re or less corrected) the names they are
in search of. A fresh examination of the subject has led me to adopt
provisionally the following order for the series of Tanite kings:--

[Illustration: 397.jpg TABLE OF KINGS]

Their actual domain barely extended as far as Siut, but their suzerainty
was acknowledged by the Said as well as by all or part of Ethiopia, and
the Tanite Pharaohs maintained their authority with such vigour, that
they had it in their power on several occasions to expel the high
priests of Amon, and to restore, at least for a time, the unity of the
empire. To accomplish this, it would have been sufficient for them to
have assumed the priestly dignity at Thebes, and this was what no doubt
took place at times when a vacancy in the high priesthood occurred;
but it was merely in an interim, and the Tanite sovereigns always
relinquished the office, after a brief lapse of time, in favour of some
member of the family of Hrihor whose right of primogeniture entitled him
to succeed to it.* It indeed seemed as if custom and religious etiquette
had made the two offices of the pontificate and the royal dignity
incompatible for one individual to hold simultaneously. The priestly
duties had become marvellously complicated during the Theban hegemony,
and the minute observances which they entailed absorbed the whole life
of those who dedicated themselves to their performance.**

* This is only true if the personage who entitles himself
once within a cartouche, "the Master of the two lands, First
Prophet of Amon, Psiukhan-nit," is really the Tanite king,
and not the high priest Psiukhannit.

** The first book of Diodorus contains a picture of the life
of the kings of Egypt, which, in common with much
information contained in the work, is taken from a lost book
of Hecataeus. The historical romance written by the latter
appears to have been composed from information taken from
Theban sources. The comparison of it with the inscribed
monuments and the ritual of the cultus of Amon proves that
the ideal description given in this work of the life of the
kings, merely reproduces the chief characteristics of the
lives of the Theban and Ethiopian high priests; hence the
greater part of the minute observances which we remark
therein apply to the latter only, and not to the Pharaohs
properly so called.

They had daily to fulfil a multitude of r