Origin Of Kingship Research Articles

Tales of First Kings and the Culture of Kingship in the West, ca. 1050–ca. 1200

Using as its point of departure a series of regnal origin narratives from across the Latin west (though with a particular focus on Scandinavia and Central Europe), this article explores how writers of history in the high Middle Ages thought and wrote about kingship. It considers both the image of royal power conveyed, and its place within the wider intellectual and cultural context of a narrative and its production. Especially in the “new realms” emerging between the beginning of the first millennium and the early thirteenth century, the origin of kingship was a paradigmatic moment, and the exercise of kingship by first rulers was almost by definition ideal. Yet these origin tales also emerged within a specific cultural milieu. This social context, in turn, required a refashioning of regnal history to meet contemporary expectations of what this kind of writing about the past should look like. In the process, an idealized past often became a means with which to define the role of the social group for which these texts were written, and to which many of the writers themselves belonged. Much of that process of self-representation was incidental. It mattered, but it was not the main focus of these narratives. Yet exactly because of this somewhat circumstantial nature, the resulting image of kingship, and of the right ordering of a regnal community, allows us to gain better, deeper and broader understanding of the cultural framework of royal power and its exercise.

History-Writing as Protest: Kingship and the Beginning of Historical Narrative

History-Writing as Protest: Kingship and the Beginning of Historical Narrative James G. Williams Syracuse University I. Introduction This paper is an attempt to apply René Girard's mimetic theory to the origins of historical writing, specifically the composing ofIsrael's story, vis- à-vis the origin of kingship. What I do not intend to deal with is the exact chronological beginning of historical narrative in ancient Israel. Whether or not this sort of writing began immediately, it is quite clear that kingship is a problem in a way that no other office or role was in the scriptural texts. In the study of Israelite historiography and Israel's understanding of history there are many issues that have been discussed and debated. Among English speaking scholars the works of John Van Seters have been, in recent years, the most widely read on this topic.l Van Seters himself argues that the "Court History" or "Succession Narrative" in 2 Samuel and the Yahwist (J) narrative ofthe Pentateuch, or Torah, which scholars have commonly thought to be the oldest ancient Israelite history works, were composed in the exilic period (after c. 586 B.C.E.) subsequent to the completion of the "Deuteronomic work" (Josh., Judg., Books of Sam., Books of Kings). A Greek model of history writing was by then known and used by the authors of these histories previously and wrongly understood to be so old. However, prior to these historical works influenced by a Greek model was the work ofthe Deuteronomist , i.e., the books ofJoshua through Samuel, which integrated various earlier sources and traditions into a view of Israel's past that was informed by a definite theology ofhistory. This history is that of "the first known historian 1 In his approach to the texts Van Seters does not deal with any of the questions raised in the recent readings and hermeneutic approaches informed by literary theory. 92James G. Williams in Western civilization truly to deserve that designation" (Van Seters, "Search" 362). My purpose is not to argue with most of Van Seters's conclusions. In my judgment he is right to question the thesis of Hermann Gunkel and Gerhard von Rad that history writing evolved from earlier legend (Saga). I likewise agree that although there are many parallels among Israelite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Hittite texts (including divine intervention in history, as shown by Bertil Albrektson), one still does not find among these other peoples a genre that could be called historiography. Van Seters borrows Johan Huizinga 's definition of history as "the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past" ("Search" 1). I think the definition is helpful but it lacks both a generative center and a delimitation of literary form. I propose that it be changed by extending it in two respects: (1) The intellectual form of self-understanding is rooted in the sacred as its primary problematic. In this essay I will try to show that the beginning of history writing in ancient Israel both starts from and attempts to break from the ancient sacred order as mediated through the sacral institution ofkingship. (2) Concerning literary form, history in the sense intended here requires a narrative about a nation and specific individuals (even if the divine and miracles are part of this world) that is long and continuous enough to form a coherent picture ofthe significant past. There was clearly no writing like that prior to Israelite historiography. I think the main problem in Van Seters's approach is that he misses the impulse ofhistory writing. That impulse is kingship. I don't mean this simply in the older sense, going back to L. Rost and Gerhard von Rad, that history writing begins with the cultural efflorescence that emerged in the reign of Solomon (c. 960-922 B.CE.) and used even earlier sources stemming from the period of David's rule (c. 1000-960 B.CE.).2 Kingship was, rather, an office created by the fundamental dynamic of culture, namely the sacred and its mechanisms. What made Israel different, I will argue, is that it established this office, thus becoming "like all the nations," and yet many of its distinctive witnesses...

THE FEMALE PRESENCE IN HEAVENLY PLACES: MYTH AND SOVEREIGNTY IN TONGA

In a recent discussion, Valeri attempts to explain features of Tongan kingship by looking anew at myths of the origin of kingship and of kava and by highlighting the 'oedipal' and cannibalistic themes that he finds. Attempts to apply European psychoanalytic theories to nonWestern myths lead to serious error and are particularly inept in the case of Tonga. Valeri' s concentration upon male, father-son, or even elder brother-younger brother, rivalries obscures the centrality of the brothersister relation in Tongan culture and polity. I compare myths analysed by Valeri with other myths, and take into account aspects of Tongan political life and mores which he overlooked or misconstrued, in order to argue that kava may be identified with a female principle, which is crucial to the installation of all title-holders and central to the myth of the origin of the divine TuH Tonga title, the mythical divine 'king' of all Tonga. This female principle in the case of the TuH Tonga title may be further identified as the goddess Hikule'o, the most potent and enigmatic figure in the Tongan pantheon. She was ' father' s elder sister5 to Tangaloa ^Etumatupu^a the god-father of the first Tu i Tonga. In close, incestuous, relation with him, she was die heavenly agent of the resurrection of the cannibalised body of semi-divine \Aho^eitu as the divine title-holder on earth. Thus, Hkule o is the genetrix of both the Tongan religious hierarchy, expressed in the fahu, (the core of relationships between divine brother, sister, and sister's [female] child), and also the system of titles which ramified from that of the * highest' , the Tui Tonga, over generations of political struggle. The Tui Tonga offered 'first-fruits' annually to Mkuleo, as a brother's child honours his 'father's sister* or fahu. These mythical themes relate directly to the TuH Tonga's kava ceremony and may be related also to trends in Tongan political life and history where the goal has not been to kill the father to gain the mother, but to acquire in 'marriage' a high-ranking virgin, the vessel of mana (mystical potency), who is beloved of powerful brothers and both treasured and jealously guarded by them.1

Two Royal Titles of the Early Sinhalese, and the Origin of Kingship in Ancient Ceylon.

Among the royal titles used by the early Sinhalese kings there are two which, as royal titles, were not adopted by any of the dynasties known to us in India, and were therefore peculiar to Ceylon. An investigation into the history of these two titles is likely to throw some light on the origin of kingship in ancient Ceylon, and I therefore propose in this paper to pursue this line of study so far as the material available at present allows us to do so. The conclusions at which I have arrived by a study of the available data on this may not, in the present state of our knowledge, be taken as definitely established; but they might, nevertheless, be worthy of consideration by scholars interested in the early history of the Sinhalese people.

The Origin of Kingship

The Origin of Kingship