* This grouping, which might already have been suspected
from the manner in which the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments
of the period show us the feudal princes rallying round
Necho I. and Pakruru, is indicated by the details in the
demotic romance published by Krall, where the foundation of
the story is the state of Egypt in the time of the “twelve
kings.”
Drawn by faucher-Gudin, from an
archaic vase-painting in the
collection of Salzmann.
The fiefs and kingdoms of Middle Egypt wavered between the two groups, playing, however, a merely passive part in affairs: abandoning themselves to the stream of events rather than attempting to direct it, they owed allegiance to Sais and Tanis alternately as each prevailed over its rival. On passing thence into the Thebaid a different world appeared to be entered. There Amon reigned, ever increasingly supreme, and the steady advance of his influence had transformed his whole domain into a regular theocracy, where the women occupied the highest position and could alone transmit authority. At first, as we have seen, it was passed on to their husbands and their children, but latterly the rapidity with which the valley had changed masters had modified this law of succession in a remarkable way. Each time the principality shifted its allegiance from one king to another, the new sovereign naturally hastened to install beside the divine female worshipper a man devoted to his interests, who should administer the fief to the best advantage of the suzerain. It is impossible to say whether he actually imposed this minister on her as a husband, or whether the time came when she was obliged to submit to as many espousals as there occurred revolutions in the destinies of Egypt.* However this may be, we know that from the first half of the seventh century B.C. the custom arose of placing beside “the divine worshipper” a princess of the dominant family, whom she adopted, and who thus became her heiress-designate. Taharqa had in this way associated one of his sisters, Shapenuapît II., with the queen Amenertas when the latter had lost her husband, Piônkhi; and Shapenuapît, succeeding her adopted mother, had reigned over Thebes in the Ethiopian interest during many years. There is nothing to show that she was married, and perhaps she was compensated for her official celibacy by being authorised to live the free life of an ordinary Pallacide;** her minister Montumihâît directed her affairs for her so completely that the Assyrian conquerors looked upon him as petty king of Thebes. Tanuatamanu confirmed him in his office when the Assyrians evacuated the Said, and the few years which had elapsed since that event had in no way modified the régime established immediately on their departure.
* They would have been, in fact, in the same condition as
the Hova queens of our century, who married the ministers
who reigned in their names.
** It is perhaps these last female descendants of the high
priests that are intended in a passage where Strabo speaks
of the Pallacides who were chosen from among the most noble
families of the city. Diodorus mentions their tombs, quoting
from Hecatous of Abdera, but he does not appear to know the
nature of their life; but the name of Pallacides which he
applies to them proves that their manner of life was really
that which Strabo describes.
It is uncertain how long Assur-bani-pal in the north, and Tanuatamanu in the south, respectively maintained a precarious sovereignty over the portions of Egypt nearest to their own capitals.
The opening of the reign of Psammetichus seems to have been fraught with difficulties, and the tradition which represents him as proscribed by his peers, and confined to the marshes of the sea-coast, has probably a certain basis of truth. Pakruru, who had brought all the western part of the Delta under his own influence, and who, incessantly oscillating between Assyria and Ethiopia, had yet been able to preserve his power and his life, had certainly not of his own free will renounced the hope of some day wearing the double crown. It was against him or his successor that Psammetichus must have undertaken his first wars, and it was perhaps with the help of Assyrian governors that the federal coalition drove him back to the coast. He extricated himself from this untoward situation by the help of Greek and Asiatic mercenaries, his Ionians and Carians. Some historians stated that the decisive battle was fought near Memphis, in sight of the temple of Isis; others affirmed that it took place at Momemphis, that several of the princes perished in the conflict, and that the rest escaped into Libya, whence they never returned; others, again, spoke of an encounter on the Nile, when the fleet of the Saite king dispersed that of his rivals. It is, in fact, probable that a single campaign sufficed for Psammetichus, as formerly for the Ethiopian pretenders, to get the upper hand, and that the Egyptian feudal lords submitted after one or two defeats at most, hoping that, as in days gone by, when the first dash made by the new Pharaoh was over, his authority would decline, and their own would regain the ascendency. Events showed that they were deceived. Psammetichus, better served by his Hellenes than Tafnakhti or Bocchoris had been by their Libyans, or Piônkhi and Tanuatamanu by their Ethiopians, soon consolidated his rule over the country he had conquered. From 660 or 659 B.C. he so effectively governed Egypt that foreigners, and even the Assyrians themselves commonly accorded him the title of king. The fall of the Ninevite rule had been involved in that of the feudal lords, but it was generally believed that Assur-bani-pal would leave no means untried to recall the countries of the Nile to their obedience: Psammetichus knew this, and knew also that, as soon as they were no longer detained by wars or rebellions elsewhere, the Assyrian armies would reappear in Egypt. He therefore entered into an alliance with Gyges,* and subsequently, perhaps, with Shamash-shumukîn also; then, while his former suzerain was waging war in Elam and Chaldæa, he turned southwards, in 658 B.C., and took possession of the Thebaid without encountering any opposition from the Ethiopians, as his ancestor Tafnakhti had from Piônkhi-Miamun. Mon-tumihâît** negotiated this capitulation of Thebes, as he had already negotiated so many others; in recompense for this service, he was confirmed in his office, and his queen retained her high rank.
* The annexation of the Thebaid and the consequent
pacification of Egypt was an accomplished fact in the year
IX. of Psammetichus I. The analogy of similar documents,
e.g. the stele of the high priest Menkhopirrî, shows that
the ceremony of adoption which consecrated the reunion of
Upper and Lower Egypt cannot have been separated by a long
interval from the completion of the reunion itself: in
placing this at the end of the year VIII., we should have
for the two events the respective dates of 658-657 and 657-
656 B.C.
** The part played by Montumihâît in this affair is easily
deduced: (1) from our knowledge of his conduct some years
previously under Taharqa and Tanuatamanu; (2) from the
position he occupied at Thebes, in the year IX., with regard
to Shapenuapît, according to the stele of Legrain.