« السابقةمتابعة »
these cantons was called a nomo (v6ixos) by the Greeks, praefectura oppidornm by the Romans. Each had" its civil governor, the Nomarch (v6fiapX°0> wh° collected the crown revenues, and presided in the local capital and chief court of justice. Each nome, too, had its separate priesthood, its temple, chief and inferior towns, its magistrates, registration and peculiar creed, ceremonies, and customs, and each was apparently independent of every other nome. At certain seasons delegates from the various cantons met in the palace of the Labyrinth for consultation on public affairs (Strab. p. 811). According to Diodorus (i. 54), the nomes date from Sesostris. But they did not originate with that monarch, but emanated probably from the distinctions of animal worship; and the extent of the local worship probably determined the boundary of the nome. Thus in the nome of Thebais, where the ramheaded deity was worshipped, the sheep was sacred, the goat was eaten and sacrificed: in that of Mendes, where the goat was worshipped, the sheep was a victim and an article of food. Again, in the nome of Ombos, divine honours were paid to the crocodile: in that of Tentyra, it was hunted and abominated; and between Ombos and Tentyra there existed an internecine feud. (Juv. Sat. xv.) The extent and number of the nomes cannot be ascertained. They probably varied with the political state of Egypt. Under a dynasty of conquerors, they would extend eastward and westward to the Eed Sea and Libyan deserts: under the Hyksos, the Aethiopian conquest, and the times of anarchy subsequent to the Persian invasion, they would shrink within the Nile-valley. The kingdoms of Sais and Xois and the foundation of Alexandria probably multiplied the Deltaic cantons: and generally, commerce, or the residence of the military caste, would attract the nomes to Lower Egypt. According to Strabo (pp. 787, 811), the Labyrinth, or hall of the Nomarchs, contained 27 chambers, and thus, at one period, the nomes must have been 27 in number, 10 in the Thebaid, 10 in the Delta, and 7, as its name implies, in the Heptanomis. But the Heptanomis, at another period, contained 16 nomes, and the sum of these cantons is variously given. From the dodecarchy or government of 12 kings, and from Herodotus' assertion (ii. 148) that there were only 12 halls in the Labyrinth, we are disposed to infer, that at one time there were only 12 of these cantons, and that there were always 12 larger or preponderating nomes. According to the lists given by Pliny (v. 9. § 9) and Ptolemy, there must have been at least 45 nomes; but each of these writers gives several names not found in the other, and if we should add the variations of the one list to the other, the sum would be much greater.
There was, under the Macedonian kings, a subdivision of the nomes into toparchies, which was probably an arrangement to meet the fiscal system of the Greeks. (Herod, ii. 164; Diod. i. 54; Strab. xvii; Cyrill. Alex, ad Isaiam, six. 2; Epiphan Ifaera. 24. § 7.)
The following list of the principal Nomes will illustrate the variety of these territorial subdivisions as regards religious worship.
A. Nomes Of The Delta. The most important were: —
1. The Menelaite; chief town Canobus, with a celebrated temple and oracle of Serapis (Strab. p. 801; Plut. I: a Orir. c 27.)
2. The Andropolite; chief town Andropolis.
3. The Sebennytic; capital Pachnamunis (PtoL), worshipped Latona.
4. The Chemmite (Herod, ii. 165); capital Bnto. Its deity was also called Buto, whom the Greeks identified with Leto. Ptolemy calls this canton 4>0e«Sn)r, and Pliny (v. 9) Ptenefha,
5. The Onuphite; chief town Onuphis. (Herod, ii. 166.)
6. The Phthemphuthite: capital Tava. (*6tn<poM vofids, PtoL; Phthempha, Plin. v. 9.)
7. The Saite; chief city Sais, worshipped Neith or Athene, and contained a tomb and a sanctuary of Osiris. (Herod, ii. 170; Strab. p. 802.) Under the dynasty of the Saitic Kings this was the principal of the Deltaic cantons.
8. TheBusirite; capital Busiris, worshipped Isis, and at one epoch-, according to Hellenic tradition at least, sacrificed the red-coloured men who came over the sea, i. e. the, nomades of Syria and Arabia (Herod, i. 59, 33, 165; Strab. p. 802; Plut. de I: et Os. p. 30.)
9. The Thmuite; chief town Thmuis (Herod, ii. 168), afterwards incorporated with the following:
10. The Mendesian; capital Mendes (Herod, ii. 42, 46; Diod. i. 84), worshipped the goat Mendes, or the horned Pan.
11. The Tanite; chief town Tanis. (Herod, ii. 166; Strab. p. $02.) In this nome tradition arSrmed that the Hebrew legislator was born and educated.
12. The Bubastite; capital Bubastus, contained a noble temple of Bubastis or Artemis. (Herod, ii. 59, 67, 137.)
13. The Athribite; capital Athribis, where the shrewmouse and crocodile were held in reverence.
14. The Heliopolite, west of the Delta, and sacred to the sun, from whom its capital Heliopolis (On) derived its name. (Herod, ii. 9; Diod. v. 56; Joseph. Ant. ii. 3.)
15. The Heroopolite; chief town Heroopolis, a principal seat of the worship of Typhon, the evil or destroying genius.
Besides these the Delta contained other less important nomes, — the Nitriote, where the Natron Lakes, Nitrariae (Plin. v. 9) were situated; the Letopolite (Strab. p. 807); the Prosopite; the Leontopolite; the Mentelite; the Pharbaethitc; and the Sethraite.
B. Nomes or The Heptanomis. The most important were :—
1. The Mcmpbite, whose chief city Memphis was the capital of Egypt, and the residence of the Pharaohs, who succeeded Psammetichus B. c. 616. Tho Memphite Nome rose into importance on the decline of the kingdom of Thebais, and was itself in turn eclipsed by the Hellenic kingdom of Alexandria. [memphis.]
2. The Aphroditopolite; chief town Aphroditopolis, was dedicated to Athor or Aphrodite.
3. The Arsinoite, the Fayoom, celebrated for its worship of the crocodile, from which its capital Crocodilopolis, afterwards Arsinoe, derived its name. [AnsniOE.] The Labyrinth and the Lake of lloeris were in this canton.
4. The Heracleote, in which tho ichneumon was worshipped. Its principal town was Heracleopolis Magna.
5. The Hennopolite, the border nome between Middle and Upper Egypt. This was at a very early period a nourishing canton. Its cliief city Hermopolis stood near the frontiers of the Hepta
rtornis, a little to the north of tho castle and toll-house ('E(yioiro\iT£b/n <pukaxii, Strab. p. 813), where the portage was levied on all craft coming from the Upper Country.
6. The Cynopolite, the seat of the worship of the hound and dog-headed deity Anubis. Its capital was Cynopolis, which must however be distinguished from the Deltaic city and other towns of the same name. (Strab. p. 812; Ptol.; Plut. Is. ft Osir. c. 72.)
The Greater Oasis (Ammonium) and the Lesser were reckoned among the Heptanomite Cantons: but both were considered as one nome only. [oases.]
C. Nohes Of Ufpeb Egypt. The most important were: —
1. The Lycopolite, dedicated to the worship of the wolf. Its chief town was Lycopolis.
2. The Antacopolitc, probably worshipped Typhon (Diod. i. 21); its capital was Antacopolis (Plut. de Solert. Anim. 23.)
3. The Aphroditopolite [Comp. Nome (2), Hcptanomis.] In cases where a southern and a northern canton possessed similar objects of worship, the latter was probably an offset or colony of the former, as the Thebaid was the original cradle of Egyptian civilisation, which advanced northward.
4. The Panopolite or, as it was afterwards called, the Chemmite, offered hero-worship to an apotheosized man, whom the Greeks compared to the Minyan hero Perseus. (Herod, ii. 91.) This canton, whose chief town was Panopolis or Chemmis (Diod. i. 18), was principally inhabited by linen-weavers and stonemasons.
5. The Thinite, probably one of the most ancient, as it was originally the leading nome of the Thebaid, and the nome or kingdom of Menes of This, the founder of the Egyptian monarchy. The Thinite nome worshipped Osiris, contained a Memnonimn, and, in Roman times at least (Amm. Marc. xix. 12; Spartian. Hadrian. 14), an oracle of Besa. Its capital was Abydus, or, as it was called earlier, This. [abidus.]
6. The Tentyrite worshipped Athor (Aphrodite), Isis, and Typhon. Its inhabitants bunted the crocodile, and were accordingly at feud with the Ombite nome. (Juv. xv.) Its chief town was Tentyra.
7. The Coptite, whose inhabitants were principally occupied in the caravan trade between Berenice, Myos Hormos, and the interior of Arabia and Libya. Its capital was Coptos. [Cor-ros.]
8. The Hermonthite, worshipped Osiris and his son Orus: its chief town was Hermonthis.
9. The Apollonite, like the Tentyrite nome, destroyed tho crocodile (Strab. p. 817; Plin. v. 9; Aclian, B. An. x. 21 ; Plut. Is. et Os. 50), and reverenced the sun. Its capital was Apollinopolis Magna. This nome is sometimes annexed to the preceding.
10. The Ombite (Ombites praefectura, Plin. H. N. v. 9), worshipped the crocodile as tho emblem of Sebak (comp. supra (6) and (9), and the Arsinoite (3), Heptanomite nomes). Ombos was its capital. The quarries of sandstone, so much employed in Egyptian architecture, were principally seated in this canton.
V. Animal Worship. Animal worship is so intimately connected with the division of the country into nomes, and, in some degree, with the Institution of castes, that we must briefly allude to it, although the subject is much
too extensive for more than allusion. The .„TMr of animals was either general or particular, common to the whole nation, or several to the nome. Thns throughout Egypt, the ox, the dog, and the cat, the ibis and the hawk, and the fishes lepidotus and oxyrrynchus, were objects of veneration. The sheep was worshipped only in the Saitic and Thebaid nomes: the goat at Mendcs; the wolf at Lycopolis; the copns (a kind of ape) at Babylon, near Memphis; the lion at Leontopolis, the eagle at Thebes, the shrewmouse at Athribis, and others elsewhere, as will be particularly noticed when we speak of their respective temples. As we have already seen, the object of reverence in one nome was accounted common and unclean, if not, indeed, the object of persecution hi another. Animal worship has been in all ages the opprobrium of Egypt (comp. Clem. Alex. iii. 2, p. 253, Potter; Diod. j. 84> The Hebrew prophets denounced, the anthropomorphic religionists of Hellas derided it To the extent to which tho Egyptians carried it, especially in the decline of the nation, it certainly approached to the fetish superstitions of the neighbouring Libya. But we must !<ear in mind, that our vergers to the Coptic temples are Greeks who, being ignorant of the language, misunderstood much tliat they heard, and being preoccupied by their own ritual or philosophy, misinterpreted much that they saw. One good effect may lie ascribed to this form of superstition. In no country was humanity to the brute creation so systematically practised. The origin of animal worship has been variously, but never satisfactorily, accounted for. If they were worshipped as the auxiliaries of the husbandman in producing food or destroying vermin, how can we account for the omission of swine and asses, or for the adoption of lions and wolves among the objects of veneration? The Greeks, as was their wont, found many idle solutions of an enigma which probably veiled a feeling originally earnest and pious. They imagined that animals were worshipped because their efligies were the standards in war, like the Roman Dii Castronim. This is evidently a substitution of cause for effect. The representations of animals on martial ensigns were the standards of the various nomes (Diod. i. 85). Lucian (Astrolog. v. p. 215, seq. Bipont) suggested that the bull, the lion, the fish, tho ram, and the goat, &c. were correlates to the zodiacal emblems; but this surmise leaves the crocodile, the cat, and the ibis, &c of tho temples unexplained. It is much more probable that, among a contemplative and serious race, as the Egyptians certainly were, animal-worship arose out of the detection of certain analogies between instinct and reason, and that to the initiated the reverence paid to beasts was a primitive expression of pantheism, or tho recognition of the Creator in every type of his work. The Egyptians are not the only people who have converted type into substance, or adopted in a literal sense the metaphorical symbols of faith.
VI. Castes and Political Institutions. The number of the Egyptian castes is very variously stated. Herodotus (ii. 164) says that they were seven — the sacerdotal and the military, herdsmen, swineherds, shopkeepers, interpreters, and boatmen. Plato (Timaeus, iii. p. 24) reckons six; Diodorus, in (me passage (i. 28) represents them as three — priests and husbandmen, from whom the army was levied, and artisans. But in another
(i. 74) he extends the number to five, by the addition of soldiers and shepherds. Strabo limits them to three — priests, soldiers, and husbandmen — and as this partition is virtually correct, we shall adopt it after brief explanation. The existence of castes is a corroborative proof of the Asiatic origin of the Egyptians. The stamp, of caste was not in Egypt, as is sometimes asserted, indelible. The son usually, but not inevitably, followed his father's trade or profession. From some of the pariah classes indeed — such as that of the swineherds — it was scarcely possible to escape.
The land in Egypt upon which the institution of castes rested belonged in fee only to the king, the priests, aud the soldiers. We know from Genesis (xlvii. 26) that all other proprietors of the soil had surrendered their rights to the crown, and received their lands again subject to an annual rent of J of the produce. The priests we know (Genes. I. c), the soldiers we infer (Diod. i. 74), retained their absolute ownership; and in so productive a country as Egypt the husbandman was too important a person to be deprived at once of all his political rights. He was in fact an integral although an inferior section of the war-caste. The privileged orders however were the king, the priest, the soldier: —
1. The King was at first elective, and always a member of the priesthood. He afterwards became hereditary, and was taken indifferently from the sacerdotal and military orders. If however he were by birth a soldier, he was adopted on his accession by the priests. Even the Ptolemies were not allowed to reign without such previous adoption. His initiation into the sacred mysteries was represented on monuments by the tau, the emblem of life and the key of secrecy, impressed upon his lips (Pint, de Is. et'Otir. p. 354, B.; Plat. Rep. ii. p. 290).
The king, when not engaged in war, was occupied in jurisdiction and the service of religion. The royal life was one long ceremony. His rising and his lying down; his meals, his recreations, and the order of his employments, were rigidly prescribed to him. Some liberty in law-making indeed was allowed him, since we read of the laws of Sesostris, Ainasis, and other Egyptian rulers: and, with vigorous occupants of the throne, it is probable that the soldier occasionally transgressed the priestly ordinances. As but few, however, of the Egyptian monarchs seem to have grossly abused their power, we may conclude that the hierarchy at least tempered royal despotism. In paintings the king is always represented as many degrees taller and more robust than his subject warriors. A thousand fly before him, and he holds strings of prisoners by the hair. The Egyptian king "wears also the emblems and sometimes even the features of the gods; and it is frequently diificult to distinguish on the monuments Sesortasen, Amonopht, &c. from Osiris. It is remarkable that females were not excluded from a throne so sacerdotal. A queen, Nitocris, occurs in the sixth dynasty; another, Scemiophris, in the twelfth, and other examples are fonnd in the sculptures. On the decease of a sovereign a kind of posthumous judgment was exercised on his character and government. His embalmed body was placed in the sepulchre, and all men were permitted to bring accusations against him. Virtuous princes received a species of deification: condemned princes were debarred from sepulture.
2. The Priests however were, in ordinary times, the real governing body of Egypt. Their lands were
exempt from tribute: their persons were greeted with servile homage; they were the sole depositaries of learning and science: and they alone were acquainted with all the formularies which in Egypt regulated nearly every action of life. Their various and incessant occupations appear even in the titles of the subdivisions of the priest-caste. "Each deity," says Herodotus (ii. 37), " had several priests [priestesse^ and a high priest." The chiefs or pontiffs were the judges of the land, the councillors of the sovereign, the legislators and the guardians of the great mysteries. The minor priests were prophets, inferior judges and magistrates, hierophants, hiero-grammats or sacred scribes, basilico-grammats or royal scribes, dressers and keepers of the royal and sacerdotal wardrobes, physicians, heralds, keepers of the sacred animals, architects, draughtsmen, beadles, vergers, sprinklers of water, fan bearers, &c. (Wilkinson, M. and ft vol. i. p. 238). So numerous a staff was not in the peculiar polity of Egypt altogether superfluous, neither does it seem to have been peculiarly burdensome to the nation, since it derived its support from regular taxes and from its proprietary lands. Nowhere in the ancient world was the number of temples so great as in Egypt: nowhere were there so many religious festivals; nowhere was ordinary life so intimately blended with religion. The priest therefore was mixed up in affairs of the market, the law court, the shop, the house, in addition to his proper vocation in the temple. His life was the reverse of ascetic: in the climate of Egypt frequent ablutions, linen garments, papyrus sandals, were luxuries, — only polygamy was forbidden him. But he was enjoined to marry, and the son succeeded the father in the sacred office (Herod, ii. 143). Herodotus (comp. ii. 35, 55) contradicts himself in saying that females could not fulfil sacerdotal duties,— women might be incapable of the highest offices, but both sculptures and documents prove, that they were employed in many of the minor duties connected with the temples.
3. The Soldiers. The whole military force of Egypt amounted to 410,000 men (Herod, ii. 165—166; Diod. i. 54). It was divided into two corps, the Calasirians and the Hermotybians. The former were the more numerous, and in the most flourishing era of Egypt, the 18th and 19th dynasties, were estimated at 250,000 men. Each of these divisions furnished a thousand men annually to perform the duty of royal body guards. During the term of their attendance they received from the king daily rations of bread, beef, and wine. When summoned to the field or to garrison duty, each soldier provided himself with the necessary arms and baggage. The principal garrisons of Egypt were on its southern and eastern borders, at Syene and Elephantine, at Hieracompohs and Eilethyas, which towns, on opposite sides of the river, commanded the Nile-valley above Thebes, and at Marea and Pelnsium. The western frontier was, until Egypt stretched to the Cyrenaica, guarded sufficiently by the Libyan desert. In time of peace the troops who were not in garrisons or at court were settled in various nomes principally east of the Nile, and in the Delta; since it was in that quarter Egypt was most exposed to invasion from the pastoral Arabs or the yet more formidable nomade tribes of Assyria and Palestine. According to Herodotus (ii. 168), each soldier was allowed 12 arourae of land, or about six acres free from all charge or tribute, from which allotment he defrayed the cost of his arms and equipment. To the Egyptian soldier handicraft employment was forbidden, agricultural labours were enjoined. The monuments exhibit officers with recruiting parties, soldiers engaged in gymnastic exercises, and in the battle pieces, which are extremely spirited, all the arts of offensive and defensive war practised by the Egyptians are represented. The war-caste was necessarily a very important element in a state which was frequently engaged in distant conquests, and had a wide extent of territory to defend. Yet until the reigns of fcsethos, when the priests invaded its privileges, and of 1'sammetichus, when the king encroached upon them, we find no trace of mutiny or civil war in Egypt, — a proof that the Calasirians and Herraotybians were not only well disciplined, but also, in tlie main, contented with their lot.
VII. Civil History. The History of Egypt is properly arranged under five eras.
1. Egypt under its native rulers—the Pharaonic Era. Its commencement is unknown: it closes with the conquest of the land by Cambyscs in B. c. 525.
2. The Persian Era, from B. c. 525, to the Macedonian invasion, u. c 332.
3. The Macedonian or Hellenic Era. This period is computed either from the foundation of Alexandria, in B. c. 332, or from B. c. 323, when Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, converted the satrapy of Egypt into an hereditary kingdom. This period extends to the death of Cleopatra, in B. c. 30.
4. The Roman Era, from the surrender of Alexandria to Augustus, in B. c. 30, to tho capture of that city by the Kbalif Omar in A. n. 640.
5. The Mahommedan Era, from A. D. 640 to the present time.
Tho last of these periods belongs to modem history, and does not come within the scope of this work. The first of them must be very briefly treated, partly because it involves questions which it would demand a volume to discuss, and partly because Egypt came into the field of classical history through its relations with the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. For complete information the student of the Pharaonic era must consult the larger works of Denon, Young, Champollion, Rosellini, Heeren, Wilkinson, Bunsen and Lepsius; or the very lucid abstract of this period in Kenrick's^naen< Egypt, which, indeed, contains all that the general reader can require.
1. Plmraonic Era. Authorities. — The original records of Egypt were kept with no ordinary care, and were very various in kind, sculpture, symbol, writing, all contributing to their contents. Herodotus (ii. 72—82), Theophrastus (ap. Porphyr. de Abstinent, ii. 5), Cicero (de Jtepub. iii. 8) concur in describing the Egyptians as the most learned and accurate of mankind in whatsoever coneemed their native annals. The priests, Diodonis (L 44) assures us, had transmitted in unbroken succession written descriptions of all their kings — their physical powcre and disposition, and their personal exploits. The antiquity of writing in Egypt is no longer a subject of dispute. Lepsius (Book of the Dead, Leipzig, 1842, Pref. p. 17) found on monuments as early as the 12th dynasty, the hieroglyphic sign of the papyrus; and on the 4th that of the stylus and inkstand. The Egyptians themselves also
observed tho distinction between the dry pontifical chronicle and mythical and heroical narratives couched in poetry and song. To this mass of written documents are to be added the sculptured, monuments themselves, the tombs, obelisks, and temple walls, whose paintings and inscriptions hare been partially decyphered by modern scholars, and are found generally to correspond with the written lists of kings compiled, in the first instance, by the native historian Manetho. Egyptian history, however, in the modern acceptation of the word, began after tho establishment of the Greek sovereignty of Egypt. The natives, with the natural pride of a once ruling but now subject race, were eager to impart to their Hellenic masters more correct notions of their history and religion than could be obtained either from the relations of Greek travellers, such as Thales and Solon, or from the narratives of Hecatacus, Democritus, and Herodotus. Of Manetho, of Sextus Julius Africanus, from whose chronicon, in five books, Eusebius derived a considerable portion of his own chronicon, of Georgiiis the Syncellus, of Eratosthenes, the Alexandrian mathematician, who treated largely of Egyptian chronology, accounts have been given in the Dictionary of Greek and Jioman Biography, and to its columns we must refer for the bibliography of Egyptian history. Lastly, we must point out the extreme value of the Hebrew scriptures and of Josephus among the records of the Nile-valley. The remote antiquity of Egyptian annals is not essentially an objection to their credibility. The Syncellus assigns 3555 years as the duration of Manetho's thirty dynasties. These being Egyptian years, are equivalent to 3553 Julian years, and, added to 339 B. c, when the thirtieth dynasty expired, give 3892 B. c. as the commencement of the reign of Mencs, the founder of the monarchy. But although Bunsen and other distinguished Egyptologers are disposed to assign an historical personality to Menes, his very name, as the name of an individual man, seems suspicious. It too nearly resembles the Menu of the Indians, the Minyas and Minos of the Greeks, the Mencrfa of the Etruscans, and the Mann us of the Germans — in all which languages the name is connected with a root — Man—signifying "to think and speak" (see Quarterly Review, vol. 78, p. 149) — to be accepted implicitly as a personal designation.
The Pharaonic era of Egyptian history may be divided into three portions—the Old, the Middle, and the New monarchy. The first extends from the foundation of tho kingdom in B. c. 3892 to the invasion of the Hyksos. The second from the conquest of Lower Egypt by the Hyksos and the establishment of an independent kingdom in the Thebaid, to the expulsion of the Hyksos. Tho third from the re-establishment of the native monarchy by Amosis to the final conquest by Cambyscs in B. c. 525. (Kenrick, Ancient Egypt, vol.ii. p. 110.)
(1.) The Old Monarchy. The chronology of this and the succeeding division of the Egyptian monarchy is beset with, at present, insurmountable difficulties; since, in the first place, there are no synchronisms in the annals of other countries to guide the inquirer, and in the next, we know not whether the dynasties in Manetho should be taken as a scries, or whether he enumerates contemporaneous families of kings, some of whom reigned, at the same time, at Memphis, and others at SaU, Xois, Thebes, &c. And even if Manetho himself intended his dynasties to follow one another in direct order, the question still remains whether his authorities did so too. Gods, spirits, demigods, and >lanes, or the sonls of menwere,according to Manetho, the first rulers of Egypt. They began with Ptha or Hephaestus and closed with Horus. Then follow thirty dynasties of mortal kings, 300 in number, according to the lowest, and 500, according to the highest computation. The time over which they extend varies also between the limits of 3555 and 5049 years. Manetho's account of these dynasties is contained in three volumes: Herodotus, Diodorus, Eratosthenes and Manetho, amid their many disagreements, concur in this statement—that Menes of This was the first mortal king of Mizraim, the double. land, i. e., Upper and Lower Egypt. Here, indeed, their coincidence ends. For Herodotus makes Menes the founder of Memphis, as well as of the monarchy: whereas Diodorus states that Memphis, the embankments which supported its area, and the diversion of the Nile stream were the works of a monarch, who lived many centuries afterwards. The second name in the 4th dynasty is Snphis, to whom Manetho ascribes the building of the Great Pyramid. Here we seem to touch upon historical ground, since in a recently opened room of that pyramid has been decyphered the name of Chufu or Shufu, the Cheops of Herodotus, who, however, places that monarch much lower. The erection of the Second Pyramid is attributed by Herodotus and Diodorns to Chcphren; and upon the neighbouring tombs, for the pyramid itself seems to be uninscribed, has been read the name of Shafre, accompanied by a pyramidal figure. There is sufficient approximation between Shafre and Chcphren to identify them with each other, although no corresponding name occurs in either Eratosthenes or Manetho. Fourth in the 4th dynasty is Mencheres, the builder of the third pyramid, the Mycerinus of Herodotus (ii. 127) and Diodorus (i. 64); and their statement is fully confirmed by the discovery of a mummy case in that pyramid, with the inscription, Menkera. Manetho, indeed, makes Nitocris, a queen of the 6th dynasty, the Nitocris of Herodotus (ii. 100), to have built the third pyramid. The 7th dynasty was apparently a period of anarchy, since it contains 70 Memphite kings, who reigned for 70 days only. They were probably interreges or vice-kings. Of the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th dynasties not even the names of the kings are known. Two of these were Memphite dynasties, two Heracleopolitan, and one Diospolitan, the dynasty being in each case named apparently from the birth-place of its founder. The 12th dynasty bears in Manetho's list a very historical aspect, since its catalogue of seven Diospolitan kings is not only complete, but comprises also the name of Sesostris, or more properly Sesortasen or Sesortosis, who, it is said, " subdued all Asia in nine years, and part of Europe as far as Thrace," as well as that of Lacharis (Lamaris or Maras), who built the Labyrinth in the Arsinoite noma. Yet, until recently this list has received no confirmation from hieroglyphics. Even the conquests of Sesostris probably belong to the 18th dynasty and to Barneses III. Both Herodotus and Diodorus place Sesostris much later: and the former historian refers the erection of the Labyrinth to the period of the Dodecarehia. The 13th dynasty consisted of 60 Diospolite kings, who reigned, it is said, 453 years, and the 14th of 76 Xoite kings,
who reigned 184 years, but the names and acts of both have perished. With the 14th dynasty closes the first period of the Pharaonic era.
(2.) The Middle Monarchy. The second period, consisting of three dynasties, is that of the Shepherd Kings. A passage of Manetho's lost work Aegyptiaca, cited by Josephus in his rejoinder to the Graeco-Egyptian grammarian Apion (Joseph, c Apion. i. 14), places this period in comparative light before us. That a Nomadic Arab horde for several centuries occupied and made Egypt tributary; that their capital was Memphis; that in the Sethroite nome they constructed an immense earthcamp which they called Aharis; that at a certain period of their occupation two independent kingdoms were formed in Egypt, one in the Thebaic!, in intimate relations with Aethiopia, another at Xois, among the marshes of the Nile; that, finally, the Egyptians regained their independence and expelled the Hyksos, who thereupon retired into Palestine, are probably authentic facts, and indeed involve in themselves no just cause for doubt. The only suspicious circumstance in Manetho's narrative is the exaggeration of numbers, but this is a defect common to all primeval record. The Hyksos indeed left behind them no architectural memorials, and the Egyptians, when they recovered Lower Egypt, would not be likely to perpetuate their own subjection, nor the priests who instructed Herodotus and Diodorus to confess that the Nile-valley had ever paid tithe or toll to an abominable race of shepherd kings. The silence of annalists and monuments is therefore at least a negative argument in support of the truth of Manetho's account: nor is it improbable that the long and inveterate hatred with which the Egyptians regarded the pastoral tribes of Arabia owed its origin to their remembrance of this period of humiliation.
The Middle Monarchy extended over a period of 953 years according to the Syncellus and Africanus: but, according to Manetho, the Hyksos were lords of Egypt only 511 years. The larger number probably includes the sum of the years of the three contemporaneous dynasties at Xois, Memphis, and Thebes.
(3.) The New Monarchy. The third period, or the New Monarchy, extends from the commencement of the 18th to the end of the 30th dynasty.
The New Monarchy commences with the expulsion of the Hyksos, or rather perhaps with the revolt of the Thebaid which effected it. The earlier kings of the 18th dynasty, Amosis, Misphragmuthosis, &c. were apparently engaged in successive attacks upon the intruders. But, after its final victory, Egypt again, or perhaps now for the first time a united kingdom, attained a long and striking prosperity. The names of Thutmosis (Thothmes), of Amenophis (the Greek Memnon ?), and above all, of Barneses III., are read on various monuments in Nubia and Egypt, and most conspicuously in tho Thebaid temples at Luxor and Karnak. The 18th dynasty was the flourishing age of Egyptian art: its sculpture became bolder, its paintings more artistic and elaborate: the appliances and inventions of civilisation more diversified. Barneses, if indeed under his name are not embodied the acts of his dynasty, was the Alexander of the Nile-valley. Seventeen centuries after his reign Germanicns visited Thebes, and the priests read to him, on the monuments, the acts and wars, the treasures and the tributes, the subjects and the domains of this powerful king (Tac. Arm. ii. 60). This was no Eastern exaggeration. The " Tablet of Karnak," says Kenrick (voL ii.