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.
SOLOMON'S PORCH.— See PoKCii, and Temple, p. 713".
_ SOLOMON'S SERVANTS (.^b^:^■•^:l•; LXX usually douXoi -aXufiuiv [hut see fit/ Jin.]). — In the two lists of r.\iles who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon with Zerubbaliel, (he sons o/ Solomon's serixt7its mo lirst mentioned immediately after the Nc/./dnim (Ezr 2^-"', Neh 7"-'^), and then included with them, as though they were suljdivisionsof the same class : ' All the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred and ninetj--two' (Ezr 2=», Neh I""). At Neh 10^ the sons of Solo- mon's servants appear to ho included amongst the Nethinim. At Neh IP they are again mentioned along with them ; but the parallel list of 1 Ch 9- contents itself with using the more familiar of the two titles, as though the person who inserted this list did not distinguish between Nethinim and sons of Solomon's servants. As to their position and functions it will therefore be suthcient to refer to art. Nkthixim.
It is clear from Ezk 44*'- that non - Israelites were employed for many menial duties connected with the temple service. The caste of foreigners thus referred to may bnve originated from the body of forced lalioureiT. whom Solomon is said to have used in building the temple and other struc- tures (1 K 9-'"-'). 'I'liese would not unnaturally be called Solomon's slaves or servants. After the temple was linished, some of them might he retained for the inferior otlices of the house of God, and the title originally bestowed on them would cling to them. In succeeding generations the comjiosition of the class would vary from a number of causes : some families would die out, others would he added from prisoners of war and other sources. Nor is there anj- dilliculty in con- ceiving of them as holding together in the E.\ile. We can readily imagine members of the minor orders in the Roman Catholic Church doing so in like circumstances. Torrey (Coiiip. and Hist. Value of Ezrn-Nche7ninh, p. 4U) thinks tliat the mention of them is .simply an instance of the Chronicler's determination to connect every insti- tution 'uelonging to his own day with David and Solomon. But it may fairly be argued that the very lowliness of the title 'Solomon's slaves' is in favour of its genuineness. No body of men would have been willing to bear it if it had been arbitrarily imposed from without in the days of the second temple. But if it were inherited, the disagreeable connotation would be worn oil' in tlie process of time.