|
Byssus.
This was another kind of flax extremely fine and delicate, which
often
received a purple dye.(388) It was very dear; and none but rich
and
wealthy
persons could afford to wear it. Pliny, who gives the first place
to
the Asbeston or Asbestinum, (_i.e._ the incombustible flax,) places
the
Byssus
in the next rank; and says, “that the dress and ornaments of the
ladies
were made of it.”(389) It appears from the Holy Scriptures, that
it
was
chiefly from Egypt that cloth made of this fine flax was brought:
“fine
linen with broidered work from Egypt.”(390)
I
take no notice of the Lotus, a very common plant, and in great
request
among
the Egyptians, of whose berries, in former times, they made
bread.
There
was another Lotus in Africa, which gave its name to the Lotophagi
or
Lotus-eaters;
because they lived upon the fruit of this tree, which had so
delicious
a taste, if Homer may be credited, that it made those who ate it
forget
all the sweets of their native country,(391) as Ulysses found to
his
cost in his return from Troy.
In
general, it may be said, that the Egyptian pulse and fruits were
excellent;
and might, as Pliny observes,(392) have sufficed singly for the
nourishment
of the inhabitants, such was their excellent quality, and so
great
their plenty. And, indeed, working men lived then almost upon
nothing
else, as appears from those who were employed in building the
pyramids.
Besides
these rural riches, the Nile, from its fish, and the fatness it
gave
to the soil for the feeding of cattle, furnished the tables of
the
Egyptians
with the most exquisite fish of every kind, and the most
succulent
flesh. This it was which made the Israelites so deeply regret
the
loss of Egypt, when they found themselves in the wilderness:
“Who,”
say
they, in a plaintive, and at the same time, seditious tone,
“shall
give
us flesh to eat? We remember the flesh which we did eat in Egypt
freely;
the cucumbers and melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the
garlick.(393)
We sat by the flesh-pots, and we did eat bread to the
full.”(394)
But
the great and matchless wealth of Egypt arose from its corn,
which,
even
in an almost universal famine, enabled it to support all the
neighbouring
nations, as it particularly did under Joseph’s
administration.
In later ages, it was the resource and most certain
granary
of Rome and Constantinople. It is a well-known story, how a
calumny
raised against St. Athanasius, _viz._ of his having threatened to
prevent
in future the importation of corn into Constantinople from
Alexandria,
incensed the emperor Constantine against that holy bishop,
because
he knew that his capital city could not subsist without the corn
which
was brought to it from Egypt. The same reason induced all the
emperors
of Rome to take so great a care of Egypt, which they considered
as
the nursing mother of the world’s metropolis.
Nevertheless,
the same river which enabled this province to subsist the
two
most populous cities in the world, sometimes reduced even Egypt
itself
to
the most terrible famine: and it is astonishing that Joseph’s
wise
foresight,
which in fruitful years had made provision for seasons of
sterility,
should not have taught these so much boasted politicians, to
adopt
similar precautions against the changes and inconstancy of the
Nile.
Pliny,
in his panegyric upon Trajan, paints with wonderful strength the
extremity
to which that country was reduced by a famine under that
prince’s
reign, and his generous relief of it. The reader will not be
displeased
to read here an extract of it, in which a greater regard will
be
had to Pliny’s thoughts, than to his expressions.
“The
Egyptians,” says Pliny, “who gloried that they needed neither
rain
nor
sun to produce their corn, and who believed they might
confidently
contest
the prize of plenty with the most fruitful countries of the
world,
were
condemned to an unexpected drought, and a fatal sterility; from
the
greatest
part of their territories being deserted and left unwatered by
the
Nile, whose inundation is the source and sure standard of their
abundance.
‘They then implored that assistance from their prince which
they
had been accustomed to expect only from their river.’(395) The
delay
of
their relief was no longer than that which employed a courier to
bring
the
melancholy news to Rome; and one would have imagined, that this
misfortune
had befallen them only to display with greater lustre the
generosity
and goodness of Cæsar. It was an ancient and general opinion,
that
our city could not subsist without provisions drawn from
Egypt.(396)
This
vain and proud nation boasted, that though conquered, they
nevertheless
fed their conquerors; that, by means of their river, either
abundance
or scarcity were entirely in their own disposal. But we now have
returned
the Nile his own harvests, and given him back the provisions he
sent
us. Let the Egyptians be then convinced, by their own experience,
that
they are not necessary to us, and are only our vassals. Let them
know
that
their ships do not so much bring us the provision we stand in
need
of,
as the tribute which they owe us. And let them never forget that
we
can
do without them, but that they can never do without us. This most
fruitful
province had been ruined, had it not worn the Roman chains. The
Egyptians,
in their sovereign, found a deliverer, and a father. Astonished
at
the sight of their granaries, filled without any labour of their
own,
they
were at a loss to know to whom they owed this foreign and
gratuitous
plenty.
The famine of a people, though at such a distance from us, yet so
speedily
stopped, served only to let them feel the advantage of living
under
our empire. The Nile may, in other times, have diffused more
plenty
on
Egypt, but never more glory upon us.(397) May Heaven, content with
this
proof
of the people’s patience, and the prince’s generosity, restore
for
ever
back to Egypt its ancient fertility!”
Pliny’s
reproach to the Egyptians, for their vain and foolish pride with
regard
to the inundations of the Nile, points out one of their most
peculiar
characteristics, and recalls to my mind a fine passage of
Ezekiel,
where God thus speaks to Pharaoh, one of their kings, “Behold I
am
against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great Dragon that lieth
in
the
midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is my own, and I
have
made
it for myself.”(398) God perceived an insupportable pride in the
heart
of this prince: a sense of security and confidence in the
inundations
of the Nile, independent entirely on the influences of heaven;
as
though the happy effects of this inundation had been owing to
nothing
but
his own care and labour, or those of his predecessors: “the river
is
mine,
and I have made it.”
Before
I conclude this second part, which treats of the manners of the
Egyptians,
I think it incumbent on me to bespeak the attention of my
readers
to different passages scattered in the history of Abraham, Jacob,
Joseph,
and Moses, which confirm and illustrate part of what we meet with
in
profane authors upon this subject. They will there observe the
perfect
polity
which reigned in Egypt, both in the court and the rest of the
kingdom;
the vigilance of the prince, who was informed of all
transactions,
had a regular council, a chosen number of ministers, armies
ever
well maintained and disciplined, both of horse, foot, and armed
chariots;
intendants in all the provinces; overseers or guardians of the
public
granaries; wise and exact dispensers of the corn lodged in them;
a
court
composed of great officers of the crown, a captain of his guards,
a
chief
cup-bearer, a master of his pantry; in a word, all things that
compose
a prince’s household, and constitute a magnificent court. But
above
all these, the readers will admire the fear in which the
threatenings
of God were held, the inspector of all actions, and the judge
of
kings themselves; and the horror the Egyptians had for adultery,
which
was
acknowledged to be a crime of so heinous a nature, that it alone
was
capable
of bringing destruction on a nation.(399)
Part
The Third. The History of the Kings of Egypt.
No
part of ancient history is more obscure or uncertain, than that of
the
first
kings of Egypt. This proud nation, fondly conceited of its
antiquity
and
nobility, thought it glorious to lose itself in an abyss of
infinite
ages,
which seemed to carry its pretensions backward to eternity.
According
to its own historians,(400) first, gods, and afterwards demigods
or
heroes, governed it successively, through a series of more than
twenty
thousand
years. But the absurdity of this vain and fabulous claim is
easily
discovered.
To
gods and demigods, men succeeded as rulers or kings in Egypt, of
whom
Manetho
has left us thirty dynasties or principalities. This Manetho was
an
Egyptian high priest, and keeper of the sacred archives of Egypt,
and
had
been instructed in the Grecian learning: he wrote a history of
Egypt,
which
he pretended to have extracted from the writings of Mercurius,
and
other
ancient memoirs, preserved in the archives of the Egyptian
temples.
He
drew up this history under the reign, and at the command of
Ptolemy
Philadelphus.
If his thirty dynasties are allowed to be successive, they
make
up a series of time, of more than five thousand three hundred
years,
to
the reign of Alexander the Great; but this is a manifest forgery.
Besides,
we find in Eratosthenes,(401) who was invited to Alexandria by
Ptolemy
Euergetes, a catalogue of thirty-eight kings of Thebes, all
different
from those of Manetho. The clearing up of these difficulties has
put
the learned to a great deal of trouble and labour. The most
effectual
way
to reconcile such contradictions, is to suppose, with almost all
the
modern
writers upon this subject, that the kings of these different
dynasties
did not reign successively after one another, but many of them
at
the same time, and in different countries of Egypt. There were in
Egypt
four
principal dynasties, that of Thebes, of Thin, of Memphis, and of
Tanis.
I shall not here give my readers a list of the kings who have
reigned
in Egypt, of most of whom we have only the names transmitted to
us.
I shall only take notice of what seems to me most proper, to give
youth
the necessary light into this part of history, for whose sake
principally
I engaged in this undertaking; and I shall confine myself
chiefly
to the memoirs left us by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus,
concerning
the Egyptian kings, without even scrupulously preserving the
exactness
of succession, at least in the early part of the monarchy, which
is
very obscure; and without pretending to reconcile these two
historians.
Their
design, especially that of Herodotus, was not to lay before us an
exact
series of the kings of Egypt, but only to point out those princes
whose
history appeared to them most important and instructive. I shall
follow
the same plan, and hope to be forgiven, for not having involved
either
myself or my readers in a labyrinth of almost inextricable
difficulties,
from which the most able can scarce disengage themselves,
when
they pretend to follow the series of history, and reduce it to
fixed
and
certain dates. The curious may consult the learned pieces,(402)
in
which
this subject is treated in all its extent.
I
am to premise, that Herodotus, upon the credit of the Egyptian
priests,
whom
he had consulted, gives us a great number of oracles and singular
incidents,
all which, though he relates them as so many facts, the
judicious
reader will easily discover to be what they really are—I
mean,
fictions.
The
ancient history of Egypt comprehends 2158 years, and is naturally
divided
into three periods.
The
first begins with the establishment of the Egyptian monarchy, by
Menes
or
Misraim, the son of Cham,(403) in the year of the world 1816; and
ends
with
the destruction of that monarchy by Cambyses, king of Persia, in
the
year
of the world 3479. This first period contains 1663 years.
The
second period is intermixed with the Persian and Grecian history,
and
extends
to the death of Alexander the Great, which happened in the year
3681,
and consequently includes 202 years.
The
third period is that in which a new monarchy was formed in Egypt
by
the
Lagidæ, or Ptolemies, descendants from Lagus, to the death of
Cleopatra,
the last queen of Egypt, in 3974; and this last comprehends 293
years.
I
shall now treat only of the first period, reserving the two others
for
the
Æras to which they belong.
(M64)
THE KINGS OF EGYPT.—MENES.
Historians are unanimously agreed, that
Menes
was the first king of Egypt. It is pretended, and not without
foundation,
that he is the same with Misraïm, the son of Cham.
Cham
was the second son of Noah. When the family of the latter, after
the
extravagant
attempt of building the tower of Babel, dispersed themselves
into
different countries, Cham retired to Africa; and it doubtless was
he
who
afterwards was worshipped as a god, under the name of Jupiter
Ammon.
He
had four children, Chus,(404) Misraïm, Phut, and Canaan. Chus
settled
in
Ethiopia, Misraïm in Egypt, which generally is called in
Scripture
after
his name, and by that of Cham,(405) his father; Phut took
possession
of
that part of Africa which lies westward of Egypt; and Canaan, of
the
country
which afterwards bore his name. The Canaanites are certainly the
same
people who are called almost always Phœnicians by the Greeks, of
which
foreign name no reason can be given, any more than of the
oblivion
of
the true one.
I
return to Misraïm.(406) He is allowed to be the same with Menes,
whom
all
historians declare to be the first king of Egypt, the institutor
of
the
worship of the gods, and of the ceremonies of the sacrifices.
BUSIRIS,
some ages after him, built the famous city of Thebes, and made it
the
seat of his empire. We have elsewhere taken notice of the wealth
and
magnificence
of this city. This prince is not to be confounded with
Busiris,
so infamous for his cruelties.
OSYMANDYAS.
Diodorus gives a very particular description of many
magnificent
edifices raised by this king;(407) one of which was adorned
with
sculptures and paintings of exquisite beauty, representing his
expedition
against the Bactrians, a people of Asia, whom he had invaded
with
four hundred thousand foot and twenty thousand horse. In another
part
of
the edifice was exhibited an assembly of the judges, whose
president
wore,
on his breast, a picture of Truth, with her eyes shut, and
himself
was
surrounded with books—an
emphatic emblem, denoting that judges ought
to
be perfectly versed in the laws, and impartial in the administration
of
them.
The
king likewise was painted here, offering to the gods gold and
silver,
which
he drew every year from the mines of Egypt, amounting to the sum
of
sixteen
millions.(408)
| 
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기