Sol'omon (Heb. Shelomoh', שׁלֹמֹה, peaceful; Sept. Σαλωμών; New Test. and Josephus, Σολομών; Vulg. Solomo), the son of David by Bathsheba, and his successor upon the throne. B.C. 1013- 973. The importance of his character and reign justify a full treatment here, in which we present a digest of the Scriptural information with modern criticism. SEE DAVID.
I. Sources. —
1. The comparative scantiness of historical data for a life of Solomon is itself significant. While that of David occupies 1Sa 16-31; 2Sa 1-24; 1Ki 1:2; 1Ch 10-29, that of Solomon fills only the eleven chapters 1 Kings 1-11 and the nine 2 Chronicles 1-9. The compilers of those books felt, as by a true inspiration, unlike the authors of the Apocryphal literature cited below, that the wanderings, wars, and sufferings of David were better fitted for the instruction of after ages than the magnificence of his son. They manifestly give extracts only from larger works which were before them, "The book of the acts of Solomon" (1Ki 11:41); "The book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer" (2Ch 9:29). Those which they do give bear, with what for the historian is a disproportionate fulness, on the early glories of his reign, and speak but little (those in 2 Chronicles not at all) of its later sins and misfortunes, and we are consequently unable to follow the annals of Solomon step by step.
2. Ewald, with all his usual fondness for assigning different portions of each book of the Old Test. to a series of successive editors, goes through the process here with much ingenuity, but without any very satisfactory result (Gesch. Isr. 3, 259-263). A more interesting inquiry would be to which of the books above named we may refer the sections that the compilers have put together. We shall probably not be far wrong in thinking of Nathan, far advanced in life at the commencement of the reign, David's chief adviser during the years in which he was absorbed in the details of the Temple and its ritual, himself a priest (1Ki 4:5 [Heb.]; comp. Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 116), as having written the account of the accession of Solomon and the dedication of the Temple (1Ki 1-8; 2Ch 1:1-8:15). The prayer of Solomon, so fully reproduced and so obviously precomposed, may have been written under his guidance. To Ahijah the Shilonite, active at the close of the reign, alive some time after Jeroboam's accession, we may ascribe the short record of the sin of Solomon, and of the revolution to which he himself had so largely contributed (1 Kings 11). From the book of the acts of Solomon probably came the miscellaneous facts as to the commerce and splendor of his reign (9:10-10:29).
3. Besides the direct history of the Old Test., we may find some materials for the life of Solomon in the books that bear his name, and in the psalms which are referred by some to his time (Ps 2; Ps 45; Ps 72; Ps 127). Whatever doubts may hang over the date and authorship of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, we may at least see in them the reflection of the thoughts and feelings of his reign. If we accept the latest date which recent criticism has assigned to them, they elaborately work up materials which were accessible to the writers and are not accessible to us. If we refer them in their substance, following the judgment of the most advanced Shemitic scholars, to the Solomonic period itself, they then come before us with all the freshness and vividness of contemporary evidence (Renan, Hist. des Langues Semit. p. 131).
4. Other materials are very scanty. The history of Josephus is, for the most part, only a loose and inaccurate paraphrase of the Old Test. narrative. In him, and in the more erudite among early Christian writers, we find some fragments of older history not without their value — extracts from archives alleged to exist at Tyre in the first century of the Christian era, and from the Phoenician histories of Menander and Dius (Ant. 8, 2, 6; 5, 3), from Eupolemus (Euseb. Proep. Evang. 9, 30), from Alexander Polyhistor, Menander, and Laitus (Clem. Al. Strom. 1, 21). Writers such as these were of course only compilers at second hand, but they probably had access to some earlier documents which have now perished.
5. The legends of later Oriental literature will claim a distinct notice. All that they contribute to history is the help they give us in realizing the impression made by the colossal greatness of Solomon, as in earlier and later times by that of Nimrod and Alexander, on the minds of men of many countries and through many ages.
II. Early Life. —
1. The student of the life of Solomon must take as his starting point the circumstances of his birth. He was the child of David's old age, the last born of all his sons (1Ch 3:5). B.C. 1034. The narrative of 2 Samuel 12 leaves, it is true, a different impression.On the other hand, the order of the names in 1Ch 3:5 is otherwise unaccountable. Josephus distinctly states it (Ant. 7, 14, 2). His mother had gained over David a twofold power — first, as the object of a passionate though guilty love; and, next, as the one person to whom, in his repentance, he could make something like restitution. The months that preceded his birth were for the conscience stricken king a time of self abasement. The birth itself of the child who was to replace the one that had been smitten must have been looked for as a pledge of pardon and a sign of hope. The feelings of the king and of his prophet guide expressed themselves in the names with which they welcomed it. The yearnings of the "man of war," who "had shed much blood," for a time of peace yearnings which had shown themselves before, when he gave to his third son the name of Absalom (=father of peace) now led him to give to the newborn infant the name of Solomon (Shelomoh= the peaceful one). Nathan, with a marked reference to the meaning of the king's own name (=the darling, the beloved one), takes another form of the same word, and joins it, after the growing custom of the time, with the name of Jehovah. David had been the darling of his people. Jedid-jah (the name was coined for the purpose) should be the darling of the Lord (2Sa 12:24-25, see Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 215). SEE JEDIDIAH. According to the received interpretation of Pr 31:1, his mother also contributed an ideal name, Lemuel (=to God, Deodatus), the dedicated one (comp. Ewald, Poet. Buch. 4, 173). On this hypothesis the reproof was drawn forth by the king's intemperance and sensuality. In contrast to what his wives were, she draws the picture of what a pattern wife ought to be (Pineda, De Reb. Sol. 1, 4).
2. The influences to which the childhood of Solomon was thus exposed must have contributed largely to determine the character of his after years. The inquiry what was the education which ended in such wonderful contrasts — a wisdom then, and perhaps since, unparalleled, a sensuality like that of Louis XV — cannot but be instructive. The three influences which must have entered most largely into that education were those of his father, his mother, and the teacher under whose charge he was placed from his earliest infancy (2Sa 12:25).
(1.) The fact just stated that a prophet priest was made the special instructor indicates the king's earnest wish that this child at least should be protected against the evils which, then and afterwards, showed themselves in his elder sons, and be worthy of the name he bore. At first, apparently, there was no distinct purpose to make him his heir. Absalom is still the king's favorite son (2Sa 13:37; 2Sa 18:33) — is looked on by the people as the destined successor (2Sa 14:13; 2Sa 15:16). The death of Absalom, when Solomon was about ten years old, left the place vacant, and David, passing over the claims of all his elder sons, those by Bathsheba included, guided by the influence of Nathan, or by his own discernment of the gifts and graces which were tokens of the love of Jehovah, pledged his word in secret to Bathsheba that he, and no other, should be the heir (1Ki 1:13). The words which were spoken somewhat later express, doubtless, the purpose which guided him throughout (1Ch 28:9,20). The son's life should not be as his own had been, one of hardships and wars, dark crimes and passionate repentance, but, from first to last, be pure, blameless, peaceful, fulfilling the ideal of glory and of righteousness, after which he himself had vainly striven. The glorious visions of Psalm 72 may be looked on as the prophetic expansion of those hopes of his old age. So far, all was well. But we may not ignore the fact that the later years of David's life presented a change for the worse as well as for the better. His sins, though forgiven, left behind it the Nemesis of an enfeebled will and a less generous activity. The liturgical element of religion becomes, after the first passionate outpouring of Psalm 51, unduly predominant. He lives to amass treasures and materials for the Temple which he may not build (22:5, 14). He plans with his own hands all the details of its architecture (28:19). He organizes on a scale of elaborate magnificence all the attendance of the priesthood and the choral services of the Levites (chapters 24, 25). But, meanwhile, his duties as a king are neglected. He no longer sits in the gate to do judgment (2Sa 15:2,4). He leaves the sin of Amnon unpunished "because he loved him, for he was his first born" (Sept. at 2Sa 13:21). The hearts of the people fall away from him. First Absalom and then Sheba become formidable rivals (2Sa 15:6; 2Sa 20:2). The history of the numbering of the people (24; 1 Chronicles 21) implies the purpose of some act of despotism — a poll-tax or a conscription (2Sa 24:9 makes the latter the more probable) — such as startled all his older and more experienced counsellors. If in "the last words of David" belonging to this period there is the old devotion, the old hungering after righteousness (23:2-5), there is also — first generally (ver. 6, 7), and afterwards resting on individual offenders (1Ki 2:5-8) — a more passionate desire to punish those who had wronged him, a painful recurrence of vindictive thoughts for offenses which he had once freely forgiven, and which were not greater than his own. We cannot rest in the belief that his influence over his son's character was one exclusively for good.
(2.) In Eastern countries, and under a system of polygamy, the son is more dependent, even than elsewhere, on the character of the mother. The history of the Jewish monarchy furnishes many instances of that dependence. It recognizes it in the care with which it records the name of each monarch's mother. Nothing that we know of Bathsheba leads us to think of her as likely to mold her son's mind and heart to the higher forms of goodness. She offers no resistance to the king's passion (Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 211). She makes it a stepping stone to power. She is a ready accomplice in the scheme by which her shame was to have been concealed. Doubtless she, too, was sorrowful and penitent when the rebuke of Nathan was followed by her child's death (2Sa 12:24), but the after history shows that the grand-daughter of Ahithophel had inherited not a little of his character. A willing adultress, who had become devout, but had not ceased to be ambitious, could hardly be more, at the best, that the Madame de Maintenon of a king whose contrition and piety were rendering him, unlike his former self, unduly passive in the hands of others. SEE BATHSHEBA.
(3.) What was likely to be the influence of the prophet to whose care the education of Solomon was confided? (Heb. of 2Sa 12:25). We know, beyond all doubt, that he could speak bold and faithful words when they were needed (2Sa 7:1-17; 2Sa 12:1-14). But this power, belonging to moments or messages of special inspiration, does not involve the permanent possession of a clear-sighted wisdom or of aims uniformly high, and, we in vain search the later years of David's reign for any proof of Nathan's activity for good. He gives himself to the work of writing the annals of David's reign (1Ch 29:29). He places his own sons in the way of being the companions and counsellors of the future king (1Ki 4:5). The absence of his name from the history of the "numbering," and the fact that the census was followed early in the reign of Solomon by, heavy burdens and a forced service, almost lead us to the conclusion that the prophet had acquiesced in a measure which had in view the magnificence of the Temple, and that it was left to David's own heart, returning to its better impulses (2Sa 24:10), and to an older and less courtly prophet, to protest against an act which began in pride and tended to oppression. Josephus, with his usual inaccuracy, substitutes Nathan for Gad in his narrative (Ant. 7, 13, 2).
3. Under these influences the boy grew up. At the age of ten or eleven he must have passed through the revolt of Absalom and shared his father's exile (2Sa 15:16). He would be taught all that priests or Levites or prophets had to teach; music and song; the book of the law of the Lord in such portions and in such forms as were then current; the "proverbs of the ancients," which his father had been wont to quote (1Sa 24:13); probably also a literature which has survived only in fragments; the book of Jasher, the upright ones, the heroes of the people; the book of the wars of the Lord; the wisdom, oral or written, of the sages of his own tribe, Heman, and Ethan, and Calcol, and Darda (1Ch 2:6), who contributed so largely to the noble hymns of this period (Ps 88; Ps 89), and probably were incorporated into the choir of the tabernacle (Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 355). The growing intercourse of Israel with the Phoenicians would naturally lead to a wider knowledge of the outlying world and its wonders than had fallen to his father's lot. Admirable, however, as all this was, a shepherd life, like his father's, furnished, we may believe, a better education for the kingly calling (Ps 78:70-71). Born to the purple, there was the inevitable risk of a selfish luxury. Cradled in liturgies, trained to think chiefly of the magnificent "palace" of Jehovah (1Ch 29:19) of which, he was to be the builder, there was the danger first of an esthetic formalism and then of ultimate indifference.
III. Accession. —
1. The feebleness of David's old age led to an attempt which might have deprived Solomon of the throne his father destined for him. Adonijah, next in order of birth to Absalom, like Absalom, "was a goodly man" (1Ki 1:6), in full maturity of years, backed by the oldest of the king's friends and counsellors, Joab and Abiathar, and by all the sons of David, who looked with jealousy the latter on the obvious though not as yet declared preference of the latest born, and the former on the growing influence of the rival counsellors who were most in the king's favor, Nathan, Zadok, and Benaiah. Following in the steps of Absalom, he assumed the kingly state of a chariot and a bodyguard; and David, more passive than ever, looked on in silence. At last a time was chosen for openly proclaiming him as king. A solemn, feast at En-rogel was to inaugurate the new reign. All were invited to it but those whom it was intended to displace. It was necessary for those whose interests were endangered, backed apparently by two of David's surviving elder brothers (1Ch 2:13-14; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 266), to take prompt measures. Bathsheba and Nathan took counsel together. The king was reminded of his oath. A virtual abdication was pressed upon him as the only means by which the succession of his favorite son could be secured. The whole thing was completed with wonderful rapidity. Riding on the mule well known as belonging to the king, attended by Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest, and, more important still, by the king's special company of the thirty Gibborim, or mighty men (1Ki 1:10,33), and the bodyguard of the Cherethites and Pelethites (mercenaries, and therefore not liable to the contagion of popular feeling) under, the command of Benaiah (himself, like Nathan and Zadok, of the sons of Aaron), he went down to Gihon and was proclaimed and anointed king. (According to later Jewish teaching, a king was not anointed when he succeeded to his father, except in the case of a previous usurpation or a disputed succession [Otho, Lex. Rabbin. s.v. "Rex"].) The shouts of his followers fell on the startled ears of the guests at Adonijah's banquet. Happily they were as yet committed to no overt act, and they did not venture on one now. One by one they rose and departed. The plot had failed. The counter coup d'etat of Nathan and Bathsheba had been successful. Such incidents are common enough in the history of Eastern monarchies. They are usually followed by a massacre of the defeated party. Adonijah expected such an issue, and took refuge at the horns of the altar. In this instance, however, the young conqueror used his triumph generously. The lives both of Adonijah and his partisans were spared, at least for a time. What had been done hurriedly was done afterwards in more solemn form. Solomon was presented to a great gathering of all the notables of Israel with a set speech, in which the old king announced what was, to his mind, the program of the new reign, a time of peace and plenty, of a stately worship, of devotion to Jehovah. A few months more and Solomon found himself, by his father's death, the sole occupant of the throne.
2. The position to which he succeeded was unique. Never before, and never after, did the kingdom of Israel take its place among the great monarchies of the East, able to ally itself or to contend on equal terms with Egypt or Assyria, stretching from the river Euphrates to the border of Egypt, from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Akaba, receiving annual tributes from many subject princes (see Hase, Regni Salom. Descriptio [Norimb. 1739]). Large treasures accumulated through many years were at his disposal. The sums mentioned are (1) the public funds for building the Temple, 100,000 talents (kikarin) of gold and 1,000,000 of silver; (2) David's private offerings, 3000 talents of gold and 7000 of silver. Besides these, large sums of unknown amount were believed to have been stored up in the sepulchre of David. 3000 talents were taken from it by Hyrcanus (Josephus, Ant. 7, 15, 3; 13, 8, 4; 16, 7, 1). The people, with the exception of the tolerated worship in high places, were true servants of Jehovah. Knowledge, art, music, poetry, had received a new impulse, and were moving on with rapid steps to such perfection as the age and the race were capable of attaining. We may rightly ask what manner of man he was, outwardly and inwardly, who at the age of about twenty was called to this glorious sovereignty? We have, it is true, no direct description in this case as we have of the earlier kings. There are, however, materials for filling up the gap. The wonderful impression which Solomon made upon all who came near him may well lead us to believe that with him, as with Saul and David, Absalom and Adonijah, as with most other favorite princes of Eastern peoples, there must have been the fascination and the grace of a noble presence. Whatever higher mystic meaning may be latent in Psalm 45, or the Song of Songs, we are compelled to think of them as having had, at least, a historical starting point. They tell us of one who was, in the eyes of the men of his own time, "fairer than the children of men," the face "bright and ruddy" as his father's (Song 5:10; 1Sa 17:42), bushy locks, dark as the raven's wing, yet not without a golden glow (possibly sprinkled with gold dust, as was the hair of the youths who waited on him [Josephus, Ant. 8, 7, 3], or dyed with henna [Michaelis, note in Lowth, Proel. 31]), the eyes soft as "the eyes of doves," the "countenance as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars," "the chiefest among ten thousand, the altogether lovely" (Song 5:9-16). Add to this all gifts of a noble, far-reaching intellect, large and ready sympathies, a playful and genial humor, the lips "full of grace," the soul "anointed" as "with the oil of gladness" (Psalm 45), and we may form some notion of what the king was like in that dawn of his golden prime.
3. The historical starting point of the Song of Songs just spoken of connects itself, in all probability, with the earliest facts in the history of the new reign. The narrative, as told in 1 Kings 2, is not a little perplexing. Bathsheba, who had before stirred up David against Adonijah, now appears as interceding for him, begging that Abishag the Shunamnite, the virgin concubine of David, might be given him as a wife. Solomon, who till then had professed the profoundest reverence for his mother, his willingness to grant her anything, suddenly flashes into fiercest wrath at this. He detects what her unsuspicious generosity had not perceived. The petition is treated as part of a conspiracy in which Joab and Abiathar are sharers. Benaiah is once more called in. Adonijah is put to death at once. Joab is slain even within the precincts of the tabernacle, to which he had fled as an asylum. Abiathar is deposed and exiled, sent to a life of poverty and shame (1Ki 2:31-36), and the high priesthood transferred to another family more ready than he had been to pass from the old order to the new, and to accept the voices of the prophets as greater than the oracles which had belonged exclusively to the priesthood. SEE URIM AND THUMMIM. Abiathar is declared "worthy of death," clearly not for any new offenses, but for his participation in Adonijah's original attempt; and Joab is put to death because he is alarmed at the treatment of his associates (1Ki 2:26-29), which implies collusion on his part. The king sees in the movement a plot to keep him still in the tutelage of childhood, to entrap him into admitting his elder brother's right to the choicest treasure of his father's harem, and therefore virtually to the throne, or at least to a regency in which he would have his own partisans as counsellors. With a keen sighted promptness he crushes the whole scheme. He gets rid of a rival, fulfils David's dying counsels as to Joab, and asserts his own independence. Soon afterwards an opportunity is thrown in his way of getting rid of one, SEE SHIMEI, who had been troublesome before and might be troublesome again. He presses the letter of a compact against a man who by his infatuated disregard of it seemed given over to destruction (1Ki 2:36-46). (An elaborate vindication of Solomon's conduct in this matter may be found in Menthen, Thesaur. vol. 1; Slisser, Diss. de Salom. Processu contra Shimei.) There is, however, no needless slaughter. The other "sons of David" are still spared, and one of them, Nathan, becomes the head of a distinct family (Zec 12:12) which ultimately fills up the failure of the direct succession (Lu 3:31). As he punishes his father's enemies, he also shows kindness to the friends who had been faithful to him. Chimham, the son of Barzillai, apparently receives an inheritance near the city of David, and probably in the reign of Solomon displays his inherited hospitality by building a caravansary for the strangers whom the fame and wealth of Solomon drew to Jerusalem (2Sa 19:31-40; 1Ki 2:7; Jer 41:17; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 247; Proph. 2, 191).
IV. Foreign Policy. — The want of sufficient data for a continuous history has already been noticed. All that we have are
(a) The duration of the reign, forty years (1Ki 11:42). (Josephus, again inaccurate, lengthens the reign to eighty years, and makes the age at accession fourteen [Ant. 8, 7, 8].)
(b) The commencement of the Temple in the fourth, its completion in the eleventh year of his reign (6, 1, 37, 38).
(c) The commencement of his own palace in the seventh, its completion in the twentieth year (7, 1; 2Ch 8:1).
(d) The conquest of Hamath-zobah, and the consequent foundation of cities in the region north of Palestine after the twentieth year (ver. 1-6). With materials so scanty as these, it will be better to group the chief facts in an order which will best enable us to appreciate their significance.
1. Egypt. — The first act of the foreign policy of the new reign must have been to most Israelites a very startling one. He made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt. He married Pharaoh's daughter (1Ki 3:1). Since the time of the Exode there had been no intercourse between the two countries. David and his counsellors had taken no steps to promote it. Egypt had probably taken part in assisting Edom in its resistance to David (1Ch 11:23; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 182), and had received Hadad, the prince of Edom, with royal honors. The king had given him his wife's sister in marriage, and adopted his son into his own family (1Ki 11:14-20). These steps indicated a purpose to support him at some future time more actively, and Solomon's proposal of marriage was probably intended to counteract it. It was at the time, so far successful that when Hadad, on hearing of the death of the dreaded leaders of the armies of Israel, David and Joab, wished to seize the opportunity of attacking the new king, the court of Egypt rendered him no assistance (11:21, 22). The disturbances thus caused, like those of a later date in the north, coming from the foundation of a new Syrian kingdom at Damascus by Rezon and other fugitives from Zobah (ver. 23-25), might well lead Solomon to look out for a powerful support, to obtain for a new dynasty and a new kingdom a recognition by one of older fame and greater power. The immediate results were probably favorable enough. The new queen brought with her as a dowry the frontier city of Gezer, against which, as threatening the tranquillity of Israel, and as still possessed by a remnant of the old Canaanites, Pharaoh had led his armies. She was received with all honor, the queen-mother herself attending to place the diadem on her son's brow on the day of his espousals (Song 3:11). Gifts from the nobles of Israel and from Tyre (the latter offered perhaps by a Tyrian princess) were lavished at her feet (Ps 45:12). It is to be remarked that the daughter of Pharaoh appears to have conformed to the Hebrew faith, for she is mentioned as if apart from the "strange women" who seduced Solomon into the toleration or practice of idolatry (1Ki 11:1), and there are no accounts of any Egyptian superstitions being introduced during his reign. The Egyptian queen dwelt in a separate. portion of the city of David till a palace was reared — the presence of the ark on Zion precluded the near residence of such a foreigner, though she might have abandoned her national gods (2Ch 8:11). She dwelt there apparently with attendants of her own race, "the virgins that be her fellows," probably conforming in some degree to the religion of her adopted country. According to a tradition which may have some foundation in spite of its exaggerated numbers, Pharaoh (Psusennes, or, as in the story, Vaphres) sent with her workmen to help in building the Temple to the number of 80,000 (Eupolemus, in Euseb. Proep. Evang. 2, 30-35). The "chariots of Pharaoh," at any rate, appeared in royal procession with a splendor hitherto unknown (Song 1:9).
The ultimate issue of the alliance showed that it was hollow and impolitic. There may have been a revolution in Egypt, changing the dynasty and transferring the seat of power to Bubastis (Ewald, 3, 389). There was at any rate a change of policy. The court of Egypt welcomes the fugitive Jeroboam when he is known to have aspirations after kingly power. There, we may believe, by some kind of compact, expressed or understood, was planned the scheme which led first to the rebellion of the Ten Tribes, and then to the attack of Shishak on the weakened and dismantled kingdom of the son of Solomon. Evils such as these were hardly counterbalanced by the trade opened by Solomon in the fine linen of Egypt, or the supply of chariots and horses which, as belonging to aggressive rather than defensive warfare, a wiser policy would have led him to avoid (1Ki 10:28-29) .
2. Tyre. — The alliance with the Phoenician king rested on a somewhat different footing. It had been part of David's policy from the beginning of his reign. Hiram had been "ever a lover of David." He, or his grandfather (comp. the data given in 2Sa 5:11; Josephus, Ant. 7, 3, 2; 8, 5, 3; Cont. Ap. 1, 18; and Ewald, 3, 287), had helped him by supplying materials and workmen for his palace. As soon as he heard of Solomon's accession he sent ambassadors to salute him. A correspondence passed between the two kings, which ended in a treaty of commerce. (The letters are given at. length by Josephus [Ant. 8, 2, 8] and Eupolemus [Eusebius, Prscep. Evang. loc. cit.].) Israel was to be supplied from Tyre with the materials which were wanted for the Temple that was to be the glory of the new reign. Gold from Ophir, cedar wood from Lebanon, probably also copper from Cyprus, and tin from Spain or Cornwall (Niebuhr, Lect. on Anc. Hist. 1, 79), for the brass which was so highly valued, purple from Tyre itself, workmen from among the Zidonians — all these were wanted and were given. The opening of Joppa as a port created a new coasting trade, and the materials from Tyre were conveyed to it on floats, and thence to, Jerusalem (2Ch 2:16). The chief architect of the Temple, though an Israelite on his mother's side, belonging to the tribe of Dan or Naphtali, SEE HIRAM, was yet by birth a Tyrian, a namesake of the king. In return for these exports, the Phoenicians were only too glad to receive the corn and oil of Solomon's territory. Their narrow strip of coast did not produce. enough for the population of their cities, and then, as at a later;
period, "their country was nourished" by the broad valleys and plains of Samaria and Galilee (Ac 12:20).
The results of the alliance did not end here. Now, for the first time in the history of the Israelites, they entered on a career as a commercial people. They joined the Phoenicians in their Mediterranean voyages to the coasts of Spain. SEE TARSHISH. Solomon's possession of the Edomitish coast enabled him to open to his ally a new world of commerce. The ports of Elath and Eziongeber were filled with ships of Tarshish, i.e. merchant ships, for the long voyages, manned chiefly by Phoenicians, but built at Solomon's expense, which sailed down the Aelanitic Gulf of the Red Sea, on through. the Indian Ocean, to lands which had before been hardly known even by name, to Ophir and Sheba, to Arabia Felix, or India, or Ceylon; and brought back, after an absence of nearly three years, treasures almost or altogether new gold and silver and precious stones, nard, aloes, sandalwood, almug trees, and ivory; and last, but not least in the eyes of the historian, new forms of animal life, on which the inhabitants of Palestine gazed with wondering eyes, "apes and peacocks." The interest of Solomon in these enterprises was shown by his leaving his palaces at Jerusalem and elsewhere and travelling to Elath and Ezion-geber to superintend the construction of the fleet (2Ch 8:17); perhaps also to Sidon for a like purpose. (The statement of Justin Martyr [Dial. c. Tryph. c. 34], ἐν Σιδῶνι εἰδωλολάτρει, receives by the accompanying διὰ γυναῖκα the character of an extract from some history then extant. The marriage of Solomon with a daughter of the king of Tyres is mentioned by Eusebius [Proep. Evang. 10, 11].) To the knowledge thus gained we may ascribe the wider thoughts which appear in the psalms of this and the following periods, as of those who "see the wonders of the deep and occupy their business in great waters" (Ps 107:23-30); perhaps also as an experience of the more humiliating accidents of sea- travel (Pr 23:34-35). (See the monographs De Navig. Salom. by Wichmannshausen [Viteb. 1709], Huetius [in Ugolino, vol. 7], Konigsmann [Slesv. 1800], and Reill [in Germ.] [Dorp. 1834.).
According to the statement of the Phoenician writers quoted by Josephus (Ant. 8, 5, 3), the intercourse of the two kings had in it also something of the sportiveness and freedom of friends. They delighted to perplex each other with hard questions, and laid wagers as to their power of answering them. Hiram was at first the loser and paid his forfeits; but afterwards, through the help of a sharp-witted Tyrian boy, Abdemon, he solved the hard problems, and was in the end the winner. (The narrative of Josephus implies the existence of some story, more or less humorous, in Tyrian literature, in which the wisest of the kings of earth was baffled by a boy's cleverness. A singular pendant to this is found in the popular mediaeval story of Solomon and Morolf, in which the latter [an ugly, deformed dwarf] outwits the former. A modernized version of this work may be found in the Walhalla [Leipsic, 1844]. Older copies, in Latin and German, of the 15th century, are in the British Museum Library. The Anglo-Saxon Dialogue of Solomon and Saturn is a mere catechism of scriptural knowledge.) The singular fragment of history inserted in 1Ki 9:11-14, recording the cession by Solomon of sixteen cities, and Hiram's dissatisfaction with them, is perhaps connected with these imperial wagers. The king of Tyre revenges himself by a Phoenician bon mot. SEE CABUL. He fulfils his part of the contract, and pays the stipulated price.
3. These were the two most important alliances. The absence of any reference to Babylon and Assyria, and the fact that the Euphrates was recognized as the boundary of Solomon's kingdom (2Ch 9:26), suggest the inference that the Mesopotamian monarchies were at.this time comparatively feeble. Other neighboring nations were content to pay annual tribute in the form of gifts (9:24). The kings of the Hittites and of Syria welcomed the opening of a new line of commerce which enabled them to find in Jerusalem an emporium where they might get the chariots and horses of Egypt (1Ki 10:29). This, however, was obviously but a small part of the traffic organized by Solomon. The foundation of cities like Tadmor in the wilderness, and Tiphsah (Thapsacus) on the Euphrates; of others on the route, each with its own special market for chariots or horses or stores (2Ch 8:3-6); the erection of lofty towers on Lebanon (2 Chronicles loc. cit.; Song 7:4), pointed to a more distant commerce, opening out the resources of Central, Asia, reaching, as that of Tyre did afterwards (availing itself of this very route), to the nomad tribes of the Caspian and the Black seas, to Togarmah and Meshech and Tubal (Eze 27:13-14; comp. Milman, Hist. of the Jews, 1, 270).
With the few exceptions above noted, the reign of Solomon verified his name. It was a time of peace: "he had peace on all sides round about him, and Judah and Israel dwelt safely" (1Ki 4:24-25). The arms of David had won the empire which Solomon now enjoyed. It was an empire in the Oriental sense, extending from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, from Thapsacus to Gaza. The outlying territories paid tribute to their suzerain; "they that dwell in the wilderness bowed before him; the kings of Tarshish and of the isles brought presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba offered gifts;" the Syrian tribes beyond Lebanon and as far as Damascus, with Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the Arabian clans, the surviving aborigines, and the Philistines, did homage and paid tribute — "they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life." At the same time proper measures or precautions were taken to preserve peace. Fortresses seem to have been built along the ridges of Lebanon, and on the frontiers "were chariot cities, and cities of horsemen." The two Beth- horons, on the boundary line of the great and uneasy tribe of Ephraim, and on the high-road between Jerusalem and the seacoast, as well from the east as from Philistia and Egypt, were strongly fortified — became "fenced cities, with walls, bars, and gates" (2Ch 8:5). For a similar reason the old city of Gezer, on the Philistine border, was rebuilt and garrisoned; and Hazor and Megiddo, guarding the plain of Esdraelon from Syrian or Assyrian attack, rose into great fortifications. No doubt, also, on the south, and fronting Idumaea and the desert, similar military stations were placed at intervals. Such a congeries of kingdoms has but a loose coherence, and continues united only so long as the central controlling power maintains its predominance, so that Solomon's empire, made up of those heterogeneous materials, fell to pieces at his death and the revolution that so closely followed it.
4. The survey of the influence exercised by Solomon, on surrounding nations would be incomplete if we were to pass over that which was more directly personal the fame of his glory and his wisdom. The legends which pervade the East are probably not merely the expansion of the scanty notices of the Old Test., but (as suggested above), like those which gather round the names of Nimrod and Alexander, the result of the impression made by the personal presence of one of the mighty ones of the earth. Cities like Tadmor and Tiphsah were not likely to have been founded by a king who had never seen and chosen the sites. 2Ch 8:3-4, implies the journey which Josephus speaks of (Ant. 8, 6, 1), and at Tadmor Solomon was within one day's journey of the Euphrates, and six of Babylon. (So Josephus, loc. cit.; but the day's journey must have been a long one.) Wherever the ships of Tarshish went, they carried with them the report, losing nothing in its passage, of what their crews had seen and heard. The impression made on the Incas of Peru by the power and knowledge of the Spaniards offers perhaps the nearest approach to what falls so little within the limits of our experience, though there was there no personal center round which the admiration could gather itself. The journey of the queen of Sheba, though from its circumstances the most conspicuous, did not stand alone. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, of the whole line of country between it and the Gulf of Akaba, saw with amazement the "great train;" the men with their swarthy faces, the camels bearing spices and gold and gems, of a queen who had come from the far South, because she had heard of the wisdom of Solomon, and connected with it "the name of Jehovah" (1Ki 10:1). She came with hard questions to test that wisdom, and the words just quoted may throw light upon their nature. Not riddles and enigmas only, such as the sportive fancy of the East delights in, but the ever old, ever new, problems of life, such as, even in that age and country, were vexing the hearts of the speakers in the book of Job, were stirring in her mind when she communed with Solomon of "all that was in her heart" (2Ch 10:2). She meets us the representative of a body whom the dedication prayer shows to have been numerous, the strangers "coming from a far country" because of the "great name" of Jehovah (1Ki 8:41), many of them princes themselves, or the messengers of kings (2Ch 9:23). The historians of Israel delighted to dwell on her confession that the reality surpassed the fame, "the one half of the greatness of thy wisdom was not told me" (ver. 6; Ewald, 3, 353). (See Schramm, De Fama Salom. [Herb. 1745].)
The territory of Sheba, according to Strabo, reached so far north as to meet that of the Nabathaeans, although its proper seat was at the southernmost angle of Arabia. The very rich presents made by the queen show the extreme value of her Commerce with the Hebrew monarch; aid this early interchange of hospitality derives a peculiar interest from the fact that in much later ages — those of the Maccabees and downward — the intercourse of the Jews with Sheba became so intimate, and their influence, and even power, so great. Jewish, circumcision took root there, and princes held sway who were called Jewish. The language of Sheba is believed to have been strongly different from the literate Arabic; yet, like- the Ethiopic, it belonged to the great Syro-Arabian family, and was not alien to the Hebrew in the same sense that the Egyptian was; and the great ease with which the pure monotheism of the Maccabees propagated itself in Sheba gives plausibility to the opinion that even at the time of Solomon the people of Sheba had much religious superiority over the Arabs and Syrians in general. If so, it becomes clear how the curiosity of the southern queen would be worked upon by seeing the riches of the distant monarch, whose purer creed must have been carried everywhere with them by his sailors and servants. SEE SHEBA.
V. Internal History. —
1. Administrative Capacity. We can now enter upon the reign of Solomon, in its bearing upon the history of Israel, without the necessity of a digression. The first prominent scene is one which presents his character in its noblest aspect. There were two holy places which divided .the reverence of the people — the ark and its provisional tabernacle at Jerusalem, and the original tabernacle of the congregation, which, after many wanderings, was now pitched at Gibeon. It was thought right that the new king should offer solemn sacrifices at both. After those at Gibeon there came that vision of the night which has in all ages borne its noble witness to the hearts of rulers. Not for riches, or long life, or victory over enemies, would the son of David, then at least true to his high calling, feeling himself as "a little child" in comparison with the vastness of his work, offer his supplications, but for a "wise and understanding heart," that he might judge the people." The "speech pleased the Lord." There came in answer the promise of a wisdom "like which there had been none before; like which there should be none after" (1Ki 3:5-15). So far all was well The prayer was a right and noble one. Yet there is also a contrast between it and the prayers of David which accounts for many other contrasts. The desire of David's heart is not chiefly for wisdom, but for holiness. He is conscious of an oppressing evil, and seeks to be delivered from it. He repents, and falls, and repents again. Solomon asks only for wisdom. He has a lofty ideal before him, and seeks to accomplish it; but he is as yet haunted by no deeper yearnings, and speaks as one who has "no need of repentance." The wisdom asked for was given in large measure, and took a varied range. The Wide world of nature, animate and inanimate, which the enterprises of his subjects were throwing open to him, the lives and characters of men, in all their surface weaknesses, in all their inner depths, lay before him, and he took cognizance of all. But the highest wisdom was that wanted for the highest work, for governing and guiding, and the historian hastens to give an illustration of it. The pattern instance is in all its circumstances thoroughly Oriental. The king sits in the gate of the city, at the early dawn, to settle any disputes, however strange, between any litigants, however humble. In the rough-and-ready test which turns the scales of evidence. before so evenly balanced, there is a kind of rough humor as well as sagacity specially attractive to the Eastern mind, then and at all times (1Ki 3:16-28).
But the power to rule showed itself not in judging only, but in organizing. The system of government which he inherited from David received a fuller expansion. Prominent among the "princes" of his kingdom, i.e. officers of his own appointment, were members of the priestly order: Azariah the son of Zadok, Zadok himself the high priest, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada as captain of the host, another Azariah and Zabud, the sons of Nathan — one over the officers (Nitstsabim) who acted as purveyors to the king's household (1Ki 4:2-5), the other in the more confidential character of "king's friend." In addition to these, there were the two scribes (Sopherim), the king's secretaries, drawing up his edicts and the like, SEE SCRIBE, Elihoreph and Ahiah, the recorder or annalist of the king's reign (Mazkir), the superintendent of the king's house and.household expenses (Isa 22:15), including probably the harem. The last in order, at once the most indispensable and the most hated, was Adoniram, who presided "over the tribute," that word including probably the personal service of forced labor (comp. Keil, Comm. ad loc., and Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 334).
2. Exchequer. — The last name leads us to the king's finances. The first impression of the facts given us is that of abounding plenty. That all the drinking vessels of the two palaces should be of pure gold was a small thing, "nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon" (1Ki 10:21). "Silver was in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars as the sycamore trees in the vale" (10:27). The people were "eating and drinking and making merry" (4:20). The treasures left by David for building the Temple might well seem almost inexhaustible (1Ch 29:1-7). (We labor, however, under a twofold uncertainty,  as to the accuracy of the numbers,  as to the value of the terms. Prideaux, followed by Lewis, estimates the amount at £833,000,000, yet the savings of the later years of David's life, for one special purpose, could hardly have surpassed the national debt of England [comp. Milman, History of the Jews, 1, 267].) The large quantities of the precious metals imported from Ophir and Tarshish would speak to a people who had not learned the lessons of a long experience of a boundless source of wealth (1Ki 9:28). All the kings and princes of the subject provinces paid tribute in the form of gifts, in money and in kind, "at a fixed rate year by year" (1Ki 10:25). Monopolies of trade, then, as at all times in the East, contributed to the king's treasury, and the trade in the fine linen and chariots and horses of Egypt must have brought in large profits (ver. 28, 29). The king's domain lands were apparently let out, as vineyards or for other purposes, at a fixed annual rental (Song 8:11). Upon the Israelites (probably not till the later period of his reign) there was levied a tax of ten percent on their produce (1Sa 8:15). All the provinces of his own kingdom, grouped apparently in a special order for this purpose, were bound each in turn to supply the king's enormous household with provisions (1Ki 4:21-23). The total amount thus brought into the treasury in gold, exclusive of all payments in kind, amounted to 666 talents (10:14). SEE TAX.
The profound peace which the nation enjoyed as a fruit of David's victories stimulated the industry of all Israel. The tribes beyond the Jordan had become rich by the plunder of the Hagarenes, and had a wide district where their cattle might multiply to an indefinite extent. The agricultural tribes enjoyed a soil and climate in some parts eminently fruitful, and in all richly rewarding the toil of irrigation; so that, in the security of peace, nothing more was wanted to develop the resources of the nation than markets for its various produce. In food for men and cattle, in, timber and fruit trees, in stone, and probably in the useful metals, the land supplied of itself all the first wants of its people in abundance. For exportation, it is distinctly stated that wheat, barley, oil, and wine were in chief demand; to which we may conjecturally add, wool, hides, and other raw materials. The king undoubtedly had large districts and extensive herds of his own; but besides this, he received presents in kind from his own people and from the subject nations; and it was possible in this way to make demands upon them, without severe oppression, to an extent that is unbearable where taxes must be paid in gold or silver. He was himself at once monarch and merchant; and we may with much confidence infer that no private merchant will be allowed to compete with a prince who has assumed the mercantile character. By his intimate commercial union with the Tyrians, he was putt into the most favorable of all positions for disposing of his goods. That energetic nation, possessing so small a strip of territory, had much need of various raw produce for their own wants. Another large demand was made by them for the raw materials of manufactures, and for articles which they could with advantage sell again; and as they were able to furnish so many acceptable luxuries to the court of Solomon, a most active change soon commenced. Only second in importance to this, and superior in fame, was the commerce of the Red Sea, which could not have been successfully prosecuted without the aid of Trian enterprise and experience. The navigation to Sheba, and the districts beyond — whether of Eastern Arabia or of Africa — in spite of its tediousness, was highly lucrative, from the vast diversity of productions between the countries so exchanging; while, as it was a trade of monopoly, a very disproportionate share of the whole gain fell to the carriers of the merchandise. The Egyptians were the. only nation who might haste been rivals in the southern maritime traffic; but their religion and their exclusive principles did not favor, sea voyages; and there is some reason to think that at this early period they abstained from sending their own people abroad for commerce. The goods brought back from the south were chiefly gold, precious stones, spice, almug or other scented woods, and ivory, all of which were probably so abundant in their native regions as to be parted with on easy terms and of course, were all admirably suited for reexportation to Europe. The carrying trade, which was thus shared between Solomon and the Tyirians, was probably the most lucrative part of the southern and eastern commerce. How large a portion of it went on by caravans of camels is wholly unknown, yet that this branch was considerable is certain. From Egypt Solomon imported not only linen yarn, but even horses and chariots, which were sold again to the princes. of Syria and of the Hittites; and were probably prized, for the superior breed of the horses, and for the light, strong, and elegant structure of the chariots. Wine, being abundant in Palestine, and wholly wanting in Egypt, was no doubt a principal means of repayment. Moreover, Solomon's fortifying of Tadmor (or Palmyra), and retention of Thapsacus on the Euphrates, show that he had an important interest in the direct land and river trade to Babyllon; although we have no details on this subject. The difficulty which meets us is, to imagine by what exports, light enough to bear land carriage, he was able to pay for his imports. We may conjecture that he sent out Tyrian cloths and trinkets, or Egyptian linen of the finest fabric; yet in many of these things the Babylonians also excelled. On the whole, when we consider that in the case of Solomon the commercial wealth of ther entire community was concentrated in the hands of the government,: that much of the trade was a monopoly, and that all was assisted or directed by the experience and energy of the Tyrians, the overwhelming riches of this eminent merchant sovereign are perhaps not surprising.
It was hardly possible, however, that any financial system could bear the strain of the king's passion for magnificence. The cost of the Temple was, it is true, provided for by David's savings and the offerings of the people; but even while that was building, yet more when it was finished, one structure followed another with ruinous rapidity. A palace for himself, grander than that which Hiram had built for his father; another for Pharaoh's daughter; the house of the forest of Lebanon, in which he sat in his court of judgment, the pillars all of cedar, seated on a throne of ivory and gold, in which six lions on either side, the symbols of the tribe of Judah, appeared (as in the thrones of Assyria, Layard, Nin. and Bab. 2, 300) standing on the steps and supporting the arms of the chair (1Ki 7:1-12; 1Ki 10:20-29); ivory palaces and ivory towers, used apparently for the king's armory (Ps 45:8; Song 4:4; Song 7:4); the ascent from his own palace to the house or palace of Jehovah (1Ki 10:5); a summer-palace in Lebanon (9:19; Song 7:4); stately gardens at Etham, paradises like those of the great Eastern kings (Ec 2:5-6; Josephus, Ant. 8, 7, 3), SEE PARADISE; the foundation of something like a stately school or college; costly aqueducts bringing water, it may be, from the well of Bethlehem, dear to David's heart, to supply the king's palace in Jerusalem (Ewald, 3, 323); the fortifications of Jerusalem completed, those of other cities begun (1Ki 9:15-19); and, above all, the harem, with all the expenditure which it involved on slaves and slavedealers, on concubines and eunuchs (1Sa 8:15; 1Ch 28:1), on men singers and women singers (Ec 2:8) — these rose before the wondering eyes of his people and dazzled them with their magnificence. All the equipment of his court, the "apparel" of his servants, was, on the same scale. If he went from his hall of judgment to the Temple, he marched between two lines of soldiers, each with a burnished shield of gold (1Ki 10:16-17; Ewald, 3, 320). If he went on a royal progress to, his paradise at Etham, he went in snow-white raiment, riding in a stately chariot of cedar, decked with silver and gold and purple, carpeted with the costliest tapestry worked by the daughters of Jerusalem (Song 3:9-10). A bodyguard attended him, "threescore valiant men," tallest and handsomest of the sons of Israel, in the freshness. of their youth, arrayed in Tyrian purple, their long black hair sprinkled freshly every day with gold dust (ver. 7, 8; Josephus, Ant. 8, 7, 3). Forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, made up the measure of his magnificence (1Ki 4:26). If some of the public works had the plea of utility — the fortification of some cities for purposes of defense (Millo j[the suburb of Jerusalem], Hazor, Megiddo, the two Beth-horons); the foundation of others (Tadmor and Tiphsah) for purposes of commerce-these were simply the pomps of a selfish luxury; and the people, after the first dazzle was over, felt that they were so. As the treasury became empty, taxes multiplied and monopolies became more irksome. Even the Israelites, besides the conscription which brought them into the king's armies (1Ki 9:22), were subject, though for a part only of each year, to the corvee of compulsory labor (1Ki 5:13). The revolution that followed had, like most other revolutions, financial disorder as the chief among its causes. The people complained, not of the king's idolatry, but of their burdens, of his "grievous yoke" (1Ki 12:4). Their hatred fell heaviest on Adoniram, who was over the tribute. If, on the one side, the division of the kigdom came as a penalty for Solomon's idolatrous apostasy from Jehovah, it was, on another, the Nemesis of a selfish passion for glory, itself the most terrible of all idolatries.
3. Structures. — It remains for us to trace that other downfall, belonging more visibly, though not more really, to his religious life, from the loftiest height even to the lowest depth. The building and dedication of the Temple are obviously the representatives of the former. That was the special task which he inherited from his father, and to that he gave himself with all his heart and strength. He came to it with all the noble thoughts as to the meaning and grounds of worship which his father and Nathan could instil into him. We have already seen in speaking of his intercourse with Tyre, what measures he took for its completion. All that can be said as to its architecture, proportions, materials, and the organization of the ministering priests and Leviites will be found elsewhere. SEE TEMPLE. Here it will be enough to picture to ourselves the feelings of the men of Judah as they watched, during seven long years, the cyclopean foundations of vast stones (still remaining when all else has perished [Ewald, 3, 297]) gradually rising up and covering the area of the threshing floor of Araunah, materials arriving continually from Joppa, cedar and gold and silver, brass "without weight" from the foundries of Succoth and Zarethan, stones ready hewn and squared from the quarries. Far from colossal in its size, it was conspicuous chiefly by the lavish use, within and without, of the gold of Ophir and Parvaim. It glittered in the morning sun (as has been well said) like the sanctuary of an El Dorado (Milman, Hist. of the Jews, 1, 259).
Throughout the whole work the tranquillity of the kingly city was unbroken by the sound of the workman's hammer.
"Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprung."
We cannot ignore the fact that even now there were some darker shades in the picture. Not reverence only for the holy city, but the wish to shut out from sight the misery he had caused, to close his ears against cries which were rising daily to the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, led him probably to place the works connected with the Temple at as great a distance as possible from the Temple itself. Forgetful of the lessons taught by the history of his own people, and of the precepts of the law (Ex 22:21; Ex 23:9 et al.), following the example of David's policy in its least noble aspect. (1Ch 22:2), he reduced the "strangers" in the land, the remnant of the Canaanitish races who had chosen the alternative of conformity to the religion of their conquerors, to the state of helots, and made their life "bitter with all hard bondage." SEE PROSELYTE.
Copying the Pharaohs in their magnificence, he copied them also in their disregard of human suffering. Acting, probably, under the same counsels as had prompted that measure, on the result of David's census, he seized on these "strangers" for the weary, servile toil against which the free spirit of Israel would have rebelled. One hundred and fifty-three thousand, with wives and children in proportion, were torn from their homes and sent off to the quarries and the forests of Lebanon (1Ki 5:15; 2Ch 2:17-18). Even the Israelites, though not reduced permanently to the helot state (8:9), were yet summoned to take their share, by rotation, in the same labor (1Ki 5:13-14). One trace of the special servitude of "these hewers of stone" continued long afterwards in the existence of a body of men attached to the Temple, and known as Solomon's servants (q.v.).
Besides the great work which has rendered the name of Solomon so famous — the Temple at Jerusalem — we are informed of the palaces which he built, viz. his own palace, the queen's palace, and the house of the forest of Lebanon, his porch (or piazza) for no specified object, and his porch of judgment, or law court. He also added to the walls of Jerusalem, and fortified Millo ("in the city of David," 2Ch 32:5) and many other strongholds. The Temple seems to have been of very small dimensions — sixty cubits long, twenty broad, and thirty high (1Ki 6:3) — or smaller than many moderate-sized parish churches; but it was wonderful for the lavish use of precious materials. Whether the three palaces were parts of the same great pile remains uncertain. The house of the forest of Lebanon, it has been ingeniously conjectured, was so called from the multitude of cedar pillars, similar to a forest. That Solomon's own house was of far greater extent than the Temple appears from its having occupied thirteen years in building, while the Temple was finished in seven. In all these works he had the aid of the Tyrians, whose skill in hewing timber and in carving stone, and in the application of machines for conveying heavy masses, was of the first importance. The cedar was cut from Mount Lebanon and, as would appear, from a district which belonged to the Tyrians; either because in the Hebrew parts of the mountain the timber was not so fine, or from want of roads by which it might be conveyed. The hewing was superintended by Tyrian carpenters, but all the hard labor was performed by Hebrew bondmen. This circumstance discloses to us an important fact — the existence of so large a body of public slaves in the heart of the Israelitish monarchy, who are reckoned at 153,600 in 2Ch 2:17 see also 1Ki 9:20-23. During the preparation for the Temple, it is stated (ver. 13-18) that 70,000 men were employed to bear burdens, 80,000 hewers of wood in the mountains, besides 3300 overseers. The meaning of this, however, is rather obscure; since it also states that there was a "levy" of 30,000, of whom 10,000 at a time went to Lebanon. Perhaps the 150,000 was the whole number liable to serve, of whom only one fifth was actually called out. From the large number said to "bear burdens," we may infer that the mode of working was very lavish of human exertion, and little aided by the strength of beasts. It is inferred that at least the Hittites had recognized princes of their own, since they are named as purchasers of Egyptian chariots from Solomon; yet the mass of these nations were clearly pressed down by a cruel bondage, which must have reacted on the oppressors at evety time of weakness. The word מס, which is translated "levy" and "tribute," means especially the personal service performed by public slaves, and is rendered "task" in Ex 1:11, when speaking of the Israelites in Egypt.
Until the Temple was finished, the tabernacle appears to have continued at Gibeon, although the ark had been brought by David to Zion (2Ch 1:3-4). David, it appears, had pitched a tent on purpose to receive the ark, where Asaph and his brethren the Levites ministered before it with singing, while Zadok and his brethren the priests ministered before the tabernacle at Gibeon with sacrifices (1Ch 15:16-24; 1Ch 16:37-
40). This shows that even in David's mind the idea of a single center of religious unity was not fully formed, as the coordinate authority of Abiathar and Zadok indicates that no single high priest was recognized. But from the time of the dedication of the Temple, not only the ark, but all the holy vessels from the tabernacle were brought into it (1Ki 8:4), and the highpriest naturally confined his ministrations to the Temple, Zadok having been left without an equal by the disgrace of Abiathar. Nevertheless, the whole of the later history of the Jewish monarchy, even under the most pious kings, proves that the mass of the nation never became reconciled to the new idea, that "in Jerusalem (alone) was the place where they ought to worship." The "high places," at which Jehovah was worshipped with sacrifice, are perpetually alluded to in terms which show that, until the reign of Josiah, it was impossible for kings, priests, or prophets to bring about, a uniformity and central superintendence of the national religion.
After seven years and a half the work on the Temple was completed, and the day came to which all Israelites looked back as the culminating glory of their nation. Their worship was now established on a scale as stately as that of other nations, while it yet retained its freedom from all worship that could possibly become idolatrous, Instead of two, rival sanctuaries, as before, there was to be one only. The ark from Zion, the tabernacle from Gibeon, were both removed (2Ch 5:5) and brought to the new Temple. The choirs of the priests and Levites met in their fullest force arrayed in white linen. Then, it may be for the first time, was heard the noble hymn "Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in" (Milman, Hist. of Jews, 1, 263). The trumpeters and singers were "as one" in their mighty hallelujah — "O praise the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endureth forever" (2Ch 5:13). The ark was solemnly placed in its golden sanctuary, and then "the cloud," the "glory of the Lord," filled the house of the Lord. The two tables of stone, associated with the first rude beginnings of the life of the wilderness, were still, they and they only, in the ark which had now so magnificent a shrine (ver. 10). They bore their witness to the great laws of duty towards God and man, remaining unchangeable through all the changes and chances of national or individual life, from the beginning to the end of the growth of a national religion. Throughout the whole scene the person of the king is the one central object, compared with whom even priests and prophets, are for the time subordinate. Abstaining, doubtless, from distinctively priestly acts, such as slaying the victims and offering incense, he yet appears, even more than David did in the bringing up the ark, in a liturgical character. He, and not Zadok, blesses the congregation, offers up the solemn prayer, dedicates the Temple. He, and not any member of the prophetic order, is then, and probably at other times, the spokesman and "preacher" of the people (Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 3, 320). He takes, at least, some steps towards that far off (Ps 110:1) ideal of "a priest after the order of Melchizedek," which one of his descendants rashly sought to fulfil, SEE UZZIAH, but which was to be fulfilled only in a Son of David, not the crowned leader of a mighty nation, but despised, rejected, crucified. From him came the lofty prayer — the noblest utterance of the creed of Israel — setting forth the distance and the nearness of the eternal God, one, incomprehensible, dwelling not in temples made with hands; yet ruling men, hearing their prayers, giving them all good things — wisdom, peace, righteousness.
The solemn day was followed by a week of festival, synchronizing with the Feast of Tabernacles, the time of the completed vintage. Representatives of all the tribes, elders, fathers; captains, proselytes, it may be, from the fiewly acquired territories in Northern Syria (2Ch 6; 2Ch 32; 2Ch 7:8) — all were assembled, rejoicing in the actual glory and the bright hopes of Israel. For the king himself then, or at a later period (the narrative of 1 Kings 9 and 2 Chronicles 7 leaves it doubtful), there was a strange contrast to the glory of that day. A criticism, misled by its own acuteness, may see in that warning prophecy of sin, punishment, desolation, only a vaticinum ex eventu, added some centuries afterwards (Ewald, 3, 404). It is open to us to maintain that, with a character such as Solomon's, with an irreligious ideal so far beyond his actual life, such thoughts were psychologically probable, that strange misgivings, suggested by the very words of the jubilant hymns of the day's solemnity, might well mingle with the shouts of the people and the hallelujahs of the Levites. It is in harmony with all we know of the work of the Divine Teacher that those misgivings should receive an interpretation, that the king should be taught that what he had done was indeed right and good; but that it was not all, and might not be permanent. Obedience was better than sacrifice. There was a danger near at hand.
4. Idoldtry. — The dagger came, and, in spite of the warning, the king fell. Not very long afterwards the priests and prophets had to grieve over rival temples to Moloch, Chemosh, Ashtaroth; forms of ritual not idolatrous only, but cruel, dark, impure. This evil came, as the compiler of 1Ki 11:1-8 records, as the penalty of another. Partly from policy, seeking fresh alliances, partly from the terrible satiety of lust seeking the stimulus of change, he gave himself to "strange women." He found himself involved in. a fascination which led to the worship of strange gods.The starting point and the goal are given us. We are left, from what we know otherwise, to trace the process. Something there was perhaps in his very "largeness of heart," so far in advance of the traditional knowledge of his age, rising to higher and wider thoughts of God, which predisposed him to it. His converse with men of other creeds and climes might lead him to anticipate, in this respect, one phase of modern thought, as the confessions of the preacher in Koheleth anticipate another. In recognizing what was true in other forms of faith, he might lose his horror at what was false — his sense of the preeminence of the truth revealed to him — of the historical continuity of the nation's religious life. His worship might go backward from Jehovah to Elohim, from Elohim to the "gods many and lords many" of the nations around. Jehovah, Baal, Ashtaroth, Chemosh, each form of nature worship, might come to seem equally true, equally acceptable. The women whom he brought from other countries might well be allowed the luxury of their own superstitions; and, if permitted at all, the worship must be worthy of his fame and be part of his magnificence. With this there may, as Ewald suggests (3, 380), have mingled political motives. He may have hoped, by a policy of toleration, to conciliate neighboring princes, to attract a larger traffic. But probably also there was another influence less commonly taken into account. The widespread belief of the East in the magic arts of Solomon is not, it is believed, without its foundation of truth. On the one hand, an ardent study of nature in the period that precedes science, runs on inevitably into the pursuit of occult, mysterious properties. On the other, throughout the whole history of Judah, the element of idolatry which has the strongest hold on men's minds was the thaumaturgic soothsaying, incantations, divinations (2Ki 1:2; Isa 2:6; 2Ch 33:6 et al.). The religion of Israel opposed a stern prohibition to all such perilous yet tempting arts (De 18:10 et al.). The religions of the nations around fostered them. Was it strange that one who found his progress impeded, in one path should turn into the other? So, at any rate, it was. The reign which began so gloriously was a step backward into the gross darkness of fetich worship. As he left behind him the legacy of luxury, selfishness, oppression, more than counterbalancing all the good of higher art and wider knowledge, so he left this, too, as an ineradicable evil. Not less truly than the son of Nebat might his name have been written in history as Solomon the son of David who '"made Israel to sin." The idolatry of Solomon is commemorated in the traditionary name of "the Mount of Offense," given to the southernmost peak of the range of which Olivet (q.v.) forms a part. (See Brucker, De Salom. Idololatria [Lips. 1755]; Niemeyer, Charakt. 4, 562 sq.)
Disasters followed before long, as the natural consequence of what was politically a blunder as well as religiously a sin. The strength of the nation rested on its unity, and its unity depended on its faith. Whatever attractions the sensuous ritual which he introduced may have had for the great body of the people, the priests and Levites must have looked on the rival worship with entire disfavor. The zeal of the prophetic order, dormant in the earlier part of the reign, and, as it were, hindered from its usual utterances by the more dazzling wisdom of the king, was now kindled into active opposition. Ahijah of Shiloh, as if taught by the history of his native place, was sent to utter one of those predictions which help to work out their own fulfilment, fastening on thoughts before vague, pointing Jeroboam out to himself and to the people as the destined heir to the larger half of the kingdom, as truly called as David had been called to be the anointed of the Lord (1Ki 11:28-39). The king in vain tried to check the current that was setting strong against him. If Jeroboamn was driven for a time into exile, it was only, as we have seen, to be united in marriage to the then reigning dynasty, and to come back with a daughter of the Pharaohs as his queen (Sept. ut sup.). The old tribal jealousies gave signs of renewed vitality. Ephraim was prepared once more to dispute the supremacy of Judah, needing special control (1Ki 11:28). With this weakness within there came attacks from without. Hadad and Rezon — the one in Edom, the other in Syria who had been foiled in the beginning of his reign, now found no effectual resistance. The king, prematurely old (about sixty-one), must have foreseen the rapid breaking up of the great monarchy to which he had succeeded. Rehoboam, inheriting his faults without his wisdom, haughty and indiscreet, was not likely to avert it.
5. Writings. — Of the inner changes of mind and heart which ran parallel with this history Scripture is comparatively silent. Something may be learned from the books that bear his name, which, whether written by him or not, stand in the canon of the Old Test. as representing, with profound, inspired insight, the successive phases of his life; something, also, from the fact that so little remains out of so much — out of the songs, proverbs, treatises, of which the historian speaks (1Ki 4:32-33). Legendary as may be the traditions which speak of Hezekiah as at one and the same time preserving some portions of Solomon's writings (Pr 25:1) and destroying others, a like process of selection must have been gone through by the unknown rabbins of the Great Synagogue after the return from the exile. Slowly and hesitatingly they received into the canon, as they went on with their unparalleled work of the expurgation by a people of its own literature, the two books which have been the stumbling blocks of commentators — Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Ginsburg, Koheleth, p. 13-15). They give excerpta only from the 3000 proverbs. Of the thousand and five songs (the precise number indicates a known collection) we know absolutely nothing. They were willing to admit Koheleth for the sake of its ethical conclusion; the Song of Songs, because at a very early period, possibly even then, it had received a mystical interpretation (Keil, Einleit. in das Alte Test. § 127) — because it was, at any rate, the history of a love which, if passionate, was also tender and pure and true. But it is easy to see that there are elements in that poem — the strong delight in visible outward beauty, the surrender of heart and will to one overpowering impulse — which might come to be divorced from truth and purity, and would then be perilous in proportion to their grace and charm. (But see Rollin Salom. a Scepticismo Defensus [Rost. 1710].) Such a divorce took place, we know, in the actual life of Solomon. It could not fail to leave its stamp upon the idyls in which feeling and fancy uttered themselves. The poems of the son of David may have been like those of Hafiz. The scribes who compiled the canon of the Old Test. may have acted wisely, rightly, charitably to his fame in excluding them.
The wisdom of Solomon is specially dwelt on in Scripture — "God gave him wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand which is on the sea shore." The term "heart" is often used for "mind," and the meaning is, that Solomon was endowed with great faculties and capacities; and that his intellect was not only stored with vast and varied information, but was so active, shrewd, and penetrating as to be successful in its studies and investigations. He had at once an unwearying eagerness in the pursuit of knowledge, and he had also the creative power of genius. Nature and man were his study; botany and zoology shared his attention with men and manners; and his spirit gave utterance to its thoughts and emotions in poetry. He was a sage, a poet, and a naturalist — "he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes" (1Ki 4:32-33). The value of his zoological or botanical researches we know not. No doubt his knowledge took minute cognizance more of external peculiarity than of inner structure, but it may have had the rudiments of a science, though he may not be compared to Linnaeus or Hooker, Cuvier or Owen. He was not so absorbed in royal cares or royal state and luxury as to forget mental culture. Amid much that was weak and wrong, he was "yet acquainting his heart with wisdom" (Ec 2:3). The "wisdom of Egypt" was proverbial in geometry, astronomy, and medicine; but Solomon outstripped it. Arabia was the home of that sagacity that clothes itself in proverbs and of that subtlety which created riddles and queries; but "Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country." There had been men of noted intelligence in his own country, such as Ethan, who had charge of the temple music in David's time; Heman, one of the famous singers and "the king's seer in the words of God;" and Chalcol and Darda; but Solomon was "wiser than all men" (1Ki 4:29-31). (See the monographs De Sap. Sal. by Moller [Kil. 1703], Lund [Upsala, 1705], and Scherer [Argent. 1770].)
The books that remain meet us, as has been said, as at any rate representing the three stages of his life. The Song of Songs brings before us the brightness of his youth; the heart as yet untainted; human love passionate, yet undefiled, and therefore becoming, under a higher inspiration—half consciously, it may be, to itself, but, if not, then unconsciously for others — the parable of the soul's affections. (See Krummacher, Solomon and Shulammith [Lond. 1838].) Then comes in the Book of Proverbs, the stage of practical, prudential thought, searching into the recesses of man's heart, seeing duty in little things as well as great, resting all duty on the fear of God, gathering, from the wide lessons of a king's experience, lessons which mankind could ill afford to lose. Both in Ecclesiastes (Ec 2:12) and yet more in Proverbs (Pr 1:11-17; Pr 7:6-23) we may find traces of experiences gained in other ways. The graphic picture of the life of the robbers and the prostitutes of an Eastern city could hardly have been drawn but by one who, like Haroun al- Rashid and other Oriental kings, at times laid aside the trappings of royalty and plunged into the other extreme of social life, that so he might gain the excitement of a fresh sensation. The poet has become the philosopher, the mystic has passed into the moralist. But the man passed through both stages without being permanently the better for either. They were to him but phases of his life which he had known and exhausted (Ec 1:2). Therefore there came, as in the Confessions of the Preacher, the great retribution. The "sense that wore with time" avenged "the crime of sense." There fell on him, as on other crowned voluptuaries, the weariness which sees written on all things, Vanity of vanities. Slowly only could he recover from that "vexation of spirit;" and the recovery was incomplete. It was not as the strong burst of penitence that brought to his father David the assurance of forgiveness. He could not rise to the height from which he had fallen, or restore the freshness of his first love. The weary soul could only lay again, with slow and painful relapses, the foundations of a true morality. SEE ECCLESIASTES.
Here our survey must end. We may not enter into the things within the veil, or answer either way the doubting question, Is there any hope? Others have not shrunk from debating that question, deciding, according to their formulae, that he did or did not fulfil the conditions of salvation so as to satisfy them, were they to be placed upon the judgment seat. It would not be profitable to give references to the patristic and other writers who have dealt with this subject. They have been elaborately collected by Calmet. (Dict. s.v. "Salomon, Nouvelle Dissert. de la Salut du Sal."). It is noticeable and characteristic that Chrysostom and the theologians of the Greek Church are, for the most part, favorable, Augustine and those of the Latin, for the most part, adverse, to his chances of salvation. (See Petersen, De Salute Salomonis [Jen. 1665]; Reime, Harmonia Vitsc Salomonis [ibid. 1711]; Ewald, Salomo [Gera, 1800].)
VI. Legends. — The impression made by Solomon on the minds of later generations is shown in its best form by the desire to claim the sanction of his name for even the noblest thoughts of other writers. Possibly in Ecclesiastes, certainly in the Book of Wisdom, we have instances of this, free from the vicious element of an Apocryphal literature. Before long, however, it took other forms. Round the facts of the history, as a nucleus, there gathers a whole world of fantastic fables, Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan refractions, colored and distorted according to the media through which they pass, of a colossal form. Even in the Targum of Ecclesiastes we find strange stories of his character. He and the rabbins of the Sanhedrim sat and drank wine together in Jabne. His paradise was filled with costly trees which the evil spirits brought him from India. The casuistry of the rabbins rested on his dicta. Ashmedai, the king of the demons, deprived him of his magic ring, and he wandered through the cities of Israel weeping, and saying, I, the preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem (Koran, sur. 38; Ginsburg, Koheleth, app. 1, H). He left behind him spells and charms to cure diseases and cast out evil spirits; and for centuries incantations bearing his name were the special boast of all the "vagabond Jew exorcists" who swarmed in the cities of the empire (Josephus, Ant. 8, 2, 5; Just. Mart. Respons. ad Orthod. 55; Origen, Comm. in Matthew. 16:3). His wisdom enabled him to interpret the speech of beasts and birds, a gift shared afterwards, it was said, by his descendant Hillel (Koran, sur. 37; Ewald, 3, 407). He knew the secret virtues of gems and herbs (Fabricius, Codex Pseudep. V. T. p. 1042). The name of a well known plant, Solomon's eal (Convallaria majalis), perpetuates the old belief. He was the inventor of the Syriac and Arabian alphabets (ibid. p. 1014).
2. Arabic imagination took a yet wilder flight. After a long struggle with the rebellious Afrits and Jinns, Solomon conquered them and cast them into the sea (Lane, Arabian Nights, 1, 36). The remote pre-Adamite past was peopled with a succession of forty Solomon's ruling over different races, each with a shield and sword that gave them sovereignty over the Jinns. To Solomon: himself belonged the magic ring which revealed to him the past, the present, and the future. Because he stayed his march at the hour of prayer, instead of riding on with his horsemen, God gave him the winds as a chariot, and the birds flew over him, making a perpetual canopy. The demons, in their spite, wrote books of magic in his name; but he, being aware of it, seized them and placed them under his throne, where they remained till his death, and then the daemons again got hold of them and scattered them abroad (Koran, sur. 21; D'Herbelot, s.v. "Soliman ben Daoud"). The visit of the queen of Sheba furnished some three or four romances. The Koran (sur. 27) narrates her visit, her wonder, her, conversion to the Islam, which Solomon professed. She appears under three different names — Nicaule (Calmet, Dict. s.v.), Balkis (D'Herbelot, s.v.), Makeda (Pineda, 5, 14). The Arabs claim her as belonging to Yemen; the Ethiopians as coming from Meroe. In each.form of the story a son is born to her, which calls Solomon its father-in the Arab version, Meilekh; ill the Ethiopian, David, after his grandfather, the ancestor of a long line of Ethiopian kings (Ludolf, Hist. Ethiop. 2, 3-5). Twelve thousand Hebrews accompanied her on her return home, and from them were descended the Jews of Ethiopia, and the great Prester John (Presbyter Joannes) of medieval travelers (D'Herbelot, loc. cit; Pineda, loc. cit.; Corylus, Diss. de Regina Austr. in Menthen's Thesaurus, vol. 1). She brought to Solomon the self same gifts which the Magi afterwards brought to Christ. See MAGI. One, at least, of the hard questions with which she came was rescued from oblivion. Fair boys and sturdy girls were dressed up by her exactly alike, so that no eye could distinguish them. The king placed water before them and bade them wash; and then, when the boys scrubbed their faces and the girls stroked them softly, he made out which were which (Glycas, Annal. in Fabricius, loc. cit.). Versions of these and other legends are to be found also in Well, Bibl. Legends, p. 171; Furst, Perlenschnure, ch. 36.
3. The fame of Solomon spread northward and eastward to Persia. At Shiraz they showed the Meder-Suleiman, or tomb of Bath-sheba, said that Persepolis had been built by the Jinns at his command, and pointed to the Takht-i-Suleiman (Solomon's throne) in proof. Through their spells, too, he made his wonderful journey, breakfasting at Persepolis, dining at Baalbek, and supping at Jerusalem (Chardin, 3, 135, 143; Ouseley, 2, 41, 437). Persian literature, while it had no single life of David, boasted of countless histories of Solomon; one, the Suleiman-Nameh, in eighty books, ascribed to the poet Firdusi (D'Herbelot, loc. cit.; Chardin, 3, 198). In popular belief he was confounded with the great Persian hero Jemshid (Ouseley, 2, 64).
4. As might be expected, the legends appeared in their coarsest and basest form in Europe, losing all their poetry, the mere appendages of the most detestable of Apocrypha, books of magic, a Hygromanteia, a Contradictio Salomonis (whatever that may be) condemned by Gelasius, Incantationes, Clavicula, and the like. Two of these strange books have been reprinted in facsimile by Scheibel (Kloster, v). The Clavicula Salomonis Necromantica consists of incantations made up of Hebrew words; and the mightiest spell of the enchanter is the Sigillum Salomonis, engraved with Hebrew characters, such as might have been handed down through a long succession of Jewish exorcists. It is singular (unless this, too, was part of the imposture) that both the books profess to be published with the special license of popes Julius II and Alexander VI. Was this the form of Hebrew literature which they were willing to encourage? A pleasant Persian apologue teaching a lesson deserves to be rescued from the mass of fables. The king of Israel met one day the king of the ants, took the insect on his had, and held converse with it, asking, Croesus like, "Am not I the mightiest and most glorious of men?" "Not so," replied the ant king. "Thou sittest on a throne of gold, but I make thy hand my throne, and thus am greater than thou" (Chardin, 3, 198). One pseudonymous work has a somewhat higher character, the Psalterium Salomonis, altogether without merit, a mere cento from the Psalms of David, but not otherwise offensive (Fabricius, 1, 917; Tregelles, Introd. to the New Test. p. 154), and therefore attached sometimes, as in the great Alexandrian Codex, to the sacred volume. One strange story meets us from the omnivorous Note- book of Bede. Solomon did repent, and in his contrition he offered himself to the Sanhedrim, doing penance, and they scourged him five times with rods, and then he traveled in sackcloth through the cities of Israel, saying as he went, "Give alms to Solomon" (Bede, De Salom. ap. Pineda).
VII. New-Testament Views. — We pass from this wild farrago of Jewish and other fables to that which presents the most entire contrast to them. The teaching of the New Test. adds nothing to the materials for a life of Solomon. It enables us to take the truest measure of it. The teaching of the Son of Man passes sentence on all that kingly pomp. It declares that in the humblest work of God, in the lilies of the field, there is a grace and beauty inexhaustible, so that even "Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these" (Mt 6:29). It presents to us the perfect pattern of a growth in wisdom, like, and yet unlike, his, taking, in the eyes of men, a less varied range; but deeper, truer, purer, because united with purity, victory over temptation, self sacrifice, the true large heartedness of sympathy with all men. On the lowest view which serious thinkers have ever taken of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, they have owned that there was in him one "greater than Solomon" (Mt 12:42). The historical Son of David, ideally a type of the Christ that was to come, was in his actual life the most strangely contrasted. It was reserved for the true, the later, Son of David, to fulfil the prophetic yearnings which had gathered round the birth of the earlier. He was the true Shelomoh, the prince of peace, the true Jedid-jah, the well beloved of the Father. (See De Pineda, De Rebus Salomonticis [Cologne, 1613, 1686]; Hess, Gesch. Salomons [Zur. 1785]; Miller, Lectures on Solomon [Lond. 1838].)