The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture Library Presented by Dr. Baridbaran Mukerji RMIOL—8 15598 EGYPT’S PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY: CHRISTIAN ὁ, 4. BUNSEN, D.Pa. & D.C. TRANSLATED FROM THE CERMAN, BY CHARLES H. COTTRELL, ESQ., M.A. VOL, I. LONDON: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS, PATERNOSTER- ROW. 1848. ᾿ \ I [ | ry { - 9 4 , nn a joo | ere ae ae ~| a i i ice 1 Neer {pom jm κω.’ ἐμω- | : he temps = te ree wens Dn. + »- . ν» ed Ls . ΓΝ -- -“ -? a - ? ne - -. “' 4 ” ae { HGYPT’S PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY. VoL. lL CONTAINING THE FIRST BOOK, (RCES AND PRIMEVAL FACTS OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY ; EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY, AND A COMPLETE LIST OF HIEROGLYPHICAL SIGNS ς AN APPENDIX OF AUTHORITIES, ees ING THE COMPLETE TEXT OF MANETHQ AND ERATOSTHENES, ASGYPTIACA EROM © oe - «- . fave its PLINY, STRABO, BTC. ; AND VLATES REPRESENTING THE EGYPTIAN DIVINITIES, JLoxnon: Sprortiswoone and Snaw, New-street-Square. ΓΟ FREDERIC WILLIAM THE FOURTH KING OF PRUSSIA THE ENLIGHTENED FRIEND OF ANTIQUITY AND LOVER OF RESEARCH ὃ THE FIRST GERMAN PRINCE WHO SENT A SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION TO EGYPT A:THIOPIA AND SINAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THEIR MOST ANCIENT HISTORICAL MONUMENTS THE SOVEREIGN WHO SECURED LEISURE AND INSPIRED COURAGE TO UNDERTAKE THIS WORK HIS MOST GRACIOUS MASTER AND PATRON THESE FIRST FRUITS OF HIS RESEARCHES IN ANCIENT HISTORY ARE WITH GRATITUDE AND RESPECT Wevdicated HY THE AUTHOR PREFACK. Twenry ycars have now elapsed since I became con- vinced by Champollion’s lectures and writings, as well as by my own examination of the Egyptian monu- ments at Rome, and particularly the obelisks, that the great discovery of the Hieroglyphical System would prove to be of the highest importance for the ancient history of Mankind. In analysing its bearing upon the course of historical research pursued in Germany and upon my own studies, three questions presented themselves. Is the Chronology of Egypt, as embodied in the Dynasties of Manetho, capable of restoration, wholly or in part, by means of the monuments and the names of its Kings? Will the Egyptian language enable us to establish the position of the Egyptians, as a nation, in primeval history, and especially their connexion with the tribes of the Aramaic and Indo- Germanic stock ? Lastly, may we hope, by persevering in a course of Hgyptian research based, in the strictest sense of the word, on historical principles, to obtain for the History of Mankind a more sure and unfailing toun- dation than we at present possess ? The scientific assumptions and views with which I set out in the solution of these three questions were, in the main, as follows. The Roman researches of Niebuhr had proved to me the uncertainty of the chronological system of the A 4 Vill PREFACE. Greeks, beyond the Olympiads; and that even, Euse- bius’s chronicle, as preserved in the Armenian transla- tion, furnishes merely isolated, although important, data for the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology beyond the era of Nabonassar. Again, as regards the Jewish com- putation of time, the study of Scripture had long convinced me, that there is in the Old Testament no connected chronology prior to Solomon. All that now passes for a system of ancient chronology beyond that fixed point, is the melancholy legacy of the 17th and 18th centuries; a compound of intentional deceit and utter misconception of the principles of historical research. [Egyptian history is the only one which possesses contemporary monuments of those primeval ages, and at the same time offers points of contact with the primitive tribes of Asia, especially the Jewish, from the latest up to the earliest times. [0 is here, if anywhere, that materials are to be gathered for the foundation of a chronology of the pldest history of nations. Thus much for the first question. German philology, to any one who has cultivated it since Irederic Schlegel, must necessarily present the great truth, that a method has been found of restoring the genealogy of mankind, through the me- dium of language; not by means of forced, isolated etymologies, but by taking a large and comprehensive view of the organic and indestructible fabric of indi- vidual tongues, according to the family to which they belong. Viewing the question upon the princi iples esta- blished by those eieacareliog: I found a comparison of the Coptic language with such roots and forms of the Old Egyptian as were then discovered, sufficient to remove from my mind all doubt as to the Asiatic origin of the Kyyptians, and their affinity with the Semitic οὐ Aramaic stock. But 1 had, moreover, long arrived PREFACE. ΙΧ at the conclusion, from a more general study of lan- guage, that the civilisation of the human race is principally due to two great families of nations, whose connexion is a fact as much beyond the possibility of mistake, as is their early separation. What we call ‘Wniversal history necessarily therefore appeared to me, from this point of view, as the history of two races, who, under a variety of names, represent the develop- ment of the human mind. Of these, the Indo-Germanic seemed to me the one which carried on the main stream of history; the Aramaic, that which crossed it, and formed the episodes in the divine drama. It had struck me, therefore, as a convenient course, and in our time in particular a most appropriate one, to make the structure of the language of these two parent stocks the basis of all research into the origin of the human race, and the laws of its development. Proceeding upon these views, I had endeavoured, be- tween the years 1812 and 1815, to strike out a plan for discovering the strictly historical principle in philology, that is to say, the principle which explains the gradual development of the phenomena. The result was a full conviction that this principle was discoverable. In order to test my views on the subject in a field where the facts are incontrovertible, I first undertook to analyse the formation of the Romanic languages. Here the main point was to discover the general law by which new languages are formed out of a declining one, through «a change in the ideas of the people, and usually also by the introduction of new materials. I then turned my attention to the history of the Scandinavian languayes. There my principal object was to find a universal formula for the relation which a colonial lan- guage (like the Icelandic) bears, on the one side, to the old tongue of the mother-country, and on the other to X PREFACE. the modern idioms which there may have entirely su- perseded it. The old form of the language may thus be preserved in the colony, owing to the interrup- tion of its progressive natural development,. whilst in the mother-country, in the course of national vicis- situdes, new formations took place, by a gradual wear- ing out of flexions, and generalisation of the meaning of the old roots, according to the ordinary rules of the development of language. Now the Icelandic appeared to ine to possess Immense importance for the solution of the general problem, as being identical with the Old Norse, and as forming the point of departure for the Swedish and Danish, which in Scandinavia have succceded that old idiom. In order to make a practical use of this method and the formulas discovered by means of it, I had likewise sought at an early stage of my inquiries for a lever applicable to universal history; for what is truce in a small circle must also be so in a larger and the largest. In consequence of the unexpected light thrown on history by the discoverics in hieroglyphics, the Egyptian language at last appeared to me to offer such a lever. It clearly stands between the Semitic and Indo-Germanic; for its forms and roots cannot be explained by either of them singly, but are evidently a combination of the two. If, then, it be of Asiatic origin, and consequently introduced by colonisation into the valley of the Nile, where it became naturalised, it will enable us to pronounce upon the state of the Asiatic language from which it sprang, and consequently upon an unknown period of mental development in primeval Asia. Thus much as to the assumptions from which I started upon the second of the three questions. It is manifestly useless to attempt a satisfactory restoration of the oldest national histories, or to esta- blish thc true philosophy of primeval history on a solid PREFACE. Ἢ X1 basis, before the chronology of the historic ages is settled, and the laws of language in the ante-historical are defined. Will not Egyptian Chronology and Philo- logy, hqwever, impart a new element of vitality to both these departments, and do they not offer very im- portant points of contact with the ancient and most ancient national history of Asia ? Again, do not the Egyptian Monuments possess this paramount superiority over all others, that their inserip- tions and dates remove all doubt as to the course of the development of art; the epochs of which it is so impor- tant to determine, and which nevertheless, as regards individual monuments, are everywhere else mere mat- ters of conjecture, not excepting even those of Greece ? Egyptian art is clearly as old as the history of the nation, and a highly important phenomenon in ge- neral history. The chronology being settled, will not vestiges of the Egyptian Mythology enable us to draw new and valuable conclusions as to the history of religious traditions and speculations, not only in Egypt, but in the world in general ? Lastly, and above all, can it not be demonstrated, mainly through the instrumentality of Egypt, that Language, the immediate type and organ of the mind, ranks as the oldest authentic record of mental develop- ment in the primordial epochs of the human race ? At the very outset of my historical aspirations, I had as strong a conviction of the existence of laws by which the development of the human mind is governed in all its branches, as of the impossibility of discovering them by research without theory, or by theory without research. Winckelmann assumed the existence of such laws in the history of art, and he discovered them. Herder, in like manner, had a forecast of their existence in the universal history of mankind. Since the days of Xil PREFACE. those philosophers and Kant, German science, consciously and unconsciously, has had a manifest tendency to en- large the sphere of observation as regards the objects both of religious and natural knowledae: This it has done by the joint aid of philology, history, and philo- sophy; from the want of which combination endless misunderstandings and confusion occurred in the last two centuries. We may hope, therefore, to attain at least to an approximate solution of the problem we propose, now that the sphere of history has been so considerably extended beyond the limits assigned to it in those early days of Egyptian research. Starting with these views and assumptions, | resolved to pursue the Egyptian inquiry independently. My attention was necessarily directed, in the first place, to the Chronology, the key to all further advancement. Here, however, 1 could not but be aware that success must depend in a great measure upon the method adopted. The point at issue was, the application of the principles of criticism, by which a scicntific study of history is guided, to the philological sources of Egyp- tian chronology. This, for reasons not difficult to explain, had never been hitherto attempted; as indeed it never has been, thoroughly, to the present hour. I very soon saw that the systems of chronology in- vented, or adopted, at the moment of the discovery of the great historical names of Psammetichus, Sesak, and Ramesses, were utterly untenable. The tablet of Aby- dos stimulated and encouraged me to attempt a solution of the contradictions between the monuments and Mane- tho. It was in December, 1832, that I first succeeded im finding the key to the restoration of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, which produced such immediate satisfactory results as increased iny ardour in pursuing the same course. The following years completed the restoration PREFACE. ΧΕ of the chronology of the New Iimpire from the 18th to the 30th Dynasty. In 1834 I discovered in the list of Eratosthenes the key to the restoration of the first 12 Dynasties of Manetho, and was thereby enabled to fix the length of the Old Empire. These two points being settled, the next step obviously was, to fill up the chasm between the Old and New Empires, which 1s commonly called the Hyksos Period ; and, aftcr the preliminary steps had been taken by a critical examination of the dif- ferent authorities, [ commenced in the year 1835 the chronological portion of my inquiry, proceeding from the earlicr down to later times, whereas the inquiry itself was necessarily conducted in the reverse direction. In all main points the chronological result of my labours was the same as is now presented to the public in the first three books of this work, after it has been tested nearly twelve years. During this process, however, I found so many chasms in the monuments, that I should never have had the resolution to enter systematically into all the details, had not my acquaintance with Lepsius, in the spring of 1836, been the means of introducing me to a variety of hither- to unknown treasures. These consisted of HKgyptian monuments hidden in various European collections, numerically very considerable, and of the highest im- portance as furnishing corrcctions of, as well as additions to, our previous knowledge. The most invaluable of all was the friendly and zealous assistance I received from himself. My connexion with him I consider as the most fortunate of the many favourable circumstances which have attended me during the course of my Egyp- tian studies. From that time forward, 1 thought seri- ously of investigating thoroughly all the three questions above alluded to; and determined to run the risk of having my discoveries anticipated by others, rather X1V ies PREFACE. than publish’ them precipitately and in an incomplete state. With this view, I collected voluminous materials for the historical synchronisms in the years 1836 and 1837, and commenced the preliminary rescarches rela- tive to the language and mythology. At the very beginning of January, 1838, when a crisis in the diplomatic relations between Prussia and the Court of Rome produced a temporary cessation of my official duties, and created in me the want of an absorb- ing mental occupation, 1 commenced writing the work which I now present to the public. It advanced so rapidly that the chronological researches requisite for the second, third, and fourth books, the greater part of them at least, were prepared in the first ‘three months, and communicated to some of my friends, substantially in the shape in which they have been published after an interval of seven years. The greater part of the my- thological portion also, which forms the sixth section of this volume, was composed at that time, although completed subsequently at Munich. An examination, during this and the following year, of the treasures of the British Museum, and cspe- cially of the inscriptions and works of art found in and near the great Pyramids, furnished me with the means and desire of making many additions to, and of re-writing a portion of, the work. It still bore in many parts too evident traces of the preliminary researches and investigations made during its composition. At Berne, in January, 1841, I set about remodelling it, owing to the discoveries made by Lepsius in the Royal Papyrus at Turin, and his examination of other monuments. With the exception of some slight alterations, the first two chapters of the third book were then written, in the shape in which they are now published. The chrono- logieal tables of Egyptian history, and its points of PREFACE. | XV synchronism in the Jewish, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian histories, which I had arranged for my own ‘use, were likewise completed at that time, in the form in which they will appear in a subsequent volume. The finishing stroke was put to the second book in December, 1842, when Perring’s important work, a continuation of General Vyse’s description of the Pyra- mids of Gizeh, appeared. The results which it contained of the opening and examination of the other groups of Pyramids furnished me, quite unexpectedly, with much new and valuable matter in proof of my assertion, that they are the tombs of the Kings of the Old Empire, and the most important monuments of its grandeur. The printing of the second book, which commenced in the beginning of 1843, was concluded towards the close of that year. Lepsius’s mission to Egypt, in September, 1842, warned me, on the one hand, against offering a precipi- tate judgment upon those points about which doubts existed, owing to the want of monuments; and, on the other, held out an inducement to publish all that was known for certain upon sufficient monumental evidence. The discovery of new monuments was not likely to furnish additional materials for completing or correct- ing the chronological system | had laid down, except, in the case of the Old Empire; and that, indeed, merely with respect to the Pyramids of Gizech, Sakkarah, and the Fayum. This was the very reason, however, whyit seemed desir- able to make known in what state the inquiry was when he went to Egypt, and to insert in its proper place any new discovery which had an important bearing on chro- nology or history, while the work was in the press. All the rest I left to Lepsius, to digest and publish. On the other hand, it seemed a matter of some consequence, to XV1 PREFACE. lose no time in showing the general nature of the system of Egyptian chronology which I worked ‘out as long ago as 1888, and which, upon the whole, is the same as that adopted by Lepsius. Another argument in favour of this course was, to create a stimulus to the study of lgyptian science. Nothing is to be expected for this portion of philology, until the sympathy of all the students of history 15 enlisted in it. This, however, implies two things: first, the arrangement and exposition of every thing which has been, or can be, obtained by means of the hieroglyphics, for Egyptian and general chronology and national history; secondly, an analysis of the language and writing, as well as mythology, of the Egyptians, carried out in an historical sense. There is a want of both, not only in Germany, but everywhere else. Ac- cording to my views, and the plan of this work, such an exposition ought to be given immediately after the general criticism of the authorities, inasmuch as 1t com- prises facts anterior to chronology, and connected with the primeval ages of the world. In working out the first volume, I was necessarily obliged, not only to go deeper into the details of the hiero- glyphic grammar and character than I had hitherto been able to do, or than was requisite indeed when Lepsius was with me, but also to a certain extent to come to & definite conclusion on the main points of the inquiry which were reserved for the second volume. The conse- quence was, that the first book was printed after the second. Owing to various interruptions, its comple- tion was delayed till the present moment. 3 It seemed to me indispensable, in spite of its savour- ing of a want of modesty, to present my readers with this detailed account of the chronology of the work; not only for the sake of anticipating criticism, either as PREFACE. XVI1 to its premature or tardy publication ; but more espe- cially in order to show the train of thought to which it owes its present shape, and which I wish to be taken into consideration when it is judged. There was yet another reason; that I might thus briefly explain the unity of the different parts, and their reference to scientific questions now under discussion. It is hardly necessary, perhaps, to state that the gencral assumptions here made will be substantiated and proved in the work itself, to the best of my ability; as far as is requisite, at least, in order to give it a basis of its own, and enable the reader to form an independent opinion for himself. Upon the execution of the work I wish to offer only one remark. My aim has been to give it the stamp of an historical composition; and in every branch of the subject I have endeavoured to exclude all that did not appear to bear that character. Much, therefore, of the learned substructure, to which, in order to excite further investigation, and in the hope of eliciting useful information from others, 1 should have been glad to have given a more prominent place, has been in a great measure kept out of sight. Language, writing, my- thology, chronology, and monumental lore, have all of them some phase which is out of place in an historical exposition, however impossible it is for the historian to pass them over when making his own researches. But, on the other hand, there is in all of them an historical element, and this the historian must bring forward; the more so as these points are often over- looked, or at least thrown into the background, in the technical treatises on those particular sciences. It is my firm conviction that every one of those phenomena, however dry or insignificant it appears, may find its place in an historical treatise; and that it is only VOL, I. a XVil1 PREFACE. when taken as a part of history that it acquires its real importance, and is thoroughly understood. I am fully conscious how far I am from coming up to this ideal standard ; but that is no reason why I should not have placed it before me. I am convinced, indeed, that, the further we advance in our Egyptian studies, our labours, instead of increasing, will be diminished. It appeared requisite nevertheless, at the present moment, to discuss many things in detail, which, ten years hence, may perhaps be so self-evident, that we shall forget it was once necessary to prove them. I am very far, however, from thinking it in character with an historical treatise to omit the mention of the authorities for simple and naked facts. It is, on the contrary, in my opinion, an essential failing in the style of writing history, so much in vogue in modern days, that these authorities are kept out of sight, and that historians are either too proud or too superficial to inform their readers on what foundation their re- searches are based. For my own part, I have considered it a duty, in every branch of the inquiry, to notice the sources of my information, and fully to detail without any additions, the facts that have been transmitted. 1 have more- over given at the end of this volume an “ Appendix of Authorities” for the benefit of my philological readers. It. contains the whole amended text of the authors quoted in these volumes, whose writings do not form complete historical works like those of Herodotus and Diodorus. With a view to facilitate the studies of Egypto- logers, a complete Hieroglyphical Alphabet, succinctly explained as far as the state of Egyptian research will allow, is likewise subjoined. In elucidation of” the language, again, not only are all the Old Egyptian well-ascertained grammatical forms arranged in a syn- PREFACE. X1X optical shape, according to their internal connexion, but an Alphabetical List is likewise given of those roots and words about which no doubt exists. Finally, the Representations of the Divinities, combined with the exposition in the sixth and last section, exhibit the Egyptian Gods as they occur on the monuments, now deciphered, thanks to the discoveries of Champollion, for the first time since the sun of Egypt set. To those who feel called upon to expose the omis- sions, defects, and errors in this work, I tender my thanks beforehand, begging them, at the same time, not to forget the condition in which I found Egyptian science. In conclusion, I have only to offer the expression of heartfelt gratitude to all those who have held out their hand to me on the long and solitary road, in a benevo- lent and friendly spirit. To the memory of my friends in Italy, now no more, Sir William Gell and Ippolito Rosellini, I pay this tribute of mournful affection. To those still surviving — Alexander von Humboldt at Berlin; Letronne at Paris; William Hamilton, Dv. Prichard, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, and Mr. Per- ring, in England ; but, above all, to my three valu- able coadjutors, Lepsius and Abeken, the former of whom has lately returned from Egypt, and Mr. Birch of the British Museum (in which a great part of the last three sections of the first volume was written) — I offer my thanks and hearty good wishes. It is unne- cessary and superfluous to make express mention of the great kindness of the curators of the Royal Library at Paris and the British Museum, which is known to, and appreciated by, all the educated world. I must, in conclusion, especially allude to the good offices of M. Maurice Schwartze, the author of the learned work on Egypt, and..Professor of the Coptic language and . a 2 XX PREFACE. literature at Berlin, who has kindly revised the Coptic part of my grammar, and been a valuable contributor to the Coptic portion of the Egyptian vocabulary. POSTSCRIPT. Highwood, Sept. 27. 1847. I caynor allow this English translation of my work to appear before the public, without acknowledging the merits of Mr. Cottrell, already known to the English public as the translator of Schiller’s Don Carlos, and Lepsius’s Tour from Thebes to the Peninsula of Sinai, and as the author of Recollections of Siberia in 1840 and 1841. He has bestowed upon the task he undertook a scrupulous diligence and unremitting zeal to make the book English, without destroying what may be idiomatic in the German diction, and characteristic in the style of the author. After the whole of the German text had been translated, that of the first volume, which now appears, has been most carefully revised, and 1 have myself spared no trouble to give him my assistance in this ‘revisfon. This English edition owes many valuable remarks and additions to my learned friend Mr. Samuel Birch, particularly in the grammatical, lexicographic, and my- thological part. That I have been able to make out of the collection of Egyptian roots, printed in the German edition, a complete hieroglyphical dictionary, is owing to him. To him also belong the references to the ionu- mental evidence for the signification of an Egyptian word, wherever the proof exhibited in Champollion’s PREFACE. Xxi dictionary or grammar is not clear or satisfactory. Without any addition to the bulk of the volume, and without any incumbrance to the text, the work may now be said to contain the only complete Egyptian grammar and dictionary, as well as the only existing collection and interpretation of all the hieroglyphical signs; in short, all that a general scholar wants, to make himself master of the hieroglyphic system by studying the monuments. The hieroglyphical signs, instead of being given in separate plates, have been printed by the side of their respective interpretations. These signs have been drawn by Mr. Bonomi, and cut by Mr. Martin, under the superintendence of Mr. Birch. The text and analysis of the last line of the hieroglyphical inscrip- tion on the Rosetta stone have been appended for the use of the Egyptian scholar. I am further happy to mention that this English edition, as well as the original, owes much, as to the completeness and correctness of the Coptic explanations in the dictionary, to the care of Prof. Moritz Schwarze, who is now in London, having received the honourable commission from the Royal Academy of Berlin, with the generous support of the King, to prepare the pub- lication of important Coptic MSS. in the British Museum and other libraries of Great Britain. The elegant translations of the distichs prefixed to each of tlie five books are due to the kindness of J. G. Lockhart, Esq. As to the critical reviews of the first two volumes of the German edition, I shall reserve it for the con- tinuation, to notice such of them as scem to me to call for an answer. Still, having availed myself already in:this English volume of some valuable remarks con- tained in these reviews, I feel bound to thank the a 3 XXI11 PREFACE. learned writers, on this occasion, for the attention they have bestowed upon my researches. I wish, in. par- ticular, to express these my thanks to M. Raoul Rochette (review in the Journal des Savans), to Colonel Mure of Caldwell (in the Ldinburgh Review), and to Dr. Kenrick (in the Prospective Review). The continuation of this English translation will appear as soon as the German edition is completed. The second volume will contain the whole of the second and third books. The two concluding books will be comprised in the last volume. BUNSEN. INTRODUCTION. In accomplishing the task we have undertaken, that of establishing the exact position of Egypt in relation to general history, there are many and serious difficulties to encounter before our goal is reached. In the first of these volumes, we shall endeavour to point out wherein these difficulties consist, the means and con- ditions requisite for overcoming them, as well as the paramount importance of the object proposed, which can only be attained by the laborious process adopted in its pursuit. To this end the whole question will first be examined in its widest extent, both for the sake of encouraging our readers to study the subject for themselves, and of conciliating their sympathy and indulgence. For, if they find that we have aimed at a point beyond our powers, they will also concede in fairness, that, in the present state of Egyptian science, the desired result can only be attained by a combination of researches of dif- ferent kinds. If the place of Egypt can be fixed at all, it must, first, be done according to time, by settling the chro- nology; and, secondly, according to its own intrinsic importance to general history. These two points, each of which is dependent on the other, will form the main divisions of the whole work, as well as of this introductory volume. The proof of the latter rests a 4 XX1V INTRODUCTION. upon the adjustment of the former, although itself the prize, for the sake of which the preliminary researches have been made. Our first efforts, therefore, will be directed towards the elucidation of the Chronology of the oldest monu- mental nation in the world, from Menes to Alexander, during a period of at least 3000 years. It is the first time, since the days of Manctho and Kratosthenes, that this has been attempted by the aid of the monuments, and, in part even, of the very records which were placed at the disposal of those chronologers. It must, likewise, not be forgotten, that, in the re-adjustment of Egyptian chronology, we work upon the authority of monuments the characters of which have not been deciphered till the present day, and not without differ- ences of opinion having existed, and still existing upon several points. Weare guided in our researches, more- over, by the ancient lists of Kings, and by traditions, the confusion in which, despite the labours of those two great antiquarians, the Greeks and Romans soon after, consequently more than 2000 years ago, found cause to lament. Nor are we prepared to deny that the attempts of modern critics to clear up those ob- scurities do not fully justify such a regret. We are convinced, nevertheless, that it may and will be the lot of our age to disentangle the clue of Egyptian chronology by the light of hieroglyphical science and the aid of modern historical research, even after the loss of so many invaluable records of the old world; and thus to fasten the thread of universal chronology round the apex of those indestructible pyramids, which are no longer closed and mysterious. Admitting, however, that we do succeed in this, one portion only of our task, though cer- tainly the most difficult and toilsome, is accomplished ; the #riginal problem, the definition of the position of INTRODUCTION. XXV Egypt in general history, still remains to be solved. We cannot*claim the introduction of a period of more than thirty centuries, the chronology of Egypt, into the gene- ral chronology of the world, without submitting it to the test of that general chronology. We shall commence, therefore, with the lowest point in general history, the foundation of the Macedonian empire, and proceed upwards in an unbroken line, along the turning points in the history of those nations with which that of Egypt is connected. The epochs of the Persian and Babylonian dominion, both of which are fixed by astronomical and historical records, will first be no- ticed ; and then we shall pass on beyond the Olympiads, the limits of Grecian chronology, and the threshold of the Jewish, the dedication of Solomon’s temple. Prior to the latter event, there is no systematic computation by years; nothing save mere scattered dates, in which frequent contradictions occur, and requiring consequently to be verified and adjusted themselves, instead of furnish- ing us any guarantee in the prosecution of our chronolo- gical researches. Even this, however, should not deter us from making further investigation. We must still go onward, beyond the commencement of the Assyrian empire and the days of the great legislator of Israel, in order to arrive at last, through seemingly barren ages, the supposed nonage of human civilisation, at the starting-point of all Egyptian chronology, the foundation ‘of an empire of Upper and Lower Egypt by Menes. In the second portion of our chronological researches, therefore, we shall verify and elucidate Egyptian history by data deduced from the general history of the world. In doing this we shall not be satisfied merely with showing that the other ‘fragmentary remains of the most ancient chronology and historical tradition are not at variance XXV1 INTRODUCTION. with the Egyptian computation. If the latter be correct, not only must the apparent contradictions occurring in the hitherto existing systems be explained away ; but, with the discovery of the true state of facts, it must be self-evident that those hypotheses were based upon no real and tenable foundation. The gaps and flaws which have been dexterously glossed over will re-appear; and many portions of history which have been dissected and artfully torn asunder will, on the re-establishment of the natural connexion, fall back, like dislocated members of an organic body, at once into their places, and mutually co-operate to restore to the ancient history of the world the vital energy of which it has been so long deprived. We have thus offered a sketch of the two divisions of our chronological researches: the strictly Egyptian chronology in the Old, Middle, and New Empires, and the synchronisms in the most ancient general history, which must be made to harmonise with the Egyptian series. The former comes down from Menes to Alex- ander; the latter goes back from Alexander to Menes. One is the calculation, the other the proof. Our researches, however, do not end here. We may hope by this method to establish the position of Egypt, as regards general history, in point of time; and certainly the adjustment of the chronology is indispensably re- quisite to an historical development. Its importance, indeed, in the most ancient histories cannot well be rated too highly. The nearer we approach to the pri- mordial epochs of the history of our race, and the vaster those epochs become which it is our business to com- pute, the more important it is to establish that external relatiou, and the closer becomes the connexion between time and history. In those silent primeval recesses, in those ages the-deeds and exploits of which have long INTRODUCTION. XXVi1 been buried in oblivion, and in which some prominent individuals even (the bright point of tradition, and humanly speaking, the lever of all history) manifest themselves at most only by the magic of their names and their influence upon their contemporaries and posterity -——in those ages, we say, the adjustment of the chronology is decisive of the last questions which we have to ask in the history of the ancient world, and excludes at once many erroneous suppositions and conjectures. This is the case pre-eminently in the history of Egypt. We in- quire whether she exercised material influence on the ceremonial of Jewish worship, on Jewish laws and customs; whether she did so upon Greece, and at what period ; whether that influence was direct, or through the medium of other nations ; whether the Egyptians can have derived the germs of their wisdom and civilisation from India; whether they are an Ethiopian or Asiatic race, from Meroe or Chaldea. These and other similar questions have been asked in the infancy of research, and still oftener in our own times, and have received very different answers. The restoration of Egyptian chronology may, perhaps, set some of them at rest, such as that of their Indian origin, by negativing them at once; and influence materially the solution of them all. Finally, if in the primeval times, of Egypt Wwe approach the infancy of our race, and examine the traditions and theories propounded with respect to it—which consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or involuntarily, all Christian writers have done — the exact definition of Egypt’s place in history will acquire a vastly higher and more universal importance. [ἢ after having ascertained the date of the foundation of the Egyptian empire, we inquire whether it tallies with Scripture tradition as to the creation of mankind, and whether it corroborates the chronological systems Χ ΧΟ : INTRODUCTION. based upon it; what bearing it has upon the assump- tions of the Greek and Latin churches; or (which will be the most sensible course) if we agree not to dispute about a few thousand years where objects so infinitely higher are concerned, how the result of our computations affects the question of creation; must we blink the point altogether, instead of answering it? Again, we inquire whether the study of Egyptian history would lead us to the conclusion that there was one universal, or several partial and local floods; and whether the most ancient traditions, those of Egypt especially, exhibit any indications of violent inter- ruptions in the early stages of human advancement ; and lastly, what light is thrown by our researches, on the great question of the unity of the human race and its primordial epochs. No historian in these days, who deals honestly and conscientiously with Egyptian chronology, can evade these questions. We have no hesitation in asserting at once, without entering into any further investigation, that there exist Egyptian monuments, the date of which can be accurately fixed, of a higher antiquity than those of any other nation known in history, viz. above 5000 years. This fact must be explained; to deny it would be a proof of little skill, and still less candour, on the part of any critic who has once undertaken to pro- secute the inquiry. The immediate result, then, of our Egyptian re- searches is to carry us far beyond the limits of strict chronology, and to plunge us into the sea of universal history. Should, however, its shores seem to vanish from our sight at the very moment when we hoped to be nearing the land, this must not deter us from con- tinuing our researches. The Lgyptians, as regards their chronology even, belong to general history. It INTRODUCTION. XX1X were impossible to sail up the stream of ancient history without inquiring for the site of Egypt, and saluting it with veneration and respect. It is equally impossible to determine its position without ascending the pin- nacle of time, and investigating the primitive epochs of the human race. This must be done, indeed, for higher purposes than merely that of establishing a system of universal chro- nology, and solving the questions immediately connected with that subject. If history teach any lesson, and convey to us any instruction, we must suppose progress and development. Man, in his toilsome passage through the dark periods of history, must follow out some eternal Jaw, and that, indeed, not an external one, but one peculiar to itself, of an internal and intelligible character. If history be not merely an endless un- meaning repetition of the same phenomena, and its unity a dream and empty sound, its epochs, when rightly understood, will represent the different stages of one grand and general development. It is only upon such an assumption that man can be said to have an in- ternal life out of time and independent of time, by virtue of the powers of his mind, and his efforts to realise its brightest conceptions. This is true, not of individuals merely, but in a still more remarkable degree of the masses also. Various attempts have been’ made by philosophers and historians to ascertain the laws of this development. It were foreign to the character of an historical work to inquire whether these can be under- stood by the highest effort of speculation, as the neces- sary consequences of the nature of the Divine Essence. We cannot, however, entirely pass by such questions as these: whether we may not obtain a clearer knowledge of the sphere of human development when the horizon of history is.so considerably extended by our Egyptian ΧΧΣΧ : INTRODUCTION. researches ?.and whether by observations on that portion of the curve already measured, which is far from in- significant, we cannot determine the nature of the whole? and if the nature, why not the laws of this line of de- velopment of the human mind in universal history? But, to however wide an extent chronological re- searches may be pushed, the solution of the problem pro- posed, the discovery of the position of Hgypt in general history, or at least the attempt to discover it, is in reality still unaccomplished. The main object of history, in- deed, would be but little advanced by such researches, if they only furnished us with the genealogy of the Egyp- tians, or even of mankind. The history of a nation, if it deserve the name, is a thing of too high moment to be used as the instrument for ennobling a genealogical register. Still less can the study of general history be a mere genealogical investigation. Even the unity and affinity of race among great nations is either the external manifestation of internal unity and internal connexion, or it is really of no more essential importance than the classification of animal and vegetable productions according to the countries which gave them birth. [0 is, therefore, indispensably necessary for the investigator of general history to establish this internal unity as an historical fact ; whether it be within the scope of human intellect, or not, to prove that it isthe necessary conse- quence of the operation of demonstrable laws. The result, then, of the first portion of our inquiry is to raise its character and purport much higher than was apparent at the outset. But while the value of the object to be attained is considerably enhanced, the diffi- culties also, it must be admitted, are very considerably magnified. A second important problem still remains to be solved after the end of our chronological re- searches has been effected, that of bringing the Egyptian INTRODUCTION. XXX1 dates into harmony with the corresponding synchronisms in general history. The second portion of this work will be dedicated to an attempt at solving this problem, and the latter sections of the present volume will serve as introductory to that attempt. In order to give a slight sketch of the nature of the proposed problem, we proceed to consider the views re- specting the origin of the human race to which allusion has been already made. The result of our chronological investigation has been to carry us up to the foundation of an empire of Ἰυργρῦ, and to a series of Kings whose names have not only been registered and transmitted to us by the Egyptians themselves, but which are now legible on Egyptian monuments, most of them erected in the life- time of the Kings whose names they record. Now, there must necessarily have been a period, comprising the infancy of the nation, anterior to the existence of this empire and the chronological registration of its Kings ; and as the adjustment of Eeyptian chronology carries us very much nearer than has been hitherto supposed possible to the first dawning of national history, so, in like manner, the examination of the germs of Egyp- tian history may, perhaps, do more than any other study towards the elucidation of the primitive history of man. Upon a closer survey of these carliest germs of Egyptian existence, we shall see at once that they com- prise two totally distinct periods. That immediately before us does not differ materially from the preceding. In the one we have a chronology which implics a con- nected definition of time: in the other, unconnected facts, fragments of historical tradition, very frequently mixed up ‘together by ancient poetry or modern fable. But, under any circumstances, we find at this immediately ΧΧΧῚΪ | INTRODUCTION. preceding epoch a nation possessed of language and re- ligion, and undoubtedly also of written characters; the germs, therefore, of that national life which we meet with in the chronological epoch. Those germs contain, indeed, ' an incipient element of progression, although much still remains to be developed. The germs of national exist- ence, however, which we find in Egypt, are not the most ancient traces of humanity. No historical investigator will consider the Egyptians as the most ancient nation of the earth, even before he has called to his assistance the science of the philologer and mythologist. Their very history shows them to belong to the great middle aves of mankind. If, therefore, there were no further knowledge to be acquired of the origin of man than is furnished by the earliest commencement of Egyptian life, we should gain from it but little new and valuable infor- mation; we should have toiled on in vain through dark and undefinable ages, and found ourselves at last just as far off as ever from the object of our rescarches—- an acquaintance with the origin of the human race. The Jigyptian patriarchs, perhaps, were descended from a cognate race, which sprang, in like manner, from another of kindred origin. It will, however, be gene- rally admitted, on a little consideration, that the world must once have been differently constituted, before na- tional bodies, possessing language and religious systems, could appear on the stage of history. For even those who believe that language and religion were not human inventions, but, like Prometheus’ fire, given to man from Heaven, cannot but admit, without rejecting all the evidence of research, that they were not communi- cated in a state of ΠΝ The reverse is indeed obvious, viz. that man has never received more than the germ, which he has been Icft to mould and modify according to his own will and capabilities. Modern INTRODUCTION. XXX1i1 philology, more especially, proves that the various con- formations have been gradually worked out upon the principles of an internal law. The period, then, at which this occurred, may with propriety be termed the period of the Origines. I believe this to be a strictly histo- rical era: at all events it alone can rightly be termed primeval, as contradistinguished from history gene- rally so called. Properly speaking, then, what we call universal history is simply a record of Man in modern times; or, should there be a history of theOrigines, the more modern history of our species. In the latter case, the so-called national Origines are evidently nothing more than the transition from ancient to modern history. We have intimated that the necessary consequence of the adjustment of Egyptian chronology has been to extend materially the field of history which is chro- nologically definable. We have stated that there are internal and external grounds for believing that the period which can be chronologically computed was preceded by one, and that of no very brief duration, which bids defiance to chronological definition. There is however another cra, preceding that which we have divided into chronological and unchronological; it is still historical, belonging therefore to time and space, though wholly different from the later period. It is the period in which national bodies were forming their language and mythology. It seems, indeed, that this portion of history inust have struck its roots very deep into the soil of time, inasmuch as it is now six or seven thousand years since it produced in the valley of the Nile (the slow formation of the deposit of that river) a mighty tree the germ of which is not indigenous in that country. In prosecuting this inquiry, success will consequently depend upon whether we can offer an exposition of the VOL. I. b XXX1V INTRODUCTION. historical infancy of the human race. This again will depend on two points: whether we possess monuments of the primeval time; and if so, whether they exhibit any development. The first is manifestly a superfluous question; for, without taking into consideration the earliest stages of mythology, language is evidently the earliest as well as the grandest monument of man. It will be clear, on the slightest consideration, that all rational consciousness, all the later creations of the human mind in the different nations of the earth, and in our own days especially, are based on language and dependent on it. If this be true of all individual nations, why should it not be so of mankind collectively ? In exploring a world, therefore, which is new to history, but in reality the old world, we need not in- quire whether we possess any monuments of it, but simply whether we can propose a method by which we may detect in it the historical element, the sign of progression. Every history, for instance, civil history and the history of art, implies a development, the evolu- tion of a primordial germ. On this point it will be sufficient to offer the following remarks. All develop- ment, if not the effect of chance or caprice, is essentially dependent on the nature of the germ to be developed. Development is a growth; and all external growth, in nature and history, is nothing morc than an inter- nal essence developing itself. The development of plants depends upon the nature of their germs; the development of nations,“ upon that of their Origines. Now it will be universally admitted, that chance and individual caprice have less influence in the formation of language than in any other product of the hu- man mind. For language is not merely a property, but the expression of the very inward life of all. As being the common expression of thought, its develop- INTRODUCTION. XXXV ment must depend on internal laws, and must precede any other. The intelligible expression of religious con- sciousness even presupposes language; and language and religion conjointly must exist previously to all poli- tical institutions, as well as to all art and all science. To any one who has clear views on this subject, two totally distinct courses are open in considering these primeval works of man. He may either attempt to show that the organisation of language and mythology necessarily follows from the supreme laws of a Supreme Being ; or, at all events, he may establish a formula within the range of which the development of every thing finite, and of those great primitive products of the human mind in particular, must necessarily move. This is the strictly speculative method; a name which it only pro- perly deserves when it aims not merely at explaining all the laws of development by the nature of the Supreme Infinite Being, but also proves, the necessity of such a development. This is not the plan we pursue in the following work. | The other we call the historical, and in its highest acceptation the philosophy of general history. Its aim, likewise, is to find a development, and in so doing it looks for the historical element in the phenomena. It endea- vours, also, to discover the laws of development, but such as are direct and finite, and consequently con- ditional; in other words, such as emanate from the conditional; limited, and finite nature of the object evolved. Thus it attempts gradually to ascend from isolated facts to general formulas; which, however, are not those of a metaphysical nature, but such as are adapted simply to the particular substance the history of which is the point at issue. Although they lay no claim to be demonstrable as absolutely necessary, and consequently to unqualified recognition, their value b2 XXXVI INTRODUCTION. consists in this, that the raw material of the phenomena is classified according to the qualities of that particular finite substance. For it is an axiom in historical research, that without such previous arrangement the raw mate- rial cannot be the subject of pure thought. When this arrangement and classification have taken place, the confused lines of the Ptolemaic orbit of mankind are converted, as it were, into those of the true solar system, and the Keplerian laws may be discovered. An histo- rical investigation must leave the question undecided, whether a more complete knowledge of these laws can be deduced from the nature of the Infinite Essence. But if this be possible, it must unquestionably be something of ἃ very different and more elevated kind, than the laws which Newton laid down for the motions of the heavenly bodies. The preliminary assumption, indeed, that history exhibits a progression of mankind in time, cor- responds to a still unsolved problem in astronomy, whether our solar system advances in space. Any ad- vancement, however, within the circle of such researches, will undoubtedly depend as much upon historical in- vestigation, as on speculative efforts. The method which we call the philosophy of general history will be applied, in this work, to the examination of the strictly primeval Origines of man. We shall endeavour by means of it to discover, if possible, some strata and deposits in the earliest stages of man’s existence, like those which modern geology has pointed out in the matcrial stratum of our planet, and which it has traced over the whole globe. As it has been so successful in discovering progression in these strata, and in defining thereby the periods in our orb, so will the scieuce of primitive history have to distinguish the ancient from the modern element, and thus to fix the turning points and epochs which are actually: exhibited INTRODUCTION. XXXVIL in those periods. But should primeval monumients exist of the most important nations, the philosophy of history may hope to be even more successful than the sister science. For in the evolution of nature the law of matter and co-ordination predominates; it is difficult even to establish succession, impossible to discover more than an external law of development. In history, on the contrary, which is the world of mind, the development proceeds successively in time; and the thing developed is the human mind itself. As far, therefore, as the laws of development are intelligible, the history of the human mind possesses this advantage, that the laws of the investigated object coincide with those of the in- vestigating subject. But the epochs and laws of development in carly history thus exhibited, can really be no other than those of the later, or properly so called national, history. When we shall have reached the furthest point in the Egyptian Origines which is strictly historical, we shall from thence take a retrospective survey of the whole history of the Egyptian nation, the chronology of which is restored in our first two volumes; and endeavour to seize its prominent landmarks, as representing the development of a connected series of national life, and, indeed, of a portion of the general history of the human mind. We must then, as in the case of the Origines, pro- ceed to investigate the general phenomena of history with which Egypt is connected, and among which its place must necessarily be found. This is the last point to which our researches are directed. It will, after what has been said, be no difficult task to form.an estimate of the contents and connexion of the different books, as well as of the particular sections into which this preliminary volume is divided. The first book is destined to lay the foundation of the XXXVI INTRODUCTION. whole work ; first, by a criticism of the sources of our historical knowledge of Egypt, and then by a complete and historical representation of the facts of primitive Egyptian history (the Origines). As to the first object, three points will be decisive: the adequacy and value of our authorities, the assistance we derive from the use hitherto made of them, and ὑπό principles which seem to result from both in furtherance of our own researches. The first is clearly the most important, especially for the chronological portion of the subject. Nothing can compensate for the want of evidence ; our whole inquiry, indeed, will be unintelligible to those who are ignorant ‘of the nature of our authorities. We shall, therefore, give our evidence in an authentic shape, and make it accessible to every one. The historical traditions which are not found in well known classic writers, such as Herodotus and Diodorus, we have compiled, in an amended text, in the “ Appendix of Authorities,” at the end of this volume. Lepsius has already published the most important Egyptian monuments in his Denkmdler. Our historical analy- sis of these two collections of evidence, written and monumental, will enable those who feel no inclination to study the originals, to form a competent estimate of their real value and contents. Unfortunately, the au- thorities which relate to the earliest. chronology are so few in number that their text occupies less space than any explanation of them would, without, after all, com- pensating for the want of the authorities themselves. It would be the more unpardonable, therefore, to ask men of education to commence such a course of study, without putting the clements on which it is based into their hands, and thus enabling every one to prosecute the inquiry for himself. Where difficult questions of deep historical research are concerned, the all-important INTRODUCTION. XXX1X object is to establish in the student’s mind a full and clear conviction of the degree of certainty attaching to any particular point. From the want of insight into this point, one of two great evils necessarily must ensue. Either too much stress will be laid upon some- thing of doubtful authority, and its real value will be endangered, as well as that of all historic truth, by dogmatic unqualified assertion. From this error sprang that dry, uncritical, and lifeless style of writing primeval history, first introduced by the Byzantine school, and subsequently adopted throughout Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. Or doubts will be thrown alike on certain and uncertain facts, till at length a general scepticism will prevail as to the au- thenticity of all history, and as to any security in his- toric truth. Men are apt to think lightly of a thing which they despair of understanding, to keep it out of sight as much as possible, and by degrees to for- get that it exists. We are particularly liable to the latter evil in the present day, when history is analysed on a new principle, and doubts consequently are con- tinually thrown on hitherto undoubted facts. This rendei's it more difficult than ever to keep the reasoning powers and judgment in a healthy state. Sound judg- ment, however, is displayed rather in an aptness for believing what is historical, than in a readiness’at deny- ing it. For in days like our own, of so much curi- osity and. inquiry, and so little carnestness of purpose, shallow minds have a decided propensity to fall into the latter error. This is. very unfortunate ; be- cause the almost universal tendency of the human mind being to take the negative side of a question, such an age loses easily that serious cast and feeling ot respect, which are so closely conuected, for the subjects under discussion. Without respect there is no zeal, and without b 4 ΧΙ INTRQQUCTION. zeal no hope of succeeding in any undertaking. Inca- pability of believing on evidence is the last form of the intellectual imbecility of an enervated age, and a warning sign of impending decay: but it is also the reaction against a dogmatic coercion, or a thoughtless credulity. We shall pursue the same system when treating of e Origines. The first great fact we meet with in primordial history is Language, which we shall en- deavour to elucidate, as we would any other monu- ment, by offering a list of all such roots and flexions as can be shown to have been the national heritage of the Old Empire from the primeval times. The second is Mythology, which contains different Orders of gods, admitting of, and therefore requiring, classification and explanation. The third is Writing, which we shall also analyse systematically, according to the historical stages it must have gone through in its complete development in the Old Empire. Thus we hope to have prepared the way for appreciating the important rank which the Egyptian Origines hold in history, as well as for the foundation of its historical chronology, which will form the subject of the second volume. At the head of the first book stands the vencrable name of Nivpuurg, By placing it there we mcan to inti- mate that he isin @@®Bestimation the highest model of an historical critic ; an honour which would seem to depend, not on the negation, but the recognition and restoration, of true historic principles. In attaching his name to illustrations of an antiquarian rather than historical characier, we would also express our conviction that the resturation of history is the last and most com- plete form in which the skill of the antiquarian can be exhibited. Inquiries like these undoubtedly demand that we should enter into philological and antiquarian details, and explain the present state of science in both ΙἹΝΤΕΟΝΡΤΙΟΝ. xli these respects. This should be done with as much conciseness as is compatible with perspicuity, and the process should embrace, not merely a list of authors, but show the real history of the inquiry. ‘Thus, only, will all that is essential be fully appreciated, and the rest consigned to literary bookworms or to oblivion. No bibliographical matter ought to be introduced into am historical work, which is not evidently indispensable to a clear understanding of the point under consideration. In the second book we shall restore the Chronology of the Old Empire, a period of 1076 years, according to the data of EratosrnEnes, with whose name that por- tion of our work is headed. In the third we treat of the Period of the Middle and New Empires, comprising nine and thirteen centuries, respectively. Here Maneruo is our guide, and his name is affixed to the book. In this manner we hope to have made all the neces- sary preparations for giving a connected survey of our researches, as well as for testing the chronological results arising out of them, both on internal and external grounds. We propose to submit them to a double test. J irst, that of Astronomy, which is an infallible test; and, secondly, the kagtorical Synchro- nisms: or, in other words, to ΑΗΒ οα points of time, both by the synchronism of cclestial phenomena and of remarkable events in the history of other nations. The former is evidently of more immediate importance to the most ancient and consequently darkest period of our inquiry ; and, therefore, we affix to our fourth book the name of CHAMPOLLION, who made the most brilliant discovery, and one fraught with the greatest results, upon this subject; although it has barely been noticed out of France. It bears also the name of another Frenchman ; for the second part, in which the historical xl INTRODUCTION. synchronisms are examined, is dedicated to JosEPH SCALIGER, who, though of Italian origin and Dutch renown, was by birth a Frenchman. The fifth book will contain a Survey of general His- tory. Its object will be to exhibit whatever in the history of Egypt is of universal importance for the whole history of the huinan mind. The first thing requisite, therefore, is to connect the Origines of Egypt with those of the human race by the three steps above mentioned, language, mythology, and the germs of national life. In the second part, we shall endeavour to point out the development of strictly Egyptian history, which commences with these Origines and is dependent on them. This book, which forms the second division of our work, will be headed with the name of ScnEeLLING, to mark our personal respect for him, as well as our conviction that not only by his philosophical systein, but also by his researches in the highest branches of the development of the human mind, he has laid the foundation of the true philosophy of history. LEgyp- tian mythology offers, moreover, a striking proof of the importance of philosophical research in ἃ fact asserted by him, but the proof of which has but lately been discovered. After this general sketch of the work, we proceed to the details of the first volume. It is divided into six sections; in the first half of which the Historical Period is treated of; in the second, the Origines. In the chronological portion, the tradition of the Egyptians as to their history and computation of time, as well as their national researches, will be considered. These two points will be elucidated in the first section, which comprises an epoch of thirty centuries of tradition, and an historical one of fifteen centuries of research. INTRODUCTION. xin In the second will be considered the results of Grecian Research during five centuries, from Herodotus to Dio- dorus. Christian researches have been guided by these two lines of research, conjointly with the tradition and re- search contained in Scripture. The third section, there- fore, will commence with the Bible Chronology, from the dedication of Solomon’s temple, up to the earliest notices of the Jewish nation; a chronology which is as impor- tant to the Egyptian research, as the latter is to the Jewish. By settling this, the foundation is laid of the inquiry into the Origines. We shall there have to deal with a period of more than 1000 years, and be brought to the verge of the most ancicnt tradition relative to those Origines. Jewish research must next be examined, from the Septuagint down to Josephus; then, that of the Eastern churches, from the 2nd to the 9th century of the Christian era; and, lastly, that of the Western churches, from the 16th century to the present day. These three sections form the first part of the present volume; the three latter will be occupied with the remains of the primeval epochs themselves. In the first of these we shall give the Roots hitherto dis- covered, distinguishing those which can be clearly proved by the monuments of the first 12 Dynasties to have existed in the Old Empire. In the same manner we give all the facts of Itgyptian gram- mar. ‘To this analysis of Language, the first stage of mental development, we subjoin immediately, in the fifth section, that of the third stage, Writing, on ac- count of their direct connexion; and we offer to our readers the first regular synopsis of the whole Hiero- glyphical System of Writing. Such elements as can be verified us having been used in the Old Empire have been particularly noticed. The restoration of the three xliv INTRODUCTION. great Egyptian Orders of Gods, the subject of the sixth section, completes our historical account of the facts of those primeval times. They form the historical centre, out of which grew the traditional Dynasties of gods, through the intervention of an heroic age, which led to the chronological empire of Menes. If we succeed in this the first attempt at a strictly historical exami- nation of the formation of language, writing, and mythology, if we succeed in discovering in them the strata and epochs of the oldest history, we shall not only thereby have exhibited those deeds and thoughts of the ancient inhabitants of the valley of the Nile which form the substructure of the chronological empire of the Egyptian Charlemagne, but we may also hope to have paved the way, for ourselves and others, towards a more correct estimate and an historical treat- ment of the Origines of the human Race, to elucidate which will be the main object of our last book, and indeed of the whole work. TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME. Pi age PREFACE - lll INTRODUCTION xix BOOK I. THE SOURCES AND PRIMEVAL FACTS OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY. SECTION I. HISTORICAL TRADITION AND RESEARCIL AMONG THE EGYPTIANS, A. The Nature and Antiquity of Egyptian Tradition —of the Sacred Books in particular. I. The two Original Sources— Annals and Lays, pecontine to the Greeks - - - rs | 11, The Antiquity of Writing among the Egyptians - 4 III. The Antiquity and historical Contents of the Sacred Books of the Egyptians - - - - 9g 1. ‘The Two Books of the Chanter - 10 2. The Four Astronomical Books of the Horoscopus 11 3. The Tcn Looks of the Hierogrammatist - 12 4, The Ten Ceremonial Books of the Stolistes - 116 δ. The Ten Books of the Prophets - 18 6. The Place and Rank οὗ ' the Sacred Books in versal History - 29 IV. The Book of the Dead --~ ἃ Ῥουεϊοι of ne Saeed Books still extant - - - - - 25 V. The Antiquity of the existing conteimporat y Monuments and historical Records - 2 - 81 xlvi CONTENTS. B. The Chronological Records of the First Period of the later Empire. Page I. The Tablet of the Tuthmoses, or Royal Serics of Karnak - 35 Il. The Tablet of the Ramesses, or Heya pees of prey cee - 45 III. The Royal Papyrus - - 90 C. Manetho the Sebennyte and his Successors. I. Manctho’s personal Character - - - - 56 II. Manetho the Scribe - - - - 60 1Π|. Manetho the Historian, and his Work - - - [66 IV. Manetho’s primeval Chronology - - - - 69 V. The Thirty Dynasties of Manetho - - - 71 VI. The Chronology from Menes to Alexander, according to Manetho - - - - - - 84 VII. The Successors of Manetho — Ptolemy, Apion, Chere- mon, Eeraiskus - - - - - 89 Conclusion. Recapitulation - - - - - 96 SECTION II. THE RESEARCHES OF THE GREEKS INTO EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. Introduction: The more ancient Tradition — that of Homer and the later Thon (Thonis) and Proteus. — The Ionian Settlers in Egypt - - - - - - 100 Α. Herodotus. 1. Herodotus—=in his relation to his immediate mee ΌΒΒΟΙΙ and Successors - - - 103 Π.. Herodotus’s View of the Chronology of Egypt price to the Psammetici - - 105 11. The Chronology of Herodotus from the Wecession of Psammeticus downwards το - 107 IV. Preliminary Critic'sm of hig Chronology - - 10. [ Β. The School of Aristotle. — The Aleaandrians and their Contempo- raries. J. Aristotle, Theophrastus, Dicearchus - -- - 110 Il. The Alexandrian Critics. --- ‘Their general Character - 112 11, Hecateus of Abdera.-— Lynceus of Samos.— Authors cited by the Scholiast of Apollonius. — Castor. — Alexander Polyhistor and his Authorities - - 115 CONTENTS. xlvii C. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus. Page I. Notices of their Lists of meypuan ngs transmitted by ° Syncellus - - 116 II. Eratosthenes and his Rescate ches - - - - 119 III. Apollodorus the Chronographer - - - 121 IV. Eratosthenes’s List of Thirty-eight Egyptian Kings com- pared with the Dynasties of Manetho - - 123 V. General Remarks on the Connexion Deeweon Erato- sthenes and Manetho - - - - 126 VI. Historical Data derived from the Lists of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus ~ - - - - 180 1). Diodorus Siculus. J. Diodorus. — His Dynasties and Chronology of the Ante- Historical Period - - - - 136 II. The Chronology of Diodorus, from Menes to ΓΝ 140 111. Synopsis of the Lists of Diodorus - - - 142 IV. Two special independent Lists: the Builders of the Three Great Pyramids and the Legislators — - - - 146 Conclusion : Greck and Roman Research - - - 149 SECTION IIL EGYPTIAN TRADITION AMONG THE JEWS. — JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INTO THE CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT. Introduction: The Connexion between Revelation and Chro- nology - - - - - - - 159 A. Biblical Tradition and Research into the Period from the Building of the Temple to the Migration into Egypt, or from Solomon to Joseph. I. The Length of the Period from Solomon to Moses - 166 II. The Length of the Period from Moses to Joseph, or of the Sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt - - 171 IIY. The primeval Times in Canaan and Chaldea - - 180 B. The Researches of the Eastern Schools into Egyptian History. I. Jewish Research.—The Septuagint.—Josephus— - - 184 II. Chronology among the Apostles and the Fathers of the Eastern Church during the First and Second Centuries. — The Apostle Paul. — Justin Martyr and Tatian. — Clemens of Alexandria, - - - - 191 χῖὶν CONTENTS. III. The Editors of the Lists of Manetho: Julius Africanus, and his System of Chronology.—Eusebius — - - IV. The Byzantine School of Research. — Theophilus. — Panodorus and Anianus. — Syncellus - - V. The Pseudo-Manetho’s Book of Sothis, or the Dog-Star VI. The so-called Old Egyptian Chronicle - 2 ε VIL. The anonymous List of Kings - 5 Ξ VIII. Syncellus compared with Eusebius and the later Byzan- tines. —Malalas.— Cedrenus.—The Chronicle of Easter C. The Researches of Western and Modern Europe into Egyptian EMistory. 1. The Researches of Classical Philologers.—Joseph Scaliger. Marsham. — Perizonius. — Ieyne, and his School. — Heeren .— Zoega. — The Students of Chinese and Indo- Philologers. — Prichard and Rask - - - II. The Researches of Egyptologers: Champollion, Lord Prudhoe, Felix, Wilkinson, Rosellini - - - Conclusion - - - - - - - SECTION IV. ON EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR. Introduction : The general Character of the primeval Period - A. INistory of Research into the Egyptian Language. Its fundamental Principles, and Method of Analysis - - B. . Pronunciation and Etymology of the Egyptian Language. J. The E:xtent and primitive Elements of the Vocabulary - "Ὁ Accidence and Etymology of the Egyptian Language. Introduction : A Sketch of the Formative Roots and Flexions - A. Personal Nouns or Pronouns - - : g B. Possessive Pronouns - - is Η C. Terms of Locality, or Definite and Indefinite Pronouns 1). Numerals — - - - - - - K. ‘The Declension of Nouns and Adjectives - - Εν The Conjugation of the Verb - - - - 1, Verbum Substantivum - - - 2. Predicative or Qualificative (Concrete Verb) - 231 243 252 “δι CONTENTS. xlx ὁ ὦ Page G. ἀν - - - - - - 297 1. Simple Prepositions - - - - ib. 2. Compound Prepositions - - - 800 Π. Adverbs - - - - - - 802 I. Conjunctives - - - - - - 804 K. Interjections - - - - - - 80ὅ SECTION V. THE WRITING OF THE EGYPTIANS. Introduction - - - - - - - 306 A. History of modern Tieroglyphical Discovery, and Illustrations of the Text of Clemens of Alexandria, I. The Discovery of the Rosetta Stone.—The great French Work on Eeypt - - - - - 309 If. First Step.—The Royal Names, and Enchorial Alphabet. —Sylvestre de Sacy, Akerblad - - - - 312 11. Further Researehes into the Enchorial Character, and Discovery of Phonetic Microglyphics.—Thomas Young — 316 IV. The Mieroglyphic Alphabet.—Champollion le Jeune - 323 V. Champollion’s further Researches, and School.—Rosellini, Salvolini, Lepsius, Leemans — - - - - 328 VI. The Text of Clemens of Alexandria - - - 333 B. The Eqyptian Characters. Introduction: Plan of an historical Exposition of the whole System of Hieroglyphical Writing - - - - 342 A. Synopsis of all the Hitrogly phic Signs - - - dat SECTION VI. THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE EGYPTIANS, Introduction : The Three Orders of Gods - - - 3057 The Eight Gods of the First Order - - - - 960 The Twelve Gods of the Seeond Order - - - 367 The Seven Gods of the Third Order - - - - ib. A. The Eight Gods of the First Order. T. AMN, Ammon - - Ξ - 369 Tl. KHE M, the God of Ghani (Panopolis) - - 373 IH. NUM, NU, KXneph, Chnubis - - - 374 IV. a, AMN T, Amente - - 378 IV. b. MUT, the Mother of the Gude. the W ife of Khan - ib. VOL. 1. Cc I CONTENTS. V. a. ANK, Anuke (comp. Onka), the poneor of nent - V. ὁ. STI, Sate, the Frog-headed - VI. Pril, Phtha, Vulcan (Pataikos) - - = VII. NT, Neith, Athena - - - : ΝΠ. RA, Phra, Helios - - - - ᾿ Recapitulation of the foregoing Enquiry - - - B. The Twelve Deities of the Second Order. A. The Child of Ammon: I. KILUNSU, Chons, Wercules - - - B. The Child of Knueph: — If. PET, ‘Tet, Phoyth, Termes - . - C. The Children of Ptah: Ul ATMU, Atumu - IV. PCIHT, Pecht (the Goddess of Bubs tis) IMIIE P. T ( ΠΝ τ}: - - - 1). The Children of Helios: V. HET WER, nye ADEN Ξ ᾿ δ Vi. Mat - 5 Ξ - VII. Ma - - 7 Ξ 5 ᾿ ΜΠΡ}Π. TEENU - - 7 Ξ = - IX, MNTU, Mandulis - 5 Ε 5 Β XX. SEBAK, Sevek «Ὁ - - - - XT. SEB, Chronos - - 3 5 Σ AIL NUTVE, Rhea - - - - ~ Other supplementary Names of Gods of the Second Order - C. The Third Order of Gods, or the Osiris Deities. Tntroduction - - . - Ξ Ξ Ξ A, The Creat Goddess: I. IIS. Isis : ~ . ]. Isis as Neith . - Ξ Ξ 2. Isis like Ilathor 3. Isis as Peyt Th NBTHI, Nephthys - - - - B. The Great God: I, Osiris - - ~ - Ἂς 171. Set abies Typhon - - - : Appendir : Osiris as God of the Lower World; and the Four Genii 5 Ξ 5 Ἔ ᾿ C. The Son of the Great Gods : I. εὐ τὶ and Torus - - - . Harpocrates - is ‘ Hlorus Arnéris (Ter Ur) - : ΤΠ. ἀπ Anubi: 5 - D. Cursory Recapitulation of the E lements of the ἘΠ of Osiris - - τ Ξ > General Recapitulation and Conclusion - - - 2.0 400 {02 403 40:1 ib. 406 400 ib. 4.08 CONTENTS. li APPENDIX 1. THE EGYPTIAN VOCABULARY. Page The Egyptian Roots compared with the Coptic - - “ The Coptic Alphabet compared with the Evyptian and the Hebrew - - - - - - - 448 Egyptian Vocabulary - - - - - - 45: List of the Names of the Gods in the Monuments of the Old Empire - - - - - ῳ - 402 APPENDIX ΤΙ. A COMPLETE LIST OF HIEROGLYPHICAL SIGNS, ACCORDING TO THEIR CLASSES, ARRANGED IN NATURAL ORDER. Tdeographies proper, or Objectives - - - - 496 Determinative Signs - - - a 2 sh On Phoneties - - - ὸ Ξ ᾿ 553 Mixed Signs. - - - - ᾿ 3 G4 Numerals, Gurammatical Signs, and Tlieroglyphical Groups - 500 Explanation of the Specimens of Tiereglyphical Writing - §92 χάρο of the Application of the Lists to the reading of Hicroglyphical Inscriptions - 3 Ξ - 596 APPENDIX OF AUTHORITIES. VETERUM SCRIPTORUM DE REBUS GEGYPTIACIS ET DE BABYLONIORU M TYRIORUMQUE TEMPORIBUS FRAG MEN TA. Manctionis aliorumque /Mgyptiorum Fragmenta - - 605 Eratosthenis aliorumque Grecorum de'Temporibus Τὴ σΎ ἘΠ ΟΥ̓ 111} Fragmenta - - - - - - - 667 éMeyptiaca varia - - - - - . + 69] Babylonica οὐ Tyria quadam = - - - - - 704 Remarks on Dr. Hincks’s Principle of Expletive Signs, and his Method of discovering them - - - - 733 lik LIST OF PLATES. LIST OF PLATES. - facing the Title. Tie Great Sruixx ξ . - - facing the Poetry. Bust or Nieccenr - - Lhe following Plates are placed at the end of the Volume. Plates 1.11, Lure TWeive Derrics or tue First Orpen. Amn, — Khem. — Num, — Amnt. — Mut. — Anek. II. Ueka. t. — Seti. — Ptah (twice). — Neith. — Ra. ἴτω] Φ Plates TH. IV. Tare Derrizs OF THE SECOND ORDER. 11. Khonsu. — Tet. — Atmu, — Peeht. — Het her. — Mau. IV. Ma.— Tetnu. — Mntu. — Sebak, — Seb. — Nu-t-pe. Plates ΟΥ̓]. Tue Deities o- rug Trp ORDER, AND THE Four GENT OF Tins Dean, V. Hs. — Nbthi. — Osiris (twice), — Set (Nubi), — Her, VI. Horns Arueris, — Anupu. — Harpocrates. — Kbhsnuf. — Tua- mutf. — Hlepi. — Aunsct. BOOK TI. SOURCES AND PRIMEVAL FACTS Or EGYPTIAN HISTORY. War w emia. ee ΠΝ Nene cell cow eee ΞΟ AY ese ote: Bs. Bosorn det κ΄: London. Longman & C° Paternoster’ Row. NIEBUHR. Great was what thou didst abolish ; but greater what thou hast erected High on the ruins of Fraud, shatter’d for aye by thy blow. Firm in the Faith didst thou stand, with a Prophet's serenest assurance, Then when thy plummet explor'd deepest abysses of Time. ‘Then the primeval Reality sprang into day at thy bidding ; Rome the majestic arose, sepulchred long among lies. Not without awe we beheld her antique regulation of freedom, Iev'n in the cradle sublime, breathing of glory to come ; All to thine eye was reveal’d, every fragment for thee had its place-mark, Kach misinterpreted sign spake to thine augury clear. Piercing indeed was thy wit, but combin’d with a heavenlier treasure : Pure was thy love of mankind: Niebuhr! thy heart was of gold. True to thy land and thy time, yet with brotherly sympathy scanning Hoary Wumanity’s page, welfare and woe of the Past ; Loving thy glance, when it fell on the beauty, the freedom, of Hellas ; Loving thy labour of life, vow'd to the grandeur of Rome : Yet was there leisure and love for the Orient’s holy remoteness : Never of Muses divine dull was the echo for Thee ; 7 Nor didst. thou coldly survey the resurgence of mystical Egypt, When the unhoped for light flash'd on her Pyramid Tomb. Thither my venture is bound: but do Theu be the star of my guidance, “ather! As upward I gaze, strengthen the eye and the heart. EGYPT’S PLACE UNIVERSAL HISTORY. THE SOURCES AND PRIMEVAL FACTS OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY. SECTION I. HISTORICAL TRADITION AND RESEARCH AMONG THE EGYPTIANS. A. THE NATURE AND ANTIQUITY OF EGYPTIAN TRADITION— OF THE SACRED BOOKS IN PARTICULAR. 1. THE TWO ORIGINAL SOURCES — ANNALS AND LAYS, ACCORDING TO THE GREEKS : Heropotus describes the inhabitants of the cultivated portion of Egypt as the best informed or most learned of mankind! In one of his lost works Theophrastus 1 ii, 77. Αὐτῶν δὲ δὴ Λἰγνπτίων of μὲν περὶ τὴν σπειρομένην Atyu- Troy οἰκέουσι; μνήμην ἀνθρώπων πάντων ἐπασκέοντες μάλιστα, λογιώτατοι εἰσι μακρῷ τῶν ἐγὼ ἐς διάπειραν ἀπικόμην. The old translation, that they exercise the memory, is quite inadmissible : but even Schweig- hiiuser’s interpretation, adopted by Biihr, that they above all other men record past events and exploils, is scarcely accurate. In the whole section (c.77—91.) no mention is made of their knowledge ‘OL, I. B 2 ANNALS AND LAYS, [Boox I. used the same expression regarding them, and evi- dently also with reference to the high antiquity of their traditions.” The reason assigned by Herodotus for so characterising them, 18 Heir: rigid adherence to these traditions; in other words, the exactness with which they maintained ancient usage and the remem- brance of the past. Although there is here no direct allusion to their familiarity with the dates and history of their nation, still it is clear from the whole tenour of the second book, that he had devoted great attention to their historical and chronological tradition, and that even where it appeared to him improbable or barely credible, he yet retails it, as worthy of the serious consideration of his readers. “No Egyptian,” he remarks (ji. 82.), “ omits taking accurate note of extraordinary or striking events.” Manetho observes, in agreement with all the Greek annalists, that the Keyptians possessed uninterrupted de- scriptions of their kings from Menes downwards. Hero- dotus (ii. 99. seqq.) was also acyuainted with lists of kings kept by the priests, im which the events and monuments of each reign were recorded: from one of these they read to him the namcs of 530 kines, successors of Menes (it. 100.). Diodorus enters more into detail as to the nature of these lists or annals of the pricsts, although his information, as we shall see, is lessaccurate. “6 The priests,” he says in the titnod ction to that part of his work which treats of Egyptian Tstory (1. 44.), ‘had in their sacred books, transinitted from the olden time, and hauded down by them to their successors in office, of history, but merely of their manners and customs, which are de- scribed as altogether indigenous (with the exception, it may be presumed, of the ἈΠ OHOS ONE). 2 In Porphyry: de Abstin. ii. 5. (p. 106. de Rh.): compare Euse- bius, Prop. Ev. 1.9.—roye πάντων λογιώτατον γένος. The rest of the passave belongs to Porphyry : but the ee of Theophrastus, which he so repeatedly quotes in that work, clearly contained a contri- bution to the history of the various religious systems of the old world. See de Rhoer. § 20, 21. ; and Fabric. Bibl. Gr. Theophrastus. ct. I. A.I.] ACCORDING TO THE GREEKS. 3 ‘written descriptions * of all their kings” (from the time of the fabulous monarchs, called heroes, to that of the Ptolemies). ‘In these an account is given of every king — of his physical powers and disposition, and of the ex- ploits of each in the order of time.” Artaxerxes in his expedition through the country, carried off these de- scriptions from the archives of the Temple*; Bagoas, his lieutenant, afterwards restored them to the priests for a large sum of money. It was in these “ descriptions,” or at least in works compiled from them, that Theo- phrastus found his account of an emerald of immense size, which a king of Babylon had on some occasion sent with other objects of great value, as a present to a king of Feypt — probably Nechao.* The lists of Manetho and Iratosthenes, which have coine down to us, profess, and with truth, as their own internal evidence shows, to have been derived from these royal annals. In these annals, as we shall see, were cntered the names of each king, together with his stature, the date of his reign, notices “of its more re- markable events or prodigies, and doubtless of his lineage, birth, and age. Concurrent with them, ac- coraing to the same authorities , was another source of historical tr adition, namely, songs or lays, which do not 3 ’Avaypapai: this is their usual designation. 116 also calls them ἱεμαὶ avaypagat; and as he here says araypagat ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς βίξλοις, so it is said in another place, ἐν ἱεραῖς βίδλοις drayeypaje- μέναι πράξεις : they were therefore not mere lists of names. Zoega quotes these and all the other passages sin his work “de Obeliscis,” first, in literal extract, and afterwards, in the body of his own text. 4 xvi. 51. "Hyveyxe δὲ καὶ (Artaxernes) τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἱερῶν avaypagac (perhaps τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἀρχείων ἱερέω» ἀναγραφάς 8). > Theophr. de Lapidibus, p. 692. ed. Schneider: Ἢ δὲ σμάραγδός ἐστι σπανία, καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ov μεγάλη" πλὴν εἰ πιστεύειν» ταῖς draypu- φαῖς δεῖ ὑπὲρ τῶν βασιλέων τῶν Alyutriwy' NEXAOI γάρ φασι κομι- oOijvad ποτ᾽ ἐν δώροις παρὰ τοῦ Παξδυλωνίων βασιλέως, μῆκος μὲν τετρά- TNXUY «... ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνων γραφήν. (See Commentary, p. 557.) We read since the correction of Turnebus, ἔνιοι yap φασι. The Basle edit. and Cod. Voss. have ** rove. B 2 4 ANTIQUITY OF WRITING [Boox I. seem to have been limited to mere popular ballads, but to have comprised also hymns of a purely sacred or sa- cerdotal character. “ With regard to Sesoosis,” says Diodorus (i. 53.), “not only is there a disagreement among Greek writers, but the priests also, and those who praise him in their songs, vary in their statements.” ® Manetho also, in his history of the nineteenth dynasty, according to the extracts of Josephus, to be examined more closely in the sequel, quotes popular legends, which he expressly characterises as such, and the au- thenticity of which consequently he does not pretend to warrant.‘ Ἱ. THE ANTIQUITY OF WRITING AMONG THE EGYPTIANS. Tue historical tradition of the Egyptians thus appears to be derived from two very different sourees —from dry, but accurate records kept by the priests, and from poetical legends. Nor has this fact been overlooked by the modern critical school of philologers, from Heyne downwards. But in their days it supplied no satis- factory answer to the two great questions which must have suggested themselves “to these critics. The first 1S, whether we are In a position to restore from the remnants of this tradition the purely historical clement even of its chronology? The second, whether the Egyptians themselves of the New Empire, Which coi- menced a little before the time of Moses, had rescued any genuine historical knowledge of their primitive ages “from the desolation consequent on the Hyksos rule? This Niebuhr doubted, although a firm be- 6 ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν Kar’ Αἴγυπτον οἵ τε ἱερεῖς καὶ οἱ due τῆς yore αὐτὸν ἐγκωμιάζοντες ovy ὁμολογούμενα λέγουσιν. 7 Joseph. ὁ. Apion. 16. and 26. Sce the Appendix of Authorities. In the first principal passage it is said: ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ Μαγνεθὼς οὐκ ἐκ τῶν may Αἰγυπτίοις νραμμάτων, add’, ὡς αὐτὸς ὡμολόγηκεν, ἐκ τῶν ἀξεσπότως μυθολογουμένων προστέθεικε: in the other, διὰ τοῦ φάναι (Μανεθῶνα) γράψειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα ὑπὲρ τῶν ‘lov- δαίων. Sor. I. A. IL] AMONG THE EGYPTIANS. 5 liever, as his lectures show®, in the possibility of restoring the chronology of the New Empire, that is, up to the cighteenth dynasty. Every thing must here ultimately depend upon the antiquity of writing, and the existence and preservation of written records of the Old Empire. It has long been no secret to Egyptolo- gers that the rule of the shepherd kings really marks an intermediate epoch between a new and an old empire. Champollion was clear upon the point that Egyptian tradition could not have been interrupted by that do- minion, to the extent commonly supposed, and that monuments of Upper Egypt, dating from that period, are not entirely wanting. It is the more to be lamented that, after the foundation had been secured, so little further advance should have been made in the investi- gation and analysis of the sources themselves. [Tor it must have been evident that the question of any value attaching cither to the Egyptian or (Greek traditions, relative to that earlier period, turns upon the point — What dependence can be placed on the knowledge which the Egyptians of the New Empire themselves possessed of their most ancient chronology ? — for more than this cannot have been transmitted to us. Any specific answer to that question must necessarily depend on a previous thorough analysis of those traditions. It must therefore be reserved for the fourth book, after our readers have accompanied us through all the three empires by the joint aid of tradition and the monu- ments. Our attention will here be directed to the general evidence of the antiquity and chronological elements of those primary authorities — evidence which § Of Niebuhr’s Icctures, those on the history of Rome have at length, twelve years after his death, been published in London in an English dress by a former pupil of the deccased, Dr. Schmitz, Rector of the High School of Edinburgh. They form the concluding volume of the translation of the historiex! work. Those on ancient history in general will shortly be published in Germany, by Marcus Niebuhr, the son of the historian. Bb 3 6 ANTIQUITY OF WRITING [Boox I. seems to substantiate their claims to a superiority in both respects over all other records of the primitive world. We necd not here recapitulate the universal testimony to the antiquity of writing among the Egyptians. It is no longer a question of proving that antiquity by such evidence. But the antiquity of the written monuments and of the books, which is well authenticated, proves that testimony to be deserving of respect. The Egyp- tians, like all other nations possessing very ancient records, the Jews only excepted, have from early times exaggerated the dates of their history, or mixed them up with astronomical calculations relative to the primeval annals of the globe, to which their own approximated — calculations difficult to understand, and which have, accordingly, beeu misunderstood. Moreover, the Neo- Platonists of Egypt and Syria in the third and fourth cen- turies, as also various Christian writers of that and a later period, have not only mixed up % apocryphal or fallacious data with such as are genuine and certain, but have superadded some altogether false. We abstain, there- fore, from quoting Pl: ato’s Egyptian songs and works of art ten thousand years old, or his eight thousand years of Saitic annals; or the statements of the younger ITecateeus and other Grecks—as preserved by Diodorus! — concerning the library of the primeval king Osyman- dyas.— Still less shall we defer to those of Jamblichus, (partly, perhaps, his own invention,) contained in his work on the Egyptian mysteries, which he passed off 9 Plato, Legg. ii. 657.; Tim. 86. Diodorus, i. 49. ' Tt is well known that this assumption rests upon a statement prefixed to one of the MSS., that Proclus in his commentary on the Enneads of Plotinus had asserted Iamblichus to have written this work, as a reply to Porphyry’s fetter to the priest Anebo, whose master the fictitious Abammon gives himself out to be. Tennemann and Tzschirner (the Fall of Paganism, p. 419. Notes) have impugned the validity of this testimony in opposition to Meiners. But the book itself is the most decisive evidence : first, its style; then the quota- Suct. I. A. IL] AMONG THE EGYPTIANS. 7 under the name of the Egyptian Priest Abammon. He atuributes to Hermes, consequently to a period before Menes, 1100 books; and describes Seleucus as having mentioned 20,000 volumes of the same Hermes, and Manetho even 386,500. This latter number is nothing but the year of the world in twenty-five Sothiac cycles of 1461 years."! It was either invented by lamblichus himself, or a Pseudo-Manetho, whose writings will be ex- amined in the sequel. As little do we here propose to renew the inquiry concerning the celebrated antediluvian columns or stelw, on which the lore of this primeval world with all its wisdom was said to be transmitted. Plato, it is well known, speaks of these columns in the opening of the Timeus. We shall examine in the fifth book whether this be any thing more than a figurative description, and how far we may be justified in assium- ing any connection between the Egyptian legend and the two pillars of Seth mentioned by Josephus.” These pillars, it is obvious, have reference to the Book of Itnoch"; perhaps, also, to the pillars of kikarus, or Akicharus, the prophet of Babylon or the Bosphorus (whose wisdom Democritus was said to have stolen), ang on which Theophrastus composed a treatise.’* In tion of the work upon the gods (viil. 8.). Damascius, Proclus, Olym- piodorus, and Julianus ascribe the work to Jamblichus; as, in fact, does he himself in the explanation of the Pythagorean Symbola (Gale on that passage). Jamblichus might even have been the author of some or all the hooks of Hermes quoted by Stobeus. It is at least remarkable that in both of them, according to all the MSS., a god, Emeph (Hpi), occurs, of whom no notice is extant elsewhere. See Vill. 2. 1! Tamblichus de Mysteriis, viii. 1, 2. 12 Joseph. Antiq. i. ὁ. 2. 13 See the English translation of this book from the Ethiopian, by Lawrence, Oxford, 1821; and compare with it the extracts from it in Syncellus (p. 9—14.) upon the so-called Egregors, who are alluded to in the Epistle of Jude (v. 6.). 14 Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 357. P. See Strabo, xvi. p. 762. ; Diog. Laért. v. 50.; and Potter and Fabric. Bibl. Gr. i. 87., &c. Bn 4 8 ANTIQUITY OF WRITING [Boox I. the Egyptian traditions that have come down to us, these primeval stelee do not make their appearance until the third and fourth centuries. They are first men- tioned in the so-called fragments of Hermes in Stobeeus, where they are mysticised into secret symbols of created things”; afterwards in Zosimus of Panopolis, evi- dently i in the colouring of Judaising-Christian writers.” They again appear in the worst shape of all somewhere in the fourth century, in the work of an impostor who assumed the name of Manetho. That, in this latter instance at least, they were connected with the narra- tive of Josephus, is shown by their allusion to the « Syriadic Country.” Passing over these and similar notices, attention must be called to the fact that Lepsius found on monuments of as early a date as the twelfth dynasty, the last but one of the Old Empire, the hieroglyphic sign of the papyrus roll. That of the stylus and inkstand was observed by him on those of the fourth’ — consequently in the fifth century after Menes, or the earliest period of which we possess hieroglyphical monuments. All that has hitherto been identified as belonging to the third dynasty are royal Rings and Pyramids —the latter de- void of inscriptions. The monumental characters, however, can be traced on contemporary records above a century earlier, and in forms altogether similar to those of later times. With such evidence we can hardly hesitate to assume — what- ever preconceived ideas it may disturb—that this ge- nuine Egyptian writing, combining Phonetic with figu- rative signs, is, In its essential elements, at least as old 15 Stobei, Ecl. Eth. Δόγος Ἴσιδος, p. 930. Comp. 978. The author was a Neo-Platonist ; probably, however, an Egyptian. 16 Syncellus, p. 13., from the ninth book of his work “ Imuth” (/Esculapius), in which also the “ Chemia” was introduced, i. 6. the science of medicine and alchemy— from “ Chemi,” Egypt. 17 Lepsius, the Todtenbuch of the Egyptians, Leip. 1842, Pref. p. 17. Secr. I. A. TIT] AND THE SACRED BOOKS. 9 as the time of Menes. It is the general tradition of the ancients, that the chronological registers of the Egyptian kings above referred to commenced with him —and there is no tradition of antiquity which admits of being better authenticated. Ill. TITE ANTIQUITY AND HISTORICAL CONTENTS OF THE SACRED BOOKS OF THE EGYPTIANS. Wir these facts before us, it may here be proper to mect a question hitherto neglected by Egyptologers : whether the genuine books of Hermes, that is, the really Sacred Books of the Evyptians, contained any historical element, and in what shape ? May not the older regis- ters of the kings have been themselves, perhaps, a part of the Sacred Books? Or did the contents of the latter embody any considerable amount of matter of fact concerning the reigns of those kings? If they did so in ever so slight a degree, we must certainly con- sider them as a main source of historical tradition. For in a nation whose literature had ἃ religious origin, and remained always in the hands of the pricsts, the most ancient history must also neces- sarily have been contained in the Sacred Writings. The progress of our rese: arches will show how important this inquiry may become in forming any judgment upon the sources of history which have been preserved to us; and even at this stage of our subject it may throw some new light upon the Sacred Books. We are indebted for our knowledge of these writings to Clemens of Alexandria alone; the very remarkable passage of whose work we give in our Appendix of Authorities.18 From it we learn that the Ecyptians in his time had forty-two Sacred Books — a canon, which must have been closed at latest in the time of the Psammetici, but probably carlier. The last six of these 18 See Zoega de Obeliscis, p. 505. &c. 10 TWO BOOKS OF THE CHANTER. [Boox I. Sxcr, books treated of the art of medicine, which had taken root in Egypt in the darkest ages of antiquity, and boasted royal authors from Athotis down to Nechepso. The books of both these kings are quoted, and that of the former (a son of Mencs) was certainly a sacred one. The other thirty-six books were. divided into five classes, each of which requires separate consideration. 1. The Two Books of the Chanter. The first book of the first class contained songs in honour of the gods; the second a description of royal life and its duties. The Chanter was required to know both by heart. The first book, therefore, was something like the Rie-Veda. Such was the repute antiquity and sanctity, of the Keyptian hymns, that some of them, according to Plato’, were ascribed to Isis, and, like the οἱ arliest paintings and sculptures, were held to be 10,000 years old, and that— not, he ide by mere figure of speech, but in the literal sense. In fact the ἢ agments of Ifermes, preserved by Stobeus, place hymns in the mouth of Isis, who teaches thom to Horus. Stobeus has omitted the compositions them- selves, and their genuine antiquity 15 very questionable.” The title of the second book reminds us of the precepts which Manu’s Code lays down for the Indian Kings, and even of some passages in the Vedas. This book was not strictly of an historical nature, although it may have con- tained, doubtless, as Zoega himself remarks, a few parti- culars of the lives or ordinances of primeval rulers by 19 Plato de Legg. ii. p.657.: Σκοπῶν δὲ εὑρήσεις τὰ μυριοστὸν ἔτος γεγραμμένα ἣ τετυπωμένα ----οὐχ we ἔπος εἰπεῖν μυριοστόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὄντως --- τῶν νῦν δεδημιουργημένων οὔτε τι καλλίονα, οὔτ᾽ αἰσχίω, τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ τέχνην ἀπειργασμένα. And soon after where he speaks of the songs which were prescribed as being an institution worthy of the divinity, or of the divine name: καθάπερ ἐκεῖ φασι ra τὸν πολὺν τοῦτον σεσω- σμένα χρόνον μέλη τῆς Ἴσιδος ποιήματα γεγονέναι. 29 Stob. Eclog. Eth. ed. Heeren, p. 980. I. A. II. 2.] FOUR ASTRONOMICAL BOOKS. 11 way of examples. Here, therefore, we have historical songs in praise of the ancient kings; for both the books were adapted for musical recitation. The Egyptians, therefore, alluded principally, if not exclusively, to this book, when they described Darius as having learned from their sacred books their mythology, as wall as the magnanimity and clemency of their ancient rulers, for which qualities he was himself so much distinguished and beloved.” 2. The Four Astronomical Books of the Horoscopus. The second class comprised the so-called astrological books, four in number, a knowledge of which was required on the part of the Horoscopus. The first treated of the system of the fixed stars, the second and third of the solar and lunar conjunction, and the phases of the moon; the fourth of the “ risings,” 1. ec. of the sun, moon, and stars in general. Originally, doubtless, their @ntents were purely astronomical, relating to the constellations (not the twelve signs of the zodiac, however), the synodic epochs, ands the rising of par- ticular stars at different seasons of the year, as in Aratus. The astrological element, in the usual sense, was akin to the astronomical, but was, as we shall see, unknown to the ancient Egyptians in the shape in which we understand it. Obscrvations of the stars were, nevertheless, of old date among them. This is stated by Aristotle in a passage to be quoted in the sequel ; and the antiquity of the Sothiac cycle, which implies that observations of that star had been taken, and in fact continuously, in connection with the course of the sun, 1s in itself evidence of the fact. Here also the royal writings, mentioned in Manctho’s “ Lists of the Kings of the Old Empire,” may probably have formed part of the Sacred Books. In later times the astrological element of these books 21 Diod. Sic. i. 95. 12 THE TEN BOOKS OF [Boox I. Scr. afforded, questionless, materials for the gross falsifi- cation of history. For not only did the impostor (a professing Christian) who, under the venerable name of Manetho, wrote in bad hexameters the still worse book of the Apotelesmata”, borrow from their text, or from works compiled from them — but the author of the book on the Dog-star, who, if not the same, flourished certainly during the Christian wra, actually divided all history into astronomical cycles, and added, besides, rules for the art of divination.*> Heraiskus, whom the Neo- Platonists revered as an Ke¢yptian saint in the third cen- tury, had, it seems, already brought these absurdities into vogue."4 We have now palpable proof, as the pro- gress of the inquiry will show, how unfortunate was the course pursued by those critics who selected as their guide this “ ignis fatuus” of astrology, astronomy, and chronology. 3. The Ten Books of the [herogrammatist. The relative antiquity of the astronomical books must not, therefore, lightly be called in question, how- ever recent may be the origin of the zodiacal astrology. But the ten books of the Hic rogrammatist, or sacred scribe, which composed the third class, were probably still more ancient, and certainly of a more instructive character. The first treated of the hieroglyphic art, and taught by consequence the rudiments of writing. On this 22 The fact of Gronovius having considered such a book as genuine, only proves thut listorical philology —the discovery of Bentley, and the jneritage and glory of German scholars —~ is of late origin. Zoega (μ. 255. N.) detected the impostor, who, as an Egyptian priest, did not blush to desecrate the funeral ceremonies of his nation, and though: professedly patronised by Ptolemy Philadelphus, to whom the book is said to be dedicated, did not scruple to represent his marriage with hig sister as a Thyestean abomination. #3 See Section FV. of this Book; and, in the Appendix of Au- thorities, Pseudo-Manectho de Sothide (A. VHT). 24 Suidas on ‘Hpatexoc. See the end of this Section. I. A. ΠῚ. 3.] THE HFEROGRAMMATIST. 13 subject also there was a royal author of primeval times, the elder Sesostris, in the beginning of the third dynasty. His work, or one compiled by the priests at his instance, was probably incorporated in the books of this class. The well-known work of Horapollo is a late and very garbled version of data supplied by them. We shall resume this head of the subject in the last. section of this book, when treating of the Egyptian written character. The next of the following books treated of Cosmography and Geography. A fragment of Hermes, in Stobeus ”, may give a fair idea of part of its contents. The earth is there figured as a woman, in a recumbent position, with her arms raised towards heaven, and her feet in the direction of the Great Bear ; its gcorraphical divi- sions being typified by the members of the human body. Keypt naturally represents the heart. The passage of Apollonius RKhodius *°, also, where he speaks of Tablets on which the roads of the earth are laid down, contains an allusion to descriptions of a more strictly geogra- phical nature in these books. But geographical Tablets, and consequently maps, are ascribed by the legend to the same Nesostris, who is even said to have com- municated them to the Scythians.” This legend, also, is certainly based on these books. It is not quite clear what connection existed between the two sub- sequent books, “On the System of the Sun and Moon, and the Five Planets,” and those of the second class, in which the sun and moon are also treated of. Both, or one of them, must naturally have contained data for 2 Stobeus, Eel. Eth. p. 992. sqq. 26 Apollon. Rhod. Argon. iv. 279. sqq. See the Appendix of Au- thorities. 27 Eustath. Epist. prefixed to his commentary on Dionysius Perie- getes (p. 80. edit. Bernhard): Kat Σέσωστρις δέ, φασίν, ὁ Αἰγύπτιος πολλὴν περιεληλυθὼς γῆν πίναξί τε δέδωκε τὴν περίοδον, καὶ τῆς τῶν πινάκων ἀναγραφῆς οὗκ Λὲἐγυπτίοις pee ἀλλὰ καὶ Σκύθαις εἰς ϑαῦμα μεταδοῦναι ἠξιώσεν. 14 THE TEN BOOKS OF [Boox I. Scr. calculating the solar and lunar cycles (for these form the basis of the whole arrangement of the sacred and civil year); besides other astronomical definitions and calculations closely connected with the Egyptian com- putation of time; for example, the notation of solar and lunar eclipses. Ἴ he statement of Diogenes Laértius, in the introduction to his biographical work?®, that the Kgyptians possessed observations of 373 eclipses of the sun, and 832 of the moon, may be derived from them. This number is certainly not a mere fiction, but as certainly not to be understood of observations actually taken. Freret has wemarce in his acute treatise on the Babylonian year”, how absurd it were to attach im- portance to the period of 48,863 years before Alexander, to which Diogenes carries back those observations ; but we cannot so readily acquiesce in his proposed restriction of it to 1200 years. If they were actual observations they must have extended over 10,000 years, for the ancients assuredly observed and reckoned none but total, or almost total eclipses. But if the heyptians took and recorded astronomical observations, even during the last Sothiac cycle of 1461 years, which commenced 1322 years before our wra, how is it to be explained that not one of them is mentioned by their learned countryman, Ptolemy, under the Antonines ? Why, with the ex- ception of those noted by Hipparchus, does he quote the Babylonian observations alone, the oldest of which, ac- cording to him, occurred in the 27th year of Na- bonassar, i. ec. 720 years before our «ra? The metliod of reducing the vaue, or solar, year of the Egyptians to the Julian reckoning, and, in general, the whole arrangement of their years, was perfectly familiar to him, and to the school of Alexandria, even at a much later period. 28 Diog. Latrt. Proem. § 2. 29 Mémoires de Académie des Inser, xvi. p. 205. 1. Α. TIL 9.1 THE HIEROGRAMMATIST. 15 The Egyptians, however, were very early acquainted with the cycles of the moon and sun, and the celestial phenomena connected with their conjunction. Hence it was easy for their priests to calculate solar and lunar eclipses with tolerable exactitude for many thousand years back. At what period such calculations may have been made cannot be ascertained, ignorant as we are of the sources from which Diogenes obtained his informa- tion. We learn, however: from one of their own old chronological works, to be cited below, that the genuine Kgyptian tradition concerning the mythological period, treated of myriads of years. We would not be understood, by what is here said, to invalidate our previous remarks on the antiquity and steady prosecution of their astronomical observations. Aristotle®® gives precedence to the Egyptians, even above the B aby “lonians, as the earliest cultivators of the science; and his faithful interpreter, Simplicius, remarks on this passage, that the philosopher had procured the Babylonian observations to be sent to him by Calli- sthenes, one of the companions of Alexander. These observations extended back 1903 years before the Mace- donian conquest. Niebuhr found historical confirmation of this statement, which we hope materially to strengthen in the fourth book.*! The high antiquity cl: aimed by the Egyptians for their calc ulations rested, therefore, on solid grounds, inasmuch as Aristotle mentions them before those of the Babylonians, without, certainly, ex- cluding their observations of the sun and moon, nor 30 Aristot. de Colo, ii. 12 > ‘Opotwe δὲ καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀστέρας λέγουσιν οἱ πάλαι τετηρηκύτες ἐκ πλείστων ἐτῶν Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Βαξυλώ- γιοι, παρ᾽ ὧν πολλὰς πίστεις ἔχομεν περί ἑκάστου τῶν ἀστέρων. 5, Simplic. Commentar. 46. in lib. ii. Aristot. de Cuclo, p. 123.: Τὰς ὑπὸ Καλλισθένους ἐκ Βαξυλῶνος πεμφθείσας παρατηρήσεις ἀφικέσθαι εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα, τοῦ ᾿Αριστοτέλους τοῦτο ἐπισκήψαντος αὑτῷ, ἄστινας διηγεῖται ὁ ἸΠορφύριος χιλίων ἑτιῦν εἶναι καὶ ἐννεακοσίων τριῶν μέχρι τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Μακεδόνος σωξζομένας. See Niebuhr, On the Be- nefits resulting to History from the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius. 16 THE TEN CEREMONIAL [Βοοκ J. Secr. consequently their eclipses. They may not, indeed, have been taken very scientifically, and the registers containing them were, probably long prior to the time of Ptolemy, mixed up with astrological absurdities, and swamped in the gulph of superstitious fable. The contents of the following books (five and six) — the chorography of Egypt, and the delineation of the course of the Nile within the limits of the Egyptian territory—were certainly an important element of history. Plate XXII. in Lepsius’s Records proves the high antiquity of their geometrical surveys. It repre- sents a fragment — now in the Turin Museum — of an accurate ground-plan of the Valley of Tombs (Biban E1 Moluk) at Thebes, with the tomb of King Seti (Sethos) of the 19th dynasty; and, from the style of the inscrip- tion, it must have been executed at an early period. That the principal object of these books was a general survey of Egypt, is clear from the titles of the seventh and three following —“ Description or inventory of each temple, of its landed property (the estates of the priests), of its weights, measures, and other utensils” — the size and shape of which were doubtless accurately detailed. The monuments here also prove the high antiquity of this branch of economy. The Egyptian cubit of later times was the measure used in the Great Pyramid, con- sequently in the fourth dynasty. But the regulations made by the great Sesostris of the Old Empire were in reality the basis on which the registration of landed property, and the estates belonging to the priests, was founded. Here again then we find a succession of proofs that these institutions were built on ancient and genuine historical foundations. 4. The Ten Ceremonial Books of the Stolistes. This fourth cluss was devoted principally or entirely to religious worship, and contained, likewise in ter I. A. Ill. 4.] BOOKS OF THE STOLISTES. 17 Books, ‘‘the ordinances as to the First-fruits, and the sacrificial stamp.” The above are obviously technical expressions in common use among the Priests. These books were entrusted to the Stolistes. The name, Sto- listes, had reference originally to the office of dressing and ornamenting the statues of the Gods, an office which conferred the right of admission to the mnermost shrine”, and indicates in a more general sense the person who had the arrangement of festivals and pro- cessions. Clemens quotes among the contents of the separate books, regulations concerning “ sacrifice, first fruits, hymns, prayers, festive processions, and the like.” Funerals and ceremonies in honour of the dead were probably treated of in this class; for no mention is made of them elsewhere. Ilere, again, the light of the monuments, aided by passages of the classics, supplies proof of the great antiquity of those Lgyptian institutions, which, in Jater times, se ag to rest on the authority of the Sacred Books. But (what is more important as bearing on our present inquiry) the bigh antiquity of the books them- selves is thereby established, and their contents impressed with the character of genuine historical tradition. Down to the times of Manetho «nd Plutarch, and certainly to the fall of Paganism in Egypt, the sacrificial stamp remained a speaking proof of the original sin-offering in Egypt also having been human sacrifice — which is indeed implicd in the primary idea of sacrifice. It represented a man on his knees, with his hands tied behind him, and the sacrificial knife pointed at his throat. Manetho’s literal description of the Stamp will be found ina subsequent part of this work. Wilkinson discovered one in Hgy pt that answered exactly to that description, and has given a copy of it in the fifth volume of his “Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,” 4: Inscription of Rosetta, 1. 6. in Lepsius, Plate 19. See Letronne’s remark on the passage, Fragm. Historicor. Gr., Appendix, p. 14. VOI.. I. C 18 TILE TEN BOOKS [Boox I. Scr. p- 352.3 Now, as we shall sce in the second book, the practice of human sacrifices was abolished in the Old Empire at the end of the seventh century after Mencs. This is the only explanation we have, but it is a suffi- cient one, of a circumstance which led even Wilkinson to question the truth of the well-ascertained fact, that the Egyptian monuments, in so far as known to us, offer no representation of human sacrifice, although we there find every other kind of sacrifice and offering frequently and distinctly exhibited. The ordinance of the Sacred Books, therefore, as the foundation of a custom maintained up to the latest times, must be of at least as ancient date as the abolition of that barbarous rite. ΕΟ, unless the practice of marking the victim had been prescribed by law at that time, it never could have been introduced afterwards, when the reality in which it originated was forgotten or held in abhorrence. But the ordinance concerning the Stamp may have been older than the abolition, and have been retained, although the practice which gave rise to it was aban- doned. This portion of the Sacred Writings then must have been composed at latest in the first centuries of the empire of Menes. The common title of books of this fourth class also proves the high antiquity of the ordinance. 5. Lhe Ten Books of the Prophets. The last class of these 86 Sacred Books were the sacerdotal Books in the proper sense. fence it was, that they bore the general name of Ilicratic writings, and were intrusted to the Prophets, the first Order of Priests, who in consequence took precedence immediately after the High Priests of the great Temples.* These books again were ten in number. According to Clemens they 33 Plut. de Is. et Os., ¢. 11. p. 363. Compare Manetho and Por- phyry in the Appendix of Authorities. # Inscription of Rosetta, and Letronne’s remarks. I. A. IIL 5.] OF THE PROPHETS. 19 treated of “the Laws, the Deitics, and the entire educa- tion of the Priests.” ‘This class therefore contained instructions as to the apportionment of the taxes, one of the privileges of the Priests, the authority for which was found in the books of the third Class, in respect at least to the Land-Tax, the Priest-Tax, or Free-Gifts. It is remarkable that long after the fall of the Egyptian Constitution, even up to this very day, the Copts re- tained, and still retain the office of collectors and controllers of taxes. [ἢ the gencral education of the Priests the regulation of their mode of life cer tainly held an important place. Cheremon’s account of it preserved by Porphyry “ἥν, is without doubt derived from those books, with which the former, who was a Sacred Scribe, must have been familiar, Jt describes rather what it ought to have been, than what it actually was, in the first centuries of our era. That representation reminds us again very strongly of Manu, and several passages in the Vedas. By far the most important subdivision of this class of books was doubtless that which treated of their Mythology, and the laws connected with religious rites. For the term, law, is to be understood of these, and not of the purely civil jurisprudence. The laws of the Priests however, as we know, were not of an exclusively ecclesiastical character ; but many, if not all the Con- stitutional laws, were very closely connected with the rites and duties of the Priesthood, who formed the really privileged class of the Τὺ eyptian nation. As the Rosetta stone tesiifies, the soleinn recognition, corona- tion, and consecration of the Sovercion Was, even in the time of the Ptolemies, the privilege of the Priests, into whose Caste it was requisite he should be admitted, previously to his election, if he were not a Priest already, as was usually the ease. Leeren also has shown ’ Porphyv. de Abstin. ii. 6, 8. See below upon Cheremon. c 2 20 THE TEN BOOKS [Boox I. Secr. from a passage in Synesius™, that the original form of the old constitution must have been a really elective Monarchy. The Crown became hereditary with Menes, and the right of succession was extended during the Se- cond Dynasty, in the third century of the Empire, even to the female line. From henceforward the Priests ex- ercised no privilege of election, except when the Royal Race became extinct; and ultimately, after the form- ation of a despotic Monarchy, no more than the sem- blance and form of an election was preserved. It was not till after the Priests had elected a Sovereign on the Libyan Mountain near Thebes, and the Gods had been consulted, that the King went in procession to the Temple of Ammon, to be solemnly inaugurated. These various regulations could be embodied nowhere but in the Books of the Prophets—another strong proof of the great privileges possessed by the Priests in these pri- meval Heyptian Comitia. That the oldest laws were aseribed to THermes*, im- plics however nothing more than that the first germ of the Civil law sprung from the Sacred Books, and that it was based in part upon the religious tenets which they containcd — not that the Egyptian Code formed part of these Books. In the sume way the Code of Manu is 35 Heeren, Ideen, vol. ii. Egypt, p.335. The passage he quotes from Synesius, Opp. p. 94., is from the beginning of the work on Pro- vidence, which he also called Λόγος Λἰγύπτιος. The Priests stood next to the candidates for the throne, then came a cirele of warriors, and last of allthe People. The Priests declared the name of the candidate, and had themselves zreat privileges in the mode of voting. Tmgery soldier’s vote counted for one, a prophet’s for a hundred; a pricst’s of subordinate raak fur twenty (κωμαστής, equivalent to epulo, ac- cording to Petavius’s accurate work on Synesius, p. 73., κομαστήρια); ἃ servant’s of the temple (Zayopoc) for ten. All this reminds us very much of Manu. The form of contest between Osiris and Typhon tor the crown, which Synesius selected, is a romance. 7 Diod. i, 94.5 Aslian. VE. xii. 4.; compare xiv. 34.; Diog. pa Proem. §§ 10, 11, a weording to Manetho and Siccavun We giv. the whole description afterwards under Manetho. I. A. IT. 5.] OF THE PROPHETS. 21 based upon the Vedas, and appeals to their doctrines, whenever its civil institutions, as in regard to the Rights of Persons, and particularly those of inheritance, were connected with religious doctrines or duties. The voluminous discussions of the Indian expositors and commentators on Manu and the Law of inheritance, consist for the most part ina more extended application to every possible case of succession, of certain of his general enactments, which again oneinate in some expressions of the Vedas. Tt is well known that Mahometan jurisprudence is founded to a still greater extent on sentences of the Koran, and 15. still more dependent upon, and limited by them. The civil laws of the Egyptians, according to a valuable passage of Diodorus, to be quoted in “its proper place, were ar- ranged in cight books. Jn these was recorded the name of each King, by whose judgment in any parti- cular case a particular point of law had been finally es- tablished, or who was the author of any general enact- nent. On this occasion the same Diodorus gives ἃ list of the most. celebrated legislators in theirchronological order. The oldest is Mnevis, probably the third successor of Menes, who received from Hermes his written laws, the first the Egyptians possessed. Bocchoris, the unfortu- nate reformer of the 8th century before our ira, who Jost his throne and life in the war with the Ethiopians, is the first legislator of the New Empire. The oldest of those fundamental laws may have been contained in the Sacred Books of the Prophets, and also have been introduced into the Civil Code. This code, therefore, was not unlike the Digests of Justinian, and perhaps in form had still more resemblance to Colebrooke’s Indian Pandects on the rights of inheritanee, without however being, like them, confined tu one Deane of Jurispru- dence. Such a work must have contributed doubtless materially to fix the historical chronology of the Kings, and 3 in part also of the history of Keypt. co 3 22 PLACE AND RANK ([Boox I. Srcr. 6. The Place and Rank of the Sacred Books in Universal INstory. If we now glance at the Sacred Books themselves in their connection with history, their position as regards. Universal history—the only point of view which can here engage our attention —1is obvious. Incomparably more historical than the Sacred Books of the Hindoos, and far less so than those of the Jews, they appear in this respect to offer a close parallel to the Zend-books, though not without import tant points of difference. The Saered Books of Inin have evidently the advantage of possessing a broader historical basis of tradition, as compared with those of the narrow valley of the Nile — half Oasis, half Island—and of a people whose con- nection with their primitive Asiatic stock was completcly severed, and whose minds were wholly absorbed in provincial and conventional forms of thought or life. But the Egyptians on the other hand had the advantage of possessing their national history, in a much less mutilated form. In their books the Egyptians also stand forth pre-eminently a people of reminiscences and of monuments. Their Sacred Writings evinced con- siderably more historical cultivation than we can sup- pose the ancient Persians had, judgmng at least from what we know of the Zend-books. Had those writings been preserved, we should hardly indeed be able to restore the Chronology by their means, but they would serve at least in many ways to test its value in so far us otherwise brought to light. In this way their actual contents might serve to impart fulness and sub- stance to the dry lists of Kings, as well as more accurately to determine and correct the (ireck tradi- tions. Here snd there the shadow of some great Individuality would arisc, instead of a mere illustrious name, or a Legend sunk into fiction, and the echo of I. Α.Π|. 0.1 OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 93 which was caught up by curious and inquisitive Greeks. That these Sacred Books however did not contain any history of the Egyptian nation, is no less certain than that the Old Testament docs contain that of the Jews. The idea of a people did not exist — still less that of a People of God, the Creator of the Heavens and the Karth. I[listory was born in that night when Moses, with the Law of God —moral and spiritual —in his heart, led the people of Israel out of Egypt. Its vitality declined, when under the Judges the feeling of Na- tional Unity relapsed into that of Bedouin Arabs and Shepherd Races. It revived once more, with the grand historical figures of Samucl, of David, and of Solomon, founders of the Jewish State. On the extinction of the United Kingdom of the 12 Tribes, the popular mind be- “une directed more to religious subjects ; and thus the true historical style could never attain its complete cul- tivation among this People. But in the same period the Muse of History found her favourite nation in the Greeks, and raised up in Herodotus, the master of research, the originator of the strictly historical con- nected narrative of the immediate Past. If then the Sacred Books of the Egyptians contained no single section of pure history, we cannot wonder that we hear of no historical work of that people before Manctho, that is, before they came in contact with the genius of Hellas. Those books contained all that the iD gyptians possessed of science or historical lore. (ὯὉ- ordinate with them were the imperfect, but authentic Lists of the Kings. The statement therefore of Dio- dorus that the Lists of the Kings occupied a portion of the Sacred Books, is inaccurate. What the Egyptians possessed were descriptions of their Kings in continuous succession —not a complcte work, such as the Sacred Books must have beer, at least since the time of the Psammetici. The expression of Herodotus is more c 4 24 SACRED BOOKS. [Boox I. exact —he calls the Lists of Kings, a book of the Priests, but not a Sacred Book. As the Egyptians possessed no work on history among their Sacred Books, so neither had they any connected chronology like that of the Years of Nabonassar, the Olympiads, or the Building of Rome—and for the same reason. The nation sought and found here also ἃ reli- gious frame in which to express the continuity of its historical existence. —'This was the Divine year, a Cycle of 1461 natural years, by which the entire arrangement of the year of the Priests, and the Cycle of the Sacred festivals was regulated. [Ὁ was more important to them to know in what year of the celestial Cycle they lived, than in what year of the Empire of Menes. For the sake of regulating that Cycle, they traced out and marked down the numbers of its years that had clapsed —just as in the Julian and Gregorian year, the Cycle of four years implies a connected notation. This Cyclic notation, the method and importance of which will be shown in the fourth book, was made exclusively by the Priests for the Temple, and was kept a profound secret. The ordinary annual calendar gave the year of the reigning Sovereign. But the Temple calendar, regulated by the “Sothiac cycle, may also be presumed to have combined with its astronomical dates some similar register of civil events. The historical lists of Kings must therefore have been compiled by learned Pricsts from the Sacred registers, or have been tested and cor- rected by them. The institution of the Priests stifled lustory just as the Celestial Cycle of years stifled their terrestrial computation. Both however were favour- able to Chronology, and the maintenance of Annual registers. ‘The practical result of our inquiry into the Sacred Books inay be summed up nearly as follows. The genuine Sacred Books were totally unlike the lying Srcr. I. A.1V.] BOOK OF THE DEAD. 25 Books of Hermes, invented by Syrians and Kgyptians of the Neo-Platonic school. They contained no history, but much that was historical. They gave no Chrono- logy, but constituted its basis and touchstone. If they are ancient, and extend beyond the period of the Hyksos to the Empire of Menes, the foundation of Egyptian Chronology and History is not entirely lost for the modern investigator. The Egyptian annals and Lists of Kings claim then the highest respect. The question, however, still re- mains, whether we possess any notices of them prior to Manetho, and what is the value of those notices. Before entering upon this question, our attention is called to another relative to the Sacred Books. Has any part of them been transmitted to us ? and can their contents be made accessible by the science of Iliecro- elyphics ? IV. THE BOOK OF ΤΙΣ DEAD—A PORTION OF THE SACRED BOOKS STILL EXTANT. Tur French expedition to Egypt brought to light an important hierogly phical Papyrus, originally found in the Tombs of the Kings at Thebes. It was first mentioned by Cadet (1805) —afterwards ἢ in the great work upon egypt compiled under the auspices of ἍΝ: apoleon. The pictured ornaments showed that it treated of ceremonics in honour of the Dead, and the transmigration of Souls. Champollion found a ‘similar Papyrus in the Museum of Turin, in a much more complete state, and about double the size. It was written, like the former, not in Ilieratic characters, but in Hicroglyphics, the monu- mental character of the Sacred language. Fully appre- ciating the importance of this Record, he immediately submitted it to close examination, and divided it into three sections. Lepsius recognised in it the most im- 20 BOOK OF THE DEAD. [Boox I. portant basis for deciphering the Egyptian character and language. He divided it, according to the data supplied by the MS. itself, into 165 sections; and soon perceived that all the rolls of Papyri in the various European collections devoted to the same subject, con- tained more or less of these sections. Champollion assumed its contents to be of a Liturgical nature, and accordingly named it ‘ the Ritual.’ Lepsius pre- ferred the title of ‘Book of the Dead,’ as it nowhere contained any Funeral Service in the proper sense. On the contrary, the Deceased himself is the person who officiates. His soul, on its long journey through the celestial gates, is giving utterance to Prayers, Invoca- tions, and Confessions, which are here recorded. The first 15 Chapters form a connected, distinct, separate whole, with the general superscription “ Here begin the Sections of the Glorification in the Light of Osiris.” This part is illustrated by a picture of the solemn pro- cession of the Corpse, behind which the Deceased appears, offering up prayers to the Sun-God. The Ist Chapter, which is found on several Sarkophagi, contains invo- cations addressed to Osiris, the Lord of the Lower World. In the 9th, Osiris is opening to the Deceased, as his son, the paths of Heaven and Earth. In the following the Osirian is justified, and ushered into the realms of light. According to Lepsius this first Section contains the substance of the whole—what follows is but an amplification of the various acts or adventures of the Soul, and some of the Sections are frequently re- peated word for word. But even in the most ancient portion of its contents, he perceives traces of its having been the compilation of different periods. The 2nd and 3rd Chapters are obviously supplements. The 15th stands in a similar relation to the 14th. Even the 13th and 14th are additions, and the 12th seems to have been originally the conclusion of the work. The Sect. I. A. IV.J 300K OF THE DEAD. 27 19th and 20th appear to be in like manner repetitions of the 18th. A similar Book (and marked with the same name) is found at the end of the Papyrus (chap. 125.), en- titled “The Book of Deliverance in the Hall of the twofold Justice.” This title indicates, according to Lepsius, Justice distributor of reward and punish- ment. The contents are the Divine judgment on the Deceased. Forty-two Gods (the number composing the earthly tribunal of the Dead) occupy the Judgment- seat. Osiris, as their President, bears on his breast the small Tablet of Chief Judge, containing, as we see on the monuments, a figure of Justice (Ma). This deity, adorned with the ostrich feather, receives him on his arrival. Before him are seen the Scales of Divine Judgment. In one is placed the Statue of divine justice, in the other, the heart of the deceased, who stands in person by the balance con- taining his heart, while Anubis watches the other scale. Iforus cxamines the plummet indicating which way the beam preponderates. Thoth, the Justifier, the Lord of the Divine Word, records the sentence. Before each of the 42 Judges a separate justification of the deceased takes place. Several of the succeeding Books contain Hymns (chaps. 129. 184. 189.). Lepsius con- siders the whole Papyrus to be of the date of the 18th or 19th Dynasty, consequently of the 15th or 16th Century before our ara. The above description is bor- rowed from the preface to his edition of that Record published immediately before his departure for Egypt. From this epitome of the first Egyptian work ever com- mitted to type, we now turn to the object of our own Section. The view taken by Lepsius of the connection be- tween this work and the Sacred Buoks is expressed in the following terms*: “ This book furnishes the only example 38 Preface, p. 16. 28 BOOK OF THE DEAD. [Boox I. of a great Egyptian literary work, transinitted from the old Pharaonic times—a compilation, indeed, made ‘at various times and probably in various parts of Egypt, but one, the original plan of which unquestionably belongs to the remotest age, and which doubtless, like the other Sacred Books, was ascribed to Hermes or Thoth. This figurative authorship is no invention of later times, for in the text of the work itself mention repeatedly occurs of ‘ the Book,’ as wellas of the ‘ Books of Thoth’ (chaps. 68, 6. 94,1, 2.), and in the vignette to chapter 94., the Deceased himself 1s offering to Thoth the Hermetic Book to which these allusions apply.” Referring to our previous analysis of the Sacred Books, we have no hesitation in pronouncing the ‘ Book of the Dead” to be one of the Ten of the fourth class. The indications it contains of more ancient and more recent elements throw light on the origin of the E ῬΥΡ- tian Canon, or Collection of Sacred Books. Ilere, as in the Hebrew Canon, ancient and modern traditions of a similar nature, or different versions of the same, were compiled and arranged up to a certain period —when the Canon was closed. This assumption does not pre- vent our perceiving that many of the shorter Funereal Papyri are later abridgients—though we can hardly venture to infer from thence, that the contents of this one represent precisely the most primitive clements. It is probable that both old and new were blended together in the Canon of the Sacred Books, as it ex- isted in the New Empire. From this Canon they bor- rowed sometimes more, sometimes less, with a pre- ference probably of such parts as were of most recent origin. Here then, again, we must. go back to the Old Empire in order to trace the gradual formation of the Sacred Books. Of this we have one more remarkable proof to Srct, 1. AVIV.) BOOK OF THE DEAD. 29 adduce. In Chapter 64 we find the name of “ Menkeres, the justified,” (deceased) — the holy, much honoured Mykerinus of the 4th Dynasty—a Ruler long ago con- demned to the shadowy realms of Mythology, but whom we shall exhibit in the full light of the historic period of Egypt, and whose coffin any one may touch with his own hands in the British Museum. In some of the Funereal Papyri we find, instead of his Ring, that of a King Teti, who was either one of the two Kings, Atho- this, the immediate successor of Menes, or an earlier Mythological King of the primeval time. This brings us to an inquiry, the result of which affords additional proof that the Book of the Dead was one of the Sacred Books. We have already remarked that in the Turin Papy- rus, and generally indeed in other Manuscripts of this work, the character used is the pure monumental hieroglyphic. This peculiarity is in itself signiticant — for, as we shall see in the sequel, in all the other extant remains of Keyptian literature the Hieratic character is employed. Clemens of Alexandria, however, in his celcbrated passage on the varictics of Egyptian writing, to be illustrated in its proper place, has the following remark: — “* When the l:gyptians record the praises of their Kings in theological legends, they write in Ana- glyphs.” This description has hitherto appeared un- intelligible. We have not the Icast doubt that the term ‘ Anagly phs’ denotes the monumental character, as applied to books, in contradistinction to the Hieratic, in which they were ordinarily written. For the former alone, as being both inscribed and Sacred, was called Hieroglyphical, that is, the character of ihe Sacred inscriptions. From Diodorus and other writers we have ample * 39 Preface, p. 12. 90 BOOK OF THE DEAD. [Boox I. notices of these mythical encomiums on their ancient Kings. Among them, without doubt, Osiris occurred ®, as well as Busiris, and others of the Order of Gods and Heroes. The historical notices of the human period (though likewise in part legendary) form, conse- quently, a contrast to these, both in their form and their contents. Certain Kings, however, even of this latter period, were celebrated in the songs of the Priests. Some of these songs we still possess, and they are all written in the Hieratic characters. | 5% Ὁ, It is probable that the remarks of Clemens as to the character in which those traditions céncerning these Kings of the divine Order were written, applied equally to all the Sacred Books, of which, as we have seen, these traditions formed a part. They were all written in the Picture character of the Monuments, to distinguish them from ordinary writings. Now, as the doctrines or or- dinanees relative to the state of the soul after death could not have been omitted in the Sacred Books — (Clemens, in fact, points out clearly enough their posi- tion in the fourth class) — the prayers and invocations contained in the “ Book of the Dead,” may be assumed to have been taken from one of those ten Books. This also satisfactorily accounts for the Book of the Dead having been, as a general rule, written entirely in Hlicroglyphics. Now this book is connected with the name of a primitive historical King—a connection in the true spirit of Igyptian historical tradition. We shall again refer to its contents in our fifth Book. 40 Suidas on ᾿Ιερογραμματεύς. Ἐὐήνης Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύς, δίκαιος πάνυ. In his time lived a pious Hicrogrammatist, who was a prophet and magician, ὃν gcovecy ot Λἰγύπτιοι λόγοι we ϑεοφιλῆ. Suidas calls him by a name which is evidently a corruption, Iachim. But the whole is borrowed from the Ilegendarium of Osiris = Thoth. Εὐήνης is a translation of one of the titles of Osiris. Sxct.I. A. V.] | MONUMENTS AND RECORDS. 31 VY. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE EXISTING CONTEMPORARY MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL RECORDS. We have already remarked that the ancient King mentioned in the Book of the Dead belonged to the 4th Dynasty. The section in which he occurs, must necessarily be of a later, possibly of a much later date than his own lifetime. But we possess authentic con- temporary monuments not only of him, but of the Pharaohs his ancestors, in nearly uninterrupted suc- cession, during the previous two centuries and a half, back almost to the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty, and all written in the same character as that Papyrus exhibits. No nation of the earth has shown so much zeal and ingenuity, so much method and regularity, in recording the details of private life, as the Egyptians. Every year, month, and even day, of their life, under this or that King, was specially noted down. No country in the world offered greater natural facilities for in- dulging such a propensity than Kgypt, with its lime- stone and granite, its dry climate, and the protection afforded by its deserts against the overpowering force of nature in southern zones. Such a country was adapted not only for securing its monuments against dilapidation, both above and below ground for thousands of years, but even for preserving them as perfect as the day they were erected. In the North rain and frost corrode, in the South the luxuriant vegetation cracks or obliterates the monuments of time. China has no architecture to bid defiance to thousands of years — Babylon had but bricks — in India the rocks can barcly resist the wanton power of nature. Egypt is the monumental land of the earth, as the Egyptians are the monumental people of history. Their contemporary records, therefore, are at once the earliest and most certain source of all Egyptian research. Among these, 32 ANTIQUITY OF THE EXISTING [Boox I. especial value attaches to the tablets of stone — or sepulchral Stele —with the dates of the King’s reign under whom they were erected. The most important hitherto known are those of the 12th Dynasty, the last but one of the Old Empire, the so-called race of the Osortasidx. Through the judgment displayed by Lepsius in their selection, the Museum of Berlin had become, even before his departure for Egypt, if not the richest in these monuments, at least equal to those of Turin and Leyden. All these Stele have certain common forms of preamble. Dr.’ Hincks of Dublin has shown in an ingenious treatise, how each epoch of the monument is marked by its distinctive peculiarities of style and written character." The authentic con- temporancous notation of these dates, by years, months, and days of the different reigns, may be traced four centuries further back up to the 5rd Dynasty. We shall show in the last Section of this Book the import- ance of these primitive notices to Universal History. The sequel of our researches will prove that such con- temporary monuments are not altogether wanting, as has been generally assumed, even duri ing the period between the downfal of the Old, and the restoration of the New Empire—that is, during the Middle Empire, the so-called time of the Hyksos. But, lastly, we possess among these monuments, besides several of smaller coinpass, two great series of kings or royal personages, the one of the 14th, the other of the 16th Century. Such documents cannot, indeed, compensate for the want of written History. ven Chronology, its external framework, cannot be elicited from them. Isut, with the remains we possess of genuine tradition, we may still hope, by connecting the Lists and historical Commentaries with the con- 41 Rev. E. Wincks on the Egyptian Stela. Dublin, 1842. 4to Sect. I. A. V-] | MONUMENTS AND RECORDS. 33 “temporary Monuments, to rectify, if not completely to restore, the order of the times. These Lists and Commentaries are usually ascribed to Manetho, an historian .of the third century, B. c. But the study of Hieroglyphics has brought to light, besides those Royal series or monumental lists, seve- ral written documents relative to remote periods of history, and even a Catalogue of Kings. The pre- ceding introductory observations will enable us the better to understand and appreciate these important documents. First of all we have the so-called historical Papyri. The most celebrated is that of Sallicr. Champollion, by whom it was first examined, discovered in it a narrative of the expeditions and campaigns of the great Rameses, written not long after that conqueror’s death. Seve- ral extracts, containing the names of the conquered nations — among whom are the Ir-hen — were pub- lished by Salvolini with other historical matter, tran- scribed, as it subscquently appeared, from papers stolen by him from his master. This Papyrus, with others on cognate subjects —the praises, for example, of Sesostris of the 12th Dynasty—.were in 1839 pur- chased, on the recommendation of Lepsius, for the British Museum, and form onc of the gems of that rich collection. The zealous curators of that institution have already published these Records in the most correct and eritical form #2 so that the public have now full ae- cess to their contents. Similar Papyrus-rolls have since becy acquired for the Berlin Museum, likewise at Lepsius’s suggestion, through the timely attention of the King. They all offer precisely the same paleographical character common to other records of the best epochs of the New ee Select Papyri in the Hieratic character from the collections of the British Museum. Fol. London, 1841, 1842. VOL, I. D 34 ANTIQUITY OF EXISTING MONUMENTS. [Boox I. Empire, the 18th and 19th Dynasties, Their text is in Hieratic letters of the most elegant form, pecu- liar to the learned books, and, by consequence, in the Sacred, or Old Egyptian dialect. Owing to the back- ward state of the philological branch of Hieroglyphic study, our knowledge of this dialect is unfortunately not yet sufficiently advanced to admit of their trans- lation. Such a result can only be attained by a variety of researches, systematically and methodically followed up. There seems to be no doubt, however, that they contained the praises of the more distinguished Kings, and in a poetical form. Hence, as formerly observed, we have here still no History in the proper sense. This is no proof, however, that those songs of the Priests in praise of their Kings were of a mythical nature. They celebrated historical, and perhaps reigning, sovereigns, and may have narrated events and exploits yet fresh in the recollection. They were the work of the most historical and most monarchical of nations, for there is still in existence the amulet of a contemporary private citizen, commemorating the con- quests of one of these Kings, the father of the Great Rameses. Here, it is true, we find no chronology any more than upon the Stelw. There exists, however, an authentic chronological document of the same period, which, with the two series of Kings, will form the subject of our next inquiry. ° The series of Kings here referred to are palace- registers from the two_most ancient metropolitan cities of Egypt—'‘Iffebes and Abydos. The chronological document is a Papyrus of the Ramessid epoch, con- taining a register of the previous dynasties. The three mutually illustrate and restore each other. in the most satisfactory manner. In the two. former the dates are wanting; of the latter, fragments alonc 3) remain, where numerous names are also effaced. These Sacr. I: B.I.] THE TABLET OF TUTHMOSIS. 35 three documents occupy the first pages of that ‘ Selec- tion from the most important Records of Egyptian Antiquity,” compiled by Lepsius shortly before he set out for Egypt, under the munificent auspices of Fre- derick William IV. We must refer our readers to that work for a complete account of these monuments. Our present object is limited to a critical analysis and application of the more important heads of historical evidence which they supply. Their philological illus- tration is reserved for the work promised by Lepsius, as a second part or supplement to his Plates, on his return from Egypt. " THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORDS OF THE FIRST PERIOD OF THE LATER EMPIRE. 1. THE TABLET OF TUTHMOSIS, OR SERIES OF KINGS OF KARNAK.* (Lepsius’s Records, Plate I.) THis invaluable monument was discovered by Burton in a chamber at the south-cast angle of the Temple- Palace of Thebes, erected by Tuthmosis III. The ruin is now commonly called Karnak after the name of the village. The Tablet was in a tolerable state of preser- vation, and was given to the public by its discoverer in his “‘ Excerpta Hicroglyphica” (1824), a work that has since become very scarce. Wilkinson again sought for 4 The complete title is: A Selection of the most important Records of Egyptian Antiquity, illustrated by Dr. R. Lepsius ; in part now first published —-the remainder corrected from the Monuments. Leipzig. Wigand, 1842. 23 pl. large folio. ἢ Removed by M. Prisse, and presented by him to the Royal Library at Paris, in one‘of the halls of which it is now placed. p 2 86 THE TABLET OF TUTHMOSIS, [Boox I. it, and was fortunate enough to find it still uninjured. In his “ Materia Hieroglyphica,” printed at Cairo in 1828, (and which is equally scarce) he gave the series of Kings in a more complete and accurate shape. Ro- sellini first described the chamber itself in 1832.“ But his description still left many important points unsettled, as he only inserted in his work the Kings now in exist- ence. Lepsius, with the aid of data furnished by the French architect L’Héte—since unfortunately dead — and Dr. Mill of Cambridge, was enabled to supply the explanation of the monument, and to restore it to the more satisfactory form in which it appears in his work. Here again Wilkinson’s transcript turns out to be the most accurate. Let us imagine a tolerably spacious chamber perfectly square, with one door, not very large, in the centre of one of the sides. On entering, four rows of figures in calca- reous sandstone, representing Kings ina sitting posture, one over the other, are seen upon the walls. The Kings are seated on thrones, the backs of which at a central point, exactly opposite to the door, touch one another. So that in each of the four rows one half of the figures have their faces turned to the left, the other half to the right. The rows in each subdivision contain cight figures with one or two exceptions, where the number is but seven; the first three figures of each subdivision are on the wall opposite the entrance, which has consequently in all six in each (entire) raw—the other five (or four) are on the side wall contiguous to it on the right and left. In front at the end of each side wall, opposite to the sitting Kings, stands—-twice repcated—above and below— the figure, in larger proportions, of Tuthmosis III., the renowned fifth ruler of the 18th Dynasty, in the act of offering sacrifice. Each figure is precisely equal in height to two.of the four rows, so that one of them js ᾷ 44 Monumenti Storici, i. 132. &c. Sect. I. B. 1.] OR KINGS OF KARNAK. 37 opposite to the two upper, the other to the two lower rows. Before him stand the tables of sacrifice with offerings, occupying sometimes more, sometimes fewer panels of the rows of Kings. The result is that the rows contain on the left 31(8+8+7-+8), on the right 30 (8+8+7+7). A reference to the table at the end of this chapter will render this description more intel- ligible. Over the head of each King is his Royal Ring, with the customary imperial titles. Each is holding out his right hand, to receive the offerings. Tuthmosis him: self has in one hand the sign of life (the so-called key of the Nile), with the other he offers to the sitting Kings the gifts which lie scattered before him on the table. All doubt as to the personages to whom the offerings are made is removed by an inscription appended to the right of the figure, in the following terms : * the Royal offerings “to the Kings of the Upper and Lower country (Egypt).” Here then we have 61 Kings, with their names, in two series, prior to the contemporaries of Moses! To what period do they belong? Of the— well-known — first Kings of the 18th Dynasty, the immediate prede- cessors of Tuthmosis, not one single Ring is found, and the Tablet itself shows that they cannot have been lost. For those four Rings must have been the first or last of one of the two successive rows, and there are nowhere so many wanting at either of the two ends, although altogether about twenty are wholly or partially effaced. This circumstance must have involved the fathers of Egyptology in still greater perplexity, for their con- nected research closed with that Dynasty. Wilkinson leaves it undecided whether we are to consider them Ethiopian or Egyptian Kings. Champollion, before his expedition to Egypt, amid so many other avocations, ν 3 88 THE TABLET OF TUTHMOSIS, [Boox 1. had neglected this Tablet altogether. But from his posthumous papers we learn that he classed those Kings, who occupy the lower row to the left, as Thebans, and belonging to the 16th or 17th Dynasty, as being clearly prior to the 18th. In short he con- sidered them the celebrated Osortaside. Rosellini, whom the succession of Rings prevented from here re- cognising that Dynasty, shrewdly remarked, that the row on the left of the visitor on entering must be the older, because it would be to the right of a person sitting inthechamber. These, he thinks, may be Kings from the 11th Dynasty downwards. The most remark- able circumstance however in the speculations of these various authors relating to this series seems to be, that in spite of the impossibility of explaining it, not one of them has doubted its genuine character. All took for granted that the Kings, here represented, are historical, not supposititious rulers. Hyven the French and Italian scholars had no hesitation in asserting that they are Egyptian, and must in some mode or other have formed a serics. [he motives which led them to this opinion were a highly honourable sentiment of respect for histo- rical truth and for the principles of their own school of criticism. How could Tuthmosis (it occurred to them) in the most blooming period of Egyptian science and power, have represented foreign Kings as Egyptian, spu- rious Kings as historical, or a number of persons thrown together accidentally, as a regular historical series? Why should the series of Kings of Karnak be explained in an essentially different manner from those of Abydos, whose well-known Kings all stand in their historical order, just as do those of the smaller scries in the Ramesseum and elsewhere? Their knowledge of. the monuments must also have confirmed these critics in such more accurate views. For though none of them had made a complete collection, as Lepsius afterwards Sxor. I. B. I.] OR KINGS OF KARNAK. 39 did, of all the Royal Rings hitherto copied and published in Europe, still less had submitted them to critical colla- tion with each other—yet they knew well, especially in the second epoch of Champollion’s research, beginning with his arrival in Egypt, that other names, besides those of the so-called Osortasida, are found on contem- porary monuments. Unfortunately no one followed up this course. In England alone investigations were made into this the most remarkable of all chronological monuments, which has been the enigma of historical criticism. But the duty of a historian compels us to say that the scope of these investigations, although conducted by learned and estimable scholars, Mr. Cullimore in London, and Dr. Hincks in Dublin, seems to have been, rather, to get rid of a perplexing document, by moving the pre- vious question, than to extract information, or to seek the means of deciphering it. Mr. Cullimore admits indeed that the monument must be historical, but endeavours to show the probability of one portion of the series representing cotemporary rulers or cven Viceroys — and while he connects this indefinite idea with a very arbitrary arrangement of names in Itrato- sthenes and Manctho, thinks he can succeed in restoring the Tablet as well as that of Abydos.” Dr. Hincks struck out a shorter road. He denies all historical 45 J. Cullimore, Chronologia Hicroglyphica, read at the Royal Society of Literature in 1830, and printed in 1834 as an Appendix to the second part of the second volume of their Transactions — the Plates are at the end of this part. In consequence of a paper by the Rev. G. Tomlinson, now -Bishop of Gibraltar and Malta, on the Sarkophagus of king Nentef, which was read to that Society in 1885, the author attempted ἃ justification of his restoration, entitled “Of the Upper or Collateral Serics of Princes of the Hiero~ glyphic Tablets of Karnak and Abydos.” Trans. of the R.S. L. iii. 1, P. 181., &e.. printed in 1837. See Dr. Hincks’s Treatise on the Egyptian Stele, or Tablet (1842), quoted above. Ὁ 4 40 THE TABLET OF TUTHMOSIS, ᾿[Βοοκ I. authority to the monument, because the order of Rings in the Osortasid Dynasty is not the correct one. But he himself perceived on closer scrutiny of the monu- ments, that this point had been settled rather hastily, and even had his misgivings that they belong to the 13th Dynasty, and consequently to the Old Empire. But instead of following out this idea by further inves- tigation, he cuts away the road under his own feet, by discarding the Tablet which he did not understand, and by declaring the five series of Kings in Manetho, which are represented between the 12th and the so-called 18th Dynasty, to be spurious, or, what is still bolder, contemporary with the 12th. The plan which we propose in attempting to sound and test the value of this document is briefly as follows. Nothing but a complete study of the monuments, con- joined with a critical treatment, and application of the Lists, can, as appears to us, by possibility lead to its explanation. But the Lists as well as monuments give, instead of fewer, actually more Royal Rings between Menes and the 18th Dynasty, than these formidable sixty-one oblige us to adopt. The more natural ques- tion therefore seems to he, not whether these represent a series of Kings, but whether they give them complete and if not, what is the plan pursued? For the object of Tuthmosis may have been to represent the entire series of his predecessors on the throne, or rather those ‘alone who were more or less connected with him by blood, he being a Diospolitan King and a Prince of the 18th Dynasty. In either case he may have omitted ‘some Kings— perhaps whole Dynasties or parts of them. If ‘he were guided by near relationship, and direct lineal descent, he may have filled up the- series with Princes of the Royal Family, instead of the.-elder brothers or cousins only. This indeed seems clearly to be the case. For in the second row on the léft side, ϑεσι. I. Β.1.} OR KINGS OF KARNAK. ΑἹ the first two Rings, entitled Kings, are succeeded by six others, which, as far they are preserved, are not represented as Kings, but as Princes. The one whom they succeed however is King Pepi-Apappus-Phiops, the chief of the 6th Dynasty, as noticed for the sake of better distinction in our Table. It must therefore be considered probable, that those Princes represent a younger branch of that family. Following the succes- sion of Rings suggested by the natural order of .the Hieroglyphics, their ancestor Pepi is found in his proper place, before those whom we assume for the moment to be the younger branch. But the numbers which are attached to them show a deviation in both the lower lines from the natural arrangement by continuous numbers. My own conviction was from the first, in common with that of Lepsius, that the titles of the so-called Osortaside formed part of this series — and that— long before we became aware at Paris in 1838 (through the kindness of Champollion Figeac, who communicated to us the contents of his brother's post- humous papers) that he too had been led to the same conclusion. But the discovery, first made by Lepsius, in consequence of his restoration of the Turin Papyrus, that those so-called Osortaside represented the 12th Dynasty of Manctho, which begins with Amenemes [., solved the enigma. It now appeared that the two chiefs of this Royal race, commonly called Amenemhe I. and Qsortasen I., both stand directly in front of Tuthmosis, the King who is offering sacrifice, the former in the 8rd, the latter in the 4th row. The other Kings of this family are ranged behind Amenemhe I. as their chief. The fact of the tirst of the race being in this prominent position indicates an intentional distinction, which is fully explained by the monuments. It is sufficient here to establish that the Rulers of the 12th Dynasty are represented in this way ; and that 42 THE TABLET OF TUTHMOSIS, τ [Boor £ there is nothing unintelligible in that representation — nothing that ought to mislead us as to the principle of this historical arrangement. I have been fully convinced ever since my first restoration (in 1834) of the three Egyptian Empires, the middle one of which embraces the time of the Hyksos, that the 12th Dynasty of Manetho was the last complete one of the Old Empire, and that the throne of the Memphitic Pharaohs, according to the connection which that restoration enabled me to esta- blish between Manetho and Eratosthenes, passed with the 4th King of the 13th Dynasty over to the Shep- herd-Kings. From this it became probable that the Osortaside are the youngest of this series. Lepsius therefore concluded, that the Pharaohs of the time of the Hyksos are represented on the other, that is, the right side of the Tablet, many of the Rings of which likewise correspond with those in his collection of monuments. These views and discoveries form the basis of that restoration of the whole Tablet, which I made in the beginning of the year 1840, and which will be explained in the 2nd and 38rd Book. It represents exclusively my own historical researches and their results. In the 4th Book I shall give a synopsis of the whole Tablet, as thus completely restored. It was only necessary here to establish the data from which my researches have proceeded. If in so doing I have taken anything for granted which is to be proved hereafter, it is with no other object than that of enabling my readers to form a clear general idva of the bearings of the question. Mention has frequently been made of “ Royal Rings,” and “Royal Titles.” Of these, and of their gradual development a detailed description will be given in the be- ginning of the second Book, by way of introduction to our commentary on the Rings of the Old Empire. That Sect. I. Β.1.]} OR KINGS OF KARNAK. ~ 43 portion of the text has been preferred for this purpose, it being my intention in the last Section but one of this first Book, to place my readers in a position to read for themselves the Hieroglyphic signs to which the descrip- tion refers. It will therefore be sufficient to remind them that the Royal Rings of the Tablet of Karnak represent the so-called surnames, or, according to Lepsius, the Throne-names of the Pharaohs. They invariably begin, from the sixth Dynasty downwards, with the sun’s disk (ra). From this time forth the Proper, or Family name, as Rameses, Tuthmes, Psammetichus, is likewise regularly found on the monuments. These are the names by which the Pharaohs are distinguished in the Lists, and usually by the Historians. Itis clear therefore that the monuments supply the connecting link between the Royal Tablet and the Lists. On those of the ear- liest period one Royal Ring only is found— but from and after the 6th Dynasty the larger monuments invariably add by the side of that Royal Ring, the Family Ring containing the historical name, identical with that of the Lists. In conclusion we offer the interpretation of the names contained in these Kings according to the system estab- lished by Lepsius, for transcribing the I.gyptian letters into the Latin alphabet. The form here used is not the Coptic but the old Egyptian, which is likewise that of the Sacred language. Where, as far as we know, the vowel of the syllable is never expressed, an ¢ is used as the indefinite vocal sign, like the Hebrew Sheva. The hyphen (-) marks the beginning of a new word—the point indicates that the letter parted off does not belong to the root itself, but expresses an inflexion either pre- fixed or suffixed. THE SERIES OF KINGS OF ΚΜ! THE IT Bow (TO THS LAPT OF τὰ svruaya), τ SECOND ROW (00 THE RIGHT OP THE ENTRANCE), Ὶ | fe. «ἢ | | δ 11416.4. : 1 1 ἡ 4 [418 ο fede | ἢ μα, An | Ases Rae | a... δ. Be " de- | Ra | Ras ἀν ος ΠΡ | nef fa Ν hem Ἢ ‘ents panth+ hem shoyed) sha | ἐν a : Netty Sma || het | Chur | [Rae | shash | nefra | ed | ΕΙΣ ΠῚ ite. fi} hem (Re τ 2.) | = | ἐν ἐν Tuth ' mes | ι΄ | tet L kel] mes π' β ἘΠ area —~ 7 bt ΠΝ ind BML δ ἢ ala ἘΠ 1. tg. | ds |Nentel: Χμ: τὰ ἴω ὠς | Pepi | Mete} Rae) Rar ἢν Bae ἣν Rae | Ras | dee | tg ες μη (i ω (ἢ | (wth | (era nd (Mer en) se ἐν sad. SAU et eis shay ra) Horus ' (wt Ἢ Prac) Tet}, " ἐπ αι ας ΝΜ dept | a Dinu a _ 1 fa | a 0: [1 λέ " Teg sign hem,” which occurs 18 some ofthe royal names of th tle, Mb, τὶ reads herp,” theft (ofthat name), a : Pi ὦ a | Pri | | ie | | Ca aa a a re : | | | | Δ.) | 99(07 ny) 2(2) 14 ᾿ δ) ny WET! 1 y 19 δ ἢ 2 | | (Ofe| Bae | Ba] ὦ: ir Rae ‘Neate Ra! dee | dee | Ra» | Ra διὰ Re- " ie _ nubs | shroyed ye Ἢ ma. ti μὰ, hem | troy | ata Ϊ Chu | mens) τ | hem Th ΜΓ et) 1 ος {ἢ {Π{|| εἰ 4 εἴ ἢ ὦ {τι Ὁ. ΠῚ tl XI. mu aus ha. lua of ne ‘ | μὶ " 09 ἈΠ ; ΠΕ tara ἐπε | tg, δ) | S084) 298) | 28(22) | 27(21) 26(20) 61} ” 18)) 4 | 0) | uf 4 ys δα Nacht Xe t Dy Ro. ᾿ ἐν ay des | dee | dee) Rar δι: Ra | Ra |} ket enera | enera | enera ‘nubs er, neb> |nefrue| {alee atroye| soy ΠΝ." μη ΤῊ | ts | : te ke : dia | | Suct. I, B. II] THE TABLET OF RAMESSES. 45 Il. THE TABLET OF RAMESSES, OR SERIES OF KINGS OF ABYDOS. (Lepsius’s Records, Platé 11.) Ir thetwo series of Kings above examined have hitherto been turned to but little account for the purpose of historical inquiry, the monument of the Great Ramesses, the series of Kings of Abydos, of about 150 years later date, has on the other hand been adopted since the epoch of its discovery as the most authentic basis of Hiero- glyphical research, and the surest test of every attempt to restore the 18th and 19th Dynasties. It is remarkable that this discovery, for which we are indebted to Mr. W. Bankes, took place in 1818 —on the very eve of that of the Hieroglyphic alphabet. By the same gentleman the tablet was transcribed and a lithograph of its contents distri- buted among his friends; which was also published in 1825 ag the title-page of Mr. Salt’s essay. Unfortunately the..first drawing of the monument, that of Caillaud, whigh Champollion made the basis of his researches into the 18th and 19th Dynasties in 1822, was inaccurate. Still it is very important, as it confirms upon the whole that of Bankes, and presents the monument in a more complete shape than that in which it has ever existed since that period. Burton, Felix, and Wilkinson how- ever soon made correct fac-similes of it, which are now the more invaluable, as the monument itself has subse- quently been still further mutilated, especially by a por- tion of it having been cut off by the Greek, Papandriopulo, in the service of the french Consul-General Mimaut. Mimaut despatched the Tablet to Paris, where the Trus- tees of the British Museum bought it at public auction in 1887 for 5007. It now adorns that collection, an ap- propriate companion of the Rosetta stone. For as the latter forms the basis of the discovery of the Hiero- glyphics, so the former, after the series of Kings of Karnak, is the oldest authentic chronological record in the world. Rosellini made Wilkinson’s drawing the basis 4θ᾽ THE TABLET OF RAMESSES, [Boor I. of his commentaries, with a remark upon the inaccuracy of Caillaud’s.“6 By Lepsius the Tablet of Abydos was finally published, forthe first time, in complete perfection after the original. By this fac-simile the whole repre- sentation is at length made really intelligible, and not only has the termination of each side been ascertained, but also the supposition of a whole row of Kings having been lost from the top, fully disproved. Lepsius most fortu- nately found a clue for completing the lateral inscription opposite the King’s throne, which was much mutilated, and for interpreting the superscription which was en- tirely lost, as also the Hieroglyphics which connect the separate rows of Kings, on a monument, copied by Bur- ton from the Ramesseum.*’ Lepsius’s copy therefore is of decisive importance both for explaining the Tablet, and for restoring the entire Egyptian Chronology.* The series of Kings of Abydos is sculptured in fine limestone on the wall of a chamber, now destroyed, within the Temple-palace built or restored by Rameses in that primeval royal city. The lower part, comprising the legs, of ἃ Deity swathed in bandages is seated on a throne, holding with both hands a Kukufasceptre. Lepsius has restored this as Osiris, who may be here considered as the principal Lord of the West, and the Pluto of the Hades of the deceased Kings. He is looking towards a double row of Royal Rings, 26 in number, of so many Egyptian Kings, who are ‘represented seated under their Rings, swathed like Osiris, and wearing alternately the upper and lower portion of the Pschent, the sign of Lordship of Upper and Lower Egypt. Lepsius has restored the horizontal line of hieroglyphics, which was placed over their Rings as follows: A libation to the Lords of the West, by the offerings of (i.e. offered by) their son the King Rameses, in his abode.” (This _ 46 Mon. Stor. i. 149. &c. Compare iii. A. 13., &e. 47 Burton, Exc. Hierog., plate 56. Compare 87. | * In the following explanation of the Tablet I have availed myvelf of Mr, Birch’s suggestions. Secr. I. B. II.) OR KINGS OF ABYDOS. 47 inscription is directly connected with the vertical lines or columns underneath it, containing the names of the Kings.) The libation is offered “to” (indi- cated by the zigzag line of water) each King successively “ through ” or “ from the offerings ” (1. e. a dual offering because there are two names in each vertical line) “ of King Rameses.” Now, judging from the two Tablets at Karnak, where the same King is offering to the. Deities ‘‘Phtha” and ‘ Ra in all their names,” and where the Divinities are on the left, and the King with his. offerings on the right of the picture, the King Ra- meses must have been on the right of this Tablet when it was complete. The two perpendicular lines of hierogtyphics on the left, as restored by Lepsius from an analogous inscription, contain the speech of the Kings. They say: (Zhe speech of the Lords [L.]) of the West to their son the creator and avenger, the Lord of the World, the Sun who conquers in truth, we ourselves elevate our arms to receive thy offerings and all other good and pure things in thy palace, we are renewed and perpetuated in the paintings of thy house, we beg to approach at thy side with thee, to rule it like the Sotar gate of the heaven, where is the Sun for ever(?). Although therefore the votive inscription is entirely wanting above, and only the lower- most part of the two hieroglyphic columns before the King is preserved, both inscriptions nevertheless can be restored with such general accuracy, by means of the precisely similar one above referred to, as fully to estab- lish the fact that the Tablet terminates with the upper of these two rows of Royal Rings. It must appear strange no doubt, that the array of persons who are doing homage to the Great. King, in the two nearest compart- ments of the second row, begins with his own Rings. But the very same representations occur in the Temple sculptures, and especially in those of this identical King Ramesses, The earthly Sovereign is distinct from him who is one day to be enthroned under “ the Lords of the Lower World,” and therefore is sacrificing to him, 48 THE TABLET OF RAMESSES, [Βοοκ I. 4 as a God, just as he might have done, in the Persian Mythology, to his Ized, or, in the Etrusco-Roman, to his Genius. The King receives from him in return thanks and the divine blessing. A twofold repre- sentation of royalty both as an earthly and as a glorified king, seems also to occur on the sculptures of Perse- polis.4° Darius and Xerxes appear in the former capacity — Cyrus, the founder of the Empire, as Ized. Here however one and the same King is delineated in both characters. Four and twenty Rings of this row still remain, so that in the two we have altogether 50. It was remarked in very early times that these Throne-Rings, or sur- names, represented the ancestors of the Great Ramesses in historical order, ranging back from his immediate, to his more distant, predecessors. The family names cor- responding with each of the surnames or Throne-names immediately preceding, and by which the Rings are usually known in History, were sought for and found in numerous monuments familiar to the European public, as well as in the Royal Rings transmitted from Egypt. For, as has been already remarked in speaking of the Tablet of Karnak, both names are as a general rule found together. It was subsequently observed that the next eleven Rings, which precede those of Ramesses, reached as far back as Ahimes-Amos, the chief of the 18th, or, as others have preferred calling him, the last of the 17th Dynasty. These preceded several Rings of the so-called Osortaside— but the last nine in that row, that is, the most ancient, are entirely wanting. In the upper row, the oldest thirteen are likewise destroyed — but the other half of the series is more or less preserved. These names were unknown; but as the arrangement of them was identical with that of those which are known, we can have no hesitation in considering .them as his- torical. Were these, and those which are wanting, all 49 Ritter, Asia, viii. p. 78. Srct. I. B. Ile] © OR KINGS OF ABYDOS. 49 Kings, and, if so, of which Dynasties ? Were their an- cestors of the blood royal, and if so, of what race? In other words — does the Tablet represent a pedigree, or a series of reigning Kings, and is the series, in the one or the other case, continuous, or (which we cannot doubt after our previous conclusions) does it comprise merely a selection of Kings or Princes, although in chronologi- cal order? All these are questions, which have hitherto scarcely been so much as asked, still less has it ever been attempted to answer them, on the basis of a critical examination of the Monuments and Lists. No restora- tion of the Tablet was attempted, properly speaking, beyond the Rings of the so-called Osortasidsee. These too were supposed to be the immediate predecessors of the 18th Dynasty, and were called usually the 17th, sometimes also the 18th Dynasty; in both cases arbi- trarily, and, as we have already seen, beyond a doubt crroneously. The immediate result however deduced by Lepsius from his discovery that those Osortaside composed the whole of the 12th Dynasty, was the fact, that the Dynasties between the 12th and 18th are here omitted altogether. But this, according to the system of our restoration, means nothing more than that the Kings of the Hyksos period, represented on the Tablet of Karnak, find no place in that of Abydos. The subjoined synopsis gives a clear idea of this monument, to which we shall have so frequent occasion to refer in the following Books. We have annexed to the Kings of the 18th and 19th Dynasties the corresponding fumily names by which they are familiarly known, as tending to place in a more conspicuous light the impor- tance of the Tablet. They indicate at the same time the limits of the researches hitherto undertaken. The Rings of the so-called Osortasidx have also been marked according to their position in the 12th Dynasty, as a basis for collation with the Tablet of Tuthmisis. VO. 1. 50 THE ROYAL PAPYRUS. [Boox I. THE TABLET 26 2 224 #2 2 #42 2 19. 18 17 ' | S.nefru- Nefru: (Ra) | (Ra)! (Ra) S.nefru) Hor- | Ra- Ra- | Ra- ke- | ke ' Nefru- Nefru-| en-ke} ke | Mer- ‘Nefru- Tet- “Nefru- Annu ' Pepi: ke | ke- | ke- ke | ke | ‘Sneb; ... | Rerel. Chentu). Ma . Nebbi 52 51 ; 60 4.» 48 | 47 46 45 44 43 H ! Mia- Ra- | Ra- Ra-' Ra- | Ra- Ra- Ra- Ra- Ra- mun Seser-; ma= mes-. sere | nebe omen- πᾶσ mene na-cn- Ra- ma ' men sue teru ma teru teru ter ter mes- satep-: Satep= | Sha- su Ch-Ta ' en-ra | nefru- teru Ramesses (Sette Ra» (Mo- (Alme- (7uth- (Ame- (Tuth- (Tuth- IL. | Mene- messes, ris) i nophis mosis naphis | mosis mosis (the Great)