lij-h^V ^ * -¦'-;'*i t ^''.. * >¦ #i.h.i ;<'l'U[rvv:v5:j-, -i'. ^V" •¦ 'Ji^- "^ ^: '.figi ¦) '" escape, to flee away, and hence, swift, swift-footed. Under this interpreta tion, the Cherethites may be understood to be tliat section of the body-gu.ard who in flicted the punishments awarded by the king ; and the Pelethites those who were charged to convey the royal orders and mes sages to difi'erent parts of the kingdom. The authors of these various explana tions, which include some suggestions of our own, state them as alternatives ; but our wish is to show that they miglit, and we believe did, concur. The Cheretliites, whether Philistines or Jews, may, at the same time, have been archers and execu tioners ; and the Pelelhites may have been, at the same time, the men who joined David at Ziklag, and slingers and couriers. IBEAiios (midres-ipi])— n, SjTianJew; b, Arabian; c, Persi,in.— VciseS.] /^¦"^^^ nil'!'!/ / [Bfaubs (dressed.) — a, Turkish Sheik— heard disposed in locks ; &, Mameluke, sliavad on chiu ; c, Turkish Officer, shaved under the lower lip ; d, e, Turkish Gentlemen ; rf, chin and angles of mouth shaved, leaving a tult of hair nn.liii- the lower lip; e, chin shaved ami upper lip closely trimmed. — Verse 5 .1 18 I. CHRONICLES, chap, xix. [B.C. 1037, 1036, The point of real difficulty is, to determine whether the Cherethites were Philistines, or the followers who had been with David in Philistia. We must confess that we feel undecided between tliese alternatives. We should not, however, have the least hesitation in rejecting the first of them, were it not that, although there may be good reasons for its rejection, we cannot allow the least weight to the considerations on which it has generally been rejected. The principal of these is, that David was not likely to form a body-guard out of a hostile nation. But this reasoning over looks the very important fact, that the body-guard of most Oriental sovereigns is actually composed of persons originally slaves, or captives of neighbouring and often ti,ostile nations, or the descendants of such ; and who are far more trusted than natives would be, in the consideration that thay have no ties of kindred or alliance, or any interest in the country, to divide the fidelity to him on whose favour they en tirely depend. And another fact of still greater force is, that when David fled from Jerusalem on the rebellion of Absalom, among those who remained faithful, and determined to share his apparently despe rate lot, we find named immediately after the Cheretlntes and Pelethites, 600 men of Gath, who appear to have arrived but lately at Jerusalem, David tried, most considerately, to persuade their leader to leave him and seek more promising for tunes ; but Ittai nobly replied : " As the Lord liveth, and as my lord the king liveth, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether in death or life, there also will thy servant be," (2 Sam, XV. 21.) Now itwill scarcely be doubled that these fiOO Philistines came in expect ation of being employed in David's ser vice ; and it would not be going too far to suppose that they were partly induced to come by the knowledge that he had already formed abody of native Philistines with which they expected to be incorpo rated, CHAPTER XIX, Tins chapter is nearly the same as 2Sam,, where there is a note explanatory of the ti-ealment which David's ambassadors re ceived. Verse 5, " And the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return." — See cuts pp. 16, 17. 6. " Syria-maachha." — This was a small Syrian kingdom which appears to have adjoined, on the east, the territory of the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan, and of which that tribe was un able to obtain possession. 7. " Thirty and two thousand chariots, and the king of Maachah and his people." — It appears from the parallel text, that the king of Moachah's people were 1000, which makes the total number of hired auxiliaries 33,000, agreeing with the ac count there given. But there is this dif ference, that the number is made uji of men, not chariots — thus, " The Syrians of Beth-rehob and Zobah, twenty thousand footmen, and of king Maachah a thousand men, and of Ishtob twelve thousand men.''' The usual and, we believe, conect expla nation of this apparent discrepancy is, that the word rendered " chariots" ( j^T relceb) in the present text does not always bear that meaning, but is a collective name signifying "cavalry" or "riders;" which, as applied to the reconciliation of these parallel texts, would denote that there were thirty-two thousand Syrian auxiliaries, who were usually mounted on chariots or horses, but who occasionally also served as foot soldiers. 1 8. " Seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen." — Here the word rendered "chariots" being put for the chariot-warriors, our trans lators have properly interpolated the words " men which fought in," as being neces sary to complete the sense. This is a proof of the statement in the preceding note. But the parallel text is consider ably different, being : *'The men o£ seven hundred chariots of lite Syrians and forty thousand horsemen." As to tlie diU'erence of seven hundred and seven thousand, some think that the former denotes the chariots, and the latter the riders : but this would give the extraordinary number of ten riders to each chariot. And as to the difl'erence of footmen and horsemen, this may partly be explained by the pre ceding note; but there can be no doubt that men acting as infantry are intended, as expressed in the present text. But, upon the whole, it is diifieult to reconcile the two passages completely ; and Kenni- cott and Houbigant agree that they should be corrected by each other, and that we should read in both : " Seven thousand horsemen, seven hundred chariots, and B.c, 1035—1018.] I. CHRONICLES, chap, xx. 19 forty thousand footmen." This also is the course taken by Boothroyd. CHAPTER XX. The contents of this chapter are found dispersedly, and with little variation, in 2 Sam. xi., xii., and xxi. Verse 2. " David look the crown of their king from off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold." — A great difficulty in this text arises from the weight assigned to the crown, being not less than 125 pounds; which is a weight that no one could wear on his head, even on occasions of mere state. Some therefore thhik that we are to understand that the crown was of the value (6000/.) not the weight of a talent of gold. Others suppose the weight was that of aSyrian talent, which was only one-fourth of the Hebrew talent. A third explanation is, tlitit the word translated "their king" (037!^ malcom) should be left as a proper name, that of the Ammon- itish idol Milcom or Molech; and that the crown was taken from the image of this idol, which could of course bear a heavier weight than u man's head could bear. To this rather probable explana tion, there is the objection, that the sequel of the verse describes David as placing this same crown on his own head. This however is met by the supposition that he caused another smaller crown to be made for himself out of this : but those who prefer this view, will probably find a better explanation in the opinion advo cated by the ingenious editor of Calmet (Mr. C. Taylor), who conceives that not the crown itself, but the precious stone, or cluster of precious stones, so particularly mentioned, was removed from this crown and placed on the crown of David. These various explanations will suffice to show that the difiiculty which this text offers is by no means inexplicable. But there is yet another explanation that de serves attention, and which, upon the whole, we are rather disposed to prefer. This is, that the crown was not worn upon but suspended over the head, that is, over the throne. The ancient monarchs un questionably did use for this purpose crowns of great weight, size, and magnifi cence ; and if the Ammonitish king had such a crown, nothing is more probable than that it should come into the posses sion of David when he took the capital of the Ammonites. Athenaeus mentions several enormous crowns of this sort, one of which was used by the Ptolemies of Egypt. This was also a Persian custom, to which we find the following reference in the learned 'Travels' of Sir W, Ouseley. '.' We do not find on their medals any two Sassanian kings wearing crowns exactly alike; each probably distinguished himself by choosing one of a particular fashion, whilst the state crown of Persia, which descended through many generations, from its unwieldy form and excessive weight, was worn only on solemn occasions ; and was even then suspended over the royal throne by chains of gold." He adds, in a note : — " In the time of Khusrou (or Cliosroes), surnamed Nushiravan, the golden chains which supported this crown over Ihat monarch's head, were so con trived as, at a little distance, to be imper ceptible." As a farther illustration of the ancient fa-ncy for crowns of great weight, we may cite the following from Juvenal's descrip tion of the parade of a Roman praetor in his chariot : — " A lieavy gewgaw (called a cmwri) that .spread About his tbraplea, ili-owucd liia narrow liwid : And would have crusU'd it with the massy weiglit, But that a sweating slave sustained the freight." Sat. V. 3G. DUVDEN. 3, " Cut them with saws, and wilh har rows of iron, and wilh axes." — This text is ratlier different from that of 2 Sam, xii, 31. We have there not "he cut them with" but "he put them under;" and we find the additional circumstance that he " made them pass through the brick-kiln." Interpreters are divided in opinion on the meaning of these texts. Some think we are to understand that David put the Ammonites to death with the instruments indicated ; and that he perhaps did so after an example set by themselves in the treatment of their captives. But others rather suppose that we are to understand that he made them slaves, and employed them as such in laborious services as saw yers, miners, hewers of wood, brickmakers, and so forth. As the first, and least fa vourable interpretation, is founded upon the text now before us, it is necessary to observe that the word "11i)"iT vayaser, " and he sawed," or " cut with saws," was found to be wanting in several of the manuscripts collated by Kennicott, which had instead the same word CnyftS vayasem, " and he put them") as in the parallel text ; so that 20 Ihe many severe reflections which have been made on the cruel treatment of the Ammonites would appear to rest on no stronger foundation than the carelessness of some transcriber, whose unfinished Q others took to be a "I. It is also to be observed that the preposition ^ which is prefixed to all the nouns in this and the parallel text, and which is here rendered "with," and there "under," has a great variety of significations, among which we find that of " to :" and there is no reason whatever why that should not be here chosen. The result of this explanation would be " he put them to saws," &c, ; and this is an idiom for expressing em ployment with saws, not unknown even in our own language, in which we not unfrequently hear of a person being }nit to the plough, the loom, the anvil, and so on. It being thus shown that the Hebrew text does allow room for the milder alter native, it must be left to historical proba- bililyto determine which of the two ought to be preferred. We are inclhied ourselves to think that David enslaved, but did not slay the Ammonites : but even if we sup posed that he did put his captives to death, we should not fail to consider that this course was warranted by the war-law of his own and the antagonist nations ; and that the forms of death supposed to be indicated, were probably intended to bear B retaliatory reference to the barbarous precedent set by the Ammonites them selves. See the notes on Deut, xx., and Judges i. 0. " Saw." — This is, chronologically, the earliest mention of the saw in Scrijiture. However simple the idea of such an in strument, it was not among the most ancient of inventions, doubtless because it was one of the few which required from the very first to be constructed with iron. For this reason it is not known among savages; nor were even the comparatively cultivatednationsof South America, being without iron, acquainted with its use. Beckinann states that, "In early periods, the trunks of trees were split witli wedges into as many and as thin pieces as pos sible ; and if it was found necessary to I. CHRONICLES. ciiAi-, xx. [b.c. 1035—1018. have them still thinner, they were hewn on both sides to the proper size." _ This simple but wasteful process has continued in use down to a rather recent period, even where the saw has been known, in coun tries (Norway and Northern Russia, for instance) where wood is abundant, under the correct impression that boards thus hewn are much more durable, from having greater cohesion and solidity, than those which have had their fibres separated by the saw. Probably the jawbone of a fish sug gested the first idea of a saw. So the Grecian fable states, in which the process of this invention is described. This fable, in its various versions, assigns the invention to the famous artist Daedalus, or rather to his nephew (called Talus by some, by others Perdix, while others leave him un named), who, having found the jawbone of a fish (or of a serpent according to others), was led to imitate it by filing teeth in iron, and thus forming a saw. The process is very probable ; but there is nothing to say for the claim which the Greeks make to the honour of this inven tion. It does not appear to have been known to them in the time of Homer ; for the reader will have observed that in the minute account (vol. ii. p. 255) of the pro ceedings of Ulysses in building his boat, there is not the least mention of a saw, although, if such an instrument had been then known, Calypso could as easily have supplied it as she did the axe, the adze, the augers, and whatever else he required. The Greeks probably, in common with other neighbouring nations, borrowed the saw from the Egyptians, to whom it was known at a very early period, as is proved by its appearance on their ancient sculp tures, from which we have selected a specimen as furnishing the most appro priate illustration wliich can possibly be obtained. The ultimate improvement which the saw received in ancient times, approximates it very nearly to the state in which we continue to use it. In the ' Antiquit^s d'Herculanum,' tom. i. pi. 1 00, there is an engraving, after an ancient painting, which shows this in a very inter esting manner. Beckmann has very ac curately described it: — "Two genii (or winged Cupids) are represented at the end ^:^^ [Eg) ptian Saw, from a Bas-relief in tlio Great Temple at Tliebcs.] B.C. 1035— 1018.J I, CHRONICLES, chap, xx. 21 of a bench, which consists of a long table that rests upon two four-footed stools. The piece of wood that is to be sawn through, is secured by cramps. The saw with which the genii are at work hsis a perfect resemblance to our frame saw. It con sists of a square frame, having in the middle a blade, the teeth of which stand perpendicularly to the plane of the frame. The piece of wood that is to be sawn extends beyond the end of the bench, and one of the workmen appears standing and the other sitting on the ground. The arms in which the blade is fastened have the same form as that given to them at present. In the bench are seen holes in which the cramps that hold the timber are stuck. The cramps are shaped like tlie figure 7 ; and the ends of them reach below the boards that form the top of the bench." (' Inventions,' vol, i, p. 366.) Mont faucon gives, from Gruter, representations of two kinds of saws. One of them is without »i. frame, but has a handle of a round form : and the other has that' high frame of wood which we see in the saws of our stone-sawyers. This reminds us to observe that Beckmann, following Pliny, cannot find an instance of cutting stone with saws earlier than the fourth century B.C. ; overlooking the text, 1 Kings vii. 0, where it is said that some parts of Solo mon's palace were constructed with "costly stones, according to the measure of hewed stones, sawed with a saw." On the subject of saws we have only ftirther to observe, that those now used in the East differ from ours in having the points of the teeth inclined towards not from the handle ; so that the sawyer makes his impression on the wood not in thrusting the saw from him, but in pulling it towards him. It is remarkable that this is also the saw of ancient Egypt, which is often repeated in sculptures, in the form exhibited in the preceding wood-cut. [Modern Egyptian Sawyers.] 22 I. CHRONICLES, chap, xxr. |;b,c. 1017. CHAPTER XXI, Tins chapter is the same, with some varhation, as 2 Sam. xxiv., which does not, however, contain the three last verses of this. "\^erse 5. " All they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a7i hundred thousand men ihat drew sword ; and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand," &c. — The numbers are very difi'erent in the parallel text. For the sake of compari son, we will place them by each other, together with the result of the census of Num. xxvi., that the reader may at once observe the discrepancy of the parallel texts, and the increase of population since the Israelites became a settled people. Benjamin and Levi being omitted here, we shall also deduct their numbers from the earlier account, to render the com parison complete. Num. xxiv. 3 Sam. xxvi. 1 Chron. xxi. Israel, exclusive of Ben jamin and Levi . , . 493,550 800,000 1,100,000 Judah 74,600 500,000 470,000 568,150 1,300,000 1,570,000 As to the apparent discrepancy between the numbers of the same census, as given here and in 2 Sam., there have been various explanations, whicli we do not consider it necessary to stale, further than to say, that we shall most probably be correct in supposing that the higher number in each of the texts conveys the view of the real population, from the probable omission, in the lower account, of some class of persons included in the higher. However, as it is not necessary to be minute, let us partly accommodate the difl'erence by taking 1,500,000 as the number of the males capable of bearing anns. As we have shown in the note to Exod. xii. 37, that the proportion which these bear to the whole population must be about one-fourth, we may therefore take six millions to have been the popula tion of Palestine during the most flourish ing period of the Hebrew state. Even those who prefer to take the lower num bers will allow this, if, for their sake, we consent to state thisas the io-" All this store that ive have pi-e- pared."—'Y\i\s is a proper place to exhibit such considerations as may be requisite to elucidate the account given here and m chap, xxii.of the treasure which David prepared for the service of the Temple which it was reserved for his son Solomon to erect. In chap. xxii. we have an ac- B.c, 1015.] I. CHRONICLES, chap. xxix. 29 count of what David himself set apart as king, and. here we see what lie olfeied as an individual, and what tlie principal persons of the kingdom ollered. We will in the first instance collect these ])artic\i- lars in a table; and, assuming that the talent of 123 pounds troy is intended, state the Knglisli weight, and the present value, at Ibe rate of -I/, an ounce for the gold, and 5s. an ounce for tlie silver. We omit the brass aiul iron, as the amount of that only which the chief peiaons gave is stated, tliat which (be king contributed being " without weiyht." Tnlcnts. Weiglit— ibn, Troy. Valiic-pounda «tcrl ng. Gold. Silver. Gulil. Silver. Goid. Silver. Uy David, as kins • By D.avid, as an ) imlividual . 3 13y cliicf persons; i more lliau . J Totals . , , 100,000 3,0005,000 1,000,000 7,000 10,000 12,500,000 376,000625,000 125,000,000 875,000 1,250,000 000,000,000 18,000,00030,000,000 375,000,000 2,625,0003,750,000 106,000 1,017,000 13,500,000 127,125,000 018,000,000 (Jold . .'int.. 175, 000 6-18,000,000 Tot al value of g-)](l and silver . . . il. 029,376.000 Now there can be no liesitation in say ing that there must be something wrong in this estimate. With the most liberal allowance for the treasure collected in the successful warfare which David waged with the neighbouring states, and for tlie tribute wliich they continually sent in, the sum here given, or anything approach ing to it, is absolutely incredible. The plunder of the richest nation in the world, India, did not yield Nadir Shah a twen tieth part of this sum, although his suc cess was considered most amazing; and it may be said without hesitation tliat all the treasures of all the kings of the world would not come near to furnish its amount. As Pridcaux observes, the amount would have sufficed to build the Temple with solid silver. It would also have required David to lay aside annually, during the forty years of his reign, a larger sum than is retpiired to carry on the government and support the expensive establishments of the British empire. It is therefore generally agreed that the common under standing of the statement must be erro neous; bnt the modes of rectification wliich have been suggested are very various. In the first place, some consider that the numbers in chap. xxii. have been corrupted. Unfortunately the parallel text does not give any information as to the quantity, which might have enabled us to ascertain this by a comparison of texts. But Josephus gives the quantity as 10,000 talents of gold, and 100,000 talents of silver. This would, according to the above calculation, be equal to sixty millions sterling, for tlie gold, and thirty-seven millioris, five hundred thou sand, for the silver ; being togetlicr 97,500,000/. Many think that this state ment probably preserves tlie true reading of the passage in question. This sum, although only one-tenth of that stated hi the text of 1 Chron. xxii, 14, is still so large as to be scarcely within the bounds of probability, especially when we have added the further contributions men tioned in the chapter before ug. The Arabic version of chap. xxii. 14, has "a thousand talents of gold, and a thousand ta,lents of silver:" which, in the opinion of Parkhurst, affords a trace of an important various reading in the copy of the Septuagint from which that version was made. This would make the whole, as given in that and the present chapter, amount to 00,752,490/.; whicli, whatever be the value of the interpretation, cer tainly brings the amount still more within the bounds of probability. Another class of interpretations sup poses tliat the talent in which this ac count is given was of inferior value to the proper Hebrew talent. Jennings says : — *' It may be observed that the number of these talents, by whicli tlie gold and silver is computed, is mentioned only in tlie book of Chronicles, which was un doubtedly written after the return from the Babylonish captivity And it is not tlierefore improbable, that at the time 30 I. CHRONICLES chap. xxix. [b.c. 1015. of writing this book, the Jews might com pute by the Babylonish talent, which was little more than half the Mosaic talent, or perhaps by the Syriac, which was but one-fifth of the Babylonish ; and thus the Avhole mass of silver and gold would be reduced to a comparatively moderate quantity, and yet be abundantly suffi cient to build a most magnificent temple." 'Jewish Antiquities,' b, ii, c, i. If, under this view, we took the Babylonish talent, and, with Brerewood, estimate that of gold at 3500/., and that of silver at 218/. 15*., and the Syriac at one-fifth of this, Ihe result will be as follows — com bining the respective amounts in 1 Chron. xxii. and xxix., and showing the effect, with this application, of the different numbers a,ssigned by the present Hebrew text, by Josephus, and by the Arabic version, respectively, to chap. xxii. 14. Text Josephus . Arabic . Ileb. talent. £1,029,,375,000 I51,.'575,000 60,752,490 Bab. talent. £600,468,750 88,593,750 35,437,600 Syr. talent. £120,093,750 17,718,750 7,087,500 ? This table exhibits too clearly the re sult of difl'erent interpretations to require further explanation ; and the reader, who may hesitate on which of these various alternatives to fix, will yet be satisfied to find that the sacred text is fairly open to probable interpretations by which its difficulties are completely obviated. For some of the hints on which this ¦note is founded we are indebted to Brown's "'Antiquities of the Jews.' Calmet also has a ' Dissertation sur les Richesses de David :' we have not availed ourselves of this, as we think the ideas erroneous ; but appended to a recent edition we find the following excellent note, extracted from ' Lettres de quelques Juifs,' by the Abb4 Guen^e : — " In the time of David, as at present, it was the custom of the Asiatic sovereigns to amass large treasure for the time of need, or for the execution of plans they had conceived. They were ignorant of that new priuciple of European govern ments under which it is found less profit able to hoard up money than to leave it in circulation. It is therefore not as tonishing that David, who had long in view the erecfion of a superb temple to the Lord, should, during tlie many years of his glorious reign, and from the spoil and tribute secured by his victories, be enabled to collect and leave to his son very considerable treasure. The reflect ing man, aware of the facility with which numbers are altered by transcribers, and of the uncertainties and contradictions which appear in the valuation of ancient moneys, only concludes that the sum left by David must have been in itself, and in reference to the time, very consider able, although he now finds it impos sible to determine its precise amount. The Hebrews probably had their great and small talent, their talent of weight and their talent of accompt — just as the Greeks had their great and small talents ; as the Romans their great and small ses terces; and as the French and English have, and even the* Romans had, their pound of weight and the pound of ac compt." — To illustrate still further this uncertainty, it may be added, that be sides the doubt as to the talent by which the estimate is given, there is vast dis agreement as ^to the values which should be respectively assigned to Ibe talents of the Hebrews, Babylonians, and Syrians. We have taken the more usual estimate in our calculation ; but with respect to the Hebrew talent of gold, for instance, what shall be said when difi'erent valua tions have 50 wide a range as from 648/. to 7200/. — the lowest amount being in ferior to that assigned to even the Syrian talent in the above calculations ? (•¦si; THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. CHAPTER I. The whole of this chapter is found with little variation in the several parts of 1 Kings, where notes will be found on such of the passages as require illustra tion. This is the case also with many of the following passages of this book, in which we shall, without further observa tion, confine our attention to the points which have not already been sufficiently illustrated or explained. Verse 16. " Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt." — See the notes on Exod. xiv. 9, ou the subject of Egyptian horses ; Deut. xvii. 16, on the prohibition of the Hebrew king to multijily horses ; and Josh. xi. 6, on the non-appear ance of the Arabian horses in Scripture. The present note is intended chiefly to illustrate the tiade in horses established by Solomon. In performing this duty, we shall chiefly follow Michaelis, to whose excellent observations on the sub ject of the horse we have also been much indebted in some of the notes, to which we refer. Solomon not only obtained from Egypt horses for himself, but it appears from the passage now before us, that he esta blished a very profitable monopoly of the trade in Egyptian horses. The situation of his dominions rendered the establish ment and maintenance of this monopoly very easy. When his southern frontier extended from tlie Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and touched intermediately at the Red Sea, it was impossible for Syria or Phoenicia to receive horses from Egypt by land without passage through his teiTitories; he had only to forbid horses to be taken for sale through his dominions, in order to bring the whole trade into his own hands. The Syrians and Phoenicians, rather than be without horses, would necessarily take them at almost any price from his factors or merchants. It is true that horses might have been transported from Egypt to Phainicia by sea. But it is very expen sive and troublesome to transport a horse on ship-board; because he must be slung or suspended to prevent bim from hurting himself, and even then accidents often occur. On this subject Michaelis relates an anecdote of some interest : — " In the year 1756, when troops were transported from Germany to England, the English, to be free of the transportation of horses, offered for each horse 12/. (72 rix-dollars), with which money tlie Germans were to buy themselves horses in England ; but the latter would not accept the ofi'er. And yet the English understood the transporting of horses probably better than the ancient Phoenicians." Then there is also the danger of loss from ship wreck, and the great liability of horses to injury while crowded together in the hold of a ship. Another obstruction to the conveyance of horses by sea was also probably found in the general hostility of the Egyptians to maritime commerce. Michaelis indeed thinks the Egyptians were hostile to all commerce, and there fore wonders that they allowed so for midable a neighbour as Solomon to strengthen himself by forming a body of cavalry, and to enrich himself by the trade in their horses. He thinks that even the fact of the Hebrew king's marriage to Pharaoh's daughter does not adequately account for this circumstance. But we believe he is mistaken : for although the Egyptians were averse to going abroad themselves in order to import or export commodities from or to foreign parts, they were very far from objecting to profit by allowing their country to become a seat of great trade for those whose own interest induced them to bring the produce of foreign countries into Egypt on the one hand, or, on the other, to resort to it for file purchase of such commodities as well as the native produce of the country. Probably the Egyptians, finding that they could obtain a good price for their horses, sold them, without concerning themselves about ulterior consequences, or regarding the ultimate profit which the roy.al merchant might derive from the trade. 32 II. CHRONICLES, chap. ii. hi. [B.C. 1012. It is interesting to observe the prices given in Ihe first instance by Solomon's factors, in the wholesale purchase of horses and chariots. The price of ahorse was 150 shekels; which, according to Ihe lower or higher valuation of the shekel (2s. 3ld., 2s. Gd.), would be from 17/. 2s. to IS/. 15s.; while the chariots, at 600 shekels, would be from 68/. 9s. to 75/. It will be observed that the latter sum is exactly one- fourth of the former; which gives some probability to the opinion that in this, as in some olher instances, the word (n^D'ID mercabah) rendered " chariot," denotes the horses lielonging to a chariot, and consequently, that it ^vas customary to yoke four horses to a chariot, the price of a set of chariot horses being quadruple that of a single horse. The Septuagint however understands a chariot (a^juix) to have been intended : and we think this, upon the whole, the most likely. Mi chaelis says, " The fixing the price has likewise the look of a monopoly, and in dicates besides, that horsemanship was in its infancy ; for whenever people have sufficient knowledge of horses, with all their combinations of faults and excel lencies, and learn to judge of thein as amateurs, one individual of Ihe very same breed may be worth ten times as much as another — particularly in a king's stables.'' CHAPTER n. Verse 17. " The strangers that were in . . . Israel." — It apiiears from Ihe more full account, in 1 Kings ix. 20, 21, that these strangers were the surviving remnant of Ihe Amorites, Hittites, and other pre vious inhabil.iiits of the country, whom the Israelites had not been " able utterly to destroy." After the account there, it is added : "But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen :" nor does it appear that he could have done so, had such been his inclination. He did, however, raise a levy of 30,000 Israelites (1 Kings v. 14, 15), who served in alternate monthly courses of 10,000 each, and were doubtless well paid for their labours. This was perhaps as far as Solomon could go with the Israelites ; and, being in want of hands, he thought of requiring from the tributary and sub ject people tliose personal services which the customs of the East entitled him to demand, and which had been from the very first required from Ihe (Jibeonites, although a treaty of peace had been made with them. We are not to suppose that they were kept to constant labour, but were divided into courses which served alternately. They were of course, in con sequence of this personal service, exempted from Ihe money-tribute, and doubtless received their food, and perhaps some small wages, while actually at work. There is nothing by any means singular in this procedure of Solomon. It might be illustrated by numerous examples from the ancient history and existing practices of tlie East, and even from the not very ancient history of most European countries ; in which not only have com pulsory personal services been required from the remnant of a conquered popula tion, but also, in some instances, by native rulers from their own peasantry. The Israelites themselves had experience of this bondage; and they complained of it, perhaps, not as " bondage " merely, but as "/inci/ bondage," which it indeed was. And again, lest the Israelites should be charged witli imposing upon others a. yoke which had been-too heavy for them selves, it is to be remembered that they were in Egypt aji independent people, not native, conquered, or tributary ; — and that Ihey were, moreover, not a settled, cultivating peasanh-y, but a free pastoral people ; and from sucli, no prince or ruler, even in the East, ever thinks of re quiring personal services, whatever tribute he may levy upon their flocks and herds. CHAPTER IIL A'erse 5. " Palm trees."- — In the more detailed account of 1 Kings vi. there is frequent mention of the ornamental palm- trees wliich were car\ed in the wood with which the sanctuary was lined, ani few ' f /' H WM^^ ? '-.V H#P# 1 ¦¦¦¦ >> , ¦ ^^klif.ilpll!ii!i!llii! Il ,'i i • •! » P V.^ff I. III! H' B,c, 992—975.] II. CHRONICLES, chap, ix. 43 sinian narrative; and that the geo graphical probability is not incompa tible witli it, 10. " Algum trees." — Where there is so little to assist conjecture, it may seem hazardous to guess, but as the algum-tree, among other purposes, was employed in the construction of musical instruments, we are naturally led to suppose that it was a kind of pine-tree. It came from Lebanon, but a much better sort was brought from Ophir; and as that place is supposed to have been either an Indian port or an emporium on the coast of Ara bia for the produce of India, we may, without much violence to verisimilitude, suppose that the foreign or better kind was the Pinus deodara of India, which affords a very beautiful wood of great fragrance. All the most sacred aud valuable works in that Peninsula are made of this wood — and not unworthily, for such is the odour, hardness, and veiny colourations of the wood, that we, who have seen articles of furniture manufactured from it, cannot wonder at the preference. We have U*' -I; given a picturesque illustation of this pine, to invite the attention of the reader to it, though we are not disposed to affirm positively that the deodara was the algum of Solomon and nothing else. 19. " There was not Ihe like made in any kingdom." — This probably means that no king possessed a throne so costly and mag nificent, rather than that no nation pos sessed one of like fashion ; for it is probable that the idea of the throne was taken from the Egyptians, among whose paintings we sometimes find large and magnificent fauteuils having concave backs (" the top of the throne was round behind," 1 Kings X. 19), with the figure of a lion forming an arm at cither side. These figures are painted yellow, doubtless in tended to represent gold, lliis answers to the description of the seat of Solomon's throne ; but of the steps, with two lions to each, we find nothing like in Egyptian paintings, though steps, without lions, are occasionally to be met with. 10, 21. " Ophir TarsMsh."—'rhe passages of Scripture in which Ophir and [Egyptian Fauteuils.] Sir J. Wilkinson observes with reference to this class of scats, " the back of the chair was equally li"lit and strong. It wasoccxsionalijconcaxe, lilie some Eoman chairs,™- tlielhrone "/S"'™"" O Kmcs X. 19) ; and in many ot the large fauteuils, a lion forms an arm at each side. Hut the back usually consisted of a single set of upright and cross bare, or o a fr.-iine, receding gi-acefully and terminating at ils summit in a graceful curve, supported from without by perpendicular bare ; and over this was thrown a handsome pillow of coloured cotton, F»i°'<=d Ic-Hicr. or gold and s.^^^^^^ tissue, like the beds ul the feast of Aliasuerus, mentioned in Esllicr (i. 6.) ; or like «'" fcal^hcr Sions covered with stulfs, and embroidered wilh silk threads ot gold, in the palace of Scaucus. — ¦ Ancient Egyptians," vol. ii. p. 196. ¦rtlMlliilhiiii^^^^^^^^^^^ 1. 'II 'I \M I. Ill IULllUliU!UUiLJULLLL.i' J 1 Kgyr*^^^*^ Thrones ] B.C. 992—975.] 11, CHRONICLES, CHAP, IX, 45 Tarshish are named bring before us Ihe only information we possess concerning the only maritime commerce in which the Hebrews appear to have been ever en gaged. 'I'lie subject is of too much inter est, to be passed without notice, although, with adue regard toour limits and design, we cannot undertake any very complete consideration of a subject which involves much detail and is beset with many dif ficulties. To lay a proper foundation for the few remarks we have to offer, it is necessary to see what the Scripture says on the subject. In the first place we find that the gold of Ophir was known to the Jews long before they had any commer cial intercourse with the country ivliich produced it. Job, who lived long anterior to this period, names the gold of Ophir (xxii. 21); and it is mentioned among the precious metals which David prepaied for the temple (1 Chron. xxix. 4); and it is also noticed in the Psalms (Ps. xlv. 10). Then we find that Solomon, jointly with the Phoenicians, fitted out a mer cantile fieet at Ezion-geber and Elath, in the eastern gulf of the Red Sea, which from thence proceeded to Ophir and brought back gold, algum trees, and precious stones (chap. viii. 17, 18 ; ix. 10). Then fol lows an account of the great wealth of Solomon in gold, and the objects to which it was applied, so that silver was nothing xaccounted of in his days; and then the <.?use of this is mentioned, — " For the kin^ had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram : once in every three years came the navy of Tharshish bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and pe.icocks ' (1 Kings X. 22J. We are not told whe- tlier this was the same voyage as that to Ophir or not, nor are we informed from what port the fleet departed. But this in formation appears to be supplied in 1 Kings xxii. 48, where we read that "Jehosha phat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold : but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber." This text is a clear illustration of the two preceding. We learn, successively, that Solomon's navy went to Ophir for gold, that he was very wealthy, and that he became so because his navy of Tarshish brought a great quantity of gold, &c., every three years : — and that these ships of Tarshish were those thatwent to Ophir, we learn from the fact that Jehoshaphat's ships of Tarshish were destined to Ophir for gold, from the same poit in the Red Sea whence Solomon's fleet had departed for Ophir. Thus far all seems tolerably clear, and Scripture explains itself. But before we can proceed to consider the destination of the fleet, or look to the pa rallel texts in the book now before us in which the name of Tarshish occurs, it is necessary to inquire where Tarshish was. That the word is used with different applications in Scripture we believe ; but its primary and just reference as a proper name, is, on very good grounds, believed to be Tartessus, a most important com mercial settlement and emporium of the Phffinicians on the Atlantic coast of Spain, at the mouth of the Ba:tis or Guadalquivir, and not far from the ancient Gades, now Cadiz. The name " Tartessus" is but a difi'erent pronun ciation of " Tarshish ;" and that all the more definite references of Scripture agree wilh it in situation and other circum stances, is easily shown. Thus, its sil na tion in the west is inferred from Gen. X. 4, where it is mentioned along with Elishab, Chittim, and Dodanim ; and in Ps. Ixxii. 10, it is connected with the islands of the west. Ezek. xxxviii. 13, shows it to have been an important place of trade. According to Jer. x. 9, it ex ported silver : according to Ezek. xxvii. 9, it sent silver, iron, lead, and tin, to the market of Tyre. In Jon. i. 4 ; iv. 2, Joppa is mentioned as a port of embark ation for Taishish. In Isa. xxiii. 1. 6. 10, it is evidently mentioned as an important Phoenician colony : and in Isa. Ixvi. 19, it is named among other distant states. All these circumstances apply to Tar tessus, and some of them can apply to no other place. Now, as it is necessary to keep our ideas quite distinct on the subject, without con founding some passages and overlooking others, let us see what information we have thus obtained from the book of Kings only in this matter. It is not that the ships which left Ezion-geber went to any place called Tarshish, but only that the ships of Tarshish went to Ophir for gold. Then what are we to understand by "the ships of Tarshish"? Tartessus had been the emporium of the most distant trade of the PhaMiiciaiis westward : and the ships engaged in this trade, having to make the longest voyages then known, were probably distinguished by 46 II. CHRONICLES, chap. ix. peculiarities in their size and make, and were called shiiis of Tarshish, from the dis tant place to which they traded : j ust as we call " Indiamen" the ships made for and devoted to the trade with India. Now the Phoenicians, who doubtless built the ships for the trade with Ophir, would seem to have taken as their model, for the vessels intended for this distant navigation, their Tarshish ships, which they knew to he best suited to long voyages, and with the management of which, in such voyages, they were best acquainted. Or there is another alternative, which would render it probable that the ships of Tarshish were really destined for or engaged in the trade with Tartessus, and that the Phoe nicians, applying them to this new object, brought them down to that part of the Mediterranean coast opposite to the Red Sea, where they took them to pieces, carried the parts across the deserts on camels, and put them together again at Ezion-geber or Elath. The absolute want of any wood, near the Red Sea, suitable for ship-building, might render this necessary ; and the difficulty of such an enterprise is only in appearance. Even the Crusaders surmounted it, and even now, as Laborde informs us, " the inha bitants of Suez constantly see vessels afloat in a complete condition, which a short time before they beheld passing through their streets in parts on the backs of camels." These alternatives, separately or together, will be allowed to furnish a satisfactory explanation of what may have been meant by " ships" and " navies" of Tarshish. Thus far, therefore, the mention of Tarshish would involve the question in no difficulty, but might rather contribute to its illustration. But much difficulty .irises from the different reading in 2 Chron. of the same passages which we have quoted and explained from 1 Kings. Let us compare them thus : — 1 Kings X. 22. " For Ihe king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram : once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks," 2 Chron, ix. 21. " For the king's ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram : every three [B.C. 992—