for the return of the shepherds at all), as coming back on the invitation of the Israelites; the shepherds, therefore, were not likely to become their oppressors. But further, according to Manetho, the Israelites were not oppressed during this supposed second period of pastoral sway, but, in conjunction with the shepherds, were themselves the oppressors. The document of Manetho on this subject, therefore, can only be made intelligible by interpreting it to mean exactly the contrary of what it says, and, of course, is not entitled to the least respect as historical authority. We therefore reject as spurious the whole paragraph from Manetho, giving the story of the return of the shepherds on the invitation of the lepers.'

"As far as our investigations have enabled us to discover, the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt began to reign about sixty years after Joseph's death, and the first king was Thothmes, Tethmosis or Amosis, or Ames or Amos, for in all these various modes it has been written. The chronological coincidence would, therefore, suggest that he was the king who 'knew not Joseph.' By this expression we understand, not that he was ignorant of the past history of Joseph, but that he was not so deeply impressed as the last dynasty had been with a sense of the services Joseph had rendered to the state, and therefore not equally disposed to acknowledge the claims of the Israelites upon the Egyptian government. But why was this? Because he was from the distant province of Thebes, knew nothing personally of the Hebrews, and, with the usual haughty arrogance of Egyptian monarchs, probably viewed them with the contempt and suspicion that attached to foreigners, and, as we have seen, especially to shepherds. Sir Gardner Wilkinson has made a suggestion on this subject, well worthy of consideration. He thinks that the Jews, who had come in under the pressure of a famine, had asked and obtained a grant from the Egyptian authorities, on condition of the performance of

certain services by them and their descendants. This is rather corroborated by the fact that some of them were agriculturists, while others were shepherds; for we read that, beside their labor 'in mortar and brick,' they were also employed 'in all manner of service in the field' (Ex. i. 14); and, in Deuteronomy, the phrase occurs, 'Egypt where thou sowedst thy seed and wateredst it.'

"While the Memphitic dynasty lasted, Wilkinson thinks this grant was respected, and nothing more was required of the Hebrews than a compliance with the terms on which it was made. But when the Theban family came to the throne, the grant was rescinded, and the services notwithstanding required; and thus commenced the bondage, when despotism and prejudice soon found a pretext for imposing additional burdens. It was pretended that the Hebrews, who certainly had rapidly increased in numbers, had thereby become dangerous to Egypt, particularly as they lived on the side next to the Nomade tribes, with whom they might make alliances; and, more especially, as they were not very far distant from the descendants of the old invaders, the shepherds, who had withdrawn to Palestine only, and there constituted the valiant and powerful race of the Philistines.

"Whether this pretext were well or ill founded, it furnished the Egyptian monarch with sufficient grounds for treating the Israelites like captives taken in war, and compelling them gratuitously to erect 'treasure cities' for him, which they did. All we can say of this conjecture, in the absence of positive proof, is that it does not violate probability, and is perfectly consistent with the details of the Bible story.

"The next point that we have to consider, consists of the details of Jewish oppression, at the hands of Egypt: "They did set over them taskmasters, to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities,

Pithom and Raamses.'-'And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor: 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 rigor.'

"I. They set over them taskmasters. This is perfectly Egyptian; and exists at this day, with the single difference that the Egyptians occupy the place of the oppressed, instead of the oppressors. The bitter cup is returned to their own lips. A modern writer states, that when the labor of the people is required for any public work, the officers of Mehemet Ali collect the whole neighborhood men, women, and children, and, dividing them into so many companies or droves, appoint taskmasters over them. These are armed with whips, which they use pretty freely, as they are responsible for the completion of the work.' The monuments show that this was precisely the custom of ancient Egypt."

"III. They were subjected to hard bondage in mortar and brick. Bricks in Egypt are of great antiquity, and, as we learn from the Scripture story, were usually made with straw, intermixed with clay. Thus writes Wilkinson: 'The use of crude brick, baked in the sun, was universal in Upper and Lower Egypt, both for public and private buildings; and the brick field gave abundant occupation to numerous laborers throughout the country. These simple materials were found to be peculiarly suited to the climate; and the ease, rapidity, and cheapness with which they were made, offered additional recommendations. . . . So great was the demand, that the Egyptian government, observing the profit which would accrue to the revenue from a monopoly of them, undertook to supply the public at a moderate price, thus preventing all unauthorized persons from engaging in their manufacture. And in order more effectually to obtain their end, the seal of the king, or of some privileged person,

was stamped upon the bricks at the time they were made. Bricks have been found thus marked, both in public and private buildings."

"As to the use of straw, it is proved, by an examination of the bricks brought by Rosellini from Thebes, bearing the stamp of Thothmes IV., the fifth king of the eighteenth dynasty. The bricks,' says Rosellini, which are now found in Egypt belonging to the same period, always have straw mingled with them, although, in some of those that are most carefully made, it is found in very small quantities.' Another writer, quoted by Hengstenberg, Prokesch, says: "The bricks (of the first pyramid at Dashoor) are of fine clay, from the Nile, mingled with chopped straw. This intermixture gives the bricks an

astonishing durability.'

"In connection with this subject of brick-making in Egypt, a most interesting painting was found by Rosellini, at Thebes, in the tomb of Roscherê. He did not hesitate to call his comments on it, 'Explanation of a picture, representing the Hebrews as they were engaged in making brick.'

"Of the laborers,' says he, 'some are employed in transporting the clay in vessels; some in intermingling it with the straw; others are taking the bricks out of the form, and placing them in rows; still others, with a piece of wood upon their backs, and ropes on each side, carry away the bricks already burned or dried. Their dissimilarity to the Egyptians appears at the first view; the complexion, physiognomy, and beard permit us not to be mistaken in supposing them to be Hebrews. They wear at their hips the apron which is common among the Egyptians; and there is also represented, as in use among them, a kind of short trousers, or drawers. . . . Among the Hebrews, four Egyptians, very distinguishable by their mein, figure, and color (which is of the usual reddish brown, while the others are

of what we call "flesh color,") are seen. Two of themone sitting, the other standing-carry sticks in their hands, ready to fall upon two other Egyptians, who are here represented like the Hebrews, one of them carrying upon his shoulders a vessel of clay, and the other returning from the transportation of brick, carrying his empty vessel to get a new load.'

"It is not surprising that this remarkable picture should have attracted much attention among the students of Egyptian antiquity. Heeren remarks of it, 'If this painting represents the servitude of the children of Israel in these labors, it is equally important for exegesis and chronology. For exegesis, because it would be a strong proof of the antiquity of the Mosaic writings, and especially of the Book of Exodus, which, in the first and fifth chapters, gives a description which applies most accurately to this painting, even in unimportant particulars. For chronology, since it belongs to the eighteenth dynasty, under the dominion of Thothmes Moris, about 1740 B. C., and therefore would give a fixed point both for profane and sacred history.'

“Indeed, the striking character of this painting seems to have caused an intimation, if not a positive expression, of doubt as to its genuineness. The question has been asked, 'Is it not probably a supposititious work, prepared after the Pentateuch was written?' Rosellini first gave it to the world; afterward, Sir Gardner Wilkinson made a new examination of it on the spot, and his acknowledged sound judgment deliberately decided in its favor, as being a genuine production of the eighteenth dynasty. His judgment, it will be seen, is entitled to the more weight when we add, that he is not prepared to say, the picture refers to the work of the Israelites in their bondage; but rather questions it, remarking, however, it is curious to discover other foreign captives, occupied in the same manner, overlooked by similar "taskmasters," and performing the very