The History of Antiquity, Vol. 1 (of 6)

Nowhere do we find a trace to show that the kings stood in need of the intervention of the priests in order to approach the gods, and without such intervention there can be no supremacy of the priests over the sovereigns of the state. Everywhere the kings come independently before the gods. Everywhere we find the sacrifices of the kings, not of the priests, offered. It is the kings who consecrate temples to the gods, in order that the king may obtain "lasting life and purity." It is the Pharaohs and not the priests who represent the state and people before the gods. The kings are at the same time the high priests, and stand at the head of religion as at the head of the state; their sons and grandsons, their mothers, wives, and daughters, are, according to the inscriptions, the priests of this or that god or goddess. The kings, as Diodorus assures us, were not waited upon by slaves, but by the sons of the most distinguished priests; by priests only could the ruling god of the country be served – and the priests did not omit to mention on their tombs, even at a very early period, the king in whose service they were prophets, scribes, and minstrels. In a word, the Pharaoh was not merely the head of the state, but also of the church, if such an expression may be allowed, and the power of the priests, without any real and ceremonial support, does not extend beyond the moral influence which religion exercised upon the heart of the king. Finally, it is the kings who are celebrated as the lawgivers of the land, and this excludes any thought of a supremacy of priests. Yet the influence of religion and of the priesthood on the king is not to be contested, although, under the military princes who governed Egypt after the expulsion of the Hyksos, the priests had to share their influence with the leaders of the army. Not till the time of Menephta, do we observe a more influential position assumed by the high priests at Thebes. This influence goes on increasing under the weak successors of Ramses III., and reaches its summit under the first princes of the dynasty of Tanis. Then it declined, and afterwards only came into operation under foreign supremacy.

If further proof were needed for the unlimited power of the kings than their representation of Ra and Horus, and the menial position of the priests, we should find it in the gigantic structures which the Pharaohs left behind them. To carry out works of this kind is impossible unless the monarch has absolute disposal of the labour of his subjects. But these buildings were undoubtedly the main interest and the main occupation of the kings. In this they follow the characteristic traits of the whole nation. In building temples and erecting images, their object was just as much to confer honour on the gods as to preserve the remembrance of the homage which they had offered to them. The preservation of their own actions and names, which these buildings in the eyes of the Egyptians "caused to live," is the main object of the structure, and along with the sacrifices of the kings, and the evidence of the favour of the gods, the sculptures on the temples display the martial exploits of the kings. If the kings erected pyramid tombs, it was in order that their corpses might rest in security, and the tumulus "cause their name to live" in the generations to come. If they built temples, it was that the gates, walls, frescoes, and inscriptions might preserve their acts for posterity. The buildings of the Pharaohs are the history of their reigns written in stone.

The ceremonial which surrounded the life of the Pharaohs is described by Diodorus. In the morning the king first read the communications received from every quarter; then he performed his ablutions, put on his robes, and offered sacrifice to the gods. While the sacrificial animal was being led to the altar the high priest offered prayer to the gods, beseeching them to grant life and all good things to the king, as he was a righteous ruler. He was pious to the gods, gentle towards men, strong, just, and courageous, an enemy of lies, a sharer of his goods with others, and master of his desires; one who did not punish the wicked so severely as they deserved, and gave to the good more than their proportionate share. Then the priest laid the punishment of any error into which the king might have fallen on his servants, and urged him to a pious life, "not by reproaches," as Diodorus expressly observes, "but by commendations." When the sacrifice was finished, the priest read to the king the apothegms and achievements of distinguished men, that is, no doubt, of previous kings, out of the sacred books. We know that poems of considerable extent on historical subjects were in existence.254 In the same way the remaining part of the day was allotted to definite occupations. For walking, for bathing, even for sleeping with the queen, definite hours were appointed. The king might only eat the flesh of calves and geese – the food of the priests – and take a fixed portion of wine. Diodorus regards it as wonderful that the kings should have subjected themselves to this ceremonial. In this he leaves out of sight the fact that the god of the land was expected to lead the life of a god, and also, a thing which could not indeed be so obvious to him, that all periods present proofs to what oppressive rules of state and etiquette rulers are willing to subject themselves in order to exhibit their dignity and majesty. Yet this was not the object chiefly held in view in the regulation of the king's life, nor was it the love of the Egyptians for systematic and fixed arrangements. The king was at the same time the first priest of the land; and therefore the regulations of the priestly life applied to him also. Moreover, the Egyptians were extremely careful to keep themselves pure from the unclean, in order by such purity to preserve life and salvation. With this object, priests and laity alike regulated all their actions, their eating and drinking, feeding and clothing, by a minute ritual. It was the first duty of the king to protect the purity of Egypt. He was the Horus of the land, who had struck down disorder, impurity, and evil, and therefore, like the victorious god, he must shine out in the brightness of unsullied purity. Thus the king had to lead the pure life of a priest; he could eat none but the priestly food, and every duty must be performed at a favourable moment, for the Egyptians were under the dominion of a widespread astrological superstition. This system further required that every fault he might happen to commit should be taken from him and laid upon others. It is probably the plan sketched by the priests for the king's life, of which Diodorus has preserved some traces; we know that among the sacred books those of the minstrels contained regulations for the life of the king. Whatever flattery and homage was thus intended for the great and gracious king, the Pharaohs no doubt observed so much as seemed suitable to them. Of a later king, Amasis, we are told that he emancipated himself from the customary ceremonial, and when business was over, gave himself up to relaxation and enjoyment. Yet his reign was a long one, and regarded with affection by the Egyptians.

The Pharaohs were surrounded with all the state of Oriental despots. On the picture of the coronation, the assumption of the Pschent by Ramses III. at Medinet Habu, the procession is led by trumpeters, who are followed by commanders and magistrates. Twenty-two priests lead the statue of Ammon, who is followed by a priest with incense, and a scribe who appears to read a proclamation. The king is then carried in by twelve richly-attired men on a throne under a canopy. Beside the throne walk certain officers, who cool the king with large fans; others carry the weapons of the king and the insignia of his power. Behind follow the captains of the army and the body-guard. Then a white bull is led in the procession by priests, and the whole closes with priests carrying the name-shields of the predecessors of the king. On descending from the throne the king makes a libation towards Ammon, burns incense to him, and cuts off some ears of corn with a golden sickle.255 The court was numerous: fan-bearers on the right, and fan-bearers on the left, bearers of the parasol, keepers of the king's bow, captains of the body-guard, overseers of the palace, overseers of the buildings in Upper and Lower Egypt, overseers of the horses, books, and music, stewards of the granaries in Upper and Lower Egypt, stewards of the royal flocks, treasurers, butlers of the palace, and other officers are mentioned.256 According to the monuments, the king's household furniture was profuse in silver and gold. The gondolas were gilded, with variegated sails, the trappings of the horses were splendidly ornamented, the stuffed seats curiously carved and richly decked; and of the complicated occupations of the royal kitchen, of the number of people employed, of cup-bearers and master cooks, as well as of the preparation of the food – the monuments give us a very complete idea.

The death of the king was mourned for seventy days, like the death of an Apis. During this time everyone had to abstain from baths, from flesh and wine, until the son of the ruler, who had entered into Amenti, ascended the throne as a new Horus and giver of life to the land, and the visage of the new lord again "beamed like a sun over both the lands of Egypt" after the days of lamentation. The succession, so far as we can see, was not infrequently broken by usurpations, which have always been inseparable from the despotic form of government.257

It is characteristic of the all-absorbing power of the monarchy in Egypt that tradition can scarcely mention a single eminent person beside the names of the kings. We hear nothing of generals or statesmen, and scarcely of priests. All stood in equal subjection to the king. Though families may have at one time arisen from the nation, which were in a position, from wealth and inclination, to undertake the defence of the valley of the Nile against the tribes of the desert, and though the monarchy may have arisen out of the ranks of this military nobility, which in bygone times united the valley of the Nile into a kingdom, still, so far as the monuments allow us to see, there is no trace left of the eminent position of any nobility, whether military or hereditary. The military order, as presented to us on the monuments, and by the tradition of the Greeks, no longer consisted of wealthy landowners who went to war at the bidding of the king with their chariots and horses and retainers; they are merely soldiers – families, who for a certain portion of land given to them by the state are pledged to service in war, and who receive their weapons from the armouries of the state. Such are the warriors on the monuments even in the times of the Amenemha and Sesurtesen, and also under Ramses III. Herodotus tells us that each family of warriors possessed twelve measures of good land, free of taxes, the measure being 100 Egyptian cubits in length and breadth. This would make the allotment more than twelve acres. These families, according to Herodotus, could, even about the middle of the fifth century B.C., put in the field 400,000 men, although two hundred years before, under Psammetichus I., a large number of them, it is said more than 200,000, migrated into Ethiopia. The military order was divided into two classes: the Hermotybians, numbering at most 160,000 men, and the Kalasirians, about 250,000 strong. In the time of Herodotus, the first were settled in Upper Egypt in the province of Chemmis, and mainly in the western Delta; the Kalasirians were in the province of Thebes, and in the central and eastern Delta.258 Each division furnished yearly 1,000 men for the bodyguard of the king, who were handsomely provided for, and the garrisons in the border towns and strongholds, which were also relieved year by year. From the masses of the two divisions so many may have been told off for field duty as were considered necessary. From the numbers which Herodotus gives it is not impossible that the armies of Sethos and Ramses II., when all the soldiers were called out, were, if not 700,000, yet from 400,000 to 500,000 strong. Under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) the army of Egypt was estimated at 240,000 men.

The monuments prove that even at the time of the Sesurtesen and Amenemha, war was scientifically carried on, and the soldiers regularly drilled. From the royal armouries the infantry were provided with bows, helmets, shields, lances, and crooked knives, and were divided into battalions, each carrying its own ensign. The heavy infantry moved in ranks to the sound of trumpets. Attacks were not made on fortified cities without the ram, and sheds to protect the attacking party. Instead of cavalry, which never occur on the monuments, we find, though not till after the time of the Hyksos, numerous war-chariots in use. Those who fought in the chariots, as the kings, who are invariably represented as fighting from a chariot, made use of bows. The monuments often exhibit practice in archery. With the Egyptians, as with the whole of the East in antiquity, the bow was the favourite weapon.

To the priestly order Egypt owed the growth and establishment of her cultus, the peculiar turn of her religious conceptions, her moral law, her writings, her art, and her science. The piety of the people and the kings had amply endowed the temples. "The priests eat nothing of their own," says Herodotus; "sacred bread is daily baked for them, and they obtain vegetables, geese, calves' flesh, and wine in sufficient quantities."259 Diodorus tells us that the land in ancient Egypt was divided into three portions, of which a third belonged to the kings, a third to the priests for their support and the maintenance of the sacrifices and festivals, and another third to the military order, and that all the farmers in Egypt held on leases;260 and we have already seen that at any rate a part of the land, though by no means so much as a third, was really allotted to the soldiers, who could scarcely have leased their small patches, but must have cultivated them in person if they wished to live upon them with their families. Another part of the land was marked off for the maintenance of the priests and the expenses of public worship; but it appears that this land also belonged to the king, for Herodotus speaks of the incomes of the priests as gifts received from the king;261 and the Hebrew Scriptures also tell us that "the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them."262 From these data – even if the statement of Herodotus, that Sesostris (Ramses II.) had given an equal square of land to every Egyptian, must be limited to a measurement of the land, in order to regulate the taxes263– it appears that the Pharaohs looked on themselves as the proprietors of the soil – a view by no means strange to the despotisms of the East – and in consequence they allotted to the soldiers so much as was necessary, and of the rest allowed a great portion, which was estimated at a third of the whole, to pay taxes to the temples, while the remainder contributed to themselves. According to the statements of the Hebrews the taxes amounted to a fifth of the produce,264 and hence all the farmers could with justice be considered leaseholders, or at any rate as having copyhold estates. It is expressly observed that only the farms of the soldiers were free from taxes,265 and that the land which was taxed for the temples contributed nothing to Pharaoh.266 At the same time it is easily intelligible that the piety of the subjects provided additional incomes for the priests, and that, so far as it was possible to make any arrangements of the kind, land and revenues were presented to the temples.267

The maintenance which they derived from the incomes and contributions of the temple-lands, in corn, wine, and animals for sacrifice, enabled the priests to live for their religious duties, for the complete performance of their customs in regard to purification and food, and for the study of the holy scriptures. They were divided into various classes and corporations. In every temple there was one upper priest, – the head of the temple – the prophet,268 a temple scribe, who was especially skilled in writing, and managed the temple property, a chamberlain, who took care of the clothing of the images, the sacrifices, and the ritual, an astronomer, who had to observe the heavens, and a minstrel. In the processions the prophet carried the jar of water for purifications; the chamberlain carried the cubit of justice and a basin for sprinkling water; the scribe can be recognised by the feather in his head-dress, the roll of books in one hand, and the pen in the other; the astronomer by an hour-glass and a palm branch, the symbol of the seasons among the Egyptians. These higher classes of the priesthood were followed by the lower; the pastophors, who carried the images in the processions, and practised medicine, the attendants, male and female ("the nurses"), of the sacred animals, the persons whose duty it was to select and seal the animals for sacrifice, the embalmers, and lastly, the temple-servants, who were responsible for the purifications. The first sanctuaries in Egypt were the temples of Ammon at Thebes, of Ptah at Memphis, and of Ra at Heliopolis. The colleges at these temples were the most important centres of priestly life and doctrine. So long as Thebes was the metropolis of the kingdom, the high priest of Ammon at Thebes was the first priest in the land. Herodotus tells us from the lips of the priests of Thebes that the office of high priest descended from father to son, and Diodorus maintains that the same was the case with all the officers of the temples.269 These statements are contradicted by the inscriptions. They mention five places in the temples through which all "fifth priests" must pass. From a memorial stone of a priest, Bakenchunsu, we learn that for fifteen years he was third priest, and for twelve years second priest of Ammon at Thebes; then he became first priest of this god, and continued to be so to the end of his life.

The priests had to lead a holier and purer life than the laity. The ritual, the rules for purification and food, which the priests laid upon themselves, were stricter than those expected from the rest of the people. The priest must wash twice in each day and each night. Every third day he must shave his whole body, more especially his eyebrows and beard. He might only wear linen clothing (byssus), and shoes of papyrus. Any other clothing, and especially the hair and skins of beasts, defiled a priest; though on monuments the priests of Osiris wear leopard skins, especially at the ceremony of the burial. The flesh of sheep, swine, and most other animals was forbidden to the priests; they might never touch fish. Pulse they might not eat, and beans were not even to be looked at. They observed frequent fasts. From time to time they underwent certain mortifications, which in one instance continued for forty-two days, in order to destroy in themselves the forty-two deadly sins. Finally the priests could only marry one wife; while the laity were allowed to have other wives beside the first. The kings had more than one wife, and this was the rule among the wealthier class in Egypt.270

We are not informed how sharply the different orders in Egypt were separated, or how far the different occupations were distinguished among the labouring or trading population in addition to the classes of priests and soldiers. We do not know, for instance, in what degree the tiller of the soil was distinguished from the artizan. We are only told that the people were divided into husbandmen, artizans, and shepherds, and the shepherds were regarded as the lowest class. But we learn that no one was allowed to follow any other occupation than that derived from his father.271 The inscriptions tell us that the same office, as for instance that of architect, remained in the same family for twenty-three generations;272 and in the seventh century B.C. a kind of caste grew up out of a number of Egyptian boys, whom Psammetichus handed over to his Ionian mercenaries. Hence we may conclude that the impulse to perpetuate types and lock up occupations in hereditary circles and fixed families was very strong, as was natural enough with the fixed and conservative character of the Egyptians. But however strong the impulse, however deeply rooted the custom for the son to follow the father's profession, there was in Egypt no caste in the strict sense of the term. Marriages between the orders were not forbidden, and it is exclusiveness in this point which completes the idea of caste. Moreover in Egypt there were adoptions and transitions from one order to another. The sepulchral pillars never lay any weight on birth in a certain order, but rather show that members of the same family had belonged to different orders – that a man could be at once a priest and a soldier, and Diodorus remarks that in Egypt all were regarded as of equally honourable birth. The statement that the shepherds were held in the least estimation is probably correct, for the reason that their unrestrained occupation was least adapted for subjection to fixed rules of life and a strict ritual; but that statement, like the assertion in Genesis that "cowherds were an abomination to the Egyptians," is not to be taken in reference to the breeders of oxen and the care of flocks, which was carried on with great vigour among the Egyptians, but to the nomadic tribes who wandered with their flocks on the broad marshes of the Delta, or on the pastures of the Libyan and Arabian ranges, and were wholly strangers to all settled life. When we are told that the swineherds were held in especial contempt, we must remember that to the Egyptians the swine was an unclean animal.273 Hence we may consider it as certain that custom required the Egyptian to follow the trade of his father, and caused the father to live again in his son, but no law of religion or state turned the orders into castes, and that the various classes of trades and professions were neither haughty and exclusive, nor servile and submissive towards each other, but all lived together on a tolerable equality.

Beside the respect and weight which the religious importance of their order, their general knowledge and science gave to the priests, it was to them more especially that the honour of serving the king fell. We cannot doubt that the public officers were mainly taken from the order of priests, which was also the order of scribes. Egypt was not, like the great monarchies of the ancient East, a state founded by conquest, in which the lord of the victorious people was master of the conquerors and the conquered also, and in which it was all-important to retain the conquered nation in subjection; it was a compact district inhabited by the same tribe. Here, if we make an exception in favour of the transitory conquests in Nubia and Arabia, there were no extensive and distant provinces to be held in check. The departments in the land were small, their number reached forty-four;274 the officers, whom the king set over them, were in his sight, they could not assume the position of refractory pashas. They were nominated out of the members of the royal house (the monuments furnish instances), the priests, the soldiers, and also out of the people. Royal scribes and judges, "scribes of justice," were allotted to these prefects. As the Egyptians early arrived at a written law, as religion and justice were closely connected, and the priests were acquainted with the art of writing, the prefects of the provinces were without doubt assisted by men from the priestly order in the exercise of their judicial duties. Besides the maintenance of the peace and the administration of justice, it was their duty to provide for the cultivation of the land, the collection and transmission of the taxes to the king. Even the soldiers settled in the provinces seem to have been subject to their rule. The gold and copper mines on the Upper Nile and in Sinai appear to have been put under the care of special officers, and the products were conveyed under military protection to the treasury of the king (p. 105).

The officers of the central government surrounded the person of the king (p. 190). Even the administration of justice, according to Diodorus, was centred in a supreme court, consisting of thirty judges, ten of the best men from Heliopolis, ten from Memphis, and ten from Thebes. Without doubt these judges belonged to the three priestly colleges of Memphis, Thebes, and Heliopolis. From these thirty the president was chosen, and on his breast, attached to a golden chain, he wore a shield of precious stones, beautifully wrought, which the Egyptians named "Truth" (p. 174). This court of the thirty no doubt gave very honourable decisions, and in accordance with law, unless the king were interested in the result, or preferred to pass sentence himself. Diodorus further informs us that the laws of the Egyptians were collected in eight books, and were always kept at hand by the judges. The first written laws were given by Menes to the Egyptians, who declared that he had received them from the god Thoth. These laws had been enlarged by "Sasychis," who at the same time left the most accurate rubrics for the service of the gods, discovered geometry, and taught astronomy. Then Sesosis (Sesostris) laid down the laws for the kings, and the army. Finally the kings Bocchoris and Amasis completed the laws of Egypt. Herodotus praises a king "Asychis," whom he places after Menkera (p. 16), as the giver of the laws of mortgage. From Diodorus we also learn, and the monuments confirm his statement, that a written process went on before the court, that plaint and answer, rejoinder and reply, were given in, in writing; and this custom, considering the delight of the Egyptians in writing, did not appear for the first time in the later period of legal administration. The contracts and bills of sale found in tombs of the time of the Ptolemies are drawn up with the most circumstantial accuracy, and furnished with the signatures of many witnesses.275 What Diodorus tells us of the law of Egypt with respect to meum and tuum gives evidence of a certain gentleness and humanity. The interest was never to exceed the amount of the capital. Slavery for debt was not allowed; the sons of all the wives shared equally in the inheritance. The murder of a slave was punished with death, just as the murder of an Egyptian. Perjury was threatened with the same penalty. Anyone who falsified documents or measures had his hand cut off. In the confession which the souls made before Osiris (p. 79), especial emphasis is laid on the fact that the dead man had not falsified measures or seals, that he had practised no deceit in the law court, and had lent no money upon usury. The punishments inflicted on the guilty are characteristic of the East: the stocks, compulsory labour at the mines and quarries, loss of the nose, excision of the tongue, and mutilation were the usual penalties.276