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.