mouldering memorials of long-forgotten ages. Westward, an undulating desert plain extends to the white hills, which from this point southward shut in the Egyptian valley, now approaching the river, now sweeping off inland; the eye can follow no further westward, but for many a hundred leagues beyond stretch the silent solitudes of the great African desert. To the north-east and south you look down on the fertile fields of Egypt, here emerging from its long narrow valley, and spreading into the expanse of the Delta. Through the midst of the plain 'prolific Nile pours along his earthy tide,' borne from the far-off regions of Central Africa, and now soon to mingle with the blue waters of the Mediterranean. Beyond the river, and backed by the Mocattam hills, are seen the tall minarets of the modern capital. Villages nestled in groves of palms are scattered over the plain, or during the inundation rise like islands out of the lakes. To the south-east, the pyramids of Sakkara are seen glistening in the sunshine. Above spreads the same cloudless azure that canopied the court of the Pharaohs. The historic recollections of the scene are also full of interest. Within a few leagues are the sites of Memphis, the second metropolis of Egypt, and of On or Heliopolis, the city of Joseph's father-in-law, Potipherah, and, it may be, the scene of his temptation, his captivity, and at last his greatness. It was through the defiles of the mountains to the east, behind Cairo, that the vast host of Hebrew slaves marched out with a high hand under their enterprising leader, and began to unfold the roll of their national destinies.

The early history of Egypt is a subject which is still involved in difficulty, though Bunsen may be considered as having rendered it probable that it extends much farther backwards than the ordinary chronology allows. One of the most forcible of Bunsen's arguments, namely, that the earliest state in which we find Egypt as made known by the monuments and other sources of information, implies the lapse of an anterior period of considerable duration, since such a period was indispensable as a precursor to the then existing state of civilisation, is not without corroboration in the sacred record; for in the earlier days of Abraham (cir. 1920) the Scriptures represent Egypt as already the granary of the surrounding countries, and in possession of a regularly. organised government, under princes and a monarch who had his harem, which, after the manner of eastern despots, he was wont to replenish by arbitrarily taking the beauties that were brought under his notice, and who abounded in such wealth as cattle, silver, and gold' (Gen. xii. 10, seq.). Now the interval which the ordinary chronology puts between the flood and Abraham's descent

into Egypt, is much too short to have admitted of this development of the arts and resources of life, whatever remains of former civilisation we may suppose to have survived the submersion of the earth; though, if the flood was in reality but partial in its prevalence, the argument loses some of its force, and the ordinary chronology is not so incapable to solve great problems in the history of civilisation.

The original of the Egyptian people is also attended with questions which it is not easy to answer. Whence were they? Did they descend the Nile from the southern districts of Nubia or Abyssinia? Did they proceed at once from the high lands of Armenia into the valley of the Nile? Did the first fathers of the nation, on quitting Armenia, migrate into eastern lands, and only after some ages return towards the west, and fix themselves in the longitudinal basin on the eastern limits of Africa? To which of the stems, that of Shem or that of Ham, are they to be referred? If, originally, Egypt was settled by Hamites, as the Scripture clearly implies (Gen. x. 6), may not an Asiatic people, descended from the superior tribe of Shem, have taken possession of the country, expelling or destroying its aboriginal possessors? These are points into which our space forbids us to enter. We may, however, remark that Bunsen finds, both in the religion and the language of the Egyptians, such as the remains of their civilisation present them to us, evidences that they had their origin in Asia, if not in the high lands of Caucasus and Armenia. In confirmation of this opinion may be quoted the authority of the Quarterly Review (cxlv. p. 153), which says,-No one who has studied the subject, can doubt that the Egyptian language may claim an Asiatic, and indeed a Shemitic parentage. We are disposed to go further in this opinion than M. Bunsen; and we hold that the Egyptian language was not only Shemitic, but is presented to us in the same condition as the Hebrew,-perhaps somewhat less disorganised, but exhibiting traces of the same original mechanism, defaced by nearly the same corruptions.'

Bunsen divides the general history of Egypt into three kingdoms-the ancient, the middle, and the new. Of the ancient, Menes was the first king, who, in the year 3643 A. C., descending the Nile from This, his original settlement in the Thebais, became the founder of Memphis and of the sole monarchy. The dynasty of Menes lasted for 190 years; and while one branch of his family continued the succession in Upper Egypt, another, the third dynasty as it is called, reigned for 224 years at Memphis, and carried forward the process of social development which Menes had begun, introducing a symbolical worship, improving the system of writing, and founding a class-division of the Egyu

tians. The fourth dynasty also reigned at Memphis 155 years over the united kingdom. It was again divided between an Elephantine and a Memphite dynasty for 107 years. Two Memphite dynasties succeeded, the seventh and eighth, and a Theban, the eleventh, for 166 years; but contemporaneous with these were two dynasties of Heracleopolis in Lower Egypt, the ninth and tenth. The twelfth was Theban, and lasted 147 years. In the reign of the third king of the thirteenth dynasty, and after the house had ruled Egypt 87 years, the invasion of the Hyksos overthrew the old monarchy 1076 years after Menes, and 2568 years A. C. The coexistence of two sovereignties in the same land is, however, unsupported by any documentary evidence, and hardly reconcileable with the jealousy which neighbouring monarchs are apt to entertain. But if future inquiries should invalidate this theory, the lengthened chronological period assigned by Bunsen must lose a great support, and can meanwhile be in no way regarded as established irreversibly.

The domination of the foreign dynasties of the Hyksos or the middle monarchy, according to Chevalier Bunsen, terminated, after a period of 929 years, in 1639 A. C. Who the Hyksos were (we give the substance of Bunsen's observations), Manetho distinctly declares. They were, according to him, either Phoenicians or Arabs, that is shepherds, who pressed into the country from the north or the north-east. The hy pothesis that they were Scythian herdsmen needs no serious confutation. They were inhabitants of Canaan, apparently connected with North-Arabian Bedouins.

After an interval of nine centuries, the ancient line of the Pharaohs issued from their retreat in the Thebais, drove the Hyksos first from Memphis, and finally from their stronghold in Lower Egypt, and founded the new monarchy, which was prolonged through thirteen dynasties. The Hyksos were expelled by the eighteenth dynasty, which reigned for 229 years. The next dynasty, which ruled Egypt for 112 years, is distinguished by the well-known name of Rameses the Great, called also Sesostris. In regard to the new monarchy it has been well remarked, the names of the principal monarchs, and the great facts of their reigns, are subject to no doubt. We still see the nations of the earth bearing their tribute to the third Thothmes,-the gold, ivory and ebony of the south, the apes of Western Africa, the precious vases of Sidonian workmanship, the horses and chariots, it may be, of Media. We see Rameses driving before him the flying hosts of his enemies, trampling them under the feet of his horses, or crushing them beneath the wheels of his car; attacking their fleets and storming their towns. We can even follow him into

the recesses of his harem, and distinguish the game with which he amused himself in his hours of relaxation. Nor is it the sovereigns only, their pompous titles, their splendid ceremonials, their victories and their sports, that the imperishable works of the Egyptians have preserved to us. The whole life of the people is portrayed in the paintings with which they have adorned the walls of the tombs, which they regarded as their everlasting habitation' (Prospective Review, p. 28).

With Abraham commence the scriptural notices of Egypt. Thither, under the goad of famine, that patriarch descended, and there he acquired great wealth (Gen. xii. 10, seq.). His journey implies that already the land and its characteristics were known in Palestine; and one consequence of his visit was, to render the relations of the two countries more intimate; for we find Sarah, Abraham's wife, in possession of an Egyptian slave, whose name was Hagar, of whom the patriarch had a son, Ishmael, the founder of the Arab tribes. The possession of an Egyptian slave in Abraham's family gives reason to think that the Hebrews were at this time socially superior to the Egyptians; while the fact that an Egyptian slave became his concubine, renders it probable that there was no distinction of race, perhaps not much of conformation or colour, between the two peoples.

From this early period intercourse was maintained between Egypt and Palestine, down to the fall of the Jewish state. Of this intercourse the Bible, referring to that land more than two hundred times, contains striking and important, though irregular and unconnected notices, which, in a more or less decided degree, accord with what is known of the country and its history from independent sources. A more minute inquiry than can be here instituted would end in showing, that both in what he enjoined and what he forbad, in much of the general tenor of his legislation, Moses had a view to things to be learnt, but far more often to things to be avoided, in Egyptian laws and usages. The influence of Egypt on Palestine, and reciprocally of Palestine on Egypt, was during many centuries immediate and considerable. The general connection of the two lands with their inhabitants and institutions, as that connection appears in the sacred record, is in harmony with what other authorities would lead us to expect. The unparalleled discoveries of recent days have tended to corroborate the general train of the Biblical history, and to throw light on its import and on the observances of the people who penned its narratives. Had not the substance of the sacred record been his torically correct, the disinterring of Egyptian life which has of late taken place could not have failed to explode its pretensions; while

in truth the more we learn of Egypt, the more we know of the Hebrews, and the more we are impressed with the deep and everenduring realities of their national exist

ence.

Still more important, in an historical point of view, than that of Abraham, was Joseph's visit to Egypt, where, under peculiar circumstances, he became prime minister of the country, gave shelter to his aged father, and secured for his people a home in Goshen, on the east of Memphis, the scene of Joseph's distinction; and so indirectly paved the way for those signal events which accompanied the exodus, and led on to the establishment of the Israelites in Canaan. This is a portion of the Hebrew history which it has been attempted, both in ancient and in modern times, to invalidate. The attempts have utterly failed, and the Biblical narratives connected with it exhibit, in a general picture as well as in some minute features, the Egyptian monarchy as we still behold it in the paintings and sculptures of its monumental remains.

According to the opinion of some authorities, it was during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt that a rude nomadic horde, named Hyksos, or shepherds, penetrated by its eastern boundaries into Egypt, being attracted by the fertile plains of the Delta. Settling after some lapse of time, and no small struggle, in Memphis, their chiefs made that city their capital, where they ruled over Lower Egypt. Governing with a rod of iron, they spread abroad wasting and terror, driving the native princes into the Upper country. Either one of these Hyksos monarchs or the entire dynasty, historians have recognised in the new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph' (Exod. i. 8); and in the consequences of their hostility, the feelings of aversion which made every shepherd an abomination unto the Egyptians' (Gen. xlvi. 34). The facts recorded in the Scripture respecting these early periods would have been more serviceable, at least for the purposes of chronology, had the proper names of the several kings been given; but the narrative speaks of them under the general appellation of Pharaoh, which is a name of office equivalent to our monarch.

About five centuries after Moses, and nearly a thousand years before Christ, there begins a series of contemporaneous events, of which evidence is found both in the Bible and the Egyptian authorities (Bunsen, 'Egyptens Stelle,' iii. 51). On this point the learned German remarks, 'Here are found manifold and interesting points of contact, of which the latest is the contemporaneousness of Zedekiah and Jeremiah with Pharaoh-Hophra, the fourth king of the twenty-sixth dynasty; and the most ancient, the contemporaneousness of Rehoboam,

the son of Solomon, with the head of the twenty-second, namely, Schesonk-sesak. All these Biblical statements accord with the traditions and the contemporaneous monuments of the Egyptians in the most satisfactory manner' (Bunsen, i. 207).

During the agitated period which intervened between Joshua and David, the relations of the Israelites with Egypt, if in reality they were of importance, could scarcely have found a pen to record them; but as soon as the government became settled in the hands of Solomon, we find Egypt again appearing prominently in the Scriptures, for that monarch made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter' (1 Kings iii. 1, seq.), an alliance which added to his power (ix. 16). The good understanding terminated before Solomon's death; for Jeroboam, when in danger of losing his life in consequence of rebelling against his sovereign, found refuge and protection with 'Shishak, king of Egypt' (xi. 40). On the accession of Rehoboam, the fugitive received active support from Shishak, who (970 A. C.) took and plundered Jerusalem (xiv. 25); and it appears probable that during the ninth century before Christ, Egypt, in conjunction with Edom, carried on hostilities against Judah (Joel iii. 19). At a later time, in the reign of Hezekiah, we find Egypt alarmed, and soon assailed, by the Assyrian arms. Then an influential party in Judah manifested a strong inclination to an alliance with Egypt, in order to withstand the common foe (Isaiah xxx. 2, seq.; xxxi. 1; xxxvi. 6; comp. xviii. 2). An alliance ensued, though the prophets raised their warning voices against it. Great peril was the consequence (2 Kings xviii. 13, seq.). A change in the councils of Judah ensued; for we find its monarch, Josiah, fighting, on the side of Assyria, against Pharaoh-Necho (xxiii. 29). Judah for a short time fell under Egyptian influence (xxiii. 33), until the Chaldæan supremacy gained prevalence in the West. An alliance of the last king of Judah with Egypt (Jer. xliv. 30. Ezek. xvii. 15) brought ruin on that kingdom. Many Jews fled into Egypt (Jer. xli. 17; xlii. 14, seq.), where already were a considerable number of Israelites (Zech. x. 10).

The kingdom of Israel at the first found support in Egypt. A closer approximation took place under Hoshea, when the latter, being tributary to Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, sought alliance with 'So, king of Egypt,' and was, in consequence, captured and imprisoned by the former, who proceeded to enslave the whole nation (2 Kings xvii. 3, seq. Hos. v. 13; vii. 11).

In the progress of events the time arrived when Egypt, having for centuries held sway in North-Eastern Africa, and occasionally competed with Assyria for influence and dominion, was, with its external glory, rather

tarnished than impaired, to fall under the power of conquerors who for a time gained the empire of the world. Thus Psammenitus, son of Amasis, and with him the government of the country by native princes, fell before the arms of Cambyses, monarch of the newly-established Medo-Persian kingdom. Egypt remained a Persian province till the time of Alexander, who made it a part of the great Macedonian empire (330 A. C.). After Alexander's death, Ptolemy, his general, became first governor and then king of Egypt. To his dominion also be longed the greater part of the surrounding lands, and amongst them Palestine, the possession of which, however, was afterwards lost. Under the successors of Ptolemy, Egypt remained till the year 30 A. C., when it became a Roman province. In the division of the Roman dominion, it fell to the Eastern empire (395 A. D.); and about 640 A. D. coming into the hands of the Arabs, Egypt has since remained under Mohammedan control.

During the Ptolemaic period of the history of Egypt, that country became a place of refuge and resort for Israelites, to whom, even in Alexandria, valuable rights and immunities were conceded. Under Ptolemy Philopator (180 A. C.), they built at Leontopolis, after the model of the house of God in the capital of their native land, a splendid temple, in which they established a complete system of Jewish worship, to aid in which

The religion of the Egyptians consisted essentially in the worship of the powers of nature, which being set forth by visible images, after the general manner in which the native teachers communicated instructions to their pupils by appealing to their sense of sight, gave rise to forms in which the most diverse and heterogeneous members and features were united, which originally were symbolical of ideas; but in process of time, and the growth of corruption, losing their significance at least with the multitude, came to be blindly and unintelligently worshipped in and for themselves, 'stocks and stones' though they were. The assemblage in one figure of emblematical features taken from different animals, gave rise to sculptured and painted divinities of the most grotesque, and to a Christian mind the most repulsive nature (see vol. i. 233, 329, &c.). In some instances, however, the human form is not only preferred as the image of the divinity, but kept in itself free from association with parts borrowed from the brute creation, the symbols employed being attached to, rather than incorporated in the figure of a man or woman (comp. Ezek. xvi. 17), as in this cut, representing Chons-Hor, Hathor, and Sevek-Ra, the triple divinity of the Ombitic nome or district,

CHON8-HOR.

HATHOR.

SEVEK-BA.