Sivut kuvina

not, like other travellers, approach the city from the usual Damascus road, mentions another temple in the plain, at half an hour's walk from the town, and which seems to have escaped the notice of Maundrell, Wood, Volney, and others. From his brief notice it seems to resemble the last mentioned, in being an octagonal building. But it is of an order resembling the Doric, and its eight columns are of very beautiful granite. With this exception, and that of a single isolated Doric column within the town, the remains at Baalbec are of the Corinthian order, like those of Tadmor; but in a style of architecture far more rich and grand. In the former note, we quoted Mangles' estimate of the height and diameter of the largest pillars at Tadmor ; and it may be well to compare this with what he says of the columns of the grand colonnade forming the approach to the great temple at Baalbec. “The beauty and elegance of these pillars are surprising. Their diameter is seven feet; and we estimated their altitude at between fifty and sixty feet (68 feet) exclusive of the epistylium, which is twenty feet deep, and composed of immense blocks of stone, in two layers each of ten feet in depth. The whole of this is elaborately ornamented with rich carved work in various devices.” All travellers mention with astonishment the enormous size of the stones employed, particularly those of the terrace or soubassement of the great temple. Having alluded to these in the note to 1 Kings v., we need not repeat our observations. The vast size of these blocks of stone, and the height at which some of them are found, has led the natives to entertain the opinion that Solomon obliged the demons to labour in his works; which indeed they say of other buildings attributed to him-as Tadmor and the Temple at Jerusalem. Near the city walls there is a quarry from which these immense stones appear to have been taken, and where some vast blocks still remain, prepared for use ; while the stone for the more ornamental part of the buildings seems to have been derived from a quarry of coarse white marble at a greater distance. Volney says the buildings are constructed with a white granite ;" but Burckhardt corrects him, by observing that the stone is “of the primitive calcareous kind, but harder than the stone of Tadmor.”

We need not say that here, as at Tadmor, it would be idle to look for any buildings erected by Solomon. All the ruins are in the Græco-Roman style, and probably none are anterior to the Christian era. It is, however, not by any means improbable that the soubassements and foundation walls, which excite so much astonishment by the enormous size of the stones employed, may have been of much more ancient construction-even of the age of Solomon, who, as he procured “great stones” from a distance for the construction of the Jerusalem Temple, was still more likely to employ "great stones” when the quarries were close at hand. (See the notes, 1 Kings v. 17; vii. 10.)



these thy servants, which stand continually

before thee, and hear thy wisdom. 1 The queen of Sheba admireth the wisdom of Solo13 Solomon's gold. 15 His targets. 17

8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which The throne of ivory. 20 His vessels. 23 His delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, presents. 25 His chariots and horse. 26 His

to be king for the LORD thy God: because tributes. 29 His reign and death.

thy God loved Israel, to establish them for AND 'when the queen of Sheba heard of the ever, therefore made he thee king over them, fame of Solomon, she came to prove Solomon to do judgment and justice. with hard questions at Jerusalem, with a very 9 And she gave the king an hundred and great company, and camels that bare spices, twenty talents of gold, and of spices great and gold in abundance, and precious stones: abundance, and precious stones : neither was and when she was come to Solomon, she there any such spice as the queen of Sheba communed with him of all that was in her gave king Solomon. heart.

10 And the servants also of Huram, and 2 And Solomon told her all her ques- the servants of Solomon, which brought gold tions: and there was nothing hid from So- from Ophir, brought algum trees and prelomon which he told her not.

cious stones. 3 And when the queen of Sheba had seen 11 And the king made of the algum trees the wisdom of Solomon, and the house that terraces to the house of the LORD, and to he had built,

the king's palace, and harps and psalteries 4 And the meat of his table, and the sit- for singers: and there were none such seen ting of his servants, and the attendance of his before in the land of Judah. ministers, and their apparel; his 'cupbearers

12 And king Solomon gave to the queen also, and their apparel; and his ascent by of Sheba all her desire, whatsoever she asked. which he went up into the house of the beside that which she had brought unto the LORD; there was no more spirit in her. king. So she turned, and went away to her

5 And she said to the king, It was a true own land, she and her servants. øreport which I heard in mine own land of 13 9 Now the weight of gold that came thinc *acts, and of thy wisdom:

to Solomon in one year was six hundred and 6 Howbeit I believed not their words, threescore and six talents of gold; until I came, and mine eyes had seen it : 14 Beside that which chapmen and merand, behold, the one half of the greatness chants brought. And all the kings of Araof thy wisdom was not told me: for thou bia and governors of the country brought exceedest the fame that I heard.

gold and silver to Solomon. 7 Happy are thy men, and happy are 15 And king Solomon made two hun"! Kings 10. 1, &c. Matth. 12. 42. Luke 11. 31. Or, butlers.

* Or, sayings. 5 Or, stays.

6 Heb. highways. 7 Or, captains,

'Heb. word.

dred targets of beaten gold: six hundred 21 For the king's ships went to Tarshish shekels of beaten gold went to one target. with the servants of Huram: every three

16 And three hundred shields made he of years once came the ships of Tarshish bringbeaten gold: three hundred shekels of golá ing gold, and silver, "ivory, and apes, and went to one shield. And the king put them peacocks. in the house of the forest of Lebanon.

22 And king Solomon passed all the kings 17 Moreover the king made a great throne of the earth in riches and wisdom. of ivory, and overlaid it with pure gold. 23 | And all the kings of the earth sought

18 And there were six steps to the throne, the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened that God had put in his heart. to the throne, and stays on each side of the 24 And they brought every man his presitting place, and two lions standing by the sent, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, stays:

and raiment, harness, and spices, horses, and 19 And twelve lions stood there on the mules, a rate year by year. one side and on the other upon the six steps. 25 And Solomon had four thousand There was not the like made in any king- stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve dom.

thousand horsemen ; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

26 | And he reigned over all the kings 18from the "river even unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt.

27 And the king "made silver in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar trees made he as the sycomore trees that are in the low plains in abundance.

28 "And they brought unto Solomon horses out of Egypt, and out of all lands.

29 | Now the rest of the "acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the

prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the [SOLOMON'S THRONE.—AFTER VILLALPANDUS.]

visions of ''Iddo the seer against Jeroboam

the son of Nebat? 20 | And all the drinking vessels of king,

30 And Solomon reigned in Jerusalem Solomon were of gold, and all the vessels of

over all Israel forty years. the house of the forest of Lebanon were of 31 And Solomon slept with his fathers, 'pure gold: none were of silver; it was not and he was buried in the city of David his any thing accounted of in the days of Solo- father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in mon.

his stead.


3 Heb. hands.
Heb. shut up:

10 Or, there was no silver in them. 14 That is, Euphrates.

15 Heb. gate.

18 Kings 10. 28. Chap. 1. 16.

[blocks in formation]

Verse 1. " The queen of Sheba.”—This princess is called the queen of the south” in Luke xi. 31. There has been much elaborate discussion, having for its object to determine from what country this queen came. One of the principal alternatives makes this country to have been at the southern extremity of Arabia ; and the other asserts the claim of Ethiopia or Abyssinia.

With respect to the first alternative, which places Sheba in Arabia, it is unquestionable that one of the most celebrated nations of Arabia-Felix was known as the Sabæi, and their territory as Sabea. This territory was also celebrated in profane antiquity for its ample possession of such articles as the queen of Sheba brought to Solomon. The spices, the incense, the gold of Sabea-its abundance in every production which could make life happy, and the consequent luxury and redundant wealth of the inhabitants, procured for southernmost Arabia the surname of Felix, the Happy,and the glowing

and exaggerated statements which Greek and Roman writers have transmitted in reference to it, clearly show that almost nothing was practically known of the country; and the Oriental produce of which the Sabæi and other maritime Arabians were the carriers, being considered the actual produce of the country, rendered it a sort of El Dorado to the ancient imagination. At whatever conclusion we may arrive with reference to the present text, there cannot be the least doubt that this, the Arabian Sabea, is frequently to be understood by the Sheba or Seba of the Seriptures.

The other opinion, in favour of Abyssinia, although not taken up first by him, has found its most powerful advocacy in the statements and reasonings of Mr. Bruce. It has the (in such a matter) valuable sanction of Josephus, as Bruce

fails not to state; and, what is of still greater importance, the opinion not only forms the unanimous belief of a great nation, but has left a most sensible impress upon the whole system of its laws, manners, and institutions.

It is first necessary to observe that three sources are intimated in Scripture from whence the name of Sheba or Sela might be derived. í. From a son and grandson of Cush (Gen. x. 7). 2. From a son of Joktan (Gen. x. 28). 3. Fron a grandson of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 3). Now it is reasonable to suppose that these denominations did not coalesce in any one people, but formed as many independent tribes: for they were of families different and remote in time. The first was of Ham, the second of Shem, the third, also of Shem, was long posterior. Arabian traditions confirm the probability that the Sabeans of South Arabia were from the second of these stocks, forming the people to whom the preceding statements refer. The third we probably find in the marauding nomade tribe mentioned in Job i. 15, and vi. 19. And the first, being from Ham, probably originated the denomination of Saba in African Ethiopia, Now we apprehend that much confusion of ideas has arisen from the hasty conclusion that in every text the name Sheba or Seba always denotes the same country, and Sabeans the same people. Omitting, from the present consideration, the Bedouin Sabeans, it is easy to show that two other Shebas are distinguished in Scripture most clearly. As this is much overlooked, we may quote Psalm lxxii. 10,—“ The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts ;” and Ezek xxvii. 22, 23,—“The merchants of Sheba and Raamah....occupied in thy fairs with the chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold. Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad were thy merchants.” This last passage is of great importance. It specifies two mercantile Shebas most distinctly. If we look to either of them as that from which the queen came, it will doubtless be to the first, because the products are the same which the queen of Sheba brought to Solomon; the excellence of the spices in particular being in both instances specified. It is not too much to suppose that one of them was the Sheba of Arabia, the other of African Ethiopia; and if so, then this very same Sheba on which we have fixed must certainly be the African one ; for the names of Raamah and Sheba, which are here connected, are connected also in Gen. x. 7, as the names of a son and grandson of Cush, who gave to Ethiopia its Hebrew name. It is indeed true that South Arabia is also called Ethiopia, and that the original Cushite settlement was there ; but as we have here two Shebas, of which that in Arabia claims to have taken its name from Sheba, the son of Joktan, and grandson of Shem, we are bound to find another place for that Sheba to which the grandson of Cush gave his name; and where shall this be but in African Ethiopia? To this we shall be further led by the consideration that the African Sheba or Saba, towards the south of the Red Sea, was famous for producing incense, spices, and gold, which Arabia did not and does not produce. So, upon the whole, if Scripture does anywhere acknowledge the African Sheba, we may conclude it to be here intended: and that it does acknowledge it, appears from the manner in which it is associated with Egypt in such passages as these:-“ I give Egypt for thy ransom; Ethiopia and Seba for thee” (Isa. xliii. 3); and “The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans” (İsa. xlv. 14). This is the more remarkable when we consider that the geographical order corresponds with this enumeration—the African Ethiopia being to the south of Egypt, and Saba to the south, or in the most southern part, of Ethiopia. We are aware that some, unreasonably, contend that the African Ethiopia is never noticed in Scripture ; but we have not the least doubt that it is so, when mentioned thus along with Egypt. How else is the following passage explained ? Describing the invasion of Judah by Shishak, king of Egypt, the sacred historian says: "The people were without number that came with him out of Egyptthe Lubims, the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians." These Ethiopians were certainly not Arabians.

Without at present entering into the discussion whether the African Saba were considered a distinct state, or merely a southern part of Ethiopia, we may observe that Mr. Bruce, who finds in Abyssinia, near and bordering on the southern part of the Red Sea, and opposite the Arabian Saba, a country which native histories testify to have been anciently called Saba or Azaba, does not derive its name naturally from the son or grandson of Cush, but explains it by its meaning, “ south," with a view to show why the queen of Sheba is, in the New Testament, called the queen of the south. His account is confirmed by Strabo, who mentions an Ethiopian port called Saba on the Red Sea. The Abyssinians certainly believe the Sheba, whose queen visited Solomon, to have been in their own country. We know that Solomon had the maritime commerce of the Red Sea, on the African shores of which this Saba was situated. Its shores were doubtless among those which that commerce visited, and, as Bruce observes, what the queen heard of the great king, for whom so much wealth was continually being exported from her dominions, might naturally create a desire to visit him. She might have gone by land through Egypt-a journey which is now constantly performed by the Abyssinian pilgrims to and from Jerusalem; or she may have sailed up the Red Sea, and have passed from Suez or Ezion-geber to Jerusalem on camels, in the usual manner; or, she may have crossed the Red Sea into the Arabian Sabea, and thence journeyed on camels through Arabia to Jerusalem. This last course might help to make both the theories under discussion coalesce ; particularly if, as Bruce tells us, the opposite coasts formed at times but one dominion, so that "the queen of Sheba” may at this time have been the queen of both the Sabea of Ethiopia and that of Arabia.

The Abyssinian histories state that the queen remained to acquaint herself with the Hebrew religion ; to comprehend the order of that government and royal establishments which the Scriptures tell us she so much admired. And here it is important to note that the consequences of that admiration, which would naturally lead to imitation, can be discovered even at this day in Abyssinia, but have left no trace in Arabia. And also that the protracted stay of the queen in Judæa is corroborated by the independent testimony of the Moslems, who tell us that Baalbec was, in the first instance, built by Solomon as a residence for the queen of Sheba. The Abyssinians further state that the queen ultimately returned with a son she had born to Solomon; and who was afterwards sent back to be educated at Jerusalem; and finally returned home with a colony of Jews, consisting of priests and other able and learned persons, by whose aid the people were instructed in the Hebrew religion and laws, and the government modelled on the plan which that of Solomon offered. The son of Solomon succeeded " the queen of Sheba,” and the line of sovereigns descended from him have ever gloried in tracing their origin to the wise and renowned Hebrew king. Such is the substance o: Abyssinian history and tradition on the subject. If it had been a dry unsupported legend, we should be strongly inclined to reject it. But this we hesitate to do when we observe the permanent and otherwise unaccountable corro boration it has received from the still subsisting ideas, usages, laws, and even the religion of the Abyssinians. There is no existing nation which in these respects so much resembles the Jews: their religion itself, though called Christian, having rather more of Judaism than Christianity in it. We, of course, cannot say that we implicitly believe all the details of this account; but it is difficult not to acquiesce in it as a general statement. Do we not also find a corroboration of it in the fact that the treasurer of Candace, queen of Ethiopia, was of the Jewish religion, and had been up to Jerusalem to worship, when he was met near Gaza and converted by the preaching of Philip the deacon? (Acts viii.)

Upon the whole, we consider that there is great moral probability in the leading facts of the Abyssinian narrative; and that the geographical probability is not incompatiblo with it. 'In the New Testament it is said that the queen of

“ the south came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon” (Mat. xii. 42 ; Luke xi. 31). We

have considered that passage, and think that it rather supports than militates against the view we are inclinod to s prefer, as we shall be prepared to state when that text comes, in due course, under examination.

[graphic][ocr errors][merged small]

10. “ A gum trees.”—Where there Ys so little to assist conjecture, it may seem hazardous to guess, but as the Elmug tree, among other purposes, was employed in the construction of musical instruments, we are naturally led to suppose that it was a kind of pine tree. It came from Lebanon, but a much better sort was brought from Ophir; and as that place is agreed to have been either an Indian port or an emporium on the coast of Arabia for the produce of India, we may, without much violence to verisimilitude, suppose that the foreign or better kind was the Pinus deodara of India, which affords a very beautiful wood of great fragrance. All the most sacred and valuable works in that peninsula are made of this wood—and not unworthily, for such is the odour, hardness, and veiny colourations of the wood, that we, who have seen articles of furniture manufactured from it, cannot wonder at the preference. We have given a picturesque illustration of this pine, to invite the attention of the reader to it, though we are not disposed to affirm positively that the deodara was the almug of Solomon and nothing else.

10, 21. Ophir... Tarshish.”—The passages of Scripture in which Ophir and Tarshish are named, bring before us the only information we possess concerning the only maritime commerce in which the Hebrews appear to have been erer engaged. The subject is of too much interest to be passed without notice, although, with a due regard to our imits and design, we cannot undertake any very complete consideration of a subject which involves much detail and is beset with many difficulties. To lay a proper foundation for the few remarks we have to offer, it is necessary to see what the Scripture says on the subject. In the first place we find that the gold of Ophir was known to the Jews long before they had any commercial intercourse with the country which produced it. Job, who lived long anterior to this period, names the gold of Ophir (xxii. 24); and it is mentioned among the precious metals which David prepared for the temple (1 Chron. xxix. 4); and it is also noticed in the Psalms (Ps. xlv. 10). Then we find that Solomon, jointly with the Phænicians, fitted out a mercantile feet at Ezion-geber and Elath, in the eastern gulf of the Red Sea, which from thence proceeded to Ophir and brought back gold, algum trees, and precious stones (chap. viii. 17, 18; ix . 10). Then follows an account of the great wealth of Solomon in gold, and the objects to which it was applied, so that silver was nothing accounted of in his days; and then the cause of this is mentioned, -" For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish, with the navy of Hiram: once in every three years came the navy of Tarshish bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks” (1 Kings x. 22). We are not told whether this was the same voyage as that to Ophir or not, nor are we told from what port the feet departed. But this information appears to be supplied in 1 Kings xxii. 48, where we read that “ Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not, for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber.” This text is a clear illustration of the two preceding. We learn succezsively that Solomon's navy went to Ophir for gold, that he was very wealthy, and that he became so because his ouvy

[ocr errors]

of Tarshish brought a great quantity of gold, &c. every three years :-and that these ships of Tarshish were those that went to Ophir, we learn from the fact that Jehoshaphat's ships of Tarshish were destined to Ophir for gold, from the same port in the Red Sea whence Solomon's fleet had departed for Ophir. Thus far, all seems tolerably clear, and Scripture explains itself. But before we can proceed to consider the destination of the fleet, or look to the parallel texts in the book now before us in which the name of Tarshish occurs, it is necessary to inquire were Tarshish was.

That the word is used with different applications in Scripture, we believe ; but its primary and just reference, as a proper name, is, on very good grounds, believed to be Tartessus, a most important commercial settlement and emporium of the Phænicians on the Atlantic coast of Spain, at the mouth of the Bætis or Guadalquivir, and not far from the ancient Gades, now Cadiz. The name “Tartessus but a different pronunciation of “ Tarshish:” and that all the more definite references of Scripture agree with it in situation and other circumstances, is easily shown. Thus, its situation in the west is inferred from Gen. x. 4, where it is mentioned along with Elishab, Chittim, and Dodanim ; and in Ps. lxxii. 10, it is connected with the islands of the west. Ezek. xxxviii

. 13, shows it to have been an important place of trade. According to Jer. x. 9, it exported silver: according to Ezek. xxvii. 9, it sent silver, iron, lead, and tin, to the market of Tyre. In Jon. i. 4; iv. 2 Joppa is mentioned as a port of embarkation for Tarshish. In Isa. xxiä. 1. 6. 10, it is evidently mentioned as an important Phænician colony: and in Isa. lxvi. 19, it is named among other distant states. All these circumstances apply to Tartessus, and some of them can apply to no other place.

Now, as it is necessary to keep our ideas quite distinct on the subject, without confounding some passages and overlooking others, let us see what information we have thus obtained from the book of Kings only on the subject. It is not that the ships which left Ezion-geber went to any place called Tarshish ; but only that the ships of Tarshish went to Ophir for gold. Then, what are we to understand by the ships of Tarshish? Tartessus had been the emporium of the most distant trade of the Phænicians westward : and the ships engaged in this trade, having to make the longest voyages then known, were probably distinguished by peculiarities in their size and make, and were called ships of Tarshish, from the distant place to which they traded : just as we call "Indiamen” the ships made for and devoted to the trade with India. Now the Phænicians, who doubtless built the ships for the trade with Ophir, would seem to have taken as their model for the vessels intended for this distant navigation, their Tarshish ships, which they knew to be best suited loos voyages, and with the management of which in such voyages they were best acquainted. Or there is another alternative, which would render it probable that the ships of Tarshish were really destined for or engaged in the trade with Tartessus, and that the Phænicians, applying them to this new object, brought them down to that part of the Mediter ranean coast opposite to the Red Sea, where they took them to pieces, carried the parts across the desert on camels, and put them together again at Ezion-geber or Elath. The absolute want of any wood, near the Red Sea, suitable for ship-building, might render this necessary; and the difficulty of such an enterprise is only in appearance. Even the Crusaders surmounted it, and even now, as Laborde informs us, "the inhabitants of Suez constantly see vessels afloat in a complete condition, which a short time before they beheld passing through their streets in parts on the backs of camels." These alternatives, separately or together, will be allowed to furnish a satisfactory explanation of what may have been meant by “ships” and “navies” of Tarshish.

Thus far, therefore, the mention of Tarshish would involve the question in no difficulty, but might rather contrilute to its illustration. But much difficulty arises from the different reading in 2 Chron. of the same passages which we have quoted and explained from 1 Kings. Let us compare them thus :1 Kings x. 22.

2 Chron, ix. 21. “For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the “For the king's ships went to Tarshish with the sernavy of Hiram. Once in three years came the navy of vants of Huram: every three years once came the ships of Tharshish bringing gold and silver ivory, and apes, and Tarshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes

and peacocks."

peacocks." 1 Kings xxii. 48.

2 Chron. xx. 35, 36. “ Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir “He (Jehoshaphat) joined himself with him (the king for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at of Israel) to make ships to go to Tarshish: and they made Ezion-geber.”

the ships in Ezion-gaber... And the ships were broken,

that they were not able to go to Tarshish.” The remarkable difference between these texts is, that the earlier account, in both instances, only says that the voyage was made by ships of Tarshish; whereas the later account says that the ships went to Tarshish. "The difference is most striking in the last quoted parallel ; for in Kings it is said they were to have gone to Ophir, but in Chronicles, to Tarshish, without any reference to Ophir. Since we are bound to take these texts not as alternatives, but as of equal authority, and as explaining each other, the inference from the comparison of these two passages is plainly, and apart from all explanation, either that “Ophir” and “Tarshish” are synonymous indications of the same destination, or that the two names denote, respectively, the principal intermediate and ulterior points of the same voyage. We do not set that this examination of all the passages that bear on the subject can have room for any interpretation which supposes that the voyage to Tarshish was altogether different from that to Ophir. A partial reference to Solomon's trade only, might afford an opening for this conclusion; for it is not there said of the feet for Tarshish that it departed from Ezion-gaber; whence it has been concluded that it left from a Mediterranean port westward of the Atlantic coast of Spain, and perhaps of Africa ; while that for Ophir proceeded down the Red Sea. But this is disproved completely, as we conceive, hy 1 Kings xxii. 48, and 2 Chron. xx. 35, 36, whether taken separately or together. And moreover we conceive that the idea of such a voyage is still further disproved by the utter unlikelihood that the Phænicians, so notorious for their extreme and even mysterious jealousy concerning their western trade, should have been willing and active parties in enabling the Hebrew king to obtain a share in it, which, without their co-operation, he could not have done. That they should be themselves extremely willing to enlarge their operations in the eastern trade, through their co-operation with Solomon, is what we can readily understand.

Now then we must attend to the consequences of the conclusion at which we have arrived—that Ophir and Tarshish were both visited in the same voyage-that voyage commencing at the head of the Red Sea.

In the first place it is evident that if Tarshish be in these passages Tartessus, as is usually the case, then we arriso with the utmost certainty at the conclusion, that the feet of Solomon, in its voyage from Ezion-gaber to Tarshish, must have gone all round Africa, doubling the Cape of Good Hope, and returning by the Mediterranean. If we knew this to be the case, we should of course have no hesitation in placing Ophir on the coast of Africa, either the eastern of western coast, as probability might determine. The probability of such a voyage opens a large and important question, which we cannot here undertake to discuss. Authors, of high name, are much divided as to the question whether the Cape of Govel Hope was ever doubled till the time of Vasco de Gama; and, consequently they differ in their estimate

« EdellinenJatka »