This is a modern-English version of Ancient Egypt, originally written by Rawlinson, George, Gilman, Arthur. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


GREAT HALL OF COLUMNS AT KARNAK (RESTORED.) GREAT HALL OF COLUMNS AT KARNAK (RESTORED.)

ANCIENT EGYPT

BY

GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A.

CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD AND CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF TURIN; AUTHOR OF "THE FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES OF THE ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD." ETC., ETC.

WITH THE COLLABORATION OF

ARTHUR GILMAN, M.A. AUTHOR OF "THE STORY OF ROME," ETC.


TENTH EDITION
LONDON T. FISHER UNWIN
PATERNOSTER SQUARE, E.C.

COPYRIGHT BY T. FISHER UNWIN, 1886 (For Great Britain)






TO REGINALD STUART POOLE, KEEPER OF COINS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND CORRESPONDENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MUCH HELP AND MUCH PLEASURE DERIVED FROM HIS EGYPTIAN LABOURS.

TO REGINALD STUART POOLE, COIN KEEPER AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM, AND CORRESPONDENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, IN RECOGNITION OF THE GREAT HELP AND ENJOYMENT RECEIVED FROM HIS WORK ON EGYPT.


CONTENTS.

I.

THE LAND OF EGYPT 1-22

General shape of Egypt, 1—Chief divisions: twofold division, 2; threefold division, 3—The Egypt of the maps unreal, 4—Egypt, "the gift of the river," in what sense, 5, 6—The Fayoum, 7—- Egyptian speculations concerning the Nile, 7, 8—The Nile not beautiful, 8—Size of Egypt, 9—Fertility, 10—Geographical situation, 11, 12—The Nile, as a means of communication, 12, 13, Phenomena of the inundation, 13, 14—Climate of Egypt. 14—Geology, 15—Flora and Fauna, 16, 17—General monotony, 19—Exceptions, 20-22.

II.

THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT 23-45

Origin of the Egyptians, 23—Phenomena of their language and type, 24—Two marked varieties of physique. 25—Two types of character: the melancholic, 25, 27: the gay, 27-29—Character of the Egyptian religion: polytheism, 30, 31—Animal worship, 31-33—Worship of the monarch, 33—Osirid saga, 34, 35—Evil gods, 36—Local cults, 37—Esoteric religion, 38; how reconciled with the popular belief, 39—Conviction of a life after death, 40, 41—Moral code, 41-43—Actual state of morals, 43—Ranks of society, 44, 45.

III.

THE DAWN OF HISTORY 45-64

Early Egyptian myths: the Seb and Thoth legends, 46, 47—The destruction of mankind by Ra, 48—Traditions concerning M'na, or Menes, 48—Site of Memphis, 49—Great Temple of Phthah at Memphis, 50, 51—Names of Memphis, 51—Question of the existence of M'na, 52, 53—Supposed successors of M'na, 54—First historical Egyptian, Sneferu, 55—The Egypt of his time, 56—Hieroglyphics, 57—Tombs, 58—Incipient pyramids, 59, 60—Social condition of the people, 60—Manners, 61—Position of women, 62-64.

IV.

THE PYRAMID BUILDERS 65-94

Difficult to realize the conception of a great pyramid, 65—Egyptian idea of one, 66—Number of pyramids in Egypt: the Principal Three, 67—Description of the "Third Pyramid," 67-71; of the "Second Pyramid," 72; of the "First" or "Great Pyramid," 75-81—The traditional builders, Khufu, Shafra, and Menkaura, 82; the pyramids their tombs, 82—Grandeur of Khufu's conception, 83—Cruelty involved in it, 84, 85—The builders' hopes not realized, 85, 86—Skill displayed in the construction, 86—Magnificence of the architectural effect, 89—Inferiority of the "Third Pyramid," 90—Continuance of the pyramid period, 91-94.

V.

THE RISE OF THEBES TO POWER, AND THE EARLY THEBAN KINGS 95-119

Shift of the seat of power—site of Thebes, 95—Origin of the name of Thebes, 96—Earliest known Theban king, Antef I., 97—His successors, Mentu-hotep I. and "Antef the Great," 98—Other Antefs and Mentu-hoteps, 98, 99—Sankh-ka-ra and his fleet, 99, 100—Dynasty of Usurtasens and Amenemhats: spirit of their civilization, 100, 101—Reign of Amenemhat I., 102—His wars and hunting expeditions, 103, 104—Usurtasen I.: his wars, 105—His sculptures and architectural works, 106—His obelisk, 107, 109—Reign of Amenemhat II.: tablet belonging to his time, 109, 110—Usurtasen II. and his conquests, 111, 112.

VI.

THE GOOD AMENEMHAT AND HIS WORKS 113-123

Dangers connected with the inundation of the Nile, twofold, 113—An excessive inundation, 114; a defective one, 115—Sufferings from these causes under Amenemhat III., 115, 116—Possible storage of water, 117—Amenemhat's reservoir, the "Lake Mœris," 118—Doubts as to its dimensions, 119, 120—Amenemhat's "Labyrinth," 121—His pyramid, and name of Ra-n-mat, 122, 123.

VII.

ABRAHAM IN EGYPT 124-131

Wanderings of the Patriarch, 124—Necessity which drove him into Egypt, 125—Passage of the Desert, 126—A dread anxiety unfaithfully met, 127—Reception on the frontier, and removal of Sarah to the court, 128—Abraham's material well-being, 129—The Pharaoh restores Sarah, 130—Probable date of the visit, 130—Other immigrants, 131.

VIII.

THE GREAT INVASION—THE HYKSOS OR SHEPHERD KINGS—JOSEPH AND APEPI 132-146

Exemption of Egypt hitherto from foreign attack, 132—Threatening movements among the populations of Asia, 133—Manetho's tale of the "Shepherd" invasion, 134—The probable reality, 135, 136—Upper Egypt not overrun, 137—The first Hyksos king, Set, or Saites, 138—Duration of the rule, doubtful, 139—Character of the rule improves with time, 140—Apepi's great works at Tanis, 144—Apepi and Ra-sekenen, 145—Apepi and Joseph, 146.

IX.

HOW THE HYKSOS WERE EXPELLED FROM EGYPT 147-169

Rapid deterioration of conquering races generally, 147, 148—Recovery of the Egyptians from the ill effects of the invasion, 149—Second rise of Thebes to greatness, 150—War of Apepi with Ra-sekenen III., 151—Succession of Aahmes; war continues, 152—The Hyksos quit Egypt, 153—Aahmes perhaps assisted by the Ethiopians, 153-157.

X.

THE FIRST GREAT WARRIOR KING, THOTHMES I. 158-169

Early wars of Thothmes in Ethiopia and Nubia, 158-160—His desire to avenge the Hyksos invasion, 161—Condition of Western Asia at this period, 162, 163—Geographical sketch of the countries to be attacked, 164, 165—Probable information of Thothmes on these matters, 167—His great expedition into Syria and Mesopotamia, 167—His buildings, 168—His greatness insufficiently appreciated, 169.

XI.

QUEEN HATASU AND HER MERCHANT FLEET 170-188

High estimation of women in Egypt, 170—Early position of Hatasu as joint ruler with Thothmes II., 173—Her buildings at this period, 173—Her assumption of male attire and titles, 174-177—Her nominal regency for Thothmes III., and real sovereignty, 177, 178—Construction and voyage of her fleet, 178, 183—Return of the expedition to Thebes, 184—Construction of a temple to commemorate it, 185—Joint reign of Hatasu with Thothmes III.—Her obelisks, 186—Her name obliterated by Thothmes, 187.

XII.

THOTHMES THE THIRD AND AMENHOTEP THE SECOND 189-207

First expedition of Thothmes III. into Asia, 189-191—His second and subsequent campaigns, 191, 192—Great expedition of his thirty-third year, 192, 193—Adventure with an elephant, 194—Further expeditions: amount of plunder and tribute, 195—Interest in natural history, 196—Employment of a navy, 197—Song of victory on the walls of the Temple of Karnak, 198-199—Architectural works, 199-201—Their present wide diffusion, 202—Thothmes compared with Alexander, 203—Description of his person, 204—Position of the Israelites under Thothmes III., 205—Short reign of Amenhotep II., 206.

XIII.

AMEN-HOTEP III. AND HIS GREAT WORKS—THE VOCAL MEMNON 208-222

The "Twin Colossi" of Thebes: their impressiveness, 208-211—The account given of them by their sculptor, 212—The Eastern Colossus, why called "The Vocal Memnon," 213, 214—Earliest testimony to its being "vocal," 214—Rational account of the phenomenon, 215-217—Amenhotep's temple at Luxor, 217, 218—His other buildings, 219—His wars and expeditions, 219, 220—His lion hunts; his physiognomy and character, 221, 222.

XIV.

KHUENATEN AND THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 223-230

Obscure nature of the heresy of the Disk-worshippers, 223-225—Possible connection of Disk-worship with the Israelites, 226—Hostility of the Disk-worshippers to the old Egyptian religion, 227—The introduction of the "heresy" traced to Queen Taia, 228—Great development of the "heresy" under her son, Amenhotep IV., or Khuenaten, 229—Other changes introduced by him, 230.

XV.

BEGINNING OF THE DECLINE OF EGYPT 231-252

Advance of the Hittite power in Syria, 231—War of Saplal with Ramesses I., 231—War of Seti I. with Maut-enar, 232—Great Syrian campaign of Seti, followed by a treaty, 233, 235—Seti's other wars, 236—His great wall, 237—Hittite war of Ramesses II., 238, 240—Poem of Pentaour, 241—Results of the battle of Kadesh, a new treaty and an inter-marriage, 242, 243—Military decline of Egypt, 244—Egyptian art reaches its highest point: Great Hall of Columns at Karnak, 245—Tomb of Seti, 246, 247—Colossi of Ramesses II., 248—Ramesses II. the great oppressor of the Israelites, 249—- Physiognomies of Seti I. and Ramesses II, 250-252.

XVI.

MENEPHTHAH I., THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS 253-268

Good prospect of peace on Menephthah's accession, 253—General sketch of his reign, 254—Invasion of the Maxyes, 255—Their Mediterranean allies, 256, 257—Repulse of the invasion, 258-261—Israelite troubles, 262-264—Loss of the Egyptian chariot force in the Red Sea, 265—Internal revolts and difficulties, 265—General review of the civilization of the period, 266-268.

XVII.

THE DECLINE OF EGYPT UNDER THE LATER RAMESSIDES 269-287

Temporary disintegration of Egypt, 269—Reign of Setnekht, 270—Reign of Ramesses III., 271—General restlessness of the nations in his time 272,—Libyan invasion of Egypt, 273, 274—Great invasion of the Tekaru, Tanauna, and others, 275, 276—First naval battle on record, 277, 278—Part taken by Ramesses in the fight, 278-281—Campaign of revenge, 282—Later years of Ramesses peaceful, 283—General decline of Egypt, 284—Insignificance of the later Ramessides, 284, 285—Deterioration in art, literature, and morals, 285, 287.

XVIII.

THE PRIEST-KINGS—PINETEM AND SOLOMON 288-297

Influence of the priests in Egypt, 288—Ordinary relations between them and the kings, 289—High-priesthood of Ammon becomes hereditary; Herhor, 290—Reign of Pinetem I., 293—Reign of Men-khepr-ra, 294—Rise of the kingdom of the Israelites, 295—Friendly relations established between Pinetem II. and Solomon, 296—Effect on Hebrew art and architecture, 297.

XIX.

SHISHAK AND HIS DYNASTY 298-313

Shishak's family Semitic, but not Assyrian or Babylonian, 298—Connected by marriage with the priest-kings, 299, 300—Reception of Jeroboam by Shishak, 301—Shishak's expedition against Rehoboam, 302—Aid lent to Jeroboam in his own kingdom, 303—Arab conquests, 304—Karnak inscription, 305—Shishak's successors, 306—War of Zerah (Osorkon II.?) with Asa, 307—Effect of Zerah's defeat, 309—Decline of the dynasty, 310—Disintegration of Egypt, 310, 311—Further deterioration in literature and art, 311-313.

XX.

THE LAND SHADOWING WITH WINGS—EGYPT UNDER THE ETHIOPIANS 314-330

Vague use of the term Ethiopia, 314—Ethiopian kingdom of Napata, 315—Wealth of Napata, 316—Piankhi's rise to power, 317—His protectorate of Egypt, 318—Revolt of Tafnekht and others, 318—Suppression of the revolt, 319-323—Death of Piankhi, and revolt of Bek-en-ranf, 323—Power of Shabak established over Egypt, 324—General character of the Ethiopian rule, 325—Advance of Assyria towards the Egyptian border, 325—Collision between Sargon and Shabak, 326—Reign of Shabatok—Sennacherib threatens Egypt, 327—Reign of Tehrak, 328-330.

XXI.

THE FIGHT OVER THE CARCASE—ETHIOPIA v. ASSYRIA 331-341

Egypt attacked by Esarhaddon, 331, 332—Great battle near Memphis, 333—Memphis taken, and flight of Tehrak to Napata, 334—Egypt split up into small states by Esarhaddon, 334, 335—Tehrak renews the struggle, 336—Tehrak driven out by Asshur-bani-pal, 337—His last effort, 337—Attempt made by Rut-Ammon fails, 338—Temporary success of Mi-Ammon-nut, 339—Egypt becomes once more an Assyrian dependency, 340—Her wretched condition, 341.

XXII.

THE CORPSE COMES TO LIFE AGAIN—PSAMATIK I. AND HIS SON, NECO 342-359

Foreign help needed to save a sinking state, 342—Libyan origin of Psamatik I., 344—His revolt connected with the decline of Assyria, 345—Assistance rendered him by Gyges, 345—His struggle with the petty princes, 346—Reign of Psamatik: place assigned by him to the mercenaries, 347—His measures for restoring Egypt to her former prosperity, 348, 349—He encourages intercourse between Egypt and Greece, 350-352—Egypt restored to life: character of the new life, 353—Later years of Psamatik: conquest of Ashdod, 354—Reign of Neco: his two fleets, 355—His circumnavigation of Africa, 356—His conquest of Syria, 357—Jeremiah on the battle of Carchemish, 358—Neco's dream of empire terminates, 359.

XXIII.

THE LATER SAÏTE KINGS—PSAMATIK II., APRIES, AND AMASIS 360-367

The Saïtic revival in art and architecture,360—Some recovery of military strength, 361—Expedition of Psamatik II. into Ethiopia, 362—Part taken by Apries in the war between Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah, 363—His Phœnician conquests, 364—His expedition against Cyrene, 364—Invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, 365—Quiet reign of Amasis, 366—The Saïtic revival not the recovery of true national life, 367.

XXIV.

THE PERSIAN CONQUEST 368-380

Patient acquiescence of Amasis in his position of tributary to Babylon, 368—Rise of the Persian power under Cyrus, and appeal made by Crœsus to Amasis, League of Egypt, Lydia, and Babylon, 369, 370—Precipitancy of Crœsus, 371—Fall of Babylon, 371—Later wars of Cyrus, 372—Preparations made against Egypt by Cambyses, 373, 374—Great battle of Pelusium, 375—Psamatik III, besieged in Memphis, 376—Fall of Memphis, and cruel treatment of the Egyptians by Cambyses, 377, 378—His iconoclasm checked by some considerations of policy, 379—Conciliatory measures of Darius Hystaspis, 379, 380.

XXV.

THREE DESPERATE REVOLTS 380-386

First revolt, under Khabash, easily suppressed by Xerxes, 381, 382—Second revolt under Inarus and Amyrtæus, assisted by Athens, 382, 383—Suppressed by Megabyzus, 384—Herodotus in Egypt, 385—Third revolt, under Nefaa-rut, attains a certain success; a native monarchy re-established, 386.

XXVI.

NECTANEBO I.—A LAST GLEAM OF SUNSHINE 387-392

Unquiet time under the earlier successors of Nefaa-rut, 387—Preparations of Nectanebo (Nekht Hor-heb) for the better protection of Egypt against the Persians, 388—Invasion of Egypt by Pharnabazus and Iphicrates, 389—Failure of the expedition, 390—A faint revival of art and architecture, 391.

XXVII.

THE LIGHT GOES OUT IN DARKNESS 393-402

Reign of Te-her (Tacho), 393—Reign of Nectanebo II. (Nekht-nebf), 394—Revolt of Sidon, and great expedition of Ochus, 394, 395—Sidon betrayed by Tennes and Memnon of Rhodes, 396—March upon Egypt: disposition of the Persian forces, 397—Skirmish at Pelusium, and retreat of Nekht-nebf to Memphis, 398, 399—Capture of Pelusium, 399—Surrender of Bubastis, 400—Nehkt-nebf flies to Ethiopia, 401—General reflections, 402.

INDEX 403

decorative

decorative

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PILLARED HALL OF SETI IFrontispiece
DOM AND DATE PALM TREES17
FIGURES OF TAOURT36
FIGURE OF BES37
TABLET OF SNEFERU AT WADY-MAGHARAH55
PYRAMID OF MEYDOUM59
GREAT PYRAMID OF SACCARAH61
SECTION OF THE SAME61
GROUP OF STATUARY—HUSBAND AND WIFE63
SECTION OF THE THIRD PYRAMID69
TOMB CHAMBER IN THE SAME69
SARCOPHAGUS OF MYCERINUS73
SECTION OF THE SECOND PYRAMID73
SECTION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID76
KING'S CHAMBER AND CHAMBERS OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE GREAT PYRAMID77
THE GREAT GALLERY IN THE SAME79
VIEW OF THE FIRST AND SECOND PYRAMID87
SPEARING THE CROCODILE103
OBELISK OF USURTASEN I. ON THE SITE OF HELIOPOLIS107
BUST OF A SHEPHERD KING141
HEAD OF NEFERTARI-AAHMES155
BUST OF THOTHMES I159
HEAD OF THOTHMES II171
HEAD OF QUEEN HATASU171
GROUND-PLAN OF TEMPLE AT MEDINET-ABOU175
EGYPTIAN SHIP IN THE TIME OF HATASU179
HOUSE BUILT ON PILES IN THE LAND OF PUNT181
THE QUEEN OF PUNT AT THE COURT OF HATASU183
SECTION OF THE PILLARED HALL OF THOTHMES III. AT KARNAC201
BUST OF THOTHMES III205
TWIN COLOSSI OF AMENHOTEP III. AT THEBES209
BUST OF AMENHOTEP III221
KHUENATEN WORSHIPPING THE SOLAR DISK225
HEAD OF AMENHOTEP IV. OR KHUENATEN229
HEAD OF SETI I.250
BUST OF RAMESSES II.251
HEAD OF MENEPHTHAH255
SEA-FIGHT IN THE TIME OF RAMESSES III.279
CARICATURE OF THE TIME OF THE SAME286
HEAD OF HER-HOR291
FIGURE RECORDING THE CONQUEST OF JUDÆA BY SHISHAK305
HEAD OF SHISHAK307
PIANKHI RECEIVING THE SUBMISSION OF TAFNEKHT AND OTHERS320
HEAD OF SHABAK325
SEAL OF SHABAK327
HEAD OF TIRHAKAH329
FIGURE OF ESAR-HADDON AT THE NAHR-EL-KELB335
HEAD OF PSAMATIK I344
BAS-RELIEFS OF THE TIME OF PSAMATIK351
HEAD OF NECO355
decorative


THE STORY OF ANCIENT EGYPT.


I.

THE LAND OF EGYPT.

In shape Egypt is like a lily with a crooked stem. A broad blossom terminates it at its upper end; a button of a bud projects from the stalk a little below the blossom, on the left-hand side. The broad blossom is the Delta, extending from Aboosir to Tineh, a direct distance of a hundred and eighty miles, which the projection of the coast—the graceful swell of the petals—enlarges to two hundred and thirty. The bud is the Fayoum, a natural depression in the hills that shut in the Nile valley on the west, which has been rendered cultivable for many thousands of years by the introduction into it of the Nile water, through a canal known as the "Bahr Yousouf." The long stalk of the lily is the Nile valley itself, which is a ravine scooped in the rocky soil for seven hundred miles from the First Cataract to the apex of the Delta, sometimes not more than a mile broad, never more than eight or ten miles. No other country in the world is so strangely shaped, so long compared to its width, so straggling, so hard to govern from a single centre.

In shape, Egypt is like a lily with a bent stem. A wide blossom ends it at the top; a small bud sticks out from the stalk a little below the blossom, on the left side. The wide blossom represents the Delta, stretching from Aboosir to Tineh, a straight distance of one hundred eighty miles, which the curve of the coast—the elegant rise of the petals—expands to two hundred thirty. The bud symbolizes the Fayoum, a natural dip in the hills that surround the Nile valley on the west, which has been made farmable for thousands of years by channeling Nile water into it through a canal called the "Bahr Yousouf." The long stalk of the lily is the Nile valley itself, which is a gorge carved into the rocky soil for seven hundred miles from the First Cataract to the tip of the Delta, sometimes only a mile wide, but never more than eight or ten miles. No other country in the world has such a strangely shaped form, so long compared to its width, so sprawling, so difficult to govern from a single center.

At the first glance, the country seems to divide itself into two strongly contrasted regions; and this was the original impression which it made upon its inhabitants. The natives from a very early time designated their land as "the two lands," and represented it by a hieroglyph in which the form used to express "land" was doubled. The kings were called "chiefs of the Two Lands," and wore two crowns, as being kings of two countries. The Hebrews caught up the idea, and though they sometimes called Egypt "Mazor" in the singular number, preferred commonly to designate it by the dual form "Mizraim," which means "the two Mazors." These "two Mazors," "two Egypts," or "two lands," were, of course, the blossom and the stalk, the broad tract upon the Mediterranean known as "Lower Egypt," or "the Delta," and the long narrow valley that lies, like a green snake, to the south, which bears the name of "Upper Egypt," or "the Said." Nothing is more striking than the contrast between these two regions. Entering Egypt from the Mediterranean, or from Asia by the caravan route, the traveller sees stretching before him an apparently boundless plain, wholly unbroken by natural elevations, generally green with crops or with marshy plants, and canopied by a cloudless sky, which rests everywhere on a distant flat horizon. An absolute monotony surrounds him. No alternation of plain and highland, meadow and forest, no slopes of hills, or hanging woods, or dells, or gorges, or cascades, or rushing streams, or babbling rills, meet his gaze on any side; look which way he will, all is sameness, one vast smooth expanse of rich alluvial soil, varying only in being cultivated or else allowed to lie waste. Turning his back with something of weariness on the dull uniformity of this featureless plain, the wayfarer proceeds southwards, and enters, at the distance of a hundred miles from the coast, on an entirely new scene. Instead of an illimitable prospect meeting him on every side, he finds himself in a comparatively narrow vale, up and down which the eye still commands an extensive view, but where the prospect on either side is blocked at the distance of a few miles by rocky ranges of hills, white or yellow or tawny, sometimes drawing so near as to threaten an obstruction of the river course, sometimes receding so far as to leave some miles of cultivable soil on either side of the stream. The rocky ranges, as he approaches them, have a stern and forbidding aspect. They rise for the most part, abruptly in bare grandeur; on their craggy sides grows neither moss nor heather; no trees clothe their steep heights. They seem intended, like the mountains that enclosed the abode of Rasselas, to keep in the inhabitants of the vale within their narrow limits, and bar them out from any commerce or acquaintance with the regions beyond.

At first glance, the country appears to split into two sharply contrasting regions, which was the original impression it left on its inhabitants. The locals have long referred to their land as "the two lands" and represented it with a hieroglyph where the symbol for "land" was duplicated. The kings were called "chiefs of the Two Lands" and wore two crowns, symbolizing their rule over two territories. The Hebrews adopted this idea and, although they sometimes referred to Egypt as "Mazor" in the singular, they typically used the dual form "Mizraim," meaning "the two Mazors." These "two Mazors," "two Egypts," or "two lands," referred to the lush area along the Mediterranean known as "Lower Egypt," or "the Delta," and the long, narrow valley that stretches southward, resembling a green snake, called "Upper Egypt," or "the Said." The contrast between these two regions is striking. Entering Egypt from the Mediterranean or through the caravan route from Asia, a traveler sees an seemingly endless plain, completely unbroken by natural rises, mostly green with crops or marsh plants, all beneath a clear sky resting on a distant flat horizon. Monotony surrounds them. There's no variation of plains and highlands, meadows and forests, no hills, woodlands, valleys, gorges, cascades, rushing streams, or babbling brooks anywhere in sight; no matter which direction they look, it’s all the same—a vast, smooth expanse of fertile land, varying only in whether it’s cultivated or left barren. Turning away in mild weariness from the dull uniformity of this featureless plain, the traveler heads south and, a hundred miles from the coast, encounters an entirely new landscape. Instead of an endless view in all directions, they find themselves in a relatively narrow valley where their line of sight can still cover a wide area, but rocky hills on either side block the view after a few miles. These hills may be white, yellow, or tawny, sometimes shifting so close they seem to threaten to obstruct the river, while at other times receding far enough to leave several miles of arable land beside the water. As the traveler approaches these rocky ranges, they appear steep and forbidding. They rise sharply in stark grandeur; no moss or heather grows on their rugged sides, and no trees cover their steep slopes. They seem designed, like the mountains surrounding Rasselas's home, to keep the valley's inhabitants confined within a narrow space and prevent them from engaging with the outside world.

Such is the twofold division of the country which impresses the observer strongly at the first. On a longer sojourn and a more intimate familiarity, the twofold division gives place to one which is threefold. The lower differs from the upper valley, it is a sort of debatable region, half plain, half vale; the cultivable surface spreads itself out more widely, the enclosing hills recede into the distance; above all, to the middle tract belongs the open space of the Fayoum nearly fifty miles across in its greatest diameter, and containing an area of four hundred square miles. Hence, with some of the occupants of Egypt a triple division has been preferred to a twofold one, the Greeks interposing the "Heptanomis" between the Thebais and the Delta, and the Arabs the "Vostani" between the Said and the Bahari, or "country of the sea."

The country is initially noticed as having two distinct parts. However, after spending more time and getting to know the area better, this two-part division reveals itself to be more complex, becoming three parts. The lower valley is different from the upper valley; it’s a sort of mixed area that’s half plain and half valley. The farmland spreads more broadly, and the hills that surround it move further back. Notably, the middle area includes the open space of Fayoum, which is nearly fifty miles wide at its largest point and covers four hundred square miles. Because of this, some people in Egypt prefer to think of the land as having three divisions instead of two. The Greeks inserted "Heptanomis" between Thebais and the Delta, while the Arabs added "Vostani" between Said and Bahari, which means "country of the sea."

It may be objected to this description, that the Egypt which it presents to the reader is not the Egypt of the maps. Undoubtedly it is not. The maps give the name of Egypt to a broad rectangular space which they mark out in the north-eastern corner of Africa, bounded on two sides by the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and on the two others by two imaginary lines which the map-makers kindly draw for us across the sands of the desert. But "this Egypt," as has been well observed, "is a fiction of the geographers, as untrue to fact as the island Atlantis of Greek legend, or the Lyonnesse of mediæval romance, both sunk beneath the ocean to explain their disappearance. The true Egypt of the old monuments, of the Hebrews, of the Greeks and Romans, of the Arabs, and of its own people in this day, is a mere fraction of this vast area of the maps, nothing more than the valley and plain watered by the Nile, for nearly seven hundred miles by the river's course from the Mediterranean southwards."[1] The great wastes on either side of the Nile valley are in no sense Egypt, neither the undulating sandy desert to the west, nor the rocky and gravelly highland to the east, which rises in terrace after terrace to a height, in some places, of six thousand feet. Both are sparsely inhabited, and by tribes of a different race from the Egyptian—tribes whose allegiance to the rulers of Egypt is in the best times nominal, and who for the most part spurn the very idea of submission to authority.

It could be argued that this description doesn't present Egypt as it's shown on the maps. And that's definitely true. The maps label a large rectangular area in the northeastern part of Africa as Egypt, bordered by the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea on two sides, with the other two sides marked by imaginary lines that mapmakers have kindly drawn across the desert sands. But "this Egypt," as has been aptly noted, "is a creation of geographers, just as fictional as the island of Atlantis from Greek myth or the medieval legend of Lyonnesse, both submerged beneath the ocean to explain their disappearance. The real Egypt, as seen in ancient monuments, by the Hebrews, the Greeks and Romans, the Arabs, and its own people today, is just a tiny portion of this extensive map area—only the valley and plain irrigated by the Nile, stretching nearly seven hundred miles downriver from the Mediterranean." [1] The vast deserts on either side of the Nile valley aren't Egypt at all, neither the rolling sandy desert to the west nor the rocky, gravelly highlands to the east that rise in layers to heights of up to six thousand feet in some areas. Both are sparsely populated, home to tribes that are ethnically different from Egyptians—tribes whose loyalty to the rulers of Egypt is largely superficial, and who mostly reject any notion of submitting to authority.

If, then, the true Egypt be the tract that we have described—the Nile valley, with the Fayoum and the Delta—the lily stalk, the bud, and the blossom—we can well understand how it came to be said of old, that "Egypt was the gift of the river." Not that the lively Greek, who first used the expression, divined exactly the scientific truth of the matter. The fancy of Herodotus saw Africa, originally, doubly severed from Asia by two parallel fjords, one running inland northwards from the Indian Ocean, as the Red Sea does to this day, and the other penetrating inland southwards from the Mediterranean to an equal or greater distance! The Nile, he said, pouring itself into this latter fjord, had by degrees filled it up, and had then gone on and by further deposits turned into land a large piece of the "sea of the Greeks," as was evident from the projection of the shore of the Delta beyond the general coast-line of Africa eastward and westward; and, he added, "I am convinced, for my own part, that if the Nile should please to divert his waters from their present bed into the Red Sea, he would fill it up and turn it into dry land in the space of twenty thousand years, or maybe in half that time—for he is a mighty river and a most energetic one." Here, in this last expression, he is thoroughly right, though the method of the Nile's energy has been other than he supposed. The Nile, working from its immense reservoirs in the equatorial regions, has gradually scooped itself out a deep bed in the sand and rock of the desert, which must have originally extended across the whole of northern Africa from the Atlantic to the Red Sea. Having scooped itself out this bed to a depth, in places, of three hundred feet from the desert level, it has then proceeded partially to fill it up with its own deposits. Occupying, when it is at its height, the entire bed, and presenting at that time the appearance of a vast lake, or succession of lakes, it deposes every day a portion of sediment over the whole space which it covers: then, contracting gradually, it leaves at the base of the hills, on both sides, or at any rate on one, a strip of land fresh dressed with mud, which gets wider daily as the waters still recede, until yards grow into furlongs, and furlongs into miles, and at last the shrunk stream is content with a narrow channel a few hundred yards in width, and leaves the rest of its bed to the embraces of sun and air, and, if he so wills, to the industry of man. The land thus left exposed is Egypt—Egypt is the temporarily uncovered bed of the Nile, which it reclaims and recovers during a portion of each year, when Egypt disappears from view, save where human labour has by mounds and embankments formed artificial islands that raise their heads above the waste of waters, for the most part crowned with buildings.

If we consider that the true Egypt is the area we've described—the Nile valley, including the Fayoum and the Delta—the lily stalk, the bud, and the blossom—we can easily see how it was once said that "Egypt was the gift of the river." The lively Greek who first used this phrase didn’t fully grasp the scientific reality of it. Herodotus imagined Africa was originally split from Asia by two parallel fjords, one extending inland north from the Indian Ocean, just like the Red Sea does today, and the other stretching south from the Mediterranean even further! He claimed the Nile, flowing into this southern fjord, gradually filled it up and then continued to deposit sediment, transforming a large part of the "sea of the Greeks" into land. This was clear from how the Delta's shore jutted out beyond the general coastline of Africa to both the east and west. He added, "I believe that if the Nile decided to redirect its waters into the Red Sea, it would fill it up and turn it into dry land in twenty thousand years, or even half that time—because it is a powerful river and remarkably energetic." In this last point, he was completely right, even if his understanding of how the Nile's energy worked was different from the reality. The Nile, drawing from its vast reservoirs in the equatorial regions, has gradually carved out a deep channel in the sand and rock of the desert, which must have originally stretched across all of northern Africa from the Atlantic to the Red Sea. After creating this channel, which reaches depths of up to three hundred feet in some areas, it has partially filled it back up with its own silt. At its peak, the river occupies the entire channel and looks like a massive lake or a series of lakes, depositing sediment every day across the area it covers. As it gradually shrinks, it leaves behind a strip of land, freshly layered with mud, at the base of the hills on both sides or at least on one side, which widens daily as the waters recede. As yards turn into furlongs, and furlongs into miles, the reduced river settles into a narrow channel just a few hundred yards wide, letting the rest of its bed bask in the sun and air, potentially open to human development. The land left exposed is Egypt—Egypt is the temporarily revealed bed of the Nile, which the river reclaims and covers each year, when Egypt disappears from sight, except where human effort has created artificial islands with mounds and embankments, mostly topped with buildings.

There is one exception to this broad and sweeping statement. The Fayoum is no part of the natural bed of the Nile, and has not been scooped out by its energy. It is a natural depression in the western desert, separated off from the Nile valley by a range of limestone hills from two hundred to five hundred feet in height, and, apart from the activity of man, would have been arid, treeless, and waterless. Still, it derives from the Nile all its value, all its richness, all its fertility. Human energy at some remote period introduced into the depressed tract through an artificial channel from the Nile, cut in some places through the rock, the life-giving fluid; and this fluid, bearing the precious Nile sediment, has sufficed to spread fertility over the entire region, and to make the desert blossom like a garden.

There is one exception to this broad and sweeping statement. The Fayoum is not part of the natural bed of the Nile and hasn’t been shaped by its force. It’s a natural depression in the western desert, cut off from the Nile valley by a range of limestone hills that rise between two hundred and five hundred feet high. Without human intervention, it would have been dry, treeless, and without water. Still, it gets all its value, richness, and fertility from the Nile. At some distant time, humans dug an artificial channel to bring life-sustaining water from the Nile into this depressed area, carving through rock in some places. This water, carrying the valuable sediment from the Nile, has been enough to spread fertility throughout the entire region and to turn the desert into a blossoming garden.

The Egyptians were not unaware of the source of their blessings. From a remote date they speculated on their mysterious river. They deified it under the name of Hapi, "the Hidden," they declared that "his abode was not known;" that he was an inscrutable god, that none could tell his origin: they acknowledged him as the giver of all good things, and especially of the fruits of the earth. They said—

The Egyptians were well aware of where their blessings came from. For a long time, they pondered the mystery of their river. They worshipped it as Hapi, "the Hidden," and claimed that "his home was unknown;" that he was an enigmatic god, and that no one could trace his origins. They recognized him as the source of all good things, especially the bounty of the earth. They said—

"Hail to you, O Nile!" You reveal yourself in this land,
Arriving in peace, bringing life to Egypt;
Oh Ammon, you bring night into day,
A headline that brings joy to the heart!
Overflowing the gardens created by Ra; Giving life to all creatures; Watering the land nonstop:
Heaven's way coming down:
Food lover, giver of corn,
Bringing life to every home, O Phthah!...
O Nile flood, we make offerings to you; Oxen are sacrificed to you;
Great festivals are held for you;
Chickens are sacrificed to you; Wild animals are captured for you;
I offer you pure flames;
Offerings are made to each god,
As they are made to the Nile.
Incense rises to heaven,
Oxen, bulls, and fowls are burned! Nile creates chasms for himself in Thebaid;
His name is unknown in heaven,
He does not show his forms!
All representations are vain!
People praise him and the cycle of gods!
The terrible ones feel awe;
His son becomes the Lord of everything,
To enlighten everyone in Egypt.
Shine brightly, shine brightly, O Nile! shine brightly!
Bringing life to men through his prophecy:
Reviving his oxen in the fields!
"Shine in glory, O Nile!"[2]

Though thus useful, beneficent, and indeed essential to the existence of Egypt, the Nile can scarcely be said to add much to the variety of the landscape or to the beauty of the scenery. It is something, no doubt, to have the sight of water in a land where the sun beats down all day long with unremitting force till the earth is like a furnace of iron beneath a sky of molten brass. But the Nile is never clear. During the inundation it is deeply stained with the red argillaceous soil brought down from the Abyssinian highlands. At other seasons it is always more or less tinged with the vegetable matter which it absorbs on its passage from Lake Victoria to Khartoum; and this vegetable matter, combined with Its depth and volume, gives it a dull deep hue, which prevents it from having the attractiveness of purer and more translucent streams. The Greek name, Neilos, and the Hebrew, Sichor, are thought to embody this attribute of the mighty river, and to mean "dark blue" or "blue-black," terms sufficiently expressive of the stream's ordinary colour. Moreover, the Nile is too wide to be picturesque. It is seldom less than a mile broad from the point where it enters Egypt, and running generally between flat shores it scarcely reflects anything, unless it be the grey-blue sky overhead, or the sails of a passing pleasure boat.

Though it's definitely useful, helpful, and essential for Egypt's existence, the Nile doesn't really add much to the landscape's variety or the scenery's beauty. It's certainly a relief to see water in a land where the sun beats down relentlessly all day, turning the earth into an iron furnace beneath a sky of molten brass. However, the Nile is never clear. During the flood season, it's deeply stained by the red clay soil from the Abyssinian highlands. At other times, it's always tinged with the plant matter it picks up on its journey from Lake Victoria to Khartoum. This plant matter, combined with its depth and volume, gives it a dull, deep color that keeps it from having the allure of clearer, more transparent streams. The Greek name, Neilos, and the Hebrew name, Sichor, are believed to reflect this characteristic of the mighty river, meaning "dark blue" or "blue-black," which aptly describes the stream's usual color. Furthermore, the Nile is too wide to be picturesque. It's rarely less than a mile wide from the point where it enters Egypt, and as it flows mostly between flat banks, it hardly reflects anything unless it's the gray-blue sky above or the sails of a passing pleasure boat.

The size of Egypt, within the limits which have been here assigned to it, is about eleven thousand four hundred square miles, or less than that of any European State, except Belgium, Saxony, and Servia. Magnitude is, however, but an insignificant element in the greatness of States—witness Athens, Sparta, Rhodes, Genoa, Florence, Venice. Egypt is the richest and most productive land in the whole world. In its most flourishing age we are told that it contained twenty thousand cities. It deserved to be called, more (probably) than even Belgium, "one great town." But its area was undoubtedly small. Still, as little men have often taken the highest rank among warriors, so little States have filled a most important place in the world's history. Palestine was about the size of Wales; the entire Peloponnese was no larger than New Hampshire; Attica had nearly the same area as Cornwall. Thus the case of Egypt does not stand by itself, but is merely one out of many exceptions to what may perhaps be called the general rule.

The size of Egypt, within the limits defined here, is about 11,400 square miles, which is smaller than any European country except Belgium, Saxony, and Serbia. However, size is just a minor factor in the greatness of nations—look at Athens, Sparta, Rhodes, Genoa, Florence, and Venice. Egypt is the richest and most productive land in the world. At its peak, it reportedly had 20,000 cities. It could rightfully be called, maybe even more than Belgium, "one big city." But its area was definitely small. Still, just as smaller individuals can become great warriors, smaller nations have played significant roles in world history. Palestine was roughly the size of Wales; the entire Peloponnese was no larger than New Hampshire; and Attica had about the same area as Cornwall. So, Egypt's situation isn't unique; it's just one of many exceptions to what could be considered the general rule.

If stinted for space, Egypt was happy in her soil and in her situation. The rich alluvium, continually growing deeper and deeper, and top-dressed each year by nature's bountiful hand, was of an inexhaustible fertility, and bore readily year after year a threefold harvest—first a grain crop, and then two crops of grasses or esculent vegetables. The wheat sown returned a hundredfold to the husbandman, and was gathered at harvest-time in prodigal abundance—"as the sand of the sea, very much,"—till men "left numbering" (Gen. xli. 49). Flax and doora were largely cultivated, and enormous quantities were produced of the most nutritive vegetables, such as lentils, garlic, leeks, onions, endive, radishes, melons, cucumbers, lettuces, and the like, which formed a most important element in the food of the people. The vine was also grown in many places, as along the flanks of the hills between Thebes and Memphis, in the basin of the Fayoum, at Anthylla in the Mareotis at Sebennytus (now Semnood), and at Plisthiné, on the shore of the Mediterranean. The date-palm, springing naturally from the soil in clumps, or groves, or planted in avenues, everywhere offered its golden clusters to the wayfarer, dropping its fruit into his lap. Wheat, however, was throughout antiquity the chief product of Egypt, which was reckoned the granary of the world, the refuge and resource of all the neighbouring nations in time of dearth, and on which in the later republican, and in the imperial times, Rome almost wholly depended for her sustenance.

If there was a shortage of space, Egypt was thriving with its rich soil and favorable location. The fertile land, continually replenished and deepening over time, was incredibly productive, yielding three harvests each year: first a grain crop, followed by two crops of grasses or edible vegetables. The wheat sowed returned a hundredfold to the farmer, harvested in such abundance that it was described as "more than the sand of the sea" until people stopped counting (Gen. xli. 49). Flax and doora were widely farmed, producing vast amounts of nutritious vegetables like lentils, garlic, leeks, onions, endive, radishes, melons, cucumbers, and lettuces, which were essential to the people's diet. Vines were also cultivated in various regions, such as along the hills between Thebes and Memphis, in the Fayoum basin, at Anthylla in Mareotis, at Sebennytus (now Semnood), and at Plisthiné on the Mediterranean coast. The date-palm, growing naturally in clusters or planted in rows, generously offered its sweet fruits to travelers. Nonetheless, wheat remained Egypt's primary crop throughout ancient times, establishing the country as the world's granary and a vital source of sustenance for neighboring nations during shortages, particularly for Rome during the later republican and imperial periods.

If the soil was thus all that could be wished, still more advantageous was the situation. Egypt was the only nation of the ancient world which had ready access to two seas, the Northern Sea, or "Sea of the Greeks," and the Eastern Sea, or "Sea of the Arabians and the Indians." Phœnicia might carry her traffic by the painful travel of caravans across fifteen degrees of desert from her cities on the Levantine coast to the inner recess of the Persian Gulf, and thus get a share in the trade of the East at a vast expenditure of time and trouble. Assyria and Babylonia might for a time, when at the height of their dominion, obtain a temporary hold on lands which were not their own, and boast that they stretched from the "sea of the rising" to "that of the setting sun"—from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean; but Egypt, at all times and under all circumstances, commands by her geographic position an access both to the Mediterranean and to the Indian Ocean by way of the Red Sea, whereof nothing can deprive her. Suez must always be hers, for the Isthmus is her natural boundary, and her water-system has been connected with the head of the Arabian Gulf for more than three thousand years; and, in the absence of any strong State in Arabia or Abyssinia, the entire western coast of the Red Sea falls naturally under her influence with its important roadsteads and harbours. Thus Egypt had two great outlets for her productions, and two great inlets by which she received the productions of other countries. Her ships could issue from the Nilotic ports and trade with Phœnicia, or Carthage, or Italy, or Greece, exchanging her corn and wine and glass and furniture and works in metallurgy for Etruscan vases, or Grecian statues, or purple Tynan robes, or tin brought by Carthaginian merchantmen from the Scilly islands and from Cornwall; or they could start from Heroopolis, or Myos Hormus, or some port further to the southward, and pass by way of the Red Sea to the spice-region of "Araby the Blest," or to the Abyssinian timber-region, or to the shores of Zanzibar and Mozambique, or round Arabia to Teredon on the Persian Gulf, or possibly to Ceylon or India. The products of the distant east, even of "far Cathay," certainly flowed into the land, for they have been dug out of the ancient tombs; but whether they were obtained by direct or by indirect commerce must be admitted to be doubtful.

If the soil was everything that could be desired, the location was even more advantageous. Egypt was the only ancient nation with direct access to two seas: the Northern Sea, or "Sea of the Greeks," and the Eastern Sea, or "Sea of the Arabians and the Indians." Phoenicia had to transport its goods painfully across fifteen degrees of desert from its cities on the Levantine coast to the inner recess of the Persian Gulf, consuming a lot of time and effort just to participate in Eastern trade. Assyria and Babylonia could occasionally claim lands that weren’t theirs at the height of their power, boasting about reaching from the "sea of the rising" to the "sea of the setting sun"—from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. However, Egypt, at all times and in all circumstances, has geographic advantages that provide access to both the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea, something that can never be taken away from her. Suez will always belong to her, as the Isthmus is her natural boundary, and her water system has linked to the head of the Arabian Gulf for over three thousand years. With no strong states in Arabia or Abyssinia, the entire western coast of the Red Sea falls naturally under her influence, complete with important ports and harbors. This way, Egypt had two major outlets for her products and two major inlets for goods from other countries. Her ships could leave from the Nile ports and trade with Phoenicia, Carthage, Italy, or Greece, exchanging her grain, wine, glass, furniture, and metalwork for Etruscan vases, Grecian statues, purple Tyrian robes, or tin brought by Carthaginian ships from the Scilly Islands and Cornwall. Alternatively, they could depart from Heroopolis or Myos Hormus, or another port further south, and travel via the Red Sea to the spice region of "Arabia the Blessed," the timber region of Abyssinia, the shores of Zanzibar and Mozambique, or circle Arabia to Teredon on the Persian Gulf, or possibly to Ceylon or India. The products from the far east, even "far Cathay," definitely flowed into the land, as evidenced by finds in ancient tombs; however, it's debatable whether they came through direct or indirect trade.

The possession of the Nile was of extraordinary advantage to Egypt, not merely as the source of fertility, but as a means of rapid communication. One of the greatest impediments to progress and civilization which Nature offers to man in regions which he has not yet subdued to his will, is the difficulty of locomotion and of transport. Mountains, forests, torrents, marshes, jungles, are the curses of "new countries," forming, until they have been cut through, bridged over, or tunnelled under, insurmountable barriers, hindering commerce and causing hatreds through isolation. Egypt had from the first a broad road driven through it from end to end—a road seven hundred miles long, and seldom much less than a mile wide—which allowed of ready and rapid communication between the remotest parts of the kingdom. Rivers, indeed, are of no use as arteries of commerce or vehicles for locomotion until men have invented ships or boats, or at least rafts, to descend and ascend them; but the Egyptians were acquainted with the use of boats and rafts from a very remote period, and took to the water like a brood of ducks or a parcel of South Sea Islanders. Thirty-two centuries ago an Egyptian king built a temple on the confines of the Mediterranean entirely of stone which he floated down the Nile for six hundred and fifty miles from the quarries of Assouan (Syêné); and the passage up the river is for a considerable portion of the year as easy as the passage down. Northerly winds—the famous "Etesian gales"—prevail in Egypt during the whole of the summer and autumn, and by hoisting a sail it is almost always possible to ascend the stream at a good pace. If the sail be dropped, the current will at all times take a vessel down-stream; and thus boats, and even vessels of a large size, pass up and down the water-way with equal facility.

The presence of the Nile was incredibly beneficial to Egypt, not just as a source of nourishment but also as a way to communicate quickly. One of the biggest obstacles to progress and civilization that nature presents in areas that haven't been tamed is the challenge of getting around and transporting goods. Mountains, forests, raging rivers, swamps, and dense jungles are the headaches of “new countries,” creating, until they have been cleared, bridged, or tunneled, barriers that block trade and breed isolation and resentment. Egypt had, right from the start, a wide path stretching from one end to the other—a road seven hundred miles long and usually around a mile wide—that facilitated quick and easy communication between the farthest points of the kingdom. Rivers, of course, aren’t useful for trade or transport until people invent ships, boats, or at least rafts to navigate them; however, the Egyptians had known how to use boats and rafts for a long time and embraced water travel like a flock of ducks or a group of South Sea islanders. Thirty-two centuries ago, an Egyptian king built a temple on the Mediterranean coast entirely out of stone, which he floated down the Nile for six hundred and fifty miles from the quarries at Assouan (Syêné); and moving upstream is relatively easy for much of the year, just like going downstream. Northerly winds—the famous "Etesian gales"—blow in Egypt all summer and autumn, making it almost always possible to sail upstream at a good speed. If the sail is lowered, the current will always carry a vessel downstream; thus, boats, including larger vessels, can move up and down the river with equal ease.

Egypt is at all seasons a strange country, but presents the most astonishing appearance at the period of the inundation. At that time not only is the lengthy valley from Assouan to Cairo laid under water, but the Delta itself becomes one vast lake, interspersed with islands, which stud its surface here and there at intervals, and which reminded Herodotus of "the islands of the Ægean." The elevations, which are the work of man, are crowned for the most part with the white walls of towns and villages sparkling in the sunlight, and sometimes glassed in the flood beneath them. The palms and sycamores stand up out of the expanse of waters shortened by some five or six feet of their height. Everywhere, when the inundation begins, the inhabitants are seen hurrying their cattle to the shelter provided in the villages, and, if the rise of the water is more rapid than usual, numbers rescue their beasts with difficulty, causing them to wade or swim, or even saving them by means of boats. An excessive inundation brings not only animal, but human life into peril, endangering the villages themselves, which may be submerged and swept away if the water rises above a certain height. A deficient inundation, on the other hand, brings no immediate danger, but by limiting production may create a dearth that causes incalculable suffering.

Egypt is a strange country in all seasons, but it looks especially astonishing during the flood season. At this time, not only is the long valley from Aswan to Cairo underwater, but the Delta itself turns into a huge lake dotted with islands that remind Herodotus of "the islands of the Aegean." The elevated areas created by humans are mostly topped with white walls of towns and villages glistening in the sunlight, sometimes reflected in the water below them. The palms and sycamores rise above the waters, which have been reduced by about five or six feet of their height. Everywhere, when the flood begins, you can see residents rushing their livestock to safety in the villages, and if the water level rises too quickly, many have to struggle to rescue their animals, making them wade or swim, or even using boats to save them. A major flood not only puts animals but also human lives at risk, threatening the very villages that could be submerged and swept away if the water rises too high. Conversely, a low flood doesn’t pose an immediate threat but can limit production, possibly leading to a shortage that causes immense suffering.

Nature's operations are, however, so uniform that these calamities rarely arise. Egypt rejoices, more than almost any other country, in an equable climate, an equable temperature, and an equable productiveness. The summers, no doubt, are hot, especially in the south, and an occasional sirocco produces intense discomfort while it lasts. But the cool Etesian wind, blowing from the north through nearly all the summer-time, tempers the ardour of the sun's rays even in the hottest season of the year; and during the remaining months, from October to April, the climate is simply delightful. Egypt has been said to have but two seasons, spring and summer. Spring reigns from October into May—crops spring up, flowers bloom, soft zephyrs fan the cheek, when it is mid-winter in Europe; by February the fruit-trees are in full blossom; the crops begin to ripen in March, and are reaped by the end of April; snow and frost are wholly unknown at any time; storm, fog, and even rain are rare. A bright, lucid atmosphere rests upon the entire scene. There is no moisture in the air, no cloud in the sky; no mist veils the distance. One day follows another, each the counterpart of the preceding; until at length spring retires to make room for summer, and a fiercer light, a hotter sun, a longer day, show that the most enjoyable part of the year is gone by.

Nature's processes are so consistent that these disasters rarely happen. Egypt is fortunate, more than almost any other place, to have a stable climate, a moderate temperature, and productive land. Summers can be quite hot, especially in the south, and an occasional sirocco can bring significant discomfort. However, the cool Etesian wind, blowing from the north for most of the summer, tempers the intensity of the sun’s rays even during the hottest time of year; from October to April, the climate is simply delightful. Egypt is said to have just two seasons, spring and summer. Spring lasts from October to May—crops emerge, flowers bloom, and gentle breezes kiss the skin while Europe is in the depths of winter; by February, the fruit trees are in full bloom; crops start to mature in March and are harvested by the end of April; snow and frost are completely absent at any time; storms, fog, and even rain are unusual. A bright, clear atmosphere covers the entire landscape. There is no humidity in the air, no clouds in the sky; no mist obscures the horizon. One day follows another, each mirroring the last; until finally, spring fades away to make way for summer, bringing a harsher light, a hotter sun, and longer days, indicating that the most pleasant part of the year has passed.

The geology of Egypt is simple. The entire flat country is alluvial. The hills on either side are, in the north, limestone, in the central region sandstone, and in the south granite and syenite. The granitic formation begins between the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth parallels, but occasional masses of primitive rock are intruded into the secondary regions, and these extend northward as far as lat. 27°10'. Above the rocks are, in many places, deposits of gravel and sand, the former hard, the latter loose and shifting. A portion of the eastern desert is metalliferous. Gold is found even at the present day in small quantities, and seems anciently to have been more abundant. Copper, iron, and lead have been also met with in modern times, and one iron mine shows signs of having been anciently worked. Emeralds abound in the region about Mount Zabara, and the eastern desert further yields jaspers, carnelians, breccia verde, agates, chalcedonies, and rock-crystal.

The geology of Egypt is straightforward. The entire flat land is made up of alluvial deposits. The hills on either side consist of limestone in the north, sandstone in the central area, and granite and syenite in the south. The granitic formation starts between the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth parallels, but there are occasional pieces of ancient rock that appear in the secondary areas, extending northward as far as latitude 27°10'. Above the rocks, there are, in many places, layers of gravel and sand; the gravel is hard, while the sand is loose and constantly shifting. Some parts of the eastern desert are rich in minerals. Gold can still be found in small amounts today and seems to have been more plentiful in ancient times. Copper, iron, and lead have also been discovered in modern times, and one iron mine shows signs of having been worked in the past. Emeralds are plentiful around Mount Zabara, and the eastern desert also produces jaspers, carnelians, breccia verde, agates, chalcedonies, and rock-crystal.

The flora of the country is not particularly interesting. Dom and date palms are the principal trees, the latter having a single tapering stem, the former dividing into branches. The sycamore (Ficus sycamorus) is also tolerably common, as are several species of acacia. The acacia seyal, which furnishes the gum arable of commerce, is "a gnarled and thorny tree, somewhat like a solitary hawthorn in its habit and manner of growth, but much larger." Its height, when full grown, is from fifteen to twenty feet. The persea, a sacred plant among the ancient Egyptians, is a bushy tree or shrub, which attains the height of eighteen or twenty feet under favourable circumstances, and bears a fruit resembling a date, with a subacid flavour. The bark is whitish, the branches gracefully curved, the foliage of an ashy grey, more especially on its under surface. Specially characteristic of Egypt, though not altogether peculiar to it, were the papyrus and the lotus—the Cyperus papyrus and Nymphæa lotus of botanists. The papyrus was a tall smooth reed, with a large triangular stalk containing a delicate pith, out of which the Egyptians manufactured their paper. The fabric was excellent, as is shown by its continuance to the present day, and by the fact that the Greeks and Romans, after long trial, preferred it to parchment. The lotus was a large white water-lily of exquisite beauty. Kings offered it to the gods; guests wore it at banquets; architectural forms were modelled upon it; it was employed in the ornamentation of thrones. Whether its root had the effect on men ascribed to it by Homer may be doubted; but no one ever saw it without recognizing it instantly as "a thing of beauty," and therefore as "a joy for ever."

The plants in the country aren't particularly exciting. Dom and date palms are the main trees, with date palms having a single tall stem and dom palms branching out. The sycamore (Ficus sycamorus) is also fairly common, along with several types of acacia. The acacia seyal, which produces the gum ____________ for trade, is "a gnarled and thorny tree, similar to a solitary hawthorn in its growth and appearance, but much larger." When fully grown, it reaches a height of fifteen to twenty feet. The persea, a sacred plant to the ancient Egyptians, is a bushy tree or shrub that can grow to about eighteen or twenty feet under the right conditions and produces a fruit that looks like a date and has a slightly sour taste. Its bark is whitish, the branches curve elegantly, and the leaves are a dusty grey, especially on the underside. The papyrus and lotus were particularly associated with Egypt, though not exclusive to it—the Cyperus papyrus and Nymphæa lotus in scientific terms. The papyrus was a tall, smooth reed with a large triangular stalk containing soft pith, which the Egyptians used to make their paper. The material was of such high quality that it has lasted to this day, and both Greeks and Romans found it preferable to parchment after extensive use. The lotus was a beautiful large white water lily. Kings offered it to the gods, guests wore it at feasts, its shape influenced architectural designs, and it adorned thrones. Whether its root had the effects described by Homer is questionable, but no one could see it without immediately recognizing it as "a thing of beauty," and thus as "a joy forever."

DOM AND DATE PALMS. DOM AND DATE PALMS.

Nor can Egypt have afforded in ancient times any very exciting amusement to sportsmen. At the present day gazelles are chased with hawk and hound during the dry season on the broad expanse of the Delta; but anciently the thick population scared off the whole antelope tribe, which was only to be found in the desert region beyond the limits of the alluvium. Nor can Egypt, in the proper sense of the word, have ever been the home of red-deer, roes, or fallow-deer, of lions, bears, hyænas, lynxes, or rabbits. Animals of these classes may occasionally have appeared in the alluvial plain, but they would only be rare visitants driven by hunger from their true habitat in the Libyan or the Arabian uplands. The crocodile, however, and the hippopotamus were actually hunted by the ancient Egyptians; and they further indulged their love of sport in the pursuits of fowling and fishing. All kinds of waterfowl are at all seasons abundant in the Nile waters, and especially frequent the pools left by the retiring river—pelicans, geese, ducks, ibises, cranes, storks, herons, dotterels, kingfishers, and sea-swallows. Quails also arrive in great numbers in the month of March, though there are no pheasants, snipe, wood-cocks, nor partridges. Fish are very plentiful in the Nile and the canals derived from it; but there are not many kinds which afford much sport to the fisherman.

Egypt in ancient times didn't offer much in the way of exciting activities for sports enthusiasts. Nowadays, gazelles are hunted with hawks and hounds during the dry season across the vast Delta, but back then, the large population drove away the entire antelope tribe, which could only be found in the desert beyond the fertile land. Moreover, Egypt was never truly home to red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, lions, bears, hyenas, lynxes, or rabbits. While some of these animals might have occasionally wandered into the alluvial plain, they were rare visitors, likely pushed by hunger from their natural habitats in the Libyan or Arabian highlands. However, ancient Egyptians did hunt crocodiles and hippopotamuses, and they enjoyed fowling and fishing as sports. Various waterfowl are plentiful in the Nile year-round, particularly in the pools left by the receding river—pelicans, geese, ducks, ibises, cranes, storks, herons, dotterels, kingfishers, and sea swallows. Quails also arrive in large numbers in March, although there's a lack of pheasants, snipe, woodcocks, or partridges. Fish are abundant in the Nile and its canals, but not many species provide much excitement for fishermen.

Altogether, Egypt is a land of tranquil monotony. The eye commonly travels either over a waste of waters, or over a green plain unbroken by elevations. The hills which inclose the Nile valley have level tops, and sides that are bare of trees, or shrubs, or flowers, or even mosses. The sky is generally cloudless. No fog or mist enwraps the distance in mystery; no rainstorm sweeps across the scene; no rainbow spans the empyrean; no shadows chase each other over the landscape. There is an entire absence of picturesque scenery. A single broad river, unbroken within the limits of Egypt even by a rapid, two flat strips of green plain at its side, two low lines of straight-topped hills beyond them, and a boundless open space where the river divides itself into half a dozen sluggish branches before reaching the sea, constitute Egypt, which is by nature a southern Holland—-"weary, stale, flat and unprofitable." The monotony is relieved, however, in two ways, and by two causes. Nature herself does something to relieve it Twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, the sky and the landscape are lit up by hues so bright yet so delicate, that the homely features of the prospect are at once transformed as by magic, and wear an aspect of exquisite beauty. At dawn long streaks of rosy light stretch themselves across the eastern sky, the haze above the western horizon blushes a deep red; a ruddy light diffuses itself around, and makes walls and towers and minarets and cupolas to glow like fire; the long shadows thrown by each tree and building are purple or violet. A glamour is over the scene, which seems transfigured by an enchanter's wand; but the enchanter is Nature, and the wand she wields is composed of sun-rays. Again, at eve, nearly the same effects are produced as in the morning, only with a heightened effect; "the redness of flames" passes into "the redness of roses"—the wavy cloud that fled in the morning comes into sight once more—comes blushing, yet still comes on—comes burning with blushes, and clings to the Sun-god's side.[3]

Overall, Egypt is a land of calm sameness. The eye typically moves over either a sea of water or a flat green plain with no hills. The hills surrounding the Nile valley have flat tops and are bare of trees, shrubs, flowers, or even moss. The sky is usually clear. There’s no fog or mist adding mystery to the distance, no rainstorm sweeping through the landscape, no rainbow arcing across the sky, and no shadows playing over the land. There is a complete lack of picturesque scenery. A single wide river, uninterrupted within Egypt even by a rapid, is flanked by two flat strips of green plains, with two low lines of flat-topped hills beyond them, and a vast open area where the river splits into several sluggish branches before reaching the sea. This makes Egypt, by nature, like a southern Holland—"weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable." However, the monotony is broken in two ways by two causes. Nature herself helps to ease it. Twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, the sky and landscape light up with colors that are both bright and delicate, transforming the ordinary scenery as if by magic into something of exquisite beauty. At dawn, long streaks of rosy light stretch across the eastern sky, and the haze above the western horizon turns a deep red; a warm light spreads around, making walls, towers, minarets, and domes glow like fire; the long shadows cast by trees and buildings appear purple or violet. There’s a charm over the scene, which seems transformed by an enchanter's wand; but the enchanter is Nature, and the wand she uses is made of sunlight. Similarly, in the evening, nearly the same effects occur as in the morning, but with a more intense impact; "the redness of flames" shifts into "the redness of roses"—the wavy clouds that disappeared in the morning reappear—coming back blushing, yet still coming—burning with color, and clinging to the side of the Sun-god.

Night brings a fresh transfiguration. The olive after-glow gives place to a deep blue-grey. The yellow moon rises into the vast expanse. A softened light diffuses itself over earth and sky. The orb of night walks in brightness through a firmament of sapphire; or, if the moon is below the horizon, then the purple vault is lit up with many-coloured stars. Silence profound reigns around. A phase of beauty wholly different from that of the day-time smites the sense; and the monotony of feature is forgiven to the changefulness of expression, and to the experience of a new delight.

Night brings a fresh transformation. The olive afterglow gives way to a deep blue-grey. The yellow moon rises into the vast sky. A gentle light spreads over the earth and sky. The moon shines brightly in a sapphire sky; or, if the moon is below the horizon, then the purple sky is filled with colorful stars. A deep silence surrounds everything. A completely different kind of beauty from the daytime captivates the senses; the sameness of features is overlooked in favor of the variety of expression and the experience of a new joy.

Man has also done his part to overcome the dulness and sameness that brood over the "land of Mizraim." Where nature is most tame and commonplace, man is tempted to his highest flights of audacity. As in the level Babylonia he aspired to build a tower that should "reach to heaven" (Gen. xi. 4), so in Egypt he strove to startle and surprise by gigantic works, enormous undertakings, enterprises that might have seemed wholly beyond his powers. And these have constituted in all ages, except the very earliest, the great attractiveness of Egypt. Men are drawn there, not by the mysteriousness of the Nile, or the mild beauties of orchards and palm-groves, of well-cultivated fields and gardens—no, nor by the loveliness of sunrises and sunsets, of moonlit skies and stars shining with many hues, but by the huge masses of the pyramids, by the colossal statues, the tall obelisks, the enormous temples, the deeply-excavated tombs, the mosques, the castles, and the palaces. The architecture of Egypt is its great glory. It began early, and it has continued late. But for the great works, strewn thickly over the whole valley of the Nile, the land of Egypt would have obtained but a small share of the world's attention; and it is at least doubtful whether its "story" would ever have been thought necessary to complete "the Story of the Nations."

Man has also played his role in breaking the monotony and sameness that hangs over the "land of Mizraim." When nature is most subdued and ordinary, humans are inspired to take their boldest leaps. Just as in flat Babylonia they aspired to build a tower that would "reach to heaven" (Gen. xi. 4), in Egypt, they sought to astonish and amaze with massive projects, gigantic undertakings, endeavors that might have seemed completely beyond their capabilities. These have, in all ages except the very earliest, been the main attraction of Egypt. People are drawn there not by the mystery of the Nile, or the gentle beauty of orchards and palm groves, well-tended fields and gardens—not by the charm of sunrises and sunsets, or moonlit skies filled with stars of varying colors—but by the gigantic pyramids, the massive statues, the towering obelisks, the vast temples, the intricately carved tombs, the mosques, the castles, and the palaces. The architecture of Egypt is its greatest glory. It started early and lasted long. Without the monumental works scattered abundantly throughout the entire Nile valley, Egypt would have received little attention from the world; and it's at least uncertain whether its "story" would have ever been considered essential to complete "the Story of the Nations."


Decorative

II.

THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT.

Where the Egyptians came from, is a difficult question to answer. Ancient speculators, when they could not derive a people definitely from any other, took refuge in the statement, or the figment, that they were the children of the soil which they had always occupied. Modern theorists may say, if it please them, that they were evolved out of the monkeys that had their primitive abode on that particular portion of the earth's surface. Monkeys, however, are not found everywhere; and we have no evidence that in Egypt they were ever indigenous, though, as pets, they were very common, the Egyptians delighting in keeping them. Such evidence as we have reveals to us the man as anterior to the monkey in the land of Mizraim Thus we are thrown back on the original question—Where did the man, or race of men, that is found in Egypt at the dawn of history come from?

Where the Egyptians came from is a tough question to answer. Ancient thinkers, when they couldn't trace a people back to any other group, settled on the idea—or myth—that they were the children of the land they had always lived in. Modern theorists might suggest, if they want, that they evolved from the monkeys that once inhabited that specific part of the earth. However, monkeys aren't found everywhere, and there's no evidence that they were ever native to Egypt, although they were quite common as pets, and the Egyptians enjoyed having them. The evidence we do have suggests that humans existed in the land of Mizraim before monkeys did. So, we are left with the original question—Where did the people or race found in Egypt at the beginning of history come from?

It is generally answered that they came from Asia; but this is not much more than a conjecture. The physical type of the Egyptians is different from that of any known Asiatic nation. The Egyptians had no traditions that at all connected them with Asia. Their language, indeed, in historic times was partially Semitic, and allied to the Hebrew, the Phœnician, and the Aramaic; but the relationship was remote, and may be partly accounted for by later intercourse, without involving original derivation. The fundamental character of the Egyptian in respect of physical type, language, and tone of thought, is Nigritic. The Egyptians were not negroes, but they bore a resemblance to the negro which is indisputable. Their type differs from the Caucasian in exactly those respects which when exaggerated produce the negro. They were darker, had thicker lips, lower foreheads, larger heads, more advancing jaws, a flatter foot, and a more attenuated frame. It is quite conceivable that the negro type was produced by a gradual degeneration from that which we find in Egypt. It is even conceivable that the Egyptian type was produced by gradual advance and amelioration from that of the negro.

It is generally said that they came from Asia, but that's more of a guess than anything else. The physical characteristics of the Egyptians are different from those of any known Asian nation. The Egyptians had no traditions linking them to Asia. Their language, in historic times, was somewhat Semitic and related to Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic; however, the connection was distant and could be explained by later interactions rather than original origins. The core identity of the Egyptians regarding physical features, language, and way of thinking is Afrocentric. While the Egyptians were not black, they undeniably had similarities to black Africans. Their features differ from Caucasians in those specific ways that could, if exaggerated, result in a black appearance. They were darker, had thicker lips, lower foreheads, larger heads, more pronounced jaws, flatter feet, and a slimmer body. It's quite possible that the black type developed from a gradual decline from what we see in Egypt. It's also plausible that the Egyptian type evolved and improved from that of black Africans.

Still, whencesoever derived, the Egyptian people, as it existed in the flourishing times of Egyptian history, was beyond all question a mixed race, showing diverse affinities. Whatever the people was originally, it received into it from time to time various foreign elements, and those in such quantities as seriously to affect its physique—Ethiopians from the south, Libyans from the west, Semites from the north-east, where Africa adjoined on Asia. There are two quite different types of Egyptian form and feature, blending together in the mass of the nation, but strongly developed, and (so to speak) accentuated in individuals. One is that which we see in portraits of Rameses III, and in some of Rameses II.—a moderately high forehead, a large, well-formed aquiline nose, a well-shaped mouth with lips not over full, and a delicately rounded chin. The other is comparatively coarse—forehead low, nose depressed and short, lower part of the face prognathous and sensual-looking, chin heavy, jaw large, lips thick and projecting. The two types of face are not, however, accompanied by much difference of frame. The Egyptian is always slight in figure, wanting in muscle, flat in foot, with limbs that are too long, too thin, too lady-like. Something more of muscularity appears, perhaps, in the earlier than in the later forms; but this is perhaps attributable to a modification of the artistic ideal.

Still, regardless of its origins, the Egyptian people, during the prosperous periods of its history, were undoubtedly a mixed race with various influences. Whatever their initial identity, they gradually absorbed different foreign groups, which significantly impacted their physical appearance—Ethiopians from the south, Libyans from the west, and Semites from the northeast, where Africa meets Asia. There are two distinct types of Egyptians in terms of form and features, both present in the national population but pronounced in individuals. One type is represented in the portraits of Rameses III and some of Rameses II—a moderately high forehead, a large, well-shaped aquiline nose, a well-defined mouth with moderately full lips, and a gently rounded chin. The other type is more coarse—a low forehead, a depressed and short nose, a lower face that is prognathous and appears sensual, a heavy chin, a large jaw, and thick, protruding lips. However, these two facial types don’t show much difference in body structure. Egyptians typically have a slender build, lacking muscle, with flat feet, and limbs that are too long, thin, and somewhat feminine. There might be a bit more muscularity in earlier forms than in later ones, but this could be due to a change in artistic ideals.

As Egypt presents us with two types of physique, so it brings before us two strongly different types of character. On the one hand we see, alike in the pictured scenes, in the native literary remains, and in the accounts which foreigners have left us of the people, a grave and dignified race, full of serious and sober thought, given to speculation and reflection, occupied rather with the interests belonging to another world than with those that attach to this present scene of existence, and inclined to indulge in a gentle and dreamy melancholy. The first thought of a king, when he began his reign, was to begin his tomb. The desire of the grandee was similar. It is a trite tale how at feasts a slave carried round to all the guests the representation of a mummied corpse, and showed it to each in turn, with the solemn words—"Look at this, and so eat and drink; for be sure that one day such as this thou shalt be." The favourite song of the Egyptians, according to Herodotus, was a dirge. The "Lay of Harper," which we subjoin, sounds a key-note that was very familiar, at any rate, to large numbers among the Egyptians.

As Egypt shows us two types of physique, it also reveals two very different kinds of character. On one side, we see a serious and dignified people, as reflected in their art, literature, and the accounts left by foreigners. They are thoughtful and introspective, often focused on matters that belong to another world rather than the current reality, and they tend to embrace a gentle, dreamy melancholy. When a king ascended to the throne, his first thought was to start planning his tomb. The desire of the nobles was similar. There’s a well-known story about how, during feasts, a slave would bring around a representation of a mummified corpse and show it to each guest, saying, "Look at this and enjoy your meal, for one day you will be just like this." According to Herodotus, the favorite song of the Egyptians was a funeral dirge. The "Lay of Harper," which we include, strikes a familiar note for many Egyptians.

The Great One__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ has passed away, Finished his task and his journey; So men are always passing away,
And young people are always stepping up. As Ra rises every morning,
And every evening turns to night,
So women get pregnant and give birth,
And men continuously reproduce.
Every soul takes a breath in its own time—
Every person born of a woman will face Death.
Enjoy yourself today, Dad! Holy One! Look,
Spices and scented oils,
Dad, we bring to you.
On your sister's chest and in her arms Lotus wreaths we place; About your sister, who is dear to you,
Yeah, sitting in front of you.
Play the song; let the music play And leave your worries behind.
Enjoy yourself today; Remember to find joy and delight!
Soon life's journey ends,
And we move on to Silence and Night.
Perfect and pure patriarch,
Nefer-hotep, blessed one! You Did you complete your journey on earth,
And art with the blessed ones now. Men move on to the Quiet Shore,
And their place doesn’t recognize them anymore.
They are like they've never been before,
Since the sun rose high; They sit by the stream's edge. That flows in stillness. Your soul is among them; you Drink from the sacred tide, Having the desire of your heart—
At peace ever since you died.
Give bread to the man who is in need,
And your name will be blessed forever.
Below is a short piece of text (5 words or fewer). Modernize it into contemporary English if there's enough context, but do not add or omit any information. If context is insufficient, return it unchanged. Do not add commentary, and do not modify any placeholders. If you see placeholders of the form __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_x__, you must keep them exactly as-is so they can be replaced with links. * * * * *
Enjoy yourself today,
Nefer-hotep, blessed and pure. What good are your other buildings to you? You can only be certain of your tomb. On Earth, you have nothing else but,
Nothing else remains of you; And when you went below, You were taking your last sip of life. Even those who have millions to spend, Realize that life eventually comes to an end.
So let everyone think about the day
Of leaving without coming back—
It will then be good to have lived,
Rejecting all sin and injustice. For the one who has loved what's right,
In the hour when no one can escape,
Steps into the joy
Of a joyful eternity.
Share generously from your abundance,
And you will be blessed forever.

On the other hand, there is evidence of a lightsome, joyous, and even frolic spirit as pervading numbers, especially among the lower classes of the Egyptians. "Traverse Egypt," says a writer who knows more of the ancient country than almost any other living person, "examine the scenes sculptured or painted on the walls of the chapels attached to tombs, consult the inscriptions graven on the rocks or traced with ink on the papyrus rolls, and you will be compelled to modify your mistaken notion of the Egyptians being a nation of philosophers. I defy you to find anything more gay, more amusing, more freshly simple, than this good-natured Egyptian people, which was fond of life and felt a profound pleasure in its existence. Far from desiring death, they addressed prayers to the gods to preserve them in life, and to give them a happy old age—an old age that should reach, if possible, to the 'perfect term of no years.' They gave themselves up to pleasures of every kind; they sang, they drank, they danced, they delighted in making excursions into the country, where hunting and fishing were occupations reserved especially for the nobility. In conformity with this inclination towards pleasure, sportive proposals, a pleasantry that was perhaps over-free, witticisms, raillery, and a mocking spirit, were in vogue among the people, and fun was allowed entrance even into the tombs. In the large schools the masters had a difficulty in training the young and keeping down their passion for amusements. When oral exhortation failed of success, the cane was used pretty smartly in its place; for the wise men of the land had a saying that 'a boy's ears grow on his back.'"[5]

On the other hand, there’s clear evidence of a lighthearted, joyous, and even playful spirit among the common people in Egypt. "Travel through Egypt," says a writer who knows this ancient land better than almost anyone else alive, "look at the scenes carved or painted on the walls of tomb chapels, check the inscriptions etched into the rocks or written in ink on papyrus rolls, and you'll have to rethink your mistaken idea that the Egyptians were a nation of philosophers. I challenge you to find anything more cheerful, more entertaining, or more refreshingly simple than this friendly Egyptian people, who loved life and found deep joy in their existence. Rather than wishing for death, they prayed to the gods to keep them alive and to grant them a happy old age—an old age that could last, if possible, for 'an endless number of years.' They indulged in all sorts of pleasures; they sang, drank, danced, and enjoyed outings in the countryside, where hunting and fishing were activities mainly for the nobility. Reflecting this love for pleasure, playful teasing, which was perhaps a bit too forward, jokes, banter, and a mocking spirit were popular among the people, and humor even found its way into the tombs. In large schools, teachers struggled to train the youth and manage their love for fun. When verbal encouragement didn’t work, they used the cane quite effectively in its place; for the wise men of the land had a saying that 'a boy's ears grow on his back.'"[5]

Herodotus tells us how gaily the Egyptians kept their festivals, thousands of the common people—men, women, and children together—crowding into the boats, which at such times covered the Nile, the men piping, and the women clapping their hands or striking their castanets, as they passed from town to town along the banks of the stream, stopping at the various landing-places, and challenging the inhabitants to a contest of good-humoured Billingsgate. From the monuments we see how the men sang at their labours—here as they trod the wine-press or the dough-trough, there as they threshed out the corn by driving the oxen through the golden heaps. In one case the words of a harvest-song have come down to us:

Herodotus tells us how joyfully the Egyptians celebrated their festivals, with thousands of everyday people—men, women, and children—crowding into boats that filled the Nile during these times. The men played music while the women clapped their hands or tapped their castanets as they traveled from town to town along the riverbanks, stopping at different docks and playfully challenging the locals to a fun exchange of banter. From the monuments, we can see how the men sang while they worked—some as they pressed wine or kneaded dough, and others as they threshed the grain by driving oxen through the golden piles. In one instance, the words of a harvest song have survived:

"Harvest for yourselves," they sang, "harvest for yourselves,
O oxen, thresh for yourselves, for yourselves—
"Bushels for you, bushels for your bosses!"

Their light-hearted drollery sometimes found vent in caricature. The grand sculptures wherewith a king strove to perpetuate the memory of his warlike exploits were travestied by satirists, who reproduced the scenes upon papyrus as combats between cats and rats. The amorous follies of the monarch were held up to derision by sketches of a harem interior, where the kingly wooer was represented by a lion, and his favourites of the softer sex by gazelles. Even in serious scenes depicting the trial of souls in the next world, the sense of humour breaks out, where the bad man, transformed into a pig or a monkey, walks off with a comical air of surprise and discomfiture.

Their light-hearted humor sometimes expressed itself in caricature. The grand sculptures that a king created to immortalize his warlike deeds were mocked by satirists, who depicted the scenes on papyrus as battles between cats and rats. The king's romantic escapades were ridiculed through sketches of a harem, where the royal suitor was portrayed as a lion, and his female favorites as gazelles. Even in serious scenes showing the trial of souls in the afterlife, humor shines through, as the bad man, turned into a pig or a monkey, strolls away with a funny look of surprise and embarrassment.

It does not, however, help us much towards the true knowledge of a people to scan their frames or study their facial angle, or even to contemplate the outer aspect of their daily life. We want to know their thoughts, their innermost feelings, their hopes, their fears—in a word, their belief. Nothing tells the character of a people so much as their religion; and we are only dealing superficially with the outward shows of things until we get down to the root of their being, the conviction, or convictions, held in the recesses of a people's heart. What, then, was the Egyptian religion? What did they worship? What did they reverence? What future did they look forward to?

It doesn't really help us understand a people by examining their physical characteristics or analyzing their facial features, or even just looking at the surface of their daily lives. We want to grasp their thoughts, their deepest feelings, their hopes, their fears—in short, their beliefs. Nothing reveals the essence of a culture like their religion; we are only scratching the surface of things until we dig deeper into their core, the beliefs or beliefs that reside in the hearts of a people. So, what was the Egyptian religion? What did they worship? What did they hold in high regard? What future did they anticipate?

Enter the huge courts of an Egyptian temple, or temple-palace, and you will see portrayed upon its lofty walls row upon row of deities. Here the king makes his offering to Ammon, Maut, Khons, Neith, Mentu, Shu, Seb, Nut, Osiris, Set, Horus; there he pours a libation to Phthah, Sekhet, Tum, Pasht, Anuka, Thoth, Anubis; elsewhere, it may be, he pays his court to Sati, Khem, Isis, Nephthys, Athor, Harmachis, Nausaas, and Nebhept. One monarch erects an altar to Satemi, Tum, Khepra, Shu, Tefnut, Seb, Netpe, Osiris, Isis, Set, Nephthys, Horus, and Thoth, mentioning on the same monument Phthah, Num, Sabak, Athor, Pasht, Mentu, Neith, Anubis, Nishem, and Kartak. Another represents himself on a similar object as offering adoration to Ammon, Khem, Phthah-Sokari, Seb, Nut, Thoth, Khons, Osiris, Isis, Horus, Athor, Uat (Buto), Neith, Sekhet, Anata, Nuneb, Nebhept, and Hapi. All these deities are represented by distinct forms, and have distinct attributes. Nor do they at all exhaust the Pantheon. One modern writer enumerates seventy-three divinities, and gives their several names and forms. Another has a list of sixty-three "principal deities," and notes that there were "others which personified the elements, or presided over the operations of nature, the seasons, and events." The Egyptians themselves speak not unfrequently of "the thousand gods," sometimes further qualifying them, as "the gods male, the gods female, those which belong to the land of Egypt." Practically, there were before the eyes of worshippers some scores, if not some hundreds, of deities, who invited their approach and challenged their affections.

Enter the vast courts of an Egyptian temple, or temple-palace, and you’ll see rows of gods depicted on its high walls. Here, the king makes his offerings to Ammon, Maut, Khons, Neith, Mentu, Shu, Seb, Nut, Osiris, Set, and Horus; there he pours a libation to Phthah, Sekhet, Tum, Pasht, Anuka, Thoth, and Anubis; elsewhere, he may pay his respects to Sati, Khem, Isis, Nephthys, Athor, Harmachis, Nausaas, and Nebhept. One ruler sets up an altar to Satemi, Tum, Khepra, Shu, Tefnut, Seb, Netpe, Osiris, Isis, Set, Nephthys, Horus, and Thoth, mentioning on the same monument Phthah, Num, Sabak, Athor, Pasht, Mentu, Neith, Anubis, Nishem, and Kartak. Another depicts himself on a similar object offering worship to Ammon, Khem, Phthah-Sokari, Seb, Nut, Thoth, Khons, Osiris, Isis, Horus, Athor, Uat (Buto), Neith, Sekhet, Anata, Nuneb, Nebhept, and Hapi. All these deities are shown in distinct forms and have unique attributes. And they don’t even represent the entire Pantheon. One modern author lists seventy-three gods, detailing their names and forms. Another provides a list of sixty-three "principal deities," noting that there were "others that represented the elements or oversaw nature, the seasons, and events." The Egyptians talk about "the thousand gods," sometimes further clarifying them as "the male gods, the female gods, those that belong to the land of Egypt." In practice, worshippers were surrounded by dozens, if not hundreds, of deities who beckoned them closer and sought their devotion.

Nor was this the whole, or the worst. The Egyptian was taught to pay a religious regard to animals. In one place goats, in another sheep, in a third hippopotami, in a fourth crocodiles, in a fifth vultures, in a sixth frogs, in a seventh shrew-mice, were sacred creatures, to be treated with respect and honour, and under no circumstances to be slain, under the penalty of death to the slayer. And besides this local animal-cult, there was a cult which was general. Cows, cats, dogs, ibises, hawks, and cynocephalous apes, were sacred throughout the whole of Egypt, and woe to the man who injured them! A Roman who accidentally caused the death of a cat was immediately "lynched" by the populace. Inhabitants of neighbouring villages would attack each other with the utmost fury if the native of one had killed or eaten an animal held sacred in the other. In any house where a cat or a dog died, the inmates were expected to mourn for them as for a relation. Both these and the other sacred animals were carefully embalmed after death, and their bodies were interred in sacred repositories.

Nor was this the whole, or the worst. Egyptians were taught to regard animals with reverence. In one place, goats; in another, sheep; in yet another, hippopotamuses; in a fourth, crocodiles; in a fifth, vultures; in a sixth, frogs; and in a seventh, shrew mice were sacred creatures, to be treated with respect and honor, and under no circumstances to be killed, or the slayer would face the death penalty. Besides this local animal worship, there was a general cult as well. Cows, cats, dogs, ibises, hawks, and dog-headed apes were sacred throughout all of Egypt, and anyone who harmed them was in serious trouble! A Roman who accidentally caused a cat's death would be immediately "lynched" by the crowd. People from neighboring villages would attack each other fiercely if one side had killed or eaten an animal considered sacred by the other. In any home where a cat or dog died, the residents were expected to mourn for them as if they were family. Both these and other sacred animals were carefully embalmed after death, and their bodies were buried in sacred places.

The animal-worship reached its utmost pitch of grossness and absurdity when certain individual brute beasts were declared to be incarnate deities, and treated accordingly. At Memphis, the ordinary capital, there was maintained, at any rate from the time of Aahmes I. (about B.C. 1650), a sacred bull, known as Hapi or Apis, which was believed to be an actual incarnation of the god Phthah, and was an object of the highest veneration. The Apis bull dwelt in a temple of his own near the city, had his train of attendant priests, his harem of cows, his meals of the choicest food, his grooms and currycombers who kept his coat clean and beautiful, his chamberlains who made his bed, his cup-bearers who brought him water, &c., and on fixed days was led in a festive procession through the main streets of the town, so that the inhabitants might see him, and come forth from their dwellings and make obeisance. When he died he was carefully embalmed, and deposited, together with magnificent jewels and statuettes and vases, in a polished granite sarcophagus, cut out of a single block, and weighing between sixty and seventy tons! The cost of an Apis funeral amounted sometimes, as we are told, to as much as £20,000. To contain the sarcophagi, several long galleries were cut in the solid rock near Memphis, from which arched lateral chambers went off on either side, each constructed to hold one sarcophagus. The number of Apis bulls buried in the galleries was found to be sixty-four.

The worship of animals reached its peak of ridiculousness when certain individual animals were declared to be living gods and treated as such. In Memphis, the main capital, there was, at least since the time of Aahmes I. (around 1650 B.C.), a sacred bull known as Hapi or Apis, which was believed to be the true incarnation of the god Phthah and was highly revered. The Apis bull lived in a temple near the city, had a group of priests attending to him, a harem of cows, the best quality food, grooms who kept him clean and well-groomed, chamberlains who made his bed, cup-bearers who brought him water, and on designated days, he was led in a grand parade through the town's main streets so that the people could see him, come out of their homes, and pay their respects. When he died, he was carefully embalmed and placed in a polished granite coffin made from a single block that weighed between sixty and seventy tons, along with luxurious jewels, statuettes, and vases! The cost of an Apis funeral sometimes reached as much as £20,000. To house the coffins, several long galleries were carved into the solid rock near Memphis, with arched side chambers built to hold each sarcophagus. The total number of Apis bulls buried in these galleries was found to be sixty-four.

Nor was this the only incarnate god of which Egypt boasted. Another bull, called Mnevis, was maintained in the great temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, and, being regarded as an incarnation of Ra or Tum, was as much reverenced by the Heliopolites as Apis by the Memphites, A third, called Bacis or Pacis, was kept at Hermonthis, which was also an incarnation of Ra. And a white cow at Momemphis was reckoned an incarnation of Athor. Who can wonder that foreign nations ridiculed a religion of this kind—one that "turned the glory" of the Eternal Godhead "into the similitude of a calf that eateth hay"?

Nor was this the only living god that Egypt claimed. Another bull, called Mnevis, was kept in the grand temple of the Sun at Heliopolis and was seen as a manifestation of Ra or Tum, being just as revered by the Heliopolites as Apis was by the Memphites. A third, known as Bacis or Pacis, was kept at Hermonthis, which was also a representation of Ra. Additionally, a white cow in Memphis was considered an incarnation of Athor. Who can blame foreign nations for mocking a religion like this—one that "turned the glory" of the Eternal God into "the likeness of a calf that eats hay"?

The Egyptians had also a further god incarnate, who was not shut up out of sight like the Apis and Mnevis and Bacis bulls and the Athor cow, but was continually before their eyes, the centre of the nation's life, the prime object of attention. This was the monarch, who for the time being occupied the throne. Each king of Egypt claimed not only to be "son of the Sun," but to be an actual incarnation of the sun—"the living Horus." And this claim was, from an early date, received and allowed. "Thy Majesty," says a courtier under the twelfth dynasty, "is the good God ... the great God, the equal of the Sun-God. ... I live from the breath which thou givest" Brought into the king's presence, the courtier "falls on his belly," amazed and confounded. "I was as one brought out of the dark; my tongue was dumb; my lips failed me; my heart was no longer in my body to know whether I was alive or dead;" and this, although "the god" had "addressed him mildly." Another courtier attributes his long life to the king's favour. Ambassadors, when presented to the king, "raised their arms in adoration of the good god," and declared to him—"Thou art like the Sun in all that thou doest: thy heart realizes all its wishes; shouldest thou wish to make it day during the night, it is so forthwith.... If thou sayest to the water, 'Come from the rock,' it will come in a torrent suddenly at the words of thy mouth. The god Ra is like thee in his limbs, the god Khepra in creative force. Truly thou art the living image of thy father, Tum.... All thy words are accomplished daily." Some of the kings set up their statues in the temples by the side of the greatest of the national deities, to be the objects of a similar worship.

The Egyptians also had another god in human form, who wasn’t hidden away like the Apis and Mnevis bulls or the Athor cow, but was always in sight, at the heart of the nation’s life and the main focus of attention. This was the king, who for the time being sat on the throne. Every Egyptian king claimed to be not only "the son of the Sun" but also a true embodiment of the sun—"the living Horus." This claim was accepted early on. "Your Majesty," says a courtier from the twelfth dynasty, "is the good God... the great God, equal to the Sun-God... I exist because of the breath you give." When brought into the king's presence, the courtier "falls on his belly," overwhelmed and confused. "I was like someone pulled from darkness; my tongue was tied; my lips failed me; my heart was no longer in my body to know if I was alive or dead," even though "the god" had spoken to him kindly. Another courtier credits his long life to the king’s favor. When ambassadors are presented to the king, they "raise their arms in adoration of the good god," declaring to him—"You are like the Sun in everything you do: your heart fulfills all its desires; if you wish to make it day during the night, it happens immediately... If you say to the water, 'Come from the rock,' it will rush forth suddenly at your words. The god Ra is like you in your form, and the god Khepra in your creative power. Truly, you are the living image of your father, Tum... All your words are fulfilled daily." Some kings even placed their statues in temples alongside the greatest national deities, becoming the focus of similar worship.

Amid this wealth of gods, earthly and heavenly, human, animal, and divine, an Egyptian might well feel puzzled to make a choice. In his hesitation he was apt to turn to that only portion of his religion which had the attraction that myth possesses—- the introduction into a supramundane and superhuman world of a quasi-human element. The chief Egyptian myth was the Osirid saga, which ran somewhat as follows: "Once upon a time the gods were tired of ruling in the upper sphere, and resolved to take it in turns to reign over Egypt in the likeness of men. So, after four of them had in succession been kings, each for a long term of years, it happened that Osiris, the son of Seb and Nut, took the throne, and became monarch of the two regions, the Upper and the Lower. Osiris was of a good and bountiful nature, beneficent in will and words: he set himself to civilize the Egyptians, taught them to till the fields and cultivate the vine, gave them law and religion, and instructed them in various useful arts. Unfortunately, he had a wicked brother, called Set or Sutekh, who hated him for his goodness, and resolved to compass his death. This he effected after a while, and, having placed the body in a coffin, he threw it into the Nile, whence it floated down to the sea. Isis, the sister and widow of Osiris, together with her sister Nephthys, vainly sought for a long time her lord's remains, but at last found them on the Syrian shore at Byblus, where they had been cast up by the waves. She was conveying the corpse for embalmment and interment to Memphis, when Set stole it from her, and cut it up into fourteen pieces, which he concealed in various places. The unhappy queen set forth in a light boat made of the papyrus plant, and searched Egypt from end to end, until she had found all the fragments, and buried them with due honours. She then called on her son, Horus, to avenge his father, and Horus engaged him in a long war, wherein he was at last victorious and took Set prisoner. Isis now relented, and released Set, who be it remembered, was her brother; which so enraged Horus that he tore off her crown, or (according to some) struck off her head, which injury Thoth repaired by giving her a cow's head in place of her own. Horus then renewed the war with his uncle, and finally slew him with a long spear, which he drove into his head." The gods and goddesses of the Osirid legend, Seb, Nut or Netpe, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Set, and Horus or Harmachis, were those which most drew towards them the thoughts of the Egyptians, the greater number being favourite objects of worship, while Set was held in general detestation.

Amid this multitude of gods, both earthly and heavenly, human, animal, and divine, an Egyptian might easily feel confused about whom to choose. In his uncertainty, he often turned to that part of his religion that had the allure of myth—the introduction of a quasi-human element into a transcendent and superhuman world. The main Egyptian myth was the Osirid story, which went something like this: "Once, the gods grew tired of ruling from above and decided to take turns reigning over Egypt in human form. After four of them had each ruled for many years, Osiris, the son of Seb and Nut, took the throne and became king of both Upper and Lower Egypt. Osiris was kind and generous, always helpful in his words and actions. He aimed to civilize the Egyptians, teaching them to farm and cultivate vines, giving them laws and religion, and instructing them in various useful skills. Unfortunately, he had an evil brother named Set or Sutekh, who envied him for his goodness and plotted to kill him. Eventually, he succeeded, placed Osiris's body in a coffin, and threw it into the Nile, where it drifted out to sea. Isis, the sister and widow of Osiris, along with her sister Nephthys, searched in vain for a long time for her husband’s remains, but finally found them on the Syrian shore at Byblus, where the waves had washed them ashore. She was taking the body for embalming and burial in Memphis when Set stole it from her, dismembered it into fourteen pieces, and hid them in different locations. The heartbroken queen set out in a light boat made from the papyrus plant, searching all of Egypt until she had found all the pieces and buried them with due honors. She then called upon her son, Horus, to avenge his father, and Horus engaged in a long war, ultimately defeating Set and capturing him. Isis, feeling compassion, chose to free Set, who, let it be noted, was her brother; this infuriated Horus, who tore off her crown, or (according to some accounts) struck off her head. Thoth then repaired this injury by giving her a cow's head in place of her own. Horus renewed the war with his uncle and eventually killed him with a long spear that he plunged into his head." The gods and goddesses in the Osirid tale—Seb, Nut or Netpe, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Set, and Horus or Harmachis—captured the thoughts of the Egyptians, with most being beloved objects of worship, while Set was widely detested.

It was a peculiar feature of the Egyptian religion, that it contained distinctively evil and malignant gods. Set was not, originally, such a deity; but he became such in course of time, and was to the later Egyptians the very principle of evil—Evil personified. Another evil deity was Taour or Taourt, who is represented as a hippopotamus standing on its hind-legs, with the skin and tail of a crocodile dependent down its back, and a knife or a pair of shears in one hand. Bes seems also to have been a divinity of the same class. He was represented as a hideous dwarf, with large outstanding ears, bald, or with a plume of feathers on his head, and with a lion-skin down his back, often carrying in his two hands two knives. Even more terrible than Bes was Apep, the great serpent, with its huge and many folds, who helped Set against Osiris, and was the adversary and accuser of souls. Savak, a god with the head of a crocodile, seems also to have belonged to the class of malignant beings, though he was a favourite deity with some of the Ramesside kings, and a special object of worship in the Fayoum.

It was an unusual aspect of the Egyptian religion that it included distinctly evil and malevolent gods. Set wasn’t originally this kind of deity; however, over time, he became the embodiment of evil—Evil personified. Another evil deity was Taour or Taourt, depicted as a hippopotamus standing on its hind legs, with the skin and tail of a crocodile hanging down its back, and wielding a knife or a pair of shears in one hand. Bes was also seen as a god of a similar nature. He was shown as a grotesque dwarf with large, protruding ears, bald, or sporting a plume of feathers on his head, and wearing a lion-skin down his back, often holding two knives. Even more fearsome than Bes was Apep, the massive serpent with its countless coils, who aided Set against Osiris and was the adversary and accuser of souls. Savak, a god with the head of a crocodile, also seemed to fall into the category of malicious beings, though he was a favored deity among some of the Ramesside kings and particularly worshipped in the Fayoum.

FIGURES OF TAOURT. FIGURES OF TAOURT.

The complex polytheism of the monuments and the literature was not, however, the practical religion of many Egyptians. Local cults held possession of most of the nomes, and the ordinary Egyptian, instead of dissipating his religious affections by distributing them among the thousand divinities of the Pantheon, concentrated them on those of his nome. If he was a Memphite, he worshipped Phthah Sekhet, and Tum; if a Theban, Ammon-Ra, Maut, Khons, and Neith; if a Heliopolite, Tum, Nebhebt and Horus; if a Elephantinite, Kneph, Sati, Anuka, and Hak; and so on. The Egyptian Pantheon was a gradual accretion, the result of amalgamating the various local cults; but these continued predominant in their several localities; and practically the only deities that obtained anything like a general recognition were Osiris, Isis, Horus, and the Nile-god, Hapi.

The complex polytheism of the monuments and the literature wasn't, however, the everyday religion for many Egyptians. Local cults dominated most of the nomes, and the average Egyptian, instead of spreading his religious devotion among the thousands of gods in the Pantheon, focused on the deities of his nome. If he was from Memphis, he worshipped Phthah Sekhet and Tum; if he was from Thebes, he honored Ammon-Ra, Maut, Khons, and Neith; if he was from Heliopolis, he revered Tum, Nebhebt, and Horus; if he was from Elephantine, his gods were Kneph, Sati, Anuka, and Hak; and so on. The Egyptian Pantheon grew gradually, resulting from the merging of various local cults; however, these local practices remained dominant in their regions. The only gods that gained anything close to widespread recognition were Osiris, Isis, Horus, and the Nile-god, Hapi.

FIGURE OF BES. FIGURE OF BES.

Besides the common popular religion, the belief of the masses, there was another which prevailed among the priests and among the educated. The primary doctrine of this esoteric religion was the real essential unity of the Divine Nature. The sacred texts, known only to the priests and to the initiated, taught that there was a single Being, "the sole producer of all things both in heaven and earth, himself not produced of any," "the only true living God, self-originated," "who exists from the beginning," "who has made all things, but has not himself been made." This Being seems never to have been represented by any material, even symbolical, form. It is thought that he had no name, or, if he had, that it must have been unlawful to pronounce or write it. He was a pure spirit, perfect in every respect—all-wise, almighty, supremely good. It is of him that the Egyptian poets use such expressions as the following: "He is not graven in marble; he is not beheld; his abode is not known; no shrine is found with painted figures of him; there is no building that can contain him;" and, again: "Unknown is his name in heaven; he doth not manifest his forms; vain are all representations;" and yet again: "His commencement is from the beginning; he is the God who has existed from old time; there is no God without him; no mother bore him; no father hath begotten him; he is a god-goddess, created from himself; all gods came into existence when he began."

Besides the mainstream religion that most people followed, there was another belief system that existed among the priests and the educated. The main teaching of this secretive religion was the true and essential oneness of the Divine Nature. The sacred texts, known only to the priests and those initiated, taught that there was one Being, "the sole creator of everything in heaven and on earth, who is not created by anyone," "the only true living God, self-originating," "who has existed from the beginning," "who created all things but has not been created." This Being was never depicted in any physical or even symbolic form. It's believed that he had no name, or if he did, it was forbidden to say or write it. He was a pure spirit, perfect in every way—all-knowing, all-powerful, supremely good. The Egyptian poets expressed this about him with phrases like: "He is not carved in marble; he is not seen; his home is unknown; no shrine bears his painted likeness; there is no structure that can hold him;" and, again: "His name is unknown in heaven; he does not reveal his forms; all representations are futile;" and yet again: "His beginning is from the beginning; he is the God who has existed since ancient times; there is no God without him; no mother bore him; no father begot him; he is a god-goddess, created from himself; all gods were brought into existence when he began."

The other gods, the gods of the popular mythology were understood in the esoteric religion to be either personified attributes of the Deity, or parts of the nature which he had created, considered as informed and inspired by him. Num or Kneph represented the creative mind, Phthah the creative hand, or act of creating; Maut represented matter, Ra the sun, Khons the moon, Seb the earth, Khem the generative power in nature, Nut the upper hemisphere of the heavens, Athor the lower world or under hemisphere; Thoth personified the Divine Wisdom, Ammon perhaps the Divine mysteriousness or incomprehensibility, Osiris the Divine Goodness. It is difficult in many cases to fix on the exact quality, act, or part of nature intended; but the principle admits of no doubt. No educated Egyptian conceived of the popular gods as really separate and distinct beings. All knew that there was but One God, and understood that, when worship was offered to Khem, or Kneph, or Maut, or Thoth, or Ammon, the One God was worshipped under some one of his forms or in some one of his aspects. He was every god, and thus all the gods' names were interchangeable, and in one and the same hymn we may find a god, say Ammon, addressed also as Ra and Khem and Turn and Horus and Khepra; or Hapi, the Nile-god, invoked as Ammon and Phthah; or Osiris as Ra and Thoth; or, in fact, any god invoked as almost any other. If there be a limit, it is in respect of the evil deities, whose names are not given to the good ones.

The other gods, the gods of popular mythology were seen in the esoteric religion as either personified attributes of the Deity or parts of nature that He created, considered to be informed and inspired by Him. Num or Kneph symbolized the creative mind, Phthah the creative hand or act of creation; Maut represented matter, Ra the sun, Khons the moon, Seb the earth, Khem the life-giving power in nature, Nut the upper sky, Athor the lower world or underworld; Thoth personified Divine Wisdom, Ammon perhaps represented Divine mystery or incomprehensibility, and Osiris embodied Divine Goodness. It's often hard to pinpoint the exact quality, act, or part of nature intended; but the principle is clear. No educated Egyptian saw the popular gods as truly separate and distinct beings. Everyone understood that there was only One God, and recognized that when worship was given to Khem, or Kneph, or Maut, or Thoth, or Ammon, the One God was being worshiped in one of His forms or aspects. He was every god, making all the gods' names interchangeable, and in one hymn, you might find a god, like Ammon, referred to as Ra, Khem, Turn, and Horus, or Hapi, the Nile-god, called Ammon and Phthah; or Osiris being named as Ra and Thoth; or really any god being referred to as almost any other. If there’s a limit, it’s concerning the evil deities, whose names are not assigned to the good ones.

Common to all Egyptians seems to have been a belief, if not, strictly speaking, in the immortality of the soul, yet, at any rate, in a life after death, and a judgment of every man according to the deeds which he had done in the body while upon earth. It was universally received, that, immediately after death, the soul descended into the Lower World, and was conducted to the "Hall of Truth," where it was judged in the presence of Osiris and of the forty-two assessors, the "Lords of Truth" and judges of the dead. Anubis, "the director of the weight," brought forth a pair of scales, and, placing in one scale a figure or emblem of Truth, set in the other a vase containing the good actions of the deceased; Thoth standing by the while, with a tablet in his hand, whereon to record the result. According to the side on which the balance inclined, Osiris, the president, delivered sentence. If the good deeds preponderated, the blessed soul was allowed to enter the "boat of the Sun," and was led by good spirits to Aahlu (Elysium), to the "pools of peace" and the dwelling-place of Osiris. If, on the contrary, the good deeds were insufficient, if the ordeal was not passed, then the unhappy soul was sentenced, according to its deserts, to begin a round of transmigrations into the bodies of more or less unclean animals, the number, nature, and duration of the transmigrations depending on the degree of the deceased's demerits, and the consequent length and severity of the punishment which he deserved or the purification which he needed. Ultimately, if after many trials purity was not attained, then the wicked and incurable soul underwent a final sentence at the hands of Osiris, Judge of the Dead, and being condemned to annihilation, was destroyed upon the steps of heaven by Shu, the Lord of Light. The good soul, having first been completely cleansed of its impurities by passing through the basin of purgatorial fire guarded by the four ape-faced genii, was made the companion of Osiris for a period of three thousand years; after which it returned from Amenti, re-entered its former body, and lived once more a human life upon the earth. The process was repeated till a mystic number of years had gone by, when, finally, the blessed attained the crowning joy of union with God, being absorbed into the Divine Essence, from which they had emanated, and thus attaining the true end and full perfection of their being.

All Egyptians seemed to share a belief, not necessarily in the immortality of the soul, but certainly in life after death and a judgment for every person based on their actions during life. It was widely accepted that right after death, the soul would descend into the Lower World and be taken to the "Hall of Truth," where it would be judged in the presence of Osiris and the forty-two assessors, known as the "Lords of Truth" and judges of the dead. Anubis, "the director of the weight," would bring out a pair of scales and place a figure or symbol of Truth on one side while putting a vase containing the good deeds of the deceased on the other side; Thoth would stand by with a tablet to record the results. Depending on which side the scales tipped, Osiris, the president of the judgment, would deliver his verdict. If the good deeds outweighed the bad, the blessed soul was allowed to board the "boat of the Sun" and was guided by benevolent spirits to Aahlu (Elysium), to the "pools of peace" and the home of Osiris. If the good deeds were lacking and the deceased failed the test, then the unfortunate soul would be sentenced to start a cycle of reincarnation into increasingly unclean animals, with the number, type, and length of these reincarnations based on the severity of their misdeeds and the needed purification. Ultimately, if they did not achieve purity after numerous trials, the wicked and unhealable soul would face a final judgment from Osiris, Judge of the Dead, and be condemned to annihilation, destroyed on the steps of heaven by Shu, the Lord of Light. The good soul, after being completely purified by passing through the basin of cleansing fire supervised by four ape-faced genies, would become Osiris's companion for three thousand years; afterward, it would return from Amenti, re-enter its former body, and experience human life once again. This process would continue until a mystical number of years had passed, when, at last, the blessed would reach the ultimate joy of union with God, being absorbed into the Divine Essence from which they had come, thus achieving the true purpose and full perfection of their being.

Such a belief as this, if earnest and thorough, should be productive of a high standard of moral action; and undoubtedly the Egyptians had a code of morality that will compare favourably with that of most ancient nations. It has been said to have contained "three cardinal requirements—love of God, love of virtue, and love of man." The hymns sufficiently indicate the first; the second may be allowed, if by "virtue" we understand justice and truth; the third is testified by the constant claim of men, in their epitaphs, to have been benefactors of their species. "I was not an idler," says one; "I was no listener to the counsels of sloth; my name was not heard in the place of reproof ... all men respected me; I gave water to the thirsty; I set the wanderer on his path; I took away the oppressor, and put a stop to violence." "I myself was just and true," writes another: "without malice, having put God in my heart, and being quick to discern His will. I have done good upon earth; I have harboured no prejudice; I have not been wicked; I have not approved of any offence or iniquity; I have taken pleasure in speaking the truth.... Pure is my soul; while living I bore no malice. There are no errors attributable to me; no sins of mine are before the judges.... The men of the future, while they live, will be charmed by my remarkable merits." And another: "I have not oppressed any widow; no prisoner languished in my days; no one died of hunger. When there were years of famine, I had my fields ploughed. I gave food to the inhabitants, so that there was no hungry person. I gave the widow an equal portion with the married; I did not prefer the rich to the poor."

Such a belief, if sincere and genuine, should lead to a high standard of moral behavior; and it's clear that the Egyptians had a moral code that stacks up well against those of most ancient civilizations. It has been noted that their code included "three main principles—love for God, love for virtue, and love for humanity." The hymns clearly represent the first principle; the second can be accepted if by "virtue" we mean justice and truth; the third is reflected in the consistent claims of individuals in their tomb inscriptions, stating they were benefactors to their fellow humans. "I was not lazy," says one; "I didn’t listen to the whispers of idleness; my name was not associated with wrongdoing... all people respected me; I gave water to the thirsty; I guided the lost; I removed the oppressor and halted violence." "I was just and true," writes another: "without hatred, with God in my heart, and quick to understand His will. I did good on earth; I held no grudges; I wasn’t wicked; I never endorsed any wrongdoing or injustice; I found joy in speaking the truth.... My soul is pure; while I lived, I bore no malice. There are no mistakes I can be blamed for; no sins of mine are before the judges.... Future generations will admire my remarkable virtues while they live." And another: "I did not oppress any widow; no prisoner suffered during my time; no one died of hunger. In years of famine, I had my fields tilled. I provided food to the people, ensuring no one went hungry. I gave the widow the same amount as the married; I did not favor the rich over the poor."

The moral standard thus set up, though satisfactory, so far as it went, was in many respects deficient. It did not comprise humility; it scarcely seems to have comprised purity. The religious sculptures of the Egyptians were grossly indecent; their religious festivals were kept in an indecent way; phallic orgies were a part of them, and phallic orgies of a gross kind. The Egyptians tolerated incest, and could defend it by the example of the gods. Osiris had married his sister; Khem was "the Bull of his mother". The Egyptian novelettes are full of indecency and immorality, and Egyptian travellers describe their amours very much in the spirit of Ferdinand, Count Fathom; moreover, the complacency with which each Egyptian declares himself on his tomb to have possessed every virtue, and to have been free from all vices, is most remarkable. "I was a good man before the king; I saved the population in the dire calamity which befell all the land; I shielded the weak against the strong; I did all good things when the time came to do them; I was pious towards my father, and did the will of my mother; I was kind-hearted towards my brethren ... I made a good sarcophagus for him who had no coffin. When the dire calamity befell the land, I made the children to live, I established the houses, I did for them all such good things as a father does for his sons."

The moral standard established, while adequate in some ways, had significant shortcomings. It didn't include humility and barely touched on purity. The religious art of the Egyptians was shockingly inappropriate; their religious festivals were held in a crude manner, including explicit phallic celebrations. The Egyptians accepted incest, justifying it with examples from their gods. Osiris married his sister, and Khem was "the Bull of his mother." Egyptian stories contain a lot of indecency and immorality, and travelers wrote about their romantic escapades much like Ferdinand, Count Fathom; what’s more, the ease with which each Egyptian boasts on their tomb about possessing every virtue and being free from all vices is striking. "I was a good man before the king; I saved the people during the great calamity that struck the land; I protected the weak from the strong; I did all good deeds when the time called for it; I honored my father and fulfilled my mother's wishes; I was kind to my brothers... I made a proper sarcophagus for someone who had no coffin. When the great calamity hit the land, I gave life to the children, I built homes, and I did all the good things a father does for his sons."

And, notwithstanding all this braggadocio, performance seems to have lagged sadly behind profession. Kings boast of slaying their unresisting prisoners with their own hand, and represent themselves in the act of doing so. They come back from battle with the gory heads of their slain enemies hanging from their chariots. Licentiousness prevailed in the palace, and members of the royal harem intrigued with those who sought the life of the king. A belief in magic was general, and men endeavoured to destroy or injure those whom they hated by wasting their waxen effigies at a slow fire to the accompaniment of incantations. Thieves were numerous, and did not scruple even to violate the sanctity of the tomb in order to obtain a satisfactory booty. A famous "thieves' society," formed for the purpose of opening and plundering the royal tombs, contained among its members persons of the sacerdotal order.

And despite all this boasting, actual performance seems to have fallen far short of the claims. Kings brag about killing their helpless prisoners with their own hands and show off as they do it. They return from battle with the bloody heads of their slain enemies hanging from their chariots. Immorality thrived in the palace, and members of the royal harem conspired with those who wanted to assassinate the king. Belief in magic was widespread, and people tried to harm those they hated by melting their wax figures over a slow fire while chanting spells. Thieves were common and didn't hesitate to desecrate tombs to get valuable loot. A notorious "thieves' society," created for the purpose of breaking into and robbing royal tombs, included members of the priestly class.

Social ranks in Egypt were divided somewhat sharply. There was a large class of nobles, who were mostly great landed proprietors living on their estates, and having under them a vast body of dependents, servants, labourers, artizans &c. There was also a numerous official class, partly employed at the court, partly holding government posts throughout the country, which regarded itself as highly dignified, and looked down de haut en has on "the people." Commands in the army seem to have been among the prizes which from time to time fell to the lot of such persons. Further, there was a literary class, which was eminently respectable, and which viewed with contempt those who were engaged in trade or handicrafts.

Social classes in Egypt were clearly defined. There was a large group of nobles, mainly wealthy landowners living on their estates, who had a vast number of dependents, servants, laborers, and artisans working for them. There was also a large official class, some working at the court and others holding government positions throughout the country, who considered themselves highly esteemed and looked down on "the people." Military commands seemed to be among the rewards that occasionally went to such individuals. Additionally, there was a literary class that was very respectable and viewed with disdain those involved in trade or crafts.

Below these three classes, and removed from them by a long interval, was the mass of the population—"the multitude" as the Egyptians called them. These persons were engaged in manual labour of different kinds. The greater number were employed on the farms of the nobles, in the cultivation of the soil or in the rearing of cattle. A portion were boatmen, fishermen, or fowlers. Others pursued the various known handicrafts. They were weavers, workers in metal, stone-cutters, masons, potters, carpenters, upholsterers, tailors, shoe-makers, glass-blowers, boat-builders, wig-makers, and embalmers. There were also among them painters and sculptors. But all these employments "stank" in the nostrils of the upper classes, and were regarded as unworthy of any one who wished to be thought respectable.

Below these three classes, and separated from them by a long gap, was the general population—"the multitude," as the Egyptians referred to them. These individuals worked in various types of manual labor. Most were employed on the nobles' farms, tending to the land or raising livestock. Some worked as boatmen, fishermen, or bird catchers. Others practiced different known trades. They were weavers, metalworkers, stonecutters, masons, potters, carpenters, upholsterers, tailors, shoemakers, glassblowers, boat builders, wig makers, and embalmers. There were also painters and sculptors among them. However, all these jobs were looked down upon by the upper classes and considered unworthy of anyone wanting to be seen as respectable.

Still, the line of demarcation, decided as it was, might be crossed. It is an entire mistake to suppose that caste existed in Egypt. Men frequently bred up their sons to their own trade or profession, as they do in all countries, but they were not obliged to do so—there was absolutely no compulsion in the matter. The "public-schools" of Egypt were open to all comers, and the son of the artizan sat on the same bench with the son of the noble, enjoyed the same education, and had an equal opportunity of distinguishing himself. If he showed sufficient promise, he was recommended to adopt the literary life; and the literary life was the sure passport to State employment. State employment once entered upon, merit secured advancement; and thus there was, in fact, no obstacle to prevent the son of a labouring man from rising to the very highest positions in the administration of the empire. Successful ministers were usually rewarded by large grants of land from the royal domain; and it follows that a clever youth of the labouring class might by good conduct and ability make his way even into the ranks of the landed aristocracy.

Still, the established boundary, though firm, could be crossed. It's a complete misconception to think that caste existed in Egypt. People often trained their sons to follow in their footsteps in their trade or profession, just like in other countries, but they weren’t required to—there was no pressure to do so. The "public schools" in Egypt were open to everyone, and the son of a craftsman sat on the same bench as the son of a noble, received the same education, and had an equal chance to shine. If he showed enough potential, he was encouraged to pursue a literary career; and that literary path was a guaranteed ticket to government jobs. Once in public service, merit led to promotion; so, in reality, there were no barriers preventing the son of a laborer from rising to the highest ranks of the empire's administration. Successful ministers were often rewarded with large land grants from the royal estate, which meant a talented young person from the working class could, through good behavior and skill, move up into the landed aristocracy.

On the other hand, practically, the condition of the labouring class was, generally speaking, a hard and sad one. The kings were entitled to employ as many of their subjects as they pleased in forced labours, and monarchs often sacrificed to their inordinate vanity the lives and happiness of thousands. Private employers of labour were frequently cruel and exacting; their overseers used the stick, and it was not easy for those who suffered to obtain any redress. Moreover, taxation was heavy, and inability to satisfy the collector subjected the defaulter to the bastinado. Those who have studied the antiquities of Egypt with most care, tell us that there was not much to choose between the condition of the ancient labourers and that of the unhappy fellahin[6] of the present day.

On the other hand, in practical terms, the situation for the working class was generally tough and sorrowful. Kings were allowed to force as many subjects as they wanted into labor, and rulers often sacrificed the lives and happiness of thousands for their own excessive pride. Private employers were often harsh and demanding; their foremen resorted to physical punishment, and it was challenging for those who suffered to seek justice. Additionally, taxes were heavy, and failing to meet the collector’s demands could lead to severe punishment. Those who have studied ancient Egypt closely claim that there wasn’t much difference between the condition of ancient laborers and that of today’s unhappy fellahin[6].


III.

THE DAWN OF HISTORY.

All nations, unless they be colonies, have a prehistoric time—a dark period of mist and gloom, before the keen light of history dawns upon them. This period is the favourite playground of the myth-spirits, where they disport themselves freely, or lounge heavily and listlessly, according to their different natures. The Egyptian spirits were of the heavier and duller kind—not light and frolicsome, like the Greek and the Indo-Iranian. It has been said that Egypt never produced more than one myth, the Osirid legend; and this is so far true that in no other case is the story told at any considerable length, or with any considerable number of exciting incidents. There are, however, many short legends in the Egyptian remains, which have more or less of interest, and show that the people was not altogether devoid of imagination, though their imagination was far from lively. Seb, for instance, once upon a time, took the form of a goose, and laid the mundane egg, and hatched it. Thoth once wrote a wonderful book, full of wisdom and science, which told of everything concerning the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea, and the four-footed beasts of the earth. He who knew a single page of the book could charm the heaven, the earth, the great abyss, the mountains, and the seas. Thoth took the work and enclosed it in a box of gold, and the box of gold he placed within a box of silver, and the silver box within a box of ivory and ebony, and that again within a box of bronze; and the bronze box he enclosed within a box of brass, and the brass box within a box of iron; and the box, thus guarded, he threw into the Nile at Coptos. But a priest discovered the whereabouts of the book, and sold the knowledge to a young noble for a hundred pieces of silver, and the young noble with great trouble fished the book up. But the possession of the book brought him not good but evil. He lost his wife; he lost his child; he became entangled in a disgraceful intrigue. He was glad to part with the book. But the next possessor was not more fortunate; the book brought him no luck. The quest after unlawful knowledge involved all who sought it in calamity.

All nations, unless they're colonies, have a time before recorded history—a dark period filled with mystery and confusion, before the clear light of history shines on them. This time is the favorite playground of mythical beings, where they express themselves freely or lounge around lazily, depending on their nature. The Egyptian spirits were more serious and dull—not playful and lively like the Greek and Indo-Iranian spirits. It's been said that Egypt only created one major myth, the Osirid legend; this is true to an extent, as no other story is told in much detail or with many exciting events. However, there are several short legends in the Egyptian artifacts that are somewhat interesting and show that the people had some imagination, even if it wasn't very vibrant. For example, Seb once took the form of a goose and laid a worldly egg, which he then hatched. Thoth once wrote an incredible book filled with wisdom and knowledge, detailing everything about the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and the four-legged animals of the land. Anyone who knew just a single page of this book could charm the heavens, the earth, the deep abyss, the mountains, and the seas. Thoth took the book and sealed it in a gold box, then placed that gold box inside a silver box, the silver box inside a box of ivory and ebony, and that again inside a bronze box; then he enclosed the bronze box in a brass box, and the brass box in an iron box. With all these layers of protection, he threw the box into the Nile at Coptos. But a priest discovered where the book was and sold the information to a young noble for a hundred pieces of silver, and the young noble managed to fish the book out with great difficulty. However, owning the book brought him not fortune but misfortune. He lost his wife, he lost his child, and he got caught up in a scandalous affair. He was relieved to get rid of the book. But the next person who owned it was no luckier; the book brought him no good either. The pursuit of forbidden knowledge led everyone who sought it to disaster.

Another myth had for its subject the proposed destruction of mankind by Ra, the Sun-god. Ra had succeeded Phthah as king of Egypt, and had reigned for a long term of years in peace, contented with his subjects and they with him. But a time came when they grew headstrong and unruly; they uttered words against Ra; they plotted evil things; they grievously offended him. So Ra called the council of the gods together and asked them to advise him what he should do. They said mankind must be destroyed, and committed the task of destruction to Athor and Sekhet, who proceeded to smite the men over the whole land. But now fear came upon mankind; and the men of Elephantine made haste, and extracted the juice from the best of their fruits, and mingled it with human blood, and filled seven thousand jars, and brought them as an offering to the offended god. Ra drank and was content, and ordered the liquor that remained in the jars to be poured out; and, lo! it was an inundation which covered the whole land of Egypt; and when Athor went forth the next day to destroy, she saw no men in the fields, but only water, which she drank, and it pleased her, and she went away satisfied.

Another myth revolved around the proposed destruction of humanity by Ra, the Sun-god. Ra had succeeded Phthah as the king of Egypt and had ruled for many years in peace, content with his subjects and they with him. But a time came when they became arrogant and unruly; they spoke out against Ra; they planned wicked deeds; they deeply offended him. So Ra called a council of the gods and asked for their advice on what to do. They said humanity must be destroyed and assigned the task of destruction to Athor and Sekhet, who began to strike down people across the land. But fear fell upon mankind; the people of Elephantine rushed to extract juice from their finest fruits, mixed it with human blood, and filled seven thousand jars, bringing them as an offering to the angered god. Ra drank and was satisfied, and commanded that the leftover liquid in the jars be poured out; and, behold! it became an inundation that covered all of Egypt. When Athor went out the next day to destroy, she found no people in the fields, only water, which she drank, and it pleased her, so she left satisfied.

It would require another Euhemerus to find any groundwork of history in these narratives. We must turn away from the "shadow-land" which the Egyptians called the time of the gods on earth, if we would find trace of the real doings of men in the Nile valley, and put before our readers actual human beings in the place of airy phantoms. The Egyptians themselves taught that the first man of whom they had any record was a king called M'na, a name which the Greeks represented by Mên or Menes. M'na was born at Tena (This or Thinis) in Upper Egypt, where his ancestors had borne sway before him. He was the first to master the Lower country, and thus to unite under a single sceptre the "two Egypts"—the long narrow Nile valley and the broad Delta plain. Having placed on his head the double crown which thenceforth symbolized dominion over both tracts, his first thought was that a new capital was needed. Egypt could not, he felt, be ruled conveniently from the latitude of Thebes, or from any site in the Upper country; it required a capital which should abut on both regions, and so command both. Nature pointed out one only fit locality, the junction of the plain with the vale—"the balance of the two regions," as the Egyptians called it; the place where the narrow "Upper Country" terminates, and Egypt opens out into the wide smiling plain that thence spreads itself on every side to the sea. Hence there would be easy access to both regions; both would be, in a way, commanded; here, too, was a readily defensible position, one assailable only in front. Experience has shown that the instinct of the first founder was right, or that his political and strategic foresight was extraordinary. Though circumstances, once and again, transferred the seat of government to Thebes or Alexandria, yet such removals were short-lived. The force of geographic fact was too strong to be permanently overcome, and after a few centuries power gravitated back to the centre pointed out by nature.

It would take another Euhemerus to find any historical basis in these stories. We have to move away from the "shadow-land" that the Egyptians referred to as the time of the gods on earth if we want to uncover the real actions of people in the Nile valley and present actual human beings instead of ghostly figures. The Egyptians themselves believed that the first man they had any record of was a king named M'na, which the Greeks wrote as Mên or Menes. M'na was born at Tena (This or Thinis) in Upper Egypt, where his ancestors had ruled before him. He was the first to conquer the Lower country, uniting the "two Egypts"—the long, narrow Nile valley and the wide Delta plain—under one crown. After placing the double crown on his head, which then symbolized authority over both areas, his first thought was that a new capital was necessary. He believed Egypt couldn’t be effectively governed from the latitude of Thebes or any location in Upper Egypt; it needed a capital that could connect both regions and oversee them. Nature indicated only one suitable location, the junction of the plain and the valley—“the balance of the two regions,” as the Egyptians called it; the spot where the narrow "Upper Country" ends, and Egypt opens up into the wide, flourishing plain that spreads out toward the sea. This location would provide easy access to both regions; both would be, in a sense, under control; it also offered a defensible position, vulnerable only from the front. Experience has shown that the instinct of the first founder was correct, or that his political and strategic insight was remarkable. Although circumstances occasionally shifted the seat of government to Thebes or Alexandria, these changes were short-lived. The power of geographic reality was too strong to be permanently ignored, and after a few centuries, authority returned to the center indicated by nature.

If we may believe the tradition, there was, when the idea of building the new capital arose, a difficulty in obtaining a site in all respects advantageous. The Nile, before debouching upon the plain, hugged for many miles the base of the Libyan hills, and was thus on the wrong side of the valley. It was wanted on the other side, in order to be a water-bulwark against an Asiatic invader. The founder, therefore, before building his city, undertook a gigantic work. He raised a great embankment across the natural course of the river; and, forcing it from its bed, made it enter a new channel and run midway down the valley, or, if anything, rather towards its eastern side. He thus obtained the bulwark against invasion that he required, and he had an ample site for his capital between the new channel of the stream and the foot of the western hills.

If we can trust the story, when the idea of creating the new capital came up, there was a challenge in finding a site that was ideal in every way. The Nile, before flowing onto the plain, closely followed the base of the Libyan hills for many miles, which put it on the wrong side of the valley. It was needed on the other side to serve as a water barrier against an Asiatic invader. So, before constructing his city, the founder took on a massive project. He built a large embankment across the river's natural path; by diverting it from its original course, he made it flow through a new channel midway down the valley, leaning more towards the eastern side. He thus created the barrier against invasion that he needed and secured a spacious area for his capital between the new river channel and the base of the western hills.

It is undoubtedly strange to hear of such a work being constructed at the very dawn of history, by a population that was just becoming a people. But in Egypt precocity is the rule—a Minerva starts full-grown from the head of Jove. The pyramids themselves cannot be placed very long after the supposed reign of Menes; and the engineering skill implied in the pyramids is simply of a piece with that attributed to the founder of Memphis.

It’s definitely odd to hear about such a project being built at the very beginning of history, by a population that was just starting to become a society. But in Egypt, early achievements are the norm—a Minerva emerges fully formed from the head of Jove. The pyramids themselves can’t be dated much later than the proposed reign of Menes; and the engineering expertise shown in the pyramids matches what is credited to the founder of Memphis.

In ancient times a city was nothing without a temple; and the capital city of the most religious people in the world could not by any possibility lack that centre of civic life which its chief temple always was to every ancient town. Philosophy must settle the question how it came to pass that religious ideas were in ancient times so universally prevalent and so strongly pronounced. History is only bound to note the fact. Coeval, then, with the foundation of the city of Menes was, according to the tradition, the erection of a great temple to Phthah—"the Revealer," the Divine artificer, by whom the world and man were created, and the hidden thought of the remote Supreme Being was made manifest to His creatures, Phthah's temple lay within the town, and was originally a naos or "cell," a single building probably not unlike that between the Sphinx's paws at Ghizeh, situated within a temenos, or "sacred enclosure," watered from the river, and no doubt planted with trees. Like the medieval cathedrals, the building grew with the lapse of centuries, great kings continually adding new structures to the main edifice, and enriching it with statuary and painting. Herodotus saw it in its full glory, and calls it "a vast edifice, very worthy of commemoration." Abd-el-Latif saw it in its decline, and notes the beauty of its remains: "the great monolithic shrine of breccia verde, nine cubits high, eight long, and seven broad, the doors which swung on hinges of stone, the well-carven statues, and the lions terrific in their aspect."[7] At the present day scarcely a trace remains. One broken colossus of the Great Ramesses, till very recently prostrate, and a few nondescript fragments, alone continue on the spot, to attest to moderns the position of that antique fane, which the Egyptians themselves regarded as the oldest in their land.

In ancient times, a city had no significance without a temple; the capital city of the most religious people in the world definitely needed a center of civic life, which the main temple represented for every ancient town. Philosophy has to explain why religious ideas were so widespread and strongly expressed in ancient times. History simply records the fact. According to tradition, the founding of the city of Menes coincided with the construction of a grand temple dedicated to Phthah—"the Revealer," the Divine creator who made the world and humanity, and revealed the hidden thoughts of the distant Supreme Being to His creations. Phthah's temple was located within the city, initially a naos or "cell," a single building likely similar to the one found between the Sphinx's paws at Giza, located within a temenos, or "sacred enclosure," fed by the river, and likely surrounded by trees. Just like the medieval cathedrals, the temple expanded over the centuries, with great kings continually adding new structures and enhancing it with statues and paintings. Herodotus witnessed it in its full splendor and described it as "a vast edifice, very worthy of commemoration." Abd-el-Latif observed it in its decline and noted the beauty of its remains: "the great monolithic shrine of breccia verde, nine cubits high, eight long, and seven broad, the doors swinging on stone hinges, the well-crafted statues, and the lions fierce in their appearance."[7] Today, barely a trace remains. One broken colossus of the Great Ramesses, which had only recently been lying down, and a few indistinguishable fragments are all that continue at the site, reminding modern visitors of the location of that ancient temple, which the Egyptians themselves considered the oldest in their land.

The new city received from its founder the name of Men-nefer—"the Good Abode." It was also known as Ei-Ptah—"the House of Phthah." From the former name came the prevailing appellations—the "Memphis" of the Greeks and Romans, the "Moph" of the Hebrews, the "Mimpi" of the Assyrians, and the name still given to the ruins, "Tel-Monf." It was indeed a "good abode"—watered by an unfailing stream, navigable from the sea, which at once brought it supplies and afforded it a strong protection, surrounded on three sides by the richest and most productive alluvium, close to quarries of excellent stone, warm in winter, fanned by the cool northern breezes in the summer-time, within easy reach of the sea, yet not so near as to attract the cupidity of pirates. Few capitals have been more favourably placed. It was inevitable that when the old town went to ruins, a new one should spring up in its stead. Memphis still exists, in a certain sense, in the glories of the modern Cairo, which occupies an adjacent site, and is composed largely of the same materials.

The new city was named Men-nefer by its founder—"the Good Abode." It was also called Ei-Ptah—"the House of Phthah." From the former name came the common names used—the "Memphis" of the Greeks and Romans, the "Moph" of the Hebrews, the "Mimpi" of the Assyrians, and the name still given to the ruins, "Tel-Monf." It truly was a "good abode"—supplied by a reliable stream, navigable from the sea, which provided it with resources and strong protection, surrounded on three sides by fertile and productive land, close to excellent stone quarries, warm in winter, cooled by northern breezes in the summer, within easy reach of the sea, yet not so close as to tempt pirates. Few capitals were better positioned. It was only natural that when the old town fell into decay, a new one would rise in its place. Memphis still exists, in a way, within the splendor of modern Cairo, which is located nearby and made largely from the same materials.

The Egyptians knew no more of their first king than that he turned the course of the Nile, founded Memphis, built the nucleus of the great temple of Phthah, and "was devoured by a hippopotamus." This last fact is related with all due gravity by Manetho, notwithstanding that the hippopotamus is a graminivorous animal, one that "eats grass like an ox" (Job xi. 15). Probably the old Egyptian writer whom he followed meant that M'na at last fell a victim to Taourt, the Goddess of Evil, to whom the hippopotamus was sacred, and who was herself figured as a hippopotamus erect. This would be merely equivalent to relating that he succumbed to death. Manetho gave him a reign of sixty-two years.

The Egyptians knew little about their first king apart from the fact that he redirected the Nile, established Memphis, constructed the core of the grand temple of Phthah, and "was eaten by a hippopotamus." Manetho recounts this last detail with great seriousness, even though the hippopotamus is a herbivorous animal that "eats grass like an ox" (Job xi. 15). It's likely that the ancient Egyptian writer he referenced meant that M'na ultimately fell victim to Taourt, the Goddess of Evil, to whom the hippopotamus was sacred, and who was depicted as an upright hippopotamus. This would simply be like saying he succumbed to death. Manetho attributed him a reign of sixty-two years.

The question is asked by the modern critics, who will take nothing on trust, "Have we in Menes a real Egyptian, a being of flesh and blood, one who truly lived, breathed, fought, built, ruled, and at last died? Or are we still dealing with a phantom, as much as when we spoke of Seb, and Thoth, and Osiris, and Set, and Horus?" The answer seems to be, that we cannot tell. The Egyptians believed in Menes as a man; they placed him at the head of their dynastic lists; but they had no contemporary monument to show inscribed with his name. A name like that of Menes is found at the beginning of things in so many nations, that on that account alone the word would be suspicious; in Greece it is Minos, in Phrygia Manis, in Lydia Manes, in India Menu, in Germany Mannus. And again, the name of the founder is so like that of the city which he founded, that another suspicion arises—Have we not here one of the many instances of a personal name made out of a local one, as Nin or Ninus from Nineveh (Ninua), Romulus from Roma, and the like? Probably we shall do best to acquiesce in the judgment of Dr. Birch: "Menes must be placed among those founders of monarchies whose personal existence a severe and enlightened criticism doubts or denies."

The modern critics, who trust nothing at face value, ask, "Was Menes a real Egyptian, a living person who breathed, fought, built, ruled, and eventually died? Or are we still talking about a ghost, just like we did with Seb, Thoth, Osiris, Set, and Horus?" The answer seems to be that we don’t know. The Egyptians saw Menes as a man; they placed him at the start of their dynastic lists, but they didn’t have any contemporary monument showing his name. A name like Menes appears at the beginning of many cultures, which makes it suspect; in Greece, it's Minos, in Phrygia Manis, in Lydia Manes, in India Menu, and in Germany Mannus. Additionally, the name of the founder is so similar to that of the city he founded that it raises another question—Could this be an instance of a personal name derived from a local name, like Nin or Ninus from Nineveh (Ninua), or Romulus from Roma, and so on? It might be best to agree with Dr. Birch's assessment: "Menes must be placed among those founders of monarchies whose personal existence a rigorous and enlightened scrutiny doubts or denies."

The city was, however, a reality, the embankment was a reality, the temple of Phthah was a reality, and the founding of a kingdom in Egypt, which included both the Upper and the Lower country some considerable time before the date of Abraham, was a reality, which the sternest criticism need not—nay, cannot—doubt. All antiquity attests that the valley of the Nile was one of the first seats of civilization. Abraham found a settled government established there when he visited the country, and a consecutive series of monuments carries the date of the first civilization at least as far back as B.C. 2700—probably further.

The city was real, the riverbank was real, the temple of Phthah was real, and the establishment of a kingdom in Egypt, which included both Upper and Lower Egypt long before Abraham's time, was real—something that the harshest criticism cannot doubt. All of history confirms that the Nile Valley was one of the earliest centers of civilization. When Abraham visited, he encountered a stable government already in place, and a continuous series of monuments dates the beginning of civilization back to at least 2700 B.C.—likely even earlier.

If the great Menes, then, notwithstanding all that we are told of his doings, be a mere shadowy personage, little more than magni nominis umbra, what shall we say of his twenty or thirty successors of the first, second, and third dynasties? What but that they are shadows of shadows? The native monuments of the early Ramesside period (about B.C. 1400-1300) assign to this time some twenty-five names of kings; but they do not agree in their order, nor do they altogether agree in the names. The kings, if they were kings, have left no history—we can only by conjecture attach to them any particular buildings, we can give no account of their actions, we can assign no chronology to their reigns. They are of no more importance in the "story of Egypt" than the Alban kings in the "story of Rome." "Non ragionam di loro, ma guarda e passi."

If the great Menes is, despite everything we hear about his actions, just a shadowy figure, nothing more than magni nominis umbra, what can we say about his twenty or thirty successors from the first, second, and third dynasties? They are just shadows of shadows, right? The local monuments from the early Ramesside period (around B.C. 1400-1300) mention about twenty-five names of kings from that time, but they don’t all agree on the order or the names. The kings, assuming they really were kings, left no history behind—we can only make guesses about their specific buildings, we can’t account for their actions, and we can’t assign a timeline to their reigns. They hold no more significance in the "story of Egypt" than the Alban kings do in the "story of Rome." "Non ragionam di loro, ma guarda e passi."

The first living, breathing, acting, flesh-and-blood personage, whom so-called histories of Egypt present to us, is a certain Sneferu, or Seneferu, whom the Egyptians seem to have regarded as the first monarch of their fourth dynasty. Sneferu—called by Manetho, we know not why, Soris—has left us a representation of himself, and an inscription. On the rocks of Wady Magharah, in the Sinaitic peninsula, may be seen to this day an incised tablet representing the monarch in the act of smiting an enemy, whom he holds by the hair of his head, with a mace. The action is apparently emblematic, for at the side we see the words Ta satu, "Smiter of the nations;" and it is a fair explanation of the tablet, that its intention was to signify that the Pharaoh in question had reduced to subjection the tribes which in his time inhabited the Sinaitic regions. The motive of the attack was not mere lust of conquest, but rather the desire of gain. The Wady Magharah contained mines of copper and of turquoise, which the Egyptians desired to work; and for this purpose it was necessary to hold the country by a set of military posts, in order that the miners might pursue their labours without molestation. Some ruins of the fortifications are still to be seen; and the mines themselves, now exhausted, pierce the sides of the rocks, and bear in many places traces of hieroglyphical inscriptions The remains of temples show that the expatriated colonists were not left without the consolations of religion, while a deep well indicates the care that was taken to supply their temporal needs. Thousands of stone arrow-heads give evidence of the presence of a strong garrison, and make us acquainted with the weapon which they found most effectual against their enemies.

The first real, living, breathing person that the histories of Egypt introduce us to is a guy named Sneferu, or Seneferu, who the Egyptians considered the first king of their fourth dynasty. Sneferu—known as Soris by Manetho for reasons we don’t know—has left us a depiction of himself and an inscription. Even today, you can see a carved tablet in the rocks of Wady Magharah, in the Sinai Peninsula, showing the king striking down an enemy, whom he’s holding by the hair with a mace. This action seems symbolic, as next to it we see the words Ta satu, meaning "Smiter of the nations;" and it’s reasonable to interpret that the tablet was meant to show that this Pharaoh had subjugated the tribes living in the Sinai region during his reign. The motive behind the attack wasn’t just a desire to conquer, but rather to gain resources. The Wady Magharah had mines of copper and turquoise that the Egyptians wanted to exploit; to do this, they needed to control the area with military posts so the miners could work without interruption. Some ruins of these fortifications can still be seen, and the now-exhausted mines carve through the rocks, many of which still bear traces of hieroglyphic inscriptions. The remains of temples indicate that the relocated colonists weren’t without religious comforts, while a deep well shows that their basic needs were taken care of. Thousands of stone arrowheads indicate a strong garrison was present and give us insight into the weapon that was most effective against their enemies.

TABLET AT SNEFERU AT WADY-MAGHARAH. TABLET AT SNEFERU AT WADY-MAGHARAH.

Sneferu calls himself Neter aa, "the Great God," and Neb mat, "the Lord of Justice." He is also "the Golden Horus," or "the Conqueror." Neb mat is not a usual title with Egyptian monarchs; and its assumption by Sneferu would seem to mark, at any rate, his appreciation of the excellence of justice, and his desire to have the reputation of a just ruler. Later ages give him the title of "the beneficent king," so that he would seem to have been a really unselfish and kindly sovereign. His form, however, only just emerges from the mists of the period to be again concealed from our view, and we vainly ask ourselves what exactly were the benefits that he conferred on Egypt, so as to attain his high reputation.

Sneferu refers to himself as Neter aa, "the Great God," and Neb mat, "the Lord of Justice." He is also known as "the Golden Horus" or "the Conqueror." Neb mat is not a common title for Egyptian kings, and Sneferu's use of it seems to show his appreciation for the importance of justice and his desire to be seen as a fair ruler. Later generations called him "the beneficent king," suggesting he was a truly selfless and kind leader. However, his legacy is somewhat unclear, disappearing into the shadows of history, leaving us to wonder what specific benefits he provided to Egypt that earned him such a lofty reputation.

Still, the monuments of his time are sufficient to tell us something of the Egypt of his day, and of the amount and character of the civilization so early attained by the Egyptian people. Besides his own tablet in the Wady Magharah, there are in the neighbourhood of the pyramids of Ghizeh a number of tombs which belong to the officials of his court and the members of his family. These tombs contain both sculptures and inscriptions, and throw considerable light on the condition of the country.

Still, the monuments from his era are enough to reveal aspects of Egypt during his time and the level and nature of the civilization that the Egyptian people achieved so early on. In addition to his own tablet in the Wady Magharah, there are several tombs near the pyramids of Giza that belonged to the officials of his court and his family members. These tombs feature both sculptures and inscriptions, providing valuable insights into the state of the country.

In the first place, it is apparent that the style of writing has been invented which is called hieroglyphical, and which has the appearance of a picture writing, though it is almost as absolutely phonetic as any other. Setting apart a certain small number of "determinatives," each sign stands for a sound—the greater part for those elementary sounds which we express by letters. An eagle is a, a leg and foot b, a horned serpent f, a hand t, an owl m, a chicken u, and the like. It is true that there are signs which express a compound sound, a whole word, even a word of two syllables. A bowl or basin represents the sound of neb, a hatchet that of neter, a guitar that of nefer, a crescent that of aah, and so on. Secondly, it is clear that artistic power is considerable. The animal forms used in the hieroglyphics—the bee, the vulture, the uræus, the hawk, the chicken, the eagle—are well drawn. In the human forms there is less merit, but still they are fairly well proportioned and have spirit. No rudeness or want of finish attaches either to the writing or to the drawing of Sneferu's time; the artists do not attempt much, but what they attempt they accomplish.

First of all, it's clear that a style of writing called hieroglyphics has been created, which looks like picture writing, although it's nearly as phonetic as any other writing system. Aside from a few small "determinatives," each symbol represents a sound—the majority of them represent the basic sounds we express with letters. For example, an eagle represents a, a leg and foot represent b, a horned serpent represents f, a hand represents t, an owl represents m, a chicken represents u, and so on. There are also symbols that represent a compound sound, a whole word, or even a two-syllable word. For instance, a bowl or basin represents the sound neb, a hatchet represents neter, a guitar represents nefer, a crescent represents aah, and so forth. Additionally, it's evident that there is considerable artistic skill involved. The animal figures used in the hieroglyphs—the bee, the vulture, the uræus, the hawk, the chicken, and the eagle—are well drawn. The human figures are less impressive, but they're still fairly well proportioned and have some character. There’s no lack of polish or refinement in the writing or art from Sneferu's era; the artists may not push boundaries much, but they achieve what they set out to do.

Next, we may notice the character of the tombs. Already the tomb was more important than the house; and while every habitation constructed for the living men of the time has utterly perished, scores of the dwellings assigned to the departed still exist, many in an excellent condition. They are stone buildings resembling small houses, each with its door of entrance, but with no windows, and forming internally a small chamber generally decorated with sculptures. The walls slope at an angle of seventy-five or eighty degrees externally, but in the interior are perpendicular. The roof is composed of large flat stones. Strictly speaking, the chambers are not actual tombs, but mortuary chapels. The embalmed body of the deceased, encased in its wooden coffin (Gen. 1. 26), was not deposited in the chamber, but in an excavation under one of the walls, which was carefully closed up after the coffin had been placed inside it. The chamber was used by the relations for sacred rites, sacrificial feasts, and the like, held in honour of the deceased, especially on the anniversary of his death and entrance into Amenti. The early Egyptians indulged, like the Chinese, in a worship of ancestors. The members of a family met from time to time in the sepulchral chamber of their father, or their grandfather, and went through various ceremonies, sang hymns, poured libations, and made offerings, which were regarded as pleasing to the departed, and which secured their protection and help to such of their descendants as took part in the pious practices.

Next, we may notice the character of the tombs. Already, the tomb was more significant than the house; and while every home built for the living during that time has completely vanished, many of the dwellings meant for the departed still exist, many in excellent condition. They are stone structures resembling small houses, each with a door but without windows, creating a small chamber inside that is generally decorated with sculptures. The walls slope at an angle of seventy-five or eighty degrees on the outside, but are vertical on the inside. The roof is made up of large flat stones. Technically, the chambers are not actual tombs, but mortuary chapels. The embalmed body of the deceased, enclosed in its wooden coffin (Gen. 1. 26), was not placed in the chamber, but rather in a hole under one of the walls, which was carefully sealed after the coffin was placed inside. The chamber was used by relatives for sacred rites, sacrificial feasts, and similar activities held in honor of the deceased, especially on the anniversary of their death and entry into Amenti. The early Egyptians engaged in ancestor worship like the Chinese. Family members would gather from time to time in the burial chamber of their father or grandfather, performing various ceremonies, singing hymns, pouring libations, and making offerings, which were believed to please the departed and ensure their protection and assistance for those descendants participating in these respectful practices.

Sometimes a tomb was more pretentious than those above described. There is an edifice at Meydoum, improperly termed a pyramid, which is thought to be older than Sneferu, and was probably erected by one of the "shadowy kings" who preceded him on the throne. Situated on a natural rocky knoll of some considerable height, it rises in three stages at an angle of 74° 10' to an elevation of a hundred and twenty-five feet. It is built of a compact limestone, which must have been brought from some distance. The first stage has a height a little short of seventy feet; the next exceeds thirty-two feet; the third is a little over twenty-two feet. It is possible that originally there were more stages, and probable that the present highest stage has in part crumbled away; so that we may fairly reckon the original height to have been between a hundred and forty and a hundred and fifty feet The monument is generally regarded as a tomb, from its situation in the Memphian necropolis and its remote resemblance to the pyramids; but as yet it has not been penetrated, and consequently has not been proved to have been sepulchral.

Sometimes a tomb was more elaborate than those described above. There is a structure at Meydoum, incorrectly called a pyramid, which is believed to be older than Sneferu and was probably built by one of the "mysterious kings" who ruled before him. Located on a naturally high rocky hill, it rises in three tiers at an angle of 74° 10' to a height of one hundred and twenty-five feet. It is made of solid limestone, which must have been transported from a distance. The first tier is just under seventy feet tall; the second exceeds thirty-two feet; and the third is just over twenty-two feet. It's possible that there were originally more tiers, and likely that the current highest tier has partially crumbled away, so we can reasonably estimate the original height to have been between one hundred and forty and one hundred and fifty feet. The monument is generally seen as a tomb, due to its location in the Memphian necropolis and its distant similarity to the pyramids; but it has not yet been explored, and therefore it has not been confirmed to be a burial site.

PYRAMID OF MEYDOUM. PYRAMID OF MEYDOUM.

A construction, which has even a greater appearance of antiquity than the Meydoum tower, exists at Saccarah. Here the architect carried up a monument to the height of two hundred feet, by constructing it in six or seven sloping stages, having an angle of 73° 30'. The core of his building was composed of rubble, but this was protected on every side by a thick casing of limestone roughly hewn, and apparently quarried on the spot. The sepulchral intention of the construction is unquestionable. It covered a spacious chamber excavated in the rock, whereon the monument was built, which, when first discovered, contained a sarcophagus and was lined with slabs of granite. Carefully concealed passages connected the chamber with the outer world, and allowed of its being entered by those in possession of the "secrets of the prison-house." In this structure we have, no doubt, the tomb of a king more ancient than Sneferu—though for our own part we should hesitate to assign the monument to one king rather than another.

A construction that seems even older than the Meydoum tower exists at Saccarah. Here, the architect built a monument that reaches a height of two hundred feet, creating it in six or seven sloping stages with an angle of 73° 30'. The core of the building was made of rubble, but it was surrounded on all sides by a thick casing of roughly hewn limestone, which was apparently quarried nearby. The purpose of this construction as a tomb is clear. It covered a large chamber carved into the rock, on which the monument was built. When it was first discovered, this chamber contained a sarcophagus and was lined with granite slabs. Secret passages connected the chamber to the outside world, allowing access for those who knew the "secrets of the prison-house." This structure is undoubtedly the tomb of a king older than Sneferu—though we would hesitate to attribute the monument to any specific king.

If we pass from the architecture of the period to its social condition, we remark that grades of society already existed, and were as pronounced as in later times. The kings were already deities, and treated with superstitious regard. The state-officials were a highly privileged class, generally more or less connected with the royal family. The land was partly owned by the king (Gen. xlvii. 6), who employed his own labourers and herdsmen upon it; partly, mainly perhaps, it was in the hands of great landed proprietors—nobles, who lived in country houses upon their estates, maintaining large households, and giving employment to scores of peasants, herdsmen, artizans, huntsmen, and fishermen. The "lower orders" were of very little account. They were at the beck and call of the landed aristocracy in the country districts, of the state-officials in the towns. Above all, the monarch had the right of impressing them into his service whenever he pleased, and employing them in the "great works" by which he strove to perpetuate his name.

If we shift from the architecture of the time to its social structure, we see that social classes already existed and were as distinct as in later periods. The kings were considered gods and treated with great reverence. The government officials formed a privileged class, often connected to the royal family. The land was partly owned by the king (Gen. xlvii. 6), who had his own workers and herders for it; largely, though, it was controlled by wealthy landowners—nobles who lived in grand houses on their estates, maintaining large households and providing jobs for many peasants, herdsmen, craftsmen, hunters, and fishermen. The "lower classes" were not valued much. They were at the service of the landed nobility in rural areas and the state officials in the towns. Most importantly, the king had the power to conscript them into his service whenever he wanted, using them for the "great works" he hoped would immortalize his name.

GREAT PYRAMID OF SACCARAH (Present appearance). GREAT PYRAMID OF SACCARAH (Present appearance).
SECTION OF THE SAME, SHOWING ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION. SECTION OF THE SAME, SHOWING ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION.

There prevailed, however, a great simplicity of manners. The dress of the upper classes was wonderfully plain and unpretending, presenting little variety and scarcely any ornament. The grandee wore, indeed, an elaborate wig, it being imperative on all men to shave the head for the sake of cleanliness. But otherwise, his costume was of the simplest and the scantiest. Ordinarily, when he was employed in the common duties of life, a short tunic, probably of white linen, reaching from the waist to a little above the knee, was his sole garment. His arms, chest, legs, even his feet, were naked; for sandals, not to speak of stockings or shoes, were unknown. The only decoration which he wore was a chain or riband round the neck, to which was suspended an ornament like a locket—probably an amulet. In his right hand he carried a long staff or wand, either for the purpose of belabouring his inferiors, or else to use it as a walking-stick. On special occasions he made, however, a more elaborate toilet. Doffing his linen tunic, he clothed himself in a single, somewhat scanty, robe, which reached from the neck to the ankles; and having exchanged his chain and locket for a broad collar, and adorned his wrists with bracelets, he was ready to pay visits or to receive company. He had no carriage, so far as appears, not even a palanquin; no horse to ride, nor even a mule or a donkey. The great men of the East rode, in later times, on "white asses" (Judges v. 10); the Egyptian of Sneferu's age had to trudge to court, or to make calls upon his friends, by the sole aid of those means of locomotion which nature had given him.

There was, however, a great simplicity in behavior. The upper class's clothing was incredibly plain and modest, showing little variety and hardly any decoration. The nobleman wore a fancy wig since it was necessary for all men to shave their heads for cleanliness. But aside from that, his outfit was as basic as it gets. Usually, when handling everyday tasks, he wore just a short tunic, likely made of white linen, reaching from the waist to just above the knee. His arms, chest, legs, and even his feet were bare; sandals, let alone stockings or shoes, were unknown. The only accessory he had was a chain or ribbon around his neck, holding a pendant that was probably an amulet. In his right hand, he carried a long staff or wand, either to hit his subordinates or as a walking stick. On special occasions, though, he would dress up a bit more. He would take off his linen tunic and put on a single, but somewhat short, robe that went from his neck to his ankles; after swapping his chain and pendant for a wide collar and adding bracelets to his wrists, he would be ready to visit others or host guests. He did not seem to have a carriage, not even a palanquin; no horse to ride, nor a mule or a donkey. The great men of the East rode, in later times, on "white donkeys" (Judges v. 10); the Egyptian from Sneferu's time had to walk to court or visit friends using only the natural means of moving that he had.

Women, who in most civilized countries claim to themselves far more elaboration in dress and variety of ornament than men, were content, in the Egypt of which we are here speaking, with a costume, and a personal decoration, scarcely less simple than that of their husbands. The Egyptian materfamilias of the time wore her hair long, and gathered into three masses, one behind the head, and the other two in front of either shoulder. Like her spouse, she had but a single garment—a short gown or petticoat reaching from just below the breasts to half way down the calf of the leg, and supported by two broad straps passed over the two shoulders. She exposed her arms and bosom to sight, and her feet were bare, like her husband's. Her only ornaments were bracelets.

Women, who in most modern countries take much more care with their clothing and accessorizing than men, were satisfied, in the Egypt we're discussing, with a style and personal adornment that was almost as simple as that of their husbands. The Egyptian materfamilias of the time wore her hair long, styled in three sections—one at the back of her head and the other two in front of each shoulder. Like her husband, she had just one garment—a short dress or skirt that reached from just below her breasts to halfway down her calves, held up by two wide straps over her shoulders. She showed her arms and chest, and her feet were bare, just like her husband's. Her only accessories were bracelets.

GROUP OF STATUARY, CONSISTING OF A HUSBAND AND WIFE. GROUP OF STATUARY, CONSISTING OF A HUSBAND AND WIFE.

There was no seclusion of women at any time among the ancient Egyptians. The figure of the wife on the early monuments constantly accompanies that of her husband. She is his associate in all his occupations. Her subordination is indicated by her representation being on an unduly smaller scale, and by her ordinary position, which is behind the figure of her "lord and master." In statuary, however, she appears seated with him on the same seat or chair. There is no appearance of her having been either a drudge or a plaything. She was regarded as man's true "helpmate," shared his thoughts, ruled his family, and during their early years had the charge of his children. Polygamy was unknown in Egypt during the primitive period; even the kings had then but one wife. Sneferu's wife was a certain Mertitefs, who bore him a son, Nefer-mat, and after his death became the wife of his successor. Women were entombed with as much care, and almost with as much pomp, as men. Their right to ascend the throne is said to have been asserted by one of the kings who preceded Sneferu; and from time to time women actually exercised in Egypt the royal authority.

There was no seclusion of women at any time among the ancient Egyptians. The figure of the wife on the early monuments consistently appears alongside her husband. She is his partner in all his activities. Her subordination is shown by her being depicted at a noticeably smaller size and by her usual position, which is behind her "lord and master." However, in statues, she is often shown sitting with him on the same seat or chair. There is no indication that she was either a servant or a toy. She was seen as man's true "helpmate," shared his thoughts, managed the household, and during their early years, took care of their children. Polygamy was not practiced in Egypt during the early period; even the kings had only one wife. Sneferu's wife was a woman named Mertitefs, who bore him a son, Nefer-mat, and after his death became the wife of his successor. Women were buried with as much care, and almost as much ceremony, as men. Their right to ascend the throne is said to have been claimed by one of the kings who came before Sneferu; and from time to time, women actually held royal authority in Egypt.


Decorative

IV.

THE PYRAMID BUILDERS.

It is difficult for a European, or an American, who has not visited Egypt, to realize the conception of a Great Pyramid. The pyramidal form has gone entirely out of use as an architectural type of monumental perfection; nay, even as an architectural embellishment. It maintained an honourable position in architecture from its first discovery to the time of the Maccabee kings (1 Mac. xiii. 28); but, never having been adopted by either the Greeks or the Romans, it passed into desuetude in the Old World with the conquest of the East by the West. In the New World it was found existent by the early discoverers, and then held a high place in the regards of the native race which had reached the furthest towards civilization; but Spanish bigotry looked with horror on everything that stood connected with an idolatrous religion, and the pyramids of Mexico were first wantonly injured, and then allowed to fall into such a state of decay, that their original form is by some questioned. A visit to the plains of Teotihuacan will not convey to the mind which is a blank on the subject the true conception of a great pyramid. It requires a pilgrimage to Ghizeh or Saccarah, or a lively and well-instructed imagination, to enable a man to call up before his mind's eye the true form and appearance and impressiveness of such a structure.

It’s hard for a European or an American who hasn’t been to Egypt to truly understand the idea of a Great Pyramid. The pyramid shape has completely fallen out of use as a type of monumental architecture, and even as an architectural feature. It held a respected place in architecture from its discovery until the time of the Maccabee kings (1 Mac. xiii. 28); however, since it was never adopted by the Greeks or Romans, it fell out of fashion in the Old World when the West conquered the East. In the New World, early explorers found it still in existence and it was highly regarded by the native civilizations that had made the most progress toward civilization. But Spanish prejudice viewed anything linked to idolatry with disdain, leading to the wanton destruction of the pyramids in Mexico, which were then neglected to the point that some people question their original form. A trip to the plains of Teotihuacan won’t give someone unfamiliar with the subject the true idea of a great pyramid. You need to visit Ghizeh or Saccarah, or have a lively and well-instructed imagination to truly visualize the shape, appearance, and grandness of such a structure.

Lord Houghton endeavoured to give expression to the feelings of one who sees for the first time these wondrous, these incomprehensible creations in the following lines:

Lord Houghton tried to articulate the feelings of someone who witnesses these amazing, beyond-understanding creations for the first time in the following lines:

After the dreams of many nights,
After the intense desires of many days,
Celebrating as an ancient hermit Finally, I lay at the edge of the desert: Before me stood, in a fantastic display,
The works where humans have competed with Nature the most,
Those Pyramids, that no longer fear decay. Than waves crash against the most rugged coast,
Or winds on mountain slopes, and boast of similar endurance.
Fragments that the flood of old Time has left Behind in its sinking—long, long walls Of cities that have lost their very names,—
Solitary columns, remnants of grand halls,
Richly decorated rooms, where the night dew falls,—
I believe I've seen everything with the appropriate feelings. But not with memorials like these
Of the many forgotten, that can demonstrate
The clothing and style they had four thousand years ago.

The Egyptian idea of a pyramid was that of a structure on a square base, with four inclining sides, each one of which should be an equilateral triangle, all meeting in a point at the top. The structure might be solid, and in that case might be either of hewn stone throughout, or consist of a mass of rubble merely held together by an external casing of stone; or it might contain chambers and passages, in which case the employment of rubble was scarcely possible. It has been demonstrated by actual excavation, that all the great pyramids of Egypt were of the latter character that they were built for the express purpose of containing chambers and passages, and of preserving those chambers and passages intact. They required, therefore, to be, and in most cases are, of a good construction throughout.

The Egyptian concept of a pyramid was a structure with a square base and four sloping sides, each shaped like an equilateral triangle, all converging at a point at the top. The structure could be solid, made entirely of cut stone, or it could be a mass of rubble held together by an outer stone casing; alternatively, it could have chambers and passageways, in which case using rubble was hardly feasible. It has been proven through actual excavations that all the great pyramids of Egypt were designed specifically to contain chambers and passageways, and to keep those chambers and passageways intact. Therefore, they needed to be, and in most cases are, well built throughout.

There are from sixty to seventy pyramids in Egypt, chiefly in the neighbourhood of Memphis. Some of them are nearly perfect, some more or less in ruins, but most of them still preserving their ancient shape, when seen from afar. Two of them greatly exceed all the others in their dimensions, and are appropriately designated as "the Great Pyramid" and "the Second Pyramid." A third in their immediate vicinity is of very inferior size, and scarcely deserves the pre-eminence which has been conceded to it by the designation of "the Third Pyramid."

There are around sixty to seventy pyramids in Egypt, mostly near Memphis. Some of them are almost intact, while others are a bit ruined, but most still keep their ancient shape when viewed from a distance. Two of them are much larger than all the others and are known as "the Great Pyramid" and "the Second Pyramid." A third one nearby is significantly smaller and hardly merits the prominence given to it by being called "the Third Pyramid."

Still, the three seem, all of them, to deserve description, and to challenge a place in "the story of Egypt," which has never yet been told without some account of the marvels of each of them. The smallest of the three was a square of three hundred and fifty-four feet each way, and had a height of two hundred and eighteen feet. It covered an area of two acres, three roods, and twenty-one poles, or about that of an ordinary London square. The cubic contents amounted to above nine million feet of solid masonry, and are calculated to have weighed 702,460 tons. The height was not very impressive. Two hundred and twenty feet is an altitude attained by the towers of many churches, and the "Pyramid of the Sun" at Teotihuacan did not fall much short of it; but the mass was immense, the masonry was excellent, and the ingenuity shown in the construction was great. Sunk in the rock from which the pyramid rose, was a series of sepulchral chambers. One, the largest, almost directly under the apex of the pyramid, was empty. In another, which had an arched roof, constructed in the most careful and elaborate way, was found the sarcophagus of the king, Men-kau-ra, to whom tradition assigned the building, formed of a single mass of blue-black basalt, exquisitely polished and beautifully carved, externally eight feet long, three feet high, and three feet broad, internally six feet by two. In the sarcophagus was the wooden coffin of the monarch, and on the lid of the coffin was his name. The chambers were connected by two long passages with the open air; and another passage had, apparently, been used for the same purpose before the pyramid attained its ultimate size. The tomb-chamber, though carved in the rock, had been paved and lined with slabs of solid stone, which were fastened to the native rock by iron cramps. The weight of the sarcophagus which it contained, now unhappily lost, was three tons.

Still, all three of them deserve a mention and make a case for a spot in "the story of Egypt," which has never truly been told without highlighting the wonders of each one. The smallest of the three was a square that measured three hundred and fifty-four feet on each side and stood two hundred and eighteen feet tall. It covered an area of two acres, three roods, and twenty-one poles, roughly the size of an average London square. The total volume was over nine million cubic feet of solid masonry, weighing about 702,460 tons. The height wasn't particularly striking; two hundred and twenty feet is a height reached by the towers of many churches, and the "Pyramid of the Sun" at Teotihuacan was not much shorter. However, its mass was immense, the masonry was exceptional, and the ingenuity involved in its construction was remarkable. Sunk into the rock from which the pyramid emerged was a series of burial chambers. One, the largest, located almost directly beneath the peak of the pyramid, was empty. In another chamber, which had an arched ceiling meticulously constructed, was the sarcophagus of the king, Men-kau-ra, traditionally credited with its construction. This sarcophagus, made from a single piece of blue-black basalt, was exquisitely polished and beautifully carved, measuring eight feet long, three feet high, and three feet wide on the outside, and six feet by two feet on the inside. Inside the sarcophagus was the wooden coffin of the king, with his name inscribed on the lid. The chambers were linked by two long passages to the outside, and another passage appeared to have been used for the same purpose before the pyramid reached its final size. Although carved from the rock, the tomb chamber was paved and lined with slabs of solid stone, which were secured to the native rock with iron cramps. The weight of the sarcophagus it housed, now sadly lost, was three tons.

SECTION OF THE THIRD PYRAMID, SHOWING PASSAGES. SECTION OF THE THIRD PYRAMID, SHOWING PASSAGES.
TOMB-CHAMBER OF THE THIRD PYRAMID. TOMB-CHAMBER OF THE THIRD PYRAMID.

The "Second Pyramid," which stands to the north-east of the Third, at the distance of about two hundred and seventy yards, was a square of seven hundred and seven feet each way, and thus covered an area of almost eleven acres and a half, or nearly double that of the greatest building which Rome ever produced—the Coliseum. The sides rose at an angle of 52° 10'; and the perpendicular height was four hundred and fifty-four feet, or fifty feet more than that of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral. The cubic contents are estimated at 71,670,000 feet; and their weight is calculated at 5,309,000 tons. Numbers of this vast amount convey but little idea of the reality to an ordinary reader, and require to be made intelligible by comparisons. Suppose, then, a solidly built stone house, with walls a foot thick, twenty feet of frontage, and thirty feet of depth from front to back; let the walls be twenty-four feet high and have a foundation of six feet; throw in party-walls to one-third the extent of the main walls—and the result will be a building containing four thousand cubic feet of masonry. Let there be a town of eighteen thousand such houses, suited to be the abode of a hundred thousand inhabitants—then pull these houses to pieces, and pile them up into a heap to a height exceeding that of the spire of the Cathedral of Vienna, and you will have a rough representation of the "Second Pyramid of Ghizeh." Or lay down the contents of the structure in a line a foot in breadth and depth—the line would be above 13,500 miles long, and would reach more than half-way round the earth at the equator. Again, suppose that a single man can quarry a ton of stone in a week, then it would have required above twenty thousand to be employed constantly for five years in order to obtain the material for the pyramid; and if the blocks were required to be large, the number employed and the time occupied would have had to be greater.

The "Second Pyramid," located to the northeast of the Third Pyramid and about two hundred seventy yards away, is a square measuring seven hundred seven feet on each side, covering an area of almost eleven and a half acres—nearly double that of the greatest structure ever built in Rome, the Coliseum. The sides rise at an angle of 52° 10', and the height is four hundred fifty-four feet, which is fifty feet taller than the spire of Salisbury Cathedral. The estimated cubic volume is 71,670,000 cubic feet, with a weight of approximately 5,309,000 tons. These massive numbers can be hard for the average person to grasp, so let’s make it relatable with comparisons. Imagine a solidly built stone house with walls one foot thick, twenty feet wide, and thirty feet deep; the walls being twenty-four feet high and having a six-foot foundation, along with party walls covering one-third of the main walls—this would result in a building with four thousand cubic feet of masonry. Now, picture a town with eighteen thousand such houses, designed for a hundred thousand people. If you tore these houses down and piled the rubble into a heap higher than the spire of the Cathedral of Vienna, you’d have a rough idea of the "Second Pyramid of Ghizeh." Alternatively, if you laid out the pyramid's total volume in a line one foot wide and one foot deep, that line would stretch over 13,500 miles, reaching more than halfway around the Earth at the equator. Furthermore, if one person can quarry a ton of stone in a week, it would take more than twenty thousand people working continuously for five years to gather enough material for the pyramid; and if larger blocks were needed, the number of workers and the time required would increase even more.

The internal construction of the "Second Pyramid" is less elaborate than that of the Third, but not very different. Two passages lead from the outer air to a sepulchral chamber almost exactly under the apex of the pyramid, and exactly at its base, one of them commencing about fifty feet from the base midway in the north side, and the other commencing a little outside the base, in the pavement at the foot of the pyramid. The first passage was carried through the substance of the pyramid for a distance of a hundred and ten feet at a descending angle of 25° 55', after which it became horizontal, and was tunnelled through the native rock on which the pyramid was built. The second passage was wholly in the rock. It began with a descent at an angle of 21° 40', which continued for a hundred feet; it was then horizontal for fifty feet; after which it ascended gently for ninety-six feet, and joined the first passage about midway between the sepulchral chamber and the outer air. The sepulchral chamber was carved mainly out of the solid rock below the pyramid, but was roofed in by some of the basement stones, which were sloped at an angle. The chamber measured forty-six feet in length and sixteen feet in breadth; its height in the centre was twenty-two feet. It contained a plain granite sarcophagus, without inscription of any kind, eight feet and a half in length, three feet and a half in breadth, and in depth three feet. There was no coffin in the sarcophagus at the time of its discovery, and no inscription on any part of the pyramid or of its contents. The tradition, however, which ascribed it to the immediate predecessor of Men-kau-ra, may be accepted as sufficient evidence of its author.

The internal structure of the "Second Pyramid" is simpler than that of the Third, but not significantly different. Two passages connect the outside to a burial chamber located almost directly beneath the peak of the pyramid. One passage starts about fifty feet from the base midway on the north side, while the other begins just outside the base, in the pavement at the foot of the pyramid. The first passage runs through the pyramid for a distance of one hundred and ten feet at a downward angle of 25° 55', after which it becomes horizontal and continues through the native rock beneath the pyramid. The second passage is fully in the rock. It starts with a descent at an angle of 21° 40', continuing for a hundred feet; then it levels off for fifty feet; and finally, it rises gently for ninety-six feet, connecting with the first passage about halfway between the burial chamber and the outside. The burial chamber was mostly carved from the solid rock beneath the pyramid but was covered by some of the basement stones, which were sloped. The chamber is forty-six feet long and sixteen feet wide, with a height of twenty-two feet at the center. Inside, there is a simple granite sarcophagus, which has no inscriptions, measuring eight feet and a half long, three feet and a half wide, and three feet deep. When it was discovered, there was no coffin inside the sarcophagus, and nothing was inscribed on the pyramid or its contents. However, the tradition that attributes this burial to the immediate predecessor of Men-kau-ra may be considered sufficient evidence of its origin.

SARCOPHAGUS OF MYCERINUS. SARCOPHAGUS OF MYCERINUS.
SECTION OF THE SECOND PYRAMID. SECTION OF THE SECOND PYRAMID.

Come we now to the "Great Pyramid," "which is still," says Lenormant, "at least in respect of its mass, the most prodigious of all human constructions," The "Great Pyramid," or "First Pyramid of Ghizeh," as it is indifferently termed, is situated almost due north-east of the "Second Pyramid," at the distance of about two hundred yards. The length of each side at the base was originally seven hundred and sixty-four feet, or fifty-seven feet more than that of the sides of the "Second Pyramid." Its original perpendicular height was something over four hundred and eighty feet, its cubic contents exceeded eighty-nine million feet, and the weight of its mass 6,840,000 tons. In height it thus exceeded Strasburg Cathedral by above six feet, St. Peter's at Rome by above thirty feet, St. Stephen's at Vienna by fifty feet St. Paul's, London, by a hundred and twenty feet, and the Capitol at Washington by nearly two hundred feet. Its area was thirteen acres, one rood, and twenty-two poles, or nearly two acres more than the area of the "Second Pyramid." which was fourfold that of the "Third Pyramid," which, as we have seen, was that of an ordinary London square. Its cubic contents would build a city of twenty-two thousand such houses as were above described, and laid in a line of cubic squares would reach a distance of nearly seventeen thousand miles, or girdle two-thirds of the earth's circumference at the equator. Herodotus says that its construction required the continuous labour of a hundred thousand men for the space of twenty years, and moderns do not regard the estimate as exaggerated.

Now let’s talk about the "Great Pyramid," which, according to Lenormant, "is still, at least in terms of its mass, the most extraordinary of all human constructions." The "Great Pyramid," or "First Pyramid of Giza," as it’s often called, is located almost directly northeast of the "Second Pyramid," about two hundred yards away. Each side of its base was originally seven hundred sixty-four feet long, which is fifty-seven feet longer than the sides of the "Second Pyramid." Its initial height was slightly over four hundred eighty feet, it had a volume exceeding eighty-nine million cubic feet, and it weighed 6,840,000 tons. It was taller than Strasbourg Cathedral by more than six feet, St. Peter's in Rome by more than thirty feet, St. Stephen's in Vienna by fifty feet, St. Paul's in London by one hundred twenty feet, and the Capitol in Washington by nearly two hundred feet. Its area was thirteen acres, one rood, and twenty-two poles, which is about two acres more than the "Second Pyramid," and it was four times that of the "Third Pyramid," which we noted was about the size of a typical London square. Its volume could build a city of twenty-two thousand houses like those described above, and if arranged in a line of cubic squares, they would stretch nearly seventeen thousand miles, or circle two-thirds of the Earth's circumference at the equator. Herodotus notes that its construction required the continuous labor of a hundred thousand men over twenty years, and modern estimates don’t find that figure to be exaggerated.

The "Great Pyramid" presents, moreover, many other marvels besides its size. First, there is the massiveness of the blocks of which it is composed. The basement stones are in many cases thirty feet long by five feet high, and four or five wide: they must contain from six hundred to seven hundred and fifty cubic feet each, and weigh from forty-six to fifty-seven tons. The granite blocks which roof over the upper sepulchral chamber are nearly nineteen feet long, by two broad and from three to four deep. The relieving stones above the same chamber, and those of the entrance passage, are almost equally massive. Generally the external blocks are of a size with which modern builders scarcely ever venture to deal, though the massiveness diminishes as the pyramid is ascended. The bulk of the interior is, however, of comparatively small stones; but even these are carefully hewn and squared, so as to fit together compactly.

The "Great Pyramid" displays many other wonders beyond its size. First, there’s the sheer mass of the blocks it’s made of. The base stones are often thirty feet long, five feet high, and four or five feet wide; each one contains about six hundred to seven hundred and fifty cubic feet and weighs between forty-six and fifty-seven tons. The granite blocks that cover the upper burial chamber are almost nineteen feet long, two feet wide, and three to four feet deep. The stones above that chamber and those at the entrance are similarly massive. Overall, the outer blocks are much larger than what modern builders typically handle, although the size decreases as you move up the pyramid. The majority of the interior consists of smaller stones, but even these are carefully shaped and squared to fit together tightly.

SECTION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID. SECTION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID.

Further, there are the passages, the long gallery, the ventilation shafts, and the sepulchral chambers all of them remarkable, and some of them simply astonishing. The "Great Pyramid" guards three chambers. One lies deep in the rock, about a hundred and twenty feet beneath the natural surface of the ground, and is placed almost directly below the apex of the structure. It measures forty-six feet by twenty-seven, and is eleven feet high. The access to it is by a long and narrow passage which commences in the north side of the pyramid, about seventy feet above the original base, and descends for forty yards through the masonry, and then for seventy more in the same line through the solid rock, when it changes its direction, becoming horizontal for nine yards, and so entering the chamber itself. The two other chambers are reached by an ascending passage, which branches off from the descending one at the distance of about thirty yards from the entrance, and mounts up through the heart of the pyramid for rather more than forty yards, when it divides into two. A low horizontal gallery, a hundred and ten feet long, leads to a chamber which has been called "the Queen's"—a room about nineteen feet long by seventeen broad, roofed in with sloping blocks, and having a height of twenty feet in the centre. Another longer and much loftier gallery continues on for a hundred and fifty feet in the line of the ascending passage, and is then connected by a short horizontal passage with the upper-most or "King's Chamber." Here was found a sarcophagus believed to be that of King Khufu, since the name of Khufu was scrawled in more than one place on the chamber walls.

Additionally, there are the corridors, the long gallery, the ventilation shafts, and the burial chambers, all of which are remarkable, with some being simply astonishing. The "Great Pyramid" contains three chambers. One is located deep in the rock, about a hundred and twenty feet below the natural ground surface, situated almost directly beneath the peak of the pyramid. It measures forty-six feet by twenty-seven feet and stands eleven feet high. Access to this chamber is through a long and narrow passage that starts on the north side of the pyramid, about seventy feet above the original base. It descends for forty yards through the masonry and then for another seventy yards in the same direction through solid rock, after which it shifts direction to become horizontal for nine yards, finally leading into the chamber itself. The other two chambers are accessed via an ascending passage that branches off from the descending one about thirty yards from the entrance, rising through the center of the pyramid for just over forty yards before splitting into two. A low horizontal gallery, one hundred and ten feet long, leads to a chamber known as "the Queen's"—a room about nineteen feet long and seventeen feet wide, covered by sloping blocks and reaching a height of twenty feet at the center. Another longer and much taller gallery extends for one hundred and fifty feet in line with the ascending passage and is then connected by a short horizontal passage to the uppermost or "King's Chamber." A sarcophagus thought to belong to King Khufu was found here, as the name Khufu was inscribed in multiple locations on the chamber walls.

KING'S CHAMBER AND CHAMBERS OF CONSTRUCTION, GREAT PYRAMID. KING'S CHAMBER AND CHAMBERS OF CONSTRUCTION, GREAT PYRAMID.

The construction of this chamber—the very kernel of the whole building—is exceedingly remarkable. It is a room of thirty-four feet in length, with a width of seventeen feet, and a height of nineteen, composed wholly of granite blocks of great size, beautifully polished, and fitted together with great care. The construction of the roof is particularly admirable. First, the chamber is covered in with nine huge blocks, each nearly nineteen feet long and four feet wide, which are laid side by side upon the walls so as to form a complete ceiling. Then above these blocks is a low chamber similarly covered in, and this is repeated four times; after which there is a fifth opening, triangular, and roofed in by a set of huge sloping blocks, which meet at the apex and support each other. The object is to relieve the chamber from any superincumbent weight, and prevent it from being crushed in by the mass of material above it; and this object has been so completely attained that still, at the expiration of above forty centuries, the entire chamber, with its elaborate roof, remains intact, without crack or settlement of any kind.

The construction of this chamber—the core of the entire building—is truly impressive. It's a room thirty-four feet long, seventeen feet wide, and nineteen feet high, made entirely of large, beautifully polished granite blocks that are meticulously fitted together. The design of the roof is especially remarkable. First, the chamber is topped with nine massive blocks, each nearly nineteen feet long and four feet wide, arranged side by side to create a complete ceiling. Above these blocks is a lower chamber similarly covered, repeated four times; after that, there is a fifth triangular opening, roofed by a set of large sloping blocks that meet at the top and support one another. This design is intended to relieve the chamber of any excess weight and prevent it from being crushed by the heavy material above; this goal has been so well achieved that even after over forty centuries, the entire chamber, along with its intricate roof, remains intact, without any cracks or settling.

GALLERY IN THE GREAT PYRAMID. GALLERY IN THE GREAT PYRAMID.

Further, from the great chamber are carried two ventilation-shafts, or air-passages, northwards and southwards, which open on the outer surface of the pyramid, and are respectively two hundred and thirty-three and one hundred and ninety-four feet long. These passages are square, or nearly so, and have a diameter varying between six and nine inches. They give a continual supply of pure air to the chamber, and keep it dry at all seasons.

Further, from the great chamber, there are two ventilation shafts, or air passages, that extend north and south, opening on the outer surface of the pyramid. These shafts are two hundred thirty-three and one hundred ninety-four feet long, respectively. They are square, or nearly so, with a diameter ranging from six to nine inches. They provide a constant supply of fresh air to the chamber and keep it dry all year round.

The Great Gallery is also of curious construction. Extending for a distance of one hundred and fifty feet, and rising at an angle of 26° 18', it has a width of five feet at the base and a height of above thirty feet. The side walls are formed of seven layers of stone, each projecting a few inches over that below it. The gallery thus gradually contracts towards the top, which has a width of four feet only, and is covered in with stones that reach across it, and rest on the walls at either side. The exact object of so lofty a gallery has not been ascertained; but it must have helped to keep the air of the interior pure and sweet, by increasing the space through which it had to circulate.

The Great Gallery is also quite uniquely built. It stretches for about one hundred and fifty feet and rises at a 26° 18' angle, with a width of five feet at the base and a height of over thirty feet. The side walls consist of seven layers of stone, each sticking out a few inches over the one below it. This design causes the gallery to gradually narrow toward the top, which is only four feet wide and covered with stones that span across it and rest against the walls on either side. The exact purpose of such a tall gallery isn't known, but it likely helped keep the air inside fresh and clean by increasing the space for airflow.

The "Pyramid Builders," or kings who constructed the three monuments that have now been described, were, according to a unanimous tradition, three consecutive monarchs, whose native names are read as Khufu, Shafra, and Menkaura. These kings belonged to Manetho's fourth dynasty; and Khufu, the first of the three, seems to have been the immediate successor of Sneferu. Theorists have delighted to indulge in speculations as to the objects which the builders had in view when they raised such magnificent constructions. One holds that the Great Pyramid, at any rate, was built to embody cosmic discoveries, as the exact length of the earth's diameter and circumference, the length of an arc of the meridian, and the true unit of measure. Another believes the great work of Khufu to have been an observatory, and the ventilating passages to have been designed for "telescopes," through which observations were to be made upon the sun and stars; but it has not yet been shown that there is any valid foundation for these fancies, which have been spun with much art out of the delicate fabric of their propounders' brains. The one hard fact which rests upon abundant evidence is this—the pyramids were built for tombs, to contain the mummies of deceased Egyptians. The chambers in their interiors, at the time of their discovery, held within them sarcophagi, and in one instance the sarcophagus had within it a coffin. The coffin had an inscription upon it, which showed that it had once contained the body of a king. If anything more is necessary, we may add that every pyramid in Egypt—and there are, as he have said, more than sixty of them—was built for the same purpose, and that they all occupy sites in the great necropolis, or burial-ground opposite Memphis, where the inhabitants are known to have laid their dead.

The "Pyramid Builders," or kings who built the three monuments described earlier, were, according to a widely accepted tradition, three consecutive rulers named Khufu, Shafra, and Menkaura. These kings were part of Manetho's fourth dynasty, and Khufu, the first of the three, seems to have been the immediate successor of Sneferu. Theorists have enjoyed speculating about what the builders intended when they created such magnificent structures. Some believe that the Great Pyramid was built to reflect cosmic discoveries, including the exact measurements of the earth's diameter and circumference, the length of an arc of the meridian, and the true unit of measure. Others think that Khufu's great work was an observatory, with the ventilating passages designed for "telescopes" to observe the sun and stars; however, there's no solid evidence supporting these imaginative theories, which seem to be crafted from the creators' own minds. The one undeniable fact, backed by substantial evidence, is that the pyramids were built as tombs to hold the mummies of deceased Egyptians. The chambers inside them, at the time they were found, contained sarcophagi, and in one case, the sarcophagus held a coffin. This coffin had an inscription indicating that it once contained the body of a king. Additionally, it can be noted that every pyramid in Egypt—and there are more than sixty of them—was built for the same purpose, and they all sit in the great necropolis, or burial ground, across from Memphis, where the locals are known to have laid their dead.

The marvel is, how Khufu came suddenly to have so magnificent a thought as that of constructing an edifice double the height of any previously existing, covering five times the area, and containing ten times the mass. Architecture does not generally proceed by "leaps and bounds;" but here was a case of a sudden extraordinary advance, such as we shall find it difficult to parallel elsewhere. An attempt has been made to solve the mystery by the supposition that all pyramids were gradual accretions, and that their size marks simply the length of a king's reign, each monarch making his sepulchral chamber, with a small pyramid above it, in his first year, and as his reign went on, adding each year an outer coating; so that the number of these coatings tells the length of his reign, as the age of a tree is known from the number of its annual rings. In this case there would have been nothing ideally great in the conception of Khufu—he would simply have happened to erect the biggest pyramid because he happened to have the longest reign; but, except in the case of the "Third Pyramid," there is a unity of design in the structures which implies that the architect had conceived the whole structure in his mind from the first. The lengths of the several parts are proportioned one to another. In the "Great Pyramid," the main chamber would not have needed the five relieving chambers above it unless it was known that it would have to be pressed down by a superincumbent mass, such as actually lies upon it. Moreover, how is it possible to conceive that in the later years of a decrepid monarch, the whole of an enormous pyramid could be coated over with huge blocks—and the blocks are largest at the external surface—the work requiring to be pushed each year with more vigour, as becoming each year greater and more difficult? Again, what shall we say of the external finish? Each pyramid was finally smoothed down to a uniform sloping surface. This alone must have been a work of years. Did a pyramid builder leave it to his successor to finish his pyramid? It is at least doubtful whether any pyramid at all would ever have been finished had he done so.

The amazing thing is how Khufu suddenly came up with such a grand idea as building a structure twice as tall as any that had existed before, covering five times the area, and containing ten times the mass. Architecture doesn’t usually change in such drastic leaps, but this is an example of an extraordinary advancement that’s hard to find parallels for elsewhere. Some have tried to explain the mystery by suggesting that all pyramids were built gradually, with their size simply reflecting the length of a king's reign. In this view, each ruler would create their burial chamber with a small pyramid on top during their first year, and then add an outer layer each subsequent year. The number of these layers would indicate the length of their reign, much like counting the rings of a tree to determine its age. If this were the case, there would be nothing exceptionally great about Khufu’s idea—he would have just built the largest pyramid because he had the longest reign. However, apart from the "Third Pyramid," there is a clear unity of design in the structures, suggesting that the architect envisioned the entire design from the beginning. The lengths of different parts are proportioned to each other. In the "Great Pyramid," the main chamber wouldn’t have needed the five relieving chambers above it unless it was understood that it would have to be pressed down by the heavy mass above, which actually rests on it. Furthermore, how can we believe that in the late years of a frail king, the entire massive pyramid could be covered with huge blocks—especially since the largest blocks are on the exterior surface? The work would have required increasing effort each year as it became larger and more challenging. Additionally, what about the outer finish? Each pyramid was finally smoothed to a uniform sloping surface. This alone must have taken years to complete. Did a pyramid builder really leave it to his successor to finish his pyramid? It's doubtful whether any pyramid would have ever been completed if that had been the case.

We must hold, therefore, that Khufu did suddenly conceive a design without a parallel—did require his architect to construct him a tomb, which should put to shame all previous monuments, and should with difficulty be surpassed, or even equalled. He must have possessed much elevation of thought, and an intense ambition, together with inordinate selfishness, an overweening pride, and entire callousness to the sufferings of others, before he could have approved the plan which his master-builder set before him. That plan, including the employment of huge blocks of stone, their conveyance to the top of a hill a hundred feet high, and their emplacement, in some cases, at a further elevation of above 450 feet, involved, under the circumstances of the time, such an amount of human suffering, that no king who had any regard for the happiness of his subjects could have consented to it. Khufu must have forced his subjects to labour for a long term of years—twenty, according to Herodotus—at a servile work which was wholly unproductive, and was carried on amid their sighs and groans for no object but his own glorification, and the supposed safe custody of his remains. Shafra must have done nearly the same. Hence an evil repute attached to the pyramid builders, whose names were handed down to posterity as those of evil-minded and impious kings, who neglected the service of the gods to gratify their own vanity, and, so long as they could exalt themselves, did not care how much they oppressed their people. There was not even the poor apology for their conduct that their oppression fell on slaves, or foreigners, or prisoners of war. Egypt was not yet a conquering power; prisoners of war were few, slaves not very common. The labourers whom the pyramid builders employed were their own free subjects whom they impressed into the heavy service.

We must accept that Khufu suddenly came up with a unique plan—he asked his architect to build him a tomb that would outshine all previous monuments and be very difficult to surpass or even match. He must have had lofty aspirations, intense ambition, along with extreme selfishness, overwhelming pride, and complete indifference to the suffering of others to approve the plan his master-builder presented to him. The plan, which involved using massive stone blocks, transporting them to the top of a hill that was one hundred feet high, and placing them even higher at points exceeding four hundred fifty feet, included such a level of human suffering that no king who cared about his subjects' happiness could have agreed to it. Khufu must have compelled his subjects to work for many years—twenty, according to Herodotus—doing a laborious task that was completely unproductive and being conducted amid their sighs and groans solely for his own glorification and to ensure his remains were kept safe. Shafra likely did something similar. Because of this, a bad reputation was attached to the pyramid builders, and their names were passed down through history as those of cruel and godless kings who ignored the service of the gods to satisfy their own vanity, caring little about how much they oppressed their people as long as they could elevate themselves. There wasn't even the weak justification that their oppression affected only slaves, foreigners, or prisoners of war. Egypt was not yet a conquering nation; there were few prisoners of war, and slaves were not very common. The laborers employed by the pyramid builders were their own free subjects whom they forced into hard labor.

It is by a just Nemesis that the kings have in a great measure failed to secure the ends at which they aimed, and in hope of which they steeled their hearts against their subjects' cries. They have indeed handed down their names to a remote age: but it is as tyrants and oppressors. They are world-famous, or rather world-infamous. But that preservation of their corporeal frame which they especially sought, is exactly what they have missed attaining.

It is through a fair retribution that the kings have largely been unable to achieve their goals and have instead hardened their hearts against their people's pleas. They have certainly made their names known for generations to come, but as tyrants and oppressors. They are famous worldwide, or rather infamous. However, the preservation of their physical bodies, which they specifically sought, is precisely what they have failed to achieve.

Don’t let a monument give us false hopes,
Since not a speck of dust is left of Cheôps,

says the doggerel of the satiric Byron; and it is the absolute fact that while thousands of mummies buried in common graves remain untouched even to the present day, the very grandeur of the pyramid builders' tombs attracted attention to them, caused the monuments to be opened, the sarcophagi to be rifled, and the remains inclosed in them to be dispersed to the four winds of heaven.

says the doggerel of the satirical Byron; and it is the absolute fact that while thousands of mummies buried in common graves remain untouched even today, the sheer magnificence of the pyramid builders' tombs drew attention to them, leading to the monuments being opened, the sarcophagi being looted, and the remains within them being scattered to the four winds.

Still, whatever gloomy associations attach to the pyramids in respect of the sufferings caused by their erection, as monuments they must always challenge a certain amount of admiration. A great authority declares: "No one can possibly examine the interior of the Great Pyramid without being struck with astonishment at the wonderful mechanical skill displayed in its construction. The immense blocks of granite brought from Syene, a distance of five hundred miles, polished like glass, and so fitted that the joints can scarcely be detected! Nothing can be more wonderful than the extraordinary amount of knowledge displayed in the construction of the discharging chambers over the roof of the principal apartment, in the alignment of the sloping galleries, in the provision of the ventilating shafts, and in all the wonderful contrivances of the structure. All these, too, are carried out with such precision that, notwithstanding the immense superincumbent weight, no settlement in any part can be detected to an appreciable fraction of an inch. Nothing more perfect mechanically has ever been erected since that time."[8]

Still, no matter the dark thoughts people have about the suffering caused by building the pyramids, they will always inspire a level of admiration as monuments. A respected expert states: “No one can look inside the Great Pyramid without being amazed by the incredible engineering skill shown in its construction. The massive granite blocks brought from Syene, five hundred miles away, are polished like glass and fit together so perfectly that the seams are hardly noticeable! The remarkable amount of knowledge used in building the discharge chambers over the main room, the alignment of the sloping passages, the creation of ventilation shafts, and all the impressive features of the structure is truly remarkable. All of this was done with such precision that, despite the immense weight on top, no noticeable settling can be detected within even a fraction of an inch. Nothing as mechanically perfect has ever been built since that time.”[8]

VIEW OF THE GREAT AND SECOND PYRAMIDS. VIEW OF THE GREAT AND SECOND PYRAMIDS.

The architectural effect of the two greatest of the pyramids is certainly magnificent. They do not greatly impress the beholder at first sight, for a pyramid, by the very law of its formation, never looks as large as it is—it slopes away from the eye in every direction, and eludes rather than courts observation. But as the spectator gazes, as he prolongs his examination and inspection, the pyramids gain upon him, their impressiveness increases. By the vastness of their mass, by the impression of solidity and durability which they produce, partly also, perhaps, by the symmetry and harmony of their lines and their perfect simplicity and freedom from ornament, they convey to the beholder a sense of grandeur and majesty, they produce within him a feeling of astonishment and awe, such as is scarcely caused by any other of the erections of man. In all ages travellers have felt and expressed the warmest admiration for them. They impressed Herodotus as no works that he had seen elsewhere, except, perhaps, the Babylonian. They astonished Germanicus, familiar as he was with the great constructions of Rome. They furnished Napoleon with the telling phrase, "Soldiers, forty centuries look down upon you from the top of the pyramids." Greece and Rome reckoned them among the Seven Wonders of the world. Moderns have doubted whether they could really be the work of human hands. If they possess only one of the elements of architectural excellence, they possess that element to so great an extent that in respect of it they are unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable.

The architectural impact of the two largest pyramids is definitely stunning. At first glance, they don't seem as impressive because a pyramid, by its very design, never looks as big as it really is—it slopes away from the eye in all directions, avoiding rather than inviting attention. But as the viewer gazes and takes in their details, the pyramids grow on him, their impressiveness increases. Their massive scale, the sense of solidity and durability they project, and perhaps the symmetry and harmony of their lines combined with their perfect simplicity and lack of decoration give the observer a feeling of grandeur and majesty. They evoke astonishment and awe, feelings that are rarely inspired by other human constructions. Throughout history, travelers have expressed their admiration for them. Herodotus was deeply impressed, considering them unique compared to anything else he had seen, except maybe the ones in Babylon. Germanicus was taken aback, despite being familiar with the great structures of Rome. Napoleon famously remarked, "Soldiers, forty centuries look down upon you from the top of the pyramids." Greece and Rome included them among the Seven Wonders of the World. Modern scholars have questioned whether they could truly be human-made. If they possess only one aspect of architectural excellence, they do so to such an extent that they are unrivaled and likely unbeatable in that respect.

These remarks apply especially to the first and second pyramids. The "Third" is not a work of any very extraordinary grandeur. The bulk is not greater than that of the chief pyramid of Saccarah, which has never attracted much attention; and the height did not greatly exceed that of the chief Mexican temple-mound. Moreover, the stones of which the pyramid was composed are not excessively massive. The monument aimed at being beautiful rather than grand. It was coated for half its height with blocks of pink granite from Syene, bevelled at the edges, which remain still in place on two sides of the structure. The entrance to it, on the north side, was conspicuous, and seems to have had a metal ornamentation let into the stone. The sepulchral chamber was beautifully lined and roofed, and the sarcophagus was exquisitively carved. Menkaura, the constructor, was not regarded as a tyrant, or an oppressor, but as a mild and religious monarch, whom the gods ill-used by giving him too short a reign. His religious temper is indicated by the inscription on the coffin which contained his remains: "O Osiris," it reads, "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkaura, living eternally, engendered by the Heaven, born of Nut, substance of Seb, thy mother Nut stretches herself over thee in her name of the abyss of heaven. She renders thee divine by destroying all thy enemies, O King Menkaura, living eternally."

These comments mainly apply to the first and second pyramids. The "Third" pyramid isn't particularly grand. Its size isn't much larger than that of the main pyramid at Saccarah, which hasn't really caught much attention; and its height isn't significantly greater than that of the main Mexican temple mound. Also, the stones used to build the pyramid aren't excessively large. The monument aimed to be beautiful rather than impressive. It was covered for half its height with blocks of pink granite from Syene, beveled at the edges, which are still in place on two sides of the structure. The entrance on the north side was noticeable and seems to have had metal decorations set into the stone. The burial chamber was beautifully lined and roofed, and the sarcophagus was exquisitely carved. Menkaura, the builder, was not seen as a tyrant or oppressor but rather as a gentle and religious king, whom the gods treated poorly by giving him a short reign. His religious nature is reflected in the inscription on the coffin that held his remains: "O Osiris," it reads, "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkaura, living eternally, begotten by Heaven, born of Nut, substance of Seb, your mother Nut stretches herself over you in her name of the abyss of heaven. She makes you divine by destroying all your enemies, O King Menkaura, living eternally."

The fashion of burying in pyramids continued to the close of Manetho's sixth dynasty, but no later monarchs rivalled the great works of Khufu and Shafra. The tombs of their successors were monuments of a moderate size, involving no oppression of the people, but perhaps rather improving their condition by causing a rise in the rate of wages. Certainly, the native remains of the period give a cheerful representation of the condition of all classes. The nation for the most part enjoys peace, and applies itself to production. The wealth of the nobles increases, and the position of their dependents is improved. Slaves were few, and there was ample employment for the labouring classes. We do not see the stick at work upon the backs of the labourers in the sculptures of the time; they seem to accomplish their various tasks with alacrity and gaiety of heart. They plough, and hoe, and reap; drive cattle or asses; winnow and store corn; gather grapes and tread them, singing in chorus as they tread; cluster round the winepress or the threshingfloor, on which the animals tramp out the grain; gather lotuses; save cattle from the inundation; engage in fowling or fishing; and do all with an apparent readiness and cheerfulness which seems indicative of real content. There may have been a darker side to the picture, and undoubtedly was while Khufu and Shafra held the throne; but kings of a morose and cruel temper seem to have been the exception, rather than the rule, in Egypt; and the moral code, which required kindness to be shown to dependents, seems, at this period at any rate, to have had a hold upon the consciences, and to have influenced the conduct, of the mass of the people. "Happy the nation that has no history!" Egypt during this golden age was neither assailed by any aggressive power beyond her borders, nor had herself conceived the idea of distant conquest. An occasional raid upon the negroes of the South, or chastisement of the nomades of the East, secured her interests in those quarters, and prevented her warlike virtues from dying out through lack of use. But otherwise tranquillity was undisturbed, and the energies of the nation were directed to increasing its material prosperity, and to progress in the arts.

The practice of burying in pyramids lasted until the end of Manetho's sixth dynasty, but no later kings matched the great achievements of Khufu and Shafra. The tombs of their successors were smaller, not burdening the people, and perhaps even improving their lives by raising wages. Certainly, the artifacts from this period reflect a positive view of the well-being of all social classes. For the most part, the country enjoyed peace and focused on production. The wealth of the nobles grew, and the situation of their dependents improved. There were few slaves, and there were plenty of jobs for the working class. The laborers aren’t depicted with punishment in the sculptures from this time; they seem to accomplish their tasks with eagerness and joy. They plow, hoe, and reap; take care of cattle or donkeys; winnow and store grain; gather grapes and stomp on them, singing in harmony as they work; gather around the winepress or the threshing floor where animals stamp out the grain; collect lotuses; save livestock from floods; engage in hunting or fishing; and all of this is done with a readiness and cheerfulness that suggest true happiness. There might have been a darker side to this scene, especially while Khufu and Shafra were on the throne, but kings with a cruel temperament seem to have been rare in Egypt; the moral code that called for kindness toward dependents seems to have influenced the behavior of most people during this time. "Happy the nation that has no history!" During this golden age, Egypt faced no threats from aggressive powers outside its borders, nor did it seek distant conquests. Occasional raids on the southern negroes or punishment of the nomads in the East were enough to protect her interests in those areas and kept her military skills sharp. Otherwise, peace prevailed, and the nation focused on boosting its material prosperity and advancing in the arts.

Among the marvels of Egypt perhaps the Sphinx is second to none. The mysterious being with the head of a man and the body of a lion is not at all uncommon in Egyptian architectural adornment, but the one placed before the Second Pyramid (the Pyramid of Shafra), and supposed to be contemporary with it, astonishes the observer by its gigantic proportions. It is known to the Arabs as Abul-hôl, the father of terror. It measures more than one hundred feet in length, and was partially carved from the rocks of the Lybian hills. Between its out-stretched feet there stands a chapel, uncovered in 1816, three walls of which are formed by tablets bearing inscriptions indicative of its use and origin.

Among the wonders of Egypt, the Sphinx might be the most remarkable. This mysterious figure, with a human head and a lion's body, is not unusual in Egyptian architecture, but the one in front of the Second Pyramid (the Pyramid of Shafra), believed to have been built at the same time, amazes onlookers with its massive size. It's called Abul-hôl by the Arabs, meaning "father of terror." The Sphinx measures over one hundred feet long and was partly carved from the rocks of the Libyan hills. Between its outstretched feet stands a chapel, uncovered in 1816, with three walls made up of tablets that have inscriptions showing its purpose and history.

A small temple behind the great Sphinx, probably also built by Shafra, is formed of great blocks of the hardest red granite, brought from the neighbourhood of Syene and fitted to each other with a nicety astonishing to modern architects, who are unable to imagine what tools could have proved equal to the difficult achievement. Mysterious passages pierce the great Sphinx and connect it with the Second Pyramid, three hundred feet west of it. In the face of this mystery all questions are vain, and yet every visitor adds new queries to those that others have asked before him.

A small temple behind the great Sphinx, likely also built by Shafra, is made of huge blocks of the hardest red granite, sourced from the area near Syene, and they fit together with an impressive precision that amazes modern architects, who struggle to conceive of the tools used to accomplish such a feat. Mysterious passages run through the great Sphinx and connect it to the Second Pyramid, located three hundred feet west of it. In the face of this mystery, all questions seem pointless, yet every visitor adds new inquiries to those that others have raised before them.

Since what year Have you been on watch and guard,
And over the buried land of fear
So seriously held your guard? No unfaithful sleep stealing, Still silent but brave,
Like a fierce dog, watching for a long time
Above her master's grave....
Are you in pain like this? Still obsessed with Oedipus?
And create puzzles to confuse once more,
And dull the blind
Dull minds of humanity,
And only make your moan,
That, among the hated crew,
Whom you have troubled for so long,
Confuse and baffle,
Could you still find someone subtler than yourself?
Even now; I think that those Dark, thick lips that close In such a serious stillness, Seems weighed down by some unspoken thought,
And store up fear within their gates. A hidden secret there,
Which to the attentive earth She might not whisper. Not even to the sky!
Of terrible hidden wonders In that scary Pyramid,
The house of magic fears; Of vast and lonely chambers,
Watched only by the Genii,
Who take care of their masters' long-forgotten coffins,
And treasures that have gleamed On cave walls alone,
For thousands of years.
If only she would speak up. She knows. Of the ancient Pharaohs; You could count the long line of Ptolemies; Each great myth's original has been seen,
Apis, Anubis—ghosts that linger between The savage and the divine,—
(Such is the one who sleeps in Philæ,—the one who stands In the darkness, unrecognized, beneath his carved path,—
And those who sit on the sands of Memnon,
Cast their long shadows over the desert plain:)
Has marked Nitocris pass,
And Oxymandyas Well-versed in many dark Egyptian tricks,—
The Hebrew boy has stared Cold to the master's wife; And that Medusan gaze has frozen the smile. Among all her affection and cunning,
For whom Caesar sighed,
And the loser died,—
The sweetheart of the Nile.

Decorative

V.

THE RISE OF THEBES TO POWER, AND THE EARLY THEBAN KINGS.

Hitherto Egypt had been ruled from a site at the junction of the narrow Nile valley with the broad plain of the Delta—a site sufficiently represented by the modern Cairo. But now there was a shift of the seat of power. There is reason to believe that something like a disruption of Egypt into separate kingdoms took place, and that for a while several distinct dynasties bore sway in different parts of the country. Disruption was naturally accompanied by weakness and decline. The old order ceased, and opportunity was offered for some new order—some new power—to assert itself. The site on which it arose was one three hundred and fifty miles distant from the ancient capital, or four hundred and more by the river. Here, about lat. 26°, the usually narrow valley of the Nile opens into a sort of plain or basin. The mountains on either side of the river recede, as though by common consent, and leave between themselves and the river's bank a broad amphitheatre, which in each case is a rich green plain—an alluvium of the most productive character—dotted with dom and date palms, sometimes growing single, sometimes collected into clumps or groves. On the western side the Libyan range gathers itself up into a single considerable peak, which has an elevation of twelve hundred feet. On the east the desert-wall maintains its usual level character, but is pierced by valleys conducting to the coast of the Red Sea. The situation was one favourable for commerce. On the one side was the nearest route through the sandy desert to the Lesser Oasis, which commanded the trade of the African interior; on the other the way led through the valley of Hammamât, rich with breccia verde and other valuable and rare stones, to a district abounding in mines of gold, silver, and lead, and thence to the Red Sea coast, from which, even in very early times, there was communication with the opposite coast of Arabia, the region of gums and spices.

Until now, Egypt had been governed from a location at the meeting point of the narrow Nile valley and the expansive Delta plain, a place that’s represented today by modern Cairo. But now, there was a shift in the center of power. Evidence suggests that Egypt experienced something like a division into separate kingdoms, and for a time, several distinct dynasties ruled over various parts of the country. This disruption naturally led to weakness and decline. The old order came to an end, creating an opportunity for a new order—some new power—to establish itself. The location where this new power emerged was about three hundred and fifty miles from the ancient capital, or over four hundred miles along the river. Here, around latitude 26°, the usually narrow Nile valley opens into a kind of plain or basin. The mountains on both sides of the river recede, almost as if agreed upon, leaving a wide amphitheater between them and the riverbank, which is a lush green plain—an alluvial area of exceptional fertility—scattered with *dom* and date palms, sometimes growing individually, sometimes grouped into clusters or groves. On the western side, the Libyan mountain range rises into a notable peak that stands twelve hundred feet tall. On the east, the desert wall holds its usual flat profile but is cut through by valleys leading to the coast of the Red Sea. This location was advantageous for trade. One side offered the closest route through the sandy desert to the Lesser Oasis, which controlled trade with the African interior; the other route passed through the valley of Hammamât, rich in *breccia verde* and other valuable and rare stones, leading to a region abundant in gold, silver, and lead mines, and from there to the Red Sea coast, where even in ancient times, there was a connection with the opposite coast of Arabia, known for its gums and spices.

In this position there had existed, probably from the very beginnings of Egypt, a provincial city of some repute, called by its inhabitants Apé or Apiu, and, with the feminine article prefixed, Tapé, or Tapiu, which some interpret "The city of thrones". To the Greeks the name "Tapé" seemed to resemble their own well-known "Thebai", whence they transferred the familiar appellation from the Bæotian to the Mid-Egyptian town, which has thus come to be known to Englishmen and Anglo-Americans as "Thebes." Thebes had been from the first the capital of a "nome". It lay so far from the court that it acquired a character of its own—a special cast of religion, manners, speech, nomenclature, mode of writing, and the like—which helped to detach it from Lower or Northern Egypt more even than its isolation. Still, it was not until the northern kingdom sank into decay from internal weakness and exhaustion, and disintegration supervened in the Delta and elsewhere, that Thebes resolved to assert herself and claim independent sovereignty. Apparently, she achieved her purpose without having recourse to arms. The kingdoms of the north were content to let her go. They recognized their own weakness, and allowed the nascent power to develop itself unchecked and unhindered.

In this role, there had likely been, since the earliest days of Egypt, a notable provincial city called Apé or Apiu by its locals, and with the feminine article prefixed, Tapé or Tapiu, which some people interpret as "The city of thrones." To the Greeks, the name "Tapé" sounded similar to their well-known "Thebai," so they transferred that familiar name from the Bœotian city to the Mid-Egyptian town, which has come to be known to English speakers as "Thebes." From the beginning, Thebes was the capital of a "nome." It was situated so far from the royal court that it developed its own distinct identity—a unique culture of religion, customs, language, naming conventions, writing styles, and more—which further separated it from Lower or Northern Egypt, even beyond its geographical isolation. However, it wasn’t until the northern kingdom began to decline due to internal conflicts and exhaustion, leading to fragmentation in the Delta and beyond, that Thebes decided to establish itself and seek independence. Apparently, it accomplished this without resorting to military force. The northern kingdoms were fine with letting her go. They acknowledged their own vulnerabilities and allowed this emerging power to develop freely and without obstruction.

The first known Theban monarch is a certain Antef or Enantef, whose coffin was discovered in the year 1827 by some Arabs near Qurnah, to the west of Thebes. The mummy bore the royal diadem, and the epigraph on the lid of the coffin declared the body which it contained to be that of "Antef, king of the two Egypts." The phrase implied a claim to dominion over the whole country, but a claim as purely nominal as that of the kings of England from Edward IV. to George III. to be monarchs of France and Navarre. Antef s rule may possibly have reached to Elephantine on the one hand, but is not likely to have extended much beyond Coptos on the other. He was a local chieftain posing as a great sovereign, but probably with no intention to deceive either his own contemporaries or posterity. His name appears in some of the later Egyptian dynastic lists; but no monument of his time has come down to us except the one that has been mentioned.

The first known Theban ruler is a figure named Antef or Enantef, whose coffin was found in 1827 by some Arabs near Qurnah, to the west of Thebes. The mummy wore the royal crown, and the inscription on the coffin lid identified the body inside as "Antef, king of the two Egypts." This phrase suggested a claim to control over the entire country, but it was as nominal as the claims of English kings from Edward IV to George III to be monarchs of France and Navarre. Antef's reign might have extended to Elephantine on one side, but it likely didn’t go far beyond Coptos on the other. He was a local leader pretending to be a great ruler, likely with no intention to mislead either his contemporaries or future generations. His name appears in some later Egyptian dynastic lists, but no monuments from his era have survived except the one already mentioned.

Antef I. is thought to have been succeeded by Mentu-hotep I., a monarch even more shadowy, known to us only from the "Table of Karnak." This prince, however, is followed by one who possesses a greater amount of substance—Antef-aa, or "Antef the Great," grandson, as it would seem, of the first Antef—a sort of Egyptian Nimrod, who delighted above all things in the chase. Antefaa's sepulchral monument shows him to us standing in the midst of his dogs, who wear collars, and have their names engraved over them. The dogs are four in number, and are of distinct types. The first, which is called Mahut or "Antelope," has drooping ears, and long but somewhat heavy legs; it resembles a foxhound, and was no doubt both swift and strong, though it can scarcely have been so swift as its namesake. The second was called Abakaru, a name of unknown meaning; it has pricked up, pointed ears, a pointed nose, and a curly tail. Some have compared it with the German spitz dog, but it seems rather to be the original dog of nature, a near congener of the jackal, and the type to which all dogs revert when allowed to run wild and breed indiscriminately. The third, named Pahats or Kamu, i.e. "Blacky," is a heavy animal, not unlike a mastiff; it has a small, rounded, drooping ear, a square, blunt nose, a deep chest, and thick limbs. The late Dr. Birch supposed that it might have been employed by Antefaa in "the chase of the lion;" but we should rather regard it as a watch-dog, the terror of thieves, and we suspect that the artist gave it the sitting attitude to indicate that its business was not to hunt, but to keep watch and ward at its master's gate. The fourth dog, who bears the name of Tekal, and walks between his master's legs, has ears that seem to have been cropped. He has been said to resemble "the Dalmatian hound": but this is questionable. His peculiarities are not marked; but, on the whole, it seems most probable that he is "a pet house-dog"[9] of the terrier class, the special favourite of his master. Antefaa's dogs had their appointed keeper, the master of his kennel, who is figured on the sepulchral tablet behind the monarch, and bears the name of Tekenru.

Antef I is believed to have been succeeded by Mentu-hotep I, a ruler even more obscure, known to us only from the "Table of Karnak." However, this prince is followed by someone more substantial—Antef-aa, or "Antef the Great," who seems to be the grandson of the first Antef, a kind of Egyptian Nimrod who loved hunting above all else. Antefaa's burial monument shows him standing among his dogs, who are wearing collars with their names engraved on them. There are four dogs, each of a distinct type. The first, named Mahut or "Antelope," has drooping ears and long, heavy legs; it looks like a foxhound and was undoubtedly swift and strong, although it likely wasn't as fast as its namesake. The second dog is called Abakaru, a name whose meaning is unknown; it has upright, pointed ears, a pointed nose, and a curly tail. Some have compared it to the German spitz dog, but it seems more like the original wild dog, a close relative of the jackal, which is the type all dogs revert to when they roam free and breed without limits. The third dog, named Pahats or Kamu, meaning "Blacky," is a large animal similar to a mastiff; it has small, rounded, drooping ears, a square blunt nose, a deep chest, and thick limbs. The late Dr. Birch suggested it might have been used by Antefaa for "the chase of the lion," but we should consider it more as a guard dog, a terror to thieves, and we suspect the artist depicted it sitting to signify that its role was not to hunt but to watch over its master’s gate. The fourth dog, named Tekal, walks between its master's legs and has ears that appear to have been cropped. Some have claimed he resembles "the Dalmatian hound," but this is questionable. His unique features are not prominent; overall, it seems most likely that he is "a pet house-dog"[9] of the terrier type, the special favorite of his master. Antefaa’s dogs had a designated keeper, the master of his kennel, who is depicted on the burial tablet behind the monarch and goes by the name of Tekenru.

The hunter king was buried in a tomb marked only by a pyramid of unbaked brick, very humble in its character, but containing a mortuary chapel in which the monument above described was set up. An inscription on the tablet declared that it was erected to the memory of Antef the Great, Son of the Sun, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, in the fiftieth year of his reign.

The hunter king was buried in a tomb marked only by a pyramid of unbaked brick, very simple in design, but inside there was a mortuary chapel where the monument mentioned earlier was placed. An inscription on the tablet stated that it was put up in memory of Antef the Great, Son of the Sun, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, in the fiftieth year of his reign.

Other Mentu-hoteps and other Antefs continued on the line of Theban kings, reigning quietly and ingloriously, and leaving no mark upon the scroll of time, yet probably advancing the material prosperity of their country, and preparing the way for that rise to greatness which gives Thebes, on the whole, the foremost place in Egyptian history. Useful projects occupied the attention of these monarchs. One of them sank wells in the valley of Hammamât, to provide water for the caravans which plied between Coptos and the Red Sea. Another established military posts in the valley to protect the traffic and the Egyptian quarrymen. Later on, a king called Sankh-ka-ra launched a fleet upon the Red Sea waters, and opened direct communications with the sacred land of Punt, the region of odoriferous gums and of strange animals, as giraffes, panthers, hunting leopards, cynocephalous apes, and long-tailed monkeys. There is some doubt whether "Punt" was Arabia Felix, or the Somauli country. In any case, it lay far down the Gulf, and could only be reached after a voyage of many days.

Other Mentu-hoteps and other Antefs continued the line of Theban kings, ruling quietly and without glory, leaving no significant mark on history, yet likely improving the material prosperity of their country and paving the way for the rise to greatness that gives Thebes, overall, its top place in Egyptian history. These kings focused on useful projects. One of them dug wells in the Hammamât valley to supply water for caravans traveling between Coptos and the Red Sea. Another set up military outposts in the valley to protect the trade and the Egyptian quarry workers. Later on, a king named Sankh-ka-ra launched a fleet into the Red Sea and established direct communication with the sacred land of Punt, a region known for its fragrant gums and exotic animals, like giraffes, panthers, hunting leopards, dog-headed monkeys, and long-tailed monkeys. There's some uncertainty about whether "Punt" referred to Arabia Felix or the Somali territory. In any case, it was located far down the Gulf and could only be reached after many days of sailing.

The dynasty of the Antefs and Mentu-hoteps, which terminated with Sankh-ka-ra, was followed by one in which the prevailing names were Usurtasen and Amenemhat. This dynasty is Manetho's twelfth, and the time of its rule has been characterized as "the happiest age of Egyptian history?"[10] The second phase of Egyptian civilization now set in—a phase which is regarded by many as outshining the glories of the first The first civilization had subordinated the people to the monarch, and had aimed especially at eternizing the memory and setting forth the power and greatness of king after king. The second had the benefit and advantage of the people for its primary object; it was utilitarian, beneficent, appealing less to the eye than to the mind, far-sighted in its aims, and most successful in the results which it effected. The wise rulers of the time devoted their energies and their resources, not, as the earlier kings, to piling up undying memorials of themselves in the shape of monuments that "reached to heaven," but to useful works, to the excavation of wells and reservoirs, the making of roads, the encouragement of commerce, and the development of the vast agricultural wealth of the country. They also diligently guarded the frontiers, chastised aggressive tribes, and checked invasion by the establishment of strong fortresses in positions of importance. They patronized art, employing themselves in building temples rather than tombs, and adorned their temples not only with reliefs and statues, but also with the novel architectural embellishment of the obelisk, a delicate form, and one especially suited to the country.

The dynasty of the Antefs and Mentu-hoteps, which ended with Sankh-ka-ra, was succeeded by another dynasty where the key figures were Usurtasen and Amenemhat. This dynasty is known as the twelfth according to Manetho, and its era is described as "the happiest age of Egyptian history."[10] The second phase of Egyptian civilization began, a period many believe surpassed the achievements of the first. The first civilization had placed people under the rule of the monarch, focusing mainly on immortalizing the memory and showcasing the power and greatness of each successive king. In contrast, the second civilization prioritized the welfare and benefit of the people; it was practical, generous, engaging more with the mind than the eye, forward-thinking in its goals, and highly effective in its outcomes. The wise rulers of this time channeled their efforts and resources, not like the earlier kings who accumulated everlasting monuments that "reached to heaven," but into beneficial projects, like digging wells and reservoirs, building roads, promoting trade, and nurturing the vast agricultural wealth of the country. They also proactively defended their borders, subdued hostile tribes, and prevented invasions by constructing strong fortifications in strategic locations. They supported the arts, focusing on building temples instead of tombs, and adorned their temples with not just reliefs and statues, but also the innovative architectural feature of the obelisk, a graceful structure particularly suited to the landscape.

The founder of the "twelfth dynasty," Amenemhat I., deserves a few words of description. He found Thebes in a state of anarchy; civil war raged on every side; all the traditions of the past were forgotten; noble fought against noble; the poor were oppressed; life and property were alike insecure; "there was stability of fortune neither for the ignorant nor for the learned man." One night, after he had lain down to sleep, he found himself attacked in his bed-chamber; the clang of arms sounded near at hand. Starting from his couch, he seized his own weapons and struck out; when lo! his assailants fled; detected in their attempt to assassinate him, they dared not offer any resistance, thus showing themselves alike treacherous and cowardly. Amenemhat, having once taken arms, did not lay them down till he had defeated every rival, and so fought his way to the crown. Once acknowledged as king, he ruled with moderation and equity; he "gave to the humble, and made the weak to live;" he "caused the afflicted to cease from their afflictions, and their cries to be heard no more;" he brought it to pass that none hungered or thirsted in the land; he gave such orders to his servants as continually increased the love of his people towards him. At the same time, he was an energetic warrior. He "stood on the boundaries of the land, to keep watch on its borders," personally leading his soldiers to battle, armed with the khopesh or falchion. He carried on wars with the Petti, or bowmen of the Libyan interior, with the Sakti or Asiatics, with the Maxyes or Mazyes of the north-west, and with the Ua-uat and other negro tribes of the south; not, however, as it would seem, with any desire of making conquests, but simply for the protection of his own frontier. With the same object he constructed on his north-eastern frontier a wall or fortress "to keep out the Sakti," who continually harassed the people of the Eastern Delta by their incursions.

The founder of the "twelfth dynasty," Amenemhat I, deserves a little description. He found Thebes in chaos; civil war was raging everywhere; all the traditions of the past were forgotten; nobles fought against nobles; the poor were oppressed; both life and property were insecure; "there was no stability for the uneducated or the educated." One night, after lying down to sleep, he was attacked in his bedroom; the sound of weapons was close by. Jumping out of bed, he grabbed his own weapons and fought back; suddenly, his attackers fled; exposed in their attempt to kill him, they dared not resist, revealing themselves to be both treacherous and cowardly. Once Amenemhat took up arms, he didn’t put them down until he had defeated every rival and fought his way to the throne. Once recognized as king, he ruled with fairness and justice; he "helped the humble, and ensured the weak survived;" he "put an end to the suffering of the afflicted, so their cries were heard no more;" he made sure no one in the land went hungry or thirsty; he issued orders to his servants that continually fostered the love of his people towards him. At the same time, he was an active warrior. He "stood on the borders of the land to keep watch over its frontiers," personally leading his soldiers into battle, armed with the khopesh or falchion. He fought wars against the Petti, or bowmen of the Libyan interior, the Sakti or Asiatics, the Maxyes or Mazyes of the north-west, and the Ua-uat and other negro tribes of the south; however, it seemed he had no desire for conquest, but merely aimed to protect his own borders. To this end, he built a wall or fortress on his north-eastern frontier "to keep out the Sakti," who constantly threatened the people of the Eastern Delta with invasions.

The wars of Amenemhat I. make it evident that by his time Thebes had advanced from the position of a petty kingdom situated in a remote part of Egypt, and held in check by two or more rival kingdoms in the lower Nile valley and the Delta, to that of a power which bore sway over the whole land from Elephantine to the Mediterranean. "I sent my messengers up to Abu (Elephantine) and my couriers down to Athu" (the coast lakes), says the monarch in his "Instructions" to his son—the earliest literary production from a royal pen that has come down to our days; and there is no reason to doubt the truth of his statement. In the Delta alone could he come into contact with either the Mazyes or the Sakti, and a king of Thebes could not hold the Delta without being master also of the lower Nile valley from Coptos to Memphis. We must regard Egypt, then, under the "twelfth dynasty." as once more consolidated into a single state—a state ruled, however, not from Memphis, but from Thebes, a decidedly inferior position.

The wars of Amenemhat I show that by his time, Thebes had progressed from being a small kingdom in a distant part of Egypt, constrained by two or more rival kingdoms in the lower Nile valley and the Delta, to a power that controlled the entire land from Elephantine to the Mediterranean. "I sent my messengers up to Abu (Elephantine) and my couriers down to Athu" (the coastal lakes), the king mentions in his "Instructions" to his son—the earliest known piece of literature from a royal author that has survived to this day; and there's no reason to doubt his claim. In the Delta alone could he engage with either the Mazyes or the Sakti, and a king of Thebes couldn’t dominate the Delta without also controlling the lower Nile valley from Coptos to Memphis. Therefore, we should see Egypt, during the "twelfth dynasty," as once again unified into a single state—a state governed, however, not from Memphis, but from Thebes, which is a clearly lesser position.

SPEARING THE CROCODILE. SPEARING THE CROCODILE.

Amenemhat I. is the only Egyptian king who makes a boast of his hunting prowess. "I hunted the lion," he says, "and brought back the crocodile a prisoner." Lions do not at the present time frequent Egypt, and, indeed, are not found lower down the Nile valley than the point where the Great Stream receives its last tributary, the Atbara. But anciently they seem to have haunted the entire desert tracts on either side of the river. The Roman Emperor Hadrian is said to have hunted one near Alexandria, and the monuments represent lions as tamed and used in the chase by the ancient inhabitants. Sometimes they even accompanied their masters to the battlefield. We know nothing of Amenemhat's mode of hunting the king of beasts, but may assume that it was not very different from that which prevailed at a later date in Assyria. There, dogs and beaters were employed to rouse the animals from their lairs, while the king and his fellow-sportsmen either plied them with flights of arrows, or withstood their onset with swords and spears. The crocodile was certainly sometimes attacked while he was in the water, the hunters using a boat, and endeavouring to spear him at the point where the head joins the spine; but this could not have been the mode adopted by Amenemhat, since it would have resulted in instant death, whereas he tells us that he "brought the crocodile home a prisoner." Possibly, therefore, he employed the method which Herodotus says was in common use in his day. This was to bait a hook with a joint of pork and throw it into the water at a point where the current would carry it out into mid-stream; then to take a live pig to the river-side, and belabour him well with a stick till he set up the squeal familiar to most ears. Any crocodile within hearing was sure to come to the sound, and falling in with the pork on the way, would instantly swallow it down. Upon this the hunters hauled at the rope to which the hook was attached, and, notwithstanding his struggles, drew "leviathan" to shore. Amenemhat, having thus "made the crocodile a prisoner," may have carried his captive in triumph to his capital, and exhibited him before the eyes of the people.

Amenemhat I is the only Egyptian king who boasts about his hunting skills. "I hunted the lion," he claims, "and brought back the crocodile as a prisoner." Lions no longer roam in Egypt and are typically found no further down the Nile valley than where the Great Stream meets its last tributary, the Atbara. However, in ancient times, they seemed to inhabit the entire desert area on both sides of the river. The Roman Emperor Hadrian is said to have hunted one near Alexandria, and monuments depict lions as tamed and used in hunts by ancient people. Sometimes they even accompanied their owners into battle. We don’t have details about how Amenemhat hunted the king of the beasts, but we can assume it wasn’t much different from the methods used later in Assyria. There, dogs and beaters would disturb the animals from their hiding places, while the king and his fellow hunters either shot them with arrows or fought them off with swords and spears. The crocodile was often hunted in the water, with hunters in a boat attempting to spear it where the head meets the spine; however, this method couldn’t have been used by Amenemhat, as it would have led to instant death, while he states he "brought the crocodile home as a prisoner." So, he likely used the technique described by Herodotus that was common in his time. This involved baiting a hook with a piece of pork and throwing it into the water where the current would carry it out into mid-stream; then he would take a live pig to the riverbank and beat it with a stick until it squealed. Any nearby crocodile would surely be attracted to the noise and would swallow the pork. The hunters would then pull on the rope attached to the hook, and despite its struggles, they’d drag the "leviathan" to shore. After "capturing the crocodile," Amenemhat may have proudly brought his captive to his capital and shown it off to the people.

Amenemhat, having reigned as sole king for twenty years, was induced to raise his eldest son, Usurtasen, to the royal dignity, and associate him with himself in the government of the empire. Usurtasen was a prince of much promise, He "brought prosperity to the affairs of his father. He was, as a god, without fears; before him was never one like to him. Most skilful in affairs, beneficent in his mandates, both in his going out and in his coming in he made Egypt flourish." His courage and his warlike capacity were great. Already, in the lifetime of his father, he had distinguished himself in combats with the Petti and the Sakti. When he was settled upon the throne, he made war upon the Cushite tribes who bordered Egypt upon the south, employing the services of a general named Ameni, but also taking a part personally in the campaign. The Cushites or Ethiopians, who in later times became such dangerous neighbours to Egypt, were at this early period weak and insignificant. After the king had made his expedition, Ameni was able with a mere handful of four hundred troops to penetrate into their country, to "conduct the golden treasures" which it contained to the presence of his master, and to capture and carry off a herd of three thousand cattle.

Amenemhat, who had ruled as the sole king for twenty years, decided to elevate his eldest son, Usurtasen, to royal status and involve him in governing the empire. Usurtasen was a promising prince. He "brought prosperity to his father’s affairs. He was, like a god, fearless; there was never anyone like him before. Extremely skilled in matters of state, generous in his decrees, he made Egypt thrive in both his movements in and out." His bravery and military ability were remarkable. Even during his father’s reign, he had already distinguished himself in battles against the Petti and the Sakti. Once he ascended the throne, he waged war against the Cushite tribes to the south of Egypt, utilizing a general named Ameni and also taking part personally in the campaign. The Cushites, or Ethiopians, who later became significant threats to Egypt, were weak and insignificant at this point. After the king’s expedition, Ameni was able to enter their land with just a small force of four hundred troops, "conduct the golden treasures" it held to his master, and capture a herd of three thousand cattle.

It was through his sculptures and his architectural works that the first Usurtasen made himself chiefly conspicuous. Thebes, Abydos, Heliopolis or On, the Fayoum and the Delta, were equally the scenes of his constructive activity, and still show traces of his presence. At Thebes, he carried to its completion the cell, or naos, of the great temple of Ammon, in later times the innermost sanctuary of the building, and reckoned so sacred, that when Thothmes III. rebuilt and enlarged the entire edifice he reproduced the structure of Usurtasen, unchanged in form, and merely turned from limestone into granite. At Abydos and other cities of Middle Egypt, he constructed temples adorned with sculptures, inscriptions, and colossal statues. At Tanis, he set up his own statue, exhibiting himself as seated upon his throne. In the Fayoum he erected an obelisk forty-one feet high to the honour of Ammon, Phthah, and Mentu, which now lies prone upon the ground near the Arab village of Begig. Indications of his ubiquitous activity are found also at the Wady Magharah, in the Sinaitic peninsula, and at Wady Haifa in Nubia, a little above the Second Cataract; but his grandest and most elaborate work was his construction of the great temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, and his best memorial is that tall finger pointing to the sky which greets the traveller approaching Egypt from the east as the first sample of its strange and mystic wonders. This temple the king began in his third year. After a consultation with his lords and counsellors, he issued the solemn decree: "It is determined to execute the work; his majesty chooses to have it made. Let the superintendent carry it on in the way that is desired; let all those employed upon it be vigilant; let them see that it is made without weariness; let every due ceremony be performed; let the beloved place arise." Then the king rose up, wearing a diadem, and holding the double pen; and all present followed him. The scribe read the holy book, and extended the measuring cord, and laid the foundations on the spot which the temple was to occupy. A grand building arose; but it has been wholly demolished by the ruthless hand of time and the barbarity of conquerors. Of all its glories nothing now remains but the one taper obelisk of pink granite, which rises into the soft sleepy air above the green cornfields of Matariyeh, no longer tipped with gold, but still catching on its summit the earliest and latest sun-rays, while wild-bees nestle in the crannies of the weird characters cut into the stone.

It was through his sculptures and architectural works that the first Usurtasen made a name for himself. Thebes, Abydos, Heliopolis (or On), the Fayoum, and the Delta were all sites of his construction projects, and they still show evidence of his influence. In Thebes, he completed the cell, or naos, of the great temple of Ammon, which later became the most sacred part of the building. It was considered so holy that when Thothmes III rebuilt and expanded the entire structure, he replicated Usurtasen's design, only changing the material from limestone to granite. In Abydos and other cities of Middle Egypt, he built temples decorated with sculptures, inscriptions, and massive statues. At Tanis, he placed a statue of himself seated on his throne. In the Fayoum, he erected a forty-one-foot tall obelisk in honor of Ammon, Phthah, and Mentu, which now lies fallen near the Arab village of Begig. Evidence of his widespread activities can also be found at Wady Magharah in the Sinai Peninsula and at Wady Haifa in Nubia, just above the Second Cataract. However, his most impressive and intricate project was the great temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, and his most lasting tribute is that tall obelisk pointing to the sky, welcoming travelers approaching Egypt from the east with a glimpse of its unique and mysterious wonders. The king began this temple in his third year. After consulting with his lords and advisors, he issued a formal decree: "It is decided to carry out the work; his majesty wants it done. Let the supervisor manage it as needed; let everyone working on it be diligent; let them ensure it is made without fatigue; let every necessary ceremony be performed; let this beloved place be built." Then the king stood up, wearing a crown and holding the double pen; everyone present followed him. The scribe read from the sacred book, extended the measuring cord, and laid the foundations where the temple was to be built. A grand structure was raised, but it has been completely destroyed by the relentless passage of time and the cruelty of conquerors. Of all its former glories, only the slender obelisk of pink granite remains, rising into the soft, sleepy air above the green cornfields of Matariyeh. No longer adorned with gold, it still captures the sun's first and last rays at its peak, while wild bees nest in the crevices of the strange characters carved into the stone.

OBELISK OF USURTASEN I. ON THE SITE OF HELIOPOLIS. OBELISK OF USURTASEN I. ON THE SITE OF HELIOPOLIS.

Usurtasen, after reigning ten years in conjunction with his father and thirty-two years alone, associated his son, Amenemhat II., who became sole king about three years later. His reign, though long, was undistinguished, and need not occupy our attention. He followed the example of his predecessors in associating a son in the government; and this son succeeded him, and is known as Usurtasen II. One event of interest alone belongs to this time. It is the reception by one of his great officials of a large family or tribe of Semitic immigrants from Asia, who beg permission to settle permanently in the fertile Egypt under the protection of its powerful king. Thirty-seven Amu, men, women, and children, present themselves at the court which the great noble holds near the eastern border, and offer him their homage, while they solicit a favourable hearing. The men are represented draped in long garments of various colours, and wearing sandals unlike the Egyptian—more resembling, in fact, open shoes with many straps. Their arms are bows, arrows, spears, and clubs. One plays on a seven-stringed lyre by means of a plectrum. Four women, wearing fillets round their heads, with garments reaching below the knee, and wearing anklets but no sandals, accompany them. A boy, armed with a spear, walks at the side of the women; and two children, seated in a kind of pannier placed on the back of an ass, ride on in front. Another ass, carrying a spear, a shield, and a pannier, precedes the man who plays on the lyre. The great official, who is named Khnum-hotep, receives the foreigners, accompanied by an attendant who carries his sandals and a staff, and who is followed by three dogs. A scribe, named Nefer-hotep, unrolls before his master a strip of papyrus, on which are inscribed the words, "The sixth year of the reign of King Usurtasen Sha-khepr-ra: account rendered of the Amu who in the lifetime of the chief, Khnum-hotep, brought to him the mineral, mastemut, from the country of Pit-shu—they are in all thirty-seven persons." The mineral mastemut is thought to be a species of stibium or antimony, used for dying the skin around the eyes, and so increasing their beauty. Besides this offering, the head of the tribe, who is entitled khak, or "prince," and named Abusha, presents to Khnum-hotep a magnificent wild-goat, of the kind which at the present day frequents the rocky mountain tract of Sinai. He wears a richer dress than his companions, one which is ornamented with a fringe, and has a wavy border round the neck. The scene has been generally recognized as strikingly illustrating the coming of Jacob's family into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 28-34), and was at one time thought by some to represent that occurrence; but the date of Abusha's coming is long anterior to the arrival in Egypt of Jacob's family, the number is little more than half that of the Hebrew immigrants, the names do not accord; and it is now agreed on all hands, that the interest of the representation is confined to its illustrative force.

Usurtasen reigned for ten years alongside his father and then ruled alone for thirty-two years. He later associated his son, Amenemhat II., who became the sole king about three years after that. Even though his reign was lengthy, it was fairly uneventful and doesn’t require much attention. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, he involved his son in government; that son succeeded him and is known as Usurtasen II. Only one notable event occurred during this period. A high-ranking official received a large family or tribe of Semitic immigrants from Asia who sought permission to settle permanently in fertile Egypt under the protection of its powerful king. Thirty-seven Amu—men, women, and children—presented themselves at the court of the noble who held office near the eastern border and offered him their respect while asking for a positive response. The men appeared dressed in long robes of different colors and wore sandals that looked more like open shoes with multiple straps than the Egyptian style. They were armed with bows, arrows, spears, and clubs. One of them played a seven-string lyre with a pick. Four women accompanied them, wearing headbands and dresses that reached below the knee, adorned with anklets but no sandals. A boy carrying a spear walked beside the women, and two children sat in a kind of basket strapped to the back of a donkey ahead. Another donkey, equipped with a spear, a shield, and a basket, led the man playing the lyre. The high official, named Khnum-hotep, received the foreigners along with an attendant who carried his sandals and a staff, followed by three dogs. A scribe named Nefer-hotep unrolled a papyrus strip for his master, inscribed with the words: "The sixth year of the reign of King Usurtasen Sha-khepr-ra: account rendered of the Amu who during Chief Khnum-hotep's lifetime brought him the mineral, mastemut, from the land of Pit-shu—they total thirty-seven persons." The mineral mastemut is believed to be a type of stibium or antimony used for eye makeup to enhance beauty. In addition to this offering, the tribe leader, known as khak or "prince," named Abusha, presented a magnificent wild goat to Khnum-hotep, a species still found in the rocky mountains of Sinai today. He wore a more elaborate outfit than his companions, adorned with fringe and featuring a wavy border around the neck. This scene is often seen as vividly illustrating the arrival of Jacob's family in Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 28-34) and was once thought by some to represent that event. However, Abusha's arrival predates Jacob's family's arrival in Egypt by a significant time. The number of immigrants is just over half that of the Hebrew group, and their names do not match. There is now a general consensus that the representation’s interest lies solely in its illustrative nature.

Usurtasen II. reigned for nineteen years. He does not seem to have associated a son, but was succeeded by another Usurtasen, most probably a nephew. The third Usurtasen was a conquering monarch, and advanced the power and glory of Egypt far more than any other ruler belonging to the Old Empire. He began his military operations in his eighth year, and starting from Elephantine in the month Epiphi, or May, moved southward, like another Lord Wolseley, with a fixed intention, which he expressed in writing upon the rocks of the Elephantine island, of permanently reducing to subjection "the miserable land of Cush." His expedition was so far successful that in the same year he established two forts, one on either side of the Nile, and set up two pillars with inscriptions warning the black races that they were not to proceed further northward, except with the object of importing into Egypt cattle, oxen, goats, or asses. The forts are still visible on either bank of the river a little above the Second Cataract, and bear the names of Koommeh and Semneh. They are massive constructions, built of numerous squared blocks of granite and sandstone, and perched upon two steep rocks which rise up perpendicularly from the river. Usurtasen, having made this beginning, proceeded, from his eighth to his sixteenth year, to carry on the war with perseverance and ferocity in the district between the Nile and the Red Sea—to kill the men, fire the crops, and carry off the women and children, much as recently did the Arab traders whom Baker and Gordon strove to crush. The memory of his razzias was perpetuated upon stone columns set up to record his successes. Later on, in his nineteenth year he made a last expedition, to complete the conquest of "the miserable Kashi," and recorded his victory at Abydos.

Usurtasen II reigned for nineteen years. He didn’t seem to have associated a son but was succeeded by another Usurtasen, likely a nephew. The third Usurtasen was a conquering king who enhanced the power and glory of Egypt more than any other ruler from the Old Empire. He began his military campaigns in his eighth year and, starting from Elephantine in the month of Epiphi, or May, moved southward, much like another Lord Wolseley, with a clear goal that he carved into the rocks of Elephantine Island: to permanently bring "the miserable land of Cush" under control. His campaign was quite successful, as in the same year, he established two forts, one on each side of the Nile, and erected two pillars inscribed with warnings to the black races that they were not to advance further north, except for the purpose of bringing cattle, oxen, goats, or donkeys into Egypt. The forts are still visible on either riverbank just above the Second Cataract and are called Koommeh and Semneh. They are substantial structures made of large squared blocks of granite and sandstone, perched on two steep cliffs that rise vertically from the river. After making this start, Usurtasen continued the war from his eighth to his sixteenth year with determination and brutality in the area between the Nile and the Red Sea—killing men, burning crops, and taking women and children, similar to the Arab traders whom Baker and Gordon tried to defeat recently. The memory of his raids was commemorated on stone columns erected to record his victories. Later, in his nineteenth year, he undertook one last campaign to complete the conquest of "the miserable Kashi," recording his victory at Abydos.

The effect of these inroads was to advance the Egyptian frontier one hundred and fifty miles to the south, to carry it, in fact, from the First to above the Second Cataract. Usurtasen drew the line between Egypt and Ethiopia at this period, very much where the British Government drew it between Egypt and the Soudan in 1885. The boundary is a somewhat artificial one, as any boundary must be on the course of a great river; but it is probably as convenient a point as can be found between Assouan (Syene) and Khartoum. The conquest was regarded as redounding greatly to Usurtasen's glory, and made him the hero of the Old Empire. Myths gathered about his name, which, softened into Sesostris, became a favourite One in the mouths of Egyptian minstrels and minnesingers. Usurtasen grew to be a giant more than seven feet high, who conquered, not only all Ethiopia, but also Europe and Asia; his columns were said to be found in Palestine, Asia Minor, Scythia, and Thrace; he left a colony at Colchis, the city of the golden fleece; he dug all the canals by which Egypt was intersected; he invented geometry; he set up colossi above fifty feet high; he was the greatest monarch that had ruled Egypt since the days of Osiris!

The impact of these incursions was to push the Egyptian border one hundred and fifty miles south, moving it from the First Cataract to above the Second Cataract. During this time, Usurtasen defined the boundary between Egypt and Ethiopia much like the British Government did between Egypt and Sudan in 1885. This boundary is somewhat artificial, as any boundary tends to be along a major river, but it’s probably as practical a point as can be found between Assouan (Syene) and Khartoum. The conquest was seen as a significant achievement for Usurtasen, making him a celebrated figure of the Old Empire. Legends grew around his name, which, transformed into Sesostris, became a popular one among Egyptian bards and singers. Usurtasen was depicted as a giant over seven feet tall who conquered not just all of Ethiopia but also Europe and Asia; his columns were said to be discovered in Palestine, Asia Minor, Scythia, and Thrace; he established a colony in Colchis, the city of the golden fleece; he dug all the canals that crisscrossed Egypt; he invented geometry; he erected colossal statues over fifty feet high; he was the greatest ruler in Egypt since the days of Osiris!

No doubt these tales were, in the main, imaginary; but they marked the fact that in Usurtasen III. the military glories of the Old Empire culminated.

No doubt these stories were mostly made up; but they highlighted the reality that under Usurtasen III, the military achievements of the Old Empire reached their peak.


Decorative

VI.

THE GOOD AMENEMHAT AND HIS WORKS.

The great river to which Egypt owes her being, is at once the source of all her blessings and her chiefest danger. Swelling with a uniformity, well calculated to call forth man's gratitude and admiration, almost from a fixed day in each year, and continuing to rise steadily for months, it gradually spreads over the lands, covering the entire soil with a fresh coating of the richest possible alluvium, and thus securing to the country a perpetual and inexhaustible fertility. Nature's mechanism is so perfect, that the rise year after year scarcely varies a foot, and is almost exactly the same now as it was when the first Pharaoh poured his libation to the river-god from the embankment which he had made at Memphis; but though this uniformity is great, and remarkable, and astonishing, it is not absolute. There are occasions, once in two or three centuries, when the rainfall in Abyssinia is excessive. The Blue Nile and the Atbara pour into the deep and steady stream of the White Nile torrents of turbid water for months together. The windows of heaven seem to have been opened, and the rain pours down as if it would never cease. Then the river of the Egyptians assumes a threatening character; faster and faster it rises, and higher and higher; and further and further it spreads, until it begins to creep up the sides of the two ranges of hills. Calamitous results ensue. The mounds erected to protect the cities, the villages, and the pasture lands, are surmounted, or undermined, or washed away; the houses, built often of mud, and seldom of any better material than crude brick, collapse; cattle are drowned by hundreds; human life is itself imperilled; the population has to betake itself to boats, and to fly to the desert regions which enclose the Nile valley to the east and west, regions of frightful sterility, which with difficulty support the few wandering tribes that are their normal inhabitants. If the excessive rise continues long, thousands or millions starve; if it passes off rapidly, then the inhabitants return to find their homes desolated, their cattle drowned, their household goods washed away, and themselves dependent on the few rich men who may have stored their corn in stone granaries which the waters have not been able to penetrate. Disasters of this kind are, however, exceedingly rare, though, when they occur, their results are terrible to contemplate.

The great river that gives Egypt life is both the source of all her blessings and her biggest danger. Rising consistently at around the same time each year and continuing to swell for months, it gradually covers the land with a fresh layer of rich sediment, ensuring the country has endless fertility. Nature's system is so precise that the river's rise barely varies year after year, and is nearly the same now as it was when the first Pharaoh poured a drink to the river god from the embankment he built at Memphis. However, this consistency, while impressive and remarkable, is not absolute. Every couple of centuries, there are times when excessive rainfall in Abyssinia occurs. The Blue Nile and the Atbara feed torrents of muddy water into the steady flow of the White Nile for months. It feels like the heavens have opened, and the rain pours down endlessly. During these times, the Egyptian river becomes threatening; it rises faster and higher, spreading further until it starts creeping up the hillsides. Disaster follows. The barriers built to protect cities, villages, and farmlands are overtopped, undermined, or washed away; houses, often made of mud and rarely built with anything stronger than raw brick, collapse; livestock drown by the hundreds; lives are at risk; and people must take to boats and flee to the desolate regions that flank the Nile valley to the east and west – areas of extreme barrenness that can barely support the few wandering tribes that live there. If the flood lasts long, thousands or even millions may starve; if it recedes quickly, the people return to find their homes destroyed, their livestock drowned, their possessions swept away, and themselves reliant on the few wealthy individuals who may have stored grain in stone granaries that the floodwaters could not breach. However, such disasters are incredibly rare, though when they do occur, their consequences are horrifying to think about.

The more usual form of calamity is of the opposite kind. Once or twice in a century the Abyssinian rainfall is deficient. The rise of the Nile is deferred beyond the proper date. Anxious eyes gaze daily on the sluggish stream, or consult the "Nilometers" which kings and princes have constructed along its course to measure the increase of the waters. Hopes and fears alternate as good or bad news reaches the inhabitants of the lower valley from those who dwell higher up the stream. Each little rise is expected to herald a greater one, and the agony of suspense is prolonged until the "hundred days," traditionally assigned to the increase, have gone by, and there is no longer a doubt that the river has begun to fall. Then hope is swallowed up in despair. Only the lands lying nearest to the river have been inundated; those at a greater distance from it lie parched and arid during the entire summer-time, and fail to produce a single blade of grass or spike of corn. Famine stares the poorer classes in the face, and unless large supplies of grain have been laid up in store previously, or can be readily imported from abroad, the actual starvation of large numbers is the inevitable consequence. We have heartrending accounts of such famines. In the year 457 of the Hegira (A.D. 1064) a famine began, which lasted seven years, and was so severe that dogs and cats, and even human flesh, were eaten; all the horses of the Caliph but three perished, and his family had to fly into Syria. Another famine in A.D. 1199 is recorded by Abd-el-Latif, an eye-witness, in very similar terms.

The more common type of disaster is quite the opposite. Once or twice a century, rainfall in Abyssinia is insufficient. The rise of the Nile is delayed beyond its usual time. Anxious eyes watch the slow-moving river daily or check the "Nilometers" that kings and princes have built along its path to measure the water levels. Hopes and fears alternate as news—good or bad—comes from those living upstream to the people in the lower valley. Each small rise is expected to signal a larger rise, and the tension drags on until the "hundred days," which are traditionally expected for the rise, have passed, and it becomes clear that the river has started to recede. Then hope turns into despair. Only the lands closest to the river have been flooded; those farther away stay dry and barren all summer and fail to produce even a single blade of grass or ear of corn. Famine looms for the poorer classes, and unless enough grain has been stored away in advance or can be easily imported from elsewhere, many people will inevitably face starvation. We have heartbreaking accounts of such famines. In the year 457 of the Hegira (A.D. 1064), a famine began that lasted for seven years and was so terrible that dogs and cats—and even human flesh—were consumed; all but three of the Caliph's horses died, and his family had to flee to Syria. Another famine in A.D. 1199 is documented by Abd-el-Latif, an eyewitness, in very similar terms.

There is reason to believe that, under the twelfth dynasty, some derangement of meteoric or atmospheric conditions passed over Abyssinia and Upper Egypt, either in both the directions above noticed, or, at any rate, in the latter and more ordinary one. An official belonging to the later part of this period, in enumerating his merits upon his tomb, tells us, "There was no poverty in my days, no starvation in my time, even when there were years of famine. I ploughed all the fields of Mah to its southern and northern boundaries; I gave life to its inhabitants, making its food; no one was starved in it. I gave to the widow as to the married woman." As the late Dr. Birch observes, "Egypt was occasionally subject to famines; and these, at the time of the twelfth dynasty, were so important, that they attracted great attention, and were considered worthy of record by the princes or hereditary lords who were buried at Beni-Hassan. Under the twelfth dynasty, also, the tombs of Abydos show the creation of superintendents, or storekeepers of the public granaries, a class of functionaries apparently created to meet the contingency."[11]

There’s good reason to think that during the twelfth dynasty, some disruptions in meteoric or atmospheric conditions affected Abyssinia and Upper Egypt, either in both directions mentioned above or at least in the more typical one. An official from the later part of this period, while listing his accomplishments on his tomb, states, "There was no poverty in my days, no starvation in my time, even during years of famine. I plowed all the fields of Mah from its southern to its northern boundaries; I gave life to its residents by providing food; no one went hungry. I supported widows just like married women." As the late Dr. Birch noted, "Egypt experienced famines at times; and during the twelfth dynasty, these famines were significant enough to attract considerable attention and were deemed worthy of being recorded by the princes or hereditary lords buried at Beni-Hassan. Additionally, in the twelfth dynasty, the tombs of Abydos show the establishment of superintendents, or storekeepers of the public granaries, a role that seems to have been created to address this issue."[11]

The distress of his subjects under these circumstances seems to have drawn the thoughts of "the good Amenemhat" to the devising of some system which should effectually remedy these evils, by preventing their occurrence. In all countries where the supply of water is liable to be deficient, it is of the utmost importance to utilize to the full that amount of the life-giving fluid, be it more or be it less, which the bounty of nature furnishes. Rarely, indeed, is nature absolutely a niggard. Mostly she gives far more than is needed, but the improvidence or the apathy of man allows her gifts to run to waste. Careful and provident husbanding of her store will generally make it suffice for all man's needs and requirements. Sometimes this has been effected in a thirsty land by conducting all the rills and brooks that flow from the highlands or hills into subterranean conduits, where they are shielded from the sun's rays, and prolonging these ducts for miles upon miles, till every drop of the precious fluid has been utilized for irrigation. Such is the kareez or kanat system of Persia. In other places vast efforts have been made to detain the abundant supply of rain which nature commonly provides in the spring of the year, to store it, and prevent it from flowing off down the river-courses to the sea, where it is absolutely lost. For this purpose, either huge reservoirs must be constructed by the hand of man, or else advantage must be taken of some facility which nature offers for storing the water in convenient situations. Valleys may be blocked by massive dams, and millions of gallons thus imprisoned for future use, as is done in many parts of the North of England, but for manufacturing and not for irrigation purposes. Or naturally land-locked basins may be found, and the overflow of streams at their flood-time turned into them and arrested, to be made use of later in the year.

The suffering of his people in these conditions seems to have prompted "the good Amenemhat" to come up with a system that would effectively address these issues by preventing them from happening in the first place. In any country where water supply might be scarce, it’s crucial to make the most of whatever amount of this essential resource nature provides, whether it's a lot or a little. Nature rarely holds back; usually, she provides much more than needed, but human carelessness or indifference allows her gifts to go to waste. Properly managing her resources will generally meet all human needs and demands. Sometimes, this has been achieved in dry regions by channeling streams and brooks that flow from the hills into underground conduits where they are protected from the sun, extending these systems for miles until every drop of this precious fluid is used for irrigation. Such is the kareez or kanat system of Persia. In other areas, significant efforts have been made to capture the abundant rainfall that nature typically provides in the spring, storing it and stopping it from flowing down the rivers to the sea, where it's completely wasted. For this purpose, either large reservoirs must be built by people, or natural features must be utilized to store water in suitable locations. Valleys can be blocked with huge dams, holding back millions of gallons for future use, as is done in many parts of Northern England, although these are primarily for manufacturing rather than irrigation. Alternatively, naturally formed basins can be tapped, allowing excess river flow during floods to be captured and saved for later use in the year.

In Egypt the one and only valley was that of the Nile, and the one and only stream that which had formed it, and flowed along it, at a lower or higher level, ceaselessly. It might perhaps have been possible for Egyptian engineering skill to have blocked the valley at Silsilis, or at the Gebelein, and to have thus turned Upper Egypt into a huge reservoir always full, and always capable of supplying Lower Egypt with enough water to eke out a deficient inundation. But this could only have been done by an enormous work, very difficult to construct, and at the sacrifice of several hundred square miles of fertile territory, thickly inhabited, which would have been covered permanently by the artificial lake. Moreover, the Egyptians would have known that such an embankment can under no circumstances be absolutely secure, and may have foreseen that its rupture would spread destruction over the whole of the lower country. Amenemhat, at any rate, did not venture to adopt so bold a design. He sought for a natural depression, and found one in the Libyan range of hills to the west of the Nile valley, about a degree south of the latitude of Memphis—a depression of great depth and of ample expanse, fifty miles or more in length by thirty in breadth, and containing an area of six or seven hundred square miles. It was separated from the Nile valley by a narrow ridge of hills about two hundred feet high, through which ran from south-east to north-west a narrow rocky gorge, giving access to the depression. It is possible that in very high floods some of the water of the inundation passed naturally into the basin through this gorge; but whether this were so or no, it was plain that by the employment of no very large amount of labour a canal or cutting might be carried along the gorge, and the Nile water given free access into the depression, not only in very high floods, but annually when the inundation reached a certain moderate height. This is, accordingly, what Amenemhat did. He dug a canal from the western branch of the Nile—the modern Bahr Yousuf—leaving it at El-Lahoun, carried his canal through the gorge, in places cutting deep into its rocky bottom, and by a system of sluices and flood-gates retained such an absolute control over the water that he could either admit or exclude the inundation at his will, as it rose; and when it fell, could either allow the water that had flowed in to return, or imprison it and keep it back. Within the gorge he had thus at all times a copious store of the invaluable fluid, banked up to the height of high Nile, and capable of being applied to purposes of cultivation both within and without the depression by the opening and shutting of the sluices.

In Egypt, the only valley was the Nile, and the only river that formed it and flowed through it, at varying levels, was the Nile itself, continuously. Egyptian engineers might have blocked the valley at Silsilis or Gebelein, creating a massive reservoir in Upper Egypt that could always supply Lower Egypt with enough water to compensate for poor floods. However, this would have required immense effort, would have been very challenging to build, and would have sacrificed several hundred square miles of fertile land that was densely populated, which would have been permanently submerged by the artificial lake. Furthermore, the Egyptians would have known that such a dam could never be completely secure and might have anticipated that its failure would bring devastation to the entire lower region. Amenemhat, at least, did not take on such a daring plan. Instead, he looked for a natural depression and found one in the Libyan hills to the west of the Nile valley, about a degree south of Memphis. This depression was quite deep and expansive, measuring over fifty miles in length and thirty miles in width, covering an area of six or seven hundred square miles. It was separated from the Nile valley by a narrow ridge of hills approximately two hundred feet high, through which a narrow rocky gorge ran from the southeast to the northwest, providing access to the depression. It’s possible that during very high floods, some of the floodwater naturally flowed into the basin through this gorge; however, whether this was the case or not, it was clear that with a reasonable amount of labor, a canal could be constructed along the gorge to allow Nile water into the depression, not only during high floods but also annually when the inundation reached a certain moderate height. This is exactly what Amenemhat did. He dug a canal from the western branch of the Nile—the modern Bahr Yousuf—taking it from El-Lahoun, pushing it through the gorge, at times digging deep into its rocky bottom. Through a system of sluices and floodgates, he maintained complete control over the water, allowing him to either let in or hold back the floodwaters as they rose; and when they receded, he could either let the water flow back or trap it to keep it. Within the gorge, he thus always had a plentiful supply of this valuable water, stored up to the height of high Nile, and capable of being used for irrigation both within and outside the depression by opening and closing the sluices.

So much appears to be certain. The exact size and position of Amenemhat's reservoir within the depression, which a French savant was supposed to have discovered, are now called in question, and must be admitted to be still sub judice. M. Linant de Bellefonds regarded the reservoir as occupying the south-eastern or upper portion of the depression only, as extending from north to south a distance of fourteen miles only, and from east to west a distance varying from six to eleven miles. He regarded it as artificially confined towards the west and north by two long lines of embankment, which he considered that he had traced, and gave the area of the lake as four hundred and five millions of square mêtres, or about four hundred and eighty millions of square yards. Mr. Cope Whitehouse believes that the water was freely admitted into the whole of the depression, which it filled, with the exception of certain parts, which stood up out of the water as islands, from one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet high. He believes that it was in places three hundred feet deep, and that the circuit of its shores was from three hundred to five hundred miles. It is to be hoped that a scientific expedition will ere long set this dispute at rest, and enable the modern student distinctly to grasp and understand the great work of Amenemhat. Whatever may be the truth regarding "Lake Mœris," as this great reservoir was called, it is certain that it furnished the ancients one of the least explicable of all the many problems that the remarkable land of the Nile presented to them. Herodotus added to the other marvels of the place a story about two sitting statues based upon pyramids, which stood three hundred feet above the level of the lake, and a famous labyrinth, of which we shall soon speak.

So much seems to be certain. The exact size and location of Amenemhat's reservoir in the depression, which a French scholar was believed to have discovered, is now being questioned and must be considered still under investigation. M. Linant de Bellefonds viewed the reservoir as only occupying the southeastern or upper part of the depression, extending fourteen miles from north to south and varying from six to eleven miles from east to west. He believed it was artificially bounded to the west and north by two long embankments that he claimed to have traced, estimating the lake's area at four hundred and five million square meters, or about four hundred and eighty million square yards. Mr. Cope Whitehouse thinks that water freely filled the entire depression, except for some areas that emerged as islands, standing one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet high. He believes it reached depths of three hundred feet in places, with a shoreline perimeter of three hundred to five hundred miles. Hopefully, a scientific expedition will soon resolve this debate and allow modern students to clearly grasp and understand the significant work of Amenemhat. Whatever the truth about "Lake Mœris," as this massive reservoir was called, it undeniably posed one of the least understandable challenges to the ancient people of the remarkable land of the Nile. Herodotus added to the wonders of the area a tale about two seated statues based on pyramids that rose three hundred feet above the lake's level and a famous labyrinth, which we will discuss shortly.

Whether the reservoir of Amenemhat had the larger or the smaller dimensions ascribed to it, there can be no doubt that it was a grand construction, undertaken mainly for the benefit of his people, and greatly conducing to their advantage. Even if the reservoir had only the dimensions assigned to it by M. de Bellefonds, it would, according to his calculations, have contained water sufficient, not only for irrigating the northern and western portions of the Fayoum throughout the year, but also for the supply of the whole western bank of the Nile from Beni-Souef to the embouchure at Canopus for six months. This alone would in dry seasons have been a sensible relief to a large portion of the population. If the dimensions exceeded those of De Bellefonds, the relief would have been proportionately greater.

Whether the reservoir of Amenemhat was larger or smaller than what has been claimed, there’s no doubt it was an impressive construction, built mainly for the benefit of his people, significantly improving their lives. Even if the reservoir only matched the size suggested by M. de Bellefonds, his calculations show it would have held enough water not just to irrigate the northern and western parts of the Fayoum year-round, but also to supply the entire western bank of the Nile from Beni-Souef to the mouth at Canopus for six months. This alone would have provided considerable relief to a large part of the population during dry seasons. If the dimensions were indeed larger than what De Bellefonds estimated, the relief would have been even greater.

The good king was not, however, content merely to benefit his people by increasing the productiveness of Egypt and warding off the calamities that occasionally befell the land; he further gave employment to large numbers, which was not of a severe or oppressive kind, but promoted their comfort and welfare. In connection with his hydraulic works in the Fayoum he constructed a novel species of building, which after ages admired even above the constructions of the pyramid-builders, and regarded as the most wonderful edifice in all the world. "I visited the place," says Herodotus,[12] "and found it to surpass description; for if all the walls and other great works of the Greeks could be put together in one, they would not equal, either for labour or expense, this Labyrinth; and yet the temple of Ephesus is a building worthy of note, and so is the temple of Samos. The pyramids likewise surpass description, and are severally equal to a number of the greatest works of the Greeks; but the Labyrinth surpasses the pyramids. It has twelve courts, all of them roofed, with gates exactly opposite one another, six looking to the north, and six to the south. A single wall surrounds the whole building. It contains two different sorts of chambers, half of them underground, and half above-ground, the latter built upon the former; the whole number is three thousand, of each kind fifteen hundred. The upper chambers I myself passed through and saw, and what I say of them is from my own observation; of the underground chambers I can only speak from report, for the keepers of the building could not be induced to show them, since they contained (they said) the sepulchres of the kings who built the Labyrinth, and also those of the sacred crocodiles. Thus it is from hearsay only that I can speak of them; but the upper chambers I saw with my own eyes, and found them to excel all other human productions; for the passages through the houses, and the varied windings of the paths across the courts, excited in me infinite admiration, as I passed from the courts into chambers, and from the chambers into colonnades, and from the colonnades into fresh houses, and again from these into courts unseen before. The roof was, throughout, of stone, like the walls; and the walls were carved all over with figures; every court was surrounded with a colonnade, which was built of white stones, exquisitely fitted together. At the corner of the Labyrinth stands a pyramid, forty fathoms high, with large figures engraved upon it, which is entered by a subterranean passage."

The good king wasn’t just focused on improving the lives of his people in Egypt by making the land more productive and preventing disasters; he also created jobs for many. These jobs were neither harsh nor oppressive but aimed at enhancing their comfort and well-being. In relation to his water management projects in the Fayoum, he built a remarkable structure that has been admired for ages, even more than the work of the pyramid builders, and was regarded as the most impressive building in the world. "I visited the place," says Herodotus, [12] "and found it indescribable; for if all the walls and major constructions of the Greeks were combined into one, they wouldn't equal this Labyrinth in terms of labor or cost. The temple of Ephesus is noteworthy, and so is the temple of Samos. The pyramids are also beyond description and rival many of the Greeks' greatest works, but the Labyrinth outshines them all. It has twelve courts, all covered, with gates directly opposite each other—six facing north and six facing south. A single wall encloses the entire structure. It consists of two types of chambers: half are underground, and half are above ground, built on top of the former, totaling three thousand chambers, fifteen hundred of each kind. I personally walked through the upper chambers and can share my observations about them; however, I can only speak about the underground chambers from what I've heard, as the guardians of the building wouldn’t let me see them since they supposedly house the tombs of the kings who built the Labyrinth and the sacred crocodiles. So, my knowledge of those chambers is based solely on hearsay; but I saw the upper chambers with my own eyes and found them to surpass all other human creations. The passages through the buildings and the intricate paths across the courts filled me with immense admiration as I transitioned from the courts to chambers, then to colonnades, and from those into previously unseen courts. The roofs were stone, like the walls, which were intricately carved with designs; every court was surrounded by a colonnade made of beautifully fitted white stones. At the corner of the Labyrinth stands a pyramid, forty fathoms high, adorned with large engravings, and accessible through a subterranean passage."

The pyramid intended is probably that examined by Perring and Lepsius, which had a base of three hundred feet, and an elevation, probably, of about one hundred and eighty-five feet. It was built of crude brick mixed with a good deal of straw, and cased with a white silicious limestone. The same material was employed for the greater part of the so-called "Labyrinth," but many of the columns were of red granite, and some perhaps of porphyry. Most likely the edifice was intended as a mausoleum for the sacred crocodiles, and was gradually enlarged for their accommodation—Amenemhat, whose prænomen was found on the pyramid, being merely the first founder. The number of the pillared courts, and their similarity, made the edifice confusing to foreigners, and got it the name of "The Labyrinth"; but it is not likely the designers of the building had any intention to mislead or to confuse.

The pyramid in question is likely the one examined by Perring and Lepsius, which had a base of three hundred feet and an estimated height of around one hundred eighty-five feet. It was made of unrefined bricks mixed with a lot of straw and covered with a white siliceous limestone. The same material was used for most of the so-called "Labyrinth," although many of the columns were made of red granite, and some might have been porphyry. It was probably built as a tomb for the sacred crocodiles and was gradually expanded to accommodate them—Amenemhat, whose name was found on the pyramid, being merely the initial builder. The number of pillared courts and their similarity made the building confusing for foreigners, which earned it the name "The Labyrinth"; however, it’s unlikely that the architects intended to mislead or confuse anyone.

Amenemhat's prænomen, or throne-name, assumed (according to ordinary custom) on his accession, was Ra-n-mat, "Sun of Justice" or "Sun of Righteousness." The assumption of the title indicates his desire to leave behind him a character for justice and equity. It is perhaps noticeable that the name by which the Greeks knew him was Mœris, which may mean "the beloved." With him closes the first period of Theban greatness. A cloud was impending, and darker days about to follow; but as yet Egypt enjoyed a time of progressive, and in the main peaceful, development. Commerce, art, religion, agriculture, occupied her. She did not covet other men's lands, nor did other men covet hers. The world beyond her borders knew little of her, except that she was a fertile and well-ordered land, whereto, in time of dearth, the needy of other countries might resort with confidence.

Amenemhat's throne name, assumed (as was the custom) when he came to power, was Ra-n-mat, which means "Sun of Justice" or "Sun of Righteousness." This title reflects his intention to be remembered for his fairness and integrity. Interestingly, the name the Greeks used for him was Mœris, which might mean "the beloved." His reign marks the end of the first period of Theban greatness. A storm was brewing, and tougher times were on the horizon; however, Egypt was still enjoying a time of growth, mostly peaceful and progressive. Trade, art, religion, and agriculture were thriving. She did not seek to take over other lands, nor did others crave hers. The world outside her borders knew little about her, except that she was a productive and well-organized nation where those in need from other countries could come with assurance during times of famine.


VII.

ABRAHAM IN EGYPT.

"Now there was a famine in the land of Canaan; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there" (Gen. xii. 10). Few events in the history of mankind are more interesting than the visit which the author of the Pentateuch thus places before us in less than a dozen words. The "father of the faithful," the great apostle of Monotheism, the wanderer from the distant "Ur of the Chaldees," familiar with Babylonian greatness, and Babylonian dissoluteness, and Babylonian despotism, having quitted his city home and adopted the simple habits of a Syrian nomadic sheikh, finds himself forced to make acquaintance with a second form of civilization, a second great organized monarchy, and to become for a time a sojourner among the people who had held for centuries the valley of the Nile. He had obeyed the call which took him from Ur to Haran, from Haran to Damascus, from Damascus to the hills of Canaan; he had divorced himself from city life and city usages; he had embraced the delights of that free, wandering existence which has at all times so singular a charm for many, and had dwelt for we know not how many years in different parts of Palestine, the chief of a tribe rich in flocks and herds, moving with them from place to place as the fancy took him. It was assuredly with much reluctance that he quitted the open downs and fresh breezes and oak groves of Canaan the land promised to him and to his seed after him, and took his way through the "desert of the south" to the great kingdom with which he and his race could never hope to be on terms of solid friendship. But the necessity which constrained him was imperative. When, from the want of the ordinary spring rains, drought and famine set in on the Palestinian uplands, there was in ancient times but one resource. Egypt was known as a land of plenty. Whether it were Hebrew nomads, or Hittite warriors, or Phœnician traders that suffered, Egypt was the sole refuge, the sole hope. There the river gave the plenteous sustenance which would be elsewhere sought in vain. There were granaries and storehouses, and an old established system whereby corn was laid up as a reserve in case of need, both by private individuals of the wealthier classes and by the kings. There among the highest officers of state was the "steward of the public granary." whose business it was, when famine pressed, to provide, so far as was possible, both for natives and foreigners, alleviating the distress of all, while safeguarding, of course, the king's interests (Gen. xlvii. 13-26).

"Now there was a famine in the land of Canaan, and Abram went down to Egypt so he could stay there" (Gen. xii. 10). Few events in human history are more intriguing than the visit that the author of the Pentateuch presents to us in just a few words. The "father of the faithful," the great proponent of Monotheism, the wanderer from the faraway "Ur of the Chaldees," who was familiar with Babylonian greatness, decadence, and tyranny, after leaving his urban home and adopting the simple lifestyle of a Syrian nomadic leader, finds himself compelled to experience another form of civilization, another grand organized monarchy, and becomes a temporary resident among the people who had inhabited the Nile Valley for centuries. He had responded to the call that took him from Ur to Haran, from Haran to Damascus, and from Damascus to the hills of Canaan; he had separated himself from urban life and its customs; he had embraced the joys of that free, wandering existence that has always held a unique appeal for many, and had lived for an unknown number of years in various parts of Palestine, leading a tribe rich in flocks and herds, moving with them from place to place as he pleased. Surely, he left behind the open fields, fresh breezes, and oak groves of Canaan—the land promised to him and his descendants—with great reluctance, and journeyed through the "desert of the south" to the powerful kingdom where he and his people could never truly hope to establish a solid friendship. But the need that compelled him was unavoidable. When drought and famine struck the Palestinian uplands due to the lack of normal spring rains, there was, in ancient times, only one option. Egypt was recognized as a land of abundance. Whether it was Hebrew nomads, Hittite warriors, or Phoenician traders suffering, Egypt was the only refuge and hope. There, the river provided the plentiful resources that would be sought in vain elsewhere. There were granaries and storehouses, and an established system for storing grain as a reserve for emergencies, both by wealthier individuals and by the kings. Among the highest government officials was the "steward of the public granary," whose job was, when famine struck, to provide for both locals and foreigners as much as possible, alleviating the suffering of all while, of course, protecting the king's interests (Gen. xlvii. 13-26).

Abraham, therefore, when he found that "the famine was grievous in the land" of Canaan, did the only thing that it was possible for him to do—left Palestine, and wended his way through the desert to the Egyptian frontier. What company he took with him is uncertain. A few years later we find him at the head of a body of three hundred and eighteen men capable of bearing arms—"trained servants born in his house"—which implies the headship over a tribe of at least twelve hundred persons. He can scarcely have entered Egypt with a much smaller number. It was before his separation from his nephew, Lot, whose followers were not much fewer than his own. And to leave any of his dependents behind would have been to leave them to starvation. We must suppose a numerous caravan organized, with asses and camels to carry provisions and household stuff, and with the women and the little ones conveyed as we see them in the sculpture representing the arrival of Abusha from the same quarter, albeit with a smaller entourage. The desert journey would be trying, and probably entail much loss, especially of the cattle and beasts; but at length, on the seventh or eighth day, as the water was getting low in the skins and the camels were beginning to faint and groan with the scant fare and the long travel, a dark low line would appear upon the edge of the horizon in front, and soon the line would deepen into a delicate fringe, sparkling here and there as though it were sown with diamonds.[13] Then it would be recognized that there lay before the travellers the fields and gardens and palaces and obelisks of Egypt, the broad flood and rich plain of the Nile, and their hearts would leap with joy, and lift themselves up in thanksgiving to the Most High, who had brought them through the great and terrible wilderness to a land of plenty.

Abraham, when he realized that "the famine was severe in the land" of Canaan, did what he had to do—he left Palestine and made his way through the desert to the Egyptian border. It's unclear who traveled with him. A few years later, we find him leading a group of three hundred and eighteen men capable of bearing arms—"trained servants born in his household"—which suggests he was in charge of a tribe of at least twelve hundred people. He probably didn't enter Egypt with a much smaller group. This was before he parted ways with his nephew, Lot, whose followers were nearly as many as his own. Leaving any of his dependents behind would have meant leaving them to face starvation. We can imagine a large caravan organized, with donkeys and camels to carry supplies and household goods, with women and children transported just like in the sculptures depicting the arrival of Abusha from the same region, though with a smaller entourage. The journey through the desert would be challenging and likely result in significant losses, especially among the cattle and other animals. But finally, on the seventh or eighth day, as their water supplies were running low and the camels began to tire and struggle with the meager food and long travel, a dark line would begin to appear on the horizon ahead, soon transforming into a delicate fringe that sparkled here and there as if sprinkled with diamonds. Then they would recognize that before them lay the fields, gardens, palaces, and obelisks of Egypt, the broad flood and fertile plain of the Nile, and their hearts would swell with joy, lifting thanks to the Most High, who had guided them through the vast and daunting wilderness to a land of abundance.

But now a fresh anxiety fell upon the spirit of the chief. Tradition tells us that already in Babylonia he had had experience of the violence and tyranny of earthly potentates, and had with difficulty escaped from an attempt which the king of Babylon made upon his life. Either memory recalled this and similar dangers, or reason suggested what the unbridled licence of irresponsible power might conceive and execute under the circumstances. The Pharaohs had, it is plain, already departed from the simple manners of the earlier times, when each prince was contented with a single wife, and had substituted for the primitive law of monogamy that corrupt system of hareem life which has kept its ground in the East from an ancient date to the present day. Abraham was aware of this, and "as he was come near to enter into Egypt," but was not yet entered, he was seized with a great fear. "Behold," he said to Sarai his wife, "Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon; therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive," Under these circumstances Abraham, with a craft not unnatural in an Oriental, but certainly far from commendable, resolved to dissemble his relationship towards Sarah, and to represent her as not his wife, but his sister. She was, in point of fact, his half-sister, as he afterwards pleaded to Abimelech (Gen. xx. 12), being the daughter of Terah by a secondary wife, and married to her half-brother "Say, I pray thee," he said, "thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee." Sarah acquiesced; and no doubt the whole tribe was made acquainted with the resolution come to, so that they might all be in one story.

But now a new anxiety weighed on the spirit of the chief. Tradition says that he had already experienced the violence and tyranny of earthly rulers in Babylonia and had barely escaped an assassination attempt by the king of Babylon. Either he remembered these types of dangers, or he reasoned what the unchecked power of irresponsible leaders might think of and act upon in such a situation. The Pharaohs had clearly moved away from the simple customs of earlier times when each prince was satisfied with a single wife, replacing the basic law of monogamy with the corrupt practice of harem life that has persisted in the East from ancient times to today. Abraham understood this, and "as he was getting close to entering Egypt," but had not yet entered, he was suddenly filled with fear. "Look," he said to Sarai his wife, "I know that you are a beautiful woman; therefore, when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife,’ and they will kill me, but they will let you live." Given these circumstances, Abraham, with a cunning that might be expected in an Oriental but was certainly not commendable, decided to hide his relationship with Sarah and present her as not his wife but his sister. In fact, she was his half-sister, as he later explained to Abimelech (Gen. xx. 12), being the daughter of Terah with a secondary wife, and married to her half-brother. "Say, please," he said, "that you are my sister, so that it may go well with me for your sake; and my life shall be spared because of you." Sarah agreed; and no doubt the entire tribe was made aware of the decision, so they all would be telling the same story.

The frontier was then approached. We learn from the history of Abusha, as well as from other scattered notices in the papyri, how carefully the eastern border was always guarded, and what precautions were taken to apprise the Court when any considerable body of immigrants arrived. The chief official upon the frontier, either Khnumhotep or some one occupying a similar position, would receive the in-comers, subject them to interrogation, and cause his secretary to draw up a report, which would be forwarded by courier to the capital. The royal orders would be awaited, and meantime perhaps fresh reports would be sent by other officials of the neighbourhood. In the present instance, we are told that several "princes of Pharaoh," having been struck with the beauty of Sarah, commended her to their royal master, who sent for her and had her brought into his own house. Abraham himself was well received and treated with much distinction "for her sake." According to Eupolemus, he and his were settled in the sacred city of On or Heliopolis; and there, in that seat of learning and religion, the Patriarch, as the same authority declares, lived peacefully for many years and taught the Egyptians the sciences of astronomy and arithmetic. The author of Genesis says nothing of the place of his abode, but simply informs us of his well-being. "Pharaoh entreated Abram well for Sarai's sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels." The collocation of the clauses implies that all these were presents from the king. The pleased monarch lavished on his brother-in-law such gifts of honour as were usual at the time and suitable to his circumstances. Abraham became "very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Gen. xiii. 2). He flourished greatly, whether for months or for years the scripture does not say. He was separated from his wife, and she was an inmate of Pharaoh's hareem; but he kept his secret, and no one betrayed him. Apparently, he was content.

The frontier was then reached. We learn from the history of Abusha, along with other scattered notes in the papyri, how carefully the eastern border was always monitored, and what steps were taken to inform the Court when a significant number of immigrants arrived. The main official at the border, either Khnumhotep or someone in a similar role, would greet the newcomers, interrogate them, and have his secretary prepare a report, which would be sent by courier to the capital. They would wait for royal orders, and in the meantime, additional reports might be sent by other local officials. In this case, we hear that several "princes of Pharaoh," taken by the beauty of Sarah, praised her to their royal master, who summoned her and had her brought into his home. Abraham himself was well received and treated with much respect "for her sake." According to Eupolemus, he and his family settled in the sacred city of On or Heliopolis; and there, in that center of learning and religion, the Patriarch, as that source states, lived peacefully for many years and taught the Egyptians about astronomy and arithmetic. The author of Genesis mentions nothing about the place he lived, only that he was doing well. "Pharaoh treated Abram well for Sarai's sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and female donkeys, and male and female servants, and camels." The way the clauses are arranged suggests that all these were gifts from the king. The pleased monarch bestowed on his brother-in-law the usual honors appropriate for his situation. Abraham became "very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold" (Gen. xiii. 2). He thrived, whether for months or years, the scripture doesn’t specify. He was separated from his wife, as she was part of Pharaoh's harem; but he kept his secret, and no one revealed it. Apparently, he was content.

Ere long, however, a discovery was made. Calamity came upon the royal house in some marked way, probably either in the form of sickness or of death. The king became convinced that he was the object of a Divine chastisement, and cast about for a cause to which his sufferings might reasonably be attributed. How had he provoked God's anger? Either, as Josephus thinks, the priests had by this time found out the truth, and made the suggestion to him, that he was being punished for having taken another man's wife into his seraglio; or possibly, as others have surmised, Sarah herself divined the source of the calamities, and made confession of the truth. At any rate, by some means or other, the facts of the case became known; and the Pharaoh thereupon hastened to set matters right. Sarah, though an inmate of the hareem, was probably still in the probationary condition, undergoing the purification necessary before the final completion of her nuptials (Esth. ii. 12), and could thus be restored intact. The Pharaoh sent for Abraham, reproached him with his deceit, pointed out the ill consequences which had followed, and, doubtless in some displeasure, required him to take his wife and depart. The famine was at an end, and there was no reason why he should linger. Beyond reproach, however, Pharaoh inflicted no punishment. He "commanded his men concerning Abraham; and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had."

Ere long, however, a discovery was made. Trouble struck the royal family in a significant way, likely through illness or death. The king came to believe that he was being punished by God and looked for a reason that could explain his suffering. How had he angered God? Either, as Josephus suggests, the priests had figured out the truth and pointed out to him that he was being punished for taking another man’s wife into his harem; or perhaps, as others have speculated, Sarah herself realized the cause of the misfortunes and confessed the truth. In any case, somehow, the facts of the matter came to light, and the Pharaoh quickly moved to make things right. Sarah, though part of the harem, was likely still in a trial period, undergoing the purification needed before her marriage was finalized (Esth. ii. 12), and could thus be returned unharmed. The Pharaoh summoned Abraham, confronted him about his deception, highlighted the negative consequences that had resulted, and, likely out of some frustration, ordered him to take his wife and leave. The famine had ended, and there was no reason for him to stay. Nonetheless, Pharaoh imposed no punishment. He "commanded his men concerning Abraham; and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had."

Such is the account which has come down to us of Abraham's sojourn in Egypt. If it be asked, Why is it inserted into the "story of Egypt" at this point? the reply must be, because, on a dispassionate consideration of all the circumstances, chronological and other, which attach to the narrative, it has been generally agreed that the event belongs to about this time. There is no special reign to which it can be definitely assigned; but the best critics acquiesce in the judgment of Canon Cook upon the point, who says: "For my own part, I regard it as all but certain that Abraham visited Egypt in some reign between the middle of the eleventh and the thirteenth dynasty, and most probably under one of the earliest Pharaohs of the twelfth."[14]

Here is the account we have of Abraham's time in Egypt. If someone asks why it’s included in the "story of Egypt" at this moment, the answer is that, after carefully considering all the relevant factors, both chronological and otherwise, it’s generally accepted that this event took place around this time. There isn't a specific reign it can be tied to, but leading scholars agree with Canon Cook’s assessment, who says: "Personally, I believe it's almost certain that Abraham visited Egypt during some reign between the middle of the eleventh and the thirteenth dynasty, likely under one of the earliest Pharaohs of the twelfth."[14]

This is not the only entrance of Hebrews or people of Semitic race into Egypt. Emigrants from less favoured countries had frequently looked with interest to the fertile Delta of the Nile, hoping that there they might find homes free from the vicissitudes of their own. Previous to this, one Amu had entered Egypt, perhaps from Midian, with his family, counting thirty-seven, the little ones riding upon asses, and had sought the protection of the reigning sovereign. It was again the experience of Egypt to receive emigrants from the north-east, from Syria or Northern Arabia, at a little later period, when the nomads in those regions looked over to the south and, by contrast with their over-peopled country, thought they saw a sort of "fairy-land of wealth, culture, and wisdom," which they hoped to enjoy by force: and they were not the last to seek asylum there. We shall soon have to remark on the familiar case of the immigration of the sons of Jacob with their households. In process of time the Semitic wanderers increased so materially that the population in the eastern half of the Delta became half Asiatic, prepared to submit readily to Asiatic rule and to worship Semitic deities; they had already imposed a number of their words upon the language of Egypt.

This isn’t the only instance of Hebrews or Semitic people entering Egypt. Migrants from less fortunate regions often looked at the fertile Nile Delta with interest, hoping to find a stable home away from their hardships. Before this, a man named Amu had come into Egypt, possibly from Midian, along with his family of thirty-seven, the little ones riding on donkeys, seeking the protection of the ruling king. It was also common for Egypt to welcome immigrants from the northeast, from Syria or Northern Arabia, a bit later when the nomads in those areas looked south and, contrasting it with their overcrowded lands, perceived a kind of “fairyland of wealth, culture, and wisdom” they hoped to seize. They were not the last to seek refuge there. Soon, we will discuss the well-known migration of Jacob’s sons with their families. Over time, the number of Semitic wanderers grew significantly, making the population in the eastern half of the Delta predominantly Asiatic, readily accepting Asiatic rule and worshiping Semitic gods; they had already added several of their words to the Egyptian language.

Decorative


Decorative

VIII.

THE GREAT INVASION—THE HYKSÔS OR SHEPHERD KINGS—JOSEPH AND APEPI.

The prowess of the Egyptians had not yet been put to any severe proof. They had themselves shown little of an aggressive spirit. Attracted by the mineral wealth of the Sinaitic peninsula, they had indeed made settlements in that region, which had involved them in occasional wars with the natives, whom they spoke of as "Mena" or "Menti"; and they had had a contest of more importance with the tribes of the south, negro and Ethiopic, in which they had shown a decided superiority over those rude barbarians; but, as yet, they had attempted no important conquest, and had been subjected to no serious attack. The countries upon their borders were but sparsely peopled, and from neither the Berber tribes of the northern African coast, nor from the Sinaitic nomads, nor even from the negroes of the south, with their allies—the "miserable Cushites"—was any dangerous invasion to be apprehended. Egypt had been able to devote herself almost wholly to the cultivation of the arts of peace, and had not been subjected to the severe ordeal, which most nations pass through in their infancy, of a struggle for existence with warlike and powerful enemies.

The skills of the Egyptians had not yet faced any serious challenges. They had shown little aggressive ambition. Drawn to the mineral riches of the Sinai Peninsula, they had established settlements in that area, leading to occasional conflicts with the locals, whom they referred to as "Mena" or "Menti"; they also had a more significant clash with the tribes from the south, including the Black and Ethiopian groups, where they demonstrated clear superiority over those rough tribes. However, they had yet to pursue any major conquests and had not experienced any significant attacks. The regions around them were sparsely populated, and there was no threat of a dangerous invasion from the Berber tribes of the North African coast, the nomadic peoples of Sinai, or even the southern Africans, along with their allies—the "poor Cushites." Egypt had been largely able to focus on cultivating the arts of peace and had not undergone the tough trials that many nations face in their early days, such as a fight for survival against strong and aggressive foes.

The time was now come for a great change. Movements had begun among the populations of Asia which threatened a general disturbance of the peace of the world. Asshur had had to "go forth" out of the land of Shinar, and to make himself a habitation further to the northward, which must have pressed painfully upon other races. In Elam an aggressive spirit had sprung up, and military expeditions had been conducted by Elamitic kings, which started from the shores of the Persian Gulf and terminated in Southern Syria and Palestine. The migration of the tribes which moved with Terah and Abraham from Ur to Haran, and from Haran to Hebron, is but one of many indications of the restlessness of the period. The Hittites were growing in power, and required an enlarged territory for their free expansion. It was now probably that they descended from the hills of Cappadocia upon the region below Taurus and Amanus, where we find them dominant in later ages. Such a movement on their part would displace a large population in Upper Syria, and force it to migrate southwards. There are signs of a pressure upon the north-eastern frontier of Egypt on the part of Asiatics needing a home as early as the commencement of the twelfth dynasty; and it is probable that, while the dynasty lasted, the pressure was continually becoming greater. Asiatics were from time to time received within the barrier of Amenemhat I., some to sojourn and some to dwell. The eastern Delta was more or less Asiaticized; and a large portion of its inhabitants was inclined to welcome a further influx from Asia.

The time for a major change had arrived. Movements had started among the populations of Asia that threatened to disrupt global peace. Asshur had to "move out" of the land of Shinar and establish himself further north, which must have caused strain on other groups. In Elam, a more aggressive attitude had emerged, and military campaigns were launched by Elamitic kings, beginning on the shores of the Persian Gulf and ending in Southern Syria and Palestine. The migration of the tribes led by Terah and Abraham from Ur to Haran, and from Haran to Hebron, is just one of many signs of the restlessness of that time. The Hittites were gaining power and needed more land for their expansion. It was likely during this period that they moved down from the hills of Cappadocia into the region below Taurus and Amanus, where they later became dominant. This movement would displace a large population in Upper Syria, forcing them to migrate south. Signs of pressure on the northeastern border of Egypt from Asiatics seeking a home can be traced back to the beginning of the twelfth dynasty; and it’s likely that this pressure increased throughout the dynasty. From time to time, Asiatics were allowed to enter the barrier of Amenemhat I., with some staying for a while and others settling down. The eastern Delta had become more or less Asianized, and a significant portion of its residents was open to welcoming more immigrants from Asia.

We have one account only of the circumstances of the great invasion by which Egypt fell under a foreign yoke. It purports to come from the native historian, Manetho; but it is delivered to us directly by Josephus, who, in his reports of what other writers had narrated, is not always to be implicitly trusted. Manetho, according to him, declared as follows: "There was once a king of Egypt named Timæus, in whose reign the gods being offended, for I know not what cause, with our nation, certain men of ignoble race, coming from the eastern regions, had the courage to invade the country, and falling upon it unawares, conquered it easily without a battle. After the submission of the princes, they conducted themselves in a most barbarous fashion towards the whole of the inhabitants, slaying some, and reducing to slavery the wives and the children of the others. Moreover they savagely set the cities on fire, and demolished the temples of the gods. At last, they took one of their number called Salatis, and made him king over them. Salatis resided at Memphis, where he received tribute both from Upper and Lower Egypt, while at the same time he placed garrisons in all the most suitable situations. He strongly fortified the frontier, especially on the side of the east, since he foresaw that the Assyrians, who were then exceedingly powerful, might desire to make themselves masters of his kingdom. Having found, moreover, in the Sethroïte nome, to the east of the Bubastite branch of the Nile, a city very favourably situated, and called, on account of an ancient theological tradition, Avaris, he rebuilt it and strengthened it with walls of great thickness, which he guarded with a body of two hundred and forty thousand men. Each summer he visited the place, to see their supplies of corn measured out for his soldiers and their pay delivered to them, as well as to superintend their military exercises, in order that foreigners might hold them in respect."

We have only one account of how the great invasion led Egypt to fall under foreign rule. This account comes from the local historian, Manetho, but it's given to us directly by Josephus, who isn't always completely reliable in his summaries of other writers. According to Manetho, he said: "There was once a king of Egypt named Timæus. During his reign, the gods were offended for reasons unknown to me, and certain men of low birth from the east had the audacity to invade the country. They attacked unexpectedly and quickly conquered it without a fight. After the local rulers surrendered, these invaders behaved in a very cruel manner towards the population, killing some and enslaving the wives and children of others. They also set the cities on fire and destroyed the temples of the gods. Eventually, they chose one of their own, named Salatis, to be king over them. Salatis lived in Memphis, where he collected tribute from both Upper and Lower Egypt while also placing garrisons in strategic locations. He fortified the borders, especially on the eastern side, anticipating that the powerful Assyrians might attempt to take control of his kingdom. Additionally, he found a well-located city in the Sethroïte nome, east of the Bubastite branch of the Nile, called Avaris, based on an ancient religious tradition. He rebuilt this city and fortified it with thick walls, guarded by a force of two hundred and forty thousand soldiers. Each summer, he would visit to ensure that supplies of grain were distributed for his troops and their pay was given out, as well as to oversee their military training so that foreign powers would respect them."

The king, Timæus, does not appear either in the lists of Manetho or upon the monuments, nor is it possible to determine the time of the invasion more precisely than this—that it fell into the interval between Manetho's twelfth and his eighteenth dynasties. The invaders are characterized by the Egyptians as Menti or Sati; but these terms are used so vaguely that nothing definite can be concluded from them. On the whole, it is perhaps most probable that the invading army, like that of Attila, consisted of a vast variety of races—"a collection of all the nomadic hordes of Syria and Arabia"—who made common cause against a foe known to be wealthy, and who all equally desired settlements in a land reputed the most productive in the East. An overwhelming flood of men—a quarter of a million, if we may believe Manetho—poured into the land, impetuous, irresistible. All at once, a danger had come beyond all possible previous calculation—a danger from which there was no escape. It was as when the northern barbarians swooped down in their countless thousands on the outlying provinces of the Roman Empire, or as when the hordes of Jingis Khan overran Kashgar and Kharesm—the contest was too unequal for anything that can be called a struggle to be made. Egypt collapsed before the invader. Manetho says that there was no battle; and we can readily understand that in the divided condition of the country, with two or three subordinate dynasties ruling in different parts of the Delta, and another dynasty at Thebes, no army could be levied which could dare to meet the enemy in the field. The inhabitants fled to their cities, and endeavoured to defend themselves behind walls; but it was in vain. The walls of the Egyptian cities were rather banks to keep out the inundation than ramparts to repel an enemy. In a short time the strongholds that resisted were taken, the male population put to the sword, the women and children enslaved, the houses burnt, the temples ruthlessly demolished. An iconoclastic spirit possessed the conquerors. The gods and worship of Egypt were hateful to them. Where-ever the flood passed, it swept away the existing civilization, deeply impregnated as it was with religion; it covered the ground with the débris of temples and shrines, with the fragments of statues and sphinxes; it crushed existing religious usages, and for a time, as it would seem, substituted nothing in their place. "A study of the monuments," says M. François Lenormant, "attests the reality of the frightful devastations which took place at the first moment of the invasion. With a solitary exception, all the temples anterior to the event have disappeared, and no traces can be found of them except scattered ruins which bear the marks of a destructive violence. To say what during these centuries Egypt had to endure in the way of upsetting of her past is impossible. The only fact which can be stated as certain is, that not a single monument of this desolate epoch has come down to our days to show us what became of the ancient splendour of Egypt under the Hyksôs. We witness under the fifteenth and sixteenth dynasties a fresh shipwreck of Egyptian civilization. Vigorous as it had been, the impulse given to it by the Usurtasens suddenly stops; the series of monuments is interrupted, and Egypt informs us by her very silence of the calamities with which she was smitten."[15]

The king, Timæus, doesn't show up in Manetho's lists or on any monuments, and we can’t pinpoint the exact time of the invasion any better than this: it happened sometime between Manetho's twelfth and eighteenth dynasties. The Egyptians referred to the invaders as Menti or Sati; however, these terms are so vague that we can't draw any firm conclusions. Overall, it's likely that the invading army, similar to Attila’s, was made up of a huge mix of races—"a collection of all the nomadic groups from Syria and Arabia"—who came together against a known wealthy enemy, all wanting to settle in what was considered the most fertile land in the East. A massive wave of people—about a quarter of a million, according to Manetho—flooded into the country, unstoppable and uncontainable. Suddenly, an unprecedented danger had arrived—one from which there was no escape. It was like when the northern barbarians descended in their vast numbers upon the far provinces of the Roman Empire, or when Genghis Khan’s hordes swept through Kashgar and Khwarezm—the odds were so stacked against Egypt that it didn’t stand a chance of putting up a fight. Egypt crumbled before the invaders. Manetho claims there was no battle; and it’s easy to see why, given the country was divided with two or three smaller dynasties controlling different areas of the Delta and another dynasty in Thebes, no army could gather to confront the enemy in the field. The people fled to their cities, desperately trying to defend themselves behind walls, but it was useless. The walls of Egyptian cities were more like levees to keep out floods than fortifications against invaders. Soon, the strongholds that tried to resist were captured, the men killed, the women and children enslaved, the homes burned, and the temples brutally destroyed. The conquerors were filled with an iconoclastic spirit. They despised the gods and worship of Egypt. Wherever they went, they obliterated the existing civilization, which was deeply intertwined with religion; they left behind debris of temples and shrines, fragments of statues and sphinxes; they crushed existing religious practices and apparently substituted nothing for a time. "A study of the monuments," says M. François Lenormant, "confirms the reality of the terrible destruction that occurred at the onset of the invasion. With one exception, all the temples from before this event have vanished, and the only remnants are scattered ruins bearing signs of violent destruction. It’s impossible to say exactly what Egypt endured over these centuries in terms of upheaval. The only fact that can be stated with certainty is that not one monument from this devastated period has survived to show us what became of Egypt’s former glory during the Hyksos era. We witness, under the fifteenth and sixteenth dynasties, a new shipwreck of Egyptian civilization. Despite its earlier vigor, the momentum given by the Usurtasens suddenly halted; the series of monuments stopped, and Egypt, through its silence, reveals the calamities it faced."

It was, fortunately, not the entire country that was overrun. So far as appears, the actual occupation of Egypt by the Hyksôs was confined to the Delta, to the Lower Nile valley, and to the district of the Fayoum. Elephantine, Thebes, Abydos, escaped the destroyers, and though forced to certain formal acts of submission, to an acknowledgment of the Hyksôs suzerainty, and to the payment of an annual tribute, retained a qualified independence. The Theban monuments of the eleventh and twelfth dynasties were undisturbed. Even in Lower Egypt there were structures that suffered little or nothing at the conqueror's hands, being too humble to attract his attention or too massive to yield to the means of destruction known to him. Thus the pyramids scarcely suffered, though it is possible that at this time their sanctity was first violated and their contents rifled. The great obelisk of Usurtasen I., which still stands at Heliopolis, was not overthrown. The humbler tombs at Ghizeh, so precious to the antiquary, were for the most part untouched. Amenemhat's buildings in the Fayoum may have been damaged, but they were not demolished. Though Egyptian civilization received a rude shock from the invasion, it was not altogether swallowed up or destroyed; and when the deluge had passed it emerged once more, and soon reached, and even surpassed, its ancient glories.

It was, fortunately, not the whole country that was taken over. From what we can tell, the actual occupation of Egypt by the Hyksôs was limited to the Delta, the Lower Nile valley, and the Fayoum region. Elephantine, Thebes, and Abydos avoided destruction, and although they had to submit formally, acknowledge Hyksôs dominance, and pay an annual tribute, they managed to keep a degree of independence. The Theban monuments from the eleventh and twelfth dynasties remained intact. Even in Lower Egypt, some structures were barely affected by the conqueror, either because they were too insignificant to catch his eye or too sturdy to fall to the means of destruction available to him. Therefore, the pyramids were mostly unharmed, although it's possible their sanctity was first violated at this time and their contents were looted. The great obelisk of Usurtasen I., which still stands in Heliopolis, was not toppled. The simpler tombs at Ghizeh, very valuable to historians, were mostly left alone. Amenemhat's buildings in the Fayoum might have been harmed, but they weren't destroyed. While Egyptian civilization took a significant hit from the invasion, it wasn't completely erased; when the storm passed, it bounced back and soon reached, and even exceeded, its former greatness.

The Hyksôs king who led the invasion, or who, at any rate, was brought to the front in its course, bore, we are told, either the name of Salatis, or that of Saites. Of these two forms the second is undoubtedly to be preferred, since the first has in its favour only the single authority of Josephus, while the second is supported by Africanus, Eusebius, George the Syncellus, and to a certain extent by the monuments. The "tablet of four hundred years" contains the name of Sut-Aapehti as that of a king of Egypt who must have belonged to the Middle Empire, and this name may fairly be regarded as represented in an abbreviated form by the Greek "Saïtes." Saïtes, having made himself absolute master of the Lower Country, and forced the king of the Upper Country to become his tributary, fixed his residence at Memphis, at the same time strongly fortifying and garrisoning various other towns in important positions. Of these the most considerable was the city, called Auaris, or Avaris, in the Sethroïte nome, which lay east of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, and was probably not far from Pelusium itself, if indeed it was not identical with that city. Another strong fort, by means of which the Delta was held and overawed, seems to have been Zan or Tanis, now San, situated on what was called the Tanitic branch of the Nile, the next most easterly branch to the Pelusiac. A third was in the Fayoum, on the site now called Mit-Fares. A large body of troops must also have been maintained at Memphis, if the king, as we are told, ordinarily held his court there.

The Hyksos king who led the invasion, or who, at the very least, was prominent during that time, is said to have either been named Salatis or Saites. Of these two names, the second is definitely preferred, since the first is only supported by a single source, Josephus, while the second is backed by Africanus, Eusebius, George the Syncellus, and somewhat by the monuments. The "tablet of four hundred years" lists the name of Sut-Aapehti as an Egyptian king from the Middle Empire, and this name can reasonably be seen as abbreviated in Greek to "Saïtes." Saïtes, having established total control over the Lower Country and compelled the king of the Upper Country to pay tribute, made his home in Memphis, while also strongly fortifying and garrisoning various other key towns. The most significant of these was the city known as Auaris, or Avaris, in the Sethroite nome, which was located east of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile and was probably close to Pelusium itself, if it wasn't the same city. Another important stronghold that helped maintain control over the Delta was Zan, or Tanis, now known as San, which sat on the Tanitic branch of the Nile, the next most easterly branch after the Pelusiac. A third was situated in the Fayoum, at the site currently called Mit-Fares. A large number of troops must have also been stationed at Memphis, as the king, it is said, usually held his court there.

How long the Egyptians groaned under the tyranny of the "Shepherds," it is difficult to say. The epitomists of Manetho are hopelessly at variance on the subject, and the monuments are silent, or nearly so. Moderns vary in the time, which they assign to the period between two centuries and five. On the whole, criticism seems to incline towards the shorter term, though why Manetho, or his epitomists, should have enlarged it, remains an insoluble problem. There is but one dynasty of "Shepherd Kings" that has any distinct historical substance, or to which we can assign any names. This is a dynasty of six kings only, whose united reigns are not likely to have exceeded two centuries. Nor does it seem possible that, if the duration of the foreign oppression had been much longer, Egypt could have returned, so nearly as she did, to the same manners and customs, the same religious usages, the same rules of art, the same system of government, even the very same proper names, at the end of the period, as had been in use at its beginning. One cannot but think that the bouleversement which Egypt underwent has been somewhat exaggerated by the native historian for the sake of rhetorical effect, to enhance by contrast the splendour of the New Empire.

It's hard to say how long the Egyptians suffered under the rule of the "Shepherds." The summaries by Manetho are inconsistent, and the monuments barely provide any information. Modern scholars differ on the duration, estimating it to be anywhere from two to five centuries. Overall, critics seem to favor the shorter timeline, but it's unclear why Manetho or his summarizers would have extended it. There is only one dynasty of "Shepherd Kings" that has any solid historical basis, which consists of just six kings, whose combined reign likely didn't exceed two centuries. It seems unlikely that if the foreign oppression had lasted much longer, Egypt could have returned so closely to the same customs, religious practices, artistic styles, governance, and even the same names at the end of the period as at the start. One has to consider that the upheaval Egypt experienced might have been somewhat exaggerated by the native historian for effect, to highlight the glory of the New Empire.

In another respect, too, if he has not misrepresented the rule of the "Shepherd Kings," he has failed to do it justice. He has painted in lurid colours the advent of the foreign race, the war of extermination in which they engaged, the cruel usage to which they subjected the conquered people; he has represented the invaders as rude, savage, barbarous, bent on destruction, careless of art, the enemies of progress and civilization. He has neglected to point out, that, as time went on, there was a sensible change. The period of constant bitter hostilities came to an end. Peace succeeded to war. In Lower Egypt the "Shepherds" reigned over quiet and unresisting subjects; in Upper Egypt they bore rule over submissive tributaries. Under these circumstances a perceptible softening of their manners and general character took place. As the Mongols and the Mandchus in China suffered themselves by degrees to be conquered by the superior civilization of the people whom they had overrun and subdued, so the Hyksôs yielded little by little to the influences which surrounded them, and insensibly assimilated themselves to their Egyptian subjects. They adopted the Egyptian dress, titles, official language, art, mode of writing, architecture. In Tanis, especially, temples were built and sculptures set up under the later "Shepherd Kings," differing little in their general character from those of purely Egyptian periods. The foreign monarchs erected their effigies at this site, which were sculptured by native artists according to the customary rules of Egyptian glyptic art, and only differ from those of the earlier native Pharaohs in the head-dress, the expression of the countenance, and a peculiar arrangement of the beard. A friendly intercourse took place during this period between the kings of the North, established at Tanis and Memphis, and those of the South, resident at Thebes; frequent embassies were interchanged; and blocks of granite and syenite were continually floated down the Nile, past Thebes, to be employed by the "Shepherds" in their erections at the southern capitals.

In another way, if he hasn’t misrepresented the rule of the "Shepherd Kings," he hasn't done it justice either. He has depicted the arrival of the foreign race in vivid colors, the war of extermination they engaged in, and the cruel treatment they inflicted on the conquered people. He portrayed the invaders as rude, savage, brutal, focused on destruction, and indifferent to art, lacking any progressive or civilized qualities. He has overlooked the fact that, over time, there was a significant change. The period of ongoing intense hostilities came to an end. Peace followed war. In Lower Egypt, the "Shepherds" ruled over peaceful and compliant subjects; in Upper Egypt, they governed obedient tributaries. Under these conditions, there was a noticeable softening in their behavior and overall character. Just as the Mongols and the Mandchus in China gradually allowed themselves to be influenced by the superior civilization of the people they had conquered, the Hyksôs slowly absorbed the influences around them and began to assimilate to their Egyptian subjects. They adopted Egyptian clothing, titles, official language, art, writing style, and architecture. In Tanis, especially, temples were built and sculptures erected under the later "Shepherd Kings," which were not much different in style from those of purely Egyptian periods. The foreign rulers had their images created at this site, sculpted by local artists following the usual Egyptian artistic conventions, differing only in their headgear, facial expression, and a distinctive arrangement of their beards. During this time, there was a friendly exchange between the northern kings, based in Tanis and Memphis, and the southern kings residing in Thebes; they frequently exchanged embassies, and blocks of granite and syenite were constantly floated down the Nile, past Thebes, to be used by the "Shepherds" in their constructions at the southern capitals.

BUST OF A SHEPHERD KING. BUST OF A SHEPHERD KING.

The "Shepherds" brought with them into Egypt the worship of a deity, whom they called Sut or Sutekh, and apparently identified with the sun. He was described as "the great ruler of heaven," and identified with Baal in later times. The kings regarded themselves as especially under his protection. At the time of the invasion, they do not seem to have considered this deity as having any special connection with any of the Egyptian gods, and they consequently made war indiscriminately against the entire Egyptian Pantheon, plundering and demolishing all the temples alike. But when the first burst of savage hostility was gone by, when more settled times followed, and the manners and temper of the conquerors grew softened by pacific intercourse with their subjects, a likeness came to be seen between Sutekh, their own ancestral god, and the "Set" of the Egyptians. Set in the old Egyptian mythology was recognized as "the patron of foreigners, the power which swept the children of the desert like a sand-storm over the fertile land." He was a representative of physical, but not of moral, evil; a strong and powerful deity, worthy of reverence and worship, but less an object of love than of fear. The "Shepherds" acknowledged in this god their Sutekh; and as they acquired settled habits, and assimilated themselves to their subjects, they began to build temples to him, after the Egyptian model, in their principal towns. After the dynasty had borne rule for five reigns, covering the space perhaps of one hundred and fifty years, a king came to the throne named Apepi, who has left several monuments, and is the only one of the "Shepherds" that stands out for us in definite historical consistency as a living and breathing person. Apepi built a great temple to Sutekh at Zoan, or Tanis, his principal capital, composed of blocks of red granite, and adorned it with obelisks and sphinxes. The obelisks are said to have been fourteen in number, and must have been dispersed about the courts, and not, as usual, placed only at the entrance. The sphinxes, which differed from the ordinary Egyptian sphinx in having a mane like a lion and also wings, seem to have formed an avenue or vista leading up to the temple from the town. They are in diorite, and have the name of Apepi engraved upon them.

The "Shepherds" brought their worship of a god to Egypt, whom they called Sut or Sutekh, and apparently associated with the sun. He was described as "the great ruler of heaven," and later identified with Baal. The kings saw themselves as being especially under his protection. During their invasion, they didn't seem to think this god had any special ties to the Egyptian gods, so they waged war indiscriminately against the whole Egyptian Pantheon, plundering and destroying all the temples alike. However, as the initial wave of violence passed and more stable times arrived, the conquerors began to soften their behavior through peaceful interactions with their subjects, and they noticed similarities between Sutekh, their ancestral god, and the Egyptian "Set." In ancient Egyptian mythology, Set was known as "the patron of foreigners," the force that swept the people of the desert like a sandstorm over fertile land. He represented physical but not moral evil; a strong and powerful deity, worthy of reverence and worship, yet more feared than loved. The "Shepherds" recognized this god as their Sutekh; and as they settled in and adapted to their subjects, they started building temples for him, modeled after the Egyptian ones, in their main towns. After the dynasty ruled for five reigns, spanning about one hundred and fifty years, a king named Apepi ascended to the throne. He left behind several monuments and is the only "Shepherd" who stands out in history as a real person. Apepi built a magnificent temple to Sutekh at Zoan, or Tanis, his primary capital, made of red granite blocks and decorated with obelisks and sphinxes. There were said to be fourteen obelisks, which were spread throughout the courts rather than just at the entrance as usual. The sphinxes, unlike regular Egyptian sphinxes, had lion-like manes and wings, and seemed to create an avenue leading from the town to the temple. They were made of diorite, with Apepi's name engraved on them.

The pacific rule of Apepi and his predecessors allowed Thebes to increase in power, and her monuments now recommence. Three kings who bore the family name of Taa, and the throne name of Ra-Sekenen, bore rule in succession at the southern capital. The third of these, Taa-ken, or "Taa the Victorious," was contemporary with Apepi, and paid his tribute punctually, year by year, to his lawful suzerain. He does not seem to have had any desire to provoke war; but Apepi probably thought that he was becoming too powerful, and would, if unmolested, shortly make an effort to throw off the Hyksôs yoke. He therefore determined to pick a quarrel with him, and proceeded to send to Thebes a succession of embassies with continually increasing demands. First of all he required Taa-ken to relinquish the worship of all the Egyptian gods except Amen-Ra, the chief god of Thebes, whom he probably identified with his own Sutekh. It is not quite clear whether Taa-ken consented to this demand, or politely evaded it. At any rate, a second embassy soon followed the first, with a fresh requirement; and a third followed the second. The policy was successful, and at last Taa-ken took up arms. It would seem that he was successful, or was at any rate able to hold his own; for he maintained the war till his death, and left it to his successor, Aahmes.

The peaceful reign of Apepi and his predecessors allowed Thebes to grow in power, and its monuments are starting to rise again. Three kings with the family name of Taa and the throne name of Ra-Sekenen ruled in succession from the southern capital. The third of these, Taa-ken, or "Taa the Victorious," was a contemporary of Apepi and paid his tribute on time each year to his rightful overlord. He didn't seem to want to start a war; however, Apepi likely thought that Taa-ken was becoming too powerful and would soon try to break free from the Hyksos control if left alone. So, he decided to pick a fight with him and sent a series of envoys to Thebes with increasingly demanding requests. First, he asked Taa-ken to stop worshiping all the Egyptian gods except Amen-Ra, the main god of Thebes, whom Apepi probably equated with his own god Sutekh. It’s not entirely clear whether Taa-ken agreed to this demand or managed to cleverly avoid it. In any case, a second envoy soon followed the first with a new demand, and a third envoy came after the second. This strategy worked, and eventually, Taa-ken decided to take up arms. It seems that he was either successful or was at least able to hold his own because he continued the fight until his death and passed it on to his successor, Aahmes.

There was an ancient tradition, that the king who made Joseph his prime minister, and committed into his hands the entire administration of Egypt, was Apepi. George the Syncellus says that the synchronism was accepted by all. It is clear that Joseph's arrival did not fall, like Abraham's, into the period of the Old Empire, since under Joseph horses and chariots are in use, as well as wagons or carts, all of which were unknown till after the Hyksôs invasion. It is also more natural that Joseph, a foreigner, should have been advanced by a foreign king than by a native one, and the favour shown to his brethren, who were shepherds (Gen. xlvi. 32), is consonant at any rate with the tradition that it was a "Shepherd King" who held the throne at the time of their arrival. A priest of Heliopolis, moreover, would scarcely have given Joseph his daughter in marriage unless at a time when the priesthood was in a state of depression. Add to this that the Pharaoh of Joseph is evidently resident in Lower Egypt, not at Thebes, which was the seat of government for many hundred years both before and after the Hyksôs rule.

There was an old tradition that the king who made Joseph his prime minister and gave him control over the entire administration of Egypt was Apepi. George the Syncellus notes that this synchronism was widely accepted. It's evident that Joseph's arrival didn't occur, like Abraham's, during the time of the Old Empire, since in Joseph's time, horses and chariots were used, along with wagons or carts, all of which were not seen until after the Hyksôs invasion. It's also more plausible that Joseph, being a foreigner, would be promoted by a foreign king rather than a local one, and the support shown to his brothers, who were shepherds (Gen. xlvi. 32), aligns with the tradition that it was a "Shepherd King" on the throne at the time of their arrival. Additionally, a priest of Heliopolis wouldn't likely have given Joseph his daughter in marriage unless the priesthood was in decline. Furthermore, it’s clear that the Pharaoh during Joseph's time was based in Lower Egypt, not in Thebes, which was the capital for many centuries both before and after the Hyksôs rule.

If, however, we are to place Joseph under one of the "Shepherd Kings," there can be no reason why we should not accept the tradition which connects him with Apepi. Apepi was dominant over the whole of Egypt, as Joseph's Pharaoh seems to have been. He acknowledged a single god, as did that monarch (Gen. xli. 38, 39). He was a thoroughly Egyptianized king. He had a council of learned scribes, a magnificent court, and a peaceful reign until towards its close. His residence was in the Delta, either at Tanis or Auaris. He was a prince of a strong will, firm and determined; one who did not shrink from initiating great changes, and who carried out his resolves in a somewhat arbitrary way. The arguments in favour of his identity with Joseph's master are, perhaps, not wholly conclusive; but they raise a presumption, which may well incline us, with most modern historians of Egypt, to assign the touching story of Joseph to the reign of the last of the Shepherds.

If we’re going to link Joseph to one of the "Shepherd Kings," there's no reason we shouldn't accept the tradition that connects him with Apepi. Apepi ruled all of Egypt, much like Joseph's Pharaoh did. He recognized one god, just like that king (Gen. xli. 38, 39). He was a fully Egyptianized ruler. He had a council of knowledgeable scribes, a grand court, and enjoyed a peaceful reign until the end. His home was in the Delta, either at Tanis or Auaris. He was a strong-willed, determined prince who wasn't afraid to make big changes and often implemented his decisions in a rather forceful manner. The arguments for his identity with Joseph's master might not be completely definitive, but they suggest a possibility that could lead us, along with most modern historians of Egypt, to connect Joseph's moving story to the reign of the last of the Shepherds.


Decorative

IX.

HOW THE HYKSÔS WERE EXPELLED FROM EGYPT.

At first sight it seems strange that the terrible warriors who, under Set or Saïtes, so easily reduced Egypt to subjection, and then still further weakened the population by massacre and oppression, should have been got rid of, after two centuries or two centuries and a half, with such comparative ease. But the rapid deterioration of conquering races under certain circumstances is a fact familiar to the historian. Elamites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, rapidly succeeded each other as the dominant power in Western Asia, each race growing weaker and becoming exhausted, after a longer or a shorter interval, through nearly the same causes. Nor are the reasons for the deterioration far to seek. Each race when it sets out upon its career of conquest is active, energetic, inured to warlike habits, simple in its manners, or at any rate simpler than those which it conquers, and, comparatively speaking, poor. It is urged on by the desire of bettering its condition. If it meets with a considerable resistance, if the conquest occupies a long space, and the conquered are with difficulty held under, rebelling from time to time, and making frantic efforts to throw off the yoke which galls and frets them, then the warlike habits of the conquerors are kept up, and their dominion may continue for several centuries. Or, if the nation is very energetic and unresting, not content with its earlier conquests, or willing to rest upon its oars, but continually seeking out fresh enemies upon its borders, and regarding war as the normal state of its existence, then the centuries may be prolonged into millennia, and it may be long indeed before any tendency to decline shows itself; but, ordinarily, there is no very prolonged resistance on the one side, and no very constant and unresting energy on the other. A poor and hardy people, having swooped down upon one that is softer and more civilized, easily carries all before it, acquires the wealth and luxury which it desires, and being content with them, seeks for nothing further, but assimilates itself by degrees to the character and condition of the people whom it has conquered. A standing army, disposed in camps and garrisons, may be kept up; but if there is a cessation of actual war even for a generation, the severity of military discipline will become relaxed, the use of arms will grow unfamiliar, the physical type will decline, the belligerent spirit will die away, and the conquerors of a century ago will have lost all the qualities which secured them success when they made their attack, and have sunk to the level of their subjects. When this point is reached, thoughts of rebellion are apt to arise in the hearts of these latter; the old terror which made the conqueror appear irresistible is gone, and is perhaps succeeded by contempt—the subjects feel that they have at least the advantage of numbers on their side; they have also probably been leading harder and more bracing lives; they see that, man for man, they are physically stronger than their conquerors; and at last they rebel, and are successful.

At first glance, it seems odd that the fierce warriors who, under Set or Saïtes, so easily conquered Egypt and then further weakened the population through massacre and oppression, could be removed after two centuries or two and a half with such relative ease. However, the rapid decline of conquering races under certain circumstances is a well-known fact among historians. Elamites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks quickly succeeded one another as the dominant power in Western Asia, each group growing weaker and becoming exhausted after varying periods, due to nearly the same reasons. The reasons for this decline are not hard to uncover. Each group, when it begins its conquest, is active, energetic, accustomed to war, simpler in lifestyle, or at least simpler than the cultures they conquer, and, comparatively speaking, poor. They are motivated by the desire to improve their situation. If they encounter significant resistance, if the conquest takes a long time, and if the conquered people are difficult to control, occasionally rebelling and desperately trying to remove the burden that oppresses them, the warriors’ combat readiness remains intact, and their rule may last for several centuries. Alternatively, if the conquering nation is exceptionally energetic and relentless, not satisfied with its initial gains, or willing to take a break, but instead constantly seeking new enemies on their borders and seeing war as a natural part of life, their dominance may be extended from centuries into millennia, showing little decline for a long while. However, usually, there’s a lack of sustained resistance on one side and a lack of constant energy on the other. A poor and tough people, having descended upon a softer, more civilized nation, easily overpowers everything in their path, acquiring the wealth and luxury they desire. Once satisfied, they seek nothing more and gradually adapt to the character and conditions of the people they’ve conquered. A standing army might be maintained in camps and garrisons, but if there’s a break from actual war for even a generation, military discipline will loosen, the familiarity with weapons will fade, physical fitness will decline, the fighting spirit will vanish, and the conquerors of a century prior will have lost all the qualities that brought them success in the first place, lowering themselves to the status of their subjects. Once this happens, feelings of rebellion can arise among those subjects; the old fear that made the conqueror seem unstoppable has vanished, potentially replaced by contempt—the subjects realize they have the advantage of numbers; they’ve likely been living tougher and more resilient lives; they see that they are physically stronger than their conquerors; and eventually, they rebel and succeed.

In Egypt there was, further, this peculiarity—the conquered people occupied two entirely distinct positions. In the Delta, the Fayoum, and the northern Nile valley, they were completely reduced, and lived intermixed with their conquerors, a despised class, suffering more or less of oppression. In Upper Egypt the case was different. There the people had submitted in a certain sense, acknowledged the Hyksôs monarchs as their suzerains, and indicated their subjection by the payment of an annual tribute; but they retained their own native princes, their own administration and government, their own religion, their own laws; they did not live intermixed with the new comers; they were not subject to daily insult or ill-treatment; the fact that they paid a tribute did not hinder their preserving their self-respect, and consequently they suffered neither moral nor physical deterioration. Further, it would seem to have been possible for them to engage in wars on their own account with the races living further up the Nile, or with the wild tribes of the desert, and thus to maintain warlike habits among themselves, while the Hyksôs were becoming unaccustomed to them. The Ra-Sekenens of Thebes, who called themselves "great" and "very great," had probably built up a considerable power in Upper Egypt during the reigns of the later "Shepherd Kings;" had improved their military system by the adoption of the horse and the chariot, which the Hyksôs had introduced; had practised their people in arms, and acquired a reputation as warriors.

In Egypt, there was also this unique situation—the conquered people held two completely different roles. In the Delta, the Fayoum, and the northern Nile valley, they were fully subjugated, living mixed among their conquerors as a despised class, experiencing varying degrees of oppression. In Upper Egypt, the situation was different. There, the people had, in a way, submitted and recognized the Hyksôs kings as their overlords, showing their submission through the payment of an annual tribute; however, they maintained their own local princes, their own administration and governance, their own religion, and their own laws. They didn't live mixed with the newcomers and weren't subjected to daily insults or mistreatment; the tribute they paid didn’t stop them from keeping their self-respect, so they didn't suffer any moral or physical decline. Additionally, it seemed they could engage in wars on their own with the races further up the Nile or with the wild tribes of the desert, allowing them to keep a martial culture alive while the Hyksôs grew unaccustomed to it. The Ra-Sekenens of Thebes, who labeled themselves “great” and “very great,” likely built significant power in Upper Egypt during the rule of the later "Shepherd Kings;" they enhanced their military system by adopting the horse and chariot introduced by the Hyksôs, trained their people in arms, and gained a reputation as formidable warriors.

More particularly must this have been the case with Ra-Sekenen III., the contemporary of Apepi. Ra-Sekenen the Third called himself "the great victorious Taa." He surrounded himself with a council of "mighty chiefs, captains, and expert leaders." He acquired so much repute, that he provoked Apepi's jealousy before he had in any way transgressed the duties which he owed him as a feudatory. In the long negotiation between the two, of which the "First Sallier Papyrus" gives an account, it is evident that, while Ra-Sekenen has committed no act whereof Apepi has any right to complain, he has awoke in him feelings of such hostility, that Apepi will be content with nothing less than either unqualified submission to every demand that he chooses to make, or war à outrance. Never was a subject monarch more goaded and driven into rebellion against his inclination by over-bearing conduct on the part of his suzerain than was Ra-Sekenen by the last "Shepherd King." The disinclination of himself and his court to fight is almost ludicrous: they "are silent and in great dismay; they know not how to answer the messenger sent to them, good of ill." Ra-Sekenen, powerful as he had become, "victorious" as he may have been against Libyans and negroes, and even Cushites, dreaded exceedingly to engage in a struggle with the redoubted people which, two centuries previously, had shown itself so irresistible.

More specifically, this was true for Ra-Sekenen III, who lived at the same time as Apepi. Ra-Sekenen III called himself "the great victorious Taa." He surrounded himself with a council of "mighty chiefs, captains, and expert leaders." He gained such a reputation that he stirred Apepi's jealousy even before he had done anything to disrespect his obligations as a vassal. In the lengthy negotiations between the two, as described in the "First Sallier Papyrus," it’s clear that while Ra-Sekenen has done nothing that Apepi can validly complain about, he has aroused feelings of intense hostility in Apepi, who will accept nothing less than complete submission to all his demands or outright war. Never has a subject king been more pushed into rebellion against his will by the oppressive behavior of his overlord than Ra-Sekenen was by the last "Shepherd King." The reluctance of him and his court to fight is almost comical: they "are silent and in great dismay; they know not how to answer the messenger sent to them, whether good or bad." Ra-Sekenen, despite his power and the victories he may have achieved against Libyans, Africans, and even Cushites, was extremely fearful of engaging in a conflict with the formidable people who, two centuries earlier, had proven to be so unstoppable.

It would seem, however, that he was forced to take up arms at last. We have, unfortunately, no description of the war which followed, so far as it was conducted by this monarch. But it is evident that Apepi was completely disappointed in his hope of crushing the rising native power before it had grown too strong. He had in fact delayed too late. Ra-Sekenen, compelled to defend himself against his aggressive suzerain, raised the standard of national independence, invited aid from all parts of Egypt, and succeeded in bringing a large army into the field. At the first he simply held his own against Apepi, but by degrees he was able to do more. The Hyksôs, who marched against Thebes, found enemies rise up against them in their rear, as first one and then another native chief declared against them in this or that city; their difficulties continually increased; they had to re-descend the Nile valley and to concentrate their forces nearer home. But each year they lost ground. First the Fayoum was yielded, then Memphis, then Tanis. At last nothing remained to the invaders but their great fortified camp, Uar or Auaris, which they had established at the time of their arrival upon the eastern frontier, and had ever since kept up. In this district, which was strongly fortified by walls and moats, and watered by canals derived from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, they had concentrated themselves, we are told, to the number of 240,000 men, determined to make there a final stand against the Egyptians.

It seems he was finally forced to take up arms. Unfortunately, we have no account of the war that followed under this king. However, it's clear that Apepi was completely disappointed in his hope to crush the rising native power before it had grown too strong. In fact, he delayed too long. Ra-Sekenen, compelled to defend himself against his aggressive overlord, raised the banner of national independence, called for help from all over Egypt, and managed to assemble a large army. At first, he just held his ground against Apepi, but gradually he was able to do more. The Hyksôs, who marched against Thebes, found enemies rising up behind them as various native chiefs revolted in different cities; their problems kept increasing. They had to fall back down the Nile valley and regroup their forces closer to home. Each year, however, they lost more territory. First, they lost the Fayoum, then Memphis, and then Tanis. Eventually, all that was left to the invaders was their heavily fortified camp, Uar or Auaris, which they had established upon their arrival at the eastern frontier and had maintained since then. In this area, which was well-fortified by walls and moats and was irrigated by canals from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, they concentrated about 240,000 men, determined to make a final stand against the Egyptians.

It was when affairs were in this position that Ra-Sekenen died, and was succeeded by a king of a different family, the first monarch of the "Eighteenth Dynasty," Aahmes. Aahmes was a prince of great force of character, brave, active, energetic, liberal, beloved by his subjects. He addressed himself at once to the task of completing the liberation of his country by dislodging the Hyksôs from Auaris, and driving them beyond his borders. With this object he collected a force, which is said to have amounted to nearly half a million of men, and at the same time placed a flotilla of ships upon the Nile, which was of the greatest service in his later operations. Auaris was not only defended by broad moats connected with the waters of the Nile, but also bordered upon a lake, or perhaps rather a lagoon, of considerable dimensions. Hence it was necessary that it should be attacked not only by land, but also by water. Aahmes seems to have commanded the land forces in person, riding in a war-chariot, the first of which we have distinct mention. A favourite officer, who bore the same name as his master, accompanied him, sometimes marching at his side as he rode in his chariot, sometimes taking his place in one of the war-vessels, and directing the movements of the fleet. After a time formal siege was laid to Auaris; the fleet was ordered to attack the walls on the side of the lagoon, while the land force was engaged in battering the defences elsewhere. Assaults were made day after day with only partial success; but at last the defenders were wearied out—a panic seized them, and, hastily evacuating the place, they retired towards Syria, the quarter from which they had originally come. Aahmes may have been willing that they should escape: since, if they had been completely blocked in and driven to bay, they might have made a desperate resistance, and caused the Egyptians an enormous loss. He followed, however, upon their footsteps, to make sure that they did not settle anywhere in his neighbourhood, and was not content till they had crossed the desert and entered the hill country of Palestine. Even then he still hung upon their rear, harassing them and cutting off their stragglers; finally, when they made a stand at Sharuhen in Southern Palestine, he laid siege to the town, took it, and made a great slaughter of the hapless defenders.

It was during this time that Ra-Sekenen died and was succeeded by a king from a different family, the first ruler of the "Eighteenth Dynasty," Aahmes. Aahmes was a strong-willed prince, brave, active, energetic, generous, and beloved by his people. He immediately set out to complete the liberation of his country by driving the Hyksôs out of Auaris and beyond his borders. To achieve this, he gathered an army that reportedly numbered nearly half a million men and also assembled a fleet of ships on the Nile, which greatly aided him in his later campaigns. Auaris was protected not only by wide moats connected to the Nile but also by a large lake or lagoon. Therefore, it was essential to attack both by land and by water. Aahmes appeared to lead the ground forces himself, riding in a war chariot, the first of which is distinctly recorded. A favored officer who shared his name accompanied him, sometimes marching alongside him in the chariot and other times taking command from one of the warships while leading the fleet's movements. Eventually, a formal siege was laid against Auaris; the fleet was ordered to assault the walls by the lagoon, while the land forces worked to breach the defenses in other areas. Daily attacks resulted in only partial victories, but eventually, the defenders became exhausted—a panic took hold of them, and they quickly evacuated the area, retreating back toward Syria, from where they had originally come. Aahmes may have preferred that they escape; if they had been completely cornered, they could have fiercely resisted, leading to significant losses for the Egyptians. Nonetheless, he pursued them to ensure they didn't settle nearby, remaining vigilant until they crossed the desert into the hilly regions of Palestine. Even then, he continued to trail them, harassing them and cutting off any stragglers. Ultimately, when they took a stand at Sharuhen in Southern Palestine, he besieged the town, captured it, and inflicted heavy casualties on the unfortunate defenders.

The war did not terminate until the fifth year of Aahmes' reign. Its result was the complete defeat of the invading hordes which had held Lower and Middle Egypt for so long, and their expulsion from Egypt with such ignominy and loss that they made no effort to retaliate or to recover themselves. Vast numbers must have been slain in the battles, or have perished amid the hardships of the retreat; and many thousands were, no doubt, made prisoners and carried back into Egypt as slaves. It is thought that these captives were so numerous as to become an important element in the population of the eastern Delta, and even to modify the character of the Egyptian race in that quarter. The lively imagination of M. François Lenormant sees their descendants in the "strange people, with robust limbs, an elongated face, and a severe expression, which to this day inhabits the tract bordering on Lake Menzaleh."[16]

The war didn’t end until the fifth year of Aahmes' reign. The outcome was the total defeat of the invading hordes that had occupied Lower and Middle Egypt for so long, forcing them out of Egypt with such disgrace and loss that they didn’t attempt to retaliate or recover. Many must have been killed in the battles, or died from the hardships during the retreat; and countless others were undoubtedly taken prisoner and brought back to Egypt as slaves. It’s believed that these captives were so numerous that they became a significant part of the population in the eastern Delta, even changing the character of the Egyptian race in that area. The vivid imagination of M. François Lenormant perceives their descendants in the "strange people, with robust limbs, an elongated face, and a severe expression, which to this day inhabit the tract bordering on Lake Menzaleh."[16]

It is probable that Aahmes had for allies in his war with the "Shepherds" the great nation which adjoined Egypt on the south, and which was continually growing in power—the Kashi, Cushites, or Ethiopians. His wife appears by her features and complexion to have been a Cushite princess, and the marriage is likely to have been less one of inclination than of policy. The Egyptians admired fair women rather than dark ones, as is plain from the unduly light complexions which the artists, in their desire to flatter, ordinarily assign to women, as well as from the attractiveness of Sarah, even in advanced age. When a Theban king contracted marriage with an Ethiopian of ebon blackness, we are entitled to assume a political motive; and the most probable political motive under the circumstances of the time was the desire for military assistance. Though in the early wars between the Kashi and the Egyptians the prowess of the former is not represented as great, and the designation of "miserable Cushites" is evidently used in depreciation of their warlike qualities, yet the very use of the epithet implies a feeling of hostility which could scarcely have been provoked by a weak people. And the Cushites certainly advanced in prowess and in military vigour as time went on. They formed the most important portion of the Egyptian troops for some centuries; at a later period they conquered Egypt, and were the dominant power for a hundred years; still further on, they defied the might of Persia when Egypt succumbed to it. Aahmes, in contracting his marriage with the Ethiopian princess, to whom he gave the name of Nefertari-Aahmes—or "the good companion of Aahmes"—was, we may be tolerably sure, bent on obtaining a contingent of those stalwart troops whose modern representatives are either the Blacks of the Soudan or the Gallas of the highlands of Abyssinia. The "Shepherds" thus yielded to a combination of the North with the South, of the Egyptians with the Ethiopians, such as in later times, on more than one occasion, drove the Assyrians out of the country.

It’s likely that Aahmes had the powerful nation to the south of Egypt, which was constantly gaining strength—the Kashi, Cushites, or Ethiopians—as allies in his fight against the "Shepherds." His wife seems to have been a Cushite princess based on her features and skin tone, and their marriage was probably more about strategy than love. The Egyptians preferred lighter-skinned women, which is evident from the overly pale complexions artists typically gave female figures in their artwork, as well as from the allure of Sarah, even in her old age. When a Theban king married an Ethiopian woman with deep black skin, it’s reasonable to assume there was a political reason behind it; the most likely motive at that time would have been to secure military support. Although the Kashi didn't appear very powerful in early conflicts with the Egyptians, and the term "miserable Cushites" seemed to belittle their fighting abilities, the fact that such terminology was used implies a level of hostility that wouldn't have arisen against a weak group. Over time, the Cushites definitely improved in strength and military effectiveness. They became a significant part of the Egyptian army for many centuries; later on, they conquered Egypt and held power for a hundred years; even further down the line, they resisted the forces of Persia when Egypt fell to them. Aahmes, by marrying the Ethiopian princess, whom he named Nefertari-Aahmes—or "the good companion of Aahmes"—was likely looking to recruit some of those strong troops, whose modern counterparts are either the Blacks of Sudan or the Gallas from the highlands of Abyssinia. The "Shepherds" ultimately faced a united front of the North and South, with the Egyptians siding with the Ethiopians, reminiscent of how similar alliances later drove the Assyrians out of the country.

HEAD OF NEFERTARI-AAHMES. HEAD OF NEFERTARI-AAHMES.
Decorative

Decorative

X.

THOTHMES I., THE FIRST GREAT EGYPTIAN CONQUEROR.

Thothmes I. was the grandson of the Aahmes who drove out the Hyksôs. He had thus hereditary claims to valour and military distinction. The Ethiopian blood which flowed in his veins through his grandmother, Nefertari-Aahmes, may have given him an additional touch of audacity, and certainly showed itself in his countenance, where the short depressed nose and the unduly thick lips are of the Cushite rather than of the Egyptian type. His father, Amen-hotep I., was a somewhat undistinguished prince; so that here, as so often, where superior talent runs in a family, it seems to have skipped a generation, and to have leapt from the grand-sire to the grandson. Thothmes began his military career by an invasion of the countries upon the Upper Nile, which were still in an unsettled state, notwithstanding the campaigns which had been carried on, and the victories which had been gained in them, during the two preceding reigns, by King Aahmes, and by the generals of Amen-hotep. He placed a flotilla of ships upon the Nile above the Second Cataract, and supporting it with his land forces on either side of the river, advanced from Semneh, the boundary established by Usurtasen III., which is in lat. 21° 50' to Tombos, in lat. 19°, conquering the tribes, Nubian and Cushite, as he proceeded, and from time to time distinguishing himself in personal combats with his enemies. On one occasion, we are told, "his majesty became more furious than a panther," and placing an arrow on his bowstring, directed it against the Nubian chief so surely that it struck him, and remained fixed in his knee, whereupon the chief "fell fainting down before the royal diadem." He was at once seized and made a prisoner; his followers were defeated and dispersed; and he himself, together with others, was carried off on board the royal ship, hanging with his head downwards, to the royal palace at the capital This victory was the precursor of others; everywhere "the Petti of Nubia were hewed in pieces, and scattered all over their lands," till "their stench filled the valleys." At last a general submission was made, and a large-tract of territory was ceded. The Egyptian terminus was pushed on from the twenty-second parallel to the nineteenth, and at Tombos, beyond Dongola, an inscription was set up, at once to mark the new frontier, and to hand down to posterity the glory of the conquering monarch. The inscription still remains, and is couched in inflated terms, which show a departure from the old official style. Thothmes declares that "he has taken tribute from the nations of the North, and from the nations of the South, as well as from those of the whole earth; he has laid hold of the barbarians; he has not let a single one of them escape his gripe upon their hair; the Petti of Nubia have fallen beneath his blows; he has made their waters to flow backwards; he has overflowed their valleys like a deluge, like waters which mount and mount. He has resembled Horus, when he took possession of his eternal kingdom; all the countries included within the circumference of the entire earth are prostrate under his feet." Having effected his conquest, Thothmes sought to secure it by the appointment of a new officer, who was to govern the newly-annexed country under the title of "Prince of Cush," and was to have his ordinary residence at Semneh.

Thothmes I was the grandson of Aahmes, who expelled the Hyksos. He thus had inherited claims to bravery and military honor. The Ethiopian blood in his veins from his grandmother, Nefertari-Aahmes, may have given him an extra dose of boldness, which was evident in his appearance, featuring a short, flattened nose and notably thick lips that were more Cushite than Egyptian. His father, Amen-hotep I, was a somewhat unremarkable prince; once again, proving that exceptional talent often skips a generation, it seemed to have passed from the grandfather to the grandson. Thothmes began his military career by invading the Upper Nile regions, which were still in chaos despite the campaigns and victories achieved during the two previous reigns of King Aahmes and the generals of Amen-hotep. He deployed a fleet of ships on the Nile above the Second Cataract, supported by his land forces on either side of the river, advancing from Semneh, the boundary set by Usurtasen III at latitude 21° 50' to Tombos at latitude 19°, conquering both Nubian and Cushite tribes along the way, and often proving himself in personal battles with his enemies. On one occasion, it is noted that "his majesty became more furious than a panther," and taking an arrow in hand, he aimed it at the Nubian chief with such accuracy that it struck him and lodged in his knee, causing the chief to "fall fainting down before the royal diadem." He was quickly captured, and his followers were defeated and scattered. The chief, along with others, was taken aboard the royal ship, hanging head-down, to the palace in the capital. This victory was the precursor to many more; throughout, "the Petti of Nubia were slaughtered and dispersed across their territory," until "their stench filled the valleys." Ultimately, a general surrender occurred, leading to a large area of land being transferred. The Egyptian boundary was extended from the twenty-second parallel to the nineteenth, and at Tombos, beyond Dongola, a monument was established to mark the new frontier and celebrate the glory of the victorious monarch. The inscription remains today, filled with grandiose language that reflects a departure from the old official style. Thothmes proclaims that "he has received tribute from the nations of the North and South, as well as from those of the whole earth; he has captured the barbarians; not a single one escaped his grasp upon their hair; the Petti of Nubia fell beneath his attacks; he caused their waters to flow backwards; he inundated their valleys like a flood, like waters that rise and rise. He resembled Horus when he took possession of his eternal kingdom; all the lands within the entire earth bow before him." After securing his conquests, Thothmes appointed a new official to govern the newly annexed territory with the title "Prince of Cush," who was to reside primarily at Semneh.

BUST OF THOTHMES I. BUST OF THOTHMES I.

Flushed with his victories in this quarter, and intoxicated with the delight of conquest, Thothmes, on his return to Thebes, raised his thoughts to a still grander and more adventurous enterprize. Egypt had a great wrong to avenge, a huge disgrace to wipe out. She had been Invaded, conquered, plundered, by an enemy whom she had not provoked by any aggression; she had seen her cities laid in ashes, her temples torn down and demolished, the images of her gods broken to pieces, her soil dyed with her children's blood; she had been trampled under the iron heel of the conqueror for centuries; she had been exhausted by the payment of taxes and tribute; she had had to bow the knee, and lick the dust under the conqueror's feet—was not retribution needed for all this? True, she had at last risen up and expelled her enemy, she had driven him beyond her borders, and he seemed content to acquiesce in his defeat, and to trouble her no more; but was this enough? Did not the law of eternal justice require something more:

Flush with his victories in this quarter and thrilled by the joy of conquest, Thothmes, on his return to Thebes, set his sights on an even grander and more adventurous undertaking. Egypt had a significant wrong to right, a massive disgrace to erase. She had been invaded, conquered, and plundered by an enemy she had not provoked with any aggression; she had witnessed her cities reduced to ashes, her temples torn down and destroyed, the statues of her gods shattered, her land stained with her children's blood; she had been crushed under the iron heel of the conqueror for centuries; she had been drained by paying taxes and tribute; she had had to bow down and lick the dust under the conqueror's feet—wasn’t retribution necessary for all this? True, she had finally risen up and expelled her enemy, driving him beyond her borders, and he seemed willing to accept his defeat and not trouble her further; but was that enough? Didn’t the law of eternal justice demand something more?

"There's no law more just,
"How the masters of death perish by their own craft."

Was it not proper, fitting, requisite for the honour of Egypt, that there should be retaliation, that the aggressor should suffer what he had inflicted, should be attacked in his own country, should be made to feel the grief, the despair, the rage, the shame, that he had forced Egypt to feel for so many years; should expiate his guilt by a penalty, not only proportioned to the offence, but Its exact counterpart? Such thoughts, we may be sure, burned in the mind of the young warrior, when, having secured Egypt on the south, he turned his attention to the north, and asked himself the question how he should next employ the power that he had inherited, and the talents with which nature had endowed him.

Was it not right, fitting, and necessary for the honor of Egypt that there should be retaliation, that the aggressor should experience what he had inflicted, should be attacked in his own country, should feel the grief, despair, rage, and shame that he had forced Egypt to endure for so many years; should atone for his wrongdoing with a penalty not only proportional to the offense but its exact opposite? Such thoughts, we can be sure, burned in the mind of the young warrior when, having secured Egypt in the south, he turned his attention to the north and asked himself how he should next use the power that he had inherited and the talents with which nature had gifted him.

It is uncertain what amount of knowledge the Egyptians of the time possessed concerning the internal condition, population, and resources, of the continent which adjoined them on the north-east. We cannot say whether Thothmes and his counsellors could, or could not, bring before their mind's eye a fairly correct view of the general position of Asiatic affairs, and form a reasonable estimate of the probabilities of success or discomfiture, if a great expedition were led into the heart of Asia. Whatever may have been their knowledge or ignorance, it will be necessary for the historical student of the present day to have some general ideas on the subject, if he is to form an adequate conception either of the dangers which Thothmes affronted, or of the amount of credit due to him for his victories. We propose, therefore, in the present place, to glance our eye over the previous history of Western Asia, and to describe, so far as is possible, its condition at the time when Thothmes began to contemplate the invasion which it is his great glory to have accomplished.

It’s unclear how much the Egyptians of that time knew about the internal situation, population, and resources of the neighboring continent to the northeast. We can’t determine if Thothmes and his advisors had a clear understanding of the overall state of affairs in Asia and could accurately judge the chances of success or failure if a major expedition were launched into the heart of Asia. Regardless of their level of knowledge or ignorance, it’s essential for today’s historians to have some basic understanding of this topic to properly assess the dangers Thothmes faced and the credit he deserves for his victories. Therefore, we will briefly review the prior history of Western Asia and describe, as much as possible, its condition at the time Thothmes began planning the invasion for which he is renowned.

Western Asia is generally allowed to have been the cradle of the human race. Its more fertile portions were thickly peopled at a very early date. Monarchy, it is probable, first grew up in Babylonia, towards the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. But it was not long ere a sister kingdom established itself in Susiana, or Elam, the fertile tract between the Lower Tigris and the Zagros mountains. The ambition of conquest first showed itself in this latter country, whence Kudur-Nakhunta, about B.C. 2300, made an attack on Erech, and Chedor-laomer (about B.C. 2000) established an empire which extended from the Zagros mountains on the one hand to the shores of the Mediterranean on the other (Gen. xiv. 1-4) Shortly after this, a third power, that of the Hittites, grew up towards the north, chiefly perhaps in Asia Minor, but with a tendency to project itself southward into the Mesopotamian region. Upper Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, were at this time inhabited by weak tribes, each under its own chief, with no coherence, and no great military spirit. The chief of these tribes, at the time when Thothmes I. ascended the Egyptian throne, were the Rutennu in Syria, and the Nahari or Naïri in Upper Mesopotamia. The two monarchies of the south, Elam and Babylon were not in a flourishing condition, and exercised no suzerainty beyond their own natural limits. They were, in fact, a check upon each other, constantly engaged in feuds and quarrels, which prevented either from maintaining an extended sway for more than a few years, Assyria had not yet acquired any great distinction, though it was probably independent, and ruled by monarchs who dwelt at Asshur (Kileh-Sherghat). The Hittites, about B.C. 1900, had received a severe check from the Babylonian monarch, Sargon, and had withdrawn themselves into their northern fortresses. Thus the circumstances of the time were, on the whole, favourable to the enterprize of Thothmes. No great organized monarchy was likely to take the field against him, or to regard itself as concerned to interfere with the execution of his projects, unless they assumed extraordinary dimensions. So long as he did not proceed further north than Taurus, or further east than the western Khabour, the great affluent of the Euphrates, he would come into contact with none of the "great powers" of the time; he would have, at the worst, to contend with loose confederacies of tribes, distrustful of each other, unaccustomed to act together, and, though brave, possessing no discipline or settled military organization. At the same time, his adversaries must not be regarded as altogether contemptible. The Philistines and Canaanites in Palestine, the Arabs of the Sinaitic and Syrian deserts, the Rutennu of the Lebanon and of Upper Syria, the Naïri of the western Mesopotamian region, were individually brave men, were inured to warfare, had a strong love of independence, and were likely to resist with energy any attempt to bring them under subjection. They were also, most of them, well acquainted with the value of the horse for military service, and could bring into the field a number of war-chariots, with riders well accustomed to their management Egypt had only recently added the horse to the list of its domesticated animals, and followed the example of the Asiatics by organizing a chariot force. It was open to doubt whether this new and almost untried corps would be able to cope with the experienced chariot-troops of Asia.

Western Asia is widely accepted as the birthplace of humanity. Its more fertile areas were densely populated very early on. Monarchy likely first developed in Babylonia, at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. However, it wasn't long before a neighboring kingdom emerged in Susiana, or Elam, the fertile region between the Lower Tigris and the Zagros Mountains. The desire for conquest first appeared in this latter area, where Kudur-Nakhunta, around 2300 B.C., attacked Erech, and Chedor-laomer, around 2000 B.C., built an empire that stretched from the Zagros Mountains to the shores of the Mediterranean (Gen. xiv. 1-4). Shortly after, a third power, the Hittites, rose in the north, primarily in Asia Minor, but with aspirations to push south into Mesopotamia. At that time, Upper Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine were inhabited by weak tribes, each led by its own chief, lacking unity or significant military strength. The main tribes during the reign of Thothmes I in Egypt were the Rutennu in Syria and the Nahari or Naïri in Upper Mesopotamia. The two southern kingdoms, Elam and Babylon, were not thriving and had no influence beyond their natural borders. They were actually rivals, constantly engaged in conflicts that prevented either from maintaining power for more than a few years. Assyria had yet to gain significant recognition, though it was probably independent, ruled by kings who lived at Asshur (Kileh-Sherghat). The Hittites, around 1900 B.C., had suffered a serious setback from the Babylonian king, Sargon, and retreated to their northern strongholds. Overall, the circumstances of the time were favorable for Thothmes's plans. No major organized kingdom was likely to challenge him or interfere with his projects, unless they escalated to extraordinary levels. As long as he didn't venture further north than Taurus or further east than the western Khabour, the main tributary of the Euphrates, he wouldn't encounter any of the prominent powers of the time; he would mainly have to face loosely allied tribes, distrustful of one another, unaccustomed to working together, and, while brave, lacking discipline or established military organization. At the same time, his opponents should not be dismissed as entirely insignificant. The Philistines and Canaanites in Palestine, the Arabs from the Sinaitic and Syrian deserts, the Rutennu from Lebanon and Upper Syria, and the Naïri from the western Mesopotamian area, were all individually brave, experienced in combat, fiercely independent, and likely to energetically resist any attempts at domination. Most were also well aware of the military value of horses and could field a number of war chariots, with skilled riders. Egypt had only recently started using horses as domesticated animals and had begun to follow the Asian example by creating a chariot force. It remained uncertain whether this new and largely untested unit could compete with the seasoned chariot troops of Asia.

The country also in which military operations were to be carried on was a difficult one. It consisted mainly of alternate mountain and desert. First, the sandy waste called El Tij—the "Wilderness of the Wanderings"—had to be passed, a tract almost wholly without water, where an army must carry Its own supply. Next, the high upland of the Negeb would present itself, a region wherein water may be procured from wells, and which in some periods of the world's history has been highly cultivated, but which in the time of Thothmes was probably almost as unproductive as the desert itself. Then would come the green rounded hills, the lofty ridges, and the deep gorges of Palestine, untraversed by any road, in places thickly wooded, and offering continually greater obstacles to the advance of an army, as it stretched further and further towards the north. From Palestine the Lebanon region would have to be entered on, where, though the Cœle-Syrian valley presents a comparatively easy line of march to the latitude of Antioch, the country on either side of the valley is almost untraversable, while the valley itself contains many points where it can be easily blocked by a small force. The Orontes, moreover, and the Litany, are difficult to cross, and in the time of Thothmes I. would be unbridged, and form no contemptible obstacles. From the lower valley of the Orontes, first mountains and then a chalky desert had to be crossed in order to reach the Euphrates, which could only be passed in boats, or else by swimming. Beyond the Euphrates was another dreary and infertile region, the tract about Haran, where Crassus lost his army and his life.

The country where military operations were to take place was quite challenging. It mainly consisted of alternating mountains and desert. First, they had to cross the sandy wasteland known as El Tij—the "Wilderness of the Wanderings"—a nearly waterless area where an army had to bring its own supplies. Next, they would encounter the highlands of the Negeb, where water could be found in wells and which has been cultivated at various points in history, but during Thothmes's time, it was likely just as barren as the desert itself. Then came the lush, rounded hills, tall ridges, and deep gorges of Palestine, with no roads, thick woods in places, and increasing obstacles for the army as it moved north. From Palestine, they would have to enter the Lebanon region, where the Cœle-Syrian valley offers a relatively easy route to Antioch's latitude. However, the land on either side of the valley was nearly impassable, and the valley itself had many spots that could be easily blocked by a small force. Moreover, the Orontes and Litany rivers were hard to cross, and during Thothmes I's time, they were likely unbridged, posing significant challenges. From the lower Orontes valley, they had to traverse mountains followed by a chalky desert to reach the Euphrates, which could only be crossed by boat or swimming. Beyond the Euphrates lay another bleak and unproductive area around Haran, where Crassus lost both his army and his life.

How far Thothmes and his counsellors were aware of these topographical difficulties, or of the general condition of Western Asia, it is, as already observed, impossible to determine. But, on the whole, there are reasons for believing that intercourse between nation and nation was, even in very early times, kept up, and that each important country had its "intelligence department," which was not badly served. Merchants, refugees, spies, adventurers desirous of bettering their condition, were continually moving, singly or in bodies, from one land to another, and through them a considerable acquaintance with mundane affairs generally was spread abroad. The knowledge was, of course, very inexact. No surveys were made, no plans of cities or fortresses, no maps; the military force that could be brought into the field by the several nations was very roughly estimated; but still, ancient conquerors did not start off on their expeditions wholly in the dark as to the forces which they might have to encounter, or the difficulties which were likely to beset their march.

How much Thothmes and his advisors understood about these geographical challenges or the overall situation in Western Asia is, as mentioned before, impossible to know. However, there are reasons to believe that interactions between nations were maintained even in very early times, and that each significant country had its own "intelligence department," which functioned fairly well. Merchants, refugees, spies, and adventurers looking to improve their circumstances frequently traveled, either alone or in groups, from one land to another, spreading a substantial awareness of global affairs. The information was, of course, quite imprecise. No surveys were conducted, no city or fortress plans were drawn, no maps were created; the military strength that various nations could mobilize was only roughly estimated. Yet, ancient conquerors didn't set off on their campaigns completely unaware of the forces they might face or the challenges that could hinder their progress.

Thothmes probably set out on his expedition into Asia in about his sixth or seventh year. He was accompanied by two officers, who had served his father and his grandfather, known respectively as "Aahmes, son of Abana," and "Aahmes Pennishem." Both of them had been engaged in the war which he had conducted against the Petti of Nubia and their Ethiopian allies, and both had greatly distinguished themselves. Aahmes, the son of Abana, boasts that he seven times received the prize of valour—a collar of gold—for his conduct in the field; and Aahmes Pennishem gives a list of twenty-nine presents given to him as military rewards by three kings. It does not appear that any resistance was offered to the invading force as it passed through Palestine; but in Syria Thothmes engaged the Rutennu, and "exacted satisfaction" from them, probably on account of the part which they had taken in the Hyksôs struggle; after which he crossed the Euphrates and fell upon the far more powerful nation of the Naïri. The Naïri, when first attacked by the Assyrians, had twenty-three cities, and as many kings; they were rich in horses and mules, and had so large a chariot force that we hear of a hundred and twenty chariots being taken from them in a single battle. At this time the number of the chariots was probably much smaller, for each of the two officers named Ahmes takes great credit to himself on account of the capture of one such vehicle. It is uncertain whether more than a single battle was fought. All that we are told is, that "His Majesty, having arrived in Naharina" (i.e. the Naïri country), "encountered the enemy, and organized an attack. His Majesty made a great slaughter of them; an immense number of live captives was carried off by His Majesty." These words would apply equally to a single battle and to a series of battles. All that can be said is, that Thothmes returned victorious from his Asiatic expedition, having defeated the Rutennu and the Naïri, and brought with him into Egypt a goodly booty, and a vast number of Asiatic prisoners.

Thothmes likely began his expedition into Asia around his sixth or seventh year. He was joined by two officers who had served his father and grandfather, known as "Aahmes, son of Abana," and "Aahmes Pennishem." Both had fought in the war against the Petti of Nubia and their Ethiopian allies, and both had distinguished themselves in battle. Aahmes, son of Abana, proudly claimed that he received the prize for bravery—a gold collar—seven times for his actions in the field; meanwhile, Aahmes Pennishem listed twenty-nine gifts he received as military rewards from three kings. There doesn’t seem to have been any resistance to the invading force as it passed through Palestine; however, in Syria, Thothmes confronted the Rutennu and "demanded compensation" from them, likely due to their involvement in the Hyksòs conflict. He then crossed the Euphrates and attacked the much stronger nation of the Naïri. The Naïri had twenty-three cities and as many kings when the Assyrians first attacked them; they were wealthy in horses and mules and had such a large chariot force that reports mention capturing one hundred and twenty chariots in a single battle. At that time, the actual number of chariots was probably much less, as each of the two officers named Aahmes took significant pride in capturing just one chariot each. It's unclear whether only one battle occurred. All we know is that "His Majesty, having arrived in Naharina" (meaning the Naïri territory), "engaged the enemy and organized an attack. His Majesty inflicted heavy losses on them; a vast number of live captives were taken by His Majesty." These statements could refer to either a single battle or multiple battles. What we do know is that Thothmes returned victorious from his Asian expedition, having defeated the Rutennu and the Naïri, and brought back to Egypt a considerable amount of spoils and a large number of Asian prisoners.

The warlike ambition of Thothmes I. was satisfied by his Nubian and Asiatic victories. On his return to Egypt at the close of his Mesopotamian campaign, he engaged in the peaceful work of adorning and beautifying his capital cities. At Thebes he greatly enlarged the temple of Ammon, begun by Amenemhat I., and continued under his son, the first Usurtasen, by adding to it the cloistered court in front of the central cell—a court two hundred and forty feet long by sixty-two broad, surrounded by a colonnade, of which the supports were Osirid pillars, or square piers with a statue of Osiris in front. This is the first known example of the cloistered court, which became afterwards so common; though it is possible that constructions of a similar character may have been made by the "Shepherd Kings" at Tanis, Thothmes also adorned this temple with obelisks. In front of the main entrance to his court he erected two vast monoliths of granite, each of them seventy-five feet in height, and bearing dedicatory inscriptions, which indicated his piety and his devotion to all the chief deities of Egypt.

The warlike ambition of Thothmes I was fulfilled by his victories in Nubia and Asia. When he returned to Egypt after his Mesopotamian campaign, he focused on the peaceful task of enhancing and beautifying his capital cities. At Thebes, he significantly expanded the temple of Ammon, which had been started by Amenemhat I and continued by his son, the first Usurtasen, by adding a cloistered court in front of the central cell—a court that measured two hundred and forty feet long by sixty-two feet wide, surrounded by a colonnade supported by Osirid pillars or square piers with a statue of Osiris in front. This is the first known example of the cloistered court, which later became quite common; however, it's possible that similar structures were built by the "Shepherd Kings" at Tanis. Thothmes also decorated this temple with obelisks. In front of the main entrance to his court, he erected two massive granite monoliths, each seventy-five feet tall, bearing dedicatory inscriptions that reflected his piety and devotion to all the principal deities of Egypt.

Further, at Memphis he built a new royal palace, which he called "The Abode of Aa-khepr-ka-ra," a grand building, afterwards converted into a magazine for the storage of grain.

Further, in Memphis he built a new royal palace, which he named "The Abode of Aa-khepr-ka-ra," a magnificent structure that was later repurposed as a storage facility for grain.

The greatness of Thothmes I. has scarcely been sufficiently recognized by historians. It may be true that he did not effect much; but he broke ground in a new direction; he set an example which led on to grand results. To him it was due that Egypt ceased to be the isolated, unaggressive power that she had remained for perhaps ten centuries, that she came boldly to the front and aspired to bring Asia into subjection. Henceforth she exercised a potent influence beyond her borders—an influence which affected, more or less, all the western Asiatic powers. She had forced her way into the comity of the great nations. Henceforth whether it was for good or for evil, she had to take her place among them, to reckon with them, as they reckoned with her, to be a factor in the problem which the ages had to work out—What should be the general march of events, and what states and nations should most affect the destiny of the world.

The greatness of Thothmes I has hardly been acknowledged enough by historians. It might be true that he didn't accomplish much, but he paved the way for new directions and set an example that led to significant outcomes. Thanks to him, Egypt stopped being the isolated, unaggressive power it had been for about ten centuries and boldly sought to dominate Asia. From then on, Egypt had a strong influence beyond its borders—an influence that impacted, to varying degrees, all the western Asiatic powers. It had made its way into the circle of great nations. Going forward, whether for better or worse, it had to take its place among them, deal with them as they dealt with her, and become a part of the challenges that future generations would face—What would be the overall direction of events, and which states and nations would most shape the world's destiny.

Decorative


Decorative

XI.

QUEEN HATASU AND HER MERCHANT FLEET.

Hasheps, or Hatasu, was the daughter of the great warrior king, Thothmes the First, and, according to some, was, during his later years, associated with him in the government. An inscription is quoted in which he assigns to her her throne-name of Ra-ma-ka, and calls her "Queen of the South and of the North," But it was not till after the death of her father that she came prominently forward, and assumed a position not previously held by any female in Egypt, unless it were Net-akret (Nitocris). Women in Egypt had been, it is true, from very early times held in high estimation, were their husbands' companions, not their playthings or their slaves, appeared freely in public, and enjoyed much liberty of action. One of the ancient mythical monarchs, of the time before Sneferu, is said to have passed a law permitting them to exercise the sovereign authority. Nitocris of the sixth dynasty of Manetho ruled, apparently, as sole queen; and Sabak-nefru-ra of the twelfth, the wife of Amenemhat IV., reigned for some years conjointly with her husband. Hatasu's position was intermediate between these. Her father had left behind him two sons, as well as a daughter; and the elder of these, according to Egyptian law, succeeded him. He reigned as Thothmes-nefer-shau, and is known to moderns as Thothmes the Second. He was, however, a mere youth, of a weak and amiable temper; while Hatasu, his senior by some years, was a woman of great energy and of a masculine mind, clever, enterprizing, vindictive, and unscrupulous. The contrast of their portrait busts is remarkable, and gives a fair indication of the character of each of them. Thothmes has the appearance of a soft and yielding boy: he has a languishing eye, a short upper lip, a sensuous mouth and chin. Hatasu looks the Amazon: she holds her head erect, has a bold aquiline nose, a firmly-set mouth, and a chin that projects considerably, giving her an indescribable air of vigour and resolution. The effect is increased, no doubt, by her having attached to it the male appendage of an artificial beard; but even apart from this, her face would be a strong one, expressive of firmness, pride, and decision. It is thought that she contracted a marriage with her brother, such unions being admissible by the Egyptian marriage law, and not infrequent among the Pharaohs, whether of the earlier or the later dynasties. In any case, it is certain that she took the direction of affairs under his reign, reducing him to a cipher, and making her influence paramount in every department of the government.

Hashepsut, or Hatshepsut, was the daughter of the great warrior king, Thutmose I, and, according to some accounts, she was involved in the government with him during his later years. There’s an inscription where he gives her the throne name of Ra-Ma-Ka and refers to her as "Queen of the South and of the North." However, it was only after her father's death that she stepped into the spotlight, taking on a role that no woman in Egypt had held before, except perhaps for Nitocris. Women in ancient Egypt had been respected from early times; they were companions to their husbands and not mere possessions or servants, frequently appearing in public and enjoying considerable freedom. One of the mythical kings before Sneferu is said to have enacted a law allowing them to exercise sovereign authority. Nitocris from the sixth dynasty ruled, seemingly, as a sole queen; and Sobekneferu from the twelfth dynasty, the wife of Amenemhat IV, reigned jointly with her husband for several years. Hatshepsut's role was somewhere in between these. Her father left behind two sons and a daughter; the older son, following Egyptian law, succeeded him. He reigned as Thutmose II and is known to us as Thutmose the Second. However, he was just a young man with a gentle and agreeable nature, while Hatshepsut, who was a few years older, was a dynamic woman with a strong, masculine mind—intelligent, ambitious, vengeful, and ruthless. The difference in their statues is striking and reflects their personalities well. Thutmose appears soft and yielding with a languid eye, a short upper lip, and a sensual mouth and chin. Hatshepsut looks like an Amazon: she holds her head high, has a bold, hooked nose, a determined mouth, and a noticeably protruding chin, which gives her a strong aura of vigor and determination. This impression is enhanced by her wearing a false beard, typically a male symbol; even without it, her face conveys strength, pride, and decisiveness. It is believed that she entered into a marriage with her brother, as such unions were permitted by Egyptian marriage laws and were not uncommon among the Pharaohs of both early and later dynasties. In any case, it is clear that she took control of affairs during his reign, rendering him a figurehead and making her influence dominant in all areas of governance.

HEAD OF THOTHMES II. HEAD OF THOTHMES II.
HEAD OF HATASU. HEAD OF HATASU.

At this period of her life the ambition of Queen Hatasu was to hand her name down to posterity as a constructor of buildings. She made many additions to the old temple of Ammon at Karnak; and she also built at Medinet Abou, in the vicinity of Thebes, a temple of a more elaborate character than any that had preceded it, the remains of which are still standing, and have attracted much attention from architects. Egyptian temple-architecture is here seen tentatively making almost its first advances from the simple cell of Usurtasen I. towards that richness of complication and multiplicity of parts which it ultimately reached. Pylons, courts, corridors supported by columns, pillared apartments, meet us here in their earliest germ; while there are also indications of constructive weakness, which show that the builders were aspiring to go beyond previous models. The temple is cruciform in shape, but the two arms of the cross are unequal. In front, two pylons of moderate dimensions, not exceeding twenty-four feet in height, and built with the usual sloping sides and strongly projecting cornice, guarded a doorway which gave entrance into a court, sixty feet long by thirty broad. At the further end of the court stood a porch, thirty feet long and nine deep, supported by four square stone piers, emplaced at equal distances. The porch led into the cell, a long, narrow chamber of extreme plainness, about twenty-five feet long by nine wide, with a doorway at either end. At either side of the cell were corridors, supported, like the porch, by square piers, and roofed in by blocks of stone from nine to ten feet long. These blocks have in some instances shown signs of giving way; and, to counteract the tendency, octagonal pillars have been introduced at the weak points, without regard to exact regularity or correspondence. Behind the cell are chambers for the officiating priests, which are six in number, and on either side of the porch are also chambers, forming the arms of the cross, but of unequal dimensions. That on the left is nearly square, about fifteen feet by twelve; that on the right is oblong, twenty-seven feet by fifteen, and has needed the support of two pillars internally, which seem, however, to have been part of the original design. This chamber is open towards the north-east, terminating in a porch of three square piers.

At this stage in her life, Queen Hatasu aimed to leave a legacy as a builder. She expanded the old temple of Ammon at Karnak and also constructed a more elaborate temple at Medinet Abou, near Thebes, the remains of which still stand today and have drawn interest from architects. Here, Egyptian temple architecture tentatively begins to progress from the simple design of Usurtasen I. to the rich complexity and variety it ultimately achieved. We see the earliest forms of pylons, courtyards, corridors supported by columns, and pillared rooms. However, there are also signs of structural weaknesses, indicating that the builders were striving to create something beyond what had come before. The temple is shaped like a cross, but the arms are unequal. In front, two moderately sized pylons, not exceeding twenty-four feet tall, with the typical sloping sides and strongly projecting cornices, guard a doorway leading into a courtyard that is sixty feet long and thirty feet wide. At the far end of the courtyard is a porch, thirty feet long and nine feet deep, supported by four square stone piers spaced evenly apart. The porch leads into a cell, a long, narrow, extremely plain room, around twenty-five feet long and nine feet wide, with a doorway at each end. On either side of the cell are corridors, supported like the porch by square piers and topped with stone blocks that are nine to ten feet long. Some of these blocks have shown signs of buckling, and to counter this, octagonal pillars have been added at weak points, without strict adherence to regularity or alignment. Behind the cell are six chambers for the attending priests, and on either side of the porch are also chambers forming the arms of the cross, but they are unequal in size. The left chamber is almost square, about fifteen feet by twelve feet; the right one is rectangular, twenty-seven feet by fifteen feet, and requires the internal support of two pillars, which seem to have been part of the original layout. This chamber opens towards the northeast, ending in a porch with three square piers.

GROUND-PLAN OF TEMPLE AT MEDINET ABOU. GROUND-PLAN OF TEMPLE AT MEDINET ABOU.

The joint reign of Hatasu and Thothmes II. did not continue for more than a few years. It is suspected that she engaged in a conspiracy against him in order to rid herself of the small restraint which his participation in the sovereignty exercised upon her, and was privy to his murder. But there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate these charges, which have been somewhat recklessly made. All that distinctly appears is, that Thothmes II. died while he was still extremely young, and when he had reigned only a short time, and that after his death Hatasu showed her hostility to his memory by erasing his name wherever it occurred on the monuments, and substituting for it either her own name or that of her father. She appears also at the same time to have taken full possession of the throne, and to have been accepted as actual sovereign of the Egyptian people. She calls herself "The living Horus, abounding in divine gifts, the mistress of diadems, rich in years, the golden Horus, goddess of diadems, Queen of Upper and Lower Egypt, daughter of the Sun, consort of Ammon, living for ever, and daughter of Ammon, dwelling in his heart." Nor was she content with attributes which made acknowledgment of her sex. She wished to be regarded as a man, assumed male apparel and an artificial beard, and gave herself on many of her monuments the style and title of a king. Her name of Hatasu she changed into Hatasu-Khnum-Ammon, thus identifying herself with two of the chief Egyptian gods. She often represented herself as crowned with the tall plumes of Ammon. She took the titles of "son of the sun," "the good god," "lord of the two lands," "beloved of Ammon, the protector of kings." A curious anomaly appears in some of her inscriptions, where masculine and feminine forms are inextricably mixed up; though spoken of consistently as "the king," and not "the queen," yet the personal and possessive pronouns which refer to her are feminine for the most part, while sometimes such perplexing expressions occur as "le roi qui est bien aimée par Ammon," or "His Majesty herself."

The joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose II didn’t last more than a few years. It’s thought that she might have plotted against him to free herself from the little control his shared rule had over her and was involved in his murder. However, there’s not enough evidence to back up these claims, which have been made somewhat carelessly. What is clear is that Thutmose II died while he was still very young and had only reigned for a short time, and after his death, Hatshepsut showed her disdain for his memory by removing his name from monuments and replacing it with either her own name or her father's. At the same time, she seems to have fully claimed the throne and was accepted as the true ruler of Egypt. She referred to herself as “The living Horus, full of divine gifts, the mistress of crowns, rich in years, the golden Horus, goddess of crowns, Queen of Upper and Lower Egypt, daughter of the Sun, consort of Amun, living forever, and daughter of Amun, who dwells in his heart.” She was not satisfied with titles that acknowledged her female gender. She wanted to be seen as a man, wore male clothing and a fake beard, and presented herself on many of her monuments with the titles and style of a king. She changed her name from Hatshepsut to Hatshepsut-Khnum-Amun, linking herself with two of the main Egyptian gods. She often depicted herself crowned with the tall plumes of Amun. She took the titles “son of the sun,” “the good god,” “lord of the two lands,” and “beloved of Amun, the protector of kings.” An odd inconsistency appears in some of her inscriptions, where masculine and feminine forms are mixed; she is consistently referred to as “the king,” not “the queen,” yet the personal and possessive pronouns used for her are mostly feminine, while sometimes confusing phrases occur like “the king who is well loved by Amun,” or “His Majesty herself.”

EGYPTIAN SHIP IN THE TIME OF HATASU. EGYPTIAN SHIP IN THE TIME OF HATASU.

The legal position which Hatasu occupied during the sixteen years that followed the death of Thothmes II. was probably that of regent for Thothmes III., his (and her) younger brother; but practically she was full sovereign of Egypt. It was now that she formed her grand schemes of foreign commerce, and had them carried out by her officers. First of all, she caused to be built, in some harbour on the western coast of the Red Sea, a fleet of ships, certainly not fewer than five, each constructed so as to be propelled both by oars and sails, and each capable of accommodating some sixty or seventy passengers. Of these thirty were the rowers, whose long sweeps were to plough the waves, and bring the vessels into port, whether the wind were favourable or no; some ten or twelve formed the crew; and the remainder consisted of men-at-arms, whose services, it was felt, might be required, if the native tribes were not sufficiently impressed with the advantages of commercial dealings. An expedition then started from Thebes under the conduct of a royal ambassador, who was well furnished with gifts for distribution among the barbarian chiefs, and instructed to proceed with his fleet down the Red Sea to its mouth, or perhaps even further, and open communications with the land of "Punt," which was in this quarter. "Punt" has been generally identified with Southern Arabia, and it is certainly in favour of this view that the chief object of the expedition was to procure incense and spices, which Arabia is known to have produced anciently in profusion. But among the other products of the land mentioned in the inscriptions of Hatasu, there are several which Arabia could not possibly have furnished; and the conjecture has therefore been made that Punt, or at any rate the Punt of this expedition, was not the Arabian peninsula, or any part of it, but the African tract outside the Gulf, known to moderns as "the Somauli country." However this may have been, it is certain that the fleet weighed anchor, and sailed down the Red Sea, borne by favourable winds, which were ascribed to the gracious majesty of Ammon, and reached their destination, the Ta-neter, or "Holy Land"—the "abode of Athor," and perhaps the original home of Ammon himself—without accident or serious difficulty. The natives gave them a good reception. They were simple folk, living in rounded huts or cabins, which were perched on floors supported by piles, probably on account of the marshiness of the ground, and which had to be entered by means of ladders. Cocoa-nut palms overshadowed the huts, interspersed with incense trees, while near them flowed a copious stream, in which were a great variety of fishes. The principal chief of the country was a certain Parihu, who was married to a wife of an extraordinary appearance. A dwarf, hunchbacked, with a drawn face and short, deformed legs, she can scarcely, one would think, have been a countrywoman of the Queen of Sheba. She belonged, more probably, to one of the dwarfish tribes of which Africa has so many, as Dokos, Bosjesmen, and others. The royal couple were delighted with their visitors, and with the presents which they received from them; they made a sort of acknowledgment of the suzerainty of the Pharaohs, but at the same time stipulated that the peace and liberty of the land of Punt should be respected by the Egyptians. Perfect freedom of trade was established. The Egyptians had permission to enter the incense forests, and either to cut down the trees for the sake of the resin which they exuded, or to dig them up and convey them to the ships. We see the trees, or rather bushes, dug up with as much earth as possible about their roots, then slung on poles and carried to the sea-shore, and finally placed upright upon the ships' decks, and screened from the heat of the sun's rays by an awning. Thirty-one trees were thus embarked, with the object of transplanting them to Egypt, where it was hoped that they might grow and flourish. A large quantity of the resin was also collected and packed in sacks, which were tied at the mouth and piled up upon the decks. Various other products and commodities were likewise brought to the beach by the natives, and exchanged for those which the Egyptians had taken care to bring with them in their ships' holds. The most prized were gold, silver, ivory, ebony and other woods, cassia, kohl or stibium, apes, baboons, dogs, slaves, and leopard skins. The utmost friendliness prevailed during the whole period of the Egyptians' stay in the country; and at their departure, a number of the natives, of their own free-will, accompanied them to Egypt. Among these would seem to have been the deformed queen and several chiefs.

The legal role that Hatasu held during the sixteen years after Thothmes II's death was likely that of regent for her younger brother Thothmes III; however, she essentially acted as the full ruler of Egypt. During this time, she developed ambitious plans for international trade and had her officers implement them. To start, she ordered the construction of a fleet of ships—at least five—in a harbor on the western coast of the Red Sea. Each ship was built to be powered by both oars and sails and could carry around sixty or seventy passengers. Out of these, thirty were rowers handling their long oars to navigate through the waves, regardless of favorable winds; about ten to twelve made up the crew; and the rest were armed men, ready to ensure that local tribes were properly impressed by the benefits of trading. An expedition set out from Thebes led by a royal ambassador, who had plenty of gifts to distribute among tribal leaders and was tasked with sailing down the Red Sea to its mouth, or possibly even further, to establish trade with the land of "Punt," located in that region. "Punt" is often identified with Southern Arabia, mainly because the expedition sought incense and spices, which were historically abundant there. However, the records from Hatasu also mention several other national products that Arabia couldn't have provided, leading to speculation that Punt—or at least the Punt of this journey—was not the Arabian Peninsula or any part of it, but rather the African region outside the Gulf known today as "the Somalia country." Regardless, it's clear that the fleet set sail down the Red Sea, propelled by favorable winds thought to come from the kindness of Ammon, and reached their destination—the Ta-neter, or "Holy Land"—the "home of Athor," and potentially the original home of Ammon himself—without any major incidents. The locals welcomed them warmly. They were simple people living in rounded huts elevated on floors supported by piles, likely due to the marshy ground, which could only be accessed via ladders. Cocoa-nut palms shaded the huts alongside incense trees, with a plentiful stream flowing nearby, bustling with a diverse range of fish. The main chief of this area was a man named Parihu, who had a very unusual wife. She was a dwarf, hunchbacked, with a drawn face and short, deformed legs, and it’s hard to believe she could have been from the same lineage as the Queen of Sheba. She likely belonged to one of Africa's many dwarf tribes, like the Dokos or Bushmen. The royal couple was thrilled with their guests and the gifts they presented, acknowledging the Pharaohs' authority while insisting that the peace and freedom of the land of Punt should be respected by the Egyptians. They established complete freedom for trade. The Egyptians were allowed to enter the incense forests to either cut down the trees for the resin they produced or to uproot and transport them to their ships. We see these trees, or rather bushes, carefully dug up with as much soil as possible around their roots, then lifted on poles and carried to the shore, finally placed upright on the ships' decks and shaded from the sun by an awning. Thirty-one trees were loaded onto the ships with the hope they could be transplanted in Egypt, where they would thrive. A significant amount of resin was also gathered and secured in sacks tied at the mouths, stacked on the decks. Various other goods were brought to the beach by the locals and traded for items that the Egyptians had brought with them. The most coveted among these were gold, silver, ivory, ebony and other types of wood, cassia, kohl or stibium, monkeys, baboons, dogs, slaves, and leopard skins. The atmosphere was incredibly friendly throughout the Egyptians' stay, and upon their departure, several locals voluntarily accompanied them back to Egypt, including the deformed queen and several of the chiefs.

HOME BUILT ON PILES IN THE LAND OF PUNT. HOME BUILT ON PILES IN THE LAND OF PUNT.
THE QUEEN OF PUNT, AS SHE APPEARED AT THE COURT OF HATASU. THE QUEEN OF PUNT, AS SHE APPEARED AT THE COURT OF HATASU.

The return journey to Thebes was effected partly by way of the Nile. No doubt the sea-going ships sailed back to the harbour from which they had started; while the incense trees and other commodities were disembarked, and conveyed across the desert tract which borders the Nile valley towards the east; but instead of being brought to Thebes by land they were re-shipped on board a number of large Nile boats, and conveyed down the river to the capital. The day of their arrival was made a grand gala-day. All the city went out to meet the returning travellers. There was a grand parade of the household troops, and also of those which had accompanied the expedition; the incense trees, the strange animals, the many products of the distant country, were exhibited; a tame leopard, with his negro keeper, followed the soldiers; a band of natives, called Tamahu, engaged in a sort of sham-fight or war-dance. The misshapen queen and the chiefs of the land of Punt, together with a number of Nubian hunters from the region of Chent-hen-nefer, which lay far up the course of the Nile, were conducted to the presence of Hatasu, offered their homage to her as she sat upon her throne, and presented her with valuable gifts. "Homage to thy countenance," they said, "O Queen of Egypt, Sun beaming like the sun-disk, Aten, Arabia's mistress." An offering was then made by Hatasu to the god Ammon; a bull was sacrificed, and two vases of the precious frankincense presented to him by the queen herself. Sacrifice was likewise made and prayers offered to Athor, "Queen of Punt" and "Mistress of Heaven." The incense trees were finally planted in ground prepared for them, and the day concluded with general festivity and rejoicing.

The return journey to Thebes took place partly via the Nile. The sea-going ships likely returned to the harbor where they had started, while the incense trees and other goods were unloaded and transported across the desert area that borders the Nile valley to the east. Instead of being brought to Thebes by land, they were reloaded onto several large Nile boats and sent down the river to the capital. The day they arrived was celebrated as a grand festival. The entire city went out to greet the returning travelers. There was a big parade of the royal troops and those who had joined the expedition; the incense trees, exotic animals, and various products from distant lands were displayed. A tame leopard, accompanied by its African keeper, followed the soldiers, while a group of natives called Tamahu participated in a mock battle or war dance. The deformed queen and the leaders from the land of Punt, along with several Nubian hunters from the region of Chent-hen-nefer, which is located far up the Nile, were brought before Hatasu, paid their respects to her as she sat on her throne, and presented her with valuable gifts. "We honor your presence," they said, "O Queen of Egypt, Sun shining like the sun-disk, Aten, mistress of Arabia." Hatasu then made an offering to the god Ammon; a bull was sacrificed, and two vases of precious frankincense were presented to him by the queen herself. Offerings were also made, and prayers were said to Athor, "Queen of Punt" and "Mistress of Heaven." Finally, the incense trees were planted in specially prepared soil, and the day ended with widespread celebration and joy.

The complete success of so important and difficult an enterprize might well please even a great queen. Hatasu, delighted with the result, did her best to prevent it fading away from human remembrance by building a new temple to Ammon, and representing the entire expedition upon its walls. At Tel-el-Bahiri, in the valley of El-Assasif, near Thebes, she found a convenient site for her new structure, which she imposed upon four steps, and covered internally with a series of bas-reliefs, highly coloured, depicting the chief scenes of the expedition. Here are to be seen, even at the present day, the ships—the most ancient representations of sea-going ships that the world contains—the crews, the incense-trees, the chiefs and queen of Punt, the native dwellings, the trees and fish of the land, the arrival of the expedition at Thebes in twelve large boats, the prostration of the native chiefs before Hatasu, the festival held on the occasion, and the offerings made to the gods. It is seldom that any single event of ancient history is so profusely illustrated as this expedition of Queen Hatasu, which is placed before our eyes in all its various phases from the gathering of the fleet on the Red Sea coast to the return of those engaged in it, in gladness and triumph, to Thebes.

The complete success of such an important and challenging project could impress even a great queen. Hatasu, thrilled with the outcome, did her best to ensure it would be remembered by building a new temple for Ammon and depicting the entire expedition on its walls. At Tel-el-Bahiri, in the valley of El-Assasif, near Thebes, she found a suitable spot for her new structure, which she set on four steps and decorated inside with colorful bas-reliefs showing the key moments of the expedition. Even today, you can see the ships—some of the oldest depictions of sea-going vessels in existence—the crews, the incense trees, the chiefs and queen of Punt, the local homes, the trees and fish from the land, the arrival of the expedition at Thebes with twelve large boats, the native chiefs bowing before Hatasu, the festival that took place, and the offerings made to the gods. It's rare for any single event in ancient history to be illustrated as thoroughly as this expedition of Queen Hatasu, which lays out before us in all its aspects, from gathering the fleet on the Red Sea coast to the joyful and triumphant return of those involved to Thebes.

After exercising all the functions of sovereignty for fifteen years, during which she kept her royal brother in a subjection that probably became very galling to him, Hatasu found herself under the necessity of admitting him to a share in the royal authority, and allowed his name to appear on her monuments in a secondary and subordinate position. About this time she was especially engaged in the ornamentation of the old temple of Ammon at Thebes, begun by Usurtasen I., and much augmented by her father, Thothmes I. The chief of all her works in this quarter were two obelisks of red granite, or syenite, drawn from the quarries of Elephantine, and set up before the entrance, which her father had made in front of Usurtasen's construction. These great works are unexcelled, in form, colour, and beauty of engraving, by any similar productions of Egyptian art, either earlier or later. They measure nearly a hundred feet in height, and are covered with the most delicately finished hieroglyphics. On them Hatasu declares that she "has made two great obelisks for her father, Ammon, from a heart that is full of love for him." They are "of hard granite of the South, each of a single stone, without any joining or division." The summit of each, or cap of the pyramidion, is "of pure gold, taken from the chiefs of nations," so that they "are seen from a distance of many leagues—Upper and Lower Egypt are bathed in their splendour"(!).

After exercising all the powers of sovereignty for fifteen years, during which she kept her royal brother in a situation that likely became very uncomfortable for him, Hatasu found herself needing to share some of the royal authority with him and allowed his name to appear on her monuments in a lesser, subordinate role. Around this time, she was particularly focused on decorating the old temple of Ammon at Thebes, which had been started by Usurtasen I and significantly expanded by her father, Thothmes I. The highlights of her efforts in this area were two obelisks made of red granite, or syenite, sourced from the quarries of Elephantine, which were placed in front of the entrance that her father built in front of Usurtasen's structure. These remarkable works are unmatched in form, color, and engraving quality by any similar artworks from ancient Egypt, either before or after. They stand nearly one hundred feet tall and are adorned with finely crafted hieroglyphics. Hatasu states that she "has made two great obelisks for her father, Ammon, with a heart full of love for him." They are "made from hard granite from the South, each carved from a single stone, without any joints or separations." The top of each, or cap of the pyramidion, is "made of pure gold, sourced from the leaders of nations," so that they "can be seen from many leagues away—Upper and Lower Egypt are illuminated by their brilliance"(!).

Hatasu reigned conjointly with Thothmes III. for the space of seven years. Their common monuments have been found at Thebes, in the Wady Magharah, and elsewhere. It is not probable that the relations of the brother and sister during this period were very cordial. Hatasu still claimed the chief authority, and placed her name before that of her brother on all public documents. She was, as she has been called, "a bold, ambitious woman," and evidently admitted with reluctance any partner of her greatness. Thothmes III., a man of great ambition and no less ability, is not likely to have acquiesced very willingly in the secondary position assigned to him. Whether he openly rebelled against it, broke with Hatasu, and deprived her of the throne, or even put her to death, is wholly uncertain. The monuments hitherto discovered are absolutely silent as to what became of this great queen. She may have died a natural death, opportunely for her brother, who must have wished to find himself unshackled; or she may have been the victim of a conspiracy within the palace walls. All that we know is that she disappears from history in about her fortieth year, and that her brother and successor, the third Thothmes, actuated by a strong and settled animosity, caused her name to be erased, as far as possible, from all her monuments. There is scarcely one on which it remains intact. The greatest of Egyptian queens—one of the greatest of Egyptian sovereigns—is indebted for the continuance of her memory among mankind to the accident that the stonemasons employed by Thothmes to carry out his plan of vengeance were too careless or too idle to effect the actual obliteration of the name, which they everywhere marred with their chisels. Hatred, for once, though united with absolute power, missed its aim; and Hatasu's great constructions, together with her "Merchant Fleet," are among the indisputable facts of history which can never be forgotten.

Hatasu ruled alongside Thothmes III for seven years. Their shared monuments have been discovered in Thebes, the Wady Magharah, and other locations. It’s unlikely that the relationship between the brother and sister during this time was very friendly. Hatasu still asserted her primary authority, putting her name before her brother's on all public documents. She was, as she's been described, "a bold, ambitious woman," and clearly was reluctant to accept any equal in her power. Thothmes III, a man of considerable ambition and equal talent, probably didn't easily accept the subordinate role he was given. Whether he openly resisted it, broke away from Hatasu, took the throne from her, or even had her killed is completely uncertain. The monuments discovered so far remain silent about what happened to this remarkable queen. She may have died naturally, which would have been convenient for her brother, who likely wanted to be free from her influence; or she might have fallen victim to a conspiracy within the palace. All we know is that she vanishes from history around age forty, and her brother and successor, Thothmes III, driven by deep-seated resentment, had her name erased as much as possible from all her monuments. There's hardly one where it remains intact. The greatest of Egyptian queens—one of the greatest rulers in Egypt's history—owes the survival of her memory to the chance that the stone workers hired by Thothmes for his revenge were either too careless or too lazy to completely remove her name, which they only disfigured with their chisels. For once, hatred, even combined with absolute power, missed its target; and Hatasu's grand constructions, along with her "Merchant Fleet," are undeniable historical facts that can never be forgotten.

Decorative

Decorative

XII.

THOTHMES THE THIRD AND AMENHOTEP THE SECOND.

No sooner had Thothmes III. burst the leading-strings in which his sister had held him for above twenty years, then he showed the metal of which he was made by at once placing himself at the head of his troops, and marching into Asia. Persuaded that the great god, Ammon, had promised him a long career of victory, he lost no time in setting to work to accomplish his glorious destiny. Starting from an Egyptian post on the Eastern frontier, called Garu or Zalu, in the month of February, he took his march along the ordinary coast route, and in a short time reached Gaza, the strong Philistine city, which was already a fortress of repute, and regarded as "the key of Syria." The day of his arrival was the anniversary of his coronation, and according to his reckoning the first day of his twenty-third year. Gaza made no resistance: its chief was friendly to the Egyptians, and gladly opened his gates to the invading army. Having rested at Gaza no more than a single night, Thothmes resumed his march, and continuing to skirt the coast, arrived on the eleventh day at a fortified town called Jaham, probably Jamnia. Here he was met by his scouts, who brought the intelligence that the enemy was collected at Megiddo, on the edge of the great plain of Esdraelon, the ordinary battle-field of the Palestinian nations. They consisted of "all the people dwelling between the river of Egypt on the one hand and the land of Naharaïn (Mesopotamia) on the other." At their head was the king of Kadesh, a great city on the upper Orontes, which afterwards became one of the chief seats of the Hittite power, but was at this time in the possession of the Rutennu (Syrians). They were strongly posted at the mouth of a narrow pass, behind the ridge of hills which connects Carmel with the Samaritan upland, and Thothmes was advised by his captains to avoid a direct attack, and march against them by a circuitous route, which was undefended. But the intrepid warrior scorned this prudent counsel. "His generals," he said, "might take the roundabout road, if they liked; he would follow the straight one." The event justified his determination. Megiddo was reached in a week without loss or difficulty, and a great battle was fought in the fertile plain to the north-west of the fortress, in which the Egyptian king was completely victorious, and his enemies were scattered like chaff before him. The Syrians must have fled precipitately at the first attack; for they lost in killed no more than eighty-three, and in prisoners no more than two hundred and forty, or according to another account three hundred and forty, while the chariots taken were nine hundred and twenty-four, and the captured horses 2,132. Megiddo was near at hand, and the bulk of the fugitives would reach easily the shelter of its walls. Others may have dispersed themselves among the mountains. The Syrian camp was, however, taken, together with vast treasures in silver and gold, lapis lazuli, turquoise, and alabaster; and the son of the king of Kadesh fell into Thothmes' hands. Megiddo itself, soon afterwards, surrendered, as did the towns of Inunam, Anaugas, and Hurankal or Herinokol. An immense booty in corn and cattle was also carried off. Thothmes returned to Egypt in triumph, and held a prolonged festival to Ammon-Ra in Thebes, accompanied by numerous sacrifices and offerings. Among the last we find included three of the cities taken from the Rutennu, which were assigned to the god in order that they might "supply a yearly contribution to his sacred food."

No sooner had Thothmes III. broken free from the restraints his sister had held him in for over twenty years than he demonstrated his true character by immediately taking command of his troops and marching into Asia. Believing that the great god, Ammon, had promised him a long career of victories, he wasted no time in working towards his glorious destiny. Starting from an Egyptian outpost on the Eastern frontier, called Garu or Zalu, in February, he followed the usual coastal route and quickly reached Gaza, a strong Philistine city known as "the key of Syria." The day he arrived was the anniversary of his coronation and marked the start of his twenty-third year. Gaza didn't resist; its leader was friendly to the Egyptians and gladly opened the gates to the invading army. After resting in Gaza for just one night, Thothmes continued his march and, keeping near the coast, arrived on the eleventh day at a fortified town called Jaham, probably Jamnia. Here he was met by his scouts, who informed him that the enemy had gathered at Megiddo, on the brink of the great plain of Esdraelon, a common battlefield for the Palestinian nations. They consisted of "all the people living between the river of Egypt on one side and the land of Naharaïn (Mesopotamia) on the other." Their leader was the king of Kadesh, a major city on the upper Orontes, which later became a center of Hittite power but was then under the control of the Rutennu (Syrians). They had a strong position at the entrance of a narrow pass behind the ridge of hills connecting Carmel with the Samaritan upland, and Thothmes was advised by his commanders to avoid a direct attack and take an unguarded detour. However, the fearless warrior dismissed this cautious advice. "His generals can take the roundabout road if they want; he will take the direct one." The outcome proved his resolve was right. Megiddo was reached in a week without losses or difficulties, leading to a significant battle in the fertile plain northwest of the fortress, where the Egyptian king achieved total victory, scattering his enemies like chaff. The Syrians must have fled quickly at the first assault; they lost only eighty-three killed and two hundred and forty prisoners, or three hundred and forty according to another account, while nine hundred and twenty-four chariots and 2,132 captured horses were taken. Megiddo was nearby, and the majority of the fleeing troops likely managed to find refuge within its walls. Others might have scattered into the hills. Nevertheless, the Syrian camp was captured, along with vast treasures of silver, gold, lapis lazuli, turquoise, and alabaster; additionally, the son of the king of Kadesh was captured by Thothmes. Shortly after, Megiddo surrendered, as did the towns of Inunam, Anaugas, and Hurankal or Herinokol. An immense amount of corn and cattle was also seized. Thothmes returned to Egypt in triumph and held a lengthy festival for Ammon-Ra in Thebes, complete with numerous sacrifices and offerings. Among these were three of the cities taken from the Rutennu, which were given to the god to provide "a yearly contribution to his sacred food."

It is a familiar saying, that "increase of appetite doth grow by what it feeds on." Thothmes certainly found his appetite for conquest whetted, not satiated, by his Syrian campaign. If we may trust M. Lenormant, he took the field in the very year that followed his victory of Megiddo, and after traversing the whole of Syria, and ravaging the country about Aleppo, proceeded to Carchemish, the great Hittite town on the Upper Euphrates, and there crossed the river into Naharaïn, or Mesopotamia, whence he carried off a number of prisoners. Two other campaigns, which cannot be traced in detail, belong to the period between his twenty-fourth and his twenty-ninth year. Thenceforward to his fortieth year his military expeditions scarcely knew any cessation. At one time he would embark his troops on board a fleet, and make descents upon the coast of Syria, coming as unexpectedly and ravaging as ruthlessly as the Normans of the Middle Ages. He would cut down the fruit trees, carry off the crops, empty the magazines of grain, lay hands upon all valuables that were readily removable, and carry them on board his ships, returning to Egypt with a goodly store of gold and silver, of lapis lazuli and other precious stones, of vases in silver and in bronze, of corn, wine, incense, balsam, honey, iron, lead, emery, and male and female slaves. At another, he would march by land, besiege and take the inland towns, demand and obtain the sons of the chiefs as hostages, exact heavy war contributions, and bring back with him horses and chariots, flocks and herds, strange animals, trees, and plants.

It’s a well-known saying that "an increase in appetite grows with what it feeds on." Thothmes definitely found his desire for conquest heightened, not satisfied, by his campaign in Syria. If we can believe M. Lenormant, he went to war in the very year after his victory at Megiddo, and after traveling across all of Syria and devastating the area around Aleppo, he moved on to Carchemish, the major Hittite city on the Upper Euphrates, and there crossed the river into Naharaïn, or Mesopotamia, from which he brought back many prisoners. Two other campaigns, which we can't detail, took place between his twenty-fourth and twenty-ninth year. From then until his fortieth year, his military expeditions hardly ever paused. At one point, he would load his troops onto ships and raid the coast of Syria, coming as unexpectedly and destructively as the Normans in the Middle Ages. He would cut down fruit trees, seize crops, empty grain stores, take all easily removable valuables, and load them onto his ships, returning to Egypt with a good haul of gold and silver, lapis lazuli and other gems, silver and bronze vases, corn, wine, incense, balsam, honey, iron, lead, emery, and male and female slaves. At another time, he would march on land, besiege and capture inland towns, demand and receive the sons of the chiefs as hostages, impose heavy war tributes, and bring back horses and chariots, flocks and herds, exotic animals, trees, and plants.

Of all his expeditions, that undertaken in his thirty-third year was perhaps the most remarkable. Starting from the country of the Rutennu, he on this occasion directed the main force of his attack upon the Mesopotamian region, which he ravaged far and wide, conquering the towns, and "reducing to a level plain the strong places of the miserable land of Naharaïn," capturing thirty kings or chiefs, and erecting two tablets in the region, to indicate its subjection. It is possible that he even crossed the Tigris into Adiabene or the Zab country, since he relates that on his return he passed through the town of Ni or Nini, which many of the best historians of Egypt identify with Nineveh. Nineveh was not now (about B.C. 1500) the capital of Assyria, which was lower down the Tigris, at Asshur or Kileh Sherghat, but was only a provincial town of some magnitude. Still it was within the dominions of the Assyrian monarch of the time, and any attack upon it would have been an insult and a challenge to the great power of Upper Mesopotamia, which ruled from the alluvium to the mountains. It is certain that the king of Assyria did not accept the challenge, but preferred to avoid an encounter with the Egyptian troops. Both at this time and subsequently he sent envoys with rich presents to court the favour of Thothmes, who accepted the gifts as "tribute," and counted "the chief of Assuru" among his tributaries. Submission was also made to him at the same time by the "prince of Senkara," a name which still exists in the lower Babylonian marsh region. Among the gifts which this prince sent was "lapis lazuli of Babylon." It is an exaggeration to represent the expedition as having resulted in the conquest of the great empires of Assyria and Babylon; but it is quite true to say that it startled and shook those empires, that it filled them with a great fear of what might be coming, and brought Egypt into the position of the principal military power of the time. Assyrian influence especially was checked and curtailed. There is reason to believe, from the Egyptian remains found at Arban on the Khabour,[17] that Thothmes added to the Egyptian empire the entire region between the Euphrates and its great eastern affluent—a broad tract of valuable territory—and occupied it with permanent garrisons. The Assyrian monarch bought off the further hostility of his dangerous neighbour by an annual embassy which conveyed rich gifts to the court of the Pharaohs, gifts that were not reciprocated. Among these we find enumerated gold and silver ornaments, lapis lazuli, vases of Assyrian stone (alabaster?), slaves, chariots adorned with gold and silver, silver dishes and silver beaten out into sheets, incense, wine, honey, ivory, cedar and sycomore wood, mulberry trees, vines, and fig trees, buffaloes, bulls, and a gold habergeon with a border of lapis lazuli.

Of all his journeys, the one he undertook at thirty-three was probably the most impressive. Starting from the Rutennu region, he focused his main attack on Mesopotamia, devastating it thoroughly, conquering cities, and "flattening the strongholds of the wretched land of Naharaïn," capturing thirty kings or leaders, and setting up two tablets in the area to mark its conquest. He might have even crossed the Tigris into Adiabene or the Zab region since he mentioned that on his way back, he went through the town of Ni or Nini, which many of the top historians of Egypt connect to Nineveh. At this time (around B.C. 1500), Nineveh was not the capital of Assyria, which was located further down the Tigris at Asshur or Kileh Sherghat, but was just a fairly significant provincial town. Still, it fell under the authority of the Assyrian king, making any attack on it a major insult and challenge to the dominant power of Upper Mesopotamia, ruling from the floodplains to the mountains. It's clear that the Assyrian king chose not to take on this challenge and instead decided to avoid a confrontation with the Egyptian forces. During this time and later, he sent envoys with lavish gifts to win Thothmes' favor, who accepted these gifts as "tribute" and counted "the chief of Assuru" among his tributaries. At the same time, submission was also sent by the "prince of Senkara," a name that still exists in the lower Babylonian marsh area. Among the gifts this prince sent was "lapis lazuli of Babylon." It's an exaggeration to claim that the expedition led to the conquest of the vast empires of Assyria and Babylon, but it’s true that it shocked and unsettled those empires, instilling a significant fear of what could come next and establishing Egypt as the leading military power of the era. Especially, Assyrian influence was restricted and diminished. Evidence from Egyptian artifacts found at Arban on the Khabour suggests that Thothmes expanded the Egyptian empire to include all the land between the Euphrates and its major eastern tributary—a large area of valuable territory—and stationed permanent garrisons there. The Assyrian king sought to prevent further conflict with his perilous neighbor by sending an annual delegation bearing rich gifts to the Pharaoh's court, gifts that were not reciprocated. Among these were listed gold and silver jewelry, lapis lazuli, alabaster vases, slaves, chariots decorated with gold and silver, silver plates and sheets, incense, wine, honey, ivory, cedar and sycamore wood, mulberry and fig trees, buffaloes, bulls, and a gold chainmail with a lapis lazuli border.

A curious episode of the expedition is related by Amenemheb, an officer who accompanied it, and was in personal attendance upon the Egyptian monarch. It appears that in the time of Thothmes III. the elephant haunted the woods and jungles of the Mesopotamian region, as he now does those of the peninsula of Hindustan. The huge unwieldy beasts were especially abundant in the neighbourhood of Ni or Nini, the country between the middle Tigris and the Zagros range. As Amenemhat I. had delighted in the chase of the lion and the crocodile, so Thothmes III. no sooner found a number of elephants within his reach than he proceeded to hunt and kill them, mainly no doubt for the sport, but partly in order to obtain their tusks. No fewer than a hundred and twenty are said to have been killed or taken. On one occasion, however, the monarch ran a great risk. He was engaged in the pursuit of a herd, when the "rogue," or leading elephant, turned and made a rush at the royal sportsman, who would probably have fallen a victim, gored by a tusk or trampled to death under the huge beast's feet, had not Amenemheb hastened to the rescue, and by wounding the creature's trunk drawn its rage upon himself. The brute was then, after a short struggle, overpowered and captured.

A fascinating story from the expedition is shared by Amenemheb, an officer who was there and personally served the Egyptian king. During the time of Thothmes III, elephants roamed the forests and jungles of the Mesopotamian region, just as they do today in the Indian subcontinent. These massive, clumsy animals were particularly numerous around Ni or Nini, the area between the middle Tigris and the Zagros mountains. Just as Amenemhat I. enjoyed hunting lions and crocodiles, Thothmes III. couldn't resist the opportunity to hunt elephants when he found them nearby, doing so mainly for fun, but also to collect their tusks. It's said that at least one hundred and twenty elephants were killed or captured. However, one time, the king faced a significant danger. While chasing a herd, the "rogue," or lead elephant, charged at him. He likely would have been gored or trampled to death by the huge animal if Amenemheb hadn't rushed in to help, wounding the elephant's trunk and drawing its fury toward himself. After a brief struggle, the massive creature was overpowered and captured.

Further expeditions were led by Thothmes into Asia in his thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, fortieth, and forty-second years; but in none of them does he seem to have outdone the exploits of the great campaign of the year 33. The brunt of his attacks at this time fell upon the Zahi, or Tahai, of northern Phœnicia, and upon the Naïri of the Mesopotamian region, who continually rebelled, and had to be reconquered. The Rutennu seem for the most part to have paid their tribute without resistance and without much difficulty. This may have been partly owing to the judicious system which Thothmes had established among them, whereby each chief was forced to give a son or brother as hostage for his good behaviour, and if the hostage died to send another in his place. It was certainly not because the tribute was light, since it consisted of a number of slaves, silver vases of the weight of 762 pounds, nineteen chariots, 276 head of cattle, 1,622 goats, several hundredweight of iron and lead, a number of suits of armour, and "all kinds of good plants." The Rutennu had also to supply the stations along the military road, whereby Thothmes kept up the communications between Egypt and Mesopopotamia, with bread, wine, dates, incense, honey, and figs.

Further expeditions were led by Thothmes into Asia during his thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, fortieth, and forty-second years; however, none of these seem to have surpassed the achievements of the major campaign in year 33. Most of his efforts during this time targeted the Zahi, or Tahai, in northern Phoenicia, and the Naïri in the Mesopotamian area, who constantly rebelled and needed to be reconquered. The Rutennu mostly paid their tribute without much resistance or difficulty. This may have been partly due to the smart system Thothmes established among them, where each chief was required to provide a son or brother as a hostage for their good behavior, and if the hostage died, they had to send another in their place. It was definitely not because the tribute was light, as it included a number of slaves, silver vases weighing 762 pounds, nineteen chariots, 276 head of cattle, 1,622 goats, several hundredweight of iron and lead, multiple suits of armor, and "all kinds of good plants." The Rutennu were also responsible for supplying the stations along the military road Thothmes used to maintain communication between Egypt and Mesopotamia with bread, wine, dates, incense, honey, and figs.

While thus engaged in enlarging the limits of his empire towards the north and the north-east, the careful monarch did not allow the regions brought under Egyptian influence by former rulers to escape him. He took a tribute of gold, spices, male and female slaves, cattle, ivory, ebony, and panther skins from the land of Punt, of cattle and slaves from Cush, and of the same products from the Uauat. Altogether he is said to have carried off from the subject countries above 11,000 captives, 1,670 chariots, 3,639 horses, 4,491 of the larger cattle, more than 35,000 goats, silver to the amount of 3,940 pounds, and gold to the amount of 9,054 pounds. He also conveyed to Egypt from the conquered lands enormous quantities of corn and wine, together with incense, balsam, honey, ivory, ebony and other rare woods, lapis lazuli, furniture, statues, vases, dishes, basins, tent-poles, bows, habergeons, fruit trees, live birds, and monkeys! With a curiosity which was insatiable, he noted all that was strange or unusual in the lands which he visited, and sought to introduce the various novelties into his own proper country. Two unknown kinds of birds, and a variety of the goose, which he found in Mesopotamia, and transported from the valley of the Khabour to that of the Nile, are said to have been "dearer to the king than anything else." His artists had instructions to make careful studies of the different objects, and to represent them faithfully on his monuments. We see on these "water-lilies as high as trees, plants of a growth like cactuses, all sorts of trees and shrubs, leaves, flowers, and fruits, including melons and pomegranates; oxen and calves also figure, and among them a wonderful animal with three horns. There are likewise herons, sparrow-hawks, geese, and doves. All these objects appear gaily intermixed in the pictures, as suited the simple childlike conception of the artist."[18] An inscription tells the intention of the monarch. "Here," it runs, "are all sorts of plants and all sorts of flowers of the Holy Land, which the king discovered when he went to the land of Ruten to conquer it. Thus says the king—I swear by the sun, and I call to witness my father Ammon, that all is plain truth; there is no trace of deception in that which I relate. What the splendid soil brings forth in the way of productions, I have had portrayed in these pictures, with the intention of offering them to my father Ammon, as a memorial for all times."

While engaged in expanding his empire to the north and northeast, the cautious monarch made sure not to let the territories that earlier rulers had brought under Egyptian influence slip away. He collected tributes of gold, spices, male and female slaves, cattle, ivory, ebony, and panther skins from the land of Punt, along with cattle and slaves from Cush, and similar goods from the Uauat. In total, he reportedly brought back over 11,000 captives, 1,670 chariots, 3,639 horses, 4,491 large cattle, more than 35,000 goats, 3,940 pounds of silver, and 9,054 pounds of gold. He also transported a massive amount of corn and wine, along with incense, balsam, honey, ivory, ebony and other rare woods, lapis lazuli, furniture, statues, vases, dishes, basins, tent-poles, bows, armor, fruit trees, live birds, and monkeys! With an insatiable curiosity, he documented everything strange or unusual in the regions he visited, aiming to introduce various novelties into his own country. Two unknown bird species and a type of goose that he discovered in Mesopotamia, which he moved from the Khabour Valley to the Nile Valley, were said to be "dearer to the king than anything else." His artists were instructed to carefully study different objects and accurately depict them on his monuments. We see depictions of "water-lilies as tall as trees, plants that grow like cacti, all sorts of trees and shrubs, leaves, flowers, and fruits, including melons and pomegranates; oxen and calves are also shown, alongside a remarkable animal with three horns. There are also herons, sparrow-hawks, geese, and doves. All these elements appear joyfully mixed in the images, reflecting the simple, childlike view of the artist." An inscription states the monarch's intention: "Here are all sorts of plants and all sorts of flowers from the Holy Land, which the king discovered when he went to conquer the land of Ruten. Thus says the king—I swear by the sun, and I call upon my father Ammon as a witness that everything I relate is the absolute truth; there is no hint of deception in what I recount. The fertile land brings forth various productions, and I have depicted them in these pictures to offer them to my father Ammon as a lasting memorial."

Besides his army, Thothmes also maintained a naval force, and used it largely in his expeditions. According to one writer, he placed a fleet on the Euphrates, and in an action which took place with the Assyrians, defeated and chased the enemy for a distance of between seven and eight miles. He certainly upon some occasions made his attacks on Syria and Phœnicia from the sea; nor is it improbable that his maritime forces reduced Cyprus (which was conquered and held in a much less flourishing period by Amasis) and plundered the coast of Cilicia; but a judicious criticism will scarcely extend the voyages of his fleet, as has been done by another writer, to Crete, and the islands of the Ægean, the sea-boards of Greece and Asia Minor, the southern coast of Italy, Algeria, and the waters of the Euxine! There is no evidence in the historical inscriptions of Thothmes of any such far-reaching expeditions. The supposed evidence for them is in a song of victory, put into the mouth of the god, Ammon, and inscribed on one of the walls of the great temple of Karnak. The song is interesting, but it scarcely bears out the deductions that have been drawn from it, as will appear from the subjoined translation.

Besides his army, Thothmes also had a naval force, which he mainly used in his campaigns. One writer noted that he stationed a fleet on the Euphrates and, in a battle against the Assyrians, defeated and pursued the enemy for about seven to eight miles. At times, he did launch his attacks on Syria and Phoenicia from the sea; it's also likely that his naval forces took control of Cyprus (which was conquered and held in a less prosperous period by Amasis) and raided the Cilician coast. However, a careful analysis wouldn't support the idea, as suggested by another writer, that his fleet ventured as far as Crete, the Aegean islands, the coastlines of Greece and Asia Minor, the southern coast of Italy, Algeria, and the Black Sea! There’s no evidence in the historical inscriptions of Thothmes to suggest such extensive expeditions. The supposed evidence for them comes from a victory song attributed to the god Ammon, inscribed on one of the walls of the great temple of Karnak. The song is interesting, but it doesn't really support the conclusions drawn from it, as will be evident from the following translation.

(AMMON loquitur.)

(AMMON says.)

I arrived, and you struck down the princes of Zahi;
I spread them out under your feet across all their lands;
I made them see your Holiness as the shining sun; You shine in their view in my form.
I arrived, and you struck down those who live in Asia;
You captured the goat-herds of Ruten;
I made them see your Holiness in your royal decorations,
As you hold your weapons in the war chariot.
I arrived, and you struck the land of the East;
You marched against the people living in the Holy Land;
I showed them your Holiness like the star Canopus,
Which radiates its warmth and spreads out the dew.
I came, and you struck the land of the West; Kefa and Asebi (i.e., Phœnicia and Cyprus) were afraid of you; I made them see your Holiness as a young bull,
Brave, with sharp horns that no one can get near.
I arrived, and you struck down the subjects of their leaders; The land of Mathen shook in fear of you;
I made them see your Holiness as a crocodile,
Awful in the waters, best avoided.
I came, and you struck down those who lived in the Great Sea;
The people of the islands were afraid of your battle cry; I showed them your Holiness as the Avenger,
Who reveals himself behind his victim.
I arrived, and you struck the land of the Tahennu; The people of Uten submitted to your power; I made them see your Holiness as a lion, fierce in appearance, Who leaves his den and prowls through the valleys.
I arrived, and you struck the rear (i.e. northern) lands; The circuit of the Great Sea is in your hands; I showed them your Holiness like the soaring hawk.
Which captures with his gaze whatever delights him.
I arrived, and you struck the land ahead: Those who sat on the sand you took away as captives; I made them see your Holiness like the jackal from the South,
Which travels through the land like a secret wanderer.
I arrived, and you struck down the nomadic tribes of Nubia,
Even to the land of Shut, which you hold in your grasp; I showed them your Holiness like your two brothers,
I have joined hands with you to give you power.[19]

It is impossible to conclude this sketch of Thothmes III. without some notice of his buildings. He was the greatest of Egyptian conquerors, but he was also one of the greatest of Egyptian builders and patrons of art. The grand temple of Ammon at Thebes was the especial object of his fostering care; and he began his career of builder and restorer by repairs and restorations, which much improved and beautified that edifice. Before the southern propylæa he re-erected, in the first year of his independent reign, colossal statues of his father, Thothmes I., and his grandfather, Amenhotep, which had been thrown down in the troublous time succeeding Thothmes the First's death. He then proceeded to rebuild the central sanctuary, the work of Usurtasen I., which had probably begun to decay, and, recognizing its importance as the very penetrale of the temple, he resolved to reconstruct it in granite, instead of common stone, that he might render it, practically, imperishable. With a reverence and a self-restraint that it might be wished restorers possessed more commonly, he preserved all the lines and dimensions of the ancient building, merely reproducing in a better material the work of his great predecessor. Having accomplished this pious task, he gave a vent to his constructive ambition by a grand addition to the temple on its eastern side. Behind the cell, at the distance of about a hundred and fifty feet, he erected a magnificent hall, or pillared chamber, of dimensions previously unknown in Egypt, or elsewhere in the world at the time—an oblong square, one hundred and forty-three feet long by fifty-three feet wide, or nearly half as large again as the nave of Canterbury Cathedral. The whole of the apartment was roofed in with slabs of solid stone; it was divided in its longest direction into five avenues or vistas by means of rows of pillars and piers, the former being towards the centre, and attaining a height of thirty feet, with bell capitals, and the latter towards the sides, with a height of twenty feet. This arrangement enabled the building to be lighted by means of a clerestory, in the manner shown by the accompanying woodcut. In connection with this noble hall, on three sides of it, northwards, eastwards, and southwards, Thothmes further erected chambers and corridors, partly open, partly supported by pillars, which might form convenient store-chambers for the vestments of the priests and the offerings of the people.

It’s impossible to finish this overview of Thothmes III without mentioning his buildings. He was not only the greatest of Egyptian conquerors but also one of its greatest builders and supporters of the arts. The grand temple of Ammon at Thebes was his main focus; he started his building and restoration efforts by making repairs that significantly improved and beautified that structure. In the first year of his independent reign, he re-erected colossal statues of his father, Thothmes I, and his grandfather, Amenhotep, in front of the southern propylæa, which had been toppled during the tumultuous period after Thothmes I’s death. He then focused on rebuilding the central sanctuary, originally built by Usurtasen I, which was likely starting to fall apart. Recognizing its significance as the very penetrale of the temple, he decided to reconstruct it in granite instead of regular stone to make it practically imperishable. With a respectfulness and restraint that restorers today could aspire to, he kept all the lines and dimensions of the ancient building, simply reproducing the work of his great predecessor in a better material. Once he completed this sacred task, he pursued his building ambitions with a grand addition to the temple on its eastern side. About one hundred and fifty feet behind the cell, he built a magnificent hall, or pillared chamber, that was larger in size than anything previously known in Egypt or anywhere else at that time—an oblong square, one hundred and forty-three feet long and fifty-three feet wide, which is nearly one and a half times the size of the nave of Canterbury Cathedral. The entire space was covered with slabs of solid stone; it was divided lengthwise into five avenues or views by rows of pillars and piers, with the pillars towards the center reaching a height of thirty feet with bell capitals, and the piers on the sides at twenty feet. This design allowed the building to be lit by a clerestory, as shown in the accompanying illustration. Along three sides of this grand hall—north, east, and south—Thothmes added rooms and corridors, some open and some supported by pillars, which could serve as convenient storage for the priests' vestments and the people's offerings.

Thothmes also added propylæa to the temple on the south, and erected in front of the grand entrance which was (as usual) between the pylons of the propylæa, two or perhaps four great obelisks, one of which exists to the present day, and is the largest and most magnificent of all such monuments now extant. It stands in front of the Church of St. John Lateran at Rome, and has a height of a hundred and five feet, exclusive of the base, with a width diminishing from nine feet six inches to eight feet seven inches. It is estimated to weigh above four hundred and fifty tons, and is covered with well-cut hieroglyphics. No other obelisk approaches within twelve feet of its elevation, or within fifty tons of its weight. Yet, if we may believe an inscription of Thothmes, found on the spot, the pair of obelisks whereof this was one shrank into insignificance in comparison with another pair, also placed by him before his propylæa, the height of which was one hundred and eight cubits, or one hundred and sixty-two feet, and their weight consequently from seven hundred to eight hundred tons! As no trace has been found of these monsters, and as it seems almost impossible that they should have been removed, and highly improbable that they could have been broken up without leaving some indication of their existence, perhaps we may conclude that they were designed rather than executed, and that the inscription was set up in anticipation of an achievement contemplated but never effected.

Thothmes also added a gateway to the temple on the south and built two or maybe four huge obelisks in front of the grand entrance, which was, as usual, located between the pylons of the gateway. One of these obelisks still stands today and is the largest and most impressive of all such monuments still around. It is located in front of the Church of St. John Lateran in Rome and measures one hundred and five feet tall, not including the base, with a width tapering from nine feet six inches to eight feet seven inches. It is estimated to weigh over four hundred and fifty tons and is covered in finely carved hieroglyphics. No other obelisk comes within twelve feet of its height or within fifty tons of its weight. However, if we can trust an inscription from Thothmes found at the site, the pair of obelisks of which this one is a part paled in comparison to another pair he also erected in front of his gateway, which were one hundred and eight cubits tall, or one hundred and sixty-two feet, and weighed between seven hundred and eight hundred tons! Since no trace of these giants has been found, and it's nearly impossible they were moved or broken without leaving some sign of their existence, we might conclude they were planned rather than actually built, and that the inscription was meant for a project that was envisioned but never carried out.

SECTION OF PILLARED HALL OF THOTHMES III. AT KARNAK. SECTION OF PILLARED HALL OF THOTHMES III. AT KARNAK.

Other erections of the Great Thothmes are the enclosure of the famous Temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, the temple of Phthah at Thebes, the small temple at Medinet-Abou, a temple to Kneph adorned with obelisks at Elephantine, and a series of temples and monuments erected at Ombos, Esneh, Abydos, Coptos, Denderah, Eileithyia, Hermonthis, and Memphis in Egypt, and at Amada, Corte, Talmis, Pselcis, Semneh, Koummeh, and Napata in Nubia. Extensive ruins of many of these buildings still remain, particularly at Koummeh, Semneh, Napata, Denderah, and Ombos. Altogether, Thothmes III. is pronounced to have left behind him more monuments than any other Pharaoh excepting Rameses II., and though occasionally showing himself, as a builder, somewhat capricious and whimsical, still, on the whole, to have worked in a pure style and proved that he was not deficient in good taste.[20]

Other constructions by the great Thothmes include the famous Temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, the temple of Phthah at Thebes, the small temple at Medinet-Abou, a temple to Kneph decorated with obelisks at Elephantine, and a range of temples and monuments built at Ombos, Esneh, Abydos, Coptos, Denderah, Eileithyia, Hermonthis, and Memphis in Egypt, as well as at Amada, Corte, Talmis, Pselcis, Semneh, Koummeh, and Napata in Nubia. There are still extensive ruins of many of these buildings, especially at Koummeh, Semneh, Napata, Denderah, and Ombos. Overall, Thothmes III. is said to have left behind more monuments than any other Pharaoh except Rameses II., and while he sometimes appeared to be a somewhat unpredictable and quirky builder, he generally worked in a refined style and demonstrated good taste.[20]

It has happened, moreover, by a curious train of circumstances, that Thothmes III. is, of all the Pharaohs, the one whose great works are most widely diffused, and display Egyptian skill and taste to the largest populations, and in the most important cities, of the modern world. Rome, as we have seen, possesses his grandest obelisk, which is at the same time the greatest of all extant monoliths. The millions who have flocked to Rome in all ages have learnt the lesson of Egyptian greatness from the monument erected before the Church of St. John Lateran. Constantinople holds an obelisk of Thothmes III., which is placed in the middle of the Atmeidan. London has put on its embankment, half-way between St. Paul's and the Palace and Abbey of Westminster, another obelisk of the same monarch, erected originally at Heliopolis, thence removed to Alexandria by Augustus, and now adorning the banks of the Thames, nearly in the centre of the most populous city that the world has ever seen. The companion monument, after having, similarly, stood at Heliopolis for fifteen centuries, and then at Alexandria for eighteen, has crossed the Atlantic Ocean, and now teaches the million residents, and the tens of thousands of visitors, of New York what great things could be done by the Egyptian engineers and artists of the time of the eighteenth dynasty.

It’s interesting to note that, through a strange series of events, Thothmes III is now the Pharaoh whose remarkable achievements are the most widespread, showcasing Egyptian skill and artistry to the largest populations and most significant cities in the modern world. Rome, as we’ve seen, boasts his grandest obelisk, which is also the largest monolith still in existence. The millions who have traveled to Rome throughout history have learned about Egyptian greatness from the monument in front of the Church of St. John Lateran. Constantinople has an obelisk of Thothmes III located in the center of the Atmeidan. London has placed another obelisk of the same king on its embankment, halfway between St. Paul's Cathedral and the Palace and Abbey of Westminster. This obelisk was originally erected at Heliopolis, moved to Alexandria by Augustus, and now stands on the banks of the Thames in one of the most densely populated cities in history. The companion monument, after standing at Heliopolis for fifteen centuries and then at Alexandria for eighteen, has crossed the Atlantic Ocean and now tells the million residents and tens of thousands of visitors in New York about the incredible feats accomplished by Egyptian engineers and artists during the eighteenth dynasty.

Thothmes III. has been called "the Alexander of Egyptian history." The phrase is at once exaggerated and misleading. It is exaggerated as applied to his military ability; for, though beyond a doubt this monarch was by far the greatest of Egyptian conquerors, and possessed considerable military talent, much personal bravery, and an energy that has seldom been exceeded, yet, on the other hand, his task was trivial as compared with that of the Macedonian general, and his achievements insignificant. Instead of plunging with a small force into the midst of populous countries, and contending with armies ten or twenty times as numerous as his own, defeating them, and utterly subduing a vast empire, Thothmes marched at the head of a numerous disciplined army into thinly peopled regions, governed by petty chiefs jealous one of another, fought scarcely a single great battle, and succeeded in conquering two regions of a moderate size, Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, as far as the Khabour river. Alexander overran and subdued the entire tract between the Ægean and the Sutlej, the Persian Gulf and the Oxus. He conquered Egypt, and founded a dynasty there which endured for nearly three centuries. Thothmes subdued not a tenth part of the space, and the empire which he established did not endure for much more than a century. It is thus absurd to compare Thothmes III. to Alexander the Great as a conqueror.

Thothmes III has been referred to as "the Alexander of Egyptian history." This comparison is both exaggerated and misleading. It's exaggerated when it comes to his military skills; while this ruler was undeniably the greatest conqueror of Egypt, with significant military talent, personal bravery, and remarkable energy, his challenges were minor compared to those faced by the Macedonian general, and his achievements were relatively insignificant. Instead of charging into highly populated areas with a small force and battling armies that were ten or twenty times larger, defeating them and fully controlling a vast empire, Thothmes led a large, well-trained army into sparsely populated regions ruled by petty chiefs who were jealous of each other. He hardly fought any major battles and only managed to conquer two moderately sized areas, Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, up to the Khabour River. In contrast, Alexander conquered and subdued the entire land from the Aegean to the Sutlej, and from the Persian Gulf to the Oxus. He took over Egypt and established a dynasty that lasted nearly three centuries. Thothmes conquered less than a tenth of that territory, and the empire he built lasted only a little over a century. Thus, it's ridiculous to compare Thothmes III to Alexander the Great as a conqueror.

Alexander was, besides, much more than a conqueror; he was a first-rate administrator. Had he lived twenty years longer he would probably have built up a universal monarchy, which might have lasted for a millenium. As it was, he so organized the East that it continued for nearly three centuries mainly under Greek rule, in the hands of the monarchs who are known as his "successors." Thothmes III., on the contrary, organized nothing. He left his conquests in such a condition that they, all of them, revolted at his death. His successor had to reconquer all the countries that had submitted to his father, and to re-establish over them the Egyptian sovereignty.

Alexander was more than just a conqueror; he was an excellent administrator. If he had lived twenty more years, he likely would have established a universal monarchy that could have lasted a thousand years. As it was, he organized the East so well that it remained under Greek rule for almost three hundred years, controlled by the monarchs known as his "successors." In contrast, Thothmes III didn't organize anything. He left his conquests in such disarray that they all revolted after his death. His successor had to reclaim all the territories that had submitted to his father and restore Egyptian control over them.

In person the great Egyptian monarch was not remarkable. He had a long, well-shaped, and somewhat delicate nose, which was almost in line with his forehead, an eye prominent and larger than that of most Egyptians, a shortish upper lip, a resolute mouth with rather over-full lips, and a rounded, slightly retreating chin. The expression of his portrait statues is grave and serious, but lacks strength and determination. Indeed, there is something about the whole countenance that is a little womanish, though his character certainly presents no appearance of effeminacy. He died after a reign of fifty-four years, according to his own reckoning, having practically exercised the sovereign power for about thirty-two of the fifty-four. His age at his death must have been about sixty.

In person, the great Egyptian king wasn't particularly striking. He had a long, well-proportioned, and somewhat delicate nose that was almost aligned with his forehead, one eye that was more prominent and larger than that of most Egyptians, a shorter upper lip, a determined mouth with somewhat full lips, and a rounded, slightly retreating chin. The expression on his statue portraits is serious and somber, but it lacks strength and determination. In fact, there's something about his overall appearance that feels a bit feminine, even though his character definitely doesn't show any signs of weakness. He died after a reign of fifty-four years, by his own count, having effectively held the sovereign power for about thirty-two of those years. He was around sixty years old at the time of his death.

BUST OF THOTHMES III. BUST OF THOTHMES III.

During these stirring times, what were the children of Israel doing? We have supposed that Joseph was minister of the last of the Shepherd Kings, under whose reign his people had entered upon the peaceful occupation of the land of Goshen, where they were received with hospitality by a population of the same simple pastoral habits with themselves; and it seems probable that, under Thothmes III., they were increasing abundantly and waxing mighty, and that the land between the Sebennytic and Pelusiac branches of the Nile was gradually being filled by them. Their period of severe oppression had not yet begun; there had as yet arisen no sufficient reason for any measures of repression, such as were pursued by the new king who "knew not Joseph." The name and renown of the great minister seems still to have protected his kinsmen in the peaceful enjoyment of their privileges in the land that must by this time have lost for them most of its strangeness.

During these turbulent times, what were the children of Israel doing? We assume that Joseph was the advisor to the last of the Shepherd Kings, under whose rule his people had started the peaceful occupation of the land of Goshen, where they were welcomed by a population with similar simple pastoral lifestyles. It seems likely that, under Thothmes III., they were growing rapidly and becoming powerful, and that the land between the Sebennytic and Pelusiac branches of the Nile was gradually being populated by them. Their time of severe oppression had not yet started; there was still no strong reason for any repressive actions, like those taken by the new king who "didn't know Joseph." The name and reputation of the great advisor seems to have still protected his relatives in their peaceful enjoyment of their rights in a land that by now must have felt mostly familiar to them.

Thothmes III. was succeeded by his son, Amenhotep, whom historians commonly term Amenophis the Second. This king was a warrior like his father, and succeeded in reducing, without much difficulty, the various nations that had thrown off the authority of Egypt on receiving the news of his father's death. He even carried his arms, according to some, as far as Nineveh, which he claims to have besieged and taken; he does not, however, mention the Assyrians as his opponents. His contests were with the Naïri, the Rutennu, and the Shasu (Arabs) in Asia, with the Tahennu (Libyans) and Nubians in Africa. On all sides victory crowned his arms; but he stained the fair fame that his victories would have otherwise secured him by barbarous practices, and cruel and unnecessary bloodshed. He tells us that at Takhisa in northern Syria he killed seven kings with his own hand, and he represents himself in the act of destroying them with his war-club, not in the heat of battle, but after they have been taken prisoners. He further adds that, after killing them, he suspended their bodies from the prow of the vessel In which he returned to Egypt, and brought them, as trophies of victory, to Thebes, where he hung six of the seven outside the walls of the city, as the Philistines hung the bodies of Saul and Jonathan on the wall of Beth-shan (i Sam. xxxi. 10, 12); while he had the seventh conveyed to Napata in Nubia, and there similarly exposed, to terrify his enemies in that quarter. It has been said of the Russians—not perhaps without some justice—"Grattez le Russe et vous trouverez le Tartare;" with far greater reason may we say of the ancient Egyptians, that, notwithstanding the veneer of civilization which they for the most part present to our observation, there was In their nature, even at the best of times, an underlying ingrained barbarism which could not be concealed, but was continually showing itself.

Thothmes III was succeeded by his son, Amenhotep, commonly known as Amenophis the Second. This king was a warrior like his father and easily subdued the various nations that had rebelled against Egypt after hearing about his father's death. According to some accounts, he even brought his army as far as Nineveh, claiming to have besieged and captured it; however, he doesn’t mention the Assyrians as his enemies. His battles were against the Naïri, the Rutennu, and the Shasu (Arabs) in Asia, as well as the Tahennu (Libyans) and Nubians in Africa. Victory followed him on all fronts; however, he tarnished the glory of his victories with savage actions and cruel, unnecessary violence. He states that at Takhisa in northern Syria, he killed seven kings with his own hand, and he depicts himself killing them with his war club, not in battle, but after they had been captured. He also mentions that, after killing them, he hung their bodies from the bow of the ship he took back to Egypt and brought them as trophies to Thebes, where he displayed six of the seven outside the city walls, similar to how the Philistines hung the bodies of Saul and Jonathan on the wall of Beth-shan (1 Sam. xxxi. 10, 12); while he sent the seventh to Napata in Nubia, where he displayed it as well to scare his enemies in that region. It has been said about the Russians—perhaps with some truth—"Grattez le Russe et vous trouverez le Tartare;" with even more justification, we can say about the ancient Egyptians that, despite the facade of civilization they mostly show us, there was an ingrained savagery in their nature that could not be hidden and was constantly surfacing.

Amenophis II. appears to have had a short reign; his seventh year is the last noted upon his monuments. As a builder he was unenterprizing. One temple at Amada, one hall at Thebes, and his tomb at Abd-el-Qurnah, form almost the whole of his known constructions. None of them is remarkable. Egypt under his sway had a brief rest before she braced herself to fresh efforts, military and architectural.

Amenophis II seems to have had a short reign; his seventh year is the last recorded on his monuments. As a builder, he wasn't very ambitious. One temple at Amada, one hall at Thebes, and his tomb at Abd-el-Qurnah make up almost all of his known constructions. None of them are particularly notable. Egypt enjoyed a brief period of stability under his rule before preparing for new military and architectural efforts.


Decorative

XIII.

AMENHOTEP III. AND HIS GREAT WORKS—THE VOCAL MEMNON.

The fame of Amen-hotep the Third, the grandson of the great Thothmes, rests especially upon his Twin Colossi, the grandest, if not actually the largest, that the world has ever beheld. Imagine sitting figures, formed of a single solid block of sandstone, which have sat on for above three thousand years, mouldering gradually away under the influence of time and weather changes, yet which are still more than sixty feet high, and must originally, when they wore the tall crown of an Egyptian king, have reached very nearly the height of seventy feet! We think a statue vast, colossal, of magnificent dimensions, if it be as much as ten or twenty feet high—as Chantrey's statue of Pitt, or Phidias's chryselephantine statue of Jupiter. What, then, must these be, which are of a size so vastly greater? Let us hear how they impress an eye-witness of world-wide experience. "There they sit," says Harriet Martineau, "together, yet apart, in the midst of the plain, serene and vigilant, still keeping their untired watch over the lapse of ages and the eclipse of Europe. I can never believe that anything else so majestic as this pair has been conceived of by the imagination of art. Nothing certainly, even in nature, ever affected me so unspeakably; no thunderstorms in my childhood, nor any aspect of Niagara, or the great lakes of America, or the Alps, or the Desert, in my later years.... The pair, sitting alone amid the expanse of verdure, with islands of ruins behind them, grew more striking to us every day. To-day, for the first time, we looked up to them from their base. The impression of sublime tranquillity which they convey when seen from distant points, is confirmed by a nearer approach. There they sit, keeping watch—hands on knees, gazing straight forward; seeming, though so much of the face is gone, to be looking over to the monumental piles on the other side of the river, which became gorgeous temples, after these throne-seats were placed here—the most immovable thrones that have ever been established on this earth!"[21]

The fame of Amen-hotep the Third, the grandson of the great Thothmes, mainly comes from his Twin Colossi, the most impressive, if not the largest, that the world has ever seen. Picture two seated figures, carved from a single solid block of sandstone, that have been sitting there for over three thousand years, slowly eroding due to the effects of time and weather, yet still towering over sixty feet high. When they wore the tall crown of an Egyptian king, they must have been nearly seventy feet tall! We think a statue is enormous, colossal, and magnificent if it stands ten or twenty feet high—like Chantrey's statue of Pitt or Phidias's gold and ivory statue of Jupiter. So, what must these be, given their vastly greater size? Let's hear from someone with global experience about their impact. "There they sit," says Harriet Martineau, "together yet apart, in the middle of the plain, calm and watchful, still keeping their tireless vigil over the passage of time and the decline of Europe. I can never believe that anything else so majestic as this pair has been imagined by the creativity of art. Nothing in nature has ever moved me so deeply; not the thunderstorms of my childhood, nor any sight of Niagara, or the great lakes of America, or the Alps, or the desert in my later years.... The pair, sitting alone amidst the stretch of greenery, with ruins behind them, became more striking to us every day. Today, for the first time, we looked up at them from their base. The feeling of sublime calm they convey when seen from afar is only reinforced by getting closer. There they sit, keeping guard—hands on knees, looking straight ahead; seeming, even with so much of their faces worn away, to be watching over the monumental structures on the other side of the river, which became magnificent temples after these thrones were placed here—the most enduring thrones ever established on this earth!"[21]

THE TWIN COLOSSI OF AMENHOTEP III, AT THEBES. THE TWIN COLOSSI OF AMENHOTEP III, AT THEBES.

The design of erecting two such colossi must be attributed to the monarch himself, and we must estimate, from the magnificence of the design, the grandeur of his thoughts and the wonderful depth of his artistic imagination; but the skill to execute, the genius to express in stone such dignity, majesty, and repose as the statues possess, belongs to the first-rate sculptor, who turned the rough blocks of stone, hewn by the masons in a distant quarry, into the glorious statues that have looked down upon the plain for so many ages. The sculptors of Egyptian works are, in general, unknown; but, by good fortune, in this particular case, the name of the artist has remained on record, and he has himself given us an account of the feelings with which he saw them set up in the places where they still remain. The sculptor, who bore the same name as his royal master, i.e. Amenhotep or Amen-hept, declares in the exultation of his heart: "I immortalized the name of the king, and no one has done the like of me in my works. I executed two portrait-statues of the king, astonishing for their breadth and height; their completed form dwarfed the temple tower—forty cubits was their measure; they were cut in the splendid sandstone mountain on either side, the eastern and the western. I caused to be built eight ships, whereon the statues were carried up the river; they were emplaced in their sublime temple; they will last as long as heaven. A joyful event was it when they were landed at Thebes and raised up in their place."

The idea to build two massive statues must be credited to the king himself, and we can infer, from the grandeur of the design, the depth of his vision and impressive artistic creativity; however, the talent to carve and bring such dignity, majesty, and calmness to life in stone belongs to the top-tier sculptor, who transformed rough blocks of stone, cut by workers in a distant quarry, into the magnificent statues that have overlooked the plain for countless ages. Generally, the names of Egyptian sculptors are unknown; however, in this specific case, the artist's name has been preserved in record, and he has shared his feelings upon witnessing their installation in the locations where they still stand. The sculptor, sharing the same name as his royal patron, i.e. Amenhotep or Amen-hept, expresses his joy: "I made the name of the king eternal, and no one has matched what I’ve created in my works. I crafted two portrait-statues of the king, remarkable for their size; their final form overshadowed the temple tower—each one measuring forty cubits. They were carved from the beautiful sandstone mountain on both the eastern and western sides. I ordered the construction of eight ships to carry the statues up the river; they were placed in their magnificent temple; they will endure as long as the heavens. It was a joyous occasion when they were delivered at Thebes and raised in their rightful place."

A peculiar and curious interest attaches to one—the more eastern—of the two statues. It was known to the Romans of the early empire as "The Vocal Memnon," and formed one of the chief attractions which drew travellers to Egypt, from the fact, which is quite indisputable, that at that time, for two centuries or perhaps more, it emitted in the early morning a musical sound, which was regarded as a sort of standing miracle. The fact is mentioned by Strabo, Pliny the elder, Pausanias, Tacitus, Juvenal, Lucian, Philostratus, and others, and is recorded by a number of ear-witnesses on the lower part of the colossus itself in inscriptions which may be seen at the present day. Amenhotep, identified by the idle fancy of some Greek or Roman scholar with the Memnon of Homer, son of Tithonus and The Dawn, who led an army of Ethiopians to the assistance of Priam of Troy against the Greeks, was regarded as a god, and to hear the sound was not only to witness a miracle, but to receive an assurance of the god's favourable regard. For the statue did not emit a sound—the god did not speak—every day. Sometimes travellers had to depart disappointed altogether, sometimes they had to make a second, a third, or a fourth visit before hearing the desired voice. But still it was a frequent phenomenon; and a common soldier has recorded the fact on the base of the statue, that he heard it no fewer than thirteen times. The origin of the sound, the time when it began to be heard, and the circumstances under which it ceased, are all more or less doubtful. Some of those exceedingly clever persons who find priest-craft everywhere, think that the musical sound was the effect of human contrivance, and explain the whole matter to their entire satisfaction by "the jugglery of the priests." The priests either found a naturally vocal piece of rock, and intentionally made the statue out of it; or they cunningly introduced a pipe into the interior of the figure, by which they could make musical notes issue from the mouth at their pleasure. It is against this view that in the palmy days of the Egyptian hierarchy, the vocal character of the statue was entirely unknown; we have no evidence of the sound having been heard earlier than the time of Strabo (B.C. 25-10), when Egypt was in the possession of the Romans, and the priests had little influence. Moreover, the theory is disproved by the fact that, during the two centuries of the continuance of the marvel, there were occasions when Memnon was obstinately silent, though the priests must have been most anxious that he should speak, while there were others when he spoke freely, though they must have been perfectly indifferent. The wife of a prefect of Egypt made two visits to the spot to no purpose; and the Empress Sabina, wife of the Emperor Hadrian, was, on her first visit, also disappointed, so that "her venerable features were inflamed with anger." On the other hand, as already mentioned, a common Roman soldier heard the sound thirteen times.

A strange and interesting curiosity surrounds one of the two statues—specifically, the more eastern one. In the early Roman Empire, it was called "The Vocal Memnon" and was one of the main reasons travelers flocked to Egypt. It was an undeniable fact that for around two centuries, it emitted a musical sound in the early morning, which was seen as a miracle. This phenomenon is referenced by Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Pausanias, Tacitus, Juvenal, Lucian, Philostratus, and others, and there are inscriptions from many eyewitnesses on the lower part of the colossus that can still be seen today. Amenhotep, whimsically linked by some Greek or Roman scholars to the Memnon of Homer, son of Tithonus and The Dawn, who led an army of Ethiopians to help Priam of Troy against the Greeks, was viewed as a god. Hearing the sound was not just witnessing a miracle; it was also seen as receiving a sign of the god's favor. However, the statue didn't make a sound every day—the god didn't speak consistently. Sometimes, travelers left completely disappointed, while at other times, they had to return two, three, or even four times before they heard the expected voice. Yet, it was a relatively common occurrence; one ordinary soldier recorded on the statue's base that he heard it no fewer than thirteen times. The origins of the sound, when it started, and why it eventually stopped, are all somewhat uncertain. Some overly clever people who seem to find trickery everywhere believe the sound was human-made, explaining it all as “the priests’ deception.” They suggest that the priests either discovered a naturally vocal piece of stone and sculpted the statue from it or cleverly inserted a pipe inside the figure to create musical notes at will. However, this theory is challenged by the fact that during the height of the Egyptian hierarchy, the statue's vocal abilities were completely unknown; there is no evidence of the sound being heard before Strabo's time (around 25-10 BC), when Egypt was under Roman control and the priests had minimal power. Additionally, the theory fails because, throughout the two centuries of the phenomenon, there were times when Memnon remained stubbornly silent—even though the priests would have desperately wanted him to speak—while there were other times he spoke freely, despite their indifference. The wife of an Egyptian prefect made two visits in vain, and Empress Sabina, wife of Emperor Hadrian, was also disappointed on her first visit, leaving "her venerable features inflamed with anger." On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, a common Roman soldier heard the sound thirteen times.

With respect to the time when, and the circumstances under which, the phenomenon first showed itself, all that can be said is, that the earliest literary witness to the fact is Strabo (about B.C. 25); that the earliest of the inscriptions on the base that can be dated belongs to the reign of Nero, and that it is at least questionable whether the sound ever issued from the stone before B.C. 27. In that year there was an earthquake which wrought great havoc at Thebes; and it is an acute suggestion, that it was this earthquake which at once shattered the upper part of the colossus, and so affected the remainder of the block of stone that it became vocal then for the first time. For centuries the figure remained a torso, and it was while a torso that it emitted the musical tone—

With regard to when and under what circumstances the phenomenon first appeared, all that can be said is that the earliest literary reference to it comes from Strabo (around 25 B.C.); the earliest dated inscription on the base belongs to the reign of Nero, and it's questionable whether the sound ever came from the stone before 27 B.C. That year, an earthquake caused significant destruction in Thebes, and it's an interesting suggestion that this earthquake might have shattered the upper part of the colossus and affected the rest of the stone block, making it vocal for the first time. For centuries, the figure remained a torso, and it was while being a torso that it produced the musical tone—

"Dimidio of magic echoed Memnon's strings."

After a long interval of years, probably about A.D. 174, that restoration of the monument took place which is to be seen to the present day. Five blocks of stone, rudely shaped into a form like that of the unharmed colossus, were emplaced upon the torso, which was thus reconstructed. The intention was to do Memnon honour; but the effect was to strike him dumb. The peculiar condition of the stone, which the earthquake had superinduced, and which made it vocal, being changed by the new arrangement, the sound ceased, and has been heard no more.

After many years, around A.D. 174, the restoration of the monument occurred, and it can still be seen today. Five blocks of stone, roughly shaped to resemble the original colossus, were placed onto the torso, effectively reconstructing it. The goal was to honor Memnon, but the result was that he became silent. The unique condition of the stone, which the earthquake had caused and which made it produce sound, was altered by the new arrangement, and the sound stopped, never to be heard again.

It is a fact well known to scientific persons at the present day, that musical sounds are often given forth both by natural rocks and by quarried masses of stone, in consequence of a sudden change of temperature. Baron Humboldt, writing on the banks of the Oronooko, says: "The granite rock on which we lay is one of those where travellers have heard from time to time, towards sunrise, subterraneous sounds, resembling those of the organ. The missionaries call these stones loxas de musica. 'It is witchcraft,' said our young Indian pilot.... But the existence of a phenomenon that seems to depend on a certain state of the atmosphere cannot be denied. The shelves of rock are full of very narrow and deep crevices. They are heated during the day to about 50°. I often found their temperature during the night at 39°. It may easily be conceived that the difference of temperature between the subterraneous and the external air would attain its maximum about sunrise." Analogous phenomena occur among the sandstone rocks of El Nakous, in Arabia Petræa, near Mount Maladetta in the Pyrenees, and (perhaps) in the desert between Palestine and Egypt. "On the fifth day of my journey," says the accomplished author of 'Eothen.' "the sun growing fiercer and fiercer, ... as I drooped my head under his fire, and closed my eyes against the glare that surrounded me, I slowly fell asleep—for how many minutes or moments I cannot tell—but after a while I was gently awakened by a peal of church bells—my native bells—the innocent bells of Marlen that never before sent forth their music beyond the Blagdon hills! My first idea naturally was that I still remained fast under the power of a dream. I roused myself, and drew aside the silk that covered my eyes, and plunged my bare face into the light. Then at least I was well enough awakened, but still those old Marlen bells rang on, not ringing for joy, but properly, prosily, steadily, merrily ringing 'for church.' After a while the sound died away slowly; it happened that neither I nor any of my party had a watch to measure the exact time of its lasting; but it seemed to me that about ten minutes had passed before the bells ceased."[22] The gifted writer proceeds to give a metaphysical explanation of the phenomena; but it may be questioned whether he did not hear actual musical sounds, emitted by the rocks that lay beneath the sands over which he was moving.

It’s a well-known fact among scientists today that musical sounds often come from natural rocks and quarried stone due to sudden temperature changes. Baron Humboldt, writing by the banks of the Oronooko, says: “The granite rock we’re lying on is one of those places where travelers occasionally hear, around sunrise, underground sounds that resemble an organ. The missionaries call these stones loxas de musica. ‘It’s witchcraft,’ said our young Indian pilot.... However, the existence of a phenomenon that seems to depend on a specific atmospheric condition cannot be denied. The rock shelves are filled with very narrow and deep crevices. They heat up during the day to about 50°. I often found their temperature at night at 39°. It’s easy to imagine that the temperature difference between the underground and external air reaches its maximum around sunrise.” Similar phenomena occur among the sandstone rocks of El Nakous in Arabia Petræa, near Mount Maladetta in the Pyrenees, and (possibly) in the desert between Palestine and Egypt. “On the fifth day of my journey,” says the skilled author of 'Eothen.' “the sun getting hotter and hotter,... as I bent my head under its heat and closed my eyes against the glare all around me, I slowly fell asleep—for how many minutes or moments I can’t tell—but after a while I was gently woken by the sound of church bells—my familiar bells—the innocent bells of Marlen that had never before sounded their music beyond the Blagdon hills! My first thought was naturally that I was still deep in a dream. I shook myself awake and pushed aside the silk covering my eyes, plunging my bare face into the light. At that point I was awake enough, but still those old Marlen bells rang on, not ringing with joy, but properly, plainly, steadily, merrily ringing ‘for church.’ After a while the sound faded slowly; neither I nor anyone in my group had a watch to track its exact duration, but it felt like about ten minutes passed before the bells stopped.”[22] The talented writer goes on to provide a metaphysical explanation for the phenomena, but one could question whether he didn’t actually hear real musical sounds produced by the rocks beneath the sands he was crossing.

And similar sounds have been heard when the stones that sent them forth were quarried blocks, no longer in a state of nature, but shaped by human tools, and employed in architecture. Three members of the French Expedition, MM. Jomard, Jollois, and Devilliers, were together in the granite cell which forms the centre of the palace-temple of Karnak, when, according to their own account, they "heard a sound, resembling that of a chord breaking, issue from the blocks at sunrise." Exactly the same comparison is employed by Pausanias to describe the sound that issued from "the vocal Memnon."

And similar sounds have been heard when the stones producing them were quarried blocks, no longer in their natural state but shaped by human tools and used in architecture. Three members of the French Expedition, Messrs. Jomard, Jollois, and Devilliers, were together in the granite chamber that forms the center of the palace-temple of Karnak when, according to their own account, they "heard a sound, similar to the sound of a chord breaking, come from the blocks at sunrise." The same comparison is used by Pausanias to describe the sound that came from "the vocal Memnon."

On the whole, we may conclude that the musical qualities of his remarkable colossus were unknown alike to the artist who sculptured the monument and to the king whom it represented. To them, in its purpose and object, it belonged, not to Music, but wholly to the sister art of Architecture. "The Pair" sat at one extremity of an avenue leading to one of the great palace-temples reared by Amenhotep III.—a palace-temple which is now a mere heap of sandstone, "a little roughness in the plain." The design of the king was, that this grand edifice should be approached by a dromos or paved way, eleven hundred feet long, which should be flanked on either side by nine similar statues, placed at regular intervals along the road, and all representing himself. The egotism of the monarch may perhaps be excused on account of the grandeur of his idea, which we nowhere else find repeated, avenues of sphinxes being common in Egypt, and avenues of sitting human life-size figures not unknown to Greece, but the history of art containing no other instance of an avenue of colossi.

Overall, we can say that the musical qualities of his remarkable giant were unknown to both the artist who created the monument and the king it represented. For them, in its purpose and function, it was part of Architecture, not Music. "The Pair" sat at one end of a pathway leading to one of the grand palace-temples built by Amenhotep III—a palace-temple that is now just a pile of sandstone, "a little roughness in the plain." The king’s plan was for this impressive structure to be approached by a dromos or paved way, eleven hundred feet long, flanked on both sides by nine identical statues placed at regular intervals along the path, all representing himself. The king’s ego might be forgiven because of the grandeur of his vision, which isn’t found elsewhere; while avenues of sphinxes are common in Egypt, and avenues of sitting human life-size figures are not unknown in Greece, the history of art has no other example of an avenue of colossi.

Another of Amenhotep's palace-temples has been less unkindly treated by fortune than the one just mentioned. The temple of Luxor, or El-Uksur, on the eastern bank of the river, about a mile and a half to the south of the great temple of Karnak, is a magnificent edifice to this day; and though some portions of it, and some of its most remarkable features, must be assigned to Rameses II., yet still it is, in the main, a construction of Amenhotep's, and must be regarded as being, even if it stood alone, sufficient proof of his eminence as a builder. The length of the entire building is about eight hundred feet, the breadth varying from about one hundred feet to two hundred. Its general arrangement comprised, first, a great court, at a different angle from the rest, being turned so as to face Karnak. In front of this stood two colossal statues of the founder, together with two obelisks, one of which has been removed to France, and now adorns the centre of the Place de la Concorde at Paris. Behind this was a great pillared hall, of which only the two central ranges of columns are now standing. Still further back were smaller halls and numerous apartments, evidently meant for the king's residence, rather than for a temple or place exclusively devoted to worship. The building is remarkable for its marked affectation of irregularity. "Not only is there a considerable angle in the direction of the axis of the building, but the angles of the courtyards are hardly ever right angles; the pillars are variously spaced, and pains seem to have been gratuitously taken to make it as irregular as possible in nearly every respect."[23]

Another one of Amenhotep's palace-temples has fared better than the one mentioned earlier. The temple of Luxor, or El-Uksur, located on the east bank of the river about a mile and a half south of the great temple of Karnak, is still a magnificent structure today; and while some parts of it, along with some of its most notable features, can be attributed to Rameses II., it remains primarily a creation of Amenhotep. It stands as sufficient proof of his skill as a builder, even on its own. The entire building measures around eight hundred feet in length, with a width that varies from about one hundred to two hundred feet. Its overall layout includes a large courtyard, oriented differently from the rest to face Karnak. In front of this courtyard are two massive statues of the founder and two obelisks, one of which has been taken to France and now sits at the center of the Place de la Concorde in Paris. Behind this is a grand pillared hall, of which only the two central columns remain today. Further back are smaller halls and numerous rooms, clearly meant for the king’s residence rather than solely for worship. The building is notable for its distinct irregular design. "Not only is there a significant angle in the direction of the building's axis, but the angles of the courtyards rarely form right angles; the columns are spaced irregularly, and there seems to have been unnecessary effort put into making it as inconsistent as possible in nearly every aspect.”[23]

Besides this grand edifice, Amenhotep built two temples at Karnak to Ammon and Maut, embellished the old temple of Ammon there with a new propylon, raised temples to Kneph, or Khnum, at Elephantine and built a shrine to contain his own image at Soleb in Nubia, another shrine at Napata, and a third at Sedinga. He left traces of himself at Semneh, in the island of Konosso, on the rocks between Philæ and Assouan, at El-Kaab, at Toora near Memphis, at Silsilis, and at Sarabit-el-Khadim in the Sinaitic peninsula. He was, as M. Lenormant remarks, "un prince essentiellement batisseur." The scale and number of his works are such as to indicate unremitting attention to sculpture and building during the entire duration of his long reign of thirty-six years.

Besides this grand structure, Amenhotep built two temples at Karnak for Ammon and Maut, added a new entrance to the old temple of Ammon there, constructed temples for Kneph, or Khnum, at Elephantine, and created a shrine to hold his own image at Soleb in Nubia, another shrine at Napata, and a third at Sedinga. He left his mark at Semneh, on the island of Konosso, on the rocks between Philæ and Assouan, at El-Kaab, near Memphis at Toora, at Silsilis, and at Sarabit-el-Khadim in the Sinaitic peninsula. He was, as M. Lenormant notes, "a prince essentially a builder." The scale and number of his projects show how much he focused on sculpture and construction throughout his long reign of thirty-six years.

On the other hand, as a general he gained little distinction. He maintained, indeed, the dominion over Syria and Western Mesopotamia, which had been established by Thothmes III., and his cartouche has been found at Arban on the Khabour; but there is no appearance of his having made any additional conquests in this quarter. The subjected peoples brought their tribute regularly, and the neighbouring nations, whether Hittites, Assyrians, or Babylonians, gave him no trouble. The dominion of Egypt over Western Asia had become "an accomplished fact," and was generally recognized by the old native kingdoms. It did not extend, however, beyond Taurus and Niphates towards the north, or beyond the Khabour eastward or southward, but remained fixed within the limits which it had attained under the Third Thothmes.

On the other hand, as a general, he didn’t really stand out. He did maintain control over Syria and Western Mesopotamia, which had been established by Thothmes III., and his name has been found at Arban on the Khabour; but there’s no sign that he made any new conquests in that area. The subjugated peoples paid their tribute regularly, and the neighboring nations, whether Hittites, Assyrians, or Babylonians, didn’t cause him any problems. Egypt's control over Western Asia had become "an accomplished fact," and was generally accepted by the old native kingdoms. However, it didn’t extend beyond the Taurus and Niphates mountains to the north, or beyond the Khabour to the east or south, but stayed within the boundaries that had been established under the Third Thothmes.

The only quarter in which Amenhotep warred was towards Ethiopia. He conducted in person several expeditions up the valley of the Nile, against the negro tribes of the Soudan. But these attacks were not so much wars as raids, or razzias. They were not made with the object of advancing the Egyptian frontier, or even of extending Egyptian influence, but partly for the glorification of the monarch, who thus obtained at a cheap rate the credit of military successes, and partly—probably mainly—for the material gain which resulted from them through the capture of highly valuable slaves. The black races have always been especially sought for this purpose, and were in great demand in the Egyptian slave-market: ladies of rank were pleased to have for their attendants negro boys, whom they dressed in a fanciful manner; and the court probably indulged in a similar taste. Amenhotep's aim was certainly rather to capture than to kill. In one of his most successful raids the slain were only three hundred and twelve, while the captives consisted of two hundred and five men, two hundred and fifty women, and two hundred and eighty-five children, or a total of seven hundred and forty; and the proportion in the others was similar. The trade of slave hunting was so lucrative that even a Great King could not resist the temptation of having a share in its profits.

The only region where Amenhotep fought was towards Ethiopia. He personally led several expeditions up the Nile Valley against the Black tribes of the Sudan. However, these attacks were more like raids than actual wars. They weren't aimed at expanding the Egyptian border or increasing Egyptian influence, but rather for the glory of the king, who gained an easy reputation for military successes, and likely mainly for the material wealth that came from capturing valuable slaves. The Black populations were always especially sought for this purpose and were in high demand in the Egyptian slave market: nobles enjoyed having Black boys as attendants, dressing them in elaborate styles; the court likely shared similar preferences. Amenhotep's goal was definitely more about capturing than killing. In one of his most successful raids, only three hundred and twelve were killed, while two hundred and five men, two hundred and fifty women, and two hundred and eighty-five children were taken captive, totaling seven hundred and forty; the ratios in other raids were similar. The slave-hunting trade was so profitable that even a Great King couldn't resist the allure of sharing in its profits.

When Amenhotep was not engaged in hunting men his favourite recreation was to indulge in the chase of the lion. On one of his scarabæi he states that between his first and his tenth year he slew with his own hand one hundred and ten of these ferocious beasts. Later on in his reign he presented to the priests who had the charge of the ancient temple of Karnak a number of live lions, which he had probably caught in traps. The lion was an emblem both of Horus and of Turn, and may, when tamed, have been assigned a part in religious processions. It is uncertain what was Amenhotep's hunting-ground; but the large number of his victims makes it probable that the scene of his exploits was Mesopotamia rather than any tract bordering on Egypt: since lions have always been scarce animals in North-Eastern Africa, but abounded in Mesopotamia even much later than the time of Amenhotep, and are "not uncommon" there even at the present day. We may suppose that he had a hunting pavilion at Arban, where one of his scarabs has been found, and from that centre beat the reed-beds and jungles of the Khabour.

When Amenhotep wasn’t out hunting people, his favorite pastime was hunting lions. On one of his scarabs, he claims that between his first and tenth year, he personally killed one hundred and ten of these fierce animals. Later in his reign, he gifted the priests who oversaw the ancient temple of Karnak several live lions, which he probably caught in traps. The lion symbolized both Horus and Turn, and when domesticated, might have been included in religious processions. It's unclear where Amenhotep's hunting grounds were, but given the high number of his kills, it's likely he hunted in Mesopotamia instead of areas near Egypt, as lions have always been rare in North-Eastern Africa but were abundant in Mesopotamia even long after Amenhotep’s time, and they are “not uncommon” there even today. We can assume he had a hunting lodge at Arban, where one of his scarabs has been found, and from there, he would explore the reed beds and jungles of the Khabour.

BUST OF AMENHOTEP III. BUST OF AMENHOTEP III.

In person, Amenhotep III. was not remarkable. His features were good, except that his nose was somewhat too much rounded at the end; his expression was pensive, but resolute; his forehead high, his upper lip short, his chin a little too prominent. He left behind him a character for affectionateness, kindliness, and generosity. Some historians have reproached him with being too much under female influence; and certainly in the earlier portion of his reign he deferred greatly to his mother, Mutemua, and in the latter portion to his wife, Tii or Taia; but there is no evidence that any evil result followed, or that these princesses did not influence him for good. It is too much taken for granted by many writers that female influence is corrupting. No doubt it is so in some cases; but it should not be forgotten that there are women whom to have known is "a liberal education." Mutemua and Tii may have been of the number.

In person, Amenhotep III was unremarkable. His features were decent, though his nose was a bit too rounded at the tip; his expression was thoughtful yet determined; he had a high forehead, a short upper lip, and a chin that jutted out a bit too much. He left behind a reputation for being affectionate, kind, and generous. Some historians have criticized him for being overly influenced by women; and indeed, during the early part of his reign, he greatly respected his mother, Mutemua, and in the later part, his wife, Tii or Taia. However, there's no evidence that this led to any negative outcomes, nor that these women didn't positively influence him. Many writers often assume that female influence is corrupting. While that's true in some cases, it shouldn't be overlooked that there are women whose presence can offer significant education. Mutemua and Tii may have been among them.

Decorative


Decorative

XIV.

KHUENATEN AND THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS.

On the death of Amenhotep III., his son, Amenhotep IV., mounted the throne. Left by Amenhotep III to the guardianship of his mother, Tii, who was of some entirely foreign race, he embraced a new form of religion, which she appears to have introduced, and shocked the Egyptians by substituting, so far as he found to be possible, this new creed for the old polytheism of the country. The heresy of Amenhotep IV has been called "Disk-worship;" and he, and the next two or three kings, are known in Egyptian history as "the Disk-worshippers." It is difficult to discover what exactly was the belief professed. Externally, it consisted, primarily, in a marked preference of a single one of the Egyptian gods over all the others, and a certain hatred or contempt for the great bulk of the deities composing the old Pantheon. Thus far it resembled the religion which Apepi, the last "Shepherd King," had endeavoured to introduce; but the new differed from the old reformation in the matter of the god selected for special honour. Apepi had sought to turn the Egyptians away from all other worships except the worship of Set; Amenhotep desired their universal adhesion to the worship of Aten. Aten, in Egyptian theology, had hitherto represented a particular aspect or character of Ra, "the sun"—that aspect which is expressed by the phrase, "the solar disk." How it was possible to keep Aten distinct from the other sun-gods, Ra, Khepra, Turn, Shu, Mentu, Osiris, and Horus or Harmachis, is a puzzle to moderns; but it seems to have been a difficulty practically overcome by the Egyptians, to whom it did not perhaps even present itself as a difficulty at all. Disk-worship consisted then, primarily, in an undue exaltation of this god, who was made to take the place of Ammon-Ra in the Pantheon, and was ordinarily represented by a circle with rays proceeding from it, the rays mostly terminating in hands, which frequently presented the symbols of life and health and strength to the worshipper.

Upon the death of Amenhotep III, his son, Amenhotep IV, ascended the throne. He was placed under the care of his mother, Tii, who was from a completely foreign background. He adopted a new form of religion that she seems to have introduced, shocking the Egyptians by replacing the old polytheism of the country with this new belief as much as possible. The heresy of Amenhotep IV has been referred to as "Disk-worship," and he, along with the next two or three kings, are known in Egyptian history as "the Disk-worshippers." It’s challenging to figure out exactly what this belief entailed. Externally, it was characterized primarily by a strong preference for one Egyptian god over all the others, along with a certain disdain or contempt for the majority of the deities in the old Pantheon. This approach was somewhat similar to the religion that Apepi, the last "Shepherd King," tried to promote; however, the new belief differed from the previous reformation in the choice of the god given special recognition. Apepi aimed to redirect Egyptian worship solely toward Set; Amenhotep sought their complete allegiance to the worship of Aten. Aten, in Egyptian theology, had previously represented a specific aspect or character of Ra, "the sun"—that aspect represented by the phrase "the solar disk." It’s unclear how Aten was distinguished from other sun-gods like Ra, Khepra, Turn, Shu, Mentu, Osiris, and Horus or Harmachis, but it seems this was a challenge the Egyptians managed to overcome, possibly not even viewing it as an issue. Disk-worship therefore mainly involved an undue glorification of this god, who replaced Ammon-Ra in the Pantheon and was typically depicted by a circle with rays emanating from it, the rays often ending in hands that frequently presented symbols of life, health, and strength to the worshipper.

What was the inward essence of the religion? Was it simple sun-worship—the adoration of the visible material sun—considered as the ruling and vivifying power in the universe, whence heat and light, and so life, proceeded? Of all the forms of nature worship this was the most natural, and in the old world it was widely spread. Men adored the orb of day as the grandest object which nature presented to them, as the great quickener of all things upon the earth, the cause of germination and growth, of fruitage and harvest, the dispenser to man of ten thousand blessings, the sustainer of his life and health and happiness. With some the worship was purely and wholly material—the sun was viewed as a huge mass of fiery matter, uninformed by any animate life, unintelligent, impersonal; but with others, sun-worship was something higher than this: the orb of day was regarded as informed by a good, wise, bright, beneficent Spirit, which lived in it, and worked through it, and was the true benefactor of mankind and sustainer of life and of the universe. Sun-worship of this latter kind was no mean form of natural religion. If not purged from the debasing element of materialism, if not incompatible with a certain kind of polytheism, it is yet consistent with the firmest belief in the absolute supremacy of one God over all others, with the conception of that God as all-wise, all-powerful, pure, holy, kind, loving, and with the entire devotion of the worshipper to Him exclusively. And this latter form of sun-worship was, quite conceivably, the religion of the "Disk worshippers." "Aten" is probably the same as "Adon," the root of Adonis and Adonai, and has the signification of "Lord"—a term implying personality, and when used specially of one Being, implying absolute mastery and lordship, an exclusive right to worship, homage, and devotion. It is not unlikely that the "Disk-worshippers" were drawn on towards their monotheistic creed by the presence in Egypt at the time of a large monotheistic population, the descendants of Joseph and his brethren, who by this time had multiplied greatly, and must have attracted attention, from their numbers and from the peculiarity of their tenets. A historian of Egypt remarks that "curious parallels might be drawn between the external forms of the worship of the Israelites in the desert and those set up by the Disk-worshippers at Tel-el-Amarna; portions of the sacred furniture, as the 'table of shewbread,' described in the Book of Exodus as placed within the Tabernacle, are repeated among the objects belonging to the worship of Aten, and do not occur among the representations of any other epoch." He further notes that the commencement of the persecution of the Israelites in Egypt coincides nearly with the downfall of the "Disk-worshippers" and the return of the Egyptians to their old creed, as if the captive race had been involved in the discredit and the odium which attached to Amenhotep and his immediate successors on account of their religious reformation.

What was the core essence of this religion? Was it just sun-worship—the reverence of the visible material sun—seen as the dominant and life-giving force in the universe, from which heat, light, and ultimately life emerged? Of all forms of nature worship, this was the most straightforward, and it was widespread in the ancient world. People revered the sun as the most magnificent thing nature offered them, the great source of vitality for all life on earth, the cause of germination and growth, of fruits and harvests, providing humans with countless blessings, and sustaining their life, health, and happiness. For some, this worship was entirely material—the sun was seen as a massive ball of fiery matter, devoid of life, unintelligent, impersonal; but for others, sun-worship was more than that: the sun was viewed as inhabited by a good, wise, benevolent Spirit that lived within it, worked through it, and was truly a benefactor of humanity and a sustainer of life and the universe. This type of sun-worship was no insignificant form of natural religion. Even if it contained the degrading aspect of materialism or wasn't entirely separate from a certain form of polytheism, it still aligned with a strong belief in the absolute supremacy of one God over all others, recognizing that God as all-wise, all-powerful, pure, holy, loving, and with the complete devotion of the worshiper directed toward Him alone. This latter form of sun-worship was likely the belief system of the "Disk worshippers." "Aten" is possibly the same as "Adon," the root of Adonis and Adonai, meaning "Lord"—a term suggesting personality, and when specifically referring to one Being, indicating absolute authority and dominion, an exclusive right to worship, respect, and devotion. It's quite possible that the "Disk-worshippers" were influenced toward their monotheistic beliefs by the presence of a significant monotheistic population in Egypt at that time, the descendants of Joseph and his brothers, who had multiplied considerably and would have drawn attention due to their numbers and distinctive beliefs. An Egyptian historian notes that "striking parallels might be drawn between the outward forms of the Israelites' worship in the desert and those established by the Disk-worshippers at Tel-el-Amarna; elements of the sacred furniture, like the 'table of shewbread' mentioned in the Book of Exodus as located within the Tabernacle, are found among the objects associated with the worship of Aten and are not seen in other periods." He also observes that the beginning of the persecution of the Israelites in Egypt closely coincided with the decline of the "Disk-worshippers" and the Egyptians' return to their old beliefs, as if the captive people had been tainted by the disrepute and stigma that came with Amenhotep and his immediate successors due to their religious reforms.

KHUENATEN WORSHIPPING THE SOLAR DISK. KHUENATEN WORSHIPPING THE SOLAR DISK.

The aversion of the "Disk-worshippers" to the old Egyptian religion was shown (1) in the change of his own name which the new monarch made soon after his accession, from Amenhotep to Khu-en-Aten, whereby he cleared himself from any connection with the old discarded head of the Pantheon, and associated himself with the new supreme god, Aten; (2) in the obliteration of the name of Ammon from monuments; and (3) in the removal of the seat of government from the site polluted by Ammon-worship and polytheism to a new site at Tel-el-Amarna, where Aten alone was worshipped and alone represented in the temples. The enmity, however, was not indiscriminate. Amenhotep took for one of his titles the epithet, "Mi-Harmakhu," or "beloved by Harmachis," probably because he could look on Harmachis, a purely sun-god, as a form of Aten; and to this god he erected an obelisk at Silsilis. His monumental war upon the old religion seems also not to have been general, but narrowly circumscribed, being, in fact, confined to the erasure of Ammon's name, especially at Thebes, and the mutilation of his form in a few instances; but there does not appear to have been any such general iconoclasm practised by the "Disk-worshippers" as by the "Shepherd Kings," or any such absolute requirement that "one god alone should be worshipped in all the land" as was put forth by Apepi. The "Disk-worshippers" did not so much attempt to change the religion of Egypt as to establish for themselves a peculiar court-religion of a pure and elevated character.

The "Disk-worshippers" had a strong dislike for the old Egyptian religion, which was evident in three main ways: (1) the new king changed his name from Amenhotep to Khu-en-Aten shortly after he took the throne, distancing himself from the former head of the Pantheon and aligning himself with the new supreme god, Aten; (2) he removed Ammon's name from monuments; and (3) he relocated the capital from a site associated with Ammon worship and polytheism to a new location at Tel-el-Amarna, where only Aten was worshipped and represented in temples. However, this opposition wasn't indiscriminate. Amenhotep adopted the title "Mi-Harmakhu," meaning "beloved by Harmachis," likely because he viewed Harmachis, a sun god, as a form of Aten; an obelisk was erected to him at Silsilis. The campaign against the old religion didn’t seem to be widespread; it primarily involved erasing Ammon's name, particularly in Thebes, and mutilating his image in a few cases. There wasn’t a broad act of iconoclasm by the "Disk-worshippers" like there was with the "Shepherd Kings," nor was there a strict mandate that "one god alone should be worshipped throughout the land" as demanded by Apepi. The "Disk-worshippers" focused more on creating a unique court religion that was pure and elevated rather than changing the entire religious landscape of Egypt.

It has been remarked above that the motive power which brought about the religious revolution is probably to be found in the powerful influence and the peculiar views of the queen mother, Tii or Taia. This princess was of foreign origin; her complexion was fair, her eyes blue, her hair flaxen, her cheeks rosy; she probably brought her "disk-worship" with her from her own country, whether it were Syria, or Arabia, or any other. Already in the lifetime of her husband, Amenhotep III., she had prevailed on him, as his wives prevailed on Solomon (i Kings xi. 4-8), to allow her the free exercise of her own religion, and to provide her with the means of carrying it on with all proper pomp and ceremony. At her instance, Amenhotep III. constructed a great lake or basin, more than a mile long and a thousand feet broad, to be made use of for religious purposes on the queen's special festival day. It was proper on that festival day that "the barge of the most beautiful Disk" should perform a voyage on a sheet of water in the presence of his worshippers—a voyage probably representing the course of the sun through the heavens during the year. There is evidence that this festival was kept on the sixteenth day of the month Athor, in the eleventh year of Amenhotep III., and that the king himself took part in it.

It has been mentioned above that the driving force behind the religious revolution is likely found in the strong influence and unique beliefs of the queen mother, Tii or Taia. This princess was of foreign descent; she had a fair complexion, blue eyes, flaxen hair, and rosy cheeks; she probably brought her "disk-worship" with her from her homeland, whether it was Syria, Arabia, or elsewhere. During her husband Amenhotep III.'s lifetime, she convinced him, as his wives convinced Solomon (1 Kings xi. 4-8), to let her freely practice her own religion and to support her in doing so with all the proper pomp and ceremony. At her request, Amenhotep III. built a large lake or basin, over a mile long and a thousand feet wide, for religious purposes on the queen's special festival day. It was customary on that festival day for "the barge of the most beautiful Disk" to sail on a body of water in front of his worshippers—a journey likely symbolizing the sun's path through the sky throughout the year. Evidence shows that this festival was celebrated on the sixteenth day of the month Athor, in the eleventh year of Amenhotep III., and that the king himself participated in it.

So far, Queen Taia succeeded in introducing her religion into Egypt while her husband was alive. At his death she found herself regent for her son, or, at any rate, associated with him upon the throne, and saw that a fresh opportunity for pushing her religious views offered itself. Amenhotep IV. was of a most extraordinary physique and physiognomy. His appearance was rather that of a woman than of a man; he had a slanting forehead, a long aquiline nose, a flexible projecting mouth, and a strongly developed chin. His neck, which is represented as most unusually long, seems scarcely equal to the support of his head; and his spindle shanks seem ill adapted to sustain the weight of his over-corpulent frame. He readily yielded himself to his mother's influence, and completed her work in the manner which has been already described. As Thebes opposed itself to his reforms, he deserted it, withdrew his court to Tel-el-Amarna, and there raised the temples, palaces, and other monuments, in a "very advanced" style of art, which may be seen at the present day.

So far, Queen Taia successfully introduced her religion into Egypt while her husband was alive. After his death, she became regent for her son and, at the very least, ruled alongside him on the throne, seeing a new chance to promote her religious beliefs. Amenhotep IV had a truly unique appearance. He looked more feminine than masculine, with a slanted forehead, a long aquiline nose, a flexible protruding mouth, and a well-defined chin. His neck, depicted as unusually long, hardly seemed able to support his head, and his thin legs seemed ill-suited to carry the weight of his overly large body. He easily succumbed to his mother's influence and completed her agenda as previously described. Since Thebes resisted his reforms, he abandoned it, moved his court to Tel-el-Amarna, and built temples, palaces, and other monuments in a very advanced style of art that can still be seen today.

HEAD OF AMENHOTEP IV. (KHUENATEN). HEAD OF AMENHOTEP IV. (KHUENATEN).

Amenhotep also introduced certain changes into the court ceremonial. He surrounded himself with officials of foreign race, probably kinsmen of his mother, and required from them an open display of submission and servility which Egyptian courts had not witnessed previously. An abject prostration was enforced on all, while the king posed before his courtiers as a benevolent god, who showered down his gifts upon them from a superior sphere, since his greatness did not permit a closer contact. He was himself the "Light of the Solar Disk," an apaugasma, or "Light proceeding from Light;" it behoved him to imitate the Sun-god, and perpetually bestow his gifts on men, but it behoved them to veil their faces from his radiance and receive his bounty prostrate in the dust beneath him.

Amenhotep also made some changes to the court ceremonies. He surrounded himself with officials from other cultures, likely relatives of his mother, and demanded an open show of submission and servitude that the Egyptian courts had never seen before. Everyone was required to bow down completely, while the king presented himself to his courtiers as a generous god, who offered his gifts to them from a higher plane, as his greatness meant he couldn't be in close contact. He called himself the "Light of the Solar Disk," an apaugasma, or "Light flowing from Light;" it was essential for him to emulate the Sun-god, continuously giving his gifts to people, but it was also essential for them to cover their faces from his brilliance and accept his generosity while bowing in the dust beneath him.

The peculiar views of Khuen-Aten, or Amenhotep IV., were maintained by the two or three succeeding kings, who had short and disturbed reigns. After them there arose a king called Horus, or Har-em-hebi, who utterly swept away the "Disk-worshippers," ruined their new city, obliterated their names, mutilated their monuments, and restored the ancient religion of the Egyptians to its former place as the religion, not only of the people, but of the court. Henceforth, what was called "heresy" ceased to show itself in the land.

The strange beliefs of Khuen-Aten, or Amenhotep IV, were upheld by the two or three kings that followed, who had brief and troubled reigns. After them, a king named Horus, or Har-em-hebi, completely wiped out the "Disk-worshippers," destroyed their new city, erased their names, damaged their monuments, and restored the ancient Egyptian religion to its previous status as the faith of both the people and the court. From then on, what was considered "heresy" stopped appearing in the land.


Decorative

XV.

BEGINNING OF THE DECLINE OF EGYPT.

The internal troubles connected with the "Disk-worship" had for about forty years distracted the attention of the Egyptians from their Asiatic possessions; and this circumstance had favoured the development of a highly important power in Western Asia. The Hittites, whose motto was "reculer pour mieux sauter," having withdrawn themselves from Syria during the time of the Egyptian attacks, retaining, perhaps, their hold on Carchemish (Jerabus), but not seeking to extend themselves further southward, took heart of grace when the Egyptian expeditions ceased, and descending from their mountain fastnesses to the Syrian plains and vales, rapidly established their dominion over the regions recently conquered by Thothmes I. and Thothmes III. Without absorbing the old native races, they reduced them under their sway, and reigned as lords paramount over the entire region between the Middle Euphrates and the Mediterranean, the Taurus range and the borders of Egypt. The chief of the subject races were the Kharu, in the tract bordering upon Egypt; the Rutennu, in Central and Northern Palestine; and in Southern Cœlesyria, the Amairu or Amorites. The Hittites themselves occupied the lower Cœlesyrian valley, and the tract reaching thence to the Euphrates. They were at this period so far centralized into a nation as to have placed themselves under a single monarch; and about the time when Egypt had recovered from the troubles caused by the "Disk-worshippers," and was again at liberty to look abroad, Saplal, Grand-Duke of Khita, a great and puissant sovereign, sat upon the Hittite throne.

The internal issues related to the "Disk-worship" kept the Egyptians distracted from their territories in Asia for about forty years, allowing a significant power to grow in Western Asia. The Hittites, who believed in “taking a step back to jump forward,” had pulled out of Syria during the Egyptian attacks, possibly maintaining control over Carchemish (Jerabus) but not trying to extend further south. Once the Egyptian campaigns ended, they gained confidence, descended from their mountain strongholds to the Syrian plains and valleys, and quickly established control over areas recently taken by Thothmes I and Thothmes III. They didn't absorb the old native populations but imposed their rule over them, dominating the entire region between the Middle Euphrates and the Mediterranean, from the Taurus mountains to the borders of Egypt. The main subject groups were the Kharu, near Egypt; the Rutennu, in Central and Northern Palestine; and the Amairu or Amorites in Southern Cœlesyria. The Hittites themselves occupied the lower Cœlesyrian valley and the area stretching to the Euphrates. By this time, they had become centralized enough to be ruled by a single monarch, and just as Egypt was recovering from the issues caused by the "Disk-worshippers" and was ready to expand its influence again, Saplal, Grand-Duke of Khita, a powerful ruler, sat on the Hittite throne.

Saplal's power, and his threatening attitude on the north-eastern border of Egypt, drew upon him the jealousy of Ramesses I., father of the great Seti, and (according to the prevalent tradition) founder of the "nineteenth dynasty." To defend oneself it is often best to attack, and Ramesses, taking this view, in his first or second year plunged into the enemy's dominions. He had the plea that Palestine and Syria, and even Western Mesopotamia, belonged of right to Egypt, which had conquered them by a long series of victories, and had never lost them by any defeat or disaster. His invasion was a challenge to Saplal either to fight for his ill-gotten gains, or to give them up. The Hittite king accepted the challenge, and a short struggle followed with an indecisive result. At its close peace was made, and a formal treaty of alliance drawn out. Its terms are unknown; but it was probably engraved on a silver plate in the languages of the two powers—the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the now well-known Hittite picture-writing—and set up in duplicate at Carchemish and Thebes.

Saplal's power and his aggressive stance on the northeastern border of Egypt made Ramesses I, father of the great Seti and traditionally recognized as the founder of the "nineteenth dynasty," feel threatened. To defend himself, Ramesses decided to go on the offensive, so in his first or second year, he invaded enemy territory. He justified this action by claiming that Palestine, Syria, and even Western Mesopotamia rightfully belonged to Egypt, which had conquered these regions through many victories and had never lost them due to defeat or disaster. His invasion posed a challenge to Saplal to either fight for what he had unjustly taken or to surrender it. The Hittite king accepted the challenge, resulting in a brief struggle that ended without a clear outcome. At the conclusion, peace was established, and a formal alliance treaty was created. The details of the treaty are unknown, but it was likely inscribed on a silver plate in the languages of both powers—the Egyptian hieroglyphics and the now-familiar Hittite pictographs—and set up in duplicate at Carchemish and Thebes.

A brief pause followed the conclusion of the first act of the drama. On the opening of the second act we find the dramatis personæ changed. Saplal and Ramesses have alike descended into the grave, and their thrones are occupied respectively by the son of the one and the grandson of the other. In Egypt, Seti-Menephthah I., the Sethos of Manetho, has succeeded his father, Ramesses I.; in the Hittite kingdom, Saplal has left his sceptre to his grandson Mautenar, the son of Marasar, who had probably died before his father. Two young and inexperienced princes confront one the other in the two neighbour lands, each distrustful of his rival, each covetous of glory, each hopeful of success if war should break out. True, by treaty the two kings were friends and allies—by treaty the two nations were bound to abstain from all aggression by the one upon the other: but such bonds are like the "green withes" that bound Samson, when the desire to burst them seizes those upon whom they have been placed. Seti and Mautenar were at war before the latter had been on the throne a year, and their swords were at one another's throats. Seti was, apparently, the aggressor. We find him at the head of a large army in the heart of Syria before we could have supposed that he had had time to settle himself comfortably in his father's seat.

A brief pause followed the end of the first act of the play. At the start of the second act, the dramatis personæ have changed. Saplal and Ramesses have both passed away, and their thrones are now held by the son of one and the grandson of the other. In Egypt, Seti-Menephthah I., the Sethos of Manetho, has taken over from his father, Ramesses I. In the Hittite kingdom, Saplal has passed his scepter to his grandson Mautenar, the son of Marasar, who likely died before his father. Two young and inexperienced princes face each other in the neighboring lands, each suspicious of the other, each eager for glory, and each hopeful for success if war breaks out. Admittedly, by treaty, the two kings were friends and allies—by treaty, both nations were bound to avoid any aggression against one another: but such ties are like the "green withes" that bound Samson, easily broken by those on whom they were placed. Seti and Mautenar were at war before the latter had been on the throne for a year, and their swords were drawn against each other. Seti seemed to be the aggressor. We find him leading a large army in the heart of Syria before we would have thought he had time to settle comfortably into his father's position.

Mautenar was taken unawares. He had not expected so prompt an attack. He had perhaps been weak enough to count on his adversary's good faith, or, at any rate on his regard for appearances. But Seti, as a god upon earth, could of course do no wrong, and did not allow himself to be trammelled by the moral laws that were binding upon ordinary mortals. He boldly rushed into war at the first possible moment, crossed the frontier, and having chastised the Shasu, who had recently made an invasion of his territory, fell upon the Kharu, or Southern Syrians, and gave them a severe defeat near Jamnia in the Philistine country. He then pressed forward into the country of the Rutennu, overcame them in several pitched battles, and, assisted by a son who fought constantly at his side, slaughtered them almost to extermination. His victorious progress brought him, after a time, to the vicinity of Kadesh, the important city on the Orontes which, a century earlier, had been besieged and taken by the Great Thothmes. Kadesh was at this time in possession of the Amorites, who were tributary to the Khita (Hittites) and held the great city as their subject allies. Seti, having carefully concealed his advance, came upon the stronghold suddenly, and took its defenders by surprise. Outside the city peaceful herdsmen were pasturing their cattle under the shade of the trees, when they were startled by the appearance of the Egyptian monarch, mounted on his war-chariot drawn by two prancing steeds. At once all was confusion: every one sought to save himself; the herds with their keepers fled in wild panic, while the Egyptians plied them with their arrows. But the garrison of the town resisted bravely: a portion sallied from the gates and met Seti in the open field, but were defeated with great slaughter; the others defended themselves behind the walls. But all was in vain. The disciplined troops of Egypt stormed the key of Northern Syria, and the whole Orontes valley lay open to the conqueror.

Mautenar was caught off guard. He hadn't anticipated such a quick attack. He may have been naive enough to rely on his opponent's honesty or, at least, on their sense of propriety. But Seti, acting like a god on earth, clearly saw no wrong in his actions and was not bound by the moral codes that governed regular people. He boldly went to war at the first chance he got, crossed the border, and after dealing with the Shasu, who had recently invaded his land, he attacked the Kharu, or Southern Syrians, defeating them severely near Jamnia in the Philistine region. He then advanced into the territory of the Rutennu, defeating them in several major battles, and, with the help of a son who fought by his side, nearly wiped them out. His victorious campaign eventually brought him close to Kadesh, an important city on the Orontes that had been besieged and captured by the Great Thothmes a century earlier. At that time, Kadesh was held by the Amorites, who were vassals of the Khita (Hittites) and controlled the city as their allied subjects. Seti, having kept his approach under wraps, launched a sudden attack on the stronghold, catching its defenders by surprise. Outside the city, peaceful herdsmen were grazing their cattle in the shade of trees when they were startled by the sight of the Egyptian king, riding his war chariot pulled by two spirited horses. Chaos erupted immediately: everyone tried to save themselves; the herds and their keepers fled in a wild frenzy while the Egyptians shot arrows at them. However, the garrison defended the town valiantly: a portion rushed out from the gates to confront Seti in the open field but were met with great slaughter; the others held their ground behind the walls. But it was all in vain. The trained troops of Egypt stormed the key to Northern Syria, leaving the entire Orontes valley open to the conqueror.

Hitherto the Hittites had not been engaged in the struggle. Attacked at a disadvantage, unprepared, they had left their subject allies to make such resistance as they might find possible, and had reserved themselves for the defence of their own country. Mautenar had, no doubt, made the best preparations of which circumstances admitted—he had organized his forces in three bodies, "on foot, on horseback, and in chariots." At the head of them, he gave battle to the invaders so soon as they attacked him in his own proper country, and a desperate fight followed, in which the Egyptians, however, prevailed at last. The Hittites received a "great overthrow." The song of triumph composed for Seti on the occasion declared: "Pharaoh is a jackal which rushes leaping through the Hittite land; he is a grim lion exploring the hidden ways of all regions; he is a powerful bull with a pair of sharpened horns. He has struck down the Asiatics; he has thrown to the ground the Khita; he has slain their princes; he has overwhelmed them in their own blood; he has passed among them as a flame of fire; he has brought them to nought."

Up until now, the Hittites hadn’t joined the fight. Caught off guard and unprepared, they left their subject allies to resist as best they could while they focused on defending their own territory. Mautenar had likely made the best preparations possible given the circumstances—he organized his forces into three groups: foot soldiers, cavalry, and chariots. Leading them, he fought against the invaders as soon as they attacked him in his own land, resulting in a fierce battle, although the Egyptians ultimately won. The Hittites suffered a “great defeat.” The victory song written for Seti at the time proclaimed: “Pharaoh is a jackal that leaps through the Hittite territory; he is a fierce lion exploring the hidden paths of all lands; he is a powerful bull with sharp horns. He has struck down the Asiatics; he has thrown down the Khita; he has killed their princes; he has overwhelmed them in their own blood; he has passed through them like a fire; he has reduced them to nothing.”

The victory thus gained was followed by a treaty of peace. Mautenar and Seti agreed to be henceforth friends and allies, Southern Syria being restored to Egypt, and Northern Syria remaining under the dominion of the Hittites, probably as far as the sources of the Orontes river. A line of communication must, however, have been left open between Egypt and Mesopotamia, for Seti still exercised authority over the Naïri, and received tribute from their chiefs. He was also, by the terms of the treaty, at liberty to make war on the nations of the Upper Syrian coast, for we find him reducing the Tahai, who bordered on Cilicia, without any disturbance of his relations with Mautenar. The second act in the war between the Egyptians and the Hittites thus terminated with an advantage to the Egyptians, who recovered most of their Asiatic possessions, and had, besides, the prestige of a great victory.

The victory achieved led to a peace treaty. Mautenar and Seti agreed to be friends and allies moving forward, with Southern Syria being returned to Egypt, while Northern Syria stayed under Hittite control, likely extending to the sources of the Orontes River. However, a line of communication must have remained open between Egypt and Mesopotamia, as Seti still held power over the Naïri and collected tribute from their leaders. Additionally, based on the terms of the treaty, he was allowed to wage war against the nations along the Upper Syrian coast, as evidenced by his campaign against the Tahai, who were near Cilicia, without compromising his relationship with Mautenar. Thus, the second stage of the conflict between the Egyptians and the Hittites ended with an advantage for the Egyptians, who regained most of their Asian territories and also enjoyed the prestige of a significant victory.

The third act was deferred for a space of some thirty-five years, and fell into the reign of Ramesses II., Seti's son and successor. Before giving an account of it, we must briefly touch the other wars of Seti, to show how great a warrior he was, and mention one further fact in his warlike policy indicative of the commencement of Egypt's decline as a military power. Seti, then, had no sooner concluded his peace with the great power of the North, than he turned his arms against the West and South, invading, first of all, "the blue-eyed, fair-skinned nation of the Tahennu," who inhabited the North African coast from the borders of Egypt to about Cyrene, and engaging in a sharp contest with them. The Tahennu were a wild, uncivilized people, dwelling in caves, and having no other arms besides bows and arrows. For dress they wore a long cloak or tunic, open in front; and they are distinguished on the Egyptian monuments by wearing two ostrich feathers and having all their hair shaved excepting one large lock, which is plaited and hangs down on the right side of the head. This unfortunate people could make only a poor resistance to the Egyptian trained infantry and powerful chariot force. They were completely defeated in a pitched battle; numbers of the chiefs were made prisoners, while the people generally fled to their caves, where they remained hidden, "like jackals, through fear of the king's majesty." Seti, having struck terror into their hearts, passed on towards the south, and fiercely chastised the Cushites on the Upper Nile, who during the war with the Hittites had given trouble, and showed themselves inclined to shake off the Egyptian yoke. Here again he was successful; the negroes and Cushites submitted after a short struggle; and the Great King returned to his capital victorious on all sides—"on the south to the arms of the Winds, and on the north to the Great Sea."

The third act was postponed for about thirty-five years and took place during the reign of Ramesses II., the son and successor of Seti. Before we discuss it, we need to briefly touch on Seti's other wars to illustrate what a formidable warrior he was and mention one more aspect of his military strategy that indicates the beginning of Egypt's decline as a military power. Seti, having just secured peace with the major power to the north, turned his attention to the west and south, first invading "the blue-eyed, fair-skinned nation of the Tahennu," who lived along the North African coast from the borders of Egypt to around Cyrene, and engaged in a fierce battle with them. The Tahennu were a wild, uncivilized group who lived in caves and had no weapons other than bows and arrows. Their clothing consisted of a long cloak or tunic that was open in the front, and they were depicted in Egyptian art wearing two ostrich feathers and shaving all their hair except for one long braid that hung down on the right side of their head. This unfortunate group could hardly put up any resistance against the well-trained Egyptian infantry and powerful chariotry. They were utterly defeated in a pitched battle; many of their leaders were captured, and the majority of the people fled to their caves, hiding "like jackals, out of fear of the king's majesty." After instilling fear in them, Seti moved south and fiercely punished the Cushites along the Upper Nile, who had caused trouble during the war with the Hittites and showed signs of wanting to break free from Egyptian control. Once again, he was successful; the Nubians and Cushites surrendered after a brief conflict, and the Great King returned to his capital victorious from all directions—"to the south to the arms of the Winds, and to the north to the Great Sea."

Seti was not dazzled with his military successes. Notwithstanding his triumphs in Syria, he recognized the fact that Egypt had much to fear from her Asiatic neighbours, and could not hope to maintain for long her aggressive attitude in that quarter. Without withdrawing from any of the conquered countries, while still claiming their obedience and enforcing the payment of their tributes, he began to made preparation for the changed circumstances which he anticipated by commencing the construction of a long wall on his north-eastern frontier, as a security against invasion from Asia. This wall began at Pelusium, and was carried across the isthmus in a south-westerly direction by Migdol to Pithom, or Heroopolis, where the long line of lagoons began, which were connected with the upper end of the Red Sea. It recalls to the mind of the historical student the many ramparts raised by nations, in their decline, against aggressive foes—as the Great Wall of China, built to keep off the Tartars; the Roman wall between the Rhine and Danube, intended to restrain the advance of the German tribes; and the three Roman ramparts in Great Britain, built to protect the Roman province from its savage northern neighbours. Walls of this kind are always signs of weakness; and when Seti began, and Ramesses II. completed, the rampart of Egypt, it was a confession that the palmy days of the empire were past, and that henceforth she must look forward to having to stand, in the main, on the defensive.

Seti wasn't impressed by his military victories. Despite his successes in Syria, he knew Egypt had a lot to worry about from its Asian neighbors and couldn’t maintain its aggressive stance there for long. Without pulling back from the territories he had conquered, while still claiming their loyalty and enforcing tribute payments, he started preparing for the changes he expected by beginning the construction of a long wall on his northeastern border to guard against possible invasions from Asia. This wall started at Pelusium and stretched across the isthmus in a south-west direction via Migdol to Pithom, or Heroopolis, where a long series of lagoons began that were connected to the upper end of the Red Sea. It reminds historical scholars of the many fortifications built by declining nations against aggressive foes—like the Great Wall of China, built to fend off the Tartars; the Roman wall between the Rhine and Danube, aimed at stopping the German tribes' advance; and the three Roman walls in Great Britain, constructed to protect the Roman province from its fierce northern neighbors. Walls like these are always indicators of weakness; and when Seti started, and Ramesses II. finished, the rampart of Egypt, it was an admission that the empire's glory days were over, and from then on, it would mainly have to be on the defensive.

Before acquiescing wholly in this conclusion, Ramesses II., who, after reigning conjointly with his father for several years, was now sole king, resolved on a desperate and prolonged effort to re-assert for Egypt that dominant position in Western Asia which she had held and obtained under the third Thothmes. Mautenar, the adversary of Seti, appears to have died, and his place to have been taken by his brother, Khita-sir, a brave and enterprizing monarch. Khita-sir, despite the terms of alliance on which the Hittites stood with Egypt, had commenced a series of intrigues with the nations bordering on Upper Syria, and formed a confederacy which had for its object to resist the further progress of the Egyptians, and, if possible, to drive them from Asia. This confederacy embraced the Naïri, or people of Western Mesopotamia, reckoned by the Egyptians among their subjects; the Airatu or people of Aradus; the Masu or inhabitants of the Mous Masius; the Leka, perhaps Lycians; the inhabitants of Carchemish, of Kadesh on the Orontes, of Aleppo, Anaukasa, Akarita, &c.—all warlike races, and accustomed to the use of chariots. Khitasir's proceedings, having become known to Ramesses, afforded ample grounds for a rupture, and quite justified him in pouring his troops into Syria, and doing his best to meet and overcome the danger which threatened him. Unaware at what point his enemy would elect to meet him, he marched forward cautiously, having arranged his troops in four divisions, which might mutually support each other. Entering the Cœlesyrian valley from the south, he had proceeded as far as the lake of Hems, and neighbourhood of Kadesh, before he received any tidings of the position taken up by the confederate army. There his troops captured two of the enemy's scouts, and on questioning them were told that the Hittite army had been at Kadesh, but had retired on learning the Egyptian's advance and taken up a position near Aleppo, distant nearly a hundred miles to the north-east. Had Ramesses believed the scouts, and marched forward carelessly, he would have fallen into a trap, and probably suffered defeat; for the whole confederate army was massed just beyond the lake, and there lay concealed by the embankment which blocks the lake at its lower end. But the Egyptian king was too wary for his adversary. He ordered the scouts to be examined by scourging, to see if they would persist in their tale, whereupon they broke down and revealed the true position of the army. The battle had thus the character of a regular pitched engagement, without surprise or other accident on either side. Khitasir, finding himself foiled, quitted his ambush, and marched openly against the Egyptians, with his troops marshalled in exact and orderly array, the Hittite chariots in front with their lines carefully dressed, and the auxiliaries and irregulars on the flanks and rear. Of the four divisions of the Egyptian army, one seems to have been absent, probably acting as a rear-guard; Ramesses, with one, marched down the left bank of the stream, while the two remaining divisions proceeded along the right bank, a slight interval separating them. Khitasir commenced the fight by a flank movement to the left, which brought him into collision with the extreme Egyptian right, "the brigade of Ra," as it was called, and enabled him to engage that division separately. His assault was irresistible. "Foot and horse of King Ramesses," we are told, "gave way before him," the "brigade of Ra" was utterly routed, and either cut to pieces or driven from the field. Ramesses, informed of this disaster, endeavoured to cross the river to the assistance of his beaten troops; but, before he could effect his purpose, the enemy had anticipated him, had charged through the Orontes in two lines, and was upon him. The adverse hosts met. The chariot of Ramesses, skilfully guided by his squire, Menna, seems to have broken through the front line of the Hittite chariot force; but his brethren in arms were less fortunate, and Ramesses found himself separated from his army, behind the front line and confronted by the second line of the hostile chariots, in a position of the greatest possible danger. Then began that Homeric combat, which the Egyptians were never tired of celebrating, between a single warrior on the one hand, and the host of the Hittites, reckoned at two thousand five hundred chariots, on the other, in which Ramesses, like Diomed or Achilles, carried death and destruction whithersoever he turned himself. "I became like the god Mentu," he is made to say; "I hurled the dart with my right hand, I fought with my left hand; I was like Baal in his fury against them. I had come upon two thousand five hundred pairs of horses; I was in the midst of them; but they were dashed in pieces before my steeds. Not one of them raised his hand to fight; their heart shrank within them; their limbs gave way, they could not hurl the dart, nor had they strength to thrust with the spear. As crocodiles fall into the water, so I made them fall; they tumbled headlong one over another. I killed them at my pleasure, so that not one of them looked back behind him, nor did any turn round. Each fell, and none raised himself up again."

Before completely accepting this conclusion, Ramesses II, who became the sole king after ruling jointly with his father for several years, decided to make a desperate and extended effort to restore Egypt's dominant position in Western Asia, which it had held under the third Thothmes. Mautenar, Seti's opponent, seems to have died, and his brother Khita-sir, a brave and daring monarch, took his place. Despite the alliance terms between the Hittites and Egypt, Khita-sir began a series of intrigues with the nations bordering Upper Syria and formed a coalition aimed at resisting the Egyptians' further advance and, if possible, driving them out of Asia. This coalition included the Naïri, from Western Mesopotamia, whom the Egyptians considered their subjects; the Airatu, or people of Aradus; the Masu, inhabitants of Mous Masius; the Leka, possibly Lycians; and the residents of Carchemish, Kadesh on the Orontes, Aleppo, Anaukasa, Akarita, etc.—all warlike peoples skilled in chariot warfare. Ramesses, having learned of Khitasir's actions, found sufficient grounds for conflict and was justified in sending his troops into Syria to tackle the imminent threat. Unsure where his enemy would choose to engage, he advanced cautiously, organizing his troops into four divisions for mutual support. Entering the Cœlesyrian valley from the south, he reached the lake of Hems and the vicinity of Kadesh before receiving any news about the confederate army's position. His troops captured two enemy scouts, and upon questioning them, learned that the Hittite army had been at Kadesh but had retreated upon hearing of the Egyptians' approach and taken up a position near Aleppo, nearly a hundred miles to the northeast. Had Ramesses believed the scouts and advanced carelessly, he would have fallen into a trap and likely faced defeat; the entire confederate army was gathered just beyond the lake, concealed by an embankment at its lower end. However, Ramesses was too cautious for that. He ordered the scouts to be interrogated through punishment to see if they would hold to their story; they eventually broke down and revealed the true position of the army. Consequently, the battle became a regular engagement without surprise or other unforeseen events on either side. Realizing he was outmaneuvered, Khita-sir abandoned his ambush and marched openly against the Egyptians, lining up his troops in an orderly formation, with Hittite chariots at the front, carefully positioned, and auxiliaries and irregulars on the flanks and rear. One of the four divisions of the Egyptian army seemed to be absent, likely serving as a rear guard; Ramesses, with one division, advanced down the left bank of the stream, while the other two divisions moved along the right bank with a slight gap between them. Khita-sir began the battle with a flank move to the left that brought him into conflict with the extreme Egyptian right, known as "the brigade of Ra," allowing him to engage that division separately. His attack was unstoppable. "Foot and horse of King Ramesses," it states, "gave way before him," as the "brigade of Ra" was utterly defeated, either killed or driven from the field. Learning of this disaster, Ramesses tried to cross the river to assist his beaten troops; however, before he could do so, the enemy advanced through the Orontes in two lines and confronted him. The opposing armies clashed. Ramesses' chariot, skillfully guided by his squire, Menna, managed to break through the front line of the Hittite chariot force, but his fellow warriors were less lucky, leaving Ramesses isolated from his army, positioned behind the front line and facing the second line of hostile chariots, putting him in extreme danger. This sparked a legendary battle that Egyptians celebrated endlessly, between a single warrior and the Hittite army, estimated at two thousand five hundred chariots, where Ramesses, like Diomed or Achilles, brought death and destruction wherever he turned. "I became like the god Mentu," he reportedly said; "I hurled the dart with my right hand, I fought with my left hand; I was like Baal in his fury against them. I faced two thousand five hundred pairs of horses; I was amidst them; but they were shattered before my horses. Not one of them raised a hand to fight; their hearts shrank within them; their limbs gave way, they could not throw a dart, nor did they have the strength to thrust with the spear. Like crocodiles falling into water, I made them fall; they tumbled over one another. I killed them at my will, so that not one of them looked back, nor did any turn around. Each fell, and none got back up."

The temporary isolation of the monarch, which is the main point of the heroic poem of Pentaour, and which Ramesses himself recorded over and over again upon the walls of his magnificent constructions, must no doubt be regarded as a fact; but it is not likely to have continued for more than a few minutes. The minutes may have seemed as hours to the king; and there may have been time for him to perform several exploits. But we may be sure that, when his companions found that he was lost to their sight, they at once made frantic efforts to recover him, dead or alive; they forced openings in the first Hittite chariot line, and sped to the rescue of their sovereign. He had, perhaps, already emptied many chariots of the second line, which was paralysed by his audacity; and his companions found it easy to complete the work which he had begun. The broken second line turned and fled; the confusion became general; a headlong flight carried the entire host to the banks of the Orontes, into which some precipitated themselves, while others were forced into the water by their pursuers. The king of Khirabu (Aleppo) was among these, and was with great difficulty drawn out by his friends, exhausted and half dead, when he reached the eastern shore. But the great bulk of the Hittite army perished, either in the battle or in the river. Among the killed and wounded were Grabatasa, the charioteer of Khitasir; Tarakennas, the commander of the cavalry; Rabsuna, another general; Khirapusar, a royal secretary; and Matsurama, a brother of the Hittite king.

The temporary isolation of the king, which is the main theme of the heroic poem of Pentaour, and which Ramesses repeatedly recorded on the walls of his impressive buildings, should certainly be considered a fact; however, it probably didn’t last more than a few minutes. Those minutes may have felt like hours to the king, and he might have had time to accomplish several feats. But we can be sure that when his companions realized he was out of sight, they immediately made desperate efforts to find him, whether he was alive or dead; they broke through the first line of Hittite chariots and rushed to save their leader. He might have already cleared out many chariots from the second line, which was stalled by his bravery, and his companions had no trouble finishing what he had started. The panicked second line turned and fled; chaos reigned as the whole army rushed to the banks of the Orontes, with some jumping in and others being forced into the water by their pursuers. The king of Khirabu (Aleppo) was among them, and his friends barely managed to pull him out, exhausted and nearly dead, when he reached the eastern shore. But the vast majority of the Hittite army was lost, either in battle or in the river. Among the dead and injured were Grabatasa, the charioteer of Khitasir; Tarakennas, the commander of the cavalry; Rabsuna, another general; Khirapusar, a royal secretary; and Matsurama, a brother of the Hittite king.

On the next day the battle was renewed; but, after a short time, Khitasir retired, and sent a humble embassy to the camp of his adversary to implore for peace. Ramesses held a council of war with his generals, and by their advice agreed to accept the submission made to him, and, without entering into any formal engagement, to withdraw his army and return to Egypt. It seems probable that his victory had cost him dear, and that he was not in a condition to venture further from his resources, or to affront new dangers in a difficult, and to him unknown, region.

The next day, the battle started up again; however, after a short time, Khitasir withdrew and sent a respectful delegation to his opponent's camp to ask for peace. Ramesses held a war council with his generals, and upon their advice, he agreed to accept the surrender offered to him and, without making any formal agreement, to pull back his army and head back to Egypt. It seems likely that his victory came at a high cost and that he wasn't in a position to venture further from his supplies or face new dangers in a challenging, unfamiliar territory.

Experience tells us that it is one thing to gain a battle, quite another to be successful in the result of a long war. Whatever glory Ramesses obtained by the battle of Kadesh, and the other victories which he claims to have won in the Syrian campaigns of several succeeding years, it is certain that he completely failed to break the power of the Hittites, and that he was led in course of time to confess his failure, and to adopt a policy of conciliation towards the people which he found himself unable to subdue. Sixteen years after the battle of Kadesh he concluded a solemn treaty with Khitasir, which was engraved on silver and placed under the most sacred sanctions, whereby an exact equality was established between the high contracting powers. Each nation bound itself under no circumstances to attack the other; each promised to give aid to the other, if requested, in case of its ally being attacked; each pledged itself to the extradition both of criminals flying from justice and of any other subjects wishing to change their allegiance; each stipulated for an amnesty of offences in the case of all persons thus surrendered. Thirteen years after the conclusion of the treaty the close alliance between the two powers was further cemented by a marriage, which, by giving the two dynasties common interests, greatly strengthened the previously existing bond. Ramesses requested and received in marriage a daughter of Khitasir in the thirty-fourth year of his sole reign, when he had borne the royal title for forty-six years. He thus became the son-in-law of his former adversary, whose daughter was thenceforth recognized as his sole legitimate queen.

Experience shows that winning a battle is one thing, but achieving success in a long war is quite another. Whatever glory Ramesses earned from the Battle of Kadesh and the other victories he claims to have achieved in the Syrian campaigns over the next few years, it’s clear that he completely failed to diminish the power of the Hittites. In time, he had to admit his failure and adopt a conciliatory approach towards the people he couldn’t conquer. Sixteen years after the Battle of Kadesh, he signed a formal treaty with Khitasir, which was engraved on silver and placed under the most sacred protections, establishing equal standing between the two powers. Each nation agreed not to attack the other under any circumstances; both promised to assist the other if requested when their ally was under attack; each pledged to extradite criminals fleeing justice and any subjects wanting to change their allegiance; and both stipulated an amnesty for offenses involving anyone surrendered under these terms. Thirteen years after the treaty was established, the close alliance between the two powers was further strengthened by a marriage, which created common interests between the two dynasties. Ramesses requested and received the hand of a daughter of Khitasir in the thirty-fourth year of his reign, after holding the royal title for forty-six years. He thus became the son-in-law of his former enemy, whose daughter was then recognized as his only legitimate queen.

A considerable change in the relations of Egypt to her still remaining Asiatic dependencies accompanied this alteration in the footing upon which she stood with the Hittites. "The bonds of their subjection became much less strict than they had been under Thothmes III.; prudential motives constrained the Egyptians to be content with very much less—with such acknowledgments, in fact, as satisfied their vanity, rather than with the exercise of any real power." From and after the conclusion of peace and alliance between Ramesses and Khitasir, Egyptian influence in Asia grew vague, shadowy, and discontinuous. At long intervals monarchs of more enterprize than the ordinary run asserted it, and a brief success generally crowned their efforts; but, speaking broadly, we may say that her Asiatic dominion was lost, and that Egypt became once more an African power, confined within nearly her ancient limits.

A significant change occurred in Egypt's relations with its remaining Asian territories following the shift in its stance with the Hittites. "The control over these regions became much less strict than during the reign of Thothmes III.; practical reasons forced the Egyptians to settle for much less—essentially acknowledgments that fed their vanity rather than any real authority." After the peace and alliance between Ramesses and Khitasir, Egyptian influence in Asia diminished, becoming vague, shadowy, and inconsistent. Occasionally, more ambitious rulers managed to assert it, and they briefly succeeded; however, generally speaking, we can say that Egypt lost its Asian dominion and reverted to being an African power, limited to almost its ancient borders.

If, from a military point of view, the decline of Egypt is to be dated from the reigns, partly joint reigns, of Seti I. and Ramesses II., from the stand-point of art the period must be pronounced the very apogee of Egyptian greatness. The architectural works of these two monarchs transcend most decidedly all those of all other Pharaohs, either earlier or later. No single work, indeed, of either king equals in mass either the First or the Second Pyramid; but in number, in variety, in beauty, in all that constitutes artistic excellence, the constructions of Seti and Ramesses are unequalled, not only among Egyptian monuments, but among those of all other nations. Greece is, of course, unapproachable in the matter of sculpture, whether in the way of statuary, or of high or low relief; but, apart from this, Egypt in her architectural works will challenge comparison with any country that ever existed, or any people that ever gave itself to the embodiment of artistic conceptions in stone or marble. And Egyptian architecture culminated under Seti and his son Ramesses. The greatest of all Seti's works was his pillared hall at Karnak, the most splendid single chamber that has ever been built by any architect, and, even in its ruins, one of the grandest sights that the world contains. Seti's hall is three hundred and thirty feet long, by one hundred and seventy feet broad, having thus an internal area of fifty-six thousand square feet, and covers, together with its walls and pylons, an area of eighty-eight thousand such feet, or a larger space than that covered by the Dom of Cologne, the largest of all the cathedrals north of the Alps. It was supported by one hundred and sixty-four massive stone columns, which were divided into three groups—twelve central ones, each sixty-six feet high and thirty-three feet in circumference, formed the main avenue down its midst; while on either side, two groups of sixty-one columns, each forty-two feet high and twenty-seven round, supported the huge wings of the chamber, arranged in seven rows of seven each, and two rows of six. The whole was roofed over with solid blocks of stone, the lighting being, as in the far smaller hall of Thothmes III., by means of a clerestory. The roof and pillars and walls were everywhere covered with painted bas-reliefs and hieroglyphics, giving great richness of effect, and constituting the whole building the most magnificent on which the eye of man has ever rested. Fergusson, the best modern authority on architecture, says of it: "No language can convey an idea of its beauty, and no artist has yet been able to reproduce its form so as to convey to those who have not seen it an idea of its grandeur. The mass of its central piers, illumined by a flood of light from the clerestory, and the smaller pillars of the wings gradually fading into obscurity, are so arranged and lighted as to convey an idea of infinite space; at the same time the beauty and massiveness of the forms, and the brilliancy of their coloured decorations, all combine to stamp this as the greatest of man's architectural works, but such a one as it would be impossible to reproduce, except in such a climate, and in that individual style, in which and for which it was created."[24]

If we look at it from a military perspective, the decline of Egypt can be traced back to the reigns, partially overlapping, of Seti I and Ramesses II. However, from an artistic standpoint, this period marks the peak of Egyptian greatness. The architectural achievements of these two kings clearly surpass those of all other Pharaohs, both before and after them. While neither king's work matches the sheer size of the First or Second Pyramid, in terms of quantity, variety, beauty, and overall artistic excellence, the constructions of Seti and Ramesses are unmatched, not just among Egyptian monuments but in comparison to those of all other nations. Greece may excel in sculpture—whether in statuary or high and low relief—but aside from that, Egypt's architectural works can hold their own against any culture that has ever expressed artistic visions in stone or marble. Egyptian architecture reached its peak during the time of Seti and his son Ramesses. The crowning achievement of Seti's reign was his pillared hall at Karnak, the most magnificent single room ever constructed by any architect, and even in its ruins, it's one of the most impressive sights in the world. Seti's hall measures three hundred and thirty feet long and one hundred and seventy feet wide, providing a total internal area of fifty-six thousand square feet, covering an entire area of eighty-eight thousand square feet including its walls and pylons—larger than the Dom of Cologne, which is the biggest cathedral north of the Alps. It was supported by one hundred and sixty-four massive stone columns, arranged in three groups: twelve central columns, each sixty-six feet tall and thirty-three feet around, formed the main aisle; on either side, two groups of sixty-one columns, each forty-two feet high and twenty-seven feet in circumference, supported the vast wings of the hall, arranged in seven rows of seven and two rows of six. The roof was constructed from solid stone blocks, with light coming in, as it does in the much smaller hall of Thothmes III, through a clerestory. The roof, pillars, and walls were all adorned with painted bas-reliefs and hieroglyphics, creating a rich and vibrant effect, making the entire structure the most magnificent that human eyes have ever seen. Fergusson, a leading modern expert on architecture, describes it: "No words can fully capture its beauty, and no artist has been able to recreate its form in a way that conveys its grandeur to those who haven't seen it. The central piers, illuminated by a flood of light from the clerestory, and the smaller columns in the wings gradually disappearing into shadow, are arranged and lit to give a sense of infinite space; at the same time, the beauty and mass of the forms, along with the brilliance of their colored decorations, all combine to mark this as the greatest of human architectural achievements—a masterpiece that couldn't be replicated except in the same climate and distinct style for which it was originally designed."

As Seti constructed the most wonderful of all the palatial buildings which Egypt produced, so he also constructed what is, on the whole, the most wonderful of the tombs. The pyramids impose upon us by their enormity, and astonish by the engineering skill shown in their execution; but they embody a single simple idea; they have no complication of parts, no elaboration of ornament; they are taken in at a glance; they do not gradually unfold themselves, or furnish a succession of surprises. But it is otherwise with the rock-tombs, whereof Seti's is the most magnificent The rock-tombs are "gorgeous palaces, hewn out of the rock, and painted with all the decorations that could have been seen in palaces." They contain a succession of passages, chambers, corridors, staircases, and pillared halls, each further removed from the entrance than the last, and all covered with an infinite variety of the most finished and brilliant paintings. The tomb of Seti contains three pillared halls, respectively twenty-seven feet by twenty-five, twenty-eight feet by twenty-seven, and forty-three feet by seventeen and a half; a large saloon with an arched roof, thirty feet by twenty-seven; six smaller chambers of different sizes; three staircases, and two long corridors. The whole series of apartments, from end to end of the tomb, is continuously ornamented with painted bas-reliefs. "The idea is that of conducting the king to the world of death. The further you advance into the tomb, the deeper you become involved in endless processions of jackal-headed gods, and monstrous forms of genii, good and evil; and the goddess of Justice, with her single ostrich feather; and barges carrying mummies, raised aloft over the sacred lake; and mummies themselves; and, more than all, everlasting convolutions of serpents in every possible form and attitude—human-legged, human-headed, crowned, entwining mummies, enwreathing or embraced by processions, extending down whole galleries, so that meeting the head of a serpent at the top of a staircase, you have to descend to its very end before you reach his tail. At last you arrive at the close of all—the vaulted hall, in the centre of which lies the immense alabaster sarcophagus, which ought to contain the body of the king. Here the processions, above, below, and around, reach their highest pitch—meandering round and round—white, and black, and red, and blue—legs and arms and wings spreading in enormous forms over the ceilings; and below lies the sarcophagus itself."[25]

As Seti built the most impressive of all the palatial structures that Egypt created, he also constructed what is, overall, the most magnificent of the tombs. The pyramids overwhelm us with their size and amaze us with the engineering expertise demonstrated in their construction; however, they represent a single straightforward idea; they lack complexity, and there's no intricate decoration; they can be understood at a glance; they don’t gradually reveal themselves or provide a series of surprises. But that isn't the case with the rock tombs, of which Seti's is the most splendid. The rock tombs are "gorgeous palaces carved out of the rock, adorned with all the decorations that could be found in palaces." They are made up of a series of passages, chambers, corridors, staircases, and pillared halls, each set further back from the entrance than the last, all decorated with an endless variety of the most exquisite and vibrant paintings. Seti's tomb includes three pillared halls, measuring twenty-seven feet by twenty-five, twenty-eight feet by twenty-seven, and forty-three feet by seventeen and a half; a large hall with an arched ceiling, thirty feet by twenty-seven; six smaller rooms of various sizes; three staircases, and two long corridors. The entire series of rooms, from one end to the other of the tomb, is continuously embellished with painted bas-reliefs. "The idea is to guide the king to the realm of the dead. The deeper you go into the tomb, the more you become immersed in endless parades of jackal-headed gods, terrifying forms of spirits, both good and evil; the goddess of Justice holding her single ostrich feather; boats carrying mummies, raised high over the sacred lake; actual mummies; and, most notably, infinite twists of serpents in every conceivable form and position—human-legged, human-headed, crowned, coiling around mummies, entwined or encircled by processions, extending down entire hallways, such that when you encounter the head of a serpent at the top of a staircase, you must descend to its very end before you reach its tail. Finally, you arrive at the end—the vaulted chamber, in the center of which rests the massive alabaster sarcophagus, which should contain the king's body. Here, the processions, above, below, and around, reach their peak—winding around—white, black, red, and blue—arms and legs and wings spreading into gigantic forms across the ceilings; and below lies the sarcophagus itself."

The greatest of the works of Ramesses are of a different description, and are indicative of that inordinate vanity which is the leading feature of his character. They are colossal images of himself. Four of these, each seventy feet in height, form the façade of the marvellous rock-temple of Ipsambul—"the finest of its class known to exist anywhere"—and constitute one of the most impressive sights which the world has to offer. There stands the Great King, four times repeated, silent, majestic, superhuman—with features marked by profound repose and tranquillity, touched perhaps with a little scorn, looking out eternally on the grey-white Nubian waste, which stretches far away to a dim and distant horizon. Here, as you sit on the deep pure sand, you seem to see the monarch, who did so much, who reigned so long, who covered, not only Egypt, but Nubia and Ethiopia with his memorials. "You can look at his features inch by inch, see them not only magnified to tenfold their original size, so that ear and mouth and nose, and every link of his collar, and every line of his skin, sinks into you with the weight of a mountain; but those features are repeated exactly the same three times over—four times they once were, but the upper part of the fourth statue is gone. Look at them as they emerge—the two northern figures—from the sand which reaches up to their throats; the southernmost, as he sits unbroken, and revealed from the top of his royal helmet to the toe of his enormous foot"[26] Look at them, and remember that you have here portrait-statues of one of the greatest of the kings of the Old World, of the world that was "old" when Greece and Rome were either unborn or in their swaddling clothes; portrait-statues, moreover, of the king who, if either tradition or chronology can be depended on, was the actual great oppressor of Israel—the king who sought the life of Moses—the king from whom Moses fled, and until whose death he did not dare to return out of the land of Midian.

The most significant works of Ramesses are different in nature and reflect his excessive vanity, which is the defining trait of his character. They are giant statues of himself. Four of these, each seventy feet tall, make up the front of the incredible rock-temple of Ipsambul—"the finest of its kind known to exist anywhere"—and are one of the most stunning sights the world has to offer. There stands the Great King, repeated four times, silent, majestic, almost superhuman—with features that show deep calm and tranquility, perhaps with a hint of disdain, looking out eternally over the grey-white Nubian landscape that stretches far to a vague and distant horizon. Here, as you sit on the soft pure sand, you feel like you can see the monarch who achieved so much, who ruled for so long, who left his mark not just on Egypt, but also on Nubia and Ethiopia. "You can examine his features in detail, viewing them magnified to ten times their original size, so that every part—ear, mouth, nose, every link of his collar, and every line of his skin—hits you with the weight of a mountain; and those features are exactly the same three times over—originally there were four, but the upper part of the fourth statue is missing. Look at them as they emerge—the two northern figures—from the sand that reaches up to their throats; the southernmost one, as he sits intact, revealed from the top of his royal helmet to the tip of his enormous foot"[26] Look at them and remember that these are portrait-statues of one of the greatest kings of the Ancient World, a world that was "old" when Greece and Rome were either non-existent or in their infancy; they are moreover portrait-statues of the king who, if either tradition or chronology holds true, was the actual great oppressor of Israel—the king who sought Moses's life—the king from whom Moses fled, and who he did not dare to return from Midian until after his death.

According to the almost unanimous voice of those most conversant with Egyptian antiquities, the "great oppressor" of the Hebrews was this Ramesses. Seti may have been the originator of the scheme for crushing them by hard usage, but, as the oppression lasted close upon eighty years (Ex. ii, I; vii. 7), it must have covered at least two reigns, so that, if it began under Seti, it must have continued under his son and successor. The bricks found at Tel-el-Maskoutah show Ramesses as the main builder of Pithom (Pa-Tum), and the very name indicates that he was the main builder of Raamses (Pa-Ramessu). We must thus ascribe to him, at any rate, the great bulk of that severe and cruel affliction, which provoked Moses (Ex. ii, 12), which made Israel "sigh" and "groan" (ib. 23, 24), and on which God looked down with compassion (ib. iii. 7). It was he especially who "made their lives bitter in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field"—service which was "with rigour." Ramesses was a builder on the most extensive scale. Without producing any single edifice so perfect as the "Pillared Hall of Seti," he was indefatigable in his constructive efforts, and no Egyptian king came up to him in this respect. The monuments show that he erected his buildings chiefly by forced labour, and that those employed on them were chiefly foreigners. Some have thought that the Hebrews are distinctly mentioned as employed by him on his constructions under the term "Aperu," or "Aperiu"; but this view is not generally accepted. Still, "the name is so often used for foreign bondsmen engaged in the very work of the Hebrews, and especially during the oppression, that it is hard not to believe it to be a general term in which they are included, though it does not actually describe them."[27]

According to the nearly unanimous opinion of those knowledgeable about Egyptian history, the "great oppressor" of the Hebrews was Ramesses. Seti may have initiated the plan to oppress them through harsh treatment, but since the oppression lasted almost eighty years (Ex. ii, I; vii. 7), it must have spanned at least two reigns. Thus, if it began under Seti, it continued under his son and successor. The bricks found at Tel-el-Maskoutah identify Ramesses as the main builder of Pithom (Pa-Tum), and the name itself suggests that he was also the main builder of Raamses (Pa-Ramessu). We must attribute to him, at the very least, the majority of that severe and cruel suffering, which prompted Moses (Ex. ii, 12), which made Israel "sigh" and "groan" (ib. 23, 24), and on which God looked down with compassion (ib. iii. 7). He was especially responsible for "making their lives bitter with mortar, and with bricks, and in all kinds of work in the field"—work that was done "with rigor." Ramesses was a builder on a grand scale. While he didn't create a single structure as perfect as the "Pillared Hall of Seti," he was tireless in his construction efforts, and no Egyptian king matched him in this area. The monuments indicate that he built primarily using forced labor, and those who worked on these projects were mainly foreigners. Some have suggested that the Hebrews are specifically referred to as being employed by him in his constructions under the term "Aperu," or "Aperiu"; however, this interpretation isn't widely accepted. Still, "the name is frequently used for foreign laborers engaged in the same work as the Hebrews, especially during the oppression, making it hard not to see it as a general term that includes them, even if it doesn't specifically describe them."[27]

HEAD OF SETI HEAD OF SETI

BUST OF RAMESSES II. BUST OF RAMESSES II.

The physiognomies of Seti I. and Ramesses II., as represented on the sculptures,[28] offer a curious contrast Seti's face is thoroughly African, strong, fierce, prognathous, with depressed nose, thick lips, and a heavy chin. The face of Ramesses is Asiatic. He has a good forehead, a large, well-formed, slightly aquiline nose, a well-shaped mouth, with lips that are not too full, a small delicate chin, and an eye that is thoughtful and pensive. We may conclude that Seti was of the true Egyptian race, with perhaps an admixture of more southern blood; while Ramesses, born of a Semitic mother, inherited through her Asiatic characteristics, and, though possessing less energy and strength of character than his father, had a more sensitive temperament, a wider range of taste, and a greater inclination towards peace and tranquillity. His important wars were all concluded within the limit of his twenty-first year, while his entire reign was one of sixty-seven years, during fifty of which he held the sole sovereignty. Though he left the fame of a great warrior behind him, his chief and truest triumphs seem to have been those of peace—the Great Wall for the protection of Egypt towards the east, with its strong fortresses and "store-cities," the canal which united the Nile with the Red Sea, and the countless buildings, excavations, obelisks, colossal statues, and other great works, with which he adorned Egypt from one end to the other.

The faces of Seti I and Ramesses II, as shown in the sculptures,[28] present an interesting contrast. Seti's face is distinctly African—strong, fierce, with prominent jaw features, a flat nose, thick lips, and a heavy chin. In contrast, Ramesses has a more Asiatic appearance. He has an impressive forehead, a large, well-shaped, slightly curved nose, a well-formed mouth with moderately full lips, a small delicate chin, and thoughtful, reflective eyes. We can conclude that Seti belonged to the true Egyptian lineage, possibly with some southern heritage; meanwhile, Ramesses, born of a Semitic mother, inherited her Asiatic traits and, although he lacked the energy and strength of character of his father, had a more sensitive nature, broader tastes, and a stronger inclination towards peace and tranquility. His significant military campaigns all ended by the time he turned twenty-one, yet he reigned for sixty-seven years in total, during fifty of which he ruled alone. While he is remembered as a great warrior, his most significant achievements seem to be in peace—like the construction of the Great Wall to protect Egypt to the east, along with strong fortresses and "store-cities," the canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea, and the numerous buildings, excavations, obelisks, colossal statues, and other monumental works that he built throughout Egypt.


Decorative

XVI.

MENEPHTHAH I., THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS.

Menephthah, the thirteenth son and immediate successor of Ramesses II., came to the throne under circumstances which might at first sight have seemed favourable. Egypt was on every side at peace with her neighbours. The wail of Ramesses, and his treaty with the Hittites, cemented as it had been by a marriage, secured the eastern frontier. No formidable attack had ever yet fallen upon Egypt from the west or from the south, and so no danger could well be apprehended from those quarters. Internal tranquillity might not be altogether assured, so long as there was within the limits of Egypt a large subject population, suffering oppression and bitterly discontented with its lot. But this population was quite unwarlike, and had hitherto passively submitted itself to the will of its rulers, without giving any indication that it might become actively hostile. Menephthah, who was perhaps not more than five and twenty, may have been justified in looking forward to a long, quiet, and uneventful reign, during which he might indulge the natural apathy of his temper, or dream away life, like his fabled neighbours, the Lotus-Eaters.

Menephthah, the thirteenth son and the immediate successor of Ramesses II, ascended to the throne under circumstances that might have seemed favorable at first. Egypt was at peace with all her neighbors. Ramesses' treaties, especially the one with the Hittites, solidified by a marriage, secured the eastern border. No significant attacks had ever come against Egypt from the west or south, so there seemed to be little danger from those directions. Internal peace wasn't completely guaranteed, as a large subject population within Egypt was suffering oppression and was deeply dissatisfied with their situation. However, this population was mostly non-violent and had historically accepted the will of their rulers without showing signs of active resistance. Menephthah, who was probably only about twenty-five, might have reasonably expected a long, peaceful, and uneventful reign, during which he could indulge in his natural indifference or drift through life like his legendary neighbors, the Lotus-Eaters.

Menephthah's features were soft and womanly. He had a full but sleepy eye, a slightly aquiline nose an extremely short upper-lip, a broad cheek, and a rounded chin. In character he was weak, irresolute, wanting in physical courage, yet, as so often happens with weak characters, harsh, oppressive, and treacherous. The monuments depict him as neither a soldier nor an administrator, but as "one whose mind was turned almost exclusively towards the chimeras of sorcery and magic," which he regarded as of the utmost importance. Still, had the times been quiet, had the prospect of tranquillity which seemed to lie before him on his accession been realized, he might perhaps have so conducted affairs as to bring neither discredit nor injury upon his country. But the circumstances of the period were against him. The unclouded prospect of his early years gave place, after a brief interval, to storm and tempest of the most fearful kind; a terrible invasion carried fire and sword into the heart of his dominions; and he had scarcely escaped this danger by meeting it in a way not very honourable to himself, when internal troubles broke out: a subject race, highly valued for services which it was compelled to render, insisted on quitting the land; a great loss was incurred in an attempt to compel it to remain; then open rebellion broke out in the weakened state; and the reign, which had commenced under such fair auspices, terminated in calamity and confusion. Menephthah was quite incompetent to deal with the difficulties and complications wherewith he found himself surrounded; he hesitated, temporized, made concessions, retracted them, and finally conducted Egypt to a catastrophe from which she did not recover for a generation.

Menephthah's features were soft and feminine. He had a full but sleepy eye, a slightly hooked nose, an extremely short upper lip, broad cheeks, and a rounded chin. In personality, he was weak, indecisive, and lacking in physical bravery; yet, as is often the case with weak characters, he was harsh, oppressive, and treacherous. The monuments show him as neither a soldier nor a leader, but as “someone whose mind was focused almost entirely on the illusions of sorcery and magic,” which he believed were extremely important. Still, if the times had been peaceful, and the promise of tranquility that seemed to await him when he took the throne had been fulfilled, he might have managed things in a way that wouldn’t have brought shame or harm to his country. But the circumstances of the time were against him. The clear outlook of his early years quickly gave way, after a short period, to storms and chaos of the worst kind; a devastating invasion brought destruction and violence into the heart of his kingdom; and he had barely escaped this threat by handling it in a way that was not very honorable, when internal troubles erupted: a subject race, valued for the services they were forced to provide, insisted on leaving the land; a significant loss occurred in the attempt to force them to stay; then open rebellion broke out in the weakened state; and the reign, which had started with such promising prospects, ended in disaster and chaos. Menephthah was completely unable to handle the difficulties and complications surrounding him; he wavered, delayed, made concessions, retracted them, and ultimately led Egypt into a catastrophe from which it did not recover for a generation.

HEAD OF MENEPHTHAH. HEAD OF MENEPHTHAH.

The first great trouble which disturbed the tranquillity of his reign was an invasion of his territories from the north-west. Hitherto, though no serious danger had ever threatened from this quarter, there had been frequent raids into Egypt on the part of the native Africans, and most of the more warlike of the Egyptian monarchs had regarded it as incumbent on them to lead from time to time expeditions into the region, for the purpose of weakening the wild tribes, Tahennu, Maxyes, and others, and inspiring them with a wholesome dread of the Egyptian power. Ramesses II. had on one occasion warred in this quarter, as already related, and had met with a certain amount of success. But since that time many years had passed. A new generation had grown up, which the Egyptians had allowed to remain unmolested, and which felt no fear of its quiet, peaceful, and industrious neighbours. Population had probably multiplied in the region, and the tribes began to feel stinted for room. Above all, new relations had been contracted between the old inhabitants of the tract and some other races, now for the first time heard of in authentic history, who had been brought into contact with them. A league of nations had become possible; and the force of the united league must have been considerable. Might not an actual conquest be effected, and the half-starved nomads of Marmarica and the Cyrenaica become the lords and masters of the rich plain, so long coveted, which adjoined upon their eastern frontier?

The first big problem that disturbed the peace of his reign was an invasion from the north-west. Until now, while there hadn’t been any serious threats from that direction, there had been regular raids into Egypt by local African tribes. Most of the more militant Egyptian kings felt it was their duty to occasionally lead raids into that area to weaken the wild tribes like the Tahennu, Maxyes, and others, reinstating their fear of Egyptian power. Ramesses II had once fought in this area, as previously mentioned, and had found some success. However, many years had passed since then. A new generation had risen that the Egyptians had let be, which no longer feared their quiet, peaceful, and hardworking neighbors. The population had likely increased in the area, and the tribes began to feel cramped for space. Most importantly, new alliances had formed between the original inhabitants and other races, which we now hear about for the first time in recorded history, who had come into contact with them. A coalition of nations had become possible, and the strength of this united group must have been significant. Could it be that an actual conquest could happen, with the underfed nomads of Marmarica and Cyrenaica becoming the rulers of the long-desired rich plains that bordered their eastern frontier?

The leading spirit of the combination was a native African prince, Marmaiu, the son of Deid. Having determined on a serious invasion of Egypt, for the purpose of conquest, not of plunder, he first of all collected his native forces, Lubu, Tahennu, Mashuash, Kahaka, to the number of twenty-five or thirty thousand, and then purchased the services of a number of auxiliaries, who raised his force probably to a total of thirty-five or forty thousand men. A peculiar interest attaches to these auxiliaries. They consisted of contingents from five nations, whose names are read as Akausha, Luku, Tursha, Shartana or Shardana, and Sheklusha, and whom most modern historians of Egypt identify with the Achæans Laconians, Tyrsenians, Sardinians, and Sicilians. If these identifications are accepted—- and they are at least plausible—we shall have to suppose that, as early as the fourteenth century B.C., the nations of Southern Europe were so far advanced as to launch fleets upon the Mediterranean, to enter into a regular league with an African prince, and in conjunction with him to make an attack on one of the chief civilized monarchies of the world, the old kingdom of the Pharaohs. We shall have to imagine the Achæans of the Peloponnese, a century before the time of Agamemnon, braving the perils of the Levant in their cockle-shells of ships, and not merely plundering the coasts, but landing large bodies of men on the North African shore to take part in a regular campaign. We shall have to picture to ourselves the Laconians—the people of Menelaüs—about the time of his grandfather, Atreus, or his great-grandfather, Pelops, similarly employed, and contending with the Pharaoh of the Exodus on the soil of the Delta. Nay, we shall have to antedate the rise of the Tyrsenians to naval greatness by about seven hundred years, and to suppose that the Sicels and Sardi, whom the Greeks and Romans found living the life of savages in Sicily and Sardinia, when they first visited their shores, about B.C. 750-600, were flourishing peoples and skilful navigators half a millennium earlier. The picture which we thus obtain of the ancient world is very surprising, and quite unlike anything that could be gathered from the literature of the Greeks; but it is not to be regarded as beyond the range of possibility, since nations are quite as apt to lapse from civilization into barbarism as to emerge out of barbarism into civilization. It is quite conceivable that the nations of South-Eastern Europe were more advanced in civilization and the arts of life about B.C. 1400-1300 than they are found to have been six centuries later, the false dawn having been succeeded by a time of darkness before the true dawn came.

The main architect of the alliance was Marmaiu, a native African prince and son of Deid. He decided to launch a serious invasion of Egypt, aiming for conquest rather than plunder. First, he gathered his native troops—Lubu, Tahennu, Mashuash, and Kahaka—totaling around twenty-five to thirty thousand. Then, he hired additional forces, likely bringing his total to thirty-five or forty thousand men. There's a particular interest in these auxiliary forces. They were made up of groups from five nations, known as Akausha, Luku, Tursha, Shartana or Shardana, and Sheklusha, which most contemporary historians of Egypt link to the Achæans, Laconians, Tyrsenians, Sardinians, and Sicilians. If we accept these identities — and they are at least plausible — we must consider that as early as the fourteenth century B.C., the peoples of Southern Europe were advanced enough to launch fleets into the Mediterranean, forming a formal alliance with an African prince, and joining forces to attack one of the major civilized powers of the world, the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs. We must envision the Achæans of the Peloponnese, a century before Agamemnon, facing the dangers of the Levant in their small ships, not just raiding coastal areas but landing large groups on the North African shore to participate in an organized campaign. We should picture the Laconians—the people of Menelaüs—during the era of his grandfather, Atreus, or great-grandfather, Pelops, engaged in similar activities, clashing with the Pharaoh of the Exodus in the Delta region. In fact, we would need to move the rise of the Tyrsenians to naval prowess back by about seven hundred years and assume that the Sicels and Sardi, whom the Greeks and Romans encountered living as savages in Sicily and Sardinia around B.C. 750-600, were thriving societies and skilled sailors half a millennium earlier. The image we create of the ancient world is quite surprising and starkly different from what we can gather from Greek literature; however, it shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, since nations can just as easily fall from civilization into barbarism as they can rise from barbarism into civilization. It's entirely possible that the nations of Southeastern Europe were more advanced in civilization and the arts of life around B.C. 1400-1300 than what we see six centuries later, where an initial period of growth was followed by a dark age before the genuine renaissance occurred.

However this may have been, it is certain that Menephthah, in the fifth year of his reign, had to meet a formidable, and apparently unprovoked, attack from a combination of nations, the like of which we do not again meet with in Egyptian history, either earlier or later. Marmaiu, son of Deid, led against him a confederate army, consisting of three principal tribes of the Tahennu—- the Lubu (Libyans), the Mashuash (Maxyes), and the Kahaka—together with auxiliaries from five other tribes or peoples, the Akausha, the Luku, the Tursha, the Shartana, and the Sheklusha. The entire number of the army, as already stated, was probably not less than forty thousand; they had numerous chariots, and were armed with bows and arrows, cuirasses, and bronze or copper swords. They had skin tents, and brought with them their wives and children, with the intention of settling in Egypt, as the Hyksôs had done five hundred years earlier. They had also with them a considerable number of cattle, as bulls, oxen, and goats. The chiefs came provided with thrones, and both they and their officers had numerous drinking vessels of bronze, of silver, and of gold.

However this may have been, it is certain that Menephthah, in the fifth year of his reign, faced a significant and seemingly unprovoked attack from a coalition of nations, unlike anything else seen in Egyptian history before or since. Marmaiu, son of Deid, led a united army against him, made up of three main tribes of the Tahennu— the Lubu (Libyans), the Mashuash (Maxyes), and the Kahaka— along with support from five additional tribes or peoples: the Akausha, the Luku, the Tursha, the Shartana, and the Sheklusha. The total size of this army was likely not less than forty thousand; they had many chariots and were equipped with bows and arrows, cuirasses, and swords made of bronze or copper. They set up skin tents and brought along their wives and children, intending to settle in Egypt, similar to what the Hyksôs had done five hundred years earlier. They also brought a significant number of livestock, including bulls, oxen, and goats. The leaders arrived with thrones, and both they and their officers had numerous drinking vessels made of bronze, silver, and gold.

The attack was made on the western side of Egypt, towards the apex of the Delta. It was at first completely successful. The small frontier towns were taken by assault, and "turned Into heaps of rubbish;" the Delta was entered upon, and a position taken up In the nome of Paari-sheps, or Prosopis, which lay between the Canobic and Sebennytic branches of the Nile, commencing at the point of their separation. From this position Memphis and Heliopolis were alike menaced. Menephthah hastily fortified these cities, or rather, we must suppose, strengthened their existing defences. Meanwhile the Libyans and their allies ravaged the open country. "The like had not been seen," as the native scribe observes, "even in the times of the kings of Lower Egypt, when the plague (i.e. the Hyksôs power) was in the land, and the kings of Upper Egypt were unable to drive it out." Egypt was desolated; its people "trembled like geese;" the fertile lands were overrun and wasted; the cities were pillaged; even the harbours were in some cases ruined and destroyed. Menephthah for a time remained on the defensive, shut up within the walls of Memphis, whose god Phthah he viewed as his special protector. He made, however, strenuous efforts to gather together a powerful force; his captains collected the native troops from the various provinces of Egypt, while he sent a number of emissaries Into Asia, who were instructed to raise a large body of mercenaries in that quarter. At last all was ready, and Menephthah appointed the fourteenth day as that on which he would place himself at the head of his army and lead them in person against the enemy; but, before the day came, his courage failed him. He "saw in a dream"—at least so he himself declares—"as it were a figure of the god Phthah, standing so as to prevent his advance;" and the figure said to him, "Stay where thou art, and let thy troops proceed against the enemy." So the pious king, in obedience to this convenient vision, remained secure behind the walls of Memphis, and sent his forces, native and mercenary, into the nome of Prosopis against the Libyans. The two armies joined battle on the 3rd of Epiphi (May 18), and a desperate engagement took place, in which, after six hours of hard fighting, the Egyptians were victorious, and the confederates suffered a severe defeat. Menephthah charges the Libyan chief with cowardice, but only because, after the battle was lost, he precipitately quitted the field, leaving behind him, not only his camp-equipage, but his throne, the ornaments of his wives, his bow, his quiver, and his sandals. The reproaches uttered recoil upon himself. Whose conduct is the more cowardly, that of the man who fights at the head of his troops for six hours against an enemy, probably more numerous, certainly better armed and better disciplined, and only quits the field when his forces are utterly overthrown and put to flight; or that of one who avoids exposing himself to danger, and lurks behind the walls of a fortress while his soldiers are affronting wounds and death in the battlefield? There is no evidence that Marmaiu, son of Deid, in the battle of Prosopis, conducted himself otherwise than as became a prince and a general; there is abundant evidence that Menephthah, son of Ramesses, who declined to be present at the engagement, showed the white feather.

The attack occurred on the western side of Egypt, near the tip of the Delta. Initially, it was completely successful. The small frontier towns were taken by surprise and turned into piles of rubble; the Delta was entered, and a position was established in the nome of Paari-sheps, or Prosopis, which lay between the Canobic and Sebennytic branches of the Nile, starting at their point of separation. From this position, both Memphis and Heliopolis were threatened. Menephthah quickly fortified these cities, or rather, we should assume he strengthened their existing defenses. Meanwhile, the Libyans and their allies ravaged the countryside. "Nothing like this had been seen," as the native scribe notes, "not even during the rule of the kings of Lower Egypt, when the plague (i.e., the Hyksôs power) was in the land and the kings of Upper Egypt couldn't drive it out." Egypt was devastated; its people "trembled like geese"; the fertile lands were overrun and destroyed; the cities were looted; even the harbors were in some cases ruined and demolished. Menephthah temporarily stayed on the defensive, holed up within the walls of Memphis, whose god Phthah he considered his special protector. However, he made strong efforts to gather a powerful force; his captains rounded up native troops from various provinces, while he sent several emissaries into Asia, instructing them to recruit a large group of mercenaries. Finally, everything was in place, and Menephthah set the fourteenth day as the date he would lead his army personally against the enemy; but before the day arrived, his courage failed him. He "saw in a dream"—at least that's what he claimed—"a figure of the god Phthah, standing in a way that blocked his advance"; and the figure told him, "Stay where you are, and let your troops go against the enemy." So the devout king, following this convenient vision, stayed safely behind the walls of Memphis and sent his native and mercenary forces into the nome of Prosopis against the Libyans. The two armies clashed on the 3rd of Epiphi (May 18), resulting in a fierce battle where, after six hours of grueling fighting, the Egyptians emerged victorious, and the confederates suffered a heavy defeat. Menephthah accused the Libyan chief of cowardice, but only because, after losing the battle, he fled the field, leaving behind not only his camp equipment but also his throne, his wives' jewelry, his bow, his quiver, and his sandals. The accusations he made reflect back on him. Who acts more cowardly: the man who fights bravely for six hours at the front with troops against an enemy who is probably more numerous and certainly better armed and disciplined, only fleeing once his forces are completely beaten and scattered; or someone who avoids danger and hides behind fortress walls while his soldiers face wounds and death on the battlefield? There is no evidence that Marmaiu, son of Deid, behaved any less than a prince and a general should; there is plenty of evidence that Menephthah, son of Ramesses, who chose not to be present at the battle, showed cowardice.

The defeat of Prosopis was decisive. Marmaiu lost in slain between eight thousand and nine thousand of his troops, or, according to another estimate, between twelve thousand and thirteen thousand. Above nine thousand were made prisoners. The tents, camp-equipage, and cattle, fell into the hands of the enemy. The expedition at once broke up and dispersed. Marmaiu returned into his own land with a shattered remnant of his grand army, and devoted himself to peaceful pursuits, or at any rate abstained from any further collision with the Egyptians. The mercenaries, whatever the races to which they in reality belonged, learned by experience the wisdom of leaving the Libyans to fight their own battles, and are not again found in alliance with them. The Akaiusha and Luku appear in Egyptian history no more. The Tursha and Sheklusha do not wholly disappear, but receive occasional mention among the races hostile to Egypt As for the Shartana or Shardana, they were struck with so much admiration of the Egyptian courage and conduct, that they shortly afterwards entered the Egyptian service, and came to hold a place among the most trusted of the Egyptian troops.

The defeat of Prosopis was decisive. Marmaiu lost between eight thousand and nine thousand of his troops, or, according to another estimate, between twelve thousand and thirteen thousand. Over nine thousand were taken prisoner. The tents, camp gear, and cattle fell into the hands of the enemy. The expedition quickly broke up and scattered. Marmaiu returned to his own land with a shattered remnant of his large army and focused on peaceful activities or at least avoided further conflict with the Egyptians. The mercenaries, regardless of their actual backgrounds, learned from experience the importance of letting the Libyans fight their own battles and are not found allied with them again. The Akaiusha and Luku no longer appear in Egyptian history. The Tursha and Sheklusha don’t completely disappear but are mentioned occasionally among the races hostile to Egypt. As for the Shartana or Shardana, they were so impressed by the courage and conduct of the Egyptians that they soon enlisted in the Egyptian service and became some of the most trusted troops of Egypt.

Despite his cowardice in absenting himself from the battle of Prosopis under the transparent device of a divine vision, Menephthah took to himself the whole credit of the victory, and gloried in it as much as if he had really had a hand in bringing about the result. "The Lubu," he says, "were meditating to do evil in Egypt; they were as grasshoppers; every road was blocked by their hosts. Then I vowed to lead them captive. Lo, I vanquished them; I slaughtered them, making a spoil of their country. I made the land of Egypt traversable once more; I gave breath to those who were in the cities." Egyptian generals, like Roman poets, had to content themselves with complaining secretly, "Sic vos non vobis."

Despite his cowardice in staying away from the battle of Prosopis under the obvious pretense of a divine vision, Menephthah took all the credit for the victory and celebrated it as if he had actually been involved in making it happen. "The Lubu," he says, "were planning to do harm in Egypt; they were like grasshoppers; every road was blocked by their armies. Then I promised to take them captive. Behold, I defeated them; I slaughtered them, taking over their land. I made Egypt passable again; I gave life back to those who were in the cities." Egyptian generals, like Roman poets, had to be satisfied with secretly complaining, "Sic vos non vobis."

So far as we can tell, no long period elapsed between the expedition of Marmaiu, son of Deid, and the second great trouble in which Menephthah was involved. Moses must have returned to Egypt from his sojourn in Midian within a year or two of the death of Ramesses II., and cannot have allowed any very long time to elapse before he proffered the demand which he was divinely commissioned to make. Still, as he was timid, and a somewhat unwilling messenger, he may have delayed both his return and his first address to Pharaoh as long as he dared (Ex. iv. 19); and if the invasion of Marmaiu had begun before he had summoned courage to address Pharaoh a second time, he would then naturally wait until the danger was past, and the king could again be approached without manifest impropriety. In this case, the severe oppression of the Israelites, which followed the first application of Moses (Ex. v. 5-23) may have lasted longer than has generally been supposed; and it may not have been till Menephthah's sixth or seventh year that the divine messenger became urgent, and began to press his request, and to show the signs and wonders which alone, as he had been told (Ex. vii. 2-4), would break the spirit of the king. The signs then followed each other at moderately short intervals, the entire series of the plagues not covering a longer space than about six months, from October till April. None of the plagues affected the king greatly except the last, through which he lost his own eldest son, a bereavement mentioned in an inscription. This loss, combined with the dread power shown in the infliction during one night of not less than a million of deaths, produced a complete revolution in the mind of the king, and made him as anxious at the moment to get rid of the Israelites out of his country as he had previously been anxious to retain them. So he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said. "Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel, and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said. Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also" (Ex. xii. 31, 32). Moses was prepared for the event, and had prepared his people. All were ready, with their loins girded, their sandals on their feet, and their staves in their hands; the word was given, and the exodus began. "The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children; and a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle."

As far as we can tell, not much time passed between the expedition of Marmaiu, son of Deid, and the second major trouble that Menephthah faced. Moses must have returned to Egypt from his time in Midian within a year or two after Ramesses II's death and couldn’t have waited long before making the demand he was divinely tasked to deliver. However, since he was timid and somewhat reluctant as a messenger, he might have postponed both his return and his first approach to Pharaoh as long as he could (Ex. iv. 19). If the invasion by Marmaiu had started before he gathered the courage to speak to Pharaoh a second time, he would naturally wait until that danger passed, allowing him to approach the king without appearing inappropriate. In this case, the harsh oppression of the Israelites following Moses' first request (Ex. v. 5-23) may have lasted longer than commonly believed; it might not have been until Menephthah's sixth or seventh year that the divine messenger became insistent, pressing his request and demonstrating the signs and wonders that would, as he had been instructed (Ex. vii. 2-4), sway the king's spirit. The signs proceeded at fairly short intervals, with the complete series of plagues spanning no more than about six months, from October to April. None of the plagues significantly impacted the king except for the last one, in which he lost his own eldest son, a loss noted in an inscription. This death, combined with the terrifying power displayed by the death of at least a million people in a single night, caused a complete change in the king's mindset, making him as eager to expel the Israelites from his country as he had previously been to keep them there. So he summoned Moses and Aaron at night and said, "Get up, leave my people, you and the children of Israel, and go serve the Lord, as you've said. Also take your flocks and herds, as you've said, and be gone; and bless me, too" (Ex. xii. 31, 32). Moses was ready for this moment and had prepared his people. Everyone was set, with their belts tightened, sandals on their feet, and staffs in hand; the word was given, and the exodus began. "The children of Israel traveled from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting children; and a mixed multitude went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of cattle."

Hereupon the king's mind underwent another change. "Unstable as water," he was certain not to "excel." Learning that the Israelites, instead of marching away into the desert, had after reaching its edge turned southward, and were "entangled" in a corner of his territory, between high mountains on the one hand, and on the other the Red Sea, which then stretched far further to the north than at present, perhaps to Lake Timseh, at any rate as far as the "Bitter Lakes," he thought he saw an opportunity of following and recovering the fugitives, whose services as bondsmen he highly valued. Rapidly calling together such troops as were tolerably near at hand, he collected a considerable force of infantry and chariots—of the latter more than six hundred—and following upon the steps of the Hebrews, he caught them on the western shore of the Red Sea, encamped "between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-Zephon." The exact spot cannot be fixed, on account of the alterations in the bed of the Red Sea, and the uncertainty of the ancient geography of Egypt, in which names so often repeat themselves; but it was probably some part of the region that is now dry land, between Suez and the southern extremity of the Bitter Lakes. Here in high tides the sea and the lakes communicated; but on the evening of Menephthah's arrival, an unusual ebb of the tide, cooperating with a "strong east wind" which held back the water of the Bitter Lakes, left the bed of the sea bare for a certain space; and the Israelites were thus able to cross during the night from one side of the sea to the other. As morning dawned, Menephthah, once more carefully guarding his own person, sent his chariots in pursuit. The force entered on the slippery and dangerous ground, and advanced half-way; but its progress was slow; the chariot-wheels sank into the soft ooze, the horses slipped and floundered; all was disorder and confusion. Before the troops could extricate themselves, the waters returned on either hand; a high flow of the tide, the necessary consequence of a low ebb, brought In the whelming flood from the south-east; a strong wind from the Mediterranean, drove down upon them the pent up waters of the Bitter Lakes from the north-west. The channel, which had lately been dry land, became once more sea, and the entire force that had entered it in pursuit of the Israelites perished. Safe on the opposite shore, the Israelites saw the utter destruction of their adversaries, whose dead bodies, driven before the gale, were cast up in hundreds upon the coast where they sate encamped (Ex. xiv. 30).

The king’s thoughts changed again. He felt "unstable as water" and knew he wouldn’t "excel." When he found out that the Israelites, instead of heading into the desert, had turned south after reaching its edge, and had gotten "entangled" in a corner of his territory between high mountains on one side and the Red Sea on the other—which stretched much farther north back then than it does now, possibly to Lake Timseh or at least to the "Bitter Lakes"—he thought he had an opportunity to follow and recapture the fleeing people, whose labor he highly valued. He quickly gathered together the nearby troops, assembling a significant force of infantry and over six hundred chariots, and pursued the Hebrews. He caught up with them on the western shore of the Red Sea, camping "between Migdol and the sea, opposite Baal-Zephon." The exact location is hard to determine due to changes in the Red Sea's geography and the uncertainties in ancient Egyptian geography, where names often repeated. However, it was likely somewhere in the now dry area between Suez and the southern tip of the Bitter Lakes. During high tides, the sea and lakes could connect, but on the evening of Menephthah’s arrival, an unusual low tide combined with a "strong east wind" that held back the water of the Bitter Lakes, leaving the seabed dry for a while; this allowed the Israelites to cross from one side of the sea to the other during the night. As dawn broke, Menephthah carefully protected himself and sent his chariots after them. The troops entered the slippery and treacherous ground, advancing halfway but moving slowly; the chariot wheels sank into the soft mud, and the horses slipped and struggled, creating chaos. Before the soldiers could free themselves, the waters returned on either side; a high tide, a natural result of the previous low tide, brought a massive flood from the southeast, while a strong wind from the Mediterranean pushed the trapped waters of the Bitter Lakes down upon them from the northwest. The area that had recently been dry ground became sea again, and the entire force that had pursued the Israelites was destroyed. Safe on the other side, the Israelites watched in horror as their enemies faced complete destruction, with dead bodies washed ashore in hundreds where they were camped (Ex. xiv. 30).

The disaster paralyzed the monarch, and he made no further effort. If the loss was not great numerically, it affected the most important arm of the service, and it was the destruction of the very élite of the Egyptian troops. It was a blow in which the anger of the Egyptian gods may well have been seen by some, while others may have regarded it as a revelation of the incompetence of the monarch. The blow seems to have been followed, within a short time, by revolt. Menephthah's last monumental year is his eighth. A pretender to the crown arose in a certain Amon-mes, or Amon-meses, who contested the throne with Seti II., Menephthah's son, and succeeded in establishing himself as king; but for many years there raged in Egypt, as so often happens when a state is suddenly weakened, civil war, bloodshed, and confusion.

The disaster left the king paralyzed, and he didn't make any more efforts. While the loss wasn't huge in numbers, it impacted the most crucial part of the military, hitting the very elite of the Egyptian troops hard. Some may have seen it as a sign of the Egyptian gods' anger, while others thought it highlighted the king's incompetence. This setback was soon followed by a revolt. Menephthah's last monumental year is his eighth. A pretender named Amon-mes, or Amon-meses, emerged and challenged Seti II., Menephthah's son, for the throne, ultimately managing to establish himself as king. But for many years, Egypt experienced civil war, bloodshed, and chaos, which often occurs when a state suddenly becomes weak.

The two dynasties that have last occupied us constitute the most brilliant period of Egyptian architecture; for, as Fergusson, the latest historian of architecture, has said, the hall of Seti at Karnak is "the greatest of man's architectural works," the building to which it belongs is "the noblest effort of architectural magnificence ever produced by the hand of man," and the rock-cut temple of Ipsambul is "the finest of its class known to exist anywhere." These works combine enormous mass and size with a profusion of elaborate ornamentation. Covering nearly as much ground as the greatest of the pyramids, and containing equally enormous blocks of stone, the Theban palace-temples unite a wealth of varied ornamentation almost unparalleled among the edifices erected by man. Here are long avenues of sphinxes and colossi, leading to tall, tapering obelisks which shoot upwards like the pinnacles, towers, and spires of a modern cathedral, while beyond the obelisks are vistas of gateways and courts, of colonnades and pillared halls, that impress the beholder with a deep sense of the constructive imagination of the architect who could design them, no less than with admiration of the ruler whose resources were sufficient to make them realities.

The two dynasties that have most recently ruled us represent the peak of Egyptian architecture; as Fergusson, the most recent historian of architecture, noted, the hall of Seti at Karnak is "the greatest of man's architectural works." The building it belongs to is "the noblest effort of architectural magnificence ever produced by the hand of man," and the rock-cut temple of Ipsambul is "the finest of its class known to exist anywhere." These structures combine massive size with a wealth of intricate decoration. Covering nearly as much ground as the largest of the pyramids and featuring equally massive stone blocks, the Theban palace-temples showcase a variety of ornamentation that is almost unmatched among human-made buildings. Here are long paths lined with sphinxes and colossal statues, leading to tall, slender obelisks that rise like the spires of a modern cathedral. Beyond the obelisks, there are views of gateways and courtyards, colonnades and pillared halls, leaving visitors with a profound appreciation for the creative vision of the architect who designed them, as well as admiration for the ruler whose resources allowed them to become a reality.

Truly the Egyptians were, as Mr. Fergusson enthusiastically asserts, "the most essentially a building people of all those we are acquainted with, and the most generally successful in all that they attempted in this way. The Greeks, it is true, surpassed them in refinement and beauty of detail, and in the class of sculpture with which they ornamented their buildings, while the Gothic architects far excelled them in constructive cleverness; but with these exceptions, no other styles can be put into competition with them. At the same time, neither Grecian nor Gothic architects understood more perfectly all the gradations of art, and the exact character that should be given to every form and every detail.... They understood also better than any other nation, how to use sculpture In combination with architecture, and to make their colossi and avenues of sphinxes group themselves into parts of one great design, and at the same time to use historical paintings, fading by insensible degrees into hieroglyphics on the one hand, and into sculpture on the other, linking the whole together with the highest class of phonetic utterance. With the most brilliant colouring, they thus harmonized all these arts Into one great whole, unsurpassed by anything the world has seen during the thirty centuries of struggle and aspiration that have elapsed since the brilliant days of the great kingdom of the Pharaohs."

The Egyptians were, as Mr. Fergusson enthusiastically points out, "the most fundamentally a building culture of all those we know, and the most consistently successful in everything they tried in this area. It's true that the Greeks surpassed them in refinement and beauty of detail, and in the type of sculpture they used to decorate their buildings, while Gothic architects far surpassed them in clever construction techniques; but aside from these exceptions, no other styles can compete with them. At the same time, neither Greek nor Gothic architects understood the nuances of art and the specific character that should be given to every form and detail as well as the Egyptians. They also understood better than any other civilization how to integrate sculpture with architecture, making their colossal statues and rows of sphinxes come together as parts of a grand design, while also incorporating historical paintings that gradually transitioned into hieroglyphics on one side and into sculpture on the other, tying everything together with the highest form of phonetic expression. With their vibrant colors, they harmonized all these arts into one unified whole, unmatched by anything the world has experienced in the thirty centuries of struggle and aspiration that have passed since the glorious days of the great kingdom of the Pharaohs."

Not only did architecture and the glyphic art reach such perfection during this period, but the arts of life made considerable progress. The royal costumes became suddenly most elaborate; brilliant colours, costly armlets and bracelets, many-hued collars, complicated head-dresses, elegant sandals, jewels of price, gay sashes, and wigs with conventional adornment, came into vogue. Luxury was exhibited in the designs of the dwellings of the wealthy; the grounds were laid out with formal courts and alleys, palms and vines adorned them, ponds and reservoirs gave freshness to the summer temperature, irrigation clothed the lawns with verdure. Inside, there was richly carved furniture covered with cushions of delicate stuffs, and adding the harmony of colour to the luxurious scene.

Not only did architecture and glyph art achieve incredible perfection during this time, but the quality of life also improved significantly. Royal outfits suddenly became very elaborate; vibrant colors, expensive armlets and bracelets, multicolored collars, intricate headpieces, stylish sandals, valuable jewelry, colorful sashes, and wigs with decorative accents became trendy. Luxury was showcased in the designs of the homes of the wealthy; their gardens featured formal courtyards and pathways, adorned with palm trees and climbing vines, while ponds and reservoirs provided relief from the summer heat, and irrigation kept the lawns lush and green. Inside, there was beautifully carved furniture decorated with cushions made of fine fabrics, and adding to the color harmony of the luxurious setting.

The horse, which had been introduced from Asia, helped in the march of extravagance and refinement; the chariot took the place of the palanquin, and there was a new opportunity for adornment in the trappings, as well as in the construction of light or heavy vehicles.

The horse, originally brought in from Asia, fueled the rise of luxury and sophistication; the chariot replaced the palanquin, creating new chances for decoration in the harnesses as well as in the design of both light and heavy vehicles.

At the same time, letters made equal progress; men of wisdom devoted themselves to the preservation of the knowledge of the past, and to the composition of original works in history, divinity, poetry, correspondence, and practical philosophy, for the preservation of which a public library was established at Thebes under a competent director. The highest perfection thus reached in the arts of peace seems to have been coincident with an advance in sensualism; indecency in apparel was common, polygamy increased, woman lost her former degree of purity; cruelty and barbarism were more and more common in war; taxation bore heavily and without pity upon the lower orders, and the wretched fellahin were beaten by the severest of tyrants, the irresponsible tax-gatherer; women as well as men were stripped for the indignity and pain of the terrible bastinado; and even dead enemies were mutilated for the purpose of preserving evidence of their numbers.

At the same time, literature advanced significantly; wise individuals focused on preserving knowledge from the past and writing original works in history, theology, poetry, communication, and practical philosophy. To safeguard this, a public library was established in Thebes under skilled management. The peak of artistic achievement during this peaceful era seemed to align with an increase in hedonism; indecent clothing became common, polygamy grew, and women lost their previous level of purity. Cruelty and barbarism became more prevalent in warfare; taxation weighed heavily and ruthlessly on the lower classes, and the unfortunate peasants faced brutal treatment from the harshest of tyrants, the unaccountable tax collector. Both men and women suffered the humiliation and pain of the harsh bastinado, and even the bodies of fallen enemies were mutilated to keep track of their numbers.


Decorative

XVII.

THE DECLINE OF EGYPT UNDER THE LATER RAMESSIDES.

The troublous period which followed the death of Menephthah issued finally in complete anarchy, Egypt broke up into nomes, or cantons, the chiefs of which acknowledged no superior. It was as though in England, after centuries of centralized rule, the Heptarchy had suddenly returned and re-established itself. But even this was not the worst. The suicidal folly of internal division naturally provokes foreign attack; and it was not long before Aarsu, a Syrian chieftain, took advantage of the state of affairs in Egypt to extend his own dominion over one nome after another, until he had made almost the whole country subject to him. Then, at last, the spirit of patriotism awoke. Egypt felt the shame of being ruled by a foreigner of a race that she despised; and a prince was found after a time, a descendant of the Ramesside line, who unfurled the national banner, and commenced a war of independence. This prince, who bore the name of Set-nekht, or "Set the victorious," is thought by some to have been a son of Seti II., and so a grandson of Menephthah; but the evidence is insufficient to establish any such relationship. There is reason to believe that the blood of the nineteenth dynasty, of Seti I. and Ramesses II., ran in his veins; but no particular relationship to any former monarch can be made out. And certainly he owed his crown less to his descent than to his strong arm and his stout heart. It was by dint of severe fighting that he forced his way to the throne, defeating Aarsu, and gradually reducing all Egypt under his power.

The troubled time that followed Menephthah's death eventually led to total chaos, and Egypt splintered into nomes, or regions, each of which was ruled by leaders who recognized no higher authority. It was like if, in England, after centuries of centralized control, the Heptarchy suddenly reappeared and reestablished itself. But even that wasn't the worst part. The self-destructive nature of this internal division naturally invited foreign aggression; soon after, Aarsu, a Syrian leader, took advantage of Egypt's situation to extend his control over one nome after another, until he had nearly conquered the entire country. Then, finally, a sense of patriotism stirred. Egypt felt the humiliation of being governed by a foreigner from a race they looked down on; in time, a prince emerged, a descendant of the Ramesside line, who raised the national flag and started a fight for independence. This prince, named Set-nekht, or "Set the Victorious," is believed by some to have been a son of Seti II, making him a grandson of Menephthah; however, the evidence isn't strong enough to confirm that connection. There is reason to believe that he had the blood of the nineteenth dynasty, descended from Seti I and Ramesses II, running through his veins; but no specific relationship to any previous king can be determined. Clearly, he owed his crown more to his strength and determination than to his lineage. It was through intense battles that he fought his way to the throne, defeating Aarsu and gradually bringing all of Egypt under his control.

Set-nekht's reign must have been short He set himself to "put the whole land in order, to execute the abominables, to set up the temples, and re-establish the divine offerings for the service of the gods, as their statutes prescribed," But he was unable to effect very much. He could not even discharge properly the main duty of a king towards himself, which was to prepare a fitting receptacle for his remains when he should quit the earth. To excavate a rock-tomb in the style fashionable at the day was a task requiring several years for its due accomplishment; Set-nekht felt that he could not look forward to many years—perhaps not even to many months—of life. In this difficulty, he felt no shame in appropriating to himself a royal tomb recently constructed by a king, named Siphthah, whom he looked upon as a usurper, and therefore as unworthy of consideration. In this sepulchre we see the names of Siphthah and his queen, Taouris, erased by the chisel from their cartouches, and the name of Set-nekht substituted in their place. By one and the same act the king punished an unworthy predecessor, and provided himself with a ready—made tomb befitting his dignity.

Set-nekht's reign must have been brief. He focused on "organizing the entire land, punishing wrongdoers, building temples, and restoring divine offerings for the service of the gods, as their laws required." However, he wasn't able to achieve much. He couldn't even fulfill the primary responsibility of a king toward himself, which was to arrange a proper burial site for when he left this world. Creating a rock tomb in the style popular at the time was a project that needed several years for proper completion; Set-nekht realized he couldn’t expect to live many years—perhaps not even many months. In this predicament, he felt no shame in taking a royal tomb recently built by a king named Siphthah, whom he regarded as a usurper and therefore undeserving of respect. In this tomb, we see the names of Siphthah and his queen, Taouris, chiseled away from their cartouches, replaced by Set-nekht's name. With this single action, the king both punished an unworthy predecessor and secured a ready-made tomb that suited his status.

It was also, probably, on account of his advanced age at his accession, that he almost immediately associated in the kingdom his son Ramesses, a prince of much promise, whom he made "Chief of On," and viceroy over Lower Egypt, with Heliopolis (On) for his residence and capital. Ramesses the Third, as he is commonly called, was one of the most distinguished of Egyptian monarchs, and the last who acquired any great glory until we come down to the time of the Ethiopians, Shabak and Tirhakah. He reigned as sole monarch for thirty-one years, during the earlier portion of which period he carried on a number of important wars, while during the later portion he employed himself in the construction of those magnificent buildings, which have been chiefly instrumental in carrying his name down to posterity, and in other works of utility. Lenormant calls him "the last of the great sovereigns of Egypt," and observes with reason, that though he never ceased, during the whole time that he occupied the throne, to labour hard to re-establish the integrity of the empire abroad, and the prosperity of the country at home, yet his wars and his conquests had a character essentially defensive; his efforts, like those of the Trajans, the Marcus Aurelius's and the Septimius Severus's of history, were directed to making head against the ever rising flood of barbarians, which had already before his time burst the dykes that restrained it, and though once driven back, continued to dash itself on every side against the outer borders of the empire, and to presage its speedy overthrow. His efforts were, on the whole, successful; he was able to uphold and preserve for some considerable time longer the territorial greatness which the nineteenth dynasty had built up a second time. The monumental temple of Medinet-Abou, near Thebes, is the Pantheon erected to the glory of this great Pharaoh. Every pylon, every gateway, every chamber, relates to us the exploits which he accomplished. Sculptured compositions of large dimensions represent his principal battles.

It was likely due to his advanced age when he took the throne that he quickly made his son Ramesses, a promising prince, a key leader in the kingdom. He appointed him as "Chief of On" and viceroy over Lower Egypt, with Heliopolis (On) as his residence and capital. Ramesses the Third, as he is commonly known, was one of the most notable Egyptian rulers and the last to achieve significant glory until we reach the time of the Ethiopians, Shabak and Tirhakah. He reigned for thirty-one years, during which he fought several important wars early on and focused on building magnificent structures later, which helped keep his name alive through history, along with other useful projects. Lenormant calls him "the last of the great sovereigns of Egypt," noting that despite his continuous efforts to restore the empire's strength overseas and the country's prosperity at home, his military campaigns were primarily defensive. His efforts resembled those of historical figures like Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus, aiming to fend off the ever-growing threat of barbarians, who had previously broken through the defenses and, even after being pushed back, continued to assault the empire’s borders, indicating its imminent collapse. Overall, his efforts were successful; he managed to maintain and preserve for a significant time the territorial power that the nineteenth dynasty had rebuilt. The monumental temple of Medinet-Abou, near Thebes, serves as a tribute to this great Pharaoh. Every pylon, every gateway, every chamber tells the story of his accomplishments. Large sculptured scenes depict his major battles.

There are times in the world's history when a restless spirit appears to seize on the populations of large tracts of country, and, without any clear cause that can be alleged, uneasy movements begin. Subdued mutterings are heard; a tremor goes through the nations, expectation of coming change stalks abroad; the air is rife with rumours; at last there bursts out an eruption of greater or less violence—the destructive flood overleaps its barriers, and flows forth, carrying devastation and ruin in one direction of another, until its energies are exhausted, or its progress stopped by some obstacle that it cannot overcome, and it subsides reluctantly and perforce. Such a time was that on which Ramesses III. was cast. Wars threatened him on every side. On his north-eastern frontier the Shasu or Bedouins of the desert ravaged and plundered, at once harrying the Egyptian territory and threatening the mining establishments of the Sinaitic region. To the north-west the Libyan tribes, Maxyes, Asbystæ, Auseis, and others, were exercising a continuous pressure, to which the Egyptians were forced to yield, and gradually a foreign population was "squatting" on the fertile lands, and driving the former possessors of the soil back upon the more eastern portion-of the Delta. "The Lubu and Mashuash," says Ramesses, "were seated in Egypt; they took the cities on the western side from Memphis as far as Karbana, reaching the Great River along its entire course (from Memphis northwards), and capturing the city of Kaukut For many years had they been in Egypt" Ramesses began his warlike operations by a campaign against the Shasu, whose country he invaded and overran, spoiling and destroying their cabins, capturing their cattle, slaying all who resisted him, and carrying back into Egypt a vast number of prisoners, whom he attached to the various temples as "sacred slaves." He then turned against the Libyans, and coming upon them unexpectedly in the tract between the Sebennytic branch of the Nile and the Canopic, he defeated in a great battle the seven tribes of the Mashuash, Lubu, Merbasat, Kaikasha, Shai, Hasa, and Bakana, slaughtering them with the utmost fury, and driving them before him across the western branch of the river. "They trembled before him," says the native historian, "as the mountain goats tremble before a bull, who stamps with his foot, strikes with his horns, and makes the mountains shake as he rushes on whoever opposes him." The Egyptians gave no quarter that memorable day. Vengeance had free course: the slain Libyans lay in heaps upon heaps—the chariot wheels passed over them—the horses trampled them in the mire. Hundreds were pushed and forced into the marshes and into the river itself, and, if they escaped the flight of missiles which followed, found for the most part a watery grave in the strong current. Ramesses portrays this flight and carnage in the most graphic way. The slain enemy strew the ground, as he advances over them with his prancing steeds and in his rattling war-car, plying them moreover with his arrows as they vainly seek to escape. His chariot force and his infantry have their share in the pursuit, and with sword, or spear, or javelin, strike down alike the resisting and the unresisting. No one seeks to take a prisoner. It is a day of vengeance and of down-treading, of fury allowed to do its worst, of a people drunk with passion that has cast off all self-restraint.

There are moments in history when a restless energy seems to sweep over the people in large regions, and, without any clear reason, unsettling movements start. Low murmurs can be heard; a tremor runs through the nations, and the expectation of change is in the air; rumors circulate widely; eventually, an eruption of varying intensity occurs—the destructive wave breaks its barriers and sweeps through, bringing devastation and ruin in one direction or another, until its energy is spent or it is stopped by something it can't overcome, and it reluctantly subsides. Such a time was when Ramesses III faced his challenges. Wars threatened him from all sides. On his northeast border, the Shasu or Bedouins of the desert ravaged and looted, simultaneously attacking Egyptian lands and threatening the mining operations in the Sinai region. To the northwest, the Libyan tribes—Maxyes, Asbystæ, Auseis, and others—exerted continuous pressure, forcing the Egyptians to concede ground, gradually allowing a foreign population to settle on the fertile lands and pushing the original inhabitants further east into the Delta. "The Lubu and Mashuash," Ramesses says, "were seated in Egypt; they took the cities on the western side from Memphis all the way to Karbana, reaching the Great River along its entire course (from Memphis northward), and capturing the city of Kaukut. For many years they had been in Egypt." Ramesses began his military actions with a campaign against the Shasu, invading and overrunning their territory, plundering and destroying their homes, capturing their cattle, killing anyone who resisted him, and bringing back a large number of prisoners to Egypt, whom he dedicated to the temples as "sacred slaves." He then turned to face the Libyans, catching them off guard in the area between the Sebennytic branch of the Nile and the Canopic, where he defeated the seven tribes of the Mashuash, Lubu, Merbasat, Kaikasha, Shai, Hasa, and Bakana in a major battle, slaughtering them with ruthless intensity and driving them ahead across the western branch of the river. "They trembled before him," says the native historian, "like mountain goats before a bull, who stomps his foot, charges with his horns, and shakes the mountains as he rushes toward anyone who opposes him." On that memorable day, the Egyptians offered no mercy. Vengeance reigned supreme: the slain Libyans lay in piles—the chariot wheels rolled over them—the horses trampled them into the mud. Hundreds were forced into the marshes and the river itself, and if they dodged the hail of missiles that followed, most ended up submerged in the swift current. Ramesses depicts this flight and slaughter in vivid detail. The fallen enemy littered the ground as he rode over them with his prancing horses and rattling war chariot, shooting arrows at them as they desperately tried to escape. His chariot troops and infantry joined in the chase, striking down both the attacking and the fleeing. No one aimed to take a prisoner. It was a day of vengeance and brutality, a display of unchecked rage, a people consumed by passion with no self-control.

Even passion exhausts itself at last, and the arm grows weary of slaughtering. Having sufficiently revenged themselves in the great battle, and the pursuit that followed it, the Egyptians relaxed somewhat from their policy of extreme hostility. They made a large number of the Libyans prisoners, branded them with a hot iron, as the Persians often did their prisoners, and forced them to join the naval service and serve as mariners on board the Egyptian fleet. The chiefs of greater importance they confined in fortresses. The women and children became the slaves of the conquerors; the cattle, "too numerous to count," was presented by Ramesses to the Priest-College of Ammon at Thebes.

Even passion eventually runs out, and the arm grows tired of killing. After getting enough revenge in the big battle and the chase that followed, the Egyptians eased up on their extreme hostility. They took many Libyans prisoner, branded them with hot iron like the Persians often did, and forced them to join the navy and serve as sailors on the Egyptian fleet. The more important leaders were locked up in fortresses. The women and children became the slaves of the conquerors, and the cattle, "too numerous to count," was given by Ramesses to the Priest-College of Ammon at Thebes.

So far success had crowned his arms; and it may well be that Ramesses would have been content with the military glory thus acquired, and have abstained from further expeditions, had not he been forced within a few years to take the field against a powerful combination of new and partly unheard-of enemies. The uneasy movement among the nations, which has been already noticed, had spread further afield, and now agitated at once the coasts and islands of South-Eastern Europe, and the more western portion of Asia Minor. Seven nations banded themselves together, and resolved to unite their forces, both naval and military, against Egypt, and to attack her both by land and sea, not now on the north-western frontier, where some of them had experienced defeat before, but in exactly the opposite quarter, by way of Syria and Palestine. Of the seven, three had been among her former adversaries in the time of Menephthah, namely, the Sheklusha, the Shartana, and the Tursha; while four were new antagonists, unknown at any former period. There were, first, the Tânauna, in whom it is usual to see either the Danai of the Peloponnese, so celebrated in Homer, or the Daunii of south-eastern Italy, who bordered on the Iapyges; secondly, the Tekaru, or Teucrians, a well-known people of the Troad; thirdly, the Uashasha, who are identified with the Oscans or Ausones, neighbours of the Daunians; and fourthly, the Purusata, whom some explain as the Pelasgi, and others as the Philistines. The lead in the expedition was taken by these last. At their summons the islands and shores of the Mediterranean gave forth their piratical hordes—the sea was covered by their light galleys and swept by their strong pars—Tânauna, Shartana, Sheklusha, Tursha, and Uashasha combined their squadrons into a powerful fleet, while Purusata and Tekaru advanced in countless numbers along the land. The Purusata were especially bent on effecting a settlement; they marched into Northern Syria from Asia Minor accompanied by their wives and children, who were mounted upon carts drawn by oxen, and formed a vast unwieldy crowd. The other nations sent their sailors and their warriors without any such encumbrances. Bursting through the passes of Taurus, the combined Purusata and Tekaru spread themselves over Northern Syria, wasting and plundering the entire country of the Khita, and proceeding eastward as far as Carchemish "by Euphrates," while the ships of the remaining confederates coasted along the Syrian shore. Such resistance as the Hittites and Syrians made was wholly ineffectual. "No people stood before their arms." Aradus and Kadesh fell. The conquerors pushed on towards Egypt, anticipating an easy victory. But their fond hopes were doomed to disappointment.

So far, success had been on his side; and it's likely that Ramesses would have been satisfied with the military glory he had gained and avoided further campaigns if he hadn't been compelled within a few years to take action against a formidable coalition of new and somewhat unfamiliar enemies. The unrest among the nations, which had already been noted, had spread even further, now stirring up the coasts and islands of Southeastern Europe and the more western parts of Asia Minor. Seven nations joined forces and decided to unite their naval and military resources against Egypt, planning to attack both by land and sea, not on the northwestern front where some of them had previously faced defeat, but in the opposite direction, through Syria and Palestine. Of the seven, three had been among her previous foes during the time of Menephthah: the Sheklusha, the Shartana, and the Tursha; while four were new enemies, unfamiliar in earlier times. First were the Tânauna, often identified as either the Danai of the Peloponnese, famous in Homer's works, or the Daunii of southeastern Italy, who lived near the Iapyges; second, the Tekaru, or Teucrians, a well-known group from the Troad; third were the Uashasha, linked to the Oscans or Ausones, neighbors of the Daunians; and fourth, the Purusata, who some connect with the Pelasgians and others with the Philistines. These last took the lead in the expedition. At their call, the islands and shores of the Mediterranean unleashed their pirate crews—the sea was filled with their light ships and swarmed with their strong forces—Tânauna, Shartana, Sheklusha, Tursha, and Uashasha combined their fleets into a powerful armada, while Purusata and Tekaru advanced in massive numbers over land. The Purusata were especially focused on establishing settlements; they marched into Northern Syria from Asia Minor with their wives and children in carts pulled by oxen, creating a vast, cumbersome crowd. The other nations sent their sailors and warriors without such burdens. Breaking through the Taurus passes, the united Purusata and Tekaru spread across Northern Syria, ravaging and looting the entire territory of the Khita and moving eastward as far as Carchemish "by Euphrates," while the ships of the remaining allies navigated along the Syrian coast. Any resistance offered by the Hittites and Syrians was completely ineffective. "No one could stand against their forces." Aradus and Kadesh fell. The conquerors pressed on towards Egypt, expecting an easy victory. But their hopeful plans were destined for disappointment.

Ramesses had been informed of the designs and approach of the enemy, and had had ample time to make all needful preparations. He had strengthened his frontier, called out all his best-disciplined troops, and placed the mouths of the Nile in a state of defence by means of forts, strong garrisons, and flotillas upon the stream and upon the lakes adjacent. He had selected an eligible position for encountering the advancing hordes on the coast route from Gaza to Egypt, about half-way between Raphia and Pelusium, where a new fort had been built by his orders. At this point he took his stand, and calmly awaited his enemies, not having neglected the precaution to set an ambush or two in convenient places. Here, as he kept his watch, the first enemy to arrive was the land host of the Purusata, encumbered with its long train of slowly moving bullock-carts, heavily laden with women and children. Ramesses instantly attacked them—his ambushes rose up out of their places of concealment—and the enemy was beset on every side. They made no prolonged resistance. Assaulted by the disciplined and seasoned troops of the Egyptians, the entire confused mass was easily defeated. Twelve thousand five hundred men were slain in the fight; the camp was taken; the army shattered to pieces. Nothing was open to the survivors but an absolute surrender, by which life was saved at the cost of perpetual servitude.

Ramesses had been informed about the enemy's plans and movements, and he had plenty of time to prepare. He reinforced his borders, summoned all his best-trained soldiers, and secured the mouths of the Nile with forts, strong garrisons, and flotillas on the river and nearby lakes. He chose a strategic location to confront the advancing forces coming from Gaza to Egypt, roughly halfway between Raphia and Pelusium, where he had ordered the construction of a new fort. Here, he positioned himself and awaited his enemies calmly, ensuring he had set a few ambushes in strategic spots. As he kept watch, the first enemy to arrive was the land army of the Purusata, weighed down by a long line of slowly moving bullock carts loaded with women and children. Ramesses quickly launched an attack—his ambushes sprang from their hiding places—and the enemy found themselves surrounded. They put up little resistance. Overwhelmed by the well-trained and experienced Egyptian troops, the entire chaotic group was easily defeated. Twelve thousand five hundred men were killed in the battle; the camp was captured, and the army was shattered. The only option left for the survivors was complete surrender, which spared their lives at the cost of lifelong servitude.

The danger, however, was as yet but half overcome—the snake was scotched but not killed. For as yet the fleet remained intact, and might land its thousands on the Egyptian coasts and carry fire and sword over the broad region of the Delta. The Tânauna and their confederates—Sheklusha, Shartana, and Tursha—made rapidly for the nearest mouth of the Nile, which was the Pelusiac, and did their best to effect a landing. But the precautions taken by Ramesses, before he set forth on his march, proved sufficient to frustrate their efforts. The Egyptian fleet met the combined squadrons of the enemy in the shallow waters of the Pelusiac lagoon, and contended with them in a fierce battle, which Ramesses caused to be represented in his sculptures—the earliest representation of a sea-fight that has come down to us. Both sides have ships propelled at once by sails and oars, but furl their sails before engaging. Each ship has a single yard, constructed to carry a single large square-sail, and hung across the vessel's single mast at a short distance below the top. The mast is crowned by a bell-shaped receptacle, large enough to contain a man, who is generally a slinger or an archer, placed there to gall the enemy with stones or arrows, and so to play the part of our own sharpshooters in the main-tops. The rowers are from sixteen to twenty-two in number, besides whom each vessel carries a number of fighting men, armed with shields, spears, swords, and bows. The fight is a promiscuous melée, the two fleets being intermixed, and each ship engaging that next to it, without a thought of combined action or of manoeuvres. One of the enemy's vessels is represented as capsized and sinking; the rest continue the engagement. Several are pressing towards the shore of the lagoon, and the men-at-arms on board them are endeavouring to effect a landing; but they are met by the land-force under Ramesses himself, who greet them with such a hail of arrows as renders it impossible for them to carry out their purpose.

The danger, however, was still only half dealt with—the threat was contained but not eliminated. The fleet was still intact and could land its thousands on the Egyptian coasts, spreading destruction across the vast Delta region. The Tânauna and their allies—Sheklusha, Shartana, and Tursha—quickly moved toward the nearest mouth of the Nile, which was the Pelusiac, and tried their best to land. But the precautions Ramesses took before setting out on his campaign proved enough to thwart their efforts. The Egyptian fleet encountered the enemy's combined ships in the shallow waters of the Pelusiac lagoon and fought fiercely, a battle that Ramesses had depicted in his sculptures—the earliest known depiction of a sea battle that has survived. Both sides had ships powered by both sails and oars, but they furled their sails before engaging. Each ship had a single yard designed to hold one large square sail, positioned across the ship's single mast a short distance below the top. The mast was topped with a bell-shaped structure large enough to hold a person, usually a slinger or an archer, who was there to harass the enemy with stones or arrows, similar to our own marksmen in the tops of ships. The rowers numbered between sixteen and twenty-two, and each vessel also carried several combatants armed with shields, spears, swords, and bows. The battle was a chaotic melee, with the two fleets intertwined, and each ship engaging the one next to it, without any coordinated tactics or maneuvers. One enemy vessel is shown capsized and sinking, while the others continue to fight. Several are moving toward the shore of the lagoon, and the soldiers on board are attempting to land; but they are met by Ramesses's land forces, who greet them with such a barrage of arrows that it makes it impossible for them to achieve their goal.

SEA-FIGHT IN THE TIME OF RAMESSES III. SEA-FIGHT IN THE TIME OF RAMESSES III.

It would seem that Ramesses had no sooner defeated and destroyed the army of the Purusata and Tekaru than he set off in haste for Pelusium, and marched with such speed as to arrive in time to witness the naval engagement, and even to take a certain part in it. The invading fleet was so far successful as to force its way through the opposing vessels of the Egyptians, and to press forward towards the shore; but here its further progress was arrested. "A wall of iron," says Ramesses, "shut them in upon the lake," The best troops of Egypt lined the banks of the lagoon, and wherever the invaders attempted to land they were foiled. Repulsed, dashed to the ground, hewn down or shot down at the edge of the water, they were slain "by hundreds of heaps of corpses." "The infantry," says the monarch in his vainglorious inscription, set up in memory of the event, "all the choicest troops of the army of Egypt, stood upon the bank, furious as roaring lions; the chariot force, selected from among the heroes that were quickest in battle, was led by officers confident in themselves. The war-steeds quivered in all their limbs, and burned to trample the nations under their feet. I myself was like the god Mentu, the warlike; I placed myself at their head, and they saw the achievements of my hands. I, Ramesses the king, behaved as a hero who knows his worth, and who stretches out his arm over his people in the day of combat. The invaders of my territory will gather no more harvests upon the earth, their life is counted to them as eternity. Those that gained the shore, I caused to fall at the water's edge, they lay slain in heaps; I overturned their vessels; all their goods sank In the waves." After a brief combat, all resistance ceased. The empty ships, floating at random upon the still waters of the lagoon, or stuck fast in the Nile mud, became the prize of the victors, and were found to contain a rich booty. Thus ended this remarkable struggle, in which nations widely severed and of various bloods—scarcely, as one would have thought, known to each other, and separated by a diversity of interests—united in an attack upon the foremost power of the known world, traversed several hundreds of miles of land or sea successfully, neither quarrelling among themselves nor meeting with disaster from without, and reached the country which they had hoped to conquer, but were there completely defeated and repulsed in two engagements—one by land, the other partly by land and partly by sea—so that "their spirit was annihilated, their soul was taken from them." Henceforth no one of the nations which took part in the combined attack is found in arms against the power that had read them so severe a lesson.

It seems that Ramesses had barely finished defeating and destroying the army of the Purusata and Tekaru before he hurried off to Pelusium, marching so quickly that he arrived just in time to witness the naval battle and even participate in it. The invading fleet was initially able to break through the Egyptian vessels and move toward the shore, but its progress was soon halted. "A wall of iron," says Ramesses, "trapped them against the lake." The best troops of Egypt lined the shores of the lagoon, and wherever the invaders tried to land, they were thwarted. Driven back, either killed or shot at the water's edge, they fell "by heaps of hundreds of corpses." "The infantry," says the king in his boastful inscription commemorating the event, "all the finest troops of the army of Egypt, stood on the bank, furious like roaring lions; the chariot force, selected from the heroes who were fastest in battle, was led by confident officers. The war horses trembled in all their limbs, eager to trample the nations beneath them. I acted like the god Mentu, the warrior; I took the lead, and my men witnessed the results of my efforts. I, Ramesses the king, acted like a hero who knows his worth, stretching out my arm over my people in battle. The invaders of my land will harvest no more on this earth; their lives are counted as eternal. Those who reached the shore, I made to fall at the water's edge; they lay dead in heaps; I capsized their ships; all their possessions sank in the waves." After a brief fight, all resistance ended. The empty ships, drifting aimlessly on the still waters of the lagoon or stuck in the mud of the Nile, became the spoils of the victors and were found to contain a wealth of treasure. Thus concluded this remarkable struggle, where nations that were distant and had different backgrounds—hardly known to each other and separated by varied interests—came together to attack the foremost power of the known world, successfully traversing hundreds of miles by land and sea, without infighting or facing external disasters, and reaching the territory they hoped to conquer, only to be completely defeated and pushed back in two battles—one on land, the other partially by land and sea—so that "their spirit was crushed, their soul taken from them." From that point on, not one of the nations involved in the coordinated attack ever took up arms against the power that had taught them such a harsh lesson.

It was not long after repulsing this attack upon the independence of Egypt that Ramesses undertook his "campaign of revenge." Starting with a fleet and army along the line that his assailants had followed, he traversed Palestine and Syria, hunting the lion in the outskirts of Lebanon, and re-establishing for a time the Egyptian dominion over much of the region which had been formerly held in subjection by the great monarchs of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. He claims to have carried his arms to Aleppo and Carchemish, in which case we must suppose that he defeated the Hittites, or else that they declined to meet him in the field; and he gives a list of thirty-eight conquered countries or tribes, which are thought to belong to Upper Syria, Southern Asia Minor, and Cyprus. In some of his inscriptions he even speaks of having recovered Naharaina, Kush, and Punt; but there is no evidence that he really visited—much less conquered—these remote regions.

It wasn't long after pushing back the attack on Egypt's independence that Ramesses launched his "revenge campaign." Starting with a fleet and army along the route taken by his attackers, he crossed through Palestine and Syria, hunting lions in the outskirts of Lebanon and briefly re-establishing Egyptian control over much of the area that had previously been dominated by the great rulers of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. He claims to have taken his forces to Aleppo and Carchemish, which leads us to believe he either defeated the Hittites or they chose not to confront him in battle. He lists thirty-eight conquered countries or tribes, which are thought to be located in Upper Syria, Southern Asia Minor, and Cyprus. In some of his inscriptions, he even mentions having regained Naharaina, Kush, and Punt; however, there’s no proof that he actually visited—let alone conquered—these distant lands.

The later life of Ramesses III. was, on the whole a time of tranquillity and repose. The wild tribes of North Africa, after one further attempt to establish themselves in the western Delta, which wholly failed, acquiesced in the lot which nature seemed to have assigned them, and, leaving the Egyptians in peace, contented themselves with the broad tract over which they were free to rove between the Mediterranean and the Sahara Desert. On the south Ethiopia made no sign. In the east the Hittites had enough to do to rebuild the power which had been greatly shattered by the passage of the hordes of Asia Minor through their territory, on their way to Egypt and on their return from it. The Assyrians had not yet commenced their aggressive wars towards the north and west, having probably still a difficulty in maintaining their independence against the attacks of Babylon. Egypt was left undisturbed by her neighbours for the space of several generations, and herself refrained from disturbing the peace of the world by foreign expeditions. Ramesses turned his attention to building, commerce, and the planting of Egypt with trees. He constructed and ornamented the beautiful temple of Ammon at Medinet-Abou, built a fleet on the Red Sea and engaged in trade with Punt, dug a great reservoir in the country of Aina (Southern Palestine), and "over the whole land of Egypt planted trees and shrubs, to give the inhabitants rest under their cool shade."

The later life of Ramesses III was, overall, a time of peace and tranquility. The wild tribes of North Africa made one last failed attempt to settle in the western Delta. Accepting their fate, they left the Egyptians in peace and were satisfied with the vast area they could roam between the Mediterranean and the Sahara Desert. In the south, Ethiopia showed no signs of aggression. To the east, the Hittites were focused on rebuilding their power, which had been severely weakened by the influx of hordes from Asia Minor passing through their territory on their way to and from Egypt. The Assyrians had not yet started their expansionist campaigns to the north and west, likely still struggling to defend their own independence against Babylonian attacks. For several generations, Egypt enjoyed a period free from disturbances from its neighbors, choosing not to disrupt global peace with foreign expeditions. Ramesses shifted his focus to construction, trade, and tree planting across Egypt. He built and decorated the beautiful temple of Ammon at Medinet-Abou, established a fleet on the Red Sea and engaged in trade with Punt, dug a large reservoir in Aina (Southern Palestine), and "over the whole land of Egypt planted trees and shrubs, to provide the people with shade and comfort."

The general decline of Egypt must, however, be regarded as having commenced in his reign. His Eastern conquests were more specious than solid, resulting in a nominal rather than a real subjection of Palestine and Syria to his yoke. His subjects grew unaccustomed to the use of arms during the last twenty, or five and twenty, years of his life. Above all, luxury, intrigue, and superstition invaded the court, where the eunuchs and concubines exercised a pernicious influence. Magic was practised by some of the chief men in the State, and the belief was widely spread that it was possible by charms, incantations, and the use of waxen images, to bewitch men, or paralyse their limbs, or even to cause their deaths. Hags were to be found about the court as wicked as Canidia, who were willing to sell their skill in the black art to the highest bidder. The actual person of the monarch was not sacred from the plottings of this nefarious crew, who planned assassinations and hatched conspiracies in the very purlieus of the royal palace. Ramesses himself would, apparently, have fallen a victim to a plot of the kind, had not the parties to it been discovered, arrested, tried by a Royal Commission, and promptly executed.

The general decline of Egypt must be seen as starting during his reign. His Eastern conquests were more impressive than substantial, leading to a nominal rather than a genuine control over Palestine and Syria. His subjects became unaccustomed to using weapons during the last twenty or twenty-five years of his life. Above all, luxury, intrigue, and superstition took over the court, where the eunuchs and concubines had a harmful influence. Some of the top officials practiced magic, and many believed it was possible to cast spells, use charms, and manipulate wax figures to harm others, paralyze their limbs, or even cause their deaths. There were witches in the court as wicked as Canidia, willing to sell their skills in black magic to the highest bidder. The king himself wasn't safe from the plots of this wicked group, who schemed for assassinations and conspired right in the royal palace. Ramesses himself would likely have been a victim of such a plot if the conspirators hadn't been discovered, arrested, tried by a Royal Commission, and swiftly executed.

The descendants of Ramesses III. occupied the throne from his death (about B.C. 1280) to B.C. 1100. Ten princes of the name of Ramesses, and one called Meri-Tum, bore sway during this interval, each of them showing, if possible, greater weakness than the last, and all of them sunk in luxury, idle, effeminate, sensual. Ramesses III. provoked caricature by his open exhibition of harem-scenes on the walls of his Medinet-Abou palace. His descendants, content with harem life, scarcely cared to quit the precincts of the royal abode, desisted from all war, and even devolved the task of government on other shoulders. The Pharaohs of the twentieth dynasty became absolute fainéants, and devolved their duties on the high-priests of the great temple of Ammon at Thebes, who "set themselves to play the same part which at a distant period was played by the Mayors of the Palace under the later French kings of the Merovingian line."

The descendants of Ramesses III ruled from his death (around 1280 B.C.) until 1100 B.C. During this time, ten princes named Ramesses and one named Meri-Tum held power, each showing even more weakness than the last, lost in luxury, laziness, softness, and sensuality. Ramesses III attracted mockery for openly displaying harem scenes on the walls of his Medinet-Abou palace. His descendants, satisfied with their harem lives, barely stepped outside the royal palace, gave up all military efforts, and handed over governance to others. The Pharaohs of the twentieth dynasty became total slackers, passing their responsibilities to the high priests of the great temple of Ammon in Thebes, who took on roles similar to those played by the Mayors of the Palace under the later French kings of the Merovingian era.

In an absolute monarchy, the royal authority is the mainspring which controls all movements and all actions in every part of the State. Let this source of energy grow weak, and decline at once shows itself throughout the entire body politic. It is as when a fatal malady seizes on the seat of life in an individual—instantly every member, every tissue, falls away, suffers, shrinks, decays, perishes. Egyptian architecture is simply non-existent from the death of Ramesses III. to the age of Sheshonk; the "grand style" of pictorial art disappears; sculpture in relief becomes a wearisome repetition of the same stereotyped religious groups; statuary deteriorates and is rare; above all, literature declines, undergoing an almost complete eclipse. A galaxy of literary talent had, as we have seen, clustered about the reigns of Ramesses II. and Menephthah, under whose encouragement authors had devoted themselves to history, divinity, practical philosophy, poetry, epistolary correspondence, novels, travels, legend. From the time of Ramesses III.—nay, from the time of Seti II.—all is a blank: "the true poetic inspiration appears to have vanished," literature is almost dumb; instead of the masterpieces of Pentaour, Kakabu, Nebsenen, Enna, and others, which even moderns can peruse with pleasure, we have only documents in which "the dry official tone" prevails—abstracts of trials, lists of functionaries, tiresome enumerations in the greatest detail of gifts made to the gods, together with fulsome praises of the kings, written either by themselves or by others, which we are half inclined to regret the lapse of ages has spared from destruction. At the same time morals fall off. Sensuality displays itself in high places. Intrigue enters the charmed circle of the palace. The monarch himself is satirized in indecent drawings. Presently, the whole idea of a divinity hedging in the king departs; and a "thieves' society" is formed for rifling the royal tombs, and tearing the jewels, with which they have been buried, from the monarchs' persons. The king's life is aimed at by conspirators, who do not scruple to use magical arts; priests and high judicial functionaries are implicated in the proceedings. Altogether, the old order seems to be changed, the old ideas to be upset; and no new principles, possessing any vital efficacy, are introduced. Society gradually settles upon its lees; and without some violent application of force from without, or some strange upheaval from within, the nation seems doomed to fall rapidly into decay and dissolution.

In an absolute monarchy, the king's authority is the driving force that controls all actions and movements within the State. If this source of power weakens, decline becomes immediately apparent throughout the entire political system. It’s like when a fatal illness strikes the life force in a person—instantly every part, every tissue, deteriorates, suffers, shrinks, decays, and dies. Egyptian architecture virtually disappears from the death of Ramesses III. until the era of Sheshonk; the “grand style” of visual art fades away; relief sculpture turns into a tedious repetition of the same religious scenes; statue making declines and becomes rare; and especially, literature suffers a near-total collapse. A cluster of literary talent had, as we observed, gathered around the reigns of Ramesses II. and Menephthah, during which authors engaged in history, theology, practical philosophy, poetry, letters, novels, travel writing, and legends. From the time of Ramesses III.—or even from the time of Seti II.—everything goes blank: “true poetic inspiration seems to have vanished,” literature becomes nearly silent; instead of the masterpieces of Pentaour, Kakabu, Nebsenen, Enna, and others, which even modern readers can enjoy , we are left with documents that have “a dry official tone”—summaries of trials, lists of officials, tedious and detailed accounts of offerings made to the gods, along with excessive praises of the kings, written either by themselves or by others, which we can hardly believe have survived the ages. At the same time, morals decline. Sensuality emerges in high places. Intrigue infiltrates the royal palace. The king himself is mocked in lewd drawings. Eventually, the entire notion of a divine aura surrounding the king vanishes; a “thieves’ society” forms to plunder the royal tombs, stealing the jewels buried with the monarchs. Assassins target the king’s life, using dark magic; priests and high-ranking officials get involved in the schemes. Overall, the old order appears to change, the old ideas to be overturned; and no new principles with any real impact are introduced. Society gradually settles into stagnation; without some forceful intervention from outside or some drastic upheaval from within, the nation seems destined to quickly decline and fall apart.

CARICATURE OF THE TIME OF RAMESSES III. CARICATURE OF THE TIME OF RAMESSES III.
Decorative


Decorative

XVIII.

THE PRIEST-KINGS—PINETEM AND SOLOMON.

The position of the priests in Egypt was, from the first, one of high dignity and influence. Though not, strictly speaking, a caste, they formed a very distinct order or class, separated by important privileges, and by their habits of life, from the rest of the community, and recruited mainly from among their own sons, and other near relatives. Their independence and freedom was secured by a system of endowments. From a remote antiquity a considerable portion of the land of Egypt—perhaps as much as one-third—was made over to the priestly class, large estates being attached to each temple, and held as common property by the "colleges," which, like the chapters of our cathedrals, directed the worship of each sacred edifice. These priestly estates were, we are told, exempt from taxation of any kind; and they appear to have received continual augmentation from the piety or superstition of the kings, who constantly made over to their favourite deities fresh "gardens, orchards, vineyards, fields," and even "cities."

The role of priests in Egypt was, right from the beginning, one of great respect and influence. Although they weren't exactly a caste, they formed a very distinct order or class, set apart by significant privileges and their lifestyle, which was different from the rest of society, and were mainly made up of their own sons and other close relatives. Their independence and freedom were maintained through a system of endowments. From ancient times, a large portion of Egypt’s land—possibly as much as one-third—was assigned to the priestly class, with large estates linked to each temple and held as shared property by the "colleges," similar to the chapters of our cathedrals, that oversaw the worship at each sacred site. These priestly estates were reportedly exempt from all forms of taxation; and they seemed to have continually expanded due to the devotion or superstition of the kings, who regularly dedicated new "gardens, orchards, vineyards, fields," and even "cities" to their preferred deities.

The kings lived always in a considerable amount of awe of the priests. Though claiming a certain qualified divinity themselves, they yet could not but be aware that there were divers flaws and Imperfections in their own divinity—"little rifts within the lute"—which made it not quite a safe support to trust to, or lean upon, entirely. There were other greater gods than themselves—gods from whom their own divinity was derived; and they could not be certain what power or influence the priests might not have with these superior beings, in whose existence and ability to benefit and injure men they had the fullest belief. Consequently, the kings are found to occupy a respectful attitude towards the priests throughout the whole course of Egyptian history, from first to last; and this respectful attitude Is especially maintained towards the great personages in whom the hierarchy culminates, the head officials, or chief priests, of the temples which are the principal centres of the national worship—the temple of Ra, or Tum, at Heliopolis, that of Phthah at Memphis, and that of Ammon at Thebes. According to the place where the capital was fixed for the time being, one or other of these three high-priests had the pre-eminence; and, in the later period of the Ramessides, Thebes having enjoyed metropolitan dignity for between five and six centuries, the Theban High-Priest of Ammon was recognized as beyond dispute the chief of the sacerdotal order, and the next person in the kingdom after the king.

The kings always held a considerable amount of respect for the priests. Although they claimed some form of divine status themselves, they were aware of various flaws and imperfections in their own divinity—"little rifts within the lute"—which made it not entirely safe to rely on them completely. There were greater gods than themselves—gods from whom their own divinity came; and they couldn’t be sure what power or influence the priests might have with these superior beings, in whom they fully believed could help or harm people. As a result, the kings consistently showed respect toward the priests throughout all of Egyptian history. This respectful attitude was particularly directed toward the prominent figures at the top of the hierarchy, the chief priests of the temples that were the main centers of national worship—the temple of Ra or Tum at Heliopolis, the temple of Phthah at Memphis, and the temple of Ammon at Thebes. Depending on where the capital was located at the time, one of these three high priests held the top position; during the later period of the Ramessides, with Thebes having been the capital for about five to six centuries, the Theban High Priest of Ammon was recognized as the unquestioned leader of the priesthood and the next most important person in the kingdom after the king.

It had naturally resulted from this high position, and the weight of influence which it enabled its possessor to exercise, that the office had become hereditary. As far back as the reign of Ramesses IX., we find that the holder of the position has succeeded his father in it, and regards himself as high-priest rather by natural right than by the will of the king. The priest of that time, Amenhotep by name, the son of Ramesses-nekht, undertakes the restoration of the Temple of Ammon at Thebes of his own proper motion, "strengthens its walls, builds it anew, makes its columns, inserts in its gates the great folding-doors of acacia wood." Formerly, the kings were the builders, and the high-priests carried out their directions and then in the name of the gods gave thanks to the kings for their pious munificence. Under the ninth Ramesses the order was reversed—"now it is the king who testifies his gratitude to the High-Priest of Ammon for the care bestowed on his temple by the erection of new buildings and the improvement and maintenance of the older ones." The initiative has passed out of the king's hands into those of his subject; he is active, the king is passive; all the glory is Amenhotep's; the king merely comes in at the close of all, as an ornamental person, whose presence adds a certain dignity to the final ceremony.

It naturally followed from this high position and the influence it allowed its holder to wield that the office became hereditary. As far back as the reign of Ramesses IX, we see that the person in this role succeeded his father and sees himself as high priest by right of birth rather than by the king's decree. The priest at that time, named Amenhotep, son of Ramesses-nekht, took the initiative to restore the Temple of Ammon in Thebes on his own accord, "strengthening its walls, rebuilding it, making its columns, and installing the large folding doors of acacia wood at its gates." Previously, the kings were the builders while the high priests followed their orders and thanked the kings for their generous contributions in the name of the gods. Under the ninth Ramesses, the roles reversed—"now the king shows gratitude to the High Priest of Ammon for the care given to his temple by erecting new structures and improving and maintaining the old ones." The initiative shifted from the king to his subject; Amenhotep is active, while the king is passive; all the glory belongs to Amenhotep; the king merely takes part at the end, serving as a figure of dignity during the final ceremony.

HEAD OF HER-HOR. HEAD OF HER-HOR.

Under the last of the Ramessides the High-Priest of Ammon at Thebes was a certain Her-hor. He was a man of a pleasing countenance, with features that were delicate and good, and an expression that was mild and agreeable. He had the art so to ingratiate himself with his sovereign as to obtain at his hands at least five distinct offices of state besides his sacred dignity. He was "Chief of Upper and Lower Egypt," "Royal son of Gush," "Fanbearer on the right hand of the King," "Principal Architect," and "Administrator of the Granaries," Some of these offices may have been honorary; but the duties of others must have been important, and their proper discharge would have required a vast amount of varied ability. It is not likely that Herhor possessed all the needful qualifications; rather we must presume that he grasped at the multiplicity of appointments in order to accumulate power, so far as was possible, in his own hands, and thereby to be in a better position to seize the royal authority on the monarch's demise. If Ramesses III. died without issue, his task must have been facilitated; at any rate, he seems to have had the skill to accomplish it without struggle or disturbance; and if, as some suppose, he banished the remaining descendants of Ramesses III. to the Great Oasis, at any rate he did not stain his priestly hands with bloodshed, or force his way to the throne through scenes of riot and confusion. Egypt, so far as appears, quietly acquiesced in his rule, and perhaps rejoiced to find herself once more governed by a prince of a strong and energetic nature.

Under the last of the Ramesside dynasty, the High Priest of Ammon in Thebes was a man named Her-hor. He had a pleasing appearance, with delicate and handsome features, and a gentle, friendly expression. He skillfully won the favor of his ruler, securing at least five different government roles in addition to his religious position. He was "Chief of Upper and Lower Egypt," "Royal Son of Gush," "Fanbearer on the King's Right," "Principal Architect," and "Administrator of the Granaries." Some of these roles might have been honorary, but others would have had significant responsibilities that required a wide range of skills. It's unlikely that Her-hor possessed all the necessary qualifications; rather, it seems he sought out multiple appointments to consolidate power in his hands and to be in a better position to take over the royal authority upon the king's death. If Ramesses III died without heirs, his task would have been easier; in any case, he appears to have managed it smoothly and without conflict. If, as some believe, he exiled the remaining descendants of Ramesses III to the Great Oasis, he still did not mar his priestly hands with violence or push his way to the throne through chaos and turmoil. Egypt, it seems, accepted his rule with little resistance and perhaps even welcomed being led once again by a strong, capable leader.

For some time after he had mounted the throne, Herhor did not abandon his priestly functions. He bore the title of High-Priest of Ammon regularly on one of his royal escutcheons, while on the other he called himself "Her-Hor Si-Ammon," or "Her-Hor, son of Ammon," following the example of former kings, who gave themselves out for sons of Ra, or Phthah, or Mentu, or Horus. But ultimately he surrendered the priestly title to his eldest son, Piankh, and no doubt at the same time devolved upon him the duties which attached to the high-priestly office. There was something unseemly in a priest being a soldier, and Herhor was smitten with the ambition of putting himself at the head of an army, and reasserting the claim of Egypt to a supremacy over Syria. He calls himself "the conqueror of the Ruten," and there is no reason to doubt that he was successful in a Syrian campaign, though to what distance he penetrated must remain uncertain. The Egyptian monarchs are not very exact in their geographical nomenclature, and Herhor may have spoken of Ruten, when his adversaries were really the Bedouins of the desert between Egypt and Palestine. The fact that his expedition is unnoticed in the Hebrew Scriptures renders it tolerably certain that he did not effect any permanent conquest, even of Palestine.

For a while after taking the throne, Herhor didn’t give up his priestly duties. He held the title of High Priest of Ammon on one of his royal insignias, while on the other he referred to himself as "Her-Hor Si-Ammon," or "Her-Hor, son of Ammon," following the tradition of earlier kings who claimed to be sons of Ra, Phthah, Mentu, or Horus. Ultimately, he passed the priestly title to his oldest son, Piankh, likely transferring the responsibilities that came with the high priesthood at the same time. There was something inappropriate about a priest also being a soldier, and Herhor was eager to lead an army and reassert Egypt's claim to dominance over Syria. He called himself "the conqueror of the Ruten," and there’s no reason to doubt that he was successful in a campaign in Syria, although it’s unclear how far he advanced. Egyptian rulers aren’t very precise with their geographical terms, and Herhor may have referred to Ruten while actually fighting against the Bedouins in the desert between Egypt and Palestine. The fact that his campaign isn’t mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures makes it pretty certain that he didn’t achieve any lasting conquest, even in Palestine.

Herhor's son, Piankh, who became High-Priest of Ammon on his father's abdication of the office, does not appear to have succeeded him in the kingdom. Perhaps he did not outlive his father. At any rate, the kingly office seems to have passed from Herhor to his grandson, Pinetem, who was a monarch of some distinction, and had a reign of at least twenty-five years. Pinetem's right to the crown was disputed by descendants of the Ramesside line of kings; and he thought it worth while to strengthen his title by contracting a marriage with a princess of that royal stock, a certain Ramaka, or Rakama, whose name appears on his monuments. But compromise with treason has rarely a tranquillizing effect; and Pinetem's concession to the prejudices which formed the stock-in-trade of his opponents only exasperated them and urged them to greater efforts. The focus of the conspiracy passed from the Oasis to Thebes, which had grown disaffected because Pinetem had removed the seat of government to Tanis in the Delta, which was the birthplace of his grandfather, Herhor. So threatening had become the general aspect of affairs, that the king thought it prudent to send his son, Ra-men-khepr or Men-khepr-ra, the existing high-priest of the Temple of Ammon at Thebes, from Tanis to the southern capital, in order that he should make himself acquainted with the secret strength, and with the designs of the disaffected, and see whether he could not either persuade or coerce them. It was a curious part for the Priest of Ammon to play. Ordinarily an absentee from Thebes and from the duties of his office, he visits the place as Royal Commissioner, entrusted with plenary powers to punish or forgive offenders at his pleasure. His fellow-townsmen are in the main hostile to him; but the terror of the king's name is such that they do not dare to offer him any resistance, and he singles out those who appear to him most guilty for punishment, and has them executed, while he grants the royal pardon to others without any let or hindrance on the part of the civic authorities. Finally, having removed all those whom he regarded as really dangerous, he ventured to conclude his commission by granting a general amnesty to all persons implicated in the conspiracy, and allowing the political refugees to return from the Oasis to Thebes and to live there unmolested.

Herhor's son, Piankh, took over as High-Priest of Ammon after his father stepped down from the position, but it seems he didn’t take over the kingdom. He might not have lived longer than his father. In any case, the throne passed from Herhor to his grandson, Pinetem, who was a notable ruler and reigned for at least twenty-five years. Pinetem's claim to the throne was challenged by descendants of the Ramesside kings, so he decided to strengthen his position by marrying a princess from that royal line, named Ramaka or Rakama, whose name is found on his monuments. However, compromising with treason rarely leads to peace; his attempts to appease his opponents only aggravated them and motivated them to fight harder. The center of the conspiracy shifted from the Oasis to Thebes, which had become resentful after Pinetem moved the capital to Tanis in the Delta, his grandfather Herhor's birthplace. The situation became so serious that the king considered it wise to send his son, Ra-men-khepr or Men-khepr-ra, who was the current high-priest of the Temple of Ammon at Thebes, from Tanis to the southern capital. His mission was to learn about the hidden strengths and plans of the discontented and see if he could persuade or intimidate them. It was an unusual role for the Priest of Ammon. Normally absent from Thebes and his duties, he was visiting as a Royal Commissioner, given full authority to punish or pardon offenders as he saw fit. Most of the local people were against him, but the power of the king’s name was so intimidating that they didn’t dare resist him. He chose those he considered the most guilty for punishment and had them executed, while granting royal pardons to others without interference from local authorities. Ultimately, after removing those he deemed truly dangerous, he wrapped up his mission by offering a general amnesty to everyone involved in the conspiracy and allowed political refugees to return from the Oasis to Thebes and live freely.

Men-khepr-ra soon afterwards became king. He married a wife named Hesi-em-Kheb, who is thought to have been a descendant of Seti L, and thus gave an additional legitimacy to the dynasty of Priest-Kings. He also adorned the city of Kheb, the native place of his wife, with public buildings; but otherwise nothing is known of the events of his reign. As a general rule, the priest-kings were no more active or enterprizing than their predecessors, the Ramessides of the twentieth dynasty. They were content to rule Egypt in peace, and enjoy the delights of sovereignty, without fatiguing themselves either with the construction of great works or the conduct of military expeditions. If the people that has no history is rightly pronounced happy, Egypt may have prospered under their rule; but the historian can scarcely be expected to appreciate a period which supplies him with no materials to work upon.

Men-khepr-ra later became king. He married a woman named Hesi-em-Kheb, who is believed to have been related to Seti I, adding further legitimacy to the Priest-Kings' dynasty. He also decorated the city of Kheb, his wife's hometown, with public buildings; however, not much else is known about his reign. Generally, the priest-kings were no more active or ambitious than their predecessors, the Ramessides of the twentieth dynasty. They were satisfied to rule Egypt peacefully and enjoy the pleasures of sovereignty without exhausting themselves with grand projects or military campaigns. If a people without history is considered truly happy, Egypt may have thrived under their leadership; however, historians find it hard to value a period that offers so little material for their work.

The inaction of Egypt was favourable to the growth and spread of other kingdoms and empires. Towards the close of the Ramesside period Assyria had greatly increased in power, and extended her authority beyond the Euphrates as far as the Mediterranean. After this, causes that are still obscure had caused her to decline, and, Syria being left to itself, a new power grew up in it. In the later half of the eleventh century, probably during the reign of Men-khepr-ra in Egypt, David began that series of conquests by which he gradually built up an empire, uniting in one all the countries and tribes between the river of Egypt (Wady-el-Arish) and the Euphrates. Egypt made no attempt to interfere with his proceedings; and Assyria, after one defeat (1 Chron. xix. 16-19), withdrew from the contest. David's empire was inherited by Solomon (1 Kings iv. 21-24); and Solomon's position was such as naturally brought him into communication with the great powers beyond his borders, among others with Egypt. A brisk trade was carried on between his subjects and the Egyptians, especially in horses and chariots (ib. x. 28, 29): and diplomatic intercourse was no doubt established between the courts of Tanis and Jerusalem. It Is a little uncertain which Egyptian prince was now upon the throne; but Egyptologers incline to Pinetem II., the second in succession after Men-khepr-ra, and the last king but one of the dynasty. The Hebrew monarch having made overtures through his ambassador, this prince, it would seem, received them favourably; and, soon after his accession (1 Kings iii. 1), Solomon took to wife his daughter, an Egyptian princess, receiving with her as a dowry the city and territory of Gezer, which Pinetem had recently taken from its independent Canaanite inhabitants (ib. ix. 16). The new connection had advantages and disadvantages. The excessive polygamy, which had been affected by the Egyptian monarchs ever since the time of Ramesses II., naturally spread into Judea, and "King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites ... and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart" (ib. xi. 1, 3). On the other hand, commerce was no doubt promoted by the step taken, and much was learnt in the way of art from the Egyptian sculptors and architects. The burst of architectural vigour which distinguishes Solomon's reign among those of other Hebrew kings, is manifestly the direct result of ideas brought to Jerusalem from the capital of the Pharaohs. The plan of the Temple, with its open court in front, its porch, its Holy Place, its Holy of Holies, and its chambers, was modelled after the Egyptian pattern. The two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, which stood in front of the porch, took the place of the twin obelisks, which in every finished example of an Egyptian temple stood just in front of the principal entrance. The lions on the steps of the royal throne (ib. x. 20) were imitations of those which in Egypt often supported the seat of the monarch on either side; and "the house of the forest of Lebanon" was an attempt to reproduce the effect of one of Egypt's "pillared halls." Something in the architecture of Solomon was clearly learnt from Phœnicia, and a little—a very little—may perhaps have been derived from Assyria; but Egypt gave at once the impulse and the main bulk of the ideas and forms.

The lack of action from Egypt allowed other kingdoms and empires to grow and spread. By the end of the Ramesside period, Assyria had gained significant power and extended its control beyond the Euphrates all the way to the Mediterranean. Afterward, for reasons that remain unclear, Assyria began to decline, and with Syria left to its own devices, a new power emerged there. In the latter half of the eleventh century, likely during the reign of Men-khepr-ra in Egypt, David started a series of conquests that gradually built an empire uniting all the lands and tribes between the river of Egypt (Wady-el-Arish) and the Euphrates. Egypt made no effort to intervene in his endeavors, and Assyria, after suffering one defeat (1 Chron. xix. 16-19), withdrew from the struggle. David's empire was passed on to Solomon (1 Kings iv. 21-24), whose position naturally led him to connect with major powers beyond his borders, including Egypt. There was an active trade between his people and the Egyptians, particularly in horses and chariots (ib. x. 28, 29), and diplomatic relations were likely established between the courts of Tanis and Jerusalem. It is somewhat unclear who the Egyptian ruler was at the time, but Egyptologists lean towards Pinetem II., the second successor after Men-khepr-ra and the second-to-last king of that dynasty. After David's overtures through his ambassador, this ruler seemed to respond positively; shortly after his accession (1 Kings iii. 1), Solomon married his daughter, an Egyptian princess, receiving the city and territory of Gezer as her dowry, which Pinetem had recently taken from its independent Canaanite inhabitants (ib. ix. 16). This new alliance had both benefits and drawbacks. The excessive polygamy practiced by Egyptian kings since the time of Ramesses II naturally spread to Judea, leading to the verse, "King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with Pharaoh's daughter, women from the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites... and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned his heart" (ib. xi. 1, 3). On the flip side, commerce likely flourished due to this connection, and much was learned about art from Egyptian sculptors and architects. The artistic surge that characterized Solomon's reign compared to other Hebrew kings clearly resulted from ideas brought to Jerusalem from the Pharaohs' capital. The Temple's design, with its open courtyard, porch, Holy Place, Holy of Holies, and chambers, followed the Egyptian model. The two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, that stood in front of the porch replaced the twin obelisks typically found at the main entrance of every Egyptian temple. The lions on the steps of the royal throne (ib. x. 20) imitated those in Egypt that often flanked the monarch's seat; and "the house of the forest of Lebanon" aimed to replicate one of Egypt's "pillared halls." Some architectural elements in Solomon's design clearly came from Phoenicia, and perhaps a little from Assyria; but Egypt provided both the inspiration and the majority of the ideas and forms.

The line of priest-kings terminated with Hor-pa-seb-en-sha, the successor of Pinetem II. They held the throne for about a century and a quarter; and if they cannot be said to have played a very important part in the "story of Egypt," or in any way to have increased Egyptian greatness, yet at least they escape the reproach, which rests upon most of the more distinguished dynasties, of seeking their own glory in modes which caused their subjects untold suffering.

The line of priest-kings ended with Hor-pa-seb-en-sha, who succeeded Pinetem II. They ruled for about 125 years, and while they may not have had a significant impact on the "story of Egypt" or contributed to Egyptian greatness, they at least avoided the criticism that many of the more prominent dynasties faced for pursuing their own glory at the expense of their subjects' suffering.


Decorative

XIX.

SHISHAK AND HIS DYNASTY.

The rise of the twenty-second resembles in many respects that of the twenty-first dynasty. In both cases the cause of the revolution Is to be found in the weakness of the royal house, which rapidly loses its pristine vigour, and is impotent to resist the first assault made upon it by a bold aggressor. Perhaps the wonder is rather that Egyptian dynasties continued so long as they did, than that they were not longer-lived, since there was in almost every instance a rapid decline, alike in the physique and in the mental calibre of the holders of sovereignty; so that nothing but a little combined strength and audacity was requisite in order to push them from their pedestals. Shishak was an official of a Semitic family long settled in Egypt, which had made the town of Bubastis its residence. We may suspect, if we like, that the family had noble—shall we say royal?—blood in its veins, and could trace its descent to dynasties which had ruled at Nineveh or Babylon. The connexion is possible, though scarcely probable, since no éclat attended the first arrival of the Shishak family In Egypt, and the family names, though Semitic, are decidedly neither Babylonian nor Assyrian. It is tempting to adopt the sensational views of writers, who, out of half a dozen names, manufacture an Assyrian conquest of Egypt, and the establishment on the throne of the Pharaohs of a branch derived from one or other of the royal Mesopotamian houses; but "facts are stubborn things," and the imagination is scarcely entitled to mould them at its will. It is necessary to face the two certain facts—(1) that no one of the dynastic names is the natural representative of any name known to have been borne by any Assyrian or Babylonian; and (2) that neither Assyria nor Babylonia was at the time in such a position as to effect, or even to contemplate, distant enterprizes. Babylonia did not attain such a position till the time of Nabopolassar; Assyria had enjoyed it about B.C. 1150-1100, but had lost it, and did not recover it till B.C. 890. Moreover, Solomon's empire blocked the way to Egypt against both countries, and required to be shattered in pieces before either of the great Mesopotamian powers could have sent a corps d'armée into the land of the Pharaohs.

The rise of the twenty-second dynasty is similar in many ways to that of the twenty-first dynasty. In both cases, the cause of the revolution lies in the weakness of the royal family, which quickly loses its original strength and is unable to withstand the first attack from a bold outsider. Perhaps the surprising thing is not that Egyptian dynasties lasted as long as they did, but that they weren’t shorter-lived, given the nearly constant decline in both the physical and mental abilities of those in power; it only took a bit of combined strength and audacity to push them off their thrones. Shishak was an official from a Semitic family that had long been settled in Egypt, having made the town of Bubastis its home. We might suspect, if we choose, that this family had noble—should we say royal?—blood and could trace its lineage back to dynasties that ruled in Nineveh or Babylon. This connection is possible, though not very likely, since there was no significant attention surrounding the initial arrival of the Shishak family in Egypt, and the family names, although Semitic, are certainly neither Babylonian nor Assyrian. It is tempting to embrace the sensational ideas of writers who, from a handful of names, fabricate a story of an Assyrian conquest of Egypt and the installation of a branch of one of the royal Mesopotamian houses on the throne of the Pharaohs; but "facts are stubborn things," and imagination shouldn’t just reshape them at will. We must confront two undeniable facts—(1) that none of the dynastic names naturally represents any name known to have belonged to any Assyrian or Babylonian; and (2) that neither Assyria nor Babylonia was in a position at that time to execute or even consider distant campaigns. Babylonia did not reach such a position until the time of Nabopolassar; Assyria had enjoyed it around B.C. 1150-1100 but had lost it, and did not regain it until B.C. 890. Furthermore, Solomon's empire blocked both countries from invading Egypt and needed to be shattered before either of the great Mesopotamian powers could send an army into the land of the Pharaohs.

Sober students of history will therefore regard Shishak (Sheshonk) simply as a member of a family which, though of foreign extraction, had been long settled in Egypt, and had worked its way into a high position under the priest-kings of Herhor's line, retaining a special connection with Bubastis, the place which it had from the first made its home. Sheshonk's grandfather, who bore the same name; had had the honour of intermarrying into the royal house, having taken to wife Meht-en-hont, a princess of the blood whose exact parentage is unknown to us. His father Namrut, had held a high military office, being commander of the Libyan mercenaries, who at this time formed the most important part of the standing army. Sheshonk himself, thus descended, was naturally in the front rank of Egyptian court-officials. When we first hear of him he is called "His Highness," and given the title of "Prince of the princes," which is thought to imply that he enjoyed the first rank among all the chiefs of mercenaries, of whom there were many. Thus he held a position only second to that occupied by the king, and when his son became a suitor for the hand of a daughter of the reigning sovereign, no one could say that etiquette was infringed, or an ambition displayed that was excessive and unsuitable. The match was consequently allowed to come off, and Sheshonk became doubly connected with the royal house, through his daughter-in-law and through his grandmother. When, therefore, on the death of Hor-pa-seb-en-sha, he assumed the title and functions of king, no opposition was offered: the crown seemed to have passed simply from one member of the royal family to another.

Sober students of history will therefore see Shishak (Sheshonk) simply as part of a family that, although originally foreign, had long been established in Egypt and had worked its way into a prominent position under the priest-kings of Herhor's line, keeping a special connection with Bubastis, the place that had been its home from the start. Sheshonk's grandfather, who shared his name, had the honor of marrying into the royal family, taking Meht-en-hont, a princess whose exact lineage is unknown to us, as his wife. His father, Namrut, held a high military role as the commander of the Libyan mercenaries, who at that time made up the most significant part of the standing army. Sheshonk himself, coming from this lineage, was naturally one of the top Egyptian court officials. When we first hear about him, he is addressed as "His Highness" and given the title "Prince of the princes," which suggests that he held the highest rank among all the chiefs of mercenaries, of whom there were many. Thus, he was only one step below the king, and when his son sought to marry a daughter of the reigning sovereign, no one could argue that it violated etiquette or showed ambition that was excessive or inappropriate. The marriage was therefore allowed to proceed, and Sheshonk became doubly connected to the royal family through his daughter-in-law and his grandmother. Thus, when he assumed the title and responsibilities of king after the death of Hor-pa-seb-en-sha, there was no opposition: the crown seemed to pass simply from one member of the royal family to another.

In monarchies like the Egyptian, it is not very difficult for an ambitious subject, occupying a certain position, to seize the throne; but it is far from easy for him to retain it Unless there is a general impression of the usurper's activity, energy, and vigour, his authority is liable to be soon disputed, or even set at nought It behoves him to give indications of strength and breadth of character, or of a wise, far-seeing policy, in order to deter rivals from attempting to undermine his power. Sheshonk early let it be seen that he possessed both caution and far-reaching views by his treatment of a refugee who, shortly after his accession, sought his court. This was Jeroboam, one of the highest officials in the neighbouring kingdom of Israel, whom Solomon, the great Israelite monarch, regarded with suspicion and hostility, on account of a declaration made by a prophet that he was at some future time to be king of Ten Tribes out of the Twelve. To receive Jeroboam with favour was necessarily to offend Solomon, and thus to reverse the policy of the preceding dynasty, and pave the way for a rupture with the State which was at this time Egypt's most important neighbour. Sheshonk, nevertheless, accorded a gracious reception to Jeroboam; and the favour in which he remained at the Egyptian court was an encouragement to the disaffected among the Israelites, and distinctly foreshadowed a time when an even bolder policy would be adopted, and a strike made for imperial power. The time came at Solomon's demise. Jeroboam was at once allowed to return to Palestine, and to foment the discontent which it was foreseen would terminate in separation. The two kings had, no doubt, laid their plans. Jeroboam was first to see what he could effect unaided, and then, if difficulty supervened, his powerful ally was to come to his assistance. For the Egyptian monarch to have appeared in the first instance would have roused Hebrew patriotism against him. Sheshonk waited till Jeroboam had, to a certain extent, established his kingdom, had set up a new worship blending Hebrew with Egyptian notions, and had sufficiently tested the affection or disaffection towards his rule of the various classes of his subjects. He then marched out to his assistance. Levying a force of twelve hundred chariots, sixty thousand horse (? six thousand), and footmen "without number" (2 Chron, xii. 3), chiefly from the Libyan and Ethiopian mercenaries which now formed the strength of the Egyptian armies, he proceeded into the Holy Land, entering it "in three columns," and so spreading his troops far and wide over the southern country. Rehoboam, Solomon's son and successor, had made such preparation as was possible against the attack. He had anticipated it from the moment of Jeroboam's return, and he had carefully guarded the main routes whereby his country could be approached from the south, fortifying, among other cities, Shoco, Adullam, Azekah, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Tekoa, and Hebron (2 Chron. xi. 6-10). But the host of Sheshonk was irresistible. Never before had the Hebrews met in battle the forces of their powerful southern neighbour—never before had they been confronted with huge masses of disciplined troops, armed and trained alike, and soldiers by profession. The Jewish levies were a rude and untaught militia, little accustomed to warfare, or even to the use of arms, after forty years of peace, during which "every man had dwelt safely under the shade of his own vine and his own fig-tree" (1 Kings iv. 25). They must have trembled before the chariots, and cavalry, and trained footmen of Egypt. Accordingly, there seems to have been no battle, and no regularly organized resistance. As the host of Sheshonk advanced along the chief roads that led to the Jewish capital, the cities, fortified with so much care by Rehoboam, either opened their gates to him, or fell after brief sieges (2 Chron. xii. 4). Sheshonk's march was a triumphal progress, and in an incredibly short space of time he appeared before Jerusalem, where Rehoboam and "the princes of Judah" were tremblingly awaiting his arrival. The son of Solomon surrendered at discretion; and the Egyptian conqueror entered the Holy City, stripped the Temple of its most valuable treasures, including the shields of gold which Solomon had made for his body-guard, and plundered the royal palace (2 Chron, xii. 9). The city generally does not appear to have been sacked: nor was there any massacre. Rehoboam's submission was accepted; he was maintained in his kingdom; but he had to become Sheshonk's "servant" (2 Chron. xii. 8), i.e., he had to accept the position of a tributary prince, owing fealty and obedience to the Egyptian monarch.

In kingdoms like Egypt, it's not very hard for a power-hungry person in a certain position to grab the throne; however, keeping it is a different story. Unless people generally see the usurper as active, energetic, and strong, his authority is likely to be challenged or even disregarded quickly. He needs to show strength and a broad character or a wise, far-sighted strategy to discourage rivals from trying to undermine his power. Sheshonk quickly made it clear that he had both caution and vision by how he handled a refugee who came to his court shortly after he became king. This refugee was Jeroboam, a high-ranking official from the neighboring kingdom of Israel, who Solomon, the great Israelite king, viewed with suspicion and hostility because a prophet had told him that Jeroboam would one day be king of ten out of twelve tribes. Welcoming Jeroboam would inevitably upset Solomon and signal a shift in the policy of the previous dynasty, risking a break with the state that was Egypt's most significant neighbor at the time. Nonetheless, Sheshonk graciously welcomed Jeroboam, and his continued favor at the Egyptian court encouraged those unhappy among the Israelites and hinted at a time when a bolder strategy would be pursued to seek imperial power. That time came with Solomon's death. Jeroboam was immediately allowed to return to Palestine and stir up the discontent that would eventually lead to separation. The two kings had likely coordinated their plans. Jeroboam was to first see what he could achieve on his own, and if he faced difficulties, his powerful ally would step in to support him. For the Egyptian king to have made an appearance right away would have stirred Hebrew patriotism against him. Sheshonk waited until Jeroboam had established his kingdom to some extent, created a new worship blending Hebrew and Egyptian ideas, and tested the loyalty or disloyalty of various groups within his subjects. Then he moved out to help him. Assembling a force of twelve hundred chariots, sixty thousand horsemen (around six thousand), and countless infantry (2 Chron, xii. 3), mostly from Libyan and Ethiopian mercenaries who made up the bulk of the Egyptian army, he entered the Holy Land, spreading his troops across the southern region in “three columns.” Rehoboam, Solomon's son and successor, had prepared as best as he could for the attack. He had anticipated it from the moment Jeroboam returned and had carefully secured the main routes into his territory from the south, fortifying cities like Shoco, Adullam, Azekah, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Tekoa, and Hebron (2 Chron. xi. 6-10). However, Sheshonk’s army was unstoppable. The Hebrews had never faced such a powerful neighbor in battle—never before had they confronted large, disciplined armies, fully trained and armed professionals. The Jewish forces were an untrained and poorly equipped militia, not accustomed to warfare after forty years of peace, during which "every man had dwelt safely under the shade of his own vine and his own fig-tree" (1 Kings iv. 25). They must have felt fear in the presence of Egypt's chariots, cavalry, and trained infantry. Consequently, it seems there was no battle and no organized resistance. As Sheshonk's army advanced along the main roads to the Jewish capital, the cities that Rehoboam had fortified with such care either opened their gates to him or fell after short sieges (2 Chron. xii. 4). Sheshonk's march was triumphant, and in a remarkably short time, he reached Jerusalem, where Rehoboam and "the princes of Judah" awaited him in fear. The son of Solomon surrendered fully, and the Egyptian conqueror entered the Holy City, stripped the Temple of its most valuable treasures, including the gold shields Solomon had made for his bodyguards, and plundered the royal palace (2 Chron, xii. 9). The city itself did not appear to have been sacked: there was no massacre. Rehoboam's submission was accepted; he was allowed to keep his kingdom, but he had to become Sheshonk's "servant" (2 Chron. xii. 8), meaning he had to take on the role of a tributary king, pledging loyalty and obedience to the Egyptian monarch.

The objects of Sheshonk's expedition were-not yet half accomplished. By the long inscription which he set up on his return to Egypt, we find that, after having made Judea subject to him, he proceeded with his army into the kingdom of Israel, and there also took a number of towns which were peculiarly circumstanced. The Levites of the northern kingdom had from the first disapproved of the religious changes effected by Jeroboam; and the Levitical cities within his dominions were regarded with an unfriendly eye by the Israelite monarch, who saw in them hotbeds of rebellion. He had not ventured to make a direct attack upon them himself, since he would thereby have lighted the torch of civil war within his own borders; but, having now an Egyptian army at his beck and call, he used the foreigners as an instrument at once to free him from a danger and to execute his vengeance upon those whom he looked upon as traitors. Sheshonk was directed or encouraged to attack and take the Levitical cities of Rehob, Gibeon, Mahanaim, Beth-horon, Kedemoth, Bileam or Ibleam, Alemoth, Taanach, Golan, and Anem, to plunder them and carry off their inhabitants as slaves; while he was also persuaded to reduce a certain number of Canaanite towns, which did not yield Jeroboam a very willing obedience. We may trace the march of Sheshonk by Megiddo, Taanach, and Shunem, to Beth-shan, and thence across the Jordan to Mahanaim and Aroer; after which, having satisfied his vassal, Jeroboam, he proceeded to make war on his own account with the Arab tribes adjoining on Trans-Jordanic Israel, and subdued the Temanites, the Edomites, and various tribes of the Hagarenes. His dominion was thus established from the borders of Egypt to Galilee, and from the Mediterranean to the Great Syrian Desert.

The goals of Sheshonk's expedition were not even halfway completed. From the long inscription he erected upon his return to Egypt, we learn that, after making Judea subordinate to him, he moved his army into the kingdom of Israel, where he captured several towns that had a unique situation. The Levites in the northern kingdom had always disapproved of the religious changes introduced by Jeroboam, and the Levitical cities within his territory were seen with suspicion by the Israelite king, who viewed them as breeding grounds for rebellion. He hadn’t dared to attack them directly, as that would have sparked a civil war within his own borders; however, with an Egyptian army at his command, he used the foreigners as a tool to eliminate a threat and take revenge on those he considered traitors. Sheshonk was instructed or motivated to attack and seize the Levitical cities of Rehob, Gibeon, Mahanaim, Beth-horon, Kedemoth, Bileam or Ibleam, Alemoth, Taanach, Golan, and Anem, to plunder them and take their people as slaves; he was also convinced to conquer a number of Canaanite towns that weren’t fully obedient to Jeroboam. We can track Sheshonk’s path through Megiddo, Taanach, and Shunem, to Beth-shan, and then across the Jordan to Mahanaim and Aroer; after satisfying his vassal, Jeroboam, he proceeded to wage war on his own against the Arab tribes near Trans-Jordanic Israel, conquering the Temanites, the Edomites, and various tribes of the Hagarenes. His rule was thus solidified from the borders of Egypt to Galilee, and from the Mediterranean to the Great Syrian Desert.

On his return to Egypt from Asia, with his prisoners and his treasures, it seemed to the victorious monarch that he might fitly follow the example of the old Pharaohs who had made expeditions into Palestine and Syria, and commemorate his achievements by a sculptured record. So would he best impress the mass of the people with his merits, and induce them to put him on a par with the Thothmeses and the Amenhoteps of former ages. On the southern external wall of the great temple of Karnak, he caused himself to be represented twice—once as holding by the hair of their heads thirty-eight captive Asiatics, and threatening them with uplifted mace; and a second time as leading captive one hundred and thirty-three cities or tribes, each specified by name and personified in an individual form, the form, however, being incomplete. Among these representations is one which bears the inscription "Yuteh Malek," and which must be regarded as figuring the captive Judæan kingdom.

On his return to Egypt from Asia, with his prisoners and treasures, the victorious king thought it fitting to follow the example of the ancient Pharaohs who had launched expeditions into Palestine and Syria, and to commemorate his achievements with a carved record. This would best showcase his accomplishments to the general public and encourage them to see him as equal to the Thothmeses and the Amenhoteps of previous times. On the southern outer wall of the great temple of Karnak, he had himself depicted twice—once holding the hair of thirty-eight captured Asiatics, threatening them with an uplifted mace; and a second time leading captive one hundred and thirty-three cities or tribes, each named and represented in a distinct form, though the form was incomplete. Among these depictions is one with the inscription "Yuteh Malek," which is thought to represent the captured Judean kingdom.

FIGURE RECORDING THE CONQUEST OF JUDÆA BY SHISHAK. FIGURE RECORDING THE CONQUEST OF JUDÆA BY SHISHAK.

Thus, after nearly a century and a half of repose, Egypt appeared once more in Western Asia as a conquering power, desirious of establishing an empire. The political edifice raised with so much trouble by David, and watched over with such care by Solomon, had been shaken to its base by the rebellion of Jeroboam; it was shattered beyond all hope of recovery by Shishak. Never more would the fair fabric of an Israelite empire rear itself up before the eyes of men; never more would Jerusalem be the capital of a State as extensive as Assyria or Babylonia, and as populous as Egypt. After seventy years, or so, of union, Syria was broken up—the cohesion effected by the warlike might of David and the wisdom of Solomon ceased—the ill-assimilated parts fell asunder; and once more the broad and fertile tract intervening between Assyria and Egypt became divided among a score of petty States, whose weakness invited a conqueror.

Thus, after nearly a century and a half of peace, Egypt emerged again in Western Asia as a conquering power, eager to establish an empire. The political structure built with great effort by David, and carefully overseen by Solomon, had been shaken to its core by the rebellion of Jeroboam; it was completely shattered by Shishak. Never again would the impressive structure of an Israelite empire rise before people's eyes; never again would Jerusalem be the capital of a state as vast as Assyria or Babylonia, and as populous as Egypt. After about seventy years of unity, Syria was fragmented—the cohesion brought together by the military strength of David and the wisdom of Solomon faded—the poorly integrated parts fell apart; and once more, the broad and fertile land between Assyria and Egypt became divided among numerous small states, whose weakness made them easy targets for a conqueror.

HEAD OF SHISHAK HEAD OF SHISHAK

Sheshonk did not live many years to enjoy the glory and honour brought him by his Asiatic successes. He died after a reign of twenty-one years, leaving his crown to his second son, Osorkon, who was married to the Princess Keramat, a daughter of Sheshonk's predecessor. The dynasty thus founded continued to occupy the Egyptian throne for the space of about two centuries, but produced no other monarch of any remarkable distinction. The Asiatic dominion, which Sheshonk had established, seems to have been maintained for about thirty years, during the reigns of Osorkon L, Sheshonk's son, and Takelut I., his grandson; but in the reign of Osorkon II., the son of Takelut, the Jewish monarch of the time, Asa, the grandson of Rehoboam, shook off the Egyptian yoke, re-established Judæan independence, and fortified himself against attack by restoring the defences of all those cities which Sheshonk had dismantled, and "making about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars" (2 Chron. xiv. 7). At the same time he placed under arms the whole male population of his kingdom, which is reckoned by the Jewish historian at 580,000 men. The "men of Judah" bore spears and targets, or small round shields; the "men of Benjamin" had shields of a larger size, and were armed with the bow (ib. ver. 8). "All these," says the historian, "were mighty men of valour." It was not to be supposed that Egypt would bear tamely this defiance, or submit to the entire loss of her Asiatic dominion, which was necessarily involved in the revolt of Judæa, without an effort to retain it. Osorkon II., or whoever was king at the time, rose to the occasion. If it was to be a contest of numbers, Egypt should show that she was certainly not to be outdone numerically; so more mercenaries than ever before were taken into pay, and an army was levied, which is reckoned at "a thousand thousand" (ib. ver. 9), consisting of Cushites or Ethiopians, and of Lubim (ib. xvi. 8), or natives of the North African coast-tract, With these was sent a picked force of three hundred war-chariots, probably Egyptian; and the entire host was placed under the command of an Ethiopian general, who is called Zerah. The host set forth from Egypt, confident of victory, and proceeded as far as Mareshah in Southern Judæa, where they were met by the undaunted Jewish king. What force he had brought with him is uncertain, but the number cannot have been very great. Asa had recourse to prayer, and, in words echoed in later days by the great Maccabee (1 Mac. iii. 18, 19), besought Jehovah to help him against the Egyptian "multitude." Then the two armies joined battle; and, notwithstanding the disparity of numbers, Zerah was defeated. "The Ethiopians and the Lubim, a huge host, with very many chariots and horsemen" (2 Chron. xvi. 8) fled before Judah—they were "overthrown that they could not recover themselves, and were destroyed before Jehovah and before His host" (ib. xiv. 13). The Jewish troops pursued them as far as Gerar, smiting them with a great slaughter, taking their camp? and loading themselves with spoil. What became of Zerah we are not told. Perhaps he fell in the battle; perhaps he carried the news of his defeat to his Egyptian master, and warned him against any further efforts to subdue a people which could defend itself so effectually.

Sheshonk didn’t live long enough to enjoy the glory and honor from his successes in Asia. He died after a reign of twenty-one years, leaving the crown to his second son, Osorkon, who was married to Princess Keramat, a daughter of Sheshonk's predecessor. The dynasty he started continued to sit on the Egyptian throne for about two centuries, but it didn’t produce any other notable kings. The Asian territory that Sheshonk had established was maintained for about thirty years, during the reigns of Osorkon I, Sheshonk’s son, and Takelut I, his grandson. However, during the reign of Osorkon II, the son of Takelut, the Jewish king at the time, Asa, the grandson of Rehoboam, broke free from Egyptian control, restored Judean independence, and fortified his cities by rebuilding the defenses that Sheshonk had destroyed, “making around them walls, towers, gates, and bars” (2 Chron. xiv. 7). At the same time, he armed the entire male population of his kingdom, which the Jewish historian estimates at 580,000 men. The “men of Judah” carried spears and small shields, while the “men of Benjamin” had larger shields and were armed with bows (ib. ver. 8). “All these,” says the historian, “were mighty men of valor.” It was unlikely that Egypt would calmly accept this challenge or allow the complete loss of her Asian territory, which would result from Judea’s revolt, without attempting to retain it. Osorkon II, or whoever was king at the time, stepped up to the challenge. If it was going to be a battle of numbers, Egypt needed to show that she was not going to be outnumbered; so more mercenaries than ever before were hired, and an army was assembled, estimated at “a thousand thousand” (ib. ver. 9), consisting of Cushites or Ethiopians, and of Lubim (ib. xvi. 8), or natives of the North African coast region. Along with them was a select force of three hundred war chariots, likely Egyptian; and the entire army was placed under the command of an Ethiopian general named Zerah. The army set off from Egypt, confident of victory, and reached as far as Mareshah in Southern Judea, where they encountered the fearless Jewish king. The size of his force is uncertain, but it couldn’t have been very large. Asa turned to prayer and, echoing words later spoken by the great Maccabee (1 Mac. iii. 18, 19), asked Jehovah to help him against the Egyptian "multitude." Then the two armies engaged in battle, and despite being outnumbered, Zerah was defeated. “The Ethiopians and the Lubim, a huge host, with many chariots and horsemen” (2 Chron. xvi. 8) fled before Judah—they were "overthrown so they could not recover and were destroyed before Jehovah and before His army" (ib. xiv. 13). The Jewish forces pursued them all the way to Gerar, inflicting a great slaughter, taking their camp, and collecting the spoils. What happened to Zerah is not mentioned. He may have fallen in battle or perhaps returned to Egypt to report his defeat, warning against any further attempts to conquer a people that could defend themselves so effectively.

The direct effect of the victory of Asa was to put an end, for three centuries, to those dreams of Asiatic dominion which had so long floated before the eyes of Egyptian kings, and dazzled their imaginations. If a single one of the petty princes between whose rule Syria was divided could defeat and destroy the largest army that Egypt had ever brought into the field, what hope was there of victory over twenty or thirty of such chieftains? Henceforth, until the time of the great revolution brought about in Western Asia through the destruction of the Assyrian Empire by the Medes, the eyes of Egypt were averted from Asia, unless when attack threatened her. She shrank from provoking the repetition of such a defeat as Zerah had suffered, and was careful to abstain from all interference with the affairs of Palestine, except on invitation. She learnt to look upon the two Israelite kingdoms as her bulwarks against attack from the East, and it became an acknowledged part of her policy to support them against Assyrian aggression. If she did not succeed in rendering them any effective assistance, it was not for lack of good-will. She was indeed a "bruised reed" to lean upon, but it was because her strength was inferior to that of the great Mesopotamian power.

The immediate result of Asa's victory was that it ended, for three centuries, the aspirations of Egyptian kings to dominate Asia, which had captivated their imaginations for so long. If just one of the small rulers in Syria could defeat the largest army Egypt had ever assembled, what chance was there of succeeding against twenty or thirty of those leaders? From that point on, until the major upheaval in Western Asia caused by the Medes destroying the Assyrian Empire, Egypt turned its attention away from Asia unless threatened by an attack. They were cautious not to provoke a repeat of Zerah's defeat and avoided interfering in Palestine's affairs unless invited. Egypt began to see the two Israeli kingdoms as shields against eastern threats and made it part of their strategy to support them against Assyrian aggression. While they may not have been able to provide much effective help, it wasn't due to a lack of goodwill. They were indeed a “bruised reed” to rely on, but this was because their strength was weaker than that of the dominant Mesopotamian power.

From the time of Osorkon II., the Sheshonk dynasty rapidly declined in power. A system of constituting appanages for the princes of the reigning house grew up, and in a short time conducted the country to the verge of dissolution. "For the purpose of avoiding usurpations analogous to that of the High-Priests of Ammon," says M. Maspero, "Sheshonk and his descendants made a rule to entrust all positions of importance, whether civil or military, to the princes of the blood royal. A son of the reigning Pharaoh, most commonly his eldest son, held the office of High-Priest of Ammon and Governor of Thebes; another commanded at Sessoun (Hermopolis); another at Hakhensu, others in all the large towns of the Delta and of Upper Egypt. Each of them had with him several battalions of those Libyan soldiers—Matsiou and Mashuash—who formed at this time the strength of the Egyptian army, and on whose fidelity it was always safe to count. Ere long these commands became hereditary, and the feudal system, which had anciently prevailed among the chiefs of nomes or cantons, re-established itself for the advantage of the members of the reigning house. The Pharaoh of the time continued to reside at Memphis, or at Bubastis, to receive the taxes, to direct as far as was possible the central administration, and to preside at the grand ceremonies of religion, such as the enthronement or the burial of an Apis-Bull; but, in point of fact, Egypt found itself divided into a certain number of principalities, some of which comprised only a few towns, while others extended over several continuous cantons. After a time the chiefs of these principalities were emboldened to reject the sovereignty of the Pharaoh altogether; relying on their bands of Libyan mercenaries, they usurped, not only the functions of royalty, but even the title of king, while the legitimate dynasty, cooped up in a corner of the Delta, with difficulty preserved a certain remnant of authority."

From the time of Osorkon II, the Sheshonk dynasty quickly lost power. A system of granting territories to the princes of the royal family grew up, and soon this led the country to the brink of collapse. "To prevent usurpations similar to that of the High-Priests of Ammon," says M. Maspero, "Sheshonk and his descendants established a rule of assigning all important positions, whether civil or military, to the princes of the royal blood. A son of the reigning Pharaoh, usually his eldest son, held the position of High-Priest of Ammon and Governor of Thebes; another commanded at Sessoun (Hermopolis); another at Hakhensu, and others in all the major cities of the Delta and Upper Egypt. Each of them had several battalions of those Libyan soldiers—Matsiou and Mashuash—who made up the strength of the Egyptian army and on whose loyalty one could always rely. Before long, these commands became hereditary, and the feudal system, which had previously been in place among the leaders of the nomes or districts, was re-established to benefit the members of the royal family. The Pharaoh of the time continued to live in Memphis or Bubastis, collecting taxes, trying to manage the central administration as best as he could, and overseeing major religious ceremonies, like the enthronement or burial of an Apis-Bull. However, in reality, Egypt became divided into several principalities, some of which consisted of only a few towns while others spanned several adjoining districts. Eventually, the leaders of these principalities grew bold enough to reject the Pharaoh's sovereignty completely; relying on their bands of Libyan mercenaries, they took over not only royal functions but even claimed the title of king, while the legitimate dynasty struggled to maintain a remnant of authority, confined to a small area of the Delta."

Upon disintegration followed, as a natural consequence, quarrel and disturbance. In the reign of Takelut II., the grandson of Osorkon II., troubles broke out both in the north and in the south. Takelut's eldest son, Osorkon, who was High-Priest of Ammon, and held the government of Thebes and the other provinces of the south, was only able to maintain the integrity of the kingdom by means of perpetual civil wars. Under his successors, Sheshonk III., Pamai, and Sheshonk IV., the revolts became more and more serious. Rival dynasties established themselves at Thebes, Tanis, Memphis, and elsewhere. Ethiopia grew more powerful as Egypt declined, and threatened ere long to establish a preponderating influence over the entire Nile valley. But the Egyptian princes were too jealous of each other to appreciate the danger which threatened them. A very epidemic of decentralization set in; and by the middle of the eighth century, just at the time when Assyria was uniting together and blending into one all the long-divided tribes and nations of Western Asia, Egypt suicidally broke itself up into no fewer than twenty governments!

After the breakdown, conflict and chaos naturally followed. During the reign of Takelut II, the grandson of Osorkon II, issues arose in both the north and the south. Takelut's oldest son, Osorkon, who was the High Priest of Ammon and governed Thebes and the southern provinces, could only keep the kingdom together through ongoing civil wars. Under his successors, Sheshonk III, Pamai, and Sheshonk IV, the revolts became increasingly severe. Competing dynasties established themselves in Thebes, Tanis, Memphis, and other places. As Egypt weakened, Ethiopia became more powerful and threatened to gain significant influence over the entire Nile valley. However, the Egyptian princes were too envious of one another to recognize the impending danger. A wave of decentralization took over; by the mid-eighth century, just when Assyria was uniting all the previously divided tribes and nations of Western Asia, Egypt foolishly split into at least twenty separate governments!

Such a condition of things was, of course, fatal to literature and art. Art, as has been said, "did not so much decline as disappear." After Sheshonk I. no monarch of the line left any building or sculpture of the slightest importance. The very tombs became unpretentious, and merely repeated antique forms without any of the antique spirit. Each Apis, indeed, had, in his turn, his arched tomb cut for him in the solid rock of the Serapeum at Memphis, and was laid to rest in a stone sarcophagus, formed of a single block. A stela, moreover, was in every case inscribed and set up to his memory: but the stelæ were rude memorials, devoid of all artistic taste; the tombs were mere reproductions of old models; and the inscriptions were of the dullest and most prosaic kind. Here is one, as a specimen: "In the year 2, the month Mechir, on the first day of the month, under the reign of King Pimai, the god Apis was carried to his rest in the beautiful region of the west, and was laid in the grave, and deposited in his everlasting house and his eternal abode. He was born in the year 28, in the time of the deceased king, Sheshonk III. His glory was sought for in all places of Lower Egypt. He was found after some months in the city of Hashedabot. He was solemnly introduced into the temple of Phthah, beside his father—the Memphian god Phthah of the south wall—by the high-priest in the temple of Phthah, the great prince of the Mashuash, Petise, the son of the high-priest of Memphis and great prince of the Mashuash, Takelut, and of the princess of royal race, Thes-bast-per, in the year 28, in the month of Paophi, on the first day of the month. The full lifetime of this god amounted to twenty-six years." Such is the historical literature of the period. The only other kind of literature belonging to it which has come down to us, consists of what are called "Magical Texts." These are to the following effect:—"When Horns weeps, the water that falls from his eyes grows into plants producing a sweet perfume. When Typhon lets fall blood from his nose, it grows into plants changing to cedars, and produces turpentine instead of the water. When Shu and Tefnut weep much, and water falls from their eyes, it changes into plants that produce incense. When the Sun weeps a second time, and lets water fall from his eyes, it is changed into working bees; they work in the flowers of each kind, and honey and wax are produced instead of the water. When the Sun becomes weak, he lets fall the perspiration of his members, and this changes to a liquid." Or again—"To make a magic mixture: Take two grains of incense, two fumigations, two jars of cedar-oil, two jars of tas, two jars of wine, two jars of spirits of wine. Apply it at the place of thy heart. Thou art protected against the accidents of life; thou art protected against a violent death; thou art protected against fire; thou art not ruined on earth, and thou escapest in heaven."

Such a state of affairs was undeniably disastrous for literature and art. Art, as has been noted, "did not so much diminish as vanish." After Sheshonk I, no ruler from that dynasty left behind any noteworthy buildings or sculptures. Even the tombs became simple and merely copied old styles without capturing any of their original essence. Each Apis was, in turn, provided with a tomb carved from solid rock in the Serapeum at Memphis, and was laid to rest in a stone sarcophagus made from a single block. Additionally, a stela was inscribed and set up in his memory: but the stelæ were crude monuments, lacking any artistic flair; the tombs were just imitations of old designs; and the inscriptions were bland and unimaginative. Here's one, as an example: "In the year 2, in the month of Mechir, on the first day of the month, during the reign of King Pimai, the god Apis was carried to his rest in the beautiful western region, and was buried, laid in his everlasting house and eternal home. He was born in the year 28, during the reign of the late King Sheshonk III. His fame was sought in all parts of Lower Egypt. After several months, he was found in the city of Hashedabot. He was officially introduced into the temple of Phthah, alongside his father—the Memphian god Phthah of the south wall—by the high priest in the temple of Phthah, the great prince of the Mashuash, Petise, son of the high priest of Memphis and great prince of the Mashuash, Takelut, and of the princess of royal lineage, Thes-bast-per, in the year 28, in the month of Paophi, on the first day of the month. The total lifespan of this god was twenty-six years." This is the historical literature from that era. The only other type of literature from this time that has survived consists of what are known as "Magical Texts." These include statements like: "When Horns weeps, the water falling from his eyes turns into plants that give off a sweet scent. When Typhon bleeds from his nose, it creates plants that transform into cedars, producing turpentine instead of water. When Shu and Tefnut weep heavily, and water flows from their eyes, it becomes plants that yield incense. When the Sun weeps a second time, and tears fall from his eyes, they transform into bees; they work among flowers of every kind, producing honey and wax instead of water. When the Sun weakens, he sweats, and this liquid changes to a substance." Or again—"To create a magical mixture: Take two grains of incense, two fume sticks, two jars of cedar oil, two jars of tas, two jars of wine, and two jars of spirits of wine. Apply it to your heart. You will be protected from life's mishaps; you will be shielded from violent death; you will be safe from fire; you will not face ruin on earth, and you will find protection in heaven."

Decorative


Decorative

XX.

THE LAND SHADOWING WITH WINGS—EGYPT UNDER THE ETHIOPIANS

The name of Ethiopia was applied in ancient times, much as the term Soudan is applied now, vaguely to the East African interior south of Egypt, from about lat. 24° to about lat. 9°. The tract was for the most part sandy or rocky desert, interspersed with oases, but contained along the course of the Nile a valuable strip of territory; while, south and south-east of the point where the Nile receives the Atbara, it spread out into a broad fertile region, watered by many streams, diversified by mountains and woodlands, rich in minerals, and of considerable fertility. At no time did the whole of this vast tract—a thousand miles long by eight or nine hundred broad—form a single state or monarchy. Rather, for the most part, was it divided up among an indefinite number of states, or rather of tribes, some of them herdsmen, others hunters or fishermen, very jealous of their independence, and frequently at war one with another. Among the various tribes there was a certain community of race, a resemblance of physical type, and a similarity of language. Their neighbours, the Egyptians, included them all under a single ethnic name, speaking of them as Kashi or Kushi—a term manifestly identical with the Cush or Cushi of the Hebrews. They were a race cognate with the Egyptians, but darker in complexion and coarser in feature—not by any means negroes, but still more nearly allied to the negro than the Egyptians were. Their best representatives in modern times are the pure-bred Abyssinian tribes, the Gallas, Wolaïtzas, and the like, who are probably their descendants.

The name Ethiopia was used in ancient times in a similar way to how the term Sudan is used today, referring broadly to the East African interior south of Egypt, from about latitude 24° to about latitude 9°. This area was mostly sandy or rocky desert, dotted with oases, but along the Nile there was a valuable strip of land. South and southeast of where the Nile meets the Atbara River, it expanded into a wide fertile region, nourished by numerous streams, varied with mountains and forests, rich in minerals, and quite productive. At no point did this vast land—a thousand miles long and eight or nine hundred miles wide—exist as a single state or monarchy. Instead, it was mostly divided among many states or tribes, some being herders, others hunters or fishermen, all fiercely protective of their independence and often at war with one another. Among the different tribes, there was a sense of shared ethnicity, similar physical characteristics, and a common language. Their neighbors, the Egyptians, grouped all of them under one ethnic name, calling them Kashi or Kushi—a term clearly related to the Cush or Cushi mentioned in the Hebrew texts. They were a people related to the Egyptians, but darker in skin tone and with coarser features—not exactly black Africans, but still closer to that group than to the Egyptians. Their best present-day representatives are the purebred Abyssinian tribes, like the Gallas, Wolaïtzas, and others, who are likely their descendants.

The portion of Ethiopia which lay nearest to Egypt had been from a very early date penetrated by Egyptian influence. Wars with "the miserable Kashi" began as far back as the time of Usurtasen I.; and Usurtasen III. carried his arms beyond the Second Cataract, and attached the northern portion of Ethiopia to Egypt. The great kings of the eighteenth dynasty, Thothmes III., Amenhotep II., and Amenhotep III., proceeded still further southward; and the last of these monarchs built a temple to Ammon at Napata, near the modern Gebel Berkal. The Ethiopians of this region, a plastic race, adopted to a considerable extent the Egyptian civilization, worshipped Egyptian gods in Egyptian shrines, and set up inscriptions in the hieroglyphic character and in the Egyptian tongue. Napata, and the Nile valley both below it and above it, was already half Egyptianized, when, on the establishment of the Sheshonk dynasty in Egypt, the descendants of Herhor resolved to quit their native country, and remove themselves into Ethiopia, where they had reason to expect a welcome. They were probably already connected by marriage with some of the leading chiefs of Napata, and their sacerdotal character gave them a great hold on a peculiarly superstitious people. The "princes of Noph" received them with the greatest favour, and assigned them the highest position in the state. Retaining their priestly office, they became at once Ethiopian monarchs, and High-Priests of the Temple of Ammon which Amenhotep III. had erected at Napata. Napata, under their government, flourished greatly, and acquired a considerable architectural magnificence. Fresh temples were built, in which the worship of Egyptian was combined with that of Ethiopian deities; avenues of sphinxes adorned the approaches to these new shrines; the practice of burying the members of the royal house in pyramids was reverted to; and the necropolis of Napata recalled the glories of the old necropolis of Memphis.

The part of Ethiopia closest to Egypt had been influenced by Egyptian culture for a long time. Conflicts with "the miserable Kashi" began as early as the time of Usurtasen I.; and Usurtasen III. expanded his military campaigns past the Second Cataract, bringing the northern part of Ethiopia under Egyptian control. The great kings of the eighteenth dynasty, Thothmes III., Amenhotep II., and Amenhotep III., ventured even further south; the last of these kings built a temple to Ammon at Napata, near what is now known as Gebel Berkal. The Ethiopians in this area, a malleable people, largely embraced Egyptian civilization, worshipped Egyptian gods in Egyptian temples, and created inscriptions in hieroglyphics and the Egyptian language. Napata and the Nile Valley, both above and below it, were already significantly influenced by Egyptian culture when the Sheshonk dynasty was established in Egypt. The descendants of Herhor decided to leave their homeland and move to Ethiopia, expecting a warm reception. They were likely already linked by marriage to some of the prominent leaders of Napata, and their role as priests gave them considerable influence over a particularly superstitious populace. The "princes of Noph" welcomed them enthusiastically and granted them the highest status in the state. Maintaining their priestly roles, they simultaneously became Ethiopian kings and High Priests of the Temple of Ammon that Amenhotep III. had built at Napata. Under their leadership, Napata thrived and gained significant architectural splendor. New temples were constructed, merging the worship of Egyptian and Ethiopian deities; avenues of sphinxes lined the paths to these new shrines; the tradition of burying royal family members in pyramids was revived; and the necropolis of Napata echoed the grandeur of the ancient necropolis of Memphis.

Napata was also a place of much wealth. The kingdom, whereof it was the capital, reached southward as far as the modern Khartoum, and eastward stretched up to the Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and its tributaries, together with most of the tract between the Atbara and the Blue Nile. This was a region of great natural wealth, containing many mines of gold, iron, copper, and salt, abundant woods of date-palm, almond-trees, and ilex, some excellent pasture-ground, and much rich meadow-land suitable for the growth of doora and other sorts of grain. Fish of many kinds, and excellent turtle, abounded in the Atbara and the other streams; while the geographical position was favourable for commerce with the tribes of the interior, who were able to furnish an almost inexhaustible supply of ivory, skins, and ostrich feathers.

Napata was also a place of great wealth. The kingdom, of which it was the capital, extended southward to the area we now know as Khartoum, and eastward up to the Abyssinian highlands, including the valleys of the Atbara and its tributaries, along with most of the land between the Atbara and the Blue Nile. This region was rich in natural resources, featuring numerous gold, iron, copper, and salt mines, extensive groves of date palms, almond trees, and holm oaks, as well as excellent pastures and plenty of fertile meadowland ideal for growing doora and other grains. Many types of fish and delicious turtles were abundant in the Atbara and other rivers; meanwhile, the geographical location was advantageous for trade with the tribes from the interior, who could provide an almost endless supply of ivory, animal skins, and ostrich feathers.

The first monarch of Napata, whose name has come down to us, is a certain Piankhi, who called himself Mi-Ammon, or Meri-Ammon—that is to say, "beloved of Ammon." He is thought to have been a descendant of Herhor, and to have begun to reign about B.C. 755. At this time Egypt had reached the state of extreme disintegration described in the last section. A prince named Tafnekht, probably of Libyan origin, ruled in the western Delta, and held Saïs and Memphis; an Osorkon was king of the eastern Delta, and held his court at Bubastis; Petesis was king of Athribis, near the apex of the Delta; and a prince named Aupot, or Shupot, ruled in some portion of the same region. In Middle Egypt, the tract immediately above Memphis formed the kingdom of Pefaabast, who had his residence in Sutensenen, or Heracleopolis Magna, and held the Fayoum under his authority; while further south the Nile valley was in the possession of a certain Namrut, whose capital was Sesennu, or Hermopolis. Bek-en-nefi, and a Sheshonk, had also principalities, though in what exact position is uncertain; and various towns, including Mendes, were under the government of chiefs of mercenaries, of whom it is reckoned that there were more than a dozen. Thebes and Southern Egypt from about the latitude of Hermopolis had already been absorbed into the kingdom of Napata, and were ruled directly by Piankhi.

The first known king of Napata is a guy named Piankhi, who referred to himself as Mi-Ammon or Meri-Ammon, meaning "beloved of Ammon." He is believed to be a descendant of Herhor and started his reign around 755 B.C. At this time, Egypt was in a state of extreme chaos, as described in the last section. A prince named Tafnekht, probably of Libyan descent, ruled over the western Delta and controlled Saïs and Memphis. An Osorkon was the king of the eastern Delta and held court at Bubastis. Petesis was the king of Athribis, near the top of the Delta, and a prince named Aupot or Shupot ruled in parts of the same area. In Middle Egypt, the region just above Memphis made up the kingdom of Pefaabast, whose residence was in Sutensenen or Heracleopolis Magna, and he controlled the Fayoum. Further south, the Nile Valley was held by a certain Namrut, whose capital was Sesennu or Hermopolis. Bek-en-nefi and a Sheshonk also had principalities, though their exact positions are unclear. Various towns, including Mendes, were governed by leaders of mercenaries, with the estimate being that there were more than a dozen of them. Thebes and Southern Egypt, from around the latitude of Hermopolis, had already been taken over by the kingdom of Napata and were directly ruled by Piankhi.

Such being the state of affairs when he came to the throne, Piankhi contrived between his first and his twenty-first year (about B.C. 755-734) gradually to extend his authority over the other kings, and to reduce them to the position of tributary princes or feudatories. It is uncertain whether he used force to effect his purpose. Perhaps the fear of the Assyrians, who, under Tiglath-pileser II., were about this time (B.C. 745-730) making great advances in Syria and Palestine, may have been sufficiently strong to induce the princes voluntarily to adopt the protection of Piankhi, whom they may have regarded as an Egyptian rather than a foreigner. At any rate, we do not hear of violence being used until revolt broke out. In the twenty-first year of Piankhi, news reached him that Tafnekht, king of Memphis and Saïs, had rebelled, and, not content with throwing off his allegiance, had commenced a series of attacks upon the princes that remained faithful to their suzerain, and was endeavouring to make himself master of the whole country. Already had he fallen upon Pafaabast, and forced him to surrender at discretion; he was advancing up the river; Namrut had joined him; and he would soon threaten Thebes, unless a strenuous resistance were offered. Piankhi seems at first to have despised his enemy. He thought it enough to send two generals, at the head of a strong body of troops, down the Nile, with orders to suppress the revolt, and bring the arch-rebel into his presence. The expedition left Thebes. On its way down the river, it fell in with the advancing fleet of the enemy, and completely defeated it. The rebel chiefs, who now included Petesis, Osorkon, and Aupot, as well as Tafnekht, Pefaabast, and Namrut, abandoning Hermopolis and the Middle Nile, fell back upon Sutensenen or Heracleopolis Magna, where they concentrated their forces, and awaited a second attack. This was not long delayed. Piankhi's fleet and army, having besieged and taken Hermopolis, descended the river to Sutensenen, gave the confederates a second naval defeat, and disembarking, followed up their success with another great victory on land, completely routing the rebels, and driving them to take refuge in Lower Egypt, or in the towns on the river bank below Heracleopolis. But now a strange reverse of fortune befell them. Namrut, the Hermopolitan monarch, hearing of the occupation of his capital by Piankhi's army, resolved on a bold attempt to retake it; and, having collected a number of ships and troops, quitted his confederates, sailed up the Nile, besieged the Ethiopian garrison which had been left to hold the place, overpowered them, and recovered his city.

Given the situation when he ascended to the throne, Piankhi managed to gradually expand his authority over the other kings between his first and twenty-first year (around B.C. 755-734), reducing them to tributary princes or vassals. It's unclear if he used force to achieve this. The fear of the Assyrians, who were making significant advances in Syria and Palestine under Tiglath-pileser II around this time (B.C. 745-730), might have been strong enough to lead the princes to willingly accept Piankhi's protection, possibly seeing him as more Egyptian than foreign. In any case, we don't hear of any violence until a rebellion erupted. In Piankhi's twenty-first year, he learned that Tafnekht, the king of Memphis and Saïs, had rebelled and was not just breaking his allegiance but also launching attacks on the princes who remained loyal to Piankhi, trying to seize control of the entire country. He had already attacked Pafaabast, forcing his surrender, was advancing up the river, and had Namrut join him; soon, Thebes would be threatened unless there was a strong resistance. Initially, Piankhi seemed to underestimate his enemy. He believed it was sufficient to send two generals, leading a strong force down the Nile, with orders to quell the rebellion and bring the main rebel before him. The expedition left Thebes, and on its way down the river, encountered the approaching enemy fleet, decisively defeating it. The rebel leaders, now including Petesis, Osorkon, and Aupot, along with Tafnekht, Pefaabast, and Namrut, abandoned Hermopolis and the Upper Nile, retreating to Sutensenen or Heracleopolis Magna, where they gathered their forces and prepared for a second assault. This attack didn't take long to come. After besieging and capturing Hermopolis, Piankhi's fleet and army moved down to Sutensenen, dealt the confederates a second naval defeat, disembarked, and secured another significant victory on land, completely routing the rebels and forcing them to seek refuge in Lower Egypt or the towns along the river below Heracleopolis. But then a surprising reversal occurred. Namrut, the king of Hermopolis, upon hearing that Piankhi's army had taken his capital, decided to attempt a bold recovery. Gathering ships and troops, he left his allies, sailed up the Nile, besieged the Ethiopian garrison left to hold the city, defeated them, and took back his city.

This unexpected blow roused Piankhi from his inaction. Having collected a fresh army, he quitted Napata in the first month of the year, and reached Thebes in the second, where he stopped awhile to perform a number of religious ceremonies; at their close, he descended the Nile to Hermopolis, invested it, and commenced its siege. Moveable towers were brought up against the walls, from which machines threw stones and arrows into the city; the defenders suffered terribly, and after a short time insisted on a surrender. Namrut made his peace with his offended sovereign through the intercession of his wife with Piankhi's wives, sisters, and daughters, and was allowed once more to do homage to his lord in the temple of Thoth, leading his war-horse in one hand and holding a sistrum, the instrument wherewith it was usual to approach a god, in the other. Piankhi entered Hermopolis, and examined the treasury, store-houses, and stables, finding in the last a number of horses, which had been reduced almost to starvation by the siege. Either on this account, or for some other reason, Piankhi treated the Hermopolitan prince with coldness, and did not for some time reinstate him in his kingdom.

This unexpected setback woke Piankhi from his inactivity. After gathering a new army, he left Napata in the first month of the year and reached Thebes in the second, where he paused for a while to carry out several religious ceremonies. Once those were complete, he traveled down the Nile to Hermopolis, surrounded the city, and began its siege. Moveable towers were brought up against the walls, from which machines hurled stones and arrows into the city; the defenders suffered greatly, and after a short time, they demanded to surrender. Namrut reconciled with his angry sovereign through the help of his wife, who spoke to Piankhi's wives, sisters, and daughters, and was allowed to once again pay respect to his lord in the temple of Thoth, leading his war-horse in one hand and holding a sistrum, the instrument typically used to approach a god, in the other. Piankhi entered Hermopolis and inspected the treasury, storehouses, and stables, finding many horses in the latter that had been nearly starved during the siege. Either because of this or for some other reason, Piankhi treated the Hermopolitan prince coldly and did not immediately restore him to his kingdom.

PIANKHI RECEIVING THE SUBMISSION OF NAMRUT AND OTHERS. PIANKHI RECEIVING THE SUBMISSION OF NAMRUT AND OTHERS.

Continuing his triumphal march towards the north, Piankhi received the submission of Heracleopolis, the capital of Pefaabast, and of various other cities on either bank of the Nile, and in a short time appeared before Memphis and summoned it to surrender; but his summons was set at nought. Tafnekht had recently visited the city, had strengthened its defences, augmented its supplies, and reinforced its garrison with an addition of eight thousand men, thereby greatly inspiriting them. It was resolved to resist to the uttermost. So the gates were shut, the walls manned, and Piankhi challenged to do his worst. "Then was His Majesty furious against them, like a panther." Piankhi attacked the city fiercely, both by land and water. Taking the command of the fleet in person, he sailed down the Nile, and, bringing his vessels close up to the walls and towers on the riverside, made use of the masts and yards as ladders, and so scaled the fortifications; then after slaughtering thousands on the ramparts, he forced an entrance into the town. Memphis, upon this, surrendered. Piankhi entered the town, and sacrificed to the god Phthah. A number of the princes, including Aupot and Merkaneshu, a leader of mercenaries, came in and made their submission; but two of the principal rebels still remained unsubdued—Tafnekht, the leader of the revolt, and Osorkon, king of Bubastis, Piankhi proceeded against the latter. Advancing first on Heliopolis, instead of resistance he was received with acclamations, the people, priests, and soldiery having gone over to his side. "Nothing succeeds like success." Egypt was as prone as other countries to "worship the rising sun;" and Piankhi's victories had by this time marked him out in the eyes of the Egyptians as the favourite of Heaven, their predestined monarch and ruler. Accordingly, Heliopolis received him gladly, hailing him as "the indestructible Horus"—he was allowed to bathe in the sacred lake within the precincts of the great temple, to offer sacrifice to Ra, and to enter through the folding-doors into the central shrine, where were laid up the sacred boats of Ra and Turn. After this surrender, Osorkon thought it vain to attempt further resistance. He quitted Bubastis, and, seeking the presence of the victorious Piankhi, submitted himself and renewed his homage. At the same time, Petisis, king of Athribis, made his submission.

Continuing his triumphant march northward, Piankhi received the surrender of Heracleopolis, the capital of Pefaabast, along with several other cities on both sides of the Nile. Soon, he appeared before Memphis and demanded its surrender; however, his demand was ignored. Tafnekht had recently been in the city, reinforcing its defenses, increasing its supplies, and adding eight thousand additional troops to the garrison, which boosted their morale significantly. They were determined to resist to the very end. So, the gates were shut, the walls manned, and Piankhi was challenged to do his worst. "Then His Majesty was furious with them, like a panther." Piankhi launched a fierce attack on the city, both by land and by river. Taking command of the fleet himself, he sailed down the Nile, and bringing his ships close to the walls and towers along the riverbank, used the masts and yards as ladders to scale the fortifications. After killing thousands on the ramparts, he forced his way into the town. Upon this, Memphis surrendered. Piankhi entered the city and made sacrifices to the god Phthah. Several princes, including Aupot and Merkaneshu, a mercenary leader, came forward to submit; however, two of the main rebels still remained unyielded—Tafnekht, the leader of the revolt, and Osorkon, king of Bubastis. Piankhi then marched against Osorkon. When he advanced on Heliopolis, instead of facing resistance, he was welcomed with cheers as the people, priests, and soldiers had switched sides. "Nothing succeeds like success." Egypt, like many other nations, was quick to "worship the rising sun," and by this time, Piankhi’s victories had established him as the favored one, their destined monarch and ruler in the eyes of the Egyptians. Consequently, Heliopolis welcomed him with open arms, calling him "the indestructible Horus"—he was allowed to bathe in the sacred lake within the temple precincts, offer sacrifices to Ra, and enter through the folding doors into the central shrine, where the sacred boats of Ra and Turn were stored. After this surrender, Osorkon thought it pointless to resist any further. He left Bubastis, sought out the victorious Piankhi, submitted himself, and renewed his allegiance. At the same time, Petisis, king of Athribis, also submitted.

The only prince who still remained unsubdued was Tafnekht, the original rebel. Tafnekht had fled after the fall of Memphis, and had taken refuge either in one of the islands of the Delta, or beyond the seas, in Aradus or Cyprus. But he saw that further resistance was vain; and that, if he was to rule an Egyptian principality, it must be as a secondary monarch. Accordingly he, too, submitted himself, and was restored to his former kingdom. Piankhi returned up the Nile to his own city of Napata amid songs and rejoicings—whether sincere or feigned, who shall say? His own account of the matter is the following: "When His Majesty sailed up the river, his heart was glad; all its banks resounded with music. The inhabitants of the west and of the east betook themselves to making melody at His Majesty's approach. To the notes of the music they sang, 'O king, thou conqueror! O Piankhi, thou conquering king! Thou hast come and smitten Lower Egypt; thou madest the men as women. The heart of the mother rejoices who bare such a son, for he who begat thee dwells in the vale of death. Happiness be to thee, O cow that hast borne the Bull! Thou shalt live for ever in after ages. Thy victory shall endure, O king and friend of Thebes!'"

The only prince who still remained unconquered was Tafnekht, the original rebel. Tafnekht had fled after Memphis fell and had taken refuge either on one of the Delta islands or across the sea, in Aradus or Cyprus. However, he realized that further resistance was pointless, and if he wanted to rule an Egyptian principality, it had to be as a subordinate monarch. So he submitted and was restored to his former kingdom. Piankhi returned up the Nile to his city of Napata amid songs and celebrations—whether they were genuine or not, who can say? His own account of the situation goes like this: "When His Majesty sailed up the river, he felt joyful; all its banks echoed with music. The people from both the west and the east started making melodies as His Majesty approached. To the tunes, they sang, 'O king, you conqueror! O Piankhi, you victorious king! You have come and defeated Lower Egypt; you made men act like women. The heart of the mother rejoices who bore such a son, for he who fathered you now rests in the valley of death. Happiness to you, O cow that bears the Bull! You will live on in future ages. Your victory will last forever, O king and friend of Thebes!'"

This happy condition of things did not, however, continue long. Piankhi, soon after his return to his capital, died without leaving issue; and the race of Herhor being now extinct, the Ethiopians had to elect a king from the number of their own nobles. Their choice fell on a certain Kashta, a man of little energy, who allowed Egypt to throw off the Ethiopian sovereignty without making any effort to prevent it. Bek-en-ranf, the son of Tafnekht, was the leader of this successful rebellion, and is said to have reigned over all Egypt for six years. He got a name for wisdom and justice, but he could not alter that condition of affairs which had been gradually brought about by the slow working of various more or less occult causes, whereby Ethiopia had increased and Egypt diminished in power, their relative strength, as compared with former times, having become inverted. Ethiopia, being now the stronger, was sure to reassert herself, and did so in Bek-en-ranf's seventh year. Shabak, the son of Kashta, whose character was cast in a far stronger mould than that of his father, having mounted the Ethiopian throne, lost no time in swooping down upon Egypt from the upper region, and, carrying all before him, besieged and took Saïs, made Bek-en-ranf a prisoner, and barbarously burnt him alive for his rebellion. His fierce and sensuous physiognomy is quite in keeping with this bloody deed, which was well calculated to strike terror into the Egyptian nation, and to ensure a general submission.

This happy situation didn’t last long. Piankhi, soon after returning to his capital, died without leaving any heirs. With Herhor's lineage gone, the Ethiopians had to choose a king from among their own nobles. They chose a guy named Kashta, who was somewhat lackluster and allowed Egypt to break free from Ethiopian rule without trying to stop it. Bek-en-ranf, the son of Tafnekht, led this successful rebellion and reportedly ruled all of Egypt for six years. He gained a reputation for wisdom and justice, but he couldn't change the situation that had gradually developed due to various factors, where Ethiopia became stronger and Egypt weaker, reversing their previous power dynamic. Now that Ethiopia was stronger, it was bound to reassert itself, which it did in Bek-en-ranf's seventh year. Shabak, the son of Kashta, who was much more forceful than his father, quickly took action against Egypt from the south. He overwhelmed the country, besieged and captured Saïs, making Bek-en-ranf a prisoner and brutally burning him alive for his rebellion. His fierce and passionate appearance matched this gruesome act, which was sure to instill fear in the Egyptian people and secure their overall submission.

The rule of the Ethiopians was now for some fifty years firmly established. Shabak founded a dynasty which the Egyptians themselves admitted to be legitimate, and which the historian Manetho declared to have consisted of three kings—Sabacos (or Shabak), Sevechus (or Shabatok), and Taracus (or Tehrak), the Hebrew Tirhakah. The extant monuments confirm the names, and order of succession, of these monarchs. They were of a coarser and ruder fibre than the native Egyptians, but they did not rule Egypt in any alien or hostile spirit. On the contrary, they were pious worshippers of the old Egyptian gods; they repaired and beautified the old Egyptian temples; and, instead of ruling Egypt, as a conquered province, from Napata, they resided permanently, or at any rate occasionally, at the Egyptian capitals, Thebes and Memphis. There are certain indications which make it probable that to some extent they pursued the policy of Piankhi, and governed Lower Egypt by means of tributary kings, who held their courts at Saïs, Tanis, and perhaps Bubastis. But they kept a jealous watch over their subject princes, and allowed none of them to attain a dangerous pre-eminence.

The Ethiopians had been firmly in power for about fifty years. Shabak established a dynasty that even the Egyptians recognized as legitimate. The historian Manetho noted that it consisted of three kings: Sabacos (or Shabak), Sevechus (or Shabatok), and Taracus (or Tehrak), known in Hebrew as Tirhakah. The existing monuments support the names and succession order of these rulers. They were tougher and less refined than the native Egyptians, but they didn’t rule Egypt with an outsider or hostile attitude. Instead, they were devout followers of the old Egyptian gods; they restored and beautified the traditional Egyptian temples. Rather than governing Egypt as a conquered territory from Napata, they lived permanently, or at least frequently, in the Egyptian capitals, Thebes and Memphis. There are signs suggesting that they might have followed Piankhi’s strategy, governing Lower Egypt with the help of tributary kings who held court in Saïs, Tanis, and possibly Bubastis. However, they kept a close eye on their subject rulers and prevented any of them from gaining too much power.

By a curious coincidence the Ethiopic sway, or extension of influence over Egypt by the great monarchy of the south, exactly synchronized with the development of Assyrian power in south-western Asia, which bordered Egypt upon the north; and thus were brought into hostile collision, the two greatest military powers of the then known world who fought over the prostrate Egypt, like Achilles and Hector over the corpse of Patroclus. Shabak's conquest of the Lower Nile valley took place about B.C. 725 or 724. Exactly at that time Shalmaneser IV. was proceeding to extremities against the kingdom of Israel, and was thus threatening to sweep away one of the last two feeble barriers which had hitherto been interposed between the Assyrian territory and the Egyptian. Shabak, entreated by Hoshea, the last Israelite monarch, to lend him aid, consented to take the kingdom of Israel under his protection (2 Kings xvii. 4), actuated no doubt by an enlightened view of his own interest. But when Samaria was besieged (B.C. 723) and the danger became pressing, he had not the courage to act up to his engagements. The stout resistance offered by the Israelite capital for more than two years (2 Kings xvii. 5) drew forth no corresponding effort on the part of the Ethiopic king. Hoshea was left to his own resources, and in B.C. 722 was forced to succumb. His capital was taken by storm, its inhabitants seized and carried off by the conqueror, the whole territory absorbed into that of Assyria, and the cities occupied by Assyrian colonists (2 Kings xvii. 24). Assyria was brought one step nearer to Egypt, and it became more than ever evident that contact and collision could not be much longer deferred.

By a strange coincidence, the Ethiopic rule, or influence over Egypt by the powerful southern monarchy, lined up perfectly with the rise of Assyrian power in southwestern Asia, which bordered Egypt to the north. This brought into conflict the two greatest military forces of the known world, battling over the fallen Egypt, much like Achilles and Hector fought over Patroclus's body. Shabak's conquest of the Lower Nile valley happened around 725 or 724 B.C. At that same time, Shalmaneser IV was escalating his actions against the kingdom of Israel, putting one of the last two weak barriers between the Assyrian territory and Egypt in jeopardy. Shabak, asked by Hoshea, the final monarch of Israel, to help him, agreed to protect the kingdom (2 Kings xvii. 4), likely motivated by a strategic view of his own interests. However, when Samaria was besieged in 723 B.C. and the situation became urgent, he lacked the courage to uphold his promises. The strong resistance put up by the Israelite capital for more than two years (2 Kings xvii. 5) did not elicit any significant response from the Ethiopian king. Hoshea was left to rely on his own resources and, in 722 B.C., was forced to surrender. His capital was captured, its people taken and carried off by the conqueror, and the entire territory was absorbed into Assyria, with Assyrian settlers occupying the cities (2 Kings xvii. 24). Assyria moved one step closer to Egypt, and it became increasingly clear that contact and conflict could no longer be delayed.

HEAD OF SHABAK (SABACO). HEAD OF SHABAK (SABACO).

The collision came in B.C. 720. In that year Sargon, the founder of the last and greatest of the Assyrian dynasties, who had succeeded Shalmaneser IV. in B.C. 722, having arranged matters in Samaria and taken Hamath, pressed on against Philistia, the last inhabited country on the route which led to Egypt. Shabak, having made alliance with Hanun, king of Gaza, marched to his aid. The opposing hosts met at Ropeh, the Raphia of the Greeks, on the very borders of the desert. Sargon commanded in person on the one side, Shabak and Hanun on the other. A great battle was fought, which was for a long time stoutly contested; but the strong forms, the superior arms, and the better discipline of the Assyrians, prevailed. Asia proved herself, as she has generally done, stronger than Africa; the Egyptians and Philistines fled away in disorder; Hanun was made a prisoner; Shabak with difficulty escaped. Negotiations appear to have followed, and a convention to have been drawn up, to which the Ethiopian and Assyrian monarchs attached their seals. The lump of clay which received the impressions was found by Sir A. Layard at Nineveh, and is now in the British Museum.

The battle occurred in B.C. 720. That year, Sargon, the founder of the last and greatest Assyrian dynasty, who had succeeded Shalmaneser IV in B.C. 722, organized affairs in Samaria and captured Hamath, then advanced against Philistia, the final inhabited territory on the way to Egypt. Shabak, allied with Hanun, king of Gaza, came to his aid. The opposing armies met at Ropeh, known to the Greeks as Raphia, right on the border of the desert. Sargon led one side, while Shabak and Hanun commanded the other. A fierce battle took place, fiercely contested for a long time, but the Assyrians triumphed due to their strong formations, superior weapons, and better discipline. Asia demonstrated, as it often does, that it was stronger than Africa; the Egyptians and Philistines retreated in chaos, Hanun was captured, and Shabak narrowly escaped. Following the battle, negotiations took place, resulting in a treaty signed by the Ethiopian and Assyrian kings. The lump of clay that held the seals was discovered by Sir A. Layard at Nineveh and is now housed in the British Museum.

Shortly afterwards, about B.C. 712, Shabak died, and was succeeded in Egypt by his son Shabatok, in Ethiopia by a certain Tehrak, who appears to have been his nephew, Tehrak exercised the paramount authority over the whole realm, but resided at Napata, while Shabatok held his court at Memphis and ruled Lower Egypt as Tehrak's representative, Assyrian aggression still continued. In B.C. 711 Sargon took Ashdod, and threatened an invasion of Egypt, which Shabatok averted by sending a submissive embassy with presents.

Shortly after, around 712 B.C., Shabak died and was succeeded in Egypt by his son Shabatok, while in Ethiopia, a man named Tehrak, who seems to have been his nephew, took over. Tehrak held the highest authority over the entire kingdom but lived in Napata, while Shabatok ruled Lower Egypt from Memphis as Tehrak's representative. Meanwhile, Assyrian aggression continued. In 711 B.C., Sargon conquered Ashdod and threatened to invade Egypt, which Shabatok managed to prevent by sending a submissive embassy with gifts.

SEAL OF SHABAK. SEAL OF SHABAK.

Six years afterwards Sargon died, and his son, Sennacherib, mounted the Assyrian throne. At once south-western Asia was in a ferment. The Phœnician and Philistine kings recently subjected by Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon, broke out in open revolt. Hezekiah, king of Judah, joined the malcontents. The aid of Egypt was implored, and certain promises of support and assistance received, in part from Tehrak, in part from Shabatok and other native rulers of nomes and cities. Sennacherib, in B.C. 701, led his army into Syria to suppress the rebellion, reduced Phœnicia, received the submission of Ashdod, Ammon, Moab, and Edom; took Ascalon, Hazor, and Joppa, and was proceeding against Ekron, when for the first time he encountered an armed force in the field. A large Egyptian and Ethiopian contingent had at last reached Philistia, and, having united itself with the Ekronites, stood prepared to give the Assyrians battle near Eltekeh. The force consisted of chariots, horsemen, and footmen, and was so numerous that Sennacherib calls it "a multitude that no man could number." Once more, however, Africa had to succumb. Sennacherib at Eltekeh defeated the combined forces of Egypt and Ethiopia with as much ease and completeness as Sargon at Raphia; the multitudinous host was entirely routed, and fled from the field, leaving in the hands of the victors the greater portion of their war-chariots and several sons of one of their kings.

Six years later, Sargon died, and his son, Sennacherib, took the Assyrian throne. Immediately, southwestern Asia was in chaos. The Phoenician and Philistine kings who had recently been subdued by Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon revolted openly. Hezekiah, the king of Judah, joined the rebels. They called for help from Egypt and received certain promises of support from Tehrak, Shabatok, and other local rulers of regions and cities. In 701 B.C., Sennacherib led his army into Syria to crush the rebellion, conquered Phoenicia, and secured the submission of Ashdod, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. He took Ascalon, Hazor, and Joppa, and was advancing toward Ekron when he faced a military force for the first time. A large contingent of Egyptians and Ethiopians finally arrived in Philistia and, having allied with the Ekronites, was ready to engage the Assyrians near Eltekeh. This force included chariots, cavalry, and infantry, so numerous that Sennacherib called it "a multitude that no man could number." However, once again, Africa had to yield. At Eltekeh, Sennacherib decisively defeated the combined forces of Egypt and Ethiopia just as easily and thoroughly as Sargon had done at Raphia; the massive army was completely routed, fleeing the battlefield and leaving the victors with most of their war chariots and several sons of one of their kings.

After this defeat, it is not surprising that Tehrak made no further effort. Hezekiah, the last rebel unsubdued, was left to defend himself as he best might. The Egyptians retreated to their own borders, and there awaited attack. It seemed as if the triumph of Assyria was assured, and as if her yoke must almost immediately be imposed alike upon Judea, upon Egypt, and upon the kingdom of Napata; but an extraordinary catastrophe averted the immediate danger, and gave to Egypt and Ethiopia a respite of thirty-four years. Sennacherib's army, of nearly two hundred thousand men, was almost totally destroyed in one night. "The angel of the Lord went forth," says the contemporary writer, Isaiah, "and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand; and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses" (Isa. xxxvii. 36). Whatever the agency employed in this remarkable destruction—whether it was caused by a simoon, or a pestilence, or by a direct visitation of the Almighty, as different writers have explained it—the event is certain. Its truth is written in the undeniable facts of later history, which show us a sudden cessation of Assyrian attack in this quarter, the kingdom of Judea saved from absorption, and the countries on the banks of the Nile left absolutely unobstructed by Assyria for the third part of a century. As the destruction happened on their borders, the Egyptians naturally enough ascribed it to their own gods, and made a boast of it centuries after. Everything marks, as one of the most noticeable facts in history, this annihilation of so great a portion of the army of the greatest of all the kings of Assyria.

After this defeat, it's not surprising that Tehrak made no further efforts. Hezekiah, the last unbroken rebel, was left to defend himself as best he could. The Egyptians retreated to their own borders, waiting for an attack. It seemed like Assyria's victory was guaranteed, and that its control would soon be imposed on Judea, Egypt, and the kingdom of Napata; however, an extraordinary disaster prevented the immediate threat and gave Egypt and Ethiopia a thirty-four-year break. Sennacherib's army, which numbered nearly two hundred thousand men, was almost completely destroyed in one night. "The angel of the Lord went out," says the contemporary writer, Isaiah, "and struck down in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when they woke up early in the morning, behold, they were all dead bodies" (Isa. xxxvii. 36). Whatever the cause of this remarkable destruction—whether it was due to a sandstorm, a plague, or a direct intervention from God, as various writers have suggested—the event is certain. Its truth is evident in the undeniable facts of later history, which show a sudden halt to Assyrian attacks in this region, the kingdom of Judea saved from takeover, and the lands along the Nile completely free from Assyrian interference for a third of a century. As the destruction occurred near their borders, the Egyptians understandably attributed it to their own gods, and took pride in it for centuries afterward. Everything points to this annihilation of such a significant part of the army of the greatest of all Assyrian kings as one of the most notable facts in history.

HEAD OF TEHRAK (TIRHAKAH). HEAD OF TEHRAK (TIRHAKAH).

The reign of Tirhakah (Tehrak) during this period appears to have been glorious. He was regarded by Judea as its protector, and exercised a certain influence over all Syria as far as Taurus, Amanus, and the Euphrates. In Africa, he brought into subjection the native tribes of the north coast, carrying his arms, according to some, as far as the Pillars of Hercules. He is exhibited at Medinet-Abou in the dress of a warrior, smiting with a mace ten captive foreign princes. He erected monuments in the Egyptian style at Thebes, Memphis, and Napata. Of all the Ethiopian sovereigns of Egypt he was undoubtedly the greatest; but towards the close of his life reverses befell him, which require to be treated of in another section.

The reign of Tirhakah (Tehrak) during this time seems to have been impressive. He was seen by Judea as its protector and held influence over all of Syria, extending to Taurus, Amanus, and the Euphrates. In Africa, he conquered the local tribes along the northern coast, reportedly bringing his military efforts as far as the Pillars of Hercules. He is depicted at Medinet-Abou dressed as a warrior, striking down ten captured foreign princes with a mace. He built monuments in the Egyptian style at Thebes, Memphis, and Napata. Among all the Ethiopian rulers of Egypt, he was definitely the greatest; however, towards the end of his life, he faced setbacks, which will be discussed in another section.

Decorative


Decorative

XXI.

THE FIGHT OVER THE CARCASE—ETHIOPIA v. ASSYRIA.

The miraculous destruction of his army was accepted by Sennacherib as a warning to desist from all further attempts against the independence of Judea, and from all further efforts to extend his dominions towards the south-west. He survived the destruction during a period of seventeen years, and was actively engaged in a number of wars towards the east, the north, and the north-west, but abstained carefully from further contact with either Palestine or Egypt. His son Esarhaddon succeeded him on the throne in B.C. 681, and at once, to a certain extent, modified this policy. He re-established the Assyrian dominion over Upper Syria, Phœnicia, and even Edom; but during the first nine years of his reign the memory of his father's disaster caused him to leave Judea and Egypt unattacked. At last, however, in B.C. 672, encouraged by his many military successes, by the troubled state of Judea under the idolatrous Manasseh, who "shed innocent blood very much from one end of Jerusalem to the other" (2 Kings xxi. 16), and by the advanced age of Tehrak, which seemed to render him a less formidable antagonist now than formerly, he resumed the designs on Egypt which his father and grandfather had entertained, swept Manasseh from his path by seizing him and carrying him off a prisoner to Babylon, marched his troops from Aphek along the coast of Palestine to Raphia, and there made the dispositions which seemed to him best calculated to effect the conquest of the coveted country. As Tirhakah, aware of his intentions, had collected all his available force upon his north-east frontier, about Pelusium and its immediate neighbourhood, the Assyrian monarch took the bold resolution of proceeding southward through the waste tract, known to the Hebrews as "the desert of Shur," in such a way as to turn the flank of Tirhakah's army, to reach Pithom (Heroopolis) and to attack Memphis along the line of the Old Canal. The Arab Sheikhs of the desert were induced to lend him their aid, and facilitate his march by conveying the water necessary for his army on the backs of their camels in skins. The march was thus made in safety, though the soldiers are said to have suffered considerably from fatigue and thirst, and to have been greatly alarmed by the sight of numerous serpents.

The miraculous destruction of his army was seen by Sennacherib as a warning to stop all future attempts against Judea's independence and to stop trying to expand his territory to the southwest. He survived the destruction for seventeen years and was actively involved in several wars to the east, north, and northwest, but he carefully avoided further interactions with Palestine or Egypt. His son Esarhaddon took the throne in B.C. 681 and somewhat changed this policy. He re-established Assyrian control over Upper Syria, Phoenicia, and even Edom; however, during the first nine years of his reign, the memory of his father's disaster led him to avoid attacking Judea and Egypt. Finally, in B.C. 672, encouraged by his many military successes, the troubled situation in Judea under the idolatrous Manasseh, who "shed innocent blood very much from one end of Jerusalem to the other" (2 Kings xxi. 16), and the advanced age of Tirhakah, which seemed to make him less of a threat than before, he resumed his plans for Egypt that his father and grandfather had considered. He removed Manasseh by capturing him and taking him prisoner to Babylon, marched his troops from Aphek along the coast of Palestine to Raphia, and there made the arrangements he thought best for conquering the desired territory. Knowing his intentions, Tirhakah gathered all his available forces on his northeast frontier near Pelusium and its surroundings. In a bold move, the Assyrian king decided to go south through the desolate area known to the Hebrews as "the desert of Shur," in order to outflank Tirhakah's army, reach Pithom (Heroopolis), and attack Memphis along the route of the Old Canal. The Arab Sheikhs of the desert agreed to help him by transporting the water needed for his army on the backs of their camels in skins. The march was completed safely, though the soldiers reportedly suffered greatly from exhaustion and thirst, and were quite frightened by the sight of numerous snakes.

Tehrak, on his part, did all that was possible. On learning Esarhaddon's change of route, he broke up from Pelusium, and, by a hasty march across the eastern Delta succeeded in interposing his army between Memphis and the host of the Assyrians, which had to follow the line taken by Sir Garnet Wolseley in 1884, and encountered the enemy, probably, not far from the spot where the British general completely defeated the troops of Arabi. Here for the third time Asia and Africa stood arrayed the one against the other. Assyria brought into the field a host of probably not fewer than two hundred thousand men, including a strong chariot force, a powerful cavalry, and an infantry variously armed and appointed—some with huge shields and covered by almost complete panoplies, others lightly equipped with targe and dart, or even simply with slings. Egypt opposed to her a force, probably, even more numerous, but consisting chiefly of a light-armed infantry, containing a large proportion of mercenaries whose hearts would not be in the fight, deficient in cavalry, and apt to trust mainly to its chariots. In the flat Egyptian plains lightly accoutred troops fight at a great disadvantage against those whose equipment is of greater solidity and strength; cavalry are an important arm, since there is nothing to check the impetus of a charge; and personal strength is a most important element in determining the result of a conflict. The Assyrians were more strongly made than the Egyptians; they had probably a better training; they certainly wore more armour, carried larger shields and longer spears, and were better equipped both for offence and defence. We have, unfortunately, no description of the battle; but it is in no way surprising to learn that the Assyrians prevailed; Tehrak's forces suffered a complete defeat, were driven from the field in confusion, and hastily dispersed themselves.

Tehrak did everything he could. After he learned about Esarhaddon’s change of route, he left Pelusium and quickly marched across the eastern Delta, managing to place his army between Memphis and the Assyrian forces, which had to follow the same path that Sir Garnet Wolseley took in 1884, and they confronted the enemy, likely not far from where the British general had decisively defeated Arabi's troops. Here for the third time, Asia and Africa stood against each other. Assyria brought a force of probably at least two hundred thousand soldiers, including a strong chariot unit, a powerful cavalry, and variously equipped infantry—some with large shields and almost complete armor, while others were lightly armed with a shield and javelin, or just slings. Egypt countered with an even larger force, mostly consisting of lightly armed infantry, a significant number of whom were mercenaries not really committed to the fight, lacking cavalry, and mostly relying on their chariots. On the flat Egyptian plains, lightly equipped troops are at a significant disadvantage against those with heavier and stronger gear; cavalry is a crucial part, as there’s nothing to stop a charge; and personal strength is a key factor in deciding the outcome of a battle. The Assyrians were typically stronger than the Egyptians; they likely had better training; they definitely wore more armor, carried larger shields and longer spears, and were better prepared for both attack and defense. Unfortunately, we have no description of the battle; however, it’s not surprising to find that the Assyrians won; Tehrak’s forces faced a complete defeat, were driven off the field in disarray, and quickly scattered.

Memphis was then besieged, taken, and given up to pillage. The statues of the gods, the gold and silver, the turquoise and lapis lazuli, the vases, censers, jars, goblets, amphorae, the stores of ivory, ebony, cinnamon, frankincense, fine linen, crystal, jasper, alabaster, embroidery, with which the piety of kings had enriched the temples—especially the Great Temple of Phthah—during fifteen or twenty centuries, were ruthlessly carried off by the conquerors, who destined them either for the adornment of the Ninevite shrines or for their own private advantage. Tehrak's wife and concubines, together with several of his children and numerous officers of his court, left behind in consequence of his hurried flight, fell into the enemy's hands. Tehrak himself escaped, and fled first to Thebes, and then to Napata; while the army of Esarhaddon, following closely on his footsteps, advanced up the valley of the Nile, scoured the open country with their cavalry, stormed the smaller towns, and after a siege of some duration took "populous No," or Thebes, "that was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it, whose rampart was the great deep" (Nahum iii. 8). All Egypt was overrun from the Mediterranean to the First Cataract; thousands of prisoners were taken and carried away captive; the Assyrian monarch was undisputed master of the entire land of Mizraïm from Migdol to Syene and from Pelusium to the City of Crocodiles.

Memphis was then surrounded, captured, and looted. The statues of the gods, gold and silver, turquoise and lapis lazuli, vases, censers, jars, goblets, amphorae, stores of ivory, ebony, cinnamon, frankincense, fine linen, crystal, jasper, alabaster, and embroidery, which the devotion of kings had used to enrich the temples—especially the Great Temple of Phthah—for the past fifteen or twenty centuries, were mercilessly taken by the conquerors, who aimed to either decorate the Ninevite shrines or use them for their own gain. Tehrak's wife, concubines, several of his children, and many of his court officials were left behind due to his quick escape and fell into enemy hands. Tehrak himself escaped, fleeing first to Thebes and then to Napata; meanwhile, Esarhaddon's army closely pursued him, moving up the Nile Valley, raiding open areas with their cavalry, attacking smaller towns, and after a lengthy siege, captured "populous No," or Thebes, "that was situated among the rivers, that had the waters all around it, whose rampart was the great deep" (Nahum iii. 8). All of Egypt was overrun from the Mediterranean to the First Cataract; thousands of prisoners were taken and carried away; the Assyrian king was the uncontested ruler of all of Mizraïm from Migdol to Syene and from Pelusium to the City of Crocodiles.

Upon conquest followed organization. The great Assyrian was not content merely to overrun Egypt; he was bent upon holding it. Acting on the Roman principle, "Divide et impera," he broke up the country into twenty distinct principalities, over each of which he placed a governor, while in the capital of each he put an Assyrian garrison. Of the governors, by far the greater number were native Egyptians; but in one or two instances the command was given to an Assyrian. For the most part, the old divisions of the nomes were kept, but sometimes two or more nomes were thrown together and united under a single governor. Neco, an ancestor of the great Pharaoh who bore the same name (2 Kings xxiii. 29-35), had Saïs, Memphis, and the nomes that lay between them; Mentu-em-ankh had Thebes and southern Egypt as far as Elephantine. Satisfied with these arrangements, the conqueror returned to Nineveh, having first, however, sculptured on the rocks at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb a representation of his person and an account of his conquests.

Upon conquering, the next step was organization. The great Assyrian wasn’t satisfied just to invade Egypt; he intended to keep it. Following the Roman principle, "Divide et impera," he divided the country into twenty separate principalities, each governed by a governor, while placing an Assyrian garrison in the capital of each. Most of the governors were native Egyptians, although in one or two cases, the command went to an Assyrian. Generally, the old divisions of the nomes were maintained, but sometimes two or more nomes were combined and governed by a single person. Neco, an ancestor of the great Pharaoh who shared his name (2 Kings xxiii. 29-35), had control over Saïs, Memphis, and the nomes in between; Mentu-em-ankh managed Thebes and southern Egypt up to Elephantine. Happy with these arrangements, the conqueror returned to Nineveh, but not before carving a depiction of himself and an account of his conquests on the rocks at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb.

FIGURE OF ESAR-HADDON AT THE NAHR-EL-KELB. FIGURE OF ESAR-HADDON AT THE NAHR-EL-KELB.

Egypt lay at the feet of Assyria for about three or four years (B.C. 672-669). Then the struggle was renewed. Tehrak, who had bided his time, learning that Esarhaddon was seized with a mortal malady, issued (B.C. 669) from his Ethiopian fastnesses, descended the valley of the Nile, expelled the governors whom Esarhaddon had set up, and possessed himself of the disputed territory. Thebes received him with enthusiasm, as one attached to the worship of Ammon; and the priests of Phthah opened to him the gates of Memphis, despite the efforts of Neco and the Assyrian garrison. The religious sympathy between Ethiopia and Egypt was an important factor in the as yet undecided contest, and helped much to further the Ethiopic cause. But in war sentiment can effect but little. Physical force, on the whole, prevails, unless in the rare instances where miracle intervenes, or where patriotic enthusiasm is exalted to such a pitch as to strike physical force with impotency.

Egypt was under Assyria's control for about three or four years (B.C. 672-669). Then the conflict started again. Tehrak, who had been waiting for the right moment, found out that Esarhaddon was suffering from a serious illness, and in B.C. 669, he emerged from his strongholds in Ethiopia, traveled down the Nile Valley, removed the governors that Esarhaddon had appointed, and took over the contested land. Thebes welcomed him with open arms, as he was a supporter of the worship of Ammon; and the priests of Phthah opened the gates of Memphis for him, despite Neco's and the Assyrian garrison's attempts to stop him. The shared religious beliefs between Ethiopia and Egypt played a crucial role in the ongoing struggle and significantly advanced the Ethiopian cause. However, in war, feelings don't change much. Typically, physical force wins out, unless there are rare moments where miracles happen, or where patriotism is so intense that it can render physical force powerless.

In the conflict that was now raging patriotism had little part. Ethiopia and Assyria were contending, partly for military pre-eminence, partly for the prey that lay between them, inviting a master—the rich and now weak Egyptian kingdom. Tehrak's success, communicated to the Assyrian Court by the dispossessed governors, drew forth almost immediately a counter effort on the part of Assyria, which did not intend to relinquish without a struggle the important addition that Esarhaddon had made to the empire. In B.C. 668, Asshur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, having succeeded his father Esarhaddon, put the forces of Assyria once more in motion, and swooping down upon the unhappy Egypt, succeeded in carrying all before him, defeated Tehrak at Karbanit in the Delta, recovered Memphis and Thebes, forced Tehrak to take refuge at Napata, re-established in power the twenty petty kings, and restored the country in all respects to the condition into which it had been brought four years previously by Esarhaddon. Egypt thus passed under the Assyrians for the second time, Ethiopia relinquishing her hold upon the prey as soon as Assyria firmly grasped it.

In the ongoing conflict, patriotism played a minor role. Ethiopia and Assyria were fighting, partly for military dominance and partly for the spoils that lay between them, ready for a master—the wealthy but now vulnerable Egyptian kingdom. Tehrak's victory, reported to the Assyrian Court by the ousted governors, quickly prompted a response from Assyria, which wasn’t willing to give up the vital territory that Esarhaddon had added to the empire without a fight. In 668 B.C., Asshur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, took over from his father Esarhaddon and set the Assyrian forces in motion again. He descended upon unfortunate Egypt, defeating Tehrak at Karbanit in the Delta, reclaiming Memphis and Thebes, forcing Tehrak to flee to Napata, reinstating the twenty local kings, and restoring the country to the state it had been in four years earlier under Esarhaddon. Egypt thus fell under Assyrian control for the second time, with Ethiopia letting go of its hold on the territory as soon as Assyria secured it.

Still the matter was not yet settled, the conflict was not yet ended. The petty kings themselves began now to coquet with Tehrak, and to invite his co-operation in an attempt, which they promised they would make, to throw off the yoke of the Assyrians. Detected in this intrigue, Neco and two others were arrested by the Assyrian commandants, loaded with chains, and sent as prisoners to Nineveh. But their arrest did not check the movement. On the contrary, the spirit of revolt spread. The commandants tried to stop it by measures of extreme severity: they sacked the great cities of the Delta—Saïs, Mendes, and Tanis or Zoan; but all was of no avail. Tehrak once more took the field, descended the Nile valley, recovered Thebes, and threatened Memphis. Asshur-bani-pal upon this hastily sent Neco from Nineveh at the head of an Assyrian army to exert his influence on the Assyrian side—which he was content to do, since the Ninevite monarch had made him chief of the petty kings, and conferred the principality of Athribis on his son, Psamatik. Tehrak, in alarm retreated from his bold attempt, evacuated Thebes and returned to his own dominions, where he shortly afterwards died (B.C. 667).

The situation was still unresolved, and the conflict was far from over. The minor kings began to flirt with Tehrak, inviting him to join their planned effort to break free from the Assyrian oppression. However, Neco and two others were caught in this scheme, arrested by the Assyrian commanders, shackled, and sent as prisoners to Nineveh. But their capture didn’t stop the uprising; in fact, the desire for revolt intensified. The commanders tried to suppress it with harsh measures: they destroyed major cities in the Delta—Saïs, Mendes, and Tanis or Zoan; but it was all in vain. Tehrak returned to the battlefield, moved down the Nile valley, regained Thebes, and threatened Memphis. In response, Asshur-bani-pal quickly sent Neco from Nineveh at the head of an Assyrian army to rally support for the Assyrian cause—which he was willing to do, since the Ninevite king had made him leader of the minor kings and granted the principality of Athribis to his son, Psamatik. Alarmed, Tehrak retreated from his ambitious plans, abandoned Thebes, and returned to his own lands, where he soon died (B.C. 667).

It might have been expected that the death of the aged warrior-king would have been the signal for Ethiopia to withdraw from the struggle so long maintained, and relinquish Egypt to her rival; but the actual result was the exact contrary. Tehrak was succeeded at Napata by his step-son, Rut-Ammon, a young prince of a bold and warlike temper. Far from recoiling from the enterprize which Tehrak had adjudged hopeless, he threw himself into it with the utmost ardour. Once more an Ethiopian army descended the Nile valley, occupied Thebes, engaged and defeated a combined Egyptian and Assyrian force near Memphis, took the capital, made its garrison prisoners, and brought under subjection the greater portion of the Delta. Neco, having fallen into the hands of the Ethiopians, was cruelly put to death. His son, Psamatik, saved himself by a timely flight.

It might have been assumed that the death of the elderly warrior-king would be the moment for Ethiopia to pull out of the long-fought battle and leave Egypt to its competitor; however, the actual outcome was quite the opposite. Tehrak was succeeded at Napata by his step-son, Rut-Ammon, a young prince known for his bold and aggressive nature. Instead of shying away from the mission that Tehrak had deemed impossible, he dove into it with full enthusiasm. Once again, an Ethiopian army moved down the Nile valley, occupied Thebes, engaged and defeated a combined Egyptian and Assyrian force near Memphis, captured the capital, took its garrison prisoner, and brought most of the Delta under control. Neco, who fell into the hands of the Ethiopians, was brutally executed. His son, Psamatik, escaped just in time.

History now "repeated itself." In B.C. 666 Asshur-bani-pal made, in person, a second expedition into Egypt, defeated Rut-Ammon upon the frontier, recovered Memphis, marched upon Thebes, Rut-Ammon retiring as he advanced, stormed and sacked the great city, inflicted wanton injury on its temples, carried off its treasures, and enslaved its population. The triumph of the Assyrian arms was complete. Very shortly all resistance ceased. The subject princes were replaced in their principalities. Asshur-bani-pal's sovereignty was universally acknowledged, and Ethiopia, apparently, gave up the contest.

History now "repeated itself." In 666 B.C., Asshur-bani-pal personally led a second expedition into Egypt, defeated Rut-Ammon at the border, reclaimed Memphis, advanced toward Thebes with Rut-Ammon withdrawing, stormed and looted the great city, caused wanton damage to its temples, took its treasures, and enslaved its people. The Assyrian military's victory was complete. Soon after, all resistance faded away. The subject kings were reinstated in their regions. Asshur-bani-pal's authority was widely recognized, and it seemed that Ethiopia abandoned the fight.

One more effort was, however, made by the southern power. On the death of Rut-Ammon, Mi-Ammon-Nut, probably a son of Tirhakah's, became king of Ethiopia, and resolved on a renewal of the war. Egyptian disaffection might always be counted on, whichever of the two great powers held temporary possession of the country; and Mi-Ammon-Nut further courted the favour of the Egyptian princes, priests, and people, by an ostentatious display of zeal for their religion. Assyria had allowed the temples to fall into decay; the statues of the gods had in some instances been cast down, the temple revenues confiscated, the priests restrained in their conduct of the religious worship. Mi-Ammon-Nut proclaimed himself the chosen of Ammon, and the champion of the gods of Egypt. On entering each Egyptian town he was careful to visit its chief temple, to offer sacrifices and gifts, to honour the images and lead them in procession, and to pay all due respect to the college of priests. This prudent policy met with complete success. As he advanced down the Nile valley, he was everywhere received with acclamations. "Go onward in the peace of thy name," they shouted, "go onward in the peace of thy name. Dispense life throughout all the land—that the temples may be restored which are hastening to ruin; that the statues of the gods may be set up after their manner; that their revenues may be given back to the gods and goddesses, and the offerings of the dead to the deceased; that the priest may be established in his place, and all things be fulfilled according to the Holy Ritual." In many places where it had been intended to oppose his advance in arms, the news of his pious acts produced a complete revulsion of feeling, and "those whose intention it had been to fight were moved with joy." No one opposed him until he had nearly reached the northern capital, Memphis, which was doubtless held in force by the Assyrians, to whom the princes of Lower Egypt were still faithful. A battle, accordingly, was fought before the walls, and in this Mi-Ammon-Nut was victorious; the Egyptians probably did not fight with much zeal, and the Assyrians, distrusting their subject allies, may well have been dispirited. After the victory, Memphis opened her gates, and soon afterwards the princes of the Delta thought it best to make their submission—the Assyrians, we must suppose, retired—Mi-Ammon-Nut's authority was acknowledged, and the princes, having transferred their allegiance to him, were allowed to retain their governments.

One final push was made by the southern power. After Rut-Ammon died, Mi-Ammon-Nut, likely a son of Tirhakah, became king of Ethiopia and decided to restart the war. Egyptian discontent could always be expected, regardless of which of the two major powers temporarily controlled the region; Mi-Ammon-Nut also sought to win over the Egyptian kings, priests, and the general public with a showy commitment to their religion. Assyria had let the temples fall into disrepair; in some cases, the statues of the gods had been toppled, temple funds taken away, and priests restricted in their religious duties. Mi-Ammon-Nut declared himself the chosen one of Ammon and the defender of Egypt's gods. When he entered each Egyptian town, he made sure to visit its main temple to offer sacrifices and gifts, honor the images, lead them in procession, and show proper respect to the group of priests. This wise strategy proved to be extremely successful. As he traveled down the Nile valley, he was greeted everywhere with cheers. "Continue onward in the peace of your name," they shouted, "continue onward in the peace of your name. Bring life throughout the land—so that the temples may be restored which are falling into ruin; that the statues of the gods may be set up as they should be; that their revenues be returned to the gods and goddesses, and the offerings for the deceased; that the priest may be secure in his place, and all things be carried out according to the Holy Ritual." In many areas where opposition to his advance was planned, the news of his devout actions caused a complete change of heart, and "those who had intended to fight were filled with joy." No one stood in his way until he was almost at the northern capital, Memphis, which was likely held strongly by the Assyrians, to whom the princes of Lower Egypt were still loyal. Thus, a battle was fought outside the city walls, and Mi-Ammon-Nut emerged victorious; the Egyptians probably didn't fight vigorously, and the Assyrians, distrustful of their local allies, may have felt dispirited. After the victory, Memphis opened her gates, and shortly after that, the princes of the Delta decided it was best to surrender—the Assyrians, we can assume, withdrew—Mi-Ammon-Nut's authority was recognized, and the princes, having switched their loyalty to him, were permitted to keep their governorships.

The consequences of this last Ethiopian invasion of Egypt appear to have been transient. Mi-Ammon-Nut did not live very long to enjoy his conquest, and in Egypt he had no successor. He was not even recognized by the Egyptians among their legitimate kings. Egypt at his death reverted to her previous position of dependence upon Assyria, feeling herself still too weak to stand alone, and perhaps not greatly caring, so that she had peace, which of the two great powers she acknowledged as her suzerain. She had now (about B.C. 650) for above twenty years been fought over by the two chief kingdoms of the earth—each of them had traversed with huge armies, as many as five or six times, the Nile valley from one extremity to the other; the cities had been half ruined, harvest after harvest destroyed, trees cut down, temples rifled, homesteads burnt, villas plundered. Thebes, the Hundred-gated, probably for many ages quite the most magnificent city in the world, had become a by-word for desolation (Nahum iii. 8, 9); Memphis, Heliopolis, Tanis, Saïs, Mendes, Bubastis, Heracleopolis, Hermopolis; Crocodilopolis, had been taken and retaken repeatedly; the old buildings and monuments had been allowed to fall into decay; no king had been firmly enough established on his throne to undertake the erection of any but insignificant new ones. Egypt was "fallen, fallen, fallen—fallen from her high estate;" an apathy, not unlike the stillness of death, brooded over her; literature was silent, art extinct; hope of recovery can scarcely have lingered in many bosoms. As events proved, the vital spark was not actually fled; but the keenest observer would scarcely have ventured to predict, at any time between B.C. 750 and B.C. 650, such a revival as marked the period between B.C. 650 and B.C. 530.

The effects of this last Ethiopian invasion of Egypt seem to have been short-lived. Mi-Ammon-Nut didn't live very long to enjoy his victory, and in Egypt, he had no successor. The Egyptians didn't even recognize him as one of their legitimate kings. After his death, Egypt fell back into its previous state of dependence on Assyria, feeling too weak to stand on its own and perhaps not particularly concerned about it, as long as there was peace with whichever of the two major powers it acknowledged as its ruler. By around 650 B.C., Egypt had been contested for over twenty years by the two leading kingdoms, with each side moving massive armies through the Nile valley five or six times from end to end; cities were left half-destroyed, crops were ruined year after year, trees were chopped down, temples were looted, homes were burned, and villas were pillaged. Thebes, the city with a hundred gates, which was probably the most magnificent city in the world for many ages, had become a symbol of destruction (Nahum iii. 8, 9); Memphis, Heliopolis, Tanis, Saïs, Mendes, Bubastis, Heracleopolis, Hermopolis, and Crocodilopolis had been captured and recaptured multiple times. The ancient buildings and monuments fell into disrepair; no king had been stable enough on his throne to take on the construction of anything but minor new ones. Egypt was "fallen, fallen, fallen—fallen from her high estate;" an apathy, reminiscent of death's stillness, hung over her; literature was silent, art had vanished; hope for recovery likely faded in many hearts. As events showed, the essential spirit had not completely disappeared; yet, no keen observer would have dared predict, at any time between 750 B.C. and 650 B.C., such a revival as occurred from 650 B.C. to 530 B.C.

Decorative


Decorative

XXII.

THE CORPSE COMES TO LIFE AGAIN—PSAMATIK I. AND HIS SON NECO.

When a country has sunk so gradually, so persistently, and for so long a series of years as Egypt had now been sinking, if there is a revival, it must almost necessarily come from without. The corpse cannot rise without assistance—the expiring patient cannot cure himself. All the vital powers being sapped, all the energies having departed, the Valley of the Shadow of Death having been entered, nothing can arrest dissolution but some foreign stock, some blood not yet vitiated, some "saviour" sent by Divine providence from outside the nation (Isa. xix. 20), to recall the expiring life, to revivify the paralyzed frame, to infuse fresh energy into it, and to make it once more live, breathe, act, think, assert itself. Yet the saviour must not be altogether from without. He must not be a conqueror, for conquest necessarily weakens and depresses; he must not be too remote in blood, or he will lack the power fully to understand and sympathize with the nation which he is to restore, and without true understanding and true sympathy he can effect nothing; he must not be a stranger to the nation's recent history, or he will make mistakes that will be irremediable. What is wanted is a scion of a foreign stock, connected by marriage and otherwise with the nation that he is to regenerate, and well acquainted with its circumstances, character, position, history, virtues, weaknesses. No entirely new man can answer to these requirements; he must be found, if he is to be found at all, among the principal men of the time, whose lot has for some considerable period been cast in with the State which is to be renovated.

When a country has gradually and persistently declined for as many years as Egypt has, any revival will almost certainly need to come from outside. A corpse can't rise on its own—the dying can't heal themselves. With all the vital energies drained, having entered the Valley of the Shadow of Death, nothing can stop decay but some external source, some untainted blood, some "savior" sent by Divine providence from beyond the nation (Isa. xix. 20), to restore the fading life, reinvigorate the lifeless body, inject fresh energy into it, and enable it to live, breathe, act, think, and assert itself once again. However, the savior can't be entirely from outside. They shouldn't be a conqueror, as conquest weakens and depresses; they shouldn't be too far removed in lineage, or they'll lack the ability to truly understand and empathize with the nation they are meant to revive, and without genuine understanding and empathy, they won't achieve anything. They must not be unfamiliar with the nation's recent history, or they'll make irreparable mistakes. What’s needed is a descendant of a foreign lineage, connected by marriage or otherwise to the nation they are to rejuvenate, and well-informed about its circumstances, character, position, history, strengths, and weaknesses. No entirely new individual can meet these criteria; if they are to be found, they must be among the prominent figures of the time whose fortunes have been intertwined with the state that needs revitalization.

In Egypt, at the time of which we are speaking, exactly this position was occupied by Psamatik, son of Neco. He was, according to all appearance, of Libyan origin; his stock was new; his name and his father's name are unheard of hitherto in Egyptian history; etymologically, they are non-Egyptian; and Psamatik has a non-Egyptian countenance. He was probably of the same family as "Inarus the Libyan," whose father was a Psamatik. He belonged thus to a Libyan stock, which had, however, been crossed, more than once, with the blood of the Egyptians. The family was one of those Libyan families which had long been domiciled at Saïs, and had intermarried with the older Saites, who were predominantly Egyptian. He had also for twenty years or more been an important unit in the Egyptian political system, having shared the vicissitudes of his father's fortunes from B.C. 672 to B.C. 667, and having then been placed at the head of one of the many principalities into which Egypt was divided. In the same, or the next, year he seems to have succeeded his father; and he had reigned at Saïs for sixteen or seventeen years before he felt himself called upon to take any step that was at all abnormal, or attempt in any way to change his position.

In Egypt, during the time we're discussing, Psamatik, the son of Neco, held this position. He appeared to be of Libyan descent; his family was relatively new, and neither his name nor his father's name had been recorded in Egyptian history until now; they are etymologically non-Egyptian, and Psamatik had a non-Egyptian appearance. He was likely related to "Inarus the Libyan," whose father was also named Psamatik. Therefore, he came from a Libyan lineage, although it had mixed over time with Egyptian blood. His family was one of those Libyan clans that had lived in Saïs for a long time and had married into the older Saites, who were mostly Egyptian. For over twenty years, he had played an important role in the Egyptian political landscape, experiencing the ups and downs of his father's reign from 672 B.C. to 667 B.C., after which he was appointed to lead one of the many principalities into which Egypt was divided. In the same year, or the following year, he seems to have succeeded his father; he had ruled Saïs for sixteen or seventeen years before he felt the need to take any unusual action or try to change his circumstances.

HEAD OF PSAMATIK I. HEAD OF PSAMATIK I.

Familiar with the politics and institutions of Egypt, yet, as a semi-Libyan, devoid of Egyptian prejudices, and full of the ambition which naturally inspires young princes of a vigorous stock, Psamatik had at once the desire to shake off the yoke of Assyria, and reunite Egypt under his own sway, and also a willingness to adopt any means, however new and strange, by which such a result might be accomplished. He had probably long watched for a favourable moment at which to give his ambition vent, and found it at last in the circumstances that ushered in the second half of the seventh century. Assyria was, about B.C. 651, brought into a position of great difficulty, by the revolt of Babylon in alliance with Elam, and was thus quite unable to exercise a strict surveillance over the more distant parts of the Empire. The garrison by which she held Egypt had probably been weakened by the withdrawal of troops for the defence of Assyria Proper; at any rate, it could not be relieved or strengthened under the existing circumstances. At the same time a power had grown up in Asia Minor, which was jealous of Assyria, having lately been made to tremble for its independence. Gyges of Lydia had, in a moment of difficulty, been induced to acknowledge himself Assyria's subject; but he had emerged triumphant from the perils surrounding him, had reasserted his independent authority, and was anxious that the power of Assyria should be, as much as possible, diminished. Psamatik must have been aware of this. Casting his eyes around the political horizon in search of any ally at once able and willing to lend him aid, he fixed upon Lydia as likely to be his best auxiliary, and dispatched an embassy into Asia Minor. Gyges received his application favourably, and sent him a strong Asiatic contingent, chiefly composed of Ionians and Carians. Both races were at this time warlike, and wore armour of much greater weight and strength than any which the Egyptians were accustomed to carry. It was in reliance, mainly, on these foreigners, that Psamatik ventured to proclaim himself "King of the Two Countries," and to throw out a gage of defiance at once to his Assyrian suzerain and to his nineteen fellow-princes.

Familiar with the politics and institutions of Egypt, yet, as a semi-Libyan, free of Egyptian biases and fueled by the ambition that typically drives young princes of strong ancestry, Psamatik immediately wanted to break free from Assyria's control and reunite Egypt under his rule. He was open to any methods, no matter how unconventional, to achieve this goal. He had likely been waiting for the right moment to express his ambitions, which finally came in the events leading up to the second half of the seventh century. Around 651 B.C., Assyria faced significant challenges due to the revolt of Babylon in alliance with Elam, making it unable to maintain strict control over its more distant territories. The garrison that held Egypt probably weakened as troops were pulled to defend Assyria itself; in any case, it couldn’t be reinforced under the current conditions. Meanwhile, a power had emerged in Asia Minor that was wary of Assyria, having just been forced to consider its own independence. Gyges of Lydia had, in a tough situation, accepted being a subject of Assyria but had since triumphed over his struggles, reclaimed his authority, and wanted to reduce Assyria's influence as much as possible. Psamatik must have recognized this. Looking for any capable and willing ally, he decided that Lydia would be his best option and sent an embassy to Asia Minor. Gyges responded positively and sent him a strong contingent of troops, mainly composed of Ionians and Carians. Both groups were warrior-like and equipped with much heavier and stronger armor than what the Egyptians were used to. It was primarily on these foreign troops that Psamatik relied when he declared himself "King of the Two Countries," challenging both his Assyrian overlord and his nineteen fellow princes.

The gage was not taken up by Assyria. Immersed in her own difficulties, threatened in three quarters, on the south, on the south-east, and on the east by Babylonia, by Elam, and by Media, she had enough to do at home in guarding her own frontiers, and seeking to keep under her immediate neighbours, and was therefore in no condition to engage in distant expeditions, or even to care very much what became of a remote and troublesome dependency. Thus Assyria made no sign. But the petty princes took arms at once. To them the matter was one of life or death; they must either crush the usurper or be themselves swept out of existence. So they gathered together in full force. Pakrur from Pisabtu, and Petubastes from Tanis, and Sheshonk from Busiris, and Tafnekht from Prosopitis, and Bek-en-nefi from Athribis, and Nakh-he from Heracleopolis, and Pimai from Mendes, and Lamentu from Hermopolis, and Mentu-em-ankh from Thebes, and other princes from other cities, met and formed their several contingents into a single army, and stood at bay near Momemphis, the modern Menouf, in the western Delta, on the borders of the Libyan Desert. Here a great battle was fought, which was for some time doubtful; but the valour of the Greco-Carians, and the superiority of their equipment, prevailed. The victory rested with Psamatik; his adversaries were defeated and dispersed; following up his first success, he proceeded to attack city after city, forcing all to submit, and determined that he would nowhere tolerate even the shadow of a rival. Disintegration had been the curse of Egypt for the space of above a century; Psamatik put an end to it. No more princes of Bubastis, or of Tanis, or of Saïs, or of Mendes, or of Heracleopolis, or of Thebes! No more eikosiarchies, dodecarchies, or heptarchies even! Monarchy pure, the absolute rule of one and one only sovereign over the whole of Egypt, from the cataracts of Syene to the shores of the Mediterranean, and from Pelusium and Migdol to Momemphis and Marea, was established, and henceforth continued, as long as Egyptian rule endured. The lesson had been learnt at a tremendous cost, but it had now at last been thoroughly learnt, that only in unity is there strength—that the separate sticks of the faggot are impotent to resist the external force which the collective bundle might without difficulty have defied and scorned.

The Assyrians didn't take action. Stuck in their own problems, facing threats from three sides—Babylonia to the south, Elam to the southeast, and Media to the east—they had plenty to deal with at home, protecting their borders and keeping their neighbors in check. Because of this, they were in no position to launch distant campaigns or even care much about a far-off and troublesome dependency. So, Assyria stayed silent. Meanwhile, the local princes rallied immediately. For them, it was a matter of life or death; they had to either defeat the usurper or risk being wiped out. They came together in full force—Pakrur from Pisabtu, Petubastes from Tanis, Sheshonk from Busiris, Tafnekht from Prosopitis, Bek-en-nefi from Athribis, Nakh-he from Heracleopolis, Pimai from Mendes, Lamentu from Hermopolis, Mentu-em-ankh from Thebes, and other princes from various cities. They joined their forces to create a single army and prepared for battle near Momemphis, now known as Menouf, in the western Delta, on the edge of the Libyan Desert. A major battle took place here, which was uncertain for a while, but the bravery of the Greco-Carians and their superior equipment won the day. Psamatik emerged victorious, defeating and scattering his enemies. Following up on his initial success, he attacked city after city, forcing everyone to submit and making it clear that he wouldn’t tolerate even the hint of a rival. For over a century, Egypt had suffered from disunity, but Psamatik ended that. No more princes from Bubastis, Tanis, Saïs, Mendes, Heracleopolis, or Thebes! No more fragmented rule like eikosiarchies, dodecarchies, or heptarchies! A pure monarchy was established, with one absolute sovereign ruling all of Egypt, from the cataracts of Syene to the Mediterranean coast, and from Pelusium and Migdol to Momemphis and Marea. This system persisted as long as Egyptian rule lasted. The hard lesson was learned at great cost, but it had finally sunk in: strength lies in unity—that the individual sticks of a bundle are powerless against the forces that a united group could have easily resisted and faced down.

Psamatik had gained the object of his ambition—sovereignty over all Egypt; he had now to consider how it might best be kept. And first, as that which is won by the sword must be kept by the sword, he made arrangements with the troops sent to his aid by Gyges, that they should take permanent service under his banner, and form the most important element in his standing army. His native troops were quartered at Elephantine, in the extreme south, and in Marea and Daphnæ, at the two extremities of the Delta towards the west and east. The new accession to his military strength he stationed at no great distance from the capital, settling them in permanent camps on either side of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, near the city of Bubastis. We are told that this exaltation of the new corps to the honourable position of keeping watch upon the capital, greatly offended the native troops, and induced 200,000 of them to quit Egypt and seek service with the Ethiopians. The facts have probably been exaggerated, for Ethiopia certainly does not gain, or Egypt lose, in strength, either at or after this period.

Psamatik had achieved his goal—ruling all of Egypt; now he had to think about how to hold onto it. First, since what is won by force must also be defended by force, he made deals with the troops sent to help him by Gyges, ensuring they would serve under his command permanently and become the main part of his standing army. His local troops were stationed in Elephantine, in the far south, and in Marea and Daphnæ, at the two ends of the Delta to the west and east. He placed the new addition to his military strength not far from the capital, setting them up in permanent camps on both sides of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, near the city of Bubastis. It’s said that this promotion of the new troops to the important role of guarding the capital really upset the local troops, leading 200,000 of them to leave Egypt for service with the Ethiopians. The details may have been blown out of proportion, as Ethiopia certainly didn’t gain, nor did Egypt lose, strength, either at this time or afterward.

Psamatik, further, for the better securing of his throne against pretenders, thought it prudent to contract a marriage with the descendant of a royal stock held in honour by many of his subjects. The princess, Shepenput, was the daughter of a Piankhi, who claimed descent from the unfortunate Bek-en-ranf, the king burnt alive by Shabak, and who had also probably some royal Ethiopian blood in his veins. By his nuptials with this princess, Psamatik assured to his crown the legitimacy which it had hitherto lacked. Uniting henceforth in his own person the rights of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth dynasties, those of the Saïtes and those of the Ethiopians, he became the one and only legal king, and no competitor could possibly arise with a title to sovereignty higher or better than his own.

Psamatik, wanting to secure his throne against challengers, decided it would be wise to marry someone from a respected royal lineage that many of his subjects admired. The princess, Shepenput, was the daughter of Piankhi, who claimed descent from the unfortunate Bek-en-ranf, the king who was burned alive by Shabak, and likely had some royal Ethiopian ancestry as well. By marrying this princess, Psamatik gave his rule the legitimacy it had previously lacked. From then on, he united the rights of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth dynasties, combining those of the Saïtes and the Ethiopians, making him the one and only legitimate king, with no rival able to claim a higher or more valid title to the throne.

Being now personally secure, he could turn his attention to the restoration and elevation of the nationality of which he had taken it upon him to assume the direction. He could cast his eyes over the unhappy Egypt—depressed, down-trodden, well-nigh trampled to death—and give his best consideration to the question what was to be done to restore her to her ancient greatness. There she lay before his eyes in a deplorable state of misery and degradation. All the great cities, her glory and her boast in former days, had suffered more or less in the incessant wars; Memphis had been besieged and pillaged half a dozen times; Thebes had been sacked and burnt twice; from Syene to Pelusium there was not a town which had not been injured in one or other of the many invasions. The canals and roads, carefully repaired by Shabak, had since his decease met with entire neglect; the cultivable lands had been devastated, and the whole population decimated periodically. Out of the ruins of the old Egypt, Psamatik had to raise up a new Egypt. He had to revivify the dead corpse, and put a fresh life into the stiff and motionless limbs. With great energy and determination he set himself to accomplish the task. Applying himself, first of all, to the restoration of what was decayed and ruined, he re-established the canals and the roads, encouraged agriculture, favoured the development of the population. The ruined towns were gradually repaired and rebuilt, and vast efforts made everywhere to restore, and even to enlarge and beautify the sacred edifices. At Memphis, Psamatik built the great southern portal which gave completeness to the ancient temple of the god Phthah, and also constructed a grand court for the residence of the Apis-Bulls, surrounded by a colonnade, against the piers of which stood colossal figures of Osiris, from eighteen to twenty feet in height. At Thebes he re-erected the portions of the temple of Karnak, which had been thrown down by the Assyrians; at Saïs, Mendes, Heliopolis, and Philæ he undertook extensive works. The entire valley of the Nile became little more than one huge workshop, where stone-cutters and masons, bricklayers and carpenters, laboured incessantly. Under the liberal encouragement of the king and of his chief nobles, the arts recovered themselves and began to flourish anew. The engraving and painting of the hieroglyphics were resumed with success, and carried out with a minuteness and accuracy that provokes the admiration of the beholder. Bas-reliefs of extreme beauty and elaboration characterize the period. There rests upon some of them "a gentle and almost feminine tenderness, which has impressed upon the imitations of living creatures the stamp of an incredible delicacy both of conception and execution." Statues and statuettes of merit were at the same time produced in abundance. The "Saïtie art", as that of the revival under the Psamatiks has been called, is characterized by an extreme neatness of manipulation in the drawings and lines, the fineness of which often reminds us of the performances of a seal-engraver, by grace, softness, tenderness, and elegance. It is not the broad, but somewhat realistic style of the Memphitic period, much less the highly imaginative and vigorous style of the Ramesside kings; but it is a style which has quiet merits of its own, sweet and pure, full of refinement and delicacy.

Being now personally safe, he could focus on restoring the nation he had taken charge of. He looked out over the troubled Egypt—depressed, oppressed, nearly crushed—and considered what needed to be done to bring it back to its former glory. Before him lay a land in a pitiful state of suffering and degradation. All the great cities, once proud symbols of its past, had been damaged in the ongoing wars; Memphis had been besieged and looted multiple times; Thebes had been sacked and burned twice; every town from Syene to Pelusium had faced harm during the numerous invasions. The canals and roads, once carefully maintained by Shabak, had fallen into total neglect after his death; fertile lands had been devastated, and the entire population was periodically decimated. From the ruins of old Egypt, Psamatik had to create a new Egypt. He needed to revive the lifeless body and breathe new life into its stiff and motionless limbs. With great energy and determination, he set out to achieve this task. He first focused on restoring what was decayed and ruined, re-establishing the canals and roads, promoting agriculture, and encouraging population growth. The damaged towns were gradually repaired and rebuilt, and significant efforts were made everywhere to restore—and even enhance—the sacred structures. In Memphis, Psamatik built the grand southern entrance to complete the ancient temple of the god Phthah and constructed a large court for the residence of the Apis Bulls, surrounded by columns adorned with colossal figures of Osiris that were eighteen to twenty feet tall. In Thebes, he restored parts of the Karnak temple that the Assyrians had destroyed; at Saïs, Mendes, Heliopolis, and Philæ, he initiated extensive projects. The entire Nile valley transformed into a massive workshop, where stonecutters, masons, bricklayers, and carpenters worked tirelessly. With generous support from the king and his top nobles, the arts revived and began to flourish once more. The engraving and painting of hieroglyphics resumed successfully, executed with such precision and detail that it evokes admiration from those who see it. The period was marked by beautiful and intricate bas-reliefs. Some of them exhibit “a gentle and almost feminine tenderness, which impresses an incredible delicacy of both concept and execution” on the representations of living creatures. At the same time, numerous noteworthy statues and statuettes were created. The "Saïtie art," as the revival under the Psamatiks is known, is defined by extreme neatness in the drawings and lines, often reminiscent of the work of a seal-engraver, characterized by grace, softness, tenderness, and elegance. It is not the broad but somewhat realistic style of the Memphitic period, nor the highly imaginative and vigorous style of the Ramesside kings; instead, it possesses quiet merits of its own—sweet and pure, filled with refinement and delicacy.

BAS-RELIEFS OF THE TIME OF PSAMATIK I. BAS-RELIEFS OF THE TIME OF PSAMATIK I.

Egypt was thus rendered flourishing at home; her magnificent temples and other edifices put off their look of neglect; her cities were once more busy seats of industry and traffic; her fields teemed with rich harvests; her population increased; her whole aspect changed. But the circumstances of the time led Psamatik to attempt something more. His employment of Greek and Carian mercenaries naturally led him on into an intimacy with foreigners, and into a regard and consideration for them quite unknown to previous Pharaohs, and in contradiction to ordinary Egyptian prejudices. Egypt was the China of the Old World, and had for ages kept herself as much as possible aloof from foreigners, and looked upon them with aversion. Foreign vessels were, until the time of Psamatik, forbidden to enter any of the Nile mouths, or to touch at an Egyptian port. Psamatik saw that the new circumstances required an extensive change. The mercenaries, if they were to be content with their position, must be allowed to communicate freely with the cities and countries from which they came, and intercourse between Greece and Egypt must be encouraged rather than forbidden. Accordingly the Greeks were invited to make settlements in the Delta, and Naucratis, favourably situated on the Canopic branch of the Nile, was specially assigned to them as a residence. Most of the more enterprizing among the commercial states of the time took advantage of the opening, and Miletus, Phocæa, Rhodes, Samos, Chios, Mytilene, Halicarnassus, and Ægina established factories at the locality specified, built temples there to the Greek gods, and sent out a body of colonists. A considerable trade grew up between Egypt and Greece. The Egyptians of the higher classes especially appreciated the flavour and quality of the Greek wines, which were consequently imported into the country in large quantities. Greek pottery and Greek glyptic art also attracted a certain amount of favour. On her side Egypt exported corn, alum, muslin and linen fabrics, and the excellent paper which she made from the Cyperus Papyrus.

Egypt became prosperous again; her impressive temples and buildings shed their neglectful appearance; her cities buzzed with industry and commerce once more; her fields were filled with bountiful harvests; her population grew; her entire look transformed. However, the circumstances of the time pushed Psamatik to do more. His use of Greek and Carian mercenaries naturally led him to develop a close relationship with foreigners and to regard them with a consideration that previous Pharaohs had not shown, contrary to common Egyptian biases. Egypt was like the China of the ancient world, having kept itself as detached from foreigners as possible for ages, viewing them with disdain. Until Psamatik's time, foreign ships were prohibited from entering any of the Nile’s outlets or docking at Egyptian ports. Psamatik realized that the new circumstances required significant change. For the mercenaries to be satisfied with their roles, they needed to freely communicate with the cities and countries they came from, and engagement between Greece and Egypt should be promoted rather than restricted. Therefore, the Greeks were welcomed to settle in the Delta, and Naucratis, conveniently located on the Canopic branch of the Nile, was specifically designated for them as a residence. Many of the more enterprising commercial states took advantage of this opportunity; Miletus, Phocæa, Rhodes, Samos, Chios, Mytilene, Halicarnassus, and Ægina established trading posts there, built temples for the Greek gods, and sent groups of colonists. Significant trade developed between Egypt and Greece. The higher classes of Egyptians especially enjoyed the taste and quality of Greek wines, which were thus imported in large amounts. Greek pottery and glyptic art also gained some popularity. In return, Egypt exported grain, alum, muslin and linen textiles, and the excellent paper made from the Cyperus Papyrus.

The trade thus established was carried on mainly, if not wholly, in Greek bottoms, the Egyptians having a distaste to the sea, and regarding commerce with no great favour. Nevertheless, the life and stir which foreign commerce introduced among them, the familiarity with strange customs and manners, engendered by daily intercourse with the Greeks, the acquisition (on the part of some) of the Greek language, the sight of Greek modes of worship, of Greek painting and Greek sculpture, the insight into Greek habits of thought, which could not but follow, produced no inconsiderable effect upon the national character of the Egyptians, shaking them out of their accustomed groove, and awakening curiosity and inquiry. The effect was scarcely beneficial. Egyptian national life had been eminently conservative and unchanging. The introduction of novelty in ten thousand shapes unsettled and disturbed it. The old beliefs were shaken, and a multitude of superstitions rushed in. The corruptions introduced by the Greeks were more easy of adoption and imitation than the sterling points of their character, their intelligence, their unwearied energy, their love of truth. Egypt was awakened to a new life by the novel circumstances of the Psamatik period; but it was a fitful life, unquiet, unnatural, feverish. The character of the men lost in dignity and strength by the discontinuance of military training consequent upon the substitution for a native army of an army of mercenaries. The position of the women sank through the adoption of those ideas concerning them which their contact with orientals had engrained into the minds of the Asiatic Greeks. The national spirit of the people was sapped by the concentration of the royal favour on a race of foreigners whose manners and customs were abhorrent to them, and whom they regarded with envy and dislike. If some improvement is to be seen on the surface of Egyptian life under the Psamatiks, some greater activity and enterprise, some increased intellectual stir, some improved methods in art, these ameliorations scarcely compensate for the indications of decline which lie deeper, and which in the sequel determined the fate of the nation.

The trade established was primarily, if not entirely, carried out on Greek ships, as the Egyptians had an aversion to the sea and did not favor commerce. However, the life and energy that foreign trade brought about, along with the exposure to unfamiliar customs and ways of life through daily interactions with the Greeks, the learning of the Greek language by some, the observation of Greek religious practices, painting, and sculpture, and the understanding of Greek ways of thinking inevitably influenced the Egyptians' national character. It shook them from their usual routines and sparked curiosity and inquiry. The outcome was not particularly beneficial. Egyptian national life had been very conservative and unchanging. The introduction of new ideas and innovations disturbed this stability. Their old beliefs were shaken, and numerous superstitions emerged. The negative influences from the Greeks were easier to adopt and imitate compared to their admirable qualities—intelligence, tireless energy, and love of truth. Egypt was stirred into a new existence during the Psamatik period; however, it was a restless, unnatural, and feverish life. The dignity and strength of the men diminished due to the end of military training that replaced the native army with mercenaries. The standing of women declined because of the ideas about them that came from their interactions with the Asiatics. The national spirit of the people was undermined by the royal focus on a group of foreigners whose customs and manners they found repugnant and whom they viewed with envy and distaste. While some visible improvements in Egyptian life occurred during the Psamatiks—greater activity, enterprise, increased intellectual engagement, and enhanced artistic methods—these improvements hardly offset the deeper signs of decline that ultimately shaped the nation's destiny.

The later years of the reign of Psamatik were coincident with a time of extreme trouble and confusion in Asia, in the course of which the Assyrian Monarchy came to an end, and south-western Asia was partitioned between the Medes and the Babylonians. A tempting field was laid open for an ambitious prince, who might well have dreamt of Syrian or even Mesopotamian conquest, and of recalling the old glories of Seti, Thothmes, and Amenhotep. Psamatik did go so far as to make an attack upon Philistia, but met with so little success that he was induced to restrain any grander aspirations which he may have cherished, and to leave the Asiatic monarchs to settle Asiatic affairs as it pleased them. Ashdod, we are told, resisted the Egyptian arms for twenty-nine years; and though it fell at last, the prospect of half-a-dozen such sieges was not encouraging. Psamatik, moreover, was an old man by the time that the Assyrian Empire fell to pieces, and we can understand his shrinking from a distant and dangerous expedition. He left the field open for his son, Neco, having in no way committed him, but having secured for him a ready entrance into Asia by his conquest of the Philistine fortress.

The later years of Psamatik's reign coincided with a time of great turmoil and chaos in Asia, which led to the collapse of the Assyrian Empire and the division of southwestern Asia between the Medes and Babylonians. This situation created a tempting opportunity for an ambitious leader, who might have envisioned conquering Syria or even Mesopotamia, and reviving the ancient glories of Seti, Thothmes, and Amenhotep. Psamatik did launch an attack on Philistia, but he had such little success that he was dissuaded from pursuing any grander ambitions and opted to let the Asian rulers handle their own matters as they saw fit. Ashdod, it is said, resisted Egyptian forces for twenty-nine years; and although it eventually fell, the thought of several such sieges was not appealing. Additionally, by the time the Assyrian Empire crumbled, Psamatik was an old man, and it’s easy to see why he would shy away from a risky expedition. He left the path clear for his son, Neco, without committing him to any specific course of action, but he did provide him with a straightforward way into Asia through the conquest of the Philistine fortress.

Neco, the son of Psamatik I., from the moment that he ascended the throne, resolved to make the bold stroke for empire from which his father had held back. Regarding his mercenary army as a sufficient land force, he concentrated his energies on the enlargement and improvement of his navy, which was weak in numbers and of antiquated construction. Naval architecture had recently made great strides, first by the inventiveness of the Phœnicians, who introduced the bireme, and then by the skill of the Greeks, who, improving on the hint furnished them, constructed the trireme. Neco, by the help of Greek artificers, built two fleets, both composed of triremes, one in the ports which opened on the Red Sea, the other in those upon the Mediterranean. He then, with the object of uniting the two fleets into one, when occasion should require, made an attempt to re-open the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, which had been originally constructed by Seti I. and Ramesses II., but had been allowed to fall into disrepair. The Nile mud and the desert sand had combined to silt it up. Neco commenced excavations on a large scale, following the line of the old cutting, but greatly widening it, so that triremes might meet in it and pass each other, without shipping their oars. After a time, however, he felt compelled to desist, without effecting his purpose, owing to an extraordinary mortality among the labourers. According to Herodotus, 120,000 of them perished. At any rate, the suffering and loss of life, probably by epidemics, was such as induced him to relinquish his project, and to turn his thoughts toward gaining his end in another way.

Neco, the son of Psamatik I, immediately upon taking the throne, decided to pursue the empire-building efforts his father had avoided. He saw his mercenary army as a strong enough ground force, so he focused on expanding and improving his navy, which was outdated and lacked numbers. Naval design had recently advanced significantly, first thanks to the innovation of the Phoenicians who introduced the bireme, and then with the Greeks who refined the concept to create the trireme. With the help of Greek craftsmen, Neco constructed two fleets of triremes—one in ports along the Red Sea and the other in the Mediterranean. He then aimed to connect the two fleets into one whenever necessary by trying to reopen the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, which had originally been built by Seti I and Ramesses II but had fallen into disrepair. The mud from the Nile and sand from the desert had clogged it up. Neco started large-scale excavations, following the path of the old canal but making it much wider, so that triremes could meet and pass each other without needing to pull in their oars. However, after a while, he had to stop without achieving his goal due to a remarkable death toll among the workers. According to Herodotus, 120,000 of them died. In any case, the suffering and loss of life—likely due to epidemics—was severe enough that it led him to abandon the project and consider other ways to pursue his ambitions.

HEAD OF NECO. HEAD OF NECO.

Might not Nature have herself established a water communication between the two seas by which Egypt was washed? It was well known that the Mediterranean and the Red Sea both communicated with an open ocean, and it was the universal teaching of the Greek geographers, that the ocean flowed round the whole earth. Neco determined to try whether Africa was not circumnavigable. Manning some ships with Phœnician mariners, as the boldest and most experienced, accustomed to brave the terrors of the Atlantic outside the Pillars of Hercules, he dispatched them from a port on the Red Sea, with orders to sail southwards, keeping the coast of Africa on their right, and see if they could not return to Egypt by way of the Mediterranean. The enterprise succeeded. The ships, under the skilful guidance of the Phœnicians, anticipated the feat of Vasco di Gama—rounded the Cape of Storms, and returned by way of the Atlantic, the Straits of Gibraltar, and the Mediterranean to the land from which they had set out. But they did not reach Egypt till the third year. The success obtained was thus of no practical value, so far as the Pharaoh's warlike projects were concerned. He had to relinquish the idea of uniting his two fleets in one, owing to the length of the way and the dangers of the navigation.

Could Nature have created a waterway between the two seas that bordered Egypt? It was widely known that the Mediterranean and the Red Sea both connected to an open ocean, and Greek geographers universally believed that the ocean surrounded the entire earth. Neco decided to investigate whether Africa could be circumnavigated. He equipped some ships with Phoenician sailors, the boldest and most experienced navigators used to facing the challenges of the Atlantic beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and sent them from a port on the Red Sea, instructing them to sail south while keeping the coast of Africa on their right, to see if they could return to Egypt via the Mediterranean. The mission was successful. The ships, under the skilled guidance of the Phoenicians, achieved what Vasco da Gama would later accomplish—navigating around the Cape of Storms and returning through the Atlantic, the Straits of Gibraltar, and the Mediterranean to their starting point. However, they didn't reach Egypt until the third year. The success was thus of no practical use regarding the Pharaoh's military plans. He had to give up the idea of merging his two fleets into one due to the lengthy journey and the dangers of navigation.

He had, however, no mind to relinquish his warlike projects, Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine were still in an unsettled state, the yoke of Assyria being broken, and that of Babylon not yet firmly fixed on them. Josiah was taking advantage of the opportunity to extend his authority over Samaria. Phœnicia was hesitating whether to submit to Nabopolassar or to assert her freedom. The East generally was In a ferment. Neco in B.C. 608, determined to make his venture. At the head of a large army, consisting mainly of his mercenaries, he took the coast route into Syria, supported by his Mediterranean fleet along the shore, and proceeding through the low tracts of Philistia and Sharon, prepared to cross the ridge of hills which shuts in on the south the great plain of Esdraëlon; but here he found his passage barred by an army. Josiah, either because he feared that, if Neco were successful, his own position would be imperilled, or because he had entered into engagements with Nabopolassar, had resolved to oppose the further progress of the Egyptian army, and had occupied a strong position near Megiddo, on the southern verge of the plain. In vain did Neco seek to persuade him to retire, and leave the passage free. Josiah was obstinate, and a battle became unavoidable. As was to be expected, the Jewish army suffered complete defeat; Neco swept it from his path, and pursued his way, while Josiah mortally wounded, was conveyed in his reserve chariot to Jerusalem. The triumphant Pharaoh pushed forward into Syria and carried all before him as far as Carchemish on the Euphrates. The whole country submitted to him. After a campaign which lasted three months, Neco returned in triumph to his own land, carrying with him Jehoahaz, the second son of Josiah, as a prisoner, and leaving Jehoiakim, the eldest son, as tributary monarch, at Jerusalem.

He didn’t intend to give up on his military plans. Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine were still unstable, with Assyria's control weakened and Babylon not yet firmly established. Josiah was taking the chance to expand his power over Samaria. Phoenicia was unsure whether to submit to Nabopolassar or fight for its freedom. The East was generally in turmoil. In 608 B.C., Neco decided to make his move. Leading a large army mostly made up of mercenaries, he took the coastal route into Syria, backed by his Mediterranean fleet along the shore. He moved through the lowlands of Philistia and Sharon, getting ready to cross the ridge of hills that borders the great plain of Esdraelon to the south. However, he found his way blocked by an army. Josiah, fearing that if Neco succeeded, his own position would be threatened, or perhaps due to commitments with Nabopolassar, decided to resist the advancing Egyptian army and took a strong position near Megiddo, at the southern edge of the plain. Neco tried unsuccessfully to convince him to withdraw and clear the path. Josiah was stubborn, and a battle became inevitable. As expected, the Jewish army suffered a total defeat; Neco pushed them aside and continued on, while Josiah, mortally wounded, was taken in his reserve chariot to Jerusalem. The victorious Pharaoh advanced into Syria, conquering everything in his path as far as Carchemish on the Euphrates. The entire region submitted to him. After a three-month campaign, Neco returned triumphantly to Egypt, bringing back Jehoahaz, Josiah's second son, as a prisoner, and leaving Jehoiakim, the eldest son, as a vassal king in Jerusalem.

For three years Egypt enjoyed the sense of triumph, and felt herself once more a conquering power, capable of contending on equal terms with any state or kingdom that the world contained. But then Nemesis swooped down on her. In B.C. 605 Nabopolassar of Babylon woke up to a consciousness of his loss of prestige, and determined on an effort to retrieve it. Too old to undertake a distant campaign in person, he placed his son, Nebuchadnezzar, at the head of his troops, and sent him into Syria to recover the lost provinces. Neco met him on the Euphrates. A great battle was fought at Carchemish between the forces of Egypt and Babylon, in which the former suffered a terrible defeat. We have no historical account of it, but may gratefully accept, instead, the prophetic description of Jeremiah:—

For three years, Egypt felt victorious and saw herself as a powerful nation, able to compete equally with any state or kingdom in the world. But then, Nemesis came for her. In 605 B.C., Nabopolassar of Babylon realized he had lost his standing and decided to make an effort to regain it. Too old to lead a distant campaign himself, he assigned his son, Nebuchadnezzar, to command the troops and send him into Syria to reclaim the lost territories. Neco confronted him at the Euphrates. A major battle took place at Carchemish between the Egyptian and Babylonian forces, resulting in a devastating defeat for Egypt. We don't have a historical account of the battle, but we can thankfully accept the prophetic description from Jeremiah:—

"Get the buckler and the shield, and come closer to the battle;
Saddle the horses; and rise, you horsemen, and step forward with your helmets; Clean the spears and put on the armor. Why have I seen them frightened and turning away? And their strong leaders are defeated and have quickly fled, not looking back; For there is fear all around, says the Lord. Do not let the fast get away, nor the strong men escape;
They will trip and fall to the north by the Euphrates River.
Who is this that rises up like a flood [like the Nile], whose waters are stirred like the rivers?
Egypt rises up like a flood, and its waters flow like the rivers; And he says, I will go up, and I will cover the earth; I will wipe out the city and everyone in it.
Come forth, you horses; and charge, you chariots; and let the strong warriors emerge;
Cush and Phut, who carry the shield, and Lud who wields and draws the bow. For this is the day of the Lord, the Lord of armies, a day of vengeance, so He can strike down His enemies; And the sword will consume and be filled and intoxicated with blood; For the Lord, the Lord of Hosts has a sacrifice in the northern region, by the river Euphrates.
Go up to Gilead and get balm, O virgin daughter of Egypt!
You will waste your time with many medicines; no cure will come to you. The nations have heard about your disgrace, and your cries have resonated throughout the land; For the strong man has tripped over the strong, and both have fallen together.[29]

The disaster was utter, complete, not to be remedied—the only thing to be done was to "fly apace," to put the desert and the Nile between the vanquished and the victors, and to deprecate the conqueror's anger by submission. Neco gave up the contest, evacuated Syria and Palestine, and hastily sought the shelter of his own land, whither Nebuchadnezzar would probably have speedily followed him, had not news arrived of his father's, Nabopolassar's, death. To secure the succession, he had to return, as quickly as he could, to Babylon, and to allow the Egyptian monarch, at any rate, a breathing space.

The disaster was total and irreversible—the only option was to "get out of there fast," putting the desert and the Nile between the defeated and the winners, and to ease the conqueror's wrath by surrendering. Neco abandoned the fight, pulled out of Syria and Palestine, and quickly sought refuge in his own country, where Nebuchadnezzar would likely have chased him down right away, if not for the news of his father Nabopolassar's death. To secure the throne, he had to return to Babylon as soon as possible, giving the Egyptian king at least a moment to recover.

Thus ended the dream of the recovery of an Asiatic Empire, which Psamatik may have cherished, and of which Neco attempted the realization. The defeat of Carchemish shattered the unsubstantial fabric into atoms, and gave a death-blow to hopes which no Pharaoh ever entertained afterwards.

Thus ended the dream of reclaiming an Asian Empire that Psamatik may have hoped for, and which Neco tried to achieve. The defeat at Carchemish broke that fragile dream into pieces and dealt a fatal blow to ambitions that no Pharaoh ever considered again.


Decorative

XXIII.

THE LATER SAÏTE KINGS.—PSAMATIK II., APRIES, AND AMASIS.

The Saïtic revival in art and architecture, in commercial and general prosperity, which Psamatik the First inaugurated, continued under his successors. To the short reign of Psamatik II. belong a considerable number of inscriptions, some good bas-reliefs at Abydos and Philæ, and a large number of statues. One of these, in the collection of the Vatican, is remarkable for its beauty. Apries erected numerous stelæ, and at least one pair of obelisks, wherewith he adorned the Temple of Neith at Saïs. Amasis afforded great encouragement to art and architecture. He added a court of entrance to the above temple, with propylæa of unusual dimensions, adorned the dromos conducting to it with numerous andro-sphinxes, erected colossal statues within the temple precincts, and conveyed thither from Elephantine a monolithic shrine or chamber of extraordinary dimensions. Traces of his architectural activity are also found at Memphis, Thebes, Abydos, Bubastis, and Thmuïs or Leontopolis. Statuary flourished during his reign. Even portrait-painting was attempted; and Amasis sent a likeness of himself, painted on panel, as a present to the people of Cyrene. It was maintained by the Egyptians of a century later that the reign of Amasis was the most prosperous time which Egypt had ever seen, the land being more productive, the cities more numerous, and the entire people more happy than either previously or subsequently. Amasis certainly gave a fresh impulse to commerce, since he held frequent communication with the Greek states of Asia Minor, as well as with the settlers at Cyrene, and gave increased privileges to the trading community of Naucratis.

The Saïtic revival in art and architecture, along with commercial and general prosperity, which Psamatik the First started, continued under his successors. During the short reign of Psamatik II, there are many inscriptions, some impressive bas-reliefs at Abydos and Philæ, and a large number of statues. One of these, in the Vatican collection, is notable for its beauty. Apries built numerous stelæ, and at least one pair of obelisks, to decorate the Temple of Neith at Saïs. Amasis greatly supported art and architecture. He added an entrance court to this temple, with extra-large propylæa, adorned the dromos leading to it with many andro-sphinxes, erected colossal statues within the temple area, and transported a massive monolithic shrine or chamber from Elephantine. Evidence of his architectural efforts can also be found at Memphis, Thebes, Abydos, Bubastis, and Thmuïs or Leontopolis. Sculpture thrived during his reign. Even portrait painting was attempted; Amasis sent a painted likeness of himself on panel as a gift to the people of Cyrene. People in Egypt a century later claimed that Amasis's reign was the most prosperous era Egypt had ever experienced, with the land being more fertile, the cities more numerous, and the entire population happier than at any time before or after. Amasis certainly boosted commerce by maintaining frequent contact with the Greek states in Asia Minor, as well as with the settlers in Cyrene, and granting additional privileges to the trading community in Naucratis.

Even in a military point of view, there was to some extent a recovery from the disaster of Carchemish. The Babylonian empire was not sufficiently established or consolidated at the accession of Nebuchadnezzar for that monarch to form at once extensive schemes of conquest. There was much to be done in Elam, in Asia Minor, in Phœnicia, and in Palestine, before his hands could be free to occupy themselves in the subjugation of more distant regions. Within three years after the battle of Carchemish Judæa threw off the yoke of Babylon, and a few years later Phœnicia rebelled under the hegemony of Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar had not much difficulty in crushing the Jewish outbreak; but Tyre resisted his arms with extreme obstinacy, and it was not till thirteen years after the revolt took place that Phœnicia was re-conquered. Even then the position of Judæa was insecure: she was known to be thoroughly disaffected, and only waiting an opportunity to rebel a second time. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was fully occupied with troubles within his own dominions, and left Egypt undisturbed to repair her losses, and recover her military prestige, as she best might.

Even from a military perspective, there was some recovery from the disaster at Carchemish. The Babylonian empire wasn't fully established or strong when Nebuchadnezzar came to power, so he couldn't immediately pursue large-scale conquests. There was still a lot to address in Elam, Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and Palestine before he could turn his attention to subduing farther regions. Within three years after the battle of Carchemish, Judah broke free from Babylonian control, and a few years later, Phoenicia revolted under Tyre's leadership. Nebuchadnezzar had little trouble putting down the Jewish uprising, but Tyre resisted him fiercely, and it took thirteen years after the revolt for Phoenicia to be re-conquered. Even then, Judah's situation was unstable; it was known to be very discontented and just waiting for the right moment to rebel again. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar found himself fully occupied with issues in his own territories, allowing Egypt to recover from its losses and regain its military strength as best as it could.

Neco outlived his defeat about eight or nine years, during which he nursed his strength, and abstained from all warlike enterprises. His son, Psamatik II., who succeeded him B.C. 596, made an attack on the Ethiopians, and seems to have penetrated deep into Nubia, where a monument was set up by two of his generals, Apollonius, a Greek, and Amasis, an Egyptian, which may still be seen on the rocks of Abu-Simbel, and is the earliest known Greek inscription. The following is a facsimile, only reduced in size:—

Neco lived about eight or nine years after his defeat, during which he regained his strength and stayed away from all military activities. His son, Psamatik II, who took over in 596 B.C., launched an attack on the Ethiopians and seemed to have ventured deep into Nubia. There, two of his generals, Apollonius, a Greek, and Amasis, an Egyptian, set up a monument that can still be seen on the rocks of Abu-Simbel, and it features the earliest known Greek inscription. Here is a smaller version:—

Greek inscription

Apries, the son of Neco, brought this war to an end in the first year of his reign (B.C. 590) by the arms of one of his generals; and, finding that Nebuchadnezzar was still unable to reduce Phœnicia to subjection, he ventured, in B.C. 588, to conclude a treaty with Zedekiah, king of Judah, and to promise him assistance, if he would join him against the Babylonians. This Zedekiah consented to do, and the war followed which terminated in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, and the transfer of the Jewish people to Babylonia.

Apries, the son of Neco, ended this war in the first year of his reign (B.C. 590) with the help of one of his generals. Noticing that Nebuchadnezzar was still unable to conquer Phoenicia, he took the risk in B.C. 588 to make a treaty with Zedekiah, the king of Judah, and promised to support him if he joined in the fight against the Babylonians. Zedekiah agreed, and this led to a war that resulted in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem and the relocation of the Jewish people to Babylonia.

It is uncertain what exact part Apries took in this war. We know that he called out the full force of the empire, and marched into Palestine, with the object of relieving Zedekiah. as soon as he knew that that monarch's safety was threatened. We know that he marched towards Jerusalem, and took up such a threatening attitude that Nebuchadnezzar at one time actually raised the siege (Jer. xxxvii. 5). We do not know what followed. Whether Apries, on finding that the whole Chaldæan force had broken up from before Jerusalem and was marching against himself, took fright at the danger which he had affronted, and made a sudden inglorious retreat; or whether he boldly met the Babylonian host and contended with them in a pitched battle, wherein he was worsted, and from which he was forced to fly into his own land, is uncertain. Josephus positively declares that he took the braver and more honourable course: the silence of Scripture as to any battle is thought to imply that he showed the white feather. In either case, the result was the same. Egypt recoiled before Babylon; Palestine was evacuated; and Zedekiah was left to himself. In B.C. 586 Jerusalem fell; Zedekiah was made a prisoner and cruelly deprived of sight; the Temple and city were burnt, and the bulk of the people carried into captivity. Babylon rounded off her dominion in this quarter by the absorption of the last state upon her south-western border that had maintained the shadow of independence: and the two great powers of these parts, hitherto prevented from coming into contact by the intervention of a sort of political "buffer," became conterminous, and were thus brought into a position in which it was not possible that a collision should for any considerable time be avoided.

It’s unclear exactly what role Apries played in this war. We know that he gathered the full military might of the empire and marched into Palestine with the intention of rescuing Zedekiah as soon as he learned that the king’s safety was at risk. He advanced toward Jerusalem and took such a threatening stance that at one point, Nebuchadnezzar lifted the siege (Jer. xxxvii. 5). What happened next is unknown. It’s uncertain whether Apries, upon realizing that the entire Chaldean army had left Jerusalem and was marching against him, was scared by the threat he faced and made a sudden, shameful retreat, or whether he bravely confronted the Babylonian forces and fought a pitched battle, where he was defeated and forced to flee back to his own country. Josephus insists that he chose the more courageous and honorable path, while the lack of any mention of a battle in Scripture suggests he might have shown cowardice. Regardless of how it played out, the outcome was the same. Egypt retreated before Babylon; Palestine was abandoned; and Zedekiah was left to fend for himself. In 586 B.C., Jerusalem fell; Zedekiah was captured and cruelly blinded; the Temple and city were burned, and most of the people were taken into captivity. Babylon solidified its control in this region by absorbing the last state on its southwestern border that had maintained any semblance of independence, and the two dominant powers in the area, previously kept apart by a kind of political "buffer," now bordered each other, creating a situation where conflict was unavoidable for the foreseeable future.

Recognizing the certainty of the impending collision, Apries sought to strengthen his power for resistance by attaching to his own empire the Phœnician towns of the Syrian coast, whose adhesion to his side would secure him, at any rate, the maritime superiority. He made an expedition against Tyre and Sidon both by land and sea, defeated the combined fleet of Phœnicia and Cyprus in a great engagement, besieged Sidon, and after a time compelled it to surrender. He then endeavoured further to strengthen himself on the land side by bringing under subjection the Greek city of Cyrene, which had now become a flourishing community; but here his good fortune forsook him; the Cyrenæan forces defeated the army which he sent against them, with great slaughter; and the event brought Apries into disfavour with his subjects, who imagined that he had, of malice prepense, sent his troops into the jaws of destruction. According to Herodotus, the immediate result was a revolt, which cost Apries his throne, and, within a short time, his life; but the entire narrative of Herodotus is in the highest degree improbable, and some recent discoveries suggest a wholly different termination to the reign of this remarkable king.

Recognizing that a collision was certain, Apries aimed to boost his power by bringing the Phoenician towns along the Syrian coast into his empire, which would ensure him maritime dominance. He launched an attack on Tyre and Sidon by both land and sea, defeated the combined fleets of Phoenicia and Cyprus in a major battle, besieged Sidon, and eventually forced it to surrender. He then attempted to solidify his hold on land by subjugating the Greek city of Cyrene, which was now a thriving community; however, luck was not on his side this time. The Cyrenaean forces defeated the army he sent against them with heavy losses, leading his subjects to turn against him, believing he had intentionally led his troops into destruction. According to Herodotus, this resulted in a revolt that cost Apries his throne and soon after, his life; however, Herodotus' account is highly questionable, and some recent discoveries indicate a completely different conclusion to the reign of this remarkable king.

It is certain that in B.C. 568 Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition into Egypt According to all accounts this date fell into the lifetime of Apries. Amasis, however, the successor of Apries, appears to have been Nebuchadnezzar's direct antagonist, and to have resisted him in the field, while Apries remained in the palace at Saïs. The two were joint kings from B.C. 571 to B.C. 565. Nebuchadnezzar, at first, neglected Saïs, and proceeded, by way of Heliopolis and Bubastis (Ezek. xxx. 17), against the old capitals, Memphis and Thebes. Having taken these, and "destroyed the idols and made the images to cease," he advanced up the Nile valley to Elephantine, which he took, and then endeavoured to penetrate into Nubia. A check, however, was inflicted on his army by Nes-Hor, the Governor of the South, whereupon he gave up his idea of Nubian conquest. Returning down the valley, he completed that ravage of Egypt which is described by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is probable that in B.C. 565, three years after his first invasion, he took Saïs and put the aged Apries to death.[30] Amasis he allowed still to reign, but only as a tributary king, and thus Egypt became "a base kingdom" (Ezek. xxix. 14), "the basest of the kingdoms" (ibid. verse 15), if its former exaltation were taken into account.

It is certain that in 568 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar launched a campaign into Egypt. According to all accounts, this date fell within the lifetime of Apries. However, Amasis, the successor of Apries, seemed to be Nebuchadnezzar's main opponent and resisted him in battle, while Apries stayed in the palace at Saïs. The two acted as joint kings from 571 B.C. to 565 B.C. At first, Nebuchadnezzar ignored Saïs and moved toward the old capitals, Memphis and Thebes, passing through Heliopolis and Bubastis (Ezek. xxx. 17). After capturing these cities and “destroying the idols and making the images cease,” he advanced up the Nile valley to Elephantine, which he captured, and then attempted to push into Nubia. However, his army faced a setback from Nes-Hor, the Governor of the South, causing him to abandon his ambitions in Nubia. As he returned down the valley, he carried out the devastation of Egypt described by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is likely that in 565 B.C., three years after his initial invasion, he took Saïs and executed the aged Apries.[30] He allowed Amasis to remain in power, but only as a tributary king, and thus Egypt became “a base kingdom” (Ezek. xxix. 14), “the basest of the kingdoms” (ibid. verse 15), especially when considering its former glory.

The "base kingdom" was, however, materially, as flourishing as ever. The sense of security from foreign attack was a great encouragement to private industry and commercial enterprise. The discontinuances of lavish expenditure on military expeditions improved the state finances, and enabled those at the head of the government to employ the money, that would otherwise have been wasted, in reproductive undertakings. The agricultural system of Egypt was never better organized or better managed than under Amasis. Nature seemed to conspire with man to make the time one of joy and delight, for the inundation was scarcely ever before so regularly abundant, nor were the crops ever before so plentiful. The "twenty thousand cities," which Herodotus assigns to the time, may be a myth; but, beyond all doubt, the tradition which told of them was based upon the fact of a period of unexampled prosperity. Amasis's law, that each Egyptian should appear once each year before the governor of his canton, and show the means by which he was getting an honest living, may have done something towards making industry general; but his example, his active habits, and his encouragement of art and architecture, probably did more. His architectural works must have given constant employment to large numbers of persons as quarrymen, boatmen, bricklayers, plasterers, masons, carpenters, and master builders; his patronage of art not only gave direct occupation to a multitude of artists, but set a fashion to the more wealthy among his subjects by which the demand for objects of art was multiplied a hundredfold. Sculptors and painters had a happy time under a king who was always building temples, erecting colossi, or sending statues or paintings of himself as presents to foreign states or foreign shrines.

The "base kingdom" was, however, as prosperous as ever. The feeling of security from foreign threats greatly encouraged private businesses and commercial ventures. Cutting back on excessive spending for military campaigns improved the state’s finances, allowing the government leaders to invest the money that would have been wasted into productive projects. Egypt's agricultural system was never better organized or managed than under Amasis. It seemed like nature was working in harmony with humans to create a time of happiness and joy, as the flooding was more regular and abundant than ever before, and the crops were the most plentiful they had seen. The "twenty thousand cities" that Herodotus mentioned might be an exaggeration, but without a doubt, the story was rooted in a time of unparalleled prosperity. Amasis’s rule that every Egyptian must appear once a year before the governor of their region to show how they were making an honest living may have contributed to a more industrious society, but his personal example, his active lifestyle, and his support of art and architecture likely had an even greater impact. His architectural projects provided steady work for many people, including quarry workers, boatmen, bricklayers, plasterers, masons, carpenters, and master builders. His patronage of the arts not only gave direct jobs to many artists but also influenced the wealthier members of society, significantly increasing the demand for art. Sculptors and painters thrived under a king who was always constructing temples, creating giant statues, or gifting his own statues or paintings to foreign nations or shrines.

The external aspect of Egypt under the reign of Amasis is thus as bright and flourishing as that which she ever wore at any former time; but, as M. Lenormant observes, this apparent prosperity did but ill conceal the decay of patriotism and the decline of all the institutions of the nation. The kings of the Saïte dynasty had thought to re-vivify Egypt, and infuse a little new blood into the old monarchy founded by Menes, by allowing the great stream of liberal ideas, whereof Greece had already made herself the propagator, to expand itself in her midst. Without knowing it, they had by these means introduced on the banks of the Nile a new element of decline. Constructed exclusively for continuance, for preserving its own traditions in defiance of the flight of centuries, the civilization of Egypt could only maintain itself by remaining unmoved. From the day on which it found itself in contact with the spirit of progress, personified in the Grecian civilization and in the Greek race, it was under the absolute necessity of perishing. It could neither launch itself upon a wholly new path, one which was the direct negation of its own genius, nor continue on without change its own existence. Thus, as soon as it began to be penetrated by Greek influence, it fell at once into complete dissolution, and sank into a state of decrepitude, that already resembled death. We shall see, in the next section, how suddenly and completely the Egyptian power collapsed when the moment of trial came, and how little support the surface prosperity which marked the reign of Amasis was able to render to the Empire in the hour of need and distress.

The external appearance of Egypt during Amasis's reign was just as bright and flourishing as it had ever been in the past. However, as M. Lenormant notes, this apparent prosperity poorly masked the decline of patriotism and the weakening of the nation’s institutions. The kings of the Saïte dynasty believed they could revive Egypt and inject some new energy into the ancient monarchy established by Menes by allowing a flow of liberal ideas, which Greece had already begun to spread, to circulate in their land. Unbeknownst to them, they were introducing a new element of decline along the banks of the Nile. Built purely for continuity and defensively holding onto its traditions despite the passing centuries, Egypt's civilization could only survive by remaining static. Once it encountered the spirit of progress embodied in Greek civilization and the Greek people, it was inevitably doomed. It could neither pursue a completely new direction that entirely contradicted its own essence nor maintain its existence without change. Therefore, as soon as Greek influence began to permeate its culture, Egypt quickly fell into total disintegration and entered a state of decay that was already akin to death. In the next section, we will see how abruptly and completely Egyptian power collapsed when faced with challenges, revealing just how little the surface prosperity of Amasis's reign could support the Empire in times of need.


Decorative

XXIV.

THE PERSIAN CONQUEST.

The subjection of Egypt to Babylon, which commenced in B.C. 565, was of that light and almost nominal character, which a nation that is not very sensitive, or very jealous of its honour, does not care to shake off. A small tribute was probably paid by the subject state to her suzerain, but otherwise the yoke was unfelt There was no interference with the internal government, or the religion of the Egyptians; no appointment of Babylonian satraps, or tax-collectors; not even, so far as appears, any demands for contingents of troops. Thus, although Nebuchadnezzar died within seven years of his conquest of Egypt, and though a time of disturbance and confusion followed his death, four kings occupying the Babylonian throne within little more than six years, two of whom met with a violent end, yet Amasis seems to have continued quiescent and contented, in the enjoyment of a life somewhat more merry and amusing than that of most monarchs, without making any effort to throw off the Babylonian supremacy or reassert the independence of his country. It was not till his self-indulgent apathy was intruded upon from without, and he received an appeal from a foreign nation, to which he was compelled to return an answer, that he looked the situation in the face, and came to the conclusion that he might declare himself independent without much risk. He had at this time patiently borne his subject position for the space of above twenty years, though he might easily have reasserted himself at the end of seven.

The control of Egypt by Babylon, which started in 565 B.C., was pretty light and almost insignificant, something a nation that isn't overly sensitive or proud doesn't mind keeping. The subject state likely paid a small tribute to its overlord, but other than that, the burden was hardly felt. There was no interference in the internal governance or religion of the Egyptians; no Babylonian governors or tax collectors were appointed; and, as far as we know, there were no demands for military support. So, even though Nebuchadnezzar died just seven years after conquering Egypt, leading to a period of chaos with four kings on the Babylonian throne in a little over six years, two of whom met violent ends, Amasis seemed to remain calm and satisfied, enjoying a life that was somewhat more fun and entertaining than that of most rulers, without making any moves to shake off Babylonian rule or reclaim his country's independence. It wasn't until his comfortable complacency was disrupted by an appeal from a foreign nation, which he felt he had to respond to, that he faced the situation head-on and decided he could declare independence with little risk. At this point, he had patiently accepted his subordinate status for over twenty years, although he could have easily reasserted himself after just seven.

The circumstances under which the appeal was made were the following. A new power had suddenly risen up in Asia. About B.C. 558, ten years after Nebuchadnezzar's subjection of Egypt, Cyrus, son of Cambyses, the tributary monarch of Persia under the Medes, assumed an independent position and began a career of conquest. Having made himself master of a large portion of the country of Elam, he assumed the title of "King of Ansan," and engaged in a long war with Astyages (Istivegu), his former suzerain, which terminated (in B.C. 549) in his taking the Median monarch prisoner and succeeding to his dominions. It was at once recognized through Asia that a new peril had arisen. The Medes, a mountain people of great physical strength and remarkable bravery, had for about a century been regarded as the most powerful people of Western Asia. They had now been overthrown and conquered by a still more powerful mountain race. That race had at its head an energetic and enterprising prince, who was in the full vigour of youth, and fired evidently with a high ambition. His position was naturally felt as a direct menace by the neighbouring states of Babylon and Lydia, whose royal families were interconnected. Crœsus of Lydia was the first to take alarm and to devise measures for his own security. He formed the conception of a grand league between the principal powers whom the rise of Persia threatened, for mutual defence against the common enemy; and, in furtherance of this design, sent, in B.C. 547, an embassy to Egypt, and another to Babylon, proposing a close alliance between the three countries. Amasis had to determine whether he would maintain his subjection to Babylon and refuse the offer; or, by accepting it, declare himself a wholly independent monarch. He learnt by the embassy, if he did not know it before that Nabonadius, the Babylonian monarch, was in difficulties, and could not resent his action. He might probably think that, under the circumstances, Nabonadius would regard his joining the league as a friendly, rather than an unfriendly, proceeding. At any rate, the balance of advantage seemed to him on the side of complying with the request of Crœsus. Crœsus was lord of Asia Minor, and it was only by his permission that the Ionian and Carian mercenaries, on whom the throne of the Pharaohs now mainly depended, could be recruited and maintained at their proper strength. It would not do to offend so important a personage; and accordingly Amasis came into the proposed alliance, and pledged himself to send assistance to whichever of his two confederates should be first attacked. Conversely, they no doubt pledged themselves to him; but the remote position of Egypt rendered it extremely improbable that they would be called upon to redeem their pledges.

The circumstances behind the appeal were as follows. A new power had suddenly emerged in Asia. Around 558 B.C., ten years after Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt, Cyrus, the son of Cambyses and a tributary king of Persia under the Medes, established his independence and began a path of conquest. After gaining control over much of Elam, he took the title "King of Ansan" and fought a long war against Astyages (Istivegu), his former overlord, which ended in 549 B.C. with him capturing the Median king and taking over his territories. It quickly became clear across Asia that a new threat had arisen. The Medes, a mountainous people known for their physical strength and bravery, had been regarded as the most powerful group in Western Asia for about a century. Now they had been defeated and conquered by an even stronger mountain tribe. This tribe was led by an energetic and ambitious young prince. His rise was felt as a direct threat by the neighboring states of Babylon and Lydia, whose royal families were interconnected. Crœsus of Lydia was the first to feel alarm and to devise a plan for his own security. He envisioned a grand alliance among the major powers threatened by Persia for mutual defense against their common enemy. To advance this plan, in 547 B.C., he sent an embassy to Egypt and another to Babylon, proposing a close alliance between the three nations. Amasis had to decide whether to continue under Babylon's control and reject the offer or accept it and declare his independence as a monarch. He learned from the embassy, if he didn’t already know, that Nabonadius, the Babylonian king, was facing troubles and would likely not retaliate against his actions. He probably thought that given the situation, Nabonadius would see his joining the alliance as a friendly act rather than a hostile one. In any case, the advantages seemed to favor joining Crœsus’s request. Crœsus was the ruler of Asia Minor, and only with his permission could the Ionian and Carian mercenaries, essential to the Pharaoh's throne, be recruited and maintained effectively. It wouldn’t be wise to offend such an important figure, so Amasis agreed to the proposed alliance and committed to sending support to whichever of his two allies was attacked first. They likely made similar promises to him; however, Egypt's distant location made it highly unlikely they would need to fulfill their commitments.

Nor was even Amasis called upon actually to redeem the pledges which he had given. In B.C. 546, Crœsus, without summoning any contingents from his allies, precipitated the war with Persia by crossing the river Halys, and invading Cappadocia, which was included in the dominions of Cyrus. Having suffered a severe defeat at Pteria, a Cappadocian city, he returned to his capital and hastily sent messengers to Egypt and elsewhere, begging for immediate assistance. What steps Amasis took upon this, or intended to take, is uncertain; but it must have been before any troops could have been dispatched, that news reached Egypt which rendered it useless to send out an expedition. Crœsus had scarcely reached his capital when he found himself attacked by Cyrus in his turn; his army suffered a second defeat in the plain before Sardis; the city was besieged, stormed, and taken within fourteen days. Crœsus fell, alive, into the hands of his enemy, and was kindly treated; but his kingdom had passed away. It was evidently too late for Amasis to attempt to send him succour. The tripartite alliance had, by the force of circumstances, come to an end, and Amasis was an independent monarch, no longer bound by any engagements.

Nor was Amasis ever actually called to fulfill the promises he had made. In 546 B.C., Crœsus, without calling on any of his allies for help, started the war with Persia by crossing the river Halys and invading Cappadocia, which was part of Cyrus's territory. After suffering a heavy defeat at Pteria, a Cappadocian city, he returned to his capital and quickly sent messengers to Egypt and elsewhere, asking for immediate help. It's uncertain what actions Amasis took or intended to take in response; however, before any troops could have been sent, news reached Egypt that made sending an expedition pointless. Crœsus had barely returned to his capital when he found himself attacked by Cyrus; his army faced a second defeat in the plains outside Sardis. The city was besieged, stormed, and captured within fourteen days. Crœsus was captured alive by his enemy and treated kindly, but his kingdom was lost. It was clear that it was too late for Amasis to try to send him help. The tripartite alliance had effectively come to an end due to circumstances, and Amasis was now an independent ruler, no longer tied to any commitments.

Shortly afterwards, in B.C. 538, the conquering monarchy of Persia absorbed another victim. Nabonadius was attacked, Babylon taken, and the Chaldæan monarchy, which had lasted nearly two thousand years, brought to an end. The contest had been prolonged, and in the course of it some disintegration of the empire had taken place. Phœnicia had asserted her independence; and Cyprus, which was to a large extent Phœnician, had followed the example of the mother-country. Under these circumstances, Amasis thought he saw an opportunity of gaining some cheap laurels, and accordingly made a naval expedition against the unfortunate islanders, who were taken unawares and forced to become his tributaries. It was unwise of the Egyptian monarch to remind Cyrus that he had still an open enemy unchastised, one who had entered into a league against him ten years previously, and was now anxious to prevent him from reaping the full benefit of his conquests. We may be sure that the Persian monarch noted and resented the interference with territories which he had some right to consider his own; whether he took any steps to revenge himself is doubtful. According to some, he required Amasis to send him one of his daughters as a concubine, an insult which the Egyptian king escaped by finesse while he appeared to submit to it.

Shortly after, in B.C. 538, the victorious Persian monarchy took another victim. Nabonadius was attacked, Babylon was captured, and the Chaldæan monarchy, which had lasted nearly two thousand years, came to an end. The conflict had dragged on, and during it, some parts of the empire had begun to fall apart. Phœnicia had declared its independence, and Cyprus, which was largely Phœnician, followed its lead. Under these circumstances, Amasis thought he saw a chance to gain some easy glory, so he launched a naval expedition against the unfortunate islanders, who were caught off guard and forced to become his tributaries. It was unwise for the Egyptian king to remind Cyrus that he still had an open enemy who had not been punished—one who had joined a league against him ten years earlier and was now eager to stop him from fully enjoying his victories. We can be sure that the Persian king noted and resented the interference with territories he had some claim to. Whether he took any steps to retaliate is uncertain. According to some accounts, he demanded that Amasis send him one of his daughters as a concubine, an insult that the Egyptian king managed to dodge with cleverness while appearing to comply.

It can only have been on account of the other wars which pressed upon him and occupied him during his remaining years, that Cyrus did not march in person against Amasis. First, the conquest of the nations between the Caspian and the Indian Ocean detained him; and after this, a danger showed itself on his north-eastern frontier which required all his attention, and in meeting which he lost his life. The independent tribes beyond the Oxus and the Jaxartes have through all history been an annoyance and a peril to the power which rules over the Iranian plateau, and it was in repelling an attack in this quarter that Cyrus fell. Amasis, perhaps, congratulated himself on the defeat and death of the great warrior king; but Egypt would, perhaps, have suffered less had the invasion, which was sure to come, been conducted by the noble, magnanimous, and merciful Cyrus, than she actually endured at the hands of the impulsive tyrannical, and half-mad Cambyses.

It must have been due to the other wars that occupied him during his final years that Cyrus didn’t personally march against Amasis. First, he was held back by the conquest of the nations between the Caspian Sea and the Indian Ocean; then, he faced a threat on his northeastern border that demanded all his focus, and it was in addressing this danger that he lost his life. The independent tribes beyond the Oxus and the Jaxartes have historically been a nuisance and a threat to the power that rules over the Iranian plateau, and it was while fighting off an attack from this area that Cyrus was killed. Amasis probably felt relieved by the defeat and death of the great warrior king; however, Egypt might have experienced less suffering if the upcoming invasion had been led by the noble, generous, and compassionate Cyrus, rather than the rash, tyrannical, and somewhat insane Cambyses.

The first step taken by Cambyses, who succeeded his father Cyrus in B.C. 529, was to reduce Phœnicia under his power. The support of a fleet was of immense importance to an army about to attack Egypt, both for the purpose of conveying water and stores, and of giving command over the mouths of the Nile, so that the great cities, Pelusium, Tanis, Saïs, Bubastis, Memphis, might be blockaded both by land and water. Persia, up to the accession of Cambyses, had (so to speak) no fleet. Cambyses, by threatening the Phœnician cities on the land side, succeeded in inducing them to submit to him; he then, with their aid, detached Cyprus from her Egyptian masters, and obtained the further assistance of a Cypriote squadron. Some Greek ships also gave their services, and the result was that he had the entire command of the sea, and was able to hold possession of all the Nile mouths, and to bring his fleet up the river to the very walls of Memphis.

The first thing Cambyses did after taking over from his father Cyrus in 529 B.C. was to bring Phoenicia under his control. Having a fleet was crucial for an army planning to invade Egypt, as it helped transport water and supplies, and allowed for control over the Nile's mouths. This was key for blockading major cities like Pelusium, Tanis, Saïs, Bubastis, and Memphis both by land and sea. Until Cambyses took over, Persia essentially had no navy. By threatening the Phoenician cities from the land, Cambyses managed to get them to surrender to him; with their help, he also separated Cyprus from its Egyptian rulers and got additional support from a Cypriot fleet. A few Greek ships joined in as well, giving him complete control of the sea. This allowed him to secure all the river mouths and bring his fleet right up to the walls of Memphis.

Still, there were difficulties to overcome in respect of the passage of an army. Egypt is separated from Palestine by a considerable tract of waterless desert and it was necessary to convey by sea, or on the backs of camels, all the water required for the troops, for the camp-followers, and for the baggage animals. A numerous camel corps was indispensable for the conveyance, and the Persians, though employing camels on their expeditions, are not likely to have possessed any very considerable number of these beasts. At any rate, it was extremely convenient to find a fresh and abundant supply of camels on the spot, together with abundant water-skins. This good fortune befell the Persian monarch, who was able to make an alliance with the sheikh of the most powerful Bedouin tribe of the region, who undertook the entire responsibility of the water supply. He thus crossed the desert without disaster or suffering, and brought his entire force intact to the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, near the point where it poured its waters into the Mediterranean Sea.

Still, there were challenges to face regarding the movement of an army. Egypt is separated from Palestine by a large stretch of waterless desert, so it was essential to transport all the water needed for the troops, the camp followers, and the pack animals by sea or on the backs of camels. A large camel corps was crucial for transportation, and although the Persians used camels in their campaigns, they probably didn’t have a very large number of them. In any case, it was incredibly fortunate to find a fresh and plentiful supply of camels nearby, along with plenty of water containers. This stroke of luck came to the Persian king, who was able to form an alliance with the leader of the most powerful Bedouin tribe in the area, who took on the full responsibility for supplying water. As a result, he crossed the desert without disaster or suffering and brought his whole force safely to the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, close to where it flows into the Mediterranean Sea.

At this point he found a mixed Egyptian and Græco-Carian army prepared to resist his further progress. Amasis had died about six months previously, leaving his throne to his son, Psamatik the Third. This young prince, notwithstanding his inexperience, had taken all the measures that were possible to protect his kingdom from the invader. He had gathered together his Greek and Carian mercenaries, and having also levied a large native army, had posted the entire force not far from Pelusium, in an advantageous position. On his Greeks and Carians he could thoroughly depend, though they had lately seen but little service; his native levies, on the contrary, were of scarcely any value; they were jealous of the mercenaries, who had superseded them as the ordinary land force, and they had had little practice in warfare for the last forty years. At no time, probably, would an Egyptian army composed of native troops have been a match for such soldiers as Cambyses brought with him into Egypt—Persians, Medes, Hyrcanians, Mardians, Greeks—trained in the school of Cyrus, inured to arms, and confident of victory. But the native soldiery of the time of Psamatik III. fell far below the average Egyptian type; it had little patriotism, it had no experience, it was smarting under a sense of injury and ill-treatment at the hands of the Saïte kings. The engagement between the two armies at Pelusium was thus not so much a battle as a carnage. No doubt the mercenaries made a stout resistance, but they were vastly outnumbered, and were not much better troops than their adversaries. The Egyptians must have been slaughtered like sheep. According to Ctesias, fifty thousand of them fell, whereas the entire loss on the Persian side was only six thousand. After a short struggle, the troops of Psamatik fled, and in a little time the retreat became a complete rout. The fugitives did not stop till they reached Memphis, where they shut themselves up within the walls.

At this point, he discovered a combined Egyptian and Greco-Carian army ready to block his advance. Amasis had died about six months earlier, leaving the throne to his son, Psamatik III. Despite his lack of experience, this young prince had taken all the steps he could to defend his kingdom from the invader. He had gathered his Greek and Carian mercenaries and had also recruited a large native army, positioning the whole force not far from Pelusium, where they had the advantage. He could rely on his Greek and Carian troops, although they had not seen much action recently; however, his native forces were practically useless. They were resentful of the mercenaries who had replaced them as the main ground force and had little experience in combat over the past forty years. At no point would an Egyptian army made up of native troops have matched the soldiers Cambyses brought with him into Egypt—Persians, Medes, Hyrcanians, Mardians, and Greeks—who had been trained under Cyrus, seasoned in battle, and confident of victory. But the native soldiers during Psamatik III’s time were far below the average Egyptian standard; they lacked patriotism, had no experience, and were still feeling the hurt from mistreatment by the Saïte kings. The clash between the two armies at Pelusium was less a battle and more a massacre. While the mercenaries fought bravely, they were heavily outnumbered and were not significantly better than their opponents. The Egyptians were likely slaughtered like sheep. According to Ctesias, fifty thousand fell, while the Persian side suffered only six thousand losses. After a brief fight, Psamatik’s troops fled, and soon the retreat turned into a complete rout. The survivors didn’t stop until they reached Memphis, where they barricaded themselves inside the city walls.

It is the lot of Egypt to have its fate decided by a single battle. The country offers no strong positions, that are strategically more defensible than others. The whole Delta is one alluvial flat, with no elevation that has not been raised by man. The valley of the Nile is so wide as to furnish everywhere an ample plain, wherein the largest armies may contend without having their movements cramped or hindered. An army that takes to the hills on either side of the valley is not worth following: it is self-destroyed, since it can find no sustenance and no water. Thus the sole question, when a foreign host invades Egypt, is this: Can it, or can it not, defeat the full force of Egypt in an open battle? If it gains one battle, there is no reason why it should not gain fifty; and this is so evident, and so well known, that on Egyptian soil one defeat has almost always been accepted as decisive of the military supremacy. A beaten army may, of course, protract its resistance behind walls, and honour, fame, patriotism, may seem sometimes to require such a line of conduct; but, unless there is a reasonable expectation of relief arriving from without, protracted resistance is useless, and, from a military point of view, indefensible. Defeated commanders have not, however, always seen this, or, seeing it, they have allowed prudence to be overpowered by other considerations. Psamatik, like many another ruler of Egypt, though defeated in the field, determined to defend his capital to the best of his power. He threw himself, with the remnant of his beaten army, into Memphis, and there stood at bay, awaiting the further attack of his adversary.

It is Egypt's fate to have its future decided by a single battle. The country has no strong positions that are strategically better than others. The entire Delta is one flat area, with no elevation except for what humans have built. The Nile valley is so wide that it creates plenty of open space where even the largest armies can confront each other without restrictions. An army that retreats to the hills on either side of the valley is not worth pursuing; it is doomed because it can't find food or water. So, the main question when a foreign army invades Egypt is this: Can it defeat the entire Egyptian force in an open battle? If it wins one battle, there's no reason it shouldn't win many more; this is so clear and well-known that on Egyptian soil, a single defeat has almost always been seen as the end of military dominance. A defeated army can extend its resistance behind walls, and honor, fame, and patriotism may sometimes demand such action; however, unless there's a reasonable expectation of outside relief, prolonged resistance is pointless and, from a military perspective, indefensible. Defeated commanders haven't always recognized this, or when they have, they let other factors override their better judgment. Psamatik, like many other rulers of Egypt, though defeated in battle, decided to defend his capital as best as he could. He took what was left of his beaten army and retreated to Memphis, where he prepared for the next assault from his enemy.

It was not long before the Persian army drew up under the walls, and invested the city by land, while the fleet blockaded the river. A single Greek vessel, having received orders to summon the defenders of the place to surrender it, had the boldness to enter the town, whereupon it was set upon by the Egyptians, captured, and destroyed. Contrarily to the law of nations, which protects ambassadors and their escort, the crew was torn limb from limb, and an outrage thus committed which Cambyses was justified in punishing with extreme severity. Upon the fall of the city, which followed soon after its investment, the offended monarch avenged the crime which had been committed by publicly executing two thousand of the principal citizens, including (it is said) a son of the fallen king. The king himself was at first spared, and might perhaps have been allowed to rule Egypt as a tributary monarch, had he not been detected in a design to rebel and renew the war. For this offence he, too, was condemned to death, and executed by Cambyses' order.

It wasn't long before the Persian army gathered outside the city walls, surrounding it on land while the fleet blocked the river. A single Greek ship, ordered to ask the defenders to surrender, bravely entered the town but was attacked by the Egyptians, captured, and destroyed. In violation of international law, which protects ambassadors and their entourages, the crew was brutally murdered, and Cambyses had every right to punish this severe wrongdoing. Shortly after the city fell, the offended king took revenge by publicly executing two thousand of the leading citizens, including (some say) a son of the fallen king. The king himself was initially spared and might have been allowed to rule Egypt as a tribute king, but he was caught plotting to rebel and restart the war. For this offense, he was also sentenced to death and executed by Cambyses' command.

The defeat had been foretold by the prophet Ezekiel, who had said:—

The defeat had been predicted by the prophet Ezekiel, who said:—

"How unfortunate the day is! For the day is close,
The day of the Lord is approaching, a day of clouds;
It will be the age of the pagans.
A sword will come against Egypt, and there will be distress in Ethiopia;
When the dead fall in Egypt, and they will take away her many people,
And her foundations will be shattered.
Ethiopia, Phut, Lud, all the mixed groups, and Chub, And the children of the land that is allied will also be struck down by the sword...
I will instill fear in the land of Egypt.
And I will make Pathros empty,
And will light a fire in Zoan, and will carry out judgments in No....
Sin [Pelusium] will be in deep distress,
And No will be shattered, and Noph will face opponents during the day.
The young men of Aven and Pi-beseth will be killed by the sword:
And these cities will be taken into captivity.
At Tehaphnehes, the day will also retreat itself,
When I break the yokes of Egypt there; "And her pride in power will come to an end."[31]

According to Herodotus, Cambyses was not content with the above-mentioned severities, which were perhaps justifiable under the circumstances, but proceeded further to exercise his rights as conqueror in a most violent and tyrannical way. He tore from its tomb the mummy of the late king, Amasis, and subjected it to the grossest indignities. He stabbed in the thigh an Apis-Bull, recently inaugurated at the capital with joyful ceremonies, suspecting that the occasion was feigned, and that the rejoicings were really over the ill-success of expeditions carried out by his orders against the oasis of Ammon, and against Ethiopia. He exhumed numerous mummies for the mere purpose of examining them. He entered the grand temple of Phthah at Memphis, and made sport of the image. He burnt the statues of the Cabeiri, which he found in another temple. He scourged the priests of Apis, and massacred in the streets those Egyptians who were keeping the festival. Altogether, his object was, if the informants of Herodotus are to be believed, to pour contempt and contumely on the Egyptian religion, and to insult the religious feelings of the entire people.

According to Herodotus, Cambyses wasn't satisfied with the harsh measures mentioned earlier, which might have been justifiable given the situation, but took it further by exercising his rights as a conqueror in a highly violent and tyrannical manner. He dug up the mummy of the former king, Amasis, and subjected it to the most disgraceful treatment. He stabbed an Apis Bull, recently celebrated in the capital with festive ceremonies, suspecting that the celebration was a sham and that people were actually rejoicing over the failures of the military campaigns he had ordered against the oasis of Ammon and Ethiopia. He unearthed numerous mummies just to examine them. He entered the grand temple of Phthah in Memphis and mocked its image. He burned the statues of the Cabeiri that he found in another temple. He whipped the priests of Apis and slaughtered those Egyptians celebrating the festival in the streets. Overall, his aim, if we can trust Herodotus's sources, was to show disdain and scorn for the Egyptian religion and to insult the religious feelings of the entire population.

On the other hand, we learn from a contemporary inscription, that Cambyses so far conformed to Egyptian usages as to take a "throne-name," after the pattern of the ancient Pharaohs; that he cleared the temple of Neith at Saïs of the foreigners who had taken possession of it; that he entrusted the care of the temple to an Egyptian officer of high standing; and that he was actually himself initiated into the mysteries of the goddess. Perhaps we ought not to be greatly surprised at these contradictions. Cambyses had the iconoclastic spirit strong in him, and, under excitement, took a pleasure in showing his abhorrence of Egyptian superstitions. But he was not always under excitement—he enjoyed lucid intervals, during which he was actuated by the spirit of an administrator and a statesman. Having in many ways greatly exasperated the Egyptians against his rule, he thought it prudent, ere he quitted the country, to soothe the feelings which he had so deeply wounded, and conciliate the priest-class, to which he had given such dire offence. Hence his politic concessions to public feeling at Saïs, his Initiation into the mysteries of Neith, his assumption of a throne-name, and his restoration of the temple of Saïs to religious uses. And the policy of conciliation, which he thus inaugurated, was continued by his successor, Darius. Darius built, or repaired, the temple of Ammon, in the oasis of El Khargeh, and made many acknowledgments of the deities of Egypt; when an Apis-Bull died early in his reign, he offered a reward of a hundred talents for the discovery of a new Apis; and he proposed to adorn the temple of Ammon at Thebes with a new obelisk. At the same time, in his administration he carefully considered the interests of Egypt, which he entrusted to a certain Aryandes as satrap; he re-opened the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, for the encouragement of Egyptian commerce; he kept up the numbers of the Egyptian fleet; in his arrangement of the satrapies, he placed no greater burthen on Egypt than it was well able to bear; and he seems to have honoured Egypt by his occasional presence. He failed, however, to allay the discontent, and even hatred, which the outrages of Cambyses had aroused; they still remained indelibly impressed on the Egyptian mind; the Persian rule was detested; and in sullen dissatisfaction the entire nation awaited an opportunity of reclaiming its independence and flinging off the accursed yoke.

On the other hand, a contemporary inscription shows that Cambyses adapted to Egyptian traditions enough to take a "throne-name," like the ancient Pharaohs; he cleared the temple of Neith at Saïs of the foreigners who had occupied it; he placed the temple's care in the hands of an Egyptian officer of high rank; and he even went through initiation into the goddess's mysteries. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised by these contradictions. Cambyses had a strong iconoclastic spirit and, when provoked, enjoyed expressing his disdain for Egyptian superstitions. But he wasn’t always agitated—he had clear moments when he acted like an administrator and statesman. After significantly angering the Egyptians against his rule, he thought it wise, before leaving the country, to ease the feelings he had hurt and make amends with the priestly class he had offended. This led to his diplomatic gestures in Saïs, his initiation into the mysteries of Neith, his adoption of a throne-name, and his restoration of the Saïs temple for religious purposes. The policy of reconciliation he started was continued by his successor, Darius. Darius built or repaired the temple of Ammon in the El Khargeh oasis and acknowledged Egypt's gods in many ways; when an Apis bull died early in his reign, he offered a reward of a hundred talents for finding a new Apis; and he planned to decorate the temple of Ammon at Thebes with a new obelisk. At the same time, in his governance, he carefully considered Egypt's interests, giving the role of satrap to a certain Aryandes; he reopened the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea to boost Egyptian trade; maintained the numbers of the Egyptian fleet; didn’t impose a greater burden on Egypt than it could handle; and occasionally honored Egypt with his presence. However, he failed to quell the discontent and even hatred caused by Cambyses's actions; those feelings remained deeply ingrained in the Egyptian mindset; Persian rule was reviled, and the entire nation waited in quiet dissatisfaction for a chance to regain its independence and shake off the hated oppression.

Decorative


Decorative

XXV.

THREE DESPERATE REVOLTS.

The first revolt of the Egyptians against their conquerors, appears to have been provoked by the news of the battle of Marathon. Egypt heard, in B.C. 490, that the arms of the oppressor, as she ever determined to consider Darius, had met with a reverse in European Greece, where 200,000 Medes and Persians had been completely defeated by 20,000 Athenians and Platæns. Darius, it was understood, had taken greatly to heart this reverse, and was bent on avenging it. The strength of the Persian Empire was about to be employed towards the West, and an excellent opportunity seemed to have arisen for a defection on the South. Accordingly Egypt, after making secret preparations for three years, in B.C. 487 broke out in open revolt. She probably overpowered and massacred the Persian garrison in Memphis, which is said to have numbered 120,000 men, and, proclaiming herself independent, set up a native sovereign.

The first revolt of the Egyptians against their conquerors seems to have been triggered by the news of the battle of Marathon. In 490 B.C., Egypt learned that the forces of the oppressor, whom they always referred to as Darius, had suffered a defeat in European Greece, where 200,000 Medes and Persians were completely beaten by 20,000 Athenians and Plataeans. It was understood that Darius was deeply affected by this setback and was determined to seek revenge. The strength of the Persian Empire was going to be directed towards the West, and it seemed like a great opportunity had arisen for a rebellion in the South. Therefore, after making secret preparations for three years, in 487 B.C., Egypt broke out in open revolt. They likely overwhelmed and killed the Persian garrison in Memphis, which was said to number 120,000 men, and, declaring independence, established a native ruler.

The Egyptian monuments suggest that this monarch bore the foreign-sounding name of Khabash. He fortified the coast of Egypt against attempts which might be made upon it by the Persian fleet, and doubtless prepared himself also to resist an invasion by land. But he was quite unable to do anything effectual. Though Darius died in the year after the revolt, B.C. 486, yet its suppression was immediately undertaken by his son and successor, Xerxes, who invaded Egypt in the next year, easily crushed all resistance, and placed the province under a severer rule than any that it had previously experienced. Achæmenes, his brother, was made satrap.

The Egyptian monuments indicate that this ruler had the foreign-sounding name Khabash. He strengthened the coast of Egypt to defend against possible attacks from the Persian fleet and was likely also preparing to fend off a land invasion. However, he was unable to take any effective action. Although Darius died the year after the revolt, in B.C. 486, his son and successor, Xerxes, quickly took charge of suppressing it. He invaded Egypt the following year, easily defeated all resistance, and imposed a stricter rule than any that had been seen before. His brother, Achæmenes, was appointed satrap.

Twenty-five years of tranquillity followed, during which the Egyptians were submissive subjects of the Persian crown, and even showed remarkable courage and skill in the Persian military expeditions. Egypt furnished as many as two hundred triremes to the fleet which was brought against Greece by Xerxes, and the squadron particularly distinguished itself in the sea-fights off Artemisium, where they actually captured five Grecian vessels with their crews. Mardonius, moreover, set so high a value on the marines who fought on board the Egyptian ships, that he retained them as land-troops when the Persian fleet returned to Asia after Salamis.

Twenty-five years of peace followed, during which the Egyptians were loyal subjects of the Persian crown and even displayed impressive bravery and skill in Persian military campaigns. Egypt provided as many as two hundred triremes for the fleet sent against Greece by Xerxes, and the squadron notably excelled in the naval battles off Artemisium, where they managed to capture five Greek ships along with their crews. Mardonius also held the marines who fought on the Egyptian ships in such high regard that he kept them as land troops when the Persian fleet returned to Asia after Salamis.

No further defection took place during the reign of Xerxes; but in B.C. 460, after the throne had been occupied for about five years by Xerxes' son, Artaxerxes, a second rebellion broke out, which led to a long and terrible struggle. A certain Inarus, who bore rule over some of the African tribes on the western border of Egypt, and who may have been a descendant of the Psamatiks, headed the insurrection, and in conjunction with an Egyptian, named Amyrtæus, suddenly attacked the Persian garrison stationed in Egypt, the ordinary strength of which was 120,000 men. A great battle was fought at Papremis, in the Delta, wherein the Persians were completely defeated, and their leader, Achæmenes, perished by the hand of Inarus himself. Memphis, however, the capital, still resisted, and the struggle thus remained doubtful. Inarus and Amyrtæus implored the assistance of Athens, which had the most powerful navy of the time, and could lend most important aid by taking possession of the river. Athens, which was under the influence of the farsighted Pericles, cheerfully responded to the call, and sent two hundred triremes, manned by at least forty thousand men, to assist the rebels, and to do as much injury as possible to the Persians. On sailing up the Nile, the Athenian fleet found a Persian squadron already moored in the Nile waters, but it swept this obstacle from its path without any difficulty. Memphis was then blockaded both by land and water; the city was taken, and only the citadel. Leucon-Teichos, or "the White Fortress," held out. A formal siege of the citadel was commenced, and the allies lay before it for months, but without result. Meanwhile, Artaxerxes was not idle. Having collected an army of 300,000 men, he gave the command of it to Megabyzus, one of his best generals, and sent him to Egypt against the rebels. Megabyzus marched upon Memphis, defeated the Egyptians and their allies in a great battle under the walls of the town, relieved the Persian garrison which held the citadel, and recovered possession of the place. The Athenians retreated to the tract called Prosopitis, a sort of island in the Delta, surrounded by two of the branch streams of the Nile, which they held with their ships. Here Megabyzus besieged them without success for eighteen months; but at last he bethought himself of a stratagem like that whereby Cyrus is said to have captured Babylon, and adapted it to his purpose. Having blocked the course of one of the branch streams, and diverted its waters into a new channel, he laid bare the river-bed, captured the triremes that were stuck fast in the soft ooze, marched his men into the island, and overwhelmed the unhappy Greeks by sheer force of numbers. A few only escaped, and made their way to Cyrene. The entire fleet of two hundred vessels fell into the hands of the conqueror; and fifty others, sent as a reinforcement, having soon afterwards entered the river, were attacked unawares and defeated, with the loss of more than half their number. Inarus, the Libyan monarch, became a fugitive, but was betrayed by some of his followers, surrendered, and crucified. Amyrtæus, who had been recognized as king of Egypt during the six years that the struggle lasted, took refuge in the Nile marshes, where he dragged out a miserable existence for another term of six years. The Egyptians offered no further resistance; and Egypt became once more a Persian satrapy (B.C. 455).

No further defections occurred during Xerxes' reign; however, in 460 B.C., after Xerxes' son, Artaxerxes, had been on the throne for about five years, a second rebellion broke out, leading to a long and brutal conflict. A leader named Inarus, who ruled over some of the African tribes on the western border of Egypt and who might have been a descendant of the Psamatiks, led the uprising. He teamed up with an Egyptian named Amyrtæus and suddenly attacked the Persian garrison in Egypt, which typically had a force of 120,000 men. A major battle was fought at Papremis in the Delta, where the Persians were completely defeated, and their commander, Achæmenes, was killed by Inarus himself. However, Memphis, the capital, continued to resist, leaving the outcome uncertain. Inarus and Amyrtæus reached out for help from Athens, which had the strongest navy at the time and could provide crucial support by controlling the river. Responding positively to their appeal, Athens, under the leadership of the visionary Pericles, sent two hundred triremes crewed by at least forty thousand men to aid the rebels and inflict as much damage as possible on the Persians. When the Athenian fleet sailed up the Nile, they found a Persian squadron already anchored in the river but easily overpowered them. Memphis was then besieged both on land and in the water; the city was captured, with only the citadel, Leucon-Teichos or "the White Fortress," continuing to hold out. A formal siege of the citadel began, and the allies camped outside for months, but without success. Meanwhile, Artaxerxes was not inactive. He assembled an army of 300,000 men, gave command to Megabyzus, one of his top generals, and sent him to Egypt to confront the rebels. Megabyzus marched on Memphis, defeated the Egyptians and their allies in a significant battle near the town's walls, relieved the Persian garrison holding the citadel, and regained control of the area. The Athenians retreated to a spot called Prosopitis, an island in the Delta surrounded by two branches of the Nile, which they held with their ships. Here, Megabyzus besieged them unsuccessfully for eighteen months; however, he eventually came up with a strategy reminiscent of Cyrus' capture of Babylon and tailored it to fit his needs. He blocked one of the river’s branches and redirected its flow, exposing the riverbed, capturing the triremes stuck in the soft mud, marched his troops into the island, and overwhelmed the outnumbered Greeks. Only a few managed to escape to Cyrene. The entire fleet of two hundred ships fell to the victor, and fifty additional ships sent as reinforcements were soon ambushed and defeated, losing more than half their personnel. Inarus, the Libyan king, became a fugitive but was betrayed by some of his followers, surrendered, and was crucified. Amyrtæus, who had been recognized as the king of Egypt during the six years of conflict, hid in the marshes of the Nile, where he led a miserable existence for another six years. The Egyptians no longer resisted, and Egypt returned to being a Persian satrapy in 455 B.C.

It was at about this time that Herodotus, the earliest Greek historian, the Father of History, as he has been called, visited Egypt in pursuance of his plan of gathering information for his great work. He was a young man, probably not far from thirty years of age (for he was born between the dates of the battles of Marathon and Thermopylæ). He travelled through the land as far as Elephantine, viewing with his observant eyes the wonders with which the "Story of Egypt" has been so much occupied; and he described them with the enthusiasm that we have occasionally noted. He saw the battle-field on which Inarus had just been defeated—the ground strewn with the skulls and other bones of the slain; he made his longest stay at Memphis, then at the acme of its greatness; he visited the quarries on the east of the Nile whence the stone had been dug for the pyramids, and he gazed upon the great monuments themselves, on the opposite side of the stream. We have seen that he visited Lake Mœris, and examined the famous Labyrinth, which he thought even more wonderful than the pyramids themselves. Finally, he sailed away for Tyre, and Egypt was again closed to travellers from Greece.

It was around this time that Herodotus, the first Greek historian, known as the Father of History, traveled to Egypt as part of his plan to collect information for his major work. He was a young man, likely around thirty years old (since he was born between the battles of Marathon and Thermopylæ). He journeyed through the land as far as Elephantine, observing the wonders that the "Story of Egypt" extensively covers; he described them with a passion we've seen from him before. He witnessed the battlefield where Inarus had just been defeated—the ground scattered with the skulls and other bones of the fallen; he spent the longest time in Memphis, which was then at the height of its glory; he visited the quarries east of the Nile where the stone for the pyramids was extracted, and he marveled at the great monuments on the other side of the river. He also visited Lake Mœris and examined the famous Labyrinth, which he thought was even more amazing than the pyramids. Finally, he set sail for Tyre, and Egypt was once again closed off to travelers from Greece.

A second period of tranquillity followed, which covered the space of about half a century. Nothing is known of Egypt during this interval; and it might have been thought that she had grown contented with her lot, and that her aspirations after independence were over. For fifty years she had made no sign. Even the troubled time between the death of Artaxerxes I. and the accession of Darius II. had not tempted her to strike a blow for freedom. But still she was, in reality, irreconcilable. She was biding her time, and preparing herself for a last desperate effort.

A second period of peace followed, lasting about fifty years. Nothing is known about Egypt during this time; one might think she had become satisfied with her situation and that her dreams of independence had faded away. For fifty years, she made no move. Even during the chaotic period between the death of Artaxerxes I. and the rise of Darius II., she didn't attempt to fight for freedom. But in truth, she remained unyielding. She was waiting for the right moment, preparing for a final desperate attempt.

In B.C. 406 or 405, towards the close of the reign of Darius Nothus, the third rebellion of Egypt against Persia broke out. A native of Mendes, by name Nepheritis, or more properly Nefaa-rut, raised the banner of independence, and commenced a war, which must have lasted for some years, but which terminated in the expulsion of the Persian garrison, and the reestablishment of the throne of the Pharaohs. It is unfortunate that no ancient authority gives any account of the struggle. We only know that, after a time, the power of Nefaa-rut was established; that Persia left him in undisturbed possession of Egypt, and that he reigned quietly for the space of six years, employing himself in the repair and restoration of the temple of Ammon at Karnak. Nothing that can be called a revival, or renaissance, distinguished his reign; and we must view his success rather as the result of Persian weakness, than of his own energy. His revolt, however, inaugurated a period of independence, which lasted about sixty years, and which threw over the last years of the doomed monarchy a gleam of sunshine, that for a brief space recalled the glories of earlier and happier ages.

In 406 or 405 B.C., toward the end of Darius Nothus's reign, Egypt rebelled against Persia for the third time. A native of Mendes named Nepheritis, or more accurately Nefaa-rut, raised the flag of independence and started a war that likely lasted for several years. This conflict ended with the expulsion of the Persian garrison and the restoration of the Pharaohs' throne. Unfortunately, no ancient sources provide details about this struggle. All we know is that eventually, Nefaa-rut established his power, Persia allowed him to rule Egypt peacefully, and he reigned without disturbance for six years, focusing on repairing and restoring the temple of Ammon at Karnak. His reign did not see anything that could be called a revival or renaissance; his success appears to be more a result of Persian weakness than his own strength. Nevertheless, his revolt marked the beginning of a period of independence that lasted about sixty years, casting a brief light over the final years of the faltering monarchy, reminiscent of the glories of earlier, happier times.

Decorative


Decorative

XXVI.

A LAST GLEAM OF SUNSHINE—NECTANEBO I.

A troubled time followed the reign of Nefaa-rut. The Greek mercenary soldiery, on whom the monarchs depended, were fickle in their temperament, and easily took offence, if their inclinations were in any way thwarted. Their displeasure commonly led to the dethronement of the king who had provoked it; and we have thus, at this period of the history, five reigns in twenty-five years. No monarch had time to distinguish himself by a re-organization of the kingdom, or even by undertaking buildings on a large scale—each was forced to live from hand to mouth, meeting as he best might the immediate difficulties of his position, without providing for a future, which he might never live to see. Fear of re-conquest was also perpetual; and the monarchs had therefore constantly to be courting alliances with foreign states, and subjecting themselves thereby to risks which it might have been more prudent to have avoided.

A troubled time followed the reign of Nefaa-rut. The Greek mercenary soldiers, whom the kings relied on, were unpredictable and easily offended if their desires were ever thwarted. Their anger often resulted in the ousting of the king who upset them; during this period in history, there were five reigns in twenty-five years. No king had the chance to make a name for himself by reorganizing the kingdom or by undertaking large-scale construction—each one had to focus on immediate challenges, dealing with problems as they arose without planning for a future they might never see. The constant fear of reconquest was also ever-present; therefore, the kings had to continuously seek alliances with foreign nations, putting themselves at risks that might have been wiser to avoid.

With the accession of Nectanebo I. (Nekht-Horheb), about B.C. 385, an improvement in the state of affairs set in. Nekht-hor-heb was a vigorous prince, who held the mercenaries well under control, and, having raised a considerable Egyptian army, set himself to place Egypt in such a state of defence, that she might confidently rely on her own strength, and be under no need of entangling herself with foreign alliances. He strongly fortified all the seven mouths of the Nile, guarding each by two forts, one on either side of each stream, and establishing a connection between each pair of forts by a bridge. At Pelusium, where the danger of hostile attack was always the greatest, he multiplied his precautions, guarding it on the side of the east by a deep ditch, and carefully obstructing all the approaches to the town, whether by land or sea, by forts and dykes and embankments, and contrivances for laying the neighbouring territory under water. No doubt these precautions were taken with special reference to an expected attack on the part of Persia, which was preparing, about B.C. 376, to make a great effort to bring Egypt once more into subjection.

With the rise of Nectanebo I. (Nekht-Horheb), around 385 B.C., things started to improve. Nekht-hor-heb was a strong leader who kept the mercenaries well controlled, and after gathering a significant Egyptian army, he aimed to prepare Egypt for defense, ensuring it could rely on its own strength without needing to form foreign alliances. He fortified all seven mouths of the Nile, protecting each with two forts on either side of each river, and linked them with bridges. At Pelusium, where the threat of attack was always highest, he took extra precautions, creating a deep ditch on the east side and blocking all access to the town—whether by land or sea—with forts, dykes, embankments, and methods to flood the surrounding area. These measures were likely taken with the anticipation of an impending attack from Persia, which around 376 B.C. was gearing up to make a significant push to reassert control over Egypt.

The expected attack came in the next year. Having obtained the services of the Athenian general, Iphicrates, and hired Greek mercenaries to the number of twenty thousand, Artaxerxes Mnemon, in B.C. 375, sent a huge armament against Egypt, consisting of 220,000 men, 500 ships of war, and a countless number of other vessels carrying stores and provisions. Pharnabazus commanded the Persian soldiery, Iphicrates the mercenaries. Having rendezvoused at Acre in the spring of the year, they set out early in the summer, and proceeded in a leisurely manner through Philistia and the desert, the fleet accompanying them along the coast. This route brought them to Pelusium, which they found so strongly fortified that they despaired of being able to force the defences and felt it necessary to make a complete change in their plan of attack. Putting to sea with a portion of the fleet, and with troops to the number of three thousand, and sailing northward till they could no longer be seen from the shore, they then, probably at nightfall, changed their course, and steering south-west, made for the Mendesian mouth of the Nile, which was only guarded by the twin forts with their connecting bridge. Here they landed without opposition, and proceeded to reconnoitre the forts. The garrison gave them battle outside the walls, but was defeated with great loss; and the forts themselves were taken. The remainder of the force conveyed by the ships, was then landed without difficulty; and the invaders, having the complete mastery of one of the Nile mouths, had it in their power to direct their attack to any point that might seem to them at once most important and most vulnerable.

The anticipated attack occurred the following year. After securing the Athenian general Iphicrates and hiring around twenty thousand Greek mercenaries, Artaxerxes Mnemon, in B.C. 375, prepared a massive force against Egypt, comprising 220,000 troops, 500 warships, and numerous other vessels carrying supplies. Pharnabazus led the Persian soldiers, while Iphicrates commanded the mercenaries. They gathered at Acre in the spring and set off early in the summer, traveling leisurely through Philistia and the desert, with the fleet following along the coast. This route led them to Pelusium, which they found to be so heavily fortified that they doubted their ability to breach its defenses and decided they needed to completely change their attack strategy. Venturing out to sea with part of the fleet and three thousand troops, they sailed northward until they were no longer visible from the shore. Then, likely at night, they changed course, heading southwest toward the Mendesian mouth of the Nile, guarded only by twin forts connected by a bridge. They landed without resistance and began to scout the forts. The garrison engaged them outside the walls but was defeated with significant losses, and the forts were captured. The remainder of the forces transported by the ships were also landed easily, and with control of one of the Nile mouths, the invaders could target their attack at any point that appeared most critical and vulnerable.

Under these circumstances the Athenian general, Iphicrates, strongly recommended a dash at Memphis. The main strength of the Egyptian army had been concentrated at Pelusium. Strong detachments held the other mouths of the Nile. Memphis, he felt sure, must be denuded of troops, and could probably be carried by a coup de main; but the advice of the rapid Greek was little to the taste of the slow-moving and cautious Persian. Pharnabazus declined to sanction any rash enterprise—he would proceed according to the rules of art. He had the advantage of numbers—why was he to throw it away? No, a thousand times no. He would wait till his army was once more collected together, and would then march on Memphis, without exposing himself or his troops to any danger. The city would be sure to fall, and the object of the expedition would be accomplished. In vain did Iphicrates offer to run the whole risk himself—to take no troops with him besides his own mercenaries, and attack the city with them. As the Greek grew more hot and reckless, the Persian became more cool and wary. What might not be behind this foolhardiness? Might it not be possible that the Greek was looking to his own interests, and designing, if he got possession of Memphis, to set himself up as king of Egypt? There was no knowing what his intention might be; and at any rate it was safest to wait the arrival of the troops. So Pharnabazus once more coolly declined his subordinate's offer.

Under these circumstances, the Athenian general, Iphicrates, strongly suggested a quick strike at Memphis. The main strength of the Egyptian army had been focused at Pelusium. Significant detachments were stationed at the other mouths of the Nile. Iphicrates was confident that Memphis must be lacking in troops and could likely be seized by a surprise attack; however, the quick-thinking Greek's advice didn't sit well with the slow and cautious Persian, Pharnabazus. He refused to approve any reckless venture—he preferred to proceed according to established strategy. With an advantage in numbers, why would he squander it? No, absolutely not. He would wait until his army was fully assembled and then march on Memphis without exposing himself or his troops to unnecessary risk. The city was bound to fall, and the mission would be achieved. Iphicrates offered to take on all the risks himself—planning to go without any troops other than his own mercenaries and attack the city with them. As the Greek became more intense and reckless, the Persian remained calm and prudent. What could be behind this audacity? Could it be that the Greek was pursuing his own interests and, if he captured Memphis, intended to establish himself as king of Egypt? There was no way to know what his true intentions were; in any case, it was safer to wait for the arrival of the troops. So Pharnabazus once again coolly declined his subordinate's offer.

Nectanebo, on his side, having thrown a strong garrison into Memphis, moved his army across the Delta from the Pelusiac to the Mendesian branch of the Nile, and having concentrated it in the neighbourhood of the captured forts, proceeded to operate against the invaders. His troops harassed the enemy in a number of petty engagements, and in the course of time inflicted on them considerable loss. In this way midsummer was reached—the Etesian winds began to blow, and the Nile to rise. Gradually the abounding stream spread itself over the broad Delta; roads were overflowed, river-courses obliterated; the season for military operations was clearly past. There was no possible course but to return to Asia. Iphicrates and Pharnabazus took their departure amid mutual recriminations, each accusing the other of having caused the expedition to be a complete failure.

Nectanebo, meanwhile, stationed a strong garrison in Memphis and moved his army from the Pelusiac branch to the Mendesian branch of the Nile. He concentrated his troops near the captured forts and started to take action against the invaders. His forces troubled the enemy with several small skirmishes, gradually causing them significant losses. As midsummer arrived, the Etesian winds began to blow, and the Nile started to rise. The overflowing river spread across the wide Delta; roads were submerged, and river paths were erased; it was clear that the season for military operations had come to an end. The only option was to retreat to Asia. Iphicrates and Pharnabazus left amid mutual blame, each accusing the other of turning the expedition into a complete failure.

The repulse of this huge host was felt by the Egyptians almost as the repulse of the host of Xerxes was felt by the Greeks. Nectanebo was looked upon as a hero and a demigod; his throne was assured; it was felt that he had redeemed all the failures of the past, and had restored Egypt to the full possession of all her ancient dignity and glory. Nectanebo continued to rule over "the Two Lands" for nine years longer in uninterrupted peace, honour, and prosperity. During this time he applied himself, with considerable success, to the revival of Egyptian art and architecture. At Thebes he made additions to the great temple of Karnak, restored the temple of Khonsu, and adorned with reliefs a shrine originally erected by Ramesses XII. At Memphis he was extraordinarily active: he built a small temple in the neighbourhood of the Serapeum, set up inscriptions in the Apis repository in honour of the sacred bulls, erected two small obelisks in black granite, and left his name inscribed more than once in the quarries of Toora. Traces of his activity are also found at Edfu, at Abydos, at Bubastis, at Rosetta in the Delta, and at Tel-el-Maskoutah. The art of his time is said to have all the elegance of that produced under the twenty-sixth (Psamatik) dynasty, but to have been somewhat more florid. The two black obelisks above-mentioned, which are now in the British Museum, show the admirable finish which prevailed at this period. The sarcophagus which Nectanebo prepared for himself, which adorns the same collection, is also of great beauty.

The defeat of this massive army was felt by the Egyptians almost like the Greeks felt the defeat of Xerxes' forces. Nectanebo was seen as a hero and a demigod; his throne was secure; it was believed that he had redeemed all past failures and restored Egypt to the full possession of its ancient dignity and glory. Nectanebo continued to rule over "the Two Lands" for nine more years in uninterrupted peace, honor, and prosperity. During this time, he focused on successfully reviving Egyptian art and architecture. In Thebes, he made additions to the great temple of Karnak, restored the temple of Khonsu, and decorated with reliefs a shrine originally built by Ramesses XII. In Memphis, he was especially active: he built a small temple near the Serapeum, set up inscriptions in the Apis repository in honor of the sacred bulls, erected two small black granite obelisks, and left his name inscribed multiple times in the quarries of Toora. Signs of his endeavors can also be found at Edfu, Abydos, Bubastis, Rosetta in the Delta, and Tel-el-Maskoutah. The art of his time is said to have all the elegance of that produced under the twenty-sixth (Psamatik) dynasty, but to be somewhat more elaborate. The two black obelisks mentioned earlier, which are now in the British Museum, demonstrate the remarkable quality of craftsmanship that existed during this period. The sarcophagus that Nectanebo prepared for himself, which is also part of the same collection, is beautiful as well.

We cannot be surprised to find that Nectanebo was worshipped after his death as a divine being. A priesthood was constituted in his honour, which handed down his cult to later times, and bore witness to the impression made on the Egyptian mind by his character and his successes.

We shouldn't be surprised that Nectanebo was honored as a god after his death. A priesthood was established in his name, which continued his worship into later times, reflecting the impact his character and achievements had on the Egyptian people.

Decorative


Decorative

XXVII.

THE LIGHT GOES OUT IN DARKNESS.

Nectanebo's successors had neither his foresight nor his energy. Te-her, the Tachos or Teos of the Greeks, who followed him on the throne in B.C. 366, went out of his way to provoke the Persians by fomenting the war of the satraps against Artaxerxes Mnemon, and, having obtained the services of Agesilaüs and Chabrias, even ventured to invade Phœnicia and attempt its reduction. His own hold upon Egypt was, however, far too weak to justify so bold a proceeding. Scarcely had he reached Syria, when revolt broke out behind him. The Regent, to whom he had entrusted the direction of affairs during his absence, proved unfaithful, and incited his son, Nekht-nebf, to become a candidate for the crown, and to take up arms against his father. The young prince was seduced by the offers made him, and Egypt became plunged in a civil war. But for the courage and conduct of Agesilaüs, which were conspicuously displayed, Tacho would have yielded to despair and have given up the contest. In two decisive battles the Spartan general completely defeated the army of the rebels, which far outnumbered that of Tacho, and replaced the king on his tottering throne.

Nectanebo's successors lacked his vision and energy. Te-her, known as Tachos or Teos by the Greeks, took the throne in B.C. 366 and went out of his way to provoke the Persians by stirring up the satraps' war against Artaxerxes Mnemon. He even hired Agesilaüs and Chabrias to help him invade Phoenicia and try to bring it under control. However, his grip on Egypt was much too weak for such a daring move. Barely had he reached Syria when a revolt broke out back home. The Regent, whom he had trusted to manage things while he was away, betrayed him and encouraged his son, Nekht-nebf, to compete for the throne and take up arms against his father. The young prince was tempted by the promises made to him, and Egypt was thrown into a civil war. If not for the bravery and skill of Agesilaüs, which were clearly evident, Tachos would have fallen into despair and given up the fight. In two crucial battles, the Spartan general decisively defeated the rebel army, which greatly outnumbered Tachos's forces, and restored the king to his unstable throne.

However, it was not long before the party of the rebels recovered from their defeats. Agesilaüs either joined them, or withdrew from the struggle, and removing to Cyrene died there at an advanced age. Tacho, deserted by his followers, quitted Egypt and fled to Sidon, whence he made his way across the desert to the court of the Great King. Ochus, who had by this time succeeded Mnemon, received him favourably, and professed an intention of embracing his cause; but nothing came of this expression of good-will. Tacho lived a considerable time at the court of Ochus, without any steps being taken to restore him to his former position. At last a dysentery carried him off, and legitimated the position of the usurper who had driven him into exile.

However, it wasn't long before the rebel group bounced back from their defeats. Agesilaüs either joined them or stepped back from the fight, and eventually moved to Cyrene, where he died at an old age. Tacho, abandoned by his followers, left Egypt and escaped to Sidon, from where he crossed the desert to the court of the Great King. Ochus, who had now succeeded Mnemon, welcomed him warmly and claimed he would support his cause, but nothing came of this goodwill. Tacho spent a considerable amount of time at Ochus's court, with no action taken to restore him to his former position. Eventually, he died from dysentery, which solidified the position of the usurper who had exiled him.

The end now drew nigh. Nekht-nebf, whom the Greeks called Nectanebo II., having after a time established himself firmly upon the throne, and got rid of pretenders, resumed the ambitious policy of his predecessor, and entered into an alliance with the people of Sidon and their neighbours, who were in revolt against Persia. He had the excuse that Ochus, some time previously, had sent an expedition against Egypt, which he had repulsed by the assistance of two Greek generals, Diophantus of Athens and Lamius of Sparta. But this expedition was a thing of the past; it had inflicted no injury on Egypt, and it demanded no revenge. Nekht-nebf was in no way called upon to join the rebel confederacy, which (in B.C. 346) raised the flag of revolt from Persia, and sought to enrol in its ranks as many allies as possible. But he rashly gave in his name, and sent to Sidon as his contingent towards the army that was being raised, four thousand of his Greek mercenaries, under the command of Mentor of Rhodes. With their aid, Tennes, the Sidonian king, completely defeated the troops which Ochus had sent against him, and drove the Persians out of Phœnicia.

The end was drawing near. Nekht-nebf, known to the Greeks as Nectanebo II, had established himself firmly on the throne after dealing with challengers and resumed the ambitious plans of his predecessor. He formed an alliance with the people of Sidon and their neighbors, who were rising up against Persia. He justified this by pointing to Ochus, who had previously sent an expedition against Egypt, which Nekht-nebf had successfully repelled with the help of two Greek generals, Diophantus of Athens and Lamius of Sparta. However, that expedition was now in the past; it hadn't harmed Egypt, and there was no need for revenge. Nekht-nebf wasn't obligated to join the rebel coalition that, in 346 BC, raised the banner of revolt against Persia and sought to gather as many allies as possible. But he foolishly added his name to the list and sent 4,000 of his Greek mercenaries, led by Mentor of Rhodes, to Sidon as his contribution to the army being formed. With their help, Tennes, the king of Sidon, completely defeated the troops that Ochus had sent against him and drove the Persians out of Phoenicia.

The success, however, which was thus gained by the rebels only exasperated the Persian king, and made him resolve all the more on a desperate effort. The time had gone by, he felt, for committing wars to satraps, or sending out generals, with a few thousand troops, to put down this or that troublesome chieftain. The conjuncture called for measures of no ordinary character. The Great King must conduct an expedition in person. Every sort of preparation must be made; arms and provisions and stores of all kinds must be accumulated; the best troops must be collected from all parts of the empire; a sufficient fleet must be manned; and such an armament must go forth under the royal banner as would crush all opposition. Ochus succeeded in gathering together from the nations under his direct rule 300,000 foot, 30,000 horse, 300 triremes, and 500 transports or provision-ships. He then directed his efforts towards obtaining efficient assistance from the Greeks. Though refused aid by Athens and Sparta, he succeeded in obtaining a thousand Theban heavy-armed under Lacrates, three thousand Argives under Nicostratus, and six thousand Æolians, Ionians, and Dorians from the Greek cities of Asia Minor. The assistance thus secured was numerically small, amounting to no more than ten thousand men—not a thirtieth part of his native force; but it formed, together with the Greek mercenaries from Egypt—who went over to him afterwards—the force on which he placed his chief reliance, and to which the ultimate success of his expedition was mainly due.

The success the rebels achieved only frustrated the Persian king more and made him even more determined to make a bold effort. He felt the time for relying on satraps or sending out generals with a few thousand troops to deal with troublesome chieftains was over. This situation called for extraordinary measures. The Great King himself had to lead an expedition. All types of preparations needed to be made; weapons, supplies, and resources had to be gathered; the best troops had to be assembled from across the empire; a sufficient fleet had to be manned; and an impressive force had to march under the royal banner to crush all opposition. Ochus managed to gather 300,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, 300 triremes, and 500 transport ships from the nations under his direct rule. He then focused on getting reliable support from the Greeks. Although refused help by Athens and Sparta, he secured a thousand Theban heavy infantry under Lacrates, three thousand Argives under Nicostratus, and six thousand Æolians, Ionians, and Dorians from the Greek cities of Asia Minor. The help he received was relatively small, totaling only ten thousand men—not even a thirtieth of his native force; but it, along with the Greek mercenaries from Egypt who joined him later, became the core of his reliance and was crucial to the ultimate success of his expedition.

The overwhelming strength of the armament which Ochus had brought with him into Syria alarmed the chiefs of the rebel confederacy. Tennes, especially, the Sidonian monarch, despaired of a successful resistance, and made up his mind that his only chance of safety lay in his appeasing the anger of Ochus by the betrayal of his confederates and followers. He opened his designs to Mentor of Rhodes, the commander of the Greek mercenaries furnished by Egypt, and found him quite ready to come into his plans. The two in conjunction betrayed Sidon into the hands of Persia, by the admission of a detachment within the walls; after which the defence became impracticable. The Sidonians, having experienced the unrelenting temper and sanguinary spirit of the Persian king, who had transfixed with javelins six hundred of their principal citizens, came to the desperate resolution of setting fire to their houses, and so destroying themselves with their town. One is glad to learn that the cowardly traitor, Tennes, who had brought about these terrible calamities, did not derive any profit from them, but was executed by the command of Ochus, as soon as Sidon had fallen.

The overwhelming power of the weapons that Ochus had brought with him into Syria shocked the leaders of the rebel coalition. Tennes, especially, the king of Sidon, lost hope for a successful resistance and decided that his only chance for safety lay in appeasing Ochus by betraying his allies and followers. He revealed his plans to Mentor of Rhodes, the commander of the Greek mercenaries sent by Egypt, who was completely on board with the scheme. Together, they betrayed Sidon to Persia by allowing a detachment to enter the city, making defense impossible. The Sidonians, having witnessed the brutal and bloodthirsty nature of the Persian king, who had impaled six hundred of their prominent citizens, resorted to the desperate measure of setting fire to their homes, ultimately destroying themselves along with their city. It is gratifying to know that the cowardly traitor, Tennes, who caused these horrific events, did not gain anything from them, as he was executed by Ochus's command as soon as Sidon fell.

The reduction of Sidon was followed closely by the invasion of Egypt. Ochus, besides his 330,000 Asiatics, had now a force of 14,000 Greeks, the mercenaries under Mentor having joined him. Marshalling his army in four divisions, he proceeded to the attack. The first, second, and third divisions contained, each of them, a contingent of Greeks and a contingent of Asiatics, commanded respectively by a Greek and a Persian leader. The Greeks of the first division, consisting mainly of Bœotians, were under the orders of Lacrates, a Theban of enormous strength, who regarded himself as a second Hercules, and adopted the traditional costume of that hero, a lion's skin and a club. His Persian colleague was Rhosaces, satrap of Ionia and Lydia, who claimed descent from one of "the Seven" that put down the conspiracy of the Magi. In the second division, where the Argive mercenaries served, the Greek leader was Nicostratus, the Persian Aristazanes, a court usher, and one of the most trusted friends of the king. Mentor and the eunuch Bagoas, Ochus's chief minister in his later years, were at the head of the third division, Mentor commanding his own mercenaries, and Bagoas the Greeks whom Ochus had levied in his own dominions, together with a large body of Asiatics. The king himself was sole commander of the fourth division, as well as commander-in-chief of the entire host. Nekht-nebf, on his side, was only able to oppose to this vast array an army less than one-third of the size. He had enrolled as many as sixty thousand of the Egyptian warrior class, and had the services of twenty thousand Greek mercenaries, and of about the same number of Libyan troops.

The fall of Sidon was quickly followed by the invasion of Egypt. Ochus, in addition to his 330,000 Asiatics, now had a force of 14,000 Greeks, with the mercenaries under Mentor joining him. He organized his army into four divisions and moved to attack. The first, second, and third divisions each included a group of Greeks and a group of Asiatics, led by a Greek and a Persian commander respectively. The Greeks in the first division, mainly Bœotians, were led by Lacrates, a strong Theban who saw himself as a second Hercules and wore a lion's skin and carried a club like the hero. His Persian counterpart was Rhosaces, the satrap of Ionia and Lydia, who claimed to be descended from one of "the Seven" who suppressed the Magi’s conspiracy. In the second division, where the Argive mercenaries served, the Greek commander was Nicostratus, while the Persian leader was Aristazanes, a court usher and one of the king's most trusted friends. Mentor and the eunuch Bagoas, who was Ochus's chief minister in his later years, led the third division, with Mentor commanding his own mercenaries and Bagoas in charge of the Greeks recruited by Ochus in his own territories, along with a large group of Asiatics. The king himself commanded the fourth division and was the overall leader of the entire army. On the other hand, Nekht-nebf could only field an army that was less than one-third the size of this massive force. He had gathered around sixty thousand members of the Egyptian warrior class, along with twenty thousand Greek mercenaries and approximately the same number of Libyan troops.

Pelusium, as usual, was the first point of attack. Nekht-nebf had taken advantage of the long delay of Ochus in Syria to see that the defences of Egypt were in good order; he had made preparations for resistance at all the seven mouths of the Nile, and had guarded Pelusium with especial care. Ochus, as he had expected, advanced along the coast route which led to this place. Part of his army traversed the narrow spit of land which separated the Lake Serbonis from the Mediterranean, and in doing so met with a disaster. A strong wind setting in from the north, as the troops were passing, brought the waters of the Mediterranean over the low strip of sand which is ordinarily dry, and confounding sea and shore and lake together, caused the destruction of a large detachment; but the main army, which had probably kept Lake Serbonis on the right, reached its destination intact. A skirmish followed between the Theban troops of the first division under Lacrates and the garrison of Pelusium under Philophron; but this first engagement was without definite result.

Pelusium was, as always, the first target. Nekht-nebf had taken advantage of Ochus's long delay in Syria to ensure that Egypt's defenses were strong; he prepared for resistance at all seven mouths of the Nile and paid special attention to guarding Pelusium. Ochus, as he anticipated, advanced along the coastal route to this location. Part of his army crossed the narrow land bridge that separated Lake Serbonis from the Mediterranean and faced disaster. A strong north wind blew in just as the troops were passing, flooding the usually dry strip of sand with Mediterranean waters, which mixed sea, shore, and lake, resulting in the loss of a large detachment. However, the main army, which likely kept Lake Serbonis on its right, arrived at its destination unharmed. A skirmish ensued between the Theban troops of the first division led by Lacrates and the garrison of Pelusium led by Philophron, but this initial clash ended without a clear outcome.

The two armies lay now for a while on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, which was well protected by forts, fortified towns, and a network of canals on either side of it. There was every reason to expect that Nekht-nebf, by warily guarding his frontier, and making full use of his resources, might baffle for a considerable time, if not wholly frustrate, the Persian attack. But his combined self-conceit and timidity ruined his cause. Taking the direction of affairs wholly upon himself and asking no advice from his Greek captains, he failed to show any of the qualities of a great commander, and was speedily involved in difficulties with which he was quite incapable of dealing. Having had his first line of defence partially forced by a bold movement on the part of the Argives under Nicostratus, instead of trying to redeem the misfortune by a counter-movement, or a concentration of troops, he hastily abandoned to his generals the task of continuing the resistance on this outer line, and retiring to Memphis, concentrated all his efforts on making preparations to resist a siege.

The two armies spent some time near the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, which was well defended by forts, fortified towns, and a network of canals on both sides. There was every reason to believe that Nekht-nebf, by carefully protecting his border and fully utilizing his resources, could delay, if not completely stop, the Persian attack. However, his mix of arrogance and fear ultimately destroyed his chances. Taking control of the situation entirely by himself and not consulting his Greek captains, he failed to demonstrate any of the qualities of a great leader and quickly found himself in difficulties that he couldn't handle. After his first line of defense was partially breached by a bold move from the Argives led by Nicostratus, instead of trying to recover from the setback with a counterattack or by regrouping his troops, he hurriedly left it to his generals to continue resisting on that outer line and retreated to Memphis, focusing all his efforts on preparing for a siege.

Meantime, the Persians were advancing. Lacrates the Theban set himself to reduce Pelusium, and, having drained dry one of the ditches, brought his military engines up to the walls of the place. In vain, however, did he batter down a portion of the wall—the garrison had erected another wall behind it; in vain did he advance his towers—they had movable towers ready prepared to resist him. No progress had been made by the besiegers, when on a sudden the resistance of the besieged slackened. Intelligence had reached them of Nekht-nebf's hasty retreat. If the king gave up hope, why should they pour out their blood to no purpose? Accordingly they made overtures to Lacrates for a surrender upon terms, and it was agreed that they should be allowed to evacuate the place and return to Greece, with all the goods and chattels that they could carry with them. Bagoas demurred to the terms; but Ochus confirmed them, and Pelusium passed into the possession of the Persians without further fighting.

Meantime, the Persians were advancing. Lacrates the Theban set out to take Pelusium and, after draining one of the ditches, brought his siege engines up to the city walls. However, when he tried to break down part of the wall, it was useless—the garrison had built another wall behind it; when he moved his towers forward, they already had movable towers ready to counter him. The besieging forces had made no progress when suddenly the resistance from those inside weakened. They learned that Nekht-nebf had retreated in a hurry. If the king had lost hope, why should they keep fighting and dying for no reason? So, they offered to surrender to Lacrates under certain conditions, and it was agreed they could leave the city and return to Greece with whatever they could carry. Bagoas disagreed with the terms, but Ochus approved them, and Pelusium fell into the hands of the Persians without any more fighting.

About the same time Mentor had proceeded southwards and laid siege to Bubastis. Having invested the town, he caused intelligence to reach the besieged that Ochus had determined to spare all who should surrender their cities to him without resistance, and to treat with the utmost severity all who should fight strenuously in their defence. By these means he introduced dissension within the walls of the towns, since the native Egyptians and their Greek allies naturally distrusted and suspected each other. At Bubastis the Egyptians were the first to move. The siege had only just begun when they sent an envoy to Mentor's colleague, Bagoas, to offer to surrender the town to him. But this proceeding did not suit the Greeks, who caught the messenger, extracted from him his message, and then attacked the Egyptian portion of the garrison and slew great numbers of them. The Egyptians, however, though beaten, persisted, established communication with Bagoas, and fixed a day on which they would receive his forces into the town. Mentor, who wished to secure to himself the credit of the surrender, hereupon exhorted his Greek friends to be on the watch, and, when the time came, to resist the movement. This they did with such success that they not only frustrated the attempt, but captured Bagoas himself, who had ventured within the walls. Bagoas had to implore the interference of his colleague on his behalf, and was obliged to promise that henceforth he would attempt nothing without Mentor's knowledge and consent. Mentor gained his ends, had the credit of being the person to whom the town surrendered itself, and at the same time established his ascendancy over Bagoas. It is clear that had the Egyptians possessed an active and able commander, advantage might have been taken of the jealousies which divided the Persian generals from their Greek colleagues, to bring the expedition into difficulties.

Around the same time, Mentor had moved south and laid siege to Bubastis. After surrounding the town, he managed to let the defenders know that Ochus had decided to spare anyone who surrendered without a fight and to severely punish those who resisted strongly. This caused division within the walls, as the local Egyptians and their Greek allies naturally mistrusted each other. At Bubastis, the Egyptians were the first to act. The siege had just started when they sent a messenger to Mentor's colleague, Bagoas, offering to surrender the town. However, this did not sit well with the Greeks, who captured the messenger, learned his message, and then attacked the Egyptian part of the garrison, killing many of them. The Egyptians, though defeated, did not give up; they communicated with Bagoas and set a day to let his forces into the town. Mentor, wanting to take credit for the surrender, urged his Greek allies to be alert and to resist when the time came. They succeeded not only in thwarting the attempt but also captured Bagoas, who had entered the walls. Bagoas had to beg his colleague for help and promised that he would not act without Mentor's knowledge and agreement from then on. Mentor achieved his goals, gained the credit for the town’s surrender, and at the same time established his dominance over Bagoas. It's clear that if the Egyptians had a capable and proactive commander, they could have taken advantage of the rivalries between the Persian generals and their Greek partners to create difficulties for the expedition.

Unfortunately, the Egyptian monarch, alike pusillanimous and incapable, was so far from making any offensive effort, that he was not prepared even to defend his capital against the invaders. When he found that Pelusium and Bubastis had both fallen, and that the way lay open for the Persians to march upon Memphis and invest it, he left the city with all the wealth on which he could lay his hands, and fled away into Ethiopia. Ochus did not pursue him. He was content to have regained a valuable province, which for above fifty years had been lost to the Persian crown, without even having had to fight a single pitched battle, or to engage in one difficult siege. According to the Greek writers, he showed his contempt of the Egyptian religion after his conquest by stabbing an Apis-Bull, and violating the sanctity of a number of the most holy shrines; but the story of the Apis-Bull is probably a fiction, and it was to obtain the plunder of the temples, not to insult the Egyptian gods, that he violated the shrines. There is no trace of his having treated the conquered people with cruelty, or even with severity. Prudence induced him to destroy the walls and other fortifications of the chief Egyptian towns; and cupidity led him to carry off into Persia all the treasures that Nekht-nebf had left behind. Even the sacred books, of which he is said to have robbed the temples, may have been taken on account of their value. We do not hear of his having dragged off any prisoners, or inflicted any punishment on the country for its rebellion. Even the tribute is not said to have been increased.

Unfortunately, the Egyptian king, both cowardly and incompetent, was so far from making any offensive move that he wasn't even ready to defend his capital against the attackers. When he learned that Pelusium and Bubastis had both fallen and that the Persians could easily march on Memphis, he left the city with as much wealth as he could grab and escaped to Ethiopia. Ochus didn't go after him. He was satisfied to have reclaimed a valuable province that had been lost to the Persian crown for over fifty years, without having to engage in a single major battle or face a tough siege. According to Greek writers, he showed his contempt for Egyptian religion after his conquest by stabbing an Apis Bull and desecrating several of the most sacred temples; however, the story about the Apis Bull is likely fictional, and he likely violated the shrines to loot the temples, not to offend the Egyptian gods. There’s no evidence that he treated the conquered people with cruelty or harshness. Cautiously, he chose to dismantle the walls and fortifications of the main Egyptian cities, driven by greed to take all the treasures that Nekht-nebf had left behind. Even the sacred texts he is said to have stolen might have been taken for their monetary value. There are no reports of him dragging off prisoners or punishing the country for its rebellion. Even the tribute doesn't seem to have increased.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that, when once Persia took resolutely in hand the subjugation of the revolted province, a few months sufficed for its accomplishment. The resources of Persia were out of all comparison with those of Egypt; alike in respect of men and of money, there was an extreme disparity. What had protected Egypt so long was the multiplicity of Persia's enemies, the large number of wars that were continually being waged and the want of a bold, energetic, and warlike monarch. As soon as the full power of the vast empire of the Achæmenidæ was directed against the little country which had detached itself, and pretended to a separate existence, the result was certain. Egypt could no more maintain a struggle against Persia in full force than a lynx could contend with a lion. But while all this is indubitably true, the end of Egypt might have been more dignified and more honourable than it was. Nekht-nebf, the last king, was a poor specimen of the Pharaonic type of monarch. He had none of the qualities of a great king. He did not even know how to fall with dignity. Had he gathered together all the troops that he could anyhow muster, and met Ochus in the open field, and fallen fighting for his crown, or had he even defended Memphis to the last, and only yielded himself when he could resist no longer, a certain halo of glory would have surrounded him. As it was, Egypt sank ingloriously at the last—her art, her literature, her national spirit decayed and almost extinct—paying, by her early disappearance from among the nations of the earth, the penalty of her extraordinarily precocious greatness.

There’s nothing surprising about the fact that once Persia decisively took control of the rebellious province, it only took a few months to succeed. The resources of Persia were incomparable to those of Egypt; there was a huge disparity in both manpower and finances. What had kept Egypt safe for so long was the sheer number of Persia's enemies, the countless wars that were constantly ongoing, and the lack of a bold, energetic, and warlike ruler. Once the full might of the vast Achaemenid Empire was focused on the small country that had broken away and claimed to maintain its independence, the outcome was inevitable. Egypt couldn't maintain a fight against a fully powered Persia any more than a lynx could take on a lion. However, while all this is undoubtedly true, Egypt's end could have been more dignified and honorable than it turned out to be. Nekht-nebf, the last king, was a poor example of a Pharaonic ruler. He lacked the qualities of a great king. He didn’t even know how to fall with dignity. If he had gathered all the troops he could muster and confronted Ochus in open battle, fighting for his crown, or if he had defended Memphis until the very end, yielding only when he could no longer resist, he would have had a certain aura of glory surrounding him. As it stands, Egypt fell into disgrace—its art, literature, and national spirit decayed and nearly extinguished—paying the price for its incredibly early greatness by vanishing from the nations of the earth.

MAP OF THE FAYOUM SHOWING THE BIRKET-EL-KEROUN AND THE ARTIFICIAL LAKE 'MŒRIS'. MAP OF THE FAYOUM SHOWING THE BIRKET-EL-KEROUN AND THE ARTIFICIAL LAKE 'MŒRIS'.


Decorative

INDEX.

A

  • Aahmes I., 152
  • "Aa-khepr-ka-ra, Abode of," 168
  • "Abode of Aa-khepr-ka-ra," 168
  • Abraham, deceit of, 127, 129
  • Abraham in Egypt, 125
  • Abyssinia, rainfall in, 113
  • Alliance with Babylon and Lydia, 371
  • Amasis, prosperity under, 367
  • Amenemhat I., 101
  • Amenemhat I., hunting prowess of, 103
  • Amenemhat III., 109
  • "Amenemhat the Good," 116
  • Amenemhat's Labyrinth, 121
  • Amenemhat's Reservoir, 118
  • Amenhotep II., conquests of, 206
  • Amenhotep II., cruelty of, 207
  • Amenhotep III., colossi of, 208
  • Amenhotep III., lion-hunting of, 220
  • Amenhotep III., personal appearance of, 222
  • Amenhotep III., wars of, 219
  • Amenhotep IV., accession of, 223
  • Ammon, High Priest of, 289
  • Ammon, restoration of temple of, 290
  • Ammon, temple of, 105, 167, 173, 186
  • Amon-mes, or Amomneses, pretender to crown, 265
  • Animal worship, 31
  • Animals, sacred, 31
  • Antef I., 97
  • Antef II.'s dogs, 98
  • Antiquities of Egypt, 45
  • Apé, or Apiu, city of, 56
  • Apepi and Joseph, 145
  • Apepi, rule of, 144
  • Apis, sacred bull, 32
  • Apries offends Nebuchadnezzar, 363
  • Architecture, 21, 245, 267
  • Art and literature, decline of, 285, 311
  • Art and literature, revival of, 350
  • Asa, Judæa revolts under, 307
  • Asa, victory of, 309
  • Asia, invasion of, 167, 195
  • Asshur-bani-pal, accession of, 336
  • Asshur-bani-pal, death of, 338
  • Asshur-bani-pal, defeat of Tehrak by, 336
  • Assyria, 11
  • Assyrian gifts to Thothmes III., 194
  • Athor cow, 33
  • Auaris, siege of, 152

B

  • Babylon, revolt of, 345
  • Bacis, sacred bull, 32
  • Bahr Yousouf, 1
  • Bastinado, 45
  • Bek-en-ranf, burning of, 323
  • Builders, the Pyramid, 82
  • Buildings of Thothmes III., 199, 201
  • Bulls, sacred, 32

C

  • Cairo., Modern, 52, 95
  • Cambyses, indignities by, 378
  • Campaigns of Thothmes III., 191
  • Chaldean Monarchy, end of, 371
  • Character, Egyptian, 24
  • Character, types of, 27
  • Colossi of Amenhotep III., 208
  • Condition, social, 60
  • Corrupting influences, 353
  • Costume, early, 60
  • Costume of Women, 62
  • Crocodile, mode of hunting, 104
  • Crœsus, 370
  • Cushites, the, 154
  • Cyprus, 197
  • Cyrene, death of, 394
  • Cyrus, death of, 372

D

  • Darius, death of, 382
  • Darius, revolt against, 381
  • David and Solomon, empire of, 295
  • Decline, 244, 269, 283
  • Decline of art and literature, 285, 311
  • Decline of morals, 286
  • Defeat, double, of invaders, 277
  • Defeat of Neco by Nebuchadnezzar, 358
  • Deities, Egyptian, 30
  • Deities, evil, 36, 37
  • Delta, the, 1, 95, 102
  • Disaster of the Red Sea, 264
  • Disintegration, 311, 317
  • Disk worship, 223, 225, 230, 231
  • Drollery, Egyptian, 29
  • Dynasties, rival, established, 311

E

  • Egypt, monotony of, 19
  • Egypt, seasons of, 14
  • Egypt, shape of, 1
  • Egypt, situation of, 11
  • Egypt, size of, 9
  • Egypt, soil of, 10
  • Egyptian history, happiest age of, 100
  • Egyptian independence re-established, 389
  • Egyptian myths, 47
  • Egyptian physique, 25
  • Egyptians, nature of, 28
  • Elephant hunting, 194
  • El-Uksur, temple of, 217
  • Empire of David and Solomon, 295
  • Esarhaddon, accession of, 331
  • Esarhaddon's defeat of Tehrak, 333
  • Ethiopia and Syria, struggles between, 337
  • Ethiopia, Egyptian influence in, 315
  • Ethiopia, last efforts of, 339
  • Ethiopian rule firmly established, 323
  • Ethiopians, cruelty of, 338
  • Evil deities, 36, 37
  • Expeditions into Asia, 167, 195

F

  • Famines through deficient inundation, 115
  • Fayoum, obelisk at, 106
  • Fayoum, the, 4, 7
  • Fellahin, explanation of, 45
  • First sea-fight, 277
  • Fleet of Hatasu, 178
  • Flora of Egypt, 15
  • Foreigners, encouragement of, 351
  • Forests, incense, 183
  • Free Trade in Punt, 183

G

  • Geology of Egypt, 15
  • Great Pyramid, 72
  • Greece, trade with, 352
  • Ghizeh, three Pyramids at, 67
  • Ghizeh, tombs at, 56, 137
  • Gyges and Psamatik, 345

H

  • Hall at Karnak, 266
  • Hall of Seti, 245
  • Handicrafts, Egyptian, 44
  • Hapi, 32
  • Hapi, merchant fleet of, 178
  • Hapi regarded as a male, 178
  • Hapi regent for Thothmes II., 173
  • Hapi, Thothmes III.'s animosity against, 187
  • Hatasu actual queen, 177
  • Hatasu's fleet, return of 184
  • Hebrew art, Egyptian influence in, 297
  • Heliopolis, temple at, 106
  • Her-hor, first high-priest king, 290
  • Herodotus, 384
  • Hittites, peace with, 242
  • Hittites, treaty with, 243
  • Hittites, war with, 233
  • Hosea, Shabak's dealings with, 325
  • Hostage, Thothmes III.'s system of, 195
  • Hyksôs conquered, 151
  • Hyksôs, religion of, 143
  • Hyksôs rule, 139

I

  • Immigrants, Semitic, 109, 130
  • Immortality of the soul, belief in, 39
  • Inarus, death of, 384
  • Inarus, revolt of, 383
  • Incense forests, 183
  • Industries, revival of, 350
  • Influences, corrupting, 353
  • Inundation, 13
  • Inundation, deficient, famines through, 115
  • Invasion, 396
  • Invasion by land and sea, 275
  • Invasion, Libyan, 235
  • Invasion, the great, 134
  • Israel's oppressor, 249

J

  • Jeroboam at Shishak's court, 301
  • Jerusalem, destruction of, 362
  • Joseph and Apepi, 145
  • Josiah, defeat of, by Nico, 357
  • Judæa insecure, 361
  • Judæa's conquest, record of, 305

K

  • Kadesh, battle of, 239
  • Karnak, hall at, 266
  • Karnak, temple at, 173, 198, 200, 304, 349, 386
  • Khabash, accession of, 381
  • Khartoum, 8
  • Khu-en-Aten, 227
  • Khu-en-Aten, personal appearance of, 229
  • Khufu, King, 82, 90
  • King, supposed first, 49
  • Kings in awe of priests, 288

L

  • Labouring class, condition of, 45
  • Labyrinth, Amenemhat's, 121
  • Legend of Osiris, 34
  • Libyan desert, battle in, 346
  • Libyan invasion, 255
  • Libyans, defeat of, 274
  • Libyans, slaughter of,
  • Literature and art, decline of, 311
  • Lower Egypt, 96
  • Lower orders, condition of, 45
  • Luxor, temple of, 217

M

  • Medes, the, 369
  • Medinet-Abou, temple at, 272
  • Megiddo, capture of, 191
  • Memphis, 51
  • Memphis, blockade and fall of, 377, 383
  • Memphis taken by Esarhaddon, 333
  • Menephthah I., accession of, 253
  • Menes, King, 50, 52
  • Men-kau-ra, King, 68, 82, 90
  • Men-khepr-ra, King, accession, of, 294
  • Mentu-hotep I., 97
  • Mertitefs, wife of Sneferu, 64
  • Meydoum, pyramid of, 58
  • Mi-Ammon-Nut, accession of, 338
  • Mi-Ammon-Nut, death of, 340
  • Mi-Ammon-Nut, Submission to, 340
  • Mnevis, sacred bull, 32
  • Mœris, lake, 120
  • Monuments, objects on, 196
  • Moral standard, 42
  • Morality, Egyptian, 41
  • Morals, decline of, 286
  • Myth, chief Egyptian, 34
  • Myths, Egyptian, 47

N

  • Naïri, war on the, 167
  • Napatra, Necropolis at, 316
  • Natural History of Egypt, 16
  • Naval power of Thothmes, 111
  • Navy of Nero, 354
  • Nebuchadnezzar and Neco, 358
  • Nebuchadnezzar overruns Egypt, 365
  • Neco, accession of, 354
  • Neco defeats Josiah, 357
  • Neco, navy of, 354
  • Neco, victories of, 358
  • Nectanebo I., accession of, 387
  • Nectanebo I., sarcophagus of, 391
  • Nefer-mat, son of Sneferu, 64
  • Nekht-nebf, accession of, 394
  • Nile, navigation on, 13
  • Nile, rising of the, 113
  • Nile valley, 1, 95, 102, 117
  • Nineveh, 192

O

  • Obelisk of Usurtasen I., 137
  • Objects on monuments, 196
  • Ochus, expedition of, 394
  • Osiris, legend of, 34
  • Osorkon I., accession of, 306

P

  • Pacis, sacred bull, 32
  • Parihu, king of Punt, 182
  • Payment of tribute, 149
  • Pelusium, surrender of, 399
  • Persia, third rebellion against, 385
  • Persian conquest, 368
  • Persian power, rise of, 369
  • Persians, revolt against, 382
  • Pharnabazus, attack by, 388
  • Pharnabazus, repulse of, 390
  • Phœnicia, 11
  • Phthah, temple of, 51, 349
  • Piankhi, king of Napatra, 317
  • Piankhi, rebellion against, 318
  • Piankhi, submission of petty princes to, 320
  • Pinetum I., accession of, 293
  • Plagues of Egypt, the, 262
  • Polytheism, 31
  • Priest, High, of Ammon, 289
  • Priest-kings, last of the, 297
  • Priests, kings in awe of, 288
  • Prosopis, battle of, 260
  • Prosperity under Amasis, 367
  • Psamatik I. and Gyges, 345
  • Psamatik I., origin of, 343
  • Psamatik I., sole king, 347
  • Psamatik I., marriage of, 348
  • Psamatik I., victory of, 346
  • Psamatik II., architectural activity of, 361
  • Psamatik III., accession of, 374
  • Psamatik III., death of, 377
  • Psamatik III., defeat of, 375
  • Public schools, 45
  • Punt, free trade in, 183
  • Punt's, Queen of, visit to Hatasu, 182
  • Pyramid builders, Egypt under the, 91
  • Pyramid builders, the, 82
  • Pyramid, great, 72
  • Pyramid of Meydoum, 58
  • Pyramid of Saccarah, 59
  • Pyramids, Egyptian idea of, 66
  • Pyramids, three, at Ghizeh, 67

R

  • Ra-Sekenen III., Apepi's jealousy of, 150
  • Ra-Sekenen III., war forced upon, 151
  • Ramesses I., 232
  • Ramesses II., Hittite war of, 239
  • Ramesses II., Israel's oppressor, 249
  • Ramesses III., accession of, 271
  • Ramesses III., closing years of, 283
  • Ramesses III., plot to kill, 284
  • Ramesses III., temple of, 272
  • Red Sea, disaster of, 264
  • Rehoboam, submission of, 303
  • Religion, 35-41
  • Reservoir, Amenemhat's, 118
  • Revival of Arts and Industries, 350
  • Revolt against Darius, 381
  • Revolt against the Persians, 382
  • Rival dynasties, 311
  • Rut-Ammon, accession and death of, 338

S

  • Saccarah, Great Pyramid of, 59
  • Sacred animals, 31
  • Sacred bulls, 32
  • St. John Lateran, monument of, 202
  • Sankh-ka-ra, King, 99
  • Saplal, Hittite king, 232
  • Sargon, death of, 327
  • Sargon, founder of last Assyrian dynasty, 326
  • Schools, public, 45
  • Sea-fight, first, 277
  • Second cataract, 106, 111
  • Semetic immigrants, 130
  • Sennacherib, accession of, 327
  • Sennacherib, victories of, 328
  • Sennacherib's army, destruction of, 329, 331
  • Set, Egyptian deity, 143
  • Set the victorious, 269
  • Seti the Great, victories of, 234
  • Seti the Great, wars of, 236
  • Seti the Great, long wall of, 237
  • Seti the Great, Pillared Hall, 245
  • Seti the Great, tomb of, 246
  • Seti I., head of, 250
  • Seti I., images of, 248
  • Seti I., mummy of, 251
  • Shabak bums Bek-en-ranf, 323
  • Shabak, death of, 327
  • Shabak's conquest of Lower Nile, 324
  • Shabak's dealings with Hosea, 325
  • Shabatok, accession of, 327
  • Shafra, King, 82, 90, 92
  • Shasu, campaign against the, 273
  • Shepherds, Egypt under, 139
  • Sheshonk dynasty, defeat of, 309
  • Shishak, accession of, 300
  • Shishak, dominion of, 304
  • Shishak, foreign origin of, 298
  • Shishak invades Judæa, 303
  • Shishak's reception of Jeroboam, 301
  • Sidon, capture of, 396
  • Siege of Memphis, 376
  • Signs on tombs, 57
  • Slave-hunting lucrative, 220
  • Sneferu, first certain king, 54
  • Social condition, 60
  • Social ranks, 43
  • Society, divisions of, 43
  • Song of Egyptians, 26
  • Song of victory, 198
  • Soul, belief in immortality of, 39
  • Sphinx, the, 92
  • Standard, moral, 42
  • Suez, Isthmus of, 11
  • Syria and Ethiopia, struggle between, 337
  • Syria evacuated by Neco, 359

T

  • Tachos, accession of, 393
  • Taxation, heavy, 45
  • Tehrak, death of, 337
  • Tehrak defeated by Asshur-bani-pal, 336
  • Tehrak defeated by Esarhaddon, 333
  • Tel-el-Bahiri, 185
  • Tel-Mouf, 51
  • Temple of Ammon, 167, 173, 186, 290
  • Temple of Karnak, 198, 200, 304, 349, 386
  • Temple of Medinet-Abou, 272
  • Temple of Phthah, 349
  • Temple of Tel-el-Bahiri, 185
  • Theban kings, 99
  • Thothmes I., accession of, 158
  • Thothmes I., greatness of, 168
  • Thothmes I., victories of, 159
  • Thothmes II., death of, 177
  • Thothmes III., animosity against Hatasu, 187
  • Thothmes III., buildings of, 199, 201
  • Thothmes III., campaigns of, 191
  • Thothmes III., conquests of, 204
  • Thothmes III., lost obelisks of, 201
  • Thothmes III., naval power of, 197
  • Thothmes III., personal appearance of, 204
  • Thothmes III.'s system of tribute, 195
  • Thothmes III., tributes of, 196
  • Tinæus, King, 135
  • Tombs at Ghizeh, 56, 137
  • Tombs, description of, 57
  • Tombs, signs on, 57
  • Trade with Greece, 352
  • Trade with the Jews, 295
  • Transport, difficulty of, 12
  • Treaty with the Hittites, 243
  • Tribute, payment of, 149

U

  • Usurtasen I., obelisk of, 137
  • Usurtasen I., son of Amenemhat, 104
  • Usurtasen I., statue of, 105
  • Usurtasen II., 109
  • Usurtasen III., conquest of, 111

V

  • Victoria, lake, 8
  • Victory, song of, 198
  • Vocal Memnon, the, 212

W

  • Wady Haifa, 106
  • Wady Magharah, 54, 106
  • Water, modes of storing, 117
  • Western Asia, history of, 162
  • Western Asia, topography of, 155
  • "Wilderness of the Wanderings," 164
  • Women, costume of, 62
  • Women held in high estimation, 170
  • Worship, animal, 31

Z

  • Zabara, Mount, 15
  • Zerah, defeat of, 308





PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH



FOOTNOTES

[1] R. Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," p. 4.

[1] R. Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," p. 4.

[2]Translation by F.C. Cook.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__Translation by F.C. Cook.

[3]Adapted from Mr. Kinglake's "Eothen," p. 188.

[3]Adapted from Mr. Kinglake's "Eothen," p. 188.

[4]Nefer-hotep, a deceased king.

Nefer-hotep, a late king.

[5]Brugsch, "Histoire d'Egypte," p. 15.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__Brugsch, "History of Egypt," p. 15.

[6]A fellah is a peasant, one of the labouring class, just above the slave.

[6]A fellah is a farmer, someone from the working class, right above being a slave.

[7]R. Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," pp. 24, 25.

[7]R. Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," pp. 24, 25.

[8]Fergusson, "History of Architecture," vol. i. pp. 91, 92.

[8]Fergusson, "History of Architecture," vol. i. pp. 91, 92.

[9] So Mr. A.D. Bartlett, F.Z.S., in the "Transactions of the Society of Biblical Arch�logy," vol. iv. p. 195.

[9] So Mr. A.D. Bartlett, F.Z.S., in the "Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology," vol. iv. p. 195.

[10] R. Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," p. 52.

[10] R. Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," p. 52.

[11] "Records of the Past," vol. xii. p. 60.

[11] "Records of the Past," vol. xii. p. 60.

[12] Euterpe, ch. 148

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Euterpe, ch. 148

[13] Adapted from Kinglake's "Eothen," p. 201.

[13] Adapted from Kinglake's "Eothen," p. 201.

[14] See "Speaker's Commentary," vol. i. p. 447, col. i

[14] See "Speaker's Commentary," vol. i. p. 447, col. i

[15] "Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient," vol i. p. 360.

[15] "Guide to Ancient History of the East," vol i. p. 360.

[16] "Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient," vol. i. p. 368.

[16] "Manual of Ancient History of the East," vol. i. p. 368.

[17] Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," pp. 280-282.

[17] Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," pp. 280-282.

[18] Brugsch, "History of Egypt," vol. 1. pp. 367, 368.

[18] Brugsch, "History of Egypt," vol. 1. pp. 367, 368.

[19] Brugsch, "History of Egypt" (first ed., 1879), vol. 1. pp. 371, 372.

[19] Brugsch, "History of Egypt" (1st ed., 1879), vol. 1, pp. 371, 372.

[20] Wilkinson in Rawlinson's "Herodotus," vol. ii. p. 302.

[20] Wilkinson in Rawlinson's "Herodotus," vol. ii. p. 302.

[21] "Eastern Life," vol. i. pp. 84, 289.

[21] "Eastern Life," vol. I, pp. 84, 289.

[22] Kinglake, "Eothen," pp. 188, 189.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Kinglake, "Eothen," pp. 188, 189.

[23] Fergusson, "Handbook of Architecture," vol. i. p. 234.

[23] Fergusson, "Handbook of Architecture," vol. i. p. 234.

[24] "History of Architecture," vol. i. pp. 119, 120.

[24] "History of Architecture," vol. 1, pp. 119, 120.

[25] Adapted from Dean Stanley's "Sinai and Palestine," Introduction, p. xl.

[25] Adapted from Dean Stanley's "Sinai and Palestine," Introduction, p. xl.

[26] Stanley, "Sinai and Palestine," p. xlvii.

[26] Stanley, "Sinai and Palestine," p. xlvii.

[27] Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," p. 105

[27] Stuart Poole, "Cities of Egypt," p. 105

[28] The mummy of Seti I. has been recently uncovered. It was in good condition, and is said to have revealed a face very closely resembling that of Ramesses II., with fine delicate features, and altogether of an elevated type. "The nose, mouth, chin, in short all the features," says M. Maspero, "are the same; but in the father they are more refined, more intelligent, more spiritual, than when reproduced in the son. Seti I. is, as it were, the idealized type of Ramesses II." (Letter of M. Maspero in _The Times_ of July 23, 1886.) It may perhaps be doubted whether the shrunken mummy, 3300 years old, is better evidence of the living reality than the contemporary sculptures.

[28] The mummy of Seti I has recently been uncovered. It was in good condition and is said to reveal a face that closely resembles that of Ramesses II, with fine, delicate features and an overall elevated appearance. "The nose, mouth, chin—in short, all the features," says M. Maspero, "are the same; but in the father, they are more refined, more intelligent, more spiritual than when reproduced in the son. Seti I is, in a way, the idealized version of Ramesses II." (Letter of M. Maspero in _The Times_ of July 23, 1886.) One may question whether the shrunken mummy, 3,300 years old, serves as better evidence of living reality than the contemporary sculptures.

[29] Jeremiah xlvi. 3-12.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Jeremiah 46:3-12.

[30] Josephus, _Ant. Jud_. x. 9, 97.

[30] Josephus, _Ant. Jud_. x. 9, 97.

[31] Ezekiel xxx. 3-18.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ezekiel 3:3-18.




        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!