stronger mould than that of his father, having mounted the Ethiopian throne, lost no time in swooping down upon Egypt from the upper region, and, carrying all before him, besieged and took Sais, made Bek-en-ranf a prisoner, and barbarously burnt him alive for his rebellion.  His fierce and sensuous physiognomy is quite in keeping with this bloody deed, which was well calculated to strike terror into the Egyptian nation, and to ensure a general submission.

The rule of the Ethiopians was now for some fifty years firmly established.  Shabak founded a dynasty which the Egyptians themselves admitted to be legitimate, and which the historian Manetho declared to have consisted of three kings—­Sabacos (or Shabak), Sevechus (or Shabatok), and Taracus (or Tehrak), the Hebrew Tirhakah.  The extant monuments confirm the names, and order of succession, of these monarchs.  They were of a coarser and ruder fibre than the native Egyptians, but they did not rule Egypt in any alien or hostile spirit.  On the contrary, they were pious worshippers of the old Egyptian gods; they repaired and beautified the old Egyptian temples; and, instead of ruling Egypt, as a conquered province, from Napata, they resided permanently, or at any rate occasionally, at the Egyptian capitals, Thebes and Memphis.  There are certain indications which make it probable that to some extent they pursued the policy of Piankhi, and governed Lower Egypt by means of tributary kings, who held their courts at Sais, Tanis, and perhaps Bubastis.  But they kept a jealous watch over their subject princes, and allowed none of them to attain a dangerous pre-eminence.

[Illustration:  HEAD OF SHABAK (SABACO).]

By a curious coincidence the Ethiopic sway, or extension of influence over Egypt by the great monarchy of the south, exactly synchronized with the development of Assyrian power in south-western Asia, which bordered Egypt upon the north; and thus were brought into hostile collision, the two greatest military powers of the then known world who fought over the prostrate Egypt, like Achilles and Hector over the corpse of Patroclus.  Shabak’s conquest of the Lower Nile valley took place about B.C. 725 or 724.  Exactly at that time Shalmaneser IV. was proceeding to extremities against the kingdom of Israel, and was thus threatening to sweep away one of the last two feeble barriers which had hitherto been interposed between the Assyrian territory and the Egyptian.  Shabak, entreated by Hoshea, the last Israelite monarch, to lend him aid, consented to take the kingdom of Israel under his protection (2 Kings xvii. 4), actuated no doubt by an enlightened view of his own interest.  But when Samaria was besieged (B.C. 723) and the danger became pressing, he had not the courage to act up to his engagements.  The stout resistance offered by the Israelite capital for more than two years (2 Kings xvii. 5) drew forth no corresponding effort on the part of the Ethiopic king.  Hoshea was left to his own resources, and in B.C. 722 was forced to succumb.  His capital was taken by storm, its inhabitants seized and carried off by the conqueror, the whole territory absorbed into that of Assyria, and the cities occupied by Assyrian colonists (2 Kings xvii. 24).  Assyria was brought one step nearer to Egypt, and it became more than ever evident that contact and collision could not be much longer deferred.