THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
founding of the kingdom and chap. viii. as the postexilic view. But chap. viii. is entirely consonant with the person and character of Samuel (see Samuel; Saul). It was not by chance that a man from the smallest tribe was chosen king; the will of Yahweh determined the selection and chap. viii. supplies the account, basing the selection on Saul's worth. A similar reason underlay the choice of David. In both cases consecration to the kingly office was by anointing (I Sam. x. 1, xvi. 13), as was customary among the neighboring peoples. This anointing was connected with religious usage and implied divine sanction. In David's case it was repeated when he was made king over Judah and again when he became king of Israel (II Sam. ii. 4, v. 3). Prophetic anointing is often mentioned, as in the cases of Absalom, Solomon, Jehoahaz, and Jehu (II Sam. xix. 10; I Kings i. 39; II Kings xi. 12, xxiii. 30). The rabbis regarded anointing as necessary only to the establishment of a new dynasty and thus explain omissions of anointing in other cases. A symbol of kingly power was the scepter, in place of which Saul appears to have used the spear. From early times the crown also is in evidence (I Sam. i. 10), and the throne appears with Solomon (I Kings x. 18).
The position of the king was from the first not that of an Oriental despot with unlimited power. The law of the kingdom (I Sam. x. 25; cf. Deut. xvii. 14-20) was naturally not a mere embodiment of popular law and custom, but arose out of the religious situation of the Hebrews. The king was to be an Israelite, was not to multiply wives or wealth or horses (as evidences of his glory). Kingly Further he was to regard the torah,
Duties and written and prophetic, as his guide.
Privileges. In war he was the leader, and in peace the chief authority in justice. As judge he was to be humble in mind, giving access to those who sought relief; his responsibility to Yahweh was urged by the prophets. As Yahweh had made free choice of the king, so he might reject and displace him (I Sam. xiii. 13-14; I Kings xi. 29 sqq.). The succession was hereditary, but the power of appointment of a successor was in the reigning king, with the mothers of the various princes exercising influence behind the throne. Often the succession was otherwise determined — by the nobility, the priesthood, and indeed the people. The queen mother had a high and influential position from which, however, she might be deposed (I Kings xv. 13). In the northern kingdom also prophetic sanction was given to the kingship, as in the case of Jeroboam I. and Jehu (qq.v.). But in general other forces, including that of usurpation, were at work in Israel (Hos. viii. 4). In the cult the king took a commanding position, offering sacrifices, praying, and blessing the people. But in sacrificing, it might be that the priest was the actual officiant; indeed in later times it may be said that the king yielded to the priest his priestly functions. A limitation of the kingly privileges doubtless came into play and is in view in the legislation of Ezekiel. It was his duty (according to Ezekiel) to care for the ordinary and festival offerings, and in preexilic times he might appoint and dismiss priests (I Kings
ii. 35), though he was in these matters not left to the exercise of arbitrary power.
The king was surrounded with councilors and ministers who came to bear the name of princes as inmates of the royal palace; in addition to these he had personal servants about him, who often misused their power. The number of the officers was not set by law, but varied with the The Royal needs of the times; thus under David Court and there were the general of the army, the Revenues, captain of the guard, the recorder, the chancellor, and the overseer of labor; under Solomon appeared an upper officer over the twelve prefects of the districts, and an officer in charge of the household (I Kings iv. 5-6); with these went a large number of lesser officials of various grades and service, while later there came in eunuchs (perhaps the name of an office, I Kings xxii. 9, margin). The royal revenues were not at all times on the same basis, and I Sam. viii. 11 sqq. indicates possibilities of arbitrariness in the king's demands. Yet only profligate kings would override the rights of their subjects, as in the instance of Naboth, and in cases of aggression would usually have at least the semblance of right of action. Custom developed the perquisites of the king. Thus Amos vii. 1 indicates that to the king belonged the first cutting of the grass. The custom of making presents to the king is very early, and regularity developed it into tribute. Conquered peoples brought tribute (II Sam. viii. 2), as did those who placed themselves under the royal protection or did homage (II Sam. viii. 10; I Kings x. 25). Solomon put the Canaanites and even Israelites to forced labor. Of booty taken in war a considerable part was appropriated by the king, and the kings had usually their private estates. For the idealistic and prophetic development of the idea of the kingdom see Messiah^ Messianism. C. von Orelli.
Bibliography: S. Oettli, Das Konigsideal des Alten Testament, Greifswald, 1899; R. Smend, Alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte, Tubingen, 1899; the literature on the History of Israel under Ahab ; later works cited under Archeology, Biblical; and for the idealistic view of the monarchy the works under Messiah.
KINGSLEY, CHARLES: English clergyman and author; b. at Holne (20 m. s.w. of Exeter), Devonshire, June 12, 1819; d. at Eversley (26 m. n.e. of of Winchester), Hampshire, Jan. 23, 1875. He was a precocious child, fond of athletics and romantic in disposition; the scenery with which he was surrounded made a profound impression on his character. He received his education at Clifton, Helston, King's College, London, and Magdalene College, Cambridge, where he studied fitfully and allowed himself to be distracted by manifold interests. He had at this time little taste for theology, but finally decided to take orders, and was ordained in July, 1842, to the curacy of Eversley. There his duties were practical rather than theoretical, for the parish was in a state of utter decay. In 1845 he received the honorary appointment of canon of Middleham. His literary activities had already begun, and at London in 1848 appeared his drama The Saint's Tragedy, a play based on St. Elizabeth of Hungary, in which he voiced his disapproval of medieval asceticism, which, in his opinion, detracted