sacred kingship

sacred kingship, religious and political concept by which a ruler is seen as an incarnation, manifestation, mediator, or agent of the sacred or holy (the transcendent or supernatural realm). The concept originated in prehistoric times, but it continues to exert a recognizable influence in the modern world. At one time, when religion was totally connected with the whole existence of the individual as well as that of the community and when kingdoms were in varying degrees connected with religious powers or religious institutions, there could be no kingdom that was not in some sense sacral.

Among the many possible kinds of sacral kingdoms, there was a special type in which the king was regarded and revered as a god—the god-kingdom, a polity of which there were three forms: preliminary, primary, and secondary. The preliminary form exists in cultures in which the chieftain is regarded as divine. The primary form was the god-kingdom of the large empires of the ancient Middle East and East Asia, of ancient Iran, and of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and South America. The secondary form occurred in the Persian, Hellenistic (Greco-Roman cultural), and European empires. Between these three forms there are many transitional types.

Principal schools of interpretation

The phenomenon of sacred kingship was known and described in ancient times by various travelers, including Aristotle in the 4th century bc and the 1st-century-bc Greek geographers and historians Strabo and Diodorus Siculus. The study of sacred kingship, however, was introduced when the British anthropologist Sir James Frazer published The Golden Bough (1890–1915). Taking his comprehensive material from ethnological reports and studies, Frazer concentrated on the preliminary stage. With the discovery of texts in cuneiform writing in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, a new stage of research began. Called Pan-Babylonism by some scholars, the theories based on the results of these discoveries placed the god-kingdom of the ancient Middle East in the foreground.

Building on the thesis of Pan-Babylonism that a homogeneous Middle Eastern culture existed and on the theories of cult as a ritual drama, the so-called British and Scandinavian cult-historical schools maintained that the king, as the personified god, played the main role in the overall cultural pattern. The English branch of this school (the “myth and ritual school”) concentrated on anthropological and folklore studies. The Scandinavian branch (the “Uppsala school”) concentrated on Semitic philological, cultural, and history-of-religions studies. It was represented in the latter part of the 20th century by Swedish historians of religion who theorized that, for the entire ancient Middle East, certain cult patterns existed and that behind those cult patterns lay the sacred-king ideology.

Rejecting the cult-historical school theory of an unchanging cult pattern and an unchanging sacred-king ideology, many scholars in the latter part of the 20th century tended to emphasize individual research of case histories. The fundamental differences between the kingdom ideology in Egypt and that in Mesopotamia have been investigated by historians, and questions concerning sacred kingship in the Old Testament have been explored by Old Testament scholars. One result of such scholarly research is the realization that the theory and practice of sacred kingship—in a history extending over thousands of years—has undergone immense changes and, thus, because of these widespread and extensive differences, all generalizations and categorizations are difficult to maintain. Though there may be an amazing correspondence among numerous individual phenomena, each individual sacral form of government can be explained only in its own historical, social, and religious context.

Status and functions

The sacred status of kings, leaders, and chieftains

Basic to an understanding of sacred kingship is a recognition that the exercise of power of one person over other persons or over a community (local, regional, or imperial) in early times was general and not divided. Power could be exercised by only one person—one who simultaneously had the necessary physical (individual and corporate) and spiritual (psychic) strength and influence—over both people and objects. Because he was ruler over a community, the king’s power extended to everything pertaining to the life of the community. Only gradually did a division of these powers develop.

The sacral status of the ruler differs in form and origins. Three main forms can be distinguished: (1) the possessor of supernatural power, (2) the divine or semidivine king, and (3) the agent of the sacred.

Are you a student?

Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Subscribe

The possessor of supernatural power

The ruler may be viewed as the possessor of supernatural power—both beneficial and malevolent—needed to maintain the welfare and order of the community and to avert danger and damage. In preliterate societies he represents the life force of the tribe, in which worldly and spiritual or political and religious spheres are not distinguished. Concentrated in the chief is the common inheritance of the magical power of the community, and his authority is based solely on the possession and exercise of this supernatural power. The impact and comprehensiveness of such power wielded by a chief, for example, reaches into all areas of life of the tribe: provision of food, fertility, weather, all forms of communal life, and protection against enemies and misfortune. Because the supernatural (magical) power of the chief is identical with his own life force, the chief (or king) of such a society is not allowed to have any physical defects. With the dwindling of his own physical powers (illness, graying of hair, and loss of teeth), his own power to maintain and secure the common welfare and his own ability to rule are believed to be correspondingly diminished.

This form of sacral status is found mainly among rulers over one tribe (or several)—he may be a chief, medicine man, shaman, or king (as, for example, a rainmaker-king in Africa)—in which a fixed definition or limitation of such functions is not possible.