PHARAOH

PHARAOH, a common name of the kings of Egypt. Josephus says, that all the kings of Egypt, from Minæus the founder of Memphis, who lived several ages before Abraham, have always had the name of Pharaoh, down to the times of Solomon, for more than 3300 years. He adds, that in the Egyptian language the word Pharosh signifies a king; and that those princes did not assume this name but when they ascended the throne, at which time they quitted also their former name. From hence it comes to pass,

says Josephus, that Herodotus names none of the kings of Egypt after Minæus the builder of Memphis, though he had 330 kings for his successors, because they had all the name of Pharaoh; but because this name did not pass to women also, he names an Egyptian queen Nicaule who succeeded them. Lastly, I find, adds Josephus, from the ancient records of our nation, that from the age of Solomon no king of Egypt had any longer the name of Pharaoh.

But Josephus is not very accurate in this passage. True it is, Herodotus says, that Minæus, or Minæus, was the first king of Egypt, and founder of Memphis; that there were 330 kings after him in Egypt; that after them there was a queen called Nicotris, and not Nicaule, as Josephus writes it; but it is not true that these kings had no other name but Pharaoh. Herodotus says expressly, that in the books of the Egyptian priests were read the names and the catalogue of 330 kings; that in this number of 330 there were 18 Ethiopians, and a woman that was a foreigner called Nicotris, and that all the others were Egyptians. These princes therefore had every one his proper name mentioned in the catalogue of the Egyptian kings. So likewise we see in the fragments of Manetho, that every king of Egypt had a name peculiar to him; and we find the name Pharaoh only in Scripture.

What Josephus adds concerning queen Nicaule, or Nicotris, whom he pretends to be the same as the queen of Sheba, of whom mention is made in Scripture (1 Kings x. 1, 2, &c.), is entirely fabulous; and as to what he says, that since the time of Solomon the kings of Egypt have no longer had the name of Pharaoh, is manifestly false, since we still find this name in the second book of Kings, under Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 21.); under Josiah (xxiii. 29, 30, 33, &c.), where this name is joined to Necho, which was the proper name of this prince; under Jehoiakim (xxiii. 35.); and in the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, who are much later than Solomon. It is very probable that the Egyptians gave the name of Pharaoh to their kings as long as the Egyptian language was in common use, and as long as their kings were of their own nation; but after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, and that the Grecians introduced their language with their government, the name of Pharaoh was known no longer among them. The first prince known to us by the name of Pharaoh was he in whose time Abraham went down to Egypt, when Sarah, who passed only for Abraham's sister, was by the command of Pharaoh brought to his palace in order to become his wife. See ABRAHAM. But the Lord smote Pharaoh and his family with great infirmities, and gave him to know that she was Abraham's wife; whereupon Pharaoh sent for Abraham, restored him his wife, and at the same time gave orders that he should be conducted out of Egypt, with every thing that belonged to him. See SARAH.

The second Pharaoh spoke of by the Scripture is he that reigned when Joseph arrived there. This prince or his successor had the mysterious dream of the fat and lean kine, and the seven full and barren ears of corn, which Joseph explained so well to his satisfaction, that he made him governor of his house and of all Egypt, reserving only to himself the name of a king. This is the same Pharaoh that sent for and

entertained the patriarch Jacob and his family in Egypt, and gave them the land of Goshen for their habitation. See JOSEPH and JACOB.

The third Pharaoh known in holy writ is he that perfected the Israelites. Moses tells us that he was a new king, and had no knowledge of Joseph (Exod. i. 8.) This prince, observing that the Israelites were become very numerous and powerful, resolved to de-jac them by hardship and labour; and set cruel and pitiless taskmasters over them. But the more he oppressed them, the faster they multiplied; inasmuch that he gave orders to the Egyptian midwives, who assisted the Hebrew women in their labour, to put all the male children to death, and to save alive the females only. But this command was not strictly executed. The midwives feared the Lord, and preferred alive not only the female children, but the males also.

Pharaoh, seeing this project did not succeed to his wishes, published a decree (Exod. i. 22.) that all the male children born of Hebrew women should be thrown into the Nile, and that only the females should be spared. This order was rigorously executed; yet by the providence of God Moses was preserved, and even brought up in Pharaoh's own court, by his own daughter, who by chance had found the child, as he was exposed upon the Nile.

Moses being grown up, and having killed an Egyptian who had abused an Hebrew, was obliged to fly from Egypt to avoid that death that Pharaoh had threatened him with.

Several years after, being about 80 years old, he returned again by an order from God, and performed mighty miracles before Pharaoh. See MOSES. There is a good deal of probability that this Pharaoh before whom Moses appeared, and in whose sight he smote Egypt with so many plagues, was a different person from him who would have laid hands on him after he had slain the Egyptian. This same Pharaoh having at last been compelled to send away the Hebrews, and to suffer them to go out of Egypt, soon repented of the leave he had given, and pursued them at the head of his army with his chariots. But he was drowned in the Red Sea, wherein he had rashly entered in the eagerness of his pursuit. Some historians pretend to give us the name of this Pharaoh; some, as Appion, call him Amosis or Amasis; Eusebius calls him Chenchis; Usher calls him Amenophis; but we may assure ourselves that there can be nothing in all this.

The fifth Pharaoh known to us is he that gave protection to Hadad son of the king of Edom, who gave him to wife the sister of his own queen, enriched him with lands, and brought up his son Genubah in his own court. Hadad returned to Edom after the death of David.

The sixth Pharaoh is he that gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon king of the Hebrews (1 Kings iii. 1.); and having taken Gezer, he set it on fire, drove the Canaanites out of it, and gave it for a present to Solomon, in lieu of a dowry for his daughter, whom he had married to this prince (1 Kings ix. 16.)

The seventh is Shishak, who entertained Jeroboam in his dominions, a rebellious subject of Solomon, and offered him a refuge in opposition to the king his master. The same Shishak declared war against Rehoboam the son and successor of Solomon, besieged and took

Pharaoh took Jerusalem, carried away all the king's treasures, and those of the house of God, and particularly the golden bucklers that Solomon had made. See SHAK.

The eighth is that Pharaoh with whom Hezekiah made a league against Sennacherib king of Assyria, in the year of the world 3290. See SENNACHERIB. This Pharaoh is probably the same whom Herodotus names Sethon, priest of Vulcan, who came to meet Sennacherib before Pelusium, and to whose assistance Vulcan sent an army of rats, which gnawed the bowstrings and the thongs of the bucklers of Sennacherib's soldiers.

The ninth is Pharaoh-Necho, or Nechos, son of Psammiticus, who made war with Josiah, and subdued him. Herodotus also mentions this prince. See NACHO, and EGYPT, n° 11.

The tenth is Pharaoh Hophrah, who entered into an alliance with Zedekiah king of Judah, and attempted to come to his assistance against Nebuchadnezzar king of Chaldea. It was against this Pharaoh that Ezekiel pronounced several of his prophecies (See Ezek. xxx. xxxi. xxxii.) He is called Apries in Herodotus, I. ii. c. 161. He is also mentioned in Habakkuk ii. 15, 16. See also Isaiah xix. xx. and Jeremiah xvi. 16, &c. See APRIES, and EGYPT, n° 13, &c.

PHARAON is the name of a game of chance, the principal rules of which are: the banker holds a pack consisting of 52 cards; he draws all the cards one after the other, and lays them down alternately at his right and left hand; then the ponte may at his pleasure set one or more stakes upon one or more cards, either before the banker has begun to draw the cards, or after he has drawn any number of couples. The banker wins the stake of the ponte when the card of the ponte comes out in an odd place on his right hand, but loses as much to the ponte when it comes out in an even place on his left hand. The banker wins half the ponte's stake when it happens to be twice in one couple. When the card of the ponte being but once in the stock happens to be the last, the ponte neither wins nor loses; and the card of the ponte being but twice in the stock, and the last couple containing his card twice, he then loses his whole stake. De Moivre has shown how to find the gain of the banker in any circumstance of cards remaining in the stock, and of the number of times that the ponte's cards is contained in it. Of this problem he enumerates four cases, viz. when the ponte's card is once, twice, three, or four times in the stock. In the first case, the gain of the banker is $\backslash frac\{1\}\{n\}$, $n$ being the number of cards in the stock.

In the second case, his gain is $\backslash frac\{n-2\; \backslash times\; y\}\{n\; \backslash times\; n-1\}\; +\; \backslash frac\{2\}\{n\; \backslash times\; n-1\}$, Pharez, Pharisees.
or $\backslash frac\{\backslash frac\{1\}\{2\}n+1\}\{n\; \backslash times\; n-1\}$, supposing $y\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{2\}$. In the third case, his

gain is $\backslash frac\{3y\}\{2\; \backslash times\; n-1\}$, or $\backslash frac\{3\}\{n\; \backslash times\; n-1\}$, supposing $y\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{2\}$. In the fourth case, the gain of the banker, or the loss of the ponte, is $\backslash frac\{2n-5\}\{n-1\; \backslash times\; n-3\}\; y$, or $\backslash frac\{2n-5\}\{2\; \backslash times\; n-1\; \backslash times\; n-3\}$, supposing $y\; =\; \backslash frac\{1\}\{2\}$. De Moivre has calculated a table, exhibiting this gain or loss for any particular circumstance of the play; and he observes, that at this play the least disadvantage of the ponte, under the same circumstances of cards remaining in the stock, is when the card of the ponte is but twice in it, the next greater when three times, the next when once, and the greatest when four times. He has also demonstrated, that the whole gain per cent. of the banker, upon all the money that is adventured at this game, is 21. 19s. 10d. See De Moivre's Doctrine of Chances, p. 77, &c. p. 105, &c.