Chapter X: Part III: , European Nations; of which only 1 volume, Greeks, has (2)

I. _Period of the nomad state from Abraham to the conquest of Palestine._--Under Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nothing more at first than a single nomad family; which, however, during its sojourn in Lower Egypt, where, during four hundred and thirty, or, according to others, two hundred and fifty years, it roved about in subjection to the Egyptian Pharaohs,--increased to a nomad nation, divided into twelve tribes. The nation, however, becoming formidable from the great increase of its numbers, the Pharaohs, following the usual policy of the Egyptians, wished to compel the Jews to build and inhabit cities. Unaccustomed to restraint, they fled from Egypt under the conduct of Moses; and conquered, under him and his successor Joshua, Palestine, the land of promise.

Moses and his legislation.--What he borrowed and what he did not
borrow from the Egyptians?--The worship of Jehovah in the national
sanctuary, and by national festivals, celebrated with ceremonies
rigidly prescribed, the point of union for the whole nation, and
the political bond which held the tribes together.--The caste of
Levites, compared with the Egyptian caste of priests.

J. D. MICHAELIS, _Mosaic Law_. Gottingen, 1778, etc. 6 vols. 8vo.;
translated into English by Dr. ALEXANDER SMITH. Lond. 1814, 4
vols. 8vo. The commentator frequently sees more than the lawgiver.

II. _Period of the federative republic._ From the occupation of Palestine to the establishment of monarchy, 1500-1100.

1. General character of this period as the heroic age of the nation, which, after the gradual adoption of fixed dwellings and agriculture, was engaged in constant feuds with its neighbours, the vagrant Arabs, the Philistines, and the Edomites. Impossibility of exterminating entirely the ancient inhabitants according to the intention of Moses.--Hence the worship of Jehovah was never the _only_ religion in the land.

2. Political organization. In consequence of the division of land, according to tribes, and their separation from one another, the government long remained patriarchal. Each tribe preserved its patriarch or elder, as in the nomad state. All, however, had, in the worship of Jehovah, one common bond, uniting them into one federate state. Magistrates were likewise appointed in the cities, to whom scribes are conjoined out of the Levite caste.

3. The permanent union of the nation, and preservation of the Mosaic law, were likewise promoted by the distribution of the Levite caste into forty-eight separate towns, situated in various parts of the country, and by making the high priesthood hereditary in Aaron's family.

4. But when at the death of Joshua the people were left without a common ruler, the tie of religion became insufficient to hold them together; especially as the weaker tribes became jealous of the more powerful. At this time the high priests appear to have had but little political influence; and the national bond was only prevented from being dissolved by the dread of a foreign yoke.

5. The Jews were sometimes independent, at other times tributary. In seasons of oppression and distress heroes arose, jealous for the worship of Jehovah, to deliver them from bondage. They acted as chief magistrates and rulers of a part, or even the whole of the nation, and as champions of the worship of the true God. The judges, particularly Othniel, Deborah, and Sampson.--Concerning the marvellous in their history.

6. Reestablishment of the worship of Jehovah by Samuel. He becomes judge, and rules as Jehovah's minister.--His scheme of making the office of judge hereditary in his own family is defeated by the conduct of his sons. The nation demands a king, whom Samuel, as minister of Jehovah, is called upon to appoint. His crafty policy in the election, which he cannot impede. He chooses Saul, politically speaking, the most insignificant man of the nation; but the tallest and most stately. A formal constitutional act, according to the Mosaic command, is drawn up and deposited in the national sanctuary.

Causes which led the nation to demand a king.--Earlier attempts
made, particularly by _Abimelech_, to obtain regal power.

III. _Period of the monarchy from 1100-600._

I. _The Jewish state as one single kingdom from 1100(1095)-975._

1. _Saul_, the new king, strengthened himself on the throne by a victory over the Ammonites; and a general assembly of the nation, in which Samuel laid down his office as judge, unanimously acknowledged his sovereignty. But Saul, no sooner became a conqueror than he threw off the tutelage of Samuel, and ventured himself to consult Jehovah. This was the occasion of a feud between them. Samuel, offended, privately anointed another young man, David the son of Jesse, as king. David acquires fame and popularity by his heroic conduct; but has much difficulty in escaping the jealousy of Saul.--Saul sustains himself amid constant wars with the neighbouring nations; but at last defeated, he and all his sons, except one, lose their lives.

2. State of the nation and constitution under Saul.--The king little more than a military leader under the direction of Jehovah; without either court or fixed residence.--The people still a mere agricultural and pastoral race, without wealth or luxury; but gradually assuming the character of a warlike nation.

3. Saul was succeeded by David; but not without opposition. Eleven tribes declare for Ish-bosheth, the remaining son of Saul; and David is only acknowledged by his own tribe, Judah. It is not till seven years later, and the murder of Ish-bosheth by his own people, that David is recognized as king by the whole nation.

4. Complete formation of the nation, and a change of constitution during the reign of David over the united kingdom, which lasted thirty-three years. Jerusalem is made the seat of government and of the national sanctuary. Rigid observance of the worship of Jehovah, the exclusive religion of the nation, considered in respect to its political consequence.

5. Vast aggrandizement of the Jewish state by conquest. A war with Hadadezer opens the way to the conquest of Syria and Idumaea. Extent of the kingdom from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean; from Phoenicia to the Red sea. Gradual decline towards despotism and seraglio government; the political consequences of which become apparent about the end of David's reign, in the rebellion of his sons.

6. Reign of Solomon. The brilliant government of a despot from the interior of his seraglio; unwarlike, but civilized, and fond of parade. New organization of the kingdom for the support of the court. Connections formed with the neighbouring states, particularly with Tyre; hence a participation in the southern trade carried on from the ports of the Red sea, conquered by David; but only as a monopoly of the court.

7. The capital enriched by the splendour of the court; but the country oppressed and impoverished, particularly the distant tribes. Gradual internal decay hastened by the admixture of the worship of foreign gods with that of Jehovah; although Solomon, by the erection of the temple according to the plan of his father, seems to have wished to make the worship of the true God the only religion of the country. An unsuccessful attempt at rebellion made by Jeroboam; and by the Edomites, who remain tributary under their own kings: actual secession, even during the reign of Solomon, of the conquered province of Syria by the foundation of the kingdom of Damascus.

8. Solomon is succeeded by his son Rehoboam, who has scarcely ascended the throne, before the malcontents, increased in number by his imprudence, break into open rebellion. Jeroboam is recalled from Egypt, and ten tribes acknowledge him as their king. Only two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remain faithful to Rehoboam.

II. _The Jewish state as a divided kingdom, 975-588._

1. Reciprocal relations between the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Although Israel was more extensive and populous than Judah, yet was Judah, in consequence of possessing the capital, richest of the two; thus their power was nearly balanced; and hence the struggle between them was the more obstinate.

2. The kings of Israel seek to confirm the political division of the nation, by establishing a new form of worship within their dominions, in order to restrain their subjects from visiting the ancient seat of the national worship at Jerusalem; hence they were considered as the enemies of Jehovah. Several kings, however, even of Judah were so impolitic as to mingle the worship of other gods with that of Jehovah. But oppression itself serves to sustain the worship of Jehovah; the number and political influence of the prophets increase in proportion as men feel, amid the turbulence of the times, need of the counsels of the true God; the idea of some future happier period under a mighty king--the idea of the Messiah and of his kingdom--is more fully developed by the lively recollection of the splendid reign of David.--Schools of the prophets.

3. The rivalry and wars between those two states not only continue with slight interruption, but become more and more fraught with danger, in consequence of the alliances entered into with foreign princes, particularly with the kings of Damascus and Egypt. An end is at length put to these feeble kingdoms by the rise of vast empires in Inner Asia.

Most important events in the history of the two kingdoms.

1. KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 975-722; under 19 kings, from different
families, who succeeded to the throne amid violent revolutions. 1.
Jeroboam, _d._ 954. Settlement of the royal residence at Shechem;
of the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, and appointment of priests,
not belonging to the tribe of Levi. Constant wars with the kings of
Judah. 2. Nadab, Jeroboam's son, murdered in 953 by 3. Baasha, _d._
930. This prince, by his alliance with the kings of Damascus,
brought the kingdom of Judah into great danger. 4. Elah murdered in
929 by one of his generals. 5. Zimri, in whose place the army
immediately elected 6. Omri: this prince, at the beginning of his
reign, had a rival to the throne in Tibni, _d._ 925. Omri founded
the new capital, Samaria, _d._ 918. He was succeeded by his son 7.
Ahab: strong connections by marriage with the kings of Sidon;
introduction of the Phoenician worship of Baal. Wars with
Damascus, in which Ahab at last perishes, 897. Under Ahab a league
formed with the king of Judah. He is succeeded by his sons, 8.
Ahaziah, _d._ 896, and 9. Jehoram. The league with Judah continues.
Jehoram is murdered by Jehu, 883. 10. Jehu: this king destroys the
house of Ahab, which had given 4 kings to Israel, and does away
with the worship of Baal. The kings of Damascus wrest from the
kingdom of Israel the lands beyond Jordan. Jehu, _d._ 856. He is
succeeded by his son 11. Jehoahaz, _d._ 840. The wars with Damascus
continue unsuccessful to Israel. 12. Jehoash, _d._ 825. He defeats
the kings of Damascus and Judah. 13. Jeroboam II. _d._ 784. He
restores the kingdom of Israel to its ancient extent. After a
turbulent interregnum of 12 years, he is succeeded by his son 14.
Zechariah, 773; who was assassinated the same year, being the last
remnant of the house of Jehu, which had given 5 kings to Israel.
His murderer, 15. Shallum, after a reign of one month, is, in his
turn, assassinated by 16. Menahem, _d._ 761: under his reign the
first expedition of the Assyrians, headed by Pul, whom he buys off
by tribute. 17. His son Pekahiah murdered in 759 by 18. Pekah,
under whose reign falls the expedition of Tiglath-Pileser the
Assyrian, and destruction of Damascus. Pekah is assassinated in 740
by 19. Hoshea, who, after an anarchy of eight years, obtains
possession of the throne. Hoshea endeavours, by an alliance with
Egypt, to shake off the Assyrian yoke; but Shalmaneser, king of
Assyria, wages war against him, conquers Samaria, and puts an end
to the kingdom of Israel, whose inhabitants he transplants to Media
in Inner Asia, 722.

2. KINGDOM OF JUDAH under 20 kings of the house of David, 975-598.
The regular line of hereditary succession is generally followed
without dispute, and is only twice interrupted by Athaliah's
usurpation, and the intervention of foreign conquerors. 1.
Rehoboam, _d._ 958. Jerusalem is still the seat of government; but
even during this reign the worship of Jehovah begins to fall into
neglect, in consequence of the introduction of foreign gods.
Besides the war with Israel, Jerusalem is attacked and plundered by
Shishak, king of Egypt. 2. Abijah, _d._ 955. 3. Asa. This prince
was attacked by the combined kings of Israel and Damascus, and, no
doubt, would have sunk in the conflict, had he not succeeded in
breaking their alliance; _d._ 914. 4. Jehoshaphat, the restorer of
the worship of Jehovah and framer of a league with the kingdom of
Israel. His attempt to reestablish the trade to Ophir, on the Red
sea, is unsuccessful, _d._ 891. 5. Jehoram. The union with Israel
is confirmed by the marriage of this prince with Ahab's daughter,
Athaliah; but Idumaea, under his reign, secedes wholly from the
kingdom of Judah, _d._ 884. 6. His son Ahaziah is, in the next
year, 883, assassinated by Jehu, the murderer and successor of
Jehoram king of Israel. 7. His mother, Athaliah, takes possession
of the throne; murders the whole royal family; only one son of
Ahaziah, 8, Joash, is, in consequence of his youth, rescued from
the carnage, secretly educated in the temple, and after seven years
forcibly placed upon the throne, by means of a revolution wrought
by the high priest, Jehoiada; and Athaliah is slaughtered, 877.
Joash rules under the tutelage of the priests, which leads to the
reestablishment of Jehovah's worship. This prince is menaced by
Hazael king of Damascus, and compelled to pay him tribute. Slain
838. 9. Amaziah: he defeats the Edomites, and is in his turn
defeated by Jehoash king of Israel, by whom Jerusalem itself is
sacked. He is slain in 811, and succeeded 10. by his son Azariah,
(or Uzziah.) This prince was leprous, and _d._ 759. His son 11.
Jotham, _d._ 743, became regent during the life of his father. The
wars with Israel and Damascus recommence. 12. Ahaz, _d._ 728. The
league between the kings of Damascus and Israel induces Ahaz to
call to his assistance Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, who
overthrows the kingdom of Damascus, and subjects Israel and Judah
to tribute. 13. Hezekiah, _d._ 699. He shakes off the Assyrian
yoke: under his reign Shalmaneser destroys Samaria, 722: and
Shalmaneser's successor, Sennacherib, undertakes his expedition
against Egypt, 714. Jerusalem is again besieged, but fortunately
relieved by the total failure of the expedition. Isaiah prophecies
during the reign of this prince. 14. Manasseh, _d._ 644. During his
55 years' reign, the worship of the Phoenician god, Baal, becomes
general; that of Jehovah falls into contempt, and the Mosaic law
into disuse. 15. Amon, murdered as early as 642. 16. Josiah
restorer of the temple, and of the worship of Jehovah. The book of
the Law, which had been cast aside and neglected, is once more
found, and a complete reform instituted according to its
principles. Palestine however is the first country attacked by
Necos, king of Egypt; and Josiah falls in battle, 611. His son, 17.
Jehoahaz, is, after a reign of three months, dethroned by
Pharaoh-Nechoh, and his brother 18. Jehoiakim placed as a tributary
prince on the throne. But in consequence of the rise of the
Chaldaeo-Babylonian empire, Pharaoh-Nechoh is deprived of his
Asiatic conquests by the loss of the battle of Circesium, 606; and
Jehoiakim becomes tributary to Nebuchadnezzar, _d._ 599. The
prophet Jeremiah flourishes. 19. Jehoiachin, son of the former
king, after three months' reign, is, together with the greater part
of the nation, transplanted into Inner Asia by Nebuchadnezzar,
after a second expedition, (commencement of the Babylonian
captivity,) and, 20. Zedekiah, brother on the father's side to
Jehoiachin, is seated on the throne as a tributary prince. Forming,
however, a league with Egypt, in order to throw off the Babylonian
yoke, Nebuchadnezzar marches a third time against Jerusalem,
conquers it, 588, and delivers it up to pillage and destruction.
Zedekiah, after being deprived of his eye-sight, and losing all his
children by the hands of the executioner, is, together with the
remaining portion of the nation, led in captivity to Babylon.

S. BERNHARDI _Commentatio de causis quibus affectum sit ut regnum
Judae diutius persisteret quam regnum Israel; cum tabula
geographica_, Lovanii, 1825, 4to. A prize essay, containing also
several valuable enquiries into the monarchical period of the
Jewish state.

# BAUER, _Manual of the History of the Hebrew Nation_, vol. i-iii,
1800. The best introduction hitherto published, not only to the
history, but also to the antiquities of the nation, from the rise
to the fall of the state.

II. AFRICAN NATIONS.

_General Geographical Outline of Ancient Africa._

See A. H. L. HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, etc. African Nations.
2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1831.

1. Although the Phoenicians had circumnavigated Africa, the northern part only of that quarter of the globe was known to antiquity.

With that part, however, the ancients were better acquainted than we are at the present day, the coast being then occupied by civilized and commercial nations, who pushed their excursions far inland. This was the case in early times with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians; still more so with the Macedonian Greeks, under the Ptolemies, and under the Romans. War, hunting, and commerce, were, generally speaking, the objects which gave rise to those excursions.

2. Considered as a whole, Africa is very different from Asia, both in situation and form. Asia lies almost entirely within the temperate, while Africa is almost wholly under the torrid zone. Asia abounds in deep gulfs and large rivers; Africa constitutes a regular triangle, and in its northern half possesses but two large rivers, the Nile and the Niger. No wonder, then, that this portion of our globe should form, as it were, a world in itself, distinguished by its productions and its inhabitants.

3. Physically considered, Northern Africa may be divided into three regions, distinguished in early antiquity by separate names. The maritime country along the Mediterranean, with the exception of Tripolis, or the Regio-Syrtica, consists principally of very fertile districts, and was consequently, at all times, very thickly inhabited: hence in Herodotus it bears the name of the _inhabited Africa_; it is now called Barbary. Above this, and under the 30th parallel of N. lat., succeeds a mountainous tract, across which stretches the Atlas chain of mountains; abounding in wild beasts and dates: hence Herodotus calls it the _wild beast Africa_: among the Arabs it is called the land of dates, (_Biledulgerid_.) Beyond this, and between the 30th and 20th degrees of N. lat. the sandy region extends right across Africa and Arabia: this part of Africa is therefore known, both among the ancients and moderns, under the name of Africa Deserta, or the Sandy Desert, (Sahara). The fruitful lands beyond the desert, stretching along the banks of the Niger, were almost wholly unknown to the Greeks: by them these parts were comprehended under the common name of Ethiopia, although that name applied more peculiarly to the districts above Egypt. The Greeks were, however, acquainted with some of the fruitful spots in the desert, the Oases; such as Augila, Ammonium, and the Oases, properly so called, in Egypt.

4. There exists no political division which comprises the whole of Africa. The north coast alone was inhabited by civilized nations: Egyptians, Cyrenaeans, and Carthaginians; of which the first only were aboriginals. The rest of the inhabitants either roved about as nomad hordes, or formed insignificant states, of whose existence we have heard some account, though we possess no history of them. Along the shore, reckoning from the Plinthinetic gulf, Egypt is succeeded by: 1st. Marmarica, a tract without cities, consisting principally of sandy deserts, occupied by nomad hordes: this country extends from the 40-47 deg. E. long. from Ferro. 2nd. The fertile territory occupied by the Greek colonies, called Cyrenaica, extended to the Greater Syrtis, 37-40 deg. E. long. Cities: Cyrene, Barca. 3rd. The territory of Carthage, extending from the Greater Syrtis to the Fair Promontory, 25-40 deg. E. long. This territory comprised (_a_) the country between the Greater and Lesser Syrtis, (Regio Syrtica,) which constitutes the modern kingdom of Tripoli; a sandy tract, almost wholly occupied by nomads. (_b_) the territory of Carthage, properly so called, (kingdom of Tunis). A very fruitful country; the southern part, called Byzacena, the northern part Zeugitana. Cities: Carthage, Utica, etc. 4th. Numidia and Mauritania; occupied during the Carthaginian age by nomad races. Along the shore some Carthaginian settlements.

EGYPTIANS.

Preliminary remarks. Egypt in its superficial contents is equal to about two-thirds of Germany, and may therefore justly be ranked among the more extensive countries of the globe; it greatly varies, however, in its physical properties. The soil is only sufficiently fertile for tillage on the banks of the Nile, and as far as the floods of that river extend; beyond that, on the west, is a sandy desert, on the east a chain of rocky mountains. From its entrance into Egypt at Syene, the Nile flows in one undivided stream to the city of Cercasorus, 60 geogr. miles above its mouth, directing its source from south to north through a valley from 8 to 16 geogr. miles broad, bounded on the west by deserts of sand, and on the east by mountains of granite. At Cercasorus the stream first divides itself into two main branches, which formerly discharged their waters into the Mediterranean, the eastern near the city of Pelusium, the western near the city of Canopus (_ostium Pelusiacum et Canopicum_;) from these two diverged several intermediate branches; so that in the time of Herodotus there existed seven mouths of the Nile, but the number has not always remained the same. The tract between the two extreme arms of the Nile bears, in consequence of its triangular form, the name of the Delta; it was covered with cities, and highly cultivated. The fertile part of Egypt, inhabited by civilized men, was therefore confined to the Delta and the valley of the Nile, on the two banks of the stream from Syene to Cercasorus; to which must be added some well watered spots in the centre of the western desert, known under the name of the Oases. In consequence of the perpetual absence of rain, particularly in Upper Egypt, the fertility of the Delta and the valley of the Nile depends on the overflowing of the river, which happens at stated periods. This commences at the beginning of August and continues to the end of October; so that during three whole months the above-mentioned parts of the country are under water.

Egypt is divided into Upper, extending from Syene to the city of Chemmis, (capital, Thebes, or Diospolis); Central from Chemmis to Cercasorus, (capital, Memphis,) and Lower Egypt, which comprises the Delta, and the land on both sides: it was full of cities, among which the most remarkable was Sais.

Next above Egypt lies Ethiopia, (_Aethiopia supra Aegyptum_); which, from the earliest times, principally through commerce, appears to have been closely connected with the former country. The regions immediately above Egypt, usually called Nubia, are little more than deserts of sand, still inhabited by roving hordes of nomad robbers. The rocky mountain chain, which forms the eastern boundary of Egypt, stretches along the Red sea, and was formerly of great importance to Nubia, from its containing, just above the Egyptian frontier, productive gold mines. The Nile, in this country, makes a wide curve to the west, and becomes so full of shallows as to render navigation difficult. The lands adjoining the river, however, are fertile and well inhabited; and contain numerous ancient monuments. Still higher up, reckoning from 16 deg. N. lat. the appearance of the country changes; the region of fertility commences, and its costly productions, its gold and its perfumes, gave rise to a profitable commerce. Among these countries, Meroe, with its capital of the same name, was celebrated in the days of Herodotus. By Meroe is understood a tract of land bounded by two rivers, the Nile on the west, and the Astaboras, (Tacazze,) which falls into the Nile, on the east; for this reason it is frequently, although improperly, called an island. This country extended towards the sources of the Nile, or the modern province of Gojam, where, under the reign of Psammetichus, the Egyptian caste of warriors, having for the most part deserted, established themselves. Meroe itself, like the Egyptian states, was sacerdotal, with a king at its head.--The city of Axum, or Auxume, is not indeed mentioned at so early a period; but if we may judge by the ruins that still remain, it was of equally high antiquity with the old Egyptian towns and with Meroe. The same observations apply to Adule, the harbour on the Arabian gulf.

The Egyptian history is divided into three periods of unequal duration; the _first_ of which extends from the earliest time down to the Sesostridae, that is to say, to about B.C. 1500: the _second_ comprises the reigns of the Sesostridae, or the brilliant period of Egypt, down to Psammetichus, 1500-650: the _third_ brings us from Psammetichus down to the Persian conquest, 650-525.

FIRST PERIOD.

_From the earliest times down to the Sesostridae, about B. C. 1500._

Sources: 1. Jewish writers. _Moses._ His records contain, no doubt,
a faithful picture of the Egyptian state in his day; but no
continuous history can be deduced from them.--From Moses down to
Solomon (B.C. 1500-1000.) total silence, with respect to Egypt, of
the Hebrew writers. From Solomon down to Cyrus, (B.C. 1000-550.) a
few scanty fragments.--Importance and superiority of the Jewish
accounts, so far as they are _purely historical_. 2. Greek writers.
(_a_) _Herodotus._ The first who published a History of the
Egyptians. About seventy years after the destruction of the throne
of the Pharaohs by the Persian conquerors, this author collected,
in Egypt itself, the earliest accounts of the history of the
country; he received his information from the most capable persons,
the priests; and wrote down faithfully that information, such as he
heard it. If, therefore, we would estimate at their proper worth
the accounts given by Herodotus, it is necessary to enquire, what
did the priests themselves know of their earlier national history?
And this question cannot be answered until we have ascertained in
what manner the historical records of the earlier periods were
preserved among the Egyptians.

The earliest history of the Egyptians, like that of all other
nations, was traditional. They adopted, however, before any other
nations, a sort of writing, hieroglyphics, or allegorical picture
writing; in which the signs borrowed from natural objects served,
as modern discoveries have proved, partly to represent sounds,
(_hieroglyphes phonetiques_,) and partly to express ideas; in the
latter case they were either representative or allegorical. This
mode of writing, by its nature, is not so complete as the purely
alphabetical; since, 1. It can express only a narrow circle of
ideas, and these separately, without connection or grammatical
inflection, at least with very few exceptions. 2. As it is not so
well adapted to writing as to painting or engraving, it is not so
useful for books as for public monuments. 3. Being emblematic, it
is not intelligible without the help of a key, which could only be
preserved in some tradition connected with the monument, and which
was exclusively possessed by the priests; this key, therefore,
could hardly be preserved many centuries without falsification. 4.
The same image seems frequently to have been used to express very
different objects.--It follows, that the Egyptian history, as
deduced from the lips of the priests, can hardly have been any
thing more than records connected with, and depending upon, public
monuments: consisting, therefore, of mere fragments, and reducible
to no consistent chronology, it ultimately admitted only of
allegorical translation, and consequently was very liable to be
misinterpreted. Besides their hieroglyphics, the Egyptians
certainly had two other species of writing: the _hieratic_,
confined to the priests, and the _demotic_, used in common life.
Both, however, seem to have been nothing more than running hands
derived from the hieroglyphic system; and we have no instance of
the employment of either the one or the other in public monuments
of the time of the Pharaohs. That the use of papyrus, a material on
which all the above kinds of writing were employed, had its origin
in the highest antiquity, or at least in the more brilliant period
of the Pharaohs, we now know for certain, written documents
belonging to those times having been obtained from the tombs.

CHAMPOLLION LE JEUNE, _Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des anciens
Egyptiens_. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which
the _Lettre a M. Dacier_, 1822, is but the precursor, and the two
_Lettres a M. le duc de Blacas_ the continuation. The new method of
deciphering has received its principal confirmation from the work
of the British consul in Egypt, SALT, _Essay on the Phonetic System
of Hieroglyphics_, 1825, on the authority of a comparison with the
Egyptian monuments themselves. Hitherto, however, little more has
been made out than the names and titles of the kings, distinguished
by being always enclosed within a border.

These preliminary remarks on the earlier Egyptian history, will
derive abundant support from a perusal of the account given by
Herodotus (ii, 99-150), of the Egyptian kings previous to
Psammetichus. The study of that author proves beyond all doubt,
that: I. The whole history is throughout founded on public
monuments, and on monuments too, either in or near _Memphis_. We
may even restrict ourselves to one single monument at Memphis, to
the temple of Vulcan, or Phtha, the chief temple of that city. The
history commences with Menes, the founder of that edifice, (c.
99.), and we are informed, respecting each of his successors, what
was done towards the augmentation and embellishment of the
building: those who made no addition to that temple, but left other
monuments, (as the builders of the pyramids,) are denominated
oppressors of the people, and contemners of the gods: of those
princes who left no monuments at all, the priests could give no
other information than a catalogue of names. II. Hence this line of
kings, although the priests gave it to Herodotus as such, is not
without interruptions, but, as is clearly proved by a comparison
with Diodorus, contains many wide chasms: therefore no
chronological system can be erected upon such a basis. III. The
whole history is interwoven with narrations derived from
hieroglyphic representations, and for that very reason allegorical,
the meaning of which it is no longer possible to unravel, the
priests themselves being either unable or unwilling to explain it,
and even inclining, it appears, to introduce false interpretations.
To this class of narrations belongs, for instance, that of the
robbery of Rhampsinitus's treasury; that of his journey into hell,
where he played at dice with Ceres, (c. 121, 122); that concerning
the daughter of Cheops, (c. 127.); concerning the blindness of
Pheron, and the manner in which he was cured, etc. (c. 111.) To
prove that this charge is not without foundation, it will suffice
to adduce two examples; one from c. 131, where Herodotus himself
observes that such was the case; the other from c. 141, the true
meaning of which we gather from other sources. Even in the time of
Herodotus, it was customary with the priests to endeavour to
conciliate the Greek and Egyptian authorities; a fact in proof of
which there are many arguments which cannot escape the critic:
such, for instance, as the completely _Graecised_ history of king
Proteus, c. 112-115.--The general result of the above observations
on Herodotus's Egyptian history is, that it is nothing more than a
narration connected with public monuments. To this inference but
one objection can possibly be made, namely, that the Egyptian
priests possessed, besides their hieroglyphics, an alphabetical
mode of writing; consequently, that, over and above the public
monuments, they might likewise refer to written annals; but this
objection is overthrown by Herodotus himself. All the information
the priests could give him beyond what has been above alluded to,
consisted in the names of 330 kings subsequent to Menes; these
they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings
who bore them, because _those sovereigns had left no monuments
behind them_, (c. 100.)

(_b_) Besides Herodotus, _Diodorus_ (lib. i.) likewise furnishes us
with the names of some Egyptian kings. This author, who wrote 400
years subsequently to Herodotus, visited Egypt, and collected his
history, partly from the oral and written documents of the priests
of _Thebes_, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and
particularly Hecataeus. If we consider Herodotus's line of kings as
not continuous or uninterrupted, all appearance of contradiction
between the two historians vanishes. Diodorus, like Herodotus, did
not intend to give a complete enumeration of the Egyptian kings;
but only of the most remarkable; indicating the interruptions by
the number of generations which they contained.

(_c_) Finally, different from both the above is the Egyptian
_Manetho_, high priest at _Heliopolis_, who flourished under the
reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote the
_Aegyptiaca_, of which, besides several fragments in Josephus, the
enumeration of the kings has been preserved in the chronicles of
Eusebius and Syncellus. This catalogue is divided into three
sections, (tomos,) each of which contains several dynasties, in all
31, enumerated according to the different cities of Egypt. In each
dynasty the number of kings belonging to it and the years of their
reigns are marked. The authenticity of Manetho is now completely
established; since the names of the Pharaohs mentioned by him have
been deciphered on the Egyptian monuments. To this period belong
the first seventeen dynasties; in the eighteenth begins the second
and brilliant period, to which the yet remaining monuments of Upper
Egypt, bearing the names of the founders, are to be ascribed. It is
worthy of observation, that in Herodotus we have the documents of
the priests of Memphis, in Diodorus those of the priests of Thebes,
in Manetho those of the priests of Heliopolis--the three principal
seats of sacerdotal learning:--perfect consistency cannot,
therefore, be expected in the accounts of those historians.

The modern writers on Egyptian antiquities, from KIRCHER, _Oedipus
Aegyptiacus_, 1670, to DE PAUW, _Recherches sur les Egyptiens et sur
les Chinois_, 1772, have too often substituted their own dreams and
hypotheses for truth. The principal attempts at a chronological
arrangement of the dynasties have been made by MARSHAM, in his
_Canon Chronicus_; and by GATTERER, in his # _Synchronistic History
of the World_.--Among the principal works on this subject may be
reckoned:

JABLONSKI _Pantheon Mythicum Aegyptiacum_, 1750, 8vo.

GATTERER, _Commentationes de Theogonia Aegypt_. in _Commentat.
Societ. Gotting._ t. vii.

_De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctore_ G. ZOEGA; Romae, 1797.

_L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Geographie, la
Religion, la Langue, les Ecritures, et l'Histoire de l'Egypte avant
l'invasion de Cambyse, par_ CHAMPOLLION LE JEUNE, t. i, ii. 1814.
These two volumes, dedicated to the geography, contain the
restoration of the ancient Egyptian names of provinces and cities
deduced from Coptic authorities.

_Commentationes Herodoteae, scribebat_ FRID. CREUZER. _Aegyptica et
Hellenica, pars 1._ Lips. 1819. A series of most acute and learned
illustrations of different points in Egyptian antiquity, introduced
by different passages of Herodotus.

The volume in HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, etc. 1831, vol. ii,
concerning the Egyptians; and particularly the introduction on
hieroglyphic writing. For the best representations of the Egyptian
monuments, we are indebted to the French expedition. Those of Denon
in his _Voyage en Egypte_, are far superior to those of Pococke and
Norden; but Denon's, in their turn, have been greatly surpassed in
the magnificent work:

_Description de l'Egypte, Antiquites_, P. i, ii, iii. P. i,
contains the monuments of Upper Egypt, from the frontiers of Nubia
to Thebes; P. ii, iii, contain the monuments of Thebes alone.

BELZONI, _Researches in Egypt_, London, 1824, with an atlas.

# MINUTOLI, _Journey to the Temple of Jupiter Ammon, and Egypt_, 1824.

L. BURCKHARDT, _Travels in Nubia_, London, 1819.

F. C. GAU, _Antiquites de la Nubie_, Paris, 1824. A worthy
continuation of the great French work on Egypt.

FR. CAILLAUD, _Voyage a Meroe et au Fleuve Blanc_, Paris, 1825,
contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.

1. Political civilization commenced in Egypt at a much earlier period than that to which history reaches; for even in the days of Abraham, and still more so in those of Moses, the government seems to have been so well organized, that a long period must necessarily have elapsed in order to raise the nation to that degree of civilization which we see it had then attained. It may, therefore, be safely asserted, that Egypt ranks among the most ancient countries of our globe in which political associations existed; although we cannot determine with equal certainty whether they did not exist still earlier in India.

2. The causes which contributed to render Egypt thus early a civilized state, may be found in the natural features of the country, and its favourable situation, when compared with the rest of Africa. It is the only tract in all northern Africa situated on a large uninterrupted navigable stream: had it not been for this, it would, like the other parts of Africa under the same parallel, have been a mere desert. To this must be added two extraordinary circumstances: on the one hand, the overflowing of the river so perfectly prepares the soil, that to scatter the seed is almost the only labour of the husbandman; and yet, on the other hand, so many obstacles impede the progress of agriculture, (by the necessity of canals, dams, etc.) that the invention of man must necessarily have been awakened. When agriculture, and the kind of knowledge requisite for its ulterior development had introduced a certain degree of civilization into Egypt, the situation of that country, between Asia and Africa, and in the neighbourhood of the rich land of gold and spices, must have been highly favourable to the purposes of international commerce; hence Egypt appears in all ages to have been one of the chief seats of the inland or caravan trade.

3. It is obvious, therefore, that in the fertile valley of the Nile, the course of things must have been very different from what it was in the desert of Libya. Several small states appear to have been formed in this valley long before the existence of any great Egyptian kingdom. Their origin, as might naturally be supposed, is enveloped in an obscurity, which history can no longer entirely penetrate. It may still, however, be gathered from monuments and records, that Upper Egypt was first the seat of civilization; which, originating in the south, spread by the settlement of colonies towards the north. It is probable that this took place in consequence of the migration of some tribe, differing from the negroes, as is proved by the representations, both in sculpture and in painting, found on the yet remaining monuments of Egypt.

4. The records of the high antiquity of political civilization, not only in India, but likewise in Arabia Felix and Ethiopia, particularly in Meroe, and the evident vestiges of ancient intercourse between the southern nations of our globe, prove with sufficient evidence the truth of such migrations, although they cannot be chronologically determined. It is certain, however, that religion had no small share in producing them. The national bond of union in Egypt not only continued in later times, entirely dependent upon religion, but was originally grounded upon it. Thus every step in political civilization must have depended, if not solely, at least principally, on the caste of priests and on their extension.

General development of the idea of division into castes. Originating
at first in the variety of tribes settled in one and the same
country, and their different modes of life.--Its further progress
in despotic and in theocratic kingdoms.--Application to Egypt and
to the Egyptian caste of priests, as an original, civilized tribe.

5. The peculiarity of this caste was the worship of certain deities, the principal of which were Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha, confounded by the Greeks with their Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan. The spread of this worship, which was always connected with temples, affords, therefore, the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those vestiges combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to conclude that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, from beyond Meroe in Ethiopia, and by the establishment of inland colonies around the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of their gods the dominant religion in Egypt.

Proof of the accuracy of the above theory deduced from monuments and
express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from
Meroe; it might have been inferred from the preservation of the
worship of Ammon in the latter place. Memphis, again, and other
cities in the valley of the Nile, are commonly supposed to have been
founded by detachments from Thebes.

6. This conjecture, which agrees with the usual progress of population, is corroborated by the very ancient division of the country into districts, or nomes. This division was intimately connected with the chief temples, each of which represented a separate colony of the caste of priests; so that the inhabitants of every home belonged to the chief temple, and joined in the religious worship there performed.

7. To the gradual extension of this civilized tribe, which comprised, not only the caste of the priests, but certainly also that of the warriors, and perhaps some others, may be attributed the formation of several small states along the banks of the Nile; the central point of each being always such a colony as we have just now described; although each state consisted both of the aboriginal tribes of the neighbourhood, and of those that had migrated into the country. The bond which united every separate state was, therefore, as in most of those formed in the infancy of mankind, a common worship, in which all the members participated. But what, by reason of the peculiarities of soil and climate, could not take place in southern Africa, took place in Egypt: agriculture, and its progressive improvement, became the great support of civilization; and, as being the true foundation of states, formed the principal political object of the ruling caste.

Refutation of the idea, that the Egyptian priests were in possession
of great speculative knowledge; since their knowledge rather had
constant reference to practical life, and, therefore, was in their
hands the _instrumentum dominationis_ over the people, by which they
rendered themselves indispensable, and kept the former in a state of
dependence.--Explanation of the close reference which their gods,
their astronomical and mathematical sciences bore to agriculture.

8. According to Manetho's catalogues, these separate Egyptian states existed first in Upper and Middle Egypt; in the former were Thebes, Elephantine, This, and Heraclea; in the latter, Memphis. It is only in the last division of his work that we meet with states in Lower Egypt, such as Tanis, Mendes, Bubastis, and Sebennytus.

To these states, therefore, no doubt, belong the 330 kings after
Menes, whose names the priests read to Herodotus; as also those whom
Diodorus mentions as reigning previous to Sesostris, among whom are
remarked Busiris II. founder of Thebes, and Uchoreus, the founder of
Memphis. Eusebius and Syncellus have preserved from Manetho the names
of several of those kings, which Marsham has endeavoured to compare
and arrange.

9. In the absence of a certain and continuous chronology, it is impossible to determine accurately which of these states were contemporary, and which succeeded the others. There can be no question that Thebes was one of the earliest, if not indeed the most ancient of them all; certainly prior to Memphis, which was founded by it. According to the natural order of things, some of these states became wealthy and mighty, and swallowed up the others. Even at this early period, Thebes and Memphis had obtained a superiority over the rest.

This and Elephantine appear to have been united to Thebes; as were the
states of Lower Egypt to Memphis.

10. The Mosaic records prove, that even in Joseph's time the state of Memphis (the real place, it appears, of his residence, not On, or Heliopolis,) comprised Middle and Lower Egypt. It possessed a numerous and brilliant court; castes of priests and warriors. Its agriculture flourished, and several of its institutions indicated a deeply-rooted civilization. But after the establishment of vassalage in this state by Joseph, when the class of free proprietors was destroyed, by making the king the only landholder except the priests, the troubles which already threatened the kingdom must have assumed a more dangerous and alarming aspect.

11. These troubles came from abroad. Egypt, surrounded on all sides by nomad tribes, had often suffered from their irruptions, which sometimes poured in from the south, sometimes from the east. But never were these invasions so frequent and durable as in the period which immediately followed the administration of Joseph. Lower Egypt was overrun by the Bedouin Arabs, whose chieftains, called by the Egyptians _Hyksos_, settled in the country, fortified Avaris, or Pelusium, and extended their dominion to Memphis, which they made probably the seat of their government. They are depicted as the oppressors of religion, and of the caste of priests; but when we consider that Moses flourished in their time, we are led to infer that, like the Mongols in China, they must have gradually adopted Egyptian manners and civilization. They do not appear to have gained possession of Thebes in Upper Egypt; and it seems highly probable, that the long struggle against them was never, or at least but for a short time, suspended.

The dominion of the Arabian Hyksos falls between B. C. 1800-1600; and
consequently was contemporary with Moses and the exodus of the Jews.
Josephus gives 500 years to their dominion, in which he probably
comprises the long periods of earlier wars.

12. Defeat, and final expulsion of the Hyksos from Upper Egypt by Thutmosis king of Thebes. The consequence of this event was not only the restoration of freedom and independence to Egypt, but also the union of the different states into one kingdom; as the rulers of Thebes now became monarchs over all Egypt. This expulsion of the Hyksos, which in itself cannot be considered otherwise than as a vast national effort, must have been the more deeply impressed on the memory of the people, as it laid the foundation of the splendid period which immediately followed.

The expulsion of the Hyksos appears to have been one of the chief
subjects on which the Egyptian artists exercised their talents: it
is supposed to have been represented upon one of the large temples
in Thebes. Denon, plate cxxxiii.

SECOND PERIOD.

_From the Sesostridae until the sole dominion of Psammetichus. B. C. 1500-650._

The sources for this period are the same as for the foregoing; and
the history still preserves the character of records handed down by
hieroglyphics. To this period belongs the line of kings subsequent
to Sesostris, given both by Herodotus and Diodorus. Those two
historians nearly agree, if we regard Herodotus's line of kings,
not as uninterrupted, but as the fragments of a series deduced
solely from public monuments: this will be demonstrated by the
following table, in which the predecessors of Sesostris have
likewise been indicated.

HERODOTUS. DIODORUS.

_Menes._ _Menes._

He was followed by three Followed by fifty-two successors,
hundred and thirty kings ranging over a period of more
belonging to the previous than 1400 years.
period, concerning which our
information is very incomplete: _Busiris I._ and eight successors;
among those sovereigns were the last of whom was
eighteen Ethiopians, and one
queen named Nitocris. _Busiris II._ the founder of
Thebes.

_Osymandyas_ and eight successors;
the last of whom was

_Uchoreus_, founder of Memphis.

_Aegyptus_, grandson of the
foregoing. After the lapse
of twelve generations,

_Moeris._ _Moeris._

Seven generations.

_Sesostris._ _Sesostris_ or _Sesoosis_.

_Pheron_, son of Sesostris. _Sesostris II._ son of the
foregoing: he assumed his
father's name.

Interval comprising several
generations.

_Amasis_, and the Ethiopian,

_Actisanus._

_Mendes_ or _Manes_, builder
of the labyrinth.

Anarchy which lasted five
generations.

_Proteus_, in the time of the _Proteus_ or _Cetes_, in the time
Trojan war. of the Trojan war.

_Rhampsinitus._ _Remphis_, son of the foregoing.

Seven generations, in the course
of which flourished _Nileus_,
from whom the Nile derives
its name.

_Cheops_, builder of the great _Chemmis_ or _Chembes_, from
pyramid. Memphis, builder of the great
pyramid.

_Chephres_, brother to the _Cephren_, brother to the
foregoing, builder of a pyramid. foregoing, builder of a pyramid.

_Mycerinus_, son of Cheops, _Mycerinus_, son of Chemmis,
builder of a pyramid. builder of a pyramid.

_Asychis_ the legislator. _Bochoris_ the legislator.

_Anysis_, who was blind. Interval of several generations.

_Sabaco_, the Ethiopian. _Sabaco_, the Ethiopian

_Anysis_, king for the second
time.

_Sethos_, a priest of Vulcan.

Dodecarchy. Dodecarchy.

_Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole _Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole
ruler. ruler.

This comparative table demonstrates evidently, not only that
Herodotus's line is often interrupted, but likewise that it is
impossible to establish any continuous chronology, since Diodorus,
more than once leaves the number of generations undetermined. Great
importance, nevertheless, attaches to the date fixed by Herodotus,
ii, 13, where he declares that king Moeris flourished 900 years
before his own visit to Egypt: consequently between B.C. 1500 and
1450. And if, as seems highly probable, the age of Sesostris was
the 15th century B.C. (see ZOEGA, _de Obeliscis_), it cannot be
denied but that we have some general epochs; and with these we must
remain content until more satisfactory information can be
discovered on the monuments. It should likewise be observed, that
the discrepancy between the names of the kings mentioned by
Herodotus and Diodorus, and those furnished by Manetho, may be
accounted for by the fact, that the sovereigns were distinguished
by different names on the monuments and in common life.

Of the dynasties of Manetho, the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd, belong
to this period; more especially the two first, which contain the
most important of the Pharaohs.

1. The following period, nearly to its termination, was the brilliant age of Egypt, during which it formed but one empire; the kings being represented as sovereign lords of the whole country. And, indeed, it was natural that the expulsion of the invaders should be followed by a period in which the military force and ardour of the nation would be developed, and directed to external conquest. The capital of the empire was, no doubt, Thebes, the great monuments of which were erected in this period; that honour, however, seems to have alternately belonged to Memphis, Herodotus's line of kings being deduced from the monuments of that city, and more especially from the temple of Phtha.

The more powerful of the Pharaohs of this period, and the founders
of the most important monuments of Upper Egypt, on which their
names are found, are the following: belonging to the 18th dynasty,
somewhere about 1600-1500.

_Amenophis I._ His name is likewise found beyond Egypt on the
temple of Amada, in Nubia.

_Thutmosis I._ Commencement of the expulsion of the Hyksos.

_Amenophis II._ The Memnon of the Greeks. Complete expulsion of the
Hyksos, and commencement of several of the great edifices. His name
is also found on the monuments of Thebes, Elephantine, and even in
Nubia, on the distant temple of Soleb. Builder of the palace of
Luxor.

_Thutmosis II._ His name found in Carnac, and on the obelisk at the
Lateran.

_Ramesses I._ Supposed to be the Danaus of the Greeks. Expelled by
his brother:

_Ramesses II._ Miamun. Builder of the palace of Medinet-Abu in
Thebes. One of the royal graves that have been opened belongs to
this king.

_Amenophis III._ Renewed invasion of the Hyksos; he flees before
them into Ethiopia; but returns victorious with his son Ramesses.

Belonging to the 19th dynasty, between 1500 and 1400.

_Ramesses III._, called the Great, and sometimes _Sesostris_;
founder of the dynasty, liberator of Egypt, and a great conqueror.
His name and titles, his wars and triumphs, are found on the
temples and palaces of Luxor and Carnac, in Thebes and Nubia. His
son and follower:

_Ramesses IV._ Pheron, rules long in peace. His name is found in
the great pillared hall of the palace of Carnac, and on many other
buildings.

Among his successors but few names have been preserved until we
come to Scheschonk or Sisac, of the 22nd dynasty, between 970 and
950; he took Jerusalem under the reign of Rehoboam, and therefore
furnishes a fixed date.

# R. V. L. (RUEHLE VON LILIENSTERN), _Graphic Illustrations of the
most ancient History and Geography of Egypt and Ethiopia, with an
atlas, 1827_. A work containing every thing necessary for
understanding the discoveries hitherto made in this department of
history.

2. For this splendour, the empire was principally indebted to Sesostris, son of Amenophis. This prince is justly entitled to the surname of Great, which was given him by the Egyptians. No one will, to the letter, credit the narrative of his deeds, exaggerated as they were by the traditions of the priests, or represented, as they still appear, on the buildings of Thebes; but who can doubt the existence of a monarch of whom so many and such various monuments within and without Egypt bear witness?