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.*