Chapter 12

Under this head, I shall treat only of some plants peculiar to Egypt, and of the abundance of corn which it produced.

Papyrus. This is a plant, from the root of which shoot out a great many triangular stalks, to the height of six or seven cubits. The ancients writ at first upon palm leaves;(382) next, on the inside of the bark of trees, from whence the word _liber_, or book, is derived; after that, upon tables covered over with wax, on which the characters were impressed with an instrument called Stylus, sharp-pointed at one end to write with, and flat at the other, to efface what had been written; which gave occasion to the following expression of Horace:

Sæpe stylum vertas, iterum quæ digna legi sint Scripturus:

_Sat._ lib. i. x. ver. 72.

Oft turn your style, if you desire to write Things that will bear a second reading——

The meaning of which is, that a good performance is not to be expected without many erasures and corrections. At last the use of paper(383) was introduced, and this was made of the bark of Papyrus, divided into thin flakes or leaves, which were very proper for writing; and this Papyrus was likewise called Byblus.

Nondum flumineas Memphis contexere byblos Noverat.

Lucan.

Memphis as yet knew not to form in leaves The wat’ry Byblos.

Pliny calls it a wonderful invention,(384) so useful to life, that it preserves the memory of great actions, and immortalizes those who achieved them. Varro ascribes this invention to Alexander the Great, when he built Alexandria; but he had only the merit of making paper more common, for the invention was of much greater antiquity. The same Pliny adds, that Eumenes, king of Pergamus, substituted parchment instead of paper, in emulation of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, whose library he was ambitious to excel by this invention, which had the advantage over paper. Parchment is the skin of a sheep dressed and made fit to write upon. It was called Pergamenum from Pergamus, whose kings had the honour of the invention. All the ancient manuscripts are either upon parchment, or vellum, which is calf-skin, and a great deal finer than the common parchment. It is very curious to see white fine paper wrought out of filthy rags picked up in the streets. The plant Papyrus was useful likewise for sails, tackling, clothes, coverlets, &c.(385)

Linum. Flax is a plant whose bark, full of fibres or strings, is useful in making fine linen. The method of making this linen in Egypt was wonderful, and carried to such perfection, that the threads which were drawn out of them, were almost too small for the observation of the sharpest eye. Priests were always habited in linen, and never in woollen; and all persons of distinction generally wore linen clothes. This flax formed a considerable branch of the Egyptian trade, and great quantities of it were exported into foreign countries. The manufacture of flax employed a great number of hands in Egypt, especially of the women, as appears from that passage of Isaiah, in which the prophet menaces Egypt with a drought of so terrible a nature, that it should interrupt every kind of labour. “Moreover, they that work in fine flax, and they that weave network, shall be confounded.”(386) We likewise find in Scripture, that one effect of the plague of hail, called down by Moses upon Egypt, was the destruction of all the flax which was then bolled.(387) This storm was in March.

Byssus. This was another kind of flax extremely fine and delicate, which often received a purple dye.(388) It was very dear; and none but rich and wealthy persons could afford to wear it. Pliny, who gives the first place to the Asbeston or Asbestinum, (_i.e._ the incombustible flax,) places the Byssus in the next rank; and says, “that the dress and ornaments of the ladies were made of it.”(389) It appears from the Holy Scriptures, that it was chiefly from Egypt that cloth made of this fine flax was brought: “fine linen with broidered work from Egypt.”(390)

I take no notice of the Lotus, a very common plant, and in great request among the Egyptians, of whose berries, in former times, they made bread. There was another Lotus in Africa, which gave its name to the Lotophagi or Lotus-eaters; because they lived upon the fruit of this tree, which had so delicious a taste, if Homer may be credited, that it made those who ate it forget all the sweets of their native country,(391) as Ulysses found to his cost in his return from Troy.

In general, it may be said, that the Egyptian pulse and fruits were excellent; and might, as Pliny observes,(392) have sufficed singly for the nourishment of the inhabitants, such was their excellent quality, and so great their plenty. And, indeed, working men lived then almost upon nothing else, as appears from those who were employed in building the pyramids.

Besides these rural riches, the Nile, from its fish, and the fatness it gave to the soil for the feeding of cattle, furnished the tables of the Egyptians with the most exquisite fish of every kind, and the most succulent flesh. This it was which made the Israelites so deeply regret the loss of Egypt, when they found themselves in the wilderness: “Who,” say they, in a plaintive, and at the same time, seditious tone, “shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the flesh which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers and melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.(393) We sat by the flesh-pots, and we did eat bread to the full.”(394)

But the great and matchless wealth of Egypt arose from its corn, which, even in an almost universal famine, enabled it to support all the neighbouring nations, as it particularly did under Joseph’s administration. In later ages, it was the resource and most certain granary of Rome and Constantinople. It is a well-known story, how a calumny raised against St. Athanasius, _viz._ of his having threatened to prevent in future the importation of corn into Constantinople from Alexandria, incensed the emperor Constantine against that holy bishop, because he knew that his capital city could not subsist without the corn which was brought to it from Egypt. The same reason induced all the emperors of Rome to take so great a care of Egypt, which they considered as the nursing mother of the world’s metropolis.

Nevertheless, the same river which enabled this province to subsist the two most populous cities in the world, sometimes reduced even Egypt itself to the most terrible famine: and it is astonishing that Joseph’s wise foresight, which in fruitful years had made provision for seasons of sterility, should not have taught these so much boasted politicians, to adopt similar precautions against the changes and inconstancy of the Nile. Pliny, in his panegyric upon Trajan, paints with wonderful strength the extremity to which that country was reduced by a famine under that prince’s reign, and his generous relief of it. The reader will not be displeased to read here an extract of it, in which a greater regard will be had to Pliny’s thoughts, than to his expressions.

“The Egyptians,” says Pliny, “who gloried that they needed neither rain nor sun to produce their corn, and who believed they might confidently contest the prize of plenty with the most fruitful countries of the world, were condemned to an unexpected drought, and a fatal sterility; from the greatest part of their territories being deserted and left unwatered by the Nile, whose inundation is the source and sure standard of their abundance. ‘They then implored that assistance from their prince which they had been accustomed to expect only from their river.’(395) The delay of their relief was no longer than that which employed a courier to bring the melancholy news to Rome; and one would have imagined, that this misfortune had befallen them only to display with greater lustre the generosity and goodness of Cæsar. It was an ancient and general opinion, that our city could not subsist without provisions drawn from Egypt.(396) This vain and proud nation boasted, that though conquered, they nevertheless fed their conquerors; that, by means of their river, either abundance or scarcity were entirely in their own disposal. But we now have returned the Nile his own harvests, and given him back the provisions he sent us. Let the Egyptians be then convinced, by their own experience, that they are not necessary to us, and are only our vassals. Let them know that their ships do not so much bring us the provision we stand in need of, as the tribute which they owe us. And let them never forget that we can do without them, but that they can never do without us. This most fruitful province had been ruined, had it not worn the Roman chains. The Egyptians, in their sovereign, found a deliverer, and a father. Astonished at the sight of their granaries, filled without any labour of their own, they were at a loss to know to whom they owed this foreign and gratuitous plenty. The famine of a people, though at such a distance from us, yet so speedily stopped, served only to let them feel the advantage of living under our empire. The Nile may, in other times, have diffused more plenty on Egypt, but never more glory upon us.(397) May Heaven, content with this proof of the people’s patience, and the prince’s generosity, restore for ever back to Egypt its ancient fertility!”

Pliny’s reproach to the Egyptians, for their vain and foolish pride with regard to the inundations of the Nile, points out one of their most peculiar characteristics, and recalls to my mind a fine passage of Ezekiel, where God thus speaks to Pharaoh, one of their kings, “Behold I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great Dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is my own, and I have made it for myself.”(398) God perceived an insupportable pride in the heart of this prince: a sense of security and confidence in the inundations of the Nile, independent entirely on the influences of heaven; as though the happy effects of this inundation had been owing to nothing but his own care and labour, or those of his predecessors: “the river is mine, and I have made it.”

Before I conclude this second part, which treats of the manners of the Egyptians, I think it incumbent on me to bespeak the attention of my readers to different passages scattered in the history of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, which confirm and illustrate part of what we meet with in profane authors upon this subject. They will there observe the perfect polity which reigned in Egypt, both in the court and the rest of the kingdom; the vigilance of the prince, who was informed of all transactions, had a regular council, a chosen number of ministers, armies ever well maintained and disciplined, both of horse, foot, and armed chariots; intendants in all the provinces; overseers or guardians of the public granaries; wise and exact dispensers of the corn lodged in them; a court composed of great officers of the crown, a captain of his guards, a chief cup-bearer, a master of his pantry; in a word, all things that compose a prince’s household, and constitute a magnificent court. But above all these, the readers will admire the fear in which the threatenings of God were held, the inspector of all actions, and the judge of kings themselves; and the horror the Egyptians had for adultery, which was acknowledged to be a crime of so heinous a nature, that it alone was capable of bringing destruction on a nation.(399)

Part The Third. The History of the Kings of Egypt.

No part of ancient history is more obscure or uncertain, than that of the first kings of Egypt. This proud nation, fondly conceited of its antiquity and nobility, thought it glorious to lose itself in an abyss of infinite ages, which seemed to carry its pretensions backward to eternity. According to its own historians,(400) first, gods, and afterwards demigods or heroes, governed it successively, through a series of more than twenty thousand years. But the absurdity of this vain and fabulous claim is easily discovered.

To gods and demigods, men succeeded as rulers or kings in Egypt, of whom Manetho has left us thirty dynasties or principalities. This Manetho was an Egyptian high priest, and keeper of the sacred archives of Egypt, and had been instructed in the Grecian learning: he wrote a history of Egypt, which he pretended to have extracted from the writings of Mercurius, and other ancient memoirs, preserved in the archives of the Egyptian temples. He drew up this history under the reign, and at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus. If his thirty dynasties are allowed to be successive, they make up a series of time, of more than five thousand three hundred years, to the reign of Alexander the Great; but this is a manifest forgery. Besides, we find in Eratosthenes,(401) who was invited to Alexandria by Ptolemy Euergetes, a catalogue of thirty-eight kings of Thebes, all different from those of Manetho. The clearing up of these difficulties has put the learned to a great deal of trouble and labour. The most effectual way to reconcile such contradictions, is to suppose, with almost all the modern writers upon this subject, that the kings of these different dynasties did not reign successively after one another, but many of them at the same time, and in different countries of Egypt. There were in Egypt four principal dynasties, that of Thebes, of Thin, of Memphis, and of Tanis. I shall not here give my readers a list of the kings who have reigned in Egypt, of most of whom we have only the names transmitted to us. I shall only take notice of what seems to me most proper, to give youth the necessary light into this part of history, for whose sake principally I engaged in this undertaking; and I shall confine myself chiefly to the memoirs left us by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, concerning the Egyptian kings, without even scrupulously preserving the exactness of succession, at least in the early part of the monarchy, which is very obscure; and without pretending to reconcile these two historians. Their design, especially that of Herodotus, was not to lay before us an exact series of the kings of Egypt, but only to point out those princes whose history appeared to them most important and instructive. I shall follow the same plan, and hope to be forgiven, for not having involved either myself or my readers in a labyrinth of almost inextricable difficulties, from which the most able can scarce disengage themselves, when they pretend to follow the series of history, and reduce it to fixed and certain dates. The curious may consult the learned pieces,(402) in which this subject is treated in all its extent.

I am to premise, that Herodotus, upon the credit of the Egyptian priests, whom he had consulted, gives us a great number of oracles and singular incidents, all which, though he relates them as so many facts, the judicious reader will easily discover to be what they really are—I mean, fictions.

The ancient history of Egypt comprehends 2158 years, and is naturally divided into three periods.

The first begins with the establishment of the Egyptian monarchy, by Menes or Misraim, the son of Cham,(403) in the year of the world 1816; and ends with the destruction of that monarchy by Cambyses, king of Persia, in the year of the world 3479. This first period contains 1663 years.

The second period is intermixed with the Persian and Grecian history, and extends to the death of Alexander the Great, which happened in the year 3681, and consequently includes 202 years.

The third period is that in which a new monarchy was formed in Egypt by the Lagidæ, or Ptolemies, descendants from Lagus, to the death of Cleopatra, the last queen of Egypt, in 3974; and this last comprehends 293 years.

I shall now treat only of the first period, reserving the two others for the Æras to which they belong.

(M64) THE KINGS OF EGYPT.—MENES. Historians are unanimously agreed, that Menes was the first king of Egypt. It is pretended, and not without foundation, that he is the same with Misraïm, the son of Cham.

Cham was the second son of Noah. When the family of the latter, after the extravagant attempt of building the tower of Babel, dispersed themselves into different countries, Cham retired to Africa; and it doubtless was he who afterwards was worshipped as a god, under the name of Jupiter Ammon. He had four children, Chus,(404) Misraïm, Phut, and Canaan. Chus settled in Ethiopia, Misraïm in Egypt, which generally is called in Scripture after his name, and by that of Cham,(405) his father; Phut took possession of that part of Africa which lies westward of Egypt; and Canaan, of the country which afterwards bore his name. The Canaanites are certainly the same people who are called almost always Phœnicians by the Greeks, of which foreign name no reason can be given, any more than of the oblivion of the true one.

I return to Misraïm.(406) He is allowed to be the same with Menes, whom all historians declare to be the first king of Egypt, the institutor of the worship of the gods, and of the ceremonies of the sacrifices.

BUSIRIS, some ages after him, built the famous city of Thebes, and made it the seat of his empire. We have elsewhere taken notice of the wealth and magnificence of this city. This prince is not to be confounded with Busiris, so infamous for his cruelties.

OSYMANDYAS. Diodorus gives a very particular description of many magnificent edifices raised by this king;(407) one of which was adorned with sculptures and paintings of exquisite beauty, representing his expedition against the Bactrians, a people of Asia, whom he had invaded with four hundred thousand foot and twenty thousand horse. In another part of the edifice was exhibited an assembly of the judges, whose president wore, on his breast, a picture of Truth, with her eyes shut, and himself was surrounded with books—an emphatic emblem, denoting that judges ought to be perfectly versed in the laws, and impartial in the administration of them.

The king likewise was painted here, offering to the gods gold and silver, which he drew every year from the mines of Egypt, amounting to the sum of sixteen millions.(408)

Not far from hence was seen a magnificent library, the oldest mentioned in history. Its title or inscription on the front was, _The office, or treasury, of remedies for the diseases of the soul_. Near it were placed statues, representing all the Egyptian gods, to each of whom the king made suitable offerings; by which he seemed to be desirous of informing posterity that his life and reign had been crowned with piety to the gods, and justice to men.

His mausoleum displayed uncommon magnificence; it was encompassed with a circle of gold, a cubit in breadth, and 365 cubits in circumference; each of which showed the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and the rest of the planets. For so early as this king’s reign, the Egyptians divided the year into twelve months, each consisting of thirty days; to which they added every year five days and six hours.(409) The spectator did not know which to admire most in this stately monument, whether the richness of its materials, or the genius and industry of the artists.

UCHOREUS, one of the successors of Osymandyas, built the city of Memphis.(410) This city was 150 furlongs, or more than seven leagues in circumference, and stood at the point of the Delta, in that part where the Nile divides itself into several branches or streams. Southward from the city, he raised a lofty mole. On the right and left he dug very deep moats to receive the river. These were faced with stone, and raised, near the city, by strong causeys; the whole designed to secure the city from the inundations of the Nile, and the incursions of the enemy. A city so advantageously situated, and so strongly fortified, that it was almost the key of the Nile, and by this means commanded the whole country, became soon the usual residence of the Egyptian kings. It kept possession of this honour till Alexandria was built by Alexander the Great.

MŒRIS. This king made the famous lake, which went by his name, and whereof mention has been already made,

(M65) Egypt had long been governed by its native princes, when strangers, called Shepherd-kings, (Hycsos in the Egyptian language,) from Arabia or Phœnicia, invaded and seized a great part of Lower Egypt, and Memphis itself; but Upper Egypt remained unconquered, and the kingdom of Thebes existed till the reign of Sesostris. These foreign princes governed about 260 years.

(M66) Under one of these princes, called Pharaoh in Scripture,(411) (a name common to all the kings of Egypt,) Abraham arrived there with his wife Sarah, who was exposed to great hazard, on account of her exquisite beauty, which reaching the prince’s ear, she was by him taken from Abraham, upon the supposition that she was not his wife, but only his sister.

(M67) THETHMOSIS, or Amosis, having expelled the Shepherd-kings, reigned in Lower Egypt.

(M68) Long after his reign, Joseph was brought a slave into Egypt, by some Ishmaelitish merchants; sold to Potiphar; and, by a series of wonderful events, enjoyed the supreme authority, by his being raised to the chief employment of the kingdom. I shall pass over his history, as it is so universally known. But I must take notice of a remark of Justin, (the epitomizer of Trogus Pompeius,(412) an excellent historian of the Augustan age,) _viz._ that Joseph, the youngest of Jacob’s children, whom his brethren, through envy, had sold to foreign merchants, being endowed from heaven(413) with the interpretation of dreams, and a knowledge of futurity, preserved, by his uncommon prudence, Egypt from the famine with which it was menaced, and was extremely caressed by the king.

(M69) Jacob also went into Egypt with his whole family, which met with the kindest treatment from the Egyptians, whilst Joseph’s important services were fresh in their memories. But after his death, say the Scriptures,(414) “there arose up a new king, which knew not Joseph.”

(M70) RAMESES-MIAMUN, according to archbishop Usher, was the name of this king, who is called Pharaoh in Scripture. He reigned sixty-six years, and oppressed the Israelites in a most grievous manner. “He set over them task-masters, to afflict them with their burdens, and they built for Pharaoh treasure-cities,(415) Pithom and Raamses—and the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour, and they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; all their service wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.”(416) This king had two sons, Amenophis and Busiris.

(M71) AMENOPHIS, the eldest, succeeded him. He was the Pharaoh, under whose reign the Israelites departed out of Egypt, and was drowned in passing the Red-Sea.

(M72) Father Tournemine makes Sesostris, of whom we shall speak immediately, the Pharaoh who raised the persecution against the Israelites, and oppressed them with the most painful toils. This is exactly agreeable to the account given by Diodorus of this prince, who employed in his Egyptian works only foreigners; so that we may place the memorable event of the passage of the Red-Sea, under his son Pheron;(417) and the characteristic of impiety ascribed to him by Herodotus, greatly strengthens the probability of this conjecture. The plan I have proposed to follow in this history, excuses me from entering into chronological discussions.

Diodorus, speaking of the Red-Sea,(418) has made one remark very worthy our observation; a tradition (says that historian) has been transmitted through the whole nation, from father to son, for many ages, that once an extraordinary ebb dried up the sea, so that its bottom was seen; and that a violent flow immediately after brought back the waters to their former channel. It is evident, that the miraculous passage of Moses over the Red-Sea is here hinted at; and I make this remark, purposely to admonish young students, not to slip over, in their perusal of authors, these precious remains of antiquity; especially when they bear, like this passage, any relation to religion.

Archbishop Usher says, that Amenophis left two sons, one called Sesothis or Sesostris, and the other Armais. The Greeks call him Belus, and his two sons Egyptus and Danaus.

SESOSTRIS(419) was not only one of the most powerful kings of Egypt, but one of the greatest conquerors that antiquity boasts of. His father, whether by inspiration, caprice, or, as the Egyptians say, by the authority of an oracle, formed a design of making his son a conqueror. This he set about after the Egyptian manner, that is, in a great and noble way. All the male children, born the same day with Sesostris, were, by the king’s order, brought to court. Here they were educated as if they had been his own children, with the same care bestowed on Sesostris, with whom they were brought up. He could not possibly have given him more faithful ministers, nor officers who more zealously desired the success of his arms. The chief part of their education was, the enuring them, from their infancy, to a hard and laborious life, in order that they might one day be capable of sustaining with ease the toils of war. They were never suffered to eat, till they had run, on foot or horseback, a considerable race. Hunting was their most common exercise.

Ælian remarks(420) that Sesostris was taught by Mercury, who instructed him in politics, and the art of government. This Mercury is he whom the Greeks called Trismegistus, _i.e._ thrice great. Egypt, his native country, owes to him the invention of almost every art. The two books, which go under his name, bear such evident characters of novelty, that the forgery is no longer doubted. There was another Mercury who also was very famous amongst the Egyptians for his rare knowledge; and of much greater antiquity than he of whom we have been speaking. Jamblicus, a priest of Egypt, affirms, that it was customary with the Egyptians, to affix the name of Hermes or Mercury to all the new books or inventions that were offered to the public.

When Sesostris was more advanced in years, his father sent him against the Arabians, in order to acquire military knowledge. Here the young prince learned to bear hunger and thirst; and subdued a nation which till then had never been conquered. The youths educated with him attended him in all his campaigns.

Accustomed by this conquest to martial toils, he was next sent by his father to try his fortune westward. He invaded Libya, and subdued the greatest part of that vast country.

(M73) SESOSTRIS. During this expedition his father died, and left him capable of attempting the greatest enterprises. He formed no less a design than that of the conquest of the world. But before he left his kingdom, he provided for his domestic security, in winning the hearts of his subjects by his generosity, justice, and a popular and obliging behaviour. He was no less studious to gain the affection of his officers and soldiers, whom he wished to be ever ready to shed the last drop of their blood in his service; persuaded that his enterprises would all be unsuccessful, unless his army should be attached to his person, by all the ties of esteem, affection, and interest. He divided the country into thirty-six governments (called Nomi,) and bestowed them on persons of merit, and the most approved fidelity.

In the mean time he made the requisite preparations, levied forces, and headed them with officers of the greatest bravery and reputation, and these were taken chiefly from among the youths who had been educated with him. He had seventeen hundred of these officers, who were all capable of inspiring his troops with resolution, a love of discipline, and a zeal for the service of their prince. His army consisted of six hundred thousand foot, and twenty-four thousand horse, besides twenty-seven thousand armed chariots.

He began his expedition by invading Æthiopia, situated to the south of Egypt. He made it tributary, and obliged the nations of it to furnish him annually with a certain quantity of ebony, ivory, and gold.

He had fitted out a fleet of four hundred sail, and ordering it to advance to the Red-Sea, made himself master of the isles and cities lying on the coasts of that sea. He himself heading his land army, overran and subdued Asia with amazing rapidity, and advanced farther into India than Hercules, Bacchus, and in after-times Alexander himself, had ever done; for he subdued the countries beyond the Ganges, and advanced as far as the Ocean. One may judge from hence how unable the more neighbouring countries were to resist him. The Scythians, as far as the river Tanais, as well as Armenia, and Cappadocia, were conquered. He left a colony in the ancient kingdom of Colchos, situated to the east of the Black Sea, where the Egyptian customs and manners have been ever since retained. Herodotus saw in Asia Minor, from one sea to the other, monuments of his victories. In several countries was read the following inscription engraven on pillars: “Sesostris, king of kings, and lord of lords, subdued this country by the power of his arms.” Such pillars were found even in Thrace, and his empire extended from the Ganges to the Danube. In his expeditions, some nations bravely defended their liberties, and others yielded them up without making the least resistance. This disparity was denoted by him in hieroglyphical figures, on the monuments erected to perpetuate the remembrance of his victories, agreeably to the Egyptian practice.

The scarcity of provisions in Thrace stopped the progress of his conquests, and prevented his advancing farther in Europe. One remarkable circumstance is observed in this conqueror, who never once thought, as others had done, of preserving his acquisitions; but contenting himself with the glory of having subdued and despoiled so many nations; after having made wild havoc up and down the world for nine years, he confined himself almost within the ancient limits of Egypt, a few neighbouring provinces excepted; for we do not find any traces or footsteps of this new empire, either under himself or his successors.

He returned therefore laden with the spoils of the vanquished nations, dragging after him a numberless multitude of captives, and covered with greater glory than any of his predecessors; that glory, I mean, which employs so many tongues and pens in its praise; which consists in invading a great number of provinces in a hostile way, and is often productive of numberless calamities. He rewarded his officers and soldiers with a truly royal magnificence, in proportion to their rank and merit. He made it both his pleasure and duty, to put the companions of his victory in such a condition as might enable them to enjoy, during the remainder of their days, a calm and easy repose, the just reward of their past toils.

With regard to himself, for ever careful of his own reputation, and still more of making his power advantageous to his subjects, he employed the repose which peace allowed him, in raising works that might contribute more to the enriching of Egypt, than the immortalizing his name; works, in which the art and industry of the workman were more admired, than the immense sums which had been expended on them.

A hundred famous temples, raised as so many monuments of gratitude to the tutelar gods of all the cities, were the first, as well as the most illustrious, testimonies of his victories; and he took care to publish in the inscriptions on them, that these mighty works had been completed without burdening any of his subjects. He made it his glory to be tender of them, and to employ only captives in these monuments of his conquests. The Scriptures take notice of something like this, where they speak of the buildings of Solomon.(421) But he prided himself particularly in adorning and enriching the temple of Vulcan at Pelusium, in acknowledgment of the protection which he fancied that god had bestowed on him, when, on his return from his expeditions, his brother had a design of destroying him in that city, with his wife and children, by setting fire to the apartment where he then lay.

His great work was, the raising, in every part of Egypt, a considerable number of high banks or moles, on which new cities were built, in order that these might be a security for men and beasts during the inundations of the Nile.

From Memphis, as far as the sea, he cut, on both sides of the river, a great number of canals, for the conveniency of trade, and the conveying of provisions, and for the settling an easy correspondence between such cities as were most distant from one another. Besides the advantages of traffic, Egypt was, by these canals, made inaccessible to the cavalry of its enemies, which before had so often harassed it by repeated incursions.

He did still more. To secure Egypt from the inroads of its nearer neighbours, the Syrians and Arabians, he fortified all the eastern coast from Pelusium to Heliopolis, that is, for upwards of seven leagues.(422)

Sesostris might have been considered as one of the most illustrious and most boasted heroes of antiquity, had not the lustre of his warlike actions, as well as his pacific virtues, been tarnished by a thirst of glory, and a blind fondness for his own grandeur, which made him forget that he was a man. The kings and chiefs of the conquered nations came, at stated times, to do homage to their victor, and pay him the appointed tribute. On every other occasion, he treated them with sufficient humanity and generosity. But when he went to the temple, or entered his capital, he caused these princes to be harnessed to his car, four abreast, instead of horses; and valued himself upon his being thus drawn by the lords and sovereigns of other nations. What I am most surprised at, is, that Diodorus should rank this foolish and inhuman vanity among the most shining actions of this prince.

Being grown blind in his old age, he died by his own hands, after having reigned thirty-three years, and left his kingdom infinitely rich. His empire, nevertheless, did not reach beyond the fourth generation. But there still remained, so low as the reign of Tiberius, magnificent monuments, which showed the extent of Egypt under Sesostris,(423) and the immense tributes which were paid to it.(424)

I now go back to some facts which took place in this period, but which were omitted, in order that I might not break the thread of the history, and now I shall but barely mention them.

(M74) About the æra in question, the Egyptians settled themselves in divers parts of the earth. The colony, which Cecrops led out of Egypt, built twelve cities, or rather as many towns, of which he composed the kingdom of Athens.

(M75) We observed, that the brother of Sesostris, called by the Greeks Danaus, had formed a design to murder him, on his return to Egypt, after his conquest. But being defeated in his horrid project, he was obliged to fly. He thereupon retired to Peloponnesus, where he seized upon the kingdom of Argos, which had been founded about four hundred years before, by Inachus.

(M76) BUSIRIS, brother of Amenophis, so infamous among the ancients for his cruelties, exercised his tyranny at that time on the banks of the Nile; and barbarously murdered all foreigners who landed in his country: this was probably during the absence of Sesostris.

(M77) About the same time, Cadmus brought from Syria into Greece the invention of letters. Some pretend, that these characters or letters were Egyptian, and that Cadmus himself was a native of Egypt, and not of Phœnicia; and the Egyptians, who ascribe to themselves the invention of every art, and boast a greater antiquity than any other nation, give to their Mercury the honour of inventing letters. Most of the learned agree,(425) that Cadmus carried the Phœnician or Syrian letters into Greece, and that those letters were the same as the Hebraic; the Hebrews, who formed but a small nation, being comprehended under the general name of Syrians. Joseph Scaliger, in his notes on the _Chronicon_ of Eusebius, proves, that the Greek letters, and those of the Latin alphabet formed from them, derive their original from the ancient Phœnician letters, which are the same with the Samaritan, and were used by the Jews before the Babylonish captivity. Cadmus carried only sixteen letters(426) into Greece, eight others being added afterwards.

I return to the history of the Egyptian kings, whom I shall hereafter rank in the same order as Herodotus has assigned to them.

(M78) PHERON succeeded Sesostris in his kingdom, but not in his glory. Herodotus(427) relates but one action of his, which shows how greatly he had degenerated from the religious sentiments of his father. In an extraordinary inundation of the Nile, which exceeded eighteen cubits, this prince, enraged at the wild havoc which was made by it, threw a javelin at the river, as if he intended thereby to chastise its insolence; but was himself immediately punished for his impiety, if the historian may be credited, with the loss of sight.

(M79) PROTEUS.(428) He was of Memphis, where, in Herodotus’s time,(429) his temple was still standing, in which was a chapel dedicated to Venus the Stranger. It is conjectured that this Venus was Helen. For, in the reign of this monarch, Paris the Trojan, returning home with Helen whom he had stolen, was driven by a storm into one of the mouths of the Nile, called Canopic; and from thence was conducted to Proteus at Memphis, who reproached him in the strongest terms for his base perfidy and guilt, in stealing the wife of his host, and with her all the effects in his house. He added, that the only reason why he did not punish him with death (as his crime deserved) was, because the Egyptians were careful not to imbrue their hands in the blood of strangers: that he would keep Helen, with all the riches that were brought with her, in order to restore them to their lawful owner: that as for himself, (Paris,) he must either quit his dominions in three days, or expect to be treated as an enemy. The king’s order was obeyed. Paris continued his voyage, and arrived at Troy, whither he was closely pursued by the Grecian army. The Greeks summoned the Trojans to surrender Helen, and with her all the treasures of which her husband had been plundered. The Trojans answered, that neither Helen, nor her treasures, were in their city. And, indeed, was it at all likely, says Herodotus, that Priam, who was so wise an old prince, should choose to see his children and country destroyed before his eyes, rather than give the Greeks the just and reasonable satisfaction they desired? But it was to no purpose for them to affirm with an oath, that Helen was not in their city; the Greeks, being firmly persuaded that they were trifled with, persisted obstinately in their unbelief: the deity, continues the same historian, being resolved that the Trojans, by the total destruction of their city and empire, should teach the affrighted world this lesson:(430)—THAT GREAT CRIMES ARE ATTENDED WITH AS GREAT AND SIGNAL PUNISHMENTS FROM THE OFFENDED GODS. Menelaus, on his return from Troy, called at the court of king Proteus, who restored him Helen, with all her treasure. Herodotus proves, from some passages in Homer, that the voyage of Paris to Egypt was not unknown to this poet.

RHAMPSINITUS. What is related by Herodotus(431) concerning the treasury built by this king, who was the richest of all his predecessors, and his descent into hell, has so much the air of romance and fiction, as to deserve no mention here.

Till the reign of this king, there had been some shadow, at least, of justice and moderation in Egypt; but in the two following reigns, violence and cruelty usurped their place.

CHEOPS and CEPHREN.(432) These two princes, who were truly brothers by the similitude of their manners, seem to have vied with each other which of them should distinguish himself most, by a barefaced impiety towards the gods, and a barbarous inhumanity to men. Cheops reigned fifty years, and his brother Cephren fifty-six years after him. They kept the temples shut during the whole time of their long reigns; and forbid the offering of sacrifices under the severest penalties. On the other hand, they oppressed their subjects by employing them in the most grievous and useless works; and sacrificed the lives of numberless multitudes of men, merely to gratify a senseless ambition of immortalizing their names by edifices of an enormous magnitude, and a boundless expense. It is remarkable, that those stately pyramids, which have so long been the admiration of the whole world, were the effect of the irreligion and merciless cruelty of those princes.

MYCERINUS.(433) He was the son of Cheops, but of a character opposite to that of his father. So far from walking in his steps, he detested his conduct, and pursued quite different measures. He again opened the temples of the gods, restored the sacrifices, did all that lay in his power to comfort his subjects, and make them forget their past miseries; and believed himself set over them for no other purpose but to exercise justice, and to make them taste all the blessings of an equitable and peaceful administration. He heard their complaints, dried their tears, alleviated their misery, and thought himself not so much the master as the father of his people. This procured him the love of them all. Egypt resounded with his praises, and his name commanded veneration in all places.

One would naturally conclude, that so prudent and humane a conduct must have drawn down on Mycerinus the protection of the gods. But it happened far otherwise. His misfortunes began from the death of a darling and only daughter, in whom his whole felicity consisted. He ordered extraordinary honours to be paid to her memory, which were still continued in Herodotus’s time. This historian informs us, that in the city of Saïs, exquisite odours were burnt, in the day-time, at the tomb of this princess; and that during the night, a lamp was kept constantly burning.

He was told by an oracle, that his reign would continue but seven years. And as he complained of this to the gods, and inquired the reason why so long and prosperous a reign had been granted to his father and uncle, who were equally cruel and impious, whilst his own, which he had endeavoured so carefully to render as equitable and mild as it was possible for him to do, should be so short and unhappy; he was answered, that these were the very causes of it, it being the will of the gods, to oppress and afflict Egypt during the space of one hundred and fifty years, as a punishment for its crimes; and that his reign, which was to have been like those of the preceding monarchs, of fifty years’ continuance, was shortened on account of his too great lenity. Mycerinus likewise built a pyramid, but much inferior in dimensions to that of his father.

ASYCHIS.(434) He enacted the law relating to loans, which forbade a son to borrow money, without giving the dead body of his father by way of security for it. The law added, that in case the son took no care to redeem his father’s body by restoring the loan, both himself and his children should be deprived for ever of the rights of sepulture.

He valued himself for having surpassed all his predecessors, by the building a pyramid of brick, more magnificent, if this king was to be credited, than any hitherto seen. The following inscription, by its founder’s order, was engraved upon it. COMPARE ME NOT WITH PYRAMIDS BUILT OF STONE; WHICH I AS MUCH EXCEL AS JUPITER DOES ALL THE OTHER GODS.(435)

If we suppose the six preceding reigns (the exact duration of some of which is not fixed by Herodotus) to comprise one hundred and seventy years, there will remain an interval of near three hundred years, to the reign of Sabachus the Ethiopian. In this interval, I place a few circumstances related in Holy Scripture.

(M80) PHARAOH, king of Egypt, gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon king of Israel; who received her in that part of Jerusalem called the city of David, till he had built her a palace.(436)

SESACH or Shishak, otherwise called Sesonchis. (M81) It was to him that Jeroboam fled, to avoid the wrath of Solomon, who intended to kill him.(437) He abode in Egypt till Solomon’s death, and then returned to Jerusalem, when, putting himself at the head of the rebels, he won from Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, ten tribes, over whom he declared himself king.

(M82) This Sesach, in the fifth year of the reign of Rehoboam, marched against Jerusalem, because the Jews had transgressed against the Lord. He came with twelve hundred chariots of war, and sixty thousand horse.(438) He had brought numberless multitudes of people, who were all Libyans,(439) Troglodytes, and Ethiopians. He made himself master of all the strongest cities of Judah, and advanced as far as Jerusalem. Then the king, and the princes of Israel, having humbled themselves, and implored the protection of the God of Israel; God told them, by his prophet Shemaiah, that, because they humbled themselves, he would not utterly destroy them as they had deserved; but that they should be the servants of Sesach: in order “that they might know the difference of his service, and the service of the kingdoms of the country.”(440) Sesach retired from Jerusalem, after having plundered the treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king’s house; he carried off every thing with him, “and even also the three hundred shields of gold which Solomon had made.”

(M83) ZERAH, king of Ethiopia, and doubtless of Egypt at the same time, made war upon Asa king of Judah.(441) His army consisted of a million of men, and three hundred chariots of war. Asa marched against him, and drawing up his army in order of battle, in full reliance on the God whom he served: “Lord,” says he, “it is nothing for thee to help whether with many, or with them that have no power. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude; O Lord, thou art our God, let not man prevail against thee.” A prayer offered up with such strong faith was heard. God struck the Ethiopians with terror; they fled, and all were irrevocably defeated, being “destroyed before the Lord, and before his host.”

ANYSIS.(442) He was blind, and under his reign SABACHUS, king of Ethiopia, being encouraged by an oracle, entered Egypt with a numerous army, and possessed himself of it. He reigned with great clemency and justice. Instead of putting to death such criminals as had been sentenced to die by the judges, he made them repair the causeys, on which the respective cities to which they belonged were situated. He built several magnificent temples, and among the rest, one in the city of Bubastus, of which Herodotus gives a long and elegant description. After a reign of fifty years, which was the time appointed by the oracle, he retired voluntarily to his old kingdom of Ethiopia, and left the throne of Egypt to Anysis, who, during this time, had concealed himself in the fens.

(M84) It is believed that this Sabachus was the same with So, whose aid was implored by Hoshea, king of Israel, against Shalmanezer, king of Assyria.(443)

SETHON. He reigned fourteen years.

(M85) He is the same with Sevechus, the son of Sabacon, or So, the Ethiopian, who reigned so long over Egypt. This prince, so far from discharging the functions of a king, was ambitious of those of a priest; causing himself to be consecrated high-priest of Vulcan. Abandoning himself entirely to superstition, he neglected to defend his kingdom by force of arms; paying no regard to military men, from a firm persuasion that he should never have occasion for their assistance; he, therefore, was so far from endeavouring to gain their affections, that he deprived them of their privileges, and even dispossessed them of their revenues of such lands as his predecessors had given them.

He was soon made sensible of their resentment in a war that broke out suddenly, and from which he delivered himself solely by a miraculous protection, if Herodotus may be credited, who intermixes his account of this war with a great many fabulous particulars. Sanacharib (so Herodotus calls this prince) king of the Arabians and Assyrians, having entered Egypt with a numerous army, the Egyptian officers and soldiers refused to march against him. The high priest of Vulcan, being thus reduced to the greatest extremity, had recourse to his god, who bid him not despond, but march courageously against the enemy with the few soldiers he could raise. Sethon obeyed. A small number of merchants, artificers, and others who were the dregs of the populace, joined him; and with this handful of men, he marched to Pelusium, where Sanacharib had pitched his camp. The night following, a prodigious multitude of rats entered the camp of the Assyrians, and gnawing to pieces all their bowstrings, and the thongs of their shields, rendered them incapable of making the least defence. Being disarmed in this manner, they were obliged to fly; and they retreated with the loss of a great part of their forces. Sethon, when he returned home, ordered a statue of himself to be set up in the temple of Vulcan, holding in his right hand a rat, and these words to be inscribed thereon:—LET THE MAN WHO BEHOLDS ME LEARN TO REVERENCE THE GODS.(444)

It is very obvious that this story, as related here from Herodotus, is an alteration of that which is told in the second book of Kings. We there see,(445) that Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, having subdued all the neighbouring nations, and made himself master of all the other cities of Judah, resolved to besiege Hezekiah in Jerusalem, his capital city. The ministers of this holy king, in spite of his opposition, and the remonstrances of the prophet Isaiah, who promised them, in God’s name, a sure and certain protection, provided they would trust in him only, sent secretly to the Egyptians and Ethiopians for succour. Their armies, being united, marched to the relief of Jerusalem at the time appointed, and were met and vanquished by the Assyrian in a pitched battle. He pursued them into Egypt and entirely laid waste the country. At his return from thence, the very night before he was to have given a general assault to Jerusalem, which then seemed lost to all hopes, the destroying angel made dreadful havoc in the camp of the Assyrians; destroyed a hundred fourscore and five thousand men by fire and sword; and proved evidently, that they had great reason to rely, as Hezekiah had done, on the promise of the God of Israel.

This is the real fact. But as it was no ways honourable to the Egyptians, they endeavoured to turn it to their own advantage, by disguising and corrupting the circumstances of it. Nevertheless, the footsteps of this history, though so much defaced, ought yet to be highly valued, as coming from an historian of so great antiquity and authority as Herodotus.

The prophet Isaiah had foretold, at several times, that this expedition of the Egyptians, which had been concerted, seemingly, with such prudence, conducted with the greatest skill, and in which the forces of two powerful empires were united, in order to relieve the Jews, would not only be of no service to Jerusalem, but even destructive to Egypt itself, whose strongest cities would be taken, its territories plundered, and its inhabitants of all ages and sexes led into captivity. See the 18th, 19th, 20th, 30th, 31st, &c. chapters of his prophecy.

Archbishop Usher and Dean Prideaux suppose that it was at this period that the ruin of the famous city No-Amon,(446) spoken of by the prophet Nahum, happened. That prophet says,(447) that “she was carried away—that her young children were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets—that the enemy cast lots for her honourable men, and that all her great men were bound in chains.” He observes, that all these misfortunes befell that city, when Egypt and Ethiopia were her strength; which seems to refer clearly enough to the time of which we are here speaking, when Tharaca and Sethon had united their forces. However, this opinion is not without some difficulties, and is contradicted by some learned men. It is sufficient for me to have hinted it to the reader.

Till the reign of Sethon, the Egyptian priests computed three hundred and forty-one generations of men;(448) which make eleven thousand three hundred and forty years; allowing three generations to a hundred years. They counted the like number of priests and kings. The latter, whether gods or men, had succeeded one another without interruption, under the name of Piromis, an Egyptian word signifying good and virtuous. The Egyptian priests showed Herodotus three hundred and forty-one wooden colossal statues of these Piromis, all ranged in order in a great hall. Such was the folly of the Egyptians, to lose themselves as it were in a remote antiquity, to which no other people could dare to pretend.

(M86) THARACA. He it was who joined Sethon, with an Ethiopian army, to relieve Jerusalem.(449) After the death of Sethon, who had sitten fourteen years on the throne, Tharaca ascended it, and reigned eighteen years. He was the last Ethiopian king who reigned in Egypt.

After his death, the Egyptians, not being able to agree about the succession, were two years in a state of anarchy, during which there were great disorders and confusions among them.

(M87) At last,(450) twelve of the principal noblemen, conspiring together, seized upon the kingdom, and divided it amongst themselves into as many parts. It was agreed by them, that each should govern his own district with equal power and authority, and that no one should attempt to invade or seize the dominions of another. They thought it necessary to make this agreement, and to bind it with the most dreadful oaths, to elude the prediction of an oracle, which had foretold, that he among them who should offer his libation to Vulcan out of a brazen bowl, should gain the sovereignty of Egypt. They reigned together fifteen years in the utmost harmony: and to leave a famous monument of their concord to posterity, they jointly, and at a common expense, built the famous labyrinth, which was a pile of building consisting of twelve large palaces, with as many edifices underground as appeared above it. I have spoken elsewhere of this labyrinth.

One day, as the twelve kings were assisting at a solemn and periodical sacrifice offered in the temple of Vulcan, the priests, having presented each of them a golden bowl for the libation, one was wanting; when Psammetichus,(451) without any design, supplied the want of this bowl with his brazen helmet, (for each wore one,) and with it performed the ceremony of the libation. This accident struck the rest of the kings, and recalled to their memory the prediction of the oracle above mentioned. They thought it therefore necessary to secure themselves from his attempts, and therefore, with one consent, banished him into the fenny parts of Egypt.

After Psammetichus had passed some years there, waiting a favourable opportunity to revenge himself for the affront which had been put upon him, a courier brought him advice, that brazen men were landed in Egypt. These were Grecian soldiers, Carians and Ionians, who had been cast upon the coasts of Egypt by a storm, and were completely covered with helmets, cuirasses, and other arms of brass. Psammetichus immediately called to mind the oracle, which had answered him, that he should be succoured by brazen men from the sea-coast. He did not doubt but the prediction was now fulfilled. He therefore made a league with these strangers; engaged them with great promises to stay with him; privately levied other forces; and put these Greeks at their head; when giving battle to the eleven kings, he defeated them, and remained sole possessor of Egypt.

(M88) PSAMMETICHUS. As this prince owed his preservation to the Ionians and Carians, he settled them in Egypt, (from which all foreigners hitherto had been excluded;) and, by assigning them sufficient lands and fixed revenues, he made them forget their native country.(452) By his order, Egyptian children were put under their care to learn the Greek tongue; and on this occasion, and by this means, the Egyptians began to have a correspondence with the Greeks; and from that æra, the Egyptian history, which, till then, had been intermixed with pompous fables, by the artifice of the priests, begins, according to Herodotus, to speak with greater truth and certainty.

As soon as Psammetichus was settled on the throne, he engaged in war against the king of Assyria, on the subject of the boundaries of the two empires. This war was of long continuance. Ever since Syria had been conquered by the Assyrians, Palestine, being the only country that separated the two kingdoms, was the subject of continual discord; as afterwards it was between the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ. They were eternally contending for it, and it was alternately won by the stronger. Psammetichus, seeing himself the peaceable possessor of all Egypt, and having restored the ancient form of government,(453) thought it high time for him to look to his frontiers, and to secure them against the Assyrian, his neighbour, whose power increased daily. For this purpose, he entered Palestine at the head of an army.

Perhaps we are to refer to the beginning of this war, an incident related by Diodorus;(454) that the Egyptians, provoked to see the Greeks posted on the right wing by the king himself, in preference to them, quitted the service, to the number of upwards of two hundred thousand men, and retired into Ethiopia, where they met with an advantageous settlement.

Be this as it will, Psammetichus entered Palestine,(455) where his career was stopped by Azotus, one of the principal cities of the country, which gave him so much trouble, that he was forced to besiege it twenty-nine years before he could take it. This is the longest siege mentioned in ancient history.

This was anciently one of the five capital cities of the Philistines. The Egyptians, having seized it some time before, had fortified it with such care, that it was their strongest bulwark on that side. Nor could Sennacherib enter Egypt, till he had first made himself master of this city,(456) which was taken by Tartan, one of his generals. The Assyrians had possessed it hitherto; and it was not till after the long siege just now mentioned, that the Egyptians recovered it.

In this period,(457) the Scythians, leaving the banks of the Palus Mæotis, made an inroad into Media, defeated Cyaxares, the king of that country, and deprived him of all Upper Asia, of which they kept possession during twenty-eight years. They pushed their conquests in Syria as far as to the frontiers of Egypt. But Psammetichus marching out to meet them, prevailed so far, by his presents and entreaties, that they advanced no farther, and by that means delivered his kingdom from these dangerous enemies.

Till his reign,(458) the Egyptians had imagined themselves to be the most ancient nation upon earth. Psammetichus was desirous to prove this himself, and he employed a very extraordinary experiment for this purpose. He commanded (if we may credit the relation) two children, newly born of poor parents, to be brought up (in the country) in a hovel, that was to be kept continually shut. They were committed to the care of a shepherd, (others say, of nurses, whose tongues were cut out,) who was to feed them with the milk of goats; and was commanded not to suffer any person to enter into this hut, nor himself to speak even a single word in the hearing of these children. At the expiration of two years, as the shepherd was one day coming into the hut to feed these children, they both cried out, with hands extended towards their foster-father, _beccos, beccos_. The shepherd, surprised to hear a language that was quite new to him, but which they repeated frequently afterwards, sent advice of this to the king, who ordered the children to be brought before him, in order that he himself might be a witness to the truth of what was told him; and accordingly both of them began, in his presence, to stammer out the sounds above mentioned. Nothing now was wanting but to ascertain what nation it was that used this word; and it was found that the Phrygians called bread by this name. From this time they were allowed the honour of antiquity, or rather of priority, which the Egyptians themselves, notwithstanding their jealousy of it, and the many ages they had possessed this glory, were obliged to resign to them. As goats were brought to these children, in order that they might feed upon their milk, and historians do not say that they were deaf, some are of opinion that they might have learnt the word _bec_, or _beccos_, by mimicking the cry of those creatures.

Psammetichus died in the 24th year of Josias, king of Judah, and was succeeded by his son Nechao.

(M89) NECHAO.(459) This prince is often mentioned in Scripture under the name of Pharaoh-Necho.(460)

He attempted to join the Nile to the Red-Sea, by cutting a canal from one to the other. The distance which separates them is at least a thousand stadia.(461) After a hundred and twenty thousand workmen had lost their lives in this attempt, Nechao was obliged to desist; the oracle which had been consulted by him, having answered, that this new canal would open a passage to the Barbarians (for so the Egyptians called all other nations) to invade Egypt.

Nechao was more successful in another enterprise.(462) Skilful Phœnician mariners, whom he had taken into his service, having sailed from the Red-Sea in order to discover the coasts of Africa, went successfully round it; and the third year after their setting out, returned to Egypt through the Straits of Gibraltar. This was a very extraordinary voyage, in an age when the compass was not known. It was made twenty-one centuries before Vasco de Gama, a Portuguese, (by discovering the Cape of Good Hope, in the year 1497,) found out the very same way to sail to the Indies, by which these Phœnicians had come from thence into the Mediterranean.

The Babylonians and Medes, having destroyed Nineveh, and with it the empire of the Assyrians, were thereby become so formidable, that they drew upon themselves the jealousy of all their neighbours.(463) Nechao, alarmed at the danger, advanced to the Euphrates, at the head of a powerful army, in order to check their progress. Josiah, king of Judah, so famous for his uncommon piety, observing that he took his route through Judea, resolved to oppose his passage. With this view, he raised all the forces of his kingdom, and posted himself in the valley of Megiddo, (a city on this side Jordan, belonging to the tribe of Manasseh, and called Magdolus by Herodotus.) Nechao informed him, by a herald, that his enterprise was not designed against him; that he had other enemies in view, and that he had undertaken this war in the name of God, who was with him; that for this reason he advised Josiah not to concern himself with this war, for fear lest it otherwise should turn to his disadvantage. However, Josiah was not moved by these reasons: he was sensible that the bare march of so powerful an army through Judea, would entirely ruin it. And besides, he feared that the victor, after the defeat of the Babylonians, would fall upon him, and dispossess him of part of his dominions. He therefore marched to engage Nechao; and was not only overthrown by him, but unfortunately received a wound, of which he died at Jerusalem, whither he had ordered himself to be carried.

Nechao, animated by this victory, continued his march, and advanced towards the Euphrates. He defeated the Babylonians; took Carchemish, a large city in that country; and securing to himself the possession of it by a strong garrison, returned to his own kingdom, after having been absent from it three months.

Being informed in his march homeward, that Jehoahaz had caused himself to be proclaimed king at Jerusalem, without first asking his consent, he commanded him to meet him at Riblah in Syria.(464) The unhappy prince was no sooner arrived there, than he was put in chains by Nechao’s order, and sent prisoner to Egypt, where he died. From thence, pursuing his march, he came to Jerusalem, where he placed Eliakim, (called by him Jehoiakim,) another of Josiah’s sons, upon the throne, in the room of his brother: and imposed an annual tribute on the land, of a hundred talents of silver, and one talent of gold.(465) This being done, he returned in triumph to Egypt.

Herodotus, mentioning this king’s expedition,(466) and the victory gained by him at Magdolus,(467) (as he calls it,) says, that he afterwards took the city Cadytis, which he represents as situated in the mountains of Palestine, and equal in extent to Sardis, the capital at that time not only of Lydia, but of all Asia Minor: this description can suit only Jerusalem, which was situated in the manner above described, and was then the only city in those parts that could be compared to Sardis. It appears besides from Scripture, that Nechao, after his victory, made himself master of this capital of Judea; for he was there in person, when he gave the crown to Jehoiakim. The very name Cadytis, which in Hebrew signifies the Holy, clearly denotes the city of Jerusalem, as is proved by the learned Dean Prideaux.(468)

(M90) Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, observing that, since the taking of Carchemish by Nechao, all Syria and Palestine had shaken off their allegiance to him, and that his years and infirmities would not permit him to march against the rebels in person, he therefore associated his son Nabuchodonosor, or Nebuchadnezzar, with him in the empire, and sent him at the head of an army into those countries. This young prince vanquished the army of Nechao near the river Euphrates, recovered Carchemish, and reduced the revolted provinces to their allegiance, as Jeremiah had foretold.(469) Thus he dispossessed the Egyptians of all that belonged to them,(470) from the little river(471)(472) of Egypt to the Euphrates, which comprehended all Syria and Palestine.

Nechao dying after he had reigned sixteen years, left the kingdom to his son.

(M91) PSAMMIS. His reign was but of six years’ duration; and history has left us nothing memorable concerning him, except that he made an expedition into Ethiopia.(473)

It was to this prince that the Eleans sent a splendid embassy, after having instituted the Olympic games. They had established all the regulations, and arranged every circumstance relating to them, with such care, that, in their opinion, nothing seemed wanting to their perfection, and envy itself could not find any fault with them. However, they did not desire so much to have the opinion, as to gain the approbation of the Egyptians, who were looked upon as the wisest and most judicious people in the world.(474) Accordingly, the king assembled the sages of his nation. After every thing had been heard which could be said in favour of this institution, the Eleans were asked, whether citizens and foreigners were admitted indifferently to these games; to which answer was made, that they were open to every one. To this the Egyptians replied, that the rules of justice would have been more strictly observed, had foreigners only been admitted to these combats; because it was very difficult for the judges, in their award of the victory and the prize, not to be prejudiced in favour of their fellow citizens.

(M92) APRIES. In Scripture he is called Pharaoh-Hophra. He succeeded his father Psammis, and reigned twenty-five years.(475)

During the first years of his reign, he was as fortunate as any of his predecessors. He turned his arms against the island of Cyprus; besieged the city of Sidon by sea and land; took it, and made himself master of all Phœnicia and Palestine.(476)

So rapid a success elated his heart to a prodigious degree, and, as Herodotus informs us, swelled him with so much pride and infatuation, that he boasted, it was not in the power of the gods themselves to dethrone him; so great was the idea he had formed to himself of the firm establishment of his own power. It was with a view to these arrogant notions, that Ezekiel put the vain and impious words following into his mouth: “My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.”(477) But the true God proved to him afterwards that he had a master, and that he was a mere man; and he had threatened him long before, by his prophets, with all the calamities he was resolved to bring upon him, in order to punish him for his pride.

Shortly after Hophra had ascended the throne, Zedekiah, king of Judah, sent an embassy, and concluded an alliance with him; and the year following, breaking the oath of fidelity which he had taken to the king of Babylon, he rebelled openly against him.(478)

Notwithstanding God had so often forbidden his people to have recourse to the Egyptians, or to put any confidence in that people; notwithstanding the repeated calamities which had ensued upon the various attempts which they had made to procure assistance from them; they still thought this nation their most sure refuge in danger, and accordingly could not forbear applying to it. This they had already done in the reign of the holy king Hezekiah; which gave occasion to God’s message to his people, by the mouth of his prophet Isaiah: “Wo to them that go down to Egypt for help, and stay on horses and trust in chariots, because they are many; but they look not unto the holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord. The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, not spirit: when the Lord shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they shall fail together.”(479) But neither the prophet nor the king were heard; and nothing but the most fatal experience could open their eyes, and make them see evidently the truth of God’s threatenings.

The Jews behaved in the very same manner on this occasion. Zedekiah, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of Jeremiah to the contrary, resolved to conclude an alliance with the Egyptian monarch; who, puffed up with the success of his arms, and confident that nothing could resist his power, declared himself the protector of Israel, and promised to deliver it from the tyranny of Nabuchodonosor. But God, offended that a mortal had dared to intrude himself into his place, thus declared himself to another prophet: “Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt. Speak and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is my own, and I have made it for myself. But I will put hooks in thy jaws,”(480) &c. God, after comparing him to a reed, which breaks under the man who leans upon it, and wounds his hand, adds, “Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee; the land of Egypt shall be desolate, and they shall know that I am the Lord, because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it.”(481) The same prophet, in several succeeding chapters, continues to foretell the calamities with which Egypt was going to be overwhelmed.(482)

Zedekiah was far from giving credit to these predictions. When he heard of the approach of the Egyptian army, and saw Nabuchodonosor raise the siege of Jerusalem, he fancied that his deliverance was completed, and anticipated a triumph. His joy, however, was but of short duration; for the Egyptians seeing the Chaldeans advancing, did not dare to encounter so numerous and well-disciplined an army. (M93) They therefore marched back into their own country, and left the unfortunate Zedekiah exposed to all the dangers of a war in which they themselves had involved him.(483) Nabuchodonosor again sat down before Jerusalem, took and burnt it, as Jeremiah had prophesied.

(M94) Many years after, the chastisements with which God had threatened Apries (Pharaoh-Hophra) began to fall upon him.(484) For the Cyrenians, a Greek colony, which had settled in Africa, between Libya and Egypt, having seized upon, and divided among themselves, a great part of the country belonging to the Libyans, forced these nations, who were thus dispossessed by violence, to throw themselves into the arms of this prince, and implore his protection. Immediately Apries sent a mighty army into Libya to oppose the Cyrenians; but this army being defeated and almost cut to pieces, the Egyptians imagined that Apries had sent it into Libya, only to get it destroyed; and by that means to attain the power of governing his subjects without check or control. This reflection prompted the Egyptians to shake off the yoke of a prince, whom they now considered as their enemy. But Apries, hearing of the rebellion, despatched Amasis, one of his officers, to suppress it, and force the rebels to return to their allegiance. But the moment Amasis began to address them, they placed a helmet upon his head, in token of the exalted dignity to which they intended to raise him, and proclaimed him king. Amasis having accepted the crown, staid with the mutineers, and confirmed them in their rebellion.

Apries, more exasperated than ever at this news, sent Patarbemis, another of his great officers, and one of the principal lords of his court, to put Amasis under an arrest, and bring him before him; but Patarbemis not being able to carry off Amasis from the midst of the rebel army, by which he was surrounded, was treated by Apries, at his return, in the most ignominious and inhuman manner; for his nose and ears were cut off by the command of that prince, who never considered, that only his want of power had prevented his executing his commission. So barbarous an outrage, committed upon a person of such high distinction, exasperated the Egyptians so much, that the greatest part of them joined the rebels, and the insurrection became general. Apries was now forced to retire into Upper Egypt, where he supported himself some years, during which Amasis made himself master of the rest of his dominions.

The troubles which thus distracted Egypt, afforded Nabuchodonosor a favourable opportunity to invade that kingdom; and it was God himself who inspired him with the resolution. This prince, who was the instrument of God’s wrath (though he did not know himself to be so) against a people whom he was resolved to chastise, had just before taken Tyre, where himself and his army had laboured under incredible difficulties. To recompense their toils, God abandoned Egypt to their arms. It is wonderful to hear the Creator himself revealing his designs on this subject. There are few passages in Scripture more remarkable than this, or which give a clearer idea of the supreme authority which God exercises over all the princes and kingdoms of the earth: “Son of man, (says the Almighty to his prophet Ezekiel,) Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled:(485) yet had he no wages, nor his army,(486) for the service he had served against it. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey, and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour, wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord God.”(487) Says another prophet: “He shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment, and he shall go forth from thence in peace.”(488) Thus shall he load himself with booty, and thus cover his own shoulders, and those of his fold, with all the spoils of Egypt. Noble expressions! which show the ease with which all the power and riches of a kingdom are carried away, when God appoints the revolution; and shift, like a garment, to a new owner, who has no more to do but to take it, and clothe himself with it.

The king of Babylon, taking advantage, therefore, of the intestine divisions which the rebellion of Amasis had occasioned in that kingdom, marched thither at the head of his army. He subdued Egypt from Migdol or Magdol, a town on the frontiers of the kingdom, as far as Syene, in the opposite extremity where it borders on Ethiopia. He made a horrible devastation wherever he came; killed a great number of the inhabitants, and made such dreadful havoc in the country, that the damage could not be repaired in forty years. Nabuchodonosor, having loaded his army with spoils, and conquered the whole kingdom, came to an accommodation with Amasis; and leaving him as his viceroy there, returned to Babylon.

APRIES (Pharaoh-Hophra) now leaving the place where he had concealed himself, advanced towards the sea-coast, (probably on the side of Libya;) and hiring an army of Carians, Ionians, and other foreigners, he marched against Amasis, to whom he gave battle near Memphis; but being overcome, Apries was taken prisoner, carried to the city of Sais, and there strangled in his own palace.(489)

The Almighty had given, by the mouth of his prophets, an astonishing relation of the several circumstances of this mighty event. It was He who had broken the power of Apries, which was once so formidable; and put the sword into the hand of Nabuchodonosor, in order that he might chastise and humble that haughty prince. “I am,” said he, “against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and will break his arms, which were strong, but now are broken; and I will cause the sword to fall out of his hand.”(490)—“But I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and put my sword into his hand.”(491)—“And they shall know that I am the Lord.”(492)

He enumerates the towns which were to fall a prey to the victors; Pathros, Zoan, No, (called in the Vulgate Alexandria,) Sin, Aven, Phibeseth, &c.(493)(494)

He takes notice particularly of the unhappy end of the king, who was to be delivered up to his enemies. Thus saith the Lord; “Behold, I will give Pharaoh-Hophra, the king of Egypt, into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of them that seek his life.”(495)

Lastly, he declares, that during forty years the Egyptians shall be oppressed with every species of calamity, and be reduced to so deplorable a state, “That there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt.”(496) The event verified this prophecy, which was gradually accomplished. Soon after the expiration of these forty years, Egypt was made a province of the Persian empire, to which its kings, though natives of the country, were tributary, and thus the accomplishment of the prediction began. It was completely fulfilled on the death of Nectanebus, the last king of Egyptian extraction, A.M. 3654.

Since that time, Egypt has constantly been governed by foreigners. For since the ruin of the Persian monarchy, it has been subject, successively, to the Macedonians, the Romans, the Saracens, the Mamalukes, and lastly, to the Turks, who possess it to this day.

God was not less punctual in the accomplishment of his prophecies, with regard to such of his own people as had retired, contrary to his prohibition, into Egypt, after the taking of Jerusalem; and had forced Jeremiah along with them.(497) The instant they had reached Egypt, and were arrived at Tahpanhes, (or Tanis,) the prophet, after having hid in their presence (by God’s command) stones in a grotto, which was near the king’s palace, declared to them, that Nabuchodonosor should soon arrive in Egypt, and that God would establish his throne in that very place; that this prince would lay waste the whole kingdom, and carry fire and sword into all places; that themselves should fall into the hand of these cruel enemies, when one part of them would be massacred, and the rest led captive to Babylon; that only a very small number should escape the common desolation, and be at last restored to their country. All these prophecies had their accomplishment in the appointed time.

(M95) AMASIS. After the death of Apries, Amasis became peaceable possessor of Egypt, and reigned over it forty years. He was, according to Plato, a native of the city of Sais.(498)

As he was but of mean extraction, he met with no respect in the beginning of his reign, but was only contemned by his subjects:(499) he was not insensible of this; but, nevertheless, thought it his interest to subdue their tempers by management and address, and win their affections by gentleness and reason. He had a golden cistern, in which himself and those persons who were admitted to his table, used to wash their feet: he melted it down, and had it cast into a statue, and then exposed the new god to public worship. The people hasted in crowds to pay their adoration to the statue. The king having assembled the people, informed them of the vile uses to which this statue had once been put, which, nevertheless, was now the object of their religious prostrations: the application was easy, and had the desired success; the people thenceforward paid the king all the respect that is due to majesty.

He always used to devote the whole morning to public business, to receive petitions, give audience, pronounce sentence, and hold his councils: the rest of the day was given to pleasure: and as Amasis, in hours of diversion, was extremely gay, and seemed to carry his mirth beyond due bounds, his courtiers took the liberty to represent to him the unsuitableness of such a behaviour; when he answered, that it was as impossible for the mind to be always serious and intent upon business, as for a bow to continue always bent.(500)

It was this king who obliged the inhabitants of every town to enter their names in a book, kept by the magistrate for that purpose, with their profession, and manner of living. Solon inserted this custom among his laws.

He built many magnificent temples, especially at Sais, the place of his birth. Herodotus admired especially a chapel there formed of one single stone, which was twenty-one cubits(501) in front, fourteen in depth, and eight in height; its dimensions within were not quite so large; it had been brought from Elephantina, and two thousand men had employed three years in conveying it along the Nile.

Amasis had a great esteem for the Greeks. He granted them large privileges; and permitted such of them as were desirous of settling in Egypt, to live in the city of Naucratis, so famous for its harbour. When the rebuilding of the temple of Delphi, which had been burnt, was debated on, and the expense was computed at three hundred talents,(502) Amasis furnished the Delphians with a very considerable sum towards discharging their quota, which was the fourth part of the whole charge.

He made an alliance with the Cyrenians, and married a wife from among them.

He is the only king of Egypt who conquered the island of Cyprus, and made it tributary.

Under his reign Pythagoras came into Egypt, being recommended to that monarch by the famous Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, who had contracted a friendship with Amasis, and will be mentioned hereafter. Pythagoras, during his stay in Egypt, was initiated in all the mysteries of the country; and instructed by the priests in whatever was most abstruse and important in their religion. It was here he imbibed his doctrine of the Metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls.

In the expedition in which Cyrus conquered so great a part of the world, Egypt doubtless was subdued, like the rest of the provinces; and Xenophon positively declares this in the beginning of his _Cyropædia_, or institution of that prince.(503) Probably, after that the forty years of desolation, which had been foretold by the prophet, were expired, Egypt beginning gradually to regain strength, Amasis shook off the yoke, and recovered his liberty.

Accordingly, we find, that one of the first cares of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, after he had ascended the throne, was to carry his arms into Egypt. On his arrival there, Amasis was just dead, and succeeded by his son Psammenitus.

(M96) PSAMMENITUS. Cambyses, after having gained a battle, pursued the enemy to Memphis; besieged the city, and soon took it: however, he treated the king with clemency, granted him his life, and assigned him an honourable pension; but being informed that he was secretly concerting measures to reascend his throne, he put him to death. Psammenitus reigned but six months: all Egypt submitted immediately to the victor. The particulars of this history will be related more at large, when I come to that of Cambyses.

Here ends the succession of the Egyptian kings. From this æra the history of this nation, as was before observed, will be blended with that of the Persians and Greeks, till the death of Alexander. At that period, a new monarchy will arise in Egypt, founded by Ptolemy the son of Lagus, which will continue to Cleopatra, that is, for about three hundred years. I shall treat each of these subjects, in the several periods to which they belong.

BOOK THE SECOND. THE HISTORY OF THE CARTHAGINIANS.

Part The First. Character, Manners, Religion, And Government Of The Carthaginians.

SECT. I. CARTHAGE FORMED AFTER THE MODEL OF TYRE, OF WHICH THAT CITY WAS A COLONY. The Carthaginians were indebted to the Tyrians, not only for their origin, but for their manners, language, customs, laws, religion, and their great application to commerce, as will appear from every part of the sequel. They spoke the same language with the Tyrians, and these the same with the Canaanites and Israelites, that is, the Hebrew tongue, or at least a language which was entirely derived from it. Their names had commonly some particular meaning:(504) thus _Hanno_ signified _gracious_, _bountiful_; Dido, _amiable_, or _well-beloved_; Sophonisba, _one who keeps faithfully her husband’s secrets_. From a spirit of religion, they likewise joined the name of God to their own, conformably to the genius of the Hebrews. Hannibal, which answers to Hananias, signifies _Baal_, [or _the Lord_] _has been gracious to me_. Asdrubal, answering to Azarias, implies, _the Lord will be our succour_. It is the same with other names, Adherbal, Maharbal, Mastanabal, &c. The word Pœni, from which Punic is derived, is the same with Phœni, or Phœnicians, because they came originally from Phœnicia. In the _Pœnulus_ of Plautus, is a scene written in the Punic tongue, which has very much exercised the learned.(505)

But the strict union which always subsisted between the Phœnicians and Carthaginians, is still more remarkable. When Cambyses had resolved to make war upon the latter, the Phœnicians, who formed the chief strength of his fleet, told him plainly that they could not serve him against their countrymen; and this declaration obliged that prince to lay aside his design.(506) The Carthaginians, on their side, were never forgetful of the country from whence they came, and to which they owed their origin. They sent regularly every year to Tyre a ship freighted with presents, as a quit-rent, or acknowledgment paid to their ancient country; and an annual sacrifice was offered to the tutelar gods of Tyre, by the Carthaginians, who considered them as their protectors likewise.(507) They never failed to send thither the first fruits of their revenues, nor the tithe of the spoils taken from their enemies, as offerings to Hercules, one of the principal gods of Tyre and Carthage. The Tyrians, to secure from Alexander (who was then besieging their city) what they valued above all things, I mean their wives and children, sent them to Carthage, where, though at a time when the inhabitants of the latter were involved in a furious war, they were received and entertained with such a kindness and generosity as might be expected from the most tender and opulent parents. Such uninterrupted testimonies of a warm and sincere gratitude, do a nation more honour, than the greatest conquests and the most glorious victories.

SECT. II. THE RELIGION OF THE CARTHAGINIANS.—It appears from several passages of the history of Carthage, that its generals looked upon it as an indispensable duty, to begin and end all their enterprises with the worship of the gods. Hamilcar, father of the great Hannibal, before he entered Spain in a hostile manner, offered up a sacrifice to the gods; and his son, treading in his steps, before he left Spain, and marched against Rome, went as far as Cadiz, in order to pay the vows which he had made to Hercules, and to offer up new ones, in case that god should be propitious to him.(508) After the battle of Cannæ, when he acquainted the Carthaginians with the joyful news, he recommended to them, above all things, the offering up a solemn thanksgiving to the immortal gods, for the several victories he had obtained.(509) _Pro his tantis totque victoriis verum esse grates diis immortalibus agi haberique._

Neither did individuals alone pride themselves upon displaying, on every occasion, this religious care to honour the deity; but it evidently was the genius and disposition of the whole nation.

Polybius has transmitted to us a treaty of peace concluded between Philip, son of Demetrius, king of Macedon, and the Carthaginians, in which the great respect and veneration of the latter for the deity, and their inherent persuasion that the gods engage in, and preside over, human affairs, and particularly over the solemn treaties made in their name and presence, are strongly displayed.(510) Mention is therein made of five or six different orders of deities; and this enumeration appears very extraordinary in a public instrument, such as a treaty of peace concluded between two nations. I will here present my reader with the very words of the historian, as it will give some idea of the Carthaginian theology. “This treaty was concluded in the presence of Jupiter, Juno, and Apollo; in the presence of the dæmon or genius (δαίμονος) of the Carthaginians, of Hercules and Iolaus; in the presence of Mars, Triton, and Neptune; in the presence of all the confederate gods of the Carthaginians; and of the sun, the moon, and the earth; in the presence of the rivers, meads, and waters; in the presence of all those gods who possess Carthage:” what should we now say to an instrument of this kind, in which the tutelar angels and saints of a kingdom should be introduced?

The Carthaginians had two deities to whom they paid a more particular worship, and who deserve to have some mention made of them in this place.

The first was the goddess Cœlestis, called likewise Urania, the same with the moon, who was invoked in great calamities, and particularly in droughts, in order to obtain rain: that very virgin Cœlestis, says Tertullian,(511) the promiser of rain, _Ista ipsa Virgo Cœlestis pluviarum pollicitatrix_. Tertullian, speaking of this goddess and of Æsculapius, makes the heathens of that age a challenge, which is bold indeed, but at the same time very glorious to the cause of Christianity; declaring, that any Christian who may first come, shall oblige these false gods to confess publicly, that they are but devils; and consenting that this Christian shall be immediately killed, if he does not extort such a confession from the mouth of these gods. _Nisi se dæmones confessi fuerint Christiano mentiri non audentes, ibidem illius Christiani procacissimi sanguinem fundite._ St. Austin likewise makes frequent mention of this deity. “What is now,” says he,(512) “become of Cœlestis, whose empire was once so great in Carthage?” This was doubtless the same deity whom Jeremiah calls the queen of heaven;(513) and who was held in so much reverence by the Jewish women, that they addressed their vows, burnt incense, poured out drink-offerings, and made cakes for her with their own hands, _ut faciant placentas reginæ cœli_; and from whom they boasted their having received all manner of blessings, whilst they regularly paid her this worship; whereas, since they had failed in it, they had been oppressed with misfortunes of every kind.

The second deity particularly adored by the Carthaginians, and in whose honour human sacrifices were offered, was Saturn, known in Scripture by the name of Moloch; and this worship had passed from Tyre to Carthage. Philo quotes a passage from Sanchoniathon, which shows that the kings of Tyre, in great dangers, used to sacrifice their sons to appease the anger of the gods; and that one of them, by this action, procured himself divine honours, and was worshipped as a god, under the name of the planet Saturn; to this doubtless was owing the fable of Saturn’s devouring his own children. Private persons, when they were desirous of averting any great calamity, took the same method; and, in imitation of their princes, were so very superstitious, that such as had no children, purchased those of the poor, in order that they might not be deprived of the merit of such a sacrifice. This custom prevailed long among the Phœnicians and Canaanites, from whom the Israelites borrowed it, though forbidden expressly by heaven. At first, these children were inhumanly burnt, either in a fiery furnace, like those in the valley of Hinnon, so often mentioned in Scripture, or enclosed in a flaming statue of Saturn. The cries of these unhappy victims were drowned by the uninterrupted noise of drums and trumpets.(514) Mothers(515) made it a merit, and a part of their religion, to view this barbarous spectacle with dry eyes, and without so much as a groan; and, if a tear or a sigh stole from them, the sacrifice was less acceptable to the deity, and all the effects of it were entirely lost. This strength of mind, or rather savage barbarity, was carried to such excess, that even mothers would endeavour, with embraces and kisses, to hush the cries of their children;(516) lest, had the victim been offered with an unbecoming grace, and in the midst of tears, it should be displeasing to the god: _Blanditiis et osculis comprimebant vagitum, ne flebilis hostia immolaretur._(517) They afterwards contented themselves with making their children pass through the fire; as appears from several passages of Scripture, in which they frequently perished.

The Carthaginians retained the barbarous custom of offering human sacrifices to their gods,(518) till the ruin of their city:(519) an action which ought to have been called a sacrilege rather than a sacrifice. _Sacrilegium veriùs quàm sacrum._ It was suspended only for some years, from the fear they were under of drawing upon themselves the indignation and arms of Darius I. king of Persia, who forbade them the offering up of human sacrifices, and the eating the flesh of dogs: but they soon resumed this horrid practice, since, in the reign of Xerxes, the successor to Darius, Gelon the tyrant of Syracuse, having gained a considerable victory over the Carthaginians in Sicily, among other conditions of peace which he enjoined them, inserted this article:(520) _viz._ “That no more human sacrifices should be offered to Saturn.” And, doubtless, the practice of the Carthaginians, on this very occasion, made Gelon use this precaution. For during the whole engagement, which lasted from morning till night, Hamilcar, the son of Hanno their general, was perpetually offering up to the gods sacrifices of living men, who were thrown in great numbers on a flaming pile; and seeing his troops routed and put to flight, he himself rushed into it, in order that he might not survive his own disgrace, and to extinguish, says St. Ambrose speaking of this action, with his own blood this sacrilegious fire, when he found that it had not proved of service to him.(521)(522)

In times of pestilence(523) they used to sacrifice a great number of children to their gods, unmoved with pity for a tender age, which excites compassion in the most cruel enemies; thus seeking a remedy for their evils in guilt itself; and endeavouring to appease the gods by the most shocking barbarity.

Diodorus relates(524) an instance of this cruelty which strikes the reader with horror. At the time that Agathocles was just going to besiege Carthage, its inhabitants, seeing the extremity to which they were reduced, imputed all their misfortunes to the just anger of Saturn, because that, instead of offering up children nobly born, who were usually sacrificed to him, there had been fraudulently substituted in their stead the children of slaves and foreigners. To atone for this crime, two hundred children of the best families in Carthage were sacrificed to Saturn; besides which, upwards of three hundred citizens, from a sense of their guilt of this pretended crime, voluntarily sacrificed themselves. Diodorus adds, that there was a brazen statue of Saturn, the hands of which were turned downward; so that when a child was laid on them, it dropped immediately into a hollow, where was a fiery furnace.

Can this, says Plutarch,(525) be called worshipping the gods? Can we be said to entertain an honourable idea of them, if we suppose that they are pleased with slaughter, thirsty of human blood, and capable of requiring or accepting such offerings? Religion, says this judicious author,(526) is placed between two rocks, that are equally dangerous to man, and injurious to the deity, I mean impiety and superstition. The one, from an affectation of free-thinking, believes nothing; and the other, from a blind weakness, believes all things. Impiety, to rid itself of a terror which galls it, denies the very existence of the gods: whilst superstition, to calm its fears, capriciously forges gods, which it makes not only the friends, but protectors and models, of crimes. Had it not been better, says he further,(527) for the Carthaginians to have had originally a Critias, or a Diagoras, who were open and undisguised atheists, for their lawgivers, than to have established so frantic and wicked a religion? Could the Typhons and the giants, (the avowed enemies of the gods,) had they gained a victory over them, have established more abominable sacrifices?

Such were the sentiments which a heathen entertained of this part of the Carthaginian worship. One would indeed scarce believe that mankind were capable of such madness and frenzy. Men do not generally of themselves entertain ideas so destructive of all that nature considers as most sacred, as to sacrifice, to murder, their children with their own hands, and to throw them in cool blood into fiery furnaces! Sentiments so unnatural and barbarous, and yet adopted by whole nations, and even by the most civilized, by the Phœnicians, Carthaginians, Gauls, Scythians, and even the Greeks and Romans, and consecrated by custom during a long series of ages, can have been inspired by him only who was a murderer from the beginning; and who delights in nothing but the humiliation, misery, and perdition of man.

SECT. III. FORM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CARTHAGE.—The government of Carthage was founded upon principles of the most consummate wisdom; and it is with reason that Aristotle(528) ranks this republic in the number of those that were had in the greatest esteem by the ancients, and which were fit to serve as a model for others. He grounds his opinion on a reflection, which does great honour to Carthage, by remarking, that, from its foundation to his time, (that is, upwards of five hundred years,) no considerable sedition had disturbed the peace, nor any tyrant oppressed the liberty of that state. Indeed, mixed governments, such as that of Carthage, where the power was divided betwixt the nobles and the people, are subject to two inconveniences; either of degenerating into an abuse of liberty by the seditions of the populace, as frequently happened in Athens, and in all the Grecian republics; or into the oppression of the public liberty by the tyranny of the nobles, as in Athens, Syracuse, Corinth, Thebes, and Rome itself under Sylla and Cæsar. It is, therefore, giving Carthage the highest praise, to observe, that it had found out the art, by the wisdom of its laws, and the harmony of the different parts of its government, to shun, during so long a series of years, two rocks that are so dangerous, and on which others so often split.

It were to be wished, that some ancient author had left us an accurate and regular description of the customs and laws of this famous republic. For want of such assistance, we can only give our readers a confused and imperfect idea of them, by collecting the several passages which lie scattered up and down in authors. Christopher Hendrich has obliged the learned world in this particular, and his work(529) has been of great service to me.

The government of Carthage,(530) like that of Sparta and Rome, united three different authorities, which counterpoised and gave mutual assistance to one another. These authorities were, that of the two supreme magistrates, called Suffetes;(531) that of the Senate; and that of the people. There afterwards was added the tribunal of One Hundred, which had great credit and influence in the republic.

_The Suffetes._—The power of the Suffetes was only annual, and their authority in Carthage answered to that of the consuls at Rome.(532) In authors they are frequently called kings, dictators, consuls, because they exercised the functions of all three. History does not inform us of the manner of their election. They were empowered to assemble the senate;(533) in which they presided, proposed subjects for deliberation, and collected the votes;(534) and they likewise presided in all debates on matters of importance. Their authority was not limited to the city, nor confined to civil affairs: they sometimes had the command of the armies. We find, that when their employment of Suffetes expired, they were made prætors, which was a considerable office, since, besides conferring upon them the privilege of presiding in some causes, it also empowered them to propose and enact new laws, and call to account the receivers of the public revenues, as appears from what Livy relates(535) concerning Hannibal on this head, and which I shall take notice of in the sequel.

_The Senate._—The Senate, composed of persons who were venerable on account of their age, their experience, their birth, their riches, and especially their merit, formed the council of state; and were, if I may use that expression, the soul of the public deliberations. Their number is not exactly known: it must, however, have been very great, since a hundred were selected from it to form a separate assembly, of which I shall immediately have occasion to speak. In the senate, all affairs of consequence were debated, the letters from generals read, the complaints of provinces heard, ambassadors admitted to audience, and peace or war determined, as is seen on many occasions.

When the sentiments and votes were unanimous, the senate decided supremely, and there lay no appeal from it.(536) When there was a division, and the senate could not be brought to an agreement, the affair was then laid before the people, on whom the power of deciding thereby devolved. The reader will easily perceive the great wisdom of this regulation: and how happily it was adapted to crush factions, to produce harmony, and to enforce and corroborate good counsels; such an assembly being extremely jealous of its authority, and not easily prevailed upon to let it pass into other hands. Of this we have a memorable instance in Polybius.(537) When after the loss of the battle fought in Africa, at the end of the second Punic war, the conditions of peace offered by the victor were read in the senate; Hannibal, observing that one of the senators opposed them, represented in the strongest terms, that as the safety of the republic lay at stake, it was of the utmost importance for the senators to be unanimous in their resolutions, to prevent such a debate from coming before the people; and he carried his point. This, doubtless, laid the foundation, in the infancy of the republic, of the senate’s power, and raised its authority to so great a height. And the same author observes, in another place,(538) that whilst the senate had the administration of affairs, the state was governed with great wisdom, and was successful in all its enterprises.

_The People._—It appears from every thing related hitherto, that even so low as Aristotle’s time, who gives so beautiful a picture, and bestows so noble an eulogium on the government of Carthage, the people spontaneously left the care of public affairs, and the chief administration of them, to the senate: and this it was which made the republic so powerful. But things changed afterwards. For the people, grown insolent by their wealth and conquests, and forgetting that they owed these blessings to the prudent conduct of the senate, were desirous of having a share in the government, and arrogated to themselves almost the whole power. From that period, the public affairs were transacted wholly by cabals and factions: and this Polybius assigns as one of the chief causes of the ruin of Carthage.

_The Tribunal of the Hundred._—This was a body composed of a hundred and four persons; though often, for brevity’s sake, they are called only, the Hundred. These, according to Aristotle, were the same in Carthage, as the Ephori in Sparta; whence it appears, that they were instituted to balance the power of the nobles and senate: but with this difference, that the Ephori were but five in number, and continued in office but a year; whereas these were perpetual, and were upwards of a hundred. (M97) It is believed, that these Centumviri are the same with the hundred judges mentioned by Justin,(539) who were taken out of the senate, and appointed to inquire into the conduct of their generals. The exorbitant power of Mago’s family, which, by its engrossing the chief employments both of the state and the army, had thereby the sole direction and management of all affairs, gave occasion to this establishment. It was intended as a curb to the authority of their generals, which, whilst the armies were in the field, was almost boundless and absolute; but, by this institution, it became subject to the laws, by the obligation their generals were under, of giving an account of their actions before these judges on their return from the campaign: _Ut hoc metu ita in bello imperia cogitarent, ut domi judicia legesque respicerent._(540) Of these hundred and four judges, five had a particular jurisdiction superior to that of the rest; but it is not known how long their authority lasted. This council of five was like the council of ten in the Venetian senate. A vacancy in their number could be filled by none but themselves. They also had the power of choosing those who composed the council of the hundred. Their authority was very great, and for that reason none were elected into this office but persons of uncommon merit; and it was not judged proper to annex any salary or reward to it; the single motive of the public good, being thought a tie sufficient to engage honest men to a conscientious and faithful discharge of their duty. Polybius, in his account of the taking of New Carthage by Scipio,(541) distinguishes clearly two orders of magistrates established in Old Carthage; for he says, that among the prisoners taken at New Carthage, were two magistrates belonging to the body or assembly of old men, ἐκ τῆς Γερουσίας: so he calls the council of the hundred; and fifteen of the senate, ἐκ τῆς Συγκλήτου. Livy mentions(542) only the fifteen of the senators; but, in another place, he names the old men; and tells us, that they formed the most venerable council of the government, and had great authority in the senate. _Carthaginenses—Oratores ad pacem petendam mittunt triginta seniorum principes. Id erat sanctius apud illos concilium, maximaque ad ipsum senatum regendum vis._(543)

Establishments, though constituted with the greatest wisdom and the justest harmony of parts, degenerate, however insensibly, into disorder and the most destructive licentiousness. These judges, who by the lawful execution of their power were a terror to transgressors, and the great pillars of justice, abusing their almost unlimited authority, became so many petty tyrants. (M98) We shall see this verified in the history of the great Hannibal, who during his prætorship, after his return to Africa, employed all his influence to reform so horrid an abuse; and made the authority of these judges, which before was perpetual, only annual, about two hundred years from the first founding the tribunal of the One Hundred.

_Defects in the Government of Carthage._—Aristotle, among other reflections made by him on the government of Carthage, remarks two great defects in it, both which, in his opinion, are repugnant to the views of a wise lawgiver and the maxims of sound policy.

The first of these defects was, the investing the same person with different employments, which was considered at Carthage as a proof of uncommon merit. But Aristotle thinks this practice highly prejudicial to the public welfare. For, says this author, a man possessed but of one employment, is much more capable of acquitting himself well in the execution of it; because affairs are then examined with greater care, and sooner despatched. We never see, continues our author, either by sea or land, the same officer commanding two different bodies, or the same pilot steering two ships. Besides, the welfare of the state requires that places and preferments should be divided, in order to excite an emulation among men of merit: whereas the bestowing of them on one man, too often dazzles him by so distinguishing a preference, and always fills others with jealousy, discontent, and murmurs.

The second defect taken notice of by Aristotle in the government of Carthage, was, that in order for a man to attain the first posts, a certain income was required (besides merit and noble birth.) By which means, poverty might exclude persons of the most exalted merit, which he considers as a great evil in a government. For then, says he, as virtue is wholly disregarded, and money is all-powerful, because all things are attained by it, the admiration and desire of riches seize and corrupt the whole community. Add to this, that when magistrates and judges are obliged to pay large sums for their employments, they seem to have a right to reimburse themselves.’

There is not, I believe, one instance in all antiquity, to show that employments, either in the state or the courts of justice, were sold. The expense, therefore, which Aristotle talks of here to raise men to preferments in Carthage, must doubtless be understood of the presents that were given in order to procure the votes of the electors: a practice, as Polybius observes, very common at Carthage, where no kind of gain was judged a disgrace.(544) It is, therefore, no wonder, that Aristotle should condemn a practice whose consequences, it is very plain, may prove fatal to a government.

But in case he pretended that the chief employments of a state ought to be equally accessible to the rich and the poor, as he seems to insinuate, his opinion is refuted by the general practice of the wisest republics; for these, without any way demeaning or aspersing poverty, have thought that, on this occasion, the preference ought to be given to riches; because it is to be presumed that the wealthy have received a better education, have nobler sentiments, are more out of the reach of corruption, and less liable to commit base actions; and that even the state of their affairs makes them more affectionate to the government, more disposed to maintain peace and order in it, and more interested in suppressing whatever may tend to sedition and rebellion.

Aristotle, in concluding his reflections on the republic of Carthage, is much pleased with a custom that prevailed there: _viz._ of sending from time to time colonies into different countries; and in this manner procuring its citizens commodious settlements. This provided for the necessities of the poor, who, equally with the rich, are members of the state: and it disburdened Carthage of multitudes of lazy, indolent people, who were its disgrace, and often proved dangerous to it: it prevented commotions and insurrections, by thus removing such persons as commonly occasion them; and who being ever discontented under their present circumstances, are always ready for innovations and tumults.

SECT. IV. TRADE OF CARTHAGE, THE FIRST SOURCE OF ITS WEALTH AND POWER.—Commerce, strictly speaking, was the occupation of Carthage, the particular object of its industry, and its peculiar and predominant characteristic. It formed the greatest strength and the chief support of that commonwealth. In a word, we may affirm that the power, the conquests, the credit, and glory of the Carthaginians, all flowed from their commerce. Situated in the centre of the Mediterranean, and stretching out their arms eastward and westward, the extent of their commerce took in all the known world, and wafted it to the coast of Spain, of Mauritania, of Gaul, and beyond the straits and pillars of Hercules. They sailed to all countries, in order to buy at a cheap rate the superfluities of every nation; which, by the wants of others, became necessaries; and these they sold to them at the dearest rates. From Egypt the Carthaginians fetched fine flax, paper, corn, sails and cables for ships; from the coast of the Red-Sea, spices, frankincense, perfumes, gold, pearls, and precious stones; from Tyre and Phoenicia, purple and scarlet, rich stuffs, tapestry, costly furniture, and divers curious and exquisite works of art: in a word, they fetched, from various countries, all things that can supply the necessities, or are capable of contributing to the convenience, the luxury, and the delights of life. They brought back from the western parts of the world, in return for the articles carried thither, iron, tin, lead, and copper: by the sale of these various commodities, they enriched themselves at the expense of all nations; and put them under a kind of contribution, which was so much the surer as it was spontaneous.

In thus becoming the factors and agents of all nations, they had made themselves lords of the sea; the band which held the east, the west, and south together; and the necessary channel of their communication: so that Carthage rose to be the common city, and the centre of the trade, of all those nations which the sea separated from one another.

The most considerable personages of the city were not ashamed of engaging in trade. They applied themselves to it as industriously as the meanest citizens; and their great wealth did not make them less in love with the diligence, patience, and labour, which are necessary to augment it. To this they owed their empire of the sea, the splendour of their republic; their being able to dispute for the superiority with Rome itself; and their exalted pitch of power, which forced the Romans to carry on a bloody and doubtful war, for upwards of forty years, in order to humble and subdue this haughty rival. In short, Rome, even when triumphant, thought Carthage was not to be entirely reduced any other way, than by depriving that city of the resources which it might still derive from its commerce, by which it had so long been enabled to resist the whole strength of that mighty republic.

However, it is no wonder that, as Carthage came in a manner out of the greatest school of traffic in the world, I mean Tyre, she should have been crowned with such rapid and uninterrupted success. The very vessels on which its founders had been conveyed into Africa, were afterwards employed by them in their trade. They began to make settlements upon the coasts of Spain, in those ports where they unloaded their goods. The ease with which they had founded these settlements, and the conveniences they met with, inspired them with the design of conquering those vast regions; and some time after, _Nova Carthago_, or New Carthage, gave the Carthaginians an empire in that country, almost equal to that which they enjoyed in Africa.

SECT. V. THE MINES OF SPAIN, THE SECOND SOURCE OF THE RICHES AND POWER OF CARTHAGE.—Diodorus justly remarks,(545) that the gold and silver mines found by the Carthaginians in Spain, were an inexhaustible fund of wealth, that enabled them to sustain such long wars against the Romans. The natives had long been ignorant of these treasures that lay concealed in the bowels of the earth, at least of their use and value. The Phœnicians took advantage of this ignorance; and, by bartering some wares of little value for this precious metal, they amassed infinite wealth. When the Carthaginians had made themselves masters of the country, they dug much deeper into the earth than the old inhabitants of Spain had done, who probably were content with what they could collect on the surface; and the Romans, when they had dispossessed the Carthaginians of Spain, profited by their example, and drew an immense revenue from these mines of gold and silver.

The labour employed to come at these mines, and to dig the gold and silver out of them, was incredible.(546) For the veins of these metals rarely appeared on the surface; they were to be sought for and traced through frightful depths, where very often floods of water stopped the miners, and seemed to defeat all future pursuits. But avarice is no less patient in undergoing fatigues, than ingenious in finding expedients. By pumps, which Archimedes had invented when in Egypt, the Romans afterwards threw up the water out of these pits, and quite drained them. Numberless multitudes of slaves perished in these mines, which were dug to enrich their masters; who treated them with the utmost barbarity, forced them by heavy stripes to labour, and gave them no respite either day or night.

Polybius, as quoted by Strabo,(547) says, that, in his time, upwards of forty thousand men were employed in the mines near _Nova Carthago_; and furnished the Romans every day with twenty-five thousand drachmas, or eight hundred fifty-nine pounds seven shillings and sixpence.(548)

We must not be surprised to see the Carthaginians, soon after the greatest defeats, sending fresh and numerous armies again into the field; fitting out mighty fleets, and supporting, at a great expense, for many years, wars carried on by them in far-distant countries. But it must appear surprising to us that the Romans should be capable of doing the same; they whose revenues were very inconsiderable before those great conquests which subjected to them the most powerful nations; and who had no resources, either from trade, to which they were absolute strangers, or from gold or silver mines, which were very rarely found in Italy, in case there were any; and the expenses of which must, for that very reason, have swallowed up all the profit. The Romans, in the frugal and simple life they led, in their zeal for the public welfare, and their love for their country, possessed funds which were not less ready or secure than those of Carthage, but at the same time were far more honourable to their nation.

SECT. VI. WAR.—Carthage must be considered as a trading, and, at the same time, a warlike republic. Its genius and the nature of its government led it to traffic; and it became warlike, first, from the necessity the Carthaginians were under of defending themselves against the neighbouring nations, and afterwards from a desire of extending their commerce and empire. This double idea gives us, in my opinion, the true plan and character of the Carthaginian republic. We have already spoken of its commerce.

The military power of the Carthaginians consisted in their alliances with kings; in tributary nations, from which they drew both men and money; in some troops raised from among their own citizens; and in mercenary soldiers purchased of neighbouring states, without being themselves obliged to levy or exercise them, because they were already well disciplined and inured to the fatigues of war; they making choice, in every country, of such troops as had the greatest merit and reputation. They drew from Numidia a light, bold, impetuous, and indefatigable cavalry, which formed the principal strength of their armies; from the Balearic isles, the most expert slingers in the world; from Spain, a steady and invincible infantry; from the coasts of Genoa and Gaul, troops of acknowledged valour; and from Greece itself, soldiers fit for all the various operations of war, for the field or the garrisons, for besieging or defending cities.

In this manner the Carthaginians sent out at once powerful armies, composed of soldiers which were the flower of all the armies in the universe, without depopulating either their fields or cities by new levies; without suspending their manufactures, or disturbing the peaceful artificer; without interrupting their commerce, or weakening their navy. By venal blood they possessed themselves of provinces and kingdoms; and made other nations the instruments of their grandeur and glory, with no other expense of their own than their money; and even this furnished from the traffic they carried on with foreign nations.

If the Carthaginians, in the course of a war, sustained some losses, these were but as so many foreign accidents, which only grazed, as it were, over the body of the state, but did not make a deep wound in the bowels or heart of the republic. These losses were speedily repaired, by sums arising out of a flourishing commerce, as from a perpetual sinew of war, by which the government was continually reinforced with new supplies for the purchase of mercenary forces, who were ready at the first summons. And from the vast extent of the coasts which the Carthaginians possessed, it was easy for them to levy, in a very little time, a sufficient number of sailors and rowers for the working of their fleets, and to procure able pilots and experienced captains to conduct them.

But as these parts were fortuitously brought together, they did not adhere by any natural, intimate, or necessary tie. No common and reciprocal interest united them in such a manner, as to form a solid and unalterable body. Not one individual in these mercenary armies, was sincerely interested in the success of measures, or in the prosperity of the state. They did not act with the same zeal, nor expose themselves to dangers with equal resolution, for a republic which they considered as foreign, and which consequently was indifferent to them, as they would have done for their native country, whose happiness constitutes that of the several members who compose it.

In great reverses of fortune, the kings in alliance with the Carthaginians(549) might easily be detached from their interest, either by that jealousy which the grandeur of a more powerful neighbour naturally excites; or by the hopes of reaping greater advantages from a new friend; or by the fear of being involved in the misfortunes of an old ally.

The tributary nations, impatient under the weight and disgrace of a yoke which had been forced upon their necks, generally flattered themselves with the hopes of finding one less galling in changing their masters; or, in case servitude was unavoidable, the choice was indifferent to them, as will appear from many instances in the course of this history.

The mercenary forces, accustomed to measure their fidelity by the largeness or continuance of their pay, were ever ready, on the least discontent, or the slightest expectation of a more considerable stipend, to desert to the enemy with whom they had just before fought, and to turn their arms against those who had invited them to their assistance.

Thus the grandeur of the Carthaginians being sustained only by these foreign supports, was shaken to the very foundation when they were once taken away. And if to this there happened to be added an interruption of their commerce, (which was their sole resource,) arising from the loss of a naval engagement, they imagined themselves to be on the brink of ruin, and abandoned themselves to despondency and despair, as was evidently seen at the end of the first Punic war.

Aristotle, in the treatise where he shows the advantages and defects of the government of Carthage, finds no fault with its keeping up none but foreign forces; it is therefore probable, that the Carthaginians did not fall into this practice till a long time after. But the rebellions which harassed Carthage in its later years, out to have taught its citizens, that no miseries are comparable to those of a government which is supported only by foreigners; since neither zeal, security, nor obedience, can be expected from them.

But this was not the case with the republic of Rome. As the Romans had neither trade nor money, they were not able to hire forces to push on their conquests with the same rapidity as the Carthaginians: but then, as they procured every thing from within themselves; and as all the parts of the state were intimately united; they had surer resources in great misfortunes than the Carthaginians. And for this reason they never once thought of suing for peace after the battle of Cannæ, as the Carthaginians had done in a less imminent danger.

The Carthaginians had, besides, a body of troops (which was not very numerous) levied from among their own citizens; and this was a kind of school, in which the flower of their nobility, and those whose talents and ambition prompted them to aspire to the first dignities, learned the rudiments of the art of war. From among these were selected all the general officers, who were put at the head of the different bodies of their forces, and had the chief command in the armies. This nation was too jealous and suspicious to employ foreign generals. But they were not so distrustful of their own citizens as Rome and Athens; for the Carthaginians, at the same time that they invested them with great power, did not guard against the abuse they might make of it in order to oppress their country. The command of armies was neither annual, nor limited to any time, as in the two republics above-mentioned. Many generals held their commissions for a great number of years, either till the war or their lives ended; though they were still accountable to the commonwealth for their conduct; and liable to be recalled, whenever a real fault, a misfortune, or the superior interest of a cabal, furnished an opportunity for it.

SECT. VII. ARTS AND SCIENCES.—It cannot be said that the Carthaginians renounced entirely the glory which results from study and knowledge. The sending of Masinissa, son of a powerful king,(550) thither for education, gives us room to believe that Carthage was provided with an excellent school. The great Hannibal,(551) who in all respects was an ornament to that city, was not unacquainted with polite literature, as will be seen hereafter. Mago,(552) another very celebrated general, did as much honour to Carthage by his pen as by his victories. He wrote twenty-eight volumes upon husbandry, which the Roman senate had in such esteem, that after the taking of Carthage, when they presented the African princes with the libraries found there, (another proof that learning was not entirely banished from Carthage,) they gave orders to have these books translated into Latin,(553) though Cato had before written his books on that subject. There is still extant a Greek version of a treatise drawn up by Hanno in the Punic tongue,(554) relating to a voyage he made (by order of the senate) with a considerable fleet round Africa, for the settling of different colonies in that part of the world. This Hanno is believed to be more ancient than that person of the same name who lived in the time of Agathocles.

Clitomachus, called in the Punic language Asdrubal, was a great philosopher.(555) He succeeded the famous Carneades, whose disciple he had been; and maintained in Athens the honour of the Academic sect. Cicero says,(556) that he was a more sensible man, and fonder of study, than the Carthaginians generally are. He wrote several books;(557) in one of which he composed a piece to console the unhappy citizens of Carthage, who, by the ruin of their city, were reduced to slavery.

I might rank among, or rather place at the head of, the writers who have adorned Africa, the celebrated Terence; himself singly being capable of reflecting infinite honour on his country by the fame of his productions, if, on this account, Carthage, the place of his birth, ought not to be less considered as his country than Rome, where he was educated, and acquired that purity of style, that delicacy and elegance, which have gained him the admiration of all succeeding ages. It is supposed,(558) that he was carried off when an infant, or at least very young, by the Numidians in their incursions into the Carthaginian territories, during the war carried on between these two nations, from the conclusion of the second, to the beginning of the third Punic war. He was sold for a slave to Terentius Lucanus, a Roman senator; who, after giving him an excellent education, gave him his liberty, and called him by his own name, as was then the custom. He was united in a very strict friendship with the second Scipio Africanus, and Lælius; and it was a common report at Rome, that he had the assistance of these two great men in composing his pieces. The poet, so far from endeavouring to stifle a report so advantageous to him, made a merit of it. Only six of his comedies are extant. Some authors, on the authority of Suetonius, (the writer of his life,) say, that in his return from Greece, whither he had made a voyage, he lost a hundred and eight comedies, which he had translated from Menander, and could not survive an accident which must naturally afflict him in a sensible manner; but this incident is not very well founded. Be this as it may, he died in the year of Rome 594, under the consulship of Cneius Cornelius Dolabella, and M. Fulvius, at the age of thirty-five years, and consequently he was born anno 560.

It must yet be confessed, notwithstanding all we have said, that there ever was a great scarcity of learned men in Carthage, since it hardly furnished three or four writers of reputation in upwards of seven hundred years. Although the Carthaginians held a correspondence with Greece and the most civilized nations, yet this did not excite them to borrow their learning, as being foreign to their views of trade and commerce. Eloquence, poetry, history, seem to have been little known among them. A Carthaginian philosopher was considered as a sort of prodigy by the learned. What then would an astronomer or a geometrician have been thought? I know not in what esteem physic, which is so highly useful to life, was held at Carthage; or jurisprudence, so necessary to society.

As works of wit were generally had in so much disregard, the education of youth must necessarily have been very imperfect and unpolished. In Carthage, the study and knowledge of youth were for the most part confined to writing, arithmetic, book-keeping, and the buying and selling goods; in a word, to whatever related to traffic. But polite learning, history, and philosophy, were in little repute among them. These were, in later years, even prohibited by the laws, which expressly forbade any Carthaginian to learn the Greek tongue, lest it might qualify them for carrying on a dangerous correspondence with the enemy, either by letter or word of mouth.(559)

Now what could be expected from such a cast of mind? Accordingly there was never seen among them that elegance of behaviour, that ease and complacency of manners, and those sentiments of virtue, which are generally the fruits of a liberal education in all civilized nations. The small number of great men which this nation has produced, must therefore have owed their merit to the felicity of their genius, to the singularity of their talents, and a long experience, without any great assistance from cultivation and instruction. Hence it was, that the merit of the greatest men of Carthage was sullied by great failings, low vices, and cruel passions; and it is rare to meet with any conspicuous virtue among them without some blemish; with any virtue of a noble, generous, and amiable kind, and supported by enlightened and steady principles, such as is every where found among the Greeks and Romans. The reader will perceive that I here speak only of the heathen virtues, and agreeably to the idea which the Pagans entertained of them.

I meet with as few monuments of their skill in arts of a less noble and necessary kind, as painting and sculpture. I find, indeed, that they had plundered the conquered nations of a great many works in both these kinds; but it does not appear that they themselves had produced many.

From what has been said, one cannot help concluding, that traffic was the predominant inclination, and the peculiar characteristic of the Carthaginians; that it formed, in a manner, the basis of the state, the soul of the commonwealth, and the grand spring which gave motion to all their enterprises. The Carthaginians, in general, were skilful merchants; employed wholly in traffic; excited strongly by the desire of gain, and esteeming nothing but riches; directing all their talents, and placing their chief glory, in amassing them; though at the same time they scarce knew the purpose for which they were designed, or how to use them in a noble or worthy manner.

SECT. VIII. THE CHARACTER, MANNERS, AND QUALITIES OF THE CARTHAGINIANS.—In the enumeration of the various qualities which Cicero(560) assigns to different nations, as their distinguishing characteristics, he declares that of the Carthaginians to be craft, skill, address, industry, cunning, _calliditas_; which doubtless appeared in war, but was still more conspicuous in the rest of their conduct; and this was joined to another quality that bears a very near relation to it, and is still less reputable. Craft and cunning lead naturally to lying, duplicity, and breach of faith; and these, by accustoming the mind insensibly to be less scrupulous with regard to the choice of the means for compassing its designs, prepare it for the basest frauds and the most perfidious actions. This was also one of the characteristics of the Carthaginians;(561) and it was so notorious, that to signify any remarkable dishonesty, it was usual to call it _Punic faith, fides Punica_; and to denote a knavish, deceitful disposition, no expression was thought more proper and emphatical than this, a Carthaginian disposition, _Punicum ingenium_.

An excessive thirst for amassing wealth, and an inordinate love of gain, generally gave occasion in Carthage to the committing base and unjust actions. One single example will prove this. During a truce, granted by Scipio to the earnest entreaties of the Carthaginians, some Roman vessels, being driven by a storm on the coasts of Carthage, were seized by order of the senate and people,(562) who could not suffer so tempting a prey to escape them. They were resolved to get money, though the manner of acquiring it were ever so scandalous.(563) The inhabitants of Carthage, even in St. Austin’s time, (as that Father informs us,) showed on a particular occasion, that they still retained part of this characteristic.

But these were not the only blemishes and faults of the Carthaginians.(564) They had something austere and savage in their disposition and genius, a haughty and imperious air, a sort of ferocity, which, in the first transports of passion, was deaf to both reason and remonstrances, and plunged brutally into the utmost excesses of violence. The people, cowardly and grovelling under apprehensions, were proud and cruel in their transports; at the same time that they trembled under their magistrates, they were dreaded in their turn by their miserable vassals. In this we see the difference which education makes between one nation and another. The Athenians, whose city was always considered as the centre of learning, were naturally jealous of their authority, and difficult to govern; but still, a fund of good nature and humanity made them compassionate the misfortunes of others, and be indulgent to the errors of their leaders. Cleon one day desired the assembly, in which he presided, to break up, because, as he told them, he had a sacrifice to offer, and friends to entertain. The people only laughed at the request, and immediately separated. Such a liberty, says Plutarch, at Carthage, would have cost a man his life.

Livy makes a like reflection with regard to Terentius Varro.(565) That general on his return to Rome after the battle of Cannæ, which had been lost by his ill conduct, was met by persons of all orders of the state, at some distance from Rome; and thanked by them, for his not having despaired of the commonwealth; who, says the historian, had he been a general of the Carthaginians, must have expected the most severe punishment: _Cui, si Carthaginensium ductor fuisset, nihil recusandum supplicii foret._ Indeed, a court was established at Carthage, where the generals were obliged to give an account of their conduct; and they all were made responsible for the events of the war. Ill success was punished there as a crime against the state; and whenever a general lost a battle, he was almost sure, at his return, of ending his life upon a gibbet. Such was the furious, cruel, and barbarous disposition of the Carthaginians, who were always ready to shed the blood of their citizens as well as of foreigners. The unheard-of tortures which they made Regulus suffer, are a manifest proof of this assertion; and their history will furnish us with such instances of it, as are not to be read without horror.

Part The Second. The History of the Carthaginians.

The interval of time between the foundation of Carthage and its ruin, included seven hundred years, and may be divided into two parts. The first, which is much the longest and the least known, (as is ordinary with the beginnings of all states,) extends to the first Punic war, and takes up five hundred and eighty-two years. The second, which ends at the destruction of Carthage, contains but a hundred and eighteen years.