have been previously unknown to, or unassailed by, the Egyptians. This last would, indeed, argue that ambition or the love of spoil were the main objects of the monarch who planned the expedition; and it was, probably, owing to some injustice on his part, that two of the nations who fought under his banners in the capacity of allies, were induced to quit their allegiance, and unite against the aggressions of the invader. These were the Shairetana and the Tokkari*; and that the costume of the latter bears a remarkable analogy to those of the vicinity of Persia, may be seen by comparing it with the figures brought from Persepolis. † But whether the conquests, or any of the captives represented in the sculptures of the tombs and temples, can be referred to the rebellion and defeat of the Bactrians, is a question which I do not intend to discuss, since it would lead to arguments uninteresting to the general reader.

It is possible that this monarch extended his conquests in one direction, even farther than his predecessor Remeses II.; but the people represented at the Memnonium, and who have been supposed by M. Champollion to be the Scythians, do not appear to have been invaded to the same extent by the third Remeses. ‡

After subduing several nations, whose troops he had defeated in the open field, in fortified towns,

*The Tokkari rebelled first, and were then joined by the Shairetana, who had been allies of the Egyptians at least from the time of Remeses II.

+ Vide infrà, Chap. iii. Enemies

Or perhaps gave no cause for the renewal of war; and their names may only be noticed at Medeenet Haboo, as among the nations tributary to Egypt.

and by water, he returned with immense booty* to the valley of the Nile, and distributed rewards to his troops, whose courage and superior discipline had added so much to his glory, and to the power of their native country. And the latter part of his reignt was occupied, like those of his victorious ancestors, in erecting or embellishing many of the noblest monuments of Egypt.

The sculptures of this period were elegant, as the architecture was magnificent; but a peculiar innovation, introduced into the style of the hieroglyphics, was the forerunner, though not the cause, of the decline and downfall of Egyptian art. The hieroglyphics had ceased to be executed in relief from the accession of the second Remeses; but the change made in the reign of his fifth successor, was by carving the lower side of the characters to a great depth, while the upper face inclined gradually from the surface of the wall till it reached the innermost part of the intaglio, so that the hieroglyphics could be distinguished by a person standing immediately beneath, and close to the wall on which they were sculptured. It was a style not generally imitated by his successors; and the presence of hieroglyphics of this kind may serve to fix the monuments in which they occur to the era of the third Remeses. Some attempt was made by the monarchs of the 26th Dynasty to revive the beauty

* If this king is the same as the Rhampsinitus of Herodotus, his successful wars may have been one of the great sources of the immense wealth he is said to have possessed.

Among the Turks, it was long an established rule that no mosk could be founded by a Soltán who had not defeated the infidels, the enemies of their religion, of which he was the chief.

of ancient sculpture; and so great was the care bestowed on the execution of the hieroglyphics and small figures, that a person unacquainted with the purity of the more ancient style feels inclined, at first sight, to consider them the most elegant productions of this school. But on more careful consideration, and judging with a full understanding of true Egyptian design, they will be found to derive their effect from the minuteness of their detail, rather than from the boldness or superiority of their execution.

At the close of his reign we bid adieu to the most glorious era of Egyptian history. But what was done by the labours of individuals zealous in the prosecution of the arts of peace, or what advances science and general knowledge underwent previous and subsequently to his era, still remains a secret; though it is probable, judging from similar events in other countries, that the epoch of conquest and military renown was accompanied by a proportionate developement of intellectual powers.

That the Bible history makes no mention of the conquests of the Egyptian monarchs of the 18th Dynasty is not surprising, when we consider the state of the newly occupied land at the epoch in question; and, as the history of the Jews only relates to themselves, or to those people with whom they were at war, we readily perceive the reason of their silence. They had not, in fact, become settled in the promised territory; they were engaged in war with neighbouring tribes; and the

passage of the Egyptian army along the sea-coast of Palestine could in no way disturb or alarm them. Nor could they have had any object in imprudently provoking the hostilities of a nation far more powerful than those petty states, whose aggressions they found so much difficulty to resist and we observe that, at a subsequent period, the insolent interference of Josiah on a similar occasion cost him his kingdom and his life, and had the additional effect of rendering his country tributary to Egypt.

Whether the successors of Remeses III. preferred the encouragement of the arts of peace and the improvement of the internal administration of the country, or, contented with the annual payment of that tribute which the arms of their warlike predecessors had imposed on the vanquished states, ceased to thirst for further conquest, military expeditions on the grand scale of those equipped by the two Remeses and Osirei were now abandoned; and the captives represented in their sculptures may be referred to the tributary people, rather than to those brought from any newly acquired territory.

The immediate successors of the third Remeses were his sons. They all bore the name of their father, and completed the series of the 19th Dy. nasty. To them succeeded five other Remeses; but the total of the 20th and 21st Dynasties is yet uncertain; nor can the arrangement of their names be ascertained with any degree of precision,

* 2 Kings, xxiii. 30. 34. 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. et seq., and xxxvi. 3,

owing to their having erected few buildings, at least in those cities whose monuments remain. Nor do the Dynasties of Manetho assist in the history of this period; and, indeed, the unsatisfactory form in which they have been transmitted to us, precludes the possibility of our using them, in any instance, without some confirmation or assistance from the more trustworthy records of the

monuments.

Of the same epoch, little information is to be obtained either from Herodotus or Diodorus; nor can we place much confidence in the accounts given by those authors of any portion of Egyptian history. Previous to the reign of Psamaticus, the names of nearly all the sovereigns they mention are questionable, and great confusion is caused by their misplacing Sesostris, or by their ascribing events of the later reign of a Remeses to that conqueror. The cause of this error I have already endeavoured to explain, by supposing Sesostris to have been the original hero of Egypt, and the conquests of the second Remeses to have been attributed to the former monarch, whose exploits he had eclipsed; the two persons thus becoming confounded together. However, as Herodotus and Diodorus mention some amusing details of the reigns of the early Pharaohs, I shall introduce them as a collateral account of the history of the Egyptian kings.

*The History of Egypt, written by the authors of the Universal History, has been compiled chiefly from those two historians; I therefore avail myself occasionally of some extracts from that work, adding my own remarks on the events there detailed.