EGYPTIANS.

Acquaintance of the ancients with Africa.

1. Although the Phœnicians 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.

General view of Africa.

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.

Physical geography of North Africa.

3. Physically considered, Northern Africa may be divided into three regions, distinguished inearly 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 theinhabited 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 thewild 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.

Political state.

4. There exists no political division which comprises the whole of Africa. The north coast alone was inhabited by civilized nations: Egyptians, Cyrenæans, and Carthaginians; of which the first only were aboriginals. The rest of the inhabitants either roved about as nomad hordes, orformed 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° E. long. from Ferro. 2nd. The fertile territory occupied by the Greek colonies, called Cyrenaïca, extended to the Greater Syrtis, 37—40° E. long. Cities: Cyrene, Barca. 3rd. The territory of Carthage, extending from the Greater Syrtis to the Fair Promontory, 25—40° 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.

Geography.

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. Thesoil 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,Course of the Nile.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 continuesto the end of October; so that during three whole months the above-mentioned parts of the country are under water.

Divisions of Egypt.

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.

Ethiopia.

Next above Egypt lies Ethiopia, (Æthiopia supra Ægyptum); 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° 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 atract 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.

Divisions of Egyptian history.

The Egyptian history is divided into three periods of unequal duration; thefirstof which extends from the earliest time down to the Sesostridæ, that is to say, to about B. C. 1500: thesecondcomprises the reigns of the Sesostridæ, or the brilliant period of Egypt, down to Psammetichus, 1500—650: thethirdbrings us from Psammetichus down to the Persian conquest, 650—525.

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 arepurely 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, (hiéroglyphes phonétiques,) 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: thehieratic, confined to the priests, and thedemotic, 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,Précis du Système Hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which theLettre à M. Dacier, 1822, is but the precursor, and the twoLettres à M. le duc de Blacasthe 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 nearMemphis. We may even restrict ourselves to one single monument at Memphis, to the temple of Vulcan, or Phtha, the chief templeof 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 completelyGræcisedhistory 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 toMenes; these they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings who bore them, becausethose 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 ofThebes, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and particularly Hecatæus. 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 EgyptianManetho, high priest atHeliopolis, who flourished under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote theÆgyptiaca, 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, fromKircher,Œdipus Ægyptiacus, 1670, toDe 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 beenmade byMarsham, in hisCanon Chronicus; and byGatterer, in his †Synchronistic History of the World.—Among the principal works on this subject may be reckoned:JablonskiPantheon Mythicum Ægyptiacum, 1750, 8vo.Gatterer,Commentationes de Theogonia Ægypt. inCommentat. Societ. Gotting.t. vii.De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctoreG. Zoega; Romæ, 1797.L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Géographie, la Religion, la Langue, les Ecritures, et l'Histoire de l'Egypte avant l'invasion de Cambyse, parChampollion 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 Herodoteæ, scribebatFrid. Creuzer.Ægyptica 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 inHeeren'sHistorical 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 hisVoyage 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, Antiquités, 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,Antiquités de la Nubie, Paris, 1824. A worthy continuation of the great French work on Egypt.Fr. Caillaud,Voyage à Méroé et au Fleuve Blanc, Paris, 1825, contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.

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, (hiéroglyphes phonétiques,) 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: thehieratic, confined to the priests, and thedemotic, 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,Précis du Système Hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which theLettre à M. Dacier, 1822, is but the precursor, and the twoLettres à M. le duc de Blacasthe 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 nearMemphis. We may even restrict ourselves to one single monument at Memphis, to the temple of Vulcan, or Phtha, the chief templeof 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 completelyGræcisedhistory 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 toMenes; these they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings who bore them, becausethose 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 ofThebes, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and particularly Hecatæus. 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 EgyptianManetho, high priest atHeliopolis, who flourished under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote theÆgyptiaca, 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, fromKircher,Œdipus Ægyptiacus, 1670, toDe 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 beenmade byMarsham, in hisCanon Chronicus; and byGatterer, in his †Synchronistic History of the World.—Among the principal works on this subject may be reckoned:

JablonskiPantheon Mythicum Ægyptiacum, 1750, 8vo.

Gatterer,Commentationes de Theogonia Ægypt. inCommentat. Societ. Gotting.t. vii.

De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctoreG. Zoega; Romæ, 1797.

L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Géographie, la Religion, la Langue, les Ecritures, et l'Histoire de l'Egypte avant l'invasion de Cambyse, parChampollion 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 Herodoteæ, scribebatFrid. Creuzer.Ægyptica 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 inHeeren'sHistorical 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 hisVoyage 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, Antiquités, 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,Antiquités de la Nubie, Paris, 1824. A worthy continuation of the great French work on Egypt.

Fr. Caillaud,Voyage à Méroé et au Fleuve Blanc, Paris, 1825, contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.

Early civilization of Egypt:

1. Political civilization commenced in Egypt at a much earlier period than that to which history reaches; for even in the days of Abraham, andstill 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 earlierof India.in India.

Causes of its early civilization.The Nile:

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.commerce.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 appearsin all ages to have been one of the chief seats of the inland or caravan trade.

Egyptian civilization came from the south.

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 ofMigrations from the south.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.

A caste of priests introduce their religion and civilization in Egypt.

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.

Nomes.

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 connectedwith 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.

Separate states founded in Egypt:

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 theinstrumentum dominationisover 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.

Manetho's account of them:

8. According to Manetho's catalogues, these separate Egyptian states existed first in Upperand 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.

obscurity of their chronology.

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.

Memphis a powerful state in Joseph's time: about 1800, B. C.

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.

Invasions by the nomad.

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 EgyptiansHyksos, or Bedouins.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.

Expulsion of the Hyksos:and rising splendour of Egypt.

12. Defeat, and final expulsion of the Hyksos from Upper Egypt by Thutmosis king of Thebes. The consequence of this event was not onlythe 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.

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 hundred and thirty kings belonging to the previous period, concerning which our information is very incomplete: among those sovereigns were eighteen Ethiopians, and one queen named Nitocris.Followed by fifty-two successors, ranging over a period of more than 1400 years.Busiris I.and eight successors; the last of whom wasBusiris II.the founder of Thebes.Osymandyasand eight successors; the last of whom wasUchoreus, founder of Memphis.Ægyptus, grandson of the foregoing. After the lapse of twelve generations,Mœris.Mœris.Seven generations.Sesostris.SesostrisorSesoosis.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.MendesorManes, builder of the labyrinth.Anarchy which lasted five generations.Proteus, in the time of the Trojan war.ProteusorCetes, in the time of the Trojan war.Rhampsinitus.Remphis, son of the foregoing.Seven generations, in the course of which flourishedNileus, from whom the Nile derives its name.Cheops, builder of the great pyramid.ChemmisorChembes, from Memphis, builder of the great pyramid.Chephres, brother to the foregoing, builder of a pyramid.Cephren, brother to the foregoing, builder of a pyramid.Mycerinus, son of Cheops, builder of a pyramid.Mycerinus, son of Chemmis, builder of a pyramid.Asychisthe legislator.Bochoristhe legislator.Anysis, who was blind.Interval of several generations.Sabaco, the Ethiopian.Sabaco, the EthiopianAnysis, king for the second time.Sethos, a priest of Vulcan.Dodecarchy.Dodecarchy.Psammetichusof Sais, sole ruler.Psammetichusof Sais, sole 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 Mœris 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. (seeZoega,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.

Herodotus.Diodorus.Menes.Menes.He was followed by three hundred and thirty kings belonging to the previous period, concerning which our information is very incomplete: among those sovereigns were eighteen Ethiopians, and one queen named Nitocris.Followed by fifty-two successors, ranging over a period of more than 1400 years.Busiris I.and eight successors; the last of whom wasBusiris II.the founder of Thebes.Osymandyasand eight successors; the last of whom wasUchoreus, founder of Memphis.Ægyptus, grandson of the foregoing. After the lapse of twelve generations,Mœris.Mœris.Seven generations.Sesostris.SesostrisorSesoosis.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.MendesorManes, builder of the labyrinth.Anarchy which lasted five generations.Proteus, in the time of the Trojan war.ProteusorCetes, in the time of the Trojan war.Rhampsinitus.Remphis, son of the foregoing.Seven generations, in the course of which flourishedNileus, from whom the Nile derives its name.Cheops, builder of the great pyramid.ChemmisorChembes, from Memphis, builder of the great pyramid.Chephres, brother to the foregoing, builder of a pyramid.Cephren, brother to the foregoing, builder of a pyramid.Mycerinus, son of Cheops, builder of a pyramid.Mycerinus, son of Chemmis, builder of a pyramid.Asychisthe legislator.Bochoristhe legislator.Anysis, who was blind.Interval of several generations.Sabaco, the Ethiopian.Sabaco, the EthiopianAnysis, king for the second time.Sethos, a priest of Vulcan.Dodecarchy.Dodecarchy.Psammetichusof Sais, sole ruler.Psammetichusof Sais, sole 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 Mœris 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. (seeZoega,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.

Brilliant period 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 sometimesSesostris; 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.

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 sometimesSesostris; 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.

Splendid reign of Sesostris.

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?

Critical examination of the accounts of the nine years' campaign, and conquests of Sesostris. His arms were principally directed against wealthy commercial countries; probably by land against Ethiopia, Asia Minor, and part of Thrace; by sea against Arabia Felix, perhaps even the Indian peninsula. Can the performance of these exploits be deemed improbable, in an age when western Asia did not contain a single great empire? The vast undertakings attributed to Sesostris in the interior of his dominions; extensive buildings, canals, division of the land, and imposition of taxes, according to a regular survey, prove that he must have been the sovereign of all Egypt.

State of the constitution.

3. Notwithstanding the great changes that were made, the constitution still bore the same general character, that of a sacerdotal aristocracy combined with a monarchy. Although the Egyptian kings, like the Indian princes, were distinct from the priests, yet their power was limited in various ways by that caste. The high priest shared the royal authority; the king was shackled by religious ceremonies, both in public and private life; he was obliged to evince his veneration for the established worship by the erection of public monuments; and all the high offices of state were in the hands of the priests. It cannot be denied that on the personal character of the king depended much of his power; but how strong must have been this aristocracy, when even successful conquerors were obliged to conciliate its approbation!

Division into castes.

4. It was probably about this time that the domestic relations of the people, the division into castes, was completed. The sacerdotal caste being in exclusive possession of all scientific knowledge, remained for that reason in possession of the offices of state. The caste of warriors could hardly have assumed its complete form before the country was united into one empire: in like manner that of the navigators could not have been completely established before the canals were excavated; although the origin of all may have been of a much earlier date.

Comparison of the accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus of the division into castes. Not only precedence in time, but likewise the discrepancies between the two, declare in favour of Herodotus.

Prosperous period of Egypt,B. C. 1500—900.714.

5. It appears, therefore, that the most prosperous period of the kingdom of the Pharaohs must be placed somewhere between B. C. 1500—900: although, according to Diodorus, even this period was interrupted by a long anarchy. The splendour of the empire was obscured towards the end. Sabaco, a foreign conqueror from Ethiopia, (probably from Meroe,) subjugated Egypt; after hisdeparture from the country, Sethos, a priest of Phtha, contrary to all precedent, seated himself upon the throne. He was, consequently, considered an usurper; he offended the caste of warriors, and could not have escaped the dangers of an irruption threatened by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, had not a pestilence compelled the invader and his host to retreat.

Back to Index Next