foreigners, either taken in war, or brought to Egypt to be sold as slaves. These women were white or black slaves, according to the countries from which they were brought." The monuments afford evidence of this. Below we give representations taken from Thebes; the first group is of white slaves, of whom the scribe is taking account.

We have also the following, where the slaves are black.

Generally speaking, the blacks were employed merely as domestics. The whites also officiated as servants, but held a rank above the black slaves. Wilkinson is of opinion that the women represented at Medinet Aboo, attending upon Remeses, were of this class of persons, and, at all events, not the wives of the monarch.

It was for the purpose of being introduced into the harem that Pharaoh took Sarah from Abraham; and here one cannot help being struck with the perfect orientalism of the whole proceeding. We find in the Scriptures accounts of Abraham's dealings with the kings of Siddim, the king of Gerar, and others, in which the patriarch stands seemingly on the ground of an equal with these rulers. He was, therefore, of some note; yet, notwithstanding this, when he comes into Egypt, his position is one of such marked inferiority, that we can account for it only on the supposition that Egypt was the most powerful nation then known, and resistance to its iron hand of despotism was useless. At any rate, here is the case of one, who was no subject of the Egyptian king, but a newly-arrived stranger of distinction, toward whom is at once exercised the most offensive privilege of oriental despotism. We know that, even to this day, eastern despots act thus with reference to their own subjects, and transplant into the harem whomsoever they please: this instance shows that the practice is of great antiquity; and from some cause, Abraham, who never could willingly have assented to the arrangement, is compelled to submit in silence. Such an invasion of the sanctity of private life could occur only in the East; and the whole proceeding is in perfect keeping with the known habits of the Eastern people.

8. There was no dislike of Abraham's pastoral occupation shown on this visit to Egypt.

This is an important particular, as will be seen more fully when we come to speak of incidents in the life of Joseph. "It would be a valuable piece of information," (says Kitto,) - " to know what king or dynasty reigned in Egypt at the time of Abram's visit. But the sacred narrative does not mention any king of Egypt by his proper name, till after the time of Solomon; and the Egyptian chronology at, and for some time after, this early date, is still involved in much uncertainty and confusion, notwithstanding the light which has been thrown on the general subject by the progress made in deciphering the hieroglyphic inscriptions."*

The question as to who was the king at the period of Abraham's visit becomes important here, when we find that afterward, in Joseph's time, "every shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians." The inquiry arises, why were not shepherds an abomination when Abraham was in Egypt? The answer to this involves a somewhat obscure portion of Egyptian history, which, with as much brevity as is in our power, we will endeavor to make as plain as we can to our readers.

Before we enter upon our attempt to do this, we would remark, that there are some who have undertaken to answer the proposed inquiry, without reference to any part of Egyptian history. Some writers have supposed that the aversion in Egypt to shepherds arose from the animal worship of these ancient people; and that they disliked the shepherds, because Ihey fed on animals which, in their view, were sacred. This scarcely affords a satisfactory solution; for the Egyptians themselves by no means concurred in their animal deities. Almost every district had, in this matter, a different usage. In one, they worshipped goats, and ate sheep; in another, the sheep was deified, and the goat was eaten. In some parts, crocodiles were venerated; in others, they were slain without mercy. In truth, of the larger animals, the cow was the only one deemed sacred by the Egyptians; and the nomade shepherds do not kill cows for food. There was, indeed, the worship of the bull Apis, but this was confined to a particular animal. Bulls and oxen generally were not made objects of worship; and the sculptures show, in some instances, the sacrifice of bulls. We know that the Egyptian priests ate beef and veal. If any prejudice against shepherds existed on account of the Egyptian reverence for animals, it was probably connected almost entirely with the cow; but we doubt its existence on this ground.

Heeren intimates that the aversion to shepherds resulted, not from their occupation as herdsmen, but from the fact that the class of cattle rearers were addicted to lawless habits and pursuits, which would make them objects of aversion to a refined and civilized people like the Egyptians. It was nomade shepherds whom they abominated, not shepherds generally; for they had such among themselves, taking care of the cattle which we know the Egyptians had. But the habits of nomades were turbulent and aggressive; they were difficult of control by law, and felt themselves to be independent of all the wholseome restraints of a well-organized state of society. They were wanderers, free and bold, and wherever they planted themselves on the borders of civilization, were apt, for the time, to prove very disagreeable neighbors. Hence the ruling priestly caste, among the Egyptians, extended to them no countenance, but sought, rather, to put them down, and forbade the Egyptians to eat with them.— This conjecture of Heeren has been deemed plausible by some able men; but we would, with all diffidence, submit, that a much more satisfactory explanation of the aversion to shepherds, is to be found in early Egyptian history; and to that we now proceed.

It seems to be one of the best established facts in the early history of Egypt, that its lower portion was for many years under the dominion of a race of pastoral nomades, (known as the Hyksos, or shepherd kings,) while the upper part of the country was under the native sovereigns. It is not, however, to bo concealed, that any such pastoral dominion is denied by some; among whom are to be numbered Perizon, Hengstenberg, and others. Their denial results from their distrust of the authenticity of Manetho, and from the strange mingling together, in the narrative under his name, of facts well known in Hebrew history, with certain Egyptian stories. This has subjected his statement to suspicion; and yet, with a majority of the writers on this subject, we are disposed to think that Manetho's account is not entirely to be rejected as untrue; though it is mixed up with some very evident falsehood, which may easily be detected and separated.

This is Manetho's story, as it is preserved in a fragment by Josephus: "In the reign of King Timaeus, there came up from the East men of an ignoble race, who had the confidence to invade our country; and easily subdued it without a battle, burning the cities, demolishing the temples, slaying the men, and reducing the women and children to slavery. They made