KING-BIRD,theLanius tyrannusof Linnaeus, and theTyrannus carolinensisorT. pipiriof 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,1though, 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, orT. 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 toanimals from which it could not possibly receive any harm, and is hardly limited to any season of the year.
In several respects both of these birds, with several of their allies, resemble some of the shrikes; but it must be clearly understood that the likeness is but of analogy, and that there is no near affinity between the two familiesLaniidaeandTyrannidae, 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 smallerTyrannidaebear some analogy to certainMuscicapidae, with which they were at one time confounded (seeFlycatcher), but the difference between them is deep seated.2Nor is this all, for out of the seventy genera, or thereabouts, into which theTyrannidaehave 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 ofPasseres; and the genusTyrannus, 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 genusMuscisaxicolahave the habits and almost the appearance of wheat-ears; the genusAlectoruruscalls to mind a water-wagtail;Euscarthmusmay suggest a titmouse,Elaeniaperhaps 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-tailedMilvulus, the glory of the family may be said to culminate in the king of king-birds,Muscivora regia.
(A. N.)
1It is called in some parts the bee-martin.2Two easy modes of discriminating them externally may be mentioned. All theLaniidaeandMuscicapidaehave butnineprimary quills in their wings, and their tarsi are covered with scales in front only; while in theTyrannidaethere 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).
1It is called in some parts the bee-martin.
2Two easy modes of discriminating them externally may be mentioned. All theLaniidaeandMuscicapidaehave butnineprimary quills in their wings, and their tarsi are covered with scales in front only; while in theTyrannidaethere 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 genusLimulus, 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 whichLimulusis a synonym,TachypleusandCarcinoscorpius. InXiphosurathe 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 (seeArachnida) has two pairs of antero-lateral processes, and in the male only the ambulatory appendages of the second pair are modified as claspers. InTachypleusandCarcinoscorpius, 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.Tachypleusdiffers fromCarcinoscorpiusin 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 inCarcinoscorpius. 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 ofTachypleus,T. gigas(=moluccanus) ranges from Singapore to Torres Straits, andT. tridentatusfrom Borneo to southern Japan. A third species,T. hoeveni, has been recorded from the Moluccas. But althoughXiphosurais now so widely sundered geographically fromTachypleusandCarcinoscorpius, 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 ofXiphosura polyphemusis 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 theanimal 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 areBelinurusof the Carboniferous,Protolimulusof the Devonian, andHemiaspisof 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.)
KINGFISHER(Ger.1Königsfischer; WalloonRoi-péheux=pêcheur), theAlceḍo ispidaof 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 theserejectamentaaccumulate 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.2More 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, theAlcedinidaeorHalcyonidaeof ornithologists, which is considered by most authorities4to be closely related to theBucerotidae(seeHornbill); 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.5Herein 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,AlcedininaeandDaceloninae,6the 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 stillfurther to show the comparatively functionless character of these members, in two of the genera,AlcyoneandCeyx, 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 commonAlcedo ispida, but inSymaits edges are serrated, while inCarcineutes,DaceloandMelidorathe 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 inTanysiptera, 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. TheAlcedinidaeare 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. cervinaandD. 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 ofAlcedinidae, 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 theHalcyornis toliapicusof 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 genusLarus.
(A. N.)
1But more commonly calledEisvogel, which finds its counterpart in the Anglo-SaxonIsernorIsen.2Rolland,Faune populaire de la France, ii. 74.3In many of the islands of the Pacific Ocean the prevalent kingfisher is the object of much veneration.4Cf. Eyton,Contrib. Ornithology(1850), p. 80; Wallace,Ann. Nat. History, series 2, vol. xviii. pp. 201, 205; and Huxley,Proc. Zool. Society(1867), p. 467.5A 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).6The name of this latter sub-family as constituted by Sharpe would seem to be more correctlyCeycinae—the genusCeyx, founded in 1801 by Lacépède, being the oldest included in it. The wordDacelo, invented by Leach in 1815, is simply an anagram ofAlcedo, and, though of course without any etymological meaning, has been very generally adopted.7Cf. Wallace.Geog. Distr. Animals, ii. 315.
1But more commonly calledEisvogel, which finds its counterpart in the Anglo-SaxonIsernorIsen.
2Rolland,Faune populaire de la France, ii. 74.
3In many of the islands of the Pacific Ocean the prevalent kingfisher is the object of much veneration.
4Cf. 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.
5A 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).
6The name of this latter sub-family as constituted by Sharpe would seem to be more correctlyCeycinae—the genusCeyx, founded in 1801 by Lacépède, being the oldest included in it. The wordDacelo, invented by Leach in 1815, is simply an anagram ofAlcedo, and, though of course without any etymological meaning, has been very generally adopted.
7Cf. 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. AtPettycur, 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 elaborateHistory 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 LinnaeusMotacilla regulus, and by most modern ornithologistsRegulus 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 theSylviidaeor 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 theyear 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 asR. himalayensisandR. japonicus. North America has two well-known species,R. satrapa, very like the EuropeanR. 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; Origenap.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” (βασιλειῶν), 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.975B.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 (561B.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.
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 ascribeSuccessive Redactions.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 535B.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.
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 535B.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.
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 DeuteronomyGeneral Structure.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.” Forhis 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.1In 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 thehistoryof the past but itsreligious 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.
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)2and Judah, and (3) the separate history of Judah afterSolomon.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, withibid.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 uponv.3 (earlier Deut.), which represents the compiler’s view and (on the analogy of the framework) comes closely after ii. 12.3Ch. 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 ofais 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 afterv.53 in completer form and with a reference to the book of Jashar as source (βιβλίον τῆς ᾠδῆςספר (השיר) הישר). 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 atv.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” (‘ēdah) inv.5. There is a general similarity of subject with Deut. xxviii.
Thus iii. 2 seq. cannot be by the same hand as v. 4, and v. 2 is probably a later Deut. gloss uponv.3 (earlier Deut.), which represents the compiler’s view and (on the analogy of the framework) comes closely after ii. 12.3Ch. 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 ofais 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 afterv.53 in completer form and with a reference to the book of Jashar as source (βιβλίον τῆς ᾠδῆςספר (השיר) הישר). 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 atv.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” (‘ēdah) inv.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 furtherSolomon.)
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 theThe Divided Kingdom.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.4The story of the man of God from Judah (xiii.) is shown to be late by its general tone (conceptions of prophetism and revelation),5and by the term “cities of Samaria” (v.32, for Samaria as aprovince, 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, andbreaks 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 inv.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 betweenvv.6 and 12. Ch. xvi. 7 is a duplicate tovv.1-4 and out of place; the Septuagint inserts it in themiddleofv.8. The brief reign of Elah preserves an important entract in xvi. 9, but the date inv.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 withv.9 and is continued in the non-editorial portions of Omri’s reign (xvi. 21 seq., length of reign inv.23, andv.24). The achievements of Omri to which the editor refers can fortunately be gathered from external sources (seeOmri). 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. especiallyv.16 with 2 Sam. xx. 1); xii. 15brefers 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 invv.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,beforethe details which now precedev.21 seq.) The reign of Abijam is entirely due to the editor, whose brief statement of the war in xv. 7bis supplemented by a lengthy story in 2 Chron. xiii. (where the name is Abijah). Ch. xv. 5b(last clause) andv.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 isolatedv.15 is quite obscure and is possibly related tov.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.
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 ofEphraim from Ahab to Jehu.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)6finds its conclusion in 2 Kings i. 17 seq. wherev.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 butwithoutthe 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.