Part 2

II. THE EGYPTIAN COURT AND ADMINISTRATION.

The two Pharaohs of the Tell el Amarna Period belong to the XVIIIth Dynasty, which about 1560 B.C. had freed the land from the yoke of certain Asiatic invaders known as the Shasu. The new dynasty soon began to encroach upon Asia. King Thutmosis III. (1503 to 1449 B.C.) after many chequered campaigns conquered Syria as far as the Gulf of Iskanderun. On the African side he extended the bounds of his kingdom to the confluence of the Nile and the Atbara, so that the greater part of Nubia owned his sway. The terror of his name did not die with him, but for long did good service to his successors, the first of whom, Amenophis II., seems moreover himself to have maintained energetically the fame of Egyptian arms. To this influence our clay tablets bear witness by twice making emphatic reference to the days of the powerful “Manakhbiria”—the prenomen of King Thutmosis III. With the accession of Amenophis III. the warlike spirit ceased to prevail at the Court of Thebes. Nothing more was to be gained by Egypt in Western Asia, and the tastes of the new king lay in other directions than war. The two celebrated Colossi of Memnon (statues of himself), many great buildings, the important part played by his favourite wife Teye, the well-filled harem, the cultivation of “wisdom” (which practically, no doubt, was tantamount to what we should call “preciosity”); last, but not least, the solemn adoration of his own divine image—all these facts combine to indicate the altered condition of things which came about under Amenophis III. He reigned thirty-six years, long enough to allow the movement introduced by him to run its course. His son, Amenophis IV., was, however, just as little inclined as his father to walk in the steps of his warlike ancestors. Hampered apparently by bodily defects, this Son of the Sun tried his strength in a field often far more dangerous than the battlefield. He began a reform of the Egyptian religion, apparently in the direction of a kind of monotheism in which the chief worship was reserved for the disk of the sun, the symbol under which the god Ra was adored at Heliopolis in the Delta.

Nothing being known of the life of this king as heir-apparent, probably we shall never understand what led him to take this new departure. From his conduct during the early years of his reign it may be concluded that he intended to proceed gradually, but was roused to more aggressive measures by the resistance of the powerful priests of Amon in Thebes. These men acted, of course, for their own interests in promptly resisting even mild attempts at reform. Perhaps also the king’s aim had been from the outset to weaken the influence of the Theban hierarchy by new doctrines and to strengthen the royal power by steady secularisation. Open strife between the adherents of Amon and those of the Sun’s Disk, the “Aten,” broke out in the second or third year of Amenophis IV., that is, about 1380 B.C. The immediate removal of the Court from Thebes to Tell el Amarna points to a failure of the royal efforts, for the command to build the new city had not long been issued, and the place was still altogether unfinished. The official world promptly broke with the old religion. The king altered his throne-name, “Amen-hetep,” to “Akhen-Aten,” “The glory of the Sun’s Disk”; his young daughters received names compounded with “Aten,” whilst the courtiers found it advisable to strike out “Amen,” if this chanced to form part of their own names, and to substitute for it “Ra,” as having more or less the same significance as “Aten.” “The doctrine,” as the new dogmas were called in inscriptions at Tell el Amarna, was regarded as so entirely a matter of home politics in Egypt, that the officials of Syria and Palestine—all foreigners—do not seem to have received any formal information regarding it. Most of them continue to refer to Amon in perfect innocence, and only a few who were better informed began rather later to take the change into account. Thus Yitia of Ashkelon, Pu-Adda of Wurza, and a certain Addudaian correct the name of the Egyptian commissioner “Amanappa” into “Rianappa.” Abimilki of Tyre apparently even tried to give himself out as one initiated into “the doctrine,” and to represent his city as a servant of Aten. If this were the case he must have received a severe rebuff, for after his one attempt he falls back into the old style. Neither the royal nor the national pride of Egypt would suffer any such familiarities.

The new capital received the significant name of “Akhet-Aten” (“Horizon of the Sun”) and was solemnly consecrated long before it was half finished. The widow of Amenophis III., the queen-mother Teye, came occasionally to visit the new capital, and was received with all honour; evidently she had paid timely respect to her son’s opinions. How far the Aten dogma represented real progress in religious thought can be gathered only from the contents of a few hymns remaining on the walls of some of the tombs. In these the expression of devout feeling seems to have become richer and more spontaneous, and the monotheistic tendency is evident. This characteristic, however, may often be observed by a sympathetic reader in the hymns to Amon, and even to less important deities: the deity adopted as a special object of worship by any individual is always favourably represented by him. The Aten dogma, being based on natural phenomena and not on mythology, was, of course, heretical.

Those of his officials who had accepted “the doctrine” were regarded by Akhenaten as deserving men, and on this ground alone, Ai, called Haya in the Amarna letters, received golden honours to the full. This Haya, who was entitled “beloved royal scribe,” was probably a secretary of state, and was once sent as a special ambassador to Babylonia. Dudu occupied another important post; Amanappa, who has already been mentioned, seems from a letter written by him to Rib-Addi of Gebal, to have been a commander-in-chief. Hani, Salma, Paura, Pahamnata, Hatib Maya, Shuta, Hamashni, and Zitana all appear as the bearers of royal commissions in Syrian territory. An official named Shakhshi receives instruction as to the conducting of a royal caravan. But to the Asiatic vassals the most important office of all was the governorship of Lower Egypt, the country called “Yarimuta,” an office filled at this time by Yanhamu. The letters afford abundant evidence that any vassal who had incurred Yanhamu’s enmity must walk warily. The minister of the king of Alashia, though his equal in rank, sent gifts to this dangerous man, who had harassed merchants of Alashia by demanding from them illegal dues. Rib-Addi of Gebal lost land and throne, in spite of the countenance of Amanappa, because such was Yanhamu’s pleasure; and of Milki-El of Gath he made a severe example, to which we shall refer later.

On the whole, the Asiatic provinces enjoyed self-government under the supremacy of Egypt, and the disadvantages of this condition of things are revealed in numerous letters. These end almost invariably with a request to the king to come in person to the aid of his distressed vassals, or at least to send troops. Sometimes this was done, but usually such expeditions seem to have been undertaken with inadequate forces and seldom resulted in permanent peace. The native princes, chiefs, and village headmen were perpetually struggling with each other. They made alliances among themselves, or they entered into secret treaties with neighbouring states and afterwards brazenly denied them. This wretched state of affairs may be traced to two principal causes—the tribute question and the immigration of Bedawìn tribes.

The king was not to be trifled with when tribute was overdue. The most valid excuses—loss of territory, war, failure of the harvest—were received with a suspicion doubtless justified in general but which must have caused much hardship in individual cases. The ordinary tribute was fixed, as well as the regular subsidy for royal troops and the force which had to be raised in emergencies. But the gifts—such as female slaves—which must needs be sent not only to the courtiers but even to the king himself, added enormously to the burden, so much so that to the poorer chiefs a summons from Egypt to appear in person meant little less than ruin. Resistance to it was so surely to be counted on that such a summons was often kept in the background more as a threat than anything else. Now and then petty chiefs in Palestine and Syria withheld their bushels of corn, their three oxen or their twenty sheep; or perhaps they were so sparing of bakshìsh that the tribute itself was swallowed up and vanished entirely from the accounts. It was scarcely possible to take costly measures to punish such delinquents, so the business was turned over to some kind neighbour of the recalcitrant chief, and a little war was soon fairly ablaze. But when direct commands of royal ambassadors were treated as of doubtful authenticity, it was hardly likely that the authority placed in the hands of an equal would meet with much respect. Both leaders received reinforcements; a third intervened at a moment favourable to himself; many and often very remote quarrels broke out, and when at length the royal commissioners hurried upon the scene it was hard for them to say whether or not the original sentence had been executed. Certainly most of the property of the original offenders had been largely lost or destroyed, but the plunder had crumbled away in passing through countless hands, and the royal official might seek it from Dan to Beersheba, or farther, but in vain. Out of the first difficulty a dozen others had arisen, till the suzerain seized upon his dues by force, yet without leaving peace behind him. The tablets are full of references to these complicated struggles, which it is not always possible to follow in detail.

Additional confusion was caused by the immigration of Bedawìn tribes. In the north the nomadic Sutu, in the south the Habiri pressed forward and encroached upon Egyptian territory. It is evident that this further pressure was calculated to bring matters to a crisis, for, like the tribute, it affected pre-eminently the vassal chiefs and tribes. We find the Habiri especially in the very act of ruining some of these petty princes, others of whom preferred to make treaties with their unwelcome guests, though this indeed was apparently in secret only. But the Sutu reached the domains of more powerful vassals, and by two of these, Aziru and Namjauza, were openly taken into pay. Obviously such alliances with land-seeking plunderers could only prolong and embitter the strife. In Palestine, no doubt, peace as regards Egypt would soon have been restored had not the Habiri proceeded to seize certain strongholds, which they used as centres for further expeditions, thus involving the settled inhabitants in wider quarrels. What with the help of the Bedawîn, and the universal unrest any ambitious vassal of Egypt must at length have seen a tempting prospect of establishing an independent kingdom, if only he could deceive the Egyptian Government long enough as to his intentions, and delay or thwart any measures that might be taken against him.

Certainly the government of Pharaoh did not lack for watchfulness and was well, if not too well, served in the matter of information. But in the face of perpetual complaints and counter-complaints, entreaties for help and what were for the most part incredible assurances of everlasting fidelity, there was no course for the king and his councillors to take but either to order a military expedition on a large scale, or to turn a sceptical ear to all alike and confine their attention simply to the tribute. Pride and weakness combined led them to take the dangerous middle course and send inadequate bodies of men singly into the disturbed districts. A certain amount of success attended the policy; the king’s Nubian “Pidati” were dreaded from of old, and his mercenaries, the Shirtani, were looked upon as invincible. When it was a mere question of hundreds in the field against hundreds, the appearance of a company, or of a few troops, restored peace for a time, but serious and aggravated hostilities between masses of rebels could not always be checked by such small numbers, and it was a severe blow to the prestige of the Shirtani when they were defeated at Gebal by the Sutu.

The knowledge that Egypt was far away, and that the Son of the Sun was highly exalted, led the chiefs and officials in Syria and Canaan to deeds of open defiance of their suzerain. Ambassadors from foreign states were robbed in passing on their journey to Egypt, caravans were plundered, and gifts sent to Pharaoh were intercepted. All this notwithstanding, still the stream of rhetorical devotion flowed on in the letters.

III. LETTERS FROM ASIATIC KINGS.

Akhenaten had taken with him to the new capital part of the archives of his father. With few exceptions, it is not from the letters of vassals that we learn this, for these, as a rule, are addressed simply “To the King.” The foreign sovereigns, however, almost always addressed the Pharaoh by his prenomen. Thus neither “Amenhetep” nor “Akhenaten” appears in the Tell el Amarna letters, but always “Nimmuria” (i.e., Neb-maat-Ra) for Amenophis III. and “Napkhuria” (i.e., Nefer-khepru-Ra) for Akhenaten. Dating there was none in correspondence of that time and hence these addresses are of great chronological importance.

Four communications to “Nimmuria” from the Babylonian ruler Kadashman-Bel (at first incorrectly read Kallima-Sin) are among the most important in this respect. The writer calls his land Karduniash, a name for Babylonia used by the Assyrians after the native employment of it had long ceased. Kadashman-Bel himself belonged to the house of the Kassite chiefs, who, about two hundred and fifty years previously, had invaded and conquered Babylonia, but who afterwards fully adopted Babylonian manners and customs. It is at once apparent that Nimmuria and Kadashman-Bel approach each other as equals. The Egyptian, however, was supposed to possess one very precious thing in superfluity, namely, gold; for at that time the gold mines of Nubia were in good working. The Babylonian letters, therefore, seldom failed to contain a hint that the king desired some of the precious metal, sometimes as a return gift for rich presents he had given the Egyptian, sometimes as temple-offerings, or as a dowry. Matrimonial alliances were the principal means by which a ruler kept on good terms with neighbouring princes, and Oriental polygamy allowed a great deal to be done in that line. It is noticeable that the claim made by the Egyptian king to divine honours soon began to cause little difficulties in diplomatic intercourse. Not that “the Son of the Sun” claimed adoration from his royal compeers: that was expected from his subjects only. But he showed the greatest reluctance to give away a daughter to any foreign king. Moreover, the fact must not be overlooked that it was precisely in the XVIIIth Dynasty that brothers and sisters of the royal house so frequently intermarried, a custom afterwards affected by the Ptolemies and implying simply that the royal race of the Pharaohs being emphatically divine was therefore essentially exalted above the world in general. According to this flattering fiction there could be no equal union for a king of Egypt except with his own sister. No such marriage seems to have been made by Nimmuria, but, as if in amends for that, he worshipped, as above stated, his own divine image. We need not wonder, then, that he regarded his children as divine manifestations and hesitated to bestow them in marriage.

Kadashman-Bel seems to have thoroughly appreciated this little weakness, and no doubt the mortal gods on the Nile were a subject for mockery at the Courts of Western Asia, even in those days. Thus, a remark of Nimmuria’s to the effect that no princess had ever been given away from Egypt is answered with delightful dryness:

“Why so? A king art thou, and canst do according to thy will. If thou give her, who shall say anything against it? I wrote before, ‘Send, at least, a beautiful woman.’ Who is there to say that she is not a king’s daughter? If thou wilt not do this, thou hast no regard for our brotherhood and friendship.”

Kadashman-Bel threatened that he in his turn would hesitate to give his daughter in marriage, and would make similar evasive excuses. At last, however, the negotiations came to the desired conclusion, and for a time gifts flowed more freely on both sides.

Valuable, though in many respects puzzling, is a large tablet containing a letter of Nimmuria to Kadashman-Bel. Possibly it may have been kept as a copy, and in that case it must belong to the early part of the correspondence. More probably however, the letter is an original which came back “undelivered” to Egypt, the addressee having died in the meantime. Kadashman-Bel had complained that his sister, who had been given by his father in marriage to the Egyptian, had subsequently never once been seen by any Babylonian ambassadors. Certainly a woman in royal garb had been pointed out, but not one of them had recognised her as their own princess. “Who knows that it was not some beggar’s daughter, a Gagaian, or a maiden of Hanirabbat or Ugarit whom my messengers saw?” Then Nimmuria took up the tale, and complained that Kadashman-Bel sent only ambassadors who had never frequented his father’s Court, and were moreover of adverse bias. “Send a kamiru” (evidently a eunuch is meant) “who knows thy sister.” Further misunderstandings come under discussion, from which it is evident that the general situation between the two princes was very much strained.

King Tushratta of Mitani was a phenomenon in his way. In Egyptian inscriptions his kingdom is called Naharina—i.e., “Mesopotamia.” One of his tablets bears the following official memorandum, written in red ink and in hieratic:

“[Received] in the two-[and-thirtieth year of the reign of Nimmuria], in the first winter month, on the tenth day, the Court being at the southern residence (Thebes), in the Residence Ka-em-Ekhut. Duplicate of the Naharina letter brought by the messenger Pirizzi and (another).”

Tushratta’s dominion was wide, extending from south-eastern Cappadocia to beyond the later Assyrian capital, Nineveh. But the kingdom of Mitani, occasionally called after the northern fatherland of its people, Hanirabbat, was nearing its fall. In the south it had a dangerous enemy in Babylonia; in the north and west the Hittites were hostile and all the more to be dreaded since Mitani-Hanirabbat was inhabited by a people related to the Hittite stock. The kings of Mitani soon realised that their existence was best secured by a steady alliance with Egypt. To this end Artatama and Shutarna, the two predecessors of Tushratta, had sent their daughters to the harem of the Pharaohs. The so-called “marriage scarab” of Nimmuria bears witness to this, and reference to the bond is often made by Tushratta. Before he could ascend the throne he had various difficulties to contend against, of which a faithful account is sent to Egypt:

“When I ascended my father’s throne I was still young, for Pirhi did evil to my land and had slain its lord. Therefore he did evil to me also and to all my friends. But I quailed not before the crimes that were committed in my land, but slew the murderers of Artashumara my brother, with all their adherents. Know also, oh, my royal brother! that the whole army of the Hittites marched against my land. But the God Teshup, the lord, delivered them into my hand and I destroyed them. Not one man from their midst returned to his own land. And now I have sent to thee a chariot and two horses, a youth and a maiden, the booty of the land of the Hittites.”

This letter betrays itself as one of the earliest written for Tushratta by the fact that it makes no request for gold. All his later letters are filled with greedy entreaties, completely giving the lie to the immediate pretext under which they were professedly written. One of them, more than a yard long and proportionately broad, still keeps its charms to itself, since for some unknown reason, though written in cuneiform character like the rest, the language is that of Hanirabbat and this we are still unable to read. Nimmuria indeed, seems to have had a weakness for this worthy brother-in-law and his ingenuous manner of approaching him, and spared neither presents nor promises; at his death, however, some of the latter remained unfulfilled. Evidently neighbouring kings heard at length of Tushratta’s financial success and were naturally envious. An extract will give the reader a more definite notion of this royal correspondence with its stylisms and turns of thought. The following is taken from Letter VIII. in the British Museum edition. The long-winded introduction was already a fixed convention, and occurs in all the letters from whatever country, but the declaration of affection is peculiar to Tushratta:

“To Nimmuria, the great king, the king of Egypt, my brother, my brother-in-law; who loves me and whom I love: Tushratta, the great king, thy (future) father-in-law, king of Mitani; who loves thee and is thy brother. It is well with me; may it be well with thee, with thy house, with my sister and thy other wives, with thy sons, thy chariots, thy horses, thy nobles, thy land, and all that is thine, may it be well with them indeed! Whereas thy fathers in their time kept fast friendship with my fathers, thou hast increased the friendship. Now, therefore, that thou and I are friends thou hast made it ten times closer than with my father. May the gods cause our friendship to prosper! May Teshup, the lord, and Amon ordain it eternally as it now is! I write this to my brother that he may show me even more love than he showed my father. Now I ask gold from my brother, and it behoves me to ask this gold for two causes: in the first place for war equipment (to be provided later), and secondly, for the dowry (likewise to be provided). So, then, let my brother send me much gold, without measure, more than to my father. For in my brother’s land gold is as the dust of the earth. May the gods grant that in the land of my brother, where already so much gold is, there may be ten times more in times to come! Certainly the gold that I require will not trouble my brother’s heart, but let him also not grieve my heart. Therefore let my brother send gold without measure, in great quantity. And I also will grant all the gifts that my brother asks. For this land is my brother’s land, and this my house is his house.”

All Tushratta’s letters are written in this tone with the exception of the last. Nimmuria felt his end approaching, and entreated the aid of “Our Lady of Nineveh.” Such an expedient was not foreign to Egyptian thought. A late inscription professes to tell how a certain divine image was sent from Thebes to a distant land for the healing of a foreign princess. From Tushratta’s answer also it appears that the statue of the goddess Ishtar had once before been taken from Nineveh to Thebes.

This letter begins solemnly:

“The words of Ishtar of Nineveh, mistress of all lands. ‘To Egypt, to the land that I love will I go, and there will I sojourn.’ Now I send her and she goes. Let my brother worship her and then let her go in gladness that she may return. May Ishtar protect my brother and me for a hundred thousand years. May she grant unto us both great gladness; may we know nothing but happiness.”

All this notwithstanding, Nimmuria must die, and later Tushratta describes his own grief on the occasion:

“And on that day I wept, I sat in sorrow. Food and drink I touched not on that day; grieved was my heart. I said, ‘Oh, that it had been I who died !’ ”