The Historians' History of the World 02

It is beyond all doubt that Solomon was the first who imported the horse into Israel, at least to any great extent and especially for purposes of war. More remarkable is it that all accounts concerning this, agree with later notices respecting Solomon’s splendour and magnificence. Nor can this prevent them from being regarded—at least so far as concerns the fact as worthy of credit. If Egypt was, as it appears, the country from which Syria obtained its horses, and Solomon the son-in-law of the ruling Pharaoh, we can find little objection to the statement that Solomon managed to derive considerable profit from the import of Egyptian horses. The visit to Solomon of the queen of the ancient kingdom of Sheba, may probably have been connected in the first instance with commercial relations. This, too, I am not inclined to relegate at once into the domain of fable. For even if later stories have considerably exaggerated Solomon’s splendour, they would not have arisen without some foundation in fact. The voyages of Solomon’s ships to the Arabian gold country of Ophir are, it seems to us, particularly well authenticated. The account speaks of a single ship, which Hiram of Tyre managed with his skilled seamen and which is said to have brought the products and articles of merchandise of the favoured Arabia direct to Israel and Tyre.

That, in spite of all this, Solomon’s coffers were often empty, finally to such a serious extent that he was obliged to pledge twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram, cannot be denied in face of the last-named fact: the marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh made his household costly, and the castles and fortifications must have swallowed enormous sums.

In Solomon’s government there was one weak point which might easily produce a rupture. There was no need for it to come now; but if a fit and determined man were forthcoming the crisis was ready. For opinion in Israel was sufficiently prepared.

The transition from an elective monarchy to a rigidly despotic government, had been too rapidly completed. The tribes of Israel, of their own free choice, had set the crown on David’s head as formerly on that of Saul. Israel had been a purely elective kingdom. But David’s sons played each in turn the rôle of heir-apparent. Neither Absalom, Adonijah, nor Solomon had thought of first obtaining election by the tribes. As David’s sons, the succession to their father belonged to them. Israel had become an hereditary monarchy. This development lay indeed in the nature of the case. It would have been already completed in the house of Saul had Jonathan lived or Eshbaal been abler or more fortunate; nevertheless, it was now in all the greater danger, for the exclusion of the house of Saul had a second time brought home to the consciousness of the tribes, the independence of the people’s will.

The change, however, could only have worked beneficially if in the meantime the binding of the tribes of Israel to the house of David could really have been effected. Even David had not entirely accomplished this task, so difficult under existing conditions. The northern tribes and Benjamin always eyed his rule with distrust. Still less was Solomon equal to the task. It was impossible that his despotic inclinations, and especially the severe pressure of the taxes, could serve to make the tribes forget that only a short time ago, not birth, but the people’s will, had raised the king to his throne.

How far the ferment had gone in the northern tribes, even in Solomon’s own day, we see clearly enough from the circumstance that the rebellion broke out during his life-time. It was only by force that it was suppressed, and the secession of the northern tribes from Solomon was averted. It was Jeroboam, one of the overseers of the king’s workmen, who had prepared it. He was compelled to flee to Egypt, and was there, as it seems, received with open arms. But Solomon’s rule was strong enough to make it impossible for him and his to think of a repetition of the rising, so long as Solomon possessed the throne. It may excite surprise that an Israelite rebel should have received protection in Egypt whose Pharaoh was the father of one of Solomon’s wives. The explanation is to be found in the fact that Shishak, the Egyptian Shashanq I, was the founder of a new dynasty and consequently knew not Solomon.

[ca. 930 B.C.]