EGYPT
EGYPT
Egj'ptian garrisons, except in some important posi- tions, nor attempted those deportations that are so marked a feature of Asiatic policy. In the case of those nations wliich never attaclted tliem they do not appear to have even exacted tribute. So long as their general sui)remaey was uncontested they would not be unwise enough to make favorable or neutral pow- ers their enemies. Of their relation to the Israelites we Lave for the earlier part of this period no direct in- formation. The explicit account of the later part is fully consistent with what we have said of the general policy of the Pharaohs. Shishak and Zerah, if the latter were, as we l^elieve, a king of Egypt or a. com- mander of Egyptian forces, are the on\y exceptions in a series of friendly kings, and they were almost cer- tainly of Assyrian or Babylonian extraction. One Pharaoh gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon, another appears to have been the ally of Jehoram, king of Israel (2 Kings vii, G), So made -a treaty with Ho- shea, Tirhakah aided Hezekiah, Pharaoh Necho fought Josiah against his will, and did not treat Judah with the severity' of the Oriental kings, and his second suc- cessor, Phai'aoh Hophra, maintained the alliance, not- withstanding this break, as linidy as before, and, al- though foiled in his endeavor to save Jerusalem from the Chaldreans, received the fugitives of Judah, who, like the fugitives of Israel at the capture of Samaria, took refuge in Egypt. It is probable that during the earlier period the same friendly relations existed. The Hebrew records of that time att'ord no distinct indica- tion of hostilit}' with Egj'pt, nor have the Egyptian lists of conquered regions and towns of the same age been found to contain any Israelitish name, whereas in Shishak's list the kingdom of Judah and some of its towns occur. The route of the earlier Pharaohs to the east seems alwaj's to have been along the Pales- tinian coast, then mainly held hy the Philistines and Phoenicians, both of whom they subdued, and across Syria northward of the territories occupied b}' the He- brews. With respect to the African nations a differ- ent policy appears to have been ])ursued. The Rebu (Lebu) or Lubim, to the west of Egvpt, on the north coast, were reduced to subjection, and probably em- ployed, like the Shayretana or Cherethim, as merce- naries. Ethiopia was made a purely Egyptian prov- ince, ruled by a viceroy, " the prince of Kcsh (Cush)," and the assimilation was so complete that Ethiopian sovereigns seem to have been received b}- the Egyp- tians as native rulers. Further south the negroes were subject to predatory attacks like the slave-hunts of modern times, conducted not so much from motives of hostility as to obtain a supply of slaves. In the Bible we find African peoples, Lubim, Phut, Sukkiim, Cush, as mercenaries or supporters of Egypt, but not a single name that can be positively placed to the east- ward of that country.
XVI. Ami'/. — There are some notices of the Egyp- tian army in the O. T. TlVey sliow, like the monu- ments, that its most important branch was the chariot- force. The Pharaoh of the Exodus led GOO chosen chariots, besides his whole chariot-force, in pursuit of the Israelites. The warriors fighting in cliariots are pn>bal>ly the "horsemen" mentioned in the relation of this event and elsewhere, for in Egyptian thev are called the "horse" or "cavalry." We liave no sub- sequent indication in the Rilde of the constitution of an Egyptian army until the time of the 2"-*d dynasty, when we find that Shishak's invading force was partly composed of foreigners ; whether mercenaries or allies caimot as yet be positively determined, although the monuments make it most probable tiiat they were of the former character. The army of Necho, defeated at Carchemish, seems to have been similarly composed, although it y.robably contained Greek mereenaries, who soon afterwards l)ecame,the most important for- eign element in the Egyptian forces.
XVII. Cmtoms, Science, and Art.-—T\xG sculptures
and paintings of the tombs give us a very full insight into the domestic life of the ancient Egyptians, as may be seen in Sir G.Wilkinson's work. What most strikes us in their manners is the higli position occu- pied by women, and the entire absence of the harem system of seclusion. The Avife is called "the lady of the house." MaiTiage appears to have been univer- sal, at least with the richer class ; and if polygamy were tolerated it was rarely practised. Of marriage ceremonies no distinct account has been discovered, but there is evidence that something of the kind was usual in the case of a queen (De Kouge, Essai sur une Stele Egijptienne, p. 53, 54). Concubinage was al- lowed, the concubines taking the place of inferior wives. There were no castes, although great classes were very distinct, especially the priests, soldiers, ar- tisans, and herdsmen, with laborers. A man of the upper classes might, however, both hold a command in the army and be a priest ; and therefore the caste- sj'stem cannot have strictly applied in the case of the subordinates. The general manner of life does not much illustrate that of the Israelites from its great es- sential difference. The Egj'ptians from the days of Abraham were a settled people, occupying a land which the}' had held for centuries without cpiestion, except through the aggression of foreign invaders. The occupations of the higher class were the superin- tendence of their fields and gardens, their diversions, the pursuit of game in the deserts or on the river, and fishing. The tending of cattle was left to the most despised of the lower class. The Israelites, on the contrarA', were from the veiy first a pastoral people : in time of war they lived within walls ; when there was peace thej' "dwelt in their tents" (2 Kings xiii, 5). The Egyptian feasts, and the dances, music, and feats which accompanied them for the diversion of the guests, as well as the common games, were probably introduced among the Hebrews in the most luxurious daj's of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The ac- count of the noontide dinner of Joseph (Gen. xliii, 16, 31-34) agrees with the representations of the monu- ments, although it evidently describes a far simpler repast than would be usual with an Egyptian minister. The attention to precedence, which seems to have sur- prised Joseph's brethren (ver. 33), is perfectly charac- teristic of Egyptian customs.