Chapter XI

_Pharaoh_,[172] the titular appellation of the monarchs of Egypt, being but the _local modification_ of this our Irish _Phearagh_, the mind is instinctively directed towards that great storehouse of bygone consequence. And as the best authority that we can command in gaining any insight into its reverses is through the medium of its own historians, let us hear what Manetho, a priest of the country, thus transmits:--

“We had formerly,” says he, “a king named Timæus, in whose reign, I know not why, but it pleased God to visit us with a blast of His displeasure; when, on a sudden, there came upon this country a large body of _obscure people_ from the East, and with great boldness invaded the land, and took it without opposition. Their behaviour to the natives was very barbarous; for they slaughtered the men, and made slaves of their wives and children. The whole body of this people were called _Huksos_, or _Uksos_; that is, Royal Shepherds: for the first syllable, in the _sacred dialect_, signifies a ‘king,’ as the latter, in the popular language, signifies ‘a shepherd.’ These two compounded together constitute the word Huksos. These people are said to have been Arabians.”

“The Vedas, or Sanscrit records of Hindustan, furthermore state that these invaders were the “Pali,” or shepherds, a powerful, warlike, and enterprising Indian tribe. While the deadly aversion which existed in the minds of the Egyptians against the name and office of a shepherd in Joseph’s day, is a lasting memorial of their visit and their severity.”[173]

They did not go, however, without leaving behind them other signs. The pages of Herodotus afford ample evidence of the resemblance between the Egyptian customs and those of the more remote East. By his description of the rites and ceremonies, the mode of life, etc., of the priests of Egypt, they are at once identified with the Brahmins of India. China still celebrates that festival of lamps which was formerly universal throughout the extent of Egypt;[174] and “we have the most indubitable authority for stating that the sepoys in the British overland army from India, when they beheld in Egypt the ruins of Dendera, prostrated themselves before the remains of the ancient temples, and offered up adoration to them; declaring, upon being asked the reason of this strange conduct, _that_ they _saw sculptured_ before them the Gods of their country.”[175]

But the most stupendous and appalling memento of their dominion and science was the three great pyramids of Geeza, the erection of which, Herodotus assures us (bk. ii. sec. 128), though the _priests_ would attribute to Cheops, Cephrenes, and Mycerinus, three Egyptian kings, “yet the _people_ ascribed them to a _shepherd_ named Philitis, _who at that time fed his cattle_ in those places”; so consonant with the _invasion_ above authenticated. This is additionally confirmed by the Sanscrit records already referred to, informing us of _three mountains_, Rucm-adri, “the Mount of Gold,” Rajat-adri, “the Mount of Silver,” and Retu-adri, “the Mount of Gems”; having been raised by that Indian colony who had conquered Egypt; which is only a figurative denotation of those _factitious heights_, those astounding monuments of religion and ostentation, which were originally cased with _yellow_, _white_, and _spotted marbles_, brought from the quarries of Arabia, until stripped by the rapacity of succeeding colonies.

Belzoni’s testimony is decisive on this point, as his drawing of the second pyramid represents the upper part of its casing remaining still entire, about a third of the distance from the summit to the base downwards. We meet with other pyramids, it is true, chiefly dispersed about the Libyan deserts, but they are much inferior to the fore-mentioned three, except one near the mummies, whose dimensions and structure are very nearly the same with the largest Gezite one. This latter, according to Greaves, is 693 feet square at the base; its perpendicular height 499 feet; that is, 62 feet higher than St. Peter’s at Rome, and 155 feet higher than St. Paul’s in London; while the inclining height is 693 feet, exactly equal to the breadth of the base; so that the angles and base make an equilateral triangle.[176] Belzoni measures them all differently, and gives to the second even greater dimensions than are _usually_ assigned to the first or largest, viz. base, 684; perpendicular height, 456; central line down front, from apex to base, 568; coating, from top to where it ends, 140.

The variation arises from the circumstance of the latter gentleman’s measurement having been taken after the base had been cleared away of all sand and rubbish; while those of his predecessors applied only as taken from the level of the surrounding heap. The small ones above noticed are some quadrilateral, _some round, terminating like a sugar-loaf_, some rising with a greater and some with a lesser inclination. All commence immediately south of Cairo, but on the opposite side of the Nile, and extend, in an uninterrupted range, for many miles in a southerly direction, parallel with the banks of the river.

After what has been said above, I need scarcely allude to the ridiculous supposition of those having been built by Joseph as granaries for his corn! Their form and construction, ill adapted to such an occasion, refutes that absurdity, as it does the derivation upon which it has been founded, viz. the _Greek_ words πυρος, wheat, and αμαω, I gather; as if, forsooth, an _Egyptian_ structure, erected before the _Greek_ language was ever known to exist, should wait for a designation until Greece should be pleased to christen it. Still more disposed must one be to discard with contempt the usual derivation given them, of πυρ, fire; as this not only labours under the weakness of the former, but betrays an ignorance of the correct idea of the Greek word πυρος, of which πυρ, fire, is the true derivation, “quia flammæ instar in _acutum_ tendit”;[177] intimating its _continually tapering_ until it ends in a _point_; whereas the top of the Egyptian _pyramids_ never does so end; that of the largest above described ending in a flat of nine stones, besides two wanting at the angles, each side of this platform being about sixteen feet; so that a considerable number of people may stand on it, and have, as from most of ours, one of the most beautiful prospects imaginable.

Wilkins’s derivation from _pouro_, a king, and _misi_, a race, would seem plausible enough, being a purely Coptic or Egyptian analysis; but when we consider the general ascription of them by the people to the _shepherd Philitis_, whether as one of the _Pali_--that is, shepherds--or Uksi, which meant the same--king-shepherds above adduced; or as _emphatically the shepherd_, the son of Israel,[178] it argues a disposition on the part of the people to assign the honour--if taken in the latter light--to the workmen employed; if in the former, to a prince of a different dynasty from those whom the Egyptian priests would fain associate with them. This derivation, therefore, will not stand; and we have only to betake ourselves to the ingenious conjecture of Lacroze,[179] which, perhaps, may give more satisfaction respecting the etymology of the word _pyramid_. Lacroze derives it from the _Sanscrit term_ Biroumas, and traces an analogy between Brahma, Birma (which the Indians of Malabar pronounce Biroumas), and the word Piromis, which means the same thing, namely, a virtuous and upright character--Piromia meaning, according to him, in the language of Ceylon, man in general.

Herodotus states,[180] that the priests of Egypt kept in a spacious building large images of wood, representing all their preceding _high priests_, arranged in genealogical order, every high priest placing his image there during his life. They mentioned to Hecatæus, the historian, when they were showing this edifice to him, that each of the images he saw represented a _Piromis_, begotten by another _Piromis_, which word, says Herodotus, signifies, in their language, a _virtuous_ and _honest man_. A passage from Synesius, the celebrated bishop of Cyrene, in his treatise “on Providence,” at once coincides with, and is illustrative of this anecdote. “The father of Osiris and Typhon,” says he, “was at the same time a _king_, a _priest_, and a _philosopher_. The Egyptian histories also rank him among the gods; for the Egyptians are disposed to believe that many divinities reigned in their country in succession before it was governed by men, and before their kings were reckoned in a genealogical order by _Peirom_ after Peirom.”

The Japanese celebrate an annual festival in honour of one _Pireun_, who, they say, was many ages ago king of _Formosa_, and who, being disgusted with the abandoned morals of his subjects--wealthy traders--consigned himself solely to the worship of the gods. Forewarned in a dream, he took flight from the impending visitation, and had scarcely sailed ere the island, with its inhabitants, sunk to the bottom of the sea. As for the good king, he arrived safe in China, whence he went over to Japan, where he has been ever since honoured by the above commemoration.

The true Coptic name for those edifices is Pire monc--which signifies a _sunbeam_[181]--not so much in allusion to their _form_ as to their appropriation, which we shall make the subject of a separate inquiry.

It has, I trust, satisfactorily been proved that the erection and nomination of those wondrous edifices were not of _native_ growth. It has, I trust, additionally appeared that _both_ were essentially Indian. It may not now be “ungermane to the matter,” if we would for a moment digress, to consider the era of their probable date, as introductory to the character of their probable destination.

Josephus expressly informs us that the Israelites were employed in the construction of the pyramids. Is there any reason why we should doubt so respectable an authority? Oh, yes, it is said the Scriptures are against it--the task of the Israelites during their bondage being exclusively confined to the making of brick. I deny that the Scriptures either allege or insinuate any such thing. On the contrary, we may fairly infer, from Ex. ix. 8, 10, that they were engaged in other servile offices; as also from Ps. lxxxi. 6, where it is said, “I removed his shoulder from the _burden_, and his hands were delivered from the _mortar-box_”--not _pots_, as our translation has it; and such rendering is supported by the Septuagint, Vulgate, Symmachus, and others.[182]

This ascription receives further countenance from a passage in Diodorus, i. 2, where, referring to those immense piles, and the ideas of the Egyptians themselves respecting them, he adds: “They say the first was erected by Armæus, the second by Amosis, the third by Inaron.” Who is it that pronounces the last two names, if only spelled, aMosis and inAron, and recollects, at the same time, what the Scriptures tell us of Moses and Aaron, that is not at once struck with the similarity of the sound? And as to Armæus, why it bears so evident an affinity with Aramæus or Aramean, that one cannot avoid connecting it with the “Aramite ready to perish,” the very name given to Jacob, Deut. xxvi. 5.[183] Nothing, then, prevents, so far as I can see, our concluding _one_ of those structures at least--I say one at least to _conciliate_ the brick-party; and I think, besides, I have read somewhere, that one of the pyramids, the smaller ones no doubt, was built of such material--to have been the work of the sons of Israel. And the rather as it was consonant with the uniform practice of the ancient Oriental nations to employ captive foreigners on servile and laborious works.

The usual time, too, assigned to the slavery of the Israelites corresponds very nearly with that generally allotted to the erection of those masses. The stay of the sons of Israel in the land of Egypt is generally understood to have been two hundred and fifteen years. Of these Joseph ruled seventy; forty is a fair average for the generation that succeeded--which, added to his seventy, leaves one hundred and five years to the Exodus. Now we learn from Herodotus that Cheops, the _reputed_ founder of the first or greatest of these pyramids, was the first also of the Egyptian kings who oppressed, or in any way tyrannised over, his subjects. His reign is stated to have been fifty years. Cephrenes, who succeeded, showed himself in every respect his brother, barring, as the other before him, the approach to every temple, stopping the performance of the usual sacrifices, and keeping his subjects all the while employed in every species of oppressive task and laborious drudgery. The period of his reign is stated to have been fifty-six years, which, added to the preceding fifty, make one hundred and six, exactly answering to the above calculation.

The Exodus, besides, is stated to have occurred B.C. 1791; and Herodotus and Diodorus together, while acknowledging their ignorance of the actual date of the pyramids, and the impossibility, on their part, to ascertain it, declare also their conviction that they must have been built at least about that period.

I have thus, I trust, done honourable justice to the testimony of Josephus. I have done so for many reasons--firstly, because of the importance of the subject itself; secondly, from my respect for the merits of the writer; and, thirdly, because that I think it very probable indeed that the Israelites may have been occupied in the erection of some of the minor and later pyramids. But _insuperable_ obstacles stand in the way of our associating them with the structure of them _all_; and of these _one_ is, the improbability that the victorious invaders would single out the inoffensive Israelites as particular objects of their oppression, when policy should suggest to them a directly different course in securing their adherence in opposition to the native residents. By Josephus’s account, however, it would appear that the Israelites alone were engaged upon those edifices; and the Scriptures themselves confine the intimation of drudgery to the Israelitish race: it therefore is manifest that the Egyptian _natives_ were favoured by the _then existing_ dynasty, while it is on all hands agreed, that the _new_-comers had treated during the whole period of their dominion, the _entire_ Egyptian nation with indiscriminate rigour and chastisement.

Besides this, that deadly animosity existing in the Egyptian mind to the name and profession of shepherds, above alluded to, at once identifies their character with that of the “Uksi,” or “King-shepherds,” to whom we have before referred, and proves the date of their invasion anterior in point of time to Israel’s introduction into the land of Egypt. Joseph was well aware of the particulars of this invasion, and of the sting it left behind it in the mind of the Egyptians; and accordingly he acquaints his brothers, whose “trade also had been about cattle,” that “every shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians.”[184]

Manetho himself, the Egyptian priest, is my voucher for this deduction, when he says that, “After these--the shepherd-kings--came _another set of people_ who were sojourners in Egypt, in the reign of Amenophis. These chose themselves a leader one who was a priest of Heliopolis, and whose name was Osarsiph; and after he had listed himself with this body of men he changed his name to Moses.”

But this, it will be said, is at variance with Moses’ own account, which states that he obtained his name on being rescued from a watery cradle by Pharaoh’s daughter. Not in the least, I reply; for it is more than probable that, after his slaying the Egyptian, and consequent flight, he dropped his name to ensure concealment, and only resumed it on being invested with his divine commission. Or, what is more likely still, and perhaps the truth, that Osarsiph was the name which his “mother” had given him, and which adhered to him until “he grew up,”--a term in Scripture which expresses _mature_ age,--until when it was not that the princess had designated him as Moses.

Strong, too, as my veneration is for Josephus, I cannot conceal either from myself or from the reader, that his testimony in _this instance_ is rather of a dubious character. The idea of interpolation I altogether waive--it is, at _all times_, a contemptible subterfuge. I will take for granted that the text is genuine; and, on the very face of it, it bears the impress--in the first place, of inaccuracy, confounding the period of his countrymen’s _servitude_ with that of their actual _sojourn_ in Egypt; and, in the second place, of _indistinctness_, attaching a term of obloquy to those edifices, without condescending to offer therefor any cause. Here are his own words: “When time had obliterated the benefits of Joseph, and the kingdom of Egypt had passed into another family, they inhumanely treated the Israelites, and wore them down in various labours: for they ordered them to divert the course of the river (Nile) into many ditches, and to build walls, and raise mounds by which to confine the inundations of the river (Nile); and, moreover, vexed our nation in constructing FOOLISH PYRAMIDS, forced them to learn various arts, and inured them to undergo great labours; and after this manner did they, for _four hundred years_, endure bondage; the Egyptians doing that to destroy the Israelites by overmuch labour, whilst we ourselves endeavoured to struggle against all our difficulties.”

Now, it is not a little remarkable, as connecting the erection of the pyramids with the “royal shepherd race,” the former occupants of the above fertile territory, that those immense edifices happen to be situated in the very vicinity of Goshen. Geeza, where the three _great ones_ stand, is universally allowed to have been the site whereon Memphis once stood; and as a west wind took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea (Ex. x. 19), Goshen, which we find by Gen. xlv. 10, cannot have been far from Joseph’s own residence, will be more aptly fixed in the vicinity of this spot within the Heliopolitan nome, than within any other nome or præfecture, particularly the Tanitic, “where the same wind,” as has been justly remarked by Dr. Shaw, “would not have blown those insects into the Red Sea, but into the Mediterranean, or else into the land of the Philistines.” Goshen, then, was that part of “the land of Rameses,” “the best of the land” (Gen. xlvii. 6-11) which lay in the neighbourhood of Cairo, but on the opposite side of the Nile, where, as already observed, the pyramids are first met with, and whence they proceed in a continued line along the banks of the river, in a southerly direction for many miles together.

After reading these details it will be impossible, I conceive, for any dispassionate mind to remain longer in suspense as to the origin of the pyramids. The doubt, too, and obscurity in which they have been heretofore enveloped can be explained with similar ease, if we but remember the execration in which their Cushite founders were held by the Egyptians, and their consequent disinclination to associate their name with such splendid memorials. With this view, indeed, it is not at all improbable but that active legislative measures were adopted to cancel and suppress every vestige of proof which could tend to perpetuate the memory of the obnoxious erectors. So that we must not wonder if, after a lapse of years, their history was as great a riddle to the Egyptians themselves as that of _our pyramids_ is to the Irish nation.

A collateral cause for this universal ignorance of their use and origin was the probable absence of letters on the part of the Egyptians, until now, for the first time, introduced by those learned Arabians; and though any one who is acquainted with the oriental disquisitions of Wilfrid, and the coincidences he establishes between the ancient history of Egypt and the account given of the customs and dynasties of that kingdom, as drawn from the Hindoo Puranas, will at once admit that “there must have been a period when a Hindoo power had reigned in Egypt by right of conquest,” and established therein the peculiar rites of their religion with the elements of literature and social civilisation, yet it is probable that during their sojourn, which, we have seen, was a continued series of warfare, they kept themselves aloof from all intercourse with the natives, and checked, as much as possible, the circulation of their science among them.

Some _sparks_ of it, however, must inevitably have transpired; and the Egyptian intellect was too finely constituted to be insensible to its value, or allow it to extinguish without food; so that, in the time of Moses, and long after, their learning and accomplishments were courted by the philosophers of the day, and were so eminently conspicuous, as to become a proverb (Acts Apost. vii. 22). Homer, we all know, visited that favoured land--so did Pythagoras--so did Solon, Thales, Plato, and Eudoxus; in short, all the sages of antiquity, of whom we read so much, and whom we peruse with such _recuperative_ pleasure, either finished their education in that favoured school, or conversed with those who had themselves done so.

The Egyptians are said to have been the first who brought the “rules of government,” with the art of making “life easy” and “a people happy”--the _true end_ of worldly politics--to a regular system. But much as they excelled other nations in scientific lore, in nothing was their superiority so conspicuous as in that _magic_ art which enabled them to cope, for so long a time, and under such trying varieties, even with the prophet and ambassador of God himself.

These exhibitions are too stubbornly authenticated by scriptural proofs, as well in the Old as in the New Testament,[185] for any one to affect disbelief in them without at the same time disbelieving the authenticity of the Scriptures themselves. Yes, I implicitly subscribe to the truth of the narration; and as I mean to bring home their _initiation_ in the art, as well as in their other several accomplishments, to the Chaldean diviners, or _Aire Coti_ shepherds--a branch of the Tuath-de-danaan colonists of this our western isle--from whom, or their relatives, under the designation of Uksi, Indo-Scythæ, or Cushite shepherds--who, if not all one and the same, were at least mixed and incorporated--the Egyptians had imbibed it--this, I trust, will plead my excuse for obtruding its notice here, as well as for dilating so much at large upon the early history of Egypt.[186]