Solemn, solemnity (Hastings' Dictionary)

Derived through Old Fr. solenipne from Lat. sotteimtis (from sollus, entire, and annus, a year), 'solemn' means pro- perly that which occurs annually, and is tlicnce applied to any stated or regular occurrence. Thus Mt 27" Wye. ' But for a solempne day (Rhem. 'upon the solemne day') the justise was wonte to delyvere to tlie puple oon bounden'; Lk 2" Wye. 'And his fadir and raodir wenten eclie j-eer into lerusalcm, in the solenipne dale of pask'(Rheni. 'at the solemne day of Pasche').

And tlien, as that which was stated, especially when public, was frequently grand or ceremonious, ' solemn ' assumes this nieanin" ; thus Shaks. Tit. Andron. II. i. 112, •A solemn hunting is in hand'; Macbeth, III. i. 14, 'To-night we hold a solemn supper, sir.' Such •T«ratr«ined in dcscribinp the hablta of the Gentile Inhabitanta of Eutirrn countries will be clear from tho account given by Prof.

Kawlinson of the character of even the highly civilized PhaDiduis of Tyre and Sldon : Uitlory 9/ Phwnwia. an occasion might be merry or sad, according to it« nature ; whence Chaucer, Prologue, 209 — • A Frere ther won, a wantoun and a merye, A limitour, u ful solenipne man.' Chaucer uses the word simply in the sense of 'public' in Persones Talc, 105, 'The spyces of Penitence been three. That oon of hem is sol- enipne, another is commune, and the thriddo is privee.'

These examples illustrate the use of the word in AV. In all its numerous occurrences it signifies 'stated' or 'public,' having no Heb. word corre- sponding to itself, but being used along with assembly or meeting for n^y;' or rryi'i (see Driver on Am 5°') ; with feast or rfay sometimes (as Nu 10'", La I'', Hos 2") for lyio* (prop, stated time, then used esp.

of stated sacred seasons [see Lv 23- RVm ' appointed seasons ']) ' solemn feast ' ; also thrice in AV (Nah 1", Mai 2^, Ps 81») for Jn, and (with ^•ce/)) for j:ri Dt 6" [RV omits 'solemn,' harmonizing with Lv 23^1t It is easy to understand how the modem sense of ' serious,' ' grave,' or ' gloomy ' arose, but in AV that sense is never present. The expression ' with a solemn sound ' occurs in Ps 92^ (' tTpon the hari; with a solemn sound '), on wliicli de Witt remarks, Heb.

hi'jQditon, from the verb hdfjdh, whii-li is iniitutivc of any low, su]>inC3sed sound, and especially applicable to the soft trill of the liar)). The Enjflish Bible has the rendering " solemn sound," which does not at all represent tho meanmg of the word.' Not now, for the next verse says, ' r<jr thou, Lord, haat made me ^\aA. ' ; but ' solemn ' once expressed gladness as readily as (gravity. Elyot (Govenioitr, i.

41) s-peal<s of the theatre as ' an open place where aj the people of Rome behelde solemne actis and playes.' In accordance with the meaning of 'solemn,' solemnity always means a sacred or ceremonious occasion. It is tlie tr.

of Aay, a feast, in Is 30-* ('in the night when a holy solemnity [RV ' a holy feast'] is kept') ; and of mut-d, a (sacred) season, in Dt 31'<' (RV ' set time '), Is 33» (RV ' solemnity,' RVm ' set feast '), Ezk 45" (RV ' appointed feast '), 46" (RV 'solemnity,' RVm 'appointed feast'). The word also occurs in Sir 50" ' the s. of the Lord ' ((t6<r/ios 'K.vplov, RV 'worship of the Lord,' RVm ' Gr. adornment') ; and 2 Mac 15^'' 'in no case to let that day iiass without s.'

[aTrapaajitiavTov , RV 'undistinguished'). Cf. Shaks. Mids. NighVs Dream, V. i. 376— ' A fortnijjht hold we this solemnity. In nightly revels and now jollity. And so also solemnly means sacredly or cere- moniously, (in 43^ 'The man did solemnly protest untou8'(AVm 'Heb. protesting he did protest'); 1 S 8 ' Howlieit yet protest suleiunly unto them ' ; 2 Mac \i ' of the boughs which were used solemnly in the temple' (tCiv voixi^otiivuv SoWif tov lepov). Cf.

Fuller, Ilobj War, 338, 'His [the prince's] clothes are such as may beseem his Greatnesse, es|iecially when he solemnly appears, or presents himself to forrein Embassadours. J. HAS'HNOS. SOLOMON {nbS^ ; BA ZaXw^'i", I>uc. :Lo\oiiiiv and SaXo^uii', NT and Josephus -o\o/»iij'). — The third king of Israel, a son of David and Bathsheba. 1. The JVanM.— Another name Jedldlah (i,"'!"'; ' beloved of Jah pro] '; B'Ui^i.', A E'tSf^Kx, Luc.

'Ii^^i^idt) wiuj given him by the ,)het Nathan OH a pledvre that the Lord would be specially gracious to him, and ttiat liis fulher was restored to the Divine favour. Ah that name, however, occurs only once (2 8 12'^), we may infer that it never camo into common use. Not improl>. ably it niay have been deemed too sat-Ted for such use. The name Jedidiah haa tho same root as David, viz. in ' a primitive caressing word. 'J Wellhausen ami others conform the Heb. text of 2 S 12"-^ to tho Vulg.

and represent l>fivid as the originator of tho name. The hypothesis is unlikely consider- ing the diirerence of tho relations of David and Natiian to J" at * lyte ODce also of itolnnn auembly, t On tho distinction of i:) and ly^O Me vot 1. p. 8fXK X See Oxf. lidi. Lex. :v. 060 SOLOMON solo:mon •he time when the name was given, and that the name was a sacred one and the vehicle of a Divine message. Chej-ne (art. • Jediiliah ' in i'HC. Bibl.)

not only alters the text but makes for it a new context, and so arrives at the original and remarkable result tli:it Jcdidiah was David's first son by Bathslicba, and that he called his second son byhernot Shclomuh, bnt ' bhillumS (lO*".:', i.e. 'his compensation') because of Jedidiah.' Accord- in-' to that finding, Solomon was never called Jedi.liah. Nor was he entitled to the name of Solomon. His rc.-vl name was Shillumo, although no Hebrew kin- is known to ha\e borne that name.

It is difficult to see where, on the hypothesis of Chcvne, the consolation of David could come in. Nor is it probable that any Hebrew king would call his son by the name Shillumo. Shillumah is only used in the OT once (Ps 91<=), and it is in the sense not of coinpainatiou but of rcinbulion, the reward of the wicked (so shillum in Hos 9', Is 348). Shitlum and Bhalmmlm, are also each used once (Mio 7S, Is l-*) of ' rewards ' in the sense of bribes. „ „ ,_ . ^.

^ According to one reading of 2 S 12=4, it was Bathsheba that gave her son the name of Solomon. She may have done so. In the OT more instances are mentioned of the names of children beint' given bv their mother than by their father. In a num- ber of cases the names are said to have been given by both parents, and that may have been so as regards Solomon, althou-h the evidence for David's p.articipation in the act is positive, and that for Bathsheba's only problematical.

Accord- in- to one account of David's naming of Solomon, he is repre- sented as having acted under the belief that God had expressly tlirectod him to give the child the name he did.

The Chronicler (1 Ch 229) describes him as telling his successor that he had himself proposed to build a temple to J", but that the word of J" had forbidden him because of the blood he had shed, while promising him that the work would be accomphshed by a son who would bear the name of Solomon, and have a rei-n of peace and quietness. Whether that statement be histoncaUy accurate or not cannot he decided by the merely historical evidence in our possession.

There is, however, no internal impossibihty in the account of the state of mind ascribed to David. On the contr.an-, that is psycholo-ically quite natural. The name Shilijmiih (Solomon) means ' peaceful,' ' pacific" like the Gr. Jreiueus and Ger. Friedrich. And when Solomon was born, David was a man whose strength had been exhausted in war- fare, and who was keenlv sensible of the blessings of peace both for a kin- and a kingdom.

Hence it was altogether natural that at tSat period of time he should have given the name Solomon to a son on whom he placed high expectations and for whom he desired a happier life than his own, and very con- ceiv.able even that he may have felt that God directed him to name his child as he did. The name was certainly one which indicated well a prominent and distinctive feature of both the character and reign of Solomon.

Althou-h he ruled as on absolute monarch, allowed no rivals, and did not hesitate to crush dangerous adversaries, he was not naturally cruel, and had no taste for war. He was a man of peace— the most peace-loving, perhaps, of the Hebrew kings; and under his swav there was for about forty years in Palestine, not absolute peace indeed, either as regards contentment within or cessation ot hostility from without, but such peace as the Hebrew nation had never known before or was ever to know again.

2. The Svurces.— The chief sources of informa- tion regarding the life and rpi<;n of Solomon are rontained in the books of Kings and Chronicles. The narrative in Kings (1 K 1-11-") is clo.sely con- nected with a section of the books of Samuel (2 S 11-20). The latter is also a continuous nar- rative.

It leads steadily up to the story in Kings, and shows in a graphic and picturesque way what obstacles blocked the way of Solomon's accession to the throne, and how unlikely it was that he would have reached it had J" not specially loved and favoured him. Along with the narrative in Kings it forms a whole in which there is both unity of plan and simUarity of style. Both of our oldest sources arc far frou\ being contemporary documents. The record in King.

s is historically much the more valuable ; but the compilation even of Kings cannot have been completed until about 400 years after the death of Solomon. The com- pilation of Chronicles was not completed until at least three centuries later. The author of the account in Chron. made use of the account in Kin-s and added to it onlv little information of a strictly historical character. The author of the account in Kings refers (1 K ll'") to an older account ' the book of the annals of Solomon.'

The author of the account in Chron. refers (2 Ch »») to (0) ■ the words of Nathan the prophet, (6) the pro- phecy of Ahiiah the Shilonite,' and (c) 'the vision of Iddo the seer ' See artt. Kisos and CllROSiCLBS. Through the hands of what authors and editors Kings and Chron. pa^ed before they reached their present form no one knows, and even the process by which thev became what they are has been only vaguely Ascertained.

The loss of older records than those wluch we possess i» all the more to be regretted, u both Kiiigi and Chron. were written largely under the influence of religiom motives and with a view to religious edification. Merely to record events and trace their comicxiona, causes, and course 01 movement had no mterest for the authors of them. What thev were chicHv concerned with was how they might make kno'wn the hand and voice of God in His dealings with Israel, and with her friends and foes.

The authors of the accounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chron. were manifestly men of limited views, men of their tuue, and much infiuenced in what they wrote by the feelings and beliefs prevalent in their social medium They are entitled, however, to be credited with honesty and piety In mtcntion. Their account has its faults.

Although they assign a comparatively large space to Solomon, thej- give us no very precise or vivid description either of his private life or public career, and no distinct view of the order of succession of events in his reign. They may not be wholly to blame for that, nor may it be much to be rc-retted that they did not succeed better. Seemingly, the character of Solomon was one exceptionaUv difficult to portray.

Saul and David were far more interesting personages, and it is natural that they should have been presented in a far more lifelike manner. Solomon is left bv his biographers an imposing but very in- distinct figure. Was that, however, not just as it should be? Was not want of reality his great want ? If so, could he have been more truly and wisely represented than he was? The accounts given of him in both Kiu-s and Chron. are priestly in tone and tendencv, but that in Chron.

is much more so than that m Kin-s. 'The general view given of the character and rcign of Solomon in the latter is far more discriminating than that m the former. \\Tiile m Kings the glory of Solomon is dwelt on with patriotic pride, the mischievousness of his conduct is also clearly set forth, whereas in Chron. what tends to glonfy him is alone dwelt on, and what was unworthy of his reputation, jud-ed of from a Levitical point of view, is either passed over unnoticed or very slightly mdicated.

There are no traces, however, of conscious dishonesty in the Chromcler, no grounds for holding him to have stated what he did not beheve, while it is of great advantage to have two accounts which so far agree and so far differ. The Chronicler assumed certain preconcep- tions current in his age as to the history of his people to be unquestionably true, and wrote his history in conformity with those preconceptions. That, however, is what all historians do, even the most advanced and critical.

History cannot be written without preconceptions, and preconceptions cannot but lead to conclusions which must appear to those who do not accept them falsifications of the historical data.

The Chronicler's pride in the glorv of Solomon and in the position attained by Israel under him, the exaggerated importance which he assigned to priests and priestly things, his prodigaUtyas regards number, and other peculiarities, are themselves most instructive, because characteristic of him not as an individual merely, but also as » representative of the time and society to which he belonged. H& estimate of the conduct of Solomon does not substantiaUy differ from that given in Kings.

It amounts to a severe con- demnation—one all the more severe coming as it does from a writer so biassed in his favour— of the evil which he had done notwithstanding bis vast means and opportmuties of domg good. The fragments of ancient historians quoted by Josephus (Ant. Vlll. ii. 6), by Eusebius of Ca>sarea (Prwp. El', ix. 34), and by Clemens Alex. {Strom. i. 386) add little, if anything, to our knowledge of Solomon beyond what is stated in Kings and Chronicles.

The narrative of Josephus himself in Ant. vm. i.-viii. depends almost entirely on the Biblical records. Where he deviates from them, he is rarely to be trusted. It is noteworthy tliat he describes Solomon as a powerful sorcerer. That liad already become in his time a generally accepted belief among the Jews, and probably was not confined to them. It is especially as a sor- cerer and lord over the elements, animals, aphrcets and jinn, that he is renowned in the East.

The Oriental imagination has run riot in the invention of legends regarding him.* The writinns long attributed to Solomon, to be found in the''OT or the Apocryplia, cannot in the present state of opinion among Biblical critics as • Jewish legends of the kind referred to are to be found in the Targum on Ecdes. an.l II. Targ. on Esther. For those ii. the KorM see suras 21. 27. 28. 37. For the ^TlT^l^.n it Rabbis see Eisenmen-er, Entdeck. Jvd. Solff., "",«■ . ^°' Mohammedan stories. Weil, JliM.

^">^ (UrilutielmannfT. 226 ff.; Baring Gould, Legends o/ OT Charactfrt vol. u. ch. XNxvii. f.: and Lane's Thousand and One i\ighu ilndey. t ^Suleiman ibn David'). Hettinger's H,^ Or., berbelots /Mt Or 333 and the historians AbuUeda, Tabari, ond Ludolpn (IJist. Eth.) may also be referred to. M. D. Conw^v in ha hiloinon and Solomunic Lileralnre (Open Court Pub. Co., Chicago, 1900) deals with the Solomon mythology as a whole m an ingenious but often very arbitrary way.

He considers tie external and historical data insutbcient to prove certainly IBM on individual Solomon ever existed ' (p. 1> SOLOMON SOLOilOX 561 to tlieir autliorsliip lie assumed to supply materials for Ills biography. He may have been the author of a few of the Vs:ilms and a number of the I'ro- verbs, but to prove him so and to establish which are his i^ difhciilt.

The Sokg of Songs cainiot be his, but it has a historical value deponilent neither upon its date nor its authorshij), hut on its testimony to the impression which Solomon's character had left on certain Jewish minds. The Wisdom of Solomox, which professes to have Solomon for author, shows what impression he had left on a very dillcrcnt class of minds at a otill later date. As to the relation of KCCLESI- USTF.." to Solomon, see art. in the present work and in Enc. Bihlii-a ; of. also Sir 42""^.

Con- siderable sideliglit has been cast on the Solomonic age in Israel by ar(,h<L'ologicaI and historical investigations, but it has not so much incniased our knowledge of Solomon himself as of his build- ings, the topo^Taphy of his capital, the geography of his kingdom, the ethnology and ancient history of it, and the state of the countries with which the Israel of his time was brought into contact, — subjects which cannot be dealt with in this article.

Modern criticism of the Hibli('al sources haa dis- pelled many erroneous views regarding Solomon's life and reign ; b\it it has, of course, not increased, and cannot be e.\pected to increase, that know- ledge of positive facta regarding them, which is the great desideratum. 3. Birth, parentrirje, and traininrj. — The account of the birth of Solomon in 2 S 12-''- '•* conveys the impression that he was tlie second child of David and Bathsheba.

The lists of their childnn in 2 S 3", 1 Ch 3», and 1 Cli l^^ on the otlier hand, Beem to imply that he was their fourth child, their youngest son, and that Shammua (or Shiinea), Shobab, ami Nathan had been previously born to them, as in all those lists his name is mentioned last. No (juite satisfactory e.xiilanation of the ipparcnt discrepancy has yet been given. The likeliest, perhaps, is that Solomon was mentioned last .

-us being tlie most important muTnl>cr of the family group, the heir to his father's throne. Nathan, by his rebuke of David, lost none of his influence with either him or Uathslieba, and con- tinued to be the friend of both. He prophesied good for their child, and strongly supported his cause at the moment when it was most in danger. Owing to that and the vagueness of a plirase in 2 S 12-^, he has very generally been held to have had the charge of Solomon's education.

There is, however, no real foundation for the opinion. Scarcely any information is given us regarding Solomon previous to his elevation to the throne.

It may safely be infirrffl from what he was in manhood that his I'llncat ion liad not been neglected in youth, and that he must have lncn very recep- tive of learning and ciger to excel in accomplish- ments; but there is nothing to indicate that he was trained under any prophet, or that he was in sympathy with anything distinctive of prophetic toiicliini.' or prophetic ideals of life. Tlicre is no trace of Nathan, or any other proi>het, having had any inllueme over him when king.

The prophetic ministry almost disappeared duiiiig his reign. What prophets there were in Israel in his day were opposed to his policy. Far more probably ho waa educated in his father's palace. In various respects the court of David must li.ave been the best school possible for the education of David's successor, while in others one most apt to develop the defects so conspicuous in Solomon's aftirlife.

The atmosphere of a court presided over by David, and agitated by the internal dissensions and con- flicting pa.ssions to which despotic power and polygamy combined necessarily gave rise, cannot have been favourable to his healthy moral growth. VOL. l1l.—■^6 There is no definite inform.ition given us as to how far or in wliat ways he was induenced by his mother ; but tiiere can be no reasonable doubt that her inlluence was considerable.

To have retained the hold which she had upon David and the rank which she held among his wives, she must have been more than merely 'a very beautiful woman' (2 S 11). She must have been also a talented and sagacious one. That she was in close alliance with Nathan, that .

•\dimijah sought her aid on his behalf in the belief that her son would refuse nothing that she asked, and that Solomon received her with the utmost reverence when she presented herself before him, are indications of fact which all point in one direction. We may accordingly infer that she had considerably contributed to the for- mation of Solomon's character. 4. Adur)ij<ik's rebellion. — There is very little further intormation given regarding Solomon pre- vious to his accession to the throne.

The account in 1 Ch 22-'"' describes David's [ireparation for the building of the temple, and records his charges to Solomon and the princes. If it be in its proper place in the book — a point on which there is room lor ditierence of opinion — it clearly shows that Adonijah's rebellion was inexcusable. There is, however, nothing elsewhere to correspond to it, nor are there any means allbided us of verifying what needs verilication in it.

The rebellion of Adonijaii was wliat necessitated the elevation of Solomon to the throne before his father's death. Adonijah was then, perhaps, his father's eldest son, and may natuially have considc^red himself to have had on that ground a preferential claim to the throne. There was at that time, however, no authoritative law or settled precedent to regu- late the succession. Adonijah tiimself docs not seem to have rested his claim on rij^lit or precedent, but on the goodwill of the pi-ople.

'Thou knowest,' he said to Batlishcba when obviousl.v trying' to ni.ike tile most of his owii eause, — ' thou knowest that the kin;,'(ioni was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that 1 sliuuld relj^n : howheit the kinj^doni is turned about, and is become my brother's: for it was his from the Lord* (1 K '.ilC).

That is a very intelligible view, and all the more so that we know thn people of Israel in the time of David and Solomon vinqucstion- ably felt that they had some ri^'ht to consideration in the appointment of their kings. The Northern tribes unmistakably showed that when they rejected Solomon's only son. It i"a none the les.s very mislc-wling to speak of Adonijah as • the riirhtful heir' to the throne, as Stade and some other critics do.

The 'rightful heir to the throne* in an absolute monarchy such as Israel had become under David, was the son nominated by the reiLTiing monarch. It has been so in all such monarchies ; and wherever polyfjamy has prevailed in these monarchies, yovniger sons have been often appointed to the exclusion of the eldest. The present Shah of Persia is an instance of 'a ri(;htful monarch,' altnou^'h he has an older and, it is said, exceptionally able brother.

The appointment of the youngest son to the throne was very common in the despotisms of India. Adonijah, it would seem, was ' a very goodly man,' captivating in his manners, fond of display and magnilicence, ambitious, and scheming. He made it (juite apjiarent that he wished to be kin'', assumed royal honours, and gained over to his side powerful allies, in Joab the general of the army, Abiathar the ]uiest, and the jirinces of the royal house. In a word, he beg.

in to play the lAle of the ill-fated Absalom. The conspirators may possibly have deemed that his seniority of birtb or superiority of qualifications gave him a right tn reign. They may also have possibly deemeil that it was expedient for him to ascend the throne at once owing to David's budili' weakness. ]!ut I hey were certainly engaged in a real and formidahle consjiiracy kept secret from the king, and meant to .set him aside and to thwart his wishes.

Their attemjit does not seem to have been either skil- fully i>laniied or strongly supported in pojiular feeling. The account given of it and of its failure in 1 K l'"" distinctly convej's that impression. 562 SOLOMON SOLOMOJN As soon as divulged, the whole plot came to naught. 5. Commencement of reign and first acts. — David Koou afterwards died, and .Solomon succeeded him without opposition.

The year in which he hegan to reign has not been determined, nor are there yet known data for doing so exactly. He is said both in Kings and Chron. to have reigned forty years ; but that may be a round, not an exact, number. If exact, however, we may assign about B.C. 970 as the time at which he began to reign, since there are good reasons for considering B.C. 930 as about the first year of Jeroboam's reign — the year in which Solomon died.

The Jewish and Arabic tradition that Solomon was only twelve years old when he began to rei^, obviously orij^nated in misconception of the meaning of the words in 1 K 3' ' I am but a little child ; I know not how to go out or come in,' etc.; words not to be taken literally, but as a humble confession of inatlequacy, owing to youth and inexperience, for the great task of royalty. The generally received view that he was about twenty years old when he began to reign cannot be far amiss.

According to Josephus, Solomon began to reign when le waAjourteen years of age ; but, in the same sentence he tells as he reigne<l eijhty years, and died at the a?e of ninety-four {Ant, vin. vii. 8). He does not mention the source of his information. t The first concern of Solomon as king naturally was to make his seat secure. The Chronicler characteristically says nothing regarding the way in which he established himself in his kingdom.

The whole account, however, in 1 K 2'^-3* seems worthy of credence. It represents Solomon as acting with great decision and vigour, and yet as not inflicting punishment beyond what was deemed necessary. He struck only at the heads of the conspiracy which had been formed against him.

Considering that he was an Oriental ruler, not his cruelty but his clemency was exceptionak David is not recorded to have advised the taking of any strong measures against Adonijah, and Solomon had granted him a pardon accompanied with a stern warning. Very naturally, however, and probably quite correctly, he interpreted his re- quest to have Al'ishag for a wife as a proof that he had not abandoned his pretensions to the throne.

Bathsheba, it has been argued, would not have communicated the request to her son if she had deemed it trea.sonable in intention. Per- haps not, but perhaps al.so she did not act in earnest for the good of the son of Haggith. Abiathar was leniently dealt with in considera- tion of his past loyalty. David, according to 1 K 2", had advised the putting to death of Joab ; but, even if he did not do so (see art. JoAB), Solomon could not have been expected to spare his life. Joab was the mo.

^t dangerous enemy he could possibly have in all Israel. He was so resolute, so able, so much a favourite with the army, that even David had not been able to keep him in check. Not inferior, and seemingly even superior, to David as a commander, there was no one left in Israel to compare with him in military ability.

His successor Benaiah was a valiant warrior, and an eliicient tool for an abso- lute ruler to have at hand, but there is no evidence • Wellhausen, Stade, and other eminent critics represent Nathan and Bathsheba, Zadok and Benaiah, as conspirators, and the choice of Solomon by David as the result of a palace intrigue. It is possible to think so, but the supposition appears to the present writ«r to be merely conjectural.

As to what is related of David's advice to Solomon in I K 21" and 1 Ch SX**!" and 28-'291-2l!, see the art. Davu) in the present work, and A'jic. /Ji6., and the commentatorfl mentioned under heading of Literature, t Perhaps 1 K S" sufficed to suggest to him the eighty years' reign and ninety-four years of life. It is not unlikely, however, that earlier Jewish authors may have written to the same effect.

The promise of length of days was a merelv conditional one, and Solomon did not fulfil the condition. Stade rightly holds it as certain that Solomon must have reigned over thirty years, but inconclusivel^v infers from 1 K 151 and 2 Ch 1218 ttiat be could not have reigned forty years (see his G VI L 307X that he was a great general.

Joab could neither have respect for the character of a man like Solomon, nor sympathy with his policy; indeed a reign like that of Solomon could hardly hav« been possible so long as Joab was at the head ol the Hebrew army. The view of Guthe and others, that David and Solomon hoped that the putting of Joab to death would avert the vengeance which his crimes might otherwise bring upon the house of David may be correct, but it is not necessary to account for his death.

Resentment and policy are sufiicient to account for it. They also account best for the way in which Shimei was dealt with. It does not appear that he was implicated in the conspiracy, but he liad been a bitter enemy of David, was suspected of being still disloyal and hostile to the house of David, and, on account of his influence with the Benjamites, was deemed dangerous to the peace and comfort of the new monarch. 6. Convocation at Gibeon, dream and request.

— The way in which Solomon dealt with the enemies whom he had recently feared could not fail greatly to ' strengthen him in his kingdom.' He not only thereby got rid of them, but showed to his sub- jects that young as he was he was neither weak nor foolish, but a shrewd and capable man who could ett'ectively discharge the functions of a king, and might be hoped to act neither capriciously nor cruelly.

To have gained so great a triumpii at the very commencement of his reign was enough to secure his popularity, for with the populace of all times and places ' nothing succeeds like suc- cess.' When he felt himself secure on his throne he resolved to make manifest his gratitude to J", and proceeded to do so on a scale Ludicative of his taste for magnificence and display in worship, as in other things.

He called a convocation of hia captains, judges, governors, and heads of houses, at the ancient city of Gibeon, where was a famed bamdh, 'a great high place,' and there, surrounded by his dignitaries, he ottered in thanks to God a thousand bumt-ort'erings — 'a thousandfold holo- caust'— on the brazen altar which stood befoie the sanctuary and could be seen from afar.

On the following night the king dreamed that J" appeared to him and asked wliat He should give him, and that he replied by asking ' an under- standing heart to judge aright ' tlie great people entrusted to his charge while so young and m- experienced. He dreamed also that, liecause such had been his request, God promised him not only what he asked for — wisdom and knowledge— but also wealth and honour, and, conditionally, how- ever, on conformity to the Divine law, length of days.

The dream was naturally accepted by the king as a Divine communication. To Solomon there seems to have never been vouchsafed any clearer or higher form of Divine revelation than the dream. 7. Solomon's judgment. — According to his bio- graplier in Kings, lie was soon attbrded an oppor- tunity of disjilaying the wisdom whicli he liad asked for and received.

From Gibeon he returned to Jerusalem, where the ark of the covenant waa now located in the tabernacle erected by David on Mount Zion, and there also presented otterings to J", and likewise made a feast to all his servants. AtJeru.salem he was forthwith called to pronounce a decision between two harlots who both claimed the same live child while each affirmed that a dead one was her neighbour's.

The way at which he at once arrived at the trutli immediately made him famous, and has greatly helped to maintain his re- putation for wisdom ever since. It showed an in- stinctive insight into the workings of the human heart very remarkable in so young a man, and a keenness of practical discf rnment of a kind iuvaiu- SOLOMON SOLOMUX Oils able in one whose c-hief duty was to act as the fiipreme judge in all disputed casus throughout Israel.

That 'all Israel heard of it, and feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment,' may well be be- lieved. That there was nothing miraculous in it may as reasonably be admitted. Innumerable examples of the same kind of wLsdom as remark- able and as well authenticated miglit easily be Kiven. Far more wonderful stories of a similar kind are told of Solomon himself, but they are entirely fictitious.

The story, as told in I K :V, ^, can alone be regarded as historical narrative. Josephus {Ant. VIII. ii. 2) seems to have had no other source of information, yet he gives a very distorted version of it. He represents the king as proposing to divide botli the dead and the live child, and the people as privatelj' laughing at the proposal as that of a mere youth.* 8. Solomon's policy dependent on Davids.

— The task which fell to Solomon was that of building n\) H kin"doni on a foundation already laid and on lines already drawn. A reign like his was only made possible by what Samuel, Saul, and David had accomplished. Samuel, the last of the Judges, was also the first of them whose influence extended over all Israel, and was powerful enough to recon- struct the theocracy on a mon.-irchicat basis.

Saul, by his struggles with the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites, rendered comparatively easy the consolidation of all the tribes of Israel into a nation under David.

It ■wa-s David, however, who made the policy of Solomon feasible, who indicated both by his counsels and example how it could be carried into effect, and who enabled him to start with a sulliciency of the means necessary to enter on his schemes of ambition and to revolutionize the manners and the ideals of Israel. Solomon seems to have done little which his father had not in- itiated : both imitated the doings and methods of Oriental despots. 9. His milit'tnj policy.

— Solomon had not the genius requisite to extend his kingdom. He seetns to have had no military taste or talent ; and cer- tainly the glory of the conqueror lie but little sought and little won. He was content to main- tain and develop what he hatl inherited, and to abstain from d;ingcrous adventures. The weak condition of the surrounding States would have presented to an ambitious warrior-king a strong * There [b no mention of the incident iu Chronicles.

The •tory told by Ltioduriu Siculus of Ariopliancs, kinij of Thrace, in i^eneml cn:tr;ictiT rcscnit^lcs very closely tliat of Kind's, uii the death of the kinir of the Cinnnerians, three yoiinff men appeftrwi before Ariophanes claiming to be the only son of the deceuiied kinjf, without producing adequato evidence for the Imth of their claims. Ariopluines ordered them to hurl a lavelin at the corpse of their alleged father.

Two cunaeiilcd, but one refused, and he was declared to be the true son and heir of the dece.i»e<I monarrh. Anotlier parallel is the account which buetoniuBgive» uf a Juduaneiit of Claudius (Lif:t'j( of ttie Tweice CamaTg). A wontan refused to acknowledge that a young man who claime^l to be her son was 80. In the absence of other means of deciding on which side wa» the truth, the enii'cror ordere<l the woman to marry tlie youth, and so obliu'ed luT to acknowle'lge that the latter" was her son.

Most of the oriental parallels have a manifestly mythifml and fabulous setting. In •ome of them, however, i he resemblance is so cluse as to auioimt almost to verbal repetition. See Benfev's J^antuchaluidia, L BW-siM), ii. 644, also KUine Schriften, 3fd Abt. 171 II. ; hug. tr. of the 'Kah-lij-ur' (Triibncr's Or. Ser.)— the talo of Vi>sil(hii; Weber's IndxKhr Slreifrn, iiL 60 (also T. Steele's An Kimtcm Lone Sfon/, Triibner, is71, pp. 218 f., 24Sf.); Ilcinh. Koliler, G(JA, lb72, pp.

1210-1221 ; Fausboll, Buddhut Birth HlmUs, tr. by Uh^-8 Davids, vol. i. xiv-xvi ; and Jtev. de VilUtoire de lid. xxxviii. (1898), art. by Leclire, ' Une version cambodgicnne du Juifement de SaloTiion,' 17tV-lS7. In the last-mentioned version, % m'^thcr, her child, a female ogress in woman's fonn, and a Buddliist Solomon, 'the noble Mohosoth,' are the parties.

To the questions whether the stories of the judgments of Solo- nion, Ariophanes, and Claudius are legendary or historical, and whether the judgment of Solomon originated in the Indian ■tones or had its origin in India, definite answers du not seem to have been as > et arrived aU temptation to attempt to create a powerful Seiiiilic empire, which, if unified and vivified by faitli in J", niiglit liave anticipated Islam by a millennium and a half and given the history of Israel a very ditl'erent direction.

Yet Solomon, far from being a feeble or incapable monarch, was an able, shrewd, and enterprising one, who knew well how to mag- nify his oUice, further his interests, and attain his ends. He must have had very exceptional adminis- trative talent, and he applied it to military as well as civU organization.

Isot otherwise could he have preserved for fortj' years the sccuritj' and unity ol a nation so recently and loosely constituted ; kept down its strong ilisruptive tendencies ; and prose- cuted a policy which must have been obnoxious to the majority of his subjects. Although he did not increase his territory, he kept a firm hold of it, and made his sphere of inliuence mucii wider than his father's had been. His troubles with Hadad, Rezon, and Jkuohoam prove nothing to the con- trary.

The account of them given in 1 K IP"" is placed— obviously with a view to religious edifi- cation— in the closing period of his reign, instead of at or near its commencement ; and tlie informa- tion which it conveys, although it may be received as trustworthy so far as it goes, is scanty, and can- not be supplemented either from other Ciblical or non-Biblical sources. It does not ajipear that Solomon's adversaries "ained much advantage over him.

Hadad was doiuitless, and very excusably, as troublesome a neighbour to him and his people as he could be, and did them all the ' mischief in his power ; but there is no evidence that he became king of Edom, or that Edom under him secured independence. The fact that the port of Elath re- mained in Solomon's hands sliowcd that tlie king of Israel was the overlord of Edom. As regards Rezon ben-Hadiada, he may have made himself master of Damascus even in the lifetime of David.

There is no evidence of David's having had an acknowledged and efi'ective suzerainty over Syria. And, besides, although we are told that Kezon ' was a foe to Israel all the days of Solomon,' it does not ajipear that he succeeded in seizing any portion of Israelitish territory.

Jeroboam's attempt to stir up sedition against liim can still less rele- vantly be referred to as evidence of his weakness, seeing that it was a failure, and Jeroboam did not venture to return from Egypt until he heard that Solomon was dead. Solomon left out of his military calculations the possibilities neither of invasion from without nor of insurrection from within. He strengthened his ' apital by the construction of fortilications which David had only begun or merely contemplated. See art.

MiLLO. ile establislied fortified cities, well, garrisoned and well • provisioned, at well- chosen strategic points (see HaZou, Mkoiddo, Gezi;i!, liKTii-iiORON, Baalath, Tamau). He thus guarded the kingdom against attack at all its more vulnerable points, as well as increased the safety of the sacred city. By adding to his army a force of 12,0UO horsemen and 1400 war chariots, he must have greatly increased its eflici- encj'. The innovation was unpopular among the ultra-consi.

rvative and superstitious portion of the community, but it was a real iinprovenient. In the plains of N. Palestine, on the borders of Phil- istia, and in most directions beyond the national bounilaries, cavalry could not fail to be of great ad- vantage. The Canaanites had employed it with success against the Israelites in the time of the Judges. Before its adoption by Solomon it had come into u.se in all the neighbouring States.

Onco introduced, it was adhered to so long aa Israel and Judali retained their indejicndence. 10. A prominent feature of Solomon's ]iolioy was his full recognition of the iiiiportanco of interna- 564 SOLOMON SOLOMON tioval aUinnces. He imniensel}' increased his power and influence by the treaties wliich he formed with the rulers of nei^'hbouring States.

The most ailvan- tagcous of them was that formed with Iliram, kin" of Tyre — the continuation of an alliance formed in the time of David, but utilized by Solomon to an immensely greater extent than by David. Without it Solomon could not have jriven elleet either to a commercial policy or to his desire to build the temple and beautify Jerusalem. It was for tlie manifest benefit of both the contracting parties.

To Hiram it ensured, in case of attack from the landward side of his kingdom, the aid of a powerful army in its defence ; an abundant supply at all times ot su h commodities as corn, oil, and wine ; an enlarged traffic with the Hebrews by way of Joppa ; and the opening up of the Ydin Suph (so-called Red Sea), and of the ocean bej'ond it, to the enterprise of his mariners and merchants. To Solomon it was equally advantageous.

It enabled him to enter into mercantile copartnership with Hiram, and in conjunction with liim to have ships trading both in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Whatever may have been the exact position of T.VRSiiisH and Ophir, Solomon must have had vessels on both seas. If Elath and Ezion-geber were open to him, Joppa or Dor was still more so. He was not the man to make a foolish bargain, or to prefer doing business on a small to a large scale.

That he derived annually from his foreign trade as much revenue as his historians (1 K 10", 2 Ch 9'^) state is very difficult to believe. The trade, how- ever, may well have been a very lucrative one. And, obviously, without the aid of Hiram and his subjects Solomon could have found neither the ships nor the men necessary to him for engagin" in it.

Nor was he less dejiendent on the skill and tastes of Phoenician artists and artisans for the construction and ornamentation of the buildings on which his desires were set, and to which he was to owe so much of his fame in future ages. His own subjects were incapable of supplying workmen of the kind needed, whereas the Phoe- nicians were famous for their proficiency in archi- tecture and the plastic arts. It was chiefly from I'hcenicia that Hebrew art was derived.

In that sphere the influence of Egypt on Israel was not direct, but through Phoenicia.* Next in importance to the Tyrian was the Eg>jp- tian alliance (1 K 3'). The Pharaoh witli whom Solomon entered into alliance is not named in tlie Bible, but must have been one of the last of the Tanitc Pharaohs (perhaps the last — Pasebcbanu II., called by Manetho •if ovaevfj^).

Solomon obtained a daughter of the Pharaoh for his wife, and received with her as a do\vry the town of Gezer, which her fatlior had captured. Gezer was a valuable gift, and the marriage itself seems to have flattered the pride both of Solomon and of his subjects. In the age of the Chronicler and of the Jews of later times the marriage came to be regarded by the pious as disastrous, but there is no trace of such a feeling in the older historical sources.

The first great edifice which Solomon caused to be built was not the temple of J", but a palace for the Egyptian prin- cess. The daughter of Pharaoh was always the chief personage in his haiem. In all probability slie had received a much more comprehensive and * In the Histories of Phffinicia by Kenrick. Ilawlinaon, Movers, Pietsoliinann, ill Renau's Mission en Phinicit, in CIS ii.

tome 1 and 2, and in Perrot and Cliipiez" Hist, de I'Arl, much infor- mation is to be obt-iiiied as to the relations between the I*h<B- nicians and the Hebrews. The reigns of Hiram and Soiomon a^ipear to have been contemporary almost all through, as the former is said (Menander, fr. 1) to have begrun to reij?n when nine- teen years old and to have been fifty-three years old when he died.

The enumeration jrivcn in 1 K 7'^"' of the qualifications of the Hiram who was Solomon's chief architect and artist, indicates what the PhcsniciaDi could teach the Hebrews duriug the rei^ sf Solomon. refined education and training th.an his Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite wives anil ( oncubines.

His own tastes, indeed, were of a kind which would have disposed him to imitate the style of life of a Pharaoh, but they must have been strengthened by his marriage with a Pharaoh's daughter. However explained, his ideal of king- ship was the ideal which had for ages been con- spicuously exemplified in Egypt. Like the Tj-rian alliance, the Egyptian alliance was uninterrupted throughout his reign, and of the latter as of the former he would seem to have taken tuU advan- tage.

* That he bought droves of horses and largo numbers of chariots in Egypt and sold them at high prices to Hittite and Syrian kings may be fairly inferred from 1 K 10=«, 5 and 2 Ch l'«- ", if by Mizraim in those verses Egypt be meant.f He also promoted and protected the carrying and' caravan trade, which extended almost from the Nile to the Euphrates.

He saw that the geo- graphical position of Palestine — between the Medi- terranean, Red Sea, and the Desert — gave him command of the chief highways of Asiatic com- merce, and power to secure to himself a share of the profits of the greatest markets of the then known world (those of Egypt and Chald;ca), fully recognized the importance of trade and commerce, and acted accordingly. Therein lay, perhaps, his greatest originality as a Hebrew riiler.

His pre- decessors— the Judges, Saul, and David — could not do so, continually engaged as they were in fierce struggles with their enemies in and around Pales- tine. The general result of their struggles made his wider and more humane views and schemes of policy possible and so far realizable ; but to himself belongs the credit of their inception and prosecu- tion.! Looked at in itself, his foreign policy must be pronounced on the whole a reasonable one. And it had good results.

It was a policy of peace ; it saved his subjects from the miseries of war ; it enriched certain classes and benefited in some degrees other classes ; it made the Hebrews better accjuainted with the greatness, the wealth, and the state of ci\ilization of the world around them, widened their %news, corrected sundry prejudices, suggested improvements, and stimulated acti\'ity.

It was, perhaps, the chief factor in making the Solomonic age the period of greatest material pro- gress in the history of Israel. Yet it is quite possible to estimate too highly the external policy of Solomon, while quite impossible to estimate it aright without viewing it in relation to his internal policy. There is no evidence that it was disapproved of by his subjects, and he did not enter into, what woiJd have been abhorrent to them, any alliance with the Can.

aanites ; but it was the expression merely of the king's will, not of the national desire, and when the king died no one thought of continuing his policy. On the contrary, so long as the nation retained its national e.xistencc, it tended increas- ingly to self-isolation. 11. As regard-s the domestic poliet/ of Solomon, the list of his chief officials in IK 4 is of special in- * Neither the peneral Histories of Antiquity nor the special Histories of .

\ncient Esrypt make any appreciable addition to what the Biblical historians tell us of the connexion between Israel and E),^>Tt during the reign of Solomon. The lack of information is stran^'e. t Winckler holds that by Mirraim a N. S\-rian Mu^ri is meant (Alltest. Untersuch. lOS fl., and Altor. Forfch. i. 24-41, XiT, 3:iS)i Kittel, Benzinger, and others have accepted his view. Valuatile. however, as his new facts are in themselves, they do not prova his Mu^ to be the Mizraim of Kiri'.

,'s and Chronicles. I According to Eu]iolemus, as quoted by Eusebius {Prctp. Ev. Ix.), David began the maritime trade. Thestatemeri appears to be merely a conjecture suggested by the fact recorded m 'i 3 8^, 1 K 111- 16, and 1 Ch lsi3, that David conquered the kingdom of Edom. Possibly David foresaw and suggested the use to which his conquest might be put.

It is very unlikely, however, that at so late a stage of life he should have begun such an enierj'rise, and still more unlikely that, if he had b<-gun it, he should not have got the credit of it. SOLOMON SOLOMON 565 terest, particularly when compared with the lists of those of David in 2 S S'""'* and 2(P-^, allliough of too gemral a nature to be delinitely referable to any particular period.

The comparison will ehow that David in the later years of his life had gone far in the direction followed by his sou, and that between thoiii they had efi'ected a great revolution— economic, social, and jjolitical — in the national life of Israel. The old trilial system had been un<ierniined and shattered, and a monarchical despoti.sm of the only kind known in the East — one none the less a despotism in reality for being a theocracy — had been Imilt up.

The will of Solomon was practically the supreme law of his people, and neither priests nor prophets ventured to oppose it or to attempt to limit it. Through- out his reign all power in Israel was centred in himself and carried into effect bv his officials. The list of his sarim (princes or cliief ministers) in 1 K 4^"' does not contain the name of a single individual who can be supposed to have been an independent adviser.

'I he name of Abiathar should not be in it, as he was a degraded and bani^-licd man during Solomon's reign. The sons of Nathan mentioned were much more probably the king's own nephews, the sons of his brother Nathan, than the sons of the prophet Nathan [but see vol. iii. p. 488'']. There was no projihet among Solomon's princes, nor any man not directly and entirely dependent upon him. We are not told that he mn!de any direct attack on the old tribal systems.

It seems erroneous to represent as such his division of the territory of Israel (that of Judah was exempted) into twelve districts, over which were appointed twelve 'otticers' (nizsfibim), each bound to provide in regular monthly suc- cession victuals lor the king and his household, and provender for his horses and dromedaries. Those districts were not coextensive with the tribal territories. The otiicers to whom they were a.

ssigned did not displace the tribal chiefs, and had only a definite specific duty to perform. They were merely 'purveyors' or 'providers' for the Icing, his annona; curatores. But, although the old tribal system and its chiefs may not have been assailed, the claims of the monarchy were asserted and its powers exercised independently of them. Olie tribal .s3'steni and tlje monarchy coexisted under Solomon, but the latter was so dominant that the kiti" could introduce what changes he pleased.

Tribal and personal privileges, rights, and liberties were at his mercy. Doubtless the nation realized only slowly that such was the case, and how dan''erous a state of things it was. The monarchy had been a great success, and was re- garded as a sacred institution. The king was 'the Lord's anointed.' The new king was young, beautiful in person, a rarely brilliant, attractive, and imposing jiersonality ; to outward .seeming a perfect king.

He was well aware that a great trust had been assigned to him, and he set a high value on equity in judgment and orderliness in admini-stration. Many of his innovations must have been improvements. Some of his enter- pnses were largely successful. For a season the Bun of prosperity shone so brightly on his reign that there may well h.ave been ijreat contentment and rejoicing in Israel. 1 K 4»'-»-»* may be re- garded as echoes of that time.

But disillusion- ment was bound to come, and gradually came as what was radically evil in the government of Solomon gra<lii.illy displayed itself. Entrusted with unlimited power, he yielded to the tcmjita- tion to abuse it, and to enjoy it mainly for w hut he deemed his own honour and advantage. His policy, although not uninlluenccd by worthy and pious asjiiratiiins, must be pronounced essentially ■ellisli.

The chief motives of it were the love of l)leasure and power, of wealth and splendour and fame ; its main object was to promote his own interest, to enrich and glorify himself, and to strengthen and magnify the Davidie dj'nasty. To obtain his ends he recjuired to have recourse not only to measures obnoxious to chiefs of tribes, elders of cities, and holders of landed property, but to such as were most oppressive to the poorer classes.

He reduced the Canaanites to slavery, and eiuployed 1GU,000 of them in quarrying stones and bearing burdens. From the Israelites he exacted less labour; but they, too, were constrained to give personal services and to submit to heavy exactions. Thirty thousand of them were required to work by relays of ten thousand, every third month, in the forest of Lebanon.

The statement to the contrary in 1 K t), and 2 Cli 8^ is an in- structive, patriotic gloi», inconsistent with the general narratives either in Kings or Chronicles. The Hebrews under Solomon were no longer a free people. While not slaves in the strict sense of the word, they were subject to forced labour, ' the levy,' the 7nas — a term as hateful to them as were its equivalents, corvic or Frohn, in mediteval Europe.

David had introduced the form of servi- tude denoted by it (2 S '20'"), but Solomon greatly increased it. The favouritism which he showed towards Judah in connexion with it must have made it all the more offensive to Israel, while it was doubtless one reason whj' Judah diil not join Israel in the revolt against Ilehoboam. The evils of the ' levy ' could not fail to make themselves increasingly felt in the cour.

se of the building oj)eralions which were so conspicuous a part of the king's domestic policy. One of his chief aims was to have a stroiig and magnilicent capital. It was a very reasonable aim within proper limits, but these he failed to recognise. To render Jerusalem as far as possible impregnable, and to make it a capital worthy of Israel and of being the centre ol its political and especially of its religious life, was manifestly desirable.

The fortifications and the temple ot Jerusalem were foi the benefit of all Israel. Like so many kings of his type, however, Solomon failed to see that there should be limits set to expensive building. He did not adequately realize that the territory of Israel was a very small one, and that, a^though he and those around him were rich, the general population — one in a transi- tional stage from pastoral to agricultural — was not.

The cost of the superb buildings erected for himself and his dependants, added to the provisioning of a household containing manj" thousands of per.sons, the supply of what was required besides food to gratify the desires of his wives and concubines, and the expenditure on his splendid pageants, must have been an enormous burden on his subjects. No truly wise king would have persisted in such a jiolicy. The natural result of it was just what actually hapjiened.

Whatever Judah thought, all Israel felt his yoke to h.ive been intolerable ; and when his son refused to li'ditcn it, cried out, 'What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse : to your tents. O Israel : now see to thine own house, David ' (1 K 12'"). Solomon was re.siumsiblo for the dis- ruption of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah, and for the consequences of it.

That disruption, which led to the loss of the independence of both, was the natural result of the policy on which he acted throughout a forty years' reign. 12. The foregoing observations raise the ques- tion, Wluit really wrnt the wisdom which lite liihliral historians attributed to Sidomon ? Cer- tainly it was not wisdom in the higher significa- tions in which the term is useil either in the OT or the NT. There is teaching in .

lob, Proverbp, Ecdesiastes, and a few of the Pualms w to a 566 SOLOMON SOLOMON ' wisdom ' which is nowhere in Scriptme attributed to Solomon. The wLsdura of Solomon as described either in Kings or Chron. has very little in common with the wisdom inculcated by St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. James.

Further, in what the Biblical writers say of the wisdom of Solomon there is nothing which implies that it included any of the supernatural attainments attributed to him in Jewish, Arabian, and Persian traditions, or even of any scieutilic or pliilosophic knowledge properly so called.* And it must be added, that although they ascribe his ' wisdom ' to God, a gift in answer to prayer, they do not represent piety — the fear and love of God — as a prominent feature in his ' wisdom.'

While declaring him to be tlie wisest of all men, they do not represent him as an especially devout or righteous man. In that respect David, notwithstanding his many defects and crimes, was regarded by them as far superior to him. So much, then, as to what the wisdom of Solomon was not.

As to what it was, it compre- hended at least the following elements : — (a) Pos- session of the qualities of mind — the quickness and accuracy of dLscernraent and the practical sagacity — which are most indispensable to one who constantly rei] uires to decide readily and correctly on which side truth and justice lie in disputed cases. Those quali- ties were of the utmost importance to a Hebrew king.

Judicial functions had been the chief function of the ' judges,' and continued to be so of the kings. The king was the chief justice of the realm. Da\ad in his later years had been blamed for neglecting his judicial duties. The prayer of his son, on his accession to the throne, was for the knowledge and wisdom which would qualify him for the fulHlment of those duties.

The judgment which he pronounced on the dispute between the two liarlots was regarded by the people as evidence that his prayer had been wanted. Seeking justice was by the Hebrews held to be sacred, inasmuch as it involved 'inquiry of God.' Almost all the Oriental legends regarding Solomon's wisdom which are not utterly extravagant are those which give the same kind of instances. An excellent and able judge, however, may not be an eminently good and wise man.

He may be sadly lacking in true wisdom. (6) Possession of comparatively exten- sive knowledge and varied culture for a man of the time in which he lived. That Solomon was widely observant and inquisitive, interested in all that came under his notice and was likely to add to his knowledge, and that he could talk instruc- tively on a great variety of subjects, — on trees and plants, beasts and fowls, creeping things and fishes, etc., — must be admitted.

' The largeness of heart (rohabh lebh), even as the sand that is on the seashore,' ascribed to him in 1 K 4^ [Heb. 5*], means merely, if properly understood, a compre- hensiveness of mind, a many-sidedness of intelli- gence, of gieat and indehnite extent.

There is nothing exaggerated or incredible in the phrase, which may perhaps have suggested what has been so finely said of Plato : ' His piiant genius sits close • The knowledfje of the lan|]ruage of birda attributed to Solouion in Jewish, Arabic, and l^t-r^ian traditions was in Greek iDj'thology ascribed to Tiresios. The Itabbis represented Solo- mon as tiie originator of the science and pliilosophy of the Greeks, Romans, and their successors.

Aristotle was supposed to have gained his knowledge of natural history by appro- priating Solomon's MSS when Alexander entered" Alexandria. The Spanish theologian J. de Pineda, in hb. iii. pp. 111-203 of his Dc Rebut Saiomonii^ attributes to him mathematical, physical, astronomical, botanical, economic, ethical, and politi- cal writings, as well as many scientific discoveries. Theophilus Gale, Phil. Gener.

§ 8, maintains that Pythagoras and Plato got their symbolical and the Stoics their ethical philosophy, Hippo- crates'his knowledge of medicine. Aristotle of animals, and TheophrostUB of plants — ex Solomonic tchota. How greatly ex- aggerated, down even to recent times, bos been his knowledge of theology may be learned from many of the commentaries published on the 'Snitg of Solomon,' and eveo from the 'bead- mga ' of our AV of that book.

to universal reality, like the sea which fits into all the sinuosities of the land. Not a shore of thought was left untouched by his murmuring lip' (Ferrier, In^t. Met. p. 165).

The wisdom of Solomon waa wisdom at a very different stage from the wisdom of Socrates or Plato ; but they may have been alike in implying ' largeness of heart,' universality of intellectual interests and activity, (c) There have also to be included in the wisdom of Solomon skill in propounding and solving riddles, in put- ting and answering hard and abstruse questions, and the faculty of expressing himself in mCs/ullun, similitudes and parables, and proverbial or gnomic sentences which sum up in a pithy and memorable form the findings of prudential sagacity and moral refiexion.

1 K 4^* states that he ' spake three thousand proverbs.' One reason given for the visit of the queen of Sheba to his court was her desire to test the report ^\ hieh she hatl heard of him by ' proving him with hard questions.' The Phoeni- cian historians quoted by Josephus(.^n<. VIII. v.

3) relate that the Hebrew and the Tyrian king entered into a contest to determine which of them could solve riddles best, and that the former waa at first successful, and won largely from his oppo- nent, until the latter got the assistance of a very acute youth called Abdemon, when Solomon was always defeated, and had to pay much money back to Hiram (see art. RIDDLE).

In the time of Solo- mon, Israel passed from its heroic and imaginative age into a positive and practical one, resembling the stage in Hellenic history in which originated the practical maxims of the Greek ' sages ' and the verses of the Greek 'gnomic' poets. The result in Israel was the rise of a new way of thinking and the beginnings of a new kind of literature, the whole development of which must have been greatly intluonced by the character and reign of Solomon.

How much, if anything, he personally contributed by speech or writing to the ' Wisdom literature ' we do not know, and yet perhaps the whole of it. Biblical and Apocryphal, may be not inappropriately termed Solomonic. At the same time no one has probably been so overpraised for ' wisdom ' as he, and that alike by Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians.* See, further, art. Wisdom. 13. Solomon is represented as excelling all con- temporary kings in wealth as well as in wisdum.

His father is said to have left him for buildiu" the temple ' one hundred thousand talents of gold and a thousand thousand talents of silver' (1 C'h '22"), a sum calculated to be equivalent to £1,025,000,000 sterling, t His annual revenue in money is stated (1 K 10'^ '2 Ch 9'=) to have amounted to GUO talents of gold, equal to i:4, 095,900 (see art. MoXEV, vol. iii. p. 420*") ; and besides payments in money he received large paj'ments in kind, both from his own subjects and from foreigners.

Hence he was able to spend vast sums in luxury and display. His great ivory throne, w hich came to figure so largely in Oriental tradition, was overlaid with pure gold ; the shields of his bodyguard and the uten^Us of his jialace • For an admirable comparative study of Hebrew and Greek proverbial literature see H. Bois, La Poisie Gnomique cliez lei Hetjreux et les Grecs : Salomon et Thetxjnis^ Toulouse, 1S06.

A careful comparative study of Hebrew and Egyptian proverbial wisdom is a great desideratum. Wisdom books akin to the Proverbs of the OT, and partly to Kccltsiastes, were produced in Egj-pt from about B.C. 3500 until about a.d. 200. It cannot re;isonably be supposed tliat in the age of Solomon they were wholly unknown to the Hebrews.

The sayings in the oldest of them — the liutructions or Maxims of itahhotep — often strikingly resemble those in Proverbs, Before and during the reign of Solomon Eg>'pt was open both to Greeks and Jews. It does not follow that any of the Hebrew Wisdom books wer« composed in the time or Solomon. t Prideaux's estimate, long generally accepted, was consider- ably less, viz. £«t;3,000,000.

Yet he added, ' the sum is 80 prcKligious, as to give reason to think that the talents whereby the sum is reckoned were another sort of 'alenls of a tar less value than the Mosaic talents, of which an account is given IB the preface ' (Old and New Testament Connected, p. 6). SOLOMON SOLOMON 567 were all of gold. Silver, we are told, was nothing accnunti'd of in his days ; he made silver to he in Jerusalem as stones. Such is the account given us of his wealth.

What are we to think of if; The statement as to the sum amassed by David for the building of the templeis, of course, incredilily lar"e. The amount of annual revenue assigned to Solo- mon is not so, although very large. Probably it may have been his income merely for an excep- tional year or j'ears. That he was the wealthiest king known to his Hebrew contemporaries may well be believed. But even what is said of his wealth in Kings and Chron.

suggests that he was only rich after the fashion of Oriental kings. His golden targes, golden utensils, and throne overlaid witli gold, seem to imply that he could find little f)roductive use for his gold. Gold came into circu- ation as money among the Hebrews only in the time of David, and probably it was little used by them as such in the time of Solomon. Various peoples have passed through a stage in which a pound of gold was willingly exchanged for a pound of silver or even of copper.

The Shahs of Persia and Emirs of Scinde were not wealthier than are European monarchs, although they had, as a rule, vastly more treasure in the form of jewels and the precious metals. The value of the material of money depends largely on its purchasing power and rapidity of circulation. Had Solomon's silver, and still mure had his gold, much of either? It is not likely that they had.

Although he may have made silver as stones 'in Jerusalem,' there is nothing to indicate that it was plentiful outside of Jerusalem. There was gold in abundance at the court and among the king's officers and favourites, but there is no evidence of its having reached the farmers and peasants of Palestine. Probably in the form of money most of it got into the hands of the Phoenicians and other foreign traders.

By the (jreat extension of the royal domains during liis reign, Solomon must have increased his real wealth more than by the importation of gold ; but such enrichment of himself implied the impoverishment of his subjects, .and that in a country of very small extent, and of which the real prosperity mainly de- pended on agriculture. The money spent on mag- nilicent buildings must have been to a large extent wa-sted.

We may believe, therefore, almost all that we are told about the wealth of Solomon, and yet believe also that even his economic policy was foolish, and tended to national bankruptcy and the ruin of his dynasty. 14. Closely connected witli the wisdom and wealth of Solomon was his 'fame' and ' glury.' The 'fame' of Solomon denoted by the Hebrew words them (1 K 4^').

shimt'tnh (1 k lu', 2 Ch 9"), and shima {,\ K 10',2Ch 9'), — name, hearing, report, — was, like all fame, an external thing, 'a fancied life in others' breath.' The 'glory' of Solomon, although denoted in the NT by the same term (doxa) as 'the glory of the Son of Man,' was a vei-y dill'ercnt kind of glory.

It was not glory of the highest order, the glory of essential excellence, but a superficial glory attainable by striving after etl'ect, by the lavish display and expenditure of wealth, by showy talents, by courting popularity, and the like. I'he glory which Solomon sought for he obtained in an extraordin.iry measure in Ilia lifetime, and it grew in the couise of ages to the most extravagant proportion.

Orientals are fond of display and pomp, and doubtless, at least for a lengthened pericxl, Solomon, with his good di^position and brilliant gifts and conspicuous suc- cess, must have seemed to his subjects an almost ideal king. He gave Israel a place among the nations which it had never previously held, secured to it i)eace and prosperity, perfected its organiza- tion and administration, and so transformed, adorned, and enriched Jerus.

alcm as to make it appear the central city, the joy and pride of the wliole earth. Not only to the Hebrews but to all the peoi>les of the Semitic world he must have seemed the foremost monarch of the age. His in- tellectual gifts and acquisitions were so displayed as to cause him to be regarded as a paragon of wisdom, one whose knowledge and judgment had never been equalled, a sage and ruler superior to all others on the earth.

Hence we are told many princes and renowned men came from afar to visit him, to see the grandeur of his court, to hear the wisdom of his words, and to pay him lioin.age and present him with gifts. Of all his visitors, the queen of Sueba naturally made the greatest impression. She was a much iiioie ex- alted personage than the princes and sheikhs with whom the Israelites were familiar.

She came from ' the uttermost parts of the earth' (Mt IS''-) ; came in hi^h slate ' ^\■ith a very great train with camels that bare incense and very much gold and precious stones' (1 K lO'') ; came, it would appear, attracted purely by the fame of the wisdom, and especially of the religious wisdom, of Solomon ; and departed leaving magnilicent gifts, confessing that what she had heard was not half of what she had found to be true, and thanking and blessing the God of Israel.

The above is, in subsUance, all that is related of the famous visit of the Sabx'aii queen to Solomon ; and it is also the oriyrin and basis of all that has been fabled about herself and her visit by the Kabbis, Arabs, Persians, and Abvssiiiians. Many modern critics pronounce even the Biblical account of it (1 K lOMy, repeated in 2 Ch !)1-12) to be manifestly lej^endary. And it may be a Icj^end.

There is no historical eviden<:e to the contrary' except the clear and positive statement made by Kinj^ But it is certainly not manifestly legendary. Wellhausen, Stade, Klostennann, Benzinger, and other eminent critics all content themselves with mere assertion to that effect. The fame of the glory of Solomon was largely posthumous. Great as it w-as amonjj his contemj>orarie3, the whole course of BXibsequent Hebrew history tended to increase it.

After hie reign the Hebrew people passed through stages of humiliation and aflliction while clinging tenaciously to the belief that they were tiod's elect and had a glorious future before them. To endure the present, they were always providentially constrained to magnify the past. The more they sank, the more they com- forted themselves by thinking of what they had been and imagining what they could be.

And the age of Solomon was the golden age of their history, and Solomon himself their most brilliant and renowned king. Hence there was in the OT an idealiziition of kingship founded on the character of the personality, life, and reign of Solomon, and inijtelled and guided by a truly tliviiie inspiration which has been of immense signifi- cance to the world, it forms a large and precious portion of Messianic pro])hecy.

The initial impulse to the close connexion of Solomon with it may, perhaps, have been Nathan's jiromise to Uivid (2 8 7" 16 and 1 Ch n'OH) that J" would raise up to him a seed that should build up the bouse of the Lord, and whose kingdom and throne would bo established for ever. As soon, howe\er, as we go further we find ourselves in an alto- gether unreal world. Jewi.sh liabbis indulged in the most ex- travagant exaggerations as to the gifts and glory of Solomon.

Christian writers followed suit, and showed themselves almost as credulous and inventive. 15. Religion of Solomon. — The Biblical historio- graphers who have tre.-ited of the reign of Solomon regarded him as having fallen far short of his father in piety. While pronouncing David a man according to God's own heart (1 S I'J", 1 K ll"""), they have so spoken of Solomon's death (I K 11", 2 Ch U^') as to have given rise to a long controversy among the Church Fathers as to his salvation.* • St.

Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally pronounced against, and St. Chrysostom and the Greek Fathers in favour of, belief in his salvation. Calmet, in his Did., s.v. 'Salomon, Nouvelle Dissert, de la salut du Salomon,' has collected the opinions. Dante unites liim in Paradise with the four (^e&G schoolmen, and makes Aquinas thus describe him : — 'The mth light. Goodliest of all, is by such love inspired.

That all your world craves tidings of his doom : Within there is the lofty light, endowed With sapience so jirofound, if tnitli be truth. That with a ken of such wide amplitude Ko second has arisen.' —Par. X. 108-114 (0«ry • tr.) The third line is the rendering of Dante's : *Ghe tutto 11 mondo Lag^A no gola di taper novella.' 5C8 SOLOMON SOLOMOJS" Now, tlii.

t Solomon's piety was not so warm and intense as UaviU's is wliat no one will iiuestion, j'ct that it was in some respects superior may well be maintained, and can even scarcely l)e denied by any one who attempts to judge of David and Solomon from a Christian standpoint. With good gifts and great qualities, David had terrible defects. While intensely real, his faith in J" was coinpar.-itively crude and unenlightened.

Hence his piety was compatible with such horrid deeds as his conduct towards Uriah, his allowing the innocent sons of Saul to be ' hung up unto the Lord in Gibeon ' (2 S 2P- »), and his ruthless treatment of the Moab- ites (2 S 8-) and Ammonites (2S 12^'). The memory of Solomon is unstained by such acts. His faith in J", however otherwise inferior to David's, was so much more rational and ethical as to save him from much which David did.

He too had faith in J", but a considerably ditierent faith, and one implying a higher and worthier conception of J". I'lie general tendency of his reign was towards spiritual enlightenment. The Solomonic age was not one of spiritual decadence on tiie \\ hole, but a distinct spiritual advance in important respects on the age of the 'judges' and of the lirst two kings ; and doubtless Solomon contributed more to its being so than any other person.

The interest of revelation required a Solomon as well as a Samuel, Saul, or David. David's signilicance as a king in relation to the Messiah was as a victorious warrior ; Solomon's as the prince of peace — no inferior honour. There is no warrant for reckoning Solomon among the sceptics. The son of David could not fail to have been taught to revere and honour J".

The com- mencement of his rei"n was marked by a display of ardent piety towards J", and the expression of humble dependence on His guidance. Tlirougliout his reign he acted as temporal head of the Hebrew theocracy, as chief of the ministers of J" in Israel. He delighted in the offlces of Divine worship. Some have denied, but without apparent proof, that he took part in what have been called dis- tinctly priestly acts— slaying the victims and oti'er- ing incense.

All the other acts of worship— all those which the Hebrew prophets deemed most sacred and spiritual — he is clearly recorded to have performed. In connexion with the building of the temple, he showed his anxiety to render to J" a worth}- expi-ession of gratitude for His kind- ness towards David and himself.

His praj'er at the dedication of the temple, the substantial authen- ticity of which there seems to be no reason to doubt, is one of the grandest devotional utterances to be found in pre-Christian devotional literature. Solomon evidently desired to render the service in the temple beautiful and impressive, the temple itself the chief and central sanctuary in the land, and Jerusalem not only the royal residence and national capital, but the holy city.

He thereby, however, displeased those who disliked changes in religion and preferred the old simjjlicity and rude- ness of worship to innovations. They included probably most of the uncultured tribesmen of the north. The seer Ahijah was at their head. They may have had a considerable amount of truth and reason as well as piety on their side, but not more than the innovators — Solomon, the priests, and all others who were in favour of progress.

The changes introduced by Solomon tended to further the sjiiri- tual education of the Jewish people, to suggest to rece[)tive minds among them larger and worthier thoughts of God, and to contribute to the perman- ence and progressiveness of religion in Israel. 16. Alleged Apostastj of Sohmion. — The age of Solomon w,as in the main one of intellectual libera. tion and religious euligiitenment, although to many of his subjects it may have appeared one of scepti- cism and impiety.

That the king abandoned hil faith in J" and became an idolater is dillicult to believe, while it is easy to conceive how the /'«/«« to that ett'ect may have arisen. Solomon built altars for his foreign wives, and allowed them to worship their national gods on earth brought from their native lands and in the language and forms of de- votion Avhich were familiar and sacred to them.

He did not allow them to proselytize or to attempt to act the part which was afterwards played by Jezebel ; and it is even very unlikely, seeing that they were all members of his own huuseliold, that he permitted either the cruel or the licentious acts sometimes practised in the worship of certain of their deities. But to Ahijah and his partisans toleration of any worship in Israel except that of J" appeared tantaraoimt to apostasy from J", and the worship of a strange god.

They necessarily saw therefore in Solomon's conduct proof that his heart was turned away from J" and given to the foreign gods whom he allowed his wives to worship. They judged of it by a crude and immoral concep- tion of J", while Solomon himself must have seen in it no treason against J", and believed it to be reasonable and right. The religious toleration granted by him to his wives was an almost inevit- able consequence of his policy of alliances with foreign rulers through marriages.

There was, however, apparently no opposition given or oflence taken by his subjects either to his polygamy or his marriage with foreign women. They seem to have regarded his multitude of wives complacently as ,a sign of his wealth and grandeur. In his poly- gamy he only followed the example, and probably the advice, of his father. Nor was his oll'ence marriage with foreign wives, altho\igh he is not recorded to have married any of his own subjects.

Perhaps few of them would have been considered suitable wives for so great a king, and marriages with them could have had no political advantages. It was his religious toleration per se which was condemned, ami held to imply disloyalty to J" and the worsliiij of other gods. That he should have been guilty of the apostasy and sin alleged seems incredible and inexplicable on an}- supposition except one, viz.

that his mode of life bad left him prematurely worn out both in body and mind, so as to be, even in the fifth decade of his age, in a senile condition, and hardly responsible for his actions. That is little if any- thing more than a sujiposition.

'\'et it seems to be hinted at by the author of 1 K ll'-^ who writes as if willing to excuse and yet unwilling to express himself plainly, when telling us of Solomon's 'cleaving in love to many strange women,' and that ' his heart was turned away after strange gods when he teas old ' (say over fifty years of age). The erotic element in the Song of Songs, so far as it refers to Solomon, is also, perhaps, in this con- nexion not to bo overlooked.

The apocryphal book Sirach, while otherwise glorifying Solomon in the most generous manner, distinctly singles out for conilemnation his sensuality as ' what stained his honour and polluted his seed, brought wrath on his children, divided Israel, and made Ephraim a rebel kingdom ' (42>=-^). The censure was fully deserved. However numerous ind attractive may have been the gifts and good qualities of Solomon, he had two great faults — self-love and self-indulgence.

He was blind to the claims of self-.sacrilice and self-restraint, and hence was no wise man in the highest sense, but merely the wisest fool of his day. His harem may sutlice for proof. If his wives and concubines together really amounted to a thousand women, it would seem to have been the largest of which there is any record in historj It was doubtless mon- strously large, and ' eunuchs ' were among th« SOLOMOX SOLOJrO]S^'S SERVANTS 569 attendants in it.

Yet Solomon had only one son, and that so', was Kehoboam — ' ample,' as IJen Sira siiys, 'in foolishness and lacking' in under- btandin;,', who by his counsel let loose the people ' (isir 47, '). God's violated law of married love clearly avenged itself on Solomon and condemned his polygamy. 17. Clune uf Solomon's Career. — Before his death Solomon had largely lost the popularity which he had enjipyed in the earlier years of his reign. He had overta.

xed and overburdened his subjects, and made a lavish and wasteful use of the nation.il resources, and the sellishness which led him to do 80 had defeated its own ends. He had given ollenoe, in a considerable measure, perhaps unnecessary oll'ence, to the prophets and their adherents and to tlie Ephraimites generally. But the fame he had actjuired could not be forgotten, and he had done too much for Israel to be despised or assailed.

His reputation was a part, and a lar;;e part, of that of the nation. Hence none of his ' adver.saries rose against him.' The recollection of what he had been protected him even against his bitterest ene- mies among the Ephraimites ; and Ahijah himself preached the very strange doctrine that Uod desired Solomon's sins to be overlooked for David's sake, and Kehobo.im punished for the transgressions of Solomon (1 K 11-''"*').

But, even although left un- molested, he must surely, when he began to realize that death was not far awaj', have looked back on his lengthened reign with great dissatisfaction. He had abundant cause for contrition and regret. He had not been a good shepherd of his people. He had sought his own glory far more than tliuir good. He liad preferred low aims to high, and could not fail to be conscious thereof. He had impoverished and oppressed large numbers of his subjects.

He had not made Israel a thoroughly consolidated nation, as he might and should have done. He had talked wisdom and practised folly. He had through selCshness failed to take advan- tage of the precious gifts and grand op])ort unities for usefulness which J" had granted him. He had professed piety and preached righteousness, yet dishonoured Uod, degraded himself, and set an evil exam])le to others by his luxury and licentious- ness.

Looking seriously over his past, he could not but realize that, with all its appearance of splendour, it had been es.scntially, so far as he wa-s concerned, a deplorable failure, a vanity of vanities, whatever might be made of it by an over- ruling Providence.

He may have been spared the misery of foreseeing that immediately on his deatli his son would be so foolish as to provoke a disruption of the kingdom, and therefore bring inrmmerable woes both on Judah and on Israel, but he can hardly have failed to forecast that troublous times for the monarchy were approach- ing.

Throughout almost the whole of his reign the relations between Israel and Egypt had lieen friendly ; by the time of his death the Pharaoh Shi^liali was meditating war, and live years later he captured Jerusalem, plundered Solomon's temple and palace, and left Kehoboam to substitute shields of brass for his father's shields of gold. The dis- ruption of Israel and Judah was fatal to both, and Seilomon even more than Kehoboam was respon- Bible for it.

It is luit surprising, therefore, that both in Kings and Clironicles, when his death is recorded, he should, notwithstanding all the glory he had gained, receive no word of commendalion. All that is said is that ' he slept with his fathers, and wa^ buried in the city of David his father; and Kehoboam his son reigned in his stead' (1 K 11", '2Ch9»'). I.ITKRATORB. — Milni»n, Uitt. of tht Jew> (18i>6), 1. 30711.; BUinliy, Hut. nfJtuUh Church, IL 1398.; Fr. Newman, UM. Vf Uel. Monareliy, ch. iv.

; tbe Hlstorie* oJ Ewald (iii. 2(M ff.), Starte (1SS4, p. ST4ff.), A. Kohlcr (1SS4, ii. 374 ff.), A. Klostcr manli (ISIO, p. KWtT.), \Vellli.luseil (ISlfT, p. 65 If.), Outhe (ISHs), p. llOlf.), (Jornill (ISaS, p. bUIV.), Kent (1690, p. ICail.) KiCtel (ii. 177 If.), Kenan (ii. 9(iff.), Piepenbrinj^ (ISOS, p. lt;7fr.); c(. aisc Wiiiekler, -U/fpef. UrUersucl'Uiuien, (ls:>2) iiOl., (1^94) Iff.; McC.inl.v, IIP.V i 205 ff. ; B. W.

Bacon, 'Solomon in Tradition and in Fact,* in }few IKorW, June 1S98, p. 212 If. ; and articles in Herzoff, iticilm, and i>clieiikcl. Asre^aidscoinnieularies, etc., on the sources, see the hihlio^'raphicol lists appended lo articles on Kings and CimoNict.Es. K. EUKT.