one all the countries and tribes between the river of Egypt (Wady-el-Arish) and the Euphrates.  Egypt made no attempt to interfere with his proceedings; and Assyria, after one defeat (1 Chron. xix. 16-19), withdrew from the contest.  David’s empire was inherited by Solomon (1 Kings iv. 21-24); and Solomon’s position was such as naturally brought him into communication with the great powers beyond his borders, among others with Egypt.  A brisk trade was carried on between his subjects and the Egyptians, especially in horses and chariots (ib. x. 28, 29):  and diplomatic intercourse was no doubt established between the courts of Tanis and Jerusalem.  It Is a little uncertain which Egyptian prince was now upon the throne; but Egyptologers incline to Pinetem II., the second in succession after Men-khepr-ra, and the last king but one of the dynasty.  The Hebrew monarch having made overtures through his ambassador, this prince, it would seem, received them favourably; and, soon after his accession (1 Kings iii. 1), Solomon took to wife his daughter, an Egyptian princess, receiving with her as a dowry the city and territory of Gezer, which Pinetem had recently taken from its independent Canaanite inhabitants (ib. ix. 16).  The new connection had advantages and disadvantages.  The excessive polygamy, which had been affected by the Egyptian monarchs ever since the time of Ramesses II., naturally spread into Judea, and “King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites ... and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart” (ib. xi. 1, 3).  On the other hand, commerce was no doubt promoted by the step taken, and much was learnt in the way of art from the Egyptian sculptors and architects.  The burst of architectural vigour which distinguishes Solomon’s reign among those of other Hebrew kings, is manifestly the direct result of ideas brought to Jerusalem from the capital of the Pharaohs.  The plan of the Temple, with its open court in front, its porch, its Holy Place, its Holy of Holies, and its chambers, was modelled after the Egyptian pattern.  The two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, which stood in front of the porch, took the place of the twin obelisks, which in every finished example of an Egyptian temple stood just in front of the principal entrance.  The lions on the steps of the royal throne (ib. x. 20) were imitations of those which in Egypt often supported the seat of the monarch on either side; and “the house of the forest of Lebanon” was an attempt to reproduce the effect of one of Egypt’s “pillared halls.”  Something in the architecture of Solomon was clearly learnt from Phoenicia, and a little—­a very little—­may perhaps have been derived from Assyria; but Egypt gave at once the impulse and the main bulk of the ideas and forms.

The line of priest-kings terminated with Hor-pa-seb-en-sha, the successor of Pinetem II.  They held the throne for about a century and a quarter; and if they cannot be said to have played a very important part in the “story of Egypt,” or in any way to have increased Egyptian greatness, yet at least they escape the reproach, which rests upon most of the more distinguished dynasties, of seeking their own glory in modes which caused their subjects untold suffering. [Illustration:  Decorative]