« PoprzedniaDalej »
makes mention of the resemblance which the Copts bear to the human figures painted or sculptured among the ruins of ancient Egypt. He adds the following remarks. “As to the character of the human figure, as the Egyptians borrowed nothing from other nations, they could only copy from their own, which is rather delicate than fine. The female forms, however, resembled the figures of beautiful women of the present day; round and voluptuous; a small nose, the eyes long, half shut, and turned up at the outer angle like those of all persons whose sight is habitually fatigued by the burning heat of the sun or the dazzling whiteness of snow ; the cheeks round and rather thick, the lips full, the mouth large, but cheerful and smiling ; displaying, in short, the African character, of which the negro is the exaggerated picture, though perhaps the original type.” The visages carved and painted on the heads of the sarcophagi may be supposed to give an idea of an Egyptian countenance. In these there is a certain roundness and flatness of the features, and the whole countenance, which strongly resembles the description of the Copts, and in some degree that of the Berberins. The colour of these visages is the red coppery hue of the last-mentioned people, and is nearly the same, though not always so dark, as that of the figures painted in the temples and catacombs. The most puzzling circumstance in this comparison refers to the hair. The Copts are said to have frizzled or somewhat crisp, though not woolly, hair. The old Egyptians, as well as the Ethiopians, are termed by the Greeks oižórptrec. But the hair found in mummies is generally, if not always, in flowing ringlets, as long and as smooth as that of any European. Its colour, which is often brown, may depend on art, or the substance used in embalming. But the texture is different from what we should expect it to be, either from the statements of ancient writers, or from the description of the races now existing in the same countries.—Conclusion. From what has been addueed, we may consider it as tolerably well proved, that the Egyptians and Ethiopians were nations of the same race, whose abode, from the earliest periods of history, were the regions bordering on the Nile. These nations were not negroes, such as the negroes of Guinea, though they bore some resemblance to that description of men, at least when compared with the people of Europe. This resemblance, however, did not extend to the shape of the scull, in any f. degree at least, or in the majority of instances. t perhaps only depended on a complexion and physiognomy similar to those of the Copts and Nubians. These races partake, in a certain degree, of the Asrican countenance. The hair in the Ethiopians and Egyptians must sometimes have been of a more crisp or bushy kind than that which is often found in mummies; for such is the case in respect to the Copts, and the description of the Egyptians by all ancient writers obliges us to adopt this conclusion. In complexion it seems probable that this race was a counterpart of the Foulahs, in the west of Africa, nearly in the same latitude. The blacker Foulahs resemble in complexion the darkest people of the Nile; they are of a deep brown or mahogany colour. The fairest of the Foulahs are not darker than the Copts, or even than some Europeans. . Other instances of as great a variety may be found among the African nations, within the limits of one race, as in the Bishuane Kaffers, who are of a clear brown colour, while the Kaffers of Natal on the coast are of a jet black. From some remarks of Diodorus and Plutarch, it would appear that the birth of fair, and even red-haired individuals, occasionally happened in the Egyptian race. Both these writers say, that Typhon was Tvåjoc, or red-haired ; the former adds that a few of the native Egyptians were of that appearance : 37tyov, twäç. (Diod. Sic. 1, 88.-Plut. de Is. et Os., p. 363.−
Prichard's Physical History of Mankind, 1,316, seqq., 2d ed.) 7. Origin of Egyptian Civilization.
The question that now presents itself is one of a singularly interesting character. Whence arose the arts and civilization of Egypt? Were they indigenous, or did they come to her as the gift of another land 1 Everything seems to countenance the idea that civilization came gradually down the valley of the Nile, from the borders of Ethiopia to the shores of the Mediterranean. It would appear, that when the arts of civilized life were first introduced into Upper Egypt, the lower section of the country formed merely a vast morass or gulf of the sea, and that they followed in their progressive developement the course of the stream. (Compare Herodotus, 2, 4.—Id, ibid. 5.—Id, ibid. 11, seqq.—Diod. Sic. 1, 34;-and the memoirs of Girard, Andréossy, &c., in the Description de l'Egypte. Compare also the remarks in the present volume under the article Delta.) Monuments, tradition, analogies of every kind, are here in accordance with natural probabilities. There was a period when the names of Ethiopia and Egypt were confounded together, when the two nations were thought to form but a single people. (Compare the proofs of this assertion, as collected and discussed by Creuzer, Commentat. Herodot., p. 178, seqq., in opposition to Champollion the younger; and also the remarks in the present volume, under the articles AEthiopia and Meroë.) In all the recitals and legends of the earliest antiquity, the Egyptians are associated with the Ethiopians, and to the latter is assigned a distinguished character for wisdom, knowledge, and piety, which testifies to their priority in the order of civilization. (Compare Heeren, Ideen, 2, 1, 314, 405, &c.) We see also the common traditions of the two nations referring to Meroë the origin of most of the cities of Upper Egypt, and, among others, of Thebes. It is to Meroë, its ancient metropolis, that Thebes attaches itself, when, for the purpose of extending their commercial interests, they send a colony to found, in the midst of the deserts, a new city of Ammon. (Herod. 2, 42.-Diod. Sic. 2, 3.) The same institutions, a similar religion, language, and mode of writing, together with manners most strongly resembling one another, attest the primitive connexion that subsisted between these three sacred cities, though so widely apart. It appears, then, that a sacred caste, established from a remote period on the borders of the Nile, in the island, or, rather, peninsula formed by the Astapus and Astaboras, sent forth gradually its sacerdotal colonies, carrying with them agriculture and the first arts of civilized life, along the regions to the north, and that these, proceeding slowly onward, passed eventually the cataract of Syene, and entered upon the valley of Egypt. Placing commerce under the safeguard of religion, and subjugating the inhabitants of the regions to which they came, more by the benefits they conferred than by any exercise of force, these strangers became at last the controlling power of the land, and laid the foundation of that brilliant character in the annals of civilization which has acquired for Egypt so imperishable a name. (Compare Heeren, Ideen. 2, 1, 363, seqq.—Id, ibid. 2, 532, seqq.—Goerres, Mythengeschichte, 2, 331, seqq.—Creuzer, Commentat. Herodot., p. 178, seqq.—Id. Symbolik, par Guignaut, 1, 2, 778, seqq.) But whence came the civilization of Meroë 1—This question will be considered in a disferent article. (Vid. Meroë.)
8. Egyptian History.
The Egyptians, like the Hindus and Persians, had allegorical traditions among them respecting the introduction of agriculture and the first beginnings of civilization in their country. Such were the Songs of
Isis, whose high antiquity is attested by Plato (de Leg.
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 mentary in their nature, without developement, 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. antiquissim., p. 16, segg.—Schöll, Hist. Lit. Gr. 2, 135, seqq.) About the same period, Hellanicus of Lesbos also gave a description of Egypt. (Hellanici fragm., ed. Sturz., p. 39, seqq.) Herodotus succeeded. Visiting the country about seventy years after its conquest by the Persians, he traversed its 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., lib. 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. Marz., p. 213, seqq.), Eudoxus of Cnidus, and Philistus of Syracuse. É. 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, Hecatasus of Abdera travelled to Thebes. This took place under the first Ptolemy. (Creuzer, 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. is 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 history), * received the most unquestionable and
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 monarch
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 fontibus Diod. Sic. 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 ło 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 . 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 three thousand nine hundred and eighty-four years. Then succeeded the Cabiri, or planetary gods of the 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. Ægypt., ap. Euseb. Thes. Temp.2, p. 7, * Manetho,
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. (Gorres, Mythengeschichte, vol. 2, p. 412–Compare Creuzer, Symbolik, 1, 469, seqq., and Guignaut'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 i. received from the skies. This Menes, or Menas, or Mines (a name which Eratosthenes makes equivalent to Dionios, i.e., Jovialis), can hardly be an historical personage. He resembles a sort of intermediate being 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 Memou or Manow of India, the Minos of Crete, &c. He is a conqueror, a legislator, and a benefactor of men, like Osiris-Bacchus; like him, he erishes under the blows of Typhon, for he was killed y 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 's Egyptian Mythology, p. 381.—Creuzer's Symbolik, par Guigniaut, 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 entirely 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 Uchoreus to §. 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 early:
dynasties as collateral and contemporary reigns (Creuzer's Symbolik, par Guigniaut, 1, 2, 780), or as belonging merely to the fabulous periods of Egyptian history, the following particulars 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 o not appear among the names in his list of
dynasties, a race of strangers entered from the east into Egypt. (Josephus, contra Ap. 1, 14.—Compare Eusebius, Prap. Ev. 10, 13.) Everything, yielded to these fierce invaders, who, having taken š. 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 Hycsos, 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 then 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 theN." ad obtained possession of the throne. ow this is exactly the case. For a few years later, the Hycsos, or Shepherdkings, were expelled from Fo by Amosis, called on monuments Amenophtiph, the founder 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 fell out with them. (Exod. 1, 10.) For the Hycsos, after their expulsion, continued long to harass the Egyptians by attempts to recover their lost dominion. (Rosellini, p. 291.) Oppression was, of 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 sovereignty to employ those whom they considered their enemies' allies in repairing their injuries. To this period belong the magnificent edifices of Karnac, Luxor, and Medinet-Abou. At the same time we have the express testimony of Diodorus Siculus, that it was the boast of the Egyptian kings that no Egyptian had put his hand to the work, but that foreigners had 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 Hycsos, 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 W., 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. The names of the monarchs are given as sollows by the aid of Champollion's discoveries: 1. Thoutinosis 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 Moeris 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 colossus 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 Tmau-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. 11 and 12. Two brothers Mandoueli and Ousirei. 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 Mei-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 of none 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 era of the Exodus. The Scripture narrative describes this event as connected with the destruction of a Pharaoh, and the chronological calculation adopted by Rossellini 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 #. destruction of Pharaoh's host rather than of the monarch's own death. But in Rossellini'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 Ramesses the Great.-Com
pare Champollion, Syst. Hierogl., p. 224, seqq.). Sesostris regenerated, in some sense, his country and na,
tion, 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 i. 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 Egypt. (Champolluon, Syst. Hicrogl., 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 favoured, cannot be denied. Equally apparent is it that his history bears some resemblance to the legends of Osiris. These assimilations, however, of their heroes to their gods, 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 Mametho, 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
government of Egypt during the reign of Mendes and
his successors. It was divided into as many separate compartments as there were nomes in Egypt, and in them, 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 constitutional governments of Europe, if not by the immediate representatives of the peoplc, 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 sogo. 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 countries. The names inscribed on these monuments are Schabak, Serekotheph, Tahrak, and Amenasa, all of whom are mentioned, either by Greek or sacred historians, under the names of Sabacon, Sevechus, Tharaca, and Ammeris. (Bulletin des Sciences 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 stela, 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 granite, 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 Xerxes and Artaxerxes. (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 Nephereus. Two
Sphinges in the Louvre bear the legend of Nephereus and his successor Achoris, who are also commemorated by the sculptures of the temple of Elythya. 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 Philae, and at Karnac, Kourna, and Sast. 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 remains 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 Hycsos to the final conquest by the Persians, whose empire sell 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 dynasties, 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. Ptolemacus.) With regard, however, to the discoveries of Champollion, the followin interesting particulars may be stated. Philip Aridaus, the brother of Alexander, is commemorated at Karnac, and on the columns of the temple at Aschmouneim. The name of the other Alexander, the son of the conqueror by Roxana, is engraved on the granite propylaea at Elephantine. Ptolemy Soter, and . son Ptolemy Philadelphus, have left the remembrance of their proso reigns in various important works. Euergetes ... 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 relievos, 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 Antiecpolis 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 Philae, 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, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, #. 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 discowery, 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 worshi of the ancient Egyptian deities was publicly .. 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, i, 183, scqq.)