for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly--wherefore he did evil
in the sight of the Lord, for they were his counsellors after the death
of his father to his destruction. What else could result in a home of
which Athaliah was the head, in which the main training and influence
were supplied by one of Jezebel's brood. The significant feature in
all these Chronicles is the immense influence of women in shaping the
lives and characters of kings. The men seem to have little to do with
it; the women are almost supreme. Sons do not take after their fathers
but after their mothers. Again and again we read of a good king who
had a wicked father--Josiah, Hezekiah, and others. They shake off
their evil inheritance; they refuse to follow in their fathers' steps;
they destroy idolatry, and endeavour to redeem Israel from its
iniquity. But whenever this is the case you do not look far without
discovering the cause. A good mother has been at work--woman's
gracious influence has counteracted against the pernicious example of
the father. And, on the other hand, we have a long list of vile and
idolatrous kings, whose fathers were either comparatively worthy, or
full of downright godliness, and then, invariably, there is some
evil-minded royal consort at the back of it. Whenever we can get into
the secrets of court life, we find that the character of the wife
determines the moral weight and form of the royal children. It is her
training that shapes the men. How could it be otherwise indeed? What
time had those kings to spend on home matters, what with their
fighting, judging, governing, and attending to all the affairs of
empire? How could they do a father's work and watch the training of
the future kings? It was left to the mothers, and unhappy they who had
mothers like Ahaziah's.

And is not this an everlasting story, true to-day as it was in those
old days? It is the mother's hand mainly that shapes men for good or