صور الصفحة

p. 229), whose inscription was interpreted to Gerinanicns in A. D. 16, "was strictly an historical and statistical document. Its dates are precise; and though we may be unable to identify the countries named, the exactness with which they are enumerated, with the weights and numbers of the objects which they bring, proves that we have before us an authentic record, at least of the tribute enjoined upon the nations." About this time the southern frontier of Egypt extended beyond the Second Cataract: to the west the power of Thothmes or Iiameses reached over the negro tribes of the interior: the east was guarded by strong fortresses: while by the north the Egyptian monarch went forth as a conqueror, and, proceeding along the Syrian coast, passed into Asia Minor, and planted his standard on the frontiers of Persia, and upon the shores of the Caspian Sea. His campaigns required the cooperation of a fleet; and Egypt became, for the first time in history, a maritime power. It is probable indeed that its navy was furnished by its subjects, the inhabitants of the coast of Western Asia. The period of time assigned to this dynasty is about two centuries and a half. Ramescs III., there is every reason to think, is the Sesostris or Scsortasen of Herodotus aad Diodoru*.

The names of the monarchs of the 18th dynasty are obtained from two important monuments, the Tablet of Abydos and the Tablet of Karnak.

The 19th dynasty is probably a continuation of its predecessor, and its details are extremely confused and uncertain. The 20th was composed entirely of kings bearing the name of Rameses (Ramescs IV.—XIII.), of whom Rameses IV. alone maintained the military renown of his illustrious precursors. The 21st is uninteresting. But in the 22nd we come upon the first ascertained synchronism with the annals of the Hebrews, and consequently at this point Egyptian chronology begins to blend witli that of the general history of the world. There is no doubt that Abraham and his son visited Egypt; that the Nile-valley had at one era a Hebrew prime minister, who married a daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis; or that the most illustrious of the Hebrew monarchs maintained close political and commercial relations with Egypt, and allied himself with its royal family. But although the facts are certain, the dates are vague. Now, however, in the 22nd dynasty, we can not only identify the Shishak who took and plundered Jerusalem with the Sesonchis or Sesonchosis of the Greeks and the Sheshonk of the native monuments, but we can also assign to him contemporaneity with Kchoboam, and fix the date of his capture of Jerusalem to about the year n. c. 972. By the establishment of the date of Sheshonk's plundering of Jerusalem, we also come to the knowledge that the Pharaoh whose daughter was espoused to Solomon, and the sister of whose queen Tahpenes was, in the reign of David, married to Hadad the Edomite, was a monarch of the 21stdynasty (1 Kings, ix. 16; xi. 19, seq.).

Osorthcn or Osorcho, Sheshonk's successor, is probably the Zerah of Scripture (2 Kings, xvii. 4.; 2 Chron. xiv. 9). The Sesostrid kingdom was now on the decline, and at the close of the 24 th dynasty Egypt was subjugated by the Ethiopians, and three kings of that nation, Sabaco, Sebichos or Sevekos, and Tortus, reigned for 44 years, and composed the 25th dynasty. Sevekos is obviously the Seva, king of Egypt, with whom Hoshea, king of Israel, in B.C.

722, entered into an alliance (2 Kings, xvii. 4); while Torkus is Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, the enemy of Assyria and Sennacherib {Isaiah, xxxviL 9). Herodotus indeed makes no mention of any Ethiopian king except Sabaco (Sebichos), who, according to his account, reigned for half a rentnry, and then voluntarily withdrew into his own Nubian dominions. (Herod, ii. 139.) The AethiopUn dynasty was the second foreign occupation of Ejrvpt, but it differed materially from the earlier usurpation of the land by the Hyksos. The 25th dynasty does not appear to have been regarded by the Egyptians themselves as a period of particular woe or oppression. The alliance between the country above and the country below Elephantine and the Second Cataract was apparently, at all times, very close: the religion and manners of the adjoining kingdoms differed but little from one another: and the Aethiopian sovereigns perhaps merely exchanged, during their tenure of Egypt, a less civilised for a more civilised realm. On the retirement of the Ethiopians, there was an apparent re-action, since Sethos, a priest of Phtah, made himself master of the throne. His power seems to have been exercised tyrannically, if Herodotus (ii. 147) is correct in saying that after the death or deposition of this 11 priest of Hephaestos" the Egyptians were " set free." One important change, indicating a decay of the ancient constitution, occurred in this reign. The military caste was degraded, and the crown even attempted to deprive them of their lands. It is probable that this was a revolutionary phase common to all countries at certain eras. Egypt had become in some degree a naval power. The commercial classes were rivalling in power the agricultural and military, and the priest-king, for his own interests, took part with the former. Sethos was succeeded (b. c. 700—670) by the dedecarchy, or twelve contemporaneous kings; whether this number were the result of convention, or whether the twelve reguliwerethe headsof the twelve Greater Nomes. cannot be ascertained. From the commencement of this period, however, we enter upon a definite chronology. History is composed of credible facts, and the lists of the kings are conformable with the monuments.

Psammetichus I., who reigned 54 years, B. c. 671—617, supplanted the dodecarchy by the aid of Greek and Phoenician auxiliaries, and in Lower Egypt at least founded a cosmopolite kingdom, such as the Ptolemies established three centuries afterwards. (Diod, i. 66; Herod, i. 171; Polyoen. Strat. vii. 3.) His Ionian and Carinn or Milesian auxilia ties he settled in a district on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, between the Mediterranean and the Bubostite Nome; while the Phoenicians who had helped him to the throne were probably located near Memphis, in an allotment called the Tyrian camp. (Herod, ii. 112.) The native militia were now superseded by Hellenic regular soldiers, and a portion at least of the war-caste migrated, in dudgeon at this preference, to Aethiopia. Historians have too readily taken for granted that this was a migration of the whole body of the Hcrmotybions and Calasirians. It was more probably a revolt of the sonthem garrisons on the Nubian frontier. In the reign of Psammetichus was also instituted the caste of interpreters or dragomans between the natives and foreigners; and it strikingly marks the decline of the ancient system that Psammetichus caused his own sons to be instructed in the learning of the Greeks (Diod. i. 67).

Psammetichns was succeeded by Ins eon Neco or Kkchao, the Pharaoh Necho of the second book of Kings, who reigned 16 years, B. C. 617—601. Among the greatest of his works was the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea. Whether he completed it or not is doubtful; in the reign of D;irius it was, however, certainly open for vessels of large burden, and was finished by the Ptolemies (Plin. Tl 33). Modern surveys have ascertained that this canal left the Nile in the neighbourhood of the modern town of Belbeis — probably the Bubastis Agria of the Greeks — and ran E. and S. to Suez. (Herod, iv. 42; Diod. L 33.) At Neco's command also the Phoenicians undertook the circumnavigation of the African peninsula. The success of this enterprise is problematical, but, as Major Rennell, in his Essay on the Geography of Herodotus, has shown, by no means impossible. In the reign of Necho Egypt came into direct collision with the Babylonian empire, at that time rising upon the ruins of the Assyrian. Egypt seems to have been in alliance with the latter, since about the time when Cyaxares resumed the siege of Niniveh, Necho marched towards the Euphrates, apparently to relieve the beleaguered city. Judah was then in league with Babylon; and its king Josiah threw himself in the way of Necho, and was defeated by him at Megiddo. The Jewish monarch diod of his wounds at Jerusalem, and the conqueror entered the holy city, probably the Cadytis of Herodotus (ii. 159, iii. 5). Necho deposed and sent captive to Egypt Jeboahaz, the son and successor of Josiah, made bis younger brother Etiakim king in his stead, and imposed an annual tribute on Judaea. The Judaean monarchs were four years later avenged. From the plains of Carchemish or Circesium, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, Neco fled to Egypt, leaving all his Asiatic conquests to the victor Nebuchadnezzar.

Necho was succeeded by his son Psammis, who reigned 6 years, B. C. 601—595, and Psammis by his son Apries, the Uaphris of the monuments, and the Pharaoh Hophra of the Scriptures, who reigned 25 years, B. C. 595—570. The earlier years of Apries were signalised by his victories over the Tynans, Sidonians, Phoenicians, and Cypriots. But these acquisitions were transient, and there is reason to suppose that Lower Egypt at least was invaded by Nebuchadnezzar (Strab. p. 687; Jeremiah, xliii. 12, xlvi 13—26; Ezelciel, xxix). Apries experienced even greater calamities on his western frontier, a quarter from which Egypt had been hitherto tmnassailcd. The Greeks of Cyrene exterminated hLfl army at I rasa (Ain Ersen), between the bay of Bomba and Cyrene. His defeat, and the cruelties to which it led, rendered him odious to his subjects. A fortunate soldier, Amasis or Amosis, deposed, succeeded, and finally strangled him.

Amasis reigned 44 years, B. C. 570—526. He is the first Egyptian monarch with whose personal character we have any acquaintance. His friendship with Polycrates is well known. He was ashrewd, active, and intelligent sovereign, who possessed the WW of the soldiers- and the people, and nearly disregarded the rules and ceremonies of the priests. His reign was eminently prosperous, and his death occurred just in time to prevent his witnessing the subjugation of Egypt by the Persians under Cambyses, which took place in the reign of his son PsamJiKxiTi's (n.c. 525), who sat upon the throne only G months.

2. Persian Era. The 27th dynasty contains 8 Persian kings, and extends over a period of 124 years, B. C. 525—401. Egypt became a satrapy, not, however, without much reluctation and various revolutions; for between the worshippers of animals and the worshippers of fire a religious antipathy subsisted which aggravated the pressure of conquest and the burden of subjection. The Persians indeed were the only masters of Egypt who assailed by violence, as well as regarded with contempt, its religious and political institutions. From this cause, no less than from the numerous Greek and Hebrew settlers in the Delta, the Macedonian conqueror, in B. C. 332, found scarcely any impediment to his occupation of Egypt. During the 27th dynasty Egypt became, for the first time, involved in European politics. A revolt, which commenced in the reign of Darius, B. C, 488, and which delayed for three years the second Persian invasion of Greece, was repressed by his son and successor Xerxes, in B. C. 486. A second revolt, in B.C. 462, was put down, in B.C. 456, by the satrap Megabyzus; but its leader Inaros, son of Psammitichus, was aided by the Athenians.

The 28th dynasty contains only one name, that of Amyrtaeub the Saitc. In his reign of six years, through some unexplained weakness in Persia, Egypt regained its independence, for monuments at Karnak and Eilethya prove that the Saite monarch was king of the whole land. Amyrtaeus was magnificently interred in a sarcophagus of green breccia, which, after passing from an Egyptian tomb to a Greek basilica, from a Greek basilica to a Moslem mosque, finally rests in the British Museum. The 29th dyiusty contained four kings, of whom hardly any thing is related, and the 30th dynasty threo kings, Nectaxebus I., Taciios, and NectaxeBus II., who are better known from their connection with Grecian history. In the reign of Nectanebus II., and in the year B. C 350, Egypt was reconquered by Bagoas and Mentor, the generals of Darius Ochus, and the last Pharaoh of the 30 dynasties retired an exile into Aethiopia. Tho succession of Egyptian monarchs, embracing a period of 3553 years, is unexampled in history. Upon the annals of their successors the Ptolemies we shall not however enter, since the lives of the Macedonian kings are given in the Dictionary of Biography (art. Ptolemaeus). It will suffice in this place to make a few general remarks upon the political aspect of Egypt under its Greek and Roman masters.

3. Macedonian or Hellenic Era. Many causes rendered the accession of a Greek dynasty an easy and even a welcome transition to the Egyptian people. In the decline of the native monarchy, they had suffered much from anarchy and civil wars. For two centuries the yoke of Persia had pressed heavily upon their trade, agriculture and religion: their wealth had been drained, their children enslaved, their ceremonial and national prejudices systematically outraged by their rulers. For the advent of the Greeks a gradual preparation had been made since the reign of Psammetichus. Hellenic colonies had penetrated to the Great Oasis and the coast of the Bed Sea. Greek travellers and philosophers had explored the Thebaid, and Greek iiniMigrants had established numerous colonies in the Delta. Lower Egypt too had admitted Spartans and Athenians alternately as the allies of the Saite and Mempliite sovereigns: so that when in B. C. 332 Alexander reached Pelusium, that city opened its gates to him, and his march to Memphis resemb-lcd the peaceful progress of a native king.

The regulations which Alexander made for the government of his new conquest were equally wise and popular: and as they were generally adopted by his successors the Lagidae, they may be mentioned in this place. The Egyptians were governed by their own laws. The privileges of the priests and their exemption from land-tax were secured to them, and they were encouraged, if not assisted, to repair the temples, and to restore the ancient ritual. Already in the reign of Ptolemy Soter the inner-chamber of the Temple of Karnak was rebuilt, and the name of Philip Arrhidaeus, the son of Alexander, inscribed upon it. Alexander himself offered sacrifice to Apis at Memphis, and assumed the titles of " Son of Amnion " and " Beloved of Ammon "; and when the sacred Bull died of old ago Ptolemy L bestowed fifty talents upon his funeral. Euergetes, the third monarch of the Lagid house, enlarged the temple of Kamak, added to that of Ammon in the Great Oasis, and erected smaller shrines to Osiris at Canobus, and to Lcto, at Esne or Latopolis. The structures of the Ptolemies will be noticed under the names of the various places which they restored or adorned.

It would have been impolitic to reinstate the ancient militia of Egypt, which indeed had long beensuperseded by a standing army or Greek mercenaries. Under the most despotic of the Ptolemies, however, we meet with few instances of military oppression, and these rarely extended beyond the suburbs of Alexandria or the frontiers of the Delta. Alexander established two principal garrisons, one at Pclusium, as the key of Egypt, and another at Memphis, as the capital of the Lower Country. Subsequently Parembole in Nubia, Elephantine, and the Greek city of Ptolemais in the Thebaid were occupied by Macedonian troops. The civil jurisdiction he divided between two nomarchies or judgeships, and he appointed as nomarchs two native Egyptians, Doloaspis and Petisis. (Arrian, Anab. iii. 5. § 2.)

Like their predecessors the Pharaohs, the Ptolemies aspired to extend their power over Palestine and Syria, and protracted wars were the results of their contests with the Seleucid kings. But even these campaigns tended to the augmentation of the Egyptian navy; and, in consequence of the foundation of Alexandria the country possessed one of the strongest and most capacious havens in the Mediterranean. Becoming a maritime, the Egyptians became also an actively commercial nation, and exported corn, papyrus, linen, and the articles of their Libyan and Indian traffic to western Asia and Europe. Ptolemy Pliiladelphus gave a new impulse to the internal trade of the Nile-valley, in the first place, by establishing a system of police from Cercasorum to Sycne, and, in the next, by completing the canal which Nccho and Darius Hystaspis had begun, from the Pelusiac arm of the Nile to Arsinoe at the head of the Red Sea. (Plin. vi. 33; Herod, ii. 158) [bubastis; Ahsinoe]. He also rebuilt the old port of Aennum or Cosseir [philoteha], and improved the caravan route from the interior by erecting inns and cisterns in the desert between Coptos and Berenice. The monuments of Lower Nubia attest the wealth and enterprise of the Lagid rnonarchs. Egypt indeed did not regain under this family the splendour which it liad enjoyed under Thoutmosis and Eameses III., but it was perhaps more uniformly prosperous, and less exposed to in

vasion from Cyrene and Arabia than it had ever been since the 18th dynasty occupied the throne of Menes.

In one respect the amalgamation of the Egyptians with their conquerors was incomplete. The Greeks were always the dominant class. The children of mixed marriages were declared by the Macedonian laws to be Egyptian not Greek. They were incapable of the highest offices in the state or the army, and worshipped Osiris and Isis, rather than Zeus or Hera. Thus, according to Hellenic prejudices, they were regarded as barbarian or at most as Perioeci, and not as full citizens or freemen. To this distinction may in part be ascribed the facility with which both races subsequently submitted to the auhority of the Roman emperors.

The ancient divisions of the Upper and Lower kingdoms were under the Macedonian dynasty revived but inverted. Power, population, wealth and enterprise were drawn down to the Delta and to the space between its chief cities Memphis and Alexandria. The Thebaid gradually declined. Its temples were indeed restored: and its pompous hierarchy recovered much of their influence. But the rites of religion could not compete with the activity of commerceThe Greek and Hebrew colonists of the Delta absorbed the vitality of the land: and long before the Romans converted Egypt into a province of the empire, the Nubians and Arabs had encroached upon the upper country, and the ancient Diospolite region partly returned to the waste, and partly displayed a superannuated grandeur, in striking contrast with the busy and productive energy of the Lower Country. This phenomenon is illustrated by the mummies which are found in the tombs of Memphis and the catacombs of Thebes respectively. Of one hundred mummies taken from the latter, about twenty show an European origin, while of every hundred derived from the necropohte receptacles of the former, seventy have lost their Coptic peculiarities (Sharpe, History of Egypt, p. 133, 2nd ed.). The Delta had, in fact, become a cosmopolite region, replenished from Syria and Greece, and brought into contact with general civilisation. The Thebaid remained stationary, and reverted to its ancient Aethiopian type, neglecting or incapable of foreign admixture.

4. Roman Era. For more than a century previous to B. c. 30 the family and government of the Lagid house had been on the decline. It was rather tlie jealousy of the Roman senate which dreaded to see one of its own members anEgyptian proconsul, than its own integral strength, which delayed the conversion of the Nilevalley into a Roman province. When however the Roman commonwealth had passed into a monarchy, and the final struggle between Antonius and Augustus had been decided by the surrender of Alexandria, Egypt ceased to be an independent kingdom. The regulations which Augustus made for his new acquisition manifested at once his sense of its value, and his vigilance against intrusion. Egypt became properly a province neither of the senate nor the emperor. It was thenceforth governed by a prefect, called Praefectus Aegypti, afterwards Praeftctus Angustalis, immediately appointed by the Caesar and responsible to him alone. The prefect was taken from the equestrian order: and no senator was permitted to set foot in Egypt without special imperial license. (Tac Ann. ii. 59, Hist. ii. 74; Dion Cass. li. 17; Arrian, A nab. iii. 5.) Even after Diocletian had remodelled or abolished nearly all the other institutions of the empire, this interdict remained in force. The dependence of Egypt was therefore more absolute and direct than that of any other province of Borne. Its difficulty of access, and the facility which it presented to an enterprising and ambitions governor to render himself independent, dictated these stringent precautions. The prefect, however, possessed the same powers as the other provincial governors, although he did not receive the fasces and the other insignia of the latter. (Tac. Am. xii. 60; Poll. Trig. Tyr. 22.)

Augustus made very little change in the internal government of Egypt. It was divided into three great districts called Eputrategiae (lnurrpanryiai) —Upper Egypt (Thebais), of which the capital was Ptolemais, Middle Egypt (Heptanomis), and Lower Egypt (Strab. xvii. p. 787). Each of these three districts was divided into nomes, the nomes into toparchies, and the toparchies into Kwfiai and Tovoi, in which the land was carefully measured according to ipovpcu. Each of the great districts was under an episiraUgw (ArMrrpdriryoj), who was a Roman, and possessed both civil and military authority, and to him all the officials in bis district were amenable. Each nome was governed by a strategiu (arpaTnyds), in ancient times called yofiApxWsi who carried into execution the edicts of the prefect, and superintended the collection of the taxes imposed upon his nome. The strategus was appointed by the prefect, and was selected from the natives, either Greeks or Egyptians: the term of his office was three years. The subdivisions of the nomes above mentioned were in like manner under the administration, each of its own officers, whose names and titles frequently occur in inscriptions.

The three Greek cities of Alexandria, Ptolemais, and Arsinoe were not subject to the authorities of the nome, but were governed by their own municipal institutions (owttj/jo noXniKbv iv 'EAKnviK$ ifintp, Strab. xvii. p. 813).

Two legions were found sufficient to keep Egypt in obedience. They were stationed at Elephantine and Parembole, in the south: at the Hermopolitan castle, on the borders of Heptanomis and the Thebaid: at Memphis and Alexandria in the Delta: and at Paretonitun in Libya. Cohorts of German horse were quartered in various portions of the Nile-valley. The native population were not allowed to possess arms — a precaution partly dictated by the fierce and excitable temper of the Egyptian people. (Amm. Marc. xxii. 16. § 23.)

The Romans presently set themselves to improve the revenues and restore the agriculture of their new province. Under the second prefect C. Petronius (Sueton. Octav. 18; Strab. xvii. p. 820) the canals of the Nile were cleared of sand, and many thousand acres brought again into cultivation. Egypt, under the emperors, shared with Sicily and northern Africa the distinction of being accounted a granary of Rome. To the general survey of the Nile-valley under Aelius Gallus, the third prefect, we owe the accurate description of it by the geographer Strabo. He accompanied the prefect to Svene (xvi. p. 810), and explored both the vestiges of ancient grandeur in the Thebaid, and the new cities which, like Ptolemais, had been built and were occupied by Greeks alone. The Caesars were as tolerant as the Macedonian kings, and made no change in the religion of their Coptic subjects. The names of Roman emperors are inscribed on many of the Egyp

tian and Nubian temples; e. g., that of Augustus at Philae, and that of Tiberius at Thebes, Aphroditopolis, and Berenice. Augustus was invested with the titles of the native kings — Son of the Sun, of Amnion, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, &c. The country was well governed under Tiberius, who strictly repressed the avarice of his prefects (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5; Dion Cass. lvii. 32). From Tacitus (Ann. ii. 64) we learn that the emperor was highly displeased with his adopted son Germanicus for travelling in Egypt without a previous licence from himself. Pliny (viii. 71) records that, on this tour, Germanicus consulted the sacred bull Apis, and received an answer indicative of his future misfortunes. The liberty of coining money was taken from the Egyptians by Tiberius in the tenth year of his reign (a. D. 23); but the right of mintage was restored to them by Claudius. Pliny (vi. 26) has given an interesting description of the Egyptian trade with the East in this reign. The history of Egypt from this period is so nearly identified with that of Alexandria, that we may refer generally to that head lor the summary of its events. The country, indeed, had been so completely subjugated, that Vespasian could venture to withdraw from it nearly all the disposable military force, when in A. D. 67—68 it was required to put down the rebellion of Judaea. The principal commotions of Egypt were, indeed, caused by the common hostility of the Greek and Hebrew population. This, generally confined to the streets of Alexandria, sometimes raged in the Delta also, and in the reign of Hadrian demanded the imperial interference to suppress. The Jews, indeed, were very numerous in Egypt, especially in the open country; and after the destruction of Jerusalem, their principal temple was at Leontopolis. Hadrian (Spartian. 14) visited Egypt in the 6th year of his reign, and ascended the Nile as far as Thebes. The most conspicuous monument of this imperial progress was the city of Antinopolis, on the east bank of the Nile, which he raised as a monument to his favourite, the beautiful Antinous. (Dion Cass. lxix. 16.)

In the reign of M. Aurelius, A. D. 166, occurred the first serious rebellion of Egypt against its Roman masters. It is described as a revolt of the native soldiers. But they were probably Arabs who had been drafted into the legions, and whose predatory habits prompted them to desert and resume their wild life in the desert. The revolt lasted nearly four years (a. D. 171—175), and was put down by Avidius Cassius, who then proclaimed himself emperor of Egypt, and his son Maecianus praetorian prefect. Avidius and his son, however, were put to death by their own troops, and the clemency of the emperor speedily regained the affections of his Egyptian subjects. (Capitol. 31. Anton. 25.)

On the death of Pertinax in A. i>. 193, Pesceunius Niger, who commanded a legion in Upper Egypt, and had won the favour of the natives by repressing the license of the soldiery, proclaimed himself emperor. He was defeated and slain at Cyzicus, A. D. 196, and his successful rival the emperor Severus visited the vacant province, and examined the monuments at Thebes and Memphis. Severus, however, was unpopular with the Egyptians, as well from his exactions of tribute as from his impolitic derision of the national religion. In the reign of Caracalla, Egyptians for the first time took their seat in the Roman senate, and the worship of Isis was publicly sanctioned at Rome. (Dion Cass, lxxvii. 23; Sportian. Sever. 17.)

The next important revolution of Egypt was its 1 temporary occupation by Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, in A. D. 269. The Egypto-Greeks were now at the end of six centuries again subject to an Asiatic monarch. But her power lasted only a few months. This invasion, however, stimulated the native population, now considerably intermingled with Arabs, and they set up, after a few months' submission to Anrelian, a Syrian of Scleucia, named Firmus, as emperor, A. D. 272. (Vopisc. Firm. 5.) Firmus was succeeded by a rebel chieftain named Domitius Domitianus (Zosira. i. 49); but both of these pretenders were ultimately crushed by Aurelian. Both Rome and Egypt suffered greatly during this period of anarchy: the one from the irregularity of the supply of corn, the other from the ravages of predatory bands, and from the encroachments of the barbarians on either frontier. In A. D. 276, Probus, who had been military prefect of Egypt, was, on the death of Tacitus, proclaimed emperor by his legions, and their choice was confirmed by the other provinces of the empire. Probus was soon recalled to his former province by the turbulence of tbe Blemmyes; and as even Ptolemais, the capital of the Thebaid, was in possession of the insurgents, we may estimate the power of the Arabs in the Nile-valley. So dangerous, indeed, were these revolts, that Probus deemed his victory over the Blemmyes not unworthy of a triumph. (Vopisc. Prob. 9, seq.)

The reign of Diocletian, A. D. 285, was a period of calamity to Egypt. A century of wars had rendered its people able and formidable soldiers; and Achilleus, the leader of the insurgents, was proclaimed by them emperor. Diocletian personally directed his campaigns, and reduced, after a tedious siege, the cities of Coptos and Busiris. In this reign also the Roman frontier was withdrawn from Aethiopia, and restored to Elephantine, whose fortifications were strengthened and garrisons augmented, Galerius and Maximin successively misgoverned Egypt: whose history henceforward becomes little more than a record of a religions persecution.

After the time of Constantine, the administration and division of Egypt were completely changed. It was then divided into six provinces: (1) Aegyptus Propria; (2) Augustamnica; (3)Heptanomis(afterwards Arcadia); (4) Thebais; (5) Libya Inferior; (6) Libya Superior (consisting of the Cyrenaic Pcntapolis). The division into nomes lasted till the seventh century after Christ All the authorities having any relation to the Roman province of Aegypt are collected by Marquardt, in Becker's ffandbuch der JtomUchcn Alterthumer, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 207, seq.

Under the Romans the chief roads in Egypt were six in number. One extended from Contra-Pselcis in Nubia along the eastern bank of the Nile to Babylon opposite Memphis, and thence proceeded by Heliopolis to the point where Trajan's canal entered the Red Sea. A second led from Memphis to Pelnsium. A third joined the first at Serapion, and afforded a shorter route across the desert. A fourth went along the western bank of the Nile from Uiera Sycaininos in Nubia to Alexandria. A fifth reached from Palestine to Alexandria, and ran along the coast of the Mediterranean from Ruphia to Pelusium, joining the fourth at Andropolis. The sixth road led from Coptos on the Nile to Berenice on the Red Sea, and contained ten stations, each about twentyfive miles apart from one another. The Roman roads in Egypt are described in the Itinerarium

I .4n/ontni. which is usually ascribed to the emperor M. Aurclius Antoninus.

According to the traditions of tho Church, Christianity was introduced into Egypt by the evangelist St. Mark. Its reception and progress must be read in ecclesiastical annals. We can only remark here, that the gloomy and meditative genius of the Egyptians was a favourable soil for the growth of heresy; that the Arians and Athanasians shed torrents of blood in their controversies; and that monachism tended nearly as much as civil or religious wars to the depopulation of the Nile-vallcy. The deserts of the Thebaid, the marshes of the Delta, and the islands formed by the lagoons and estuaries of the Nile, were thronged with convents and "hermitages; and the legends of the saints are, in considerable proportion, the growth of Egyptian fancy and asceticism. In the reign of Theodosius I., A. D. 379, the edict which denounced Paganism levelled at one blow the ancient Polytheism of the Nile-vallcy, and consigned to ruin and neglect all of its temples which had not previously been converted, partially or wholly, into Christian Churches. From this epoch we may regard the history of the Egyptians, as a peculiar people, closed: their only subsequent revolutions henceforward being their subjugation by Persia in A. r>. 618, and their conquest by Amrou, the general of the Khaliph Omar, in A. D. 640. The yoke of Arabia was then finally imposed upon the land of Misraim. and its modern history commences — a history of decrepitude and decline until the present century.

The sources of information for Egyptian history and geography are of four kinds. (1) Works of geography, such as those of Ptolemy, Strabo, Eratosthenes, Pliny and Mela. (2) Of history, such as those of the fragments of Manetho, Africanus, the Syncellus, Eusebius, Herodotus and Diodorus already cited. (3) The Arabian chorographers, — and (4) the researches of modern travellers and Egyptologers from Kircher to Bunsen and Lepsius; among the former we specially designate the works of the elder Nicbuhr, Pococke and Bruce, Burckhardt and Belzoni; the splendid collectionsof Denon and the French savans, 1798; Gau's work on the monuments of Lower Nubia, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the A ncient Egyptians, 6 vols. 8vo. To these may be added, as summaries of the writings of travellers and scholars, Hecrcn's Researches into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Carthaginians, Aethiopians, and Egyptians, 2 vols. 8vo. Engl, trans. 1838; the recent work, Kenrick's Ancient Egypt, 2 vols. 8vo. 1850; and the two volumes in the Library of Entertaining Knowledge, entitled The British Museum, Egyptian Antiquities, which, under an unpretending form, contain a fund of sound and various information. It would be easy to extend this catalogue of authorities; but the general reader will find all he seeks in the authors we have enumerated. [W. B. D.]

AEGYS (Myvs: Eth, AlyvaTtis, Paus.; Aiyvtvs, Theopomp. ap. Steph. B. s. v.), a town of Laconia, on the frontiers of Arcadia, originally belonged to the Arcadians, but was conquered at an early period by Charilaus, the reputed nephew of Lycurgus, and annexed to Laconia. Its territory, called Aegytis (AryDris), appears to have been originally of some extent, and to have included all the villages in the districts of Maleatis and Cromitis. Even at the time of the foundation of Megalopolis, the inhabitants of these Arcadian districts, comprising Scirtonimn, Malea, Cromi, Belbina, and Leuctrum, continued

« السابقةمتابعة »