_SOLOMON'S COURT AND KINGDOM._
1 KINGS iv. 1-34.
"But what more oft in nations grown corrupt
And by their vices brought to servitude,
Than to love bondage more than liberty,
Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty?"
_Samson Agonistes._
When David was dead, and Solomon was established on his throne, his
first thoughts were turned to the consolidation of his kingdom. He
was probably quite a youth.[193] He was not, nor did he ever desire
to be, a warlike prince; but he was compelled to make himself secure
from two enemies--Hadad and Rezon--who began almost at once to
threaten his frontiers. Of these, however, we shall speak later on,
since it is only towards the close of Solomon's reign that they seem
to have given serious trouble. If the second psalm is by Solomon it
may point to some early disturbances among heathen neighbours which
he had successfully put down.
The only actual expedition which Solomon ever made was one against
a certain Hamath-Zobah, to which, however, very little importance
can be attached. It is simply mentioned in one line in the Book
of Chronicles, and it is hard to believe--considering that Rezon
had possession of Damascus--that Solomon was master of the _great_
Hamath.[194] He made a material alteration in the military organisation
of his kingdom by establishing a standing army of fourteen hundred
war-chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he dispersed in
various cities and barracks, keeping some of them at Jerusalem.[195]
In order to save his kingdom from attack Solomon expended vast sums
on the fortification of frontier towns. In the north he fortified
Hazor; in the north-west Megiddo. The passes to Jerusalem on the west
were rendered safe by the fortresses at Upper and Nether Bethhoron.
The southern districts were overawed by the building of Baalath and
Tamar, "the palm-city," which is described as "in the wilderness in
the land,"--perhaps in the desolate tract on the road from Hebron to
Elath.[196] Movers thinks that Hazezon-Tamar or Engedi is meant, as
this town is called Tamar in Ezek. xlvii. 19.
As the king grew more and more in power he gave full reins to his
innate love of magnificence. We can best estimate the sudden leap
of the kingdom into luxurious civilisation if we contrast the
royalty of Saul with that of Solomon. Saul was little more than a
peasant-prince, a local emîr, and such state as he had was of the
humblest description. But Solomon vied with the gorgeous secular
dynasts of historic empires.
His position had become much more splendid owing to his alliance with
the King of Egypt--an alliance of which his humbler predecessors would
scarcely have dreamed. We are not told the name of his Egyptian bride,
but she must have been the daughter of one of the last kings of the
twenty-first Tanite dynasty--either Psinaces, or Psusennes II.[197]
The dynasty had been founded at Tanis (Zoan) about B.C. 1100 by an
ambitious priest named Hir-hor. It only lasted for five generations.
Whatever other dower Solomon received with this Egyptian princess, his
father-in-law rendered him one signal service. He advanced from Egypt
with an army against the Canaanite town of Gezer, which he conquered
and destroyed.[198] Solomon rebuilt it as an outpost of defence for
Jerusalem. Further than this the Egyptian alliance did not prove to
be of much use. The last king of this weak twenty-first dynasty was
succeeded B.C. 990 by the founder of a new Bubastite dynasty, the great
Shishak I. (Shesonk, Σεσόνχωσις), the protector of Jeroboam and the
plunderer of Jerusalem and its Temple. Ker'amat, niece of the last king
of the dynasty, married Shishak, the founder of the new dynasty, and
was the mother of U-Sark-on I. (Zerah the Ethiopian).
It has been a matter of dispute among the Rabbis whether Solomon was
commendable or blameworthy for contracting this foreign alliance. If
we judge him simply from the secular standpoint, nothing could be
more obviously politic than the course he took. Nor did he break any
law in marrying Pharaoh's daughter. Moses had not forbidden the union
with an Egyptian woman. Still, from the religious point of view,
it was inevitable that such a connexion would involve consequences
little in accordance with the theocratic ideal. The kings of Judah
must not be judged as though they were ordinary sovereigns. They
were meant to be something more than mere worldly potentates. The
Egyptian alliance, instead of flattering the pride, only wounded
the susceptibilities of the later Jews. The Rabbis had a fantastic
notion that Shimei had been Solomon's teacher, and that the king
did not fall into the error of wedding an alien[199] until Shimei
had been driven from Jerusalem.[200] That there was some sense of
doubt in Solomon's mind appears from the statement in 2 Chron. viii.
11, that he deemed it unfit for his bride to have her residence on
Mount Moriah, a spot hallowed by the presence of the Ark of God.[201]
That she became a proselytess has been suggested, but it is most
unlikely. Had this been the case it would have been mentioned in
contrast with the heathenism of the fair idolatresses who in later
years beguiled the king's heart. On the other hand, the princess, who
was his chief if not his earliest bride, does not seem to have asked
for any shrine or chapel for the practice of her Egyptian rites.
This is the more remarkable since Solomon, ashamed of the humble
cedar house of David--which would look despicable to a lady who had
lived in "the gigantic edifices, and labyrinthine palace of Egyptian
kings"[202]--expended vast sums in building her a palace which should
seem worthy of her royal race.
From this time forward the story of Solomon becomes more the record
of a passing pageant preserved for us in loosely arranged fragments.
It can never be one tithe so interesting as the history of a human
heart with its sufferings and passions. "Solomon in all his glory,"
that figure so unique, so lonely in its wearisome pomp, can never
stir our sympathy or win our affection as does the natural, impetuous
David, or even the fallen, unhappy Saul. "The low sun makes the
colour." The bright gleams and dark shadows of David's life are more
instructive than the dull monotony of Solomon's magnificence.
The large space of Scripture devoted to him in the Books of Kings
and Chronicles is occupied almost exclusively with the details of
architecture and display. It is only in the first and last sections
of his story that we catch the least glimpse of the man himself.
In the central section we see nothing of him, but are absorbed in
measurements and descriptions which have a purely archæological, or,
at the best, a dimly symbolic significance. The man is lost in the
monarch, the monarch in the appurtenances of his royal display. His
annals degenerate into the record of a sumptuous parade.
The fourth chapter of the Book of Kings gives us the constitution
of his court as it was in the middle of his reign, when two of his
daughters were already married. It need not detain us long.
The highest officers of the kingdom were called _Sarim_, "princes," a
title which in David's reign had been borne almost alone by Joab, who
was _Sar-ha-zaba_, or captain of the host. The son of Zadok[203] is
named first as "the priest." The two chief secretaries (_Sopherim_)
were Elihoreph and Ahiah. They inherited the office of their father
Shavsha (1 Chron. xviii. 16),[204] who had been the secretary of
David. It was their duty to record decrees and draw up the documents
of state. Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, continued to hold the
office of annalist or historiographer (_Mazkîr_), the officer known
as the Waka Nuwish in Persian courts.[205] Azariah was over the
twelve prefects (_Nitzabim_), or farmers-general, who administered
the revenues.[206] His brother Zabud became "priest" and "king's
friend."[207] Ahishar was "over the household" (_al-hab-Baith_); that
is, he was the chamberlain, vizier, or mayor of the palace, wearing
on his shoulder the key which was the symbol of his authority.[208]
Adoniram or Adoram, who had been tax-collector for David, still
held that onerous and invidious office,[209] which subsequently,
in his advanced old age, cost him his life. Benaiah succeeded to
the chief-captaincy of Joab. We hear nothing more of him, but the
subsequent history shows that when David gathered around him this
half alien and wholly mercenary force in a country which had no
standing army, he turned the sovereignty into what the Greeks would
have called a tyranny. As the only armed force in the kingdom the
body-guard overawed opposition, and was wholly at the disposal of the
king. These troops were to Solomon at Jerusalem what the Prætorians
were to Tiberius at Rome.
The chief points of interest presented by the list are these:--
1. First we mark the absence of any prophet. Neither Nathan nor Gad
is even mentioned. The pure ray of Divine illumination is overpowered
by the glitter of material prosperity.
2. Secondly, the priests are quite subordinate. They are only mentioned
fifth in order, and Abiathar is named with Zadok, though after his
deposition he was living in enforced retirement.[210] The sacerdotal
authority was at this time quite overshadowed by the royal. In all
the elaborate details of the pomp which attended the consecration of
the Temple, Solomon is everything, the priests comparatively nothing.
Zadok is not even mentioned as taking any part in the sacrifices in
spite of his exalted rank. Solomon acts throughout as supreme head of
the Church. Nor was this unnatural, since the two capital events in
the history of the worship of Jehovah--the removal of the Ark to Mount
Zion, and the suggestion, inception, and completion of the building of
the Temple--were due to Solomon and David, not to Zadok or Abiathar.
The priests, throughout the monarchy, suggest nothing, inaugurate
nothing. They are lost in functions and formal ceremonies. They are
but obedient administrative servants, and, so far from protecting
religion, they acquiesce with tame indifference in every innovation and
every apostasy. History has few titles which form so poor a claim to
distinction as that of Levitic priest.
3. Further, we have two curious and significant phenomena. The title
"the priest" is given to Azariah, who is first mentioned among the
court functionaries. Solomon had not the least intention to allow
either the priestly or the much loftier prophetic functions to
interfere with his autocracy. He did not choose that there should be
any danger of a priest usurping an exorbitant influence, as Hir-hor
had done in Egypt, or Ethbaal afterwards did in the court of Tyre,
or Thomas à-Becket in the court of England, or Torquemada in that of
Spain. He was too much a king to submit to priestly domination. He
therefore appointed one who should be "the priest" for courtly and
official purposes, and should stand in immediate subordination to
himself.
4. The Nathan whose two sons, Azariah and Zabud, held such high
positions, was in all probability not Nathan the Prophet, who is rarely
introduced without his distinctive title, but Nathan, the younger
brother of Solomon, in whose line the race of David was continued
after the extinction of the elder branch in Jeconiah. Here again we
note the union of _civil_ with priestly functions. Zabud is called "a
priest" though he is a layman, a prince of the tribe of Judah. Nor was
this the first instance in which princes of the royal house had found
maintenance, occupation, and high official rank by being in some sort
engaged in the functions of the priesthood. Already in David's reign
we find the title "priests" (_Kohanim_) given to the sons of David in
the list of court officials[211]--"_and David's sons were priests_." In
this we trace the possible results of Phœnician influences.
5. Incidentally it is pleasing to find that, though Solomon put
Adonijah to death, he stood in close and kindly relations with his
other brothers, and gave high promotions to the sons of the brothers
who stood nearest to him in age, in one of whom we see the destined
ancestor of the future Messiah.[212]
6. The growth of imposing officialism, and its accompanying gulf
between the king and his people, is marked by the first appearance of
"the chamberlain" as a new functionary. On him fell the arrangement
of court pageants and court etiquette. The chamberlain in despotic
Eastern courts becomes a personage of immense importance, because
he controls the right of admission into the royal presence. Such
officers, even when chosen from the lowest rank of slaves--like
Eutropius the eunuch-minister of Arcadius,[213] or Olivier le Daim,
the barber-minister of Louis XI.--often absorb no mean part of the
influence of the sovereign with whom they are brought into daily
connexion. In the court of Solomon the chamberlain stands only ninth
in order; but three centuries later, in the days of Hezekiah, he has
become the greatest of the officials, and "Eliakim who was over the
household" is placed before Shebna, the influential scribe, and Joah,
the son of Asaph the recorder.[214]
7. Last on the list stands the minister who has the ominous title
of _al-ham-Mas_, or "over the tribute." The Mas means the "levy,"
corvée, or forced labour. In other words, Adoram was overseer of the
soccagers. Saul had required an overseer of the flocks, and David a
guardian of the treasury, but Adoram is not mentioned till late in
his reign.[215] The _gravamen_ of David's numbering of the people
seems to have lain in the intention to subject them to a poll tax,
or to personal service, such as had become necessary to maintain the
expenses of the court. It is obvious that, as royalty developed from
the conception of the theocratic king to that of the Oriental despot,
the stern warning of Samuel to the people of Israel was more and more
fulfilled. They had said, "Nay, but we will have a king to reign over
us, when Jehovah was their king"; and Samuel had told them how much
less blessed was bondage with ease than their strenuous liberty. He
had warned them that their king would take their sons for his runners
and charioteers and reapers and soldiers and armourers, and their
daughters for his perfumers and confectioners; and that he would
seize their fields and vineyards for his courtiers, and claim the
tithes of their possession, and use their asses, and put their oxen
to his work. The word "_Mas_" representing soccage, serfdom, forced
labour (corvée; Germ., _Frohndienst_), first became odiously familiar
in the days of Solomon.
Solomon was an expensive king, and the Jewish kings had no private
revenue from which the necessary resources could be supplied. In order
to secure contributions for the maintenance of the royal establishment,
Solomon appointed his twelve Prefects. The list of them is incorporated
from a document so ancient that in several instances the names have
dropped out, and only "son of" remains.[216] The districts entirely
and designedly ignored the old tribal limits, which Solomon probably
wished to obliterate. Ben-Hur administered the hill country of Ephraim;
Ben-Dekar had his headquarters in Dan; Ben-Hesed had the maritime
plain; Ben-Abinadab the fertile region of Carmel, and he was wedded
to Solomon's daughter Taphath;[217] Baana, son of Ahilud, managed the
plain of Esdraelon; Ben-Geber the mountainous country east of Jordan,
including Gilead and Argob with its basaltic towns; Ahinadab, son of
Iddo, was officer in Mahanaim; Ahimaaz in Naphtali (he was married to
Solomon's daughter Basmath, and was perhaps the son of Zadok); Baanah,
son of David's faithful Hushai, was in Asher; Shimei, son of Elah, in
Benjamin; Jehoshaphat in Issachar. Geber administered alone the ancient
dominions of Sihon and Og. We see with surprise that Judah seems to
have been exempted from the burdens imposed on the other districts,
and if so the impolitic exemption was a main cause of the subsequent
jealousies.[218]
The chief function of these officers was to furnish provisions
for the immense numbers who were connected with the court. The
curious list is given of the provision required for one day--thirty
measures of fine flour, sixty of bread,[219] ten fat oxen, twenty
pasture oxen, and one hundred sheep, besides the delicacies of
harts, gazelles, fallow-deer, and fatted guinea-hens or swans.[220]
Bunsen reckons that this would provide for about fifteen thousand
persons. In this there is nothing extraordinary, though the number
is disproportionate to the smallness of the kingdom. About the same
number were daily supported by the kings of the great empire of
Persia.[221] We see how rapidly the state of royalty had developed
when we compare Solomon's superb surroundings with the humble palace
of Ishbosheth less than fifty years earlier--a palace of which the
only guard was a single sleepy woman, who had been sifting wheat in
the noontide, and had fallen asleep over her task in the porch.[222]
Yet in the earlier years of the reign, while the people, dazzled by
the novel sense of national importance, felt the stimulus given to
trade and industry, the burden was not painfully felt. They multiplied
in numbers, and lived under their vines and fig trees in peace and
festivity.[223] But much of their prosperity was hollow and shortlived.
Wealth led to vice and corruption, and in place of the old mountain
breezes of freedom which purified the air, the nation, like Issachar,
became like an ass crouching between two burdens, and bowing its
shoulders to the yoke in the hot valley of sensuous servitude.
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay!"
* * * * *
It is impossible to overlook the general drift of Jewish royalty
towards pure materialism in the days of Solomon. We search in vain
for the lofty spirituality which survived even in the rough epoch
of the Judges and the rude simplicity of David's earlier reign. The
noble aspirations which throb in one Davidic psalm are worth all
the gorgeous formalism of the Temple service. Amid the luxuries of
plenty and the feasts of wine on the lees there seems to have been an
ever-deeping famine of the Word of God.
There was one innovation, which struck the imagination of Solomon's
contemporaries, but was looked on with entire disfavour by those who
had been trained in the old pious days. Solomon had immense stables
for his chariot horses (_susim_), and the swift riding horses of
his couriers (_parashim_).[224] It seems to have been Solomon's
ambition to equal or outshine "the chariots of Pharaoh,"[225] with
which his Egyptian queen had been familiar at Tanis. This feature of
his reign is dwelt upon in the Arabian legends, as well as in all
the historical records of his greatness.[226] But the maintenance
of a cavalry force had always been discouraged by the religious
teachers of Israel. The use of horses in war is forbidden in
Deuteronomy.[227] Joshua had houghed the horses of the Canaanites,
and burned their chariots at Misrephoth-maim. David had followed
his example. Barak had defeated the iron chariots of Sisera, and
David the splendid cavalry of Hadadezer with the simple infantry
of Israel.[228] The spirit of the olden faithfulness spoke in such
words as, "Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses;
but we will trust in the name of the Lord our God." Solomon's[229]
successors discovered that they had not gained in strength by
adopting this branch of military service in their hilly and rocky
land. They found that "a horse is but a vain thing to save a man,
neither shall he deliver any man by his great strength."[230]
For a time, however, Solomon's strenuous centralisation was
successful. His dominion extended, at least nominally, from Tiphzah
(Thapsacus), beside the ford on the west bank of the Euphrates, to
the Mediterranean; over the whole domain of the Philistines; and from
Damascus to "the river of Egypt," that is, the Rhinokolura or Wady
el-Areesh. The names Jeroboam and Rehoboam imply that they were born
in an epoch of prosperity.[231] But the sequel proves that it was
that sort of empire which,
"Like expanded gold,
Exchanges solid strength for feeble splendour."[232]
FOOTNOTES:
[193] Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. vii. 8. According to one tradition he
lived to fifty-three (Ewald, iii. 208), and was only twelve when he
succeeded David.
[194] 2 Chron. viii. 3. Ewald thinks it is confirmed by 2 Kings xiv.
28, where, however, the Hebrew is obscure.
[195] 1 Kings x. 26.
[196] 1 Kings ix. 18. Here the "Q'rî," the marginal, or "read" text,
has Tadmor (_i.e._, Palmyra), as also in 2 Chron. viii. 4. But this
Tamar (Ezek. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28) is "_in the land_" on the south
border. In the Chronicles Tadmor is the right reading, for the
chronicler is speaking of Hamath-Zobah and the north. It is not at
all unlikely that Solomon also built Tadmor (Josephus, _Antt._, VIII.
vi. 1) to protect his commerce on the route to the Euphrates.
[197] The forty-fifth psalm is supposed by old interpreters to have
been an epithalamium on this occasion, but was probably much later.
Perhaps notices like 1 Kings iii. 1-3 (the Egyptian alliance), the
admonition in 1 Kings ix. 1-9 and the luxury described in x. 14-29,
are meant as warning notes of what follows in xi. 1-8 (the apostasy),
9-13 (the prophruption), and 14-43 (the concluding disaster).
[198] Gezer is Abu-Shusheh, or Tell-el-Gezer, between Ramleh and
Jerusalem (Oliphant, _Haifa_, p. 253), on the lower border of
Ephraim. Ewald identifies it with Geshur, the town of Talmai,
Absalom's grandfather. See Lenormant, _Hist. anc. de l'Orient._, i.
337-43. The genealogy of this dynasty is thus given by Brugsch-Bey
(Gen. Table iv.), _Hist. of Egypt_, vol. ii.:--
Hir-hor==Notem.
|
Piankhi.
|
Pinotem I.
|
+--------+---------+
| |
Pisebkhan I. Men-khepher-ra.
|
+-------------|----------+-----+
| | |
Pinotem II. Pisebkhan II. Ker'amat
(a daughter).
[199] See Deut. xxiii. 7, 8.
[200] Schwab's _Berakhoth_, p. 252; Hershon, _Treasures of the
Talmud_, p. 25. In Sanhedrin, ff. 21, 22, there is another trace of
the dislike with which the marriage (though not forbidden, Deut.
xxiii. 7, 8) was regarded: "When Solomon married the daughter of
Pharaoh, Gabriel descended and fixed a reed in the sea. A sandbank
formed around it on which _Rome_ was subsequently built." In
Shabbath, ff. 51, 52, we are told that "the princess brought with
her one thousand different kinds of musical instruments, and _taught
Solomon the chants to his various idols_."
[201] No trace of any such misgiving is found in the Book of Kings.
[202] "Seine Liebhaberei sind kostbare Bauten, fremde Weiber, reiche
Prachtentfaltung" (Kittel, ii. 160).
[203] Perhaps rather "the grandson." He was the son of Ahimaaz (comp.
Gen. xxix. 5; Ezra v. 1, where _son = grandson_).
[204] Shisha and Shavsha are perhaps corruptions of Seraiah (2 Sam.
viii. 17).
[205] Comp. Esth. vi. 1. LXX., Isa. xxxvi. 3, ὁ ὑπομνηματογράφος 2
Sam. viii. 17, ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων. Jerome, "_a commentariis_."
Comp. Suet., _Aug._ 79, "_qui e memoria Augusti_."
[206] It is a somewhat ominous fact that _netsib_ means properly an
ἐπιτειχισμός, a garrison in a hostile country.
[207] The king's friend (2 Sam. xv. 37) seems to have been a sort of
confidential privy councillor (Prov. xxii. 11).
[208] Isa. xxii. 21.
[209] 2 Sam. xx. 24.
[210] Possibly this clause is an interpolation.
[211] 2 Sam. viii. 18. Even "Ira the Jairite" is called "a priest"
(2 Sam. xx. 26). An attempt has been made to explain the word away
because it obviously clashes with Levitic ordinances; but the word
"priest" could not be used in two different senses in two consecutive
lines. Dogmatic considerations have tampered with the obvious meaning
of the word. The LXX. omits it, and in the case of David's sons calls
them αὐλάρχαι. The A.V. renders it "chief officer." The Vulgate
wrongly refers it to Zadok (filius Sadoc _sacerdotis_). Movers
(_Krit. Unters._, 301 ff.) renders it "court chaplains." Already
in 1 Chron. xviii. 17 we find that the title gave offence, and we
read instead, "And the sons of David _were at the hand of the king_"
(see Ewald, _Alterthumsk_, p. 276). Compare the title "Bishop of
Osnaburg," borne by Frederick, Duke of York, son of George III.
[212] 2 Sam. v. 14; Zech. xii. 12; Luke iii. 31.
[213] The degraded and ominous apparitions of _Sarisim_ (eunuchs)
probably began at the court of Solomon on a large scale, though the
name occurs in the days of David (1 Sam. viii. 15; 1 Chron. xxviii.
1). In the Northern Kingdom we first hear of them in the harem of the
polygamous Ahab.
[214] 2 Kings xviii. 18; Isa. xxii. 15.
[215] 2 Sam. xx. 24. He is not mentioned in 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-31.
[216] This use of patronymics only is common among the Arabs, but not
in Scripture (Reuss, _Hist. d. Isr._, i. 423).
[217] If he was the son of David's elder brother (1 Sam. xvi. 8,
xvii. 13) he was Solomon's first cousin. The materialistic or
non-religious element in Solomon seems to come out in the names
of his only known children. The element "Jehovah," afterwards so
universal, does not occur in them. Basmath, characteristically, means
"fragrant"; Taphath is perhaps connected with טָפַת, to go mincingly;
Rehoboam means "enlarger of the people."
[218] The LXX. indeed reads καὶ νασὲφ εἷς ἐν γῇ Ἰούδα ("and he was
the only officer in the land of Judah"). But this would make thirteen
fiscal overseers. The Targum, adopting the same reading, says that the
thirteenth _nitzab_ was to maintain the king in the intercalary month.
[219] Taking the _cor_ at a low estimate this would amount to
eighteen thousand pounds of bread a day.
[220] 1 Kings iv. 23, בַּרְבֻּרִים. Vulg., _Avium altilium_.
[221] Athen., _Deipnos._, iv. 146.
[222] 2 Sam. iv. 6 (LXX.).
[223] This description of _agricultural_ felicity soon became an
anachronism.
[224] Not "dromedaries" (A.V.). The ruins of his stables are still
pointed out at Jerusalem. He traded with Egypt for horses and
chariots which his merchants brought to Tekoa, and he then sold
them at a profit to the Hittite princes. The forty thousand stalls
of 1 Kings iv. 26 should doubtless be four thousand (2 Chron. ix.
25), as Solomon only had fourteen hundred chariots (1 Kings x. 26).
In 1 Kings x. 28 the meaning and reading is "as for the export of
horses, which Solomon got from Egypt _even from Tekoa_" (LXX., καὶ ὲκ
θεκουὲ), "the royal merchants used to fetch a troop of horses at a
price." The "linen yarn" of the A.V. is a mistranslation.
[225] Cant. i. 9.
[226] 1 Kings v. 6, ix. 19, x. 26, 28. Two of those passages are
omitted in the LXX. Comp. 1 Kings xvi. 9.
[227] Deut. xvii. 16.
[228] Josh. xi. 9; 1 Sam. viii. 11, 12; 2 Sam. viii. 4.
[229] The energetic dislike to the importation or use of horses is
also found in Isa. ii. 7, xxx. 16, 17, xxxi. 1-3; Micah v. 10-14;
Zech. ix. 10, x. 5, xii. 4.
[230] Psalm xxxiii. 17, lxxvi. 6, cxlvii. 10.
[231] Compare Poludemos, Eurudemos.
[232] Xen., _Anab._, i. 4, 11; Arrian, ii. 13, iii. 7. For the phrase
"on _this_ side of the river," see _ante_, p. 18.