Chapter XVI: Part 16

The theory of the "divine right" of kings, as at present understood, is of comparatively modern growth. The principle that the kingship is "descendible in one sacred family," as George Canning put it, is not only still that of the British constitution, as that of all monarchical states, but is practically that of kingship from the beginning. This is, however, quite a different thing from asserting with the modern upholders of the doctrine of "divine right" not only that "legitimate" monarchs derive their authority from, and are responsible to, God alone, but that this authority is by divine ordinance hereditary in a certain order of succession. The power of popular election remained, even though popular choice was by custom or by religious sentiment confined within the limits of a single family. The custom of primogeniture grew up owing to the obvious convenience of a simple rule that should avoid ruinous contests; the so-called "Salic Law" went further, and by excluding females, removed another possible source of weakness. Neither did the Teutonic kingship imply absolute power. The idea of kingship as a theocratic function which played so great a part in the political controversies of the 17th century, is due ultimately to Oriental influences brought to bear through Christianity. The crowning and anointing of the emperors, borrowed from Byzantium and traceable to the influence of the Old Testament, was imitated by lesser potentates; and this "sacring" by ecclesiastical authority gave to the king a character of special sanctity. The Christian king thus became, in a sense, like the Roman _rex_, both king and priest. Shakespeare makes Richard II. say, "Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king" (act iii. sc. 2); and this conception of the kingship tended to gather strength with the weakening of the prestige of the papacy and of the clergy generally. Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes; after the Reformation he became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also. In England it is not without significance that the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy--dalmatic, alb and stole--continued to be among the insignia of the sovereign (see CORONATION). Moreover, this sacrosanct character he acquired not by virtue of his "sacring," but by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV., would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any part of their title to reign; it was no more than the consecration of their title. In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its extremest logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century. Of its exponents the most distinguished was Hobbes, the most exaggerated Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the Civil War, the royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people. In one case the king's power would be unlimited, according to Louis XIV.'s famous saying: "_L'état, c'est moi!_" or limitable only by his own free act; in the other his actions would be governed by the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would be ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I. The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr"; it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II. made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king; and the revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. These events had effects far beyond England. They served as precedents for the crusade of republican France against kings, and later for the substitution of the democratic kingship of Louis Philippe, "king of the French by the grace of God and the will of the people," for the "legitimate" kingship of Charles X., "king of France by the grace of God."

The theory of the crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action, and yet also "by the grace of God," is in strict accordance with the earliest traditions of the English kingship; but the rival theory of inalienable divine right is not dead. It is strong in Germany and especially in Prussia; it survives as a militant force among the Carlists in Spain and the Royalists in France (see LEGITIMISTS); and even in England a remnant of enthusiasts still maintain the claims of a remote descendant of Charles I. to the throne (see JACOBITES).

See J. Neville Figgis, _Theory of the Divine Right of Kings_
(Cambridge, 1896). (W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Max Müller, _Lect. Sci. Lang._, 2nd series, p. 255, "All people,
save those who fancy that the name _king_ has something to do with a
Tartar _khan_ or with a 'canning' ... man, are agreed that the
English _cyning_ and the Sanskrit _ganaka_ both come from the same
root, from that widely spread root whence comes our own cyn or kin
and the Greek [Greek: genos]. The only question is whether there is
any connexion between _cyning_ and _ganaka_ closer than that which is
implied in their both coming from the same original root. That is to
say, are we to suppose that cyning and ganaka are strictly the same
word common to Sanskrit and Teutonic, or is it enough to think that
_cyning_ is an independent formation made after the Teutons had
separated themselves from the common stock? ... The difference
between the two derivations is not very remote, as the _cyn_ is the
ruling idea in any case; but if we make the word immediately cognate
with _ganaka_ we bring in a notion about 'the father of his people'
which has no place if we simply derive _cyning_ from _cyn_." See also
O. Schrader, _Reallexikon der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde_
(Strassburg, 1901) _s.v._ "König": the _chuning_ (King) is but the
_chunni_ (Kin) personified; cf. A.S. _léod_ masc. = "prince"; _léod_
fem. = "race," i.e. Lat. _gens_.

KING-BIRD, the _Lanius tyrannus_ of Linnaeus, and the _Tyrannus carolinensis_ or _T. pipiri_ of most later writers, a common and characteristic inhabitant of North America, ranging as high as 57° N. lat. or farther, and westward to the Rocky Mountains, beyond which it is found in Oregon, in Washington (State), and in British Columbia, though apparently not occurring in California. In Canada and the northern states of the Union it is a summer visitor, wintering in the south, but also reaching Cuba; and, passing through Central America, it has been found in Bolivia and eastern Peru. Both the scientific and common names of this species are taken from the way in which the cock will at times assume despotic authority over other birds, attacking them furiously as they fly, and forcing them to divert or altogether desist from their course. Yet it is love of his mate or his young that prompts this bellicose behaviour, for it is only in the breeding season that he indulges in it; but then almost every large bird that approaches his nest, from an eagle downwards, is assaulted, and those alone that possess greater command of flight can escape from his repeated charges, which are accompanied by loud and shrill cries. On these occasions it may be that the king-bird displays the emblem of his dignity, which is commonly concealed; for, being otherwise rather plainly coloured--dark-ashy grey above and white beneath--the erectile feathers of the crown of the head, on being parted, form as it were a deep furrow, and reveal their base, which is of a bright golden-orange in front, deepening into scarlet, and then passing into silvery white. This species seems to live entirely on insects, which it captures on the wing; it is in bad repute with bee-keepers,[1] though, according to Dr E. Coues, it "destroys a thousand noxious insects for every bee it eats." It builds, often in an exposed situation, a rather large nest, coarsely constructed outside, but neatly lined with fine roots or grasses, and lays five or six eggs of a pale salmon colour, beautifully marked with blotches and spots of purple, brown and orange, generally disposed in a zone near the larger end.

Nearly akin to the king-bird is the petchary or chicheree, so called from its loud and petulant cry, _T. dominicensis_, or _T. griseus_, one of the most characteristic and conspicuous birds of the West Indies, and the earliest to give notice of the break of day. In habits, except that it eats a good many berries, it is the very counterpart of its congener, and is possibly even more jealous of any intruder. At all events its pugnacity extends to animals from which it could not possibly receive any harm, and is hardly limited to any season of the year.

In several respects both of these birds, with several of their allies, resemble some of the shrikes; but it must be clearly understood that the likeness is but of analogy, and that there is no near affinity between the two families _Laniidae_ and _Tyrannidae_, which belong to wholly distinct sections of the great Passerine order; and, while the former is a comparatively homogeneous group, much diversity of form and habits is found among the latter. Similarly many of the smaller _Tyrannidae_ bear some analogy to certain _Muscicapidae_, with which they were at one time confounded (see FLYCATCHER), but the difference between them is deep seated.[2] Nor is this all, for out of the seventy genera, or thereabouts, into which the _Tyrannidae_ have been divided, comprehending perhaps three hundred and fifty species, all of which are peculiar to the New World, a series of forms can be selected which find a kind of parallel to a series of forms to be found in the other group of _Passeres_; and the genus _Tyrannus_, though that from which the family is named, is by no means a fair representative of it; but it would be hard to say which genus should be so accounted. The birds of the genus _Muscisaxicola_ have the habits and almost the appearance of wheat-ears; the genus _Alectorurus_ calls to mind a water-wagtail; _Euscarthmus_ may suggest a titmouse, _Elaenia_ perhaps a willow-wren; but the greatest number of forms have no analogous bird of the Old World with which they can be compared; and, while the combination of delicate beauty and peculiar external form possibly attains its utmost in the long-tailed _Milvulus_, the glory of the family may be said to culminate in the king of king-birds, _Muscivora regia_. (A. N.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is called in some parts the bee-martin.

[2] Two easy modes of discriminating them externally may be
mentioned. All the _Laniidae_ and _Muscicapidae_ have but _nine_
primary quills in their wings, and their tarsi are covered with
scales in front only; while in the _Tyrannidae_ there are ten
primaries, and the tarsal scales extend the whole way round. The more
recondite distinction in the structure of the trachea seems to have
been first detected by Macgillivray, who wrote the anatomical
descriptions published in 1839 by Audubon (_Orn. Biography_, v. 421,
422); but its value was not appreciated till the publication of
Johannes Müller's classical treatise on the vocal organs of Passerine
birds (_Abhandl. k. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin_, 1845, pp. 321, 405).

KING-CRAB, the name given to an Arachnid, belonging to the order Xiphosurae, of the grade Delobranchia or Hydropneustea. King-crabs, of which four, possibly five, existing species are known, were formerly referred to the genus _Limulus_, a name still applied to them in all zoological textbooks. It has recently been shown, however, that the structural differences between some of the species are sufficiently numerous and important to warrant the recognition of three genera--_Xiphosura_, of which _Limulus_ is a synonym, _Tachypleus_ and _Carcinoscorpius_. In _Xiphosura_ the genital operculum structurally resembles the gill-bearing appendages in that the inner branches consist of three distinct segments, the distal of which is lobate and projects freely beyond the margin of the adjacent distal segment of the outer branch; the entosternite (see ARACHNIDA) has two pairs of antero-lateral processes, and in the male only the ambulatory appendages of the second pair are modified as claspers. In _Tachypleus_ and _Carcinoscorpius_, on the other hand, the genital operculum differs from the gill-bearing appendages in that the inner branches consist of two segments, the distal of which are apically pointed, partially or completely fused in the middle line, and do not project beyond the distal segments of the outer branches; the entosternite has only one pair of antero-lateral processes, and in the male the second and third pairs of ambulatory limbs are modified as claspers. _Tachypleus_ differs from _Carcinoscorpius_ in possessing a long movable spur upon the fourth segment of the sixth ambulatory limb, in having the postanal spine triangular in section instead of round, and the claspers in the male hemichelate, owing to the suppression of the immovable finger, which is well developed in _Carcinoscorpius_. At the present time king-crabs have a wide but discontinuous distribution. _Xiphosura_, of which there is but one species, _X. polyphemus_, ranges along the eastern side of North America from the coast of Maine to Yucatan. _Carcinoscorpius_, which is also represented by a single species, _C. rotundicauda_, extends from the Bay of Bengal to the coast of the Moluccas and the Philippines, while of the two better-known species of _Tachypleus_, _T. gigas_ (= _moluccanus_) ranges from Singapore to Torres Straits, and _T. tridentatus_ from Borneo to southern Japan. A third species, _T. hoeveni_, has been recorded from the Moluccas. But although _Xiphosura_ is now so widely sundered geographically from _Tachypleus_ and _Carcinoscorpius_, the occurrence of the remains of extinct species of king-crabs in Europe, both in Tertiary deposits and in Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous strata, suggests that there was formerly a continuous coast-line, with tropical or temperate conditions, extending from Europe westward to America, and eastward to southern Asia. There are, however, no grounds for the assumption that the supposed coast-line between America and Europe synchronized with that between Europe and south Asia. King-crabs do not appear to differ from each other in habits. Except in the breeding season they live in water ranging in depth from about two to six fathoms, and creep about the bottom or bury themselves in the sand. Their food consists for the most part of soft marine worms, which are picked up in the nippers, thrust into the mouth, and masticated by the basal segments of the appendages between which the mouth lies. At the approach of the breeding season, which in the case of _Xiphosura polyphemus_ is in May, June and July, king-crabs advance in pairs into very shallow water at the time of the high tides, the male holding securely to the back of the female by means of his clasping nippers. No actual union between the sexes takes place, the spawn of the female being fertilized by the male at the time of being laid in the sand or soon afterwards. This act accomplished, the two retreat again into deeper water. Deposited in the mud or sand near high-water mark, the eggs are eventually hatched by the heat of the sun, to which they are exposed every day for a considerable time. The newly hatched young is minute and subcircular in shape, but bears a close resemblance to its parents except in the absence of the caudal spine and in the presence of a fringe of stiff bristles round the margin of the body. During growth it undergoes a succession of moults, making its exit from the old integument through a wide split running round the edge of the carapace. Moulting is effected in exactly the same way in scorpions, Pedipalpi, and normally in spiders. The caudal spine appears at the second moult and gradually increases in length with successive changes of the skin. This organ is of considerable importance, since it enables the king-crab to right itself when overturned by rough water or other causes. Without it the animal would remain helpless like an upturned turtle, because it is unable to reach the ground with its legs when lying on its back. Before the tail is sufficiently developed to be used for that purpose, the young king-crab succeeds in regaining the normal position by flapping its flattened abdominal appendages and rising in the water by that means. The king-crab fishery is an industry of some importance in the United States, and in the East Indies the natives eat the animal and tip their lances and arrows with the caudal spine. They also use the hollow empty shell as a water-ladle or pan--hence the name "pan-fish" or "saucepan-crab" by which the animal is sometimes known. Fossil king-crabs have been recorded from strata of the Tertiary and Secondary epochs, and related but less specialized types of the same order are found in rocks of Palaeozoic age. Of these the most important are _Belinurus_ of the Carboniferous, _Protolimulus_ of the Devonian, and _Hemiaspis_ of the Silurian periods. These ancient forms differ principally from true king-crabs in having the segments of the opisthosoma or hinder half of the body distinctly defined instead of welded into a hexagonal shield. (R. I. P.)

1, _Limulus polyphemus_, adult (dorsal aspect).
2, _Limulus polyphemus_, young (dorsal aspect).
3, _Prestwichia rotundata_, Coal M., Shropshire.
4, _Prestwichia Birtwelli_, Coal M., Lancashire.
5, _Neolimulus falcatus_, U. Silurian, Lanark.
6, _Hemiaspis limuloides_, L. Ludlow, Leintwardine, Shropshire.
7, _Pseudoniscus aculeatus_, U. Silurian, Russia.]

KINGFISHER (Ger.[1] _Königsfischer_; Walloon _Roi-péheux_ = _pêcheur_), the _Alcedo ispida_ of ornithologists, one of the most beautiful and well-known of European birds, being found, though nowhere very abundantly, in every European country, as well as in North Africa and South-Western Asia as far as Sindh. Its blue-green back and rich chestnut breast render it conspicuous as it frequents the streams and ponds whence it procures its food, by plunging almost perpendicularly into the water, and emerging a moment after with the prey--whether a small fish, crustacean, or an aquatic insect--it has captured. In hard frosts it resorts to the sea-shore, but a severe winter is sure to occasion a great mortality in the species, for many of its individuals seem unable to reach the tidal waters where only in such a season they could obtain sustenance; and to this cause rather than any other is perhaps to be ascribed its general scarcity. Very early in the year it prepares its nest, which is at the end of a tunnel bored by itself in a bank, and therein the six or eight white, glossy, translucent eggs are laid, sometimes on the bare soil, but often on the fishbones which, being indigestible, are thrown up in pellets by the birds; and, in any case, before incubation is completed these _rejectamenta_ accumulate so as to form a pretty cup-shaped structure that increases in bulk after the young are hatched, but, mixed with their fluid excretions and with decaying fishes brought for their support, soon becomes a dripping fetid mass.

The kingfisher is the subject of a variety of legends and superstitions, both classical and medieval. Of the latter one of the most curious is that having been originally a plain grey bird it acquired its present bright colours by flying towards the sun on its liberation from Noah's ark, when its upper surface assumed the hue of the sky above it and its lower plumage was scorched by the heat of the setting orb to the tint it now bears.[2] More than this, the kingfisher was supposed to possess many virtues. Its dried body would avert thunderbolts, and if kept in a wardrobe would preserve from moths the woollen stuffs therein laid, or hung by a thread to the ceiling of a chamber would point with its bill to the quarter whence the wind blew. All readers of Ovid (_Metam._, bk. xi.) know how the faithful but unfortunate Ceyx and Alcyone were changed into kingfishers--birds which bred at the winter solstice, when through the influence of Aeolus, the wind-god and father of the fond wife, all gales were hushed and the sea calmed so that their floating nest might ride uninjured over the waves during the seven proverbial "Halcyon days"; while a variant or further development of the fable assigned to the halcyon itself the power of quelling storms.[3]

The common kingfisher of Europe is the representative of a well-marked family of birds, the _Alcedinidae_ or _Halcyonidae_ of ornithologists, which is considered by most authorities[4] to be closely related to the _Bucerotidae_ (see HORNBILL); but the affinity can scarcely be said as yet to be proved. Be that as it may, the present family forms the subject of an important work by Bowdler Sharpe.[5] Herein are described one hundred and twenty-five species, nearly all of them being beautifully figured by Keulemans, and that number may be taken even now as approximately correct; for, while the validity of a few has been denied by some eminent men, nearly as many have since been made known, and it seems likely that two or three more described by older writers may yet be rediscovered. These one hundred and twenty-five species Sharpe groups in nineteen genera, and divides into two sub-families, _Alcedininae_ and _Daceloninae_,[6] the one containing five and the other fourteen genera. With existing anatomical materials perhaps no better arrangement could have been made, but the method afterwards published by Sundevall (_Tentamen_, pp. 95, 96) differs from it not inconsiderably. Here, however, it will be convenient to follow Sharpe. Externally, which is almost all we can at present say, kingfishers present a great uniformity of structure. One of their most remarkable features is the feebleness of their feet, and the union (syndactylism) of the third and fourth digits for the greater part of their length; while, as if still further to show the comparatively functionless character of these members, in two of the genera, _Alcyone_ and _Ceyx_, the second digit is aborted, and the birds have but three toes. In most forms the bill does not differ much from that of the common _Alcedo ispida_, but in _Syma_ its edges are serrated, while in _Carcineutes_, _Dacelo_ and _Melidora_ the maxilla is prolonged, becoming in the last a very pronounced hook. Generally the wings are short and rounded, and the tail is in many forms inconspicuous; but in _Tanysiptera_, one of the most beautiful groups, the middle pair of feathers is greatly elongated and spatulate, while this genus possesses only ten rectrices, all the rest having twelve. Sundevall relies on a character not noticed by Sharpe, and makes his principal divisions depend on the size of the scapulars, which in one form a mantle, and in the other are so small as not to cover the back. The _Alcedinidae_ are a cosmopolitan family, but only one genus, _Ceryle_, is found in America, and that extends as well over a great part of the Old World, though not into the Australian region, which affords by far the greater number both of genera and species, having no fewer than ten of the former and fifty-nine of the latter peculiar to it.[7]

In habits kingfishers display considerable diversity, though all, it would seem, have it in common to sit at times motionless on the watch for their prey, and on its appearance to dart upon it, seize it as they fly or dive, and return to a perch where it may be conveniently swallowed. But some species, and especially that which is the type of the family, are not always content to await at rest their victim's showing itself. They will hover like a hawk over the waters that conceal it, and, in the manner already described, precipitate themselves upon it. This is particularly the way with those that are fishers in fact as well as in name; but no inconsiderable number live almost entirely in forests, feeding on insects, while reptiles furnish the chief sustenance of others. The last is characteristic of at least one Australian form, which manages to thrive in the driest districts of that country, where not a drop of water is to be found for miles, and the air is at times heated to a degree that is insupportable by most animals. The belted kingfisher of North America, _Ceryle alcyon_, is a characteristic bird of that country, though its habits greatly resemble those of the European species; and the so-called "laughing jackass" of New South Wales and South Australia, _Dacelo gigas_--with its kindred forms, _D. leachi_, _D. cervina_ and _D. occidentalis_, from other parts of the country--deserve special mention. Attention must also be called to the speculations of Dr Bowdler Sharpe (op. cit., pp. xliv.-xlvii.) on the genetic affinity of the various forms of _Alcedinidae_, and it is to be regretted that hitherto no light has been shed by palaeontologists on this interesting subject, for the only fossil referred to the neighbourhood of the family is the _Halcyornis toliapicus_ of Sir R. Owen (_Br. Foss. Mamm. and Birds_, p. 554) from the Eocene of Sheppey--the very specimen said to have been previously placed by König (_Icon. foss. secliles_, fig. 153) in the genus _Larus_. (A. N.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] But more commonly called _Eisvogel_, which finds its counterpart
in the Anglo-Saxon _Isern_ or _Isen_.

[2] Rolland, _Faune populaire de la France_, ii. 74.

[3] In many of the islands of the Pacific Ocean the prevalent
kingfisher is the object of much veneration.

[4] Cf. Eyton, _Contrib. Ornithology_ (1850), p. 80; Wallace, _Ann.
Nat. History_, series 2, vol. xviii. pp. 201, 205; and Huxley, _Proc.
Zool. Society_ (1867), p. 467.

[5] _A Monograph of the Alcedinidae or Family of the Kingfishers_, by
R. B. Sharpe, 4to (London, 1868-1871). Some important anatomical
points were briefly noticed by Professor Cunningham (_Proc. Zool.
Soc._, 1870, p. 280).

[6] The name of this latter sub-family as constituted by Sharpe would
seem to be more correctly _Ceycinae_--the genus _Ceyx_, founded in
1801 by Lacépède, being the oldest included in it. The word _Dacelo_,
invented by Leach in 1815, is simply an anagram of _Alcedo_, and,
though of course without any etymological meaning, has been very
generally adopted.

[7] Cf. Wallace. _Geog. Distr. Animals_, ii. 315.

KINGHORN, a royal and police burgh of Fifeshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901), 1550. It is situated on the Firth of Forth, 2¼ m. E. by N. of Burntisland, on the North British railway. The public buildings include a library and town-hall. It enjoys some repute as a summer resort. The leading industries are ship-building, bleaching and the making of flax and glue. At the time of his visit Daniel Defoe found thread-making in vogue, which employed the women while the men were at sea. Alexander III. created Kinghorn a burgh, but his connexion with the town proved fatal to him. As he was riding from Inverkeithing on the 12th of March 1286 he was thrown by his horse and fell over the cliffs, since called King's Wud End, a little to the west of the burgh, and killed. A monument was erected in 1887 to mark the supposed scene of the accident. The Witch Hill used to be the place of execution of those poor wretches. Kinghorn belongs to the Kirkcaldy district group of parliamentary burghs. At PETTYCUR, 1 m. to the south, is a good harbour for its size, and at Kinghorn Ness a battery has been established in connexion with the fortifications on Inchkeith. The hill above the battery was purchased by government in 1903 and is used as a point of observation. About 1 m. to the north of Kinghorn is the estate of Grange, which belonged to Sir William Kirkcaldy. INCHKEITH, an island in the fairway of the Firth of Forth, 2½ m. S. by E. of Kinghorn and 3½ m. N. by E. of Leith, belongs to the parish of Kinghorn. It has a north-westerly and south-easterly trend, and is nearly 1 m. long and ¼ m. wide. It is a barren rock, on the summit of which stands a lighthouse visible at night for 21 m. In 1881 forts connected by a military road were erected on the northern, western and southern headlands.

KINGLAKE, ALEXANDER WILLIAM (1800-1891), English historian and traveller, was born at Taunton on the 5th of August 1809. His father, a successful solicitor, intended his son for a legal career. Kinglake went to Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he matriculated in 1828, being a contemporary and friend of Tennyson and Thackeray. After leaving Cambridge he joined Lincoln's Inn, and was called to the bar in 1837. While still a student he travelled, in 1835, throughout the East, and the impression made upon him by his experiences was so powerful that he was seized with a desire to record them in literature. _Eothen_, a sensitive and witty record of impressions keenly felt and remembered, was published in 1844, and enjoyed considerable reputation. In 1854 he went to the Crimea, and was present at the battle of the Alma. During the campaign he made the acquaintance of Lord Raglan, who was so much attracted by his talents that he suggested to Kinglake the plan for an elaborate _History of the Crimean War_, and placed his private papers at the writer's disposal. For the rest of his life Kinglake was engaged upon the task of completing this monumental history. Thirty-two years elapsed between its commencement and the publication of the last volume, and eight volumes in all appeared at intervals between 1863 and 1887. Kinglake lived principally in London, and sat in parliament for Bridgwater from 1857 until the disfranchisement of the borough in 1868. He died on the 2nd of January 1891. Kinglake's life-work, _The History of the Crimean War_, is in scheme and execution too minute and conscientious to be altogether in proportion, but it is a wonderful example of painstaking and talented industry. It is not without errors of partisanship, but it shows remarkable skill in the moulding of vast masses of despatches and technical details into an absorbingly interesting narrative; it is illumined by natural descriptions and character-sketches of great fidelity and acumen; and, despite its length, it remains one of the most picturesque, most vivid and most actual pieces of historical narrative in the English language.

KINGLET, a name applied in many books to the bird called by Linnaeus _Motacilla regulus_, and by most modern ornithologists _Regulus cristatus_, the golden-crested or golden-crowned wren of ordinary persons. This species is the type of a small group which has been generally placed among the _Sylviidae_ or true warblers, but by certain systematists it is referred to the titmouse family, _Paridae_. That the kinglets possess many of the habits and actions of the latter is undeniable, but on the other hand they are not known to differ in any important points of organization or appearance from the former--the chief distinction being that the nostril is covered by a single bristly feather directed forwards. The golden-crested wren is the smallest of British birds, its whole length being about 3½ in., and its wing measuring only 2 in. from the carpal joint. Generally of an olive-green colour, the top of its head is bright yellow, deepening into orange, and bounded on either side by a black line, while the wing coverts are dull black, and some of them tipped with white, forming a somewhat conspicuous bar. The cock has a pleasant but weak song. The nest is a beautiful object, thickly felted of the softest moss, wool, and spiders' webs, lined with feathers, and usually built under and near the end of the branch of a yew, fir or cedar, supported by the interweaving of two or three laterally diverging and pendent twigs, and sheltered by the rest. The eggs are from six to ten in number, of a dull white sometimes finely freckled with reddish-brown. The species is particularly social, living for the most part of the year in family parties, and often joining bands of any species of titmouse in a common search for food. Though to be met with in Britain at all seasons, the bird in autumn visits the east coast in enormous flocks, apparently emigrants from Scandinavia, while hundreds perish in crossing the North Sea, where they are well known to the fishermen as "woodcock's pilots." A second and more local European species is the fire-crested wren, _R. ignicapillus_, easily recognizable by the black streak on each side of the head, before and behind the eye, as well as by the deeper colour of its crown. A third species, _R. maderensis_, inhabits the Madeiras, to which it is peculiar; and examples from the Himalayas and Japan have been differentiated as _R. himalayensis_ and _R. japonicus_. North America has two well-known species, _R. satrapa_, very like the European _R. ignicapillus_, and the ruby-crowned wren, _R. calendula_, which is remarkable for a loud song that has been compared to that of a canary-bird or a skylark, and for having the characteristic nasal feather in a rudimentary or aborted condition. (A. N.)

KINGS, FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF, two books of the Bible, the last of the series of Old Testament histories known as the Earlier or Former Prophets. They were originally reckoned as a single book (Josephus; Origen _ap._ Eus., _H.E._ vi. 25; Peshitta; Talmud), though modern Bibles follow the bipartition which is derived from the Septuagint. In that version they are called the third and fourth books of "kingdoms" ([Greek: Basileiôn]), the first and second being our books of Samuel. The division into two books is not felicitous, and even the old Hebrew separation between Kings and Samuel must not be taken to mean that the history from the birth of Samuel to the exile was treated by two distinct authors in independent volumes. We cannot speak of the author of Kings or Samuel, but only of an editor or of successive editors whose main work was to arrange in a continuous form extracts or abstracts from earlier sources. The introduction of a chronological scheme and of a series of editorial comments and additions, chiefly designed to enforce the religious meaning of the history, gives a kind of unity to the book of Kings as we now read it; but beneath this we can still distinguish a variety of documents, which, though sometimes mutilated in the process of piecing together, retain sufficient individuality of style and colour to prove their original independence.

Of these documents one of the best defined is the vivid picture of David's court at Jerusalem (2 Sam. ix.-xx.) from which the first two chapters of 1 Kings manifestly cannot be separated. As it would be unreasonable to suppose that the editor of the history of David closed his work abruptly before the death of the king, breaking off in the middle of a valuable memoir which lay before him, this observation leads us to conclude that the books of Samuel and Kings are not independent histories. They have at least one source in common, and a single editorial hand was at work on both. From an historical point of view, however, the division which makes the beginning of Solomon's reign the beginning of a new book is very convenient. The conquest of Palestine by the Israelite tribes, recounted in the book of Joshua, leads up to the era of the "judges" (Judg. ii. 6-23; iii. sqq.), and the books of Samuel follow with the institution of the monarchy and the first kings. The books of Kings bring to a close the life of David (c. 975 B.C.), which forms the introduction to the reign of Solomon (1 Kings ii. 12-xi.), the troubles in whose time prepared the way for the separation into the two distinct kingdoms, viz. Judah and the northern tribes of Israel (xii. sqq.). After the fall of Samaria, the history of these Israelites is rounded off with a review (2 Kings xvii.-xviii. 12). The history of the surviving kingdom of Judah is then carried down to the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (5 and 6), and, after an account of the Chaldean governorship, concludes with the release of the captive king Jehoiachin (561 B.C.) and with an allusion to his kind treatment during the rest of his lifetime.

The most noticeable feature in the book is the recurring interest in the centralization of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem as prescribed in Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. Amidst the great variety in style and manner which marks the several parts of the history, features which are imbued with the teaching of Deuteronomy recur regularly in similar stereotyped forms. They point in fact to a specific redaction, and thus it would seem that the editor who treated the foundation of the Temple, the central event of Solomon's life, as a religious epoch of the first importance, regarded this as the beginning of a new era--the history of Israel under the one sanctuary.

Successive Redactions.

When we assume that the book of Kings was thrown into its present form by a Deuteronomistic redactor we do not affirm that he was the first who digested the sources of the history into a continuous work, nor must we ascribe absolute finality to his work. He gave the book a definite shape and character, but the recognized methods of Hebrew literature left it open to additions and modifications by later hands. Even the redaction in the spirit of Deuteronomy seems itself to have had more than one stage, as Ewald long ago recognized.

The evidence to be detailed presently shows that there was a certain
want of definiteness about the redaction. The mass of disjointed
materials, not always free from inconsistencies, which lay before the
editor in separate documents or in excerpts already partially arranged
by an earlier hand, could not have been reduced to real unity without
critical sifting, and an entire recasting of the narrative in a way
foreign to the ideas and literary habits of the Hebrews. The unity
which the editor aimed at was limited to (a) chronological continuity
in the events recorded and (b) a certain uniformity in the treatment
of the religious meaning of the narrative. Even this could not be
perfectly attained in the circumstances, and the links of the history
were not firmly enough riveted to prevent disarrangement or
rearrangement of details by later scribes.

(a) The continued efforts of successive redactors can be traced in the
chronology of the book. The chronological method of the narrative
appears most clearly in the history after Solomon, where the events of
each king's reign are thrown into a kind of stereotyped framework on
this type: "In the twentieth year of Jeroboam, king of Israel, Asa
began to reign over Judah, and reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years."
... "In the third year of Asa, king of Judah, Baasha began to reign
over Israel in Tirzah twenty-four years." The history moves between
Judah and Israel according to the date of each accession; as soon as a
new king has been introduced, everything that happened in his reign is
discussed, and wound up by another stereotyped formula as to the death
and burial of the sovereign; and to this mechanical arrangement the
natural connexion of events is often sacrificed. In this scheme the
elaborate synchronisms between contemporary monarchs of the north and
south give an aspect of great precision to the chronology. But in
reality the data for Judah and Israel do not agree, and remarkable
deviations are sometimes found. The key to the chronology is 1 Kings
vi. 1, which, as Wellhausen has shown, was not found in the original
Septuagint, and contains internal evidence of post-Chaldean date. In
fact the system as a whole is necessarily later than 535 B.C., the
fixed point from which it counts back, and although the numbers for
the duration of the reigns may be based upon early sources, the
synchronisms appear to have been inserted at a much later stage in the
history of the text.

(b) Another aspect in the redaction may be called theological. Its
characteristic is the retrospective application to the history of a
standard belonging to the later developments of Old Testament
religion. Thus the redactor regards the sins of Jeroboam as the real
cause of the downfall of Israel (2 Kings xvii. 21 seq.), and passes an
unfavourable judgment upon all its rulers, not merely to the effect
that they did evil in the sight of Yahweh but that they followed in
the way of Jeroboam. But his opinion was manifestly not shared by
Elijah or Elisha, nor by the original narrator of the lives of these
prophets. Moreover, the redactor in 1 Kings iii. 2 seq. regards
worship at the high places as sinful after the building of the Temple,
although even the best kings before Hezekiah made no attempt to
suppress these shrines. This feature in the redaction displays itself
not only in occasional comments or homiletical excursuses, but in that
part of the narrative in which all ancient historians allowed
themselves free scope for the development of their reflections--the
speeches placed in the mouths of actors in the history. Here also
there is often textual evidence that the theological element is
somewhat loosely attached to the earlier narrative and underwent
successive additions.

General Structure.

Consequently it is necessary to distinguish between the older sources and the peculiar setting in which the history has been placed; between earlier records and that specific colouring which, from its affinity to Deuteronomy and to other portions of the Old Testament which appear to have been similarly treated under the influence of its teaching, may be conveniently termed "Deuteronomistic." For his sources the compiler refers chiefly to two distinct works, the "words" or "chronicles" of the kings of Israel and those of the kings of Judah. Precisely how much is copied from these works and how much has been expressed in the compiler's own language is of course uncertain. It is found on inspection that the present history consists usually of an epitome of each reign. It states the king's age at succession (so Judah only), length of reign, death and burial, with allusions to his buildings, wars, and other political events.[1] In the case of Judah, also, the name of the royal or queen-mother is specifically mentioned. The references to the respective "chronicles," made as though they were still accessible, are wanting in the case of Jehoram and Hoshea of Israel, and of Solomon, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah of Judah. But for Solomon the authority cited, "book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings xi. 41), presumably presupposes Judaean chronicles, and the remaining cases preserve details of an annalistic character. Moreover, distinctive annalistic material is found for the Israelite kings Saul and Ishbosheth in 1 Sam. xiii. 1; xiv. 47-51; 2 Sam. ii. 8-10a (including even their age at accession), and for David in 2 Sam. ii. 11 and parts of v. and viii.

The use which the compiler makes of his sources shows that his aim was not the _history_ of the past but its _religious significance_. It is rare that even qualified praise is bestowed upon the kings of Israel (Jehoram, 2 Kings iii. 2; Jehu x. 30; Hoshea xvii. 2). Kings of great historical importance are treated with extreme brevity (Omri, Jeroboam (2), Uzziah), and similar meagreness of historical information is apparent when the editorial details and the religious judgments are eliminated from the accounts of Nadab, Baasha, and the successors of Jeroboam (2) in Israel or of Abijam and Manasseh in Judah.

Solomon.

To gain a more exact idea of the character of the book we may divide the history into three sections: (1) the life of Solomon, (2) the kingdoms of Ephraim (or Samaria)[2] and Judah, and (3) the separate history of Judah after the fall of Samaria. I. _Solomon_.--The events which lead up to the death of David and the accession of Solomon (1 Kings i., ii.) are closely connected with 2 Sam. ix.-xx. The unity is broken by the appendix 2 Sam. xxi. xxi.-xxiv. which is closely connected, as regards general subject-matter, with _ibid._ v.-viii.; the literary questions depend largely upon the structure of the books of Samuel (q.v.). It is evident, at least, that either the compiler drew upon other sources for the occasion and has been remarkably brief elsewhere, or that his epitomes have been supplemented by the later insertion of material not necessarily itself of late origin. At present 1 Kings i., ii. are both the close of David's life (no source is cited) and the necessary introduction to Solomon. But Lucian's recension of the Septuagint (ed. Lagarde), as also Josephus, begin the book at ii. 12, thus separating the annalistic accounts of the two. Since the contents of 1 Kings iii.-xi. do not form a continuous narrative, the compiler's authority ("Acts of S." xi. 41) can hardly have been an ordinary chronicle. The chapters comprise (a) sundry notices of the king's prosperous and peaceful career, severed by (b) a description of the Temple and other buildings; and they conclude with (c) some account of the external troubles which prove to have unsettled the whole of his reign. After an introduction (iii.), a contains generalizing statements of Solomon's might, wealth and wisdom (iv. 20 seq., 25, 29-34; x. 23-25, 27) and stories of a distinctly late and popular character (iii. 16-28, x. i-10, 13). The present lack of unity can in some cases be remedied by the Septuagint, which offers many deviations from the Hebrew text; this feature together with the present form of the parallel texts in Chronicles will exemplify the persistence of fluctuation to a late period (4th-2nd cent. B.C.).

Thus iii. 2 seq. cannot be by the same hand as v. 4, and v. 2 is
probably a later Deut. gloss upon v. 3 (earlier Deut.), which
represents the compiler's view and (on the analogy of the framework)
comes closely after ii. 12.[3] Ch. iii. 1 can scarcely be severed from
ix. 16, and in the Septuagint they appear in iv. in the order: iv.
1-19 (the officers), 27 seq. (their duties), 22-24 (the daily
provision), 29-34 (Solomon's reputation), iii. 1; ix. 16-17a (alliance
with Egypt); iv. 20 seq. 25 are of a generalizing character and recur
in the Septuagint with much supplementary matter in ii. Ch. iv. 26 is
naturally related to x. 26 (cf. 2 Chron. i. 14) and takes its place in
Lucian's recension (cf. 2 Chron. ix. 25). There is considerable
variation again in ix. 10-x. 29, and the order ix. 10-14, 26-28, x.
1-22 (so partly Septuagint) has the advantage of recording
continuously Solomon's dealings with Hiram. The intervening verses
belong to a class of floating notices (in a very unnatural order)
which seem to have got stranded almost by chance at different points
in the two recensions; contrast also 2 Chron. viii. Solomon's
preliminary arrangements with Hiram in ch. v. have been elaborated to
emphasize the importance of the Temple (vv. 3-5, cf. 2 Sam. vii.);
further difficulty is caused by the relation between 13 seq. and 15
seq. (see 2 Chron. ii. 17 seq.) and between both of these and ix. 20
seq. xi. 28. The account of the royal buildings now sandwiched in
between the related fragments of a is descriptive rather than
narrative, and the accurate details might have been obtained by actual
observation of the Temple at a date long subsequent to Solomon. It is
not all due to a single hand. Ch. vi. 11-14 (with several late
phrases) break the connexion and are omitted by the Septuagint; vv.
15-22, now untranslatable, appear in a simple and intelligible form in
the Septuagint. The account of the dedication contains many signs of a
late date; viii. 14-53, 54-61 are due to a Deuteronomic writer, and
that they are an expansion of the older narrative (vv. 1-13) is
suggested by the fact that the ancient fragment, vv. 12, 13 (imperfect
in the Hebrew) appears in the Septuagint after v. 53 in completer form
and with a reference to the book of Jashar as source ([Greek: biblion
tês ôdês] [Hebrew: sefer (hashir) hayashar]). The redactional
insertion displaced it in one recension and led to its mutilation in
the other. With viii. 27-30, cf. generally Isa. xl.-lvi.; vv. 44-51
presuppose the exile, vv. 54-61 are wanting in Chron., and even the
older parts of this chapter have also been retouched in conformity
with later (even post-exilic) ritual and law. The Levites who appear
at v. 4 in contrast to the priests, in a way unknown to the pre-exilic
history, are not named in the Septuagint, which also omits the
post-exilic term "congregation" (_'edah_) in v. 5. There is a general
similarity of subject with Deut. xxviii.

The account of the end of Solomon's reign deals with (a) his religious laxity (xi. 1-13, now in a Deuteronomic form), as the punishment for which the separation of the two kingdoms is announced; and (b) the rise of the adversaries who, according to xi. 25, had troubled the whole of his reign, and therefore cannot have been related originally as the penalty for the sins of his old age. Both, however, form an introduction to subsequent events, and the life of Solomon concludes with a brief annalistic notice of his death, length of reign, successor, and place of burial. (See further SOLOMON.)

The Divided Kingdom.

II. _Ephraim and Judah._--In the history of the two kingdoms the redactor follows a fixed scheme determined, as has been seen, by the order of succession. The fluctuation of tradition concerning the circumstances of the schism is evident from a comparison with the Septuagint, and all that is related of Ahijah falls under suspicion of being foreign to the oldest history.[4] The story of the man of God from Judah (xiii.) is shown to be late by its general tone (conceptions of prophetism and revelation),[5] and by the term "cities of Samaria" (v. 32, for Samaria as a _province_, cf. 2 Kings xvii. 24, 26; for the building of the city by Omri see 1 Kings xvi. 24). It is a late Judaean narrative inserted after the Deuteronomic redaction, and breaks the connexion between xii. 31 and xiii. 33 seq. The latter describe the idolatrous worship instituted by the first king of the schismatic north, and the religious attitude occurs regularly throughout the compiler's epitome, however brief the reigns of the kings. In the account of Nadab, xv. 25 seq., 29b, 30 seq. are certainly the compiler's, and the synchronism in v. 28 must also be editorial; xv. 32 (Septuagint omit) and 16 are duplicates leading up to the Israelite and Judaean accounts of Baasha respectively. But xv. 33-xvi. 7 contains little annalistic information, and the prophecy in xvi. 1-4 is very similar to xiv. 7-11, which in turn breaks the connexion between vv. 6 and 12. Ch. xvi. 7 is a duplicate to vv. 1-4 and out of place; the Septuagint inserts it in the _middle_ of v. 8. The brief reign of Elah preserves an important entract in xvi. 9, but the date in v. 10a (LXX. omits) presupposes the late finished chronological scheme. Zimri's seven days receive the inevitable condemnation, but the older material embedded in the framework (xvi. 15b-18) is closely connected with v. 9 and is continued in the non-editorial portions of Omri's reign (xvi. 21 seq., length of reign in v. 23, and v. 24). The achievements of Omri to which the editor refers can fortunately be gathered from external sources (see OMRI). Under Omri's son Ahab the separate kingdoms converge.