ИСТИНА

An Egyptologist or a researcher of the international relations at the Ancient Near East will hardly disagree that, compared with the deeds of the kings od Dynasties XVIII and XIX, the achievements of Sheshonq I at Palestine were meager. However, this did not prevent the makers of the Graeco-Egyptian tradition of the Hellenistic and later time to grant the greatest conqueror-king of the past with a derivative of Sheshonq’s name. The Romance of Alexander (probably, coming back in this part to an Alexandrian prototype of the early 3rd century B.C.) says that the Egyptian priests welcoming Alexander the Great in Egypt called him “the new Sesonchosis, ruler of the world” (Hist. Alex. Magni, A. I.34.2); the motif of Sesonchosis is repeated in the text later, and there is no doubt that the two rulers were compared to one another as the greatest conquerors and heroes of all times. Aristotle’s pupil Dicaearchus of Messena presented Sesonchosis as the greatest founder and conqueror following the god-kings and added that his deeds were presented most accurately in Herodotus’ account of Sesostris (Schol. Apoll. Rhod. IV. 272-277; cf. Hdt. II. 102-110). The Romance of Sesonchosis (belonging to Hellenistic or Roman time and known in Greek fragments with recognizable Demotic parallels) talks about the youthhood of the king who also promised to be a great conqueror; it finds parallels with Hecataeus’/Diodorus’ account of the greatest conqueror Sesoosis (Diod. I. 53-58). One should add to that, though this is a somewhat different story, that Manetho denoted as Sesonchosis the king obviously equivalent to Senwosret I (frgg, 34-36 Waddell). But the problem to be discussed here is the equivalence postulated between the bearer of the name Sesonchosis, an obvious derivative of “Sheshonq”, and the kings portrayed otherwise in the Classical tradition as the greatest conquerors in Egyptian history. Notably, Josephus Flavius said that Herodotus’ Sesostris is a totally fictitious figure (Contra Apionem, II.11, § 132) that emerged due to exaggerating the feats of the king Isoc (Antiquitates Iudaicae, VIII.10.2, § 253), i.e. Shoshenq I. Of course, the matter with the synthetic image of Sesostris is much more complicated; but Josephus might be right about the logic of integrating in it the reminiscences of Sheshonq I. The latter’s campaign at Palestine must have been represented as a great triumph putting him on an equal footing with the New Kingdom king-warriors, and this impression must have been somehow preserved in Egyptian memory. Here one might pay attention to two points. First, the relief on the Bubastite Gates at Karnak mentions anachronistically Mitanni as a country subdued by Sheshonq I (Epigraphic Survey, 1954, pl. 3, col. 23-24). Second, Manetho’s account of the wars of Dynasty XVIII knows nothing of its expansion at Asia: the defeat of the Hyksos at its very start was followed by a settlement that resulted in their retreat from Egypt and the emergence of a “post-Hyksos” kingdom with a capital at Jerusalem (frg. 42 Waddell = Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.14, §§ 73‑92), and this was all known of this dynasty’s military history. In due course, at the end of Dynasty XIX, the “post-Hyksos” allied with Egyptian lepers seized Egypt for a period of time, but were expelled again and gave origin to the Jewish people (frg. 54 Waddell = Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.26‑31, §§ 227‑287). In the light of this scheme any epigraphic evidence of the wars of the early Dynasty XVIII, including that on its conflict with Mitanni, had to be perceived by the Egyptian historiographers of the First Millennium B.C. as a reflection of wars with Hyksos. The Jewish kingdoms that Sheshonq I attacked at Palestine had to be perceived as the successors of the Hyksos; hence, perhaps, the denotation “Mitanni” appearing in the depiction of his victory. Thus, Sheshonq’s triumph at Palestine could be reasonably presented as a revenge for the former Hyksos’ iniquities that befell Egypt twice in its history. Such presentation must have contributed to Shoshenq’s presentation as a great warrior and conqueror and eventually resulted in attaching his reminiscences to the synthetic image of the great Egyptian warrior-king reflected by the Classical tradition.