This, however, is nol quite comet. Several Egyptian
kind's were after the period in question called by for- eigners l'haraoh. sometimes simply, sometimes in con- nection with a second name (2 Kings xviii. 21; xxiii, 29); hut the alteration from the time of Solomon which
undoubtedly took place is remarkable, and probably
points to an important change in the dynastic history ol' Egypt,
Some writers suppose Pharaoh to have been the name given in the Bible to the nativt kings of Egj pi. I here
were, however, probably liefore Solomon's tim,' several
introductions ol foreign dynasties, and some of them, if we accept the usual period ascribed to the rule ol the
Shepherds, of long duration: yet Scripture ojVcs the title to all alike before this period, and Josephus states that all without exception assumed it. Wilkinson sup- poses thai it was the title of such kings as had the sole direction of affairs while Egypl was an independent stair, and thai the title of •■ melek." or king, marked such as ruled conjointly with other kin^s of Egypt, or
who governed as viceroys under a foreign ruler, as was
the case after the Persian c rues! (i, 148, 179). This
is very probably a satisfactory explanation for the long
PHARAOH
50
PHARAOH
period down to the reign of Solomon. Most likely throughout it " Pharaoh" marks the monarch who ruled alone in Egypt, or over its inferior and tributary kings when there were such. This may seem intimated in the speech of one of them to Joseph: "I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" (Gen. xli, 44). Wilkinson's explanation, however, scarcely accounts for the period subsequent to the Pharaoh who gave his daughter to Solomon. Shishak, who seems to have succeeded him, was evidently the supreme ruler of Egypt, and not only independent of foreigners, but able to extend Egyptian power far beyond the limits of Egypt. A change of dynasty seems here to have caused the change of title, and was probably more or less connected witli such changes in after periods. The Persian monarchs finally, administering the affairs of Egypt through tributary native kings, took the title of Pharaoh as indicative of their sovereignty (Trevor, Egypt, p. 331). With them this ancient name of royalty passed away forever.
The political position of the Pharaohs in Egypt is of great moment in understanding the history of that country. If it were the exclusive title of the supreme ruler, it marks the general unity of Egypt under a single monarch. If it were given indifferently to every king of Egypt at those times, which seem unques- tionably to have recurred, and may have been of long duration and early date, when several kings ruled over various divisions of the country, the occurrence of the title does not necessarily mark the political unity of the land. According to the first view, for instance, the Pharaoh of Abraham or Joseph would be the su- preme ruler of the whole of Egypt, with, it might hap- pen, various dynasties of subordinate kings under him; according to the latter, he might be only king of a por- tion of Egypt, witli other dynasties of equal rank ruling contemporaneously elsewhere. To us the former view- appears the preferable one for many reasons. The unity of Egypt under a single supreme monarch is, we think, unquestionably the view according to which the Scriptures lead us to think that foreigners regarded that country. Whatever may have been the internal ad- ministration of the government, into which Scripture does not enter at all, the general view given us of Egypt in the Bible is that of a country united under one mon- arch. The earliest apparent reference to a different state of things occurs in 2 Kings vii, 6, where we read of "kings of Egypt," apparently of equal authority. Isaiah predicts great troubles arising probably from a similar dissolution of any central authority (ch. xix, 3 ; Wilkinson, Egypt, i, 178; Kawlinson's Herodotus, i, 51, note 1. and 391 ). All ancient history with which we are acquainted (Herodotus, Diodorus, and Manetho) as- sumes the political unity of Egypt. The titles of the Pharaohs seem to establish it. They are always called on the monuments " Lords of Upper and Lower Egypt" (Wilkinson, ii, 73 ; 2d ser. i, 2G1). This unity of Egypt from the earliest times is now generally acknowledged (Hengstenberg, Egypt, p. 84). The power and great- ness of Egypt from the remotest times point to such a unity. Its high civilization and peaceful internal con- dition are a similar indication. If divided into several independent kingdoms Egypt would have exhibited the same condition which all the petty states of antiquity did, in which every man was of necessity a soldier (Hume, Essays, ii, xi). Whereas in Egypt soldiers formed a different class from the rest of the community, never wore arms except in actual service, while private citizens at no time carried offensive weapons (Wilkin- son, i, 402). Indeed, it is impossible to imagine any country less suited by geographical configuration for divided rule than Egypt from the Cataracts to the sea. One level valle\r, only divided east and west by its river, shut in from the rest of the world by the Libyan and Arabian mountains and the Syrian deserts, it must of necessity form a single state.