Page images
PDF
EPUB

crucified. However, they permitted his son Thannyra to succeed his father in the kingdom of Lybia ;* and Egypt continued in subjection all the remaining part of the long reign of Artaxerxes. In the tenth year of Darius Nothus, they revolted again, under the conduct of Amyrtæus, who sallied out of the fens, drove the Persians out of Egypt, made himself master of the country, and reigned there six years ;t but his son, Pausiris, as Herodotus informs us, succeeding him in his kingdom by the favour of the Persians, I this argues that the Persians had again subdued Egypt, or at least that the king was not established without their consent and approbation. It is certain, that after this, Egypt gave much trouble to the Persians. Artaxerxes Mnemon made several efforts to reconquer it, but all in vain. It was not totally and finally subdued till the ninth year of the following reign, of Ochus, about 350 vears before Christ; when Nectanebas, the las' king, fled into Ethiopia, and Ochus became absolute master of the country, and having appointed one of his nobles, named Pherendates, to be his viceroy and governer of Egypt, he returned with great glory and immense treasures to Babylon. || Egypt from that time hath never been able to recover its liberties. It hath always been subject to strangers. It hath never been governed by a king of its own. From this last revolt of the Egyptians in the tenth year of Darius Nothus, to their total subjugation in the ninth year of Ochus, I think there are computed sixty-four years : and this is the only exception of any significance to the general truth of the prophecy. But what are sixty-four years compared to two thousand three hundred and twenty-five! for so many years have passed from the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar to this time. They are really as nothing, and not worth mentioning in comparison: and during these sixty-four years, we see, that the Egyptians were not entirely independent of the Persians ; Pausiris succeeded his father, Amyrtæus, in the kingdom, by their consent and favour; and during the rest of the time, the Egyptians lived in continual fear and dread of the Persians, and were either at war with them, or with one ano other. And perhaps this part of the prophecy was not intended to

• Herod. lib. 3, sect. 15, p. 167, edit. Gale. + Eusebius in Chronico. Usher's Aanals, A. M. 3590, p. 146. Prideaux Connect part 1, book 6, anno 414. • Herod. lib. 3, sect. 15, ibid.

Diod. Sic. lib. 15, p. 478, edit. Steph.; p. 357, &c. tom. 2. edit. Rbod. !! Diod. Sic. lib. 16, p. 537. edit. Steph.: p. 148, ton. 2, edit. Rhod. Usher's Annala, A. M. 3654. p. 196. Prid. Connect. part 1, book 7, anno 350.

take effect immediately: its completion might be designed to commence from this period, when the Persians had totally subdued Egypt, and then there should be no more a prince of the land of Egypt.'

After the Persians, Egypt came into the hands of the Macedoniars. It submitted to Alexander the Great without striking a stroke ; made no attempts at that favourable juncture to recover its liberties, but was content only to change its master. After the death of Alexander, it fell to the share of Ptolemy, one of his four famous captains, and was governed by his family for several ger erations. The two or three first of the Ptolemies were wise and potent princes, but most of the rest were prodigies of luxury and wickedness. It is Strabo's observation that all after the third Ptolemy governed very ill, being corrupted by luxury; but they who governed worst of all, were the fourth, and the seventh, and the last called Auletes.” * The persons here intended by Strabo, were Ptolemy Philopator,t or the lover of his father,' so called as Justin conceives, by way of antiphrasis, or with a contrary meaning, because he was a parricide, and murdered both his father and his mother; and Ptolemy Physcon, or “the big-bellied,' who affected the title of Euergetes, or the Benefactor, but the Alexandrians more justly named him Kakergetes, or the Malefactor ; and Ptolemy Auletes, or the Piper, so denominated because he spent much of his time in playing on the pipe, and used to contend for the prize in the public shows. This kingdom of the Macedonians continued from the death of Alexander two hundred and ninetyfour years, || and ended in the famous Cleopatra, of whom it is not easy to say, whether she excelled more in beauty, or wit, or wickedness.

After the Macedonians, Egypt fell under the dominion of the Romans. The Romans had, either by virtue of treaties, or by force

• Απαντις μεν εν οι μετα τον τριτον Πτολεμαιον υπο τρυφης διεφθαρμεννοι, χειρον ε'πολιτευσαντο χειρισα δ' 8 τεταρτες, και ο έβδομος, και ο υς ατος ο Αυλητής--Strabo. lib. 17, p. 796 edit Paris ; p. 1146, edit. Amstel. 1707. Omnes post tertium Ptolemæum malè regnum gesserunt, luxu perditi : omnium verò pessimė quartus, et septimus et ultimus, Auletes. [Translated in the text.]

+ Ægyptum, patre ac matre interfectis, occupaverat Ptolemæus, cui ex facinoris cri mine, cognomentum Philopator fuit.- Justin. lih. 29, cap. 1, sect. 5, p 466, edit. Grævii. (Ptolemy, who had gained possession of Egypt by assassinating his father and mother, was surnamed Philopator, in scoffing allusion to the heinousness of the crime.) * Athenæus, lib. 12, p. 549, edit. Casaubon.

Strabo, ibid. Clemen Alevan. Strom. lib. I, p. 143, edit. Sylburgh, ; p. 396 edit. Potter Pri deaux Connect. part ?, book 8, a ino 30. Berod 8.

of arms, obtained great authority there, and were in a manner arbi ters of the kingdom before; but after the death of Cleopatra ,Octavius Cæsar * reduced it into the form of a Roman province, and appointed Cornelius Gallus, the friend of Virgil, to whom the tenth eclogue is inscribed, the first prefect or governor: and so it continued to be governed by a prefect or viceroy sent from Rome, or from Constantinople, when, after the division of the Roman empire it fell to the share of the eastern emperors. It was first made a province of the Roman empire in the year 30 before Christ, and in this state it remained without much variation till the year 641 after Christ, that is 670 years in the whole, from the reign of Augustus Cæsar to that of the emperor Heraclius. .

Then it was that the Saracens,f in the reign of Omar, their third emperor, and under the command of Amrou, the son of Aas, invaded and conquered Egypt, took Misrah (formerly Memphis, now Cairo) by storm, and also Alexandria, after they had besieged it fourteen months, and had lost twenty-three thousand men before it: and the rest of the kingdom soon followed the fortune of the capital cities, and submitted to the conqueror. There is one thing which was effected partly in the wars of the Romans, and partly by the Saracens, and which no lover of learning can pass over without lamentation, and that is, the destruction of the library at Alexandria. This famous library was founded by the first Ptolemies, and was so much enlarged and improved by their successors, that it amounted to the number of seven hundred thousand volumes. It consisted of two parts, one in that quarter of the city called Bruchion, containing four hundred thousand volumes, and the other within the Serapeum, containing three hundred thousand volumes. || It happened, that while Julius Cæsar was making war upon the inhabitants of Alexandria, the library in Bruchion, together with other buildings, was burnt, and the four hundred thousand volumes which were kept therein were all consumed.* Bu this loss was in some measure repaired by the Pergamean library,t consisting of two hundred thousand volumes, which Anthony presented to Cleopatra, and by the addition of other books afterwards, so that this latter library# was reckoned as numerous and as famous as the other ever was ; and it came to the same fatal end, this being also destroyed by fire. For, John the Grammarian, a famous philosopher of Alexandria, being in great favour with Amrou, the Saracen general, asked of him the royal library. Amrou replied, that it was not in his power to give it him, without leave first obtained from the emperor of the faithful. Amrou therefore wrote to Omar, and acquainted him with John's petition, to which the caliph returned this answer: that if what was contained in those books was agreeable to the book of God, or the Koran, the Koran was sufficient without them ; but if it was repugnant to the Koran, it was no ways useful; and therefore he commanded them to be destroyed. Amrou, in obedience to the caliph's commands, ordered them to be distributed among the baths of the city, and to be burnt in warming them, whereof there were no fewer at that time in Alexandria than four thousand : and yet there passed six months before the books were all consumed ;s which sufficiently evinces how great their number was, and what an inestimable loss not only Egypt, but all the learned world hath sustained. Egypt before this was frequented by learned foreigners for the sake of this library, and produced several learned natives ; || but after this, it became more and more 'a base kingdom,' and sunk into greater ignorance and superstition. Mohammedism was now established there instead of Christianity, and the government of the Caliphs and Sultans continued till about the year of Christ 1250.

* Strabo, lib. 17, p. 797 et 819, edit. Paris. ; p. 1147 et 1175, edit. Amstel. 1707. Dion. Cass. lib. 51, p. 455. edit. Leunclav.

+ See Usher, Prideaux, &c. under that year.

4 Elmacini Hist. Saracen. lib. 1, p. 23, 24. Abul-Pharajii Hist. Dyn. 9, p. 112, vers. Pocockii. Ockley's Hist. of the Saracens. vol. 1, p. 344, &c.

Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. 22, cap. 16, p. 343, edit. Valesii, 1681: ubi vide etiam quæ Valesius adnotavit. A. Gellius, lib. 6, cap 17..

|| Epiphanjus de Mensuris et Ponderibus---Op. vol. 2, p. 168, edit. Petavii, Paris, 1622 Chrysostom, advers. Judæos, orat, 1, p. 595—Op. vol. 1, edit. Benedict.

Plutarch, in Julio Cæsare.-Op. vol. 1, p. 731, edit. Paris. 1624. Dion Cassius, lib. 42, p. 202, edit Leunclav

About that time it was that the Mamalucs 1 usurped the royal authority. The word ** in general signifies a slave bought with money, but it is appropriated in particular to those Turkish and Circassian slaves, whom the Sultans of Egypt bought very young, trained up in military exercises, and so made them their choicest officers and soldiers, and by them controlled their subjects, and subdued their enemies. These slaves perceiving how necessary and useful they were, grew at length insolent and audacious, slew their sovereigns, and usurped the government to themselves. It is commonly said that none but the sons of Christians were taken into this order; and there are other popular mistakes about them, which are current among European authors, and which Sir William Temple * among others hath adopted and expressed, as he doth every thing, in a lively and elegant manner : “ The sons of the deceased Sultans enjoyed the estates and riches left by their fathers. but by the constitutions of the government, no son of a Sultan was ever either to succeed, or even to be elected Sultan: So that in this, contrary to all others ever known in the world, to be born of a prince was a certain unalterable exclusion from the kingdom; and none was ever to be chosen Sultan, that had not been actually sold for a slave, brought from Circassia, and trained up a private soldier in the Mamaluc bands.” But they who are better versed in oriental authors, assure us that these are vulgar errors :t and it appears from the Arabian historians, that, among the Mamalucs, the son often succeeded the father in the kingdom. Their government is thus characterized by an Arabic author, quoted by Bp. Pococke : *If you consider the whole time that they possessed the kingdom, especially that which was nearer the end, you will find it filled with the possession of a master by the payınent of a sum of money.] Herbelot Bibliotheque Orientale, p. 545, Mamlouk. Ce mot, dont le pluriel est Memalik, signifie en Arabe un esclave en general, mais en particulier il été appliqué a ces esclaves Turcs et Circassiens, &c. [This word, of which the plural is Nemalik, signifies in Arabic, a slave but in particular it has been applied to those Turkish and Circassian slaves, &c.]

* Seneca de Tranquill. Animi, cap. 9.-Op. vol. I, p. 362, edit. Varior. Orosii Hist. Jib. 6, cap. 15, p. 421, edit. Havercamp. + Plutarch. in Antonio-Op. vol. 1, p. 943, edit. Paris. 1624.

Tertul. Apol. cap. 18, p. 18, edit. Rigaltii, 1675. $ Abul-Pharajii Hist. Dyn. 9, p. 114, versio Pocockii. Ockley's History of the Saracens, vol. I, p. 359, &c. Prideaux Connect. part 2, book 1, anno. 284. Ptolemy Philadelph. 1. || Vide Amm. Marc. lib. 22, cap. 16, p. 344, &c. edit. Valesii, Paris. 1681.

Abul-Pharajii Hist. Dyn. 9, p. 325, &c. et Pocockii Supplementum, p. 8, &c. ** Pocockii Supplem. p. 7, Mamluc autem (et cum de pluribus dicitur Mamalic) serrom emptitium denotat, seu qui pretio numerato in domini possessionem cedit. (Mamluc or Mamalic when used in the plural) signifies a mercenary slave, or one that comes isto * Sir Wm. Temple's Works, vol. 1. Miscellanea, part 2, Essay on Heroic Virtue, sect. 5

P. 224.

+ Pocockii Supplem. p. 31. Ex his quæ dicta sunt facile patet, in errore esse eos qui Mamlucos Christianorum tantummodo filios fuisse autumant; nec non in aliis errasse, qnæ, de successionis apud eos jure, eorumque disciplina tradunt. (From what has been sail, it is evident that they are mistaken, who affirm that the Mamalucs are the sons of Christians only; and that they are also mistaken in other opinions which they have advanced concerning the right of succession, and their education.] Herbelot Bib. Orient p. 545. Il paroit par ce que l'on vient de voir, que les Mamelucs n’etoient pas fils de Chrétiens (si ce ne’st peut être quelqu'un d'entr'eux) comme plusieurs de nos Historiens l'ont avance. (It appears from what we have just seen, that the Mainalucs were not the offspring of Christians, (except probably some few of them,) as many o. our historians have declared.]

Pocock ä Supplem. p. 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25.

« PreviousContinue »