Page images
PDF
EPUB

The immediate successor of Mycerinus is uncertain. Herodotus asserts it was Asychis, who appears to have been a Memphite. Diodorus, however, introduces the names of Tnephachthus, or, as Plutarch calls him, Technatis, and his son Bocchoris, both of whom are omitted by Herodotus, as Asychis and Anysis are in his catalogue of kings.

TNEPHACHTHUS.

This prince is only known as being the father of Bocchoris, and as having led an expedition into Arabia, where he endured great privations, owing to the loss of his baggage in this inhospitable country. Being obliged to put up with poor and slender diet, and finding his sleep in consequence more sound and refreshing, he felt persuaded of the ill effects resulting from luxury, and was resolved on his return to Thebes to record his abhorrence of the conduct of Menes, who had induced the Egyptians to abandon their frugal and simple habits. Accordingly, he erected a stela, with an inscription to that purpose, in the temple of Amun at Thebes, where his son also made considerable additions to the sacred buildings dedicated to the deity. This stela, or tablet, cannot now be discovered in any of the ruins of Thebes, and the truth of this statement may, therefore, perhaps, be questioned.

BOCCHORIS.

He

This prince is the Bakhor or Pehor of the Phonetic signs, who reigned about 812 B.C. is represented to have been despicable in his person, but the qualities of his mind fully compensated for any imperfections of the body; for according to Diodorus, he excelled all his predecessors in wisdom or prudence, whence he obtained the surname of "the wise."

It is supposed by some that Bocchoris is mentioned by Herodotus under the name of Asychis, of which monarch, that historian relates, that he enacted the law relative to loans, which forbade a son to borrow money, without giving the dead body of his father by way of security, as explained page 28. Herodotus states, also, that Asychis prided himself in having surpassed all his predecessors, by the building of a pyramid of brick, more magnificent than any hitherto erected, with this inscription engraved on a marble slab: "Compare me not with the stone pyramids, for I am as superior to them as Jove is to the other gods. Thus was I made: men probing with poles the bottom of a lake drew forth the mud which adhered to them, and formed it into bricks."

Bocchoris is reputed to have been one of the Egyptian lawgivers, and in this capacity to have introduced many useful regulations in the ancient code respecting debt and fiscal matters; but some have imagined that his care of the revenue proceeded from avarice, rather than from a desire to benefit the state. So high, says Plutarch, was the veneration his subjects paid him, that they fabled Isis to have sent an asp to deprive him of his sight, that he might judge righteously. Diodorus places a long period between his reign and that of Sabacos the Ethiopian, who,

however, follows him next but one in the Phonetic chronology and in that of Manetho, which is most likely to be correct in this particular. The monarch who intervened between Bocchoris and Sabaco, was, according to Dr. Hales and other chronologers,

ANYSIS,

who, Herodotus says, was blind; and who had only reigned two years when Sabacos invaded Egypt, and drove him into the fens. It is agreed

on all hands that the Sabacos of Herodotus was the So of Scripture, whose aid was implored by Hoshea king of Israel, against Shalmaneser king of Assyria, about 726 years B.C. Sabacos ruled in Egypt with great justice and moderation about fifty years: he resigned the throne in obedience to an oracle, and returned to Abyssinia. Dr. Hales conjectures that the true cause of his leaving Egypt was the apprehension of an Assyrian war, which it is probable he had in the first instance sought to avert, by prompting Hoshea to rebel against Shalmaneser. It is said that Sabacos built several magnificent temples, and among the rest, one in the city of Bubastis, of which a copious and elegant description is given by Herodotus. After Sabacos had retired, Anysis reascended the throne of Egypt, and reigned till his death, which occurred at the lapse of six years, or about 719 B. C.

SETHON, OR SEBECON.

Sethon was a pontifical king, and his accession is fixed at B. C. 713, by the character of Sennacherib's invasion, as narrated by Herodotus. He says: "At this time there reigned in Egypt a priest of Vulcan, named Sethon, who neglected and contemned the military establishment which had been formed in Egypt, and among other dishonours which he put upon the soldier caste, he withdrew the allotment of twelve acres of land, which, under former kings, had been allowed as the portion of every soldier. After this, when Sennacherib invaded Egypt with a great army, not one of the military class would come forward to his assistance. The royal priest, in this exigency, seeing no help before him, withdrew to a temple, where, standing before the image, he deplored bitterly the evils with which his kingdom was threatened. As he wept, sleep overpowered him, and he saw in a vision the god standing by, who, bidding him be of good cheer, assured him that no harm should befall him if he marched out against the Assyrians; for he would himself send him assistance. Sethon took courage from this vision, and collecting a body of men, none of whom were soldiers, he marched out and formed his camp at Pelusium. The night after his arrival, myriads of field-mice infested the camp of the enemy, gnawing in pieces their quivers, their bow-strings, and the straps of their shields; so that in the morning, finding themselves deprived of the use of their arms, they fled in great disorder, and many of them were slain. In order to commemorate this event, a marble statue of Sethos was erected in the temple of Pthah, at Memphis, representing the king

E

holding a rat in his hand, with this inscription: 'Whoever thou art, learn from my fortune to reverence the gods.'

999

This, observes a learned writer, is evidently nothing more than an adaptation to Egypt, its king, and its gods, of what belonged to Judah, to Hezekiah, and to the power of Jehovah. It is, indeed, a parody of the miraculous destruction of the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, in the reign of Hezekiah, by the pestilential blast, as foretold by Isaiah, and the particulars of which are narrated, 2 Kings xix., and Isaiah xxxvii. It is there recorded, that the king of Assyria, having subdued all the neighbouring nations, and made himself master of all the other cities of Judah, resolved to besiege Hezekiah in Jerusalem. The ministers of this good monarch, in opposition to his will, and the remonstrances of the prophet Isaiah, who promised them, in the name of Jehovah, sure protection, if they would trust in him only. sent secretly to the Egyptians and Ethiopians for succour. Their armies, being united, marched to the relief of Jerusalem; but they were met and vanquished by the Assyrians, who pursued them into Egypt, and laid waste their country. At their return from thence, on the very night before a general assault was to have been made upon Jerusalem, as the army of Sennacherib were resting in their tents,

A mighty angel from the eternal God
Breathed death upon the slumbering host, and sent
The impious monarch, overwhelmed with shame,
Back to his native land and idol gods.

One hundred and eighty-five thousand of the Assyrians perished, and Sennacherib, confounded and disgraced, returned to his own land, where he perished by the hands of his own sons, "in the house of Nisroch his god."

These are the facts connected with the trans

action; but through contempt of the Jews, says Dr. Hales, who were then a depressed people, and whose name Herodotus has not once deigned to notice in the course of his history, he has transferred the miracle in favour of the Egyptians, whom he admired; or else simply recorded the tradition of the priests, thus authenticating, while they perverted the original

miracle.

The prophet Isaiah, on several occasions, had foretold that this expedition of the Egyptians, which had been concerted with such prudence, conducted with such skill, and in which the forces of two powerful empires were united in order to relieve the Jews, would not only be of no avail to them, but even destructive to Egypt itself, whose strongest cities would be taken, its territories plundered, and its inhabitants of all ages and both sexes led into captivity. See Isa. xviii., xix., xx., xxxi., xxxii., etc. By some writers it is conjectured that the splendour of Thebes received its first blow at this period: the prophet Nahum mentions, indeed, that such an event occurred when "Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength," Nah. iii. 9, which indicates that it was at this period. The monarch of Ethiopia, who joined his forces with those of Sethon, as intimated in the sacred writings, was Tirhakah, who was one of the successors of Sabacos, and who is supposed by some authors to have held

Upper Egypt.* But this does not appear to be fully proved; for, at the death of Sethon, great confusion or anarchy took place, which continued two years, after which time, about B. C. 673, the Egyptians elected

TWELVE KINGS,

that attended this change of government, from a one for every nome or district. The turbulence monarchy to an oligarchy, seems to have been foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Speaking in the name of Jehovah, he says, Isa. xix. 2,

"And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians:
And they shall fight every one against his brother,
And every one against his neighbour;
City against city,

And kingdom against kingdom."

To

Herodotus says, it was agreed by these twelve kings, that each should govern his own district with equal power and authority, and that no one should invade the dominions of another. this end they bound themselves with the most solemn oaths, to elude the prediction of an oracle which had foretold that the oligarchy would be dissolved by that one among them who should offer his libation to Vulcan out of a brazen vessel. But accident brought to pass that which they sought to avoid. One day, as the twelve kings were offering solemn sacrifices to Vulcan, the priests having presented eleven of them with a golden bowl for the libation, found that one was wanting; upon which, Psammiticus, one of the twelve, without any design bowl with his brazen helmet, and with it peron his part, supplied the want of this golden cident alarmed the rest of the kings, by recalling formed the ceremony of the libation. This acto their memory the prediction of the oracle, and they thought it necessary to secure thembanishing him into the fenny parts of Egypt. selves from his attempts, which they did, by After his expulsion to the fens, he consulted the oracle of Latona, at Butos, how to be revenged on his associates. He was answered, that

his

revenge should come, when brazen men should appear from the sea;" and not long after, he heard with astonishment, that the country was pillaged by "brazen men coming from the sea!" These were a set of Ionian and Carian pirates, other arms of brass, and whom Psammiticus who were covered with helmets, cuirasses, and hired to assist him in dethroning his associates. sovereign of Egypt, and in reward of their serThis they did effectually, and made him sole

vices he settled them near Bubastis, at the Pelusian mouth of the Nile, whence they were transplanted afterwards by Amasis to Memphis.

This is derived from Herodotus: the version

Mr. Wilkinson says on this subject, "that Tirhakah ruled at Napata and in the Thebaid at the same period, is sufficiently proved by the additions he made to the temples of Thebes, and by the monuments he built in Ethiopia; nor did the Egyptians efface his records, or forget the gratitude they owed to the defender of their country. The name of Nectanebo has, indeed, usurped the place of Tirhakah's ovals in one or two instances among the sculptures at Thebes; but such substitutions are not uncommon, and the name of the Ethiopian has not been erased from any ill-will, so often evinced when an obnoxious monarch had ceased to reign." This is the strongest evidence we have on the subject, and it is rather presumptive than conclusive.

which Diodorus gives is more consistent with probability. It runs thus:-As Psammiticus, whose sway extended to the Mediterranean, had availed himself of the opportunities offered by the sea-ports within his province of establishing commercial intercourse with the Phenicians and Greeks, and had amassed considerable wealth by these means, his colleagues, jealous of his increasing power, and fearing that he would eventually employ it against them, resolved to prevent such an occurrence, and to dispossess him of his province. They, therefore, prepared to attack him, and by this step obliged Psammiticus to adopt measures which his ambition might not have contemplated. Apprised of their resolutions, and finding himself threatened by the formidable army of all the upper provinces, he sent to Arabia, Caria, and Ionia; and, having succeeded in raising a considerable body of mercenaries, he was soon able to oppose them; and putting himself at the head of these and his native troops, he gave them battle at Memphis, routed their combined forces, and obliging those of the princes who had escaped the slaughter to flee to Libya, became possessed of an undivided throne.

He states that, having settled the Ionians and Carians in Egypt, he sent among them the Egyptian youths to be instructed in the Greek language; from whence sprung the state interpreters of that tongue. The youths chosen for interpreters were, without question, those of the priesthood, since to that order all letters and learning were restricted, and they had likewise a great share in the public administration. The priesthood, therefore, having the Greek tongue amongst them, which its use in public affairs would cause them to cultivate diligently, it is no wonder that some of these interpreters should afterwards employ themselves in translating the Egyptian records into the Grecian language; from whence the present knowledge of them is derived.

As soon as Psammiticus was settled on the throne of Egypt, he engaged in war against the king of Assyria, on the subject of the boundaries of the two empires. This war was of long duration. Ever since Syria had been conquered by the Assyrians, Palestine, being the only country that separated the two kingdoms, was the subject of constant discord; as it was afterwards between the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ. They were ever contending for it, and it was alternately won by the stronger. Psammiticus, seeing himself in the peaceable possession of all Egypt, and having restored the ancient form of government, as an act of policy looked to his frontiers to secure them against the aggressions of the Assy

The twelve kings reigned in Egypt fifteen years; and to them is attributed the building of the labyrinth near the Lake Maris. Of this wonderful structure, Herodotus says, that it had twelve courts, fifteen hundred chambers above, and as many more under ground, with an infinite variety of halls, passages, and mazes; and that the roof and walls were all incrusted with sculp-rians, whose power increased daily. He theretured marble, and surrounded with pillars of white and polished stone. In the lower apartments, he was informed, were the tombs, both of the kings who originally built the labyrinth, and of the sacred crocodiles. The upper apartments, which he examined, excited his admiration, as the greatest efforts of human art and industry; surpassing in workmanship and expense the far famed pyramids, and the most admired temples of Ephesus and Samos.

But from this representation it is questioned whether the labyrinth could have been constructed during the short space of fifteen years. It is probable, indeed, that several successions of kings were employed in this prodigious work, and that it was constructed by the shepherd dynasty, who were idolaters, and worshipped the Nile in their pyramids, and very likely the crocodile. Pliny reckons, that the labyrinth was built 3,600 years before his time. This date is too remote, for it would then have been erected before the deluge. His assertion, however, tends to prove that he considered the work to have been of the remotest antiquity.

PSAMMITICUS.

From the time of the Grecian colony first settled in Egypt, by Psammiticus, and their constant intercourse with Greece, we know with certainty, says Herodotus, all that has passed in that country. The Egyptian annals, indeed, from the reign of this prince, about 658 years B. C., assume a regular and settled form in the succession of kings. The clearer knowledge of Egyptian history from this date is chiefly owing to a fact which Herodotus records of Psammiticus.

fore entered Palestine at the head of a powerful army, and advanced as far as Azotus victoriously.* But his career was here stopped. Azotus was at that time one of the principal cities of Palestine, and the Egyptians having seized it some time before, had fortified it with such care, that it was strongest on the side that Psammiticus attacked it, namely, that towards Egypt. The consequence was, it cost him the labour of twenty-nine years before he could retake it from the hands of the Assyrians, into whose possession it had fallen when Sennacherib entered Egypt. This is the longest siege mentioned in the pages of ancient history.

During this period, about the twenty-third year of his reign, or B.C. 635, the Scythians, who had defeated Cyaxares, prince of Media, and deprived him of all Upper Asia, the dominion of which they held twenty-eight years, pushed their conquests in Syria as far as the frontiers of Egypt, intending to invade that country, by way of retaliating the invasion of Scythia by Sesostris. Psammiticus, however, marching out to meet them, prevailed upon them by presents and

* Diodorus says, that Psammiticus having assigned the right wing to the Greek troops in this war, and the left to the Egyptians, the latter were so indignant at the dishonour put upon them, that they quitted the camp, and with other regiments which had remained in Egypt, abandoned his service, and, to the number of 240,000 men, retired into Ethiopia. According to Herodotus, they entered into the service of the Ethiopian prince, and their migration, introducing the arts and manners of a refined nation, had a very sensible effect in civilizing the Ethiopians. The exact position of the country they occu pied is unknown. Herodotus places it on the Nile; Strabo near Meroe; but Pliny, on the authority of Aristocrecn, reckons "seventeen days from Meroe to Esar, a city of the Egyptians who fled from Psammiticus."

entreaties to desist from their enterprise, and thus averted the threatened blow.

Till the reign of Psammiticus, the Egyptians had imagined that they were the most ancient people upon the earth, and that the honour of the origin of language was due to them. Psammiticus was desirous of proving this claim, and Herodotus relates a whimsical experiment, which he adopted to find out the primeval language. He shut up two new-born infants in a solitary cottage, for two years, under the care of a shepherd, who was not to suffer any one to speak in their hearing, and who was to cause them to be suckled by goats. One day, the shepherd, entering the cottage, both the children ran to him, holding out their hands, and crying, "Bekhos, bekhos!" This they repeated afterwards; and beklos being found, on inquiry, to signify "bread" in the Phrygian dialect, the Egyptians yielded the palm of antiquity to the Phrygians. But this experiment was by no means conclusive; for the children evidently imitated "bek," stripped of the Greek termination, hos, the bleating of the goats: and Herodotus himself acknowledges, elsewhere, that the Phrygians were a Macedonian colony, originally called Bryges, and afterwards Phryges; their barbarous dialect, therefore, could be no standard. One obvious and useful result, however, from the inconclusive experiment, says Dr. Hales, was, to show, that the faculty of speech was considered as innate, or "the gift of nature," by the Egyptians, then reckoned the wisest and the most argumentative people of antiquity. Far wiser, then, were they than some of our modern philosophers, who represent the faculty of speech as "a talent acquired, like all others;" as an "invention" discovered posterior to several others, and after the formation of societies. That great moralist, Dr. Johnson, has well remarked:-Language must have come by INSPIRATION: a thousand, nay, a million of children could not invent a language: while the organs are pliable, there is not understanding enough to form a language; and by the time there is understanding enough, the organs are grown stiff. We know that, after a certain age, we cannot learn a language. The truth is, language is the gift of a beneficent and all-wise Creator, and it is given to man, to make known his wants, his desires, his sorrows, and all the multifarious circumstances of human life, as well Iwith his relation to God as to his fellow-man. It is given, also, that man may glorify his Maker, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, and they who abuse this precious gift will meet with a due reward; for it is written, that for "every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment," Matt. xii. 36.

Psammiticus died about B. C. 619. He was succeeded by

NEKUS,

who is the Pharaoh-nechoh of Scripture, (2 Kings xxiii.,) in the twentieth year of the reign of Josiah, king of Judah. This king is noted for remarkable undertakings. One of the principal of these was, to cut a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea, a distance of about 1,000 stadia, or about 118 English miles. But in this Nekus

was obliged to desist, after a great number of men had perished in the progress of the undertaking; being apprehensive of disastrous consequences from the superior elevation of the Red Sea.

Another great undertaking of this prince was, the circumnavigation of Africa. This was the most renowned and brilliant circumstance of his reign. After the failure of the canal, Nekus employed some skilful Phenician mariners to sail on a voyage of discovery, from the mouth of the Red Sea, southward, round the peninsula of Africa, in which they doubled the Cape of Good Hope, and returned by the Straits of Gibraltar, through the Mediterranean Sea, completing their voyage in three years. Herodotus has recorded this fact, and he subjoins that these persons affirmed what to him seemed incredible, namely, that as they sailed round Africa, they had the sun on their right hand. But this statement serves, more than any thing else, to authenticate their story. It demonstrates, indeed, that they crossed the southern tropic of Capricorn, and confirms the truth of their narrative. Major Rennel has given an ingenious description of their probable route and their several stations, caused by the interruption of the trade winds, monsoons, and currents, on the eastern and western sides of Africa. There has, however, been a threefold objection alleged against this historical fact: first, a total failure of all consequences; secondly, a total want of all collateral evidence; and, thirdly, a total silence of all other historians, but Herodotus and his followers. To these objections, Dr. Hales makes the following satisfactory replies: "1. The failure of consequences naturally resulted from the depressed state of Egypt, during the Babylonian and Persian dominations; which took place in, and after Pharaoh-nechoh's reign. 2. We have strong collateral evidence, in the voyage of Sataspes, which was required by Xerxes to be made, in the contrary direction to this, namely, along the western coast of Africa, and to return by the eastern into the Red Sea. But this voyage failed, and probably prevented any farther attempts from Egypt. Nor was Herodotus the only author of antiquity among those whose works have come down to us, who believed that Africa had been sailed round; for Pliny believed that it had been achieved by Hanno, Eudoxus, and others; but he is silent concerning the voyage of Necho, while Herodotus is silent about Hanno's voyage. Hence it may be suspected, that as this navigation was made much about the same time with that of Hanno, Pliny may have confounded them together, referring the actions of the Egyptian to the Carthaginian.* 3. The testimony of Herodotus is ably supported by Dean Vincent (the author who makes the foregoing objections) himself. It must be confessed, says he, that the facts Herodotus gives us of this voyage, though few, are consistent. The shadow falling to the south, the

*This opinion of Dr. Hales does not appear to be well grounded; for though he states, that the expeditions were made "much about the same time," there was more than 150 years difference. Notwithstanding, Pliny may have confounded these expeditions, for we often find, in ancient writers, actions recorded at one period, which took place in ages remote from that period."

delay of stopping (about three months only) to sow grain and reap a harvest, and the space of three years employed in the circumnavigation, joined with the simplicity of the narrative, are all points so strong and convincing, that if they be insisted on by those who believe the possibility of effecting the passage by the ancients, no arguments to the contrary, however founded upon a different opinion, can leave the mind without a doubt upon the question."

66

After this, Herodotus observes, the king betook himself to military exploits, and it is most interesting to find, that the military exploit which he proceeds to mention is no other than that very transaction which is recorded in Scripture in these words: After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers," 2 Chron. XXXV. 20-24.

The words of Herodotus are: Necho invading the Syrians, overthrew them at Magdolus, and then took Cadytis, a great city in Syria. This Cadytis he afterwards mentions as a city of the Syrian Palestine, which he conjectured was little inferior in size to Sardis. That Magdolus is Megiddo, where Necho overthrew Josiah, and Cadytis, Jerusalem, is very generally agreed. This event may be dated 608 years B. C.

Nekus, animated by this victory, continued his march, and advanced towards the Euphrates. He defeated the Babylonians; took Carchemish, a large city in that country, and securing to himself the possession of it by a strong garrison, returned to his own kingdom, after having been absent three months.

Being informed in his march homeward, that Jehoahaz had caused himself to be proclaimed king of Jerusalem, without asking his consent, and considering this neglect as a token of hostile feeling, he was highly incensed, and resolved on punishing his insolence. With this view, he ordered Jehoahaz to meet him at Riblah, and he had no sooner arrived there than Nekus commanded that he should be put in chains, and sent down to Egypt, where he died. From thence pursuing his march, Nekus came to Jerusalem, where he placed Jehoiakim, another of the sons of Josiah, upon the throne, in the room of his brother; and imposed an annual tribute on the land" of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold," or about 40,4351. sterling, 2 Kings xxiii.

33-35. This being done, he returned in triumph to Egypt.

In the fourth year after this expedition, Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, observing that since the taking of Carchemish by Nekus, all Syria and Palestine had shaken off their allegiance to him, and that his years and infirmities would not permit him to march in person against the rebels, associated his son Nebuchadnezzar with him in the empire. This young prince (B. C. 604) took a severe revenge upon Nekus. He invaded Egypt, and stripped him of all his conquests, from the Euphrates to the Nile, so effectually, that the king of Egypt went "not again any more out of his land" to invade his neighbours. 2 Kings xxiv. 7. This event was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah in these emphatic words: "The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles; against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh-necho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah," Jer. xlvi. 1, 2. So beautifully does prophecy and this historical fact harmonize. Nekus died B. c. 603, and was succeeded by his son,

PSAMMIS,

See

or Psammiticus II., of whom history records nothing memorable, except that he made an expedition into Ethiopia. It was to this prince that the Eleans sent an embassy, after having instituted the Olympic games. They had established all the regulations, and arranged every circumstance relating to them with such care, that, in their estimation, nothing was required to make them perfect, and envy itself could not find fault with them. They did not, however, desire so much to have the opinion, as to gain the approbation of the Egyptians, who were looked upon as the wisest and most judicious people in the world. On this subject, accordingly, the king of Egypt assembled the wise men of his nation. After every thing had been heard which_could be said in favour of this institution, the Eleans were asked, whether citizens and foreigners were admitted in common to those games; to which answer was made in the affirmative. To this the Egyptians replied, that the rules of justice would have been more strictly observed, had foreigners only been admitted to these combats; because it was difficult for the judges, in their award of the victory and the prize, not to be prejudiced in favour of their fellow-citizens. Psammis died about B. C. 597, and was succeeded in his kingdom by

APRIES, OR PHARAOH-HOPHRA,

who was his son, and who, during the first twentyfive years of his reign enjoyed greater prosperity than any of his predecessors, except Psammiticus. He defeated the Phenicians, took Sidon, and invaded Cyprus, which was finally subdued by Amasis, his successor.

But no state on earth is enduring; and the wise man has observed, that “pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a

« PreviousContinue »