There are circumstances in evidence that the descendants of Ham were
black, more properly referable to the whole family than to either
particular branch.
Among this class of circumstances, we might mention the tradition so
universal through the world, that we know no age of time or portion of
the globe that can be named in exception, that the descendants of Ham
were black; and that the fact announced by that tradition is made
exceedingly more probable by the corresponding tradition, that the
descendants of Japheth and Shem were white.
The holy books provide proof that Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca,
Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, were white. Their descendants sojourned in
Egypt in a state of bondage about four hundred years, in the course of
which time there was a law that all the male Hebrew children should be
put to death at their birth. When the mother of Moses put him in the ark
of bulrushes, she would have disguised his birth as much as possible,
for the safety of his life. Yet no sooner had the daughter of Pharaoh
beheld the infant than she proclaimed it to be a Hebrew child. If there
was no difference of colour, from whence this quick decision as to the
nationality of an infant three months old?
But during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, it is to be
apprehended there was more or less commixture between the two races;
and, if the two races were of different colour, that there would have
been left us some allusion to such offspring; and so we find the fact.
“And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six
hundred thousand on foot, that were men, besides children. And a mixed
multitude went up also with them.” _Exod._ xii. 37, 38. The word
“_mixed_” is translated from עָרָב _ereb, arab_. The word means of
_mixed-blood_, that is, the mixture of the white man with the black; and
in consequence thereof is often used to mean black itself, and is
universally applied as the appellative, and has become the established
name of the mixed-blooded people of Arabia, the _Arabs_; and because it
became a common term to express the idea black, a dark colour, &c., it
was applied to the raven; and even at this day, who can tell whether
Elijah was fed by the _ravens_ or the _Arabs_, because the one word was
used to mean both or either. _And a multitude of persons of colour, of
Hebrew and black parentage, went up also with them._
This word is used to express the idea of a mulatto race, in _Num._ xi.
4, and the “_mixed multitude_;” also _Neh._ xiii. 3, “They separated
from Israel all the _mixed multitude_;” also _Jer._ xxv. 20, 24, thus:
“And all the mingled people,” _mixed-blooded_, “and all the kings of
Arabia, and all the kings of the _mingled people_,” _mixed-blooded
people_. By the expression _mixed multitude_, it is clear Moses included
the offspring of the Hebrew with the race of Ham. But would there have
been such distinction if there was no difference of colour? It will be
recollected that the children of Ishmael were three-fourths of
Misraimitish blood, consequently quite dark. It will also be recollected
that when Esau perceived how extremely offensive to his father and
mother was his connection with the Canaanitish women, that he took wives
of the house of Ishmael. It should also be recollected that Ishmael
named one of his sons _Kedar_. As we shall hereafter refer to this word,
we propose to examine its meaning and formation. It is of Arabic
derivation, _Arab._ درࣨ, Hebrew דַּר _dar_, and in this form is used
_Esth._ i. 6, and translated _black marble_. With the prefix of the
Hebrew koph it becomes קֵדָר _Kedar_, and is equivalent to “_the
black_.” It is used in Hebrew to mean black, in 1 _Kings_ xviii. 45;
_Job_ vi. 16, 30, 28; _Isa_ lx. 3; _Jer._ iv. 28; _Ezek._ xxxii. 7, 8,
and many other places. The very name of the son of Ishmael was
tantamount to “_the black_.”
In the poem called Solomon’s Song, the female whose praises are therein
celebrated, says, “I am _black_, but comely, O ye daughters of
Jerusalem, as the tents of _Kedar_, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not
upon me because I am _black_; because the sun hath looked upon me: my
mother’s children were angry with me, they made me the keeper of the
vineyards, but mine own vineyards have I not kept.” _Cant._ i. 5, 6.
The word _black_, which twice occurred in the text, is translated from
שָחַר _shahar_, with many variations. The words mean abstractly the idea
_black_. Examples of its use will be found in _Lev._ xiii. 31, 37, thus:
“And there is no _black_ hair in it.” “And there is _black_ hair grown
up therein.” _Job_ xxx. 30: “My skin is _black_ upon me.” _Zech._ vi. 2,
6: “And in the second chariots _black_ horses. The _black_ horses that
are therein.” _Lam._ iv. 8: “Their visage is _blacker_ than a coal.”
_Cant._ v. 11: “His locks are bushy and _black_ as a raven.” There is no
mistake about the meaning of this word; she was surely _black_, and she
says that she is as _black_ as the tents of _Kedar_.
The inquiry, then, now is, who was she? When we take into consideration
the Asiatic mode of expression, from the term “because the sun hath
looked upon me,” we are forced to understand that she was from a more
southern region. That she was not a native of Palestine, or especially
of Jerusalem. Figures of somewhat analogous import are occasionally
found among the Roman poets. But we suppose, no one will undertake the
argument that she was black, merely because she had been exposed to the
sun!
In vii. 1 of the Hebrew text, she is called _Shulamite_. Some suppose
this is a formation of the Gentile term שׁוּנֵם _Shunem_, because they
say the _lamda_ was sometimes introduced. In that case it would be the
synonyme of _Shunamite_, and would locate her in the tribe of Issacar.
But we see no necessity of a forced construction, when a very easy and
natural one is more obvious. We omit the _dagesh_. שׁוּלַמִית
_Shulammith_ is readily formed as the feminine of שְׁלֹמֹה _Shelomoh,
Solomon_, after the Arabic form شُليْمَنࣨ _Suleiman_, and, so used,
would be quite analogous to what is now quite common—to apply the
husband’s name as an appellative of the wife. Upon the occasion of her
consecration into Solomon’s household, she well might, even at that age,
be called by a term that would imply such consecration, especially in
the poem celebrating her nuptials. And we may remark that the use of
this word is in strict conformity to the usage of the Hebrew and Arabic
poets, because it creates an implied _paronomasia_, derived from שׁוּל,
signifying that she was a captive by her love to Solomon, and if she
stood in any such relation to him politically, the beauty of the figure
would at that age have been considered very greatly increased. The
poets, at that age of time, in compositions of the character of this
poem, appear to have been ever on the search for an occasion to
introduce figures of this class; and the more fanciful and extreme, the
more highly relished. We fail therefore to derive any knowledge of her
origin from this term. We have dwelt upon this particular thus long,
merely because commentators have been so desirous to find out a clue to
the history of the poem. Some commentators of elevated character,
suppose this subject of their epithalamium to have been the daughter of
Pharaoh, simply because she was _black_, and is addressed: “O prince’s
daughter!” Undoubtedly she was the daughter of some prince or king. But
the question now, is of what one? There is no probability that the kings
of Egypt, nor even the nobility of that kingdom, had been of the race of
Ham for many ages. Egypt had been conquered by the Shemites as early as
the days of Abraham, and there is no proof that the descendants of Ham
ever again ascended the throne; although, perhaps, their religion had
been adopted by their successors from motives of policy, the great mass
of the population being of the old stock.
In fact, the mixed-blooded races, and indeed the Shemites of pure blood,
have, from time immemorial, shown a disposition to settle in Egypt. The
Persians and the Greeks have also, for a very long time, aided in the
amalgamation of the Egypt of the middle ages of the world.
But she is made to say that she is “the rose of Sharon;” as much as to
say, _the most excellent of her country_. This district of country will
be found to embrace the Ammonites, and perhaps some other of the ancient
tribes of the family of Ham, at that time under the government of
Solomon. And, iv. 8, we find Sharon called by its Ammonitish name, amid
a cluster of figures having relation to the locality and productions of
that country.
In short, the whole body of this extraordinary poem points to the region
of the Ammonites for her native place of abode. Now, since Solomon had
an Ammonitess by the name of Naamah for a wife, and since he selected
her son to succeed him on the throne, it seems at least quite probable
she was the person it commemorates; and that fact will make quite
intelligible the allusion to her having been elevated from a servile
condition. But, nevertheless, if it shall be thought not sufficiently
proved that she was the mother of Rehoboam, yet she surely was of some
one of the Canaanitish or Hamitic tribes, and was as surely black; and
so far is in direct proof that the descendants of Ham generally were
black also.
There are incidents of this poem which it would seem cannot be explained
on other ground than that this marriage was one of state policy on the
part of Solomon; and the queen upon this occasion selected was from some
one of the heathen nations of the descendants of Ham, whom he had
subjected to his government. It will be recollected that these nations,
whom the Israelites had failed to destroy, had omitted no occasion to
make war on the Hebrews, from the time of Joshua down to that of David;
and that they occasionally had them in subjection.
Solomon had no guarantee how long his rule over them would prove quiet,
or how far they would yield obedience to his successor. What could
induce him to marry an Ammonite princess, and place her son upon his
throne, if not to effect this purpose? Even at the time of the nuptials
a reference to this political union might well find a place in the songs
to which it gave birth. We introduce one of the incidents to which we
allude: we select the close of the sixth strain. This poem is written in
the form of a dialogue, mostly between the bride and groom.
_Solomon._ Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look
upon thee.
_Naamah._ What will ye see in the Shulamite?
_Solomon._ As it were the company of two armies.
This surely needs no comment. The poem had already recited every mental
and personal quality; was it then unnatural delicately to allude to her
political importance? The art of the poet, however, to cover the
allusion, recommences a view of her personal charms, changes his order,
and commences with her feet.
Much learning has come to many untenable conclusions concerning this
poem, among which, that of the Targum may be placed in the lead.
------------------