Northward of the colossi was the sacred lake, said to have been formed by Menes, and now a stagnant pond. At its south-eastern corner the foundations have recently been laid bare of small square rooms, the walls of which have been adorned with sculptures. But the waters of the inundation have followed the excavators, and the walls are fast perishing under the influence of moisture and nitrous salt.
About Sesostris the guides of Herodotos had a good deal to say. But nothing of it was history-not even his conquests in Europe and Scythia, his excavation of the ca.n.a.ls which rendered Egypt unfit for horses and chariots, his equal division of the land among his subjects, or his having been the sole Egyptian monarch who governed Ethiopia. How even a dragoman of Memphis could have imagined that it had ever been possible to cultivate the Egyptian soil without ca.n.a.ls it is difficult to understand, and still more difficult to imagine how a traveller who had seen the Delta could have believed a statement of the kind. The only explanation can be that Herodotos never saw the Delta in its normal condition when the inundation had ceased to cover the land. That Sesostris should have been supposed to have been the only Pharaoh who established his power in Ethiopia is but a proof how little was known of the real history of Egypt by either Herodotos or his informants.
The origin of the name given to this Pharaoh of the dragoman"s imagination is still a puzzle. The statues in front of the temple of Ptah, to which the name was attached, were set up by Ramses II., and in a papyrus we find the name Sesetsu given as the popular t.i.tle of the same monarch. Perhaps it means "the son of Set is he." We know that Set, the ancient G.o.d of the Delta, was a special object of worship in the family of Ramses II., and his father Seti was named after the G.o.d. Sesetsu would correspond with fair exact.i.tude to the Sesoosis of Diodoros; for Sesostris we should have to presuppose the form Sesetsu-Ra.
The son and successor of Sesostris, according to Herodotos, was Pheron.
The name is merely a misp.r.o.nounced Pharaoh, the Egyptian Per-aa or "Great House." Pheron undertook no military expedition, being blind in consequence of his impiety in hurling his spear at too high a Nile. After ten years of blindness an oracle came to him from Buto that he would be cured if he would wash his eyes in the urine of a woman who had been true to her husband. Trial after trial was made in vain, and when at last the king recovered his sight he collected all the women in whose case he had failed into "a city now called the Red Mound," and there burnt them, city and all. He then erected the two obelisks which stood in front of the temple of Ra at Heliopolis.
There are many "Red Mounds" in Egypt, and the name Kom el-Ahmar or "Red Mound" is accordingly very plentiful in a modern map of the country.
Wherever kiln-baked bricks have been used in the construction of a building, or where the wall or houses of a city have been burnt, the mound of ruins to which they give rise is of a reddish colour. Such a mound must have existed in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis in the days of Herodotos.
There is still a Kom el-Ahmar close to Tel el-Yehudiyeh, where the Jewish temple of Onias was built. But "the Red Mound" of the guides was probably one that was visible from the pylon of the great temple of Heliopolis, where the obelisks stood with which the story of it was a.s.sociated. The obelisks had indeed been erected by a "Pharaoh," but it was not a son of Ramses II. They had been set up by Usertesen I. of the twelfth dynasty nearly fifteen centuries before Ramses II. was born.
As Pheron was the son of Sesostris it was necessary for Herodotos to introduce him into his list immediately after his father, even though he had left no monument behind him in the temple of Memphis. But after Pheron he returns to his series of "Memphite" kings. This time it is "a Memphite whose Greek name is Proteus," and whose shrine was situated in the midst of "the Tyrian Camp" or settlement on the "south side of the temple of Ptah." The tourist, therefore, walked round the eastern wall of the great temple from north to south, and as the pylon on this side of the sanctuary was connected with the name of a king who was the builder of a brick pyramid seen on the way to the Fayyum, an account of it is deferred till later. The next monument Herodotos came to was accordingly of Phnician and not of Egyptian origin.
Proteus in fact was a Phnician G.o.d, worshipped, Herodotos tells us, along with the foreign Aphrodite, whom he suspects to be the Greek Helen in disguise. The Phnician Aphrodite, however, was really Ashtoreth, which the Greeks p.r.o.nounced Astarte, the Istar of the Babylonians and a.s.syrians.
But the "priests," or rather the guides of the traveller, were equal to the occasion, and on his asking them concerning Helen they at once gave him a long story about her arrival and adventures in Egypt. Proteus was at the time the king in Memphis, and not the sea-G.o.d of ships and prophetic insight, as Homer had imagined, and he very properly took Helen away from Paris and kept her safely till Menelaos arrived after the Trojan war to claim his wife. Accordingly Proteus, the Phnician "old man of the sea,"
has gone down among the three hundred and forty-one Pharaohs of Egypt whose names were recounted to Herodotos by the "priests." There could not be a better ill.u.s.tration of the real character of his "priestly"
informants, or of the worthlessness of the information which they gave him.
When, however, Herodotos goes on to a.s.sert that "they said" that Rhampsinitos succeeded Proteus in the kingdom, he is dealing with them unjustly. The supposed fact must have come from his own note-book. After visiting the Tyrian Camp, on the south side of the great temple, the traveller was taken to its western entrance, where he was told that the propylaea had been erected by Rhampsinitos, as well as two colossal statues in front of them. The order in which he saw the monuments determined the order in which the names of Proteus and Rhampsinitos occurred in his note-book, and the order in his note-book determined the order of their succession.
Rhampsinitos represents a real Egyptian king. He is Ramses III. of the twentieth dynasty, the last of the conquering Pharaohs, and the builder of Medinet Habu at Thebes. But Herodotos was never at Thebes, and had consequently never heard of the superb temple and palace Ramses had built there. All that he knows of the architectural works of the Pharaoh are the insignificant additions he made to the temple of Memphis. Of the real Pharaoh he is equally ignorant. In place of the vanquisher of the hordes of the north, the monarch who annihilated the invaders from the aegean and captured or sunk their ships, the conqueror who carried his arms into Palestine and Syria, we have the hero of a folk-tale. Rhampsinitos and his treasury have become the subject of the story of the master-thief, a story which in various forms is found all over the world, and perhaps goes back to the infancy of mankind. Why this story should have been attached to Ramses III. it is just as impossible for us to know as it is to understand why the name of Neit, the G.o.ddess of Sais and the twenty-sixth dynasty, should have been combined with that of the Theban Pharaoh of the twentieth. Rhampsinitos, Ramessu-n-Neit or "Ramses of Neit," indicates the period in which alone the name could have been formed. It must have been the invention of the Karian dragomen who came into existence under the Saitic dynasty.
Ramses III. was, however, as we learn from the great Harris papyrus, one of the wealthiest of Egyptian princes. The gifts he made to the temples of the G.o.ds, more especially to that of Amon of Thebes, are almost fabulous in amount. His trading ships brought him the wares of the south and north; and the gold-mines of the eastern desert, as well as the copper and malachite mines of the province of Mafkat, the Sinaitic Peninsula of our modern maps, were actively worked in his reign. The chambers of one of his treasuries still exist at Medinet Habu, and we can still see depicted on their walls the vases of precious metal which he deposited in them.
The Rhampsinitos of folk-lore was similarly rich. He built a treasury for his wealth beside his palace, which should secure it against all attempts at robbery. But the architect left in it a stone which could be easily removed by any one who knew its secret, and before he died the secret was communicated to his two sons. To the amazement of the king, therefore, the gold began to disappear, though his seals remained unbroken and the doors fast locked. He set a trap, accordingly, by the side of the chests of gold; and one of the thieves was caught in it. He thereupon induced his brother to cut off his head, so that his body might not be recognised, and to decamp with it. Next morning Rhampsinitos found the headless corpse, which was thereupon exposed to public view under the protection of armed guards, who were ordered to arrest whoever showed any signs of recognising it. The mother of the dead man, frantic at the treatment of his body, which would deprive him of all hope in the next world, threatened to disclose the whole story unless her surviving son could secure his brother"s corpse and give it honourable burial. Loading several a.s.ses with wine-skins, therefore, he drove them past the place where the guards sat over the corpse. There he allowed some of the wine to escape, accidentally as it were, and when the guards began eagerly to drink it he craftily encouraged them to do so until they had all fallen into a drunken sleep.
He then seized the body and carried it to his mother. The king was now more than ever desirous of discovering such a master-thief, and ordered his daughter to adopt the Babylonian custom of sitting in public and admitting the attentions of any one who pa.s.sed on condition that he told her the cleverest trick he had ever performed. The thief provided himself with the arm of a mummy, which he concealed under his cloak, and thus prepared presented himself to the princess and disclosed to her all he had done. As she tried to seize him, he left the dead man"s arm in her hand and escaped. The king, struck with admiration, determined that so exceedingly clever a youth should be his own son-in-law, and issued a proclamation not only pardoning him but allowing him to marry his daughter. Such was the way in which Egyptian history was constructed by the combined efforts of the popular imagination, the foreign dragomen, and Herodotos!
After all, however, the master-thief did not succeed Rhampsinitos on the throne. After pa.s.sing the western entrance of the temple of Ptah, Herodotos arrived again at the northern side, from which he had started, and, as he was not allowed to enter the sanctuary, there was nothing further for him to see. His next visit, accordingly, was to the pyramids of Gizeh, and the pyramidal builders-Kheops, Khephren, and Mykerinos of the fourth dynasty-are made to follow Ramses III. of the twentieth, who lived more than two thousand years after them. It does not say much for the judgment of our cla.s.sical scholars that before the decipherment of the hieroglyphs they should have preferred the chronology of Herodotos to that of Manetho.
Herodotos, like a true sight-seer, found nothing in Memphis to interest him except the temple. About the city itself he has nothing to say, not even about the stuccoed city-wall which gave to it its name of "the White Wall." Portions of this wall are still standing at the northern end of the mounds which cover the site of Memphis. Like all the other city-walls of ancient Egypt, it is built of sun-dried bricks, bound together with the stems of palm-trees, and was once of great thickness. At the southern end of the mounds are the remains of the kilns in which the potters of the Roman and Byzantine age baked their vases of blue porcelain. Some of their failures still lie on the surface of the ground.
Herodotos went to the pyramids of Gizeh by water, across the lake on the western side of the city, which he states had been made by Menes, and then along a ca.n.a.l. At Gizeh his love of the marvellous was fully satisfied. He inspected the pyramids and the causeway along which the stones had been brought from the quarries of Turah for building them, and listened reverentially to all the stories which his guides told him about them and their builders. The measurements he gives were in most cases probably made by himself. But in saying that there were hieroglyphic inscriptions "in the pyramid" he has made a mistake. There were no inscriptions either in it or outside it, unless it were a few hieratic records left by visitors on the lower casing-stones of the monument. At the same time it is certain that Herodotos saw the hieroglyphs, and that his guide pretended to translate them, since they contained, according to him, an account of the quant.i.ty of radishes, onions, and leeks eaten by the workmen when building the great pyramid, as well as the amount of money which it cost. But the vegetables represented Egyptian characters-the radish, for instance, being probably _rod_, "fruit" or "seed," and the mention of them is a proof that it really was a hieroglyphic text which the dragoman proposed to interpret. It is even possible that the guide knew the hieroglyphic symbols for the numerals; if so, it would explain his finding in them the number of talents spent by Kheops upon his sepulchre, and it would also show that the inscriptions were engraved, not "in the pyramid," but in an adjoining tomb. In fact, this seems the simplest explanation of what Herodotos says about them; like many another traveller, he forgot to note where exactly the inscriptions were inscribed, and when he came to write his book a.s.sumed that they were in the pyramid itself.
According to the dragoman"s legend, Kheops and Khephren were cruel and impious tyrants, while their successor Mykerinos (Men-ka-Ra) was a good and merciful ruler. The key to this description of them is probably to be found in the statement of Diodorus Siculus that the people threatened to drag their bodies from their tombs after death and tear them in pieces, so that through fear of such a fate the Pharaohs took care to have themselves buried in a secret place. This secret place is the subterranean island, with its chambers, which Herodotos says was made under the great pyramid by means of a ca.n.a.l in order that the king might be entombed there. The myth must have originated in the fact that in the days of Herodotos the mummies of Kheops and Khephren were not to be found in their pyramids, which had been rifled centuries before, and the story of the cruelty and impiety of the two kings accordingly grew up to account for the fact.
The righteousness of Mykerinos was visited with the anger and punishment of the G.o.ds, since it had been destined that the Egyptians should be evil-entreated for one hundred and fifty years, and his piety and justice had averted from them part of their doom. This view of destiny and the action of the G.o.ds was as essentially Greek as it was foreign to the Egyptian mind, and it is not surprising therefore that the decree of heaven was announced to the unhappy Pharaoh through that thoroughly Greek inst.i.tution, an oracle. We are reading in the story a Greek tragedy rather than a history of Egypt.
It was part of the punishment of Mykerinos that he should lose his daughter, and the dragomen thus managed to connect the pyramid at Gizeh with a gilded wooden image of a cow in the palace at Sais, which, since the reign of Psammetikhos, must have been well-known to them. The cow, which was really a symbol of Neit in the form of Hathor, with what Herodotos supposed to be the disk of the sun between its horns, though it was really the moon, was imagined to be hollow, and to be the coffin of the daughter of the Pharaoh. The wooden figures which stood beside it were further imagined to represent the concubines of the king. There were, however, other stories about both the figures and the cow, less reputable to the royal character, but equally showing how entirely ignorant Herodotos"s informants were of Egyptian religion and custom. Though they knew that at the festival of Osiris the cow was carried out into the open air, they said this was because the daughter of Mykerinos when dying had asked her father that she might once a year see the sun. Can there be a stronger proof of the gulf that existed between the native Egyptian and the "impure" stranger, even when the latter belonged to the caste of dragomen? To us the representation of Hathor under the form of a cow with the lunar orb between its horns seems an elementary fact of ancient Egyptian religion; the modern tourist sees it depicted time after time on the walls of temples and tombs, and the modern dragoman has begun to learn something about its meaning. But in the fifth century before our era the dragoman and the tourist were alike foreigners, who were not permitted to penetrate within the temples, and there were neither books nor teachers to instruct them in the doctrines of the Egyptian faith.
Herodotos must have returned to Memphis after his visit to the pyramids, before setting forth on his voyage to the south. Had he gone straight from Gizeh to the Fayyum along the edge of the desert, he would have pa.s.sed the step-pyramid and the Serapeum at Saqqara. It is difficult to believe that, had he done so, he would have told us nothing about the burial-place of the sacred bulls and the huge sarcophagi of granite in which they were entombed. The subterranean gallery begun by Psammetikhos was still open, and each Apis as he died was buried in it down to the end of the Ptolemaic period. At a later date, when the Persian empire had been overthrown, the Serapeum became a favourite place of pilgrimage for Greek visitors to Memphis. A Greek temple was built over the sepulchres of the bulls, Greek recluses took up their abode in its chambers, and Greek tourists inscribed their names on the sphinxes which lined the approach to the sanctuary.
Herodotos knew all about the living Apis, and the marks on the body of the bull which proved his divinity, as well as about the court in the temple of Ptah at Memphis, which Psammetikhos had built for the accommodation of the incarnate G.o.d. He was well acquainted also with the legend which made Kambyses slay the sacred bull and scourge its priests, and he tells us how the latter buried the body of their slaughtered deity in secret. But neither he nor his guides knew where the burial took place, or where the mummies of the bulls had been entombed from time immemorial. Had they done so we should have heard something about it. But, instead of this, we are told that the dead oxen were buried in the suburbs of the town where they had died, their horns being allowed to protrude above the ground in order to mark the spot. When the flesh was decayed the bones were conveyed in boats to a city in the island of Prosopitis, called Atarbekhis, and there deposited in their last resting-place.
It is evident, therefore, that the great cemetery of Memphis was not visited by travellers, and that the guides accordingly knew nothing about it. The Egyptians probably had the same feeling in regard to it as their Moslem descendants; the graves would be profaned if the "impure" foreigner walked over them. The "impure" foreigner, moreover, was usually satisfied with the three pyramids of Gizeh; he did not care to make another long expedition in the sun to the western desert in order to see there another pyramid. And, apart from the pyramid, there was little for him to visit.
It is doubtful whether he would have been permitted to descend into the burying-place of the bulls, and the buildings above it were probably of no great size.
But whatever might have been the reason, Saqqara and its Serapeum were unknown to the dragomen, and consequently to Herodotos as well. He must have started for the Fayyum from Memphis and have sailed up the channel of the Nile itself. If he noticed the pyramids of Dahshur and Medum, they would have been in the far distance, and have appeared unworthy of attention after what he had seen at Gizeh. Soon after pa.s.sing Medum, however, it would have been necessary for him to leave the river and make his way inland by the ca.n.a.l which joined the Bahr Yusuf at Illahun. Here he would have been close to the great brick pyramid whose secret has been wrested from it by Professor Petrie, and here too he would have seen, a little to the south, the city of Herakleopolis, the Ahnas el-Medineh of to-day, standing on the rubbish-mounds of the past on the eastern bank of the Bahr Yusuf.
Herakleopolis, called Hininsu in Egyptian and the cuneiform inscriptions, was the capital of a nome which the Greek writers describe as an island.
It was, in fact, enclosed on all sides by the water. On the east is the Nile; on the west the Bahr Yusuf, itself probably an old channel of the river; northward a ca.n.a.l unites the two great streams, while southward another ca.n.a.l (or perhaps a branch of the river) once did the same in the neighbourhood of Ahnas. Strabo still speaks of it as a great "island"
which he pa.s.sed through on his way to the Fayyum from the north.
The route followed by Strabo must have been that already traversed by Herodotos. He too must have pa.s.sed through the island of Hininsu on his way to the Fayyum, and his scheme of Egyptian chronology ought to contain evidence of the fact.
And this is actually the case. Mykerinos, he teaches us, was succeeded by a king named Sasykhis or Asykhis, who built not only the eastern propylon of the temple of Ptah at Memphis, but also a brick pyramid, about which, of course, his guides had a characteristic story to tell him. That the story was of Greek origin is shown by the inscription, which they professed had been engraved by order of the Pharaoh, but which only a Greek could have invented. The brick pyramid must have been that of Illahun. The two brick pyramids of Dahshur would have been invisible from the river, and even to a visitor on the spot the state of ruin in which they are would have made them seem of little consequence. His attention would have been wholly absorbed by the ma.s.sive pyramids of stone at the foot of which they stand.
The brick pyramid of Howara, again, cannot be the one meant by Herodotos.
It formed part of the buildings connected with the Labyrinth, the size and splendour of which overshadowed in his eyes all the rest. There remains, therefore, only the brick pyramid of Illahun, by the side of which, as we have seen, the voyage of Herodotos would have led him.
The pyramid of Illahun, when seen near at hand, is indeed a very striking object. It is the only one of the brick pyramids which challenges comparison with the pyramids of stone, and may well have given occasion for the story which was repeated to the Greek tourist. Its striking character is due to the fact that the brick superstructure is raised upon a plateau of rock, which has been cut into shape to receive it. The excavations of Professor Petrie in 1890 revealed the name of its builder.
This was Usertesen II. of the twelfth dynasty, the king in the sixth year of whose reign the "Asiatics" arrived with their tribute of antimony as depicted in the tomb of Khnum-hotep at Beni-Ha.s.san. How the guides came to call him Sasykhis is difficult to explain. Perhaps it is the Egyptian Sa-Sovk, "the son of Sovk" or "Sebek" the crocodile-G.o.d of the Fayyum, whom the Greeks termed Sukhos. The Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty, as creators and benefactors of the Fayyum, the nome of the crocodile, were specially devoted to its worship, and in their inscriptions they speak of the works they had undertaken for their "father Sovk."
After Sasykhis, Herodotos continues, "there reigned a blind man named Anysis, from the city of Anysis: while he was reigning the Ethiopians and Sabako, king of Ethiopia, invaded Egypt with a large force, so the blind man fled into the marshes, and the Ethiopian ruled Egypt for fifty years."
After his departure in consequence of a dream the blind man returned from the marshes, where he had lived in an artificial island called Elbo, which no one could rediscover until Amyrtaeos found it again. Anysis, of course, is the name of a city, not of a man, and, in making it both, Herodotos has committed a similar mistake to that which he has made in transforming Pi-Bast, "the temple of Bast," and Pi-Uaz, "the temple of Uaz," into the names of his G.o.ddesses Bubastis and Buto. It is, in fact, merely the Greek form of the Hebrew Hanes, and the Hebrew Hanes is the Egyptian Hininsu, which, according to a well-known rule of Semitic and Egyptian phonetics, was p.r.o.nounced Hinissu. We learn from the Book of Isaiah (x.x.x. 4) that Hanes was playing a prominent part in Egyptian politics at the very time when Sabako and his Ethiopians occupied the country. The amba.s.sadors of Hezekiah who were sent from Jerusalem to ask the help of the Egyptian monarch against the common a.s.syrian enemy came not only to Zoan in the Delta, but to Hanes as well. Zoan and Hanes must have been for the moment the two centres of Egyptian government and the seats of the Pharaoh"s court.
The intermittent glimpses that we get of Egyptian history in the stormy period that preceded the Ethiopian conquest show how this had come to be the case. Shishak"s dynasty, the twenty-second, had been followed by the twenty-third, which Manetho calls Tanite, and which, therefore, must have had its origin in Zoan. While its second king, Osorkon II., was reigning at Tanis and Bubastis, the first sign of the coming Ethiopian invasion fell upon Egypt. Piankhi Mi-Amon, the king of Napata, descended the Nile, and called upon the rival princes of Egypt to acknowledge him as their head. Osorkon, who alone possessed a legitimate t.i.tle to the supreme sovereignty, seems to have obeyed the summons, but it was resisted by two of the petty kings of Upper Egypt, those of Ashmunen and Annas, as well as by Tef-nekht or Tnephakhtos, the prince of Sais. Ashmunen and Ahnas were accordingly besieged, and Ashmunen soon fell into the invader"s hands.
Ahnas and the rest of the south thereupon submitted, and Piankhi marched against Memphis. In spite of the troops and provisions thrown into it by Tef-nekht, the old capital of the country was taken by storm, and all show of resistance to the conqueror was at an end. From one extremity of the country to the other the native rulers hastened to pay homage to the Ethiopian and to accept his suzerainty.
Piankhi caused the account of his conquest to be engraved on a great stele of granite which he set up on Mount Barkal, the holy mountain of Napata.
Here he gives a list of the seventeen princes among whom the cities of Egypt had been parcelled out, and each of whom claimed independent or semi-independent authority. Out of the seventeen, four bear upon their foreheads the royal uraeus, receive the t.i.tle of kings, and have their names enclosed in a cartouche. Two of them are princes of the north, Osorkon of Bubastis and Tanis, and Aupet of Klysma, near Suez. The other two represent Upper Egypt. One is the king of Sesennu or Ashmunen, the other is Pef-dod-Bast of Hininsu or Ahnas. Thebes is wholly ignored.
The conquest of Piankhi proved to be but momentary. The Ethiopians retired, and Egypt returned to the condition in which they found it. It was a nation divided against itself, rent with internal wars and private feuds, and ready to fall into the hands of the first invader with military ability and sufficient troops. Two states towered in it above the rest; Tanis in the north and Ahnas in the south. Tanis had succeeded to the patrimony of Bubastis and Memphis; Ahnas to that of Thebes.
Sabako, therefore, fixed his court at Zoan and Hanes, simply because they had already become the leading cities, if not the capitals, of the north and the south. And to Zoan and Hanes, accordingly, the Jewish envoys had to make their way. The princes of Judah a.s.sembled at Zoan; the amba.s.sadors went farther, even to Hanes. It is noteworthy that a century later the a.s.syrian king a.s.sur-bani-pal still couples together the princes of Ahnas and Zoan in his list of the satraps of Egypt.
Anysis or Hanes was the extreme limit of Herodotos"s voyage. As afterwards in the days of Strabo, it was the entrance to the Fayyum, and the traveller who wished to visit the Fayyum had first to pa.s.s through the city which the Greeks called Herakleopolis. The patron-G.o.d of the city was Hershef, whose name was the subject of various unsuccessful attempts at an etymology on the part of the Egyptians. But, like the names of several other deities, its true origin was lost in the night of antiquity. In Plutarch it appears in a Greek dress as Arsaphes. The G.o.d was invested with warlike attributes, and hence it was that he was identified by the Greeks with their own Herakles. His temple stood in the middle of the mounds of the old city, which the _fellahin_ call Umm el-Kiman, "the mother of mounds." In 1891 they were partially excavated by Dr. Naville for the Egypt Exploration Fund, but little was found to repay the expense and labour of the work. The site of the temple was discovered somewhat to the north-east of the four columns which are alone left of an early Coptic church. But hardly more than the site can be said still to exist. A few blocks of stone inscribed with the names of Ramses II. and Meneptah, and a fragment of a temple built by Usertesen II., are almost all that survive of its past. Even the necropolis failed to produce monuments of antiquity.
Its tombs had been ransacked by treasure-hunters and used again as places of burial in the Roman era, and Dr. Naville found in it only a few traces of the eighteenth dynasty.
And yet there had been a time when Herakleopolis was the capital of Egypt.
The ninth and tenth dynasties sprang from it, and the authority of the tenth dynasty, at all events, was, as we now know, acknowledged as far as the Cataract. Professor Maspero and Mr. Griffith have shown that three of the tombs in the hill behind a.s.siout (Nos. III., IV., and V.) belong to that age. Hollowed out of the rock, high up in the cliff above the tombs of the twelfth dynasty, their mutilated inscriptions tell us of the ancient feudal lords of the nome, Tef-aba and his son Khiti, the latter of whom won battles for his master, the Pharaoh Mer-ka-Ra. Thebes was in open rebellion; so also was Herakleopolis itself, the home of the Pharaoh"s family, and Khiti provided ships and soldiers in abundance for him. The fleet filled the Nile from Gebel Abu Foda on the north to s...o...b..on the south, and the forces of the rebels were annihilated. For awhile the authority of the Pharaoh was restored; but the power of the Theban princes remained unshaken, and a time came when the Thebans of the eleventh dynasty succeeded to the heritage of the Herakleopolites of the tenth.
Who the "blind" king of Anysis may have been we do not know. But he was certainly not the legitimate Pharaoh, although Herakleopolite vanity may have wished him to be thought so. According to Manetho, the Tanites of the twenty-third dynasty were followed by the twenty-fourth dynasty, consisting of a single Saite, Bokkhoris, whom the monuments call Bak-n-ran-f. Bokkhoris is said to have been burnt alive by his conqueror Sabako. In making the latter reign for fifty years, Herodotos has confused the founder of the dynasty with the dynasty itself. The length of his reign is variously given by the two copyists of Manetho-Africa.n.u.s and Eusebius-as eight and twelve years; the last cypher can alone be the right one, as an inscription at the gold mines of Hammamat mentions his twelfth year. He was followed by two other Ethiopian kings, the second of whom was Tirhakah, and the whole length of the dynasty seems to have been fifty-two years. The Christian copyists, indeed, with their customary endeavour to reduce the chronology of the Egyptian historian, make it only forty and forty-four years; but the monuments show that Herodotos, with his round half century, is nearer the truth.
From a topographical point of view the introduction of Sabako and the Ethiopian between Ahnas and the Fayyum is out of place. But the story told to Herodotos prevented him from doing otherwise. The blind king is said to have fled to the marshes of the Delta, and there to have remained in concealment until the end of the Ethiopian rule, when he was once more acknowledged as Pharaoh. The legend of Sabako is thus only an episode in the history of the Herakleopolite prince.
From the blind Anysis we ought to pa.s.s to the kings of the twelfth dynasty who created the Fayyum and erected the monuments which the Greek traveller saw there. We do not do so for two reasons. Herodotos had already mentioned king Mris and the lake and pyramids he made when describing the list of kings which the sacred scribe had read to him in Memphis. He could not count the Egyptian monarch twice, at the beginning as well as the end of his eleven topographical Pharaohs. Then, again, the story told him about the Labyrinth connected its origin with Psammetikhos, with whom the Greek history of Egypt began. From this point forward Herodotos no longer derived his information from "the Egyptians themselves," that is to say, from his guides and dragomen, but "from the rest of the world." By "the rest of the world" he means the Greeks. The story of the Labyrinth is accordingly relegated to what may be termed the second division of his Egyptian history, and forms part of his account of the rise of the twenty-sixth dynasty.
Between the blind king of Ahnas, therefore, and the supposed builder of the Labyrinth, a folk-tale is interposed which once more takes us back to the temple of Ptah at Memphis. It is attached to an image in the temple, which represents a man with a mouse in his hand, and it is evident that Herodotos heard it after his return from the Fayyum. Had he heard of it when he was previously in Memphis, it would have been recorded in an earlier part of his book. Moreover, the statue stood within the temple, which the tourist was not allowed to enter, so that he would not have seen it at the time of his visit to the great Egyptian sanctuary. Whether he ever saw it at all is doubtful; perhaps he may have caught a glimpse of it through the open gate of the temple like the glimpses of sculptured columns in Mohammedan mosques which the older travellers in the East have boasted of securing. But more probably he heard about it from others, more especially from the dragoman he employed.
The story is a curious mixture of Egyptian and Semitic elements, while the inscription which the dragomen pretended to read upon the statue is a Greek invention. A priest of Ptah, so it ran, whose name was Sethos, became king of Egypt. His priestly instincts led him to neglect and ill-treat the army, even to the extent of robbing them of the twelve acres of land which each soldier possessed of right. Then Sennacherib, "king of the Arabians and a.s.syrians," marched against him, and the army refused to fight. In his extremity the priest-king entered the shrine of his G.o.d and implored him with tears to save his worshipper. Sleep fell upon the suppliant, and he beheld the G.o.d standing over him and bidding him be of good courage, for no harm should happen to him. Thereupon Sethos proceeded to Pelusium with such volunteers as he could find-pedlars, artisans, and tradesmen-and there found the enemy encamped. In the night, however, field-mice entered the camp of the a.s.syrians and gnawed their bowstrings and the thongs of their shields, so that in the morning they found themselves defenceless, and the Egyptians gained an easy victory. In memory of the event the stone image of the king was erected in the temple of Ptah with a field-mouse in his hand.
The statue must have been that of Horus, to whom alone, along with Uaz, the field-mouse was sacred. But it was apparently only in a few localities that such was the case. The figure of the animal is found on coins of Ekhmim, and a bronze image of it discovered at Thebes, and now in the British Museum, is dedicated to "Horus, the lord of Sekhem," or Esneh. At "Buto," where the two deities were worshipped together, we may expect to find a cemetery of field-mice like that of the cats at Bubastis, and the Liverpool Museum possesses two bronze mice, both on the same stand, which were discovered in the mounds of Athribis near Benha. Horus was the G.o.d of Athribis, where he was adored under the name of Kheti-ti.
The priest-king of the folk-tale has taken the place of the historical Tirhakah. The name of his enemy, Sennacherib, however, has been remembered, though he is called king of "the Arabians" as well as of the a.s.syrians. But the t.i.tle must be of Egyptian origin. The "Arabians" of the Greek writer are the Shasu, the Bedouin "plunderers" of the Egyptian monuments, and none but an Egyptian would have described an Asiatic invader by such a name.
It was in B.C. 701, during his campaign against Hezekiah of Judah, that the a.s.syrian monarch met the forces of Tirhakah. The Ethiopian lord of Egypt had marched to the help of his Jewish ally, and at the little village of Eltekeh the battle took place. Tirhakah was defeated and driven back into Egypt, while Sennacherib was left to continue his campaign and reduce his rebellious va.s.sal to obedience. In the insolence of victory he sent Hezekiah a letter declaring that, in spite of the promises of his G.o.d, Jerusalem should be delivered into the hands of its foes. Then it was that Hezekiah entered the sanctuary of the temple, and, spreading out the letter before the Lord, besought Him to save himself and the city from the a.s.syrian invader. The prayer was heard: Isaiah was commissioned to declare that the a.s.syrian king should never come into Jerusalem; and the a.s.syrian host perished mysteriously in a single night.