As in Egypt, the correct offering of the Jewish sacrifices was beset

with considerable difficulties, and the risk of marring their efficacy

by the slightest inadvertence necessitated the employment of men who

were thoroughly instructed in the divinely appointed practices and

formulæ. The victims had to be certified as perfect, while the offerers

themselves had to be ceremonially pure; and, indeed, those only who had

been specially trained were able to master the difficulties connected

with the minutiae of legal purity. The means by which the future was

made known necessitated the intervention of skilful interpreters of the

Divine will. We know that in Egypt the statues of the gods were supposed

to answer the questions put to them by movements of the head or arms,

sometimes even by the living voice; but the Hebrews do not appear to

have been influenced by any such recollections in the use of their

sacred oracles. We are ignorant, however, of the manner in which the

ephod was consulted, and we know merely that the art of interrogating

the Divine will by it demanded a long noviciate.* The benefits derived

by those initiated into these mysteries were such as to cause them to

desire the privileges to be perpetuated to their children. Gathered

round the ancient sanctuaries were certain families who, from father

to son, were devoted to the performance of the sacred rites, as, for

instance, that of Eli at Shiloh, and that of Jonathan-ben-Gershom at

Dan, near the sources of the Jordan; but in addition to these, the text

mentions functionaries analogous to those found among the Canaanites,

diviners, seers--_roê_--who had means of discovering that which was

hidden from the vulgar, even to the finding of lost objects, but

whose powers sometimes rose to a higher level when they were suddenly

possessed by the prophetic spirit and enabled to reveal coming events.

Besides these, again, were the prophets--_nabî_**--who lived either

alone or in communities, and attained, by means of a strict training, to

a vision of the future.

* An example of the consulting of the ephod will be found in

1 Sam. xxx. 7, 8, where David desires to know if he shall

pursue the Amalekites.

** 1 Sam. ix. 9 is a gloss which identifies the _seer_ of

former times with the prophet of the times of the monarchy.

Their prophetic utterances were accompanied by music and singing, and

the exaltation of spirit which followed their exercises would at

times spread to the bystanders,--as is the case in the “zikr” of the

Mahomedans of to-day.*

* 1 Sam. x. 5-13, where we see Saul seized with the

prophetic spirit on meeting with a band of prophets

descending from the high place; cf. 2 Sam. vi. 13-16, 20-23,

for David dancing before the ark.

The early kings, Saul and David, used to have recourse to individuals

belonging to all these three classes, but the prophets, owing to the

intermittent character of their inspiration and their ministry, could

not fill a regular office attached to the court. One of this class was

raised up by God from time to time to warn or guide His servants, and

then sank again into obscurity; the priests, on the contrary, were

always at hand, and their duties brought them into contact with the

sovereign all the year round. The god who was worshipped in the capital

of the country and his priesthood promptly acquired a predominant

position in all Oriental monarchies, and most of the other temples,

together with the sacerdotal bodies attached to them, usually fell into

disrepute, leaving them supreme. If Amon of Thebes became almost the

sole god, and his priests the possessors of all Egypt, it was because

the accession of the XVIIIth dynasty had made his pontiffs the almoners

of the Pharaoh. Something of the same sort took place in Israel; the

priesthood at Jerusalem attached to the temple built by the sovereign,

being constantly about his person, soon surpassed their brethren in

other parts of the country both in influence and possessions. Under

David’s reign their head had been Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, a

descendant of Eli, but on Solomon’s accession the primacy had been

transferred to the line of Zadok. In this alliance of the throne and

the altar, it was natural at first that the throne should reap the

advantage. The king appears to have continued to be a sort of high

priest, and to have officiated at certain times and occasions.* The

priests kept the temple in order, and watched over the cleanliness of

its chambers and its vessels; they interrogated the Divine will for the

king according to the prescribed ceremonies, and offered sacrifices on

behalf of the monarch and his subjects; in short, they were at first

little more than chaplains to the king and his family.

* Solomon officiated and preached at the consecration of the

temple (1 Kings viii.). The actual words appear to be of a

later date; but even if that be the case, it proves that, at

the time they were written, the king still possessed his

full sacerdotal powers.

Solomon’s allegiance to the God of Israel did not lead him to proscribe

the worship of other gods; he allowed his foreign wives the exercise of

their various religions, and he raised an altar to Chemosh on the Mount

of Olives for one of them who was a Moabite. The political supremacy and

material advantages which all these establishments acquired for Judah

could not fail to rouse the jealousy of the other tribes. Ephraim

particularly looked on with ill-concealed anger at the prospect of the

hegemony becoming established in the hands of a tribe which could be

barely said to have existed before the time of David, and was to a

considerable extent of barbarous origin. Taxes, homage, the keeping up

and recruiting of garrisons, were all equally odious to this, as well

as to the other clans descended from Joseph; meanwhile their burdens did

not decrease. A new fortress had to be built at Jerusalem by order of

the aged king. One of the overseers appointed for this work--Jeroboam,

the son of Nebat--appears to have stirred up the popular discontent,

and to have hatched a revolutionary plot. Solomon, hearing of the

conspiracy, attempted to suppress it; Jeroboam was forewarned, and fled

to Egypt, where Pharaoh Sheshonq received him with honour, and gave him

his wife’s sister in marriage.* The peace of the nation had not been

ostensibly troubled, but the very fact that a pretender should have

risen up in opposition to the legitimate king augured ill for the future

of the dynasty. In reality, the edifice which David had raised with

such difficulty tottered on its foundations before the death of his

successor; the foreign vassals were either in a restless state or ready

to throw off their allegiance; money was scarce, and twenty Galilæan

towns had been perforce ceded to Hiram to pay the debts due to him for

the building of the temple;** murmurings were heard among the people,

who desired an easier life.

* 1 Kings xi. 23-40, where the LXX. is fuller than the A. V.

** 1 Kings ix. 10-13; cf. 2 Cliron. viii. 1, 2, where the

fact seems to have been reversed, and Hiram is made the

donor of the twenty towns.

In a future age, when priestly and prophetic influences had gained the

ascendant, amid the perils which assailed Jerusalem, and the miseries of

the exile, the Israelites, contrasting their humiliation with the glory

of the past, forgot the reproaches which their forefathers had addressed

to the house of David, and surrounded its memory with a halo of romance.

David again became the hero, and Solomon the saint and sage of his race;

the latter “spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand

and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even

unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts,

and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.” We are told that

God favoured him with a special predilection, and appeared to him on

three separate occasions: once immediately after the death of David,

to encourage him by the promise of a prosperous reign, and the gift

of wisdom in governing; again after the dedication of the temple, to

confirm him in his pious intentions; and lastly to upbraid him for his

idolatry, and to predict the downfall of his house. Solomon is supposed

to have had continuous dealings with all the sovereigns of the Oriental

world,* and a Queen of Sheba is recorded as having come to bring him

gifts from the furthest corner of Arabia.

* 1 Kings iv. 34; on this passage are founded all the

legends dealing with the contests of wit and wisdom in which

Solomon was supposed to have entered with the kings of

neighbouring countries; traces of these are found in Dius,

in Menander, and in Eupolemus.

His contemporaries, however, seem to have regarded him as a tyrant who

oppressed them with taxes, and whose death was unregretted.*

* I am inclined to place the date of Solomon’s death between

935 and 930 B.C.

[Illustration: 384.jpg King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba]

His son Rehoboam experienced no opposition in Jerusalem and Judah on

succeeding to the throne of his father; when, however, he repaired to

Shechem to receive the oath of allegiance from the northern and central

tribes, he found them unwilling to tender it except under certain

conditions; they would consent to obey him only on the promise of his

delivering them from the forced labour which had been imposed upon them

by his predecessors. Jeroboam, who had returned from his Egyptian exile

on the news of Solomon’s death, undertook to represent their grievances

to the new king. “Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make

thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put

upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.” Rehoboam demanded three

days for the consideration of his reply; he took counsel with the old

advisers of the late king, who exhorted him to comply with the petition,

but the young men who were his habitual companions urged him, on the

contrary, to meet the remonstrances of his subjects with threats of

still harsher exactions. Their advice was taken, and when Jeroboam again

presented himself, Rehoboam greeted him with raillery and threats. “My

little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my

father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke:

my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with

scorpions.” This unwise answer did not produce the intimidating effect

which was desired; the cry of revolt, which had already been raised in

the earlier days of the monarchy, was once more heard. “What portion

have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse:

to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David.” Rehoboam

attempted to carry his threats into execution, and sent the collectors

of taxes among the rebels to enforce payment; but one of them was stoned

almost before his eyes, and the king himself had barely time to regain

his chariot and flee to Jerusalem to escape an outburst of popular

fury. The northern and central tribes immediately offered the crown to

Jeroboam, and the partisans of the son of Solomon were reduced to those

of his own tribe; Judah, Caleb, the few remaining Simeonites, and some

of the towns of Dan and Benjamin, which were too near to Jerusalem to

escape the influence of a great city, were all who threw in their lot

with him.*

* 1 Kings xii. 1--24; cf. 2 Chron. x., xi. 1-4. The text of

1 Kings xii. 20 expressly says, “there was none that

followed the house of David but the tribe of Judah only;”

whereas the following verse, which some think to have been

added by another hand, adds that Rehoboam assembled 180,000

men “which were warriors” from “the house of Judah and the

tribe of Benjamin.”

Thus was accomplished the downfall of the House of David, and with it

the Hebrew kingdom which it had been at such pains to build up. When we

consider the character of the two kings who formed its sole dynasty, we

cannot refrain from thinking that it deserved a better fate. David

and Solomon exhibited that curious mixture of virtues and vices which

distinguished most of the great Semite princes. The former, a soldier

of fortune and an adventurous hero, represents the regular type of the

founder of a dynasty; crafty, cruel, ungrateful, and dissolute, but

at the same time brave, prudent, cautious, generous, and capable of

enthusiasm, clemency, and repentance; at once so lovable and so gentle

that he was able to inspire those about him with the firmest friendship

and the most absolute devotion. The latter was a religious though

sensual monarch, fond of display--the type of sovereign who usually

succeeds to the head of the family and enjoys the wealth which his

predecessor had acquired, displaying before all men the results of an

accomplished work, and often thereby endangering its stability. The real

reason of their failure to establish a durable monarchy was the fact

that neither of them understood the temperament of the people they were

called upon to govern. The few representations we possess of the Hebrews

of this period depict them as closely resembling the nations which

inhabited Southern Syria at the time of the Egyptian occupation. They

belong to the type with which the monuments have made us familiar; they

are distinguished by an aquiline nose, projecting cheek-bones, and curly

hair and beard. They were vigorous, hardy, and inured to fatigue, but

though they lacked those qualities of discipline and obedience which are

the characteristics of true warrior races, David had not hesitated to

employ them in war; they were neither sailors, builders, nor given to

commerce and industries, and yet Solomon built fleets, raised palaces

and a temple, and undertook maritime expeditions, and financial

circumstances seemed for the moment to be favourable.

[Illustration: 387.jpg A JEWISH CAPTIVE]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Petrie.

The onward progress of Assyria towards the Mediterranean had been

arrested by the Hittites, Egypt was in a condition of lethargy, the

Aramæan populations were fretting away their energies in internal

dissensions; David, having encountered no serious opposition after his

victory over the Philistines, had extended his conquests and increased

the area of his kingdom, and the interested assistance which Tyre

afterwards gave to Solomon enabled the latter to realise his dreams of

luxury and royal magnificence. But the kingdom which had been created

by David and Solomom rested solely on their individual efforts, and its

continuance could be ensured only by bequeathing it to descendants who

had sufficient energy and prudence to consolidate its weaker elements,

and build up the tottering materials which were constantly threatening

to fall asunder. As soon as the government had passed into the hands

of the weakling Rehoboam, who had at the outset departed from his

predecessors’ policy, the component parts of the kingdom, which had

for a few years been, held together, now became disintegrated without

a shock, and as if by mutual consent. The old order of things which

existed in the time of the Judges had passed away with the death of

Saul. The advantages which ensued from a monarchical regime were too

apparent to permit of its being set aside, and the tribes who had been

bound together by nearly half a century of obedience to a common master

now resolved themselves, according to their geographical positions, into

two masses of unequal numbers and extent--Judah in the south, together

with the few clans who remained loyal to the kingly house, and Israel in

the north and the regions beyond Jordan, occupying three-fourths of the

territory which had belonged to David and Solomon.

Israel, in spite of its extent and population, did not enjoy the

predominant position which we might have expected at the beginning of

its independent existence. It had no political unity, no capital

in which to concentrate its resources, no temple, and no army; it

represented the material out of which a state could be formed rather

than one already constituted. It was subdivided into three groups,

formerly independent of, and almost strangers to each other, and between

whom neither David nor Solomon had been able to establish any bond which

would enable them to forget their former isolation. The centre group was

composed of the House of Joseph--Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh--and

comprised the old fortresses of Perea, Mahanaim, Penuel, Succoth,

and Eamoth, ranged in a line running parallel with the Jordan. In the

eastern group were the semi-nomad tribes of Reuben and Gad, who still

persisted in the pastoral habits of their ancestors, and remained

indifferent to the various revolutions which had agitated their race

for several generations. Finally, in the northern group lay the smaller

tribes of Asher, Naphtali, Issachar, Zebulon, and Dan, hemmed in between

the Phoenicians and the Aramaeans of Zoba and Damascus. Each group had

its own traditions, its own interests often opposed to those of its

neighbours, and its own peculiar mode of life, which it had no intention

of renouncing for any one else’s benefit. The difficulty of keeping

these groups together became at once apparent. Shechem had been the

first to revolt against Rehoboam; it was a large and populous town,

situated almost in the centre of the newly formed state, and the seat of

an ancient oracle, both of which advantages seemed to single it out as

the future capital. But its very importance, and the memories of its

former greatness under Jeruhhaal and Abimelech, were against it. Built

in the western territory belonging to Manasseh, the eastern and northern

clans would at once object to its being chosen, on the ground that it

would humiliate them before the House of Joseph, in the same manner as

the selection of Jerusalem had tended to make them subservient to Judah.

Jeroboam would have endangered his cause by fixing on it as his capital,

and he therefore soon quitted it to establish himself at Tirzah. It is

true that the latter town was also situated in the mountains of Ephraim,

but it was so obscure and insignificant a place that it disarmed all

jealousy; the new king therefore took up his residence in it, since he

was forced to fix on some royal abode, but it never became for him what

Jerusalem was to his rival, a capital at once religious and military. He

had his own sanctuary and priests at Tirzah, as was but natural, but

had he attempted to found a temple which would have attracted the whole

population to a common worship, he would have excited jealousies which

would have been fatal to his authority. On the other hand, Solomon’s

temple had in its short period of existence not yet acquired such a

prestige as to prevent Jeroboam’s drawing his people away from it:

which he determined to do from a fear that contact with Jerusalem would

endanger the allegiance of his subjects to his person and family. Such

concourses of worshippers, assembling at periodic intervals from all

parts of the country, soon degenerated into a kind of fair, in which

commercial as well as religious motives had their part.

[Illustration: 391.jpg THE MOUND AND PLAIN OF BETHEL.]

Drawn by Boudier, from the photograph published by the Duc

de Luynes.

These gatherings formed a source of revenue to the prince in

whose capital they were held, and financial as well as political

considerations required that periodical assemblies should be established

in Israel similar to those which attracted Judah to Jerusalem. Jeroboam

adopted a plan which while safeguarding the interests of his treasury,

prevented his becoming unpopular with his own subjects; as he was

unable to have a temple for himself alone, he chose two out of the most

venerated ancient sanctuaries, that of Dan for the northern tribes, and

that of Bethel, on the Judæan frontier, for the tribes of the east and

centre. He made two calves of gold, one for each place, and said to the

people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods,

O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” He granted

the sanctuaries certain appanages, and established a priesthood

answering to that which officiated in the rival kingdom: “whosoever

would he consecrated him, that there might be priests of the high

places.” * While Jeroboam thus endeavoured to strengthen himself on the

throne by adapting the monarchy to the temperament of the tribes over

which he ruled, Rehoboam took measures to regain his lost ground and

restore the unity which he himself had destroyed. He recruited the army

which had been somewhat neglected in the latter years of his father,

restored the walls of the cities which had remained faithful to him, and

fortified the places which constituted his frontier defences against the

Israelites.** His ambition was not as foolish as we might be tempted to

imagine. He had soldiers, charioteers, generals, skilled in the art of

war, well-filled storehouses, the remnant of the wealth of Solomon, and,

as a last resource, the gold of the temple at Jerusalem. He ruled over

the same extent of territory as that possessed by David after the death

of Saul, but the means at his disposal were incontestably greater than

those of his grandfather, and it is possible that he might in the

end have overcome Jeroboam, as David overcame Ishbosheth, had not the

intervention of Egypt disconcerted his plans, and, by exhausting his

material forces, struck a death-blow to all his hopes.

* 1 Kings xii. 25-32; chaps, xii. 33, xiii., xiv. 1-18

contain, side by side with the narrative of facts, such as

the death of Jeroboam’s son, comments on the religious

conduct of the sovereign, which some regard as being of

later date.

** 1 Kings xii. 21-24; cf. 2 Ghron. xi. 1-17, where the list

of strongholds, wanting in the Boole of Kings, is given from

an ancient source. The writer affirms, in harmony with the

ideas of his time, “that the Lévites left their suburbs and

their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem; for

Jeroboam and his sons cast them off, that they should not

execute the Priest’s office unto the Lord.”

The century and a half which had elapsed since the death of the last of

the Ramessides had, as far as we can ascertain, been troubled by civil

wars and revolutions.*

* I have mentioned above the uncertainty which still shrouds the XXth

dynasty. The following is the order in which I propose that its kings

should be placed:--

[Illustration: 393.jpg TABLE OF KINGS]

The imperious Egypt of the Theban dynasties had passed away, but a new

Egypt had arisen, not without storm and struggle, in its place. As long

as the campaigns of the Pharaohs had been confined to the Nile valley

and the Oases, Thebes had been the natural centre of the kingdom; placed

almost exactly between the Mediterranean and the southern frontier, it

had been both the national arsenal and the treasure-house to which all

foreign wealth had found its way from the Persian Gulf to the Sahara,

and from the coasts of Asia Minor to the equatorial swamps. The cities

of the Delta, lying on the frontier of those peoples with whom Egypt

now held but little intercourse, possessed neither the authority nor the

resources of Thebes; even Memphis, to which the prestige of her ancient

dynasties still clung, occupied but a secondary place beside her rival.

The invasion of the shepherds, by making the Thebaid the refuge and

last bulwark of the Egyptian nation, increased its importance: in the

critical times of the struggle, Thebes was not merely the foremost city

in the country, it represented the country itself, and the heart of

Egypt may be said to have throbbed within its walls. The victories of

Ahmosis, the expeditions of Thûtmosis I. and Thûtmosis III., enlarged

her horizon; her Pharaohs crossed the isthmus of Suez, they conquered

Syria, subdued the valleys of the Euphrates and the Balîkh, and by so

doing increased her wealth and her splendour. Her streets witnessed

during two centuries processions of barbarian prisoners laden with the

spoils of conquest. But with the advent of the XIXth and XXth dynasties

came anxious times; the peoples of Syria and Libya, long kept in

servitude, at length rebelled, and the long distance between Karnak and

Gaza soon began to be irksome to princes who had to be constantly on

the alert on the Canaanite frontier, and who found it impossible to have

their head-quarters six hundred miles from the scene of hostilities.

Hence it came about that Ramses II., Mînephtah, and Ramses III. all

took up their abode in the Delta during the greater part of their active

life; they restored its ancient towns and founded new ones, which

soon acquired considerable wealth by foreign commerce. The centre

of government of the empire, which, after the dissolution of the old

Memphite state, had been removed southwards to Thebes on account of the

conquest of Ethiopia and the encroachment of Theban civilization upon

Nubia and the Sudan, now gradually returned northwards, and passing over

Heracleo-polis, which had exercised a transitory supremacy, at length

established itself in the Delta. Tanis, Bubastis, Sais, Mondes, and

Sebennytos all disputed the honour of forming the royal residence, and

all in turn during the course of ages enjoyed the privilege without ever

rising to the rank of Thebes, or producing any sovereigns to be compared

with those of her triumphant dynasties. Tanis was, as we have seen, the

first of these to rule the whole of the Nile valley. Its prosperity had

continued to increase from the time that Ramses II. began to rebuild it;

the remaining inhabitants of Avaris, mingled with the natives of pure

race and the prisoners of war settled there, had furnished it with an

active and industrious population, which had considerably increased

during the peaceful reigns of the XXth dynasty. The surrounding country,

drained and cultivated by unremitting efforts, became one of the most

fruitful parts of the Delta; there was a large exportation of fish

and corn, to which were soon added the various products of its

manufactories, such as linen and woollen stuffs, ornaments, and objects

in glass and in precious metals.*

* The immense number of designs taken from aquatic plants,

as, for instance, the papyrus and the lotus, single or in

groups, as well as from fish and aquatic birds, which we

observe on objects of Phoenician goldsmiths’ work, leads me

to believe that the Tyrian and Sidonian artists borrowed

most of their models from the Delta, and doubtless from

Tanis, the most flourishing town of the Delta during the

centuries following the downfall of Thebes.

These were embarked on Egyptian or Phoenician galleys, and were

exchanged in the ports of the Mediterranean for Syrian, Asiatic, or

Ægean commodities, which were then transmitted by the Egyptian merchants

to the countries of the East and to Northern Africa.* The port of Tanis

was one of the most secure and convenient which existed at that period.

It was at sufficient distance from the coast to be safe from the sudden

attacks of pirates,** and yet near enough to permit of its being reached

from the open by merchantmen in a few hours of easy navigation; the arms

of the Nile, and the canals which here flowed into the sea, were broad

and deep, and, so long as they were kept well dredged, would allow the

heaviest-laden vessel of large draught to make its way up them with

ease.

* It was from Tanis that the Egyptian vessel set out

carrying the messengers of Hrihor to Byblos.

** We may judge of the security afforded by such a position

by the account in Homer which Ulysses gives to Eumaios of

his pretended voyage to Egypt; the Greeks having

disembarked, and being scattered over the country, were

attacked by the Egyptians before they could capture a town

or carry their booty to the ships.

The site of the town was not less advantageous for overland traffic.

Tanis was the first important station encountered by caravans after

crossing the frontier at Zalû, and it offered them a safe and convenient

emporium for the disposal of their goods in exchange for the riches of

Egypt and the Delta. The combination of so many advantageous features

on one site tended to the rapid development of both civic and individual

wealth; in less than three centuries after its rebuilding by Ramses II.,

Tanis had risen to a position which enabled its sovereigns to claim even

the obedience of Thebes itself.

We know very little of the history of this Tanite dynasty; the monuments

have not revealed the names of all its kings, and much difficulty is

experienced in establishing the sequence of those already brought to

light.*

* The classification of the Tanite line has been complicated in the

minds of most Egyptologists by the tendency to ignore the existence

of the sacerdotal dynasty of high priests, to confuse with the Tanite

Pharaohs those of the high priests who bore the crown, and to identify

in the lists of Manetho (more or less corrected) the names they are

in search of. A fresh examination of the subject has led me to adopt

provisionally the following order for the series of Tanite kings:--

[Illustration: 397.jpg TABLE OF KINGS]

Their actual domain barely extended as far as Siut, but their suzerainty

was acknowledged by the Said as well as by all or part of Ethiopia, and

the Tanite Pharaohs maintained their authority with such vigour, that

they had it in their power on several occasions to expel the high

priests of Amon, and to restore, at least for a time, the unity of the

empire. To accomplish this, it would have been sufficient for them to

have assumed the priestly dignity at Thebes, and this was what no doubt

took place at times when a vacancy in the high priesthood occurred;

but it was merely in an interim, and the Tanite sovereigns always

relinquished the office, after a brief lapse of time, in favour of some

member of the family of Hrihor whose right of primogeniture entitled him

to succeed to it.* It indeed seemed as if custom and religious etiquette

had made the two offices of the pontificate and the royal dignity

incompatible for one individual to hold simultaneously. The priestly

duties had become marvellously complicated during the Theban hegemony,

and the minute observances which they entailed absorbed the whole life

of those who dedicated themselves to their performance.**

* This is only true if the personage who entitles himself

once within a cartouche, “the Master of the two lands, First

Prophet of Amon, Psiûkhân-nît,” is really the Tanite king,

and not the high priest Psiûkhânnît.

** The first book of Diodorus contains a picture of the life

of the kings of Egypt, which, in common with much

information contained in the work, is taken from a lost book

of Hecataeus. The historical romance written by the latter

appears to have been composed from information taken from

Theban sources. The comparison of it with the inscribed

monuments and the ritual of the cultus of Amon proves that

the ideal description given in this work of the life of the

kings, merely reproduces the chief characteristics of the

lives of the Theban and Ethiopian high priests; hence the

greater part of the minute observances which we remark

therein apply to the latter only, and not to the Pharaohs

properly so called.

They had daily to fulfil a multitude of rites, distributed over the

various hours in such a manner that it seemed impossible to find leisure

for any fresh occupation without encroaching on the time allotted to

absolute bodily needs. The high priest rose each morning at an appointed

hour; he had certain times for taking food, for recreation, for giving

audience, for dispensing justice, for attending to worldly affairs, and

for relaxation with his wives and children; at night he kept watch, or

rose at intervals to prepare for the various ceremonies which could only

be celebrated at sunrise. He was responsible for the superintendence of

the priests of Amon in the numberless festivals held in honour of the

gods, from which he could not absent himself except for some legitimate

reason. From all this it will be seen how impossible it was for a lay

king, like the sovereign ruling at Tanis, to submit to such restraints

beyond a certain point; his patience would soon have become exhausted,

want of practice would have led him to make slips or omissions,

rendering the rites null and void; and the temporal affairs of his

kingdom--internal administration, justice, finance, commerce, and

war--made such demands upon his time, that he was obliged as soon as

possible to find a substitute to fulfil his religious duties. The force

of circumstances therefore maintained the line of Theban high priests

side by side with their sovereigns, the Tanite kings. They were, it is

true, dangerous rivals, both on account of the wealth of their fief and

of the immense prestige which they enjoyed in Egypt, Ethiopia, and in

all the nomes devoted to the worship of Amon. They were allied to the

elder branch of the ramessides, and had thus inherited such near rights

to the crown that Smendes had not hesitated to concede to Hrihor the

cartouches, the preamble, and insignia of the Pharaoh, including the

pschent and the iron helmet inlaid with gold. This concession, however,

had been made as a personal favour, and extended only to the lifetime of

Hrihor, without holding good, as a matter of course, for his successors;

his son Piônkhi had to confine himself to the priestly titles,* and his

grandson Paînotmû enjoyed the kingly privileges only during part of his

life, doubtless in consequence of his marriage with a certain Mâkerî,

probably daughter of Psiûkhânnît L, the Tanite king. Mâkerî apparently

died soon after, and the discovery of her coffin in the hiding-place at

Deîr el-Baharî reveals the fact of her death in giving birth to a little

daughter who did not survive her, and who rests in the same

coffin beside the mummy of her mother. None of the successors

of Paînotmû--Masahirti, Manakhpirrî, Paînotmû II., Psiûkhânnît,

Nsbindîdi--enjoyed a similar distinction, and if one of them happened to

surround his name with a cartouche, it was done surreptitiously, without

the authority of the sovereign.**

* The only monument of this prince as yet known gives him

merely the usual titles of the high priest, and the

inscriptions of his son Paînotmû I. style him “First Prophet

of Amon.” His name should probably be read Paîônûkhi or

Piônûkhi, rather than Pionkhi or Piânkhi. It is not unlikely

that some of the papyri published by Spiegelberg date from

his pontificate.

** Manakhpirrî often places his name in a square cartouche

which tends at times to become an oval, but this is the case

only on some pieces of stuff rolled round a mummy and on

some bricks concealed in the walls of el-Hibeh, Thebes, and

Gebeleîn. If the “Psiûkhânnît, High Priest of Amon,” who

once (to our knowledge) enclosed his name in a cartouche, is

really a high priest, and not a king, his case would be

analogous to that of Manakhpirrî.

Paînotmû II. contented himself with drawing attention to his

connection with the reigning house, and styled himself “Royal Son of

Psiûkhânnît-Mîamon,” on account of his ancestress Mâkerî having been the

daughter of the Pharaoh Psiûkhânnît.*

* The example of the “royal sons of Ramses” explains the

variant which makes “Paînotmû, son of Manakhpirrî,” into

“Paînotmû, royal son of Psiûkhânnît-Mîamon.”

The relationship of which he boasted was a distant one, but many of his

contemporaries who claimed to be of the line of Sesostris, and called

themselves “royal sons of Ramses,” traced their descent from a far more

remote ancestor.

[Illustration: 401.jpg THE MUMMIES OF QUEEN MÂKERÎ AND HER CHILD]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Emil Brugsch-

Bey.

The death of one high priest, or the appointment of his successor, was

often the occasion of disturbances; the jealousies between his children

by the same or by different wives were as bitter as those which existed

in the palace of the Pharaohs, and the suzerain himself was obliged

at times to interfere in order to restore peace. It was owing to an

intervention of this kind that Manakhpirrî was called on to replace his

brother Masahirti. A section of the Theban population had revolted,

but the rising had been put down by the Tanite Siamon, and its leaders

banished to the Oasis; Manakhpirrî had thereupon been summoned to court

and officially invested with the pontificate in the XXVth year of the

king’s reign. But on his return to Karnak, the new high priest desired

to heal old feuds, and at once recalled the exiles.* Troubles and

disorders appeared to beset the Thebans, and, like the last of the

Ramessides, they were engaged in a perpetual struggle against robbers.**

* This appears in the _Maunier Stele_ preserved for some

time in the “Maison Française” at Luxor, and now removed to

the Louvre.

** The series of high priests side by side with the

sovereigns of the XXIst dynasty may be provisionally

arranged as follows:--

[Illustration: 402.jpg TABLE]

The town, deprived of its former influx of foreign spoil, became more

and more impoverished, and its population gradually dwindled. The

necropolis suffered increasingly from pillagers, and the burying-places

of the kings were felt to be in such danger, that the authorities,

despairing of being able to protect them, withdrew the mummies from

their resting-places. The bodies of Seti I., Ramses II., and Ramses III.

were once more carried down the valley, and, after various removals,

were at length huddled together for safety in the tomb of Amenôthes I.

at Drah-abu’l-Neggah.

The Tanite Pharaohs seemed to have lacked neither courage nor good will.

The few monuments which they have left show that to some extent they

carried on the works begun by their predecessors. An unusually high

inundation had injured the temple at Karnak, the foundations had been

denuded by the water, and serious damage would have been done, had not

the work of reparation been immediately undertaken. Nsbindîdi reopened

the sandstone quarries between Erment and Grebeleîn, from which Seti I.

had obtained the building materials for the temple, and drew from thence

what was required for the repair of the edifice. Two of the descendants

of Nsbindîdi, Psiûkhânnît I. and Amenemôpît, remodelled the little

temple built by Kheops in honour of his daughter Honît-sonû, at the

south-east angle of his pyramid. Both Siamonmîamon and Psiûkhânnît I.

have left traces of their work at Memphis, and the latter inserted his

cartouches on two of the obelisks raised by Ramses at Heliopolis. But

these were only minor undertakings, and it is at Tanis that we must seek

the most characteristic examples of their activity. Here it was that

Psiûkhânnît rebuilt the brick ramparts which defended the city, and

decorated several of the halls of the great temple. The pylons of this

sanctuary had been merely begun by Sesostris: Siamon completed them,

and added the sphinxes; and the metal plaques and small objects which he

concealed under the base of one of the latter have been brought to light

in the course of excavations. The appropriation of the monuments of

other kings, which we have remarked under former dynasties, was also

practised by the Tanites. Siamon placed his inscriptions over those of

the Kamessides, and Psiûkhânnît engraved his name on the sphinxes and

statues of Ame-nemhâît III. as unscrupulously as Apôphis and the Hyksôs

had done before him. The Tanite sovereigns, however, were not at a loss

for artists, and they had revived, after the lapse of centuries, the

traditions of the local school which had flourished during the XIIth

dynasty.

[Illustration: 404.jpg THE TWO NILES OF TANIS]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Emil Brugsch-

Bey.

One of the groups, executed by order of Psiûkhânnît, has escaped

destruction, and is now in the Gîzeh Museum. It represents two figures

of the Nile, marching gravely shoulder to shoulder, and carrying in

front of them tables of offerings, ornamented with fish and

garnished with flowers. The stone in which they are executed is of an

extraordinary hardness, but the sculptor has, notwithstanding, succeeded

in carving and polishing it with a skill which does credit to his

proficiency in his craft. The general effect of the figures is a

little heavy, but the detail is excellent, and the correctness of pose,

precision in modelling, and harmony of proportion are beyond criticism.

The heads present a certain element of strangeness. The artist evidently

took as his model, as far as type and style of head-dress are concerned,

the monuments of Amenemhâît III. which he saw around him; indeed, he

probably copied one of them feature for feature. He has reproduced the

severity of expression, the firm mouth, the projecting cheek-bones, the

long hair and fan-shaped beard of his model, but he has not been able

to imitate the broad and powerful treatment of the older artists; his

method of execution has a certain hardness and conventionality which we

never see to the same extent in the statues of the XIIth dynasty. The

work is, however, an extremely interesting one, and we are tempted to

wish that many more such monuments had been saved from the ruins of the

city.*

* Mariette attributes this group to the Hyksôs; I have

already expressed the opinion that it dates from the XXIst

dynasty.

The Pharaoh who dedicated it was a great builder, and, like most of

his predecessors with similar tastes, somewhat of a conqueror. The

sovereigns of the XXIst dynasty, though they never undertook any distant

campaigns, did not neglect to keep up a kind of suzerainty over the

Philistine Shephelah to which they still laid claim. The expedition

which one of them, probably Psiûkhânnît II., led against Gezer, the

alliance with the Hebrews and the marriage of a royal princess with

Solomon, must all have been regarded at the court of Tanis as a partial

revival of the former Egyptian rule in Syria. The kings were, however,

obliged to rest content with small results, for though their battalions

were sufficiently numerous and well disciplined to overcome the

Canaanite chiefs, or even the Israelite kingdom, it is to be doubted

whether they were strong enough to attack the troops of the Aramæan or

Hittite princes, who had a highly organised military system, modelled

on that of Assyria. Egyptian arms and tactics had not made much progress

since the great campaigns of the Theban conquerors; the military

authorities still complacently trusted to their chariots and their light

troops of archers at a period when the whole success of a campaign was

decided by heavily armed infantry, and when cavalry had already begun

to change the issue of battles. The decadence of the military spirit

in Egypt had been particularly marked in all classes under the later

Ramessides, and the native militia, without exception, was reduced to a

mere rabble--courageous, it is true, and able to sell their lives dearly

when occasion demanded, rather than give way before the enemy, but

entirely lacking that enthusiasm and resolution which sweep all

obstacles before them. The chariotry had not degenerated in the same

way, thanks to the care with which the Pharaoh and his vassals kept up

the breeding of suitable horses in the training stables of the principal

towns. Egypt provided Solomon with draught-horses, and with strong yet

light chariots, which he sold with advantage to the sovereigns of the

Orontes and the Euphrates. But it was the mercenaries who constituted

the most active and effective section of the Pharaonic armies. These

troops formed the backbone on which all the other elements--chariots,

spearmen, and native archers--were dependent. Their spirited attack

carried the other troops with them, and by a tremendous onslaught on the

enemy at a decisive moment gave the commanding general some chance of

success against the better-equipped and better-organised battalions that

he would be sure to meet with on the plains of Asia. The Tanite kings

enrolled these mercenaries in large numbers: they entrusted them with

the garrisoning of the principal towns, and confirmed the privileges

which their chiefs had received from the Ramessides, but the results of

such a policy were not long in manifesting themselves, and this state

of affairs had been barely a century in existence before Egypt became a

prey to the barbarians.

It would perhaps be more correct to say that it had fallen a prey to the

Libyans only. The Asiatics and Europeans whom the Theban Pharaohs had

called in to fight for them had become merged in the bulk of the nation,

or had died out for lack of renewal. Semites abounded, it is true, in

the eastern nomes of the Delta, but their presence had no effect on

the military strength of the country. Some had settled in the towns

and villages, and were engaged in commerce or industry; these included

Phoenician, Canaanite, Edomite, and even Hebrew merchants and artisans,

who had been forced to flee from their own countries owing to political

disturbances.*

* Jeroboam (1 Kings xi. 40, xii. 2, 3) and Hadad (1 Kings

xi. 17-22) took refuge in this way at the court of Pharaoh.

A certain proportion were descendants of the Hidjsôs, who had been

reinforced from time to time by settlements of prisoners captured in

battle; they had taken refuge in the marshes as in the times of Abmosis,

and there lived in a kind of semi-civilized independence, refusing to

pay taxes, boasting of having kept themselves from any alliances with

the inhabitants of the Nile valley, while their kinsmen of the older

stock betrayed the knowledge of their origin by such disparaging

nicknames as Pa-shmûrî, “the stranger,” or Pi-âtnû, “the Asiatic.” The

Shardana, who had constituted the body-guard of Ramses II., and whose

commanders had, under Ramses III., ranked with the great officers of the

crown, had all but disappeared. It had been found difficult to recruit

them since the dislodgment of the People of the Sea from the Delta and

the Syrian littoral, and their settlement in Italy and the fabulous

islands of the Mediterranean; the adventurers from Crete and the Ægean

coasts now preferred to serve under the Philistines, where they found

those who were akin to their own race, and from thence they passed on to

the Hebrews, where, under David and Solomon, they were gladly hired as

mercenaries.*

* Carians or Cretans (Chercthites) formed part of David’s

body-guard (2 Sam viii. 18, xv. 18, xx. 23); one again meets

with these Carian or Cretan troops in Judah in the reign of

Athaliah (2 Kings xi. 4, 19).

The Libyans had replaced the Shardana in all the offices they had filled

and in all the garrison towns they had occupied. The kingdom of Mâraîû

and Kapur had not survived the defeats which it had suffered from

Mînephtah and Ramses III., but the Mashaûasha who had founded it still

kept an active hegemony over their former subjects; hence it was that

the Egyptians became accustomed to look on all the Libyan tribes as

branches of the dominant race, and confounded all the immigrants from

Libya under the common name of Mashaûasha.* Egypt was thus slowly

flooded by Libyans; it was a gradual invasion, which succeeded by

pacific means where brute force had failed. A Berber population

gradually took possession of the country, occupying the eastern

provinces of the Delta, filling its towns--Sais, Damanhur, and

Marea--making its way into the Fayum, the suburbs of Heracleopolis, and

penetrating as far south as Abydos; at the latter place they were not

found in such great numbers, but still considerable enough to leave

distinct traces.** The high priests of Amon seem to have been the

only personages who neglected to employ this ubiquitous race; but they

preferred to use the Nubian tribe of the Mâzaîû,*** who probably from

the XIIth dynasty onwards had constituted the police force of Thebes.

* Ramses III. still distinguished between the Qahaka, the

Tihonû, and the Mashaûasha; the monuments of the XXIInd

dynasty only recognise the Mashaiiasha, whose name they

curtail to Ma.

** The presence in those regions of persons bearing Asiatic

names has been remarked, without drawing thence any proof

for the existence of Asiatic colonies in those regions. The

presence of Libyans at Abydos seems to be proved by the

discovery in that town of the little monument reproduced on

the next page, and of many objects in the same style, many

of which are in the Louvre or the British Museum.

*** I have not discovered among the personal attendants of

the descendants of Hrihor any functionary bearing the title

of _Chief of the Mashaiuasha _; even those who bore it later

on, under the XXIInd dynasty, were always officers from

the north of Egypt. It seems almost certain that Thebes

always avoided having Libyan troops, and never received a

Mashaûasha settlement.

These Libyan immigrants had adopted the arts of Egypt and the externals

of her civilization; they sculptured rude figures on the rocks and

engraved scenes on their stone vessels, in which they are represented

fully armed,* and taking part in some skirmish or attack, or even a

chase in the desert. The hunters are divided into two groups, each of

which is preceded by a different ensign--that of the West for the right

wing of the troop, and that of the East for the left wing. They carry

the spear the boomerang, the club, the double-curved bow, and the

dart; a fox’s skin depends from their belts over their thighs, and an

ostrich’s feather waves above their curly hair.

* I attribute to the Libyans, whether mercenaries or tribes

hovering on the Egyptian frontier, the figures cut

everywhere on the rocks, which no one up till now has

reproduced or studied. To them I attribute also the tombs

which Mr. Petrie has so successfully explored, and in which

he finds the remains of a New Race which seems to have

conquered Egypt after the VIth dynasty: they appear to be of

different periods, but all belong to the Berber horsemen of

the desert and the outskirts of the Nile valley.

[Illustration: 410.jpg A TROOP OF LIBYANS HUNTING]

Drawn by Boudier, from the original in the Louvre.

They never abandoned this special head-dress and manner of arming

themselves, and they can always be recognised on the monuments by the

plumes surmounting their forehead.*

* This design is generally thought to represent a piece of

cloth folded in two, and laid flat on the head; examination

of the monuments proves that it is the ostrich plume fixed

at the back of the head, and laid flat on the hair or wig.

Their settlement on the banks of the Nile and intermarriage with the

Egyptians had no deteriorating effect on them, as had been the case

with the Shardana, and they preserved nearly all their national

characteristics. If here and there some of them became assimilated with

the natives, there was always a constant influx of new comers, full

of energy and vigour, who kept the race from becoming enfeebled. The

attractions of high pay and the prospect of a free-and-easy life drew

them to the service of the feudal lords. The Pharaoh entrusted their

chiefs with confidential offices about his person, and placed the

royal princes at their head. The position at length attained by these

Mashaûasha was analogous to that of the Oossasans at Babylon, and,

indeed, was merely the usual sequel of permitting a foreign militia

to surround an Oriental monarch; they became the masters of their

sovereigns. Some of their generals went so far as to attempt to use the

soldiery to overturn the native dynasty, and place themselves upon the

throne; others sought to make and unmake kings to suit their own taste.

The earlier Tanite sovereigns had hoped to strengthen their authority

by trusting entirely to the fidelity and gratitude of their guard; the

later kings became mere puppets in the hands of mercenaries. At length

a Libyan family arose who, while leaving the externals of power in

the hands of the native sovereigns, reserved to themselves the actual

administration, and reduced the kings to the condition of luxurious

dependence enjoyed by the elder branch of the Ramessides under the rule

of the high priests of Amon.

There was at Bubastis, towards the middle or end of the XXth dynasty,

a Tihonû named Buîuwa-buîuwa. He was undoubtedly a soldier of fortune,

without either office or rank, but his descendants prospered and rose to

important positions among the Mashadasha chiefs: the fourth among these,

Sheshonq by name, married Mîhtinuôskhît, a princess of the royal line.

His son, Namarôti, managed to combine with his function of chief of

the Mashauasha several religious offices, and his grandson, also called

Sheshonq, had a still more brilliant career. We learn from the monuments

of the latter that, even before he had ascended the throne, he was

recognised as king and prince of princes, and had conferred on him the

command of all the Libyan troops. Officially he was the chief person in

the state after the sovereign, and had the privilege of holding personal

intercourse with the gods, Amonrâ included--a right which belonged

exclusively to the Pharaoh and the Theban high priest. The honours which

he bestowed upon his dead ancestors were of a remarkable character, and

included the institution of a liturgical office in connection with his

father Namarôti, a work which resembles in its sentiments the devotions

of Bamses II. to the memory of Seti. He succeeded in arranging a

marriage between his son Osorkon and a princess of the royal line, the

daughter of Psiûkhânnît II., by which alliance he secured the Tanite

succession; he obtained as a wife for his second son Aûpûti, the

priestess of Amon, and thus obtained an indirect influence over the Said

and Nubia.*

* The date of the death of Paînotmû II. is fixed at the

XVIth year of his reign, according to the inscriptions in

the pit at Deîr el-Baharî. This would be the date of the

accession of Aûpûti’, if Aûpûti succeeded him directly, as I

am inclined to believe; but if Psiûkhânnît was his immediate

successor, and if Nsbindîdî succeeded Manakhpirri, we must

place the accession of Aûpûti some years later.

[Illustration: 413.jpg NSITANIBASHIRU]

Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by E. Brugsch-Bey.

This priestess was probably a daughter or niece of Paînotmû II., but

we are unacquainted with her name. The princesses continued to play a

preponderating part in the transmission of power, and we may assume

that the lady in question was one of those whose names have come down to

us--Nsikhonsû, Nsitanî-bashîrû, or Isimkhobîû II., who brought with her

as a dowry the Bubastite fief. We are at a loss whether to place Aûpûti

immediately after Paînotmû, or between the ephemeral pontificates of

a certain Psiûkhannît and a certain Nsbindîdi. His succession imposed

a very onerous duty upon him. Thebes was going through the agonies of

famine and misery, and no police supervision in the world could secure

the treasures stored up in the tombs of a more prosperous age from the

attacks of a famished people. Arrests, trials, and punishments were

ineffectual against the violation of the sepulchres, and even the

royal mummies--including those placed in the chapel of Amenôthes I. by

previous high priests--were not exempt from outrage. The remains of the

most glorious of the Pharaohs were reclining in this chapel, forming a

sort of solemn parliament: here was Saqnunrî Tiuâqni, the last member

of the XVIIth dynasty; here also were the first of the XVIIIth--Ahmosis,

Amenôthes I., and the three of the name Thûtmosis, together with the

favourites of their respective harems--Nofritari, Ahhotpû II., Anhâpû,

Honittimihû, and Sitkamosis; and, in addition, Ramses I., Seti I.,

Ramses II. of the XIXth dynasty, Ramses III. and Ramses X. of the XXth

dynasty. The “Servants of the True Place” were accustomed to celebrate

at the appointed periods the necessary rites established in their

honour. Inspectors, appointed for the purpose by the government,

determined from time to time the identity of the royal mummies, and

examined into the condition of their wrappings and coffins: after each

inspection a report, giving the date and the name of the functionary

responsible for the examination, was inscribed on the linen or the lid

covering the bodies. The most of the mummies had suffered considerably

before they reached the refuge in which they were found. The bodies of

Sitamon and of the Princess Honittimihû had been completely destroyed,

and bundles of rags had been substituted for them, so arranged with

pieces of wood as to resemble human figures. Ramses I., Ramses II., and

Thûtmosis had been deprived of their original shells, and were found in

extemporised cases. Hrihor’s successors, who regarded these sovereigns

as their legitimate ancestors, had guarded them with watchful care, but

Aûpûti, who did not feel himself so closely related to these old-world

Pharaohs, considered, doubtless, this vigilance irksome, and determined

to locate the mummies in a spot where they would henceforward be secure

from all attack. A princess of the family of Manakhpirrî--Isimkhobiû, it

would appear--had prepared a tomb for herself in the rocky cliff which

bounds the amphitheatre of Deîr el-Baharî on the south. The position

lent itself readily to concealment. It consisted of a well some 130 feet

deep, with a passage running out of it at right angles for a distance of

some 200 feet and ending in a low, oblong, roughly cut chamber, lacking

both ornament and paintings. Paînotmû II. had been placed within this

chamber in the XVIth year of the reign of Psiûkhannît II., and several

members of his family had been placed beside him not long afterwards.

Aûpûti soon transferred thither the batch of mummies which, in the

chapel of Amenôthes I., had been awaiting a more definite sepulture; the

coffins, with what remained of their funerary furniture, were huddled

together in disorder. The chamber having been filled up to the roof, the

remaining materials, consisting of coffers, boxes of _Ushabti,_ Canopic

jars, garlands, together with the belongings of priestly mummies, were

arranged along the passage; when the place was full, the entrance was

walled up, the well filled, and its opening so dexterously covered that

it remained concealed until-our own time. The accidental “sounding” of

some pillaging Arabs revealed the place as far back as 1872, but it was

not until ten years later (1881) that the Pharaohs once more saw the

light. They are now enthroned--who can say for how many years longer?

--in the chambers of the Gîzeh Museum. Egypt is truly a land of marvels!

It has not only, like Assyria and Chaldæa, Greece and Italy, preserved

for us monuments by which its historic past may be reconstructed, but it

has handed on to us the men themselves who set up the monuments and made

the history. Her great monarchs are not any longer mere names deprived

of appropriate forms, and floating colourless and shapeless in the

imagination of posterity: they may be weighed, touched, and measured;

the capacity of their brains may be gauged; the curve of their noses and

the cut of their mouths may be determined; we know if they were bald, or

if they suffered from some secret infirmity; and, as we are able to do

in the case of our contemporaries, we may publish their portraits taken

first hand in the photographic camera. Sheshonq, by assuming the control

of the Theban priesthood, did not on this account extend his sovereignty

over Egypt beyond its southern portion, and that part of Nubia

which still depended on it. Ethiopia remained probably outside his

jurisdiction, and constituted from this time forward an independent

kingdom, under the rule of dynasties which were, or claimed to be,

descendants of Hrihor. The oasis, on the other hand, and the Libyan

provinces in the neighbourhood of the Delta and the sea, rendered

obedience to his officers, and furnished him with troops which were

recognised as among his best. Sheshonq found himself at the death of

Psiûkhânnît II., which took place about 940 B.C., sole master of Egypt,

with an effective army and well-replenished treasury at his disposal.

What better use could he make of his resources than devote them to

reasserting the traditional authority of his country over Syria? The

intestine quarrels of the only state of any importance in that region

furnished him with an opportunity of which he found it easy to take

advantage. Solomon in his eyes was merely a crowned vassal of Egypt, and

his appeal for aid to subdue Gezer, his marriage with a daughter of

the Egyptian royal house, the position he had assigned her over all his

other wives, and all that we know of the relations between Jerusalem

and Tanis at the time, seem to indicate that the Hebrews themselves

acknowledged some sort of dependency upon Egypt. They were not, however,

on this account free from suspicion in their suzerain’s eyes, who seized

upon every pretext that offered itself to cause them embarrassment.

Hadad, and Jeroboam afterwards, had been well received at the court of

the Pharaoh, and it was with Egyptian subsidies that these two rebels

returned to their country, the former in the lifetime of Solomon, and

the latter after his death. When Jeroboam saw that he was threatened by

Rehoboam, he naturally turned to his old protectors. Sheshonq had two

problems before him. Should he confirm by his intervention the division

of the kingdom, which had flourished in Kharû for now half a century,

into two rival states, or should he himself give way to the vulgar

appetite for booty, and step in for his own exclusive interest? He

invaded Judæa four years after the schism, and Jerusalem offered no

resistance to him; Rehoboam ransomed his capital by emptying the royal

treasuries and temple, rendering up even the golden shields which

Solomon was accustomed to assign to his guards when on duty about his

person.*

* 1 Kings xiv. 25-28; cf. 2 Chron. xii. 1-10, where an

episode, not in the _Book of Kings_, is introduced. The

prophet Shemaiah played an important part in the

transaction.

This expedition of the Pharaoh was neither dangerous nor protracted, but

it was more than two hundred years since so much riches from countries

beyond the isthmus had been brought into Egypt, and the king was

consequently regarded by the whole people of the Nile valley as a great

hero. Aûpûti took upon himself the task of recording the exploit on the

south wall of the temple of Amon at Karnak, not far from the spot where

Ramses II. had had engraved the incidents of his Syrian campaigns. His

architect was sent to Silsilis to procure the necessary sandstone to

repair the monument. He depicted upon it his father receiving at the

hands of Amon processions of Jewish prisoners, each one representing a

captured city. The list makes a brave show, and is remarkable for the

number of the names composing it: in comparison with those of Thûtmosis

III., it is disappointing, and one sees at a glance how inferior, even

in its triumph, the Egypt of the XXIInd dynasty was to that of the

XVIIIth.

[Illustration: 419.jpg AMON PRESENTING TO SHESHONQ THE LIST OF THE

CITIES CAPTURED IN ISRAEL AND JUDAH]

Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Beato.

It is no longer a question of Carchemish, or Qodshû, or Mitanni,

or Naharaim: Megiddo is the most northern point mentioned, and the

localities enumerated bring us more and more to the south--Eabbat,

Taânach, Hapharaîm, Mahanaîm,* Gibeon, Beth-horon, Ajalon, Jud-hammelek,

Migdol, Jerza, Shoko, and the villages of the Negeb. Each locality,

in consequence of the cataloguing of obscure towns, furnished enough

material to cover two, or even three of the crenellated cartouches in

which the names of the conquered peoples are enclosed, and Sheshonq

had thus the puerile satisfaction of parading before the eyes of

his subjects a longer _cortege_ of defeated chiefs than that of his

predecessor. His victorious career did not last long: he died shortly

after, and his son Osorkon was content to assume at a distance authority

over the Kharu.**

* The existence of the names of certain Israelite towns on

the list of. Sheshonq has somewhat astonished the majority

of the historians of Israel. Renan declared that the list

must “put aside the conjecture that Jeroboam had been the

instigator of the expedition, which would certainly have

been readily admissible, especially if any force were

attached to the Greek text of 1 Kings xii. 24, which makes

Jeroboam to have been a son-in-law of the King of Egypt;”

the same view had been already expressed by Stade; others

have thought that Sheshonq had conquered the country for his

ally Jeroboam. Sheshonq, in fact, was following the Egyptian

custom by which all countries and towns which paid tribute

to the Pharaoh, or who recognised his suzerainty, were made

to, or might, figure on his triumphal lists whether they had

been conquered or not: the presence of Megiddo or Mahanaim

on the lists does not prove that they were _conquered_ by

Sheshonq, but that the prince to whom they owed allegiance

was a tributary to the King of Egypt. The name of Jud-ham-

melek, which occupies the twenty-ninth place on the list,

was for a long time translated as king or kingdom of Judah,

and passed for being a portrait of Rehoboam, which is

impossible. The Hebrew name was read by W. Max Millier Jad-

ham-meleh, the hand, the fort of the king. It appears to me

to be more easy to see in it Jud-liam-meleh and to associate

it with Jehudah, a town of the tribe of Dan, as Brugsch did

long ago.

** Champollion identified Osorkon I. with the Zerah, who,

according to 2 Chron. xiv. 9-15, xvi. 8, invaded Judah and

was defeated by Asa, but this has no historic value, for it

is clear that Osorkon never crossed the isthmus.

It does not appear, however, that either the Philistines, or Judah,

or Israel, or any of the petty tribes which had momentarily gravitated

around David and Solomon, were disposed to dispute Osorkon’s claim,

theoretic rather than real as it was. The sword of the stranger had

finished the work which the intestine quarrel of the tribes had

begun. If Rehoboam had ever formed the project of welding together the

disintegrated elements of Israel, the taking of Jerusalem must have been

a death-blow to his hopes. His arsenals were empty, his treasury at low

ebb, and the prestige purchased by David’s victories was effaced by

the humiliation of his own defeat. The ease with which the edifice so

laboriously constructed by the heroes of Benjamin and Judah had been

overturned at the first shock, was a proof that the new possessors of

Canaan were as little capable of barring the way to Egypt in her old

age, as their predecessors had been when she was in her youth and

vigour. The Philistines had had their day; it seemed by no means

improbable at one time that they were about to sweep everything before

them, from the Negeb to the Orontes, but their peculiar position in the

furthest angle of the country, and their numerical weakness, prevented

them from continuing their efforts for a prolonged period, and they were

at length obliged to renounce in favour of the Hebrews their ambitious

pretensions. The latter, who had been making steady progress for some

half a century, had been successful where the Philistines had signally

failed, and Southern Syria recognised their supremacy for the space of

two generations. We can only conjecture what they might have done if a

second David had led them into the valleys of the Orontes and Euphrates.

They were stronger in numbers than their possible opponents, and their

troops, strengthened by mercenary guards, would have perhaps triumphed

over the more skilled but fewer warriors which the Amorite and Aramaean

cities could throw into the field against them. The pacific reign

of Solomon, the schism among the tribes, and the Egyptian invasion

furnished evidence enough that they also were not destined to realise

that solidarity which alone could secure them against the great Oriental

empires when the day of attack came.

The two kingdoms were then enjoying an independent existence. Judah, in

spite of its smaller numbers and its recent disaster, was not far

behind the more extensive Israel in its resources. David, and afterwards

Solomon, had so kneaded together the various elements of which it was

composed--Caleb, Cain, Jerahmeel and the Judsean clans--that they had

become a homogeneous mass, grouped around the capital and its splendid

sanctuary, and actuated with feelings of profound admiration and strong

fidelity for the family which had made them what they were. Misfortune

had not chilled their zeal: they rallied round Rehoboam and his race

with such a persistency that they were enabled to maintain their ground

when their richer rivals had squandered their energies and fallen

away before their eyes. Jeroboam, indeed, and his successors had never

obtained from their people more than a precarious support and a lukewarm

devotion: their authority was continually coming into conflict with

a tendency to disintegration among the tribes, and they could only

maintain their rule by the constant employment of force. Jeroboam had

collected together from the garrisons scattered throughout the country

the nucleus of an army, and had stationed the strongest of these

troops in his residence at Tirzah when he did not require them for some

expedition against Judah or the Philistines. His successors followed

his example in this respect, but this military resource was only an

ineffectual protection against the dangers which beset them. The kings

were literally at the mercy of their guard, and their reign was entirely

dependent on its loyalty or caprice: any unscrupulous upstart might

succeed in suborning his comrades, and the stroke of a dagger might

at any moment send the sovereign to join his ancestors, while the

successful rebel reigned in his stead.* The Egyptian troops had no

sooner set out on their homeward march, than the two kingdoms began to

display their respective characteristics. An implacable and truceless

war broke out between them. The frontier garrisons of the two nations

fought with each other from one year’s end to another--carrying off each

other’s cattle, massacring one another, burning each other’s villages

and leading their inhabitants into slavery.**

* Among nineteen kings of Israel, eight were assassinated

and were replaced by the captains of their guards--Nadab,

Elah, Zimri, Joram, Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, and Pekah.

** This is what is meant by the Hebrew historians when they

say “there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the

days of his life” (1 Kings xv. 6; cf. 2 Ohron. xii. 15), and

“between Abijam and Jeroboam” (1 Kings xv. 7; 2 Ohron. xiii.

2), and “between Asa and Baasha” (1 Kings xv. 16, 32) “all

their days.”

From time to time, when the situation became intolerable, one of the

kings took the field in person, and began operations by attacking such

of his enemy’s strongholds as gave him the most trouble at the time.

Ramah acquired an unenviable reputation in the course of these early

conflicts: its position gave it command of the roads terminating in

Jerusalem, and when it fell into the hands of Israel, the Judæan capital

was blockaded on this side. The strife for its possession was always

of a terrible character, and the party which succeeded in establishing

itself firmly within it was deemed to have obtained a great success.*

* The campaign of Abijah at Mount Zemaraim (2 Chron. xiii.

3-19), in which the foundation of the narrative and the

geographical details seem fully historical. See also the

campaign of Baasha against Ramah (1 Kings xv. 17-22; cf. 2

Chron. xvi. 1-6).

The encounter of the armies did not, however, seem to produce much more

serious results than those which followed the continual guerilla warfare

along the frontier: the conqueror had no sooner defeated his enemy

than he set to work to pillage the country in the vicinity, and, having

accomplished this, returned promptly to his headquarters with the booty.

Rehoboam, who had seen something of the magnificence of Solomon, tried

to perpetuate the tradition of it in his court, as far as his slender

revenues would permit him. He had eighteen women in his harem, among

whom figured some of his aunts and cousins. The titular queen was

Maacah, who was represented as a daughter of Absalom. She was devoted to

the _asheras_, and the king was not behind his father in his tolerance

of strange gods; the high places continued to be tolerated by him as

sites of worship, and even Jerusalem was not free from manifestations

of such idolatry as was associated with the old Canaanite religion. He

reigned seventeen years, and was interred in the city of David;* Abijam,

the eldest son of Maacah, succeeded him, and followed in his evil ways.

Three years later Asa came to the throne,** no opposition being raised

to his accession. In Israel matters did not go so smoothly. When

Jeroboam, after a reign of twenty-two years, was succeeded by his son

Nadab, about the year 905 B.C., it was soon evident that the instinct

of loyalty to a particular dynasty had not yet laid any firm hold on the

ten tribes. The peace between the Philistines and Israel was quite as

unstable as that between Israel and Judah: an endless guerilla warfare

was waged on the frontier, Gibbethon being made to play much the same

part in this region as Ramah had done in regard to Jerusalem. For the

moment it was in the hands of the Philistines, and in the second year

of his reign Nadab had gone to lay siege to it in force, when he was

assassinated in his tent by one of his captains, a certain Baasha,

son of Ahijah, of the tribe of Issachar: the soldiers proclaimed the

assassin king, and the people found themselves powerless to reject the

nominee of the army.***

* 1 Kings xiv. 22-24; cf. 2 Chron. xi. 18-23, where the

details given in addition to those in the Booh of Kings seem

to be of undoubted authenticity.

** 1 Kings xv. 1-8; cf. 2 Chron. xiii. The Booh of Kings

describes his mother as Maacah, the daughter of Absalom (xv.

10), which would seem to indicate that he was the brother

and not the son of Abijam. The uncertainty on this point is

of long standing, for the author of Chronicles makes

Abijam’s mother out in one place to be Micaiah, daughter of

Uriel of Gibcah (xiii. 2), and in another (xi. 20) Maacah,

daughter of Absalom.

*** 1 Kings xv. 27-34.

Baasha pressed forward resolutely his campaign against Judah. He seized

Eamah and fortified it;* and Asa, feeling his incapacity to dislodge him

unaided, sought to secure an ally. Egypt was too much occupied with its

own internal dissensions to be able to render any effectual help, but a

new power, which would profit quite as much as Judah by the overthrow

of Israel, was beginning to assert itself in the north. Damascus had,

so far, led an obscure and peaceful existence; it had given way before

Egypt and Chaldæa whenever the Egyptians or Chaldseans had appeared

within striking distance, but had refrained from taking any part in the

disturbances by which Syria was torn asunder. Having been occupied

by the Amorites, it threw its lot in with theirs, keeping, however,

sedulously in the background: while the princes of Qodshû waged war

against the Pharaohs, undismayed by frequent reverses, Damascus did

not scruple to pay tribute to Thûtmosis III. and his descendants, or to

enter into friendly relations with them. Meanwhile the Amorites had

been overthrown, and Qodshû, ruined by the Asiatic invasion, soon

became little more than an obscure third-rate town;** the Aramaeans made

themselves masters of Damascus about the XIIth century, and in their

hands it continued to be, just as in the preceding epochs, a town

without ambitions and of no great renown.

* 1 Kings xv. 17; cf. 2 Ghron. xvi. 1.

** Qodshû is only once mentioned in the Bible (2 Sam. xxiv.

6), in which passage its name, misunderstood by the

Massoretic scribe, has been restored from the Septuagint

text.

We have seen how the Aramæans, alarmed at the sudden rise of the Hebrew

dynasty, entered into a coalition against David with the Ammonite

leaders: Zoba aspired to the chief place among the nations of Central

Syria, but met with reverses, and its defeat delivered over to the

Israelites its revolted dependencies in the Haurân and its vicinity,

such as Maacah, Geshur, and even Damascus itself.* The supremacy was,

however, shortlived; immediately after the death of David, a chief named

Rezôn undertook to free them from the yoke of the stranger. He had

begun his military career under Hada-dezer, King of Zoba: when disaster

overtook this leader and released him from his allegiance, he collected

an armed force and fought for his own hand. A lucky stroke made him

master of Damascus: he proclaimed himself king there, harassed the

Israelites with impunity during the reign of Solomon, and took over the

possessions of the kings of Zoba in the valleys of the Litany and the

Orontes.** The rupture between the houses of Israel and Judah removed

the only dangerous rival from his path, and Damascus became the

paramount power in Southern and Central Palestine. While Judah and

Israel wasted their strength in fratricidal struggles, Tabrimmon,

and after him Benhadad I., gradually extended their territory in

Coele-Syria;*** they conquered Hamath, and the desert valleys which

extend north-eastward in the direction of the Euphrates, and forced a

number of the Hittite kings to render them homage.

* Cf. what is said in regard to these events on pp. 351,

352, supra.

** 1 Kings xi. 23-25. The reading “Esron” in the Septuagint

(1 Kings xi. 23) indicates a form “Khezrôn,” by which it was

sought to replace the traditional reading “Rezôn.”

*** Hezion, whom the Jewish writer intercalates before

Tabrimmon (1 Kings xv. 18), is probably a corruption of

Rezôn; Winckler, relying on the Septuagint variants Azin or

Azael (1 Kings xv. 18), proposes to alter Hezion into

Hazael, and inserts a certain Hazael I. in this place.

Tabrimmon is only mentioned in 1 Kings xv. 18, where he is

said to have been the father of Benhadad.

They had concluded an alliance with Jeroboam as soon as he established

his separate kingdom, and maintained the treaty with his successors,

Nadab and Baasha. Asa collected all the gold and silver which was

left in the temple of Jerusalem and in his own palace, and sent it to

Benhadad, saying, “There is a league between me and thee, between thy

father and my father: behold, I have sent unto thee a present of silver

and gold; go, break thy league with Baasha, King of Israel, that he may

depart from me.” It would seem that Baasha, in his eagerness to complete

the fortifications of Ramah, had left his northern frontier undefended.

Benhadad accepted the proposal and presents of the King of Judah,

invaded Galilee, seized the cities of Ijôn, Dan, and Abel-beth-Maacah,

which defended the upper reaches of the Jordan and the Litany, the

lowlands of Genesareth, and all the land of Naphtali. Baasha hastily

withdrew from Judah, made terms with Benhadad, and settled down in

Tirzah for the remainder of his reign;* Asa demolished Eamah, and built

the strongholds of Gebah and Mizpah from its ruins.** Benhadad retained

the territory he had acquired, and exercised a nominal sovereignty

over the two Hebrew kingdoms. Baasha, like Jeroboam, failed to found

a lasting dynasty; his son Blah met with the same fate at the hands

of Zimri which he himself had meted out to Nadab. As on the former

occasion, the army was encamped before Gibbethon, in the country of the

Philistines, when the tragedy took place.

* 1 Kings xv. 21, xvi. 6.

** 1 Kings xv. 18-22; of. 2 Ghron. xvi. 2-6.

Elah was at Tirzah, “drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, which

was over the household;” Zimri, who was “captain of half his chariots,”

left his post at the front, and assassinated him as he lay intoxicated.

The whole family of Baasha perished in the subsequent confusion, but

the assassin only survived by seven days the date of his crime. When the

troops which he had left behind him in camp heard of what had occurred,

they refused to accept him as king, and, choosing Omri in his place,

marched against Tirzah. Zimri, finding it was impossible either to

win them over to his side or defeat them, set fire to the palace, and

perished in the flames. His death did not, however, restore peace to

Israel; while one-half of the tribes approved the choice of the army,

the other flocked to the standard of Tibni, son of Ginath. War raged

between the two factions for four years, and was only ended by the

death--whether natural or violent we do not know--of Tibni and his

brother Joram.*

* 1 Kings xvi. 8-22; Joram is not mentioned in the

Massoretic text, but his name appears in the Septuagint.

Two dynasties had thus arisen in Israel, and had been swept away by

revolutionary outbursts, while at Jerusalem the descendants of David

followed one another in unbroken succession. Asa outlived Nadab by

eleven years, and we hear nothing of his relations with the neighbouring

states during the latter part of his reign. We are merely told that his

zeal in the service of the Lord was greater than had been shown by any

of his predecessors. He threw down the idols, expelled their priests,

and persecuted all those who practised the ancient religions. His

grandmother Maacah “had made an abominable image for an asherah;” he cut

it down, and burnt it in the valley of the Kedron, and deposed her

from the supremacy in the royal household which she had held for

three generations. He is, therefore, the first of the kings to receive

favourable mention from the orthodox chroniclers of later times, and it

is stated that he “did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as

did David his father.” * Omri proved a warlike monarch, and his reign,

though not a long one, was signalised by a decisive crisis in the

fortunes of Israel.** The northern tribes had, so far, possessed no

settled capital, Shechem, Penuel, and Tirzah having served in turn as

residences for the successors of Jeroboam and Baasha. Latterly Tirzah

had been accorded a preference over its rivals; but Zimri had burnt the

castle there, and the ease with which it had been taken and retaken was

not calculated to reassure the head of the new dynasty. Omri turned

his attention to a site lying a little to the north-west of Shechem and

Mount Ebal, and at that time partly covered by the hamlet of Shomerôn or

Shimrôn--our modern Samaria.***

* 1 Kings xv. 11; cf. 2 Ohron. xiv. 2. It is admitted,

however, though without any blame being attached to him,

that “the high places were not taken away” (1 Kings xv. 14;

cf. 2 Chron. xv. 17).

** The Hebrew writer gives the length of his reign as twelve

years (1 Kings xvi. 23). Several historians consider this

period too brief, and wish to extend it to twenty-four

years; I cannot, however, see that there is, so far, any

good reason for doubting the approximate accuracy of the

Bible figures.

*** According to the tradition preserved in 1 Kings xvi. 24,

the name of the city comes from Shomer, the man from whom

Ahab bought the site.

His choice was a wise and judicious one, as the rapid development of the

city soon proved. It lay on the brow of a rounded hill, which rose in

the centre of a wide and deep depression, and was connected by a narrow

ridge with the surrounding mountains. The valley round it is fertile

and well watered, and the mountains are cultivated up to their summits;

throughout the whole of Ephraim it would have been difficult to find

a site which could compare with it in strength or attractiveness. Omri

surrounded his city with substantial ramparts; he built a palace for

himself, and a temple in which was enthroned a golden calf similar to

those at Dan and Bethel.* A population drawn from other nations besides

the Israelites flocked into this well-defended stronghold, and Samaria

soon came to be for Israel what Jerusalem already was for Judah, an

almost impregnable fortress, in which the sovereign entrenched

himself, and round which the nation could rally in times of danger.

His contemporaries fully realised the importance of this move on Omri’s

part; his name became inseparably connected in their minds with that of

Israel. Samaria and the house of Joseph were for them, henceforth, the

house of Omri, Bît-Omri, and the name still clung to them long after

Omri had died and his family had become extinct.**

* Amos viii. 14, where the sin of Samaria, coupled as it is

with the life of the god of Dan and the way of Beersheba,

can, as Wellhausen points out, only refer to the image of

the calf worshipped at Samaria.

** Shalmaneser II. even goes so far as to describe Jehu, who

exterminated the family of Omri, as _Jaua ahal Khumri_,

“Jehu, son of Omri.”

He gained the supremacy over Judah, and forced several of the

south-western provinces, which had been in a state of independence since

the days of Solomon, to acknowledge his rule; he conquered the country

of Medeba, vanquished Kamoshgad, King of Moab, and imposed on him a

heavy tribute in sheep and wool.* Against Benhadad in the north-west

he was less fortunate. He was forced to surrender to him several of the

cities of Gilead--among others Bamoth-gilead, which commanded the fords

over the Jabbok and Jordan.**

* Inscription of Meslia, 11. 5-7; cf. 2 Kings iii. 4.

** 1 Kings xx. 34. No names are given in the text, but

external evidence proves that they were cities of Persea,

and that Ramoth-gilead was one of them.

[Illustration: 432.jpg THE HILL OF SAMARIA]

Drawn by Boudier, from photograph No. 2G of the _Palestine

Exploration Fund._

He even set apart a special quarter in Samaria for the natives of

Damascus, where they could ply their trades and worship their gods

without interference. It was a kind of semi-vassalage, from which he was

powerless to free himself unaided: he realised this, and looked for help

from without; he asked and obtained the hand of Jezebel, daughter of

Bthbaal, King of the Sidonians, for Ahab, his heir. Hiram I., the friend

of David, had carried the greatness of Tyre to its highest point; after

his death, the same spirit of discord which divided the Hebrews made its

appearance in Phoenicia. The royal power was not easily maintained over

this race of artisans and sailors: Baalbazer, son of Hiram, reigned for

six years, and his successor, Abdastart, was killed in a riot after a

still briefer enjoyment of power. We know how strong was the influence

exercised by foster-mothers in the great families of the Bast; the four

sons of Abda-start’s nurse assassinated their foster-brother, and the

eldest of them usurped his crown. Supported by the motley crowd of

slaves and adventurers which filled the harbours of Phoenicia, they

managed to cling to power for twelve years. Their stupid and brutal

methods of government produced most disastrous results. A section of the

aristocracy emigrated to the colonies across the sea and incited them

to rebellion; had this state of things lasted for any time, the Tyrian

empire would have been doomed. A revolution led to the removal of the

usurper and the restoration of the former dynasty, but did not bring

back to the unfortunate city the tranquillity which it sorely needed.

The three surviving sons of Baalbezer, Methuastarfc, Astarym, and

Phelles followed one another on the throne in rapid succession, the

last-named perishing by the hand of his cousin Ethbaal, after a reign of

eight months. So far, the Israelites had not attempted to take advantage

of these dissensions, but there was always the danger lest one of their

kings, less absorbed than his predecessors in the struggle with Judah,

might be tempted by the wealth of Phoenicia to lay hands on it. Ethbaal,

therefore, eagerly accepted the means of averting this danger by an

alliance with the new dynasty offered to him by Omri.*

* 1 Kings xvi. 31, where the historian has Hebraicised the

Phonician name Ittobaal into “Ethbaal,” “Baal is with

him.” Izebel or Jezebel seems to be an abbreviated form of

some name like Baalezbel.

The presence of a Phonician princess at Samaria seems to have had

a favourable effect on the city and its inhabitants. The tribes of

Northern and Central Palestine had, so far, resisted the march of

material civilization which, since the days of Solomon, had carried

Judah along with it; they adhered, as a matter of principle, to the rude

and simple customs of their ancestors. Jezebel, who from her cradle had

been accustomed to all the luxuries and refinements of the Phoenician

court, was by no means prepared to dispense with them in her adopted

country. By their contact with her, the Israelites--at any rate, the

upper and middle classes of them--acquired a certain degree of polish;

the royal office assumed a more dignified exterior, and approached more

nearly the splendours of the other Syrian monarchies, such as those of

Damascus, Hamath, Sidon, Tyre, and even Judah.

Unfortunately, the effect of this material progress was marred by a

religious difficulty. Jezebel had been brought up by her father, the

high priest of the Sidonian Astarte, as a rigid believer in his faith,

and she begged Ahab to permit her to celebrate openly the worship of her

national deities. Ere long the Tyrian Baal was installed at Samaria with

his asherah, and his votaries had their temples and sacred groves to

worship in: their priests and prophets sat at the king’s table. Ahab did

not reject the God of his ancestors in order to embrace the religion of

his wife--a reproach which was afterwards laid to his door; he remained

faithful to Him, and gave the children whom he had by Jezebel names

compounded with that of Jahveh, such as Ahaziah, Joram, and Athaliah.*

* 1 Kings xvi. 31-33. Ahaziah and Joram mean respectively

“whom Jahveh sustaineth,” and “Jahveh is exalted.” Athaliah

may possibly be derived from a Phoenician form, _Ailialith

or Athlifh,_ into which the name of Jahveh does not enter.

This was not the first instance of such tolerance in the history of the

Israelites: Solomon had granted a similar liberty of conscience to all

his foreign wives, and neither Rehoboam nor Abijam had opposed Maacah in

her devotion to the Canaanitish idols. But the times were changing, and

the altar of Baal could no longer be placed side by side with that of

Jahveh without arousing fierce anger and inexorable hatred. Scarce a

hundred years had elapsed since the rupture between the tribes, and

already one-half of the people were unable to understand how place could

be found in the breast of a true Israelite for any other god but Jahveh:

Jahveh alone was Lord, for none of the deities worshipped by foreign

races under human or animal shapes could compare with Him in might and

holiness. From this to the repudiation of all those practices associated

with exotic deities, such as the use of idols of wood or metal, the

anointing of isolated boulders or circles of rocks, the offering up of

prisoners or of the firstborn, was but a step: Asa had already furnished

an example of rigid devotion in Judah, and there were many in Israel who

shared his views and desired to imitate him. The opposition to what

was regarded as apostasy on the part of the king did not come from the

official priesthood; the sanctuaries at Dan, at Bethel, at Shiloh, and

at Gilgal were prosperous in spite of Jezebel, and this was enough for

them. But the influence of the prophets had increased marvellously since

the rupture between the kingdoms, and at the very beginning of his reign

Ahab was unwise enough to outrage their sense of justice by one of his

violent acts: in a transport of rage he had slain a certain Naboth, who

had refused to let him have his vineyard in order that he might enlarge

the grounds of the palace he was building for himself at Jezreel.* The

prophets, as in former times, were divided into schools, the head of

each being called its father, the members bearing the title of “the sons

of the prophets;” they dwelt in a sort of monastery, each having his own

cell, where they ate together, performed their devotional exercises or

assembled to listen to the exhortations of their chief prophets:** nor

did their sacred office prevent them from marrying.***

* 1 Kings xxi., where the later tradition throws nearly all

the blame on Jezebel; whereas in the shorter account, in 2

Kings ix. 25, 26, it is laid entirely on Ahab.

** In 1 Sam. xix. 20, a passage which seems to some to be a

later interpolation, mentions a “company of the prophets,

prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them.” Cf. 2

Kings vi. 1-7, where the narrative introduces a congregation

of prophets grouped round Elisha.

*** 2 Kings iv. 1-7, where an account is given of the

miracle worked by Elisha on behalf of “a woman of the wives

of the sons of the prophets.”

As a rule, they settled near one of the temples, and lived there on

excellent terms with the members of the regular priesthood. Accompanied

by musical instruments, they chanted the songs in which the poets of

other days extolled the mighty deeds of Jahveh, and obtained from this

source the incidents of the semi-religious accounts which they narrated

concerning the early history of the people; or, when the spirit moved

them, they went about through the land prophesying, either singly, or

accompanied by a disciple, or in bands.* The people thronged round them

to listen to their hymns or their stories of the heroic age: the great

ones of the land, even kings themselves, received visits from them, and

endured their reproaches or exhortations with mingled feelings of awe

and terror. A few of the prophets took the part of Ahab and Jezebel,**

but the majority declared against them, and of these, the most

conspicuous, by his forcibleness of speech and action, was Elijah. We

do not know of what race or family he came, nor even what he was:*** the

incidents of his life which have come down to us seem to be wrapped in a

vague legendary grandeur. He appears before Ahab, and tells him that

for years to come no rain or dew shall fall on the earth save by his

command, and then takes flight into the desert in order to escape the

king’s anger.

* 1 Sam. x. 5, where a band of prophets is mentioned “coming

down from the high place with a psaltery, and a timbrel, and

a pipe, and a harp, before them, prophesying;” cf. ver. 10.

In 2 Kings ii. 3-5, bands of the “children of the prophets”

come out from Bethel and Jericho to ask Elisha if he knows

the fate which awaits Elijah on that very day.

** Cf. the anonymous prophet who encourages Ahab, in the

name of Jahveh, to surprise the camp of Benhadad before

Samaria (1 Kings xx. 13-15, 22-25, 28); and the prophet

Zedekiah, who gives advice contrary to that of his fellow-

prophet Micaiah in the council of war held by Ahab with

Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, before the attack on Ramobh-

gilead (1 Kings xxii. 11, 12, 24).

*** The ethnical inscription, “Tishbite,” which we find

after his name (1 Kings xvii. 1, xxi. 17), is due to an

error on the part of the copyist.

He is there ministered unto by ravens, which bring him bread and meat

every night and morning. When the spring from which he drinks dries up,

he goes to the house of a widow at Zarephath in the country of Sidon,

and there he lives with his hostess for twelve months on a barrel of

meal and a cruse of oil which never fail. The widow’s son dies suddenly:

he prays to Jahveh and restores him to life; then, still guided by an

inspiration from above, he again presents himself before the king. Ahab

receives him without resentment, assembles the prophets of Baal, brings

them face to face with Elijah on the top of Mount Carmel, and orders

them to put an end to the drought by which his kingdom is wasted. The

Phoenicians erect an altar and call upon their Baâlîm with loud cries,

and gash their arms and bodies with knives, yet cannot bring about

the miracle expected of them. Elijah, after mocking at their cries and

contortions, at last addresses a prayer to Jahveh, and fire comes

down from heaven and consumes the sacrifice in a moment; the people,

convinced by the miracle, fall upon the idolaters and massacre them, and

the rain shortly afterwards falls in torrents. After this triumph he is

said to have fled once more for safety to the desert, and there on Horeb

to have had a divine vision. “And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a

great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks

before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind

an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the

earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the

fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that He

wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering

in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said,

‘What doest thou here, Elijah?’” God then commanded him to anoint Hazael

as King of Syria, and Jehu, son of Nimshi, as King over Israel, and

Elisha, son of Shaphat, as prophet in his stead, “and him that escapeth

from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the

sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.” The sacred writings go on to tell us

that the prophet who had held such close converse with the Deity was

exempt from the ordinary laws of humanity, and was carried to heaven

in a chariot of fire. The account that has come down to us shows the

impression of awe left by Elijah on the spirit of his age.*

Ahab was one of the most warlike among the warrior-kings of Israel. He

ruled Moab with a strong hand,** kept Judah in subjection,*** and in his

conflict with Damascus experienced alternately victory and honourable

defeat. Hadadidri [Hadadezer], of whom the Hebrew historians make a

second Benhadad,**** had succeeded the conqueror of Baasha.^

* The story of Elijah is found in 1 Kings xvii.-xix., xxi.

17-29, and 2 Kings i., ii. 1-14.

** Inscription of Mesha, 11. 7, 8.

*** The subordination of Judah is nowhere explicitly

mentioned: it is inferred from the attitude adopted by

Jehoshaphat in presence of Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 1, et seq.).

**** The Assyrian texts call this Dadidri, Adadidri, which

exactly corresponds to the Plebrew form Hadadezer.

^ The information in the Booh of Kings does not tell us at

what time during the reign of Ahab his first wars with

Hadadezer (Benhadad II.) and the siege of Samaria occurred.

The rapid success of Shalmaneser’s campaigns against

Damascus, between 854 and 839 B.C., does not allow us to

place these events after the invasion of Assyria. Ahab

appears, in 854, at the battle of Karkar, as the ally of

Benhadad, as I shall show later.

The account of his campaigns in the Hebrew records has only reached us

in a seemingly condensed and distorted condition. Israel, strengthened

by the exploits of Omri, must have offered him a strenuous resistance,

but we know nothing of the causes, nor of the opening scenes of the

drama. When the curtain is lifted, the preliminary conflict is over, and

the Israelites, closely besieged in Samaria, have no alternative before

them but unconditional surrender. This was the first serious attack

the city had sustained, and its resistance spoke well for the military

foresight of its founder. In Benhadad’s train were thirty-two kings, and

horses and chariots innumerable, while his adversary could only

oppose to them seven thousand men. Ahab was willing to treat, but

the conditions proposed were so outrageous that he broke off the

negotiations. We do not know how long the blockade had lasted, when

one day the garrison made a sortie in full daylight, and fell upon the

Syrian camp; the enemy were panic-stricken, and Benhadad with difficulty

escaped on horseback with a handful of men. He resumed hostilities

in the following year, but instead of engaging the enemy in the

hill-country of Ephraim, where his superior numbers brought him no

advantage, he deployed his lines on the plain of Jezreel, near the town

of Aphek. His servants had counselled him to change his tactics: “The

God of the Hebrews is a God of the hills, therefore they were stronger

than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we

shall be stronger than they.” The advice, however, proved futile, for he

sustained on the open plain a still more severe defeat than he had met

with in the mountains, and the Hebrew historians affirm that he was

taken prisoner during the pursuit. The power of Damascus was still

formidable, and the captivity of its king had done little to bring

the war to an end; Ahab, therefore, did not press his advantage, but

received the Syrian monarch “as a brother,” and set him at liberty after

concluding with him an offensive and defensive alliance. Israel at this

time recovered possession of some of the cities which had been lost

under Baasha and Omri, and the Israelites once more enjoyed the right

to occupy a particular quarter of Damascus. According to the Hebrew

account, this was the retaliation they took for their previous

humiliations. It is further stated, in relation to this event, that a

certain man of the sons of the prophets, speaking by the word of the

Lord, bade one of his companions smite him. Having received a wound, he

disguised himself with a bandage over his eyes, and placed himself in

the king’s path, “and as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and

he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold,

a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man:

if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or

else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here

and there, he was gone. And the King of Israel said unto him, So shall

thy judgment be; thyself has decided it. Then he hasted, and took the

headband away from his eyes, and the King of Israel discerned him that

he was one of the prophets. And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord,

Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had devoted to

destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people

for his people. And the King of Israel went to his house heavy and

displeased, and came to Samaria.” This story was in accordance with the

popular feeling, and Ahab certainly ought not to have paused till he had

exterminated his enemy, could he have done so; but was this actually in

his power?

We have no reason to contest the leading facts in this account, or to

doubt that Benhadad suffered some reverses before Samaria; but we may

perhaps ask whether the check was as serious as we are led to believe,

and whether imagination and national vanity did not exaggerate its

extent and results. The fortresses of Persea which, according to the

treaty, ought to have been restored to Israel, remained in the hands of

the people of Damascus, and the loss of Ramoth-gilead continued to be a

source of vexation to such of the tribes of Gad and Reuben as followed

the fortunes of the house of Omri:* yet these places formed the most

important part of Benhadad’s ransom.

* “And the King of Israel said unto his servants, Know ye

that Ramoth-gilead is ours, and we be still, and take it not

out of the hand of the King of Syria?”

The sole effect of Ahab’s success was to procure for him more lenient

treatment; he lost no territory, and perhaps gained a few towns, but he

had to sign conditions of peace which made him an acknowledged vassal to

the King of Syria.*

* No document as yet proves directly that Ahab was vassal to

Benhadad II. The fact seems to follow clearly enough from

the account of the battle of Karkar against Shalmaneser II.,

where the contingent of Ahab of Israel figures among those

of the kings who fought for Benhadad II. against the

Assyrians.

Damascus still remained the foremost state of Syria, and, if we rightly

interpret the scanty information we possess, seemed in a fair way to

bring about that unification of the country which neither Hittites,

Philistines, nor Hebrews had been able to effect. Situated nearly

equidistant from Raphia and Carchemish, on the outskirts of the

cultivated region, the city was protected in the rear by the desert,

which secured it from invasion on the east and north-east; the dusty

plains of the Haurân protected it on the south, and the wooded cliffs of

Anti-Lebanon on the west and north-west. It was entrenched within these

natural barriers as in a fortress, whence the garrison was able to

sally forth at will to attack in force one or other of the surrounding

nations: if the city were victorious, its central position made it easy

for its rulers to keep watch over and preserve what they had won; if it

suffered defeat, the surrounding mountains and deserts formed natural

lines of fortification easy to defend against the pursuing foe, but

very difficult for the latter to force, and the delay presented by this

obstacle gave the inhabitants time to organise their reserves and bring

fresh troops into the field. The kings of Damascus at the outset brought

under their suzerainty the Aramaean principalities--Argob, Maacah, and

Geshur, by which they controlled the Haurân, and Zobah, which secured

to them Coele-Syria from Lake Huleh to the Bahr el-Kades. They had taken

Upper Galilee from the Hebrews, and subsequently Perasa, as far as the

Jabbok, and held in check Israel and the smaller states, Amnion and

Moab, which followed in its wake. They exacted tribute from Hamath, the

Phoenician Arvad, the lower valley of the Orontes, and from a portion

of the Hittites, and demanded contingents from their princes in time

of war. Their power was still in its infancy, and its elements were not

firmly welded together, but the surrounding peoples were in such a

state of weakness and disunion that they might be left out of account as

formidable enemies. The only danger that menaced the rising kingdom was

the possibility that the two ancient warlike nations, Egypt and Assyria,

might shake off their torpor, and reappearing on the scene of their

former prowess might attack her before she had consolidated her power by

the annexation of Naharaim.

END OF VOL. VI.