Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/267

 232

seed pass through the fire to Moloch," and attached the penalty of death to breach of this law (Leviticus xxii, 2), and when the Deuteronomic code extended this prohibition to pther gods beside Moloch (Deuteronomy xii, 31), this practice was doomed, and al though it was followed for many years there after, it no longer had the sanction of the law. Later instances of the exercise of this right were the sacrifice of the sons of the King Ahas (2 Kings xvi, 3) and of King Menasseh (2 Kings xxi, 6) and the general prevalence of this practice among the people in the time of the corrupt and idolatrous King Hoshea (2 Kings xvii, 17), but the chronicler in reporting all of these cases strongly condemned them. After idolatry had been entirely rooted out of Israel, this practice entirely disappeared. Having observed that the supreme power of life and death was the constitutional right of the patriarch, we are prepared to find in the Biblical records evidences of the exercise of lesser powers over his wives and children. In the legend of the Garden of Eden, ancient tradition emphasizes the subjection of woman " Thy desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Genesis iii, 16). Originally she had no rights that the husband was bound to re spect; she became his wife either by being stolen or purchased; and she could be dis missed by him or sold at his pleasure (Ex odus xxi, 8; Deuteronomy xxiv, 1). Public law gradually modified the patri archal power, and the evolution of her status from a mere chattel to a perfect legal person will be the subject of the next article. The children of the patriarch were likewise salable property. It was common for the father to sell his daughter as a wife or as a bondwoman, and even as late as the days of Nehemiah, sons and daughters were sold as servants because of the destitution of their

fathers (Nehemiah v, 5). In those cases in which the daughters, though married, re mained in the house of their father, they were still under his control rather than under that of their husband; thus we find Laban saying to Jacob, his son-in-law, referring to the wives and the children and the cattle of Jacob (Genesis xxxi, 43), " These daughters are my daughters, and these children are my children;" "these cattle are my cattle; and all that thou seest is mine." Indeed, Jacob left Laban's house clandestinely because he feared that his wives would be taken from him (Genesis xxxi, 31). A similar exercise of power is found in the case of Samson, whose father-in-law gave Samson's wife to another, and upon Samson's return, met his indignation by saying with great simplicity (Judges xv, 2), " I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her, therefore I gave her to thy companion; is not her younger sister fairer than she? Take her, I pray thee, instead of her." The same thing is recorded of King Saul, who, after marrying his daughter Michal to David, took her from him and gave her to Paltiel (1 Samuel xxv, 44). In these cases it is not unlikely that we have survivals of a matriar chal state of society in which kinship was reckoned through the females. The patriarch not only gave his daughter in marriage, but he also found wives for his sons (Exodus xxi, 9; Genesis xxiv, 3-4). All of these powers were gradually modified, and eventually destroyed under the influence of more enlightened public opinion as ex pressed in the Mosaic codes. The disinte gration of the patriarchal power reached its climax in the Mosaic codes. In Esau's mar riage with Judith the Hittite woman against his parent's wish, we have an indication of the weakening of the patriarchal power. We see a son rebelling against the patriarchal authority (Genesis xxvi, 35). The family of