just stated. Such an exposition will appear more necessary when it is considered that Eusebius imagined this conqueror to be the immediate successor of the Pharaoh who was drowned in the Red Sea at the exode of the Israelites, and that he began his famous expedition while the descendants of Jacob were still wandering in the desert of Arabia. In this untenable opinion the Bishop of Cæsarea has been followed by Usher and Playfair. Sir John Marsham, on the other hand, identified Sesostris with the Shishak of Scripture who invaded Judæa,-a notion which received the concurrence of Sir Isaac Newton, and has been adopted by many writers of inferior reputation. That the reign of the son of Maris belongs to an intermediate period may be proved from the following considerations :

Herodotus relates that Sesostris was succeeded by Pheron and this last by Proteus, in whose time Troy was taken; and, according to Manetho, Sesothis was succeeded by Rampses, and Rampses by Ramesses, in whose reign also Troy was taken. Therefore Sesothis and Sesostris were obviously the same person; and it is equally clear that his accession could not have been much earlier than 1283, or a century before the destruction of Troy, reckoning three reigns equivalent to three mean generations. This agrees sufficiently with the date which we have selected.

Again, in his fourth book, Herodotus states that Targitaus founded the Scythian kingdom about a thousand years at most before the invasion of Darius Hystaspes, or, in other words, about 1508 before the Christian era. But we learn from the historian Justin that Timaus, the sixth king in succession from Targitaus, encountered Sesostris, and checked or defeated him at the river Phasis. Reckoning these six reigns equivalent to mean generations, or 200 years, the accession of Sesostris could not be earlier than 1308 B. C.

In the third place, Herodotus mentions that Sesostris founded the kingdom of Colchis near Pontus, and left a colony there, consisting of such of his soldiers as were weary of service; and we are informed by Apollonius Rhodius that the posterity of the Egyptian governor subsisted at Æa, the capital of Colchis, for many generations. This governor was the father of Eetes, who was the father of Medea, the mistress of Jason in the Argonautic expedition, which, it is

well known took place about 1225 B. C.; that is, seventyfour years after Sesostris returned from his Asiatic campaigns.*

The confirmation thus afforded to the Egyptian chronology by historical facts, incidentally mentioned by Grecian writers, is extremely satisfactory, and illustrates the soundness of the principle upon which our system is constructed.. It is deserving of notice, at the same time, that the hero whose exploits fill so large a space in the traditional story of ancient Egypt has been placed, by the researches of Champollion, at the beginning of the thirteenth century before the reign of Augustus Cæsar, and thereby most distinctly identified with the great Sesostris, the conqueror of the world.

Diodorus is our principal authority for the warlike achievements of this celebrated monarch. His first expedition after he came to the throne was against the Abys-sinians, whom he reduced to the condition of tributaries. He then turned his arms against the nations who dwelt on either shore of the Red Sea, advanced along the Persian Gulf, and finally, if we may trust to the accuracy of our historian, marched at the head of his troops into India, and even crossed the Ganges. Directing his face towards Upper Asia, he next subdued the Assyrians and Medes; whence, passing to the confines of Europe, he ravaged the land of the Scythians, until he sustained the reverse above alluded to at the hands of Timaus, their valiant prince, on the banks of the Phasis. Want of provisions, and the impenetrable nature of the country which defended the approaches to ancient Thrace, compelled him to relinquish his European campaign. He accordingly returned to Egypt in 1299 B. C., being the ninth year of his military enterprise.

Making due allowance for the exaggeration which always takes the place of authentic records, we are nevertheless disposed to maintain that the history of Sesostris cannot be wholly reduced to fiction, nor ascribed entirely to the mythological wanderings of Bacchus or Osiris. We are assured, on the personal evidence of Herodotus and Strabo, that the pillars erected by the Egyptian leader still remained in their

* Herod. book ii. c. 103; book iv. c. 5, 6, 7; Justin, lib. i. c. 1; Apol Bhod. lib. iv. p. 272: Hales, vol. iv. n. 433.

days, and even that they were actually inspected by them in Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia. The inscription which these proud monuments every where bore was to the following effect :

"Sesostris, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, subdued this country by his arms."

Another circumstance corroborative of the general accuracy of the old annalists has been already mentioned,—the establishment of an Egyptian colony in the province of Colchis. The descendants of this military association, presenting the dark complexion and woolly hair of Africa, were long distinguishable from the natives of the district among whom they dwelt. Nay, it is possible, we believe, at the present day, to find among the Circassians certain families whose blood might be traced to the soldiers of Sesostris, and whose features still verify the traditional affinity which connects them with the ancient inhabitants of the Nile.

It is usual, in all countries, that the fame of a popular monarch shall be increased by having ascribed to him, not only all the heroic deeds which have been transmitted by the chroniclers of the olden time, but that he shall be regarded by the multitude as the founder of all the magnificent palaces and gorgeous temples of which the remains still continue to testify that their nation was once wealthy and powerful. On this account it is not improbable that Sesostris, under the several names or titles of Osymandias, Ramesses, Sethosis, and Sethon, has had attributed to him the merit of erecting several splendid edifices which are due to sovereigns of a less imposing celebrity. At all events, it is not doubted by any one that both Memphis and Thebes owed some of their finest structures to the conqueror of Asia; and it is even recorded by his panegyrists, that the riches and the immense number of prisoners which crowned his successes in the East enabled him to decorate all the towns of Egypt without exacting from his native subjects any portion of their labour or revenue. Memphis, the new capital, was enlarged and ornamented with the most profuse expenditure. The statues, the temples, and the obelisks which adorned it are described by historians in their most pompous language; but the infelicity of its situation, which F

exposed it to the inundations of the Nile, has so completely obliterated all traces of its existence as to have created a question among antiquaries as to the precise spot on which it stood. Thebes, on the contrary, which enjoyed a more secure position, and was perhaps built of more lasting materials, displays at the present day the magnificence of her princes, combined with the learning and taste which distinguished her inhabitants.

The Palace, or Sepulchral Temple (for the ruins of the two have been confounded), appears to have been an edifice of exquisite workmanship as well as of vast extent. In front there was a court of immense size; adjoining which there arose a portico four hundred feet long, the roof of which was supported by figures fifteen cubits in height. This portico led into another court similar to the first, but more superb, and adorned with statues of great magnitude, which are said to have represented the king and certain members of his family. Amid a numerous succession of halls and galleries the chisel had sculptured with wonderful art the triumphs of the sovereign, the sacrifices which he had offered, the administration of justice in his courts of law, and such other functions as were appropriated to the head of a great nation. But the tomb, properly so called, is especially remarkable for the astronomical emblems which it exhibits. It is encompassed with a golden circle three hundred and sixty-five cubits in circumference, to represent the number of days comprehended in the year. The rising and setting of the stars are likewise depicted with considerable accuracy, and show that great attention was already paid to the motions and periods of the heavenly bodies. Thus it is rendered manifest, that whatever doubt may exist as to the identity of Sesostris and Osymandias, or in regard to the period at which one or other ascended the throne, the light of civilization and the improvement of the arts had made great progress in Upper Egypt more than thirteen centuries before the Christian era. The statue of the monarch himself represented in a sitting posture, was considered by the ancients as the largest in the country. The foot alone was seven cubits in length; and the following epitaph appropriated this gigantic work of art to the renowned commander whose name it was meant to perpetuate :

"I am Osymandias, King of Kings; if any one desire to know what a prince I am, and where I lie, let him excel my exploits."

The successors of this great prince, for several generations, did not perform any remarkable action, nor allow their ambitious views to extend beyond the limits of their native kingdom. Perhaps it might be said that the power of Egypt was not more than sufficient to defend her own borders against the erratic hordes who constantly threatened her on the east, and the more regular armaments of Abyssinia, which occasionally made an inroad from the south. About 770 B. C. Sabaco the Ethiopian descended the Nile, and drove Anysis from the throne. Sixty years later, Sennacherib, King of Assyria, meditated the conquest of the same country, and had actually entered its territories, when his immense host was destroyed by a Divine visitation.

Disgusted with the weakness or misfortune of their sovereigns, the Egyptians made the experiment of an oligarchy of twelve governers, who directed the administration about fifteen years. But, in 619 B. C., Pharaoh Necho was elevated to an undivided throne. His reign is remarkable for the success he obtained against Jerusalem, which he took, and against the good prince Josiah, whom he slew. He made several attempts to connect, for the purposes of commerce, the Nile with the Red Sea; and afterward accomplished what must have been then esteemed the still more arduous enterprise of circumnavigating Africa, from the Strait of Babelmandeb to the Mediterranean.

About this period the Assyrian monarchy, which had acquired an ascendant over all the neighbouring nations from the Euphrates to the shores of the Great Sea, became formidable also to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar on more than one occasion made the weight of his power to be felt on the banks of the Nile; but the conquest of the whole of that country was reserved for the great Cyrus, who marshalled under his standard nearly all the states of Western Asia. It appears, however, that the liberal policy of this famed warrior restored to the Egyptians, as well as to the Jews, a certain degree of national independence,-a boon which the former were thought to have abused so much that one of the first measures adopted by his successor had for its object their entire and permanent subjugation.