sidering how much the private life of the kings, according to the account of Diodorus, was regulated by a ritual, and that his attendants were youths of the priest-caste. As at Persepolis the subjects represented on the walls bear so close a relation to the uses for which the apartments were intended as to enable us to judge accurately thereof; but the Egyptians do not seem to have adhered so strictly to this rule as the Persians. But Persepolis, as Layard remarks, was not founded until after the Persian conquest of Egypt; and in the reproduction of the Egyptian models, both⚫in the architecture, sculpture and general decoration of their temples and palaces they evidently failed to express the freedom, and perfection characteristic of the originals.

The third difference observable between the temples and palaces is to be found in the style of the architecture, the style of the palaces being most pleasing and simple throughout, yet retaining a character of grandeur and magnificence. In the pavilion, so called by the French, we have an example of a building two stories high, which is never the case with the temples.

Now, regarding the temple of Ammon at Thebes: According to Diodorus, Thebes had four principal temples, the largest of which was, at least, thirty stadia in circumference. As among all these that of Ammon was the most celebrated, the question naturally arises, which of the temples at Thebes was the old temple of Ammon? In the opinion of the most painstaking and competent explorers this is the great temple of Karnac, called by the French, the great Southern temple.

The reasons given for this are as follows: First, the old temple must have been on the eastern side of the Nile, because on this side according to Strabo, the old town was built, which derived its name from this very temple. If the decision be confined to the monuments of Luxor and Karnac, it is found that Luxor contains nothing which bears any reference to the temple of Ammon. The great building at Luxor is a palace and not a temple as has been shown by the description above. Secondly, at Karnac the case is quite different. Everything here refers to Jupiter Ammon and his service. To this refer the great avenues of colossal rams; ornaments taken from rams present themselves on every side. Osiris, the son and usual companion of Ammon appears frequently, and it is known that the tradition of the two usually ascribed to the priests, the foundation of the city. The holy ship with the attributes of Ammon appears, and once in a very remarkable represen

tation, where it is represented as being towed along by a profane vessel upon the river, which is considered a clear proof that it is here not represented as borne in procession but as voyaging on the Nile. And, finally, according to the testimony of Diodorus, the temple of Ammon was the oldest, and at the same time, the largest of all the temples at Thebes; statements which the French have verified, that is, taking into consideration the whole plan of the buildings, as facts which would have been self-evident, even had he not mentioned it, as it was the chief temple of the city, and bore the name of the principal Deity. The temple of Karnac appears, in the opinion of the French visitors, both in its architecture and in its ornamentation and reliefs, as the oldest of the Theban temples; so much so as to present quite a contrast to the small temple near it, notwithstanding, it is partially built of the remains of a still more ancient temple, which had the same kind of ornaments. Thus, the present temple, or that of which we have contemplated the ruins, is only the successor of one which preceded it, and which stood here many thousand of years ago: "And who," says one writer," can offer anything like a proof that even this had no predecessor?"

The great palace of Medinet Abou is called by the French the palace of Sesostris, because the historical reliefs upon it seem to represent the exploits and military expeditions of that hero, as they are described by Diodorus. In the lion chase we see the youthful exercise which he practiced in Arabia during his father's lifetime; in the naval engagement the operations of the fleet which he built on the Red Sea, etc. All this appears probable enough, but we could judge more understandingly did we possess copies of all the reliefs upon the temple. If, however, Sesostris was the veritable hero of the narratives of the Egyptian priests, which is not improbable, then it is reasonable that his exploits should, by pre-eminence, be the subjects of the historical pictures, which adorn the walls of the palace and temples.

Herodotus, Diodorus and Strabo, all three agree without dissent that some of the ancient Kings of Egypt were great warriors and conquerors, who extended their expeditions in the East as far as Bactria and India; in the North and South as far as the Caucasus and Ethiopia; and in the West as far as Thrace, the Scythian country, and the Straits of Gibraltar. They further inform us that some of them built fleets on the Arabian and Indian Seas and were, in naval warfare, as powerful as they were on land. Now, as to how

far the reliefs confirm the statements of these writers, we find, in fact, that not only these writers but the traditions of the priests, which celebrated many of their old Kings as heroes and conquerors, are by them confirmed in so far as confirmation might be fairly expected in such a way. The inquiry also becomes more interesting and the conclusion satisfactory by our finding that the artists in their delineations and general representations have carefully and faithfully distinguished the different nations by their costumes, arms, color and some other tokens as far as this was possible. Without attending to these particular marks, it is also rendered easy to distinguish the Egyptians from their enemies, as the former are always represented as victors, the latter as conquered or as on the point of being so. These works of art are intended as memorials of the bravery and fame of the nation and its Kings, which shows it reasonable to conclude that they would not have perpetuated in such an expensive manner any events which did not redound to the glory of their nation.

These latter pieces are partly naval engagements and partly battles on land; representations of the former are found on the walls of Medinet Abou and on those of Karnac; those at Medinet Abou can here only come under our consideration as they alone have been copied and described.

In the naval engagement, which, by the way, took place at sea, not on the Nile, a part only could be copied. In their structure the ships are different from that of the vessels on the Nile. They have a long frame resembling galleys and are impelled by sails and oars. Although the Egyptian vessels and those of their enemies have the same form, yet the former are easily distinguished from the latter by the head of a lion or ram upon the prow, which do not appear upon the hostile vessels. The question is whether the engagement took place upon the coast of the Mediterranean or on that of the Arabian Gulf or the Red or Indian Seas? In the first case the enemy might be Phoenicians; in the other, some southern nation.

The first supposition is not supported by history, nor does it appear from the traditions or the monumental representations of the nations themselves. Neither does the costume of the enemy suit the Phoenicians, who, being of kin to the Hebrews and Arabians, would doubtless wear beards and long garments, as according to the Asiatic custom; but the opposite of this appears here. But everything here seems to point to an engagement in the Red

Sea or Indian Ocean. The traditions of the Egyptian priests celebrated the expeditions of the old Pharaohs on this sea, as is recorded in Herodotus and Diodorus. "Sesostris," says Diodorus, "conquered first the Ethiopians of the south and made them tributary. He then sent a fleet of four hundred ships to the Indian sea and was the first in those countries who built long vessels. With this fleet he took possession of the islands and the coasts of the countries as far as India." "The priests," says Herodotus, "relate of Sesostris that he sailed out of the Arabian Gulf with long vessels and conquered the countries lying on the Indian Sea and continued to advance till he came to a sea which could not be navigated because of its shallows." The naval engagement represented on the walls of Medinet Abou would rather seem a successful repulse or defeat of an enemy attempting to land than an attack. But this seems only one scene of those naval expeditions of which there is left no particular history.

That the long ships were built for the sea, that their construction differed entirely from that of the vessels on the Nile, has been mentioned by the French and is seen in their appearance. The Egyptians and their allies, while wearing the same habit, have weapons different. The former are armed with bows and arrows, while the latter carry clubs, as Herodotus ascribes to the Ethiopians above Egypt. Of their enemies, among whom two different though it may be kindred nations are clearly perceived, the costume is entirely different. They have neither long garments nor beards, consequently are not Arabs, Phoenicians or Syrians. They both wear short clothes, which seem to be fastened with bands or girdles. They are armed with swords and round shields, but differ from each other in their head dress; one constantly wearing a kind of helmet, decorated with a bunch of upright feathers, the other a cap made of the skin of some beast, with its ears left prominent. The French at once recognized in the first of those two nations the inhabitants of India. Respecting the other nation of the duo in uno they have not ventured to express an opinion; but Herodotus seems to settle the matter as to who they were. He leaves us to conclude that if the first were Indians the second were their neighbors, the Asiatic Ethiopians, that is to say, the inhabitants of the coasts of Gedrosia and Caramania. "The Asiatic Ethiopians,' says Herodotus, "were dressed much like the Indians; but they wore on their head the skin from the forehead of the horse, with the ears left on; the ears of the horse are left standing quite

upright; but as defensive armor they had crane's skins instead of shields."

Since the probabilities are so strong in favor of this opinion that the opponents of the Egyptians in this naval engagement were the old Asiatic nations on the Eastern borders of the Indian Ocean, we can scarcely any longer consider the traditions of the Egyptian priests, regarding the naval expeditions of their ancient Kings, Sesostris and others, as entirely fabulous. And, as to the tradition of a primeval connection between those lands, namely, between India on the one side and Ethiopia and Egypt on the other, we find it to obtain thereby a confirmation, which but for the light we receive in this case from the father of history, we could scarcely have been justified in expecting to attain to.

But the pictorial displays of the land battles give a more magnificent idea than do the naval of the extensive warlike expeditions and wide dominion of the ancient Pharaohs of Thebes. They are more frequent than the naval scenes, being found on all the imperial palaces, as well on those at Luxor and Karnac, as on those at Medinet Abou, on the palace of Osymandyas and in the tombs of the Kings. There is in every place a series of representations upon the walls, as we discover the departure of the King, the battle, the victory, the triumph, always ending in a religious procession. And it is also concluded that the scenes in the various palaces form a general mythological cycle; as, among the Egyptians, art availed itself of a series of traditions relative to the early heroic deeds of the nation and its rulers. More complete copies of these war scenes would make our information on this point more accurate; but, as it is, we must only make the best use we can of such descriptions in character and quantity as we possess.

And in the contemplation of this, everything suggests that Egyptian art and mythology sought their favorite subjects rather in Asiatic than in African history. Of the conquered nations the figure and dress are Asiatic. Although the Egyptians are depicted without beards, their enemies have them and usually long garments, the latter, however, being variously fashioned. They have, in general, the full tunics so common in the East; but in the triumphal pageant on the walls of Medinet Abou the prisoners wear a kind of overcoat of blue and green stripes, covering only the back, and under this another shorter garment. Not less characteristic than their dress are their accoutrements and weapons, in this respect the most striking difference being in the shields. Those of the Egyptians are