Notwithstanding this, we assume the city to have been founded by the celebrated king to whom the honour is given: who built the temples is totally unknown.
The motives which tempted Solomon to build a city in a plain, now altogether a desert, we copy from Mr. Addison’s Travels to Damascus:—“The astonishment that takes hold of the mind at the strange position of this magnificent city, at one time the capital of the East, on the edge of the great desert, and surrounded for several days’ journey on all sides by naked solitary wilds, is removed by marking well the peculiarity of its geographical position. The great caravans coming to Europe, laden with the rich merchandise of India, would naturally come along the Persian gulf, through the south of Persia, to the Euphrates, the direct line; their object then would be to strike across the great Syrian desert as early as possible, to reach the large markets and ports of Syria. With more than 600 miles of desert without water, between the mouth of the Euphrates and Syria, they would naturally be obliged to keep along the banks of that river, until the extent of desert country became diminished. They would then find the copious springs of Tadmor the nearest and most convenient to make for; and in their direct route from the north of India along the Euphrates. These springs would then immediately become most important, and would naturally attract the attention of a wise prince like Solomon, who would ‘fence them with strong walls.’ Here the caravans would rest and take in water; here would congregate the merchants from adjacent countries and Europe; and from hence the great caravan would be divided into numerous branches, to the north, south, and west[54]. A large mart for the exchange of commodities would be established, and an important city would quickly arise. The choice of this spot by Solomon, we may naturally consider founded on a policy of enriching himself by drawing the commerce of India through his dominions, from which commerce, probably, he derived the wealth for which he is so celebrated. In the chapter, succeeding that in which Solomon is mentioned to have built Tadmor in the wilderness, we read that ‘the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year, was six hundred three score and six talents of gold[55]; besides that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffic of the spice-merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.’”
The city which Solomon built was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar; but who rebuilt it is entirely unknown. It is not mentioned by Xenophon, in his history of the expedition of Cyrus the younger, though he gives a very accurate account of the desert, and must have left this place not a great way to the right in his march towards Babylon. Nor is it once alluded to by Diodorus, nor Plutarch, nor Arrian, nor Quintus Curtius, nor, indeed, by any of the biographers or historians of Alexander; although he marched through this desert to Thapsacus.
Nor is it taken any notice of as being in existence even in the time of Seleucus Nicator, he who built so many cities in Syria; nor is it once mentioned in the history of his successor. It is not even mentioned so lately as the time in which Pompey the Great conquered the country in which it is situated. No notice is taken in Roman history of its being in any way existing, till the time of Mark Antony; who, after the battle at Philippi, marched against it, as we are told by Appian, with a view of plundering it; but the inhabitants escaped with their effects over the Euphrates. This very circumstance proves it to have been at that time no very large place; added to which, it seems to be certain, that none of these temples, &c., could have been in existence; for the Romans had, for some time, been alive to the benefits of works of art; especially paintings, sculpture, and architecture. His sole object, in going thither, was to plunder the Palmyrene merchants, who were supposed to have acquired considerable wealth, by selling the commodities of India and Arabia.
Added to all this, Strabo, the best and most accurate geographer of ancient times, does not once speak of its name. The first description of this now celebrated place is by Pliny; and it runs thus:—“Palmyra is remarkable for situation, a rich soil, and pleasant streams. It is surrounded on all sides by a vast sandy desert, which totally separates it from the rest of the world, and has preserved its independence between the two great empires of Rome and Parthia, whose first care, when at war, is to engage it in their interest. It is distant from Seleucia three hundred and thirty-seven miles; from the Mediterranean two hundred and three; and from Damascus one hundred and seventy-six.”
These distances are not quite accurate, being too great. Palmyra is also mentioned by Ptolemy, who makes it the capital of sixteen cities in Syria Palmyrena. Trajan and Hadrian made expeditions into the East, and must have passed through this city, or near it. Nothing, however, is said of it. Had the temples been there at that time, Hadrian, who was so great a patron of the elegant arts, would, there can be no doubt, have valued them. Some, indeed, insist that he repaired the city; and that it was thence called Hadrianopolis.
The Palmyrenes submitted to that emperor about the year 130. Hadrian, then, making a tour through Syria into Egypt, delighted with the situation and native strength of the place, is said to have determined on furnishing it with various splendid edifices and ornaments; and it is probable, that he then conferred upon it the privileges of “Colonia Juris Italici,” which, as we learn from Ulpian, it actually enjoyed, and the inhabitants were thence induced by gratitude to call themselves “Hadrianopolitæ.” It is supposed that many of its marble pillars, particularly those of the long porticoes, were the gift of this emperor. It must, nevertheless, be borne in mind, that all this is little better than conjecture. Mr. Halifax, however, says, “that as the most ancient inscription, he met with at Palmyra, was dated the three hundred and fourteenth year from the death of Alexander, that is, ten years before Christ, and another, dated between twenty and thirty years before Hadrian, consequently before the Romans got footing there, he concluded, that the sumptuous structures he saw there were not raised by the Romans.”
From an inscription on the shaft of a column in the long portico, where all the inscriptions seem to have been under statues, it appears that, in the reign of Alexander Severus, they joined that emperor in his expedition against the Persians.
From this time to the reign of Gallienus, no mention is made of this city: but then it became so conspicuous, that its history will be a subject of interest to all succeeding times.
The following is an abstract of the history of this period, presented to us in the pages of Gibbon, Mr. Wood, and other writers. A place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a convenient distance from the gulf of Persia, and the Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans, which conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the rich commodities of India. Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent city; and, connecting the Roman and Parthian empire by the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an humble neutrality; till at length, after the victories of Trajan, the little republic sank into the bosom of Rome, and flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the subordinate yet honourable rank of a colony; and it is during this period of peace, Mr. Gibbon is disposed to believe, that the wealthy Palmyrians constructed those temples, palaces and porticoes of Grecian architecture, the ruins of which in modern times have excited so much admiration and wonder.