*

It was in the 4th year of his reign that I suppose the exodus of the Israelites to have taken place, and the wars he undertook and the monuments he erected must date subsequently to that event. Indeed there is no authority in the writings of Moses for supposing that Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Seat; and from our finding that whereever any fact is mentioned in the Bible history we do not discover any thing on the monuments which tends to contradict it, we may conclude that these two authorities will not here be at variance with each other. And in order to show that in this instance the same agreement exists between them, and to prevent a vulgar error, perpetuated by constant repetition ‡, from being brought forward to impugn the accuracy of the Jewish historian, it is a pleasing duty to examine the account given in the book of Exodus. According to it, Pharaoh led his army in pursuit of the fugitives, and overtook the Israelites "encamping by the sea, beside Pi-Hahíroth, before Baal-zephon."§ The Israelites having entered the channel of the sea, the army of Pharaoh, "his chariots and horsemen ||," pursued them, and all those who went in after them were overwhelmed by the returning waters. This, how

We find the date of his 34th year on the monuments.

+ Vide my Materia Hieroglyphica, Remarks, at the end of p. 4. The Arabs have a tradition that the exodus happened under King Amioos, a name very like Amosis or Thothmosis (Ames or Thothmes), both which have a similar import.

Among many others are the two humps of a dromedary, and the inability of a crocodile to turn round quickly, both in direct opposition

to truth.

§ Exod. xiv. 9.

| Exod. xiv. 23.

ever, is confined to the "chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh, that came into the sea after them*," and neither here nor in the Song which Moses sang on the occasion of their deliverance, is any mention made of the king's death, an event of sufficient consequence at least to have been noticed, and one which would not have been omitted. The authority of a Psalm can scarcely be opposed to that of Moses, even were the death of Pharaoh positively asserted, but this cannot even be argued from the expression, he "overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea‡," since the death of a monarch is not the necessary consequence of his defeat and overthrow.

The departure of the Israelites enabled Thothmes to continue the war with the northern nations before mentioned with greater security and success, and it is not impossible that its less urgent prosecution after the time of Amun-m-gori II. was owing partly to the sojourn of the Jews in Egypt.§ At all events, we find evidence of its having been carried on by this monarch with more than usual vigour; and in consequence of the encouragement

* Exod. xiv. 28.

+ Exod. xv. 4. "Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea."

Psalm cxxxvi. 15.

The failure of historical monuments of this period prevents our deciding the question. I had formerly supposed the Jews and Pastors the same people (Materia Hieroglyphic. p. 84.), and that the expulsion of the latter happened under Thothmes III. This last must have occurred long before, and I believe the two events and the two people to have been confounded by historians, or by the copyists of Manetho. The captives represented in the tombs of Thebes are not Jews, as I have observed in my Egypt and Thebes, but rather of those nations bordering on Assyria. Vide also suprà, pp. 21. and 38.

given to the arts of peace, the records of his successes, sculptured on the monuments he erected, have been preserved to the present day. He founded numerous buildings in Upper and Lower Egypt, and in those parts of Ethiopia into which his arms had penetrated; he made extensive additions to the temples of Thebes; and Coptos, Memphis, Heliopolis, and other cities in different parts of the country, benefited by his zeal for architectural improvements. In many of the monuments* he founded, the style is pure and elegant; but in the reversed capitals and cornices of a columnar hall behind the granite sanctuary at Karnak, he has evinced a love of change consistent neither with elegance or utility, leaving a lasting memorial of his caprice, the more remarkable as he has elsewhere given proofs of superior taste.

After a reign of about thirty-nine years† he was succeeded by his son Amunoph II., who besides some additions to the great pile of Karnak, founded the small temple of Amada in Nubia, which was completed by his son and successor Thothmes IV. The great sphinx at the pyramids also bears the sculptures of the son of Amunoph; but whether it was commenced by him or by the

*Several obelisks were cut by his order, as the two now at Alexandria, others at Rome, and one at Constantinople. More scarabæi and small objects have been found bearing the name of this king, than of any one who reigned before or after him, not excepting Remeses the Great.

According to Eratosthenes. Vide note, p. 54.

The return of the Shepherds or Pastors during his reign, mentioned by Manetho, is very doubtful. They are out of place here, and we know that the Jews did not revisit Egypt.

3d Thothmes, is a question which it would be curious to ascertain. At all events, the similarity of the names may have given rise to the error of Pliny, who considers it the sepulchre of Amasis.

Amunoph III. and his elder brother AmunToônh succeeded to the throne on the death of the 4th Thothmes; but as they were both young, the office of regent and tutor during their minority was confided to their mother, the queen Maut-m shoi. She is perhaps the Achencheres or Acherres of Manetho, who according to his list is introduced as a reigning queen. They appear to have ruled with equal authority and in perfect harmony, till some event caused the secession of Amun-Toônh, who left to Amunoph the undivided possession of the throne, and retired from Egypt. And so anxious was the younger brother to obliterate every recollection of his having ruled conjointly with him, that he not only prevented the mention of his name in the lists of kings, but caused it to be erased from all the monuments of Upper and Lower Egypt. That Amunoph III. was the younger brother, I am inclined to believe, from the circumstance of his prenomen being alone admitted on the buildings erected during their combined reign, while both the prenomen and nomen of Amun-Toônh are always introduced. The departure of the elder brother was the signal for changing all the second prenomens of Amunoph into a phonetic nomen, as may be observed on every monument sculptured during the early part of his reign, some of which are in the British Museum and other European collections.

The reason of his secession it is now difficult to determine; however, the similarity of his name with that of Danaus, and the time at which he lived, are strong arguments in favour of his having been the coloniser of Argos: and the following is another remarkable coincidence. Amunoph had been already engaged in several military expeditions, and the expulsion of Danaus is also reported to have happened after the return of his brother from war; nor is it improbable that the influence acquired by a warlike prince over the army during these campaigns should suggest to an ambitious mind the facility as well as the desire of obtaining sole possession of the throne, and lead to the expulsion of his colleague; and the only point of disagreement is the name of Danaus's brother, which is not stated to have resembled Amunoph.

During the early part of their reign, stations on the road to the emerald mines were either built or repaired; and the care bestowed on their construction is proved by our finding hewn stones carved with hieroglyphics, and the name of AmunToônh, within their precincts.

The palace-temple of Luqsor and that behind

* Danaus left Egypt and founded Argos, of which he became king, and died B. C. 1425. I have noticed this change of the prenomen of Amunoph more fully in a paper on Lord Prudhoe's lions now at the British Museum, which bear a convincing proof of what I here advance. Vide also my Materia Hierog. p. 87, 88. Some say Inachus or Phoroneus led the colony from Egypt to Argos, and it is remarkable that in one of these names we trace the word onh, which forms part of that of Amunoph's brother, and in the other that of Pharaoh. These accounts make Danaus one of the successors to the throne of Argos by right of Io.