{
    "system": "GoGuides Verified Text",
    "api_version": "verified-text-v1",
    "status": "ok",
    "response_type": "verified_text_record",
    "source_key": "britannica_1911",
    "source_title": "Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)",
    "license_code": "public_domain",
    "attribution": null,
    "license_url": null,
    "chunk_id": "1911:gendarmerie:68d20e1fd99e",
    "title": "GENDARMERIE",
    "section": null,
    "hash_alg": "sha256",
    "hash_sha256": "abd16db8b6a6e963ebf60c0e6abb7f458c57217ef23b2d092b6703e42c0d7878",
    "normalizer": {
        "name": "ggnorm",
        "version": "1.0"
    },
    "verified_text": "gendarmerie, originally a body of troops in france composed of _gendarmes_ or men-at-arms. in the days of chivalry they were mounted and armed cap-a-pie, exactly as were the lords and knights, with whom they constituted the most important part of an army. they were attended each by five soldiers of inferior rank and more lightly armed. in the later middle ages the men-at-arms were furnished by owners of fiefs. but after the hundred years' war this feudal gendarmerie was replaced by the _compagnies d'ordonnance_ which charles vii. formed when the english were driven out of france, and which were distributed throughout the whole extent of the kingdom for preserving order and maintaining the king's authority. these companies, fifteen in number, were composed of 100 lances or gendarmes fully equipped, each of whom was attended by at least three archers, one _coutillier_ (soldier armed with a cutlass) and one _varlet_ (soldier's servant). the states-general of orleans (1439) had voted a yearly subsidy of 1,200,000 livres in perpetuity to keep up this national soldiery, which replaced, and in fact was recruited chiefly amongst, the bands of mercenaries who for about a century had made france their prey. the number and composition of the _compagnies d'ordonnance_ were changed more than once before the reign of louis xiv. this sovereign on his accession to the throne found only eight companies of gendarmes surviving out of an original total of more than one hundred, but after the victory of fleurus (1690), which had been decided by their courage, he increased their number to sixteen. the four first companies (which were practically guard troops) were designated by the names of _gendarmes ecossais_, _gendarmes anglais_, _gendarmes bourguignons_ and _gendarmes flamands_, from the nationality of the soldiers who had originally composed them; but at that time they consisted entirely of french soldiers and officers. these four companies had a captain-general, who was the king. the fifth company was that of the queen; and the others bore the name of the princes who respectively commanded them. this organization was dissolved in 1788. the revolution swept away all these institutions of the monarchy, and, with the exception of a short revival of the _gendarmes de la garde_ at the restoration, henceforward the word \"gendarmerie\" possesses an altogether different significance--viz. military police. genealogy (from the gr. [greek: genos], family, and [greek: logos], theory), a pedigree or list of ancestors, or the study of family history. 1. _biblical genealogies._--the aims and methods of ancient genealogists require to be carefully considered before the value of the numerous ancestral lists in the bible can be properly estimated. many of the old \"genealogies,\" like those of greece, have arisen from the desire to explain the origin of the various groups which they include. information relating to the subdivision of tribes, their relation to each other, the intermingling of populations and the like are thus frequently represented in the form of genealogies. the \"sons\" of a \"father\" often stand merely for the branches of a family as they existed at some one period, and since in course of time tribal relations would vary, lists which have originated at different periods will present discrepancies. it is obvious that many of the biblical names are nothing more than personifications of nations, tribes, towns, &c., which are grouped together to convey some idea of the bond by which they were believed to be connected. for the personification of a people or tribe, cp. gen. xxxiv. 30 (\"jacob said ... i am a few men\"), josh. xvii. 14 (\"the children of joseph said ... i am a numerous people\"), ex. xiv. 25 (\"egypt said, let me flee\"), jos. ix. 7, 1 sam. v. 10, &c.; see g.b. gray on numbers, xx. 14 (_internat. crit. comm._). thus we find among the \"sons\" of japhet: (the nations) gomer, javan, tubal; canaan \"begat\" sidon and heth; the \"sons\" of ishmael include the well-known tribes kedar and jetur; jacob, or the synonym israel, personifies the \"children of israel\" (cf. use of \"i,\" \"thou\" of the israelites in deut., and in poetical passages). the recognition of this characteristic usage often furnishes an ethnological interpretation to those genealogical stories which obviously do not relate to persons, but to tribes or peoples personified. the edomites and israelites are regarded as \"brothers\" (cf. num. xx. 14, deut. ii. 4, am. i. 11), and since esau (edom) was born before jacob (israel) it would appear that the edomites were held to be the older nation. the union of two clans is expressed as a marriage, or the wife is the territory which is dominated by the husband (tribe); see caleb. if the woman is not of noble blood, but is a handmaiden or concubine, her children are naturally not upon the same footing as those of the wife; consequently the descendants of ishmael, the son of hagar (sarah's maid), are inferior to isaac and his descendants, whilst the children of keturah (\"incense\"), abraham's concubine, are still lower--from the israelite point of view. this application of the terms of relationship is characteristic of the semites. the \"father\" of the rechabites is their head or founder (cf. 1 sam. x. 12: \"who is their father?\"), and a common bond, which is not necessarily physical, unites all \"sons,\" whether they are \"sons of the prophets\" (members of prophetic guilds) or \"sons of belial\" (worthless men). the interpretation of ethnological or statistical genealogies may easily be pushed too far. every case has to be judged upon its own merits, and due allowance must be made both for the ambition of the weaker to claim or to strengthen an alliance with the stronger, and for the not unnatural desire of clans or individuals to magnify the greatness of their ancestry. the first step must always be the careful comparison of related lists in order to test the consistency of the tradition. next, these must be critically studied in the light of all available historical material, though indeed such evidence is not necessarily conclusive. finally, (a) literary criticism must be employed to determine if possible the dates of such lists, since obviously a contemporary register is more trustworthy than one which is centuries later; (b) a critical estimate of the character of the names and of their use in various periods of old testament history is of importance in estimating the antiquity of the list[1]--for example, many of the names in chronicles attributed to the time of david are indubitably exilic or post-exilic; and (c) principles of ordinary historical probability are as necessary here as in dealing with the genealogies of other ancient peoples, and attention must be paid to such features as fluctuation in the number of links, representation of theories inconsistent with the growth of national life, schemes of relationship not in accordance with sociological conditions, &c. the biblical genealogies commence with \"the generations of the heaven and earth,\" and by a process of elimination pass from adam and eve by successive steps to jacob and to his sons (the tribes), and finally to the subdivisions of each tribe (cp. 1 chron. i.-ix. 1). according to this theory every israelite could trace back his descent to jacob, the common father of the whole nation (josh. vii. 17 seq., 1 sam. x. 21). such a scheme, however, is full of manifest improbabilities. it demands that every tribe and every clan should have been a homogeneous group which had preserved its unity from the earliest times, that family records extending back for several centuries were in existence, and that such a tribe as simeon was able to maintain its independence in spite of the tradition that it lost its autonomy in very early times (gen. xlix. 7). the whole conception of the unity of the tribes cannot be referred to a date previous to the time of david, and in the older writings a david or a jeroboam was sufficiently described as the son of jesse or of nebat. the genealogical zeal as represented in the old testament is chiefly of later growth, and the exceptions are due to interpolation (josh. vii. 1 18, contrast v. 24), or to the desire to modify or qualify an older notice. this, in the case of saul (1 sam. ix. 1), has led to textual corruption; a list of such a length as his should have reached back to one of the \"sons\" of benjamin (cf. e.g. gen. xlvi. 21), else it were purposeless. the genealogies, too, are often inconsistent amongst themselves and in contradiction to their object. they show, for example, that the population of southern judah, so far from being \"israelite\" was half-edomite (see judah), and several of the clans in this district bear names which indicate their original affinity with midian or edom. moreover, there was a free intermixture of races, and many cities had a canaanite (i.e. pre-israelite) population which must have been gradually absorbed by the israelites (cf. judg. 1.). that spirit of religious exclusiveness which marked later judaism did not become prominent before the deuteronomic reformation (see deuteronomy), and it is under its influence that the writings begin to emphasize the importance of maintaining the purity of israelite blood, although by this time the fusion was complete (see judg. iii. 6) and for practical purposes a distinction between canaanites and israelites within the borders of palestine could scarcely be discerned. many of the genealogical data are intricate. thus, the interpretation of gen. xxxiv. is particularly obscure (see levites _ad fin._; simeon). as regards the sons of jacob, it is difficult to explain their division among the four wives of jacob; viz. (a) the sons of leah are reuben, simeon, levi and judah (s. palestine), issachar and zebulun (in the north), and dinah (associated with shechem); (b) of leah's maid zilpah, gad and asher (e. and n. palestine); (c) of rachel, joseph (manasseh and ephraim, i.e. central palestine) and benjamin; (d) of rachel's maid bilhah, dan and naphtali (n. palestine). it has been urged that (b) and (d) stood upon a lower footing than the rest, or were of later origin; or that bilhan points to an old clan associated with reuben (gen. xxxv. 22) or edom (bilhan, gen. xxxvi. 27), whilst zilpah represents an aramaean strain. tradition may have combined distinct schemes, and the belief that the wives were aramaean at least coincides with the circumstance that aramaean elements predominated in certain of the twelve tribes. the number \"twelve\" is artificial and can be obtained only by counting manasseh and ephraim as one or by omitting levi, and a careful study of old testament history makes it extremely difficult to recover the tribes as historical units. see, on these points, the articles on the several tribes, b. luther, _zeit. d. alttest. wissens_. (1901), pp. 1 sqq.; g.b. gray, _expositor_ (march 1902), pp. 225-240, and in _ency. bib._, art. \"tribes\"; and h.w. hogg's thorough treatment of the tribes in the last-mentioned work. the ideal of purity of descent shows itself conspicuously in portions of deuteronomic law (deut. vii. 1-3, xxiii. 2-8), and in the reforms of nehemiah and ezra (ezr. ix. 1-4, 11 sqq.; neh. xiii. 1-3). the desire to prove the continuity of the race, enforced by the experience of the exile, gave the impetus to genealogical zeal, and many of the extant lists proceed from this age when the true historical succession of names was a memory of the past. this applies with special force to the lists in chronicles which present finished schemes of the levitical divisions by the side of earlier attempts, with consequent confusion and contradiction. thus the immediate ancestors of ethan appear in the time of hezekiah (2 chron. xxix. 12), but he with asaiah and heman are contemporaries of david, and their genealogies from levi downwards contain a very unequal number of links (1 chron. vi.). by another application of genealogical method the account of the institution of priests and levites by david (1 chron. xxiv.) presents many names which belong solely to post-exilic days, thus suggesting that the scribes desired to show that the honourable families of their time were not unknown centuries previously. everywhere we find the results of much skill and labour, often in accordance with definite theories, but a thorough investigation reveals their weakness and often quite incidentally furnishes valuable evidence of another nature. the intricate levitical genealogies betray the result of successive genealogists who sought to give effect to the development of the hierarchal system (see levites). the climax is reached when all levites are traced back to gershon, kehath and merari, to which are ascribed respectively asaph, heman and ethan (or jeduthun). the last two were not originally levites in the later accepted sense of the term (see 1 kings iv. 31). to kehath is reckoned an important subdivision descended from korah, but in 2 chron. xx. 19 the two are distinct groups, and korah's name is that of an edomite clan (gen. xxxvi. 5, 14, 18) related to caleb, and thus included among the descendants of judah (1 chron. ii. 43). cases of adjustment, redistribution and \"levitizing\" of individuals are frequent. there are traces of varying divisions both of the singers (neh. xi. 17) and of the levites (num. xxvi. 58; ezr. ii. 40, iii. 9; 1 chron. xv. 5-10, xxiii.), and it is noteworthy that in the case of the latter we have mention of such families as hebroni (hebronite), libni (from libnah)--ethnics of south judaean towns. in fact, a significant number of levitical names find their analogy in the lists of names belonging to judah, simeon and even edom, or are closely connected with the family of moses; e.g. mushi (i.e. mosaite), gershon and eleazar (cp. gershom and eliezer, sons of moses). the levites bear a class-name, and the genealogies show that many of them were connected with the minor clans and families of south palestine which included among them moses and his kin. hence, it is not unnatural that obed-edom, for example, obviously a southerner, should have been reckoned later as a levite, and the work ascribed by the chronicler's history to the closing years of david's life may be influenced by the tradition that it was through him these mixed populations first attained importance. see further david; jews; levites. in the time of josephus every priest was supposed to be able to prove his descent, and perhaps from the time of ezra downwards lists were carefully kept. but when anna is called an asherite (luke ii. 36), or paul a benjamite (rom. xi. 1), family tradition was probably the sole support to the claim, although the tribal feeling had not become entirely extinct. the genealogies of jesus prefixed to two of the gospels are intended to prove that he was a son of david. but not that alone, for in matt. i. he is traced back to abraham the father of the jews, whilst in luke iii. he, as the second adam, is traced back to the first man. the two lists are hopelessly inconsistent; not because one of them follows the line of mary, but because they represent independent attempts. that in matthew is characteristically arranged in three series of fourteen generations each through the kings of judah, whilst luke's passes through an almost unknown son of david; in spite of this, however, both converge in the person of zerubbabel. see further, a.c. hervey, _genealogies of our lord_; h. von soden, _ency. bib._ ii. col. 1666 sqq.; b.w. bacon, hastings' _dict. bib._ ii. pp. 138 seq. on the subject generally see j.f. m'lennan's _studies_ (2nd ser., ch. ix., \"fabricated genealogies\"); s.a. cook, _ency. bib._ ii. col. 1657 sqq. (with references); w.r. smith, _kinship and marriage_ (2nd ed., especially ch. i.). (s. a. c.) 2. _greek and roman genealogies._--a passing reference only is needed to the intricate genealogies of gods and sons of gods which form so conspicuous a feature in classical literature.[2] in every one of the numerous states into which ancient greece was divided there were aristocratic families, whose genealogies as a rule went back to prehistoric times, their first ancestor being some hero of divine descent, from whom, or from some distinguished younger ancestor, they derived their names. many of these families were, as families, undoubtedly of great antiquity even at the beginning of the historical period; and in several instances they continued to maintain a conspicuous and separate existence for centuries. the element of family pride is prominent in the poetry of the megarian theognis; and in an inscription belonging to the 2nd century b.c. the recipient of certain honours from the community of gythium is represented as the thirty-ninth in direct descent from the dioscuri and the forty-first from heracles. even in athens, long after the constitution had become thoroughly democratic, some of the clans continued to be known as eupatridae (of noble family); and alcibiades, for example, as a member of the phratria of the eurysacidae, traced his origin through many generations to eurysaces, who was represented as having been the first of the aeacidae to settle in attica. the corinthian bacchiadae traced their descent back to heracles, but took their name from bacchis, a younger ancestor. it is very doubtful, however, whether such pedigrees as this were very seriously put forward by those who claimed them; and it is certain that, almost along the whole line, they were unsupported by evidence.[3] we have the authority of pollux (viii. 111) for stating that the athenian [greek: gene], of which there were thirty in each [greek: phratria], were organized without any exclusive regard being had to blood-relationship; they were constantly receiving accessions from without; and the public written registers of births, adoptions and the like do not appear to have been preserved with such care as would have made it possible to verify a pedigree for any considerable portion even of the strictly historical period.[4] the great antiquity of the early roman (patrician) _gentes_, who universally traced themselves back to illustrious ancestors, is indisputable; and the rigid exclusiveness with which each preserved its _hereditates gentiliciae_ or _sacra gentilicia_ is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that towards the close of the republic there were not more than fifty patrician families (dion. halic. i. 85). yet even in these it is obvious that, owing to the frequency of resort to the well-recognized practice of adoption, while there was every guarantee for the historical identity of the family, there was none (documents apart) for the personal genealogy of the individual. there is no evidence that sufficient records of pedigree were kept during the earlier centuries of the roman commonwealth, although the leading houses drew up genealogical tables, and their family pedigree was painted on the walls of the entrance hall. in later times, it is true, even plebeian families began to establish a prescriptive right (known as the _jus imaginum_) to preserve in small wooden shrines in their halls the busts (or rather, wax portrait masks fastened on to busts) of those of their members who had attained to curule office, and to exhibit these in public on appropriate occasions. under these _imagines majorum_[5] it became usual to inscribe on the wall their respective _tituli_, the relationship of each to each being indicated by means of connecting lines; and thus arose the _stemmata gentilicia_, which at a later time began to be copied into family records. in the case of plebeian families (whose stemmata in no case went farther back than 366 b.c.) these written genealogies were probably trustworthy enough; but in the case of patricians who went back to aeneas,[6] so much cannot, it is obvious, be said; and from a comparatively early period it was clearly recognized that such records lent themselves too readily to the devices of the falsifier and the forger to deserve confidence or reverence (pliny, _h.n._ xxxv. 2; juv. viii. 1). thus, parvenus were known to place the busts of fictitious ancestors in the shrines and to engage needy literary men to trace back their descent even to aeneas himself. the many and great social changes which marked the closing centuries of the western empire almost invariably militated with great strength against the maintenance of an aristocracy of birth; and from the time of constantine the dignity of patrician ceased to be hereditary.[7] 3. _modern._--two forces have combined to give genealogy its importance during the period of modern history: the laws of inheritance, particularly those which govern the descent of real estate, and the desire to assert the privileges of a hereditary aristocracy. but it is long before genealogies are found in the possession of private families. the succession of kings and princes are in the chronicle book; the line of the founders and patrons of abbeys are recorded by the monks with curious embellishment of legend. but the famous suit of scrope against grosvenor will illustrate the late appearance of private genealogies in england. in 1385 sir richard scrope, lord of bolton, displaying his banner in the host that invaded scotland, found that his arms of a golden bend in a blue field were borne by a knight of the chester palatinate, one sir robert grosvenor. he carried the dispute to a court of chivalry, whose decision in his favour was confirmed on appeal to the king. grosvenor asserted that he derived his right from an ancestor, sir gilbert grosvenor, who had come over with the conqueror, while an intervening claimant, a cornish squire named thomas carminowe, boasted that his own ancestors had borne the like arms since the days of king arthur's round table. it is remarkable that in support of the false statements made by the claimants no written genealogy is produced. the evidence of tombs and monuments and the reports of ancient men are advanced, but no pedigree is exhibited in a case which hangs upon genealogy. it is possible that the art of pedigree-making had its first impulse in england from the many genealogies constructed to make men familiar with the claims of edward iii. to the crown of france, a second crop of such royal pedigrees being raised in later generations during the contests of york and lancaster. but it is not until after the close of the middle ages that genealogies multiply in men's houses and are collected into volumes. the medieval baron, knight or squire, although proud of the nobility of his race, was content to let it rest upon legend handed down the generations. the exact line of his descent was sought only when it was demanded for a plea in the king's courts to support his title to his lands. from the first the work of the genealogist in england had that taint of inaccuracy tempered with forgery from which it has not yet been cleansed. the medieval kings, like the welsh gentry of later ages, traced their lines to the household of eden garden, while lesser men, even as early as the 14th century, eagerly asserted their descent from a companion of the conqueror. yet beside these false imaginations we find the law courts, whose business was often a clash of pedigrees, dealing with genealogies centuries long which, constructed as it would seem from worthy evidences, will often bear the test of modern criticism. genealogies in great plenty are found in manuscripts and printed volumes from the 16th century onward. remarkable among these are the descents recorded in the visitation books of the heralds, who, armed with commissions from the crown, the first of which was issued in 20 hen.",
    "source_url": "https://archive.org/details/EB1911WMF",
    "observed_at": "2026-02-08 18:42:55",
    "integrity": {
        "hash_check": "match",
        "hash_scope": "full_normalized_text",
        "computed_sha256": "abd16db8b6a6e963ebf60c0e6abb7f458c57217ef23b2d092b6703e42c0d7878"
    },
    "machine_use": {
        "read": true,
        "cite": true,
        "decision": "verified_public_domain_text"
    },
    "documentation": {
        "white_paper_url": "https://www.goguides.com/white-paper.php",
        "pdf_url": "https://www.goguides.com/whitepapers/goguides-ai-source-clearance-white-paper.pdf"
    }
}