L E V L E W 489 B.C. are referred by that author to David (1 Chron. xv., xvi., xxiii.) or to Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix.) and Josiah (2 Chron. xxxv.). The chief point is the development of the musical service of the temple, which has no place in the Pentateuch, but afterwards came to be of the first import ance, as we see from the Psalter, and attracted the special attention of Greek observers (Theophrastus, ap. Porph., DC Abstin., ii. 2G). While it is not difficult to trace the history of the Levites from the time of the Blessing of Moses and Deuteronomy downwards, the links connecting the priestly tribe with the earlier fortunes of the tribe of Levi arc hardly to be determined with any certainty. According to the traditional view the scheme of the Levitical legislation, with its double hierarchy of priests and Levites, is of Mosaic ordinance. But there are many proofs that in the Pen tateuch, as we possess it, divergent ordinances, dating from very different ages, are all carried back by means of a legal convention to the time of the wilderness journey. And, if the complete hier archical theory as it existed after the exile was really the work of Moses, it is inexplicable that all trace of it was so completely lost in the time of the monarchy, that Ezekiel speaks of the degradation of the non-Zadokite Levites as a new thing and as a punishment for their share in the sin of the high places, and that no clear evidence of the existence of a distinction between priests and Levites has been found in any Hebrew writing demonstrably earlier than the exile. 1 It is indeed argued that the narrative of the rebellion of Korali, and the list of Levitical cities in Josh. xxi. , imply that the precepts of the post-exile law were practically recognized by Moses and Joshua ; but it is certain that the distribution spoken of in Josh. xxi. did not take place at the time of the conquest, because many of the cities named were either not occupied by the Hebrews till long afterwards, or, if conquered, were not held by Levites. | The Levitical cities of Joshua are indeed largely identical with ancient holy cities (Hebron, Shechem, Mahanaim, &c.); but in ancient Israel a holy city was one which possessed a noted sanctuary (often of Canaanite origin), not one the inhabitants of which belonged to the holy tribe. These sanctuaries had of course their local priest hoods, which in the time of the monarchy were all called Levitical ; and it is only in this sense, not in that of the priestly legislation, that a town like Shechem can ever have been Levitical. So again the narrative of Korah proves on critical examination to be of com posite origin ; the parts of it which represent Korali as a common Levite in rebellion against the priesthood of Aaron belong to a late date, and the original form of the history knows nothing of the later hierarchical system. 2 We are thus compelled to give up the idea of carrying back the distinction of Levites and Aaronites in the later sense to the time of Moses, and are excluded from using the priestly parts of the Pentateuch and Joshua as a source for the earliest history of the tribe. It still, however, remains certain that under the monarchy the priestly consecration of Levi was referred to the time of Moses, who was himself a member of the tribe, and in Deut. x. 8 the functions of Levi are specially connected with the Mosaic sanctuary of the ark. Xow we know from 1 Sam. ii. 27 sq. that the priests of the ark in the period of the Judges claimed descent from the family of Moses ; and the case -of Micah s Levite shows that a descendant of Moses was regarded as a peculiarly fit priest. The whole evidence conspires to show that from the time of Moses downward his kin had a certain hereditary prerogative in connexion with the worship of Jehovah. In the earliest times the ritual of Jehovah s sanctuary had not attained such a development as to occupy a whole tribe ; but if, as appears probable, the mass of the tribe of Levi was almost annihilated in the first age after Moses, the name of Levite might very well continue to be known only in connexion with those of the tribe who traced kin with Moses or remained by the sanctuary. The multiplication of Hebrew holy places was effected partly by syncretism with the Canaanites, partly in other ways that had nothing to do with the Mosaic sanctuary, and so a variety of priestly guilds arose which certainly cannot have been all of Levitical descent. But, as the nation was consolidated and a uniform system of sacred law, referred to Moses as its originator, came to be administered all over the land, in the hands of the ministers of the greater sanctuaries, the various guilds must 1 The recent defence of the traditional view by S. I. Curtiss (Thf. Levitical Priests, 1877) still seeks such evidence in 1 Kings viii. 4. But there are many evidences that the text of this part of Kings has undergone considerable editing at a pretty late date. The LXX. translators did not read the clause which speaks of "priests and Levites," and the Chronicler read " the Levite priests," the phrase characteristic of the Deuteronomic identification of priestly and Levitieal ministry. 2 See the latest researches of Kuenen, Theol. Tljdsch., xii. 139 sq., where other recent discussions of the chapter are cited and examined. have been drawn together and have aimed at forming such a united body as we find described in Deut. xxxiii. ; and this unity would find a natural expression in the extension of the name of Levites to all priesthoods recognized by the state. If this was the course oi things we can hardly suppose that the term came into large use till and in fact as well as David and Jeroboam, as appears from the cases of Samuel, Zadok, Eleaza; (1 Sam. vii. 1), and the sons of David (2 Sam. viii. 18), as well as from 1 Kings xii. 31, the priesthood was not essentially hereditary; but, like all occupations that required traditional know, ledge, it must have tended to become more and more so, so that all priests would appear as Levites by adoption if not by descent. Wellhausen (Gesck., i. 139) has argued from Deut. xxxiii. 9 that the northern priesthood was notan hereditary guild, but involved the surrender of all family connexion ; the words, however, are more naturally understood as praise of the judicial impartiality which refused to be influenced by family ties. Our data are too scanty to clear up the details of this interesting piece of history ; but it can hardly be doubted that the development of a consolidated and hereditary priestly corporation in all the sanctuaries was closely bound up with the, unification of the state and the absorption of tribal organization in the monarchy. The reaction of tribal feeling against the central government, of which there are many traces in the history of Ephraim, has perhaps its counterpart in the opposi tion to the unified priesthood which is alluded to in Deut. xxxiii. 11. There have been many attempts on the part of recent writers from the time of Vatke downwards to deny that Levi was one of the original tribes of Israel, but they all break down before the testi mony of Gen. xlix. See especially Kuenen s refutation of the theory of Land, Theol. Tijdsch., 1872, p. 628 sq. ; and for the latest aspects of the whole subject Graf in Merx s Archie, vol. i. (1869), "Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi " ; Wellhausen, Gcsch., i. p. 123 sy. ; Stade, Gcsch. d. V. Israels, p. 152 sq. (W. E. S.) LEVITICUS. See PENTATEUCH. LEW-CHEW ISLANDS. The Lew-chew, Loochoo, Liu Kin, or Riu Km Islands 13 include, in the wider applica tion of the name, the whole series extending in a north east and south-west direction from the southern end of Kiushiu in Japan proper to the north-east of Formosa. Within the northern group lies the intersection of 130 E. long, and 30 oS". lat. ; and in the southern group that of 125 E. long, and 25 X. lat. The islands, however, to the north of 29 are not unfrequently considered, by Europeans as well as Japanese, to belong in part to Japan proper, and in part to constitute the separate group of the Linschotens, Shichi-to, or Cecille Archipelago. The following, according to Doederlein, are the recognized sub divisions and areas of the whole archipelago: (1) The Northern Islands (attached to Satsuma or Kiushiu Osumi, 398 square miles): Tanega(189 square miles), Make, Yakuno (172 square miles), Take, Yuo or Iwoga, Kuro, Kose or Kowose, and Kuchino-Erabu or Nagarobe ; (2) Shichi-to (43 square miles): Kuchino, Gaza or Yebi, Naka-no (the largest, 13 square miles), Hira or Fira, Suwase, Akuseki, Takara, and Yoko ; (3) Hokiilu-Shoto (515 square miles): Oshima (302 square miles), Kageruma or Katona (40 square miles), Yoro, Uke or uru, Kitai, Tokono or Kakirouma (92 square miles), Naka Eral.ni, and Yoron or Yori ; (4) Chiibu-Shoto (592 square miles): Tori or I wo, Eheya or Tebeya, Isona, lye, Awakuni or Agunyeh, Tonashi, Kume, Kerama or Amakirima, and Okinawa (520 square miles) ; (5) Na/mbu-Shoto or the Meiakoshima Group (315 square miles): Miyako or Ty-pin-saii (57 square miles), Misuua and Tarama, Ishigaki or Pat-chung-san (104 square miles), Takekmia or Robertson Island, Ohama or Kubah, Kuro or Baugh, Iriomoto Xishiomoto or Koo-Kisn-San, Aragusuku or Chung-chi, Hateruma or Hasyokan, Yonakuni or Kumi. The area of the Lew-chews proper is thus 1423 square miles, that of the whole chain 1864 square miles. The largest islands are Okinawa (often called Great Lew-chew) and Oshima, the former being also the political centre of the whole archipelago. The Lew-chews consist in the main of crystalline rocks gneiss, hornblende, and granite upheaved at a very remote date, and only partially covered by severely weathered sedimentary strata seldom left in their original horizontal position. Coralline lime stone is found in great abundance even on the t:>ps of the hills, and the coasts are often fringed by coral reefs. In 3 See a curious history of the name in Li Ting Yuen s Journal. XIV. 62
