CHAPTER 111.

HISTORY OF THE POLITY OF EGYPT.

THE Egyptians attained a high degree of refinement and luxury at a time when the whole western world was involved in barbarism, when the history of Europe, including Greece, was not yet unfolded, and ages before Carthage, Athens, and Rome were founded. They were indeed, the first people who rightly understood the rules of government, who perceived that the just design of politics is, to make life easy and a people happy. This high state of civilization was attained under a system of institutions and policy bearing some resemblance to those of the Hindoos. It was a monarchy based upon a potent hierarchy. To enable the reader to understand this, the different orders of which the state was composed shall be described.

THE KINGLY POWER.

The kings of Egypt were anciently indiscriminately called Pharaoh. This was not a proper name: Josephus says, the word signified king in the Egyptian language; and it appears to have been used as a prefix to the proper name, in the same manner that Ptolemy was, after the subjugation of Egypt by the Greeks. When used independently of the proper name, it distinguished the king of Egypt from other

monarchs.

The kingdom of Egypt was hereditary, but according to Diodorus, the Egyptian princes (unlike other monarchies, in which the prince acknowledges no other rule of his actions than his own arbitrary will and pleasure) were under greater restraint from the law than their subjects. These laws were contained in the sacred books, and were digested by one of their earliest monarchs, so that every thing was settled by,

and they lived according to ancient custom; treading the same path as their ancestors.

The king appears to have been the chief both of religion and state. He held the right of regulating the sacrifices, and of offering them to the gods upon grand occasions. The title and office of "President of the Assemblies" belonged exclusively to him, and he superintended the feasts and festivals celebrated in honour of their false gods. He could proclaim peace and war; he commanded the armies, and rewarded those who deserved his approbation; and every privilege seems to have been granted him which did not interfere with the welfare of his subjects.

The sovereign power in Egypt was hereditary. In the event of an heir failing, however, the claims for succession were determined by nearness of relationship. Queens were not forbidden to undertake the management of affairs, and on the demise of their husbands, they were allowed to assume the office of regent. Such, at least, are mentioned by historians, and introduced into the annals of Manetho; but their names do not appear in the lists of sovereigns sculptured in the temples of Thebes and Abydos. In some instances, the kingdom was usurped by a powerful chief, as in the case of Amasis, or by some Ethiopian prince, who, either claiming a right to the crown, or taking advantage of internal disturbances, obtained possession of it by force of arms. Synesius intimates, that the Egyptian monarchy was elective; but there is no instance on record that would lead to such a conclusion, except in the case of the twelve kings who reigned in union, and that is an exception to the general practice. Diodorus says, indeed, that, in ancient times, kings, instead of succeeding by right of inheritance, were selected for their merits; but whether this really was the case at the commencement of the Egyptian monarchy, it is difficult to determine. The same author, in fact, states in another place, that the first kings were succeeded by their offspring, and we have hieroglyphical evidence that such was the case during the eighteenth and succeeding dynasties. This is further confirmed by Herodotus, and the formula in the Rosetta stone: "The kingdom being established unto him, and unto his children for ever.

But although the monarchy of Egypt was hereditary, the kings did not presume in consequence of this right, to infringe the rules enacted for their public and private conduct. The laws of Egypt, which formed part of the sacred books, were

acknowledged to be of divine origin, and were looked upon with superstitious reverence. To have disobeyed them, would have been considered rebellion against the deity, and would have called forth vengeance upon the head of the offender, even should that offender have been the monarch on his throne. These laws were framed with the strictest regard to the welfare of the community as the ancient history of the Egyptians abundantly proves. Diodorus observes on this subject: "This unparalleled country could never have continued throughout ages in such a flourishing condition if it had not enjoyed the best laws and customs, and if the people had not been guided by the most salutary regulations,"

When a sovereign, having been educated in the military class, was ignorant of the mysteries of his religion, due care was taken, on his accession to the throne, to have him informed therein, and to enrol him in the college of the priests. He was instructed in all that related to the gods, the temple, the laws of the country, and the duties of a monarch. In order to preserve his dignity, and his morality, it was carefully provided that neither slave nor hired servant should hold any office about his person, but that the children of the priestly order, who were remarkable for a refined education, should alone be permitted to attend him. This measure was dictated by the persuasion that no monarch gives way to the impulse of evil passions, unless he finds those about him ready to serve as instruments to his caprices, and abettors of his

excesses.

This, it may be mentioned, agrees very well with the sculptures, which represent priests as pages and fan bearers. Diodorus says, that the king's sons also held such offices. Reynier indeed, questions whether slavery existed at all in Egypt previous to the period when its ancient institutions became in a great degree changed. His doubts arise from the difficulty of reconciling the existence of slaves with the organization of the Egyptians under their theocracy. But that they did possess slaves at the earliest period, we learn from Scripture. The king of Egypt gave male and female slaves to Abraham, Gen. xii. 16; and Joseph, the beloved son of good old Israel, was sold as a slave "unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah's, and captain of the guard," Gen. xxxvii. 36. This latter fact is met by the author named, by an observation, that the domination of the shepherd kings must have operated in modifying the peculiar usages of the Egyptians. Among the Egyptian laws, however, as cited by Dio

dorus, there is one that inflicts the punishment of death on a person who kills his slave, and another that denounces a severe punishment against one who violates a free woman, which proves there were some not free. The former of these laws is illustrated by the conduct which Potiphar pursued towards his slave Joseph. On the report of his mistress, Potiphar believed his slave had dealt most perfidiously and ungratefully towards him, acting in a way calculated to provoke indignation and summary punishment; but he committed no violence upon him ; he respected the laws of his country, and sent him to the royal prison, apparently intending that, after trial and conviction, he should receive the punishment adjudged by the laws to his offence. See Gen. xxxix.

13-20.

The first slaves were, doubtless, prisoners taken in war, who became the property of the captors. Afterwards, these prisoners were sold to others who might require servants; and, eventually, any persons offered for sale were bought solely as a trading speculation, as we see in the case of Joseph, and as they are to this day in that country. The captives brought to Egypt were employed in the service of the monarch, in building temples, cutting canals, raising dykes and embankments, and other public works, as in the days of Sesostris; and some, who were purchased by the grandees, were employed in the same capacity as the Memlooks of the present. Women slaves were also engaged in the service of families, like the Greeks and Circassians in Modern Egypt, and other parts of the Turkish empire; and, from finding them represented in the sculptures of Thebes, accompanying men of their own nation, who bear tribute to the Egyptian monarch, we may conclude that a certain number were annually sent to Egypt from the conquered provinces of the north and east, as well as from Ethiopia. It is evident that both white and black slaves were employed as servants. They attended on the guests when invited to the house of their master; and, from their being in the families of priests as well as of the military chiefs, we may infer that they were purchased with money, and that the right of possessing slaves was not confined to those who had taken them in war. The traffic in slaves was tolerated; and it is reasonable to suppose that many persons were engaged, as at present, in bringing them to Egypt for public sale, independent of those who were sent as part of the tribute, and who were probably at first the property of the monarch.

The kings of Egypt freely permitted not only the quality and proportion of what they ate and drank to be prescribed them, but that all their hours, and almost every action, should be under the regulation of the laws. In the morning at daybreak, when the head is clearest, and the thoughts unperplexed, they read the several letters they had received, thereby forming a distinct idea of the affairs which would fall under their consideration during the day. As soon as they were dressed they went to the daily sacrifice performed in the temple; where, surrounded by their whole court, and the victims placed before the altar, they assisted at the prayer pronounced aloud by the high priest, in which he asked of the gods health and all other blessings for the king, because he governed his people with clemency and justice, and made the laws of his kingdom the rule and standard of his actions. The high priest then entered into a long detail of his royal virtues, observing, that a king was religious to the gods, affable to men, moderate, just, magnanimous, sincere, an enemy to falsehood, liberal, master of his passions, punishing crimes with the utmost lenity, but boundless in rewarding merit. He next mentioned the faults of which kings might be guilty, but supposed, at the same time, that they never committed any, except by surprise or ignorance; and they loaded such of their ministers, as gave them ill counsel, and suppressed or disguised the truth, with imprecations. After the prayers and sacrifices were ended, the counsels and actions of great men were read to the king out of the sacred books, in order that the king might govern his dominions according to their maxims, and maintain the laws which had made his predecessors and their subjects happy.

The paramount function of kings is the administration of justice to their subjects. Accordingly, the kings of Egypt diligently cultivated this duty, convinced that on this depended both the comfort of individuals and the happiness of the state. To assist them in the administration of justice they selected thirty judges out of the principal cities, as will be seen in a future page.

Great respect was paid in Egypt to the monarch. They were honoured, indeed, whilst living, as so many visible representations of the Deity; and, after their death, lamented for as the fathers of their country. These sentiments of respect and tenderness proceeded from a strong persuasion that the Divinity himself had placed them upon the throne, as he distinguished them so greatly from all other human