Book v
, Period iv.
_General Preliminary Observations upon the History and Constitution of the great Asiatic Empires._
1. Asia contained in ancient times, as it does at present, empires of immense extent, differing materially both in this respect and in their constitution from the civilized nations of Europe. Changes were frequent; but the form of government continued nearly always the same. Some deeply rooted and active principles therefore must have been in constant operation, to have given so repeatedly, in these various revolutions, the same organization to the kingdoms of Asia.
2. The great revolutions of Asia, with the exception of that caused by Alexander, were effected by the numerous and powerful nomad races which inhabited a large portion of that continent. Pressed by necessity or circumstances, they forsook their own seats, founded new kingdoms, and carried war and conquest into the fruitful and cultivated lands of southern Asia, until, enervated by luxury, the consequence of the change in their mode of life, they were in their turn, and in a similar manner, subjugated.
3. This origin, common to all Asiatic kingdoms, accounts for their immense extent, their rapid establishment, and their generally brief duration.
4. The internal organization must, for the same reasons, have been nearly alike in all; and the constant reappearance of despotism is accounted for, partly by the rights of conquest, partly by the vast extent of the subdued countries, which obliged the rulers to have recourse to satrap-government.
5. To this, it must moreover be added, that among all the considerable nations of inner Asia, the paternal government of every household was corrupted by polygamy: where that custom exists, a good political constitution is impossible; fathers being converted into domestic despots, are ready to pay the same abject obedience to their sovereign that they exact from their family and dependants in their domestic economy.
To avoid confusion, it will be necessary to define the terms despotism and despotic government. In theory, we must admit THREE essentially different kinds of government. 1st. The _despotic_, in which the members of the state are not secured in the possession of their rights as men, (personal freedom and security of property,) nor of their rights as citizens, (active participation in the legislative power). Such a constitution exists only by force, and can never be lawful. 2nd. The _autocratic_, in which the members of the state are in full possession of their rights as men, but not of their rights as citizens. This government, therefore, arises from the union of the legislative and executive powers in the person of the ruler. In form, it is either monarchical or aristocratical (a pure monarchy, or a pure aristocracy). This kind of government is most likely to be established by usurpation; it may, nevertheless, be acquired by succession, or even adopted by common consent: it may therefore be lawful. 3rd. The _republican_, in which the members of the state are in possession of their rights, both as men and as citizens. This government necessarily presupposes a separation of the legislative and executive powers; and with regard to its form, may be either monarchical or aristocratical, (a moderate monarchy, or a moderate aristocracy).--How far can a pure democracy be called a government, and comprised under any of the foregoing heads?--Explanation of the despotism in the Asiatic kingdoms, and the attempts made to limit it by religion and religious institutions.
6. General features in the gradual internal development of all empires formed by nomad conquerors. (_a_) At first the mere occupation of rich territories, and levying of tribute. (_b_) Hence the constitutions already established among the conquered or tributary nations generally suffered to remain. (_c_) Gradual progress towards the adoption of a fixed abode and the building of cities, together with the assumption of the customs and civilization of the conquered. (_d_) Division into provinces, and, as a necessary consequence, the establishment of satrap-government. (_e_) Insurrections of the satraps, and the internal ruin of the state prepared thereby. (_f_) The influence of the seraglio on the government has the same effect, for its unavoidable consequences are--effeminacy and indolence in the rulers. (_g_) Hence the dissolution of the empire, or its total annihilation by some violent attack from without.
_Fragments of the History of the ancient Asiatic Kingdoms previous to Cyrus._
Sources, and their critical examination: 1. Jewish writings,
## particularly the books of Kings, Chroniclers, and the Prophets;
together with the Mosaic records. 2. Greek writers, Herodotus, Ctesias, and Diodorus: later chroniclers, Syncellus, Eusebius, Ptolemy. 3. Native writer, Berosus. Futility of all endeavours to arrange into one work the accounts of authors so entirely different by birth and the times in which they flourished: a task attempted by the French writers, SEVIN, FRERET, and DEBROSSE, in their papers contained in the Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscript.
VOLNEY, _Recherches nouvelles sur l'Histoire ancienne_. 1808-1814: very important and authentic, so far as regards the system of Herodotus's chronology.
I. _Assyrian monarchy._
1. With the Greeks, Assyrian is generally a common name applied to the ruling nations about the Euphrates and Tigris before the time of Cyrus. With the Jews, on the contrary, it signifies a distinct nation of conquerors, and the founders of an empire. Hence a necessary discrepancy between the Grecian and Hebrew statements.
2. Assyrian history, according to Grecian authorities, particularly Ctesias and Diodorus, is nothing more than mere traditions of ancient heroes and heroines, who at some early period founded a large kingdom in the countries about the Euphrates and Tigris; traditions without any chronological data, and in the style of the east. Ninus--Semiramis--Ninyas--Sardanapalus.
According to Herodotus, an Assyrian empire of 520 years' duration, 1237-717. Lists of Assyrian kings in the chronicles of Syncellus and Eusebius.
3. Assyrian history, according to Jewish authorities. Chronological history of an Assyrian empire between B. C. 800 and 700.--Seat of the nation in Assyria, properly so called.--Capital: Nineveh on the Tigris.--Extension of their dominion as far as Syria and Phoenicia.
Line of Assyrian kings: 1. Pul, about 773. Invasion of Syria. 2. Tiglath-Pileser, about 740. He overthrows the kingdom of Damascus. 3. Shalmaneser, about 720. He destroys the kingdom of Samaria. Transplantation of the inhabitants into inner Asia. 4. Sennacherib, about 714. Mighty expedition against Egypt, frustrated by a pestilence. 5. Esarhaddon.
_Contemporary_: Jews, the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah.--Greeks, decennial archons at Athens.--Romans, rise of the state and the two first kings.
II. _Median monarchy._
1. The name of Medes is undoubtedly often used by the Greeks to designate one nation; it is, however, frequently made use of as a common appellation of the ruling nations in eastern Asia, from the Tigris to the Indus, (or Persia, in the more extensive sense of that word,) before Cyrus.--With the Jews: nothing more than general hints of the Medes as a conquering nation.
2. Although the statements of the Grecian writers, as well as of the Zendavesta, sufficiently prove that long before the rise of the Persian power mighty kingdoms existed in these regions; and particularly in the eastern part, or Bactria; yet we have no consistent or chronological history of these states: nothing but a few fragments, probably of dynasties which ruled in Media, properly so called, immediately previous to the Persians.
_a._ _Herodotus's History of the Medes._ Herodotus's Medes are unquestionably the inhabitants of Media, properly so called. Division into six tribes: among these, that of the Magi.--Ruling nation after the overthrow of the Assyrians.--Capital of their empire, Ecbatana.--Boundaries: west, the Tigris and Halys; east, unknown.--Internal organization: graduated subjection of the various nations to one another, according to their distance from the seat of empire; rigid despotism; and imposition of tribute. Line of kings between B. C. 717-560. Deioces, 53 _y._ the founder of Ecbatana, _d._ 657.--Phraortes, 22 _y._ down to 635. He conquers Persia. Cyaxares I. 40 _y._ down to 595. He establishes military discipline among the Medes. Wages war with the Lydians, the Assyrians.--Irruption of the Scythians and Cimmerians, 625.--He takes Nineveh, 597. Astyages, 38 _y._ down to 560, when he was dethroned by Cyrus. According to Xenophon, Astyages was followed by another Median prince, Cyaxares II. _b. Ctesias's History of the Medes_, deduced from Persian archives, and contained in Diodorus. Probably a different dynasty in eastern Asia. Line of kings, between B. C. 800 and 560. Arbaces, conqueror of the Assyrians, 18 _y._ Mandaucus, 50 _y._ Sosarmes, 30 _y._ Artias, 50 _y._ Arbanes, 22 _y._ Artaeus, 40 _y._ and Artynes, 22 _y._ Sanguinary wars with the nomad races of the east, the Sacae, and Cadusii. Artibarnas, 14 _y._ Astyages, the last king.
_Contemporary_: Jews, kingdom of Judah alone.--Greeks, yearly archons, Draco, Solon.--Romans, kings from Tullus Hostilius to Servius Tullius.
III. _Babylonian monarchy._
Periods: 1st. Previous to the Chaldaean conquest, which occurred about 630. 2nd. From the Chaldaean conquest to the Persian, 630-538.
1. Babylon was not only spoken of in the most remote antiquity, but is mentioned in the Jewish traditions as the earliest scene of political treaties, and as the most ancient seat of intercourse for the nations of Asia. Traditions concerning Nimrod--and the erection of the tower of Babel.--Comparison of those traditions with the Babylonian mythology in Berosus.--Scanty historical notices of this period in the later Jewish writers; and probable subjection of Babylon to the Assyrian empire.
2. In the second period, 630-538, the Babylonians were the ruling nation of western Asia.--The Chaldaeans take possession of Babylon, there establish themselves, and ultimately extend their empire, by conquest, to the Mediterranean.
Origin of the Chaldaeans: whether that name was applied to a distinct nation, or to the northern nomads in general?--Line of Chaldaean kings. In the enumeration of these rulers, as given by Ptolemy, this line begins with Nabonassar, and the era bearing the name of that sovereign, which commences in the year B. C. 747: (probably because, under the reign of that prince, the adoption of the Egyptian solar year first introduced among the Chaldaeans an exact method of reckoning time). Neither Nabonassar himself, nor his twelve immediate successors, are remarkable in history: the six last alone deserve notice. 1. Nabopolassar, 627-604. Settlement in Babylon; and complete establishment of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian dominion, by his victory over Pharaoh-Nechoh, near Circesium, in 604. 2. Nebuchadnezzar, 604-561. Brilliant period of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian empire. He conquers Phoenicia and Old Tyre about 586: Jerusalem in 587; probable irruptions into Egypt. Construction of immense buildings and canals in and about Babylon. Rapid decline of the empire after his death, under--3. Evil-Merodach, 561-559. 4. Neriglissar, (probably the contemporary of Herodotus's Nitocris;)--555. Labosoarchad murdered, after a few months' reign. Nabonadius, (Herodotus's Labynetus; and probably the Chaldaean Belshazzar;) 555-538. attacked and conquered by Cyrus. Sack of Babylon by the Persians, 538.
See the section concerning the Babylonians in A. H. L. HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, vol. i, part. 2.
_Contemporary_: Jews, last sovereigns of the kingdom of Judah.--Greeks, Solon, Pisistratus.--Romans, Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullius.
IV. _States and kingdoms in Asia Minor._
The number and variety of the inhabitants of this peninsula, was probably the reason why they never became united into one empire. The most important nations among them, were the Carians in the west; the Phrygians in the centre, reaching as far as the Halys; the Syro-Cappadocians beyond the Halys; and the Thracians in Bithynia. Nevertheless we find here but three kingdoms deserving notice--the Trojan, the Phrygian, and the Lydian.
1. The Trojan empire comprised western Mysia: its history consists of mere traditions contained in poets, with very uncertain chronological data.
Kings: Teucer, about 1400.--Dardanus--Erichthonius--Tros (Troja)--Ilus (Ilium)--Laomedon--Priam. The destruction of Troy, after a ten years' war, occurred, it is probable, B. C. 1190.
_Contemporary_: Jews, time of the Judges: before the foundation of Rome, 450 years.
2. The Phrygian empire.--Almost all the kings were named Midas and Gordius; their succession cannot be accurately determined. After the death of the last, called Midas V., Phrygia became a province of the Lydian empire, about 560.
3. The Lydian empire.--The Lydians (Maeonians) were a branch of the Carian tribe. According to Herodotus, three dynasties ruled in Lydia; the Atyadae down to 1232; the Heraclidae down to 727; and the Mermnadae down to 557: the two first are almost wholly fabulous, and the proper history of Lydia may be said to commence with the last dynasty.
Kings: Gyges, down to 689. From this period followed almost uninterrupted wars with the Greek settlements on the seacoast. Gyges takes Colophon. Ardys down to 640. He takes Priene. Under his reign, an irruption of the Cimmerians. Sadyattes down to 628. Alyattes down to 571. Expulsion of the Cimmerians. Capture of Smyrna. Croesus down to 557. He takes Ephesus, and subjugates Asia Minor as far as the Halys. Under his reign, the first rise of a Lydian empire, which however is overthrown by Cyrus. Asia Minor becomes a province of the Persian empire.
_Contemporary_ with which, in Asia, were the Medic and Babylonian empires.--Among the Jews, the last period of the kingdom of Judah.--Among the Greeks, the yearly archons at Athens.--With the Romans, the kings.
V. _Phoenicia._
The Phoenicians may be regarded as one of the most remarkable nations of Asia during this period; yet we have no complete, or even connected history of this people. But though a few scattered fragments are all we possess, we may from these trace out a general outline.
The peculiar sources of Phoenician history.--How far Sanchoniathon deserves to be mentioned here?--Hebrew writers, particularly Ezekiel; Greek writers; Josephus--Eusebius, etc. and the fragments which he has preserved of Menander of Ephesus, and Dius, historians of Tyre.
MIGNOT, _Memoires sur les Pheniciens_; inserted in _Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscript._ t. xxxiv-xlii. A series of twenty-four papers.
The section concerning the Phoenicians in A. H. L. HEEREN'S _Researches on the Politics, etc._
1. Observations on the internal state of Phoenicia. It did not constitute one state, or, at least, one single empire; but consisted of several, and their territories. Alliances, however, were naturally formed between them, and hence a kind of supremacy of the more powerful,
## particularly of Tyre.
2. But though Tyre stood at the head, and claimed a certain degree of superiority, each separate state still possessed its own particular government. In all of them we meet with kings, who appear to have possessed but a limited authority, as we always find magistrates associated with them in power. Among a mercantile and colonizing people, it was impossible that absolute despotism should endure for any length of time. Of the separate states, Tyre is the only one of which we possess a series of kings; and even that series is not complete.
This line of kings, which we derive from Menander through Josephus, commences with Abical, the contemporary of David, about B. C. 1050. The most remarkable among them are: Hiram, the successor of Abical;--Ethbaal I. about 920;--Pygmalion, Dido's brother, about 900;--Ethbaal II. in whose reign Tyre was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar, 586.--Foundation of New Tyre--republican constitution under suffetes: tributary kings under the Persian rule;--conquest of New Tyre by Alexander, 332. The flourishing period of Phoenicia in general, and of Tyre in particular, falls therefore between 1000-332.
_Contemporary_ in inner Asia: monarchies of the Assyrians, Medes, and the Babylonians. Jews: period of the kings after David. Greeks: from Homer to Solon. Romans: period of their kings in the last two centuries.
3. During this period the Phoenicians spread themselves by the establishment of colonies; some of which, particularly Carthage, became as powerful as the mother states.
General ideas concerning colonization.--1. Colonies are absolutely necessary to every seafaring and commercial people, whenever their trade extends to distant countries. 2. They have likewise been established for the purpose of providing for the excessive increase of the poor. 3. And they have sometimes arisen from political commotion, when the malcontents, either from free will, or force, have forsaken their country, and sought new settlements in distant regions.
4. Geographical sketch of the Phoenician colonies. They possessed, at a very early period, most of the islands of the Archipelago; from which, however, they were subsequently expelled by the Greeks. The principal countries in which they had settlements were the south of Spain (Tartessus, Gades, Carteia); the north coast of Africa, west of the Lesser Syrtis (Utica, Carthage, Adrumetum); and the north-western coast of Sicily (Panormus, Lilybaeum). It is likewise highly probable that they formed settlements towards the east in the Persian gulf, on the islands of Tylos and Aradus (Bahrein).
5. This sketch of the Phoenician colonies will give us some idea of the extent of their sea trade and navigation; which, however, extended much farther than their colonies. Among them, as among other nations, commerce took its rise in piracy; even as late as the time of Homer, the Phoenicians appear to have been freebooters. The principal objects of their commerce were (_a_) the settlements in north Africa and Spain; the latter more particularly, on account of its rich silver mines. (_b_) Beyond the Pillars of Hercules, the west-coast of Africa; Britain and the Scilly islands, for the purpose of procuring tin, and, very probably, amber. (_c_) From Elath and Ezion-Gebar, ports situate at the northern extremity of the Arabian gulph, they undertook, in connection with the Jews, voyages to Ophir, that is to say, to the rich lands of the south, particularly Arabia Felix and Ethiopia. (_d_) From the Persian gulf, they extended their commerce to the western peninsula of India and the island of Ceylon. Finally, (_e_) they made several extensive voyages of discovery, among which, the most remarkable was the circumnavigation of Africa.
6. Of no less importance was the land trade, mostly carried on by caravans. The principal branches of it were: (_a_) The Arabian caravan trade for spices and incense, imported from Arabia Felix, Gerra, and the Persian gulf. (_b_) The trade through Palmyra with Babylon, which opened them an indirect communication by way of Persia, with lesser Bukharia and little Thibet, probably even with China itself. (_c_) The trade with Armenia and the neighbouring countries in slaves, horses, copper utensils, etc.
7. To all this must be added their own manufactures, particularly their stuffs and dyes; (the purple, made of the juice of a marine shellfish;) their manufactures of glass and toys, which, in their commerce with uncivilized nations, generally carried on by barter, were turned to good account. Many other important discoveries, among which the invention of letters holds the first rank, are attributed to the Phoenicians.
VI. _Syrians._
1. The inhabitants of Syria dwelt in cities as early as B. C. 2000, when Abraham wandered over their country. This country did not form one single state, but consisted of several cities, each of which had its separate territory, and its chief or king; of these cities, Damascus, Hamath, etc. are mentioned in the most remote antiquity.
2. The Syrians were, however, often subjected by foreign conquerors; and their country was certainly, at least in the time of David, a Jewish province. It shook off the yoke, however, in the time of Solomon; when Rezon, who had formerly been a slave, obtained possession of Damascus.
3. After this, there arose the kingdom of Damascus, which comprised the greatest portion of Syria, the kings in the other cities becoming tributary to Damascus. The boundaries of the empire, too, were extended, and particularly at the expense of the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
The kings, whose names are taken from the books of Chronicles, were: Rezon, about 980. Benhadad I. about 900. Hazael, about 850. Benhadad II. about 830. Rezin. Under this last, the kingdom of Damascus was overthrown by the Assyrian conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, about 740.
_Contemporary_ in Inner Asia: Assyrian kingdom. Jews: kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Greeks: settlement of the Asiatic colonies.--Lycurgus.
VII. _Jews._
The history of the Jewish people, begins with Abraham the father of their race; that of the Jewish state does not commence till after the conquest of Palestine. It is divided into three periods. I. History of the Jews, as a nomad horde, from Abraham till their settlement in Palestine, B. C. 2000-1500. II. History of the Jewish state as a federative republic under the high priests and judges, from B. C. 1500-1100. III. History of the Jewish state under a monarchical government, from B. C. 1100-600, first in one kingdom,--975; afterwards as two separate kingdoms, Israel and Judah, until the downfall of the latter, 588.
Sources of the Jewish history.--Their annals:--Books of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, Kings. How those books were composed, and whether their authors may be considered as contemporary with the events they relate? How far the Hebrew poets, the prophets in
## particular, may be considered as historical authority?--JOSEPHUS,
as an antiquarian in his _Archaeologia_, and as a contemporary historian in his _Historia Belli Romani_.
Unfortunately there is not at present any satisfactory treatise on the Jewish history previous to the Babylonian captivity; nor one written in an impartial spirit, without credulity or scepticism. The work of BERRUYER, _Histoire du Peuple de Dieu, depuis son origine jusqu'a la Naissance de J. C._ Paris, 1742, 10 vols. 8vo.; and the continuation, _depuis la Naissance de J. C._ 10 vols.; and others of the same kind do not answer this description. RELANDI _Antiquit. Sacr. Heb._ The writings of J. D. MICHAELIS, particularly his # Remarks on the Translation of the Old Testament, and his # _Mosaic Law_; together with # HERDER, _On the Spirit of Hebrew Poesy_, furnish many excellent materials.
I. _Period of the nomad state from Abraham to the conquest of Palestine._--Under Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nothing more at first than a single nomad family; which, however, during its sojourn in Lower Egypt, where, during four hundred and thirty, or, according to others, two hundred and fifty years, it roved about in subjection to the Egyptian Pharaohs,--increased to a nomad nation, divided into twelve tribes. The nation, however, becoming formidable from the great increase of its numbers, the Pharaohs, following the usual policy of the Egyptians, wished to compel the Jews to build and inhabit cities. Unaccustomed to restraint, they fled from Egypt under the conduct of Moses; and conquered, under him and his successor Joshua, Palestine, the land of promise.
Moses and his legislation.--What he borrowed and what he did not borrow from the Egyptians?--The worship of Jehovah in the national sanctuary, and by national festivals, celebrated with ceremonies rigidly prescribed, the point of union for the whole nation, and the political bond which held the tribes together.--The caste of Levites, compared with the Egyptian caste of priests.
J. D. MICHAELIS, _Mosaic Law_. Gottingen, 1778, etc. 6 vols. 8vo.; translated into English by Dr. ALEXANDER SMITH. Lond. 1814, 4 vols. 8vo. The commentator frequently sees more than the lawgiver.
II. _Period of the federative republic._ From the occupation of Palestine to the establishment of monarchy, 1500-1100.
1. General character of this period as the heroic age of the nation, which, after the gradual adoption of fixed dwellings and agriculture, was engaged in constant feuds with its neighbours, the vagrant Arabs, the Philistines, and the Edomites. Impossibility of exterminating entirely the ancient inhabitants according to the intention of Moses.--Hence the worship of Jehovah was never the _only_ religion in the land.
2. Political organization. In consequence of the division of land, according to tribes, and their separation from one another, the government long remained patriarchal. Each tribe preserved its patriarch or elder, as in the nomad state. All, however, had, in the worship of Jehovah, one common bond, uniting them into one federate state. Magistrates were likewise appointed in the cities, to whom scribes are conjoined out of the Levite caste.
3. The permanent union of the nation, and preservation of the Mosaic law, were likewise promoted by the distribution of the Levite caste into forty-eight separate towns, situated in various parts of the country, and by making the high priesthood hereditary in Aaron's family.
4. But when at the death of Joshua the people were left without a common ruler, the tie of religion became insufficient to hold them together; especially as the weaker tribes became jealous of the more powerful. At this time the high priests appear to have had but little political influence; and the national bond was only prevented from being dissolved by the dread of a foreign yoke.
5. The Jews were sometimes independent, at other times tributary. In seasons of oppression and distress heroes arose, jealous for the worship of Jehovah, to deliver them from bondage. They acted as chief magistrates and rulers of a part, or even the whole of the nation, and as champions of the worship of the true God. The judges, particularly Othniel, Deborah, and Sampson.--Concerning the marvellous in their history.
6. Reestablishment of the worship of Jehovah by Samuel. He becomes judge, and rules as Jehovah's minister.--His scheme of making the office of judge hereditary in his own family is defeated by the conduct of his sons. The nation demands a king, whom Samuel, as minister of Jehovah, is called upon to appoint. His crafty policy in the election, which he cannot impede. He chooses Saul, politically speaking, the most insignificant man of the nation; but the tallest and most stately. A formal constitutional act, according to the Mosaic command, is drawn up and deposited in the national sanctuary.
Causes which led the nation to demand a king.--Earlier attempts made, particularly by _Abimelech_, to obtain regal power.
III. _Period of the monarchy from 1100-600._
I. _The Jewish state as one single kingdom from 1100(1095)-975._
1. _Saul_, the new king, strengthened himself on the throne by a victory over the Ammonites; and a general assembly of the nation, in which Samuel laid down his office as judge, unanimously acknowledged his sovereignty. But Saul, no sooner became a conqueror than he threw off the tutelage of Samuel, and ventured himself to consult Jehovah. This was the occasion of a feud between them. Samuel, offended, privately anointed another young man, David the son of Jesse, as king. David acquires fame and popularity by his heroic conduct; but has much difficulty in escaping the jealousy of Saul.--Saul sustains himself amid constant wars with the neighbouring nations; but at last defeated, he and all his sons, except one, lose their lives.
2. State of the nation and constitution under Saul.--The king little more than a military leader under the direction of Jehovah; without either court or fixed residence.--The people still a mere agricultural and pastoral race, without wealth or luxury; but gradually assuming the character of a warlike nation.
3. Saul was succeeded by David; but not without opposition. Eleven tribes declare for Ish-bosheth, the remaining son of Saul; and David is only acknowledged by his own tribe, Judah. It is not till seven years later, and the murder of Ish-bosheth by his own people, that David is recognized as king by the whole nation.
4. Complete formation of the nation, and a change of constitution during the reign of David over the united kingdom, which lasted thirty-three years. Jerusalem is made the seat of government and of the national sanctuary. Rigid observance of the worship of Jehovah, the exclusive religion of the nation, considered in respect to its political consequence.
5. Vast aggrandizement of the Jewish state by conquest. A war with Hadadezer opens the way to the conquest of Syria and Idumaea. Extent of the kingdom from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean; from Phoenicia to the Red sea. Gradual decline towards despotism and seraglio government; the political consequences of which become apparent about the end of David's reign, in the rebellion of his sons.
6. Reign of Solomon. The brilliant government of a despot from the interior of his seraglio; unwarlike, but civilized, and fond of parade. New organization of the kingdom for the support of the court. Connections formed with the neighbouring states, particularly with Tyre; hence a participation in the southern trade carried on from the ports of the Red sea, conquered by David; but only as a monopoly of the court.
7. The capital enriched by the splendour of the court; but the country oppressed and impoverished, particularly the distant tribes. Gradual internal decay hastened by the admixture of the worship of foreign gods with that of Jehovah; although Solomon, by the erection of the temple according to the plan of his father, seems to have wished to make the worship of the true God the only religion of the country. An unsuccessful attempt at rebellion made by Jeroboam; and by the Edomites, who remain tributary under their own kings: actual secession, even during the reign of Solomon, of the conquered province of Syria by the foundation of the kingdom of Damascus.
8. Solomon is succeeded by his son Rehoboam, who has scarcely ascended the throne, before the malcontents, increased in number by his imprudence, break into open rebellion. Jeroboam is recalled from Egypt, and ten tribes acknowledge him as their king. Only two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remain faithful to Rehoboam.
II. _The Jewish state as a divided kingdom, 975-588._
1. Reciprocal relations between the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Although Israel was more extensive and populous than Judah, yet was Judah, in consequence of possessing the capital, richest of the two; thus their power was nearly balanced; and hence the struggle between them was the more obstinate.
2. The kings of Israel seek to confirm the political division of the nation, by establishing a new form of worship within their dominions, in order to restrain their subjects from visiting the ancient seat of the national worship at Jerusalem; hence they were considered as the enemies of Jehovah. Several kings, however, even of Judah were so impolitic as to mingle the worship of other gods with that of Jehovah. But oppression itself serves to sustain the worship of Jehovah; the number and political influence of the prophets increase in proportion as men feel, amid the turbulence of the times, need of the counsels of the true God; the idea of some future happier period under a mighty king--the idea of the Messiah and of his kingdom--is more fully developed by the lively recollection of the splendid reign of David.--Schools of the prophets.
3. The rivalry and wars between those two states not only continue with slight interruption, but become more and more fraught with danger, in consequence of the alliances entered into with foreign princes,
## particularly with the kings of Damascus and Egypt. An end is at length
put to these feeble kingdoms by the rise of vast empires in Inner Asia.
Most important events in the history of the two kingdoms.
1. KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 975-722; under 19 kings, from different families, who succeeded to the throne amid violent revolutions. 1. Jeroboam, _d._ 954. Settlement of the royal residence at Shechem; of the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, and appointment of priests, not belonging to the tribe of Levi. Constant wars with the kings of Judah. 2. Nadab, Jeroboam's son, murdered in 953 by 3. Baasha, _d._ 930. This prince, by his alliance with the kings of Damascus, brought the kingdom of Judah into great danger. 4. Elah murdered in 929 by one of his generals. 5. Zimri, in whose place the army immediately elected 6. Omri: this prince, at the beginning of his reign, had a rival to the throne in Tibni, _d._ 925. Omri founded the new capital, Samaria, _d._ 918. He was succeeded by his son 7. Ahab: strong connections by marriage with the kings of Sidon; introduction of the Phoenician worship of Baal. Wars with Damascus, in which Ahab at last perishes, 897. Under Ahab a league formed with the king of Judah. He is succeeded by his sons, 8. Ahaziah, _d._ 896, and 9. Jehoram. The league with Judah continues. Jehoram is murdered by Jehu, 883. 10. Jehu: this king destroys the house of Ahab, which had given 4 kings to Israel, and does away with the worship of Baal. The kings of Damascus wrest from the kingdom of Israel the lands beyond Jordan. Jehu, _d._ 856. He is succeeded by his son 11. Jehoahaz, _d._ 840. The wars with Damascus continue unsuccessful to Israel. 12. Jehoash, _d._ 825. He defeats the kings of Damascus and Judah. 13. Jeroboam II. _d._ 784. He restores the kingdom of Israel to its ancient extent. After a turbulent interregnum of 12 years, he is succeeded by his son 14. Zechariah, 773; who was assassinated the same year, being the last remnant of the house of Jehu, which had given 5 kings to Israel. His murderer, 15. Shallum, after a reign of one month, is, in his turn, assassinated by 16. Menahem, _d._ 761: under his reign the first expedition of the Assyrians, headed by Pul, whom he buys off by tribute. 17. His son Pekahiah murdered in 759 by 18. Pekah, under whose reign falls the expedition of Tiglath-Pileser the Assyrian, and destruction of Damascus. Pekah is assassinated in 740 by 19. Hoshea, who, after an anarchy of eight years, obtains possession of the throne. Hoshea endeavours, by an alliance with Egypt, to shake off the Assyrian yoke; but Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, wages war against him, conquers Samaria, and puts an end to the kingdom of Israel, whose inhabitants he transplants to Media in Inner Asia, 722.
2. KINGDOM OF JUDAH under 20 kings of the house of David, 975-598. The regular line of hereditary succession is generally followed without dispute, and is only twice interrupted by Athaliah's usurpation, and the intervention of foreign conquerors. 1. Rehoboam, _d._ 958. Jerusalem is still the seat of government; but even during this reign the worship of Jehovah begins to fall into neglect, in consequence of the introduction of foreign gods. Besides the war with Israel, Jerusalem is attacked and plundered by Shishak, king of Egypt. 2. Abijah, _d._ 955. 3. Asa. This prince was attacked by the combined kings of Israel and Damascus, and, no doubt, would have sunk in the conflict, had he not succeeded in breaking their alliance; _d._ 914. 4. Jehoshaphat, the restorer of the worship of Jehovah and framer of a league with the kingdom of Israel. His attempt to reestablish the trade to Ophir, on the Red sea, is unsuccessful, _d._ 891. 5. Jehoram. The union with Israel is confirmed by the marriage of this prince with Ahab's daughter, Athaliah; but Idumaea, under his reign, secedes wholly from the kingdom of Judah, _d._ 884. 6. His son Ahaziah is, in the next year, 883, assassinated by Jehu, the murderer and successor of Jehoram king of Israel. 7. His mother, Athaliah, takes possession of the throne; murders the whole royal family; only one son of Ahaziah, 8, Joash, is, in consequence of his youth, rescued from the carnage, secretly educated in the temple, and after seven years forcibly placed upon the throne, by means of a revolution wrought by the high priest, Jehoiada; and Athaliah is slaughtered, 877. Joash rules under the tutelage of the priests, which leads to the reestablishment of Jehovah's worship. This prince is menaced by Hazael king of Damascus, and compelled to pay him tribute. Slain 838. 9. Amaziah: he defeats the Edomites, and is in his turn defeated by Jehoash king of Israel, by whom Jerusalem itself is sacked. He is slain in 811, and succeeded 10. by his son Azariah, (or Uzziah.) This prince was leprous, and _d._ 759. His son 11. Jotham, _d._ 743, became regent during the life of his father. The wars with Israel and Damascus recommence. 12. Ahaz, _d._ 728. The league between the kings of Damascus and Israel induces Ahaz to call to his assistance Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, who overthrows the kingdom of Damascus, and subjects Israel and Judah to tribute. 13. Hezekiah, _d._ 699. He shakes off the Assyrian yoke: under his reign Shalmaneser destroys Samaria, 722: and Shalmaneser's successor, Sennacherib, undertakes his expedition against Egypt, 714. Jerusalem is again besieged, but fortunately relieved by the total failure of the expedition. Isaiah prophecies during the reign of this prince. 14. Manasseh, _d._ 644. During his 55 years' reign, the worship of the Phoenician god, Baal, becomes general; that of Jehovah falls into contempt, and the Mosaic law into disuse. 15. Amon, murdered as early as 642. 16. Josiah restorer of the temple, and of the worship of Jehovah. The book of the Law, which had been cast aside and neglected, is once more found, and a complete reform instituted according to its principles. Palestine however is the first country attacked by Necos, king of Egypt; and Josiah falls in battle, 611. His son, 17. Jehoahaz, is, after a reign of three months, dethroned by Pharaoh-Nechoh, and his brother 18. Jehoiakim placed as a tributary prince on the throne. But in consequence of the rise of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian empire, Pharaoh-Nechoh is deprived of his Asiatic conquests by the loss of the battle of Circesium, 606; and Jehoiakim becomes tributary to Nebuchadnezzar, _d._ 599. The prophet Jeremiah flourishes. 19. Jehoiachin, son of the former king, after three months' reign, is, together with the greater part of the nation, transplanted into Inner Asia by Nebuchadnezzar, after a second expedition, (commencement of the Babylonian captivity,) and, 20. Zedekiah, brother on the father's side to Jehoiachin, is seated on the throne as a tributary prince. Forming, however, a league with Egypt, in order to throw off the Babylonian yoke, Nebuchadnezzar marches a third time against Jerusalem, conquers it, 588, and delivers it up to pillage and destruction. Zedekiah, after being deprived of his eye-sight, and losing all his children by the hands of the executioner, is, together with the remaining portion of the nation, led in captivity to Babylon.
S. BERNHARDI _Commentatio de causis quibus affectum sit ut regnum Judae diutius persisteret quam regnum Israel; cum tabula geographica_, Lovanii, 1825, 4to. A prize essay, containing also several valuable enquiries into the monarchical period of the Jewish state.
# BAUER, _Manual of the History of the Hebrew Nation_, vol. i-iii, 1800. The best introduction hitherto published, not only to the history, but also to the antiquities of the nation, from the rise to the fall of the state.
II. AFRICAN NATIONS.
_General Geographical Outline of Ancient Africa._
See A. H. L. HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, etc. African Nations. 2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1831.
1. Although the Phoenicians had circumnavigated Africa, the northern part only of that quarter of the globe was known to antiquity.
With that part, however, the ancients were better acquainted than we are at the present day, the coast being then occupied by civilized and commercial nations, who pushed their excursions far inland. This was the case in early times with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians; still more so with the Macedonian Greeks, under the Ptolemies, and under the Romans. War, hunting, and commerce, were, generally speaking, the objects which gave rise to those excursions.
2. Considered as a whole, Africa is very different from Asia, both in situation and form. Asia lies almost entirely within the temperate, while Africa is almost wholly under the torrid zone. Asia abounds in deep gulfs and large rivers; Africa constitutes a regular triangle, and in its northern half possesses but two large rivers, the Nile and the Niger. No wonder, then, that this portion of our globe should form, as it were, a world in itself, distinguished by its productions and its inhabitants.
3. Physically considered, Northern Africa may be divided into three regions, distinguished in early antiquity by separate names. The maritime country along the Mediterranean, with the exception of Tripolis, or the Regio-Syrtica, consists principally of very fertile districts, and was consequently, at all times, very thickly inhabited: hence in Herodotus it bears the name of the _inhabited Africa_; it is now called Barbary. Above this, and under the 30th parallel of N. lat., succeeds a mountainous tract, across which stretches the Atlas chain of mountains; abounding in wild beasts and dates: hence Herodotus calls it the _wild beast Africa_: among the Arabs it is called the land of dates, (_Biledulgerid_.) Beyond this, and between the 30th and 20th degrees of N. lat. the sandy region extends right across Africa and Arabia: this part of Africa is therefore known, both among the ancients and moderns, under the name of Africa Deserta, or the Sandy Desert, (Sahara). The fruitful lands beyond the desert, stretching along the banks of the Niger, were almost wholly unknown to the Greeks: by them these parts were comprehended under the common name of Ethiopia, although that name applied more peculiarly to the districts above Egypt. The Greeks were, however, acquainted with some of the fruitful spots in the desert, the Oases; such as Augila, Ammonium, and the Oases, properly so called, in Egypt.
4. There exists no political division which comprises the whole of Africa. The north coast alone was inhabited by civilized nations: Egyptians, Cyrenaeans, and Carthaginians; of which the first only were aboriginals. The rest of the inhabitants either roved about as nomad hordes, or formed insignificant states, of whose existence we have heard some account, though we possess no history of them. Along the shore, reckoning from the Plinthinetic gulf, Egypt is succeeded by: 1st. Marmarica, a tract without cities, consisting principally of sandy deserts, occupied by nomad hordes: this country extends from the 40-47 deg. E. long. from Ferro. 2nd. The fertile territory occupied by the Greek colonies, called Cyrenaica, extended to the Greater Syrtis, 37-40 deg. E. long. Cities: Cyrene, Barca. 3rd. The territory of Carthage, extending from the Greater Syrtis to the Fair Promontory, 25-40 deg. E. long. This territory comprised (_a_) the country between the Greater and Lesser Syrtis, (Regio Syrtica,) which constitutes the modern kingdom of Tripoli; a sandy tract, almost wholly occupied by nomads. (_b_) the territory of Carthage, properly so called, (kingdom of Tunis). A very fruitful country; the southern part, called Byzacena, the northern part Zeugitana. Cities: Carthage, Utica, etc. 4th. Numidia and Mauritania; occupied during the Carthaginian age by nomad races. Along the shore some Carthaginian settlements.
EGYPTIANS.
Preliminary remarks. Egypt in its superficial contents is equal to about two-thirds of Germany, and may therefore justly be ranked among the more extensive countries of the globe; it greatly varies, however, in its physical properties. The soil is only sufficiently fertile for tillage on the banks of the Nile, and as far as the floods of that river extend; beyond that, on the west, is a sandy desert, on the east a chain of rocky mountains. From its entrance into Egypt at Syene, the Nile flows in one undivided stream to the city of Cercasorus, 60 geogr. miles above its mouth, directing its source from south to north through a valley from 8 to 16 geogr. miles broad, bounded on the west by deserts of sand, and on the east by mountains of granite. At Cercasorus the stream first divides itself into two main branches, which formerly discharged their waters into the Mediterranean, the eastern near the city of Pelusium, the western near the city of Canopus (_ostium Pelusiacum et Canopicum_;) from these two diverged several intermediate branches; so that in the time of Herodotus there existed seven mouths of the Nile, but the number has not always remained the same. The tract between the two extreme arms of the Nile bears, in consequence of its triangular form, the name of the Delta; it was covered with cities, and highly cultivated. The fertile part of Egypt, inhabited by civilized men, was therefore confined to the Delta and the valley of the Nile, on the two banks of the stream from Syene to Cercasorus; to which must be added some well watered spots in the centre of the western desert, known under the name of the Oases. In consequence of the perpetual absence of rain,
## particularly in Upper Egypt, the fertility of the Delta and the valley
of the Nile depends on the overflowing of the river, which happens at stated periods. This commences at the beginning of August and continues to the end of October; so that during three whole months the above-mentioned parts of the country are under water.
Egypt is divided into Upper, extending from Syene to the city of Chemmis, (capital, Thebes, or Diospolis); Central from Chemmis to Cercasorus, (capital, Memphis,) and Lower Egypt, which comprises the Delta, and the land on both sides: it was full of cities, among which the most remarkable was Sais.
Next above Egypt lies Ethiopia, (_Aethiopia supra Aegyptum_); which, from the earliest times, principally through commerce, appears to have been closely connected with the former country. The regions immediately above Egypt, usually called Nubia, are little more than deserts of sand, still inhabited by roving hordes of nomad robbers. The rocky mountain chain, which forms the eastern boundary of Egypt, stretches along the Red sea, and was formerly of great importance to Nubia, from its containing, just above the Egyptian frontier, productive gold mines. The Nile, in this country, makes a wide curve to the west, and becomes so full of shallows as to render navigation difficult. The lands adjoining the river, however, are fertile and well inhabited; and contain numerous ancient monuments. Still higher up, reckoning from 16 deg. N. lat. the appearance of the country changes; the region of fertility commences, and its costly productions, its gold and its perfumes, gave rise to a profitable commerce. Among these countries, Meroe, with its capital of the same name, was celebrated in the days of Herodotus. By Meroe is understood a tract of land bounded by two rivers, the Nile on the west, and the Astaboras, (Tacazze,) which falls into the Nile, on the east; for this reason it is frequently, although improperly, called an island. This country extended towards the sources of the Nile, or the modern province of Gojam, where, under the reign of Psammetichus, the Egyptian caste of warriors, having for the most part deserted, established themselves. Meroe itself, like the Egyptian states, was sacerdotal, with a king at its head.--The city of Axum, or Auxume, is not indeed mentioned at so early a period; but if we may judge by the ruins that still remain, it was of equally high antiquity with the old Egyptian towns and with Meroe. The same observations apply to Adule, the harbour on the Arabian gulf.
The Egyptian history is divided into three periods of unequal duration; the _first_ of which extends from the earliest time down to the Sesostridae, that is to say, to about B.C. 1500: the _second_ comprises the reigns of the Sesostridae, or the brilliant period of Egypt, down to Psammetichus, 1500-650: the _third_ brings us from Psammetichus down to the Persian conquest, 650-525.
FIRST PERIOD.
_From the earliest times down to the Sesostridae, about B. C. 1500._
Sources: 1. Jewish writers. _Moses._ His records contain, no doubt, a faithful picture of the Egyptian state in his day; but no continuous history can be deduced from them.--From Moses down to Solomon (B.C. 1500-1000.) total silence, with respect to Egypt, of the Hebrew writers. From Solomon down to Cyrus, (B.C. 1000-550.) a few scanty fragments.--Importance and superiority of the Jewish accounts, so far as they are _purely historical_. 2. Greek writers. (_a_) _Herodotus._ The first who published a History of the Egyptians. About seventy years after the destruction of the throne of the Pharaohs by the Persian conquerors, this author collected, in Egypt itself, the earliest accounts of the history of the country; he received his information from the most capable persons, the priests; and wrote down faithfully that information, such as he heard it. If, therefore, we would estimate at their proper worth the accounts given by Herodotus, it is necessary to enquire, what did the priests themselves know of their earlier national history? And this question cannot be answered until we have ascertained in what manner the historical records of the earlier periods were preserved among the Egyptians.
The earliest history of the Egyptians, like that of all other nations, was traditional. They adopted, however, before any other nations, a sort of writing, hieroglyphics, or allegorical picture writing; in which the signs borrowed from natural objects served, as modern discoveries have proved, partly to represent sounds, (_hieroglyphes phonetiques_,) and partly to express ideas; in the latter case they were either representative or allegorical. This mode of writing, by its nature, is not so complete as the purely alphabetical; since, 1. It can express only a narrow circle of ideas, and these separately, without connection or grammatical inflection, at least with very few exceptions. 2. As it is not so well adapted to writing as to painting or engraving, it is not so useful for books as for public monuments. 3. Being emblematic, it is not intelligible without the help of a key, which could only be preserved in some tradition connected with the monument, and which was exclusively possessed by the priests; this key, therefore, could hardly be preserved many centuries without falsification. 4. The same image seems frequently to have been used to express very different objects.--It follows, that the Egyptian history, as deduced from the lips of the priests, can hardly have been any thing more than records connected with, and depending upon, public monuments: consisting, therefore, of mere fragments, and reducible to no consistent chronology, it ultimately admitted only of allegorical translation, and consequently was very liable to be misinterpreted. Besides their hieroglyphics, the Egyptians certainly had two other species of writing: the _hieratic_, confined to the priests, and the _demotic_, used in common life. Both, however, seem to have been nothing more than running hands derived from the hieroglyphic system; and we have no instance of the employment of either the one or the other in public monuments of the time of the Pharaohs. That the use of papyrus, a material on which all the above kinds of writing were employed, had its origin in the highest antiquity, or at least in the more brilliant period of the Pharaohs, we now know for certain, written documents belonging to those times having been obtained from the tombs.
CHAMPOLLION LE JEUNE, _Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens_. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which the _Lettre a M. Dacier_, 1822, is but the precursor, and the two _Lettres a M. le duc de Blacas_ the continuation. The new method of deciphering has received its principal confirmation from the work of the British consul in Egypt, SALT, _Essay on the Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics_, 1825, on the authority of a comparison with the Egyptian monuments themselves. Hitherto, however, little more has been made out than the names and titles of the kings, distinguished by being always enclosed within a border.
These preliminary remarks on the earlier Egyptian history, will derive abundant support from a perusal of the account given by Herodotus (ii, 99-150), of the Egyptian kings previous to Psammetichus. The study of that author proves beyond all doubt, that: I. The whole history is throughout founded on public monuments, and on monuments too, either in or near _Memphis_. We may even restrict ourselves to one single monument at Memphis, to the temple of Vulcan, or Phtha, the chief temple of that city. The history commences with Menes, the founder of that edifice, (c. 99.), and we are informed, respecting each of his successors, what was done towards the augmentation and embellishment of the building: those who made no addition to that temple, but left other monuments, (as the builders of the pyramids,) are denominated oppressors of the people, and contemners of the gods: of those princes who left no monuments at all, the priests could give no other information than a catalogue of names. II. Hence this line of kings, although the priests gave it to Herodotus as such, is not without interruptions, but, as is clearly proved by a comparison with Diodorus, contains many wide chasms: therefore no chronological system can be erected upon such a basis. III. The whole history is interwoven with narrations derived from hieroglyphic representations, and for that very reason allegorical, the meaning of which it is no longer possible to unravel, the priests themselves being either unable or unwilling to explain it, and even inclining, it appears, to introduce false interpretations. To this class of narrations belongs, for instance, that of the robbery of Rhampsinitus's treasury; that of his journey into hell, where he played at dice with Ceres, (c. 121, 122); that concerning the daughter of Cheops, (c. 127.); concerning the blindness of Pheron, and the manner in which he was cured, etc. (c. 111.) To prove that this charge is not without foundation, it will suffice to adduce two examples; one from c. 131, where Herodotus himself observes that such was the case; the other from c. 141, the true meaning of which we gather from other sources. Even in the time of Herodotus, it was customary with the priests to endeavour to conciliate the Greek and Egyptian authorities; a fact in proof of which there are many arguments which cannot escape the critic: such, for instance, as the completely _Graecised_ history of king Proteus, c. 112-115.--The general result of the above observations on Herodotus's Egyptian history is, that it is nothing more than a narration connected with public monuments. To this inference but one objection can possibly be made, namely, that the Egyptian priests possessed, besides their hieroglyphics, an alphabetical mode of writing; consequently, that, over and above the public monuments, they might likewise refer to written annals; but this objection is overthrown by Herodotus himself. All the information the priests could give him beyond what has been above alluded to, consisted in the names of 330 kings subsequent to Menes; these they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings who bore them, because _those sovereigns had left no monuments behind them_, (c. 100.)
(_b_) Besides Herodotus, _Diodorus_ (lib. i.) likewise furnishes us with the names of some Egyptian kings. This author, who wrote 400 years subsequently to Herodotus, visited Egypt, and collected his history, partly from the oral and written documents of the priests of _Thebes_, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and
## particularly Hecataeus. If we consider Herodotus's line of kings as
not continuous or uninterrupted, all appearance of contradiction between the two historians vanishes. Diodorus, like Herodotus, did not intend to give a complete enumeration of the Egyptian kings; but only of the most remarkable; indicating the interruptions by the number of generations which they contained.
(_c_) Finally, different from both the above is the Egyptian _Manetho_, high priest at _Heliopolis_, who flourished under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote the _Aegyptiaca_, of which, besides several fragments in Josephus, the enumeration of the kings has been preserved in the chronicles of Eusebius and Syncellus. This catalogue is divided into three sections, (tomos,) each of which contains several dynasties, in all 31, enumerated according to the different cities of Egypt. In each dynasty the number of kings belonging to it and the years of their reigns are marked. The authenticity of Manetho is now completely established; since the names of the Pharaohs mentioned by him have been deciphered on the Egyptian monuments. To this period belong the first seventeen dynasties; in the eighteenth begins the second and brilliant period, to which the yet remaining monuments of Upper Egypt, bearing the names of the founders, are to be ascribed. It is worthy of observation, that in Herodotus we have the documents of the priests of Memphis, in Diodorus those of the priests of Thebes, in Manetho those of the priests of Heliopolis--the three principal seats of sacerdotal learning:--perfect consistency cannot, therefore, be expected in the accounts of those historians.
The modern writers on Egyptian antiquities, from KIRCHER, _Oedipus Aegyptiacus_, 1670, to DE PAUW, _Recherches sur les Egyptiens et sur les Chinois_, 1772, have too often substituted their own dreams and hypotheses for truth. The principal attempts at a chronological arrangement of the dynasties have been made by MARSHAM, in his _Canon Chronicus_; and by GATTERER, in his # _Synchronistic History of the World_.--Among the principal works on this subject may be reckoned:
JABLONSKI _Pantheon Mythicum Aegyptiacum_, 1750, 8vo.
GATTERER, _Commentationes de Theogonia Aegypt_. in _Commentat. Societ. Gotting._ t. vii.
_De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctore_ G. ZOEGA; Romae, 1797.
_L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Geographie, la Religion, la Langue, les Ecritures, et l'Histoire de l'Egypte avant l'invasion de Cambyse, par_ CHAMPOLLION LE JEUNE, t. i, ii. 1814. These two volumes, dedicated to the geography, contain the restoration of the ancient Egyptian names of provinces and cities deduced from Coptic authorities.
_Commentationes Herodoteae, scribebat_ FRID. CREUZER. _Aegyptica et Hellenica, pars 1._ Lips. 1819. A series of most acute and learned illustrations of different points in Egyptian antiquity, introduced by different passages of Herodotus.
The volume in HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, etc. 1831, vol. ii, concerning the Egyptians; and particularly the introduction on hieroglyphic writing. For the best representations of the Egyptian monuments, we are indebted to the French expedition. Those of Denon in his _Voyage en Egypte_, are far superior to those of Pococke and Norden; but Denon's, in their turn, have been greatly surpassed in the magnificent work:
_Description de l'Egypte, Antiquites_, P. i, ii, iii. P. i, contains the monuments of Upper Egypt, from the frontiers of Nubia to Thebes; P. ii, iii, contain the monuments of Thebes alone.
BELZONI, _Researches in Egypt_, London, 1824, with an atlas.
# MINUTOLI, _Journey to the Temple of Jupiter Ammon, and Egypt_, 1824.
L. BURCKHARDT, _Travels in Nubia_, London, 1819.
F. C. GAU, _Antiquites de la Nubie_, Paris, 1824. A worthy continuation of the great French work on Egypt.
FR. CAILLAUD, _Voyage a Meroe et au Fleuve Blanc_, Paris, 1825, contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.
1. Political civilization commenced in Egypt at a much earlier period than that to which history reaches; for even in the days of Abraham, and still more so in those of Moses, the government seems to have been so well organized, that a long period must necessarily have elapsed in order to raise the nation to that degree of civilization which we see it had then attained. It may, therefore, be safely asserted, that Egypt ranks among the most ancient countries of our globe in which political associations existed; although we cannot determine with equal certainty whether they did not exist still earlier in India.
2. The causes which contributed to render Egypt thus early a civilized state, may be found in the natural features of the country, and its favourable situation, when compared with the rest of Africa. It is the only tract in all northern Africa situated on a large uninterrupted navigable stream: had it not been for this, it would, like the other parts of Africa under the same parallel, have been a mere desert. To this must be added two extraordinary circumstances: on the one hand, the overflowing of the river so perfectly prepares the soil, that to scatter the seed is almost the only labour of the husbandman; and yet, on the other hand, so many obstacles impede the progress of agriculture, (by the necessity of canals, dams, etc.) that the invention of man must necessarily have been awakened. When agriculture, and the kind of knowledge requisite for its ulterior development had introduced a certain degree of civilization into Egypt, the situation of that country, between Asia and Africa, and in the neighbourhood of the rich land of gold and spices, must have been highly favourable to the purposes of international commerce; hence Egypt appears in all ages to have been one of the chief seats of the inland or caravan trade.
3. It is obvious, therefore, that in the fertile valley of the Nile, the course of things must have been very different from what it was in the desert of Libya. Several small states appear to have been formed in this valley long before the existence of any great Egyptian kingdom. Their origin, as might naturally be supposed, is enveloped in an obscurity, which history can no longer entirely penetrate. It may still, however, be gathered from monuments and records, that Upper Egypt was first the seat of civilization; which, originating in the south, spread by the settlement of colonies towards the north. It is probable that this took place in consequence of the migration of some tribe, differing from the negroes, as is proved by the representations, both in sculpture and in painting, found on the yet remaining monuments of Egypt.
4. The records of the high antiquity of political civilization, not only in India, but likewise in Arabia Felix and Ethiopia, particularly in Meroe, and the evident vestiges of ancient intercourse between the southern nations of our globe, prove with sufficient evidence the truth of such migrations, although they cannot be chronologically determined. It is certain, however, that religion had no small share in producing them. The national bond of union in Egypt not only continued in later times, entirely dependent upon religion, but was originally grounded upon it. Thus every step in political civilization must have depended, if not solely, at least principally, on the caste of priests and on their extension.
General development of the idea of division into castes. Originating at first in the variety of tribes settled in one and the same country, and their different modes of life.--Its further progress in despotic and in theocratic kingdoms.--Application to Egypt and to the Egyptian caste of priests, as an original, civilized tribe.
5. The peculiarity of this caste was the worship of certain deities, the principal of which were Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha, confounded by the Greeks with their Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan. The spread of this worship, which was always connected with temples, affords, therefore, the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those vestiges combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to conclude that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, from beyond Meroe in Ethiopia, and by the establishment of inland colonies around the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of their gods the dominant religion in Egypt.
Proof of the accuracy of the above theory deduced from monuments and express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from Meroe; it might have been inferred from the preservation of the worship of Ammon in the latter place. Memphis, again, and other cities in the valley of the Nile, are commonly supposed to have been founded by detachments from Thebes.
6. This conjecture, which agrees with the usual progress of population, is corroborated by the very ancient division of the country into districts, or nomes. This division was intimately connected with the chief temples, each of which represented a separate colony of the caste of priests; so that the inhabitants of every home belonged to the chief temple, and joined in the religious worship there performed.
7. To the gradual extension of this civilized tribe, which comprised, not only the caste of the priests, but certainly also that of the warriors, and perhaps some others, may be attributed the formation of several small states along the banks of the Nile; the central point of each being always such a colony as we have just now described; although each state consisted both of the aboriginal tribes of the neighbourhood, and of those that had migrated into the country. The bond which united every separate state was, therefore, as in most of those formed in the infancy of mankind, a common worship, in which all the members
## participated. But what, by reason of the peculiarities of soil and
climate, could not take place in southern Africa, took place in Egypt: agriculture, and its progressive improvement, became the great support of civilization; and, as being the true foundation of states, formed the principal political object of the ruling caste.
Refutation of the idea, that the Egyptian priests were in possession of great speculative knowledge; since their knowledge rather had constant reference to practical life, and, therefore, was in their hands the _instrumentum dominationis_ over the people, by which they rendered themselves indispensable, and kept the former in a state of dependence.--Explanation of the close reference which their gods, their astronomical and mathematical sciences bore to agriculture.
8. According to Manetho's catalogues, these separate Egyptian states existed first in Upper and Middle Egypt; in the former were Thebes, Elephantine, This, and Heraclea; in the latter, Memphis. It is only in the last division of his work that we meet with states in Lower Egypt, such as Tanis, Mendes, Bubastis, and Sebennytus.
To these states, therefore, no doubt, belong the 330 kings after Menes, whose names the priests read to Herodotus; as also those whom Diodorus mentions as reigning previous to Sesostris, among whom are remarked Busiris II. founder of Thebes, and Uchoreus, the founder of Memphis. Eusebius and Syncellus have preserved from Manetho the names of several of those kings, which Marsham has endeavoured to compare and arrange.
9. In the absence of a certain and continuous chronology, it is impossible to determine accurately which of these states were contemporary, and which succeeded the others. There can be no question that Thebes was one of the earliest, if not indeed the most ancient of them all; certainly prior to Memphis, which was founded by it. According to the natural order of things, some of these states became wealthy and mighty, and swallowed up the others. Even at this early period, Thebes and Memphis had obtained a superiority over the rest.
This and Elephantine appear to have been united to Thebes; as were the states of Lower Egypt to Memphis.
10. The Mosaic records prove, that even in Joseph's time the state of Memphis (the real place, it appears, of his residence, not On, or Heliopolis,) comprised Middle and Lower Egypt. It possessed a numerous and brilliant court; castes of priests and warriors. Its agriculture flourished, and several of its institutions indicated a deeply-rooted civilization. But after the establishment of vassalage in this state by Joseph, when the class of free proprietors was destroyed, by making the king the only landholder except the priests, the troubles which already threatened the kingdom must have assumed a more dangerous and alarming aspect.
11. These troubles came from abroad. Egypt, surrounded on all sides by nomad tribes, had often suffered from their irruptions, which sometimes poured in from the south, sometimes from the east. But never were these invasions so frequent and durable as in the period which immediately followed the administration of Joseph. Lower Egypt was overrun by the Bedouin Arabs, whose chieftains, called by the Egyptians _Hyksos_, settled in the country, fortified Avaris, or Pelusium, and extended their dominion to Memphis, which they made probably the seat of their government. They are depicted as the oppressors of religion, and of the caste of priests; but when we consider that Moses flourished in their time, we are led to infer that, like the Mongols in China, they must have gradually adopted Egyptian manners and civilization. They do not appear to have gained possession of Thebes in Upper Egypt; and it seems highly probable, that the long struggle against them was never, or at least but for a short time, suspended.
The dominion of the Arabian Hyksos falls between B. C. 1800-1600; and consequently was contemporary with Moses and the exodus of the Jews. Josephus gives 500 years to their dominion, in which he probably comprises the long periods of earlier wars.
12. Defeat, and final expulsion of the Hyksos from Upper Egypt by Thutmosis king of Thebes. The consequence of this event was not only the restoration of freedom and independence to Egypt, but also the union of the different states into one kingdom; as the rulers of Thebes now became monarchs over all Egypt. This expulsion of the Hyksos, which in itself cannot be considered otherwise than as a vast national effort, must have been the more deeply impressed on the memory of the people, as it laid the foundation of the splendid period which immediately followed.
The expulsion of the Hyksos appears to have been one of the chief subjects on which the Egyptian artists exercised their talents: it is supposed to have been represented upon one of the large temples in Thebes. Denon, plate cxxxiii.
SECOND PERIOD.
_From the Sesostridae until the sole dominion of Psammetichus. B. C. 1500-650._
The sources for this period are the same as for the foregoing; and the history still preserves the character of records handed down by hieroglyphics. To this period belongs the line of kings subsequent to Sesostris, given both by Herodotus and Diodorus. Those two historians nearly agree, if we regard Herodotus's line of kings, not as uninterrupted, but as the fragments of a series deduced solely from public monuments: this will be demonstrated by the following table, in which the predecessors of Sesostris have likewise been indicated.
HERODOTUS. DIODORUS.
_Menes._ _Menes._
He was followed by three Followed by fifty-two successors, hundred and thirty kings ranging over a period of more belonging to the previous than 1400 years. period, concerning which our information is very incomplete: _Busiris I._ and eight successors; among those sovereigns were the last of whom was eighteen Ethiopians, and one queen named Nitocris. _Busiris II._ the founder of Thebes.
_Osymandyas_ and eight successors; the last of whom was
_Uchoreus_, founder of Memphis.
_Aegyptus_, grandson of the foregoing. After the lapse of twelve generations,
_Moeris._ _Moeris._
Seven generations.
_Sesostris._ _Sesostris_ or _Sesoosis_.
_Pheron_, son of Sesostris. _Sesostris II._ son of the foregoing: he assumed his father's name.
Interval comprising several generations.
_Amasis_, and the Ethiopian,
_Actisanus._
_Mendes_ or _Manes_, builder of the labyrinth.
Anarchy which lasted five generations.
_Proteus_, in the time of the _Proteus_ or _Cetes_, in the time Trojan war. of the Trojan war.
_Rhampsinitus._ _Remphis_, son of the foregoing.
Seven generations, in the course of which flourished _Nileus_, from whom the Nile derives its name.
_Cheops_, builder of the great _Chemmis_ or _Chembes_, from pyramid. Memphis, builder of the great pyramid.
_Chephres_, brother to the _Cephren_, brother to the foregoing, builder of a pyramid. foregoing, builder of a pyramid.
_Mycerinus_, son of Cheops, _Mycerinus_, son of Chemmis, builder of a pyramid. builder of a pyramid.
_Asychis_ the legislator. _Bochoris_ the legislator.
_Anysis_, who was blind. Interval of several generations.
_Sabaco_, the Ethiopian. _Sabaco_, the Ethiopian
_Anysis_, king for the second time.
_Sethos_, a priest of Vulcan.
Dodecarchy. Dodecarchy.
_Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole _Psammetichus_ of Sais, sole ruler. ruler.
This comparative table demonstrates evidently, not only that Herodotus's line is often interrupted, but likewise that it is impossible to establish any continuous chronology, since Diodorus, more than once leaves the number of generations undetermined. Great importance, nevertheless, attaches to the date fixed by Herodotus, ii, 13, where he declares that king Moeris flourished 900 years before his own visit to Egypt: consequently between B.C. 1500 and 1450. And if, as seems highly probable, the age of Sesostris was the 15th century B.C. (see ZOEGA, _de Obeliscis_), it cannot be denied but that we have some general epochs; and with these we must remain content until more satisfactory information can be discovered on the monuments. It should likewise be observed, that the discrepancy between the names of the kings mentioned by Herodotus and Diodorus, and those furnished by Manetho, may be accounted for by the fact, that the sovereigns were distinguished by different names on the monuments and in common life.
Of the dynasties of Manetho, the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd, belong to this period; more especially the two first, which contain the most important of the Pharaohs.
1. The following period, nearly to its termination, was the brilliant age of Egypt, during which it formed but one empire; the kings being represented as sovereign lords of the whole country. And, indeed, it was natural that the expulsion of the invaders should be followed by a period in which the military force and ardour of the nation would be developed, and directed to external conquest. The capital of the empire was, no doubt, Thebes, the great monuments of which were erected in this period; that honour, however, seems to have alternately belonged to Memphis, Herodotus's line of kings being deduced from the monuments of that city, and more especially from the temple of Phtha.
The more powerful of the Pharaohs of this period, and the founders of the most important monuments of Upper Egypt, on which their names are found, are the following: belonging to the 18th dynasty, somewhere about 1600-1500.
_Amenophis I._ His name is likewise found beyond Egypt on the temple of Amada, in Nubia.
_Thutmosis I._ Commencement of the expulsion of the Hyksos.
_Amenophis II._ The Memnon of the Greeks. Complete expulsion of the Hyksos, and commencement of several of the great edifices. His name is also found on the monuments of Thebes, Elephantine, and even in Nubia, on the distant temple of Soleb. Builder of the palace of Luxor.
_Thutmosis II._ His name found in Carnac, and on the obelisk at the Lateran.
_Ramesses I._ Supposed to be the Danaus of the Greeks. Expelled by his brother:
_Ramesses II._ Miamun. Builder of the palace of Medinet-Abu in Thebes. One of the royal graves that have been opened belongs to this king.
_Amenophis III._ Renewed invasion of the Hyksos; he flees before them into Ethiopia; but returns victorious with his son Ramesses.
Belonging to the 19th dynasty, between 1500 and 1400.
_Ramesses III._, called the Great, and sometimes _Sesostris_; founder of the dynasty, liberator of Egypt, and a great conqueror. His name and titles, his wars and triumphs, are found on the temples and palaces of Luxor and Carnac, in Thebes and Nubia. His son and follower:
_Ramesses IV._ Pheron, rules long in peace. His name is found in the great pillared hall of the palace of Carnac, and on many other buildings.
Among his successors but few names have been preserved until we come to Scheschonk or Sisac, of the 22nd dynasty, between 970 and 950; he took Jerusalem under the reign of Rehoboam, and therefore furnishes a fixed date.
# R. V. L. (RUEHLE VON LILIENSTERN), _Graphic Illustrations of the most ancient History and Geography of Egypt and Ethiopia, with an atlas, 1827_. A work containing every thing necessary for understanding the discoveries hitherto made in this department of history.
2. For this splendour, the empire was principally indebted to Sesostris, son of Amenophis. This prince is justly entitled to the surname of Great, which was given him by the Egyptians. No one will, to the letter, credit the narrative of his deeds, exaggerated as they were by the traditions of the priests, or represented, as they still appear, on the buildings of Thebes; but who can doubt the existence of a monarch of whom so many and such various monuments within and without Egypt bear witness?
Critical examination of the accounts of the nine years' campaign, and conquests of Sesostris. His arms were principally directed against wealthy commercial countries; probably by land against Ethiopia, Asia Minor, and part of Thrace; by sea against Arabia Felix, perhaps even the Indian peninsula. Can the performance of these exploits be deemed improbable, in an age when western Asia did not contain a single great empire? The vast undertakings attributed to Sesostris in the interior of his dominions; extensive buildings, canals, division of the land, and imposition of taxes, according to a regular survey, prove that he must have been the sovereign of all Egypt.
3. Notwithstanding the great changes that were made, the constitution still bore the same general character, that of a sacerdotal aristocracy combined with a monarchy. Although the Egyptian kings, like the Indian princes, were distinct from the priests, yet their power was limited in various ways by that caste. The high priest shared the royal authority; the king was shackled by religious ceremonies, both in public and private life; he was obliged to evince his veneration for the established worship by the erection of public monuments; and all the high offices of state were in the hands of the priests. It cannot be denied that on the personal character of the king depended much of his power; but how strong must have been this aristocracy, when even successful conquerors were obliged to conciliate its approbation!
4. It was probably about this time that the domestic relations of the people, the division into castes, was completed. The sacerdotal caste being in exclusive possession of all scientific knowledge, remained for that reason in possession of the offices of state. The caste of warriors could hardly have assumed its complete form before the country was united into one empire: in like manner that of the navigators could not have been completely established before the canals were excavated; although the origin of all may have been of a much earlier date.
Comparison of the accounts given by Herodotus and Diodorus of the division into castes. Not only precedence in time, but likewise the discrepancies between the two, declare in favour of Herodotus.
5. It appears, therefore, that the most prosperous period of the kingdom of the Pharaohs must be placed somewhere between B. C. 1500-900: although, according to Diodorus, even this period was interrupted by a long anarchy. The splendour of the empire was obscured towards the end. Sabaco, a foreign conqueror from Ethiopia, (probably from Meroe,) subjugated Egypt; after his departure from the country, Sethos, a priest of Phtha, contrary to all precedent, seated himself upon the throne. He was, consequently, considered an usurper; he offended the caste of warriors, and could not have escaped the dangers of an irruption threatened by the Assyrian, Sennacherib, had not a pestilence compelled the invader and his host to retreat.
The dynasty of Sabaco, Seuechus, and Tarhaco in Meroe, who as conquerors subjected Upper Egypt, is comprised between B. C. 800-700. Their names likewise have been already discovered on monuments; some at Abydos in Egypt, others in Nubia.
6. The Egyptian monarchy, however, at length fell, and was replaced by an oligarchy; (or perhaps a return was only made to the division of the earlier kingdoms;) twelve princes sharing among themselves the sovereign power. A certain degree of unity seems to have existed at first in this government; but quarrels soon sprung up among the princes, and they compelled one of their number, Psammetichus of Sais, to take flight. The exiled prince, supported by Greek and Carian mercenaries, contrived to avenge his wrongs; he drove away his rivals, and became the sole ruler.
THIRD PERIOD.
_From the reign of Psammetichus as sole monarch to the Persian conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. B. C. 650-525._
Herodotus, (l. ii, c. 125, etc.) is still the principal authority for this portion of history. His statements, however, are no longer derived from hieroglyphics: they are purely historical. During the reign of Psammetichus, the Greeks who had migrated into Egypt gave rise to the caste of interpreters, [Greek: hermeneis], who acted both as ciceroni for strangers, and as brokers between the Egyptians and Greeks: these people were enabled to give information respecting the history of the country. It is not, therefore, surprising that Herodotus should assure us, that from this time the history was authentic.--The names of the succeeding Pharaohs are likewise found on the monuments; in the erection of which they rivaled their predecessors.
_Contemporary_: Asia: rise and fall of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian empire; rise of the Persian monarchy.--Rome: kings from Numa Pompilius to Servius Tullius.--Athens: Draco; Solon; Pisistratus.--Jews: the last period and fall of the kingdom of Judah; Babylonish captivity.
1. From this epoch Egypt remained uninterruptedly one kingdom, the capital of which was Memphis, although Sais, in Lower Egypt, was the general residence of the royal family. Strangers, and more particularly Greeks, admitted into Egypt; partly as mercenaries, partly as merchants. Influence of this innovation upon the national character, and upon the political system in particular. A spirit of conquest gradually inherited by the Egyptian kings, is directed principally against Asia: hence the formation of a navy, and wars with the great rising monarchies of Asia. Continued, but declining influence of the sacerdotal caste, and proofs of the veneration of the kings for the priesthood deduced from the erection and embellishment of temples, particularly of that consecrated to Phtha in Memphis.
2. _Psammetichus._ He obtains sole power through the assistance of Greek and Carian mercenaries, who are continued as a standing army in the country. The caste of Egyptian warriors, taking umbrage in consequence, emigrate for the most part to Ethiopia, where they settle. The southern portico of the temple of Phtha is erected, and projects of conquest are formed against Asia.
3. _Neco_, son and successor of Psammetichus. His extensive plans of conquest. First formation of a naval power; and unsuccessful attempt to unite by a canal the Mediterranean with the Red sea. Conquests in Asia as far as the Euphrates; but quick secession of the conquered, in consequence of the loss of the battle of Circesium. Circumnavigation of Africa undertaken at his command by the Phoenicians, and successfully performed.
4. _Psammis his son and successor._ Expedition against Ethiopia, and conquests in the interior of Africa.
5. Reign of _Apries_, (the Pharaoh-hophra of the Hebrews). Plans of conquest against Asia;--siege of Sidon, and naval battle with the Tyrians;--expedition against Cyrene in Africa; its fatal result. A revolution caused thereby in Egypt, the inhabitants of which were averse to foreign wars, carried on mostly by mercenary aliens: the revolution headed by Amasis. In the civil war which Apries now wages with his mercenaries against the Egyptians commanded by Amasis, he loses both his throne and life; and with him ends the family of Psammetichus, which had reigned to this time.
6. The usurper _Amasis_ took possession of the sovereign power; and although he had to contend with a strong party, who despised him on account of his low origin, he contrived by popular measures, and by the respect he showed to the sacerdotal caste, to establish himself upon the throne.--His monuments, both at Sais and Memphis.--The Egyptians and Greeks become better acquainted and more closely connected with each other, partly in consequence of the marriage of the king with a Greek woman; but principally owing to the mouths of the Nile being opened to the Greek merchants, and the cession of Naucratis as a factory for their merchandise. Great and beneficial consequences to Egypt, which, under the long reign of Amasis, reaches its highest pitch of prosperity. This prince had already been engaged in disputes with the Persian conqueror, Cyrus, whose son and successor, Cambyses, led an expedition against Egypt, which Amasis, however, luckily for himself, escaped by a seasonable death.
7. His son Psammenitus, the last of the Egyptian Pharaohs, is attacked by Cambyses in the very first year of his reign. After a single battle, fought at Pelusium, and a short siege of Memphis, the empire of the Pharaohs is overthrown, and Egypt merges into a Persian province. The powerful caste of the priests suffered most from the hatred of the conqueror; but the persecution to which they were subjected must be attributed rather to policy than fanaticism.
8. Condition and fate of Egypt as a Persian province. After the death of Cambyses, the country received a Persian governor, and consequently became a satrapy. Immediately after the first tempest of war had blown over, Egypt was treated with mildness by the Persians. The country paid a moderate tribute, together with some royal gifts, among others the produce of the fisheries in lake Moeris; nevertheless, repeated revolts occurred, which may be principally attributed to the hatred and influence of the sacerdotal caste. The first took place under Darius Hystaspes, and was quelled by Xerxes. An increase of tribute was the consequence. The second, under king Inarus, fomented and supported by the Athenians, happened during the reign of Artaxerxes I.; it was quelled by Megabyzus. The third occurred under Darius II. and in consequence of the support which the Egyptians received from the Greeks, was of longer duration than either of the former, the throne of the Pharaoh's being in some measure restored.
This third secession of the Egyptians lasted till 354. During this period various kings were appointed; Amyrtaeus, _d._ 408; Psammetichus, about 400; Nephreus, about 397; Pausiris, _d._ 375; Nectanebus I. _d._ 365; Tachos, _d._ 363; Nectanebus II. conquered by Artaxerxes III. 354.
CARTHAGINIANS.
Sources. The first great republic which ancient records mention as applying both to trade and war, is undoubtedly a phenomenon well deserving the attention of the historical enquirer. Our knowledge, however, of Carthaginian history is unfortunately very deficient, as we possess no author who has made it the principal object of his attention. The immediate subject of the Greek and Roman writers was the history of their own country, and they only allude to that of Carthage in so far as it is connected with their main topic. This observation applies as well to Polybius and Diodorus, as to Livy and Appian. Even the information given by Justin, the only author who says any thing concerning the early state of Carthage, is miserably defective, although taken from Theopompus. (Cf. _Comment. de fontibus_ JUSTINI _in Commentat. Soc. Gotting._ vol. xv.) Moreover, as Herodotus here fails us, we have not the writings of any author whatever who witnessed Carthage in the days of her prosperity: Polybius did not see that country till after the decline of its power; the other historians, wrote long afterwards. But although an uninterrupted history of Carthage does not exist, we are yet able to trace the main outlines of the picture of that state.--The modern writers on Carthage are:
HENDRICH, _de Republica Carthaginiensium_, 1664. A useful compilation.
# _History of the Republic of Carthage_, 2 vols. Franckfort, 1781. A mere history of the wars.
DAMPMARTIN, _Histoire de la Rivalite de Carthage et de Rome_, tom. i, ii. Very superficial.
# W. BOETTICHER, _History of Carthage_,