Of the more detailed narratives those that deal with the northern kingdom are scarcely Judaean (see 1 Kings xix. 3), and they do not criticize Elijah’s work, as the Judaean compiler denounces the whole history of the north. But they are plainly not of one origin. To supplement the articlesElijahandElisha, it is to be noticed that the account of Naboth’s death in the history of Elijah (1 Kings xxi.) differs in details from that in the history of Elisha and Jehu (2 Kings ix.), and the latter more precise narrative presupposes events recorded in the extant accounts of Elijah but not these events themselves. In 1 Kings xx., xxii. 1-28 (xxi. follows xix. in the LXX.) Ahab is viewed rather more favourably than in the Elijah-narratives (xix., xxi.) or in the compiler’s summary. Ch. xxii. 6, moreover, proves that there is some exaggeration in xviii. 4, 13; the great contest between Elijah and the king, between Yahweh and Baal, has been idealized. The denunciation of Ahab in xx. 35-43 has some notable points of contact with xiii. and seems to be a supplement to the preceding incidents. Ch. xxii. is important for its ideas of prophetism (especiallyvv.19-23; cf. Ezek. xiv. 9; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 [in contrast to 1 Chron. xxi. 1]); a gloss at the end ofv.28, omitted by the Septuagint, wrongly identifies Micaiah with the well-known Micah (i. 2). Although the punishment passed upon Ahab in xxi. 20 sqq. (20b-26 betray the compiler’s hand; cf. xiv. 10 seq.) is modified inv.29, this is ignored in the account of his death, xxii. 38, which takes place at Samaria (see below).The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah (2 Kings i.) is marked by the revelation through an angel. The prophet’s name appears in an unusual form (viz.ēliyyah, not -yahu), especially invv.2-8. The prediction of Ahaziah’s fate finds a parallel in 2 Chron. xxi. 12-15; the more supernatural additions have been compared with the late story in 1 Sam. xix. 18-24. The ascension of Elijah (2 Kings ii.) is related as the introduction to the work of Elisha, which apparently begins before the death of Jehoshaphat (see iii. 1, 11 sqq.; contrast 2 Chron.loc. cit.). Among the stories of Elisha are some which find him at the head of the prophetic gilds (iv. 1, 38-44, vi. 1-7), whilst in others he has friendly relations with the “king of Israel” and the court. As a personage of almost superhuman dignity he moves in certain narratives where political records appear to have been utilized to describe the activity of the prophets. The Moabite campaign (iii.) concerns a revolt already referred to in the isolated i. 1; there are parallels with the story of Jehoshaphat and Ahab (iii. 7, 11 seq.; cf. 1 Kings xxii. 4 seq., 7 sqq.), contrast, however, xxii. 7 (where Elijah is not even named) and iii. 11 seq. But Jehoshaphat’s death has been already recorded (1 Kings xxii. 50), and, while Lucian’s recension in 2 Kings iii. reads Ahaziah, i. 17 presupposes the accession of theJudaeanJehoram. Other political narratives may underlie the stories of the Aramaean wars; with vi. 24-vii. 20 (after the complete cessation of hostilities in vi. 23) compare the general style of 1 Kings xx., xxii.; with the famine in Samaria, vi. 25; cf. ibid. xvii.; with the victory, cf. ibid. xx. The account of Elisha and Hazael (viii. 7-15) implies friendly relations with Damascus (inv.12 the terrors of war are in the future), but the description of Jehu’s accession (ix.) is in the midst of hostilities. Ch. ix. 7-10aare a Deuteronomic insertion amplifying the message invv.3-6 (cf. 1 Kings xxi. 20 seq.). The origin of the repetition in ix. 14-15a(cf. viii. 28 seq.) is not clear. The oracle in ix. 25 seq. is not that in 1 Kings xxi. 19 seq., and mentions the additional detail that Naboth’s sons were slain. Here his field or portion is located near Jezreel, but in 1 Kings xxi. 18 his vineyard is by the royal palace in Samaria (cf. xxii. 38 and contrast xxi. 1, where the LXX. omits reference to Jezreel). This fluctuation reappears in 2 Kings x. 1, 11 seq., and 17; in ix. 27 compared with 2 Chron. xxii. 9; and in the singular duplication of an historical incident, viz. the war against the Aramaeans at Ramoth-Gilead (a) by Jehoshaphat and Ahab, and (b) by Ahaziah and Jehoram, in eachcase with the death of the Israelite king, at Samaria and Jezreel respectively (see above and observe the contradiction in 1 Kings xxi. 29 and xxii. 38). These and other critical questions in this section are involved with (a) the probability that Elisha’s work belongs rather to the accession of Jehu, with whose dynasty he was on most intimate terms until his death some forty-five years later (2 Kings xiii. 14-21), and (b) the problem of the wars between Israel and Syria which appear to have begun only in the time of Jehu (x. 32). SeeJew. Quart. Rev.(1908), pp. 597-630, andJews:History, § 11 seq.
Of the more detailed narratives those that deal with the northern kingdom are scarcely Judaean (see 1 Kings xix. 3), and they do not criticize Elijah’s work, as the Judaean compiler denounces the whole history of the north. But they are plainly not of one origin. To supplement the articlesElijahandElisha, it is to be noticed that the account of Naboth’s death in the history of Elijah (1 Kings xxi.) differs in details from that in the history of Elisha and Jehu (2 Kings ix.), and the latter more precise narrative presupposes events recorded in the extant accounts of Elijah but not these events themselves. In 1 Kings xx., xxii. 1-28 (xxi. follows xix. in the LXX.) Ahab is viewed rather more favourably than in the Elijah-narratives (xix., xxi.) or in the compiler’s summary. Ch. xxii. 6, moreover, proves that there is some exaggeration in xviii. 4, 13; the great contest between Elijah and the king, between Yahweh and Baal, has been idealized. The denunciation of Ahab in xx. 35-43 has some notable points of contact with xiii. and seems to be a supplement to the preceding incidents. Ch. xxii. is important for its ideas of prophetism (especiallyvv.19-23; cf. Ezek. xiv. 9; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 [in contrast to 1 Chron. xxi. 1]); a gloss at the end ofv.28, omitted by the Septuagint, wrongly identifies Micaiah with the well-known Micah (i. 2). Although the punishment passed upon Ahab in xxi. 20 sqq. (20b-26 betray the compiler’s hand; cf. xiv. 10 seq.) is modified inv.29, this is ignored in the account of his death, xxii. 38, which takes place at Samaria (see below).
The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah (2 Kings i.) is marked by the revelation through an angel. The prophet’s name appears in an unusual form (viz.ēliyyah, not -yahu), especially invv.2-8. The prediction of Ahaziah’s fate finds a parallel in 2 Chron. xxi. 12-15; the more supernatural additions have been compared with the late story in 1 Sam. xix. 18-24. The ascension of Elijah (2 Kings ii.) is related as the introduction to the work of Elisha, which apparently begins before the death of Jehoshaphat (see iii. 1, 11 sqq.; contrast 2 Chron.loc. cit.). Among the stories of Elisha are some which find him at the head of the prophetic gilds (iv. 1, 38-44, vi. 1-7), whilst in others he has friendly relations with the “king of Israel” and the court. As a personage of almost superhuman dignity he moves in certain narratives where political records appear to have been utilized to describe the activity of the prophets. The Moabite campaign (iii.) concerns a revolt already referred to in the isolated i. 1; there are parallels with the story of Jehoshaphat and Ahab (iii. 7, 11 seq.; cf. 1 Kings xxii. 4 seq., 7 sqq.), contrast, however, xxii. 7 (where Elijah is not even named) and iii. 11 seq. But Jehoshaphat’s death has been already recorded (1 Kings xxii. 50), and, while Lucian’s recension in 2 Kings iii. reads Ahaziah, i. 17 presupposes the accession of theJudaeanJehoram. Other political narratives may underlie the stories of the Aramaean wars; with vi. 24-vii. 20 (after the complete cessation of hostilities in vi. 23) compare the general style of 1 Kings xx., xxii.; with the famine in Samaria, vi. 25; cf. ibid. xvii.; with the victory, cf. ibid. xx. The account of Elisha and Hazael (viii. 7-15) implies friendly relations with Damascus (inv.12 the terrors of war are in the future), but the description of Jehu’s accession (ix.) is in the midst of hostilities. Ch. ix. 7-10aare a Deuteronomic insertion amplifying the message invv.3-6 (cf. 1 Kings xxi. 20 seq.). The origin of the repetition in ix. 14-15a(cf. viii. 28 seq.) is not clear. The oracle in ix. 25 seq. is not that in 1 Kings xxi. 19 seq., and mentions the additional detail that Naboth’s sons were slain. Here his field or portion is located near Jezreel, but in 1 Kings xxi. 18 his vineyard is by the royal palace in Samaria (cf. xxii. 38 and contrast xxi. 1, where the LXX. omits reference to Jezreel). This fluctuation reappears in 2 Kings x. 1, 11 seq., and 17; in ix. 27 compared with 2 Chron. xxii. 9; and in the singular duplication of an historical incident, viz. the war against the Aramaeans at Ramoth-Gilead (a) by Jehoshaphat and Ahab, and (b) by Ahaziah and Jehoram, in eachcase with the death of the Israelite king, at Samaria and Jezreel respectively (see above and observe the contradiction in 1 Kings xxi. 29 and xxii. 38). These and other critical questions in this section are involved with (a) the probability that Elisha’s work belongs rather to the accession of Jehu, with whose dynasty he was on most intimate terms until his death some forty-five years later (2 Kings xiii. 14-21), and (b) the problem of the wars between Israel and Syria which appear to have begun only in the time of Jehu (x. 32). SeeJew. Quart. Rev.(1908), pp. 597-630, andJews:History, § 11 seq.
In the annals of Jehu’s dynasty the editorial introduction to Jehu himself is wanting (x. 32 sqq.), although Lucian’s recension in x. 36 concludes in annalistic manner the lives of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah ofDynasty of Jehu.Judah. The summary mentions the beginning of the Aramaean wars, the continuation of which is found in the redactor’s account of his successor Jehoahaz (xiii. 1-9). But xiii. 4-6 modify the disasters, and by pointing to the “saviour” or deliverer (cf. Judg. iii. 9, 15) anticipate xiv. 27. The self-contained account of his son Jehoash (xiii. 10-13) is supplemented (a) by the story of the death of Elisha (vv.14-21) and (b) by some account of the Aramaean wars (vv.22-25), wherev.23, likevv.4-6 (Lucian’s recension actually reads it afterv.7), is noteworthy for the sympathy towards the northern kingdom. Further (c) the defeat of Amaziah of Judah appears in xiv. 8-14 after the annals of Judah, although from an Israelite source (v.11bBethshemesh defined as belonging to Judah, see alsov.15, and with the repetition of the concluding statements inv.15 seq., see xiii. 12 seq.). These features and the transference of xiii. 12 seq. after xiii. 25 in Lucian’s recension point to late adjustment. In Judaean history, Jehu’s reform and the overthrow of Jezebel in the north (ix., x. 15-28) find their counterpart in the murder of Athaliah and the destruction of the temple of Baal in Judah (xi. 18). But the framework is incomplete. The editorial conclusion of the reign of Ahaziah, the introduction to that of Athaliah, and the sources for both are wanting. A lengthy Judaean document is incorporated detailing the accession of Joash and the prominence of the abruptly introduced priest Jehoiada. The interest in the Temple and temple-procedure is obvious; and both xi. and xii. have points of resemblance with xxii. seq. (see below and cf. also xi. 4, 7, 11, 19, with 1 Kings xiv. 27 seq.). The usual epitome is found in xi. 21-xii. 3 (the age at accession should follow the synchronism, so Lucian), with fragments of annalistic matter in xii. 17-21 (another version in 2 Chron. xxiv. 23 sqq.). For Joash’s son Amaziah see above; xiv. 6 refers to Deut. xxiv. 16, and 2 Chron. xxv. 5-16 replaces v. 7 by a lengthy narrative with some interesting details. Azariah or Uzziah is briefly summarized in xv. 1-7, hence the notice in xiv. 22 seems out of place; perhaps the usual statements of Amaziah’s death and burial (cf. xiv. 20b, 22b), which were to be expected afterv.18, have been supplemented by the account of the rebellion (vv.19, 20a, 21).7The chronological notes for the accession of Azariah imply different views of the history of Judah after the defeat of Amaziah; with xiv. 17, cf. xiii. 10, xiv. 2, 23, but contrast xv. 1, and againv.8.8
The important reign of Jeroboam (2) is dismissed as briefly as that of Azariah (xiv. 23-29). The end of the Aramaean war presupposed byv.25 is supplemented by the sympathetic addition inv.26 seq. (cf. xiii. 4 seq. 23). Of his successors Zechariah, Shallum and Menahem only the briefest records remain, now imbedded in the editorial framework (xv. 8-25). The summary of Pekah (perhaps the same as Pekahiah, the confusion being due to the compiler) contains excerpts which form the continuation of the older material inv.25 (cf. alsovv.10, 14, 16, 19, 20). For an apparently similar adjustment of an earlier record to the framework see above on 1 Kings xv. 25-31, xvi. 8-25. The account of Hoshea’s conspiracy (xv. 29 seq.) gives the Israelite version with which Tiglath-Pileser’s own statement can now be compared. Two accounts of the fall of Samaria are given, one of which is under the reign of the contemporary Judaean Hezekiah (xvii. i-6, xviii. 9-12); the chronology is again intricate. Reflections on the disappearance of the northern kingdom appear in xvii. 7-23 and xviii. 12; the latter belongs to the Judaean history. The former is composite; xvii. 21-23 (cf.v.18) look back to the introduction of calf-worship by Jeroboam (1), and agree with the compiler’s usual standpoint; butvv.19-20 include Judah and presuppose the exile. The remaining verses survey types of idolatry partly of a general kind (vv.9-12, 16a), and partly characteristic of Judah in the last years of the monarchy (vv.16b, 17). The brief account of the subsequent history of Israel in xvii. 24-41 is not from one source, since the piety of the new settlers (v.32-34a, 41) conflicts with the later point of view in 34b-40. The last-mentioned supplements theepiloguein xvii. 7-23, forms a solemn conclusion to the history of the northern kingdom, and is apparently aimed at the Samaritans.
III.Later History of Judah.—The summary of Jotham (xv. 32-38) shows interest in the Temple (v.35) and alludes to the hostility of Pekah (v.37) upon which the Israelite annals are silent. 2. Chron. xxvii. expandsJudah.the former but replaces the latter by other not unrelated details (seeUzziah). But xv. 37 is resumed afresh in the account of the reign of Ahaz (xvi. 5 sqq.; the text inv.6 is confused)—another version in 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 sqq.—and is supplemented by a description, evidently from the Temple records, in which the ritual innovations by “king Ahaz” (in contrast to “Ahaz” alone invv.5-9) are described (vv.10-18). There is further variation of detail in 2 Chron. xxviii. 20-27. The summary of Hezekiah (xviii. 1-8) emphasizes his important religious reforms (greatly expanded in 2 Chron. xxix. seq. from a later standpoint), and includes two references to his military achievements. Of thesev.8 is ignored in Chron., andv.7 is supplemented by (a) the annalistic extract invv.13-16, and (b) narratives in which the great contemporary prophet Isaiah is the central figure. The latter are later than Isaiah himself (xix. 37 refers to 681B.C.) and reappear, with some abbreviation and rearrangement, in Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. (seeIsaiah). They are partly duplicate (cf. xix. 7 withvv.28, 33;vv.10-13 with xviii. 28-35), and consist of two portions, xviii. 17-xix. 8 (Isa. xxxvi. 2-xxxvii. 8) and xix. 9b-35 (Isa. xxxvii. 9b-36); to which of these xix. 9aandv.36 seq. belong is disputed. 2 Chron. xxxii. (where these accounts are condensed) is in general agreement with 2 Kings xviii. 7, as againstvv.14-16. The poetical fragment, xix. 21-28, is connected with the sign invv.29-31; both seem to break the connexion between xix. 20 and 32 sqq. Chap. xx. 1-19 appears to belong to an earlier period in Hezekiah’s reign (seev.6 and cf. 2 Chron. xxxii. 25 seq.); withvv.1-11 note carefully the forms in Isa. xxxviii. 1-8, 21 seq., and 2 Chron. xxxii. 24-26; with xx. 12-19 (Isa. xxxix) contrast the brief allusion in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. Inv.17 seq. the exile is foreshadowed. Use has probably been made of a late cycle of Isaiah-stories; such a work is actually mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. The accounts of the reactionary kings Manasseh and Amon, although now by the compiler, give some reference to political events (see xxi. 17, 23 seq.); xxi. 7-15 refer to the exile and find a parallel in xxiii. 26 seq., and xxi. 10 sqq. are replaced in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 10-20 by a novel record of Manasseh’s penitence (see also ibid.v.23 and note omission of 2 Kings xxiii. 26 from Chron).
Josiah’s reign forms the climax of the history. The usual framework (xxii. 1; 2, xxiii. 28, 30b) is supplemented by narratives dealing with the Temple repairs and the reforms of Josiah. These are closely related to xi. seq. (cf. xxii. 3-7 with xii. 4 sqq.), but show many signs of revision; xxii. 16 seq., xxiii. 26 seq., point distinctly to the exile, and xxiii. 16-20 is an insertion (the altar inv.16 is already destroyed inv.15) after 1 Kings xiii. But it is difficult elsewhere to distinguish safely between the original records and the later additions. In their present shape the reforms of Josiah are described in terms that point to an acquaintance with the teaching of Deuteronomy which promulgates the reforms themselves.9
The annalistic notice in xxiii. 29 seq. (contrast xxii. 20) should precedev.28; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-27 gives another version in the correct position and ignores 2 Kings xxiii. 24-27 (see however the Septuagint). For the last four kings of Judah, the references to the worship at the high places (presumably abolished by Josiah) are wanting, and the literary source is only cited for Jehoiakim; xxiv. 3 seq. (and probablyv.2), which treat the fall of Judah as the punishment for Manasseh’s sins, are a Deuteronomistic insertion (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 sqq. differs widely; see, however, the Septuagint);v.13 seq. andv.15 seq. are duplicates. With xxiv. 18-xxv. 21 cf. Jer. lii. 1-27 (the text of the latter, especiallyvv.19 sqq. is superior); and the fragmentsibid.xxxix. 1-10. Ch. xxv. 22-26 appears in much fuller form in Jer. xl. seq. (see xl. 7-9, xli. 1-3, 17 seq.). It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not enter into the history in Kings (contrast Isaiah above). The book of Chronicles in general has a briefer account of the last years, and ignores both the narratives which also appear in Jeremiah and the concluding hopeful note struck by the restoration of Jehoiachin (xxv. 27-30). This last, with the addition of statistical data, forms the present conclusion also of the book of Jeremiah.
The annalistic notice in xxiii. 29 seq. (contrast xxii. 20) should precedev.28; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-27 gives another version in the correct position and ignores 2 Kings xxiii. 24-27 (see however the Septuagint). For the last four kings of Judah, the references to the worship at the high places (presumably abolished by Josiah) are wanting, and the literary source is only cited for Jehoiakim; xxiv. 3 seq. (and probablyv.2), which treat the fall of Judah as the punishment for Manasseh’s sins, are a Deuteronomistic insertion (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 sqq. differs widely; see, however, the Septuagint);v.13 seq. andv.15 seq. are duplicates. With xxiv. 18-xxv. 21 cf. Jer. lii. 1-27 (the text of the latter, especiallyvv.19 sqq. is superior); and the fragmentsibid.xxxix. 1-10. Ch. xxv. 22-26 appears in much fuller form in Jer. xl. seq. (see xl. 7-9, xli. 1-3, 17 seq.). It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not enter into the history in Kings (contrast Isaiah above). The book of Chronicles in general has a briefer account of the last years, and ignores both the narratives which also appear in Jeremiah and the concluding hopeful note struck by the restoration of Jehoiachin (xxv. 27-30). This last, with the addition of statistical data, forms the present conclusion also of the book of Jeremiah.
Conclusions.—A survey of these narratives as a whole strengthens our impression of the merely mechanical character of the redaction by which they are united. Though editors have written something of their own in almost every chapter, generally from the standpoint of religious pragmatism, there is not the least attempt to work the materials into a history in our sense of the word; and in particular the northern and southern histories are practically independent, being merely pieced together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with the chronological system, which we have seen to be really later than the main redaction. It is very probable that the order of the pieces was considerably readjusted by the author of the chronology; of this indeed the Septuagint still shows traces. But with all its imperfections as judged from a modern standpoint, the redaction has the great merit of preserving material nearer to the actual history than would have been the case had narratives been rewritten from much later standpoints—as often in the book of Chronicles.
Questions of date and of the growth of the literary process are still unsettled, but it is clear that there was an independent history of (north) Israel with its own chronological scheme. It was based upon annals and fuller political records, and at some period apparently passed through circles where the purely domestic stories of the prophets (Elisha) were current.10This was ultimately taken over by a Judaean editor who was under the influence of the far-reaching reforms ascribed to the 18th year of Josiah (621B.C.). Certain passages seem to imply that in his time the Temple was still standing and the Davidic dynasty uninterrupted. Also the phrase “unto this day” sometimes apparently presupposes a pre-exilic date. On the other hand, the history is carried down to the end of Jehoiachin’s life (xxv. 27 refers to his fifty-fifth year,vv.29 seq. look back on his death), and a number of allusions point decisively to the post-exilic period. Consequently, most scholars are agreed that an original pre-exilic Deuteronomic compilation made shortly after Josiah’s reforms received subsequent additions from a later Deuteronomic writer.
These questions depend upon several intricate literary and historical problems. At the outset (a) the compiler deals with history from the Deuteronomic standpoint, selecting certain notices and referring further toseparatechronicles of Israel and Judah. The canonical book of Chronicles refers to such acombinedwork, but is confined to Judah; it follows the religious judgment passed upon the kings, but it introduces new details apparently derived from extant annals, replaces the annalistic excerpts found in Kings by other passages, or uses new narratives which at times are clearly based upon older sources. Next (b) the Septuagint proves that Kings did not reach its present form until a very late date; “each represents a stage and not always the same stage in the long protracted labours of the redactors” (Kuenen).11In agreement with this are the unambiguous indications of the post-exilic age (especially in the Judaean history) consisting of complete passages, obvious interpolations, and also sporadic phrases in narratives whose pre-exilic origin is sometimes clear and sometimes only to be presumed. Further (c), the Septuagint supports the independent conclusion that the elaborate synchronisms belong to a late stage in the redaction. Consequently it is necessary to allow that the previous arrangement of the material may have been different; the actual wording of the introductory notices was necessarily also affected. In general, it becomes ever more difficult to distinguish between passages incorporated by an early redactor and those which may have been inserted later, though possibly from old sources. Where the regular framework is disturbed such considerations become more cogent. The relation of annalistic materials in 1 Sam. (xiii. i; xiv. 47-51, &c.) to the longer detailed narratives will bear upon the question, as also the relation of 2 Sam. ix-xx. to 1 Kings i. seq. (seeSamuel, Books of). Again (d) the lengths of the reigns of the Judaean kings form an integral part of the framework, and their total, with fifty years of exile, allows four hundred and eighty years from the beginning of the Temple to the return from Babylon.12This round number (cf. again 1 Kings vi. 1) points to a date subsequent to 537, and Robertson Smith has observed that almost all events dated by the years of the kings of Jerusalem have reference to the affairs of the Temple. This suggests a connexion between the chronology and the incorporation of those narratives in which the Temple is clearly the centre of interest. (e) But, apart from the question of the origin of the more detailed Judaean records, the arguments for a pre-exilic Judaean Deuteronomic compilation are not quite decisive. The phrase “unto this day” is not necessarily valid (cf. 2 Chron. v. 9, viii. 8, xxi. 10 with 1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, 2 Kings viii. 22), and depends largely upon the compiler’s sagacity. Also, the existence of the Temple and of the Davidic dynasty (1 Kings viii. 14-53; ix. 3; xi. 36-38; xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19; cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 5) is equally applicable to the time of the second temple when Zerubbabel, the Davidic representative, kindled new hopes and aspirations. Indeed, if the object of the Deuteronomic compiler is to show from past history that “the sovereign is responsible for the purity of the national religion” (Moore,Ency. Bib.col. 2079), a date somewhere after the death of Jehoiachin (released in 561) in the age of Zerubbabel and the new Temple equally satisfies the conditions. With this is concerned (f) the question whether, on historical grounds, the account of the introduction of Deuteronomic reforms by Josiah is trustworthy.13Moreover, although a twofold Deuteronomic redaction of Kings is generally recognized, the criteria for the presumably pre-exilic form are not so decisive as those which certainly distinguish the post-exilic portions, and it is frequently very difficult to assign Deuteronomic passages to the earlier rather than to the later. Again, apart from the contrast between the Israelite detailed narratives (relatively early) and those of Judaean origin (often secondary), it is noteworthy that the sympathetic treatment of northern history in 2 Kings xiii. 4 seq. 23, xiv. 26 has literary parallels in the Deuteronomic redaction of Judges (where Israelite tradition is again predominant), but is quite distinct from the hostile feeling to the north which is also Deuteronomic. Even the northern prophet Hosea (q.v.) approximates the Deuteronomic standpoint, and the possibility that the first Deuteronomic compilation of Kings could originate outside Judah isstrengthened by the fact that an Israelite source could be drawn upon for an impartial account of Judaean history (2 Kings xiv. 8-15). Finally, (g) literary and historical problems here converge. Although Judaean writers ultimately rejected as heathen a people who could claim to be followers of Yahweh (Ezra iv. 2; 2 Kings xvii. 28, 33; contrast ibid. 34-40, asecondaryinsertion), the anti-Samaritan feeling had previously been at most only in an incipient stage, and there is reason to infer that relations between the peoples of north and south had been closer.14The book of Kings reveals changing historical conditions in its literary features, and it is significant that the very age where the background is to be sought is that which has been (intentionally?) left most obscure: the chronicler’s history of the Judaean monarchy (Chron.—Ezra—Nehemiah), as any comparison will show, has its own representation of the course of events, and has virtually superseded both Kings and Jeremiah, which have now an abrupt conclusion. (See further S. A. Cook,Jew. Quart. Rev.(1907), pp. 158 sqq.; and the articlesJews:History, §§ 20, 22;Palestine:History).
Literature.—A. Kuenen,Einleitung; J. Wellhausen,Compos. d. Hexateuch, pp. 266-302; H. Winckler,Alttest. Untersuchungen(1892); and B. Stade,Akademische Reden(1899; on 1 Kings v.-vii.; 2 Kings x.-xiv.; xv.-xxi.); S. R. Driver,Lit. of O. T.(1909); see also C. Holzhey,Das Buch. d. Könige(1899); the commentaries of Benzinger (1899) and Kittel (1900), and especially F. C. Kent,Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narr.(1905). The article by W. R. Smith,Ency. Brit., 9th ed. (partly retained here), is revised and supplemented by E. Kautzsch in theEncy. Bib.For the Hebrew text see Klostermann’sSam. u. Könige(1887); C. F. Burney,Notes on the Hebrew Text(1903); and Stade and Schwally’s edition in Haupt’sSacred Books of the Old Testament(1904). For English readers, J. Skinner’s commentary in theCentury Bible, and W. E. Barnes in theCambridge Bible, are useful introductions.
Literature.—A. Kuenen,Einleitung; J. Wellhausen,Compos. d. Hexateuch, pp. 266-302; H. Winckler,Alttest. Untersuchungen(1892); and B. Stade,Akademische Reden(1899; on 1 Kings v.-vii.; 2 Kings x.-xiv.; xv.-xxi.); S. R. Driver,Lit. of O. T.(1909); see also C. Holzhey,Das Buch. d. Könige(1899); the commentaries of Benzinger (1899) and Kittel (1900), and especially F. C. Kent,Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narr.(1905). The article by W. R. Smith,Ency. Brit., 9th ed. (partly retained here), is revised and supplemented by E. Kautzsch in theEncy. Bib.For the Hebrew text see Klostermann’sSam. u. Könige(1887); C. F. Burney,Notes on the Hebrew Text(1903); and Stade and Schwally’s edition in Haupt’sSacred Books of the Old Testament(1904). For English readers, J. Skinner’s commentary in theCentury Bible, and W. E. Barnes in theCambridge Bible, are useful introductions.
(S. A. C.)
1Cp. the brief annalistic form of the Babylonian chronicles (for a specimen, see C. F. Kent,Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives, p. 502 seq.). For a synchronistic history of Assyria and Babylonia, prepared for diplomatic purposes, see Schrader’sKeilinschr. Bibl.i. 194 sqq.; also L. W. King,Studies in Eastern Hist.i. (Tukulti-Ninib), pp. i, 75 seq. (with interesting variant traditions).2The term “Israel” as applied to the northern kingdom is apt to be ambiguous, since as a general national name, with a religious significance, it can include or suggest the inclusion of Judah.3Here and elsewhere a careful study (e.g.of the marginal references in the Revised Version) will prove the close relation between the “Deuteronomic” passages and the book of Deuteronomy itself. The bearing of this upon the traditional date of that book should not be overlooked.4See art.Jeroboam; also W. R. Smith,Old Test. in Jew. Church, pp. 117 sqq.; H. Winckler,Alttest. Untersuchungen, pp. 1 sqq., and the subsequent criticisms by C. F. Burney (Kings, pp. 163 sqq.); J. Skinner (Kings, pp. 443 sqq.); and Ed. Meyer (Israeliten u. Nachbarstämme, pp. 357 sqq.).5Notice should everywhere be taken of those prophetical stories which have the linguistic features of the Deuteronomic writers, or which differ in style and expression from the prophecies of Amos, Hosea and others, previous to Jeremiah.6The division of the two books at this point is an innovation first made in the LXX. and Vulgate.7Both xiv. 22 and xv. 5 presuppose fuller records of which 2 Chron. xxvi. 6-7, 16-20 may represent merely later and less trustworthy versions.8See F. Rühl,Deutsche Zeit. f. Geschichtwissens, xii. 54 sqq.; alsoJews:History, § 12.9See further the special study by E. Day,Journ. Bib. Lit.(1902), pp. 197 sqq.10Cf. similarly the prophetic narratives in the books of Samuel (q.v.).11“The LXX. of Kings is not a corrupt reproduction of the Hebrewreceptus, but represents another recension of the text. Neither recension can claim absolute superiority. The defects of the LXX. lie on the surface, and are greatly aggravated by the condition of the Greek text, which has suffered much in transmission, and particularly has in many places been corrected after the later Greek versions that express the Hebrewreceptusof the 2nd century of our era. Yet the LXX. not only preserves many good readings in detail, but throws much light on the long-continued process of redaction at the hand of successive editors or copyists of which the extant Hebrew of Kings is the outcome. Even the false readings of the Greek are instructive, for both recensions were exposed to corrupting influences of precisely the same kind” (W. R. Smith).12See W. R. Smith,Journ. of Philology, x. 209 sqq.;Prophets of Israel, p. 147. seq.; and K. Marti,Ency. Bib.art. “Chronology.”13Against earlier doubts by Havet (1878), Vernes (1887) and Horst (1888), see W. E. Addis,Documents of Hexateuch, ii. 2 sqq.; but the whole question has been reopened by E. Day (loc. cit. above) and R. H. Kennett (Journ. Theol. Stud., July 1906, 481 sqq.).14See Kennett.Journ. Theol. Stud.1905, pp. 169 sqq.; 1906, pp. 488 sqq.; and cf. J. A. Montgomery,The Samaritans(1907), pp. 47, 53 seq., 57, 59, 61 sqq.
1Cp. the brief annalistic form of the Babylonian chronicles (for a specimen, see C. F. Kent,Israel’s Hist. and Biog. Narratives, p. 502 seq.). For a synchronistic history of Assyria and Babylonia, prepared for diplomatic purposes, see Schrader’sKeilinschr. Bibl.i. 194 sqq.; also L. W. King,Studies in Eastern Hist.i. (Tukulti-Ninib), pp. i, 75 seq. (with interesting variant traditions).
2The term “Israel” as applied to the northern kingdom is apt to be ambiguous, since as a general national name, with a religious significance, it can include or suggest the inclusion of Judah.
3Here and elsewhere a careful study (e.g.of the marginal references in the Revised Version) will prove the close relation between the “Deuteronomic” passages and the book of Deuteronomy itself. The bearing of this upon the traditional date of that book should not be overlooked.
4See art.Jeroboam; also W. R. Smith,Old Test. in Jew. Church, pp. 117 sqq.; H. Winckler,Alttest. Untersuchungen, pp. 1 sqq., and the subsequent criticisms by C. F. Burney (Kings, pp. 163 sqq.); J. Skinner (Kings, pp. 443 sqq.); and Ed. Meyer (Israeliten u. Nachbarstämme, pp. 357 sqq.).
5Notice should everywhere be taken of those prophetical stories which have the linguistic features of the Deuteronomic writers, or which differ in style and expression from the prophecies of Amos, Hosea and others, previous to Jeremiah.
6The division of the two books at this point is an innovation first made in the LXX. and Vulgate.
7Both xiv. 22 and xv. 5 presuppose fuller records of which 2 Chron. xxvi. 6-7, 16-20 may represent merely later and less trustworthy versions.
8See F. Rühl,Deutsche Zeit. f. Geschichtwissens, xii. 54 sqq.; alsoJews:History, § 12.
9See further the special study by E. Day,Journ. Bib. Lit.(1902), pp. 197 sqq.
10Cf. similarly the prophetic narratives in the books of Samuel (q.v.).
11“The LXX. of Kings is not a corrupt reproduction of the Hebrewreceptus, but represents another recension of the text. Neither recension can claim absolute superiority. The defects of the LXX. lie on the surface, and are greatly aggravated by the condition of the Greek text, which has suffered much in transmission, and particularly has in many places been corrected after the later Greek versions that express the Hebrewreceptusof the 2nd century of our era. Yet the LXX. not only preserves many good readings in detail, but throws much light on the long-continued process of redaction at the hand of successive editors or copyists of which the extant Hebrew of Kings is the outcome. Even the false readings of the Greek are instructive, for both recensions were exposed to corrupting influences of precisely the same kind” (W. R. Smith).
12See W. R. Smith,Journ. of Philology, x. 209 sqq.;Prophets of Israel, p. 147. seq.; and K. Marti,Ency. Bib.art. “Chronology.”
13Against earlier doubts by Havet (1878), Vernes (1887) and Horst (1888), see W. E. Addis,Documents of Hexateuch, ii. 2 sqq.; but the whole question has been reopened by E. Day (loc. cit. above) and R. H. Kennett (Journ. Theol. Stud., July 1906, 481 sqq.).
14See Kennett.Journ. Theol. Stud.1905, pp. 169 sqq.; 1906, pp. 488 sqq.; and cf. J. A. Montgomery,The Samaritans(1907), pp. 47, 53 seq., 57, 59, 61 sqq.
KING’S BENCH, COURT OF,in England, one of the superior courts of common law. This court, the most ancient of English courts—in its correct legal title, “the court of the king before the king himself,”coram ipso rege—is far older than parliament itself, for it can be traced back clearly, both in character and the essence of its jurisdiction, to the reign of King Alfred. The king’s bench, and the two offshoots of theaula regia, the common pleas and the exchequer, for many years possessed co-ordinate jurisdiction, although there were a few cases in which each had exclusive authority, and in point of dignity precedence was given to the court of king’s bench, the lord chief justice of which was also styled lord chief justice of England, being the highest permanent judge of the Crown. The court of exchequer attended to the business of the revenue, the common pleas to private actions between citizens, and the king’s bench retained criminal cases and such other jurisdiction as had not been divided between the other two courts. By an act of 1830 the court of exchequer chamber was constituted as a court of appeal for errors in law in all three courts. Like the court of exchequer, the king’s bench assumed by means of an ingenious fiction the jurisdiction in civil matters which properly belonged to the common pleas.
Under the Judicature Act 1873 the court of king’s bench became the king’s bench division of the High Court of Justice. It consists of the lord chief justice and fourteen puisne judges. It exercises original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction from the county courts and other inferior courts. By the act of 1873 (sec. 45) this appellate jurisdiction is conferred upon the High Court generally, but in practice it is exercised by a divisional court of the king’s bench division only. The determination of such appeals by the High Court is final, unless leave to appeal is given by the court which heard the appeal or by the court of appeal. There was an exception to this rule as regards certain orders of quarter sessions, the history of which involves some complication. But by sec. 1 (5) of the Court of Session Act 1894 the rule applies to all cases where there is a right of appeal to the High Court from any court or person. It may be here mentioned that if leave is given to appeal to the court of appeal there is a further appeal to the House of Lords, except in bankruptcy (Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts) Act 1884), when the decision of the court of appeal on appeal from a divisional court sitting in appeal is made final and conclusive.
There are masters in the king’s bench division. Unlike the masters in the chancery division, they have original jurisdiction, and are not attached to any particular judge. They hear applications in chambers, act as taxing masters and occasionally as referees to conduct inquiries, take accounts, and assess damages. There is an appeal from the master to the judge in chambers. Formerly there was an appeal from the judge in chambers to a divisional court in every case and thence to the court of appeal, until the multiplication of appeals in small interlocutory matters became a scandal. Under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act 1894 there is no right of appeal to the court of appeal in any interlocutory matters (except those mentioned in subs. (b)) without the leave of the judge or of the court of appeal, and in matters of “practice and procedure” the appeal lies (with leave) directly to the court of appeal from the judge in chambers.
KINGSBRIDGE,a market town in the Totnes parliamentary division of Devonshire, England, 48 m. S.S.W. of Exeter, on a branch of the Great Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 3025. It lies 6 m. from the English Channel, at the head of an inlet or estuary which receives only small streams, on a sharply sloping site. The church of St Edmund is mainly Perpendicular, but there are Transitional Norman and Early English portions. The town-hall contains a natural history museum. A house called Pindar Lodge stands on the site of the birthplace of John Wolcot (“Peter Pindar,” 1738-1819). William Cookworthy (1705-1780), a porcelain manufacturer, the first to exploit the deposits of kaolin in the south-west of England, was also born at Kingsbridge. The township of Dodbrooke, included within the civil parish, adjoins Kingsbridge on the north-east. Some iron-founding and ship-building, with a coasting trade, are carried on.
Kingsbridge (Kyngysbrygge) was formerly included in the manor of Churchstow, the first trace of its separate existence being found in the Hundred Roll of 1276, which records that in the manor of Churchstow there is a new borough, which has a Friday market and a separate assize of bread and ale. The name Kingsbridge however does not appear till half a century later. When Kingsbridge became a separate parish is not certainly known, but it was before 1414 when the church was rebuilt and consecrated to St Edmund. In 1461 the abbot of Buckfastleigh obtained a Saturday market at Kingsbridge and a three-days’ fair at the feast of St Margaret, both of which are still held. The manor remained in possession of the abbot until the Dissolution, when it was granted to Sir William Petre. Kingsbridge was never represented in parliament or incorporated by charter, the government being by a portreeve, and down to the present day the steward of the manor holds a court leet and court baron and appoints a portreeve and constables. In 1798 the town mills were converted into a woollen manufactory, which up to recent times produced large quantities of cloth, and the serge manufacture was introduced early in the 19th century. The town has been famous from remote times for a beverage called “white ale.” Included in Kingsbridge is the little town of Dodbrooke, which at the time of the Domesday Survey had a population of 42, and a flock of 108 sheep and 27 goats; and in 1257 was granted a Wednesday market and a fair at the Feast of St Mary Magdalene.
See “Victoria County History”:Devonshire; Kingsbridge and Sulcombe, with the intermediate Estuary, historically and topographically depicted(Kingsbridge, 1819); S. F. Fox,Kingsbridge Estuary(Kingsbridge, 1864).
See “Victoria County History”:Devonshire; Kingsbridge and Sulcombe, with the intermediate Estuary, historically and topographically depicted(Kingsbridge, 1819); S. F. Fox,Kingsbridge Estuary(Kingsbridge, 1864).
KING’S COUNTY,a county of Ireland in the province of Leinster, bounded N. by Meath and Westmeath, W. by Roscommon, Galway and Tipperary (the boundary with the first two counties being the river Shannon); S. by Tipperary and Queen’s County, and E. by Kildare. The area is 493,999 acres or about 772 sq. m. The greater part of the county is included in the central plain of Ireland. In the south-east the Slieve Bloom Mountains form theboundary between King’s County and Queen’s County, and run into the former county from south-west to north-east for a distance of about 20 m. consisting of a mass of lofty and precipitous crags through which there are two narrow passes, the Black Gap and the Gap of Glandine. In the north-east Croghan Hill, a beautiful green eminence, rises to a height over 700 ft. The remainder of the county is flat, but a range of low hills crosses its north-eastern division to the north of the Barrow. In the centre of the county from east to west a large portion is occupied by the Bog of Allen. The county shares in the advantage of the navigation of the Shannon, which skirts its western side. The Brosna, which issues from Loch Ennell in Westmeath, enters the county near the town of Clara, and flowing south-westwards across its north-west corner, discharges itself into the Shannon after receiving the Clodagh and the Broughill. A small portion of the north-eastern extremity is skirted by the upper Boyne. The Barrow forms the south-eastern boundary with Queen’s County. The Little Brosna, which rises in the Slieve Bloom Mountains, forms the boundary of King’s County with Tipperary, and falls into the Shannon.
This county lies in the great Carboniferous Limestone plain, with clay-soils and bogs upon its surface, and many drier deposits of esker-gravels rising as green hills above the general level. The Slieve Bloom Mountains, consisting of Old Red Sandstone with Silurian inliers, form a bold feature in the south. North of Philipstown, the prominent mass of Croghan Hill is formed of basic volcanic rocks contemporaneous with the Carboniferous Limestone, and comparable with those in Co. Limerick.
Notwithstanding the large area occupied by bogs, the climate is generally healthy, and less moist than that of several neighbouring districts. The whole of the county would appear to have been covered formerly by a vast forest, and the district bordering on Tipperary is still richly wooded. The soil naturally is not of great fertility except in special cases, but is capable of being rendered so by the judicious application of bog and lime manures according to its special defects. It is generally either a deep bog or a shallow gravelly loam. On the borders of the Slieve Bloom Mountains there are some very rich and fertile pastures, and there are also extensive grazing districts on the borders of Westmeath, which are chiefly occupied by sheep. Along the banks of the Shannon there are some fine tracts of meadow land. With the exception of the tract occupied by the Bog of Allen, the remainder of the county is nearly all under tillage, the most productive portion being that to the north-west of the Hill of Croghan. The percentage of tillage to pasture is roughly as 1 to 2¼. Oats, barley and rye, potatoes and turnips, are all considerably grown; wheat is almost neglected, and the acreage of all crops has a decreasing tendency. Cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry are bred increasingly; dairies are numerous in the north of the county, and the sheep are pastured chiefly in the hilly districts.
The county is traversed from S.E. to N.W. by the Portarlington, Tullamore, Clara and Athlone line of the Great Southern and Western railway, with a branch from Clara to Banagher; from Roscrea (Co. Tipperary) a branch of this company runs to Parsonstown (Birr); while the Midland Great Western has branches from its main line from Enfield (Co. Kildare) to Edenderry, and from Streamstown (Co. Westmeath) to Clara. The Grand Canal runs through the length of the county from east to west, entering the Shannon at Shannon harbour.
The population (65,563 in 1891; 60,187 in 1901), decreasing through emigration, includes about 89% of Roman Catholics. The decrease is rather below the average. The chief towns are Tullamore (the county town, pop. 4639) and Birr or Parsonstown (4438), with Edenderry and Clara. Philipstown near Tullamore was formerly the capital of the county and was the centre of the kingdom of Offaly. The county comprises 12 baronies and 46 civil parishes. It returns two members to parliament, for the Birr and Tullamore divisions respectively. Previous to the Union, King’s County returned six members to parliament, two for the county, and two for each of the boroughs of Philipstown and Banagher. Assizes are held at Tullamore and quarter sessions at Parsonstown, Philipstown and Tullamore. The county is divided into the Protestant dioceses of Killaloe, Meath and Ossory; and the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ardagh, Kildare and Leighlin, Ossory and Clonfert.
King’s County, with portions of Tipperary, Queen’s County and Kildare, at an early period formed one kingdom under the name of Offaly, a title which it retained after the landing of the English. Subsequently it was known as Glenmallery, Western Glenmallery pretty nearly corresponding to the present King’s County, and Eastern Glenmallery to Queen’s County. By a statute of 1556 the western district was constituted a shire under the name of King’s County in honour of Philip, consort of Queen Mary—the principal town, formerly the seat of the O’Connors, being called Philipstown; and the eastern district at the same time received the name of Queen’s County in honour of Mary. Perhaps the oldest antiquarian relic is the large pyramid of white stones in the Slieve Bloom Mountains called the Temple of the Sun or the White Obelisk. There are a considerable number of Danish raths, and a chain of moats commanding the passes of the bogs extended throughout the county. On the borders of Tipperary is an ancient causeway leading presumably to a crannog or lake-dwelling. The most important ecclesiastical ruins are those of the seven churches of Clonmacnoise (q.v.) on the Shannon in the north-west of the county, where an abbey was founded by St Kieran in 648, and where the remains include those of churches, two round towers, crosses, inscribed stones and a castle. Among the more famous religious houses in addition to Clonmacnoise were Durrow Abbey, founded by St Columba in 550; Monasteroris founded in the 14th century by John Bermingham, earl of Louth; and Seirkyran Abbey, founded in the beginning of the 5th century. The principal old castles are Rathmore, probably the most ancient in the county; Banagher, commanding an important pass on the Shannon; Leap Castle, in the Slieve Bloom Mountains; and Birr or Parsonstown, now the seat of the earl of Rosse.
KINGSDOWN, THOMAS PEMBERTON LEIGH,Baron(1793-1867), the eldest son of Thomas Pemberton, a chancery barrister, was born in London on the 11th of February 1793. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1816, and at once acquired a lucrative equity practice. He sat in parliament for Rye (1831-1832) and for Ripon (1835-1843). He was made a king’s counsel in 1829. Of a retiring disposition, he seldom took part in parliamentary debates, although in 1838 in the case ofStockdalev.Hansardhe took a considerable part in upholding the privileges of parliament. In 1841 he accepted the post of attorney-general for the duchy of Cornwall. In 1842 a relative, Sir Robert H. Leigh, left him a life interest in his Wigan estates, amounting to some £15,000 a year; he then assumed the additional surname of Leigh. Having accepted the chancellorship of the duchy of Cornwall and a privy councillorship, he became a member of the judicial committee of the privy council, and for nearly twenty years devoted his energies and talents to the work of that body; his judgments, more particularly in prize cases, of which he took especial charge, are remarkable not only for legal precision and accuracy, but for their form and expression. In 1858, on the formation of Lord Derby’s administration, he was offered the Great Seal, but declined; in the same year, however, he was raised to the peerage as Baron Kingsdown. He died at his seat, Lorry Hill, near Sittingbourne, Kent, on the 7th of October 1867. Lord Kingsdown never married, and his title became extinct.
SeeRecollections of Life at the Bar and in Parliament, by Lord Kingsdown (privately printed for friends, 1868);The Times(8th of October 1867).
SeeRecollections of Life at the Bar and in Parliament, by Lord Kingsdown (privately printed for friends, 1868);The Times(8th of October 1867).
KING’S EVIL,an old, but not yet obsolete, name given to the scrofula, which in the popular estimation was deemed capable of cure by the royal touch. The practice of “touching” for the scrofula, or “King’s Evil,” was confined amongst the nations of Europe to the two Royal Houses of England and France. As the monarchs of both these countries owned the exclusive right of being anointed with the pure chrism, and not with the ordinary sacred oil, it has been surmised that the common belief in the sanctity of the chrism was in some manner inseparably connectedwith faith in the healing powers of the royal touch. The kings both of France and England claimed a sole and special right to this supernatural gift: the house of France deducing its origin from Clovis (5th century) and that of England declaring Edward th e Confessor the first owner of this virtue. That the Saxon origin of the royal power of healing was the popular theory in England is evident from the striking and accurate description of the ceremony inMacbeth(act vi. scene iii.). Nevertheless the practice of this rite cannot be traced back to an earlier date than the reign of Edward III. in England, and of St Louis (Louis IX.) in France; consequently, it is believed that the performance of healing by the touch emanated in the first instance from the French Crusader-King, whose miraculous powers were subsequently transmitted to his descendant and representative, Isabella of Valois, wife of Edward II. of England. In any case, Queen Isabella’s son and heir, Edward III., claimant to the French throne through his mother, was the first English king to order a public display of an attribute that had hitherto been associated with the Valois kings alone. From his reign dates the use of the “touch-piece,” a gold medal given to the sufferer as a kind of talisman, which was originally the angel coin, stamped with designs of St Michael and of a three-masted ship.
The actual ceremony seems first to have consisted of the sovereign’s personal act of washing the diseased flesh with water, but under Henry VII. the use of an ablution was omitted, and a regular office was drawn up for insertion in the Service Book. At the “Ceremonies for the Healing” the king now merely touched his afflicted subject in the presence of the court chaplain who offered up certain prayers and afterwards presented the touch-piece, pierced so that it might be suspended by a ribbon round the patient’s neck. Henry VII.’s office was henceforth issued with variations from time to time under successive kings, nor did it disappear from certain editions of the Book of Common Prayer until the middle of the 18th century. The practice of the Royal Healing seems to have reached the height of its popularity during the reign of Charles II., who is stated on good authority to have touched over 100,000 strumous persons. So great a number of applicants becoming a nuisance to the Court, it was afterwards enacted that special certificates should in future be granted to individuals demanding the touch, and such certificates are occasionally to be found amongst old parish registers of the close of the 17th century. After the Revolution, William of Orange refused to touch, and referred all applicants to the exiled James II. at St Germain; but Queen Anne touched frequently, one of her patients being Dr Samuel Johnson in his infancy. The Hanoverian kings declined to touch, and there exists no further record of any ceremony of healing henceforward at the English court. The practice, however, was continued by the exiled Stuarts, and was constantly performed in Italy by James Stuart, “the Old Pretender,” and by his two sons, Charles and Henry (Cardinal York).