ISRAELITE AND INDIAN. i 97 



It was generally an animal e. g., an eagle, a panther, a buffalo, 

 a bear, a deer, a raccoon, a tortoise, a snake, or a fish, but some- 

 times one of the winds, a celestial body, or other impressive 

 object or phenomenon. 



The Israelites had such badges or totems which have been 

 called standards. The blessings of Jacob and of Moses, which 

 mention several of them, were not merely metaphoric. In the 

 blessing of Jacob, Judah is named as a lion, Issachar as an ass, Dan 

 as a serpent, Naphtali as a hind, Benjamin as a wolf, Joseph as a 

 bough. In that of Moses, four such names occur Ephraim as a 

 bullock, Manasseh as a bison, Gad as a lion, and Dan as a lion's 

 whelp. From all the evidence on the subject there is reason to 

 believe that these were the leading totems in the tribes mentioned, 

 and the discrepancies in the lists may be accounted for by the 

 fact that the head clans in some tribes had changed in the in- 

 terval. 



David seems to have belonged to the serpent stock. The most 

 prominent among his ancestors bore a serpent name. Some pas- 

 sages in his life show his connection with a serpent totem. 



Critics have doubted whether Moses was as much opposed to 

 idolatry as is asserted in the records, for a brazen serpent, perhaps 

 an ancient idol of Jahveh, said to have been set up by him, was 

 in existence until the reign of Hezekiah, who broke it into pieces. 

 True, it may have been an idol of Jahveh, or perhaps it was wor- 

 shiped as a teraph ; but it may have been simply a totem. The 

 lifting up of the brazen serpent by Moses in the wilderness may 

 be more consistently explained by totemism than by idolatry in 

 its usual sense. 



Government. The Israelites in their normal condition were 

 governed by a number of their elders who were presumed to 

 have the greatest wisdom and experience. Special powers were 

 conferred in emergencies upon one man and were intended to be 

 of short duration, but while they lasted they were dictatorial. 

 The judges were despots without a standing army or an organ- 

 ized government. Their selection was due neither to inheri- 

 tance, to suffrage, nor to violence, but to personal superiority in 

 strength, wisdom, and courage. The usual result was, that the 

 power gained by a ruler was held during his life, and it was some- 

 times contended for by one of his sons with temporary success. 

 The government of the Indians was substantially the same. 



The alliance of the tribes was loose. They seldom hesitated to 

 make war upon one another. Even after nationality had been 

 initiated, the genius of David and the magnificence of Solomon 

 could not permanently weld them together ; and doubtless without 

 the later and cohesive establishment of Jahvism they would have 

 often, though perhaps but temporarily, fallen back into an incoher- 



