DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6359#0246
228
EGYPT AND ITS MONUMENTS.
time, that the tillage of Goshen alone could not possibly have
required the labor of all: why then might they not have
been sent out of Goshen to make bricks also? The other
inscription, too, it must not be forgotten, expressly describes
them as " captives brought by his majesty to build," &c. It
certainly was for the interest of their Egyptian oppressors,
who alleged their number as a reasonable ground of appre-
hension to scatter them in small bodies over all Egypt, as
much as possible. At this day, that degraded caste, the
Fellahs, are gathered in troops from the remotest provinces of
Egypt to execute any great public work.
Thirdly. It is objected, that all these laborers have not
beards. Certainly, however, beard is to be found on some, and
we think its absence on others is easily explained, on the
groimd that they were probably a degraded class of Egyp-
tians. How they came to be mingled with Israelites in
servile work we think we can show beyond question, when
we come to speak of that " great rabble," who accompanied
the Hebrews at the exode.
Another objection remains to be considered. There are
those who, while they readily admit that the picture repre-
sents Jews servilely employed in making brick, yet doubt
whether the painting was designed to delineate the par-
ticular act of servitude specified in the Scriptural history 0l*
the bondage. The ground of their doubt is this; that frOD?
the general absence on the monuments of every thing that
could reflect on the Egyptian national character, there is
reason to believe that mortified pride, after the triumphant
exode of the Israelites, caused the Egyptians studiously
to obliterate every sculpture which could recall the fact that
such a race as Israel ever was oppressed in Egypt, and sig-
EGYPT AND ITS MONUMENTS.
time, that the tillage of Goshen alone could not possibly have
required the labor of all: why then might they not have
been sent out of Goshen to make bricks also? The other
inscription, too, it must not be forgotten, expressly describes
them as " captives brought by his majesty to build," &c. It
certainly was for the interest of their Egyptian oppressors,
who alleged their number as a reasonable ground of appre-
hension to scatter them in small bodies over all Egypt, as
much as possible. At this day, that degraded caste, the
Fellahs, are gathered in troops from the remotest provinces of
Egypt to execute any great public work.
Thirdly. It is objected, that all these laborers have not
beards. Certainly, however, beard is to be found on some, and
we think its absence on others is easily explained, on the
groimd that they were probably a degraded class of Egyp-
tians. How they came to be mingled with Israelites in
servile work we think we can show beyond question, when
we come to speak of that " great rabble," who accompanied
the Hebrews at the exode.
Another objection remains to be considered. There are
those who, while they readily admit that the picture repre-
sents Jews servilely employed in making brick, yet doubt
whether the painting was designed to delineate the par-
ticular act of servitude specified in the Scriptural history 0l*
the bondage. The ground of their doubt is this; that frOD?
the general absence on the monuments of every thing that
could reflect on the Egyptian national character, there is
reason to believe that mortified pride, after the triumphant
exode of the Israelites, caused the Egyptians studiously
to obliterate every sculpture which could recall the fact that
such a race as Israel ever was oppressed in Egypt, and sig-