to whom the Greeks had paid a tribute for Antioch, which Soliman refused to continue. Moslem was defeated and killed; but in attempting to pursue his advantage and occupy Aleppo, Soliman was opposed and overthrown by Sultan Tutush, viceroy of Syria for his brother Malek Shah (whose vassal Moslem had been), and either fell in the battle, or, as some say, perished by his own hand, A.D. 1086 (A.H. 479). His sons were however restored by Malek Shah to the kingdom of Room, where one of them, Kilidj-Arslan, was reigning at the appearance of the first Crusaders, who erroneously call him Soliman. SOLIMAN (often mentioned with the surname of Tchelibi, gentle or noble,' which is however the general title of the sons of the Ottoman sultans) was the eldest surviving son of Bayezid I. After the fatal battle of Angora, in which his father was defeated and made prisoner by Timour, A.D. 1402 (A.H. 804), he effected his escape to Europe with the vizir Ali Pasha, and reigned several years in tranquillity at Adrianople, while the fragments of Asia Minor were disputed by his three brothers. He was frustrated however in an attempt to possess himself of the Asiatic provinces (1406) by an insurrection excited against him at home by his brother Mousa, which recalled him to Europe. Mousa was defeated, and fled into Wallachia, but he returned in 1410 with a fresh army, and Soliman, surprised in Adrianople, was slain in his flight. Mousa was himself dethroned three years later by Mohammed I., under whom the Ottoman dominions were reunited. Soliman is not generally included in the list of the Turkish sultans, the interval between the death of Bayezid and the final establishment of Mohammed being regarded as an interregnum. He was a brave and generous prince, and the first of the line of Othman who patronised literature; but his good qualities were obscured by his excessive indolence and indulgence in wine. SOLIMAN (surnamed by the Turks Kanooni, or the Legislator,' and by European writers 'the Magnificent'), the tenth and greatest of the Ottoman sultans, succeeded his father Selim I., a.d. 1520 (a.h. 926), in the twenty-seventh year of his age; and as he was an only son, his succession was not disturbed, like those of his father and grandfather, by civil wars. His first exploit was an invasion of Hungary (1521), in which he captured Belgrade, the key of that kingdom, a conquest often attempted in vain by his predecessors; and in the following year Rhodes, which had defied all the efforts of Mohammed II., was surrendered to him after an arduous siege, by the knights of St. John. The suppression of a rebellion in Egypt, and of a revolt of the Janissaries (as a counterpoise to whom the corps of Bostandjis was instituted), occupied the next three years; but in 1526 Hungary was again invaded; the king, Lewis II., and nearly all his army, slain in the fatal battle of Mohacz, and the whole kingdom overrun by the Turks. The Hungarian crown was conferred by Soliman on John Zapolya, who received it as a vassal of the Porte: but the rival pretensions of Ferdinand of Austria kindled the first of the long wars between the sultans and the German emperors; and in 1529 Vienna was besieged without success by Soliman in person. A war with Persia followed, in which Armenia and Irak, with the cities of Tabreez and Bagdad (1534), were subdued by the Ottomans; while Yemen and the Arabian coast were subjugated by the pasha of Egypt, and armaments sent even into Guzerat to aid the Indian Moslems against the Portuguese: the fleets of the vassal states of Barbary, under the famous corsair Khaireddin, or Barbarossa, at the same time swept the Mediterranean, and laid waste the Italian coasts; and Croatia was conquered (1537) after a great victory over the Imperialists at Essek. The Turkish arms were everywhere triumphant, and the powerful friendship of Soliman was courted by Francis I. of France, the alliance with whom (1536) was the first between the Porte and any Christian power. The death of John Zapolya (1541) wrought a fresh change in the affairs of Hungary, great part of which was seized by the Turks; Buda became the seat of a pasha; and the war continued, generally to the advantage of the Saltan, till a truce was concluded in 1547, by which Austria agreed to pay a tribute of 30,000 ducats for her remaining possessions in Hungary. In the same year a fresh invasion of Persia led to the capture of Ispalian; but this conquest was not long retained. The war with the house of Austria for Hungary again broke out in 1552; and Transylvania was subdued and made a principality under the suzerainte of the Porte. Persia was again attacked, and Erivan taken in 1554; but a peace was concluded with the Shah in the following year, which became the basis of all subsequent treaties between the two powers. A great naval victory was gained in 1560, over the combined fleets of the Christian powers at Djerbeh, on the African coast, by Piali, who had succeeded, on the death of Barbarossa, to the command of the Turkish navies; and a fresh truce with the empire (1562) left the Turks in possession of their Hungarian conquests. But the martial glories of Soliman were clouded by domestic dissensions. His eldest son, Mustapha, had been put to death in 1553, at the instigation of his stepmother Roxalana, who was solicitous to secure the succession for one of her own children; and jealousies of the two surviving princes, Selim and Bayezid, having ended in the rebellion of the latter, he was defeated and driven into Persia; but the Shah surrendered the fugitive on the demand of Soliman, and he was put to death with his children (1561). The united fleets of the Porte and of Barbary had ruled the Mediterranean since the battle of Djerbeh; but they were repulsed with great loss in the siege of Malta (1565) by the heroism of the grand-master John de la Valette. The war in Hungary meantime continued, notwithstanding frequent partial pacifications; and in 1566 Soliman headed his armies for the last time for its invasion; but he died in his tent before the walls of Szigeth, September 5, 1566 (Safar 20th, A.H. 974), the day before the capture of the town, at the age of 72 solar (or 74 lunar) years. His only surviving son, Selim II., succeeded him. Though the Ottoman empire did not fully attain its greatest territorial extent during the reign of Soliman, its military power was undoubtedly during this period at its greatest height and most complete organization, and declined irrecoverably in both these respects under his indolent and voluptuous successors. The personal energy of the Sultan himself, and of the ministers and generals selected by him and trained under his eye, maintained the efficiency of every branch of the administration; and the KanoonNameh, or code of regulations, which was drawn up under his own superintendence, completed the reform which his exertions had commenced. The finances, the military fiefs, the functions of the pashas and other employés, the police and administration of justice, are all treated at length in this elaborate compilation, which long formed the basis of both the jurisprudence and political science of the Ottomans. But Soliman was not less distinguished as a patron of literature and the arts than as a warrior and a legislator; the erection of the noble mosque of the Solimaneyeh, and of numerous public buildings both in the capital and the provinces, attest his architectural magnificence; and he is the only one of the Ottoman sovereigns who facilitated the internal communications of his dominions by the construction of roads and bridges. He was himself a poet of no mean rank; and the encouragement which he afforded to the employment of the Turkish language in place of the Persian, which the Ottomans had generally chosen as the vehicle of their sentiments, forms an era in the literature of the country. In an age remarkable for the eminent greatness of the monarchs filling the thrones of Europe, few of them equalled Soliman the Magnificent either in the union of princely qualities or in the glory and good fortune of their reigns. SOLIMAN II., a younger son of Sultan Ibrahim, was placed on the Ottoman throne A.D. 1687 (A.H. 1098), on the deposition of his elder brother, Mohammed IV. He was nearly forty-six years of age at his accession, and had passed his whole life secluded in the seraglio and occupied by the study of the Korán. A prince thus unacquainted with active life was little fitted to stay the progress of the Imperialists, who in the last years of the preceding reign had almost expelled the Turks from Hungary. In the campaign of 1688 Belgrade and Agria were lost; and in 1689 the vizir Ragib was twice signally defeated by the Austrians, who penetrated into the heart of Servia and took Nissa. An abortive negotiation for peace followed; but the appointment of Mustapha-Pasha Kuprilu to the vizirat changed the face of affairs, and in the two succeeding cam. paigns the Ottomans recovered Belgrade and most of the frontier fortresses. Soliman however died at Constantinople in June, 1691 (A.H. 1102), after a reign of three years and nine months; and leaving no children, was succeeded by his next brother, Ahmed II. SOLI'NUS, CAIUS JU'LIUS, a Roman writer of whose life and period nothing is known. It is however certain that he did not write in the Augustan age, as some have supposed, for his work, entitled 'Polyhistor,' is merely a compilation from Pliny's Natural History.' Indeed Salmasius says (Prolegomena) that the work contains nothing which is not found in Pliny, and that he got together all that he could out of Pliny's work, and put it in his compendium, keeping the same arrangement and nearly the same words. Solinus however never mentions Pliny, though he cites near one hundred authors. Salmasius endeavours to show that he lived about two hundred years after Pliny. The first writers who mention him are Hieronymus and Priscian. It has often been said, and even in very recent works, that the researches of Salmasius prove that there were two editions of the Polyhistor.' But we certainly do not need the testimony of Salmasius to this point, as it is correctly observed in the article Solinus' (Biog. Univ.); for Solinus, in his address to his friend Adventus (according to some readings) says that the first edition was a hasty performance, and that it appeared under the title of 'Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium; and that he gave the name of Polyhistor' to his second and improved edition. The work of Solinus contains a great variety of miscellaneous matter, of which a large part is geographical. His style deserves no great commendation, but it is sufficiently perspicuous. Some fragments of a poem entitled 'Pontica' have been attributed to him, but it has recently been attempted to be shown that this poem is the work of Varro Atacinus. The first edition of Solinus is probably that of Rome about 1473; but one also appeared about the same date at Milan, edited by Bonini Mombriti. The pains that have been taken with a work of little value are shown by the number of editions. The principal edition is that of Salmasius, 2 vols. fol., Paris, 1629; and 2 vols. fol., Utrecht, 1689; a work, says Morhofius (Polyhistor, ii., c. 2), accompanied with a most enormous commentary, in which the editor has collected all that he could find in the antient writers on the topics which Solinus discusses, and has given also his own opinions; but the editor, as usual, did his work in a hurry, and made various blunders, which a little more attention might have prevented. There is an English translation of Solinus, by Arthur Golding, London, 1587 and 1590. The title of the former edition is, 'The Excellent and Pleasant Worke of Julius Ca. Solinus, Polyhistor, containing the Noble Actions of Human Creatures, &c.' SOLIPE'DES, Cuvier's name for his third family of PACHYDERMATA, which have only one apparent toe and a single hoof on each foot, although under the skin these quadrupeds have on each side of their metacarpus and metatarsus stylets which represent two lateral toes. The genus Equus of Linnæus is the only recent form belonging to this family known. [HORSE.] The extinct HIPPOTHERIUM may find a place under it. name of the king of Castile, and gave the name of Mar Fresca (Fresh sea) to that portion of the Atlantic which lay before him. Proceeding farther along the coast, he saw several Indians, who told him of a river called Paraguaya, i.e. great water, on the banks of which gold was said to be found in large quantities. Satisfied with this information, Solis returned to Spain, and having obtained the requisite leave to undertake the conquest of the lands watered by that river, he sailed on the 8th of October, 1515, with three caravels, having seventy soldiers on board. On his arrival at Rio Janeiro, Solis left two of his ships behind, and sailed with the third in a south-western direction in search of the Indians with whom he had conversed on his first voyage. He found them; but scarcely had he landed with the greater part of his crew, when they were surrounded and put to death by the Indians. This catastrophe happened near a small river between Maldonado and Montevideo, which to this day is called 'El Rio de Solis.' SOLI'S, ANTONIO DE, was born at Placenzia, July 18, 1610, of an antient and illustrious family. His parents sent him to Salamanca to study the law; but having a natural turn for poetry, he gave it the preference, and cultivated the muses with great ardour and success. At the age of seventeen, and when still a student, he wrote a comedy called Amor y Obligacion' (Love and Duty), which was received with the highest applause. This introduced him to the notice of Calderon, with whom he was afterwards very intimate, occasionally writing the preludes to his dramas. At six-and-twenty Solis applied himself to ethics and politics, as well as to the history and antiquities of his native country. His great merit procured him a patron in the count of Oropesa, then viceroy of Navarre, and who appointed him his secretary. Solis seems to have taken particular delight in recording the virtues of his Mæcenas, whom he highly praises in several of his poems. On the birth of one of his sons he composed an heroic drama called Orpheo y Eurydice,' which was acted at Pampeluna during the festivities celebrated by the municipality on that occasion. In 1642 Solis was appointed to a lucrative office in the secretary of state's department, and subsequently raised to the honourable post of secretary to Philip IV. It was then, and in order to celebrate the birth of a son of this king, that Solis composed one of his best comedies, Triumfos de Amor y Fortuna' (Triumphs of Love and Fortune), which met with the most brilliant success. the death of Philip, Solis was named to the office of cronista de las Indias, or first historiographer of the transactions of the Spaniards in both Indies. In this capacity he wrote his 'Historia de la Conquista de Mexico,' a work which has ranked him among the best prose writers of Spain, and which was greatly esteemed at home and abroad. It contains an account of the conquest of Mexico by Hernando Cortés, written with great spirit and in very elegant style, though it is deficient in the criticism which belongs to a true historical writer. The work is considered by the Spaniards as the last relic of their classic literature. It appeared for the first time at Madrid in 1682, folio, and went subsequently through several editions, of which the principal are: Barcelona, 1691, fol.; Madrid, 1777 and 1783, 4to.; Venice, 1704, 4to.: London, 1808, 2 vols. 8vo. We have an English version of it by Townsend (Lond., 1724), and there are besides French and Italian translations. After SOLI'S, JUAN DIAZ DE, a Spanish navigator, was born at Lebrixa, the antient Nebrissa, in the province of Seville. In 1506 he sailed, in company with the celebrated pilot Vicente Yañez Pinzon, on an expedition, the object of which was to endeavour to find the strait or passage supposed by Columbus to lead from the Atlantic to a southern ocean. As no such passage exists, this of course proved unsuccessful, as did also another voyage which was undertaken Solis is better known out of Spain as an historian than by them for the same purpose in 1508. They however ex- as a dramatic writer, yet he occupies a prominent place plored the northern coast of South America, and are sup- among the poets of that nation. His plays do not display posed to have discovered Yucatan. On their return to Spain, so much invention as those of Calderon, but his dramas are Solis and Pinzon were appointed royal pilots, and again more regular than those of that poet, because he was less entrusted with the command of an expedition for the dis- liable to be led away by the force of his imagination. Among covery of new lands. This time they doubled Cape St. his comedies, ‘El Alcazar del Secreto' (the Castle of MysAugustine, and sailing southwards along the coast, reached tery), and La Gitanilla de Madrid' (the Gipsy-girl of Mathe 40° of S. lat. However, on their return to Seville in drid), which is partly founded on Cervantes's novel of the 1509, the court was so much displeased with the unprofit- same title, are justly much valued. His comedy Un Bobo able result of the expedition, that they were both deprived haze Ciento' (One Fool will make a Hundred) has, with many of their offices and emoluments, and Solis was put in prison. others, been imitated by the French dramatic writers. Á In 1512 Solis applied for and obtained permission to sail on volume of Solis's plays and dramas, in all fourteen, appeared a voyage of discovery; but as the government would not at Madrid in 1732, 4to. There is also a volume of Lyric grant him any assistance, he was obliged to raise among his Poems written by him on various subjects, Varias Poesias de friends the funds required for the expedition. After touch- Don Antonio de Solis,' Madrid, 1682, 4to.; and some leting at Teneriffe, he surveyed Cape St. Roque, then Cape ters published by Mayans in 1732. At the age of fifty-six St. Augustine; continuing his route to the South, he dis-Solis entered into holy orders, and devoted himself almost Covered Cape Frio, and entered the Bay of Rio Janeiro. Thinking this to be the strait in search of which he had sailed, Solis took possession of the northern coast in the exclusively to exercises of devotion. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon sacred subjects. He died April 19, 1686. His strengthened in his kingdom, he assembled all the congre gation of Israel at Gibeon, where the Tabernacle stood, and offered burnt offerings to God. In the same night God appeared to him, and commanded him to ask what he would. Solomon asked for wisdom and knowledge, that he might judge the people. God was pleased with the request, and promised him not only the wisdom which he asked for, but also riches and long life, and power over his enemies. Solomon's wisdom was soon displayed in his decision of a singular case which came before him for trial. (1 Kings, iii.; 2 Chron., i.) The kingdom of Israel was now at its highest pitch of prosperity and extent. It reached from Egypt and the borders of the Philistines to the Euphrates, and southward as far as the head of the Red Sea. With the neighbouring kings of Egypt and Tyre, which city then held the supre macy of Phoenicia, Solomon was in close alliance. The people of Israel were very numerous and prosperous, and enjoyed profound peace; and the court of Solomon was maintained on a scale of the greatest splendour, which was supported by the encouragement that he gave to commerce, by which he made silver and gold as stones, and cedartrees made he as the sycamore-trees that are in the vale for abundance.' The fame of his wisdom spread abroad, he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a and people and kings came from all countries to hear it, for thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedartree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.' (1 Kings, iv., x. ; 2 Chron., 6 SO'LLYA, a genus of plants of the natural family of Pittospores, named by Dr. Lindley in compliment to R. H. Solly, Esq., a gentleman versed in the anatomy and physiology of plants, and well known as a patron of science and art. The genus is closely allied to Pronaya and Billardiera, and the species are highly ornamental plants, which are in-i., 13-17; ix.) digenous in New Holland and Van Diemen's Land, with voluble stems, oblong alternate, shining, dark-green leaves, with the flower-stalks terminal, or opposite to the leaves, and bearing bunches of bright-blue nodding flowers. S. heterophylla and S. angustifolia are two common species cultivated in our greenhouses, and were very common everywhere until the severe winter of 1837-38. SOLMISATION, or Sol-fa-ing, in singing, is the art of applying to the seven notes of the scale certain syllables, having no meaning in themselves, but containing the five first vowels, according to the French method, and the four first according to the system adopted by the Italians and English. This art was practised by the Greeks; but the six syllables now in use are generally attributed to Guido d'Arezzo. [GUIDO D'AREZZO.] These he selected, on account of their furnishing all the vowel sounds, from the following stanza of a monkish hymn to St. John the Baptist : Ut queant laxis, Labii reatum SANCTE JOANNES.' In what is called the hexachord system [HEXACHORD], these syllables were found sufficient. When, however, that perplexing and absurd method began to be disused, the ad dition of a name for the seventh of the scale became neces sary, and Le Maire, a French musician of the seventeenth century, has the credit of having introduced for this purpose the syllable si. The Italians rejected the French ut, and substituted the more euphonous syllable do, which is also adopted in England. The syllables therefore now used by the Italians and English-at least by such masters as understand and know how to value the art of Solmisation-are as follows: tion. ་ Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si, Do. C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C. To these syllables the English give the Italian pronunciaSOLOMON, Eadwμwv, Zoλoμwv), the son of David and Bathsheba, was born B.c. 1033, and was named by God, through the prophet Nathan, Jedidiah,' that is, beloved of the Lord. (2 Sam., xii. 24, 25.) In the old age of David, his son Adonijah attempted to seize the kingdom, upon which David had Solomon proclaimed and anointed king, B.C. 1015. (1 Kings, i.; 1 Chron., xxiii.) In the same year David died, after giving certain charges to Solomon. Kings, ii.) The first acts of Solomon were to punish the enemies of David, and especially Adonijah and his adherents. He then contracted a close alliance with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, whose daughter he married. Being thus P. C., No. 1385. In the fourth year of Solomon's reign, having secured the co-operation of Hiram, king of Tyre, he began to build the Temple of God at Jerusalem, for which David had already formed a plan and collected treasures, but which he had not been allowed to build because he was a man of blood. (1 Chron., xxii., xxviii.) In seven years (B.c. 1005) the building was finished and dedicated to God. (1 Kings, v., viii. ; 2 Chron., ii.-vii. [TEMPLE.] On this occasion God appeared to Solomon in a vision the second time, and promised that if he continued in piety and uprightness, his family should be established on the throne; but that if he or his children should fall into idolatry, Israel should be cut off out of their land, and both they and the Temple itself should be made a proverb and by-word among all people. (1 Kings, ix. 1-9; 2 Chron., vii. 12-22.) Josephus (Antiq., viii. 2, 8) states that copies of the letters which passed between Solomon and Hiram concerning the building of the Temple were preserved in his day among the archives of Tyre. Solomon adorned Jerusalem with other magnificent buildings. He built a palace for himself, which took thirteen years to complete; and another palace, which was called the House of the Forest of Lebanon, probably on account of the quantity of cedar used in it, with porticoes where he sat in judgment; and also a palace for his wife, the daughter of Pharaoh. (1 Kings, vii. 1-12; 2 Chron., vii. 1.) He also built several cities, and among them Tadmor in the wilderness, which was afterwards called Palmyra; but the Roman empire. (1 Kings, ix. 15-19; 2 Chron., viii. 1-6.) splendid ruins which still exist belong to the age of the In all these buildings he used as workmen the descendants of the Canaanites who remained in the land, whom also he made to pay a tribute: the Israelites he employed in his armies, and in superintending the works. (1 Kings, ix. 2023; 2 Chron., viii. 7-10.) He built a navy at Ezion-geber, which brought him the produce of Arabia and India. (1 Kings, ix. 26-28; x. 11, 12; 2 Chron., viii. 17-18. [OPHIR.] He had also another navy in the Mediterranean, in company with a navy of Hiram, which made a voyage to Tarshish every three years, bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks. (1 Kings, x. 22, 23; 2 Chron., ix. 21.) From Egypt he imported horses and linen-yarn. (1 Kings, x. 28, 29.) While Solomon was thus at the height of his prosperity, he received a visit from the queen of Sheba, or Saba, in Ethiopia, who had heard of his wisdom and came to prove it with hard questions, to which Solomon gave such answers that she confessed that the half of his wisdom had not been told her, and departed after an exchange of presents. () Kings, x.; Matt., xii. 42.) Solomon's prosperity was at length too much for him. Among his magnificent establishments was a large harem, VOL. XXII-2 E composed, in direct opposition to the divine command, of women from the remnant idolatrous nations of Canaan. These women seduced him into idolatry, as a punishment for which God threatened to divide his kingdom after his death; and even during his life signs were given of the coming calamity in the rebellion of Hadad the Edomite, Rezon, king of Syria, and Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who afterwards became king of the ten revolted tribes of Israel. (1 Kings, xi. Nehem., xui. 26.) It is generall, supposed that this threat had the effect of recovering Solomon from his idolatry, and that he then recorded in the book of Ecclesiastes his confessions of the vanity of worldly wisdom, riches, and honour. This sup position is rather favoured by the internal evidence of the narrative in the book of Kings, and by that of the book of Ecclesiastes itself Among the other works ascribed to him are the Book of Proverbs,' of which he must be regarded as the compiler rather than the author [PROVERBS], the SONG OF SOLOMON, the Wisdom of Solomon [SOLOMON, WISDOM OF], the Psalms Ixxi and exxvii, and also a collection of eighteen psalins, entitled The Psalter of Solomon,' which was found in Greek, in the library at Augsburg. by Schott, and translated into Latin by De la Cerda, and which are generally supposed to be the composition of some Hellenistic Jew, in imitation of the Psalms of David. Other writings ascribed to Solomon are mentioned by Suidas (s. v. 'Elexiac), by Euseb. (Praepar. Evang, ix. 31). See also Fabric, Cod. Pseudepigraph., 1. 914, &c.; 1014, &c.; Bartolocc., Bibl. Rabb., i. 490, &c. Solomon died in the year 975 B.C., after a reign of forty years. (1 Kings, xi. 42, 43; 2 Chron., ix. 30, 31.) The reign of Solomon was the period of the highest prosperity of Israel and the commencement of its decline, both in its religious and civil state. At its commencement the kingdom had reached its utmost boundaries, and was in the enjoyment of profound peace and plenty, and the temple of God was built and dedicated; but before its close the king had turned idolater, rebellion had broken out, and the kingdom was on the eve of a partition. The causes of this decline are obvious. They were in part judicial, for in the magnificent establishments of Solomon, especially in his treasures, his horses and chariots, and his concubines, he had transgressed the fundamental law which defined the duties of the king. [MOSES, p. 441.] But natural causes also may easily be found. The government of Solomon was calculated rather to promote the splendour of the court than the prosperity of the people. The wealth derived from commerce went into the king's treasury, and the people were even taxed in addition. (1 Kings, xii. 4, 10, 11.) The court set the example of luxury, which weakened and depraved the whole nation, besides training up that race of insolent young nobles whose bad advice to Rehoboam was the immediate cause of the partition of the kingdom. (1 Kings, xii. 6-11.) The subject nations were of course ready, especially after forty years of peace, to throw off the yoke, and it has even been doubted whether the splendid scale on which Solomon established the Temple worship was likely to support the national religion. On the whole, therefore, this period of the history of Israel must be regarded as far less solid than splendid. Solomon has always had an extensive fabulous reputation in the East. As early as the time of Josephus magical powers were ascribed to him (Antiq., viii. 2, 5 comp. Origen, Ad Matth., xxvi. 63; Nicet. Chon., Annal., iv. 7). The similar traditions of the Arabians concerning him have been collected by Mr. Lane (Thousand and One Nights, Index, under Suleymán Ibn Dáood). (Winer's Biblisches Realwörterbuch; Calmet's Dictionary.) SOLOMON, THE WISDOM OF (Zopia Zaλwμwr), an apocryphal book of the Old Testament, ascribed to Solomon, but manifestly written long after his time. It is not known to have ever existed in Hebrew, and it contains Greek ideas and expressions which prove it to belong, if to a Jew at all, to one of the Alexandrian school. There are in it historical references utterly at variance with the state of things in Solomon's reign, and quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah. Internal evidence would point to the end of the second or beginning of the first century B.C. as the time of its composition. It is commonly ascribed to Philo the Jew, but the style is quite different from his genuine writings. It was badly translated into Latin before the time of Jerome, who did not revise the version. The fathers of the church considered it apocryphal; but it was pronounced canonical by the third council of Carthage (A.D. 397) and again by the council of Trent. It consists of two parts. The first part (chap. i.-ix.) contains the praise of wisdom, an exhortation to all, and especially to kings, to seek it, and the manner in which it is to be obtained. The second part (chap. x.-xix.) brings førward examples from history of the happiness that springs from wisdom and the misery entailed by folly. Throughout the book Solomon is represented as speaking; and the work is evidently an imitation of his proverbs. It is remarkable as being the earliest Jewish work extant which contains a clear statement of the doctrine of rewards and punishments in a future state. Bishop Lowth says (Praelec., xxiv.): The style is very unequal; it is often pompous and turgid, as well as tedious and diffuse, and abounds in epithets, directly contrary to the practice of the Hebrews; it is however sometimes temperate, poetical, and sublime. The construction is occasionally sententious, and tolerably accurate in that respect, so as to discover very plainly that the author had the old Hebrew poetry for his model, though he fell far short of its beauty and sublimity.' (The Introductions of Jahn and Horne) SOLOMON, THE SONG OF, or THE BOOK OF CANTICLES (D'TWT TW; "Aioμa doμárov, 'Canticum Canticorum,' which titles mean The Song of Songs,' that is, 'the most beautiful song'), a canonical book of the Old Testament. The canonical authority of this book has been much disputed. It is now admitted on all hands that it formed part of the Jewish canon. It is found in the oldest Christian catalogues of the sacred books, and in all the antient versions. The argument that it is not quoted in the New Testament is of little weight against this mass of external evidence. The same objection would apply to other parts of the Old Testament. And although the book is not actually quoted, yet the canonical writers of both Testaments employ the same imagery which is used in it to describe the connection between Christ and the church. Some critics have indeed found passages in the New Testament which they conceive to contain designed allusions to passages in the Canticles, but it must be confessed that in most of these examples the allusion is not very obvious. The objections to its canonical authority are now therefore derived solely from its internal character, and may be summed up in the following argument: that the book cannot form a part of Holy Scripture, since it contains no religious truth, unless we interpret it after a fashion for which there is no authority. The book is a poem, or collection of poems, describing in imagery, which is certainly warm, but to an Oriental taste perfectly delicate, the chaste loves of a bridegroom and hi bride. It bears the name of Solomon in its title, 'The Song o Songs, which is Solomon's; and is supposed to be the only remaining one of the thousand and five songs which we ar told that that monarch composed. According to the common opinion it was composed as an epithalamium at the marriage of Pharaoh's daughter with Solomon, who are re spectively the bride and bridegroom of the poem; but under the guidance of divine inspiration it was so constructed a to form a mystical allegory representing the relation be tween Christ and his church. First then with respect to its date and author. An at tempt has been made, supported by the authority of Keuni cott, to prove the poem later than the Babylonish captivity simply from the insertion of the letter Yod in spelling the name of David, which was the spelling adopted after the Captivity, but not before. But as the name in question occurs only once, and as all our MSS. of the Hebrew Bibl are comparatively modern, what is more probable than tha the Yod was inserted by mistake in an early copy, and after wards retained by transcribers? Whether this be the tr explanation or not, Kennicott's argument is of no weigh against the clear allusions to Solomon in the poem, and t circumstances connected with his history, which prove tha it must have been written in his time (i. 5, 9; vi. 12; iii 9, 10, &c.). The style and language are not more different from that o the Book of Proverbs' than might be expected from th difference of the subjects. But the structure and content of the poem are alleged as presenting insuperabie ob stacles to the supposition that Solomon was the author. It is contended that the scene is laid among the beauties of the open country, and not amongst courts and palaces; and that so far from the bridegroom's portions of the poem being an expression of Solomon's feelings, they are the language of an humbler and happier man, who only refers to Solomon to contrast his numerous concubines and unbounded wealth with the treasure he himself possesses in his sole and undefiled spouse. (vi. 8-10; viii. 11, 12.) But besides those passages which appear to place the scene in the country, others might be quoted which refer to the splendours and luxuries of a royal palace; and some which seem to have a direct allusion to Solomon's establishment, as it is represented to us in history; and the passages which are thought to cast reflections upon Solomon are quite capable of a different interpretation. Again, with reference to the bride, it is contended that the poem itself proves her to have been not an Egyptian princess, but an Israelite. This point is very strongly if not conclusively brought out by Dr. Mason Good. On all these points the difficulty is much increased by the highly coloured nagery of the poem. But the first difficulty may perhaps be explained by supposing one or more changes of scene: there seem in fact to be several. The question respecting the person designed to be represented by the bride, it has been attempted to solve in various ways. A writer in the Foreign Quarterly Review (vol. xvi., p. 321) has adduced certain Egyptian hieroglyphics in support of the comnron opinion that Pharaoh's daughter is referred to. Dr. Mason Good imagines that the poem describes a love-match which Solomon made with some Israelitish woman after his political marriage with Pharaoh's daughter. A third mode of explanation, which if adopted would cut the knot, is that of Dr. James Bennett, who supposes that the poem never had any literal reference at all to an actual marriage, but is purely an allegory descriptive of the mutual love of Christ and his church. The reasons which Dr. Bennett adduces to prove that the poem would be most unsuitable to the circumstances of an actual marriage, are, to say the least, extremely fanciful but the great principle for which he contends is one which the generality of critics admit in a case very nearly parallel to the present, namely, the 45th Psalm. But the minute allusions, especially those to Solomon, which are contained in this poem, are a most formidable objection to such an explanation; and even those critics who contend most strongly for the purely allegorical character of the 45th Psalm, maintain as strongly that the Song of Solomon' has a literal as well as a spiritual meaning. (See especially Bishop Horsley's 5th Sermon.) The distinction however between the two questions of who was the author and who the parties described, ought not to be lost sight of, as it too often has been. Finding the book in the Jewish canon, the presumption is that it is a genuine part of Holy Scripture, and is intended to teach religious truth. This presumption is strengthened, if it can be proved that Solomon was the author, since we have at least one other book of his in the sacred canon; but it is not disproved even if the poem should be found to have nothing to do with Solomon either as its author or its subject. But this argument is met in another way, namely, by denying that the book is intended to convey any religious truth. This objection seems to proceed in a wrong direc. tion; for inasmuch as Christ and the Apostles referred to the Jewish Scriptures, as they existed in their day, as containing the great body of religious truth, and we know that this book did form a part of the Jewish canon at that time, we ought to conclude that the diligent inquirer will find a religious meaning in it, rather than first deny the existence of any such meaning, and then argue from this assumption against its canonical authority. But the objection can be met upon its own merits. The composition, it is said, is a mere love-song; it bears nothing on its face to mark it as allegorical, nor have we any inspired authority for so regarding it. similar imagery is used with a similar meaning in other parts of the Bible (Psalms, xlv.; Isaiah, liv.; Ïxii. 4, 5; | Rom, vii. 4; 2 Cor., xi. 2; Ephes., v. 23-32; Rev., xix. 7; xxi. 2-9), and also the opposite figure of representing idolatry and apostasy under the image of adultery or whoredom. But it is said that in all such passages the allusions are more distant, and enter less into detail than is the case in Solomon's Song, and that in them the religious sense is made so prominent that one can scarcely fail to perceive it. The first part of this assertion does not appear to be sustained by fact. Any one who examines the passages carefully, especially those which relate to spiritual adultery, will find allusions inferior in delicacy to the grossest which can be produced from Solomon's Song. The latter condition does not appear to be necessary (as has been argued above) to establish the allegorical meaning of such imagery, when occurring in a canonical book; neither is the spiritual sense always so obvious. For example, there is nothing in the 45th Psalm, except one or two expressions which could not by the greatest hyperbole refer to a human being, to lead us to suspect its spiritual meaning. Passages of the same kind might perhaps be adduced from Solomon's Song; but even if not, does not the admission that one lovepoem which we find in the sacred canon is to be interpreted spiritually, furnish a presumption for putting a similar interpretation upon another? The fact that the 45th Psalm is quoted in the New Testament, and that the Song of Solomon is not so quoted, is no objection, for the quotation of the one sanctions the general principle of interpretation, while the silence respecting the other proves nothing, knowing as we do that the New Testament writers adopted the Old Testament canon as it existed in their day, and that this Song was in that canon. Nearly all expositors, both Jewish and Christian, have adopted the allegorical interpretation, though they have explained the allegory in different ways. The Chaldee Targum considers it as a figurative description of the love of God to Israel, as shown in delivering them from the Egyptian slavery, supporting and comforting them in the wilderness, and bringing them into the promised land. Christian expositors, from Origen downwards, have generally understood it as descriptive of the union between Christ and the church; but some few have explained it in a different way. Those who acknowledge its canonicity, but reject the idea of a reference either literally to Solomon or figuratively to Christ, take its admission into the canon to be a divine recommendation and praise of a single virtuous marriage as opposed to polygamy and concubinage. This appears to be now the opinion of the most distinguished modern opponent of its canonicity in England, Dr. J. Pye Smith. Various opinions are held as to the structure of the Song, the best of which appears to be that which takes it to be a series of Idyls. (The Introductions of Eichhorn, Augusti, Jahn, and Horne; Dr. Smith's Scripture Testimony, vol. i., c. 1, note A; Papers by Dr. Smith, Dr. Bennett, and others, in the "Congregational Magazine' for 1837 and 1838; Calmet's Dictionary, art. Canticles,' with fragments in Taylor's edition; The Song of Songs, by Thomas Williams, Lond., 1801; The Song of Songs, by Mason Good, Lond., 1803; other Commentaries in Horne, vol. ii., part it.; Lowth's Prælections.) SOLOMON'S ISLANDS. [NEW GEORGIA.] SOLON, son of Execestides, and a descendant of the royal house of Codrus, was born about B.C. 638, in the island of Salamis. His father is said to have considerably diminished his property by his liberality, and that Solon in his youth engaged in mercantile undertakings in order to better his circumstances. For this purpose, or, according to others, in order to satisfy his thirst for knowledge, he visited various countries. The time when he returned and settled at Athens is not quite clear, but it seems very probable that it was soon after the Cylonian conspiracy (612 B.C.), when he must have been about twenty-six years old. Now it is admitted that from a very early period the Athens at this time was in a deplorable condition: it was Oriental nations have been accustomed to express religious distracted by internal feuds, and unable to maintain itself sentiments allegorically under the guise of amatory poems, against its hostile neighbours. It had shortly before been of which the Gitagovinda is an example. To this day the deprived of the island of Salamis by the Megarians, and in Egyptian Arabs, at their religious festivals, sing songs re- the ensuing war Athens had suffered such losses, that at sembling this, in which the prophet is the beloved object, last a decree was made that any one who ventured to proand which are only intended to have a spiritual sense. pose the continuance or renewal of the war should be pun(Lane's Modern Egyptians, vol. ii., p. 195.) Mr. Lane inished with death. (Plut., Sol., 8; Diog. Laert., i. 45.) Solou, fact gives passages from these songs strikingly parallel to passages in Solomon's Song. Neither is it denied that indignant at the humiliation of Athens and the pusillanimity of her citizens, devised a plan by which he hoped to |