confessor. A certain Hyginus, bishop of Cordova, is said to have been the first opponent of Priscillian (q. v.). See Papcbroch,ylc^rt Sanctorum; Tillemont, Memotres ; Baillet, Vies des Saints ; Hoefer, Nouv. Bioy. Generule, XXV, 70.7 ; Dupin, Eccles. Writers, cent. ii.
Hyksos (YKab)Q, correctly explained [comp. Raw- linson, Herod, ii, 297] by Josephus \^Apion, i, 14] as be- ing compounded of the Egyptian hyk, " king," and sos, "shepherd" or "Arab," i. e. nomade), a race who in- vaded Egypt, and constituted the 15th and one or two of the following dynasties, according to Manetho (see Kenrick, Egypt under the Pharaohs, ii, 152 sq.), espe- cially as preserved by Josephus {ut supra): "In the reign of king Timaus there came up from the east men of an ignoble race, who had the confidence to invade our comitry, and easily subdued it without a battle, burning the cities, demolishing the temples, slayuig the men, and reducing the women and children to slavery." They made Salatis, one of themselves, king : he reigned at ]\Iemphis, and made the upper and lower region trib- utary. Of the 17th dynasty also were forty-three shep- herd kings, called Hyksos, who reigned, perhaps con- temporaneously with the preceding, at Diospolis. In the 18th dynasty of Diospolis a rising took jilace, and the shepherd kings were expelled out of the other parts of Eg\q)t into the district of Avaris, which they forti- fied. Amosis besieged and compelled them to capitu- late ; on which they left Egypt, in number 240,000, and " marched through the desert towards Syria, and built the city of Jerusalem." The last few words seem to render it probable that Manetho confounded the Hyksos with the IsraeUtes, which is the less surprising, since the Hyksos were, as he rightly calls them, Phosniciuns of the ancient, if not original race which inhabited Pha?nicia, or Palestine (taken in its widest sense), be- fore the conquest of the country by the Hebrews. Chronological considerations seem to refer the time of the dominion of the Hvskos to the period of Abraham and Joseph (say from B.C. 2000 to 1500). When Jo- seph went into the land he found the name of shepherd odious — which agrees with the hypothesis that places the irruption of the shepherd kings anterior to his time ; and possibly both the ease with which he rose to power and the fact that Jacob turned towards Egj-pt for a supply of food when urged by want may be readily ac- counted for on the supposition that a kindred race held dominion in tlie land, which, though hated by the jieo- \)le, as being foreign in its origin and oppressive in its character, would not be indisposed to sho^v favor to members of the great Shemitic family to which they themselves belonged. The irruption into Egypt, and the conquest of the country on the part of the Phoeni- cian shepherds, seems to have been a consequence of the general pressure of population from the north-east towards the south-west, which led the nomade Shemitic tribes first to overcome the original inhabitants of Pal- estine, and, continuing in the same line of advance, then to enter and subdue Egypt. The invasion of the Hyk- sos is indeed to be regarded as the result of the move- ment from the Euphrates westward of the most power- ful and (comparatively) most civilized people then found in Western Asia, who in their progress subdued or ex- pelled in the countries through which they not improb- ably were urged by a pressiu-e from other advancing tribes, nation and tribe one after another, driving them dowia towards the sea, and compelling those who dwelt along the shores of the Jlediterranean to seek shelter and safety in the islands of that sea and other distant parts. To conquerors and aggressors of the character of these shepherd hordes Egypt woidd offer special at- tractions. They continued sweeping onwards, and at • last entered and conquered Egj'pt, establishing there a new dynasty, which was hateful because foreign, and because of a lower degree of ciUture than the Egyptians themselves had reached. Nor would these shepherds be less odious because, coming from the east and imme- diately from the deserts of Arabia, they were from the
HYKSOS
430
HYLOZOISM
quarter whence the mild and cultivated Eg3'ptians had long been wont to suffer from tlie jjredatory incursions of the wild nomade tribes {Die Phonizier, by Movers, Bonn, 1841 ; Bertheau, Geschichte der Jsraelifen, Got- tingen, 18-12), between whom and the agricultural na- tives of the country different pursuits, habits, and tastes would naturally engender animosities. This feeling of alienation exists at the present day. The Arab is still a depressed and despised being in Egypt. Bowring, in his Report on the country, remarks, " It is scarcely al- lowable even to send a message to a person in authori- ty by an Arab servant" (p. 7). The expulsion of the shepherds seems to have been strangely confounded by Josephus, after Manetho, with the Exodus of the Isra- elites. The shepherds were conquerors, rulers, and op- pressors; the Israelites guests and slaves. The shep- herds were expelled, the Israelites were delivered. Jo- sephus elsewhere (^Apion, i, 2G) gives from Manetho a narrative of another event which wears a much nearer likeness to the Exodus (although Josephus expressly combats such an identification) in the case of a king Amenophis, who was ordered by the gods to cleanse Egypt of a multitude of lepers and other unclean persons ; many of whom were drowned, and others sent in great numbers to work in the quarries which are on the east side of the Nile. After a time they were permitted to establish themselves in Avaris, which had been aban- doned by the shepherds. They then elected a ruler, Osarsiph, whose name was afterwards changed to that of Moses. This chief '' made this law for them, that they should not worship the Egyptian gods, but should kill the animals held sacred by the Egyptians ; nor were they to have intercourse with any but such as were members of their own body — in all respects aiming to oppose the customs and influence of the nations. These, sending for aid to the shepherds who had settled in Je- rusalem, and having received troops to the number of 200,000 men, were met by Amenophis, the king, with a yet larger force, but not attacked. On a subsequent occasion, however, they were assailed by the Egyptians, beaten, and driven to the confines of Sj'ria." Lysima- chus gives an account not dissimilar to this, addii.g that, under the leadership of IMoses, these mixed hordes settled in Judiea (Cory's A ncient Fragmenis). The ac- count which Diodorus gives of the migration of the Is- raelites from Egypt to Palestine is of a similar tenor. The deviations from the sacred narrative may easily be accounted for by Egji^tian ignorance, vanity, and pride. (See Akers's Biblical Chronology, chap. v). It is also apparent that Josephus considerably travesties f he orig- inal narrative of jNIanetho (Kenrick, Egypt, ii, 159). The expulsion of the Hyksos seems to have taken place about two centuries after the Exode (q. v.)