tinguishable laws of type prove the KNA4NI, as history also testifies, to belong to the
same zoological province of creation, though to a lower gradation of type, as the Abra-
hamidm. Indeed, the root of KNd meaning ‘low,’ and that of A b r a m , ‘ high,’ one
may perceive the real cause of early antipathy between the Ganaanites and the Abra-
hamidm to lie in mutual repugnances between the indigenous “ low-lander” and the
intrusive “ high-lander.” . . .
Palestine, in its widest geographical, no less than in its restricted rabbinical sense,
is written history’s cradle, and natural history’s birth-place, for KNASN.«»
tlip — BKI-KUSA— “ Affiliations of K ush.”
. N2D — SBA — ‘ Seba.’
Perplexities are here occasioned by palseographical and phonetic differences between
the letters S, SA, and Ss.
Four separate nations or places, as Bochart reminds us, are mentioned in Genesis
by names transcribed through Seba or Sheba: viz. —
A. — Genesis x. 7 — SOD — SBA, or Seba, affiliation of KUSA.
B. — “ x. 7 — X2ty— SsBA, or Sheba, affiliation of KUSA through B a am a h .
G _ « x , 28 — tot? — SsBA, or Sheba, affiliation of SAeM through Joktan.
TO. — “ XXV. 3 — X3»— SsBA, or Sheba, affiliation of'SAeM through A b r a h a m .
On these discrepancies Fresnel has wisely noted, that post-Mohammedan Arabs have
likewise forged genealogies to match some of those in Xth Genesis; at the same time
that different Hebrew annalists often contradict themselves, no less than current Arabian
traditions. Various are attempts at reconciliation, to be consulted under our
references to Volney, Lenormant, Munk, Jomard, and Be Wette; but, upon the whole,
Forster’s appear to be the most successful, viewed geographically. To us, nevertheless,
the only apparent difference between the four above-cited names is, that one (A.)
begins with the letter sameq, S ; and the other three (B., C., B.) with sheen, SA; that
is, according to the Masorete points added to the modern square-letter manuscripts after
the sixth century; because, those stripped away, sheen remains Sseen, or Ss. ,
Abraham’s grandchild, through Ketoura, the fourth SABA (B.), is excluded from
Xth Genesis, and, therefore, appertains hot to our researches; except when noticing
the confusion he produces in Arabian genealogies. Nor, for similar reasons, do we
speculate on which of the four names might apply to the unknown region whence, journeyed
Solomon’s “ Queen of Sheba” ; whom Josephus makes sovereign of Egypt and
Ethiopia; and whom the Abyssinians have ever claimed as their own; her illegitimate
son, by Solomon, being the legendary progenitor of all their kings. The gifts which
this “ illustrious inquirer after truth ” maderfo King Solomon (1 Kings x. 10; 2 Ghron.
ix. 9) — estimated at $2,917,080, of U. S. coinage; besides any quantity of spices and
precious stones — are enlarged upon by Forster, who considers this lady to have been
“ Queen of Yemen” in Southern Arabia. Indeed, “ the offerings of the.Queen of
Sheba ” are believed, by Mr. Wathen, to have enabled Bhamsinitus to build “ the indestructible
masses of the pyramids ” of Egypt. Hoskins, of course, appoints this ubiquit
ous dame Queen of African Meroe: but Fresnel, commenting upon inscriptions brought
by Br. Arnaud from the Har&m-Bilkis—n great elliptical temple, considered to be the
“ Sanctuary of the Queen of Sheba”—seems to have determined her Yemenite locality,
as well as the name B-Almahah; by which, representing a form of Venus, she became
subsequently deified by the SabKans. Oriental tradition has consecrated, elsewhere,
the voyages of princesses, about the same period that Sheba’s queen and King Solomon
interchanged affectionate courtesies. So struck, indeed, were the Jesuit missionaries
with the resemblance between the journey made, about 1000 b . o ., by “ a princess
named Si-wang-mou, the Mother of the Western king (who afterwards went to China,
bearing presents to King Mou-wang”) and Solomon’s “ queen of Sheba,’’ that these
pietists supposed the Chinese account to be a mere travesty of the Hebrew books of
Kings or Ckronieles! The era; many of the presents; the miraculous facilities of
transportation over similar immense distances; and the manner in which the “ Mother
of the Western King and Mou-wang abandoned themselves, even at the end, to all the
delights of joy and songs,” curiously correspond. Still more singularly;—the Chinese
book, in which these parallelisms are recorded, is called Chi-i (». e. collection of what
is neglected)—a name identical with the Hebrew Dibri haiamim, and the Greek Para-
lipomena (things left out): in which latter volume, under our English designation of
“ Chronicles,” the queen of Sheba’s visit was registered, like the Chinese story, by far
later scribes, nnt.il copies became multiplied ad infinitum, through the blessing of
moveable types.
Beeming, in common with the highest biblical exegetists of our age, Solomon s
“ queen of Sheba” to be less historical than Mou-wang’s, we are fain to leave her out
of the argument; no less than Josephus’s opinion that African Meroe was intended by
any “ Saba ” of Xth Genesis. Which doubts submitted, let us remember how Pliny
assures us that the Sabceans stretched from sea to sea; that is, from the Persian to the
Arabian Gulf: and, inasmuch as four distinct nations of Arabia are recorded under
the appellative Seba, Sheba, Sseba, or Saba, it is uncertain whether any one of them
can be specially identified at this day. Nevertheless, they are all circumscribed by
the “ Gezeeret-el-Arab,” or Isle of the Arabs ; and Seba (A;), the first of Genesis Xth,
as a KUSAite affiliation, belongs to the himyhr (red), or dart-skinned race; — not improbably
now represented by the tribes at Mirbht and Zhafar, who still speak the old
EKkbelee tongue.
No objections militate against Forster’s skilfully elaborated conclusion, “ that the
Seba or Sebaim of the Old Testament, and the Sabi or Asabi of (Ptolemy) the Alexandrine,
denote one and the same people; ” and that “ the tract of country.between
Cape Mussendom and the mountains of Sciorm was originally the seat of Cushite
colonies; ” because, as Forster’s maps and reasonings establish, Cape Mussendom was
styled, by Ptolhmy, “ the promontory of the Asabi," near which now lies the town of
CUscan ( Cushan of Hebrew writers); and a littoral termed, by Pliny, “ the shore of
Mam,” Littus Hammceum, now Maham [Ma-KAaM 1 place of H am ] ; adjacent to which
is a Wdfee-Kam, Valley of Ham; prove that, all around this centre, many local names,
commemorative of KUSAite settlements, even yet exist.
Not to dogmatize, we conceive that Om&n, province of Southern Arabia, suffices
for the pristine habitat of our Seba (A.).600 ■
2 0 . n b ’l h — KM T E LH — | H a v il a h .
Two Havilahs, both spelt exactly the same way, one KUSAite (v. 7), and the other
Joktanide (v. 29), occurring in Xth Genesis, their separation is difficult: without
harassing ourselves about the third— “ Land of KAUILH,” in Gen. ii. 11 — which,
being ante-diluvian, concerns not human history.
Here again Forster is an excellent guide, because he does little more than copy
Bochart. Assigning to the Joktanide Havilah the several districts bearing this name
in Yemen, he naturally seeks for the KUSAiie Havilah about the Persian Gulf, fixing
upon the Bahrbyn islands as the pivot of inquiry; one of which still retains its original
name, Aval. ' “ In order to illustrate the ancient from the modern variations of the
proper name Havilah, we must begin,” he sensibly observes, “ by removing the disguise
thrown over it, in our English version of the Bible, by its being there spelled
according to the Rabbinical pronunciation. The Hebrew word, written Havilah by
adoption of the points, without points would read Huile, or Hauile;” and thereby its
identity with the Huaela of Ptolemy; the Huala of Niebuhr; the Aval, Altai, Huale,