O P H I R. 
which it was famous, would not have been brought by fea, 
but by caravans, by means of which all the Afiatic com¬ 
modities were introduced into the countries bordering on 
the Mediterranean, before the difeovery of the Cape of 
Good Hope. 
The authors of the Ancient Univerfal Hiftory are dif- 
pofed to place Ophir “ in fomeof thofe remote rich coun¬ 
tries in India, beyond the Ganges, and perhaps as far as 
China or Japan ; which laft ftill abounds with the flneft 
gold, and with feveral other commodities in which Solo¬ 
mon’s fleet dealt, as filver, precious (tones, ebony, and 
other valuable forts of wood ; to fay nothing of fpices, 
peacocks, parrots, apes, and other fuch creatures ; and, 
by its diftance, bell anfwers to the length of the voyage.” 
But the objeftions already urged againft the laft hypo- 
thefis, lie with equal weight againft this opinion : it is not 
likely that, in Solomon’s time, fuch a diftant voyage 
could have been undertaken, in the courfe of which, the 
only fecure and ufual manner of navigation praftifed 
among the ancients, viz. failing along the coaft, could not 
have been adted upon; and long before the period 
and direction of the monfoons, which, in after-ages, were 
taken advantage of in order to fail acrofs from the Red 
Sea to the coaft of Malabar, were afeertained. If the 
commodities obtained by Solomon actually came from the 
diftant parts of India, they muft, as has been already ob- 
ferved, have been brought by caravans. A paftage in 
Genefis has been quoted, in which Mofes informs us, 
that the habitation of Joktan’s fons was from Me/ha, as 
thou goejl unto Sephar, a mount of the eajl. Gen. x. 30. 
As Ophir was one of Joktan’s fons, an hypothefis refpedf- 
ing the fituation of Ophir has been built on this paftage; 
tliis hypothefis is principally fupported by Calmet: he 
fuppoles it was placed fomewhere towards Armenia and 
Media, where the Tigris and Euphrates take their rife ; 
and thefe rivers, he thinks, might have been fubfervient 
to the commerce which was carried on. Calmet argues 
in favour and fupport of this hypothefis with confiderable 
ingenuity and learning ; but it certainly does not reft on 
any folid foundation. If Ophir were fituated near the rife 
of the Tigris or Euphrates, the veflels of Solomon could 
hardly have reached it; and, if the merchandife were 
brought down to the (hips at the mouth of thefe rivers, it 
would not have been faid that they failed to Ophir. As 
the commonly-received opinion, that the voyage to Ophir 
occupied a (pace of three years, militates againft the hy¬ 
pothefis, that it was fituated fo near to Judea as Armenia 
or Media, Calmet fuppofes, that the three years mentioned 
in the text, might mean only three fummers and two win¬ 
ters, or thirty months. 
Dean Prideaux offers his conjeflures on the fuppofi- 
tion, that it was the voyage to Tarfhifli only, and not 
the voyage to Ophir, or to Ophir and Tarfliifh together, 
which look up three years going and coming ; hence he 
concludes, that Ophir might be much nearer Judea than 
Tarfhifli, and that the voyage to it might have been per¬ 
formed in a much fhorter (pace of time than three years, 
if they had not been obliged to go to Tarfhifli for fome 
commodities with which Ophir could not fupply them : 
hence he infers, that any place in the Great Indian Sea, at 
the diftance of three years’ voyage, which yielded gold, 
filver, ivory, apes, and peacocks, might be the Tarfliifh ; 
and any other, though much nearer, where they could 
have gold, almug-trees, and precious ftones, might be the 
Ophir mentioned by the Scriptures; and he attempts to 
(how, that the fouthern part of Arabia produced the 
greateft quantities of the beft gold, and confequently 
might be the land of Ophir. Againft this hypothefis, the 
objection already ftated lies with great force. As a con- 
ftant commercial intercourfe was kept up between India 
and the more diftant parts of Afia, and the countries on 
the Mediterranean, by means of caravans, it is by no 
means probable that veflels could be employed for this 
purpofe ; hence, wherever Ophir may have been fituated, 
Vol. XVII. No. 1194. 
517 
it ought not to be fought for in the Indian Ocean, or in 
any part of Afia. 
Againft this opinion of dean Prideaux, the remarks of 
the authors of the Ancient Univerfal Hiftory alfo ftrongly 
militate. “Though it be granted (they obferve) that 
Tarlhifh and Ophir might be diftinft places, at fome con¬ 
fiderable diftance from each other ; yet, if the latter had 
been fo nigh as South Arabia, and had yielded fuch plen¬ 
ty of the fineft gold, alvnug-trees, and precious ftones, it 
is fcarcely probable that they would have gone fo much 
farther for fuch inferior trifles as filver, ivory, apes, and 
peacocks ; it is more likely that they went fart heft for 
the fine gold, precious ftones, and things of the greateft 
value.” Ancient Univerfal Hiftory, vol. iv. 
The opinion that Ophir was Sofala, a territory or town 
of Africa, oppofile to the ifland of Madagafcar, has been 
long held, as we learn from Bochart, (lib. ii. cap. 27.) 
Sofala is thought by Moquet to be the Soplieira of the 
Septuagint; and he grounds his opinion on the fa6f, that 
liquids are often put for one another, fo that Sopheira 
and Sofala might be ufed indiferiminately as the name of 
the fame place. Lopez, in his Indian Voyage, relates, that 
the inhabitants of the country near Madagafcar boaft 
that they have books which prove, that, in the time of 
king Solomon, the Ifraelites made a voyage thither every 
third year to fetch gold. In the “ Melanges de Geogra¬ 
phic et d’Hiftoire Naturelle, par Zein-eddin Omar, fils 
d’About ModhafFer, furnomme Ebn al-ouardi, ecrivain 
du xiii. fiecle,” of which an account is given in Notices 
des MSS. du Roi, tom. xi. p. 40. Sofala is called Sophala 
edclliubah, or the Golden Sofala. This opinion is ftrongly 
and learnedly fupported by d’Anville, in his Diflertation 
fur la Pays d’Ophir, publifhed in the Memoires de Litera¬ 
ture, tom. xxx. p. 83, &c. But it has received the rnoft: 
ample and elaborate elucidation by Bruce, in the fecond 
book of his Travels, c. 4. who feems to have convinced 
Dr. Robertfon, (Hiftorical Dilquilition concerning India, 
p. 10.) It will therefore be proper to confider this hy¬ 
pothefis, as fupported and elucidated by Bruce, at fome 
length. 
He commences his inveftigations and reafonings on this 
fubjefl, by laying down three positions : 1 ft. That the 
trade to Ophir was carried on from the Elanitic Gulf 
through the Indian Ocean, adly. That gold, filver, and 
ivory, but principally filver, were the commodities ob¬ 
tained by this trade. 3dly. That the time occupied in 
this voyage, in going to Ophir and returning from it, was 
precifely three years, and at no period more orlefs. 
“Now, if Solomon’s fleet failed from the Elanitic Gulf 
to the Indian Ocean, this voyage of neceflity muft have 
been made by monfoons, for no other winds reign in that 
ocean. And, what certainly lliows this was the cafe, is 
the precife term of three years, in which the fleet went 
and came between Ophir and Ezion-geber. For it is 
plain, fo as to fuperfede the neceflity of proof or argu¬ 
ment, that, had this voyage been made with variable winds, 
no limited term of years ever could have been obferved in 
its going and returning. The fleet might have returned 
from Ophir in two years, in three, four, or five years ; but, 
with variable winds, the return precifely in three years 
was not poflible, whatever part of the globe Ophir might 
be fituated in. Neither Spain nor Peru therefore could 
be Ophir; for part of thefe voyages muft have been made 
by variable winds, and the return confequently uncertain. 
The ifland of Ceylon, in the Eaft Indies, could not be 
Ophir; for Ceylon has neither gold nor filver, though it 
has ivory. St. Domingo has neither gold, nor filver, nor 
ivory. When the Tyrians difeovered Spain, they found a 
profufionof filver in huge mafles; but this they brought 
to Tyre by the Mediterranean, and then lent it to the 
Red Sea over-land, to anfwer the returns from India. 
Tarfhilh, too, is not found to be a port in any of thefe 
voyages ; fo that part of the defeription fails : nor were 
there ever elephants bred in Spain. 
6 Q 
“Thefe 
