local tradition, are not circumstances on which the intelligent inquirer will lay much stress. But it is certainly greatly in favour of this hypothesis that the coast of Africa below the gulf (we would not say Sofala in particular) was the nearest country at which the fleet could arrive that afforded, as native produce, all (as nearly as we can define the articles named in Scripture) the commodities with which the fleet of Solomon was freighted on its return. All the circumstances, also, which are against the theory which places Ophir in Arabia, are in favour of its being fixed on the African coast, and there it has accordingly been fixed by D'Anville, Huet, Montesquieu, Bruce, and Robertson; and even Dr. Vincent allows that it must there be sought for, by those who object to Arabia.

nearer.

3. PERSIAN GULF. Some have sought Ophir in some one of the islands of this gulf, chiefly, as it seems, with the view of enabling the fleet to fill up its time, and to obtain some commodities which it is supposed could not so well be found We have already alluded to the singular theory which Calmet has advocated in his 'Dissertation sur le Pays d'Ophir,' and which, by placing Ophir in Armenia, makes it necessary for him to conduct the fleet of Solomon through the Persian Gulf, and up the Tigris or Euphrates, as far as these rivers were navigable, and where they might receive the produce of the Armenian Ophir. With all respect for this most valuable author, we consider this so strange a delusion, as to think it unnecessary to state any arguments either for or against it. But, before leaving the Persian Gulf, it may be well to notice a circumstance which has been overlooked by the various writers on this subject, but which will be of important use to the clear understanding of the matter. This is, that the Phoenicians had, at a period of remote antiquity-long before the Persian empire rose to greatness, which is the same as saying, long before the times of Daniel and Ezra-commercial settlements in the Gulf of Persia. Professor Heeren, in his excellent work on the commerce of the Phoenicians, has ably analyzed the information by which this fact is demonstrated. We must refer to his work for the proofs, and must content ourselves with stating some of his conclusions. 1. That in times long anterior to the domination of Persia, there was in the Persian Gulf a navigation which was not confined thereto, but extended to very distant countries. 2. These countries were Ceylon, and the western coast of the peninsula of India within the Ganges; and the principal port of this navigation was the port of Crocala, now Curachee, at the embouchure of the Indus, a city of thirteen thousand inhabitants, and which was the seat of a great commerce; and that of Barygaza, now Barache, in the Gulf of Cambay. The proximity of these countries facilitated the voyage between them, which voyage was also favoured by the monsoons, which at regular intervals carried out and brought home the vessels. 3. This navigation was carried on by the Babylonians, and also by the Phoenicians established upon the eastern coast of Arabia and in the Baharein islands: the same navigation was also practised by the Arabs, who sought the coveted luxuries of India, and conveyed them to Babylon or the commercial cities of Phoenicia, whence they were distributed in all directions. 4. The principal objects of this commerce were the incense of Arabia, the spices of India within the Ganges, the cinnamon of Ceylon, the ivory, ebony, precious stones and pearls of the Persian Gulf and of India. These at least are the articles of which the historians speak; but the list is probably very incomplete, and omits many curious and useful objects which are offered to the notice of those who visit these countries. Reserving the application of this to our present subject, let us proceed to

4. INDIA. To this country, certainly, the large majority of authorities refer the Hebrew-Phoenician voyage. It is considered that the distance is sufficient to account for the three years' voyage; and that there is no country in which the various products brought by the fleet might with equal certainty be found. But those who agree thus far, differ amazingly as to the particular district or island in which Ophir should be sought. As we are only considering the matter generally, we do not feel it necessary even to enumerate the multitudinous alternatives, further than to observe that Ceylon seems to have the greatest number of votes in its favour. But as we are inclined to hold precise identification to be impossible, we are only interested in inquiring whether India were at all the object of the voyage. This is strenuously denied by Dr. Vincent and others, who contend that the Phoenicians received all their Indian goods from the Arabians, who did trade with India; and that the Phoenicians never did cross the Indian Ocean. The little we have to say on this point will be found in the concluding considerations to which we now come.

The reader will by this time begin perhaps to question whether any particular places are denoted by the words Tar shish and Ophir. In the note to chap ix. we explained that "ships of Tarshish" were probably so called from being, like those which went from Phoenicia to the Atlantic, especially adapted to a long voyage. Now, by an obvious transition of ideas, among a people whose notions of distant places were very indefinite, when ships that made long voyages were called ships of Tarshish, the name may, in process of time, have been transferred, so as to denote any distant country to which such ships went. This would adequately explain how it happens that the ships which went to Ophir are called ships of Tarshish in the book of Kings, but in the later book of Chronicles are not so called, but are said to have gone to Tarshish, that is, went a distant voyage. This explanation does not rest on our authority: it is the explanation of Gesenius. Heeren, in the work above referred to, applies a somewhat similar explanation to Ophir. He says, "It is very probable that this name, like those of Thule and others, did not designate any fixed place, but simply a certain region of the world, like the names East or West Indies, in modern geography. Thus Ophir may be understood as a general name for the rich south country, including the shores of Arabia, Africa, and India." In confirmation of this he observes elsewhere, after Tychsen, that the word Ophir signifies in Arabia "the rich countries." In these explanations, as respecting the names of Tarshish and Ophir, we entirely acquiesce. They enable us to conclude that the fleet may have gone trading to various places, collecting the different commodities which were required, and relieve us from the necessity of finding everything in one place.

Heeren thinks that the fleet did visit India. But we submit that, on his own showing, this was not necessary. For if Phoenician colonies trading to India did then exist in the Persian Gulf, it was only necessary that the fleet from the Red Sea should proceed thither and receive what the fleets of these colonies brought from India. This is also Seetzen's opinion, and which induces him to place Ophir in the Persian Gulf. But again, we think this altogether unlikely; for what possible inducement could there be, considering the tediousness and difficulty of ancient navigation, to go such a vast way about, to fetch the produce of India and the Gulf from these colonies, when it might be received in so much shorter time, and with so much less expense and inconvenience by the Euphrates, and from thence by caravans across the desert? That the commerce in this regular channel for the trade of the Gulf was still open, seems to be indicated by the foundation of Tadmor in the desert (see the note on chap. viii.) If, therefore, these colonies were then established in the Gulf, as we think more than probable, we do not conceive that the fleet did go either to the Gulf or to India; but we see no difficulty in believing that it did so, if no such colonies then existed. Assuming that they did exist, we should then conceive that the object of the voyage had no concern with a trade already in operation; but was destined to open a new and profitable branch of trade in another quarter, to which the natural means of access were by the Red Sea, which was at this time first opened to Phoenician and Hebrew enterprise. This was of course to the shores of the Red Sea (including Arabia if we please) and of the African coast beyond the Straits. If it has not been sufficiently explained how the stated time might be commenced in this voyage, it is only necessary to add that "every

three years" may with equal or greater propriety be rendered "every third year," which may mean any time more than two years and less than three, and further, that as the Hebrews counted broken years and days for whole ones, it might not be even two years. Thus, if they left in the autumn of the year I, continued away all the year II, and returned in the spring of the year III, they would be said to return in the third year, though they had only been absent eighteen months. Thus our Saviour rose "on the third day," though he had only been one day and two nights in the tomb. Again, observing that we only contend for this view in the absence of colonies in the Persian Gulf, we may add that it does not contract but enlarge the scope of the commerce in which Solomon had part: for while his possession of the desert to the Euphrates gave him the command of the caravan trade which brought the produce of India from the Euphrates or Persian Gulf, his Red Sea commerce rendered tributary to him the east African coast, so far as then known, with its mines of precious metal and rare productions.

"Ships."-The cuts representing some specimens of ancient ships, we introduce as a suitable appendage to the considerations in the preceding note on the commercial navigation of the Hebrews. They will suggest to the reader some practical ideas concerning the vessels in which such navigation was probably performed. This being our object, it is not necessary to enter into any historical or descriptive statement at present: and should this seem necessary on a future occasion, the reader will only have to refer back to these cuts for the pictorial illustration of the accounts we may then furnish. We shall now merely make a few observations with the view of rendering the cuts more instructive.

The ancient ships were of three kinds-ships of war, of passage, and of merchandise. All our cuts belong to the two latter classes, the first not being required for our present purpose. To diversify the illustration, we have given specimens from different ancient nations-Egyptian and Roman. It will be observed that they have all but one mast; nor do any ancient authors mention more; but an engraved gem, copied by Stosch, represents a vessel with a main and mizen mast. This vessel, like our fig. 4, is equipped for sailing only, not for rowing also; although, as in most of our cuts, very ancient vessels are usually represented as adapted for rowing only, or for both rewing and sailing. (See Jonah . 13; Ezek. xxvii. 26.) The progress of invention seems to have been, first rowing; then sails to assist rowing, and ultimately sailing only. It appears from Ezek. xxvi. 6, 7, 29, that the Phoenician ships were worked by oars and sails; some apparently by both, and others by oars only. There are other passages of Scripture bearing on the practices of ancient navigation, which will receive our attention when we reach them. The mast remained for a long time moveable, and was only set up as wanted. Such are the masts mentioned by Homer. The intimation of the prophet seems to the same purport (Isa. xxxiii. 23); and this is clearly exhibited in the bas-relief of the building of the Argo, in the Townley collection of marbles. The poets, also, who relate the voyage of that famous ship, of which they speak with wonder, describe the mast as taken down when in harbour, and set up again when it departed; and also as being propelled at once by sail and oars. We introduce a cut of the bas-relief, which affords a curious and appropriate illustration of the present subject. The ancient navigators long continued to use the sail only with a favourable wind; and their learning at last how to sail upon a tack may have led to the disuse of oars in sailing vessels. One thing that the reader will not fail to notice, is the small size of all the vessels which our cuts exhibit. This observation equally applies to all vessels, of this class of which any representations remain. This indeed affords an important circumstance in explaining one

Fig. 2.-EGYPTIAN SHIP.-From Sculptures in the Grotto of Eleutherium.

22 Kings 8. 16, 17. 3 Chap. 22. 2. !g Sam. 7. 12. 1 Kings 11. 36. 2 Kings 8. 19. Psa. 132. 11, &c. 6 Heb. hand. 9 Heb. curried captive.

there was never a son left him, save 10Jehoa- | burning for him, like the burning of his haz, the youngest of his sons. fathers.

18 And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. 19 And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no

20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jeru salem eight years, and departed "without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

10 Or, Ahaziah, chap. 22. 1; or, Azariah, chap. 22.6. 11 Heb. without desire.

Verse 12. "A writing....from Elijah the prophet."-It is concluded, from a comparison of dates, that Elijah's translation must have taken place several years before this. The opinion of Josephus, and many Jewish and Christian writers, is that the letter was sent to the king, by Elijah, from heaven, by the ministry of angels. Of many other opinions, the more probable seems to be that the name of Elijah has crept into the text instead of that of Elisha, by whom this explanation supposes the letter to have been written ;-or, that Elijah, perceiving by the spirit of prophecy the criminal conduct of the king, and its consequences, wrote this letter previously to his translation, and left it with one of the prophets (probably Elisha), to be delivered in due season ;-or, that the date of the translation of Elijah is not indicated with such precision, as to enable us to feel quite assured that it had already taken place when this letter was sent to Jehoram.

15. "Disease of thy bowels."-Jahn, on the authority of Dr. Mead (Medica Sacra,' ch. iv.) concludes this disease to have been a form of dysentery. The long duration of such a disorder is a very unusual circumstance, which, with its awful severity and the previous prediction of the prophet, sufficiently indicated the Hand from which the stroke came.