is a Roman Catholic college for the training of young men for the
priesthood.

_History._--The annals of Kincardineshire as a whole are almost blank.
The county belonged of old to the district of Pictavia and apparently
was overrun for a brief period by the Romans. In the parish of
Fetteresso are the remains of the camp of Raedykes, in which, according
to tradition, the Caledonians under Galgacus were lodged before their
battle with Agricola. It is also alleged that in the same district
Malcolm I. was killed (954) whilst endeavouring to reduce the unruly
tribes of this region. Mearns, the alternative name for the county, is
believed to have been derived from Mernia, a Scottish king, to whom the
land was granted, and whose brother, Angus, had obtained the adjoining
shire of Forfar. The antiquities consist mostly of stone circles,
cairns, tumuli, standing stones and a structure in the parish of
Dunnottar vaguely known as a "Picts' kiln." By an extraordinary
reversion of fortune the town which gave the shire its name has
practically vanished. It stood about 2 m. N.E. of Fettercairn, and by
the end of the 16th century had declined to a mere hamlet, being
represented now only by the ruins of the royal castle and an ancient
burial-ground. The Bruces, earls of Elgin, also bear the title of earl
of Kincardine.

  See A. Jervise, _History and Traditions of the Lands of the Lindsays_
  (1853), _History and Antiquities of the Mearns_ (1858), _Memorials of
  Angus and the Mearns_ (1861); J. Anderson, _The Black Book of
  Kincardineshire_ (Stonehaven, 1879); C. A. Mollyson, _The Parish of
  Fordoun_ (Aberdeen, 1893); A. C. Cameron, _The History of Fettercairn_
  (Paisley, 1899).

KINCHINJUNGA, or KANCHANJANGA, the third (or second; see K2) highest
mountain in the world. It is a peak of the eastern Himalayas, situated
on the boundary between Sikkim and Nepal, with an elevation of 28,146
ft. Kinchinjunga is best seen from the Indian hill-station of
Darjeeling, where the view of this stupendous mountain, dominating all
intervening ranges and rising from regions of tropical undergrowth to
the altitude of eternal snows, is one of the grandest in the world.

KIND (O.E. _ge-cynde_, from the same root as is seen in "kin," _supra_),
a word in origin meaning birth, nature, or as an adjective, natural.
From the application of the term to the natural disposition or
characteristic which marks the class to which an object belongs, the
general and most common meaning of "class," genus or species easily
develops; that of race, natural order or group, is particularly seen in
such expressions as "mankind." The phrase "payment in kind," i.e. in
goods or produce as distinguished from money, is used as equivalent to
the Latin _in specie_; in ecclesiastical usage "communion in both kinds"
or "in one kind" refers to the elements of bread and wine (Lat.
_species_) in the Eucharist. The present main sense of the adjective
"kind," i.e. gentle, friendly, benevolent, has developed from the
meaning "born," "natural," through "of good birth, disposition or
nature," "naturally well-disposed."

KINDERGARTEN, a German word meaning "garden of children," the name given
by Friedrich Froebel to a kind of "play-school" invented by him for
furthering the physical, moral and intellectual growth of children
between the ages of three and seven. For the theories on which this type
of school was based see FROEBEL. Towards the end of the 18th century
Pestalozzi planned, and Oberlin formed, day-asylums for young children.
Schools of this kind took in the Netherlands the name of "play school,"
and in England, where they have especially thriven, of "infant schools"
(q.v.). But Froebel's idea of the "Kindergarten" differed essentially
from that of the infant schools. The child required to be prepared for
society by being early associated with its equals; and young children
thus brought together might have their employments, especially their
chief employment, play, so organized as to draw out their capacities of
feeling and thinking, and even of inventing and creating.

Froebel therefore invented a course of occupations, most of which are
social games. Many of the games are connected with the "gifts," as he
called the simple playthings provided for the children. These "gifts"
are, in order, six coloured balls, a wooden ball, a cylinder and a cube,
a cube cut to form eight smaller cubes, another cube cut to form eight
parallelograms, square and triangular tablets of coloured wood, and
strips of lath, rings and circles for pattern-making. In modern
kindergartens much stress has been laid on such occupations as
sand-drawing, modelling in clay and paper, pattern-making, plaiting, &c.
The artistic faculty was much thought of by Froebel, and, as in the
education of the ancients, the sense of rhythm in sound and motion was
cultivated by music and poetry introduced in the games. Much care was to
be given to the training of the senses, especially those of sight, sound
and touch. Intuition or first-hand experience (_Anschauung_) was to be
recognized as the true basis of knowledge, and though stories were to be
told, instruction of the imparting and "learning-up" kind was to be
excluded. Froebel sought to teach the children not what to think but how
to think, in this following in the steps of Pestalozzi, who had done for
the child what Bacon nearly two hundred years before had done for the
philosopher. Where possible the children were to be much in the open
air, and were each to cultivate a little garden.

  The first kindergarten was opened at Blankenburg, near Rudolstadt, in
  1837, but after a needy existence of eight years was closed for want
  of funds. In 1851 the Prussian government declared that "schools
  founded on Froebel's principles or principles like them could not be
  allowed." As early as 1854 it was introduced into England, and Henry
  Barnard reported on it that it was "by far the most original,
  attractive and philosophical form of infant development the world has
  yet seen" (_Report to Governor of Connecticut_, 1854). The great
  propagandist of Froebelism, the Baroness Berta von Marenholtz-Bülow
  (1811-1893), drew the attention of the French to the kindergarten from
  the year 1855, and Michelet declared that Froebel had "solved the
  problem of human education." In Italy the kindergarten was introduced
  by Madame Salis-Schwabe. In Austria it is recognized and regulated by
  the government, though the Volks-Kindergärten are not numerous. But by
  far the greatest developments of the kindergarten system are in the
  United States and in Belgium. The movement was begun in the United
  States by Miss Elizabeth Peabody in 1867, aided by Mrs Horace Mann and
  Dr Henry Barnard. The first permanent kindergarten was established in
  St Louis in 1873 by Miss Susan Blow and Dr W. T. Harris. In Belgium
  the mistresses of the "Écoles gardiennes" are instructed in the "idea
  of the kindergarten" and "Froebel's method," and in 1880 the minister
  of public instruction issued a programme for the "Écoles Gardiennes
  Communales," which is both in fact and in profession a kindergarten
  manual.

  For the position of the kindergarten system in the principal countries
  of the world see _Report of a Consultative Committee upon the School
  Attendance of Children below the Age of Five_, English Board of
  Education Reports (Cd. 4259, 1908); and "The Kindergarten," by Laura
  Fisher, _Report of the United States Commissioner for Education for
  1903_, vol. i. ch. xvi. (Washington, 1905).

KINDI [ABU YUSUF YA'QUB IBN ISHAQ UL-KINDI, sometimes called
pre-eminently "The Philosopher of the Arabs"] flourished in the 9th
century, the exact dates of his birth and death being unknown. He was
born in Kufa, where his father was governor under the Caliphs Mahdi and
Harun al-Rashid. His studies were made in Basra and Bagdad, and in the
latter place he remained, occupying according to some a government
position. In the orthodox reaction under Motawakkil, when all philosophy
was suspect, his library was confiscated, but he himself seems to have
escaped. His writings--like those of other Arabian philosophers--are
encyclopaedic and are concerned with most of the sciences; they are said
to have numbered over two hundred, but fewer than twenty are extant.
Some of these were known in the middle ages, for Kindi is placed by
Roger Bacon in the first rank after Ptolemy as a writer on optics. His
work _De Somniorum Visione_ was translated by Gerard of Cremona (q.v.)
and another was published as _De medicinarum compositarum gradibus
investigandis Libellus_ (Strassburg, 1531). He was one of the earliest
translators and commentators of Aristotle, but like Farabi (q.v.)
appears to have been superseded by Avicenna.

  See G. Flügel, _Al Kindi genannt der Philosoph der Araber_ (Leipzig,
  1857), and T. J. de Boer, _Geschichte der Philosophie im Islam_
  (Stuttgart, 1901), pp. 90 sqq.; also ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY.     (G. W. T.)

KINEMATICS (from Gr. [Greek: kinêma], a motion), the branch of mechanics
which discusses the phenomena of motion without reference to force or
mass (see MECHANICS).

KINETICS (from Gr. [Greek: kinein], to move), the branch of mechanics
which discusses the phenomena of motion as affected by force; it is the
modern equivalent of dynamics in the restricted sense (see MECHANICS).

KING, CHARLES WILLIAM (1818-1888), English writer on ancient gems, was
born at Newport (Mon.) on the 5th of September 1818. He entered Trinity
College, Cambridge, in 1836; graduated in 1840, and obtained a
fellowship in 1842; he was senior fellow at the time of his death in
London on the 25th of March 1888. He took holy orders, but never held
any cure. He spent much time in Italy, where he laid the foundation of
his collection of gems, which, increased by subsequent purchases in
London, was sold by him in consequence of his failing eyesight and was
presented in 1881 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. King was
recognized universally as one of the greatest authorities in this
department of art. His chief works on the subject are: _Antique Gems,
their Origin, Uses and Value_ (1860), a complete and exhaustive
treatise; _The Gnostics and their Remains_ (2nd ed. by J. Jacobs, 1887,
which led to an animated correspondence in the _Athenaeum_); _The
Natural History of Precious Stones and Gems and of the Precious Metals_
(1865); _The Handbook of Engraved Gems_ (2nd ed., 1885); _Early
Christian Numismatics_ (1873). King was thoroughly familiar with the
works of Greek and Latin authors, especially Pausanias and the elder
Pliny, which bore upon the subject in which he was most interested; but
he had little taste for the minutiae of verbal criticism. In 1869 he
brought out an edition of Horace, illustrated from antique gems; he also
translated Plutarch's _Moralia_ (1882) and the theosophical works of the
Emperor Julian (1888) for Bonn's Classical Library.

KING, CLARENCE (1842-1901), American geologist, was born at Newport,
Rhode Island, U.S.A., on the 6th of January 1842. He graduated at Yale
in 1862. His most important work was the geological exploration of the
fortieth parallel, of which the main reports (1876 and 1877) comprised
the geological and topographical atlas of the Rocky Mountains, the Green
River and Utah basins, and the Nevada plateau and basin. When the United
States Geological Survey was consolidated in 1879 King was chosen
director, and he vigorously conducted investigations in Colorado, and in
the Eureka district and on the Comstock lode in Nevada. He held office
for a year only; in later years his only noteworthy contribution to
geology was an essay on the age of the earth, which appeared in the
annual report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1893. He died at
Phoenix, Arizona, on the 24th of December 1901.

KING, EDWARD (1612-1637), the subject of Milton's _Lycidas_, was born in
Ireland in 1612, the son of Sir John King, a member of a Yorkshire
family which had migrated to Ireland. Edward King was admitted a
pensioner of Christ's College, Cambridge, on the 9th of June 1626, and
four years later was elected a fellow. Milton, though two years his
senior and himself anxious to secure a fellowship, remained throughout
on terms of the closest friendship with his rival, whose amiable
character seems to have endeared him to the whole college. King served
from 1633 to 1634 as praelector and tutor of his college, and was to
have entered the church. His career, however, was cut short by the
tragedy which inspired Milton's verse. In 1637 he set out for Ireland to
visit his family, but on the 10th of August the ship in which he was
sailing struck on a rock near the Welsh coast, and King was drowned. Of
his own writings many Latin poems contributed to different collections
of Cambridge verse survive, but they are not of sufficient merit to
explain the esteem in which he was held.

  A collection of Latin, Greek and English verse written in his memory
  by his Cambridge friends was printed at Cambridge in 1638, with the
  title _Justa Edouardo King naufrago ab amicis moerentibus amoris et_
  [Greek: mneias charin]. The second part of this collection has a
  separate title-page, _Obsequies to the Memorie of Mr Edward King, Anno
  Dom. 1638_, and contains thirteen English poems, of which _Lycidas_[1]
  (signed J. M.) is the last.

FOOTNOTE:

  [1] J. W. Hales, in the _Athenaeum_ for the 1st of August 1891,
    suggests that in writing King's elegy Milton had in his mind, besides
    the idylls of Theocritus, a Latin eclogue of Giovanni Baptista
    Amalteo entitled _Lycidas_, in which Lycidas bids farewell to the
    land he loves and prays for gentle breezes on his voyage. He was
    familiar with the Italian Latin poets of the Renaissance, and he may
    also have been influenced in his choice of the name by the shepherd
    Lycidas in Sannazaro's eclogue _Phillis_.

KING, EDWARD (1829-1910), English bishop, was the second son of the Rev.
Walter King, archdeacon of Rochester and rector of Stone, Kent.
Graduating from Oriel College, Oxford, he was ordained in 1854, and four
years later became chaplain and lecturer at Cuddesdon Theological
College. He was principal at Cuddesdon from 1863 to 1873, when he became
regius professor of pastoral theology at Oxford and canon of Christ
Church. To the world outside he was only known at this time as one of Dr
Pusey's most intimate friends and as a leading member of the English
Church Union. But in Oxford, and especially among the younger men, he
exercised an exceptional influence, due, not to special profundity of
intellect, but to his remarkable charm in personal intercourse, and his
abounding sincerity and goodness. In 1885 Dr King was made bishop of
Lincoln. The most eventful episode of his episcopate was his prosecution
(1888-1890) for ritualistic practices before the archbishop of
Canterbury, Dr Benson, and, on appeal, before the judicial committee of
the Privy Council (see LINCOLN JUDGMENT). Dr King, who loyally conformed
his practices to the archbishop's judgment, devoted himself unsparingly
to the work of his diocese; and, irrespective of his High Church views,
he won the affection and reverence of all classes by his real
saintliness of character. The bishop, who never married, died at Lincoln
on the 8th of March 1910.

  See the obituary notice in _The Times_, March 9, 1910.

KING, HENRY (1591-1669), English bishop and poet, eldest son of John
King, afterwards bishop of London, was baptized on the 16th of January
1591. With his younger brother John he proceeded from Westminster School
to Christ Church, Oxford, where both matriculated on the 20th of January
1609. Henry King entered the church, and after receiving various
ecclesiastical preferments he was made bishop of Chichester in 1642,
receiving at the same time the rich living of Petworth, Sussex. On the
29th of December of that year Chichester surrendered to the
Parliamentary army, and King was among the prisoners. After his release
he found an asylum with his brother-in-law, Sir Richard Hobart of
Langley, Buckinghamshire, and afterwards at Richkings near by, with Lady
Salter, said to have been a sister of Dr Brian Duppa (1588-1662). King
was a close friend of Duppa and personally acquainted with Charles I. In
one of his poems dated 1649 he speaks of the _Eikon Basilike_ as the
king's own work. Restored to his benefice at the Restoration, King died
at Chichester on the 30th of September 1669. His works include _Poems,
Elegies, Paradoxes and Sonets_ (1657), _The Psalmes of David from the
New Translation of the Bible, turned into Meter_ (1651), and several
sermons. He was one of the executors of John Donne, and prefixed an
elegy to the 1663 edition of his friend's poems.

  King's Poems and Psalms were edited, with a biographical sketch, by
  the Rev. J. Hannah (1843).

KING, RUFUS (1755-1827), American political leader, was born on the 24th
of March 1755 at Scarborough, Maine, then a part of Massachusetts. He
graduated at Harvard in 1777, read law at Newburyport, Mass., with
Theophilus Parsons, and was admitted to the bar in 1780. He served in
the Massachusetts General Court in 1783-1784 and in the Confederation
Congress in 1784-1787. During these critical years he adopted the
"states' rights" attitude. It was largely through his efforts that the
General Court in 1784 rejected the amendment to the Articles of
Confederation authorizing Congress to levy a 5% impost. He was one of
the three Massachusetts delegates in Congress in 1785 who refused to
present the resolution of the General Court proposing a convention to
amend the articles. He was also out of sympathy with the meeting at
Annapolis in 1786. He did good service, however, in opposing the
extension of slavery. Early in 1787 King was moved by the Shays
Rebellion and by the influence of Alexander Hamilton to take a broader
view of the general situation, and it was he who introduced the
resolution in Congress, on the 21st of February 1787, sanctioning the
call for the Philadelphia constitutional convention. In the convention
he supported the large-state party, favoured a strong executive,
advocated the suppression of the slave trade, and opposed the counting
of slaves in determining the apportionment of representatives. In 1788
he was one of the most influential members of the Massachusetts
convention which ratified the Federal Constitution. He married Mary
Alsop (1769-1819) of New York in 1786 and removed to that city in 1788.
He was elected a member of the New York Assembly in the spring of 1789,
and at a special session of the legislature held in July of that year
was chosen one of the first representatives of New York in the United
States Senate. In this body he served in 1789-1796, supported Hamilton's
financial measures, Washington's neutrality proclamation and the Jay
Treaty, and became one of the recognized leaders of the Federalist
party. He was minister to Great Britain in 1796-1803 and again in
1825-1826, and was the Federalist candidate for vice-president in 1804
and 1808, and for president in 1816, when he received 34 electoral
votes to 183 cast for Monroe. He was again returned to the Senate in
1813, and was re-elected in 1819 as the result of a struggle between the
Van Buren and Clinton factions of the Democratic-Republican party. In
the Missouri Compromise debates he supported the anti-slavery programme
in the main, but for constitutional reasons voted against the second
clause of the Tallmadge Amendment providing that all slaves born in the
state after its admission into the Union should be free at the age of
twenty-five years. He died at Jamaica, Long Island, on the 29th of April
1827.

  _The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King_, begun about 1850 by his
  son, Charles King, was completed by his grandson, Charles R. King, and
  published in six volumes (New York, 1894-1900).

Rufus King's son, JOHN ALSOP KING (1788-1867), was educated at Harrow
and in Paris, served in the war of 1812 as a lieutenant of a cavalry
company, and was a member of the New York Assembly in 1819-1821 and of
the New York Senate in 1823. When his father was sent as minister to
Great Britain in 1825 he accompanied him as secretary of the American
legation, and when his father returned home on account of ill health he
remained as chargé d'affaires until August 1826. He was a member of the
New York Assembly again in 1832 and in 1840, was a Whig representative
in Congress in 1849-1851, and in 1857-1859 was governor of New York
State. He was a prominent member of the Republican party, and in 1861
was a delegate to the Peace Conference in Washington.

Another son, CHARLES KING (1789-1867), was also educated abroad, was
captain of a volunteer regiment in the early part of the war of 1812,
and served in 1814 in the New York Assembly, and after working for some
years as a journalist was president of Columbia College in 1849-1864.

A third son, JAMES GORE KING (1791-1853), was an assistant
adjutant-general in the war of 1812, was a banker in Liverpool and
afterwards in New York, and was president of the New York & Erie
railroad until 1837, when by his visit to London he secured the loan to
American bankers of £1,000,000 from the governors of the Bank of
England. In 1849-1851 he was a representative in Congress from New
Jersey.

Charles King's son, RUFUS KING (1814-1876), graduated at the U.S.
Military Academy in 1833, served for three years in the engineer corps,
and, after resigning from the army, became assistant engineer of the New
York & Erie railroad. He was adjutant-general of New York state in
1839-1843, and became a brigadier-general of volunteers in the Union
army in 1861, commanded a division in Virginia in 1862-1863, and, being
compelled by ill health to resign from the army, was U.S. minister to
the Papal States in 1863-1867.

His son, CHARLES KING (b. 1844), served in the artillery until 1870 and
in the cavalry until 1879; he was appointed brigadier-general U.S.
Volunteers in the Spanish War in 1898, and served in the Philippines. He
wrote _Famous and Decisive Battles_ (1884), _Campaigning with Crook_
(1890), and many popular romances of military life.

KING, THOMAS (1730-1805), English actor and dramatist, was born in
London on the 20th of August 1730. Garrick saw him when appearing as a
strolling player in a booth at Windsor, and engaged him for Drury Lane.
He made his first appearance there in 1748 as the Herald in _King Lear_.
He played the part of Allworth in the first presentation of Massinger's
_New Way to Pay Old Debts_ (1748), and during the summer he played Romeo
and other leading parts in Bristol. For eight years he was the leading
comedy actor at the Smock Alley theatre in Dublin, but in 1759 he
returned to Drury Lane and took leading parts until 1802. One of his
earliest successes was as Lord Ogleby in _The Clandestine Marriage_
(1766), which was compared to Garrick's Hamlet and Kemble's Coriolanus,
but he reached the climax of his reputation when he created the part of
Sir Peter Teazle at the first representation of _The School for Scandal_
(1777). He was the author of a number of farces, and part-owner and
manager of several theatres, but his fondness for gambling brought him
to poverty. He died on the 11th of December 1805.

KING, WILLIAM (1650-1729), Anglican divine, the son of James King, an
Aberdeen man who migrated to Antrim, was born in May 1650. He was
educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and after being presented to the
parish of St Werburgh, Dublin, in 1679, became dean of St Patrick's in
1689, bishop of Derry in 1691, and archbishop of Dublin in 1702. In 1718
he founded the divinity lectureship in Trinity College, Dublin, which
bears his name. He died in May 1729. King was the author of _The State
of the Protestants in Ireland under King James's Government_ (1691), but
is best known by his _De Origine Mali_ (1702; Eng. trans., 1731), an
essay deemed worthy of a reply by Bayle and Leibnitz. King was a strong
supporter of the Revolution, and his voluminous correspondence is a
valuable help to our knowledge of the Ireland of his day.

  See _A Great Archbishop of Dublin, William King, D.D._, edited by Sir
  C. S. King, Bart. (1908).

KING, WILLIAM (1663-1712), English poet and miscellaneous writer, son of
Ezekiel King, was born in 1663. From his father he inherited a small
estate and he was connected with the Hyde family. He was educated at
Westminster School under Dr Busby, and at Christ Church, Oxford (B.A.
1685; D.C.L. 1692). His first literary enterprise was a defence of
Wycliffe, written in conjunction with Sir Edward Hannes (d. 1710) and
entitled _Reflections upon Mons. Varillas's History of Heresy ..._
(1688). He became known as a humorous writer on the Tory and High Church
side. He took part in the controversy aroused by the conversion of the
once stubborn non-juror William Sherlock, one of his contributions being
an entertaining ballad, "The Battle Royal," in which the disputants are
Sherlock and South. In 1694 he gained the favour of Princess Anne by a
defence of her husband's country entitled _Animadversions on the
Pretended Account of Denmark_, in answer to a depreciatory pamphlet by
Robert (afterwards Viscount) Molesworth. For this service he was made
secretary to the princess. He supported Charles Boyle in his controversy
with Richard Bentley over the genuineness of the _Epistles of Phalaris_,
by a letter (printed in _Dr Bentley's Dissertations ..._ (1698), more
commonly known as _Boyle against Bentley_), in which he gave an account
of the circumstances of Bentley's interview with the bookseller Bennet.
Bentley attacked Dr King in his _Dissertation_ in answer (1699) to this
book, and King replied with a second letter to his friend Boyle. He
further satirized Bentley in ten _Dialogues of the Dead relating to ...
the Epistles of Phalaris_ (1699). In 1700 he published _The
Transactioneer, with some of his Philosophical Fancies, in two
Dialogues_, ridiculing the credulity of Hans Sloane, who was then the
secretary of the Royal Society. This was followed up later with some
burlesque _Useful Transactions in Philosophy_ (1709). By an able defence
of his friend, James Annesley, 5th earl of Anglesey, in a suit brought
against him by his wife before the House of Lords in 1701, he gained a
legal reputation which he did nothing further to advance. He was sent to
Ireland in 1701 to be judge of the high court of admiralty, and later
became sole commissioner of the prizes, keeper of the records in the
Bermingham Tower of Dublin Castle, and vicar-general to the primate.
About 1708 he returned to London. He served the Tory cause by writing
for _The Examiner_ before it was taken up by Swift. He wrote four
pamphlets in support of Sacheverell, in the most considerable of which,
"A Vindication of the Rev. Dr Henry Sacheverell ... in a Dialogue
between a Tory and a Whig" (1711), he had the assistance of Charles
Lambe of Christ Church and of Sacheverell himself. In December 1711
Swift obtained for King the office of gazetteer, worth from £200 to
£250. King was now very poor, but he had no taste for work, and he
resigned his office on the 1st of July 1712. He died on the 25th of
December in the same year.

  The other works of William King include: _A Journey to London, in the
  year 1698_. _After the Ingenious Method of that made by Dr Martin
  Lister to Paris, in the same Year ..._ (1699), which was considered by
  the author to be his best work; _Adversaria, or Occasional Remarks on
  Men and Manners_, a selection from his critical note-book, which shows
  wide and varied reading; _Rufinus, or An Historical Essay on the
  Favourite Ministry_ (1712), a satire on the duke of Marlborough. His
  chief poems are: _The Art of Cookery: in imitation of Horace's Art
  of Poetry_. _With some Letters to Dr Lister and Others_ (1708), one of
  his most amusing works; _The Art of Love; in imitation of Ovid ..._
  (1709); "Mully of Mountoun," and a burlesque "Orpheus and Eurydice." A
  volume of _Miscellanies in Prose and Verse_ appeared in 1705; his
  _Remains ..._ were edited by J. Brown in 1732; and in 1776 John
  Nichols produced an excellent edition of his _Original Works ... with
  Historical Notes and Memoirs of the Author_. Dr Johnson included him
  in his _Lives of the Poets_, and his works appear in subsequent
  collections.

  King is not to be confused with another WILLIAM KING (1685-1763),
  author of a mock-heroic poem called _The Toast_ (1736) satirizing the
  countess of Newburgh, and principal of St Mary Hall, Oxford.

KING [OF OCKHAM], PETER KING, 1ST BARON (1669-1734), lord chancellor of
England, was born at Exeter in 1669. In his youth he was interested in
early church history, and published anonymously in 1691 _An Enquiry into
the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church
that flourished within the first Three Hundred Years after Christ_. This
treatise engaged the interest of his cousin, John Locke, the
philosopher, by whose advice his father sent him to the university of
Leiden, where he stayed for nearly three years. He entered the Middle
Temple in 1694 and was called to the bar in 1698. In 1700 he was
returned to parliament for Beer Alston in Devonshire; he was appointed
recorder of Glastonbury in 1705 and recorder of London in 1708. He was
chief justice of the common pleas from 1714 to 1725, when he was
appointed speaker of the House of Lords and was raised to the peerage.
In June of the same year he was made lord chancellor, holding office
until compelled by a paralytic stroke to resign in 1733. He died at
Ockham, Surrey, on the 22nd of July 1734. Lord King as chancellor failed
to sustain the reputation which he had acquired at the common law bar.
Nevertheless he left his mark on English law by establishing the
principles that a will of immovable property is governed by the _lex
loci rei sitae_, and that where a husband had a legal right to the
personal estate of his wife, which must be asserted by a suit in equity,
the court would not help him unless he made a provision out of the
property for the wife, if she required it. He was also the author of the
Act (4 Geo. II. c. 26) by virtue of which English superseded Latin as
the language of the courts. Lord King published in 1702 a _History of
the Apostles' Creed_ (Leipzig, 1706; Basel, 1750) which went through
several editions and was also translated into Latin.

His great-great-grandson, WILLIAM (1805-1893), married in 1835 the only
daughter of Lord Byron the poet, and was created earl of Lovelace in
1838. Another descendant, PETER JOHN LOCKE KING (1811-1885), who was
member of parliament for East Surrey from 1847 to 1874, won some fame as
an advocate of reform, being responsible for the passing of the Real
Estate Charges Act of 1854, and for the repeal of a large number of
obsolete laws.

KING (O. Eng. _cyning_, abbreviated into _cyng_, _cing_; cf. O. H. G.
_chun- kuning_, _chun- kunig_, M.H.G. _künic_, _künec_, _künc_, Mod.
Ger. _König_, O. Norse _konungr_, _kongr_, Swed. _konung_, _kung_), a
title, in its actual use generally implying sovereignty of the most
exalted rank. Any inclusive definition of the word "king" is, however,
impossible. It always implies sovereignty, but in no special degree or
sense; e.g. the sovereigns of the British Empire and of Servia are both
kings, and so too, at least in popular parlance, are the chiefs of many
barbarous peoples, e.g. the Zulus. The use of the title is, in fact,
involved in considerable confusion, largely the result of historic
causes. Freeman, indeed, in his _Comparative Politics_ (p. 138) says:
"There is a common idea of kingship which is at once recognized however
hard it may be to define it. This is shown among other things by the
fact that no difficulty is ever felt as to translating the word king and
the words which answer to it in other languages." This, however, is
subject to considerable modification. "King," for instance, is used to
translate the Homeric [Greek: anax] equally with the Athenian [Greek:
Basileus] or the Roman _rex_. Yet the Homeric "kings" were but tribal
chiefs; while the Athenian and Roman kings were kings in something more
than the modern sense, as supreme priests as well as supreme rulers and
lawgivers (see ARCHON; and ROME: _History_). In the English Bible, too,
the title of king is given indiscriminately to the great king of Persia
and to potentates who were little more than Oriental sheiks. A more
practical difficulty, moreover, presented itself in international
intercourse, before diplomatic conventions became, in the 19th century,
more or less stereotyped. Originally the title of king was superior to
that of emperor, and it was to avoid the assumption of the superior
title of rex that the chief magistrates of Rome adopted the names of
_Caesar_, _imperator_ and _princeps_ to signalize their authority. But
with the development of the Roman imperial idea the title emperor came
to mean more than had been involved in that of _rex_; very early in the
history of the Empire there were subject kings; while with the
Hellenizing of the East Roman Empire its rulers assumed the style of
[Greek: basileus], no longer to be translated "king" but "emperor." From
this Roman conception of the supremacy of the emperor the medieval
Empire of the West inherited its traditions. With the barbarian
invasions the Teutonic idea of kingship had come into touch with the
Roman idea of empire and with the theocratic conceptions which this had
absorbed from the old Roman and Oriental views of kingship. With these
the Teutonic kingship had in its origin but little in common.

Etymologically the Romance and Teutonic words for king have quite
distinct origins. The Latin _rex_ corresponds to the Sanskrit _rajah_,
and meant originally steersman. The Teutonic king on the contrary
corresponds to the Sanskrit _ganaka_, and "simply meant father, the
father of a family, the king of his own kin, the father of a clan, the
father of a people."[1] The Teutonic kingship, in short, was national;
the king was the supreme representative of the people, "hedged with
divinity" in so far as he was the reputed descendant of the national
gods, but with none of that absolute theocratic authority associated
with the titles of _rex_ or [Greek: basileus]. This, however, was
modified by contact with Rome and Christianity. The early Teutonic
conquerors had never lost their reverence for the Roman emperor, and
were from time to time proud to acknowledge their inferiority by
accepting titles, such as "patrician," by which this was implied. But by
the coronation of Charles, king of the Franks, as emperor of the West,
the German kingship was absorbed into the Roman imperial idea, a process
which exercised a profound effect on the evolution of the Teutonic
kingship generally. In the symmetrical political theory of medieval
Europe pope and emperor were sun and moon, kings but lesser satellites;
though the theory only partially and occasionally corresponded with the
facts. But the elevation of Charlemagne had had a profound effect in
modifying the _status_ of kingship in nations that never came under his
sceptre nor under that of his successors. The shadowy claim of the
emperors to universal dominion was in theory everywhere acknowledged;
but independent kings hastened to assert their own dignity by
surrounding themselves with the ceremonial forms of the Empire and
occasionally, as in the case of the Saxon _bretwaldas_ in England, by
assuming the imperial style. The mere fact of this usurpation showed
that the title of king was regarded as inferior to that of emperor; and
so it continued, as a matter of sentiment at least, down to the end of
the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and the cheapening of the imperial title
by its multiplication in the 19th century. To the last, moreover, the
emperor retained the prerogative of creating kings, as in the case of
the king of Prussia in 1701, a right borrowed and freely used by the
emperor Napoleon. Since 1814 the title of king has been assumed or
bestowed by a consensus of the Powers; e.g. the elector of Hanover was
made king by the congress of Vienna (1814), and _per contra_ the title
of king was refused to the elector of Hesse by the congress of
Aix-la-Chapelle (1818). In general the title of king is now taken to
imply a sovereign and independent international position. This was
implied in the recognition of the title of king in the rulers of Greece,
Rumania, Servia and Bulgaria when these countries were declared
absolutely independent of Turkey. The fiction of this independent
sovereignty is preserved even in the case of the kings of Bavaria,
Saxony and Württemberg, who are technically members of a free
confederation of sovereign states, but are not independent, since their
relations with foreign Powers are practically controlled by the king of
Prussia as German emperor.

  Divine Right of Kings.

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.

[Illustration: King-Bird.]

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.)

[Illustration: FIG. 1.

  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.

Next, as to Judah: the vivid account of the accession of Rehoboam in
xii. 1-16 is reminiscent of the full narratives in 2 Sam. ix.-xx.; 1
Kings i., ii. (cf. especially v. 16 with 2 Sam. xx. 1); xii. 15b refers
to the prophecy of Ahijah (see above), and "unto this day," v. 19,
cannot be by a contemporary author; v. 17 (LXX. omits) finds a parallel
in 2 Chron. xi. 16 seq., and could represent an Ephraimite standpoint.
The Judaean standpoint is prominent in vv. 21-24, where (a) the
inclusion of Benjamin and (b) the cessation of war (at the command of
Shemaiah) conflict with (a) xi. 32, 36, xii. 20 and (b) xiv. 30
respectively. Rehoboam's history, resumed by the redactor in xiv. 21-24,
continues with a brief account of the spoiling of the Temple and palace
by Sheshonk (Shishak). (The incident appears in 2 Chron. xii. in a
rather different context, _before_ the details which now precede v. 21
seq.) The reign of Abijam is entirely due to the editor, whose brief
statement of the war in xv. 7b is supplemented by a lengthy story in 2
Chron. xiii. (where the name is Abijah). Ch. xv. 5b (last clause) and v.
6 are omitted by the Septuagint, the former is a unique gloss (see 2
Sam. xi. seq.), the latter is a mere repetition of xiv. 30; with xv. 2
cf. v. 10. The account of Asa's long reign contains a valuable summary
of his war with Baasha, xv. 16-22; the isolated v. 15 is quite obscure
and is possibly related to v. 18 (but cf. vii. 51). His successor
Jehoshaphat is now dealt with completely in xxii. 41-50 after the death
of Ahab; but the Septuagint, which follows a different chronological
scheme (placing his accession in the reign of Omri), gives the summary
(with some variations) after xvi. 28. Another light is thrown upon the
incomplete annalistic fragments (xxii. 44, 47-49) by 2 Chron. xx. 35-37:
the friendship between Judah and Israel appears to have been displeasing
to the redactor of Kings.

  Ephraim from Ahab to Jehu.

The history of the few years between the close of Ahab's life and the
accession of Jehu covers about one-third of the entire book of Kings.
This is due to the inclusion of a number of narratives which are partly
of a political character, and partly are interested in the work of
contemporary prophets. The climax is reached in the overthrow of Omri's
dynasty by the usurper Jehu, when, after a period of close intercourse
between Israel and Judah, its two kings perished. The annals of each
kingdom would naturally deal independently with these events, but the
present literary structure of 1 Kings xvii.-2 Kings xi. is extremely
complicated by the presence of the narratives referred to. First as
regards the framework, the epitome of Ahab is preserved in xvi. 29-34
and xxii. 39; it contains some unknown references (his ivory house and
cities), and a stern religious judgment upon his Phoenician alliance, on
which the intervening chapters throw more light. The colourless summary
of his son Ahaziah (xxii. 51-53)[6] finds its conclusion in 2 Kings i.
17 seq. where v. 18 should precede the accession of his brother Jehoram
(v. 17b). Jehoram is again introduced in iii. 1-3 (note the variant
synchronism), but the usual conclusion is wanting. In Judah, Jehoshaphat
was succeeded by his son Jehoram, who had married Athaliah the daughter
of Ahab and Jezebel (viii. 16-24); to the annalistic details (vv. 20-22)
2 Chron. xxi. 11 sqq. adds a novel narrative. His son Ahaziah (viii. 25
sqq.) is similarly denounced for his relations with Israel. He is again
introduced in the isolated ix. 29, while Lucian's recension adds after
x. 36 a variant summary of his reign but _without_ the regular
introduction. Further confusion appears in the Septuagint, which inserts
after i. 18 (Jehoram of Israel) a notice corresponding to iii. 1-3, and
concludes "and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the house of
Ahab." This would be appropriate in a position nearer ix. seq. where the
deaths of Jehoram and Ahaziah are described. These and other examples of
serious disorder in the framework may be associated with the literary
features of the narratives of Elijah and Elisha.

  Of the more detailed narratives those that deal with the northern
  kingdom are scarcely Judaean (see 1 Kings xix. 3), and they do not
  criticize Elijah's work, as the Judaean compiler denounces the whole
  history of the north. But they are plainly not of one origin. To
  supplement the articles ELIJAH and ELISHA, it is to be noticed that
  the account of Naboth's death in the history of Elijah (1 Kings xxi.)
  differs in details from that in the history of Elisha and Jehu (2
  Kings ix.), and the latter more precise narrative presupposes events
  recorded in the extant accounts of Elijah but not these events
  themselves. In 1 Kings xx., xxii. 1-28 (xxi. follows xix. in the LXX.)
  Ahab is viewed rather more favourably than in the Elijah-narratives
  (xix., xxi.) or in the compiler's summary. Ch. xxii. 6, moreover,
  proves that there is some exaggeration in xviii. 4, 13; the great
  contest between Elijah and the king, between Yahweh and Baal, has been
  idealized. The denunciation of Ahab in xx. 35-43 has some notable
  points of contact with xiii. and seems to be a supplement to the
  preceding incidents. Ch. xxii. is important for its ideas of
  prophetism (especially vv. 19-23; cf. Ezek. xiv. 9; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 [in
  contrast to 1 Chron. xxi. 1]); a gloss at the end of v. 28, omitted by
  the Septuagint, wrongly identifies Micaiah with the well-known Micah
  (i. 2). Although the punishment passed upon Ahab in xxi. 20 sqq.
  (20b-26 betray the compiler's hand; cf. xiv. 10 seq.) is modified in
  v. 29, this is ignored in the account of his death, xxii. 38, which
  takes place at Samaria (see below).

  The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah (2 Kings i.) is marked by the
  revelation through an angel. The prophet's name appears in an unusual
  form (viz. _eliyyah_, not -_yahu_), especially in vv. 2-8. The
  prediction of Ahaziah's fate finds a parallel in 2 Chron. xxi. 12-15;
  the more supernatural additions have been compared with the late story
  in 1 Sam. xix. 18-24. The ascension of Elijah (2 Kings ii.) is related
  as the introduction to the work of Elisha, which apparently begins
  before the death of Jehoshaphat (see iii. 1, 11 sqq.; contrast 2
  Chron. _loc. cit._). Among the stories of Elisha are some which find
  him at the head of the prophetic gilds (iv. 1, 38-44, vi. 1-7), whilst
  in others he has friendly relations with the "king of Israel" and the
  court. As a personage of almost superhuman dignity he moves in certain
  narratives where political records appear to have been utilized to
  describe the activity of the prophets. The Moabite campaign (iii.)
  concerns a revolt already referred to in the isolated i. 1; there are
  parallels with the story of Jehoshaphat and Ahab (iii. 7, 11 seq.; cf.
  1 Kings xxii. 4 seq., 7 sqq.), contrast, however, xxii. 7 (where
  Elijah is not even named) and iii. 11 seq. But Jehoshaphat's death has
  been already recorded (1 Kings xxii. 50), and, while Lucian's
  recension in 2 Kings iii. reads Ahaziah, i. 17 presupposes the
  accession of the _Judaean_ Jehoram. Other political narratives may
  underlie the stories of the Aramaean wars; with vi. 24-vii. 20 (after
  the complete cessation of hostilities in vi. 23) compare the general
  style of 1 Kings xx., xxii.; with the famine in Samaria, vi. 25; cf.
  ibid. xvii.; with the victory, cf. ibid. xx. The account of Elisha and
  Hazael (viii. 7-15) implies friendly relations with Damascus (in v. 12
  the terrors of war are in the future), but the description of Jehu's
  accession (ix.) is in the midst of hostilities. Ch. ix. 7-10a are a
  Deuteronomic insertion amplifying the message in vv. 3-6 (cf. 1 Kings
  xxi. 20 seq.). The origin of the repetition in ix. 14-15a (cf. viii.
  28 seq.) is not clear. The oracle in ix. 25 seq. is not that in 1
  Kings xxi. 19 seq., and mentions the additional detail that Naboth's
  sons were slain. Here his field or portion is located near Jezreel,
  but in 1 Kings xxi. 18 his vineyard is by the royal palace in Samaria
  (cf. xxii. 38 and contrast xxi. 1, where the LXX. omits reference to
  Jezreel). This fluctuation reappears in 2 Kings x. 1, 11 seq., and 17;
  in ix. 27 compared with 2 Chron. xxii. 9; and in the singular
  duplication of an historical incident, viz. the war against the
  Aramaeans at Ramoth-Gilead (a) by Jehoshaphat and Ahab, and (b) by
  Ahaziah and Jehoram, in each case with the death of the Israelite
  king, at Samaria and Jezreel respectively (see above and observe the
  contradiction in 1 Kings xxi. 29 and xxii. 38). These and other
  critical questions in this section are involved with (a) the
  probability that Elisha's work belongs rather to the accession of
  Jehu, with whose dynasty he was on most intimate terms until his death
  some forty-five years later (2 Kings xiii. 14-21), and (b) the problem
  of the wars between Israel and Syria which appear to have begun only
  in the time of Jehu (x. 32). See _Jew. Quart. Rev._ (1908), pp.
  597-630, and JEWS: _History_, § 11 seq.

  Dynasty of Jehu.

In the annals of Jehu's dynasty the editorial introduction to Jehu
himself is wanting (x. 32 sqq.), although Lucian's recension in x. 36
concludes in annalistic manner the lives of Jehoram of Israel and
Ahaziah of Judah. The summary mentions the beginning of the Aramaean
wars, the continuation of which is found in the redactor's account of
his successor Jehoahaz (xiii. 1-9). But xiii. 4-6 modify the disasters,
and by pointing to the "saviour" or deliverer (cf. Judg. iii. 9, 15)
anticipate xiv. 27. The self-contained account of his son Jehoash (xiii.
10-13) is supplemented (a) by the story of the death of Elisha (vv.
14-21) and (b) by some account of the Aramaean wars (vv. 22-25), where
v. 23, like vv. 4-6 (Lucian's recension actually reads it after v. 7),
is noteworthy for the sympathy towards the northern kingdom. Further (c)
the defeat of Amaziah of Judah appears in xiv. 8-14 after the annals of
Judah, although from an Israelite source (v. 11b Bethshemesh defined as
belonging to Judah, see also v. 15, and with the repetition of the
concluding statements in v. 15 seq., see xiii. 12 seq.). These features
and the transference of xiii. 12 seq. after xiii. 25 in Lucian's
recension point to late adjustment. In Judaean history, Jehu's reform
and the overthrow of Jezebel in the north (ix., x. 15-28) find their
counterpart in the murder of Athaliah and the destruction of the temple
of Baal in Judah (xi. 18). But the framework is incomplete. The
editorial conclusion of the reign of Ahaziah, the introduction to that
of Athaliah, and the sources for both are wanting. A lengthy Judaean
document is incorporated detailing the accession of Joash and the
prominence of the abruptly introduced priest Jehoiada. The interest in
the Temple and temple-procedure is obvious; and both xi. and xii. have
points of resemblance with xxii. seq. (see below and cf. also xi. 4, 7,
11, 19, with 1 Kings xiv. 27 seq.). The usual epitome is found in xi.
21-xii. 3 (the age at accession should follow the synchronism, so
Lucian), with fragments of annalistic matter in xii. 17-21 (another
version in 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 sqq.). For Joash's son Amaziah see above;
xiv. 6 refers to Deut. xxiv. 16, and 2 Chron. xxv. 5-16 replaces v. 7 by
a lengthy narrative with some interesting details. Azariah or Uzziah is
briefly summarized in xv. 1-7, hence the notice in xiv. 22 seems out of
place; perhaps the usual statements of Amaziah's death and burial (cf.
xiv. 20b, 22b), which were to be expected after v. 18, have been
supplemented by the account of the rebellion (vv. 19, 20a, 21).[7] The
chronological notes for the accession of Azariah imply different views
of the history of Judah after the defeat of Amaziah; with xiv. 17, cf.
xiii. 10, xiv. 2, 23, but contrast xv. 1, and again v. 8.[8]

The important reign of Jeroboam (2) is dismissed as briefly as that of
Azariah (xiv. 23-29). The end of the Aramaean war presupposed by v. 25
is supplemented by the sympathetic addition in v. 26 seq. (cf. xiii. 4
seq. 23). Of his successors Zechariah, Shallum and Menahem only the
briefest records remain, now imbedded in the editorial framework (xv.
8-25). The summary of Pekah (perhaps the same as Pekahiah, the confusion
being due to the compiler) contains excerpts which form the continuation
of the older material in v. 25 (cf. also vv. 10, 14, 16, 19, 20). For an
apparently similar adjustment of an earlier record to the framework see
above on 1 Kings xv. 25-31, xvi. 8-25. The account of Hoshea's
conspiracy (xv. 29 seq.) gives the Israelite version with which
Tiglath-Pileser's own statement can now be compared. Two accounts of the
fall of Samaria are given, one of which is under the reign of the
contemporary Judaean Hezekiah (xvii. i-6, xviii. 9-12); the chronology
is again intricate. Reflections on the disappearance of the northern
kingdom appear in xvii. 7-23 and xviii. 12; the latter belongs to the
Judaean history. The former is composite; xvii. 21-23 (cf. v. 18) look
back to the introduction of calf-worship by Jeroboam (1), and agree with
the compiler's usual standpoint; but vv. 19-20 include Judah and
presuppose the exile. The remaining verses survey types of idolatry
partly of a general kind (vv. 9-12, 16a), and partly characteristic of
Judah in the last years of the monarchy (vv. 16b, 17). The brief account
of the subsequent history of Israel in xvii. 24-41 is not from one
source, since the piety of the new settlers (v. 32-34a, 41) conflicts
with the later point of view in 34b-40. The last-mentioned supplements
the epilogue in xvii. 7-23, forms a solemn conclusion to the history of
the northern kingdom, and is apparently aimed at the Samaritans.

  Judah.

III. _Later History of Judah._--The summary of Jotham (xv. 32-38) shows
interest in the Temple (v. 35) and alludes to the hostility of Pekah (v.
37) upon which the Israelite annals are silent. 2. Chron. xxvii. expands
the former but replaces the latter by other not unrelated details (see
UZZIAH). But xv. 37 is resumed afresh in the account of the reign of
Ahaz (xvi. 5 sqq.; the text in v. 6 is confused)--another version in 2
Chron. xxviii. 5 sqq.--and is supplemented by a description, evidently
from the Temple records, in which the ritual innovations by "king Ahaz"
(in contrast to "Ahaz" alone in vv. 5-9) are described (vv. 10-18).
There is further variation of detail in 2 Chron. xxviii. 20-27. The
summary of Hezekiah (xviii. 1-8) emphasizes his important religious
reforms (greatly expanded in 2 Chron. xxix. seq. from a later
standpoint), and includes two references to his military achievements.
Of these v. 8 is ignored in Chron., and v. 7 is supplemented by (a) the
annalistic extract in vv. 13-16, and (b) narratives in which the great
contemporary prophet Isaiah is the central figure. The latter are later
than Isaiah himself (xix. 37 refers to 681 B.C.) and reappear, with some
abbreviation and rearrangement, in Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. (see ISAIAH). They
are partly duplicate (cf. xix. 7 with vv. 28, 33; vv. 10-13 with xviii.
28-35), and consist of two portions, xviii. 17-xix. 8 (Isa. xxxvi.
2-xxxvii. 8) and xix. 9b-35 (Isa. xxxvii. 9b-36); to which of these xix.
9a and v. 36 seq. belong is disputed. 2 Chron. xxxii. (where these
accounts are condensed) is in general agreement with 2 Kings xviii. 7,
as against vv. 14-16. The poetical fragment, xix. 21-28, is connected
with the sign in vv. 29-31; both seem to break the connexion between
xix. 20 and 32 sqq. Chap. xx. 1-19 appears to belong to an earlier
period in Hezekiah's reign (see v. 6 and cf. 2 Chron. xxxii. 25 seq.);
with vv. 1-11 note carefully the forms in Isa. xxxviii. 1-8, 21 seq.,
and 2 Chron. xxxii. 24-26; with xx. 12-19 (Isa. xxxix) contrast the
brief allusion in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. In v. 17 seq. the exile is
foreshadowed. Use has probably been made of a late cycle of
Isaiah-stories; such a work is actually mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32.
The accounts of the reactionary kings Manasseh and Amon, although now by
the compiler, give some reference to political events (see xxi. 17, 23
seq.); xxi. 7-15 refer to the exile and find a parallel in xxiii. 26
seq., and xxi. 10 sqq. are replaced in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 10-20 by a novel
record of Manasseh's penitence (see also ibid. v. 23 and note omission
of 2 Kings xxiii. 26 from Chron).

Josiah's reign forms the climax of the history. The usual framework
(xxii. 1; 2, xxiii. 28, 30b) is supplemented by narratives dealing with
the Temple repairs and the reforms of Josiah. These are closely related
to xi. seq. (cf. xxii. 3-7 with xii. 4 sqq.), but show many signs of
revision; xxii. 16 seq., xxiii. 26 seq., point distinctly to the exile,
and xxiii. 16-20 is an insertion (the altar in v. 16 is already
destroyed in v. 15) after 1 Kings xiii. But it is difficult elsewhere to
distinguish safely between the original records and the later additions.
In their present shape the reforms of Josiah are described in terms that
point to an acquaintance with the teaching of Deuteronomy which
promulgates the reforms themselves.[9]

  The annalistic notice in xxiii. 29 seq. (contrast xxii. 20) should
  precede v. 28; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-27 gives another version in the
  correct position and ignores 2 Kings xxiii. 24-27 (see however the
  Septuagint). For the last four kings of Judah, the references to the
  worship at the high places (presumably abolished by Josiah) are
  wanting, and the literary source is only cited for Jehoiakim; xxiv. 3
  seq. (and probably v. 2), which treat the fall of Judah as the
  punishment for Manasseh's sins, are a Deuteronomistic insertion (2
  Chron. xxxvi. 6 sqq. differs widely; see, however, the Septuagint); v.
  13 seq. and v. 15 seq. are duplicates. With xxiv. 18-xxv. 21 cf. Jer.
  lii. 1-27 (the text of the latter, especially vv. 19 sqq. is
  superior); and the fragments _ibid._ xxxix. 1-10. Ch. xxv. 22-26
  appears in much fuller form in Jer. xl. seq. (see xl. 7-9, xli. 1-3,
  17 seq.). It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not enter into the
  history in Kings (contrast Isaiah above). The book of Chronicles in
  general has a briefer account of the last years, and ignores both the
  narratives which also appear in Jeremiah and the concluding hopeful
  note struck by the restoration of Jehoiachin (xxv. 27-30). This last,
  with the addition of statistical data, forms the present conclusion
  also of the book of Jeremiah.

_Conclusions._--A survey of these narratives as a whole strengthens our
impression of the merely mechanical character of the redaction by which
they are united. Though editors have written something of their own in
almost every chapter, generally from the standpoint of religious
pragmatism, there is not the least attempt to work the materials into a
history in our sense of the word; and in particular the northern and
southern histories are practically independent, being merely pieced
together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with the chronological
system, which we have seen to be really later than the main redaction.
It is very probable that the order of the pieces was considerably
readjusted by the author of the chronology; of this indeed the
Septuagint still shows traces. But with all its imperfections as judged
from a modern standpoint, the redaction has the great merit of
preserving material nearer to the actual history than would have been
the case had narratives been rewritten from much later standpoints--as
often in the book of Chronicles.

Questions of date and of the growth of the literary process are still
unsettled, but it is clear that there was an independent history of
(north) Israel with its own chronological scheme. It was based upon
annals and fuller political records, and at some period apparently
passed through circles where the purely domestic stories of the prophets
(Elisha) were current.[10] This was ultimately taken over by a Judaean
editor who was under the influence of the far-reaching reforms ascribed
to the 18th year of Josiah (621 B.C.). Certain passages seem to imply
that in his time the Temple was still standing and the Davidic dynasty
uninterrupted. Also the phrase "unto this day" sometimes apparently
presupposes a pre-exilic date. On the other hand, the history is carried
down to the end of Jehoiachin's life (xxv. 27 refers to his fifty-fifth
year, vv. 29 seq. look back on his death), and a number of allusions
point decisively to the post-exilic period. Consequently, most scholars
are agreed that an original pre-exilic Deuteronomic compilation made
shortly after Josiah's reforms received subsequent additions from a
later Deuteronomic writer.

These questions depend upon several intricate literary and historical
problems. At the outset (a) the compiler deals with history from the
Deuteronomic standpoint, selecting certain notices and referring further
to _separate_ chronicles of Israel and Judah. The canonical book of
Chronicles refers to such a _combined_ work, but is confined to Judah;
it follows the religious judgment passed upon the kings, but it
introduces new details apparently derived from extant annals, replaces
the annalistic excerpts found in Kings by other passages, or uses new
narratives which at times are clearly based upon older sources. Next (b)
the Septuagint proves that Kings did not reach its present form until a
very late date; "each represents a stage and not always the same stage
in the long protracted labours of the redactors" (Kuenen).[11] In
agreement with this are the unambiguous indications of the post-exilic
age (especially in the Judaean history) consisting of complete
passages, obvious interpolations, and also sporadic phrases in
narratives whose pre-exilic origin is sometimes clear and sometimes only
to be presumed. Further (c), the Septuagint supports the independent
conclusion that the elaborate synchronisms belong to a late stage in the
redaction. Consequently it is necessary to allow that the previous
arrangement of the material may have been different; the actual wording
of the introductory notices was necessarily also affected. In general,
it becomes ever more difficult to distinguish between passages
incorporated by an early redactor and those which may have been inserted
later, though possibly from old sources. Where the regular framework is
disturbed such considerations become more cogent. The relation of
annalistic materials in 1 Sam. (xiii. i; xiv. 47-51, &c.) to the longer
detailed narratives will bear upon the question, as also the relation of
2 Sam. ix-xx. to 1 Kings i. seq. (see SAMUEL, BOOKS OF). Again (d) the
lengths of the reigns of the Judaean kings form an integral part of the
framework, and their total, with fifty years of exile, allows four
hundred and eighty years from the beginning of the Temple to the return
from Babylon.[12] This round number (cf. again 1 Kings vi. 1) points to
a date subsequent to 537, and Robertson Smith has observed that almost
all events dated by the years of the kings of Jerusalem have reference
to the affairs of the Temple. This suggests a connexion between the
chronology and the incorporation of those narratives in which the Temple
is clearly the centre of interest. (e) But, apart from the question of
the origin of the more detailed Judaean records, the arguments for a
pre-exilic Judaean Deuteronomic compilation are not quite decisive. The
phrase "unto this day" is not necessarily valid (cf. 2 Chron. v. 9,
viii. 8, xxi. 10 with 1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, 2 Kings viii. 22), and
depends largely upon the compiler's sagacity. Also, the existence of the
Temple and of the Davidic dynasty (1 Kings viii. 14-53; ix. 3; xi.
36-38; xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19; cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 5) is equally
applicable to the time of the second temple when Zerubbabel, the Davidic
representative, kindled new hopes and aspirations. Indeed, if the object
of the Deuteronomic compiler is to show from past history that "the
sovereign is responsible for the purity of the national religion"
(Moore, _Ency. Bib._ col. 2079), a date somewhere after the death of
Jehoiachin (released in 561) in the age of Zerubbabel and the new Temple
equally satisfies the conditions. With this is concerned (f) the
question whether, on historical grounds, the account of the introduction
of Deuteronomic reforms by Josiah is trustworthy.[13] Moreover, although
a twofold Deuteronomic redaction of Kings is generally recognized, the
criteria for the presumably pre-exilic form are not so decisive as those
which certainly distinguish the post-exilic portions, and it is
frequently very difficult to assign Deuteronomic passages to the earlier
rather than to the later. Again, apart from the contrast between the
Israelite detailed narratives (relatively early) and those of Judaean
origin (often secondary), it is noteworthy that the sympathetic
treatment of northern history in 2 Kings xiii. 4 seq. 23, xiv. 26 has
literary parallels in the Deuteronomic redaction of Judges (where
Israelite tradition is again predominant), but is quite distinct from
the hostile feeling to the north which is also Deuteronomic. Even the
northern prophet Hosea (q.v.) approximates the Deuteronomic standpoint,
and the possibility that the first Deuteronomic compilation of Kings
could originate outside Judah is strengthened by the fact that an
Israelite source could be drawn upon for an impartial account of Judaean
history (2 Kings xiv. 8-15). Finally, (g) literary and historical
problems here converge. Although Judaean writers ultimately rejected as
heathen a people who could claim to be followers of Yahweh (Ezra iv. 2;
2 Kings xvii. 28, 33; contrast ibid. 34-40, a _secondary_ insertion),
the anti-Samaritan feeling had previously been at most only in an
incipient stage, and there is reason to infer that relations between the
peoples of north and south had been closer.[14] The book of Kings
reveals changing historical conditions in its literary features, and it
is significant that the very age where the background is to be sought is
that which has been (intentionally?) left most obscure: the chronicler's
history of the Judaean monarchy (Chron.--Ezra--Nehemiah), as any
comparison will show, has its own representation of the course of
events, and has virtually superseded both Kings and Jeremiah, which have
now an abrupt conclusion. (See further S. A. Cook, _Jew. Quart. Rev._
(1907), pp. 158 sqq.; and the articles JEWS: _History_, §§ 20, 22;
PALESTINE: _History_).

  LITERATURE.--A. Kuenen, _Einleitung_; J. Wellhausen, _Compos. d.
  Hexateuch_, pp. 266-302; H. Winckler, _Alttest. Untersuchungen_
  (1892); and B. Stade, _Akademische Reden_ (1899; on 1 Kings v.-vii.; 2
  Kings x.-xiv.; xv.-xxi.); S. R. Driver, _Lit. of O. T._ (1909); see
  also C. Holzhey, _Das Buch. d. Könige_ (1899); the commentaries of
  Benzinger (1899) and Kittel (1900), and especially F. C. Kent,
  _Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narr._ (1905). The article by W. R. Smith,
  _Ency. Brit._, 9th ed. (partly retained here), is revised and
  supplemented by E. Kautzsch in the _Ency. Bib._ For the Hebrew text
  see Klostermann's _Sam. u. Könige_ (1887); C. F. Burney, _Notes on the
  Hebrew Text_ (1903); and Stade and Schwally's edition in Haupt's
  _Sacred Books of the Old Testament_ (1904). For English readers, J.
  Skinner's commentary in the _Century Bible_, and W. E. Barnes in the
  _Cambridge Bible_, are useful introductions.     (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Cp. the brief annalistic form of the Babylonian chronicles (for a
    specimen, see C. F. Kent, _Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narratives_, p.
    502 seq.). For a synchronistic history of Assyria and Babylonia,
    prepared for diplomatic purposes, see Schrader's _Keilinschr. Bibl._
    i. 194 sqq.; also L. W. King, _Studies in Eastern Hist._ i.
    (Tukulti-Ninib), pp. i, 75 seq. (with interesting variant
    traditions).

  [2] The term "Israel" as applied to the northern kingdom is apt to be
    ambiguous, since as a general national name, with a religious
    significance, it can include or suggest the inclusion of Judah.

  [3] Here and elsewhere a careful study (e.g. of the marginal
    references in the Revised Version) will prove the close relation
    between the "Deuteronomic" passages and the book of Deuteronomy
    itself. The bearing of this upon the traditional date of that book
    should not be overlooked.

  [4] See art. JEROBOAM; also W. R. Smith, _Old Test. in Jew. Church_,
    pp. 117 sqq.; H. Winckler, _Alttest. Untersuchungen_, pp. 1 sqq., and
    the subsequent criticisms by C. F. Burney (_Kings_, pp. 163 sqq.); J.
    Skinner (_Kings_, pp. 443 sqq.); and Ed. Meyer (_Israeliten u.
    Nachbarstämme_, pp. 357 sqq.).

  [5] Notice should everywhere be taken of those prophetical stories
    which have the linguistic features of the Deuteronomic writers, or
    which differ in style and expression from the prophecies of Amos,
    Hosea and others, previous to Jeremiah.

  [6] The division of the two books at this point is an innovation
    first made in the LXX. and Vulgate.

  [7] Both xiv. 22 and xv. 5 presuppose fuller records of which 2
    Chron. xxvi. 6-7, 16-20 may represent merely later and less
    trustworthy versions.

  [8] See F. Rühl, _Deutsche Zeit. f. Geschichtwissens_, xii. 54 sqq.;
    also JEWS: _History_, § 12.

  [9] See further the special study by E. Day, _Journ. Bib. Lit._
    (1902), pp. 197 sqq.

  [10] Cf. similarly the prophetic narratives in the books of Samuel
    (q.v.).

  [11] "The LXX. of Kings is not a corrupt reproduction of the Hebrew
    _receptus_, but represents another recension of the text. Neither
    recension can claim absolute superiority. The defects of the LXX. lie
    on the surface, and are greatly aggravated by the condition of the
    Greek text, which has suffered much in transmission, and particularly
    has in many places been corrected after the later Greek versions that
    express the Hebrew _receptus_ of the 2nd century of our era. Yet the
    LXX. not only preserves many good readings in detail, but throws much
    light on the long-continued process of redaction at the hand of
    successive editors or copyists of which the extant Hebrew of Kings is
    the outcome. Even the false readings of the Greek are instructive,
    for both recensions were exposed to corrupting influences of
    precisely the same kind" (W. R. SMITH).

  [12] See W. R. Smith, _Journ. of Philology_, x. 209 sqq.; _Prophets
    of Israel_, p. 147. seq.; and K. Marti, _Ency. Bib._ art.
    "Chronology."

  [13] Against earlier doubts by Havet (1878), Vernes (1887) and Horst
    (1888), see W. E. Addis, _Documents of Hexateuch_, ii. 2 sqq.; but
    the whole question has been reopened by E. Day (loc. cit. above) and
    R. H. Kennett (_Journ. Theol. Stud._, July 1906, 481 sqq.).

  [14] See Kennett. _Journ. Theol. Stud._ 1905, pp. 169 sqq.; 1906, pp.
    488 sqq.; and cf. J. A. Montgomery, _The Samaritans_ (1907), pp. 47,
    53 seq., 57, 59, 61 sqq.

KING'S BENCH, COURT OF, in England, one of the superior courts of common
law. This court, the most ancient of English courts--in its correct
legal title, "the court of the king before the king himself," _coram
ipso rege_--is far older than parliament itself, for it can be traced
back clearly, both in character and the essence of its jurisdiction, to
the reign of King Alfred. The king's bench, and the two offshoots of the
_aula regia_, the common pleas and the exchequer, for many years
possessed co-ordinate jurisdiction, although there were a few cases in
which each had exclusive authority, and in point of dignity precedence
was given to the court of king's bench, the lord chief justice of which
was also styled lord chief justice of England, being the highest
permanent judge of the Crown. The court of exchequer attended to the
business of the revenue, the common pleas to private actions between
citizens, and the king's bench retained criminal cases and such other
jurisdiction as had not been divided between the other two courts. By an
act of 1830 the court of exchequer chamber was constituted as a court of
appeal for errors in law in all three courts. Like the court of
exchequer, the king's bench assumed by means of an ingenious fiction the
jurisdiction in civil matters which properly belonged to the common
pleas.

Under the Judicature Act 1873 the court of king's bench became the
king's bench division of the High Court of Justice. It consists of the
lord chief justice and fourteen puisne judges. It exercises original
jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction from the county courts and
other inferior courts. By the act of 1873 (sec. 45) this appellate
jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court generally, but in practice
it is exercised by a divisional court of the king's bench division only.
The determination of such appeals by the High Court is final, unless
leave to appeal is given by the court which heard the appeal or by the
court of appeal. There was an exception to this rule as regards certain
orders of quarter sessions, the history of which involves some
complication. But by sec. 1 (5) of the Court of Session Act 1894 the
rule applies to all cases where there is a right of appeal to the High
Court from any court or person. It may be here mentioned that if leave
is given to appeal to the court of appeal there is a further appeal to
the House of Lords, except in bankruptcy (Bankruptcy Appeals (County
Courts) Act 1884), when the decision of the court of appeal on appeal
from a divisional court sitting in appeal is made final and conclusive.

There are masters in the king's bench division. Unlike the masters in
the chancery division, they have original jurisdiction, and are not
attached to any particular judge. They hear applications in chambers,
act as taxing masters and occasionally as referees to conduct inquiries,
take accounts, and assess damages. There is an appeal from the master to
the judge in chambers. Formerly there was an appeal from the judge in
chambers to a divisional court in every case and thence to the court of
appeal, until the multiplication of appeals in small interlocutory
matters became a scandal. Under the Supreme Court of Judicature
(Procedure) Act 1894 there is no right of appeal to the court of appeal
in any interlocutory matters (except those mentioned in subs. (b))
without the leave of the judge or of the court of appeal, and in matters
of "practice and procedure" the appeal lies (with leave) directly to the
court of appeal from the judge in chambers.

KINGSBRIDGE, a market town in the Totnes parliamentary division of
Devonshire, England, 48 m. S.S.W. of Exeter, on a branch of the Great
Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 3025. It lies 6 m. from
the English Channel, at the head of an inlet or estuary which receives
only small streams, on a sharply sloping site. The church of St Edmund
is mainly Perpendicular, but there are Transitional Norman and Early
English portions. The town-hall contains a natural history museum. A
house called Pindar Lodge stands on the site of the birthplace of John
Wolcot ("Peter Pindar," 1738-1819). William Cookworthy (1705-1780), a
porcelain manufacturer, the first to exploit the deposits of kaolin in
the south-west of England, was also born at Kingsbridge. The township of
Dodbrooke, included within the civil parish, adjoins Kingsbridge on the
north-east. Some iron-founding and ship-building, with a coasting trade,
are carried on.

Kingsbridge (_Kyngysbrygge_) was formerly included in the manor of
Churchstow, the first trace of its separate existence being found in the
Hundred Roll of 1276, which records that in the manor of Churchstow
there is a new borough, which has a Friday market and a separate assize
of bread and ale. The name Kingsbridge however does not appear till half
a century later. When Kingsbridge became a separate parish is not
certainly known, but it was before 1414 when the church was rebuilt and
consecrated to St Edmund. In 1461 the abbot of Buckfastleigh obtained a
Saturday market at Kingsbridge and a three-days' fair at the feast of St
Margaret, both of which are still held. The manor remained in possession
of the abbot until the Dissolution, when it was granted to Sir William
Petre. Kingsbridge was never represented in parliament or incorporated
by charter, the government being by a portreeve, and down to the present
day the steward of the manor holds a court leet and court baron and
appoints a portreeve and constables. In 1798 the town mills were
converted into a woollen manufactory, which up to recent times produced
large quantities of cloth, and the serge manufacture was introduced
early in the 19th century. The town has been famous from remote times
for a beverage called "white ale." Included in Kingsbridge is the little
town of Dodbrooke, which at the time of the Domesday Survey had a
population of 42, and a flock of 108 sheep and 27 goats; and in 1257 was
granted a Wednesday market and a fair at the Feast of St Mary Magdalene.

  See "Victoria County History": _Devonshire; Kingsbridge and Sulcombe,
  with the intermediate Estuary, historically and topographically
  depicted_ (Kingsbridge, 1819); S. F. Fox, _Kingsbridge Estuary_
  (Kingsbridge, 1864).

KING'S COUNTY, a county of Ireland in the province of Leinster, bounded
N. by Meath and Westmeath, W. by Roscommon, Galway and Tipperary (the
boundary with the first two counties being the river Shannon); S. by
Tipperary and Queen's County, and E. by Kildare. The area is 493,999
acres or about 772 sq. m. The greater part of the county is included in
the central plain of Ireland. In the south-east the Slieve Bloom
Mountains form the boundary between King's County and Queen's County,
and run into the former county from south-west to north-east for a
distance of about 20 m. consisting of a mass of lofty and precipitous
crags through which there are two narrow passes, the Black Gap and the
Gap of Glandine. In the north-east Croghan Hill, a beautiful green
eminence, rises to a height over 700 ft. The remainder of the county is
flat, but a range of low hills crosses its north-eastern division to the
north of the Barrow. In the centre of the county from east to west a
large portion is occupied by the Bog of Allen. The county shares in the
advantage of the navigation of the Shannon, which skirts its western
side. The Brosna, which issues from Loch Ennell in Westmeath, enters the