the time of Joel, we saw that the prophet and the priest were in perfect harmony; but all the later prophets abound in invective against the priests, who are described as bartering truth for money, teaching for hire, flattering the rich man, and partaking of his vices. The blacker parts of the picture belong to the next reign, or to still later times; yet on the whole we cannot doubt that under Uzziah and Jotham the priesthood became more worldly-minded, while they also consolidated their position in the state. We find also in the same prophets bitter complaints against the venality of judges; and though it may be doubtful whether this was a new evil, it is an evil which must have become more unmanageable, when a judge could not sustain the expenses incident to his rank without it, and when priests set him the example. It would also appear that the commerce with Egypt received a great development under these two kings; and, as the trade was open and no longer a royal monopoly as under Solomon, the two nations came more closely into intercourse. At least we can discern in the prophets marks of increased familiarity with Egypt, into which whole families of Jews migrated, no doubt for the purposes of trade. Desirable as this was for worldly wealth, the spiritual influence of that beast-adoring, mystery-loving, magic-ridden and priest-led country must have been decidedly degrading to the people of Jerusalem. The course of the trade with Egypt can only be conjectured. If the conquests of Uzziah in Philistia are correctly reported, the direct way of the sea-coast would obviously be used; indeed peace with Philistia might have been at least as serviceable as conquest. But the port of Elath, which was retained till the third generation, afforded another, though circuitous, transport', whenever the prevailing winds or Philistine enmity made the Mediterranean dangerous to the merchant. Although to build "ships of Tarshish" and sail for Ophir was too ambitious an attempt, (for in the silence of the historians, we may confidently infer that no such essay was made;)

It would be to the purpose to learn, whether wine and oil in goat-skins might be drawn upon sledges over the rocky soil from Judæa to the port of Elath.

LITERATURE IN JUDEA.

245

yet native craft would no doubt, in the fair season, easily run round to Suez, or coast along the Red Sea to some other port, by which the exchange of merchandize in fixed months would be steadily carried on. Altogether, we may conclude, that the old agricultural and more confined system was breaking up in Judah, as in Israel; that the nation in general was passing through the necessary, yet dangerous, transition into the freer mercantile and polished state; unlearning perhaps many crimes and prejudices, yet acquiring also many vices: a process which may be passed through with success, if external influences are friendly; but which is in general fatal to a small community that is at the same time agitated by powerful foreign hostility. Another silent change in Judæa must be suggested, as having probably been brought about in this period;—an increased familiarity of the people with the art of reading and writing. The diffusion of commerce through the nation would assuredly effect this. Merchants who keep up correspondence with foreign countries must learn this art as a part of their trade. And this may be the true reason why written prophecy now begins to bud forth. In Jerusalem itself, among the priests, writing had long been familiar; hence for Joel to compose his short prophecy was as natural as for others to write sacred psalms. Amos also, though he had uttered his oracles in Israel, committed them to writing a little later, and probably after his return into Judæa. Towards the end of Jotham's reign, however, the number of readers may have so much increased in all the chief towns, that a prophet had a new stimulus to written composition. The earliest essays are highly poetical. Then prosaic portions are interposed, with short narrative. In the progress of time prophecy becomes more prosaic, indicating that prose composition was now more familiar. At last, actual attempts at continuous history appear. This is an order of development quite parallel to that of the Greeks, the Arabs and the Persians.

There is a small point observable in our historians, common to Jehoshaphat and to Jotham, which may deserve to be noted, although it is uncertain what it indicates. Every king

of Judah except Jehoram and Ahaz have the names of the queen-mothers annexed: the exception may almost make it appear that their fathers had but one wife. It has already been observed, that a check to the abuse of polygamy was first given by Asa: we would fain believe that the son of Asa improved on his father's example: but the account given in the Chronicles, of Jehoram murdering his six brothers, if true, suggests that they were born of polygamy. It is at any rate singular, that in the two pair of kings who are in other respects exemplary, there should be room for the belief that the latter of each pair was a monogamist. Jotham died1 sixteen years after his accession, but only seven after his father, and was succeeded on the throne by his son АHAZ.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII.

JEHOIADA in this reign, Azariah (according to the Chronicler) under Uzziah, Urijah under Ahaz, Azariah" of the house of Zadok" (in 2 Chr. xxxi.) under Hezekiah, Hilkiah under Josiah, also Elishama and Jehoram under Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xvii. 8)—are the chief priests named. We have in 1 Chr. vi. 4-15 a professed genealogy connecting Zadok with Hilkiah through two Azariahs, and a fragment of it with a slight variation and inversion in 1 Chr. ix. 11; but the difficulty which it involves can only be seen by paralleling it with the genealogy of the Kings.

2 It is the misunderstanding of this peculiarity, as Hitzig well observes, which has interposed a fictitious interregnum of nine years between Pekah and Hoshea. Yet Hitzig does not on this account shorten the chronology, but adds nine years to the reigns of Ahaz and of Pekah; in which it is difficult to follow him.

GENEALOGIES OF THE HIGH PRIESTS.

247

Hilkiah was about coeval with Josiah's father. Place Azariah as parallel to Uzziah, to satisfy 2 Chr. xxvi. 20; then, since Ahimaaz son of Zadok was a strong youth during Absalom's rebellion, 2 Sam. viii. 19, we have barely three and a half generations in the priests, where the kings show ten1. Thus the pedigree even of Hilkiah is not made out, nor of the Azariah so pointedly called "of the house of Zadok." But this is not all. The breach between this Azariah and Johanan, which here suggests itself, is clear from Ezra vii., where Ezra's genealogy is traced up to Aaron through Hilkiah. From Hilkiah upwards to the Azariah whom we place contemporary with Uzziah, the pedigree agrees with 1 Chr. vi., but Azariah is made to be son of Meraioth, not of Johanan; and the series upwards runs thus:-Azariah, Meraioth, Zerahiah, Uzzi, Bukki, Abishua, Phinehas, Eleazar, Aaron, which is copied from 1 Chr. vi. 3-6; only that there, Meraioth is great-grandfather of David's friend Zadok, instead of being father to a contemporary of Uzziah. It is then manifest that the priests in Ezra's days knew nothing of the early pedigree. Tradition or family registers traced back Hilkiah's descent as far as Zadok his grandfather only, without deviation; then some made Zadok to be son of Meraioth son of Ahitub2, others made Zadok immediate son of Ahitub, and continued the pedigree up to Azariah; and higher than this nothing was even reported. When one catalogue regards this Azariah as son of Johanan, a contemporary of Solomon's, and another makes him son of Meraioth, a contemporary to Phinehas son of Eli, they do but arbitrarily attach the top of a recent pedigree to the bottom of an antique or legendary one.

In fact, when we find it to be uncertain whether Hilkiah's immediate father was named Shallum or Meshullam, we might feel justified in doubting even the lower part of the genealogy. 1 1 Chr. vi. 10 increases the embarrassment, by alledging that Johanan executed the priest's office in the temple which Solomon built; which can hardly mean anything else, than that he officiated at the dedication. In this case he must surely have been son, not grandson of Ahimaaz, and the name Azariah between them would seem to have been foisted in.

2 1 Chr. ix. 11.

248

CHAPTER VIII.

FROM THE CONQUESTS OF JEROBOAM II. TO THE FALL OF

SAMARIA, B.C. 762-721.

In the interval which had elapsed since Jeroboam's career of conquest, dark clouds had passed over the ever-varying sky of Samaria. Although the house of Jehu reigned for a full century, and the third and fourth princes of the line had been eminently prosperous in war, no national feeling had rallied round the dynasty, no powerful sentiment of loyalty had taken root. Men could not forget that Jehu had won his royal seat, and initiated himself in power, by a tissue of perfidious crime, which no prophet's voice could hallow to the popular feeling. Nor was it easy for patriotism to cement Israel into a single whole. Ephraim, Manasseh and Gilead sympathised but imperfectly with one another, and felt more as tribes than as a nation. No historical remembrance of David had a thrill to their hearts, rebels as they were against the heavy yoke of the son of David. Nothing perhaps but hatred of the Syrians and Ammonites united them; and this tie failed when Syria ceased to be formidable. Nor do the prophets of Israel seem to have retained with the nation any moral weight to throw (had they been ever so much disposed) into the scale of Jehu's dynasty. The regal authority continued to be the mere rule of force, unsanctified by higher principle; and the princes and chiefs, who encircled the throne of Jeroboam, were too probably aware that any of them who could displace him by crime would meet little resistance from the people. When at length the veteran warrior was removed by death', his son and successor Zechariah was in the very next year murdered before the eyes of the public.