The period of hegemony attributed by the chronicles to the Hyksôs of the XVIth dynasty was not probably, as far as they were concerned, years of perfect tranquillity, or of undisputed authority. In inscribing their sole names on the lists, the compilers denoted merely the shorter or longer period during which their Theban vassals failed in their rebellious efforts, and did not dare to assume openly the title or ensigns of royalty. A certain Apôphis, probably the same who took the prsenomen of Aqnûnrî, was reigning at Tanis when the decisive revolt broke out, and Saqnûnrî Tiûâa I., who was the leader on the occasion, had no other title of authority over the provinces of the south than that of hiqu, or regent. We are unacquainted with the cause of the outbreak or with its sequel, and the Egyptians themselves seem to have been not much better informed on the subject than ourselves. They gave free flight to their fancy, and accommodated the details to their taste, not shrinking from the introduction of daring fictions into the account. A romance, which was very popular with the literati four or five hundred years later, asserted that the real cause of the war was a kind of religious quarrel. “It happened that the land of Egypt belonged to the Fever-stricken, and, as there was no supreme king at that time, it happened then that King Saqnûnrî was regent of the city of the south, and that the Fever-stricken of the city of Râ were under the rule of Râ-Apôpi in Avaris. The Whole Land tribute to the latter in manufactured products, and the north did the same in all the good things of the Delta. Now, the King Râ-Apôpi took to himself Sûtkhû for lord, and he did not serve any other god in the Whole Land except Sûtkhû, and he built a temple of excellent and everlasting work at the gate of the King Râ-Apôpi, and he arose every morning to sacrifice the daily victims, and the chief vassals were there with garlands of flowers, as it was accustomed to be done for the temple of Phrâ-Harmâkhis.” Having finished the temple, he thought of imposing upon the Thebans the cult of his god, but as he shrank from employing force in such a delicate matter, he had recourse to stratagem. He took counsel with his princes and generals, but they were unable to propose any plan. The college of diviners and scribes was more complaisant: “Let a messenger go to the regent of the city of the South to tell him: The King Râ-Apôpi commands thee: ‘That the hippopotami which are in the pool of the town are to be exterminated in the pool, in order that slumber may come to me by day and by night.’ He will not be able to reply good or bad, and thou shalt send him another messenger: The King Râ-Apôpi commands thee: ‘If the chief of the South does not reply to my message, let him serve no longer any god but Sûtkhû. But if he replies to it, and will do that which I tell him to do, then I will impose nothing further upon him, and I will not in future bow before any other god of the Whole Land than Amonrâ, king of the gods!’” Another Pharaoh of popular romance, Nectanebo, possessed, at a much later date, mares which conceived at the neighing of the stallions of Babylon, and his friend Lycerus had a cat which went forth every night to wring the necks of the cocks of Memphis:* the hippopotami of the Theban lake, which troubled the rest of the King of Tanis, were evidently of close kin to these extraordinary animals.
* Found in a popular story, which came in later times to be
associated with the traditions connected with Æsop.
The sequel is unfortunately lost. We may assume, however, without much risk of error, that Saqnûnrî came forth safe and sound from the ordeal; that Apôpi was taken in his own trap, and saw himself driven to the dire extremity of giving up Sûtkhû for Amonrâ or of declaring war. He was likely to adopt the latter alternative, and the end of the manuscript would probably have related his defeat.
Drawn from
the original
by Faucher-
Gudin.
Hostilities continued for a century and a half from the time when Saqnûnrî Tiûâa declared himself son of the Sun and king of the two Egypts. From the moment in which he surrounded his name with a cartouche, the princes of the Said threw in their lot with him, and the XVIIth dynasty had its beginning on the day of his proclamation. The strife at first was undecisive and without marked advantage to either side: at length the Pharaoh whom the Greek copyists of Manetho call Alisphragmouthosis, defeated the barbarians, drove them away from Memphis and from the western plains of the Delta, and shut them up in their entrenched camp at Avaris, between the Sebennytic branch of the Nile and the Wady Tumilât. The monuments bearing on this period of strife and misery are few in number, and it is a fortunate circumstance if some insignificant object tarns up which would elsewhere be passed over as unworthy of notice. One of the officials of Tiûâa I. has left us his writing palette, on which the cartouches of his master are incised with a rudeness baffling description.
We have also information of a prince of the blood, a king’s son, Tûaû, who accompanied this same Pharaoh in his expeditions; and the Gîzeh Museum is proud of having in its possession the i wooden sabre which this individual placed on the mummy of a certain Aqhorû, to enable him to defend himself against the monsters of the lower world. A second Saqnûnrî Tiûâa succeeded the first, and like him was buried in a little brick pyramid on the border of the Theban necropolis. At his death the series of rulers was broken, and we meet with several names which are difficult to classify—Sakhontinibrî, Sanakhtû-niri, Hotpûrî, Manhotpûrî, Eâhotpû.*
* Hotpûrî and Manhotpûrî are both mentioned in the fragments
of a fantastic story (copied during the XXth dynasty), bits
of which are found in most European museums. In one of these
fragments, preserved in the Louvre, mention is made of
Hotpûrî’s tomb, certainly situated at Thebes; we possess
scarabs of this king, and Pétrie discovered at Coptos a
fragment of a stele bearing his name and titles, and
describing the works which he executed in the temples of the
town. The XIVth year of Manhotpûrî is mentioned in a passage
of the story as being the date of the death of a personage
born under Hotpûrî. These two kings belong, as far as we are
able to judge, to the middle of the XVIIth dynasty; I am
inclined to place beside them the Pharaoh Nûbhotpûrî, of
whom we possess a few rather coarse scarabs.
