to their own account, migrated from the Erythræan Sea to the shores of the Mediterranean, where they afterward applied themselves to navigation and commerce. How extensively they spread themselves both in Europe and Asia appears from the cities and places which still retain their name. Thus, a Palestine, or Palesthan, was found on the banks of the Tigris, most probably their original settlement; the town of Paliputra stood on the Hellespont; the river Strymon in Thrace was surnamed Palestinus; the Palestini and the town Philistia were situated on the river Po in Italy; and the god of shepherds, among the Latins, was denominated Pales.*

The following extract from an article in the Asiatic Researches, contributed by the learned soldier already named, will tend to strengthen the opinion now universally entertained by the ablest writers, that the shepherds who invaded Egypt had migrated from a distant country in the East:

"An ancient king, called Chatura-Yána, passed a hundred years in a cavern of Chrishna-giri, the Black Mountain, on the banks of the Cali, performing the most rigorous acts of devotion. At length Vishnu appeared to him, and promised him that he should have a son, whom he was to name Tamovatsa. This prince when he succeeded his father was warlike and ambitious, but wise and devout. He prayed to Vishnu to enlarge his empire, and the god granted his request. Hearing that Misra-sthan (the land of Egypt) was governed by a powerful but unjust prince called Nirmaryada, he, with a chosen army, invaded that country without any declaration of war, and began to administer justice among the people, to give them a specimen of a good king; and when Nirmaryada sent to expostulate, he treated his remonstrance with disdain. This brought on a bloody battle of three days, in which the Egyptian king was killed. The conqueror, who fought like another Parasa Rama, then took possession of the kingdom of Misra, and governed with perfect equity. Babya Vatsa, his son, devoted himself to religion, and resigned his crown to his son Rucma Vatsa, who tenderly loved his people, and so highly improved his country that, from his just revenues, he amassed an incredible treasure. His wealth was so great that he raised

*Herod. lib. i. c. 5; Hales's New Analysis, vol. iv. p. 427..

three mountains, called Rucm-adri, Rujat-adri, and Retuadri, or the mountain of gold, of silver, and of gems."*

In this legend, says Dr. Hales, we trace the distorted features of the Egyptian account. By an interchange of characters, Tamo is the Timaus of Manetho, a quiet and peaceable prince, who was invaded without provocation by this Nirmaryada of Cushite race, called Salatis by Manetho, and Silites by Syncellus. His son Babya is evidently the Baion of Manetho. The third king was surnamed Ruchma from his immense wealth, which he collected by oppressing the Egyptians, though he tenderly loved his own people the Shepherds. Wishing either to extirpate the natives or to break down their spirits by hard and incessant labour, he employed them in constructing those stupendous monuments of ancient ostentation and tyranny. The Pyramids, which are obviously the mountains indicated in the Hindoo records, were, it is presumed, originally cased with yellow, white, or spotted marbles, brought from the quarries of Arabia.

From this Hindoo record we seem fully warranted in ascribing the building of the first and greatest pyramid to Apachnes, the third of the Shepherd kings, and of the rest to his successors. This conclusion is still further confirmed by the tradition of the native Egyptians, communicated to Herodotus, that "they were built by one Philitis, a shepherd, who kept his cattle in those parts, and whose memory Iwas held in such abhorrence that the inhabitants would not even repeat his name nor that of his brother who succeeded him." It is interesting to observe that the vindictive feeling of an oppressed people has preserved the original title of the Shepherds in the foreign term Philitis; the etymology of which, as derived from the Sanscrit Pali, and branching out into all the epithets applied to a celebrated people in Syria, we have already endeavoured to explain.†

The hostile spirit entertained by the Egyptians against their barbarian conquerors continued unabated in the age of the patriarch Joseph, when shepherds were still held as an "abomination,”- a fact which of itself goes far to prove

Asiatic Researches, vol. iii. p. 225.

See above, page 55.-New Analysis of Ancient Chronology, vol. iv. p. 428; Herodotus, book ii. c. 128.

that the celebrated inroad of the Pastoral kings must have taken place before this favourite son of Jacob was carried as a slave into the house of Potiphar. But it is not surprising that the exode of the Israelites should have been confounded by historians with the expulsion of the more ancient invaders. The Hebrews were employed in tending cattle as well as the oriental Pali; and, in other respects, they were not less disliked by the people, to whom their increasing numbers had rendered them formidable. The military array, too, assumed by the followers of Moses, and the pursuit directed by the Egyptian monarch in person, throw an air of resemblance over the two events. But it is manifest, notwithstanding, that the family of Jacob cannot be identified with that warlike host which subdued Lower Egypt, overturned the throne of Memphis, and placed the sceptre in the hands of a powerful dynasty of kings, who exercised supreme power during the long period of two hundred and sixty years. The departure of the Israelites did not take place until the lapse of two centuries and a half had again consolidated the government of the Pharaohs, and improved the resources of the nation. But the true exode of the chosen people, with all the demonstrations of miraculous agency by which it was accomplished, is too well known to require from us even the most abbreviated narrative; we therefore proceed to complete the outline of Egyptian history in a department not quite so familiar to the common reader.

Passing over Maris, whose peaceful labours will be described hereafter, we arrive at the era of his renowned son, the accomplished and victorious Sesostris. In the history of this hero fiction has exhausted all her powers to darken and exaggerate; and the little light which remained to guide us to the appreciation of facts has been nearly all obscured by the clouds of chronological error which, from time to time, have been spread over his reign. In placing his accession at the beginning of the thirteenth century before Christ, we follow Hales, being satisfied that his conclusions are worthy of greater confidence than those of every other writer who preceded him in the study of time; and as our object in this chapter is to fix dates rather than to describe actions, we shall mention the grounds upon which we believe that Sesostris ascended the throne of Egypt at the epoch

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 concur rence of Sir Isaac Newton, and has been adopted by many writers of inferior reputation. That the reign of the son of Moris 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, thẹ 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 expe dition 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 Rhod. lib. iv. p 272; Hales, vol. iv. p. 433.