Chapter 18

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,orKanchanjanga, 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 Latinin 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 seeFroebel. 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 seeReport 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).

For the position of the kindergarten system in the principal countries of the world seeReport 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).

KINDĪ[Abū Yūsuf Ya’qūb ibn Ishāq ul-Kindī, 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-Rashīd. His studies were made in Baṣra 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 Kindī is placed by Roger Bacon in the first rank after Ptolemy as a writer on optics. His workDe Somniorum Visionewas translated by Gerard of Cremona (q.v.) and another was published asDe medicinarum compositarum gradibus investigandis Libellus(Strassburg, 1531). He was one of the earliest translators and commentators of Aristotle, but like Fārābī (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.; alsoArabian Philosophy.

(G. W. T.)

KINEMATICS(from Gr.κίνημα, a motion), the branch of mechanics which discusses the phenomena of motion without reference to force or mass (seeMechanics).

KINETICS(from Gr.κινεῖν, 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 (seeMechanics).

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, whichled to an animated correspondence in theAthenaeum);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’sMoralia(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’sLycidas, 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 titleJusta Edouardo King naufrago ab amicis moerentibus amoris etμνείας χάριν. 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 whichLycidas1(signed J. M.) is the last.

1J. W. Hales, in theAthenaeumfor 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 entitledLycidas, 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 ecloguePhillis.

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 (seeLincoln 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 inThe 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 theEikon Basilikeas the king’s own work. Restored to his benefice at the Restoration, King died at Chichester on the 30th of September 1669. His works includePoems, 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 hereceived 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 wroteFamous 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 inKing Lear. He played the part of Allworth in the first presentation of Massinger’sNew 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 inThe 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 ofThe 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 ofThe State of the Protestants in Ireland under King James’s Government(1691), but is best known by hisDe 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.

SeeA 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 entitledReflections 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 entitledAnimadversions 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 theEpistles of Phalaris, by a letter (printed inDr Bentley’s Dissertations ...(1698), more commonly known asBoyle against Bentley), in which he gave an account of the circumstances of Bentley’s interview with the bookseller Bennet. Bentley attacked Dr King in hisDissertationin answer (1699) to this book, and King replied with a second letter to his friend Boyle. He further satirized Bentley in tenDialogues of the Dead relating to ... the Epistles of Phalaris(1699). In 1700 he publishedThe 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 burlesqueUseful 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 forThe Examinerbefore 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’sArt 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 ofMiscellanies in Prose and Verseappeared in 1705; hisRemains ...were edited by J. Brown in 1732; and in 1776 John Nichols produced an excellent edition of hisOriginal Works ... with Historical Notes and Memoirs of the Author. Dr Johnson included him in hisLives of the Poets, and his works appear in subsequent collections.King is not to be confused with anotherWilliam King(1685-1763), author of a mock-heroic poem calledThe Toast(1736) satirizing the countess of Newburgh, and principal of St Mary Hall, Oxford.

King is not to be confused with anotherWilliam King(1685-1763), author of a mock-heroic poem calledThe 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 1691An 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 thelex 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 aHistory 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 intocyng,cing; cf. O. H. G.chun- kuning,chun- kunig, M.H.G.künic,künec,künc, Mod. Ger.König, O. Norsekonungr,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 hisComparative 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 Homericἄναξequally with the Athenianβασιλεύςor the Romanrex. 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 (seeArchon; andRome: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 ofCaesar,imperatorandprincepsto 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 ofrex; 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 ofβασιλεύς, 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 Latinrexcorresponds to the Sanskritrajah, and meant originally steersman. The Teutonic king on the contrary corresponds to the Sanskritganaka, 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.”1The 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 ofrexorβασιλεύς. 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 thestatusof 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 Saxonbretwaldasin 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 thelast, 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), andper contrathe 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.

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 stillDivine Right of Kings.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 Romanrex, 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 (seeCoronation). 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 (seeLegitimists); and even in England a remnant of enthusiasts still maintain the claims of a remote descendant of Charles I. to the throne (seeJacobites).

See J. Neville Figgis,Theory of the Divine Right of Kings(Cambridge, 1896).

(W. A. P.)

1Max Müller,Lect. Sci. Lang., 2nd series, p. 255, “All people, save those who fancy that the namekinghas something to do with a Tartarkhanor with a ‘canning’ ... man, are agreed that the Englishcyningand the Sanskritganakaboth come from the same root, from that widely spread root whence comes our own cyn or kin and the Greekγένος. The only question is whether there is any connexion betweencyningandganakacloser 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 thatcyningis 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 thecynis the ruling idea in any case; but if we make the word immediately cognate withganakawe bring in a notion about ‘the father of his people’ which has no place if we simply derivecyningfromcyn.” See also O. Schrader,Reallexikon der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde(Strassburg, 1901)s.v.“König”: thechuning(King) is but thechunni(Kin) personified; cf. A.S.léodmasc. = “prince”;léodfem. = “race,”i.e.Lat.gens.

Back to Index Next