Images de page
PDF
ePub

PERSIC VERSION-PETER.

the King of Persia by the British ambassador, was favourably received.

PERSIS, Пepois, the name of a female Christian, mentioned by the Apostle Paul. (Rom. 16. 12.)

PERSON. See TRINITY.

[ocr errors]

PESTILENCE. The pestilence, or plague, daber, (Levit. 26. 25,) is a term generally used in the Hebrew Scriptures for all epidemic or contagious diseases; the writers also everywhere attribute it either to the agency of God himself or of that legate or angel whom they denominate malach; hence the Septuagint renders the word 7 daber, or pestilence, in Psalm 91. 6, by Saiμoviov μeonμßpivov, "the demon of noonday," and Jonathan also renders the same word in the Chaldee Targum, (Habak. 3. 5,) by the Chaldee word malach, angel or messenger. The prophets 8 usually connect together, sword, pestilence, and famine, being three of the most grievous inflictions of the Almighty upon a guilty people. (2Sam. 24. 19.) See DISEASES; PLAGUE.

PESTLE, y ali, (Prov. 27. 22,) a pestle. It is “by supposed, from the above passage, not that the wheat was pounded to meal instead of being ground, but that it was pounded to be separated from the husk. The Jews very probably used wheat in the same manner as rice is now used in the East, that is, boiled up in pillaus variously prepared, which required that it should, like rice, be previously disengaged from the husk. See MORTAR.

PETER, Пεтроs, one of the twelve Apostles, at first called Simon, and afterwards surnamed Knpas, Cephas, or Peter, signifying stone or rock, was the son of Jonas or Jonah, and was born at Bethsaida, on the coast of the sea of Galilee. He had a brother of the name of Andrew, who had been a disciple of John the Baptist, and was called to the knowledge of the Saviour prior to himself. Andrew was present when the Baptist pointed out Jesus to his disciples, and added, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world;" and meeting Simon shortly afterwards, said, “We have found the Messiah," and then brought him to Jesus. (John 1. 41.) Both Peter and Andrew seem to have followed their trade until Our Lord called them to follow him, and promised to make them both "fishers of men." (Matt. 4. 18,19; Mark 1. 17; Luke 5. 10.) From this time they became his companions, and when he completed the number of his Apostles, they were included among them. Peter in particular was honoured with his Master's intimacy, together with James and John. With them Peter was present, when Our Lord restored the daughter of Jairus to life. (Mark 5.37; Luke 8. 51;) when he was transfigured on the mount, (Matt. 17. 1; Mark 9. 2; Luke 9. 28,) and during his agony in the garden, (Matt. 26. 36-56; Mark 14. 32-42;) and on various other occasions Peter received peculiar marks of his Master's confidence. At the time when Peter was called to the apostleship, he was married, and seems to have removed in consequence from Bethsaida to Capernaum, where his wife's family resided. It appears also that when Our Lord left Nazareth, and came and dwelt at Capernaum, (Matt. 4. 13,) he took up his occasional residence at Peter's house, whither the people resorted to him. When Jesus, in private, asked his disciples, first, what opinion the people entertained of him; next what was their own opinion; "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16. 16.) Having

· 1031

received the answer, Jesus declared Peter blessed on account of his faith; and, in allusion to the signification of his name, added, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," &c. Some writers are of opinion these things were spoken to St. Peter alone, for the purpose of conferring on him privileges and powers not granted to the rest of the Apostles,-a favourite, but most groundless position of the Romanists, who from it attempt to justify the monstrous assumptions of supremacy, both temporal and spiritual, of the Bishop of Rome; but others, with more reason, suppose that though Jesus directed his discourse to St. Peter, it was intended for them all; and that the honours and powers granted to St. Peter by name were conferred on them all equally. For no one will say that Christ's church was built upon St. Peter singly; it was built on the foundation of all the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himAs little can any one self being the chief corner-stone. say that the power of binding and loosing was confined to St. Peter, seeing it was declared afterwards to belong to all the Apostles. (Matt. 18. 18; John 20. 23.) St. Peter likewise made his confession in answer to a question which Jesus put to all the Apostles, which confession was certainly made in the name of the whole; and therefore what Jesus said to him in reply was designed for the whole without distinction; excepting this, which was peculiar to him, that he was to be the first who, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, should preach the Gospel to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles; an honour which was conferred on St. Peter in the expression, I will give thee the keys," &c.

[ocr errors]

In the evangelical history of this Apostle, the distinguishing features of his character are very signally pourtrayed, and in a manner that enhances the credibility of the sacred historians, inasmuch as they have blended, without disguise, several traits of his precipitance and presumption, with the honourable testimony which the narrative of facts affords to the sincerity of his attachment to Christ, and the fervour of his zeal in the cause of his blessed Master. His presumption and self-confidence sufficiently appear in his solemn asseverations that he would never abandon his Master, (Matt. 26. 33;) and his weakness in his subsequent denial of Christ; for though Peter followed him afar off to the high-priest's palace, when all the other disciples forsook him and fled, yet he thrice disowned him, each time under circumstances of peculiar aggravation. It does not appear that Peter followed Christ any further; probably remorse and shame prevented him from attending the crucifixion, as we find St. John did. On the day of his resurrection, after appearing to Mary Magdalen and some other women, the next person to whom Our Lord showed himself was Peter. On another occasion, (John ch. 21,) Our Lord afforded him an opportunity of thrice professing his love for him, and charged him to feed the flock of Christ with fidelity and tenderness.

After the ascension of Our Saviour, St. Peter took an active part in the affairs of the Church. During his apostolical travels in Judæa, Samaria, and Galilee, he converted Cornelius, the Roman centurion, the first Gentile convert who was admitted into the Church without circumcision or any injunction to comply with the Mosaic observances; and on his return to Jerusalem, he satisfied the Jewish Christians that God had granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. (Acts 11. 18.) Soon after this, being apprehended by Herod Agrippa, (A.D. 44,) who designed to put him to death, Peter was miraculously delivered by an angel. From the time of the Apostolic council, held at Jerusalem, St. Peter is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; but from Galatians 2. 11, it appears that

1032

PETER

-PETER, SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST.

after that council, he was with St. Paul at Antioch; and he is likewise mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 1. 12; 3. 22.

PETER, FIRST GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST. We are indebted to the Apostle Peter for two Epistles which constitute a valuable part of the inspired writings. The First Epistle of St. Peter has always been considered as canonical; and in proof of its genuineness we may observe, that it is referred to by Clement of Rome, Hermes, and Polycarp; that we are assured by Eusebius that it was quoted by Papias; and that it is expressly mentioned by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and most of the later Fathers. From the inscription of the Epistle, "Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” it is generally supposed that the persons here addressed were believing Jews, and not believing Gentiles, and that this Epistle was addressed to those dispersed Hebrew Christians afflicted in their dispersion, to whom the Apostles James and Paul had respectively addressed their Epistles.

It is generally supposed that after St. Peter was at Antioch with St. Paul, he returned to Jerusalem. What happened to him after that is not told in the Scriptures; but Eusebius informs us that Origen wrote to this purpose: 'St. Peter is supposed to have preached to the Jews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; and at length, coming to Rome, was crucified with his head downwards.' With respect to the evidence from antiquity, on which the fact of St. Peter's having been at Rome rests, Dr. Lardner says, “This opinion is confirmed by the general testimony of antiquity. Eusebius relates, on the authority of Clement of Alexandria, and Papias, bishop of Jerusalem, that St. Mark's Gospel was written at the request of St. Peter's hearers in Rome; observing that St. Peter makes mention of St. Mark in his first Epistle, which was written at Rome As St. Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome, A.D. 64 itself, and that he (Peter,) signifies this, calling that or 65, and as we have no evidence that he arrived there city figuratively Babylon, in these words: 'The church before 63, we may date this Epistle A.D. 64; indeed, which is at Babylon, elected jointly with you, saluteth it appears from the Epistle itself, that it was written you, and so doth Mark, my son.' This passage of Euse- during a period of general calamity, when the Hebrew bius is transcribed by Jerome, who adds positively, that Christians were exposed to severe persecutions. The 'Peter mentions this Mark in his first Epistle, figura- design of this Epistle, therefore, is partly to support tively denoting Rome by the name of Babylon; "the them under their afflictions and trials, and also to inchurch which is at Babylon," &c. Ecumenius, Bede, and struct them how to behave under persecution. It likeother Fathers, also understand Rome by Babylon. It is wise appears, from the history of that time, that the generally thought that Peter and John gave to Rome the Jews were then uneasy under the Roman yoke, and that name of Babylon figuratively to signify that it would the destruction of their polity was approaching. On this resemble Babylon in its idolatry, and in its opposition to account the Christians are exhorted to honour the and persecution of the Church of God; and that like Emperor (Nero), and the presidents whom he sent into Babylon, it will be utterly destroyed. the provinces, and to avoid all grounds of being suspected of sedition or other crimes that would affect the peace and welfare of society. And, finally, as their character and conduct were liable to be aspersed and misrepresented by their enemies, they are exhorted to lead a holy life, that they might stop the mouths of their enemies, put their calumniators to shame, and win over others to their religion by their holy and Christian conversation.

"From the total silence of ecclesiastical history, it is not probable that Peter ever visited Babylon in Chaldæa; and Babylon in Egypt was too small and insignificant to be the subject of consideration. The Jews, to whom the first Epistle was written, were fond of mystical appellations, especially in their captivities; Edom was a frequent title for their heathen oppressors; and as Babylon was the principal scene of their first captivity, it was highly probable that Rome, the principal scene of their second, and which so strongly resembled the former in her 'abominations, her idolatries, and persecutions of the saints,' should be denominated by the same title. And this argument is corroborated by the similar usage of the Apocalypse, where the mystical application is unquestionable. (Rev. 14. 8; 16. 19; 18. 2, &c.) It is highly probable, indeed, that John borrowed it from Peter; or rather that both derived it by inspiration from the prophecy of Isaiah (21. 9.)" Dr. Lardner concludes his inquiry by observing, "This is the general, uncontradicted, disinterested testimony of ancient writers in the several parts of the world, Greeks, Latins, Syrians. As Our Lord's prediction concerning the death of Peter is recorded in one of the four Gospels, it is very likely that Christians would observe the accomplishment of it, which must have been in some place. And about this place there is no difference among Christian writers of ancient times. Never any other place was named besides Rome; nor did any other city ever glory in the martyrdom of St. Peter. It is not for our honour, nor for our interest, either as Christians or Protestants, to deny the truth of events, ascertained by early and well-attested tradition. If any make an ill use of such facts, we are not accountable for it. We are not, from a dread of such abuses, to overthrow the credit of all history, the consequences of which would be fatal."

PETER, SECOND GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST. The authority of the Second Epistle of Peter was for some time disputed, as we learn from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome; but since the fourth century it has been universally received except by the Syriac Christians. Its resemblance to the Epistle of Jude will be hardly urged as an argument against it; for there can be no doubt, that the Second Epistle of Peter was, in respect to that of Jude, the original and not the copy. Besides, it is extremely difficult even for a man of the greatest talents, to forge a writing in the name of another, without sometimes inserting what the pretended author either would not or could not have said, and to support the imposture in so complete a manner as not to militate, in a single instance, either against his character, or against the age in which he lived. Now, in the Second Epistle of Peter, though it has been a subject of examination full seventeen hundred years, nothing has hitherto been discovered which is unsuitable, either to the Apostle or to the Apostolic age. We have no reason therefore to believe that the Second Epistle of Peter is spurious, especially as it is difficult to comprehend what motive could have induced a Christian, whether orthodox or heretic, to attempt the fabrication of such an Epistle and then ascribe it to St. Peter.

It is evident from ch. 1. 14, that St. Peter was near his death when he wrote this Epistle, and that it was written soon after the First appears from the apology he makes, (ch. 1. 13,15,) for writing this Second Epistle to

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE OF ST.-PETRA.

the Hebrew Christians. Dr. Lardner thinks it not unlikely that soon after the Apostle had sent away Silvanus with his first letter to the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, some persons came from those countries to Rome, (whither there was a frequent and general resort from all parts,) who brought him information concerning the state of religion among them. These accounts induced him to write a second time, most probably at the beginning of A.D. 65, in order to strengthen in the faith, the Christians among whom he had laboured.

The design of the Apostle is to establish the Hebrew Christians in the truth and profession of the Gospel; to caution them against false teachers, whose tenets and practices the writer largely describes; and to warn them to disregard those profane scoffers, who made or should make a mock of Christ's coming to judgment; which having asserted and described, he exhorts them to prepare for that event by a holy and unblameable conversation.

PETHOR,л the name of a place in Mesopotamia, on the Euphrates, the native country of Balaam, to which Balak sent for him to come and curse Israel.

(Numb. 22. 5; 23. 7; Deut. 23. 5.) It is supposed to have been near Tiphsah, on the Euphrates, but this is altogether uncertain.

PETRA, Gr. Пeтpa, in Hebrew D Sela, the ancient capital of Arabia Petræa. Having in the article EDOM given copious extracts from modern travellers respecting this wonderful city, we shall here limit ourselves to a few historical particulars, for which we are indebted to the recent and valuable work of Professor Robinson, entitled Biblical Researches in Palestine.

"The celebrated capital of this region in ancient times, was called from its remarkable position, The Rock; in Hebrew, Sela, in Greek, Petra. In the Old Testament we find it recorded of King Amaziah, that he slew of Edom, in the Valley of Salt, ten thousand, and took Sela by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day.', (2 Kings 14. 7.) The prophet Isaiah also exhorts Moab to send the lamb to the ruler of the land from Sela to [through] the wilderness unto the mount of the daughter of Zion;' alluding, apparently to the tribute in sheep formerly paid to Israel. (Isai. 16. 1.) At this time, therefore, Sela would seem to have been in the possession of the Moabites; or at least, they pastured their flocks as far south as to that region, much in the manner of the adjacent tribes at the present day. These are the only certain notices of this city found in Scripture; and the last of them cannot be later than about 700 B.C. About four centuries afterwards the city was known to the Greeks as Petra; it had passed into the hands of the Nabatheans, and had become a place of trade. The two expeditions sent against it by Antigonus before 301 B.C., the first commanded by Athenæus, and the second by his own son Demetrius, changed their habits from that of being essentially nomadic and led them to engage in commerce. In this way, during the following centuries, they grew up into the kingdom of Arabia Petræa, occupying very nearly the same territory which was comprised within the limits of ancient Edom. In the first expedition, Athenæus took the city by surprise while the men were absent at a neighbouring mart or fair; and carried off a large booty of silver and merchandise. But the Nabatheans quickly pursued him to the number of eight thousand men, and falling upon his camp by night, destroyed the greater part of his army. Of the second expedition under the

1033

command of Demetrius, the Nabatheans had previous intelligence; and prepared themselves for an attack, by driving their flocks into the deserts, and placing their wealth under the protection of a strong garrison in Petra; to which, according to Diodorus, there was but a single approach, and that made by hand. In this way, they succeeded in baffling the whole design of Demetrius.

"Adrian appears to have granted privileges to Petra, which led the inhabitants to give his name to the city upon coins. Several of these are still extant. In the

fourth century Petra is several times mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome; and in the Greek ecclesiastical Notitia of the fifth and sixth centuries, it appears as the metropolitan see of the Third Palestine. Of its bishops, Germanus was present at the Council of Seleucia in A.D. 359; and Theodosius, at that of Jerusalem in A.D. 536.

"But from that time onwards Petra suddenly vanishes from the pages of history. In the two Latin Notitia, referring in part to the centuries after the Mohammedan conquest and before the Crusades, the name of Petra is no longer found, and the metropolitan see had been transferred to Rabbah. Whether Petra

perished through the ruthless rage of the fanatic conquerors, or whether it had already been destroyed in some incursion of the hordes of the desert, is utterly unknown. The silence of all the Arabian writers as to the very existence of Petra, would seem to favour the latter supposition; for had the city still retained its importance, we could hardly expect that they should pass it over without some notice in their accounts of the country and its conquest. As it is, this sudden and total disappearance of the very name and trace of a city so renowned, is one of the most singular circumstances of its history. The Crusaders found Petra at Kerak, just as they also found Beersheba at Beit Jibrin; thus introducing a confusion as to Petra, which is not wholly removed even to the present day. It was not until the reports collected by Seetzen respecting the wonderful remains in Wady Mûsa, had been verified by the personal discovery and examination of them by Burckhardt, that the latter traveller first ventured to assume their identity with the site of the ancient capital of Arabia Petræa. This identity, is now, I believe, admitted by most scholars, who have paid due attention to the subject; though still the voice of doubt is occasionally heard, and the site of the same, or at least of a second Petra, is sometimes held to have been at Kerak. The arguments for the identity in question are of a threefold nature, and all lie within a small compass. First, The character of the site, as given by Strabo and Pliny-an area in a valley surrounded by precipitous rocks, with a stream running through it, and a single approach 'made by hand,' as mentioned by Diodorus, corresponds entirely to Wady Mûsa as already described. At the same time this description is wholly inapplicable to Kerak, which is a fortress and city situated on the top of a high and steep hill. Again, the ancient specifications as to the distance of Petra from both the Dead Sea and the Elanitic Gulf, all point to Wady Mûsa. Passing over the merely casual and indefinite estimates of Strabo and Pliny, we find in Diodorus Siculus that Demetrius on his return from Petra, marched three hundred stadia, and encamped near the Dead Sea. This distance is equal to about fifteen hours with camels; and if reckoned northwards from Wady Mûsa along the ancient road, extends to nearly opposite the south end of the sea. After all, this is doubtless also a mere estimate, and is if anything too small; but at any rate, it could never apply to Kerak. More exactly is the position of Petra laid down in the

Peutinger Tables. The distance is there marked from Ailah along the ancient road to Petra, by the stations Ad Dianam, Præsidium, Houra, and Zadagatha, at ninety-nine Roman miles in all, equivalent to about. seventy-eight and two-thirds geographical miles. The actual direct distance between Akabah and Wady Mûsa on a straight line, is about sixty-four geographical miles. And when we take into account the windings of the way and the steepness of the mountains, the comparison is here sufficiently exact. On the route, too, the name and site of Zadagatha (Zodacatha) still exist at Uskadah, about six hours south of Wady Mûsa. Further, the same Tables, although somewhat confused on the north of Petra, yet give the distance between it and Rabbah as at least over seventy-two Roman miles; which corresponds well enough with Wady Mûsa, but is fatal to the idea of finding Petra in Kerak. Lastly, Josephus, and also Eusebius and Jerome, testify expressly, that Mount Hor where Aaron died, was in the vicinity of Petra; and to this day, the mountain which both tradition and the circumstances of the case mark as the same, still rears its lonely head above the vale of Wady Mûsa. In all the district of Kerak there is no single mountain which could in itself be regarded as Mount Hor; and even if there were, its position in that region would be wholly incompatible with the recorded journeyings of the Israelites. These considerations appear to me to demonstrate the identity of Petra with Wady Mûsa; and also to show as conclusively, that it could not have been situated at Kerak. But how or when the name of Petra was dropped, or in what age that of Wady Mûsa was adopted, we have no means of ascertaining. The Crusaders found the latter in current use, and speak here only of the 'Vallis Moysi.' They also speak of a building on the neighbouring mountain, consecrated to Aaron; but they appear to have discovered nowhere any trace of a Christian population. Then came other centuries of oblivion; and the name of Wady Mûsa was not again heard of, until the reports of Seetzen in 1807. During his excursion from Hebron to the hill Madurah, his Arab guide of the Haweitat described the place, exclaiming, 'Ah! how I weep, when I behold the ruins of Wady Mûsa! The subsequent visits of Burckhardt, Irby and Mangles, Laborde and others, have put the world in possession of most of the details; yet I apprehend that the historical and antiquarian interest of the place is by no means exhausted. The scholar who should go thither learned in the lore of Grecian and Egyptian arts and architecture, would be able, I doubt not, still to reap a rich harvest of new facts illustrative of the taste, the antiquities, and the general history of this remarkable people." See EDOM; JOKTHEEL.

PHARAOH, a common appellation of the ancient kings of Egypt as given in the Scriptures. Sir John Gardner Wilkinson informs us, that the Hebrew word пу Phrah, or Pharaoh, is no other than the Memphitic name of the Sun, Phre pronounced Phra, which is still retained in the Coptic Pire. The hawk and globe, emblems of the sun, are placed over the banners on the figures of the kings in the sculptures to denote -this title, and Ammon and other deities are often seen presenting the sign of life or power to the monarch under this emblem.

"It is singular that the Greeks never mention the title Phrê (or Pharaoh as we term it); and I can only account for this by supposing that they translated it wherever it occurred, as is the case in IIeurapion's translation of the Obelisk, where in the third column, instead of the 'powerful Apollo,' we ought to read the

[ocr errors]

powerful Phrê (Pharaoh), the all-splendid Son of the Sun.' This adaption of the name of the Sun as a regal title was probably owing to the idea that, as the Sun was the chief of the heavenly bodies, he was a fit emblem of the king, who was the ruler of all on earth; and it is one of the many instances of analogies which occur in the religious system of the Egyptians. The importance attached to this deity may be readily inferred from the fact of every Pharaoh having the title 'Son of the Sun' preceding his phonetic name, and the first name of which their prenomens was composed being that of the Sun. In many, too, the phonetic nomen commenced with the name of Re, as the Remeses and others; and the expressions, 'living for ever, like the Sun,' 'the splendid Phrê,' are common on all obelisks and dedicatory inscriptions."

Having in the article EGYPT, as likewise under their phonetic names, as APRIES, NECHO, &c., given brief skteches of the principal sovereigns termed Pharaoh in the Old Testament, we shall here limit ourselves to a few particulars connected with the kingly office, which may serve to throw light upon some parts of the Old Testament history.

66

"The dedication of the whole or part of a temple," observes Sir John Gardner Wilkinson, was one of the most remarkable solemnities at which it was the prince's part to preside. And if the actual celebration of the rites practised on the occasion, the laying of the foundation-stone, or other ceremonies connected with it, are not represented on the monuments, the importance attached to it is shown by the conspicuous manner in which it is recorded in the sculptures, the ostentation with which it is announced in the dedicatory inscriptions of the monuments themselves, and the answer returned by the god in whose honour it was erected. Another striking ceremony was the transport of the dedicatory offerings made by the king to the gods, which were carried in great pomp to their respective temples. The king and all the priests attended the procession clad in their robes of ceremony; and the flag-staffs attached to the propylea of the vestibules were decked as on other grand festivals with banners.

"The coronation of a king was a peculiarly imposing ceremony. It was one of the principal subjects represented in the court of the temples; and some idea may be formed of the pomp displayed on the occasion, even from the limited scale on which the monuments are capable of describing it. One of the principal solemnities connected with the coronation was the anointing of the king, and his receiving the emblems of majesty from the gods. The sculptures represent the deities themselves officiating on this as on other similar occasions, in order to convey to the Egyptian people, who beheld these records, a more exalted notion of the special favours bestowed on their monarch. We however, who at this distant period are less interested in the direct intercourse between the Pharaohs and the gods, may be satisfied with a more simple interpretation of such subjects, and conclude that it was the priests who performed the ceremony, and bestowed upon the prince the title of the anointed of the gods.' With the Egyptians, as with the Jews, (Exod. 28. 41,) the investiture to any sacred office, as that of king or priest, was confirmed by this external sign; and as the Jewish lawgiver mentions (Exod. 29. 5,7,) the ceremony of pouring oil upon the head of the high-priest after he had put on his entire dress, with the mitre and crown, the Egyptians represent the anointing of their priests and kings after they were attired in their full robes, with the cap and crown upon their head. Some of the sculptures introduce a priest pouring oil over the monarch, in the pre

PHARAOH.

sence of Thoth, Hor-Hat, Ombte, or Nilus; which may Le considered a representation of the ceremony before the statues of these gods. The functionary who officiated was the high priest of the king. He was clad in a leopard-skin, and was the same who attended on all cccasions which required him to assist, or assume the duties of the monarch in the temple. This leopard-skin dress was worn by the high-priest on all the most important solemnities, and the king himself adopted it when engaged in the same duties.

"The deities Ombte and Horus are represented placing the crown of the two countries [Upper and Lower Egypt] upon the head of the king, saying, 'Put this cap upon your head, like your father Amon Re,' and the palm branches they hold in their hands allude to the long series of years they grant him to rule over his country. The emblems of dominion and majesty, the crook and flagellum of Osiris have been already given him, and the asp-formed fillet is bound upon his head. Another mode of investing the sovereign with the diadem is figured on the apex of some obelisks, and on other monuments where the god in whose honour they were raised puts the crown upon his head as he kneels before him, with the announcement that he 'grants him dominion over the whole world.' Goddesses, in like manner, placed upon the heads of queens the peculiar insignia they wore; which were two long feathers with the globe and horns of Athor; and they presented them their peculiar sceptre. Another ceremony represented in the

1035

temples was the blessing bestowed by the gods on the king at the moment of his assuming the reins of government. They laid their hands upon him, and presenting him with the symbol of life, they promised that his reign should be long and glorious, and that he should enjoy tranquillity, with certain victory over his enemies. If about to undertake an expedition against foreign nations, they gave him the falchion of victory, to secure the defeat of the people whose country he was about to invade, saying, 'Take this weapon, and smite with it the heads of the impure Gentiles. To show the special favour he enjoyed from heaven, the gods were even represented admitting him into their company, and communing with him, and sometimes Thoth, with other deities, taking him by the hand, led him into the presence of the great Triad, or of the presiding Divinity of the temple. He was welcomed with suitable expressions of approbation; and on this, as on other occasions, the sacred tau, or sign of life, was presented to him, a symbol which, with the sceptre of Purity, was usually placed in the hands of the gods. These two were deemed the greatest gifts bestowed by the Deity on man."

The Pharaohs, as is well known, officiated occasionally as priests as well as princes, and a figure of one of these monarchs (Remeses VI.) in his sacerdotal robes has been already given, (see AARON;) the following engraving exhibits another of them (Remeses III.) returning in triumph from a warlike expedition.

[graphic][merged small]

"The triumph of the king was a grand solemnity. Flattering to the national pride of the Egyptians, it awakened those feelings of enthusiasm which the celebration of victory naturally inspires, and led them to commemorate it with the greatest pomp. When the victorious monarch, returning to Egypt after a glorious campaign, approached the cities which lay on his way, from the confines of the country to the capital, the inhabitants flocked to meet him, and with welcome acclamations greeted his arrival and the success of his arms. The priests and chief people of each place advanced with garlands and bouquets of flowers; the principal person present addressed him in an appropriate speech; and as the troops defiled through the streets, or passed without the walls, the people followed with acclama

tions, uttering earnest thanksgivings to the gods, the protectors of Egypt, and praying them for ever to continue the same marks of favour to their monarch and their nation.

"Arrived at the capital, they went immediately to the temple, where they returned thanks to the gods, and performed the customary sacrifices on this important occasion. The whole army attended, and the order of march continued the same as on entering the city. A corps of Egyptians, consisting of chariots and infantry, led the van in close column, followed by the allies of the different nations who had shared the dangers of the field and the honour of victory. In the centre marched the body guards, the king's sons, the military scribes, the royal arm-bearers, and the staff corps, in the midst of

« PrécédentContinuer »