Of course only Biblical mythology is here referred to. The Moslem mythology of Solomon and the Queen (Balkis) has taken from the Avesta Wise King Yima's potent ring, and his power over demons, and other fables, in most instances to be noted only as an unconscious recognition of a certain general accent common to the narratives of the two great kings. Yet it can hardly be said that the stories of Yima in the Avesta and of Solomon in the Bible are entirely independent of each other,--as in Yima's being given by the deity a sort of choice and selecting the political career, Ahura Mazda saying: "Since thou wanted not to be the preacher and the bearer of my law, then make thou my worlds thrive, make my worlds increase: undertake thou to nourish, to rule, and to watch over my world." Ahura Mazda requests Yima to build an enclosure for the preservation of the seeds of life (men, animals, and plants) during a succession of fatal winters, and some of the particulars resemble both the legend of the ark and that of building the temple. Yima was, like Solomon, a priest-king (he is also called "the good shepherd"); he was, like Solomon, beset by satans (daêvas), and after a reign of fabulous prosperity he finally fell by uttering falsehood. What the falsehood was is told in the Bundahis: the good part of creation was ascribed to the evil creator. Several other heroes of the Avesta have assisted in the idealisation of Solomon, notably King Vîstâspa, already mentioned. Like Solomon, he is famous for his horses and his wealth. Zoroaster exhorts him, "All night long address the heavenly Wisdom; all night long call for the Wisdom that will keep thee awake." From Zoroaster the "Young King" learned "how the worlds were arranged"; and he is advised "have no bad priests or unfriendly priests." It is now necessary to inquire whether there is anything corresponding to these facts in the ancient writings ascribed to Solomon. The lower criticism has little liking for Solomon, and makes but a feeble struggle for the genuineness of his canonical books against the higher criticism, which forbids us to assign any word to Solomon. But these higher critics acquired their learning while lower critics, and it is difficult to repress an occasional suspicion of the survival of an unconscious prejudice against the royal secularist, apparent in their unwillingness to admit any participation at all of Solomon in the wisdom books. Is this quite reasonable?