where the King occurs, as if in the act of slaying his prisoners in the presence of the God. But a strong argument against this being commemorative of a human sacrifice, is derived from the fact of the foreigners he holds in his hand not being bound, but with their hands free, and even holding their drawn swords *, plainly showing that it refers to them in a state of war, not as captives. It is therefore an allegorical picture, illustrative of the power of the King, in his contest with the enemies of his country.

Indeed, if from this any one were disposed to infer the existence of such a custom in former times, he must admit that it was abandoned long before the erection of any existing monument †, consequently ages prior to the accession of the Amosis, whose name occurs in the sculptures; long before the Egyptians are mentioned in sacred history; and long before they were that people we call Egyptians. For it is quite incompatible with the character of a nation, whose artists thought acts of clemency towards a foe worthy of record ‡,

of the kings appear to be either Neophytes, who were required to pass under the knife of the priest," previous to initiation, and a new life; or those condemned to a particular fate hereafter. Vide Vol. I. (1st Series) p. 267.

Vide Plate 81.

The learned Prichard (p. 363.) thinks that a subject described from the temple of Tentyra proves this custom to have existed in Egypt. But that temple is of late Ptolemaic and Roman date, and "the figure of a man, with the head and ears of an ass, kneeling, and bound to a tree, with two knives stuck into his forehead, two in his shoulders, one in his thigh, and another in his body," can scarcely be an argument in favour of a human sacrifice, unless men of that description were proved to have lived in those days.

Vide suprà, Vol. I. p. 392. and 398.

and whose laws were distinguished by that humanity which punished with death, the murder even of a slave.*

I have, therefore, no scruple in doubting this statement altogether, and in agreeing with the historian of Halicarnassus, respecting the improbability of such a custom among a civilised people. And when we consider how solemnly the Moslems declare the pillar of clay, now left at the mouths of the canals, when opened to receive the water of the inundation, to have been the substitute which the humanity of Amer adopted in lieu of the virgin annually sacrificed to the Nile at that season, (previous to the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs,) we may learn how much reliance is to be placed on tradition, and what is stated to be recorded fact. For, though Arab historians lived very near to the time when that sacrifice is said to have been abolished, though the pillar of earth is still retained to commemorate it, and though it bears the name of Haróoset e'Neel, "the bride of the Nile,"-all far stronger arguments than any brought forward respecting the human sacrifices of early Egypt, are under the necessity of disbelieving the existence of such sacrifices in a Christian country, at the late period of A. D. 638, when the religion of Islam supplanted that of the cross on the banks of the Nile.

- we

That red-haired men were treated with great contempt by the Egyptians, is perfectly true. But however much their prejudices were excited

* Vide suprà, Vol. II. p. 36.

against them, it is too much to suppose they thought them unworthy to live; and they were probably contented to express their dislike to foreigners, who were noted for that peculiarity, by applying to them some reproachful name; as the Chinese contemptuously designate us "redhaired barbarians." "In Egypt," says Diodorus, "few are found with red hair; among foreigners many."* Such, indeed, was the prejudice against them, that "they would not willingly converse with people of that complexion †;" and whenever they wished to show their contempt for a northern race, they represented them on their sandals, and in other humiliating positions, with red hair, and of a yellow colour. This contempt for strangers induced the Egyptian architects to introduce them supporting on their heads portions of buildings, as

No. 473. Heads of foreigners which'once sup- No. 474. Enemies as the footstool of a king. ported part of the ornamental architecture at Meedenet Haboo in Thebes.

Thebes.

in the pavilion of King Remeses at Thebes; where they occupy the same uncomfortable positions

+ Plut. s. 33.

generally given to men and monsters on our old churches. The idea of "making his enemies his footstool," is also shown from the sculptures to have been common in Egypt, as in other Eastern countries.

The sacrifice of red oxen cannot fail to call to mind the law of the Israelites, which commanded them to "bring a red heifer without spot, wherein was no blemish, and upon which never came yoke." According to Maimonides, they were so particular in the choice of it, that "if only two white or black hairs were found lying upon each other, the animal was considered unfit for sacrificet; and Herodotus ‡ says, that if the Egyptians "found a single black hair upon the ox they were examining for that purpose, they immediately rejected it as unclean." They believe," says the historian, "that all clean oxen belong to Epaphus, and this is the reason they examine them with so much care. There is a particular priest for that office; who, when the animal is brought, examines it in every position, standing, and lying on its back; and having drawn out its tongue, he ascertains if it is free from certain marks, described in the sacred books, which I shall mention elsewhere.§ He even looks if the hairs of its tail are such as they ought to be naturally: and when all the requisite signs are found for pronouncing it clean, the priest marks it with his seal, after which it is

*Numb. xix. 2.

Herodot. ii. 38.

+ Maimonid. in lib. de Vaccâ rufâ, c. i.

In lib. iii. 28. Vide suprà, Vol. I. (2d Series) p. 350, et seq.

taken to the altar; but it is forbidden, under pain of death, to slay a victim which has not this mark."

His statement differs in some respects from that of Plutarch, nor does the historian consider the red colour necessary to render it fit for sacrifice. The principal point seems to be the absence of those marks which characterise Apis, or Epaphus, the sacred bull of Memphis; and the sculptures, as I shall presently show, abundantly prove that oxen with black and red spots were usually killed in Egypt, both for the altar and the table.

It was lawful to slay all oxen answering to a particular description in the sacred books; but the sacrifice of heifers was strictly forbidden, and in order to enforce this prohibition, they were held sacred.* So great was their respect for this law, that the "cow was esteemed more highly among the Egyptians than any other animalt;" and their consequent horror of those persons whose religion permitted them to slay and eat it, was carried so far "that no Egyptian of either sex could be induced to kiss a Greek on the mouth, to make use of his knife, his spit, or his cooking utensils, nor even to taste the meat of a clean beast, which had been slaughtered by his hand."

Aware of this prejudice, and of the consequent displeasure of the Egyptians in the event of their sacrificing a heifer ‡, the Israelites proposed to withdraw into the desert a distance of three days

* To Isis, or rather to Athor. Vide suprà, Vol. I. (2d Series) p. 381.

+ Herodot. ii. 41

Exod. viii. 26.