Title: The History of Antiquity, Vol. II (of VI)
Author: Duncker, Max
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The History of Antiquity, Vol. II (of VI)" ***


produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)



  THE HISTORY OF ANTIQUITY.



  THE
  HISTORY OF ANTIQUITY.

  FROM THE GERMAN
  OF
  PROFESSOR MAX DUNCKER,


  BY
  EVELYN ABBOTT, M.A.,
  _FELLOW AND TUTOR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD._


  VOL. II.


  LONDON:
  RICHARD BENTLEY & SON, NEW BURLINGTON STREET,
  Publishers in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen.
  1879.



  Bungay:
  CLAY AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.



  The present volume has been translated from the fifth
  edition of the original, and has had, throughout, the
  benefit of Professor Duncker's revision.

                                                  E. A.
  _Oxford, Jan. 14, 1879._



CONTENTS.


BOOK III.

_ASSYRIA. PHOENICIA. ISRAEL._

  CHAPTER I.                                                      PAGE
  THE STORY OF NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS                                   1

  CHAPTER II.
  THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ASSYRIAN KINGDOM                            26

  CHAPTER III.
  THE NAVIGATION AND COLONIES OF THE PHENICIANS                     49

  CHAPTER IV.
  THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL                                              89

  CHAPTER V.
  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY IN ISRAEL                      109

  CHAPTER VI.
  DAVID'S STRUGGLE AGAINST SAUL AND ISHBOSHETH                     128

  CHAPTER VII.
  THE RULE OF DAVID                                                150

  CHAPTER VIII.
  KING SOLOMON                                                     179

  CHAPTER IX.
  THE LAW OF THE PRIESTS                                           201

  CHAPTER X.
  JUDAH AND ISRAEL                                                 227

  CHAPTER XI.
  THE CITIES OF THE PHENICIANS                                     262

  CHAPTER XII.
  THE TRADE OF THE PHENICIANS                                      294

  CHAPTER XIII.
  THE RISE OF ASSYRIA                                              308



BOOK III.

ASSYRIA. PHOENICIA. ISRAEL.



ASSYRIA.



CHAPTER I.

THE STORY OF NINUS AND SEMIRAMIS.


About the middle course of the Tigris, where the mountain wall of the
Armenian plateau steeply descends to the south, there is a broad stretch
of hilly country. To the west it is traversed by a few water-courses
only, which spring out of the mountains of Sindyar, and unite with the
Tigris; from the east the affluents are far more abundant. On the
southern shore of the lake of Urumiah the edge of the plateau of Iran
abuts on the Armenian table-land, and then, stretching to the
south-east, it bounds the river valley of the Tigris toward the east.
From its vast, successive ranges, the Zagrus of the Greeks, flow the
Lycus and Caprus (the Greater and the Lesser Zab), the Adhim and the
Diala. The water, which these rivers convey to the land between the
Zagrus and the Tigris, together with the elevation of the soil, softens
the heat and allows olive trees and vines to flourish in the cool air on
the hills, sesame and corn in the valleys between groups of palms and
fruit-trees. The backs of the heights which rise to the east are covered
by forests of oaks and nut trees. Toward the south the ground gradually
sinks--on the west immediately under the mountains of Sindyar, on the
east below the Lesser Zab--toward the course of the Adhim into level
plains, where the soil is little inferior in fertility to the land of
Babylonia. The land between the Tigris and the Greater Zab is known to
Strabo and Arrian as Aturia.[1] The districts between the Greater and
Lesser Zab are called Arbelitis and Adiabene by western writers.[2] The
region bounded by the Lesser Zab and the Adhim or the Diala is called
Sittacene, and the land lying on the mountains rising further toward the
east is Chalonitis. The latter we shall without doubt have to regard as
the Holwan[3] of later times.

According to the accounts of the Greeks, it was in these districts that
the first kingdom rose which made conquests and extended its power
beyond the borders of its native country. In the old time--such is the
story--kings ruled in Asia, whose names were not mentioned, as they had
not performed any striking exploits. The first of whom any memorial is
retained, and who performed great deeds, was Ninus, the king of the
Assyrians. Warlike and ambitious by nature, he armed the most vigorous
of his young men, and accustomed them by long and various exercises to
all the toils and dangers of war. After collecting a splendid army, he
combined with Ariæus, the prince of the Arabs, and marched with numerous
troops against the neighbouring Babylonians. The city of Babylon was not
built at that time, but there were other magnificent cities in the land.
The Babylonians were an unwarlike people, and he subdued them with
little trouble, took their king prisoner, slew him with his children,
and imposed a yearly tribute on the Babylonians. Then with a still
greater force he invaded Armenia and destroyed several cities. Barzanes,
the king of Armenia, perceived that he was not in a position to resist.
He repaired with costly presents to Ninus and undertook to be his
vassal. With great magnanimity Ninus permitted him to retain the throne
of Armenia; but he was to provide a contingent in war and contribute to
the support of the army. Strengthened by these means, Ninus turned his
course to Media. Pharnus, king of Media, came out to meet him with a
strong force, but he was nevertheless defeated, and crucified with his
wife and seven children, and Ninus placed one of his own trusty men as
viceroy over Media. These successes raised in Ninus the desire to
subjugate all Asia as far as the Nile and the Tanais. He conquered, as
Ctesias narrates, Egypt, Phoenicia, Coele Syria, Cilicia, Lycia and
Caria, Lydia, Mysia, Phrygia, Bithynia, and Cappadocia, and reduced the
nations on the Pontus as far as the Tanais. Then he made himself master
of the land of the Cadusians and Tapyrians, of the Hyrcanians,
Drangians, Derbiccians, Carmanians, Chorasmians, Barcians, and
Parthians. Beside these, he overcame Persia, and Susiana, and Caspiana,
and many other small nations. But in spite of many efforts he failed to
obtain any success against the Bactrians, because the entrance to their
land was difficult and the number of their men of war was great. So he
deferred the war against the Bactrians to another opportunity, and led
his army back, after subjugating in 17 years all the nations of Asia,
with the exception of the Indians and Bactrians. The king of the
Arabians he dismissed to his home with costly presents and splendid
booty; he began himself to build a city which should not only be greater
than any other then in existence, but should be such that no city in the
future could ever surpass it. This city he founded on the bank of the
Tigris,[4] in the form of an oblong, and surrounded it with strong
fortifications. The two longer sides measured 150 stades each, the two
shorter sides 90 stades each, so that the whole circuit was 480 stades.
The walls reached a height of 100 feet, and were so thick that there was
room in the gangway for three chariots to pass each other. These walls
were surmounted by 1500 towers, each of the height of 200 feet. As to
the inhabitants of the city, the greater number and those of the most
importance were Assyrians, but from the other nations also any who chose
could fix his dwelling here, and Ninus allotted to the settlers large
portions of the surrounding territory, and called the city Ninus, after
his own name.

When the city was built Ninus resolved to march against the Bactrians.
He knew the number and bravery of the Bactrians, and how difficult
their land was to approach, and therefore he collected the armies of all
the subject nations, to the number of 1,700,000 foot soldiers, 210,000
cavalry, and towards 10,600 chariots of war. The narrowness of the
passes which protect the entrance to Bactria compelled Ninus to divide
his army. Oxyartes, who at that time was king of the Bactrians, had
collected the whole male population of his country, about 400,000 men,
and met the enemy at the passes. One part of the Assyrian army he
allowed to enter unmolested; when a sufficient number seemed to have
reached the plains he attacked them and drove them back to the nearest
mountains; about 100,000 Assyrians were slain. But when the whole force
had penetrated into the land, the Bactrians were overcome by superior
numbers and scattered each to his own city. The rest of the cities were
captured by Ninus with little trouble, but Bactra, the chief city, where
the palace of the king lay, he could not reduce, for it was large and
well-provisioned, and the fortress was very strong.

When the siege became protracted, Onnes, the first among the counsellors
of the king and viceroy of Syria, who accompanied the king on this
campaign, sent for his wife Semiramis to the camp. Once when he was
inspecting the flocks of the king in Syria, he had seen at the dwelling
of Simmas, the keeper of these flocks, a beautiful maiden, and he was so
overcome with love for her that he sought and obtained her as a wife
from Simmas. She was the foster-child of Simmas. In a rocky place in the
desert his shepherds had found the maiden about a year old, fed by doves
with milk and cheese; as Simmas was childless he had taken the foundling
as his child, and given her the name of Semiramis Onnes took her to the
city of Ninus. She bore him two sons, Hyapates and Hydaspes, and as she
had everything which beauty requires, she made her husband her slave; he
did nothing without her advice, and everything succeeded admirably. She
also possessed intelligence and daring, and every other gift likely to
advance her. When requested by Onnes to come to the camp, she seized the
opportunity to display her power. She put on such clothing that it could
not be ascertained whether she was a man or a woman, and this succeeded
so well that at a later time the Medes, and after them the Persians
also, wore the robe of Semiramis. When she arrived in the camp she
perceived that the attack was directed only against the parts of the
city lying in the plain, not against the high part and the strong
fortifications of the citadel, and she also perceived that this
direction of the attack induced the Bactrians to be careless in watching
the citadel. She collected all those in the army who were accustomed to
climbing, and with this troop she ascended the citadel from a deep
ravine, captured a part of it, and gave the signal to the army which was
assaulting the walls in the plain. The Bactrians lost their courage when
they saw their citadel occupied, and the city was taken. Ninus admired
the courage of the woman, honoured her with costly presents, and was
soon enchained by her beauty; but his attempts to persuade Onnes to give
up Semiramis to him were in vain; in vain he offered to recompense him
by the gift of his own daughter Sosana in marriage. At length Ninus
threatened to put out his eyes if he did not obey his commands. The
terror of this threat and the violence of his own love drove Onnes out
of his mind. He hung himself. Thus Semiramis came to the throne of
Assyria. When Ninus had taken possession of the great treasures of gold
and silver which were in Bactra, and had arranged everything there, he
led his army back. At Ninus Semiramis bore him a son, Ninyas, and at his
death, when he had reigned 52 years, Ninus bequeathed to her the
sovereign power. She buried his corpse in the royal palace, and caused a
huge mound to be raised over the grave, 6000 feet in the circuit and
5400 feet high, which towered over the city of Ninus like a lofty
citadel, and could be seen far through the plain in which Ninus lay.

As Semiramis was ambitious, and desired to surpass the fame of Ninus,
she built the great city of Babylon, with mighty walls and towers, the
two royal citadels, the bridge over the Euphrates, and the temple of
Belus, and caused a great lake to be excavated to draw off the water of
the Euphrates. Other cities also she founded on the Euphrates and the
Tigris, and caused depôts to be made for those who brought merchandise
from Media, Paraetacene, and the bordering countries. After completing
these works she marched with a great army to Media and planted the
garden near Mount Bagistanon. The steep and lofty face of this mountain,
more than 10,000 feet in height, she caused to be smoothed, and on it
was cut her picture surrounded by 100 guards; and an inscription was
engraved in Syrian letters, saying that Semiramis had caused the
pack-saddles of her beasts of burden to be piled on each other, and on
these had ascended to the summit of the mountain. Afterwards she made
another large garden near the city of Chauon, in Media,[5] and on a rock
in the middle of it she erected rich and costly buildings, from which
she surveyed the blooming garden and the army encamped in the plain.
Here she remained for a long time, and gave herself up to every kind of
pleasure. She was unwilling to contract another marriage from fear of
losing the sovereign power, but she lived with any of her warriors who
were distinguished for their beauty. All who had enjoyed her favours she
secretly put to death. After this retirement she turned her course to
Egbatana, caused a path to be cut through the rocks of Mount Zagrus, and
a short and convenient road to be made across them, in order to leave
behind an imperishable memorial of her reign. In Egbatana she erected a
splendid palace, and in order to provide the city with water she caused
a tunnel to be made through the lofty mountain Orontes at its base,
which conveyed the water of a lake lying on the other side of the
heights into the city. After this she marched through Persia and all the
countries of Asia which were subject to her, and caused the mountains to
be cut through and straight and level roads to be built everywhere,
while in the plains she at one place raised great mounds over her dead
generals, and in another built cities on hills; and wherever the army
was encamped eminences were raised for her tent so that she might
overlook the whole. Of these works many are still remaining in Asia and
bear the name of Semiramis. Then she subjugated Egypt,[6] a great part
of Libya, and nearly the whole of Ethiopia, and finally returned to
Bactra.

A long period of peace ensued, till she resolved to subjugate the
Indians on hearing that they were the most numerous of all nations, and
possessed the largest and most beautiful country in the world. For two
years preparations were made throughout her whole kingdom; in the third
year she collected in Bactria 3,000,000 foot soldiers, 500,000 horsemen,
and 100,000 chariots. Beside these, 100,000 camels were covered with the
sewn skins of black oxen, and each was mounted by one warrior; these
animals were intended to pass for elephants with the Indians. For
crossing the Indus 2000 ships were built, then taken to pieces again,
and the various parts packed on camels. Stabrobates, the king of the
Indians, awaited the Assyrians on the bank of the Indus. He also had
prepared for the war with all his power, and gathered together even a
larger force from the whole of India. When Semiramis approached he sent
messengers to meet her with the complaint that she was making war upon
him though he had done her no wrong; and in his letter he reproached her
licentious life, and calling the gods to witness, threatened to crucify
her if victorious. Semiramis read the letter, laughed, and said that the
Indians would find out her virtue by her actions. The fleet of the
Indians lay ready for battle on the Indus. Semiramis caused her ships to
be put together, manned them with her bravest warriors, and, after a
long and stubborn contest, the victory fell to her share. A thousand
ships of the Indians were sunk and many prisoners taken. Then she also
took the islands and cities on the river, and out of these she collected
more than 100,000 prisoners. But the king of the Indians, pretending
flight, led his army back from the Indus; in reality he wished to induce
the enemy to cross the Indus. As matters succeeded according to her
wishes, Semiramis caused a large and broad bridge to be thrown skilfully
over the Indus, and on this her whole army passed over. Leaving 60,000
men to protect the bridge, she pursued the Indians with the rest of her
army, and sent on in front the camels clothed as elephants. At first
the Indians did not understand whence Semiramis could have procured so
many elephants and were alarmed. But the deception could not last.
Soldiers of Semiramis, who were found careless on the watch, deserted to
the enemy to escape punishment, and betrayed the secret. Stabrobates
proclaimed it at once to his whole army, caused a halt to be made, and
offered battle to the Assyrians. When the armies approached each other
the king of the Indians ordered his horsemen and chariots to make the
attack. Semiramis sent against them her pretended elephants. When the
cavalry of the Indians came up their horses started back at the strange
smell, part of them dislodged their riders, others refused to obey the
rein. Taking advantage of this moment, Semiramis, herself on horseback,
pressed forward with a chosen band of men upon the Indians, and turned
them to flight. Stabrobates was still unshaken; he led out his
elephants, and behind them his infantry. Himself on the right wing,
mounted on the best elephant, he chanced to come opposite Semiramis. He
made a resolute attack upon the queen, and was followed by the rest of
the elephants. The soldiers of Semiramis resisted only a short time. The
elephants caused an immense slaughter; the Assyrians left their ranks,
they fled, and the king pressed forward against Semiramis; his arrow
wounded her arm, and as she turned away his javelin struck her on the
back. She hastened away, while her people were crushed and trodden down
by their own numbers; and at last, as the Indians pressed upon them,
were forced from the bridge into the river. As soon as Semiramis saw the
greater part of her army on the nearer bank, she caused the cables to be
cut which held the bridge; the force of the stream tore the beams
asunder, and many Assyrians who were on the bridge were plunged in the
river. The other Assyrians were now in safety, the wounds of Semiramis
were not dangerous, and the king of the Indians was warned by signs from
heaven and their interpretation by the seers not to cross the river.
After exchanging prisoners Semiramis returned to Bactra. She had lost
two-thirds of her army.

Some time afterwards she was attacked by a conspiracy, which her own son
Ninyas set on foot against her by means of an eunuch. Then she
remembered a prophecy given to her in the temple of Zeus Ammon during
the campaign in Libya; that when her son Ninyas conspired against her
she would disappear from the sight of men, and the honours of an
immortal would be paid to her by some nations of Asia. Hence she
cherished no resentment against Ninyas, but, on the contrary,
transferred to him the kingdom, ordered her viceroys to obey him, and
soon after put herself to death, as though, according to the oracle, she
had raised herself to the gods. Some relate that she was changed into a
dove, and flew out of the palace with a flock of doves. Hence it is that
the Assyrians regard Semiramis as an immortal, and the dove as divine.
She was 62 years old, and had reigned 42 years.

The preceding narrative, which is from Diodorus, is borrowed in
essentials from the Persian history of Ctesias, who lived for some time
at the Persian Court in the first two decades of the reign of Artaxerxes
Mnemon (405-361 B.C.). On the end of Semiramis the account of Ctesias
contained more details than the account of Diodorus. This is made clear
by some fragments from Ctesias preserved by other writers. In Nicolaus
of Damascus we are told that after the Indian war Semiramis marched
through the land of the Medes. Here she visited a very lofty and
precipitous mountain, which could only be ascended on one side. On this
she at once caused an abode to be built from which to survey her army.

While encamped here, Satibaras the eunuch told the sons of Onnes,
Hyapates and Hydaspes, that Ninyas would put them to death if he
ascended the throne; they must anticipate him by removing their mother
and Ninyas out of the way, and possessing themselves of the sovereign
power. Moreover, it was to their great dishonour to be spectators of the
licentiousness of their mother, who, even at her years, daily desired
every youth that came in her way. The matter, he said, was easy of
accomplishment; when he summoned them to the queen (he was entrusted
with this business) they could come to the summit of the mountain and
throw their mother down from it. But it happened that behind the altar,
near which they held this conversation, a Mede was lying, who
overheard them. He wrote down everything on a skin and sent it to
Semiramis. When she had read it she caused the sons of Onnes to be
summoned, and gave strict orders that they should come in arms.
Delighted that the deity favoured the undertaking, Satibaras fetched the
young men. When they appeared Semiramis bade the eunuch step aside, and
then she spoke to them: "You worthless sons of an honest and brave
father have allowed yourselves to be persuaded by a worthless slave to
throw down from this height your mother, who holds her empire from the
gods, in order to obtain glory among men, and to rule after the murder
of your mother and your brother Ninyas. Then she spoke to the
Assyrians."[7] Here the fragment of Nicolaus breaks off. From the
fragments of Cephalion we may gather that the sons of Onnes were put to
death by Semiramis. Yet Cephalion gave a different account of the death
of Semiramis from Ctesias; according to him Ninyas slew her.[8] In
Ctesias, as is clear from the account of Diodorus and other remains of
Ctesias, nothing was spoken of beyond the conspiracy which Ninyas
prepared against her.[9]

After the death of Semiramis, so Diodorus continues his narrative,
Ninyas ruled in peace, for he by no means emulated his mother's military
ambition and delight in danger. He remained always in the palace, was
seen by no one but his concubines and eunuchs, took upon himself no care
or trouble, thought only of pleasure and pastime, considered it the
object of sovereign power to give himself up undisturbed to all sorts of
enjoyment. His seclusion served to hide his excesses in obscurity; he
seemed like an invisible God, whom no one ventured to offend even in
word. In order to preserve his kingdom he put leaders over the army,
viceroys, judges, and magistrates over every nation, and arranged
everything as seemed most useful to himself. To keep his subjects in
fear he caused each nation to provide a certain number of soldiers every
year, and these were quartered together in a camp outside the city, and
placed under the command of men most devoted to himself. At the end of
the year they were dismissed and replaced by others to the same number.
Hence his subjects always saw a great force in the camp ready to punish
disobedience or defection. In the same way his descendants also reigned
for 30 generations, till the empire passed to the Medes.[10] Slightly
differing from this account, Nicolaus tells us that Sardanapalus--to
whom in the order of succession the kingdom of Ninus and Semiramis
finally descended--neither carried arms nor went out to the
hunting-field, like the kings in old times, but always remained in his
palace. Yet even in his time the old arrangements were kept and the
satraps of the subject nations gathered with the fixed contingent at the
gate of the king.[11]

From what source is the narrative of Ninus and Semiramis derived? what
title to credibility can be allowed it? Herodotus states that the
dominion of the Assyrians in Asia was the oldest; their supremacy was
followed by that of the Medes, and the supremacy of the Medes was
followed by the kingdom of the Achæmenids. Herodotus too is acquainted
with the name of Semiramis; he represents her as ruling over Babylon,
and building wonderful dykes in the level land, which the river had
previously turned into a lake.[12] Strabo tells of the citadels, cities,
mountain-roads, aqueducts, bridges, and canals which Semiramis
constructed through all Asia, and to Semiramis Lucian traces back the
old temples of Syria.[13] We may assume in explanation that the
tradition of Hither Asia has ascribed to the first king and queen of
Assyria the construction of the ancient road over the Zagrus, of old
dykes and aqueducts in the land of the Euphrates and Tigris, the
building, not of Nineveh only, but also of Babylon, the erection of the
great monuments of forgotten kings of Babylon,--as a fact, Assyrian
kings built in Babylon also in the seventh century. We may find it
conceivable that this tradition has gathered together and carried back
to the time of the foundation all that memory retained of the acts of
Assyrian rulers, the campaigns of conquest of a long series of warlike
and mighty sovereigns, the sum total of the exploits to which Assyria
owed her supremacy. Yet against such an origin of this narrative doubts
arise not easy to be removed. It is true that when this tradition
explains the mode of life and the clothing of the kings of Asia, and the
clothing of the Medes and Persians, from the example of Semiramis, who
wore in the camp a robe, half male and half female (p. 6); when this
tradition derives the inaccessibility of the kings of Asia and their
seclusion in the palace from the fact that Ninyas wished to hide his
excesses, and appear to his subjects as a higher being,--traits of this
kind can be set aside as additions of the Greeks. To the Babylonians and
Assyrians, the Medes and Persians, the life and clothing of their rulers
could not appear contemptible or remarkable, nor their own clothing half
effeminate, though the Greeks might very well search for an explanation
of customs so different from their own, and find them in the example and
command of Semiramis, and the example of Ninyas. And if in Herodotus the
empire of the Assyrians over Asia appears as a hegemony of
confederates,[14] this idea is obviously borrowed from Greek models. The
opposite statement of the division of the Assyrian kingdom into
satrapies, the yearly change of the contingents of troops, comes from
Ctesias, who transferred the arrangements of the Persian kingdom, with
which he was acquainted, to their predecessors, the kingdom of the
Assyrians, or found this transference made in his authorities, Persian
or Mede, and copied it.

Yet, after making as much allowance as we can for the amalgamating
influence of native tradition, after going as far as we can in setting
apart what may be due to the Greeks, how could such an accurate
narrative, so well acquainted with every detail of the siege of Bactra,
and the battle on the Indus, have been preserved for many centuries in
the tradition of Hither Asia, retained even after the overthrow of
Assyria, and down to the date when curious Greeks, 200 years after the
fall of Nineveh, reached the Euphrates and Tigris? We possess a positive
proof that about this time, in the very place to which this tradition
must have clung most tenaciously, within the circuit of the old Assyrian
country, no remembrance of that mighty past was in existence. When, in
the year 401 B.C., Xenophon with his 10,000 marched past the ruins of
the ancient cities of the Assyrian kingdom, the ruins of Asshur, Chalah,
and Nineveh, before Ctesias wrote, he was merely told that these were
cities of the Medes which could not be taken; into one of them the queen
of the Medes had fled before the Persian king, and the Persians, with
the help of heaven, took and destroyed it when they gained the dominion
over Media.[15] From the Assyrians, therefore, Herodotus and Ctesias
could not have obtained the information given in their statements about
Ninus and Semiramis, nor could their knowledge have come from the
Babylonians. The tradition of Babylonia would never have attributed the
mighty buildings of that city and land to the queen of another nation,
to which Babylon had succumbed. Hence the account of the Greeks about
Assyria and her rulers could only come from the Medes and Persians. But
our narrative ascribes to Semiramis even the great buildings of the
Median rulers, the erection of the royal citadel of Egbatana, the
residence of the Median kings; the parks and rock sculptures of Media,
even the rock figure on Mount Bagistanon (p. 7). This sculpture in the
valley of the Choaspes on the rock-wall of Bagistan (Behistun) is in
existence. The wall is not 10,000 but only 1500 feet high. It is not
Semiramis who is pourtrayed in those sculptures, but Darius, the king of
Persia, and before him are the leaders of the rebellious provinces. It
was the proudest monument of victory in all the history of Persia. Would
a Persian have shown this to a Greek as a monument of Semiramis? It
would rather be a Mede, who would wish to hide from the Greeks that
Media was among the provinces a second time conquered and brought to
subjection.

The difficulty of ascertaining the sources of our narrative is still
further increased in no inconsiderable degree by the fact that the books
of Ctesias are lost, and that Diodorus has not drawn immediately from
them, but from a reproduction of Ctesias' account of Assyria. Yet the
express references to the statements of Ctesias which Diodorus found in
his authority, as well as fragments relating to the subject which have
been elsewhere preserved, allow us to fix with tolerable accuracy what
belongs to Ctesias in this narrative, and what Clitarchus, the renewer
of his work, whom Diodorus had before him, has added.[16] It is Ctesias
who enumerates the nations which Ninus subdued (p. 3). With him
Semiramis was the daughter of a Syrian and Derceto, who throws herself
into the lake of Ascalon, and is then worshipped as a goddess there.[17]
To Ctesias belongs the nourishment of the child Semiramis by the doves
of the goddess, her rise from the shepherd's hut to the throne of
Assyria. He represents her as raising the mountain or the tomb of Ninus;
he ascribes to her the building of Babylon, its mighty walls and royal
citadels, the aqueducts, and the great temple of Bel. He represented her
as marching to the Indus[18] and afterwards towards Media; as making
gardens there and building the road over the Zagrus. He represented her
as raising the mounds over the graves of her lovers;[19] he told of her
sensuality, of the designs of her sons by the first marriage, and the
plot of Ninyas; he recounted her end, which was as marvellous as her
birth and her youth: she flew out of the palace up to heaven with a
flock of doves. If the conquest of Egypt by Semiramis also belongs to
Ctesias,[20] the march through Libya, and the oracle given to her in the
oasis of Ammon, together with the version of her death, which rests on
this oracle (she caused herself to disappear, _i.e._ put herself to
death, in order to share in divine honours), belong to Clitarchus.

If, therefore, we may regard it as an established fact that our
narrative has not arisen out of Assyrian or Babylonian tradition, that
the views and additions of Greek origin introduced into it leave the
centre untouched; if we have succeeded in discovering, to a tolerably
satisfactory degree, the outlines of the narrative of Ctesias, the main
question still remains to be answered: from what sources is this
narrative to be derived? In the first attempt to criticise this account
we find ourselves astonished by the certainty of the statements, the
minute and, in part, extremely vivid descriptions of persons and
incidents. Not only the great prince who founded the power of Assyria,
and the queen whose beauty and courage enchanted him, are known to
Ctesias in their words and actions. He can mention by name the man who
nurtured Semiramis as a girl, and her first husband. He knows the names
of the princes of the Arabs, Medes, Bactrians, and Indians with whom
Ninus and Semiramis had to do. The number of the forces set in motion
against Bactria and India are given accurately according to the weapon
used. The arrangements of the battle beyond the Indus, the progress of
the fight, the wounds carried away by Semiramis, the exchange of
prisoners, are related with the fidelity of an eye-witness. Weight is
obviously laid on the fact that after Semiramis had conquered and
traversed Egypt and Ethiopia, after her unbroken success, the last great
campaign against the Indians fails because she attacked them without
receiving any previous injury. The message which Stabrobates sends to
her, the letter which he writes, the reproaches he makes upon her life,
the minute details which Ctesias gives of the relation of Onnes to
Semiramis, of the conspiracy of the sons by this marriage, who felt
themselves dishonoured by the conduct of their now aged mother, of the
letter of the Mede, whose fidelity discovered the plot to her, of the
speeches which Semiramis made on this occasion, carry us back to a
description at once vivid and picturesque. If we take these pictures
together with the account of Ctesias about the decline of the Assyrian
kingdom, in which also very characteristic details appear, if we
consider the style and the whole tone of these accounts of the beginning
and the end of the Assyrian kingdom, we cannot avoid the conclusion that
Ctesias has either invented the whole narrative or followed a poetic
source.

The first inference is untenable, because the whole narrative bears the
colour and stamp of the East in such distinctness that Ctesias cannot
have invented it, and, on the other hand, it contains so much poetry
that if Ctesias were the author of these descriptions we should have to
credit him with high poetic gifts. We are, therefore, driven to adopt
the second inference--that a poetic source lies at the base of his
account. If, as was proved above, neither Assyrian nor Babylonian
traditions can be taken into consideration, Assyrian and Babylonian
poems are by the same reasoning put out of the question. On the other
hand, we find in Ctesias' history of the Medes episodes of at least
equal poetic power with his narrative of Ninus and Semiramis. Plutarch
tells us that the great deeds of Semiramis were praised in songs.[21] It
is certain that they could not be the songs of Assyria, which had long
since passed away, but we find, on the other hand, that there were
minstrels at the court of the Medes, who sang to the kings at the
banquet; it is, moreover, a Mede who warns Semiramis against Hyapates
and Hydaspes; and the other names in the narrative of Ctesias bear the
stamp of the Iranian language. Further, we find, not only in the
fragments of Ctesias which have come down to us, but also in the
narratives of Herodotus and other Greeks concerning the fortunes of the
Medes and Persians down to the great war of Xerxes against the Hellenes,
remains and traces of poems which can only have been sung amongst the
Medes and Persians. We have, therefore, good grounds for assuming that
it was Medo-Persian poems which could tell the story of Ninus and
Semiramis, and that this part of the Medo-Persian poems was the source
from which Ctesias drew. It was the contents of these poems recounted to
him by Persians or Medes which he no doubt followed in this case, as in
his further narratives of Parsondes and Sparethra, of the rebellion and
struggle of Cyrus against Astyages, just as Herodotus before him drew
from such poems his account of the rebellion of the Magi, the death of
Cambyses, and the conspiracy of the seven Persians.

After severe struggles the princes and people of the Medes succeeded in
casting down the Assyrian empire from the supremacy it had long
maintained; they conquered and destroyed their old and supposed
impregnable metropolis. If the tribes of the Medes had previously been
forced to bow before the Assyrians, they took ample vengeance for the
degradation. Hence the Median minstrels had a most excellent reason to
celebrate this crowning achievement of their nation; it afforded them a
most agreeable subject. If, in the earlier and later struggles of the
Medes against Assyria, the bravery of individual heroes was often
celebrated in song, these songs might by degrees coalesce into a
connected whole, the close of which was the overthrow of the Assyrian
empire. The Median poems which dealt with this most attractive material
must have commenced with the rise of the Assyrian kingdom; they had the
more reason for explaining and suggesting motives for this mighty
movement, as it was incumbent on them to make intelligible the wreck of
the resistance of their own nation to the onset of the Assyrians, and
the previous subjection of Media. In these poems no doubt they described
the cruelty of the conqueror, who crucified their king, with his wife
and seven children (p. 3). The more brilliant, the more overpowering the
might of Assyria, as they described it, owing to eminent sovereigns in
the earliest times, the wider the extent of the empire, the more easily
explained and tolerable became the subjection of the Medes, the greater
the glory to have finally conquered. This final retribution formed the
close; the striking contrast of the former exaltation and subsequent
utter overthrow, brought about by Median power and bravery, formed the
centre of these poems.

The prince of the Assyrians whose success is unfailing till he finds
himself checked in Bactria, the woman of unknown origin found in the
desert, fostered by herdsmen, and raised from the lowest to the most
elevated position,[22] who in bravery surpasses the bravest, who outdoes
the deeds of Ninus, whose charms allure to destruction every one who
approaches her, who makes all whom she favours her slaves in order to
slay them, who without regard to her years makes every youth her lover,
and is, nevertheless, finally exalted to the gods--are these forms due
to the mere imagination of Medo-Persian minstrels, or what material lay
at the base of these lively pictures?

The metropolis of the Assyrians was known to the Greeks as Ninus; in the
inscriptions of the Assyrian kings it is called Ninua. From this the
name of Ninus, the founder of the empire, as well as Ninyas, is
obviously taken. In Herodotus[23] and the chronographers Ninus is the
son of Belus, _i.e._ of Bel, the sky-god already known to us (I. 265).
The monuments of Assyria show us that the Assyrians worshipped a female
deity, which was at once the war-goddess and goddess of sexual
love--Istar-Bilit. Istar was not merely the goddess of battles--bringing
death and destruction, though also conferring victory; she was at the
same time the goddess of sensual love. We have already learned to know
her double nature. In turn she sends life, pleasure, and death. If Istar
of Arbela was the goddess of battle, Istar of Nineveh was the goddess of
love (I. 270). As the goddess of love, doves were sacred to her. In the
temples of Syria there were statues of this goddess with a golden dove
on the head; she was even invoked there under the name of Semiramis, a
word which may mean High name, Name of the Height.[24]

Thus the Medo-Persian minstrels have changed the form and legend of a
goddess who was worshipped in Assyria, whose rites were vigorously
cultivated in Syria, into a heroine, the founder of the Assyrian empire;
just as in the Greek and German epos divine beings have undergone a
similar change. This heroine is the daughter of a maiden who slays the
youth whom she has made happy with her love, who gave her her daughter,
_i.e._ she is the daughter of the goddess herself. Like her mother, the
goddess, the daughter, Semiramis, inspires men with irresistible love,
and thus makes them her slaves. At the same time, as a war-goddess, she
surpasses all men in martial courage, and brings death to all who have
surrendered to her. The origin of the goddess thus transformed into a
heroine is unknown and supernatural; her characteristics are marvellous
powers of victory and charms of love. The neighbourhood of Ascalon,
where we found the oldest and most famous temples of the Syrian goddess
of love (I. 360), was the scene of the origin of the miraculous child.
The doves of the Syrian goddess nourish and protect her in the desert.
She grows up in Syria, where the worship of the goddess of sexual love
was widely spread. Whether Simmas, her foster-father, has arisen out of
Samas, the sun-god of the Semites, and Onnes, the first husband of
Semiramis, out of Anu, the god of Babel and Asshur, cannot indeed be
decided. But in her relation to Onnes, whom her charm makes her slave,
to whom she brings uninterrupted success, till in despair at her loss he
takes his life, the Medo-Persian minstrels describe the glamour of love
and the sensual pleasure, as well as the destruction which proceeds from
her, in the liveliest and most forcible manner. Even after the Indian
campaign she indulges her passions, and then puts those to death to whom
she grants her favours. In this life the poems found a motive for the
plots of her sons, from which she was at first rescued by the fidelity
of a Mede,--a trait which again reveals the origin of the poem. As
Semiramis was a heroine merely, and not a goddess, to the minstrels,
they could represent her overthrow, her defeat and wounds, on the Indus,
which afterwards was the limit of the conquests of the Medians and
Persians. At the end of her life the higher style reappears, the
supernatural origin comes in once more. She flies out of the palace with
the doves of Bilit, which protected her childhood. In Ctesias the
goddess of Ascalon is Derceto,[25] and therefore later writers could
maintain that the kings of Assyria, the descendants or successors of
Semiramis, were named Dercetadæ.[26]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Strabo, pp. 736, 737. Arrian, "Anab." 3, 7, 7. The same form of the
name, Athura, is given in the inscriptions of Darius.

[2] Plin. "Hist. Nat." 6, 27; 5, 12: Adiabene Assyria ante dicta.
Ptolemæus (6, 1) puts Adiabene and Arbelitis side by side. Diodorus, 18,
39. Arrian, Epit. 35: [Greek: tên men mesên tôn potamôn gên sai tên
Arbêlitin eneime Amphimachô.]

[3] Polyb. 5, 54. The border line between the original country of
Assyria and Elam cannot be ascertained with certainty. According to
Herodotus (5, 52) Susa lay 42 parasangs, _i.e._ about 150 miles, to the
south of the northern border of Susiana. Hence we may perhaps take the
Diala as the border between the later Assyria and Elam. The use of the
name Assyria for Mesopotamia and Babylonia, as well as Assyria proper,
in Herodotus (_e.g._ 1, 178) and other Greeks,--the name Syria, which
is only an abbreviation of Assyria (Herod. 7, 63),--arises from the
period of the supremacy of Assyria in the epoch 750-650 B.C. Cf. Strabo,
pp. 736, 737, and Nöldeke, [Greek: ASSYRIOS], Hermes, 1871 (5), 443 ff.

[4] The Euphrates, which Diodorus mentions 2, 3 and also 2, 27, is not
to be put down to a mistake of Ctesias, since Nicolaus (Frag. 9, ed.
Müller) describes Nineveh as situated on the Tigris in a passage
undoubtedly borrowed from Ctesias. The error belongs, as Carl Jacoby
("Rhein. Museum," 30, 575 ff.) has proved, to the historians of the time
of Alexander and the earliest Diadochi, who had in their thoughts the
city of Mabog (Hierapolis), on the Euphrates, which was also called
Nineveh. The mistake has passed from Clitarchus to the narrative of
Diodorus.

[5] Steph. Byzant. [Greek: Chauôn, chôra tês Mêdias, Ktêsias en prôtô
Pertikôn. Ê de Semiramis enteuthen exelaunei, k. t. l.]

[6] Diod. 1, 56.

[7] Frag. 7, ed. Müller.

[8] Frag. 1, 2, ed. Müller; cf. Justin. 1, 1.

[9] Anonym. tract. "De Mulier." c. 1.

[10] Diod. 2, 21.

[11] Nicol. Frag. 8, ed. Müller.

[12] 1, 184.

[13] Strabo, pp. 80, 529, 737; Lucian, "de Syria dea," c. 14.

[14] Herod. 1, 102.

[15] Xenoph. "Anab." 3, 4, 6-10.

[16] Diodorus tells us himself (2, 7) that in writing the first 30
chapters of his second book he had before him the book of Clitarchus on
Alexander. Carl Jacoby (_loc. cit._)--by a comparison with the
statements in point in Curtius, who transcribed Clitarchus, and by the
proof that certain passages in the narrative of Diodorus which relate to
Bactria and India are in agreement with passages in the seventeenth
book, in which Diodorus undoubtedly follows Clitarchus; that certain
observations in the description of Babylon in Diodorus can only belong
to Alexander and his nearest successors; that certain preparations of
Semiramis for the Indian campaign agree with certain preparations of
Alexander for his Indian campaign, and certain incidents in Alexander's
battle against Porus with certain incidents in the battle of Semiramis
against Stabrobates; and finally by showing that the situation of the
ancient Nineveh was unknown to the historians of the time of Alexander,
who were on the other hand acquainted with a Nineveh on the Euphrates
(Hierapolis, Mabog; Plin. "Hist. Nat." 5, 23; Ammian. Marcell. 14, 8,
7)--has made it at least very probable that Diodorus had Ctesias before
him in the revision of Clitarchus. We may allow that Clitarchus brought
the Bactrian Oxyartes into the narrative, unless we ought to read
Exaortes in Diodorus; but that the name of the king in Ctesias was
Zoroaster is in my opinion very doubtful. The sources of Ctesias were
stories related by Persians or Medes from the epic of West Iran. That
this should put Zoroaster at the time of Ninus, and make him king of the
Bactrians, in order to allow him to be overthrown by the Assyrians, is
very improbable. Whether Ctesias ascribed to Semiramis the building of
Egbatana is also very doubtful; that he mentioned her stay in Media, and
ascribed to her the building of the road over the Zagrus and the
planting of gardens, follows from the quotation of Stephanus given
above. Ctesias has not ascribed to her the hanging gardens at Babylon.
Diodorus makes them the work of a later Syrian king, whom Ctesias would
certainly have called king of Assyria. Ctesias too can hardly have
ascribed to her the obelisk at Babylon (Diod. 2, 11); so at least the
addition of Diodorus, "that it belonged to the seven wonders," seems to
me to prove.

[17] "Catasterism." c. 38; Hygin. "Astronom." 2, 41. In Diodorus
Aphrodite, enraged by a maiden, Derceto, imbues her with a fierce
passion for a youth. In shame she slays the youth, exposes the child,
throws herself into the lake of Ascalon, and is changed into a fish. For
this reason the image of the goddess Derceto at Ascalon has the face of
a woman and the body of a fish (2, 4).

[18] Diod. 2, 17, _init._

[19] Georg. Syncell. p. 119, ed. Bonn.

[20] Diod. 1, 56.

[21] "De Iside," c. 24.

[22] Diod. 2, 4, _init._

[23] Herod. 1, 7.

[24] Lucian, "De Syria dea," c. 33, 14, 38. The name Semiramoth is found
1 Chronicles xv. 18, 20; xvi. 5; 2, xvii. 8.

[25] Ctesias in Strabo, p. 785.

[26] Agathias, 2, 24.



CHAPTER II.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ASSYRIAN KINGDOM.


To relegate Ninus and Semiramis with all their works and deeds to the
realm of fiction may appear to be a startling step, going beyond the
limits of a prudent criticism. Does not Ctesias state accurately the
years of the reigns: Ninus reigned, according to his statement, 52
years; Semiramis was 62 years old, and reigned 42 years? Do not the
chronographers assure us that in Ctesias the successors of Ninus and
Semiramis, from Ninyas to Sardanapalus, the last ruler over Assyria, 34
kings, were enumerated, and the length of their reigns accurately given,
and has not Eusebius actually preserved this list? Since, at the same
time, we find out, through Diodorus and the chronographers, as well as
through this list, that Ctesias fixed the continuance of the Assyrian
kingdom at more than 1300 years, or more exactly at 1306, and the fall
of the kingdom took place according to his reckoning in the year 883
B.C., Ninus must on these dates have ascended the throne in the year
2189 B.C. (883 + 1306), and the reign of Semiramis commenced in 2137
B.C. (883 + 1254). Eusebius himself puts the accession of Ninus at 2057
B.C.[27]

If in spite of these accurate statements we persist in refusing to give
credit to Ctesias, Berosus remains, who, according to the evidence of
the chronographers, dealt with the rule of Semiramis over Assyria. After
mentioning the dynasty of the Medes which reigned over Babylon from
2458-2224 B.C., the dynasty of the Elamites (2224-1976 B.C.), of the
Chaldæans (1976-1518 B.C.), and of the Arabs, who are said to have
reigned over Babylon from the year 1518 to the year 1273 B.C., Berosus
mentioned the rule of Semiramis over the Assyrians. "After this," so we
find it in Polyhistor, "Berosus enumerates the names of 45 kings
separately, and allotted to them 526 years. After them there was a king
of the Chaldæans named Phul, and after him Sennacherib, the king of the
Assyrians, whose son, Esarhaddon, then reigned in his place."[28] If we
take these 45 kings for kings of Assyria, who ruled over this kingdom
after Semiramis, then, by allowing the supplements of these series of
kings previously mentioned (I. 247), the era of these 45 kings will
begin in the year 1273 B.C. and end in 747 B.C., and the date of
Semiramis will fall immediately before the year 1273 B.C. In the view of
Herodotus, Ninus was at the head of the Assyrian empire, but not
Semiramis. As already observed (p. 14), he mentions Semiramis as a queen
of Babylon, and does not place her higher than the middle of the seventh
century B.C.;[29] but he regards the dominion of Assyria over Upper Asia
as commencing far earlier. Before the Persians the Medes ruled over Asia
for 156 years; before them the Assyrians ruled for 520 years; the Medes
were the first of the subject nations who rebelled against the
Assyrians; the rest of the nations followed their example. As the Median
empire fell before the attack of the Persians in 558 B.C., the
beginning of the Median empire would fall in the year 714 B.C. (558 +
156), and consequently the beginning of the Assyrian kingdom in the year
1234 B.C. (714 + 520), _i.e._ four or five decades later than Berosus
puts the death of Semiramis. For the date of the beginning of the
Assyrian dominion Herodotus and Berosus would thus be nearly in
agreement. It has been assumed that the 45 kings whom the latter
represents as following Semiramis were kings of Assyria, who ruled at
the same time over Babylon, and were thus regarded as a Babylonian
dynasty. This agreement would be the more definite if it could be
supposed that, according to the view of Herodotus, the beginning of the
156 years which he gives to the Median empire was separated by an
interval of some decades from the date of their liberation from the
power of the Assyrians. In this case the empire of the Assyrians over
Asia would not have commenced very long before the year 1273 B.C., and
would have extended from that date over Babylonia. In complete
contradiction to this are the statements of Ctesias, which carry us back
beyond 2000 B.C. for the commencement of the Assyrian empire. They
cannot be brought into harmony with the statements of Herodotus, even if
the time allotted by Ctesias to the Assyrian empire (1306 years) is
reckoned from the established date of the conquest of Nineveh by the
Medes and Babylonians (607 B.C.). The result of such a calculation (607
+ 1306) carries us back to 1913 B.C., a date far higher than Herodotus
and Berosus give.

Is it possible in any other way to approach more closely to the
beginning of the Assyrian kingdom, the date of its foundation, or the
commencement of its conquests? We have already seen how the Pharaohs of
Egypt, after driving out the shepherds in the sixteenth and fifteenth
centuries B.C., reduced Syria to subjection; how the first and third
Tuthmosis, the second and third Amenophis, forced their way beyond Syria
to Naharina. The land of Naharina, in the inscriptions of these kings,
was certainly not the Aram Naharaim, the high land between the Euphrates
and Tigris, in the sense of the books of the Hebrews. It was not
Mesopotamia, but simply "the land of the stream (Nahar)." For the
Hebrews also Nahar, _i.e._ river, means simply the Euphrates. It has
been already shown that the arms of the Egyptians hardly went beyond the
Chaboras to the east; and if the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III.
represent him as receiving on his sixth campaign against the Syrians,
_i.e._ about the year 1584 B.C., the tribute of Urn Assuru, _i.e._ of
the chieftain of Asshur, consisting of 50 minæ of lapis-lazuli; if these
inscriptions in the year 1579 once more mention among the tribute of the
Syrians the tribute of this prince in lapis-lazuli, cedar-trunks, and
other wood, it is still uncertain whether the chief of the Assyrians is
to be understood by this prince. Had Tuthmosis III. really reached and
crossed the Tigris, were Assuru Assyria, then from the description of
this prince, and the payment of tribute in lapis-lazuli and
cedar-trunks, we could draw the conclusion that Assyria in the first
half of the sixteenth century B.C. was still in the commencement of its
civilisation, whereas we found above that as early as the beginning of
the twentieth century B.C. Babylonia was united into a mighty kingdom,
and had made considerable advance in the development of her
civilisation.

Our hypothesis was that the Semites, who took possession of the valley
of the Euphrates, were immigrants from the south, from Arabia, and that
this new population forced its way by successive steps up the
river-valley. We were able to establish the fact that the earliest
governments among the immigrants were formed on the lower course of the
Euphrates, and that the centre of the state in these regions slowly
moved upwards towards Babel. We found, further, that Semitic tribes went
in this direction as far as the southern slope of the Armenian
table-land.[30] In this way the region on the Tigris, afterwards called
Assyria, was reached and peopled by the Semites. With the Hebrews
Asshur, beside Arphaxad and Aram, beside Elam and Lud, is the seed of
Shem. "From Shinar" (_i.e._ from Babylonia), we are told in Genesis,
"Asshur went forth and built Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Chalah, and
Resen between Nineveh and Chalah, which is the great city." There is no
reason to call in question this statement that Assyria was peopled and
civilised from Babylonia. Language, writing, and religion exhibit the
closest relationship and agreement between Babylonia and Assyria.

On the west bank of the Tigris, some miles above the confluence of the
Lesser Zab, at the foot of a ridge of hills, lie the remains of an
ancient city. The stamps on the tiles of these ruins tell us that the
name of the city was Asshur. Tiglath Pilesar, a king of Assyria, the
first of the name, whose reign, though we cannot fix the date precisely,
may certainly be put about the year 1110 B.C., narrates in his
inscriptions: The temple of the gods Anu and Bin, which Samsi-Bin, the
son of Ismidagon, built at Asshur 641 years previously, had fallen down;
King Assur-dayan had caused the ruins to be removed without rebuilding
it. For 60 years the foundations remained untouched; he, Tiglath
Pilesar, restored this ancient sanctuary. Tiles from this ruin on the
Tigris, from this city of Asshur, establish also the fact that a prince
named Samsi-Bin, son of Ismidagon, once ruled and built in this city of
Asshur. They have the inscription: "Samsi-Bin, the son of Ismidagon,
built the temple of the god Asshur."[31] Hence Samsi-Bin built temples
in the city of Asshur to the god Asshur as well as to the gods Anu and
Bin. His date falls, according as the 60 years of the inscription of
Tiglath Pilesar, during which the temple of Anu and Bin was not in
existence, are added to the space of 641 years or included in them,
either about the year 1800 or 1740 B.C.; the date of his father
Ismidagon about the year 1830 or 1770 B.C.

In any case it is clear that a place of the name of Asshur, the site of
which is marked by the ruins of Kileh-Shergat, was inhabited about the
year 1800 B.C., and that about this time sanctuaries were raised in it.
The name of the place was taken from the god specially worshipped there.
As Babel (Gate of El) was named after the god El, Asshur was named after
the god of that name. The city was Asshur's city, the land Asshur's
land. Beside the city of Asshur, about 75 miles up the Tigris, there
must have been at the time indicated a second place of the name of Ninua
(Nineveh), the site of which is marked by the ruins of Kuyundshik and
Nebbi Yunus (opposite Mosul), since, according to the statement of
Shalmanesar I., king of Assyria, Samsi-Bin built another temple here to
the goddess Istar.[32] Ismidagon, as well as Samsi-Bin, is called in the
inscription of Tiglath Pilesar I. "Patis of Asshur." The meaning of this
title is not quite clear; the word is said to mean viceroy. If by this
title a vice-royalty over the land of Asshur is meant, we may assume
that Assyria was a colony of Babylonia--that it was under the supremacy
of the kings of Babylon, and ruled by their viceroys. But since at a
later period princes of Assyria called themselves "Patis of Asshur," as
well as "kings of Asshur," the title may be explained as meaning that
the old princes of Assyria called themselves viceroys of the god of the
land, of the god Asshur. Moreover, it would be strange that a colony of
Babylonia, which was under the supremacy of that country, should make
its protecting god a deity different from that worshipped in Babylonia.

From this evidence we may assume that about the year 1800 B.C. a state
named Asshur grew up between the Tigris and the Lesser Zab. This state
must have passed beyond the lower stages of civilisation at the time
when the princes erected temples to their gods at more than one chief
place in their dominions, when they could busy themselves with buildings
in honour of the gods after the example of the ancient princes of Erech
and Nipur, of Hammurabi, and his successors at Babylon. With this result
the statements in the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III do not entirely
agree. Two hundred years after the time of Ismidagon and Samsi-Bin they
speak only of the chief of Asshur, and of tribute in lapis-lazuli and
tree-trunks; but this divergence is not sufficient to make us affirm
with certainty that the "Assuru" of Tuthmosis has no reference whatever
to Assyria. If we were able to place the earliest formation of a state
on the Lower Euphrates about the year 2500 B.C., the beginnings of
Assyria, according to the inferences to be drawn from the evidence of
the first Tiglath Pilesar and the tiles of Kileh-Shergat, could not be
placed later than the year 2000 B.C.

Beside Ismidagon and Samsi-Bin, the inscriptions of Tiglath Pilesar and
the tiles of the ruins of Kileh-Shergat mention four or five other names
of princes who belong to the early centuries of the Assyrian empire, but
for whom we cannot fix any precise place. The date of the two kings, who
on Assyrian tablets are the contemporaries of Binsumnasir of Babylon,
Assur-nirar, and Nabudan, could not have been fixed with certainty if
other inscriptions had not made us acquainted with the princes who ruled
over Assyria in succession from 1460--1280 B.C.[33] From these we may
assume that Assur-nirar and Nabudan must have reigned before this series
of princes, _i.e._ before 1460 B.C., from which it further follows that
from about the year 1500 B.C. onwards Assyria was in any case an
independent state beside Babylon. We found above that the treaty which
Assur-bil-nisi, king of Assyria, concluded about the year 1450 B.C. with
Karaindas, king of Babylon, for fixing the boundaries, must have been
preceded by hostile movements on the part of both kingdoms. We saw that
Assur-bil-nisi's successor, Busur-Assur, concluded a treaty with the
same object with Purnapuryas of Babylon, and that Assur-u-ballit, who
succeeded Busur-Assur on the throne of Assyria, gave his daughter in
marriage to Purnapuryas. In order to avenge the murder of Karachardas,
the son of Purnapuryas by this marriage, who succeeded his father on the
throne of Babylon, Assur-u-ballit invaded Babylonia and placed
Kurigalzu, another son of Purnapuryas, on the throne. We might assume
that about this time, _i.e._ about 1400 B.C., the borders of Assyria
and Babylonia touched each other in the neighbourhood of the modern
Aker-Kuf, the ancient Dur-Kurigalzu.[34] Assur-u-ballit, who restored
the temple of Istar at Nineveh which Samsi-Bin had built, was followed
by Pudiel, Bel-nirar, and Bin-nirar.[35] The last tells us, on a stone
of Kileh-Shergat, that Assur-u-ballit conquered the land of Subari,
Bel-nirar the army of Kassi, that Pudiel subjugated all the land as far
as the distant border of Guti; he himself overcame the armies of Kassi,
Guti, Lulumi and Subari; the road to the temple of the god Asshur, his
lord, which had fallen down, he restored with earth and tiles, and set
up his tablet with his name, "on the twentieth day of the month
Muhurili, in the year of Salmanurris."[36]

Bin-nirar's son and successor was Shalmanesar I., who ascended the
throne of Assyria about 1340 B.C. We learnt above from Genesis, that
"Asshur built the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Resen and Chalah."
Assur-nasirpal, who ruled over Assyria more than 400 years after
Shalmanesar I., tells us that "Shalmanesar the mighty, who lived before
him, founded the ancient city of Chalah."[37] It is thus clear that
Assyria before the year 1300 B.C. obtained a third residence in addition
to the cities of Asshur and Nineveh. Like Asshur and Nineveh, it lay on
the banks of the Tigris, about 50 miles to the north of Asshur, and 25
to the south of Nineveh. It was not, however, like Asshur, situated on
the western bank of the river, but on the eastern, like Nineveh, a
little above the junction of the Upper Zab, in a position protected by
both rivers, and thus far more secure than Asshur. Shalmanesar also
built in both the old residences of Asshur and Nineveh. Tiles of
Kileh-Shergat bear the stamp, "Palace of Shalmanesar, son of king
Bin-nirar."[38] His buildings in Nineveh are certified by an
inscription, in which Shalmanesar says: "The temple of Istar, which
Samsi-Bin, the prince who was before me, built, and which my predecessor
Assur-u-ballit restored, had fallen into decay in the course of time. I
built it up again from the ground to the roof. The prince who comes
after me and sees my cylinder (p. 37), and sets it again in its place,
as I have set the cylinder of Assur-u-ballit in its place, him may Istar
bless; but him who destroys my monument may Istar curse and root his
name and race out of the land."[39] In the same inscription Shalmanesar
calls himself conqueror of Niri, Lulumi and Musri, districts for
which--at any rate for the two last--we shall have to look in the
neighbourhood of Nineveh, in the chain of the Zagrus. The son of
Shalmanesar I. was Tiglath Adar; he completed the restoration of the
temple of Istar at Nineveh, and fought with such success against
Nazimurdas of Babylon that he placed on his seal this inscription:
"Tiglath Adar, king of the nations, son of Shalmanesar, king of Asshur,
has conquered the land of Kardunias." But he afterwards lost this very
seal to the Babylonians, who placed it as a trophy in the treasure-house
of Babylon (about 1300 B.C.).[40]

These are the beginnings of the Assyrian kingdom according to the
indications of the monuments. After the series of kings from
Assur-bil-nisi to Tiglath Adar, whose dates come down from about the
year 1460 to about 1280 B.C., there is a gap in our knowledge of some
decades. After this we hear at first of new struggles with Babylon. In
these Belkudurussur of Assyria (about 1220 B.C.) lost his life. The
Babylonians, led by their king, Binpaliddin, invaded Assyria with a
numerous army in order to take the city of Asshur. But Adarpalbitkur,
the successor of Belkudurussur, succeeded in forcing them to retire to
Babylon.[41] Of Adarpalbitkur his fourth successor proudly declares that
"he was the protector of the might of Asshur, that he put an end to his
weakness in his land, that he arranged well the army of the land of
Assyria."[42] His son, Assur-dayan (about 1180 B.C.) was able to remove
the war again into the land of Babylonia; he claims to have carried the
booty from three places in Babylonia--Zab, Irriya and Agarsalu--to
Assyria.[43] It was he who had carried away the ruins of the fallen
temple which Samsi-Bin had built at Asshur to Anu and Bin, but had not
erected it again. According to the words of his great-grandson, "he
carried the exalted sceptre, and prospered the nation of Bel; the work
of his hands and the gifts of his fingers pleased the great gods; he
attained great age and long life."[44] Of Assur-dayan's son and
successor, Mutakkil-Nebu (about 1160 B.C.), we only find that "Asshur,
the great lord, raised him to the throne, and upheld him in the
constancy of his heart."[45] Mutakkil-Nebu's son, Assur-ris-ilim
(between 1150 and 1130 B.C.) had to undergo severe struggles against the
Babylonians, who repeatedly invaded Assyria under Nebuchadnezzar I. At
length Assur-ris-ilim succeeded in repulsing Nebuchadnezzar, and took
from him 40 (50) chariots of war with a banner. Tiglath Pilesar, the son
of Assur-ris-ilim, says of the deeds of his father, doubtless with
extreme exaggeration, "he conquered the lands of the enemy, and
subjugated all the hostile lands."[46]

The tiles of a heap of ruins at Asshur bear the inscription, "Tiglath
Pilesar, the favoured of Asshur, has built and set up the temple of his
lord the god Bin." At the four corners of the foundation walls of this
building were discovered four octagonal cylinders of clay, about a foot
and a half in height, on the inscriptions of which this king repeats the
narrative of the deeds of the first five years of his life. He restored
the royal dwelling-places and the fortresses of the land which were in a
bad condition, and planted again the forests of the land of Asshur; he
renovated the habitation of the gods, the temples of Istar and Bilit in
the city of Asshur. At the beginning of his reign Anu and Bin, his
lords, had bidden him set up again the temple which Samsi-Bin had once
built for them. This he accomplished; he caused the two great deities to
enter into their high dwelling-places and rejoiced the heart of their
great divinity. "May Anu and Bin grant me prosperity for ever, may they
bless the work of my hands, may they hear my prayer and lead me to
victory in war and in fight, may they subdue to my dominion all the
lands which rise up against me, the rebellious nations and the princes,
my rivals, may they accept my sacrificial offerings for the continuance
and increase of my race; may it be the will of Asshur and the great gods
to establish my race as firm as the mountains to the remotest days."[47]

These cylinders tell us of the campaign of Tiglath Pilesar. First he
defeated 20,000 Moschi (Muskai) and their five kings. He marched against
the land of Kummukh, which rebelled against him; even that part of the
inhabitants which fled into a city beyond the Tigris which they had
garrisoned he overcame after crossing the Tigris. He also conquered the
people of Kurkhië (Kirkhië) who came to their help; he drove them into
the Tigris and the river Nami, and took prisoner in the battle
Kiliantaru, whom they had made their king; he conquered the land of
Kummukh throughout its whole extent and incorporated it with
Assyria.[48] After this he marched against the land of Kurkhië; next he
crossed the Lower Zab and overcame two districts there. Then he turned
against the princes of the land of Nairi (he puts the number of these at
23); these, and the princes who came from the upper sea to aid them, he
conquered, carried off their flocks, destroyed their cities, and imposed
on them a tribute of 1200 horses and 2000 oxen. These battles in the
north were followed by a campaign in the west. He invaded the land of
Aram, which knew not the god Asshur, his lord;[49] he marched against
the city of Karkamis, in the land of the Chatti; he defeated their
warriors on the east of the Euphrates; he crossed the Euphrates in
pursuit of the fugitives and there destroyed six cities. Immediately
after this the king marched again to the East, against the lands of
Khumani and Musri and imposed tribute upon them.

"Two-and-forty lands and their princes," so the cylinders inform us,
"from the banks of the Lower Zab as far as the bank of the Euphrates,
the land of the Chatti, and the upper sea of the setting sun, all these
my hand has reached since my accession; one after the other I have
subjugated them; I have received hostages from them and laid tribute
upon them."[50] "This temple of Anu and Bin and these towers," so the
inscription of the cylinders concludes, "will grow old; he who in the
succession of the days shall be king in my place at a remote time, may
he restore them and place his name beside mine, then will Anu and Bin
grant to him prosperity, joy and success in his undertakings. But he who
hides my tablets, and erases or destroys them, or puts his name in the
place of mine, him will Anu and Bin curse, his throne will they bring
down, and break the power of his dominion, and cause his army to flee;
Bin will devote his land to destruction, and will spread over it
poverty, hunger, sickness, and death, and destroy his name and his race
from the earth. On the twenty-ninth day of Kisallu, in the year of
In-iliya-allik."[51]

In memory of his achievements against the land of Nairi, Tiglath Pilesar
also set up a special monument. On a rock at one of the sources of the
Eastern Tigris near Karkar we see his image hewn in relief. He wears the
tall cap or _kidaris_; the hair and beard are long and curled; the robe
falls in deep folds to the ancles. The inscription runs: "By the grace
of Asshur, Samas and Bin, the great gods, my lords, I, Tiglath Pilesar,
am ruler from the great sea of the west land (_mat acharri_) to the lake
of the land of Nairi. Three times I have marched to the land of
Nairi."[52] The first subjugation of this district could not, therefore,
have been complete.

As this monument proves, Tiglath Pilesar's campaigns could not have
ended with the fifth year of his reign. From the synchronistic tablets
we can ascertain that he had to undergo severe struggles with the
Babylonians. Marduk-nadin-akh of Babylon invaded Assyria, crossed the
Tigris, and the battle took place on the Lower Zab. In the next year,
according to the same tablets, Tiglath Pilesar is said to have taken the
border-fortresses of Babylon, Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippara, Babili and Upi
(Opis ?).[53] However this may be, Tiglath Pilesar in the end was at a
disadvantage in his contest with the Babylonians. Sennacherib, king of
Assyria, tells us, "The gods of the city Hekali, which Marduk-nadin-akh,
king of the land of Accad, had taken in the time of Tiglath Pilesar,
king of Asshur, and carried to Babylon 418 years previously, I have
caused to be brought back again from Babylon and put up again in their
place." A Babylonian tablet from the tenth year of Marduk-nadin-akh of
Babylon appears to deal with loans on conquered Assyrian territory.[54]

When Tiglath Pilesar ascended the throne about the year 1130 B.C. the
empire of Assyria, as his inscriptions show, had not as yet made any
extensive conquests beyond the circle of the native country. The Muskai,
_i.e._ the Moschi, whom we have found on the north-western slopes of
the Armenian mountains, against whom Tiglath Pilesar first fought, had
forced their way, as the cylinders tell us, into the land of
Kummukh.[55] As the inhabitants of the land of Kummukh are conquered on
the Tigris and forced into it, while others escape over the Tigris and
defend a fortified city on the further side of the river, as the land
itself is then incorporated with Assyria, we must obviously look for it
at no great distance to the north on both shores of the Upper Tigris. We
shall hardly be in error, therefore, if we take this land to be the
district afterwards called Gumathene, on the Tigris, which Ammianus
describes as a fruitful and productive land, _i.e._ as the canton of
Amida.[56] The next conflicts of Tiglath Pilesar took place on the Lower
Zab, _i.e._ at the south-eastern border of the Assyrian country.
Further to the south, on the Zagrus, perhaps in the district of
Chalonitis, or between the Lower Zab and the Adhim, or at any rate to
the east, we must look for the land of Khumani and the land of Musri.
The image at Karkar, Tiglath Pilesar's monument of victory, gives us
information about the position of the land of Nairi. It comprises the
mountain cantons between the Eastern Tigris and the upper course of the
Great Zab, where that river traverses the land of Arrapachitis (Albak).
The lake of the land of Nairi, to which the inscription of Karkar
extends the rule of Tiglath Pilesar, and the upper sea from which
auxiliaries come to the princes of the land of Nairi, are both, no
doubt, Lake Van. The inhabitants of Nairi are not like those of the land
of Kummukh, incorporated with Assyria, they have merely to pay a
moderate tribute in horses and oxen. The campaign of Tiglath Pilesar
against Karkamis (Karchemish) proves that the dominion of Assyria before
his reign did not reach the Euphrates. He marches against the land of
Aram and has then to fight with the army of Karchemish on this side,
_i.e._ on the east side of the Euphrates; the results which he obtained
on this campaign to the west of the Euphrates he does not himself rate
very highly. We saw that in the end he remained at a disadvantage in his
contest with Babylon. On the other hand, in campaigns which took place
in years subsequent to the attempt against Karchemish, he must have
forced his way to the west far beyond the Euphrates, in order to be able
to boast on the monument at Karkar "that he ruled from the sea of Nairi
as far as the great sea of the west land," _i.e._ to the Mediterranean.
Hence we have to assume that he went forth from Karchemish westwards
almost as far as the mouth of the Orontes. We should be more accurately
informed on this matter if the fragment of an inscription on an obelisk
beside an inscription of Assurnasirpal, who reigned more than 200 years
after Tiglath Pilesar, could be referred to Tiglath Pilesar. The
fragment speaks in the third person of the booty gained in hunting by a
king, which is given in nearly the same totals as the results of Tiglath
Pilesar's hunts on his cylinders. These represent him as slaying 120
lions and capturing 800. The fragment speaks of 120 and 800 lions, of
Amsi killed in Charran on the Chabor, of Rim whom the king slew before
the land of Chatti at the foot of Mount Labnani (Lebanon), of a
crocodile (_nasukh_) which the king of Musri sent as a present. The
hunter, it is said, ruled from the city of Babylon, in the land of
Accad, as far as the land of the west (_mat acharri_).[57]

According to the inscriptions on the cylinders the land of Aram lies to
the east of the Euphrates; the city of Karchemish lies on the west bank
in the land of the Chatti. The Chatti are the Hittites of the Hebrews,
the Cheta of the Egyptians. We found that the inscriptions of Sethos and
Ramses II. extended the name of the Cheta as far as the Euphrates (I.
151, 152). But although the kingdom of the Hittites had fallen two
centuries before Tiglath Pilesar crossed the Euphrates, the name still
clung to this region, as the inscriptions of Tiglath Pilesar and his
successors prove, more especially to the region from Hamath and Damascus
as far as Lebanon. The land of the west (_mat acharri_) in the strict
sense is, of course, to the Assyrians, from their point of view, the
coast of Syria. Whatever successes Tiglath Pilesar may have gained in
this direction, they were of a transitory nature.

The first of his sons to succeed him was Assur-bel-kala, whose reign we
may fix in the years 1100-1080 B.C. With three successive kings of
Babylon, Marduk-sapik-kullat, Saduni (?), and Nebu-zikir-iskun, he came
into contact, peaceful or hostile. With the first he made a treaty of
peace, with Saduni he carried on war, with Nebu-zikir-iskun he again
concluded a peace, which fixed the borders. This was confirmed by
intermarriage;[58] Assur-bel-kala married his daughter to
Nebu-zikir-iskun, while the latter gave his daughter to Assur-bel-kala.
Of the exploits of his successor, Samsi-Bin II. (1080-1060 B.C.), a
second son of Tiglath Pilesar, we have no account.[59] We cannot
maintain with certainty whether Assur-rab-amar, of whom Shalmanesar II.
tells us that he lost two cities on the Euphrates which Tiglath Pilesar
had taken,[60] was the direct successor of Samsi-Bin.

After this, for the space of more than 100 years (1040-930), there is
again a gap in our knowledge. Not till we reach Assur-dayan II., who
ascended the throne of Assyria about the year 930 B.C., can we again
follow the series of the Assyrian kings downwards without interruption.
This Assur-dayan II. is followed by Bin-nirar II., about 900; Bin-nirar,
by Tiglath Adar II., who reigned from 889-883 B.C. He had to contend
once more against the land of Nairi, _i.e._ against the region between
the Eastern Tigris and the upper course of the Upper Zab. As a memorial
of the successes which he gained here he caused his image to be carved
beside that of Tiglath Pilesar in the rocks at Karkar (see below).
Besides this, there is in existence from his time a pass, _i.e._ a
small tablet, with the inscription, "Permission to enter into the palace
of Tiglath Adar, king of the land of Asshur, son of Bin-nirar, king of
the land of Asshur."[61]

Neither at the commencement nor in the course of the history of Assyria
do the monuments know of a king Ninus, a queen Semiramis, or of any
warlike queen of this kingdom; they do not even mention any woman as
standing independently at the head of Assyria. Once, it is true, we find
the name Semiramis in the inscriptions in the form Sammuramat.
Sammuramat was the wife of king Bin-nirar III., who ruled over Assyria
from the year 810-781 B.C. On the pedestal of two statues, which an
officer of this king, the prefect of Chalah, dedicated to the god Nebo,
the inscription is: "To Nebo, the highest lord of his lords, the
protector of Bin-nirar, king of Asshur, and protector of Sammuramat, the
wife of the palace, his lady." The name of Ninyas is quite unknown to
the monuments, and of the names of the 33 kings which Ctesias gives,
with their names and reigns as successors of Ninyas down to the
overthrow of the kingdom and Sardanapalus (p. 26),--unless we identify
the last name in the list, that of Sardanapalus, with the Assurbanipal
of the inscriptions, _i.e._ with the ruler last but one or two
according to the records,--no single one agrees with the names of the
monuments, which, moreover, give a higher total than six-and-thirty for
the reigns of the Assyrian kings. The list of Ctesias appears to have
been put together capriciously or merely invented; the lengths of the
reigns are pure imagination, and arranged according to certain
synchronisms.

Not less definite is the evidence of the monuments that the pre-eminence
of Assyria over Upper Asia cannot have commenced in the year 2189 or
1913 B.C., as Ctesias asserts, or as may be assumed from his data, nor
in 1273, as has been deduced from the statements of Berosus, nor finally
in the year 1234, according to Herodotus' statements (p. 27). Though we
are able to find only approximately the dates of the kings of Assyria,
whose names and deeds we have passed in review, the result is,
nevertheless, that the power of Assyria in the fifteenth and fourteenth
centuries did not go far beyond the native country--that her forces by
no means surpassed those of Babylon--that precisely in the thirteenth
and twelfth centuries B.C. the kingdom of Babylon was at least as strong
as that of Assyria--that even towards the close of the twelfth century
Tiglath Pilesar I. could gain no success against Babylon--that his
successors sought to establish peaceful relations with Babylonia. There
is just as little reason to maintain the period of 520 years which
Herodotus allows for the Assyrian empire over Asia. This cannot in any
case be assumed earlier than the date of Tiglath Pilesar I., who did at
least cross the Euphrates and enter Northern Syria. The beginning of
this empire would, therefore, be about 1130 B.C., not 1234 B.C. The date
also which Herodotus gives for the close of this empire (before 700
B.C.) cannot, as will be shown, be maintained. According to this datum
the decline and fall of Assyria must have began with the period in
which, as a fact, she rose to the proudest height and extended her power
to the widest extent. The period of 520 years can only be kept
artificially by reckoning it upwards from the year 607 B.C., the year of
the overthrow of the Assyrian empire; then it brings us from this date
to 1127 B.C., _i.e._ to the time of Tiglath Pilesar I. But we saw that
the conquests of Tiglath Pilesar did not extend very far, that his
successes west of the Euphrates were of a transitory nature; in no case
could a dominion of Assyria over Babylon be dated from his reign.

The complete agreement of the Assyrian and Babylonian style and
civilisation is proved most clearly by the monuments. The names of the
princes of Assyria are formed analogously to those of the Babylonians;
the names and the nature of the deities which the Assyrians and
Babylonians worship are the same. In Assyria we meet again with Anu the
god of the high heaven, Samas the sun-god, Sin the moon-god, Bin
(Ramman) the god of the thunder; of the spirits of the planets Adar, the
lord of Saturn, Nebo, the god of Mercury, and Istar, the lady of Venus,
in her double nature of destroyer and giver of fruit, reappear. There is
only one striking difference: the special protector of Assyria, Asshur,
the god of the land, stands at the head of the gods in the place of El
of the Babylonians. He it is after whom the land and the oldest
metropolis is named, whose representatives the oldest princes of Assyria
appear to have called themselves. The name of Asshur is said to mean the
good or the kind;[62] which may even on the Euphrates have been an
epithet of El, which on the Tigris became the chief name of the deity.
As the ancient princes of Ur and Erech, of Nipur and Senkereh, as the
kings of Babel--so also the kings of Assyria, as far back as our
monuments allow us to go--built temples to their gods; like them they
mark the tiles of their buildings with their names; like the kings of
Babel, they cause inscriptions to be written on cylinders, intended to
preserve the memory of their buildings and achievements, and then placed
in the masonry of their temples. The language of the inscriptions of
Assyria differs from those of the Babylonian inscriptions, as one
dialect from another; the system of writing is the same. The population
of Assyria transferred their language and writing, their religious
conceptions and modes of worship, from the Lower Euphrates to the Upper
Tigris. If the princes of Erech, Nipur and Babylon had to repel the
attacks of Elam, the Assyrian land, a region of moderate extent, lay
under the spurs of the Armenian table-land, under the ranges of the
Zagrus. The struggle against the tribes of these mountains, in the
Zagrus and in the region of the sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris,
and the stubborn resistance of these tribes appears to have strengthened
the warlike powers of the Assyrians, and these ceaseless campaigns
trained them to that military excellence which finally, after a period
of exercise which lasted for centuries, won for them the preponderance
over Mesopotamia and Syria, over Babylonia and Elam, no less than over
Egypt.

FOOTNOTES:

[27] Diod. 2, 21; Euseb. "Chron." 1, p. 56; 2, p. 11, ed. Schöne;
Syncellus, "Chron." 1, 313, 314, ed. Bonn; Brandis, "Rer. Assyr. tempor.
emend." p. 13 _seq._

[28] Euseb. "Chron." 1, p. 26, ed. Schöne.

[29] 1, 184, 187.

[30] Vol. i. 512.

[31] Ménant, "Annal." p. 18.

[32] G. Smith, "Discov." p. 249.

[33] The date of Tiglath Adar is fixed by the statement of Sennacherib
that he lost his seal to the Babylonians 600 years before Sennacherib
took Babylon, _i.e._ about the year 1300 B.C. As the series of seven
kings who reigned before Tiglath Adar is fixed, Assur-bil-nisi, the
first of these, can be placed about 1460 B.C. if we allow 20 years to
each.

[34] Vol. i. p. 262.

[35] This series, Pudiel, Bel-nirar and Bin-nirar, is established by
tiles of Kileh-Shergat, and the fact that it joins on to Assur-u-ballit,
by the tablet of Bin-nirar discovered by G. Smith, in which he calls
himself great grandson of Assur-u-ballit, grandson of Bel-nirar, and son
of Pudiel; G. Smith, "Discov." p. 244.

[36] G. Smith, "Discov." pp. 244, 245.

[37] E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 20; "Records of the
Past," 7, 17.

[38] Ménant, "Annal." p. 73.

[39] G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 249.

[40] G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 250; E. Schrader, "A. B. Keilinschriften,"
s. 294. As Sennacherib states that he brought back this seal from
Babylon after 600 years, and as Sennacherib took Babylon twice in 704
and 694 B.C., the loss of it falls either in the year 1304 or 1294 B.C.
As he brings back the Assyrian images of the gods at the second capture
(694 B.C.), the seal of Tiglath Adar may have been brought back on this
occasion.

[41] G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 250.

[42] So the passage runs according to a communication from E. Schrader.
On the reading Adarpalbitkur as against the readings Ninpalazira and
Adarpalassar, see E. Schrader, "A. B. Keilinschriften," s. 152. On what
Ménant ("Annal." p. 29) grounds the assumption that Belkudurussur was
the immediate successor of Tiglath Adar I cannot say; it would not be
chronologically impossible, but the synchronistic tablet merely informs
us that Adarpalbitkur was the successor of Belkudurussur; G. Rawlinson,
"Mon." 2, 49. Still less am I able to find any foundation for the
statement that Binpaliddin of Babylon, the opponent of Belkudurussur and
Adarpalbitkur, was a vassal-king set up by Assyria. The date of Tiglath
Pilesar I. is fixed by the Bavian inscription, which tells us that
Sennacherib at his second capture of Babylon brought back out of that
city the images of the gods lost by Tiglath Pilesar 418 years previously
(Bav. 43-50), at the period between 1130 and 1100 B.C. If he began to
reign 1130, then the five kings before him (the series from
Adarpalbitkur to Tiglath Pilesar is fixed by the cylinder of the
latter), allowing 20 years to each reign, bring us to 1230 B.C. for the
beginning of Belkudurussur. To go back further seems the more doubtful,
as Tiglath Pilesar put Assur-dayan, the third prince of this series,
only 60 years before his own time.

[43] Sayce, "Records of the Past," 3, 31; Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 31.

[44] Communication from E. Schrader.

[45] Cf. G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 251.

[46] Vol. i. p. 263; Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 32.

[47] Ménant, "Annal." pp. 47, 48.

[48] Column, 1, 62, _seqq._, 1, 89.

[49] Column, 5, 44.

[50] Column, 6, 39.

[51] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 48.

[52] Vol. i. p. 519; E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 16.

[53] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 51.

[54] Vol. i. p. 263; Bavian Inscrip. 48-50; Ménant, "Annal." pp. 52,
236. Inscription on the black basalt-stone in Oppert et Ménant,
"Documents juridiques," p. 98. Is the name of the witness (col. 2, 27),
Sar-babil-assur-issu (p. 115), correctly explained by "The king of Babel
has conquered Asshur"?

[55] Col. 1, 62.

[56] Ammian. Marcell. 18, 9.

[57] Araziki cannot be taken for Aradus, the name of which city on the
obelisk and in the inscriptions of Assurnasirpal, Shalmanesar, and
elsewhere is Arvadu.

[58] Sayce, "Records," 3, 33; Ménant, "Annal." p. 53; "Babylone," pp.
129, 130.

[59] According to G. Smith ("Discov." p. 91, 252) this Samsi-Bin II.
restored the temple of Istar at Nineveh which Samsi-Bin I. had built
(above, p. 3).

[60] Inscription of Kurkh, "Records of the Past," 3, 93; Ménant,
"Annal." p. 55.

[61] Ménant, "Annal." p. 63.

[62] E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 7.



CHAPTER III.

THE NAVIGATION AND COLONIES OF THE PHENICIANS.


At the time when Babylonia, on the banks of the Euphrates, flourished
under the successors of Hammurabi in an ancient and peculiar
civilisation, and Assyria was struggling upwards beside Babylonia on the
banks of the Tigris, strengthening her military power in the Armenian
mountains and the ranges of the Zagrus, and already beginning to try her
strength in more distant campaigns, a Semitic tribe succeeded in rising
into eminence in the West also, in winning and exerting a deep-reaching
influence on distant and extensive lands. It was a district of the most
moderate extent from which this influence proceeded, its dominion was of
a different kind from that of the Babylonians and Assyrians; it grew up
on an element which elsewhere appeared not a favourite with the Semites,
and sought its points of support in settlements on distant islands and
coasts. By this tribe the sea was actively traversed and with
ever-increasing boldness; by circumspection, by skill, by tough
endurance and brave ventures it succeeded in extending its dominion in
ever-widening circles, and making the sea the instrument of its wealth
and the bearer of its power.

On the coasts of Syria were settled the tribes of the Arvadites,
Giblites and Sidonians (I. 344). Their land extended from the mouth of
the Eleutherus (Nahr el Kebir) in the north to the promontory of Carmel
in the south. A narrow strip of coast under Mount Lebanon, from 10 to 15
miles in breadth and some 150 miles in length, was all that they
possessed. Richly watered by the streams sent down from Lebanon to the
sea, the small plains formed round their mouths and separated by the
spurs of the mountain ranges are of the most abundant fertility. The
Eleutherus is followed to the south by the Adonis (Nahr el Ibrahim), and
this by the Lycus (Nahr el Kelb); then follow the Tamyras (Nahr Damur),
the Bostrenus (Nahr el Auli[63]), the Belus (the Sihor Libnath of the
Hebrews, now Nahr Naman), and lastly the Kishon. Above the shore rise
hills clothed with date-palms, vines and olives; higher up on Lebanon
splendid mountain pastures spread out, and above these we come to the
vast forests (I. 338) which provide shade in the glowing heat, as
Tacitus says,[64] and to the bright snow-fields which crown the summit
of Lebanon. Ammianus speaks of the region under Lebanon as full of
pleasantness and beauty. The upper slopes of the mountain furnish
pasture and forests; in the rocks are copper and iron. The high
mountain-range, which sharply divided the inhabitants of the coast from
the interior (at a much later time, even after the improvements of the
Roman Cæsars, there were, as there are now, nothing but mule-tracks
across Lebanon[65]), lay behind the inhabitants of the coast, and before
them lay the sea. At an early period they must have become familiar with
that element. The name of the tribe which the Hebrew Scriptures call the
"first-born of Canaan" means "fishermen." The places on the coast found
the sea the easiest means of communication. Thus the sea, so rich in
islands, the long but proportionately narrow basin which lay before the
Sidonians, Giblites and Arvadites, would soon attract to longer voyages
the fishermen and navigators of the coast.

We found that the beginning of civilisation in Canaan could not be
placed later than about the year 2500 B.C., and we must therefore allow
a considerable antiquity to the cities of the Sidonians, Giblites,
Arvadites, Zemarites and Arkites. The settlement on the site of Sidon
was founded, no doubt, before the year 2000 B.C., and that on the site
of Byblus cannot certainly be placed later than this period.[66] The
campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and the land of the
Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds could not leave these
cities unmoved. If the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is
Zemar (Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the
territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in his sixth
campaign (about the year 1580 B.C.); if Arkatu is Arka, south of Aradus,
this place must have been destroyed in his fifteenth campaign (about the
year 1570 B.C.). Sethos I. (1440-1400 B.C.) subdued the land of Limanon
(_i.e._ the region of Lebanon), and caused cedars to be felled there.
One of his inscriptions mentions Zor, _i.e._ Tyre, among the cities
conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses II., also
forced his way in the first decades of the fourteenth century as far as
the coasts of the Phenicians. At the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between
Sidon and Berytus, the rocks on the coast display the memorial which he
caused to be set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour
of the successes obtained in this region.[67] In the fifth year of his
reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta' defeats the king of Arathu in
the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and Ramses III. about the
year 1310 B.C., mentions beside the Cheta who attack Egypt the people of
Arathu, by which name, in the one case as in the other, may be meant the
warriors of Aradus.[68] If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows,
from the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of
Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the Hittites had
risen about the middle of the fifteenth century B.C., and which it
maintained to the end of the fourteenth,[69] the Phenician cities had
assumed an independent position. The successes of the Pharaohs in Syria
come to an end in the first decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt
makes peace and enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house
of the Cheta; the Syrians obtain even the preponderance against Egypt
(I. 152), to which Ramses III. towards the end of the fourteenth century
was first able to oppose a successful defence.

The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which succumbed to the
attack of the Amorites (I. 348) soon after the year 1300 B.C., must have
had a reaction on the cities of the Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must
have been driven to the coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the
middle of the thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who
broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of the Hebrews
on the mountains of the Amorites, must again have thrown the vanquished,
_i.e._ the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast.

With this retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to
the coast is connected the movement which from this period emanates
from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed towards the islands
of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is true that on this subject only
the most scanty statements and traces, only the most legendary
traditions have come down to us, so that we can ascertain these advances
only in the most wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off
the coast of Phoenicia lies the island of Cyprus. On the southern coast
of this island, which looked towards Phoenicia, stood the city of
Citium, Kith and Chith in the inscriptions of the Phenicians, and
apparently Kittii in those of the Assyrians. Sidonian coins describe
Citium as a daughter of Sidon.[70] After this city the whole island is
known among the Semites as Kittim and Chittim; this name is even used in
a wider sense for all the islands of the Mediterranean.[71] The western
writers state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had conquered
and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium belonged to
Belus.[72] The victorious Belus is the Baal of the Phenicians. The date
of the Trojan war is of no importance for the settlement of the
Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement is found in Virgil only. More
important is the fact that the settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform
writing to Cyprus. This became so firmly rooted in use that even the
Greeks, who set foot on the island at a far later time, scarcely before
the end of the ninth century, adopted this writing, which here meanwhile
had gone through a peculiar development, and had become a kind of
syllabic-writing, and used it on coins and in inscriptions even in the
fifth century B.C.[73] The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must
therefore have taken place before the time in which the alphabetic
writing, _i.e._ the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in
Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B.C. How long before this
time the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus took place can, perhaps,
be measured by the fact that the Cyprian alphabet is a simplification of
the old Babylonian cuneiform writing. The simplified form would
undoubtedly have been driven out by the far more convenient alphabetic
writing of the Phenicians if the Cyprian writing had not become fixed in
use in this island before the rise of the alphabetic writing. Further,
since the Phenicians, as we shall see, set foot on the coast of Hellas
from about the year 1200 B.C. onwards, we must place the foundation of
the colonies on the coasts nearest them, the settlement in Cyprus,
before this date, about the middle of the thirteenth century B.C.

What population the Phenicians found on Cyprus it is not possible to
discover. Herodotus tells us that the first inhabitants of the island
were Ethiopians, according to the statements of the Cyprians. It is
beyond a doubt that not Citium only, but the greater part of the cities
of the island were founded by the Phenicians, and that the Phenician
element became the ruling element of the whole island.[74] It is Belus
who is said to have conquered Cyprus, and to whom the city of Citium is
said to belong; _i.e._ Citium worshipped the god Baal. At Amathus, to
the west of Citium, on the south coast of the island, which was called
the oldest city on Cyprus, and which nevertheless bears a distinctly
Semitic name (Hamath), Adonis and Ashera-Astarte were worshipped,[75]
and these deities had also one of their oldest and most honoured seats
of worship at Paphos (Pappa in the inscriptions), on the west coast. The
Homeric poems represent Aphrodite as hastening to her altar at Paphos in
Cyprus. Pausanias observes that the Aphrodite of Cyprus was a warlike
Aphrodite,[76] and as the daughters of the Cyprians surrendered
themselves to the foreign seamen in honour of this goddess,[77] it was
the Astarte-Ashera of the Phenicians who was worshipped at Amathus and
Paphos. The Zeus of the Cyprian city Salamis (Sillumi in the
inscriptions of the Assyrians), to whom, according to the evidence of
western writers, human sacrifices were offered, can only be Baal Moloch,
the evil sun-god of the Phenicians. In the beginning of the tenth
century B.C. the cities of Cyprus stood under the supremacy of the king
of Tyre.[78] The island was of extraordinary fertility. The forests
furnished wood for ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of
the metal which has obtained the name of copper from this island.[79]
Hence it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening of
the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later, period.

Following Zeno of Rhodes, who wrote the history of his home in the first
half of the second century B.C.,[80] Diodorus tells us: The king of the
Phenicians, Agenor, bade his son Cadmus seek his sister Europa,[81] who
had disappeared, and bring back the maiden, or not return himself to
Phoenicia. Overtaken by a violent storm, Cadmus vowed a shrine to
Poseidon. He was saved, and landed on the island of Rhodes, where the
inhabitants worshipped before all other gods the sun, who had here
begotten seven sons and among them Makar. Cadmus set up a temple in
Rhodes to Poseidon, as he had vowed to do, and left behind Phenicians to
keep up the service; but in the temple which belonged to Athena at
Cnidus in Rhodes he dedicated a work of art, an iron bowl, which bore an
inscription in Phenician letters, the oldest inscription which came from
Phoenicia to the Hellenes. From Rhodes Cadmus came to Samothrace, and
there married Harmonia. The gods celebrated this first marriage by
bringing gifts, and blessing the married pair to the tones of heavenly
music.[82]

Ephorus says that Cadmus carried off Harmonia while sailing past
Samothrace, and hence in that island search was still made for Harmonia
at the festivals.[83] Herodotus informs us that Cadmus of Tyre, the son
of Agenor, in his search for Europa, landed on the island of Thera,
which was then called Callisto, and there left behind some Phenicians,
either because the land pleased him or for some other reason. These
Phenicians inhabited the island for eight generations before Theras
landed there from Lacedæmon. The rest went to the island of Thasos and
there built a temple to Heracles, which he had himself seen, and the
city of Thasos. This took place five generations before Heracles the son
of Amphitryon was born. After that Cadmus came to the land now called
Boeotia, and the Phenicians who were with him inhabited the land and
taught the Hellenes many things, among others the use of writing,
"which as it seems to me the Hellenes did not possess before. They
learnt this writing, as it was used by the Phenicians; in the course of
time the form of the letters changed with the language. From these
Phenicians the Ionians, among whom they dwelt, learnt the letters,
altered their form a little, and extended their use. As was right, they
called them Phenician letters, since the Phenicians had brought them
into Greece. I have myself seen inscriptions in Cadmeian letters (_i.e._
from the time of Cadmus) in the temple of Ismenian Apollo at
Thebes."[84] According to the narrative of Hellanicus, Cadmus received
an oracle, bidding him follow the cow which bore on her back the sign of
the full moon, and found a city where she lay down. Cadmus carried out
the command, and when the cow lay down wearied, where Thebes now stands,
Cadmus built there the Cadmeia (the citadel of Thebes).[85] According to
the statement of Pherecydes Cadmus also built the city of Thebes.[86]
With Hecatæus of Miletus Cadmus passes as the discoverer of letters;
according to others he also discovered the making of iron armour and the
art of mining.[87]

The direction of the Phenician settlements, which proceeds in the Ægean
sea from S.E. to N.W., cannot be mistaken in these legends. First
Rhodes, then the Cyclades, then the islands on the Thracian coast,
Samothrace and Thasos, were colonised; and at length, on the strait of
Euboea, the mainland of Hellas was trodden by the Phenicians, who are
said to have gained precisely from this point a deep-reaching influence
over the Hellenes. The legend of Cadmus goes far back among the Greeks.
In the Homeric poems the inhabitants of Thebes are "Cadmeians." The
Thebaid praised "the divine wisdom of Cadmus;" in the poems of Hesiod he
leads home Harmonia, "the daughter of Ares and Aphrodite," and Pindar
describes how the Muses sang for "the divine Cadmus, the wealthiest of
mortals, when in seven-gated Thebes he led the ox-eyed Harmonia to the
bridal-bed."[88] Agenor, the father of Cadmus, is a name which the
Greeks have given to the Baal of the Phenicians.[89] Cadmus himself, the
wealthiest of mortals, who leads home the daughter of a god and a
goddess,--who celebrates the first marriage at which the gods assemble,
bring gifts and sing,--whose wife was worshipped as the protecting
goddess of Thebes,[90]--whose daughters, Ino, Leucothea and Semele, are
divine creatures, whom Zeus leads to the Elysian fields,[91]--can only
be a god. He seeks the lost Europa, and is to follow the cow which bears
the sign of the full moon. We know the moon-goddess of the Phenicians,
who bears the crescent moon and cow's horns, the horned Astarte, who
wears a cow's head, the goddess of battle and sensual desire, and thus
the daughter of Ares and Aphrodite. "The great temple of Astarte at
Sidon," so we find in the book of the Syrian goddess, "belongs, as the
Sidonians say, to Astarte; but a priest told me that it was a temple of
Europa, the sister of Cadmus." The meaning of the word Europa has been
discussed previously (I. 371). Cadmus, who seeks the lost moon-goddess,
who at length finds and overcomes her, and celebrates with her the holy
marriage, is the Baal Melkarth of the Phenicians. The death-bringing
Istar-Astarte is changed into Bilit-Ashera, into the fruit-giving
goddess;[92] the gloomy Europa changes into Harmonia, the goddess of
union, birth and increase, yet not without leaving to her descendants
deadly gifts. It is the myth of Melkarth and Astarte which the Greeks
present to us in the story of Cadmus; with this myth they have connected
the foundation of the Phenician settlements in Rhodes, Thera,
Samothrace, Thasos and Boeotia; they have changed it into the foundation
of these colonies. The name Cadmus means the man of the East; to the
Hebrews the Arabs who dwelt to the east of them were known as Beni
Kedem, _i.e._ sons of the East.[93] To the Greeks the Phenicians were
men of the East, just as to the English of the thirteenth century the
merchants of Lubeck were Easterlings. The citadel of Thebes, which the
men of the East built, preserved the name of Cadmus the son of the East,
and kept it alive among the Greeks.

What we can gather from Grecian legend is confirmed by some statements
of historians and by traces which tell of settlements of the Phenicians.
Thucydides informs us that the Phenicians colonised most of the islands
of the Ægean.[94] Diodorus has already told us with regard to Rhodes
that in the temples of this island were Phenician works of art and
inscriptions, and that in Rhodes the sun-god and the seven children
which he begot there were worshipped. In the number eight made by these
deities we can hardly fail to recognise the eight great deities of the
Phenicians; the sun-god at their head is the Baal of the Phenicians (I.
357). And if Diodorus mentions Makar among the seven sons of the sun-god
of Rhodes,--if according to others Rhodes, like Cyprus, was called
Macaria,--Makar is a Greek form of the name Melkarth. We further learn
that on the highest mountain summit in Rhodes, on Atabyris, Zeus was
worshipped under the form of a bull, and that a human sacrifice was
offered yearly to Cronos. In Atabyris we cannot fail to recognise the
Semitic Tabor, _i.e._ the height. We found above that the Phenicians
worshipped Baal under the form of a bull, and the Greeks are wont to
denote Baal Moloch by the name of Cronos.[95] These forms of worship
continued to exist even when at a later time Hellenic immigrants had got
the upper hand in Rhodes. It was the Dorians who here met with
resistance from the Phenicians at Camirus and Ialysus; they got the
upper hand, but admitted Phenician families into their midst,[96] and
continued their sacred rites. Diodorus informs us that the Phenicians
whom Cadmus had left behind on Rhodes had formed a mixed community with
the Ialysians, and that it was said that priests of their families had
performed the sacred duties.[97] Even at a later time Rhodes stood in
close relation with Phoenicia, especially with the city of Aradus.[98]
Thus it happened that the colonies which the Rhodians planted in the
seventh and sixth centuries in Sicily, Gela and Acragas, carried thither
the worship of Zeus Atarbyrius. Zeus Atarbyrius was the protecting deity
of Acragas, and human sacrifices were offered to his iron bull-image on
the citadel of that city as late as the middle of the sixth century. The
coins of Gela also exhibit a bull.[99] Of the island of Thera, Herodotus
told us that the Phenicians colonised it and inhabited it for eight
generations, _i.e._ for more than 250 years according to his
computation. Herodotus names the chief of the Phenicians whom Cadmus
left behind on Thera; others speak of the two altars which he erected
there.[100] The descendants of these Phenicians were found here by the
Greek settlers from Laconia. It is certain that even in the third
century B.C. the island worshipped the hero Phoenix.[101] Of the island
of Melos we learn that it was occupied by Phenicians of Byblus, and
named by them after their mother city;[102] the island of Oliaros near
Paros was, on the other hand, according to Heraclëides Ponticus,
occupied by the Sidonians.[103] Strabo informs us that Samothrace was
previously called Melite (Malta); from its height (the island is a
mountain rising high in the sea and covered with oak forests; the summit
reaches 5000 feet) it obtained the name of Samos, "for high places are
called Sami;"[104] as a matter of fact the stem of the word of this
meaning, like the name Melite, belongs to the Phenician language.
Ephorus has already told us (p. 56) that the Samothracians sought for
Harmonia at their festivals; Diodorus represents Cadmus as celebrating
the marriage with Harmonia on Samothrace as well as at Thebes, and we
learn from Herodotus that the Cabiri, _i.e._ the great gods of the
Phenicians, were worshipped on Samothrace; votive tablets of the island
dating from Roman times still bear the inscription, "to the great gods,"
_i.e._ to the Cabiri.[105] The islands of Imbros and Lemnos also
worshipped the Cabiri; Lemnos especially worshipped Hephæstus, who had a
leading place in this circle.[106] The island of Thasos is said,
according to the statement of the Greeks, to have been called after a
son of Phoenix, or Agenor, of the name of Thasos, who was consequently a
brother of Cadmus. Herodotus saw on the island a temple which the
Phenicians had built to Heracles, _i.e._ to Baal-Melkarth, and the mines
which they had made on the coast opposite Samothrace; "they had
overturned a great mountain in order to get gold from it."[107]
Herodotus also tells us that the temple of Aphrodite Urania on the
island of Cythera off the coast of Laconia was founded by the
Phenicians, and Pausanias calls this temple the oldest and most sacred
temple of Urania among the Hellenes; the wooden image in this temple
exhibited the goddess in armour. Aphrodite Urania is with the Greeks the
Syrian Aphrodite; if she was represented on Cythera in armour it is
clear that she was worshipped there by the Phenicians as Astarte-Ashera,
_i.e._ as the goddess of war and love.[108]

Not in the islands only, but on the coasts of Hellas also, the
Phenicians have left traces of their ancient occupation, especially in
the form of worship belonging to them. On the isthmus of Corinth
Melicertes, _i.e._ Melkarth, was worshipped as a deity protecting
navigation; Corinthian coins exhibit him on a dolphin.[109] Aphrodite,
whose shrine stood on the summit of Acrocorinthus, was worshipped by
prostitution like the Ashera-Bilit of the Phenicians. In Attica also, in
the deme of Athmonon, there was a shrine of the goddess of Cythera,
which king Porphyrion, _i.e._ the purple man, the Phenician, is said to
have founded there at a very ancient time "before king Actaeus."[110]
At Marathon, where Heracles was worshipped, and of whom the name
represents the Phenician city Marathus, rose a fountain which had the
name Makaria, _i.e._ Makar,[111] the name of Melkarth, which we have
already met with in Cyprus and Rhodes, and shall meet with again. More
plainly still do the tombs lately discovered in Hymettus at the village
of Spata attest the ancient settlement of the Phenicians on the Attic
coast. These are chambers dug deeply into the rock after the Phenician
manner, with horizontal roofs after the oldest fashion of Phenician
graves; and shafts lead down to them from the surface. The ornaments and
works in glass, ivory, gold and brass discovered here, which are made
after Babylonian and Egyptian models, can only have been brought by the
Phenicians.[112] The citadel of Thebes, as has been said, retains the
name of Cadmus; the poetry of the Greeks praised the mighty walls, the
seven gates of Thebes. We know the number seven of the great Phenician
gods; we can prove that the seven gates were dedicated to the gods of
the sun, the moon and the five planets;[113] and the Greeks have already
admitted to us that they received the wearing of armour, the art of
mining and masonry and finally their alphabet from Cadmus, _i.e._ from
the Phenicians, the Cadmeans of Thebes.

In the Homeric poems Europa, the daughter of Phoenix, bears Minos to
Zeus. The abode of Minos is the "great city" of Cnossus in Crete; he
receives each nine years the revelations of his father Zeus; for his
daughter Ariadne Dædalus adorns a dancing place at Cnossus. After his
death Minos carries in the under world the golden sceptre, and by his
decisions puts an end to the contentions of the shades.[114] His
descendants rule in Crete.[115] Later accounts tell us that Zeus in the
form of a bull carried off Europa from Phoenicia, and bore her over the
sea to Crete. The wife of her son Minos, Pasiphaë, then united with a
bull which rose out of the sea, and brought forth the Minotaur, _i.e._
the Minos-bull, a man with a bull's head.[116] The son of Minos,
Androgeos (earth-man) or Eurygyes (Broadland), was destroyed in Attica
by the bull of Marathon, who consumed him in his flames.[117] To avenge
the death of Androgeos Minos seized Megara, and blight and famine
compelled the Athenians to send, in obedience to the command of Minos,
seven boys and seven girls every ninth year to Crete, who were then
sacrificed to the Minotaur.[118] Others narrate that Hephæstus had given
Minos a man of brass, who wandered round the island and kept off foreign
vessels, and clasped to his glowing breast all who were disobedient to
Minos.[119] When Dædalus retired before the wrath of Minos from Crete to
Sicily, Minos equipped his ships to bring him back; but he there found,
according to Herodotus, a violent death.[120] The king of the Sicanians,
so Diodorus tells us, gave him a friendly welcome, and caused a warm
bath to be prepared, and then craftily suffocated him in it. The Cretans
buried their king in a double grave; they laid the bones in a secret
place, and built upon them a temple to Aphrodite, and as they could not
return to Crete because the Cretans had burned their ships, they
founded the city Minoa in Sicily; but the tomb of Minos was shown in
Crete also.[121]

A bull-god carries the daughter of Phoenix over the sea to Crete and
begets Minos; a bull who rises out of the sea begets with Pasiphaë,
_i.e._ the all-shining, the Minos-bull, to which in case of blight and
famine boys and girls are sacrificed in the number sacred among the
Semites; Androgeos succumbs to the heat of the bull of Marathon, an iron
man slays his victims by pressing them to his glowing breast. These
legends of the Greeks are unmistakable evidence of the origin of the
rites observed in Crete from the coast of Syria, of the settlement of
Phenicians in Crete. The bull-god may be the Baal Samim or the Baal
Moloch of the Phenicians; Europa has already revealed herself to us as
the moon-goddess of the Phenicians (p. 58); Pasiphaë is only another
name for the same goddess, the lady of the nightly sky, the starry
heaven. We know that on occasions of blight human sacrifices were
offered to Baal Moloch, the fiery, consuming, angry sun-god, and that
these sacrifices were burnt. Ister, a writer of the third century B.C.,
tells us quite simply; In ancient times children were sacrificed to
Cronos in Crete.[122] Before the harbour of Megara lay an island of the
name of Minoa; at the time of the summer heat before the corn was ripe,
the Athenians offered peace-offerings at the Thargelia, "in the place of
human sacrifices,"[123] that the consuming sun might not kill the
harvest. The name of the island and this custom, as well as the flames
of the bull of Marathon, prove that beside the worship of the Syrian
goddess at Athmonon, and the worship of Melkarth at Marathon, the
worship of Baal Moloch had penetrated as far as Megara and Attica.
Minos, the son of the sky-god, the husband of the moon-goddess, who from
time to time receives revelations from heaven, and even after his death
is judge of the dead, is himself a god; his proper name is Minotaur, a
name taken from the form of the bull's image and the bull's head. When
Baal Melkarth had found and overcome Astarte, after he had celebrated
with her the holy marriage, he went to rest according to the Phenician
myth in the waters of the western sea which he had warmed. The
Phenicians were of opinion that the beams of the sun when sinking there
in the far west had the most vigorous operation because of their greater
proximity.[124] Minos goes to Sicily; there in a hot bath he ends his
life, and over his resting-place rises the temple of Astarte-Ashera,
with whom he celebrated his marriage in the west, and who by this
marriage is changed from the goddess of war into the goddess of love.
The tombs of Minos in Crete, Sicily, and finally at Gades, of which the
Greeks speak, are in the meaning of the Phenician myth merely
resting-places of the god, who in the spring wakes from his slumber into
new power. The Greeks made Minos, who continued to live in the
under-world, a judge in the causes of the shades, and finally a judge of
the souls themselves. On the southern coast of Sicily, at the mouth of
the Halycus, lay the city which the Greeks called Minoa or
Heraclea-Minoa after Minos. To the Phenicians it was known as Rus
Melkarth (p. 78), a title which proves beyond doubt that Minos was one
of the names given by the Greeks to this god of the Phenicians.

The worship of Baal Moloch, which the Phenicians brought to Crete and
the shores of Megara and Attica, was not all that the Greeks personified
in the form of Minos; they did not confine themselves to one side of
the myth of Baal Melkarth. When Grecian colonists settled subsequently
in Crete they found the cities of the Phenicians full of artistic
capacity, and their life regulated by legal ordinances. Thus their
legend could place the artist Dædalus, the discoverer and pattern of all
art-industry, beside Minos, and refer to Minos the ordinances of the
cities. Zeus himself had revealed these arrangements to him. At a later
time the Greek cities of Crete traced their own institutions back to
Minos; here and there they may perhaps have followed a Phenician model,
or they may have given out that such a model had been followed. Plato
represents Minos as receiving the wise laws which he introduced into
Crete from Zeus. With Aristotle also Minos is the founder of the Cretan
laws.[125] In the circle of the Cabiri the sky-god Baal Samim was the
protector and defender of law (I. 377).

Lastly, Minos is with the Greeks at once the representation and
expression of the dominion which the Phenicians exercised in ancient
times over the islands of the Ægean sea, before the settlements of the
Greeks obtained the supremacy over the islands and the ships of the
Greeks took the lead in these waters. In the age of the Heroes, so
Herodotus tells us, Minos established the first naval empire; the
Carians, who inhabited the islands, he made his subjects; they did not
indeed pay tribute, but they had to man his ships whenever
necessary.[126] "The oldest king," says Thucydides, "of whom tradition
tells us that he possessed a fleet was Minos. He ruled over the greatest
part of the Greek sea and the Cyclades, which he colonised, driving out
the Carians and making his sons lords of the islands."[127] Minos, as a
king ruling by law, is then said to have put an end to piracy.

The Phenicians could not certainly have left out of sight the largest of
the islands, which forms the boundary of the Ægean sea; and the
traditions of the Greeks can hardly go wrong if they make this island
the centre of the naval supremacy of Minos, _i.e._ of the supremacy of
the Phenicians over the Cyclades. Crete must have been the mainstay of
their activity in the Ægean, just as Thebes was the point on the
mainland where they planted the firmest foot. The title Minoa seems to
lie at the base of the name of Minos, a title borne not only by the
island off Megara and the city in Sicily, but also by two cities in
Crete (one on the promontory of Drepanum, the other in the region of
Lyctus), by some islands near Crete, a city in Amorgus, and a city in
Siphnus. The name Minoa (from _navah_) could mean dwelling; it is
certain evidence of a Phenician settlement. But the Phenicians have left
traces of their existence in Crete beside the names Minos and Minoa and
the forms of worship denoted by them. Coins of the Cretan cities Gortys
and Phæstus exhibit a bull or a bull-headed man as a stamp. Near the
Cretan city of Cydonia the Jardanus, _i.e._ the Jordan, falls into the
sea; the name of the city Labana goes back to the Phenician word
_libanon_, i.e. "white." Cnossus, the abode of Minos in Homer and
Herodotus,[128] was previously named Kairatus; _Karath_ in Phenician
means city. Itanus, in Crete (_Ethanath_ in the Semitic form), is
expressly stated to be a foundation of the Phenicians.[129]

With regard to the state of civilisation reached by Syria before the
year 1500 B.C., we may draw some conclusions from the fact that not
merely did the civilisation of Egypt influence the shepherds of Semitic
race who ruled over Egypt at that period, but that Semitic manners and
customs left behind traces in Egypt (I. 128). Hence we may assume that
the Syrians carried their wine and their oil to the Nile at the time
when their kinsmen ruled there (1950-1650 B.C.). The civilisation of
Syria appears more clearly from the tributes imposed by Tuthmosis III.
on Syria, which are here and there illustrated by the pictures
accompanying the inscriptions of this Pharaoh. The burdens imposed on
the Syrians consist not only of corn, wine, oil and horses; not only of
gold, silver and iron, but also of arms and works of art, among which
the pictures allow us to recognise carefully-decorated vessels. On the
other hand, it is clear from the fact that the Babylonian weights and
measures were in use in Syria at this time (I. 304) that the Syrians
before this period were in lively intercourse with the land of the
Euphrates, that even before the sixteenth century B.C. caravans must
have traversed the Syrian deserts in every direction, and even then the
Syrians must have exchanged the products of their land for Babylonian
stuffs and the frankincense which the Arabians on their part carried to
Babylon. The dependence of Syria on Egypt under the Tuthmosis and
Amenophis can only have augmented the intercourse of the Syrians with
the land of the Nile. Afterwards Sethos I. (1440-1400) caused wood to be
felled on Lebanon; it must have been the places on the coast under
Lebanon which carried to Egypt in their ships, along with the wine and
oil of the coast and the interior, the wood so necessary there for
building and exchanged it for the fabrics of Egypt. Wood for building
could not be conveyed on the backs of camels, and the way by sea from
the Phenician towns to the mouths of the Nile was far easier and less
dangerous than the road by land over rocky heights and through sandy
deserts. Hence, as early as the fifteenth century B.C., we may regard
the Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching east and
west, which must have been augmented by the fact that they conveyed not
only products of the Syrian land to the Euphrates and the Nile, but
could also carry the goods which they obtained in exchange in Egypt to
Babylonia, and what they obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the
same time the fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and
called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see producing
woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments and weapons, and
becoming pre-eminent in the colouring of stuffs with the liquor of the
purple-fish, which are found on the Phenician coasts. This industry
required above all things metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no
less in need, and when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no
longer sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to be
obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a proportionately
small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found in Cyprus, gold in the
island of Thasos, and purple-fish on the coasts of Hellas. When the fall
of the kingdom of the Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes
in the south of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the
coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those possessions
of the islands by merely landing and making exchanges with the
inhabitants. Intercourse with semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by
the sword. Good harbours were needed where the ships could be sheltered
from storm and bad weather, where the crews could find safety from the
natives, rest and fresh stores of water and provisions. Thus arose
protecting forts on the distant islands and coasts, which received the
ships of the native land. Under the protection of these intercourse
could be carried on with the natives, and they were points of support
for the collection of the fish and the sinking of mines.

In order to obtain the raw material necessary for their industry no less
than to carry off the surplus of population, the Phenicians were brought
to colonise Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace,
Imbros, Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the
straits of Euboea,[130] purple-fish were found in extraordinary
quantities. The Phenicians settled in the island of Cythera in the bay
of Laconia, which, as Aristotle says, was once called Porphyrussa from
its purple-fish,[131] and there erected that ancient temple to the
oriental Aphrodite, Aphrodite in armour, just as in Attica in the deme
of Athmonon they founded the temple of the Syrian Aphrodite and
excavated the tombs on Hymettus.[132] Midway between the straits of
Euboea and the bay of Corinth, which abounded with purple-fish, rose the
strong fortress of the Cadmeia, and on Acrocorinthus the shrine of
Ashera.

Herodotus and Thucydides told us above (p. 67) that the Carians
inhabited the islands of the Ægean sea. These were they whom Minos had
made subject to his dominion. Beside this, we are informed more
particularly that the Carians had possessed the island of Rhodes, which
lay off their coast, and had dwelt on Chios and Samos (I. 571). What
degree of civilisation was reached by the population of the islands of
the Ægean sea before the Phenicians came into relations with them may be
inferred to some extent from the discoveries made in the island of
Thera. In and beneath three layers of ashes and tufa caused by vast
eruptions of the volcanos of this island have been discovered stone
instruments, pottery of the most rudimentary kind, in part with the
rudest indications of the human face and figure, and beside these
weapons of copper and brass. In the upper layers of the tufa we find far
better pottery decorated in the Phenician style. On Melos also, and in
the tombs at Camirus in Rhodes, vessels of the same kind have been
discovered; and, finally, in the highest of the layers at Thera are gold
ornaments of the most various kinds, and ornaments of electron, _i.e._
of mixed gold and silver, all of a workmanship essentially non-Hellenic.
From these facts we may draw the conclusion that the ships of the
Phenicians brought to these inhabitants their earliest weapons in brass
and copper, their pottery and ornaments; that the Carians of the
islands, following these patterns, raised their own efforts to a higher
stage, and that afterwards the Phenicians themselves settled in the
islands and made themselves masters of them. Perhaps we may even go a
step further. In the lower strata of the excavations at Hissarlik, on
the Trojan coast, we find exactly the same primitive pottery, with the
same indications of human forms, as in Thera, while in the refuse lying
above this are idols and pottery adorned after Phenician patterns, which
correspond exactly to the idols of Cyprus, as well as ornaments like
those of Thera. Hence in this region also we may assume that the
Phenicians gave the impulse and the example to the development of
civilisation, and the more so as the name of the city of Adramyttion on
the Trojan coast repeats the name of a Phenician foundation on the coast
of North Africa (Adrames, Hadrumetum), and even Strabo ascribes the
worship of the Cabiri to some places on the Trojan coast.[133] Far more
definite traces of the Phenician style and skill are in existence on the
shore of the bay of Argos. The ancient tombs which have been recently
discovered behind the lions' gate at Mycenæ are hewn in the rocks after
the manner of the Phenicians. As in the ancient burying-places of the
Phenicians, a perpendicular shaft forms the entrance to the sepulchral
chambers; the corpses are laid in them without coffins, as was the most
ancient custom in Phoenicia. The masks of beaten gold-leaf which were
found on the faces of five or six of the corpses buried here are
evidence of a custom which the Phenicians borrowed from the gilded faces
of Egyptian coffins.[134] The corpses are covered with gold ornaments
and other decorations. There is a large number of weapons and ornaments
of gold, silver, copper, brass and glass in the tombs; the execution
exhibits a technical skill sometimes more, sometimes less practised. The
ornaments remind us of Babylonian and Assyrian patterns; the idols in
burnt clay are in the Phenician style; the palm-leaves and palms,
antelopes and leopards which frequently occur, point to regions of the
East; the articles of amber and the ostrich egg can only have reached
the bay of Argos in Phenician ships. Still there are grave reasons for
refusing to believe that the persons buried in this tomb are princes of
the Phenicians. The numerous pieces of armour show that the dead who
rest here were buried with their armour, which is not the traditional
custom either with regard to the Phenicians or the Hellenes, but which
Thucydides quotes as a mark of the tombs of the Carians.[135] We learn,
moreover, even from the Homeric poems, that the Carians loved gold
ornaments, and further, that the Greeks improved their armour after the
pattern of the Carians (I. 572). As we also find the double axe of the
Carian god, the "Zeus Stratius" as the Greeks called him, the "axe-god,"
the Chars-El in the Carian language (I. 573), on some ornaments of the
tombs of Mycenæ, the supposition forces itself upon us that Carians from
the western islands must have occupied the shore of the bay of Argos. In
any case, the tombs of Mycenæ, both from their position and their
contents, announce to us that the people who excavated them and placed
their dead in them were dependent on the style and skill of the
Phenicians.

Can we fix the time at which the Phenicians first set foot on the
islands of Hellas? Herodotus tells us that Troy was taken in the third
generation after the death of Minos.[136] If we put three full
generations, according to the calculation of Herodotus, between the
death of Minos and the conquest of Ilium, the first event took place 100
years before the second. Since, according to the data of Herodotus, the
capture of Ilium falls in the year 1280 or 1260 B.C., Minos would have
died in the year 1380 or 1360 B.C. The landing of the Phenicians on
Thasos and the expedition of Cadmus from Phoenicia beyond the islands to
Boeotia are placed by Herodotus five generations before Heracles, and
Heracles is placed 900 years before his own time. If we reckon upwards
from the year 450 or 430 B.C., Heracles lived about the year 1350 or
1330 B.C., and Cadmus five generations, _i.e._ 166-2/3 years, before
this date, or about the year 1516 or 1496 B.C.[137] On the island of
Thera, Herodotus further remarks, the Phenicians whom Cadmus left
behind him there had dwelt for eight generations, _i.e._ 266-2/3 years,
before the Dorians came to the island.[138] Melos was also occupied by
Dorians, who asserted in 416 B.C. that their community had been in
existence 700 years,[139] according to which statement the Dorians came
to Melos in the year 1116 B.C. With this event the Phenician rule over
the island came to an end. If we assume that Thera, which is close by
Melos, was taken from the Phenicians by the Dorians at the same time as
the latter island, the eight generations given by Herodotus for the
settlements of the Phenicians on Thera would carry us back to the year
1382 B.C. (1116 + 266-2/3), a date which is certainly in agreement with
his statement about the death of Minos, but contradicts the date given
for Cadmus, who yet, according to the narrative of Herodotus, left
behind the settlers on Thera and Thasos when he first sailed to Boeotia.
Herodotus fixes dates according to generations and the genealogies of
legend. The five generations which separated Cadmus from Heracles were
for him, no doubt, Polydorus, Labdacus, Laius, Oedipus and Polynices;
for the three generations between the death of Minos and the capture of
Troy we find in Homer only two, Deucalion and Idomeneus.[140] But we can
still find from Herodotus' calculations how far back the Greeks placed
the beginning and the end of the empire of the Phenicians over their
islands and coasts. Beyond this the chronographers do not give us any
help. Eusebius and Hieronymus (Jerome) place the rape of Europa in the
year 1429 or 1426 B.C.; the rule of Cadmus at Thebes in the year 1427
B.C. or 1319 (1316) B.C.; the settlement of the Phenicians on Thera,
Melos, and Thasos in the year 1415 B.C.; the beginning of the rule of
Minos in the year 1410 B.C., or, according to another computation, in
the year 1251 B.C.[141]

We can hardly obtain fixed points for determining the time of the
settlements of the Phenicians in the Ægean sea. In the lower strata of
the excavations at Hissarlik, on the coast of Troas, clay lentils have
been found with Cyprian letters upon them.[142] Since the Greeks
declared that they learnt their alphabet from the Phenicians and Cadmus,
and since as a fact it is the alphabet of the Phenicians which lies at
the root of the Greek, the Cyprian letters can only have been brought
thither by Phenician ships from Cyprus before the discovery of the
Phenician letters, or from the islands off the Trojan coast occupied by
the Phenicians, from Lemnos, Imbros and Samothrace; otherwise they must
have come to the Troad at a later time by Cyprian ships or settlers, a
supposition which is forbidden by the antiquity of the other remains
discovered with or near the lentils. Among the sons of Japheth, the
representative of the northern nations, Genesis mentions Javan, _i.e._
the Ionian, the Greek; and enumerates the sons of Javan: Elisha,
Tarshish, Chittim, and Dodanim or Rodanim--the reading is
uncertain.[143] It is a question whether the genealogical table in
Genesis belongs to the first or second text of the Pentateuch, _i.e._
whether it was written down in the middle of the eleventh or of the
tenth century B.C. In any case it follows that in the beginning of the
eleventh or tenth century B.C. the name and nation of the Ionians was
known not only in the harbour-cities of Phoenicia, but in the interior
of Syria, and the inhabitants of the islands and of the northern coasts
of the Mediterranean were reckoned in the stock of these Ionians.
Chittim is, as was remarked above, primarily the island of Cyprus; the
Rodanim are the inhabitants of Rhodes (Dodanim would have to be referred
to Dodona); Elisha is Elis in the Peloponnese, or the island of Sicily,
if the name is not one given generally to western coasts and
islands;[144] Tarshish is Tartessus, _i.e._ the region at the mouth of
the Guadalquivir. If Ezekiel mentions the purple which the Phenicians
bring from "the isles of Elishah,"[145] the islands and coasts of the
Ægean sea are plainly meant, on which the Phenicians collected the fish
for their purple dye. This much is clear, that at least about the year
1000 B.C. not only the islands and coasts of the Ægean were known in
Syria, but even then the name of the distant land of Tarshish was
current in Syria. We shall further see that as early as 1100 B.C.
Phenician ships had passed the straits of Gibraltar. Hence we may
conclude that the Phenicians must have set foot on Cyprus about the year
1250 B.C., and on the islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200
B.C.

Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had occupied
the promontories of Sicily and the small islands lying around Sicily, in
order to carry on trade with the Sicels.[146] Diodorus Siculus tells us
that when the Phenicians extended their trade to the western ocean they
settled in the island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the
middle of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge for
their ships. The island of Gaulus also, which lies close to Melite, is
said to have been a colony of the Phenicians.[147] On the south-eastern
promontory of Malta there was a temple of Heracles-Melkarth,[148] the
foundation walls of which appear to be still in existence, and still
more definite evidence of the former population of this island is given
by the Phenician inscriptions found there. The island, like the
mother-country, carried on weaving, and the products were much sought
after in antiquity. On Gaulus also, a name mentioned on Phenician coins,
are the remains of a Phenician temple. Between Sicily and the coast of
Africa, where it approaches Sicily most nearly, lay the island of
Cossyra, coins of which bear Phenician legends. Along with a dwarfish
figure they present the name "island of the sons,"[149] _i.e._ no doubt,
the children of the sun-god whom we met with in Rhodes. On the east
coast of Sicily there lay, on a small promontory scarcely connected with
the mainland (now Isola degli Magnisi), the city of Thapsos, the name of
which reveals its founders; _Tiphsach_ means coming over, here coming
over to the mainland. In the same way the promontory of Pachynus
(_pachun_ means wart), further to the south, and the harbour of
Phoenicus are evidence of Phenician colonisation. On the south coast of
Sicily, not far from the mouth of the Halycus, the Phenicians built that
city which is known to the Greeks as Makara and Minoa, or Heracleaminoa;
the coins of the city present in Phenician characters the name
Rus-Melkart, _i.e._ "head (promontory) of Melkarth."[150] Off the west
coast of Sicily the Phenicians occupied the small island of Motye.[151]
On this coast of the larger island, on Mount Eryx, which rises steeply
out of a bald table land (2000 feet above the sea), they founded the
city of Eryx, and on the summit of the mount, 5000 feet high, they
built a temple to the Syrian Aphrodite. In Diodorus it is Eryx the son
of Aphrodite who builds this temple; Æneas then adorns it with many
votive offerings, "since it was dedicated to his mother."[152] Virgil
represents the temple as being founded on the summit of Eryx, near to
the stars, in honour of Venus Idalia, _i.e._ the goddess worshipped at
Idalion (Idial) on Cyprus by the immigrants from the East, who, with
him, are the companions of Æneas.[153] The courtezans at this temple,
the sensual character of the worship, and the sacred doves kept here (in
a red one the goddess herself was supposed to be seen[154]), even
without the Phenician inscriptions found there, would leave no doubt of
its Syrian origin. The mighty substructure of the building is still in
existence. Dædalus is said to have built it for the king of the
Sicanians (p. 64). Beside the Syrian goddess, the Phenicians also
worshipped here the Syrian god Baal Melkarth. According to the account
of Diodorus, Heracles overcame Eryx in wrestling, and so took his land
from him, though he left the usufruct of it to the inhabitants.[155] The
kings of Sparta traced their origin to Heracles. When Dorieus, the son
of Anaxandridas, king of Sparta, desired to emigrate in his anger that
the crown had fallen to his brother Cleomenes, the oracle bade him
retire to Eryx; the land of Eryx belonged to the Heraclids because their
ancestor won it. The Carthaginians, it is true, did not acknowledge this
right; Dorieus was slain, and most of those who followed him.[156] On
the north coast of Sicily, Panormus (Palermo) and Soloeis were the most
important colonies of the Phenicians. Panormus, on coins of the
Phenicians Machanath, _i.e._ the camp, worshipped the goddess of the
sexual passion; Soloeis (_sela_, rock) worshipped Melkarth. In a hymn to
Aphrodite, Sappho inquires whether she lingers in Cyprus or at
Panormus.[157] Motye, Soloeis and Panormus were in the fifth century the
strongest outposts of the Carthaginians in Sicily.[158]

On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the Phenicians planted many
colonies.[159] The mountains of Sardinia contained iron, silver, and
lead. According to the legend of the Greeks, Sardus, the son of Makeris,
as the Libyans called Heracles, first came with Libyans to the island.
Then Heracles sent his brother's son Iolaus, together with his own sons,
whom he had begotten in Attica, to Sardinia. As Heracles had been lord
of the whole West, these regions belonged of right to Iolaus and his
companions. Iolaus conquered the native inhabitants, took possession of
and divided the best and most level portion of the land which was
afterwards known by the name of Iolaus; then he sent for Dædalus out of
Sicily and erected large buildings, which, Diodorus adds, are still in
existence; but in Sicily temples were erected to himself, and honour
paid as to a hero, and a famous shrine was erected in Agyrion, "where,"
as Diodorus remarks of this his native city, "even to this day yearly
sacrifices are offered."[160] Makeris, the supposed father of Sardus,
is, like Makar, a form of the name Melkarth. If Sardinia and the whole
West as well as Eryx is said to have belonged to Heracles, if Heracles
sends out his nearest relations to Sardinia, if the artist Dædalus is
his companion here as he was the companion of Minos in Crete and Sicily,
it becomes obvious that the temples of Baal Melkarth on the coasts of
Sardinia and Sicily lie at the base of these legends of the Greeks, that
it was the Phenicians who brought the worship of their god along with
their colonies to these coasts, to which they were led by the wealth of
the Sardinian mountains in copper. As we already ventured to suppose (I.
368), Iolaus may be an epithet or a special form of Baal.[161]

The legend of the Greeks makes Heracles, _i.e._ Baal Melkarth, lord of
the whole West. As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond
Sardinia in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of
Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out nearest
Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest colony.[162] In the
legends of the coins mentioned above (p. 53) Hippo is named beside Tyre
and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. When a second Hippo was afterwards
founded further to the west, opposite the south coast of Sardinia, at
the mouth of the Ubus, the old Hippo got the name of "Ippoacheret," and
among the Greeks "Hippon Zarytos," _i.e._ "the other Hippo."[163] Ityke
(_atak_, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas (Medsherda),
takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed it was not founded
before it. Aristotle tells us that the Phenicians stated that Ityke was
built 287 years before Carthage,[164] and Pliny maintains that Ityke was
founded 1178 years before his time.[165] As Carthage was founded in the
year 846 B.C. (below, chap. 11), Ityke, according to Aristotle's
statement, was built in the year 1133 B.C. With this the statement of
Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A.D., and therefore he places
the foundation of Ityke in the year 1126 or 1100 B.C.

About the same time, _i.e._ about the year 1100 B.C., the Phenicians had
already reached much further to the west. In his Phenician history,
Claudius Iolaus tells us that Archaleus (Arkal, Heracles[166]), the son
of Phoenix, built Gadeira (Gades).[167] "From ancient times," such is
the account of Diodorus, "the Phenicians carried on an uninterrupted
navigation for the sake of trade, and planted many colonies in Africa,
and not a few in Europe, in the regions lying to the west. And when
their undertakings succeeded according to their desire and they had
collected great treasures, they resolved to traverse the sea beyond the
pillars of Heracles, which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their
passage through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe a
city which they called Gadeira, and erected works suitable to the place,
chiefly a beautiful temple to Heracles, with splendid offerings
according to the custom of the Phenicians. And as this temple was
honoured at that time, so also in later times down to our own days it
was held in great reverence. When the Phenicians, in order to explore
the coasts beyond the pillars, took their course along the shore of
Libya, they were carried away far into the Oceanus by a strong wind, and
after being driven many days by the storm they came to a large island
opposite Libya, where the fertility was so great and the climate so
beautiful that it seemed by the abundance of blessings found there to be
intended for the dwelling of the gods rather than men."[168] Strabo
says, the Gaditani narrated that an oracle bade the Tyrians send a
colony to the pillars of Heracles. When those who had been sent reached
the straits of Mount Calpe they were of opinion that the promontories
which enclosed the passage, Calpe and the opposite headland of Abilyx in
Libya,[169] were the pillars which bounded the earth, and the limit of
the travels of Heracles, which the oracle mentioned. So they landed on
this side of the straits, at the spot where the city of the Axitani
(Sexi) now stands; but since the sacrifices were not favourable there
they turned back. Those sent out after them sailed through the straits,
and cast anchor at an island sacred to Heracles, 1500 stades beyond the
pillars, opposite the city of Onoba in Iberia; but as the sacrifices
were again unfavourable they also again turned home. Finally, a third
fleet landed on a little island 750 stades beyond Mount Calpe, close to
the mainland, and not far from the mouth of the Bætis. Here, on the east
side of the island, they built a temple to Heracles; on the opposite
side of the island they built the city of Gadeira, and on the extreme
western point the temple of Cronos. In the temple of Heracles there were
two fountains and "two pillars of brass, eight cubits in height, on
which is recorded the cost of the building of this temple."[170] This
foundation of Gades, which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir,
_i.e._ wall, fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most
ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said to have
taken place in the year 1100 B.C.[171] If Ityke was founded before 1100
B.C. or about that time, we have no reason to doubt the founding of
Gades soon after that date. Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have
reached the ocean about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris
with his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the Mediterranean.

The marvellous and impressive aspect of the rocky gate which opens a
path for the waves of the Mediterranean to the boundless waters of the
Atlantic Ocean might implant in the Phenician mariners who first passed
beyond it the belief that they had found in these two mountains the
pillars which the god set up to mark the end of the earth; in the
endless ocean beyond them they could easily recognise the western sea in
which their sun-god went to his rest. That Gades, on the shore of the
sea into which the sun went down, was especially zealous in the worship
of Melkarth, that the descent of the god into the western ocean (the
supposed death of Heracles[172]) and the awakening of the god with the
sun of the spring were here celebrated with especial emphasis, is a fact
which requires no explanation. The legends of the Hesperides, the
daughters of the West, in whose garden Melkarth celebrates the holy
marriage with Astarte (I. 371), of the islands of the blest in the
western sea, appear to have a local background in the luxuriant
fertility and favoured climate of Madeira and the Canary islands.

The land off the coast of which Gades lay, the valley of the
Guadalquivir, was named by the Phenicians Tarsis (Tarshish), and by the
Greeks Tartessus. The genealogical table in Genesis places Tarsis among
the sons of Javan. The prophet Ezekiel represents the ships of Tarshish
as bringing silver, iron, tin and lead to Tyre. "The ships of Tarshish,"
so he says to the city of Tyre, "were thy caravans; so wert thou
replenished and very glorious in the midst of the sea."[173] The
Sicilian Stesichorus of Himera expresses himself in more extravagant
terms. He sang of the "fountains of Tartessus (the Guadalquivir) rooted
in silver." The Greeks represent the Tartessus, the river which brought
down gold, tin, iron in its waters, as springing from the silver
mountain,[174] and according to Herodotus the first Greek ship, a
merchantman of Samos, which was driven about the year 630 B.C. by a
storm from the east to Tartessus, made a profit of 60 talents.[175]
Aristotle tells us that the first Phenicians who sailed to Tartessus
obtained so much silver in exchange for things of no value that the
ships could not carry the burden, so that the Phenicians left behind the
tackle and even the anchor they had brought with them and made new
tackle of silver.[176] Poseidonius says that among that people it was
not Hades, but Plutus, who dwelt in the under-world. Once the forests
had been burned, and the silver and gold, melted by an enormous fire,
flowed out on the surface; every hill and mountain became a heap of gold
and silver. On the north-west of this land the ground shone with silver,
tin and white gold mixed with silver. This soil the rivers washed down
with them. The women drew water from the river and poured it through
sieves, so that nothing but gold, silver and tin remained in the
sieve.[177] Diodorus tells the same story of the ancient burning of the
forests on the Pyrenees (from which fire they got their name), by which
the silver ore was rendered fluid and oozed from the mountains, so that
many streams were formed of pure silver. To the native inhabitants the
value of silver was so little known that the Phenicians obtained it in
exchange for small presents, and gained great treasures by carrying the
silver to Asia and all other nations. The greed of the merchants went so
far that when the ships were laden, and there was still a large quantity
of silver remaining, they took off the lead from the anchors and
replaced it with silver. Strabo assures us that the land through which
the Bætis flows was not surpassed in fertility and all the blessings of
earth and sea by any region in the world; neither gold nor silver,
copper nor iron, was found anywhere else in such abundance and
excellence. The gold was not only dug up, but also obtained by washing,
as the rivers and streams brought down sands of gold. In the sands of
gold pieces were occasionally found half-a-pound in weight, and
requiring very little purification. Stone salt was also found there, and
there was abundance of house cattle and sheep, which produced excellent
wool, of corn and wine. The coast of the shore beyond the pillars was
covered with shell-fish and large purple-fish, and the sea was rich in
fish (the tunnies and the Tartessian murena so much sought after in
antiquity),[178] which the ebb and flow of the tide brought up to the
beach. Corn, wine, the best oil, wax, honey, pitch and cinnabar were
exported from this fortunate land.[179]

If the Phenicians were able in the thirteenth century to settle upon
Cyprus and Rhodes, the islands of the Ægean and the coasts of Hellas,
their population must have been numerous, their industry active, their
trade lucrative. That subsequently in the twelfth century they also took
into possession the coasts of Sicily, Sardinia and North Africa by means
of their colonies is a proof that the request for the raw products and
metals of the West was very lively and increasing in Syria and in Egypt,
in Assyria and Babylonia. The market of these lands must have been very
remunerative to the Phenicians in order to induce them to make their
discoveries, their distant voyages and remote settlements. If the
Phenicians about the year 1100 B.C. were in a position to discover the
straits of Gibraltar, the fact shows us that they must have practised
navigation for a long time. The horizon of the Greek mariner ended even
in the ninth century in the waters of Sicily, and in the fifth century
B.C. the voyage of a Greek ship from the Syrian coast to the pillars of
Heracles occupied 80 days.[180] After the founding of Gades the
Phenicians ruled over the whole length of the Mediterranean by their
harbour fortresses and factories. Their ships crossed the long basin in
every direction, and everywhere they found harbours of safety. They
showed themselves no less apt and inventive in the arts of navigation
than the Babylonians had shown themselves in technical inventions and
astronomy; they were bolder and more enterprising than the Assyrians in
the campaigns which the latter attempted at the time when the
Phenicians were building Gades; they were more venturesome and enduring
on the water than their tribesmen the Arabians on the sandy sea of the
desert. In the possession of the ancient civilisation of the East their
mariners and merchants presented the same contrast to the Thracians and
Hellenes, the Sicels, the Libyans and Iberians which the Portuguese and
the Spaniards presented 2500 years later to the tribes of America.

FOOTNOTES:

[63] Robinson, "Palestine," 3, 710.

[64] Tac. "Hist." 5, 6.

[65] Rénan, "Mission de Phénicie," p. 836.

[66] Vol. i. pp. 344, 345.

[67] Vol. i. p. 151.

[68] Vol. i. p. 153.

[69] Vol. i. p. 344.

[70] The legend runs, "From the Sidonians, Mother of Kamb, Ippo,
Kith(?), Sor," Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 134.

[71] Isaiah xxiii. 1, 19; Jeremiah ii. 10; Ezekiel xxvii. 6; Joseph.
"Antiq." 1, 6, 1.

[72] Virgil, "Æn." 1, 619, 620.

[73] Brandis, "Monatsberichte Berl. Akad." 1873, s. 645 ff.

[74] Herod. 7, 90.

[75] Stephan. Byz. [Greek: Amathous].

[76] "Odyss." 8, 362; Tac. "Annal." 2, 3; Pausan. 1, 14, 6; Pompon.
Mela, 2, 7.

[77] Vol. i. p. 359.

[78] Joseph. "in Apion." 1, 18; "Antiq." 8, 5, 3, 9, 14, 2.

[79] Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 239, 240.

[80] Diod. 5, 56.

[81] In Homer Europa is not the daughter of Agenor but of Phoenix ("Il."
14, 321), just as Cadmus, Thasos, and Europa are sometimes children of
Agenor and sometimes of Phoenix. In Hdt. 1, 2 it is Cretans who carry
off Europa, the daughter of the king of Tyre.

[82] Diod. 4, 2, 60; 5, 56, 57, 58, 48, 49.

[83] Ephor. Frag. 12, ed. Müller.

[84] Herod. 4, 147; 2, 45, 49; 5, 58, 59.

[85] Frag. 8, 9, ed. Müller.

[86] Frag. 40-42, 43-45, ed. Müller.

[87] Frag. 163, ed. Müller.

[88] "Theog." 937, 975; Pind. "Pyth." 3, 88 _seqq._

[89] Movers, "Phoeniz." 1, 129, 131.

[90] Plut. "Pelop." c. 19.

[91] Pind. "Olymp." 2, 141.

[92] Vol. i. 271.

[93] Movers, "Phoeniz." 1, 517.

[94] Thac. 1, 8.

[95] Vol. i. 363, 364.

[96] Athenæus, p. 360.

[97] Diod. 5, 58.

[98] Boeckh. C. I. G. 2526.

[99] Hefter, "Götterdienste auf Rhodos," 3, 18; Welcker, "Mythologie,"
1, 145; Brandis, "Munzwesen," s. 587.

[100] Schol. Pind. "Pyth." 4, 88; Pausan. 3, 1, 7, 8; Steph. Byz.
[Greek: Membliaros].

[101] Boeckh. C. I. G. 2448.

[102] Herod. 4, 147; Steph. Byz. [Greek: Mêlos].

[103] Steph. Byz. [Greek: Ôliaros].

[104] Strabo, pp. 346, 457, 472; Diod. 5, 47.

[105] Vol. i. 378; Herod. 2, 51; Conze, "Inseln des Thrakischen Meeres,"
_e.g._ s. 91.

[106] Strabo, p. 473; Steph. Byz. [Greek: Imbros]; vol. i. 378.

[107] Herod. 2, 44; 6, 47.

[108] Herod. 1, 105; Pausan. 1, 14, 7; 3, 23, 1.

[109] Pausan. 10, 11, 5; Boeckh, "Metrologie," s. 45.

[110] Pausan. 1, 2, 5; 1, 14, 6, 7.

[111] Strabo, p. 377; Pausan. 1, 32, 5.

[112] [Greek: ATHÊNAION s' g'], 1877, and below, chap. xi.

[113] Brandis, "Hermes," 2, 275 ff. I cannot agree in all points with
the deductions of this extremely acute inquiry.

[114] "Il." 14, 321; 18, 593; "Odyss." 19, 178; 11, 568.

[115] "Odyss." 11, 523.

[116] Diod. 4, 60.

[117] Serv. ad "Æneid." 6, 30.

[118] Hesych. [Greek: ep' Eurugun agôn]; Plut. "Thes." c. 15; Diod. 4,
65.

[119] Apollodor. 1, 9, 26; Suidas, [Greek: Sardônios gelôs].

[120] Herod. 7, 110.

[121] Diod. 4, 76-78; Schol. Callim. "Hymn. in Jovem," 8.

[122] Istri frag. 47, ed. Müller.

[123] Istri frag. 33, ed. Müller.

[124] Müllenhoff, "Deutsche Alterthumskunde," i. 222.

[125] Plato, "Minos," pp. 262, 266, 319, 321; "De. Legg," _init._;
Aristot. "Pol." 2, 8, 1, 2; 7, 9, 2.

[126] Herod. 1, 171; 3, 122; 7, 169-171.

[127] Herod. 1, 4.

[128] Herod. 3, 122.

[129] Strabo, p. 476; Steph. Byz. [Greek: Itanos].

[130] Pausan. 3, 21, 6.

[131] Aristotle, in Steph. Byz. [Greek: Kythêra].

[132] Above, p. 63.

[133] Strabo, p. 479.

[134] Below, chap. 11.

[135] Thuc. 1, 8.

[136] Herod. 7, 171.

[137] Herod. 2, 44, 145.

[138] Herod. 4, 147.

[139] Thuc. 5, 112.

[140] Herod. 5, 89; "Il." 13, 451; "Odyss." 19, 178.

[141] Euseb. "Chron." 2, p. 34 _seqq._ ed. Schöne. Even in Diodorus, 4,
60, we find two Minoses, an older and a younger.

[142] Lenormant, "Antiq. de la Troade," p. 32.

[143] Genesis x. 2-4: 1 Chron. i. 5-7.

[144] Kiepert, "Monatsberichte Berl. Akad." 1859.

[145] Ezek. xxvii. 7.

[146] Thuc. vi. 2.

[147] Diod. v. 12.

[148] Ptolem. 4, 3, 47.

[149] _Ai benim_; Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 355, 359, 362.

[150] Heracl. Pont. frag. 29, ed. Müller; Gesen. "Monum." p. 293;
Olshausen, "Rh. Mus." 1852, S. 328.

[151] Thuc. 6, 2.

[152] Diod. 4, 83.

[153] "Æn." 5, 760.

[154] Diod. 4, 83; Strabo, p. 272; Athenæus, p. 374; Aelian, "Hist. An."
4, 2; 10, 50.

[155] Diod. 4, 23.

[156] Herod. 5, 43.

[157] Steph. Byz. [Greek: Solous]. Sapphon. frag. 6, ed. Bergk; it is
possible that Panormus on Crete may be meant.

[158] Thuc. 6, 2.

[159] Diod. 5, 35.

[160] Diod. 4, 24, 29, 30; 5, 15; Arist. "De mirab. ausc." c. 104;
Pausan. 10, 17, 2.

[161] Movers ("Phoeniz." 1, 536) assumes that Iolaus may be identical
with Esmun (I. 377).

[162] Sallust, "Jugurtha," 19, 1.

[163] Movers, _loc. cit._ s. 144.

[164] "De mirab. ausc." c. 146.

[165] "Hist. nat." 16, 79.

[166] Arkal or Archal may mean "fire of the All," "light of the All."

[167] Etym. Magn. [Greek: Gadeira].

[168] Diod. 5, 19, 20.

[169] On the meaning given in Avienus ("Ora marit") of Abila as "high
mountain," and Calpa as "big-bellied jar," cf. Müllenhoff, "Deutsche
Alterthumsk," 1, 83.

[170] Strabo, pp. 169-172. Justin (44, 5) represents the Tyrians as
founding Gades in consequence of a dream. In regard to the name cf.
Avien. "Ora marit," 267-270.

[171] Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 622. Strabo (p. 48) puts the first
settlements of the Phenicians in the midst of the Libyan coast and at
Gades just after the Trojan war, Velleius (1, 2, 6, in combination with
1, 8, 4), in the year 1100 B.C. Cf. Movers, _loc. cit._ S. 148, note 90.
The Greeks called both land and river Tartessus. The pillars of the
Tyrian god "Archaleus," are with them the pillars of their "Heracles,"
which he sets up as marks of his campaigns. Here, opposite the mouth of
the Tartessus, they place the island Erythea, _i.e._ the red island on
which the giant Geryon, _i.e._ "the roarer," guards the red oxen of the
sun: Erythea is one of the islands near Cadiz; Müllenhoff, Deutsche
"Alterthumsk:" 1, 134 ff.

[172] Sall. "Jugurtha," c. 19.

[173] Ezek. xxvii. 12, 25.

[174] In Strabo, p. 148; Müllenhoff, _loc. cit._ 1, 81.

[175] Herod. 4, 152.

[176] "De mirab. ausc." c. 147.

[177] In Strabo, p. 148.

[178] Aristoph. "Ranae," 475.

[179] Diod. 5, 35; Strabo, p. 144 _seqq._

[180] Scylax, "Peripl." c. 111.



CHAPTER IV.

THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.


Not far removed from the harbour-cities, whose ships discovered the land
of silver, which carried the natural wealth of the West to the lands of
the Euphrates and Tigris, and the Nile, in order to exchange them for
the productions of those countries, in part immediately upon the borders
of the marts which united the East and the West, and side by side with
them, dwelt the Israelites on the heights and in the valleys which they
had conquered, in very simple and original modes of life.

Even during the war against the ancient population of Canaan,
immediately after the first successes against the Amorites, they had, as
we have seen, dropped any common participation in the struggle, any
unity under one leader. According to their numbers and bravery, and the
resistance encountered, the various tribes had won larger or smaller
territories, better or inferior districts. Immigration and conquest did
not lead among the Israelites to a combination of their powers under the
supremacy of one leader, but rather to separation into clans and
cantons, which was also favoured by the nature of the country conquered,
a district lying in unconnected parts, and possessing no central region
adapted for governing the whole. Thus, after the settlement, the life of
the nation became divided into separate circles according to the
position and character of the mountain canton which the particular tribe
had obtained, and the fortune which it had experienced. Even if there
was an invasion of the enemy, the tribe attacked was left to defend
itself as well as it could. It was only very rarely, and in times of
great danger, that the nobles and elders of the whole land, and a great
number of the men of war from all the tribes, were collected round the
sacred ark at Shiloh, at Bethel, at Mizpeh, or at Gilgal for common
counsel or common defence. But even when a resolution was passed by the
nobles and elders and the people, individual tribes sometimes resisted,
even by force of arms, the expressed will of the nation, or at least of
a great part of the nobles and people, and the division of the tribes
sometimes led even to open war.

Within the tribes also there was no fixed arrangement, no fixed means
for preserving peace. The clans and families for the most part possessed
separate valleys, glens, or heights. The heads of the oldest families
were also the governors of these cantons, and composed the differences
between the members of the clan, canton, or city by their decisions;
while in other places bold and successful warriors at the head of
voluntary bands made acquisitions, in which the descendants of the
leader took the rank of elder and judge. Eminent houses of this kind,
together with the heads of families of ancient descent, formed the order
of nobles and elders; "who hold the judge's staff in their hands, and
ride on spotted asses with beautiful saddles, while the common people go
afoot."[181] If a tribe fell into distress and danger, the nobles and
elders assembled and took counsel, while the people stood round, unless
some man of distinction had already risen and summoned the tribe to
follow him. For the people did not adhere exclusively to the chief of
the oldest family in the canton; nobles and others within, and in
special cases without, the tribe, who had obtained a prominent position
by warlike actions, or by the wisdom of their decisions, whose position
and power promised help, protection and the accomplishment of the
sentence, were invited to remove strife and differences, unless the
contending persons preferred to help themselves. Only the man who could
not help himself sought, as a rule, the decision of the elder or judge.

The names of some of the men whose decision was sought in that time have
been preserved in the tradition of the Israelites. Tholah of the tribe
of Issachar, Jair of the land of Gilead, Ebzan of Bethlehem in the tribe
of Judah, Elon of the tribe of Zebulun, and Abdon of Ephraim, are all
mentioned as judges of note. Of Jair we are told that he had 30 sons,
who rode on 30 asses, and possessed 30 villages. Ebzan is also said to
have had 30 sons and to have married 30 daughters; while Abdon had 40
sons and 30 grandsons, who rode on 70 asses.[182]

On the heights and table-lands of the districts east of the Jordan, in
the land of Gilead, were settled the tribes of Reuben and Gad and a part
of the tribe of Manasseh. At an early period they grew together, so that
the name of the region sometimes represents the names of these tribes.
Here the pastoral life and breeding of cattle remained predominant, as
in the less productive districts on the west of the Jordan. But on the
plains and in the valleys of the west the greater part of the settlers
devoted themselves to the culture of the vine and agriculture. The walls
of the ancient cities were at first used as a protection against the
attacks of robbers, or raids of enemies; the inhabitants, afterwards as
before, planted their fields and vineyards outside the gates.[183] But
the custom of dwelling together led to the beginnings of civic life,
industrial skill, and common order. The trade of the Phenicians, which
touched the land of the Hebrews here and there, and the more advanced
culture of the cities of the coast, could not remain without influence
on the Hebrews.

The religious feeling which separated the Israelites from the Canaanites
was not more thoroughly effective than the community of blood and the
contrast to the ancient population of the land in bringing about the
combination and union of the Israelites. The religious life was as much
without organisation as the civic; on the contrary, as the Israelites
spread as settlers over a larger district, the unity and connection of
religious worship which Moses previously established again fell to the
ground. It is true, the sacred ark remained at Shiloh, five leagues to
the north of Bethel, under the sacred tent in the land of the tribe of
Ephraim. At this place a festival was held yearly in honour of Jehovah,
to which the Israelites assembled to offer prayer and sacrifice. On
other occasions also people went to Shiloh to offer sacrifice.[184] The
priestly office in the sacred tent at the sacred ark remained with the
descendants of Aaron, in the family of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the
eldest son of Aaron (I. 497). But with the settlement a number of other
places of sacrifice had risen up beside the sanctuary at Shiloh. On the
heights and under the oaks at Ramah in the land of Benjamin, at Mizpeh
in the same district, as well as at Mizpeh beyond Jordan, where Jacob
and Laban had parted in peace,[185] at Bethel on the borders of the
land of Ephraim and Benjamin, where Abraham sacrificed (between Bethel
and Ai) and Jacob received the name of Israel;[186] finally at Gilgal on
the east of Jordan, where Joshua lay encamped, and kept the passover,
before he attacked Jericho, Jehovah was invoked. At these places also
the firstlings of the fruits were offered; goats, rams, and bulls were
offered, with or without the intervention of the priest, and inquiry
made for the will of Jehovah without priestly help or intervention. Any
one who set up an altar established a priest there, or hired a priest.
For this purpose men were chosen who claimed to be of the race of Moses
and Aaron, just as the service of the sacred ark at Shiloh was in the
hands of this family; but men of other origin and tribes were not
excluded even from the priesthood at the ark.[187]

In such a want of any defined and influential position of the
priesthood, in the want of any church organisation, it was only the
superior personal power of the priests at Shiloh which could protect the
religious feeling and traditional custom against the influences of the
new surroundings, and Canaanitish rites. Tradition, at any rate from the
first third of the eleventh century B.C., had no good to tell of the
morals of the priests at Shiloh. To those who came to bring an offering
the servant of the priest said, "Give flesh to roast for the priest; he
will not have it sodden but raw." If the person sacrificing replied, "We
will burn only the fat, then take what you desire," the servant
answered, "You must give it me now, and if you will not I shall take it
by force." If the priest desired cooked flesh from the sacrifice, he
sent his servant, who struck with his three-pronged fork into the
cauldron, and what he brought out was the priest's.

The religious views of the Israelites, not sufficiently represented
among themselves, were the more exposed to the influence of the rites of
the Canaanites, as these rites belonged to tribes of kindred nature and
character. In this way it came about that the Canaanitish gods Baal and
Astarte were worshipped beside Jehovah, the god of Israel, and that in
one or two places the old worship was perhaps entirely driven out by
these new gods. But even where this did not take place, it was owing to
the example and impulse of the Syrian modes of worship that images were
here and there set up on the altars of Jehovah. When the conception of
the divine nature in the spirit of a nation passes beyond the first
undefined feeling and intimation,--when it receives a plainer and more
expressive shape in the minds of men, and the first steps of artistic
and technical skill, or the example of neighbours, are coincident with
this advance,--the general result is that men desire to see the ruling
powers fixed in distinct forms, then the gods are presented in a
realistic manner in visible forms and images. And thus it was among the
Israelites. The command of Moses given in opposition to the images of
Egypt (I. 354) was long since forgotten. Michah, a man of the tribe of
Ephraim, caused a goldsmith to make a carved and molten image of Jehovah
of 200 shekels of silver; and set it up in a temple on Mount Ephraim,
establishing as a priest a Levite, the "descendant of Moses." When a
part of Dan marched northwards in order to win for themselves abodes
there, which they could not conquer from the Philistines, the men of Dan
carried off this image along with the Levite and set it up in the city
of Laish (Dan), which they took from the Sidonians (I. 371), and the
"grandson of Moses" and his descendants continued to be priests before
this image.[188] At Nob also there was a gilded image of Jehovah, and
many had Teraphim, or images of gods in the form of men, in their
houses.[189]

Nothing important was undertaken before inquiry was made of the will of
Jehovah. The inquiry was made as a rule by casting lots before the
sacred tabernacle at Shiloh, before the altars and images of
Jehovah,[190] or by questioning the priests and soothsayers. Counsel was
also taken of these if a cow had gone astray, and they received in
return bread or a piece of money.

Of the feuds which the tribes of Israel carried on at this time, some
have remained in remembrance.[191] The concubine of a Levite, so we are
told in the book of Judges, who dwelt on Mount Ephraim, ran away from
her husband; she went back to her father, to Bethlehem in Judah. Her
husband rose and followed her, pacified her, and then set out on his
return. The first evening they reached the city of the Jebusites, but
the Levite would not pass the night among the Canaanites (I. 500), and
turned aside to Gibeah, a place in the tribe of Benjamin. Here no one
received the travellers; they were compelled to remain in the street
till an old man came home late in the evening from his work in the
field. When he heard that the traveller was from Ephraim he received him
into his house, for he was himself an Ephraimite, gave fodder to the
asses of the Levite and his concubine, and placed his attendant with
his own servants. Then they washed their feet, and drank, and their
hearts were merry. But the men of Gibeah collected round the house in
the evening, pressed on the door, and demanded that the stranger from
Ephraim should be given up to them; they wished to destroy him. In order
to save himself the priest gave up to them his concubine, that they
might satisfy their passions on her. The men of Gibeah abused her the
whole night through, so that next morning she lay dead upon the
threshold. The Levite went with the corpse to his home at Ephraim, cut
it into twelve pieces with a knife, and sent a piece to each tribe.
Every one who saw it said, "The like was never heard since Israel came
out of Egypt." And the chiefs of the nation assembled and pronounced a
curse upon him who did not come to Mizpah (in the land of Benjamin) that
he should be put to death. Then all the tribes assembled at Mizpah, it
is said about 400,000 men;[192] only from Jabesh in Gilead and the tribe
of Benjamin no one came. The Levite told what had happened to him, and
the tribes sent messengers to Benjamin, to bring the men of Gibeah. But
the children of Benjamin refused, and assembled their men of war, more
than 26,000 in number, and took up arms. Then the people rose up and
said, "Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin."[193] Every tenth man
was sent back for supplies; the rest marched out against Benjamin. But
"Benjamin was a ravening wolf, who ate up the spoil at morning and
divided the booty in the evening;" they were mighty archers, and could
throw with the left hand as well as the right.[194] They fought twice
at Gibeah with success against their countrymen. Not till the third
contest did the Israelites gain the victory, and then only by an
ambuscade and counterfeit flight. After this overthrow the whole tribe
is said to have been massacred, the flocks and herds destroyed, and the
cities burnt. Only 600 men, as we are told, escaped to the rock Rimmon
on the Dead Sea. When the community again assembled at Bethel the people
were troubled that a tribe should be extirpated and wanting in Israel;
so they caused peace and a safe return to be proclaimed to the remainder
of Benjamin. And when 12,000 men were sent out against Jabesh to punish
the city because none of their inhabitants came to the gathering at
Mizpeh, they were ordered to spare the maidens of Jabesh. In obedience
to this command they brought 400 maidens back from Jabesh, and these
were given to the Benjamites. But as this number was insufficient the
Benjamites were allowed, when the yearly festival was held at Shiloh (p.
92), and the daughters of Shiloh came out to dance before the city, to
rush out from the vineyards and carry off wives for themselves. Thus
does tradition explain the non-execution of the decree that no Israelite
should give his daughter to wife to a man of Benjamin, and the rescue of
the tribe of Benjamin from destruction.[195]

Without unity and connection in their political and religious life, amid
the quarrels and feuds of the tribes, families and individuals, when
every one helped and avenged himself, and violence and cruelty
abounded,--in the lawless condition when "every one in Israel did what
was right in his own eyes,"--the Israelites were in danger of becoming
the prey of every external foe, and it was a question whether they could
long maintain the land they had won. It was fortunate that there was no
united monarchy at the head either of the Philistines or the Phenicians,
that the latter were intent on other matters, as their colonies in the
Mediterranean, while the cities of the Philistines, though they acquired
a closer combination as early as the eleventh century B.C., or even
earlier (I. 348), did not, at least at first, go out to make foreign
conquests. But it was unavoidable that the old population, especially in
the north, where they remained in the greatest numbers amongst the
Israelites, should again rise and find strong points of support in the
Canaanite princes of Hazor and Damascus; that the Moabites who lay to
the east of the Dead Sea, the Ammonites, the neighbours of the land of
Gilead, that the wandering tribes of the Syrian desert should feel
themselves tempted to invade Israel, to carry off the flocks and plunder
the harvests and, if they found no vigorous resistance, to take up a
permanent settlement in the country. Without the protection of natural
borders, without combination and guidance, as they were, the Israelites
could only succeed in resisting such attacks when in the time of danger
a skilful and brave warrior was found, who was able to rouse his own
tribe, and perhaps one or two of the neighbouring tribes, to a vigorous
resistance, or to liberation if the enemy was already in the land. It is
the deeds of such heroes, and almost these alone, which remained in the
memory of the Israelites from the first two centuries following their
settlement; and these narratives, in part fabulous, must represent the
history of Israel for this period.

Eglon, king of Moab, defeated the Israelites, passed over the Jordan,
took Jericho, and here established himself. With Gilead the tribe of
Benjamin, which dwelt nearest to Jericho, at first must have felt with
especial weight the oppression of Moab. For 18 years the Israelites are
said to have served Eglon. Then Ehud, of the tribe of Benjamin, a
reputed great grandson of the youngest son of Jacob, the father of the
Benjamites, came with others to Jericho to bring tribute. When the tax
had been delivered Ehud desired to speak privately with the king.
Permission was given, and Ehud went with a two-edged sword in his hand,
under his garment, to the king, who sat alone in the cool upper chamber.
Ehud spoke: "I have a message from God to thee;" and when Eglon rose to
receive the message Ehud smote him with the sword in the belly, "so that
even the haft went in, and the fat closed over the blade, for the king
of Moab was a very fat man. But Ehud went down to the court, and closed
the door behind him." When the servants found the door closed they
thought that the king had covered his feet for sleep. At last they took
the key and found the king dead on the floor. But Ehud blew the trumpet
on Mount Ephraim, assembled a host, seized the fords of Jordan, and slew
about 10,000 Moabites, and the Moabites retired into their old
possessions.[196]

Another narrative tells of the fortunes of the tribes of Naphtali,
Zebulun, and Issachar, which were settled in the north, under Mount
Hermon. Jabin, king of Hazor, had chariots of iron, and Sisera his
captain was a mighty warrior, and for 20 years they oppressed the
Israelites.[197] Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, of the tribe of
Issachar, dwelt in the land of Benjamin, between Bethel and Ramah, under
the palm-tree; she could announce the will of Jehovah, and the people
came to her to obtain counsel and judgment. At her command Barak, the
son of Abinoam, assembled the men of the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali;
assistance also came from Issachar, Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin.
Sisera went forth with 900 chariots and a great host and the Israelites
retired before him to the south of the brook Kishon. Sisera crossed the
brook and came upon the Israelites in the valley of Megiddo; he was
defeated, leapt from his chariot, and fled on foot and came unto the
tent of Heber the Kenite. Jael, Heber's wife, met him and said, "Turn
in, my lord, to me; fear not." When in his thirst he asked for water,
she opened the bottle of milk and allowed him to drink, and when he lay
down to rest she covered him with the carpet. Being wearied, he sank
into a deep sleep. Then Jael softly took the nail of the tent and a
hammer in her hand, and smote the nail through his temples so that it
passed into the earth. When Barak, who pursued the fugitive, came, Jael
said, "I will show thee the man whom thou seekest," and led him into the
tent where Sisera lay dead on the ground.

Israel's song of victory is as follows: "Listen, ye kings; give ear, ye
princes; I will sing to Jehovah, I will play on the harp of Jehovah, the
king of Israel. There were no princes in Israel till I, Deborah, arose a
mother in Israel. Arise, Barak; bring forth thy captives, thou son of
Abinoam. Shout, ye that ride on she-asses, and ye that sit upon carpets,
and ye that go on foot, and let the people come down into the plain, to
the gates of the cities. Then I said, Go down, O people of Jehovah,
against the strong; a small people against the mighty. From Ephraim they
came and from Benjamin, from Machir (_i.e._ from the Manassites on the
east of the lake of Gennesareth) the rulers came, and the chiefs of
Issachar were with Deborah, and Zebulun is a people which perilled his
life to the death, and Naphtali on the heights of the field. On the
streams of Reuben there was taking of counsel, but why didst thou sit
still among the herds to hear the pipe of the herdsmen? Gilead also
remained beyond Jordan, and Asher abode on the shore of the sea in his
valleys, and Dan on his heights. The kings came, they fought at the
water of Megiddo; they gained no booty of silver. Issachar, the support
of Barak, threw himself in the valley at his heels. The brook Kishon
washed away the enemy: a brook of battles is the brook Kishon. Go forth,
my soul, upon the strong. Blessed above women shall Jael be, above women
in the tent. He asked for water, she gave him milk; she brought him
cream in a lordly dish. She put forth her hand to the nail, and her
right hand to the workman's hammer, and she smote Sisera, she shattered
and pierced his temples. Between her feet he lay shattered. The mother
of Sisera looked from her window; she called through the lattice: 'Why
linger his chariots in returning? why delay the wheels of his chariot?'
Her wise maidens answered her; nay, she answered herself: 'Will they not
find spoil and divide it; one or two maidens to each, spoil of broidered
robes for Sisera?' So must all thine enemies perish, O Jehovah, but may
those who love him be as the sun going forth in his strength." Whether
this song was composed by Deborah, or by some other person in her name,
it is certainly an ancient song of victory and contemporary with the
events it celebrates.

The tribes of Israel also which were settled in the land of Gilead
remembered with gratitude a mighty warrior who had once delivered them
from grievous oppression. The Ammonites, the eastern neighbours of the
land of Gilead, oppressed "the sons of Israel who dwelt beyond Jordan"
for 18 years, and marched over Jordan against Judah, Benjamin and the
house of Ephraim. Then the elders of the land of Gilead bethought them
of Jephthah (Jephthah means "freed from the yoke"), to whom they had
formerly refused the inheritance of his father because he was not the
son of the lawful wife, but of a courtezan. He had retired into the
gorges of the mountain and collected round him a band of robbers, and
done deeds of bravery. To him the elders went; he was to be their leader
in fighting against the sons of Ammon. Jephthah said, "Have ye not
driven me out of the house of my father? now that ye are in distress ye
come to me." Still he followed their invitation, and the people of
Gilead gathered round him at Mizpeh and made him their chief and leader.
"If I return in triumph from the sons of Ammon," such was Jephthah's
vow, "the first that meets me at the door of my house shall be dedicated
to Jehovah, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt-offering." When he had
asked the tribe of Ephraim for assistance in vain he set out against the
Ammonites with the warriors of the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh,
and overcame them in a great battle on the river Arnon. The Ephraimites
made it a reproach against Jephthah that he had fought against the
Ammonites without them; they crossed the Jordan in arms. But Jephthah
said, "I was in straits, and my people with me; I called to you, but ye
aided me not." He assembled the men of Gilead, defeated the Ephraimites,
and came to the fords of the Jordan before the fugitives, so that more
than 42,000 men of Ephraim are said to have been slain.

When he returned to his home at Mizpeh his only daughter came to meet
him joyfully, with her maidens and timbrels and dancing. Jephthah tore
his garments and cried, "My daughter, thou hast brought me very low; I
have opened my mouth to Jehovah and cannot take it back." "My father,"
she answered, "if thou hast opened thy mouth to Jehovah, do to me as
thou hast spoken, for Jehovah has given thee vengeance on thine enemies,
the Ammonites. But first let me go with my companions to the mountains,
and there for two months bewail my virginity." This was done, and on her
return Jephthah did to her according to his vow. And it was a custom in
Israel for the maidens to lament the daughter of Jephthah for four days
in the year. After this Jephthah is said to have been judge for six
years longer beyond Jordan, _i.e._ to have maintained the peace in these
districts.

Grievous calamity came upon Israel in this period from a migratory
people of the Syrian desert, from the incursions of the Midians, who,
like the Moabites and Ammonites, are designated in Genesis as a nation
kindred to the Israelites, with whom Moses was said to have entered into
close relations (I. 449, 468). Now the Midianites with other tribes of
the desert attacked Israel in constant predatory incursions. "Like
locusts in multitude," we are told, "the enemy came with their flocks
and tents; there was no end of them and their camels. When Israel had
sowed the sons of the East came up and destroyed the increase of the
land as far as Gaza, and left no sustenance remaining, no sheep, oxen
and asses. And the sons of Israel were compelled to hide themselves in
ravines, and caves, and mountain fortresses."[198] For seven years
Israel is said to have been desolated in this manner. Beside the tribes
of Issachar and Zebulun, between Mount Tabor and the Kishon, dwelt a
part of the tribe of Manasseh. The family of Abiezer, belonging to this
tribe, possessed Ophra. In an incursion of the Midianites the sons of
Joash, a man of this family, were slain;[199] only Gideon, the youngest,
remained. When the Midianites came again, after their wont, at the time
of harvest, and encamped on the plain of Jezreel, and Gideon was beating
wheat in the vat of the wine-press in order to save the corn from the
Midianites, Jehovah aroused him. He gathered the men of his family
around him, 300 in number.[200] When Jehovah had given him a favourable
sign, and he had reconnoitred the camp of the Midianites, together with
his armour-bearer Phurah, he determined to attack them in the night. He
divided his troop into companies containing a hundred men; each took a
trumpet and a lighted torch, which was concealed in an earthen pitcher.
These companies were to approach the camp of the Midianites from three
sides, and when Gideon blew the trumpet and disclosed his torch they
were all to do the same. Immediately after the second night-watch, when
the Midianites had just changed the guards, Gideon gave the signal. All
broke their pitchers, blew their trumpets, and cried, "The sword for
Jehovah and Gideon!" Startled, terrified, and imagining that they were
attacked by mighty hosts, the Midianites fled. Then the men of Manasseh,
Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali arose, and Gideon hastily sent messengers
to the Ephraimites that they should seize the fords of Jordan before
the Midianites. The Ephraimites assembled and took two princes of the
Midianites, Oreb (Raven) and Zeeb (Wolf). The Ephraimites strove with
Gideon that he had not summoned them sooner. Gideon replied modestly,
"Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of
Abiezer? Did not Jehovah give the princes of Midian into your hand?
Could I do what ye have done?" He pursued the Midianites over the Jordan
in order to get into his power their princes Zebah and Zalmunna, who had
previously slain his brothers. When he passed the river at Succoth he
asked the men of Succoth to give bread to his wearied soldiers. But the
elders feared the vengeance of the Midianites, and said, "Are Zebah and
Zalmunna already in thine hand, that we should give bread to thy men?"
Gideon replied in anger, "If Jehovah gives them into my hand I will tear
your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers." The
inhabitants of Penuel on the Jabbok also, to which Gideon marched,
refused to feed their countrymen; like those of Succoth, they feared the
Midianites. Gideon led his army by the way of the dwellers in tents far
away to Karkor. Here he defeated and scattered the 15,000 Midianites who
had escaped, and captured the two princes. Then he turned back to
Succoth and said to the elders, "See, here are Zebah and Zalmunna, for
whom ye mocked me." He caused them to be seized, seventy-seven in
number, and tore them to death with thorns and briers. The tower of
Penuel he destroyed, and caused the inhabitants of the place to be
slain. To the captured princes he said, "What manner of men were they
whom ye once slew at Tabor?" And they answered, "As thou art, they
looked like the sons of a king." "They were my brethren, the sons of my
mother," Gideon answered. "As Jehovah liveth, if ye had saved them alive
I would not slay you. Stand up," he called to his first-born son Jether,
"and slay them." But the youth feared and drew not his sword, for he was
yet young. "Slay us thyself," said the prisoners, "for as the man is, so
is his strength." This was done. When the booty was divided Gideon
claimed as his share the golden ear-rings of the slain Midianites. They
were collected in Gideon's mantle, and the weight reached 1700 shekels
of gold, beside the purple raiment of the dead kings, and the moons and
chains on the necks of the camels.

Gideon had gained a brilliant victory; no more is heard of the raids of
the Midianites. Out of the booty he set up a gilded image (ephod) at
Ophra.[201] He overthrew the altar of Baal and the image of Astarte in
his city; and this, as is expressly stated, in the night (from which we
must conclude that the inhabitants of Ophra were attached to this
worship); and in the place of it he set up an altar to Jehovah on the
height, and in the city another altar, which he called "Jehovah, peace."
"Unto this day it is still in Ophra."

After the liberation of the land, which was owing to him, Gideon held
the first place in Israel. We are told that the crown had been offered
to him and that he refused it.[202] But if Gideon left 70 sons of his
body by many wives, if we find that his influence descended to his sons,
he must have held an almost royal position, in which a harem was not
wanting. He died, as it seems, in a good old age, and was buried in the
grave of his fathers (after 1150 B.C.[203]).

The same need of protection which preserved Gideon in power till his
death had induced some cities to form a league, after the pattern of the
cities of the Philistines, for mutual support and security. Shechem, the
old metropolis of the tribe of Ephraim, was the chief city of this
league. Here on the citadel at Shechem the united cities had built a
temple to Baal Berith, _i.e._ to Baal of the league, and established a
fund for the league in the treasury of this temple. One of the 70 sons
of Gideon, the child of a woman of Shechem, by name Abimelech, conceived
the plan of establishing a monarchy in Israel by availing himself of
Gideon's name and memory, the desire for order and protection from which
the league had arisen, and the resources of the cities. At first he
sought to induce the cities to make him their chief. Supported by them,
he sought to remove his brothers and to take the monarchy into his own
hands as the only heir of Gideon. A skilful warrior like Abimelech, who
carried with him the fame and influence of a great father, must have
been welcome to the cities as a leader and chief in such wild times.
Abimelech spoke to the men of Shechem: "Consider that I am your bone and
your flesh; which is better, that 70 men rule over you or I only?" Then
the citizens of Shechem and the inhabitants of the citadel assembled
under the oak of Shechem and made Abimelech their king, and gave him 70
shekels of silver from the temple of Baal Berith, "that he might be able
to pay people to serve him." With these and the men of Shechem who
followed him he marched and slew all his brethren at Ophra in his
father's house (one only, Jotham, escaped him), and Israel obeyed him.
Abimelech seemed to have reached his object. Perhaps he might have
maintained the throne thus won by blood had he not, three years
afterwards, quarrelled with the cities which helped him to power. The
cities rose against him. Abimelech with his forces went against the
chief city, Shechem. The city was taken and destroyed, the inhabitants
massacred. About 1000 men and women fled for refuge into the temple of
Baal Berith in the citadel; Abimelech caused them to be burned along
with the temple. Then he turned from Shechem to Thebez, some miles to
the north. When he stormed the city the inhabitants fled into the strong
tower, closed it, and went up on the roof of the tower. Abimelech
pressed on to the door of the tower to set it on fire, when a woman
threw a stone down from above which fell on Abimelech and broke his
skull. Then the king called to his armour-bearer, "Draw thy sword and
slay me, that it may not be said, A woman slew him." The youthful
monarchy was wrecked on this quarrel of the citizens with the new king.

After this time Eli the priest at the sacred tabernacle, a descendant of
Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron,[204] is said to have been in honour
among the Israelites. Not only was he the priest of the national shrine,
but counsel and judgment were also sought from him. But Eli's sons,
Hophni and Phinehas; did evil, and lay with the women who came to the
sacred tabernacle to offer prayer and sacrifice.[205]

FOOTNOTES:

[181] Judges v. 10, 14; x. 4.

[182] Judges x. 1-5; xii. 8-15.

[183] _e.g._ Judges ix. 27.

[184] Judges xxi. 19; 1 Sam. i. 3; ii. 13.

[185] Judges xx. 1; vol. i. 410.

[186] 1 Sam. x. 3; vol. i. 390, 411.

[187] Judges xvii. 5, 10; xviii. 30; 1 Sam. vii. 1; 2, vi. 3.

[188] Judges xvii. ff.

[189] 1 Sam. xix. 13-16; xxi. 9; Gen. xxxi. 34; Judges xvii. 5; xviii.
14, 17; 2 Kings xxiii. 24.

[190] _e.g._ Judges vi. 36-40; xviii. 5; xx. 18 ff. The priests wore a
pocket with lots (apparently small stones) on the breast. The Urim and
Thummim of the High Priest was originally nothing but these lots.

[191] On the composition of the Book of Judges, cf. De Wette-Schrader,
"Einleitung," 325 ff.

[192] In David's time only 270,000 are given: below, chap. 7.

[193] Judges xx. 8; xxi. 7-18.

[194] Gen. xlix. 27; Judges xx. 16; 1 Chron. viii. 39; xii. 2; 2 Chron.
xiv. 7.

[195] These events belong, according to Judges xx. 27 ff., to the period
immediately after the conquest: as a fact, the war against Benjamin is
not to be placed long after this, _i.e._ about 1200 B.C. Cf. De
Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," S. 326.

[196] Judges iii. 12 ff.

[197] Judges iv., v.

[198] Judges vi. 2-5.

[199] Judges viii. 19.

[200] The observation that Gideon was the least in the house of his
father, and his family the weakest in Manasseh (Judges vi. 15), is due
no doubt to the tendency of the Ephraimitic text to show how strong
Jehovah is even in the weak. From similar motives it is said that Gideon
himself reduced his army to 300 men (Judges vii. 2-6). In the presence
of the Ephraimites Gideon speaks only of the family of Abiezer.

[201] What is meant in Judges viii. 27 by an ephod is not clear. The
words which follow in the verse--that all Israel went whoring after
Gideon--are obviously an addition of the prophetic revision.

[202] Judges viii. 22.

[203] Gideon's date can only be fixed very indefinitely. He and the
generations after him must have belonged to the second half of the
twelfth century B.C.

[204] Joseph. "Antiq." 5, 11, 5.

[205] 1 Sam. ii. 22-25.



CHAPTER V.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MONARCHY IN ISRAEL.


More than a century and a half had passed since the Israelites had won
their land in Canaan. The greater part of the tribes, beside the
breeding of cattle, were occupied with the cultivation of vines and
figs, and regular agriculture; the minority had become accustomed to
life in settled cities, and the earliest stages of industry; but the
unity of the nation was lost, and in the place of the religious fervour
which once accompanied the exodus from Egypt, the rites of the Syrian
deities had forced their way in alongside of the worship of Jehovah. The
division and disorganisation of the nation had exposed the Israelites to
the attacks of their neighbours; the attempt of Abimelech to establish a
monarchy in connection with the cities had failed; the anarchy still
continued. Worse dangers still might be expected in the future. The
forces of the Moabites, Midianites, and Ammonites were not superior to
that of the Israelites, the attacks of the tribes of the desert were of
a transitory nature; but what if the cities of the coast, superior in
civilisation, art, and combined power, should find it convenient when
the affairs of Israel were in this position to extend their borders to
the interior, and Israel should be gradually subjugated from the coast?
From the Phenicians there was nothing to fear: navigation and trade
entirely occupied them; from the beginning of the eleventh century
their ships devoted their attention to discoveries in the Atlantic
Ocean, beyond the straits of Gibraltar (p. 83). The case was different
with the warlike cities of the Philistines. If the Philistines were
behind the Israelites in the extent of their territory and dominion,
their forces were held together and well organised by means of the
confederation of the cities. Bounded to the west by the sea, and to the
south by the desert, the only path open to them for extending their
power was in the direction of the Hebrews. For a long time they had been
content to put a limit upon the extension of the tribes of Judah and
Dan, but in the first half of the eleventh century B.C. the condition of
Israel appeared to the federation of the Philistines sufficiently
inviting to induce them to pass from defence to attack. Their blows fell
first on Judah, Simeon, and the part of Dan which had remained in the
south on the borders of the Philistines; tribes which had hitherto been
exempted from attack, whose territory had been protected by the deserts
on the south, and the Dead Sea on the east. But now they were attacked
from the direction of the sea. The struggle with the Philistines was not
a matter of rapine and plunder, but of freedom and independence. The aim
of the five princes of the Philistines (I. 348) was directed towards the
extension of their own borders and their own dominion, and the war
against the Israelites was soon carried on with vigour. The tribes of
Judah and Dan were reduced to submission.[206] If the Israelites did not
succeed in uniting their forces, if they could not repair what was
neglected at the conquest, and had since been attempted in vain, the
suppression of their independence, their religious and national life,
appeared certain. The question was whether the nation of Israel,
accustomed to an independent and defiant life in small communities, and
corrupted by it, possessed sufficient wisdom and devotion to solve the
difficult task now laid upon it.

It was a melancholy time for Israel when the Philistines ruled over the
south of the land. Later generations found some comfort for this
national disgrace in the narratives of the strong and courageous Samson,
the son of Manoah, of the tribe of Dan, whose deeds were placed by
tradition in this period. He had done the Philistines much mischief, and
slain many of them; even when his foolish love for a Philistine maiden
finally brought him to ruin, he slew more Philistines at his death than
in his life--"about 3000 men and women."[207] Whatever be the truth
about these deeds, no individual effort could avail to save Israel when
the Philistines seriously set themselves to conquer the northern tribes,
unless the nation roused itself and combined all its forces under one
definite head.

The Philistines invaded the land of Ephraim with a mighty army, and
forced their way beyond it northwards as far as Aphek, two leagues to
the south of Tabor. At Tabor the Israelites assembled and attempted to
check the Philistines, but they failed; 4000 Israelites were slain. Then
the elders of Israel, in order to encourage the people, caused the ark
of Jehovah to be brought from Shiloh into the camp. Eli, the priest at
the sacred tabernacle, was of the age of 98 years. Hophni and Phinehas,
his sons, accompanied the sacred ark, which was welcomed by the army
with shouts of joy. In painful expectation Eli sat at the gate of Shiloh
and awaited the result. Then a man of the tribe of Benjamin came in
haste, with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head, and said, "Israel
is fled before the Philistines, thy sons are dead, and the ark of God is
lost." Eli fell backwards from his seat, broke his neck, and died. About
30,000 men are said to have fallen in the battle (about 1070
B.C.).[208]

At the sacred tabernacle at Shiloh Samuel the son of Elkanah had served
under Eli. Elkanah was an Ephraimite; he dwelt at Ramah (Ramathaim,
and hence among the Greeks Arimathia[209]). Samuel was born to him late
in life, and, in gratitude that at last a son was given to her, his
mother had dedicated him to Jehovah, and given him to Eli to serve in
the sanctuary. Thus even as a boy Samuel waited at the sacrifices in a
linen tunic, and performed the sacred rites. He grew up in the fear of
Jehovah and became a seer, who saw what was hidden, a soothsayer, whom
the people consulted in distress of any kind, and at the same time he
announced the will of Jehovah, for Jehovah had called him, and permitted
him to see visions, "so that he knew how to speak the word of God, which
was rare in those days," and "Jehovah was with him and let none of
Samuel's words fall to the ground."[210] After the crushing defeat at
Aphek it devolved on Samuel to perform the duties of high priest. He
summoned the people to Mizpeh in the tribe of Benjamin and prayed for
Israel. Large libations of water were poured to Jehovah. When the
Philistines advanced Samuel sacrificed a sucking lamb (no doubt as a
sin-offering), and burned it. "Then on that day Jehovah thundered
mightily out of heaven over the Philistines, and confounded them so that
they were defeated."

This victory remained without lasting results. On the contrary, the
slavery of the Israelites to the Philistines became more extensive and
more severe. In order to bring the northern tribes into the same
subjection as the tribes of Dan, Judah, and Simeon, the Philistines
established fortified camps at Michmash and Geba (Gibeah) in the tribe
of Benjamin, as a centre from which to hold this and the northern tribes
in check. The men of the tribes of Judah and Simeon had to take the
field against their own countrymen. These arrangements soon obtained
their object. All Israel on this side of the Jordan was reduced to
subjection. In order to make a rebellion impossible, the Israelites were
deprived of their arms; indeed, the Philistines were not content that
they should give up the arms in their possession, they even removed the
smiths from the land, that no one might provide a sword or javelin for
the Hebrews. The oppression of this dominion pressed so heavily and with
such shame on the Israelites that the books of Samuel themselves tell
us, if the plough-shares, bills, and mattocks became dull, or the forks
were bent, the children of Israel had to go down into the cities of the
Philistines in order to have their implements mended and sharpened.[211]

At this period Samuel's activity must have been limited to leading back
the hearts of the Israelites to the God who brought them out of Egypt;
he must have striven to fill them with the faith with which he was
himself penetrated, and the distress of the time would contribute to
gain acceptance for his teaching and his prescripts. The people sought
his word and decision; he is said to have given judgment at Bethel,
Gilgal, and Mizpeh. He gathered scholars and disciples round him, who
praised Jehovah to the sound of harp and lute, flute and drum, who in
violent agitation and divine excitement awaited his visions, and "were
changed into other men."[212] From the position which tradition allots
to Samuel, there can be no doubt that he brought the belief in and
worship of the old god into renewed life, and caused them to sink deeper
into the hearts of the Israelites. The oppression of his people by the
Philistines he could not turn away, though he cherished a lively hope in
the help of Jehovah.

The tribes on the east of the Jordan remained free from the dominion of
the Philistines; yet for them also servitude and destruction was near at
hand. The Ammonites were not inclined to let slip so favourable an
opportunity. As the land on the west of the Jordan was subject to the
Philistines, the tribes on the east would prove an easy prey. The
Ammonites encamped before Jabesh in Gilead, and the inhabitants were
ready to submit. But Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, as we are told,
would only accept their submission on condition that every man in Jabesh
put out his right eye. Then the elders of Jabesh sent messengers across
the Jordan and earnestly besought their countrymen for help.

The tribe of Benjamin had to feel most heavily, no doubt, the oppression
of the Philistines. In their territory lay the fortified camps of the
enemy. Here, at Gibeah, dwelt a man of the race of Matri, Saul the son
of Kish, the grandson of Abiel. Kish was a man of substance and
influence; his son Saul was a courageous man, of remarkable stature,
"higher by a head than the rest of the nation." He was in the full
strength of his years, and surrounded by valiant sons: Jonathan,
Melchishua, Abinadab, and Ishbosheth. One day, "just as he was returning
home from the field behind his oxen," he heard the announcement which
the messengers of Jabesh brought. Himself under the enemy's yoke, he
felt the more deeply what threatened them. His heart was fired at the
shame and ruin of his people. Regardless of the Philistines, he formed a
bold resolution; assistance must be given to those most in need. He cut
two oxen in pieces, sent the pieces round the tribes,[213] and raised
the cry, "Whoso comes not after Saul, so shall it be done to his oxen."
The troop which gathered round him out of compassion for the besieged in
Jabesh, and in obedience to his summons, Saul divided into three
companies. With these he succeeded in surprising the camp of the
Ammonites about the morning watch; he dispersed the hostile army and set
Jabesh free.

Whatever violence and cruelty had been exercised since the settlement of
the Israelites in Canaan, however many the feuds and severe the
vengeance taken, however great the distress and the oppression, the
nation, amid all the anarchy and freedom so helpless against an enemy,
still preserved a healthy and simple feeling and vigorous power. And at
this crisis the Israelites were not found wanting; Saul's bold
resolution, the success in setting free the city in her sore distress,
the victory thus won, the first joy and hope after so long a period of
shame, gave the people the expectation of having found in him the man
who was able to set them free from the dominion of the Philistines also,
and restore independence, and law, and peace. When the thank-offering
for the unexpected victory, for the liberation of the land of Gilgal,
was offered at Gilgal on the Jordan, as far as possible from the camp of
the Philistines, "all the people went to Gilgal, and there made Saul
king before Jehovah, and Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced
greatly" (1055 B.C.).

The heavy misfortunes which the land had experienced for a long time,
the severe oppression of the dominion of the Philistines, had at length
taught the majority that rescue could only come by a close connection
and union of the powers of the tribes, and an established authority
supreme over all. To check anarchy from within and oppression from
without required a vigorous hand, a ruling will, and a recognised power.
What the people could do to put an end to the disorganisation was now
done, they had placed a man at the head whom they might expect to be a
brave leader and resolute guide. The Israelites had used their
sovereignty to give themselves a master, and might hope with confidence
that by this step they had laid the foundations of a happier future
which they might certainly greet with joy.[214]

Immediately after his election on the Jordan, Saul was firmly resolved
to take up arms against the Philistines for the liberation of the land.
He turned upon their camp in the district of his own tribe. While he lay
opposite the fortifications at Michmash, and thus held the garrison
fast, his son Jonathan succeeded in conquering the detachment of the
Philistines stationed at Geba. But the princes of the Philistines had no
mind to look on at the union of Israel. They assembled, as we are told,
an army of 3000 chariots, 6000 cavalry, and foot soldiers beyond number;
with these the tribes of Judah and Simeon were compelled to take the
field against their brethren.[215] Whether the numbers are correct or
incorrect, the armament of the Philistines was sufficient to cause the
courage of the Israelites to sink. Saul summoned the Israelites to the
Jordan, to Gilgal, where he had been raised to be their chief. But in
vain he caused the trumpets to be blown and the people to be summoned.
The Israelites crept into the caves and clefts of the rock, and
thorn-bushes, into the towers and the cisterns, and fled beyond Jordan
to find refuge in the land of Gilead. Only the king and his brave son
Jonathan did not quail before the numbers or gallantry of the enemies,
though only a small troop--it is said about 600 men--gathered round
Saul. The great army of the Philistines had first marched to the
fortified camp at Michmash, and from this point, after leaving a
garrison behind, in which were the Israelites of Judah and Simeon, it
separated into three divisions, in order to march through Israel in all
directions and hold the country in subjection. One column marched to the
west in the direction of Beth-horon, the second to the north towards
Ophra, the third to the east towards the valley of Zeboim.[216] This
division made it possible for Saul to attack. He turned upon that part
of the army which was weakest and most insecure, the garrison at
Michmash, and made an unexpected attack on the fortification. Jonathan
ascended an eminence in the rear, while Saul attacked in the van. In the
tumult of the attack the Hebrews in the camp of the Philistines joined
the side of their countrymen, and Saul gained the fortification. The
Philistines fled. The king knew what was at stake and strove to push the
victory thus gained to the utmost.[217] Without resting, he urged his
men to the pursuit of the fugitives. That none of his troop might halt
or stray in order to take food, he said, "Cursed is the man who eats
bread till the evening, till I have taken vengeance on mine enemies."
Jonathan had not heard the command of his father, and as the pursuers
passed through a wood in which wild honey lay scattered he ate a little
of the honeycomb. For this he should have been put to death, because he
was dedicated to Jehovah (I. 499). But the warriors were milder than
their customs. "Shall Jonathan die," cried the soldiers, "who has won
this great victory in Israel? that be far from us: as Jehovah liveth,
not a hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has wrought with
God this day;" "and the people rescued Jonathan that he died not."[218]

This success encouraged the Israelites to come forth from their
hiding-places and gather round their king. But only a part of the
hostile army was defeated, and the Philistines were not so easily to be
deprived of the sovereignty over Israel. "And the strife was hot against
the Philistines so long as Saul lived," and "king Saul was brave and
delivered Israel from the hand of the robbers," is the older of the two
statements preserved in the Books of Samuel.

Saul had rendered the service which was expected by the Israelites when
they elevated him: he had saved his nation from the deepest distress,
from the brink of the most certain destruction. Without him the tribes
beyond the Jordan would have succumbed to the Ammonites and Moabites,
and those on this side of the river would at length have become obedient
subjects of the Philistines. He found on his accession a disarmed,
discouraged nation. By his own example he knew how to restore to them
courage and self-confidence, and educate them into a nation familiar
with war and skilled in it. The old military virtues of the tribe of
Benjamin (p. 96) found in Saul their full expression and had a most
beneficial result for Israel. The close community in which from old time
the small tribe of Benjamin had been with the large tribe of Ephraim, by
the side of which it had settled, was an advantage to Saul.[219] The
strong position which he gained by the recognition of these two tribes
could not but have an effect on the others, and contribute with the
importance of his achievements and the splendour of their results to
gain firmness and respect for the young monarchy, and win obedience for
his commands. In the ceaseless battles which he had to carry on he was
mainly supported by his eldest son Jonathan, who stood beside him as a
faithful brother in arms, and his cousin Abner, the son of Ner his
father's brother, whom he made his chief captain. "And wherever Saul saw
a mighty man and a brave he took him to himself."[220] Thus he formed
around him a school of brave warriors. He appears to have kept 3000
warriors under arms in the district of Benjamin, and this formed the
centre for the levy of the people.[221]

But the Israelites had not merely to thank the king they had set up for
the recovery and vigorous defence of their independence and their
territory; he was also a zealous servant of Jehovah. He offered
sacrifice to Him, built altars, and inquired of Him by His priests, who
accompanied him even on his campaigns.[222] He observed strictly the
sacred customs; even after the battle the exhausted soldiers were not
allowed to eat meat with blood in it. He was prepared to allow even his
dearest son, whose life he had unconsciously devoted, to be put to
death. He removed all magicians and wizards out of the land with great
severity.[223] How earnestly he took up the national and religious
opposition to the Canaanites is clear from his conduct to the Hivites of
Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim, who had once made a
league with Joshua, and in consequence had been allowed to remain among
the Israelites (I. 494). "Saul sought to slay them in his zeal for
Israel," and the Gibeonites afterwards maintained that Saul had sought
to annihilate them, and his purpose was that they should be destroyed
and exist no more in all the land of Israel.[224] The ark of the
covenant, which had fallen into the hands of the Philistines at the
battle of Aphek, was brought back to Israel in his reign. The possession
of it, so the Hebrews said, had brought no good to the Philistines. They
had set it up as a trophy of victory in the temple of Dagon at Ashdod.
But the image of the god had fallen to pieces, and only the fish-tail
was left standing (I. 272); the people of Ashdod had been attacked with
boils, and their crops destroyed by mice. The same occurred at Gath,
when the ark was brought there, and, in consequence, the city of Ekron
had refused to accept it. Then the Philistines had placed the ark upon a
wagon, and allowed the cows before it to draw it whither they would.
They drew it to Beth-shemesh in the tribe of Judah. But when the people
of Beth-shemesh looked on the ark a grievous mortality began among them,
till the men of Kirjath-jearim (not far from Beth-shemesh) took away the
ark, and Abinadab set it up in a house on a hill in his field, and
established his own son Eleazar as guardian and priest (about 1045
B.C.[225]). The Books of the Chronicles mention the gifts which Saul
dedicated to the national sanctuary.[226]

As king of Israel, Saul remained true to the simplicity of his earlier
life. Of splendour, courts, ceremonial, dignitaries, and harem we hear
nothing. If not in the field he remained on his farm at Gibeah, with his
wife Ahinoam,[227] his four sons, and his two daughters. Abner and other
approved comrades in arms ate at his table. His elder daughter Merab he
married to Adriel the son of Barzillai. Michal, the younger, he gave to
a youthful warrior, David the son of Jesse, who had distinguished
himself in the war against the Philistines, whom he had made his
armour-bearer and companion of his table, entrusting him at the same
time with the command of 1000 men of the standing army.[228] "What am I,
what is the life and the house of my father in Israel, that I should
become the son-in-law of the king? I am but a poor and lowly man." So
David said, but Saul remained firm in his purpose.

Of Saul's later battles against the Philistines tradition has preserved
only a few fragments, from which it is clear that the war was carried on
upon the borders by plundering incursions, which were interrupted from
time to time by greater campaigns.[229] But the preponderance of the
Philistine power was broken. And Saul had not only to fight against
these. "He fought on all sides," we are told, "against all the enemies
of Israel, against Moab, and against the sons of Ammon, and against
Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and whithersoever he turned he
was victorious."[230] When the Amalekites from their deserts on the
peninsula of Sinai invaded the south of Israel, and forced their way as
far as Hebron, he defeated them there at Maon-Carmel,[231] and pursued
them over the borders of Israel into their own land as far as the desert
of Sur, "which lies before Egypt," and took Agag their king prisoner. It
was a severe defeat which he inflicted on them.[232] "Saul's sword came
not back empty," and "the daughters of Israel clothed themselves in
purple," and "adorned their garments with gold" from the spoil of his
victories.[233] The Israelites felt what they owed to the monarchy and
to Saul.[234]

FOOTNOTES:

[206] Judges xiii. 1; xiv. 4; xv. 11; 1 Sam. iv. 9.

[207] In Samson, who overcomes the lion, and sends out the foxes with
firebrands, who overthrows the pillars of the temple, and buries himself
under it, Steinthal ("Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie," 2, 21)
recognises the sun-god of the Syrians. The name Samson means as a fact
"the sunny one." The long hair in which Samson's strength lay may
symbolise the growth of nature in the summer, and the cutting off of it
the decay of creative power in the winter: so too the binding of Samson
may signify the imprisoned power of the sun in winter. As Melkarth in
the winter went to rest at his pillars in the far west, at the end of
his wanderings, so Samson goes to his rest between the two pillars in
the city on the shore of the western sea. If, finally, Samson becomes
the servant of a mistress Dalilah--_i.e._ "the tender"--this also is a
trait which belongs to the myth of Melkarth; cf. I. 371. It is not to be
denied that traits of this myth have forced their way into the form and
legend of Samson, although the long hair belongs not to Samson only, but
to Samuel and all the Nazarites; yet we must not from these traits draw
the conclusion that the son of Manoah is no more than a mythical figure,
and even those traits must have gone through many stages among the
Israelites before they could assume a form of such vigorous liveliness,
such broad reality, as we find pourtrayed in the narrative of Samson.

[208] The simplest method of obtaining a fixed starting-point for the
date of the foundation of the monarchy in Israel is to reckon backwards
from the capture of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple by
Nebuchadnezzar. According to the canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar's
reign began in the year 604 B.C., the temple and Jerusalem were burned
down in the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8; Jer.
lii. 12), _i.e._ in the year 586 B.C. From this year the Hebrews
reckoned 430 years to the commencement of the building of the temple
(430 = 37 years of Solomon since the beginning of the building + 261
years from the death of Solomon to the taking of Samaria + 132 years
from the taking of Samaria to the destruction of the temple). Hence the
building of the temple was commenced in the year 1015 B.C. Since the
commencement of the building is placed in the fourth year of Solomon,
his accession would fall in the year 1018 B.C.; and as 40 years are
allotted to David, his accession at Hebron falls in 1058 B.C., and
Saul's election about 1080 B.C. In the present text only the number two
is left of the amount of the years of his reign (1 Sam. xiii. 1), the
years of his life also are lost; we may perhaps assume 22 years for his
reign, since Eupolemus gives him 21 years (Alex. Polyh. Frag. 18, ed.
Müller), and Josephus 20 ("Antiq." 6, 14, 9, 10, 8, 4). His
contemporary, Nahash of Ammon, is on the throne before the election of
Saul, and continues beyond the death of Saul and Ishbosheth, and even 10
years into the reign of David. Nahash must have had an uncommonly long
reign if Saul reigned more than 22 years. It makes against the dates
1080 B.C. for Saul, 1058 B.C. for David, 1018 B.C. for Solomon, that
they rest upon the succession of kings of Judah, from the division of
the kingdom down to the fall of Samaria, which is reckoned at 261 years,
while the succession of kings of Israel during the same period only
fills 241 years. Movers ("Phoeniz." 2, 1, 140 ff.) has attempted to
remove this difficulty by assuming as a starting-point the statements of
Menander of Ephesus, on the succession of kings in Tyre, preserved in
Josephus ("c. Apion," 1, 18). Josephus says that from the building of
the temple, which took place in the twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre,
down to the founding of Carthage, which took place in the seventh year
of Pygmalion king of Tyre, 143 years 8 months elapsed. From the date
given by Justin (18, 7) for the founding of Carthage (72 years before
the founding of Rome; 72 + 754), _i.e._ from 826 B.C., Movers reckons
back 143 years, and so fixes the building of the temple at the year 969
B.C., on which reckoning Solomon's accession would fall in the year 972
B.C., David's in the year 1012 B.C., and Saul's election in 1034 B.C.
But since the more trustworthy dates for the year of the founding of
Carthage, 846, 826, and 816, have an equal claim to acceptance, we are
equally justified in reckoning back from 846 and 816 to Saul's
accession.

According to the canon of the Assyrians, the epochs in which were fixed
by the observation of the solar eclipse of July 15 in the year 763 B.C.,
Samaria was taken in the year 722 B.C. If from this we reckon backwards
261 years for Judah, Solomon's death would fall in the year 983 B.C.,
his accession in 1023 B.C., David's accession in 1063 B.C., Saul's
election in 1085 B.C. If we keep to the amount given for Israel (241
years + 722), Solomon's death falls in 963, his accession in 1003, the
building of the temple in 1000 B.C., David's accession in 1043 B.C.,
Saul's accession in 1065 B.C. But neither by retaining the whole sum of
430 years, according to which the building of the temple begins 1015
B.C. (430 + 586), and Solomon dies in 978 B.C., nor by putting the death
of Solomon in the year 983 or 963 B.C., do we bring the Assyrian
monuments into agreement with the chronological statements of the
Hebrews. If we place the date of the division of the kingdom at the year
978 B.C., Ahab's reign, according to the numbers given by the Hebrews
for the kingdom of Israel, extends from 916 to 894 B.C.; if we place the
division at 963 B.C., it extends, according to the same calculation,
from 901 to 879 B.C. On the other hand, the Assyrian monuments prove
that Ahab fought at Karkar against Shalmanesar II. in the year 854 B.C.
(below, chap. 10). Since Ahab after this carried on a war against
Damascus, in which war he died, he must in any case have been alive in
853 B.C. Hence even the lower date taken for Ahab's reign from the
Hebrew statements (901-879 B.C.) would have to be brought down 26 years,
and as a necessary consequence the death of Solomon would fall, not in
the year 963 B.C., but in the year 937 B.C.

If we could conclude from this statement in the Assyrian monuments that
the reigns of the kings of Israel were extended by the Hebrews beyond
the truth, it follows from another monument, the inscription of Mesha,
that abbreviations also took place. According to the Second Book of
Kings (iii. 5), Mesha of Moab revolted from Israel when Ahab died. The
stone of Mesha says: "Omri took Medaba, and Israel dwelt therein in his
and his son's days for 40 years; in my days Camus restored it;" Nöldeke,
"Inschrift des Mesa." Hence Omri, the father of Ahab, took Medaba 40
years before the death of Ahab. Ahab, according to the Hebrews, reigned
22 years, Omri 12. According to the stone of Mesha the two reigns must
have together amounted to more than 40 years. Since Omri obtained the
throne by force, and had at first to carry on a long civil war, and
establish himself on the throne (1 Kings xvi. 21, 22), he could not make
war upon the Moabites at the very beginning of his reign. Here,
therefore, there is an abbreviation of the reign of Omri and Ahab by at
least 10 years.

Hence the contradiction between the monuments of the Assyrians and the
numbers of the Hebrews is not to be removed by merely bringing down the
division of the kingdom to the year 937 B.C. In order to obtain a
chronological arrangement at all, we are placed in the awkward necessity
of making an attempt to bring the canon of the Assyrians into agreement
with the statements of the Hebrews by assumptions more or less
arbitrary. Jehu slew Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah at the
same time. From this date upwards to the death of Solomon the Hebrew
Scriptures reckon 98 years for Israel, and 95 for Judah. Jehu ascended
the throne of Israel in the year 843 B.C. at the latest, since,
according to the Assyrian monuments, he paid tribute to Shalmanesar II.
in the year 842 B.C. If we reckon the 98 years for Israel upwards from
843 B.C., we arrive at 941 B.C. for the division of the kingdom; and if
to this we add, as the time which has doubtlessly fallen out in the
reigns of Omri and Ahab, 12 years, 953 B.C. would be the year of the
death of Solomon, the year in which the ten tribes separated from the
house of David. If we keep the year 953 for the division, the year 993
comes out for the accession of Solomon, the year 990 for the beginning
of the building of the temple, the year 1033 for the accession of David
at Hebron, and the year 1055 for the election of Saul. Fifteen years may
be taken for the continuance of the heavy oppression before Saul. For
the changes which we must in consequence of this assumption establish in
the data of the reigns from Jeroboam and Rehoboam down to Athaliah and
Jehu, _i.e._ in the period from 953 B.C. to 843 B.C., see below. Omri's
reign occupies the period from 899-875 B.C. (24 years instead of 12),
_i.e._ a period which agrees with the importance of this reign among
the Moabites and the Assyrians; Ahab reigned from 875-853 B.C. According
to 1 Kings xvi. 31, Ahab took Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal the king
of the Sidonians to wife. If this Ethbaal of Sidon is identical with the
Ithobal of Tyre in Josephus, the chronology deduced from our assumptions
would not be impossible. Granted the assertion of Josephus that the
twelfth year of Hiram king of Tyre is the fourth year of Solomon (990
B.C.), Hiram's accession would fall in the year 1001 B.C.; according to
Josephus, Ithobal ascended the throne of Tyre 85 years after Hiram's
accession, when he had slain Pheles. He lived according to the same
authority 68 years and reigned 32 years, _i.e._ from 916-884 B.C. Ahab,
either before or after the year of his accession (875), might very well
have taken the daughter of this prince to wife. And if we assume that
the statement of Appian, that Carthage was in existence 700 years before
her destruction by the Romans, _i.e._ was founded in the year 846 B.C.,
the 143-2/3 or 144 years of Josephus between the building of the temple
and the foundation of Carthage, reckoned backwards from 846 B.C., lead
us to the year 990 B.C. for the building of the temple.

[209] Now Beit-Rima, north-east of the later Lydda.

[210] 1 Sam. iii. 1, 19.

[211] 1 Sam. xiii. 19-23, from the older account.

[212] 1 Sam. x. 5, 6; xix. 20-24.

[213] Compare the division of the corpse by the Levite, above, p. 96.

[214] Owing to the later conceptions that the king needed to be
consecrated by the prophets, that Jehovah is himself the King of Israel,
an almost inexplicable confusion has come into the narrative of Saul's
elevation. Not only have we an older and later account existing side by
side in the books of Samuel, not only has there been even a third hand
at work, but the attempts to bring the contradictory accounts into
harmony have increased the evil. In 1 Sam. viii. we are told: The elders
of Israel and the people required from Samuel a king at Ramah, because
he was old and his sons walked not in his ways. Jehovah says to Samuel:
They have not rejected thee, but me; yet Samuel accedes to the request
of the Israelites. Samuel gives the elders a terrifying description of
the oppression which the monarchy would exercise upon them, a
description which evidently predates the experiences made under David,
Solomon, and later kings, whereas at the time spoken of the nation had
suffered only too long from wild anarchy. The reasons, moreover, given
by the elders, why they desired a king, do not agree with the situation,
but rather with the time of Eli, who also had foolish sons. In spite of
Samuel's warning the people persist in their wish to have a king.
Further we are told in chap. ix. 1-x. 16, how Saul at his father's
bidding sets out in quest of lost she-asses, and goes to inquire of
Samuel, for the fourth part of a silver shekel, whither they had
strayed. At Jehovah's command Samuel anoints the son of Kish to be king,
when he comes to him; he tells him where he will find his asses, and
imparts to him two other prophecies on the way. Then we are told in
chap. x. 17-27 that Samuel summons an assembly of the people to Mizpeh,
repeats his warning against the monarchy, but then causes lots to be
cast who shall be king over the tribes, and families, and individuals.
The lot falls upon Saul, who makes no mention to any one of the
anointing, but has hidden himself among the stuff. Finally, in chap. xi.
we find the account given in the text, to which, in order to bring it
into harmony with what has been already related, these words are
prefixed in ver. 14: "And Samuel said to the people, Come, let us go to
Gilgal to renew the kingdom;" but in xi. 15 we find: "Then went all the
people to Gilgal, and made Saul king before Jehovah in Gilgal." The
contradictions are striking. The elders require a king from Samuel, whom
they could choose themselves (2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3; 1 Kings xii. 1, 20; 2
Kings xiv. 21), and whom, according to 1 Sam. xi. 15, the people
actually choose. Jehovah will not have a king, but then permits it. Nor
is this permission all; he himself points out to Samuel the man whom he
is to anoint. Anointed to be king, Saul goes, as if nothing had taken
place, to his home. He comes to the assembly at Mizpeh, and again says
nothing to any one of his new dignity. Already king by anointment, he is
now again made king by the casting of lots. He returns home to till his
field, when the messengers from Jabesh were sent not to the king of
Israel, but to the people of Israel, to ask for help. In Gibeah also
they do not apply to the king; not till he sees the people weeping in
Gibeah, does Saul learn the message. Yet he does not summon the people
to follow him as king; he requests the following just as in earlier
times individuals in extraordinary cases sought to rouse the people to
take up arms. It is impossible that a king should be chosen by lot at a
time when the bravest warrior was needed at the head, and simple boys,
who hid themselves among the stuff, were not suited to lead the army at
such a dangerous time. At the time of Saul's very first achievements his
son Jonathan stands at his side as a warrior; at his death his youngest
son Ishbosheth was 40 years of age (2 Sam. ii. 10). Saul must therefore
have been between 40 and 50 years old when he became king. The request
of the elders for a king, and Samuel's resistance, belong on the other
hand to the prophetic narrator of the books of Samuel, in whose account
it was followed by the assembly at Mizpeh and the casting of lots. The
same narrator attempts to bring the achievement at Jabesh, and the
recognition of Saul as ruler and king which followed it, into harmony
with his narrative by the addition of the restoration of the kingdom and
some other interpolations. The Philistines would hardly have permitted
minute preparations and prescribed assemblies for the election of king.
The simple elevation and recognition of Saul as king after his first
successful exploit in war corresponds to the situation of affairs (cf. I
xii. 12). And I am the more decided in holding this account to be
historically correct, because it does not presuppose the other accounts,
and because the men of Jabesh, according to the older account, fetched
the bodies of Saul and his sons to Jabesh from Beth-shan and burned them
there, 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, 13. The older account in the books of Samuel
knows nothing of the request of the elders for a king. After the defeat
which caused Eli's death, it narrates the carrying back of the ark by
the Philistines, and the setting up of it at Beth-shemesh and
Kirjath-jearim. Then follows Saul's anointing by Samuel (ix. 1-10, 16);
then the lost statement about the age of Saul when he became king, and
the length of the reign; then the great exploits of Saul against the
Philistines (xiii. 1-14, 46); xiii. 8-13 stands in precise relation to
x. 8. That the achievement of Jabesh cannot have been wanting in the
older account follows from the express reference to it at the death of
Saul.

[215] 1 Sam. xiii. 3-7; xiv. 22.

[216] 1 Sam. xiii. 16-18.

[217] 1 Sam. xiv. 1-23.

[218] So the older account, 1 Sam. xiv. 24-45.

[219] Numbers ii. 18-24; Joshua xviii. 12-20; Judges v. 14. That Ephraim
remained true to Saul follows from the recognition of Ishbosheth after
Saul's death, 2 Sam. ii. 9, 10.

[220] 1 Sam. xiv. 52.

[221] 1 Sam. xiii. 2.

[222] 1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18, 37; xxviii. 6.

[223] 1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9.

[224] 2 Sam. xxi. 2, 5.

[225] The ark was brought by David from Kirjath-jearim to Zion. That
could not take place before the year 1025 B.C. Saul's death falls, as
was assumed above, in the year 1033 B.C. But the ark is said to have
been at Kirjath-jearim 20 years (1 Sam. vii. 2; vi. 21), it must
therefore have been carried thither 1045 B.C., or a few years later. The
stay among the Philistines must have been more than seven months, as
stated in 1 Sam. vi. 61; the stay at Beth-shemesh was apparently only a
short one. The battle at Tabor and Eli's death cannot, as shown above,
be placed much later than 1070 B.C. According to 1 Sam. xiv. 3; xviii.
19, the ark was in Saul's army at the battle of Michmash, and Ahijah
(Ahimelech), the great-grandson of Eli, was its keeper.

[226] 1 Chron. xxvi. 28.

[227] Only one concubine is mentioned, by whom Saul had two sons.

[228] 1 Sam. xviii. 3, 17-20, 28; xxii. 4.

[229] 1 Sam. xvii., xviii., xxiii. 28.

[230] 1 Sam. xiv. 47, 48.

[231] 1 Sam. xv. 12. The place near Hebron still bears the name Carmel.

[232] Nöldeke, "Die Amalekiter," s. 14, 15.

[233] 2 Sam. i. 21-24.

[234] This follows from the fact that the monarchy remains even after
Saul's death, from the lamentation of the Israelites for Saul, and their
allegiance to his son Ishbosheth.



CHAPTER VI.

DAVID'S STRUGGLE AGAINST SAUL AND ISHBOSHETH.


The position which Samuel gained as a priest, seer, and judge after the
death of Eli and his sons, and continued to hold under the sway of the
Philistines must have undergone a marked change, owing to the
establishment of the monarchy in Israel, though in the later text of the
Books of Samuel it is maintained that "Samuel judged Israel till his
death."[235] We know that Samuel had set up an altar to Jehovah at
Ramathaim, his home and dwelling-place (p. 115), but it is not handed
down that he had again set up there the sacred tabernacle and the
worship at the sacred ark, though this may very well have been the case
after the Philistines sent back the ark. Both the older and the later
text of the two Books of Samuel represent him as in opposition to the
monarchy. According to the later text, written from a prophetic point of
view, Samuel had from the first opposed the establishment of the
monarchy; and both the older and the more recent account know of a
contention between Saul and Samuel. The former tells us: When Saul
immediately after his election took up arms against the Philistines, and
these marched out with their whole fighting power, and Saul gathered the
Israelites at Gilgal, Samuel bade the king wait seven days till he came
down to offer burnt-offering and thank-offering. "And Saul waited seven
days, but Samuel came not; the people were scattered. Then Saul said:
Bring me the burnt-offering and the thank-offering. He offered the
burnt-sacrifice, and when he had made an end Samuel came, and Saul went
to greet him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? Saul answered, When
I saw that the people were scattered from me, and thou didst not come at
the time appointed, and the Philistines were encamped at Michmash, I
said, The Philistines will come down upon me to Gilgal, and I have not
made supplication to Jehovah, so I forced myself and offered the
burnt-sacrifice. Then Samuel said, Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast
not observed the command of thy God which he commanded thee. Jehovah
would have established thy kingdom over Israel for ever, but now thy
kingdom shall not endure."[236] The more recent account puts the
contention at a far later date. When Saul marched against the Amalekites
Samuel bade him "curse" everything that belonged to Amalek, man and
woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. After the return
of the victorious army Samuel came to Gilgal, and said, What meaneth
this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in my ears? Saul answered, I
have obeyed the voice of Jehovah and have gone the way which Jehovah
sent me, and I have brought with me Agag the king of Amalek, and have
"cursed" Amalek. But from the spoil the people have taken the best of
what was "cursed," in order to sacrifice to Jehovah, thy God, at Gilgal.
Samuel answered in the tone of Isaiah, Hath Jehovah delight in
burnt-offerings and sacrifice? To obey is better than sacrifice. Saul
confesses that he has sinned and transgressed the command of Jehovah and
the word of Samuel, "for I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.
And now forgive me my sin, and turn with me, that I may entreat Jehovah.
But Samuel said, I will not turn back with thee; because thou hast
rejected the word of Jehovah he will reject thee from being king over
Israel. Samuel turned to go, but Saul caught the hem of his garment and
said, I have sinned, yet honour me before the elders of my people, and
before Israel, and return with me, that I may offer prayer before
Jehovah. Then Samuel turned behind Saul, and Saul offered prayer before
Jehovah. And Samuel bade them bring Agag the king of Amalek before him,
and said, As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be
childless among women; and he hewed Agag in pieces before Jehovah at
Gilgal. And Samuel went up to Ramathaim and saw Saul no more."[237] In
the narrative of the first text Saul appears to be thoroughly justified
by the most urgent necessity; in the narrative of the second text he
acknowledges openly and completely that he has sinned. It may have been
the case that Saul did not appear to Samuel sufficiently submissive to
his utterances, which for him were the utterances of God; that he wished
to see the rights and power of a king exercised in a different manner
and in a different feeling from that in which Saul discharged his
office.

More dangerous for Saul than any reproach or coldness on the part of
Samuel was the contention which he had in the latter years of his reign
with another man, whom he had himself raised to eminence--a strife which
cost Saul the reward of his laborious and brave reign, and his house the
throne; while Israel lost the fruits of great efforts, and the fortunes
of the people were again put to the hazard.

Of the family of Perez[238] of the tribe of Judah, David was the
youngest (eighth) son of a man of some possessions, Jesse of Bethlehem.
He was entrusted with the care and keeping of the sheep and goats of his
father in the desert pastures on the Dead Sea, and his shepherd life had
caused him to grow up in a rough school. It had made him hardy, it had
given strength and suppleness to his body; he had gained a delight in
adventure and unshaken courage in danger. In defence of the flocks he
had withstood bears and ventured into conflict even with a lion. In the
loneliness and silence which surrounded him he practised singing and
playing; the severe and solemn nature of that region was adapted to
impress great thoughts on his mind, to give force and elevation to his
spirit. From such a school he came into the ranks of the warriors of
Saul; the bold deeds which even in his youth he had performed against
the Philistines induced Saul to make David one of "the brave," whom he
took into his house (about 1040 B.C.).[239] He also made him one of his
captains,[240] and frequently sent him out against the Philistines; in
these inroads he fought with more success than other chieftains.[241]
Thus David was a favourite in the eyes of the people and the servants
of the king, and Jonathan, Saul's eldest son, made a covenant with
David, because "he loved him as his own soul."[242] In the house of Saul
David was trusted and honoured before the other warriors; he was his
armour-bearer and the chief of a troop of 1000 men. After Jonathan and
Abner, David was nearest the king; he had the complete confidence of
Saul, and at length became his son-in-law.[243]

Some years afterwards (about 1036 B.C.[244]), Saul conceived a suspicion
of the man whom he had elevated to such a height. He imagined that his
son-in-law intended to seize the throne from himself, or contest the
succession with his son Jonathan. According to the older account it was
jealousy of the military renown of David, which threatened to obscure
his own, that roused Saul against David;[245] according to the later,
Saul feared the partiality which the people displayed towards David. He
says to Jonathan, "So long as the son of Jesse lives, thou and thy
kingdom will not continue."[246] According to the same account an evil
spirit came over Saul, he was beside himself in the house and threw a
spear at David, who played the harp.[247] David avoided the cast: he
fled to Samuel at Ramathaim into the dwellings of the seers,[248] and
from thence escaped to Achish, the prince of the Philistines of
Gath.[249] In the older account also it is an evil spirit of Jehovah
which comes over Saul, and causes him to thrust with his spear at David
while he is playing the harp. David escapes into his house. At Saul's
command the house is surrounded; and David is to be slain the next
morning. But Michal, the daughter of Saul, David's wife, let him down
from a window, and in his place she put the teraphim, _i.e._ the image
of the deity, into the bed, covered it with a coverlet, laid the net of
goat's hair on the face, and gave out that David was sick. David
meanwhile flies to Nob (in the land of Benjamin), where was set up a
gilded image of Jehovah, before which a company of priests served, and
at their head Ahimelech, a great-grandson of Eli,[250] who had
previously inquired of Jehovah for David.[251] Ahimelech gave David the
sacred loaves, and a sword which was consecrated there, and from hence,
according to this account, David escaped to Achish. Saul reproached his
daughter for aiding David, and said, "Why hast thou allowed my enemy to
escape?" Then he gave her to wife to Phalti of Gallim.

We are not in a position to decide whether David really pursued
ambitious designs; whether, as a matter of fact, he conspired with the
priests against Saul and his house, as Saul assumed; whether Saul saw
through his designs and plots, or suspected him without reason.[252]
David was not content with escaping the anger and pursuit of Saul, with
placing himself and his family in security. He repaired to the enemies
of his land, the Philistines, who would not have accepted at once an
opponent who had done them grievous injury, if he had not openly broken
with Saul and given them to suppose that henceforth he would support
their struggle against Saul and Israel. Yet David did not bring his
father and mother, on whom Saul could have taken vengeance, out of the
land to Gath, where they might have been a pledge of his fidelity to the
Philistines; he put them in the hands of the king of Moab, and also
entered into relations with the king of the Ammonites.[253] It was
probably with the consent of the Philistines that David returned from
Gath into the land of Judah, and there threw himself into the wild
regions by the Dead Sea, where he had previously pastured his father's
sheep and goats, in order to bring his own tribe of Judah into arms
against the king sprung from the small tribe of Benjamin.[254] The cave
of Adullam was the place of gathering. His brothers, the whole house of
his father, came, and a prophet of the name of Gad, "and all oppressed
persons, and any one who had a creditor and was of a discontented
spirit," and "David was their chief, and had under him 400 men."[255]

"Saul heard that all men knew about David and the men who were with him,
and sent out to bring before him Ahimelech and the house of his father
and all the priests of Nob." The king sat on the height near Gibeah
under the tamarisk, with his spear in his hand and his servants round
him. "Why hast thou conspired against me," he said to Ahimelech, "thou
and the son of Jesse, that he has rebelled against me. Thou shalt die,
and the house of thy father." And he commanded his body-guard who stood
near him: "Come up and slay the priests of Jehovah, their hand is with
David." Then 85 men were slain who wore the linen tunic; and Nob, the
city of the priests, Saul smote with the edge of the sword; one only,
Abiathar, a son of Ahimelech, escaped with the image of Jehovah to
David.[256]

David had no doubt calculated on greater success in the tribe of Judah.
So long as his following was confined to four or six hundred men, he
could only live a robber life with this troop. But by this course he
would have roused against himself those whom he robbed, and strengthened
the attachment to Saul. So he attempted to keep a middle path. He sent
to Nabal, a rich man at Carmel near Hebron (p. 127), who possessed 3000
sheep and 1000 goats, a descendant of that Caleb who had once founded
himself a kingdom here with his sword (I. 505), and bade his messengers
say: David has taken nothing of thy flocks, send him therefore food for
him and his people. But Nabal answered: "Who is David, and who is the
son of Jesse? There are now many servants who run away from their
masters." Then David set out in the night to fall upon Nabal's house and
flocks. On the way Abigail, Nabal's wife, met him. In fear of the
freebooters she had caused some slaughtered sheep, loaves, and pitchers
of wine, some figs and cakes of raisins, to be laid on asses in order
to bring them secretly into David's camp. Praised be thy wisdom, woman,
said David: by the life of Jehovah, if thou hadst not met me there would
not have been alive at break of day a single male of Nabal and his
house. Nabal died ten days after this incident. David saw that such a
wealthy possession in this region could not but be advantageous. Saul's
daughter was lost to him; he sent, therefore, some servants to Abigail
to Carmel. They said, David has sent us to thee to take thee to him to
wife. Abigail stood up, bowed herself with her face to earth, and said:
Behold, thy handmaid is ready to wash the feet of the servants of thy
master. Then she set out with five of her maids, and followed the
servants of David and became his wife.[257] As a fact this marriage
appears to have furthered the undertaking of David; the places in the
south of Judah, Aroer, Hormah, Ramoth, Jattir, Eshtemod, and even
Hebron, declared for him.[258] From this point David sought to force his
way farther to the north, and possessed himself of the fortified town of
Kegilah (Keilah).[259]

When Saul was told that David was in Kegilah, he said: God has delivered
him into my hand in that he has shut himself up in a city with gates and
bars. He set out against Kegilah. David commanded Abiathar the priest,
who had fled to him from Nob with the image of Jehovah, to bring the
image, and David inquired of the image: Will the men of Kegilah deliver
me and my followers into the hand of Saul? Jehovah, God of Israel,
announce this to me. And Jehovah said, They will deliver thee.[260] Then
David despaired of remaining in the city and fled; he retired again into
the desert by the Dead Sea near Ziph and Maon. But Saul pursued and
overtook him; nothing but a mountain separated David's troop from the
king; David was already surrounded and lost, when the news was brought
to Saul, "Hasten and come, for the Philistines are in the land." This
was no doubt an incursion made by the Philistines in aid of the
hardly-pressed rebels. Saul abandoned the pursuit and went against the
Philistines: David called the mountain the rock of escape.[261] When the
king had driven back the Philistines he took 3000 men out of the army to
crush the rebellion utterly. David had retired farther to the east, on
the shore of the Dead Sea, in the neighbourhood of Engedi, to the "rock
of the goat," and there he was so closely shut in by Saul that he had to
despair of remaining in Judah. He escaped with his troop to the
Philistines: the rebellion was at an end.[262]

David's attempt to induce the tribe of Judah to fall away from Saul was
entirely wrecked. Driven from the ground on which he had raised the
standard of revolt, he no longer scrupled to enter formally into the
service of the Philistines, and these must have welcomed the aid of a
brave and skilful leader, who, though once their enemy, had already in
Judah engaged the arms of Saul, the weight of which they had so often
felt, and which had taken from them their dominion over Israel. Achish,
king of Gath, to whom David again fled, was of opinion "that David had
made himself to stink among his people, Israel, and would be his servant
for ever;" and gave the border city Ziklag to be a dwelling for him and
his band of freebooters.[263] David now settled as a vassal of Achish at
Ziklag. At his command he was compelled to take the field, and also to
deliver up a part of the spoil which he obtained.[264] Thus from the
land of the Philistines, with his band, which here became strengthened
by the discontented in Israel[265] who fled to him over the border,
David carried on a petty war against Saul and his country. In these
campaigns David was wise enough to spare his former adherents in Judah,
the cities which had once declared for him, and his attacks were only
directed against the adherents of Saul; in secret he even maintained his
connection with his party in Judah, and to the elders of the cities
which clung to him he sent presents out of the booty won in his raids
and plundering excursions.[266]

David had already lived more than a year in Ziklag,[267] when the
Philistines assembled all their forces against Saul. When the princes of
the Philistines marshalled their army, and caused it to march past in
troops, David and his men also came among the soldiers of Achish. Then
the other princes said to Achish: What need of these Hebrews? Let not
David go to the battle; he may become a traitor, and go over to his
master, in order to win favour with Saul at the price of our heads.
Achish trusted David, and said: He has already dwelt with me for a time,
for years; to this day I have found nothing in him. But the other
princes insisted on their demand; perhaps they remembered the day of
Michmash, when Saul had obtained his first victory over the Philistines
with the aid of the Hebrews in their camp. When Achish announced to
David that he could not accompany the army, he answered: What have I
done, and what hast thou found in thy servant since I came to thee to
this day, that I should not fight against the enemies of my king? In
spite of his earnest desire, David was sent back.[268]

The army of the Philistines passed to the north, through the land of
Ephraim, into the land of Issachar, and encamped at Shunem in the plain
of Jezreel. On Mount Gilboa, over against them, Saul was encamped with
the army of the Israelites.[269] The battle broke out, and the contest
was severe. Saul saw his sons Abinadab and Melchishua, and finally
Jonathan himself, fall; the Israelites retired, and the archers of the
enemy pressed on the king. Saul refused to fly, and survive the death of
his sons and his first defeat. He called to his armour-bearer: Draw thy
sword and slay me, that these uncircumcised may not come upon me and
maltreat me. But the faithful comrade would not lift his hand against
his master. Then Saul threw himself upon his sword, and the
armour-bearer followed the example of the king. The army of the
Israelites was scattered in every direction. The Philistines rejoiced
when they found the corpse of Saul on Mount Gilboa. They took the armour
from the dead king, and sent it round their whole land, that every one
might be convinced that the dreaded leader of Israel was no longer
living. Then the armour was laid up in the temple of Astarte. The
Philistines cut off the head of the corpse and hung it up as a trophy in
the temple of Dagon; the trunk and the corpses of the three sons of Saul
were set up in the market-place of Beth-shan, not far from the field of
battle, in order to show the Israelites that they had nothing more to
hope from Saul and his race (1033 B.C.).[270]

Israel was benumbed with terror. The nurse let the young son of
Jonathan, Mephibosheth, fall to the ground when she heard the news of
Gilboa. Many retired beyond the Jordan before the Philistines; others
hastened to Ziklag, to place themselves under David's protection. But
from Jabesh in Gilead, which Saul had once rescued from the most
grievous distress, valiant men set out over the Jordan to Beth-shan.
Here, at night, they took the corpses of Saul and his three sons from
the market-place, brought them to Jabesh, and buried them under the
tamarisk, and the inhabitants of Jabesh fasted and lamented seven days
for Saul's death.[271] The Israelites had reason enough to sorrow and
lament for Saul. From one of the songs of lamentation sung in these days
it is convincingly clear what this man had done for them. "The gazelle,
O Israel," so it was sung at that time, "is stricken on thy heights!
Fallen are thy heroes! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the
streets of Ascalon, lest the daughter of the Philistine rejoice, lest
the daughter of the uncircumcised triumph. Ye mountains of Gilboa, let
there be no dew nor rain upon you, nor offerings of first-fruits! For
there the shield of the mighty was cast away, the shield of Saul. From
the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan
turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty. Saul and
Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death
they were not divided. They were swifter than eagles, stronger than
lions. Ye daughters of Israel, weep for Saul, who clothed you delicately
in purple, and put ornaments of gold on your garments. How are the
mighty fallen in battle."[272]

A single stroke had annihilated all that had been obtained in long and
toilsome struggles. The Philistines were again masters on this side of
Jordan as in the unhappy times before Saul. But in spite of the fall of
the hero who had been the defence of Israel and the terror of the
enemies, the monarchy remained, so firmly had Saul established it.
Ishbosheth, the youngest son of Saul, had escaped the battle; with
Abner, the general, he had found safety beyond the Jordan. Here he took
up his abode at Machanaim, and the tribes on the other side of the
Jordan recognised him as their king. Abner's sword was a strong support
for Ishbosheth, and the adherence of the Israelites to Saul's family
soon permitted him to force his way from Machanaim over the Jordan.
Here, also, amid the arms of the Philistines, Ishbosheth was recognised
as king. Thus Abner's courage and bravery succeeded in wresting the
fruits of the victory at Gilboa from the Philistines, and liberating
from their yoke first Ephraim and Benjamin, and then the whole region of
the northern tribes.[273]

While Abner was engaged in preserving the remnants of Saul's dominion
for his son, and in driving the Philistines out of the land, David
looked after his own interests. The fresh terror of the overthrow at
Gilboa had driven many Israelites to Ziklag. David's name stood high
among the warriors of Israel, and protection against the Philistines was
certain to be found with their vassal. The places in the tribe of Judah
which had formerly joined David now again resorted to him, and the
tribe of Judah had previously been subject to the Philistines longer
than any other, and was more accustomed to their dominion. As the
tradition tells us, David inquired of Jehovah whether he should go from
Ziklag into one of the cities of Judah, and Jehovah answered: Go to
Hebron. This was done. "And the men of Judah there anointed David king
of the house of Judah, for only the house of Judah adhered to
David."[274] Thus David, after Saul's death, succeeded in the attempt
which had failed in Saul's lifetime; he established an independent
monarchy in the tribe of Judah. Here he ruled at Hebron at first
quietly, under the protection of the Philistines.[275] But when Abner
had again wrested the north and centre of the land from the hands of the
Philistines, when Ishbosheth's rule again united the whole land as far
as the tribe of Judah, he turned his arms not more against the
Philistines than against their vassal at Hebron in order to complete the
liberation of Israel.

"The strife was long between the house of Saul and the house of
David,"--so runs the older account.[276] Of the events of this war
between Judah and the rest of the tribes, we only know that on a
certain day Joab at the head of David's men, and Abner at the head of
the men of Ishbosheth, strove fiercely at the pool of Gibeon, and Joab's
brother Asahel was slain by Abner. For several years the war continued
without any decisive result, till a division arose between Ishbosheth
and Abner which gave David the advantage, and finally placed him on the
throne of Saul. Ishbosheth appears to have become distrustful of Abner,
to whom he owed everything. When Abner took Rizpah, the concubine of
Saul, to himself, Ishbosheth thought that he intended in this way to
establish a right to the throne, in order to wrest the dominion from
himself, and did not conceal his anger.[277] Then Abner turned from the
man he had exalted and entered into a secret negotiation with David.
This was received with joy by David. Crafty as he was, he first demanded
that his wife Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom Saul after David's
rebellion had married to Phalti, should be sent back to him. David had
found out the attachment of the Israelites to the house of Saul, and was
no doubt of opinion that nothing would sooner help him to the throne
than the renewed connection with Saul's family; if none of the
descendants of Saul survived but this daughter he would be his
legitimate heir. Abner sent Michal, and went himself to Hebron in order
to arrange about the transfer of the kingdom. They were agreed; Abner
had done his service. He was already on his way home to Machanaim, when
Joab, the captain of David, called him back. He came, and Joab took him
aside under the gate of Hebron, as though he had something to tell him
in secret; instead, he thrust his sword through his body. David asserted
his innocence and lamented Abner's death. Abner's body was buried
solemnly at Hebron. David followed the bier in sackcloth, but Joab
remained unpunished.[278] He slew Abner because the latter had
previously slain his brother Asahel at Gibeon; but this was done in
honourable fight, not by assassination.

When the announcement of Abner's death came to Machanaim "Ishbosheth's
hands were numbed, and all Israel was troubled." The Israelites lamented
Abner's death. "Must Abner die as a godless man dieth?" they sang. "Thy
hands were never bound, thy feet never fettered; thou hast fallen as a
man falls before the children of iniquity."[279] The pillar of the
kingdom was broken. Then two captains of the army of Ishbosheth,
brothers of the tribe of Benjamin, hoped to gain favour with David.
While Ishbosheth was resting at midday in his chamber on his bed, they
entered unobserved into his house, cut off his head, and brought it
hastily to Hebron to David. This murder carried David quickly to his
goal, but he would not praise those who committed it; he caused them
both to be executed.

The throne of Saul was empty. David, the husband of his daughter, was at
the head of a not inconsiderable power; whom could the tribes who had
obeyed Ishbosheth raise to the throne except him, if an end was to be
put to the pernicious division, and the people were again to be united
under one government? The elders of the tribes were intelligent enough
to value rightly this position of affairs. Hence the people met together
at Hebron; in full assembly David was raised to be king of Israel, and
anointed by the elders.[280] Eight years had passed since Saul and his
three elder sons fell on Gilboa. All was full of joy, union, and hope
that better times would come again after the end of the long strife
(1025 B.C.).[281]

At length David stood at the goal which he had pursued steadfastly under
many changes of fortune. But there were still some male descendants of
Saul in existence. The Hivites of Gibeon cherished a deadly hatred to
the race of Saul, because Saul's hand had been heavy upon them "in his
zeal for the sons of Israel." David offered to "avenge the wrong which
Saul had done to them."[282] They demanded, that as their land had borne
no fruit for three years, seven men of the race of Saul should be given
to them, that they might "hang them up before Jehovah at Gibeah," the
dwelling-place of Saul. There were just seven male descendants of Saul
remaining: two sons by Rizpah, his concubine, and five grandchildren,
whom Merab, the eldest daughter of Saul, had borne to Adriel. These
David took and "gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they
hanged them up on the hill before Jehovah." There was still another
descendant of Saul's remaining, Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan; but
he was only 10 or 12 years of age, and was, moreover, lame of both feet,
from the fall which he had suffered in the hands of his nurse. David
also thought of the close friendship which he had contracted in earlier
days with Jonathan; he gave to Mephibosheth Saul's land at Gibeah, and
arranged that Saul and Jonathan's bones should be brought from Jabesh to
Zelah, near Gibeah, and buried where Kish, Saul's father, lay. In the
tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul belonged, and among those connected
with his house, the acts of David to the house of Saul were not
forgotten; they hated David, the "man of blood."

FOOTNOTES:

[235] 1 Sam. vii. 15.

[236] 1 Sam. x. 8; xiii. 8-15.

[237] 1 Sam. xv.

[238] Ruth iv. 18-22.

[239] In 2 Sam. v. 4, 5 it is stated that David when he was raised at
Hebron to be king of Judah was 30 years old. This took place 1033 B.C.
(p. 113, note); David must therefore have been born 1063 B.C., and could
not have marched out to battle before 1043 B.C.

[240] 1 Sam. xviii. 5.

[241] The tale of the battle of David with the giant Goliath appears to
have arisen out of a later conflict of David when king with a mighty
Philistine. In 2 Sam. xxi. 18-22 we are told, "And there was again a
battle of Philistines at Gob. Then Elhanan, the son of Jair Orgim, a
Bethlehemite, slew Goliath of Gath; the shaft of whose spear was as a
weaver's beam." Shortly before it is stated: "David and his servants
strove with the Philistines, and David was weary, and Ishbi thought to
slay David--the weight of his spear was 300 shekels; then Abishai (the
brother of Joab) aided the king, and slew the Philistine," 2 Sam. xxi.
15-17. From the conflict with a giant which David had to undergo when
king, and the slaughter of Goliath of Gath by Elhanan, a fellow-townsman
of David's from Bethlehem, the legend may have arisen that David himself
slew a great giant. This legend was then transferred by the theocratic
narrative into David's boyhood; in this way he was marked from the
beginning as the chosen instrument of Jehovah. The statement in 1 Chron.
xxi. 5 cannot be made to tell against this view, which in order to
explain the contradiction between the First and Second Books of Samuel
explains the giant whom Elhanan slew, the shaft of whose spear was like
a weaver's beam, to be a brother of Goliath; the less so inasmuch as the
passage from the Book of Samuel is repeated word for word with this
addition, while the battle of David with Ishbi is omitted. If David
really slew a distinguished warrior of Gath in Saul's time, it is the
more difficult to explain how he could afterwards fly to the prince of
Gath of all others, and enter into such close relations with him. The
often-mentioned national song, "Saul has slain his thousands and David
his tens of thousands," is scarcely applicable to the slaying of a
giant, however great he might be, and probably comes from the time of
David's reign when he had really gained more brilliant victories than
Saul.

[242] 1 Sam. xviii. 3.

[243] 1 Sam. xvi. 22; xviii. 5; xxii. 14.

[244] This date may be assumed, if we put the death of Saul in the year
1033 B.C. (p. 113), since David's rebellion in Judah lasted a
considerable time, and he afterwards remained at Ziklag at least 16
months, 1 Sam. xxvii. 7; xxix. 3.

[245] 1 Sam. xviii. 9.

[246] 1 Sam. xviii. 16; xx. 31.

[247] 1 Sam. xviii. 11.

[248] As Najoth, or rather Newajoth, means dwellings, the habitations of
the prophet's disciples must be meant.

[249] 1 Sam. xix. 18-24; xxi. 11-15.

[250] 1 Sam. xxii. 9.

[251] 1 Sam. xiv. 3.

[252] The older text, 1, xxvi. 19, represents David as saying to Saul:
"If Jehovah hath stirred thee against me, let him accept an offering,
but if men, cursed be they before Jehovah." In the Books of Samuel the
relations of Saul and David are strangely confused, for reasons which
are not far to seek. The older account of the priests and the later one
of the prophets, which are mixed together in these books, had equally
reason to place in as favourable a light as possible the founder of the
power of Israel, of the united worship, the minstrel of the psalms, the
progenitor of the kings of Judah, and to put him in the right as against
Saul and the house of Saul. To the older narrative belongs the
description of David's shepherd life, his battle with the giant, his
rise as a warrior,--the intention is to show that Jehovah is strong in
the weak. The shepherd-boy comes into the camp in order to bring bread
to his brethren and cheese to the captain. His brethren are angry that
he has left the sheep, and wish to send him back, but he will fight with
the giant who has defied the army of the living God. Saul dissuades him
from the contest, but David persists, refuses armour, and goes forth in
trust on Jehovah, who gives not the victory by spear and shield. By this
victory he is marked as the chosen instrument of Jehovah. In both
accounts Saul loses the favour of Jehovah by disobedience to Samuel.
According to the later text, Samuel, when he had broken with Saul owing
to the incomplete "cursing" of Amalek, took the horn of oil and anointed
the youngest son of Jesse, who was fetched from the sheep, king over
Israel amid his brethren. When this had been done Saul's servants bring
David as a brave hero and warrior, "prudent in speech, a comely person,
cunning in playing," 1 Sam. xvi. Yet Samuel had no right to place kings
over the Israelites, and if he went so far in his opposition to Saul, he
made himself responsible for the rebellion; if he really intended this,
he would have set up some other than a shepherd-boy against Saul. If, on
the other hand, David was really anointed, Saul was quite justified in
pursuing him. Yet it was with this anointment, as with that of Saul; no
one knew anything of it, and David himself makes no use of this divine
election, not even when he organises the rebellion in Judah, nor after
Saul's death at Hebron, nor in the struggle against Ishbosheth, who was
not in any case anointed, nor even after the death of Ishbosheth: he is
after this chosen by the people in Hebron and anointed king over Israel.
It is only the Philistines in Gath who know anything of David's royal
dignity, when he comes to them for the first time, 1 Sam. xxi. 11. We
see plainly that this anointment is a careless interpolation of the
prophetic revision, to which the verses 11-15 of the chapter quoted
undoubtedly belong, just as chap. xvi. is intended to legitimise David.
The same account represents Saul as thrusting twice with his javelin at
David, xviii. 10, 11, on the very day after he has slain the giant. As
though nothing had happened, David continues in the house of Saul, and
Saul confers on him still greater honours and dignities. In the older as
well as in the later account this is turned round so as to seem that
Saul gave these to David as a "snare," that David might fall by the
hands of the Philistines, xviii. 17, 25; and with this view Saul
requires 100 foreskins of the Philistines as the price of Michal. It is
obvious that Saul had other means, more certain to accomplish his
object, at his command to destroy David, if he really intended it;
according to the older account Saul requests Jonathan and his men,
though in vain, to slay David, xix. 1. When the attempt at assassination
and the open breach has taken place in both narratives, Saul, according
to the prophetic account, marvels nevertheless that David does not come
to table, xx. 26, 27. To this text also belongs the further statement
that when Jonathan excused David, Saul thrust at him also with his
spear, xx. 33. In the older account Ahimelech, who had aided David in
his flight, makes the excuse that he knew not that David fled before the
king. "David was the most honoured among the friends of Saul:" no one
therefore knew anything of these plots and attempts of Saul upon David.
Every one sees that this is impossible. Jonathan knows David better than
Saul, and always defends him against his father; then David himself
calls on Jonathan to kill him if there is any wickedness in him, 1, xx.
8. The story of the arrows is very poetical, but the sign is quite
unnecessary, since they afterwards converse with each other, 1, xx.
18-43. In the older account also of the occurrence in the desert by the
Dead Sea, the prophetic account has inserted a visit of Jonathan to
David. Jonathan strengthens David's courage although he is in rebellion
against his father. "Fear not," Jonathan says to him, "the hand of my
father will not reach thee, thou shalt be king over Israel," xxiii.
15-18. Saul was something different from the madman who betwixt sane
intervals and reconciliations is constantly making fresh attacks on
David's life, whether innocent or guilty. Even the most complete
recognition of all that David established at a later time for Israel,
and with an influence extending far beyond Israel, does not make it a
duty to overlook the way in which he rose to his eminence.

[253] 1 Sam. xxii. 3; 2, x. 1.

[254] In 1 Sam. xxix. 3, Achish says of David, "He has now been with me
for years."

[255] So the older account, 1 Sam. xxii. 1-5.

[256] So the older story, 1 Sam. xxii. The priestly point of view from
which it is written causes it, in order to prove the innocence of the
priests, to represent David as saying on his flight to Ahimelech that he
had a hasty mission from the king, so that Ahimelech can explain to Saul
that he knew nothing about the flight. From the same point of view we
must derive the statement that the body-guard hesitated to lay hands on
the holy men, and that an Edomite slew them. That the punishment of Nob
took place long after David's flight and rebellion, is clear from the
fact that the fugitive Abiathar finds David already in possession of
Kegilah, 1 Sam. xxii. 20; xxiii. 6, 7.

[257] 1 Sam. xxv. 2-12, 18-42.

[258] 1 Sam. xxx. 26-31.

[259] That David saved and won Kegilah from the Philistines, and
obtained a great victory over them, as we find it in the older account
(1 Sam. xxiii. 1-5), is more than improbable. David certainly could not
undertake to fight with Saul and the Philistines at one time with 600
men. How could he meet an army of the Philistines in the field, when he
does not trust himself to maintain the walls of Kegilah against Saul
with his troop. The citizens of Kegilah would hardly have been prepared
to give him up, if just before he had done them such a kindness.
Finally, this battle contradicts the position in which we find David
before and afterwards with regard to the Philistines. Achish at any rate
has unbounded confidence in David since his desertion, and will even
make him "keeper of his head," 1 Sam. xxviii. 2.

[260] 1 Sam. xxiii. 9-13.

[261] 1 Sam. xxiii. 25-28.

[262] So the older account, 1 Sam. xxvi. 1, 2; xxvii. 1-3. While Saul
has cast his spear at David, and pursues him everywhere with unwearying
energy in order to slay him, David gives him his life. According to the
older account, Saul sleeps in his encampment in the wilderness of Ziph.
David with Abishai secretly enters this, and he distinctly refuses, when
urged by Abishai to slay Saul, to listen to him, because Saul is an
"anointed of Jehovah," takes the spear and the water-bowl of the king,
plants himself on a mountain in the distance, and from this reproaches
Abner that he has been so careless in providing for the safety of the
king. Saul is again touched, acknowledges his sins and follies, begs
David to return, and finally gives him his blessing on his undertaking.
David upon this declares that his life will be regarded before Jehovah
as he has regarded Saul's life, and escapes to the Philistines.
According to the prophetic account, Saul "covers his feet" in a cave in
the desert of Engedi, in which are concealed David and his men. These
urge David to slay Saul, but he replies, "Far be it from me to lay my
hand on the Lord's anointed," and merely cuts off the corner of Saul's
upper garment. When Saul awakes and goes out of the cave, David hurries
after him, prostrates himself, and proves by the piece in his hand that
those did him wrong who said that he sought to do Saul mischief, "but
thou art seeking to take my life." Saul weeps, acknowledges that David
is more just than he is; may Jehovah reward him (David) for this day. "I
know," Saul continues, "that thou wilt be king, and the kingdom of
Israel will continue in thy hand." Let David only swear to him not to
destroy his seed. This David does, 1 Sam. xxiv. 4-23. If this event, in
itself all but impossible, ever took place, it must have had some
consequences; yet there is no change in the relations of Saul and David,
Saul continues to pursue David. If David took the oath not to destroy
the descendants of Saul, he broke it.

[263] So the older account, 1 Sam. xxvii. 12.

[264] 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, 12.

[265] Chron. xiii. 1-7, 20.

[266] 1 Sam. xxx. 26-30; _supra_, p. 137. In order to wash David clean
from the reproach of fighting with the Philistines against his people,
it is observed (xxvii. 8-11) that David always marched against the
tribes of the desert, that he cut down the prisoners, and then reported
to Achish that he "had invaded the south of Judah." The position of
Ziklag was ill-suited for attacks on the desert, and Achish had not
given him any commands to fight against the children of the desert. At a
later time Achish says of David: "Since his desertion I have found
nothing in him," xxix. 3, 6; he will make him even the protector of his
own life (1, xxviii. 2), and such deceit as is here attributed to David
presupposes that Achish and all the rest of the Philistines were blind.

[267] 1 Sam. xxvii. 7, "one year and four months:" xxix. 3, Achish says,
"He has been with me--for years."

[268] According to the older account, 1 Sam. xxviii. 2, when Achish
requires him to march with him against Saul, David replies, "So shalt
thou behold what thy servant will do." The narrative of the sending back
of David at the wish of the remaining princes, and David's protest
against it, belong also to the older narrative. This is repeated in
Chronicles (1, xiii. 19) very emphatically, and without any motive in
the context, so that it might be possible to accept the same view which
represents David as constantly marching against the desert from Ziklag.
For the moral estimate of David it is sufficient that it did not rest
with him to join in the battle.

[269] The story of the witch of Endor (xxviii. 3 ff.) belongs to the
later account. To begin with, this account contradicts itself; we are
told in the introduction (verse 3) that Saul had removed the
necromancers and "wise men" out of Israel, a statement which is repeated
in the course of the story (verse 9). Nevertheless Saul causes a witch
to be sought out, because when already encamped before the Philistines
"he is in great fear of the enemy." Saul was a brave warrior, who even
in a worse position had never trembled. He sends for this woman in order
to speak with Samuel's ghost. If Saul had any desire to see ghosts, he
would desire to see the ghost of Samuel least of all, for he, according
to the same prophetic account, had anointed David to be king against
Saul (verse 11). Samuel as a ghost has thus a third opportunity for
reproaching Saul, and telling him "that Jehovah had given the kingdom to
David, because he had not satisfied his wrath on Amalek" (p. 129).

[270] 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-11; 1 Chron. x. 10. According to a second account
of the death of Saul in 2 Sam. i. ff., an Amalekite came unexpectedly to
Mount Gilboa. He finds Saul in flight leaning on his spear, and Saul
says to him, "Slay me." The Amalekite does so; takes the crown from the
head of the king, and his bracelets, and then flies to Ziklag in the
territory of the Philistines in order to bring the crown to David. David
causes him to be slain, because "he had lifted up his hand against the
anointed of the Lord." The object of this story is too plain--to bring
the crown of Saul into the hands of David in order to make him the
legitimate king, and at the same time to exhibit David as loyal to Saul
even after his death, and avenging his murder--and the impossibilities
in it are too great. David afterwards permitted the execution of the
remaining descendants of Saul.

[271] 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, 13; 2, xxi. 12.

[272] This lament, which was in the book of Jasher (2 Sam. i. 18), is
ascribed to David. His moral participation in the issue of the battle
must have been most clear to himself; his rebellion and desertion to the
Philistines had weakened Saul's powers of fighting and deprived him of
brave warriors; he had been ready to fight in the army of the
Philistines against Saul and Jonathan. Least of all could David sing,
"Tell it not in Gath," since he himself was in the land of Gath. The
last verse, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan," etc., may
certainly have come from David, and may have been added to the lament at
a later time. Thus the whole might appear to be the work of David.

[273] 2 Sam. ii. 8-10.

[274] 2 Sam. ii. 1, 3, 4-10.

[275] This conclusion must be drawn both from the earlier relation to
the Philistines, and from the fact that David during this whole time has
not to fight with the Philistines, whereas afterwards, as soon as he has
united the tribes under his rule, he has to wage the fiercest war with
them; apparently he was supported against Ishbosheth and Abner by the
Philistines in order to put a stop to Abner's advances. Cf. Ewald,
"Geschichte des Volks Israel," 2, 572.

[276] David reigned seven years and six months at Hebron, 2 Sam. iii. 1,
10, 11; 2, v. 4, 5; 1 Kings ii. 11. Ishbosheth's reign is given at two
years only. These two statements can only be brought into harmony by
supposing that Ishbosheth was not acknowledged king of the northern
tribes till five and a half years after Saul's death, _i.e._ Abner
required this time to drive the Philistines out of these regions, or
that David was not acknowledged king of Israel till five and a half
years after the death of Ishbosheth.

[277] 2 Sam. iii. 7.

[278] 2 Sam. iii. 31-39.

[279] This beautiful lament is also ascribed to David: David was the
singer, and, like the Psalms, other songs also come from him. But David
could not speak of Joab and indirectly of himself as a "child of
iniquity."

[280] 2 Sam. v. 1-3.

[281] 1 Chron. xii. 23 ff.

[282] 2 Sam. xxi. 3.



CHAPTER VII.

THE RULE OF DAVID.


At the cost of his nation, in collusion with the enemies of his land,
and under the protection of the Philistines, David had paved the way to
dominion over Israel. He had much to make good. He had to cause the way
which led him to the throne to be forgotten, to heal the wounds which
the long contention must have inflicted on his land, to surpass the
great services which Saul had rendered to the Israelites by yet greater
services, by more brilliant exploits, by more firmly-rooted
institutions.

A brave warrior even in early years, David had been afterwards tested
and strengthened by adventures and dangers of every kind; he had
understood how to meet or escape even the most difficult situations. He
had the inclination and power for great things, and was little
scrupulous in the choice of the means which brought him most swiftly and
completely to his object. His vision was clear and wide; clever, crafty,
and quickly decided, he nevertheless knew how to wait when the object
could not be obtained at the moment. It was his in an extraordinary
measure to retain old comrades, to win new ones and attach them to
himself. It was not his intention to be at the beck of the Philistines
longer than he had need of them; with his elevation at Hebron came the
moment for breaking with them. He saw that they would not lose without
a heavy price the preponderance in which his rebellion against Saul, his
leadership in Judah, his struggle against Ishbosheth had again placed
them; that their exasperation would be the deeper and more lasting
because he had deceived the hopes which they had placed in him.

He began his reign with an undertaking which shows the certainty and
width of his views. His dominion over the tribes of Simeon and Judah had
been established for almost eight years, but over the northern tribes it
was recent, and had to be confirmed. The remembrance of Saul was
cherished most warmly in the tribe of Benjamin, which lay next to Judah
on the north. In this land, not far from the northern border of Judah,
was a city of the name of Jebus, inhabited by the Jebusites, a relic of
the old population which at the time of the settlement the Benjaminites
had not been able to overcome.[283] The city stood on steep heights,
surrounded by deep gorges, which formed natural trenches; the walls of
the eastern height on which the citadel stood, Mount Zion, were so
strong that the Jebusites are said to have boasted that the blind and
lame were sufficient to defend them. This city appeared to David
excellently situated for protection against the Philistines and for his
own royal abode; it had the faithful tribes of Judah and Simeon to the
south, and was pushed forward like a fortification into the territory of
Benjamin and the northern tribes. Nor was it useful only in establishing
his dominion over Israel. Even in Saul's reign it had been difficult
when an enemy invaded the open cantons of Israel to find time for
assembling the fighting powers, the levy of the people; there had been
no fortified point on which the first shock of the enemy's onset broke,
no city strongly fortified and of considerable size in which large
numbers could find protection.

Soon after the assembly at Hebron, which had transferred to him the
royal authority over all the tribes of Israel, David set himself to win
this place. First he cut off the water from the city of the Jebusites,
and then Joab with the veteran band of David succeeded in climbing the
wall in a sudden attack. The inhabitants were spared; at any rate a part
of them must have remained, for we afterwards find Jebusites in and
about Jerusalem.[284]

The princes of the Philistines had begun to arm immediately upon the
announcement of David's election to be king of all Israel.[285] David
awaited their approach in the citadel of Zion which he had just
conquered. The Philistines encamped before the city. When they were
scattered in search of plunder in the valley of Rephaim David inquired
of Jehovah whether he should go down against them. The answer was
favourable. The Philistines were surprised and defeated. But they soon
appeared a second time under the walls of Zion, and the oracle of
Jehovah bade David not to go directly against them, but to turn aside
under the balsam trees. If he heard the tops of the trees rustle he was
to hasten on; that was the sign from God that he would go before him to
smite the camp of the Philistines. So it befel. David gained a great
victory and was enabled to pursue the Philistines as far as Gezer.[286]
Yet the war was not decided, but still continued for a long time. Four
battles took place on the borders near Gob and Gath, and many severe
combats had to be fought with the Philistines. From all the traces of
tradition it is clear that this war was the most stubborn and dangerous
of all that David had to wage. In Israel there were stories of the brave
deeds of individual heroes which were accomplished in these battles: of
Abishai, the brother of Joab, who saved the king in battle, when the
mighty Philistine Ishbi thought to overcome him; of Elhanan, who slew
Goliath of Gath; and of the deeds of Jonathan, the nephew of David, and
Sibbechai against the Philistines.[287] At length David succeeded in
"wresting the bridle out of the hand of the Philistines," and "breaking
their horn in pieces;"[288] he drove them back to their old borders.
They had suffered such serious blows that for a long time they abstained
from all further attacks, after they had carried on warfare against the
Hebrews for about 70 years. Yet even David, in spite of this success,
made no serious attempt to advance the borders of Israel towards the
sea, or to subjugate the cities of the Philistines.

When the most pressing danger from the Philistines was over, David
turned his arms to the south and east, against the Amalekites, the
Moabites, and Ammonites, who had once caused so much misery and disaster
to Israel. Against the Amalekites Saul had already accomplished the main
task (p. 127). David smote them with such effect that the name of the
Amalekites is hardly once mentioned afterwards; the remainder of the
race seem to have been amalgamated with the Edomites.[289] David had at
a former time entered into connection with the king of Moab; when he
fled from Saul he placed his parents under his protection. The cause of
the rupture is unknown; we only know that David utterly overthrew the
Moabites and caused two-thirds of the prisoners to be put to death. It
is said that they were compelled to lie down; they were then divided by
a measuring cord into three parts, of which two were slain by iron
threshing-carts being drawn over them, and only a third part were
spared.[290] Nahash, the king of Ammon, with whom David had also
previously been in relations (p. 136), was succeeded by his son Hanon.
This prince insulted David's envoys, he caused their beards to be shaved
off, and their garments to be cut away as high as the middle.

David sent Joab with the levy of the people against the Ammonites to
avenge the insult. Hanon called on the king of Zobah--Saul had already
had to fight against Zobah--and the rulers of Beth-Rehob, Maacah, and
Tob in Syria for assistance. Hadad-Ezer of Zobah sent 20,000 men; from
Tob came 12,000; from Maacah 1000. Joab divided his army, left his
brother Abishai to oppose the Ammonites, and turned himself with picked
men against the Syrians and defeated them before they could join the
Ammonites.[291] After this defeat the Ammonites also retired before
Abishai into their fortified city of Rabbath-Ammon on the Nahr-Ammon.
But in the next spring Hadad-Ezer collected his whole force. David
marched across the Jordan to meet the Syrians, and defeated Hadad-Ezer
in a decisive battle at Helam; the Israelites carried off the chariots
of the enemy for spoil; 1700 horsemen and 20,000 foot-soldiers were
captured.[292] David followed up this victory and overran the cities of
the king of Zobah, when the king of Damascus took the field in aid of
Hadad-Ezer, and the Edomites invaded Judah from the south. David
remained in the field against the Syrians, and sent Joab with only a
part of the army against the Edomites. In the salt valley, at the
southern end of the Dead Sea, Joab and Abishai defeated the Edomites;
12,000 out of 18,000 are said to have fallen on this day.[293] In spite
of this severe defeat the Edomites made a stubborn resistance. Joab, in
continuous struggles which went on for six months, destroyed a great
part of the male population (the son of the king of Edom was carried by
the servants of his father to Egypt), and subjugated the rest of the
inhabitants to the dominion of David. While Joab was fighting in Edom,
David had defeated the men of Damascus and brought the war in the north
to an end. Thoi, the king of Hamath, whom Hadad-Ezer had previously
oppressed, entered into a league with David. Only the Ammonites still
continued to resist. Joab was sent against them in the next year; he
laid their land waste, and took one city after another. The captives
were placed under saws and axes, and burnt in kilns, or slain like the
Moabites under iron threshing-wagons. At length Joab could announce to
David that Rabbath-Ammon, the chief city of the Ammonites, was reduced
to extremities; the king must come to enter into the city. Rabbath was
destroyed (about 1015 B.C.[294]); the inhabitants shared the fate of the
other Ammonite cities. From the Syrian campaign David had brought back a
trophy of 100 war-horses, copper vessels from the cities of Hadad-Ezer
of Zobah which were captured, and finally the golden shields which the
commanders of this king had carried. From Rabbath he brought home the
golden crown of the king of the Ammonites,--it is said to have been a
Kikkar (I. 285) in weight and set with precious stones,--together with
other utensils of silver and gold. The Moabites, the Ammonites, and
Edomites were compelled to pay tribute. Garrisons were put in the strong
places; even Damascus is said to have received a garrison of
Israelites.[295]

After Saul had first saved Israel out of the hand of their oppressors,
after these advantages were lost by the domestic strife, David had now
formed the Israelites into a ruling nation from isolated tribes who had
been so often and so long plundered by their enemies. He had come
victorious out of the most severe struggles. With reason could Israel
now sing: "Saul has slain his thousands, David his tens of thousands."

It was a rapid and brilliant transformation. David was master from the
borders of Egypt, the north-east point of the Red Sea, to Damascus. He
was not content with successfully establishing his rule for the moment
by these great and brilliant deeds of arms; he intended to give it a
solid support for the future. He employed the spoils of his victories in
order to fortify more strongly and extend the city which he had chosen
for his metropolis; it was now called the city of David, and afterwards
Jerusalem.[296] On Zion, the citadel of Jerusalem, David caused a royal
palace to be built. In the city the remnant of the Jebusites had been
joined by inhabitants from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. If David
hoped to lessen the disaffection of the tribe of Benjamin by
establishing a royal citadel in their land he had not calculated
wrongly. The sequel shows that Benjamin, which previously held to
Ephraim, now stood fast by Judah.

In possession of a considerable and well-fortified metropolis, and a
strong royal citadel, David was able to rule over Israel with greater
safety and severity than Saul from his rural court at Gibeah. Moreover,
David intended to create independent means and property for the crown,
and kept together what he had won. From the tribute of the subjugated
nations he formed a treasury, which was placed under the care of
Asmaveth. In addition we hear of overseers of the royal gardens,
oliveyards, vineyards, and sycamore plantations, and we learn that David
kept flocks of small cattle, herds of oxen, and camels.[297]

The strongest support of the throne were his selected and thoroughly
devoted troops of warriors. David was accompanied by a body-guard which
was always with him (Saul had had round him some "runners"). It appears
from the name, Pelethites and Cherethites, to have been entirely
composed of foreigners; their leader was Benaiah.[298] The core of the
army was formed not by this body-guard, but by the freebooters who once
gathered round him in the cave of Adullam and at Ziklag, warriors tried
often and in numerous battles. They remained in one body in Jerusalem,
and were maintained by the king. This band--it was apparently about 600
men in number,[299] and in the ranks were also foreigners, Hittites,
Ammonites, Moabites, and others, who formerly associated with David, or
were attracted by the fame of his deeds--was called the troop of the
mighty, "Gibborim;" accompanied by armour-bearers and servants, they
took the field. They were divided into three portions, under three
leaders; at their head fought 30 selected heroes: Abishai, Joab's
brother, was the captain.[300] As simple peasants, the Israelites had
always fought on foot, without horses and horsemen; David, after the
pattern of the Syrians, introduced chariots. Josheb Bassebet was the
captain of the war-chariots.[301] Along with the Gibborim, the chariots
were intended to give, as trained divisions, firmness and support to the
levy of the whole people.

In order to regulate the levy, Joab, the chief captain, with some of his
subordinates, was commanded to enumerate and write down all the fighting
men from the Jabbok to Mount Hermon, and from Dan to Beersheba. Nine
months and twenty days were required by the captains for this task. When
the muster was completed, captains were appointed for hundreds and
thousands; but in order that the whole mass of the people need not be
called out on every campaign and every attack of the enemy,--in which
hitherto, for the most part, only those who were eager for battle had
engaged, while those who preferred peace and rest remained at home,--the
whole number of the fighting men was divided into twelve portions, of
which each, in number 24,000 men, was pledged to service for one month
in the year. Each of these divisions had a separate captain. As occasion
required, several of the divisions, or all, might be called out. If we
may trust these accounts, Israel had at that time 300,000 fighting men,
and consequently a population of about two millions.[302]

Hitherto the descendants of the oldest families, the heads of the
tribes, the successors of those who in the conquest of the land had won
for themselves separate localities and valleys, had enjoyed a
pre-eminent position within the circle of the various tribes (p. 91). To
them, or to brave warriors, the Israelites had gone,--to men who had
become of importance owing to their possessions, and who had the
reputation of passing sound judgments,--or to priests and soothsayers,
when they sought for advice, protection, and justice. Since the
establishment of the monarchy the king was the supreme judge. David
exercised this office as Saul had done.[303] But though he retained the
right of deciding in the last instance, David seems to have appointed
the princes and judges of the tribes; he charged certain of his
adherents with the duty of giving justice to the tribes and communities,
although, of course, every man had the right of appeal from his decision
to the decision of the king. Jurisdiction and administration not yet
being separated, we may suppose that a regular government, which secured
to the throne the execution of its will and of the orders given, was
established by this means already in David's reign. We find that, beside
the captains of the army, the officers of the house and treasury, the
king had a chancellor, a scribe, and overseer of the taxes. Ahithophel
was the man on whose advice David mainly depended; his most trusted
friend was Hushai; and in the last twenty years of his life the prophet
Nathan enjoyed a high place in his favour.[304]

It was a marvellous career that lay behind David. He had grown up in a
hardy youth; early approved as a brave warrior and skilful leader, he
was then raised to the side of Saul and Jonathan; after this he
experienced the most sudden reverse of fortune, and at length by very
perplexed paths he reached the highest stage. On this he had been able
to retrieve many mistakes; he came victorious out of every conflict.
Saul's deeds were surpassed, and Israel was proud of the successes of
David and the respect which he won for her. He had securely established
his authority; it was founded so firmly that the crown must pass to his
descendants. The religious feeling which impelled him to inquire of
Jehovah before every undertaking, which brought him at an early period
into connection with the seers and priests, could not but increase as he
looked back upon the course of his life. Who had greater reason than he
to be thankful to the God who protected him and guided him so
marvellously, who saved him out of every danger and had raised him to
such power and splendour? In early days singing and harp-playing had
occupied the leisure of his shepherd life; gifted with poetic powers, he
understood how to give a powerful expression to his gratitude towards
Jehovah. After these great wars he is said to have sung: "Jehovah, my
rock, my fortress, my shield; the horn of my salvation, my defence. I
called on him who is worthy of praise, and was delivered from my
enemies. Out of his palace he heard my voice, and my cry came into his
ears. Then the earth moved and quaked, and the foundations of the earth
trembled, for he was wroth. Smoke rose out of his nostrils, and a
consuming fire went from his mouth; coals burned forth from him. He
bowed the heavens, and came down on the cherubim, and hovered on the
wings of the wind. He made darkness his veil, the tempest and dark cloud
his tabernacle. Jehovah thundered, and the Highest gave forth his voice,
hail-stones and coals of fire. He shot forth his arrows and destroyed
the enemy, the lightning fell and dispersed them. With thee, Jehovah, I
went against hosts, and with my God I climbed over walls. Jehovah girded
me with power; he gave me feet like harts' feet; he taught my hand the
battle, so that my arm strung the iron bow. I pursued my enemies and
overtook them, and turned not back till I had destroyed them; I
shattered them in pieces that they could not rise up; I scattered them
like dust before the wind; I cast them forth like dung. Thou, Jehovah,
didst save me from the battles of the nations, and didst place me at
their head; nations which I knew not serve me. At a rumour they obey me,
and the sons of strangers flatter me; they sink away and tremble out of
their castles. Praised be my protector, exalted be the God of my
salvation."[305]

It was not in praise and thanksgiving only that David gave expression to
the grateful feeling which filled him towards God; he had it much at
heart to create a lasting abode and visible centre for the worship of
Jehovah. For 20 years the sacred ark of Israel had remained at
Kirjath-jearim, in the house of Abinadab, who had made one of his sons
the custodian of it. David determined to convey it into his metropolis,
that it might there be in secure keeping, and receive proper reverence.
It was placed on a new wagon; Abinadab's sons, Ahio and Uzzah, led it
forth. On the way an evil omen occurred: the oxen which drew the wagon
broke loose, the ark tottered, and Uzzah put out his hand to stay it.
"Then the anger of Jehovah broke forth against Uzzah, and he smote him,
and he died there before God." After this incident David feared to carry
the ark further; it remained on the road, at the house of Obed-edom; and
not until it was seen that it brought prosperity to the house of
Obed-edom did David, three months after, again take it up and carry it
to Jerusalem. In festal train the people accompanied it with "shouting
and trumpets;" and David, clad in the linen tunic of the priests,
"danced before Jehovah." "Lift up your heads, O ye gates, that the King
of glory may come in," he is said to have sung. The tabernacle was
already erected on Zion, and in it the ark of Jehovah was then placed;
and "David sacrificed burnt offerings and thank offerings, and gave to
all the people, to each man a measure of wine, a loaf of bread and a
cake of raisins" (about 1020 B.C.[306]). Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech,
of the house of Eli, of the race of Ithamar, of the tribe of Aaron, who
had formerly fled to him with the image of Jehovah from Nob and
remained by his side, and beside him Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, of
the tribe of Aaron, who had hitherto been high priest at the place of
sacrifice at Gibeon,[307] were made by David the custodians of the new
tabernacle, which he then adorned with the costly spoil of his
victories. By bringing the ark of the covenant into his city he gave it
a sacred pledge, the assurance of the protection and the grace of
Jehovah. His city was the dwelling of Jehovah, the citadel of Zion the
mount of God. David's new metropolis was thus at the same time raised to
be the central point of the national worship, and in the fullest sense
the metropolis of the land. Service before the ark of the covenant on
Zion could not but throw into the shade the old places of sacrifice at
Shiloh, Bethel, Gibeon, Gilgal, and Nob.

The erection of the sacred ark on Zion, the foundation of a central
point for the worship, certainly met the wishes of the priests. Only by
a strictly-regulated and dominant mode of worship, by centralising the
service, could the priests hope to bring into vogue the arrangement of
ritual which they regarded as the true method appointed by God. Relying
on the importance of such a central point, on the authority of the
crown, they could expect obedience to their regulations. David on his
part would hardly fail to see what weight the influence of an allied
priesthood could add to the strength of the throne.

What David did for Israel by the cultivation of religious song, by
setting up the old national shrine in the new metropolis, by the
dedication of it to be the abode of Jehovah has been of deep-reaching
and even decisive influence for the fortunes of Israel and the course of
her religious development. It is, of course, beyond doubt that only a
few of the Psalms which David is said to have sung can with certainty be
traced back to him; but from the fact that the greater part of these
poems could be ascribed to him, it follows with the greater certainty
that he must have given a powerful impulse to the religious poetry of
Israel, that the words of thankfulness and trust in God from the lips of
the victorious royal minstrel had the greatest influence on the
Israelites. This influence connected with the exaltation and worship of
the national sacred relic at Zion gave a new life and firmer root to the
belief of the Israelites, both in the direction of religious feeling and
religious prescriptions. When the chief place of sacrifice was marked
out indubitably by the sacred ark on Zion, and members of the oldest
priestly family officiated there, it was natural that by degrees a
considerable number of priests should collect there, in order to share
and co-operate in the worship in the sacred tent, in the tabernacle.
These priests were arranged according to their families or "houses;" the
greater number claimed Eleazar, the third son of Aaron, as their
progenitor, while the less claimed to be descended from Ithamar, the
fourth son of Aaron.[308] The eyes of the priesthood were already turned
from Hebron to the early history of the nation, to the correct mode of
worship, as Aaron and Moses had formerly proclaimed and practised it,
which since the settlement in Canaan had become almost forgotten and
obsolete with priests and laymen, since different customs had come into
use at different places of sacrifice. The service at the new and yet
ancient shrine at Jerusalem must support the impulse to practise, here
at any rate, the old correct customs in perfect purity as a pattern and
example, to insist on the custom of Zion as pleasing to God, and
established by Moses, and to bring once more into authority and practice
the true regulations of the sacrificial rites for the whole land.
Agreement and union in the mode of worship would be most quickly and
most thoroughly obtained if the place of the tabernacle could be shown
to be the only correct place of sacrifice.

Though the Philistines had opposed the growth of the strength of Israel,
the combination and arrangement of her powers, with perseverance and
stubbornness, the cities of the Phenicians seem rather to have welcomed
the establishment of a strict ruling authority in Israel, which
preserved peace in the land and so made trade easier. Perhaps too they
looked with pleasure on the formation of a power which could balance
that of the Philistines, and prevent them from advancing as far as the
gates of Tyre. At any rate Hiram, king of Tyre, who began to rule in
that city in the year 1001 B.C.,[309] entered into friendly relations
with David. He sent him Tyrian artisans, who adorned David's palace on
Zion. The Israelites were not skilled in fine building. After this
palace was completed we must look on David's house and court as splendid
and numerous. There was the chancellor, the keeper of the treasury, the
chief tax-gatherer, the scribe with his subordinates; there were
singers, male and female, the body-guard, and the servants.[310] David
had brought seven wives from Hebron to his new metropolis. Michal, the
daughter of Saul, had borne no children to David; his eldest son, Amnon,
was by Ahinoam of Jezreel; the second, Chileab, by Abigail, the widow of
Nabal. When he ruled the tribe of Judah from Hebron he married a fourth
wife, Maacah, the daughter of Thalmai, prince of Geshur, in order, no
doubt, to strengthen by this connection his power, then so weak. Maacah
bore him a third son, Absalom, and a daughter, Tamar; his fifth wife,
Haggith, bore a fourth son, Adonijah. In Jerusalem he took yet more
wives and concubines into his house, who, besides these sons, bore
seventeen sons and several daughters, beside Tamar. When his sons became
men, the unavoidable consequences of the harem came to light: the mutual
jealousy of the sons of the various wives, and the ambition of some of
the wives to obtain the succession for their sons.

The establishment of the monarchy had brought a rich return to the
Israelites. Under its guidance, not only had the enemies of the land
been beaten back, but Israel had gained a leading place in Syria.
Moreover, David had transformed the somewhat insecure leadership
conferred on Saul by his election into a firm and deep-reaching
supremacy; a mere name, a wavering authority, he had raised after the
pattern of his neighbours into a strict rule, which could lead the
people at will, and dispose of them at pleasure. This transformation had
taken place so quickly, the enrolment of Israel in the forms of Syrian
monarchy was carried out so thoroughly, that there could not fail to be
a strong reaction. The new officers were oppressive; task-work for the
king, levies of the army for muster and for service beyond the land,
were to the Israelites new and very unwonted burdens. When external
dangers had passed away with the humiliation of the neighbours, and the
days of the old incursions, distresses, and oppressions were forgotten,
it might very well happen that the Israelites felt the new arrangement
of the community, the mode in which they were governed, to be a burden
rather than a benefit. In the later years of the reign of David a
lively aversion to his rule was spread through all the tribes; and it is
remarkable that it was most deeply felt in his own tribe of Judah, which
had formerly exalted him in Hebron. On this feeling of the people,
David's third son, Absalom, founded the plan of depriving his father of
the sovereignty, in order to ascend the throne before it came to him by
inheritance.[311]

Absalom, David's son by Maacah of Geshur, was a handsome man, without
blemish from head to foot, adorned with a heavy growth of hair, and a
favourite of the people, though the guilt of a foul deed lay upon him.
The beauty of Tamar, the full sister of Absalom, had roused the passions
of Amnon, the eldest son of David. He enticed her into his house by
deceit, dishonoured her and thrust her in scorn into the street. As the
king did not punish the crime, Absalom invited Amnon to his plot of Baal
Hazor, to the sheep-shearing, and there caused him to be stabbed by his
servants in order to avenge his sister's shame. After this he fled to
his grandfather, the prince of Geshur. After three years' banishment he
was allowed to return, but might not see his father's face; this was not
permitted till two years after his return. Amnon was dead; Chileab,
David's second son, died, as it seems, in this period. Absalom was now
again received into favour, and became the legitimate heir to the
throne.

As a token of his claims, Absalom procured horses, and chariots and a
retinue of 50 men. Early in the morning he was at the gates of
Jerusalem; he inquired of every one whence he came, allowed no one to
prostrate himself before him, but shook all by the hand and kissed them.
If he heard that any one came for justice, he caused the matter to be
told to him, and then said: Your cause is good, but you will not be
heard; if I were judge in Israel you would certainly gain your rights.
Four years after his return from Geshur, when Ahithophel, the most
distinguished of David's counsellors, and Amasa, the son of a sister of
David, had gone over to his side,[312] Absalom considered his prospects
favourable. He sent trusty men to all the tribes with instructions to
proclaim him king as soon as they understood that he was in Hebron.
Under pretence of offering sacrifice at Hebron, which city perhaps
looked with jealousy on the new metropolis, Absalom went from Jerusalem
to Hebron. The tribes obeyed this signal for revolt; everywhere the
people on this side Jordan declared for Absalom, and great numbers
gathered round him. At their head he set out against Jerusalem, against
his father.

David was completely taken by surprise. His own son now brought on him
retribution for all that he had previously done to Saul. Clever and
circumspect as the old king was, he seems to have found his master in
his son. Not secure of the people even at Jerusalem, he could not
venture to defend himself in his fortified metropolis; nothing remained
but to retire in all haste. Yet even in this desperate position the
cunning which had so often come to his aid in his varied life did not
desert him. Absalom he feared little; his greatest terror was the
counsels of Ahithophel. Hence he commanded Hushai (p. 160) to remain
behind, and in appearance to take Absalom's part, in order to counteract
Ahithophel. If Absalom could be induced not to pursue his advantage
immediately, and David could gain time to collect his adherents, much
would be won. Abiathar and Zadok also, the high priests of the sacred
tabernacle, who wished to share his flight, were bidden to remain in
Jerusalem. Their position as priests was a sufficient protection for
them; by means of their sons they were to furnish information of what
took place in the city.[313] Accompanied by some of his wives and their
children, by his most faithful adherents, the Gibborim, and the
body-guard, David left the city in the early morning. Over the Kidron,
along the Mount of Olives, he hastened eastwards to find protection
beyond the Jordan. At Bahurim Shimei, a man of Benjamin, of the race of
Matri, to which Saul belonged, saw from an eminence the flight of the
king. He threw stones down upon him and said: May Jehovah bring upon
thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place thou hast become
king; see, thou art now in calamity; away, thou man of blood. The
body-guard wished to take the man and slay him, but David restrained
them, and said: My son, who has come forth from my loins, is seeking my
life; how much more a man of Benjamin; let him curse. Perhaps at this
moment David's spirit was really broken; perhaps he did not wish that
the people should be further roused by new acts of violence; in the
sequel he showed that he had neither forgotten nor forgiven the words of
Shimei.

On the same day Absalom marched into Jerusalem, and among those who
greeted him he saw with astonishment Hushai, the ancient friend of his
father. He believed Hushai's assurance that he wished to "serve him
whom Jehovah and all the men of Israel had chosen." Ahithophel
considered the success which had been obtained, the rebellion which
spread through the whole country on this side of the Jordan, and the
possession of the strong metropolis and the palace without a blow,
insufficient and indecisive. He saw the situation clearly, and was
convinced that all would be lost if the king had time to collect round
him his old adherents, his companions in victory. Filled with the
conviction that the only way to obtain the end in view was to make an
immediate use of the great advantages won by the surprise, he insisted
that Absalom should at once set out in pursuit of David. The people
which Absalom had led from Hebron were numerous, of these he wished to
leave behind the burdensome multitude and select 12,000 for this
expedition. Hushai opposed this proposal with great skill. Thou knowest
thy father, he said to Absalom, he is a mighty warrior, like a bear
deprived of her whelps in the forest, and his men are mighty and of
fierce courage. He will not be encamped on the field, but will have
concealed himself in one of the hiding-places. If any of our men fall it
will be said, Absalom's men have been defeated, and all thy adherents
will lose courage. Rather rouse all Israel, and march out at their head,
that we may encamp against David like the sand of the sea, and none of
his men may escape. Absalom followed this advice to his ruin. Yet Hushai
was not certain that Ahithophel would not win over Absalom to his
opinion, or go of his own will against David; so he sent his maid before
the gate to the fuller's well (to the south of the city, where the
valleys of Hinnom and Kidron join), where Jonathan, the son of Abiathar,
and Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, lay concealed (Absalom's men had not
allowed them to leave the gate), with instructions to them to hasten to
the king and warn him not to encamp on this side of Jordan. Though
watched by Absalom's guards and pursued, the two men came without
disaster to David, who again set out in the night. When Ahithophel heard
that the king was beyond Jordan he despaired of the undertaking; he
saddled his ass, went to his own city, set his house in order and hung
himself.

Absalom took formal possession of the sovereignty, and as a sign that he
had broken for ever with his father and assumed the government, he took
the royal harem into his possession. A tent was set up on the roof of
the palace of Zion, under which Absalom lived with the ten concubines
whom David had left behind in Jerusalem before the eyes of Israel. When
this was done he raised the whole people to march against his father,
and went with numerous troops to the Jordan. David was at Mahanaim, like
Ishbosheth before him, eagerly busied with his army. It was due to the
cunning arrangements made in the flight from Jerusalem that he had
escaped without danger beyond Jordan, and was enabled to assemble his
own adherents there while Absalom was calling out and collecting the
whole army. From the Ammonites, whom he had treated so harshly, he seems
nevertheless to have received support.[314]

While Absalom crossed the Jordan, David divided the forces he had at his
disposal into three corps, the command of which he entrusted to Joab,
his brother Abishai, and Ithai, a Philistine of Gath. He remained behind
in Mahanaim, and bade the captains deal gently with Absalom in the event
of victory. The armies met in the forest of Ephraim, not far from the
Jordan. In spite of the superiority of the numbers opposed to them, the
tried and veteran soldiers of David had the advantage over the
ill-armed and ill-organised masses of peasants. Absalom started back on
his mule, fell into a thicket, and became entangled by his long hair in
the branches of a large terebinth. He remained hanging while his mule
ran away from under him. Joab found him in this position, and thrust his
spear thrice through his heart. Either the fall of the hostile leader,
the author of the rebellion, appeared a sufficient success to David's
men, or the advantage gained over Absalom's army was not very great, or
they found themselves too weak to follow it up. Joab led the army back
to Mahanaim.

Though the rebellion had lost its leader by the fall of Absalom, it was
far from being crushed. Absalom's captain, Amasa, the nephew of David,
collected the masses of the rebellious army; the elders of the tribes,
as well as the people, were ready to continue the struggle against
David, though some were again inclined to accept their old king. If the
tribes could be divided, and Amasa separated from the elders of Judah,
the victory was almost certain. On this David built his plan. By means
of the priests Abiathar and Zadok he caused it to be made known to the
elders of Judah that the rest of the tribes had made overtures to him,
to recognise him again as king, which was not the case;--would they be
the last to lead back their own flesh and blood, their tribesman David?
At the same time the priests were bidden to offer to Amasa the post of
captain-general as the reward of his return, and this offer David
confirmed with an oath: So might God do to him if Amasa were not captain
all his days in the place of Joab.[315] The elders of Judah allowed
themselves to be entrapped no less than Amasa, who little knew with whom
he had to do. They sent a message to the king that he might return over
the Jordan, and went to meet him at Gilgal. David showed himself
placable, and prepared to pardon the adherents of Absalom. Shimei, who
had cursed him on his retirement from Jerusalem, went to meet him at the
Jordan; and when the boat which carried David over reached the hither
bank he fell at his feet. David promised not to slay him with the
sword.[316] From Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, who had declared for
Absalom, he only took the half of Saul's inheritance.[317]

The remaining tribes were enraged at the tribe of Judah, partly because
they had abandoned the common cause, partly because Judah had entirely
appropriated the merit of bringing back the king. Their feelings were
wavering: half were for submission, the others for continuing the
resistance.[318] Then rose up a man of Benjamin, Sheba, the son of
Bichri. "What part have we in David, what portion in the son of Jesse?"
he cried to the waverers, caused the trumpets to be blown, and gave a
new centre to rebellion and resistance. David commissioned Amasa to call
out the warriors of Judah within three days and lead them to Jerusalem.
While Amasa was occupied with carrying out this command, David sent Joab
with the Gibborim and the body-guard against Sheba. At Gibeon Joab met
Amasa. Is all well with thee, my brother? he said, and took him by the
beard with his right hand to greet him, while with the left he thrust
his sword through his body.[319] Thus, after he had been gained by
deceptive promises, the dangerous man was removed as Abner had been
before him. Sheba could not withstand the impetuous advance of Joab; the
tribes submitted. Sheba's first resistance was made far in the north at
Dan, in the city of Abel-beth-maachah, and there he defended himself so
stubbornly that a rampart was thrown up against the city and besieging
engines brought up against the walls. When the walls were near upon
falling, and the citizens saw destruction before them, they saved
themselves by cutting off Sheba's head and sending it to Joab.[320] The
reaction of the people against the new government, at the head of which
Absalom, Amasa, and Sheba had successively placed themselves, was
overcome.

Many years before, at the time when Joab was besieging Rabbath, the
metropolis of the Ammonites, David had gone out on the roof of his house
in Zion in the cool of the evening. This position overlooked the houses
in the ravine which separated the citadel from the city. In one of these
David saw a beautiful woman in her bath. This was Bathsheba, the wife of
Uriah, a Hittite, who served in the troop of the "mighty." The king sent
for her to his palace, and she soon announced to David that she was with
child. David gave orders to Joab to send Uriah from the camp to
Jerusalem. He asked him of the state of the war and the army, and then
bade him go home to his wife, but Uriah lay before the gate of the
palace. When David asked him on the next morning why he had not gone
home to his house, he answered: Israel is in the field, and my fellows
lie in the camp before Rabbath, and shall I go to my house to eat and
drink and lie with my wife? Remain here, replied David; to-morrow
morning I will let thee go. David invited him into the palace and made
him drunken, but, as before, Uriah passed the night before the gate of
the palace. Then, on the following day, David sent Uriah to the camp
with a letter to Joab: Place Uriah in the thickest of the battle, and
turn away from him, that he may be smitten, and die. Soon after a
messenger came from the camp and announced to the king: The men of
Rabbath made a sally; we repulsed them, and drove them to the gate; then
the bowmen shot at thy servants from the walls, and some of our men were
slain, among them Uriah. David caused Bathsheba, when the time for
mourning was over, to come into his harem, and after the death of her
first child, she bore a second child, whom David called Solomon, _i.e._
the peaceful,[321] as the times of war were over with the capture of
Rabbath and the subjugation of the Ammonites.

After Absalom's death the heir to the crown was Adonijah, the fourth son
of David, whom Haggith had borne to him while at Hebron. Solomon was the
seventh in the series of the surviving sons of David, and as yet quite
young; yet Bathsheba attempted to place her son on the throne. One of
the two high priests, Zadok, supported Bathsheba's views, as also Nathan
the prophet, who acquired great influence with David in the last years
of his reign. Both might expect a greater deference to priestly
influence from the youthful Solomon than from the older and more
independent Adonijah, and the more so if they assisted the young man to
gain the throne against the legitimate successor. So Bathsheba prevailed
upon David to swear an oath by Jehovah that Solomon should be his
successor in the place of Adonijah.[322] But Adonijah did not doubt that
the throne belonged to him, that all Israel was of the same conviction,
and their eyes turned upon him.[323] If Zadok was in favour of Solomon's
succession, Abiathar, the old and influential adherent of David, was for
Adonijah, and what was more important, the captain of the army, Joab,
who had won David's best victories, also declared for him. On the other
hand, Bathsheba's party won Benaiah, the captain of the body-guard, so
that the power and prospects of both party were about equal.

When David, 70 years old, lay on his death-bed, Adonijah felt that he
must anticipate his opponents. He summoned his adherents to meet outside
the walls at the fuller's well (p. 170). Joab appeared with the leaders
of the army, Abiathar came to offer sacrifice, and all the sons of David
except Solomon. The sacrifice was already being offered, the sheep, oxen
and calves were killed, the proclamation of Adonijah was to follow
immediately after the sacrifice, when the intelligence was carried to
the opposite party. Bathsheba and Nathan hastened to the dying king to
remind him of his oath in favour of Solomon. He gave orders that Solomon
should be placed on the mule which he always rode himself and that Zadok
should anoint the youth under the wall of Zion eastwards of the city at
the fount of Gihon. Then Benaiah with the body-guard was to bring him
back into the city at once with the sound of trumpets, and lead him into
the palace, in order to set him upon the throne there. This was done.
Zadok took the horn of oil from the sacred tabernacle, and when the new
ruler returned in solemn procession to the palace all the people cried
with joy: Long live king Solomon. When Adonijah and his adherents heard
the shouting from the city, and understood what had taken place, they
gave up their cause for lost, and dispersed in dread in every direction.
David rejoiced over this last success;[324] he called Solomon to his
bedside, and said to him: "Do good to the sons of Barzillai the
Gileadite; he received me well when I fled over Jordan before thy
brother Absalom. Shimei, who cursed me when I fled to Mahanaim, I have
sworn not to slay; let him not go unpunished, and bring his grey hairs
to the grave with blood. What Joab did to Abner and Amasa thou knowest;
let not his grey hairs go down to the grave in peace."[325] David was
buried in the grave which he had caused to be made on Zion, where the
heights of the citadel meet the western height, on which the city lay.

Thus David had succeeded in healing the wounds which his ambition had
inflicted in past days on Israel; he understood how to establish firmly
the monarchy, and along with it the power and security of the state. He
had given such an important impulse to the worship, to the religious
poetry, and consequently to the religious life, of the Hebrews, that his
reign has remained of decisive importance for the entire development of
Israel. But beside these great successes and high merits lie very dark
shadows. If we cannot but admire the activity and bravery, the wisdom
and circumspection, which distinguish his reign, there stands beside
these qualities not only the weakness of his later years, which caused
him to make a capricious alteration in the succession, thereby
endangering the work of his life; other actions, both of his earlier and
later years, show plainly that in spite of religious feeling and
sentiment he did not hesitate to set aside very fundamental rules of
morality when it came to winning the object he had in view.

If even in his last moments he causes Joab to be put to death by the
hand of his son, it may be that this old servant, when he had taken the
side of the other son in the succession, appeared very dangerous for the
rule of the younger son. But Joab had rendered the greatest services to
David, he had won for him the most brilliant victories; and if our
account makes David give the murder of Abner and Amasa as the reason for
that command, David had made no attempt to punish one deed or the other;
on the contrary, he had gladly availed himself of at least the results
and fruits of them. We must not indeed measure those days of
unrestrained force and violent passion in hatred and love, in devotion
and ambition, by the standard of our own tamer impulses; the manner of
the ancient East, above all of the Semites, was too much inclined to the
most bloody revenge. Yet David's instructions to destroy a man of no
importance, whom he had once in a difficult position sworn to spare, out
of the grave, by the hand of his son, goes beyond the limit of all that
we can elsewhere find in those times and feelings.

FOOTNOTES:

[283] Joshua xv. 63; Judges i. 21.

[284] 2 Sam. v. 5-8; xxiv. 18; 1 Kings ix. 20.

[285] 2 Sam. v. 17.

[286] 2 Sam. v. 22-25.

[287] Above, p. 131, note 4; 2 Sam. xxi. 15-22; 1 Chron. xxi. 4-8; xix.
1.

[288] 2 Sam. viii. 1. Jesus, son of Sirach, xlvii. 8.

[289] Nöldeke, "Amalekiter," s. 17-25.

[290] 2 Sam. viii. 2.

[291] 2 Sam. x. 6-14.

[292] 2 Sam. viii. 3, 4; x. 15-19.

[293] Psalms lx. 2; 2 Sam. viii. 13.

[294] The date rests on the fact that Solomon was born soon after, and
was more than 20 years old when he came to the throne; see below. The
war against Hadad-Ezer cannot be placed before 1020, since Rezon, who
escaped, remained Solomon's opponent as long as Solomon lived. 1 Kings
xi. 25.

[295] 2 Sam. viii. 6, 7, 14; x. 19.

[296] 1 Kings xi. 27.

[297] 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-31.

[298] 2 Sam. xx. 23; 1 Chron. xviii. 17.

[299] 2 Sam. xv. 18.

[300] 2 Sam. xxiii. 18; 1 Chron. xi. 15, 26-45.

[301] 2 Sam. xxiii. 8.

[302] 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. The number of the levy here, as in almost all
accounts of the assembling of the people, must be grossly exaggerated:
800,000 are given in Israel, 500,000 in Judah only. Chronicles raises
the first number to 1,100,000, and reduces the second to 30,000, 1 xxii.
5. The statement given in Chronicles about the division of the levy into
12 troops, and the strength of these troops (1 xxviii. 1-15),
contradicts these numbers. As this arrangement of the army is mentioned
in Chronicles only, which books show a great tendency to systematise,
the division into 12 remains uncertain. That there was a numbering of
the people is not to be doubted. It is counted as one of David's errors,
and Jehovah strikes the people with pestilence. This narrative is
connected with the command to redeem the firstborn, the boys (vol. i.
499), the ordinance given in Exod. xxx. 12, which is connected with the
same conception: "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel
after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul
to Jehovah that there be no plague among them."

[303] 2 Sam. viii. 15.

[304] 2 Sam. xx. 23-26; 1 Chron. xxvii. 16-22.

[305] Psalm xviii.; cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," S. 345.

[306] 2 Sam. vi. 1-8, 12-15; Psalm xxiv. On the date see above, p, 125,
n. 2. M. Niebuhr ("Assur und Babel," s. 350) explains the number of
466-1/2 years given by Josephus ("Ant." 20, 10) by assuming that it
contains the interval of 430-1/2 years which the Hebrews give for the
interval between the building of the temple and its destruction. To this
amount is added eight years for the captive high priest Jozadak, down to
the time when his son Joshua became high priest, and 28 years for
Zadok's priesthood before the commencement of the building of the
temple. If we reckon the 28 years of Zadok backwards for the time that
we have assumed for the beginning of the temple, 990 B.C., we arrive at
the year 1018 B.C. for the erection of the new tabernacle.

[307] 1 Chron. xvi. 39.

[308] 2 Sam. xv. 24, 27; 1 Chron. vii. 4-15, 50-53; xxiii.-xxvi.

[309] If Josephus is right, that the fourth year of Solomon was the
twelfth year of Hiram of Tyre.

[310] 2 Sam. xix. 35.

[311] Absalom's rebellion cannot have taken place till the latter years
of David. Absalom was born in Hebron, and therefore, at the least, after
David's thirtieth year, 2 Sam. v. 4. He must at the least have been
towards 20 years old when he caused Amnon to be murdered. Five years
passed before David would allow him to enter his presence, 2 Sam. xiii.
38, and xiv. 28. Lastly, his efforts to gain popularity, and the
preparations for rebellion, must have occupied two years. If it is
stated in 2 Sam. xv. 7 that after Absalom's return from Geshur 40 years
elapsed till his rebellion, Absalom must have been 63 years old at the
time of his rebellion, and David at the least 93 years old. Hence in the
passage quoted four years must be read instead of 40.

[312] 2 Sam. xv. 1-6; xvii. 25; 1 Chron. ii. 17.

[313] 2 Sam. xv. 5-14.

[314] 2 Sam. xvii. 27.

[315] 2 Sam. xix. 11-13.

[316] 2 Sam. xix. 18-33; 1 Kings ii. 8.

[317] 2 Sam. xvi. 3-5; xix. 24-30.

[318] 2 Sam. xix. 40.

[319] 2 Sam. xx. 8-13; 1 Kings ii. 5.

[320] 2 Sam. xx. 15-22.

[321] 2 Sam. xii. 15-24; 1 Chron. xxii. 9.

[322] 1 Kings i. 17, 20.

[323] 1 Kings ii. 15, 22.

[324] 1 Kings ii. 5-9.

[325] 1 Kings ii. 5-9. The verses 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7 may have been a
speech of David's at some former time, if they are not an addition of
the prophet's. Contrasted with the very definite and realistic colouring
of the passage quoted from the Book of Kings, they can hardly be
considered the last words.



CHAPTER VIII.

KING SOLOMON.


In the last hour of his life David had raised his favourite son to the
throne. The young king was not much more than 20 years of age,[326] and
the news of the death of the dreaded ruler of Israel could not but
awaken among all who had felt the weight of his arm the hope of
withdrawing themselves from the burden laid upon them. The son of the
king of Edom, whom his father's servants had carried away in safety into
Egypt, had grown up there under the protection of the Pharaoh; at the
news of David's death he hastened to Edom to summon his people to
freedom and the struggle against Israel. A captain of Hadad-Ezer of
Zobah, whom David overthrew, Rezon by name, fled at that time into the
desert, where he collected a troop round him and lived by plundering.
Now he threw himself on Damascus, gained the city, and made himself
prince. Moreover, the power of Solomon was not firmly established even
in Israel; the people had expected the accession of Adonijah,[327] and
though he and his confederates retired at the first alarm, there was no
lack of adherents. Serious dangers and commotions appeared to threaten
the new reign. Adonijah had fled for refuge to the altar; he besought
Solomon for a pledge not to slay him. Solomon promised to spare him if
he remained quietly at home. Joab did not know what commands David had
given Solomon in his dying hour, but he did know that Solomon would not
forgive him for supporting Adonijah. He sought refuge in the tabernacle
of Jehovah, and took hold of the horns of the altar in the tent. Solomon
bade Benaiah cut him down. Benaiah hesitated to pollute the altar with
blood; he reported that Joab could not be induced to leave the altar.
The young king repeated his command, "Cut him down, and take from me and
from the house of my father the blood of Abner and the blood of Amasa."
So Joab was slain by Benaiah at the altar of the sacred tent, and buried
"in his house in the desert." The high priest Abiathar escaped with his
life. "I will not slay thee," so Solomon said to him, "because thou
didst once suffer with my father." He banished him as a "man of death"
to his inheritance at Anathoth. Zadok was henceforth sole high priest at
the sacred tent. When Adonijah afterwards besought Solomon to give him
one of the concubines of David, Abishag the Shunamite, to wife, Solomon
thought that he sought to obtain the throne by this means. He commanded
Benaiah to slay him on the spot. With the death of Adonijah his party
lost their head and centre: it ceased to exist.

Solomon broke the rebellion of the Edomites not by his arms only, but
also by withdrawing from them the support of Egypt. He sought the hand
of the daughter of the king of Egypt and obtained it.[328] Thus he not
only withdrew from Edom their reliance on Egypt, he also obtained the
active support of his father-in-law. The Edomites were defeated in
battle by Solomon; Egyptian soldiers reduced Gezer for him.[329] On the
other hand, Solomon could not defeat the new king of Damascus. Rezon
maintained his place, and was an "adversary to Israel as long as Solomon
lived."[330] Hence it is hardly possible that Solomon reduced the
kingdom of Hamath, north of Damascus, to subjection, as the Chronicles
assert;[331] on the other hand, it appears that the oasis of Tadmor, in
the Syrian desert, north of Damascus, was gained, and the city of that
name was founded and established there. Hence, even after the loss of
Damascus, he had command of one of the roads to the Euphrates.[332] We
may assume that Solomon retained the kingdom of David without any
essential alteration in extent; that he, like his predecessor, held sway
as far as the north-east point of the Red Sea; and that even if his rule
did not extend, like David's, to the Euphrates, yet he possessed a
predominant position in this direction. The connection in which Hiram
king of Tyre stood with his father he not only maintained, but made it
more close and more extensive.

With the close of the third year of the reign of Solomon the wars which
the change on the throne kindled came to an end. It is said to have been
David's intention in the last years of his reign to build a temple in
the place of the sacred tent on Zion. As soon as times of peace came
Solomon set himself to carry out this purpose. Hiram of Tyre promised to
deliver wood from the forests of Lebanon at a price, and to put at his
disposal architects and moulders of brass. To the north of the palace
which David had built on Zion the mountain, on which the citadel was,
rose higher. Here the new temple was to be erected. The first task was
to level the height; a terrace was raised upon it by removing some parts
and filling up others, and building substructures; this terrace was
intended to form the precincts and support the temple itself. The
surrounding hills and the neighbourhood provided an ample supply of
stones for building; stone of a better quality was quarried in Lebanon
and carried down. The trees felled in Lebanon were carried to the coast,
floated round the promontory of Carmel as far as Japho (Joppa), and
again dragged up from this point to Jerusalem.[333] The vessels and the
ornaments of brass intended for the temple were cast "in clay ground"
beyond the Jordan, between Succoth and Zarthan, by the Tyrian
Hiram.[334] A wall of huge stones, on which were built the dwellings of
the priests, surrounded the temple precincts. The temple itself was a
building of moderate dimensions, but richly adorned. A portico of 20
cubits in breadth and 10 cubits in depth, opening to the east, formed
the entrance into the temple. Before this portico, after the Syrian
manner, stood two pillars of brass, one called Jachin, the other Boaz.
The temple, exclusive of the portico, was 60 cubits in length, 20 cubits
in breadth, and 30 cubits in height. The breadth was limited by the
unsupported span of the beams of the roof. On both sides of the temple
itself leaned side-buildings, which rose to the height of half the main
structure. The front space of the temple was lighted by trellised
openings over these side-buildings. This front space, which was the
largest, and entered from the portico by a door of cypress wood, adorned
with carved work overlaid with gold, was richly ornamented. The floor
was laid with cypress wood overlaid with gold; the walls and the roof
were covered with panels of cedar wood, which in richly-carved work
displayed cherubs and palm-branches, so that not a stone could be seen
in the interior. In this space of the temple--the "holy"--was an altar
overlaid with gold for offering frankincense (for the smoke-offering),
and a sacred table for the sacrificial bread. Nearer to the inner space
of the temple--the "holy of holies"--were ten candlesticks, and further
in a candlestick with seven branches. The holy of holies, _i.e._ the
smaller inner space of the temple, which was intended to receive the
sacred ark, was divided from the holy by a wall of cedar wood, in which
was a double door of olive wood, hanging on golden hinges. Only the high
priest could enter the holy of holies, the walls of which were covered
with gold-leaf, and even from him the sight of the ark was hidden by a
curtain of blue and red purple, and approach was barred by a golden
chain. Immediately before the ark were two cherubs of carved olive wood
overlaid with gold, 10 cubits high, with outspread wings, so that from
the point of one wing to the point of the other was also a distance of
10 cubits.[335]

The sacrifices of animals were offered in the open air of the court in
front of the temple. For this object a great altar of brass was erected
in the middle of the court, 10 cubits in height and 20 in the square.
Southward of this altar was placed a great basin, in which the priests
had to perform their ablutions and purifications; this was a
much-admired work of the artisan Hiram, and called the sea of brass.
Supported by twelve brazen oxen, arranged in four sets of three, and
turned to the four quarters of the sky, the round bowl, which was of the
shape of a lily broken open, measured five cubits in depth and 30 in
circumference.[336] Beside this great basin five smaller iron bowls were
set up on either side of the altar. These rested on wheels, and were
adorned with cherubs and lions, palms and flowers, with the greatest
skill. They were intended to serve for washing and purifying the animals
and implements of sacrifice.

Solomon commenced the building of the temple in the second month of the
fourth year of his reign (990 B.C.). After seven years and six months it
was finished in the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomon's reign
(983 B.C.). The elders of all Israel, the priests and Levites, and all
the people "from Hamath to the brook of Egypt," flocked to Jerusalem. In
solemn pomp the sacred ark was drawn up to the temple height; oxen and
sheep without number were sacrificed for seven days, and from that time
forward the king offered a solemn sacrifice each year at the three great
festivals in the new temple.[337]

The house which David had built for himself on Zion no longer satisfied
the requirements of Solomon and his larger court. When the temple was
finished he undertook the building of a new palace, which was carried
out on such a scale that the completion occupied thirteen years.[338]
The new palace was not built on Zion, but on the western ridge, which
supported the city to the west of Zion and David's palace. It consisted
of several buildings, surrounded by courts and houses for the servants,
and enclosed by a separate wall. The largest building was a house of
stone three stories high, the stories and roof of which were supported
by cedar pillars and beams of cedar; the length was 100, the breadth 50,
and the height 30 cubits (about 50 feet). A balustrade or staircase in
this house was made of sandal wood, which the ships of Ezion-geber had
brought from Ophir.[339] On this building abutted three colonnades, the
largest 50 cubits long and 30 broad; the third was the hall of the
throne and of justice.[340] Here stood the magnificent throne of
Solomon, "of which the like was never made in any kingdom," of ivory
overlaid with gold. Six steps, on which were twelve lions, led up to it;
beside the arms of the seat were also two lions.[341] Then followed the
dwelling of Solomon, from which a separate stair-way was made leading up
to the temple, together with the chambers for the wives of the
king,--their number is given at 700, the number of the concubines at
300,[342]--and lastly a separate house for his Egyptian consort, who
passed as the first wife, and was honoured and distinguished above the
rest. In the four-and-twentieth year of Solomon's reign (970 B.C.) this
building was brought to an end, "and the daughter of Pharaoh went up
from the city of David into the house which Solomon had built for
her."[343]

Solomon felt it incumbent on him to secure his land, and not merely to
adorn the metropolis by splendid buildings, but to make it inaccessible
to attack. To protect northern Israel against Rezon and Damascus he
fortified Hazor, whose king had once so grievously oppressed Israel, and
Baalath; to protect the western border he fortified Megiddo, Gezer, and
Beth-horon.[344] The defensive works which David had added to the old
fortifications of the metropolis he enlarged and extended. The gorge
which, running from north to south, divided the city of Jerusalem on the
western height from the citadel of Zion on the east he closed towards
the north by a separate fortification, the tower of Millo. By another
fortification, Ophel, he protected a depression of Mount Zion between
David's palace and the new temple, which allowed the citadel to be
ascended from the east. The space over which the city had extended on
the western height opposite the temple, in consequence of the growth of
a suburb there towards the north, the lower city, he surrounded with a
wall.[345] He raised the number of the chariots of war, which David had
introduced, to 1400, for which 4000 horses were kept. He formed a
cavalry force of 12,000 horses, he built stables and sheds for the
horsemen and chariots. If we include the body-guard, the standing army
which Solomon maintained may very well have reached 20,000 men.[346]

The excellent arrangement of his military means and forces must have
contributed to make Israel respected and to preserve peace in the land.
In Solomon's reign, so we are told in the Books of Kings, every one
could dwell in peace under his own vine and his own fig tree.[347] This
peace from without, united with the peace which the power and authority
of the throne secured in the country, must have invigorated trade,
favoured industry, and considerably increased the welfare of Israel. The
example of the court, the splendour and magnificence of which was not
increased by buildings only, made the wealthy Israelites acquainted with
needs and enjoyments hitherto unknown to their simple modes of life. If
hitherto the Israelites had sold to the Phenicians wine and oil, the
wool of their flocks, and the surplus products of their lands for
utensils and stuffs, the finer manufactures of the Phenicians now found
a demand in Israel. If the king of Israel was friendly to the
Phenicians, he allowed them a road by land through his territories to
Egypt; now that the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites had been subjugated
he could close or open the caravan road past Rabbath-Ammon, Kir Moab,
and Elath to South Arabia (I. 320), and when Tadmor was in his hands he
could permit or prohibit a road to the Euphrates beside that past
Damascus. Solomon prohibited none of these; on the contrary, he promoted
the intercourse of the merchants by erecting resting-places and
warehouses on all the lines of traffic which crossed his dominions.[348]
The exportation of chariots and war-horses from Egypt to Syria, which
the Pharaoh no doubt permitted in an especial degree to his son-in-law,
Solomon carried on by means of merchants commissioned by him.[349]
Another trade undertaking, at once much more far-seeing, and promising
far greater gains, he commenced in union with the king of Tyre. It was
of great importance to the Phenicians to obtain an easier connection
with South Arabia in the place of, or at least in addition to, the
dangerous and very uncertain caravan routes past Damascus and Dumah (I.
320), or past Elath along the coast of the Red Sea, to South Arabia.
The circuit by Babylon was very distant, and not much more secure. The
rule of Solomon over Edom pointed out the way, and secured the
possibility of reaching South Arabia by the Red Sea. At Eziongeber, near
Elath, Tyrian shipbuilders built the vessels which were to explore the
coasts of South Arabia, the coasts of the land of gold. Guided by
Phenician pilots, Phenicians and Israelites sailed into the unknown sea,
and to unknown and remote corners of the earth. They succeeded not only
in reaching the South Arabian coasts and the coasts of East Africa, but
in passing beyond to Ophir, _i.e._, as it seems, to the mouths of the
Indus. After an absence of three years the first expedition brought back
gold in quantities, silver, ivory, sandal wood, precious stones, apes
and peacocks. The profits of this expedition are said to have
contributed as Solomon's share 420 Kikkars of gold, _i.e._ towards
20,000,000 thalers (about £3,000,000).[350]

With the increased sale of the products of the country, the improvement
and security of the great routes of traffic, the entrance of Israel into
the trade of the Phenicians, and the influx of a considerable amount of
capital, money seems to have become very rapidly and seriously
depreciated in price in Israel. Before the establishment of the monarchy
a priest is said to have received 10 silver shekels, with food and
clothing, for his yearly service at a sacred place.[351] The amount from
which Abimelech is said to have maintained his retinue (p. 107) is
placed at only 70 shekels of silver. Before the epoch of the monarchy
the prophet received a quarter of a shekel as a return for his services.
David purchased the threshing-floor of Araunah at Zion with two oxen
for 50 shekels of silver.[352] On the other hand, Solomon appears to
have paid the keepers of his vineyards a yearly salary of 200 silver
shekels, and in his time 150 shekels were paid for an Egyptian horse,
and 600 shekels (500 thalers = £80) for a war-chariot.[353]

The prosperity of the land allowed Solomon to increase the income of the
throne by taxation of the people. His income from the navigation to
Ophir, from trade, from the royal demesnes, and the taxes of Israel is
said to have brought in a yearly sum of 666 Kikkars of gold, _i.e._
about 30,000,000 of thalers (about £5,000,000).[354] He applied these
revenues to the support of his army, to his fortifications, sheds, and
splendid buildings, to the erection of the stations on the trade roads,
and finally to the adornment of the court. "He built in Jerusalem, on
Lebanon, and in the whole land of his dominion," say the Books of
Kings.[355] We hear of conduits, pools and country houses of the king on
Antilibanus; of vineyards and gardens at Baal-Hammon. The splendour of
his court is described in extravagant terms. All the drinking-vessels
and many other utensils in the palace at Jerusalem, and in the
forest-house in Antilibanus, are said to have been of pure gold, and the
servants were richly clad.[356] In a costly litter of cedar wood, of
which the posts were of silver, the arms of gold, and the seat of
purple, Solomon was conveyed to his vineyards and pleasure-houses in
Antilibanus, surrounded by a retinue of 60 men chosen from the
body-guard.[357] At solemn processions the body-guard carried 500
ornamented shields: 200 were of pure gold,--for each 600 shekels were
used,--300 of alloyed gold.[358] The number of male and female singers,
of the servants for the king and crowded harem, and the kitchen, must
have been very great, as may be inferred from the very considerable
consumption of food and drink in the palace. From the court and from
trade such an amount of gold flowed to Jerusalem that silver was in
consequence depreciated.[359]

The new arrangement of state life, which was partly established, partly
introduced, by Solomon, the leisure of peace, the close contact with
Phoenicia and Egypt, the entrance of Israel into extensive trade, the
increase of prosperity, the richer, more various, and more complicated
conditions of life, the wider range of vision, could not be without
their influence on the intellectual life of the Israelites. From this
time an increased activity is displayed. They were impelled and forced
to observation, comparison and consideration in quite another manner
than before. The results of these new reflections grew into fixed rules,
into proverbs and apophthegms. In this intellectual movement Solomon
took a leading part. A man of poetical gifts like his father, he
composed religious and other poems (1005 in number, according to the
tradition). The impulse to knowledge and the sense of art which he
excites must first have found room within himself; his vision, like his
means, reached the furthest. Hence we have no reason to doubt that he
was one of the wisest in his nation. "God," says the Book of Kings,
"gave Solomon a spirit beyond measure, as the sand of the sea. And the
wisdom of Solomon was greater than the wisdom of all the sons of the
East, and the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than all men, and he spoke
of the trees, from the cedar on Lebanon to the hyssop which grows on the
wall, and of the cattle and the birds, and the worms and the
fishes."[360] Beside poetry and extensive knowledge of nature, in which
he surpassed his wisest countrymen, Ethal and Heman, Chalcol and Darda,
it was his keen observation, his penetrating knowledge of mankind, his
experience of life which made the greatest impression. His proverbs and
rules of life seemed to the Israelites so pointed and exhaustive that
they attributed to Solomon the entire treasure of their gnomic wisdom,
which was afterwards collected into one body. Among these proverbs
scarcely any can with complete certainty be ascribed to Solomon, but the
fact that all are attributed to him is a sufficient proof that Solomon
possessed a very striking power in keen observation of human nature and
human affairs, in the pregnant expression of practical experience, in
combining its lessons into pointed and vigorous sentences.

As a proof of his acuteness and the calm penetration of his judicial
decisions, the people used to narrate the story of the two women who
once came before Solomon into the hall of justice. One said: I and that
woman lived in one house, and each of us bore a male child. In the night
the son of this woman died. She rose, laid her dead son at my breast,
and took my living child to her bosom. When I woke I had a dead child in
my arms; but in the morning I perceived that this child was not the son
which I had borne. The other woman answered: No; the living boy is my
son, and thine is the dead child. The king turned to his retinue and
said: Cut the living child into two parts, and give half to one and half
to the other. Then tenderness for her child arose in the mother of the
living child. I pray you, my lord, she said, give her the living child,
but slay it not. And the king gave sentence: This is the mother, give
her the child. It is further narrated that the fame of Solomon's wisdom
reached even to distant lands, and kings set forth to hear it. From
Arabia the queen of the Sabæans (Sheba, I. 315) is said to have come
with a long train of camels, carrying spices, gold, and precious stones,
in order to try Solomon with enigmas. And Solomon told her all that she
asked, and solved all the enigmas, and nothing was hidden from him. When
the queen perceived such wisdom, and saw the house which he had built,
and the food on his table, and his counsellors, and his cup-bearers, and
servants, and the burnt sacrifice which he offered in the house of
Jehovah, she sent him 120 Kikkars of gold, and such an amount of spices
as never afterwards came to Jerusalem. This narrative may not be without
some foundation, in fact we saw above how old was the trade of Egypt and
Syria with the land of frankincense. We shall afterwards find queens
among the Arabians in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.: Zabibieh,
Samsieh, and Adijah, and even at the head of the tribes of the desert.
To this day the East preserves the memory of the wise king Solomon, who,
in their legends and stories, has at the same time become a great
magician and exorcist.

However great the splendour of Israel in Solomon's reign, this advance
was not without a darker side. The new paths in which Solomon led his
people brought the Israelites comfort and opulence, the advantages and
impulses of a higher civilisation and more active intellectual life. But
with the splendour and luxury of the court, and the increasing wealth,
the old simplicity of manners disappeared. The land had to bear the
burden of a rule which was completely assimilated to the forms of court
life, and the mode of government established in Egypt and Syria, in
Babylon and Assyria. The court, the army and the buildings required
heavy sums and services, and these for the most part had to be paid and
undertaken by the people. Solomon not only imposed on the tribes the
maintenance of his standing troops, the cavalry and the chariots, he
also demanded that they should support the court by contributions in
kind. This service was not inconsiderable. Each day 30 Kor of fine and
60 Kor of ordinary meal were required, 10 stalled oxen, and 20 oxen from
the pasture, and 100 head of small cattle. Besides this, deer and
fallow-deer, gazelles and fed geese were supplied. The assistance which
Hiram king of Tyre gave to Solomon's buildings, the wood from Lebanon,
had to be paid for; each year 20,000 Kor of wheat and 20,000 Bath of oil
and wine were sent to Tyre, and this the Israelites had to provide.
Further, the people had to pay a regular yearly tax in money to the
king.[361] Still more oppressive was the task-work for the buildings of
the king. It is true that the remnant of the tribes subject to the
Israelites, the Amorites, Hittites, Hivites and Jebusites, were taken
chiefly for these tasks, for Solomon had compelled them to do constant
task-work,[362] but the Israelites themselves were also employed in
great numbers in the building. Over each tribe of Israel Solomon placed
an overseer of the task-work, and these overseers were all subordinate
to Adoniram, the chief task-master. The Israelites summoned for these
services are said to have had two months' rest after one month of work,
and there was a regular system of release. In the years when the
buildings were carried on with the greatest vigour, 80,000 workmen are
said to have been engaged in felling wood in Lebanon, in quarrying and
hewing stones under Tyrian artisans, while 70,000 others carried out the
transport of this material. Though the workmen were constantly changed
and the extension of the task was not unendurable, these burdens were
unusual and certainly undesirable. In order to introduce regularity into
the payments in kind and the taxes of the land, the country was divided
into twelve districts,--no doubt on the basis of the territorial
possessions of the tribes,--and over these royal officers were placed.
Each district had to provide the requirements of the royal house for one
month in the year. These overseers of the districts were subordinate to
a head overseer, Azariah, the son of that Nathan to whom, next to his
mother, Solomon owed the throne.[363] Yet in spite of all the services
of subjects, in spite of all means of receipts, Solomon's expenditure
was in excess of his income. When the settlement with Hiram followed the
completion of the building of the temple and palace, it was found that
Hiram had still 120 Kikkars of gold to receive. As Solomon could not pay
the sum, he ceded to Tyre twenty Israelite places on the border. No
doubt the king of Tyre was well pleased to complete and round off his
territory on the mainland.[364]

The example of a lavish and luxurious court, the spectacle of a crowded
harem, the influence and demeanour of these females, was not only
injurious to the morals of the people, but to their religious conduct.
If the national elevation of the Israelites under Saul and David had
forced back the foreign rites which had taken a place after the
settlement beside the worship of Jehovah, it is now the court which
adopts the culture and manners of the Phenicians and Syrians, and by
which the worship of strange gods in Israel again becomes prominent.
Among the wives of the king many were from Sidon, Ammon, Moab and Edom.
Solomon may have considered it wise to display tolerance towards the
worship of the tributary nations, but it was going far beyond tolerance
when the king, who had built such a richly-adorned and costly temple to
the national god of Israel, erected, in order to please these women,
altars and shrines to Astarte of Sidon, to Camus of the Moabites, and
Milcom of the Ammonites.[365]

Yet the impulse which Solomon's reign gave to the worship of Jehovah was
far the most predominant. It is true that the idea of raising a splendid
temple to Jehovah in Jerusalem arose out of the model of the
temple-service of the Phenicians and Philistines and their magnificent
rites (I. 367), whereas the Israelites hitherto had known nothing but
places for sacrifice on altars on the heights and under the
oaks,--nothing but a sacred tent. The temple itself was an approximation
to the worship of the Syrians; but it was at the same time the
completion of the work begun by David. This building of the temple was
the most important of the acts of Solomon during his reign, and an
undertaking, which in its origin was to some degree at variance with
national feeling, not only contributed to the maintenance of the
national religion, but also had very considerable influence upon its
development. Solomon, after his manner, may have had the splendour and
glory of the structure chiefly in view,--yet just as the monarchy
comprised the political life of the nation, so did the specious,
magnificent temple centralise the religious life of the nation, even
more than David's sacred tent. By this the old places of sacrifice were
forced into the shade, and even more rarely visited. The building of the
temple increased the preponderance of the sacrifice offered in the
metropolis. The priests of the altars in the country, who mostly lived
upon their share in the sacrifices, turned to Jerusalem, and took up
their dwelling in the city. Here they already found the priesthood,
which had gathered round Abiathar and Zadok (p. 164). The union of a
large number of priestly families at Jerusalem, under the guidance of
the high priest appointed already by David, caused the feeling and the
consciousness of the solid community and corporate nature of their order
to rise in these men, while the priests had previously lived an isolated
life, at the places of sacrifice among the people, and hardly
distinguished from them, and thus they were led to a far more earnest
and systematic performance of the sacred worship. It was easy to make
use of the number of priests already in existence in order to give to
the rites the richer and more brilliant forms which the splendour and
dignity of the temple required. For this object the arrangements of the
sacred service must be divided, and the sacred acts allotted to special
sections of the priests at hand.

The organisation of the priesthood needed for these divisions was
naturally brought about by the fact that those entrusted with the office
of high priest supposed themselves to be descendants of Aaron, and that
even in David's reign these had been joined by the priests who claimed
to be of the same origin. These families, the descendants of Eleazar and
Ithamar, retained the essential arrangements of the sacrifice and the
expiation, the priesthood in the stricter sense. Even the families, who
side by side with these are said to have belonged to the race of Aaron,
which, like Aaron, are said to have sprung from the branch of Kohath,
were not any longer admitted to this service. The priestly families of
this and other origin, which are first found at a later date in
Jerusalem, who retained their dwelling outside Jerusalem, were united
with the races of Gershom and Merari, and to them, as to the families of
the race of Kohath which did not come through Aaron, were transferred
the lesser services in the worship and in the very complicated ritual.
Those men of these races who were acquainted with music and singing,
together with such musicians as were not of priestly blood, were also
divided into sections. They had to accompany the sacrifice and acts of
religious worship with sacred songs and the harp. Others were made
overseers of the sacred vessels and the dedicatory offerings, others set
apart for the purification of the sanctuary and for door-keepers. All
these services were hereditary in the combinations of families allotted
to them. This organisation of the priesthood cannot have come into
existence, as the tradition tells us, immediately after the completion
of the temple; it can only have taken place as the effects of a splendid
centre of worship in the metropolis of the kingdom became more widely
felt, and was finally brought to completion under the guidance of the
priests attending on the sacred ark.[366]

Thus there was connected with the building of the temple by Solomon, not
only the reunion of the families of the tribe of Levi--if these even
previously had formed a separate tribe;--by means of adoption from all
the families which for generations had been dedicated to the sacred
rites, the formation and separation of the priestly order became
perfect.[367] At first, without any independent position, this order was
dependent on the protection of the monarchy, which built the temple for
it, and the importance of the priests was increased with the splendour
of the worship. At the head of the new order stood the priests of the
ark of Jehovah, who had already, in earlier times, maintained a
pre-eminent position, which was now increased considerably by the reform
in the worship. But they also were dependent on the court, though they
soon came to exercise a certain influence upon it. As David had made
Zadok and Abiathar high priests, so Solomon removed Abiathar and
transferred the highest priestly office to Zadok, of the branch of
Eleazar. Far more important than the position of the priesthood at the
court was the feeling and consciousness of the mission given to them,
of the duties and rights, to which the priesthood attained when combined
in the new society. As they were at pains to practise a worship pleasing
to Jehovah, they succeeded even before Solomon in discovering an
established connection between the past and the present of the nation,
in recognising the covenant which Jehovah had made with his people. From
isolated records, traditions, and old customs they collected the law of
ritual in the manner which they considered as established from
antiquity, the observation of which was, from their point of view, the
maintenance of the covenant into which Israel had entered with his God.
This was the light in which, even in David's time, the fortunes of
Israel appeared to the priests, and from this point of view they were
recorded in the first decade of David's reign. The order which the
priests required for the worship, its unity, centralisation and
adornment, the exact obedience to the ritual which was considered by
them true and pleasing to God, the position which the priesthood had now
obtained, or claimed, appeared to them as already ordained and current
in the time when Jehovah saved his people with a mighty arm, and led
them from Egypt to Canaan. They had been thrust into the background and
forgotten, owing to the guilt and backsliding of later times. Now the
time was come to establish in power the true and ancient ordinances of
Moses in real earnest, and to restore them. It was of striking ethical
importance, that by these views the present was placed in near relation
and the closest combination with a sublime antiquity, with the
foundation of the religious ordinances. The impulse to religious feeling
which arose out of these views and efforts found expression in a lyrical
poetry of penetrating force. David had not only attempted simple songs,
but also, as we have seen, more extended invocations of Jehovah; and
the skilled musical accompaniment which now came to the aid of religious
song in the families of the musicians, must have contributed to still
greater elevation and choice of expression. The intensity of religious
feeling and its expression in sacred songs must also have come into
contact more especially with that impulse which had hitherto been
represented in the seers and prophets, who believed that they
apprehended the will of Jehovah in their own breasts, and, in
consequence of their favoured relation to him, understood his commands
by virtue of internal illumination. All these impulses operated beyond
the priestly order. In union with the lofty spiritual activity of the
people, they led, in the first instance, to the result that in the last
years of Solomon the annalistic account of the fortunes of the people
and the record of the law was accompanied by a narrative of greater
liveliness, of a deeper and clearer view of the divine and human nature
(I. 386), which at the same time, in the fate of Joseph, gave especial
prominence to the newly-obtained knowledge of Egyptian life, the service
rendered by the daughter of the king of Egypt to the great leader of
Israel in the ancient times, the blessing derived from the friendly
relations of Israel and Egypt, and the distress brought upon Egypt by
the breach with Israel.

FOOTNOTES:

[326] Bathsheba became David's wife not long before the capture of
Rabbath-Ammon. Her first child died. According to 1 Kings iii. 7,
Solomon, at the time of his accession, is still a boy. But since,
according to 1 Kings xiv. 21, his son Rehoboam is 42 years old at
Solomon's death, and Solomon had reigned 40 years, Solomon must have
been more than 20 at the death of David. Hence, on p. 155 above, the
date of the capture of Rabbath-Ammon is fixed at 1015 B.C.

[327] 1 Kings ii. 15.

[328] 1 Kings iii. 1. From the statement in 1 Kings xi. 14-21, this must
have been the daughter of Amenophtis, the Pharaoh who succeeded the king
mentioned here, the fourth Tanite in Manetho's list. Below, Book IV.
chap. 3.

[329] 1 Kings ix. 16.

[330] 1 Kings xi. 23-25.

[331] 2 Chron. viii. 3.

[332] 2 Chron. vii. 8; viii. 4; 1 Kings ix. 18; Joseph. "Antiq." 8, 6,
1. The passage in the Book of Kings appears, it is true, to indicate
Thamar in Southern Judæa.

[333] 1 Kings v. 7-10, 15-17.

[334] 1 Kings vii. 46.

[335] 1 Kings vi., vii. 13-51; 2 Chron. iii. 4, 10.

[336] A similar vessel of stone, 30 feet in circumference, adorned with
the image of a bull, lies among the fragments of Amathus in Cyprus: O.
Müller, "Archæologie," § 240, Anm. 4.

[337] 1 Kings ix. 25.

[338] 1 Kings vii. 1-12.

[339] 1 Kings x. 12; 2 Chron. ix. 11.

[340] 1 Kings vii. 7.

[341] 1 Kings x. 18-20.

[342] The Song of Solomon says, "There are 60 queens, 80 concubines, and
maids without number."

[343] 1 Kings ix. 10, 24.

[344] 1 Kings ix. 15-19.

[345] 1 Kings xi. 27; ix. 15-24.

[346] 1 Kings iv. 26; x. 26.

[347] 1 Kings iv. 20, 25; v. 4.

[348] 1 Kings ix. 19.

[349] 1 Kings x. 29.

[350] 1 Kings ix. 26-28; x. 22.

[351] Judges xvii. 10. The Hebrew silver shekel is to be reckoned at
more than 2_s._ 6_d._; the gold shekel from 36 to 45_s._ Cf. Vol. i.
304.

[352] 2 Sam. xxiv. 24.

[353] Song of Solomon viii. 11; cf. Mover's "Phoenizier," 3, 48 ff, 81
ff.

[354] 1 Kings x. 14.

[355] 1 Kings ix. 19.

[356] 1 Kings x. 21; 2 Chron. ix. 20.

[357] Song of Solomon iii. 7-10.

[358] 1 Kings x. 27.

[359] 1 Kings x. 27.

[360] 1 Kings iv. 29-34.

[361] 1 Kings iv. 22, 23, 26-28.

[362] 1 Kings ix. 20, 21. In order to prove that Solomon used these and
no others for his workmen, the Chronicles (2, ii. 16, 17) reckon this
remnant at 153,000 men, _i.e._ exactly at the number of task workmen
with their overseers given in the Book of Kings. According to this the
incredible number of half a million of Canaanites must have settled
among the Israelites. The general assertion of the Books of Kings (1,
ix. 22) is supported by the detailed evidence in the same books, 1, v.
13; xi. 28; xii. 4 ff.

[363] 1 Kings iv. 11-15; v. 13-18.

[364] 1 Kings ix. 10-14. The contradictory statement in Chronicles (2,
viii. 2) cannot be taken into consideration.

[365] 1 Kings xi. 4-9, 33. Though this account belongs to times no
earlier than the author of Deuteronomy, yet since the destruction of
these places of worship "set up by Solomon" is expressly mentioned under
Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 13), it cannot be doubted.

[366] 1 Chron. xxiv.-xxvii. Here, as is usual in the Chronicles, the
division of the priests is given systematically, and the idea of such a
division is ascribed to the last years of David. "The Levites were
numbered according to David's last commands," 1 Chron. xxiv.; cf. cap.
xxvii. Throughout the Chronicles make a point of exhibiting David as the
originator, and Solomon as the executive instrument. We must content
ourselves with the result that the temple is of decisive importance in
separating the priests from the people, and for gathering together and
organising the order.

[367] It appears that the lists of the priestly families were taken down
in writing when the organisation of the order was concluded: Nehem. vii.
64.



CHAPTER IX.

THE LAW OF THE PRIESTS.


Out of the peculiar relation in which Israel stood from all antiquity to
his God, out of the protection and prosperity which he had granted to
the patriarchs and their seed, out of the liberation from the oppression
of the Egyptians, which Jehovah had prepared for the Israelites with a
strong arm, out of the bestowal of Canaan, _i.e._ the promise of Jehovah
to conquer the land, which the Israelites had now possessed for
centuries, there grew up in the circles of the priests, from about the
time of Samuel, the idea of the covenant which Jehovah had made with the
patriarchs, and through them with Israel. Jehovah had assured Israel of
his protection and blessing; on the other hand, Israel had undertaken to
serve him, to obey his commands, and do his will. If Israel lives
according to the command of Jehovah, the blessing of his God will
certainly be his in the future also; the reward of true service will not
and cannot be withheld from him. The will of Jehovah which Israel has to
obey, the law of Jehovah which he has to fulfil, was contained in the
moral precepts, the rules of law, and rubrics for purification and
sacrifice, the writing down of which in the frame-work of a brief
account of the fortunes of the fathers, the slavery in Egypt, the
liberation and the conquest of Canaan, on the basis of older sketches
of separate parts, was brought to a conclusion at Hebron, in the
priestly families of the tribe of Aaron, about the first decade of
David's reign (I. 385). In this writing were laid down the views held by
the priesthood on the life pleasing to God, on the past of the nation
and the priests, and of the correct mode of worship. It was the ideal
picture of conduct in morals, law and worship which the priests strove
after, which must in any case have existed in that great period when
Jehovah spoke to the Israelites by the mouth of Moses. And, as a fact,
the foundations of the moral law, the fundamental rules of law and
customs of sacrifice, as we found above (I. 484), do go back to that
time of powerful movement of the national feeling, of lofty exaltation
of religious emotion against the dreary polytheism of Egypt.

It is doubtful, whether the families of the priests and sacrificial
servants who traced back their lineage to Levi, the son of Jacob (p.
197), and were now united by David and Solomon for service at the sacred
tabernacle, for sacrifice and attendance at the temple, had of antiquity
formed a separate tribe, which afterwards became dispersed (I. 488),--or
if this tribe first was united under the impression made by the idea of
true priesthood, which those writings denoted as an example and pattern,
and under the influence of the change introduced by the foundation of a
central-point for the worship of Israel in the tabernacle of David, and
then in the temple of Solomon, for the priestly families scattered
through the land, by means of a gradual union of the priestly families;
at all events, a position at least equal in dignity to the rest of the
tribes ought to be found for the tribe of Levi, which knew the will and
law of Jehovah, and the correct mode of sacrifice. It was not indeed
possible in Israel to give the first and most ancient place to the
tribe of the priests, as has been done in other nations where a division
of orders has crystallised into hereditary tribes. In the memory of the
nation Reuben was the first-born tribe, _i.e._ the complex of the oldest
families, the oldest element of the nation, and the importance of the
tribes derived from Joseph and the tribe of Judah in and after the
conquest of Canaan was so firmly fixed that the tribe of Levi could not
hope to contend with them successfully in the question of antiquity. But
what was wanting in rank of derivation could be made up by special
blessings given by Jehovah, and by peculiar sanctity. According to an
old conception the first-born male belonged to Jehovah. In the sketch of
the fortunes of Israel and of the law, Jehovah says to Moses, he will
accept the tribe of Levi in place of the first-born males of the people.
The number of the first-born males of one month old of all the other
tribes was taken--they reached 22,373; the number of all the men and
boys down to the age of one month in the tribe of Levi was 22,000. These
22,000 Levites Jehovah took in the place of the first-born of the
people, and the remaining 373 were ransomed from Jehovah at the price of
five shekels of silver for each person.[368] Thus the Levites were
raised by Jehovah to be the first-born tribe of Israel. Levi was the
tribe which Jehovah had selected for his service, the chosen tribe of a
chosen nation. Moses and Aaron were of this tribe, and if, instead of a
few families who stood beside Moses when he led Israel out of Egypt, and
restored the worship of the tribal deity, the whole tribe of Levi was
represented as active in his behalf, and as a supporter of Moses, the
consecration of age was not wanting to this tribe, and reverence was
naturally paid to it in return for such ancient services.

The Levites were not to busy themselves with care for their maintenance,
they were not to work for hire, or possess any property; they were to
occupy themselves exclusively with their sacred duties. Instead of
inheritance Jehovah was to be their heritage.[369] It is true that the
plan for the maintenance of the tribe of Levi, sketched in the first
text on the occasion of the division of Canaan, the 48 cities allotted
to them in the lands of the other twelve tribes (13 for the priests and
35 for the assistant Levites[370]), could never be carried out; yet
claims might be founded on it. Moreover, the necessary means for support
were supplied in other ways. The firstlings of corn, fruits, the
vintage, the olive tree, were offered by being laid on the altar. No
inconsiderable portion of other offerings was presented in the same
manner. All these gifts could be applied by the priests to their own
purposes.[371] But by far the most fruitful source of income for the
priesthood was the tithe of the produce of the fields, which was offered
according to an ancient custom to Jehovah as his share of the harvest.
The law required that a tenth of corn, and wine, and oils, and of all
other fruits, and the tenth head of all new-born domestic animals,
should be given to the priests.[372] The statements of the prophets and
the evidence of the historical books prove that the tithes were offered
as a rule, though not invariably. As the Levites who were not priests
had no share in the sacrifices, the law provided that the tithe should
go to them, but the Levites were in turn to restore a tenth part of
these tithes to the priests. Finally, the law required that a portion
of the booty taken in war should go to the Levites; that in all
numberings of the people and levies each person should pay a sum to the
temple for the ransom of his life.[373]

Only the descendants of Aaron could take part in the most important
parts of the ceremonial of sacrifice. From his twenty-fifth or thirtieth
year to his fiftieth every Levite was subject to the temple
service.[374] The law prescribed a formal dedication, with
purifications, expiations, sacrifices, and symbolical actions for the
exercise of the lower as well as the higher priesthood, for the offering
of sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood as well as for the due
performance of the door-keeping. At the dedication of a priest these
ceremonies lasted for seven days, but the chief import of the ritual was
to denote the future priest himself as a sacrifice offered to Jehovah.
Only those might be dedicated who were free from any bodily blemish. "A
blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything
superfluous, or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed, or
crook-backt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be
scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken shall not come nigh to
offer the offering of the Lord made by fire."[375]

No priest was to make baldness on his head or shave off the corners of
his beard, or make any cuttings in his flesh;[376] before the sacrifice
he might not take wine or any intoxicating drink; he was required to
devote himself to especial purity and cleanliness, and observe in a
stricter degree the laws concerning food; he might not marry a widow or
a woman divorced from her husband, still less a harlot; he was to avoid
most carefully any contact with a corpse: only in the case of his
nearest relatives was this defilement allowed. The clothing of the
priests was definitely prescribed. He must wear a robe of white linen
(byssus), woven in one piece; and this robe was held together by a
girdle of three colours, red, blue and white. The priest also wore a
band of white linen round his head, and trousers of white linen in order
that he might not discover his nakedness when he ascended the steps of
the altar.[377]

The foremost place among the consecrated priests was occupied by the
high priest. He alone had the right to enter the inner space of the
sanctuary, the cell in which stood the ark of the covenant--the other
priests could enter the outer space only; he alone could offer sacrifice
in the name of the whole people, he alone could announce the will and
oracle of Jehovah, and consecrate the priests. The ritual for the high
priest was most strict. In the belief of the Hebrews the most accurate
knowledge and the most careful circumspection was needed in order to
offer an effective sacrifice and avoid arousing the anger of Jehovah by
some omission in the rite, and if the law required of all priests that
they should devote themselves to especial purity and holiness, this
demand was made with peculiar severity upon the high priest. He might
marry only with a pure virgin of the stock of his kindred; he must keep
himself so far from all defilement that he might not touch the corpse
even of his father and his mother; he might not, on any occasion, rend
his garments in sorrow. The distinguishing garb of the high priest was a
robe of blue linen, which on the edge was adorned with pomegranates and
bells; the bells were intended, as the law says, to announce the coming
of the priest to the God who dwelt in the shrine of the temple, that
the priest might not die.[378] Over this robe the high priest wore a
short wrapper, the so-called ephod or shoulder-garment, and on his
breast in front the tablet with the holy Urim and Thummim, by means of
which he inquired of Jehovah, if the king or any one from the people
asked for an oracle. The other priests also, at least in more ancient
times, wore the ephod with the Urim and Thummim; but the ephod of the
high priest was fastened on the shoulders by two precious stones, and
the front side of his breastplate was made of twelve precious stones set
in gold, on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes. The
head-band of the high priest was distinguished from that of the other
priests by a plate of gold bearing the inscription, "Holy is Jehovah;"
he might not even uncover his head.[379]

The mode of worship was regulated by the law in a systematic manner.
Beside the Sabbath, on keeping which the law laid special stress, and
regarded it as a symbol of the relation of Israel to Jehovah, the
Israelites celebrated feasts at the new moon and the full moon,[380] and
held three great national festivals in the year. These festivals marked
in the first instance certain divisions of the natural year. Yet the
first, the festival of spring, had from ancient times a peculiar
religious significance. It has been remarked above that at the spring
festival not only were the firstlings of the harvest, the first ears of
corn, offered to the tribal God, but that also, as at the beginning of a
new season of fertility, a sin offering, the vicarious sacrifice of a
lamb, was made for the first-born which were not offered. The spring
festival was also the festival of the sparing of the first-born, the
Passah or passover of Jehovah (I. 414). The priestly ordinance, which
sought to give a definite historical cause for the customs of the
festival, and to mark the favours which Jehovah had granted to his
people, connects the old usages of this festival with the exodus from
Egypt, and we have already seen how from this point of view old
ceremonies of this festival were transformed, and new ones were added
(I. 445). As the spring festival was kept in the first month of the
Hebrew year, Nisan (March-April) (it began on the evening of the day
after the new moon, at the rise of the full moon, when the sun is in the
Ram), the exodus from Egypt was supposed to have taken place on the
morning which followed this night. The Passah continued for seven days,
in which, from the morning of the second day to the evening of the
seventh, only unleavened bread could be eaten, i.e. the firstlings of
the corn in their original form, and no business could be carried on. On
each of the seven days of the feast, according to the law, two young
bulls, a ram and seven yearling lambs were offered as a burnt offering
for Israel in the temple, and besides these a goat, as a sin offering.
The neglect of the festival, the eating of leavened bread on any of the
days, was threatened by the law with extirpation from the
community.[381] As the greater number of the tribes attained to a
settled life and agriculture, the feast of the ripe fruits or harvest
naturally rose to importance beside this festival of the earliest
fruits. Seven full weeks after the commencement of the Passah, or six
weeks after the end of it, the feast of new bread was celebrated. The
sheaves were brought, the corn trodden out, the first new meal
prepared. According to the law, each house in Israel, _i.e._, no doubt,
each which possessed land and flocks, had to bring two leavened
firstling loaves of new wheaten meal and two yearling lambs as a thank
offering. Before these were offered no one could eat bread made from the
new corn.[382] The festival of autumn, which took place in the seventh
month of the Hebrew year (September--October), from the fourteenth to
the twenty-first day of the month, was merrier and of longer duration.
It was the festival of the completion of the in-gathering, and of the
vintage, and consequently can hardly go back beyond the time of the
settlement in Canaan.[383] It was customary to erect arbours of palm
leaves, willows, and oak branches, as was indeed necessary at a time
when men were occupied in remote orchards and vineyards, and in these
the feast was kept, unless it was preferred to keep it at some important
place of sacrifice, in order to offer the thank offering there,[384] and
in this case those who came to the feast also passed the day in tents or
arbours. Like the feast of spring, the feast of tabernacles continued
for seven days. According to the law, Israel was to offer 70 bulls, 14
rams, and seven times 14 lambs at this festival as a burnt offering. To
this feast also a historical meaning was given; the tabernacles were
erected to remind Israel of the fact that he had once dwelt in tents in
the wilderness.

At these three festivals, "thrice in the year, all the males of Israel
must appear before Jehovah."[385] Such was the law of the priests. It
was the intention of the priests that the three great festivals should
be celebrated at the dwelling of Jehovah, _i.e._ at the tabernacle, and
afterwards at the temple; hence at the great festivals the Israelites
were to go to Jerusalem. But the strict carrying out of such a common
celebration was opposed to the character of the festivals themselves. We
saw that even when the sacred ark still stood at Shiloh, pilgrimages
were made thither once a year at the festival of Jehovah. After the
erection of the tabernacle and the temple this, no doubt, took place
more frequently, and the numbers were greater. Yet the object of the
priests could not be completely realised. The paschal festival was the
redemption of the separate house, of each individual family. This
meaning and object was very definitely stamped on the ritual. In a
similar manner, the feast of the beginning of harvest and of the first
fruits required celebration at home, on the plot of land, and this was
still more the case with the festival of thanksgiving for the completed
harvest.

Before the people rejoiced in the blessing of the completed harvest at
the feast of tabernacles, all misdeeds which might have defiled the year
to that time must be cancelled and removed by a special sacrifice. For
this object the law on this occasion made a requirement never demanded
at any other time. From the evening of the ninth to the evening of the
tenth day there was not only a cessation of business, but a strict fast
was kept. Every man among the people must subject himself to this
regulation, and he who transgressed it was threatened with the loss of
his life.[386] The high priest had first to cleanse himself and the
other priests, and then the dwelling of Jehovah; for even the sanctuary
might be defiled by the inadvertence of the priests. When the high
priest had bathed he must clothe himself in a coat and trousers of white
linen, with a girdle and head-band of the same material, and offer a
young bull as a sin offering. Bearing a vessel filled with the blood of
this victim, and with the censer from the altar of incense in the
interior of the sanctuary, which contained burning coals and
frankincense, the high priest went alone into the holy of holies, behind
the curtain before the ark of the covenant. Immediately on his entrance
the clouds arising from the censer must fill the chamber, that the
priest might not see the face of Jehovah over the cherubs and die. Then
the high priest sprinkled the blood from the vessel seven times towards
the ark, and when thus cleansed he turned back to the court of the
sanctuary, in which two goats stood ready for sacrifice. He cast lots
which of the two should be sacrificed to Jehovah and which to Azazel,
the evil spirit of the desert. When the lot was cast, the high priest
laid his hand on the head of the goat assigned to Azazel, confessed all
the sins and transgressions of Israel on this goat, and laid them on his
head, in order that he might carry them into the desert-land into which
the goat was driven from the sanctuary. Then the high priest slew the
other goat assigned to Jehovah, and, returning into the holy of holies,
sprinkled with his blood the ark of the covenant for the second time, in
order to purify the people. When the altar of incense, in the outer part
of the sanctuary, had been sprinkled in a similar manner, the high
priest declared that Jehovah was appeased. After a second bath he put on
his usual robes, and offered three rams as burnt offerings for himself,
the priesthood, and the nation.[387]

All sacrifices were to be offered at the tabernacle, "before the
dwelling of Jehovah;" and afterwards in like manner in the temple. The
law of the priests threatened any one with death who sacrificed
elsewhere.[388] The most essential regulations for the offering of
sacrifice are perhaps the following:--Any one who intended to bring an
offering must purify himself for several days. Wild animals could not be
offered. In the Hebrew conception the sacrifice is the surrender of a
part of a man's possessions and enjoyments. Hence only domestic
offerings could be offered, because only these are really property.
Cattle, sheep, and goats were the animals appointed for sacrifice. The
poorer people were also allowed to offer doves. Each victim must be
without blemish and healthy, and it must not be weakened and desecrated
by labour. Before the animal was killed the sacrificer laid his hand on
its head for a time; then he who offered the sacrifice, whether priest
or layman, slew the victim, but only the priest could receive the warm
blood in the sacrificial vessel. With this vessel in his hand the priest
went round the altar and sprinkled the feet, the corners, and the sides
of it with the blood of the victim. In the Hebrew conception the life of
the victim was in its blood, and thus the sprinklings which were to be
made with it form the most important part of the holy ceremony. From
ancient times the burnt offering was the most solemn kind of sacrifice.
Only male animals, and, as a rule, bulls and rams, could be offered as
burnt offerings. When they had been slain and skinned these offerings
were entirely burnt in the fire on the altar, without any part being
enjoyed by the sacrificer or the priest, as was the case in other kinds
of offerings; only the skin fell to the share of the priests. As the
burnt offering was intended to gain the favour of Jehovah, so were the
sin offerings intended to appease his anger and blot out transgressions.
For sin offerings female animals were used as a rule, as male animals
for the burnt offerings,[389] but young bulls and he-goats were also
offered as expiatory offerings for the whole people, and for oversights
or transgressions of the priests in the ritual, and for sin offerings
for princes. In sin offerings only certain parts of the entrails were
burnt, the kidneys, the liver, and other parts; and in this sacrifice
the priests sprinkled the blood on the horns of the altar; the flesh
which was not burned belonged to the priests. In thank offerings and
offerings of slaughter (so called because in these the slaying and
eating of the victim was the principal matter) only the fat was burnt,
the priests kept the breast and the right thigh,[390] the rest was eaten
by the sacrificer at a banquet with the guests whom he had invited; but
this banquet must be held at the place of sacrifice, on the same or at
any rate on the following day. Drink offerings consisted of libations of
wine, which were poured on and round the altar (libations of water are
also mentioned, though not in the law, p. 115); the food offerings in
fruits, corn, and white meal, which the priests threw into the fire of
the altar; in bread and cookery, which, drenched with oil and sprinkled
with salt and incense, was partly burned, and partly fell to the lot of
the priests. Lastly, the incense offerings consisted in the burning of
incense, which did not take place, like the other sacrifices, on the
larger altar in the court of the sanctuary, but on the small altar,
which stood in the space before the holy of holies of the tabernacle,
and afterwards of the temple.[391]

According to the law, a service was to be continually going on in the
dwelling of Jehovah. The sacred fire on the altar in the interior of the
tabernacle was never to be quenched; before the holy of holies on the
sacred table twelve unleavened loaves always lay sprinkled with salt and
incense, as a symbolical and continual offering of the twelve tribes.
Each Sabbath this bread was renewed, and the loaves when removed fell to
the priests. Before the curtain of the holy of holies the candlestick
with seven lamps was always burning, and every morning and evening the
priests of the temple were to offer a male sheep as a burnt offering at
the dwelling of Jehovah, and two sheep on the morning and evening of the
Sabbath. The high priest had also to make an offering of corn every
morning and evening.[392]

Beside the sacrifice, the law of the priests required the observance of
a whole series of regulations for purity. It is not merely bodily
cleanliness which these laws required of the Israelites, nor is it
merely a natural abhorrence of certain disgusting objects which lies at
the base of these prescriptions; it is not merely that to the simple
mind physical and moral purity appear identical, that moral evil is
conceived as a defilement of the body; nor are these regulations merely
intended to place a certain restriction on natural states and impulses.
These factors had their weight, but beside them all a certain side of
nature and of the natural life was set apart as impure and unholy. The
laws of purity among the Israelites are far less strict and
comprehensive than those of the Egyptians and the Indians; but if we
unite them with the ritual by which transgressions of these rules were
done away and made good, they form a system entering somewhat deeply
into the life of the nation.

For the laity also the law required and prescribed cleanliness of
clothing. Stuffs of two kinds might not be worn; pomegranates must be
fixed on the corners of the robe. The field and vineyard might not be
sown with two kinds of seed; nor could ox and ass be yoked together
before the plough.[393] Certain animals were unclean, and these might
not be eaten. The clean and permitted food was obtained from oxen,
sheep, goats, and in wild animals from deer, wild-goats, and gazelles,
and in fact from all animals which ruminate and have cloven feet.
Unclean are all flesh-eating animals with paws, and more especially the
camel, the swine, the hare, and the coney. Of fish, those only might be
eaten which have fins and scales; all fish resembling snakes, like eels,
might not be eaten. Most water-fowl are unclean; pigeons and quails, on
the other hand, were permitted food. All creeping things, winged or not,
with the exception of locusts, are forbidden.[394] Moreover, if the
permitted animals were not slain in the proper manner their flesh was
unclean; if it had "died of itself," or was strangled, or torn by wild
beasts,[395] the use of the blood of the animal was most strictly
forbidden, "for the life of all flesh is the blood;" even of the animals
which might be eaten the blood must be poured on the earth and covered
with earth.[396] As the eating of forbidden food made a man unclean, so
also did all sexual functions of man or woman, and all diseases
connected with these functions, including lying in child-bed. Every one
was also unclean on whose body was "a rising scab or bright spot," but
above all the white leprosy rendered the sufferer unclean.[397] Finally,
any contact with the corpse of man or beast, whether intentional or
accidental, rendered a man unclean. The house in which a man died, with
all the utensils, was unclean; any one who touched a grave or a human
bone was tainted.[398]

The priestly regulations set forth in great detail the ceremonies, the
washings and sacrifices, by which defilements were to be removed. The
unclean person must avoid the sanctuary, and even society and contact
with others, till the time of his purification, which in serious
defilements can only begin after the lapse of a certain time. In the
more grievous cases ordinary water did not suffice for the cleansing,
but from the ashes of a red cow without blemish, which was slain as a
sin offering and entirely burnt, the priest prepared a special water of
purification with cedar wood and bunches of hyssop. The reception of
healed lepers required the most careful preparations and most scrupulous
manipulations.

Among the regulations of purity is reckoned the custom of circumcision,
which was practised among the Israelites, and retained by the law. Yet
the reason for this peculiar custom, which according to the regulations
of the priests was performed on the eighth day after birth, the first
day of the second week of life,[399] seems to lie in other motives
rather than in the desire to remove a certain part of the male body
which was regarded as unclean. We saw above that according to the old
conception of the Israelites the firstborn must be ransomed from
Jehovah, that the life of all boys, if it was to be secured, must be
purchased from Jehovah (I. 414, 448). Hence, if we may follow the hint
of an obscure narrative, it is not improbable that circumcision of the
reproductive member was a vicarious blood-sacrifice for the life of the
boy. When Moses returned from the land of Midian to Egypt--so we learn
from the Ephraimitic text--"Jehovah met him in the inn, and sought to
kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of
her son, and cast it at his feet, and he departed from him."[400] To the
Israelites circumcision was a symbol of their connection with the
nation, of their covenant with Jehovah and selection by him.

The most important part of the purity of the people of Jehovah was their
maintenance of his worship, the strict severance of Israel from the
religion of their neighbours and community with them. It was now seen
what influence living and mingling with the Canaanites had exercised in
the national worship, and it was perceived what an attraction the Syrian
rites had presented for centuries to the nation, and what a power they
still had upon them. Hence even Moses was said to have given the command
to destroy the altars and images of the Canaanites, to drive out all the
Canaanites, and make neither covenant nor marriage with them.[401] The
law forbade sacrifices to Moloch under penalty of death; any one who did
so was to be stoned. Those who made offerings to other gods than Jehovah
were to be "accursed" (I. 499). Wizards were also to be stoned.[402] "Ye
shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the
corners of thy beard. Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for
the dead, nor print any mark upon you. Do not prostitute thy daughter to
cause her to play the harlot."[403] All these are commands directed
against the manners, funeral customs, and religious worship of the
Canaanites. Strangers were not to be received into the community and
people of Israel; nor could Israelites contract marriage with women who
were not Israelites; it is only the later law which allows women
captured in war to be taken into the marriage bed.[404] These are the
"misanthropical" laws of the Jews of which Tacitus speaks with such deep
aversion.

The law assigned a far-reaching religious influence to the priests. They
alone could turn the favour of Jehovah towards his people by correct and
effective sacrifices, and appease his wrath; they announced the will of
Jehovah by his oracle; in regard to diseases and leprosy, they exercised
police functions over the whole nation by means of the regulations for
cleanliness and food; they could exclude any one at their discretion
from the sacrifices and, consequently, from the community; and, in fine,
they were in possession of the skill and knowledge with which the people
were unacquainted. The priesthood arranged the chronology and the
festivals, they supervised weights and measures,[405] they knew the
history of the people in past ages, and their ancient covenant with the
God of the ancestors. From their knowledge of the ordinances of Jehovah
followed the claim which the priests made to watch over the application
of these ordinances in life, the administration of law and justice. But
at first this claim was put forward modestly. The old regulations about
the right of blood in the time-honoured observances of justice were
added to the law of ritual when this was written down (I. 385, 484);
they were modified here and there by the views of the priesthood, and in
some points essentially extended; and now, like the ordinances for the
places of sacrifice, mode of worship, and purification, they stood
opposed in many regulations to real life as ideal but hardly practicable
standards.

According to the view of the priests Jehovah was the true possessor of
the land of Israel. He had given it to his people for tenure and use.
From this conception the law derived very peculiar conclusions, which
might be of essential advantage for retaining the property of the
families in their hands, for keeping up the family and their
possessions, on which the Hebrews laid weight, and for proprietors when
in debt. To aid the debtor against the creditor, the poor against the
rich, the labourer against him who gave the work, the slave against his
master, is in other ways also the obvious object of the law.

As all work must cease on the seventh day, the day of Jehovah, so must
there be a similar cessation in the seventh year, which is therefore
called the Sabbath year. In every seventh year the Israelites were to
allow the land which Jehovah had let to them to lie fallow, in honour of
the real owner. In this year the land was not sowed, nor the vine-trees
cut, nor the wild beast driven from the field, every one must seek on
the fallow what had grown there without culture. If this Sabbath of the
seventh year was kept Jehovah would send such increase on the preceding
sixth year that there should be no want.[406] When this period of seven
fallow years had occurred seven times the circle appeared to be
complete, and from this point of view the law ordained that at such a
time everything should return to the original position. Hence, when the
seventh Sabbath year was seven times repeated (in the year of Jubilee)
not only was agriculture stopped, but all alienated property, with the
buildings and belongings, went back to the original owner or his
heirs.[407] The consequence was that properties were never really sold,
but the use of them was assigned to others, and hence, even before the
year of Jubilee, the owner could redeem his land by paying the value of
the produce which would be yielded before the year of Jubilee.

But the priests were far from being able to carry out these extended
requirements which proceeded from the sanctity of the Sabbath, and from
the conception that the land of Israel belonged to Jehovah, and every
family held their property from Jehovah himself, and which were intended
to make plain the true nature of the property of the Israelites. It was
an ideal picture which they set up, and hardly so much as an attempt was
made to carry it out. They could reckon with more certainty on obedience
to a law which ordained that no interest was to be taken from the poor,
and no poor man's mantle was to be taken in pledge.[408] Nevertheless,
the law of debt was severe. If the debtor could not pay his debt before
a fixed time the creditor was allowed to pay himself with the moveable
and fixed property of the debtor; he could sell his wife and children,
and even the debtor himself, as slaves, or use him as a slave in his own
service.

For the legal process we find in the law no more than the regulation
"that one witness shall not bear evidence against a man for his death,"
_i.e._ that one witness was not sufficient to establish a serious
charge, that "injustice shall not be done in judgment, that the person
of the small shall not be disregarded, nor the person of the great
honoured;" "according to law thou shalt judge thy neighbour."[409] For
every injury done to the person or property of another, the guilty shall
make reparation. We know already the old ordinances which require life
for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth (I. 485). Injury to property
and possession was to be fully compensated; even the injury done by his
beast was to be compensated by the master. Theft was merely punished by
restoring four or five times the value of the stolen goods. If the thief
could not pay this compensation he was handed over to the injured man as
a slave. But any one who steals a man in order to keep him as a slave,
or to sell him, was to be punished with death.[410] If a murder was
committed, the avenger of blood, _i.e._ the nearest relative and heir of
the murdered man, was to pursue the murderer and slay him, wherever he
met him, as soon as it was established by two persons that he was really
guilty. The law even forbade the avenger of blood to accept a ransom
instead of taking the life of the guilty, because the land was
desecrated by the blood of the murdered man, "and the land is not
cleansed from the blood spilt, save by the blood of the murderer." An
exception was allowed only when one man slew another by accident, and
without any fault of his own, and not out of hostility or hatred. In
this case the slayer was to fly into one of the six cities which were
marked out as cities of refuge.[411] From the elders of the city the
pursuing avenger of blood was to demand the delivery of the slayer, and
they were to decide whether the act was done from hatred and hostility,
or was merely an accident. If the elders decided in favour of the first
alternative, they were to give up the guilty into the hands of the
avenger of blood, that he might die. In the other case, the slayer must
remain in the city of refuge till the death of the high priest, and the
avenger was free from the guilt of bloodshed if before that time he met
him beyond the confines of the city of refuge and slew him.[412] The
regulations of the priests even went so far as to lay down a rule that
if a savage bull slew a man the bull was not only to be stoned, and not
eaten as an unclean animal, but his master also must die, or at any rate
pay a ransom, if he knew that the animal was savage, and yet did not
control him.[413]

Among the people of the East the wealthier men did not content
themselves with one wife. This custom prevailed in Israel also. The law
of the priests did not oppose a custom which had an example and
justification in the narratives of the patriarchs. The Israelites also
followed the general custom of the East, in purchasing the wife from her
father, and recompensing the father for the loss of a useful piece of
property--for the two working hands which he lost when he gave away his
daughter from his house. Thus Jacob obtained the daughters of Laban by a
service of 14 years. The price of a wife purchased for marriage from the
father seems to have been from 15 to 50 shekels of silver (36_s._ to
125_s._).[414] The conclusion of the marriage was marked by a special
festivity, after which the bride was carried by her parents into the
nuptial chamber. The prostitution of maidens in honour of the goddess of
birth, so common among the neighbouring nations, was strictly forbidden
by the book of the law. The daughter of a priest who began to prostitute
herself was to be burnt with fire, because she thus "defiled not herself
only, but also her father."[415] The man who seduced a virgin was
compelled to purchase her for his wife, and even if her father would not
give her to wife he was to pay him the usual purchase-money. Adultery
was punished by the law with even greater severity than violations of
chastity before marriage. The adulteress, together with the man who had
seduced her into a violation of the marriage bond, were to be put to
death.[416] If a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness without being
able to prove it against her a divine judgment was to decide the matter.
The priest was to lead man and wife before Jehovah. Then he was to draw
holy water in an earthen pitcher, and throw dust swept from the floor of
the dwelling of Jehovah into this, and say to the woman, "If thou hast
not offended in secret against thy husband, remain unpunished by this
water of sorrow, that bringeth the curse; but if thou hast sinned, may
this water go into thy body and cause thy thighs to rot, and may
Jehovah make thee a curse and an oath among thy people." The woman
answered, "So be it;" and when the priest had dipped in the water a
sheet written with the words of this curse, she was compelled to drink
it.[417] Thus the woman was brought to confession, or was freed from the
suspicion of her husband.

Marriages were forbidden not only with strange women, but also within
certain degrees of relationship; in which were included not only those
close degrees, to which there is a natural abhorrence, but also such as
did not exclude marriage in other nations. In this matter the law of the
priests proceeded from the sound view that marriage did not belong to a
natural connection already in existence, but was intended to found a new
relationship. Not only was marriage forbidden with a mother, with any
wife or concubine of the father, with a sister, a daughter, or
granddaughter, a widowed daughter-in-law; but also with an aunt on the
father's or mother's side, with a stepsister, or sister by marriage,
with a sister-in-law, or wife's sister so long as the wife lived.[418]

The husband purchased his wife as a chattel; hence in marriage she
continued to live in entire dependence beside her husband. The husband
could not commit adultery as against his wife; it was the right of
another husband which was injured by the seduction of the wife. It
rested with the husband to take as many wives as he chose beside his
first wife, and as many concubines from his handmaids and female slaves
as seemed good to him. The husband could put away his wife if she "found
no favour in his eyes," while the wife, on her part, could not dissolve
the marriage, or demand a separation; she possessed no legal will. Like
the wife, the children stood to the father in a relation of the most
complete dependence. Nor only did he sell his daughters for marriage, he
could give them as pledges, or even sell them as slaves, but not out of
the land;[419] and though the father was not allowed to sell the son as
a slave, he could turn him out of his house. Obedience and reverence
towards parents were impressed strongly on children, even in the
earliest regulations derived from the time of Moses. The son who curses
his father or mother, or strikes them, must be put to death.[420] The
first-born son is the heir of the house; after the death of the father
he is the head of the family, and succeeds to his rights over the
younger sons and the females. It is not clear whether the law allows any
claims to the moveable inheritance to any of the sons besides the
eldest, to whom the immoveable property passed absolutely; the sons of
concubines and slaves had no right of inheritance if there were sons in
existence by legitimate marriage. Daughters could only inherit if there
were no sons. The heiress could not marry beyond the tribe, in order
that the inheritance might at least fall to the lot of a tribesman. If
there were neither sons nor daughters, the brother of the father was the
heir, and then the uncles of the father.[421]

The law attempts to fix and ameliorate the position of day-labourers and
slaves. "The hire of the labourer shall not remain with thee till the
morrow."[422] The number of slaves appears to have been considerable.
They were partly captives taken in war, and partly strangers purchased
in the way of trade; partly Hebrews who, when detected in thieving,
could not pay the compensation, or who could not pay their debts, or
Hebrew daughters sold by their parents. The marriages of slaves
increased their number. The law required that slaves should rest on the
Sabbath day;[423] and even the oldest regulations restrict the right of
the master over the life of his slave by laying down the rule that the
slave shall be free if his master has inflicted a severe wound upon him,
and that the master must be punished if he has slain his slave.[424] The
slave who was a born Israelite might be ransomed by his kindred, if they
could pay the sum required.[425] The Hebrew slave was treated by his
master as a hired labourer, and hind.[426] When the Hebrew slave had
served six years his master was compelled to set him free without ransom
in the seventh year. A Hebrew could only remain in slavery for ever
when, after six years of service, he voluntarily declared that he wished
to remain with his master; then, as a sign that he permanently belonged
to the house of his master, his ear was pierced on the door-post with an
awl.

FOOTNOTES:

[368] Exod. xiii. 2; Numbers iii. 5-51; viii. 16.

[369] Numbers xviii. 20-26.

[370] Vol. i. 488, 502.

[371] Numbers xviii. 8-20.

[372] Levit. xxvii. 29-33.

[373] Genesis xiv. 20; xxviii. 22.

[374] Exod. xxx. 11-16; xxxviii. 25-28.

[375] Levit. xxi. 16-21.

[376] Levit. xxi. 5.

[377] Exod. xx. 26.

[378] Exod. xxviii. 31-35; xxxix. 22-27.

[379] Exod. xxviii. 4-30, 36-43.

[380] 1 Sam. xx. 5, 24, 27, and many passages in the prophets; Numbers
xxviii. 11; xxix. 6; Ewald, "Alterthümer," s. 360.

[381] Exod. xii. 15-19; Numbers ix. 13; xxviii. 16-24.

[382] Levit. xxii. 9-21.

[383] At the division of the kingdom Jeroboam is said to have changed
this festival to the fifteenth day of the eighth month; 1 Kings xii. 33.

[384] _E. g._ 1 Sam. i. 3; 1 Kings xii. 27-32.

[385] Exod. xxiii. 13; xxxiv. 23.

[386] Levit. xxiii. 29.

[387] Levit. xvi., xxiii. 26-32.

[388] Levit. xvii. 3-5.

[389] Levit. i-vi.

[390] Levit. vii. 23-34, and in other passages.

[391] _Supr._ p. 183. Exod. xxx. 1-9.

[392] Levit. vi. 12, 13; ix. 17.

[393] Numbers xv. 38; Levit. xix. 19.

[394] Levit. xi. 1-44.

[395] Levit. xvii. 15.

[396] Levit. xvii. 14.

[397] Levit. xiii., xiv.

[398] The spoils taken in war are also to be purified; Numbers xxxi.
20-24.

[399] Levit. xii. 3. The Arabian tribes in the north of the peninsula,
who were nearly related to the Hebrews, observed this custom, and the
Phenicians also, while the Philistines did not observe it; Herod. 2,
104. In Genesis (xxi. 4; xvii. 12-14, 25) it is expressly mentioned that
Ishmael was not circumcised till his thirteenth year, but Isaac was
circumcised at the proper time, on the eighth day. This shows that
circumcision was a very ancient custom among the Israelites, and at the
same time indicates that among the Arabs the boys were not circumcised
till later years, which may have been the case in the older times among
the Hebrews also. Cf. Joshua v. 1-9; Joseph. "Antiq." 1, 12, 3.

[400] Exod. iv. 24; cf. De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," s. 282.

[401] Numbers xxxiii. 50-56; Exod. xxiii. 29 ff; xxxiv. 12-16; Vol. i.
500.

[402] Levit. xviii. 21; xx. 2, 27; Exod. xxii. 18.

[403] Levit. xix. 27-29.

[404] Deut. xxi. 11-14; cf. Numbers xii. 1.

[405] Levit. xix. 35, 36.

[406] Exod. xxiii. 10, 11; Levit. xxv. 20.

[407] Levit. xxv. 24-31.

[408] Exod. xxii. 25-27; Levit. xxv. 35-38.

[409] Numbers xxxv. 30; Levit. xix. 15.

[410] Exod. xxi. 16.

[411] Exod. xxi. 12-14; Numbers xxxv. 31; Joshua xx. 7-9.

[412] Numbers xxxv. 25-28.

[413] Exod. xxi. 28-36.

[414] Exod. xxi. 32; Hosea iii. 2; cf. Deuteron. xxii. 19, 29.

[415] Levit. xix. 29; xxi. 9.

[416] Levit. xviii. 20; xx. 10.

[417] Numbers v. 5-31.

[418] Levit. xviii.

[419] Exod. xxi. 7, 8.

[420] Exod. xxi. 17; Levit. xx. 9.

[421] Numbers xxxvi. 1-11; Tobit vii. 10; Numbers xxvii. 9.

[422] Levit. xix. 13.

[423] Exod. xx. 10.

[424] Exod. xxi. 20, 21, 26; Vol. i. 483.

[425] Levit. xxv. 47 ff.

[426] Levit. xxv. 39-41.



CHAPTER X.

JUDAH AND ISRAEL.


The monarchy in Israel was established by the people to check the
destruction and ruin with which the land and population were threatened
by the incursions of the neighbours on the east, by the dangerous arms
of the Philistines. The first attempt to set up a monarchy in connection
with the cities of the land was soon wrecked and swept away, without
leaving a trace behind. In spite of his support in the wishes of the
great majority of the Israelites, the monarchy of Saul had not succeeded
in establishing itself securely by its simple and popular conduct. It
was not till the monarchy had fortified the royal city and palace,
established a body-guard and standing troops, magistrates and
tax-gatherers, and had entered into close relation with the priests,
that it obtained security and permanence. It had indeed fulfilled its
mission and saved Israel; it had won power, glory, and respect for the
nation, and imparted to it lofty impulses of the most important kind. It
had at the same time gone far beyond the intention of its foundation. It
was now a Sultanate, which, by filling the land with Syrian trade and
customs, and allowing the growth of Syrian modes of worship, threatened
in one direction the nationality with the same dangers which it had
removed in another.

The transformation which the manner of life in Israel underwent during
the reigns of David and Solomon was so thorough that even under David a
reaction set in. If in the time before David and Solomon the Israelites
had led an unrestrained life, they were now ruled by a severe monarchy.
In the place of the patriarchal authority of the elders and heads of
tribes, whose decisions they had formerly sought, came the rule of royal
officers, who could exercise their power capriciously enough. If
hitherto they had lived unmolested, every man on his own plot, beneath
his vine and fig tree, they were now compelled to pay taxes and do
task-work. After the burdens Solomon had laid upon the people, this
reaction must have been stronger than at the time when Absalom's
rebellion shattered the throne of his father. Moreover, Solomon's reign,
though it lasted full 40 years, did not give the same impression of
vigorous power as David's strong arm had done before him, and the
monarchy was not so old, nor so firmly established as an institution,
that the Israelites could not remember the times which preceded it.

No doubt the tribe of Judah could bear the new burdens, because it
enjoyed the advantages of the new polity. The king belonged to this
tribe; the temple and metropolis were in its territory. But the
interests of the other tribes were the more deeply injured. Above all,
the tribe of Ephraim must have felt itself degraded. In this tribe the
memory of Joshua still lived, the remembrance of the conquest of the
land; once it had held the foremost place, and on its soil the ark of
Jehovah had stood. Now the pre-eminence was with Judah, the tribe which
had long been subject to the Philistines; the sacred ark stood at
Jerusalem, and the ancient places of sacrifice were neglected. Of the
feeling of the tribe of Ephraim we have indubitable evidence in an
attempt at rebellion at the beginning of the last decade of the reign of
Solomon; an attempt, it is true, which was quickly suppressed.[427]

When Solomon died, in the year 953 B.C., it was not the contests between
his sons or the intrigues of the harem which now threatened the
succession. Rehoboam, Solomon's eldest son, who was born to him by
Naamah the Ammonite, was now in his forty-second year, and thus in the
vigour of age. This vigour he needed. At the news of Solomon's death the
people gathered to their old place of assembly at Shechem. This
self-collected assembly showed that the majority of Israel were mindful
of their right to elect the king. The greatest circumspection and tact
were needed to avert the approaching storm. Rehoboam saw that he must
not look idly on. He must either attempt to disperse the assembled
multitude by force and maintain the crown by arms, or he must treat with
it. Hence he set forth to Shechem, accompanied by the counsellors of his
father. A deputation of the people met him, and said, "Thy father made
our yoke grievous; now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy
father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will
serve thee." Rehoboam promised to make an answer on the third day. He
assembled his counsellors. The old men among them--so all the older
text of the Books of Kings tells us--advised compliance, and recommended
him to speak kindly to the people; the younger, who had grown up with
the new king, and were accustomed to flatter him, and desired
unrestricted power over the people, urged him to reject strongly such
claims and such rebellion. Rehoboam was foolish enough to follow advice
which could not but be ruinous. Although he can hardly have said to the
people the words which the Books of Kings put in his mouth--"My father
chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions,"--he
rejected the demand of the Israelites. Then a cry arose in the assembly
of the people, "We have no part in David, nor any inheritance in the son
of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel!" When it was too late Rehoboam
attempted to soothe the enraged multitude. He sent his task-master,
Adoniram, to them, but the people slew the ill-chosen messenger by
stoning him to death. Nothing remained for Rehoboam but to mount his
chariot in haste and fly to Jerusalem.

The grievous distress which 100 years before had caused the nation at
Gilgal to proclaim Saul king with one consent, and which after the death
of Ishbosheth had united the tribes round David at Hebron, had long
passed away. The danger which division had once brought upon Israel had
faded into the distance, and was forgotten in the security which had
prevailed in the last generations against the neighbours on every side.
Nothing was thought of but the immediate evil and the coming oppression,
if the monarchy went further on the lines on which it was treading. At
the time of Solomon an Ephraimite named Jeroboam, the son of Nabath
(Nebat) of Zereda, who is spoken of as "a brave man," was a second
overseer among the task-labourers. As he was skilful in the discharge
of his duties, Solomon raised him to be the overseer of the task-work of
his tribe. This office, which made him known to all his tribe, Jeroboam
must have discharged in such a way as to gain the favour rather than the
aversion of the tribesmen. We are told in a few words that "Jeroboam
raised his hand against Solomon," and that "Solomon sought to slay him."
Jeroboam escaped to Egypt, and found refuge with the Pharaoh Shishak
(about 960 B.C.). Immediately after Solomon's death Jeroboam received a
message from his tribesmen to return. Rehoboam's refusal to carry on a
milder form of government decided the choice of Jeroboam as king. That
choice declared sufficiently the degree of aversion which the multitude
bore to the house of David and the monarchy at Jerusalem.

The chief city, the tribe of Judah, the tribe of Simeon, so long united
in close connection with Judah, and a part of the tribe of Benjamin,
whose land lay immediately at the gates of Jerusalem, remained true to
the son of Solomon. From the tribe of Judah the rise and dominion of
David had its commencement; to them that dominion was now returned, and
was again confined within its early limits. The question was whether
Rehoboam could achieve what his grandfather David had succeeded in
doing--could regain the dominion over the whole land from Judah.
Rehoboam thought, no doubt, that he could reduce by the power of his
arms the tribes which had withdrawn themselves from his dominion. He
armed and assembled the warriors of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. If
he soon abandoned this intention, the reason hardly lies in the warning
of the prophet Semaiah, as the prophetic revision maintains in a passage
interpolated into the annals,--we are told at the same time that there
had been "a contention between Rehoboam and Jeroboam from the
first,"[428]--but in the fact that a mightier enemy came upon Rehoboam.

From the time when the Hebrews won their abode in Canaan, they had not
been molested in any way from Egypt, where the rulers since the reign of
Ramses III. rested quietly by the Nile. Solomon, as we saw (p. 180),
entered into friendly relations with Egypt, and even into affinity. But
in the later years of his reign a new dynasty ascended the throne of
Egypt in the person of Shishak, which took up a different attitude. With
him Jeroboam had found refuge from the pursuit of Solomon. It was to
Jeroboam's interest, no less than Shishak's, that this connection should
continue after Jeroboam became king of Israel. It is not improbable that
Shishak made war upon Rehoboam in order to secure Jeroboam in his new
dominion. Whether Jeroboam sought the help of Egypt or not, why should
not Egypt have availed herself of the breach in the Israelitish kingdom
which had reached such a height in Syria under David and Solomon, and
forced her way even to the borders of Egypt? Why should she not
establish the division and the weakness of Israel? At the same time, in
all probability, a cheap reputation for military valour might be
obtained, and the treasures of Solomon seized. In the year 949 B.C., the
fifth year of Rehoboam's reign, the Pharaoh invaded Judah. He is said to
"have come with 1200 chariots, and 60,000 horsemen; and the people who
accompanied him from Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia were beyond number."
Rehoboam could not withstand the power of Shishak; one city after
another, including Jerusalem, opened her gates to the Pharaoh. The glory
of Solomon was past and gone. Shishak took away the treasures of the
temple and the royal palace, and the gold shields which Solomon had
caused to be made for the body-guard. There was no thought of a lasting
conquest and the subjugation of Syria; the object was merely to weaken,
plunder, and reduce Judah. When this object was obtained the Pharaoh
turned back to Egypt. On the outer walls of the temple of Karnak we may
see the gigantic form of Shishak, who brandishes the weapon of victory
over a crowd of conquered enemies; 133 bearded figures are to be seen,
with their hands tied behind them, whom Ammon and Mut are leading before
Shishak. The lower part of these figures is covered by the name-shields.
They represent the places in the kingdom of Judah, which in equal number
were taken or were taxed by the Pharaoh. Of these 133 name-shields about
100 are still legible, but few names are found among these which
correspond to known places in Judæa. We may perhaps recognise Jehud,
Ajalon, Beth-Horon, Gibeon, Beeroth, Rimmon in the north of Judah or in
Benjamin; Engedi and Adullam in the east; Lachish, Adoraim, Mareshah,
Kegilah (Keilah), and some other places in the centre of Judah. As there
is scarcely one among these names which can with certainty be
apportioned to the kingdom of Israel, the conclusion may naturally be
drawn that the campaign was made with a favourable regard to Jeroboam,
and was confined to Judah.[429]

It was a heavy blow which had befallen the little kingdom, and, what was
still worse, Jeroboam could avail himself of it, and the Pharaoh could
repeat his raid. Rehoboam saw that the only way to increase the power of
resistance in his kingdom and prevent its overthrow was to strengthen
the fortifications of the metropolis, and change all the larger towns in
the land into fortresses. He carried this plan out, we are told, so far
as he could, and provided them with garrisons, arms, supplies, and
governors. Fifteen of these are mentioned in the Chronicles. The
dominion over the Edomites, whom Saul fought with and David overcame,
and who attempted in vain to break loose under Solomon, was maintained
by Rehoboam.

After the brief reign of Abiam, the son of Rehoboam (932-929 B.C.), Asa,
the brother of Abiam, ascended the throne of Judah. In his time,
according to the Chronicles, Serah, the Cushite, invaded Judah with a
great army, and forced his way as far as Maresa; but in the fifteenth
year of his reign Asa defeated the Cushites, and sacrificed 700 oxen and
7000 sheep out of the booty to Jehovah at Jerusalem. The Books of the
Kings know nothing but the fact that Asa was engaged in constant warfare
with Baasha, the second successor of Jeroboam, king of Israel (925-901
B.C.).[430] Baasha forced his way as far as Ramah, _i.e._ within two
leagues of Jerusalem. This place he took and fortified, and was now
enabled to press heavily on the metropolis of Judah, by checking their
trade and cutting off their supplies. Asa's military power does not seem
to have been sufficient to relieve him from this intolerable position.
He "took all the silver and gold that remained in the treasures of the
house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the king's house," and sent it
to Benhadad, who was now king of Damascus in the room of Rezon the
opponent of Solomon, and urged him to break his covenant with Baasha,
and make war upon him that he might leave Judah at peace. Benhadad
agreed to his request. He invaded Israel. As Jeroboam had summoned Egypt
against Judah, Judah was now joined by Damascus against Israel. Baasha
abandoned his war against Israel, and Asa caused the wood and the stones
of the fortifications to be hastily carried away from Ramah, and with
this material he entrenched Gebah and Mizpeh against Israel.[431]

An addition in the first Book of Kings remarks that Asa removed the
harlots and the idols out of the land, that he threw down the image of
Astarte, which his mother had set up, and burnt it in the valley of the
Kidron.[432] This was a healthy reaction against the foreign rites which
had crept in in the last years of Solomon's reign. Asa's son Jehoshaphat
(873-848 B.C.) went further in this direction. The remainder of the
harlots were removed from the land; he entered into peaceful relations
with Israel. The supremacy over the Edomites was maintained, and they
were governed by viceroys of the king of Judah.[433] We find that the
Edomites sent contingents to him; and his sway extended as far as the
north-east point of the Red Sea. Here, at Elath, as in Solomon's time,
great ships were built for the voyage to Ophir.[434]

The ten tribes who had set Jeroboam at their head were the mass of the
people both in numbers and extent of territory. They might hope to carry
on the kingdom, they preserved the name of Israel; while in the south
there was little more than one powerful tribe separated from the rest.
Shechem, the ancient metropolis of the tribe of Ephraim, the place at
which the crown was transferred to Jeroboam, was the residence of the
new king. When Jerusalem was no longer the chief metropolis of the
kingdom, the temple there could not any longer be the place of worship
for all the tribes. It would be nothing less then recognising the
supremacy of Rehoboam if the tribes continued to go up to Jerusalem to
the great sacrifices and festivals. The places of worship for the new
kingdom must be within its own borders. Jeroboam consecrated afresh the
old place of sacrifice, Bethel, on the southern border of the territory
of Ephraim, the place where Abraham had offered sacrifice, and Jacob had
rested (I. 390, 408); and on the northern boundaries of his kingdom he
consecrated the place of sacrifice at Dan, which the Danites had once
founded on taking Laish from the Sidonians (p. 94). At both places he
set up a golden calf to Jehovah, and instituted priests; and, as we are
told, the Israelites came like one man to the feasts of Dan, and
sacrificed at Bethel, where the sanctuary also contained a treasury. Of
other actions of Jeroboam, we only know that he built, _i.e._ fortified,
Peniel in the land beyond Jordan; no doubt in order to be able to
maintain his supremacy over the Ammonites. The severe blow which had
fallen on the kingdom of Judah by the incursion of Shishak secured him
from any serious attack on the part of Rehoboam. The petty warfare on
the borders of Judah and Israel naturally did not cease during his reign
(p. 231).

Nadab, the son of Jeroboam (927-925 B.C.), marched against the
Philistines in order to recover from them Gibbethon in the land of the
southern Danites. Here in the camp at Gibbethon he was slain by Baasha,
one of the captains of his army, and the whole race of Jeroboam was
destroyed. Baasha ascended the throne, which Nadab had held for two
years only. He took up his abode at Tirzah, a pleasantly-situated place
north of Shechem.[435] The division of the kingdom of Israel and its
consequent debility could not but appear a desirable event to the
kingdom of Damascus, which, though overthrown by David, was restored by
Rezon in Solomon's time (p. 179.) Attacks of Judah on Israel could not
be supported by Damascus, because they might lead to a reunion, and for
the same reason Israel could not be allowed to subjugate Judah. This
seems to have been the reason which induced Benhadad of Damascus to
accede to the request of Asa, king of Judah, when Baasha had entrenched
Ramah against Jerusalem. Benhadad's invasion of the north of Israel, the
desolation of the district on the Upper Jordan and the lake of
Genesareth,[436] gave relief to the oppressed kingdom of Judah (p. 235).
Baasha's son Elah was slain at a banquet at Tirzah, after a short reign
(901-899 B.C.), by Zimri, one of the captains of his army, who seized
the crown. But the army of Israel, which was again encamped at
Gibbethon, on hearing of what had taken place at Tirzah, elected Omri,
their leader, king. Omri broke up the siege of Gibbethon, marched to
Tirzah, and took the city. Zimri despaired of maintaining himself in the
royal castle, and burnt himself in it. Yet Omri was not master of
Israel. Half of the people joined Tibni, the son of Ginath. Omri
gradually gained the upper hand, till Tibni's death decided the matter
in his favour.

With the elevation of Omri (899-875 B.C.) a third dynasty ascended the
throne of Israel, while in Judah the crown continued peacefully in the
family of David. Like Baasha, Omri founded a new residence; he removed
his seat from Tirzah to Mount Shomron, and here built the new city of
that name (Samaria). Nothing is said of the wars of Omri against Judah.
To Benhadad of Damascus he seems to have lost some towns in the land of
Gilead.[437] That he ruled with address, vigour, and a strong hand is
clear from the inscription on a monument which Mesha, king of Moab,
caused to be erected in his city of Dibon (east of the Dead Sea). This
tells us that Omri and his son after him held Moab in subjection for 40
years; that not only was the city of Nebo garrisoned by the Israelites,
but Omri even took Medabah, _i.e._ the region south of Nebo towards
Dibon, and occupied it, and "oppressed Moab for a long time," because
"Camos, the god of the Moabites, was angry at his land."[438] As Mesha
regained his independence after the death of Ahab, the son of Omri, the
more severe subjection of the Moabites by Omri must have begun in the
year 893 B.C. Omri seems to have entered into friendly relations with
Ethbaal, king of Tyre (917-885 B.C.), or his successor Balezor (885-877
B.C.).[439] Omri's authority and reputation must have been considerable,
since even after the overthrow of his house, in the second half of the
ninth century B.C., the kings of Assyria speak of the king of Israel as
"the son of Omri," and the kingdom of Israel as the "house of Omri."

Ahab, Omri's son (875-853 B.C.), maintained the power which his father
had won. The Books of Kings tell us that Mesha, king of Moab, sent him
yearly the wool of 100,000 sheep and lambs,[440] and Mesha himself tells
us that Omri was followed by his son, who also said, "I will oppress
Moab;" and Israel "dwelt at Medabah for 40 years in the days of Omri and
Ahab." That the Ammonites also were subject to Ahab seems a just
conclusion from the inscriptions of Shalmanesar, king of Assyria.[441]
With Tyre Ahab was in close connection. His wife Jezebel was the
daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre, the aunt of Mutton, the contemporary
king of Tyre (p. 268). He was on friendly terms with Judah, which began
to rise again (as we saw) under the rule of Jehoshaphat. Jehoram, the
son of Jehoshaphat, was married to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and
Jezebel.[442] On the vine-clad hills of Jezreel Ahab built himself a
palace adorned with ivory, after the pattern of the Phenician
princes.[443]

The rites of the neighbouring tribes, the worship of Astarte, Camos, and
Milcom, which found their way into the Hebrew tribes, and even to
Jerusalem in the last years of Solomon's reign, were again removed in
Judah, as we have seen (p. 235), under the reigns of Asa and
Jehoshaphat. For Israel the dedication of the places of worship at
Bethel and Dan to Jehovah, which Jeroboam instituted, in spite of the
erection of the image of Jehovah, marked a reaction against the rites of
the Canaanites. But the connection into which Ahab entered with Tyre
brought it about that the gods of the Phenicians were again looked on
with reverence in Israel. Induced by Jezebel, his Tyrian wife, so we are
told, Ahab caused a temple to be erected in Samaria, which his father
had built, to Baal of Tyre, at which 450 priests maintained the worship;
and a temple was also dedicated to Astarte, which gave occupation to 400
priests.[444]

It was an ancient custom among the Hebrews, as we have already found
more than once, to inquire of Jehovah what should be done. In Israel the
custom of thus making inquiry was more widely spread than in other
nations. Before any undertaking inquiry was made of his will. Jehovah's
voice decided the sentence in the judgment court. It was usual in all
cases and times to appeal to the decision of Jehovah. Question and
answer were made, as has been remarked, by the priests casting lots
before the sacred ark, the altars, and the images of Jehovah. If a
criminal had to be discovered, the tribes and races came forward, and he
was marked out by the lot cast before Jehovah. We saw that Saul inquired
of Jehovah on his campaign (p. 124). David undertook nothing without
inquiring of the image of Jehovah which he carried about with him (p.
139). If any one wished to mark out the wisdom of any advice, it was
said, "It is as if Jehovah had answered." But beside the priests who
cast the lots, there were men who saw into what was hidden, and knew the
future. To these soothsayers men went as well as to the lot before
Jehovah; they desired to know whether there would be rain or drought,
where a lost beast was to be found; they inquired for remedies for
disease. The soothsayers even pronounced sentences at law, and their
sentence was then as the sentence of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who
illuminated such men, and imparted to them a keener vision, a higher
knowledge. They believed, as the people believed of them--and the belief
was stronger as the religious feeling was more intense--that they stood
in a nearer and closer relation to Jehovah. If they also foretold events
for reward, yet they lived in the belief that they knew the will and the
counsels of Jehovah, and in this conviction they gave advice and
judgment; they were not only soothsayers, but seers. In such a
conviction mere prediction passed into prophecy, _i.e._ into the
revelation of the will of Jehovah by the mental certainty of the seer.
In this position we found Samuel, who, from being a priest, had attained
to a knowledge of the will of Jehovah; he was at once priest, soothsayer
for hire, and prophet; _i.e._ he not only announced external matters
still in the future, but also announced the just decision, the resolve
pleasing to God. He gathered disciples round him, who praised Jehovah
with harp and lute, and waited to see his face, and became changed into
other men (p. 117). Gad and Nathan, with whom David and Solomon took
counsel, were men of this style and tone. With the loftier impulses
which the religious life received both on the ritual and legal side, as
well as on the side of religious feeling under David and Solomon, with
the survey of the fortunes which Jehovah had prepared for his people,
with the expression of intense devotion in that poetry to which David
opened the way, the elevation of mind in the prophets must have been
increased and extended; their views must have become deeper. In the
kingdom of Israel, so far as our knowledge goes, the seers and prophets
had made no protest against the worship of Jehovah under an image. But
they came forward with decisive opposition to the worship of Baal and
Astarte, the strange gods which Ahab and Jezebel had introduced into
Samaria and Israel. Ahab decreed persecution against them, which
strengthened instead of breaking the intensity of their faith, their
adhesion and devotion to the God of the ancestors. They were driven to
live in solitudes, deserts, ravines, and caves. On their privations,
fasts, and lonely contemplations in the silence of the desert followed
dreams and ecstatic visions. By these the close and favoured relation of
the persecuted to the God of Israel became an established certainty. The
power of prediction passed into the background as compared with this
awakening by Jehovah, and the duty to strive, contend, and suffer for
the worship of the God of the nation against strange gods. If a prophet
who had lifted up his voice against the sacrifice to Baal was compelled
to fly before the king into the desert, he was followed thither by eager
associates, who had at heart the worship and service of Jehovah. These
listened to his words and promptings; these were his disciples. The
numbers of the awakened and illuminated increased; amid danger and in
privation their religious life became more earnest; their zeal for
Jehovah and their hatred of the strange gods and their worshippers
became deeper as the persecution fell heavier upon them. They became men
of word and action.

Strengthened in this conflict for zealous struggles in behalf of the
ancient Lord, oppressed and persecuted for their faithfulness to the God
of Israel, their relation to him took the shape of an inward conviction
of great force and intensity. Filled with their belief and the
revelations which Jehovah had imparted to them, they came forward in the
boldest manner to oppose the apostate kings; their zeal for Jehovah rose
to the wildest fanaticism, which shrunk from no means of destroying the
servants of the strange gods. To bring into light the force of their
opposition to the wicked kings, and the power which Jehovah gives to his
faithful servants, tradition has adorned with many miracles the lives of
Elijah and Elisha, the men who in Ahab's time transformed the
prognostications of the seers into a prophetic censure. Elijah is said
to have ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire, and even the corpse of
Elisha worked miracles.

At the urgent request of Jezebel, so we are told, Ahab gave orders that
the prophets of Jehovah, who roused the people against him, should be
driven out of the land or put to death.[445] Elijah retired from Thisbe
in Gilead, first to the region of Jordan, and then to Zarephath
(Sarepta) in the land of the Sidonians;[446] and finally he found a
place of refuge in the ravines of Carmel, on the sea-shore. A girdle of
skins surrounded his loins, and a mantle of hair covered his shoulders;
ravens were said to have brought bread and flesh to the hungry prophet
in the desert.[447] It came to pass that there was a long drought in
Israel. In this time of distress Elijah came forth from his hiding-place
to point out the anger of Jehovah on the king and the people for their
worship of Baal, and to proclaim relief if they returned to the God of
Israel. He requested Ahab to gather the people and all the priests of
Baal and Astarte to Carmel, and there Jehovah would send rain. To this
request Ahab agreed. "How long will ye halt on both knees, and go after
Jehovah as well as Baal," cried Elijah to the assembled multitude. "I
alone am left of the prophets of Jehovah, and the prophets of Baal are
450 men. Give us then two bulls: one to me, and one to the priests of
Baal. We will cut them in pieces and lay them on the wood, and the God
who answers with fire shall be our God." The priests of Baal slew their
bull, laid him on the wood, and called on Baal from morning to mid-day,
and said, O Baal, hear us! But in vain. Meanwhile Elijah, so the
narrative continues, built an altar of 12 stones, for the 12 tribes, and
made a trench round it; cut the bull in pieces, and laid him on the wood
of the altar, and thrice poured water over all. When he called on
Jehovah--to make it known on that day that he was God in Israel, and
Elijah was his servant--fire fell from heaven and consumed the burnt
offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the altar. All the people
fell on their faces, and Elijah said, Seize the prophets of Baal; let
none of them escape. The people fell upon them; they were brought down
from the mountain, and Elijah slew them at the brook Kishon. Then a
little cloud was seen from Carmel rising out of the sea, of the size of
a man's hand, and Elijah said to the king, "Harness thy chariot and
haste away, that the rain overtake thee not." The sky was quickly
covered with black clouds, and heavy rain followed upon storms of wind.
But Elijah ran before Ahab to his palace in Jezreel.[448] Of this
narrative, which belongs to the prophetic revision of the annals, we may
perhaps retain with certainty the facts that Elijah declared a severe
famine and drought in the land to be the punishment of Jehovah for the
worship of Baal; that the excited people slew the priests of Baal; that
Ahab accorded to the prophets of Jehovah permission to return to their
homes and liberty; and that the worship of Jehovah in Israel, which had
been seriously threatened by those rites, regained the upper hand and
decided victory, though it could not entirely drive out the worship of
Baal.

The increase in the strength of Israel under Omri and Ahab, the
connection into which Ahab entered with Jehoshaphat of Judah, the
alliance between the two houses, must have appeared to Benhadad II., the
king of Damascus, a serious matter for his own position. For this or for
other reasons he broke with Ahab, and renewed the struggle which had
gone on in Omri's time between Israel and Damascus. He invaded Israel
with all his power: 32 kings were with him--such is the no doubt greatly
exaggerated account. Ahab fell upon the Aramaeans while Benhadad was at
a banquet, and though his army was only 7000 strong, he obtained a great
victory. Then, as we are told in the prophetic revision of the Books of
Kings, Benhadad's servants advised him to contend with the Israelites on
the plain; their gods were gods of the hills, and therefore they had
gained the victory. Benhadad came in the next year with an army of
Aramaeans, which filled the land. Nevertheless Ahab again defeated them
at Aphek (eastward of Lake Merom), and so utterly overthrew them that
Benhadad sent his servants with sackcloth about their loins, and halters
round their heads, to Ahab to pray for mercy. This Ahab granted, and
Benhadad in turn undertook to restore the cities which his father had
taken from the father of Ahab, _i.e._ from Omri.

The princes of Syria had every reason to forget their hatred and make up
their quarrels. Assurbanipal and Shalmanesar II., kings of Assyria, had
attacked and subjugated the districts on the Euphrates, and established
fortresses there. The former forced his way as far as the Orontes and
the Amanus; the latter had already subjugated Cilicia. In the year 854
B.C. Shalmanesar II. left Nineveh in the spring, crossed the Euphrates,
demanded tribute there, and then turned towards Damascus. He came upon
Benhadad (Bin-hidri) of Damascus, to whom Ahab (Achabbu), king of
Israel, as well as the king of Hamath, and the king of Aradus, together
with some other Syrian kings, had brought up their forces. To the army
of the Syrians Shalmanesar allowed more than 60,000 men--he enumerates
12 princes who combined to oppose him. Damascus furnished the strongest
contingent, viz., 20,000 men and 1200 chariots; then came Israel, with
10,000 men and 200 chariots; and Hamath, with 10,000 men and 700
chariots. The armies met at Karkar. The king of Assyria claims the
victory; he professes to have captured the chariots and horsemen of the
Syrians, and to have cut down their leaders. According to one
inscription 14,000 Syrians, according to two others 20,500, were left on
the field. But Shalmanesar says nothing of the subjection of the
princes who fought against him, or of the payment of tribute by those
who are said to be vanquished, or of conquered cities. Hence the truth
is that the combined forces of the Syrians succeeded in repulsing the
attack of the Assyrians. This was their victory, though they may not
have obtained the victory on the field.[449]

When the danger threatened by the attack of Assyria passed away, the
contention between Damascus and Israel broke out again. The Hebrew
Scriptures tell us that Benhadad did not keep his promise, and did not
restore the city of Ramoth in Gilead to Ahab. Ahab may have thought that
he had the greater ground for complaint against Damascus, as he took
upon himself the severe battle against Assyria, though it was Damascus,
and not Israel, which stood in the direct line of danger. He united with
Judah against Damascus, and sent a request to Jehoshaphat, king of
Judah, to march out with him. Jehoshaphat answered, "I will go forth as
thou goest; my people as thy people; my horses as thy horses;" and he
came with his warriors to Samaria. Both kings sat on their seats at the
gate, in order to review the army as it passed out; and the prophets of
Jehovah, 400 in number, prophesied good things to them, and said, "Go
forth against Ramoth in Gilead; Jehovah will give it into your hands."
One only of these prophets, Michaiah, the son of Imlah, prophesied evil;
Ahab, we are told, caused him to be thrown into prison till he should
return in prosperity.[450] A battle took place in the neighbourhood of
Ramoth in Gilead; Ahab was severely wounded by an arrow which passed
between the joints of his mail; he caused the wound to be bound up, and
returned to the fight, in order not to discourage his warriors, and
continued to stand upright in his chariot, though his blood flowed to
the bottom of it, till the evening, when he died. When the soldiers
heard of the death of the king the army dispersed in every direction.
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, escaped (853 B.C.).

The death of such a brave warrior as Ahab was a heavy blow to the
kingdom of Israel. We are not told by what sacrifices Ahaziah, the son
of Ahab and Jezebel, had to purchase peace; we only know that the
Moabites revolted from Israel on the news of the death of Ahab, and that
Mesha no longer paid the tribute which he and his father had paid to
Omri and Ahab. In any case it was a great relief for Israel when
Shalmanesar, king of Assyria, in the years 851 and 850 B.C., turned his
arms against Hamath and Damascus.[451] In this way Ahaziah's younger
brother, Joram, who succeeded him after a short reign (851-843 B.C.),
was able to attempt to subjugate the Moabites anew. He called on
Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, to go out with him, and Jehoshaphat said, "I
am as thou art; my horses as thy horses," and raised not only the
warriors of Judah, but those of Edom also. The attack was made from the
land of the kingdom of Judah and Edom on the southern border of the
Moabites. The Moabites were defeated, their cities destroyed, their
fields laid waste, their wells filled up. Mesha threw himself into the
fortress of Kir Harosheth, which is probably the later Kerak, to the
south of the Arnon, not far from the east shore of the Dead Sea. The
slingers of both kings surrounded the fortress, and cast stones against
the walls. "And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too
strong for him," and he had attempted in vain to break out, "he took his
firstborn son, who would be king in his place, and sacrificed him as a
burnt offering on the wall. And there was a great anger against Israel,
and they returned from him, and went back into their own land" (849
B.C.).

Notwithstanding this fortunate beginning, the campaign against Moab, as
is allowed even by the Books of Kings, was finally wrecked. This
termination agrees with the statements of Mesha on the monument of
Dibon. "Forty years," it says, "Israel dwelt in Medabah; Camos gave it
back in my days. And the king of Israel built Ataroth, and I fought
against the stronghold and took it, and took all the men captive, and
brought them as a pleasing spectacle to Camos and Moab. And Camos said
to me, Go and take Nebo from Israel; and I went in the night and fought
against it from daybreak to mid-day; and I took it. It was devoted to
destruction to Ashtor-Camos (I. 373); and I took from thence the
furniture of Jehovah, and dragged them before Camos. And the king of
Israel built Jahaz, and placed himself therein, in his contest against
me, and Camos drove him out before me. I took from Moab 200 men, all the
chiefs, and led them out to Jahaz, and took it, in order to unite it to
Dibon. I built Karho,[452] the gates, the towers, and the royal palace.
I built Aroer, and made the road over the Arnon. I built Beth Bamoth,
which was destroyed. I built Bazor, and Beth Diblathaim, and Beth
Baal-Meon. And Camos said to me, Go down to fight against Horonaim."
Here our fragments of the inscription break off. We see that Ahab's
successors, Ahaziah and Joram, attempted to force Moab to submission by
planting fortresses in the land; that they attempted to subjugate the
Moabites from Ataroth, Nebo, and Jahaz. When this mode of warfare did
not succeed, and the fortresses were destroyed, the great campaign was
undertaken which in the end came to disaster, unless we were to place
this campaign before the time when Joram built those fortresses.

It was impossible for Joram to entertain any further hopes of the
subjugation of Moab when Benhadad, after escaping from the attack of
Shalmanesar, turned upon him. The Israelites were unable to keep the
field, and Joram was shut up in Samaria. The supplies failed, and the
famine is said to have been so grievous in the city that an ass's head
sold for 80 shekels, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for
five shekels, and mothers even laid their hands upon their own children.
But Elisha, the favourite disciple of Elijah, is said to have urged them
to hold out, and promised present help from Jehovah. Suddenly, in a
single night, the army of the Aramaeans disappeared. They feared, so the
prophetic revision of the annals relates, that the kings of the Hethites
and the kings of Egypt had set out to the aid of Joram. As Shalmanesar
of Assyria tells us that he marched in the year 846 B.C. with 120,000
men against Benhadad of Damascus and Irchulina of Hamath, we may assume
that it was the approach of the Assyrians which induced Benhadad to
raise the siege of Samaria, in order to meet the Assyrians with all his
own forces and those of Hamath. Here again Shalmanesar announces a
victory obtained over Benhadad and Irchulina of Hamath, and twelve
princes, and again the victory is without results.

It was not to the power of Shalmanesar, but to Elisha, the prophet of
Israel, that Benhadad of Damascus succumbed. For what reason we know
not, Elisha left Israel and went to Damascus. Benhadad lay sick. He sent
his chosen servant Hazael with costly presents to Elisha to inquire if
he would recover. Elisha answered, Say to him, thou shalt recover; but
Jehovah has shown me that he will die. Hazael announced the message, and
on the next day smothered the king, and placed himself on the throne of
Damascus (844 B.C.). The new king at once resumed the war with Israel,
and, as it would appear, not without the instigation of Elisha.[453]

Jehoshaphat of Judah had died a few years previously (848 B.C.). The
crown passed to his son Jehoram, the brother-in-law of Joram. The
Edomites, who had continued to follow Jehoshaphat into the field against
Moab, revolted from him, and slew the Judæans who had settled in
Edom,--these settlers may have been most numerous in the harbour city of
Elath,--and placed themselves under a king.[454] Jehoram attempted to
reduce them in vain; the fortune of war was against him; he was
surrounded by the Edomites, and was compelled to force his way with his
chariots of war by night through the army of the Edomites. The
Philistines also pressed upon Jehoram, and carried away, even from
Jerusalem, captives and precious things.[455] Jehoram's reign continued
for four years. Yet the misfortunes of Judah do not seem to have been
very heavy. Jehoram's son Ahaziah, the nephew of Joram of Israel, who
came to the throne in the year 844 B.C., was soon after his accession in
a position to aid his uncle against the men of Damascus. Both kings
encamped at Ramoth Gilead, in order to maintain the city against
Hazael.[456] In the conflict Joram was wounded; he returned to Jezreel
to be healed, and soon after Ahaziah left the camp at Ramoth in order to
visit his uncle in his sickness.

To Elisha this seemed the most favourable moment for overthrowing the
king of Israel, and he urged Jehu, the foremost captain in the Israelite
army, to revolt against the wounded king. He sent one of his disciples
to Ramoth with instructions to pour oil upon Jehu, with the words,
"Jehovah says, I anoint thee to be king over Israel." The chiefs were
sitting together at Ramoth when the messenger of Elisha entered. "I have
a message for Jehu," he said; and poured the oil upon him with the
words, "Jehovah, the God of Israel, anoints thee to be king over his
people, and says, thou shalt destroy the house of thy master. I will
avenge the blood of my prophets on Jezebel. The house of Ahab shall be
destroyed, and I will cut off from Ahab what pisseth against the wall,
and dogs shall eat Jezebel in Jezreel, and none shall bury her." The
youth had scarcely uttered these words when he returned in haste. The
chiefs and the servants asked in wonder, "Wherefore came this madman?"
But when Jehu declared to them what had taken place, they hastily took
off their mantles, and spread them before Jehu's feet; they blew
trumpets and cried, "Jehu is king."

Jehu at once set out with a host to Jezreel, that no tidings might
precede him. The watchmen of the tower told the king that a troop was
coming in great haste, and apparently led by Jehu. Thinking that Jehu
was bringing news of the army, the wounded Joram went to meet him with
his guest, Ahaziah, king of Judah. "Is it peace?" cried Joram to Jehu.
"What peace," he replied, "while the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and
her witchcrafts are so many?" In terror Joram cried out, "There is
treachery, O Ahaziah," and turned his horses to escape by flight. But
Jehu smote him with an arrow in the back through the shoulders, so that
the point reached the heart. Joram fell dead from the chariot. Ahaziah
escaped. From the window of her palace at Jezreel Jezebel saw the death
of the king, her second son. By this her own fate was decided. But her
courage failed not. As Jehu approached she called to him from the
window, "Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?" Jehu made no answer, but
called out, "Who is on my side?" Two or three eunuchs answered, "We
are." Then Jehu commanded, "Throw the queen down." They threw the widow
of Ahab out of the window, so that her blood was sprinkled on the wall
and on Jehu's horses, and the ruthless murderer drove over the corpse.
She had survived Ahab ten years. Jehu went into the palace, ate and
drank, and sent a message to the elders of the tribes and the captains
of the fortresses: "If ye are on my side and obey my voice, slay the
sons of Ahab who are with you, and send their heads to Jezreel." The
elders feared the murderer to whom Joram and Jezebel had succumbed, and
did as he bade them. Seventy sons and grandsons of Ahab were
slaughtered; their heads were thrown in two heaps before the palace at
Jezreel by Jehu's orders. Then he spoke in scorn to the people, "I have
slain one; but who slew all these?" Still unsatisfied with blood, he
caused all the kindred of the royal house, all the councillors, friends,
and priests of Joram to be slain (843 B.C.).

Jehu had caused the king of Judah to be closely pursued on that day. At
Jibleam the arrows of the pursuers reached Ahaziah; wounded to the
death, he came to Megiddo, and there he died. Thus the prospect was
opened to Jehu of becoming master of the kingdom of Judah also. With
this object in view, he caused the brothers and relatives of the
murdered Ahaziah to be massacred, so far as he could take them; in all
they were 42 men.[457] But meanwhile the mother of the murdered Ahaziah,
Athaliah, heard in Judah of the death of her son in Israel, and seized
the reins of government there. She determined to retain them against
every one; and on her side also destroyed all who stood in her way. She
did not spare even her own grandsons, the sons of Ahaziah; it was with
difficulty that the king's sister succeeded in saving Joash, the infant
son of her brother.[458]

The prophets of Israel took no offence at the cruelties of Jehu, to
which they had given the first impulse; according to the revision of the
annals, they even proclaimed to him the word of Jehovah. "Because thou
hast done what is right and good in my eyes, and hast executed upon the
house of Ahab all that was in my heart, thy descendants shall sit upon
the throne of Israel."[459] Jehu on his part was no less anxious to show
his gratitude to the men to whom he owed his exaltation. He summoned the
priests of Baal, and announced to them in craft, "Ahab served Baal a
little, but Jehu shall serve him much;" and caused a great sacrifice to
be made to Baal; all who remained absent should not live. Thus he
collected all the servants and priests of Baal in the temple of the god
at Samaria. The sacrifice began; Jehu came in person to take part in
the solemnity; when on a sudden 80 soldiers entered the temple and
massacred them all. The two pillars before the temple were burnt, the
image of Baal was thrown down, the temple was destroyed, and the place
purified.[460]

A hundred and ten years had elapsed since the revolt of the ten tribes
from the house of David and the division of Israel. During this time the
two kingdoms had been at war, and had summoned strangers into the land
against each other; even the connection into which they had entered in
the last thirty years, and the close relations existing between Ahab and
Joram of Israel and Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah had not
been able to give more than a transitory firmness and solidity to the
two kingdoms. In the kingdom of Judah the crown continued in the house
of David; in Israel neither Jeroboam's nor Baasha's race had taken root.
And now the house of Omri also was overthrown and destroyed by a
ruthless murderer. With Jehu a third warrior had gained the crown of
Israel by a violent hand, and a fourth dynasty sat upon the throne of
Jeroboam.

It was a favourable circumstance for the new king of Israel that
Shalmanesar II. of Assyria again made war upon Damascus. On the
mountains opposite to the range of Lebanon, so Shalmanesar tells us, he
defeated Hazael of the land of Aram, _i.e._ of Damascus, in the year 842
B.C.; he slew 16,000 of his warriors, and took 1121 war-chariots. After
this he besieged him in Damascus, and destroyed his fortifications. Jehu
could hardly think, as Ahab had done before him, of joining Damascus in
resisting Assyria; his object was rather to establish the throne he had
usurped by submission to and support from Assyria. In this year, as
Shalmanesar tells us, he sent tribute like Sidon and Tyre. On an obelisk
in his palace at Chalah, on which Shalmanesar caused the annals of his
victories to be written and a picture to be made of the offering of the
tribute from five nations, we see him standing with two eunuchs behind
him, one of whom holds an umbrella, while two others lead before him the
deputies of Jehu. The first Israelite prostrates himself and kisses the
ground before the feet of Shalmanesar; seven other Israelites bring jars
with handles, cups, sacks, goblets, and staves. They are bearded, with
long hair, with shoes on their feet, and round caps on their heads, the
points of which fall slightly backwards. The under garment reaches
almost to the ancles; the upper garment falls in two parts evenly before
and behind from the shoulders to the hem of the under garment. The
inscription underneath runs: "The tribute of Jehu (Jahua), the son of
Omri (Chumri): bars of gold, bars of silver, cups of gold, ladles and
goblets of gold, golden pitchers, lead, and spears: this I
received."[461]

Though Jehu submitted to the Assyrians, the power and spirit of Hazael
was not broken by his defeat or by the siege of Damascus. Shalmanesar
speaks of a new campaign against the cities of Hazael in the year 839
B.C. He does not tell us that he has reduced Damascus, he merely remarks
that Sidon, Tyre, and Byblus have paid tribute; and again, under the
year 835 B.C. he merely notes in general terms that he has received the
tribute of all the princes of the land of Chatti (Syria). Hazael
remained powerful enough to take from Jehu, who, though a bloody and
resolute murderer, was a bad ruler, all the territory on the east of the
Jordan which Ahab and Joram had defended with such vigour.[462] Under
Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu (815-798 B.C.), the power of Israel sank lower
and lower. Hazael, and after him his son, Benhadad III., pressed heavily
upon him. Jehoahaz was compelled to purchase peace by further
concessions;[463] his whole fighting force was reduced to 10 chariots of
war, 50 horsemen, and 10,000 foot-soldiers, while Ahab had led 200
chariots into the field.

The devastation caused by Damascus in Israel was terrible. The Books of
Kings represent Elisha as saying to Hazael, "The fortresses of Israel
thou shalt set on fire, their young men thou shalt slay with the sword,
their children thou shalt cut in pieces, and rip up their women with
child;"[464] and in the prophet Amos we are told that the Damascenes had
thrashed Israel with sledges of iron. In the prophecies of Amos, Jehovah
says: "Therefore I will send fire into the house of Hazael, to consume
the palaces of Benhadad, and break the bars of Damascus, and destroy the
inhabitants of the valley of idols."[465]

The Assyrians brought relief to the kingdom of Israel. In the Books of
the Kings we are told, "Jehovah gave Israel a saviour, so that they went
out from under the hand of the Aramaeans (Syrians), and they dwelt in
their tents as yesterday and the day before."[466] It was Bin-nirar
III., king of Asshur, who threatened Damascus and Syria. In the year 803
B.C. the canon of the Assyrians notices a campaign of this king against
Syria, and in his inscriptions he mentions that he had conquered Mariah,
king of Damascus (who must have been the successor of Benhadad III.),
and laid heavy tribute upon him.[467] Though Israel (the house of Omri),
as well as Sidon, the Philistines, and Edomites, had now to pay tribute
to the conqueror of Damascus, yet in the last years of the reign of
Jehoahaz the land was able to breathe again, and Joash, the grandson of
Jehu (798-790 B.C.[468]), was able to retake from the enfeebled Damascus
the cities which his father had lost,[469] and make the weight of his
arms felt by the kingdom of Judah.

In Judah, as has been mentioned, Jehoram's widow, Athaliah, the mother
of the murdered Ahaziah, had seized the throne (843 B.C.). She is the
only female sovereign in the history of Israel. Athaliah was the
daughter of Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre; like her mother, she is
said to have favoured the worship of Baal. As the prophets of Israel had
prepared the ruin of the house of Omri in Israel, the high priest of the
temple at Jerusalem, Jehoiadah, now undertook to overthrow the daughter
of this house in Judah. Ahaziah's sister had saved a son of Ahaziah,
Joash, while still an infant, from his grandmother (p. 255). He grew up
in concealment in the temple at Jerusalem, and was now seven years old.
This boy the priest determined to place upon the throne. He won the
captains of the body-guard, showed them the young Joash in the temple,
and imparted his plan for a revolt. On a Sabbath the body-guard and the
Levites formed a circle in the court of the temple. Jehoiadah brought
the boy out of the temple and placed the crown upon his head; he was
anointed, and the soldiers proclaimed him king to the sound of trumpets.
The people agreed. Athaliah hastened with the cry of treason into the
temple. But at Jehoiadah's command she was seized by the body-guard,
taken from the temple precincts, and slain in the royal palace. Then
the boy was brought thither by the Levites and solemnly placed upon the
throne. "And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was at
rest," say the Books of Kings (837 B.C.).

The victory of the priesthood had the same result for Judah as the
resistance of Elijah and the prophets against Ahab, and the overthrow of
his house, had introduced in Israel, _i.e._ the suppression of the
worship of Baal. The temple of Baal at Jerusalem was destroyed; the high
priest of it, Mathan by name, was slain. Yet the number of the
worshippers in Jerusalem must have been so considerable, and their
courage so little broken, that it was thought necessary to protect the
temple of Jehovah by setting a guard to prevent their attacks.[470]
Jehoiadah continued to act as regent for the young king, and the
prophecies of Joel, which have come down to us from this period,[471]
prove that under this regency the worship of Jehovah became dominant,
that the festivals and sacrifices were held regularly in the temple at
Jerusalem, and that the ordinances of the priests were in full force.
When Joash became ruler he carried on the restoration of the temple,
which had fallen into decay, even more eagerly than the priesthood. His
labours were interrupted. It was the time when Israel could not defend
themselves against Damascus. Marching through Israel, Hazael invaded
Judah, and besieged Jerusalem. Joash was compelled to ransom himself
with all that his fathers, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, had
consecrated to Jehovah, and what he himself had dedicated in the
temple, and with the treasures of the royal palace.[472]

Like his father and his grandmother, Joash died by a violent death. Two
of his servants murdered him (797 B.C.); but his son Amaziah kept the
throne, and caused the murderers of his father to be executed. He
commenced a war, for what reason we know not, with Israel, who was now
fighting with success against Damascus. Joash of Israel defeated him at
Bethshemesh; Amaziah was taken prisoner and his army dispersed. The king
of Israel occupied Jerusalem, plundered the temple and the palace, and
did not set the king of Judah free till the walls of Jerusalem were
thrown down for a space of 400 cubits from the gate of Ephraim, _i.e._
the western gate of the outer city to the corner gate, at the north-west
corner of Jerusalem, and the Judæans had given hostages to keep the
peace for the future. Against the Edomites Amaziah contended with more
success. He defeated them in the Valley of Salt; 10,000 Edomites are
said to have been left on the field on that day. The result of the
victory was the renewal of the dependence of Edom on Judah, though not
as yet throughout the whole extent of the land. Amaziah also fell before
a conspiracy. It was in vain that he escaped from the conspirators from
Jerusalem to Lachish; they followed him and slew him there. But the
people placed his son Uzziah (Azariah), though only 16 years old, on the
throne of Judah (792 B.C.).[473]

FOOTNOTES:

[427] 1 Kings xi. 26 ff place the rebellion of Jeroboam in the time when
Solomon built Millo (p. 186), and give him asylum with Shishak, king of
Egypt. Solomon built Millo, the walls of Jerusalem, and the
fortifications (p. 186) when the building of the palace was finished (1
Kings ix. 10, 15, 24). The building of the palace was completed in 970
B.C. (p. 186); hence the building of Millo must have begun about this
time. It can hardly have lasted more than 10 years. Jeroboam's
rebellion, therefore, and Shishak's accession are not to be placed
after, but a little before, 960 B.C. Lepsius puts Shishak's accession at
961 B.C.

[428] 1 Kings xii. 22; xiv. 30.

[429] O. Blau in "Zeitschr. D. M. G." 10, 233 ff, and below. The shield
which Champollion read Judaha Malek is read Jehud by Blau, who refers it
to Jehud, a place of the Southern Danites. Even the occurrence of names
of towns belonging to the kingdom of Ephraim would not exclude the
possibility that Shishak's campaign was undertaken in favour of
Jeroboam. Jeroboam acknowledged the supremacy of Egypt in the meaning of
the Pharaoh when he called on Egypt for help, and therefore, after the
manner of Egyptian monuments of victory and inscriptions, his cities
could be denoted as subject to Egypt. Hence Makethu, as Brugsch reads
(Gesch. Ægyptens, s. 661), may be Megiddo or Makedu in the north of
Judah; in the first case the explanation given holds good. Jerusalem is
not found among the names which can be read and interpreted.

[430] _Supra_, p. 112, _note_. I have remarked that assumptions there
noticed are necessary to bring the Hebrew chronology into harmony with
the Assyrian monuments and the stone of Mesha. That Ahaziah of Judah and
Joram of Israel must have been slain, at the latest, in the year 843
B.C. is a necessary consequence of the fact that Jehu paid tribute to
the Assyrians as early as the year 842 B.C. In the same way the Assyrian
monuments prove that Ahab of Israel cannot have died before the year 853
B.C. As the Hebrew Scriptures, in the chronology of Israel, put Ahaziah
with two years, and Joram with twelve years, between Ahab's death and
Jehu's accession, four years must be struck out and deducted from the
reign of Joram. To maintain the parallelism, the same operation must be
performed with the contemporary kings of Judah, and the reign of Jehoram
of Judah (for which, even if we retain the data of the Books of Kings,
six years remain at the most) must be reduced from eight years to four.
These four years in each kingdom will be best added to the first reigns
after the division, to Jeroboam (22 + 4 = 26) and Rehoboam (17 + 4 =
21). Twelve years must be added to the reign of Omri (p. 114, _n._). The
same augmentation must be made in the corresponding reign of Asa of
Judah, or, rather, as the chronology of Judah from Rehoboam to Athaliah
gives three years less than that from Jeroboam to Jehu, 15 years must be
added to Asa instead of 12, so that his reign reaches 41 + 15 = 56, and
Omri's reign 12 + 12 = 24 years. Hence Rehoboam was succeeded by Abiam
not in the eighteenth, but in the twenty-second year of Jeroboam; Ahab
ascended the throne not in the thirty-sixth, but in the fifty-fourth
year of Asa. From these assumptions are deduced the numbers given in the
text. I consider it hopeless to attempt to reconcile the divergencies in
the comparisons of the two series of kings in the Books of Kings; _e.
g._ that Omri should ascend the throne in the thirty-first year of Asa,
and reign 12 years, while Ahab nevertheless ascends the throne in the
thirty-eighth year of Asa.

[431] 1 Kings xv. 16-24; 2 Chron. xvi. 1-10.

[432] 1 Kings xv. 11-14; 2 Chron. xiv. 2-5.

[433] 1 Kings xxii. 48; 2, viii. 20.

[434] 1 Kings xxii. 49.

[435] Song of Solomon vi. 4.

[436] 1 Kings xv. 20.

[437] 1 Kings xx. 34.

[438] Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa."

[439] _Infra_, chap. xi.

[440] 2 Kings iii. 4.

[441] The inscription of Kurkh enumerates in the army of the Syrians at
Karkar men from Ammon under Bahsa, the son of Ruchub (Rehob); Schrader,
"Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 95.

[442] 2 Kings viii. 18.

[443] 1 Kings xxi. 1; xxii. 39; 2, ix. 15 ff.

[444] 1 Kings xvi. 31-33; xviii. 19; 2, iii. 2.

[445] 1 Kings xviii. 4-13, 17; xix. 10-14.

[446] 1 Kings xvii. 9, 10.

[447] 2 Kings i. 8; 1, xvii. 4-6.

[448] 1 Kings xviii. 17-46.

[449] The objections which have been made against the assumption that
the king of Damascus and Achabbu, against whom and their confederates
Shalmanesar fought at Karkar, according to the monument of Kurkh (col.
2), were Benhadad II. of Damascus of the Books of Kings and Ahab of
Israel are untenable. Shalmanesar II. marches four times against a king
of Damascus; subsequently, four years after his last war with this king,
he marches against a second king of Damascus, whose name in the
inscriptions is indubitably Chazailu. In the Books of Kings Benhadad,
Ahab's contemporary and opponent, is overthrown by Hazael, who becomes
king of Damascus in Benhadad's place. Thus we obtain a certain basis for
identifying the Benhadad overthrown by Hazael with the prince of
Damascus against whom Shalmanesar fought four times. Hence on the
reading of the name of this opponent of Shalmanesar in the inscriptions
I cannot place special weight, especially as the Assyrian symbol for the
deity in the name in question is well known to have more than one
signification. If a further objection is made, that Ahab cannot have
combined with Damascus against Assyria, but rather with Assyria against
Damascus, in order to get rid of that opponent, the answer is that Ahab
had reduced Damascus before Shalmanesar's first march against the city.
Ahab had released Benhadad under a treaty (1 Kings xx. 34), and they
"were at peace three years" (1 Kings xxii. 3). Hence at this moment Ahab
was not in need of the assistance of Assyria. That free leagues are
altogether inconceivable among the Syrian princes of that time is an
assumption contradicted by numerous statements in the Egyptian monuments
of Tuthmosis III., of Ramses II. and III., and yet more numerous
statements in the Assyrian inscriptions. Not much weight can be allowed
to the late and very general statements of Nicolaus in Josephus. If
Nicolaus (Joseph. "Antiq." 7, 5, 2) calls the opponent of David Hadad,
the Books of Kings do not mention the name of the king of Damascus
against whom David contends. If he maintains that the grandson of
Benhadad I., the third of the name, desolated Samaria, it is rather
Benhadad I. of the Books of Kings, who was not the son and grandson of a
Benhadad, but the son of Tabrimmon, and grandson of Hesjon, who first
laid Samaria waste (1 Kings xv. 18-20). A second Benhadad contends with
Ahab, who certainly may have been a grandson of the first, but certainly
cannot have been the grandson of the opponent of David. If Nicolaus
further tells us, that after Benhadad I. his descendants ruled for 10
generations, and each of them along with the throne received the name of
Benhadad, this is contradicted by the Books of Kings, not merely in the
genealogy of the first Benhadad of those books, but also in the fact
that in them Benhadad II., the contemporary of Ahab and Jehoram, is
overthrown by Hazael, who then in a long reign over Damascus inflicts
severe injury on Israel and Judah. Hazael is followed in the Books of
Kings by Benhadad III. That "Achabbu from the land of Sir'lai" is
correctly read in the inscription of Kurkh is an ascertained fact.

[450] The prophetic revision explains the overthrow of Ahab by the fact
that he had spared Benhadad in the previous war, when Jehovah had
delivered him into his hand.

[451] Ninth and tenth year of Shalmanesar II.

[452] According to Nöldeke, "Inschrift des Mesa," the upper city of
Dibon.

[453] 1 Kings xix. 15; 2, viii. 7-15.

[454] Joel iv. 19; Amos i. 11, 12.

[455] 2 Chron. xxi. 16-18; Amos i. 6; cf. _infra_, p. 260. n. 2.

[456] 2 Kings ix. 14.

[457] 2 Kings x. 12-14.

[458] 2 Kings xi. 1-3.

[459] 2 Kings x. 30. "To the fourth generation" may have been added by
the revision _post eventum_.

[460] 2 Kings x. 18-27.

[461] E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 105.

[462] 2 Kings x. 32.

[463] 2 Kings xiii. 25.

[464] 2 Kings viii. 12.

[465] Amos i. 3.

[466] 2 Kings xiii. 5.

[467] See below, p. 326.

[468] Of this date and the time of Amaziah I shall treat in the first
chapter of Book IV.

[469] 2 Kings xiii. 25.

[470] 2 Kings xi. 3-20.

[471] They fall about 830 B.C. The minority of the king is clear, and
the verses iv. 4 ff. points to the incursion of the Philistines into
Judah, mentioned p. 252.

[472] 2 Kings xii. 17, 18. The occurrence is recorded after the
twenty-third year of Joash, and the twenty-third year was 815 B.C.

[473] The subjugation of Edom can only have taken place after the year
803 B.C., _i.e._ after the march of Bin-nirar II. to the sea-coast.
Bin-nirar enumerates Edom among the tribute-paying tribes of Syria. On
this and on the date of Uzziah's accession, cf. Book IV. chap. 2.



CHAPTER XI.

THE CITIES OF THE PHENICIANS.


The voyages of the Phenicians on the Mediterranean; their colonies on
the coasts and islands of that sea; their settlements in Cyprus, Rhodes,
Crete, the islands of the Ægean, Samothrace, and Thasos, on the coasts
of Hellas, on Malta, Sicily, and Sardinia; their establishments on the
northern edge of Africa in the course of the thirteenth and twelfth
centuries B.C.; their discovery of the Atlantic about the year 1100
B.C., have been traced by us already. Of the internal conditions and the
constitution of the cities whose ships traversed the Mediterranean in
every direction, and now found so many native harbours on the coasts and
islands, we have hardly any information. We only know that monarchy
existed from an ancient period in Sidon and Tyre, in Byblus, Berytus,
and Aradus; and we are restricted to the assumption that this monarchy
arose out of the patriarchal headship of the elders of the tribes. These
tribes had long ago changed into civic communities, and their members
must have consisted of merchant-lords, ship-owners, and warehousemen, of
numerous labourers, artisans, sailors, and slaves. The accounts of the
Hebrews exhibit the cities of the Philistines, the southern neighbours
of the Phenicians on the Syrian coast, united by a league in the
eleventh century B.C. The kings of the five cities of the Philistines
combine for consultation, form binding resolutions, and take the field
in common. We find nothing like this in the cities of the Phenicians.
Not till a far later date, when the Phenicians had lost their
independence, were federal forms of government prevalent among them.

The campaigns of the Pharaohs, Tuthmosis III., Sethos, and Ramses II.,
did not leave the cities of the Phenicians untouched (I. 342). After the
reign of Ramses III., _i.e._ after the year 1300 B.C., Syria was not
attacked from the Nile; but the overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites
about this period, and the subjugation of the Amorites by the
Israelites, forced the old population to the coast (about 1250 B.C.).
One hundred and fifty years later a new opponent of Syria showed
himself, not from the south, but from the east. Tiglath Pilesar I., king
of Assyria (1130-1100 B.C.), forced his way over the Euphrates, and
reached the great sea of the western land (p. 42). His successes in
these regions, even if he set foot on Lebanon, could at most have
reached only the northern towns of the Phenicians; in any case they were
of a merely transitory nature.

The oldest city of the Phenicians was Sidon; her daughter-city, Tyre,
was also founded at a very ancient period. We found that the
inscriptions of Sethos I. mentioned it among the cities reduced by him.
The power and importance of Tyre must have gradually increased with the
beginning of a more lively navigation between the cities and the
colonies; about the year 1100 B.C. her navigation and influence appears
to have surpassed those of the mother-city. If Old Hippo in Africa was
founded from Sidon, Tyrian ships sailed through the Straits of
Gibraltar, discovered the land of silver, and founded Gades beyond the
pillars. Accordingly we also find that Tyre, and not Sidon, was
mistress of the island of Cyprus.

According to the statements of the Greeks, a king of the name of Sobaal
or Sethlon ruled in Sidon at the time of the Trojan war, _i.e._ before
the year 1100 B.C.;[474] about the same time a king of the name of
Abelbaal reigned in Berytus.[475] From a fragment of Menander of
Ephesus, preserved to us by Josephus, it follows that after the middle
of the eleventh century B.C. Abibaal was reigning in Tyre. A sardonyx,
now at Florence, exhibits a man with a high crown on his head and a
staff in his hand; in front of him is a star with four rays; the
inscription in old Phenician letters runs, "Of Abibaal." Did this stone
belong to king Abibaal?[476]

Hiram, the son of this king, ascended the throne of Tyre while yet a
youth, in 1001 B.C. He is said to have again subjugated to his dominion
the Kittians, _i.e._ the inhabitants of Citium, or the cities of Cyprus
generally, who refused to pay tribute. What reasons and what views of
advantage in trade induced Hiram to enter into relations with David in
the last years of his reign, and unite these relations even more closely
with Solomon, the successor of David, has been recounted above. It was
this understanding which not only opened Israel completely to the trade
of the Phenicians, but also procured to the latter secure and new roads
through Israel to the Euphrates and Egypt, and made it possible for them
to discover and use the road by sea to South Arabia. Thus, a good
century after the founding of Gades, the commerce of the Phenicians
reached the widest extension which it ever obtained. We saw that the
Phenicians about the year 990 B.C. went by ship from Elath past South
Arabia to the Somali coast, and reached Ophir, _i.e._ apparently the
land of the Abhira (_i.e._ herdsmen) on the mouths of the Indus.[477]
The other advantages which accrued to Hiram from his connection with
Israel were not slight. Solomon paid him, as has been said, 20,000 Kor
of wheat and 20,000 Bath of oil yearly for 20 years in return for wood
and choice quarry stones, and finally, in order to discharge his debt,
had to give up 20 Israelitish towns on his borders.

Hiram had to dispose of very considerable resources; his receipts must
have been far in excess of Solomon's. Of the silver of Tarshish which
the ships brought from Gades to Tyre, of the gold imported by the trade
to Ophir, of the profits of the maritime trade with the land of incense,
a considerable percentage must have come into the treasury of the king,
and he enjoyed in addition the payments of Solomon. In any case he had
at his command means sufficient to enlarge, adorn, and fortify his city.
Ancient Tyre lay on the seashore; with the growth of navigation and
trade, the population passed over from the actual city to an island off
the coast, which offered excellent harbours. On a rock near this island
lay that temple of Baal Melkarth, the god of Tyre, to which the priests
ascribed a high antiquity; they told Herodotus that it was built in the
year 2750 B.C. (I. 345). Hiram caused this island to be enlarged by
moles to the north and west towards the mainland, and protected these
extensions by bulwarks. The circuit of the island was now 22 stades,
_i.e._ more than two and a half miles; the arm of the sea, which
separates the island from the mainland, now measured only 2400 feet
(three stades).[478] The whole island was surrounded with strong walls
of masonry, which ran out sharply into the sea, and were washed by its
waves, so that no room remained for the besieger to set foot and plant
his scaling-ladders there. On the side of the island towards the
mainland, where the docks were, these walls were the highest. Alexander
of Macedon found them 150 feet high. The two harbours lay on the eastern
side of the island--on the north-east and the south-east; on the
north-east was the Sidonian harbour (which even now is the harbour of
Sur); and on the south-east the Egyptian harbour. If the former was
secured and closed by huge dams, the latter also was not without its
protecting works, as huge blocks in the sea appear to show, though the
dams here were no longer in perfect preservation even in Strabo's time.
On the south shore of the island, eastward of the Egyptian harbour, lay
the royal citadel; on the north-west side a temple of Baal Samim, the
Agenorion of the Greeks. The rock which supported the temple of Melkarth
appears to have been situated close to the city on the west.[479] This,
like the temple of Astarte, was adorned and enlarged or restored by
Hiram. For the roof he caused cedars of Lebanon to be felled. In the
ancient shrine of the protecting deity of the city, the temple of
Melkarth, he dedicated a great pillar of gold, which Herodotus saw there
500 years later beside an erect smaragdus, which was so large that it
gave light by night. This was perhaps a symbol of the light not overcome
by the darkness.[480]

Hiram died after a reign of 34 years, in the fifty-third year of his
life. His son Baleazar, who sat on the throne for seven years (967-960
B.C.), was succeeded by his son Abdastartus (_i.e._ servant of Astarte),
who, after a reign of nine years (960-951 B.C.), fell before a
conspiracy headed by the sons of his nurse. Abdastartus was murdered,
and the eldest of the sons of his nurse maintained his dominion over
Tyre for 12 years (951-939 B.C.). Then the legitimate dynasty returned
to the throne. Of the brothers of the murdered Abdastartus, Astartus was
the first to reign (939-927 B.C.), and after him Astarymus (927-918
B.C.), who was murdered by a fourth brother, Pheles. But Pheles could
not long enjoy the fruits of his crime. He had only been eight months on
the throne when he was slain by the priest of Astarte, Ethbaal
(Ithobaal). With Pheles the race of Abibaal comes to an end (917 B.C.).

Ethbaal ascended the throne of Tyre, and was able to establish himself
upon it. He is said to have built or fortified Bothrys in Lebanon,
perhaps as a protection against the growing forces of Damascus.[481] In
Israel, during Ethbaal's reign, as we have seen, Omri at the head of the
army made himself master of the throne in 899 B.C., just as Ethbaal had
usurped the throne of Tyre. Both were in a similar position. Both had to
establish their authority and found their dynasty. Ethbaal's daughter
was married to Ahab, the son of Omri. What were the results of this
connection for Israel and Judah we have seen already. To what a
distance the power of Tyre extended in another direction is clear from
the fact that Ethbaal founded Auza in the interior of Africa, to the
south of the already ancient colony of Ityke (p. 82).[482] After a reign
of 32 years Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877
B.C.).[483] After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and
Sicharbaal, both under age. Yet the throne remained in the house of
Ethbaal, and continued to do so even when Mutton died in the year 853
B.C., and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a daughter
Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to his brother
Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth.[484] Mutton had
intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign together, and thus the
power really passed into the hands of Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa.
When Pygmalion reached his sixteenth year the people transferred to him
the sovereignty of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death,
either because he feared his influence as the chief priest of the
tutelary god of the city, or because, as we are told, he coveted his
treasures (846 B.C.).[485]

Elissa fled from Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others
who would not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion.[486] The exiles (we
may perhaps suppose that they were members of old families, as it was
apparently the people who had transferred the throne to Pygmalion) are
said to have first landed at Cyprus, then to have sailed to the
westward, and to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the
neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and there to
have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be covered by the skin
of an ox. By dividing this into very thin strips they obtained a piece
of land sufficient to enable them to build a fortress. This new
dwelling-place, or the city which grew up round this fortress, the
wanderers called, in reference to their old home, Karthada (_Karta
hadasha_), _i.e._ "the new city," the Karchedon of the Greeks, the
Carthage of the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have
arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid tribute to
the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their soil. The ox-hide and all
that is further told us of the fortunes of Elissa, her resistance to the
suit of the Libyan prince Iarbas,[487] her self-immolation in order to
escape from this suit (Virgil made despised love the motive for this
immolation), is due to the transference of certain traits from the myths
of the horned moon-goddess, to whom the cow is sacred, the wandering
Astarte, who also bore the name of Dido, and of certain customs in the
worship of the goddess to Carthage; these also have had influence on the
narrative of the flight of Elissa.[488]

The new settlement was intended to become an important centre for the
colonies of the Phenicians in the West. The situation was peculiarly
fortunate. Where the north coast of Africa approaches Sicily most
nearly, the mountain range which runs along this coast, and forms the
edge of the table-land in the interior, sinks down in gentle
declivities, which thus form water-courses of considerable length, to a
fertile hill country still covered with olive-gardens and
orange-forests. From the north the sea penetrates deeply into the land
between the "beautiful promontory" (Ras Sidi Ali) and the promontory of
Hermes (Ras Addar). On the western side of this bay a ridge of land runs
out, which possesses excellent springs of water. Not far from the shore
a rock rises steeply to the height of about 200 feet. On this was
planted the new citadel, Byrsa, on which the wanderers erected a temple
to their god Esmun (I. 377). This citadel, which is said to have been
about 2000 paces (double paces) in the circuit,[489] was also the city
round which at a later time grew up the lower city, at first on the
south-east toward the shore, and then on the north-west toward the sea.
The harbour lay to the south-east, under the citadel. Some miles to the
north of the new settlement, on the mouth of the Bagradas (Medsherda),
at the north-west corner of the bay, was Ityke, the ancient colony of
the Phenicians, which had been in existence for more than two centuries
when the new settlers landed on the shore of the bay; and not far to the
south on the shore was Adrymes (Hadrumetum), another city of their
countrymen, which Sallust mentions among the oldest colonies of the
Phenicians.[490] The Carthaginians never forgot their affection for the
ancient Ityke, by whose assistance, no doubt, their own settlement had
been supported.[491]

The fragment which Josephus has preserved from the annals of the kings
of Tyre ends with the accession of Pygmalion and the flight of Elissa.
More than two centuries had passed since the campaign of Tiglath Pilesar
I. to the Mediterranean, during which the cities of the Phenicians had
suffered nothing from the arms and expeditions of the Assyrians. But
when Balezor and Mutton, the son and grandson of Ethbaal, ruled over
Tyre (885-853 B.C.), Assurbanipal of Assyria (883-859 B.C.) began to
force his way to the west over the Euphrates. When he had reduced the
sovereign of Karchemish to obedience by repeated campaigns, and had
built fortresses on both banks of the Euphrates, he advanced in the year
876 B.C. to the Orontes, captured the marches of Lebanus (Labnana), and
received tribute from the king of Tyre, _i.e._ from Mutton, from the
kings of Sidon, of Byblus, and Aradus. According to the inscriptions,
the tribute consisted of bars of silver, gold, and lead. Assurbanipal's
successor, Shalmanesar II. of Assyria (859-823 B.C.), pushed on even
more energetically to the west. After forcing Cilicia to submit, he
attacked Hamath, and in the year 854, as we have seen, he defeated at
Karkar the united kings of Hamath, Damascus, and Israel, who were also
joined by Matinbaal, the king of Aradus. But Shalmanesar was compelled
to undertake three other campaigns to Damascus (850, 849, and 846 B.C.)
before he succeeded, in the year 842 B.C., in making Damascus tributary.
As has been remarked, Israel did not any longer attempt the decision of
arms, and sought to gain the favour of Assyria; like Tyre and Sidon,
Jehu sent tribute to Shalmanesar. This payment of tribute was repeated
perforce by Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus, in the years 839 and 835 B.C., in
which Shalmanesar's armies again appeared in Syria. Moreover, the
inscriptions of Bin-nirar, king of Assyria (810-781 B.C.), tell us that
Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Israel, Edom, and the land of the Philistines had
paid him tribute. It is obvious that the cities of the Phenicians would
have been as a rule most willing to pay it. When Assyria had definitely
extended her dominion as far as the Euphrates, it was in the power of
the Assyrian king to stop the way for the merchants of those cities to
Mesopotamia and Babylon, and thus to inflict very considerable damage on
the trade of the Phenicians, which was for the most part a carrying
trade between the East and West. What were the sums paid in tribute,
even if considerable, when compared with such serious disadvantages?

Hitherto we have been able to observe monarchy in the patriarchal form
of the head of the tribe, in the god-like position of the Pharaohs of
Egypt, in the forms of a military principate, who ruled with despotic
power over wide kingdoms, or in diminished copies of this original. It
would be interesting to trace out and ascertain the changes which it had
now to undergo at the head of powerful trading and commercial cities
such as the Phenicians were. We have already seen that the principate of
these cities was of great antiquity, that it remained in existence
through all the periods of Phenician history, that it was rooted deeply
enough to outlive even the independence of the cities. All more detailed
accounts are wanting, and even inductions or comparisons with the
constitution of Carthage in later times carry us little further. Not to
mention the very insufficient accounts which we possess of this
constitution, it was only to the oldest settlements of the Phenicians in
Cyprus that the monarchy passed, at least it was only in these that it
was able to maintain itself. The examination of these institutions of
Carthage is adapted to show us in contrast on the one hand to the
tribal princes of the Arabians, and on the other to the monarchy of
Elam, Babel, and Asshur--what forms the feeling and character of a
Semitic community, in which the burghers had reached the full
development of their powers, were able to give to their state, which at
the same time was supreme over a wide region; but for the constitution
of the Phenician cities scarcely any conclusions can be drawn from it.

Of the internal condition of the Phenician cities, the fragment of the
history of Tyre in Josephus only enables us to ascertain that there was
no lack of strife and bloodshed in the palaces of the kings, and that
the priests of the tutelary deity must have been of importance and
influence beside the king. But it follows from the nature of things that
these city-kings could not have held sway with the same complete power
as the military princes of the great kingdoms of the East. The
development of independence among the burghers must have placed far
closer limitations upon the will of the kings in these cities than was
the case elsewhere in the East. The more lively the trade and industry
of the cities, the more strongly must the great merchants and
manufacturers have maintained against the kings the consideration and
advancement of their own interests. For the maintenance of order and
peace, of law and property in the cities they looked to the king, but
they had also to make important demands before the throne, and were
combined against it by community of interests. They were compelled to
advance these independently if the king refused his consent. Isaiah
tells us that the merchants of Tyre were princes. Ezekiel speaks of the
grey-haired men, the "elders" of the city of Byblus.[492] Of the later
period we know with greater certainty that there was a council beside
the kings, the membership in which may have belonged primarily to the
chiefs of the old families, but also in part to the hereditary priests.
Inscriptions of the cities belonging to Grecian times present the title
"elders."[493] The families in the Phenician cities which could carry
back their genealogy to the forefathers of the tribes which possessed
land and influence before the fall of the Hittites, the incursions of
the Hebrews, and the spread of trade had brought a mass of strangers
into the city walls, would appear to have had the first claim to a share
in the government; the heads of these families may at first have formed
the council which stood beside the king. Yet it lies in the nature of
great manufacturing and trading cities that the management of interests
of this kind cannot be confined to the elders of the family or remain
among the privileges of birth. Hence we may assume that the great
trading firms and merchants could not long be excluded from these
councils. In the fourth century B.C. the council of Sidon seems to have
consisted of 500 or 600 elders.[494] Owing to the treasures of East and
West which poured together into the cities of the Phenicians, life
became luxurious within their walls. Men's efforts were directed to gain
and acquisition; the merchants would naturally desire to enjoy their
wealth. The lower classes of the closely-compressed population no doubt
followed the example set them by the higher. From the multitude of
retail dealers and artizans, the number of pilots and mariners who
returned home eager for enjoyment after long voyages, men whose passions
would be unbridled, a turbulent population must have grown up, in spite
of the numerous colonies into which the ambitious as well as the poor
might emigrate or be sent with the certain prospect of a better
position. We saw above that the people of Tyre are said to have
transferred the rule to Pygmalion. For the later period it is certain
that even the people had a share in the government.[495]

The hereditary monarchy passed, so far as we can see, from the
mother-cities to the oldest colonies only, _i.e._ the cities in Cyprus.
In the other colonies the chief officers were magistrates, usually two
in number.[496] They were called _Sufetes_, _i.e._ judges. In Carthage
these two yearly officers, in whose hands lay the supreme administration
of justice, and the executive, formed with 30 elders the governing body
of the city. It seems that these 30 men were the representatives of as
many original combinations of families into which the old houses of the
city were incorporated. The connection of the colonies and
mother-cities, both in general and more especially where the colony
could dispense with the protection of the mother-city, were far more
mercantile and religious than political. The colonies worshipped the
deities of the mother-cities, and gave them a share in their booty. We
also find that descendants of priests who had emigrated from the
mother-city stood at the head of the temples of the colonies. In
Carthage, where the priests of Melkarth wore the purple robe, the office
was hereditary in the family of Bithyas, who is said to have left Tyre
with Elissa.[497]

We are acquainted with the gods of the Phenician cities, and the mode in
which they worshipped them; with El and Baal-Samim, Baal-Melkarth and
Baal-Moloch, Adonis, Astarte and Ashera, with the rites of continence
and mutilation, of sensual excess and prostitution, of sacrifice and
fire-festival, which were intended to win their favour and grace. We
observed that the protecting deities of the separate states had even
before the days of Hiram been united in the system of the seven great
gods, the Cabiri, at whose head was placed an eighth, Esmun, the supreme
deity. We saw that in this system special meanings were ascribed to them
in reference to the protection of peace and law, of industry and
navigation; and we cannot doubt that with the riches which accumulated
in the walls of the cities, with the luxury of life which these riches
permitted, the lascivious and sensual side of the worship must have
increased and extended.

The life led by the kings of the old Phenician cities is described as
rich and splendid. We have already assumed that the princes of the
Phenician cities had a rich share in the returns of trade, and indeed
the fact can be proved from the Hebrew Scriptures for Hiram, king of
Tyre. Ezekiel tells us, "The king of Tyre sits like a god in the seat of
God, in the midst of the seas; he dwells as in Eden, in the garden of
God. Precious stones are the covering of his palaces: the ruby, the
topaz, the diamond, the chrysolite, the onyx, and the jasper, the
sapphire, the carbuncle, the emerald, and gold; the workmanship of his
ring-cases he bears upon him."[498] "His garments," we are told in a
song of the Hebrews, "smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia; in ivory
palaces the sound of harps gladdens him. At his right hand stands the
queen in gold of Ophir, in a garment of wrought gold: on broidered
carpets she shall be brought to him; the young maidens, her companions,
follow her."[499]

Hosea calls Tyre "a plantation in a pleasant meadow."[500] Of the city
itself Ezekiel says, "The architects have made her beauty perfect. All
her planks (wainscot) were of cypress, and her masts of cedar of
Lebanon; the rudders are of oaks of Bashan, the benches of ivory, set in
costly wood from the island of Cyprus. For sails Tyre spreads out byssus
and gay woofs; blue and red purple from the islands of Elisa formed
their coverlets."[501] In the description of Strabo, more than 500 years
later, Tyre appears less magnificent. The houses of the city were very
high, higher than at Rome; the city still wealthy, owing to the trade in
her two harbours and her purple factories, but the number of these made
the city unpleasant. Strabo does not mention any considerable building
in the city. Of Aradus he says, "The smallness of the rock on which the
city lies, seven stades only in circuit, and the number of inhabitants
caused every house to have many stories. Drinking-water had to be
obtained from the mainland; on the island there were only wells and
cisterns."[502]

Scarcely any striking remains of the ancient buildings of Phoenicia have
come down to our time. The ancient temples enumerated in the treatise on
the Syrian goddess have perished without a trace; the temple of Melkarth
of Tyre, the great temple of Astarte at Sidon, the temple of Bilit
(Ashera) at Byblus,[503] although they were certainly not of a character
easy to destroy. That the Phenicians were acquainted from very ancient
periods with the erection of strong masonry was proved above. Not only
have we the legend of the Greeks, that Cadmus taught them the art of
masonry and built the famous walls of Thebes; we saw how Israel, about
the year 1000 B.C., provided herself with masons, stone-cutters, and
materials from Tyre. Hence we may also assume that the architecture of
the temple and the royal palaces of Solomon described in the Books of
Kings corresponded to the architecture of the Phenicians. The temples
and palaces of the Phenicians consisted, therefore, of walls of large
materials, roofed with beams of cedar; in the interior the materials
were no doubt covered, as at Jerusalem, with planks of wood and
ornaments of brass, "so that the stone was nowhere seen" (p. 183).
Ezekiel has already told us that the planks of the roofs of the royal
palace at Tyre were overlaid with gold and precious stones; and the
Books of Kings showed us that even the floors were adorned with gold.
All the remains of walls in Phoenicia that can be referred to an ancient
period exhibit a style of building confined to the stone of the mountain
range which hems the coast, and desirous of imitating the nature of the
rocks. Blocks of large dimensions were used by preference; at first they
were worked as little as possible, and fitted to each other, and the
interstices between the great blocks were filled with smaller stones. Of
this kind are the fragments of the walls which surround the rock on
which the city of Aradus stood. Gigantic blocks, visible even now here
and there, formed the dams of the harbours of Aradus, Sidon, Tyre, and
Japho.[504] It was a step in advance that the blocks, while retaining
the form in which they were quarried, were smoothed at the joints in
order to be fitted together more firmly, and a further step still that
the blocks were hewn into squares, though at first the outer surfaces of
the squares were not smoothed. So far as remains allow us to see, the
detached structures were of a simple and massive character, in shape
like cubes of vast dimensions; the walls, as is shown by the city wall
of Aradus, were joined without mortar, and in the oldest times the
buildings appear to have been roofed with monoliths. Cedar beams were
not sought after till larger spaces had to be covered. Beside old
water-basins hewn in the rock, and oil or wine presses of the same
character, we have no remains of ancient Phenician temples but those on
the site of Marathus (now Amrit), a city of the tribe of the Arvadites,
to the south of Aradus, and in the neighbourhood of Byblus.[505] The
bases of the walls which enclose the courts and water-basins of the
temple of Marathus can still be traced, as well as the huge stones which
formed the three cellæ, the innermost shrines of this temple. On either
side of a back wall formed of similar materials heavy blocks protrude,
and are roofed over, together with this wall, by a great monolith, which
protected the sacred stone or the image of the deity.[506] This heavy
style of the city walls, dams, temples, and royal castles did not
prevent the Phenicians, any more than the Egyptians, from building the
upper stories of the dwelling-houses of their cities in light wood-work.

By far the most important remains of ancient Phoenicia are the
rock-tombs, which are found in great numbers and extent opposite to the
islands of Tyre and Aradus, as well as at Sidon, Byblus, and among the
ruins of the other cities on the spurs of Lebanon; and which at Tyre
especially spread out into wide burial-places, and several stories of
tombs, one upon the other. In the same style we find to the west of the
ruins of Carthage long walls of rocks hollowed out into thousands of
tombs, and furnished with arched niches for the reception of the
dead.[507] In the oldest period the Phenicians must have placed their
dead in natural cavities of rock, and perhaps they erected a stone
before them as a memorial. In Genesis Abraham buries Sarah in the cave
of Machpelah, and Jacob sets up a stone on the grave of Rachel.[508]
Afterwards the natural hollows were extended, and whole cavities dug out
artificially for tombs. The tomb of David and the tombs of his
successors were hewn in the rocks of the gorge which separated the city
from the height of Zion (p. 177). The oldest of the artificial tombs in
Phoenicia are doubtless those which consist of cubical chambers with
horizontal hewn roofs. Round one or two large chambers lower oblong
depressions are driven further in the rocks to receive the corpses. The
entrance into these ancient chambers are formed by downward
perpendicular shafts, at the bottom of which on two sides are openings
into the chambers secured by slabs of stone laid before them. Shafts of
this kind must be meant when the Hebrews say in a figure of the dead,
"The mouth of the well has eaten him up." Later than the tombs of this
description are those the entrance to which is on the level ground
(which was then closed by a stone), which have roofs hewn in low arches,
and side niches for the corpses. The arched chambers approached by steps
leading downward, the walls of which are decorated after Grecian
patterns on the stone, or on stucco, must originate from the time of
the predominance of Greek art, _i.e._ of the days of Hellenism. The
oldest style of burial was the placing of the corpse in the cavity, the
grave-chamber, and afterwards in the depression at the side of this. At
a later time apparently the enclosure of the corpse in a narrow coffin
of clay became common here, as in Babylonia. Coffins of lead have also
been found in the rock-tombs of Phoenicia. But beside these, heavy
oblong stone-coffins with a simple slab of stone as a lid were in use in
ancient times; along with flat lids, lids raised in a low triangle are
also found; later still, and latest of all, are coffins and sarcophagi
adorned with acroteria and other ornaments of the Greek style.[509]

In the flat limestone rocks which run at a moderate elevation in the
neighbourhood of Sidon, and contain the vast necropolis of that city,
there is a cavern, now called Mogharet Ablun, _i.e._ the cave of Apollo.
Beside the entrance, in a depression covered by a structure attached to
the rock-wall (the rock-tombs were supplemented and extended by
structures attached to the wall), was found a coffin of blackish blue
stone, the form of which indicates the shape of the buried person after
the manner of the mummy-coffins of Egypt, and displays in colossal
relief the mask of the dead in Egyptian style, with an Egyptian covering
for the head and beard on the chin; the band round the neck ends behind
in two hawk's heads. The inscription in Phenician letters teaches us
that this coffin contained Esmunazar, king of Sidon. Similar sarcophagi
in stone, in part expressing the form even more accurately, seven or
eight in number, have been discovered in other chambers of the
burial-place of Sidon, and in the burial-places of Byblus and
Antaradus, but only in cubical, _i.e._ in more ancient chambers. Marble
coffins of this kind have also been found in the Phenician colonies of
Soloeis and Panormus in Sicily, and of the same shape in burnt earth in
Malta and Gozzo. The Phenicians, therefore, came to imitate the coffins
of the Egyptians. Similar imitation of Egyptian burial is proved by the
gold plates found in Phenician chambers, which are like those with which
we find the mouth closed in Egyptian mummies, and the discovery of
golden masks in Phenician chambers,[510] which correspond to the gilding
of the masks of the face of the innermost Egyptian coffins which
immediately surround the linen covering. As the face-mask of the
external coffin imitated the face of the dead in stone or in coloured
wood, so also ought the inner gilded face to preserve the features of
the dead. This imitation of the Egyptian style of burial among the
Phenicians must go back to a great antiquity. It is true that Esmunazar
of Sidon did not rule till the second half of the fifth or the beginning
of the fourth century B.C.[511] Yet the shape and style of his coffin
reminds us of older Egyptian patterns; it is most like the stone coffins
of Egypt which have come down from the beginning of the sixth century.
And if the ancient tombs opened at Mycenæ behind the lion's gate belong
to Carians influenced by Phenician civilisation (p. 74), if golden masks
are here found on the face of the dead, the Phenicians must have
borrowed this custom from the Egyptians as early as the thirteenth
century, if not even earlier.

The remains which have come down to us of the sculpture, jars, and
utensils of Phoenicia exhibit the double influence which the art and
industry of the Phenicians underwent even at an early period. Agreeably
to the close relations into which the Phenicians entered, on the one
hand with Babel and Asshur, and on the other with Egypt, the effects of
these two ancient civilisations meet each other on the coast of Syria.
The arts of the kindred land of the Euphrates, the relations of which to
Phoenicia were at the same time the older, naturally made themselves
felt first. When Tuthmosis III. collected tribute in Syria at the
beginning of the sixteenth century, the Babylonian weight was already in
use there; the jars which were brought to this king as the tribute of
Syria are carefully worked, but as yet adorned with very simple and
recurring patterns of lines. On the other hand, the ornaments found in
the tombs of Mycenæ, gold-plates, frontlets, and armlets, exhibit
ornaments like those figured on the monuments of Assyria; and the
objects found in the rock-tombs on Hymettus, at Spata, point even more
definitely to Babylonian patterns: winged fabulous animals and battles
of beasts (a lion attacking a bull or an antelope[512]) are formed in
the manner of the Eastern Semites, which brings the form of the muscles
into prominence. We may assume that the influence of Egypt began with
the times of the Tuthmosis and Amenophis, and their supremacy in Syria,
and slowly gathered strength. The heavy style of Phenician buildings
would not be made lighter or more free by the architecture of Egypt,
which also arose out of building in rock. The temples of Phoenicia
adopted Egyptian symbols for their ornaments; the monoliths of the roofs
of those three cellæ at Marathus exhibit the winged sun's-disk, the
emblem at the entrance of Egyptian temples; the chests for the dead and
masks for the mummies of the Egyptians were imitated in the rock-tombs
of Phoenicia. If the weaving of the Phenicians at first copied the
ancient Babylonian patterns, they began under the stronger influence of
Egypt to adorn their pottery and metal-work after Egyptian patterns. But
they also combined the Babylonian and Egyptian elements in their
art.[513] The oldest memorial of this combination is perhaps retained in
that winged sphinx, which belongs to the time of the dominion of the
shepherds in Egypt. In the graves on Hymettus pictures in relief of
female winged sphinxes are found with clothed breasts and peculiar
wings, in a treatment obviously already conventional. In Phoenicia
itself are found reliefs of similar sphinxes, old men with a human face
on either side of the tree of life, which meet us oftentimes in the
monuments of Assyria. This combination, this use of Babylonian and
Egyptian types and forms side by side, is seen most clearly on a large
bowl found at Curium near Amathus, in Cyprus, and wrought with great
care and skill.[514] It follows that the art of the Phenicians was
essentially imitative and intended to furnish objects for trade. Of
round works of sculpture we have only dwarfish deities (I. 378), the
typical form of which was naturally retained, and a few lions coarsely
wrought in the style of the plastic art of Babylon and Assyria.[515] The
relation in which the lion stood to the god Melkarth naturally made the
delineation of the lion a favourite object of Phenician art.

Phoenicia, though the home of alphabetical writing, has left us no more
than two or three inscriptions, and Carthage has not left us a great
number. Not that there was any lack of inscriptions in Phoenicia in
ancient days. We have heard already of ancient inscriptions at Rhodes,
Thebes, and Gades. Job wishes that "his words might be graven on rocks
for ever with an iron chisel and lead."[516] The inscriptions of
Phoenicia have perished because they were engraved like those
inscriptions of Gades, on plates of brass. Beside the inscription on the
coffin of Esmunazar, king of Sidon, already mentioned, of a date about
400 B.C., only two or three smaller inscriptions have been preserved,
which do not go beyond the second century B.C. In this inscription
Esmunazar speaks in person; he calls himself the son of Tabnit, king of
the Sidonians, son of Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians. With his mother,
Amastarte, the priestess of Astarte, he had erected temples to Baal,
Astarte, and Esmun. He beseeches the favour of the gods for himself and
his land; he prays that Dor and Japho may always remain under Sidon; he
declares that he wishes to rest in the grave which he has built and in
this coffin. No one is to open the tomb or plunder it, or remove or
damage this stone coffin. If any man attempts it the gods will destroy
him with his seed; he is not to be buried, and after death will find no
rest among the shades.[517]

There is scarcely any side of civilisation, any forms of technical art,
the invention of which was not ascribed by the Greeks to the Phenicians.
They were nearly all made known to the Greeks through the Phenicians;
more especially the building of walls and fortresses, mining, the
alphabet, astronomy, numbers, mathematics, navigation, together with a
great variety of applications of technical skill. If the discovery of
alphabetic writing belongs to the Phenicians, the Babylonians were the
instructors of the Phenicians in astronomy as well as in fixing measures
and weights (I. 305). Yet this is no reason for contesting the statement
of Strabo that the Sidonians were "eager inquirers into the knowledge of
the stars and of numbers, to which they were led by navigation by night
and the art of calculation."[518] In the same way the technical
discoveries ascribed by the Greeks to the Phenicians were not all made
in their cities; they carried on with vigour and skill what grew up
independently among them as well as what they learnt from others. The
making of glass was undoubtedly older in Egypt than in Phoenicia (I.
224). Egypt also practised work in metals before Phoenicia. Snefru and
Chufu made themselves masters of the copper mines of the peninsula of
Sinai before the year 3000 B.C. (I. 95), while the Phenicians can hardly
have occupied the copper island off their coast (Cyprus) before the
middle of the thirteenth century B.C. Artistic weaving and embroidery
were certainly practised at a more ancient date in Babylonia than in the
cities of the Phenicians. But all these branches of industry were
carried on with success by the Phenicians. Sidon furnished excellent
works in glass, which were accounted the best even down to a late period
of antiquity. The dunes on the coast between Acco and Tyre, where is the
mouth of the glass-river (Sihor Libnath),[519] provided the Phenician
manufacturers with the earth necessary for the manufacture of glass. It
was maintained that the most beautiful glass was cast in Sarepta
(Zarpath, _i.e._ melting), a city on the coast between Sidon and
Tyre.[520]

The purple dyeing, _i.e._ the colouring of woofs by the liquor from
fish, was discovered by the Phenicians. They were unsurpassed in this
art; it outlived by many centuries the power and splendour of their
cities. Trumpet and purple fish were found in great numbers on their
coasts, and the liquor from these provided excellent dye. The liquor of
the purple-fish, which comes from a vessel in the throat, is dark-red in
the small fish, and black in the larger fish; the liquor of the
trumpet-fish is scarlet. The fish were pounded and the dye extracted by
decoction. By mixing, weakening, or thickening this material, and by
adding this or that ingredient, various colours were obtained, through
all the shades of crimson and violet down to the darkest black, in which
fine woollen stuffs and linen from Egypt were dipped. The stuffs soaked
in these colours are the purple cloths of antiquity, and were
distinguished by the bright sheen of the colours. The Tyrian double-dyed
cloth, which had the colour of curdled blood, and the violet amethyst
purple were considered the most beautiful.[521] Three hundred pounds of
the raw material were usually required to dye 50 pounds of wool.[522]
When the purple stuffs began to be sought after, the fish collected on
the coasts of Tyre, Sidon, and Sarepta were no longer sufficient. We saw
how the ships of the Phenicians went from coast to coast in order to get
fresh materials for the dye, and found them in great numbers on the
shores of Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Cythera, and Thera; in the bays of
Laconia and Argos, and in the straits of Euboea. Purple-fish were also
collected on the greater Syrtis, in Sicily, the Balearic Isles, and
coasts of Tarshish.[523] Even at a later period, when the art of dyeing
with the purple-fish was understood and practised at many places in the
Mediterranean Sea, the Tyrian purple still maintained its pre-eminence
and fame. "Tyre," says Strabo, "overcame her misfortunes, and always
recovered herself by means of her navigation, in which the Phenicians
were superior to all others, and her purples. The Tyrian purple is the
most beautiful; the fish are caught close at hand, and every other
requirement for the dyeing is there in abundance."[524] A hundred years
later Pliny adds "that the ancient glory of Tyre survived now only in
her fish and her purples."[525] The consumption and expense of purple in
antiquity was very great, especially in Hither Asia. At first the
Phenician kings wore the purple robe as the sign of their rank; then it
became the adornment of the princes of the East, the priests, the women
of high rank, and upper classes. In the temples and palaces the purple
served for curtains and cloths, robes and veils for the images and
shrines. The kings of Babylon and Assyria, and after them the kings of
Persia, collected stores of purple stuffs in their palaces. Plutarch
puts the value of the amount of purple found by Alexander at Susa at
5000 talents.[526] In the West also the purple robe soon became the
distinguishing garb of royalty and rank. Yet the Greeks and Romans of
the better times, owing to the costliness of the material, contented
themselves with the possession of borders or stripes of purple.

The weaving and embroidery of the Phenicians apparently followed
Assyrian and Babylonian patterns. They must also have made and exported
ceramic ware and earthen vessels in large numbers at an ancient period,
as is proved by the tributes brought to Tuthmosis III., the discoveries
in Cyprus, Rhodes, Thera, and at Hissarlik. In the preparation of
perfumes Sidon and Tyre were not equal to the Babylonians. It is true
that their manufacturers supplied susinum and cyprinum of excellent
quality, but they could not attain to the cinnamon or the nard ointment,
nor to the royal ointment of the Babylonians.[527]

In mining the Phenicians were masters. In regard to the Phenician skill
in this art, the Book of Job says, "The earth, from which comes
nourishment, is turned up; he lays his hand upon the flint; far from the
dealings of men he makes his descending shaft. No bird of prey knows the
path; the eye of the vulture discovers it not; the wild beasts do not
tread it. Through the rocks paths are made; he searches out the darkness
and the night. Then his eye beholds all precious things. The stone of
the rocks is the place of the sapphire and gold-dust. Iron is taken out
of the mountains; stones are melted into brass, the drop of water is
stopped, and the hidden is brought to light."[528] The Phenicians dug
mines for copper, first on Lebanon and then in Cyprus. We saw that they
afterwards, in the second half of the thirteenth century, opened out the
gold treasures of Thasos in the Thracian Sea. Herodotus, who had seen
their abandoned mines there (they lay on the south coast of Thasos),
informed us that the Phenicians had entirely "turned over a whole
mountain." Yet even in the fifth century B.C. the mines of Thasos
produced a yearly income of from two to three hundred talents. In Spain
the Phenicians opened their mines in the silver mountain, _i.e._ in the
Sierra Morena, above the lower course of the Baetis (the
Guadalquivir);[529] their ships went up the stream as far as Sephela
(perhaps Hispalis, Seville). The richest silver-mines lay above Sephela
at Ilipa (Niebla); the best gold and copper mines were at Cotini, in the
region of Gades.[530] Diodorus assures us that all the mines in Iberia
had been opened by Phenicians and Carthaginians, and not one by the
Romans. In the more ancient times the workmen here brought up in three
days an Euboic talent of silver, and their wages were fixed at a fourth
part of the returns. The mines in Iberia were carried down many stades
in depth and length, with pits, shafts, and sloping paths crossing each
other; for the veins of gold and silver were more productive at a
greater depth. The water in the mines was taken out by Egyptian spiral
pumps. Strabo observes that the gold ore when brought up was melted over
a slow fire, and purified by vitriolated earth. The smelting-ovens for
the silver were built high, in order that the vapour from the ore, which
was injurious and even deadly, might pass into the air.[531]

The Phenicians also understood how to work skilfully the metals supplied
by their mines. At the founding of Gades, which we had to place about
the year 1100 B.C., iron pillars with inscriptions are mentioned which
the settlers put up in the temple of Melkarth (p. 82). The brass work
which the melter, Hiram of Tyre, executed for Solomon (p. 182) is
evidence of long practice in melting brass, and of skill in bringing
into shape large masses of melted metal. The Homeric poems speak of
Sidon as "rich in brass," and "skilful;" they tell us of large beaten
bowls of brass and silver of Sidonian workmanship, "rich in invention."
Even at a later period the goblets of Sidon were in request. Not only
metal implements and vessels of brass and copper, molten and beaten,
were furnished by the Phenicians; they must also have manufactured
armour in large quantities, if we may draw any conclusion about armour
from the tribute imposed on the Syrians by Tuthmosis III. It is easily
intelligible of what value it must have been for the nations of the West
to come into the possession of splendid armour and good weapons. Besides
these are the ornaments found in great numbers, and of high antiquity,
in the tombs of Spata and Mycenæ, and in the excavations at Hissarlik.
In Homer, Phenician ships bring necklaces of gold and amber to the
Greeks. At a later time the ornaments of the Phenicians and their
alabaster boxes were sought after; the carved work in ivory and wood,
with which they also adorned the prows and banks of oars of their ships,
is praised by Ezekiel. They also knew how to set and cut precious
stones; some seals have come down to us in part from an ancient
date.[532]

In ship-building the Phenicians were confessedly superior; they are said
to have discovered navigation.[533] The ancient forests of cedar and
cypress which rose immediately above their shores supplied the best
wood, which resisted decay for an extraordinary length of time even in
salt water. Much as the Phenicians used these forests in the course of a
thousand years for building their ships, their palaces, and temples, as
well as for exportation, they provided even in the third century B.C. a
material which for extent, size, and beauty won the admiration of the
Greeks.[534] The oldest ship of the Phenicians which continued through
all time in use as a trading-vessel was the _gaulos_, a vessel with high
prow and stern, both of which were similarly rounded. It was propelled
by a large sail and by rowers, from 20 to 30 in number. Besides the
gaulos, there was the long and narrow fifty-oar, which served for a
merchantman and pirate-ship as well as for a ship of war, and after the
discovery of the silver land the large and armed merchantman, the ship
of Tarshish. Isaiah enumerates the ship of Tarshish among the costly
structures of men.[535] Ezekiel compares Tyre to a proud ship of the
sea. We know that the great transport-ships and merchantmen of the
Phenicians and Carthaginians could take about 500 men on board. The
Byblians were considered the best ship-builders. The keels of the ships,
like the masts, were made of cedar; the oars were of oak, supplied by
the oak forests of the table-land of Bashan. The mariners of Sidon and
Aradus were considered the best rowers. The Greeks praise the strict and
careful order on board a Phenician ship, the happy use of the smallest
spaces, the accuracy in distributing and placing the lading, the
experience, wisdom, activity, and safety of the Phenician pilots and
officers.[536] Others commend the great sail and oar power of the
Phenician ships. They could sail even against the wind, and make
fortunate voyages in the stormy season of the year. While the Greeks
steered by the Great Bear, which, if a more visible, was a far more
uncertain guide, the Phenicians had at an early time discovered a less
conspicuous but more trustworthy guide in the polar star, which the
Greeks call the "Phenician star." The Greeks themselves allow that this
circumstance rendered the voyages of the Phenicians more accurate and
secure. On an average the Phenician ships, which as a rule did not set
out before the end of February, and returned at the end of October,
accomplished 120 miles in 24 hours; but ships that were excellently
built and equipped, and sufficiently manned, ran about 150 miles.[537]
In the fifteenth century the galleys of Venice could run from 50 to 100
miles in the Mediterranean in the 24 hours. The excellence of the
Phenician navy survived the independence of the cities. Inclination
towards, and pleasure in navigation, as well as skill in it, were always
to be found among the populations of those cities. The Phenician ships
were by far the best in the fleets of the Persian kings.

FOOTNOTES:

[474] Eustath. ad "Odysseam," 4, 617.

[475] Vol. i. p. 352.

[476] De Luynes, "Essai sur la numismatique des satrapies," p. 69.

[477] Above, p. 188.

[478] Curt. 4, 8. Pliny ("Hist. Nat." 5, 17) puts the distance from the
mainland at 700 paces (double paces).

[479] On coins of Tyre of a later time we find two rocks, which indicate
the position of the city. Ezekiel (xxvi. 4, 5) threatens that she shall
be a naked rock in the sea for the spreading of nets. Joseph. "c.
Apion," 8, 5, 3; Diod. 17, 46; Arrian, 2, 21, 23. Renan's view ("Mission
de Phénicie," p. 546 ff.) on the Agenorion has been adopted; some others
of his results appear to be uncertain.

[480] Vol. i. 367; Menander in Joseph. "c. Apion." 1, 17, 18.

[481] Joseph. "Antiq." 8, 13, 2.

[482] Joseph. _loc. cit._

[483] In order to bring the reigns of Josephus into harmony with his
total, the total, which is given twice, must be retained. Hence nothing
remains but to replace, as Movers has already done, the three and six
years given by Josephus for Balezor and Mutton by the eight and 25 years
given by Syncellus.

[484] On the identity of the names Acerbas, Sichaeus, Sicharbas,
Sicharbaal, Serv. "ad Æneid," 1, 343; Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 1, 355.

[485] Justin, 18, 4.

[486] Timaeus, fragm. 23, ed. Müller; Appian, "Rom. Hist." 8, 1.

[487] Timaeus, fragm. 23, ed. Müller.

[488] Vol. i. 371; Movers, "Phoeniz." 1, 609 ff.

[489] Oros. 4, 22; Strabo, p. 832.

[490] Sall. "Jug." 19.

[491] The various statements about the year of the foundation of
Carthage are collected in Müller, "Geograph. Græci min." 1, xix. It is
impossible to fix the foundation more accurately than about the middle
of the ninth century B.C. We may place it in the year 846 B.C. if we
rest on the 143-2/3 years of Josephus from the building of the temple
(according to our own date 990 B.C.), and the round sum given by
Appian--that 700 years elapsed from the founding by Dido to the
destruction of the city; "Rom. Hist." 8, 132.

[492] Ezekiel xxvii. 9.

[493] Renan, "Mission de Phénicie," p. 199.

[494] Diod. 16, 41, 45; fragm. 23, ed. Bipont; cf. Justin. 18, 6.

[495] Joseph. "Antiq." 14, 12, 4, 5; Curt. 4, 15.

[496] Liv. 28, 37; Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 1, 490 ff, 529 ff.

[497] Servius, "ad Æneid." 1, 738.

[498] Ezekiel xxviii. 2-17.

[499] Psalm xlv. 9-15. Though it is doubtful whether there is any
reference here to Tyre, the court-life of the Israelites was imitated
from the Phenicians.

[500] Hosea ix. 13.

[501] Ezekiel xxvii. 4-7.

[502] Strabo, pp. 754, 756.

[503] Lucian, "De Syria dea," 3-5.

[504] Renan, "Mission de Phénicie," p. 39 ff, 362.

[505] Ceccaldi, "Le Monument de Sarba," Revue Archéolog. 1878.

[506] Renan, "Mission de Phénicie," p. 60 ff.

[507] Beulé, "Nachgrabungen zu Karthago," s. 98 ff (translation).

[508] Gen. xxxv. 20.

[509] Renan, _loc. cit._ 412 ff.

[510] In Cyprus also a mask of this kind has been found.

[511] Von Gutschmid, in "Fleckeisens Jahrbücher," 1875, s. 579.

[512] [Greek: ATHÊNAION s' g' pinax]; A. 7, B. 8.

[513] Helbig, "Cenni sopra l'arte fenicia," p. 17 ff.

[514] Ceccaldi, "Les fouilles de Curium," Revue Archéolog. 1877.

[515] Renan, _loc. cit._ pp. 175, 181, 397.

[516] Job xix. 23.

[517] Rödiger, "Z. D. M. G." 9, 647; Schlottmann, "Inschrift
Esmunazars;" Halévy, "Mélanges," pp. 9, 34; Oppert, "Records of the
Past," 9, 109.

[518] Strabo, p. 757.

[519] Joshua xix. 26. Strabo, p. 758. Tacitus says, "On the shore of
Judæa the Belus falls into the sea: the sand collected at the mouth of
this river, when mixed with saltpetre, is melted into glass. The strip
of shore is of moderate extent, but inexhaustible;" "Hist." 5, 7

[520] Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 5, 17.

[521] Adolph Schmidt, "Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Alterthums," s.
69.

[522] Schmidt, _loc. cit._ 129 ff.

[523] Herod. 4, 151; Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 9, 60; Strabo, pp. 145, 835.

[524] Strabo, p. 757.

[525] Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 5, 17.

[526] Plut. "Alex." c. 36.

[527] Movers, "Phoeniz." 3, 103.

[528] Job xxviii. 1-11. In this description the author could only have
Phenician mines in his eye.

[529] Müllenhoff, "Deutsche Altertumskunde," 1, 120 ff.

[530] Strabo, p. 142. Kotini = the Oleastrum of the Romans; Pliny,
"Hist. Nat." 3, 3. Ptolem. 2, 4, 14.

[531] Strabo, pp. 175, 176, 120; Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 7, 57.

[532] Ezekiel xxvii. 5, 6; Levy, "Siegel und Gemmen." If the first text
of the Pentateuch represents the names of the tribes of the people as
engraved upon the precious stones in the shield on the breast of the
high priest (Exod. xxv. 7; xxviii. 9 ff, _supra_, 207), the author had,
no doubt, the work of Phenician artists in his eye.

[533] Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 5, 13.

[534] Diodor. 19, 58.

[535] Isaiah ii. 16.

[536] Xen. "Oecon." 8, 12.

[537] Movers, "Phoeniz." 3, 182 ff, 191 ff.



CHAPTER XII.

THE TRADE OF THE PHENICIANS.


We found above at what an early period the migratory tribes of Arabia
came into intercourse with the region of the Euphrates, and the valley
of the Nile, how in both these places they purchased corn, implements,
and weapons in return for their horses and camels, their skins and their
wool, and the prisoners taken in their feuds. It was this exchange trade
of the Arabian tribes which in the first instance brought about the
intercourse of Syria with Babylonia and Egypt. Egypt like Babylonia
required oil and wine for their population; metals, skins, and wool for
their manufactures; wood for the building of houses and ships. For the
Syrians and cities of the Phenicians the intercourse with the Arabians,
and the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris, was facilitated by the fact
that nations related to them in race and language dwelt as far as the
border-mountains of Armenia and Iran and the southern coast of Arabia,
and their trade with Egypt was facilitated in the same manner when
Semitic tribes between 2000 and 1500 B.C. obtained the supremacy in
Egypt and maintained it for more than three centuries. From the fact
that Babylonian weights and measures were in use in Syria in the
sixteenth century B.C., we may conclude that there must have been close
trade relations between Syria and Babylonia from the year 2000 B.C.; and
in the same manner in consequence of the conquest of Egypt by the
shepherds more active relations must have commenced between Syria and
the land of the Nile, at a period not much later. The supremacy which
Egypt afterwards obtained over Syria under the Tuthmosis and Amenophis
must have rather advanced than destroyed this; thus Sethos, towards the
year 1400, used his successes against the Cheta, _i.e._ the Hittites, to
have cedars felled on Lebanon. We may assume that even before this time,
after the rise of the kingdom of the Hittites, _i.e._ after the middle
of the fifteenth century, the cities of the Phenicians were no longer
content to exchange the products of Syria, wine, oil, and brass, the
manufactures of their own growing industry, purple stuffs and weapons,
with the manufactures of Egypt, linen cloths, and papyrus tissues, glass
and engraved stones, ornaments and drugs, on the one hand, and on the
other hand with the manufactures of Babylon, cloths, ointments, and
embroidered stuffs: they also carried Egyptian fabrics to Babylon, and
Babylonian fabrics to Egypt. The trade of Phoenicia with Egypt and
Babylonia was no longer restricted to the exchange of Phenician-Syrian
products and fabrics with those of Egypt and Babylon: it was at the same
time a middle trade between those two most ancient seats of cultivation,
between Egypt and Babylonia. It cannot have been any detriment to this
trade of the Phenicians that a second centre of civic life sprang up
subsequently on the central Tigris in the growing power of Assyria. In
the ruins of Chalah (p. 34) Egyptian works of art have been dug up in no
inconsiderable numbers. Herodotus begins his work with the observation
that the Phenicians at an early period endeavoured to export and
exchange Egyptian and Assyrian (_i.e._ Babylonian and Assyrian) wares.

The sea lay open to the cities of the Phenicians for their intercourse
with Egypt; for this route they were independent of the good will or
aversion of the tribes and princes, who ruled in the south of Canaan;
moreover the wood of Lebanon could not be carried by land to Egypt. We
may certainly assume that the navigation of the Phenicians was enabled
to obtain its earliest practice for further journeys by these voyages to
that mouth of the Nile, which the Egyptians opened to foreign ships (I.
227). The free and secure use of the routes of the caravans to the
Euphrates, and from this river to the Syrian coast, must have been
obtained from the rulers of Syria, the princes of Hamath and Damascus,
the migratory tribes of the Syrian desert, the princes whose dominions
lay on the Euphrates; and would hardly be obtained without heavy
payments. So much the more desirable was it, if the cities could enter
into special relations with one or other of these princes, such as David
and Solomon, who not only opened Israel to them, but also provided the
routes with caravanserais and warehouses (p. 187). The trade-road to the
Euphrates led from Sidon past Dan (Laish) in Israel to Damascus, hence
northwards past Riblah and Emesa (Hems) to Hamath, from Hamath to
Bambyke (Hierapolis) in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, and then
crossed over the river to Harran (I. 320). From Harran the caravans went
down along the Belik to the Euphrates, then in the valley of the
Euphrates to Babylon, or went eastwards past Nisibis (Nisib) to the
Tigris. A shorter road to the Euphrates ran past Damascus and the oasis
of Tadmor, and reached the river at Thipsach (Thapsacus) at the farthest
bend to the west.[538]

We have already seen at what an early period the trade with the land of
frankincense, _i.e._ with South Arabia, grew up for Egypt, owing to the
mutual intercourse of the Arabian tribes (I. 226). The first attempt of
Egypt to open a communication by sea with South Arabia falls about the
year 2300 B.C. At a period not later, other Arabian tribes must have
carried the incense and spices of South Arabia to Elam, Ur and Nipur,
and Babylon. Syria must have received the products of South Arabia first
through Babylon, then by means of direct communication with the Arabs,
and lastly by the special caravans of the Phenicians. We hear of two
trade-roads to that land. One led past Damascus to the oasis of Duma
(Dumat el Dshandal), and from thence through the interior of Arabia to
the south; the other ran through Israel past Ashtaroth Karnaim, through
the territories of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, to Elath, and
thence led along the coast of the Arabian Gulf to the Sabæans (I. 320).
From the Sabæans and the Chatramites even before the year 1500 B.C. the
caravans brought not spices only and incense, but also the products of
the Somali coast. The Sabæans traversed the Arabian Gulf and carried
home the products of the coast of East Africa; the southwest coast of
Arabia was no longer a place for producing and exporting frankincense
and spices; it became the trading-place of the Somali coast, and before
the year 1000 B.C. was also the trading-place for the products of India,
which ships of the Indians carried to the shore of the Sabæans and
Chatramites (I. 322). It must have been a considerable increase in the
extent of the Phenician trade and the gains obtained from it, when the
Phenicians were able to make such a fruitful use of their connection
with South Arabia that it fell into their hands to provide Egypt, with
her products, and perhaps even Babylonia also. Their caravan trade with
South Arabia must have been lively, and the impulse to extend it strong,
as they induced king Solomon to allow them to attempt a connection by
sea from Elath with South Arabia. By the foundation and success of the
trade to Ophir, and the most remote places of the East which they
reached, their commerce obtained its widest extent, and brought in the
richest returns. With incense and balsam, there came to Tyre cinnamon
and cassia, sandal-wood and ivory, gold and pearls from India, and the
silk tissues of the distant East.[539]

The commerce of the Phenician cities comprised Egypt, Babylonia, and
Assyria, it touched Mesopotamia and Armenia, the lands of the Moschi and
Tibarenes, the silver and copper mines of the Chalybes on the Black
Sea.[540] When on the opening of the communication by the Red Sea with
South Arabia and the countries beyond, it gained the widest extent to
the south and east, it had for a whole century past traversed the entire
length of the Mediterranean to the Straits of Gibraltar. We saw above
how the Phenicians steered to Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, to the Ægean Sea,
to the coasts of Hellas, in order to barter or dig up minerals, to
collect purple-fish for their coloured stuffs, and how after the middle
of the thirteenth century they began to plant settlements on these
coasts. The request for minerals must have been so strongly felt in
their own cities, in Egypt and the lands of the Euphrates, in the course
of the twelfth century, that the ships of the Phenicians went farther
and farther to the west in search of them, that Sicily, Sardinia, and
Corsica were reached and then colonised by them. At the same time Ityke
and Old Hippo were built on the coast of Africa. These supplied
saltpetre, alum, and salt, skins of lions and panthers, horns of
buffalos, ostrich eggs and feathers, slaves and ivory to the
mother-cities. After this, about the year 1100 B.C., Gades was built on
the shore of the Atlantic Ocean. The trade of the Phenicians now brought
not only the products of Syria and the manufactures of their cities to
Egypt and Babylonia; it was not merely a middle trade between those two
lands, nor merely an independent trade and middle trade between South
Arabia and the civilised countries; it mediated now between the East and
the West, the products and manufactures of the near and distant East,
and the natural products of the near and distant West, between the
ancient civilisation of the East and the young life of the nations of
the West. It was above all the metals of the West, the gold of the
Thracian, the copper of the Italian islands, the silver of Tartessus,
which the ships of the Phenicians carried into the harbours of the
mother-cities: the nations of the West received in return weapons, and
metal vases, ornaments, variegated cloths, and purple garments. The
works of Babylonian and Egyptian style, the works which are found in the
tombs of Caere, Clusium, Alsium, at Corneto and Praeneste, adorned in
types at once Egyptian and Babylonian-Assyrian, like the implements and
ornaments found in the tombs of Spata and Mycenæ, can only have come
into the possession of the Etruscans, Latins, and Lucanians from
intercourse with the Phenicians, the Phenician colonies of Sicily, or
from the trade with Carthage.[541]

From Gades the Phenicians succeeded in forcing their way farther to the
Atlantic Ocean. Phenician colonies were founded on the west coast of
Africa. Lixus, the oldest and most important of these (Lachash, now El
Araish), at the mouth of the river of the same name (now Wadi el Ghos),
is said to have been the seat of a famous sanctuary of Melkarth.[542]
Strabo is of opinion that these colonies of the Phenicians beyond the
pillars of Hercules were built soon after the Trojan war, _i.e._ about
the year 1100 B.C.[543] Diodorus told us already how Phenician ships,
steering to the coast of Libya in order to explore the sea beyond the
pillars were carried away by a storm far into the ocean, and discovered
a large island opposite Libya, which, from the pleasantness of the air
and the abundance of blessings, seemed fitted to be the dwelling of the
gods rather than men (p. 82). We can hardly doubt, therefore, that the
Phenicians visited Madeira and the Canary Islands.

Tin was early known to the ancient world, and was indispensable for the
alloy of copper, but it could only be found mixed with copper in the
mines of the Chalybes and Tibarenes (the Tabal of the Assyrians, the
Tubal of the Hebrews), whose name is found in Genesis in Tubal-cain, the
first smith, the father of them that work in brass and iron (I. 539).
Besides these, there were tin mines only in the lofty Hindukush, in the
north-west of Iberia, and in the south-west of England.[544] Herodotus
observes: Tin and amber come from the extreme western ends of Europe. He
could not learn from any eye-witness whether there was a sea there,
though he had taken much trouble in the matter. Pliny tells us:
Midacritus first brought tin from the island Kassiteris, _i.e._ the
tin-island.[545] It was the Phenicians who obtained tin, and they did
not obtain it from Iberia only: their ships sailed through the Bay of
Biscay, they became acquainted with the shore of Brittany, which appears
to have been known to them as Oestrymnis; they discovered the tin
islands, _i.e._ the Channel Islands, the coast of Cornwall, and even the
island of Albion.[546] The tin-islands or Kassiterides of the Greeks are
the islands of the north-west ocean, known to the Phenicians, who
procured tin from them.

The Homeric poems often mention amber, which, worked into ornaments,
Phenician ships brought to the Greeks. Ornaments of amber are met with
in the oldest tombs of Cumae, in the tombs at the Lion's Gate at
Mycenæ.[547] Hence the Phenicians must have been in possession of amber
as early as the eleventh century B.C. Amber was found not only on the
shores of the Baltic, but also on the coast of the North Sea, between
the mouth of the Rhine and the Elbe. We may therefore draw the
conclusion that in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C. they must have
advanced far enough in the Channel towards the mouth of the Rhine, or
beyond it, to obtain amber by exchange or collect it themselves, unless
we assume an extensive intercourse between the Celts and Germans.[548]

The starting-point, harbour, and emporium for the trade in the West and
the voyages beyond the pillars of Melkarth in the Atlantic Ocean was
Gades. Long after the naval power of the Phenicians and Carthage had
perished, Gades remained a great, rich, and flourishing city of trade.
Strabo describes it thus: "Situated on a small island not much more than
a hundred stades in length, and scarce a stade in breadth, without any
possessions on the mainland or the islands, this city sends out the most
and largest ships, and seems to yield to no other city, except Rome, in
the number of the inhabitants. But the greater part do not live in the
city, but on ships."[549]

In the tenth century B.C. the navigation and trade of the Phenicians
extended from the coasts of the Arabian Sea, from the Somali coast, and
perhaps from the mouths of the Indus as far as the coast of Britain;
from the coasts of Mauritania on the Atlantic to the Tigris, from
Armenia to the Sabæans. Stretching out far in every direction, they had
as yet suffered reverses in one region only, in the basin of the Ægean
Sea. Their trade and intercourse was not indeed destroyed, but their
mines, their colonies on the islands of this sea and the coasts of
Hellas, were lost. Before Hiram ascended the throne of Tyre, the
Phenicians, after teaching Babylonian weights and measures, the building
of fortresses and walls, and mining to the Greeks, and bringing them
their alphabet (p. 57), were compelled to retire before the increasing
strength of the Greek cantons, not only from the coasts of Hellas, but
also from the islands of the Ægean. The trade, however, with the
Hellenes continued as before, in lively vigour, so far as the Homeric
descriptions can be accepted as evidence. The most valuable possessions
in the treasuries of the Greek princes are Sidonian works of art.
Phenician ships often show themselves in Greek waters. When one of these
merchantmen is anchored, the wares are set out in the ship, or under
tents on the shore, or the Phenicians offer them for sale in the nearest
place. A Phenician vessel laden with all kinds of ornaments lands on an
island; after the Phenicians have sold many wares they offer to the
queen a necklace of gold and amber, and at the same time they carry off
her son, and sell him on another island. A Phenician freights a ship to
Libya, and persuades a Greek to go with him as overseer of the lading:
he intended to sell him there as a slave. Along with these notices in
the Homeric poems on the trade of the Phenicians, an account has also
come down to us from an Eastern source. The prophet Joel, who prophesied
about the year 830 B.C., says, in regard to the invasion of the
Philistines in Judah, which took place about the year 845 B.C., and
brought them to the walls of Jerusalem (p. 252); Tyre and Sidon, and all
the regions of the land of the Philistines, have stolen the silver and
gold of Jehovah, and carried the costly things into their temples; the
sons of Judah and Jerusalem they sold to the sons of Javan (the Greeks),
in order to remove them far from their land.[550]

For the colonies which the Phenicians had to give up on the Greek coasts
and islands, they found a rich compensation in the strengthening and
increase of their colonies on the west of the Mediterranean, on
Sardinia, where they built Caralis (Cagliari) on the southern shore, on
Corsica, on the north coast of Africa, where Carthage arose about the
middle of the ninth century (p. 269), and on the shores of Iberia. But
another loss which befell them in the East could not be made good so
easily. After king Jehoshaphat's death (848 B.C.), even before the
invasion of the Philistines, the kingdom of Judah, as we saw (p. 252),
lost the sovereignty over the Edomites. Hence the harbour-city of Elath
was lost to the Phenicians also, and the Ophir trade at an end, a
century and a half after it began. Though 50 years later, when Judah
under Amaziah and Uzziah had reconquered the Edomites, and Elath was
rebuilt, this navigation, as it seems, was again set in motion, this
restoration was of no long continuance. After the middle of the eighth
century the Phenicians were finally limited for their trade with the
Sabæans to the caravan routes through Arabia.

A still more serious source of danger was the approach of the Assyrian
power to the Syrian coast. In the course of the ninth century (from 876
B.C.), as has been remarked above, Assyrian armies repeatedly showed
themselves in Syria, and their departure had repeatedly to be purchased
by tribute. As this pressure increased, and the Assyrian rulers insisted
on pushing forward the borders of their kingdom towards Syria as far as
the shores of the Mediterranean, as the cities of the Phenicians became
subject to a power the centre of which lay in the distant interior, the
trade not to the East but to the West came into question, and it was
doubtful whether the cities, when embodied in a great land-power, could
retain Cyprus in subjection, and keep up the trade with Egypt, and the
connection with their colonies in the West. The doubt became greater
when, after the beginning of the eighth century B.C., a dangerous
opposition rose in the Mediterranean, and a still more serious
competition against the Phenicians. Not content with driving the
Phenicians out of the Ægean Sea, with obtaining possession of the
islands and the west coast of Asia Minor, the Hellenes spread farther
and farther to the west. Already they had got Rhodes into their hands;
they were already settled off the coast of Syria, on the island of
Cyprus, among the ancient cities of the Phenicians. Still more vigorous
was the growth of their settlements to the west of the Mediterranean.
After founding Cyme (Cumae) on the coast of Lower Italy, they built in
Sicily, after the middle of the eighth century, in quick succession,
Naxus (738 B.C.), Syracuse (735 B.C.), Catana (730 B.C.), and Megara
(728 B.C.), to which were quickly added Rhegium, Sybaris, Croton, and
Tarentum in Lower Italy (720-708 B.C.). Were the cities of the
Phenicians in Sicily, Rus Melkarth, Motye, Panormus, Soloeis, and Eryx
(p. 79), in a position to hold the balance against these rivals and
their navigation? The injurious effects of the competition of a rival
power by sea for the trade of the Phenicians must have increased when,
in the seventh century, the cities of the Greeks in Sicily increased in
number, and Egypt was opened to them about the middle of this century;
when, in the year 630 B.C., the first Greek city, Cyrene, rose on the
shore of Africa, and about the same time the Greeks entered into direct
trade connections with Tartessus; when at the close of this century a
Greek city was built on the shore of the Ligystian Sea, at the mouth of
the Rhone, and soon after the settlements of the Greeks in Sicily and in
the west of the Mediterranean began to multiply. While in this manner
the field of Phenician trade was limited by the constant advance of the
Greeks, the mother-cities, from the same period, the middle of the
eighth century, had to feel the whole weight of the development of
Assyrian power. And when this pressure ceased, in the second half of the
seventh century, it was followed by the still more burdensome oppression
of the Babylonian empire.

Yet in spite of all hindrances and losses, a prophet of the Hebrews
after the middle of the eighth century could say of Tyre, that "she
built herself strongholds, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine
gold as the mire of the streets."[551] And Ezekiel at the beginning of
the sixth century describes the trade of Tyre in the following manner:
"Thou who dwellest at the entrance of the sea, who art the trader of the
nations to many islands! On mighty waters thy rowers carry thee; thy
trade goes out over all seas; thou satisfiest many nations; thou hast
enriched the kings of the earth by the multitude of thy goods and wares.
Thou art become mighty in the midst of the sea. All ships of the sea and
their sailors were in thee to purchase thy wares. Persians and Libyans
and Lydians serve in thee; they are thy warriors; they hang shield and
helmet on thy walls: thy own warriors stand round on the walls, and
brave men are on all thy towers. Syria is thy merchant, because of the
number of the wares of thy skill; they make thy fairs with emeralds,
purple, and broidered work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate.
Damascus is thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making, in
the wine of Helbon, and white wool. Judah and the land of Israel were
thy merchants; they traded in thy market wheat and pastry and honey.
They of the house of Togarmah (Armenia) traded in thy fairs with horses
and mules. Haran, Canneh, and Asshur, and Childmad were thy merchants in
costly robes, in blue cloths and embroidered work, and chests of
cedar-wood full of damasks bound with cords, in thy place of
merchandise. Dedan (the Dedanites[552]) is thy merchant in horse-cloths
for riding. Wedan brings tissues to thy markets: forged iron, cassia,
and calamus were brought to thy markets. Arabia and all the princes of
Kedar are ready for thee with lambs, rams, and goats. The merchants of
Sabæa and Ramah[553] traffic with thee; they occupied in thy fairs with
the chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold. Javan
(the Greeks), Tubal, and Mesech (the Tibarenes and Moschi) are thy
merchants; they trade with silver, iron, tin, and lead. Many islands are
at hand to thee for trade; they brought thee for payment horns of ivory
and ebony. The ships of Tarshish are thy caravans in thy trade: so art
thou replenished and mighty in the midst of the sea."[554]

FOOTNOTES:

[538] _Supra_, p. 187. Movers, "Phoeniz." 2, 3, 244 ff.

[539] Movers, _loc. cit._ 2, 3, 265 ff.

[540] Vol. i. p. 538. Ezekiel xxvii. 14; xxxviii. 6.

[541] Helbig, "Annali del Inst. Arch." 1876, pp. 57, 117, 247 ff.

[542] Pliny, "Hist. Nat." s. 1; 19, 22. Cf. Movers, _loc. cit._ 2, 2,
537 ff.

[543] Strabo, p. 48; cf. p. 150.

[544] The German tin-mines were not opened till the middle ages; those
of farther India in the last century; Müllenhoff, "Deutsche
Altertumskunde," s. 24.

[545] Herod. 3, 115; Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 7, 57.

[546] At a later time we meet with the name Prettanian islands. Ynis
Prydein, _i.e._ island of Prydein, was the name given by the Welsh to
their land; Müllenhoff, _loc. cit._ s. 88 ff, 93 ff.

[547] Helbig, "Commercio dell ambra," p. 10, _n._ 4. On the amber in the
tombs east of the Apennines, pp. 15, 16.

[548] Müllenhoff, _loc. cit._ s. 223.

[549] Strabo, p. 168.

[550] Joel iii. 4 ff. On the date of Joel, _supra_, p. 260, _n._ 2. De
Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," s. 454. According to the data established
above, the minority of Joash falls between 837 and 825 B.C.

[551] The older Zechariah ix. 3, and De Wette-Schrader, "Einleitung," s.
480.

[552] Vol. i. p. 314.

[553] Vol. i. p. 314.

[554] Ezekiel xxvii.



CHAPTER XIII.

THE RISE OF ASSYRIA.


The campaigns which Tiglath Pilesar, king of Asshur, undertook towards
the West about the end of the twelfth century, and which carried him to
the Upper Euphrates and into Northern Syria, remained without lasting
result. The position which Tiglath Pilesar then had won on the Euphrates
was not maintained by his successors in any one instance. More than 200
years after Tiglath Pilesar we find Tiglath Adar II. (889-883 B.C.)
again in conflict with the same opponents who had given his forefather
such trouble--with the mountaineers of the land of Nairi, the district
between the highland valley of Albak on the Greater Zab and the
Zibene-Su, the eastern source of the Tigris. The son and successor of
this Tiglath Adar, Assurnasirpal, was the first whom we see again
undertaking more distant campaigns; the successful results of which are
the basis of a considerable extension of the Assyrian power.

Assurnasirpal also chiefly directed his arms against the mountain-land
in the north. On his first campaign he fought on the borders of Urarti,
_i.e._ of the land of Ararat, the region of the Upper Araxes. In the
second year of his reign (881 B.C.) he marched out of the city of
Nineveh, crossed the Tigris, and imposed tribute on the land of Kummukh
(Gumathene, p. 41), and the Moschi, in asses, oxen, sheep, and goats. In
the third year he caused his image to be hewn in the place where
Tiglath Pilesar and Tiglath Adar his fathers had chosen to set up their
images; he tells us that his own was engraved beside the others.[555]
Only the image of Tiglath Pilesar I. is preserved at Karkar.
Assurnasirpal received tribute from the princes of the land of
Nairi--bars of gold and silver, iron, oxen and sheep; and placed a
viceroy over the land of Nairi. But the subjugation was not yet
complete; Assurnasirpal related that on a later campaign he destroyed
250 places in the land of Nairi.[556] He tells us further, that on his
tenth campaign he reduced the land of Kirchi, took the city of Amida
(now Diarbekr), and plundered it.[557] Below this city, on the bank of
the Tigris at Kurkh (Karch), there is a stone tablet which represents
him after the pattern of Tiglath Pilesar at Karkar (p. 40.)

Between these conflicts in the north lie campaigns to the south and
west. In the year 879 B.C. he marched out, as he tells us, from Chalah.
On the other bank of the Tigris he collected a heavy tribute, then he
marched to the Euphrates, took the city of Suri in the land of Sukhi,
and caused his image to be set up in this city. Fifty horsemen and the
warriors of Nebu-Baladan, king of Babylon (Kardunias), had fallen into
his hand, and the land of the Chaldæans had been seized with fear of his
weapons.[558] We must conclude therefore that the king of Babylon had
sent auxiliary troops to the prince of the land of Sukhi (whom the
inscriptions call Sadudu). In the following year he occupied the region
at the confluence of the Chaboras with the Euphrates, crossed the
Euphrates on rafts, and conquered the inhabitants of the lands of Sukhi,
Laki, and Khindani, which had marched out with 6000 men to meet him. On
the banks of the Euphrates he then founded two cities; that on the
further bank bore the name of "Dur-Assurnasirpal," and that on the
nearer bank the name of "Nibarti-Assur." During this time he pretends to
have slain 50 Amsi (p. 43) on the Euphrates, and captured 20; to have
slain 20 eagles and captured 20.[559] Then he turned against Karchemish,
in the land of the Chatti (p. 43). In the year 876 B.C. he collected
tribute in the regions of Bit Bakhian and Bit Adin in the neighbourhood
of Karchemish, and afterwards laid upon Sangar, king of Karchemish, a
tribute of 20 talents of silver, and 100 talents of iron. From
Karchemish Assurnasirpal marched against the land of Labnana, _i.e._ the
land of Lebanon. King Lubarna in the land of the Chatti submitted, and
had to pay even heavier tribute than the king of Karchemish.
Assurnasirpal reached the Orontes (Arantu), took the marches of Lebanon,
marched to the great sea of the western land, offered sacrifice to the
gods, and received the tribute of the princes of the sea-coasts, the
prince of Tyre (Ssurru), of Sidon (Ssidunu), of Byblus (Gubli), and the
city of Arvada (Aradus), "which is in the sea" (p. 277)--bars of silver,
gold, and lead;--"they embraced his feet." Then the king marched against
the mountains of Chamani (Amanus); here he causes cedars and pines to be
felled for the temples of his gods, and the narrative of his exploits to
be written on the rocks, and worshipped at Nineveh before the goddess
Istar.[560]

According to the evidence of these inscriptions, Assurnasirpal
established the supremacy of Assyria in the region of the sources of the
Tigris. But even he does not appear to have gone much further than
Tiglath Pilesar before him, for he also fought once on the borders of
Armenia, _i.e._ of the land of Ararat, and on the other hand forced his
way as far as the upper course of the Eastern Euphrates. Against Babylon
he undertook, so far as we can see, no offensive war; he was content to
drive out of the field the auxiliaries which Nebu-Baladan of Babylon
sent to a prince on the middle Euphrates without pursuing the advantage
further. The most important results which he obtained were in the west.
He gained the land of the Chaboras, and fixed himself firmly on the
Euphrates above the mouth of that river. To secure the crossing he built
a fortress on either side, and then forced his way from here to the
mountain land of the Amanus, to the Orontes and Lebanon. For the first
time the cities of the Phenicians paid tribute to the king on the banks
of the Tigris; Arvad (Aradus), Gebal (Byblus), Sidon, and Tyre, where at
this time, as we saw (p. 267), Mutton, the son of Ethbaal, was king.

Shalmanesar I., who reigned over Assyria about the year 1300 B.C.,
built, as we have remarked above, the city of Chalah (Nimrud), on the
eastern bank of the Tigris above the confluence of the Greater Zab. The
remains of the outer walls show that this city formed a tolerably
regular square, and that the western wall ran down to the ancient course
of the Tigris, which can still be traced. In the south-western corner of
the city, on a terrace of unburnt bricks, rose the palaces of the kings
and the chief temples. They were shut off towards the city by a separate
wall. Nearly in the middle of this terrace on the river-side we may
trace the foundation-works of a great building, called by our explorers
the north-west palace. In the remains of this structure, on two surfaces
on the upper and lower sides of a large stone, which forms the floor of
a niche in a large room, is engraved an inscription of Assurnasirpal,
and a second on a memorial stone of 12 to 13 feet high. Inscriptions on
the slabs of the reliefs with which the halls of the building were
adorned repeat the text of these inscriptions in an abbreviated manner.
They tell us that the ancient city of Chalah, which Shalmanesar the
Great founded, was desolate and in ruins; Assurnasirpal built it up
afresh from the ground;[561] he led a canal from the Greater Zab, and
gave it the name of Patikanik;[562] traces and remains are left, which
show us that the course of the canal from the Greater Zab led directly
north to the city. Cedars, pines, and cypresses of Mount Chamani
(Amanus) had he caused to be felled for the temples of Adar, Sin, and
Samas, his lords.[563] He built temples at Chalah for Adar, Bilit, Sin,
and Bin. He made the image of the god Adar, and set it up to his great
divinity in the city of Chalah, and in the piety of his heart dedicated
the sacred bull to this great divinity. For the habitation of his
kingdom, and the seat of his monarchy, he founded and completed a
palace. Whosoever reigns after him in the succession of days may he
preserve this palace in Chalah, the witness of his glory, from ruin; may
he not surrender it to rebels, may he not overthrow his pillars, his
roof, his beams, or change it for another structure, or alter his
inscriptions, the narrative of his glory. "Then will Asshur the lord and
the great god exalt him, and give him all lands of the earth, extend his
dominion over the four quarters of the world, and pour abundance,
purity, and peace over his kingdom."[564]

The palace of Assurnasirpal at Chalah was a building about 360 feet in
length and 300 feet in breadth. Two great portals guarded by winged
lions with bearded human heads, the images or symbols of the god Nergal,
led from the north to a long and proportionately narrow portico of 154
feet in length and 35 feet in breadth. In the south wall of this portico
a broad door, by which stand two winged human-headed bulls, images of
the god Adar, and hewn out of yellow limestone, opens into a hall 100
feet long and 25 broad. On the east and south sides also of the central
court (the west side is entirely destroyed) lie two longer halls, and a
considerable number of larger and smaller chambers. The height of the
rooms appears to have been from 16 to 18 feet.[565] The walls of the
northern portico were covered with slabs of alabaster to a height of 10
or 12 feet, on which were reliefs of the martial exploits of the king,
his battles, his sieges, his hunting--he claims to have killed no fewer
than 370 mighty lions, and to have taken 75 alive. The reliefs on the
slabs of the second hall, which abuts on this, exhibit colossal forms
with eagle heads. Above the slabs the masonry of the walls was concealed
by tiles coloured and glazed, or by painted arabesques. Beside the
fragments of this building a statue of the builder, Assurnasirpal, was
discovered. On a simple base of square stone stands a figure in an
attitude of serious repose, in a long robe, without any covering to the
head, with long hair and strong beard, holding a sort of sickle in the
right hand, and a short staff in the left.[566] On the breast we read,
"Assurnasirpal, the great king, the mighty king, the king of the
nations, the king of Asshur, the son of Tiglath Adar, king of Asshur,
the son of Bin-nirar, king of Asshur. Victorious from the Tigris to the
land of Labnana (Lebanon), to the great sea, he subjugated all lands
from the rising to the setting of the sun."[567] An image in relief at
the entrance of the west of the two temples which this king built, to
the north of his palace, on the terrace of Chalah (at the entrance to
the first are two colossal winged lions with the throats open, and at
the entrance of the second two wingless lions), exhibits the king with
the Kidaris on his head, and his hand upraised; before the base of the
relief stands a small sacrificial altar.[568] We have already mentioned
the image of Assurnasirpal which he had engraved near Kurkh, and which
is preserved there. According to inscriptions lately discovered, and not
yet published, Assurnasirpal built a palace at Niniveh also, and
restored the ancient temple of Istar, which Samsi-Bin formerly erected
there (p. 31).[569]

The reign of Assurnasirpal gave the impulse to a warlike movement which
continued in force long after his time, and extended the power of
Assyria in every direction. His son, Shalmanesar II., who ascended the
throne in 859 B.C., followed in the path of his father. In the first
years of his reign he fought against Khubuskia, which, as we find from
the inscriptions, was a district lying on the Greater Zab, against a
prince of the land of Nairi (p. 41), against the prince of Ararat
(Urarti), Arami, and received the tribute of the land of Kummukh (p.
41). He crosses the river Arzania--either the Arsanias (Murad-Su), the
Eastern Euphrates, or the Arzen-Su (Nicephorius), which falls into the
Tigris before it bends to the south--and takes the city of Arzaska in
Urarti, _i.e._ perhaps Arsissa, on Lake Van.[570] These wars in the
north were followed by battles on the Euphrates. He conquers the city of
Pethor on this side of the Euphrates, and the city of Mutunu on the
farther side, which Tiglath Pilesar had won, but Assur-rab-amar had
restored by a treaty to the king of Aram, and settled Assyrians in both
places. Then he fought against a prince of the name of Akhuni, who
resided at Tul Barsip on the Euphrates. Shalmanesar takes this city,
transplants the inhabitants to Assyria, and calls it Kar-Salmanassar. He
receives the tribute of Sangar, prince of Karchemish, against whom his
father had fought, and finally took Akhuni himself prisoner.[571] Then
he advances towards Chamani (to the Amanus), crosses the Arantu
(Orontes); Pikhirim of the land of Chilaku (_i.e._ of Cilicia) is
conquered by him.[572]

The next object of the arms of Shalmanesar was Syria, which he had
merely touched on the north in passing by on the campaign against
Cilicia. On a memorial stone which he set up at Kurkh, on the Upper
Tigris, where we already found the image of Assurnasirpal,--the stone is
now in the British Museum,--Shalmanesar tells us that in the year 854
B.C. he left Nineveh, marched to Kar-Salmanassar, and there received the
tribute of Sangar of Karchemish, Kutaspi of Kummukh, and others. "From
the Euphrates I marched forth, and advanced against the city of Halwan.
They avoided a battle and embraced my feet. I received gold and silver
from them as their tribute. I made rich offerings to Bin, the god of
Halwan. From Halwan I set forth and marched against two cities of
Irchulina of Hamath. Argana, his royal city, I took; his prisoners, the
goods and treasures of his palace, I carried away; I threw fire upon his
palaces. From Argana I marched forth to Karkar. I destroyed Karkar and
laid it waste and burnt it with fire. Twelve hundred chariots, 1200
horsemen, 20,000 men of Benhadad of Damascus;[573] 700 chariots, 700
horsemen, 10,000 men of Irchulina of Hamath; 200 (?2000) chariots,
10,000 men of Ahab of Israel; 500 men of the Guaeer; 1000 men of the
land of Musri; 10 chariots, 10,000 men of the land of Irkanat; 200 men
of Matinbaal of Aradus (Arvada); 200 men of the land of Usanat; 30
chariots and 10,000 men of Adonibal of Sizan; 1000 camels of Gindibuh of
Arba;--hundred men of Bahsa of Ammon; these twelve princes rendered aid
to each other, and marched out against me to contend with me in battle.
Aided by the sublime assistance which Asshur my lord gave to me, I
fought with them. From the city of Karkar as far as the city of
Gilzana[574] (?) I made havoc of them. Fourteen thousand of their troops
I slew; like the god Bin I caused the storm to descend upon them; during
the battle I took their chariots, their horses, their horsemen, and
their yoke-horses from them."[575] On the obelisk of black basalt found
in the ruins of Chalah, Shalmanesar says quite briefly, "In my sixth
campaign I went against the cities on the banks of Balikh (Belik) and
crossed the Euphrates. Benhadad of Damascus, and Irchulina of Hamath,
and the kings of the land of Chatti and the sea came down to battle with
me. I conquered them; I overcame 20,500 of their warriors with my arms."
The same statement is repeated in a third inscription, that of the
bulls.[576]

The kings of Syria were defeated, but by no means subdued. Shalmanesar
says nothing of their subjugation and tribute (p. 246). The arms of
Assyria were next turned in another direction. An illegitimate brother,
Marduk-Belusati, had rebelled against Marduk-zikir-iskun, the son and
successor of Nebu-Baladan of Babylon. Shalmanesar supported the first.
During the second campaign against Marduk-Belusati the united troops of
Marduk-zikir-iskun and Shalmanesar, or the latter alone, succeeded in
defeating the rebels; Marduk-Belusati was captured and put to death with
his adherents. Shalmanesar sacrificed at Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha.
He claims to have imposed tribute on the chiefs of the land of Kaldi
(Chaldæa), and to have spread his fame to the sea.[577]

After this decisive success in Babylonia, Shalmanesar resumed the war
against Damascus. For two years in succession he marched out against
Benhadad of Damascus. In the year 851 he defeats Benhadad of Damascus,
the king of Hamath, together with 12 kings from the shores of the
sea.[578] Then the king tells us further: "For the ninth time (850 B.C.)
I crossed the Euphrates. I conquered cities without number; I marched
against the cities of the land of Chatti and of Hamath; I conquered 89
(79) cities. Benhadad of Damascus, 12 kings of the Chatti (Syrians),
mutually confided in their power. I put them to flight." And further:
"In the fourteenth year of my reign (846 B.C.) I counted my distant and
innumerable lands. With 120,000 men of my soldiers I crossed the
Euphrates. Meanwhile Benhadad of Damascus, and Irchulina of Hamath, with
the 12 kings of the upper and lower sea, armed their numerous troops to
march against me. I offered them battle, put them to flight, seized
their chariots and their horsemen, and and marched against the cities
of Hazael of Damascus, took from them their baggage. In order to save
their lives, they rose up and fled."[579] This victory also was without
result. In vain Shalmanesar had marched four times against Damascus; in
vain he led out on the last campaign 120,000 men against Syria. Not till
some years afterwards, when Hazael, as we saw above (p. 252), killed
Benhadad and acquired the throne of Damascus in his place, can
Shalmanesar speak of a decisive campaign in Syria. "In the eighteenth
year of my reign (842 B.C.) I crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth
time. Hazael (Chazailu) from the land of Aram trusted in the might of
his troops, collected his numerous armies, and made the mountains of
Sanir,[580] the summits of the mountains facing the range of Lebanon,
his fortress. I fought with him and overthrew him; 16,000 of his
warriors I conquered with my weapons; 1121 of his chariots, 410 of his
horsemen, together with his treasures, I took from him. To save his life
he fled away. I pursued him. I besieged him in Damascus, his royal city;
I destroyed his fortifications. I marched to the mountains of Hauran; I
destroyed cities without number, laid them waste, and burned them with
fire: I led forth their prisoners without number. I marched to the
mountains of the land of Bahliras, which lies hard by the sea: I set up
my royal image there. At that time I received the tribute of the Tyrian
and Sidonian land, of Jehu (Jahua), the son of Omri (Chumri), _i.e._ of
Jehu, king of Israel."[581] Though Sidon, Tyre, and Israel paid tribute,
the resistance of the Damascenes was still unbroken. Shalmanesar further
informs us that (in the year 839 B.C.) he crossed the Euphrates for the
twenty-first time, But he does not say that he reduced them; he only
asserts that he received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus, and
then assures us, quite briefly, in the account, of his twenty-fifth
campaign (835 B.C.), that he received "the tribute of all the princes of
Syria" (of the land of Chatti).[582]

In the very first years of his reign Shalmanesar had contended against
the prince Arami of Ararat, and against the land of Nairi, between the
Eastern Tigris and the Greater Zab. The obedience of these regions was
not gained. In the year 853 Shalmanesar again marched to the sources of
the Tigris, erected his statue there, and laid tribute on the land of
Nairi.[583] Twenty years later he sent the commander-in-chief of his
army, Dayan-Assur, against the land of Ararat, at the head of which
Siduri now stood, and not Arami. Dayan-Assur crossed the river Arzania
(p. 314) and defeated Siduri (833 B.C.). On a farther campaign (in 830
B.C.) Dayan-Assur crosses the Greater Zab, invades the territory of
Khubuskia (p. 314), fights against prince Udaki of Van, _i.e._ of the
Armenian land round Lake Van, and from this descends into the land of
the Parsua, which Shalmanesar himself had trodden seven years before.
Here Dayan-Assur collected fresh tribute. On a third campaign (829 B.C.)
Dayan-Assur received tribute from the land of Khubuskia, then invaded
Ararat, and there plundered and burned 50 places.

Meanwhile Shalmanesar himself marched in the years 838 and 837 B.C.
against the land of Tabal, _i.e._ against the Tibarenes, on the
north-west offshoot of the Armenian mountains, advanced as far as the
mines of the Tibarenes, and laid tribute on their 24 princes.[584] In
the next year he turns to the south-east, marches over the Lesser Zab,
against the lands of Namri and Karkhar, which we must therefore suppose
to have been between the Lesser Zab and the Adhim and Diala, on the
spurs of the Zagrus. Yanzu, king of Namri, was taken captive, and
carried to Assyria. Shalmanesar left the land of Namri, imposed tribute
on the 27 princes of the land of Parsua, and turned to the plains of the
land of Amadai, _i.e._ against Media (835 B.C.).[585] Two years
afterwards. Shalmanesar climbed, for the ninth time, the heights of
Amanus (Chamani), then he laid waste the land of Kirchi (831 B.C.), then
marched once more against the land of Namri, there laid waste 250
places, and advanced beyond Chalvan (Chalonitis, Holwan).[586]

On the obelisk of black basalt, dug up at Chalah in the remains of the
palace of Shalmanesar II. (the central palace of the explorers), we find
beside the account of the deeds of the king five sculptures in relief,
which exhibit payments of tribute. Of the picture which represents the
payment of Jehu, of the kingdom of Israel, we have spoken at length
above (p. 257). Above this, which is the second picture, on the highest
or first, is delineated the payment from the land of Kirzan. The title
tells us: "Tribute imposed on Sua of the land of Kirzan:[587] gold,
silver, copper, lead, staves, horses, camels with two humps." As on the
second strip the king is represented receiving the tribute of Israel; so
on this strip also we see the leader of those who pay tribute prostrate
on the ground before him; behind the leader are led a horse and two
camels with double humps; then follow people carrying staves and
kettles. The superscription of the third relief says: "Tribute imposed
on the land of Mushri: camels with two humps, the ox of the river
Sakeya." On the picture we see two camels with double humps, a
hump-backed buffalo, a rhinoceros, an antelope, an elephant, four large
apes, which are led, and one little one, which is carried. The
superscription of the fourth relief says: "Tribute imposed upon
Marduk-palassar of the land of Sukhi:[588] silver, gold, golden buckets,
Amsi-horns, staves, Birmi-robes, stuffs." The relief itself depicts a
lion, a deer, which is clutched by a second lion, two men with kettles
on their heads, two men who carry a pole, on which are suspended
materials for robes, four men with hooked buckets or hooked scrips, two
men with large horns on their shoulders, two men with staves, and lastly
a man carrying a bag. The superscription of the fifth relief says,
"Tribute imposed on Garparunda of the land of Patinai: silver, gold,
lead, copper, objects made of copper, Amsi-horns, hard wood."[589] Under
this we see a man raising his hands in entreaty, a man with a bowl with
high cups on his head, two men with hooked buckets, carrying horns on
their shoulders, one man with staves; after these two Assyrian officers,
a man in a position of entreaty, two men with hooked buckets and horns,
a man with two goblets, two men with hooked buckets and sacks on their
shoulders, two men, of whom one holds a kettle, and the other carries a
kettle on his head.

Assurnasirpal had already fought against the land of Sukhi. As he
marches to the Euphrates in order to attack Sadudu, prince of Sukhi, as
the king of Babylon sends auxiliaries to Sadudu at that time, and the
land of Chaldæa is seized with terror after the conquest of the land of
Sukhi, we must look for Sukhi on the Middle Euphrates, below the mouth
of the Chaboras. The tribute which, according to that inscription,
Shalmanesar imposed on the prince of Sukhi, who has a name which may be
compared with the names of the kings of Babylon,--gold, silver, robes,
and stuffs,--does not contradict this assumption. Shalmanesar fought
against the Patinai in the first year of his reign, according to the
inscription of Kurkh. Shapalulme, the prince of the Patinai at that
time, combined with Sangar of Karchemish and Akhuni of Tul-Barsip. Like
these, the Patinai were vanquished, their cities were taken, 14,600
prisoners were carried away, and they were compelled to pay tribute. As
Shalmanesar in order to reach the Patinai marches against them from
Mount Amanus,[590] we must look for their abode on the Upper Euphrates,
to the north of Karchemish, between the Euphrates and the Orontes. The
tribute imposed on Garparunda of Patinai--gold, silver, copper,
Amsihorns, hard wood--is not against this supposition. The land of
Kirzan or Guzan we can only attempt to fix by the tribute paid--camels
with double humps. This kind of camel is found on the southern shore of
the Caspian Sea and Tartary, and we are therefore led to place Kirzan on
the southern shore of the Caspian. The land of Mushri, the tribute of
which consists of hump-backed buffaloes, _i.e._ Yaks (an animal
belonging to the same district, Bactria and Tibet), camels with double
humps, elephants, and rhinoceroses, and apes, must therefore be sought
in eastern Iran, on the borders of the district of the Indus, whether it
be that Shalmanesar really penetrated so far, or that the terror of his
name moved East Iranian countries to send tribute to the warrior prince
of Nineveh and Chalah.

Like his father, Shalmanesar resided at Chalah. On the terrace of this
city, to the south-east of the palace of his father, he built a
dwelling-place for himself, and in this set up the obelisk, the
inscriptions on which give a brief account of each year of his reign. In
the ruins of this house two bulls also have been discovered, which are
covered with inscriptions, which, together with the inscription of Kurkh
on the Tigris, supplement or extend the statements of the obelisk. More
considerable remains have come down to us of another building of
Shalmanesar. Assurnasirpal had erected at Chalah two temples to the
north of his palace. To the larger (western) of these two temples on the
north-west corner of the terrace Shalmanesar added a tower, the ruins of
which in the form of a pyramidal hill still overtop the uniform heap of
the ruined palaces. On the foundation of the natural rock of the bank of
the Tigris lies a square substructure (each of the sides measures over
150 feet) of 20 feet in height, built of brick and cased with stone. On
this base rises a tower of several diminishing stories. In the first of
these stories, immediately upon the platform, is a passage 100 feet
long, 12 feet high, and 6 feet in breadth, which divides the storey
exactly in the middle from east to west.

Two centuries after the fall of the Assyrian kingdom, Xenophon, marching
up the Tigris with the 10,000, reached the ruins of Chalah. After
crossing the Zapatus, _i.e._ the Greater Zab, he came to a large
deserted city on the Tigris, the name of which sounded to him like
Larissa (Chalah); it was surrounded by a wall about seven and a-half
miles long. This wall had a substructure of stone masonry about 20 feet
high; on this it rose, 25 feet in thickness, and built of bricks, to the
height of 100 feet. Beside the city was a pyramid of stone, a plethron
(100 feet) broad and two plethra high; to these many of the
neighbouring hamlets fled for refuge.[591] Shalmanesar's tower was
broken, and by the fall of the upper parts had become changed into a
pyramid. The sides of the tower Xenophon put at almost half their real
size; the height of the ruins is still about 140 feet. That Shalmanesar
also stayed at Nineveh is proved by the inscriptions; that he possessed
a palace in the ancient city of Asshur is proved by the stamp of the
tiles at Kileh Shergat.[592]

In a reign of 36 years Shalmanesar II. had gained important successes.
In the north he had advanced as far as Lake Van, and the valley of the
Araxes, the Tibarenes in the north-west, and the Cilicians in the west
had felt the weight of his arms. He had directed his most stubborn
efforts against the princes on the crossings over the Euphrates towards
Syria, and towards the region of Mount Amanus and Syria itself. Damascus
and Hamath were forced to pay tribute after a series of campaigns;
Byblus, Sidon, and Tyre repeatedly paid tribute, and Israel after it had
received a new master in Jehu. By Shalmanesar's successful interference
in the contest for the crown in the civil war in Babylon, the supremacy
of Asshur over Babel was at length obtained. The regions of the Zagrus
had to pay tribute to Shalmanesar. He first trod the land of Media, and
his successes were felt beyond Media as far as the southern shore of the
Caspian Sea and East Iran.

In spite of the unwearied activity of Shalmanesar, in spite of his
ceaseless campaigns and the important results gained by his weapons, his
reign ended amid domestic troubles, caused by a rebellion of the native
land. Shalmanesar's son and successor, Samsi-Bin III. (823-810 B.C.),
tells us in an inscription found in the remains of his palace, which he
built in the south-east corner of the terrace of Chalah, that his
brother Assurdaninpal set on foot a conspiracy against his father
Shalmanesar, and that the land of Asshur, both the Upper and Lower,
joined the rebellion. He enumerates 27 cities, among them Asshur itself,
the ancient metropolis, and Arbela, which joined Assurdaninpal; but
"with the help of the great gods" Samsi-Bin reduced them again to his
power. Then he tells us of his campaigns in the north and east. In his
first campaign the whole land of Nairi was subjugated--all the princes,
24 in number, are mentioned; the land of Van also paid tribute. The
Assyrian dominion, asserts the king, stretched from the land of Nairi to
the city of Kar-Salmanassar, opposite Karchemish (p. 315). Then he
fought against the land of Giratbunda (apparently a region on the
Caspian Sea, perhaps Gerabawend), took the king prisoner, and set up his
own image in Sibar, the capital of Giratbunda,[593] and afterwards
directed his arms against the land of Accad (Babylonia). When he had
slain 13,000 men and taken 3000 prisoners, king Marduk-Balatirib marched
out against him with the warriors of Chaldæa and Elam, of the lands of
Namri (p. 320) and Aram. He defeated them near Dur-Kurzu, their capital:
5000 were left on the field, 2000 taken prisoners; 200 chariots of war
and ensigns of the king remained in the hands of the Assyrians (819
B.C.). At this point the inscription breaks off; elsewhere we hear
nothing of further successes against Babylonia, we only learn that
Samsi-Bin in the eleventh and twelfth years of his reign (812 and 811
B.C.) again marched to Chaldæa and Babylon,[594] and we can only
conclude from the fact that the king of Babylon received help not only
from Namri and Aram, but also from Elam, that the Assyrians under
Samsi-Bin continued to advance, and that their power must by this time
have appeared alarming to the Elamites also.

Bin-nirar III. (810-781 B.C.), the son and successor of Samsi-Bin,
raised the Assyrian power still higher. Twice he marched out against the
Armenian land on the shore of Lake Van; eight times he made campaigns in
the land of the rivers, _i.e._ Mesopotamia. In the fifth year of his
reign he went out against the city of Arpad in Syria; in the eighth
against the "sea-coast," _i.e._ no doubt against the coast of Syria. The
beginning of an inscription remains from which we can see the extent of
the lands over which he ruled, or which he had compelled to pay tribute.
"I took into my possession," so this fragment tells us, "from the land
of Siluna, which lies at the rising of the sun, onwards; viz., the land
of Kib, of Ellip, Karkas, Arazias, Misu, Madai (Media), Giratbunda
throughout its whole extent, Munna, Parsua, Allabria, Abdadana, the land
of Nairi throughout its whole extent, the land of Andiu, which is
remote, the mountain range of Bilchu throughout its whole extent to the
great sea which lies in the east, _i.e._ as far as the Caspian Sea. I
made subject to myself from the Euphrates onwards: the land of Chatti
(Aram), the western land (_mat acharri_) throughout its whole extent,
Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri (Israel) and Edom, the land of Palashtav
(Philistæa) as far as the great sea to the setting of the sun. I imposed
upon them payment of tribute. I also marched against the land of Imirisu
(the kingdom of Damascus), against Mariah, the king of the land of
Imirisu. I actually shut him up in Damascus, the city of his kingdom;
great terror of Asshur came upon him; he embraced my feet, he became a
subject; 2300 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents of
copper, 5000 talents of iron, robes, carven images, his wealth and his
treasures without number, I received in his palace at Damascus where he
dwelt.[595] I subjugated all the kings of the land of Chaldæa, and laid
tribute upon them; I offered sacrifice at Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha,
the dwellings of the gods Bel, Nebo, and Nergal."[596]

According to this king Bin-nirar not only maintained the predominance
over Babylon which his grandfather had gained, but extended it: his
authority reached from Media, perhaps from the shores of the Caspian
Sea, to the shore of the Mediterranean as far as Damascus and Israel and
Edom, as far as Sidon and Tyre and the cities of the Philistines. The
Cilicians and Tibarenes who paid tribute to Shalmanesar are not
mentioned by Bin-nirar in his description of his empire. So far as we
can see, the centre of the kingdom was meanwhile extended and more
firmly organised. Among the magistrates with whose names the Assyrians
denote the years, at the time of Shalmanesar and his immediate
successors the names of the commander-in-chief and three court officers
are regularly followed by the names of the overseers of the districts of
Rezeph (Resapha on the Euphrates), of Nisib (Nisibis on the Mygdonius,
the eastern affluent of the Chaboras), of Arapha, _i.e._ the
mountain-land of Arrapachitis (Albak); hence we may conclude that these
districts were more closely connected or incorporated with the native
land, and governed immediately by viceroys of the king. How uncertain
the power and supremacy of Assyria was at a greater distance is on the
other hand equally clear from the fact that Bin-nirar had to make no
fewer than eight campaigns in the land of the streams, _i.e._ between
the Tigris and the Euphrates; that he marched four times against the
land of Khubuskia in the neighbourhood of Armenia, and twice against the
district of Lake Van, against which his father and grandfather had so
often contended.

Bin-nirar III. also built himself a separate palace at Chalah, on the
western edge of the terrace of the royal dwellings, to the south of the
palace of his great grandfather Assurnasirpal. In the ruins of the
temple which he dedicated to Nebo have been found six standing images of
this deity, two of which bear upon the pedestal those inscriptions which
informed us that the wife of Bin-nirar III. was named Sammuramat (p.
45). On a written tablet dated from the year of Musallim-Adar (_i.e._
from the year 793 B.C.), the eighteenth year of Bin-nirar, on which is
still legible the fragment of a royal decree, we also find the double
impress of his seal--a royal figure which holds a lion. A second
document from the time of the reign of this prince, from the
twenty-sixth year of his reign (782 B.C.), registers the sale of a
female slave at the price of ten and a half minæ, and gives the name of
the ten witnesses to the transaction.[597] The preservation of this
document is the more important inasmuch as a notice in Phenician letters
is written beside it. Hence we may conclude that even in the days of
Bin-nirar III. the alphabetic writing was known as far as this point in
the East, though the cuneiform alphabet was retained beside it, not only
at that time, but down to 100 B.C., and indeed, to all appearance, down
to the first century of our reckoning.[598]

FOOTNOTES:

[555] Ménant, "Ann." pp. 71, 72, 73.

[556] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 82.

[557] Ménant, _loc. cit._ pp. 90, 91.

[558] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 84.

[559] Ménant, p. 86.

[560] E. Schrader. "K. A. T." s. 66, 67.

[561] Schrader, _loc. cit._ s. 20, 21.

[562] "Records of the Past," 3, 79.

[563] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 89.

[564] Ménant, p. 93.

[565] G. Rawlinson, "Monarch." 2^2, 94.

[566] G. Rawlinson, "Monarch." 1^2, 340.

[567] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 67.

[568] G. Rawlinson, "Monarch." 1^2, 319; 2^2, 97.

[569] G. Smith, "Discov." pp. 91, 141, 252.

[570] Sayce, "Records of the Past," pp. 94, 95.

[571] According to the inscription of Kurkh in the year 856; according
to the obelisk 854 B.C.

[572] Ménant, "Ann." p. 107.

[573] Bin-hidri is read by E. Schrader and others. Rimmon-hidri by
Sayce. As the god Bin was also called Rimmon, the ideogram of the name
may be read one way or the other. The Books of the Kings call the
contemporary of Ahab, Benhadad. For farther information, see p. 247,
note.

[574] Sayce, "Records," 3, 100.

[575] E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 94 ff., 101, 102;
Ménant, _loc. cit._ pp. 99, 113.

[576] Ménant, "Ann." p. 115.

[577] Vol. i. 257. Ménant, "Babyl." p. 135.

[578] Inscriptions on the bulls in Ménant, "Ann." p. 114.

[579] E. Schrader, _loc. cit._ s. 103; above, p. 251.

[580] Communication from E. Schrader; cf. Deuteron. iii. 9.

[581] E. Schrader, "K. A. T." s. 106, 107.

[582] Cf. above, p. 257.

[583] Inscription of the obelisk and the bulls in Ménant, "Ann." 99,
114.

[584] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 101.

[585] Ménant, p. 101.

[586] Ménant, p. 104.

[587] Sayce reads Guzan.

[588] According to a communication from E. Schrader, Marduk-habal-assur
ought to be read, not Marduk-habal-iddin.

[589] Oppert, "Memoires de l'Acad. d. inscript." 1869, 1, 513; Sayce,
"Records of the Past," 5, 42.

[590] Sayce, "Records of the Past," 3, 88, 89, 90, 91, 99.

[591] "Anab." 3, 4, 7-9.

[592] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 96.

[593] The reading is uncertain.

[594] Oppert, "Empires," pp. 127, 128; G. Rawlinson, "Monarch." 2^2, p.
115, _n._ 8; Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 124.

[595] E. Schrader, _loc. cit._ s. 111, 112.

[596] Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 127; cf. G. Rawlinson, 2^2, 117.

[597] Oppert et Ménant, "Documents juridiques," pp. 146-148.

[598] G. Smith, "Discov." p. 389; Oppert et Ménant, _loc. cit._ p. 342.



END OF VOL. II.



TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:


1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.

2. Carat character is used to indicate subscript in this text version.

3. Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end of the chapters
in this text version.

4. The original text includes Greek characters. For this text version
these letters have been replaced with transliterations.

5. Certain words use oe ligature in the original.

6. Obvious errors in punctuation have been silently corrected.

7. Other than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies in
spelling, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been retained.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The History of Antiquity, Vol. II (of VI)" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.