CHAPTER I.

Produced by Adrian Mastronardi and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was

produced from images generously made available by The

Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

THE HISTORY OF ANTIQUITY.

THE

HISTORY OF ANTIQUITY.

FROM THE GERMAN

OF

PROFESSOR MAX DUNCKER,

BY

EVELYN ABBOTT, M.A.,

_FELLOW AND TUTOR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD._

VOL. I.

LONDON:

RICHARD BENTLEY & SON, NEW BURLINGTON STREET,

Publishers in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen.

1877.

PREFACE

TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

Fifty years ago, the opinion was held by some that we could watch, in

the tradition of the most ancient realms of the East, the first awkward

steps in the childhood of the human race, while others believed that it

was possible to discover there the remnants of an original wisdom,

received by mankind at the beginning of their course immediately from

the hand of heaven. The monuments of the East, subsequently discovered

and investigated by the combined labour of English, German, and French

scholars, have added an unexpected abundance of fresh information to the

Hebrew Scriptures and the narratives of the Greeks, which, till then,

were almost our only resource. No one can any longer be ignorant that

Hither Asia at a very remote period was in possession of a rich and

many-sided civilisation. The earliest stages of that civilisation in the

valley of the Nile, of the Euphrates and the Tigris, on the coasts and

in the interior of Syria are, it is true, entirely hidden from our

knowledge; even the far more recent culture of the Aryan tribes we can

only trace with the help of the Veda and the Avesta back to the point at

which they were already acquainted with agriculture, and possessed

considerable artistic skill.

Our object in regard to the ancient East is not to retrace the beginning

of human civilization, but rather to understand and establish the value

and extent of those early phases of civilisation to which the entire

development of the human race goes back. The way to this aim is clearly

sketched out for us. A minute comparison of tradition with the results

of the successful advance of Oriental studies, a conscientious

examination of the one by the other, opens out to us the prospect of

discerning more precisely the nature of those ancient constitutions and

modes of life.

To this purpose I have undertaken to contribute by a descriptive

treatment of the subject. Such an attempt appeared to me indicated by

the consideration that the fragments of our knowledge--and more than

fragments we do not at present possess, and never shall possess, even

though we assume that the number of monuments be considerably

increased--if conscientiously brought together, would produce the most

effective impression by exhibiting the connection of all the various

sides of those ancient civilisations--and if to this collection were

added the conclusions that can be drawn from it and from the monuments

about the political life, the religion, the manners and laws, the art

and trade of those nations.

How to offer in a general survey the sum total of these fragments of the

ancient East is a problem attended with difficulties which I have felt

at every step in my work. There are not many corner-stones immovably

fixed; the outlines are often to be drawn with a wavering pen; the

unavoidable explanations of the gaps to be filled up admit of a variety

of opinions. Hence it is often--only too often--necessary to interrupt

the narrative by comments, in order to support the view taken by the

author, or refute other views, or arrive at the conclusion that there is

no sufficient evidence for a final decision. The best mode of remedying

these disagreeable interruptions was first to state the tradition, which

is generally closely connected with the peculiar nature of the people

whose fortunes it narrates, and if not actually true, is nevertheless

characteristic of the manners and views of the nation, and then to

examine this tradition in and by itself, and in conjunction with the

monuments; to state the opposite interpretations; and, finally, to give

the results thus obtained. In this way narrative and investigation are

combined in such a manner that the reader is enabled to pursue the

inquiry. The data and the critical examination of them, and lastly the

results obtained, are put before him for his own decision.

The objections, made of late to the results of Assyrian researches,

touch certain points only, in which over-hasty conclusions have

prematurely declared the enigma to be solved. Whatever doubts may still

remain, I have felt the more confidence in following the main results,

because wherever Asshur and Israel come into contact the Hebrew

Scriptures agree with the records of the kings of Asshur. Who could

understand the meaning of the verses of Nahum (iii. 8-10), of the fate

of "No-Ammon, to whose aid came Ethiopians, Arabians, and Libyans," till

G. Smith discovered the document of Assurbanipal relating to the capture

of Thebes? Who could explain the words of Ezekiel about the grave of

Elam (xxxii. 27) till the tiles of Babylonia and Assyria told us of the

ancient supremacy and power of this kingdom, and of its battles with the

Assyrians, and subjugation by their arms? If, in chronology, I have

given the preference to the tablets of the Assyrian Archons over the

Books of Kings, I have done so, not because I hold the former to be

infallible, but because the chronological dates in the Books of Kings

prove, by more than one contradiction, that they have not come down to

us intact.

My narrative embraces those independent civilisations of the ancient

East which came to exercise a mutual influence on each other. First we

follow the realm on the Nile and the kingdoms of Hither Asia as far as

the point where the nations of Iran began to influence their destinies.

Then I attempt to set forth the peculiar development of the Aryan tribes

in the valleys of the Indus and the Ganges, down to the times of

Tshandragupta and Asoka. Then follows the history of the Bactrians, the

Medes, and the Persians, until the period when the nations of the

table-land of Iran were united by Cyrus and Darius with the countries

of Western Asia, when Aryan life and Aryan civilisation gained the

supremacy over the whole region from Ceylon to the Nile and the

Hellespont. The forms of life at which the great empires of Asia had

arrived are finally brought face to face with the more youthful

civilisation attained by the Hellenes in their mountain cantons. This

new development we follow down to the first great shock when East and

West met in conflict, and the Achaemenids sought to crush the Hellenes

under the weight of Asia. With the failure of this attempt my history of

the ancient world concludes.

MAX DUNCKER.

BERLIN, _March_, 1877.

CONTENTS.

BOOK I.

_EGYPT._

CHAPTER I. PAGE

THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE 1

CHAPTER II.

THE ANTIQUITY OF THE CIVILISATION IN THE VALLEY OF THE NILE 15

CHAPTER III.

THE RELIGION OF THE EGYPTIANS 42

CHAPTER IV.

THE KINGDOM OF MEMPHIS 84

CHAPTER V.

THE HYKSOS AND THE RESTORATION OF THE EGYPTIAN KINGDOM 122

CHAPTER VI.

THE HOUSE OF RAMSES 142

CHAPTER VII.

THE MONUMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF RAMSES 167

CHAPTER VIII.

LIFE AND MANNERS OF THE EGYPTIANS 183

BOOK II.

_THE SEMITIC NATIONS._

CHAPTER I.

THE ANCIENT KINGDOM OF BABYLON 233

CHAPTER II.

THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE OF THE CHALDAEANS 264

CHAPTER III.

THE ART AND TRADE OF BABYLONIA 287

CHAPTER IV.

THE ARABS 307

CHAPTER V.

THE CANAANITES 337

CHAPTER VI.

THE RELIGIOUS RITES OF THE CANAANITES 351

CHAPTER VII.

THE ORIGIN AND DESCENT OF THE HEBREWS 383

CHAPTER VIII.

THE HEBREWS IN EGYPT 420

CHAPTER IX.

THE LIBERATION OF THE HEBREWS 441

CHAPTER X.

THE HEBREWS IN THE DESERT 467

CHAPTER XI.

THE HEBREW INVASION OF CANAAN 490

CHAPTER XII.

THE NATIONS OF ASIA MINOR 510

ERRATA.

Page 14, line 3 from bottom, _for_ "chalk rock" _read_ "lime-stone."

" 51, " 3 " _for_ "sun-globe" _read_ "sun-mountain."

" 81, " 2 " _for_ "horologe" _read_ "sun-mountain."

" 140, " 10 " _for_ "_savans_" _read_ "_savants_."

BOOK I.

EGYPT.

EGYPT.

CHAPTER I.

THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE.

History knows nothing of her infancy. The beginning of the development

of the human race lies beyond the sphere of memory, and so also do the

first steps in that development. The early stages of culture--whether in

nations or individuals--are unconscious, and unobservant of self; they

are therefore without the conditions which make remembrance possible.

The original forms of social life in the family and in the tribe, the

movement of wandering hunters and shepherds, the earliest steps in

agriculture, could leave behind them neither monuments nor records. It

is true no gifted or favoured nation, which has raised itself above

these beginnings to civic life and independent culture, has neglected to

cast a backward glance upon the history of its past. Everywhere the

attempt has been made to present the past from the later point of

culture. Whether the memory reaches but a little way, or goes back far

into the past, it is always enriched by ideas taken from religious

conceptions, or national pride, from reflection or theory. Such

reconstructions are significant of the nature and character of the

people for whom they replace the history of their youth, but they have

no claim to represent the actual course of their development. The case

is different when the growing culture of a people is observed by nations

already at a higher grade of civilisation. The Romans were in a position

to leave behind a picture of the youthful German tribes; the Byzantines

could inform us of the movements of the Slaves; modern Europe could

observe the tribes of America, the nomadic shepherds of Asia, and the

islanders of the South Sea from a higher and riper point of development.

The oldest kingdoms of which tradition and monuments preserve any

information passed unobserved through the earliest stages of their

culture. Tradition and the earliest monuments present them already in

the possession of a many-sided and highly-developed civilisation. In

what way these nations, the oldest representatives of the culture of

mankind, arrived at their possession, we can only deduce from such

evidence as is before us anterior to tradition and independent of

it--from the nature of the regions where these civilisations sprung up,

from the physical character and constitution of the nations which

developed them, from their languages and their religious ideas.

The history of antiquity is the description of the forms of culture

first attained by the human race. If it is impossible to discover the

origin of these forms historically, and the attempt is made to indicate

their preliminary stages, so far as the recorded elements allow

connected conclusions, it becomes the chief object of such a history to

recover from the fragments of monuments and tradition the culture of the

ancient East, and of the Hellenes so closely connected with the East:

to reconstruct from isolated relics and myths the image of that rich and

ample life which filled the East in religion and state, in art and

industry, in research and commerce, in political struggles and intense

religious devotion, long before the time when Solon gave laws to the

Athenians, and the army of Cyrus trod the shore of the AEgean Sea.

The oldest civilisation, the oldest state grew up on that quarter of the

globe which seems least favourable to the development of mankind. On

either side of the equator, Africa stretches out in huge land-locked

masses. A vast table-land occupies the whole south of the continent, and

in the north sinks down to a plain more impassable even than the broad

seas which wash the coasts of Africa on the west, south, and east. This

plain--the bed of a dry sea--lies in the burning sun without vegetation.

Only where springs water the thirsty soil do fruitful islands rise out

of the moving sand, the lonely waste of ravines, the craggy ridges, and

bald platforms of rock.

As the sea nowhere indents the coasts of Africa with deep bays, the

rivers cannot excavate broad and fruitful valleys, and provide means of

access to the interior. The high table-land is surrounded by a steep

rampart of mountains, which descend in terraces to the coast, and here,

almost without exception, leave narrow strips of low and marshy land.

Through the barrier drawn around them by this rampart the rivers must

force their path in a violent course, in waterfalls and rapids, in order

to fall into the sea after a short, and proportionately more sluggish

course through the narrow strip on the shore.

The table-land, its rampart of mountains, and the long lines of coast,

are, with the exception of the southern apex and the Alpine territory

of Abyssinia in the east, the dwelling-places of the black race--the

negro. However great the number of negro nations and tribes, however

much they differ in physical form and in dialect--living as they do

beneath a vertical sun, in regions difficult of access--they have never

risen beyond the infancy of human civilisation--a rude worship of gods.

Wherever they have not been powerfully affected by the introduction of

foreign elements, generation has followed generation without remembrance

or essential alteration.

The north coast of Africa is of a different character to the rest of the

continent. While the western coast looks to the broad Atlantic Ocean,

and the waves which break on the southern apex lead to the ice of the

pole, the north coast is separated from the neighbouring shores by a

basin of moderate extent. It is a mountainous district which fills up

the space between the Sahara and the Mediterranean. Towards the west the

peaks of Atlas reach, even in this climate, to the region of eternal

snow; on the east, towards the mouths of the Nile, the hills gradually

sink down, and the plain of Barca rises little more than 1,000 feet

above the sea level. Numerous chains of hills, at one time pressing

close upon the sea, at another leaving more extensive plains upon the

coast, cover the northern edge, which along the deep valleys of the

mountain streams exhibits that vigorous and luxuriant vegetation so

characteristic of Africa when not checked by want of water, although

even these fruitful valleys are again in their turn broken by droughty,

and therefore bare, table-lands and depressions.

On this northern coast, toward the Mediterranean, opens the valley

which, in extent of fruitful territory, is the largest in the whole

continent. It occupies the north-east corner of Africa, which is only

separated from Arabia by a narrow strip of sea, and carries its gleaming

waters through the wide space from the subsidence of the table-land down

to the coast, where for almost its whole remaining breadth the continent

is filled up with the desert of Sahara.

From the north-east spur of the table-land, out of vast lakes (Ukerewe),

fed from the glaciers and snows of huge mountains lying under the

equator, and passing through the lower lake Mwutan, flows the western

arm of the Nile, the White Nile, Bahr-el-Abiad. After bursting through

the terraces of the mountain, it reaches, at the foot, a woody morass,

filled with thickets of tamarisks and sycamores, of bamboo and reeds and

tall creepers, inhabited by the elephant and rhinoceros, the

hippopotamus and the crocodile, the zebra and hyena, by antelopes and

snakes. Then the stream passes into broad savannas, covered here and

there with tropic forests, and while flowing through a mountainous

district of moderate elevation, it unites with the eastern arm, the Blue

Nile, Bahr-el-Azrak, which, rising further to the east out of the

Abyssinian plateau, brings down a far smaller bulk of water from the

Alpine glades of the snowy mountain Samen. Combined into one stream,

these waters flow through a broad expanse of rock and desert, covered

with conical stones of volcanic origin. The lines of hills running

parallel to the terraces of the mountain rampart lie athwart the river;

and through this barrier it breaks in numerous cataracts. Only in the

depressions between them can the soil, refreshed with water, support

vegetation. Finally, at Syene the Nile passes through the last cataract.

Henceforward the structure of the mountains is changed. A fissure in

the rock about 750 miles long opens on the Mediterranean; and through

this the mighty river--at the last cataract it is 3,000 feet in

breadth--can flow onward in undisturbed peace to the ocean.

Out of this fissure the Nile has created a narrow strip of fruitful

soil--the valley is not more than three or four hours in breadth on an

average--which is secured by the heights on the west from the moving

sand and the storms of the great desert, and is separated by the

mountain on the east from the rocky crags, the desolate flats, and sandy

dunes which fill up the space between the valley of the river and the

Red Sea. To this valley the mighty river not only gives a refreshing

coolness and moisture by the mass of its waters, it fertilises and

manures it from year to year by its overflow. At the summer solstice,

when the snow on the peaks of the lofty mountains, in which the two arms

of the Nile take their rise, is melting, and the tropical rains fall

upon its upper course, the waters of the river slowly and gradually

rise. Towards the end of July it passes over the banks and overflows the

whole valley as far as the enclosing lines of hills, so that towards the

end of September it stands more than twenty feet above the lowest water

level. Falling as gradually as it rose after more than four months it

sinks back to the ordinary level. Wherever the overflowing waters have

covered the land, there is left behind a fertilising mud or slime. This

is the soil which the two rivers before uniting have washed from the

upper hills. Carried down by the stream, it is deposited by the gentle

flow of the waters on the surface of the valley. The refreshment of the

earth by the inundation, the fertilisation by this slime, and the

cooling of the air by the immense body of water, are the essential

advantages which Egypt owes to her river, and hence, even as early as

Herodotus, Egypt seemed to be the gift of the Nile. The watering of the

soil and the cooling of the air just in the very hottest months of the

year, are the more invaluable because the blue and gleaming sky of the

upper valley is never darkened by rain clouds, while the heat is severe,

and the storms from the south-west occasionally carry the sand and the

dust over the Libyan hills into the Nile. In the Delta, the region along

the lowest course of the Nile, showers occasionally rise from the

neighbouring sea; and through eight months of the year the whole valley

opening on the Mediterranean is fanned by refreshing winds from the

north, which also facilitate navigation against the stream.

This river-valley, the like of which in nature and formation is not to

be found in the whole globe, offered in its seclusion a peculiarly

favoured spot. It was a small green oasis of luxuriant fertility and

grateful coolness in the midst of boundless deserts. The dwellers in a

land whose soil was every year newly manured by nature, which brought

forth abundantly almost without labour, must very soon have abandoned a

pastoral life for agriculture, and in consequence have acquired fixed

abodes and settled possessions. But the yearly inundation compelled them

also at an early period to protect their flocks from the water, to

secure their habitations, to observe the periods of the rising and

falling of the stream. The long duration of the overflow made it

necessary to provide for the support of man and beast. They had to learn

how to carry on their dealings with each other upon the water, when the

whole valley was still filled with the river, and to mark out firmly the

limits of their plots, so that they might again take possession of them

after the inundation. In Nubia the cataracts stopped the navigation of

the river, and the lines of rock and strips of desert made intercourse

difficult, and confined the life of the tribes within the limits of the

native valley to their separate possessions. In Egypt, within the two

lines of hills, land and river created no hindrance. A region so

concentrated could not but carry the tribes beyond the limits of

separate existence; the very land forced them to live a life more in

common. There was only a slight natural distinction between the more

secluded upper valley and the lower opening in the Delta about the

mouths of the Nile; and this could merely have a stimulating effect upon

the development of culture, without interfering in any way with its

unity. Nevertheless the community of life in the valley of the Nile was

not caused solely by the nature of the land. The tribes of the deserts

around this long and narrow oasis must have had all the more lively a

sense of the charm of the favoured valley owing to the difficulty with

which they procured their own subsistence. Against these plundering

neighbours, and their attempts to force themselves into the valley of

blessing and abundance, the inhabitants of Egypt had to combine their

forces. They needed a strong centralized command, a warlike monarchy, to

which here, earlier than elsewhere, the patriarchal government of the

tribes would therefore give way.

Egypt kept her inhabitants secluded within hard and fast limits; beyond

the hills began the desert. With the increasing number of inhabitants

the attempt must have been made to set low-lying marshy districts free

from the excess of water, and to make fruitful the higher parts of the

valley beyond the reach of the inundations by bringing the water upon

them. Experience quickly taught that the plot produced the most abundant

fruits on which the inundation had continued longest, and consequently

had time to deposit the thickest layer of mud. Hence the attempt was

made to keep the water longer on the soil by means of dykes. These

objects, in regard to which the interests of the several districts

differed, and which required the combination of large masses of

operatives to carry them out, must have made the need of a supreme

decisive and executive power felt earlier in Egypt than in other lands.

The inhabitants of Egypt found themselves surrounded by a solemn

landscape, before fixed and unchanging forms and outlines, in the midst

of natural phenomena, recurring with invariable regularity and always in

the same succession. Such surroundings and impressions must have stamped

on the young life of a ripening nation a settled, stern, and unvarying

character. When the original unity and society of life, which comprises

all members of the family and in the tribe, has been broken

through--when at the beginning of their settled life some have turned

their attention to agriculture and cattle, others to hunting and war,

others again to the fulfilment of religious duties--the sons are wont to

carry on the vocation of the fathers. This is the rule often in far more

advanced periods; and simpler conditions of life compel the son to carry

on the life of the father, in whose occupation he has grown up. In such

times there is no mode of teaching and instruction but through the

family. In this way the tribes and the nation part into separate

circles, which carry on as an inheritance the mode of life derived from

their forefathers. These divisions of occupation, of vocation, and mode

of life could be carried out earlier and with greater sharpness in

Egypt than in other lands.

As life becomes more settled and developed, there are always found

families with an especial liking for war. They are enriched by the spoil

which is the fruit of their bravery, and protect the agricultural and

pastoral part of their tribe from the attacks of plunderers. Every

nation gives willing honour to the brave warriors among them, and gladly

recognises the superiority of a mode of life which puts life to the risk

over other occupations. And when, from the early simple stage, in which

every head of a family approaches the gods with his offerings in trust

and confidence, religion has developed into a body of usages and customs

which must be performed and followed out if any share is to be obtained

in the grace of the gods, the exact knowledge of these can only be

handed down from father to son. And if the mass of the population gives

honour to the warriors, how much more readily will it bow down before

those who, by their prayers, libations, and offerings, can bring them

the fruits of the field and the blessing of the gods--protection in this

world and salvation in the next! Moreover, if the families of warriors

and priests, filled with the conviction of their own higher worth,

disdain the occupations of the rest of the people; if they are convinced

that they are of a better kind than the rest, that only from the noble

and good can the noble and good arise--that better blood gives better

feelings, and better birth better men--then in this feeling, so natural

to a primitive era, they allow their occupation to be shared only by

those who belong to their race; they take wives from their own class

only, not from others; they give their daughters in marriage to their

own people only. Thus the various modes of life and orders which

naturally come into existence end in castes.

The more fruitful the land of Egypt, the richer the products of the

soil, and the more frequent the necessity of repelling the plundering

inroads of the desert tribes, the more rapidly did the distinction

between the agricultural and military orders spring up. And the greater

the pride with which the inhabitants of this favoured land might and did

look down upon the miserable tribes of the desert, the more grateful

were the looks turned towards the gods, who had given them so beautiful

and productive a land in the midst of the desert, who supplied them with

water, fertilised their soil, cooled the heat of the atmosphere and gave

them life and plenty, while all around them reigned desolation and

death. To these beneficent powers the inhabitants of the valley of the

Nile could not refuse an earnest service of thanksgiving for blessings

so rich and so ceaselessly renewed; by their piety they had also to

provide that the gods would graciously preserve these blessings to them.

It is obvious that a tone and feeling like this, arising in the

population from the very nature of the land, must have been in a high

degree conducive to the rise of a priestly order in Egypt.

Egypt had excellent natural boundaries. If the forces of the land were

once united in a single hand, there could be no difficulty in repelling

the tribes of the desert. Thenceforward there would be little reason to

fear an enemy on this side of the boundary hills. No rival power could

arise in the neighbouring deserts, and should any victorious state arise

at a distance, the deserts checked the advance of their armies. It was

much more probable that the united forces of the river-valley should

subjugate the tribes of the surrounding desert. Hence the position of

their land allowed the inhabitants of the valley to develop undisturbed.

The culture once obtained could be quietly transmitted to others, and

constantly extended. This circumstance, in connection with the domestic

peace of the country under a monarchy, allowed the priesthood to extend

their lore in unbroken tradition from generation to generation, while

quietly amassing stores of knowledge; and with the increase of the

population all the hands not required for agriculture--and in Egypt this

claims but a small amount of labour--had to devote themselves to trade

and manufacture. And even these arts were likely to attain the greater

excellence in so far as the artisans and tillers of the ground were less

disturbed by war and military service. The more distinct the boundaries

of the land, the less to conquer and occupy outside them, the more

industrious, amid the growing population, must have been the culture of

the ground and the irrigation of it, the more actively must the artisans

have pursued their trade, and industry must have developed with a

greater vigour as the number of mouths requiring food increased.

So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa, like the

valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot of the Abyssinian

hills, was inhabited by nations who in colour, language, and customs

were sharply distinguished from the negro. These nations belong to the

whites: their languages were most closely allied to the Semitic.[1] From

this, and from their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been

drawn that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil of

Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still continue in the

language of the Berbers. Assisted by the favourable conditions of their

land, the tribe which settled on the Lower Nile quickly left their

kinsmen far behind. Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life.

The descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the Nile, in

spite of the numerous layers which the course of centuries has

subsequently laid upon the soil of the land, still form the larger part

of the population of Egypt, and the ancient language is preserved in the

dialect of the Copts.[2]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Bunsen, "AEgypten," 5, 1, 75 ff.; Ebers, "AEgypten and die Buecher

Moses," p. 43; Renan ("Histoire generale et systeme compare des langues

Semitiques") will not admit this close connection.

[2] Brugsch ("Histoire d'Egypte," pp. 5, 6) explains the name Egypt by

_ha-ka-ptah_, _i.e._ "the precinct of Ptah." As Ptah was more especially

the god of Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis. The attempt

has been repeatedly made to derive the civilisation of Egypt from

Ethiopia and Meroe. But the problem of the origin of a given

civilisation is not solved by removing it from the locality where it

exists in full bloom to another, and as a rule more unknown, district.

In the case before us this assumption is met by the peculiar difficulty,

that the culture of Egypt is influenced essentially by the nature of the

land, and therefore can hardly have had an external origin. It cannot be

removed from a highly favoured locality into a district extremely hot,

and fruitful only in detached oases, without making the explanation of

its origin much more difficult. Moreover, the lower valley of the Nile

has always ruled over the upper: even in mediaeval and modern times. The

inscriptions of Sargon, king of Assyria (722-705 B.C.), mention the king

of Meroe (Miluhhi); those of Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) tell us, "The

kings of Egypt have summoned the archers, the chariots, the horses of

the king of Miluhhi." The inscriptions of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.)

speak of the "King of Egypt and Miluhhi," whom they also name "King of

Egypt and Cush;" and the successor of Esarhaddon directed his first

campaign against "Tarku" (Thirhaka) "of Egypt and Miluhhi." The word

Meroe, therefore, as the name of a kingdom lying above Egypt on the

Nile, must have been in use in Syria, even in the eighth century B.C.

Hence the Greeks denote by this name an island, and also a city of the

Upper Nile. According to Herodotus (2, 29) the great city Meroe, "which

ought to be the chief city of the rest of the Ethiopians" (_i.e._ of

those of whom the Egyptians were not the immediate neighbours), was

forty days' journey and twelve days' sail (_i.e._ over 15,000 stadia)

above Syene. Later authorities, Eratosthenes, Artemidorus, Strabo,

Pliny, Ptolemy reduce the distance by nearly one-half; they regard the

distance between Meroe and Syene as nearly equal to the distance from

Syene to Alexandria, and fix the whole distance from Alexandria to Meroe

at 10,000 to 12,000 stadia. As the town and island of Meroe must be

south of the junction of the Astaboras (Atbara), (Strabo, p. 786), we

must look for the island between the Atbara and the Blue Nile, and for

the city in the ruins at the modern Begerauieh. Yet the chief town of

the kingdom of Meroe, when it takes an active part in history, is not

Begerauieh. King Thirhaka's residence lay near the modern Meraui under

Mount Barkal. The name in inscriptions is Neb, and, consequently, in

Greek and Latin Napata. Even under the Sesurtesen and Amenemha, Egypt

ruled over Nubia as far as Semne and Kumna, under Amenophis III. as far

as Soleb, and under Ramses II. as far as Mt. Barkal. The oldest ruins at

this spot belong to a temple dedicated by this king to Ammon (Lepsius,

"Reisebriefe," s. 238); next come the ruins of the buildings of

Thirhaka, which differ as little from Egyptian buildings as those which

he and his two Ethiopian predecessors erected in Egypt. Moreover, the

later ruins found at Napata, especially some twenty small pyramids, are

feeble imitations of Egyptian art. The same character of imitation is

stamped upon the monuments of Begerauieh, though here it is mingled with

foreign elements. This place, further removed from Egypt, and therefore

more secure, was beyond doubt the residence of the kings of Meroe, at

least from the time of Cambyses, and it was named after the country.

Herodotus points out that Zeus and Dionysus, _i.e._ Osiris, were

worshipped here, and that the oracle of Zeus, _i.e._ of Ammon, extended

its authority over the Ethiopians: the further accounts which Diodorus

preserves of this priesthood give a poor idea of their cultivation (3, 3

ff. Strabo, pp. 827, 828). At the time of the second Ptolemy, this

priesthood was destroyed by the King, Ergamenes, whose name (Arkamen)

Lepsius has discovered on ruins at Mt. Barkal, as well as Begerauieh,

and an independent monarchy was established. Hence we must entirely give

up the idea of deriving the supposed supremacy of the priesthood in

Egypt, a supremacy which never existed here, from the priesthood formed

at Begerauieh after the time of Thirhaka and Psammetichus (in the days

of Psammetichus, Herodotus tells us that a king of the Ethiopians

received strangers without an oracle, and gave them land, 2, 30); that

is, in the sixth century B.C., which continued to exist till 250 B.C.

Still less reason is there to suppose that the so-called Indian

supremacy of the priesthood came through Meroe into Egypt. Rather we may

feel ourselves justified in assuming that the elements of civilisation

which took root on the middle Nile passed from Egypt to that district.

In the inscriptions of Begerauieh the name Meroe occurs as Meru, and

Merua, _i.e._ "White rock"; Lepsius, _l. c._ 205-232. As the banks of

the Nile, here and also at Mt. Barkal, consist of whitish-yellow chalk

rocks, the name of the land and its southern metropolis, of which the

existence since the sixth century B.C. is demonstrated, may have been

named from this peculiarity of the land.

CHAPTER II.

THE ANTIQUITY OF THE CIVILISATION IN THE VALLEY OF THE NILE.

In the eighteenth century B.C., according to their reckoning, the

tradition of the Hebrews presents us with a complete picture of court

and civic life in the valley of the Nile, and it tells us of the

building of cities in the east of the Delta, which, according to the

same computation, must have been founded about the year 1550 B.C. The

Homeric poems contain accounts of the land of AEgyptus, of the

fair-flowing Zeus-born river of the same name, of the very beautiful

fields and cities of Egypt, of princes who fought from their chariots,

and finally of "Egyptian Thebes, where in the palaces lie the greatest

treasures; a city with a hundred gates, from each of which go forth two

hundred men with horses and chariots." They also add "that the fruitful

earth bears abundance of drugs in Egypt, some mingled for good, others

for evil, and there every one is a physician and has acquaintance with

men; they are all sprung from the god of healing."[3]

According to the account given by the Greeks the Egyptians boasted to be

the oldest of mankind, and to possess the most ancient traditions.[4]

Their priests believed that they could compute the history of Egypt by

thousands of years. When Herodotus was in Egypt about the middle of the

fifth century B.C., the priests at Thebes read to him from a book the

names of 331 kings who had reigned from Menes, the first ruler of Egypt,

and the founder of Memphis, down to Moeris inclusive; among these were

eighteen Ethiopians, and one queen; the rest were Egyptians. After

Moeris came Sesostris, Pheron, Proteus, Rhampsinitus, Cheops and

Chephren, Mycerinus, Asychis, Anysis, Sabakon, and Sethos, so that from

Menes to Sethos 341 kings had reigned over Egypt in as many generations.

Herodotus remarks that the priests assured him that they had an accurate

knowledge of what they said, for the years were always enumerated and

put down. To convince him they carried him into the great temple at

Thebes and showed him there 345 wooden colossi of the chief priests who

had presided over the temple through as many generations, in regular

succession from father to son; for every chief priest placed his statue

here during his own life-time. Before these kings and chief priests the

gods had ruled over Egypt; first the Eight Gods, then the Twelve, then

Osiris the Greek Dionysus, after him Typhon, and, last of all, Horus.

From the time of King Amasis (570-526 B.C.) to the time of Osiris 15,000

years had passed, but from the time of the Twelve Gods to Amasis 17,000

years.[5]

Herodotus does not conceal the doubts raised in his mind by the high

antiquity claimed in these accounts by the priests. He found an especial

difficulty in the fact that Dionysus Osiris, who, according to his

computation, was born 1,600 years at the most before his own time

(_i.e._ about 2050 B.C.), must have lived more than 15,000 years

earlier, according to the assertion of the Egyptians. By their account

341 kings reigned from Menes to Sethos; and on this basis Herodotus

reckoned the duration and commencement of the Egyptian kingdom. He took

33-1/3 years as the length of a generation, and thus Menes must have

begun to reign 340 generations, or 11,340 years before the accession of

Sethos. Further, Herodotus placed over 150 years between the accession

of Sethos and the death of Amasis, and thus according to his data we get

the enormous total of 11,500 years for the duration of the Egyptian

kingdom from Menes till its overthrow by the Persians. Menes therefore

must have ascended the throne before the year 12000 B.C.; the rule of

Osiris commenced 15500 B.C.; and that of the Twelve Gods 17500 B.C.

If we leave the gods out of the question, and reduce the length of a

generation, which Herodotus has put too high, to its real average of

twenty-five years, the 340 generations with those of Sethos,

Psammetichus, Necho, Psammetichus II., Apries, and Amasis, make up 8,650

years, and since the Persians took Egypt in 525 B.C., the beginning of

the reign of Menes still falls in the year 9175 B.C. This incredible

fact is not made more credible because Plato represents an Egyptian

priest asserting to Solon that the annals of Sais reached back 8,000

years; or speaks in the "Laws" of works of Egyptian art, ten thousand

years old.[6]

Four hundred years after Herodotus, Diodorus travelled to Egypt.[7] He

tells that, according to some fabulous accounts, gods and heroes first

ruled over Egypt for something less than 18,000 years. The last of

these was Horus, the son of Isis. After these came 470 native kings, of

whom the first was Menes, before the time of the Macedonian and Persian

rule, and also four Ethiopian kings and five queens. The Ethiopians did

not immediately succeed each other, but at intervals, and their united

reigns amounted to a little less than thirty-six years. "Of all these

kings the priests have sketches in their holy books, handed down through

successive generations from extreme antiquity, showing how tall each

king was, what he was like, and what he accomplished in his reign." If

we place the reign of Menes 479 generations before Cambyses, this

computation, on the reckoning of Herodotus, would place the accession of

Menes in the year 16492 B.C.; taking a shorter average length for the

generations, we may bring it to the year 12500 B.C. But Diodorus shows

from other accounts that this mode of computation is inadmissible. He

tells us that the priests of Egypt numbered about 23,000[8] years from

the reign of Helius or Hephaestus, who, according to other priests, was

the first of the gods to reign,[9] till the entrance of Alexander into

Asia (334 B.C.). If of this total we allow about 18,000 years to the

gods, the accession of Menes would have to be placed about the year 5300

B.C.[10] But as Diodorus also says that something less than 5,000 years

had elapsed since the first human king to his arrival in Egypt, Menes'

reign would fall about the year 5000 B.C. Diodorus fixes the accession

of this king even more closely when he remarks, in a third passage, that

the Egyptians assured him that, "for more than 4,700 years, kings,

mostly natives, had ruled, and the land had prospered greatly under

them."[11] With this agrees the further account given by Diodorus, that

according to some the largest pyramid was built 3,400 years before his

time. According to this Menes cannot be carried back further than 4,800

years B.C.

If Menes founded the kingdom of Egypt 4,800 years B.C., it continued for

4,275 years under native kings; and if in this period 346 kings ascended

the throne, as Herodotus says, or 479, as Diodorus, the average duration

of each reign would be in the first case more than twelve years, in the

second less than nine, which contradicts all credible history. The

lowest average of oriental reigns is fifteen years.

Still, from these accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus it is clear that

the priests of Egypt possessed lists of the kings in long series, and

that, according to their view, gods and demigods had ruled over Egypt

for thousands of years before the earliest of these kings. After Greek

princes had ascended the throne of the Pharaohs, and Egypt with its

monuments and writings was opened to the research of the Greeks,

Eratosthenes, who was the head of the library at Alexandria in the

second half of the third century B.C., studied the history of these old

kings--at "the royal request," as Georgius Syncellus tells us--in the

old annals and lists of the Egyptians, and transcribed these lists in

the Hellenic language.[12] This compilation of Eratosthenes contained

the names and reigns of thirty-eight kings of Thebes. Syncellus repeats

the list, and adds: "Here ended the rule of the thirty-eight kings who

were called Theban in Egypt, whose names Eratosthenes collected out of

the sacred books of Thebes and translated into the Hellenic language.

The names of the fifty-three Theban kings who followed these have been

also preserved by Apollodorus; but we consider it superfluous to add

them, for even the list of the first is of no use."[13] Thus the

researches of the Alexandrine Greeks had brought together a list of

ninety-one kings, ninety successors of Menes, out of the writings of the

priests of Thebes. As early as the time of Eratosthenes the Egyptians

assisted the researches of the Greeks. About the middle of the third

century B.C., that is, in the time of the second and third Ptolemy, an

Egyptian named Manetho (_Ma-n-thoth_ = "loved by Thoth"), of Sebennytus,

and apparently scribe to the temple at Thebes,[14] composed in Greek a

work on the history of Egypt in three books. "Obviously possessed of

Hellenic culture"--so we find it in Josephus--"Manetho wrote the history

of his country in Greek, translating it, as he tells us, from the sacred

writings; he undertook to interpret Egyptian history from the sacred

writings."[15] This work of Manetho was lost at an early period; all

that remains is the list of the dynasties, a third part of the names of

the kings, and a few fragments; and even these remnants we possess only

in excerpts by a second or third hand. Manetho begins his history of

Egypt with the rule of the gods. First came Ptah, the creative god of

light, and the great gods, then the demigods, and Manes. After these had

ruled over Egypt for 24,857 Egyptian years, according to the excerpt of

Africanus, that is for 24,820 Julian years, the rule of human kings

begins with Menes, and these continued through thirty dynasties for

5,366 years. As Manetho closes his list of the kings of Egypt with the

last year of Nectanebos, who rebelled against Artaxerxes Ochus--_i.e._

with the year 340 B.C.--Menes must have founded the kingdom in the year

5706 B.C., or rather, if we reduce the Egyptian years of Manetho's

reckoning to Julian years, in the year 5702 B.C.[16] This statement

carries us back to a far less remote antiquity than the computation of

the date of Menes by 346 generations previous to Cambyses; on the other

hand, it goes 900 years higher than the date which we deduced from

Diodorus.

What amount of authority should be ascribed to the lists of Manetho? Did

the priests really possess sketches of kings and accounts of their

reigns reaching back more than 5,000 years? In order to believe this,

must we not allow that at such a remote time as the reign of Menes, or

soon after it, writing was known and in use in Egypt? And granting this,

must not the first beginning of culture in Egypt be carried back at

least 500 years before Menes? Moreover, the lists do not correspond with

the number of the kings given by Herodotus, or by Diodorus. Herodotus,

as we said, put 346 generations before the time of Cambyses, Diodorus

gave 479 kings before the same date. The excerpt of Africanus from

Manetho, even if we substitute the smaller numbers given in the excerpt

of Eusebius in all the dynasties, of which only the total sum of the

rulers is stated, still gives us 388 kings from Menes to Cambyses.[17]

If these discrepancies awaken the suspicion that the number and the

succession of the kings was not agreed upon even by the priests

themselves, the suspicion is increased by the fact that the lists do

not tally in the various excerpts in which they have come down to us.

What weight can be given to a list which, in the excerpt from Africanus,

allows 953 years (or 802 at the least) to the rule of the Hyksos, and in

the excerpt of Eusebius allows 103 years, and again 511 years in the

excerpt of Josephus? Still greater discrepancies appear if we compare

the list of Eratosthenes with the names and numbers handed down to us

from Manetho's work. Both lists begin with Menes; both allow him a reign

of sixty-two years; but Eratosthenes describes his thirty-eight kings as

of Theban origin or race, while in Manetho the first Theban dynasty

began to reign 2,240 years after Menes.[18] Nevertheless the names of

the first three or four rulers in Eratosthenes agree with those in

Manetho. Then the coincidence breaks off till the fifteenth, sixteenth,

and seventeenth names in Eratosthenes, to which corresponding names are

found in Manetho's list, but in the twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and

thirtieth places; and from this point to the end of the list of

Eratosthenes there are only two or three names to which corresponding

names are found in Manetho, and these occur at far greater intervals in

the series. The last name in Eratosthenes nearly corresponds to the name

of the king, in Manetho, under whom the invasion of the Hyksos took

place. If, therefore, we assume that the list of Eratosthenes was

intended to enumerate the kings who ruled over Egypt to this date, we

find thirty-eight kings who must have reigned through 1076 years; and,

as parallel to these, we find in Manetho fourteen dynasties with at

least 241 kings, occupying a period of 3,084 years.

Scarcely less striking are the contradictions in the monuments

themselves. In the temple of Ammon at Karnak, which was extended on a

magnificent scale by Tuthmosis III. (1591-1565 B.C.),[19] the king is

delineated twice in a colossal form on the back wall of a chamber.

Between the two pictures sit sixty-four kings in four rows one over the

other. The inscription, "A royal offering for the kings of both Egypts,"

as well as the position of Tuthmosis, shows that he is offering prayer

and sacrifice to his predecessors in the kingdom. Of these sixty-four

kings, three are the immediate predecessors of Tuthmosis, Tuthmosis I.,

II., and Amosis. Before Amosis this table puts fifty-seven kings; the

name of Menes is wanting; but in Manetho's list there are nevertheless

no fewer than 284 kings,[20] from Menes to Amosis, with whom, in the

excerpt of Africanus, the eighteenth dynasty begins. In the great temple

built by Sethos I. (1439-1388, B.C.) at Abydus in honour of Osiris, this

prince, with his son Ramses, may be seen on the wall of a passage

offering prayer and incense to his predecessors in the kingdom. There

are seventy-six shields with names, beginning with the shield of Menes.

The last is the shield of Sethos, who in this way is represented as

offering prayer to himself, among the rest. Down to Amenemha IV., the

close of the twelfth dynasty (2179-2171 B.C.), there reigned, according

to Manetho's list 104 kings, but the table of Sethos gives sixty-five

shields for the interval from Menes to Amenemha IV. From this king to

Sethos, the first prince of the nineteenth dynasty, Manetho's list gives

193 kings, excluding the shepherd kings, whereas the table of Sethos

shows only ten shields for this interval.[21] Nothing in the way of

explanation is to be obtained from the monuments of this kind belonging

to the time of Ramses II. (1388-1322 B.C.) On the wall of the portico

between the first and second court of the Ramesseum, the great temple

built by Ramses II. at Thebes, on the left bank of the Nile, there is a

picture in which the statues of thirteen predecessors in the kingdom are

carried in procession before the king. There are eleven kings up to

Amosis; before him is the figure of Mentuophis; then Menes. In the

little temple built by Ramses II. at Abydus in honour of Osiris, there

is a tablet, on which Ramses is represented offering adoration to the

manes of his predecessors. On this we can make out fifty shields, but

only about thirty are sufficiently uninjured to be legible; so far as we

can tell this table is only a repetition of the table of Sethos in the

great temple of Abydus. A third series of the kings of this period has

been discovered in the tombs at Sakkarah. In the tomb of Tunari, the

kings' scribe and architect, there is a representation of the sacrifice

of Ramses II. for the deceased kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Here we

find fifty-seven shields; immediately before Ramses II. is Sethos,

Ramses I., and Horus, then six illegible names; and before these Amosis.

Before Amosis are forty-six shields, of which the first can perhaps be

compared with the king mentioned in the sixth place after Menes in

Manetho's list.[22]

The variations of these tables from the lists may be explained by

assuming that it depended on the particular view and peculiar object of

the kings who erected these monuments, which of their predecessors they

wished to honour, and which they wished to exclude. But even a

manuscript list of kings, which has come down to us, exhibits numerous

and very considerable variations from Manetho's lists. This list is a

papyrus, now in Turin, supposed to belong to the period 1500-1000 B.C.

It begins with the rule of the gods; then follow the names of the kings,

with the length of their reigns in years, months, and days, down to the

time of the Tuthmosis; and thus it includes the first seventeen

dynasties of Manetho's list. It has been much damaged, and therefore we

can only discover that about 240 names were given, of which, however,

about 100 are entirely gone; and of the others the lesser half at least

is hardly legible. As has been remarked, Manetho numbers at least 284

kings to the eighteenth dynasty. Moreover, the papyrus does not agree

with Manetho in the division of the dynasties; at certain places, which

do not coincide with the sections of Manetho, totals are given of the

preceding reigns. The first king after the gods is Mena (Menes), but of

the names which follow only a few agree with those in Manetho, and a few

more with those of the tables of Karnak, Abydus, and Sakkarah.[23] But

here also the same names occupy different places in the series.

If in addition to all these variations and discrepancies we add the fact

that even in the contemporary monuments and inscriptions which have come

down to us there is no lack of contradictions to Manetho's

statements--if too these monuments have not been erected or preserved in

sufficient continuity, nor are of a sufficiently ample kind, to form an

adequate check upon the papyrus of Turin, or the tables of kings or the

list of Manetho--we must give up the hope of ascertaining the antiquity

and course of Egyptian history on such data. One thing only comes out

clear and irrefragable from the tables of Karnak, Abydus, and Sakkarah,

no less than the Turin papyrus. Long before Herodotus was in Egypt, long

before Manetho wrote his Egyptian history, in the fifteenth century B.C.

Menes was considered the first king of Egypt. Even then lists of the

kings were in existence, and the priests had made a sketch of the

history of their land, in which the rule of the gods preceded the rule

of human kings.

Modern research has attempted in various ways to find the key to the

puzzle of these long and confused series of kings made by the Egyptian

priests. Assuming that the names of the kings and the length of their

reigns, and the number of reigns belonging to each dynasty, has been

handed down correctly by Manetho, but that some of these dynasties were

contemporaneous, the attempt has been made to give such a selection from

the dynasties of Manetho as would supply a continuous thread for

Egyptian history. Thus from the dynasties expressly marked as Memphitic,

or Theban, a series may be formed which shortens the calculation of

Manetho by at least 1,000 years. We might proceed further in this

direction, and reduce Manetho's list by 2,000 or 3,000 years. According

to the separate items in the excerpts preserved, Manetho's thirty

dynasties include a series of 5,366 Egyptian years (from the year 5702

to the year 340 B.C.); nevertheless, Syncellus, in a passage of his

Chronology, has observed that the whole period of history treated by

Manetho in his three books covered 3,555 years.[24] This observation

has been used to prove that Manetho himself arranged several dynasties

contemporaneously; and thus, by taking the whole total of years given by

Syncellus as a basis, the year 3892 B.C. has been fixed as the first

year of the reign of Menes. No doubt a selection may be made from the

dynasties of Manetho in such a way that the sum total of the reigns

included in it will carry us no farther back than this year.[25] But it

is clear from the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus that the series of

kings made by the Egyptian priests were strictly successive; and this

fact is abundantly confirmed by the Turin papyrus and the excerpts

preserved from Manetho himself. The 3,555 years which Syncellus brings

forward cannot, in the face of his own excerpt, be taken as a number

really derived from Manetho, and with this number all the calculations

founded upon it fall to the ground.[26]

A second path, which has lately been struck out for the reduction of

Manetho's dynasties, is based upon the list of Eratosthenes. The

thirty-eight kings enumerated in this list are placed beside the first

fourteen dynasties of Manetho. It is assumed that only the names quoted

in Eratosthenes are the names of real monarchs, and that we must look

for similar names in the list of Manetho. By this assumption, it is

true, we are compelled to set aside several of Manetho's dynasties, and

even to throw away the greater part of the kings of the dynasties which

are allowed to count in the series.[27] But even when we have overcome

all the difficulties in the way of this system, we are still without the

means to define accurately the duration of the rule of the alien kings,

which, as has been already remarked, according to the various excerpts

from the list of Manetho, continued 953, or 511, or 103 years; nor is

there any fixed point immediately before the alien monarchy to enable us

to succeed in establishing the antiquity and commencement of the

Egyptian series of kings.

All attempts to arrive at the antiquity of the civilisation and history

of Egypt by these means are the more doubtful, because in Egypt there is

no fixed era to form a basis for calculation. The time is reckoned by

the reigns of the kings. In such a case even the most cautious inquiry

of the priests could hardly have arrived at a satisfactory chronology

for the oldest period. Though they had before them far more numerous

monuments than we have, and though the lists of the various dominant

families began to be kept at a very early period, it was no longer

possible at the time when the lists of the Turin papyrus were made out,

to discover in what order the families came, or which ruled

contemporaneously before the time of the alien kings. The mere

arrangement of our materials in the order of succession cannot fail to

give an entirely false picture of the history of Egypt, while on the

other hand the national pride of the Egyptians, and the vanity of the

priests, found a great satisfaction in exaggerating the antiquity of

their history by such enumerations, even where it was known that any

families of kings were contemporaneous. With what pride and complacency

would they exhibit this endless list of kings to the travelling

strangers from Greece!

Besides the want of a fixed era, and the insufficient knowledge of the

ancient period, and of the alien monarchy--besides the motives of

national vanity, there was another remarkable circumstance connected

with the priests of Egypt which was calculated to lead them far away

from historical truth. The Egyptians measured time by a solar year of

360 days, divided into twelve months of thirty days. It was early

observed that this year did not correspond to the sun's orbit; and

therefore five additional days were added. The decisive event of the

Egyptian year was the inundation. The Nile began to rise at the time of

the summer solstice, and was coincident with the rising of the Dog-star

(Sothis), the brightest star in the Egyptian sky. The Dog-star

proclaimed the approach of the inundation and the new fertilization of

the soil, and by proclaiming caused it. Thus to the Egyptians this star

Sothis was "the Lady of the Beginning." The rising of the star denoted

the new year; which therefore must have begun on the 20th July, the

first of Thoth in the Egyptian calendar. But since, in the Egyptian

year, a quarter of a day was wanting, in spite of the additional five

years, to make up the true astronomical year, the beginning of every

fourth year must have been a day in advance of the true year, and the

seasons, of which the Egyptians made three of four months each, the

months, and the festivals anticipated more and more the true time of the

year. This advance could not have escaped the priests; they must soon

have observed that a period of 1,461 Egyptian years must elapse in order

to allow the Egyptian year to coincide with astronomical time. For in

1,460 Egyptian years the additional quarter of a day in the astronomical

year would amount to 365 whole days--_i.e._ to an Egyptian year; and at

the end of this year the beginning of the next was again coincident with

the rising of the Dog-star, as seen from Lower Egypt, and the

commencement of the inundation. Thus in a period of 1,461 years the year

was again brought to its true beginning.[28] Since the fruitfulness and

life of the Egyptian land depended on the inundation, and the inundation

began with the rising of the Dog-star, the history of Egypt must also

have begun with a similar rising. If after 1,461 Egyptian years the

rising of the Dog-star again coincided with the beginning of the civic

year, the priests would regard this restoration of the natural order as

the completion of a great cycle of events. The Dog-star brought the

inundation, and with it the fruits and life of Egypt. It was the

awakener of life. It must therefore have brought life to the world also;

time must have begun with the rising of Sirius. Porphyrius tells us that

to the Egyptians the rising of the Dog-star was the beginning of the

world.[29] Hence the periods of the world must proceed according to a

number of periods fixed by the Dog-star. It seems that the priests

comprised the whole duration of the world in twenty-five Sothis periods,

_i.e._ in 36,525 Egyptian years. Regarded in this light, the Sothis

periods of the priests of Egypt must lead to a cyclic treatment of their

history, to which also the want of any definite era was forcing them,

while the antiquity and number of the lists of kings offered abundant

material for it. The history of Egypt must comprise a definite number of

Sothis periods. It was known that in the fourteenth century B.C. such a

period ended, and a new one commenced; the difficulty was to fill up two

or three periods anterior to this. Before the Sothis period of the

kings, the gods had ruled over Egypt, to whom, therefore, a number of

Sothis cycles, naturally more extensive than those given to the rule of

men, was allotted. Thus the priests of Thebes were able to tell

Herodotus that, from the time when the Twelve Gods ruled over Egypt,

down to the days of King Amosis, 17,000 years had passed; that from

Menes, down to Sethos, 341 kings ruled in succession over Egypt, and

that in this space of time the sun had four times risen in an unusual

way--it had twice risen where it then set, and had twice set where it

then rose; and nothing in Egypt had been changed by this, either in the

gifts of the earth or the river, in sickness or in mortality.[30] This

change of the rising and setting of the sun is nothing more than the

symbolical astrology of the priests, who must have expressed the

completion of the movable solar year by the opposite quarters of the

sky; and it means no more than that two Sothis periods had elapsed

between Menes and Sethos; but to Herodotus the statement as given

naturally appeared quite incredible.[31] What the priests told

Herodotus, Manetho, following far older authorities, had already fixed

in a systematic form before Diodorus found that the gods ruled 18,000

years, and the human kings had begun to reign 4,700 years before his

arrival in Egypt. To the gods and demigods Manetho allows twelve Sothis

periods, _i.e._ 17,520 Julian years. Then follows the history of the

men, the beginning of which Manetho places in the commencement of that

period of the Dog-star which begins with the year 5702 B.C. From this

point the series of kings runs through three complete Sothis periods

down to Menephta; in the fourth period Manetho closed the lists of his

thirty dynasties with the last native ruler in 340 B.C., the 984th year

of the fourth Sothis period of the human kings. Thus it would be

possible to make the scheme clear on which the priests of Egypt dealt

with the history of their land, and the lists of Manetho would then lay

claim to complete historical credibility for the ancient periods in

isolated items, though certainly not in their combination as a whole.

With this result before us the only course open is to seek for external

evidence, and attempt to ascertain the antiquity of the civilisation of

Egypt independently of the priests and their traditions. The first fixed

point in Egyptian chronology is given by the campaign of Pharaoh Sisak

against Judah and Jerusalem. Sisak caused a sketch of his enterprise to

be delineated on the wall of a structure erected by him in the temple at

Karnak. According to Manetho's list, Sisak (Sesonchis), the first ruler

of his twenty-second dynasty, begins his reign in the year 934 B.C.[32]

But the chronology of the Hebrews, which from the establishment of the

monarchy downwards coincides within a few insignificant variations with

the Assyrian records, proves that Sisak must have been king in the first

half of the tenth century B.C. The campaign against Judah falls in the

middle of this century. From Sisak to the expulsion of the Hyksos there

was an interval of at least 500 years, as we may maintain approximately

from the names of kings and their reigns recorded on monuments. If

therefore we accept the excerpt from Manetho's history given in Josephus

(and that excerpt was made precisely for this period, and has come down

to us in the best shape), and allow 511 years for the reign of the

Hyksos, we arrive at the year 2000 B.C. as the end of the old monarchy.

From this monarchy numerous monuments have come down to us belonging to

the Amenemha, and Sesurtesen, the twelfth dynasty of Manetho; and again

to the time preceding these princes belong the greatest monuments in

Egypt, the pyramids of Memphis, which, according to Manetho's list, are

the work of the fourth dynasty. These pyramids therefore may have been

built about the year 2500 B.C. The plan and execution of these monuments

presuppose a very long practice in the treatment and preparation of

materials; the size, permanence, and solidity of the construction were

impossible without great experience in the use of stone; and their

massive form requires an acquaintance with the principles of

architecture which can only be obtained in the course of centuries. And

independently of the advanced state of architecture exhibited by these

monuments at the first sight, their erection is a proof of a condition

of social and civic life far removed from primitive tribal communities.

So long as tribes few in number and isolated from each other possessed

the valley of the Nile, under the rule of their tribal chiefs, such

structures were impossible. They presuppose a settled population,

accustomed to work, and skilled in it. And more than this. The whole

population could not any longer be occupied in agricultural work; there

must have been a considerable amount of superfluous labour, living upon

the productions obtained from the earth by others. Such structures

required the united force of many thousands, the continued efforts of

long years. And as the use of complex machinery for moving and raising

the heavy materials was unknown to the Egyptians, and remained unknown,

as we see from the monuments, a still greater force of men and beasts of

draught were necessary to move such huge squares and blocks by means of

a simple lever and rollers. Finally, the combination and continued

employment of such forces presupposes that society has been subordinated

to a superior direction and power, which could apply those forces as it

chose; in a word, it presupposes an economical, political, and technical

civilisation, removed by at least 500 years from pastoral life and

patriarchal rule. If therefore we may assume that the great pyramids

were erected about the year 2500 B.C., the beginning of higher

civilisation in the valley of the Nile must not be placed later than the

year 3000 B.C.

This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the oldest monuments of

Egypt--and they are also the oldest in the world--exhibit the Egyptians

in possession of the art of writing. All writing proceeds from pictures.

The writing of the Egyptians and Babylonians, like that of the Chinese,

Mexicans, and the tribes of North America, was in the first instance no

more than speaking pictures. The Egyptians engraved on the stone of

their rocks pictures of the objects and events of which they wished to

preserve the remembrance. As this use of pictures to assist the memory

became more common and more regular, from external no less than internal

reasons, it quickly acquired certain abbreviations and combinations. The

frequent repetition of a picture led to its abbreviation. The picture of

a house dwindled into a square; water is not so much sketched as

indicated by waved lines; instead of a forest we have the outline of a

tree--in Egypt we find the sycamore, the most common tree in the

country. Thus from actual imitative pictures we arrive at indicatory

pictures. But how could the various kinds of fluid, for instance, be

represented in these indicatory pictures? The three waved lines

indicating water were retained, but beside them was sketched a wine-jar

or water-pot, and thus the desired end was attained. By adding the

picture of a god to the square, a temple was distinguished from a house.

By such means the objects of the visible world could be reproduced in

pictures more or less abbreviated. Even the actions and conditions of

men which do not come immediately under the eye could be represented in

this abbreviated metaphorical manner. Giving could be represented by an

outstretched arm with a loaf; opening, by a door; going, by a road

planted with trees; travelling, by a walking bird; battle, by an arm

equipped with shield and lance; binding and fastening, by a coiled rope;

destruction, by a prostrate man. It was more difficult to represent

conditions which do not show themselves to the eye, as, for instance,

hunger and thirst. To express thirst the Egyptians chose the symbol of

water and a calf running to it; hunger they represented by a hand

conveyed to the mouth, and this was also the symbol of eating. But the

most difficult task for this picture-writing was the description of

objects transcending sense, and abstract ideas. For the gods, it is

true, popular notions and the fancy of the priests had supplied fixed

forms which only required to be abbreviated for the picture-writing. The

picture of the sky-goddess served as a symbol for the sky. The Egyptians

regarded the sky as arched over the earth; the feet of the goddess

rested on one extremity, and her hands on the other. Instead of the

complete figure of the goddess in this arched attitude, they drew a line

of a similar kind, and this was the abbreviated picture of the sky. If

the sun or a star was combined with this line, the picture represented

the day and the night. But the abstract ideas of law and justice, truth,

protection, good, evil, life, &c., could only be represented in this

picture-writing by sensuous images. In Egypt power was represented by a

brandished whip, or poleaxe; justice, by the cubit, or symbol of equal

measurement; good, by the symbol of sound, in order perhaps to indicate

harmony; evil, by the picture of an unclean fish; truth, by an ostrich

feather--the feathers of this bird are said to remain unchanged;

protection, by a soaring vulture, &c., &c.

Though the possession of such indicatory or symbolic pictures enabled

men to describe a series of objects and conditions, and even certain

classes of conceptions--this picture-writing was nevertheless far

removed from the expression of a definite and intelligible speech. It

was a great step in the Egyptian writing when to their simple

metaphorical and symbolical pictures phonetic pictures were added. From

the actual picture by means of abbreviation, by indicatory signs and

symbols, they had arrived at picture-signs, and had succeeded in

expressing a certain feeling by means of figures; but now the indication

of the sound was added to the representation of the sense. The

picture-writing could only go to these picture-signs in order to borrow

the symbols for sound. Hence the sound A was denoted by a symbol which

signified an object of which the name began with A; for this in Egypt

the symbol of an eagle (_achem_), or of a reed (_ak_), might be, and was

selected. Thus in order to express words which could not be made plain

by picture-signs and images of sense, the plan was adopted of adding to

the picture-signs already in use for such words, one or more phonetic

symbols, a complete or incomplete phonetic supplement. Hence arose a

class of mixed pictures, made up of the picture of the object, with the

addition of the sounds of the words of which the picture was intended to

express the meaning. To make the meaning yet more clear, it was found

necessary to add key-signs, indicating the class and nature of the word

in question. Thus with the pictorial and phonetic signs for day and hour

was combined the sign of the sun, and to the names of countries and

rivers the sign for land and water. Moreover these key-signs showed

whether the word symbolised by a sound or a picture denoted an animal, a

plant, a kind of stone, or belonged to a particular class of conditions

and actions. Yet in this combination of real and phonetic pictures, it

always remained uncertain whether a picture or symbol was to be taken

for its real meaning, or was to be regarded as a phonetic symbol.

This, then, is the difficult writing of the Egyptians; these are the

hieroglyphics as presented even on those great monuments. Even here we

find this method of writing applied in the same forms, and with the same

mixture of pictorial and phonetic signs, which it retained in Egypt,

with slight modifications (see below). Without doubt, the development of

this complicated system was the work of centuries. In the infancy of

history, special insight and capability is obtained and handed down only

within the limits of certain circles. There could be no regular

application and development of this system of writing before the

formation of a priestly order. And again, the separation of such an

order from the rest of the people could only take place gradually; it

must go through a number of stages to raise it above the primitive

conditions of life. When this point of culture was reached, a

considerable space of time was still needed in order to bring the

picture-writing, even within the priestly class, to the form in which we

see it on the pyramids. In those nations whose progress we can follow

with greater accuracy, centuries must pass before the indefinite and

floating notions entertained of the gods are fixed in rigid forms. Yet

in Egypt this change had already taken place before the date of the

oldest hieroglyphics: for even in these we find typical forms in use for

the gods, with sharply drawn and abbreviated outlines. In the

picture-writing itself there is a wide interval between the delineation

of an incident, or object, and the representation of a definite

feeling; and a yet wider interval before the expression of ideas, of

definite speech, is attained. An advanced stage of reflection and

abstraction is required in order to step from the picture of an

occurrence to picture-signs and images of sense, and again from these to

phonetic symbols. The symbols for an incident, and for an idea and a

sound, are separated by a wide gulf. Independently of these internal

requirements for the advance of picture-writing, the external form in

which the oldest hieroglyphics are represented, their even, harmonious,

clearly-cut and unalterable forms, are evidence not only of an

industrious and careful application of these signs, but also of a

tolerably long use. The oldest hieroglyphics of the date of the great

pyramids are for the most part embossed; but even the engraved work of a

date very little more recent is not surpassed by later times in artistic

excellence, in sharpness and neatness of execution.

The study of the calendar of Egypt, no less than the use of writing upon

the great monuments, carries us back to an early date for the beginning

of Egyptian civilization. We saw that the priests, by adding five days

to the old year of 360 days, had come tolerably near to the natural

year, and had fixed the beginning of their year by the rising of Sirius.

Monuments of the age of the Amenemha and Sesurtesen show that even then

the rising of Sirius had been observed and noted. Nevertheless, the

beginning of their short civic year tended to anticipate the natural

year; and thus the Egyptian year was always in advance of the solar. But

if it was observed and noted down by the Egyptians, that in the year of

their reckoning, corresponding to the Julian year 1322 B.C., the

beginning of the year had again fallen on the right day, that is, on

the rising of Sirius, so that the first day of Thoth in the movable year

coincided with the first day of Thoth in the solar year, which was the

20th of July, it follows that the fixing of the beginning of the year on

July 20, and of the length of the year at 365 days, had taken place

1,460 years (p. 30) before the date 1322 B.C., _i.e._ in the year 2782

B.C. This conclusion is supported by another consideration. Our

astronomers have calculated that it was only in the two or three

centuries preceding and following the year 3285 B.C. that the rising of

Sirius so exactly coincided with the summer solstice and the rise of the

Nile; and therefore in this epoch only could the observation have been

made that Sirius brought the inundation. Hence in this period only could

the beginning of the year have been fixed at the rising of Sirius. But

if the Egyptians could set aside an old calendar and introduce a new

arrangement requiring attention and long-continued observations,

somewhere about the year 2800 B.C., it is clear that the beginnings of

higher culture in Egypt cannot be later than 3000 B.C.[33]

Valuable as this result is, we are nevertheless carried back to

hypotheses and combinations in order to fix the various epochs, and more

especially before the reign of the Hyksos. And as an arrangement of

history is impossible without chronology, divisions must be assumed here

and there where it is impossible to establish them satisfactorily. The

arrangement of Egyptian chronology proposed by Lepsius has for the first

time introduced a well-considered system into the whole. Hence, in spite

of the objections already brought forward against the basis of this

arrangement, and the proved uncertainties and contradictions of

tradition and the monuments, which the progress of inquiry into the

older periods may indeed lessen but cannot remove, I follow the data

given by Lepsius for the epochs of Egyptian history, and the duration of

the reigns which come under our notice.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] "Il." 9, 381; "Od." 4, 230 ff. 477, 581. 14, 257, 264 ff. 17, 426.

[4] Herod. 2, 2; Diod. 1, 10, 50; Plat. Tim. p. 23.

[5] Herod. 2, 100, 142, 143.

[6] Plato, "Tim." p. 23; "De Leg." p. 657.

[7] Diodorus, 1, 44, 45, Olympiad 180, _i.e._ between 60 and 56 B.C.

[8] Or, according to another version, more than 10,000 years from Osiris

to Alexander. More than 10,000 years had passed, according to the

Egyptians, since the creation of the first man.--Diod. 1, 23, 24.

[9] Diod. 1, 13, 14.

[10] Ibid. 1, 69.

[11] Diod. 1, 63.

[12] Syncell. p. 91, ed. Goar.

[13] Syncell. p. 12.

[14] Boeckh, "Manetho," p. 395.

[15] "C. Apion." c. 14, 26.

[16] Boeckh, "Manetho," p. 769 ff.

[17] Reinisch reckons 389 kings from Menes to Cambyses, "Zeitschrift d.

d. M. Ges." 15,251; Brugsch's table gives 334 royal shields from Menes

to Cambyses.

[18] According to Boeckh's "Kanon des Africanus."

[19] This, like the following dates, is from Lepsius, see below.

[20] Not including the thirty-eight shepherd kings; if these are added

the number reaches 322.

[21] Duemichen and Lepsius, "Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sprache," 1864,

p. 81 ff. Deveria and Mariette, "Revue Archeolog." 1865, p. 50 ff; 1866

(13), p. 73 ff.

[22] Mariette in "Revue Archeolog.," 1864 (10), p. 170.

[23] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 20, 44, 72; Deveria, _loc. cit._ p.

58 ff.

[24] P. 98.

[25] Gutschmid in the "Philologus," 10, 672.

[26] The number of 113 generations, which Syncellus gives as

contemporaneous, does not in the least agree with the accounts of

Manetho; moreover, Gutschmid has shown from what items the number 3,555

in Syncellus has arisen in "Beitraege zur Geschichte des alten Orients,"

s. 9.

[27] On this rests the difference of the systems of Lepsius and Bunsen.

Taking the total given by Syncellus from Manetho of 3,555 years before

Nektaneboes, Lepsius arrives at the years 3,892 B.C. Bunsen also

considers the number 3,555 to be from Manetho, but without historical

value. He insists on this number because he allows Manetho to reckon

1,286 years for the new monarchy, 922 years for the Hyksos, and 1,347

years for the old monarchy; but for these 1,347 years he substitutes the

1,076 years of Eratosthenes, in order to fix the historical accession of

Menes. According to this, Menes began to reign in the year 3284 B.C.

From this, Reinisch ("Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenl. Gesell." 15,

251 ff.) has attempted to reconcile the systems of Bunsen and Lepsius.

He retains the total of 3,555 years, and the year 3,892 B.C. for Menes;

to the 1,076 years given by Eratosthenes for the old monarchy he adds

four years for Skemiophris, thus making 1,080 years, fixes the middle

monarchy--the Hyksos--at 1,088 years, or down to the era [Greek: apo

Menophreos] at 1,490, and the new monarchy down to Nektanebos at 985

years.

[28] Boeckh, "Manetho," s. 411; Lepsius, "Chronologie," s. 148 ff. Th.

Martin "Mem de l'Acad. d'Inscr," 1869 (8), 265 ff.

[29] Boeckh, "Manetho," s. 404. In the decree of Kanopus, belonging to

the ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, _i.e._ to the year 238

B.C., we find as follows (Lepsius, "Das Bilingue Decret von Kanopus"):

"In order that the seasons of the year may continue to observe their

time according to the present arrangement of the world, and that feasts

which ought to be celebrated in winter may not be celebrated in summer,

because the star advances one day in every four years, while others

which are celebrated in summer will in later times be celebrated in

winter, as has already happened, and will happen again, if the year is

to be composed of 360 days, and the five days usually added, from

henceforth a day shall be kept as the festival of the Divi Euergetes,

every fourth year after the intercalary days, before the new year." That

the discovery of the want of a quarter of a day was made before the time

of Ptolemaeus Euergetes I., and that for a long time computations were

made by the fixed year with an intercalary cycle every fourth year, as

well as by the movable year, is beyond doubt. The decree did not become

of universal application till 26 B.C.

[30] Herod. 2, 142.

[31] Boeckh, "Manetho," s. 36; Lepsius, "Chronologie," s. 193.

[32] According to Boeckh's "Kanon des Africanus."

[33] Lepsius, "Koenigsbuch," s. 118. Biot, "L'Annee vague," p. 57; cf.

however H. Martin, "Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscript." 1869, pp. 1, 8, 265.

CHAPTER III.

THE RELIGION OF THE EGYPTIANS.

Next to its language the oldest possession of a nation is its religion.

Living in a country of very distinct outlines and characteristic forms,

where the regularity of external life is brought more prominently before

the view than in other countries, the Egyptians at an early period

arrived at a fixed expression of their religious feelings and of the

forms of their gods. Their original conceptions are unknown to us. The

oldest monuments, our earliest sources of information, present us with a

numerous assemblage of gods, and the conclusions drawn from these carry

us back to views far removed from primitive forms of worship. They

indicate a system already developed in the circle of the priests. We can

only attempt from the fragments of that system preserved in inscriptions

and manuscripts, and the very late accounts of the Greeks, to deduce

conclusions concerning the religious notions which originally

predominated.

The distinction in the nature of the upper and lower valley, already

referred to, cannot have been without influence upon the direction of

civic life among the Egyptians, and the formation of their religious

ideas. So far as we can tell, these developed independently at the same

time in the upper and lower country. In both districts peculiar forms

were retained at the most prominent centres of religious worship, until

after the union of the country they became amalgamated in all essential

points.

Memphis worshipped the god Ptah. The great sanctuary of the god at that

city was held to be as ancient as the city itself. So far back as our

knowledge extends, the Pharaohs were occupied with the extension and

adornment of this temple. Among the Greeks the god of Memphis was known

as Hephaestus: they tell us he was represented in the temple by a

dwarf-like image; and that similar images of the children of Ptah stood

in a part of the temple only entered by the priests.[34] The name

Hephaestus, and the further statement of the Greeks, that this god was

the father of the Sun-god, prove that in Ptah the Egyptians worshipped

not only fire, but the spirit of warmth and light generally; and that

they must have regarded him as the origin and source of light.

Manetho puts Ptah at the head of the dynasties of the gods. He ruled for

9,000 years before the other gods. Inscriptions name Ptah "the lord of

truth," the "father of truth," the "ruler of the sky," "the king of both

worlds." As the god of the light which shows everything in its true

form, he is the spirit of truth; as the spirit of the light in the sky,

he is the lord of heaven. The inscriptions also say that Ptah "moves the

egg of the sun and the moon;" he is called "the weaver of the

beginnings," the "god who rolls his egg in the sky." Consequently, to

the Egyptians Ptah was the mover of the luminaries, a formative,

creative spirit, and as he is called in the inscriptions "the father of

the father of the gods," he must have been to them the first and oldest

god, the beginning of the gods and of all things.

The Egyptians believed that a kind of beetle peculiar to their country

(_scarabaeus sacer_) was propagated without the female sex; they saw the

mode of its reproduction in the balls of dung which the beetles

occasionally pushed before them. Hence they consecrated this insect to

their god of beginning and creation, and on monuments and records we

find the god Ptah with a beetle on his shoulders, in the place of a

human head. As the god of the beginning he appears on monuments in the

shape of a child or dwarf; and again, as the unchangeable god, he is

wrapped in the casings of a mummy, with the symbols of dominion, the

whip and sceptre, or the so-called Nile-gauge, a ring with parallel

cross bars, in his hand, in order to denote him as the god who gives to

all things measure, order, and law. He is also coloured green, to

signify, as it would seem, that lie is a god favourable to vegetation,

and possessed of a fertilising power.

Thus Ptah was one of the forms under which the Egyptians invoked the

creator, the highest god. On a pillar of Memphis, now in the Berlin

Museum, belonging to the time of the nineteenth dynasty, he is called

"the only unbegotten begetter in the heaven and on the earth," "the god

who made himself to be god, who exists by himself, the double being, the

begetter of the first beginning." Other inscriptions and records denote

him as "the creator in heaven and on earth, who has made all things, the

lord of all that is, and is not."[35]

Below Memphis lay On, the city of the sun (Heliopolis). Here the spirit

of the sun, Ra, was the pre-eminent god. In Manetho's list Ra succeeds

Ptah in the kingdom. "The Egyptians," says Plutarch, "regard the sun as

the body of the beneficent power, the visible form of a being only

comprehensible to thought. The morning sun they represented as a

new-born child seated on a lotus leaf, and thrice each day--at sunrise,

noon, and sunset--they offered incense to Helius."[36] We also find that

the Egyptians represented the sun of the winter months as a little

child, the sun of the vernal equinox as a youth, that of the summer

solstice as a bearded man, and again, the sun of the autumnal equinox as

an old man.[37] Hence they looked at the yearly course of the sun under

the allegory of human life. Plutarch's remark about the morning sun

shows that they regarded the daily course of the sun from the same point

of view, and when he tells us that according to Egyptian story, Apopis

made war against the god of the sky,[38] his statements are confirmed by

the monuments. According to the inscriptions Ra is "revealed in the

abyss of the sky," he is throned "in the orb of the sun," "he moves his

egg." "A Supplication to Ra"--such are the words of a prayer--"who each

day by himself brings himself to a new birth. Ra has created all that is

in the abysses of the sky."[39] In the tombs of the Ramesids, at Thebes,

the course of the sun is represented by the hour of the day and night.

On the form of the blue outstretched goddess of the sky appears the boat

of the sun, for the Egyptians conceived the sun as navigating the air in

a skiff, as they navigated the Nile; and in the boat is Ra, a child with

finger in mouth at the first hour of the morning. As the day goes on the

child increases in size, and at every hour the spirits who lead the boat

are changed. In the hours of the afternoon the evil serpent, Apep, the

darkness, the Apopis of Plutarch, attempts to swallow the sun, but

twelve spirits draw the serpent by ropes to the side. In the hours of

the night the sun-god is inclosed in his shrine on the boat, which is

carried along by spirits changing every hour over the waters of the

under world to the east--just as the boats on the Nile are drawn against

the stream--so that he may again shine out in the east on the next

morning. The hieroglyphics accompanying the navigation of the night

hours contain seventy-four invocations of Ra in Amenti, _i.e._ in his

concealment. In a similar way the monuments of Edfu exhibit the growth

of the sun-god through the twelve hours of the day from a child to a

youth and a man, and an old man bowed with age, leaning upon a staff.

This last is called in the inscriptions, "The old man who becomes again

a child."[40]

The monuments exhibit Ra in red, with the sun's orb on his head, a

sceptre in one hand, and the symbol of life in the other. The cat, the

tawny bull, and the hawk are the chosen creatures of Ra; often he is

found on the monuments with the head of a hawk in the place of the human

head, or as a hawk carrying the sun's orb. All the entrances of the

temple and the pylons display the symbolical form of the deity, the

sun's orb, supported by two wings. From the sun-god the kings of Egypt

derived their might and power. They generally call themselves "the sons

of Ra," and they rule over Egypt as Ra rules over the world.

Hence we can assume that to the minds of the priests Ptah was

essentially the deity of beginning, the first originator of creation. Ra

again was the propagating and sustaining power of the divinity embodied

in the sun.

At Hermopolis (Ashmunein), besides Thoth, whom the Greeks compared to

their Hermes, and the inscriptions name the "Lord of divine truth," the

"scribe of truth," to whom the white Ibis with black neck and beak is

sacred, the "children of Ptah" were worshipped. These were eight gods in

four pairs. Owing to this worship Hermopolis was known to the Egyptians

as Pe-sesennu, _i.e._ "the city of reverence." These children of Ptah

seem to have been spirits of the elements. In an inscription at Edfu we

find, "The eight gods, the very great, who are from the beginning,

created before the gods, the children of Ptah, arising through him,

begotten of him, to take possession of the south and the north, to

create in the Thebaid, and fashion in the land of Memphis. When they

arose the stream flowed out from the young waters, the child of the

lotus flower rose up in the boat, the beautiful one, making this earth

bright by his beams."[41]

At Sais, at Buto, on the Sebennytic mouth, and at Bubastis (Tel Basta),

on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, female goddesses were worshipped. To

the feast of the goddess of Sais, whom the Greeks called Athene, the

Egyptians came from the whole country, as Herodotus tells us, to Sais,

and lighted lamps on the appointed night, and even those who did not

come to Sais lit lamps, so that lamps were burning throughout all

Egypt.[42] Jamblichus and Proclus tell us that the goddess of Sais, the

Neith of the Egyptians, was the mother of the sun-god; the inscriptions

call Neith "the cow which bore the sun," "ancient mother of the sun,"

"mother of the gods." Hence we may assume that Neith was associated with

Ptah, whose green colour she shares on the monuments; and that the

creative power of nature was personified in her under a female form. The

feast of lamps may have symbolised the birth of light, and its rise from

the darkness.[43] The goddess of Buto, who was also worshipped at

Letopolis, near Memphis, was compared by the Greeks with their goddess

Leto, whose child was Apollo, the spirit of light, because at Buto the

victorious god of light of the Egyptians, of whom we shall speak below,

was said to have grown up.[44]

The sanctuary of the goddess at Bubastis was, according to Herodotus'

account, the most delightful, though not the largest or most costly, in

the whole of Egypt. It was situated in the middle of the city, and could

be seen from every side. "Beyond the market-place a paved road, about

forty feet in width, leads to the shrine, which is overshadowed by trees

on both sides. The precincts, a place of about a stadium square, is

surrounded with a trench one hundred feet broad; this is connected with

the Nile, and also planted with trees. The portico is ten fathoms high,

and adorned with statues six cubits in height, and well worth

description. On the external walls pictures are everywhere engraved, and

the temple in which the statue of the goddess stands is also surrounded

by very lofty trees. At the festival of the goddess the Egyptians from

all the land go down in boats to Bubastis: in every boat is a number of

men and women; some of the men blow the flute; some of the women have

castanets, and strike them; the rest sing and clap their hands. The boat

touches at every city on the river bank; and here also the women sing

and strike their castanets, while others follow the women of the city

with shouts and raillery; others, again, dance; others expose

themselves. On arriving at Bubastis, they bring large offerings to the

goddess, and drink more wine at this festival than in all the rest of

the year. According to the accounts of the Egyptians, about 700,000 men

and women are collected at this festival, without counting children.[45]

Herodotus calls the goddess of Bubastis Artemis: her Egyptian name was

Bast and Pacht; and the city was called after her Pa-Bast, _i.e._ "abode

of Bast." On monuments this goddess has the sun's disk upon her head,

or, in the place of a human head, the head of a cat, which animal was

sacred to her. At Heliopolis there was a picture of Ra in the form of a

he-cat;[46] and in the inscription Pacht is called the daughter of Ra.

Ra was invoked to come to the help of his daughter, the holy she-cat,

who was panic-stricken by the snake which approached heaven in order to

tread upon the path of the sun-god, and to defile the limbs of the holy

she-cat.[47] In the sketches in the "Book of the Dead" we find a

she-cat, with the right forefoot upon the head of a serpent, and in the

left a broad knife, with which she is cutting off the head of the

serpent.[48] The account given by Herodotus of the customs observed at

the festival are confirmed from other sources. The monuments exhibit

musicians, whose music is accompanied by the audience with clapping of

the hands; and Plutarch describes the castanets of the Egyptians adorned

with the figure of a human-headed she-cat, the sound of which was

intended to scare away the evil spirit.[49]

In the upper country other deities were worshipped. At Thebes, Amun,

known to the Greeks as Ammon, took the place occupied by Ptah at

Memphis. Hecataeus of Abdera relates that the Egyptians identified their

supreme god with the universe, but the god was invisible and

concealed.[50] Amun, as a fact, signifies "the concealed" or "veiled."

The monuments of Thebes exhibit him as a creative god with the Phallus,

as a ruling deity either standing or sitting on a throne; on his royal

head-dress are two upright feathers, which to the Egyptians were the

symbol of dominion over the upper and under world, and in his hand are

the sceptre and the symbol of life. His colour is blue. By his side

stands the goddess Mut; the "mother," the "lady of darkness," as the

inscriptions[51] style her. She wears on her head the vulture, or the

crown of Upper Egypt. She is also found on inscriptions with the head of

a vulture, the bird sacred to her, instead of a human head; and in

pictures of battles the vulture of Mut hovers over the Pharaoh as the

symbol of protection. The son of Ammon and Mut is Shu (Sosis, Sos), the

spirit of the atmosphere, "the bearer of heaven," as the inscriptions

name him.[52] This (Thinis) and Abydus were the chief seats of his

worship. In Manetho's list the reign of Shu follows on those of Ptah and

Ra.

In the place of Ammon we often find another divinity, Tum (Atmu.) This

was the sun-god in a special form. In Upper Egypt the spirit of the sun

was invoked under the names Tum and Mentu. Of these names the first

signified the declining sun, the sun of the west, the sun of

concealment, the sun in the under world; the second the rising sun, the

sun of the east, the sun of the day, the bright sun-god. Tum also wears

the double crown, and the two feathers of Ammon, or in the place of them

the two royal serpents round his head-dress; he also is lord of both

kingdoms. Like Ptah, he is "the father of beginnings, who begot

himself," "the father of the gods;" like him also he is formed with the

beetle in the place of the human head; as the creative god he is the

creator of his name, _i.e._ of his properties; he is the primaeval night,

the darkness of the beginning, before light existed. To him also

belonged the primaeval water. According to Plutarch, the Egyptians

believed that the sun arose out of moisture, that it sprang up out of

water, and was nourished by it, and therefore water was the beginning

and origin of things. This account is confirmed by the monuments. As

light in the process of production, Tum is called "Ra in his egg;" and

as the spirit of light arising out of darkness and water, the horologe

and the sun-dial are his insignia.[53]

At Coptus, in Upper Egypt, a phallic god was worshipped under the name

Chem, whom the Greeks compared to their god Pan, and at the falls of

Syene a ram-headed god, Chnum (Chnemu, Chnuphis, Kneph), who in

inscriptions is named the lord of the "inundations," of the "outpouring

of the waters."[54] As a giver of fruits, the colour of his pictures on

the monuments is generally green. In the eyes of the inhabitants of

Upper Egypt Chnum was, according to the account of Plutarch, an

uncreated eternal spirit.[55] We must therefore regard him as a peculiar

form of the life-giving god. Chnum was often united with Ammon, inasmuch

as the latter assumes the attributes of Chnum, the ram's horns or even

head.[56] As the worship of Ammon passed beyond Egypt up the Nile as far

as Meroe, so the worship of Ammon-Chnum spread westward in the Libyan

desert as far as the oasis of Siwa, where the inhabitants were called by

the Greeks Ammonians. Here, even now, in the vicinity of a clear pool

surrounded by lofty palms, the remains of a considerable temple are to

be seen, with hieroglyphic inscriptions, and the picture of the

ram-headed deity.[57]

The worship of the goddess Hathor was widely diffused both in Upper and

Lower Egypt. The most renowned seats of the cultus were Aphroditopolis,

near Memphis; Edfu and Dendera, in Upper Egypt. She is called in the

inscriptions "the lady of the dance and revel," and is represented on

the monuments with fetters and a tambourine in her hands. From this and

from her Grecian name we may conclude that she was the Egyptian goddess

of love, of the enchaining passion; but though we find in her form

hints of a more individual and lively fancy, the natural power of

maternity in general is by far the most prominent conception. She is

represented with the horns of a cow--her sacred animal--on her head, and

between them the moon's disk; or entirely as a cow. In the rock-temple

at Abusimbel, which the wife of Ramses II. dedicated to Hathor, she is

represented as a cow in a boat, over which water-plants meet in arches.

To this cow the king and queen offer flowers and fruits.[58] In the

temple at Edfu, a structure of the Ptolemies, 360 local forms of Hathor

are said to have been enumerated and among these seven were especially

prominent.

It was the beneficent, creative, and life-giving powers of nature which

the Egyptians worshipped in these divinities--water, light, the clear

heaven, the sun, the powers of reproduction and birth. But the phenomena

and the powers presented by nature were not in every case beneficent.

Night swallowed up day, and death swallowed up life. Beside the waters

and the black fruitful soil of Egypt lay the boundless yellow desert,

from which storms blew the sand into the green valley. In the hot

months, the sun blazed with a devouring and scorching heat, the flowers

withered; and the powers of nature failed in the winter. Thus in the

life of nature there was a strife between malignant and beneficent

powers, a strife in which nevertheless the beneficent powers always

gained the upper hand. Out of night arose a new day; out of the death of

nature in winter blossomed forth new increase, fruitfulness, and life.

Through this conception of a strife raging between the healing and

destructive powers of nature, by regarding nature as moving in a

circular course from life to death, and death to life, the Egyptians

succeeded in making a great advance in their religious ideas. They

personified this strife in certain divine forms. The beneficent power,

the divinity of life was allowed to succumb, and then to rise from

apparent death into a new life. Only for a moment could the evil powers

vanquish the good; the eternal victory remained with the gods of

beneficence.

After Helius, Hephaestus, Ammon, and Hermes, says Diodorus,[59] Cronos

and his sister Rhea ruled. These became the parents of Isis and Osiris,

of Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite. Plutarch tells us that, according to

the legend of the Egyptians, Rhea and Cronos were the parents of Osiris

and Isis, of Typhon and Nephthys. Osiris ruled happily over Egypt; but

Typhon conspired against him with seventy-two associates; they inclosed

Osiris in a chest and threw it into the Nile, and the stream carried it

down to the sea. When Isis heard of it, she put on mourning, and sought

with lamentation the body of Osiris. At last she found the chest in the

neighbourhood of Byblus, where the sea had cast it up; she mourned over

the corpse and carried it back to Egypt. And when Horus, the son of Isis

and Osiris, who grew up in Buto, came to his full strength, he prepared

to avenge the wrong which Typhon had done to his father and mother.

Thrice he fought with Typhon; the battle raged for many days, and Horus

conquered.[60]

According to the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus, Osiris (Dionysus)

and Horus (the Apollo of the Greeks) were the last rulers of the divine

race.[61] In the list of Manetho, Ptah was followed in the kingdom by

Ra and Shu (or, according to the Theban account, by Ammon, Tum, and

Shu), Cronos, Osiris, Typhon, and Horus. These then are the younger

gods; the evidence of the monuments shows that they were connected by

race with each other, but not akin to the three gods who ruled before

them. And as we also find that the five supplementary days added in the

Egyptian year to the original number of 360 (p. 29) were dedicated to

these gods, the first to Osiris, the second to Horus, the third to

Typhon, the fourth to Isis, the fifth to Nephthys--the natural

conclusion is that these gods were of later origin.[62] On the other

hand it is clear that the belief in Osiris and his power had already

arisen at the time when the great pyramids were erected.

The two gods at the head of this circle, whom Diodorus and Plutarch call

Cronos and Rhea, were known to the Egyptians under the names Seb and

Nut.[63] They are the spirits of the earth and sky. Osiris himself in

the inscriptions and records is called "the king of the gods," "the lord

of unnumbered days," "the king of life," "the regulator of eternity."

The inscription on the lid of a coffin runs thus--"Ra gave thee the

richly streaming light which gleams in thy eyes. Shu gave thee the

pleasant air which in thy lifetime was inhaled in thy nostrils. Seb gave

thee all fruits whereon thou livest. Osiris gave thee the Nile-water

whereon thou livest."[64] As a life-giving god, the colour of Osiris is

green; his sacred tree is the evergreen tamarisk; and his sacred bird a

kind of heron, distinguished by two long feathers at the back of the

head. Osiris is always represented in a human form, and with a human

head.

The chief seats of the worship of Osiris were Philae and Abydus, in Upper

Egypt. In the temple on the island of Philae, formed by the Nile above

Syene, the history of the god was represented.[65] On a little island

close by, where only the priests might tread, lay the grave of Osiris,

overshadowed by tamarisks;[66] here were libations offered to him, and

Diodorus tells us that in Upper Egypt no more sacred form of oath was

known than the oath by Osiris who rests at Philae.[67] In the temple of

Osiris at Abydus (Arabat-el-Medfuneh) the wealthy Egyptians sought to be

buried, that they might rest in the vicinity of the god's grave. In

Lower Egypt Osiris[68] was worshipped in the cities of Memphis,

Sais,[69] and Busiris. At Busiris (the name Pe-osiri meant "abode of

Osiris"), on the Sebennytic arm of the Nile, in the middle of the

Delta--it was the chief city of the district of Busiris--was situated

the largest temple of Isis, as we learn from Herodotus, and here also,

according to other evidence, the grave of Osiris was to be found.[70]

Here the whole land worshipped this god and goddess.[71] Thousands of

men and women assembled, according to Herodotus, made lamentation for

Osiris, and brought an offering to the greatest goddess (Isis). Amid

prayers the bull was flayed, the thighs and other parts cut out, and a

part of the belly filled with bread, honey, and incense; these were

drenched plentifully with oil, and set on fire, and so long as the

sacrifice burned the people lamented. When the lamentation ended, the

remainder of the sacrifice was eaten.[72] Plutarch says that with Osiris

the Egyptians lamented the receding of the Nile, the ceasing of the cool

north wind, the death of vegetation, and decrease in the length of the

day. On the 17th Athyr, the day on which Typhon slew Osiris (on this day

the sun passes through the Scorpion), the priests instituted rites of

lamentation, and, among other things, as a sign of the sorrow of Isis,

they exhibited for four days a gilded cow, covered with a black veil of

byssus--for the cow was the Egyptian symbol of this goddess. On the

19th Athyr, in the night, they went down to the sea, and the priests

brought out the chest, and the congregation cried, "Osiris is

found!"[73] Moreover, according to Plutarch, the holy rites represented

the burial of Osiris: in these the wood was cut for the chest, the linen

torn for cerements, and libations poured. A serpent was also slain in

effigy.[74] About the time of the winter solstice, as Plutarch tells us

in another place, the Egyptians carried "the cow," _i.e._ Isis, seven

times round the temple, and this procession was called the search for

Osiris.[75] On the monuments the Isis worshipped with Osiris appears

generally in a youthful shape, with the horns of a cow on her head, the

moon's disk between the horns, with the flower-sceptre and symbol of

life in her hands. The inscriptions denote her as the "royal consort,"

the "great goddess." An image in which she was represented in the form

of a cow was seen by Herodotus in the royal palace of the last Pharaohs

at Sais. "In a beautifully-adorned chamber lay the wooden image of a

cow, resting on her knees, not larger than a full-grown cow. The body

was covered with a purple robe; on the neck and head could be seen the

thick gilding, and between the horns a golden disk. Every day incense

was burned before the image; and at night a lamp was kindled before it.

Once a year," continues Herodotus, "this cow was carried out into the

open, when the Egyptians lamented the god, whose name I do not think

proper to mention now."[76]

Osiris and Isis, the spirits of blessing and life, were attacked by

Typhon. Plutarch observes that the Egyptians called Typhon Set,[77] and

this statement is confirmed by the inscriptions. The colour of Set was

burning red,[78] like the glowing sun in the dust of the desert; the ass

was the sacred animal of this god, and a peculiarly-formed animal his

symbol on the monuments. In poisonous serpents also the Egyptians saw

this destructive deity, and they brought the crocodile and hippopotamus

into association with him. The third of the five additional days of the

year (p. 29), which belonged to Set, was to the Egyptians an unlucky

day.[79] On a papyrus he is called "the almighty destroyer and

blighter,"[80] and with this agrees the statement of Plutarch, that

Typhon, according to the Egyptians, had filled the whole earth and

sea--which they call "the foam of Typhon"--with evils; and they

considered all animals, trees, and vegetables, all incidents of a

harmful and destructive nature to be works, parts and actions of

Typhon.[81]

The evil god can limit and overcome the beneficent power of nature, but

not for ever. Osiris had left behind a young son, who could hold Typhon

in check, though unable to suppress him entirely. Horus, as Plutarch

tells us, was born about the time of the winter solstice, and the

festival of the delivery of Isis was celebrated at the time of the

vernal equinox.[82] On the monuments we find Horus (Har), "the avenger

of his father Osiris," as the inscriptions call him, represented as a

naked child, with finger on lip, sitting on a lotus-leaf, or on a crook,

the symbol of dominion. Hence he is the young Horus, the Harpocrates of

the Greeks, the Harpechruti--_i.e._, "Har, the child"--of the Egyptians.

Then, according to the legend, he grows up at Buto; he becomes a

handsome youth, the strong Horus (Har-ver, Arveris of the Greeks), the

"great helper," the "pillar of the world." In the temple at Philae we see

him pouring libations before the bier of Osiris; on other monuments he

guides the sun's bark through the hours of the day.[83] At Hermopolis,

as Plutarch tells us, a hippopotamus was to be seen, on which a

hawk--the sacred bird of Horus, in which form the god is often

represented--fought with a serpent; and, according to the belief of the

Egyptians, Typhon escaped from Horus in the shape of a crocodile.[84]

The monuments represent Horus on the sun-boat in the act of stabbing a

serpent with a human head,[85] _i.e._, Apopis, the serpent Apep; or

standing on crocodiles with serpents in his hands; or as a winged sun's

disk contending with a hippopotamus. In an invocation of Horus,

belonging to the fourth century B.C., we find the following: "Come to me

quickly on this day to guide the holy bark (the sun's-boat), to force

back all lions to the land of Egypt, and all crocodiles into the Nile.

Shamelessness and sin (?) come and appear upon earth; but when Horus is

invoked he destroys them. All mankind rejoice when they see the sun.

They praise the son of Osiris, and the serpent turns back."[86] Hence to

the Egyptians Horus was the triumphant god of light (Har-phre,

Horus-sun), who subdues gloom, and winter, and drought. As a victorious

god arousing fresh life, he gives to the kings of Egypt life and

victory. The Greeks called the Egyptian Ra Helius, and Horus Apollo; and

these names correspond to the Egyptian conception of these deities. The

chief seats of the worship of Horus were the two cities which the Greeks

called the great and little cities of Apollo (Edfu and Kus) and Ombus.

At Edfu Hathor was worshipped beside Horus (p. 52).

Plutarch tells us that Isis, in the minds of the Egyptians, was the

female receptive part of nature. Osiris was the light, Typhon the

darkness, the obscuration of the sun and the moon; Osiris was the

fruit-giving Nile-water, Typhon the salt and barren sea; Osiris was

moisture, Typhon drought, the parching wind, which overcomes and

consumes moisture; Osiris was health, Typhon disease; Osiris was the

orderly, unchanging; Typhon the passionate, irrational, and giant-like;

disturbances, blight, and tempest.[87] It is incorrect, Plutarch

observes, in conclusion, to call water, the sun, or the earth and sky

Osiris and Isis; and not less so to call the glowing sun and hot wind

Typhon. If we merely ascribe to Typhon all that is immoderate or

irregular in these, whether in the way of excess or defect, and hold in

reverence and honour all that is orderly and good and useful as the work

of Isis, as the image, likeness, and essence of Osiris, we shall hardly

go wrong.[88]

Thus there can be little doubt about the meaning of the myth. When the

Nile receded and the sirocco from the south drove back the refreshing

north wind, when the hot days--for these are the seventy-two

fellow-conspirators of Typhon--parched up the soil; then had Typhon

struck down Osiris. Then, as Plutarch says, "the Egyptians bewailed the

decay of the fruits, and prayed the gods to send new in the place of

those that were gone, and allow them to spring forth again." When the

seed was cast into the ground, the Egyptians buried Osiris: but the

sacred rites were an imitation of the sufferings of Isis, and the

incidents which occurred when the body was deposited in the tomb. The

progressive decay of productive power towards the north during the hot

days, and the winter, which was indicated in the myth by the carrying of

the corpse of Osiris to the sea, and the custom of carrying the chest to

the coast (p. 57), is part of the Egyptian conception; that Isis

discovers the body at Byblus on the Phenician coast is probably an

invention of the Greeks, who confounded the Phenician horned goddess

Astarte, Ashtaroth Karnaim, with Isis. When Egypt was again fertilised

by the inundation, when the days began to lengthen after the winter

solstice, when the sun shone with fresh brightness, and the new fruit

budded forth, then Horus, the child born about the winter solstice,

waxed strong at Buto in the north of Egypt--then he overcame Typhon. The

renewed power of the sun, the returning life of nature, the fresh

blessings of the new year--these are the avenging son of Osiris.

When the creative and receptive powers of nature had thus been

comprehended in the forms of Osiris and Isis, the divinities in whom

creative power and receptivity had hitherto been perceived naturally

coalesced with these forms to a greater or less degree. Thus Ptah of

Memphis, Tum of Thebes, the sun-god of Heliopolis, are combined with

Osiris (the title Ptah-Osiris is not uncommon in the inscriptions,)

though they are also retained as separate deities. Thus also Isis is

identified with Neith of Sais, with Mut of Thebes, with Hathor, with

Bast,[89] the goddess of Bubastis. Horus, again, is identified with Chem

and Ra, though at the same time his personality as the youthful,

vigorous spirit of light is strongly marked. Plutarch is certainly right

in his remark that the Egyptians regard Osiris as the personification of

everything in heaven and the under world.[90] All the other deities were

transfigurations and manifestations of Osiris, mere modifications of his

nature. When Osiris is called the soul of Ra,[91] this can hardly have

any other meaning but this, that the appearance of the sun-god in the

visible world is an incarnation of the invisible nature of Osiris.

The Egyptians often represented their deities with the heads, or in the

shape of, the animals sacred to them; that is, they recognised the

nature of the deities who were primarily conceived under the form of

men, in the races of the beasts which they allotted to them. To the

Egyptians these animals must have appeared so closely and intimately

connected with the deity to which they belonged, that the nature of the

deity was better expressed and made more visible in the shape of the

beast than in the shape of man. We must assume that the predominance of

a distinct mark or characteristic property in the races of animals, that

their simple, uniformly instinctive life created this conception in the

mind of the Egyptians, to whom a fixed and unalterable course of action,

an unchanging and typical nature, was the ideal. The force of nature,

the regular recurrence of certain phenomena, coalesced in the Egyptian

mind with the blind, unchanging action of animals. Yet animals were also

seen to possess freedom and movement, and an individual existence. This

combination of the type and the individual must have seemed to the

Egyptians to correspond to the nature of their deities. The mystery of

life, the natural law, which lay at the base of their worship, must for

them have reached its most distinct and lively realisation in these

animals.

The bull is the sacred animal of the creative gods: the cow of the

goddesses of birth and receptivity; the ram is sacred to Chnum; the hawk

and the cat to the deities of light and the sun; the beetle to Ptah; a

kind of heron to Osiris; the vulture to Ptah and Isis; a kind of ibis to

Thoth; the dog-ape to Anubis, the "ruler in the west;[92]" the crocodile

to the god Sebek, who was worshipped at Arsinoe, &c., &c. Herodotus

tells us that when a cat died in a house, all the inhabitants shaved

their eyebrows; and that at conflagrations the Egyptians directed all

their attention to saving the cats, not to quenching the flames, and if,

in spite of their efforts, a cat leapt into the flames and was burnt,

the Egyptians made a great lamentation.[93] "To each of the races of the

sacred animals," says Diodorus, "a certain piece of land is consecrated,

the products of which suffice for the food and tending of the race.

Those entrusted with the care of each race have to feed them. To feed

the hawks they cut up pieces of flesh, and call loudly to the birds till

they come and take their food. The cats they coax by giving them bread

and milk, or chopped fish from the Nile, and thus provide them with

suitable food. These duties they do not scruple to perform before the

whole people; on the contrary, they are proud of them as of the highest

offices which they can attain to in the service of the gods. With

special symbols to distinguish them, they proceed through town and

country, and as it is known from the symbols what animal it is whose

servants are approaching, all who meet them bow the knee and pay homage.

If one of the animals dies, it is wrapped in a costly covering, and,

amid loud lamentations and beating of the breast, it is carried away to

embalment. Steeped in oil of cedar, or any other kind remarkable for its

scent and powers of preservation, the corpse is then buried in the holy

sepulchres. Anyone who intentionally kills a sacred animal is punished

with death; and everyone who has caused the death of an ibis or a cat,

intentionally or unintentionally, must die, and is often killed in the

most cruel manner, without any sentence passed upon him, by the

collected mob. So deeply rooted is the reverence for sacred animals in

the feeling of the people, so persistently does everyone cling to the

worship of them, that even at the time when Ptolemy was not yet declared

an ally by the Romans, and the nation was most anxious to pay respect to

visitors from Italy, and to give no cause for war, when a Roman had

unintentionally killed a cat, the mob gathered at his house, and neither

the officers sent by the king to quiet them, nor the prevailing awe of

the Romans, could protect him from their vengeance. This fact I have not

received from hearsay: I was in Egypt and saw the occurrence. But what

is done for the animals which are kept in the temples is easy to

narrate, but difficult for anyone to believe who has not seen it."[94]

Among the races of animals which, according to Egyptian belief, shared

in the nature of the deities to which they were sacred, were certain

pre-eminent specimens. These were recognised by certain signs by the

priests, and passed for a special incarnation of the deity. They were

brought into his temple, and there worshipped and prayed to as his

manifestation. The most sacred among these selected animals was Apis,

the bull, in the temple of Ptah, at Memphis. According to the account of

Herodotus, the Egyptians believed that a ray of light from heaven had

impregnated the cow, which brought forth an Apis: by Plutarch, the

impregnation is said to take place by a ray of the moon.[95] The priests

recognized Apis in a black bull, which had a triangular white spot on

the forehead, a fleshy growth under the tongue in the form of the sacred

beetle of Ptah, white spots on his back in the shape of an eagle, and

bi-coloured hairs in the tail.[96] When an Apis was found, he was, says

Diodorus, in the first place brought for forty successive days to the

meadow of the "city of the Nile" (Nilopolis), where women were shown to

him, who were afterwards excluded from the sight of the Apis. Then he

was conveyed on a boat in a golden shrine like a god to the temple of

Ptah, at Memphis. There he was bathed in the holy place, and anointed,

and the most precious frankincense was constantly burned before him. He

received the most beautiful garments, the richest bedding-places, and

the most handsome cows as his "bed-fellows"; the most distinguished men

provided him with the best food at a very great expense. When the Apis

died of old age he was honoured with a splendid funeral. "When, on the

death of Alexander, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, made himself master of

Egypt, it happened that the Apis died, and the person entrusted with his

care not only spent his own large fortune upon his burial, but borrowed,

in addition, fifty talents from Ptolemy. Even in my own times certain

feeders of the sacred animals have spent not less than one hundred

talents on a single funeral."[97]

"The Egyptians," Diodorus remarks, "are of opinion that the soul of the

dead Osiris passed into this bull, and thus continues among them, and

will so continue among their descendants." Plutarch says that the Apis

at Memphis was an image of the soul of Osiris. According to the usual

account of the priests, Osiris and Apis were one; for they taught that

the Apis was to be regarded as a fair image of the soul of Osiris.

Strabo tells us, "The bull Apis, which is revered as a god, is the same

as Osiris. The temple in which the Apis was kept stands beside the

temple of Hephaestus (Ptah). There is also a temple of Serapis in that

city, before which we saw sphinxes, buried in the sand, some to the

middle, some to the neck."[98] Evidence from other sources, no less than

the monuments, confirms these accounts of Diodorus and Plutarch. The

monuments exhibit the Apis with the sun's disk and the royal serpent

between his horns, and Greek papyri tell us that the keeper with whom

the Apis was placed was known as the "Herdman of Osorapi," _i.e._ of

Osiris-Apis (Osarhapi).[99] We may assume that this Osorapi was the

Serapis or Sarapis of the Greeks, and the temple of Serapis a temple of

Osorapi. The sphinxes buried in sand at Memphis have been discovered on

the plateau on which the inhabitants buried their dead to the west of

the ruins of this city. They are found here in two rows as often before

the entrance of temples between Abusir and Sakkarah. It is by following

this path of sphinxes that the discoverers were recently enabled to find

the ruins of the temple of Serapis, _i.e._ the temple of the grave of

Osiris-Apis, and the sepulchral chambers of the Apis-bulls hewn in the

rocks around it. The oldest of the tombs hitherto opened belongs,

according to the inscriptions, to an Apis buried in the time of

Amenophis III. (1524-1488 B.C.). Above ground rises a massive structure,

truncated at the top, and decorated with reliefs. This is the mortuary

chapel. A sloping passage, the entrance to which lies before this

structure, leads beneath the earth to a sepulchral chamber, where stands

a sarcophagus with the mummy of the Apis. The relief on the structure

above exhibits the king bringing a drink-offering to the Apis. Beside

the picture of the bull we read, "The living Osiris, the lord of the

sky: he is Tum (p. 51): his feathers are upon him: he gives life for

evermore." On the sarcophagus of an Apis buried in a similar tomb in the

reign of Horus (1455-1443 B.C.), we read:--"Apis-Osiris, the great deity

who dwells in Amenti, the ever-living lord." King Ramses II. (1388-1322

B.C.), in the second half of his reign, caused a broad gallery to be

excavated under the rock, on both sides of which chambers of about

twenty feet high were subsequently cut out as occasion required; in

these were placed the remains of the dead Apis-bulls in sarcophagi of

basalt or granite. When the gallery of Ramses was no longer sufficient,

Psammetichus I. caused a gallery still larger and more beautiful to be

excavated, and provided with handsome cells. After Darius had extended

this second gallery, the bodies of the bulls were buried in the chambers

of it down to the times of the latest Ptolemies. As yet sixty-four tombs

in all have been discovered; but of these only four were uninjured. All

the rest had been already opened by the Arabs, plundered, and in part

destroyed. The inscriptions on the tombs in the galleries give the same

representation of the Apis as the older sepulchres. He is "the Osiris

again restored to life," the "revived Apis of Ptah," "the living Apis,

which is Osiris abiding in Amenti," the "second Ptah." On a sarcophagus

we read:--"Here is Osiris Apis, who dwells in Amenti, the great God, the

eternal Lord, the ruler for all time." Another inscription remarks "that

he had been sought for three months in the valleys of Upper Egypt, and

on the islands of Lower Egypt. When found he had been brought to his

throne in the temple, to his father Ptah, in such and such a year, on

such and such a day. The happy duration of his life had been

six-and-twenty years; then the deity had been carried to burial, as he

had established himself in the good Amenti in order to unite himself on

his eternal throne with the house of centuries." Or, as it is said in

another inscription, "the holiness of Apis has been brought to unite

himself with the good Amenti."[100]

By this constantly renewed incarnation in the form of a bull, the emblem

of generation, the god of life gave the Egyptians a guarantee for the

continuance of his grace, and the perpetuation of their life in this

world and the next. Whether other forms of incarnation beside this were

ascribed to the god cannot be determined.

At the time when the Nile began to rise, or shortly before it, there

appeared in Egypt from year to year a peculiar kind of heron,

distinguished by two long feathers on the back of the head.[101] This

was known to the Egyptians as Bennu. This bird, which announced or

caused the fertilisation or new life of the land, could not but belong

to the god of life. The whole race, or a select specimen, appears in

special connection with Osiris, and the temple at Heliopolis. In the

oldest portions of the Book of the Dead, which belong to the time of the

Amenemha and Sesurtesen, we find, "I am that great Bennu of On"

(Heliopolis); and the commentary adds, "Bennu is Osiris, viz., the

Osiris in On."[102] The inscriptions say of the great Bennu that "it was

self-begotten," that "it caused the divisions of time to arise."[103]

This production of himself signifies the creative power of Osiris, and

the origin of the seasons might well be attributed to the bird which

regularly appeared announcing the return of the period of fertilization.

With the cultus of the Bennu at Heliopolis is connected the story of the

phoenix. Herodotus tells us that he was informed by the inhabitants of

Heliopolis that a bird, which, if it resembled the pictures, was

gold-coloured and red, and like an eagle in shape and size, came from

Arabia to their city once in every 500 years, and buried the corpse of

his father in myrrh in the sanctuary of the sun-god.[104] From later

accounts we learn that the phoenix, on reaching the age of 500 years,

prepared a funeral pile of spices, and burned himself upon it; then he

recreated himself, and carried the remains of his old body to

Heliopolis.[105] Tacitus says: "In the consulship of Paulus Fabius and

Lucius Vitellius (_i.e._ in the year 34 A.D.) after a lapse of

centuries, the phoenix appeared in Egypt. This bird, which was sacred

to the sun, returned after an interval of 500 years, according to the

most common accounts; according to others after an interval of 1461

years. The first phoenix appeared in the reign of Sesostris; the

second under Amasis; the third in the time of the third Ptolemy; and as

there was only a lapse of 250 years between this Ptolemy and the reign

of Tiberius, some regarded the last phoenix as a spurious one."[106]

AElian remarks: "The Egyptians are not agreed when the 500 years are

completed; and the priests were at variance whether the bird would

appear then or later, and when he ought to come; but amid their

dissensions the bird suddenly appeared at the right time."[107] Pliny

informs us that the cycle of the great year was connected with the life

of this bird, and with his return the stars came again into their old

position.[108] Horapollo maintains that the phoenix was a symbol of

the sun, and signified one who returned after a long time from a far

country.[109] There is no doubt, therefore, that the alleged appearance

of the phoenix signified to the Egyptians the close of an astronomical

period. On the monuments the planet Venus is described as the "star of

Bennu-Osiris." As the morning star announced the day, the light

returning out of darkness, it could easily be appropriated to Osiris,

and that period might be connected with the cycles of the planet

Venus.[110]

The selected cats of the sun-god and his daughter, the goddess of

Bubastis, the hawk of Horus, the ibis of Thoth, the vulture of Mut, were

regarded by the Egyptians with no less veneration than the bulls of

Osiris. In a hymn to a male cat, which was kept for Ra at

Heliopolis--the hymn is to be found on a memorial pillar of the fourth

century B.C.--we read: "Thy head is the head of the sun-god; thy nose is

the nose of Thoth, the twice mighty lord of Hermopolis. Thy ears are the

ears of Osiris, who hears the voice of all who call upon him; thy mouth

is the mouth of the god Tum, the lord of life, he has preserved thee

from every stain. Thy heart is the heart of Ptah; he has purified thee

from every stain of evil in thy members: thy teeth are the teeth of the

god Chunsu (the moon-god). Thy thighs are the thighs of the god Horus,

the avenger of his father Osiris, who has retaliated upon Set the

mischief he purposed against Osiris."[111] Selected crocodiles--and even

the crocodile was worshipped, at least in some regions, as in the

Thebais and around the lake of Moeris--were to be found at Thebes and

Arsinoe. "For both these animals," says Herodotus "(and they are so tame

that they allow themselves to be touched), the priests put ornaments of

glass and gold in their ears, and bracelets on their fore-feet, and give

them the best of food both of meal and from the sacrifices, and attend

to them with the utmost care. When they die they are embalmed, and

buried in the sacred tombs."[112] Strabo, who travelled through Egypt

more than four hundred years later than Herodotus, narrates that a

sacred crocodile was kept in the lake of Moeris, which was tame to the

priests. He was fed with the bread, wine, and flesh brought to him by

visitors. "Our host," Strabo continues, "a man of distinction at

Arsinoe, who showed us the sacred things of the city, took cakes, roast

meat, and a drink mixed with honey, and went with us to the lake. On the

shore lay the crocodile; the priests went up to him, two of them opened

his jaws; and the third put in first the cakes, then the meat, and last

of all he gave him the drink. Then the crocodile ran into the water and

swam to the opposite bank. Another stranger came with similar presents:

the priests took them, ran round the lake and offered them to the

crocodile, when they had found him, in the same manner as before."[113]

Clement of Alexandria describes the glory of the Egyptian temples, and

then continues thus: "The innermost shrine is veiled with a curtain of

cloth of gold; when the priest removes the veil you see a cat, a

crocodile, or a serpent of the land rolling on a purple coverlet."

According to the account of Herodotus, the dead cats were embalmed in

sacred tombs at Bubastis, the hawks at Buto, the ibis at

Hermopolis.[114] Mummies of cats have been discovered at Thebes and

Sheikhassan; mummies of bulls, cows, jackals, dogs, and vultures at

Thebes and Sioot; of hawks and ibises at Thebes, Hermopolis, Abydus, and

Memphis; of crocodiles at Thebes and Manfalut.[115]

This reverence for beasts, the excessive regard for the nourishment of

the sacred kinds and the preservation of their bodies, the offering of

prayers to them, the worship of bulls, birds, and crocodiles as living

gods, the royal honours with which these selected examples were buried,

would of necessity be regarded as a very rude superstition or degraded

fetichism, hardly compatible with the general level of civilisation and

culture in the country, had not the Egyptians united a deeper feeling

with their worship of animals. In the living and yet typical forms of

beasts as contrasted with the deadness of nature, they saw not only

creations of the deities, but manifestations of the divine life itself.

The consecrated race of animals participated in the nature of the god to

whom it belonged, and the specimens in the temples were an unbroken

series of incarnations of the deity.

In a different sense from the sacred animals, man also was in the eyes

of the Egyptians a manifestation of the divine life and nature. If we

set aside the position of the kings (see below), we find no indication

that man was regarded as the incarnation of particular deities or their

attributes. Yet man had a share in the immortality of the gods; and he

who studied and desired the divine was thought by his bodily death to

arrive at a complete divine existence. The primary result of this

feeling was that the body must be preserved as the vehicle of

personality even when life and soul have left it; it must be protected

from decay and ruin and any external disturbance by nature or man.

Beyond the reach of beasts of prey, safe from the enemy and the

destroyer, the corpses must rest uncorrupted and uninjured in cool,

secure, inaccessible, unpolluted, indestructible graves. No nation has

devoted so much care and labour to the preservation of the corpses,

whether of men or of sacred animals, as the Egyptians. It was almost the

first duty of the living to attend to the dead. And with his body must

be preserved all that the deceased person had done or acquired in life:

his occupation, his actions must live on in the grave, like his corpse.

Pictures in his tomb must represent his life, and inscriptions must give

an account of it. "The Egyptians," says Diodorus, "speak of the

dwellings of the living as a lodging; but of the tombs of the dead as

eternal habitations, because the dead pass an endless time in Hades.

Hence they bestow less toil upon their houses; but their tombs they

furnish in a most extraordinary manner."[116]

The tombs are always turned towards the west, and are deeply hollowed

out in soil, or hewn in the rocks of the Libyan mountains. Those of the

wealthier sort generally consist of two chambers, an upper and a lower,

or a front and a back one. The upper or front chamber is furnished with

a description of the life of the dead person, his possessions, his

office, his occupation, and the most important results of his life

exhibited in relief and pictures. It served as a chapel in which the

offerings to the dead were made. In the lower or hinder chamber lay the

corpse. The corpses of the poorer inhabitants found their resting-place

in the common sepulchres. The preservation of the corpse was

accomplished in various ways. Either the entrails were taken out through

an aperture and placed in separate vessels, or the corpse was protected

against corruption by the injection of various substances; or finally it

was allowed to lie for a considerable time in saltpetre.

Like the embalmment and the tomb, the cerements and the coffin were more

or less costly, according to the rank and wealth of the deceased. The

dead person was placed in a receptacle adapted to the shape of the

corpse, provided with a mask to represent his face, and adorned with

inscriptions and pictures. On the breast was generally depicted the

beetle of Ptah, or an open eye, the symbol of Osiris. This receptacle

was then placed in two or more coffins, each inclosing the other, which

were made of more or less costly wood. Rich persons added to their

coffins the stone sarcophagus, a hollow block of granite, the heavy lid

of which was then made so fast to the lower part that it could not be

opened without destroying the whole.

The sarcophagus was carried to the sepulchre in solemn procession, led

by the temple-servants, with the necessary implements, and the bull

destined for sacrifice to the dead. Next were seen the implements used

by the deceased in his lifetime; the insignia of his order, if he had

been a priest, or in any office; or, if he had held any military

command, his chariot followed. After this came the waiting-women, hired

for this purpose according to the custom of the East; and men with

palm-branches, the servants of the dead, and the priests; last of all

followed the sarcophagus on a boat--for the soul of the dead passed

like the sun-god on a boat to the under world. This boat was on rollers,

and drawn by oxen. The procession was closed by the mourners of the

family and the friends. When the bull had been sacrificed and

frankincense burned to the gods, libations were poured in honour of the

dead. He was praised, as Diodorus assures us, not because he was born of

a noble race, but because he had been carefully educated and well

instructed, because he had been pious towards the gods, and had lived a

just and sober life. Then the kinsfolk implored the gods to receive the

dead into the society of the good. The accompanying multitude joined in

the prayer, and extolled the faith of the deceased, who now would for

ever pass his life in the company of the good.[117] The coffin was then

brought into the upper chamber, and from thence, when the ceremonies

were completed, it was carried to its proper resting-place, and placed

on the west side of it; the place was then closed and sealed.

According to the Egyptian story, Osiris was not slain by Typhon. He did

not die; he was only taken away from men, as Diodorus says;[118] he

descended into the under world; he passed away into the invisible

region, while in the visible world he continued to live and work in the

vigorous strength of his son Horus. In the shape of Horus, or Ra, Osiris

wandered through the visible world. He changed only his name and shape

when, every evening, he went back to his distant home in order to be

alone. Thus, by descending from earth and dying, he had received the

sovereignty of the lower world, and left to the youthful Ra, his son

Horus, the empire of this world. As the sun goes down every evening,

and every morning awakes to new life, as the vegetation dies away in

the heat of summer and in autumn, and again in the spring attains to new

life, so to the minds of the Egyptians death, in all its shapes, was

only death in appearance, in reality it was a transition to a new life.

And as Osiris remained alive in death, and was the source of new life,

so through him and in him the soul of man was aroused out of death to a

new life. The sacred animals and men were of divine nature and origin;

they could not, therefore, end with death; death could only carry them

back to their divine origin, to that other world, from which they had

come; and in that other world they must awake to a new life.

Owing to this power of awakening life out of death, Osiris became to the

Egyptians the special god of the human soul. As lord of the under world,

Osiris is often found on the monuments in the shape of a mummy. His

colour was in this case black, like his bull in Memphis; his clothing

was white;[119] his symbol, a wide-open eye, signifying the second

beholding of light. In this form of Osiris the Greeks recognised the

Dionysus of their Mysteries, whom they could also compare with Osiris as

the giver of fruits.[120]

The Egyptians, says Herodotus, were the first to maintain that the soul

of man was immortal.[121] Plutarch, as we have already seen, informs us

that to the Egyptian Osiris was the embodiment not only of all that is

in heaven, but also of all that is in the under world. "His soul," he

continues, "was regarded by the Egyptians as eternal and indestructible,

and, according to the doctrine of the priests, Osiris ruled over the

dead, as Hades and Pluto among the Greeks. In reality, he was free and

untouched by everything subject to change and death. When men are

delivered from the body, and from pain, and pass into the eternal and

invisible world, where pain is unknown, then Osiris becomes their king

and leader. They are his retainers, who desire him, and are spectators

of a beauty inconceivable and inexpressible to men. This is the

explanation of the story most suitable to the deities."[122]

The inscriptions on the sarcophagi, the wraps round the corpses, but

above all a papyrus roll placed in the coffin with the dead body, the

so-called "Book of the Dead," enable us to ascertain with considerable

accuracy the views of the Egyptians on the fate of the soul after death.

The greater part of the known manuscripts of this book belong to the

seventh or sixth century B.C. The contents show that rubrics and prayers

of the same purport, but differently drawn up, proceeding from different

times, and with different commentaries, are collected together in order

to provide the dead person with everything he can want in the next

world. All the prayers and invocations for that world are also given, in

order that the most effective may be at hand, just as at the end of

these manuscripts all the names under which Osiris can be invoked--and

they are more than a hundred--are gathered together. But fragments of

this Book of the Dead, or, more strictly, this Book of the Resurrection,

which forms the core of the Egyptian doctrine of the world to come, are

found hewn in sarcophagi--already with a triple commentary--which belong

to a date previous to the year 2000 B.C.

After death the soul of man descends with the setting sun under the

earth into the nether world. Here, on the day of the "valuation of

words," the day of "justification," the soul is examined, and its

actions weighed in the hall of double justice, _i.e._ the justice which

rewards and the justice which punishes. Osiris, with a crown upon his

head, and holding in his hand a crosier and a whip, sits upon a throne

surrounded by the water of life, out of which spring up lotus-flowers.

Beside him sit forty-two spirits; Anubis, the god with a jackal's head,

the leader and keeper of the dead, and Horus, with a hawk's head, are

busied with a balance; in one scale is the heart of the deceased, in the

other an ostrich-feather, the symbol of truth and justice. The god with

the head of an ibis, the scribe of truth, takes down the result of the

weighing. As Osiris, according to the legend, was once justified by

Horus and Thoth, so is every human soul justified by those deities. The

deceased assures them that he has committed no sins; he enumerates

forty-two errors into which he has not fallen. He has done no

wickedness; he has not stolen, nor slain any one intentionally; he has

not allowed his devotions to be seen; he has not been guilty of

hypocrisy, or lying; he has not stolen the property of the gods, or the

sacrificial food; he has not calumniated any one, or fallen into

drunkenness or adultery; he has not turned away his ear from the words

of truth; he has been no idle talker; he has not slighted the king or

his father; he has not contemned the gods, or torn from the dead their

linen wraps.

The departed spirit was not allowed to enter the other world in

ignorance: he must know what awaits him there; the path which he has to

tread, and the prayers which opened for him the gates of the various

regions, which gave him power to overcome whatever spirits and monsters

might meet him in the way and attempt to hold him back; he must know

the charm which will at last unlock for him the fields of Ra. He must

know and recognise the gods to whom he returns; the nature from which he

has sprung, and which he now again assumes. As in him divinity has been

made human, so is he now in turn deified. To secure this knowledge for

the dead, the book is placed in his coffin, the important passages were

written on the wraps, and engraved on the coffin.

If the heart of the dead man was not found too light and his soul was

pure,[123] he was acquitted in the other world, he received back from

the gods his heart and members renewed and deified, and the goddesses of

life and the sky--Hathor and Nut--poured out upon him the water of life.

His prayer opened for him the gates of the dwellings in the world to

come; he was enabled to strike with his lance the evil spirits and

monsters, the crocodiles, snakes, tortoises, the two vipers, and the

serpent Apep, to keep at a distance all impurity, and finally to reach

the fields of the sun-god.[124] Here the blessed planted the heavenly

wheat--of which the ears were two cubits in length--wandered at will in

shady avenues with odours in their hair, and bathed in pools of water.

Arrived among the gods, the soul receives the power of assuming various

existences--that is, apparently, of entering into the bodies of men and

beasts, and returning finally into the divine substance from which it

sprang. Hence to the Egyptians death is the "going up to heaven," the

"entrance into heaven," the "entrance into the place of the gods."[125]

The first chapter of the Book of the Dead was to be pronounced by the

deceased on the day of his burial when going forth from the grave at the

western gate of the under-world, in order to find immediate entrance

there. "By learning this chapter when on earth," so runs the close of it

in the book, "or by setting it forth in writing on his tomb, he will

emerge on the day, and on entering into his dwelling he will not be

thrust back. Food and drink will be given to him, much flesh also on the

table of Ra; he will work in the fields on the plain of Aanro

(Paradise), where corn and wheat will be given to him; he will live

happily as he lived upon earth." On the day of justification, the dead

has to say: "I am one of the initiated; thy name I know; I know the

names of thy forty-two gods, who dwell with thee in the hall of twofold

justice." Then comes the answer: "Enter! thou knowest us."[126] On a

sarcophagus of the time of the Amenemha and Sesurtesen the deceased

utters the following words, which are found detailed at greater length

and commented upon in the seventeenth chapter of the Book of the Dead.

"I am Tum (p. 51), a being, which I alone am. I am Ra in his first

sovereignty. I am the great self-existing god, the creator of his name,

the ruler of all gods, whom none of the gods restrains. I was yesterday;

I know the morrow. When I spoke a battle-field was prepared for the

gods. I know the name of that great god who is there. Glory of Ra is his

name. I am the great Bennu which is worshipped in On. I am Chem in his

manifestation; on me have been placed the two feathers on my head; I

have arrived at my land, I have arrived at my dwelling-place."[127] "The

sun-mountain (horizon) of his father Tum is meant,"--so run the

commentaries, both old and late, and at the same time they remark that

the great god, existing by his own power, is Osiris; and the great Bennu

also is Osiris (p. 69). By Chem is meant Chemhor, _i.e._, the Horus, who

by his own power renews his own youth every day. On the cover of the

sarcophagus we find the formula, "When this chapter has been pronounced,

he (the dead man) enters into the western land at the time of his

resurrection: if entirely unacquainted with it, he cannot enter; for

him, as for one uninitiated, there is no resurrection."[128]

Thus we must assume that the Egyptians believed in man's return to his

divine origin in the sense that a soul which was not found wanting in

weight, and was conscious of its own true nature, was not only received,

after the completion of the proper cycle, into the bosom of the godhead,

and allowed to be absorbed into the divine power, but was so far deified

that it could adopt divine attributes and power, and even assume a

divine title.

According to the account of Herodotus, the Egyptians believed that the

soul of the dead passed into an animal, born at the time; from this it

wandered into all the other animals on earth, in the air and the sea,

and after 3,000 years it was again born with a human body.[129] That

this account is incorrect is proved by the records already quoted; it

may perhaps have arisen from the Egyptian conception that the soul of

the justified obtained the power to assume every shape. But a

purification of the unclean and ignorant soul by passing through the

bodies of all kinds of animals could never have been assumed by the

Egyptians, since the sacred races were pre-eminent manifestations, and

the selected animals continuous incarnations, of the gods. If a

pilgrimage through the bodies of beasts was really regarded by the

Egyptians as a course of punishment and amelioration, the beasts meant

can only be such as were not sacred. But as yet the examination of the

monuments and records has by no means completely cleared up the relation

of the soul to the body it has left, nor has it attained to any result

on the fate in store for the souls which were found wanting when weighed

in the balance.

FOOTNOTES:

[34] Herod. 3, 37.

[35] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1860, 1, 357.

[36] "De Isid." c. 51, 52; "De Pyth. Oraculis," p. 400.

[37] Macrob. "Sat." 6, 18.

[38] "De Isid." c. 36.

[39] De Rouge, "Zeitsch. d. d. m. Gesellschaft," after a sepulchral

pillar in the Berlin Museum, 4, 375.

[40] Champollion, Monuments, pl. 123 _seq._ Duemichen,

"Tempelinschriften." 1, 24. Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte des Todtenbuchs,"

s. 13.

[41] Lepsius, "Die Goetter der vier Elemente;" Duemichen, in "Zeitsch. fuer

aegyptische Sprache," 1869 s. 7.

[42] Herod. 2, 61.

[43] Plut. "De Isid." c. 38.

[44] The identification of Neith with Athene (Herod. 2, 62; Plat. "Tim."

p. 21) rests on the similarity of the name, on the torch-races in honour

of Pallas at Athens, and the feast of lamps at Sais. Gutschmid,

"Beitraege zur Geschichte des alten Orients," s. 39, 45 ff., has shown

that Neith and Athene cannot be brought into agreement in points of

language. The inscription on the throne of Neith at Sais, given by

Plutarch ("De Isid." c. 9), "I am all that has been, is, will be, and no

mortal has lifted my robe," does not in the first part of it contradict

certain applications of the oldest text of the "Book of the Dead" (see

below). On the other hand, the second part is doubtful. In any case, the

fact that the _peplos_ has not been raised does not refer to the

inconceivable nature of the goddess, but to seclusion from sexual

intercourse. It can only mean that Neith was born from her own creative

force.

[45] Herod. 2, 60, 137, 138.

[46] Horapoll. 1, 10.

[47] Brugsch, "Zeitschr. d. d. morgenland. Gesellschaft," 10, 683.

[48] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1860, 1, 339.

[49] Plutarch, "De Isid." c. 63; cf. Eber's "Gosen," s. 484.

[50] Plut. "De Isid." c. 9.

[51] Bunsen, "AEgypten," I, 446.

[52] Lepsius in "Zeitschrift fuer aeg. Sprache," 1868, s. 127.

[53] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 42, 48, 52; "Goetterkreis," s. 31-43.

[54] Plut. "De Isid." c. 11.

[55] Ibid. c. 21.

[56] Wilkinson, 4, 237, 242, 246.

[57] Parthey, "Abh. der Berl. Akademie," 1863; Minutoli, "Reise zum

Tempel des Ammon;" cf. Herod. 4. 181.

[58] Bunsen, "AEgypten," 1, 470; Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 105.

[59] Diod. 1, 13.

[60] Plut. "De Isid." c. 12-20.

[61] Herod. 2, 144; Diod. 1, 25, 44.

[62] Compare the beautiful explanation given by Lepsius of the game at

dice between Hermes and Selene, narrated in Plutarch, _loc. cit._

[63] Lepsius, "Chronol." 1, 91. As to the meaning of Seb, I should be

inclined to give the preference to the view of Brugsch.

[64] Brugsch and Lepsius in "Zeitschrift fuer aeg. Sprache," 1868, s. 122

ff.

[65] Wilkinson, "Ancient Egypt," 4, 189.

[66] Lepsius, "Goetterkreis," s. 35; "Briefe," 106-111.

[67] Diod. 1, 22.

[68] Plut. "De Isid." c. 20

[69] Plut. _ib._ 12-20; Strab. p. 803.

[70] Herod. 2, 59; Plut. _loc. cit._ 21; Diod. 1, 88.

[71] Busiris was the name of several towns in Lower Egypt; we must

assume that the chief town of the district of this name was the scene of

the festival. How the Greeks turned the name of this town into a king

Busiris who used to slay strangers, I cannot explain. Eratosthenes in

Strabo, p. 802, says: "There never was a king Busiris; the story may

have been invented owing to the inhospitality of the inhabitants of

Busiris;" and Diodorus observes: "It was not a king who was called

Busiris, but the grave of Osiris was so named in the native language"

(1, 88), which is near the truth.

[72] Herod. 2, 40, 42, 144.

[73] Plut. "De Isid." c. 35, 39.

[74] Plut. _loc. cit._ 12, 21, 42.

[75] Plut. _loc. cit._ c. 52. The inscriptions on the temple at Dendera

prescribe a seven days' lamentation for Osiris, beginning on the 24th

Choiak, and give full directions for the burial. Lauth, in the

"Zeitschr. f. aeg. Sprache," 1866, s. 64 ff.

[76] Herod. 2, 41, 132.

[77] "De Isid." c. 42.

[78] Diod. 1, 88.

[79] Plutarch, _loc. cit._ c. 12.

[80] Lepsius, "Goetterkreis," s. 53.

[81] Plut. _loc. cit._ c. 32, 40, 50.

[82] Plut. _loc. cit._ c. 65.

[83] Parthey, on Plut. "De Isid." c. 12.

[84] Plut. _loc. cit._ 50.

[85] Wilkinson, _loc. cit._ 4, 436.

[86] Brugsch in the "Zeitschr. d. d. m. Gesellschaft," 9, 10, 68 c. ff.

[87] Plut. "De Isid." c. 33, 39, 40, 49, 53, 65, 71.

[88] Plut. "De Isid." c. 64.

[89] Diod. 1, 27; Plut. "De Isid." c. 9, 56, 63.

[90] Plut. _loc. cit._ c. 61.

[91] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 46.

[92] Birch. "Gall." 1, 24, 44.

[93] Herod. 2, 66.

[94] Diod. 1, 83, 84.

[95] Plut. "De Isid." c. 43.

[96] Herod. 3, 28; AElian ("De Nat. Anim." 1, 10) speaks of twenty-nine

marks of Apis; cf Plin. "Hist. Nat." 8, 184.

[97] Diod. 1, 84, 85.

[98] Diod. 1, 85; Plut. "De Iside." c. 29; Strabo, p. 807.

[99] "Mem. pres. a l'Acad. des Inscript." ser. 1, 2, p. 15.

[100] Mariette, "Bulletin de l'Athen-Francais," Oct. 1856, p. 75; Juill.

Nov. 1855, pp. 67, 96, 98.

[101] "Ardea purpurea;" Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 50.

[102] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 43, 46, 51.

[103] Brugsch in "Zeitschr. d. d. m. G." 10, 651 ff.

[104] Herod. 2, 73.

[105] Plin. "Hist. Nat." 10, 2; cf. 13, 9; Pompon. Mela. 3, 8.

[106] "Annal." 6, 28.

[107] "De Nat. Anim." 6, 58.

[108] "Hist. Nat." 10, 5.

[109] Ibid. 1, 34, 35.

[110] Brugsch, "Zeitschr. d. d. m. G." 10, 651 ff.; Lepsius, "Aelteste

Texte," s. 51; De Rouge, "Bulletin de l'Athen. Francais," 1856, p. 25

_seqq._

[111] Brugsch, "Zeitschr. d. d. m. G." 10, 683.

[112] Herod. 2, 69.

[113] Strabo, p. 811.

[114] Herod. 2, 65-67.

[115] Wilkinson, "Egypt," 5. 117, 123, 230 ff.

[116] Diod. 1, 51, cf. 92.

[117] Diod. 1, 92; Wilkinson, "Egypt," sec. ser. 2, 411.

[118] Diod. 1, 25.

[119] Plut. "De Iside," c. 33, 78.

[120] Herod. 2, 42; Diod. 1, 11, 13, 25.

[121] Ibid. 2, 123.

[122] "De Iside," c. 54, 61, 79, 80.

[123] Pierret, "Traduct. du Chap. I. du Livre des Morts;" "Zeitsch. fuer

aeg. Sprache," 1869, s. 135; 1870, s. 18 ff.

[124] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1860, p. 79 ff.

[125] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 4.

[126] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 6, 9.

[127] Lepsius, _loc. cit._ s. 30 ff.

[128] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 25.

[129] Herod. 2, 123.

CHAPTER IV.

THE KINGDOM OF MEMPHIS.

The lists of the Egyptians place Menes (Mena) at the head of their

series of kings. They describe him as a native of This, a place in the

neighbourhood of Abydus, below Thebes, a district which Diodorus

considers the oldest part of Egypt. Menes passes for the founder of the

kingdom and the builder of Memphis (Mennefer); he is said to have taught

the Egyptians the worship of the gods and the offering of

sacrifice.[130] Herodotus informs us that he learnt from the Egyptian

priests that Menes had thrown a dam across the Nile about 100 stades

above Memphis, and thus forced the stream which previously flowed at the

foot of the Libyan chain of hills to leave its ancient channel, and flow

at an equal distance between the two ranges. When the land thus gained

by the dam had become firm, he built upon it the city, now called

Memphis, and still situated in the narrow part of Egypt. Towards the

north and west sides of the city, Menes had excavated a lake, and filled

it with water from the river--which was itself a protection to the city

on the east,--and in the city he built the greatest and most remarkable

temple of Hephaestus (Ptah).[131] Diodorus observes:--The founder of

Memphis, the most splendid city in Egypt, selected the most suitable

site by founding the city in the place where the Nile separates into

several arms, so that the city, lying on the pass, commanded the

navigation up the Nile. He also obtained for the place a wonderful

advantage and security by throwing a huge dam in front of it towards the

south, as the Nile at the time of inundation overflows the district.

This dam was a protection against the rising water, and at the same time

served as an acropolis and defence from the attack of enemies. On all

the other sides of the city he caused a large and deep lake to be

excavated, which received the overflow of the water and afforded the

strongest protection for the city. The circuit of the city he placed at

150 stades, and owing to the excellence of the situation, Memphis was

generally chosen by the kings as their place of residence.[132] The

situation, just a little above the place where the river-valley,

hitherto enclosed between the two ranges of hills, opens out into the

Delta, was certainly the best adapted to form the centre of an empire

extending over the narrow valley of the upper river and the broader

district of the Delta, with its wealth of corn-land and meadows, and to

check the entrance of enemies who came from the north-west or the

north-east into the upper valley, even when it was no longer possible to

maintain the Delta against them. About fifteen miles above Memphis, at

Kafr-el-Yat, the Nile makes a considerable bend to the east, and modern

investigations claim to have discovered traces showing that this curve

is due to the hand of man.

Menes, whose accession, according to the arrangement of Lepsius, would

fall in the year 3892 B.C., was followed on the throne by King Athotis

(Ateta), who was said to have built the citadel at Memphis. Next came

Kenkenes, whose successor was Uenephes, to whom is ascribed the erection

of the pyramids. We have seen what care and labour the Egyptians devoted

to their tombs, their "everlasting houses." The west, where the sun

sets, and the desert spreads out in boundless expanse beyond the Libyan

range, belonged in their minds to the gods of night, of the under-world,

and of death. About ten miles to the west of Memphis there rises a

desolate and barren plateau of rock, which for many miles runs parallel

to the river, about 100 feet above the blooming and animated valley

through which the Nile takes its course. In that rocky soil, which

separates the fruitful land from the desert, the bodies of the dead were

placed in chambers, either hewn in the solid stone, or, where the soil

was less firm, built of masonry, and thus secured even from the overflow

of the river. Even the kings sought their resting-places on this plateau

of rock. They, above all, gave attention to the solidity and durability

of their tombs; and in death, as in life, they wished to be kings. The

place where a king rested must be marked as royal, and visible from a

distance; the grave of a king must tower over the rest; his chamber must

be of all most difficult to open. Thus at first blocks of stone were

rolled upon the closed burial-place of a king, or a mound of earth was

raised over it, if sand and soil were to be obtained in the

neighbourhood. The strong winds which blew from the desert made it,

however, necessary to secure these mounds, and cover them with stone.

Hence by degrees the sepulchral heaps acquired a definite shape: they

were rectangular structures, lessening toward the apex; then, by

extending the base and sharpening the gradient, they were brought into

the form of pyramids, and thus obtained the greatest possible firmness

and solidity. For a similar reason the core, or central part, was no

longer made of earth, but of brick; where blocks of stone could be

obtained they were fitted into the core with more and more regularity,

until at last these structures were completed within and without of

rectangular hewn blocks of stone in regular layers, and artificial

mountains of stone towered over the sepulchral chambers of the kings.

"At a distance of forty stades from Memphis," Strabo tells us, "is a

range of hills, on which stand the pyramids, or sepulchres of the kings.

Among these, three are especially deserving of notice. Rectangular in

shape, they are about one stadium high; and the height is slightly less

than the length of either side. The sides are not equal, one is a little

longer than the other, and near the middle of the longer side is a

stone, which can be taken out. Behind this a winding, hollow passage

leads to the tomb. Two of these pyramids stand close to each other on

the same level; at a distance, on a higher level, rises the third,

which, though much smaller, has been erected at much greater cost."

"Like mountains," says Tacitus, "the pyramids have been raised amid

impassable quicksands by the emulation and power of the kings."[133]

About seventy of these structures, which rise in a long line on the

plateau of Memphis, from Abu Roash to Dahshur,[134] remain as witnesses

of the rulers of the old kingdom of Memphis and their dependants, of the

artistic skill and laborious industry of their nation. Of some only the

bases and a few fragments are in existence; of the largest, the points,

and at least a part of the casing, are either decayed, fallen down, or

broken off; for at a later time the Arabs used these monuments as

quarries. Three pyramids which stand in the neighbourhood of the modern

Abusir are formed of rough blocks of stone, both in the cores and in the

passages to the sepulchral chambers; and these blocks are fastened

together by mud from the Nile poured in between them; their casings, now

decayed, were of lime-stone blocks, and in height they extended from 150

to 200 feet. Others, originally at least, of an equal height, of which

the core was regularly built of brick, are found farther to the south

near Dahshur. The architecture of these remains shows that the kings of

Memphis commenced building their tombs soon after their accession. They

began, it would seem, with a core of moderate size, and in this they

probably constructed a sort of temporary chamber. If time sufficed, the

first plan was overlaid with new strata, and thus it gradually increased

in size. Should the builder die before the whole was completed, the

casing of the structure thus raised in the form of steps was left to the

successor.[135] Between seven smaller pyramids, built regularly of stone

blocks, which are about 150 feet in height, and of similar plan and

structure, rise the three largest at Gizeh; the highest was originally

480 feet in height, though now it measures only 450 feet; the next

greatest, standing south-west of the highest, is now 447 feet, and was

originally 457 feet in height; the third measures but 218 feet. The

second largest, originally twenty-three feet lower than the largest, is

on a slightly higher level, the masonry is inferior to the largest, and

the chamber lies immediately under the area of the structure. The

largest measures 716 feet, or 500 Egyptian cubits,[136] on each side of

the area; the height along the slope is 574 feet, and the structure

contains about ninety million cubic feet of masonry. Fifty feet above

the original area, now covered with the sand of the desert, in the

middle of the north side, there commences a gradually descending

passage, about three feet broad and four feet high, leading to a chamber

hewn deep in the foundation rock. This chamber lies more than one

hundred feet below the level of the pyramid, exactly 600 feet under the

apex, and in a perpendicular line with it; it is thirty-six feet above

the level of the Nile. From this passage to the chamber there branches

off, just behind the entrance, a horizontal shaft, and from this rises

an ascending passage leading to two chambers, one over the other, which,

like the sepulchral chamber below, lie in the axis of the pyramid. The

third and smaller pyramid--its sides measure 333 feet, and the height of

the slope is 262 feet--being built upon looser soil, required a greater

substructure, on which it rose in five or six perpendicular and

gradually diminishing stories, the spaces between being filled up with

bevelled masonry. Up to a considerable height the casing consists of

polished slabs of granite. Under this structure in the native rock lies

a larger chamber, and behind this the sepulchral chamber.

When Herodotus visited Egypt about the middle of the fifth century B.C.,

and questioned his interpreter and guide about the builders of these

three pyramids, he was told in answer that they were built by Cheops,

Chephren, and Mycerinus. He was told that Cheops first caused a road to

be made from the stone quarries in the Arabian chain of hills--the range

east of the Nile--down to the river, and again from the west side of the

river to the high ground above Memphis. The road was built of smoothed

stones five stades in length, ten fathoms broad, and at the highest

places thirty-two fathoms high; and it was intended to convey the

materials from the Arabian side of the river. In making this road and

building the subterranean chamber for the grave of Cheops ten years were

consumed, although 100,000 men were constantly employed upon it by

spaces of three months, when they were relieved by an equal number of

fresh workmen. Twenty years were then spent upon the pyramid, of which

each side and the height measured 800 feet; it was built in such a

manner that the structure was carried out by landings and steps, like a

staircase. When the proper height was reached, the landings were covered

from top to bottom with smoothed and carefully-fitted stones, and no

stone is less than thirty feet. Under the surface was a canal carried in

masonry from the Nile round the subterranean chamber. "It is also

inscribed on the pyramid," Herodotus continues, "what the workmen

consumed in radishes, onions, and garlic, and on these, as I well

remember, the interpreter who read the letters told me, 1,600 talents of

silver were spent. If this is true, what must have been expended upon

iron for the tools, and on food and clothing for the workmen?" When

Cheops had reigned fifty years he was succeeded by his brother Chephren,

who also built a pyramid, though not equal in size to the other, and

without any chamber or subterranean canal. "Both pyramids stand on the

same elevation, of about one hundred feet; but the second is forty feet

lower than the first; the lower stratum is built of vari-coloured

Ethiopian stone." When Chephren had reigned fifty-six years, he was

followed by Mycerinus, the son of Cheops. This king also left a pyramid

behind him, "but his pyramid was much smaller than that built by his

father: the sides are only 280 feet in length; the lower half is built

of Ethiopian stone."[137]

The account of Diodorus is as follows:--King Chemmis of Memphis reigned

fifty years, and built the largest of the three pyramids, which in

height measures more than six plethra, and along the sides more than

seven plethra. It is entirely constructed of solid stone, very difficult

to work, and therefore of endless durability. Even now, although not

less than a thousand, or as some say even more than 3,400, years have

passed, the structure is uninjured, and the joints of the stones

unloosened. Besides, we are told that these stones were brought from a

considerable distance out of Arabia, and the structure was carried to

its present height by means of mounds of earth. Most wonderful of all,

no traces of these mounds, no fragments from the hewing and smoothing of

the stones remain; so that it would seem that this work was not

accomplished gradually by the hand of man, but was planted complete by a

god in the midst of the surrounding sand. Though it is said that 360,000

men bestowed their labour on the structure, the work can hardly have

been finished in twenty years, and the number of men who erected it must

also have removed the mounds of earth and excavated material, and put

everything in its original condition. Chemmis was followed by his

brother Kephren, who reigned fifty-six years. Other accounts tell us

that the kingdom descended on his son, Chabryes, and not on his

brother. But all agree that he built the second pyramid, which resembles

the first in the art of the execution, though much inferior in size,

since on the sides it measures only one stadium (or, according to recent

measurement, exactly 700-1/2 Greek feet). And while the money spent in

radishes and garden herbs for the builders is inscribed on the larger

one, the smaller remains without any inscription. Though both these

kings had destined these tombs for their place of burial, neither is

buried there. Roused by the burden of their labours, the cruelty and

violence of these kings--and in Herodotus also Cheops and Chephren

appear as wicked and godless kings--the people threatened to take their

bodies out of their graves and insult them. Terrified by this threat,

each of the kings in his last moments bade his relations bury him

privately in a secret place. After Kephren reigned Mycerinus, whom

others call Mencherinus, the son of Chemmis. He built the smallest

pyramid. Though less in size, it surpasses the others in the excellence

of the work and the beauty of the stone; up to the fifteenth layer it

consists of black stone resembling the stone of Thebes; from thence to

the top the stone is the same as in the other pyramids. On the north

side is written the name of the builder, Mycerinus. Abhorring the

cruelty of his predecessors, Mycerinus, as we learn, sought to make his

rule moderate and beneficent to his subjects, and did everything to gain

the affections of the nation. He paid great attention to the

administration of justice; and to the common people who had not received

from the tribunals such a sentence as seemed just to him, he made

presents. "But as to the building of the pyramids, there is no agreement

either among the Egyptians or their historians; some ascribe them to

the kings I have mentioned; some to other kings."[138]

The accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus of the structure of the

largest pyramid are completely confirmed by modern researches. Even now

it is thought that traces can be recognised of the causeway which served

for the transport of the materials from the left bank of the Nile to the

plateau.[139] The pyramid itself is built in large regular steps

constructed of squares of granite. The yellow lime-stone of the casing

must also have been really brought from the Arabian side of the Nile,

because better stone of that kind was found there.[140] On the other

hand, the account of a subterranean canal round the grave chamber is

merely a legend of the people, who desired to adorn with new marvels the

structure already so marvellous; it is impossible, simply because the

lower chamber, and not only the area of the pyramid, is above the lower

level of the Nile. The 100,000 workmen of Herodotus, changed every three

months, and the 360,000 of Diodorus--a number formed from the days in

the old Egyptian year--have arisen out of the free invention of later

times, although the building must certainly have occupied more than a

decade of years. Inscriptions are not found now on the external side of

the pyramid. If such were in existence at the time of Herodotus, they

certainly contained other things than those which the interpreter

pretended to read there. The interpreters who served as guides to the

travellers of that day in Egypt, as the dragoman does now, could hardly

have read the hieroglyphics; they contented themselves with narrating

the traditions and stories popularly connected with the great monuments

of past time, not without certain exaggerations and additions.[141]

But the names of the builders of the three largest pyramids, which these

interpreters mentioned to the Greeks, are confirmed by the monuments. In

the deep chamber of the largest pyramid there is no sarcophagus; in the

upper of the two chambers which lie in the axis of the pyramid there has

been found, it is true, a simple sarcophagus of red granite, but it

bears no inscription. Above these chambers, however, there are certain

small spaces left open, with a view no doubt of diminishing the pressure

of the stone-work upon them, and on the walls of these spaces is written

the name, Chufu, Chnemu Chufu, in hieratic characters.[142] The same

name frequently recurs in the tombs surrounding this pyramid, in which,

according to the inscriptions, the wives, sons, officers, and priests of

Chufu were buried; and among them the scribe of the buildings of the

kings and the priest of Apis, who was at the same time keeper of the

gates and of the palace. In this inscription the pyramid of Chufu is

called "Chut." On a monumental stone found in the Apis tombs--now in

Cairo--we read, "The living Horus, the King of Egypt, Chufu, has built a

temple to Isis near the temple of the Sphinx, north of the temple of

Osiris, and has erected his pyramid beside the temple of Isis."[143]

Chufu himself is not found in Egypt, but in the peninsula of Sinai he is

pictured in relief on the rocks in the Wadi Maghara. He is represented

as lifting his war-club against an enemy whom he has forced upon his

knee and seized by the head-dress with the left hand.[144] In an

inscription in the same valley, the oldest which we possess, his

predecessor Snefru claims to have subjugated these regions.

In the second pyramid, in the chamber under the surface, a sarcophagus

of granite has been discovered on the floor without any inscription. But

in the inscriptions on the graves, especially on the grave of the

architect of King Chafra, his pyramid is mentioned as "the great

pyramid." Between the paws of the Sphinx which stands to the north of

the second pyramid, hewn out of the living rock, is a monumental stone,

on which is read the name Chafra,[145] and in the ruins of a temple

lying near the Sphinx--the same without doubt which is mentioned in the

stone at Cairo--seven statues have been exhumed, the inscriptions on

which prove that they represent "the Master and Gold Horus, Chafra, the

good god, the lord of the crown," _i.e._, King Chafra himself.[146] And

lastly, the inscriptions on the tomb of a woman whose name is read as

Mertitef, prove that she was the chief favourite of Snefru and of Chufu,

and had been united to Chafra.[147] Hence Chafra must have succeeded

Chufu, and the "great" pyramid built by him can hardly have been any

other than that which now holds the second place.

In the sepulchral chamber of the third pyramid, it is known in the

inscriptions as "Har," _i.e._, "the supreme," the sarcophagus of King

Menkera with his mummy has been discovered. It is made of blue basalt,

and bears the following inscription:--"O Osiris, King Menkera, ever

living one; begotten of the sky, carried in the bosom of Nut, scion of

Seb (p. 55). Thy mother Nut is outstretched over thee, in her name of

the mystery of the sky may she deify thee and destroy thy enemies, King

Menkera, ever living one."[148]

It is therefore an ascertained fact that Chufu, Chafra, and Menkera were

the builders of the three great pyramids. In the mouth of the Greeks the

name Chufu passed into Cheops, and by a farther change into Suphis. The

name Chemmis in Diodorus has arisen out of the name Chnemu in the form

Chnemu Chufu; from Chafra naturally arose Chephren, Kephren, and

Chabryes. In the list of kings in Eratosthenes, the fourteenth successor

of Menes is Saophis; Eratosthenes allows him a reign of twenty-nine

years. His successor, who has a reign of twenty-seven years, bears the

same name. The second Saophis is followed by Moscheres with a reign of

thirty-one years. Manetho's list gives the name Suphis to the

twenty-seventh king after Menes, and he is said to have reigned

sixty-three years. Then follows a second Suphis, with a reign of

sixty-six years, and this king is succeeded by Menchres, who reigned

sixty-three years. On the first Suphis in Manetho's list the excerpt of

Africanus remarks: "This king built the largest pyramid, which Herodotus

assigns to the time of Cheops;" in the excerpt of Eusebius, both in the

Greek text and the Armenian translation, this remark is made on the

second Suphis. Hence we can have no hesitation in identifying the Cheops

and Chephren of Herodotus, the Chemmis and Kephren of Diodorus, with the

first and second Saophis and Sufis of the lists, the Chufu and Chafra

of the inscriptions; and the Mycerinus of Herodotus and Diodorus is

beyond doubt the same as the Moscheres of Eratosthenes, the Mencheres of

Manetho, and the Menkera of the sarcophagus in the third pyramid. In the

national tradition of the Egyptians, as received by the Greeks, Cheops

and Chephren were called brothers, and this is no doubt mainly due to

the fact that the monuments of these two kings surpassed all the other

pyramids, and were of nearly the same height and size. It is impossible

that Cheops should have reigned fifty years, and his brother Chephren

who succeeded him, fifty-six years, as Herodotus and Diodorus tell

us--the inscription quoted above makes the same woman the favourite of

the predecessor of Chufu, of Chufu, and Chafra also; even more

impossible is it that the first Suphis should have reigned sixty-three

years, and the second sixty-six, as given in the list of Manetho, if

they were brothers; or that Mycerinus, whom Herodotus as well as

Diodorus calls the son of Cheops, should have succeeded Chephren with a

reign of sixty-three years, as Manetho tells us. Like their brotherhood,

the wickedness of Cheops and Chephren is due to the popular legends of

later times. The sight of the enormous structures forced on later

generations the reflection what labour, what stupendous efforts must

have been necessary for their erection. This reflection united with

certain dim memories, and gathered round the rule of the strangers, the

shepherd-tribes, which for a long time afflicted Egypt, as is clear

enough from a trait in the narrative of Herodotus. He assures us that

the Egyptians could scarcely be induced to mention the names of the

kings who built the great pyramids: they spoke of them as the works of

the shepherd Philitis.[149] In the eyes of the Egyptians of the olden

time, tombs would never have appeared to be works of impiety and

wickedness, realising as they did in such an extraordinary degree the

object most eagerly desired, a secure and indestructible resting-place

for the dead: with them they would rather pass as works of singular

piety. Without doubt it is the older tradition, that of the priests,

which meets us in the observation appended in the list of Manetho and

the excerpt of Africanus to the first Suphis, and in the excerpt of

Eusebius, both in the Greek text and Armenian translation, to the second

Suphis, in which we are told that this king had composed a sacred book,

and the Egyptians regarded it as a very great treasure.

According to the inscription, Chufu had erected a temple to Isis by the

side of the temple of the Sphinx, and therefore the latter temple must

have been already in existence. And as a fact the ruins still found

beside the great Sphinx give evidence of very ancient workmanship. There

was a court, the ante-court of the temple, which surrounded a portico

supported on twelve square pillars; next came a hall supported on

monoliths, the temple itself, and finally the Holy of Holies, surrounded

by small chambers. The material used in building was limestone and

granite. The symbolic form of the deity, to whom the temple belonged,

was the enormous Sphinx, 190 feet in length, hewn out of the rock, with

the body of a lion and the head of a man. From the memorial stone before

it we learn that it symbolized the god Harmachu (Armachis of the

Greeks), _i.e._ Horus in Splendour (_har-em-chu_).[150] From the

inscription on this stone, which dates from the time of Tuthmosis IV.,

it seems to follow that it was Chafra, who caused this shape to be hewn

out of the rock and consecrated it to the god. Other inscriptions inform

us that the pyramids were regarded as sepulchral temples, and that there

were priests for the service of the princes who were buried there, and

had attained to a divine nature, and these services were still in

existence at the time of the Ptolemies. One of the tombs at Gizeh

belongs to a priest, a relation of Chafra, whose duty it was to "honour

the pyramid Uer (the Great) of king Chafra;" another is found at

Sakkarah belonging to "a priest of Chufu, and Chafra."[151] On a

monumental stone of the time of the Ptolemies (found in the Serapeum,

and now in the Louvre) mention is made of the temple of Harmachu on the

south of the house of Isis, and of a certain Psamtik, the prophet of

Isis, of Osarhapi (p. 67), of Harmachu, of Chufu and Chafra.[152]

The temples of Osiris and Isis, near the three great pyramids, and the

inscription on the sarcophagus of king Menkera are evidence that the

cultus of Osiris, the belief in his rule in the next world, in the

return of the soul to her divine origin, and her deification after

death, was already in existence at the time when these monuments were

erected. The use not of hieroglyphics only, but also of the hieratic

alphabet, in red and black colours, in the pyramid of Chufu, and the

graves around it, in the sculptures of which writing materials and rolls

of papyrus are frequently engraved, the forms of domestic and household

life, of agriculture and the cultivation of the vine, of hunting and

fishing, preserved on the tombs of Gizeh, are evidence of the long

existence and manifold development of civilisation, no less than those

great monuments, or even the graves themselves with their artistic mode

of construction, their severe and simple style of execution, and the

pleasing forms of their ornaments. Of the seven statues of Chafra,

discovered in the temple of the Sphinx, one, chiselled out of hard green

and yellow basalt, has been preserved uninjured. The king is represented

sitting, and naked, with the exception of a covering on the head and a

girdle round the loins. The lower arms rest on the thighs, the left hand

is outstretched, the right holds a fillet. The sides of the cube, on

which Chafra is seated, are formed by lions, between the feet of which

are stems of papyrus. On the high back of the chair, behind the head of

the king, sits the hawk of Horus, whose wings are spread forwards in an

attitude of protection. The execution of the statue of the king is a

proof of long practice in sculpture. The natural form is truly and

accurately rendered, and though even here Egyptian art displays its

characteristic inclination to severity, and correctness in the

proportions of the body, to repose and dignity, yet in the head there is

an unmistakable attempt to individualize an outline already fixed--an

attempt not without success. Still more distinctly individual are two

statues found near the pyramids of Meidum, from the reign of the

predecessor of Chufu, a wooden statue, and certain pictures in relief

from the tombs near the great pyramids. The architecture, no less than

the sculpture, of these most ancient monuments, displays a high degree

of experience and a knowledge of the principles of art, a conscious

purpose and effort existing together with a fixed obedience to rule.

We learnt from Diodorus that the great pyramids were erected 1,000, or,

according to some, 3,400 years before his time. According to the list

of Manetho, Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus belonged to the fourth

dynasty. If we accept the incredible reigns of sixty-three, sixty-six,

and again, sixty-three years, which Manetho allows to those three kings,

they reigned over Egypt, according to Lepsius' dates, from the year 3095

B.C., to 2903 B.C.

At a period subsequent to these kings the list of Manetho speaks in the

sixth dynasty of a king Phiops, who came to the throne as a child in his

sixth year, and lived to be 100 years old. The list of Erastosthenes

mentions a king Apappus, who reigned for 100 years. The monuments show

us a king Pepi, in whom we recognise Phiops and Apappus, and in

consequence a reign of ninety-five years is assigned to him (2654-2559

B.C.). Yet hitherto the sixteenth year is the highest found on the

monuments for the reign of Pepi; and in the inscription on a tomb at

Abydus, now in the museum at Cairo, a man of the name of Una declares

that he had filled the highest offices in the kingdom under Teta, the

predecessor of Pepi, under Pepi, and again under his successor, Merenra.

If one person could be the minister of three successive rulers, it is

clear that the second of these reigns could not have lasted 95 or 100

years. Under the reign of Pepi, as well as his immediate predecessors

and successors, _i.e._, in the sixth dynasty of Manetho, the development

of Egypt must have undergone a certain change. The kings, previous to

this family, are represented on the monuments with a cap falling to one

side, or with a tall head-dress; Pepi is represented on one relief with

this head-dress, but on another with one of a lower shape. The tall

white cap is the crown of Upper Egypt, the lower red one is the crown

of Lower Egypt. It is no longer on the plateau of Memphis, and among the

tombs there, but in Middle Egypt, near El Kab, and in the valley of

Hamamat, which leads from Coptus to the Red Sea, that we find the

monuments of Pepi and his race, and the tombs of their priests and

magistrates are at Abydus. Under this dynasty, therefore, the central

point of the kingdom appears to have been moved from Memphis in the

direction of Middle Egypt. On the west coast of the peninsula of Sinai,

in the Wadi Maghara, Pepi is seen striking down an enemy; and from the

inscription on the tomb of Una, it is clear that Pepi's kingdom extended

up the Nile as far as the negroes, that his successor caused dockyards

to be built in Nubia, and that Una had to procure blocks of fine stone

for the sarcophagus of Pepi and his successor, and also for the pyramid

of the latter.[153]

The removal of the centre of the kingdom from Memphis, which is

noticeable under the family of Pepi, was completely carried out under a

later house, which is stated in the lists to belong to Thebes--the

eleventh and twelfth dynasty of Manetho. Upper Egypt became the seat of

the royal power; Thebes (the No-Amon, _i.e._ possession of Ammon, of the

Hebrews) took her place beside Memphis. The princes of this new dynasty

are no longer called in the monuments the lords of Upper and Lower

Egypt, but the "lords of both lands;" they always wear both crowns.

Hence it is possible that this royal house in the first instance ruled

over Upper Egypt only from Thebes, and that for a long time Upper and

Lower Egypt existed side by side independently, till the kings of Thebes

succeeded in reducing Lower Egypt under their dominion.

Of Amenemha, the first king of this house, who ruled over Upper and

Lower Egypt (2380-2371 B.C.), a colossal figure of red granite is still

in existence, which was discovered in Lower Egypt at Tanis (San), not

far from Lake Menzaleh.[154] His power must have extended up the Nile

over the adjacent part of Nubia, for a pillar discovered there informs

us that he intrusted an officer with the superintendence of the gold

mines in Nubia.[155] His successor, Sesurtesen I. (2371-2325 B.C.),

erected a temple to Ammon at Thebes, and set up obelisks, _i.e._ pointed

monolithic pillars, dedicated to the sun-god, in Lower Egypt, in Fayum,

and at Heliopolis. The obelisk at Fayum, not far from the ancient

Arsinoe, was about forty feet in height; it has been broken by the fall

into two pieces. The obelisk of Heliopolis is sixty feet in height; it

still towers over the ruins of this city, near the village of Matarieh.

It is not the first obelisk erected in Egypt, for the inscriptions of

Chufu mention an obelisk erected by that king, but it is the oldest

which has come down to our time. The inscription, repeated on all four

sides, runs thus:--"Horus, the life of that which is born, the child of

the sun, Sesurtesen, who is beloved by the spirits of Heliopolis, who

will live for ever, the golden hawk, the life of that which is born,

this gracious god has erected this obelisk at the beginning of the great

festival. He has erected it who assures us of life for ever."[156] That

this king also ruled in Nubia, and forced his way far up the Nile above

Egypt, is proved by a monument in Nubia on the cataracts of the Wadi

Halfa; a pillar, on which is depicted Sesurtesen, representing Nubians

and negroes, the prisoners of eight nations or tribes, to the god

Horus.[157] In the rock tombs of Beni Hassan is buried an officer of

this king, Amenj, overseer of the canton of Hermopolis (Ashmunein). The

inscription tells us that Amenj had served the king when on a campaign

to destroy his enemies; that he had approached the land of Cush, and

reached the limits of the earth. The king had returned in peace after

the overthrow of his enemies. Afterwards Amenj with 600 warriors had

conveyed the produce of the goldmines from the canton of Hermopolis to

the stronghold of Coptus. He had loved his canton; and all the works

required for the house of the king he had carried out in his canton by

his own arm, and had paid in the tribute. He had laboured, and the

canton had been in full activity. He had not afflicted the children, or

ill-treated the widows; he had not disturbed the fishermen, or hindered

the herdsmen. Famine had never prevailed, because every plot had been

planted. He had caused the inhabitants to live, had given gifts without

regarding the great before the small.[158] The fragment of a seated

colossus of Sesurtesen I., of black granite, is to be seen in the museum

at Berlin; his colossus of red granite is at Tanis. A third statue of

this king has been found at Abydus.[159]

Amenemha II. and Sesurtesen II. carried on the campaigns of the first

Sesurtesen in the south of Egypt. A monument in the valley of Hamamat

exhibits battles with the Punt, _i.e._ with the tribes of the Arabians

and the negroes.[160] Sesurtesen III., who succeeded Sesurtesen II.,

completed the subjugation of Lower Nubia. To protect the new border

of the kingdom, he caused fortresses to be erected a little above

the falls of the Wadi Halfa, at Semne and Kumne, about 250 miles

south of Syene. A pillar discovered in this district has the following

inscription:--"Southern border; erected in the eighth year, under the

rule of his holiness King Sesurtesen III., who gives life for all

eternity. No negro shall pass over it on his way, except the boats

laden with the oxen, goats, and asses of the negroes."[161]

The third Sesurtesen was followed by the third Amenemha (2221 to 2179

B.C.). Inscriptions in the Wadi Maghara, in the peninsula of Sinai, tell

us that Amenemha III. caused the copper to be conveyed from the mines

there by 734 soldiers, in the second year of his reign; and inscriptions

in the valley of Hamamat show that the quarries there were frequently

used by this king.[162] Near the fortifications of his predecessor, on

the rocks of Semne and Kumne, are found numerous records of the height

reached by the Nile in the reign of Amenemha III. Here we read--"Level

of Hapi (the Nile) in the fourteenth, sixteenth, thirtieth years, &c.,

under his holiness King Amenemha III., who lives for ever." From these

observations we find that the average height of the inundations at that

time was more than twenty-four feet higher than at present; and the

greatest height reached under Amenemha III. was twenty-seven feet above

the greatest height of modern times.[163]

Herodotus tells us the following story;--Among the successors of Menes,

Moeris carried out some remarkable works; he built the north gateway in

the temple of Hephaestus, excavated a great lake, and erected pyramids

in it. "The priests told me that under the rule of Moeris, the Nile

overflowed the land below Memphis, although it had only risen to the

height of eight cubits, but now the water does not cover the land unless

it reaches a height of sixteen or at least fifteen cubits; and it seems

to me that if the land were raised again in the same proportion, the

Egyptians who live in the Delta below the lake of Moeris would be in

distress. The circuit of the lake of Moeris is about 3,600 stades, or

sixty schoenes, and the depth in the deepest place about fifty fathoms.

The lake extends from north to south. That it was the work of human

hands, is clear from the nature of it. About the middle are two

pyramids, each of which rises about fifty fathoms out of the water, and

on each is a stone colossus seated on a throne. The water of the lake

does not arise from springs, for the whole district there is entirely

without water, it is introduced by a canal from the Nile. For six months

the water flows from the Nile into the lake, and again for six months

from the lake into the Nile. While it runs out the fishery brings in a

talent of silver a day for the King's treasury; but when the water flows

into the lake the product is a third of a talent only.[164]"

Diodorus tells us that king Moeris erected the north gateway at Memphis,

the splendour of which excelled all others; and above the city at about

ten schoenes distance he excavated a lake of marvellous utility and

incredible size. The circuit was 3,600 stades, and the depth in most

places was fifty fathoms. "Who would not ask, when contemplating the

vast extent of this work, how many myriads of men were required to

complete it, and for how many years? But no one could ever speak in

worthy terms of the utility of the lake and the advantage it is to the

inhabitants of Egypt and the wise prudence of the king in making it. As

the Nile does not rise evenly, and the fruitfulness of the land depends

on the evenness of the overflow, Moeris excavated this lake to receive

the superfluous water, in order that an excessive inundation might not

create marshes and morasses, or a deficiency of water imperil the

fruitfulness of the soil. He carried a canal 300 feet in breadth from

the river for eighty stades (about ten miles) to the lake, through which

he first admitted the superfluous water and then drew it off. In this

way he procured for the tillers of the soil the desired medium in the

water, since the mouth of the canal was sometimes closed, sometimes

opened, which was both a difficult and costly thing to do. The lake has

remained to our time, and is still called by the name of the

constructor, the lake of Moeris. In the middle, the king who excavated

it left a place on which he built his own tomb, and two pyramids. One

was erected for himself, the other for his wife. On these he placed

stone statues of himself and his wife, sitting on thrones, in the

impression that by means of this work he would be for ever held in

grateful remembrance."[165]

Of the lake above Memphis, Strabo gives the following account:--"The

canton of the city Arsinoe, which was formerly known as the City of

Crocodiles, surpasses all others in the beauty of its appearance, in

fruitfulness, and also in the wonders to be seen there. It alone is

covered with green and large olive trees, whereas there are no olives

in the rest of Egypt; it produces a considerable amount of wine, and

corn, and pulse, and many other cereals. In it also lies the wonderful

lake of Moeris, which in size and colour is like a sea, and has shores

like the shores of the sea. Owing to its size and depth this lake is

able to receive the superfluous water at the time of the inundation, so

that it does not overflow the inhabited and planted districts. On the

other hand, when the river begins to subside, after it has poured the

overflow into one of the two mouths of the canal, the lake and the canal

together retain the water required for irrigation. This takes place in

the natural course of things, but there are also artificial sluices at

both mouths of the canal, by which the persons in charge regulate the

rise and fall of the water." Tacitus also mentions "the excavated lake

which receives the overflow of the Nile."[166]

From these accounts the object of the work is clear. It was intended to

regulate the inundation by a large reservoir, and so to increase its

beneficent effects upon the soil of Egypt. The inundation was to be

reduced for the Delta by drawing off a part of the water, which had

risen into this basin in the neighbourhood of Memphis, in order that the

land in this district might not be rendered swampy, and the marshes

might have time to dry. This basin could also retain a portion of water

in the superabundant years of excessive inundation, in order to supply

the deficiencies of other years when the water did not reach the highest

plots. Further, the reservoir might be used to irrigate the arable land

in the neighbourhood during the waterless months, when there was no

inundation.

A few miles above Memphis the Libyan range is divided by a depression.

This cleft leads from the Nile into a spacious urn-shaped valley, now

called Fayum, of which the western part is filled by a large lake. On

the ruins near this lake, the name of King Amenemha III. is frequently

read. If we remember that the careful observations of the rise of the

Nile from the reign of this king tend to show that he was busily engaged

with the irrigation of the land, that the Egyptians call this lake the

lake of inundation (_meri_), and that the king Moeris of the Greeks

owes his name to this title (_suten en meri_), we may regard Amenemha

III. as the author of the wonderful hydraulic structures at Fayum. The

great reservoir, which he constructed, is no longer in existence, but

the remains of it can be traced in dams and in the modern lake of Fayum,

the Birket-el-Kerun. The urn-shaped valley of Fayum offered a situation

for a basin near the Nile, which might receive and preserve part of the

inundation, and the depression in the Libyan range secured a natural

path for the canal, required to feed the basin from the Nile, and the

Nile from the basin. For the site of the basin the nearest part of the

valley was selected; it was enough that the bed of the reservoir was not

lower than the lowest level of the Nile. No deep excavations were

needed; all that was required was to enclose a large part of the valley

with strong dams; and the earth necessary for erecting these could be

taken out of the enclosed space. These dams must have been massive

enough to retain a large body of water, and prevent it from breaking out

into the western, and far lower part of the valley, and at the same time

of sufficient height to prevent any overflow even in the times of the

highest inundations. At the eastern entrance into Fayum we find running

from the valley of the Nile the remains of long, rectilinear, and very

massive banks, in which modern research has recognised the original

enclosure of the lake of Moeris. The breadth of the dams appears to have

been carried to 150 feet; whereas the height can hardly have exceeded

thirty feet.[167] When Herodotus tells us that the depth of the basin in

the deepest part was fifty fathoms, it is obvious that the statement

rests on the computation that the two pyramids in the middle of the lake

were of the same height under as above the surface. The same authority

allows a circuit of about 450 miles for the lake, but from the remains

we cannot allow a greater circuit than 150 miles.[168] The Egyptians

were sufficiently skilled in the erection of strong dams, and structures

of such an extent could not be in excess of the resources of a country

which had erected the great pyramids. Finally, when Herodotus asks what

had become of the earth dug out of this great lake, the answer is that

there was no complete excavation, but merely the enclosure of a certain

space of land, and what was taken out of this was at once applied to the

construction of the dams.

The statement of the priests about the height of the inundation in the

reign of Moeris, which Herodotus has preserved for us, and from which he

has drawn the conclusion that the soil of Lower Egypt must have risen

since that reign from seven to eight cubits in height, is much

exaggerated. The deposit of mud in consequence of the inundation raises

the soil only about four inches in 100 years, that is, about

three-and-a-quarter feet in 1,000 years. Supposing the basin of Amenemha

to have been completed 1,500 years before Herodotus travelled in Egypt,

the difference in the required height of the inundation might reach

three or four cubits, but not seven or eight. Yet the raising of the

soil, and more especially of the bed of the great basin, which rose far

more rapidly than the surface of the land, brought about the decay, and

at last the ruin, of this reservoir. The bed of the basin in which the

water remained the whole year through, and not for three or four months

only, must have been raised by the deposit at a peculiarly rapid rate;

at the present time it shows a height of eleven feet as compared with

the land outside the remains of the dams.[169] With this rise in the

bed, the value of the basin diminished in proportion as the amount of

water which the reservoir was capable of receiving was lessened. It was

useless to raise the height of the dams, for the influx of the water

from the Nile depended on the level of the bed of the connecting canal,

and of the basin. These causes along with the disaffection of later

times must have brought about the decay of the reservoir, the value of

which Diodorus places so high, and which was in existence in the time of

Tacitus. At a later period the dams must have been neglected, so that at

the time of some extraordinary inundation, a breach was made towards the

west, which filled the western and lowest part of Fayum with water. This

is the origin of the Birket-el-Kerun, the water of which is still

sufficient to convert the largest part of Fayum into one of the most

fertile and blooming districts of Egypt. The level of the

Birket-el-Kerun is seventy feet lower than the canal which once

connected the reservoir with the Nile.[170]

"A little above Lake Moeris," Herodotus tells us, "at the so-called City

of the Crocodiles, is the labyrinth. I have seen it, and it outdoes its

reputation. If any one were to put together the walls and buildings of

the Hellenes, he would find that they were surpassed in labour and cost

by this labyrinth alone, although the temples at Ephesus and Samos are

certainly well worth speaking of. The pyramids are indeed beyond all

description, and each of them is equivalent to many of the greatest

works of Hellas, but the labyrinth surpasses even the pyramids. It

contains twelve roofed courts, abutting on each other, the entrances to

which are opposite, six to the north and six to the south. Externally

they are all included in one wall. The chambers are of two kinds, some

are under the ground, others visible above it; of each kind there are

1,500. Those above ground I have passed through, and can speak of them

from eyesight; those under the ground the Egyptian overseers could not

be induced to show me, because, as they said, they contained the

sepulchres of the kings who built the labyrinth, and of the sacred

crocodiles. Of these, therefore, I can only speak from hearsay: but the

chambers above ground, which I saw, are a superhuman work. The entrances

through the covered spaces, and the windings through the courts are very

complicated, and excite infinite wonder, as you pass from the courts

into the chambers, and from the chambers into colonnades, and from these

into other covered spaces, and from the chambers into other courts. On

all these spaces lies a roof of stone, similar to the walls; the walls

are covered with carved pictures, and each court is surrounded on the

inside with pillars of white stones, excellently fitted together. In the

angle where the labyrinth ends there is a pyramid forty fathoms high,

with large figures cut into it. The entrance to this is under the

surface."[171]

Diodorus says:--"One of the old kings, named Menas, built on the lake of

Moeris, the City of Crocodiles, a tomb for himself, a square pyramid,

and the marvellous labyrinth." In another passage he says: "King Mendes,

whom some call Marrhus, was not distinguished by any military

achievements, but he built for his tomb the so-called labyrinth, which

is marvellous not so much for its size as for the inimitable art of the

structure. Without a thoroughly competent guide, it would not be easy

for any one to find his way out." And in a third passage we are told:

"The labyrinth at the entrance into Lake Moeris is a square

structure--each side measuring a stadium--built of the most beautiful

stone, unsurpassed in the sculptures and the art bestowed upon it."

"Passing through the enclosure, you see a house surrounded with pillars,

forty on each side, and with a roof of a single stone, adorned with

mullions in relief, and various paintings. It also contains the

monuments of the twelve provinces of Egypt of their sacred relics and

sacrifices, all represented in the most excellent pictures."[172]

Strabo's account is as follows:--"At the sluices (of the canal

connecting the basin and the lake) is the labyrinth, a work as great as

the pyramids, and moreover the grave of the king who built it. About

thirty or forty stades above the mouth of the canal is a table-land, on

which lies a hamlet and a palace made up of as many palaces as there are

districts in Egypt. For so many in number are the colonnaded courts,

adjoining each other in a row, and abutting on a partition against which

they are built as against a long wall.[173] The entrances which lead to

them are over against the wall. Before these entrances lie dark

chambers, long in shape, and numerous, which are connected with each

other by winding passages, so that without a guide it is impossible for

the stranger to find the entrance or exit belonging to each court. The

most marvellous thing is that the roof of each chamber consists of a

single stone. Even the dark passages (before the entrances into the

courts) are covered with slabs of a single stone, from side to side,

without use of wood or other support, and these slabs are of

extraordinary size. If you go out on the roof, and as there is but one

story, it is not high, you find before you a plateau of stones of this

kind. If from this point you look again into the courts, you see them

twenty-seven in number in a row, supported by pillars of a single stone.

The walls also are of stones not less in size. This number of courts are

said to have been erected because it was the custom for all the

districts to assemble here by their representatives, with their priests

and animals for sacrifice, in order to offer sacrifice and decide

matters of the greatest importance. Each district thus met in its own

court. At the end of the structure, which extends over more than a

stadium (in the square), lies the tomb, a square pyramid, of which each

side is about a plethron in length and the same in height. The king

buried there is called Ismandes."[174]

"The labyrinth," remarks Pliny, "is still existing in Egypt, though it

is said to have been erected more than 3,600 years. Lykeas calls it the

tomb of Moeris; some authorities assert that it is a shrine of the

Sun-god, and this is the general belief. The entrance was built of

Parian marble, which is astonishing to me, the remainder of joined

blocks of granite, which centuries have not been able to destroy,

albeit assisted by the inhabitants of Heracleopolis, who regard this

structure with the greatest detestation, and treat it accordingly. The

plan of the whole and the various parts it is impossible to describe. It

is divided according to the districts and prefectures, which they call

nomes; these are twenty-five in number, and their names are given to an

equal number of large buildings. Besides this it contains a temple of

all the gods of Egypt, and includes above 1,500 small buildings. The

chambers are lofty, and each colonnade is ascended by a flight of ninety

steps. Within are pillars of porphyry, images of the gods, statues of

the kings, and monstrous shapes. Through the greater part you pass in

darkness. From the wing attached to the labyrinth, passages lead through

the rock to underground chambers, and there is also a pyramid belonging

to it."[175]

As we have seen, Diodorus in one passage ascribes the building of the

labyrinth to the ancient king Menas, and in another to king Mendes, whom

other authorities call Marrhus, and at last he says that the twelve

kings, who reigned in Egypt after the dominion of the Ethiopians, built

the labyrinth for their common sepulchre. Four hundred years before his

time Herodotus had stated that the twelve kings built it as a common

memorial of their reign. Lykeas mentioned king Moeris as the builder,

and Strabo told us that the king buried in it was Ismandes, a name which

would agree with the Mendes of Diodorus. According to the lists of

Manetho, it was the fourth ruler of the twelfth dynasty--Lacharis in the

excerpt of Africanus, and Lamaris in that of Eusebius--who built the

labyrinth in the province of Arsinoe for his own sepulchre.

The Menas of Diodorus may be an abbreviation of Amenemha, and this

supposition becomes the more probable because the king called Moeris by

the Greeks is mentioned as a builder of the labyrinth. The remains of

the building, on the north side of which the pyramid is still standing,

raise this supposition into a certainty. At the entrance to this

pyramid, on the pillars and architraves in the ruins, the name of

Amenemha III. is repeatedly found.[176]

We must assume, therefore, that in the district which he had recovered

from the desert by means of his large reservoir, king Amenemha built a

large national temple close to the basin, and in this temple it was

intended that all the provinces of Upper and Lower Egypt should see the

deities of their land reproduced in separate courts and temples. Then

the Egyptians may have ascribed a restoration of this imperial temple,

this pantheon, to the supposed twelve kings who were thought to have

reigned after the Ethiopian dominion. This tradition is obviously at the

bottom of the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus, who carry the building

back to the seventh century B.C. The ruins of the labyrinth lie near the

modern village of Hauara, among orchards and palm groves, beside rose

gardens and sugar plantations, surrounded by fruitful fields, in a

district which is still flourishing and covered with villages, bounded

to the west by naked ridges of rock and the sand of the desert. They

consist of blocks of granite and dazzling white limestone, which

explains the supposed Parian marble in Pliny, the remains of walls and

the capitals of pillars. The extent of the structure reaches 600 feet in

length and 500 in width; the traces of numerous chambers, some large

and some very small, but all rectangular, are still visible both above

and under the ground. In the centre is a clear space, once perhaps

filled by the courts, of which Herodotus enumerates twelve and Strabo

twenty-seven. The pyramid consists of a core built of bricks, and was

cased with sculptures, of which, however, there are very slight remains;

each side measured 300 feet in length. It was the sepulchre of Amenemha;

here, among his great creations, he lay at rest.

In addition to the monuments in Nubia, and this great building, the lake

which ripples against the labyrinth is a most eloquent witness of the

prosperity to which this dynasty of the Amenemha and Sesurtesen raised

Egypt. The population must have been already very numerous when it came

to recovering fresh land from the desert, and attention was turned

towards increasing and improving the rich fertilization which nature

every year secured for Egypt. The picture of the richly developed

cultivation, of which these structures exhibit the highest point, is

supplemented by the insight into the details of the circumstances of the

country permitted by the rock tombs of Beni Hassan, Bersheh, and Sioot

(in Central Egypt), which belong to this period of Egyptian history. At

Beni Hassan, where the tombs go back to the reign of the first

Sesurtesen, we see the entire process of agriculture. Oxen or slaves are

drawing the ploughs, of which five different kinds are in use. Sheep and

goats tread the seed into the ground. The corn when cut is gathered into

sheaves, trodden out by oxen, measured, and carried in sacks to the

granary. The flax is packed upon the backs of asses, the lotus, the

vintage, and the figs are gathered in. The vintage is partly trodden

out, partly squeezed in a press moved by a lever; the wine is poured

into jars, and carried into a cellar. We see the irrigation of the

fields, the planting of the gardens, the cultivation of onions, the

overseer and his clerks. The overseer passes sentence on the lazy and

negligent slaves: when he has heard the complaint and the answer, he

orders the bastinado to be applied to the culprits, and hands to his

master the written account of the matter. With equal minuteness we can

follow the breeding of cattle. We see fine herds of oxen, cows, and

calves, asses, sheep, and goats in the stalls or at pasture with their

keepers; we see the cows milked, the butter and cheese prepared. The

fowl-yards are filled with a multitude of different ducks and geese. In

the same way by following the pictures on the graves at Beni Hassan we

can obtain an accurate view of the process of the various manufactures.

We see the spinners and weavers at work; we can follow the potter

through all the stages of his work, from the first kneading of the clay

to the burning of the finished jar. The carpenter and joiner, the

currier, the shoemaker, the smith and goldsmith, the mason and painter,

pursue their occupations before our eyes. We see rudders, lances,

javelins, bows and arrows, clubs and war-axes preparing: and lastly we

have the manufacture of glass, even the blowing, in all the various

operations before us. With similar minuteness we can see the interior of

the Egyptian house, simply or splendidly furnished, with all the movable

goods, the dogs, cats, and apes belonging to the inhabitants; there are

the servants at their work, and the operations of the kitchen in great

detail. Further we find soldiers of every rank, and with all kinds of

weapons; we see them exercising military drill; the battle, the siege,

the ram, which is brought up against the walls of the enemy, the roof

of shields under which the besieging army advanced to storm the

wall--all these are before us. Birding is carried on by means of traps

and nets, angling by hooks and spears of two or three tines; there is

hunting in its various modes. Long rows of wrestlers exhibit all the

various positions of their sport, which seems to have been much in

vogue; along with this various games exhibiting strength or endurance

were carried on; among others, games of ball and mora. We see dancers,

male and female, in various and sometimes very intricate positions;

harps and flutes of very different shapes are played upon. A singer is

accompanied by a musician on a harp, and the concert is completed by two

choruses, one of men, the other of women, who clap their hands. The

better class are depicted in gaily-coloured skiffs and palanquins,

surrounded by numerous servants, among whom may be observed a

considerable number of negroes. Dwarfs and deformed persons are also

found in their train.

The most splendid tomb at Beni Hassan belongs to Chnumhotep, the son of

Nehera, who, as the inscriptions tell us, was a minister of Amenemha II.

and Sesurtesen II. Like Amenj before him, he was the overseer of the

province of Hermopolis (Ashmunein). A picture on his tomb exhibits a

huge portrait of Chnumhotep, with a staff in his hand, and a scribe at

his side; before him are a number of smaller figures, who, to judge from

their shape and clothing, are foreigners. The chief among the

foreigners, clad in a gay garment, leads forward an antelope and makes a

reverential obeisance before the minister. His companions are more

simply clad, and armed with lances and bows; one of them is striking a

lute with the plectrum. Four women follow, in long gaily embroidered

garments, with their heads veiled. An ass driven by a boy with a lance

carries two children, and a second ass arms and utensils. The leaf of

papyrus, which the scribe of Chnumhotep is handing to his master informs

us that Abusa (Abscha) with thirty-six companions from the nation of the

Aamu (nomads of the East), had brought presents to the minister of the

province of Hermopolis in the sixth year of Sesurtesen III.[177]

If we compare the works of that epoch, which saw the erection of the

great pyramids, in technical and artistic value with the remains which

have come down from the time of the Amenemha and Sesurtesen--according

to the chronology of Lepsius the two periods are separated by an

interval of six centuries--we find in the great monuments of the first

epoch, in their passages and chambers, a dexterity in the use of stone

for building, which has never been surpassed. The sculptures exhibit

broader and stouter forms, with more strongly-marked but well-shaped

muscles. The ornaments consist of simple, straight lines, besides which

scarcely any other adornment is found beyond the lotus leaf. The style

is composed and full of repose; it remains nearer nature than in the

later works. In the monuments of the time of the Sesurtesen and Amenemha

the ornamentation has already become far richer. The pillars are

massive, fluted, and crowned by a simple cube. The sculptured forms are

taller and thinner; the work in relief, carried out with much industry

and delicacy, displays at times very happy moments of natural grace and

truth of expression, although perspective is entirely left out of

sight. Such work is always carefully painted. The statues of limestone

are also painted throughout; in those of granite, only the clothing, the

eyes and the hair are coloured.[178]

FOOTNOTES:

[130] Diod. 1, 12, 45.

[131] Herod. 2, 99.

[132] Diod. 1, 50. He ascribes the foundation of the city to a later

king, whom he calls Uchoreus.

[133] Strabo, p. 808; Tac. "Ann." 2, 6.

[134] Lepsius asserts that he found traces and remains of sixty-seven

pyramids. "Briefe aus AEgypten," s. 65.

[135] Lepsius, "Abh. der Berl. Akad." 1843, s. 177 ff.

[136] Boeckh, "Metrologie," s. 236.

[137] Herod. 2, 124-127, 134.

[138] Diod. 1, 63, 64.

[139] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 35.

[140] Cf. Strabo. p. 809.

[141] Lepsius, "Chronologie," s. 248, 302. Gutschmid has supported the

Herodotean inscription on the strength of papyri from the times of

Ramses Miamen in Philologus, 10, 644; the "talents" in any case must be

left for the dragoman.

[142] Lepsius, "Denkmale," 3, 2, plate II.

[143] De Rouge, "Monuments des six premieres dynasties; Memoires de

l'Institut," 1856, 25, 265 ff.

[144] Lepsius, "Denkmale," 3, 2, plate II.

[145] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 113.

[146] Brugsch, "Zeitschrift fuer aegyptische Sprache," 1864, s. 61.

[147] De Rouge, _loc. cit._ p. 257.

[148] De Rouge, _loc. cit._ pp. 282, 283.

[149] Herod. 2, 128. M. Buedinger ("Zur aegypt. Forschung Herodot's." s.

24) identifies this Philitis with the shepherd-king Salatis; cf. infra.

[150] Cf. above, p. 59. Mariette, "Revue archeol." 1860, p. 18.

[151] De Rouge, _loc. cit._ pp. 281, 307.

[152] De Rouge, _loc. cit._ p. 267.

[153] De Rouge, _loc. cit._ p. 328 ff.

[154] "Revue archeolog." 1862, p. 279.

[155] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 53.

[156] Rosellini, "Monumenti storici," 3, 33. Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte,"

p. 54.

[157] Rosellini, _loc. cit._ 1, 38.

[158] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 55, 56.

[159] "Revue archeolog." 1862, p. 297; 1864, p. 69.

[160] Bunsen, "AEgypt." 2, 323; Lepsius, "Chronolog." s. 287.

[161] Lepsius, "Briefe aus AEgypten," s. 259. On the fortifications, De

Voguee, "Athen. franz." Sept. 55, p. 84.

[162] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 68, 69.

[163] Lepsius, _loc. cit._ s, 81; Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 67.

[164] Herod. 2, 13, 101, 149.

[165] Diod. 1, 51, 52. "This is what the Egyptians tell of Moeris."

[166] Strabo. p. 809-811. Tac. Annal. 2, 61.

[167] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 81.

[168] Linant, "Memoire sur le lac Moeris."

[169] Lepsius, _loc. cit._

[170] Linant, _loc. cit._

[171] Herod. 2, 148.

[172] Diod. 1, 89, 66, 61.

[173] Strabo. p. 811; for [Greek: teichous mikrou] we must obviously

read [Greek: makrou], and for [Greek: echontes, echontos].

[174] Strabo. p. 811; cf. 813.

[175] Plin. "Hist. Nat." 36, 19. As the building was actually not more

than a stadium square, the statement of Herodotus that there were 1500

chambers above the earth--quite irrespective of the 1500 underground--is

inexplicable, unless the chambers were very small. In Pliny we must read

1500 for 15,000.

[176] Lepsius, "Briefe aus AEgypten," s. 74 ff.

[177] Brugsch, "Histoire d'Egypte," p. 63; Ebers, "Die Buecher Mose's,"

s. 98.

[178] De Rouge in Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 69.

CHAPTER V.

THE HYKSOS AND THE RESTORATION OF THE EGYPTIAN KINGDOM.

In spite of the union of Upper and Lower Egypt, and the extension of the

Egyptian dominion up the Nile as far as Semne and Kumne, the kingdom of

the pyramids, of the lake of Moeris, and the labyrinth succumbed to the

attack of a foreign enemy. According to Josephus, Manetho, in the second

book of his Egyptian History, gave the following account: "There was a

king Amyntimaeus. In his reign the divine power, I know not why, was

ungracious. From the East came an unexpected swarm of men belonging to a

tribe of no great reputation, with a bold resolution of taking the

country. This they succeeded in doing without much trouble. They made

themselves masters of the ruling princes, ruthlessly set fire to the

cities, and destroyed the shrines of the gods. Towards the inhabitants

they behaved in a most hostile manner; some they put to the sword, from

others they carried away their wives and children into slavery. At last

they made one of their own number, by name Salatis, their king. He took

up his abode at Memphis, collected tribute from the Upper and Lower

country, and placed garrisons in the most suitable places. The eastern

districts were fortified most strongly, since he foresaw that the

Assyrians, who were then growing in power, would be seized with the

desire of invading his country. In the Saitic (Sethroitic) province he

found a city excellently adapted for his purpose, lying eastwards of the

river from Bubastis, and called Avaris, from some old legend or another.

This he surrounded with the strongest walls, filled it with inhabitants,

and placed there the bulk of his armed soldiers, 240,000 men, as a

garrison. In the summer he visited this stronghold to measure the corn,

pay his soldiers, and exercise his troops in order to strike fear in

those who dwelt beyond the fortress. After a reign of nineteen years

Salatis died. After him reigned a king of the name of Beon, for

forty-four years, then Apachnas for thirty-six years and seven months,

then Apophis for sixty-one years, and Annas for fifty years and one

month, and finally Assis for forty-nine years and two months. These six

were their first rulers, and they sought more and more to destroy Egypt

to the very root. The whole tribe was called Hyksos, _i.e._ shepherd

kings. For in the sacred language _hyk_ means 'king,' and _sos_ in the

ordinary dialect is 'a shepherd,' and from composition of the two comes

the word Hyksos. Some authorities say that they were Arabs." "The

shepherd kings named above and their descendants are supposed by Manetho

to have ruled over Egypt for 511 years. Yet he afterwards tells us that

kings arose in the district of Thebes and the rest of Egypt, between

whom and the shepherds there was a long and severe struggle. In the

reign of a king named Misphragmuthosis the shepherds were defeated by

the king, driven out of Egypt, and confined in one place, 10,000 arourae

in extent, the name of which was Avaris. This space, as Manetho tells

us, the shepherds surrounded with a great and strong wall, in order to

preserve their possessions and their booty in security. But Tuthmosis,

the son of Misphragmuthosis, attempted to take Avaris by force, and led

out 480,000 men before the walls. When he found that the investment made

but little way, he came to terms with the shepherds, permitting them to

leave Egypt uninjured and go whither they would. On these terms they

departed from Egypt with their families, and goods, not less than

240,000 strong, and went into the Syrian desert, and through fear of the

Assyrians, who were then the great power in Asia, they built a city in

the land now called Judaea, large enough to contain their numbers, and

named it Jerusalem."

The short excerpts made by Africanus and Eusebius from the Egyptian

History of Manetho only tell that "there were certain foreign kings,

Phenicians, who took Memphis, and built a city in the Sethroitic

province, from which they went forth and subdued the Egyptians."

Africanus gives six, Eusebius four, names of these foreign kings, which

are somewhat the same in sound as those in Josephus, only in Africanus

Apophis is the last in the list, not last but two.[179]

If Josephus has transcribed and reproduced Manetho correctly there is an

obvious contradiction in his narrative. The first shepherd king,

Salatis, fortified and peopled Avaris, and placed there a garrison of

240,000 men, for protection against the Assyrians. Then after a lapse of

511 (or according to the excerpt of Africanus of 953) years, when the

shepherds had lost Egypt they were shut up in a place containing 10,000

arourae, _i.e._ a square of twenty-five miles, of the name of Avaris,

which they surrounded with a strong wall in order to keep their

possessions and booty in security. At last they were compelled to

retire even from this, and march out in just the same strength as the

garrison which Salatis had placed so long before at Avaris, towards

Judaea, and here they founded a second city of Jerusalem, also for

protection against the Assyrians.

We may leave the Assyrians out of the question, and assume that the

reference to them has been transferred by Manetho from the later

position which Assyria took up towards Syria and Egypt in the eighth and

seventh centuries B.C. to those earlier times; we may also regard the

turn of the narrative, which makes the shepherds the ancestors of the

Jews and builders of Jerusalem, as a combination invented by Manetho,

for in the tradition of the Hebrews there is no hint that their

ancestors had once ruled over Egypt for centuries, and Jerusalem down to

the time of David was merely the stronghold of a small tribe, the

Jebusites. Still it remains inexplicable that these shepherds, who,

after they had taken Egypt, or, in order to take it, fortified Avaris,

and garrisoned it with 240,000 men, should fortify Avaris a second time

centuries later, in order to maintain their last possession in Egypt,

and at last march out of Avaris in exactly the same numbers as the

garrison originally settled there. Shepherds, _i.e._ nomads, do not make

war by building fortresses as a base of operations for extending their

conquests; they had nothing to gain by conquering Egypt for the mere

purpose of shutting up the whole or the greater part of their numbers

with their flocks in a fortified place. On the other hand, it might have

seemed advisable to them, when they had subjugated Egypt, to possess a

fortified place on the eastern border, in order to keep up a connection

with their tribe; and it was natural that the shepherds, when the

Egyptians had risen against them with success, and they were no longer

able to hold the Delta, should attempt to maintain themselves in the

flats and swamps of the Eastern Delta; and when forced to act on the

defensive should fortify their camp at Avaris in this district.

In the narrative of Manetho we can accept no more than the facts that

Egypt succumbed to the attack of the shepherds, and that they, to take

the lower estimate, ruled over Egypt for five centuries. Herodotus also

learnt in Egypt that the shepherd Philitis had once pastured his flocks

at Memphis. There is nothing wonderful in such an occurrence. Nomad

tribes dwelt in the deserts on the east and west of Egypt, to whose

poverty and scanty means of subsistence the abundance and cultivation of

Egypt must have presented a continual temptation. That temptation would

increase in force when the tribes became more numerous, when unusual

heat diminished the springs in the oases, and robbed these shepherds of

the produce of their scanty agriculture. The tradition of the Hebrews

tells us that their ancestor Abraham went to Egypt when "there was a

famine in the land," and the sons of Jacob bought corn in Egypt.

According to Manetho's account, the tribes from whom the attack

proceeded were not famous, and he regarded the invaders as coming from

the east. The peninsula of Sinai, Northern Arabia, and the Syrian desert

sheltered in the Amalekites, Horites, Edomites, and Midianites, tribes

who were rendered hardy and warlike by life in the desert, tribal feuds,

and raids for plunder; and these may very well have united in

considerable number under some leader of military genius, and attempted

the invasion of the rich river-valley in their neighbourhood. According

to Manetho, the invaders were Phenicians or Arabians. The name of the

shepherd Philitis, given by Herodotus, points to a Semitic tribe, and

one immediately bordering on Egypt on the Syrian coast--the Philistines

(Pelischtim), from whom the whole Syrian coast was called by the Greeks

Palaestina. The name of the stronghold of the shepherds, Avaris, or

Abaris, recurs in Hauara, a town of Arabia on the shore of the Red

Sea.[180] If the shepherds who conquered Egypt had not been Semitic, and

closely related to the Hebrews, Manetho would not have made them the

ancestors of the Hebrews and founders of Jerusalem after their expulsion

from Egypt.

After the conquest, the chiefs of the shepherds ruled over Egypt. The

inscriptions on the monuments repeatedly denote certain tribes in the

east of Egypt by the name Schasu, which in the later language is

contracted into Sos. _Schasu_ means shepherds. Moreover, in old

Egyptian, the head of a family, a tribe, and a province is called _hak_,

and Hyksos thus can be explained by _Haku-schasu_, chiefs of the

shepherds, shepherd kings, as Josephus, Eusebius, and Africanus render

it.[181] What Manetho tells us of the destruction of the cities and

shrines, the slaughter and enslaving of the Egyptians may be correct for

the time of the war and conquest. But this hostility and destruction

cannot, as he intimates, have gone on for centuries, for, on the

restoration of the Pharaohs, we find ancient Egypt unimpaired in

population, unchanged in language, customs, and manners, in civilisation

and art. If the national development was interrupted and repressed by

the Hyksos, it still remained uninjured at the core, so far as we have

the means of judging.

When at a subsequent period the kings of Ethiopia subjugated Egypt, the

warrior caste, the soldiers settled in the country by the Pharaohs, were

deprived of their lands. The same thing may have taken place on the

irruption of the shepherds. The warriors of the Pharaohs fell in battle,

were carried away as prisoners, or deprived of their weapons; and in

their place came the victorious army of the shepherds. Of these many

would soon return home laden with the booty of Egypt, others pitched

their tents in the conquered land, and settled in the greenest meadows,

more especially in the eastern provinces of the Delta, nearest their own

home, on the Tanitic and Pelusiac arms of the Nile, and Lake Menzaleh.

The chief of the immigrants became the head of the conquerors and the

conquered. The latter would render the same abject homage to their new

masters as they rendered before and after to their native kings; and the

power which the conquered willingly acknowledged in the chief would

exalt his position even among the conquerors. As time went on, the

culture and civilisation of Egypt had their natural effect on the

barbarous invaders, and when the storm of conquest was over, we may

assume that Egypt was no worse off under the rule of the shepherd kings

than at later periods under the rule of the Persians, the Ptolemies, and

the Romans.

That the new princes, soon after the conquest, attempted to approximate

their position as much as possible to that of the ancient Pharaohs may

be concluded from the mere fact that Manetho was in a position to give a

catalogue of their reigns by years and months. But this is proved more

definitely still by certain monuments. In the neighbourhood of Lake

Menzaleh, among the ruins of the ancient Tanis, the modern San, two old

statues have been discovered, the forms and lineaments of which exhibit

a physique different from the Egyptian. In the heads of four sphinxes,

discovered in the same place, it is thought that we may recognise the

portraits of four shepherd kings, and a colossus discovered at Tel

Mokdam is said to bear the following inscription:--"The good god, the

star of both worlds, the child of the sun, Sel Salati, beloved by

Sutech, the lord of Hauar.[182]"

The six shepherd kings enumerated by Josephus from the Egyptian History

of Manetho reigned, according to the dates given by the latter, for 260

years, _i.e._ from the year 2101 B.C., in which, on Lepsius's

arrangement, the irruption of the shepherds took place, till the year

1842 B.C. Their successors must therefore have ruled over Egypt for 251

years more, _i.e._, down to the year 1591 B.C. But in the time of the

later shepherd kings, native princes again arose in Upper Egypt,

although subject to tribute. A papyrus of the British Museum tells us:

"It so happened that the land of Egypt became the possession of her

enemies, and when this took place there was no king. And behold Raskenen

became king of the country in the south. The enemy were in possession

of the fortress of Aamu (p. 120), and their chief, Ra Apepi was at

Hauar. The whole land paid tribute to him, and rendered service of all

kinds, and brought to him the produce of Lower Egypt. King Apepi chose

Sutech as his lord, and served no other god, and built him a temple of

firm and lasting structure."[183]

The power of the native princes at Thebes must have been gradually

strengthened till the successors of Raskenen were in a position to press

forward towards Lower Egypt, and place limits on the sway of the

shepherd kings, and finally to drive them entirely out of Egypt.

Josephus has already told us from Manetho that the princes of Thebes and

the rest of Egypt rose up against the shepherds, and in consequence a

long and severe struggle took place between them. In Manetho's list the

series of shepherd kings is followed by Amosis of Thebes (1684-1659

B.C.). Hence we may assume that it was under this prince that the

kingdom of Thebes got the upper hand, and the power of the shepherd

kings was restricted to the Eastern Delta.

This conclusion is established by the evidence of monuments. There

Amosis is again mentioned as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, and two

inscriptions of the twenty-second year of Amosis (1662 B.C.), in the

quarries of Massara, inform us that these quarries were opened to

restore the temples at Memphis and the temple of Ammon at Thebes.[184]

Hence by this time Amosis had again rescued the old capital, Memphis,

from the shepherds; that he also forced his way beyond Memphis, and

attacked the shepherds at Avaris, is proved by the inscription of a tomb

at El Kab, in Upper Egypt. It is the tomb of Aahmes, the son of Abuna,

the chief of the steersmen. The inscription tells us that, at the time

of Amosis, Aahmes, with his father on the boat, had ministered to "the

calf." He had not yet seen any woman, and wore the clothing of the young

men, when Hauar was attacked. When he had won a hand, he received the

king's commendation, and the golden necklace in token of his bravery. In

a second and third battle at Hauar he had again won a hand, and made a

prisoner, and he received the chain for the second and third time.[185]

From the accounts given in Josephus and the excerpts of Africanus and

Eusebius, Avaris lay eastward of the Tanitic arm of the Nile, in the

province of Sethroe. Consequently we must look for this fortified camp

of the shepherds on the eastern shore of the Lake Menzaleh, perhaps on

the site of the later Pelusium. In the lists of kings Amosis is followed

by Amenophis I., then follows Tuthmosis I., then Tuthmosis II. and III.,

under the regency of Misphra (1625-1591 B.C.). From this connection has

arisen the king Misphragmuthosis, who, in Josephus, defeats the

shepherds, drives them out of the rest of Egypt, and shuts them up in

Avaris. Hence it must have been Tuthmosis III., after the rise of the

independent monarchy (1591-1565), who led the great host of 480,000 men

against the shepherds in Avaris, and failing to enter the place by

storm, allowed them to depart unharmed, whereupon the strangers, to the

number of 240,000, retired into the Syrian desert (1591 B.C.). Yet the

inscriptions do not agree with this account. From the inscription of

Aahmes already quoted, it seems more probable that Amosis had already

taken Avaris, and that Tuthmosis I. had marched through Syria to

Naharina, _i.e._ to Mesopotamia, a fact which is confirmed by the

inscriptions of Tuthmosis III., though here also there are accounts of

battles fought by Tuthmosis II. against the Schasu, or shepherds.[186]

However this may be, after a long subjection to foreign rulers, and

weary struggles against them, the whole land of Egypt was again governed

by native kings. These battles must have invigorated the military

strength of the Egyptians; and the happy result could not but increase

the self-confidence of the new dynasty to which Egypt owed her

liberation. The mighty impulse thus given carried the kingdom quickly to

the height of its power and greatness. Tuthmosis III. caused an

enumeration to be made of the conquests which he won from the

twenty-second to the forty-second year of his reign, and the tribute

which he received in this period. In this enumeration sixteen or

seventeen campaigns are mentioned. In the twenty-third year the king

marched against the Retennu (Syrians). From Kazatu (Gaza) beyond Taanaka

(Taanach) he reached Maketi (Megiddo). Here, on the twenty-ninth of the

month Pachor he defeated his enemies. The conflict was not sanguinary.

Only eighty-three of the enemy were slain. The king made 340 prisoners,

but took at the same time 924 chariots and 2,132 horses. Megiddo

surrendered, and Tuthmosis was able to lead back 2,500 prisoners into

Egypt. After this 117 cities and places in Syria surrendered, Kadeschu

(Kades), Tevekhu (Tibshath on the Orontes), Maram (Merom), Tamesku

(Damascus), Atara (Ataroth), Hamtu (perhaps Hamath), Kaanu (Kanah),

Masaar (Misheal), Astartu (Astaroth Karnaim), Hutar (Hazor), Kennarut

(Kinneroth), Aksap (Achshaph), Bar Semas (Beth Shemesh), Atuma (Adamah),

Ranama (Rimmon), Japu (Joppa), Harar (Har El), Rabbau (Rabbah), Baratu

(Berothai, Berytus), Sarta, &c.[187] Thus the coast of Syria and the

mountain district as far as Damascus and Hamath on the Orontes would

have become subject to the Pharaohs. This subjection, however, does not

seem to have gone beyond payment of tribute. The following campaigns of

the king were again for the most part directed against the Retennu; a

battle was fought at Aratu (Aradus). The sums which Tuthmosis received

in tribute from the Cheta (Hittites) are enumerated. Afterwards the king

made repeated expeditions against Naharina (Arem Naharaim), _i.e._

against the land of the two rivers, Mesopotamia, and here also he levied

tribute. Then the tribute is given in the list, which the king received

from the Punt (the Arabians). That Lower Nubia, as far as the old

boundary at Semne, was subject to Tuthmosis III. is beyond a doubt. An

inscription found at Ellesieh in Nubia informs us that Nahi, the

governor of Nubia, has sent the tribute of the lands of the south to the

king in gold, ebony, and ivory,[188] and the list quoted mentions 115

tribes or places subdued by Tuthmosis in the south of Egypt.[189] Of

Amenophis II., the successor of Tuthmosis III. (1565-1555 B.C.),

inscriptions at Amada in Nubia declare that he fought against the

Retennu (Syrians), and slew seven kings, and that in the south he

forced his way as far as Napata, _i.e._ up the Nile as far as Mount

Barkal.[190]

His successor, Tuthmosis IV., appears on monuments of the island

Konosso, near Philae, as victorious over the negroes.[191] And after him

Amenophis III. (1524-1488 B.C.) again directed his arms in his first

campaign against the negroes; a memorial stone at Semne tells us that he

traversed Abha, the land of the negroes. That the power of Amenophis

III. extended to the south far beyond Semne is proved by the ruins of a

temple which he built at Soleb on the Nile, "to his image living upon

earth," _i.e._ to the copy or manifestation of his divine nature, his

own divinity,[192] and inscriptions on certain scarabaei assure us that

Amenophis ruled from Naharina, _i.e._ Mesopotamia, to the land of Karu

in the south.[193]

Thebes was the point from which the liberation of the land began. Here

the new dynasty who had restored the kingdom, driven out the enemy, and

carried the arms of Egypt far to the south and east, took up their

lasting abode, and this city became the brilliant centre of the new

kingdom. Here, also, the new Pharaohs glorified themselves by mighty

works, as the old kings had done in the city of Memphis and the

burial-place adjacent. And along with the warlike vigour displayed by

the people, the art and civilisation of Egypt, under the series of kings

extending from Amosis to Amenophis III. (1684-1488 B.C.), reached the

highest perfection which the position and character of the nation

permitted.

On the right bank of the Nile, on a terrace near the modern village of

Karnak, the first Sesurtesen (2371-2325 B.C.), built a temple of

moderate size to Ammon (p. 102). To this Tuthmosis I. (1646-1625 B.C.)

added a splendid gateway, a lofty gate between two broad wings, which

rise in the form of truncated pyramids, and behind this gateway he built

an oblong court, encircled by a portico supported on pillars. Against

these pillars leaned karyatids, images of Osiris, with the hands, in

which is the cross with handles, crossed upon the breast. Of these four

remain still uninjured. Before the entrance of the gateway he erected

two obelisks of red granite, of which one, sixty-nine feet in height, is

still standing. The inscription runs thus:--"The mighty Horus, the

friend of truth, the king Tutmes, the mighty sun, which is given to the

world, whom Ammon establishes, has erected this firm structure in honour

of his father Ammon Ra, the protector of the world, and has placed two

large obelisks before the double gates."[194] The queen Misphra

(Ramake), who was regent for Tuthmosis II., and in the early years of

Tuthmosis III. (1625-1591 B.C.), erected in the oblong court of

Tuthmosis I. the two second largest obelisks known. Of these also one is

still uninjured, and stands ninety feet high, the other has fallen, and

lies on the ground. The inscription tells us that the queen whom Ammon

himself had placed on the throne and chosen as the protectress of Egypt,

had resolved in her heart to erect two great obelisks, the tops of which

should reach to heaven, in honour of the god Ammon and in remembrance of

her father Tuthmosis I., in order that her name might continue in the

temple of Ammon for ever and ever. Each obelisk was to be of a single

stone of red granite. Her holiness had commenced the work in her

fifteenth year, and completed it in her sixteenth, seven months after

the work was commenced in the mountain quarry.[195]

To this court Tuthmosis III. added a gateway towards the south, and

surrounded the ancient sanctuary of Sesurtesen with a circle of huge

buildings. These consisted of two halls, each of twelve pillars, to the

right and left of the entrance, on which abut chambers, great or small

as the walls which surround the old temple allow. On the walls which

close these halls and chambers towards the old building, the king

recorded the events of his reign from the twenty-second to the

forty-second year, from which everything has already been given which up

to this time can be regarded as certain. The two largest obelisks also,

of which the largest is now standing in Rome before the Lateran, and the

other is destroyed, were erected by Tuthmosis III., and placed, as it

would seem, before the entrance into the old temple of Sesurtesen. The

obelisk now at Constantinople is also a work of this prince. The

inscription says that Tuthmosis III. "extended his dominion from Mount

Apta (in the south) to the uttermost habitations of Mesopotamia."[196]

On the east side of the enlarged temple of Sesurtesen, he built a

splendid hall, the roof of which is supported by fifty-six pillars.

Besides this he built additions to the temple of Ra at Heliopolis,

restored the temple at Dendera, apparently after a plan sketched on a

goatskin, which, belonging to the time of Chufu (p. 94) was rediscovered

under king Phiops (p. 101),[197] and finally he erected shrines to the

sun-god Mentu at Hermonthis, near Thebes, the god Sebek at Ombos, Chnum

at Letopolis (Esneh), and on the island of Elephantine. In Nubia he

erected temples at Pselchis, Korte, Amada, and Semne. The temple at

Semne he consecrated to Chnum and Sesurtesen III., who extended the

borders of Egypt to this point (p. 105), in order that "the king might

live again in this memorial."[198]

Before the great sphinx, near the second pyramid, Tuthmosis IV. erected

the memorial stone already mentioned (p. 94); it represents the king

worshipping the sphinx. In the inscription the sphinx addresses the

king, and says, "I, thy father Harmachu, give thee the dominion, the

world in all its length and breadth, rich tribute from all nations, and

a long life of many years."[199]

The buildings of Amenophis III. are not inferior to those of Tuthmosis

III. in extent or magnificence. Half an hour southward of the gateways,

court, and porticoes of the temple at Karnak, close on the right bank of

the Nile, at the modern village of Luxor, Amenophis built a second

temple to Ammon, the god of Thebes. In a court surrounded by colonnades,

the "court of sacrifice" joined the antechamber of the temple, or outer

temple, then came the temple with the Holy of Holies, built in the form

invariably used in Egypt after the restoration.[200] Only the spacious

antechamber, a hall with a roof supported on pillars and lighted by

windows in the wall, or by the spaces between the front pillars, could

be entered by laymen. The inner temple, reserved for the priests, to

which a second gate led from the antechamber, was a smaller hall of the

same kind, which received only a moderate light through openings made

high up in the side walls. From this half-darkened room the Holy of

Holies was again separated by a court, and the entrance was through a

door. Two other doors led by means of a passage running round the Holy

of Holies into the chamber surrounding it. The Holy of Holies, together

with the chambers abutting upon it, was surrounded by a high wall and

formed a separate temple of small dimensions. The masonry is heavy, and

narrows toward the top. Here in the gloom dwelt the hidden spirit of the

god. The heavy, solemn, mysterious character of the Egyptian temple

naturally makes itself most strongly felt in these spaces or rooms. On

the inner walls of the temple the sacrifices and worship rendered by the

king are represented, on the outer walls we see his achievements in war.

What still remains of the building of Amenophis--and it was subsequently

enlarged--allows us only to conjecture upon the original plan. Yet about

200 pillars and shafts still rise out of the ruins. The reliefs on the

outer walls of the temple, and in the chambers round the Holy of Holies,

are in the best state of preservation. On the walls of one of these

chambers we see the scribe of heaven, Thoth, announcing to Mutemua, the

mother of Amenophis, the birth of her son. Then the ram-god and the

goddess Hathor lead the queen into the lying-in chamber; another goddess

supports the queen during the birth. Then four heavenly spirits, the two

spirits of the south and the two spirits of the north, carry Amenophis,

already grown into a youth, to a throne in the presence of Ammon Ra, who

anoints him king. Then the gods promise gifts, honour, and power to the

new king. They declare that the Retennu, the "nine nations," _i.e._ the

nations bordering on Egypt, and all people, shall be subject to

him.[201]

Far fewer--not more than a great heap of ruins with a few pillars and

memorial stones--are the remains of a second great work of Amenophis

III., which he built opposite the temple of Karnak on the west bank of

the Nile not far from the modern village of Medinet Habu. We learn

from Pliny that it was a temple of Serapis, _i.e._ of Osarhapi,

Osiris-Apis.[202] We have already mentioned the shrine of the same

goddess, which was situated among the tombs near Memphis (p. 67),

and we know that in the view of the Egyptians the west belonged to the

setting sun, the sun of the under world. The statement of Pliny is also

confirmed by two memorial stones among the ruins, from which we gather

that Osiris and Ammon Ra were the lords of the temple; and it is not

strange that the tutelary god of Thebes should be associated with

Osiris. Before the entrance to this sanctuary Amenophis caused two

statues to be erected, which still rise like steep cliffs above the flat

level of the bank by the side of a palm forest. They are two seated

figures, and the inscriptions tell us that both represent Amenophis.

The king is in a quiet attitude, the hands rest on the knees. The front

parts of the throne are formed by statues of the mother and wife of

Amenophis, which reach up to the knees of the king. The statues were

chiselled out of a single block, as also the bases. The height of the

whole is towards sixty feet.[203]

The power to which Tuthmosis III. and Amenophis III. exalted Egypt

appears to have declined under their successors, or at least it did not

advance. The monuments prove to us that Amenophis IV. (1488-1476 B.C.)

began certain religious innovations. He paid excessive or exclusive

reverence to the sun-god, and attempted to found a new capital in the

neighbourhood of the modern Amarna, in Central Egypt, which was no doubt

intended to be the centre of the new cult. If, at the same time, as the

monuments show, he was able, like his predecessor, to build at Soleb, in

Dongola, it follows that the supremacy of Egypt was maintained, at any

rate in the south.

FOOTNOTES:

[179] Joseph. c. Apion 1, 14; cf. 1, 26; Afric. et Euseb. ap. Sync., p.

61, 62; Schol. Plat. 2, 424, ed. Bekker.

[180] Caussin de Perceval, "Hist. des Arab." 1, 13, 19. That the

tradition of the Arabs about the Amalika is worthless has been proved by

Noeldeke ("Ueber die Amalekiter").

[181] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 77.

[182] Ebers, _loc. cit._ s. 88, 202; Mariette, "Revue archeol." 1861, p.

337 ff.; 1862, p. 300 ff. From a memorial-stone discovered at Tanis we

find that 400 years before a certain year, which is not named, in the

reign of Ramses II. _i.e._, about 1750 B.C. (according to Lepsius's data

for Ramses II.), the shepherd king Nubti held sway; that he introduced

certain regulations in Egypt for the province of Tanis, the special home

of the shepherds; and that Ramses II. when erecting his buildings, which

in any case were sufficiently durable, at Tanis (see below), referred

back to this king. Further conclusions, which have been deduced from the

inscription on this stone, have been completely overthrown in my opinion

by Mariette.--"Revue archeol." 1865, 11, 169 ff.

[183] De Rouge, "Athen. Franc." 1854, p. 532; Brugsch, in the "Zeitschr.

d. d. M. G." 9, 200 ff.; "Hist. d'Eg." p. 78. Brugsch assumes that Ra

Apepi was a later Apophis, and not the Apophis who is the fourth

shepherd king in Josephus, and sixth in Africanus, for according to the

inscription on the tomb of Aahmes, Amosis followed Raskenen. On the

inscription Apepi on a colossus of Ramses II., cf. _infra._

[184] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 85.

[185] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 80-90.

[186] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 81, 87; De Rouge, "Revue archeolog."

1860, 2, 310 ff.

[187] De Rouge, "Divers Monuments de Tutmes;" "Revue archeol." 1861, 4,

196 ff. 344 ff.

[188] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 107.

[189] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1861, 1, 345.

[190] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 111.

[191] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 114.

[192] Lepsius, "Briefe aus AEgypten," s. 216; Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p.

118.

[193] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 114.

[194] Rosellini, "Monumenti Storici," 3, 1, 29, 114 ff.

[195] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 92, 93: cf. Rosellini, "Monumenti

Storici," 3, 1, 332, 146, and Lepsius, "Koenigsbuch," s. 38.

[196] Brugsch, _loc cit._ pp. 108, 109.

[197] Duemichen, "Bauurkunde von Dendera;" Chabas in "Zeitschr. fuer

aegypt. Sprache," 1865, s. 91 ff.

[198] Lepsius, "Briefe aus AEgypten," s. 113; Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte,"

pp. 65, 66.

[199] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 113.

[200] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1865, 11, 354 ff.; Duemichen,

"Bauurkunde von Edfu;" Brugsch, "Bau und Masse des Tempels von Edfu;"

"Zeitschr. fuer aegypt. Sprache," 1870, s. 153 ff; 1871, s. 25, 32 ff.

[201] Champollion, "Lettres," p. 210; Rosell. M. St. 1, 219, 223, 236,

248.

[202] "Hist. Nat." 35, 11.

[203] Rosell. _loc. cit._ 3, 1, 216. The Greeks regarded the northern

colossus as the statue of Memnon. The ruins of this temple, and other

buildings on the west bank of the Nile, were called by them

"Memnoneia."--Diod. 1, 47; Strabo, pp. 813, 816. The name is strictly

limited to the temples and palaces on the west bank. Yet even the

fortress of Susa is called "the Memnonia."--Herod. 5, 53, 7, 151;

Strabo, p. 728; Diod. 2, 22; Paus. 10, 31. The name as applied to the

Egyptian monuments may be a corruption of Amenophis, so that the name of

the buildings of Amenophis has given the analogy for other similar

structures. Still, it is more probable that the connection of these

buildings with the divinity of the under world, and the death of Osiris,

to which the death of Memnon was compared, is at the root of this

nomenclature of the Greeks. The story of the Ethiopian Memnon, the son

of the Morning, _i.e._ of the East, who came to aid the Trojans and

found an early death before Troy, is known to the Odyssey (11, 522, 4,

187), the Homeric hymns ("In Ven." 219-239) and the Theogony (l. 984),

and was treated in detail by Arktinus of Miletus about 750 B.C. In

Homer's view the Ethiopians dwell in the far East, at the rising of the

sun, beyond the Amazons, whose abode was on the Thermodon. Hence the

ancient Susa, far in the East, the subsequent capital of the Achaemenids,

might have been the dwelling of the son of the East. When it was known

that the Ethiopians inhabited the Upper Nile, and the name Memnon was

found in Egypt, the Greeks, after the time of Herodotus, began to search

for the Homeric Ethiopians and Memnon, in and above Egypt. That the name

is given to the northern colossus only is due to the following reasons.

In the year 27 B.C. an earthquake broke this northern colossus and threw

the upper parts to the ground. Then the pedestal and trunk occasionally

gave forth a metallic sound at sunrise.--Tac. "Annal." 2, 61. This, in

the poetic minds of the Greeks, was the greeting of the son to his

divine mother, the Morning, while she in her sorrow for the early death

of her son moistened the statue every morning with tears of dew. Greek

inscriptions on the pedestal from the time of Nero give the names of

witnesses who had heard the sound. Pausanias, who was of this date,

tells us, _loc. cit._--"At Thebes, in Egypt, is the sounding statue of a

seated man, whom most authorities call Memnon, and say that he forced

his way from Ethiopia to Egypt and Susa. The inhabitants of Thebes,

however, deny that it is Memnon. They regard it as the statue of

Phamenoph, a native Egyptian." Ph-Amenoph is Amenophis with the Egyptian

article. The sounding statue was long regarded as a fable, until the

_savans_ of the French expedition, in the early morning, when the hot

sunbeams followed on the cool of the night, as is usual in the climate

of Africa, perceived in the great Egyptian buildings a small whispering,

or singing tone, which must be due to those physical influences. This

phenomenon may have been especially striking in the mutilated statue of

Amenophis. In the time of Septimius Severus, when the colossus was

restored--the upper parts are now composed of four pieces--the

inscriptions and the marvel came to an end. The new weight placed upon

the pedestal appears to have checked the vibrations. At present no sound

is heard.--Letronne, "La Statue vocal de Memnon."

CHAPTER VI.

THE HOUSE OF RAMSES.

The Greeks inform us that Sesostris, or Sesosis, was the greatest

warrior among the kings of Egypt. Herodotus was told by the priests that

he was the first who set out with ships of war from the Arabian Gulf,

and reduced the dwellers by the Red Sea, until he was checked by waters

which were too shallow for navigation. On his return from this

expedition, Sesostris, as the priests said, gathered together a great

army, invaded the continent, and reduced every nation in his path. In

the conquered lands he set up pillars, on which were inscribed his name

and country, and that he had reduced the nation by his power. Wherever

he found but little resistance he also caused female emblems to be

engraved on the pillars. "So he passed from Asia into Europe, and

reduced the Scythians and Thracians. Beyond these the Egyptian army did

not, in my opinion, pass; for in the country of the Thracians the

pillars of Sesostris are found, but not farther. The greater number of

these pillars are no longer in existence; yet in Syrian Palestine I have

myself seen them with the inscriptions and emblems. In Ionia also there

are two images of this king hewn in the rock, one on the way from

Ephesus to Phocaea, the other on the way from Sardis to Smyrna. At both

places there is the figure of a man, 4-1/2 cubits high, with a spear in

the right hand and a bow in the left, armed partly as an Egyptian and

partly as an Ethiopian. Across the breast, from one shoulder to the

other, run Egyptian sacred letters, saying: 'I have conquered this land

with my arms.' Who he is and from whence he comes, Sesostris does not

tell us here, but on the other pillars. When Sesostris returned, he

brought with him many prisoners from the tribes, and his brother, to

whom Sesostris had entrusted Egypt, gave him a hospitable reception at

Pelusium. But round the house in which Sesostris was with his wife and

children he caused wood to be heaped, and set on fire. Then the queen

cried out to Sesostris to take two of her six sons, throw them on the

burning wood, and pass over their bodies as over a bridge. This was

done. The two sons were burnt, but the others with their father escaped.

After taking revenge on his brother, Sesostris employed the masses of

prisoners in drawing enormous stones to the temple of Hephaestus, and in

digging all the canals which now intersect Egypt. By these the land,

hitherto an open field for chariots and horses, was made less

accessible. The king's object in making them was that the cities which

were not on the river should have more water at the time when the floods

were not out. Then Sesostris is said to have divided the arable land of

Egypt into equal rectangular portions, and to have allotted to every man

an equal portion. And if the inundation washed away any part of this

allotment, the king returned the owner a corresponding part of his tax.

Sesostris was the only king of Egypt who also ruled over Ethiopia. As a

memorial of his reign, he left six large statues before the temple of

Hephaestus--images of himself, his wife, and his four sons; the two

first are thirty, the four last twenty cubits high. Long after, when

Darius wished to place his own statue in front of these, the priest of

Hephaestus forbade him, because Darius had not achieved such mighty deeds

as Sesostris. He had reduced the Scythians, whom Darius had failed to

reduce. This indignity, they say, Darius pardoned."[204]

Diodorus assures us that Sesostris had surpassed the greatest and most

glorious deeds of his predecessors. "But inasmuch as not only the Greek

writers are far from agreeing in their accounts of this king, but even

the Egyptian priests, and those who sing of his deeds are at variance,

we shall attempt to give the most probable account and that which is

most in agreement with the monuments still existing in Egypt." When

Sesosis was born, his father gathered together all the boys born on the

same day, more than 1700 in number, and caused them to be brought up in

the same manner as his own son, in the impression that they would thus

become his most loyal and bravest comrades in battle. With these

companions he first despatched him against the Arabs, and Sesosis

subjugated the whole country of the Arabs, which no one had ever

subjugated before. In the next place, his father sent him against the

tribes in the west, and Sesosis, although still quite young, subjugated

a great part of Libya. On the death of his father, Sesosis, relying on

the results of previous campaigns, formed the resolution of subjugating

the whole earth. Having gained the good will of the Egyptians by

gentleness, remission of punishments, and presents, he gathered together

a great army of the mightiest men, an army of 600,000 infantry, 24,000

cavalry, and 27,000 chariots. The various divisions of this great host

he placed under the command of those who had been educated with him, to

whom at the same time he allotted the most fruitful lands in Egypt. With

this host Sesosis first reduced the Ethiopians, who dwelt in the south,

and imposed upon them a tribute of gold, ebony, and ivory. Then he sent

a fleet of four hundred ships into the Red Sea--he was the first

Egyptian to build ships of war--and by means of these he subjugated to

his dominion all the islands and sea-coasts, as far as India. Meanwhile

he marched out in person with his army, and reduced the whole of Asia.

He crossed the Ganges and passed through India to the ocean. Then he

subjugated the nations of Scythia as far as the Tanais, which divides

Europe and Asia. In the same manner he reduced the rest of Asia, and

then passed into Europe. But in Thrace he was in great danger of losing

his army through want of food and the severity of the climate. So he put

an end to the campaign in Thrace, after erecting pillars at many places

in the countries he had subjugated. On these was engraved, in the

character which the Egyptians called sacred, the following

inscription:--"This land Sesosis, the king of kings and lord of lords,

conquered with his arms." At some places also he set up his own statue

in stone, with a bow and lance, four cubits and four hands high, for

this was his own height. After completing these campaigns in nine years,

Sesosis returned with his prisoners and untold spoil. When at Pelusium,

his brother formed a plan for his destruction. He invited Sesosis to a

banquet, and in the night, when all were asleep after their wine, he

heaped up reeds round the king's tent and set them on fire. When the

flames suddenly sprang up, the retinue, heavy with wine, could render

little service, but Sesosis lifted up his hands and besought the gods

to save his wife and children, and with them he happily escaped from the

flames. In gratitude for this rescue he honoured the gods with

dedicatory statues, more especially the god Hephaestus, as it was by him

that he was saved. In his temple at Memphis he placed statues of himself

and his wife, monoliths of thirty cubits high, and also statues of his

four sons, twenty cubits in height. The princes whom he placed over the

conquered nations, or allowed to retain their thrones, came with

presents to Egypt at the appointed time. Sesosis received them with

honour and distinction. But whenever he went into a temple or a city he

caused his horses to be unyoked from his chariot, and in their place the

princes and rulers were yoked four abreast, in order to show to all that

he was the mightiest and had conquered the bravest, so that no one was

his equal in valour. Having ended his wars, Sesosis began to erect great

works for his own glory and the security of Egypt. In every city he

erected a temple to the divinity chiefly worshipped there. On these

works no Egyptian was employed; they were entirely completed by his

prisoners. Moreover, for the cities which lay too low Sesosis caused

many large dams to be made, to which he transferred the cities, so that

they were secure from the inundations of the Nile. From Memphis

downwards he carried a number of canals through the whole land, partly

to facilitate commerce, partly to make invasion more difficult to the

enemy. Up to this time the best part of Egypt was an open field for the

movements of cavalry and chariots; after this it became almost

impassable, owing to the number of canals. In addition the king built a

wall 1,500 stades in length, from Pelusium to Heliopolis, as a security

against inroads from Syria and Arabia. To the god held in chief honour

at the city of Thebes he presented a ship of cedar wood, 280 cubits in

length, of which the visible part was overlaid on the inside with silver

and on the outside with gold, and in his honour he also erected two

obelisks of hard stone, 120 cubits high, on which he caused to be

inscribed the greatness of his power, the number of the subjugated

nations, and the amount of his income. When he had reigned thirty-three

years his eyesight began to fail, and he voluntarily put an end to his

own life. Many generations after, when Darius wished to set up his own

image in front of Sesosis, the high priest forbade him in the assembly

of priests, and explained that Darius had not surpassed the deeds of

Sesosis. So far from being enraged, Darius was pleased at his freedom,

and said that he would henceforth make it his object, should an equal

length of life be given him, to fall below Sesosis in no respect.[205]

Strabo says: Sesostris appears first of all to have conquered the land

of the Ethiopians and Troglodytes; on the coast of the Arabian Gulf,

between the harbour of the Protectress and the Elephant-hunt, there

stood on a hill a temple built by Sesostris in honour of Isis. He

succeeded in reaching the land of cinnamon, where pillars and

inscriptions are shown as monuments of his campaign. Then he crossed

over to Arabia, and it is said that in the narrow part of Ethiopia

towards Arabia, on the promontory of Dire, there was a pillar giving an

account of his crossing. From Arabia he went on to invade the whole of

Asia, and even forced his way into Europe. In many places ramparts and

temples of the Egyptian style are shown as the work of Sesostris. In

Egypt he undertook the construction of a canal from the Nile into the

Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea.[206]

When Germanicus, the son of Drusus, travelled in Egypt, he saw large

remains of ancient Thebes. On the mighty walls, so Tacitus continues,

the Egyptian inscriptions still remained, telling of their former

magnificence. One of the older priests was bidden to translate the

Egyptian inscriptions, and he informed them that once there had been

700,000 men of military age in the kingdom, and with this army Ramses

had subjugated Libya and Ethiopia, the Medes, Persians, Bactrians, and

Scythians, and in addition to these had ruled over the lands from the

Bithynian to the Lycian Seas, which are inhabited by the Syrians, the

Armenians, and their neighbours, the Cappadocians. The amount of tribute

also imposed upon the nations was read, the weight of silver and gold,

the number of weapons and horses, the presents of ivory and frankincense

for the temples, and how much each nation had to contribute in corn and

goods--an amount no less than that which is now imposed by the power of

the Parthians or the Romans.[207]

Josephus, on the authority of Manetho's Egyptian History, tells us that

Sethosis, who was called Ramesses, possessed a great force in cavalry

and ships. After leaving his brother Armais as governor of Egypt, and

placing the royal power in his hands,--with the restrictions that he was

not to wear the crown, or do any injury to the queen-mother and her

children, or approach the king's concubines,--he marched against Cyprus

and the Phenicians, and afterwards against the Assyrians and the Medes,

and subjugated them all, some by his arms, others by the fear of his

great power. Fired with ambition by these successes, he pressed boldly

onward to reduce the cities and lands of the east. Thus his absence was

prolonged, and his brother Armais, without the least shame, disregarded

all the restrictions laid upon him. He violated the queen, lay with the

concubines of the king, allowed himself to be persuaded by his friends

into wearing the crown, and rebelled against his brother. But the person

who was in authority over the sanctuaries of Egypt wrote to the king and

disclosed all that his brother had done against him. Sethosis at once

turned back to Pelusium, and established himself again in possession of

the dominion which belonged to him.[208]

Thus, according to the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus, the warrior

whom Herodotus, Diodorus, and Strabo call Sesostris or Sesosis, was

known to the Egyptians as Ramses, Ramesses, or Sethosis. Let us now

inquire whether the monuments present us with princes and achievements

which confirm the narratives of the Greeks, the account of Manetho, and

the evidence of Tacitus. According to these it may be assumed that Horus

(Hor, 1455-1443 B.C.) whom the sculptures of a temple hewn in the rock

in the valley of the Nile at Selseleh represent as a conqueror over the

negroes,[209] was succeeded by Ramses I. (1443-1439 B.C.) who was

followed by Sethos I. (1439-1388 B.C.). Of him we are told in the

inscriptions on the outer wall of the great colonnade which he erected

at Karnak (p. 169) that in the first year of his reign he had attacked

the Schasu, from the fortress of Tar as far as Kanana;[210] his holiness

had startled them like a lion, and made a great slaughter. On a mountain

fortress to which the defeated enemy fled is read, "Fortress of the

land of Kanana (Canaan)." After this there were expeditions against the

Schasu, and the tribute which they paid to Sethos is mentioned. The

Schasu are the nomad tribes in the desert between Egypt and Canaan,

which had previously conquered and ruled over Egypt. The inscriptions

also remark that Sethos had twice desolated the land of Cheta with fire,

and had taken Kadeshu (Kades).[211] The Cheta are the Chittim, or

Hittites, who possessed the south of Canaan. Then the sculptures

represent the victory of the king over the Retennu, _i.e._ over the

tribes of Syria, and inscriptions celebrate the victories which Sethos

had gained over the "nine nations,"[212] _i.e._ over all the nations

bordering on Egypt. On the Upper Nile also Sethos had fought and

established his dominion, as is proved by the ruins of a temple on Mount

Sese in Dongola above the buildings of Amenophis II. and III. at

Soleb.[213] The representations of the achievements of Sethos at Karnak

are brought to a close by the victorious return of the king with

"innumerable" prisoners and rich booty, and by two enormous figures of

the king, in each of which he is holding nine prisoners. The list of the

conquered nations first mentions the tribes of Cush, _i.e._ of the

south; then follow the Schasu, the Cheta, and Naharina (the inhabitants

of Mesopotamia), and last of all the "Punt," _i.e._ the tribes of

Arabia. These names are followed by the observation;--"This is the list

of the nations of the south and the north, which his holiness has

subdued: the number of prisoners conveyed into the temple of Ammon Ra

cannot be given."[214] From these monuments we gather that Sethos

carried on a number of successful campaigns which begin with battles

against the nomad tribes on the eastern borders of Egypt, then extend to

the south and north of Syria, and finally to Mesopotamia, while in the

other direction he reduced the tribes of Arabia, and carried the sway of

Egypt beyond Dongola, farther to the south than before.

Sethos was followed by his son Ramses II. (1388-1322 B.C.).[215] We

learnt from Herodotus that Sesostris had set up pillars in the conquered

lands in remembrance of his campaigns: in Syrian Palestine Herodotus had

himself seen such pillars, and in Ionia there were two figures of this

king hewn in the rock. As a fact a rock half way between Smyrna and

Sardis to this day presents a relief of an armed warrior. In style and

attitude it is certainly not Egyptian, and therefore cannot have been

the work of a Pharaoh. On the other hand, the rocks on the Phenician

coast which run into the sea at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb, near the

ancient Berytus, the modern Beyrout, have Egyptian sculptures upon them.

These are three figures of Ramses II. In one he is carrying an enemy

into the presence of Ammon. In the two others he is striking down an

enemy before the gods Ptah and Ra. Though to a great extent destroyed,

the inscriptions still show that the achievements, of which these

sculptures are intended to immortalise the memory, belonged to the

second and fourth year of Ramses II. His arms had therefore reached the

coast of Phenicia, northward of Tyre and Sidon, and he maintained his

ground so far or so long, that he could set up this memorial of his

victory. In the ruins of a temple built or restored by Ramses at Tanis

(San), we find an inscription which ascribes to him the subjugation of

the land of Kaft, _i.e._ of Phenicia, of Nebinai, which is explained to

be Cyprus, and lastly of the Upper Retennu, _i.e._ of eastern

Syria.[216] Inscriptions on the building of Ramses II. at Karnak, near

Medinet Habu (the so-called Ramesseum), and in his rock temple at Abu

Simbel in Nubia, inform us that he again fought in Syria in the fifth

year of his reign. Eighteen nations, tribes, or cities are mentioned

which were opposed to the Egyptians. Here, also, the Cheta, _i.e._ the

Hittites, are first mentioned, then the Karkisa (perhaps the

Girgasites),[217] Kadeshu (Kades, either Kadesh Barnea in the south, or

Kadesh in the north of Canaan), Aratu (Aradus), Chirbu (perhaps Chelbon,

Aleppo), Kirkamisha (Karchemish), and Naharina (Mesopotamia). At Kadesh

Ramses was victorious and thence he returned to Egypt.[218] In the

eighth year of his reign he was again in Canaan. He took Maram (Merom),

Dapurr (perhaps Debir), in the land of the Amari (Amorites), and

Salam,[219] and on the walls of the Ramesseum, as also on a large

memorial stone in the ruins of Karnak, there is a treaty of the

twenty-first year of Ramses II., between "Ramses, the son of the great

prince Sethos the brave, the son of the great prince Ramses I." and

"Chetasar (_i.e._, the prince of the Cheta), son of the great prince

Maursar the brave, son of the great prince Sepalulu." It is concluded

"on good terms for eternal peace and friendship, that this may be a

beginning for all eternity according to the intention of the great king

of Egypt." After reference to former treaties, the great king of the

Cheta pledges himself never to invade Egypt to inflict injury, and a

similar promise is made by Ramses. Both kings are to send back those of

their subjects who wish to take service with the other. Either is to

help the other when attacked by enemies. The treaty is ratified by oaths

on either side; and Sutech (Baal) appears as the tutelary god of the

Cheta.[220]

Such is the information we can gain from monuments of the achievements

of Ramses II. in Syria. His campaigns in the south appear to have been

attended by more important results. Sculptures in the temple at Abu

Simbel display the king sitting on his chariot, and leading back as

prisoners red figures, which here are probably Nubians, and negroes with

ropes round their necks: both tribes have no other garments but the

skins of wild animals. In another temple hewn in the rock of the western

bank at Beth-el-Walli, a little above Syene, we see Ramses II. standing

alone upon his war chariot, rushing with drawn bow on a crowd of

negroes, who are armed with very long bows, but clothed only with skins.

They fall before the horses of the king. Thus defeated, they fly to

their villages, which lie in a valley shadowed by cocoa-palms, in the

tops of which apes are climbing. Women and children come forth in

distress to meet the fugitives. The prisoners and the booty are brought

before the king, chieftains in fetters, and negroes carrying elephants'

tusks and ebony; others lead lions, panthers, antelopes, gazelles,

ostriches, and a giraffe, the animal of Central Africa.[221] Besides

this Ramses II. founded the furthest monument of Egyptian dominion up

the stream of the Nile, so that he must have ruled further to the south

than his father Sethos. Beyond Soleb, under the steep spur of Mount

Barkal, 400 miles or more above Syene, lie the ruins of a temple which

Ramses built in honour of Ammon.[222] Symbolical representations of the

temple already mentioned at Abu Simbel on the right and left of the

entrance collect all the victories which Ramses won. Before the god

Ammon, who hands to the king the scythe of battle, Ramses is brandishing

his club upon a crowd of kneeling enemies, whom he has seized by the

forelock. Among these are three negroes, three red and beardless men,

and four forms which are yellow and bearded. Ammon speaks thus: "I give

thee the scythe, slay with it; I give thee the south for subjection, and

the north for conquest, and to put to flight all the tribes of the

perverse nations, and to extend the fabric of thy dominion to the

pillars of the sky."[223]

On this evidence we find that the narratives of the Greeks of the deeds

of Sesostris, with whom tradition has amalgamated Sethos and Ramses II.,

and also Manetho's account of the exploits of Ramses, and what the

priest read about them to Germanicus at Thebes, are all violent

exaggerations. Of the battles in the north-east and in Asia, we find in

the inscriptions only the battles fought by Sethos against the

shepherds, between Egypt and Syria, against the Schasu, against the

Hittites, against the Retennu, and finally a campaign to Mesopotamia, or

at least battles against princes of the Euphrates. Of Ramses II. we find

that he forced his way as far as Berytus in Syria, and fought against

Syrian tribes and cities, with whom Karchemish on the Euphrates, and

other princes of the Euphrates (Naharina) are said to have been united.

Even as early as Tuthmosis I. and III., and Amenophis III., the

inscriptions mention campaigns to Mesopotamia. They tell us that

Tuthmosis III. forced his way into the interior of Mesopotamia, and

enumerate the regions which he compelled to pay tribute. With regard to

Ramses II. the monuments prove no more than that he temporarily reduced

Syria, including the Phenician cities and the island of Cyprus, which

was probably already dependent upon them. The subsequent battles and the

treaty of Ramses II. with the Cheta, prove how slight were the successes

so highly extolled in the inscriptions. If the Hittites were never

reduced to obedience, all the more distant campaigns into Syria, and all

attempts against Mesopotamia had only a momentary result, and could

hardly have been more than mere raids. In the inscriptions, every

Pharaoh, from Amosis onward, is found fighting against the same nations,

the Schasu, the Cheta, the Retennu, the Punt, the Cushites, &c., and

each time we are assured that the "eight" or "nine nations," "the lands

of the north and south," the earth from one end to the other has been

subdued. It is by no means remarkable that the recollections of the

campaigns of the third Tuthmothis and Amenophis, of the achievements of

Sethos, and of Ramses II. and of Ramses III., of which we have still to

speak, supported as they were by the flattery and exaggeration of the

inscriptions, should combine in the tradition of the Egyptians into a

monarch who subdued the whole earth, of whom certain accounts and these,

as Diodorus says, by no means accordant, passed to the Greeks. And

Diodorus observes expressly that these contradictions were not due to

the Greeks, but to the Egyptian priests and those who sang of the

exploits of Sesostris.

As we have seen, this tradition lays especial weight on the achievements

of Sesostris in Ethiopia, in the Red Sea, and in Arabia. Herodotus

tells us that the priests assured him that the king--at first sailing

with ships of war out of the Arabian Gulf--had subjugated the

inhabitants of the Red Sea. He was, they said, the only king who had

ruled at once over Egypt and Ethiopia. In Diodorus we find that he first

reduces the whole of Arabia, which had never before been conquered, and

the greater part of Libya, and the Ethiopians in the south of Egypt.

Afterwards he--first of the Egyptians--built ships of war, and sent them

into the Red Sea, and with these reduced all the coasts and islands as

far as India. In Strabo Sesostris first marches against Ethiopia, forces

his way as far as the land of Cinnamon, then crosses the Straits of

Bab-el-Mandeb, reduces Arabia, and commences the digging of a canal from

the Nile to the Arabian Gulf. The monuments confirm the statement that

Sethos fought with the Punt, _i.e._ the Arabs, that he pushed farther

than his predecessors into the territory of the negroes, and that Ramses

II. (in whose reign the monuments mention governors of Ethiopia)[224]

established a lasting supremacy as far as Mount Barkal.

Thus it is established that the dominion of Egypt under Ramses II.

extended beyond Nubia and Dongola, and reached the territory of the

negroes, while at the same time the tribes of the Arabian peninsula may

have been to a great extent reduced to pay tribute; and from this we may

draw the conclusion that the attention of Sethos and Ramses was mainly

directed to these regions. The products which they could obtain by

tribute or by trade with these tribes--slaves, gold, ebony, ivory,

frankincense, spices, gum--were of great value for Egypt, and ships of

war were needed both to keep in submission the tribes which may have

been subjugated on the coasts of Arabia, and to maintain the trading

stations settled on the east coast of Africa. For the fleet of Ramses

Herodotus refers to the evidence of the priests. Such a fleet is, as a

fact, exhibited on the monuments of Ramses III., and the tradition of

the Hebrews tells us of trading ships which, about the year 1000 B.C.,

sailed from Elath out of the Arabian Sea, and reached the mouth of the

Indus, no doubt on routes the Egyptian trade had already laid down to

the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb and the southern coast of Arabia. In

connection with these efforts, directed towards the establishment of

trade and authority on the Arabian Sea, it seems intelligible that

Sethos and his son Ramses should have entertained the idea of

establishing a water communication between the Nile and this sea, and

should have actually commenced the work. Remains of a canal, beginning

on the Nile at Bubastis, above the city, ran through the valley of

Tumilat, a depression of the Arabian hills towards the east, in the

direction of the Lake of Crocodiles and the Bitter Lakes. On these

remains at Tel-el-Kebir and Abu Kesheb are the ruins of Egyptian

buildings. At the second place an image of Ramses II. has been found,

worshipping Tum and Ammon. We may assume that the ruins at Tel-el-Kebir

are those of the city of Pithom (Patumos, _pa-tum_, _i.e._ habitation of

Tum), which we learn from Herodotus lay on this canal, and those at Abu

Kesheb are the ruins of the city of Ramses (_pa-rameses_), names

preserved to us in the tradition of the Hebrews, and that Sethos and

Ramses II. had built both these cities.[225] The Hebrews, whose

forefathers had broken off from the Edomites, the settlers on Mount

Seir, which runs from the north-east point of the Red Sea to the Dead

Sea, and pastured their flocks on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile under

Egyptian protection, have a tradition that it was they who were

compelled to build Pithom and Ramses for the Pharaoh. The canal remained

unfinished; at that time it apparently reached only to the Lake of

Crocodile. Seven hundred years later Necho carried it as far as the

Bitter Lakes; it was finished by King Darius and the Ptolemies, who

completed what the Pharaohs were unable to carry out.

The tradition of the mighty deeds of Sesostris in Asia contradicts

itself in the most glaring manner, inasmuch as it likewise tells us that

he dug a number of canals from Memphis downwards to the sea, in order to

fortify the land and make the approach difficult for enemies. The

eastern side of Egypt also he fortified against the inroads of Arabians

and Syrians, by building a wall of about 1,500 stades long through the

desert from Pelusium to Heliopolis. And the inscriptions on the building

of Sethos at Karnak are believed to tell us that this prince had erected

"the double walls against the lands of the impure."[226] No line of

fortification was required against the nomads on the eastern border, if

these were sufficiently held in check by the Egyptian arms, or had been

thoroughly subjugated. This great fortification which passed beyond the

protecting arm of the Nile from Bubastis in a slanting direction through

the desert, from the sea to Heliopolis, along a line of about 1,500

stades, may very likely have been connected with the making of the

canal. The trade on the canal would be protected against predatory

attacks, and the territory rescued from the desert by its construction,

and the cities adjacent would be protected. The city which Ramses built

on the canal and named by his own name apparently belonged to those

fortifications. It was a border fortress against the desert and the

attacks of Syrian tribes.

Of Menephta, _i.e._ beloved of Ptah (1322-1302 B.C.), the son and

successor of Ramses II., Josephus, following Manetho, gives us the

following account:--"Like Horus, who had been king before him, Menephta

desired to see the gods. This wish he confided to a wise prophet, the

son of Papius. The prophet told him that he would see the gods if he

cleared the whole land of leprous and unclean persons. Then the king

collected out of Egypt all who were diseased in their bodies, to the

number of 80,000, and threw them into the stone quarries east of the

Nile, that they might labour there along with the other Egyptians

condemned to similar toil. But as among the diseased persons were

certain men of learning and priests who had been attacked by leprosy,

the son of Papius feared the anger of the gods would descend upon

himself and the king if holy men were forced into slavish tasks, and he

foresaw that others would come to the aid of these impure persons, and

rule over Egypt for thirteen years. He did not venture to tell this to

the king, but wrote it down, and then put an end to his own life. Filled

with anxiety, when the lepers had suffered long enough in the stone

quarries, the king gave them Avaris, the city abandoned by the

shepherds, as a refuge and protection. But according to the old

mythology this city belonged to Typho. When the unclean persons came to

Avaris, and were in possession of a centre to support any disaffection,

they chose Osarsiph, one of the priests at Heliopolis, as their leader,

and swore to obey him in everything. The first law he gave them was to

offer prayer to no god, and to abstain from no animal held sacred in

Egypt, but to sacrifice them all and eat them, and to hold communion

with none but those who had taken the oath. After giving these and many

other laws, diametrically opposed to the Egyptian customs, Osarsiph bade

them fortify the city, and arm themselves against Menephta, while he

took counsel with certain priests and infected persons, and sent an

embassy to Jerusalem, to the shepherds driven out by Tuthmosis. He told

them what an outrage had been done to him and his associates, and called

on them to march against Egypt with the same intentions as himself.

Avaris, the city of their forefathers, would first open its gates to

them and give freely whatever they needed, and whenever necessary he

would fight at their head and easily subdue the land for them. Delighted

at the message, the shepherds all set out with eagerness, about 200,000

strong, and were soon in Avaris. When Menephta heard of their approach,

he was seized with alarm, for he bethought him of the prophecy of the

son of Papius. It is true he gathered together about 300,000 of the

flower of the Egyptian army, but when the enemy met him, he would not

join battle, fearing to fight against the gods. After taking counsel

with his officers, he gave orders for the sacred animals, which were

held in especial honour, to be brought to him, and bade the priests

secure the images of the gods with the greatest care; and when he had

placed his son Sethos, now five years old, in security with a friend, he

turned back to Memphis. Then he took Apis and the other sacred animals,

which the priests had brought to Memphis, with him, and retired with his

army and the bulk of the Egyptians to Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia,

who was under a debt of gratitude to Menephta, received him and the

multitude with him, provided for the Egyptians, and allotted them cities

and villages sufficient to support them for the thirteen years, and

caused the Ethiopian army to keep watch on the borders of Egypt. But the

men of Jerusalem and the unclean invaded Egypt, and displayed such

impious rage against the Egyptians, that to those who witnessed their

wickedness their dominion seemed the worst of all. They were not content

with burning cities and villages, with plundering the sanctuaries, and

destroying the images of the gods, they even compelled the priests and

prophets to sacrifice and strangle the sacred animals, and then they

thrust them naked out of the temples, and ate the animals if at all good

for food. But in time Menephta returned with a great host from Ethiopia,

and his son Ramses also with an army. Both attacked the unclean and the

shepherds, and overcame them. Many they slew, and the rest they pursued

as far as the borders of Syria. It is said that the priest who gave them

their constitution and laws, a native of Heliopolis, and called

Osarsiph, from Osiris, the god worshipped there, changed his name from

Osarsiph to Moses."[227]

From the tradition of the Hebrews we learn that their ancestors, after

pasturing their flocks for a long time, under Egyptian protection, on

the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, in the land of Goshen, became weary of

the task-work imposed upon them, and set forth out of Egypt, in order to

feed their flocks in freedom in the peninsula of Sinai, to the east of

the Dead Sea. The oppression of these shepherds by Egypt may, of course,

be connected with the fortification of the border towards Syria, the

construction of the canal, and the erection of the cities for trade, and

the border fortresses on this canal. Accordingly there seems no reason

to contest the tradition of the Egyptians that the exodus of the Hebrews

took place under Menephta. That the Egyptian tradition regards these

Hebrews as leprous and unclean Egyptians is of no importance. The

cession of Avaris and invitation of the Hyksos is mere imagination,

arising from the somewhat analogous event of former times. The most

improbable fact is the voluntary departure of Menephta to the allied

king of the Ethiopians, and the abandonment of Egypt without a struggle

to her fiercest foe. Under Ramses II., as we have seen, Ethiopia, as far

as Mount Barkal, became an Egyptian province. Far more credible is the

tradition of the Hebrews that the army of the Pharaoh met with a heavy

reverse in the attempt to check the exodus of the Hebrews, and their

union with the hostile tribes of the desert. It is possible that, in

consequence of this disaster, a king was set up in opposition to

Menephta, and that Menephta retired before him to Ethiopia, from whence

he afterwards recovered Egypt. In the excerpt of Eusebius we find, after

the name Menephta, a king Amenemes, and on the monuments Amenemessu,

whose shields, though chiselled out, can still be recognised.[228]

Of all these things the monuments of Menephta know nothing. On the

contrary, a long inscription in the small court, on the southern wall of

the temple at Karnak, tells us of a victory which Menephta had obtained

over the Libyan tribes. These are the Lubu (Libyans), Maschawascha (who

may be explained as the Maxyans, a tribe which, as Herodotus tells us,

dwelt near Lake Triton, on the north coast of Africa), the Kesak, and

from the "regions on the sea," the Tuirscha, Sakalascha, Schardaina,

Akaiwascha, and Leku. They had crossed the western border and forced

their way, not into the land only, but down to the river, and had

pitched their camp in the territory of the city Paali. The king was

obliged to protect the city of Tum and the sanctuary of Ptah Tatamen

(perhaps Memphis). On the first of Epiphi--the year of the reign of

Menephta was not given, or at any rate is not found now--a battle took

place. Of the Lubu 6,359 were slain; of hands belonging to the

Sakalascha 250 were counted, and 790 belonging to the Tuirscha. Fourteen

pairs of horses were taken, belonging to the chief of the Leku and his

sons, and 9,111 swords of the Maschawascha.[229]

Menephta was succeeded by Sethos II. and Menephta II. Then followed

Ramses III. (1269-1244 _B.C._). The warlike exploits which this king has

commemorated on his temple at Medinet Habu appear from the inscriptions

to have been hardly inferior to those of Sethos I. and Ramses II. In the

reliefs of this temple is seen an Egyptian fleet and the engagement

with the ships of the enemy. On a picture on a wall are collected all

the campaigns of the king; the chiefs of the conquered tribes are

represented by fourteen figures, and the accompanying hieroglyphics give

us the names of their tribes. Two of these names are destroyed, and a

third is illegible. The first figure is the chief of the "evil land of

Cush." Two of the figures are negroes, and their tribes are mentioned.

Then follow the lord "of the hostile Schasu," _i.e._ the shepherds of

the Syrian border, the "evil chief of the Cheta," against whom the

inscription observes that he was taken alive, the "evil chief of the

Amari" (Amorites), the sovereign of the Lubu (Libyans), the sovereign of

the Maschawascha, the coast-land Tuirscha, the coast-land Schardaina,

and the "lord of the hostile Zakkarj."[230] The first Menephta, as we

have seen, had been compelled to fight against the Lubu, Maschawascha,

Tuirscha, and Schardaina. The remaining figures prove that Ramses III.

carried on war on the Upper Nile against the Nubians and Negro tribes,

and in the north-east he had to contend with the Schasu, _i.e._ the

descendants of the Hyksos, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the old

enemies against whom his forefathers took the field. To these the

Pulista, _i.e._ the Philistines, who are here mentioned for the first

time, are added in a list of the nations reduced by the king in the

eighth and ninth years of his reign, inscribed on the right wing of the

gateway which leads into the second court of the temple. In the second

court four pictures represent the achievements of the king in the fifth

year of his reign against the Lubu (Libyans), and ten pictures on the

outer side of the north wall give the achievements of the eighth and

ninth years. First there is a great slaughter of the Temhu, apparently

the general name under which the Egyptians comprehended the Libyan

tribes. The enumeration of hands and members gives a total of 12,535 for

each, and the scribe on the picture is taking this down. On the eighth

picture the Egyptian ships, with beaks ending in lions' heads, and

mastheads manned by archers, are manoeuvring with sails and oars to

thrust the enemy's ships upon the shore, on which is drawn up the

Egyptian army with arrows also directed against the hostile ships. The

inscriptions tell us that these are the ships of the Zakkarj. At a

fortress over which is written Magadil (Migdol?) the captive Zakkarj are

brought before the king. This is on the ninth picture; on the tenth the

king celebrates his return to Thebes.[231]

Ramses III. was followed by eleven kings of the same name (1244-1091

_B.C._). But the days of warlike expeditions were over. The inscriptions

which have come down to us from these rulers only prove that their

sovereignty was maintained over Nubia, and tell us of certain buildings

which these princes also erected at Memphis.[232] Of Ramses XII. a

memorial stone found in the temple of the moon-god Chunsu at Karnak--a

deity to whom the house of Ramses paid especial honour--informs us that

he elevated the daughter of the lord of the land of Buchten (or Bachtan)

to be Queen of Egypt. When afterwards another daughter of the chief fell

ill, he besought the king of Egypt for a wise man to cure her. The

priest, whom Ramses sent, found the king's daughter possessed by a

spirit, but he was too weak to contend with it. Then the chief of

Buchten besought Ramses to send him a god to overcome the spirit. And

Ramses sent the image of the god Chunsu from the temple at Thebes in a

large boat, accompanied by five small boats and a chariot. The spirit

gave way before the god, and the chieftain was in great joy, and refused

to allow the god to return to Egypt, until in a dream he saw a golden

hawk, which spread out its wings to fly to Egypt. On awaking he found

himself seized by an illness. So he allowed the god to return to Egypt

after he had kept him three years and nine months, and gave him many

rich presents for the journey.[233]

FOOTNOTES:

[204] Herod. 2, 102-110.

[205] Diod. 1, 53, 58.

[206] Strabo, pp. 38, 686, 769, 770, 790, 804.

[207] Tac. "Annal." 2, 60.

[208] Joseph. "C. Apion." 1, 15; Euseb. "Arm." ed. Aucher, p. 230;

"Sethos qui et Rameses."

[209] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 124.

[210] Ebers, "AEgypten," s. 78.

[211] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 132.

[212] Rosell. "Mon. Stor." 3, 1, 320 ff.

[213] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 136.

[214] Rosell. "Mon. Stor." 3, 1, 315 ff.; Bunsen, "AEgypten," 4, 171;

Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 128 ff.; cf. Brugsch, "Recueil," p. 59.

[215] The lists allow him a reign of 61, 66, or 68 years. According to a

memorial-stone discovered by Mariette at Abydus he reigned 67 years; cf.

p. 160, note 1.

[216] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 373, and "Monatsberichte des Berl. Akad."

1866, s. 294, 297 ff.

[217] Gen. 10, 16; Joshua 24, 11.

[218] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1867, 16, 36.

[219] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ pp. 145, 146.

[220] De Rouge, "Revue archeolog." 1866, 13, 269; Brugsch, "Hist.

d'Egypte," p. 147.

[221] Rosell. "Mon. Stor." 3, 2, 10-12, 24.

[222] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 239.

[223] Rosell. "Mon. Stor." 3, 2, 1, 93, 94.

[224] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 151.

[225] Herod. 2, 158; Aristot. "Metereol." 1. 14; Lepsius, "Chronolog."

s. 349 ff. 357; Ebers ("Durch Gosen," s. 496) finds Pithom in Abu

Soliman.

[226] Rosell. "Mon. Stor." 3, 340 ff.; Ebers ("AEgypten," s. 781),

relying on the Berlin papyrus I., regards the fortification as much

older, and carries it as far as Suez.

[227] Joseph. "c. Apion." 1, 26, 27; Lepsius ("Chronologie," s. 323,

330) has sufficiently proved that we ought to read Menephtes instead of

Amenophis and Menophis. A similar story is in Chaeremon, a contemporary

of Aelius Gallus.--Joseph. "c. Apion." 1, 32.

[228] Bunsen, "AEgypten," 4, 211. Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp. 178,

179.

[229] De Rouge, "Revue Archeolog." 1867, 16, 38 ff., 81 ff; Lauth,

"Sitzungsberichte" of the Academy at Munich, 1867, 2, 528 ff. The

explanation of the Tuirscha as Tyrsenians, of the Sakalascha as Sikels,

of the Schardaina as Sardinians, and the Akaiwascha as Achaeans, appears

to me very doubtful. The locality points to Libyan tribes. Brugsch

("Hist. d'Egypte," p. 172) reads Qairdina for Schardaina, Qawascha for

Akaiwascha. On the weapons and features of the Schardaina, see Rouge,

_loc. cit._ pp. 90,91.

[230] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte." p. 191.

[231] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 183 ff.

[232] Brugsch, _loc. cit._ p. 203; Mariette, "Ath. Franc." 1855, Oct. p.

86.

[233] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 206.

CHAPTER VII.

THE MONUMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF RAMSES.

More than ten centuries seem to have elapsed from the founding of the

kingdom of Memphis before Egypt ventured beyond her natural borders. The

peninsula of Sinai, the shores of the Red Sea opposite Thebes, and Semne

in Nubia were the extreme limits in the times of the kings who built the

pyramids, of the Sesurtesen and Amenemha. The impulse given by the

successful war of liberation carried Egypt beyond these boundaries. When

Amosis and Tuthmosis III. had restored the kingdom, it reached the

summit of its greatness and splendour under the latter and Amenophis

III., Sethos I., and Ramses II., while Ramses III. strengthened anew and

maintained the position which his great forefathers had obtained for

Egypt. Four centuries of glory and victory had now passed over Egypt

(1650-1250), the victorious arms of the Pharaohs had been carried to

Nubia and Dongola, to the Negroes, to Libya and Syria in repeated

campaigns; more than once the Euphrates had seen the Egyptian armies. In

these centuries Egypt was the first kingdom in the ancient world, not in

civilisation merely, or in art, but in military power, though her

lasting acquisitions were limited to the Upper Nile. For yet another

century and a half the successors of Ramses III. could enjoy undisturbed

the fruits of the exertions of their ancestors.

As the new kingdom surpassed the old in power, so did the new capital

Thebes eclipse the older Memphis. None of these princes neglected to

offer his booty to Ammon of Thebes; from the time of Tuthmosis I. to

Ramses III. no king omitted to adorn Thebes with new buildings. The city

must have presented a most marvellous appearance when the works of the

Tuthmosis and Amenophis, of Sethos, of Ramses II. and III. stood erect

and rose up from the earth solid and massive as rocks on either bank of

the Nile, while the multitude of obelisks and colossi towered up like a

forest of stone. Fancy might imagine that she looked upon a city built

by giants. The houses of the people also, though built of brick only, as

Diodorus tells us, were three or four stories high. Diodorus fixes the

circuit of the city at more than fifteen miles; for us it is still

marked by the remains of the temples of Karnak, Luxor, Gurnah, and

Medinet Habu.[234]

We have spoken above of the buildings erected by Tuthmosis I. and III.

at Karnak, and Amenophis III. at Luxor and Medinet Habu. It was Sethos

I. who on the west of the oblong court, the gateway, and obelisks of

Tuthmosis I. at Karnak, added a hall on the most magnificent scale, the

entrance to which is also formed by a gateway. This hall, the most

splendid monument of Egyptian architecture, is 320 feet long, and over

160 feet broad; the roof rests on 134 pillars, which on each side

towards the north and south form seven naves, each of nine pillars. The

central space, supported on either side by six pillars of 12 feet in

diameter and 68 feet in height, rises higher than the naves at the side.

On the external wall of this hall are displayed the triumphs of Sethos

over the Schasu, the Cheta, and the Retennu; there are recorded the

campaigns already mentioned against the tribes of Cush, the Punt, and

the Naharina. Opposite Karnak, on the left bank of the Nile, north east

from the colossi of Amenophis III., at the village of Gurnah, he built a

temple to Ammon, and at Abydus a large sanctuary to Osiris.[235]

None of the Pharaohs undertook such numerous works and left behind so

many monuments as Ramses II. He completed the hall of his father at

Karnak,[236] and extended on a magnificent scale the temple of Amenophis

III. at Luxor, by adding on the north-east a second court, and adorning

the entrance to it by a lofty gateway. Before this he placed two seated

colossi, statues of himself--at present, like the lower parts of all the

ruins at Luxor, they are covered to a considerable height with sand--and

two obelisks of red granite, of which one still rises in splendour to

the blue sky, and displays the long, sharply-cut rows of the

hieroglyphics in all the brightness of the uninjured polish. The other

is at Paris, in the Place de la Concorde. On the left bank of the Nile,

between the colossi of Amenophis III. and his father's temple, a little

further to the west, and immediately at the foot of the Libyan range, he

built a large temple. A massive gateway rises on a slightly elevated

terrace, leading to a rectangular court. This is surrounded by a double

row of pillars supporting the portico, of which two only are now

standing. On this follows a second court, of which the portico is

supported on the right and left by double pillars, on the front

transverse side by single pilasters, and on the back by double

pilasters, against the first row of which lean colossal images of

Osiris. At the entrance from the first into the second court, on the

left, was the greatest of all the detached colossi in Egypt, the seated

statue of Ramses, hewn out of a block of red granite from Syene. Sixty

feet in height, this statue once overlooked both courts; now it lies

prostrate on the ground. The length of the middle finger is four feet.

There was apparently a second colossus on the other side of the entrance

corresponding to this. From the second court, in which are the remains

of two smaller colossi, three gates of black granite led into a great

hall, built on a higher level. The roof of this, the remains of which

exhibit a blue ground with gold stars, was supported by sixty pillars in

ten rows. Of these rows four are still standing; the pillars are 35 feet

in height and six feet in diameter. On this great hall adjoin three

smaller ones, on both sides of which lay chambers, and the roof of one

is adorned with a large astronomical painting. The back part of the

building was formed by vaulted porticoes of brick, and each brick is

stamped with the name-shield of Ramses II.[237]

The inscriptions on the second court and in the hall tell us, "that the

gracious god, _i.e._ the king, erected this great structure in honour of

his father Ammon-Ra, the king of the gods: by his own arm he has erected

it, the royal sun, the champion of justice, established by Ra, the child

of the sun, Ramses, beloved of Ammon, beloved of the goddess Mut." On

the walls of the portico between the first and second court is

represented a great procession to the altar of Ammon. Two rows of men

carry the statues of thirteen predecessors of Ramses on their shoulders

(p. 24). Further on the king, with a sickle, is cutting a sheaf of corn

from the field, a priest receives this from the hand of the king, and

offers it to a white bull. Then the priest bids the four geese belonging

to the four spirits of the quarters of the sky to fly south, north,

east, and west, in order to announce to the gods of each quarter, "that

Horus the son of Osiris, that king Ramses, established by Ra, has put on

the double crown."[238] The sculptures of the front side of the gateway

exhibit the king in intercourse with the gods, and symbolise the divine

expressions of favour towards Ramses. Gods lead him to the greater gods.

The god Tum places him before Mentu (p. 51). Mentu takes the hand of the

king, and says, "Come to the heavenly mansions, to behold thy father the

king of the gods, who will bestow upon thee length of days, to rule over

the world and reign upon the throne of Horus." Mentu leads the king to

Ammon, over whose figure we read, "Ammon-Ra, king of the gods, who

dwells in Ramses' house at Thebes, speaks thus: Beloved son of my race,

Ramses, lord of the world, my heart is glad in that I behold thy good

works; thou hast built me this house; I grant thee a pure life to live

upon the throne of Seb" (p. 55). In the hall Ammon is holding the crook

from his throne towards the king, and says, "I certify that thy building

shall continue as the heavens." The goddess Bast (p. 49) lifts her right

hand to the head of the king, and says, "I have prepared for thee the

diadem of the sun, that this helmet should remain upon thy brow, where I

have placed it." On another sketch in this hall Ammon is giving to

Ramses the scythe, the whip, and the crook (the symbols of dominion),

and says, "Take the scythe of battle to subdue the nations without, and

to smite off the head of the unclean; take the whip and the crook to

rule over Chemi (Egypt)." On the exterior of the wings of the gateway

are represented the wars which in the fifth year of his reign Ramses

carried on against the Cheta, and in the eighth year against Maram,

Dapur, and Salam (p. 152). In one of the side chambers of the hall

Ramses and his consort, together with the moon-god, Chunsu, and the

goddess Mut, are carried to Ammon by the priests. The goddess Mut says:

"I come to pay worship to the king of the gods, that he may secure long

years to his son, to king Ramses, who loves him." Chunsu says: "We come

to honour thee, Ammon, king of the gods; grant to thy son who loves

thee, the king of the world, a safe and pure life." The king and queen

also speak to Ammon; Ramses says: "I come to my father escorted by the

gods whom he at all times allows in his presence." And over the queen we

read: "Behold what the divine consort says, the royal mother, the mighty

mistress of the world:--I come to worship my father Ammon the king of

the gods; my heart is gladdened by thy favour. O thou who hast

established the seat of thy power in the dwelling of thy son Ramses,

lord of the world, grant to him a safe and pure life, and let his years

be numbered by the periods of the festivals." Finally, Ramses is

represented under an arbor vitae (Persea) before the throne of Tum. Tum

and Thoth write the name of the king on leaves of the arbor vitae, and

Tum says to Ramses: "I write thy name for a series of days that it may

be upon the divine tree." In another chamber we find the figures of the

children of Ramses; twenty-three sons and more than thirteen daughters

are mentioned in the inscription.[239]

This is the structure of which Diodorus gives the following account,

though he had not seen the work himself. "The entrance to the monument

of the king whom they call Osymandyas--such is the account in

Diodorus--was formed by a gateway covered with sculptures, 200 feet

broad, and forty-five cubits in height; through this you passed into a

rectangular court surrounded by pillars, measuring 400 feet on each

side, but in the place of pillars are statues sixteen cubits high, each

hewn in the antique style out of a single block. The roof of the portico

is two fathoms in width; it also is built of monoliths painted with

stars upon a blue ground. Behind this court there is a second gateway

similar to the first, but adorned with still richer sculptures. At the

entrance stand three monolithic statues. The middle one is the seated

image of Osymandyas, the largest in all Egypt, for the feet are more

than seven cubits in length; the two others, on the right and left,

which represent the wife and daughter of the king, are inferior in

height. This statue is not only remarkable for the size, but also for

the excellence of the art and the nature of the stone. In spite of the

enormous size, a chip or split is not to be found in it. There, too, is

the statue of the mother of Osymandyas, twenty cubits high, and also a

monolith. Behind this gateway is a second court, more marvellous even

than the first, in which various sculptures represent the war against

the Bactrians. This nation had revolted from the king, but with 400,000

foot and 20,000 horse he marched out against them, divided his army into

four parts, and put each under the command of one of his four sons. On

the first wall we see the king fighting at the head of his army against

a fortress surrounded by a river; a lion is seen at his side assisting

him (as a fact in the picture of the great battle against the Cheta on

the gateway a lion is found beside the chariot of the king.) On the

second wall the prisoners are brought forward: they are without their

hands and members, in order to indicate that they fought without spirit.

The third wall contains reliefs of various kinds and sketches

representing the king's sacrifice of bulls, and his triumphant return.

In the middle of the court stands an altar of marvellous size and

workmanship. Before the fourth wall are two seated colossi 27 cubits

high, and beside these three entrances lead into a colonnade, of which

the sides measure 200 feet. In this hall are a number of statues of wood

representing men in expectation of the decision of their law-suits, and

looking towards the judges. These, thirty in number, are engraved on one

of the walls; in their midst is the chief judge, on whose neck hangs a

picture of truth with closed eyes; beside him lie a great quantity of

books. Then you pass into a space intended for walking, where are

represented many of the most delicate kinds of food. Here also the image

of the king is engraved, and brightly coloured, showing how he offered

to the god the gold and silver which came to him year by year from the

mines of Egypt, and the total is written down close by; estimated in

silver, it amounted to 320,000 minae. Then follows the sacred library,

and after this the images of all the gods of Egypt, and of the king, who

offers to each god the appropriate gifts, in order as it were to show to

Osiris and his assessors in the under world that the king had lived a

life just towards men and pious towards the gods. On the walls of the

library abuts another building, in which are twenty couches, the images

of Zeus and Hera, and the images of the king. In this chamber the king

appears to be buried. In a circle round this chamber are yet many other

rooms containing very beautiful pictures of all the animals worshipped

in Egypt. Through these chambers we reach the top of the sepulchre, a

golden circle 365 cubits in circumference, and one cubit thick. On this

circle are marked divisions for every day in the year, and in each is

noted the rising and setting of the stars, and the influence which the

Egyptian astrologers attributed to these constellations."[240]

The temple built by Ramses II. to Ammon, in Dongola, on Mount Barkal,

has been mentioned before (p. 154). A memorial stone discovered at

Dakkeh tells us that he caused wells to be dug in Ethiopia.[241] In

Nubia also, five or six days' journey to the south of Dakkeh, at Abu

Simbel, on the left bank of the Nile, a small valley with almost

perpendicular walls of rock breaks at right angles the ridge running by

the river side. In these walls of brownish yellow sandstone two temples

have been cut. The northern and larger is dedicated to Ra by Ramses; the

smaller, on the opposite side, is dedicated by Ramses' wife, Nefruari,

to the goddess Hathor. Before the temple of Hathor are six colossi,

three on either side of the entrance. In each triad the middle statue

represents the queen, the two others the kings. Before the temple of

Ramses are four seated colossi, with the arms upon the hips, hewn out of

the natural rock. All are statues of Ramses, and in height are over

sixty, or, counting the thrones, over seventy feet. The breadth across

the shoulders is twenty-five feet; from the elbow to the tip of the

finger measures fifteen feet. Seen from a distance, these statues are

very impressive, owing to their severe and calm beauty, and the

correctness of the proportions, notwithstanding the enormous scale. The

entrance to the temple lies deep down between the thrones of the

colossi. First we pass into a spacious portico, of which the roof is

supported by eight pillars, against which lean as many standing colossi

about 30 feet high, with arms crossed, the whip and the symbol of life

in their hands. All are images of Osiris. From this portico, out of

which doors open on either hand into side halls, we arrive through two

chambers into the sanctuary of the goddess, which lies 200 feet deep in

the rock. The whole excavation consists of fourteen chambers. The

sculptures, painted throughout, are uninjured still, and of the most

brilliant colours. The most striking pictures among them have been

mentioned above (pp. 153, 154). Below Abu Simbel, at Derr Sebua and Gerf

Hussein, on the Nile, Ramses II. built temples to Ra, Ammon, and Ptah.

Here, as at Abu Simbel, new cities rose round the temples.[242] Further

downwards at Beth-el-Walli, a temple was hewn in the rocks at the west

side of the Nile, the sculptures of which exhibit the exploits of Ramses

II. against the Negroes, and the booty of these campaigns--gazelles,

ostriches, giraffes (p. 153); while the ruins of the temple which he

built beside the larger one of his father to Osiris at Abydus, is

evidence of the honour which he paid to his predecessors in the kingdom

(pp. 24, 169).

Herodotus and Diodorus told us that Sesostris had set up before the

temple of Hephaestus (_i.e._ of Ptah) at Memphis statues of himself, his

wife, and his sons, on a colossal scale (p. 146). In the ruins of

Memphis (at the village of Mitrahinneh) there lies, surrounded by green

turf and tall palms, in a depression, the prostrate statue of Ramses II.

hewn out of a single block. The feet are wanting, the head wears the

crown of Upper and Lower Egypt; in the middle of the girdle are engraved

the words Mi Amun Ramses, _i.e._ Ramses beloved of Ammon. From the knees

upwards the fragment measures thirty-five feet; on this scale the total

height must have reached forty-two or forty-three feet. At Tanis in the

Delta, Ramses II. built or restored a great temple, and erected

obelisks. The inscriptions on the ruins speak of his victories in Syria.

Here also lies a prostrate and shattered colossus; the name-shields on

the back of the throne are those of the second Ramses.[243] Of the

buildings of this king for the sepulchral chambers of the Apis bulls at

Memphis, the fortification of the border towards Syria, and the canal,

we have spoken above (pp. 68, 157).

On the left bank of the Nile, westwards of the temple and the two

colossi of Amenophis III., at Medinet Habu, Ramses III. built a splendid

temple. A magnificent gate flanked by broad wings sixty-six feet in

height leads from the east to the first ante-court, which, as always, is

surrounded by a portico, partly supported by massive pillars, and partly

by statues of Osiris. From this court a second somewhat smaller gateway

leads into a second court; the portico surrounding this is supported to

the right and left on strong columns, of seven feet in diameter, the

capitals of which are formed by lotus-leaves, and on each of the other

sides by eight Osiris pillars. The columns and pillars, in spite of

their massiveness, do not seem too heavy to support the blocks which

form the roof of the portico. In this court we find the four pictures

which represent the war of Ramses III. against the Libyans (p. 164). The

ante-temple, to which the entrance lay between the Osiris pillars just

mentioned, the inner temple, and the shrine, are in ruins; the bases

only and the foundations can still be traced. In the ten reliefs

mentioned above the external wall of the second court displays in the

most brilliant colours the warlike achievements of Ramses III. against

the Temhu and Zakkarj (p. 165). About 120 steps to the south-east of the

first gateway are the ruins of another structure of this king, which

appears to have been his palace. Two obliquely rising towers enclose a

court, surrounded by a building several stories high. The rooms still

remaining are paved with slabs; the windows are square. The reliefs

represent the king surrounded by his wives, and then at draughts, the

instruction which his children receive in reading and writing from a

priest, and other household matters. On the right bank of the Nile at

the south-west edge of the terrace of Karnak, Ramses III. began to build

a temple to the moon-god Chunsu, which was completed by Ramses IV.; and

at Karnak itself, in the court before the great hall of Sethos I., he

erected a smaller temple, cutting the southern portico of this temple at

right angles, which he dedicated to "Ammon Ra, his father," to whom the

whole sanctuary belonged.[244]

As at Memphis, so also at Thebes, great care was taken for the dead. Not

far from the city, in the first Libyan range of hills, which here rise

300 feet out of the plain, lie the tombs of the inhabitants of Thebes,

running on into these hills for two hours' distance in an unbroken

series of catacombs. The graves, and the passages which lead to them,

are all hewn in the rock, sometimes to a considerable depth. Several

rows of chambers lie one over the other. In the lower rows, where the

richer class are buried, the chambers are larger and more handsome;

those in the upper rows are simpler, smaller, and meaner. Staircases,

straight or winding, connect these stories and chambers with each other.

Galleries, gangways, and perpendicular shafts break the rows of

excavations, and give to this city of the dead the features of an

inextricable labyrinth. These catacombs, with their thousands of

mummies, innumerable chambers full of papyrus rolls and amulets buried

with the corpses, with their sculptures and frescoes on the walls and

roofs, which are for the most part preserved in marvellous brilliancy

and represent in the truest and most varied manner the occupation of

every person buried there of the higher orders, are an almost

inexhaustible source for the knowledge of the life and the habits of

that distant time.

Separated from the first range of hills by a lonely and desolate ravine,

there rises further to the west a second wall of rock, which the Arabs

call Biban-el-Moluk, _i.e._ the gates of the kings. In this lie the

largest and most richly-furnished tombs. The kings of the old monarchy

heaped mountains of stone over their graves at Memphis, and in like

manner the princes of the new kingdom caused vaults and porticoes to be

hewn in the rocks for their sepulchral chambers. Here in antiquity forty

tombs were enumerated,[245] and the latest investigations have confirmed

this enumeration. Spacious, but often barred, passages lead sometimes

only fifty, sometimes 360 feet into the rock. The greater part of the

tombs consist of a suite of galleries, chambers, and chapels for the

offering of sacrifices to the dead; these are followed by the sepulchral

chamber, where rests the sarcophagus, sometimes in a deep niche. The

Pharaohs of Thebes appear to have carried on their work upon these

burying-places in the same manner as the princes of the old kingdom

proceeded with the building of their pyramids. They commenced with the

entrance, the ante-chapel (a broad and not very long portico, generally

supported on pillars), and a small chamber, the real sepulchre.[246] If

the length of the reign sufficed, a new passage was driven deeper into

the rock from the chamber, a new and larger ante-chapel, a wider and

higher sepulchral chamber was excavated. All the graves as yet opened

and examined in this wall of rock are entered by square doors of uniform

shape, with simple ornamentation. At one time they were provided with

wings for security in closing. Behind them the corridor descends

somewhat rapidly into the deep rock. As a rule the sculptures on the

inner walls begin from the doors immediately behind this entrance. The

colouring is still lively, not to say harsh.

The oldest tombs lie to the north-east; but as yet only two chambers

have been opened here, one of which is large in size and adorned with

beautiful, though very much injured sculptures, the grave of Amenophis

III.[247] The tombs of the Tuthmosis have not yet been found. Next, on

the south-west, lies the tomb of Ramses I. The rock chamber and the

granite sarcophagus, which is still standing there, are without any

ornament whatever except a few pictures on the walls, in which the god

Tum and the goddess Neith, the great mother, the lady of heaven, the

queen of the deities, lead the king before Osiris. The king speaks, "I

have come to thee, lord of the gods, mighty god, master of the sky,"

while Neith says to the king, "I secure to thee the throne of Osiris, on

which thou shalt sit for ever."[248] The grave of his successor, Sethos

I., consists of a suite of galleries, chambers, and chapels. A corridor

leads to a staircase, which ends in a chamber; from this a second

staircase leads to a portico, on which abuts a great hall, the roof of

which is supported by four pillars. A third staircase leads from this

hall on the left into one similarly adorned, of which the pictures

remain unfinished, and on the right into a broad vaulted portico sunk

more than 300 feet deep into the rock. The roof of this portico is

supported by six pillars. Here the corpse of the king rested in a

sarcophagus of alabaster, which is covered with sculptures. The

sarcophagus, now in the British Museum, was empty when found, and the

cover was broken. The sculptures of the first hall display on every side

of the pillars the king and a deity. Those on the walls represent the

stations of the nightly course of the sun and the hindrances thrown in

the way of the sun by the serpent Apep (p. 46), the judgment in the

under world, the reward of the good, the punishment of the bad, the

constellations of the sky, the five planets in their boats, and the four

tribes into which the Egyptians divided mankind. Each tribe is

represented by four figures.

Of the grave of Ramses II. but few chambers have as yet been

opened.[249] The grave of his son Menephta presents nothing more than a

picture referring to the under world. Beside Menephta, Amenmessu (p.

162) and Menephta's son, Sethos II., found their resting places in these

rocks, which also conceal Menephta II. (p. 163). The grave of Sethos II.

is distinguished by paintings and sculptures. The sarcophagus of red

granite is intended to exhibit on the lid the image of the king, but

this remained unfinished.[250] The grave of Ramses III. comes nearest to

that of Sethos I. in size and splendour of adornment. Galleries

following one upon the other, on the side of which are small chambers,

lead to a large portico in which rests the sarcophagus. The sculptures

in these chambers exhibit scenes of court life, of agriculture, of the

banquet, musicians, boats, and weapons; those of the galleries and the

portico represent scenes of the under world and existence beyond the

grave. The grave of Ramses IV., far smaller and incomplete, still

contains the shattered sarcophagus of granite.[251] On the other hand,

the tomb of Ramses V., one of the most handsome, displays on the arching

of the roof of the great portico, where the sarcophagus stood, the

outstretched form of the goddess of the sky, in which are enclosed the

stars. On the walls are depicted the fortunes of the soul in the next

world, and the king in the boat of the sun-god. These representations of

the judgment in the under-world, which recur perpetually in the tombs at

Biban-el-Moluk, and of the life to come, are wholly unknown to the

pyramids and the tombs surrounding them, the burying-places of the

ancient kingdom.

FOOTNOTES:

[234] Diod. 1, 45; Strabo, p. 816.

[235] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 256; Mariette, "Revue Arch." 1860, 2, 21;

_cf. supra_, p. 23, 56.

[236] Lepsius, _loc. cit._ s. 273, 274.

[237] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 286; "Denkmale aus AEgypten und Nubien," 1,

2, 7, 82; Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 161.

[238] Rosell. "Monum. Stor." 1, 123, 136.

[239] Champollion, "Lettres," p. 263-283; Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," pp.

163-165.

[240] Diod. 1, 47-49.

[241] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 151.

[242] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 112-115, 263, 403, 414.

[243] As this statue bears on the right shoulder the shield Ra Apepi, or

Apepa, it has been thought to be the statue of the shepherd king Apepi

(p. 130). Lepsius regards it as a statue of Ramses II.--"Koenigsbuch," s.

44.

[244] Brugsch, Hist. d'Egypte, pp. 197, 198.

[245] Strabo, p. 816, puts the number of the royal sepulchres at forty.

Diodorus, on the authority of the sacred records, speaks of forty-seven

graves. At the time of Ptolemy I. only seventeen were in existence

(Diod. 1, 46), and of these, at the time when Diodorus travelled in

Egypt, the greater part were destroyed. Lepsius gives twenty-five graves

of kings, and fifteen graves of the wives of the kings ("Briefe," s.

270).

[246] Brugsch, "Reiseberichte," s. 324.

[247] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 288.

[248] Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 128.

[249] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 266; Rosellini, "Mon. Stor." 3, 2, 284.

[250] Bunsen, "AEgypten," 4, 213.

[251] On the sketch of this tomb on a Turin papyrus, cf. Lepsius, "Abh.

der Berl. Akad." 1867.

CHAPTER VIII.

LIFE AND MANNERS OF THE EGYPTIANS.

We have already called attention to the peculiar features in the

position and nature of their country which favoured the development of

the Egyptians. The shape of the land, so conducive to unity, must have

led at an early time to a community of life; the protection of this

favoured valley against the plundering tribes of the desert must have

called into existence a military monarchy. But it is no longer in the

form of a patriarchal rule or military chieftainship that the monuments

and tradition display the government of Egypt. It is the form of

despotism peculiar to the East, which meets us at the threshold of

history, meets us, too, in a very sharply-defined form. Herodotus says

that the Egyptians could not have lived without a king, and Diodorus

tells us that the Egyptians worshipped their kings, and prostrated

themselves before them as though they were really gods. Of men who could

confer such great blessings as their kings the Egyptians assumed that

they partook of the nature of gods.[252] As a fact, we see on the

monuments not only the commanders and magistrates of the districts, but

even the priests, in the dust before the kings. It is true that it was

the universal custom in the East to approach the ruler kneeling, as one

on whose nod depended the life and death of every subject at every

moment of his existence; but the Egyptians, led by their peculiar

religious views, have gone further than any other nation in the

exaltation of the power of the monarch; they worshipped their kings as

the deities of the land. As in the beginning, according to the teaching

of the priests, the gods ruled over Egypt, so in subsequent times the

Pharaohs occupy the place of the gods. They do not merely spring from

the gods; they are themselves gods of the land. They are not only called

children of the sun; but to their subjects they are the "sun itself,

which is given to the world," which beams over the land and gives

blessing and increase; they are the "outpourers of life," like the gods.

Like the gods, they are lords of truth and justice; they preserve order,

punish the bad, and reward the good, and keep away the unclean enemies;

through their care it is that their subjects share in the fruits of the

earth, hence they cause Egypt to live. The king of Egypt is called, and

is, "the mighty Horus," the god who gives blessing to the land. If to

the Egyptians animals and men were the manifestations of the divine

nature, must they not recognise such manifestations in peculiar potency

in the life of the king, in the ruling, arranging, and sustaining power

of the king over the whole land? This conception of the king as a god on

earth has been already brought before us in the inscription on the

statue of Chafra, the builder of the second largest pyramid, which

describes him as the "good god, the master and gold Horus" (p. 95). It

continues unchanged to the last centuries of the kingdom, and even

survives the independence of Egypt. In the inscriptions of the temples

the Ptolemies and Roman Caesars are named by the same solemn titles as

the ancient Pharaohs.[253]

We saw that priests were allotted to the spirits of the buried kings (p.

99). In the ruins at Luxor, spirits of heaven are carrying Amenophis

III. into the presence of Ammon, who consecrates him king (p. 138). In

the Ramesseum and in the palace at Medinet Habu we have pictures of the

coronation of Ramses II. and Ramses III. In both, the four geese of the

four spirits of heaven are bidden by the priest to announce to the

spirits of the east and west, of the north and the south, that the king

has put on the double crown. In the rock temple at Selseleh (p. 149),

the goddess Anuke gives her breast to king Horus, who is depicted as

already grown into a youth; in the rock temple at Beth-el-Walli, Isis

and Anuke allow Ramses II. to suck at their breasts. In the Ramesseum,

Ramses II. is led by the gods Mentu and Chunsu and the goddess Mut

before Ammon (p. 171). These pictures, in which gods bring the kings

before Ammon, and worship him, that he may bestow life and purity on the

princes presented by them, are constantly recurring. On the monuments

the kings are found sacrificing, not only to their divine forefathers,

but also to themselves and their own divinity (p. 24). Tuthmosis III.

dedicated a temple to the god Sesurtesen III., and ordained regular

sacrifices to him; and Amenophis III. built a temple in Nubia to his own

divinity (pp. 134, 137).

Nowhere do we find a trace to show that the kings stood in need of the

intervention of the priests in order to approach the gods, and without

such intervention there can be no supremacy of the priests over the

sovereigns of the state. Everywhere the kings come independently before

the gods. Everywhere we find the sacrifices of the kings, not of the

priests, offered. It is the kings who consecrate temples to the gods, in

order that the king may obtain "lasting life and purity." It is the

Pharaohs and not the priests who represent the state and people before

the gods. The kings are at the same time the high priests, and stand at

the head of religion as at the head of the state; their sons and

grandsons, their mothers, wives, and daughters, are, according to the

inscriptions, the priests of this or that god or goddess. The kings, as

Diodorus assures us, were not waited upon by slaves, but by the sons of

the most distinguished priests; by priests only could the ruling god of

the country be served--and the priests did not omit to mention on their

tombs, even at a very early period, the king in whose service they were

prophets, scribes, and minstrels. In a word, the Pharaoh was not merely

the head of the state, but also of the church, if such an expression may

be allowed, and the power of the priests, without any real and

ceremonial support, does not extend beyond the moral influence which

religion exercised upon the heart of the king. Finally, it is the kings

who are celebrated as the lawgivers of the land, and this excludes any

thought of a supremacy of priests. Yet the influence of religion and of

the priesthood on the king is not to be contested, although, under the

military princes who governed Egypt after the expulsion of the Hyksos,

the priests had to share their influence with the leaders of the army.

Not till the time of Menephta, do we observe a more influential position

assumed by the high priests at Thebes. This influence goes on increasing

under the weak successors of Ramses III., and reaches its summit under

the first princes of the dynasty of Tanis. Then it declined, and

afterwards only came into operation under foreign supremacy.

If further proof were needed for the unlimited power of the kings than

their representation of Ra and Horus, and the menial position of the

priests, we should find it in the gigantic structures which the Pharaohs

left behind them. To carry out works of this kind is impossible unless

the monarch has absolute disposal of the labour of his subjects. But

these buildings were undoubtedly the main interest and the main

occupation of the kings. In this they follow the characteristic traits

of the whole nation. In building temples and erecting images, their

object was just as much to confer honour on the gods as to preserve the

remembrance of the homage which they had offered to them. The

preservation of their own actions and names, which these buildings in

the eyes of the Egyptians "caused to live," is the main object of the

structure, and along with the sacrifices of the kings, and the evidence

of the favour of the gods, the sculptures on the temples display the

martial exploits of the kings. If the kings erected pyramid tombs, it

was in order that their corpses might rest in security, and the tumulus

"cause their name to live" in the generations to come. If they built

temples, it was that the gates, walls, frescoes, and inscriptions might

preserve their acts for posterity. The buildings of the Pharaohs are the

history of their reigns written in stone.

The ceremonial which surrounded the life of the Pharaohs is described by

Diodorus. In the morning the king first read the communications received

from every quarter; then he performed his ablutions, put on his robes,

and offered sacrifice to the gods. While the sacrificial animal was

being led to the altar the high priest offered prayer to the gods,

beseeching them to grant life and all good things to the king, as he was

a righteous ruler. He was pious to the gods, gentle towards men, strong,

just, and courageous, an enemy of lies, a sharer of his goods with

others, and master of his desires; one who did not punish the wicked so

severely as they deserved, and gave to the good more than their

proportionate share. Then the priest laid the punishment of any error

into which the king might have fallen on his servants, and urged him to

a pious life, "not by reproaches," as Diodorus expressly observes, "but

by commendations." When the sacrifice was finished, the priest read to

the king the apothegms and achievements of distinguished men, that is,

no doubt, of previous kings, out of the sacred books. We know that poems

of considerable extent on historical subjects were in existence.[254] In

the same way the remaining part of the day was allotted to definite

occupations. For walking, for bathing, even for sleeping with the queen,

definite hours were appointed. The king might only eat the flesh of

calves and geese--the food of the priests--and take a fixed portion of

wine. Diodorus regards it as wonderful that the kings should have

subjected themselves to this ceremonial. In this he leaves out of sight

the fact that the god of the land was expected to lead the life of a

god, and also, a thing which could not indeed be so obvious to him, that

all periods present proofs to what oppressive rules of state and

etiquette rulers are willing to subject themselves in order to exhibit

their dignity and majesty. Yet this was not the object chiefly held in

view in the regulation of the king's life, nor was it the love of the

Egyptians for systematic and fixed arrangements. The king was at the

same time the first priest of the land; and therefore the regulations of

the priestly life applied to him also. Moreover, the Egyptians were

extremely careful to keep themselves pure from the unclean, in order by

such purity to preserve life and salvation. With this object, priests

and laity alike regulated all their actions, their eating and drinking,

feeding and clothing, by a minute ritual. It was the first duty of the

king to protect the purity of Egypt. He was the Horus of the land, who

had struck down disorder, impurity, and evil, and therefore, like the

victorious god, he must shine out in the brightness of unsullied purity.

Thus the king had to lead the pure life of a priest; he could eat none

but the priestly food, and every duty must be performed at a favourable

moment, for the Egyptians were under the dominion of a widespread

astrological superstition. This system further required that every fault

he might happen to commit should be taken from him and laid upon others.

It is probably the plan sketched by the priests for the king's life, of

which Diodorus has preserved some traces; we know that among the sacred

books those of the minstrels contained regulations for the life of the

king. Whatever flattery and homage was thus intended for the great and

gracious king, the Pharaohs no doubt observed so much as seemed

suitable to them. Of a later king, Amasis, we are told that he

emancipated himself from the customary ceremonial, and when business was

over, gave himself up to relaxation and enjoyment. Yet his reign was a

long one, and regarded with affection by the Egyptians.

The Pharaohs were surrounded with all the state of Oriental despots. On

the picture of the coronation, the assumption of the Pschent by Ramses

III. at Medinet Habu, the procession is led by trumpeters, who are

followed by commanders and magistrates. Twenty-two priests lead the

statue of Ammon, who is followed by a priest with incense, and a scribe

who appears to read a proclamation. The king is then carried in by

twelve richly-attired men on a throne under a canopy. Beside the throne

walk certain officers, who cool the king with large fans; others carry

the weapons of the king and the insignia of his power. Behind follow the

captains of the army and the body-guard. Then a white bull is led in the

procession by priests, and the whole closes with priests carrying the

name-shields of the predecessors of the king. On descending from the

throne the king makes a libation towards Ammon, burns incense to him,

and cuts off some ears of corn with a golden sickle.[255] The court was

numerous: fan-bearers on the right, and fan-bearers on the left, bearers

of the parasol, keepers of the king's bow, captains of the body-guard,

overseers of the palace, overseers of the buildings in Upper and Lower

Egypt, overseers of the horses, books, and music, stewards of the

granaries in Upper and Lower Egypt, stewards of the royal flocks,

treasurers, butlers of the palace, and other officers are

mentioned.[256] According to the monuments, the king's household

furniture was profuse in silver and gold. The gondolas were gilded, with

variegated sails, the trappings of the horses were splendidly

ornamented, the stuffed seats curiously carved and richly decked; and of

the complicated occupations of the royal kitchen, of the number of

people employed, of cup-bearers and master cooks, as well as of the

preparation of the food--the monuments give us a very complete idea.

The death of the king was mourned for seventy days, like the death of an

Apis. During this time everyone had to abstain from baths, from flesh

and wine, until the son of the ruler, who had entered into Amenti,

ascended the throne as a new Horus and giver of life to the land, and

the visage of the new lord again "beamed like a sun over both the lands

of Egypt" after the days of lamentation. The succession, so far as we

can see, was not infrequently broken by usurpations, which have always

been inseparable from the despotic form of government.[257]

It is characteristic of the all-absorbing power of the monarchy in Egypt

that tradition can scarcely mention a single eminent person beside the

names of the kings. We hear nothing of generals or statesmen, and

scarcely of priests. All stood in equal subjection to the king. Though

families may have at one time arisen from the nation, which were in a

position, from wealth and inclination, to undertake the defence of the

valley of the Nile against the tribes of the desert, and though the

monarchy may have arisen out of the ranks of this military nobility,

which in bygone times united the valley of the Nile into a kingdom,

still, so far as the monuments allow us to see, there is no trace left

of the eminent position of any nobility, whether military or hereditary.

The military order, as presented to us on the monuments, and by the

tradition of the Greeks, no longer consisted of wealthy landowners who

went to war at the bidding of the king with their chariots and horses

and retainers; they are merely soldiers--families, who for a certain

portion of land given to them by the state are pledged to service in

war, and who receive their weapons from the armouries of the state. Such

are the warriors on the monuments even in the times of the Amenemha and

Sesurtesen, and also under Ramses III. Herodotus tells us that each

family of warriors possessed twelve measures of good land, free of

taxes, the measure being 100 Egyptian cubits in length and breadth. This

would make the allotment more than twelve acres. These families,

according to Herodotus, could, even about the middle of the fifth

century B.C., put in the field 400,000 men, although two hundred years

before, under Psammetichus I., a large number of them, it is said more

than 200,000, migrated into Ethiopia. The military order was divided

into two classes: the Hermotybians, numbering at most 160,000 men, and

the Kalasirians, about 250,000 strong. In the time of Herodotus, the

first were settled in Upper Egypt in the province of Chemmis, and mainly

in the western Delta; the Kalasirians were in the province of Thebes,

and in the central and eastern Delta.[258] Each division furnished

yearly 1,000 men for the bodyguard of the king, who were handsomely

provided for, and the garrisons in the border towns and strongholds,

which were also relieved year by year. From the masses of the two

divisions so many may have been told off for field duty as were

considered necessary. From the numbers which Herodotus gives it is not

impossible that the armies of Sethos and Ramses II., when all the

soldiers were called out, were, if not 700,000, yet from 400,000 to

500,000 strong. Under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) the army of

Egypt was estimated at 240,000 men.

The monuments prove that even at the time of the Sesurtesen and

Amenemha, war was scientifically carried on, and the soldiers regularly

drilled. From the royal armouries the infantry were provided with bows,

helmets, shields, lances, and crooked knives, and were divided into

battalions, each carrying its own ensign. The heavy infantry moved in

ranks to the sound of trumpets. Attacks were not made on fortified

cities without the ram, and sheds to protect the attacking party.

Instead of cavalry, which never occur on the monuments, we find, though

not till after the time of the Hyksos, numerous war-chariots in use.

Those who fought in the chariots, as the kings, who are invariably

represented as fighting from a chariot, made use of bows. The monuments

often exhibit practice in archery. With the Egyptians, as with the whole

of the East in antiquity, the bow was the favourite weapon.

To the priestly order Egypt owed the growth and establishment of her

cultus, the peculiar turn of her religious conceptions, her moral law,

her writings, her art, and her science. The piety of the people and the

kings had amply endowed the temples. "The priests eat nothing of their

own," says Herodotus; "sacred bread is daily baked for them, and they

obtain vegetables, geese, calves' flesh, and wine in sufficient

quantities."[259] Diodorus tells us that the land in ancient Egypt was

divided into three portions, of which a third belonged to the kings, a

third to the priests for their support and the maintenance of the

sacrifices and festivals, and another third to the military order, and

that all the farmers in Egypt held on leases;[260] and we have already

seen that at any rate a part of the land, though by no means so much as

a third, was really allotted to the soldiers, who could scarcely have

leased their small patches, but must have cultivated them in person if

they wished to live upon them with their families. Another part of the

land was marked off for the maintenance of the priests and the expenses

of public worship; but it appears that this land also belonged to the

king, for Herodotus speaks of the incomes of the priests as gifts

received from the king;[261] and the Hebrew Scriptures also tell us that

"the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their

portion which Pharaoh gave them."[262] From these data--even if the

statement of Herodotus, that Sesostris (Ramses II.) had given an equal

square of land to every Egyptian, must be limited to a measurement of

the land, in order to regulate the taxes[263]--it appears that the

Pharaohs looked on themselves as the proprietors of the soil--a view by

no means strange to the despotisms of the East--and in consequence they

allotted to the soldiers so much as was necessary, and of the rest

allowed a great portion, which was estimated at a third of the whole, to

pay taxes to the temples, while the remainder contributed to themselves.

According to the statements of the Hebrews the taxes amounted to a fifth

of the produce,[264] and hence all the farmers could with justice be

considered leaseholders, or at any rate as having copyhold estates. It

is expressly observed that only the farms of the soldiers were free from

taxes,[265] and that the land which was taxed for the temples

contributed nothing to Pharaoh.[266] At the same time it is easily

intelligible that the piety of the subjects provided additional incomes

for the priests, and that, so far as it was possible to make any

arrangements of the kind, land and revenues were presented to the

temples.[267]

The maintenance which they derived from the incomes and contributions of

the temple-lands, in corn, wine, and animals for sacrifice, enabled the

priests to live for their religious duties, for the complete

performance of their customs in regard to purification and food, and

for the study of the holy scriptures. They were divided into various

classes and corporations. In every temple there was one upper

priest,--the head of the temple--the prophet,[268] a temple scribe, who

was especially skilled in writing, and managed the temple property, a

chamberlain, who took care of the clothing of the images, the

sacrifices, and the ritual, an astronomer, who had to observe the

heavens, and a minstrel. In the processions the prophet carried the jar

of water for purifications; the chamberlain carried the cubit of justice

and a basin for sprinkling water; the scribe can be recognised by the

feather in his head-dress, the roll of books in one hand, and the pen in

the other; the astronomer by an hour-glass and a palm branch, the symbol

of the seasons among the Egyptians. These higher classes of the

priesthood were followed by the lower; the pastophors, who carried the

images in the processions, and practised medicine, the attendants, male

and female ("the nurses"), of the sacred animals, the persons whose duty

it was to select and seal the animals for sacrifice, the embalmers, and

lastly, the temple-servants, who were responsible for the purifications.

The first sanctuaries in Egypt were the temples of Ammon at Thebes, of

Ptah at Memphis, and of Ra at Heliopolis. The colleges at these temples

were the most important centres of priestly life and doctrine. So long

as Thebes was the metropolis of the kingdom, the high priest of Ammon at

Thebes was the first priest in the land. Herodotus tells us from the

lips of the priests of Thebes that the office of high priest descended

from father to son, and Diodorus maintains that the same was the case

with all the officers of the temples.[269] These statements are

contradicted by the inscriptions. They mention five places in the

temples through which all "fifth priests" must pass. From a memorial

stone of a priest, Bakenchunsu, we learn that for fifteen years he was

third priest, and for twelve years second priest of Ammon at Thebes;

then he became first priest of this god, and continued to be so to the

end of his life.

The priests had to lead a holier and purer life than the laity. The

ritual, the rules for purification and food, which the priests laid upon

themselves, were stricter than those expected from the rest of the

people. The priest must wash twice in each day and each night. Every

third day he must shave his whole body, more especially his eyebrows and

beard. He might only wear linen clothing (byssus), and shoes of papyrus.

Any other clothing, and especially the hair and skins of beasts, defiled

a priest; though on monuments the priests of Osiris wear leopard skins,

especially at the ceremony of the burial. The flesh of sheep, swine, and

most other animals was forbidden to the priests; they might never touch

fish. Pulse they might not eat, and beans were not even to be looked at.

They observed frequent fasts. From time to time they underwent certain

mortifications, which in one instance continued for forty-two days, in

order to destroy in themselves the forty-two deadly sins. Finally the

priests could only marry one wife; while the laity were allowed to have

other wives beside the first. The kings had more than one wife, and this

was the rule among the wealthier class in Egypt.[270]

We are not informed how sharply the different orders in Egypt were

separated, or how far the different occupations were distinguished among

the labouring or trading population in addition to the classes of

priests and soldiers. We do not know, for instance, in what degree the

tiller of the soil was distinguished from the artizan. We are only told

that the people were divided into husbandmen, artizans, and shepherds,

and the shepherds were regarded as the lowest class. But we learn that

no one was allowed to follow any other occupation than that derived from

his father.[271] The inscriptions tell us that the same office, as for

instance that of architect, remained in the same family for twenty-three

generations;[272] and in the seventh century B.C. a kind of caste grew

up out of a number of Egyptian boys, whom Psammetichus handed over to

his Ionian mercenaries. Hence we may conclude that the impulse to

perpetuate types and lock up occupations in hereditary circles and fixed

families was very strong, as was natural enough with the fixed and

conservative character of the Egyptians. But however strong the impulse,

however deeply rooted the custom for the son to follow the father's

profession, there was in Egypt no caste in the strict sense of the term.

Marriages between the orders were not forbidden, and it is exclusiveness

in this point which completes the idea of caste. Moreover in Egypt there

were adoptions and transitions from one order to another. The sepulchral

pillars never lay any weight on birth in a certain order, but rather

show that members of the same family had belonged to different

orders--that a man could be at once a priest and a soldier, and Diodorus

remarks that in Egypt all were regarded as of equally honourable birth.

The statement that the shepherds were held in the least estimation is

probably correct, for the reason that their unrestrained occupation was

least adapted for subjection to fixed rules of life and a strict ritual;

but that statement, like the assertion in Genesis that "cowherds were an

abomination to the Egyptians," is not to be taken in reference to the

breeders of oxen and the care of flocks, which was carried on with great

vigour among the Egyptians, but to the nomadic tribes who wandered with

their flocks on the broad marshes of the Delta, or on the pastures of

the Libyan and Arabian ranges, and were wholly strangers to all settled

life. When we are told that the swineherds were held in especial

contempt, we must remember that to the Egyptians the swine was an

unclean animal.[273] Hence we may consider it as certain that custom

required the Egyptian to follow the trade of his father, and caused the

father to live again in his son, but no law of religion or state turned

the orders into castes, and that the various classes of trades and

professions were neither haughty and exclusive, nor servile and

submissive towards each other, but all lived together on a tolerable

equality.

Beside the respect and weight which the religious importance of their

order, their general knowledge and science gave to the priests, it was

to them more especially that the honour of serving the king fell. We

cannot doubt that the public officers were mainly taken from the order

of priests, which was also the order of scribes. Egypt was not, like the

great monarchies of the ancient East, a state founded by conquest, in

which the lord of the victorious people was master of the conquerors and

the conquered also, and in which it was all-important to retain the

conquered nation in subjection; it was a compact district inhabited by

the same tribe. Here, if we make an exception in favour of the

transitory conquests in Nubia and Arabia, there were no extensive and

distant provinces to be held in check. The departments in the land were

small, their number reached forty-four;[274] the officers, whom the king

set over them, were in his sight, they could not assume the position of

refractory pashas. They were nominated out of the members of the royal

house (the monuments furnish instances), the priests, the soldiers, and

also out of the people. Royal scribes and judges, "scribes of justice,"

were allotted to these prefects. As the Egyptians early arrived at a

written law, as religion and justice were closely connected, and the

priests were acquainted with the art of writing, the prefects of the

provinces were without doubt assisted by men from the priestly order in

the exercise of their judicial duties. Besides the maintenance of the

peace and the administration of justice, it was their duty to provide

for the cultivation of the land, the collection and transmission of the

taxes to the king. Even the soldiers settled in the provinces seem to

have been subject to their rule. The gold and copper mines on the Upper

Nile and in Sinai appear to have been put under the care of special

officers, and the products were conveyed under military protection to

the treasury of the king (p. 105).

The officers of the central government surrounded the person of the king

(p. 190). Even the administration of justice, according to Diodorus, was

centred in a supreme court, consisting of thirty judges, ten of the best

men from Heliopolis, ten from Memphis, and ten from Thebes. Without

doubt these judges belonged to the three priestly colleges of Memphis,

Thebes, and Heliopolis. From these thirty the president was chosen, and

on his breast, attached to a golden chain, he wore a shield of precious

stones, beautifully wrought, which the Egyptians named "Truth" (p. 174).

This court of the thirty no doubt gave very honourable decisions, and in

accordance with law, unless the king were interested in the result, or

preferred to pass sentence himself. Diodorus further informs us that the

laws of the Egyptians were collected in eight books, and were always

kept at hand by the judges. The first written laws were given by Menes

to the Egyptians, who declared that he had received them from the god

Thoth. These laws had been enlarged by "Sasychis," who at the same time

left the most accurate rubrics for the service of the gods, discovered

geometry, and taught astronomy. Then Sesosis (Sesostris) laid down the

laws for the kings, and the army. Finally the kings Bocchoris and Amasis

completed the laws of Egypt. Herodotus praises a king "Asychis," whom he

places after Menkera (p. 16), as the giver of the laws of mortgage. From

Diodorus we also learn, and the monuments confirm his statement, that a

written process went on before the court, that plaint and answer,

rejoinder and reply, were given in, in writing; and this custom,

considering the delight of the Egyptians in writing, did not appear for

the first time in the later period of legal administration. The

contracts and bills of sale found in tombs of the time of the Ptolemies

are drawn up with the most circumstantial accuracy, and furnished with

the signatures of many witnesses.[275] What Diodorus tells us of the law

of Egypt with respect to _meum_ and _tuum_ gives evidence of a certain

gentleness and humanity. The interest was never to exceed the amount of

the capital. Slavery for debt was not allowed; the sons of all the wives

shared equally in the inheritance. The murder of a slave was punished

with death, just as the murder of an Egyptian. Perjury was threatened

with the same penalty. Anyone who falsified documents or measures had

his hand cut off. In the confession which the souls made before Osiris

(p. 79), especial emphasis is laid on the fact that the dead man had

not falsified measures or seals, that he had practised no deceit in the

law court, and had lent no money upon usury. The punishments inflicted

on the guilty are characteristic of the East: the stocks, compulsory

labour at the mines and quarries, loss of the nose, excision of the

tongue, and mutilation were the usual penalties.[276]

Beside the law of the state stood the law of religion, of the priests.

It was not sufficient to offer bread, and geese, and thighs of bulls, to

pour drink-offerings of milk and wine, and "all things whereon the

divine nature lives," to burn frankincense before the images of the

gods, to offer the firstlings of the fruits, figs, onions, and flowers,

to set up in the temples dedicatory offerings, small statues, crowns,

and rings, to celebrate in honour of the gods of the district the great

and small festivals, to honour the dead and bring sacrifice to them at

the beginning and end of the year, at the festivals of the great and the

little heat, on the monthly and fortnightly festivals (the calendars of

the festivals on the monuments exhibit an almost unbroken series of

sacrifices), to attend to the animals of the sacred kinds and bury them

handsomely, "to give bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes

to the naked, and shelter to the wanderer"--the whole life must be a

religious service. In their favoured land the Egyptians considered

themselves a favoured people. Full of gratitude to the gods who had

given them this land and this life, they looked with contempt on the

unclean and perverse nations who dwelt beyond the valley of the Nile. To

keep themselves clean from the unclean is the essential task of their

lives. To the merely superficial view, cleanliness of body and clothing

seems cleanliness of soul and life. But this purity, which the law of

the priests required from every Egyptian, and above all and in an

especial degree from the priests, was not limited to simple and natural

cleanliness. There were beneficent life-giving gods, and there were also

evil and destructive deities. To these belonged the side of nature which

seemed to correspond to their being. Contact with this side of nature is

not only displeasing to the good and pure gods, it gives the evil

influences power over the men contaminated by it. Hence for the

salvation of men such contact must be shunned. Certain things must be

avoided for clothing and others for nourishment, certain impulses must

not be satisfied, or must at any rate be limited.

This conception introduced certain usages and customs, which were

developed by the priests into a system of rules for purification and

food. Herodotus says, "the Egyptians are the most religious of all men;

they have a severe and strict service, and many sacred customs." The

boys were circumcised. Beans, rye, and barley might not be eaten; the

flesh of many animals and many kinds of fish was forbidden. It was not

lawful to eat the head of any animal. The animals for sacrifice must

first be examined by the priests, to see that they did not belong to the

sacred kinds--to sacrifice these was an inexpiable offence--and whether

in other respects they were without blemish and pleasing to the gods.

This examination was the duty of the class of temple-servants already

mentioned, and it devolved on them to mark the animals found to be clean

with a seal, which in bulls was placed on the horns. The Egyptians never

ate at the same table with strangers, nor used a cup from which a

stranger had drunk, nor ate flesh cooked in the vessel of a stranger

and cut with a stranger's knife; all strangers and their utensils were

unclean. Nothing woollen might be taken into a temple or a tomb. The

Egyptians always wore newly-washed under-clothing of linen; they were

obliged frequently to wash their bodies, and for three days in each

month they used means of evacuation, clysters and emetics, in order to

cleanse the body internally.[277] These statements are confirmed by

papyrus rolls containing medicinal precepts. If the king, a sacred

animal, or a member of the family died, no one was allowed to wear white

or bright-coloured clothes; he must shave his eyebrows, and abstain from

intercourse with his wife and from baths. Men and women threw dust on

their heads and faces, and the women ran to and fro wailing with bare

breasts.[278]

If an Egyptian had not committed murder, theft, or adultery, if he had

not defamed the gods nor the king, nor those in authority over him, nor

his own father, if he were not guilty of lying or slandering, if he had

deceived neither gods nor men, nor oppressed his workmen in their daily

tasks, nor drawn off the water, if he had allowed no one to be hungry,

and caused no one to weep, if he were not slothful and idle in his

occupation, if he sacrificed to the gods at the appointed time, and

poured libations and observed all the regulations for cleanliness, then

he might hope to find grace in the presence of the twenty-four judges

before Osiris on the day of judgment in Amenti (p. 79). In order to gain

by such conduct and careful observation of the laws of cleanliness and

the ritual, a long life in this world, rest in the grave, and eternal

life in the fields of the sun-god, the Egyptians worshipped their gods

with unwearied zeal, while their kings raised temple upon temple of

enormous blocks in honour of the life-giving powers of heaven.

We cannot rate the knowledge and science of the Egyptians very low,

however absurd and singular much in it appears to be. The early

discovery of writing, however unwieldy the form, gave them the means of

preserving not only invocations and incidents, but also the results of

observation and experience, and of increasing slowly and surely their

stock of knowledge. They made an unusually extensive use of writing. The

walls of the temples are covered with inscriptions, which often enough

only repeat once more what has been repeated already innumerable times.

Even in the tombs at Beni Hassan from the time of the Amenemha and

Sesurtesen, we find scribes engaged in numbering the flocks and

ticketing the sacks of corn. The scribes of the king registered the game

obtained in hunting, the number of hands hewn off after a victory, and

of prisoners, and calculated the amount of the booty. The temple-scribes

are seen in the processions with pen in hand, and on the monuments the

gods note down the years of the kings on the leaves of the arbor vitae.

Everything is to be enumerated, registered, and entered. Even ornaments

and utensils are covered with inscriptions. As the hieroglyphics on the

walls explained the images in the temples, and the hieroglyphics on the

sides of the sepulchral chambers recorded the race and achievements of

eminent persons and officers, so did the priests write down their

wisdom, and private people their documents on a lighter material, the

leaves of the papyrus, a tall reed growing in abundance in the swamps of

Egypt.

Notwithstanding this extensive use, the system of writing among the

Egyptians continued to the end a clumsy and difficult system, partly

owing to the number of pictures and symbols, and partly to the variety

of the phonetic pictures. The unchanging character of the Egyptians, the

symbolical and mystic sense concealed in the hieroglyphics, the

religious character of these old and sacred signs, stood in the way of

the change to a more simple and phonetic mode of writing. Yet the effort

to obtain such a system is unmistakable. After the year 1300 B.C. a

number of picture symbols were used as phonetic symbols, which up to

that time had no phonetic value, and this change becomes more and more

frequent in the last centuries B.C. The habit of writing the

hieroglyphics on the papyrus had early led to abbreviation in writing;

the pictures were represented by simple outlines more adapted to the

hand; and hence arose a cursive mode of writing the hieroglyphics, the

so-called "hieratic" writing, which we already (pp. 90, 94) found in use

on the pyramids under the old kingdom, and which was in use on an

extensive scale at the time when the new kingdom was at its height.

Finally, from the hieratic writing arose a third and more abbreviated

kind, the demotic, which represented the language of ordinary

intercourse and the national dialect. This was in existence when

Herodotus travelled in Egypt. Here we see the most marked effort to

avoid the ideographic element and picture signs, and to extend the use

of the phonetic symbols. Beside the remains of the picture symbols, the

demotic writing employs seventeen simple phonetic symbols and some fifty

symbols of syllables. The hieroglyphic and hieratic modes of writing are

called on the monuments the "writing of the gods," the demotic is "the

writing of the books." For us the difficulty of the hieroglyphics is

materially increased by the fact that the Coptic language in the form

accessible to us is removed by thousands of years from the form of words

represented by the hieroglyphics of the old and new kingdom. The forms

which we obtain from the records preserved in the demotic writing are

about midway between those in the hieroglyphics and the forms retained

in the Coptic translation of the Scriptures, and in some books of

liturgies, which belong to the first centuries A.D.[279]

In the circles of the priests the traditional invocations of the gods,

the rules for the proper conduct of sacrifices and feasts, for the pure

conversation which is the way to life and salvation in this world and

the next, were without doubt committed to writing at a very early

period. When gradually extended and continued, those writings grew into

a liturgical canon and ecclesiastical codex of religious and moral law,

and a comprehensive collection of all the wisdom known to the priests.

We learn that the Egyptian priests possessed forty-two sacred books.

Regarded as a collection of religious rules in every department of

civilisation and life, as the measure of holy and upright conversation,

and as rules of civil law, these books passed as the writings of the god

Thoth, the scribe of heaven, the god of truth and justice. The civil law

also was grounded upon the rules and axioms of religion; from these it

arose, and the books of civil law without doubt formed a part of the

sacred law, and of the books of the priests. Of these forty-two books

ten belonged to the high priest, of which eight may have been the eight

books of civil law (p. 202). In that case the two others would contain

the doctrine concerning the gods, and the instruction of the priests.

Ten other books belonged to the temple-scribe. Of these the first

contained the rules for the sacred writing; the second the geography

and cosmogony; the third and fourth the arrangement of the sun, moon,

and five planets; the fifth and sixth the description of Egypt and the

Nile; the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, the weights and measures,

the mode of registering the temple furniture and property. Again, ten

books belonged to the chamberlain. These taught the ritual and the

liturgy, the offering of first-fruits and sacrifices, hymns and prayers,

together with the conduct of festivals and other things of the kind,

and, finally, discipline and the rules for examining the animals for

sacrifices. The two books of the minstrel contained the hymns and the

contemplation of the life proper for a king (p. 188). The four books of

the astrologer concluded the narrower circle of the sacred writings. Of

these, the first contained the arrangement of the fixed stars; the

second and third the coincidences of the orbits of the sun and moon; the

fourth, the rising of the constellations. Besides these sacred books the

pastophors (p. 196) had six books which taught the principles and

practice of medicine;[280] for the art of healing, _i.e._ of preserving

life, also belonged to the priests. The medicine of the Egyptians is

commended as early as the Homeric poems (p. 15). Herodotus assures us

that in Egypt every kind of sickness had a special physician, and

Diodorus states that the art was carried out strictly according to the

written principles, _i.e._ no doubt, according to these six sacred

books. A hieratic papyrus on the subject of medicine has been recently

found at Thebes, which is supposed to belong to the first centuries of

the restoration of the monarchy. A section of this deals with diseases

of the eye.[281] Egyptian physicians were much sought after in the East

(the founder of the Persian kingdom, Cyrus, procured an oculist from

Egypt), until the fame of the Greek medicine about 500 B.C. threw

Egyptian physicians into the shade.[282]

In the sacred books of the priests was drawn up the religious system

into which the original conceptions of the gods were shaped and

developed in the circles of the priests. The gods who passed for the

greatest and mightiest in the various districts out of which Egypt was

made up, the protecting deities of the separate localities, were here

arranged in definite ranks and classes. And if, nevertheless,

considerable differences can be observed in the teaching of the priests

of Memphis and Thebes, they are sufficiently explained by the mode in

which religion and state were developed in Egypt, and the rival position

of the two great centres of ecclesiastical life. According to the

doctrine of Memphis the seven highest deities were Ptah, the creative

god of light of the lower country; Ra, the sun-god of Heliopolis; and

Shu (Sosis, p. 50), the deity of the clear air; these three were

followed by the forms belonging to the Osiris circle, on whose nature

rested the moral basis of the life of the Egyptians; Seb, the father of

Osiris; Osiris himself; then his opposite, Typhon; and lastly, Horus,

the conqueror of Typhon.[283] The doctrine of Thebes placed Ammon at the

head instead of Ptah, and in the place of Ra stood the two sun-gods of

Upper Egypt, Tum (Atum, p. 51) and Mentu; these were followed by Shu,

and the gods of the Osiris circle. To the seven or eight great gods was

appended a circle of twelve gods, and among these Thoth and Anubis. The

twelve were followed by a number of spirits, genii and demigods. With

this system of gods the doctrine of the priests was connected. Even from

the attributes of Ptah, Neith, and other deities, it is clear that there

was among the priests a strong tendency to gather up the divine powers

into the forms of Ptah, Tum, Osiris, and Ra. The teaching of the priests

evidently desired to grasp the connection of life, and attain to a

theogony and a theory of creation. It has been already pointed out on

the authority of documents belonging to the times of the Amenemha and

Sesurtesen, that the priests in their doctrine were at pains to discover

the unity of the divine spirits, and to conceive the forms of the gods

as manifestations of one being. They regarded the animals as the

manifestations of special characteristics of the gods, and men as

phaenomena of a divine origin and nature, who would return to the place

whence they came. To go further and grasp the heart of the system is

impossible in the present condition of our researches. Conceptions and

inferences of the Graeco-Egyptian speculation of the time of the

Ptolemies and the first centuries after Christ cannot be accepted as the

true form of the old Egyptian religion, or as the doctrine of the

priests of ancient Egypt.

With the Egyptians, as with other nations, poetry probably arose out of

the invocations of the gods and hymns of praise and thanksgiving.

Religious poetry had a fixed canon in the books of the minstrels. That

national songs were also in vogue is shown by the monuments (p. 222).

Diodorus told us above that the achievements of Sesostris were

celebrated in poetry (p. 144). The description of a deed of arms of

Ramses II. which he must have regarded as of considerable importance

has been preserved. The battle he fought with the Cheta in the fifth

year of his reign (p. 152), he caused to be represented in the rock

temple at Abu Simbel and in the Ramesseum, and a description of it is

engraved in these temples, as at Luxor and Beth-el-Walli, and in the

walls of the great temple at Karnak. It is found in still greater detail

in a papyrus of the British Museum.[284] At the end is the observation

that the scribe Pentaur composed it in the seventh year of the reign of

Ramses II. In this poem we are told that the chief of the Cheta had come

with his archers and chariots, three men on each chariot. North-west of

Kadesh they lay in ambush. The king, urging on his chariot, pressed into

the midst of the miserable Cheta. He found himself surrounded by 2,500

chariots. "My bowmen and my chariots have abandoned me, this is what the

king said; none of them is here to fight beside me. What is the will of

my father Ammon? Is he a father who denies his son? Or have I followed

my own thoughts? Did I not set forth at thy command; has not thy mouth

led my armies, and thy counsel guided them? Have I not celebrated many

brilliant festivals, and filled thy house with booty? Thirty thousand

bulls I have sacrificed with odorous herbs and perfumes of all kinds. I

have built thee temples of stone, I bring obelisks from Elephantine, and

cause the everlasting stones to be carried down. For thee--the great

ships swim upon the sea, to bring thee the tribute of the nations. Has

the like been done before? Ruin on him who opposes thee: salvation to

him who comprehends thee, Ammon. On thee I call. I am alone before thee

in the midst of unknown nations. My bowmen and chariots left me when I

called; no one heard me when I cried for help. But I choose Ammon before

thousands of bowmen and millions of chariots. The devices of men are

nothing; Ammon will deliver from them. These words echoed in Hermonthis.

Ra comes to him who calls upon him. He reaches to thee his hand. He

flies to thee, Ramses Miamun. I am with thee, I am thy father, the sun,

and my hand is with thee. Their hearts shall waver in their breasts and

all their limbs shall fail. They shall not shoot their arrows; their

lances they shall not be able to hold. The chief of the Cheta sent

princes, the prince of Aratus (Aradus) and the prince of Kirkamischa

(Karchemish). My charioteer was weak, and a great terror came upon his

limbs. He said, Brave king, hold, and let us save the breath of our

lives. What can we do, noble lord, Ramses Miamun? Mark what his majesty

answered to his charioteer. Courage! Stablish thine heart, my

charioteer. Like the divine hawk, I will swoop into their midst, they

shall be overthrown and hewn down into the dust. Ammon were no god if he

glorified not my face before their countless hosts. The king pressed

into the midst of the miserable Cheta, six times he pressed into their

midst. My bowmen and charioteers came at the hour of evening from their

camp: they found the whole region covered with dead bathed in their

blood. His holiness answered his army and the captains who had not

fought. Ye did not well to leave me alone in the midst of the enemies. I

have fought, I have beaten back thousands of enemies, and I was alone.

The horses which drew me were 'Might in Thebes,' and 'Rest in the upper

land.' As soon as I am within my royal gates, I command that they have

corn every day before the god Ra. When the earth again became light, he

began the conflict again; he dashed into the battle like a bull, which

hurls himself upon geese, and with him the mighty lion beside his

horses. Rage inflamed all his limbs. They were hewn in pieces before his

mares. The chief of the miserable Cheta sent to call upon the great name

of his majesty. Thou art the sun, the god of both worlds, thou art

Sutech the great conqueror, the son of heaven. Baal is in all thy limbs.

Terror is upon the land of Cheta; thou hast possessed thyself of their

inwards for ever. The slave said, as he spoke to Pharaoh: Since Ammon

has granted to thee that Egypt and the nation of the Cheta shall be

slaves at thy feet, and Ra has granted thee the dominion over them, thou

canst slay thy slaves; they are in thy power; we lie bowed to the earth,

ready to obey thy command. O brave king, delight of the warriors, grant

us the breath of our lives! The king summoned his generals in order to

hear the message and write an answer, and toward midday he took ship. He

returned in peace with his army to Egypt. The whole earth has subjected

itself to his name, and the princes, lying on the ground, worship his

countenance."[285]

Not only certain turns in this description, but passages in invocations

which have come down to us, show that in expressing themselves, the

Egyptians, in spite of the predominant vein of reflection, were not

without force of imagination, or striking figures, or largeness and

vigour of conception. That they are not free from bombast, foolish

exaggeration, and incessant repetition, any more, or even so little, as

the other nations of the East, is proved more especially by the

inscriptions in the temples recording the mighty deeds of the kings. Our

knowledge of the manuscripts does not as yet allow us to pass a more

definite judgment. Yet it is beyond doubt that even in the centuries

immediately preceding the irruption of the Hyksos, under the Sesurtesen

and Amenemha, they were in possession of a written literature, that even

then the oldest parts of the "Book of the Dead" were not only in

existence, but already commentated upon, and that after the restoration

of the kingdom, beside the comprehensive books of the priests, and

manuscripts on medicine (p. 209), there was at any rate after the

fourteenth century B.C., and the reign of Ramses II., a literature of a

considerable extent. There is a second papyrus in existence by the

author of the description of the battle, of which the title runs,

"Beginning of the Rudiments of the Art of Letter-writing by the Scribe

Pentaur, composed in the 10th year of Ramses II."[286] The fifth letter

of this collection is addressed by Ameneman, the head of the keepers of

the archives of the treasure of the king, to Pentaur; it is said that

Pentaur has turned his back on the sacred writings, and applied himself

to agriculture. The farmer has to fear grubs and rats, sparrows and

locusts for his crops; and thieves too. Implements and horses wear out.

The scribes come and demand the taxes, and the neighbours are away and

busy with the harvest. On the other hand, the work of the scribe is the

highest of all, and the scribe has no taxes to pay.[287] On a third

papyrus a hymn, addressed by Ramses III. to Ammon, is said to have been

found.[288] A fourth has the name-shields of Sethos II. (p. 163). It is

a composition by a scribe of the name of Enna, and contains the story of

the fate of two brothers.[289] A fifth papyrus, which is also

attributed to the time of successors of Ramses II., has preserved a

collection of apothegms.[290] In a country which placed such importance

on preserving every incident, on enumerating, recording, and registering

everything, care must have been taken to record the series of the kings.

When the shepherds were driven out, the liberation from foreign dominion

would give a strong impulse toward the attempt to keep firmly before the

eyes the old days of independent Egypt. At the same time these attempts

must have met with serious hindrances. The destruction which came upon

numerous records and monuments of those old times, and the want of any

definite aera of chronology, made it difficult to obtain a really correct

order of succession, or a historical picture of the ancient period. The

historical truth of the writings, which, in spite of these difficulties,

were undertaken, as is shown by the monuments mentioned above, and the

Turin papyrus (p. 25), was still more seriously impaired by the fact

that the views of the priests were governed by the conception that the

course of certain periods was allotted to the world by the gods, and in

these periods the fortunes of Egypt had reached their fulfilment, and

would continue to reach it. We have already become acquainted with this

Sothis period (p. 29 ff). From the gods came life and the world. So the

gods were said to have reigned in person over Egypt, before the kings,

their divine successors, ruled over men. Hence the priests of Lower

Egypt commenced the reign of the seven great gods with the beginning of

a Sothis period. The seven great gods were followed by the twelve gods

of the second rank, Thoth, Anubis, Chunsu, &c., in reigns of gradually

diminishing length through a certain number of Sothis periods. According

to the scheme still preserved, Ptah reigned 9,000 years, and the last of

the gods only seventy years, so that on an average each occupies exactly

half a Sothis period, or 730 of our years. These nineteen gods were

followed by thirty demigods; to each of whom was allotted the twelfth

part of a Sothis period for a reign, so that the whole period of the

reign of the gods takes up twelve Sothis periods, or 17,520 years. After

this, according to some authorities, began the period of human rulers;

others allotted four Sothis periods, _i.e._ 5840 years, to another set

of demigods. Then followed, beginning like the rest with the beginning

of a Sothis period, the rule of human kings. This Sothis period

commenced either in the year 5702 B.C., or, according to the arrangement

of Lepsius, with the year 4242 B.C. This year, therefore, was the first

of the history of Egypt. To Menes the priests attached the long list of

names in one continuous series, without in the least regarding whether

the dynasties were contemporaneous or successive, whether they ruled in

Upper or Lower Egypt, over the whole land, or in certain districts only.

If we calculate the rule of the human kings from the first of the dates

given, the first Sothis period of men came to an end, according to the

canon of Manetho, in 4242 B.C.; the second in 2782 B.C. The third ended

in the time of Menephta I., in whose reign as a fact the Egyptian year

did again coincide with the natural year.[291]

The Egyptians were devoted more than other nations to the contemplation

of the heavens. The constellations announced to them the approach of the

inundation, its height, and its decline. Moreover, their religion was to

a great extent a worship of light and the sun, and as they plainly

perceived the influence of the stars on the country in the rise and fall

of the water, the increase and abatement of the heat, &c., it was

natural that they should ascribe to the constellations and the movements

of the heavenly bodies similar influences on the life and growth, the

happiness and misery, of mankind; and this belief must in turn have

contributed to the assiduous and accurate observation of the heavens.

"If anywhere," says Diodorus, "it is in Egypt that the most accurate

observation of the position and movements of the stars have been made.

Of each of these they have records extending over an incredible series

of years, the courses and positions of the planets also they have

accurately observed, and they can accurately predict the eclipses of the

sun and the moon."[292] Astronomical pictures are not uncommon on the

monuments belonging to the period after the expulsion of the Hyksos.

Fragments of a calendar of festivals from the time of Ramses II. are

found on a gateway of the Ramesseum. The outer walls of the temple at

Medinet Habu give a complete calendar of the festivals from the time of

Ramses III. In the tomb of Sethos I. are pictures and names of the five

divinities of the planets known to the Egyptians, Mercury, Venus (the

star of the Bennu, p. 69), Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the same picture

is found on the roof of the astronomical hall in the Ramesseum at

Thebes, and on two pictures in the tombs of Ramses V. and IX. The

painting in the Ramesseum--though the circle of 369 cubits, which,

according to Diodorus, was once on the roof of the Ramesseum (p. 175),

is wanting, being removed by Cambyses--presents a complete map of the

Egyptian sky. The pictures in the tombs of the two kings give the rising

of the stars at intervals of a fortnight. In the tomb of Ramses IV. the

thirty-six Decan stars are given together with their deities.[293] The

importance placed by the Egyptian priests on the knowledge of the sky is

shown not only by the monuments, but also by the four books of the

astrologer, and the third and fourth books of the temple scribe; and

that their astronomical science was by no means slight is sufficiently

proved by their early establishment of a solar year of 360, and then of

365 days, and by the observation and establishment of the Sothis

periods. This fact is confirmed by the lists of the rising of the stars

already mentioned. Yet the astronomical knowledge of the priests of

Egypt cannot be placed beside that of the Babylonians. Representations

of the zodiac are not found on the monuments till the time of the

Ptolemies,[294] and Ptolemy, himself an Egyptian, has preserved for us

observations of the Chaldees, but none made by his own countrymen. The

greater part of the attention which the priests of Egypt bestowed upon

the heavens was given in the interests of astrology rather than

astronomy. As the months in the year belonged to certain gods, the first

to Thoth, the third (Athyr) to Hathor, the last to Horus, so the days

of the month had their deities. The first day belonged to Thoth, the

second to Horus, the third to Osiris, &c.; and lastly, every hour of the

day was allotted to a special influence. From the importance thus given

to the days and hours the astrologers could foretell the fortune of

life; they could ascertain what issue awaited any enterprise--whether

the day and hour were favourable or not for this or that occupation or

undertaking. For this object they possessed tables worked out in

extensive detail. For instance, anyone born on the 14th of Athyr, the

day when Typhon was said to have slain Osiris, had to expect a violent

death; anyone born on the 23rd of Phaophi was doomed to be killed by a

crocodile; and anyone born on the 27th of the same month, by a serpent.

On the other hand, a child born on the 9th of Phaophi might look forward

to a long life. In the tables of the hours we find for a given

day--first hour, Orion is lord of the left elbow; second hour, the Twins

have influence on the left ear; fifth hour, the Pleiads(?) are sovereign

over both chambers of the heart; tenth hour, the feet of the Swine

predominate over the left eye, &c.[295]

In the achievement won by Egyptian art the priests took a leading part.

The buildings of the temples and the tombs of the kings could only be

erected after their designs; for in these essentially sacred things,

sacred measures and numbers, were concerned, and, like architecture,

sculpture and painting were primarily employed in the service of

religion. As we might expect from the character of the people, the

architecture of the Egyptians aimed at the firm and durable. The

structures rise up simple in their lines, like the ridges of rock which

are the boundaries of Egypt, broad and massive. The pyramids, with great

simplicity of form, were found to display a considerable skill in

dealing with and uniting large masses of stone. Following this path, the

architecture of Egypt has always preserved a severity and simplicity of

outline even when employing richer forms and ornaments. Among the

Egyptians sculpture and painting never attained independence; it was

their vocation to support architecture, and assist her in preserving in

the stream of time the picture of the king, his sacrifices, and his

achievements, and this or that incident of his reign. The sculpture of

the Egyptians exhibits a vigorous attempt to grasp the forms in a naive,

but prosaic and merely intellectual manner; it preserves them free from

any fanciful use of symbols, and conceives the human form in fixed

proportions and characteristic expression of movement, while it is still

more happy in the form and character of the animals. Like architecture,

sculpture prefers to work in the hardest and most lasting material. But,

as in all other departments of life, so here; the type when once fixed,

the canon of proportion when once discovered, the mode of treatment and

the law of form is rigorously retained. With complete accuracy of

execution in the most difficult material, sculpture constantly repeats

the same figures, geometrical rather than natural in form. Yet in spite

of this typical character, in sculpture and painting, as in

architecture, a considerable development took place. The statues of the

times of the pyramids, the Amenemha and Sesurtesen, exhibit,

comparatively speaking, very correct forms, lively energy in the

expression of action, and a strong treatment of the muscles; but the

sculptures of the new kingdom are distinguished by greater variety of

forms, a larger wealth of lines, and a delicacy of outline; the drawing

of the figures is far more slender, and there is considerable grace in

the treatment of massive pillars and capitals. The Tuthmosis and

Amenophis, the Sethos, and the earliest Ramses, imposed upon Egyptian

art an almost oppressive number of tasks, and in performing them she

touched her highest point. But the amount of work must of itself have

introduced a more and more conventional treatment within the limits of

the typical circle in which sculpture moved; and at last this treatment

was content with mere precision of outlines. This is the character of

the sculpture of the times of Ramses III. down to the days of

Psammetichus, in which, by a truer imitation of nature, and greater

grace in the form of the bodies, it once more attained to a beautiful

after-growth.

The industry and skill with which the cultivation of the land and of the

vine, and the breeding of cattle and sheep, was carried on in Egypt even

before the invasion of the Hyksos, has been already seen on the

monuments of the time of the Sesurtesen and Amenemha (p. 118). The

fields were tilled with ploughs drawn by oxen, or with the hoe. It was

not in every case necessary to make furrows. In December and January,

when the water had run off, the seed was cast into the moist ground and

trodden in, as we see from the monuments, by sheep and goats. Everywhere

the overseer is in the field with the labourers and herdmen. By the end

of March harvest was ready; wheat and maize were cut with the sickle,

and then the grain was trodden out by oxen. Meanwhile the thrasher sang,

according to the inscription on a rock tomb at El Kab (above Thebes),

"Thrash for yourselves, oxen, thrash for yourselves; thrash bushels for

your masters."[296] Diodorus remarks that it was marvellous with what

care and skill the herds were tended by their keepers in Egypt, what

knowledge of healing plants and of food was to be found in these

keepers, how their occupation came to them from their forefathers, with

a large stock of experience and manual skill; and how their knowledge

increased to an incredible degree the propagation of the animals.[297]

On the monuments we find not only great herds of cattle, asses, sheep,

and goats, but also whole droves of hens, ducks, and geese.

Poultry-sellers and depots of poultry are often found. These sculptures

confirm the statements of Diodorus of the careful tending of the

animals; they also show us the medicinal treatment of ailing animals.

Beside this wealth of cattle, there was an abundance of fish, provided

by the Nile. These were caught partly with hooks, and partly with large

nets. The upper classes fished for pleasure. Yet most kinds of fish were

forbidden food: the priests, as we have seen, were not allowed to taste

fish at all.

The monuments also teach us that hunting was not neglected by the

Egyptians. Hares, foxes, antelopes, gazelles, hyaenas, buffaloes, and

lions were driven into inclosures surrounded by nets, or chased with the

bow and arrow and dogs, or with the chariot and hounds. Gazelles and

buffaloes were also taken with the lasso; traps were set for the hyaenas;

the hippopotamus was attacked with a spear from a boat.[298]

Of the industry of the Egyptians in trade we have already had striking

evidence in the monuments of the old kingdom. There we saw all kinds of

manufactures in the various stages; we found on them the simple

weaver's loom, which produced the robes of byssus, so highly valued in

antiquity,--the lasting fabric which may still be examined in the

clothing of mummies. The early development of technical skill meets us

more especially in the pictures of the preparation of glass on the tombs

at Beni Hassan. Glass cups and vessels are frequently found in the

tombs, and Strabo observes that the earth required for making glass is

among the products of Egypt.[299] The working of the copper mines in the

mountains of Sinai goes considerably further back than the date of the

tombs at Beni Hassan. They were open as early as the times of Snefru and

Chufu.[300] Yet by far the greatest proportion of hands must have been

employed upon the buildings of the kings and the tombs of the wealthy.

On the monuments we see the masons in all their various occupations;

painters and statuaries also are represented there in the different

moments of their work; and the tables of proportion which they followed

are still preserved.

Even before the invasion of the Hyksos, as we saw from the tombs at Beni

Hassan, the life of the wealthy Egyptian was surrounded by considerable

elegance (p. 118). The houses of the rich, built, according to the

pictures on the monuments, in a light and graceful style, in contrast to

the heavy structure of the temples, had several stories, and were

provided with the galleries and terraces still usual in the East. Houses

in the country had shady avenues of trees, planted in exact rows, and

neat beds of flowers, graceful pavilions, and fountains of water. The

common national dress was a linen shirt, and over it a woollen cloak;

the labourer and the lowest class had only an apron round the body; but

the clothing of the higher classes was choice and delicate. The women,

who enjoyed considerable freedom in Egypt, wore various

ornaments--necklaces, eardrops, and bracelets; rings of the most various

shape adorned almost every finger. Their hair was carefully dressed;

they bathed frequently, and made a considerable use of ointments. Life

was sociable in ancient Egypt. In the tombs at Beni Hassan we find men

carried in a palanquin to a social meeting; and in the tombs at Thebes

they are driving in chariots to a similar gathering. Gaily-dressed men

and women meet and converse with each other in the hall; slaves,

light-coloured and black, in part handsomely-dressed, hand them garlands

and cups. The table is spread. Bread, figs, and grapes are set out in

baskets, wine in glass bottles; vegetables and poultry are also there.

The solid food was eaten with the hand, liquids were taken with spoons.

At these banquets the Egyptians do not seem to have been very moderate.

Herodotus tells us that a small wooden image of a mummy was carried

round at their entertainments, with the exhortation, "Look on this,

drink and be merry. When dead, thou wilt be as this is!"[301] This

admonition was not without its results. In the pictures on monuments we

find not only men, but women, throwing up the surfeit of food and wine;

others are carried away home by their servants. Indeed, excess and

drunkenness are quoted among the forty-two chief sins of the Egyptians.

During the meal dancers were introduced, and bands of musicians, male

and female, who played on harps, guitars, and flutes; among which was

mingled the sound of the tambourine. A chorus also sang to the harp. The

company also played and danced.[302] We have already seen that games of

ball and mora were played under the old monarchy. Among the recreations

of the new monarchy draughts are found. We often find on the monuments

sketches of men and women who exhibit contortions of their bodies and

feats of strength. Sham-fights at sea also occur, and wrestling matches

are very common.

Proudly as the Egyptians, in the consciousness of their purity and

culture, looked down on "the unclean and perverse" nations outside their

land, and rarely as they travelled into other countries, Egypt was

nevertheless the centre of a considerable trade. China and Japan also

for a long time shut themselves up from the outer world, yet their trade

was considerable, though permitted only at certain fixed places. The

Egyptians also caused the products which they needed to be brought,

without themselves going to seek them. Egypt required wood for the

building of houses and ships, brass, ivory, slaves, and incense. Even

before the year 1500 B.C., Arabian caravans carried the products of the

south coast of Arabia to Syria and Egypt.[303] The wandering tribes of

Libya, Syria, and Arabia required corn, weapons, utensils, and

implements, which they could buy in Egypt. Then at a later period came

the trade of the Phenicians with Egypt. They could bring wood from the

forests of Lebanon--wine, oil, slaves, amber, and tin, and exchange them

for the manufactures of Egypt; for retail goods, glass, drugs, which

Egypt produced in great quantities, fish, Egyptian fabrics, linen, and

material prepared from the papyrus. The Greeks called fabrics made from

this plant, "byblian," from the city Byblus, a proof that they first

became acquainted with these Egyptian wares through the Phenicians, and

mainly through the ships of Byblus, and received them from this quarter.

Horses, also, and chariots were brought as articles of trade from Egypt

to Syria about the year 1000 B.C.; at that time a chariot cost in Egypt

600 shekels, and a horse 150.[304] So far as we can gather from the

legends of the Greeks, the trading ships could only enter the Canopic

mouth of the Nile, and intercourse with foreign merchants could only

take place on the little island of Pharos, opposite the city of Thonis.

Here the mariners of that day, the Phenicians, and with them, and after

them, the Ionians, carried on their trade with the Egyptians. On land

the only entrance was by Pelusium; and here as also at Pharos, an

entrance-tax had apparently to be paid. From the Homeric poems we may

conclude that there was then a trade with Egypt, and not only piratical

descents upon the coasts; but when the Ionians, about the middle of the

eighth century, began to enter into dangerous competition with the

Phenicians, the latter seem to have succeeded in getting the Greeks

excluded from Egypt, and obtaining for themselves the monopoly of the

sea--a privilege which, however, they did not maintain for more than a

century.[305]

Such was ancient Egypt, the land of marvel, whose richly developed

civilization lies on the threshold of historical life. Excellently

furnished by nature, and placed in a peculiarly favoured land, the Copts

have transferred to their own lives and civilization the grave and

solemn character of their sky and their country. Their conservative

feeling is directed towards fixed and unalterable order; the sons

repeat the lives of their fathers, and the nation is divided into

various classes and corporations, which carry on the same occupations

from generation to generation. The beneficent powers of nature, the

mystery of life, the life returning out of death--these are the forces

and laws which the Egyptians worshipped as their good gods, whose

creation is the fruitful world, who manifest themselves in good

creatures, whose unchangeable nature they seemed to recognise as

embodied in the instinctive and unalterable life of certain animals. The

life of the nation adapts itself also to priestly rules, which operate

without alteration, like the laws of nature.

As the heart of this people was set upon the continuance of the race and

occupation, on rule and law, so also was it their desire to prolong the

existence of the individual. This impulse towards the preservation of

self operated so strongly that the Egyptians busied themselves with the

future quite as much as with the past. It was this trait in their

character which caused the Egyptians to rescue their dead from

corruption, and occupied the living with the construction of "eternal

dwellings for the dead." This it was which made them a nation of

scribes, builders, painters and sculptors. These efforts culminate in

the buildings of the kings, who could command the whole powers of the

land in preserving their names. The Egyptians were loath to end with

death. It was the true vocation of every man worthily to build and

"adorn his tomb;" and the essential object of life is--not to lose the

everlasting life after death by unclean and unlawful conversation--to

win a return to the divine origin of life.

With the simple confidence of childhood, with the patient endurance of

a man, and with iron perseverance, the Egyptians attempted to redeem the

existence of man from destruction and decay, and rescue his life from

oblivion. The power of the Egyptians exhausted itself in this toil after

continuance of life. But however eager a man might be to preserve his

own individuality, he loses it in the presence of his ruler, who gathers

up in his own person the whole political life of the nation, and

exhausts it. Like a god, or an incarnate Destiny, the Pharaoh stands in

absolute supremacy over the land; "His countenance beams over Egypt as

the sun;" before him all distinctions fade away, and all bow down in

equal obedience. But even though the perishable was preserved, and made

as lasting as the rocks of the land--though in the ceremonial, the

ritual, and the rules of life the same unalterable constancy prevailed

as in the laws of nature, there was still room beside fixed prescription

and the will of the divine ruler for the vigorous pursuit of an industry

which was not far behind that of modern Europe, for an enjoyment of life

in the Oriental manner, which was not only social, but even luxurious

and sensual.

The efforts of the Egyptians to preserve themselves and their actions,

and to cause their names to live in the mouths of the generations after

them, have not been without a result. What the Greeks and Romans knew of

their history were traditions attached to the great monuments. Before

our researches the Egyptian nation has literally risen from the tomb;

the pyramids tell us the history of the old monarchy, and the temples at

Thebes the history of the new. Without these monuments the kings of

Manetho would have remained an empty and unintelligible echo. These

mountains of stone at the threshold of history, these chronicles of

hieroglyphics, this nation of mummies proclaim, beyond contradiction,

that nations do succeed in outliving themselves by their works, but also

that their life reaches only so far as their development.

FOOTNOTES:

[252] Diod. 1, 90.

[253] Thus, _e.g._ in the Rosetta inscription the order is given that in

every temple an image is to be set up to the "god Epiphanes, the avenger

of Egypt," to whom the principal deity of the temple presents the arms

of victory. Three times in every day the image of Epiphanes is to be

worshipped, and on the great festivals the same honours are to be paid

to him as to the rest of the gods. In addition, a special festival is

solemnized every year to the god Epiphanes, and a special order of

priests established for him. This resolution of the collected priests

was ordered to be engraved on hard stone and set up in all the temples

of the first, second, and third class. The full title of Epiphanes is:

"Son of Ptah, Beloved of Ammon and Ra, the Child of the Sun, the

Eternal."

[254] Diod. 1, 53; Plut. "De Isid." c. 6, 9; and below, p. 211 ff.

[255] Wilkinson, "Manners and Customs," Suppl. Pl. 76; Champollion,

"Lettres," p. 344 ff.

[256] In the inscriptions of the graves and sarcophagi of the Berlin

Museum; cf. Ebers, "AEgypten," s. 300.

[257] What Synesius (Op. p. 94) tells us of the election of the kings is

so astounding that it can hardly have been part of any plan of the

priests; the whole history of Egypt contradicts an elective monarchy of

such a kind. These supposed elections were said to have taken place on

the Libyan mountains, near Thebes; the priests mentioned the names of

the candidates for whom the votes were to be given. The votes of the

prophets had the value of one hundred, those of the lower priests of

twenty, of the servants of the temple of ten, and of the warrior class

of one.

[258] Kalasiris was the name given by the Egyptians to a linen coat,

with fringe round the thighs (Herod. 2, 81). The name Hermotybian has

been derived from [Greek: hemitybion], a kind of apron.

[259] Herod. 2, 37.

[260] Diod. 1, 73, 74.

[261] Herod. 2, 37, 168.

[262] Genesis xlvii. 22, 26.

[263] Herod. 2, 109 _supra_, p. 143.

[264] Genesis xlvii. 24, 26.

[265] Herod. 2. 168.

[266] Genesis xlvii. 26.

[267] Even the land which the Pharaohs allotted to the temples with a

tax of a fifth belonged to them in a certain sense. We have tolerably

ancient records on papyrus, on which are given the incomes of the

temples, with the names of the tax-payers, and the things given in

taxation. When the Ptolemies ruled over Egypt the land which paid to the

temples belonged actually to the temples as property, but as property

revocable at will, and the kings on their side taxed the temples just as

the Islamite princes are accustomed to tax their mosques. In the Rosetta

inscription, under date March 27, 196 B.C., the prophets, upper priests,

chamberlains, pastophors, and scribes, explain that the king (Ptolemy

Epiphanes) had given an order that the incomes of the temples and the

land-taxes paid to them yearly, and the portions reserved for the gods

in the vineyards and other property, should continue to be paid. At the

same time we see from the sequel of this inscription, as well as from

other sources, that these incomes were not sufficient to keep the

temples in good order, and the king was compelled to make additions.

Yet, in any case, the Ptolemies by their state taxes withdrew from the

temples a portion of their incomes. From every plot of corn-land

([Greek: aroura]) the temples were to pay to the king an _artabe_ of

corn, and from every plot of vineyard an amphora of wine. Besides this,

they had to pay a money-tax and a certain amount of byssus cloth.

[268] Clemens ("Strom." p. 757 ff. ed. Pott) expressly says that the

prophet was the overseer of the temple; on the other hand, in the

inscription of Rosetta, the high priests and prophets stand side by

side.

[269] Herod. 2, 37, 143; Diod. 1, 73.

[270] Diod. 1, 80; Herod. 2, 37, 81; Diog. Laert. 8, 27; Porphyr. "De

abst." 4, 7.

[271] Diod. 1, 74, 92.

[272] Lepsius, "Briefe." s. 309, 310; Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 259.

[273] Herod. 2, 47; Aelian, "De Nat. An." 10, 16. As Herodotus tells us

that the swineherds married in their own order only, it follows that the

other orders married with each other. The attempt has often been made to

explain the so-called divisions of the Egyptians into castes by the

immigration of foreign tribes. This conception places in mechanical

layers what is really an organic development. In India such an

assumption has a certain historical foundation. There, there was a

servile class (the Sudra) under three superior classes; the first was

composed of the original inhabitants, the others of the Aryan

immigrants. This kind of division is wholly wanting in Egypt, and not

less so any historical or physiological foundation for the immigrations.

Strabo knows three orders only in Egypt; the priests, the soldiers, and

the population engaged in work or trades. Diodorus (1, 74) speaks of

five orders; _i.e._ in addition to the first two, husbandmen, artizans,

and shepherds. Plato ("Timaeus," p. 21) mentions priests, soldiers,

artizans, shepherds, and hunters; Herodotus mentions priests, warriors,

cowherds, swineherds, merchants, interpreters, and mariners. In Plato

and Diodorus we miss the merchants, who certainly were not wanting in

Egypt, and in Herodotus the husbandmen and artizans. Nothing therefore

remains but the natural assumption that the labouring masses were

chiefly divided into shepherds, artizans, and husbandmen; and these were

again broken into many divisions according to their different vocations,

and each of our authorities has brought into prominence those

distinctions which especially came under his notice. As Herodotus

especially notices cowherds, we must suppose that those herdsmen are

probably meant who derived a living from the buffalo herds, which they

pastured in the swampy flats of the Delta, on the border of Egypt, and

lived in huts of reeds.--Diod. 1, 43.

[274] The number of provinces in Egypt under the old kingdom appears to

have been twenty-seven, according to the myth of the hewing of the body

of Osiris into twenty-seven pieces, and the distribution of them to all

the priests of the land for burial, which Diodorus has preserved. From

this may be derived the number of twenty-seven courts in the labyrinth

given by Strabo, p. 811, and twenty-five in Pliny, pp. 113, 114; as a

fact the building had only twelve courts. Yet Strabo mentions thirty-six

provinces (p. 787). Later coins give forty-six provinces, and Ptolemy

forty-seven. Forty-four nomes, twenty-two for Upper Egypt and as many

for Lower Egypt, can be established, together with their

names.--Brugsch, "Hist. d'Egypte," p. 9.

[275] Diod. 1, 73, 75, 94; Herod. 2, 136; Plut. "De Isid." 10; Chabas,

"Mel." 3, 10.

[276] Diod. 1, 77 ff.

[277] Herod. 2, 37, 38, 39, 65; Genesis xliii. 32.

[278] Herod. 2, 77, 85; Diod. 1, 84, 91.

[279] Lepsius, "Aelteste Texte," s. 10; Brugsch, "Grammaire demotique."

[280] Clem. Alex. "Strom." p. 758, ed. Pott; cf. Diod. 1, 49.

[281] Ebers, "Augsburger Allg. Zt." 1873. On a papyrus of a medicinal

character of the period from the twentieth to the twenty-second dynasty,

see Birch, "Zeitschrift fuer aegyptische Sprache," 1871, s. 61.

[282] Herod. 2, 84, 3, 1.

[283] Lepsius, "Goetterkreis," s. 30; Bunsen, "AEgypten," 5, 1, 189 ff.

[284] Papyrus, Sallier III.

[285] De Rouge, "Recueil de Travaux," 1, 3 ff.; Chabas, "Revue Archeol."

1875.

[286] On the papyrus Sallier I.; "Revue Archeol." 1860, 2, 241.

[287] Goodwin-Chabas, _loc. cit._ 1861, 4, 118 ff.

[288] _Loc. cit._ 1860, 1, 357.

[289] De Rouge, _loc. cit._ 1852. On another very marvellous narrative

on a papyrus in the demotic character, see Brugsch, _loc. cit._ 1867,

16, 161 ff. This papyrus Brugsch, on paleographical grounds, places in

the third or second centuries B.C.

[290] Lauth, "Sitzungsberichte der Akademie, zu Muenchen," 1872, 347 ff,

and his "Abhandlung ueber den papyrus Sallier II. und Anastasi III.;"

_ibid._ p. 29 ff.; cf. Chabas, "Voyage d'un Egyptien," and Goodwin,

"Saneha."

[291] Boeckh, "Manetho und die Hundsternperiode;" Lepsius,

"Chronologie," s. 470 ff. and _supra_, p. 40.

[292] Diod. 1. 81.

[293] Brugsch, "Zeitschrift d. d. M. S." 10, 662 ff.

[294] The Egyptians then compared certain constellations in their

spheres with the signs of the zodiac. The Crab they denoted by the

scarabaeus, the Lion by the knife, the Scales became the "sun-mountain,"

the Scorpion became the snake. The Kid was with them "the life," the

Ram "the slain" &c.--Brugsch, _loc. cit._

[295] Champollion, "Lettres," p. 239; Lepsius, "Chronologie," s. 109,

110; cf. _supra_, p. 58.

[296] Champollion, "Lettres," p. 196.

[297] Diod. 1, 74.

[298] Wilkinson, "Manners and Customs," 3, 4.

[299] Strabo, p. 758; cf. p. 147.

[300] _Supra_, p. 94; Ebers, "Durch Gosen," s. 135 ff.

[301] Herod. 2, 78.

[302] Wilkinson, "Manners and Customs," 2, 132.

[303] Cf. _infra_, Book II. cap. 3.

[304] 1 Kings x. 28, 29; 2 Chronicles i. 16, 17; ix. 28.

[305] "Od." 14, 288; 4, 225, 355; 17, 448; Movers, "Phoenizier," 2, 70.

BOOK II.

THE SEMITIC NATIONS.

THE SEMITIC NATIONS.

CHAPTER I.

THE ANCIENT KINGDOM OF BABYLON.

The neighbours of Egypt on the east were the Syrians and Arabians.

Herodotus gives the name of Syrians to the inhabitants of the Syrian

coasts and Mount Lebanon, the settlers on the Euphrates and Tigris, and

the population of the eastern districts of Asia Minor. In Xenophon the

Babylonians speak Syriac. Strabo remarks that the Syrians and Arabians

are closely related in language, mode of life, and physique--that

Syrians dwelt on both sides of the Taurus--that the same language was

spoken on both sides of the Euphrates--that Babylon and Nineveh were

cities of the Syrians--that the Assyrian kingdom was a kingdom of

Syrians, and that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Babylon and Nineveh

were called Syrians by their own historians.[306] As a fact tribes

closely related in language and nature--which we denote by the general

term Semitic--invaded with their armies the broad steppes of Arabia, and

the Syrian desert, occupied the coasts of Syria and a part of Asia

Minor, and inhabited the district of the Euphrates and Tigris, from the

mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf on the south, and the tableland

of Iran on the east. The languages of the Arabians, the Semitic tribes

of the south, the Aramaeans and Canaanites in the west, and the

Babylonians and Assyrians in the east, are three ramifications springing

from one and the same stem of language, which spreads from the Black Sea

and the Mediterranean to the Arabian and Persian Gulfs. Living under

different conditions, the Semitic nations attained to different degrees

of civilization. The tribes of the desert did not go beyond the simplest

and most primitive forms, at which point a considerable portion of them

still remain; but the inhabitants of more favoured districts developed

independently, and in the course of time these developments operated on

each other, and thus led to a far more varied, and, in certain

directions, far more vigorous culture, than the isolated, exclusive, and

self-concentrated civilization of Egypt.

The two rivers which determine the character and nature of the

depression between the Syrian plateau and the tableland of Iran rise at

no great distance from each other on the mountains of Armenia. The

Euphrates rises to the north, the Tigris to the south. After leaving the

mountains of Armenia--the Euphrates, by a broad circuit to the west, the

Tigris by a direct course to the south--both rivers enter a tolerably

lofty steppe, where the uniform surface is broken by ridges of rock, by

ranges of hills, pastures, and fruitful strips of land, while the banks

of the rivers are overgrown with forests of plane-trees, tamarisks, and

cypresses, and shut in by meadows. As the soil becomes more level, these

fruitful depressions by the rivers become somewhat broader, but the land

between the streams becomes more sterile and treeless, and supports

only nomad tribes and herds of wild asses, ostriches, and bustards.[307]

When the Euphrates has left behind the last spurs of this desolate hill

country, at the place where the two rivers approach each other most

nearly--about 400 miles from their mouths--there commences a plain of

brown rich soil. Through this the Euphrates passes with a quiet stream,

but the Tigris hurries to the sea down a bed which is both narrower, and

often inclosed by rocks, while at the same time the river is increased

by copious additions from the western edge of the tableland of Iran. In

spite of the excellent soil this flat would remain unfruitful unless the

two rivers, year by year, when the snow melted on the Armenian

mountains, overflowed their banks, and thus irrigated the land for the

summer. In the Tigris the inundation commences about the beginning of

June, in the Euphrates, whose sources lie far higher, about the

beginning of July. But this inundation does not take place nearly so

calmly and regularly as that in the Nile. Instead of fertilising water,

the Tigris often sends down destructive floods over the plain, and

changes it, down to the marshy Delta at the mouth, into a broad and

rolling sea.

By its simple structure and the absence of any internal limitations,

this low-lying land on the Euphrates and Tigris was favourable to the

development of great kingdoms, and was hardly behind the Nile in

incentives and instigations to a civilised life. The writers of

antiquity celebrate the fruitfulness and natural wealth of these flats.

While on the other side of the Euphrates, so writes a Babylonian

historian of his own home, the land as far as Arabia is without water

and fruits, and on the other side of the Tigris the land is indeed

fruitful but rocky; in the land between the streams wheat and barley,

linseed beans and sesame grow wild; both in the marshes and the reeds of

the river nourishing roots are found in abundance, as valuable for food

as barley. Besides these there are dates, and apples, and other

different fruits, and abundance of fish and birds in the marsh and on

the land. Herodotus commends the wealth of the land in wheat and palms

in the strongest terms; Xenophon speaks in admiration of the size and

beauty of the dates.[308] Even now the palm-forests which run without

interruption along the lower course of both rivers produce dates in

abundance, and with their slender forms and lofty tops give a

picturesqueness to the otherwise uniform landscape. This vigorous

vegetation, together with the peculiar character of the land, must have

early incited a capable population to a regular cultivation and a higher

civilization. The protection of the land against the rapid overflow, the

conducting of the water to the higher districts, and the removal of

water from the marshes, must have led to measures calculated to produce

and develop a fertility of technical resources. Basins were required of

more considerable extent, longer canals, and stronger dams against the

violent inundations, and more extensive conduits, in order to convey the

water into the middle of the land, than were necessary in Egypt. Long

before Egypt had reached the height of her power and prosperity under

the Tuthmosis and Amenophis and the early Ramessids, the inhabitants of

this plain had attained to a peculiar culture and civilisation.

The accounts which the Greeks have handed down to us of the fortunes of

these districts in ancient times are meagre and defective. The power of

the Semitic empires on the Euphrates and Tigris had fallen long before

inquisitive Greeks penetrated the East, and the Persians, who were the

rulers at that time, had little interest in instructing the Greeks in

the former splendour of their opponents and ancient masters. Herodotus

intended to write the history of the Assyrians; if ever composed, it has

not come down to our times. On the other hand, he has described the

land, manners, and customs of the Babylonians; of their history,

however, he only tells us that many kings and two queens ruled over

Babylon.[309] Aristotle remarks that in Babylon astronomical

observations were said to exist extending back 31,000 years from the

time of Alexander the Great.[310] Diodorus tells us that the priests of

Babylon declared that they had observed the heavens for 473,000 years.

Cicero speaks of the shamelessness of the Chaldaeans in boasting that

they possessed records for more than 470,000 years. Julius Africanus

gives 480,000 years, and Pliny even 720,000 years as the period for

which observations of the heavens burnt upon tiles were in

existence.[311]

About the time when Manetho compiled his list of Egyptian sovereigns,

under the rule of Antiochus Soter (281-262 B.C.) Berosus, a priest of

the temple of Bel at Babylon, composed a history of his country in Greek

in three books.[312] Only a few fragments of this work have come down to

us. Berosus commenced with the creation of the world. "Once all was

darkness and water. In this chaos lived horrid animals, and men with

two wings, and others with four wings and two faces, and others again

with double organs male and female. Others had the thighs of goats, and

horns on their heads; others had horses' feet, or were formed behind

like a horse and in front like a man. There were bulls with human heads,

and horses and men with the heads of dogs, and other animals of human

shape with fins like fishes, and fishes like sirens, and dragons, and

creeping things, and serpents and wild creatures, the images of which

are to be found in the temple of Bel. Over all these ruled a woman of

the name of Omorka. But Bel divided the darkness and clove the woman

asunder, and of one part he made the earth, and of the other the sun and

moon and planets, and he drew off the water,[313] and apportioned it to

the land, and prepared and arranged the world. But those creatures could

not endure the light of the sun, and became extinct. When Bel saw the

land uninhabited and fruitful, he smote off his head and bade one of the

gods mingle the blood which flowed from his head with earth, and form

therewith men and animals and wild creatures, who could support the

atmosphere. A great multitude of men of various tribes inhabited

Chaldaea, but they lived without any order, like the animals. Then there

appeared to them from the sea, on the shore of Babylonia, a fearful

animal of the name of Oan. Its body was that of a fish, but under the

fish's head another head was attached, and on the fins were feet like

those of a man, and it had a man's voice. Its image is still preserved.

The animal came at morning and passed the day with men. But it took no

nourishment, and at sunset went again into the sea, and there remained

for the night. This animal taught men language and science, the

harvesting of seeds and fruits, the rules for the boundaries of land,

the mode of building cities and temples, arts and writing, and all that

pertains to the civilisation of human life."[314]

The first sovereign of Babylon was Alorus, a Chaldaean of the city of

Babylon, whom the god had himself pointed out to the nation as a

shepherd. His reign continued for 36,000 years. After the death of

Alorus, his son Alaparus ruled for 10,800 years. He was succeeded by

Almelon from the Chaldaeans, of the city of Sippara, for 46,800 years,

and Almelon by Ammenon, a Chaldaean of the same city for 43,200 years.

Under his rule there came out of the sea an animal, combining, like Oan,

the shape of a fish and a man, and called Idotion.[315] After Ammenon

came Amegalarus, of the city of Sippara, for 64,800 years, and after him

Daonus, also from Sippara, for 36,000 years. In his reign there again

appeared from the Red Sea four animals in the shape of men and fish.

These were Euedokus, Eneugamus, Eneubulus, and Anementus. Daonus was

followed by Edorankhus, from Sippara, who ruled for 64,800 years, and in

his time appeared another monster of the same kind, named Odakon. These

explained in detail what Oan had given in the sum. After Edorankhus came

Amempsinus, a Chaldaean of Larancha for 36,000 years,[316] and after him

Otiartes (Ubaratulu),[317] a Chaldaean of the same city for 28,000 years.

Otiartes was followed by his son Xisuthrus who reigned 64,800 years.

From the first year of Alorus to the last year of Xisuthrus 432,000

years had elapsed. "In this year the god Bel revealed to Xisuthrus in a

dream that in the fifteenth year of the month Daesius there would be a

great storm of rain, and men would be destroyed by the flood of waters.

He bade him bury all written records, the ancient, mediaeval, and modern,

in Sippara, the city of the sun, and build a ship and embark in it with

his kindred and nearest friends. He was also to take food and drink into

the ship, and carry into it all creatures winged and four-footed.

Xisuthrus did as he was bidden, and built a boat fifteen stadia

long,[318] and two stadia in breadth, and placed in it his wife and

child, his relations and friends. Then the inundation came. When the

rain ceased, Xisuthrus sent out some birds, but they returned back to

the ship, as they could find nothing to eat and no place of rest. After

a few days he sent out other birds. These also returned, but with mud on

their feet. Then Xisuthrus sent yet others, and they never returned.

Xisuthrus knew that the earth had appeared. He took out a part of the

roof of his boat, and perceived that it had settled down on a mountain.

Then he went out with his wife and daughter and the architect of the

boat. He worshipped the earth, and built an altar, offered sacrifice to

the gods, and then disappeared together with those whom he had brought

out of the boat. When his companions, whom he had left in the boat, had

gone out, and were in search of Xisuthrus, his voice called to them out

of the air, saying that the gods had carried him away in reward for his

piety; that he with his daughter and the architect were dwelling among

the gods. But the others were to return from Armenia, where they then

were, to Babylon, and, in obedience to the command of the gods, dig up

the books buried at Sippara, and give them to mankind. They obeyed these

instructions. They sacrificed to the gods, and returned by land to

Babylon. They dug up the sacred books, erected many cities and temples,

and rebuilt Babylon. On the Gordyaean mountains, where it settled,

remains of the boat of Xisuthrus were in existence for a long time

afterwards.[319] In Lucian Xisuthrus is called Sisythes; and he with

wives and children is said to have escaped, in the great ark, the flood

which destroyed everything else.

After the flood Euexius reigned over the land of the Chaldaeans for 2,400

years. He was followed by his son Chomasbelus, who reigned 2,700 years;

and after him came eighty-four kings, who, if we reckon in the reigns of

Euexius and Chomasbelus, ruled for 34,080 years.[320] Then the Medes

gathered together an army against Babylon, and took the land, and set up

tyrants from among their own people. These, eight in number, reigned

over Babylon for 234 years. After that eleven kings reigned for 248

years; then followed the Chaldaeans, with forty-nine kings, who ruled

over Babylon for 458 years. These were followed by nine Arabian kings

for 245 years, and then came forty-five Assyrian kings for 526 years.

These were followed by Sennacherib, Asordan, Samuges, and his brother,

and afterwards by Nabopolassar. After Nabopolassar, Nabukudurussar

(Nebuchadnezzar) and his successor reigned for sixty-seven years.[321]

Such is the essential information contained in the fragments of Berosus

which have come down to us. They give us a tolerably clear view of the

system of cosmogony set up by the priests of Babylon, of the way in

which order and civilisation arose among men by successive revelations

from divine creatures coming out of the sea, and a sketch, though a very

meagre one, of the dynasties which reigned over Babylon down to the time

of Cyrus. The enormous number of 432,000 years, which the fragments

allot to the ten rulers of the first dynasty, and the 34,080 years of

the second dynasty, which came immediately after the flood, show that

the statements of Diodorus, Cicero, and Pliny are not mere imagination,

though these totals are perhaps scarcely intended to give the period

during which observations were made by the Chaldaeans, but the antiquity

ascribed by the Babylonian priests to the existence of the world before

and after the flood.

Accounts of the great flood are also to be seen on tablets, copied from

old Babylonian originals, which have been discovered in the ruins of the

palace of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria. Disregarding the strange

beginning, and still stranger close, we find on these tablets that the

god Hea had commanded Sisit (Xisuthrus) of Surippak to build a ship, so

many cubits in length, breadth, and height, and to launch it on the

deep, for it was his intention to destroy sinners. "When the flood

comes, which I will send, thou shalt enter into the ship, and into the

midst of it thou shalt bring thy corn, thy goods, thy gods, thy gold

and silver, thy slaves male and female, the sons of the army, the wild

and tame animals, and all that thou hearest thou shalt do." Sisit found

it difficult to carry out this command, but at last he yielded, and

gathered together all his possessions of silver and gold, all that he

had of the seeds of life, and caused all his slaves, male and female, to

go into the ship. The wild and tame beasts of the field also he caused

to enter, and all the sons of the army. "And Samas (the god of the sun)

made a flood, and said: I will cause rain to fall heavily from heaven;

go into the ship, and shut to the door. Overcome with fear, Sisit

entered into the ship, and on the morning of the day fixed by Samas the

storm began to blow from the ends of heaven, and Bin thundered in the

midst of heaven, and Nebo came forth, and over the mountains and plains

came the gods, and Nergal, the destroyer, overthrew, and Adar came forth

and dashed down: the gods made ruin; in their brightness they swept over

the earth. The storm went over the nations; the flood of Bin reached up

to heaven; brother did not see brother; the lightsome earth became a

desert, and the flood destroyed all living things from the face of the

earth. Even the gods were afraid of the storm, and sought refuge in the

heaven of Anu; like hounds drawing in their tails, the gods seated

themselves on their thrones, and Istar the great goddess spake. The

world has turned to sin, and therefore I have proclaimed destruction,

but I have begotten men, and now they fill the sea, like the children of

fishes. And the gods upon their seats wept with her. On the seventh day

the storm abated, which had destroyed like an earthquake, and the sea

began to be dry. Sisit perceived the movement of the sea. Like reeds

floated the corpses of the evil-doers and all who had turned to sin.

Then Sisit opened the window, and the light fell upon his face, and the

ship was stayed upon Mount Nizir, and could not pass over it. Then on

the seventh day Sisit sent forth a dove, but she found no place of rest,

and returned. Then he sent a swallow, which also returned, and again a

raven, which saw the corpses in the water, and ate them, and returned no

more. Then Sisit released the beasts to the four winds of heaven, and

poured a libation and built an altar on the top of the mountain, and cut

seven herbs, and the sweet savour of the sacrifice caused the gods to

assemble, and Sisit prayed that Bel (El) might not come to the altar.

For Bel (El) had made the storm and sunk the people in the deep, and

wished in his anger to destroy the ship and allow no man to escape. Adar

opened his mouth and spoke to the warrior Bel (El): Who would then be

left? And Hea spoke to him: Captain of the gods, instead of the storm,

let lions and leopards increase, and diminish mankind; let famine and

pestilence desolate the land and destroy mankind. When the sentence of

the gods was passed, Bel (El) came into the midst of the ship and took

Sisit by the hand and conducted him forth, and caused his wife to be

brought to his side, and purified the earth, and made a covenant, and

Sisit and his wife and his people were carried away like gods, and Sisit

dwelt in a distant land at the mouth of the rivers."[322]

The correspondence to the Hebrew tradition of the flood, the coincidence

of certain points, and striking contrast of others, both in the

narrative of Berosus and in this account of the great flood, need not be

pointed out. In number, at any rate, the ten kings whom Berosus places

before the flood correspond to the ten patriarchs from Adam to

Noah.[323] In Berosus the boat of Xisuthrus lands in Armenia on the

mountains of the Gordyaeans; Noah's ark landed on the mountains of the

land of Ararat. Like Sisit, Xisuthrus builds an altar and offers

sacrifice; when he has left the boat he disappears, and bids his

followers return to Chaldaea. They obey, and rebuild Babylon. Noah, after

leaving the ark, builds an altar to the Lord and offers burnt sacrifice,

and concludes the new covenant with Jehovah. Then Noah became a

husbandman, and lived for three hundred and fifty years after the flood;

but when the generations of his sons "journeyed from the East, they

found a plain in the land of Shinar, _i.e._ in Babylonia, and there they

dwelt and built the city called Babylon."[324] It is clear that these

legends formed an ancient common possession of the Semitic tribes of the

lands of the Euphrates and Tigris. In the Scriptures of the Hebrews we

find this in a purified and deepened form. The reason for the legend of

the flood is found in the nature of the land of Babylon. As has been

remarked, it is inundated yearly; it is also occasionally desolated by

fierce floods, which change the whole of the lower land as far as the

sea into a broad sheet of water. Similar legends are found in all

regions exposed to floods, in Armenia, Thessaly, Boeotia, and in

India.

Let us now attempt to ascertain what may be gained historically from the

fragments of Berosus. The seven Fish-men rise out of the sea of

Babylonia, i.e., out of the Persian Gulf. They teach language,

agriculture, the building of temples and cities, and writing; and what

the first gave in general terms the others expound in detail. Hence it

would appear that civilisation, culture, and writing came to the

Chaldaeans from the south, from the shore of the Persian Gulf. The

sevenfold revelation points to the seven sacred books of the priesthood,

of which the last six explained by special rules the doctrine contained

in the first. The fragments lay especial weight on the fact that the

sacred books were already in existence before the flood, were saved from

it, and again dug up at Sippara. Pliny remarks that the mysteries of the

Chaldaeans were taught at Sippara.[325] Beside this city (the site is

marked by the mounds at Sifeira, above Babylon, on the Euphrates) the

fragments mention Larancha and Babylon. The first two kings before the

flood were Chaldaeans of Babylon, the next five, Chaldaeans of Sippara,

the last three, Chaldaeans of Larancha. If we set aside the time before

the flood, we find that the first dynasty of eighty-six kings after the

flood reigned for 34,080 years; more than 5,000 years are allotted to

the first two kings; and about 29,000 are left for the remaining

eighty-four. Looking at these numbers, and remembering that the

Babylonians reckoned by certain cycles of years, sosses of 60 years,

neres of 600, and sares of 3,600, we may suppose that the priests

brought the times before and after the flood into a certain number of

sares. The 432,000 years before the flood make up 120 sares (the 720,000

years of Pliny would make 200 sares). The period after the flood may

have been fixed at a tenth part of that sum, _i.e._, at 12 sares, or

43,200 years. The 34,080 years allotted to the first dynasty after the

flood do not come out in any round number of sares. If we suppose that

these cycles were first instituted after Babylon had succumbed to the

attack of Cyrus, and that the fall of Babylon before his arms coincided

with the end of the tenth sarus after the flood, then of the 36,000

years, which, according to the opinion we ascribe to the Babylonian

priests, had elapsed from the flood to the conquest of Babylon in the

year 538 B.C., 34,080 belong to the mythical dynasty after the flood,

and 1,920 years are left for the historical times down to this date. The

taking of Babylon is a known date, and if to it we add 1,920 years, we

get the year 2458 B.C. as the first year of the historical period. The

first ruler of the third dynasty of Berosus began to reign in the year

2458 B.C.[326] The same result and number of years comes out if we add

up the separate items in the dynasties, given in the fragments, from the

year 538 B.C. to the first king of the third dynasty, and leave out of

sight the very striking fact that the fragments break off the Assyrian

dynasty before Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Samuges, who certainly

belong to it, and fill up the chasm thus made in the succession of

dynasties by the 140 years which the canon of Ptolemy show to have

preceded the accession of Nebuchadnezzar--a canon which has no

historical object in view, no dynasties to tabulate, but is merely

intended to fix the years from which observations made by the Chaldaeans

were in existence. If this is the right method[327] of ascertaining the

first established starting-point for the history of the lower land upon

the two streams, the beginnings of civilisation in these districts may

be placed not much below the year 3000 B.C. Life must have become richer

in Babylonia before the tribes of the Iranian uplands were roused to

obtain the sovereignty of that country. Still it remains a remarkable

fact that the history of Babylonia begins with the dominion of

strangers, and that the native tradition, as we can show from the

fragments of it remaining to our times, had nothing to place before the

strangers, except the two mythical dynasties of Babylonian princes

before and after the flood. In the fragments the first native dynasty of

historical times, the dynasty of the Chaldaean princes, comes in the

fifth place; according to the calculation given above, their supremacy

began in the year 1976 B.C., and already in 1518 B.C. it gave place

first to the nine Arabian, and then to the Assyrian kings. The statement

of the fragments, that forty-nine native kings reigned, in the 458 years

from 1976 B.C. to 1518 B.C., is also remarkable, since it allows for the

reign of each of the kings of this dynasty the brief average of a little

more than nine years.

But perhaps the Scriptures of the Hebrews, and the monuments of

Babylonia and Assyria, present sufficient material to supplement these

meagre results in the way of confirmation or contradiction? According to

Genesis, the sons of Shem, the eldest son of Noah, were "Elam and

Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram." And the eldest son of Ham,

Noah's second son, was Cush, and Cush begat Nimrod; the same "began to

be a mighty one in the earth, and the beginning of his kingdom was

Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."[328]

From this we see not only the close relationship between the Hebrews and

the population of Mesopotamia, but also the precedence in high antiquity

allowed by the Hebrews to the tribes of the Tigris and Euphrates. The

Hebrews derived their own origin from Noah, Shem, and Arphaxad; but

before Arphaxad they place the two elder sons of Shem, Elam and Asshur.

The first is the representative of the nation and land of Elam on the

lower Tigris, while Asshur represents the Assyrians of the upper Tigris.

But, strangely enough, the Babylonians were not reckoned in the

generations of Shem, although, as we know perfectly well, the Chaldaeans

were Semitic, and spoke a Semitic language closely resembling Hebrew. On

the contrary, the founding of the kingdom of Babylon is ascribed to

another stock, the eldest son of Cush, and grandson of Ham. As Genesis,

like the Hebrews of later date, includes under the name of Cush the

nations dwelling to the south, the Nubians, Ethiopians, and tribes of

South Arabia, we may here take the son of Cush, who founded Babylon, to

represent a southern tribe, dwelling perhaps on the shore of the Persian

Gulf. Thus as the fragments of Berosus derive the civilisation of

Babylon from the south sea and the south, so also does Genesis point to

a southern origin for Babylonia. And at the same time Genesis calls a

tribe dwelling on the lower Tigris, between the river and the mountains

of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land

of the Elamites was known as Kissia, and afterwards as Susiana, from the

name of the capital. It was also called Elymais, and, in the

inscriptions of the Achaemenids, Uwazha. The Greeks describe this

district as a hot but very fruitful plain, well watered by the

tributaries of the Tigris from the mountains of Persia. There the land

brought forth two or even three hundredfold. According to Strabo the

land was inhabited by two tribes, the Kissians and Elymaeans. The chief

city, Susa, lay between the Shapur and Dizful.[329] With the Greeks it

passed as the fortress of Memnon, the son of the Dawn, who came to the

aid of the Trojans in their distress--"the ancient mighty city," as

AEschylus calls it.[330] The inscriptions of the Assyrian kings give us

some information of the fortunes of the kingdom of Elam, which is not

contradicted by such isolated indications as we can gather from the

inscriptions of Babylonia. This evidence shows that in Elam from the

year 2500 B.C. a political constitution was in existence, and that the

kings of Elam invaded Babylonia before the year 2000 B.C., and about

this time ruled over Babylonia and Mesopotamia as far as Syria. Hence

before the year 2000 B.C. there was some kind of constitution in

Babylonia, and, as we shall see, it was accompanied by a certain amount

of culture. The dominion of Elam over Babylon was of short duration, and

Babylon soon recovered her independence. When, about the year 1500 B.C.,

Assyria rose into an independent state, and her power, after 900 B.C.,

became dangerous to the neighbouring states--when Babylonia, after the

middle of the eighth century B.C., was no longer a match for

Assyria,--Elam continued to maintain her independence in spite of

numerous attacks from the Assyrians.

It was not till the subjection of Babylonia was complete that the

Assyrian king Assurbanipal succeeded in reducing Elam, and in

taking and destroying Susa, the ancient metropolis of the country.

In his inscriptions this king of Assyria informs us that King

Kudur-Nanchundi[331] of Elam laid his hand on the temples of Accad (p.

257); two neres, seven sosses, and fifteen years,--_i.e._, 1,635 years

previously, he carried away the image of the goddess Nana. He

(Assurbanipal) brought her back; on the first of the month Kisallu

(Kislev) the goddess was conducted back to Erech (p. 237); in Bithiliana

he built for her a lasting sanctuary. As Elam was not completely subdued

by Assurbanipal till the year 645 B.C., we may place the recovery of the

statue of Nana in this year.[332] Hence the date of Kudur-Nanchundi of

Elam, whom an inscription of Susa calls the son of Sutruk-Nanchundi,

would fall in the year 2280 B.C., and if about this time it was possible

to carry away images of gods from Babylonia, we cannot place the

beginnings of civilisation in Babylonia later than the year 2500 B.C.

Tiles found at Mugheir, at no great distance from the mouth of the

Euphrates in Babylonia, belong to a second king with a name of similar

formation--Kudur-Mabuk. His inscriptions tell us that Kudur-Mabuk, lord

of the west-land (martu), had erected a shrine to the god "Sin, his

king, for prolonging his own life and that of his son, Zikar-Sin."[333]

On a statuette of bronze, now in the Louvre, we also read the name of

Kudur-Mabuk and his son. Babylonian inscriptions speak of battles of

Hammurabi king of Babylon against Kudur-Mabuk and against Elam.[334] The

tradition of the Hebrews tells us that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah,

the kings of Adama, Zeboiim, and Zoar, _i.e._ the princes of the land

of Jordan, whose names are quoted, had served Kedor-Laomer, king of

Elam, for twelve years, and when they revolted, Kedor-Laomer and the

princes with him, Amraphel of Shinar, Arioch and Tidal, had come down

and conquered the Horites, the Amalekites, and the Amorites, _i.e._ the

tribes of the Syrian desert, the land of Aram between Sinai and Hermon;

and the kings of Jordan were defeated in the valley of Siddim. The first

part of the name Kedor-Laomer corresponds to Kudur in the name

Kudur-Nanchundi and Kudur-Mabuk. The second part recurs in the name

Lagamar, which is the name of a god worshipped by the Elamites.[335]

According to this, the Kudurids, or kings of Elam, of whom Sutruk and

Kudur-Nanchundi, Kudur-Mabuk, and Kudur-Lagamar are known by name, first

attacked Babylonia, then became rulers of Babylonia, and at one time

extended their dominion to the west as far as Syria. According to the

computations of the Hebrews, the campaign of Kedor-Laomer to Syria would

take place about the year 2100 B.C. The inscription would carry the

beginning of the rule of the Kudurids in Elam to the year 2500 B.C., and

consequently the beginning of a political constitution in Elam may be

assumed to be prior to the year 2300 B.C., and the sovereignty of the

Kudurids over Babylon and in the west may be placed about the year 2000

B.C.

If Elam was once more powerful than Babylon it may have been also

older--as among the Hebrews Elam is the eldest son of Shem--the

civilisation of the Elamites may have developed earlier than that of the

Babylonians. But although a number of names of kings have been handed

down to us on Assyrian tablets, which also tell us of ceaseless battles

with Elam, we are in almost total darkness about the nature and

direction of the civilisation of Elam. Our first notice is the Assyrian

account of the fall of the kingdom and the capture of the capital, and

from this we learn that the conditions and mode of life in the capital

of the Elamites were not very different from those of Babylon and

Nineveh. A picture of the city (found in the palace of Assurbanipal),

shows it to us between the two rivers (p. 249), oblong in shape, and

surrounded by high walls with numerous towers. Outside the city, between

the walls and the rivers are palms, and some dwelling-houses.[336]

Assurbanipal narrates: "Shushan, the great city, the abode of their

gods, the seat of their oracle, I took. I entered into their palaces and

opened their treasure-houses. Gold and silver, and furniture, and goods,

gathered together by the kings of Elam in times past and in the present,

the brass and precious stones with which the kings of Accad, Samuges,

and those before him had paid their mercenaries--the treasures on which

no enemy before me had laid a hand, I brought forth to Assyria. I

destroyed the tower of Shushan. The god of their oracles, who dwelt in

the groves, whose image no man had seen, and the images of the gods

Sumudu, Lagamar and the others (nineteen are mentioned), which the kings

of Elam worshipped, I conveyed with their priests to Assyria. Thirty-two

statues of the kings in silver, brass, and alabaster, I took from

Shushan. Madaktu and Huradi, and the statues of Ummanigas, of

Istar-Nanchundi, Halludus, and Tammaritu the younger, I carried to

Assyria. I broke the winged lions and bulls which guarded the temple,

and removed the winged bulls which stood at the gates of the temples of

Elam. Their gods and goddesses I sent into captivity."[337] More than a

hundred years after this time the Elamites had not forgotten their

independence, and they attempted to recover it by repeated rebellions

against the Persians.

The inscriptions in which the kings of Persia spoke to the nations of

their wide empire are of a triple character. Three different kinds of

cuneiform writing repeat the same matter in three different languages.

The first gives the inscription in the Persian language, the language of

the king and dominant people, the third repeats it in the

Babylonian-Assyrian language. The second, we may suppose, gives the

inscription in the language of Elam, for the Persian kings resided in

Susa, and in the enumeration of the subject territories, Susiana and

Babylonia as a rule come after Persia. The forms of the language in

cuneiform inscriptions on bricks and tiles discovered in the ruins of

Susa are closely related to the language of the cuneiform inscriptions

of the second kind in the inscriptions of the Achaemenids.[338] So far as

these have been deciphered the language contained in them seems for the

most part to be closely related to the Turkish-Tatar languages,[339]

while the names of the Elamite gods preserved in Assyrian inscriptions,

although different from those of Babylonia and Assyria, and also the

names of the kings of Elam, have more of a Semitic than a Turkish-Tatar

sound.

On Assyrian tablets, beside the Assyrian and Babylonian names of the

month, which are also the Hebrew names, we find names in another

language unknown to us;[340] and the symbols of the Assyrian cuneiform

writing are not only explained by the addition of the phonetic value and

actual meaning, but before the substantives, verb-forms, and declensions

of the Babylonian-Assyrian language are placed the corresponding words

and inflections of another language, which is decidedly of a non-Semitic

character, and also seems to belong to the Turkish-Tatar branch of

language.[341] If it was considered necessary in Babylonia and Assyria

to place another language before or beside their own, the relation of

this language to that spoken by the Babylonians and Assyrians must have

been very close. The most probable supposition is that it was the

language of the ancient population of the land about the lower course of

the two streams, which afterwards became subjected to Semitic

immigrants. Whatever be the value of this supposition, we may in any

case assume that the Semitic races found older inhabitants and an older

civilisation on the lower Euphrates and Tigris. This older population

was even then in possession of a system of writing, and this

civilisation and writing was adopted by the Semitic races, just as at a

later time the Armenians, Medes, and Persians borrowed their cuneiform

writing from the inhabitants of Babylonia, Assyria, and Susiana.

The precedence of Elam in Hebrew tradition, the statement of Berosus

that civilisation came from the Persian Gulf, the ancient supremacy of

Elam over Babylonia, which we can discover from the Hebrew tradition,

and more plainly from the inscriptions, are so many proofs that the

oldest seats of culture in the lower lands of the Euphrates and Tigris

lay at the mouths of the two rivers. And this conclusion receives

further support from the fact that the oldest centres of the Babylonian

state were nearer the mouth of the Euphrates. Perhaps we may even go a

step further. The Hebrews ascribe the foundation of the Babylonian

kingdom to a son of the south. The language and religious conceptions of

the Babylonians and Assyrians show a close relationship with the

language and religion of the tribes of South Arabia; some of these

tribes are in Genesis variously enrolled among the descendants of Shem

and of Cush. Hence we may perhaps assume that Arabian tribes on the

sea-shore forced their way eastward, to the land at the mouth of the

Euphrates and Tigris, and then, passing up the stream, settled in the

valley of the two rivers, as far as the southern offshoots of the

Armenian mountains.[342] Of these Semitic tribes those which remained on

the lower Tigris and subjected the old population of Susiana, could not

absorb the conquered Kissians (p. 249). The old language retained the

upper hand, and developed; and the ruling tribe, the Semitic Elamites,

were amalgamated with the ancient population. It was otherwise on the

lower Euphrates, where the Semitic immigrants succeeded--probably in a

long process of time, since it was late and by slow degrees that they

gained the upper hand--in absorbing the old Turanian population, and

formed a separate Semitic community, when they had borrowed from their

predecessors the basis of civilisation and the system of cuneiform

writing which was invented for another language.

In the fragments of Berosus the inhabitants of Babylonia are called

Chaldees, a name which Western writers give especially to the priests of

Babylon, though even to them a district on the lower Euphrates is known

as Chaldaea.[343] The inscriptions of the Assyrian kings name the whole

land Kaldi, and the inhabitants Kaldiai.[344] To the Hebrews, as has

been observed (p. 248), Erech, Accad, and Calneh were the beginning of

the kingdom of Nimrod. In the fragments of Berosus, Babylon, the Bab-Ilu

of the inscriptions, _i.e._ "Gate of Il (El)," Sippara and Larancha are

supposed to be in existence before the flood. Erech, the Orchoe of the

Greeks, and Arku of the inscriptions, is the modern Warka, to the south

of Babylon on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, where vast heaps of

ruins remain to testify to the former importance of the city. The site

of Calneh and of the Larancha mentioned in the fragments cannot be

ascertained, unless the latter city is the same as the Larsam mentioned

in the inscriptions. In these the name Accad occurs very frequently. The

kings of Babylon, and after them the kings of Assyria, who ruled over

Babylon, called themselves kings of Babel, of Sumir, and Accad, names

which are used to denote the districts (perhaps Upper and Lower

Babylonia) and their inhabitants. Sippara, the city of the sacred books

and mystic lore of the Chaldaeans (p. 246), is called by the Hebrews,

Sepharvaim, _i.e._ "the two Sepher." Sepher means "writing." It was

therefore the Babylonian City of Scriptures. The Hebrews were aware

that this city worshipped the gods Adar and Anu, Adrammelech and

Anammelech. The inscriptions also mention two cities of the name of

Sippara, or as they give the word, Shipar; they distinguish the Shipar

of the god Anu from the Shipar of Samas, the sun-god. The cuneiform

symbol for Sippara means "City of the sun of the four quarters of the

earth," and the Euphrates is denoted by a symbol which means "River of

Sippara."[345] From this it is clear what position this city once took

in Babylonia. The Ur Kasdim, _i.e._ "Ur of the Chaldaeans" in the Hebrew

Scriptures, is the modern Mugheir, south-east of Babylon; on

clay-tablets discovered in the ruins of this place we find cuneiform

symbols, which are to be read as "Uru."[346] The Kutha and Telassar of

the Hebrews also recur in the Kuthi and Tel Assur of the inscriptions.

In his inscriptions Sennacherib boasts that in the year 704 B.C. he took

eighty-nine fortified cities and 820 places in Babylonia, beside Babylon

itself.[347]

The tumuli covering the ruins of these cities and the Assyrian

inscriptions have preserved for us the names of more than fifty of the

kings who once ruled over Babylon. The fragments of Berosus limit the

period of the independence of Babylon to the 458 years from 1976 B.C.,

to 1518 B.C. (p. 248), and after the Chaldaean kings of this period they

place Arabian kings down to 1273 B.C., who in turn are followed by the

Assyrian kings. These statements are flatly contradicted by the

inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria. We have already seen that in the

period from about the year 2300 B.C. to 2000 B.C., Elam had the

preponderance, and in part the sovereignty, over Babylonia. Afterwards

Babylon became independent, and maintained her position even against

Assyria, until, after the ninth century before Christ, the latter gained

the upper hand; and then, from the beginning of the seventh century, for

a period of seventy or eighty years, the independence of Babylon was

entirely destroyed.

As yet it is not possible to arrange the names preserved in the

inscriptions in a definite order. We can only perceive that in the

oldest period Babylon was not yet the capital of the kingdom. Erech, Ur,

and Nipur, _i.e._ cities lying to the south, were the seat of

government. We find also that the power of the ancient princes must have

extended to the mouth of the Euphrates, and afterwards over a part of

Mesopotamia, and over the Assyrian district on the upper Tigris, till

Assyria, about the year 1500 B.C., became an independent kingdom. That

the region of the upper Euphrates did not belong to Babylonia, but was

the seat of independent princes, more especially at Karchemish, is shown

by the campaigns of the Pharaohs against Naharina, _i.e._ Mesopotamia,

which fall in the period between 1650 B.C. and 1350 B.C., and the

assistance which was rendered at this time by the princes of the upper

Euphrates to the Syrians against the Egyptians.[348] Afterwards the

Assyrians forced their way over the upper Euphrates towards Syria,

without coming in conflict with the Babylonians. At a later period the

lower part of Chaldaea separated from Babylon, and independent princes

established themselves on the lower Euphrates--a fact which obviously

was of great assistance to the Assyrians in gaining the upper hand over

Babylon.

Among the ancient princes of Babylon one of the first places must be

allotted to a king whose name is read as Urukh. On tiles discovered at

Warka (Erech) we find that the "king of Ur, king of Sumir and Accad, has

built a temple to his Lady, the goddess Nana;" on tiles discovered at

Mugheir (Ur), it is said that "Urukh has built the temple and fortress

of Ur in honour of his Lord, the god Sin;" and finally on an inscription

of Nabonetus, the last king of Babylon, which he had surrendered as far

as Ur, we are told that Urukh began to build a temple here to the great

goddess, and that his son Ilgi completed it. At Nipur (Niffer), Urukh

built temples to Bel and Bilit, and a temple to the god Samas at the

modern Senkereh.[349] On a cylinder of Urukh we find three beardless

forms, apparently the king, his son, and the queen, holding up their

hands to an aged long-bearded and seated figure, which the new moon

visible above him denotes as the moon-god Sin; the inscription, written

in the older form of cuneiform writing (see below), runs thus: "Of

Urukh, the mighty Lord, the King of Ur,..." Another cylinder belongs to

the time of his son Ilgi. It bears the inscription: "For saving the life

of Ilgi, from the mighty Lord, the king of Ur, son of Urukh. May his

name continue!" Inscriptions on tiles inform us that he built a temple

at Mugheir.[350] King Ismidagon (_i.e._ "Dagon hears"), whose name is

also found on tiles of Mugheir, is entitled on them, "Lord of

Nipur,[351] king of Sumir, and Accad." Of king Sarruk (_i.e._ "strong

is the king") an inscription tells us that he built the city of Agane,

and the tablets of prognostication announce to him, that he will conquer

Elam, and subjugate the whole of Babylonia and Syria.[352] The

inscriptions of king Hammurabi (_i.e._ "the sun-god is great")

discovered at Babylon, Zerghul, and Tell Sifr, tell us that the gods El

and Bel had delivered the inhabitants of Sumir and Accad to his

dominion, that he had overthrown Elam, and conquered Mabuk (p. 251), and

that he had caused the river Hammurabi (_i.e._ the canal of that name)

to be dug for the benefit of the Babylonians, and had provided a

constant supply of water for Sumir and Accad. At the command of Merodach

he had erected a fortress on this canal, of which the towers were as

high as mountains, and had named it after the name of his father

Dur-Ummubanit.[353]

Hammurabi is the first who, according to his inscriptions, resided at

Babylon. If Sarrukin and he succeeded in breaking down the supremacy of

Elam, we must put Hammurabi at the head of the dynasty which reigned

over Babylon, according to Berosus, from 1976-1518 B.C. (p. 248). In an

Assyrian list of the kings of Babylon, belonging to the times of

Assurbanipal, we find, after Hammurabi, the names of more than fifteen

kings, and opposite the last of these, king Binsumnasir of Babylon, two

kings of Assyria, Assurnirar and Nabudan, are placed as contemporaries

(between 1500 and 1450 B.C.; see below).[354] Then Karatadas, of

Babylon, makes an alliance with Assurbel-nisi, king of Assyria, and the

friendship was continued under their successors, Purnapuryas of Babylon,

and Busurassur of Assyria (about 1450 to 1400 B.C.) Assuruballit, the

successor of Busurassur, made war upon Nazibugas, the usurper who

succeeded Purnapuryas, and raised to the throne in his place Kurigalzu,

a son of Purnapuryas (about 1400 B.C.) Tiles at Senkereh inform us that

Purnapuryas, "king of Babylon, of Sumir and Accad," restored the great

temple which Urukh had built for the sun-god Samas. Tiles are found at

Ur (Mugheir) with the name Kurigalzu; and the fortress Dur-Kurigalzu

(Akerkuf), which is often mentioned in later Assyrian inscriptions, and

spoken of as "the key of Babylonia," was built, as is proved by the

stamp on the tiles, in the reign of this king.[355] An ornament, now in

the British Museum, has the inscription: "Kurigalzu, son of Purnapuryas,

king of Babel."[356] The grandson of Kurigalzu was Merodach-Baladan

(Marduk-habaliddina, _i.e._ "Merodach presented the son").[357] Then

about the year 1300 B.C., Tiglath Adar (Tuklat Adar), of Assyria,

attacked the Babylonians, at first, as it seems, with success, but at

last he lost his seal in this war, and for 600 years it was preserved in

the treasury at Babylon. Still more unfortunate was Belkudurussur of

Assyria in his attempt on Babylon. He was defeated, and fell himself in

the battle (about 1200 B.C.); his successor also, Adarpalbitkur, barely

succeeded in defending himself from the attacks of the Babylonians. When

afterwards the first Nebuchadnezzar (Nabukudurussur) of Babylon twice

invaded Assyria, Assur-ris-ilim, king of Assyria (between 1150-1130

B.C.), succeeded in repulsing him, and Nebuchadnezzar lost forty

war-chariots and a standard. Tiglath Pilesar I. (Tuklat-habal-assar,

about 1120 B.C.), the successor of Assur-ris-ilim, fought against the

Babylonians, and, like Tiglath Adar, he was at first successful.

Assyrian tablets boast that in two successive years he had taken

Dur-Kurigalzu, both Sipparas (p. 257), and even Babylon. But the result

of the war was that Marduknadinakh, king of Babylon, about the year 1110

B.C., carried off images of gods from Assyria to Babylon.[358]

Assur-bel-kala of Assyria (1110-1090 B.C.) had to fight against another

Marduk of Babylon. Two hundred years later Nebubaladan of Babylon

repulsed the attacks of Assurnasirpal of Assyria (883-859 B.C.) Then

Shalmaneser II. of Assyria made such excellent use of a contention for

the throne of Babylonia, that in the year 850 B.C. he offered sacrifice

at Babylon, Borsippa, and Kutha. But it was not till the year 703 or 689

B.C. that the seal of Tiglath Adar and the images lost by Tiglath

Pilesar I. were carried back to Assyria.

FOOTNOTES:

[306] Xenoph. "Cyrop." 7, 5; Strabo, pp. 41, 84, 544, 736, 737.

[307] Strabo, p. 748; Xenoph. "Anab." 1, 5, 1 ff.; G. Hertzberg,

"Feldzug der Zehntausend," s. 139 ff.

[308] Beros. ap. Sync. p. 28; Herod. 1, 193; "Anab." 2, 3.

[309] Herod. 1, 178-200.

[310] "De Coelo," p. 503.

[311] Diod. 3, 31; Cic. "De Divin." 1, 19; Jul. Afric. ap. Syncell. p.

17; Plin. "Hist. Nat." 7, 57; cf. H. Martin, "Revue Archeol." 1862, 5,

243.

[312] Between 280-270 B.C. Clinton, "Fasti Hell." ad ann. 279.

[313] Abydeni Fragm. 9, ed. Mueller.

[314] Berosi Fragm. 1, ed. Mueller.

[315] Abyd. Fragm. 1, 2, ed. Mueller; Berosi Fragm. 5.

[316] In the Armenian Eusebius, p. 10, ed. Schoene, the name is

Lancharis.

[317] G. Smith, "Bibl. Arch." 3, 531.

[318] So in the Armenian Eusebius; in Syncellus it is five stadia,

_i.e._ 3,000 feet long.

[319] Eusebius, p. 14, ed. Mai; Syncell. p. 30; Abydeni Fragm. 3 ed.

Mueller; Lucian, "De Dea Syria," 12.

[320] Eusebius gives 33,091. As Syncellus enumerates the sares, neres,

and sosses, the number given in the text is the correct one, or must be

replaced by 34,091. The basis of the calculation which Syncellus has

adopted in the four first dynasties of Berosus has been thoroughly

established by Lepsius ("Chronol. der AEgypter," s. 78).

[321] The period of the fourth dynasty, the eleven kings, is filled up

to 248 years from the marginal note on the Armenian manuscripts of

Eusebius.

[322] G. Smith, "Assyrian Discoveries," p. 185-195. I retain the reading

"Sisit" as against Hasisadra because of the "Sisythes" of Lucian.

[323] According to Bunsen, "AEgypt." 5, 2, 61 ff., the Hebrews originally

were acquainted with only seven patriarchs before the flood; see below.

[324] Gen. ix. 20, 28; xi. 2-9.

[325] Plin. "Hist. Nat." 6, 30. Hipparenum can be nothing but

Sipparenum, or Sipparenorum.

[326] If the number 34,091 be correct (p. 241, note 2), the year 2447

B.C. would be the first year of the historical era.

[327] It is pointed out by Von Gutschmid in the Rhein. Mus. 8, 252.

[328] Gen. x. 22; x. 8, 10.

[329] Menke, "Jahrb. fuer classiche Philologie," 1862, s. 545.

[330] Aesch. "Pers." 16.

[331] The name Nanchundi occurs also in the compounds Istar-Nanchundi,

p. 253.

[332] G. Smith, "Assurbanipal," p. 200, 234-236, 249-251. As in two

passages 1,635 years are given with quotation of the Neres and Sosses,

this number must be kept in the third passage instead of 1,535 years.

The conquest of Susa did not follow immediately on the conquest of

Babylon, in the year 647; see below.

[333] Sayce, "Bibl. Arch." 3, 479; Oppert, "Empires de Chaldee et

d'Assyrie," p. 27.

[334] G. Smith, "Discov." p. 234; "Early Hist." p. 58.

[335] Genesis, xiv. 1-12; G. Smith, "Assurb." p. 228.

[336] Also in Menant, "Les Achemenides," p. 136.

[337] G. Smith, "Assurbanipal," p. 224, ff.

[338] Sayce, "Transact. Bibl. Arch." 3, 465, 485.

[339] So Rawlinson, Norris, Mordtmann, "Zeitschrift d. d. M. G." 1870,

s. 7, 76, and Sayce, _loc. cit._

[340] Norris, "Dict." I. 50.

[341] Such is also the opinion of Eberhard Schrader.

[342] Schrader, "Abstammung und Ursitze der Chaldaeer," s. 405 ff., 416

ff.

[343] Strabo, p. 735, 765, 767; Pliny, "Hist. Nat." 6, 23, 27. 5, 20.

[344] On the correct interpretation of the passage, Isaiah xxiii. 13,

see Schrader, "Keilschriften und Alt. Test." s. 269; on the Armenian

Chaldaeans, the Chalybian Chaldaeans, Schrader, "Abstammung der Chaldaeer,"

s. 399, 400. The former are to be sought for in the valley of the Lycus,

and are known to the Armenians as Chalti: Kiepert, "Monats-Berichte der

B. Akad. d. W." 1869. Arphaxad, _i.e._ the high mountain district Albak

(Kiepert, _loc. cit_. s. 200), on the Upper Zab, was on the other hand

undoubtedly colonised by Semitic tribes; but these probably came from

Mesopotamia and Assyria. Arphaxad is the younger brother of Elam and

Asshur. Where to look for Kir, whence, according to Amos ix. 7; i. 5,

the Syrians came, we do not know.

[345] Schrader, "Assyrisch-babyl. Keilschriften," s. 382, 18, 42, 165,

225.

[346] Schrader, "Keilschriften und Alt. Test." s. 383.

[347] Oppert, "Inscript. des Sargonides," p. 55 ff.

[348] Above, pp. 132, 151, 152. From Naharina Tuthmosis III. received,

among other things, forty-seven tiles of lead, forty-five pounds of

gold, eighty-one mana (minae) of spice.--De Rouge, "Notice," pp. 16, 18.

[349] Oppert, "Empires," pp. 16, 17; G. Rawlinson, "Five Monarchies," 1,

63, 64, 137; Menant, "Babylone," pp. 74, 75, 254.

[350] G. Smith, "Early History," p. 36; G. Rawlinson, "Five Monarchies,"

pp. 69, 94, 157 ff.

[351] Oppert, "Empires," p. 21.

[352] Schrader, "Keilsch. und Alt. Test." s. 47; "Assyrisch-babylonische

Keilschriften," s. 162; Sayce, "Zeitschrift fuer aegypt. Sprache," 1870,

s. 151; Menant, "Babylone," p. 98.

[353] Oppert, "Empires," p. 36.

[354] Lenormant, "Lettres Assyr." 1, 249.

[355] Oppert, "Empires," p. 28; Menant, "Babylone," pp. 118, 121.

[356] G. Rawlinson, "Five Monarchies," pp. 169, 170.

[357] G. Smith, "Discov." p. 236 ff., gives a deed of gift of

Merodach-Baladan, the son of Milihiru, the grandson of Kurigalzu.

[358] Menant, "Babylone," pp. 127, 128.