24 THE COLOR OF SOLOMON—WHAT ?
It is substantially this tripartite division of the race,
that Linnaeus and Cuvier and Lesson and Latham ac¬
cept ; and not because it is Biblical, but because it is
in keeping with what their eyes behold and true
science endorses. According to this division, there¬
fore, Solomon belonged not to the white or Japhetic
race, nor to the black or Hamitic race, but to the
yellow or Shemitic—not to Europe nor to Africa, but
to Asia; and so he could not have been a white man,
especially in the American signification of that
Upon this question of the color of men, as science
presents it, let us dwell for a moment—the color es¬
pecially of the peoples known to have inhabited the
Solomoiiic land and continent. It is in place, how¬
ever, to say that we are indebted to the Japhetic or
the valley of the Tigris, and the Lydians (children of Lud) in
The race of Ham (the swarthy according to the most probable
etymology) presents very difficult but interesting problems.
Their chief seat was in Africa, but they are also found mingled
with the Semitic races on the shores of Arabia, and on the
Tigris and Euphrates, while on the noith they extended into
Palestine (the land of the Philistines), Asia Minor and the
larger islands, as Crete and Cyprus. Iu Africa Mizraim is most
certainly identified with Egypt; Cush with Ethiopia above
Egypt; and Phut probably with the inland peoples to the West.
Among the sons of Mizraim, the Lubim correspond to Libya;
and those of Cush represent tribes which crossed the Red Sea
and spread along the southern and eastern shores of Arabia, up
the i Persian Gulf and the Valley of the Tigris and Euphrates.
—Smith's 0. T. Hist. pp. 56-59.