make no servants for his work; but they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and captains of his chariots and horsemen.

10 And these were the chief of king Solomon's officers, even two hundred and fifty, that bare rule over the people.

11 And Solomon brought up the the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David unto the house that he had built for her for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are 'holy, whereunto the ark of the LORD hath come.

12 Then Solomon offered burnt offerings unto the LORD on the altar of the LORD, which he had built before the porch,

13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, "three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.

14 ¶ And he appointed, according to the

31 Kings 3. 1, and 7. 8. 81 Chron. 9. 17.

order of David his father, the 'courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges, to praise and minister before the priests, as the duty of every day required: the "porters also by their courses at every gate for 'so had David the man of God commanded.

15 And they departed not from the commandment of the king unto the priests and Levites concerning any matter, or concerning the treasures.

16 Now all the work of Solomon was prepared unto the day of the foundation of the house of the LORD, and until it was finished. So the house of the LORD was perfected.

17 ¶ Then went Solomon to Ezion-geber, and to "Eloth, at the sea side in the land of Edom.

18 And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon.

Exod. 23. 14. Deut. 16. 16.

71 Chron. 24. 1. 10 Or, Elath, Deut. 2. 8.

Verse 4. Tadmor in the wilderness.'-In the Syrian desert there are the magnificent ruins of an ancient city, which made a conspicuous figure in ancient times under the name of Palmyra. This is not doubted to occupy the site of the Tadmor built by Solomon. The names Tadmor' and 'Palmyra' equally refer to the palm-trees which grew there; and the former is at this day the only name by which the spot is known to the natives, although the palms have now disappeared.

Major Rennel, in his work on the Comparative Geography of Western Asia, places the site of Palmyra in N. lat. 34° 24', and E. long. 38° 20′, being 90 geographical miles from the nearest point (to the north) of the Euphrates; 102 miles from the nearest eastern point of the same river; and 109 miles E. by N. from Baalbek. It is situated on a small oasis in the midst of a vast desert of sand, in which there is no trace of any other than Arabian footsteps; and the existence of a most glorious city, thus isolated in the inhospitable waste, is one of those wonderful circumstances which require to be accounted for by other considerations than those which immediately appear. The spot where Palmyra stands enjoys the advantage of a good supply of wholesome water-a circumstance of such importance in a desert region, that to this doubtless we are to look for the first element of that importance and splendour at which Palmyra ultimately arrived. Through the desert in which it lies, the caravans which conveyed by land the produce of Eastern Asia, from the Persian Gulf and Babylon, to Phoenicia, Syria, and Asia Minor, must of necessity pass; and as to such caravans it is necessary to adopt the line of march in which water may be found, there can be no doubt that the advantages, in this respect, which Tadmor offered, rendered it, at a very remote period, a resting-place to the eastern caravans, in their route westward through the desert. This brings us to the most probable reason that can be found for the measure which Solomon took, of building a city in this remote and inhospitable region. We know that this enterprizing king engrossed the maritime commerce which existed between

the cast and west by the channel of the Red Sea; and we are therefore justified in supposing, that-as his sovereignty extended to the Euphrates, and as the caravans must needs therefore pass through his territories-he did not neglect the opportunity of obtaining benefit from the land trade between Eastern and Western Asia. From what we know of his character, it is improbable that this most profitable branch of trade should not attract his attention; and the fact of his building a city in such a place as Palmyra seems to furnish something like actual proof that his views were really directed towards it. Tadmor was doubtless a fortified city, which, while it enabled the king to hold this region in such complete occupation as to prevent the passage of the trade without his concurrence, afforded every accommodation and convenience which the vast caravans could require, and every facility for those commercial transactions of which it must soon have become the seat under such circumstances. It would naturally soon cease to be a mere resting-place, and become an emporium for the land trade, where the merchants of the east and west met each other, and transacted their exchanges and sales. What precise part Solomon took we cannot tell. He may have contented himself with levying dues and customs upon the commodities; or he may have required the further conduct of the trade to be left to the Hebrew merchants, who, in that case, probably bought up the goods, and resold them at a profit to the Phoenicians and others. But, judging from the analogies afforded by the trade with Egypt for horses, it is more probable that the king himself, by his factors, bought up the commodities of the East, and re-sold them for his own emolument. Here certainly is a sufficient motive for the foundation of a city at Tadmor. It is however not unlikely that the Phoenicians were at the bottom of Solomon's commercial speculations. We may conceive that, as they were on the most friendly terms with him, and had rendered him great aid in his undertakings, they felt at liberty to suggest to him how greatly he might oblige them and enrich himself by promoting and by sharing in

that Oriental commerce which they could not carry on without his assistance. The caravans of the East were probably principally directed to Tyre; and Hiram might easily shew Solomon the benefit they might mutually derive from the establishment of a fortified town at Tadmor, for the protection of his own frontier, and for the safeguard of the caravans across the desert, in which they were then, as now, exposed to the assaults of the Bedouins. To this he might also be induced by the prospect of an intermediate participation in the trade, or of a right of custom on the goods carried across the desert. A most important fact in evidence for the truth of these conjectures is, that all our information of Palmyra from heathen writers describes it as a city of merchants-the factors of the Oriental trade-who sold to the Romans and others the merchandise of India and Arabia, and were so enriched by the traffic that the place was proverbial for its luxury and wealth, and for the expensive habits of its citizens. It was then to its trade that Palmyra owed that splendour of which its noble ruins still furnish the most ample evidence; and in our opinion, as already explained, it is only in the circumstances to which it is known to have thus owed its prosperous condition, in an age so much later than that of Solomon, that we can find a probable explanation of the reasons which led to its original foundation by that monarch.

We do not again read of Tadmor in the Scriptures, nor is it likely that the Hebrews retained possession of it long after the death of Solomon. The internal divisions and the weakness which followed that event; the loss of external territory, and the rise of the kingdom of Damascus, sufficiently account for this. John of Antioch, probably from some tradition now lost, says that the city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. It doubtless fell under the

power of that conqueror, whether he destroyed it or not. The first notice which we have in profane antiquity is that which states that Palmyra attracted the attention of Mark Antony when in Syria. He promised himself rich spoil from it, but was disappointed, as the inhabitants had transported their wealth beyond the Euphrates. In the time of Pliny, it was the intermediate emporium of the eastern trade, as we have mentioned, and in that character absorbed the wealth of the Romans and the Parthians, who, however hostile to each other, agreed in coveting the luxuries of India, which then seem to have come exclusively by the way of Arabia to the Palmyrenes, who dispersed them to the nations subject to the Romans on the one hand, and to the Parthians on the other. The friendship of Palmyra is said to have been courted by both the contending powers, whence we infer that, protected by its deserts, it still maintained its independence: but it was united soon after to the Roman empire as a free city. It was greatly favoured by the emperors; and under Hadrian and the Antonines attained the height of its glory, from which it fatally fell when Zenobia, throwing off the connection with Rome, proclaimed herself empress of Palmyra and the East, and, after a brief interval of splendour, was taken captive, and her city desolated by Aurelian. The latest fact concerning the town in Roman history is that the emperor Justinian, in the sixth century, fortified it, and placed a garrison in it, after it had been for some time deserted. To the blank in its history which follows, we are only able to supply one fact, which is, that it was one of the very first conquests of the Arabians in Syria, in the time of Abubekr; for we find its name as one of the four towns which Serjabil told the governor of Bostra that the Moslems had already taken (Ockley, p. 31). The next notice of it as an inhabited place is by the Spanish

Jew, Benjamin of Tudela, who was there in the twelfth century. He says there were then 4000 Jews in the place, who were at continual war with the children of Edom,' and with certain Arabian tribes. In connection with this statement it is interesting to observe, that the existing inscriptions of Palmyra attest the presence of Jews there in its most flourishing period; and that they, in common with the other inhabitants, shared in the general trade, and were objects of public honours. One inscription intimates the erection of a statue to Julius Schalmalat, a Jew, for having at his own expense conducted a caravan to Palmyra. This was A.D. 258, not long before the time of Zenobia, who, according to some accounts, was of the Jewish religion. Irby and Mangles also noticed a Hebrew inscription on an architrave in the great colonnade, but give no copy of it, nor say what it expressed. The latest historical notice of Tadmor we can find is, that it was plundered in 1400 by the army of Timur Beg (Tamerlane), when 200,000 sheep were taken. At present, and for a long time past, the spot has had no other inhabitants than a clan of Arabs, who claim the property of the district, and whose miserable hovels, established in the peristyle court of the great temple, furnish the most striking possible contrast of meanness with magnificence.

These Arabs, who make travellers pay heavily for permission to visit the place, are firmly of opinion that the present ruins belong to the original city founded by Solomon; and, as is usual with them, their denominations of the more conspicuous remains are all founded on this very erroneous notion. The fact is, that all the ruins which now engage the attention of the spectator are in the style of architecture which the Grecks and Romans introduced into Asia; and, from the uniformity of style compared with the evidence offered by inscriptions, it is supposed that they were mostly erected during the first three centuries of the Christian era. If there be anything now belonging to the Tadmor of Solomon, it may perhaps be

found in the ruins and rubbish of more ancient buildings which are observed in several parts, and form ridges of shapeless hillocks covered with soil and herbage, such as now alone mark the sites of the most ancient cities in Mesopotamia and Babylonia.

As there is no circumstance, beyond the site which they occupy, attaching a Scriptural interest to the present ruins of Palmyra, we shall not enter into any detailed description of them; but leave it to our cuts to convey that general impression which is alone in this case necessary.

We may add, however, that the site of Palmyra is not to be understood as quite open to the desert in every direction. To the west and north-west there are hills, through which a narrow valley, about two miles in length, leads to the city. On each side of this valley occur what seem to have been the sepulchres of the ancient inhabitants. They are marked by square towers, and are found to contain mummies, resembling those of Egypt. Beyond this valley the city itself bursts upon the view with wonderful effect. The thousands of Corinthian columns of white marble, erect and fallen, and covering an extent of about a mile and a half, offer an appearance which travellers compare to that of a forest; a comparison suggested in a great degree by the general absence of the connecting walls which anciently associated these pillars to the distinct piles of building to which they belonged, and the want of which often leaves the spectator at a loss to arrange the columns in any order which might enable him to discover the original purpose of their erection. The site on which the city stands is slightly elevated above the level of the surrounding desert, for a circumference of about ten miles; which the Arabs believe to coincide with the extent of the ancient city, as they find ancient remains wherever they dig within this space. There are indeed traces of an old wall, not more than three miles in circumference; but this was probably built by Justinian, at a time when Palmyra had lost its ancient

importance, and had become a desolate place; and it was consequently desirable to contract its bounds, so as to inelude only the more valuable portion. Volney well describes the general aspect which these ruins offer :'In the space covered by these ruins we sometimes find a palace, of which nothing remains but the court and walls; sometimes a temple whose peristyle is half thrown down; and now a portico, a gallery, or triumphal arch. Here stand groups of columns, whose symmetry is destroyed by the fall of many of them; there, we see them ranged in rows of such length that, similar to rows of trees, they deceive the sight and assume the appearance of continued walls. If from this striking scene we cast our eyes upon the ground, another, almost as varied, presents itself: on all sides we behold nothing but subverted shafts, some whole, others shattered to pieces, or dislocated in their joints; and on which side so ever we look, the earth is strewed with vast stones, half-buried; with broken entablatures, mutilated friezes, disfigured reliefs, effaced sculptures, violated tombs, and altars defiled by dust.' Voyage en Syrie, ii. 237.

It may be right to add, that the account which has been more recently given of these ruins, by Captains Irby and Mangles, is a much less glowing one than of other travellers, English and French. They speak indeed with admiration of the general view, which exceeded anything they had ever seen. But they add, Great, however, was our disappointment when, on a minute examination, we found that there was not a single column, pediment, architrave, portal, frieze, or any architectural remnant worthy of admiration. They inform us that none of the pillars exceed four feet in diameter, or forty feet in height; that the stone scarcely deserves the name of marble, though striking from its snowy whiteness; that no part of the ruins taken separately excite any interest, and are altogether much inferior to those of Baalbek; and that the plates in the magnificent work of Messrs. Wood and Dawkins do far more than justice to Palmyra. Perhaps this difference of estimate may arise from the fact that earlier travellers found more wonderful and finished works at Palmyra than their information had prepared them to expect; whereas, in the later instance, the finished representations in the plates of Wood's great work, raised the expectations so highly, that the disappointment inclined the mind to rather a detractive estimate of the claims of this ruined city-Tadmor in the wilderness.'

7. All the people that were left, etc.-As this circumstance is the closing incident in the history of the Canaanitish nations here specified, we shall introduce a few observations to bring out such information concerning them as may be gathered from the Egyptian antiquities. This information is afforded chiefly by the sculptures which exhibit the wars of Rameses II., Sesostris, and Rameses IV., with the nations of Canaan, from B.c. 1355 to B.C. 1205, the incidents of which are represented with great effect and spirit, affording very interesting and desirable information respecting the dress, the personal appearance, and many of the usages of the Canaanites in the age of their greatness, before their power was broken by the Israelites.

The Hittites.-These are exhibited in the sculptures referred to in the last note, in accordance with Scripture, as one of the most powerful of the nations of Canaan. They are represented as wearing tunics gathered into a knot on the left shoulder, so as to leave the right arm at liberty. They are plain, but of bright colours, with a deep edging of lace or embroidery. Below this was another garment, in the form of a skirt or kilt, of similar colour and pattern, but somewhat short, scarcely reaching to the knees. The complexion, as given by the Egyptian artists, though dark, was florid rather than sallow, and the hair black: the features were regular, with a very prominent and somewhat hooked nose: the beard, mustachios, and even the eyebrows, were all closely shaved-and in fact the practice of shaving these parts, and even the hair of the head, prevailed among the natives to a degree which, without the evi

HITTITE, IN CIVIL DRESS.-Rosellini, M. R. Plate elviii.

dence these sculptures offer, would hardly have been suspected, and which give a fresh emphasis to those intimations concerning the care of the beard among the Hebrews themselves, which are of no unfrequent occurrence in Scripture. The Hittites in particular had a frightful custom of shaving a square place just above the ear, leaving the hair on the side of the face and whiskers, which hung down in a long plaited lock. Most of the other nations of Canaan shaved some parts of the head in very fantastic fashions, which displease a cultivated eye: and such customs among them are mentioned in Scripture (see Jer. ix. 26, and the note there; and xxv. 21-23, marginal readings), and are expressly forbidden to the Israelites in Lev. xix. 27. The war costume of the Hittites

HITTITE, IN WAR DRESS.-Rosellini, M. R. Plate liv.

consisted of a helmet or skull-cap extending far down the neck behind and cut out high and square above the ear, so as to leave exposed the bald place and the long lock which they deemed a personal ornament. It was secured under the chin by a strong band or cheek-string, probably of metal like the helmet. The badges of distinction were one or two ostrich feathers. Their war-dress was principally distinguished from that of their immediate neighbours by a kind of cape or short mantle (worn also by the Tyrians), which was tied in front either by the two ends of the cloth, or by cords with tassels at the end; and another characteristic was the girdle (worn also by the Moabites), which was broad and thick, and hung down in front with a long end terminating in a ball and tassel. This girdle was long enough to pass round the neck across the breast, and thus formed a piece of defensive armour, illustrative of the military use of the girdle as mentioned in Scripture. The bow is the only weapon which the Hittites are represented as using.

'The Amorites.'-The dress used by the Amorites in war was less distinguished than that of some of the other tribes of Canaan from the ordinary dress of civil life, and bore much resemblance to that of the Tyrians, as described under Ezek. xxvii. They wore the hair and beard long; the former confined by a fillet, which tied behind in a bow and two long lappets. The badge of distinction for the chiefs is similar to the heron feather of the Scottish 'bonnet;' it was inserted in the fillet at the forehead and fell backward, and in some instances it was worn in a skull-cap. They do not appear to have had any defensive armour. The dress consisted of a close tunic fastened at the throat, with sleeves reaching down the arm half-way to the elbow. It was fastened at the waist with a broad girdle, knotted in front with a bow and lappet. Their arms consisted of an oblong shield, and a bow, which was shorter than that of the Egyptians. The use of horses and chariots by this and the neighbouring tribes of Canaan is indicated in Josh. xi. 4; and the sculptures shew these chariots, which are of a clumsy form, with solid wooden wheels, and drawn by two horses. The complexion assigned to the Amorites by the Egyptian artists is sallow, the eyes blue, the eyebrows and beard red, but the hair so much darker as to be painted black. The features are regular, and the nose less prominent than in some other

'The Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.'The Perizzites and the Hivites have not yet been recognized as figured on the Egyptian monuments; but figures of a nation supposed to be identified as Jebusites are of frequent occurrence under circumstances which agree with and illustrate the relative rank which the Scriptures assign to this nation. That these and the others to whom our statement refers were of the nations from whom the Israelites were enabled to wrest the good land of Canaan there is no reason to question, and this is sufficient for much interesting illustration respecting the arms, accoutrements, persons, dress, and other circumstances of the nations with whom the Israelites had to do, and, indirectly, of those of the Israelites themselves, whose modes of warfare, armour, and forms of dress must in general effect have had more resemblance to these the contemporary inhabitants of the same country, than to any others which pictorial antiquities exhibit. So with the Jebusites; the identification appears to us far from being clearly made out, and if admitted, involves conditions hardly compatible with the geographical conditions of the country they are known to have occupied. This is not the place for the discussion of the question, and while waiting for that further light on this and other matters which it is by no means unlikely that a few years may furnish, we are content to guard ourselves from being supposed to deem as conclusive the evidence on which these identifications rest, 458

JEBUSITE.-Rosellini, M. R. Plate Ixvii.

although satisfied that the tribes represented were actually inhabitants of Canaan and the neighbouring countries. As to the nation regarded as Jebusites, the annexed figure, which is one of those at Beit-el-Wally, will give a good idea of the general appearance and array of this people. They wore a kind of corselet, and a stiff cap which was confined to the head by a narrow fillet passing round many times and knotted in front. They also used a helmet of peculiar form, with a peak behind to defend the neck. Their arms were the shield, the spear, of which they usually carried two, the bow, the club or battle-axe, a sword of singular form, and a short curved staff, apparently of heavy wood, which seems to have been a kind of throw-stick, and must have inflicted a dreadful blow. The whole subject as to the identification of the Canaanitish races deserves more attention than it has yet received, and research in this direction may eventually throw much light upon the most ancient and obscure portion of the history of Palestine.

10. Two hundred and fifty.'-In 1 Kings ix. 28, we have five hundred and fifty.' We see no means of reconciling this. One of the numbers must have been corrupted.

17. To Ezion-geber, and to Eloth, at the sea side in the land of Edom.-These two places were near each other at the head of the eastern gulf of the Red Sea, now called the gulf of Akabah. Of Eloth or Elath, and of the historical relations of the two places, see the note on Deut. ii. 8. In that note we have expressed the opinion that Ezion-geber was the properly marine station, and that Elath was the proper entrepôt and seat of commercial relations. Elath is still recognized in the existing Akabah, but Ezion-geber is extinct. Josephus says that it lay near Elana or Elath, and was afterwards called Berenice. But it is mentioned no more, and no trace of it seems now to remain; unless it be, as Dr. Robinson conjectures, in the name of a small wady with brackish water, el-Ghŭdyân, opening into the Arabah from the western mountain, some distance north of Akabah. However different the names of el-Ghŭdyân and Ezion may be in appearance, yet the letters in Arabic and Hebrew all correspond. The name 'Asyûn, mentioned by Makrizi (as quoted by Burckhardt, p. 511), seems merely to refer to the ancient_city, of which he had heard or read. Schubert suggests (Reise, ii. 379) that the little island Kureiyeh may have been the site of Ezion-geber, but this is merely a small rock in the sea, 300 yards long. See Robinson's Researches, i. 251. 18. Four hundred and fifty.'-In 1 Kings ix. 28, 'Four hundred and twenty. There can be no doubt that one of these numbers is corrupt.