Web
and Book design, |
Click
Here to return to |
|
|
CHAPTER XV. RAMESES THE GREAT. THE
central figure of Egyptian history has always been, probably always
will be, Rameses the Second. He holds this place partly by right,
partly by
accident. He was born to greatness; he achieved greatness; and he had
borrowed
greatness thrust upon him. It was his singular destiny not only to be
made a
posthumous usurper of glory, but to be forgotten by his own name and
remembered
in a variety of aliases. As Sesoosis, as Osymandias, as Sesostris, he
became
credited in course of time with all the deeds of all the heroes of the
new
Empire, beginning with Thothmes III, who preceded him by 300 years, and
ending
with Sheshonk, the captor of Jerusalem, who lived four centuries after
him.
Modern science, however, has repaired this injustice; and, while
disclosing the
long-lost names of a brilliant succession of sovereigns, has enabled us
to
ascribe to each the honours which are his due. We know now that some of
these
were greater conquerors than Rameses II. We suspect that some were
better
rulers. Yet the popular hero keeps his ground. What he has lost by
interpretation on the one hand, he has gained by interpretation on the
other;
and the beau sabreur
of the "Third
Sallier Papyrus" remains to this day the representative Pharaoh of a
line of
monarchs whose history covers a space of fifty centuries, and whose
frontiers
reached at one time from Mesopotamia to the ends of the Soudan. The interest that one takes in Rameses II begins at Memphis, and goes on increasing all the way up the river. It is a purely living, a purely personal interest; such as one feels in Athens for Pericles, or in Florence for Lorenzo the Magnificent. Other Pharaohs but languidly affect the imagination. Thothmes and Amenhotep are to us as Darius or Artaxerxes – shadows that come and go in the distance. But with the second Rameses we are on terms of respectful intimacy. We seem to know the man – to feel his presence – to hear his name in the air. His features are as familiar to us as those of Henry the Eighth or Louis the Fourteenth. His cartouches meet us at every turn. Even to those who do not read the hieroglyphic character, those well-known signs convey, by sheer force of association, the name and style of Rameses, beloved of Amen.
Rameses
the Second2 was the son of Seti I, the second Pharaoh
of the nineteenth dynasty, and of a certain Princess Tuaa, described on the
monuments as “royal wife, royal mother, and heiress and sharer of
the throne.”
She is supposed to have been of the ancient royal line of the preceding
dynasty, and so to have had, perhaps, a better right than her husband
to the
double crown of Egypt. Through her, at all events, Rameses II seems to
have been
in some sense born a king,3 equal in rank, if not in power,
with his
father; his rights, moreover, were fully recognized by Seti, who
accorded him
royal and divine honours from the hour of his birth, or, in the
language of the
Egyptian historians, while he was “yet in the egg.” The
great dedicatory
inscription of the temple of Osiris at Abydos,4 relates how
his
father took the royal child in his arms, when he was yet little more
than an
infant, showed him to the people as their king, and caused him to be
invested
by the great officers of the palace with the double crown of the two
lands. The
same inscription states that he was a general from his birth, and that
as a
nursling he “commanded the body guard and the brigade of
chariot-fighters”; but
these titles must of course have been purely honorary. At twelve years
of age,
he was formally associated with his father upon the throne, and by the
gradual
retirement of Seti I from the cares of active government, the
co-royalty of
Rameses became, in the course of the next ten or fifteen years, an
undivided
responsibility. He was probably about thirty when his father died; and
it is
from this time that the years of his reign are dated. In other words,
Rameses
II, in his official records, counts only from the period of his sole
reign, and
the year of the death of Seti is the “year one” of the
monumental inscriptions
of his son and successor. In the second, fourth, and fifth years of his
monarchy, he personally conducted campaigns in Syria, more than one of
the victories
then achieved being commemorated on the rock-cut tablets of
Nahr-el-Kelb near
Beyrût; and that he was by this time recognised as a mighty
warrior is shown by
the stela of Dakkeh, which dates from the “third year,” and
celebrates him as
terrible in battle – “the bull powerful against Ethiopia,
the griffin furious
against the negroes, whose grip has put the mountaineers to
flight.” The events
of his second campaign (undertaken two years later in order to reduce
to
obedience the revolted tribes of Syria and Mesopotamia) are
immortalised in the
poem of Pentaur.5 It was on this occasion that he fought
his famous
single-handed fight, against overwhelming odds, in the sight of both
armies
under the walls of Kadesh. Three years later, he carried fire and sword
into
the land of Canaan, and in his eleventh year, according to inscriptions
yet
extant upon the ruined pylons of the Ramesseum at Thebes, he took,
among other
strong places on sea and shore, the fortresses of Ascalon and
Jerusalem. The next
important record transports us to the twenty-first year of his
reign. Ten years have now gone by since the fall of Jerusalem, during
which
time a fluctuating frontier warfare has probably been carried on, to
the
exhaustion of both armies. Khetasira, Prince of Kheta,6 sues
for
peace. An elaborate treaty is thereupon framed, whereby the said Prince
and
“Rameses, Chief of Rulers, who fixes his frontiers where he
pleases,” pledge
themselves to a strict offensive and defensive alliance, and to the
maintenance
of good-will and brotherhood forever. This treaty, we are told, was
engraved
for the Khetan prince “upon a tablet of silver adorned with the
likeness of the
figure of Sutekh, the Great Ruler of Heaven;” while for Rameses
Mer-Amen it was
graven on a wall adjoining the Great Hall at Karnak,7 where
it
remains to this day. According
to the last clause of this curious document, the contracting
parties enter also into an agreement to deliver up to each other the
political
fugitives of both countries; providing at the same time for the
personal safety
of the offenders. “Whosoever shall be so delivered up,”
says the treaty,
“himself, his wives, his children, let him not be smitten to
death; moreover,
let him not suffer in his eyes, in his mouth, in his feet; moreover,
let not any
crime be set up against him.”8 This is the earliest
instance of an
extradition treaty upon record; and it is chiefly remarkable as an
illustration
of the clemency with which international law was at that time
administered. Finally,
the convention between the sovereigns is placed under the joint
protection of the gods of both countries: “Sutekh of Kheta, Amen
of Egypt, and
all the thousand gods, the gods male and female, the gods of the hills,
of the
rivers, of the great sea, of the winds and the clouds, of the land of
Kheta and
of the land of Egypt.” The peace
now concluded would seem to have remained unbroken throughout
the rest of the long reign of Rameses the Second. We hear, at all
events, of no
more wars; and we find the king married presently to a Khetan princess,
who in
deference to the gods of her adopted country takes the official name of
Ma-at-iri-neferu-Ra, or “Contemplating the Beauties of Ra.”
The names of two
other queens – Nefer-t-ari and Ast-nefert – are also found
upon the monuments. These
three were probably the only legitimate wives of Rameses II,
though he must also have been the lord of an extensive hareem. His
family, at
all events, as recorded upon the walls of the Temple of Wady Sabooah,
amounted
to no less than 170 children, of whom 111 were princes. This may have
been a
small family for a great king three thousand years ago. It was but the
other
day, comparatively speaking, that Lepsius saw and talked with old
Hasan, Kashef
of Derr – the same petty ruler who gave so much trouble to
Belzoni, Burckhardt,
and other early travellers – and he, like a patriarch of old, had
in his day
been the husband of sixty-four wives, and the father of something like
200
children. For
forty-six years after the making of the Khetan treaty, Rameses the
Great lived at peace with his neighbours and tributaries. The evening
of his
life was long and splendid. It became his passion and his pride to
found new
cities, to raise dykes, to dig canals, to build fortresses, to multiply
statues, obelisks, and inscriptions, and to erect the most gorgeous and
costly
temples in which man ever worshipped. To the monuments founded by his
predecessors he made additions so magnificent that they dwarfed the
designs
they were intended to complete. He caused artesian wells to be pierced
in the
stony bed of the desert. He carried on the canal begun by his father,
and
opened the waterway between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.9 No
enterprise was too difficult, no project too vast, for his ambition.
“As a
child,” says the stela of Dakkeh, “he superintended the
public works, and his
hands laid their foundations.” As a man, he became the supreme
Builder. Of his
gigantic structures only certain colossal fragments have survived the
ravages
of time; yet those fragments are the wonder of the world. To
estimate the cost at which these things were done is now impossible.
Every temple, every palace, represented a hecatomb of human lives.
Slaves from
Ethiopia, captives taken in war, Syrian immigrants settled in the
Delta, were
alike pressed into the service of the state. We know how the Hebrews
suffered,
and to what an extremity of despair they were reduced by the tasks
imposed upon
them. Yet even the Hebrews were less cruelly used than some who were
kidnapped
beyond the frontiers. Torn from their homes without hope of return,
driven in
herds to the mines, the quarries, and the brick-fields, these hapless
victims
were so dealt with that not even the chances of desertion were open to
them.
The negroes from the South were systematically drafted to the North;
the
Asiatic captives were transported to Ethiopia. Those who laboured
underground
were goaded on without rest or respite, till they fell down in the
mines and
died. That
Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the captivity,10 and that
Meneptah, his son and successor, was the Pharaoh of the Exodus,11 are
now among the accepted presumptions of Egyptological science. The Bible
and the
monuments confirm each other upon these points, while both are again
corroborated by the results of recent geographical and philological
research.
The “treasure-cities Pithom and Raamses” which the
Israelites built for Pharaoh
with bricks of their own making, are the Pa-Tum and Pa-Rameses of the
inscriptions, and both have recently been identified by M. Naville, in
the course
of his excavations conducted in 1883 and 1886 for the Egypt Exploration
Fund. The
discovery of Pithom, the ancient Biblical “treasure-city”
of the
first chapter of Exodus, has probably attracted more public attention,
and been
more widely discussed by European savants, than any archæological
event since
the discovery of Nineveh. It was in February 1883 that M. Naville
opened the
well-known mound of Tel-el-Maskhutah, on the south bank of the new
sweet-water
canal in the Wady Tûmilât, and there discovered the
foundations and other
remains of a fortified city of the kind known in Egyptian as a Bekhen, or store-fort. This Bekhen, which was surrounded by
a wall 30
feet in thickness, proved to be about 12 acres in extent. In one corner
of the
enclosure were found the ruins of a temple built by Rameses II. The
rest of the
area consisted of a labyrinth of subterraneous rectangular cellars, or
store-chambers, constructed of sun-dried bricks of large size, and
divided by
walls varying from 8 to 10 feet in thickness. In the ruins of the
temple were
discovered several statues more or less broken, a colossal hawk
inscribed with
the royal ovals of Rameses II, and other works of art dating from the
reigns of
Osorkon II, Nectanebo, and Ptolemy Philadelphus. The hieroglyphic
legends
engraved upon the statues established the true value of the discovery
by giving
both the name of the city and the name of the district in which the
city was
situate; the first being Pa-Tum (Pithom), the “Abode of
Tum,” and the second
being Thuku-t (Succoth); so identifying “Pa-Tum, in the district
of Thuku-t,”
with Pithom, the treasure-city built by the forced labour of the
Hebrews, and
Succoth, the region in which they made their first halt on going forth
from the
land of bondage. Even the bricks with which the great wall and the
walls of the
store-chambers are built bear eloquent testimony to the toil of the
suffering
colonists, and confirm in its minutest details the record of their
oppression:
some being duly kneaded with straw; others, when the straw was no
longer
forthcoming, being mixed with the leafage of a reed common to the
marshlands of
the Delta; and the remainder, when even this substitute ran short,
being
literally “bricks without straw,” moulded of mere clay
crudely dried in the sun.
The researches of M. Naville further showed that the Temple to Tum,
founded by
Rameses II, was restored, or rebuilt, by Osorkon II of the twenty-second dynasty;
whilst at a still higher level were discovered the remains of a Roman
fortress.
That Pithom was still an important place in the time of the Ptolemies
is proved
by a large and historically important tablet found by M. Naville in one
of the
store-chambers, where it had been thrown in with other sculptures and
rubbish
of various kinds. This table records repairs done to the canal, an
expedition
to Ethiopia, and the foundation of the city of Arsinoë. Not less
important from
a geographical point of view was the finding of a Roman milestone which
identifies Pithom with Hero (Heroöpolis), where, according to the
Septuagint,
Joseph went forth to meet Jacob. This milestone gives nine Roman miles
as the
distance from Heroöpolis to Clysma. A very curious manuscript lately
discovered by
Signore Gamurrini in the library of Arezzo, shows that even so late as
the
fourth century of the Christian era, this ancient walled enclosure
– the camp,
or “Ero Castra,” of the Roman period, the
“Pithom” of the Bible – was still
known to pious pilgrims as “the Pithom built by the Children of
Israel”; that
the adjoining town, external to the camp, at that time established
within the
old Pithom boundaries, was known as “Heroöpolis;” and
that the town of Rameses
was distant from Pithom about twenty Roman miles. 12 As regards
Pa-Rameses, the other “treasure-city” of Exodus, it is
conjecturally, but not positively, identified by M. Naville with the
mound of
Saft-el-Henneh, the scene of his explorations in 1886. That
Saft-el-Henneh was
identical with “Kes,” or Goshen, the capital town of the
“Land of Goshen,” has
been unequivocally demonstrated by the discoverer; and that it was also
known,
in the time of Rameses II as “Pa-Rameses” is shown to be
highly probable.13 There are remains of a temple built of
black basalt, with
pillars,
fragments of statues, and the like, all inscribed with the cartouches
of
Rameses II; and the distance from Pithom is just twenty Roman miles. It was
from Pa-Rameses that Rameses II set out with his army to attack
the confederate princes of Asia Minor then lying in ambush near Kadesh;14
and
it was hither that he returned in triumph after the great victory. A
contemporary letter written by one Panbesa, a scribe, narrates in
glowing terms
the beauty and abundance of the royal city, and tells how the damsels
stood at
their doors in holiday apparel, with nosegays in their hands and sweet
oil upon
their locks, “on the day of the arrival of the War-god of the
world.” This
letter is in the British Museum.15 Other
letters written during the reign of Rameses II have by some been
supposed to make direct mention of the Israelites. “I
have obeyed the orders of my master,” writes the scribe Kauiser
to
his superior Bak-en-Ptah, “being bidden to serve out the rations
to the
soldiers, and also to the Aperiu [Hebrews?] who quarry stone for the
palace of
King Rameses Mer-Amen.” A similar document written by a scribe
named Keniamon,
and couched in almost the same words, shows these Aperiu on another
occasion to
have been quarrying for a building on the southern side of Memphis; in
which
case Turra would be the scene of their labours. These
invaluable letters, written on papyrus in the hieratic character,
are in good preservation. They were found in the ruins of Memphis, and
now form
part of the treasures of the Museum of Leyden.16 They bring
home to
us with startling nearness the events and actors of the Bible
narrative. We see
the toilers at their task, and the overseers reporting them to the
directors of
public works. They extract from the quarry those huge blocks which are
our
wonder to this day. Harnessed to rude sledges, they drag them to the
river-side
and embark them for transport to the opposite bank.17 Some
are so
large and so heavy that it takes a month to get them down from the
mountain to
the landing-place.18 Other labourers are elsewhere making
bricks,
digging canals, helping to build the great wall which reached from
Pelusium to
Heliopolis, and strengthening the defences not only of Pithom and
Rameses, but
of all the cities and forts between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
Their
lot is hard; but not harder than the lot of other workmen. They are
well fed.
They intermarry. They increase and multiply. The season of their great
oppression is not yet come. They make bricks, it is true, and those who
are so
employed must supply a certain number daily;19 but the
straw is not
yet withheld, and the task, though perhaps excessive, is not
impossible. For we
are here in the reign of Rameses II, and the time when Meneptah shall
succeed
him is yet far distant. It is not till the King dies that the children
of
Israel sigh, “by reason of the bondage.” There are
in the British Museum, the Louvre, and the Bibliothèque
Nationale, some much older papyri than these two letters of the Leyden
collection – some as old, indeed, as the time of Joseph –
but none, perhaps, of
such peculiar interest. In these, the scribes Kauiser and Keniamon seem
still
to live and speak. What would we not give for a few more of their
letters!
These men knew Memphis in its glory, and had looked upon the face of
Rameses
the Great. They might even have seen Moses in his youth, while yet he
lived
under the protection of his adopted mother, a prince among princes. Kauiser
and Keniamon lived, and died, and were mummied between three and
four thousand years ago; yet these frail fragments of papyrus have
survived the
wreck of ages, and the quaint writing with which they are covered is as
intelligible to ourselves as to the functionaries to whom it was
addressed. The
Egyptians were eminently business-like, and kept accurate entries of
the keep
and labour of their workmen and captives. From the earliest epoch of
which the
monuments furnish record, we find an elaborate bureaucratic system in
full
operation throughout the country. Even in the time of the
pyramid-builders,
there are ministers of public works; inspectors of lands, lakes, and
quarries;
secretaries, clerks, and overseers innumerable.20 From all
these, we
may be sure, were required strict accounts of their expenditure, as
well as
reports of the work done under their supervision. Specimens of Egyptian
bookkeeping are by no means rare. The Louvre is rich in memoranda of
the kind;
some relating to the date-tax; others to the transport and taxation of
corn,
the payment of wages, the sale and purchase of land for burial, and the
like.
If any definite and quite unmistakable news of the Hebrews should ever
reach us
from Egyptian sources, it will almost certainly be through the medium
of
documents such as these. An
unusually long reign, the last forty-six years of which would seem to
have been spent in peace and outward prosperity, enabled Rameses II to
indulge
his ruling passion without interruption. To draw up anything like an
exhaustive
catalogue of his known architectural works would be equivalent to
writing an
itinerary of Egypt and Ethiopia under the nineteenth dynasty. His designs
were as
vast as his means appear to have been unlimited. From the Delta to
Gebel
Barkal, he filled the land with monuments dedicated to his own glory
and the
worship of the gods. Upon Thebes, Abydos, and Tanis, he lavished
structures of
surpassing magnificence. In Nubia, at the places now known as Gerf
Hossayn,
Wady Sabooah, Derr, and Abou Simbel, he was the author of temples and
the
founder of cities. These cities, which would probably be better
described as
provincial towns, have disappeared; and but for the mention of them in
various
inscriptions we should not even know that they had existed. Who shall
say how
many more have vanished, leaving neither trace nor record? A dozen
cities of
Rameses21 may yet lie buried under some of those nameless
mounds
which follow each other in such quick succession along the banks of the
Nile in
Middle and Lower Egypt. Only yesterday, as it were, the remains of what
would
seem to have been a magnificent structure decorated in a style
absolutely
unique, were accidentally discovered under the mounds of
Tel-el-Yahoodeh,22 about twelve miles to the northeast of Cairo.
There are probably
fifty such
mounds, none of which have been opened, in the Delta alone; and it is
no
exaggeration to say that there must be some hundreds between the
Mediterranean
and the first cataract. An
inscription found of late years at Abydos shows that Rameses II
reigned over his great kingdom for the space of sixty-seven years.
“It is
thou,” says Rameses IV, addressing himself to Osiris, “it
is thou who wilt
rejoice me with such length of reign as Rameses II, the great god, in
his
sixty-seven years. It is thou who wilt give me the long duration of
this great
reign.”23 If only we
knew at what age Rameses II succeeded to the throne, we
should, by help of this inscription, know also the age at which he
died. No
such record has, however, transpired, but a careful comparison of the
length of
time occupied by the various events of his reign, and above all the
evidence of
age afforded by the mummy of this great Pharaoh, discovered in 1886,
show that
he must have been very nearly, if not quite, a centenarian. “Thou
madest designs while yet in the age of infancy,” says the stela
of
Dakkeh. “Thou wert a boy wearing the side-lock, and no monument
was erected,
and no order was given without thee. Thou wert a youth aged ten years,
and all
the public works were in thy hands, laying their foundations.”
These lines,
translated literally, cannot, however, be said to prove much. They
certainly
contain nothing to show that this youth of ten was, at the time alluded
to,
sole king and ruler of Egypt. That he was titular king, in the
hereditary
sense, from his birth24 and during the lifetime of his
father, is
now quite certain. That he should, as a boy, have designed public
buildings and
superintended their construction is extremely probable. The office was
one
which might well have been discharged by a crown-prince who delighted
in
architecture, and made it his peculiar study. It was, in fact, a very
noble
office – an office which from the earliest days of the ancient
Empire had
constantly been confided to princes of the royal blood;25 but
it
carried with it no evidence of sovereignty. The presumption, therefore,
would
be that the stela of Dakkeh (dating as it does from the third year of
the sole
reign of Rameses II) alludes to a time long since past, when the king
as a boy
held office under his father. The same
inscription, as we have already seen, makes reference to the
victorious campaign in the South. Rameses is addressed as “the
bull powerful
against Ethiopia; the griffin furious against the negroes;” and
that the events
hereby alluded to must have taken place during the first three years of
his
sole reign is proved by the date of the tablet. The great dedicatory
inscription of Abydos shows, in fact, that Rameses II was prosecuting a
campaign in Ethiopia at the time when he received intelligence of the
death of
his father, and that he came down the Nile, northwards, in order,
probably, to
be crowned at Thebes.26 Now the
famous sculptures of the commemorative chapel at Bayt-el-Welly
relate expressly to the events of this expedition; and as they are
executed in
that refined and delicate style which especially characterises the
bas-relief
work of Gournah, of Abydos, of all those buildings which were either
erected by
Seti the First, or begun by Seti and finished during the early years of
Rameses
II, I venture to think we may regard them as contemporary, or very
nearly
contemporary with the scenes they represent. In any case, it is
reasonable to
conclude that the artists employed on the work would know something
about the
events and persons delineated, and that they would be guilty of no
glaring
inaccuracies. All doubt
as to whether the dates refer to the associated reigns of Seti
and Rameses, or to the sole reign of the latter, vanish, however, when
in these
same sculptures27 we find the conqueror accompanied by his
son,
Prince Amenherkhopeshef, who is of an age not only to bear his part in
the
field, but afterwards to conduct an important ceremony of state on the
occasion
of the submission and tribute-offering of the Ethiopian commander. Such
is the
unmistakable evidence of the bas-reliefs at Bayt-el-Welly, as those who
cannot
go to Bayt-el-Welly may see and judge for themselves by means of the
admirable
casts of these great tableaux which line the walls of the Second
Egyptian Room
at the British Museum. To explain away Prince Amenherkhopeshef would be
difficult. We are accustomed to a certain amount of courtly
exaggeration on the
part of those who record with pen or pencil the great deeds of the
Pharaohs. We
expect to see the king always young, always beautiful, always
victorious. It
seems only right and natural that he should never be less than twenty,
and
sometimes more than sixty, feet in height. But that any flatterer
should go so
far as to credit a lad of thirteen with a son at least as old as
himself is
surely quite incredible. Lastly,
there is the evidence of the Bible. Joseph
being dead and the Israelites established in Egypt, there comes
to the throne a Pharaoh who takes alarm at the increase of this alien
race, and
who seeks to check their too rapid multiplication. He not only
oppresses the
foreigners, but ordains that every male infant born to them in their
bondage
shall be cast into the river. This Pharaoh is now universally believed
to be
Rameses II. Then comes the old, sweet, familiar Bible story that we
know so
well. Moses is born, cast adrift in the ark of bulrushes, and rescued
by the
King’s daughter. He becomes to her “as a son.”
Although no dates are given, it
is clear that the new Pharaoh has not been long upon the throne when
these
events happen. It is equally clear that he is no mere youth. He is old
in the
uses of state-craft; and he is the father of a princess of whom it is
difficult
to suppose that she was herself an infant. On the
whole, then, we can but conclude that Rameses II, though born a
King, was not merely grown to manhood, but wedded, and the father of
children
already past the period of infancy, before he succeeded to the sole
exercise of
sovereign power. This is, at all events, the view taken by Professor
Maspero,
who expressly says, in the latest edition of his Histoire Ancienne, “that
Rameses II, when he received news
of the death of his father, was then in the prime of life, and
surrounded by a
large family, some of whom were of of an age to fight under his
command.”28 Brugsch
places the birth of Moses in the sixth year of the reign of
Rameses II.29 This may very well be. The fourscore years
that
elapsed between that time and the time of the Exodus correspond with
sufficient
exactness to the chronological data furnished by the monuments. Moses
would
thus see out the sixty-one remaining years of the King’s long
life, and release
the Israelites from bondage towards the close of the reign of Menepthah,30
who sat for about twenty years on the throne of his
fathers. The
correspondence of dates this time leaves nothing to be desired. The
Sesostris of Diodorus Siculus went blind, and died by his own hand;
which act, says the historian, as it conformed to the glory of his
life, was
greatly admired by his people. We are here evidently in the region of
pure
fable. Suicide was by no means an Egyptian, but a classical virtue.
Just as the
Greeks hated age, the Egyptians reverenced it; and it may be doubted
whether a
people who seem always to have passionately desired length of days,
would have
seen anything to admire in a wilful shortening of that most precious
gift of
the gods. With the one exception of Cleopatra – the death of
Nitocris the
rosy-cheeked being also of Greek,31 and therefore
questionable,
origin – no Egyptian sovereign is known to have committed
suicide; and even
Cleopatra, who was half Greek by birth, must have been influenced to
the act by
Greek and Roman example. Dismissing, then, altogether this legend of
his
blindness and self-slaughter, it must be admitted that of the death of
Rameses
II we know nothing certain. Such are,
very briefly, the leading facts of the history of this famous
Pharaoh. Exhaustively treated, they would expand into a volume. Even
then,
however, one would ask, and ask in vain, what manner of man he was.
Every
attempt to evolve his personal character from these scanty data, is in
fact a
mere exercise of fancy.32 That he was personally valiant
may be
gathered, with due reservation, from the poem of Pentaur; and that he
was not
unmerciful is shown in the extradition clause of the Khetan treaty. His
pride
was evidently boundless. Every temple which he erected was a monument
to his
own glory; every colossus was a trophy; every inscription a pæan
of
self-praise. At Abou Simbel, at Derr, at Gerf Hossayn, he seated his
own image
in the sanctuary among the images of the gods.33 There are
even
instances in which he is depicted under the twofold aspect of royalty
and
divinity – Rameses the Pharaoh burning incense before Rameses the
Deity. For the rest, it is safe to conclude that he was neither better nor worse than the general run of Oriental despots – that he was ruthless in war, prodigal in peace, rapacious of booty, and unsparing in the exercise of almost boundless power. Such pride and such despotism were, however, in strict accordance with immemorial precedent, and with the temper of the age in which he lived. The Egyptians would seem, beyond all doubt, to have believed that their King was always, in some sense, divine. They wrote hymns34 and offered up prayers to him, and regarded him as the living representative of Deity. His princes and ministers habitually addressed him in the language of worship. Even his wives, who ought to have known better, are represented in the performance of acts of religious adoration before him. What wonder, then, if the man so deified believed himself a god? ______________________1 Abshek: The
hieroglyphic name of Abou Simbel. Gr.
Aboccis. 2 In the present state of Egyptian chronology, it is hazardous to assign even an approximate date to events that happened before the conquest of Cambyses. The Egyptians, in fact, had no chronology in the strict sense of the word. Being without any fixed point of departure, such as the birth of Christ, they counted the events of each reign from the accession of the sovereign. Under such a system, error and confusion were inevitable. To say when Rameses II was born and when he died is impossible. The very century in which he flourished is uncertain. Mariette, taking the historical lists of Manetho for his basis, supposes the nineteenth dynasty to have occupied the interval comprised within B.C. 1462 and 1288; according to which computation (allowing 57 years for the reigns of Rameses I and Seti I) the reign of Rameses II would date from B.C. 1405. Brugsch gives him from B.C. 1407 to B.C. 1341; and Lepsius places his reign in the sixty-six years lying between B.C. 1388 and B.C. 1322; these calculations being both made before the discovery of the stela of Abydos. Bunsen dates his accession from B.C. 1352. Between the highest and the lowest of these calculations there is, as shown by the following table, a difference of 55 years:
3 See chap.
viii. footnote, p. 140. 4 See "Essai sur l’Inscription
Dédicatoire du Temple
d’Abydos et la Jeunesse de Sesotris." – G.
Maspero, Paris, 1867. 5 See chap.
viii. p. 140. 6 i.e. Prince of the Hittites;
the Kheta being now identified with that people. 7 This invaluable record is sculptured on a piece of wall built out, apparently for the purpose, at right angles to the south wall of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. The treaty faces to the west, and is situate about half-way between the famous bas-relief of Sheshonk and his captives, and the Karnak version of the poem of Pentaur. The former lies to the west of the southern portal; the latter to the east. The wall of the treaty juts out about sixty feet to the east of the portal. This south wall and its adjunct, a length of about 200 feet in all, is perhaps the most precious and interesting piece of sculptured surface in the world. 8 See "Treaty of Peace between Rameses II and the
Hittites," translated by C. W. Goodwin, M.A., "Records of the Past", vol. iv.
p. 25. 9 Since this
book was written, a further study of the subject has led me to
conjecture that
not Seti I, but Queen Hatshepsu (Hatasu) of the eighteenth dynasty, was
the actual
originator of the canal which connected the Nile with the Red Sea. The
inscriptions engraved upon the walls of her great Temple at
Dayr-el-Baharî
expressly state that her squadron sailed from Thebes to the Land of
Punt, and
returned from Punt to Thebes, laden with the products of that
mysterious
country which Mariette and Maspero have conclusively shown to have been
situate
on the Somali coast-line between Bab-el-Mandeb and Cape Guardafui.
Unless,
therefore, some water-way existed at that time between the Nile and the
Red
Sea, it follows that Queen Hatshepsu’s squadron of discovery must
have sailed
northward from Thebes, descended the Nile to one of its mouths,
traversed the
whole length of the Mediterranean Sea, gone out through the Pillars of
Hercules, doubled the Cape of Good Hope, and arrived at the Somali
coast by way
of the Mozambique Channel and the shores of Zanzibar. In other words,
the
Egyptian galleys would twice have made the almost complete circuit of
the
African continent. This is obviously an untenable hypothesis; and there
remains
no alternative route except that of a canal, or chain of canals,
connecting the
Nile with the Red Sea. The old Wady Tûmilât canal has
hitherto been universally
ascribed to Seti I, for no other reason than that a canal leading from
the Nile
to the ocean is represented on a bas-relief of his reign on the north
outer
wall of the Great Temple of Karnak; but this canal may undoubtedly have
been made
under the preceding dynasty, and it is not only probable, but most
likely, that
the great woman-Pharaoh, who first conceived the notion of venturing
her ships
upon an unknown sea, may also have organised the channel of
communication by
which those ships went forth. According to the second edition of Sir J.
W.
Dawson’s "Egypt and Syria,"
the
recent surveys conducted by Lieut.-Col. Ardagh, Major Spaight, and
Lieut.
Burton, all of the Royal Engineers, “render it certain that this
valley [i.e. the Wady
Tûmilât] once carried a
branch of the Nile which discharged its waters into the Red Sea”
(see chap.
iii. p. 55); and in such case, if that branch were not already
navigable, Queen
Hatshepsu would only have needed to canalise it, which is what she
probably
did. [Note to second edition.] 10 “Les
circonstances de l’histoire hébraïque
s’appliquent ici d’une manière on ne peut
plus satisfaisante. Les Hébreux opprimés batissaient une
ville du nom de
Ramsès. Ce récit ne peut donc s’appliquer
qu’à l’époque où la famille de
Ramsès
était sur le trône. Moïse, contraint de fuir la
colère du roi après le meurtre
d’un Egyptien, subit un long exil, parceque le roi ne mourut qu’après un temps fort long;
Ramsès II
regna en effet plus de 67 ans. Aussitôt après le retour de
Moïse commença la
lutte qui se termina par le célèbre passage de la Mer
rouge. Cet événement eut
donc lieu sous le fils de Ramsès II, ou tout au plus tard
pendant l’époque de
troubles qui suivit son règne. Ajoutons que la rapidité
des derniers événements
ne permet pas de supposer que le roi eût sa résidence
à Thèbes dans cet
instant. Or, Merenptah a précisément laissé dans
la Basse-Egypte, et
spécialement à Tanis, des preuves importantes de son
séjour.” – De Rougé, "Notice des Monuments Egyptiennes du Rez de
Chaussée
du Musée du Louvre," Paris, 1857, p. 22. “Il
est impossible d’attribuer ni à Meneptah I, ni à
Seti II, ni à
Siptah, ni à Amonmesès, un règne même de
vingt années; à plus forte raison de
cinquante ou soixante. Seul, le règne de Ramsès II
remplit les conditions
indispensables. Lors même que nous ne saurions pas que ce
souverain a occupé
les Hébreux à la construction de la ville de
Ramsès, nous serions dans
l’impossibilité de placer Moïse à une autre
époque, à moins de faire table rase
des renseignements bibliques.” – "Recherches
pour servir à l’Histoire de la XIX Dynastie:" F.
Chabas; Paris, 1873;
p. 148. 11 The Bible
narrative, it has often been observed, invariably designates the King
by this
title, than which none, unfortunately, can be more vague for purposes
of
identification. “Plus généralement,” says
Brugsch, writing of the royal titles,
“sa personne se cache sous une série d’expressions
qui toutes ont le sens de la
‘grande maison’
ou du ‘grand
palais,’ quelquefois au duel, des ‘deux grandes maisons,’
par rapport à la
division de l’Egypte en deux parties. C’est du titre
très frequent This
probably is the only title under which it was permissible for the
plebeian class to speak or write of the sovereign. It can scarcely have
escaped
Herr Brugsch’s notice that we even find it literally translated
in Genesis 1.4,
where it is said that “when the days of his mourning were past,
Joseph spake unto the house
of Pharaoh, saying, If now
I have found grace in your eyes,” etc., etc. If Moses, however,
had but once
recorded the cartouche name of either of his three Pharaohs,
archæologists and
commentators would have been spared a great deal of trouble. 12 This
remarkable manuscript relates the journey made by a female pilgrim of French
birth, circa A.D. 370,
to Egypt, Mesopotamia, and
the holy land. The manuscript is copied from an older original, and dates from
the
tenth or eleventh century. Much of the work is lost, but those parts
are yet
perfect which describe the pilgrim’s progress through Goshen to
Tanis, and
thence to Jerusalem, Edessa, and the Haran. Of Pithom it is said:
“Pithona
etiam civitas quam œdificaverunt filii Israel ostensa est nobis
in ipso
itinere; in eo tamen loco ubi jam fines Egypti intravimus, religentes
jam
terras Saracenorum. Nam et ipsud nunc Pithona castrum est. Heroun autem
civitas
quæ fuit illo tempere, id est ubi occurit Joseph patri suo
venienti, sicut
scriptum est in libro Genesis nunc est comes sed grandis quod nos
dicimus vicus
. . . nam ipse vicus nunc appellatur Hero.” See a letter on
“Pithom-Heroopolis”
communicated to "The Academy"
by M.
Naville, March 22, 1884. See also M. Naville’s memoir, entitled "The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of
the Exodus"
(third edition); published by order of the Committee of the Egypt
Exploration
Fund, 1888. 13 See M.
Naville’s Memoir, entitled "Goshen
and the
Shrine of Saft-el-Henneh," published by order of the
Committee of the
Egypt Exploration Fund, 1887. 14 Kadesh,
otherwise Katesh or Kades. A town on the Orontes. See a paper entitled,
“The
Campaign of Rameses the Second, in his Vth year, against Kadesh on the
Orontes,” by the Rev. G. H. Tomkins, in the "Proceedings
of the Society of Biblical Archæology," 1881, 1882;
also in the "Transactions"
of the Society, vol. viii. 15 Anastasi
Papyri, No. III, Brit. Mus. 16 See "Mélanges Egyptologiques,"
by F. Chabas, 1
Série, 1862. There has been much discussion among Egyptologists
on the subject
of M. Chabas’s identification of the Hebrews. The name by which
they are
mentioned in the papyri here quoted, as well as in an inscription in
the
quarries of Hamamat, is Aperi-u.
A learned critic in the "Revue
Archéologique"
(vol. v. 2d series, 1862) writes as follows: “La découverte
du nom des Hébreux
dans les hiéroglyphes serait un fait de la dernière
importance; mais comme,
aucun autre point historique n’offre peut-être une pareille
séduction, il faut
aussi se méfier des illusions avec un soin méticuleux. La
confusion des sons R et
L dans la langue égyptienne, et le voisinage des articulations B
et P nuisent
un peu, dans le cas particulier, à la rigueur des conclusions
qu’on peut tirér
de la transcription. Néanmoins, il y a lieu de prendre en
considération ce fait
que les Aperiu, dans les trois documents qui nous parlent d’eux,
sont montrés
employés à des travaux de même espèce que
ceux auxquels, selon l’Ecriture, les
Hébreux furent assujettis par les Egyptiens. La circonstance que
les papyrus
mentionnant ce nom ont été trouvés à
Memphis, plaide encore en faveur de
l’assimilation proposée – découverte
importante qu’il est à désirer de voir
confirmée par d’autres monuments.” It should be
added that the Aperiu also
appear in the Inscription of Thothmes III at Karnak, and were supposed
by
Mariette to be the people of Ephon. It is, however, to be noted that
the
inscriptions mention two tribes of Aperiu, a greater and a lesser, or
an upper
and a lower tribe. This might perhaps consist with the establishment of
Hebrew
settlers in the Delta, and others in the neighbourhood of Memphis. The
Aperiu,
according to other inscriptions, appear to have been horsemen, or
horse-trainers, which certainly tells against the probability of their
identity
with the Hebrews. 17 See the
famous wall-painting of the Colossus on the Sledge engraved in Sir G.
Wilkinson’s "Ancient
Egyptians";
frontispiece to vol. ii. ed. 1871. 18 In a
letter written by a priest who lived during this reign (Rameses II), we
find an
interesting account of the disadvantages and hardships attending
various trades
and pursuits, as opposed to the ease and dignity of the sacerdotal
office. Of
the mason he says – “It is the climax of his misery to have
to remove a block
of ten cubits by six, a block which it takes a month to drag by the
private
ways among the houses.” – Sallier Pap. No. II, Brit.
Musæ. 19 “Ye shall
no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go
and
gather straw for themselves. “And
the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall
lay upon them: ye shall not diminish ought thereof.” –
Exodus, chap. v. 7,8. M. Chabas
says: “Ces détails sont complètement conformes aux
habitudes
Egyptiennes. Le mélange de paille et d’argile dans les
briques antiques a été
parfaitement reconnu. D’un autre côté, le travail
à la tâche est mentionné dans
un texte écrit au revers d’un papyrus
célébrant la splendeur de la ville de
Ramsès, et datant, selon toute vraisemblance, du règne de
Meneptah I. En voici
la transcription: – ‘Compte des maçons, 12; en outre
des hommes à mouler la
brique dans leurs villes, amenés aux travaux de la maison. Eux
à faire leur
nombre de briques journellement; non ils sont à se
relâcher des travaux dans la
maison neuve; c’est ainsi que j’ai obéi au mandat
donné par mon maître.’“ See "Recherches pour servir à
l’Histoire de la XIX
Dynastie," par F. Chabas. Paris; 1873, p. 149. The
curious text thus translated into French by M. Chabas is written on
the back of the papyrus already quoted (i.e.
Letter of Panbesa, Anastasi Papyri, No. III), and is preserved in the
British
Museum. The wall-painting in a tomb of the eighteenth dynasty at Thebes,
which
represents foreign captives mixing clay, moulding, drying, and placing
bricks,
is well known from the illustration in Sir G. Wilkinson’s "Ancient Egyptians," ed. of 1871,
vol. ii.
p. 196. Cases 61 and 62 in the First Egyptian Room, British Museum,
contain
bricks of mixed clay and straw stamped with the names of Rameses II. 20 “Les
affaires de la cour et de l’administration du pays sont
expédiées par les
‘chefs’ ou les ‘intendants,’ par les
‘secrétaires’ et par la nombreuse classe
des scribes. . . . Le trésor rempli d’or et
d’argent, et le divan des depenses
et des recettes avaient leurs intendants à eux. La chambre des
comptes ne
manque pas. Les domaines, les propriétés, les palais, et
même les lacs du roi
sont mis sous la garde d’inspecteurs. Les architectes du pharaon
s’occupent de
bâtisses d’après l’ordre du pharaon. Les
carrières, à partir de celles du
Mokattam (le Toora de nos jours) jusqu’à celles
d’Assouan, se trouvent
exploitées par des chefs qui surveillent le transport des
pierres taillées à la
place de deur destination. Finalement la corvée est
dirigée par les chefs des
travaux publics.” "Histoire
d’Égypte,"
Brugsch: second edition, 1875; chap. v. pp. 34 and 35. 21 The
Pa-Rameses of the Bible narrative was not the only Egyptian city of
that name.
There was a Pa-Rameses near Memphis, and another Pa-Rameses at Abou
Simbel; and
there may probably have been many more. 22 The
remains were apparently those of a large hall paved with white
alabaster slabs.
The walls were covered with a variety of bricks and encaustic tiles;
many of
the bricks were of most beautiful workmanship, the hieroglyphs in some
being
inlaid in glass. The capitals of the columns were inlaid with brilliant
coloured mosaics, and a pattern in mosaics ran around the cornice. Some
of the
bricks are inlaid with the oval of Rameses III.” See "Murray’s Handbook for Egypt," route 7, p. 217. Case D, in
the Second Egyptian Room at the British Museum, contains
several of these tiles and terra-cottas, some of which are painted with
figures
of Asiatic and Negro captives, birds, serpents, etc.; and are extremely
beautiful both as regards design and execution. Murray is wrong,
however, in
attributing the building to Rameses II. The cartouches are those of
Rameses
III. The discovery was made by some labourers in 1870. NOTE TO
SECOND EDITION. – This mound was excavated last year (1887) by
M. Naville, acting as before for the Egypt Exploration Fund. See
Supplementary
Sheet to The Illustrated London
News,
17th September 1887, containing a complete account of the excavations
at
Tel-el-Yahoodeh, etc., with illustrations. 23 This
tablet is votive, and contains in fact a long Pharisaic prayer offered
to
Osiris by Rameses IV in the fourth year of his reign. The king
enumerates his
own virtues and deeds of piety, and implores the god to grant him
length of
days. See "Sur une Stèle
inédite d’Abydos," 24 M. Mariette,
in his great work on Abydos, has argued that Rameses II was designated
during
the lifetime of his father by a cartouche signifying only Ra-User-Ma; and that he did not
take the
additional Setp-en-Ra
till after
the death of Seti I. The Louvre, however, contains a fragment of
bas-relief
representing the infant Rameses with the full title of his later years.
This
important fragment is thus described by M. Paul Pierret:
“Ramsés II enfant,
représenté assis sur le signe des montagnes du:
c’est une assimilation au soleil levant lorsqu’il
émerge à l’horizon céleste.
Il porte la main gauche à sa bouche, en signe d’enfance.
La main droite pend
sur les genoux. Il est vétu d’une longue robe. La tresse
de l’enfance pend sur
son épaule. Un diadème relie ses cheveux, et un
uræus se dresse sur son front.
Voici la traduction de la courte légende qui accompagne cette
représentation.
‘Le roi de la Haute et de la Basse Egypte, maître des deux
pays, Ra-User-Ma Setp-en-Ra,
vivificateur,
éternel comme le soleil.’“ "Catalogue de la
Salle Historique". P. Pierret. Paris, 1873, p. 8. M. Maspero
is of opinion that this one fragment establishes the disputed
fact of his actual sovereignty from early childhood, and so disposes of
the
entire question. See "L’Inscription
dédicatoire du Temple d’Abydos, suivi d’un Essai sur
la jeunesse de Sesostris."
G. Maspero. 4° Paris, 1867. See also chap. viii. (footnote), p.
126. 25 “Le métier
d’architecte se trouvait confié aux plus hauts dignitaries
de la cour
pharaonique. Les architectes du roi, les Murket,
se recrutaient assez souvent parmi le nombre des princes.” "Historie d’Egypte:"
Brugsch. second
edition, 1875, chap. v. p. 34. 26 See "L’Inscription dédicatoire du
Temple d’Abydos, etc.,"
by G. Maspero. 27 See
Rosellini, Monumenti Storici,
pl.
lxxi. 28 “A la
nouvelle de la mort de son père, Ramsès II
désormais seul roi, quitta
l’Éthiopie et ceignit la couronne à Thèbes.
Il était alors dans la plénitude de
ses forces, et avait autour de lui un grand nombre d’enfants,
dont quelques-uns
étaient assez âgés pour combattre sous ses
ordres.” "Hist. Ancienne des
Peuples de l’Orient," par G. Maspero.
Chap. v. p. 220 4th edition, 1886. 29 “Comme
Ramsès II regna 66 ans, le règne de son successeur sous
lequel la sortie des
Juifs eut lieu, embrassa la durée de 20 ans; et comme Moïse
avait l’age de 80
ans au temps de la sortie, il en résulte évidemment que
les enfants d’Israël
quittèrent l’Egypte une des ces dernières six
années du règne de Menepthah;
c’est à dire entre 1327 et 1321 avant l’ère
chrétienne. Si nous admettons que
ce pharaon périt dans le mer, selon le rapport biblique,
Moïse sera né 80 ans
avant 1321, ou 1401 avant J. Chr., la sixième
année du règne de Ramsès II.” – "Hist.
d’Égypte:" Brugsch. chap viii, p. 157. First edition, Leipzig,
1859. 30 If the
Exodus took place, however, during the opening years of the reign of
Menepthah,
it becomes necessary either to remove the birth of Moses to a
correspondingly
earlier date, or to accept the amendment of Bunsen, who says “we
can hardly
take literally the statement as to the age of Moses at the Exodus, twice over forty years.”
Forty years is
the mode of expressing a generation, from thirty to thirty-three years.
"Egypt’s Place in
Universal History:"
Bunsen, Lond. 1859. Vol. iii. p. 184. That Menepthah did not himself
perish
with his host, seems certain. The final oppression of the Hebrews and
the
miracles of Moses, as narrated in the Bible, give one the impression of
having
all happened within a comparatively short space of time; and cannot
have
extended over a period of twenty years. Neither is it stated that
Pharaoh
perished. The tomb of Menepthah, in fact, is found in the Valley of the
Tombs
of the Kings (tomb, No. 8). 31 Herodotus, book. ii. 32 Rosellini,
for instance, carries hero-worship to its extreme limit when he not
only states
that Rameses the Great had, by his conquests, filled Egypt with
luxuries that
contributed alike to the graces of every-day life and the security of
the
state, but (accepting as sober fact the complimentary language of a
triumphal
tablet) adds that “universal peace even secured to him the love
of the
vanquished” (l’universal pace assicurata dall’ amore
dei vinti stessi pel
Faraone). – "Mon. Storici,"
vol.
iii. part ii. p. 294. Bunsen, equally prejudiced in the opposite
direction, can
see no trait of magnanimity or goodness in one whom he loves to depict
as “an
unbridled despot, who took advantage of a reign of almost unparalleled
length,
and of the acquisitions of his father and ancestors, in order to
torment his
own subjects and strangers to the utmost of his power, and to employ
them as
instruments of his passion for war and building.” "Egypt’s Place in Universal History:"
Bunsen. vol. iii. book.
iv. part ii. p. 184. 33 “Souvent
il s’introduit lui-même dans les triades divines auxquelles
il dédie les
temples. Le soliel de
Ramsès Meïamoun
qu’on aperçoit sur leur murailles, n’est autre chose
que le roi lui-même déifié
de son vivant.” "Notice des
Monuments
Egyptiennes au Musée du Louvre." De Rouge;
Paris, 1875, p. 20. 34 See Hymn to Pharaoh (Menepthah) translated by C. W. Goodwin, M.A. "Records of the Past," vol. vi. p. 101. |
||||||||||
Click the book image to turn
to the next Chapter.