Nectanebus was reduced to the last extremity. This prince had for some time been extremely jealous of Agesilaus, and even suspicious of his fidelity to his cause, but found himself at last obliged to confide implicitly in his counsels, and committed to him the whole conduct of the war. Agesilaus soon after defeated, and made prisoner the rival of Nectanebus, who, in consequence of that event, was left in peaceful possession of the kingdom.*

Nectanebus afterwards entering into a league with the Phonicians and Cypriots against the Persians, Darius Ochus finding the operations of his lieutenants so ineffectual a remedy for these disorders, resolved to take the command of his army in person, and to make one powerful effort for the reduction of Egypt. The army of Nectanebus, consisting of about 20,000 Greeks, and as many Lybians, with 60,000 Egyptians, in all about 100,000, was not equal to a third part of that of the Persians, from which was detached three vast bodies. The first, commanded by Lachares, a Theban, encamped before Pelusium; the second, under Nicostrate, embarking on board the fleet, ascended the Nile, landed in the heart of the country; while Mentor, the Rhodian, who commanded the third division, advancing into the country, every where proclaimed mercy, on condition of submission; but total extermination in case of resistance. Darius, with the main body of the army, remained near Pelusium, in order to regulate the operations according to the events of the war. The Egyp tians having made an attack on the intrenchments of Nicostratus, were defeated with great loss, and the garrison of Pelusium, on hearing of this disaster, surrendered on advantageous conditions. The Greeks and Egyptians every where submitted to Darius; and Nectanebus, who had prepared to defend Memphis, seeing the kingdom lost beyond all hopes of recovery, took refuge in Ethiopia.† This conquest, which terminated the national existence, concludes the history of the ancient Egyptians, who, according to the prediction of the prophet, have never, since this period, had any native king, but have constantly been subject to foreign rulers. It may + Univ. Hist. vol. 2. Ezekiel, ch. 33. ver. 13.

• Plutarch in Agesilao.

therefore not be improper, in this place, to exhibit a sketch of the governmen', religion, laws, and other social circumstances of this celebrated and extraordinary nation, which constitutes so remarkable, so singular, and in many respects, so mysterious a feature in the history of the world. Every thing, indeed, that relates to a people so celebrated, but so little known, must be interesting, if it could be considered as authentic. But facts are so frequently mixed with fable, and disguised by allegory, that we must often be contented with doubtful information, or loose conjecture. The general outlines, such as are here concisely given, are all that can merit attention; and though volumes have been written on the subject, perhaps this very short compendium comprises all that really is, or can be, known of Egyptian history.

If, however, the historical events of ancient Egypt be for the most part involved in obscurity, or buried in oblivion, we possess much better information relative to the civil, political, and religious economy of that celebrated kingdom. The revolutions in courts, and the operations of armies, are things of a transient nature: when once passed over without accurate observation, or misrepresented through mistake or design, they can no more be brought forward to inspection, and error is perpetuated. 'But legal institutions, established customs, and general manners, are of a more durable nature, and more exposed to the eye of observation. The government of the ancient Egyptians was ostensibly monarchical, but actually sacerdotal. The king was revered as a god by the people, but kept as a slave by the priests. The employment of his time was exactly regulated: his hours of sleeping and wak. ing were marked out by the laws. The priests assigned him the quantity and quality of his food, and dealt out his wine by measure. He was obliged to rise at the break of day to peruse all despatches, and issue the necessary orders. He then bathed himself, and being arrayed with the ensigns of royalty, among which was a cap adorned with the figure of a 'bull, a lion, or a dragon, he went to the temple, where he sacrificed to the gods, and heard read by the priests, the meritorious acts of such of his predecessors as had reigned with strict

* Diod. Sicul. lib. 1.

conformity to the laws, to the end that he might adhere to their maxims, and imitate their example.

The whole landed property of Egypt was divided into three portions, of which one was allotted to the priests, another to the soldiery, and the third to the king, out of which he defrayed the expenses of government. The sovereign, and the two privileged orders, let out their lands to husbandmen, and none but the king, the priests, and the soldiers, could have any property in the soil. The crown appears to have been hereditary; but in case of any failure in the royal line, the king could be elected only from the sacerdotal, or the military order; but if from the latter, he was obliged to procure his admission into the priesthood, before he could ascend the throne, so careful was that sacred body to preserve the preponderancy of its influence. The power of the priests indeed was unlimited. They filled all the offices of the state; and the public administration was wholly in their hands. They alone knew all the secret springs, and moved the whole ma chine of the government. Their sacred functions, as well as their civil authority, secured their dominion over the prince and the soldiery, as well as over the people; for being the sole interpreters of the will of the gods, their influence and power rested on the immoveable basis of superstition.

One of the most extraordinary engines that craft ever devised to facilitate the exercise of unlimited dominion over ignorance, was the awful tribunal instituted by the laws of Egypt, for the examination of all claims to funeral honours, which no Egyptian could hope to enjoy but by a decree of the court of judicature, composed of forty judges; and all the judges of Egypt were priests. Before this tremendous jury, the dead were, previous to their interment, brought to trial; and their conduct, during the period of mortal existence, was strictly investigated. From this awful scrutiny, and the consequent sentence, the monarch himself was not exempted. On the day appointed for the royal funeral, this sacred inquest took place, and all complaints and accusations brought forward against

Diod. Sic. lib. 1.

† Plutarch de Iside and Osirid.

Clemens Alexandrinus Strom, lib. 6.

VOL. V.

24

EGYPT.

the deceased prince were heard and examined. If it was found that he had been a good king, i. e. obedient to the priests, bis obsequies were performed with the most solemn pomp; but if his conduct had been refractory, he was deprived, of funeral honours, his body was delivered to popular insult, and his name condemned to the execration of posterity. This was the fate of several Egyptian monarchs, who had been so unfortunate or so imprudent, as to incur the displeasure of these holy despots.

By so refined a system of policy, the priests of Egypt established and maintained their dominion over the minds of both princes and people; and in the name of the gods extorted obedience from men., Candour, however, must confess, that they seldom abused their power. Justice was impartially administered, but the laws were not tinctured with cruelty. Although the great body of the people appears to have been in a state of abject depression, personal liberty was respected. In most ancient nations, personal slavery, often including that of wives and children, was the consequence of insolvency, In Egypt, the creditor could seize the property, but not the person of the debtor. The strictest attention was paid to social order, as well as to individual security. Every man was obliged to give in annually to the governor of his province, an attestation of his name and profession, in order to prove that he lived by the exercise of some lawful calling; and to exhibit a false certificate was a capital offence, Perjury was punished with death; and adultery with the infliction of forty stripes on the man, but the woman was exposed to public infamy, by the loss of her nose. Death was invariably the punishment of wilful homicide, whether the person killed were a freeman or a slave. Among the Greeks s and the Romans, every master possessed, during many ages, the power of life and death over his slaves. But in Egypt, as no person, however elevated, had in his own hands the power of vengeance, so no person, however abject and mean, was destitute of the protection of the laws. In these respects the legislature of Egypt was far superior to that of ancient Greece and Rome, hovory sew

"

* Diod. Siculus, lib. 1.

The institution of hereditary professions is a striking feature of the social system of Egypt; and its effects have been variously estimated. Some of the Grecian writers, struck with the incessant commotions of their own turbulent republics, have bestowed the highest applause on this regulation.* It has been represented as excellently calculated to repress aspiring ambition, and to promote the perfection of arts, by di recting the efforts of ingenuity and industry to certain fixed points; and maturing their productions by the accumulated experience of successive generations. Nothing, however, could more powerfully tend to the depression of genius, than the restraint imposed on its versatility, by this perpetual confiriement to the same beaten track; from which any deviation was impossible. Among the Egyptians, all talents and qualifications, not immediately adapted to the profession of the possessor, were useless to himself and the community. The greatest ingenuity could not convert the son of a busbandman into a mechanic: The greatest strength and courage could not procure him admission into the military order; nor could the most enterprising spirit raise any one above that station in which he was fixed by an irrevocable law of the national constitution.

-This division of the people into distinct classes, perpetuated in hereditary descent, is by some considered as having a tendency to create political dissentions; but this appears to be an erroneous estimate of the operation of that singular and enslaving system. It must indeed have in some measure tended to destroy that general union, which ought to subsist among the members of the same community. But this seems to have been the purpose for which it was instituted. The priests of Egypt, and the bramins of India, most probably established these hereditary divisions, separated by the strongest barriers, both civil and religious, that policy could devise, or authority impose, in order to prevent the great body of the people from uniting against the superior orders, in whom all power and property resided. Their success, corresponding with their views, proved how well they were skilled in enslaving mankind; for those countries have invariably displayed an uniform + Ibid. lib. 1.

* Diod. Siculus, ubi supra.