Part 35

KING [OF OCKHAM], PETER KING, 1ST BARON (1669-1734), lord chancellor of England, was born at Exeter in 1669. In his youth he was interested in early church history, and published anonymously in 1691 _An Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church that flourished within the first Three Hundred Years after Christ_. This treatise engaged the interest of his cousin, John Locke, the philosopher, by whose advice his father sent him to the university of Leiden, where he stayed for nearly three years. He entered the Middle Temple in 1694 and was called to the bar in 1698. In 1700 he was returned to parliament for Beer Alston in Devonshire; he was appointed recorder of Glastonbury in 1705 and recorder of London in 1708. He was chief justice of the common pleas from 1714 to 1725, when he was appointed speaker of the House of Lords and was raised to the peerage. In June of the same year he was made lord chancellor, holding office until compelled by a paralytic stroke to resign in 1733. He died at Ockham, Surrey, on the 22nd of July 1734. Lord King as chancellor failed to sustain the reputation which he had acquired at the common law bar. Nevertheless he left his mark on English law by establishing the principles that a will of immovable property is governed by the _lex loci rei sitae_, and that where a husband had a legal right to the personal estate of his wife, which must be asserted by a suit in equity, the court would not help him unless he made a provision out of the property for the wife, if she required it. He was also the author of the Act (4 Geo. II. c. 26) by virtue of which English superseded Latin as the language of the courts. Lord King published in 1702 a _History of the Apostles' Creed_ (Leipzig, 1706; Basel, 1750) which went through several editions and was also translated into Latin.

His great-great-grandson, WILLIAM (1805-1893), married in 1835 the only daughter of Lord Byron the poet, and was created earl of Lovelace in 1838. Another descendant, PETER JOHN LOCKE KING (1811-1885), who was member of parliament for East Surrey from 1847 to 1874, won some fame as an advocate of reform, being responsible for the passing of the Real Estate Charges Act of 1854, and for the repeal of a large number of obsolete laws.

KING (O. Eng. _cyning_, abbreviated into _cyng_, _cing_; cf. O. H. G. _chun- kuning_, _chun- kunig_, M.H.G. _künic_, _künec_, _künc_, Mod. Ger. _König_, O. Norse _konungr_, _kongr_, Swed. _konung_, _kung_), a title, in its actual use generally implying sovereignty of the most exalted rank. Any inclusive definition of the word "king" is, however, impossible. It always implies sovereignty, but in no special degree or sense; e.g. the sovereigns of the British Empire and of Servia are both kings, and so too, at least in popular parlance, are the chiefs of many barbarous peoples, e.g. the Zulus. The use of the title is, in fact, involved in considerable confusion, largely the result of historic causes. Freeman, indeed, in his _Comparative Politics_ (p. 138) says: "There is a common idea of kingship which is at once recognized however hard it may be to define it. This is shown among other things by the fact that no difficulty is ever felt as to translating the word king and the words which answer to it in other languages." This, however, is subject to considerable modification. "King," for instance, is used to translate the Homeric [Greek: anax] equally with the Athenian [Greek: Basileus] or the Roman _rex_. Yet the Homeric "kings" were but tribal chiefs; while the Athenian and Roman kings were kings in something more than the modern sense, as supreme priests as well as supreme rulers and lawgivers (see ARCHON; and ROME: _History_). In the English Bible, too, the title of king is given indiscriminately to the great king of Persia and to potentates who were little more than Oriental sheiks. A more practical difficulty, moreover, presented itself in international intercourse, before diplomatic conventions became, in the 19th century, more or less stereotyped. Originally the title of king was superior to that of emperor, and it was to avoid the assumption of the superior title of rex that the chief magistrates of Rome adopted the names of _Caesar_, _imperator_ and _princeps_ to signalize their authority. But with the development of the Roman imperial idea the title emperor came to mean more than had been involved in that of _rex_; very early in the history of the Empire there were subject kings; while with the Hellenizing of the East Roman Empire its rulers assumed the style of [Greek: basileus], no longer to be translated "king" but "emperor." From this Roman conception of the supremacy of the emperor the medieval Empire of the West inherited its traditions. With the barbarian invasions the Teutonic idea of kingship had come into touch with the Roman idea of empire and with the theocratic conceptions which this had absorbed from the old Roman and Oriental views of kingship. With these the Teutonic kingship had in its origin but little in common.

Etymologically the Romance and Teutonic words for king have quite distinct origins. The Latin _rex_ corresponds to the Sanskrit _rajah_, and meant originally steersman. The Teutonic king on the contrary corresponds to the Sanskrit _ganaka_, and "simply meant father, the father of a family, the king of his own kin, the father of a clan, the father of a people."[1] The Teutonic kingship, in short, was national; the king was the supreme representative of the people, "hedged with divinity" in so far as he was the reputed descendant of the national gods, but with none of that absolute theocratic authority associated with the titles of _rex_ or [Greek: basileus]. This, however, was modified by contact with Rome and Christianity. The early Teutonic conquerors had never lost their reverence for the Roman emperor, and were from time to time proud to acknowledge their inferiority by accepting titles, such as "patrician," by which this was implied. But by the coronation of Charles, king of the Franks, as emperor of the West, the German kingship was absorbed into the Roman imperial idea, a process which exercised a profound effect on the evolution of the Teutonic kingship generally. In the symmetrical political theory of medieval Europe pope and emperor were sun and moon, kings but lesser satellites; though the theory only partially and occasionally corresponded with the facts. But the elevation of Charlemagne had had a profound effect in modifying the _status_ of kingship in nations that never came under his sceptre nor under that of his successors. The shadowy claim of the emperors to universal dominion was in theory everywhere acknowledged; but independent kings hastened to assert their own dignity by surrounding themselves with the ceremonial forms of the Empire and occasionally, as in the case of the Saxon _bretwaldas_ in England, by assuming the imperial style. The mere fact of this usurpation showed that the title of king was regarded as inferior to that of emperor; and so it continued, as a matter of sentiment at least, down to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and the cheapening of the imperial title by its multiplication in the 19th century. To the last, moreover, the emperor retained the prerogative of creating kings, as in the case of the king of Prussia in 1701, a right borrowed and freely used by the emperor Napoleon. Since 1814 the title of king has been assumed or bestowed by a consensus of the Powers; e.g. the elector of Hanover was made king by the congress of Vienna (1814), and _per contra_ the title of king was refused to the elector of Hesse by the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818). In general the title of king is now taken to imply a sovereign and independent international position. This was implied in the recognition of the title of king in the rulers of Greece, Rumania, Servia and Bulgaria when these countries were declared absolutely independent of Turkey. The fiction of this independent sovereignty is preserved even in the case of the kings of Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, who are technically members of a free confederation of sovereign states, but are not independent, since their relations with foreign Powers are practically controlled by the king of Prussia as German emperor.

Divine Right of Kings.

The theory of the "divine right" of kings, as at present understood, is of comparatively modern growth. The principle that the kingship is "descendible in one sacred family," as George Canning put it, is not only still that of the British constitution, as that of all monarchical states, but is practically that of kingship from the beginning. This is, however, quite a different thing from asserting with the modern upholders of the doctrine of "divine right" not only that "legitimate" monarchs derive their authority from, and are responsible to, God alone, but that this authority is by divine ordinance hereditary in a certain order of succession. The power of popular election remained, even though popular choice was by custom or by religious sentiment confined within the limits of a single family. The custom of primogeniture grew up owing to the obvious convenience of a simple rule that should avoid ruinous contests; the so-called "Salic Law" went further, and by excluding females, removed another possible source of weakness. Neither did the Teutonic kingship imply absolute power. The idea of kingship as a theocratic function which played so great a part in the political controversies of the 17th century, is due ultimately to Oriental influences brought to bear through Christianity. The crowning and anointing of the emperors, borrowed from Byzantium and traceable to the influence of the Old Testament, was imitated by lesser potentates; and this "sacring" by ecclesiastical authority gave to the king a character of special sanctity. The Christian king thus became, in a sense, like the Roman _rex_, both king and priest. Shakespeare makes Richard II. say, "Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king" (act iii. sc. 2); and this conception of the kingship tended to gather strength with the weakening of the prestige of the papacy and of the clergy generally. Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes; after the Reformation he became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also. In England it is not without significance that the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy--dalmatic, alb and stole--continued to be among the insignia of the sovereign (see CORONATION). Moreover, this sacrosanct character he acquired not by virtue of his "sacring," but by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV., would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any part of their title to reign; it was no more than the consecration of their title. In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its extremest logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century. Of its exponents the most distinguished was Hobbes, the most exaggerated Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the Civil War, the royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people. In one case the king's power would be unlimited, according to Louis XIV.'s famous saying: "_L'état, c'est moi!_" or limitable only by his own free act; in the other his actions would be governed by the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would be ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I. The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr"; it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II. made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king; and the revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. These events had effects far beyond England. They served as precedents for the crusade of republican France against kings, and later for the substitution of the democratic kingship of Louis Philippe, "king of the French by the grace of God and the will of the people," for the "legitimate" kingship of Charles X., "king of France by the grace of God."

The theory of the crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action, and yet also "by the grace of God," is in strict accordance with the earliest traditions of the English kingship; but the rival theory of inalienable divine right is not dead. It is strong in Germany and especially in Prussia; it survives as a militant force among the Carlists in Spain and the Royalists in France (see LEGITIMISTS); and even in England a remnant of enthusiasts still maintain the claims of a remote descendant of Charles I. to the throne (see JACOBITES).

See J. Neville Figgis, _Theory of the Divine Right of Kings_ (Cambridge, 1896). (W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Max Müller, _Lect. Sci. Lang._, 2nd series, p. 255, "All people, save those who fancy that the name _king_ has something to do with a Tartar _khan_ or with a 'canning' ... man, are agreed that the English _cyning_ and the Sanskrit _ganaka_ both come from the same root, from that widely spread root whence comes our own cyn or kin and the Greek [Greek: genos]. The only question is whether there is any connexion between _cyning_ and _ganaka_ closer than that which is implied in their both coming from the same original root. That is to say, are we to suppose that cyning and ganaka are strictly the same word common to Sanskrit and Teutonic, or is it enough to think that _cyning_ is an independent formation made after the Teutons had separated themselves from the common stock? ... The difference between the two derivations is not very remote, as the _cyn_ is the ruling idea in any case; but if we make the word immediately cognate with _ganaka_ we bring in a notion about 'the father of his people' which has no place if we simply derive _cyning_ from _cyn_." See also O. Schrader, _Reallexikon der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde_ (Strassburg, 1901) _s.v._ "König": the _chuning_ (King) is but the _chunni_ (Kin) personified; cf. A.S. _léod_ masc. = "prince"; _léod_ fem. = "race," i.e. Lat. _gens_.

KING-BIRD, the _Lanius tyrannus_ of Linnaeus, and the _Tyrannus carolinensis_ or _T. pipiri_ of 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,[1] though, 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_, or _T. 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 to animals from which it could not possibly receive any harm, and is hardly limited to any season of the year.

[Illustration: King-Bird.]

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 families _Laniidae_ and _Tyrannidae_, 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 smaller _Tyrannidae_ bear some analogy to certain _Muscicapidae_, with which they were at one time confounded (see FLYCATCHER), but the difference between them is deep seated.[2] Nor is this all, for out of the seventy genera, or thereabouts, into which the _Tyrannidae_ have 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 of _Passeres_; and the genus _Tyrannus_, 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 genus _Muscisaxicola_ have the habits and almost the appearance of wheat-ears; the genus _Alectorurus_ calls to mind a water-wagtail; _Euscarthmus_ may suggest a titmouse, _Elaenia_ perhaps 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-tailed _Milvulus_, the glory of the family may be said to culminate in the king of king-birds, _Muscivora regia_. (A. N.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is called in some parts the bee-martin.

[2] Two easy modes of discriminating them externally may be mentioned. All the _Laniidae_ and _Muscicapidae_ have but _nine_ primary quills in their wings, and their tarsi are covered with scales in front only; while in the _Tyrannidae_ there 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).