David Ricardo

Classical economics
Portrait of David Ricardo by Thomas Phillips, circa 1821. This painting shows Ricardo, aged 49, just two years before his relatively early death.
Born	(1772-04-18)18 April 1772 London, England
Died	11 September 1823(1823-09-11) (aged 51) Gatcombe Park, Gloucestershire, England
Nationality	British
Influences	Smith · Bentham
Influenced	Ricardian Socialists · John Stuart Mill · Sraffa · Barro
Contributions	Ricardian equivalence, labour theory of value, comparative advantage, law of diminishing returns, Economic rent[1]

David Ricardo (18 April 1772 – 11 September 1823) was an English political economist, often credited with systematising economics, and was one of the most influential of the classical economists, along with Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.^[2][3] He was also a member of Parliament, businessman, financier and speculator, who amassed a considerable personal fortune. Perhaps his most important contribution was the law of comparative advantage, a fundamental argument in favour of free trade among countries and of specialisation among individuals. Ricardo argued that there is mutual benefit from trade (or exchange) even if one party (e.g. resource-rich country, highly skilled artisan) is more productive in every possible area than its trading counterpart (e.g. resource-poor country, unskilled labourer), as long as each concentrates on the activities where it has a relative productivity advantage.^[4]

Personal life[link]

Born in London, England, Ricardo was the third of 17 children of a Sephardic Jewish family of Portuguese origin who had recently relocated from the Dutch Republic. His father was a successful stockbroker.

At age 21, Ricardo eloped with a Quaker, Priscilla Anne Wilkinson, leading to estrangement from his family. His father disowned him and his mother apparently never spoke to him again.

Without family support, he started his own business as a stockbroker, in which he became quite successful thanks to the connections he made when working with his father.

During the Battle of Waterloo, he bet against the French victory and invested in British securities. By the time he retired from the Exchange at the age of 43, his fortune was estimated at about £600,000. He then purchased and moved to Gatcombe Park, an estate in Gloucestershire, now owned and lived in by Princess Anne, the Princess Royal.

At the time of his marriage, Ricardo disconnected from Judaism and became a Unitarian.^[5] He had eight children, including three sons, of whom Osman Ricardo (1795–1881; MP for Worcester 1847–1865) and another David Ricardo (1803–1864, MP for Stroud 1832–1833), became members of parliament, while the third, Mortimer Ricardo, served as an officer in the Life Guards and was a deputy lieutenant for Oxfordshire. He was one of the original members of The Geological Society.^[5] His daughter was Sarah Ricardo-Porter, who married George R. Porter and was an author in her own right (e.g., Conversations in Arithmetic).

Ricardo became interested in economics after reading Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1799 on a vacation to the English resort of Bath. This was Ricardo's first contact with economics. He wrote his first economics article at age 37 and within another ten years he reached the height of his fame.

In 1819, Ricardo took a seat in the House of Commons, representing Portarlington, an Irish rotten borough. He held the seat, which had initially been made available to him by his friend Richard "Conversation" Sharp, until his death in 1823. In 1846, his nephew John Lewis Ricardo, MP for Stoke-on-Trent, advocated free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Ricardo was a close friend of James Mill, who encouraged him in his political ambitions and writings about economics. Other notable friends included Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Malthus, with whom Ricardo had a considerable debate (in correspondence) over such things as the role of landowners in a society. He also was a member of London's intellectuals, later becoming a member of Malthus' Political Economy Club, and a member of the King of Clubs.

Ideas[link]

Value theory[link]

Ricardo's most famous work is his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). Ricardo opens the first chapter with a statement of the labour theory of value. Later in this chapter, he demonstrates that prices do not correspond to this value. He retained the theory, however, as an approximation. The labour theory of value states that the relative price of two goods is determined by the ratio of the quantities of labour required in their production. His labour theory of value, however, required several assumptions:

1. both sectors have the same wage rate and the same profit rate;
2. the capital employed in production is made up of wages only;
3. the period of production has the same length for both goods.

Ricardo himself realized that the second and third assumptions were quite unrealistic and hence admitted two exceptions to his labour theory of value:

1. production periods may differ;
2. the two production processes may employ instruments and equipment as capital and not just wages, and in very different proportions.

Ricardo continued to work on his value theory to the end of his life.

But the first chapter is but the introduction to a long book that discusses back and forth an extended series of comparisons and contrasts of the various points of views and of Ricardo's own reasoning.

In the chapter "On Value and Riches,"^[6] Ricardo makes effort to illustrate that exchange value is not the same as "value in use".^[7] In this way one can factor two often contradictory results. Point 2, above, that the capital employed in production must be made up of wages only for his value theory to hold, is answered by this: that production may be made up of capital and machinery, but it doesn't change the principle (which he attributes to Adam Smith) that he tries to lay out in this chapter.^[8] Machinery may add to one measure of value beyond almost all measure without adding one penny to the other measure of value. In this way, one is able, Ricardo seems to show, to factor out somewhat contradictory assumptions which if confounded lead to equally contradictory results. By making all things perfectly clear, or in attempting to, Mr. Ricardo, seeks to resolve some of those ills of the democratic society in which he lived in so far as reason, and action, could resolve them. In this pursuit, he took action, sitting in parliament, moving with his stirring, and amusing, speeches the inner policies of the British Empire.

The key point that Ricardo seems to make, though, is something like this: Accumulation of capital adds riches without decreasing the value of things to be traded, which may bring the various economic actors to a win-win. Ricardo first attempts to show that new riches are not adding as much value as one would think because they are always decreasing somewhat from the exchangeable value of what was produced. The decreasing value in exchange as value-in-use increases he extrapolates to infer that the sum world total of value in exchange is a fixed constant. Therefore, in the growth of the global economy, the first-world countries, he states, will begin to lose value per trade, even to the purely theoretical extent of taking from the capital base. Yet, Ricardo notes that with more value-in-use for the rich and the poor, both will likely obtain more security as the aggression of competition is mitigated by physical economic growth. Adam Smith had thought that due to its effect on value, the growth of wealth of the poor beyond subsistence levels is likely to take from the overall wealth of the society. All economists (neoliberal through progressive) still worry about that and so they weaken the wealth of the poor to maintain economic growth. Ricardo shows this as unnecessary when we measure value in exchange together with the growth of value-in-riches, rather than by the monopolization value. The extreme aspects of competition then leave, for the rich and poor alike, an appearance of the growth of wealth, yet without the actual result of it. Taking a step back and noticing the growth of actual value-in-use may allow people as corporations and laborers, both rich and poor, to realize this and see a way and means forward.

Rent[link]

Ricardo is responsible for developing theories of rent, wages, and profits. He defined rent as "the difference between the produce obtained by the employment of two equal quantities of capital and labor." The model for this theory basically said that while only one grade of land is being used for cultivation, rent will not exist, but when multiple grades of land are being utilized, rent will be charged on the higher grades and will increase with the ascension of the grade. As such, Ricardo believed that the process of economic development, which increased land utilization and eventually led to the cultivation of poorer land, benefited first and foremost the landowners because they would receive the rent payments either in money or in product.

In a careful analysis of the effects of different forms of taxation, Ricardo concludes in chapters 10 and 12 that a tax on land value, equivalent to a tax on the land rent, was the only form of taxation that would not lead to price increases; it is paid by the landlord, who is not able to pass it on to a tenant. He stated that the poorest grade land in use has no (land) rent and so pays no land value tax; as prices are determined at this marginal site for the whole economy, prices will not be increased by a land value tax. His analysis distinguishes between rent of (unimproved) land and rent associated with capital improvements such as buildings.

• Accumulation of Inequality of Distribution of varied quantities of Accumulatable Scarce Necessary Means of Production.

Ricardo's concept of rent is laid out in his book Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Due to variation in scarcity of land (or some other accumulatable scarce necessities of varied utility), some land pays a higher monopoly value due to its scarcity than other land. This return on investment is higher than what one would otherwise expect based simply on the value and scarcity of the produce; this return on investment comes from the incident of ownership that allows a monopoly price to be paid. Such premium over real social value that an individual is able to reap due to incident of ownership constitutes real value to an individual but is at best^[9] a paper monetary return to society. The portion of such purely individual benefit, and exclusively that portion, that accrues to scarce, accumulatable resources such as land or gold or houses, over and above any socially beneficial exchange, Ricardo labels Rent.

If all land were equally situated, however scarce, one could determine that all market exchange of the produce thereof was free and equal and that the exact value of the trade was conveyed simultaneously to both parties and to society. In the case of increasing scarcity of the land of higher absolute utility, the free market principle fails to either properly measure or convey value. This gap between personal value accrual and social value accrual, in the case of land, is Ricardian Rent. Rent therefore constitutes value for nothing and as such constitutes a loss to society above maximum production, and one that increases at a faster rate than the decline in production that comes from the scarcity of the land, as land becomes more scarce. Proposals to solve this by various types of land tax are explored further. The key problem then, Ricardo discusses, would be to find a tax that is able to maximally differentiate between tax on profit and tax on such purely Ricardian rent. No easy task, he points out, as in the case of how one differentiates between basic land return, that portion that constitutes such excess above social productivity that he labels rent, and the portion that comes from non–rent producing capital investment in fertilizer, irrigation, deep plowing and land improvements of all types, barns, etc.

• Malthus's criticism and Extrapolation of the problem of Ricardian Rent

In demonstrating that Ricardian Rent constitutes value for nothing (Ricardo was momentarily neglecting Say's Law that all savings by-definition-equals investment), Ricardo overlooks that such value-for-nothing doesn't necessarily disappear upon "mis-payment" to a landlord. This is what Malthus, Ricardo's personal friend and intellectual opponent, states in his own book on Rent, one of his works that expounds from a point of view of Malthus's Surplus Value theories, rather than Malthus's earlier and more quoted Scarcity Value Theory. Thus, says Malthus, Rent, however misplaced, constitutes a prime source of savings and investment for the future. We need then, if contented by Malthus, only look for such portion of Ricardian Rent that due to its over-investment (due to its miscalculation) represents lost economic value to the society as a whole. Malthus' Criticism of Ricardian Rent does not in Malthus' book on Rent touch on this problem of Ricardian over-investment as expounded by Malthus (the General Glut controversy); rather, in his later works, Malthus does so. So: to Ricardo, Economic Rent is a surplus of individual investors' paper profit (which has its value in control over resources rather than directly in the resources themselves) over societal gain. As such, it does not represent any gain but rather an unearned transfer of wealth. To Malthus, there is material gain created in the re-investment which is rent, but at some point such gain may as says Ricardo in regards to the paper profit he believes Economic Rent to be, be in excess of social utility.

Earlier writers touched on Economic Rent too. Ricardo advises caution in responses to the problem of Economic Rent To be clear, the topic of Economic Rent, as expounded by Ricardo, was by earlier writers such as Smith. Ricardo's book forms a sort of textbook of such earlier expounded theories, in which he adds his own analysis while comparing and contrasting different views and pointing out the flaws in them. Ricardo, after spending many chapters contented with this view of Rent, ascribes it to Smith and then says it is true but probably not so important in an expanding economy and measures to address it should be marked with caution as they would likely produce different effects in different situations.^[10]

Trade theory and policy[link]

Protectionism[link]

Like Adam Smith, Ricardo was also an opponent of protectionism for national economies, especially for agriculture. He believed that the British "Corn Laws"—tariffs on agriculture products—ensured that less-productive domestic land would be harvested and rents would be driven up. (Case & Fair 1999, pp. 812, 813). Thus, the surplus would be directed more toward feudal landlords and away from the emerging industrial capitalists. Since landlords tended to squander their wealth on luxuries, rather than investments, Ricardo believed that the Corn Laws were leading to the stagnation of the British economy. Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.

Comparative advantage[link]

International trade attracted much attention from the burgeoing time of economics. Most of economists who wrote between 1500 and 1750 advocated what is now called Mercantilism. It proposed to increase export and decrease import in order that the state can accumulate precious metals. Mercantilists thought that the plenty of money metal makes country rich. Adam Smith opposed to this idea and preached the gains from trade.

Although Smith preached free trade, he could not show when and how the trade is profitable. It was Ricardo who made it clear by the logic what is now called comparative advantage. His numerical example is given as follows^[11]:

Paul Samuelson called these numbers the "four magic numbers".^[12] In spite of the fact that Portuguese could produce both cloth and wine with less amount of labor, Ricardo showed that both countries have merits to trade with each other. What determines the direction of trade is not the absolute advantage in the production of goods but the ratio of labor inputs necessary to produce products, thus the denomination of "comparative advantage."

Benefits from trade in Ricardo's example are easy to be seen. Ricardo assumes that cloth and wine (of the given quantities, but not specified) are exchanged at equal international value. Therefore, if England exports cloth, which is the produce of 100 workers a year, it gets wine, which would be the produce of 120 workers a year and can reduce the total amount of labor by 20 workers. As for Portugal, it exports wine, which is the produce of 80 workers a year, and procures cloth, which is the produce of 90　workers a year. Thus both countries can reduce by trade labors which are necessary to procure the same amount of commodities.

The chance of trade, which is beneficial to both traders, is much wider than the cases when the doctrine of absolute advantage is applicable. Indeed, when the ratio of labor inputs Cloth/Wine for England is smaller than the ratio of labor inputs Cloth/Wine for Portugal, then the comparative advantage theory teaches us that the same kind of benefits can be derived from trade.

If a country should have absolute advantage for it to export a product, then the trade can occur in special, ristricted cases where both counties have absolute advantage (i.e. to have higher productivity than the other country) for one of products they produce. For example, the case like the following table:

Ricardo's example has continued to give inspirations until now to the students of international trade. At present there are two major forms of comparative advantage, which form the basis of modern trade theory. They are Heckscher–Ohlin theorem and The Ricardian theory of international trade.

Ricardian equivalence[link]

Another idea associated with Ricardo is Ricardian equivalence, an argument suggesting that in some circumstances a government's choice of how to pay for its spending (i.e., whether to use tax revenue or issue debt and run a deficit) might have no effect on the economy. Ricardo supports this proposition by noting that it is implied by intertemporal optimisation by tax-payers: only if tax-payers act irrationally (or capital markets are imperfect) will the proposition fail to be true. Ironically, while the proposition bears his name, he does not seem to have believed it. Economist Robert Barro is responsible for its modern prominence.

Ricardo's theories of wages and profits[link]

Several authorities consider that Ricardo is the source of the concepts behind the so-called Iron Law of Wages, according to which wages naturally tend to a subsistence level.^[13][14][15] Others dispute the assignment to Ricardo of this idea.

Ricardo believed that in the long run, prices reflect the cost of production, and referred to this long run price as a Natural price. The natural price of labour was the cost of its production, that cost of maintaining the labourer. If wages correspond to the natural price of labour, then wages would be at subsistence level. However, due to an improving economy, wages may remain indefinitely above subsistence level:

Notwithstanding the tendency of wages to conform to their natural rate, their market rate may in an improving society, for an indefinite period, be constantly above it; for no sooner may the impulse, which an increased capital gives to a new demand for labor, be obeyed, than another increase of capital may produce the same effect; and thus, if the increase of capital be gradual and constant, the demand for labour may give a continued stimulus to an increase of people....

It has been calculated, that under favourable circumstances population may be doubled in twenty-five years; but under the same favourable circumstances, the whole capital of a country might possibly be doubled in a shorter period. In that case, wages during the whole period would have a tendency to rise, because the demand for labour would increase still faster than the supply. (On the Principles of Political Economy, Chapter 5, "On Wages").

In his Theory of Profit, Ricardo stated that as real wages increase, real profits decrease because the revenue from the sale of manufactured goods is split between profits and wages. He said in his Essay on Profits, "Profits depend on high or low wages, wages on the price of necessaries, and the price of necessaries chiefly on the price of food."

His legacy and influence[link]

David Ricardo's ideas had a tremendous influence on later developments in economics. US economists rank Ricardo as the second most influential economic thinker, behind Adam Smith, prior to the twentieth century.^[16]

With his highly logical arguments, he has become the theoretical father of the classical political economy. Schumpeter coined an expression Ricardian vice, which indicates that rigorous logic does not provide a good economic theory.^[17] This criticism applies also to most neoclassical theories, which make heavy use of mathematics, but are, according to him, theoretically unsound, because the conclusion being drawn does not logically follow from the theories used to defend it.^{[citation needed]}

Ricardian socialists[link]

Ricardo's writings gave rise to a number of early socialists in the 1820s, who argued that his value theory had radical implications. They argued that, in view of labor theory of value, labor produces the entire product and the profits capitalists get are a result of exploitations of workers.^[18] These include Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson, John Francis Bray, and Percy Ravenstone.

Neo-Ricardians[link]

After the rise of the 'neoclassical' school, Ricardo's influence declined temporarily. It was Piero Sraffa, the editor of the Collected Works of David Ricardo^[19] and the author of seminal Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities,^[20] who resurrected Ricardo as the originator of another strand of economics thought, which was effaced with the arrival of the neoclassical school. The new interpretation of Ricardo and Sraffa's criticism against the marginal theory of value gave rise to a new school, now named neo-Ricardian or Sraffian school. Major contributors to this school includes Luigi Pasinetti (1930–), Pierangelo Garegnani (1930–2011), Ian Steedman (1941–), Georffrey Harcourt (1931–), Heinz Kurz (1946–), Neri Salvadori (1951–), Pier Paolo Saviotti (–) among others. See also Neo-Ricardianism. Neo-Ricardian school is sometimes seen to be a composing element of Post-Keynesian economics.

Evolutionary growth theory[link]

Several distinctive groups have sprung out of the neo-Ricardian school. One is the evolutionary growth theory, developed notably by Luigi Pasinetti, J.S. Metcalfe, Pier Paolo Saviotti, and Koen Frenken and others.^[21][22]

The first step came from Pasinetti.^[23][24] He argued that the demand of any commodity came to stagnate and frequently decline as Engel curve shows it. The commodities are produced by each industry with different growth rate of labour productivity. The consequences are different rate of growth of output and employment. To any economic development structural change is inevitable. If the commodity variety remains constant, demand saturation occurs for any rich economy. Introduction of new commodities (goods and services) is necessary to evade from economic stagnation.

The problem of demand saturation and satiety became one of the most topical themes of evolutionary economists. Many articles and books have been written.^{[25][26][27][28][29]}

As for the causes and mechanisms of demand saturation, I, Steedman pointed that time plays as important a role as income.^[30][31] Indeed, the neoclassical economics admits monetary budget as unique constraint, but for any busy person the time counts as much as price to enjoy the purchased commodities. Another constraints, such as house surface, are effective for example in the Japanese economy, where people live in a "rabbit hutch."

Demand saturation problems are pursued, parallel to evolutionary economists, by Aoki and Yoshikawa^[32][33] and other Japanese researchers.^[34][35]

The Ricardian theory of international trade[link]

The Ricardian theory of comparative advantage also became a basic constituent of neoclassical trade theory. Any undergraduate course in trade theory includes expansions of Ricardo's example of four numbers to a two commodity, two country model, whose best known representation uses an Edgeworth box.^[36] Ricardo intended to show by this classic example the benefits of free trade from comparative advantage, as in his example there is one country that is more proficient in producing both commodities relative to the other country. Adam Smith would likely reason, by logic of absolute advantage, that there would be no incentive for trade between the two countries. This model was expanded to many-country and many-commodity cases and also to include migration of people between countries. Major general results were obtained by the beginning of 1960's by McKenzie^[37][38] and Jones,^[39] including his famous formula.

Contemporary theories[link]

Ricardo's idea was even expanded to the case of continuum of goods by Dornbusch, Fischer, and Samuelson^[40] This formulation is employed for example by Matsuyama^[41] and others.

Unequal Exchange[link]

Chris Edward includes Emmanuel's Unequal Exchange theory among variations of neo-Ricardian trade theory.^[42] Arghiri Emmanuel argued that the Third World is poor because of the international exploitation of labour.^[43]

The unequal exchange theory of trade has been influential to the (new) dependency theory.^[44]

Neo-Ricardian trade theory[link]

Inspired by Piero Sraffa, a new strand of trade theory emerged and was named neo-Ricardian trade theory. The main contributors include Ian Steedman (1941–) and Stanley Metcalfe (1946–). They have criticised neoclassical international trade theory, namely the Heckscher–Ohlin model on the basis that the notion of capital as primary factor has no method of measuring it before the determination of profit rate (thus trapped in a logical vicious circle).^[45][46] This was a second round of the Cambridge capital controversy, this time in the field of international trade.^[47]

The merit of neo-Ricardian trade theory is that input goods are explicitly included to the analytical framework. This is in accordance with Sraffa's idea that any commodity is a product made by means of commodities. The limit of their theory is that the analysis is limited to small country cases. The wage of the Rest of the World is determined by assumption and there is no internal mechanism which generates international wage differences. In this sense the neo-Ricardian trade theory lacks international value theory.^[48]

Ricardo–Sraffa trade theory[link]

Ricardian trade theory ordinarily assumes that the labour is the unique input. This is a great deficiency as trade theory, for the intermediate goods occupy the major part of the world international trade. But the situation changed greatly after the appearance of Shiozawa's seminal work of 2007.^[49] Now the Ricardian theory can analyze trades of intermediates (parts and input materials) as well as primary resources. This new theory is sometimes called Ricardo–Sraffa trade theory. This renovation has enormous implication either in theory and policy implications. In fact, the new Sraffa-Ricardo trade theory is unique as the general theory in international trade which provide a theoretical framework for new trade theory (or ‘new’ trade theory) and other analysis like outsourcing and fragmentations.

Traded intermediate goods[link]

Yeats^[50] found that 30% of world trade in manufacturing is intermediate inputs. Bardhan and Jafee^[51] found that intermediate inputs occupy 37 to 38% in the imports to the US for years 1992 and 1997, whereas the percentage of intrafirm trade grew from 43% in 1992 to 52% in 1997.

McKenzie^[37]:177–9 and Jones^[52] emphasised the necessity to expand the theory to the cases of traded inputs. Paul Samuelson^[53] coined a term Sraffa bonus to name the gains from trade of inputs.

Theoretical developments[link]

John Chipman observed in his survey that McKenzie stumbled upon the questions of intermediate products and discovered that "introduction of trade in intermediate product necessitates a fundamental alteration in classical analysis."^[54] It took many years until recently Y. Shiozawa^[55] succeeded to remove this deficiency. The Ricardian trade theory was now reconstructed to include intermediate input trade in a very general case of many countries and many goods.

Outsourcing and fragmentation[link]

It is emphasised that the Ricardian trade theory now provides a general theory which includes trade of intermediates such as materials, fuel and machine tools. The traded intermediate goods are then used as inputs of productions. Capital goods are nothing other than inputs to the productions. Thus, in the Ricardian trade theory, capital goods move freely from country to country. Trade in capital goods may transmit the benefit of technological advances across trading countries.^[56] Labour is the unique factor of production that remains immobile in the country of its origin.

The neoclassical Heckscher–Ohlin–Samuelson theory assumes only production factors and finished goods. It has not the concept of intermediate goods. Therefore, it is the Ricardo–Sraffa trade theory that provides theoretical bases for the topics as outsourcing, fragmentation^[57] and intra-firm trade.^[58]

Inter and Intra Firm Competion[link]

Shiozawa's new construction of the Ricardian trade theory also permits choice of techniques. The theory can treat a situation in which several firms compete within a country and for a single product. It can treat a situation in which two factories of the same firm operating in different countries compete. In this way the new theory can provide theoretical basis for the so-called new new trade theory.^[59]

Recent episode[link]

In a blog post of 28 April 2007, Gregory Mankiw compared Ricardian theory and Heckscher–Ohlin theory and stood by the Ricardian side.^[60] Mankiw argued that Ricardian theory is more realistic than the Heckscher–Ohlin theory as the latter assumes that capital does not move from country to country. Mankiw's argument contains a logical slip, for the traditional Ricardian trade theory does not admit any inputs. Shiozawa's result saves Mankiw from his slip.^[48]

Criticism of the Ricardian theory of trade[link]

Ricardo's plea for free trade received attacks from those people who think trade restriction is necessary. Utsa Patnaik claims that Ricardian theory of international trade contains a logical fallacy. Ricardo assumed that in both countries two goods are producible and actually are produced, but developed and underdeveloped countries often trade those goods which are not producible in their own country. For example, many Northern countries do not produce tropical fruits. In these cases, one cannot define which country has comparative advantage.^[61]

Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is also flawed in that it assumes production is continuous and absolute. In the real world, events outside the realm of human control (e.g. natural disasters) can disrupt production. In this case, specialisation could cripple a country that depends on imports from foreign, naturally disrupted countries. For example, if an industrially based country trades its manufactured goods to an agrarian country in exchange for agricultural products, a natural disaster in the agricultural country (e.g. drought) may cause an industrially based country to starve.

Publications[link]

Ricardo's publications included:

• The High Price of Bullion, a Proof of the Depreciation of Bank Notes (1810), which advocated the adoption of a metallic currency.
• Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock (1815), which argued that repealing the Corn Laws would distribute more wealth to the productive members of society.
• On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), an analysis that concluded that land rent grows as population increases. It also clearly laid out the theory of comparative advantage, which argued that all nations could benefit from free trade, even if a nation was less efficient at producing all kinds of goods than its trading partners.

His works and writings were collected in:

• The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005), 11 vols. This Set Contains The Following Titles:
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 1 Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 2 Notes on Malthus
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 3 Pamphlets and Papers 1809–1811
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 4 Pamphlets and Papers 1815–1823
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 6 Letters 1810–1815
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 7 Letters 1816–1818
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 8 Letters 1819 – June 1821
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 9 Letters 1821–1823
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 10 Biographical Miscellany
  • The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 11 General Index

Notes[link]

References[link]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2009)

• Case, Karl E.; Fair, Ray C. (1999), Principles of Economics (5th ed.), Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0-13-961905-4 
• Samuel Hollander (1979)). The Economics of David Ricardo. University of Toronto Press.
• G. de Vivo (1987). "Ricardo, David," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 4, pp. 183–98
• Samuelson, P. A. (2001). "Ricardo, David (1772–1823)," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 13,330–13,334. Abstract.
• (French) Éric Pichet, David RICARDO, le premier théoricien de l'économie, Les éditions du siècle, 2004*

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: David Ricardo

Wikisource has original works written by or about: David Ricardo

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: David Ricardo

• Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by David Ricardo
• Biography, at the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
• Biography at New School University
• Biography at EH.Net Encyclopedia of Economic History
• The Works of David Ricardo (McCulloch edition 1888) at the Online Library of Liberty
• The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo (Sraffa edition) 11 vols at the Online Library of Liberty
• Timeline of the Life of David Ricardo (1772–1823) at the Online Library of Liberty
• On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, by David Ricardo. Complete, fully searchable text at the Library of Economics and Liberty.
• Ricardo on Value: the Three Chapter Ones. A presentation tracing the changes in the Principles' (University of Southampton).

King David
King of Israel
Statue of David by Nicolas Cordier, in the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome
Reign	over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC; over Judah and Israel c. 1003–970 BC
Born	c. 1040 BC
Birthplace	Bethlehem
Died	c. 970 BC
Place of death	Jerusalem
Predecessor	Saul (Judah), Ishbaal (Israel)
Successor	Solomon
Royal House	House of David (new house)
Father	Jesse
Mother	not named in the Bible; identified by the Talmud as Nitzevet, daughter of Adael

David (Hebrew: דָּוִד, דָּוִיד, Modern David Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Strong's Daveed; beloved; Arabic: داوود‎ or داود‎ ^[a] Dāwūd) was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the second king of the United Kingdom of Israel and, according to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, an ancestor of Jesus. David is seen as a major Prophet in Islamic traditions. ^[1][2] His life is conventionally dated to c. 1040–970 BC, his reign over Judah c. 1010–1003 BC,^{[citation needed]} and his reign over the United Kingdom of Israel c. 1003–970 BC.^{[citation needed]} The Books of Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles are the only sources of information on David, although the Tel Dan stele records "House of David", which some take as confirmation of the existence in the mid-9th century BC of a Judean royal dynasty called the "House of David".

David is very important to Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine and culture. In Judaism, David, or David HaMelekh, is the King of Israel, and the Jewish people. Jewish tradition maintains that a direct descendant of David will be the Messiah. In Islam, he is known as Dawud, considered to be a prophet and the king of a nation. He is depicted as a righteous king, though not without faults, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician, and poet, traditionally credited for composing many of the psalms contained in the Book of Psalms.

Historicity[link]

Archaeological evidence[link]

Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele[link]

The Tel Dan Stele.

A fragment of an Aramean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850–835 BC contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because the ancient Aramaic script is written without vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".^[3] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel",^[4] the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.^[5][6]

The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle).^[7] Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David."^[8] Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable.^[9]

City of David and Judah, ca. 1000 BC onward[link]

Part of the Large Stone Structure thought by some archaeologists to be the remains of King David's Palace.

The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the City of David, the original urban core of Jerusalem identified with the reigns of David and Solomon, were investigated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Yigal Shiloh of the Hebrew University, but failed to discover significant evidence of occupation during the 10th century BC,^[10] In 2005, Eilat Mazar found a Large Stone Structure which she claimed was David's palace, but the archaeology is contaminated and impossible to date accurately.^[11][12] Finkelstein and Silberman feel the archaeological evidence from surface surveys indicates that Judah at the time of David was a small tribal kingdom, although both do accept that David and Solomon were likely historical figures in Judah about the 10th century BC. They describe the earliest tales of David as a "classical bandit tale".^[13]

The biblical account[link]

The biblical account about David comes from the book of Samuel and the book of Chronicles (each of which are divided into two books in Jewish and Christian traditions). While almost half of the Psalms are headed "A Psalm of David", the headings are later additions, and no psalm can be attributed to David with certainty.^[14] Chronicles merely retells Samuel from a different theological vantage point, and contains little if any information not available there, and the biblical evidence for David is therefore dependent almost exclusively on the material contained in the chapters from 1 Samuel 16 to 1 Kings 2.

Russian icon of St. David, the Prophet and King, 18th century (Iconostasis of Kizhi monastery, Karelia, Russia).

Since Martin Noth put forward his analysis of the Deuteronomistic History, biblical scholars have accepted that these two books form part of a continuous history of Israel, compiled no earlier than the late 7th century BC, but incorporating earlier works and fragments. Samuel's account of David "seems to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting." The original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in favour of David and Solomon. Many years later the Deuteronomists edited the material in a manner that conveyed their religious message, inserting reports and anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II — notably the boundary, allotment and administrative lists — are believed to be very early, since they correspond closely to what we know of the territorial conditions of the late Davidic-early Solomonic period.^[15]

Beyond this, the full range of possible interpretations is available. The late John Bright, whose History of Israel, which went through four editions from 1959 to 2000, takes Samuel at face value, but Donald B. Redford thinks all reconstructions from Biblical sources for the United Monarchy period are examples of 'academic wishful thinking',^[16] and Thomas L. Thompson measures Samuel against the archaeological evidence and concludes that "an independent history of Judea during the Iron I [i.e., the period of David] and Iron II periods has little room for historicizing readings of the stories of I-II Samuel and I Kings."^[17] Some interesting studies of David have been written: Baruch Halpern has pictured David as a lifelong vassal of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath;^[18] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman have identified as the oldest and most reliable section of Samuel those chapters which describe David as the charismatic leader of a band of outlaws who captures Jerusalem and makes it his capital.^[19] Steven McKenzie, Associate Professor of the Hebrew Bible at Rhodes College and author of King David: A Biography, states the belief that David actually came from a wealthy family, was "ambitious and ruthless" and a tyrant who murdered his opponents, including his own sons.^[14]

Biblical narrative[link]

Samuel anoints David, Dura Europos, Syria, Date: 3rd c. AD.

Chosen by God[link]

God withdraws his favour from Saul, king of Israel, "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments."^[20] The prophet Samuel seeks a new king from the sons of Jesse of Bethlehem. Seven of Jesse's sons are led before Samuel, but Samuel says, "Yahweh has not chosen these." "And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he."^[21]

At the court of Saul[link]

God sends an evil spirit to torment Saul (1 Samuel 16:14) and his attendants suggest he send for David, a young warrior famed for his bravery and for his skill with the harp. Saul does so and makes David one of his armor-bearers and "whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him."

David and Goliath[link]

Young David holds the impaled head of the Philistine giant and marches in front of a general riding a white horse, most likely King Saul.

The Israelites, under King Saul, faced the Philistines in the Valley of Elah. He heard the Philistine giant Goliath challenge the Israelites to send their own champion to decide the outcome in single combat. David told Saul he was prepared to face Goliath and Saul allowed him to make the attempt. He was victorious, striking Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell, and David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him; the Philistines fled in terror. Saul inquired about the name of the young champion, and David told him that he is the son of Jesse.^[22]

David and Jonathan[link]

Saul makes David a commander over his armies and offers him his daughter Michal in marriage for bringing more than 200 foreskins of the Philistines to him. David is successful in many battles, and his popularity awakes Saul's fears — "What more can he have but the kingdom?" By various stratagems the jealous king seeks his death, but the plots only endear David the more to the people, and especially to Saul's son Jonathan, who loves David (1 Samuel 18:1, 2 Samuel 1:25–26).^[23][24] Warned by Jonathan, David flees into the wilderness, where he gathers a band of followers and becomes the champion of the oppressed while evading the pursuit of Saul. He accepts the town of Ziklag from the Philistine king Achish of Gath, but continues secretly to champion the Israelites. Achish marches against Saul, but David is excused from the war on the accusation of the Philistine nobles that his loyalty to their cause cannot be trusted.

Anointed king[link]

Panorama of the Harod Valley below, part of the Jezreel- see Mount Gilboa.

Jonathan and Saul are killed in battle with the Philistines at Mount Gilboa. David mourns their deaths, especially that of Jonathan, his friend. He goes up to Hebron, where he is anointed king over Judah. In the north, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth becomes king of the tribes of Israel. War ensues between Ish-Bosheth and David, until Ish-Bosheth is murdered. The assassins bring the head of Ish-Bosheth to David hoping for a reward, but David executes them for their crime against the Lord's anointed. Yet with the death of the son of Saul, the elders of Israel come to Hebron and David, who is 30 years old, is anointed King over Israel and Judah.^[25]

Jerusalem and the Davidic Covenant[link]

David conquers the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, and makes it his capital, and "Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house." David brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, intending to build a temple, but God, speaking to the prophet Nathan, is pleased, saying the temple will be built. God makes a covenant with David, promising that he will establish the house of David : "Your throne shall be established forever."

With God's help, David is victorious over his people's enemies. The Philistines are subdued, the Moabites to the east pay tribute, along with Hadadezer of Zobah, from whom David takes gold shields and bronze vessels.^[26]

Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite[link]

David commits adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.^[27] Bathsheba becomes pregnant. David sends for Uriah, who is with the Israelite army at the siege of Rabbah, so that he may lie with his wife and conceal the identity of the child's father. Uriah refuses to do so while his companions are in the field of battle and David sends him back to Joab, the commander, with a message instructing him to abandon Uriah on the battlefield, "that he may be struck down, and die." David marries Bathsheba and she bears his child, "but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord."^[28] The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: "Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife." Nathan presents three punishments from God for this sin. First, that the "sword shall never depart from your house" (2 Samuel 12:10) second, that "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel., (2 Samuel 12:12) and finally, that "the son born to you will die."2 Samuel 12:14 David repents, yet God "struck the [David's] child ... and it became sick ... [And] on the seventh day the child died." David leaves his lamentations, dresses himself, goes to the House of the Lord and worships, and then returns home to eat. His servants ask why he wept when the baby was alive, but ends his mourning when the child dies. David replies: "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."2 Samuel 12:22–23

David's son Absalom rebels[link]

David's son Absalom rebels against his father, and they come to battle in the Wood of Ephraim. Absalom is caught by his hair in the branches of an oak and David’s general Joab kills him as he hangs there.^[29] When the news of the victory is brought to David, he does not rejoice, but is instead shaken with grief: "O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!"^[30]

Old age[link]

When David has become old and bedridden, Adonijah, his eldest surviving son and natural heir, declares himself king and worthy to marry Abishag. Bathsheba, David's favorite wife, and Nathan the prophet, fearing that they will be killed by Adonijah, go to David and procure his agreement that Solomon, Bathsheba's son, should sit on the throne. And so the plans of Adonijah collapse, and Solomon becomes king.^[31] It is to Solomon that David gives his final instructions, including his promise that the line of Solomon and David will inherit the throne of Judah forever, and his request that Solomon kill his oldest enemies on his behalf.^[32] David dies and is buried in the City of David, having ruled forty years over Israel, seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.

Religious view[link]

Judaism[link]

King David the Prophet
King David in Prayer, by Pieter de Grebber (c. 1640)
Holy Monarch, Prophet, Reformer, Spiritual Poet & Musician, Vicegerent of God, Psalm-Receiver
Born	c. 1040 B.C.E. Bethlehem
Died	c. 970 B.C.E. Jerusalem
Honored in	Judaism Christianity Islam
Attributes	Psalms, Harp, Head of Goliath

David is an important figure in Judaism. Historically, David's reign represented the formation of a coherent Jewish kingdom centered in Jerusalem. David is an important figure within the context of Jewish messianism. In the Hebrew Bible, it is written that a human descendant of David will occupy the throne of a restored kingdom and usher in a messianic age.

David is also viewed as a tragic figure; his acquisition of Bathsheba, and the loss of his son are viewed as his central tragedies.

Many legends have grown around the figure of David. According to one Rabbinic tradition, David was raised as the son of his father Jesse and spent his early years herding his father's sheep in the wilderness while his brothers were in school. Only at his anointing by Samuel – when the oil from Samuel's flask turned to diamonds and pearls – was his true identity as Jesse's son revealed.

David's adultery with Bathsheba was only an opportunity to demonstrate the power of repentance, and some Talmudic authors stated that it was not adultery at all, quoting a Jewish practice of divorce on the eve of battle. However, in tractate Sanhedrin, David's broken heart pleads and numerous actions for forgiveness are discussed, God ultimately forgives but would not remove his sins from Scripture.^[33]

Furthermore, according to David's apologists, the death of Uriah was not to be considered murder, on the basis that Uriah had committed a capital offence by refusing to obey a direct command from the King.^[34]

According to midrashim, Adam gave up 70 years of his life for the life of David.^[35] Also, according to the Talmud Yerushalmi, David was born and died on the Jewish holiday of Shavuot (Feast of Weeks). His piety was said to be so great that his prayers could bring down things from Heaven.

Christianity[link]

David and King Saul, by Rembrandt. David plays the lyre (depicted here as a harp) to the king "tormented by an evil spirit."

The concept of the Messiah is important in Christianity. Originally an earthly king ruling by divine appointment ("the anointed one", as the title Messiah had it), the "son of David" became in the last two pre-Christian centuries the apocalyptic and heavenly one who would deliver Israel and usher in a new kingdom. This was the background to the concept of Messiahship in early Christianity, which interpreted the career of Jesus "by means of the titles and functions assigned to David in the mysticism of the Zion cult, in which he served as priest-king and in which he was the mediator between God and man."^[36] The early Church believed that "the life of David [foreshadowed] the life of Christ; Bethlehem is the birthplace of both; the shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd; the five stones chosen to slay Goliath are typical of the five wounds; the betrayal by his trusted counsellor, Achitophel, and the passage over the Cedron remind us of Christ's Sacred Passion. Many of the Davidic Psalms, as we learn from the New Testament, are clearly typical of the future Messiah."^[37] In the Middle Ages, "Charlemagne thought of himself, and was viewed by his court scholars, as a 'new David'. [This was] not in itself a new idea, but [one whose] content and significance were greatly enlarged by him."^[38] The linking of David to earthly kingship was reflected in later Medieval cathedral windows all over Europe through the device of the Tree of Jesse, its branches demonstrating how divine kingship descended from Jesse, through his son David, to Jesus.

Western Rite churches (Roman Catholic, Lutheran) celebrate his feast day on 29 December, Eastern-rite on 19 December.^[39] The Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches celebrate the feast day of the "Holy Righteous Prophet and King David" on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord), when he is commemorated together with other ancestors of Jesus. He is also commemorated on the Sunday after the Nativity, together with Joseph and James, the Brother of the Lord.

Mormonism[link]

The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cites David as one directed by God to practice polygamy, but who sinned in committing adultery with Bathsheba and having Uriah killed.^[40]

Islam[link]

Main article Islamic view of David

David (Arabic داود, Dāwūd) is a highly important figure in Islam as one of the major prophets sent by God to guide the Israelites. David is mentioned several times in the Qur'an, often with his son Solomon. In the Qur'an: David killed Goliath (II: 251), Goliath was a powerful king who used to invade random kingdoms and villages. Goliath was spreading evil and corruption. When David killed Goliath, God granted him kingship and wisdom and enforces it (XXXVIII: 20). David is made God's "vicegerent on earth" (XXXVIII: 26) and God further gives David sound judgment (XXI: 78; XXXVII: 21–24, 26) as well as the Psalms, which are regarded as books of divine wisdom (IV: 163; XVII, 55). The birds and mountains unite with David in ushering praise to God (XXI: 79; XXXIV: 10; XXXVIII: 18), while God instructs David in the art of fashioning chain-mail out of iron (XXXIV: 10; XXI: 80). Together with Solomon, David gives judgment in a case of damage to the fields (XXI: 78) and David judges in the matter between two disputants in his prayer chamber (XXXVIII: 21–23). Since there is no mention in the Qur'an of the wrong David did to Uriah nor is there any reference to Bathsheba, Muslims reject this narrative.^[41]

Muslim tradition and the hadith stress David's zeal in daily prayer^[42] as well as in fasting. Qur'an commentators, historians and compilers of the numerous Stories of the Prophets elaborate upon David's concise Qur'anic narratives and specifically mention David's gift in singing his Psalms as well as his musical and vocal talents. His voice is described as having had a captivating power, weaving its influence not only over man but over all beasts and nature, who would unite with him to praise God.^[43]

Baha'i Faith[link]

David is described as a minor prophet who came in the shadow of the dispensation of Moses to develop and consolidate the process he set in motion.^[44]

Succession[link]

The oldest complete Tree of Jesse window is in Chartres Cathedral, 1145.

Genealogy[link]

According to Genesis 46:12 and Ruth 4:18–22, David is the eleventh^[45] generation from Judah, the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob (Israel). The genealogical line runs as follows: (1) Judah → (2) Pharez → (3) Hezron → (4) Ram → (5) Amminadab → (6) Nahshon → (7) Salmon → (8) Boaz (the husband of Ruth) → (9) Obed → (10) Jesse → (11) David.^[45]

Family[link]

David was born in Bethlehem, in the territory of the Tribe of Judah. His father was named Jesse. His mother is not named in the Bible, but the Talmud identifies her as Nitzevet daughter of Adael.^[46] David had seven brothers and was the youngest of them all. He had eight wives: Michal, the second daughter of King Saul; Ahinoam the Jezreelite; Abigail the Carmelite, previously wife of Nabal;^[47] Maachah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur; Haggith; Abital; Eglah; and Bathsheba, previously the wife of Uriah the Hittite.

The Book of Chronicles lists David's sons by various wives and concubines. In Hebron he had six sons 1 Chronicles 3:1–3: Amnon, by Ahinoam; Daniel, by Abigail; Absalom, by Maachah; Adonijah, by Haggith; Shephatiah, by Abital; and Ithream, by Eglah. By Bathsheba, his sons were: Shammua; Shobab; Nathan; and Solomon. His sons born in Jerusalem by other wives included: Ibhar; Elishua; Eliphelet; Nogah; Nepheg; Japhia; Elishama; and Eliada. 2 Samuel 5:14–16 According to 2 Chronicles 11:18, Jerimoth, who is not mentioned in any of the genealogies, is mentioned as another of David's sons. According to 2 Samuel 9:11, David adopted Jonathan's son Mephibosheth as his own.

David also had at least one daughter, Tamar by Maachah, who was raped by Amnon, her half-brother. Her rape leads to Amnon's death. 2 Samuel 13:1–29 Absalom, Amnon's half-brother and Tamar's full-brother, waits two years, then avenges his sister by sending his servants to kill Amnon at a feast to which he had invited all the king's sons. 2 Samuel 13

Legend and legacy[link]

In European Christian culture of the Middle Ages, David was made a member of the Nine Worthies, a group of heroes encapsulating all the ideal qualities of chivalry. His life was thus proposed as a valuable subject for study by those aspiring to chivalric status. This aspect of David in the Nine Worthies was popularised firstly through literature, and was thereafter adopted as a frequent subject for painters and sculptors.

The musician[link]

"David Playing the Harp" by Jan de Bray, 1670.

In various biblical passages, David is referred to as “the favorite of the songs of Israel,”^[48] the one who soothed Saul with music,^[49] and the founder of Temple singing.^[50][51] A Psalms scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPs^a) attributes 3600 tehilim (songs of praise) plus other compositions to David.^[52] Seventy-three of the 150 Psalms in the Bible are attributed to David.^[53] The supreme kingship of Yahweh is the most pervasive theological concept in the book of Psalms,^[54][55] and many psalms attributed to David are directed to Yahweh by name,^[56] whether in praise or petition, suggesting a relationship.^[57] According to the Midrash Tehillim, King David was prompted to the Psalms by the Holy Spirit that rested upon him.^[58]