If I wished to characterise in one word the peculiar bearing and
ruling element of the Egyptian mind--however unsatisfactory in
other respects such general designations may be--I should say that
the intellectual eminence of that people was in its scientific
profundity--in an understanding that penetrated or sought to
penetrate by magic into all the depths and mysteries of nature,
even into their most hidden abyss. So thoroughly scientific was
the whole leaning and character of the Egyptian mind, that even
the architecture of this people had an astronomical import, even
far more than that of the other nations of early antiquity. I
have already had occasion to speak of the deep and mysterious
signification of their treatment of the dead. In all the natural
sciences, in mathematics, astronomy, and even in medicine, they
were the masters of the Greeks; and even the profoundest thinkers
among the latter, the Pythagoreans, and afterwards the great Plato
himself, derived from them the first elements of their doctrines,
or, caught at least the first outline of their mighty speculations.
Here, too, in the birthplace of hieroglyphics, was the chief seat
of the mysteries; and Egypt has at all times been the native
country of many true, as well as of many false, secrets.--SCHLEGEL.
Customs that differ from our own always seem strange customs. So the
Egyptians, viewed from a latter-day European or American standpoint,
seem a very strange people. And it being easy to generalise from
insufficient data, many notions regarding the Egyptians have become
current which appear not to represent that people as they really were.
The more the monuments are studied, and the closer we get to the real
life of the peoples of antiquity, the less strange these peoples appear.
Indeed, when we come to appreciate their life as it really was,
it is surprising how “natural” and human it all appears. Certain
peculiarities there were, to be sure, with each people and with each
successive age; but in the broad view the peoples of the most remote
antiquity are best understood if we think of them as very similar
to ourselves in the general sweep of their feelings, desires, and
thoughts. Thus, for example, we have seen that the modern Egyptologist
has quite dispelled the notion, once prevalent, that the Egyptians were
a solemn, morose people, thinking only of the life to come. The truer
view, on the other hand, appears to be that they were a peculiarly
social, pleasure-loving people. The observance of certain religious
rites, which make such an impression upon us because they differ from
our own customs in this regard, doubtless did not appear to them to
have at all the significance we ascribe to them.
Even in matters which seem to be most strikingly borne out by the
records of the monuments, it is easy to entertain a misconception
if one presses too closely the idea that the traits thus discovered
belong exclusively to a particular people. Thus in the matter of that
conservatism which is commonly spoken of as the predominant trait of
the national character of the Egyptians. Conservative they surely were.
But so is every other living creature that remains long in a single
unvarying habitat. The basis of civilisation is the conservatism which
leads each generation to cling fast to the customs it had inherited.
The history of customs, of language, of religions, in short of all
culture, shows how tenaciously every people, after a certain stage, has
held to the traditions of its past.
It seems as if a people, like an individual species of animal, reaches
sooner or later a state of equilibrium in regard to its environment,
and will change no further, except as the environment changes. Now
in Egypt the physical environment appears to have changed but little
within historic times, and the geographical conditions were such that
the people there were afforded a high degree of isolation from outside
influences. Hence the observed slowness of change in the customs of
this “strange” people.
Yet, even admitting all this, one must not, as we have suggested,
press the point of Egyptian conservatism too far. The most casual
glance along the line of their history shows many notable changes in
their radical customs from age to age, even in the relatively short
period open to our inspection. There were times when great pyramids and
temples were all the vogue; other times when they were quite ignored.
Even the custom of embalming the dead, so striking a peculiarity, was
more or less subject to fluctuating fashions.
One must bear in mind that the period of Egyptian history open to
our inspection, from the beginning of secure records till the final
overthrow and disappearance of old Egypt as a nation, was, according
to an average chronology, only about twenty-five hundred, or three
thousand years. Now it is an open question whether, for every Egyptian
idea or custom that remained even relatively fixed throughout this
period, one could not find current to-day among the most progressive
nations of the world an analogous idea or custom, that could prove at
least as long a pedigree. To cite but a single illustration, every
civilised nation on the globe to-day has its whole being as closely
bound up with religious observances as was the being of the Egyptian
commonwealth. And with a single exception the religious systems in
question have held sway over their subjects, substantially unchanged,
for a period as long as the entire sweep of Egyptian history under
consideration. Confucianism, Brahminism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism,
Judaism,--each is hoary with the weight of something like thirty
centuries; each had its origin in an age of superstition which we
are prone to think far inferior to our own “enlightened” time; yet
each holds its millions of devotees as rigidly and as inexorably
as ever Egyptian was held by the cult of Osiris. Bearing this
single illustration in mind, we shall be able to view the Egyptian
“conservatism” more truly, as an example of a universal human trait,
rather than as the peculiarity of a “strange” people.
Although we have emphasised the view that the Egyptians were very
much like other peoples in their fundamental traits of character and
habits, it must not be overlooked that there is a pretty sharp line of
demarcation to be drawn between the customs of Oriental and Western
nations, and that the Egyptians were essentially Orientals.
THE POSITION OF THE KING
One of the most typical characteristics of the Oriental mind is a
deference to authority signalised in the ready acceptance of an
autocratic government. Doubtless it never occurred to any Egyptian that
he might do away with kings altogether. The conception of the king
as the head of the state was so deeply impressed on the mind of the
people, that the very possibility of a state without an autocratic head
could scarcely be conceived.
But in reading of the extreme deference shown to the kings of Egypt,
one is likely to gain a misconception of their actual status. We
have been taught traditionally to regard the Egyptians as a meek,
peace-loving people, profoundly imbued with religious sentiments, and
accustomed to look upon their king as almost a god, and to pay him
divine honours. Such indeed was doubtless the fact as regards external
and tangible conditions, and no doubt the average Egyptian conceived
the kingly authority as something altogether sacred. But beneath the
surface of court life everywhere there is a counter current which the
monarch himself can never disregard, however little its existence is
recognised by the generality of his subjects. Professor Erman has
emphasised with great astuteness the effect of these hidden influences
upon the real life of the Egyptian monarch. He contends that the
conditions surrounding the Egyptian court were not different from
those about the thrones of other Oriental monarchs, and he points out
with great vividness the distinction between the theoretical and the
real position of the sovereign. Theoretically, the king is absolutely
supreme; his will is law, all the property is his; even the lives of
his subjects are at his mercy. But practically, the situation is quite
different. Old counsellors of the king’s father are at hand whose
bidding is obeyed by the clerks and officials; old rich families must
be pandered to; the generals of the troops have a real power that
must be respected; and the priests are an ever present restriction
upon royal authority. Then there are always relatives who aspire to
the throne. Among the large families of Oriental despots it is always
something of a lottery as to which child succeeds to power, and
there are sure to be mothers who feel that their offspring have been
slighted. The familiar stories of the mothers of Solomon and of Cyrus
the Younger illustrate the point.
“Even the very potent rulers,” says Professor Erman, “were constantly
in dread of their own relatives, as was shown by the protocol of
a trial for high treason. The reign of Ramses III was certainly
brilliant; the country finally at peace, and the priesthood had been
won over by enormous gifts and by temple-building. The aspect of his
reign was as bright as could be. And yet there reigned also under him
the fearful powers that wrecked each of these dynasties, and it was
perhaps due only to a happy chance that he himself escaped. In his own
harem treason rose, headed by a distinguished woman of the name of Thi,
who was undoubtedly of royal blood, if indeed she were not either his
mother or his stepmother. Which prince had been chosen as pretender for
the crown, we do not know (a pseudonym is given in the papyrus), but
we see how far the matter had gone before discovery; twice the women
of the harem wrote to their mothers and brothers, ‘Arouse the people,
and bestir the hostile spirits to begin hostilities against the king.’
One of the women wrote then to her brother, who commanded the troops
in Ethiopia, and definitely bade him come and fight the king. When one
sees how many high officials shared in the treason or knew of it, one
appreciates the danger overhanging such an oriental kingdom.”
It will be well to bear this corrective view in mind in considering
the position of the Egyptian king as suggested by the monumental
inscriptions and pictures. But this view does not at all alter the fact
that the people at large were absolutely subservient to the idea of
kingship. Certain individuals might strive to overthrow any particular
monarch, but it was only that they might set up another. The idea of
doing away with monarchy itself never entered their heads. That idea
was born upon European soil, long after the power of ancient Egypt had
departed.
It is an easy step from monarchs to armies and war methods, although
in Egypt the relationship was not so close and intimate as in the case
of many other nations. We have seen all along that the Egyptians were
not pre-eminently a warlike people, yet, first and last, war entered
very largely into their life history as with every other nation, and
there was one period under the New Kingdom when, as we have seen,
the Egyptians became a conquering people. As the chief monarch of
this epoch, Ramses II was greatly given to recording his own deeds in
monumental fashion, very full data are at hand for interpreting the war
methods of the people during this epoch. There is nothing particularly
unique about these methods. The Egyptian army consisted principally
of militia armed with bows and javelins. The cavalry, consisting of
companies of charioteers, was led by the king himself. Equestrianship
had not yet entered into warfare. In sieges, scaling-ladders and
battering-rams were used. The monuments show us that the soldiers
were drilled to the sound of bugles quite in the modern fashion. In a
word, there was nothing particularly to distinguish the war customs of
the Egyptians of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties from those of other
nations of their time, and these methods, as we shall have occasion to
see, were not greatly improved upon until about a thousand years later,
when the Macedonian phalanx, as trained by Philip and Alexander along
lines first laid out by the great Theban Epaminondas, introduced a new
element into warfare.[a]
The king was the representative of the deity, and his royal authority
was directly derived from the gods. He was the head of the religion and
of the state; he was the judge and law-giver; and he commanded the army
and led it to war. It was his right and his office to preside over the
sacrifices, and pour out libations to the gods; and, whenever he was
present, he had the privilege of being the officiating high priest.
The sceptre was hereditary; but, in the event of a direct heir failing,
the claims for succession were determined by proximity of parentage,
or by right of marriage. The king was always either of the military or
priestly class, and the princes also belonged to one of them.
The army or the priesthood were the two professions followed by all men
of rank, the navy not being an exclusive service; and the “long ships
of Sesostris” and other kings were commanded by generals and officers
taken from the army, as was the custom of the Turks, and some others
in modern Europe to a very recent time. The law, too, was in the hands
of the priests; so that there were only two professions. Most of the
kings, as might be expected, were of the military class, and during
the glorious days of Egyptian history, the younger princes generally
adopted the same profession. Many held offices also in the royal
household, some of the most honourable of which were fan-bearers on the
right of their father, royal scribes, superintendents of the granaries,
or of the land, and treasurers of the king; and they were generals of
the cavalry, archers, and other corps, or admirals of the fleet.
Princes were distinguished by a badge hanging from the side of the
head, which inclosed, or represented, the lock of hair emblematic of
a “son”; in imitation of the youthful god “Horus, the son of Isis and
Osiris,” who was held forth as the model for all princes, and the type
of royal virtue. For though the Egyptians shaved the head, and wore
wigs or other coverings to the head, children were permitted to leave
certain locks of hair; and if the sons of kings, long before they
arrived at the age of manhood, had abandoned this youthful custom,
the badge was attached to their head-dress as a mark of their rank as
princes; or to show that they had not, during the lifetime of their
father, arrived at kinghood; on the same principle that a Spanish
prince, of whatever age, continues to be styled an “infant.”
And it is a curious fact that this ancient people had already adopted
the principle, that the king “could do no wrong”: and while he was
exonerated from blame, every curse and evil were denounced against his
ministers, and those advisers who had given him injurious counsel. The
idea, too, of the king “never dying” was contained in their common
formula of “life having been given him forever.”
Love and respect were not merely shown to the sovereign during his
lifetime, but were continued to his memory after his death; and the
manner in which his funeral obsequies were celebrated tended to show,
that, though their benefactor was no more, they retained a grateful
sense of his goodness, and admiration for his virtues.
The Egyptians are said to have been divided into castes, similar to
those of India; but though a marked line of distinction was maintained
between the different ranks of society, they appear rather to have been
classes than castes, and a man did not necessarily follow the precise
occupation of his father. Sons, it is true, usually adopted the same
profession or trade as their parent, and the rank of each depended on
his occupation; but the children of a priest frequently chose the army
for their profession, and those of a military man could belong to the
priesthood.
The priests and military men held the highest position in the country
after the family of the king, and from them were chosen his ministers
and confidential advisers, “the wise counsellors of Pharaoh,” and all
the principal officers of state.
The priests consisted of various grades--as the chief priests, or
pontiffs; the prophets; judges; sacred scribes; the sphragistæ, who
examined the victims for sacrifice; the stolistæ, dressers, or keepers
of the sacred robes; the bearers of the shrines, banners, and other
holy emblems; the sacred sculptors, draughtsmen, and masons; the
embalmers; the keepers of sacred animals; and various officers employed
in the processions and other religious ceremonies; under whom were the
beadles, and inferior functionaries of the temple. There was also the
king’s own priest; and the royal scribes were chosen either from the
sacerdotal or the military class. Women were not excluded from certain
offices in the temple; they were priestesses of the gods, of the kings
and queens, and they had many employments connected with religion.
The long duration of their system, and the feeling with which it was
regarded by the people, may also plead some excuse for it; and while
the function of judges and the administration of the laws gave them
unusual power, they had an apparent claim to those offices, from
having been the framers of the codes of morality, and of the laws they
superintended. Instead of setting themselves above the king, and making
him succumb to their power, like the unprincipled Ethiopian pontiffs,
they acknowledged him as the head of the religion and the state; nor
were they above the law; no one of them, nor even the king himself,
could govern according to his own arbitrary will; his conduct was
amenable to an ordeal of his subjects at his death, the people being
allowed to accuse him of misgovernment, and to prevent his being buried
in his tomb on the day of his funeral.
But though the regulations of the priesthood may have suited the
Egyptians in early times, certain institutions being adapted to men in
particular states of society, they erred in encouraging a belief in
legends they knew to be untrue, instead of purifying and elevating the
religious views of the people, and committed the fault of considering
their unbending system perfect, and suited to all times. Abuses
therefore crept in; credulity, already shamefully encouraged, increased
to such an extent that it enslaved the mind, and paralysed men’s
reasoning powers; and the result was that the Egyptians gave way to the
grossest superstitions, which at length excited universal ridicule and
contempt.
Next in rank to the priests were the military. To them was assigned
one of the three portions into which the land of Egypt was divided
by an edict of Sesostris [Ramses II], in order, says Diodorus, “that
those who exposed themselves to danger in the field might be more ready
to undergo the hazards of war, from the interest they felt in the
country as occupiers of the soil; for it would be absurd to commit the
safety of the community to those who possessed nothing which they were
interested in preserving.” Each soldier, whether on duty or no, was
allowed twelve aruræ of land (a little more than eight English acres),
free from all charge; and another important privilege was, that no
soldier could be cast into prison for debt; Bocchoris [Bakenranf] the
framer of this law, considering that it would be dangerous to allow the
civil power the right of arresting those who were the chief defence
of the state. They were instructed from their youth in the duties and
requirements of soldiers, and trained in all the exercises that fitted
them for an active career; and a sort of military school appears to
have been established for the purpose.
Each man was obliged to provide himself with the necessary arms,
offensive and defensive, and everything requisite for a campaign; and
he was expected to hold himself in readiness for taking the field when
required, or for garrison duty. The principal garrisons were posted
in the fortified towns of Pelusium, Marea, Eileithyia, Heracleopolis,
Syene, Elephantine, and other intermediate places; and a large portion
of the army was frequently called upon, by the warlike monarchs,
to invade a foreign country, or to suppress those rebellions which
occasionally broke out in the conquered provinces.
The whole military force, consisting of 410,000, was divided into two
corps, the Calasiries and Hermotybies. They furnished a body of men to
do the duty of royal guards, 1000 of each being annually selected for
that purpose; and each soldier had an additional allowance of “five
_minæ_ of bread, with two of beef, and four _arusters_ of wine,” as
daily rations, during the period of his service.
The Calasiries (_Klashr_) were the most numerous, and amounted to
250,000 men, at the time that Egypt was most populous. They inhabited
the nomes of Thebes, Bubastis, Aphthis, Tanis, Mendes, Sebennytus,
Athribis, Pharbæthus, Thmuis, Onuphis, Anysis, and the Isle of
Myecphoris, which was opposite Bubastis; and the Hermotybies, who lived
in those of Busiris, Saïs, Chemmis, Papremis, the Isle of Prosopitis,
and the half of Natho, made up the remaining 160,000. It was here
that they abode while retired from military service, and in these
nomes their farms or portions of land were situated, which tended to
encourage habits of industry, and keep up a taste for active employment.
Besides the native corps they had mercenary troops, who were enrolled
either from the nations in alliance with the Egyptians, or from those
who had been conquered by them. They were divided into regiments,
sometimes disciplined in the same manner as the Egyptians, though
allowed to retain their arms and costume; but they were not on the same
footing as the native troops; they had no land, and merely received
pay, like other hire soldiers. Strabo speaks of them as mercenaries;
and the million of men he mentions must have included these foreign
auxiliaries. When formally enrolled in the army, they were considered a
part of it, and accompanied the victorious legions on their return from
foreign conquest; and they sometimes assisted in performing garrison
duty in Egypt, in the place of those Egyptian troops which were left to
guard the conquered provinces.
The strength of the army consisted in archers, whose skill contributed
mainly to the success of the Egyptians, as of our own ancestors; and
their importance is shown by the Egyptian “soldier” being represented
as an archer kneeling, often preceded by the word _Klashr_, converted
by Herodotus into _Calasiris_. They fought either on foot or in
chariots, and may therefore be classed under the separate heads of a
mounted and unmounted corps; and they constituted a great part of both
wings. Several bodies of heavy infantry, divided into regiments, each
distinguished by its peculiar arms, formed the centre; and the cavalry
[in the later periods] covered and supported the foot.
WEAPONS OF WAR
The offensive weapons of the Egyptians were the bow, spear, two species
of javelin, sling, a short and straight sword, dagger, knife, falchion
or _ensis falcatus_, axe or hatchet, battle-axe, pole-axe, mace or
club, and the _lisan_--a curved stick similar to that still in use
among the modern Ethiopians. Their defensive arms consisted of a helmet
of metal or a quilted head-piece; a cuirass, or coat of armour, made
of metal plates, or quilted with metal bands, and an ample shield. The
soldier’s chief defence was his shield, which, in length, was equal
to about half his height, and generally double its own breadth. It
was most commonly covered with bull’s hide having the hair outward,
sometimes strengthened by one or more rims of metal, and studded with
nails or metal pins, the inner part being a wooden frame.
The Egyptian bow was a round piece of wood, from five to five and a
half feet in length, tapering to a point at both ends. Their arrows
varied from twenty-two to thirty-four inches in length; some were of
wood, others of reed; frequently tipped with a metal head; and winged
with three feathers, glued longitudinally, and at equal distances, upon
the other end of the shaft, as on our own arrows. Sometimes, instead of
the metal head, a piece of hard wood was inserted into the reed, which
terminated in a long tapering point.
The spear, or pike, was of wood, between five and six feet in length,
with a metal head, into which the shaft was inserted and fixed with
nails. The head was of bronze or iron, often very large, and with a
double edge. The javelin, lighter and shorter than the spear, was also
of wood, and similarly armed with a strong two-edged metal head, of
an elongated diamond, or leaf shape, either flat or increasing in
thickness at the centre, and sometimes tapering to a very long point.
The sling was a thong of leather, or string plaited; broad in the
middle, and having a loop at one end, by which it was fixed upon and
firmly held with the hand; the other extremity terminating in a lash,
which escaped from the finger as the stone was thrown. The Egyptian
sword was straight and short, from two and a half to three feet in
length, having generally a double edge, and tapering to a sharp point.
It was used for cut and thrust. They had also a dagger.
The axe, or hatchet, was small and simple, seldom exceeding two, or two
and a half feet, in length: it had a single blade, and no instance is
met with of a double axe resembling the _bipennis_ of the Romans. The
blade of the battle-axe was, in form, not unlike the Parthian shield;
a segment of a circle, divided at the back into two smaller segments,
whose three points were fastened to the handle with metal pins. It
was of bronze, and sometimes (as the colour of those in the paintings
shows) of steel; and the length of the handle was equal to, or more
than double that of, the blade. The pole-axe was about three feet in
length, but apparently more difficult to wield than the preceding,
owing to the great weight of a metal ball to which the blade was fixed;
and required, like the mace, a powerful as well as a skilful arm.
The mace was very similar to the pole-axe, without a blade. It was
of wood, bound with bronze, about two feet and a half in length, and
furnished with an angular piece of metal, projecting from the handle,
which may have been intended as a guard, though in many instances
they represent the hand placed above it, while the blow was given. In
ancient times, when the fate of a battle was frequently decided by
personal valour, the dexterous management of such arms was of great
importance; and a band of resolute veterans, headed by a gallant chief,
spread dismay among the ranks of an enemy. The curved stick, or club
(called _lisan_, “tongue”), was used by heavy and light-armed troops
as well as by archers; and if it does not appear a formidable arm, yet
the experience of modern times bears ample testimony to its efficacy in
close combat.
The helmet was usually quilted; and though bronze helmets are said to
have been worn by the Egyptians, they generally adopted the former,
which being thick, and well padded, served as an excellent protection
to the head, without the inconvenience of metal in so hot a climate.
Some of them descended to the shoulder, others only a short distance
below the level of the ear, and the summit, terminating in an obtuse
point, was ornamented with two tassels. They were of a green, red,
or black colour; and a longer one, which fitted less closely to the
back of the head, was fringed at the lower edge with a broad border,
and in some instances consisted of two parts, or an upper and under
fold. Another, worn by the spearmen, and many corps of infantry and
charioteers, was also quilted, and descended to the shoulder with
a fringe; but it had no tassels, and, fitting close to the top of
the head, it widened towards the base, the front, which covered the
forehead, being made of a separate piece, attached to the other part.
There is no representation of an Egyptian helmet with a crest, but that
of the Shardana, once enemies and afterwards allies of the Pharaohs,
shows they were used long before the Trojan war.
The outer surface of the corselet of mail, or coat of scale-armour,
consisted of about eleven horizontal rows of metal plates, well secured
by bronze pins; and at the hollow of the throat a narrower range
of plates was introduced, above which were two more, completing the
collar or covering of the neck. The breadth of each plate or scale was
little more than an inch, eleven or twelve of them sufficing to cover
the front of the body; and the sleeves, which were sometimes so short
as to extend less than halfway to the elbow, consisted of two rows
of similar plates. Many, indeed most, of the corselets were without
collars; in some the sleeves were rather longer, reaching nearly to
the elbow, and they were worn both by heavy infantry and bowmen. The
ordinary corselet may have been little less than two feet and a half
in length; it sometimes covered the thighs nearly to the knee; and in
order to prevent its pressing heavily upon the shoulder, they bound
their girdle over it, and tightened it at the waist. But the thighs,
and that part of the body below the girdle, were usually covered by a
kilt, or other robe, detached from the corselet; and many of the light
and heavy infantry were clad in a quilted vest of the same form as the
coat of armour, for which it was a substitute; and some wore corselets,
reaching only from the waist to the upper part of the breast, and
supported by straps over the shoulder, which were faced with bronze
plates.
[Illustration: AN EGYPTIAN SOLDIER]
Heavy-armed troops were furnished with a shield and spear; some with
a shield and mace; and others, though rarely, with a battle-axe, or a
pole-axe, and shield. They also carried a sword, falchion, curved stick
or _lisan_, simple mace, or hatchet; which may be looked upon as their
side-arms. The light troops had nearly the same weapons, but their
defensive armour was lighter; and the slingers and some others fought,
like the archers, without shields.
The chariot corps constituted a very large and effective portion of
the Egyptian army. Each car contained two persons, like the _diphros_
(δίφρος) of the Greeks. On some occasions it carried three, the
charioteer or driver and two chiefs; but this was rarely the case,
except in triumphal processions, when two of the princes accompanied
the king in their chariot, bearing the regal sceptre, or the
_flabella_, and required a third person to manage the reins. In the
field each had his own car, with a charioteer; and the insignia of his
office being attached behind him by a broad belt, his hands were free
for the use of the bow and other arms. The driver generally stood on
the off-side, in order to have the whip-hand free; and this interfered
less with the use of the bow than the Greek custom of driving on the
near-side; which last was adopted in Greece as being more convenient
for throwing the spear. When on an excursion for pleasure, or on a
visit to a friend, an Egyptian gentleman mounted alone, and drove
himself, footmen and other attendants running before and behind
the car; and sometimes an archer used his bow and acted as his own
charioteer.
In the battle scenes of the Egyptian temples, the king is represented
alone in his car, unattended by any charioteer; with the reins fastened
round his body, while engaged in bending his bow against the enemy;
though it is possible that the driver was omitted, in order not to
interfere with the principal figure. The king had always a “second
chariot,” in order to provide against accidents; as Josiah is stated
to have had when defeated by Neku; and the same was in attendance on
state occasions. The cars of the whole chariot corps contained each two
warriors, comrades of equal rank; and the charioteer who accompanied a
chief was a person of confidence, as we see from the familiar manner
in which one of them is represented conversing with a son of the great
Ramses.
In driving, the Egyptians used a whip, like the heroes and charioteers
of Homer; and this, or a short stick, was generally employed even
for beasts of burden, and for oxen at the plough, in preference to
the goad. The whip consisted of a smooth, round wooden handle, and a
single or double thong: it sometimes had a lash of leather, or string,
about two feet in length, either twisted or plaited; and a loop being
attached to the lower end, the archer was enabled to use the bow, while
it hung suspended from his wrist.
When a hero encountered a hostile chief, he sometimes dismounted from
his car, and substituting for his bow and quiver the spear, battle-axe,
or falchion, he closed with him hand to hand, like the Greeks and
Trojans described by Homer; and the lifeless body of the foe being left
upon the field, was stripped of its arms by his companions. Sometimes
a wounded adversary, incapable of further resistance, having claimed
and obtained the mercy of the victor, was carried from the field in
his chariot; and the ordinary captives, who laid down their arms and
yielded to the Egyptians, were treated as prisoners of war, and were
sent bound to the rear under an escort, to be presented to the monarch,
and to grace his triumph, after the termination of the conflict. The
hands of the slain were then counted before him; and this return of the
enemy’s killed was duly registered, to commemorate his success, and the
glories of his reign.
The Egyptian chariots had no seat; but the bottom part consisted of a
frame interlaced with thongs or rope, forming a species of network, in
order, by its elasticity, to render the motion of the carriage without
springs more easy: and this was also provided for by placing the wheels
as far back as possible, and resting much of the weight on the horses,
which supported the pole. That the chariot was of wood is sufficiently
proved by the sculptures, wherever workmen are seen employed in making
it; and the fact of their having more than three thousand years ago
already invented and commonly used a form of pole, only introduced into
our own country in the nineteenth century, is an instance of the truth
of Solomon’s assertion, “there is no new thing under the sun,” and
shows the skill of their workmen at that remote time.
BATTLE METHODS
When an expedition was resolved upon against a foreign nation, each
province furnished its quotum of men. The troops were generally
commanded by the king in person; but in some instances a general was
appointed to that post, and intrusted with the sole conduct of the war.
A place of rendezvous was fixed, in early times generally at Thebes,
Memphis, or Pelusium; and the troops having assembled in the vicinity,
remained encamped there, awaiting the leader of the expedition. As
soon as he arrived, the necessary preparations were made; a sacrifice
was performed to the gods whose assistance was invoked in the
approaching conflict; and orders having been issued for their march,
a signal was given by sound of trumpet; the troops fell in, and with
a profound bow each soldier in the ranks saluted the royal general,
and prepared to follow him to the field. The march then commenced, as
Clemens and the sculptures inform us, to the sound of the drum; the
chariots led the van; and the king, mounted in his car of war, and
attended by his chief officers carrying _flabella_, took his post in
the centre, preceded and followed by bodies of infantry armed with
bows, spears, or other weapons, according to their respective corps.
On commencing the attack in the open field, a signal was again made
by sound of trumpet. The archers drawn up in line first discharged
a shower of arrows on the enemy’s front, and a considerable mass of
chariots advanced to the charge; the heavy infantry, armed with spears
or clubs, and covered with their shields, moved forward at the same
time in close array, flanked by chariots and cavalry, and pressed
upon the centre and wings of the enemy, the archers still galling the
hostile columns with their arrows, and endeavouring to create disorder
in their ranks.
Their mode of warfare was not like that of nations in their infancy,
or in a state of barbarism; and it is evident, from the number of
prisoners they took, that they spared the prostrate who asked for
quarter: and the representations of persons slaughtered by the
Egyptians, who have overtaken them, are intended to allude to what
happened in the heat of action, and not to any wanton cruelty on the
part of the victors. Indeed, in the naval fight of Ramses III, the
Egyptians, both in the ships and on the shore, are seen rescuing
the enemy, whose galley has been sunk, from a watery grave; and the
humanity of that people is strongly argued, whose artists deem it a
virtue worthy of being recorded among the glorious actions of their
countrymen.
Those who sued for mercy and laid down their arms, were spared and
sent bound from the field; and the hands of the slain being cut off,
and placed in heaps before the king, immediately after the action,
were counted by the military secretaries in his presence, who thus
ascertained and reported to him the account of the enemy’s slain.
Sometimes their tongues, and occasionally other members, were laid
before him in the same manner; in all instances being intended as
authentic returns of the loss of the foe: for which the soldiers
received a proportionate reward, divided among the whole army, the
capture of prisoners probably claiming a higher premium, exclusively
enjoyed by the captor.
The arms, horses, chariots, and booty, taken in the field or in camp,
were also collected, and the same officers wrote an account of them,
and presented it to the monarch. The booty was sometimes collected
in an open space, surrounded by a temporary wall, indicated in the
sculptures by the representation of shields placed erect, with a wicker
gate, on the inner and outer face of which a strong guard was posted,
the sentries walking to and fro with drawn swords. It was forbidden to
the Spartan soldier, when on guard, to have his shield, in order that,
being deprived of this defence, he might be more cautious not to fall
asleep; and the same appears to have been a custom of the Egyptians,
as the watch here on duty at the camp-gates are only armed with swords
and maces, though belonging to the heavy-armed corps, who, on other
occasions, were in the habit of carrying a shield.
A system of regular fortification was adopted in the earliest times.
The form of the fortresses was quadrangular; the walls of crude brick
fifteen feet thick, and often fifty feet high, with square towers
at intervals along each face. But though some were kept up after the
accession of the XVIIIth Dynasty, the practice of fortifying towns
seems to have been discontinued, and fortresses or walled towns were
not then used, except on the edge of the desert, and on the frontiers
where large garrisons were required. To supply their place, the temples
were provided with lofty pyramidal stone towers, which, projecting
beyond the walls, enabled the besieged to command and rake them, while
the parapet-wall over the gateway shielded the soldiers who defended
the entrance; and the whole plan of an outer wall of circumvallation
was carried out by the large crude brick enclosure of the _temenos_,
within which the temple stood. Each temple was thus a detached fort,
and was thought as sufficient a protection for itself and for the town
as a continuous wall, which required a large garrison to defend it; and
neither Thebes nor Memphis, the two capitals, were walled cities.
[Illustration: AN EGYPTIAN BOWMAN]
The field encampment was either a square, or a parallelogram, with a
principal entrance in one of the faces; and near the centre were the
general’s tent, and those of the principal officers. The general’s
tent was sometimes surrounded by a double rampart or fosse, enclosing
two distinct areas, the outer one containing three tents, probably
of the next in command, or of the officers on the staff; and the
guards slept or watched in the open air. Other tents were pitched
outside these enclosures; and near the external circuit, a space was
set apart for feeding horses and beasts of burden, and another for
ranging the chariots and baggage. It was near the general’s tent, and
within the same area, that the altars of the gods, or whatever related
to religious matters, the standards, and the military chest, were
kept; and the sacred emblems were deposited beneath a canopy, with an
enclosure similar to that of the general’s tent.
In attacking a fortified town, they advanced under cover of the arrows
of the bowmen; and either instantly applied the scaling-ladder to
the ramparts, or undertook the routine of a regular siege: in which
case, having advanced to the walls, they posted themselves under
cover of testudos, and shook and dislodged the stones of the parapet
with a species of battering-ram, directed and impelled by a body of
men expressly chosen for this service: but when the place held out
against these attacks, and neither a _coup de main_, the ladder, nor
the ram, was found to succeed, they used the testudo for concealing
and protecting the sappers, while they mined the place; and certainly,
of all people, the Egyptians were the most likely to have recourse to
this stratagem of war, from the great practice they had in underground
excavations, and in directing shafts through the solid rock.[b]
SOCIAL CUSTOMS
The subject of manners and customs of the Egyptians has had a
peculiar fascination for almost all students of Egyptian history. It
is difficult to get away from the feeling that there is something
mysterious and occult about Egyptian life, and thousands of people have
gazed with mingled admiration and awe upon the monumental remains of
this people without caring in the least for the strange-sounding names
of the monarchs or for the details of their political history.
From the time of the explorations of the French under Napoleon,
which led to the monumental publication edited by Champollion[c]
and his associates, some inklings of the Egyptian life passed into
common knowledge. Additional light was thrown upon the subject by the
publication of the elaborate “Denkmäler” of Lepsius.[h] But the first
full exposition of the social conditions of ancient Egypt was due to
the investigations of Wilkinson, who devoted the best years of his life
to the subject, and whose publications are still standard authority.
Wilkinson’s elaborate investigation of the monuments and his astute
inferences drawn from what he saw enabled him to produce a picture of
Egyptian life which the work of more recent investigators has seldom
supplanted as to essentials.
Of the more recent Egyptologists few have failed to show an interest
in this phase of Egyptian history. Birch,[i] Maspero,[m] Mariette,[n]
Chabas,[f] Budge,[g] Petrie,[o] Renouf[d]--all have dealt with various
phases of Egyptian life. Amelia B. Edwards[e] popularised the knowledge
of the specialists in widely read publications, and Georg Ebers,[k]
himself a specialist of the highest standing, gave even wider currency
to the most interesting phases of the subject through the medium of
his novels. In recent years the field that Wilkinson made his own
has been invaded with great success by Professor Adolf Erman of the
Berlin University, the worthy successor of Lepsius. Professor Erman
has profited by the widest and most critical studies of the Egyptian
writings, and through this means he has been enabled to supplement the
work of Wilkinson in certain important directions, notably in reference
to questions of judicial procedure and the details of governmental
administration--subjects into which, unfortunately, a lack of space
does not permit us to enter fully here. In his work, _Aegypten und
Aegyptisches Leben im Altertum_, Professor Erman has summarised the
sources to which the Egyptologist must go for information as to the
life of this people. The writings of the Hebrews, he tells us, have
come down to us so much re-edited in later times that they must be
accepted with caution as representing Egyptian life of an early period.
The writings of the Greeks, chief among whom in this field is
Herodotus, are important as to certain features of the later Egyptian
life. Such things as a tourist sees who, “ignorant of the language,
travels for a few months in a foreign country,” Herodotus tells us;
but very naturally he is unable to supply us with adequate or reliable
information regarding those earlier periods of Egyptian history, which
have chief interest now because they represent the Egyptian in his time
of might and prosperity.
For what we can hope to learn of these earlier times we must turn to
the Egyptian monuments themselves. These monumental remains are of four
types, namely:
(1) The inscriptions on temple walls and on monuments.
(2) The royal tombs.
(3) Inscribed papyri representing the literature of the country, and
(4) Papyri of another class representing letters, deeds, and other
business documents.
As to the inscriptions, which form numerically so large a proportion
of the Egyptian mementos, and which, naturally enough, were first
attractive to the investigator, it may be said that as a whole they
are most disappointing since their “inscriptions and representations
refer almost solely to the worship of the gods, to sacrifices and
processions, or they give us bombastic hymns to the gods, or they may
perhaps contain the information that such and such a king built this
sanctuary of eternal stones for his father the god, who rewarded him
for this pious act by granting him a life of millions of years. If, as
an exception, we find an inscription telling us of the warlike feats
of a ruler, these are related in such official style and stereotyped
formula, that little can be gained towards the knowledge of Egyptian
life.”
The tombs are much more satisfactory for the present purpose since they
contain representations of events in the home life of the deceased, and
also various implements, utensils, and trinkets such as he might have
used while living. But, unfortunately, it is only the early period of
Egyptian life that is depicted in this manner. Moreover, the relics
found in the tombs are sometimes misleading, since it apparently became
the custom to supply articles ready made for this purpose, rather than
to utilise objects of actual utility such as the deceased might really
have employed while living.
The papyri which represent the literary remains of ancient Egypt are
much less illuminative than might be expected; the greater number
of them are magical or religious in character, the most conspicuous
example being the _Book of the Dead_, numberless recensions of which
are extant in whole or in part. These supply valuable glimpses of the
moral nature of the Egyptians and are of high value to the student
of religion and philosophy, but they naturally tell us little of the
everyday life of the people.
Of the secular manuscripts the chief portion are school books, intended
to incite youthful students at once to virtue and to knowledge,
quite after the manner of the modern books, particularly of the last
generation. These also fail to give more than incidental glimpses into
the real life of the people. As to the value for this purpose of the
romances which make up so important a part of the literary remains of
the Egyptians, scarcely more can be said. They are romances in the
modern acceptance of the term. No school of realists had come to urge
the writer to go to contemporary nature for his models; hence, as Erman
aptly says, the country described in these writings “is not Egypt, but
Fairyland.”
It is always surprising in studying the literature of a past time, to
note the facility with which the details of everyday life are omitted.
Such a writer as Herodotus tells many interesting things about the
manners and customs of Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Scythians
even, but he scarcely tells us a word except inferentially, or by way
of pointing a contrast, of the everyday life of his own people, the
Greeks themselves. Similarly the Egyptian writers, had they visited
Greece, would doubtless have had much to say of the strange customs of
that “barbaric people”; but it never occurs to them to enter into any
details as to the everyday life of their own race.
The reason for this is sufficiently obvious. One writes chiefly for
a contemporary audience, and it would be tedious and absurd to fill
one’s pages with details regarding things that constitute part of the
most elementary knowledge of every reader. What Greek would have cared
to listen to Herodotus, had he chosen to fill his pages with prosy
dissertations upon the way in which his hearers and readers built their
houses, attired themselves, ate their meals, and pursued their everyday
vocations? Every line of such a disquisition would have been filled
with fascinating interest for posterity, but posterity was but little
in the mind of the writer himself. It is precisely the same with the
writings of to-day.
If one will consider in this light the first novel that comes to
hand, he will be astonished to note how much is taken for granted,
and how little even the most realistic story would tell to a person
utterly ignorant of our manners and customs about the precise details
of our everyday life. Even the newspapers, which seem to thresh out
the veriest chaff of life, are mostly guiltless of specific reference
to any of those everyday commonplaces, the lack of which in ancient
writings fills us with such regret. It is not surprising then, though
none the less to be deplored, that the relatively abundant stores of
Egyptian literature give after all only an incomplete and imperfect
picture of the manners and customs of the people.
To the remaining source of information--the papyri inscribed with
letters and business documents--the investigator is able to turn with
greater confidence. Here we see the people no longer posing consciously
for inspection, but acting their real life and expressing their true
sentiments. Just as the modern biographer feels that he is giving the
most intimate insight into the character of his subject when he quotes
from his personal letters, so these letters and allied documents of
the old Egyptians give us perhaps the clearest insight obtainable into
the true character of the people, and it is those who have studied
these documents most closely who have been most strongly impressed with
the similarity between the true characteristics of ancient and modern
peoples. What, for example, could seem more modern than the account of
the police investigation into the alleged robbery of the tombs of the
kings at Memphis, which was held in the time of Ramses IX, of the XXth
Dynasty, about the year 1100 B.C.?
Professor Erman’s account, transcribed from the papyri, telling of
this investigation, reads for all the world like the police columns of
a modern newspaper. It appears that bands of thieves, tempted by the
rich spoils always buried with ancient kings, had attempted to force
their way into various pyramids where the bodies of these monarchs
reposed, and that in some cases they had been successful. Rumours of
this sacrilege coming to the attention of the governor of the city, the
investigation in question was set on foot, and the divergent opinions
expressed by the various authorities, the bickerings and jealousies
that are evidenced, and the net result in a verdict which leaves
us somewhat in doubt as to the real facts of the case,--all these
features have an aspect of modernity that is positively startling.
As an interesting sequel to this investigation it may be added that
the police were finally obliged to admit themselves no match for the
thieves, and that the authorities, despairing of being able to protect
the tombs of their ancestors, resorted finally to the strange expedient
of removing the royal effigies to a secret cave in the distant
mountain of Deir-el-Bahari. In this cave were placed the mummies of a
distinguished line of monarchs, including Amenhotep I, Tehutimes II,
Tehutimes III, and Seti I, and lastly the great Ramses II himself.
The humiliating step was taken so secretly, and the hiding-place
was so carefully guarded from the knowledge of all but a few, that
apparently when these died the secret died with them. At any rate, the
resting-place of the greatest sovereigns of Egypt was quite unknown
for about three thousand years, and it was revealed by accident in
our own time. In the year 1881, as described in a preceding section,
the authorities entered the crypt which a company of fellahs had
discovered about ten years before, but the knowledge of which they had
kept secret. Perhaps only once before in the history of archæological
discovery had so startling a find been made, or one that aroused
such enthusiastic interest in the minds both of specialists and of
the general public as when these effigies of the great monarchs were
dragged from their tomb. It is only the recent dead to whom sacredness
attaches, and the archæologist has no scruples about making a museum
exhibit of forms that had once ruled a great people, and which their
immediate successors had reverenced as gods.
It will appear from this brief analysis that the remains of Egyptian
writings give us in many ways an insight into the life of the people,
but that nevertheless our knowledge of that life is much more
restricted than could be wished. After the last line of extant writing
has been scrutinised and analysed, it still remains true that the chief
source of our information regarding the manners and customs of the
Egyptians is not to be found in written words but in graphic pictures.
Just as the illustrations of a modern magazine would tell posterity, if
preserved, far more about our everyday life, than could be gleaned from
the pages of text which they supplement, so the delineations of which
the Egyptians were so fond, perform a like service. It was chiefly
through study of these that Wilkinson was able to reconstruct the life
of the people, and it is still to these that the modern investigator
must turn.
[Illustration: EGYPTIAN FIGURES
(From the Monuments)]
The manuscripts give us important hints and suggestions, and throw here
and there a ray of light into some dark corner, but the chief story is
told, not by hieroglyphic or hieratic scrolls, but by actual pictures.
These, as has been said, show us the people for a limited period,
pursuing the ordinary vocations of life. They show us that the Egyptian
gave heed to much the same manner of things that interest the modern.
With the aid of these pictures we are able to go with the Egyptian, not
merely into the fields and vineyards where he labours, but also into
the private dwellings, where we may attend him as he feasts, plays upon
musical instruments, dances, and indulges in various sports and games.
We shall be forced to believe that he was very human; very like
ourselves in his aspirations and desires, even in his method of their
attempted realisation; and yet so strangely do the archaic forms of
those delineations impress themselves upon the mind, that we shall
never quite free ourselves of the impression that here we have to do
with the beings of another and very different world.
Something of mystery, something of the occult, clings to the Egyptian,
however we may try to dispel the illusion. This power the residents of
contemporary Egypt had over the old Greek, and this power they still
retain. They work a spell upon the mind of whoever contemplates them,
which no reasoning can quite exorcise. We know and we believe that
these were ordinary mortals like ourselves; and yet, in spite of this
knowledge, we _feel_ that there was something quite different about
them. And this superstitious feeling perhaps lies at the foundation
of the mysterious charm that the Egyptians have exercised upon all
succeeding generations.[a]
THE EGYPTIANS AS SEEN BY HERODOTUS
How the classical world regarded the Egyptians is made clear to us
through the pages of Herodotus, who speaks as an eye-witness. It is the
Egyptians of the later epoch of whom he speaks, to be sure; but his
comments would probably apply with little change to the customs of much
earlier periods.
Those Egyptians who live in the cultivated parts of the country, are
of all whom I have seen the most ingenious, being attentive to the
improvement of the memory beyond the rest of mankind. To give some
idea of their mode of life: for three days successively in every month
they use purges, vomits, and clysters; this they do out of attention
to their health, being persuaded that the diseases of the body are
occasioned by the different elements received as food. Besides this,
we may venture to assert, that after the Africans there is no people
in health and constitution to be compared with the Egyptians. To this
advantage the climate, which is here subject to no variation, may
essentially contribute: changes of all kinds, and those in particular
of the seasons, promote and occasion the maladies of the body. To their
bread, which they make with spelt, they give the name of cyllestis;
they have no vines in the country, but they drink a liquor fermented
from barley; they live principally upon fish, either salted or dried in
the sun; they eat also quails, ducks, and some smaller birds, without
other preparation than first salting them; but they roast and boil
such other birds and fishes as they have, excepting those which are
preserved for sacred purposes.
At the entertainments of the rich, just as the company is about to rise
from the repast, a small coffin is carried round, containing a perfect
representation of a dead body: it is in size sometimes of one but never
of more than two cubits, and as it is shown to the guests in rotation,
the bearer exclaims, “Cast your eyes on this figure, after death you
yourself will resemble it; drink then, and be happy.” Such are the
customs they observe at entertainments.
They contentedly adhere to the customs of their ancestors, and
are averse to foreign manners. Among other things which claim our
approbation, they have a song, which is also used in Phœnicia, Cyprus,
and other places, where it is differently named. Of all the things
which astonished me in Egypt, nothing more perplexed me than my
curiosity to know whence the Egyptians learned this song, so entirely
resembling the Linus of the Greeks: it is of the remotest antiquity
among them, and they call it Maneros. They have a tradition that
Maneros was the only son of their first monarch; and that having
prematurely died, they instituted these melancholy strains in his
honour, constituting their first, and in earlier times, their only song.
The Egyptians surpass all the Greeks, the Lacedæmonians excepted, in
the reverence which they pay to age: if a young person meet his senior,
he instantly aside to make way for him; if a senior enter an apartment,
the youth always rise from their seats; this ceremony is observed by
no other of the Greeks. When the Egyptians meet they do not speak, but
make a profound reverence, bowing with the hand down to the knee.
Their habit, which they call calasiris, is made of linen, and fringed
at the bottom; over this they throw a kind of shawl made of white wool,
but in these vests of wool they are forbidden by their religion either
to be buried or to enter any sacred edifice; this is a peculiarity of
those ceremonies which are called Orphic and Pythagorean: whoever has
been initiated in these mysteries can never be interred in a vest of
wool, for which a sacred reason is assigned.
Of the Egyptians it is further memorable that they first imagined what
month or day was to be consecrated to each deity; they also, from
observing the days of nativity, venture to predict the particular
circumstances of a man’s life and death: this is done by the poets
of Greece, but the Egyptians have certainly discovered more things
that are wonderful than all the rest of mankind. Whenever any prodigy
occurs, they commit the particulars to writing and mark the events
which follow it: if they afterward observe any similar incident, they
conclude that the result will be similar also. The art of divination
in Egypt is confined to certain of their deities. There are in this
country oracles of Hercules, of Apollo, of Minerva and Diana, of
Mars, and of Jupiter; but the oracle of Latona at Buto is held in
greater estimation than any of the rest: the oracular communication is
regulated by no fixed system, but is differently obtained in different
places.
[Illustration: HEAD-RESTS FOR THE DEAD
(Now in the British Museum)]
The art of medicine in Egypt is thus exercised: one physician is
confined to one disease; there are of course a great number who
practise this art; some attend to disorders of the eyes; others to
those of the head; some take care of the teeth, others are conversant
with all diseases of the bowels; whilst many attend to the cure of
maladies which are less conspicuous.
With respect to their funerals and ceremonies of mourning; whenever
a man of any importance dies, the females of his family, disfiguring
their heads and faces with dirt, leave the corpse in the house and
run publicly about, accompanied by their female relations, with their
garments in disorder, their breasts exposed, and beating themselves
severely: the men on their parts do the same, after which the body is
carried to the embalmers.
If an Egyptian or a foreigner be found, either destroyed by a crocodile
or drowned in the water, the city nearest which the body is discovered,
is obliged to embalm and pay it every respectful attention, and
afterward deposit it in some consecrated place: no friend or relation
is suffered to interfere; the whole process is conducted by the priests
of the Nile, who bury it themselves with a respect to which a lifeless
corpse would hardly seem entitled.
To the customs of Greece they express aversion, and, to say the truth,
to those of all other nations. This remark applies, with only one
exception, to every part of Egypt. Chemmis is a place of considerable
note in the Thebaid, it is near Neapolis, and remarkable for a temple
of Perseus the son of Danæ. This temple is of a square figure, and
surrounded with palm trees. The vestibule, which is very spacious,
is constructed of stone, and on the summit are placed two large
marble statues. Within the consecrated enclosure stand the shrine and
statue of Perseus, who, as the inhabitants affirm, often appears in
the country and the temple. They sometimes find one of his sandals,
which are of the length of two cubits, and whenever this happens,
fertility reigns throughout Egypt. Public games, after the manner of
the Greeks, are celebrated in his honour. Upon this occasion they have
every variety of gymnastic exercise. The rewards of the conquerors are
cattle, vests, and skins. I was once induced to inquire why Perseus
made his appearance to them alone, and why they were distinguished
from the rest of Egypt by the celebration of gymnastic exercises. They
informed me in return, that Perseus was a native of their country, as
were also Danaus and Lynceus, who made a voyage into Greece, and from
whom, in regular succession, they related that Perseus was descended.
This hero visited Egypt for the purpose, as the Greeks also affirm, of
carrying from Africa the Gorgon’s head. Happening to come among them,
he saw and was known to his relations. The name of Chemmis he had
previously known from his mother, and he himself instituted the games
which they continued to celebrate.
These which I have described are the manners of those Egyptians who
live in the higher parts of the country. They who inhabit the marshy
grounds differ in no material instance.
Like the Greeks, they confine themselves to one wife. To procure
themselves the means of sustenance more easily, they make use of the
following expedient: when the waters have risen to their extremest
height, and all their fields are overflowed, there appears above the
surface an immense quantity of plants of the lily species, which the
Egyptians call the lotus: having cut down these, they dry them in
the sun. The seed of the flower, which resembles that of the poppy,
they bake and make into a kind of bread; they also eat the root of
this plant, which is round, of an agreeable flavour, and about the
size of an apple. There is a second species of the lotus, which grows
in the Nile, and which is not unlike a rose. The fruit, which grows
from the bottom of the root, is like a wasp’s nest: it is found to
contain a number of kernels of the size of an olive-stone, which are
very grateful, either fresh or dried. Of the byblus, which is an
annual plant, after taking it from a marshy place, where it grows,
they cut off the tops, and apply them to various uses. They eat or
sell what remains, which is nearly a cubit in length. To make this a
still greater delicacy, there are many who previously roast it. With a
considerable part of this people fish constitutes the principal article
of food; they dry it in the sun, and eat it without other preparation.
The inhabitants in the marshy grounds make use of an oil, which they
term the kiki, expressed from the Sillicyprian plant. In Greece this
plant springs spontaneously without any cultivation, but the Egyptians
sow it on the banks of the river, and of the canals; it there produces
fruit in great abundance, but of a very strong odour: when gathered,
they obtain from it, either by friction or pressure, an unctuous
liquid, which diffuses an offensive smell, but for burning it is equal
in quality to the oil of olives.
The Egyptians are provided with a remedy against gnats, of which there
are a surprising number. As the wind will not suffer these insects to
rise far from the ground, the inhabitants of the higher part of the
country usually sleep in turrets. They who live in the marshy grounds
use this substitute: each person has a net, with which they fish by
day, and which they render useful by night. They cover their beds with
their nets, and sleep securely beneath them. If they slept in their
common habits, or under linen, the gnats would not fail to torment
them, which they do not even attempt through a net.
[Illustration: FOWLERS CATCHING GEESE; AND POULTERERS
(Wilkinson)]
Their vessels of burden are constructed of a species of thorn, which
resembles the lotos of Cyrene, and which distils a gum. From this thorn
they cut planks, about two cubits square: after disposing these in
the form of bricks, and securing them strongly together, they place
from side to side benches for the rowers. They do not use timber
artificially carved, but bend the planks together with the bark of the
byblus made into ropes. They have one rudder, which goes through the
keel of the vessel; their mast is made of the same thorn, and the sails
are formed from the byblus. These vessels are haled along by land, for
unless the wind be very favourable they can make no way against the
stream. When they go with the current, they throw from the head of the
vessel a hurdle made of tamarisk, fastened together with reeds; they
have also a perforated stone of the weight of two talents; this is let
fall at the stern, secured by a rope. The name of this kind of bark
is baris, which the above hurdle, impelled by the tide, draws swiftly
along. The stone at the stern regulates its motion. They have immense
numbers of these vessels, and some of them of the burden of many
thousand talents.
During the inundation of the Nile, the cities only are left
conspicuous, appearing above the waters like the islands of the Ægean
Sea. As long as the flood continues, vessels do not confine themselves
to the channel of the river, but traverse the fields and the plains.
They who then go from Naucratis to Memphis, pass by the pyramids; this,
however, is not the usual course, which lies through the point of the
Delta, and the city of Cercasorus. If from the sea and the town of
Canopus, the traveller desires to go by the plains to Naucratis, he
must pass by Anthilla and Archandros.
Of these places Anthilla is the most considerable: whoever may be
sovereign of Egypt, it is assigned perpetually as part of the revenues
of the queen, and appropriated to the particular purpose of providing
her with sandals; this has been observed ever since Egypt was tributary
to Persia. I should suppose that the other city derives its name from
Archander, the son of Pthius, son-in-law of Danaus, and grandson of
Achæus. There may probably have been some other Archander, for the name
is certainly not Egyptian.[j]
[Illustration: PERSONS COMING TO BE REGISTERED
(Wilkinson)]
So much for the customs of the Egyptians as Herodotus saw them.
Abandoning now the contemporary point of view, let us seek a modern
interpretation.
HOMES OF THE PEOPLE
Of the various institutions of the ancient Egyptians, says the greatest
interpreter of Egyptian customs, none are more interesting than those
which relate to their social life; and when we consider the condition
of other countries in the early ages when they flourished, from the
tenth to the twentieth century before our era, we may look with respect
on the advancement they had then made in civilisation, and acknowledge
the benefits they conferred upon mankind during their career. For,
like other people, they have had their part in the great scheme of the
world’s development, and their share of usefulness in the destined
progress of the human race; for countries, like individuals, have
certain qualities given them, which, differing from those of their
predecessors and contemporaries, are intended in due season to perform
their requisite duties. The interest felt in the Egyptians is from
their having led the way, or having been the first people we know of
who made any great progress, in the arts and manners of civilisation;
which, for the period when they lived, was very creditable, and far
beyond that of other kingdoms of the world. Nor can we fail to remark
the difference between them and their Asiatic rivals, the Assyrians,
who, even at a much later period, had the great defects of Asiatic
cruelty--flaying alive, impaling, and torturing their prisoners; as the
Persians, Turks, and other Orientals have done to the present century;
the reproach of which cannot be extended to the ancient Egyptians.
Being the dominant race of that age, they necessarily had an influence
on others with whom they came in contact; and it is by these means
that civilisation is advanced through its various stages; each people
striving to improve on the lessons derived from a neighbour whose
institutions they appreciate, or consider beneficial to themselves.
It was thus that the active mind of the talented Greeks sought and
improved on the lessons derived from other countries, especially from
Egypt; and though the latter, at the late period of the seventh century
B.C., had lost its greatness and the prestige of superiority among the
nations of the world, it was still the seat of learning and the resort
of studious philosophers; and the abuses consequent on the fall of an
empire had not yet brought about the demoralisation of after times.
In the treatment of women they seem to have been very far advanced
beyond other wealthy communities of the same era, having usages very
similar to those of modern Europe; and such was the respect shown to
women that precedence was given to them over men, and the wives and
daughters of kings succeeded to the throne like the male branches of
the royal family. Nor was this privilege rescinded, even though it
had more than once entailed upon them the troubles of a contested
succession: foreign kings often having claimed a right to the throne
through marriage with an Egyptian princess. It was not a mere
influence that they possessed, which women often acquire in the most
arbitrary Eastern communities; nor a political importance accorded to
a particular individual, like that of the Sultana Valideh, the Queen
Mother, at Constantinople; it was a right acknowledged by law, both in
private and public life.
As in all warm climates, the poorer classes of Egyptians lived much
in the open air; and the houses of the rich were constructed to be
cool throughout the summer; currents of refreshing air being made to
circulate freely through them by the judicious arrangement of the
passages and courts.
[Illustration: ANCIENT EGYPTIAN COMBS
(Now in the British Museum)]
The houses were built of crude brick, stuccoed and painted with all the
combination of bright colour, in which the Egyptians delighted; and a
highly decorated mansion had numerous courts, and architectural details
derived from the temples. Poor people were satisfied with very simple
tenements; their wants being easily supplied, both as to lodging and
food; and their house consisted of four walls, with a flat roof of palm
branches laid across a split date tree as a beam, and covered with mats
plastered over with a thick coating of mud. It had one door, and a few
small windows closed by wooden shutters. As it scarcely ever rained,
the mud roof was not washed into the sitting-room; and this cottage
rather answered as a shelter from the sun, and as a closet for their
goods, than for the ordinary purpose of a house in other countries.
Indeed, at night the owners slept on the roof, during the greater part
of the year; and as most of their work was done out of doors, they
might easily be persuaded that a house was far less necessary for them
than a tomb.
In their plans the houses of towns, like the villas in the country,
varied according to the caprice of the builders. The ground plan, in
some of the former, consisted of a number of chambers on three sides
of a court, which was often planted with trees. Others consisted of
two rows of rooms on either side of a long passage, with an entrance
court from the street; and others were laid out in chambers round a
central area, similar to the Roman _impluvium_, and paved with stone,
or containing a few trees, a tank, or a fountain, in its centre.
Sometimes, though rarely, a flight of steps led to the front door from
the street.
Houses of small size were often connected together, and formed the
continuous sides of streets; and a courtyard was common to several
dwellings. Others of a humbler kind consisted merely of rooms opening
on a narrow passage, or directly on the street. These had only a
basement story, or ground floor; and few houses exceeded two stories
above it. They mostly consisted of one upper floor; and though Diodorus
speaks of the lofty houses in Thebes four and five stories high,
the paintings show that few had three, and the largest seldom four,
including as he does the basement story.[b]
[Illustration: SERVANT PRESENTING A LOTUS FLOWER TO A GUEST]
[Illustration: CAT MUMMIES
(Now in the British Museum)]