B.C. 971.] SHISHAK AND REHOBOAM. 125 the history of the Pharaohs, till their overthrow by the Persians. The Twenty-second Dynasty is placed by Manetho at Bubastis, which seems to show that their power arose at first independently of the Tanite kings; and Manetho's numbers require the Twentieth, Twenty-first, and Twenty-second Dynasties to overlap one another to some extent. Their accession is placed about 1009 or 1008 B.C. That they were of Assyrian or Babylonian race is considered to be proved by their names; and their hostile policy towards the Israelites is in accordance with that of the Assyrian kings. Their names have been discovered by M. Mariette on tablets (stelae) in the temple of Apis at Bubastis. The first king was Sheshonk I. He is the Shishak who sheltered Jeroboam when he fled from Solomon, and who made war upon Rehoboam, took Jerusalem, and pillaged the temple and the king's palace (B.c. 971). The extent of his power in Africa is shown by the mention of the "Lubims, Sukkiims, and Ethiopians" among his forces. As this is the first case in which the Bible mentions a king of Egypt by his proper name†, so it is also the first in which undoubted mention is made of the Israelites on the Egyptian monuments. The record of the campaign is inscribed on the wall of the temple of Karnak, where, in the long list of Sheshonk's conquests, Champollion first read the name of "Yuda Melchi," that is, the "Kingdom of Judah." If Jeroboam had any share in instigating the expedition, he was fitly rewarded by the treachery of his ally, who appears to have taken several cities from the kingdom of Israel. The invasion of Judæa was a real conquest; Judah was placed under tribute, and the Jews remained the servants" of Shishak. Sir Gardner Wilkinson observes, that "though the conquests of Sheshonk are paraded in a longer list than those of the older Pharaohs, they were far less extensive, and we look in vain for the remoter names of Carchemish, Naharayn, or the Rot-ǹ-o." The great interest of the record is as the first example of synchronous history. Did we but know what year of Sheshonk's reign corresponds to the fifth of Rehoboam, the synchronism would be complete. Manetho assigns him twenty-one years, and his twenty-first is mentioned on the monuments. No events of importance mark the reigns of the later kings of this dynasty, who bore the Assyrian names, several times recurring, of 2 Chronicles xii. 3-9. + Can it be that the Egyptian names and titles were too uncouth for the Hebrew ear, as Napoleon could never manage the name of Tchichakoff, but called him the Admiral? 2 Chronicles xii. 8. Osorkon, Sheshonk*, and Tiklat, Tiglath, or Takeloth. The last is the old name of the Tigris, the Hiddekel or Digla of Scripture †, and the Diglit of Pliny; and one of the kings who bore it is called on the monuments chief of the Mashoash, an Asiatic people named as enemies of the Egyptians under the Theban Pharaohs. "Zerah the Cushite," who was defeated by Asa, king of Judah, about 941 B.C., may be one of the later Osorkons. He cannot well have been a king of Ethiopia above Egypt, as we have not yet come to the Ethiopian rule in Egypt. Some suppose him to have been an Asiatic Ethiopian. May it be that these Assyrian kings were really, like the later kings of Babylon, of the old Chaldæan race? The Twenty-third Dynasty, of Tanite kings, appears to have been a branch of the Twenty-second, for their names are equally Assyrian or Chaldæan, Nimrod occurring more than once. Their accession is placed by Wilkinson about B.C. 818, by Mr. Poole about B.C. 889. The history of Egypt now becomes obscure, and her power appears to wane before the growth of the Assyrian empire. The very mildness of her rule over the Asiatic provinces conquered by the Theban kings was unfavourable to their permanent subjugation. Unlike the Assyrian kings, who transplanted the nations they subdued, the Pharaohs seem hardly to have interfered with their internal constitution, content with the fame and spoil of victory, and the payment of tribute. Their yoke was therefore more easily shaken off. The fruits of Sheshonk's victory over the weakened kingdom of Judah were lost by his successors; and the empire may be considered to have departed from Egypt, though the Ethiopians of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty and the Egyptians of the Twenty-sixth made a noble stand against the Assyrians and Babylonians, only, however, to succumb before the power of Persia. To his Twenty-fourth Dynasty Manetho assigns only a single king, Bocchoris, surnamed the Wise, a title which he secured by his legislation. His accession is placed by Mr. Poole in B.C. 793, by Sir G. Wilkinson in B.C. 734. He fixed his capital at Sais. After a reign of six, or forty-four years, more probably the latter, he was dethroned by Sabaco, the Ethiopian, who is said to have burnt him alive, but this seems inconsistent with what we know of the conqueror's character. The Twenty-fifth Dynasty is composed of three Ethiopian kings, • The British Museum possesses a statue of Hapi, the Nile-god, dedicated by Sheshonk II. + Genesis ii. 14; Daniel x. 4. B.C. 749-705?] THE ETHIOPIAN DYNASTY. 127 from Napata (Mount Barkal); Shebek I. (Sabaco), Shebek II. (Sebichus), and Tehrak or Tirhakah (Taracus), who reigned fortyfour years, about B.C. 749-705 (Poole).* This was the second time that Egypt had yielded to a foreign invader, not reckoning the doubtful case of the eighteen Ethiopian kings who, Herodotus was told, were among the predecessors of Sesostris. We should understand the nature of the conquest more clearly were we better informed of the relations already existing between Egypt and Ethiopia. We have said that the latter country was generally a dependency of the former; and the monuments of the Egyptian kings attest their power over the country south of the first cataract, which was ruled by a viceroy, the Prince of Kesh, or Cush. It is not probable, however, that the dominion of Egypt reached further south than the junction of the Blue River (Astapus) with the Nile. Beyond that point lay the "island" and capital of Meroë, the seat of another great Cushite kingdom, with institutions very like those of Egypt. The worship of Amun was here maintained in all its purity; and the power of the priests was so supreme that they might at their pleasure bid the king cease to live, and he must obey. The complete social organization of the Ethiopians, whom the Greeks believed to be the justest of mankind, and their remote position, placed them beyond the reach of conquest, except from Egypt; nor is there any evidence that their own powerful kingdom was ever subjugated to the latter. The furthest point at which we find distinct evidence of Egyptian rule is at Mount Barkal (18° 25′ N. lat.), where the monuments bear the name of Amenoph III. The frontier doubtless varied with the power of the two monarchies, but the region between the first and second cataract, called Dodekaschoenus, or Ethiopia Egypti, now Lower Nubia, was always subject to Egypt. But, after the decline of the Theban kings, and during the weakness of their successors in the Delta, we can easily understand that the Ethiopians first absorbed this frontier province, and then entered Egypt, conquering first the Thebaid and then the rest of the land. We might, indeed, imagine that the "prince of Kesh" took advantage of the weakness of the kings of Tanis, to set up a power of his own in Ethiopia and Upper Egypt, but the ancient writers clearly regard the conquerors as really Ethiopians; and this is * Their accession coincides very nearly with the traditional epoch of the foundation of Rome, B.C. 753. + His name is inscribed on the two colossal lions of red granite from Mount Barkal, brought to England by Lord Prudhoe in 1832, and now in the British Museum. confirmed by their names and by the statement that they came from Napata. Kindred however in race, customs, and worship, they respected the institutions of the Egyptians; and the chief effect of the conquest was to revive the national energy for a stand against the growing power of Assyria. There can be little doubt that Shebek II. is the So or Sewa, whose alliance with Hoshea, the last king of Israel (about B.C. 725) led to the destruction of that kingdom and the captivity of the Ten Tribes. Pursuing the same policy, with better fortune, his successor Tehrak (Tirhakah) marched to the support of Hezekiah, king of Judah, against Sennacherib, B.C. 710. The brief narrative of Scripture leaves us in doubt whether the armies of Egypt and Assyria met in a battle which would have been decisive of the empire of Western Asia. It seems that the encounter was prevented by the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib's army, which took place in the camp on the frontiers of Egypt, and not-as the hasty reader is apt to think-before Jerusalem. For Sennacherib had contented himself with sending a letter to Hezekiah, from his camp before Libnah, while he marched in person against Tirhakah. We learn from Herodotus, that the annals of the priests contained a record of the miracle, transposed in time and altered in form, for the sake of glorifying their god Ptah and his priest Sethos.† This priest, said the legend,-became king shortly after the retirement of the Ethiopian dynasty, and alienated the warrior caste by neglect and injury. His soldiers, therefore, deserted him when "Sanacharib king of the Arabians and Assyrians" marched his vast army into Egypt. Assured in a dream of aid from his god, Sethos collected a mob of artisans in place of an army, and marched to meet the invader at Pelusium. During the night, a multitude of field-mice devoured all the quivers and bow-strings of the Assyrians, and the thongs by which they held their shields. Next morning, the disarmed host fell an easy prey to the Egyptians. In the temple of Ptah at Memphis, Herodotus was shown a statue of Sethos holding a mouse. Doubtless, according to the general order of such legends, the story of the field-mice arose out of the emblem in the statue's hand, the signification of which was then, as now, unknown. § * 2 Kings xix. 8-35, Isaiah xxxvii. 8-38. Herodotus, ii. 141. Mr. Rawlinson explains the prominence given to the Arabians by the large Arab element in the population of Mesopotamia. See Chapter ix. § Wilkinson thinks it may have been an emblem of fertility. It was used also by the Greeks, who worshipped Apollo Smintheus (from ouíveos, a mouse). B.C. 704.] RETIREMENT OF THE ETHIOPIANS. 129 Herodotus may very probably have mistaken the priest for a king; for this Sethos is not mentioned by Manetho, nor is there any room left for him in the consistent chronology which we obtain both from Scripture and the Egyptian monuments. There may be a confusion with Sethos, the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The names of many priests, which have come down to us on monuments and mummy cases, are the same as those of kings. The silence of the Egyptian priests to Herodotus about Tirhakah is easily explained by their jealousy of the Ethiopian conquerors; and their story that Sabaco, after reigning fifty years (the whole duration of the Dynasty), withdrew of his own accord rather than commit an act of cruel sacrilege against the Egyptian priests, to which he had been prompted in a dream, is an invention to glorify their order. Such instances are important tests of the value of the information supplied to Herodotus by the priests. Tirhakah's own monuments, in Egypt and Ethiopia, especially at Jebel-Barkal, the ancient Napata, attest his piety and his warlike prowess; and upon them we see Assyrian captives in their national dress. He would naturally avail himself of the catastrophe of Sennacherib to extend his dominion over Western Asia, and some Greek writers even carry him into Europe like Sesostris, and with equal improbability. Tirhakah reigned about twenty years (B.c. 723-704). The recent discovery, that Psammetichus married the daughter of an Ethiopian king, named Pionkhi, who reigned at Napata, helps to account for the retirement of the Ethiopians, by confirming the supposition that princes of the former dynasties, and other petty chieftains, exercised some power in the Delta during the foreign wars of Tirhakah. Thus we may account for Herodotus's story of the blind king Anysis* (not named by Manetho), who fled into the marshes from before Sabaco, but was * The confusion in the order of the Egyptian kings named by Herodotus is easily accounted for. He had two distinct lists shown him, of the kings of Upper and Lower Egypt; and from these he selected what seemed to him the most interesting events, which he describes under the respective kings, without regard to the distinction between the two lines, or to the exact order of succession in each. The kings of each line named by him (besides the queen Nitocris), are In the Memphian list he passes at once from the pyramid builders to those who were comparatively near his own time. VOL. I. K |