia. In the latter country the shoe or slipper in most general use (having no quarters) has a very high heel; but with this exception, the heels in these countries are generally flat. No shoes, or even boots have more than a single sole, (like what we call "pumps,") which in wet weather generally imbibes the water freely. When the shoe without quarters is used, an inner slipper, with quarters but without a sole, is worn inside, and the outer one alone is thrown off on entering a house. But in Persia, instead of this inner slipper of leather, they use a worsted sock. Those shoes that have quarters are usually worn without any inner covering for the foot. The peasantry and the nomade tribes usually go barefoot, or wear a rude sandal or shoe, of their own manufacture: those who possess a pair of red leather or other shoes seldom wear them except on holiday occasions, so that they last a long time, if not so long as among the Maltese, with whom a pair of shoes endures for several generations, being, even on holiday occasions, more frequently carried in the hand than worn on the feet. The boots are generally of the same construction and material as the shoes; and the general form may be compared to that of the buskin, the height varying from the mid-leg to near the knee. They are of capacious breadth, except among the Persians, whose boots generally fit closer to the leg, and are mostly of a sort of Russia leather, uncoloured; whereas those of other people are, like the slippers, of red or yellow morocco. There is also a boot or shoe for walking in frosty weather, which differs from the common one only in having under the heel, iron tips, which, being partly bent vertically with a jagged edge, give a hold on the ice which prevents slipping. These are particularly useful in ascending or descending the frozen mountain paths. The sandal with the sole armed with iron points, represented in our last cut, had doubtless the same use. The shoes of the Oriental ladies are sometimes highly ornamental; the covering part being wrought with gold, silver, and silk, and perhaps set with jewels, real or imitated. The observations therefore made above, in reference to the sandals of the bride in Solomon's Song, and of Judith, may be equally applicable to shoes: and indeed it is not certain whether shoes or sandals are in these instances intended. We have thus spoken first of modern Oriental shoes, because we apprehend that they belong to a class of subjects best illustrated by the existing usages of the East. We have spoken from personal observation on this point. For the immediately following additional particulars we are partly indebted to Calmet's Dictionary (folio edit. 1732). The shoes of the ancient Romans were chiefly of crude untanned leather. Ultimately shoes of tanned leather, of such forms as our cuts exhibit, were usually worn out of doors, by persons in good circumstances; but in-doors they continued to wear sandals. Wooden shoes were generally worn by poor people, slaves, and peasants; but sometimes rude sandals, or shoes of raw leather. None but those who had served the office of Edile were allowed to wear shoes dressed with alum and of a red colour, which we may therefore infer to have been a favourite colour for shoes, as it appears to have been among the Hebrews, and as it is now in Western Asia. The Roman senators wore shoes or buskins of a black colour, with a crescent of gold or silver on the top of the foot. Women also appear to have used these ornaments; and perhaps Isaiah refers to something of this sort in chap. iii. 8. The Emperor Aurelian forbade men to wear red, yellow, white, or green shoes, allowing them to women only; and Heliogabalus forbade women to wear gold and precious stones in their shoes; and this, with what we have said of modern shoes, helps us to under stand in what the splendour of the Hebrew women's shoes consisted. Calmet finds boots of metal in the Scripture and in Homer; but we imagine that greaves only are intended in the passages to which he alludes. What Vegetius says about the Roman soldiers having iron shoes, probably means that the soles were plated, shod, or nailed with iron. This they certainly were. The nails had sometimes their points outward, probably, as already intimated, to serve as snow or frost shoes, and also to assist in scaling walls in the attack of fortified places. Luxury, however, found its way even to the nails of shoes; for we are told that in the army of Antiochus most of the soldiers had golden nails under their shoes.

We have not mentioned Egyptian shoes, because we are not aware that any thing that can properly be called a shoe occurs in Egyptian paintings and sculptures; and the sandals we have already noticed. It is clear, however, that the Egyptians had the art of tanning and dressing leather. This would be alone probable from our finding the art among the Hebrews immediately after they left Egypt; and that the Egyptians made shoes with leather at some period or other, is testified by Belzoni, who says: "They had the art of tanning leather, with which they made shoes as well as we do, some of which I found of various shapes. They had also the art of staining the leather with various colours, as we do morocco, and actually knew the mode of embossing on it, for I found leather with figures impressed on it, quite elevated. I think it must have been done with a hot iron while the leather was damp." (Researches and Operations,' vol. ii. p. 271. 8vo. edit.) This is important; because it is fair to infer that the Hebrews were not ignorant of what was known to their neighbours. The shoes which the Hebrews wore when they left Egypt were doubtless of Egyptian manufacture, and probably long continued to afford the model of those which they afterwards used. It is not however necessary to suppose that the art of preparing leather and of forming shoes had at that early time arrived at such perfection as is described by Belzoni.

In the absence of very definite information concerning the shoes and sandals of the Hebrews, the statements we have given concerning those of the modern occupants of Western Asia, and of ancient nations with which the Hebrews were at different times acquainted, will furnish the best assistance which can now be obtained for the elucidation of the various passages of the Old and New Testament in which the equipment of the feet is mentioned.

END OF VOLUME THE FIRST.

LONDON: Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES and SONS, Stamford Street.