« PoprzedniaDalej »
2. — Pt. 3, vol. 2, p. 239, ed. Bekker). They had, in the second place, epic traditions, a kind of poetic chronicles, embracing the succession of high priests, and the dynasties of the Pharaohs, or monarchs of the country. Such were the volumes of papyrus, which the priests unrolled to satisfy the questions of Herodotus (2,100). We would err greatly, however, were we to suppose that these were actual histories. They were rather a species of heroic tales, intermingled with religious legends, and where allegory still played the chief part, as in the Ramayan and Mahabharat of the Hindus, the Schahnameh of the Persians, and the traditions of the Greeks previous to the return, or invasion, of the Heraclidae. These originals are unfortunately lost for us. In their stead we have the sacred books of the Hebrews, which offer a great number of recitals on this subject, but fragmentary in their nature, without development, and often extremely vague. Hence it is difficult to conciliate these recitals with those of the Greeks, which are in general more circumstantial and extended. Some time before Herodotus, Hippys of Rhegium and other travellers had visited Egypt. Among these Hecataeus of Miletus is the most conspicuous. He travelled thither about the 59th Olympiad, and described particularly the upper part of Egypt, bestowing especial attention on the state or city of Thebes, and the history of its kings. Hence the reason why Herodotus says so little on these points. (Creuzer, fragm. Hist. Graec. antiquussim., p. 16, seqq.—Schöll, Hist. Lit. Gr, 2, 135, seqq.) About the same period, Hellanicus of Lesbos also gave a description of Egypt. (Hellanic fragm., ed. Sturz., p. 39, seqq.) Herodotus succeeded. Visiting the country about seventy years after its conquest by the Persians, he traversed the whole extent, and consigned to his great work all that he had seen, all that he had heard from the priests, as well with regard to the monuments as the history of Egypt, and added to these his own opinions on what had passed under his view or been related to him by others. (Herod., lub. 2 et 3) The state or city of Memphis is the principal subject of his narrative. After him came Theopompus of Chios, Ephorus of Cumae (Fragm., ed. Marr, p. 213, seqq.), Eudoxus of Cnidus, and Philistus of Syracuse. But their works have either totally perished, or at best only a few fragments remain. At a later period, and subsequent to the founding of Alexandrea, Hecataeus of Abdera travelled to Thebes. This took place under the first Ptolemy. (Crcuzer, fragm., &c., p. 28, seqq.—Schöll, Hist. Lit. Gr., 3, 211, seqq.) In the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, two centuries and a half before the Christian era, Manetho, an Egyptian priest, of Heliopolis in Lower Egypt, wrote, by order of that prince, the history of his own country in the Greek language, translating it, as he states himself, out of the sacred records. His work is, most unfortunately, lost; but the fragments which have been preserved to us by the writings of Josephus, in the first century of the Christian era, as well as by the Christian chronographists, are, if entitled to confidence, of the highest historical value. What we have remaining of the work of Manetho presents us with a chronological list of the successive rulers of Egypt, from the first foundation of the monarchy to the time of Alexander of Macedon, who succeeded the Persians. This list is divided into thirty dynasties. It originally contained the length of reign as well as the name of every king; but, in consequence of successive transcriptions, variations have crept in, and some few omissions also occur in the record, as it has reached us through the medium of different authors. The chronology of Manetho, adopted with confidence by some, and rejected with equal confidence by others (his name and his information not being even noticed by some of the modern systematic writers on Egyptian
decisive testimony of his general fidelity by the interpretation of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the existing monuments; so much so, that, by the accordance of the facts attested by these monuments with the record of the historian, we have reason to expect the entire restoration of the annals of the Egyptian monarchy antecedent to the Persian conquest, and which, indeed, is already accomplished in part. (Quarterly Journal of Science, New Series, vol. 1, p. 180.) The next authority after Manetho is Eratosthenes. He was keeper of the Alexandrean library in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes, the successor to Ptolemy Philadelphus. Among the few fragments of his works which have reached us, transmitted through the Greek historians, is a catalogue of thirty-eight or thirty-nine kings of Thebes, commencing with Menes (who is mentioned by the other authorities also as the first monarch of Egypt), and occupying by their successive reigns 1055 years. (Foreign Quarterly, No. 24, p. 358.) These names are stated to have been compiled from original records existing at Thebes, which city Eratosthenes visited expressly to consult them. The names of the first two kings of the first dynasty of Manetho are the same with those of the first two kings in the catalogue of Eratosthenes; but the remainder of the catalogue presents no farther accordance, either in the names or in the duration of the reigns. Next to Herodotus, Manetho, and Eratosthenes, the most important authority, in relation to Egypt and its institutions, is Diodorus Siculus, who lived under Caesar and Augustus, and who, independent of his own observations and his researches on the spot, refers frequently, in this part of his work, to the old Greek historians, and particularly to Hecataeus of Miletus, after whom he describes the ancient kingdom of Thebes, and gives an account of the monuments of this famous city, with surprising fidelity. (Description de l'Egypte, 2, 59, seqq.—Compare Heyne, de %. Diod. Suc. in Comment. Soc. Gött., 5, 104, seqq.) Strabo, the celebrated geographer, visited Egypt in the suite of Ælius Gallus, about the commencement of our era. He does not content himself, however, with merely recounting what fell under his own personal observation, but frequently refers to the earlier writers. Plutarch, in many of his biographies, and especially in his treatise on Isis and Osiris; Philostratus, in his life of Apollonius; Porphyry, Iamblichus, Horapollo, and many other writers, have preserved for us a large number of interesting particulars relative to the antiquities and the religion of Egypt.—We have already alluded to the quarter whence the germe of Egyptian civilization is supposed to have been derived. The first impression having been one of a sacerdotal character, we find the beginnings of Egyptian history partaking, in consequence, of the same. Hence the tradition, emanating from the priests of Egypt, according to which the supreme deities first reigned over the country; then those of the second class; after these the inferior deities; then the demigods; and, last of all, men. The first deity that reigned was Kneph : this embraces the most ancient period, of an unknown duration. To Kneph succeeded Phtha, who has for his element, fire, and whose reign it is impossible to calculate. Next came the Sun, his offspring, who reigned thirty thousand years. After him, Cronos (Saturn) and the other gods occupy, by their respective rules, a period of i. thousand nine hundred and eighty-four years. Then succeeded the Cabiri, or planetary gods of tho second class. After these came the demigods, to the number of eight, of whom Osiris was probably regarded as the first. After the gods and demigods appeared human kings and the first dynasty of Thebes, composed of thirty-seven kings, who succeeded one another for the space of fourteen hundred years, or, according to others, one thousand and fifty-five. (Compare Chron.
ap. Syncell.) Görres thinks that these thirty-seven kings, who are given as so many mortals, may have been nothing else but the thirty-seven Decans, with Menes at their head; so that, by rejecting this dynasty as a continuation of the divine dynasties, those of a strictly human nature, and, with them, the historical times of Egypt, will have commenced, according to the calculations of this ingenious and profound writer, 2712 years before the Christian era. (Görres, Mythengeschichte, vol. 2, p. 412. — Compare Creuzer, Symbolik, 1,469, seqq., and Guigniaut's note, 1, 2, 841.) Be this, however, as it may, the common account makes Menes to have been the first human king of Egypt, and his name begins the dynasties of Thebes, of This, and of Memphis. Menes completed the work of the gods, by perfecting the arts of life, and dictating to men the laws he had received from the skies. This Menes, or Menas, or Mines (a name which Eratosthenes makes equivalent to Dionios, i.e., Jorialis), can hardly be an historical personage. He resembles a sort of intermediate king between the gods and the human kings of the lands, a divine type of man, a symbol of intelligence descended from the skies, and creating human society upon earth; similar to the Menow or Manou of India, the Minos of Crete, &c. He is a conqueror, a legislator, and a benefactor of men, like Osiris-Bacchus; like him he perishes under the blows of Typhon, for he was killed by a hippopotamus, the emblem of this evil genius; like him, moreover, he has the ox for his symbol, Mnevis the legislator being none other than the bull Mnevis of Heliopolis. (Compare Volney, Recherches sur l’Hist. Anc., 3, 282, seqq. — Prichard's Analysis of Egyptian Mythology, p. 381. — Creuzer's Symbolik, par Guignaut, 1, 2,780.) The successor of Menes was Thoth, or Athothes, to whom is ascribed the invention of writing and many other useful arts. We have in the fragments of Manetho a full list of two dynasties seated at This, at the head of the first of which we find these two names. These two dynasties include fifteen kings, and may therefore have continued about 400 years; the duration assigned to their collective reigns, in Eusebius's version of Manetho, is 554 years, but this is probably too long, as it is a sum that far exceeds what would be the result of a similar series of generations of the usual length. From the time of Menes to that of Moeris, Herodotus leaves us cntirely in the dark. He states merely (2,100) that the priests enumerated between them 330 kings. Diodorus Siculus (1,45) counts, in an interval of 1400 years between Menes and Busiris, eight kings, seven of whom are nameless, but the last was Busiris II. This prince is succeeded by eight descendants, six of whom are in like manner nameless, and the seventh and eighth are both called Uchoreus. From tichoreus to Moeris he reckons twelve generations. Manetho, on the other hand, reckons between Menes and the time at which we may consider his history as becoming authentic, sixteen dynasties, which includes nearly three thousand years. But, whatever opinion we may form relative to these obscure and conflicting statements, whether we regard these carly dynasties as collateral and contemporary reigns (Crcuzer's Symbolik, par Guigniaut, 1, 2, 780), or as belonging merely to the fabulous periods of Egyptian history, the following p. may be regarded as tolerably authentic. Egypt, during this interval, had undergone numerous revolutions. She had detached herself from Ethiopia; the government, wrested from the priestly caste, had passed into the hands of the military order; Thebes, now become powerful in resources, and asserting her independence, had commenced, under a line probably of native princes, her career of conquests and brilliant undertakings. On a sudden, in the time of a king called, by Manetho, Timaos, but who does not appear among the names in his list of
dynasties, a race of strangers entered from the cast into Egypt. (Josephus contra Ap., 1, 14.—Compara Eusebius, Prap. Er., 10, 13.) Everything yielded to these fierce invaders, who, having taken Memphis, and fortified Avaris (or Abaris), afterward Pelusium, organized a species of government, gave themselves kings, and, if we believe certain traditions, founded On (the city of the Sun; Heliopolis), to the east of the apex of the Delta. (Juba, cited by Pliny, 6, 34. Compare Volney, Recherches sur l’Hist. Anc., 3, 247, seqq. — Prichard's Analysis of Egyptian Mythology, p. 66, Append. — Creuzer, Commentat. Herodot., p. 188, seqq.) More than two centuries passed under the dominion of this race. They are commonly called the shepherd race, and their dynasty that of the #. or Shepherd-kings. The sway of these invaders is said by Manetho to have been tyrannical and cruel. They exercised the utmost atrocity towards the native inhabitants, putting the males to the sword, and reducing their wives and children to slavery. The conquest of Egypt by the Shepherds, as they are called, dates in the year 2082 B.C. Their dynasty continued to rule at Memphis 260 years, and their kings, six in number, were Salatis, Boeon, Apachnas, Apophis, Janias, and Asseth. It was during the rule of the shepherd race that Joseph was in Egypt. Thus we have it at once explained how strangers, of whom the Egyptians were so jealous, should be admitted into power; how the king should be even glad of new settlers, occupying considerable tracts of his territory; and how the circumstance of their being shepherds, though odious to the conquered people, would endear them to a sovereign whose family followed the same occupation. After the death of Joseph, the Scripture tells us that a king arose who knew not Joseph. This strong expression could hardly be applied to any lineal successor of a monarch who had received such signal benefits from him. It would lead us rather to suppose, that a new dynasty, hostile to the preceding, had obtainca possession of the throne. Now this is exactly the case. For a few years later, the Hycsos, or Shepherdkings, were expelled from Egypt by Amosis, called on monuments Amenophtiph, i. sounder of the eighteenth, or Diospolitan dynasty. He would naturally refuse to recognise the services of Joseph, and would consider all his family as necessarily his enemies: and thus, too, we understand his fears lest they should join the enemies of Egypt, if any war sell out with them. (Erod., 1, 10.) For the Hyesos, after their expulsion, continued long to harass the Egyptians by attempts to recover their lost dominion. (Rosellini, p. 291.) Oppression was, cf course, the means employed to weaken first, and then extinguish, the Hebrew population. The children of Israel were employed in building up the cities of Egypt. It has been observed by Champollion, that many of the edifices erected by the eighteenth dynasty are upon the ruins of older buildings, which had been manifestly destroyed. (2de Lett., p. 7, 10, 17.) This circumstance, with the absence of older monuments in the parts of Egypt occupied by the Hycsos, confirms the testimony of historians, that these conquerors destroyed the monuments of native princes; and thus was an opportunity given to the restorers of a native sovercignty to employ those whom they considered their encmies' allies in repairing their injuries. To this pe. riod belong the magnificent edifices of Karrac, Luxor, and Medinet-Abou. At the same time we have thc express testimony of Diodorus Siculus, that it was the boast of the Egyptian kings that no Egyptian had put his hard to the wo:k, but that foreigners lad been compelled to do it (1, 56). With regard to the opinion entertained by many learned men, that the children of Israel were themselves the shepherd race, it may be sufficient to remark, that the #. as represented on monuments, have the features, colour, and other distinctives, not of the Jewish, but of the Scythian tribes. It was under a king of the eighteenth dynasty that the Israelites went out from Egypt, namely, Ramses V., the 16th monarch of the line. We have here, in this eighteenth dynasty, the commencement of what may be properly termed the second period of Egyptian history. #. names of the monarchs are given as follows by the aid of Champollion's discoveries: 1. Thoutmosis I., of whom there is a colossal statue in the museum at Turin. 2. Thoutmosis II. (AmonMai), whose name appears on the most ancient parts of the palace of Karnac. 3. His daughter Amensi, who governed Egypt for the space of twenty-one years, and erected the greatest of the obelisks of Karnac. This vast monolith is erected in her name to the god Ammon, and the memory of her father. 4. Thoutmosis III., surnamed Meri, the Moerus of the Greeks. The remaining monuments of his reign are the pilaster and granite halls of Karnac, several temples in Nubia, the great Sphinx of the Pyramids, and the colossal obelisk now in front of the church of St. John Lateran at Rome. 5. His successor was Amenophis I., who was succeeded by, 6. Thoutmosis IV. This king finished the temples of the Wady Alfa and Arnada, in Nubia, which Amenoph had begun. 7. Amenophis II., whose vocal statue, of colossal size, attracted the notice of the Greeks and Romans. (Vid. Memnon and Memnonium.) The most ancient parts of the palace at Luxor, the temple of Cnouphis at Elephantine, the Memnonium, and a palace at Sohled, in Nubia, are monuments of the splendour and piety of this monarch. 8. Horus, who built the grand colonnade of the palace at Luxor. 9. Queen Amenchcres, or Tinau-Mot, commemorated in an inscription preserved in the museum at Turin. 10. Ramses I., who built the hypostyle hall at Karnac, and excavated a sepulchre for himself at Beban-el-Moulouk. l l and 12. Two brothers Mandoueli and Ousire. They have left monuments of their existence, the last in the grand obelisk now in the Piazza del Popolo at Rome; the first in the beautiful palace at Kourna, and the splendid tomb discovered by Belzoni. 13. Their successor caused the two great obelisks at Luxor to be erected. This was the second Ramses. 14. Ramses III. Of this king dedicatory inscriptions are found in the second court of the palace of Karnac, and his tomb still exists at Thebes. 15. Ramses IV., surnamed Met-Amoun, built the great palace of Medinet-Abou, and a temple near the southern gate of Karnac. The magnificent sarcophagus which formerly enclosed the body of this king, has been removed from the catacombs of Bebanel-Moulouk, and is now in the Museum of the Louvre. He was succeeded by his son, 16. Ramses W., surnamed Amenophis, who is considered as the last of this dynasty, and who was the father of Sesostris. The acts so. of the kings of this dynasty are commemorated by the Greek historians, with the exception of Moeris. He is celebrated by them for a variety of useful labours, and appears to have done much to promote the prosperity of Egypt, particularly by forming a lake to receive the surplus waters of the Nile during the inundation, and to distribute them for agricultural purposes during its fall. (Wid. Moeris.) The reign of Ramses Amenophis is the cra of the Exodus. The Scripture narrative describes this event as connected with the destruction of a Pharaoh, and the chronological calculation adopted by Roseliini would make it coincide with the last year of this monarch's reign. Wilkinson and Greppo, however, maintain that we need not necessarily suppose the death of a king to coincide with the exit from Egypt, as the Scripture speaks, with the exception of one poetical passage, of the destruction of Pharaoh's host rather than of the monarch's own death. But in Rosellini's scheme, this departure from the received interpretation is not wanted. Wilkinson makes the exodus to have taken place
in the fourth year of the reign of Thothmes III. (Mat. Hierog, p. 4.—Manners and Customs, &c., vol. 1, p. 54.) Wast, however, as was the glory of this line of kings, it was eclipsed by the greater reputation of the chief of the next, or nineteenth dynasty, Ramses VI., the famed Sesostris (called also Sesoosis or Sethos, and likewise AEgyptus, or Ramcsses the Great.—Compare Champollion, Syst. Hierogl., p. 224, seqq.) Sesostris regenerated, in some sense, his country and nation, by chasing from it the last remnant of the stranger-races which had dwelt within the borders of Egypt, by giving to the Egyptian territory certain fixed limits, by §. it into nomes, and by giving a powerful impulse to arts, to commerce, and to the spirit of conquest. One may see in Herodotus and Diodorus what a strong remembrance his various exploits in Africa, Asia, and perhaps even Europe, had left behind them. His labours in Egypt are attested by numerous monuments, not only from the Mediterranean to Syene, but far beyond, in Ethiopia, which at this time probably formed a portion of E gypt. (Champollion, Syst. Hierogl., p. 239, 391.) The result of his military expeditions was to enrich his country with the treasures of Ethiopia, Arabia Felix, and India, and to establish a communication with the countries of the East by means of fleets which he equipped on the Red Sea. That the history of his conquests has been exaggerated by the priests of Egypt, whose interests he savoured, cannot be denied. #. apparent is it that his history bears some resemblance to the legends of Osiris. These assimilations, however, of their heroes to their ods, were familiar to the priests of the land. (Wid. Sesostris.) This nineteenth dynasty, at the head of which stands Sesostris, consisted of six kings, all of whom bear, upon monuments, the name of Ramses, with various distinguishing epithets. The last of these is supposed to have been contemporary with the Trojan war, and to be the one called Polybus by Homer. The twentieth dynasty of Manetho also took its title from Thebes. Their names may still be read upon the temples of Egypt; but the extracts from Manetho do not give their epithets. In the failure of his testimony, Champollion Figeac has had recourse to the list given by Syncellus. The chief of this dynasty is celebrated, under the name of Remphis, or Rempsinitus, for his great riches. Herodotus gives him, for his successor, Cheops, the builder of the largest of the Pyramids. The same authority places Cephrenes, the builder of the second Pyramid, next in order; and, after him, Mycerinus, for whom is claimed the erection of the third Pyramid. The researches of the two Champollions have not discovered any confirmation of this statement of the father of profane history. The next dynasty, the twenty-first of Manetho, derived its name from Tanis, a city of Lower Egypt. It was composed of seven kings, the first of whom was the Mendes of the Greek historians, the Smendis of Manetho, whose name Champollion reads upon the monument of his reign, Mandoutheph. He was the builder of the fabric known in antiquity by the name of the labyrinth. . The other kings of this family are also commemorated. The account which has reached us of the building of the labyrinth throws great light upon the state of the overnment of Egypt during the reign of Mendes and is successors. It was divided into as many separate compartments as there were nomes in Egypt, and in the:n, at fixed periods, assembled deputations, from each of these districts, to decide upon the most important questions. Hence we may infer, that, in the change of dynasty, the Egyptians had succeeded in the establishment of a limited monarchy, controlled like the con. stitutional governments of Europe, if not by the immediate representatives of the people, at least by the expression of the opinion of the notables. The ruins of Bubastis, in turn, present memorials of the reigns
of the Bubastite kings. (Bulletin des Sciences Hist.
7,472.) These succeeded the first dynasty of Tanites; and we find Egypt again immediately connected with Judea, and its history with that of the Scriptures. Sesonchis, the head of this dynasty, was the conqueror of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and the plunderer of the treasures of David. This king, the Sesak of the second Book of Kings, built the great temple of Bubastis, which is described by Herodotus, and likewise the first court of the palace of Karnac at Thebes. His son Osorchon (Zoroch), who also led an army into Syria, continued the important works commenced by his father. But their successor Takelliothis is only known to us by a simple funereal picture, consecrated to the memory of one of his sons. This painting has been broken, and one half is preserved in the Vatican, while the other forms a part of the royal collection at Turin. Various buildings are found among the ruins of Heliopolis, and still more among those of Tanis, constructed in the reigns of the Pharaohs of the second Tanite dynasty. (Bulletin des Sciences Hist., 7,472.) Upon these the names of three of them have been deciphered, Petubastes, Osorthos, and Psammos. Champollion considers them as having immediately preceded the great Ethiopian invasion, which gave to Egypt a race of kings from that country. Manetho, however, places Bocchoris between these two races, forming his twenty-fourth dynasty of one Saite. The yoke of these foreign conquerors does not appear to have been oppressive, as is evident from the number of monuments that exist, not only in Ethiopia, but in Egypt, bearing dedications made in the name of the kings of this race, who ruled at the same time in both eountries. The names inscribed on these monuments are Schabak, Screkotheph, Tahrak, and Amenasa, all of whom are mentioned either by Greek or sacred historians, under the names of Sabacon, Screchus, Tharaca, and Ammeris. (Bulletin des Scuences Hist., ubi supra.) No more than three of these kings are mentioned in the list of Manetho as belonging to this dynasty, the last being included in that which follows. On the departure of the Ethiopians, the affairs of Egypt appear to have fallen into great disorder. This civil discord was at last composed by Psammiticus I. Memorials of his reign are found in the obelisk now on Monte Litorio at Rome, and in the enormous columns of the first court of the palace of Karnac at Thebes. (Bulletin des Sciences Hist., vol. 7, p. 471.) The rule of Nechao II. is commemorated by several stelae and statues. It was this monarch that took Jerusalem, and carried King Jehoahaz into captivity. On the isle of Philae are found buildings bearing the legend of Psammiticus II., as well as of Apries (the Hophra of Scripture). An obelisk of his reign also exists at Rome. The greater part of the fragments of sculpture, scattered among the ruins of Sais, bear the royal legend of the celebrated Amasis, and a monolith chapel of rose
anite, dedicated by him to the Egyptian Minerva, is in the museum of the Louvre. Psammenitus was the last of this dynasty of Saites. Few tokens of his short reign are extant, besides the inscription of a statue in the Vatican. He was defeated and dethroned by Cambyses: nor did he long survive his misfortune. With him fell the splendour of the kingdom of Egypt; and from this date (525 B.C.), the edifices and monuments assume a character of far less importance. Still, however, we find materials for history. Even the ferocious Cambyses is commemorated in an inscription on the statue of a priest of Sais, now in the Vatican. The name of Darius is sculptured on the columns of the great temple of the Oasis; and in Egypt we still read inscriptions dated in different years of the reigns of Xerres and Artaxerres. (Bulletin des Sciences Hist, 7, 471.) During the reigns of the last three kings, a constant struggle was kept up by the Egyptians for their independence. The Persian yoke was for a moment shaken off by Amyrtaeus and Nephere'ss. Two
Sphinges in the Louvre bear the legend of Nephereus and his successor Achorus, who are also commemorated by the sculptures of the temple of Eilithyia. In the institute of Bologna there is a statue of the Mendesian Nepherites; and the names of the two Nectanebi, who succeeded him in the conduct of this national war, are still extant on several buildings of the isle of Phila, and at Karnac, Kourma, and Saft. Darius Ochus, in spite of the valiant resistance of these last kings, again reduced Egypt to the condition of a Persian province; but his name is nowhere to be found among the re. mains yet discovered in Egypt. Thus, then, the researches of Champollion have brought to our view an almost complete succession of the kings of Egypt, from the invasion of the Hyesos to the final conquest by the Persians, whose empire fell to Alexander in 332 B.C. It tallies throughout, in a remarkable manner, with the remains of the historian Manetho; and, by the aid of his series of dynastics, the gaps still left by hieroglyphic discoveries may be legitimately filled up. Before the former era all is dark and obscure; in the next part we have little but a list of names; but, from the reign of Psammiticus I., ample materials exist in the histories of Herodotus and Diodorus; and from the reign of Darius Ochus, the annals of Egypt become incorporated with those of Greece. Any farther reference, therefore, to the history of Egypt becomes superfluous in this place. (Wid. Ptolematus.) With regard, however, to the discoveries of Champollion, the following interesting particulars may be stated. Philip Aridaus, the brother of Alexander, is commemorated at Karmac, and on the columns of the temple at Aschmeuneim. The name of the other Alexander, the son of the conqueror by Roxana, is engraved on the granite propylaea at Elephantine. Ptolemy Soter, and his son Ptolemy Philadelphus, have left the remembrance of their prosperous reigns in various important works. Euergeies I. not only ruled over Egypt, but rendered his name celebrated by his military expeditions, both in Africa and Asia. His titles are, therefore, not only inscribed on the edifices constructed during his reign in Egypt, but are to be met with in Nubia, particularly on the temple of Dakkhé; and the basso relucros, on a triumphal gate constructed by him at Thebes, may be admired even among the ancient relics of the magnificence of the eighteenth dynasty. The temple of Antaeopolis dates from the reign of Ptolemy Philopator and Arsinoë his wife. In his reign, too, the ancient palaces of Karnac and Luxor, at Thebes, were repaired. Ptolemy Epiphanes, and his wife Cleopatra of Syria, dedicated one of the many temples of Phila, as well as the temple of Edfou. Of the Roman emperors we find inscribed in hieroglyphics the names and titles of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasun, Titus, Domituan, Nerra, Trajan, Adrian, oft. cus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus. This last name is to be read four times among the inscriptions of the temple of Esmé ; which, before this discovery, was considered to have been erected in an age far more remote than is reached by any of our histories. So far from this, it is, in truth, with but one exception, the most modern of all the edifices yet discovered in the Egyptian style of architecture. Thus, then, as far down as the year 180 of our present era, the ...] of the ancient Egyptian deities was so exercised, and preserved all its external splendour; for the temples of Dendera, Esné, and others constructed under the Roman rule, are, for size and labour, if not for their style of art, well worthy of the ages of Egyptian independence. Previous to these discoveries, it had become a matter of almost universal belief, that the arts, the writing, and even the ancient religion of Egypt, had ceased to be used from the time of the Persian conquest. (American Quarterly Rev. No. 7, p. 34, seqq. –Quarterly Journal of Science, &c., New Series, 1, 183, seqq.)
9. Egyptian Writing.
sn writing their language, the ancient Egyptians employed three different kinds of characters. First: figurature; or representations of the objects themselves. Secondly : symbolic; or representations of certain physical or material objects, expressing metaphorically, or conventionally, certain ideas; such as, a people obedient to their king, figured, metaphorically, by a bee; the universe, conventionally, by a beetle. Thirdly : phonetic, or representative of sounds, that is to say, strictly alphabetical characters. The phonetic signs were also portraits of physical and material objects; and each stood for the initial sound of the word in the Egyptian language which expressed the object portrayed: thus a lion was the sound L, because a lion was called Labo; and a hand a T, because a hand was called Tot. The form in which these objects were presented, when employed as phonetic characters, was conventional and definite, to distinguish them from the same objects used either figuratively or symbolically. Thus, the conventional form of the phonetic T was the hand open and outstretched. any other form the hand would be either a figurative or a symbolic sign. The number of distinct characters employed as phonetic signs appears to have been about 120; consequently, many were homophones, or having the same signification. The three kinds of characters were used indiscriminately in the same writing, and occasionally in the composition of the same word. The formal Egyptian writing, therefore, such as we see it still existing on the monuments of the country, was a series of portraits of physical and material objects, of which a small proportion had a symbolical meaning, a still smaller proportion a figurative meaning, but the great body were phonetic or alphabetical signs: and to these portraits, sculptured or painted with sufficient fidelity to leave no doubt of the object represented, the name of hieroglyphics or sacred characters has been attached from their earliest historic notice. The manuscripts of the same ancient period make us acquainted with two other forms of writing practised by the ancient Egyptians, both apparently distinct from the hieroglyphic, but which, on careful examination, are found to be its immediate derivatives; every hieroglyphic having its corresponding sign in the hieratic, or writing of the priests, in which the funeral rituals, forming a large portion of the manuscripts, are principally composed ; and in the demotic, called also the enchorial, which was employed for all more ordinary and popular usages. The characters of the hieratic are, for the most part, obvious running imitations or abridgments of the corresponding hieroglyphics; but in the demotic, which is still farther removed from the original type, the derivation is less frequently and less obviously traceable. In the hieratic, fewer figurative or symbolic signs are employed than in the hieroglyphic; their absence being supplied by means of the phonetic or alphabetical characters, the words being spelt instead of figured ; and this is still more the case in the demotic, which is, in consequence, almost entirely alphabetical. After the conversion of the Egyptians to Christianity, the ancient mode of writing their language fell into disuse; and an alphabet was adopted in substitution, consisting of the twenty-five Greek letters, with six additional signs expressing articulations and aspirations unknown to the Greeks, the characters for which were retained from the demotic. This is the Coptic alphabet, in which the Egyptian appears as a written language in the Coptic books and manuscripts preserved in our libraries; and in which, consequently, the language of the inscriptions on the monuments may be studied. The original mode in which the language was written having thus fallen into disuse, it happened at length that the signification of the characters, and even the nature of the system of
writing which they formed, became enrirely lost, such notices of the subject as existed in the early historians being either too imperfect, or appearing too vague, to furnish a clew, although frequently and carefully studied for this purpose. The repossession of this knowledge will form, in literary history, one of the most remarkable distinctions, if not the principal one, of the age in which we live. It is due primarily to the discovery by the French, during their possession of Egypt, of the since well-known monument, called the Rosetta Stone, which, on their defeat and expulsion by the British troops, remained in the hands of the victors, was conveyed to England, and deposited in the British Museum. On this monument the same inscription is repeated in the Greek and in the Egyptian language, being written in the latter both in hieroglyphics and in the 'i. or enchorial character. The words Ptolemy and Cleopatra, written in hieroglyphics, and recognised by means of the corresponding Greek of the Rosetta inscription, and by a Greek inscription on the base of an obelisk at Phila’, gave the phonetic characters of the letters which form those words: by their means the names were discovered, in hieroglyphic writing, on the monuments of all the Grecian kings and Grecian queens of Egypt, and by the comparison of these names one with another, the value of all the pho
netic characters was finally ascertained. The first step
in this great discovery was made by a distinguished scholar of England, the late Dr. Young; the key found by him has been greatly improved, and applied with indefatigable perseverance, ingenuity, and skill to the monuments of Egypt, by the celebrated Champollion. (Quarterly Journal of Science, &c., New Series, vol. 1, p. 176, seqq.—Compare Edinburgh Revueur, Nos 89 and 90.—American Quarterly Review, No. 2, p. 438, seqq.—Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 8, p. 438, seqq., and the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 4, pt. 1, s. v. Egypt.—Wiseman's Lectures, p. 255, seqq.)
10. Animal Worship.
There was no single feature in the character and customs of the ancient Egyptians which appeared to foreigners so strange and portentous as the religious worship paid to animals. The pompous processions and grotesque ceremonies of this celebrated people excited the admiration of all spectators, and their admiration was turned into ridicule on beholding the object of their devotions. It was remarked by Clemens
(Padag., lib. 3) and Origen (adv. Cels., 3, p. 121), that
those who visited Egypt approached with delight its sacred groves, and splendid temples, adorned with superb vestibules and lofty porticoes, the scenes of many solemn and mysterious rites. “The walls,” says Clemens, “shine with gold and silver, and with amber, and sparkle with the various gems of India and Ethiopia; and the recesses are concealed by splendid curtains. But if you enter the penetralia, and inquire for the image of the god for whose sake the fane was built, one of the Pastophori, or some other attendant on the temple, approaches with a solemn and mysterious aspect, and, putting aside the veil, suffers you to peep in and obtain a glimpse of the divinity. There you behold a snake, a crocodile, or a cat, or some other beasta fitter inhabitant of a cavern or a bog than a temple.” The devotion with which their sacred animals were regarded by the Egyptians, displayed itself in the most whimsical absurdities. It was a capital crime to ki' any of them voluntarily (Herod., 2,65); but if an ibis or a hawk were accidentally destroyed, the unfortunate author of the deed was often put to death by the multitude, without form of law. In order to avoid suspicion of such an impious act, and the speedy fate which often ensued, a man who chanced to meet with the carcass of such a bird began immediately to wail and lament with the utmost vociferation, and to protest