The lions on the steps of the royal
throne (ib. x. 20) were imitations of those which in Egypt often
supported the seat of the monarch on either side; and "the house of the
forest of Lebanon" was an attempt to reproduce the effect of one of
Egypt's "pillared halls." Something in the architecture of Solomon was
clearly learnt from Phœnicia, and a little--a very little--may perhaps
have been derived from Assyria; but Egypt gave at once the impulse and
the main bulk of the ideas and forms.
The line of priest-kings terminated with Hor-pa-seb-en-sha, the
successor of Pinetem II. They held the throne for about a century and a
quarter; and if they cannot be said to have played a very important part
in the "story of Egypt," or in any way to have increased Egyptian
greatness, yet at least they escape the reproach, which rests upon most
of the more distinguished dynasties, of seeking their own glory in modes
which caused their subjects untold suffering. [Illustration:
Decorative]
XIX.
SHISHAK AND HIS DYNASTY.
The rise of the twenty-second resembles in many respects that of the
twenty-first dynasty. In both cases the cause of the revolution Is to be
found in the weakness of the royal house, which rapidly loses its
pristine vigour, and is impotent to resist the first assault made upon
it by a bold aggressor. Perhaps the wonder is rather that Egyptian
dynasties continued so long as they did, than that they were not
longer-lived, since there was in almost every instance a rapid decline,
alike in the _physique_ and in the mental calibre of the holders of
sovereignty; so that nothing but a little combined strength and audacity
was requisite in order to push them from their pedestals. Shishak was an
official of a Semitic family long settled in Egypt, which had made the
town of Bubastis its residence. We may suspect, if we like, that the
family had noble--shall we say royal?--blood in its veins, and could
trace its descent to dynasties which had ruled at Nineveh or Babylon.
The connexion is possible, though scarcely probable, since no _éclat_
attended the first arrival of the Shishak family In Egypt, and the
family names, though Semitic, are decidedly neither Babylonian nor
Assyrian. It is tempting to adopt the sensational views of writers,
who, out of half a dozen names, manufacture an Assyrian conquest of
Egypt, and the establishment on the throne of the Pharaohs of a branch
derived from one or other of the royal Mesopotamian houses; but "facts
are stubborn things," and the imagination is scarcely entitled to mould
them at its will. It is necessary to face the two certain facts--(1)
that no one of the dynastic names is the natural representative of any
name known to have been borne by any Assyrian or Babylonian; and (2)
that neither Assyria nor Babylonia was at the time in such a position as
to effect, or even to contemplate, distant enterprizes. Babylonia did
not attain such a position till the time of Nabopolassar; Assyria had
enjoyed it about B.C.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account