The guest, whoever he might be, was on his appearing invited into the house or tent (Gen. XiX. 2 ; Exod. ii. 20 ; Judg. xiii. 15 ; xix. 21). Cour tesy dictated that no improper questions should be put to him, and some days elapsed before the name of the stranger was asked, or what object he had in view in his journey (Gen. xxiv. 33 ; Odyss. 123; iii. 69 ; Iliad, vi. 175; 1X. 222 ; Diod. Sic. v. 23). As soon as he arrived he was furnished with water to wash his feet (Gen: xviii. 4 ; xix. 2 ; I Tim. v. to ; Odyss. iv. 49 ; xvii. SS ; vi. 215) ; received a supply of needful food for himself and beast (Gen. xviii. 5 ; xix. 3 ; xxiv. 25 ; Exod. 20 ; Judg. xix. 20 ; Odyss. Ili. 464) ; and enjoyed courtesy and protection from his host (Gen. xix. 5 ; Josh. ii. 2 ; Judg. xix. 23). The case of Sisera, decoyed and slain by Jael (Judg. iv. IS, sq.), was a gross infraction of the rights and duties of hospitality. On his departure the traveller was not allowed to go alone or empty-handed ( Judg. xix. 5 ; Wagenseil, ad. Sot. pp, IO20, 1030 ; Zorn, ad "fecal. Abder. 22 ; Iliad, vi. 217). As the free practice of hospitality was held right and honour able, so the neglect of it was considered discredit able (Job xxxi. 32 ; Odyss. xiv. 56); and any interfer ence with the comfort and protection which the host afforded was treated as a wicked outrage (Gen. xix. 4, sq.) Though the practice of hospitality was general, and its rites rarely violated, yet national or local enmities did not fail sometimes to interfere ; and accordingly tmvellers avoided those places in which they had reason to expect an un friendly reception. So in Judg. xix. 12, the' cer
tain Levite' spoken of said, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel.' The quarrel which arose between the Jews and Samaritans after the Baby lonish captivity destroyed the relations of hospi tality between them. Regarding each other as heretics, they sacrificed every better feeling. It was only in the greatest extremity that the Jews would partake of Samaritan foodlLightfoot, p. 993), and they were accustomed, in consequence of their re ligious and political hatred, to avoid passing through Samaria in journeying from one extremity of the land to the other. The animosity of the Samaritans towards the Jews appears to have been somewhat less bitter ; but they showed an adverse feeling towards those persons who, in going up to the annual feast at Jerusalem, had to pass through their country (Luke bc./53). At the great national festivals hospitality wA liberally practised so long as the state retained its identity. On these festive occasions no inhabitant of Jerusalem considered his house his own ; every home swanned with stran gers ; yet this unbounded hospitality could not find accommodation in the houses for all who stood in need of it, and a large proportion of visi tors had to be content with such shelter as tents could afford (Helon, Pilgrinz. 228. sq.) On the general subject, see Unger, de EerzoTorcict ejusque ritu azzliqteo ; Stuck, Antlq. Conviv. i. 27 ; De \Vette, .Lehrb. der Archtiologie ; and Scholz, Hazzdb. der Bibl. Archdologie.—J. R. B.