To form a correct idea of a Hebrew king, we must abstract ourselves from the notions of modern Europe, and realize the position of Oriental sovereigns. It would be a mistake to regard the Hebrew government as a limited monarchy, in the English sense of the ex- pression. It is stated in 1 Sam. x, 25, that Samuel '• told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in the book and laid it before the Lord," and it is barely possible that this may refer to some statement respecting the boundaries of the kingly power. (The word US'jp, literally y(«/*7?7iCHf, translated "manner" in the A. v., is translated in the Sept. ctK-ai wji(«, i. e. statute or ordinance [comp. Ecclus. iv, 17; Bar. ii, 12; iv, 13]. But Joseplius seems to have regarded the document as a prophetical statement, read before the king, of the ca- lamities which were to arise from the kuigl}- power, as a kind of protest recorded for succeeding ages \_AHt. vi, 4, 6]). But no such document has come down to us; and if it ever existed, and contained restrictions of any moment on the kingly power, it was probably disregard- ed in practice. The following passage of sir John j\Ial- colm respecting the shahs, of Persia may, with some slight modifications, be regarded as fairly applicable to the Hebrew monarchy under David and Solomon : '• The monarch of Persia has been pronoimced to be one of the most absolute in the world. His word has ever been deemed a law : and he has probably never had any fur- ther restraint upon the free exercise of his vast au- thority than has arisen from Ms regard for religion, his respect for established usages, his desire for reputation, and his fear of exciting an opposition that might be dangerous to his power or to his life" (^Malcolm's Peisia, ii, 303 ; comp. Elphinstone's India, bk. viii, ch. 3). It must not, however, be supposed to have been either the understanding or the practice that the sovereign might seize at his discretion the private propert}' of individu- als. Ahab did not venture to seize the vineyard of Na- both till, through the testimony of false witnesses, Na- both had been convicted of blasphemj^; and possibly his vineyard may have been seized as a confiscation, with- out flagrantly outraging jniblic sentiment in those who did not know the truth (1 Kings xi, G). But no mon- archy perhaps ever existed in which it would not lie regarded as an outrage that the monarch should from covetousness seize the private property of an innocent subject in no ways dangerous to the state. And gen- erally, when sir John Malcolm proceeds as follows in ref- erence to "one of the most absolute" monarchs in the world, it will be luiderstood that the Hebrew king, whose power might be dcscrilicd in the same way, is not, on account of certain restraints which exist in the nature of things, to be regarded as "a limited monarch" in the European use of the words. " "We may assume that the po^ver of the king of Persia is by usage absolute over the property and lives of his conquered enemies, his rebellious subjects, his own family, his minisieis, over
KING
85
KING
public officers civil and jnilitarij, and all the mmerous train of domestics, and that he may punish any person of these classes without examination or formal procedure of any kind; in all other cases that are capital, the forms prescribed by law and custom arc observed; the mon- arch only commands, when the evidence has been ex- amined and the law declared, that the sentence shall be put in execution or that the condemned culprit shall be pardoned" (ii, 306). In accordance with such usages, David ordered Uriah to be treacherously exposed to death in the forefront of the hottest battle (2 Sam. xi, 15) ; he caused Rechab and Baanah to be slain instant- ly, when they brought him the head of Ishbosheth {2 Sam. iv, 1-2); and he is represented as having on his deatli-bed recommended Solomon to put Joab and Shi- mei to death (1 Kings ii, 5-9). In like manner, Solo- mon caused to be killed, without trial, not only his elder brother Adonijah and Joali, whose execution might be regarded as the exceptional acts of a dismal state-policy in the beginning of his reign, but likewise Shimei, after having been seated on the throne three years. And king Saul, in resentment at their connivance with Da- vid's escape, put to death 85 priests, and caused a mas- sacre of the inhabitants of Nob, including women, chil- dren, and sucklings (1 Sam. xxii, 18, 19).
Besides being commander-in-chief of the army, su- preme judge, and absolute master, as it were, of the lives of his subjects, the king exercised the power of impos- ing taxes on them, and of exacting,- from them personal service and labor. Both these points seem clear from the account given (I Sam. viii, 11-17) of the evils which would arise from the kingly power, and are confirmed in various ways. Whatever mention may be made of con- sulting " old men," or " elders of Israel," we never read of their deciding such points as these. When Pul, the king of Assyria, imposed a tribute on the kingdom of Israel, " Menahem, the king," exacted the money of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man 50 shekels of silver (2 Kings xv, 19). When Jehoiakim, king of Ju- dah, gave his tril)ute of silver and gold to Pharaoh, he taxed the land to give the money ; he exacted the silver and gold of the people, of every one according to his taxation (2 Kings xxili, 35). The degree to which the exaction of personal labor might be carried on a special occasion is illustrated by king Solomon's requirements for building the Temple. He raised a levy of 30,000 men, and sent them to Lebanon by courses of 10,000 a month ; and he liad 70,000 that bare burdens, and 80,000 hewers in the mountains (1 Kings v, 13-15). Judged by the Oriental standard, there is nothing improbable in tliese numbers. In our own da3's, for the purpose of constructing the Mahmiideyeh Canal in Egypt, Me- hemet Ali, by orders given to the various sheiks of the provinces of Sakarah, Ghizeh, Mensiirah, Sharkieh, Me- iiiif, Bahyreh, and some others, caused 300,000 men, wom- en, and children to be assembled along the site of the intended canal (see ]\Irs. Poole's Enylishwoman in Eyypt, ii, 219). This was 120,000 more than the levy of Solo- mon.