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.