CHAPTER VIII.

THE BONDAGE.

AFTER the death of Joseph, sixty-five years elapsed before the birth of Moses, according to the chronology of Dr. Hales. The author of the Pentateuch distinctly informs us that during this interval all the sons of Jacob, and the men of their generation, had died; and toward the latter part of the interval above named, the fact meets us that "there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." This is a particular of Egyptian history, in the explanation of which confusion has arisen, from the fabrication of the pretended Manetho about the leprous Israelites under Moses, and their recall of the shepherd kings, to which we have already adverted. Some have thought that the monarch of this new dynasty was the first sovereign furnished on the re-intrusion of the pastoral invaders. In opposition to this opinion, we are met by the fact that these shepherds are represented by Manetho (the only authority for the return of the shepherds at all,) as coming back on the invitation of the Israelites; the shepherds, therefore, were not likely to become their oppressors. But further, according to Manetho, the Israelites were not oppressed during this supposed second period of pastoral sway, but, in conjunction with the shepherds, were themselves the oppressors. The document of Manetho on this subject, therefore, can only be made intelligible by inter

preting it to mean exactly the contrary of what it says; and of course is not entitled to the least respect as historical authority. We therefore reject as spurious the whole paragraph from Manetho giving the story of the return of the shepherds on the invitation of "the lepers."

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

the field," Ex. i. 14:-and in Deuteronomy, the phrase occurs, where thou sowedst thy seed and wateredst it."

"Egypt

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

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

The next point that we have to consider, consists of the details of Jewish oppression, at the hands of Egypt :-"They did set over them taskmasters, to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."—" And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve, with rigor: and they made their lives bitter with hard bondage in mortar and in brick, and in all manner

of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve was with rigor."

1. They set over them taskmasters. This is perfectly Egyptian; and exists at this day, with the single difference that the Egyptians occupy the place of the oppressed, instead of the oppressors. The bitter cup is returned to their own lips. A modern writer states that, "when the labor of the people is required for any public work, the officers of Mehemet Ali collect the whole neighborhood-men, women, and children; and dividing them into so many companies or droves, appoint taskmasters over them. These are armed with whips which they use pretty freely, as they are responsible for the completion of the work." The monuments show that this was precisely the custom of ancient Egypt. Below are representations in illustration. In the first, the culprit is subjected to the bastinado; a punishment by no means uncommon now in Egypt, which is governed very much by the cudgel or stick.

The following affords another example, where the taskmasters all appear with sticks; and while one offender has

hands already laid upon him, another is in the posture of deprecatory supplication.

Egyptian taskmasters.-From the monuments.

They were employed in building cities. Josephus tells us, that his nation was also engaged in building pyramids, and making canals and embankments. It seems questionable, however, whether the Israelites took any part in the work of building the pyramids of Memphis, or the Arsinoite nome. The better opinion is, that they did not. But captives were, in general, the builders of public works. Thus Diodorus tells us, that Sesostris placed on all his buildings erected by captives, an inscription, stating that no native citizen had been engaged in the servile work.

II. Pithom and Raamses were the cities they built. They were fortified towns, in which provisions were stored up. The first named, is the Patumos of Herodotus; which, as we learn from him, was on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, not far from the entrance of the canal which, in his day, connected the Nile with the Red Sea. The initial P, is but the Egyptian article; and in the rest of the name, we recognize the Thum, which the Itinerary of Antoninus places at twelve