University [State university of Louisiana], the collegiate
   education of women does not exist in the South. But as matter
   of fact, there are no less than one hundred and fifty
   institutions in the South which are authorized by the
   Legislatures of their respective States to confer the regular
   college degrees upon women. Of these, forty-one are
   co-educational, eighty-eight are for women alone, and
   twenty-one are for colored persons of both sexes. The bureau
   of education makes no attempt to go behind the verdict of the
   State Legislatures, but on looking over the catalogues of all
   these institutions it is, as might have been expected, easy to
   see that the great majority of them are not in any degree
   colleges, in the ordinary sense of the word. Not a single one
   of the so-called female colleges presents a real college
   course, and many of the co-educational colleges are colleges
   only in name."

      _C. L. Franklin,
      Education of Women in the Southern States
      (Woman's Work in America, pages 93-94)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1816-1892,
   Froebel and the Kindergarten.

   "Frœbel (Friedrich Wilhelm August) was born April 21, 1782, at
   Oberweissbach, in the principality of Schwanburg-Rudolstadt.
   His mother died when he was so young that he never even
   remembered her; and he was left to the care of an ignorant
   maid-of-all-work, who simply provided for his bodily wants.
   … Not until he was ten years of age did he receive the
   slightest regular instruction. He was then sent to school, to
   an uncle who lived in the neighborhood, … He pronounced the
   boy to be idle (which, from his point of view, was quite true)
   and lazy (which certainly was not true)—a boy, in short, that
   you could do nothing with. … It was necessary for him to
   earn his bread, and we next find him a sort of apprentice to a
   woodsman in the great Thuringian forest. Here, as he afterward
   tells us, he lived some years in cordial intercourse with
   nature and mathematics, learning even then, though
   unconsciously, from the teaching he received, how to teach
   others. … In 1801 he went to the University of Jena, where
   he attended lectures on natural history, physics, and
   mathematics; but, as he tells us, gained little from them. …
   This … was put an end to by the failure of means to stay at
   the University. For the next few years he tried various
   occupations. … While engaged in an architect's office at
   Frankfort, he formed an acquaintance with the Rector of the
   Model School, a man named Gruner. Gruner saw the capabilities
   of Frœbel, and detected also his entire want of interest in
   the work that he was doing; and one day suddenly said to him:
   'Give up your architect's business; you will do nothing at it.
   Be a teacher. We want one now in the school; you shall have
   the place.' This was the turning point in Frœbel's life. He
   accepted the engagement, began work at once, and tells us that
   the first time he found himself in the midst of a class of 30
   or 40 boys, he felt that he was in the element that he had
   missed so long—'the fish was in the water.' He was
   inexpressibly happy. … In a calmer mood he severely
   questioned himself as to the means by which he was to satisfy
   the demands of his new position. About this time he met with
   some of Pestalozzi's writings, which so deeply impressed him
   that he determined to go to Yverdun and study Pestalozzi on
   the spot. He accomplished his purpose, and lived and worked
   for two years with Pestalozzi. His experience at Yverdun
   impressed him with the conviction that the science of
   education had still to draw out from Pestalozzi's system those
   fundamental principles which Pestalozzi himself did not
   comprehend. 'And therefore,' says Schmidt, 'this genial
   disciple of Pestalozzi supplemented his system by advancing
   from the point which Pestalozzi had reached through pressure
   from without, to the innermost conception of man, and arriving
   at the thought of the true development and culture of
   mankind.' … His educational career commenced November 13th,
   1816, in Greisheim, a little village near Stadt-Ilm, in
   Thuringia; but in 1817, when his Pestalozzian friend,
   Middendorf, joined him … the school was transferred to the
   beautiful village of Keilhau, near Rudolstadt, which may be
   considered as his chief starting-place. … Langenthal,
   another Pestalozzian, associated himself with them, and they
   commenced building a house. The number of pupils rose to
   twelve in 1818. Then the daughter of war-counselor Hoffman of
   Berlin, from enthusiasm for Frœbel's educational ideas, became
   his wife. She had a considerable dowry, which, together with
   the accession of Frœbel's elder brother, increased the funds
   and welfare of the school. In 1831 he was invited by the
   composer, Schnyder von Wartensee, to erect a similar garden on
   his estate, near the lake of Sempach, in the canton Luzern. It
   was done. Frœbel changed his residence the next year, from
   Keilhau to Switzerland. In 1834 the government of Bern invited
   him to arrange a training course for teachers in Burgdorf. In
   1835 he became principal of the orphan asylum in Burgdorf, but
   in 1836 he and his wife wished to return to Germany. There he
   was active in Berlin, Keilhau, Blankenburg, Dresden,
   Liebenstein in Thuringia, Hamburg, (1849,) and Marienthal,
   near Liebenstein, where he lived until his decease in 1852,
   among the young ladies, whom he trained as nurses for the
   kindergarten, and the little children who attended his
   school."

      _H. Barnard, editor,
      Papers on Froebel's Kindergarten: Memoir._

{745}

   "The child thinks only through symbols. In other words, it
   explains all it sees not by the recorded experience of others,
   as does an adult, but by marshaling and comparing its own
   concept or symbol of what it has itself seen. Its sole
   activity is play. 'The school begins with teaching the
   conventionalities of intelligence. Froebel would have the
   younger children receive a symbolic education in plays, games,
   and occupations which symbolize the primitive arts of man.'
   For this purpose, the child is led through a series of
   primitive occupations in plaiting, weaving, and modeling,
   through games and dances, which bring into play all the social
   relations, and through songs and the simple use of number,
   form and language. The 'gifts' all play their manifold
   purpose, inspiring the child, awakening its interest, leading
   the individual along the path the race has trod, and teaching
   social self-control. The system has its palpable dangers. The
   better and more intricate the tool, the more skill needed in
   its safe use. … The kindergarten requires trained hands.
   With trivial teachers its methods may easily degenerate into
   mere amusement, and thwart all tendency to attention,
   application, or industry. Valuable as it is in its hints for
   the care and development of children, its gay round needs to
   be ballasted with the purpose and theory uppermost in
   Froebel's mind when he opened his first school in a German
   peasant village, down whose main street a brook tumbled, and
   through whose lanes the halberdier still walked by night and
   sang the hours. It is idle to suppose that Froebel founded a
   perfect system, or to insist on all the details of the
   professional kindergartner's creed. Here as elsewhere, and
   aforetime, it has taken only forty years from the founder's
   death for faith to degenerate into religion and sect. But the
   central purpose he had in view must be steadily maintained. He
   sought his ends through play, and not through work. It is as
   dangerous for this method to harden into an approach to the
   primary school as it is for it to soften into a riot of
   misrule, and lax observance of order. … Switzerland, then
   the only republic in Europe, was the first country to adopt
   Froebel's method, though in some Swiss towns the kindergarten
   is still supported by private associations. France, another
   republic, has more children beginning school under an
   adaptation of Froebel than all the rest of the world put
   together. It was Froebel's own opinion that 'the spirit of
   American nationality was the only one in the world with which
   his method was in complete harmony, and to which its
   legitimate institutions would present no barriers.' The
   figures given below of the growth of the kindergarten in this
   country are the best possible proof of the truth of Froebel's
   prescient assertion. … In 1870 there were in this country
   only five kindergarten schools, and in 1872 the National
   Education Association at its Boston meeting appointed a
   committee which reported a year later recommending the system.
   Between 1870 and 1873, experimental kindergartens were
   established in Boston, Cleveland, and St. Louis, public
   attention was enlisted by the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Palmer
   Peabody, the most important worker in the early history of the
   kindergarten in this country, and the system began a rapid
   growth. Taking private and public kindergartens together, the
   advance of the system has displayed this most rapid progress:

                1875    1880     1885   1891-2
   Schools.       95     232      413    1,001
   Teachers.     216     524      902    2,242
   Pupils.     2,809   8,871   18,780   50,423

   Down to 1880, these figures, outside of St. Louis, relate
   almost altogether to private schools. By 1885 the public
   kindergartens were not over a fifth in number of the schools,
   and held not over a fourth of the pupils. In the figures last
   given in this table there are 724 private kindergartens with
   1,517 teachers and 29,357 pupils, and 277 public kindergartens
   with 725 teachers and 21,066 pupils, so that the latter have
   now 27 per cent. of the schools, 33 per cent. of the teachers,
   and 42 per cent. of the pupils. … Yet great as is this
   advance, the kindergarten as yet plays but an infinitesimal
   part in our educational system as a whole. … Of the sixteen
   American cities with a population of over 200,000 in 1890,
   only four—Philadelphia, Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis
   have incorporated the kindergarten on any large scale in their
   public-school systems. Four more—New York, Chicago, Brooklyn,
   and Buffalo—have kindergarten associations organized to
   introduce the new method as a part of free public education."

      _T. Williams,
      The Kindergarten Movement
      (The Century, January, 1893)._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1883.
   The Higher Education of Women in England.

   The movement in England to secure a higher education for women
   dates from 1865. "In that year a Royal Commission was
   appointed to inquire into and report on the endowed grammar
   schools of England and Wales, and on what is called
   'secondary' education generally. Several ladies who were
   already alive to the deficiencies in the education of their
   own sex, memorialized this Commission to extend the scope of
   its inquiry to girls' schools, and the Commission taking what
   was then thought quite a bold step, consented to do so. …
   One of the points brought out was the absence of any
   institutions doing for women what the universities did for
   men, and the consequent difficulty in which women stood of
   obtaining the highest kind of education—a difficulty which
   told on girls' schools by making it hard for them to procure
   thoroughly competent mistresses. This led in the course of the
   next year or two—the report of the Commission having been
   published in 1868—to the establishment of a college for
   women, which was first placed at Hitchin, a town on the Great
   Northern Railway, between London and Cambridge, and in a
   little while, when money had been collected sufficient for the
   erection of buildings, this college was finally settled at
   Girton, a spot about two miles from Cambridge, whence it takes
   the name of Girton College. Its purpose was to provide for
   women the same teaching in the same subjects as men receive in
   Cambridge University, and the teachers were nearly all of them
   professors or tutors there, men in some cases of high
   eminence.
{746}
   Meanwhile, in Cambridge itself, a system of day classes for
   women, taught by University teachers, had been created, at
   first as an experiment for one year only. When several years
   had passed, when the number attending had increased, and it
   was found that women came to lodge in Cambridge in order to
   profit by these lectures, a house was hired in which to
   receive them, and ultimately a company was formed and a
   building erected a little way out of Cambridge, under the name
   of Newnham Hall, to which the lectures, now mainly designed
   for these students coming from a distance, were attached.
   Thus, at about the same time, though from somewhat different
   origins, Girton and Newnham came into being and began their
   course of friendly rivalry. Both have greatly developed since
   then. Their buildings have been repeatedly enlarged. Their
   numbers have risen steadily. … In Girton the charge for
   lodging, board and instruction is £100 per annum, in Newnham a
   little less. The life in both is very similar, a lady being
   placed at the head as resident principal, while the affairs
   are managed by a committee including both men and women. The
   lectures are delivered partly by Cambridge men, professors in
   the University, or tutors or lecturers in some of the
   colleges, partly by ladies, who, having once been students
   themselves, have come back as teachers. These lectures cover
   all the subjects required in the degree examinations of the
   University; and although students are not obliged to enter
   themselves for those examinations, they are encouraged to do
   so, and do mostly set the examinations before them as their
   goal. Originally the University took no official notice of the
   women students, and their being examined by the regular degree
   examiners of the University was a matter of pure favor on the
   part of those gentlemen. … At last, however, some examiners
   came into office (for the examiners are changed every two
   years) who disapproved of this informal examination of the
   women candidates, and accordingly a proposal was made to the
   University that it should formally authorize and impose on the
   examiners the function heretofore discharged by them in their
   individual capacity. This proposal, after some discussion and
   opposition, was carried, so that now women may enter both for
   the honor examinations and the pass examinations for the
   University degree as a matter of right. Their names do not
   appear in the official lists among those of the men, but
   separately; they are, however, tested by the same question
   papers and judged by the same standard. … Some Oxford
   graduates and their friends, stimulated by the success of
   Girton and Newnham, have founded two similar institutions in
   Oxford, one of which, Episcopalian and indeed High Church in
   its proclivities, is called Lady Margaret Hall, while the
   other, in compliment to the late Mrs. Somerville, has been
   given the title of Somerville Hall. These establishments are
   conducted on much the same lines as the two Cambridge
   colleges. … In the large towns where new colleges have been
   lately founded or courses of lectures established, such as
   Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, steps are usually taken to
   provide lectures for women. … What is called among you the
   question of co-education has come up very little in England.
   All the lectures given inside the walls of the four English
   colleges I have mentioned are, of course, given to women only,
   the colleges being just as exclusively places for women as
   Trinity and St. John's are places for men. … At this moment
   the principal of one of the two halls of which Newnham
   consists is a daughter of the Prime Minister [Miss Helen
   Gladstone], while her predecessor was a niece of the Marquis
   of Salisbury. The principal of Girton is a niece of the late
   Lord Lawrence, the famous Governor-General of India. Of the
   students a fair proportion belong to the wealthy classes,
   while a somewhat larger proportion mean to take teaching as
   their profession."

      _Progress of Female Education in England.
      (Nation, July 5, 1883)._

      See, also, above, SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1886.
   Industrial Education in the United States.

   "In 1865 John Boynton of Templeton, Mass., gave $100,000 for
   the endowment and perpetual support of a Free Institute for
   the youth of Worcester County, Mass. He thus explained his
   objects: 'The aim of this school shall ever be the instruction
   of youth in those branches of education not usually taught in
   the public schools, which are essential and best adapted to
   train the young for practical life'; especially such as were
   intending to be mechanics, or manufacturers, or farmers. In
   furtherance of this object, ten months later, in 1866, Ichabod
   Washburn of Worcester gave $25,000, and later $50,000 more to
   erect, equip, and endow a machine-shop which should
   accommodate twenty apprentices and a suitable number of
   skilled workmen to instruct them and to carry on the shop as a
   commercial establishment. The apprentices were to be taught
   the use of tools in working wood and metals, and to be
   otherwise instructed, much as was customary fifty years ago
   for boys learning a trade. The Worcester Free Institute was
   opened for students in November, 1868, as a technical school
   of about college grade; and the use of the shops and shop
   instruction was limited to those students in the course of
   mechanical engineering. Thus did the Worcester School under
   the leadership of Prest. C. O. Thompson incorporate
   tool-instruction and shop-practice into the training of
   mechanical engineers. … In the same year, 1868, Victor
   Della-Vos introduced into the Imperial Technical (engineering)
   School at Moscow the Russian method of class-instruction in
   the use of tools. … The great value of the work of Della-Vos
   lay in the discovery of the true method of tool-instruction,
   for without his discovery the later steps would have been
   impossible. In 1870, under the direction of Professor Robinson and
   Prest. J. M. Gregory of the University of Illinois, a
   wood-working shop was added to the appliances for the course
   in architecture, and an iron-working shop to the course in
   mechanical engineering in that institution. In 1871, the
   Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N. J., munificently endowed by
   Edwin A. Stevens, as a school of mechanical engineering,
   fitted up a series of shops for the use of its students. The
   next step forward was taken by Washington University in St.
   Louis in providing for all its engineering students systematic
   instruction in both wood and metals. In 1872, a large shop in the
   Polytechnic School was equipped with work-benches, two lathes,
   a forge, a gear-cutter and full sets of carpenters',
   machinists', and forging tools. …
{747}
   Thus far had we progressed when the Philadelphia Exposition of
   1876 was opened. None of us knew anything of the Moscow
   school, or of the one in Bohemia in which the Russian method
   had been adopted in 1874. … In his report of 1876, Prest. J.
   D. Runkle, of the Mass. Institute of Technology, gave a full
   exposition of the theory and practice of tool-instruction of
   Della-Vos as exhibited at the Philadelphia Exposition, and he
   recommended that without delay the course in mechanical
   engineering at the Institute be completed by the addition of a
   series of Instruction Shops. The suggestion was acted on, and
   in the spring of 1877 a class of mechanical engineering
   students was given instruction in chipping and filing. … The
   St. Louis Manual Training School was established June 6, 1879.
   It embodied hopes long cherished and plans long formed. For
   the first time in America the age of admission to school-shops
   was reduced to fourteen years as a minimum, and a very general
   three-years' course of study was organized. The ordinance by
   which the school was established specified its objects in very
   general terms:—'Its objects shall be instruction in
   mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a
   high-school course, and instruction and practice in the use of
   tools. The tool-instruction, as at present contemplated, shall
   include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron clipping
   and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of
   machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar
   character, its it may be deemed advisable to add to the
   foregoing from time to time. The students will divide their
   working hours, as nearly as possible, equally between mental
   and manual exercises.' … The Baltimore Manual Training
   School, a public school, on the same footing as the high
   school, was opened in 1883. The Chicago Manual Training
   School, established as an incorporated school by the
   Commercial Club of that city, was opened in January, 1884. …
   Manual training was introduced into the high school of Eau
   Claire, Wisconsin, in 1884. The 'Scott Manual Training School'
   was organized as a part of the high school of Toledo in 1884.
   … Manual training was introduced into the College (high
   school) of the City of New York in 1884. The Philadelphia
   Manual Training School, a public high school, was opened in
   September, 1885. The Omaha high school introduced manual
   training in 1885. … Dr. Adler's Workingman's School for poor
   children has for several years taught manual training to the
   very lowest grades. … The Cleveland Manual Training School
   was incorporated in 1885, and opened in connection with the
   city high school, in 1886. New Haven, which had for some time
   encouraged the use of tools by the pupils of several of its
   grammar schools, in September, 1886, opened a regular shop and
   furnished systematic instruction in tool-work. The school
   board of Chicago added manual training to the course of the
   'West Side High School' in September, 1886."

      _C. M. Woodward,
      The Manual Training School,
      chapter 1._

   "Concerning the manual-training school there are two widely
   different views. The one insists that it shall teach no trade,
   but the rudiments of all of them; the other that the
   particular industries may properly be held to maintain schools
   to recruit their own ranks. The first would teach the use of
   the axe, the saw, the plane, the hammer, the square, the
   chisel, and the file; claiming that 'the graduate from such a
   course at the end of three years is within from one to three
   months of knowing quite as thoroughly as an apprentice who had
   served seven years any one of the twenty trades to which he
   may choose to turn.' Of this class are, besides most of those
   already named, the Haish Manual Training School of Denver;
   that of Tulane University, New Orleans; the Felix Adler's
   'Workingman's School, of New York City; and the School of
   Manual Technology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Among
   schools of the second class are some interesting institutions.
   They include the numerous general and special trade-schools
   for boys, instruction in the manifold phases of domestic
   economy for girls, and the yet small but rapidly growing class
   of industries open alike to both. Sewing is taught in public
   or private schools in Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago,
   New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and about a
   dozen other cities, besides in a number of special
   institutions. Cooking-schools are no longer a novelty in half
   as many of the larger cities, since their introduction into
   New York city in 1876. Printing may be learned in the Kansas
   Agricultural College; Cooper Union, New York; Girard College,
   Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Telegraphy, stenography,
   wood-engraving, various kinds of smithing, and carpentry,
   have, especially the last two, numerous representatives. The
   New York Kitchen Garden, for the instruction of children in
   the work of the household, is an interesting modification of
   the Kindergarten along the industrial line. For young ladies,
   the Elizabeth Aull Seminary, Lexington, Missouri, is a school
   of home-work, in which 'are practically taught the mysteries
   of the kitchen and laundry,' and upon whose graduates is
   conferred the degree of 'Mistress of Home-Work.' The Lasell
   Seminary at Auburndale, Massachusetts, also has recently
   (1885) undertaken a similar but more comprehensive experiment,
   including lessons and lectures in anatomy and physiology, with
   hygiene and sanitation, the principles of common law by an
   eminent attorney, instruction and practice in the arts of
   domestic life, the principles of dress, artistic
   house-furnishing, healthy homes, and cooking. Of
   training-schools for nurses there are thirty-one. … Of
   schools of a different character still, there have been or are
   the Carriage Builder's Apprenticeship School, New York; those
   of Hoe & Co., printing-press manufacturers; and Tiffany & Co.,
   jewelers; and the Tailors' 'Trades School' recently
   established and flourishing in Baltimore, besides the
   Pennsylvania Railroad novitiate system, at Altoona; in which
   particular trades or guilds or corporations have sought to
   provide themselves with a distinct and specially trained class
   of artisans. The latest and in some respects the most
   interesting experiment of the kind is that of the 'Baltimore
   and Ohio Railroad service' at Mt. Clare, Baltimore. It was
   inaugurated in 1885, apprentices being selected from
   applicants by competitive examination."

      _R. G. Boone,
      Education in the United States,
      chapter 13._

{748}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1873-1889.
   University Extension in England.

   "The University Extension Movement, which has now been before
   the country eighteen years, has revealed the existence of a
   real need for larger opportunities of higher education amongst
   the middle and working classes. From the time of its
   inauguration in 1873 by the University of Cambridge, owing
   mainly to the enthusiastic advocacy and skill in practical
   affairs of Mr. James Stuart (at that time Fellow and Lecturer
   of Trinity College), down to the present day, when the
   principle has been accepted by all the Universities in Great
   Britain and by some in countries beyond the seas, the movement
   has shown marvellous vitality and power of adjustment to
   changing conditions. From a small beginning in three towns in
   the Midlands, it has grown until the centres in connection
   with the various branches are to be numbered by hundreds and
   the students by tens of thousands. The success attained by
   Cambridge in the first three years led, in 1876, to the
   formation of the London Society for the Extension of
   University Teaching, for the express purpose of carrying on
   similar work within the metropolitan area. In 1878 the
   University of Oxford undertook to make similar arrangements
   for Lectures, but after a year or two, they were for the time
   abandoned. Subsequently in 1885 the Oxford work was revived
   and has since been carried on with vigour and success. The
   University of Durham is associated with Cambridge in this work
   in the northeast of England, while courses of Lectures on the
   Extension plan have been given for several years in connection
   with Victoria University in centres around Manchester. Two or
   three years ago the four Scottish Universities united in
   forming a like scheme for Scotland, while at the close of 1889
   a Society for the Extension of University Teaching was formed
   in the north of Ireland. Finally the movement has spread to
   Greater Britain and the United States, and there are signs
   that work on similar lines is about to be established in
   various countries on the continent of Europe."

      _R. D. Roberts,
      Eighteen years of University Extension,
      chapter 1._

   "One of the chief characteristics of the system is the method
   of teaching adopted in connection with it. A working man at
   one of the centres in the north of England who had attended
   the lectures for several terms, described the method as
   follows in a paper read by him at a meeting:

   'Any town or village which is prepared to provide an audience,
   and pay the necessary fees, can secure a course of twelve
   lectures on any subject taught in the University, by a
   lecturer who has been educated at the University, and who is
   specially fitted for lecturing work. A syllabus of the course
   is printed and put into the hands of students. This syllabus
   is a great help to persons not accustomed to note-taking.
   Questions are given on each lecture, and written answers can
   be sent in by anyone, irrespective of age or sex. All the
   lectures, except the first, are preceded by a class, which
   lasts about an hour. In this class the students and the
   lecturer talk over the previous lecture. The written answers
   are returned with such corrections as the lecturer deems
   necessary. At the end of the course an examination is held and
   certificates are awarded to the successful candidates. These
   lectures are called University Extension Lectures.'

   Another definition which has been given is this:

   'Advanced systematic teaching for the people, without
   distinction of rank, sex, or age, given by means of lectures,
   classes, and written papers during a connected course,
   conducted by men "who believe in their work, and intend to do
   it," teachers who connect the country with the University by
   manner, method, and information.'"

      _R. D. Roberts,
      The University Extension Scheme,
      pages 6-7._

EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1892.
   University Extension in the United States.

   "The first conscious attempts to introduce English University
   Extension methods into this country were made in 1887, by
   individuals connected with the Johns Hopkins University. The
   subject was first publicly presented to the American Library
   Association at their meeting upon one of the Thousand Islands
   in September, 1887. The idea was heartily approved," and the
   first result of the suggestion was a course of lectures on
   economic questions given in one of the lecture-rooms of the
   Buffalo Library the following winter by Dr. Edward W. Bemis.
   The next winter "Dr. Bemis repeated his course on 'Economic
   Questions of the Day' in Canton, Ohio. … The Canton
   experiment was followed in February, 1889, by another course,
   conducted by Dr. Bemis, in connection with the Public Library
   at St. Louis. … About the time when these various
   experiments were being tried in St. Louis, Canton, and
   Buffalo, individual members of Johns Hopkins University were
   attempting to introduce University Extension methods in
   connection with local lectures in the city of Baltimore. …
   The idea of University Extension in connection with Chautauqua
   was conceived by Dr. J. H. Vincent during a visit to England,
   in 1886, when he saw the English lecture system in practical
   operation and his own methods of encouraging home reading in
   growing favor with university men. The first definite American
   plan, showing at once the aims, methods, cost, and history, of
   University Extension lectures, was drawn up at Chautauqua by
   the writer of this article in the early summer of 1888. …
   Contemporary with the development of Chautauqua College and
   University Extension was the plan of Mr. Seth T. Stewart, of
   Brooklyn, New York, for 'University and School Extension.' …
   Several public meetings were held in New York in 1889-90 for
   the promotion of University and School Extension. … One of
   the most gratifying recent experiments in University Extension
   in America has been in the city of Philadelphia under the
   auspices of the American Society for the Extension of
   University Teaching. At various local centres Mr. Richard G.
   Moulton, one of the most experienced lecturers from Cambridge,
   England, lectured for ten weeks in the winter and spring of
   1891 to large and enthusiastic audiences. All the essential
   features of English University Extension were methodically and
   persistently carried out. … The American field for
   University Extension is too vast for the missionary labors of
   any one society or organization. … The most significant sign
   of the times with regard to University Extension in America is
   the recent appropriation of the sum of $10,000 for this very
   object by the New York legislature. The money is to be
   expended under the direction of the Regents of the University
   of the State of New York. … The intention of the New York
   act is simply to provide the necessary means for organizing a
   State system of University Extension … and to render such
   general assistance and co-operation as localities may
   require."

      _H. B. Adams,
      University Extension in America,
      (Forum, July, 1891)._

   On the opening, in 1892, of the Chicago University,
   munificently endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, of Cleveland,
   University Extension was made one of the three grand divisions
   of its organization.

{749}

EDWARD,
   King of Portugal,
      A. D. 1433-1438.
   Edward, called the Confessor, King of England,
      A. D. 1042-1065.
   Edward, called the Elder, King of Wessex,
      A. D. 901-925.
   Edward, called the Martyr, King of Wessex,
      A. D. 975.
   Edward I., King of England,
      A. D. 1274-1307.
   Edward II., King of England,
      A. D. 1307-1327.
   Edward III., King of England,
      A. D. 1327-1377.
   Edward V., King of England (first king of the House of York),
      A. D. 1461-1483.
   Edward V., titular King of England,
      A. D. 1483 (from April 9, when his father, Edward IV.,
      died, until June 22, when he is believed to have been
      murdered in the Tower by command of his uncle, the usurper,
      Richard III.).
   Edward VI., King of England,
      A. D. 1547-1553.

EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1755.
   Built by the New England troops.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1717.
   Abandoned to the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1777(JULY-OCTOBER).

----------EDWARD, Fort: End----------

EDWIG, King of Wessex, A. D. 955-957.

EDWIN, King of Northumbria, A. D. 617-633.

Egesta.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;
      and SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

EGFRITH, King of Northumbria, A. D. 670-685.

EGINA.
EGINETANS.

      See ÆGINA.

EGMONT, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and 1566-1568.

EGNATIAN WAY, The.

   A Roman road constructed from Apollonia on the Adriatic to the
   shores of the Hellespont; finally carried to Byzantium.

EGRA: A. D. 1647.
   Siege and capture by the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

EGYPT:
   Its Names.

   "Egypt is designated in the old inscriptions, as well as in
   the books of the later Christian Egyptians, by a word which
   signifies 'the black land,' and which is read in the Egyptian
   language Kern, or Kami."

      [Footnote: Kamit in the edition of 1891.]

   "The ancients had early remarked that the cultivable land of
   Egypt was distinguished by its dark and almost black colour.
   … The neighbouring region of the Arabian desert bore the
   name of Tesher, or the red land. … The Egyptians designated
   themselves simply as 'the people of the black land,' and …
   the inscriptions, so far as we know, have handed down to us no
   other appellation. … A real enigma is proposed to us in the
   derivation and meaning of the curious proper name, by which
   the foreign peoples of Asia, each in its own dialect, were
   accustomed to designate Egypt. The Hebrews gave the land the
   name of Mizraim; the Assyrians Muzur; the Persians, Mudraya.
   We may feel assured that at the basis of all these
   designations there lies an original form which consisted of
   the three letters M-z-r, all explanations of which have been
   as yet unsuccessful. Although I intend hereafter to consider
   more particularly the derivation of this puzzling name, which
   is still preserved at the present day in the Arabic
   appellation Misr, I will here premise the remark that this
   name was originally applied only to a certain definite part of
   Egypt, in the east of the Delta, which, according to the
   monuments, was covered and defended by many 'zor,' or
   fortresses, and was hence called in Egyptian Mazor (that is,
   fortified)."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 2._

   "Brugsch explains the name Egypt by 'ha-ka-ptah,' i. e. 'the
   precinct of Ptah.' As Ptah was more especially the god of
   Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 1, chapter 1, note._

   "The last use of Kem died out in the form Chemi in Coptic, the
   descendant of the classical language, which ceased to be
   spoken a century ago. It survives among us in the terms
   'chemistry' and 'alchemy,' sciences thought to be of Egyptian
   origin."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      introduction._

EGYPT:
   Its Historical Antiquity.

   The lists of Egyptian kings which have been found "agree in
   presenting the name of Mena [or Menes] as that of the first
   Pharaoh of Egypt, and as such he is unhesitatingly accepted,
   although no contemporary monumental record of the fact has yet
   been discovered. According to Manetho, the age of Mena dates
   back to a period of 5,004 years before the Christian era, a
   date which is nearly equal to 7,000 years from the present
   day. Brugsch favours a somewhat less interval, namely, 4455 B. C.;
   others place it as low as 2700 B. C., whilst Birch and
   Chabas adopt a medium date, namely 4000 B. C., which is
   equivalent to 6000 years backward from the existing time.
   These extreme variations are chiefly referable to the
   difficulty of ascertaining the precise length of each
   individual reign, and especially to the occasional
   contemporaneous reign of two or more kings, and sometimes the
   existence of two or more dynasties in different parts of the
   empire. … Lieblein gives full credit to the chronology of
   Manetho [a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote about 260 B. C.],
   as recorded by the historian Africanus, as likewise did the
   distinguished Mariette, and differs very little from the
   standard adopted by Birch. He assigns to Mena, as the pioneer
   of the first monarchy, a date in round numbers of 3900 years."

      _E. Wilson,
      The Egypt of the Past,
      chapter 1._

   "As to the era … when the first Pharaoh mounted the throne,
   the German Egyptologers have attempted to fix it at the
   following epochs: Boeckh, B. C. 5702; Unger, 5613; Brugsch,
   4455; Lauth, 4157; Lepsius, 3892; Bunsen, 3623. The difference
   between the two extreme points of the series is amazingly
   great, for its number of years amounts to no less than 2079.
   … The calculations in question are based on the extracts
   already often mentioned from a work by the Egyptian priest
   Manetho on the history of Egypt. That learned man had then at
   his command the annals of his country's history, which were
   preserved in the temples, and from them, the best and most
   accurate sources, be derived the materials for his work,
   composed in the Greek language, on the history of the ancient
   Egyptian Dynasties. His book, which is now lost, contained a
   general review of the kings of the land, divided into Thirty
   Dynasties, arranged in the order of their names, with the
   lengths of their reigns, and the total duration of each
   dynasty. Though this invaluable work was little known and
   certainly but little regarded by the historians of the old
   classical age, large extracts were made from it by some of the
   ecclesiastical writers. In process of time the copyists,
   either by error or designedly, corrupted the names and the
   numbers, and thus we only possess at the present day the ruins
   instead of the complete building. The truth of the original,
   and the authenticity of its sources were first proved by the
   deciphering of the Egyptian writings. And thus the Manethonian
   list served, and still serves, as a guide for assigning to the
   royal names read on the monuments their places in the
   Dynasties."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, MANETHO, LIST OF.

{750}

EGYPT:
   Origin of the ancient people.

   "The Egyptians, together with some other nations, form, as it
   would seem, a third branch of that [the Caucasian] race,
   namely, the family called Cushite, which is distinguished by
   special characters from the Pelasgian and the Semitic
   families. Whatever relations may be found always to exist
   between these great races of mankind, thus much may be
   regarded as certain, that the cradle of the Egyptian people
   must be sought in the interior of the Asiatic quarter of the
   world. In the earliest ages of humanity, far beyond all
   historical remembrance, the Egyptians, for reasons unknown to
   us, left the soil of their primeval home, took their way
   towards the setting sun, and finally crossed that bridge of
   nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the
   favoured banks of the holy Nile. Comparative philology, in its
   turn, gives powerful support to this hypothesis. The Egyptian
   language … shows in no way any trace of a derivation and
   descent from the African families of speech. On the contrary,
   the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian
   grammar point to such an intimate connection with the
   Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages that it is almost
   impossible to mistake the close relations which formerly
   prevailed between the Egyptians and the races called
   Indo-Germanic and Semitic."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 1._

   "It has been maintained by some that the immigration was from
   the south, the Egyptians having been a colony from Ethiopia
   which gradually descended the Nile and established itself in
   the middle and lower portions of the valley; and this theory
   can plead in its favour, both a positive statement of
   Diodorus, and the fact, which is quite certain, of an ethnic
   connection between the Egyptians and some of the tribes who
   now occupy Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia). But modern
   research has shown quite unmistakably that the movement of the
   Egyptians was in the opposite direction. … We must look,
   then, rather to Syria or Arabia than to Ethiopia as the cradle
   of the Egyptian nation. At the same time we must admit that
   they were not mere Syrians or Arabs, but had, from the
   remotest time whereto we can go back, distinct
   characteristics, whereby they have a good claim to be
   considered as a separate race."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 3._

   "So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa,
   like the valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot
   of the Abyssinian hills, was inhabited by nations who in
   colour, language, and customs were sharply distinguished from
   the negro. These nations belong to the whites: their languages
   were most closely allied to the Semitic. From this, and from
   their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been drawn
   that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil
   of Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still
   continue in the language of the Berbers. Assisted by the
   favourable conditions of their land, the tribe which settled
   on the Lower Nile quickly left their kinsmen far behind.
   Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life. The
   descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the
   Nile, in spite of the numerous layers which the course of
   centuries has subsequently laid upon the soil of the land,
   still form the larger part of the population of Egypt, and the
   ancient language is preserved in the dialect of the Copts."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 1, chapter 1._

EGYPT:
   The Old Empire and the Middle Empire.

   The following are the Egyptian Dynasties, from the first
   Pharaoh, Mena, to the epoch of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings,
   with the dates and periods assigned to each by Brugsch:

   The First Dynasty; of Thinis: B. C. 4400-4166.
   The Second; of Thinis: 4133-4000.
   The Third; of Memphis: 3966-3766.
   The Fourth; of Memphis: 3733-3600.
   The Fifth; of Elephantine: 3566-3333.
   The Sixth; of Memphis: 3300-3066.
   The Seventh to the Eleventh
      (a confused and obscure period):  3033-2500.
   The Twelfth; of Thebes: 2466-2266.

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      appendix A._

   "The direct descendants of Menes [or Mena] form the First
   Dynasty, which, according to Manetho, reigned 253 years. No
   monument contemporary with these princes has come down to us.
   … The Second Dynasty, to which Manetho assigns nine kings,
   lasted 302 years. It was also originally from This [or
   Thinis], and probably related to the First. … When this
   family had become extinct, a Dynasty, originally from Memphis,
   seized the throne, forming the Third, and to it a duration of
   214 years is attributed. … With the Fourth Dynasty, Memphite
   like the Third, and which reigned 284 years, history becomes
   clearer and monuments more numerous. This was the age of the
   three Great Pyramids, built by the three kings, Khufu (the
   Cheops of Herodotus), Shafra (Chefren), and Menkara
   (Mycerinus). … The Fifth Dynasty came originally from
   Elephantine, at the southern extremity of Upper Egypt, and
   there possibly the kings generally resided, though at the same
   time Memphis was not deprived of its importance. … On the
   death of the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, a new family, of
   Memphitic origin according to Manetho, came to the throne. …
   Primitive art attained its highest point under the Sixth
   Dynasty. … But, from the time of the civil commotions in
   which Neit-aker [the Nitocris of Herodotus] perished, Egyptian
   civilization underwent a sudden and unaccountable eclipse.
   From the end of the Sixth Dynasty to the commencement of the
   Eleventh, Manetho reckons 436 years, and for this whole period
   the monuments are absolutely silent. Egypt seems then to have
   disappeared from the rank of nations; and when this long
   slumber ended, civilization commenced a new career, entirely
   independent of the past. …
{751}
   Thus ends that period of nineteen centuries, which modern
   scholars know as the Old Empire. … Thebes did not exist in
   the days of the glory of the Old Empire. The holy city of Amen
   seems to have been founded during the period of anarchy and
   obscurity, succeeding, as we have said, to the Sixth Dynasty.
   Here was the birthplace of that renewed civilization, that new
   monarchy, we are accustomed to call the Middle Empire, the
   middle age in fact of ancient Egypt—a middle age anterior to
   the earliest ages of all other history. From Thebes cane the
   six kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. … We again quote the
   excellent remarks of M. Mariette: 'When, with the Eleventh
   Dynasty, we see Egypt awake from her long slumber, all old
   traditions appear to be forgotten; the proper names used in
   ancient families, the titles of functionaries, the style of
   writing, and even the religion—all seem new. This,
   Elephantine, and Memphis, are no longer the favourite
   capitals. Thebes for the first time becomes the seat of
   sovereign power. Egypt, moreover, has lost a considerable
   portion of her territory, and the authority of her legitimate
   kings hardly extends beyond the limited district of the
   Thebaid. The study of the monuments confirms these general
   views; they are rude, primitive, sometimes coarse; and when we
   look at them we may well believe that Egypt, under the
   Eleventh Dynasty, again passed through a period of infancy, as
   she had already done under the Third Dynasty.' A dynasty
   probably related to, and originally from the same place as
   these first Theban princes succeeded them. … This Twelfth
   Dynasty reigned for 213 years, and its epoch was one of
   prosperity, of peace at home and glorious achievements abroad.
   … Although the history of the Twelfth Dynasty is clear and
   well known, illustrated by numerous monuments, there is,
   nevertheless, no period in the annals of Egypt more obscure
   than the one closing with the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is one
   long series of revolutions, troubles, and internal
   dissensions, closed by a terrible catastrophe, the greatest
   and most lasting recorded in Egyptian history, which a second
   time interrupted the march of civilization on the banks of the
   Nile, and for a while struck Egypt from the list of nations."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. J. Bunsen,
      Egypt's Place in Universal History,
      volume 2._

      See, also, MEMPHIS, and THEBES, EGYPT.

EGYPT:
   The Hyksos, or Shepherd-Kings.

   According to the Manethouian account which the Jewish
   historian Josephus has preserved to us by transcribing it, the
   Egyptian Netherlands were at a certain time overspread by a
   wild and rough people, which came from the countries of the
   east, overcame the native kings who dwelt there, and took
   possession of the whole country, without finding any great
   opposition on the part of the Egyptians. They were called
   Hyksos, which Josephus interpreted as meaning Shepherd-kings.
   "Hyk," he explained, meant King, in the holy language, and
   "sos," in the dialect of the people, signified Shepherd. But
   Dr. Brugsch identifies "sos" with the name "Shasu," which the
   old Egyptians gave to the Bedouins, whose name became
   equivalent to Shepherds. Hence Dr. Brugsch inclines to the
   ancient opinion transmitted by Josephus, that the Hyksos were
   Arabs or Bedouins—the Shasu of the Egyptian records, who hung
   on the northeastern frontier of Egypt from the most ancient
   times and were always pressing into the country, at every
   opportunity. But many objections against this view are raised
   and the different theories advanced to account for the Hyksos
   are quite numerous. Canon Rawlinson says: "The Egyptians of
   the time of Herodotus seem to have considered that they were
   Philistines. Moderns have regarded them as Canaanites,
   Syrians, Hittites. It is an avoidance rather than a solution
   of the difficulty to say that they were 'a collection of all
   the nomad hordes of Arabia and Syria' [Lenormant], since there
   must have been a directing hand. … On the whole, therefore,
   we lean to the belief that the so-called Hyksos or Shepherds
   were Hittites."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 19._

   "It is maintained on good authority that the Hyksos, or
   Shepherd-Kings, had secured possession of the eastern frontier
   of Lower Egypt immediately after the close of the Twelfth
   Dynasty; that at this time the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth
   Dynasties ruled contemporaneously, the former in Upper, the
   latter in Lower Egypt; one was illegitimate, the other the
   illegitimate line; but authors are not in accord as to their
   right of priority. It is supposed that, while Egypt claimed
   the Thirteenth Dynasty as her own, the Hyksos usurped the
   mastery over the Fourteenth Dynasty, and governed through the
   agency of its kings, treating them meanwhile as vassal chiefs.
   These local kings had cities from which they were unable to
   escape, and were deprived of an army of defence. Such was the
   state of the country for 184 years, when the Fourteenth
   Dynasty died out, and when the Fifteenth Dynasty, constituted
   of six successive Hyksos kings, took the reins of government
   into their own hands. Lieblein, whose views we are now
   endeavouring to express, assigns as the date of the invasion
   of the Hyksos 2108 years B. C. … It is not improbable that
   the well-known journey of Abraham to Egypt was made during the
   early period of the reign of the Shepherd-Kings; whilst the
   visit of Joseph occurred near the close of their power."

      _E. Wilson,
      The Egypt of the Past,
      chapter 5._

   "'The Shepherds possessed themselves of Egypt by violence,'
   writes Mariette-Bey, 'but the civilization which they
   immediately adopted on their conquest was rather Egyptian than
   Asiatic, and the discoveries of Avaris (San) prove that they
   did not even banish from their temples the gods of the ancient
   Egyptian Pantheon.' In fact the first shepherd-king, Solatis
   himself, employed an Egyptian artist to inscribe … his title
   on the statue of a former legitimate Pharaoh. 'They did not
   disturb the civilization more than the Persians or the Greeks,
   but simply accepted the higher one they had conquered.' So our
   revered scholar Dr. Birch has summed up the matter; and Professor
   Maspero has very happily described it thus: 'The popular
   hatred loaded them with ignominious epithets, and treated them
   as accursed, plague-stricken, leprous. Yet they allowed
   themselves very quickly to be domesticated. … Once admitted
   to the school of Egypt, the barbarians progressed quickly in
   the civilized life. The Pharaonic court reappeared around
   these shepherd-kings, with all its pomp and all its following
   of functionaries great and small. The royal style and title of
   Cheops and the Amenemhas were fitted to the outlandish names
   of Jannes and Apapi. The Egyptian religion, without being
   officially adopted, was tolerated, and the religion of the
   Canaanites underwent some modifications to avoid hurting
   beyond measure the susceptibility of the worshippers of
   Osiris.'"

      _H. G. Tomkins,
      Studies on the Times of Abraham,
      chapter 8._

{752}

   In a late Italian work ("Gli Hyksos") by Dr. C. A. de Cara,
   "he puts together all that is ascertained in regard to them
   [the Hyksos], criticises the theories that have been
   propounded on their behalf, and suggests a theory of his own.
   Nothing that has been published on the subject seems to have
   escaped his notice. … His own view is that the Hyksos
   represented a confederacy of various Asiatic tribes, under the
   leadership of the northern Syrians. That their ruling class
   came from this part of the world seems to me clear from the
   name of their supreme god Sutekh, who occupied among them the
   position of the Semitic Baal."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Hyksôs
      (Academy, September 20, 1890)._

   "Historical research concerning the history of the Hyksos may
   be summed up as follows:

      I. A certain number of non-Egyptian kings of foreign
      origin, belonging to the nation of the Menti, ruled for a
      long time in the eastern portion of the Delta.

      II. These chose as their capitals the cities of Zoan and
      Avaris, and provided them with strong fortifications.

      III. They adopted not only the manners and customs of the
      Egyptians, but also their official language and writing,
      and the order of their court was arranged on Egyptian
      models.

      IV. They were patrons of art, and Egyptian artists erected,
      after the ancient models, monuments in honour of these
      usurpers, in whose statues they were obliged to reproduce
      the Hyksos physiognomy, the peculiar arrangement of the
      beard und head-dress, as well as other variations of their
      costume.

      V. They honored Sutekh, the son of Nut, as the supreme god
      of their newly acquired country, with the surname Nub, 'the
      golden.' He was the origin of all that is evil and perverse
      in the visible and invisible world, the opponent of good
      and the enemy of light. In the cities of Zoan and Avaris,
      splendid temples were constructed in honour of this god,
      and other monuments raised, especially Sphinxes, carved out
      of stone from Syene.

      VI. In all probability one of them was the founder of a new
      era, which most likely began with the first year of his
      reign. Down to the time of the second Ramses, four hundred
      years had elapsed of this reckoning which was acknowledged
      even by the Egyptians.

      VII. The Egyptians were indebted to their contact with them
      for much useful knowledge. In particular their artistic views
      were expanded and new forms and shapes, notably that of the
      winged sphinx, were introduced, the Semitic origin of which is
      obvious at a glance. …

   The inscriptions on the monuments designate that foreign
   people who once ruled in Egypt by the name of Men or Menti. On
   the walls of the temple of Edfû it is stated that 'the
   inhabitants of the land of Asher are called Menti.' … In the
   different languages, … and in the different periods of
   history, the following names are synonymous: Syria, Rutennu of
   the East, Asher, and Menti."—"Since, on the basis of the
   most recent and best investigations in the province of ancient
   Egyptian chronology, we reckon the year 1350 B. C. as a mean
   computation for the reign of Ramses, the reign of the Hyksos
   king, Nub, and probably its beginning, falls in the year 1750
   B. C., that is, 400 years before Ramses II. Although we are
   completely in the dark as to the place King Nub occupied in
   the succession of the kindred princes of his house, yet the
   number mentioned is important, as an approximate epoch for the
   stay of the foreign kings in Egypt. According to the statement
   in the Bible, the Hebrews from the immigration of Jacob into
   Egypt until the Exodus remained 430 years in that land. Since
   the Exodus from Egypt took place in the time of Meneptah II.,
   the son of Ramses II.—the Pharaoh of the oppression—the
   year B. C. 1300 may be an approximate date. If we add to this
   430 years, as expressing the total duration of the sojourn of
   the Hebrews in Egypt, we arrive at the year 1730 B. C. as the
   approximate date for the immigration of Jacob into Egypt, and
   for the time of the official career of Joseph at the court of
   Pharaoh. In other words, the time of Joseph (1730 B. C.) must
   have fallen in the period of the Hyksos domination, about the
   reign of the above-mentioned prince Nub (1750 B. C)."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs
      (edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick),
      pages 106-109, and 126._

      See JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

      ALSO IN:
      F. C. H. Wendel, History of Egypt, chapter 4.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1700-1400.
   The New Empire.
   The Eighteenth Dynasty.

   "The dominion of the Hyksos by necessity gave rise to profound
   internal divisions, alike in the different princely families
   and in the native population itself. Factions became rampant
   in various districts, and reached the highest point in the
   hostile feeling of the inhabitants of Patoris or the South
   country against the people of Patomit or North country, who
   were much mixed with foreign blood. … From this condition of
   divided power and of mutual jealousy the foreign rulers
   obtained their advantage and their chief strength, until King
   Aahmes made himself supreme."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs
      (edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick)._

   "The duration of the reign of this first Pharaoh of the New
   Empire was twenty-five years. He was succeeded by his son
   Amenhotep I. and the latter by his son Thothmes I. "The reign
   of Thothmes 1. … derives its chief distinction from the fact
   that, at this period of their history, the Egyptians for the
   first time carried their arms deep into Asia, overrunning
   Syria, and even invading Mesopotamia, or the tract between the
   Tigris and the Euphrates. Hitherto the furthest point reached
   in this direction had been Sharuhen in Southern Palestine. …
   Syria was hitherto almost an undiscovered region to the
   powerful people which nurturing its strength in the Nile
   valley, had remained content with its own natural limits and
   scarcely grasped at any conquests. A time was now come when
   this comparative quietude and absence of ambition were about
   to cease. Provoked by the attack made upon her from the side
   of Asia, and smarting from the wounds inflicted upon her pride
   and prosperity by the Hyksos during the period of their rule,
   Egypt now set herself to retaliate, and for three centuries
   continued at intervals to pour her armies into the Eastern
   continent, and to carry fire and sword over the extensive and
   populous regions which lay between the Mediterranean and the
   Zagros mountain range. There is some uncertainty as to the
   extent of her conquests; but no reasonable doubt can be
   entertained that for a space of three hundred years Egypt was
   the most powerful and the most aggressive state that the world
   contained, and held a dominion that has as much right to be
   called an 'Empire' as the Assyrian, the Babylonian or the Persian.
{753}
   While Babylonia, ruled by Arab conquerors, declined in
   strength, and Assyria proper was merely struggling into
   independence, Egypt put forth her arm and grasped the fairest
   regions of the earth's surface." The immediate successor of
   Thothmes I. was his son, Thothmes II., who reigned in
   association with a sister of masculine character, queen
   Hatasu. The strong-minded queen, moreover, prolonged her reign
   after the death of this elder brother, until a younger
   brother, Thothmes III. displaced her. The Third Thothmes was
   the greatest of Egyptian conquerors and kings. He carried his
   arms beyond the Euphrates, winning a memorable victory at
   Megiddo over the confederated kings of the Syrian and
   Mesopotamian countries. He left to his son (Amenhotep II.) "a
   dominion extending about 1,100 miles from north to south, and
   (in places) 450 miles from west to east." He was a great
   builder, likewise, and "has left the impress of his presence
   in Egypt more widely than almost any other of her kings, while
   at the same time he has supplied to the great capitals of the
   modern world their most striking Egyptian monuments." The
   larger of the obelisks now standing in Rome and
   Constantinople, as well as those at London and New York were
   all of them produced in the reign of this magnificent Pharaoh.
   The two obelisks last named stood originally, and for fourteen
   centuries at the front of the great temple of the sun, in
   Heliopolis. They were removed by the Roman Emperor, Augustus,
   B. C: 23, to Alexandria, where they took in time the name of
   Cleopatra's Needles,—although Cleopatra had no part in their
   long history. After nineteen centuries more of rest, these
   strangely coveted monuments were again disturbed, and
   transported into lands which their builder knew not of. The
   later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty seem to have, none of
   them, possessed the energy and character of Thothmes III. The
   line ended about 1400 B. C. with Horemheb, who left no heirs.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 13._

      _H. H. Gorringe,
      Egyptian Obelisks._

EGYPT: About B. C. 1500-1400.
   The Tell el-Amarna Tablets.
   Correspondence of the Egyptian kings with Babylonia, Assyria,
   Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine.

   "The discovery made in 1887 by a peasant woman of Middle Egypt
   may be described as the most important of all contributions to
   the early political history of Western Asia. We have become
   possessed of a correspondence, dating from the fifteenth
   century B. C., which was carried on during the reigns of three
   Egyptian kings, with the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, Armenia,
   Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, during a period of great
   activity, when revolutions which affected the whole history of
   the east shore lands of the Mediterranean were in progress;
   and we find in these tablets a contemporary picture of the
   civilisation of the age. … The Tell Amarna tablets represent
   a literature equal in bulk to about half the Pentateuch, and
   concerned almost exclusively with political affairs, They are
   clay tablets, varying from two inches to a foot in length,
   with a few as large as eighteen inches, covered with cuneiform
   writing generally on both sides, and often on the edges as
   well. The peasantry unearthed nearly the complete collection,
   including some 320 pieces in all; and explorers afterwards
   digging on the site have added only a few additional
   fragments. The greater number were bought for the Berlin
   Museum, while eighty-two were acquired for England, and the
   rest remain either in the Boulak Museum at Cairo; or, in a few
   instances, in the hands of private collectors. … Tell Amarna
   (apparently 'the mound of the tumuli ') is an important ruined
   site on the east bank of the Nile, about a hundred and fifty
   miles in a straight line south of Cairo. Its Egyptian name is
   said to have been Khu-en-aten, 'Glory of the Sun-disk.'"

      _The Tell Amarna Tablets
      (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893)._

   "The collection of Cuneiform Tablets recently found [1887] at
   Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, consisted of about three
   hundred and twenty documents, or portions of documents. The
   British Museum possesses eighty-two … the Berlin Museum has
   one hundred and sixty, a large number being fragments; the
   Gizeh Museum has sixty; and a few are in the hands of private
   persons. … In color the Tablets vary from a light to a dark
   dust tint, and from a flesh-color to dark brick-red. The
   nature of the clay of which they are made sometimes indicates
   the countries from which they come. The size of the Tablets in
   the British Museum varies from 8¾ inches x 4-7/8 inches to 2-1/8
   inches x 1-11/16 inches; the longest text contains 98 lines, the
   shortest 10. … The greater number are rectangular, and a few
   are oval; and they differ in shape from any other cuneiform
   documents known to us. … The writing … resembles to a
   certain extent the Neo-Babylonian, i. e., the simplification
   of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire used commonly in
   Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B. C. It
   possesses, however, characteristics different from those of
   any other style of cuneiform writing of any period now known
   to exist; and nearly every tablet contains forms of characters
   which have hitherto been thought peculiar to the Ninevite or
   Assyrian style of writing. But, compared with the neat,
   careful hand employed in the official documents drawn up for
   the kings of Assyria, it is somewhat coarse and careless, and
   suggests the work of unskilled scribes. One and the same hand,
   however, appears in tablets which come from the same person
   and the same place. On some of the large tablets the writing
   is bold and free; on some of the small ones the characters are
   confused and cramped, and are groups of strokes rather than
   wedges. The spelling … is often careless, and in some
   instances syllables have been omitted. At present it is not
   possible to say whether the irregular spelling is due to the
   ignorance of the scribe or to dialectic peculiarities. … The
   Semitic dialect in which these letters are written is
   Assyrian, and is, in some important details, closely related
   to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. … The documents were
   most probably written between the years B. C. 1500 to 1450.
   … They give an insight into the nature of the political
   relations which existed between the kings of Western Asia and
   the kings of Egypt, and prove that an important trade existed
   between the two countries from very early times. … A large
   number of the present tablets are addressed to 'the King of
   Egypt,' either Amenophis III. or Amenophis IV. Nearly all of
   them consist of reports of disasters to the Egyptian power and
   of successful intrigues against it, coupled by urgent
   entreaties for help, pointing to a condition of distraction
   and weakness in Egypt. … The most graphic details of the
   disorganized condition, and of the rival factions, of the
   Egyptian dependencies lying on the coastline of Phoenicia and
   Northern Palestine, are to be gathered from a perusal of the
   dispatches of the governors of the cities of Byblos, Beyrut
   and Tyre."

       _The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum,
       introduction._

{754}

   "In the present state of cuneiform research I believe it to be
   impossible to give a translation of the Tell el-Amarna texts
   which would entirely satisfy the expert or general reader. No
   two scholars would agree as to any interpretation which might
   be placed upon certain rare grammatical forms and unknown
   words in the Babylonian text, and any literal translation in a
   modern language would not be understood by the general reader
   on account of the involved style and endless repetition of
   phrases common to a Semitic idiom and dialect. About the
   general meaning of the contents of the greater number of the
   letters there can be no doubt whatever, and it is therefore
   possible to make a summary of the contents of each letter,
   which should, as a rule, satisfy the general reader, and at
   the same time form a guide to the beginner in cuneiform.
   Summaries of the contents of the Tell el-Amarna tablets in the
   British Museum have been published in 'The Tell el-Amarna
   Tablets in the British Museum, with autotype facsimiles,'
   printed by order of the Trustees, London, 1892, and it is
   hoped that the transliteration, given in the following pages
   may form a useful supplement to that work." …

   No. 1. A Letter from Egypt—Amenophis III. to Kallimma (?)
   Sin, King of Karaduniyash, referring to his proposed marriage
   with Sukharti, the daughter of Kallimma-Sin, and containing
   the draft of a commercial treaty, and an allusion to the
   disappearance of certain chariots and horses.

   No.2. Letters from Babylonia-Burraburiyash, King of
   Karaduniyash, to Amenophis IV., referring to the friendship
   which had existed between their respective fathers, and the
   help which had been rendered to the King of Egypt by
   Burraburiyash himself; the receipt of two manahs of gold is
   acknowledged and a petition is made for more.

   No. 3. Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash to Amenophis IV.,
   complaining that the Egyptian messengers had visited his
   country thrice without bringing gifts, and that they withheld
   some of the gold which had been sent to him from Egypt;
   Burraburiyash announces the despatch of a gift of lapis-lazuli
   for the Egyptian princess who was his son's wife. …

   No. 30. Letter from Abi-milki, governor of Tyre, to the King
   of Egypt, reporting that he believes Zimrida will not be able
   to stir up disaffection in the city of Sidon, although he has
   caused much hostility against Tyre. He asks for help to
   protect the city, and for water to drink and wood to burn, and
   he sends with his messenger Ili-milki five talents of copper
   and other gifts for the King of Egypt. He reports that the
   King of Danuna is dead and that his brother reigns in his
   stead; one half of the city of Ugarit has been destroyed by
   fire; the soldiers of the Khatti have departed; Itagamapairi,
   governor of Kedesh, and Aziru are fighting against Namyawiza.
   If the King of Egypt will but send a few troops, all will be
   well with Tyre. …

   No. 43. Letter from the governor of a town in Syria to the
   King of Egypt, reporting that the rebels have asserted their
   independence; that Biridashwi has stirred up rebellion in the
   city of Inu-Amma; that its people have captured chariots in
   the city of Ashtarti: that the kings of the cities of Buzruna
   and Khalunni have made a league with Biridashwi to slay
   Namyawiza (who, having taken refuge in Damascus and being
   attacked by Arzawiya, declared himself to be a vassal of
   Egypt); that Arzawiya went to the city of Gizza and afterwards
   captured the city of Shaddu; that Itakkama ravaged the country
   of Gizza; and that Arzawiya and Biridashwi have wasted the
   country of Abitu.

   No. 44. Continuation (1) of a letter to the King of Egypt,
   reporting that, owing to the hostilities of Abd-Ashirta,
   Khâya, an official, was unable to send ships to the country of
   Amurri, as he had promised. The ships from Arvad which the
   writer has in his charge, lack their full complement of men
   for war service, and he urges the king to make use of the
   ships and crews which he has had with him in Egypt. The writer
   of the letter also urges the King of Egypt to appoint an
   Egyptian official over the naval affairs of Sidon, Beyrut and
   Arvad, and to seize Abd-Ashirta and put him under restraint to
   prevent him obstructing the manning of the ships of war. …

   No. 58. Letter from the governor of a district in Palestine
   (?) to the governors of neighbouring states in the land of
   Canaan, informing them that he is about to send his messenger
   Akiya on a mission to the King of Egypt, and to place himself
   and every thing that he has at his disposal. Akiya will go to
   Egypt by the way of Canaan, and the writer of this letter
   suggests that any gifts they may have to send to Egypt should
   be carried by him, for Akiya is a thoroughly trustworthy man.

      _C. Bezold,
      Oriental Diplomacy: Being the transliterated
      text of the Cuneiform Despatches,
      preface._

   Under the title of "The Story of a 'Tell,'" Mr. W. M. Flinders
   Petrie, the successful excavator and explorer of Egyptian
   antiquities, gave a lecture in London, in June, 1892, in which
   he described the work and the results of an excavation then in
   progress under his direction on the supposed site of Lachish,
   at a point where the maritime plain of Philistia rises to the
   mountains of Judæa, on the route from Egypt into Asia. The
   chairman who introduced Mr. Petrie defined the word "Tell" as
   follows: "A Tell is a mound of earth showing by the presence
   of broken pottery or worked stone that it is the site of a
   ruined city or village. In England when a house falls down or
   is pulled down the materials are usually worth the expense of
   removing for use in some new building. But in Egypt common
   houses have for thousands of years been built of sun-dried
   bricks; in Palestine of rough rubble walling, which, on
   falling, produces many chips, with thick flat roofs of
   plaster. It is thus often less trouble to get new than to use
   old material; the sites of towns grow in height, and
   depressions are filled up." The mound excavated by Mr. Petrie
   is known as Tell el Hesy. After he left the work it was
   carried on by Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Petrie in his lecture says
   "The last news is that Mr. Bliss has found the long looked for
   prize, a cuneiform tablet. … From the character of the
   writing, which is the same as on the tablets written in
   Palestine in 1400. B. C., to the Egyptian king at Tel el
   Amarna, we have a close agreement regarding the chronology of
   the town. Further, it mentions Zimrida as a governor, and this
   same man appears as governor of Lachish on the tablets found
   at Tel el Amarna. We have thus at last picked up the other end
   of the broken chain of correspondence between Palestine and
   Egypt, of which one part was so unexpectedly found in Egypt a
   few years ago on the tablets at Tel el Amarna; and we may hope
   now to recover the Palestinian part of this intercourse and so
   establish the pre-Israelite history of the land."

      W_. M. F. Petrie,
      The Story of a "Tell"
      (The City and the Land, lecture 6)._

      See, also, PALESTINE.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Conder,
      The Tell Amarna Tablets,
      translated._

{755}

EGYPT: About B. C. 1400-1200.
   The first of the Ramesides.
   The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus.

   "Under the Nineteenth Dynasty, which acquired the throne after
   the death of Har-em-Hebi [or Hor-em-heb] the fortune of Egypt
   maintained to some extent its ascendancy; but, though the
   reigns of some war-like kings throw a bright light on this
   epoch, the shade of approaching trouble already darkens the
   horizon." Ramses I. and his son, or son-in-law, Seti I., were
   involved in troublesome wars with the rising power of the
   Hittites, in Syria, and with the Shasu of the Arabian desert.
   Seti was also at war with the Libyans, who then made their
   first appearance in Egyptian history. His son Ramses II., the
   Sesostris of the Greeks, who reigned for sixty-seven years, in
   the fourteenth century B. C., has always been the most famous
   of the Egyptian kings, and, by modern discovery, has been made
   the most interesting of them to the Christian world. He was a
   busy and boastful warrior, who accomplished no important
   conquests; but "among the Pharaohs he is the builder 'par
   excellence.' It is almost impossible to find in Egypt a ruin
   or an ancient mound, without reading his name." … It was to
   these works, probably, that the Israelites then in Egypt were
   forced to contribute their labor; for the Pharaoh of the
   oppression is identified, by most scholars of the present day,
   with this building and boasting Sesostris.

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 3._

   "The extreme length of the reign of Ramses was, as in other
   histories, the cause of subsequent weakness and disaster. His
   successor was an aged son, Menptah, who had to meet the
   difficulties which were easily overcome by the youth of his
   energetic father. The Libyans and their maritime allies broke
   the long tranquillity of Egypt by a formidable invasion and
   temporary conquest of the north-west. The power of the
   monarchy was thus shaken, and the old king was not the leader
   to restore it. His obscure reign was followed by others even
   obscurer, and the Nineteenth Dynasty ended in complete
   anarchy, which reached its height when a Syrian chief, in what
   manner we know not, gained the rule of the whole country. It
   is to the reign of Menptah that Egyptian tradition assigned
   the Exodus, and modern research has come to a general
   agreement that this is its true place in Egyptian history. …
   Unfortunately we do not know the duration of the oppression of
   the Israelites, nor the condition of Lower Egypt during the
   Eighteenth Dynasty, which, according to the hypothesis here
   adopted, corresponds to a great part of the Hebrew sojourn. It
   is, however, clear from the Bible that the oppression did not
   begin till after the period of Joseph's contemporaries, and
   had lasted eighty years before the Exodus. It seems almost
   certain that this was the actual beginning of the oppression,
   for it is very improbable that two separate Pharaohs are
   intended by the 'new king which knew not Joseph' and the
   builder of Rameses, or, in other words, Ramses II., and the
   time from the accession of Ramses II. to the end of Menptah's
   reign can have little exceeded the eighty years of Scripture
   between the birth of Moses and the Exodus. … If the
   adjustment of Hebrew and Egyptian history for the oppression,
   as stated above, be accepted, Ramses II. was probably the
   first, and certainly the great oppressor. His character suits
   this theory; he was an undoubted autocrat who … covered
   Egypt and Lower Nubia with vast structures that could only
   have been produced by slave-labor on the largest scale."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Ancient Egypt
      (Contemporary Review, March, 1879)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 14._

      _H. G. Tomkins,
      Life and Times of Joseph._

      See, also:
      JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1300.
   Exodus of the Israelites.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1200-670.
   The decline of the empire of the Pharaohs.

   From the anarchy in which the Nineteenth Dynasty came to its
   end, order was presently restored by the seating in power of a
   new family, which claimed to be of the Rameside stock. The
   second of its kings, who called himself Ramses III. and who is
   believed to be the Rhampsinitus of the Greeks, appears to have
   been one of the ablest of the monarchs of his line. The
   security and prosperity of Egypt were recovered under his
   reign and he left it in a state which does not seem to have
   promised the rapid decay which ensued. "It is difficult to
   understand and account for the suddenness and completeness of
   the collapse. … The hieratic chiefs, the high priests of the
   god Ammon at Thebes, gradually increased in power, usurped one
   after another the prerogatives of the Pharaohs, by degrees
   reduced their authority to a shadow, and ended with an open
   assumption not only of the functions, but of the very insignia
   of royalty. A space of nearly two centuries elapsed, however,
   before this change was complete. Ten princes of the name of
   Ramses, and one called Meri-Tum, all of them connected by
   blood with the great Rameside house, bore the royal title and
   occupied the royal palace, in the space between B. C. 1280 and
   B. C. 1100. Egyptian history during this period is almost
   wholly a blank. No military expeditions are conducted—no
   great buildings are reared—art almost disappears—literature
   holds her tongue." Then came the dynasty of the priest-kings,
   founded by Her-Hor, which held the throne for more than a
   century and was contemporary in its latter years with David
   and Solomon. The Twenty-Second Dynasty which succeeded had its
   capital at Bubastis and is concluded by Dr. Brugsch to have
   been a line of Assyrian kings, representing an invasion and
   conquest of Egypt by Nimrod, the great king of Assyria. Other
   Egyptologists disagree with Dr. Brugsch in this, and Professor
   Rawlinson, the historian of Assyria, finds objections to the
   hypothesis from his own point of view.
{756}
   The prominent monarch of this dynasty was the Sheshonk of
   Biblical history, who sheltered Jeroboam, invaded Palestine
   and plundered Jerusalem. Before this dynasty came to an end it
   had lost the sovereignty of Egypt at large, and its Pharaohs
   contended with various rivals and invaders. Among the latter,
   power grew in the hands of a race of Ethiopians, who had risen
   to importance at Napata, on the Upper Nile, and who extended
   their power, at last, over the whole of Egypt. The Ethiopian
   domination was maintained for two-thirds of a century, until
   the great wave of Assyrian conquest broke upon Egypt in 672 B.
   C. and swept over it, driving the Ethiopians back to Napata
   and Meroë.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 15-18._

      _E. Wilson,
      Egypt of the Past,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, ETHIOPIA.

EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.
   Assyrian conquest and restored independence.
   The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
   The Greeks at Naucratis.

   Although Syria and Palestine had then been suffering for more
   than a century from the conquering arms of the Assyrians, it
   was not until 670 B. C., according to Professor Rawlinson, that
   Esarhaddon passed the boundaries of Egypt and made himself
   master of that country. His father Sennacherib, had attempted
   the invasion thirty years before, at the time of his siege of
   Jerusalem, and had recoiled before some mysterious calamity
   which impelled him to a sudden retreat. The son avenged his
   father's failure. The Ethiopian masters of Egypt were expelled
   and the Assyrian took their place. He "broke up the country
   into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who
   bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a
   certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned
   at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamtik
   I.)—a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in
   Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho. The remaining
   rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians."
   These arrangements were soon broken up by the expelled
   Ethiopian king, Tirhakah, who rallied his forces and swept the
   Assyrian kinglets out of the country; but Asshur-bani-pal, son
   and successor of Esarhaddon, made his appearance with an army
   in 668 or 667 B. C. and Tirhakah fled before him. Again and
   again this occurred, and for twenty years Egypt was torn
   between the Assyrians and the Ethiopians, in their struggle
   for the possession of her. At length, out of the chaos
   produced by these conflicts there emerged a native ruler—the
   Psammetichus mentioned above—who subjugated his fellow
   princes and established a new Egyptian monarchy, which
   defended itself with success against Assyria and Ethiopia,
   alike. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, of Sais, founded by
   Psammetichus, is suspected to have been of Libyan descent. It
   ruled Egypt until the Persian conquest, and brought a great
   new influence to bear on the country and people, by the
   introduction of Greek soldiers and traders. It was under this
   dynasty that the Greek city of Naucratis was founded, on the
   Canobic branch of the Nile.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
      chapter 9._

   The site of Naucratis, near the Canobic branch of the Nile,
   was determined by excavations which Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie
   began in 1884, and from which much has been learned of the
   history of the city and of early relations between the
   Egyptians and the Greeks. It is concluded that the settlement
   of Naucratis dates from about 660 B. C.—not long after the
   beginning of the reign of Psammitichus—and that its Greek
   founders became the allies of that monarch and his successors
   against their enemies. "All are agreed that before the reign
   of Psammitichus and the founding of Naucratis, Egypt was a
   sealed book to the Greeks. It is likely that the Phoenicians,
   who were from time to time the subjects of the Pharaohs, were
   admitted, where aliens like the Greeks were excluded. We have
   indeed positive evidence that the Egyptians did not wish
   strange countries to learn their art, for in a treaty between
   them and the Hittites it is stipulated that neither country
   shall harbour fugitive artists from the other. But however the
   fact may be accounted for, it is an undoubted fact that long
   before Psammitichus threw Egypt open to the foreigner, the
   Phoenicians had studied in the school of Egyptian art, and
   learned to copy all sorts of handiwork procured from the
   valley of the Nile. … According to Herodotus and Diodorus,
   the favour shown to the Greeks by the King was the cause of a
   great revolt of the native Egyptian troops, who left the
   frontier fortresses, and marched south beyond Elephantine,
   where they  settled, resisting all the entreaties of
   Psammitichus, who naturally deplored the loss of the mainstay
   of his dominions, and developed into the race of the Sebridae.
   Wiedemann, however, rejects the whole story as unhistorical,
   and certainly, if we closely consider it, it contains great
   inherent improbabilities. … Psammitichus died in B. C: 610,
   and was succeeded by his son Necho, who was his equal in
   enterprise and vigour. This King paid great attention to the
   fleet of Egypt, and Greek shipwrights were set to work on both
   the Mediterranean and Red Seas to build triremes for the State
   navy. A fleet of his ships, we are told, succeeded in sailing
   round Africa, a very great feat for the age. The King even
   attempted the task, of which the completion was reserved for
   the Persian Darius, the Ptolemies, and Trajan, of making a
   canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Herodotus says
   that, after sacrificing the lives of 120,000 men to the labour
   and heat of the task, he gave it up, in consequence of the
   warning of an oracle that he was toiling only for the
   barbarians. … Necho, like his father, must needs try the
   edge of his new weapon, the Ionian mercenaries, on Asia. At
   first he was successful. Josiah, King of Judah, came out
   against him, but was slain, and his army dispersed. Greek
   valour carried Necho as far as the Euphrates. … But
   Nebuchadnezzar, son of the King of Babylon, marched against
   the invaders, and defeated them in a great battle near
   Carehemish. His father's death recalled him to Babylon, and
   Egypt was for the moment saved from counter-invasion by the
   stubborn resistance offered to the Babylonian arms by
   Jehoiakim, King of Judah, a resistance fatal to the Jewish
   race; for Jerusalem was captured after a long siege, and most
   of the inhabitants carried into captivity. Of Psammitichus
   II., who succeeded Necho, we should know but little were it
   not for the archaeological record. Herodotus only says that he
   attacked Ethiopia, and died after a reign of six years.
{757}
   But of the expedition thus summarily recorded we have a
   lasting and memorable result in the well-known inscriptions
   written by Rhodians and other Greek mercenaries on the legs of
   the colossi at Abu Simbel in Nubia, which record how certain
   of them came thither in the reign of Psammitichus, pushing up
   the river in boats as far as it was navigable, that is,
   perhaps, up to the second cataract. … Apries, the Hophra of
   the Bible, was the next king. The early part of his reign was
   marked by successful warfare against the Phoenicians and the
   peoples of Syria; but, like his predecessor, he was unable to
   maintain a footing in Asia in the face of the powerful and
   warlike Nebuchadnezzar. The hostility which prevailed between
   Egypt and Babylon at this time caused King Apries to open a
   refuge for those Jews who fled from the persecution of
   Nebuchadnezzar. He assigned to their leaders, among whom were
   the daughters of the King of Judah, a palace of his own at
   Daphnae, 'Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes,' as it is called by
   Jeremiah. That prophet was among the fugitives, and uttered in
   the palace a notable prophecy, (xliii. 9) that King
   Nebuchadnezzar should come and spread his conquering tent over
   the pavement before it. Formerly it was supposed that this
   prophecy remained unfulfilled, but this opinion has to be
   abandoned. Recently discovered Egyptian and Babylonian
   inscriptions prove that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt as far
   as Syene. … The fall of Apries as brought about by his
   ingratitude to the Greeks, and his contempt for the lives of
   his own subjects. He had formed the project of bringing under
   his sway the Greek cities of the Cyrenaica. … Apries
   despatched against Cyrene a large force; but the Cyreneans
   bravely defended themselves, and as the Egyptians on this
   occasion marched without their Greek allies, they were
   entirely defeated, and most of them perished by the sword, or
   in the deserts which separate Cyrene from Egypt. The defeated
   troops, and their countrymen who remained behind in garrison
   in Egypt, imputed the disaster to treachery on the part of
   Apries. … They revolted, and chose as their leader Amasis, a
   man of experience and daring. But Apries, though deserted by
   his subjects, hoped still to maintain his throne by Greek aid.
   At the head of 30,000 Ionians and Carians he marched against
   Amasis. At Momemphis a battle took place between the rival
   kings and between the rival nations; but the numbers of the
   Egyptians prevailed over the arms and discipline of the
   mercenaries, and Apries was defeated and captured by his
   rival, who, however, allowed him for some years to retain the
   name of joint-king. It is the best possible proof of the
   solidity of Greek influence in Egypt at this time that Amasis,
   though set on the throne by the native army after a victory
   over the Greek mercenaries, yet did not expel these latter
   from Egypt, but, on the contrary, raised them to higher favour
   than before. … In the delightful dawn of connected European
   history we see Amasis as a wise and wealthy prince, ruling in
   Egypt at the time when Polycrates was tyrant of Samos; and
   when Croesus of Lydia, the richest king of his time, was
   beginning to be alarmed by the rapid expansion of the Persian
   power under Cyrus. … In the days of Psammitichus III., the
   son of Amasis, the storm which had overshadowed Asia broke
   upon Egypt. One of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries in
   Egypt named Phanes, a native of Halicarnassus, made his way to
   the Persian Court, and persuaded Cambyses, who, according to
   the story, had received from Amasis one of those affronts
   which have so often produced wars between despots, to invade
   Egypt in full force."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. F. Petrie,
      Naukratis._

      See, also, NAUKRATIS.

EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
   Persian conquest and sovereignty.

   The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the
   independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and
   even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's
   ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king
   of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen
   and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their
   place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of
   conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the
   task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian
   monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It
   was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of
   his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate
   of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA:
   B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father
   Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects,
   but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and
   Carians. … In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the
   Egyptian army was completely defeated. … The conquest of
   Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring
   tribes. … Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and
   Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his
   tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous
   expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he
   retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted
   rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country,
   was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples
   and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt
   and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely
   broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious
   slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator
   than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."

      _George Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 7._

   "The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are
   enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing
   revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the
   Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus,
   who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and
   the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte)
   Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we
   need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and
   have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of
   independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the
   invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C.
   353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius
   Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending
   with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C.
   332)."

      _P. Smith,
      Ancient History of the East (Students'),
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN: _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 5._

{758}

EGYPT: B. C. 332.
   Alexander's conquest.

   "In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of
   Tyre—see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330]
   Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied
   by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of
   Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by
   the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered
   Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest,
   but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake
   off the Persian tyranny. … Mazaces [the Persian commander]
   himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became
   aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and
   met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the
   fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it
   to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched
   across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the
   honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis,
   who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. …
   He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of
   the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on
   that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed
   on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea,
   and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales …
   by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by
   a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the
   isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis,
   where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent
   guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from
   adventurers. … Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck
   by the advantages of this position for a city, which should
   become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the
   East and the West. … He immediately gave orders for the
   beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was
   suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and
   marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares,
   palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander
   remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the
   occupation and administration of the country. "The system
   which he established served in some points as a model for the
   policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the
   country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward,
   and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of
   Ammon.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 50._

EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
   The kingdom of the Ptolemies.

   In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between
   his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus—reputed to be a
   natural son of Alexander's father Philip—chose Egypt (see
   MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be
   wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was
   the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by
   reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest
   of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he
   founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more
   security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of
   the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen
   years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name
   (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his
   dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African
   coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of
   Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over
   for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids,
   sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see
   SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest
   extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy
   Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of
   Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene
   they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them.
   Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy
   developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can
   show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the
   most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they
   more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They
   made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the
   greatest seat of learning,—the successor of Athens as the
   capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapters 7-12._

   The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy
   Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year
   following.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

   "Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly
   altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other
   respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt
   took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead
   of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great
   effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the
   country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had
   scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring
   up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies,
   intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would
   naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced
   manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine
   linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt
   alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade
   in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed,
   enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and
   Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in
   return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to
   offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies
   seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red
   Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual,
   but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the
   hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf.
   Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread
   eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë
   and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian
   trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands,
   the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further
   and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and
   Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans,
   could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which
   had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. … If we may
   trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which
   have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under
   Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we
   cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his
   reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and
   40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The
   fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large
   vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars.
   Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then
   more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 7._

      See, also, ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
      and EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

{759}

EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.
   Strife among the Ptolemies.
   Roman pretensions.

   The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between
   Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son,
   Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans
   to support his claims by making a will in which he named the
   Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to
   Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that
   they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was
   obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days
   afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen.
   The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander
   was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of
   the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called
   Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he
   succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of
   the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have
   been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed
   with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a
   rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B.
   C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in
   Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will
   his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder
   son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the
   Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The
   Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its
   executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three
   years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought,
   Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling
   against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to
   interfere.

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 11._

EGYPT: B. C. 48-47.
   Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy.
   Intervention of Cæsar.
   The rising against him.
   The Romans besieged in Alexandria.
   Their ruthless victory.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

EGYPT: B. C. 30.
   Organized as a Roman province.

   After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt
   was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and
   the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had
   no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he
   tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign
   soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon
   crushing nearer home. … In due time he persuaded the senate
   and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should
   never be placed under the administration of any man of
   superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be
   allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the
   supreme authority."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 29._

EGYPT: A. D. 100-500.
   Roman and Christian.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415;
      and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EGYPT: A. D. 296.
   Revolt crushed by Diocletian.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.
   Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.

   The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian
   conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt
   itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time
   of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued
   by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that
   impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the
   Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels
   of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from
   the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia.
   Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the
   archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes
   entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a
   wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy
   was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the
   neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were
   finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the
   death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the
   empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their
   Persian garrisons.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 46.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EGYPT: A. D. 640-646.
   Moslem conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171.
   Under the Fatimite Caliphs.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.

EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250.
   Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.

      See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220.
   Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250.
   The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.
   The Mameluke Sultans.

   The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The
   word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and … they
   were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the
   South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his
   accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were
   employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope
   employs Swiss. … Subsequently, however, Circassia became the
   country which most largely furnished this class of troops.
   Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were
   taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then
   followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed
   to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle,
   or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of
   Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo],
   and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time
   devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they
   neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became
   degenerate and corrupt. … The dynasty of Saladin … was of
   no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era.
{760}
   Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of
   the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in
   Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of
   the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who
   married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany,
   who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself
   murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. … Their
   subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan
   Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust,
   murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from
   power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or
   six years. … The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall
   of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke
   Dynasties constantly present."

      _A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5._

EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans.
   Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST),
      and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Bonaparte's organization of government.
   His victory at Aboukir.
   His return to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST),
      and 1799 (NOVEMBER).

EGYPT: A. D. 1800.
   Discontent and discouragement of the French.
   The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
   Turkish defeat at Heliopolis.
   Revolt crushed at Cairo.
   Assassination of Kleber.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Expulsion of the French by the English.
   Restoration of the province to Turkey.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.
   The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power.
   His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.

   "It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or
   Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the
   Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor
   was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops
   furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with
   the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command
   of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and
   soon found himself an important factor in the confused
   political position which followed the departure of the British
   army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former
   posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for
   revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the
   rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who
   divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other
   hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet
   gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually
   apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at
   the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either
   side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He
   played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the
   Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides,
   but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the
   anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at
   last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be
   persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805]
   their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the
   curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed
   Mohammad 'Aly's election—for such it was—to the governorship
   of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and
   Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo,
   laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan
   Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured
   their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an
   indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for
   weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from
   Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote,
   in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of
   Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery
   amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse)
   Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the
   citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of
   Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was
   everywhere disputed by the Beys. … An attempt was made to
   ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the
   metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal
   of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's
   party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on
   that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony,
   inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive
   them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The
   dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without
   any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their
   Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the
   suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city.
   … They marched along the principal street for some distance,
   with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with
   apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the
   Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar
   and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party
   continuing along the main street, and through the gate called
   Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here
   they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with
   this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back
   towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed;
   and in that part of the main thoroughfare called
   Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires.
   Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the
   collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder
   fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the
   city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in
   the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the
   alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who
   escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A
   horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the
   Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they
   were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were
   slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were
   dragged away. … The wretched captives were then chained and
   left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following
   morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day
   before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes.
{761}
   One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were
   released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put
   to death in the course of the ensuing night. … The Beys were
   disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them
   retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more
   probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte
   began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but
   the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from
   Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the
   Turkish fleet sailed away. … An attempt of the English
   Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of
   5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and
   humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of
   seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the
   Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory
   policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged
   them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in
   order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery
   which finally uprooted the Memluk power. … Early in the year
   1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis
   in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo
   were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's
   favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the
   army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell
   into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other
   chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the
   citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having
   taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and
   followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and
   narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as
   soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed
   before them. The last of those who made their exit before the
   gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops
   their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all
   the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by
   another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses,
   that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some
   stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through
   which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they
   commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and
   immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had
   the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. …
   470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if
   any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey.
   According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and
   alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall.
   Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades,
   and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate.
   He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the
   signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks
   throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to
   every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys
   were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their
   adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner,
   and sacked their dwellings. … The last of his rivals being
   now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the
   administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions
   abroad."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Egypt,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. A. Paton,
      History of the Egyptian Revolution,
      volume 2._

EGYPT: A. D. 1807.
   Occupation of Alexandria by the English.
   Disastrous failure of their expedition.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
   Successes against the Turks.
   Intervention of the Western Powers.
   Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
   Mehemet Ali and his successors.
   The khedives.
   The opening of the Suez Canal.

   "By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European
   Powers, … his title to Egypt having been … affirmed …
   Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the
   social and material improvement of the country, with an
   aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as
   the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions
   and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed
   grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up
   till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and
   notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death
   incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing
   Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then
   verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental
   malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in
   mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the
   government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,
   the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,
   but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of
   the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and
   bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type—ignorant,
   cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every
   sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in
   almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in
   July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his
   own slaves,—acting, it was variously said, on a secret order
   from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To
   Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable
   and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief
   done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence
   and force of character required to carry on the great work
   begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for
   the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the
   colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,
   has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was
   succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of
   Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's
   reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still
   fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the
   more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give
   the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which
   forms the main element of a problem that still confronts
   Europe.
{762}
   But, for this the same impartial judge will at least
   equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his
   extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at
   ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical
   justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress
   of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of
   railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved
   the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the
   country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native
   industries. For so much, at least, history will give him
   credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the
   magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez
   Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but
   through which—as if by the irony of history—the first ship
   that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic
   of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal
   character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,
   crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private
   relations. … It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the
   first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of
   'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank
   a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy
   bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the
   year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from
   the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,—in
   virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

      _J. C. M'Coan,
      Egypt
      (National Life and Thought, lecture 18)._

      _J. C. M'Coan,
      Egypt under Ismail,
      chapters 1-4._

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.
   Conquest of the Soudan.
   Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
   The government of General Gordon.
   Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.

   In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance
   to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central