CHAPTER XIX.

ON THE HISTORY OF MEROE.

OBSCURITY OF HER ANNALS. — HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS NECESSARY TO RENDER A COUNTRY INTERESTING. — WORKS OF ART HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. — LAPIDARY INSCRIPTIONS. — AMUNOPH III. — MEMNON, KING OF ETHIOPIA. — EXPEDITION OF SEMIRAMIS, QUEEN OF ASSYRIA, INTO ETHIOPIA. — ETHIOPIANS IN THE ARMY OF SHISHAK MARCHED TO JERUSALEM. — THE SUKKIIMS OF SCRIPTURE. — EXPEDITION OF ZERAH, THE ETHIOPIAN KING OF THE BIBLE, AND HIS DEFEAT BY THE TRIBES OF JUDAH AND BENJAMIN. — THE ETHIOPIAN DYNASTY OF KINGS WHO REIGNED OVER EGYPT. — THE TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORIANS PROVED BY LAPIDARY INSCRIPTIONS. — THE NAME OF TIRHAKA, KING OF ETHIOPIA, WHO DEFEATED SENNACHERIB, KING OF ASSYRIA, FOUND BOTH ON THE MONUMENTS OF EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA. — THE NAMES AND TITLES OF THIS DYNASTY OF KINGS. — ACCORDANCE OF THE SCRIPTURAL, MONUMENTAL, AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCES. — THE SETHOS OF HERODOTUS, THE TIRHAKA OF SCRIPTURE, AND OF THE MONUMENTS. — THE SUA, KING OF EGYPT OF THE BIBLE, THE SEVECHUS OF MANETHO, AND THE SHABATOK OF THE MONUMENTS.

The Island of Meroe is a classic region, whose name is familiar to almost every reader, as the cradle of arts and civilisation. The Nile was the source of her prosperity, and an object of adoration to the ancient, and even to the present inhabitants[49]; yet most of the great events which have given celebrity to the countries on its banks, are lost in impenetrable obscurity. The names even of the kings under whom she rose to such a height of greatness and power are almost wholly unknown. So scanty are the materials which can be found in the ancient writings and on the monuments, that it is almost an act of presumption to attempt, in the slightest degree, to penetrate the veil which envelopes her history.

Professor Rosellini, in his extensive and admirable work on the antiquities of Egypt, has made many valuable observations on the dynasty of Ethiopian kings who reigned in that country, which have facilitated my researches; and I gladly testify, that the ruins in Ethiopia, in many instances, confirm the conclusions which that learned traveller drew from his examination of the monuments of Egypt. Availing myself of the inquiries of the learned Italian, I shall also put together the most important fragments contained in history, and the valuable lapidary inscriptions I have been able to copy from the antiquities. A country is always interesting, to which we feel ourselves indebted for inventions from which we now derive any important benefit; and as a nation thus rises in our estimation, we become anxious to form an acquaintance with its historical records. There is a charm even in its name, when it recalls to our memory heroic deeds and other important associations.

It is not merely the wonders of art, surprising as they are, which enchant the traveller at Rome and Athens. It is not the vast pile of the Coliseum, the triumphal arches and temples in the Forum, the exquisitely chaste architecture of the Temple of Theseus and of the edifices on the Acropolis, but the crowd of thrilling recollections of the heroism, genius, philosophy, and art, by which these scenes were illustrated, that render them for ever classic and hallowed in our eyes. Had there been no records of the history of Athens, we should have wanted no other evidence of her civilisation and knowledge than the splendid architectural monuments with which her site is adorned. The Parthenon itself speaks volumes, and the most eloquent pages of her greatest historians do not bear more conclusive testimony to her civilisation, than the treasures of Grecian art and taste in the museums of Europe. Had all the written records of her valour and patriotism perished, our knowledge of Athens would have been very nearly what it now is in regard to Ethiopia. The labours of the historians of her land are lost; the brilliant deeds which adorned her annals are enveloped in a cloud of mystery. The history of her neighbours affords only a few scanty gleams, sufficient to make us deplore the general darkness. So changed is the kingdom of Meroe from what it must once have been, that I myself should have almost doubted the short but important passages preserved in the Greek and Latin authors, were they not triumphantly confirmed by the monuments existing at Meroe and Gibel el Birkel.

The reader will, I trust, find in this and the following chapters, that Ethiopia was not unjustly celebrated for civilisation, and as the birth-place of many arts which now contribute highly to our welfare and enjoyment; and the few fragments we have been enabled to glean will prove that she had also her kings and heroes, and that her history was diversified by the usual vicissitudes of triumphs and reverses. I am obliged to refrain from publishing, on the present occasion, all the names of the kings and inscriptions which I found on the edifices of Meroe, Gibel el Birkel, Solib, Semneh, Toumbos, and Amarah.

[Illustration: Pl. 53.

_Printed by C. Hullmandel._

GREAT TEMPLE, GIBEL EL BIRKEL.

_Published by Longman, Rees & Co. April 6th. 1835._]

[Illustration: Pl. 54.

_Inscriptions at Meroe._

_Inscriptions at Gibel el Birkel._

_Published by Longman, Rees & Co. April 6th. 1835._

_Printed by C. Hullmandel._]

For the benefit of the learned, who peculiarly apply themselves to this study, I give, however, a few of those inscriptions, which, mutilated and imperfect as some of them are, the initiated in the recent discoveries in hieroglyphics will immediately perceive to be of the greatest importance, as the earliest undoubted records of Ethiopian history. The inscriptions in Plates LII. and LIII., the hieroglyphics of the Plates X. XI. and XII. of sculpture of Meroe, and also many I am unable to publish, are curious, not only for the names, but for the singular titles which they contain, for the mythology, the variations in the appellations of the divinities, the names of places, and other valuable historical matter.[50] Many scientific men have urged me to publish the whole of these inscriptions; and Signor Rosellini informed me that he should add another volume to his work from these materials. I hope this able writer will not forget his promise, and will excuse my employing it as an apology for not undertaking the interpretation of any portion of them myself; as such an attempt, on my part, would only be unsatisfactory to the learned, and tiresome to the general reader.

“Non nostrum tantas componere lites.”

The monuments of Egypt afford historical evidence of the wars between that country and Ethiopia, during the 18th dynasty; that is, from about the 13th to the 16th century before Christ. In the topographical description I stated that the temples of Semneh were built by the Egyptian king Thothmes III. I have been told that scarabæi have been found, with the name of this king, opposite Gibel el Birkel.[51] Amunoph III., the Memnon of the Greeks, has also left, as a monument of his victories still farther in Ethiopia, the splendid Temple of Solib. I thought, at first, that this was the Amunoph mentioned by Josephus, who, at the second invasion of the Shepherds, took refuge in Ethiopia until he had collected an army, and his son Sethos, or Rameses, was of a sufficient age to lead it against the insurgents: but both Eusebius and Africanus agree in calling Sethos the first king of the 19th dynasty: therefore, as the Temple of Solib bears the name of Amunoph, with the prænomen of Ⲣⲏ-ⲛⲉⲃ-ⲛⲧⲙⲉ, “Sun, Lord of Truth,” it is of the eighth king of the 18th dynasty, and not the last: besides, the representations of the countries conquered by that king are still preserved, and prove, by some of them having the features of negroes, that the splendid Temple of Solib was erected as a monument of his victory and long possession of the country, and not of a mere alliance with the King of Ethiopia.[52]

The successor of Amunoph III., Amulek, or, perhaps, more correctly, Horus, as Eusebius and Africanus call him, must, I conceive, from an inscription I saw at Turin, have also carried his arms into the interior of Africa; but Herodotus[53] states, that only Rameses II. (Sesostris) made himself master of Ethiopia; and it is singular, as I have stated in the account of the ruins of Gibel el Birkel, that the only fragment of the name of an Egyptian king which I saw, either there or at Meroe, was half of the name of Rameses II., which I found, by accident, in the Arab burial-ground at the former place. This is an extraordinary corroboration of the testimony of the historian; for that conqueror must have possessed that Ethiopian city for a sufficient length of time to erect or restore a temple; otherwise I should not have found his name.

Diodorus mentions that, when Egypt was suffering under the dominion of Amasis, a violent, proud, and arrogant man, Aktisanes, king of Ethiopia, profiting by the discontent of the people, invaded Egypt, and had little difficulty in overthrowing the tyrant, and taking possession of the country, as the greater number of his subjects were weary of his oppression, and rebelled against him. Aktisanes, he adds, was a great prince, and built a city, called Rhinocolura, on the confines of Syria and Egypt, and detained there the thieves whom he had punished with the loss of their noses; from which circumstance Rhinocolura had its name. Eusebius, Africanus, and Herodotus do not mention this king. Diodorus’s account is difficult to explain; for his Amasis cannot be the Amasis of Manetho, the first of the 18th dynasty; as Diodorus places his Amasis several reigns after Sesostris or Rameses II. As there are no traces of the name of this king on the monuments either of Ethiopia or Egypt, I see no reason why we should receive the testimony of Diodorus, to the prejudice of other historians; and, doubting, as I do, whether such a king ever reigned in Egypt, I think it unnecessary to enter into any discussion about the period of his reign.

We have also, about this time, an account of another king, whose name is familiar to the classical scholar,—Memnon, the son of Aurora, who killed Antilochus[54] in the Trojan war; and again, in the same poem[55], he is called the most beautiful of warriors, the brother of Priam; and Hesiod calls him the son of Aurora, and the king of the Ethiopians. Monsieur Letronne, in his learned work on the vocal statue of Memnon, has treated the whole story as a romance; but though we may refuse our credence to the embellishments of the Greek poets, tragic writers, and historians, I must confess myself of the opinion of those who believe in the possibility that the statement of a king of Ethiopia of that name having gone to the assistance of Troy may, perhaps, not be without foundation. The distance was certainly very great; but navigation by the Nile, or the Red Sea, would obviate, in a great measure, that difficulty; and it is not much more extraordinary to read of an Ethiopian king going to the relief of Troy in the 13th century before the Christian era, than, in the tenth century, to read of a king, called Zerah, who, with a host of a thousand thousand, went unto Maresha; and, in the 8th century, we find that Tirhaka assisted the King of Israel against Sennacherib, which event I will presently relate. History, both ancient and modern, affords many instances of wars between very distant states, and of expeditions sent against remote kingdoms, often even from continent to continent. I think, therefore, that it is not very surprising that the Ethiopian king, Memnon, should go with his troops from Meroe to Troy, either to assist his relation, or, at the instigation of some neighbour, to join in the common defence against the Greek invasion.[56]

In the 11th century before the Christian era, Semiramis, the celebrated queen of Assyria, fearless of those deserts in which, according to the fable, she was exposed when an infant, invaded Ethiopia. Notwithstanding the celebrity of the Assyrian heroine for cutting through mountains, filling up valleys, and conveying water, by costly aqueducts, to unfruitful plains and vast deserts, it does not seem that her success in subduing Ethiopia was very great. Diodorus only mentions her admiration of a wonderful lake, 160 feet square, of a vermilion colour, which sent forth a delicious smell, not unlike old wine, and of such wonderful efficacy, that whoever drank of it acknowledged the sins which he had long since secretly committed and forgotten. That the kingdom of Meroe was the part of Ethiopia invaded by her is not improbable. Her mortified vanity at not having succeeded in her enterprise, the reflections caused by the dangers and solitudes of the deserts, or the influence of the religion of Ammon, may have been the monitors that awakened the guilty conscience of the Assyrian queen.

The next occasion on which we find mention made of an Ethiopian army is the expedition of Shishak against Jerusalem, in 971 A.C. That monarch is represented as bringing 1200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen; and “the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubims, and the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians.”[57] The Ethiopians and Lubims are called a “huge host, with very many chariots and horsemen.”[58] These Ethiopians may have come from a district of their country which was subject to Shishak, as we see, recorded on the monuments at Thebes, not only the invasion of Judea, mentioned in the Bible, but also victories achieved by that warlike king over various other nations. It is not, however, improbable that the Ethiopians were merely assisting the Egyptians. The Sukkiims are considered by many to be the ancient Troglodytes, the ancestors, perhaps, of the present Bishareen; there is certainly a curious resemblance between the name of the present capital of the latter tribe, Souakim, and their Scripture title, Sukkiim.

Sixteen years only after this event we have an account of another invasion of the Ethiopians. “So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. In his days the land was quiet ten years.” “And Asa had an army of men that bare targets and spears, out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, that bare shields and drew bows, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were mighty men of valour. And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian, with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah. Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah. And Asa cried unto the LORD his God.”[59] “So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves.”[60]

I conceive that the army of Zerah, like that of Memnon, and those, perhaps, who assisted Shishak, may have been transported from their own country, by the navigation of the Red Sea. It has been objected by some, that Zerah could not have been king of Ethiopia above Egypt, without being master of the latter country: but not only was the way by the Red Sea shorter, and much more convenient, but the kings of Meroe at that time may have possessed a part of Arabia, and he may thus have marched his army through the peninsula. We may, however, reasonably suppose, that he would not have undertaken such an important war against the people of Judah, if he had apprehended any impediment to his progress, from such near and powerful neighbours as the Egyptians and Arabians. I see no more reason to doubt that this Zerah was a king of Meroe, than that Tirhaka was such, who bears the same title in Scripture, of king of Ethiopia. The monuments of Egypt and Ethiopia, fortunately, confirm the correctness of the title of the latter, and show us that Tirhaka, called king of Ethiopia, in the Bible, was also king of Meroe; but because no vestiges of edifices constructed by Zerah have survived the almost complete destruction of Ethiopian monuments, there is no reason why we should conceive that the Ethiopia of which he is called king is not the same country which Tirhaka afterwards ruled.

The army of Zerah, which is stated in the Bible at a thousand thousand, that is, a million of men, may seem enormous; and, perhaps, this is only a vague expression of an almost innumerable host; but we must consider, that the tribe of Judah raised an army of 300,000, and that of Benjamin 280,000, to oppose him. The obligation, still customary, for every one who could bear arms to join the array of their king, accounts for the magnitude of their forces. Their duty, as vassals, would oblige the Ethiopians to join the standards of their chiefs, and the same cause, joined to the more noble motives of zeal and devotedness for their country and religion, would draw from their more peaceful avocations the sons of Judah and Benjamin. The latter are described as armed with targets, spears, shields, and bows: such would be precisely the equipment of an army in the centre of Africa at the present day; but the Ethiopian had also three hundred chariots, which at once denotes a people to a certain degree advanced in the art of war. Whatever might be the circumstances which enabled Zerah to collect together this immense army, we could not have a more striking proof of the extent and the affluent condition of the kingdom of Meroe, when we consider that she was able to support the expense of such a vast and distant expedition, and dispense, for so long a period, with the services of so many of her sons.

The events hitherto mentioned as connected with the history of Meroe have been important, as showing her political importance at a very early period. We have seen her successfully repelling the invasions of Semiramis, and of her powerful neighbours the Egyptians, and carrying her arms to the succour of the Trojans, and to attack the people of Judah.

We come now to that glorious epoch in the annals of Ethiopia, when her kings reigned not only over their native country, but over the entire valley of the Nile, including the whole of Egypt. We shall see that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, felt their power. Their dominion embraced nations of every variety of colour and character, from Memphis to the interior of Africa. It is highly satisfactory to know, that the account of this dynasty of Ethiopian kings who reigned over Egypt is not only transmitted to us by the joint testimony of sacred and profane history, but also is amply confirmed by the monuments of both countries.

The lists of Eusebius and Africanus, extracted from Manetho, agree perfectly with the names of the three Ethiopian kings who reigned over Egypt, from 732 to 688 before the Christian era. The following table shows that they do not exactly correspond, either as to particular reigns, or the entire length of the dynasty, which Africanus makes 40 years, and Eusebius 44; but the difference is very slight.

Africanus. Eusebius.

Sabbakon 8 Sabbakon 12

Sevechus, his son 14 Sevechus 12

Tarkus 18 Tarakus 20 -- -- 40 44

Herodotus says[61], that after Asychis, who erected the brick pyramid, a certain blind man was said to have reigned in the city of Anysis. During his sway, a large force of Ethiopians, under Sabachus, their king, invaded Egypt. The blind king escaped by flight into the mountains, and the Ethiopian reigned in Egypt fifty years. At the end of that period, according to Herodotus[62], a vision appeared to Sabachus, commanding him to assemble the priests together, and destroy them. Rather than be guilty of such a sacrilege, he preferred returning into his country, particularly as the fifty years, which the oracle usually consulted by the Ethiopians had stated to be the term of their sojourn in Egypt, was expired. Diodorus gives a narrative of this event, agreeing with that of Herodotus, except that he does not state the name of the king to whom Sabachus succeeded. He speaks of a king Bucchoris, of a vile appearance, who exceeded all his predecessors in talent and prudence, and says this king reigned some time before Sabachus. Both Eusebius and Africanus agree that Sabachus ascended the throne, after making prisoner a king called Bocchoris, or Bonchoris. When we consider the loose accounts which both Herodotus and Diodorus have, in every instance, given of the Egyptian kings, it is only extraordinary that the time assigned by them as the duration of the Ethiopian dominion in Egypt should differ only by six years from that stated by Eusebius. They have preserved few names of any of the dynasties, and these so generally differ from Manetho and the monuments, that it is not surprising to find them describe the Ethiopian dynasty as the reign of one monarch. We may consider it fortunate that the name of that king agrees so exactly with the always more correct orthography in the lists of Eusebius and Africanus. The accuracy, however, of the list of Eusebius is confirmed by testimony which cannot be disputed, namely, the evidence of lapidary inscriptions on the monuments of Egypt and Ethiopia. I will first mention to the reader the names and titles of those kings, with the places where they were found recorded; and will afterwards show him that the third king of this dynasty is the same Tirhaka whose name is connected with one of the most interesting historical events narrated in the sacred writings.

[Hieroglyphs]

ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲉⲛ (Ⲣⲏ ⲛⲟϥⲣⲉ (ⲛ̀) ⲕⲁ) ⲥⲓⲣⲏ (Ϣⲃⲕ). “The King (Sun Beneficent of Oblations), Son of the Sun (_Shabak_).” This is undoubtedly the first of this list of kings. The name is not found upon any of the monuments of Ethiopia, but that is not surprising, so few of the temples there being preserved; but we have undoubted evidence of this king having, as the historians say, reigned over Egypt, for we find his name upon a gate of the temple of Karnak, and also the portrait of the king in his Ethiopian dress, with the same titles, on the interior of the door of the great propylon of the Temple of Luxor, which he repaired. Signor Rosellini states, that he found a date of the twelfth year of his reign; which corroborates the statement of Eusebius, that he reigned twelve years, and not eight only, according to Africanus. I saw at Berlin a scarabæus containing the name of this king, with the uræus on each side, and above the oval a lion couchant: the latter is curious, as it tallies with the singular title I observed above the names at Amarah, of “King of Kings,” represented by the reed and half circle, as king (ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲛ), and a lion, emblematical of king, with the sign of the plural number. Signor Rosellini mentions, also, that this name is on two amulets he purchased for the Museum at Florence, and on a statue in the Villa Albani at Rome. I think the latter must be removed, as I could not find it there, nor do I recollect having seen any other instance of the name of Sciabak or Sabachus, in the splendid collections of Egyptian antiquities at Turin, Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, Naples, Vienna, Munich, &c., except in an inscription on an alabaster Canopian vase at Paris.

[Hieroglyphs]

ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲛ̀ (Ⲣⲏ.....) ⲡⲓⲕⲁ) ⲥⲓⲣⲏ (Ⲁⲙⲛⲙ (ⲁⲓ) Ϣⲃⲧⲕ), “King (Sun ..... of the Offerings), Son of the Sun, (the beloved of Amun Shabatok).” This name is evidently different from the preceding, there being not only a change in the prænomen, but also in the other oval. Besides the title of Beloved of Amun, the addition of the third hieroglyphic, the phonetic sign for T, changes completely the sound. There is as much difference in the names of Shabako and Shabatok, who therefore are as clearly two persons, as the Sabbakon and Sevechus of Eusebius. The Venetian edition of Eusebius calls the latter king Sebichos. When we consider the remote period, the difference of the dialect, the errors of copyists, &c., it is not surprising that so much discrepancy should exist. This name is found on the ruins to the south-east of the great temple at Carnak; and that the king was an Ethiopian is evident from his costume. The style is similar to that of Shabak; but the drawings of Signor Rosellini, which I could have wished to insert, are clearly the portraits of two different kings. I will presently state the learned Italian’s reasons for supposing that both these names allude to the god Seb or Sevek.

[Hieroglyphs]

[Hieroglyphs]

[Hieroglyphs]

ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲛ̀ (Ⲣⲏ-Ⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩⲛⲟϥⲣⲉ, ⲱϥⲉ ⲥⲓⲣⲏ) (Ⲧϩⲣⲕ), “King Sun Atmou beneficent, Corrector, Son of the Sun (Tirhaka).” The name of this king is found on the columns and sides of the temple excavated out of the rock at Gibel el Birkel: it occurs ten times in the inscriptions which I copied there. It is also on the small altar in the great temple; but Major Felix[63] appears to me mistaken in supposing that Tirhaka built that splendid edifice, for his name occurs in that instance only. Whereas the name of ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲛ̀ Ⲡⲓⲱⲛϩⲉⲓ, “King Pionchei (the living),” is on the large altar, and also a fragment of it on the western wall of the temple; but the claim even of the latter may be disputed, for Vignette A. is the prænomen on the only column which is now standing; and the name on the pillars is usually that of the king who erected the edifice. We have the authority, then, of the monuments of Ethiopia, that Tirhaka was king over that country, and his name, fortunately, still remains on a pylon of a temple at Medenet Abou, and other places at Thebes, to corroborate the testimony of Manetho, that he was also King of Egypt. In the latter instance, his name is written exactly as I have given it, except that the two last hieroglyphics of the prænomen are represented, figuratively I conceive, by an arm and a lash in the hand. I found, also the name of his queen, in the first chamber excavated out of the temple of Gibel el Birkel (Vignette A). ⲥⲟⲩⲧⲛ̀-ϩⲓⲙⲉ Ⲁⲙⲛϯⲕϯϩ,, “royal bride, Amentakatah.” Mr. Wilkinson found two princesses of this family: the first, B, is ⲧⲛⲣ ⲥⲓⲟⲩ, or ⲧ. ⲧⲏⲣ Ⲁⲙⲛⲁⲧⲥ, “the Divine Star, or the Divine Amenates;” and C, is ⲧⲏⲣ ϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲦⲙⲁⲩϢⲛⲓⲛⲟϥⲣⲉ, “the Divine Bride, Mutsheninofra, the Mother, Mistress of Good.” Signor Rosellini states, that there is a date, at Gibel el Birkel, of the year XX. of this king’s reign, confirming the accuracy of Eusebius. I did not perceive it, though, I believe, I copied every hieroglyphic which remains there.

[Hieroglyphs]

The third king of this dynasty is the Tirhaka of Holy Writ: the narrative there given, is, I conceive, of sufficient importance to justify my noticing it somewhat in detail.[64]

In the third year of King Hoshea, the son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz began to reign; and, for his zeal in rooting out the idolatry of his people, he was described as one who “trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.” Hezekiah rebelled against the Assyrians, and smote the Philistines; and in the fourth year of his reign, the king of Assyria, Shalmaneser, besieged Samaria, and, after three years, took it, and carried away the Israelites prisoners. In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib, who had succeeded to Shalmaneser, went up against all the “fenced cities of Judah, and took them.” Hezekiah agreed to purchase a peace for three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold; and gave to him, for that purpose, all the treasures in the temples and palaces; but Sennacherib, faithless to this agreement, sent up a great host against Jerusalem, and the three chiefs of the army of the king of Assyria, Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh, had a conference with three of the officers of Hezekiah-Eliakim, who was over the household of Judah, Shebni, the scribe, and Joab the son of Asaph the recorder. Rabshakeh asked him, “Now, on whom doest thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?” and taunted them with trusting upon Egypt. “Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him.” And he begged them to give pledges to the King of Assyria, and not trust on Egypt for chariots or for horsemen. Hezekiah was comforted by the prophet Isaiah, and Rabshakeh returned and told Sennacherib that Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia, was coming up to fight against him. The titles which are given to Tirhaka, in these passages, are most important. In 2 Kings, xix. 9., he is called king of Ethiopia, and in xviii. 21. and 24., Pharaoh of Egypt, which is exactly saying that he was ruler over both countries, as we have seen that Manetho and the monuments prove him to have been.

This name, according to Signor Rosellini, is written in Hebrew (תרחקח םלך־כוש) “Tarhaka, Melek Cush,” translated correctly Θαρακα Βασιλευς Αιθιοπων, “Tarhaka, king of the Ethiopians.” The perfect resemblance of the name, which neither upon the monuments nor in the lists is given to any other king of Egypt; the correspondence of the epoch, and the title of king of Ethiopia, given to a sovereign of an Ethiopian dynasty, who by force of arms had annexed Egypt to their paternal kingdom, are circumstances which prove, beyond all doubt, as the learned Italian[65] says, the identity of the Tarhaka of the monuments, with the Tirhaka of holy writ. If, according to Eusebius, we allow 163 years for the 26th dynasty, that is, the one which succeeded to the Ethiopians in Egypt, that number, added to the date of the invasion by Cambyses, 525, will make 688, which, added to the 20 years’ reign of Tirhaka, would make the accession of that king to the throne to be in 708, nearly the exact time assigned by the Scripture chronologists for the relief of Hezekiah and Tirhaka; but Signor Rosellini, principally on the authority of a stela which he obtained at Alexandria, makes the total of the reigns of that dynasty 150 years, which would cause the accession of Tirhaka to the dominion of the Nile to happen in 695. Following exactly the chronology of Scripture, it must have been in the first year of the king’s reign that the destruction of the Assyrian army took place. “Then the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword.”[66]

I will here introduce an event related by Herodotus[67], which, notwithstanding many discrepancies, is evidently the same:—“After Sabaco, the Ethiopian, returned into the country, and the blind king Anysis was dead, there reigned,” he says, “a priest of Vulcan, named Sethos. This king treated with contempt the warriors of Egypt, despising them, as if he never would have occasion for them; and, besides other injuries he committed against them, deprived them of the ground which, under the preceding kings, had been granted to each, in portions of twelve fields of a hundred cubits. But afterwards Sennacherib, king of the Arabs and of the Assyrians, having invaded Egypt with a great host, none of the warriors were willing to assist him: then the priest, reduced to extremity, entered into the sanctuary, bewailed before the figure of the divinity the danger to which he was exposed. Thus weeping, he fell asleep, and the divinity appeared unto him in a vision, and exhorted him to take courage, for he would have nothing to dread in going against the army of the Arabians, since he himself would send assistance. Animated by this dream, and having assembled those Egyptians who were willing to follow him, he fixed his camp in Pelusium, since that city forms the entrance into the country. He was followed by none of the warriors, but only by merchants, artificers, and labourers. When they were arrived there, a multitude of field mice were scattered among their adversaries, ate the bands of their armour, of their bows and shields, so that, next day, naked and disarmed, they fled, and many perished.”

This Sethos is evidently the Ethiopian Tirhaka. The latter was the successor of an Ethiopian, as Sethos is represented to have been, and it was natural that the Ethiopian should despise the soldiers of Egypt, whom his predecessor had conquered. His depriving them of their land, and consequently of their political importance, was the natural policy of a king who reigned over them by right of conquest; but, as he was a good and beneficent monarch, who had encouraged the arts and internal prosperity of the country, of which we have a proof in his restoring and embellishing the temples, the merchants, artificers, and labourers hastened to his support, being attached to his person by the advantages they had derived from his government. The title of priest is not inappropriate to an Ethiopian king, who was chosen from that order. Diodorus also informs us how much they were under the influence of their priests, submitting even to death itself at their command. Besides the coincidence of the time in the list of Manetho, there is no mention of a king called Sethos, except the first of the 19th dynasty, which was long previous. These circumstances alone almost prove that the Sethos of Herodotus and the Ethiopian Tirhaka are the same; but we have still stronger evidence. The king against whom both marched was the same Sennacherib, King of Assyria, and they are both delivered in the same manner; that is, by a miracle. Herodotus states Pelusium, not Jerusalem, as the scene of their discomfiture. This circumstance made me at first imagine that Sennacherib might have been defeated at both places; but I conceive it more reasonable to attribute these differences of name, place, and the nature of the miracle to the usual confusion of Herodotus, who did not compile his work, like Manetho, from the sacred registers preserved in the temples, but from verbal communications with the priests; perhaps the story of the mice was invented by Herodotus, or his informers, or, at all events, arose in the lapse of time, to explain the manner in which the Deity interfered in their behalf.

The Tirhaka, then, of the monuments and of Manetho, is the Sethos of Herodotus, and the Tirhaka who assisted Hezekiah against Sennacherib. From these various accounts, and by separating, in the narrative of Herodotus, the probable from the marvellous, we may conclude that the monarch was pious, since he bore the title of priest, and applied to the divinity for support before he set out on the expedition; that he was powerful, since he was not only able to hold in subjection the entire valley of the Nile, but also to carry his arms to the assistance of his neighbours. He appears, also, to have been an enlightened and an able legislator, since he encouraged the arts; and although a foreigner, had so ingratiated himself with his people, that, strong in their affections, he was not only able to destroy the military despotism of the soldiery, but raise another army, to wage war against the powerful king of Assyria. Eratosthenes (see Strabo[68],) states that this conqueror proceeded as far as the Pillars of Hercules.

There is another king mentioned in the Bible, as reigning in Egypt twelve years before the defeat of Sennacherib. It is agreed, almost by all, that he is the Shabatok or Sevechus of the lists; but this is so learnedly and ingeniously discussed by Signor Rosellini, that I make no apology for enriching this chapter with a translation of his remarks. At the seventeenth chapter of 2 Kings, it is related that Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, subdued and made tributary Hoshea, king of Israel. That prince having wished to rebel, and having sent for aid to So, king of Egypt, Shalmaneser besieged, conquered, and made him prisoner. The reign of Hoshea over Israel lasted nine years; so that it appears to have happened in his sixth year, that, to throw off the Assyrian yoke, he demanded assistance from the king of Egypt. Therefore, as Shalmaneser besieged and took Samaria in that year, which was the last of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign over Judah in the third year of Hoshea; and in the 14th year of Hezekiah occurred the discomfiture of Sennacherib, in which the Pharaoh Tirhaka took part, as the ally of the king of Judah. The sixth year of Hoshea (in which he demanded aid of So, king of Egypt,) corresponds to the third year of the reign of Hezekiah; and since this latter king, in the 14th year of his reign, made a treaty with Tirhaka, it follows that the Pharaoh, called So in the Bible, preceded Tirhaka by an interval of not less than eleven years. But So is called king of Egypt, and Tirhaka was the same; therefore we ought to seek the Pharaoh So among the kings of this Ethiopian dynasty. And since he preceded Tirhaka by an interval of eleven years, we must necessarily recognise him as the immediate predecessor of Tirhaka, who is called by Manetho Sevechus, or Sebichus, and, according to Eusebius, reigned twelve years. Not less manifest than the coincidence of the years is the correspondence of the name in Manetho and the Bible, if we correct the pronunciation according to the true sound of the Egyptian language. I have already mentioned, that the name of Shabatok (so the Sevechus of Manetho is written upon the monuments) may truly, indeed, be considered as a peculiar word of the Ethiopian dialect, which corresponds to the Egyptian Sevek. Sevek is, in the Egyptian mythology, a god, who has attributes relative to the Nile, and is generally represented under the sacred symbol of a crocodile. In this form its name is usually written [Symbol] ⲥ ⲃ ⲕ “Sebek, Sevek;” but when it is represented under a human form, then it is written simply [Symbol] or [Symbol] ⲥ ⲃ “Seb, Sewe.” The titles, attributes, and forms of those two names, Sewe and Sebek, are promiscuous; and we are certain, that, however it is written or pronounced, it means the same divinity.[69]

Let us take, therefore, from the Hebrew text, the name of the king of Egypt, to whom Hoshea sent for help. It is written סוא: disregarding (particularly in a foreign language) the corrupt pronunciation given to it by Masorete, and the other interpreters, who read So or Soa, and Sua, let the least learned in the languages of the East judge, if the natural pronunciation of these Hebrew elements be not Sewa or Sewe. This is sufficient to show, that the author of the second book of Kings wrote that name with those characters which could give the pronunciation of the Egyptian name Sewe. It is probable that the same name, written upon the monuments in the Ethiopian manner, Shabatok, was commonly called by the Egyptians, Sewe; and, perhaps, they pronounced it also, indifferently, Sewek, since both these words were the designation of the same divinity, to which that name belongs. In fact, Manetho wrote in his history, Sevechus, and, cutting off the Greek termination, it remains Sevek, retaining, from the Ethiopian Shabatok, the pronunciation used in Egypt. Thus the text of the Bible, also, in relating this Egyptian name, maintains that possible orthographic exactness which it has followed in writing all the other Egyptian names. The original monuments, therefore, and the lists of Manetho concur in attesting that the dynasty of the Ethiopians was composed of three kings, whose names I have mentioned, and thus correct the Greek historians who have assigned it to Sabaco only.