* OCT 21 1904 * 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ * ^ 
 
 - !>: * 
 

 $ 
 
 jpGiy 
 
 
 T. B. PETERSON, 
 
 No. 98 Chesnut Street, Philadelphia, 
 
 Has just Published, and for Sale, Stereotype Editions of the following Works, 
 
 WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED OF ALL THE PRINCIPAL BOOKSELLERS AND NEWS AGENTS 
 THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AT PUBLISHER’S PRICES. 
 
 The Trade supplied at the lowest rates. 
 
 The Manoeuvring' Mother. By the author of “Wilfulness of Woman,” “History of a Flirt,” 
 etc. etc. This book should he read by eyery mother and daughter living. The consequences of match- 
 making and manoeuvring are here described from real life, and it is a powerfully written work by one of the 
 best authors living. One volume, octavo, paper cover, 25 cents. 
 
 Sybil Lennar d. A Record of Woman’s Life. By Mrs. GREY, author of “ The Duke and the 
 Cousin,” “ The Young Prima Donna,” “ The Gambler’s Wife,” etc., entirely new and never before pub- 
 lished, complete in one large octavo volume, price 25 cents. 
 
 “ It is in truth a tale of powerful and highly wrought interest. The delineation of character and passion 
 is vivid, bold and masterly, and the narration and description never for an instant flag or grow tame. The 
 searcher after strong emotions and new sensations cannot fail to find himself greatly gratified in the perusal 
 of this splendid novel.” — Philadelphia City Item. 
 
 The Beautify! French Girl ; or, the Daughter of Monsieur Fontanbleu. A tale of thrilling 
 
 interest, found.ȣfyn facts in real life, one volume, octavo. Price 25 cents. 
 
 The Insna. v? ’ a sti v of Woman’s Heart- By LADY CHARLOTTE BURY, author of “ Flirta- 
 tion,” “ The Dj. ,ed,”|.c., one volume, octavo, paper cover, 25 cts. 
 
 Father Clement. A most thrilling and powerful story. By the author of “ Abbey of Innismoyle,” 
 
 “ Dunallen,” etc. Paper cover, 25 cents, or bound in muslin, 37z cents. 
 
 The Duke and the Cousin. By Mrs. GREY, author of “ Sybil Lennard,” the “ Young Prima 
 Donna,” “ The Gambler’s Wife,” etc. This is one of the most interesting books ever printed, and will 
 enchain the attention of the reader from the commencement to the end. One volume, octavo, 25 cents. 
 
 Legends of Mexico. By GEORGE LIPPARD, author of “ Legends of the American Revolution,” 
 etc. The author, in his peculiar style, has faithfully followed the American banner from the Heights of 
 Bunker Hill to the mountain passes of sunny Mexico, giving a faithful description of all the battles, charges, 
 camps, marches, &c., of our army in the country of the Montezumas. For the low price of twenty-five 
 cents, any one can procure a handsome volume of 136 pages, into which the prominent events of the pre- 
 sent war have been compressed, with those Legends of the Camp and the Field which give life to history, 
 and make it speak to our hearts. 
 
 Neuropathy; or, the true principles of the art of Healing the Sick. Being an explanation of the action 
 of GALVANISM, ELECTRICITY, and MAGNETISM, in the cure of Disease, and a comparison between 
 their powers, and those of Drugs, or Medicines, of all kinds, with a view to determine their relative value, 
 and proper uses. By Frederick Rollick, M. D., lecturer on Anatomy and Physiology, the Origin of Life, 
 etc. Illustrated with an Anatomical Plate of the Human Form, colored to- life. Paper cover, price 25 cts. 
 
 Outlines of Anatomy and Physiology, illustrated in a novel manner, 8y a large coloured Plate, 
 which dissects by means of moveable layers, from the outer surface down to the spine, exhibiting the 
 organs in their places, and many of them in sections, designed to facilitate the study of Anatomy and 
 Physiology. It is invaluable for students, teachers, or for private study. The explanations are familiar, 
 and divested of technicalities ; and is still further illustrated by separate Wood-Cuts throughout the work, and 
 a portrait of the author. By Frederick Hollick, M. D. One volume, quarto, bound, price ONE DOLLAR. 
 
 History of the Inquisition in Spain, from the time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand 
 VII. Composed from the Original Documents of the Archives of the Supreme Council, and from those of 
 subordinate Tribunals of the Holy Office. By D. JUAN ANTONIO LLORENTE, formerly secretary of 
 the Inquisition, Chancellor of the University of Toledo, Knight of the Order of Charles III., etc. One 
 volume, oetavo, 20S pages — Half cloth, 50 cents ; paper cover, 37 j cents. 
 
 Liebig’s Agricultural Chemistry; or, Chemistry in its application to Agriculture and Phvsiology. 
 By JUSTUS LIEBIG, M. D., Professor of Chemistry in the University of Giessen, etc., etc. From 5ie 
 last London edition, revised and enlarged. One volume, octavo, paper cover, price 25- cents. 
 
 Liebig’s Animal Chemistry; or. Organic Chemistry, in its application to Physiology and Pa- 
 thology. By Professor JUSTUS LIEBIG. From the last London edition, revised and enlarged. One 
 volume, octavo, paper cover, price 25 cents. 
 
 An edition of Professor Liebig’s two works. Agricultural and Animal Chemistry, is also issued, neatly 
 bound together, in one large volume, octavo, price 62J cents. 
 
 Flirtation, a Story of the Heart. By LADY CHARLOTTE BURY, author of the “ Divorced,” 
 “The Insnared,” etc., etc. This work should be read by every unmarried person in the land. The 
 awful consequences of flirting are here vividly portrayed. One volume, octavo, paper cover, price 25 cents. 
 
 The Divorced; Founded on Facts in Real Life. By LADY CHARLOTTE BURY, author of 
 “ Flirtation,” “ The Insnared,” etc., etc. It is decidedly one of the most useful works, as a lesson to the 
 young, ever issued from the Press. One volume, octavo, paper cover, price 25- cents. 
 
 Abbey of Innismoyle. A Story of Another Century. By the author of “Father Clement,” cloth, 
 3?j cents ; paper cover, 25 cents. 
 
 Any of the above works, neatly bound in paper cavers, can be sent by mail to any part of the United 
 States at a trifling expense for Postage. 
 
 Any of the above works will be sold to Booksellers, News Agents and Pedlars at a very liberal discount. 
 We have on hand a large asortment of all the New Books, Magazines, Cheap Publications, Maps and 
 Travellers’ Guides of all descriptions, which we will sell at the lowest prices. 
 
 . All orders from Country Agents, Booksellers, Pedlars and Canvassers, are respectfully solieited, and all 
 r) orders attended to by return of mail, stage, steam-boat or express, at publisher’s lowest cash prices. ( 
 
 ADDRESS, T. B. PETERSOJT, JTo. 98 Chesnut St., Phila. ( 
 
 Gv . . /ZOA 
 
 i 
 
 'i 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Twelfth Edition, Revised and Corrected, with •>' Appendix. 
 
 T. B. PETERSON, Publisher. 
 
 No. 98 CHESNUT STREET, ONE DOOR ABOVE THIRD, PHILADELPHIA. 
 siekeotvY imim January, 1 8 48. feme ss esws. 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT 
 
 A SERIES OF CHAPTERS ON 
 
 EARLY EGYPTIAN HISTORY; 
 
 ARCHAEOLOGY, 
 
 AND OTHER SUBJECTS 
 
 CONNECTED WITH 
 
 HIEROGLYPHICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 vX 
 
 BY GEORGE R. GLIDDON, 
 
 MEMBER CP THE “ EGYPTIAN SOCIETY ” OP CAIRO CORRESPONDING 
 
 MEMBER OF THE “ UNITED STATES’ NAVAL LYCEUM,” BROOKLYN, 
 
 NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT OF THE “ ACADEMY OF NATURAL 
 
 SCIENCES,” PHILADELPHIA CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF 
 
 THE “ NATIONAL INSTITUTION,” WASHINGTON 
 
 MEMBER OF THE “ ORIENTAL SOCIETY,” 
 
 BOSTON, 
 
 AND FORMERLY 
 
 UNITED STATES CONSUL FOR CAIRO, 
 
 IN EGYPT. 
 
 ' (ini si fa quel che si sa ; 
 E si sa quel che si fa.” 
 
 V *1 nnnn/v 11 0 nil 
 
 | ^ in * i i in 
 
 YEAR 1843 MONTH 3 — DAY 15. 
 
 TO 
 
 RICHARD K. HAIGHT, Esq.: 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 In dedicating to you, my dear Sir, the first Chapters on Hierology, 
 that have ever issued from an American Press, I acquit myself of a 
 gratifying duty toward a gentleman who, by the deep interest he 
 takes in Egyptian subjects, has been induced to render manifold 
 and indispensable assistance to the Author. 
 
 When we parted at Cairo, in the spring of 1836, we little ex- 
 pected that circumstances would allow me the pleasure of sojourning 
 in your vicinity ; still less did we contemplate, that I should turn my 
 almost exclusive attention to Nilotic paleography. Some of the 
 causes are hereinafter explained; with the others you are acquainted. 
 
 At the time of your travels in the East, our “ Egyptian Society " 
 had just been founded at Cairo ; and the encouragement afforded by 
 Mr. Randolph and yourself, to our then embryo institution, is there 
 on record. Since that period, our Society has become in Egypt, the 
 central point of researches into all that concerns its most interesting 
 regions ; but, it was not till 1839, that the larger works of the new 
 Archaeological School were in our library ; or that it was in my 
 power to become one of Ciiampollion’s disciples. In fact, it was 
 not till about 1839, that the brilliant results of the recent, and still 
 progressing discoveries were accessible in Egypt ; while, at the 
 present day, the knowledge of these results is confined to a compa- 
 ratively limited circle in Europe. A mass of erudite works, put 
 forth by eminent Savans, chiefly at the expense of enlightened gov- 
 ernments, have teemed of late years from the European press, and 
 the most important of .these (Rosellini and others) now embellish 
 your Library. '-Sfa 
 
 It is to the effective r, and fostering counsel of our mutual 
 friend, Richard RandI! _,*Esq., of Philadelphia, and y 
 the public in this country are indebted, for whatever o: *bue and 
 novel interest may be found in this unpretending essay ; and, through 
 these marks of consideration is the Author enabled, to present to the 
 American people, some of the more salient points of recent Hiero- 
 glyphical discoveries, in a form corresponding to his free-trade 
 principles. 
 
 Our united object is to popularize information, that may tend to a 
 better appreciation of these abstruse subjects, than has hitherto been 
 deemed feasible ; as well as to induce abler hands to supply defi- 
 ciencies. 
 
 These Chapters will, it is believed, serve the Theologian, Ethno- 
 logist, Historian, and general reader, as a Key to the successful la- 
 bors of the Champollionists ; while their publication and general 
 diffusion, through the elaborate machinery of the “New World” 
 press, will enable the lecturer to spare his future audiences the oral 
 infliction of much preliminary, though indispensable matter, by re- 
 moving the prevalent doubts — “if Hieroglyphics be translated.” 
 
 The instruclion and kind assistance I have received from the 
 learned ethnographer, Samuel George Morton, Esq., M. D., of 
 Philadelphia, and from the profound philologist, the Hon J >hn 
 Pickering, of Boston, have been severally acknowledged. To Pro- 
 fessor Charles Anthon, of Columbia College, I am under great 
 obligations, for much classical information, and for free access to 
 his valuable Library. 
 
 As the matter, spread over the following pages, was originally 
 prepared for delivery in oral Lectures, it has required some labor to 
 change it into its present form ; and for suggestions on this point, 
 as well as for many literary essentials, I owe my best thanks to my 
 friend, E. S. Gould, Esq., of this city. 
 
 In their pristine shape of Lectures, they were, during December 
 and January last, listened to with much indulgence, by an intel- 
 lectual and cultivated audience, in Boston, and spoken of with favor 
 by the Press of that city. 
 
 For the advantages accruing from this successful “ ddbtit,” I shall 
 ever preserve a grateful remembrance toward Joseph W. Ingraham, 
 Esq., the well informed Topographer of Palestine ; whose disin. 
 terested cooperation was of material assistance to me. 
 
 With renewed protestations of sincere attachment, 
 
 I remain, dear Sir, 
 
 Your obliged and obedient Servant, 
 
 GEORGE R. GLIDDON. 
 
 “Globe Hotel,” (New York,) March 15, 1843. 
 
 NOTE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. 
 
 Augusta, Georgia, 17 lh December, 1847 
 
 The seven “ Chapters,” herein contained, originally formed part of a series of thirteen oral Lectures on “ Early Egyptian History,” &c., 
 delivered by the Author at Boston, from December 1849, to February 1843. They were subsequently presented to the American Public, 
 through the medium of the “ New World” press in New York, and have since passed through many editions of several thousand each. 
 The objects of the Author, in the publication of the Pamphlet, being set forth In the dedicatory preface, it seems merely necessary to 
 observe, that he has no pecuniary interest in its past or future circulation. Mr. T. B. PETERSON, having become proprietor of the 
 Stereotype Plates by purchase from the “New World,” publish the present edition, wherein many typographical corrections have been 
 inade ; while pages 45 and 46 have been recast, in order to embody the matured results of Dr. S. G. Morton’s “ Crania /EVyptrca,” 
 Published at Philadelphia in March, 1844. Grit. G. 
 
3 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 A SERIES OF CHAPTERS ON EARLY EGYPTIAN HISTORY, 
 
 &.C. &.C. &c. , 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 *' Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, sed magis Arnica Veritas.” 
 
 The great Expedition, that, in 1798, left the shores of France for 
 Egypt, seemed, under the guidance of the mighty genius of Napoleon, 
 destined to create an Oriental Empire, wherein the children of the 
 Frank and Gaul would have sustained a supremacy over the North- 
 western provinces of Asia and Africa, equal to that which has been 
 established in the Eastern Hemisphere, by the Anglo-Saxon race. 
 This enterprise was, however, fated to encounter obstacles, that, in 
 1800-1, turned the energies of Buonaparte into an European channel. 
 
 How comprehensive, nay unbounded, were the projects of the 
 Commander-in-chief for Asiatic and African conquest, is now a mat- 
 ter of History ; although, after the lapse of forty years, it can scarcely 
 yet be said, that we are acquainted with the limit of his matured 
 schemes in regard to Oriental subjugation, nor have we completely 
 sounded the depths of his penetration into Eastern political futurities. 
 By the hand of inscrutable Providence, the sword of another Euro- 
 pean nation was thrown into the opposite scale ; and the French 
 Expedition to Egypt lives but in the memories of its few surviving 
 actors — its military objects unaccomplished — its territorial aggrand- 
 izements unattained — though the moral effect, consequent on these 
 events, and now implanted in the mintE/ 5 Eastern Nations, can 
 never be obliterated. .. 
 
 In the*^' : of his cabinet, as in the turmoil of political conflict, 
 Napoleon never forgot the cause of Science, or the patronage and ad- 
 vancement of Literature and the Arts; and, amid the roar of his 
 artillery, or the martial music of his camps, his mandate prompted, 
 and his eye controlled the savans of France, while his finger directed 
 their laborious efforts to the scrutiny of Egypt and her Monuments. 
 
 The grave has closed over the Conqueror — the events of his period 
 are gradual' y receding from the memory of man, to survive on the 
 page of the chronicler ; but an impetus was given to Egyptian re- 
 search by Napoleon — an impress was stamped by him on Hiero- 
 giyphical studies, for which time will award him commensurate honor. 
 
 We are now only beginning to derive a portion of the advantages 
 accruing, from these events, to our inquiries into Early History. 
 Ages yet slumbering in the womb of time, and generations yet un- 
 born will perhaps enjoy the full effulgence of that light, of which, in 
 our day, but the first gleams have reached the world. 
 
 The circumambient darkness, that for two thousand years not only 
 batlied every inquiry into primeval history, but rendered Egypt, her 
 time-worn edifices, her ancient inhabitants, their religion, arts, sci- 
 ences, institutions, learning, language, history, conquests and domin- 
 ion, almost incomprehensible mysteries, has now been broken; and 
 the translation of the sacred Legends, sculptured on monumental ves- 
 tiges of Pharaonic glory, enables us now to define and to explain, 
 with tolerable accuracy, these once-recondite annals, that were to the 
 Romans “ a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” 
 
 It is the object of the present essay to give a summary of the re- 
 sults of Ilieroglyphical researches, after a brief explanation of the 
 process by which these results have been achieved. 
 
 Prior to the year 1800, the published notices of the few travellers, 
 who had ventured to approach the ancient ruins of Egypt, were so 
 confused in description, so ambiguous in detail, so erroneous in at- 
 tempts at explaining their origin and design, that the fact, that these 
 monuments merited more than ordinary investigation, was the only 
 point on which European savans were able to coincide. Paul Lucas, 
 Shaw, Volney, Savary, Norden, Sonnini, Pococke, Clarke, Maillet, 
 Bruce and others, whose names are precious to the i»vers of adven- 
 ture, of research and general science, had explored afl much as their 
 respective circumstances permitted; and great are the merits of their 
 works : but the accumulation of knowledge, gained in the lapse of 
 half a century, has so thoroughly revolutionized opinion, that it is 
 scarcely possible to refer to the majority of these authors without a 
 smile. That victim of ignorance and slander, the enthusiastic Bruce, 
 is perhaps the most prominent exception to the above rule ; although 
 only now receiving the mournful tribute of respect and gratitude, 
 with which a later generation hallows his memory, while it repro- 
 bates his detractors. 
 
 The works of travellers, before the year 1800, had done little be- 
 yond establishing the existence of immense vestiges of antiquity in 
 that country, without affording much else of value in regard to them. 
 Egypt, under the turbulent government of the Memlooks, was unsafe 
 to strangers ; while Muslim arrogance and intolerancy, with the 
 then-unsubdued pride of Turkish fanaticism, presented barriers to 
 European explorers, which it required unusual skill and intrepidity 
 to encounter. Egypt was then “ a sealed book,” whose pages could 
 not be opened, until Napoleon’s thunderbolts had riven the clasps 
 
 asunder ; and until the chivalrous cavalry' of the “ Ghuz ”* had been 
 scattered, like chaff before the wind, by the concentrated vollevs of 
 a French hollow square — their hitherto victorious sabres shivering on 
 contact with the European bayonet. 
 
 While however, in spite of these manifold obstacles, the travelling 
 enthusiast, or the scientific explorer, collected in the talley of the 
 Nile the information, which afforded to the scholar in Europe some 
 crude and uncertain materials wherewith to prosecute his researches; 
 the occasional transmission to European cabinets of some relics of 
 Egyptian civilization, furnished evidences of the immense progress, 
 which, at an ancient, but then undefined, period, had been made in 
 all arts and sciences by the Egyptians. With the aid of such cor- 
 roborations of the misshapen mass of classical knowledge, expended, 
 from the days of Homer, in an attempted explanation of Egyptian 
 Archteology, the attention of the most learned of all nations was di- 
 rected to the Antiquities of Egypt; and, although in Europe these 
 particular inquiries recommenced probably about three hundred years 
 ago ; yet the 18th century was fruitful, beyond all preceding periods, 
 in ponderous tomes, purporting more or less to cast some light on 
 the important, but conflicting traefitions of that country. 
 
 The Greek, the Hebrew, the Roman, the Armenian, the Indian, 
 and the Coptic authorities were consulted. Passages, in themselves 
 irreconcileable, were with more ingenuity than success collated, ana- 
 lyzed, and mutually adjusted : but rather to the personal satisfaction 
 of the compiler, than to the correct elucidation of any one given 
 idea on Ancient Egypt, transmitted to us by these classical writers. 
 
 Still, the spirit of inquiry was awakened ; the lamp of investigation 
 was partially lighted ; the learned world became gradually more and 
 more familiarized with the subject; and, at the present hour, if we 
 laugh at the conclusions at which some of these students arrived, we 
 must still render to them full credit for the profundity of their futile 
 investigations, and admire the patient perseverance and resolution 
 wfith which they grappled with mysteries, the solution whereof was 
 to them as hopeless in expectation, as abortive in success. 
 
 Vain would it be, without ransacking the libraries of every civi- 
 lized country, and selecting from their dusty shelves the vast accu- 
 mulation of works, published by the learned and the unlearned during 
 the last three centuries, to attempt a detailed specification of the ex- 
 traordinary aberrations of human intellect ; those manifold and 
 incomprehensible misconceptions on Ancient Egypt ; that, at the 
 present hour, excite our surprise and our regret. The mere mechan- 
 ical labor of such an undertaking would be more tedious than any 
 literary enterprise we can w-ell conceive ; while its result would be 
 unprofitable, beyond the moral it would teach. In the present Chap- 
 ters, a very few of such sapient illusions are enumerated ; affording, 
 however, but a faint idea of their huge amount: and it may be laid 
 down as a rule, without exception prior to the year 1790, that no ori- 
 ginal light is to be obtained from European authors of the last gener- 
 ation, whose works are merely repetitions of the few truths and the 
 many fallacies transmitted to us by Greco-Roman antiquity. The 
 following paragraphs will give a general view of the case. 
 
 In the year 1636, a learned Jesuit, the celebrated Father Kircher.t 
 published a mighty work, in six ponderous folios, entitled “ (Edipus 
 zEgyptiacus,” wherein imagination took the place of common sense, 
 and fantastic conjecture was substituted for fact. Kircher explained 
 every Egyptian Hieroglyphic by the application of a sublimity of 
 mysticism, from which to the ridiculous the transition is immediate. 
 Dark and impenetrable as had been the “ Isiac Veil,” before Kir- 
 cher directed his gigantic efforts to its removal, we do him but justice 
 in declaring, that he succeeded in enveloping Egyptian studies with 
 an increased density of gloom, it has taken nearly two hundred years 
 to dissipate 1 Kircher had his disciples, his followers and his ad- 
 mirers — he founded a school of mysticism, in which the students out- 
 vied their master in love of the incomprehensible; and, abandoning 
 the simplest elements of reason and sound criticism, they all pre- 
 tended to discover, or to have the hope of finding, in the Papyri, 
 Obelisks, Idols, Mummy Gases, Weapons, household utensils, &c. of 
 the Ancient Egyptians, all the recondite combinations of cabalistic 
 science, and the monstrous reveries “of a demonomania the most 
 refined.” As an instance : 
 
 The Pamphilian Obelisk, reerected, in 1651, in the Piazza Navona 
 at Rome by Pope Innocent the 10th, was brought to Europe by the 
 Roman Emperors. It contains, among other subjects, the following 
 oval. 
 
 f Phonetic 
 Hiero- 
 glyphics.) 
 
 U T o K 
 
 (Latin pro- 
 
 R A T O R nunciation.) 
 
 
 EMPEROR. 
 
 (English 
 
 meaning.) 
 
 This Cartouche, according to Kircher’s interpretation expressed 
 emblematically, “ the author of fecundity and of all vegetation, is 
 Osiris, of which the generative faculty is drawn from heaven into 
 
 * Arabice— Memlooks. 
 
 t See Champ. Precis, and Spineto’s Lectures. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 3 
 
 his kingdom, by the Saint Moptha.” And who is this Saint Mop- 
 tka? An Egyptian genius invented by Kircher himself! 
 
 The same obelisk contains the following oval also — viz. 
 
 -REDUCTION- 
 
 vM 
 % 
 
 
 K A iSaRoS ToM I T 1 AN 0 S SeBa S ToS 
 CAESAR DOMITIAN AUGUSTUS. 
 
 Kircher translates it— “ The beneficent Being, who presides over 
 generation, who enjoys heavenly dominion, and fourfold power, com- 
 mits the atmosphere, by means of Moptha, the beneficent (principle 
 of?) atmospheric humidity unto Ammon, most powerful over the 
 lower parts (of the world,) who, by means of an image and appro- 
 priate ceremonies, is drawn to the exercising of his power. (•) 
 
 The Pamphilian obelisk contains in its legends “ Son of the Sun, 
 Lord of the Diadems (i. e. Ruler of Rulers) Autocrator Caesar Domi- 
 tian Augustus”— besides the usual titles found on Egyptian Obelisks. 
 These monuments are granite monoliths, cut by order of the kings 
 of Egypt ; and were placed, always in pairs, before the entrances of 
 temples or palaces, to record that such kings had built, increased in 
 extent, repaired, or otherwise embellished these edifices. This was, 
 however, cut at Syene, in Roman times, in honor of Domitian. 
 
 According even to a more recent authority, quoted in the Precis, 
 of the year 1821 (!) “ Genoa- Arch ipiscopal press,” this identical 
 obelisk “ preserves the record of the triumph over the Impious, ob- 
 tained by the adorers of the most Holy Trinity, and of the Eternal 
 Word, under the government of the 6th and 7th kings of Egypt, in 
 the 6th century after the deluge.” 
 
 This obelisk was cut in Egypt about eighty years after Christ. 
 By the above interpretation , the doctrines of Christianity must have 
 existed some 25U0 years before its founder. And one of the pious 
 adorers and good Christians, who must thus have ruled in Egypt, 
 was, in later times, (about 970 B. C.) Shishak — or Sheshonk, who, 
 according to hieroglyphical legends at Karnac, conquered the “ king- 
 dom of Judah;” and, according to 2nd Chron. XII, 1st to 10th ver- 
 ses, and 1st Kings, XIV. 25th, deposed Rehoboam, plundered Jerusa- 
 lem, desecrated the Temple, and removed the golden bucklers from the 
 sanctuary with the treasures of the house of David ! 
 
 Again, in 1812, the learned mystagogue, Chevalier de Palin, 
 boldly undertook the deciphering of all Egyptian hieroglyphics, and 
 asserts to the effect, that we have only to translate the Psalms of Da- 
 vid into Chinese, and transpose them into the ancient characters of 
 that language, to reproduce the Egyptian papyri ! that Hebrew 
 translations of some Egyptian records are to be found in the Bible (!) 
 and, while the portico of the temple of Dendera contains, among 
 various subjects, dedications of the Roman Emperors, T. iberius, Cali- 
 gula, Claudius and Nero (dating between the years 14 and 60 after 
 Christ,) another theorist, Count Caylus, combining what he terms the 
 “ Symbols of Nations” in Africa, Asia, Europe, and America, ap- 
 plied his results to this unfortunate temple ; asserting, that the hiero- 
 glyphics thereon contain merely a “ translation of the 100th Psalm 
 of David, composed to invite the people to enter into the temple of 
 God.” 
 
 Others have maintained, that the hieroglyphic legends, sculptured 
 and painted on every temple of Egypt, in all the tombs of her people, 
 and on almost every article that now embellishes the museums of 
 Europe, are nothing more or less than Hebrew — that the pyramids 
 were built by Moses and Aaron ;* while another scholar, the Abbd 
 Tandeau, in 1762, maintained, that hieroglyphics were mere arbi- 
 trary signs, only employed to serve as ornaments to the edifices on 
 which they are engraved, and that they were never invented to pic- 
 ture ideas. 
 
 Yet these illusions were not unproductive of some advantages. 
 Some faint glimmers were thrown on certain points of history ; and 
 Kircher’s voluminous collection of passages regarding Egypt from 
 Greek and Roman authors, w r ith the attention excited, through his 
 researches into the Coptic tongue (of which language numbers of 
 manuscripts have since been drawn from obscurity,) has led to most 
 important results. The vast erudition of Jablonsky came in aid of 
 the same object; and his “Pantheon ASgyptiorum” has spared 
 many of his successors a great deal of trouble. 
 
 It may, however, be maintained, that the first real step made into 
 hieroglyphical arcana, is to be dated from 1797, when the learned 
 Dane, George Zoega, published at Rome his folio, “ De Origine et 
 Usu Obeliscorum,” explanatory of the Egyptian obelisks. It was 
 the first time, that learning and practical common sense had been 
 utiited in Egyptian researches ; and likewise the first time, that an 
 
 attempt had been made to give facsimile copies of hieroglyphica 
 texts. George Zoega was the first who suggested, that the elliptica 
 ovals (now termed “Cartouches,”) containing groups of then-un 
 known characters, were probably proper names; although he wa. 
 not aware, that (with the exception of a few instances, wherein they 
 contain the names of Deities) they exclusively inclose the titles Ol 
 names of Pharaohs. A similar idea was maintained, I believe, b) 
 the Abbe Barthelemy ; but a quarter of a century elapsed, before 
 this fundamental principle of hieroglyphic writing was determined 
 To George Zoega also belongs the merit of employing the terra 
 phonetic (from the Greek tfroerr meaning “expressive of sound;”) 
 and the conjecture, tW>9ome of the figures of animals, &c., found 
 in the legends of Egypsf piust represent sounds, and we»ipossibly 
 letters. 
 
 By such, and similar extremely partial results, so wearied had the 
 learned become with speculations devoid of probability, and theoret- 
 ical systems unsupported by reason, that Egyptian studies were, by 
 the mass, considered as unsatisfactory as astrology — the hope of ever 
 unravelling the legends of the Nilotic Valley, was looked upon to bo 
 as illusory as the expectations of the alchemist. 
 
 The real progress in Egyptian studies dates from the appearance 
 of the great French work, better known as the “ Description 
 de l’Egypte ;” compiled at the expense of the French government, 
 after the return to France of Napoleon’s expedition, by the enthuei 
 astic and laborious savans who had accompanied it. This truly 
 great work presented, for the first time, faithful architectural copies 
 of the monuments of Egypt to the student : and if experience has 
 since shown that the French artists, of that day, were not scrupu- 
 lously exact in delineating the hieroglyphical legends sculptured on 
 the edifices, of which they gave measurements and descriptions in 
 other respects correct, still a mass of facsimiles was thus furnished to 
 the decipherer, and an immense step was effected in general Egyp- 
 tian knowledge. 
 
 The museums of Europe, in the mean time, were continually re- 
 ceiving additions of antiquarian relics from the shores of the Nile. 
 The “ A2gyptiaca” of the learned Hamilton threw, with the prece- 
 ding antiquities, a flood of light upon the “ darkness” of Egypt, as 
 known to Europeans in the first years of the 19th century : while the 
 return of the victors at Abookeer and Alexandria, spread through- 
 out Europe, a clearer conception of Egypt, as a country, than had 
 previously been entertained. 
 
 Other works, like that of Denon, kept up the revived interest ; 
 until Belzoni’s discoveries of entrances to divers pyramids at Mem- 
 phis, and of the tomb celebrated by his name at Thebes (now known 
 as that of “ Osirei-Menephtha,” B. C. 1580 ;) and Cailleaud’s account 
 of the pyramids, &. c. in Ethiopia, joined to the continued transfer to 
 European cabinets of vast collections of Egyptian Antiquities, fur- 
 nished to scholars the materials whereon to prosecute their investi- 
 gations. In 1808, the learned work of Quatrem6re, Recherches, & c., 
 demonstrated, that “ the Coptic tongue was identical with the Egyp- 
 tian” language, handed down from mouth to mouth, and graphically 
 in Greek characters, with the addition of seven signs taken, as sub- 
 sequently shown, from the enchorial writings. The Coptic, as 
 known to us, came into use with Christianity, and ceased to be orally 
 preserved about a hundred years ago ; though, as a dead language, 
 it is still used in the Coptic Christian liturgies in Egypt. The mul- 
 titude of Greek and Latin inscriptions, existing in edifices along the 
 Nile, with Greek, and a few bilinguar fragments and papyri, col- 
 lected in various countries, enabled the classical Greek antiquary, 
 Mons. Letronne, to bring before the world his invaluable “Researches 
 to aid the History of Egypt,” and thus elucidate many curious points 
 of Roman and Ptolemaic periods ; while Champollion’s “ Egypt under 
 the Pharaohs,” in 1814, announced the appearance of another com- 
 petitor on the stage of Egyptian archaeology, whom Providence seems 
 to have created the especial instrument for resuscitating the long 
 lost annals of Egypt. With these laborers may be classed (although 
 their travels took place, and their works appeared some years after) 
 the ingenious Gau, who explored Lower Nubia, and tho Baron Mi. 
 nutoli, whoi visited Egypt, and the templed sanetuary ol Jupitei 
 Amon, in the Oasis of Seewah, 
 
 *See Calmet’s Dictionary, 1. «. 
 
4 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Such was the extent ot' modern inquiry into early Egyptian his- 
 tory, about the year 1820, as known to the general reader : but for- 
 tuitous circumstances, consequent upon the French expedition, had 
 combined to supply not only the key to all the hitherto impenetrable 
 mysteries of Egypt, but the mind to comprehend- the 30ul to master, 
 and the hand to execute more, in ten short yotyfj, than all mankind 
 had even dreamed of, much less been able in twenty centuries to 
 achieve. I allude, of course, to Champoj-lion le Jeune. 
 
 Bv the 1 6th article of the capitulation of Alexandria, all the objects 
 collected by the French Institute of Egypt, and other members of 
 the expedition, were to be delivered up to the British. After some 
 discussion, Lord Hutchinson gave up all claim to objects of Natural 
 History, but insisted on the complete fulfilment of the 16th article, 
 ns to all other things. A vast amount of precious sculptures thus 
 became the prize of the conquerors, and was conveyed in due course 
 vo the British Museum in London; and among others the celebrated 
 Rosetta Stone. 
 
 I am indebted for the facsimile copy of this invaluable monu- 
 mem, in my possession, to the kindness of the Hon. John Pickekino, 
 of Boston, whose profound philological researches are justly cele- 
 brated, while they have induced him to keep pace with Champol- 
 lion’s discoveries in ancient Egyptian literature. My friend, Dr. 
 T. H. Vfebb, likewise of Boston, possesses a beautiful plaster cast 
 ot the original slnne ; and as I am on this point, I would observe, 
 that the boat critical examination of the hieroglyphic portion of the 
 Rosetta Stone, published up to 1841, may be seen in Salvolini’s 
 “Analysis of various Hieroglyphical Texts,” issued at Paris, some 
 six years ago. Prufessor Rosellini hints that his analysis of this Text 
 will be a consequence of his work. 
 
 To give an idea of the Rosetta Stone, I annex the following 
 
 The dotted line at the top shows what was probably its original 
 tabular form, when it was placed in the temple. 
 
 This inestimable fragment (the Rosetta Stone) consists in a block 
 of black basalt, which was discovered by a French officer of engi- 
 neers, Mons. Bouchard, in August 1799, when digging the founda- 
 tions of Fort St. Julien, erected on the western bank of the Nile, 
 between Rosetta and the sea, not far from the mouth of the river. 
 It was placed by the British commander-in-chief, on board the frigate 
 “ Egvptienne,” captured in the harbor of Alexandria, and arrived at 
 Portsmouth in February, 1802, whence it was deposited in the Brit- 
 ish Museum. 
 
 In its present state it is much mutilated, chiefly on the top, and at 
 the right side. Its extreme length is about three feet, measured on 
 the flat surface, which contains the writing ; its breadth, which in 
 some parts is entire is about two feet five inches. The under part 
 
 of the stone, which is not sculptured, is left rough. In thickness, it 
 varies from -ten. to twelve inches. It bears three inscriptions, and is 
 bilingual- — two of them being in ihe Egyptian language, though in 
 separate and distinct characters, the third is in Ancient Greek. The 
 first or uppermost inscription is in hieroglyphics, and much muti- 
 lated — several lines being impaired or wanting — the second is the 
 character, styled in the Greek translation enchorial, “ writing of the 
 people,” or otherwise it is termed demotic, to designate its ordinary 
 and popular use — the third is in Greek, and purports to be a transla- 
 tion of the hieroglyphic and of the demotic texts. 
 
 The English translations of the Rosetta stone, contained in the 
 works enumerated in my first chapter, not being at present accessible 
 to me, I render into English the French of Champollion Figeac. It 
 is curtailed, in some measure, from the original Greek inscription ; 
 wherein there is a long exordium in honor of Ptolemy Epiphanes, to 
 be seen in “ Ameilhon’s Eclaircissements,” published by the French 
 Institute in 1803. The general reader will find much interesting in- 
 formation on this and other subjects, in “Sharpe’s Inscriptions” 
 “ British Museum as likewise in the varied hierological and clas- 
 sical works of this distinguished gentleman. The event recorded in 
 the Rosetta Stone, the coronation of Epiphanes, took place at Mem. 
 phis, in the month of March, 196 years B. C., or 2039 years ago. 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 “ The year IX, (of the reign of the “ Son of the Sun, Ptolemy, ever living, 
 beloved oj Pthah”) the tenth of the month of Mechib, the pontiffs and the 
 prophets, those who enter into the sanctuary to clothe the gods, the ptern- 
 phores, the hierogrammates, and all the other priests, who from all the tem- 
 ples situated in the country, have come to Memphis, near the King, for the 
 solemnity of the taking possession of that crown, which Ptolemy, ever living, 
 the well beloved of Pthah, god Epiphanes most gracious prince, has inher- 
 ited from his father, being assembled in the temple of Memphis, have pro- 
 nounced, this same day, the following decree : 
 
 “ Considering, that the King Ptolemy, ever living, the well beloved of 
 Pthah, god Epiphanes, most gracious, son of the King Ptolemy, and of the 
 Queen Arsinoe, gods philopatores (father-loving) has done all kinds of good, 
 both to the temples, and to those who therein make their habitation; and, 
 in general, to all those who are under his dominion; that being (himself) a 
 god, born of a god and a goddess, like Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris, 
 the avenger of Osiris his father; and ambitious of signalizing generously his 
 zeal for the things which concern the gods, he has consecrated to the service 
 of the temples, great revenues, as well of money as of wheal, and has been 
 at great expenses to restore tranquillity in Egypt, and to raise temples. 
 
 “ That he has not neglected any of the means that were within his power, 
 to perform acts of humanity; that in order that in his kingdom the people, 
 and in general all the citizens, should be in prosperity, he has suppressed 
 altogether some of the taxes and imposts established in Egypt, and has 
 diminished the onus of the others ; that, moreover, he has remitted all that 
 was due to him on the royal rents, as much by his subjects, inhabitants of 
 Egypt, as by those of his other kingdoms; although these rents were very 
 considerable in their amount; that he has liberated by amnesty, those who 
 were imprisoned, and under sentence from a long time ; 
 
 “ That he has ordained, that the revenues of the temples, and the rents 
 payable to them every year, as much in wheat as in money, as also those 
 perquisitions reserved to the gods on the vineyards, the orchards, and on the 
 other things, to which they were entitled from the time of his father, should 
 continue to be collected in the country. 
 
 “That he has dispensed those, who belong to the sacerdotal orders, from 
 making every year a voyage by water to Alexandria. 
 
 “ That he has ordered, that the citizens who had laid down their rebellious 
 arms, and those whose sentiments had been, in the limes of trouble, opposed 
 to the government, and who had returned to their duty, should be maintained 
 in possession of their property. 
 
 “That having entered Memphis, as the avenger of his father, and of his 
 own rightful crown, he has punished, as they deserved, the chiefs of those 
 who had revolted against his father, and devastated the country, and de- 
 spoiled the temples. 
 
 “ That he has made many gifts to Apis, to Mnevis, and to the other sacred 
 animals of Egypt. 
 
 “ That he has caused to be made magnificent works to the temple of Apis, 
 and has furnished, for these labors, a large quantity of gold, and silver, and 
 precious stones; that he has raised temples, and chapels, and altars; and 
 that he has made the necessary repairs to those which required them, hav- 
 ing the zeal of a beneficent god for all that concerns the divinity ; that, 
 having informed himself of the state in which were found the most precious 
 things inclosed in the temples, he has renewed them in his empire, as much 
 as it was necessary — in recompense for which, the gods have given him 
 health, victory, and other goods ; . . . .the crown having to remain to him, 
 as well as to his children, down to the most remote posterity. 
 
 “It has therefore pleased tlio oriests of all the temples of the land to de- 
 cree, that all the honors belonging to the King Ptolemy, ever living, the well- 
 beloved of Pthah, god Epiphanes, most gracious, as well as those which are 
 due to his father and mother, the gods philopatores ; and those which are 
 due to his ancestors, should be considerably augmented ; that the statue of 
 King Ptolemy, ever living, be erected in each temple, and placed in the most 
 conspicuous spot, which shall be called the Statue of Ptolemy, avenger of 
 Egypt; near this statue shall be placed the principal god of the temple, who 
 will present him with the arms of victory ; and everything shall be disposed 
 in the manner most appropriate. That the priests shall perform, three times 
 a day, religious service to these statues ; that they shall adorn them with sa- 
 cred ornaments ; and that they shall have care to render them, in the great 
 solemnities, all the honors which, according to usage, ought to be paid to the 
 other deities ; that there be consecrated to King Ptolemy a statue, and a 
 chapel, gilded, in the most holy of the temples; that this chapel be placed in 
 the sanctuary, with all the others; and that, in the great solemnities, wherein 
 it is customary to bring out the chapels from the sanctuaries, there shall be 
 brought out that of the god Epiphanes, most gracious ; and that this chapel 
 may be better distinguished from the others, now and in the lapse of time 
 hereafter, there shall be placed above it the ten golden crowns of the king, 
 which shall bear on their anterior part an asp, in imitation of tjjose crowns 
 of aspic form, which are in the other chapels; and in the middle of these 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 5 
 
 crowns, shall be placed the royal ornament termed pshent, that one which 
 the kin;; wore.when he entered the Memphis, in the temple, in order to ob- 
 serve the legal ceremonies prescribed for the coronation ; that there be at- 
 tached to the tetragon (the cornice? or perhaps cover/) encircling the ten 
 crowns affixed to the chapel above named, phylacteres of gold (similar to the 
 Hebrew “taphilint” — amulets) with this inscription : “This is the chapel 
 of the King; of that king who has rendered illustrious the upper and the lower 
 region;” that there be celebrated a festival; and a great assembly (pane- 
 gyrie) be held in honor of the ever living, of the well beloved of Pthah, of the 
 King Ptolemy, god Epiphanes most gracious, every year ; this festival shall 
 take place in all the provinces, as well in Upper, as in Lower Egypt ; and 
 shall last for five days, to commence on the first day of the month of Thoth ; 
 during which, those who make the sactifices, the libations, and all the other 
 customary ceremonies, shall wear crowns; they shall be called the priests 
 of the god Epiphanes — Eucliarislos (most gracious) and they shall add this 
 name to the others, that they borrow from the deities to the service of whom 
 they are already consecrated. , 
 
 “And in order that it may be known why, in Egypt, he is glorified and 
 honored, as is just, the god Epiphanes, most gracious sovereign, the present 
 decree shall he engraved on a stela of hard stone , in sacked characters, ( i. e. 
 in hieroglyphics) in writing of the country (i. e. in enchorial, or demo- 
 tic) and in Greek letters : and this stela shall be placed in „ach of the 
 temples of the first, second, and third class existing in all the kingdom.” 
 
 Note — The Rosetta stone is the only one of these numerous tablets, that 
 has yet been found ; but it is by no means impossible, that another copy be 
 discovered among the excavations that will be made in the temples of Egypt. 
 
 The importance of this stone and its inscriptions, indicating the 
 probability of its supplying a Key to the deciphering of the long 
 lost meanings of Egyptian hieroglyphics, was immediately per- 
 ceived. The French general, Dugua, brought from Egypt to Paris, 
 a cast and two impressions of the stone, made at Cairo ; and in 
 1803, an analysis of the Greek inscription, made by citizen Ameil- 
 hon, was published by order of the Institute. Copies of the stone 
 were subsequently given in the “ Description de 1’ Egypte.” The 
 Royal Antiquarian Society of London, on receipt of the original, 
 caused copies to be engraved, and disseminated throughout Europe. 
 
 The Rosetta Stone excited the liveliest interest in all those who 
 had devoted themselves to Egyptian Archaeology ; and the attention 
 of the greatest scholars of the age was directed to its critical invest- 
 igation. 
 
 The Greek inscription engaged the scrutiny of Professor Porson, 
 in London ; and of Dr. Ileyne, in Germany. By their critical labors, 
 nnd those of the French Institute, the blanks occasioned by frac- 
 tures in the stone were supplied, and the purport of the whole was 
 completely and satisfactorily ascertained. 
 
 With equal zeal, and in the end, with astonishing success, the 
 Continental scholars were examining the meaning of the other two 
 inscriptions. They demonstrated that the Greek was really a trans- 
 lation ; and consequently, that the opinion of the ancients, no less 
 than that of the moderns, was erroneous, in supposing that the hie- 
 roglyphic and other Egyptian characters had ceased to be em- 
 ployed, and their interpretation lost, since the Persian conquest of 
 that country by Cantbyses, in 525 B.C. ; while Quatremere, by 
 other processes, had established the present Coptic language to be 
 the ancient Egyptian itself. The attention, however, of these 
 learned inquirers, seems to have been mainly directed to the study 
 of the second, or intermedial inscription — tok re Icpois, sat cy%wptois, 
 cat iXXtjvtsois yyappanv — called in the Greek text, “ enchorial, or, 
 writing of the people ; ” also, as above stated, termed demotic ; for 
 the simple reason, that while it was the best preserved, at first sight 
 it appeared to be the easiest to decipher. Time, however, has shown 
 it to be the most difficult. 
 
 The greatest Orientalist of the day, and most proficient European 
 Arabic scholar, the lamented Silvestre de Sacy, was, in 1802, the 
 first to discover in the demotic text, the groups which represent dif- 
 ferent proper names; such as Ptolemy, Arsinoe, Alexander, and Alex, 
 andria — as well as to indicate that the signs in these groups are 
 letters. 
 
 A Swedish gentleman resident at Rome, Akerblnd, extended the 
 researches of De Sacy. He gave a skeleton alphabet of the de- 
 motic text ; but, inasmuch as he omitted to observe the suppression 
 of the vowels, (as customary in Hebrew, Arabic, and other oriental 
 languages,) he failed in applying this alphabet to the greater portion 
 of the demotic inscription. Yet a great progress had been made ; 
 and to Akerblad belongs the merit of indicating a passage in the 
 hieroglyphic character, which subsequent discoveries have con- 
 firmed. The Key to Egyptian monumental legends seemed, how- 
 ever, to be as fugacious as ever ; and years were spent in the dis- 
 covery of a single additional letter, notwithstanding the intensity of 
 the interest, and the laborious zealousness of the students. 
 
 Under the title of “ Analysis of the hieroglyphic Inscription of 
 the Rosetta Stone there appeared at Dresden, in 1804, a pretended 
 translation of the mutilated hieroglyphics, wherein the author, re- 
 peating the mystifications of Kircher, recognized in the fourteen 
 lines still existing of the hieroglyphical characters, (being scarcely 
 the half of the primitive inscription, before the stone was broken,) 
 the entire and perfect expression of its purport, contained in the 
 fifty-four lines of the Greek Text ! To outherod Herod in pre- 
 sumption, the Dresden author reprinted his work at Florence, after 
 Champoilion’s discoveries, as a sort of formal protest against the 
 new direction given to Egyptian studies ! 
 
 An interval oceurred, after Akerblad's discoveries, before any 
 
 ostensible advancement was made in the deciphering of these in- 
 scriptions, when the celebrated Dr. Thomas Young, famed for the 
 universality of his acquirements, published in 1814, in the “ Archaeo- 
 logia ” an improvement on the alphabet of Akerblad. He added a 
 translation of the demotic inscription, placed by the side of the 
 Greek, but distinguishing the contents of the different lines, with as 
 much precision as he could then acheive. In May, lbl4, Dr. Young 
 »published in the sixth No. of the “Museum Criticum,” the result of 
 his labors on the enchorial text. In 1818, he communicated to 
 the learned of Europe, a Memoir specifying his discoveries in hie- 
 roglyphics, republished in the year 1819, in the Encyclopedia Bri- 
 tannica — of which anon. Dr. Young’s interesting labors on the 
 demotic text, &c., may be consulted in Dr. H. TattanTs Coptic 
 Grammar. 
 
 In 1816, the learned German, Tychsen, of Gottingen, following a 
 different method of reasoning, was enabled to prove that the hie. 
 ratio character (not included in the Rosetta Stone) was but a simple 
 tachygraphy, or abridged mode of writing, a short-hand in fact, of tne 
 hieroglyphical inscriptions. An opinion entertained likewise by Dr. 
 Young. It would appear that, in 1812, Champollion held the same 
 belief ; although, at that time, he drew from the fact conclusions dia- 
 metrically at variance with those sustained in his Memoir, read, in 
 1821, to the Royal Academy of Belles Lettres at Paris. 
 
 Amid all the above interesting researches, the secret of the inter- 
 pretation of hieroglyphics, though nearly reached, or vaguely guessed 
 at, from the times of Warburton, Zoega, and Prof. Vater, seemed to 
 elude the grasp of the most comprehensive minds, and the pursuit of 
 the most untiring examiners. Many had stated their conviction, that 
 hieroglyphics constituted a real written language, applicable to all 
 the pursuits of common, as well as of public and scientific life ; sus- 
 ceptible of translation, and capable of being analyzed into an alpha- 
 bet, consisting of litttUi. more than 30 letters. The number of signs 
 used by the Copts in expressing their language, consists o£ the Greek 
 alpliabet of 24 signs, with the addition of 7 characters taken from 
 the demotic Egyptian alphabet, to express articulations, or sounds, 
 for which the Greek alphabet is insufficient. But, of the many 
 inquirers, none had at this time successfully demonstrated the fact. 
 
 While these labors were prosecuted in Europe, there were two 
 English gentlemen in Egypt, whose studies of the monuments them- 
 selves had led them to the threshold of truth; and it is due to Messrs. 
 J. W. Bankes and Consul-general Salt to record, that, in 1818, they 
 had identified the name of “ Cleopatra ” in a hieroglyphical oval on 
 the obelisk of Philae (subsequently removed to England for Mr. 
 Bankes, by Belzoni,) to which conclusion they were led by a Greek 
 inscription, on the same obelisk, confirmed by a variety of curious 
 coincidences. About the same time, 1820, some very extraordinary 
 comparisons were afforded, by the discovery of some Greek papyri — 
 one of which is justly renowned as the property of George F. Grey, 
 Esq.; another, containing the “ Sixth Book of Homer,” was found 
 in Nubia by that most enterprising of Egyptian travellers, Monsieur 
 A. Linant, now chief civil engineer in the service of Mohammed 
 Ali. It is to be regretted, that the lamented Henry Salt should have 
 delayed announcing to the world his own further discoveries in time ; 
 because, while there seems every likelihood that he had identified the 
 names of various other kings on the monuments of Egypt, before he 
 was aware of Champollion’s discoveries ; yet, it must be allowed, that 
 priority of publication is, by two or three years, in favor of the latter ; 
 no less than that, to the latter exclusively belongs the merit of putting 
 forth his system at once, and complete beyond all previous anticipa- 
 tion, applicable to every epoch, and to every legend in Egyptian 
 history. 
 
 The supplement to the 4th and 5th editions of the Encyclopedia 
 Britannica — Edinburgh, 1819 — under the article “ Egypt,” cast the 
 first beam of true light on the method adopted by the Egyptians, in 
 their peculiar art of writing ; and the renown of Dr. Young spread 
 far and wide as the ingenious author of this interesting essay. To 
 him belongs the merit of positively indicating in the hieroglyphical 
 groups on the Rosetta Stone, the names of “ Ptolemy” and “ Bere- 
 nice ;” and the probable values of each of the letters, contained in 
 these two royal ovals ; although subsequent investigations reduced 
 the number of Dr. Young’s positive demonstrations, to the phonetic 
 value of fve distinct characters, corresponding to our I, N, P, T, and 
 F. Dr. Young’s elaborate article explained the ingenious and curi 
 ous mechanical process, by which he had arrived at nis conclusions. 
 He likewise pointed out the probable meaning of some two hundred 
 groups of hieroglyphic characters; many of which interpretations 
 have been confirmed by later experience. He demonstrated, that 
 the two unknown inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone (the hieroglyphic 
 and demotic) were, as to the mode of expressing ideas, identical ; 
 the one being, in good measure, a corruption, abridgment, or running 
 form of the other. He moreover ascertained the mode of numeration, 
 used by the Egyptians in hieroglyphic writings. 
 
 He was led, however, into many errors, by his supposition of the 
 existence of a syllabic and a dissyllabic principle in the composition 
 of phonetic hieroglyphics ; whereas Champollion demonstrated, that 
 each phonetic hieroglyphic was a simple consonant, a vowel, or a 
 diphthong. 
 
 Dr. Young, however, was unable to carry the application of hir 
 principles of interpretation much beyond the names of a “ Ptolemy: 
 
 
c 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 a '* Berenice ,” and a “ Cleopatra." He had found the key, but in 
 his hands, it failed to open the door ; and after allowing some three 
 years to elapse, he deliberately stated his conviction (in his “ Ac- 
 count of some recent discoveries in hieroglyphic literature and 
 Egyptian antiquities,” London, 1823 ;) “ that the ancient Egyptians 
 did not make use of an alphabet to represent!!^ sounds and articu- 
 lations of certain words, before the domination of the Greeks and the 
 Romans.” In short, it must in fairness be allowed, that between 
 Champollion and Dr. Young there is little parity in achievements; 
 as the system of the latter could, beyond its first origin, apply itself 
 to nothing; while the system of the former applies itself to every- 
 thing Egyptian. Sir Win. Cell and Mr. Wilkinson, in 1821, had 
 already turned their attention to these subjects. 
 
 I am aware of the extreme jealousy with which the claim of priority 
 in hieroglyphical interpretation, between Dr. Young and Champol- 
 lion le Jeune has been debated ; and that a national rivalry has been 
 excited, between England and France on this subject, which, if in 
 many of its incidents is by the impartial to be deplored, yet has led 
 to an emulation, that has wonderfully promoted the advancement of 
 science. I confess, that my own tendencies are in favor of the Con- 
 tinental side of the question, and that I recognize in Champollion the 
 master spirit. Without wishing to detract an iota from Dr. Young’s 
 right to the honor of discovering the Key, I believe, that without a 
 Champollion, but little progress would at this day have been made in 
 Egyptian archaeology. My readers would probably not be interested 
 in the details of the controversy, and those who feel curious on the 
 question, may readily verify the view I take by consulting the authors 
 themselves. It is for the same reason, and the fear of being tedious, 
 that I purposely abstain from giving illustrations on the hieroglyph- 
 ical points in dispute ; because my object is to give the results of 
 these discoveries, as achieved in 1842, rather than the doubts and 
 errors of 1820. It will be seen, in the course.qf the present essays 
 (and future lectures) that I omit nothing, tha'i to the g. neral reader 
 can elucidaxe the theme. My part, as an annalist, is sitiply to give 
 this succinct sketch, in chronological order, by way of preface to the 
 developments at the present hour absolutely accomplished, and 
 incontrovertibly established. 
 
 It appears probable that, in 1812, and perhaps for 8 years after, 
 Champollion le Jeune did not believe, that the hieratic writing of 
 the ancient Egyptians was alphabetic — that he considered the hie- 
 ratic of the Greek authors to be a “hieroglyphic tachygraphy,” and 
 consequently to be in construction identical with the hieroglyphic ; 
 and as he deemed the hieratic to be signs of things, and not of 
 sounds, it follows, that he did not recognize, in 1812, that alphabetic 
 principle in the hieroglyphic legends, the existence of which, in 1822, 
 he thoroughly demonstrated. 
 
 The 27th Sept., 1822, was a memorable day to antiquarian laborers, 
 and inquirers into the primeval history of man ; while, to the Egyp- 
 tian student, it is an era equal to any in history. On that day, the 
 illustrious Champollion le Jeune read to the Royal Academy of Belles 
 Lettres at Paris, his “ Memoir on phonetic hieroglyphics” — which, 
 in October, was published under the title of “ Letters to Monsieur 
 Dacier, perpetual Secretary of the Academy” — wherein, for the first 
 dme since the cessation of hieroglyphic writing (about the 3rd cen- 
 tury after Christ) it was demonstrated, that “ the ancient Egyptians 
 had made use of pure hieroglyphical signs, that is to say, of charac- 
 ters representing the image of material objects, to represent simply 
 the sounds of the names of Greek and Roman sovereigns, inscribed 
 on the monuments of Dendera, Thebes, Esne, Edfoo, Ombos, and 
 Phila;.” The great paleographer thoroughly established his propo- 
 sition, in the application of his phonetic system and alphabetical 
 hieroglyphics to the epochs of the Romans and the Ptolemies. He 
 refrained from expressing, at the time, what must naturally have been 
 his own hope, if not conviction, that the same application would be 
 found consistent with and analogous to hieroglyphic inscriptions of an 
 earlier period : but time was required for the collection of further 
 materials, before openly hazarding an opinion, in support of which it 
 was, at that moment, out of his power to adduce sufficient evidence. 
 
 The Savans of Europe were astounded at the success and method 
 of Champollion. Every one was struck with its truth : but envy was 
 more prominent in the mass, than a desire to cooperate with the illus- 
 trious Frenchman. There were many learned minds, feeling the 
 force of the discovery, who exclaimed, as when Columbus made the 
 egg stand on its end, that, “ nothing was easier,” although they had 
 none of them discovered it before ; and time has shown, that the ex- 
 treme facility with which hieroglyphics were now to be deciphered, 
 was, for some years, limited to the presiding genius — to Champollion 
 himself. Detraction was the weapon wielded with most facility 
 by the critic; and, from 1822 to the present hour, it is infinitely more 
 facile to declare that, “hieroglyphical interpretation is all nonsense,” 
 than to acquire, by study and patient research, a knowledge of the 
 subject, upon which it has been so fashionable to sneer and to cavil. 
 
 In his “ Egypt under the Pharaohs,” Champollion, in 1814, had 
 recorded his hope, “ that there would be at last rediscovered, upon 
 those tablets, whereon Egypt had painted but material objects, the 
 sounds of language, and the expressions of thought.” In 1822, he 
 fully realized that hope : and if it may be maintained, that the first 
 rays of true light burst on him after Dr. Young’s discoveries, it must, 
 on the other hand, be allowed, that the use he made of its then par- 
 
 tial flickering has immortalized his glorious labors, infinitely beyond 
 those, not only of his contemporaries, but of all his predecessors. 
 Like Archimedes, Galileo, Franklin, Sir Isaac Newton, Watt, Har 
 vey, Fulton, and other meteors in the paths of science, he marked 
 his era to the honor of himself, to the glory of his country, and to the 
 general benefit ol mankind. As he himself declares, “ my hiero- 
 glyphical alphabet was in truth grounded upon so many facts, and 
 positive applications, that I had to fear, less the controvertors, than 
 pretenders to a participation in my discovery.” 
 
 In February, 1823, there appeared in the London Quarterly Review, 
 a journal aptly designated by Champollion as “ eminently English," 
 an article, wherein, although the truths of the results published by 
 Champollion in his “Letters to Monsieur Dacier,” are acknowledged, ‘iy 
 the writer claimed for Dr. Young the priority of the discovery. This 
 was followed by a small volume from the pen of Dr. Young himself ; 
 entitled “An Account of some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphical 
 Literature, and Egyptian Antiquities, including the Author’s original 
 Alphabet, as extended by Monsieur Champollion. London, 1823.” 
 
 Impartiality cannot close its eyes to the evident tendency of the 
 article in the London Quarterly, written in a spirit calculated to 
 arouse the national jealousy of French scientific men, and still more 
 the easily excitable anger of Champollion, one of the most jealous 
 savans in the world. Dr. Young’s book was an ill-advised and fee- 
 ble production ; and instead of raising its author above the elevated 
 position his article in the Encyclopedia Britanica had secured for 
 him in 1819, its effect was injurious to his just claims of priority, as 
 well as suicidal to his less deserved hieroglyphical pretensions. The 
 whole affair was unfortunate, as it proved, that although Dr. Young 
 had found the key he could not make use of it; and the tone of 
 captiousness it exhibits was extremely prejudicial to his literary fame, 
 long established on the secure basis of his vast erudition and univer- 
 sality of genius. 
 
 The ire of Champollion was fully aroused. He bent his mighty 
 energies to the task ; and in the autumn and winter of 1823 he 
 composed, and in 1824 he put forth his “Precis du systeme hiero- 
 glyphique des Anciens Egyptiens wherein, with the hands of a 
 giant, he stripped Dr. Young even of the measure of merit he would 
 have enjoyed unmolested, but for the Quarterly Review and his own 
 “Account” above mentioned; and at the same time, with singular 
 felicity of analysis, reduced Dr. Young’s claim of priority to indi- 
 cating the phonetic value of 5 letters, instead of nine, which Dr. 
 Young had appropriated to himself exclusively. 
 
 With the force of an earthquake the illustrious Frenchman over- 
 threw the puny edifices of his predecessor ; and, from that hour, the 
 Annals of Egypt, her time-honored chronicles, her papyri crumbling 
 in the dust of ages, ceased to be mysteries! The “Veil of Isis” — 
 
 “ the curtain that no mortal hand could raise ” — which, for 2000 
 years, had baffled the attempts of Greeks and Romans, with the still 
 more vigorous efforts of modern Egyptologists — was lifted by Cham- 
 pojj.ion le Jeune: and the glories of Pharaonic epochs — the deeds 
 of the noblest, the most learned, pious, warlike, and civilized race of 
 ancient days — whose monarchy has exceeded by 1000 years the 
 duration of any of our modem nations — whose works surpass in 
 magnitude, in boldness of conception, accuracy of execution, and 
 splendor of achievement the mightiest labors of any other people — 
 and whose lordly dominion over the nations of the earth at one period 
 perhaps equalled the territorial extent of Muscovy, at the present day ; 
 have, through Champollion’s labors, and through those of his col- 
 leagues and disciples, become familiar to all whose inclination has 
 prompted them to read the works which, since 1824, have issued 
 from the press of Europe. 
 
 The immediate results of Champollion’s labors in 1824, served to 
 establish the fact, that the greater portion of those signs or repre. 
 sentations of material objects, sculptured, painted, or delineated in 
 all hieroglyphical texts and legends, were phonetic ; and thoroughly 
 reducible, as in due time by him effected, into an alphabet composed 
 of 16 distinct articulations, for each of which there w'as a number 
 more or less great of homophones — i. e symbols, differing in figure, 
 though identical in sound— applicable according to a well-defined 
 system, and never solely by graphical caprice. He proved, that the 
 hieroglyphic mode of writing is a complex system — a system figura- 
 tive, symbolical, and phonetic (I will explain these terms in due 
 course,) always in the same text, sometimes in the same phrase, and 
 often in the same word. He proved the idea to be illusory, (although 
 so frequently put forth by his predecessors, and reiterated by some 
 of his contemporaries,) that no alphabet was in use in Egypt; or that 
 hieroglyphical phonetic writing had been introduced into that coun- 
 try after the Persian invasion in B. C. 525. He overthrew the doc- 
 trine, that phonetic signs were first employed in Egypt, after Psam- 
 metichus, B. C. 650, who first allowed the “Impure Foreigners,” 
 the Greeks and others (to Egyptians, Gentile and barbarian nations) 
 to sojourn in and to become citizens of Egypt ; for, in his “ Precis ” 
 he demonstrated, that it was in unquestionable, constant, general, 
 and popular use at the period of the 18th Diospolitan dynasty, or 
 back to the 19th century B. C. His subsequent researches, and the 
 labors of his disciples, have established, that it was equally so 2300 
 years B. C. — that ages prior to this last epoch, at the time of the 
 erection of the Pyramids, this mode of writing was just as perfect as 
 at any period after; while the commencement of the art, or even th* 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 7 
 
 incipient development of hieroglyphic writing, including the employ- 
 ment of the phonetic system, lies buried in those countless days 
 before the Pyramids, enveloped in utter obscurity, amid the primeval 
 origin of nations, and infinitely beyond our present attainment, if not 
 our comprehension. 
 
 A pause followed Champollion’s Precis. The force of his conclu- 
 sions laid bare consequences too astounding to be thoroughly esti- 
 mated, even by the most learned and the most enthusiastic Egyptian 
 students. Like the atmospheric stillness that follows the thunder- 
 clap, genius seemed paralyzed by the portentous aspect of the truth. 
 On the one hand, the classical scholars, adhering rigidly to the He- 
 brew, Greek, and Latin authorities, were not willing to cast aside 
 the errors of their masters ; and those, whose schools had nailed 
 their colors to the mast, were not prepared to see Manetho exalted 
 above Herodotus and Diodorus ; to find Hermapion confirmed, while 
 Pliny was rejected ; to behold in Plato but the translator, or in Pytha- 
 goras but the adopter, of Egyptian mythological doctrines; still less 
 to consider what amount of instruction accrued to the Hebrew Law- 
 giver from his education in Helioftolitan colleges; for “ Moses was 
 learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” — Acts vii. 22. 
 
 On the other hand, the astronomers and mathematicians, the 
 Dupuis, the Bodes and Rhodes, the Goerres and Creuzers, the Four- 
 riers and Biots, who had claimed for the zodiacal planispheres of 
 Dendera and Esnfe, an antiquity varying from 700 to 17,000 years 
 B. C., were not particularly charmed with a science which demon- 
 strated, by hieroglyphical interpretation, what the learned Visconti 
 had sustained 20 years before, amid the sneers of his cotemporaries, 
 that these astrological subjects were the most modern productions 
 of Egypto-Roman art, and Egypto-Hellenic science, of the age of 
 Tiberius, Nero, Claudius, Hadrian, or Antoninus. 
 
 Christian divines, apprehending the progress of infidelity, if no 
 records of the Hebrews were to be found in Egypt, no memento of 
 the Patriarchs, or of the Exodus, in hieroglyphical legends, looked 
 with discountenance on the new science, and clung to the good old 
 unintelligibilities of profane writers; while other well-meaning per- 
 sons snatched with avidity at supposititious confirmations, in points 
 wherein there is no confirmation to be found. It was extremely 
 provoking to some finished Hebrew, Greek, or Latin classic to find, 
 that these perverse old Egyptians, besides resorting to such “a queer 
 mode of writing,” should have actually used Coptic for their language, 
 whereby a hieroglyphic text required a double study, before it could 
 be rendered into any of our modern tongues. How much more 
 convenient would it not have been, if the living antecedent of the 
 mummy had talked in Latin, or in Greek, or at least in Hebrew ; 
 and if this self-willed individual would use Coptic for his ordinary 
 language, why were not the dialects spoken at the rise of the 16th 
 Theban dynasty, about 22 centuries B. C., the same as were spoken 
 in Egypt about 500 years after our Saviour, when the liturgies which 
 we now possess in the Coptic tongue began to be composed ? In 
 Bhort, it must be acknowledged, Champollion’s discoveries were to 
 the mass of the learned, in all countries, unpopular and unpleasing; 
 and a cold and suspicious reception was the first welcome with which 
 the “ Precis ” was received by the many, although the work met with 
 applause, and the author found instant solace in the admiration of 
 the few. 
 
 After the pause, came in natural process a reaction. On every 
 side, doubts, difficulties, dilemmas, and obstacles were, with won. 
 derful ingenuity, and not a little malignity, suggested. Efforts of all 
 kinds were made to stem the torrent of conviction, or to direct it into 
 an unpropitious channel. It may be remarked, that none were slower 
 in admitting the value of Champollion’s discoveries, than some of the 
 then surviving members of the French “ Institute of Egypt,” whose 
 profound erudition is displayed in the great French work : and to 
 this day, there is a set of really great men in Europe, who continue 
 to write largely on ancient Egypt, without alluding at all to what the 
 old Egyptians record of their own history, and as if a single hiero- 
 glyphic had not been deciphered ! Some, w'ith the ostrich, bury their 
 heads in the sand, and with a curious self-complacency fancy all 
 mankind as blind as themselves. Others, reposing on the well-earned 
 laurels of former deeds, or on the sanction of eminent names, are 
 happy in knowing that they, at least, had no hand in advancing the 
 new discoveries ; while, by the disciples of Champollion, the works 
 of these gentlemen, as they issue from the press, are laid on the shelf, 
 as “ emanations from a superannuated school of feminine senility.” 
 But, of course, the severest shafts were those of facetiousness and 
 satire — ridicule being the deadliest of weapons — the most difficult to 
 parry — the most agreeable to the public. However, Champollion, 
 and the fellow-laborers whom his discoveries soon rallied around his 
 hieroglyphic standard, kept steadily at work. 
 
 Sow'arroff, when the siege of Ismail had baffled Russia’s ablest 
 generals, used, in his shirt, to head the awkward squads of his troops, 
 in a bayonet-charge against sticks, picketted in the earth and sur- 
 mounted with rag-turbans, to accustom his raw recruits to face the 
 “ turbanned Turk,” greatly to the amusement and derision of his 
 staff. Like Sowarroff in his military exercises, so Champollion in 
 his hieroglyphical researches, pursued a system 
 
 “ At which they sneered in phrases wondrous witty. 
 
 He made no answer ; but, he took the city." 
 
 The succeeding three years were, by Champollion, employed in 
 
 studying and deciphering all those monuments and Egyptian relics, 
 contained in Continental museums, of which he could consult the 
 originals, or obtain facsimile copies. In two invaluable “Letters,” 
 addressed to the Duke of Blacas (Due dc Blacas,) he published a 
 multitude of curious facts and discoveries, gleaned chiefly from the 
 study of the antiqtfijws preserved in the royal collections at Turin. 
 To the.se letters, his learned brother, Champollion Figeac, added, by 
 way of appendix, a chronological dissertation, having for its main 
 object to reconcile Manetho with the discrepancies of other authors. 
 A second and improved edition of the “Precis” was issued by Cham- 
 pollion, on his return to France from Turin, wherein he corrected 
 many of his former hasty conclusions, and modified some of his 
 prior opinions. He likewise put forth, in this interval, an “ Egyptian 
 Pantheon,” by which much light was thrown on the mythology, phi- 
 losophy, and religious doctrines and rites of this ancient people. He 
 corresponded on these subjects with some of the most eminent ar- 
 chaeologists of the age, and paved the way for the realization of his 
 dearest wish, a visit to Egypt, and the personal study of all the monu- 
 ments existing in the Nilotic Valley. 
 
 In 1825, Charles Coquerel, a Protestant clergyman at Amsterdam, 
 compared the chronologies of Scripture with the new discoveries, 
 and pointed out the advantages which the one derived from the other. 
 The erudite and liberal Dr. Wiseman of Rome, in his “Horae Syri- 
 acte,” 1828, followed in the same field; adding a curious Syriac frag- 
 ment, found in the Vatican, confirmatory of the views of Champollion 
 Figeac. The Marquis Spineto, in 1829, in a course of lectures, 
 published after their delivery at Cambridge, in a very able manner 
 unfolded the “ elements of hieroglyphics.” The Abbd Greppo and 
 the Rev. M. Bovet, in the same year, lent their aid in establishing 
 scriptural and monumental comparisons. On the opposite side, Abbd 
 Count Robiano instituted an ingenious analysis of hieroglyphic and 
 demotic texts. He endeavored to establish forced Hebrew affinities: 
 but his work is valuable, as it goes to show the Semitic origin of 
 Coptic, and thence we may infer the Asiatic origin of that language, 
 which we shall find singularly confirmed by the paleographic re- 
 searches of another hierological master, Dr. Leipsius of Berlin, in his 
 correspondence with Chevalier Baron Bunsen, as in his numerous 
 later works. From this date, the increase of works all over Europe 
 has been so rapid, on various branches of Egyptian science, that it 
 would be tedious to give merely a dry catalogue ; nor do I pretend 
 to have had an opportunity of consulting them all. 
 
 While we have endeavored to keep pace with the progress of the 
 master up to the year 1827, it is peculiarly gratifying to revert to the 
 labors prosecuted in Egypt by some of his disciples. It is always 
 pleasing to render justice to the operations of men of science and 
 learning; and the names of Burton, Wilkinson, Felix, Prudhoe, and 
 Hay, are too honorably associated with early Egyptian studies, in 
 phonetic hieroglyphics, not to demand in this place especial mention. 
 
 With Dr. Young’s key, and Champollion’s alphabet contained in 
 his letter to M. Dacier, a group of scientific Englishmen commenced 
 in Egypt itself, about 1822, the scrutiny and examination of all the 
 Monuments of antiquity existing, from the Sea-beach to Upper N ubia, 
 from the Oases to the peninsula of Mount Sinai, and in every direc 
 tion in the Eastern and Western Deserts. These gentlemen, named 
 above, mutually aiding and cooperating "/ith each other, were enabled 
 to take instant advantage of the true method of interpretation. Egypt 
 was then all virgin ground. Every temple, every tomb, contained 
 something unknown before ; and which these gentlemen were the 
 first to date, and to describe with accurate details. A more intensely 
 interesting field never opened to the explorer — every step being a 
 discovery. Nobly did these learned and indefatigable travellers pio- 
 neer the way, and mighty have been the results of their arduous labors. 
 They procured lithographic presses from England ; and, at their indi- 
 vidual expense, for private circulation, Messrs. Felix, Burton, and 
 Wilkinson printed (at Cairo — 1826 to 1829) and circulated a mass 
 of hieroglyphical tablets, legends, genealogical tables, texts, mytho- 
 logical, historical, and other subjects, w'hich, under the modest titles 
 of “Notes,”* “Excerpta,”t and “Materia Hieroglyphics, ”t were 
 disseminated to learned societies in Europe. Lord Prudhoe’s distant 
 excursions and correct memoranda rendered the collections of anti- 
 quities, with which he enriched England, extremely valuable ; and 
 his labors were the more appreciated, as his lordship’s liberal mind 
 and generous patronage of science w'ere above any sordid motives 
 of acquisitiveness. Mr. Hay’s own accurate pencil, aided by various 
 talented artists whom his princely fortune enabled him to employ, 
 amassed an amount of drawings, that render his portfolios the largest 
 in the world. The researches of all these gentlemen have been of 
 incalculable value to the cause. They have preserved accurate data 
 on subjects, § that the destroying hand of Mohammed Ali has since 
 irrevocably obliterated ; and as they all pursued science for itself, they 
 deserve and enjoy a full measure of respect. The rumor of their 
 successes reached Europe ; and Champollion, with reason, appre- 
 hended, that if he delayed his visit to Egypt any longer, the indivi. 
 dual labors of English travellers would render that visit as unprofitable 
 
 * By Major Felix : republished, in Italian, at Fisa, 
 t By James Halliburton, Esq. ; out of print. 
 t By Sir J. G. Wilkinson ; do. 
 
 § See my “Appeal to the Antiquaries of Europe, on the Destruction of the Monu- 
 ments of Egypt.” 1SU, London, Madden & Co. New York, Sartlttt & Weiford. 
 
8 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 as unnecessary. National jealousy was excited; and, to preserve 
 her position as the patroness of Egyptian literature, France deter- 
 mined not to be anticipated. 
 
 In 1828, the French government sent a commission, consisting of 
 Champollion le Jeune, and four French artists, well supplied with 
 every necessary outfit, to Egypt, in order that ■ffi’.a master might, for 
 his own and his country’s honor, and at her expense, reap the harvest 
 for which his hand had sown the seed. A similar design having 
 suggested itself to another patron of arts and sciences, the Grand 
 Duke of Tuscany, the celebrated archaeologist and oriental scholar, 
 Professor Ippolito Rosellini, of the University of Pisa, and four Ital- 
 ian artists under his direction, were appointed a commission to pro- 
 ceed to Egypt, with the same intent as the French mission. It was 
 amicably arranged by the respective governments, and between the 
 chiefs of each expedition, that their labors should be united ; and, in 
 consequence, the French and Tuscan missions were blended into 
 one, and both reached Alexandria in the same vessel, and prosecuted 
 their labors hand in hand from Memphis to the second Cataract. 
 They returned in 1829. 
 
 We are now approaching a period, when, for all local Egyptian 
 annals, my own personal recollection will supply the place of books ; 
 and I am able to speak as a spectator, and a little later as a very hum- 
 ble actor, in some of the scenes, of which I shall incidentally give 
 sketches. These may be thought curious by my readers, and I can 
 assure them, that they are known to very few, and have never been 
 published. I have said, that from 1829 my local recollection serves ; 
 but, to avoid misapprehension, I will mention, that my sojourn in 
 Egypt dates from 1818, and with intervals of absence has been pro- 
 longed during 23 years, to 1841 ; and consequently, I presume to 
 entertain opinions of my own, on any affairs to which I am a party. 
 I mention these circumstances, with an apology for alluding to my- 
 eelf, only to satisfy my readers, that I am not a stranger in the land 
 of Egypt, and may be allowed to speak from personal knowledge and 
 long experience, without reference to the works or opinions of gen- 
 tlemen, who, however greatly they surpass me in acquirements and 
 talents, remained but a few weeks, months, or years, in the valley of 
 the Nile ; and whose Egyptian sojournings, in point of duration, can 
 rarely be spoken of in the same breath with my own. In fact, I feel 
 myself to be a foreigner in every other country; and if, on ancient 
 Egyptian matters, I am proud to consider myself the humblest fol- 
 lower in the footsteps of the hieroglyphical masters, or if, on scientific 
 subjects, I make no claim to anything beyond the merest superficial 
 acquaintance, it is not presumption in me to declare, that, on modern 
 and on local Egyptian topics, I need acknowledge few superiors in 
 or out of that country. Those who have been at Cairo, in my time, 
 among whom I have much pleasure in enumerating a host of Amer- 
 ican travellers, will allow, that in this personal digression, I do not 
 arrogate to myself more than their own experience will in fairness 
 concede to me. 
 
 The arrival in Egypt of the French and Tuscan expeditions, added 
 new fuel to the flame of antiquarian jealousy, which, for thirty years, 
 had characterized the archaeological devotees of England and France 
 in that country : but, in this later strife, the actors, by their pure 
 love of science and national spirit of emulation, were divested of 
 those sordid motives which disgraced their predecessors, and perhaps 
 some of their successors. Up to 1825, the competition between the 
 representatives of Britain and France, Mr. Consul General Salt, and 
 Monsieur le Consul General Drovetti, had not been, as to which of 
 them should immortalize his labors by the most useful examinations 
 ii» ancient Egyptian lore ; but, in the immense works and excava- 
 tions each of these gentlemen undertook, sordid acquisitiveness was 
 the moving principle. They did not squabble with each other, lest 
 the one should verify before his antagonist, on a mouldering temple, 
 some interesting point of history. One did not strive to surpass the 
 other in expounding the mysterious hieroglyphical legends. They 
 quarrelled over a granite Sphinx, not as to which Pharaoh it had be- 
 longed, but as to what price its sale would bring in Europe. Anti- 
 quities were valuable in their eyes, simply according to their estimate 
 of what they would sell for, when transferred from the ruins to the 
 competition of European virtuosi.* 
 
 * Mohammed Ali.and his astute minister Bonhos, fanned tiiese jealousies, which were 
 lo many pledges, that Salt and Drovetti, while absorbed in intrigues, schemes and maneu- 
 vres to circumvent each other in the abstraction of a saleable relic, would, in common 
 with their subordinate officers, (who at the same time were fattening on cotton, beans, 
 &c.,) naturally close their eyes to barefaced infractions of every commercial treaty be- 
 tween Europe and the Sublime Porte, of every law ofthe Ottoman Empire, and of the 
 free-trade principles of the Koran itself. The P isha promoted this rivalry, by giving 
 extra facilities to each, thereby rendering the trade in antiquities a consular monopoly 
 of France, Great Britain, and Sweden ; well knowing, that by filling the pockets ofthe 
 representatives of the first two, and using the other. Signor D’Anastasy, as a sort of 
 cloak to their proceedings, he should place them under such lasting obligations to him- 
 self, that they would follow the wheels of his chariot, without daring to remonstrate 
 against his ruinous commercial system. 
 
 It was not until 1840, that the British government believed the often disregarded com- 
 plaints of her merchants, saw through the mystifications ofthe Pasha, and peremptorily 
 •topped the proceedings of H. M. consuls-genernl. by a radical change of the "person- 
 nel.” Feeling that I have had a hand in some of these changes, it is to me a legitimate 
 cause of triumph ; and when I look back at the difficulties overcome, I indulge in pleas- 
 ing anticipations of the future. 
 
 Salt however, it must in justice he ndded, was a gentleman nnd a scholar, possessed 
 of many estimable qualities; and. if he sold the tablet that he had succeeded in with- 
 holding from the corsair-cl itches of Drovetti. he certainly did his best to embellisli.his 
 invoices with antiquarian annotations. He died in 1827, leaving a large fortune, made I 
 
 The enthusiastic English travellers, above referred to, having 
 labored with great success on the virgin soil of local studies in hie- 
 roglyphics, felt persuaded, as they had not at that period published 
 the entire results of their researches, that if they came into personal 
 contact with the arch-Egyptologist himself, amid the ruins along the 
 Nile, it would be said, on their return to Europe, and on the publica. 
 tion of their own discoveries, that they had derived all their inform- 
 ation from Champollion. They consequently took such steps, as 
 precluded the possibility of a rencontre in Egypt. On the other side, 
 Champollion looked upon them as interlopers and trespassers on 
 that field, which, with more vehemence than propriety, he considered 
 his own exclusive prerogaiive — the expounding of hieroglyphics on 
 the ruins of Egypt. Many laughable incidents were the conse- 
 quences of this mutual diffidence, and the following anecdote will 
 give an idea of the whole. 
 
 The works of Arabian authors, Abd-el-Lateef, Makrisi, Murtady, 
 JellM-ed-deen-El-Assyobtee, and others, contain, among many re- 
 markable passages, some details on the spoliations of Memphis and 
 Heliopolis, effected by the Saracenic Caliphate, since the conquest 
 of Egypt by Ahmer-ebn-el-As (in Anno Domini, 638, Hejira, 16 ;) 
 for the construction of the various edifices of Saracenic magnificence 
 at Cairo. A vast number of curious relics, and fragments of Phara- 
 onic periods have been discovered, fjid many more lie embedded in 
 the buildings of this Mahommedan city, which time will bring to 
 light. One of these English explorers especially devoted himself, 
 for a long period, to the examination of all such places as he thought 
 might contain ruins of earlier epochs ; and he discovered a slab of 
 basalt, forming the lintel of a doorway, in an unfrequented and dilap- 
 idated mosque, whereon was engraved a trilinguar, or rather a tri. 
 grammatic inscription. 
 
 Having consulted with his fellow travellers, application was made, 
 through the British consul general, to Mohammed Ali at Alexan- 
 dria, for permission to remove this block, with an offer to repair the 
 mosque, as a compensation for the favor. In Egypt, whatever may 
 be the case elsewhere, it is impossible to keep a secret from the fer- 
 ret-like propensities of courtiers ; and whether instigated by Dro- 
 vetti or not, the Pasha refused, on the ground of sacrilege, desecration, 
 and other canting phrases; the Viceroy, (who has destroyed more 
 ancient remains than any individual in the world, and whose sacri- 
 legious hand spared not the edifices of Islkm itself) being wonder, 
 fully happy in this, as in all other cases, in seizing on dexterous 
 excuses and shuffling expedients. Mohammed Ali declined, how- 
 ever, giving it to the French mission, lest he should offend the Eng- 
 lish after their prior application. 
 
 Champollion, on the good faith of a friend, was, in an evil hour, 
 taken by an English traveller to see the block, as it stood in the 
 mosque at Cairo. He instantly perceived its possible value. Dro- 
 vetti was sent for from Alexandria ; and a plot was laid by him with 
 the skill of one of the most finished conspirators of modern times. 
 In Egypt, Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Mohammed Ali, can do what- 
 ever he pleases ; and as he was quite unaware of his father’s refusal, 
 Drovetti applied to him, for permission to take the stone, which he 
 granted ; but, to avoid giving offence to the natives, which might 
 have been the case if Europeans had done the work, he said he 
 would cause it to be executed for himself, and gave orders for its re- 
 moval the next day. Timely information reached the English trav- 
 ellers ; who, provoked beyond measure at the duplicity of the opposite 
 parties, went in the night, removed the block, and carried it to the 
 English consulate, where it was carefully deposited. The indigna- 
 tion of the French party, when it was known that the stone had 
 been abstracted, may be conceived ; Ibrahim Pasha himself was not 
 a little annoyed. A tremendous row ensued. Mohammed Ali went 
 off to Cairo, followed by the British consul general. Ibrahim’s 
 influence was all-powerful ; and knowing that “ his beard had been 
 laughed at,” he persuaded his father to insist on the restitution of 
 the stone to the Egyptian government. 
 
 In the mean time, the Englishmen having had abundance of leisure 
 to take facsimile copies, impressions, and plaster-casts, of the stone ; 
 and having thereby ascertained that, from its very mutilated condi- 
 tion, the inscriptions were of trivial value, sent the block to the pa- 
 lace, with an intimation that it was not worth keeping, and forwarded 
 their copies instantly to Europe. The stone was transferred to the 
 Frenchmen by the gift of the Pasha; and is now in the museum at 
 Paris. I was an amused eye-witness of the rabid indignation of 
 Drovetti, when the stone first arrived at the French consulate in 
 Alexandria. There are some biting sentences in the last “ Letters” 
 
 by collections of antiquities ; lamented as an amiable kind-hearted man, even by those 
 who had suffered most from his indifference to commercial interests. After his demise, 
 ASsop’s fable ofthe frogs, who once petitioned Jove for a king, was realized by the mer 
 cantile community in Egypt. King Log, Mr. ******, not pleasing the marshy tribe 
 was succeeded by king Crane. Col. ******** t who continued extremely friendly to 
 Mohammed Ali, although his speculations in antiquities were not remarkably profitable 
 in results, or splendid in conception. The farce continued, however, till 1840 ; when, by 
 the expenditure of treasure and torrents of human blood, the spell was broken ; and 
 twenty years of mystification about Mohammed All’s philanthropic utilities, and civili 
 zing tendencies, began to be doubted in Europe. Gradually the Pasha’* system of 
 monopoly is falling before the remonstrances of British official characters ; who are nei- 
 ther to be frightened by Boghos, or fascinated by Mohammed AJi : neither to be turned 
 aside by antiquities, or to be crammed with lands, cotton, beans, and other tokens of ms 
 highness’s partiality 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 9 
 
 of Champollion from Egypt, to which this anecdote may serve as a 
 running commentary 
 
 This fact, with others of similar nature, will serve to explain the 
 mode in which “ aifairs are managed” at the Pasha’s court ; and also 
 the early jealousies and bickerings among hieroglyphical savans. To 
 those who may have read the works that during the last twelve years 
 have issued from the European press in the new school of archteol. 
 ogy, this explanation will be found useful ; serving them as a clue, 
 whereby to comprehend incongruities that must frequently strike the 
 impartial reader, by indicating the relative positions of some of the 
 authors in Egypt, no less than the causes, why one makes sometimes 
 so little allusion to the labors of another, who is studying the same 
 subjects, treating on the same topics, and often arriving, independ- 
 ently more or less of any other, at the same results. The truth is, 
 the pursuit is so intensely interesting, the merit of a discovery so 
 honorable to each pioneer in hieroglyphical literature, that we cannot 
 be altogether surprised at, though we may deplore, the sometimes 
 puerile exclusiveness of the writer. A better feeling is now becom- 
 ing universal and it would be easy to point out instances of honorable 
 amendment. 
 
 After this digression, let us return to the chronological narrative. 
 
 During the residence of the French and Tuscan expeditions in 
 Egypt, Champollion transmitted occasional letters to Paris, to keep 
 aiive the interest with which his movements were watched. These 
 letters were afterwards collected into a volume, and published under 
 the title of “ Letters written from Egypt and Nubia, in 1828-29.” 
 They are productions worthy of so great a man, possessing intrinsic 
 merit and utility ; but, as Champollion wrote them in haste, before a 
 thorough examination had enabled him to form positive conclusions, 
 there are frequent errors in the views he entertained at that time, 
 which he himself, and others have since corrected. 
 
 One of the most extraordinary faculties possessed by Champollion 
 was a power of comprehending, at a glance, that which others could 
 only arrive at, if at all, by long and arduous study. With a felicitous 
 Intuitiveness of conception he. could define the meaning of an obscure 
 legend, or irreconcileable tradition, which it took him months to ex- 
 plain in writing, to the comprehension of others less gifted than himself. 
 It was in consequence of this singular ability, that he often hazarded 
 an opinion, which was either rejected by the learned, or considered 
 problematical, until time enabled him to demonstrate its accuracy, 
 and it became almost an axiom. In fact, this gifted Frenchman 
 lived so much in advance of his age with regard to Egyptian subjects, 
 that many startling propositions, put forth by him, and which death 
 prevented his substantiating, although looked upon at first as chimeri- 
 cal, have been confirmed by the subsequent researches of his dis- 
 ciples ; and, even now, there are some points unexplained, that 
 Champollion sustained fifteen years ago, which those who can judge 
 believe will hereafter "be amply confirmed. Like other men, he was 
 
 not infallible, though considering the abstruse nature of his studies, 
 he was less liable to err than his fellows : for example : 
 
 On leaving France, in 1828, he saw, at Aix, a hieratic scroll, 
 celebrated as the Sallier papyrus ; wherein he declared was con. 
 tained an an ancient Egyptian epic poem, referring to the conquests 
 of Ramses 3rd. — Sesoetris — over the Shelo (a Scythian nation)— 
 events of the sixteenth century, B. C. — and geographically located 
 toward Bactriana or Cappadocia. Years transpired — Champollion 
 passed away — the very existence of the papyrus was denied — its 
 production challenged — and it was even insinuated that it might be 
 a forgery ! The publication of a translation of this identical papyrus, 
 by Salvolini, under the title of “ Campagne de Rhamses,” within 
 the last six years, has silenced the cavillers. 
 
 Again, he was the first to insist, that the faces of the Pharaohs of 
 Egypt, sculptured on the temples, were likenesses of the persons 
 represented ; thus carrying back the full use of portrait-sculpture and 
 painting to 2000 B. C., and its origin into the night of time. After 
 fifteen years of critical, and even hostile research, no doubt is now 
 entertained of the truth of his assertion ; and, in my lecture room 
 the fact will be elucidated by abundant illustrations, &c. 
 
 It is likewise due to the memory of this illustrious man to men. 
 tion, that, in his “ Precis,” lie had identified and produced the name 
 of Sheshonk, the Shishak of Scripture, (who, in 2nd Chron. xii. 1 — 
 10 — 1st Kings, xiv. 25 — deposed Rehoboam,) in the following hiero. 
 glyphical oval, drawn in a plate of the great French work, as found 
 at Karnac. 
 
 
 ' 
 
 1 /wws 
 
 i m u 
 
 MI 
 
 
 MI 
 
 /VWvVS 
 
 A M o 
 
 —-SEDUCTION , 
 
 Illllltlll 
 
 N MaiSHeSHwN K 
 Beloved of Amon, Sheshonk. 
 
 Four years elapsed, before he could verify this fact on the temple 
 itself, during which interval, the name of Sheshonk, and his captive 
 nations, had been examined times out of number by other hiero- 
 glyphists, and the names of all the prisoners had been copied by 
 them, and published, without any one of them having noticed the 
 extraordinary biblical corroboration thence to be deduced. 
 
 On his passage toward Nubia, Champollion landed for an hour or 
 two, about sunset, to snatch a hasty view of the vast halls of Kar. 
 nac ; and he at once pointed out in the third line of the row of 
 sixty-three prisoners (each typical of a nation, city, or tribe,) presented 
 by the god Amunra to Sheshonk, the following figure : 
 
 Kah 
 
 rtOTi. — The turreted oval inclosing the name, designates a “ walled city.” 
 The face of the prisoner is not, as has been erroneously and hastily con- 
 jectured, a portrait of Rehoboam, but is typical of an Asiatic, 
 
 The eye of the master being able to seize, at a glance, that which his 
 emulous disciples, or competitors, had not made out in four years, 
 after the index was given to them ! 
 
 Laden with the richest archaeological spoils that ever left Egypt, 
 Champollion with his party returned to France in 1829, and Rosellini 
 with his associates to Tuscany. They had labored all together ; and 
 each monumental subject had been faithfully delineated in two copies 
 — the one by the French, and the other by the Italian artists. Both 
 had been collated with each other on the spot, and compared with 
 the originals on the monuments, by the great masters ; and in per- 
 fect harmony the expeditions had fulfilled their mission. 
 
 It was amicably arranged, between Champollion and Rosellini, 
 that they were to combine their labors in the works that were to be 
 issued ; each, however, taking separate branches — Champollion un. 
 dertaking the illustration of the “ Historical Monuments,” and the 
 grammar of the hieroglyphic language of Egypt — to Rosellini was 
 assigned the task of elucidating, by the “Civil Monuments,” the 
 manners and customs of this ancient people, and the formation of a 
 hieroglyphical dictionary. Each set to work by 1830 ; but Cham, 
 pollion, finding his end approaching, hastened the completion of his 
 grammar. Intense application had prostrated the fragile frame, 
 which enveloped one of the most gifted mental capacities ever 
 vouchsafed to man. The French government gave him, in the 
 Royal Academy, a professor’s chair, created for him alone ; and his 
 address to his pupils, at the first and only occasion accorded to him 
 
10 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 by Providence, is a masterpiece of eloquence, sublimity of thought, 
 and classical diction. 
 
 He finished his grammar on his death-bed, and summoning his 
 friends around him, he delivered the autograph into their custody, 
 with the injunction “ to preserve it carefully, 'for, I hope, it will be 
 my visiting card to posterity.” A few week^tafter, in Dec. 1832, 
 Champollion le Jeune was followed to the grave by the noblest men 
 of France ; and the wpeath of “ Immortelles ” hung over his sepul- 
 chre, symbolized the imperishable fame of the resuscitator of the 
 earliest records mankind has hitherto possessed. 
 
 His posthumous works were put to press at the expense of the 
 nation. The third and last part of his grammar of hieroglyphics 
 appeared in 1841 ; while the great work, styled “ Les Monuments 
 de l’Egypte et de la Nubie,” with 400 plates, is in progress of distri- 
 bution, if not already completed.* His autograph dictionary is 
 either published, or nearly so; and since his demise has precluded 
 the possibility of giving to the public exact translations of the plates, 
 tccording to the master’s close interpretation, his learned brother, 
 Champollion Figeac, erudite in ancient literature, and conservator 
 of the Royal Library at Paris, has condensed into a volume, that 
 appeared in 1810, under the title of “ Ancient Egypt,” a history, 
 whose only fault is its brevity. 
 
 On the demise of the illustrious Frenchman, the task that devolved 
 on his Italian colleague was herculean ; and the eyes of the learned 
 turned, with some anxiety, upon the only surviving representative 
 of Champollion, the erudite Tuscan, Professor Ippolito Rosellini, of 
 Pisa, whose classical acquirements, though justly celebrated, might not 
 perhaps have been sufficient to supply the vacuum created in hiero- 
 glyphical archaeology. In 1832, the Italian scholar produced the 
 first volume of his “ Monuments of Egypt and Nubia,” announcing 
 at the same time, that he should undertake, in ten volumes of text, 
 and four hundred plates, to furnish complete the civil, military, reli- 
 gious, and monumental history of early Egypt. Faithfully and tri- 
 umphantly has Professor Rosellini fulfilled the task allotted to him ; 
 nor, if we regret that Champollion did not live to reap the full meas- 
 ure of the harvest, can we refrain from acknowledging, that his place 
 has been filled by a man, who, with the qualities and attributes of a 
 gentleman, combines the profound erudition of a universal scholar. 
 For the last ten years, Professor Rosellini has been periodically issuing 
 the text and plates of the noblest work, which the researches of an 
 individual and the liberality of a government have ever produced ; 
 nor must the world, in awarding the laurel wreath to the professor, 
 forget, that he owes his honorable position, as we do the astonishing 
 results themselves, to the patronage of Leopold, grand duke of 
 Tuscany. 
 
 It was in 1832, that the greatest expiring effort was made to stem 
 the hieroglyphical success of Champollion, when the immortal paleo- 
 grapher was already enveloped in his winding sheet ; and Klaproth 
 lias the unenviable merit of recording his own learned perverseness 
 in the paths of error. He published a “critical examination of the 
 labors of the late Monsieur Champollion, upon hieroglyphics ; ” 
 whereby he fancied, as did some of his readers, that by ingenious 
 antitheses, and not a few mistatements, he had rendered all these 
 researches in the new school of interpretation abortive. Those, who 
 are acquainted with his work alone, may perhaps give it a weight it 
 does not deserve. 
 
 There have been a few other insignificant attempts, in England 
 and elsewhere, to substitute untenable absurdities, and among them 
 are to be included those endeavors to translate hieroglyphics by 
 Hebrew alone, in the room of Champollion’s system ; but their exis- 
 tence was ephemeral. And, while the Hierologist, in 1843, looks 
 down from his tower of strength on the last fugitives of the once 
 tremendous hostile phalanx, he cheerfully accords to the Russian 
 mystagogue (who, of course, has never been in Egypt,) Monsieur de 
 Goulianoff, (upon the strength of his ponderous tomes on “ L’Ar- 
 chseologie Egyptienne,” which appeared in 1839,) the exclusive honor 
 of being, save in his undeniable profundity of research, a century be- 
 hind the age. We can scarcely suppose, that any future scholar 
 will peril his reputation by opposition to the general principles of 
 Champollion’s science ; and may therefore conclude that no true 
 savan will imitate Boabdil, when, with weeping eyes and aching 
 heart, he cast his last lingering look on the receding Alhambra, and 
 with him utter “ l’ultimo sospiro del Moro” — the last sigh of the 
 Moor. 
 
 But there were some learned men who, fully conceding to Cham- 
 pollion’s system the merit of translation, were led, by their knowledge 
 of the Coptic tongue, to doubt the correctness of a theory which main- 
 tained, “ that a hieroglyphical text is the Coptic language written in 
 (symbolic, figurative and phonetic) hieroglyphics, instead of in the 
 ordinary Coptic letters ; or otherwise in the Greek character, with 
 the addition of half a dozen signs taken from the enchorial or de- 
 motic texts.” On the publication of the first part of the “Grammaire 
 Egyptienne,” it was demonstrated, that, although the translation of 
 a hieroglyphical text into French may be perfectly correct ; yet, that 
 the pi tor reduction, or transposition, of each hieroglyphic sign into 
 a corresponding Coptic letter, or word, did not therefore constitute 
 the Coptic, as known to us by the translations of the Bible, homilies, 
 and liturgies, which in that language have been preserved to us. 
 
 This view was sustained, with great force of argument, by the learned 
 Dujardin in 1835, and by others on the Continent, as by Dr. Henry 
 Tattam in England. It became very important to extend the limited 
 knowledge hitherto possessed of that dead language in Europe, and 
 Mons. Dujardin was sent, by the enlightened French government, to 
 Egypt ; where he died, before he had completed his researches and 
 his collection of manuscripts, but not before be had fully acknow- 
 ledged, that, in his criticisms on Champollion, he had been somewhat 
 premature. In 1838, Dr. Henry Tattam visited Egypt, with similar 
 views, and obtained a great accession of Coptic MSS.; and, what 
 was infinitely more valuable, the transcript of a great Coptic and 
 Arabic lexicon, belonging to the Copt patriarch, at Cairo ; by means 
 of these aids this profound scholar has extended his Coptic dictionary 
 by several thousand words. Professor Peyron issued, in due course, 
 a most useful Coptic dictionary, more peculiarly destined to facilitate 
 hieroglyphical interpretations than any previous lexicographer had 
 attempted. Other learned Coptic students, Rosellini, Leipsius, Birch, 
 &c., have given important developments to the deciphering of Egyp- 
 tian legends, of which the hieroglyphic -and hieratic forms may now 
 be said to be almost entirely recovered ; but owing mainly to the 
 paucity of documents, the progress in the demotic text, has not yet 
 been as complete. Dr. Leipsius’ “ Letter on the hieroglyphic alpha- 
 bet,” 1836, is a wonderful analysis of this complex system ; and 
 when the French and Italian hieroglyphical dictionaries, and the 
 thorough critical translation of the mighty papyrus, at Turin, the 
 “Ritual of the Dead,”* which we may look for within a couple of 
 years, shall have been published, it will then be in the power of any 
 one, whose acquirements in modern and ancient classics are mode- 
 rately extensive, to verify after more or less study, the translations 
 afforded by hierological professors. 
 
 While the governments of France and Tuscany, with such wisdom 
 and liberality, have fostered the new school of Egyptian literature ; 
 and while, it must be allowed, the Continental colleges have furnished 
 the masters of the still incipient hieroglyphical science, there are 
 some private individuals in England, who not only have kept pace 
 with Continental progress, but, each in his sphere of action, has con- 
 tributed wonderfully to unveil to us the glories of Pharaonic epochs, 
 and is entitled to the warmest tribute of applause. 
 
 First on the catalogue stands Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, whose 
 universality of erudition, and thorough acquaintance with ancient 
 and modern Egypt, are recognized by all who knew his former labors, 
 and are attested by his “ Topography of Thebes;” London, 1835 — 
 and by the “ Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians ;” first 
 and second series ; London, 1837, and 1841. Sir J. G. Wilkinson 
 spent last winter again in Egypt; and is preparing other evidences 
 of his zeal in hieroglyphical researches. And, while the name of 
 Burton is prominent in the still circumscribed but very learned array 
 of English hieroglyphical laborers, that of Birch promises to take 
 rank with Champollion, Rosellini, Leipsius and Wilkinson, in Egyp- 
 tian literature. 
 
 In 1835, Hoskins published his valuable “ Travels in Ethiopia.” 
 He corrected many of the inadvertencies of Cailleaud ; and by the 
 production of a volume of undeniable facts, has enabled us to draw 
 conclusions on ancient Meroe, different, as will be shown, from some 
 of those deduced by the author himself. The splendid folios of 
 Colonel Howard Vyse record his munificent promotion of scientific 
 researches; and his costly labors at the pyramids have opened to our 
 astounded contemplation views of an unquestionable antiquity, sur- 
 passing, as I shall explain, all previous expectation. Uttier works are 
 issuing from the Continental and English press, which will add infi- 
 nitely to our knowledge, and to the fame of their authors. 
 
 In short, the little spring of pure water which first bubbled from 
 the Rosetta Stone, has, in 23 years, now swoln into a mighty flood ; 
 overwhelming all opposition ; sweeping aside or carrying in its surges, 
 those whose inclination would induce them to^tem its force ; and; 
 at the present hour, we know more of positive Egyptian history and 
 of the ancient inhabitants of Egypt, ages previous to the patriarch 
 Abraham, than on many subjects we can assert of our acquaintance 
 with England before Alfred the Great, or with France before Char- 
 lemagne ! 
 
 In addition to all these investigations, prosecuted in France, in 
 Italy, and in England ; Prussia has granted her generous aid in favor 
 of the good cause, by decreeing that a large sum should be placed at 
 the disposal of Dr. Leipsius, who, with seven scientific gentlemen, 
 is now in Egypt, there to retrace the steps of his predecessors, over 
 the sacred ground hallowed by countless generations of antiquity. 
 At Leyden, Dr. Leentans ; and some scholars in Holland ; at Turin, 
 Berlin, Rome, and Vienna, other consumers of the midnight oil are 
 emulating the students of Paris, Florence, and London. In Cairo, 
 our “ Egyptian Society” boasts (among its members) of cooperators 
 in the reconstruction of the venerable edifice, whose works will, ere 
 long, establish their claims to a front rank : and it is owing to the 
 advantages afforded to me by an institution, of which I stand second 
 on the list of founders, that I am enabled to present here in a succinct, 
 but, I believe, a correct view of the actual position of Egyptian hie. 
 
 ’Since tin's was written, I have received from this enthusiastic German Egyptologist, 
 who is now in Egypt, a catalogue of his various works, and -find that he translated 
 the Ritual into German, in l&ll ! It is probable, that this papyrus will form the fina- 
 portion of Roselini’s work. 
 
 * 1 have seen all but the 40th, or final number. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 11 
 
 roglyphical archaeology, no less than some insight into the not gene- 
 rally known results of these glorious researches. 
 
 Having now given a sketch of the labors of European students in 
 hieroglyphical literature, and of the personal account of the Egypto- 
 logists of the Champollion school, I will hazard the observation, that 
 the narrative is new to most of those who read it in America ; and 
 if I can convince them of the reality of the positions advanced, their 
 conviction will be accompanied by a feeling of surprise, that they 
 have hitherto heard so little on these subjects. 
 
 I do not presume to speculate much upon the causes, that have 
 deprived America of the light (I speak generally) which, emanating 
 from mouldering Egypt, is pouring like a flood over Europe. One 
 of the main causes seems to me to be, that, as most of the best works 
 are published in foreign languages, and many at large cost, and that 
 as their appearance “en masse,” dates back not much further 
 than 1836, sufficient interval has not yet elapsed, for the adequate 
 promulgation of the new science in this country, beyond what may be 
 gleaned from the learned works of Sir J. G. Wilkinson ; whose last 
 production made its appearance in 1841. Another cause may be in 
 the associations connected with the very name of Egypt — a land of 
 mystery — for 2000 years covered with a veil of darkness ; and, were 
 1 not half an Egyptian myself, it would seem presumption in me to 
 assert (what, by the way, is very easily sustained,) that till lately, 
 common sense has had very little to do with the discussions of the 
 literati of the Continent, of England, and of the United States, upon 
 subjects connected with that mystified country — and this as much 
 upon its modern, as upon its ancient state. Meanwhile, I need only 
 refer to the works published in all countries, save by the genuine 
 hierological school on ancient, and by Mr. Lane on modern Egypt, 
 for a series of conflicting statements, that baffle the most conscientious 
 and laborious inquirers after truth. 
 
 This is the first time that, in any country, a series of popular lec- 
 tures and essays has been projected, for the familiar elucidation of 
 topics hitherto discussed only by the learned ; though far be it from 
 me to pretend to the latter character. The very term hieroglyphics 
 is a common bye-word in our tongue, to designate anything incom- 
 prehensible ! and, if I venture to show, that the apprehended unin- 
 telligibility of Egyptian hieroglyphics is, in 1843, an illusion, I trust 
 that the truth, and the undeniable importance of the subjects handled, 
 will not be doubted, in consequence of the insufficiency of my ex- 
 planations ; nor the unintentional errors of the writer be a reason 
 for withholding from the labors of the Champollion school the atten- 
 tion they so imperiously demand. 
 
 Yet, if America has hitherto been quiescent, and tardy in further- 
 ing the progress of Egyptian developments, it will be satisfactory to 
 her people to be assured, that there is one American savan who, at a 
 bound, will carry a very important branch of these sciences to unan- 
 ticipated and glorious results. The name of Dr. Samuel George 
 Morton, vice-president of the “Academy of Natural Sciences” at 
 Philadelphia, is already associated with profound researches into the 
 primeval history of man on this continent ; and no student of anthro- 
 pology but has been enlightened by his “ Crania Americana.” For- 
 tuitous circumstances, consequent on his own instigation, have 
 enabled me to place before Dr. Morton a mass of crude materials, 
 » which form the basis of the work, now preparing for the press, under 
 the title of “ Crania yEgyptiaca.” When, in the course of these chap- 
 ters, I approach the subject of ancient ethnology, as deducible from 
 the monuments of Egypt, it will be seen what an immense light is, for 
 the first time, thrown on the origin of the ancient Egyptian race by 
 Dr. Morton’s researches; and, in the interim, I seize this opportunity 
 to express my acknowledgments for the varied instruction I have de- 
 rived from our intercourse, no less than my gratitude for the manifold 
 kindnesses received at his hands. 
 
 • In treating on Egyptian subjects, it behoves me, as it is likewise 
 due to my valued friend, Mr. F. Catherwood, to state, that I am aware 
 of his having preceded me. Having had the pleasure of forming, 
 years ago, at Cairo, those friendly relations with him that continue 
 to the present hour, there are none more able than myself to appre- 
 ciate his intimate acquaintance with that ancient country ; and, in 
 various branches of study I am happy to acknowledge his superior 
 attainments. Mr. Catherwood’s lectures embraced a much wider 
 field of observation than my own dissertations, as he could add his 
 researches in other Eastern countries — particularly in Palestine — to 
 those he prosecuted for several years in Egypt. My illustrations of 
 antiquity are confined to the Valley of the Nile. At the time when 
 Mr. Catherwood lectured on Egypt, the bulk of the works from which 
 I have culled the matters whereon I intend to descant, had not issued 
 from the press; and none, I may say, had reached this country. Any 
 difference, therci:e«, in our respective Egyptian views, is attributable 
 to these circumstances, rather than to any deficiency on Mr. Cather- 
 wood’s part at the time of his lectures. Since those days, Mr. Cather- 
 wood’s attention has been turned to a distinct, and still more arduous 
 field of antiquarian investigation ; and the long-buried and almost 
 incredible monumental remains in Central America, exhumed with 
 unlooked-for and extraordinary success by Mr. John L. Stephens, 
 have given to Mr. Catherwood such opportunities for distinguishing 
 nimself, that, in treating on ancient Egypt, I have his assurances 
 that I am not trenching upon his interests or pursuits. 
 
 I was in this country at the time of Mr. Buckingham’s arrival, and 
 
 am acquainted with his literary works. Not having attended nt* 
 lectures, I know them only from hearsay, through the periodical press, 
 or from some of his own publications. No comparison can consist- 
 ently be instituted between things wherein there exists no parity ; 
 and, as I am particularly desirous that my subjects, opinions, acquire, 
 ments, intentions, le^fures, and principles, should be considered 
 totally distinct from those of Mr. Buckingham, it would be unbe 
 coming, as well as unnecessary, to say more on this head. 
 
 It has been already casually stated, that I have been a sojourner 
 in the land of Egypt, for the greater part of twenty-three years. 
 Congenial tastes have, since my boyhood, induced me, as often as 
 opportunities occurred, to keep pace with the writings of eminent 
 travellers ; while, with most of those who have visited Egypt, and 
 especially with those who followed out the new discoveries, I have 
 been on terms of social intimacy, and with many I am in correspond, 
 ence. A chequered, and not an idle life, enables me to speak on 
 many subjects from personal experience and long-practiced know 
 ledge — and for topographical acquaintance with that country, I can 
 say, that there is little space on either side of the Nile, from the sea 
 beach to the second Cataract, with which my sporting habits have 
 not rendered me familiar. In 1839, having resolved to absent myself 
 for an indefinite period, from the land of my adoption, I took advan 
 tage of nearly two years’ leisure to ascertain the amount of informa- 
 tion gleaned, by the Champollion school, on early Egyptian history 
 I indulged my migrating propensities by a visit to Upper Egypt and 
 Nubia, as well as by various dromedary excursions into the eastern 
 and western deserts adjacent to Cairo. My sedentary hours were 
 occupied in studying the works whence I derive such antiquarian 
 information as I possess, or in discussing relative questions with tht 
 many talented men and erudite scholars who adorned our Egypto 
 European community. 
 
 I pretend to no discoveries of my own. I have availed myself of 
 the productions of the learned in Egyptian archteology, that are, ot 
 have been, within my reach. I have adopted all of them in different 
 proportions. I frequently use the language of some ; have taken 
 ideas from all ; and after this avowal, trust that I shall escape the 
 charge of plagiarism ; for who, in 1843, can treat of a country which, 
 for two thousand three hundred years, has occupied the pens and the 
 more or less critical examinations of the learned of every ancient 
 and modern nation, without availing himself of the information con 
 tained in the published labors of his predecessors ? 
 
 The only power to which I venture to lay claim, is that of dis- 
 crimination in the choice of my authorities ; and, it will be found, 
 that, while making use of the some facts to be met with in the works 
 of the Champollions, Roseilini, Wilkinson, &c., I sometimes attempt 
 to assign reasons differing from theirs, or for more extensive con 
 elusions. 
 
 During a stay of some months in the year 1841, in England, I 
 thought that if I returned to America, I should be able to occupy an 
 interval of time, profitably to myself, and perhaps advantageously to 
 others, as a lecturer on early Egyptian subjects. A long sea voyage 
 threw me out of the season ; and when I sought in American libra- 
 ries for some of the great works of the New School, I found, to my 
 extreme regret, that the most important were wanting. 
 
 I had therefore valid grounds for supposing that, to the majority 
 of those I might address, the manner of elucidating hieroglyphical 
 arcana, no less than many of the practical results themselves, would 
 at least present the charm of novelty ; but, in the absence of indis- 
 putable facsimiles of Egyptian legends and monumental subjects, it 
 was impossible to prepare any satisfactory pictorial illustrations. 
 
 It is with sincere pleasure, that I now express my acknowledge- 
 ments to my valued friend, R. K. Haight, Esq., of New-York, 
 whose friendship I acquired some years ago in Egypt, for supplying, 
 independently of his other varied kindnesses, these deficiencies of 
 books, by procuring from Europe “ I Monumenti dell ’Egitto e della 
 Nubia,” of Professor Roseilini. This invaluable work, the first 
 and the only copy (complete as far as it has hitherto appeared) exist- 
 ing in the United States, has been lent to me by Mr. H., and is now 
 in my possession. From this work, with occasional extracts from 
 others, the illustrations that embellish my oral lectures have been 
 copied, with scrupulous fidelity, by Philadelphian artists. The only de- 
 viation from the originals lies in the requisite enlargement of the copies ; 
 but beyond this, in my pictorial representations, no departure in color, 
 or in anything else, has been made from the original plates. 
 
 Finally : if my readers will kindly take into consideration, that 
 my life has been spent, and my exertions, till I landed in New-York 
 in January, 1842, have been actively directed in multifarious pur- 
 suits, totally distinct in nature from the position I now occupy before 
 them, I trust they will look with indulgence on the attempt made to 
 acquit myself of the agreeable, but arduous task before me, rather 
 than at the deficiencies proceeding from my own want of ability. 
 
 CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 The origin of the Art of Writing loses itself among the nebulou' 
 periods of man’s primeval history. With the original ethnographic 
 varieties of the human species, the primitive geographical distribu. 
 tion of mankind, the patriarchal fountains of a once pure religion. 
 
12 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 and the earliest sources of the diversity of language, must be asso- 
 ciated the first developments of that art, which, from the remotest 
 periods, has enabled man to record his history, and to overcome space 
 nnd time in the transmission of his thoughts. 
 
 And it must be allowed, that on all these subjects, however success- 
 fully the efforts of antiquaries, in the last quai^Er of a century, have 
 enlightened us with unexpected and almost unhoped-for glimpses of 
 the truth ; yet, beyond a certain epoch, of which the antiquity is 
 scarcely definable, their lights fail us ; and the origin of letters, with 
 n thousand accompanying questions, is lost in the night of time ; 
 wherein, to use the beautiful words of Bryant, “ These subjects as- 
 sume the fantastic forms of an evening cloud ; we seem to descry 
 castles, and mountains, and gigantic appearances, but, while we 
 gaze, the forms die away, and are soon lost in gloom and uncertainty.” 
 All the progress that modern researches have, as yet, achieved, is to 
 carry back the positive epoch of the absolute existence of writing, 
 rather than to have lifted the veil, which conceals its primeval origin. 
 The lamp of modern inquiry has illumined our pathway, and ex- 
 tended our knowledge a few hundred years beyond the point reached 
 by our forefathers. Here and there, its projectile ray is through the 
 gloom reflected, by some diamond imbedded in the distant rock ; 
 but the shadows of the cavern flit before our eyes, and the fire-damp 
 warns us of the danger of advance. 
 
 Whether the art of writing was a consequence of the necessities 
 of human society, the result of a progress from the rude savage to 
 tne civilized man, can be looked upon now-a-days only as a curious 
 speculation. Nor when we shall take into consideration, in a sub- 
 sequent chapter, the subject of Chronology, can this hypothesis be 
 consistently sustained, without overthrowing the entire fabric of 
 Scriptural history ; because, I trust, that I shall be able to demon, 
 strate, from the positive records of Egypt, that if to the already 
 almost biblically-irreconcileable antiquity, imperiously required for the 
 monuments still erect in that country, we add the countless ages that 
 would be required, before the theoretical primitive Savage could 
 conceive, much less execute, such an eternal edifice as one pyramid, 
 we must fall back upon geological, and cease to define his progress 
 by chronological periods. Far less inconsistent with the refinement 
 in arts and sciences, that we encounter at the remotest epoch of 
 Egyptian history, and infinitely more in accordance is it with the 
 Sacred Word, to class the art of writing among those primeval, if 
 not antediluvian, revelations to man, of which we possess much col- 
 lateral evidence ; although of the act we have no positive record, 
 and of the era we are utterly uncertain. 
 
 Until the discoveries of Champollion enabled us to produce “ writ- 
 ings,” “ sculptured letters,” and “ painted alphabetic signs,” coeval 
 with generations, that in the days of the Patriarch Abraham had long 
 ceased to exist, not only has writing been traced to the Hebrews, 
 Chinese, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, Hindoos, or Egyptians, according 
 to the respective theories of the scholar, his prejudices and partiali- 
 ties ; but, it was maintained by some of the learned, that we owe the 
 art of writing to Moses, the Hebrew Lawgiver; and that the Tablets 
 of stone, in the wilderness of Sinai, are the first authentic evidence 
 we possess of early alphabetic writing ; whence the conclusion 
 would inevitably follow, that this inestimable blessing had been denied 
 to man, until the 15th century before the Christian era ! 
 
 That such an hypothesis is fallacious, may be shown by Scripture 
 itself ; even were we deprived of the unanswerable proofs to be 
 gleaned from Gentile records. In Gen. v. 1st — “ This is the booh of 
 the generations of Adam” — reference is made to the book of gene, 
 alogy; whence it irresistibly follows, that writing must have been in 
 use among the antediluvian patriarchs ; and, under the view that 
 writing was a divine revelation, the same Almighty power that, ac- 
 cording to the preceding proposition, instructed Moses, could have 
 equally vouchsafed a similar inspiration to any patriarch from Adam 
 to Noah ; nor does it seem consistent with the merciful dispensation 
 which preserved Noah’3 family through the grand cataclysm, and 
 had condescended, according to the biblical record, to teach him 
 those multitudinous arts indispensably requisite to the construction 
 of a vessel destined to pass uninjured through the tempests of the 
 deluge, that the Almighty, by withholding the art of writing, should 
 have left the account of antediluvian events to the vicissitudes of 
 oral tradition, or denied to Noah’s holy family the practice of that 
 art, which, it is maintained, was conceded first to Moses. 
 
 But there are other arguments, that confirm the existence of the 
 art of writing in antediluvian epochs (whether by symbols or by 
 alphabetic signs,) to be gathered from a critical examination of the 
 Pentateuch ; and, while I would casually observe, that “ Moses was 
 learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” — Acts vii. 22 — I will 
 point out some of the reasons for this assertion. 
 
 The five books of Moses* carry with them internal evidence, not 
 of one sole, connected, and original composition, but of a compila- 
 tion, by an inspired writer, from earlier annals. “ The genealogical 
 tables and family records of various tribes, that are found embodied 
 in the Pentateuch, bear the appearance of documents copied from 
 written archives. They display no trait which might lead us to 
 
 * Vide Trichord’s Egyptian Mythology— Wiseman’* Lecture*— and “ Hebrew Cha 
 racier* uerived trom Hieroglyphics.” by John Lamb, J).D.. Master of Corpus C. Col- 
 lege, Cambridge— London, 1836. References will therein be found to the worKs, caiefly 
 ef Herman liebraica! students, en which the above assertions are grounded. 
 
 ascribe their production to the dictates of immediate revelation, nor 
 are we anywhere informed that such in reality was their origin. We 
 are aware that similar documents were constructed by the inspired 
 writers of the Gospels, from national archives or family memorials.’ 
 
 The obvious presumption is, that Moses obtained records of a 
 like description from similar sources, unless it can be shown that no 
 such means were in existence at the time. We have the authority 
 of Genesis v., 1, for asserting the existence of a book of genealogies 
 in the time of Noah; and a city, mentioned by Joshua, was named 
 in Hebrew, “ Kirjath Sefer” — the City of Letters. It is impossible 
 to prove that letters were unknown before Moses ; and the Hebrews 
 of his day appear even to have had two distinct modes of writing; 
 the characters of which, in one case, were alphabetic, and in the 
 other symbolic. The inscription on the Ephod itself is said — Exodus 
 xxviii., 36 — to have been written in characters “ like the engravings 
 of a signet;’’ and the original type of the sacred Urim and Thux- 
 mim was, as will hereafter be shown, derived from an earlier combi- 
 nation of emblems, possibly Egyptian. We have, therefore, many 
 reasons to believe that the use of letters, and the practice of preserving 
 chronicles and genealogies, were known to the Hebrews long before 
 Moses : while, in any case, if an attempt were made, in violation of 
 all legitimate inferences, to draw attestation from Holy Writ, and it 
 were proved that, until the time of Moses, the Jews were unable to 
 preserve their national annals save by oral tradition, it would, in the 
 present advanced state of positive knowledge in the history of contem- 
 porary Gentile nations (who, ages anterior to Moses, had authentic 
 and written chronicles,) show that the Israelites were, till the 15th cen- 
 tury before Christ, more ignorant than any great people of antiquity 
 — a position which, I presume, would be as detrimental to Scrip- 
 tural authenticity, as, in truth, it would be contrary to reason and 
 to fact. 
 
 But it has been demonstrated, by a succession of eminent scholars, 
 since the year 1753, that a critical examination of the Hebrew text 
 of Genesis establishes the truth of the assertion, that this book con- 
 tains several original records ; each bearing on its face the strongest 
 marks of authenticity, and of long anterior antiquity, which have 
 been brought together by the hand of Moses. Genesis contains 
 repetitions and double narratives of the same events — distinguished 
 by different characteristics of style, distinctly marked. Two histo- 
 ries are clearly defined in the Hebrew text : in one, the Deity is 
 styled Elodim; and in the other, Jehovah ; besides an infinitude of 
 differences in relative style, that leave no doubt, on the mind of the 
 scholastic investigator, in regard to the diversity of the records which 
 chronicle the same event. 
 
 Again, the Book of Job is, by learned theologians, said not to be 
 a Hebrew production ; though accepted, and authenticated, by the 
 lawgiver of Israel. Job lived in the land of Uz — Aramanea — of 
 which Edom was a district, and Arabia our modern designation 
 Job was not a Hebrew of the Hebrews, but an Arabian; probably 
 of Joktan’s race : and, according to Hales, his probable epoch was 
 about 2337 B. C. ; that is, from 600 to 800 years before Moses. This 
 chronological view is further corroborated by the following facts 
 with regard to Eliphaz, the Temanite, one of Job’s friends. In Ge- 
 nesis xxxvi., 4, 10, and in I. Chronicles i., 35, we learn that Eliphaz 
 was Esau’s eldest son. Now, if this Eliphaz be identified with the 
 Eliphaz in Job, it is manifest that Job, being contemporary with Eli- 
 phaz, must have preceded Moses by some centuries : and that he is 
 thus identified is fairly inferrible ; first, from the fact that the name of 
 Eliphaz occurs nowhere in the Bible, but in the Book ot Jod and in 
 the chapters above cited ; and second, from Eliphaz being called the 
 Temanite, since we learn from Jeremiah xlix., 7, 20, that Teman 
 was a province or portion of Edom, the country of Esau. Job (in 
 xix., 23) exclaims, “ Oh that my words were written ! Oh that they 
 were printed in a book.” I presume the Hebrew word, rendered 
 printed in our version, does not, in its original language, convey 
 strictly this meaning. Again — Job, xxxi., 35 — “ Oh that one would 
 hear me ! Behold, my desire is that the Almighty would answer 
 me, and that mine adversary had written a book.” It therefore 
 follows, that in Job’s day (whenever that was) books were not un- 
 known. 
 
 His affecting and pious narrative, while it combines with abun- 
 dance of other evidence, to prove that the pure belief in One God 
 was not limited to the Jewish patriarch Abraham, after the first cor- 
 ruption of our forefathers, assures us, that written chronicles, and 
 even the sublimest poetry, were in use long before Moses. We are 
 likewise thus made aware, that this inspired writer, when he com- 
 piled the Pentateuch, did not disdain the records of Gentile nations, 
 in the case of Job, to console the Israelites during their forty years of 
 tribulation in the wilderness ; nor did his descendants consider them 
 unworthy of incorporation into their sacred books. We may also 
 gather some confirmative inferences, that compilation was not re- 
 jected by other inspired writers, from the fact, that the collection of 
 sacred poems, received under the names of David’s Psalms, w’ere 
 composed, at different and distant intervals, some by David, and 
 many of them after the Babylonish captivity ; and were subsequently 
 collected together in the Hebrew archives, and attributed exclusively, 
 though erroneously, to David, by the Jews, as by ourselves. 1 pass 
 over the various other instances to be found insthe Pentateuch, all 
 corroborative of the correctness of the assertion, that, in Moses’ time, 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 19 
 
 books were familiar to the Hebrews ; who were instructed to believe 
 that their sins were recorded in the Almighty’s book — Exodus xxxii., 
 32,33 — which was no new doctrine in the days of Moses ; and I 
 extract from Dr. Lamb’s invaluable work, the succeeding paragraph, 
 as well as other evidences. 
 
 “ Every attentive reader of the Bible must have observed, that 
 the book of Genesis is divided into two perfectly separate and dis- 
 tinct histories. The first part is an account of the Creation, and 
 the general history of mankind up to the building of the Tower of 
 Babel. The second part is the history of Abraham, and his de- 
 scendants ; from the call of the patriarch in the land of Ur of the 
 Chaldees, to the death of Joseph, after the settlement of the children 
 of Israel in Goshen, in the land of Egypt. The first part contains 
 the history of above two thousand years ; and is contained in the ten 
 first chapters of Genesis, and nine verses of the eleventh. The second 
 part comprises a period of about two hundred and fifty years, and 
 occupies the remaining thirty-nine chapters. This history, which 
 commences at the beginning of the twelfth chapter, is preceded by 
 a genealogical table, tracing Abraham’s pedigree up to the patriarch 
 Shem. Between the event (Babel) recorded in the ninth verse of 
 the eleventh chapter, and the next verse (viz : the call of Abraham,) 
 there intervenes a period of nearly four hundred years, during which 
 we know nothing of the history of the human race from the sacred 
 Scriptures.” 
 
 Thus, then, the Israelites, before the Exodus, would have pos- 
 sessed two sacred books. One, “ Genesis,” properly so called ; and 
 the other, “ The History of Abraham.” 
 
 There is no reason for supposing that other contemporary nations 
 did net possess, in those early times, similar records ; nor is there 
 any reason why other contemporary nations should not have chroni- 
 cled all great events, and handed down, perhaps as far as ourselves, 
 some of the annals of those events, that took place upon the earth, 
 on which the Bible, during an interval of “ above four hundred 
 years,” is strictly silent. It will be seen that the Egyptians have. 
 
 “We know that, in addition to these (books,) the Hebrews had 
 another book, entitled “ Milchamotli Jehovah ” — the “Wars of Jeho- 
 vah” — (vague traditions, concerning which mythes abound in Gen- 
 tile records, as the wars of the gods with Titan, the Indian primeval 
 annals, See.) “ from which a quotation is given in Numbers xxi.,14.” 
 
 Learned Hebraists also consider that the Jews, anterior to the age 
 of Moses, had a collection of national ballads, in a book, entitled 
 “ Sepher-Hajashur” — see Joshua x., 13 — “ Is not this written in the 
 Book of Jasher ? ” The frequent use of the words, “ and he sang,” 
 are deemed to allude to the first sentence of some more ancient 
 song ; whence the title of a book was derived — Judges v., 1 — Debo- 
 rah’s song is an instance. 
 
 It is finally sustained, by great church theologians, that Moses, 
 when, under the inspiration of God, he indited the books of the law, 
 prefixed to them a history of Abraham and his posterity, as pre- 
 served by Israel’s family ; and at the same time rendered their sacred 
 records of the Creation and history of man up to the dispersion at 
 Babel (which are presumed to have been written in a different char- 
 acter — probably symbolic writing — from that now known to us as 
 the Hebrew letters,) into the Hebrew language, as current in Moses’ 
 day. 
 
 I am thus particular in demonstrating, by biblical evidence, that 
 the art of writing did not originate with Moses, lest the position 
 now indisputably established, of the prior antiquity of this art among 
 Gentile nations, of the earliest periods, should appear to militate 
 against the authenticity of the Mosaic record ; and it will be con- 
 ceded, that when once, by arguments grounded on the Bible itself, 
 the use of books among the Hebrews is carried back to antediluvian 
 periods, not only is the charge of heresy in these matters rendered 
 nugatory, but the inference in favor of a primary divine revelation 
 considerably strengthened. 
 
 The Jews were not the only people who preserved written me- 
 morials of the deluge, for among all nations we find vague traditions 
 of the event itself ; and in many we may trace the former existence 
 of written chronicles. If, at the present day, we cannot produce 
 voluminous annals, coeval with early postdiluvian eras, in support 
 of this assertion, we can adduce abundance of historical reasons, to 
 account for the absence of these primeval documents in our day, in 
 the fearful destruction of ancient libraries by the barbarous fanaticism 
 of numerous nations, and of all creeds; no less than by accidents, 
 and casualties, to which, from their inflammable nature, or perishable 
 materials, all literary productions are liable. Without recapitulating 
 the various instances of the annihilation of ancient archives in Asia 
 Minor, Greece, and Syria, let us remember, that in the defence of 
 the arsenal against the furious attacks of an enraged Alexandrian 
 populace, Julius Caesar could not save the Ptolemaic library from 
 conflagration ; while the subsequent insensate decree of the ruthless 
 Omar, enforced the obliteration of the second mightiest collection of 
 ancient chronicles, it had taken 600 years to accumulate in the 
 Christian Bibliothecal repository at Alexandria. In China, the 
 ”1 artar conquerors devoted to the flames the precious annals of ante- 
 rior history; while, with the same fiendish zeal, their brethren devas- 
 tated many of the Indian and Central Asiatic libraries. The Saracenic 
 torrent that overthrew the dynasty of Chosroes — “ Khuzruff ” — sa- 
 tiated its unrelenting destructiveness on the volumes which for ages 
 
 nad accumulated in Persian archives. And if, in some partial degree, 
 the intelligence of the Abbaside Caliphate of Bagdad, the transitory 
 encouragement of letters by the various Arab houses, that alternately 
 ruled over Egypt, er the liberal patronage afforded to science and 
 literature by the Saracenic dynasties of Morocco and Granada, serve 
 to mitigate the anathemas, which we are justified in heaping on the 
 entire race of “Amawedyeh” Saracens, let no interposing hand save 
 from execration the descendants of the Seljook, or Turcoman, with 
 those of the untameable and desecrating Mogul. At this very hour, 
 the Scythian horde, encamped amid the ashes of once populous and 
 civilized communities, is the same irredeemable aggregation of mis- 
 creants, from Constantinople to Egypt, as in former days; and if 
 we are now alive to deplore the historical losses we owe to Turk, 
 ish barbarism, it is solely to the Christian lances of our own chival- 
 rous ancestry, and, at the present hour, to the dreaded length of our 
 bayonets, that, under Providence, we are indebted. Mohammed 
 Ali, the idol of a false philanthropy, the praise-bespattered mocker of 
 European civilization, has destroyed, in Egypt, more monuments of 
 antiquity, than the Hykshos, than Cambyses, thvi Artaxerxes Ochus 
 than Lathyrus ; and, while mystified Europe, chants “ Io peeans ” 
 for his great intentions, he has permitted, as I have elsewhere shown, 
 the annihilation of more historical legends in 40 years, than had 
 been compassed by 18 centuries of Roman, Byzantian, Arab, or 
 Ottoman misrule. 
 
 Did not the Tyrian annals perish with the fleets and fortresses of 
 Phoenicia, on the overthrow of the mistress of the deep by Alexander? 
 Had Marius no hand in the obliteration of Punic chronicles at Car- 
 thage ? and is not Titus amenable for the sacrilegous annihilation 
 of Hebrew archives on the fall of Hierosolima ? Did not Brennus, 
 the Gaul, destroy the seven-hilled city herself, with all her public 
 registers, in 390 B. C.? 
 
 Wherever we turn in the history of nations, we are met by indis- 
 putable evidence of the former existence of ancient chronicles through- 
 out the world, accumulated during countless centuries, while we are 
 harrowed by the event, which has deprived us of their possession. 
 
 Impartiality cannot forget, that misdirected zeal, and monkish 
 fanaticism, have marked every Christian country with a similar dis- 
 regard for the preservation of early annals ; nor can we spare even 
 our ancestors from the charge of cancelling, in order to insert the 
 reveries of a superstitious recluse, those invaluable pages known to 
 us as Palimpsesti. 
 
 Where is the history of Hecatseus of Miletus ? where the annals 
 of Manetho, Berosus, or Eratosthenes? a few mutilated fragments, 
 are all we possess of their compendious volumes 1 And where are 
 the still earlier records, whence they compiled their information ? 
 Eternally lost — save such as Chamfollion has pointed out on the 
 monuments and papyri of Egypt ! But, if we are deprived of the 
 original records of the Gentiles, we must not forget, that the deified 
 Tiioth — the first Hermes (erroneously confounded with Hermes Tris- 
 megistus) wrote, and perhaps too, in antediluvian periods, in sacred 
 language, and, possibly, in purely symbolic characters, the wisdom 
 and philosophy of his times. Again, we must not omit that, after 
 the deluge, Thoth the 2nd — or Trismegistus, mystically defined as 
 an incarnation of his antediluvian prototype — had written forty-two 
 
 volumes, preserved with religious care, according to Clement, 
 
 of Alexandria, A. D. 194, in which were contained all the rules, pre- 
 cepts, and documents, relating to religion, to dogma, to government, 
 cosmogony, to astronomy, to geography, to medicine, and to all those 
 arts and sciences, whose perfection is attested by the still standing 
 works, and the still existing remains of the ancient Egyptians. 
 
 Authorities, contemporary with the decline of Pharaonic glory, 
 enumerated, after the Persian conquest, B. C. 525, above twenty 
 thousand volumes, in constant, universal, and popular use among the 
 inhabitants of Egypt ; the productions of a Suphis, Athothis, Necho, 
 and Petosiris — all Egyptian Pharaohs ; no less than of priests and 
 other philosophers, who lived, nearly all of them, ages before Moses ; 
 and how could the Jewish historian have been “learned in all the wis- 
 dom of the Egyptians.” — Acts vii., 22 — if, in the course of his sacer- 
 dotal education at Heliopolis, or Memphis, he was not initiated in 
 the mysteries, as well as proficient in hieroglyphic writing ? and if 
 he had not enjoyed free access to the Egyptian primeval records ? 
 
 All history testifies to the existence of books, on every subject, in 
 early Egypt. We know the names of many of the authors; some- 
 times the title of the work ; often the subject of their literary labors. 
 
 Poems, and, above all others, epic poems were common in Egypt ; 
 and were publicly chanted to the praises of deites, or to perpetuate 
 the gtorious actions of heroes. Homer, it is said, visited Egypt about 
 the 9th century B. C.; and the poet Naucratis charges him with 
 gleaning from Egyptian bards, the ideas which, with such sublimity 
 of thought and diction, he perpetuated in his Iliad and Odyssey. 
 
 Of the existence of such poems, no doubt can now be sustained, 
 after reading Salvolinis’ translation of the hieratic papyrus (known 
 as Sallier’s) at Paris, recording the conquests of Ramses the Great, 
 about B. C. 1530. And, of the early existence of royal and national 
 libraries, contemporary with, if not prior to the epoch of Moses, we 
 are made certain by the following fact. That magnificent ruin at 
 Thebes, miscalled the Memnonium, is, I think without doubt, the 
 palace of Osvmandias, described by Diodorus, as seen by Hecataeus 
 in the 59th Olympiad. It then contained a library of sacred books ; 
 
.4 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT 
 
 over tl>e entrance-gateway of which was inscribed, “ the remedy for 
 the soul.” This palace is the Ramsessium, a temple-palace of 
 Ramses 3rd, (Sesostris) and over the mouldering doorway, which 
 once led from the hall to the now-destroyed bibliothecal repository, 
 Champollion was the first to read in hieroglyphics over the heads of 
 ‘‘Thoth ” and “Safk” — the male and female pities of arts, sciences, 
 and letters — the remarkably appropriate titles “ Lady of Letters ” — 
 and “ President of the Library !” 
 
 The door of the library, at the Ramsessium, might be cavilled at, 
 on-the ground of its erection about the times of Moses. We will go 
 back 200 years, to the sanctuary of the temple of Luqsor — of the 
 day of Amunoph the 3rd — whom the Greeks and Romans degraded 
 into the fabulous Memnon.' and whose statue became vocal, for- 
 sooth ! Here an inscription over “ Thoth ” begins, “ discourse of 
 the Lord of the divine writings ” — and another over “ Safk, Lady 
 of Letters!" 
 
 The enumeration of all the literary works of the Ancient Egyp- 
 tians, of which we have mementos, requires little beyond extracts 
 from Champollion Figcac ; but, as the detail does not possess suf- 
 ficient interest to general readers, I limit myself to the main features 
 of the theme. The discoveries of the ardent investigators of the 
 new school have authenticated as Egyptian in origin, however their 
 mythology was misconstrued by the authors, or their copyists, the 
 ancient writings of Apuleius, Pcemander, Horus-Apollo, Hermapion ; 
 as well as those fragments, known to classical archaeologists as the 
 Hermetic books- From the latter, I have taken the prophetic motto, 
 that heads in my lecture-room the illustrative transparency — as given 
 by Wilkinson : 
 
 “ O JEgypte, jEgypte .... sol® supererunt fabul®, et ®que in. 
 ersdibiles posteris .... sola supererunt verba lapidibus incisa.” 
 And I render, from the French of Champollion Figeac, the touching 
 lament the whole paragraph contains: 
 
 “ O Egypt, Egypt! a time shall come, when, in lieu of a pure reli- 
 gion, and of a pure belief, thou wilt possess nought but ridiculous 
 fables, incredible to posterity ; and nothing will remain to thee, but 
 words engraven on stones — the only monuments that will attest thy 
 piety.” — ( Books of Hermes .) 
 
 The pure resilitions of Egyptian philosophical doctrines start, in 
 spite of their Grecian chrysalis from all the pages we possess of 
 Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle ; and evince, that in philo- 
 sophy, as in everything else, the Greeks borrowed from the Egyp- 
 tians ; who are not, however, amenable for errors, that originate in 
 the vanity, volatility, and misapprehension of the Hellenes ; and 
 which invest the profound and practical wisdom of the teachers, 
 with the puerilities of the pupils. The touchstone of hieroglyphical 
 analysis now enables us to cull the Nilotic pearls from the mound, 
 and return them with honor to their proprietors ; leaving the remain- 
 der to the Greeks as their exclusive copyright. 
 
 I have been thus prolix, to show that history sacred and profane, 
 which, however doubtful before Champollion’s discoveries, is now 
 supported by hieroglyphical evidence, would alone suffice to over- 
 throw the fallacy, that attributes to Moses the invention of letters, or 
 to the Hebrews the exclusive transmission of early annals, descrip- 
 tive of some antediluvian, and many postdiluvian events. The 
 very Scriptures derive confirmation from the fact, that many early 
 nations preserved written legends, as well as oral traditions, of those 
 primeval days ; and I have endeavored to account, in the destruction 
 of well-authenticated libraries, for the reason, why the Jewish 
 Chronicles were, till lately, all that the lapse of ages has preserved 
 to us. There are remarkable connections between fragments of 
 profane historians, and several parts of Genesis ; and the practice of 
 preserving every species of written chronicle, being far more ancient 
 than Moses, recedes into the mists of remote antiquity, among nations 
 distinct from the Hebrews, ethnographically and geographically, and 
 in era anterior to, as in modes of writing, and attributes of speech, 
 removed from Jewish assimilation or connection. Berosus, who 
 wrote B. C. 268, gives a Chaldean history of the ten antediluvian 
 peneiations, that differs but in names from the Hebrew account. 
 He expressly affirms, that Xisuthrus (whom we term Noah) com- 
 piled memoirs of the previous history of mankind before the flood, from 
 which all existing accounts were said to have been derived. Allowing 
 them to be a Semitic, and therefore, to the Hebrews, a cognate tribe, 
 we cannot deny to the Chaldeans a full knowledge of the art of 
 writing, at the earliest period, for they must have been familiar with 
 •ome method of writing, before they could construct tables with 
 astronomical observations. These tables are allowed by theologian, 
 as likewise by astronomical criticism, to date as far back as B. C. 
 2234, or 700 years before Moses ! And yet Diodorus distinctly 
 avers, that the Babylonians learned astronomy from the Egyptians, 
 “ being themselves an Egyptian colony .” We know, monumentally, 
 that Mesopotamia — “Naharina” — was a subdued country, tributary 
 to Egypt, at 1600 B. C. ; and know not during how many centuries 
 previously it had been such. Fragments of Sanconiathon lead us to 
 inferences confirmatory of Berosus. 
 
 Amid these various records, it would seem, as if the Jews pre- 
 served one or more copies of primeval legends, which by Moses 
 were compiled into one account; collating portions of them, perhaps, 
 with similar documents, existing in the hieroglyphic character, 
 luring his education in Egyptian colleges.* I say “ similar docu- 
 
 ments,” because we have the authority of Plato, (see Wilkinson, 4lh 
 vol. p. 169,) that when Solon visited Egypt, about 549 B. C., the 
 Egyptian priests, with whom he was conversing about “ the be- 
 ginning of all things,” said to him — “ You mention one deluge only, 
 whereas many happened.” I leave it to geologists to define the true 
 meaning of the priests, and to concede the correctness of the Egyp- 
 tian record. 
 
 The Egyptian priests told Solon many things, that must have 
 humbled his Athenian pride of superior knowledge ; but one fact 
 that they told him, on geography, is so curious, in regard to the “ far 
 West,” that it is worthy of mention. 
 
 We know the maritime abilities of the Phoenicians, and we can 
 adduce tangible reasons to show, that, by orders of Pharaoh Necho, 
 Africa had been circumnavigated, and the Cape of Good Hope, 
 about 600 B. C., actually doubled, before it was in the year 1497 of 
 our era, discovered by Diaz and Vasco de Gama. 
 
 The Egyptians had intercourse with Hindostan, the Spice Islands, 
 and China, long before that period; and in maritime skill equalled, 
 as in geographical knowledge they surpassed all early nations. Now, 
 when Solon was receiving that instruction in the Egyptian sacerdotal 
 colleges, which rendered him the “ wisest of mankind,” (among the 
 Athenians,) besides gleaning an insight into primeval history, and 
 geology, that subsequently induced him to compose a great poem, 
 wherein he treated on Attica, before the Ogygian flood, and on the 
 vast Island, which had sunk into the Atlantic Ocean ; he was 
 informed by “ Sonchis, one of the priests, of the existence of the At- 
 lantic Isles ; which, Sonchis said, were larger than Africa and 
 Asia united.” See Wilkinson — “Thebes” — p. 254, extract from 
 Plato. 
 
 In the course of these essays and lectures, I shall incidentally 
 advert to sundry curious facts of the same kind ; but, as the pj-esent 
 chapter and the following, are to be devoted to the writings of the 
 ancient Egyptians, I proceed to other branches of my subject, with 
 this prefatory remark, that is requisite to do away with any seeming 
 discrepancy between my assertions, and those views of Holy writ, 
 which, in common with many others, I was taught at school. It is 
 this : 
 
 That to suppose Hebrew to be the most ancient language, and the 
 one spoken by Adam and Noah, is a matter of opinion ; contrary to 
 evidence ; immaterial in itself, as regards Christian belief ; and non- 
 essential to any view of the case ; but to suppose, that, within a 
 comparatively few years after Noah, the Jewish annals were the 
 only written Chronicles, and that Hebrew was the only language, in 
 which histories of antediluvian events were, by the immediate 
 descendants of Noah — those whose movements were affected by the 
 Dispersion — preserved, is, at the present hour, an untenable fallacy. 
 “ L’on est revenu de tout 5 a.” 
 
 That to suppose Moses to be the inventor of letters is an illusion ; 
 though he may have modified the Hebrew alphabet ; and there are 
 some inferences, to be drawn from similarity of alphabetic charac- 
 ters, that he may have adopted some Egyptian phonetic improve- 
 ments on the primitive Hebrew method of symbolic writings — “ like 
 the engravings of a signet ” — inasmuch, as the Egyptians, for more 
 than a thousand years before his time, had used the same symbolic, 
 figurative, and phonetic signs, that were in popular use in his day ; 
 for, according to Acts vii. 22, “ Moses was learned in all the wis- 
 dom of the Egyptians.” 
 
 It has been clearly shown, by the Rev. Dr. John Lamb, of Cam- 
 bridge University, that the Hebrew alphabet may be traced, letter 
 for letter, to a primitive hieroglyphic. The greater part of theso 
 hieroglyphical parents of the present Hebrew alphabet are unques- 
 tionably Egyptian ; but while, in principle, I entirely coincide with 
 his lucid arrangement, it is necessary for a hierologist to state, that 
 some of the symbols are not strictly Egyptian, although it is possible 
 other homophones would supply the vacancies. In his opinion, as in 
 that of many other English and Continental hebraists, the original, 
 and perhaps antediluvian, mode of writing was picture writing, 01 
 idiographic ; whence all alphabets were subsequently derived ; each 
 taking that form consistent with the genius of each language, as 
 spoken and written by the earliest families of the human race. 
 
 In speculating, however, upon these hitherto insoluble problems, 
 it seems to me orthodox, as well as reasonable, knowing as we do 
 from Scripture that books existed long before Moses, and probably 
 long before Noah, to reflect upon the following crude supposition, 
 which I advance hypothetically, with deference to superior judgment. 
 
 When mankind, either on the primitive peaceful separation of the 
 children of Noah, in the days of Peleg (whose name in Hebrew 
 means “ to divide,” and “ to separate,”) or, on the subsequent vio- 
 lent and miraculous dispersion at Babel, in the plains of Shinar, 
 sought in varied climes, and under infinitely.diversified circum- 
 stances, to obey the Creator's fiat, “ Go forth, be fruitful and multi, 
 ply,” each distinct family of man, proceeding “ in sorrow,” “ to 
 eat bread,” by “ the sweat of his face, till he return unto the 
 ground,” carried with the physical diversities, and craniological, 
 osteological, capillary, and cuticular varieties of his peculiar race, 
 the differences of language. 
 
 Each distinct family of man, (or perhaps only the higher Caucasian 
 castes,) may have possessed a transcript of that original, primeval 
 
 * Confr. Faber— Origin ofPagan Idolatry— pp. 302-3 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 IS 
 
 chronicle, that contained memorials of the flood, and of anterior 
 events. 
 
 To the intervention of time, and vast geographical distances, the 
 changes of method, and the alteration of alphabetic signs, may pos- 
 sibly be traced, and probably attributed. 
 
 Some nations, in the lapse of ages, may have forgotten the primi. 
 five art of writing ; but have preserved oral traditions of the former 
 existence of that art ; and these nations may have set about the re- 
 discovery of the mode of transmitting their thoughts, in writing, to 
 posterity. And while, under this view, I proceed to show what 
 might possibly have been the process, by which this lost art could 
 have been recovered, I would observe, that a strong analogy in tra- 
 cing writing to primeval Revelation may be found, in ascending to 
 the divine origin of the belief in the unity of the Godhead, and of his 
 ineffable attributes in the Trinity, (Monotheism, mystically developed 
 in triads,) the existence of which pure primeval creed among the 
 Gentiles, is shown by the mythological systems of the Hindoos, the 
 Pelasgic Greeks, the Orphic philosophers, the Tyrians, the Sidoni- 
 ans, the Syrians, the Edessenes, the Chaldeans, the Peruvians, (?) the 
 Chinese, and Ultra-Gangetic nations, of the remotest antiquity, to 
 have been the same, as, thoroughly demonstrable by hieroglyphical 
 discoveries, it is now proved to have been the faith of those initiated 
 in the hierophantic mysteries of the traduced, and misunderstood, 
 Ancient Egyptians.* 
 
 The narrow limits of this hurried treatise preclude the develop- 
 ment I could wish to give to this portion of my subject. In attribu- 
 ting the art of writing to primary Revelation, there arises a difficulty 
 from the query, how, if the art were known to mankind at the Dis- 
 persion, does it happen that each early nation should have used a 
 different alphabet ? This might be met, if not answered, by a pa- 
 rallel question ; how is it, that each family of man s^oke a different 
 language after Babel? We must recognize the will of Divine 
 Providence in both cases. 
 
 I cannot reconcile with Scriptural chronology, however extended, 
 the lapse of time adequate for the rude uninstructcd savage to ac- 
 quire, among the myriads of progressive steps toward civilization, 
 the art of writing, whether by symbolic, or alphabetic signs. Writ- 
 ing may be for ever unnecessary to vast tribes of human beings, who 
 are far above the savage in the scale of civilization ; and would, 
 assuredly, not have been the art which, for many generations, a sav- 
 age community would strive to acquire, or to which their first efforts 
 would be directed. Centuries would elapse, before the hypothet- 
 ical savage could reach that wonderful process, attested by Egyptian 
 monuments, still erect on Nilotic shores, whose construction precedes 
 Abraham by unnumbered generations. 
 
 But, if we cannot reconcile, with any view of biblical chronology, 
 the intervening and undefmable measure of time, when we start with 
 an uninspired savage, and gradually mould him into a civilized man ; 
 we have abundance of evidence to bring forward, when, in accord- 
 ance with the Pentateuch, we suppose a primeval, and heaven- 
 descended state of civilization, front which, after paganism , or 
 feteechism, strictly so called, had supplanted the pure primitive creed 
 in some nations, (as in the case of Terah, progenitor of the “father 
 of the faithful”) mankind subsequently fell off. 
 
 So soon as lapse of time, and great geographical distances, had 
 separated some families of the human race from all relations with, or 
 approximation to the habits of, the others, it is quite rational to con. 
 jecture that, in the same manner as the remoter tribes receded from 
 the worship of the true Deity, they lost the arts and civilization of their 
 primitive origin, and among them the art of writing, or the primeval 
 alphabet. Man is prone to deterioration ; and I think it could be tol- 
 erably well sustained, though the argument is herein irrelevant, that 
 none, but the Caucasian families, possess the vital rudiments for con- 
 tinual and progressive moral, physical, and intellectual improvement. 
 
 Yet, oral tradition, handed down from father to son, it may well 
 be conceived, would, for an indefinite series of generations, prolong 
 the memory of the vague fact, that, at one time, their ancestors pos- 
 sessed a mode of expressing, ideographically by symbols, or by any 
 other species of mnemonics, their ideas to each other, independ- 
 ently of time or space. As society advanced, and the necessities of 
 man were, by experience, supplied, some one of those gifted intel- 
 lects, that arise in every community, turned his thoughts and efforts to 
 rediscover that process, which oral tradition assured him was once 
 known to his forefathers ; and, with more or less success, he and his 
 descendants perfected a system, which, in some nations, as for 
 instance-, the Japetiiic, is perfect and purely alphabetic. In Mexican 
 tribes (so far as, at this day, is known about them in Europe) 
 they never appear to havegone much bcyondpictorial representations 
 of the scenes, and symbolical expressions of the ideas they strove to 
 perpetuate. Among the children of Shem, we may suppose there 
 was retained a nearer approximation to the original alphabet, or 
 primitive pictorial method of writing. 
 
 In China, among the Mongolian families, the Alphabetic system 
 was never successfully reached ; and when they wish to write an 
 
 * Consult the hierological authorities; and Cory's “Mythological Inquiry:” Mushet 
 • cn the Trinity ot the Ancients,” London. 1837 ; Maurice, “ Orientnl Trinities •” Co- 
 rr, " Ancient Fragments Portal, “Couleurs Symboliques “Symboles des 
 Knyptient,” Paris. 1810. Faber “Origin of Pagan Idolatry;” as well as Prichard 
 and Bryant ’ 
 
 European name, the characters employed represent the entire sylla. 
 ble, or colloquial sound of that syllable, which these characters ex- 
 press in ordinary use. In that country (civilized and stationary in 
 arts and sciences though it be,) the primary institution of writing bj 
 pictorial representation of figures, (adopted by the Chinese prior to B 
 C. 2269,) was soon changed into arbitrary marks, not for a letter, 
 but for the whole word, or idea, though it has never been reduced 
 into the simple phonetic forms of our alphabets. 
 
 The arrow-headed, or cuneiform character, (a specimen of whicti 
 is produced further on) used by the ancient Persians down to the 
 period of Cambysesand Darius-Nothus, is an anomaly in the order oi 
 alphabets, that I have not yet seen satisfactorily explained. 
 
 In Egypt, among the children of Ham, the art of writing was a 
 combination of alphabetic, or phonetic signs, (to express a letter ;) 
 of figurative signs; and of symbolic signs ; with some curious and 
 useful abridgements from the hieroglyphic (which comprises tht 
 whole of the above three classes) to the hieratic character, and, in 
 comparatively modern times, to the demotic or enchorial ; until the 
 Greek alphabet, augmented by seven letters taken from the demotic 
 texts, was introduced with Christianity, during the Roman dominion, 
 and formed those letters known to us as the Coptic. 
 
 How immensely the knowledge, or conviction, that, at some pre- 
 vious period, the progenitors of one of these supposititious rediscov. 
 erers, rather than inventors, of the art of writing, had the power of 
 expressing and perpetuating their thoughts, independently of time 
 or space, must have fortified the soul of him who labored to recover 
 the lost secret, may well be conceived. He worked upon a certainly , 
 as does the child, who endeavors to put together the scattered com. 
 ponent parts of a dissected map. The child, being so told, knows 
 that it can be done. He derives encouragement from this conviction, 
 and, with redoubled energy, bends his intelligence to the task. How 
 hopeless must have been the labor of that man, who, without any 
 information regarding the possibility of such an achievement, essayed 
 to discover, or to invent, a means ol recording his thoughts ! 
 
 I confess, I look upon it as almost impracticable ; and fall back on 
 primary revelation. If Columbus, (although, till the Society of north, 
 ern antiquaries at Copenhagen enlightened us, we used to believe 
 the contrary,) had not learned, in his previous visit to Iceland, of 
 the existence of a western Continent and of the early voyages of the 
 dauntless “ Eric the Red,” can we well suppose, that, with such 
 confidence, he would boldly have steered across the Atlantic from 
 Spain to the West Indies? In the same manner, the knowledge 
 that there had been a mode of writing in existence formerly, must 
 have materially facilitated the rediscovery of letters, by those nations 
 that had lost the primeval art. 
 
 One or more families of man in early antiquity, may have redis. 
 covered this lost art for themselves, independently of contemporary 
 nations. We cun trace the affinities of all known alphabets, by his- 
 tory and by analytical processes, to a very few parental stocks; bu‘ 
 this we do know, that the origin of writing in Egypt is unknown, 
 though it is autocthon, or indigenous; that, at the very earliest time 
 of which we can find relics, it was the same system as at any subse- 
 quent Pharaonic period, and a perfect system; that the antiquity of 
 the art in Egypt surpasses the record of any nation on earth, save in 
 respect to the first chapters of Genesis ; that, if the Egyptians did not 
 invent the alphabet, they rediscovered its equivalent for themselves; 
 and finally, it would be far more easy to derive all phonetic charac- 
 ters, not excepting the Hebrew (as shown by the researches of Lamb) 
 from the Egyptians, than to maintain that the Egyptians derived their 
 art of writing from any other source but the common primeval reve- 
 lation, or its remembrance, if they were not the inventors of writing ! 
 
 The remote antiquity of hieroglyphical writing, may be inferred 
 from the fact, that it must have existed before the use of the solar 
 month in Egypt; which astronomical observations, on Egyptian re- 
 cords, prove to have been in use at an epoch close up to the Septua. 
 gint era of the Flood. 
 
 From Egyptian annals we may glean some faint confirmation of 
 the view, that they either possessed the primeval alphabet, or else 
 that they rediscovered its equivalent, from the mystic functions and 
 attributes of the two “ Thoths ” — the first and second Hermes — both 
 Egyptian mythological personages, deified as attributes of the God 
 head. 
 
 To “ Thoth,” Mercury, or the first Hermes, the Egyptians ascribed 
 the invention of letters ; and there is seeming reason to consider him 
 the type of that antediluvian revelation to man, of which the Bible 
 gives us indications. He belongs, in Manetho’s history, and in the 
 “ Old Chronicle,” to that shadowy period designated as “ the rule of 
 the gods,” to veil under a fable (probably explained by the hiero- 
 phants to the initiated ) the record of antediluvian periods. 
 
 But, among the deities of Egypt — known, in hieroglyphics, as 
 “ Thoth, Lord of Pautnouphis ” — who, under the Greek appellative 
 of Hermes Trismegistus (the thrice-great Hermes,) or “ Thoth” the 
 second, was an emanation of the first Hermes, there is another “ Thoth, 
 lord of the divine writings,” who was likewise a patron of arts and 
 sciences. 
 
 I cannot but speculate, that this second “ Thoth ” was, in postdilu. 
 vian times, the rediscoverer of an art of writing, attributed by the 
 Egyptians to the invention, in antediluvian periods, of his namesake 
 and prototype. (?) 
 
16 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Under Dr. Lamb’s view, that Hebrew characters may have been 
 the nearest approach to the primeval “ picture writing,” this redis. 
 covery by the second Thoth (who was doubtless a priest and philoso- 
 pher,) of the art of writing in Egypt, will account for any diversities 
 or analogies between the Egyptian compound hieroglyphic system, 
 and the phonetic method adopted by the Hebfews at the Mosaic era, 
 no less than in regard to other purely alphabetic systems. 
 
 The process by which Thoth the second arrived at hieroglyphic 
 writing, may have been as follows : 
 
 The first attempts were probably limited to the figurative or picto. 
 rial method of expressing the image of the thing, for the thing itself ; 
 as the d.awing of a hand, to denote a hand, and so forth. 
 
 In Egypt, as has been clearly elucidated by the profound Rosellini, 
 the arts of design and writing were invariably associated ; and neither 
 the Egyptians nor any other nation ever adopted the art of drawing, 
 before they felt the necessity of writing ; and drawing was produced 
 in the endeavor to discover some mode of expressing ideas ; so that 
 the people who invented painting and sculpture, were impelled toward 
 the exercise of these arts by the desire of writing ; and the means 
 taken to write were the causes and producing motives of the art of 
 drawing. 
 
 Drawing was therefore the most natural medium, and, in those 
 early days, the most effective, to satisfy those cravings, inherent in 
 intellectual man, which had in view the creation of a power to com- 
 municate with persons removed from the draughtsman by time and 
 space, rather than to imitate the various works of nature. The study 
 of representing things pictorially, had, in those primitive times, no 
 other object than to effect that which was completely achieved by 
 the introduction of signs for sounds. 
 
 Of the introduction of these letters, we have the fact before us in 
 every Egyptian legend, from the earliest postdiluvian epoch admis- 
 sible, down to the extinction of hieroglyphical wr'.ti»g in the third 
 century of the Christian era, a period of at least 3W1» years ; but we 
 cannot name the introducer, except in the legendary Thoth ; nor 
 state positively how this discovery was made in Egypt. 
 
 The arts of writing, drawing, painting, and sculpture, in ancient 
 Egypt, were emblematized by one symbol ; and, in hieroglyphics, 
 were expressed thus : 
 
 corresponding phonetically 
 
 n\\K 
 
 C£b*S 
 
 Skiiai. This symbol expressed, in the sacred character, the signifi- 
 cation and the sound of the words “ to paint,” “ the painter,” “ to 
 write,” and “ the writer as also “ writings ” — ypa/q/ara. The 
 symbol itself is compounded of three things, all connected with its 
 
 meaning; as “ the reed,” k used in writing, at the present day, by 
 
 “qdlam;” “ the vase,” or ink-bot- 
 
 ette ,” m whereon he poured 
 
 ling t 
 
 the Arabs, and termed 
 tie ; and the “ scribes’ pal 
 his red and black inks, fil 
 tre. 
 
 whereon 
 he little hollows in its cen- 
 
 In precisely the same manner, in ancient Greek, the words “ to 
 describe,” “ to draw,” “ to engrave,” and “ to write,” were all com- 
 prised in the same verb — ypapur. 
 
 By analogical reasoning, then, we may infer, that the progressive 
 steps toward the development of hieroglyphical writing, may have 
 been in the following order : 
 
 1st. That material objects struck their view, and to transmit them 
 to posterity, or to preserve the idea of one of these objects, they 
 painted the figure of the thing itself ; and this would be figurative 
 writing. 
 
 2nd. That the insufficiency of this plan in application was imme 
 diately felt. In painting the figure of a man, they could not express 
 what man ; and to define him, they added a tropical sign or symbol 
 of another thing in some way associated with this particular man. 
 This would be symbolic writing. 
 
 3rd. That then certain arbitrary, and in due course, conventional 
 signs were added, to express the idea of an immaterial object; as a 
 hatchet for a god, an urasus (asp) for royalty, & c. 
 
 4th. They finally contrived to introduce divers representatives of 
 bound, taking, to de note each letter, those objects the names of which, 
 ,.v their language, began with the initial sound of that designation ; 
 that is, when they wanted to denote the articulation L, they drew a 
 Lion, and so on. This would be phonetic writing ; and is the prin- 
 ciple that originated many Semitic alphabets, as the Hebrew, the 
 Samaritan, the Phoenician, &c. as well as those of some other nations. 
 
 In Egyptian hieroglyphics, as may be seen in part by the alphabet, 
 there are, in some instances, as many as twenty-five different charac- 
 ters used to represent one letter, and these are termed “homophones” 
 of that letter. 
 
 Vine immense advantage accrued in monumental legends from this 
 vanety, for the artist was thus enabled to employ those figures which, 
 while representing the articulated sound of the letter, had by their 
 form a relation to the idea these signs were to express. The writer 
 could thus, by the judicious selection of his letters from the variety 
 of his homophones, convey a meaning of admiration, praise, dignity, 
 
 beauty, strength, &c., or he could denote disgust, hatred, insignifL 
 cance, or other depreciatory opinions. 
 
 I will endeavor to render this apparent by an example. Suppose 
 we wished to adopt the same system in our language and write the 
 word “America ” in hieroglyphics. I use pure Egyptian hieroglyphic* 
 as letters, adapting them to English values : 
 
 A — We might select one out of many more or less apropriate sym- 
 bols ; as an asp, apple, altar, amaranth, anchor, archer, arrow, 
 antelope, axe. I choose the asp, ^ symbolic of “ sove- 
 reignty.” 
 
 M — We have a mace, mast, mastiff, moon, mouse, mummy, musket, 
 
 maize. I select the mace, 
 minion.” 
 
 indicative of “military do- 
 
 
 E — An ear, egg, eagle, elk, eye. The eagle jd is undoubt- 
 edly the most appropriate, being the iMfe. “ national 
 
 arms of the Union,” and means “ cour yjj^^^age.” 
 
 R — A rabbit, ram, racoon, ring, rock, rope. I take the ram, 
 by synecdoche, placing a part for the whole, emblem- 
 atic of “ frontal power ” — intellect — and sacred to 
 Amun. 
 
 I — An insect, Indian, infant, ivy. An infant IA will typify “ the 
 juvenile age ” and still undeveloped Hlfl strength of this 
 great country. 
 
 C — A cake, caldron, cat, clam, carman, constellation , curlew, cone, 
 crescent. The crescent would indicate the rising power of 
 the United States ; the constellation of stars would emblem- 
 atize the States, and is borne aloft in the American banner ; 
 but I choose the cake — /"V'N die consecrated bread — typical 
 of a “ civilized region.” ► . 
 
 A — An anchor, or any of the above words beginning with A, would 
 answer : the anchor would symbolize “ maritime greatness,” 
 associated with “safety” and “stability”; but not being an 
 Egyptian emblem, I take the “sacred Tad,” Q the symbol 
 of “ eternal life,” which in the alphabet is * Y — * an A. 
 
 To designate that by this combination of symbols we mean a 
 
 country, I add the sign in Coptic “ Kah,” meaning a 
 
 country, and determinative of geographical appellatives. 
 
 We thus obtain phonetically — 
 
 M E 
 
 R 
 
 
 while symbolically, the characters chosen imply “ sovereignty, mili- 
 tary dominion, courage, intelligence, juvenility, civilization, and 
 eternal durability.” 
 
 This example, however, gives but a faint idea of the beauty, and 
 often exquisite propriety, of Egyptian composition, or of the com. 
 plexity of the hieroglyphic art of writing. It will be allowed, that, 
 even this anglicized illustration of the word America does not render 
 its perspicuity very apparent ; and, with a full acquaintance of tho 
 language, it would be a puzzle to a decipherer. How much moro 
 so, when the vowels may be omitted, as they generally are, and only 
 the consonants written ; as, “ MRC, country ”! 
 
 Let the reader figure to himself the fashion introduced in this coun- 
 try, of following the graphical system of the early Egyptians ; and 
 that the Capitol at Washington were covered with sculptured and 
 painted legends, recording the annals of the United States ! Suppose 
 these legends were written with the general suppression of some 
 vowels, or the transmutability of others. Then imagine the Ameri. 
 can hieroglyphics, in the lapse of ages, to become entirely forgotten ; 
 the people who wrote the legends — those who could speak or read 
 English — entirely obliterated from the face of the earth ; their lan- 
 guage dead ; the Capitol a shapeless pile of ruins ! 
 
 Suppose, that another and a distinct race of men, from another 
 hemisphere, after two thousand years, while possessing mere vague 
 traditions of ancient American glory — uncertain as to the epoch of 
 these mutilated sculptures — mystified as to the very language in 
 which they were written — amid the general hue and cry that “ hiero- 
 glyphics are all nonsense ” — endeavored to unravel their mysterious 
 subjects ! 
 
 Grant that the task would be in nature herculean — that its even- 
 tual success would appear chimerical. Yet even this would not be 
 so difficult, as to decipher a crumbling fragment of an Act of Con- 
 gress written in a tachygraphic, or abridged form of these identica r 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 17 
 
 American hieroglyphics, oil a fragile papyrus, exhumed from the 
 ruins of the once-towering Capitol ! 
 
 You can scarcely conceive such a contingency possible as a trans- 
 lation of all these things ? and yet, such was precisely the position of 
 Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1802, when the “ Rosetta Stone ” arrived in 
 Europe ! such was the state of hierology when Young, in 1810, struck 
 the first sparks from the flinty basalt, whereon were engraven two 
 unknown inscriptions ! such was the “ darkness of Egypt,” when 
 Chamfollion’s meteoric flashes illumined the archaeological hemi- 
 sphere ! 
 
 When we, in 1843, calmly reflect on the intellects and the souls it 
 has required, to face and to overcome these obstacles, till every 
 Egyptian legend can be understood, its purport defined, and the 
 main sense of the most intricate papyrus clearly expounded, let us 
 allow, that to the modern iiierologists we are indebted for these 
 glorious achievements. 
 
 I again refer those interested in the early labors of the hieroglyphi- 
 cal students, to Dr. Young’s Article in the Encyclopedia Britan- 
 nica, and to Champollion’s “ Precis des Hieroglyphes,” for proofs 
 of the discovery ; and to the “ Grammaire Egyptienne,” as an in- 
 controvertible monument of unqualified success. My part is simply 
 to give the summary of the language as it is now understood. 
 
 Complicated as, owing to our ignorance, the hieroglyphical writing 
 of Egypt now appears to us, it was (together with the Hieratic char- 
 acter, and, in later times, the Demotic,) in constant, general, and 
 popular use, among all classes, all persons, in the Valley of the Nile ; 
 and the illusion under which we have labored for ages, excited by. 
 the mysterious appearance and still-rumored unintelligibility of the 
 writings themselves, and misled by the puerile misinformation of 
 Greek writers, that the arts of reading and writing were withheld by 
 the priests from the lower classes, is dispelled by a glance at the 
 monuments. The fact is, as the Greek and Roman writers did not 
 understand either the Egyptian tongue, or the Egyptian writings, they 
 represented those subjects which they were too volatile, or self-defi- 
 cient to inquire about themselves, to be impenetrable mysteries. We, 
 however, have indisputable evidences, that reading and writing 
 were in Ancient Egypt (in days coeval with the Pyramids) as pub- 
 licly known, and in as popular use, without respect to caste, to 
 wealth, or poverty, as in many Christian and not-uncivilized coun- 
 tries, at the present day. Its graphical signs were termed, by the 
 Greeks, hieroglyphics, meaning literally “ Sacred sculptured char- 
 acters.” 
 
 Plato and Plutarch both affirm, that the writing invented by the 
 1st. Thoth, whom we have called the antediluvian Hermes, differed 
 from that, which, according to my view, was rediscovered by Tiioth 
 the 2nd., whom we have termed the postdiluvian Hermes. It 
 is the writing of this second Thoth, which, under the name of 
 hieroglyphics, has come down to our day, on Nilotic monuments, 
 from the remotest period since the colonization of Egypt by the sons 
 of Mizraim ; and which was in current use, in ages coeval with the 
 Pyramids, even among the stone-masons, and the farmers We 
 now know, that the idea entertained till lately, even by some of the 
 most eminent Egyptologists, “ that no hieroglyphics are to be found 
 in, or were known in the days of, the Pyramids,” is an illusion, over- 
 thrown by Col. Vyse’s discoveries. This tradition of the difference 
 existing between the writings of the two Thoths, comes in very 
 appropriately, when we suppose, that the primitive method of writ- 
 ing revealed to man prior to the Flood, had been lost by some nations, 
 after the Dispersion ; and the rediscovery of the art in Egypt will 
 account for some of the differences between the Nilotic system, and 
 those primitive alphabets, or other forms of expressing ideas in use 
 among early nations. 
 
 After the rough draught of the foregoing ideas had been formed 
 at Philadelphia, I had a gratifying opportunity of submitting them 
 to a distinguished American philologist — H. Hale, Esq., late of the 
 exploring Expedition ; and I was exceedingly proud to find, that, in 
 the course of his varied inquiries into the causes of the diversity of 
 human languages, and his comparisons of graphical systems, he had 
 been led, by a different process of reasoning, to results, upon the 
 probability of the rediscovery of a conjecturally lost alphabet, iden- 
 tical with those, to which I was impelled by Egyptian facts and 
 chronological limitations. My humble edifice acquires so much 
 stability, trom the opinions of a gentleman so laborious in philological 
 pursuits, that, at my solicitation, he has favored me with the follow- 
 ing letter : 
 
 Philadelphia, 1st Nov. 1842. 
 
 My Dear Sir : When you did me the favor, a few days ago, to read to me 
 your very interesting lecture on the origin and language of the Egyptians, I 
 expressed to you my gratification at finding that your views on the subject ol 
 the invention of writing, harmonized with some that had shortly before occur- 
 red to myself. As we have arrived at the same result, by different roads, 
 you have suggested that a statement by each, of the grounds on which this 
 common result of our reasonings is based, might be of advantage in the way 
 of mutual confirmation. Although, I conceive that your arguments as stated 
 in your lecture, hardly stand in need of support, I readily comply with your 
 suggestion, so far as relates to a summary of the philological facts, which 
 seem to me tolavor the views that you have taken. 
 
 Three great nations, differing widely in language, physical characteristics 
 and institutions, appear almost at the same time, on the theatre of the world. 
 Those who have made the most profound researches on these subjects, as- 
 sure us, that the histories which may be called authentic, of the Chinese, the 
 Hindoos, and the Egyptians, can be traced back, each on its separate ground, 
 
 to within a few centuries of the period at which the best cbronologists fix 
 the date of the Flood. Now, it is remarkable, that, at the very commencement 
 of their annals we find each of these nations in possession of a system id 
 writing so far perfected, that we do not hear of any improvement made by 
 either in after ages. From their very nature it is indubitable, that they are 
 of domestic and therefore independent origin ; and the question arises as to 
 the probability, that each of them should have been the fruit of pure and un- 
 assisted invention. We have, on our own continent, the example of two na- 
 tions, which had reached, without the aid of extraneous influences, a state ol 
 civilization fully equal to that, in which the first dawn of history finds any 
 of the great Asiatic nations. Now, of these two nations, the one farthest 
 advanced in the arts, the Ptruvian, had no system of writing whatever; the 
 other, the Mexican, possessed a kind of mnemonics, in the shape of pictures, 
 which served to remind those, who had been previously instructed in their 
 meaning, of the events and facts, which they were designed to commemorate. 
 These examples would not lead us to suppose, that the invention of written 
 characters, representing all the words or elementary sounds of a language, 
 was a necessary or even a likely accompaniment of a nation’s advance in 
 civilization. 
 
 In reading, not long ago, Mr. Rockwell’s account of his voyage in the Medi- 
 terranean and to Liberia, I was struck with his remark, that an intelligent 
 man, of the Greyho tribe of Africans, near the colony, had invented a com- 
 plete syllahtc alphabet of his own language, in consequence of hearing, that 
 foreign nations possessed some such means of imprinting their words on pa- 
 per. Mr. R. also observes, that it was a similar suggestion, which led the 
 famous Cherokee Cadmus, Sequoyah, to the invention of his alphabet. From 
 these facts, the influence may be fairly deduced, that though the idea of 
 written characters is not likely to occur of itself, to an uninstrucled mind ; 
 yet, when once suggested, it may easily be followed out to the completion ol 
 a system, perfectly adequate to the wants of a language, and unsusceptible 
 ofluttire improvement. 
 
 To apply these inferences to the cases in question ; let ns suppose (ns we 
 have reason to believe) that the Antediluvians possessed some mode of pre- 
 serving facts and occurrences by written symbols. It may have been a kind 
 of picture writing, like the Mexican, of mere human invention ; or, it may 
 have been, as many have thought, adivinely revealed alphabetic writing. In 
 the dispersion of families, and diversion of tongues, wdiich must, on any am 
 every hypothesis, have taken place, soon after the deluge, the written char 
 acter was probably lost ; or, ifretained by any, it would only be in that familj 
 with the genius of whose language it happened to agree : all the rest would In 
 as unenlightened on this point, as were the Aztec tribes when they first 
 spread themselves on the plains of Mexico; with the exception, that they 
 would, in all probability, have preserved the tradition ol the former existence 
 of written characters ; and this tradition it would be, which, acting as a sug. 
 gestion and an incitement on the mind of some man of superior intelligence, 
 among a people sufficiently advanced to feel the need of such an art, would 
 lead, first to the idea, and then to the construction of a system of writing. 
 And this system, as thus constructed, would, of necessity, be one exactly 
 adapled to the character of the language for which it was formed. Such is 
 said to be the syllabic alphabets of the Greybo and Cherokee sages. Such, 
 it is well known, are the lerigraphic system of the Chinese (so termed by 
 Mr. Duponceau, from the fact that each word in the language is represented 
 hy a distinct character) and the alphabetic system of the Sanscrit, which 
 bears some tokens of having been originally firmed on a sy ! labic basis. 
 Able scholars have doubted, whether, with all the lights of experience and 
 comparison, which we, in modern times, enjoy, any written characters could 
 he proposed, by which the peculiar methods which these two languageshave 
 employed for ages, might with advantage be replaced. How far this assertion 
 will apply to the ancient Egyptians ; and whether that language really gained, 
 by the substitution of the Coptic alphabet fir the old hieroglyphics, you are 
 yourselfthe best judge. And, in considering this quesnon, we might partic- 
 ularly refer to the remarkable power, inherent in the ancient system, of ex- 
 pressing by one set of characters, all the various dialects spoken in the 
 Nilotic valley. 
 
 I shall be happy, if these few and hasty suggestions shall he esteemed hy 
 you of any value, in confirming the views to which you have been previously 
 led hy the study of the ancient monuments of that most interesting region. 
 
 Believe me, my dear sir, with much respect, 
 
 Very sincerely yours. 
 
 Geo. R. Gliddon, Esq. H. HALE. 
 
 Greek and Roman writers (according to Champollion Figeac, 
 Plato, Tacitus, Pliny, Plutarch, Diodorus and Varro, with others,) 
 ascribe to Egypt the honor of inventing alphabetical writing — an 
 honor, which earlier writers, whose works are no longer extant, and 
 the voice of oral tradition, had consecrated from time immemorial 
 before them. Modern criticism has recognized, by the study of the 
 Monuments, that, so far as the relative antiquity of the art in Egypt, 
 compared with any other nations is concerned, this attribution to 
 Egypt is correct and indisputable ; while there are not a few alpha, 
 bets, that may be traced in origin to early intercourse with the Valley 
 of the Nile, the priority in civilization of whose inhabitants is now 
 irrevocably determined. 
 
 Early Grecian tradition ascribed to Cadmus, son of Agenor, king 
 of Phoenicia, the introduction of alphabetic letters into the Pelopon- 
 nesus. Cadmus appears to have lived in the seventh generation be- 
 fore the Trojan war; which event belongs to the twelfth century 
 before Christ, and consequently the epoch of Cadmus dates about 
 1500 B. C., which, in Egyptian annals, is comparatively a modem 
 date, being contemporary with the middle of the 18th dynasty. 
 This Cadmus introduced into Greece 16 primitive letters — a phonetic 
 alphabet, consisting of the first sixteen primitive vocal articulations — 
 KvpioXoytKr] Sia rcov vyuirc or ^rot^eitor — translated by Letronne, “ Kvrio- 
 logic, according to the first alphabetic or phonetic letters” — or “serv- 
 ing perfectly to denote objects by alphabetic signs.” 
 
 These first alphabetic signs were then attributed to Hermes, who 
 is our Egyptian Thoth the second ! and were called, by the Greeks, 
 “ Phoenician letters.” To the primitive sixteen letters, Paltimedes 
 added four; and subsequently four others were supplied by Simoni- 
 des; thus completing the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet. The 16 
 Cadmean letters were, A, B, F, 4, E, F, I, K, A, M, N, O, IT. P, Z, 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 13 
 
 T, some of which singularly correspond in names to those of the 
 Semitic families of Hebrew, Samaritan, and other, to the parental 
 Phoenician, cognate tribes ; thus evincing, that the origin of the Cad- 
 mean alphabet is not Grecian, but Eastern : and, inasmuch as its 
 affinities are all Asiatic it may be termed “ Ehcenico-Grecian.” If, 
 therefore, we show, that its parental source derives its origin from an 
 Egyptian hieroglyphic, as has been demonstrated by Dr. Lamb, in 
 respect to the Hebrew letters, it will prove how much Greece is in- 
 debted to Egypt for the learning of her worthies. 
 
 It is a law of phonetic hieroglyphics, that the picture of a physical 
 object shall give the sign of the sound , with which its name begins 
 in the Egyptian tongue. Thus, a lion, whose Egyptian name was 
 “Labo,” stood for the letter L, in-4rk-roglyphics ; as it might stand, 
 in our language, to represent the initial letter of the designatory title 
 of that animal, whose name with us is lion. Now, the same prin- 
 cip'e is distinctly discernible in the Hebrew, Arabic, Samaritan, 
 Phoenician, and other Semitic tongues ! The ancient Hebrew letter 
 Li — or L — was the initial letter of their name for lion — “ Labi 
 while, in shape, it is only an abbreviation of the figure of a recum- 
 bent lion, a pure Egyptian hieroglyph. The B, in Hebrew, is the 
 initial letter of the word “ Beth,” meaning “ a house”— which is its 
 name ; and there is even a resemblance to be traced between the 
 form of the letter “ Beth,” and the outline of an oriental house with 
 
 a flat roof ! I will exemplify this fact by the name of the letter 
 
 AD — in the ancient Hebrew — which, besides being probably the 
 first articulate sound uttered by Adam, signifies “ a Man,” as also 
 “ red earth,” out of which man was moulded by the divine “Potter” 
 — see Isaiah, lxiv., 8. The transitions are herein made clear. 
 
 The letter A in Hebrew, meaning man, is thus traced to its Egyp- 
 tian parent. The same holds good with the entire Hebrew’ alphabet, 
 but is peculiarly evident in their letters G, N, P, R and T ; all can 
 be respectively traced to the initial letters of objects, whose names 
 in sound corresponded to the initial value of the letters, as the form 
 of the letters still preserves a resemblance to the pictorial hiero- 
 glyphic of the objects whence they are derived. Nor does it seem 
 improbable that Moses, who was “ learned in all the wisdom of the 
 Egyptians,” should have introduced into the Hebrew writings some 
 of those forms and ideas, he had necessarily contracted in regard to 
 this, and other subjects, during his education at Heliopolis. 
 
 It is likewise a curious chronological coincidence, that the 15th 
 century B. C., witnessed the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, 
 and their organization into an orderly community by Moses— the in- 
 troduction of the present Hebrew alphabet, in lieu of the previous 
 character, whatever that was — the importation of the primitive 
 alphabet from Phoenicia (at that period a province tributary to the 
 Pharaohs, and overrun by their armies) into Greece, by Cadmus, and 
 the foundation of Boeotian Thebes, with its oriental mysteries and 
 oracles — the emigration of Danaus, who was perhaps the brother of 
 our Ramses 4th : (Sethos-riEgyptus,) and who founded the kingdom of 
 the Danai, at Argos, where colossal ruins of the Egypto-Pelasgic period 
 again point to their Nilotic sources — and, with less historical cer- 
 tainty, but with some probability, may we also trace the foundation 
 of Athens itself to an Egyptian colony, led by Cecrops from Sais, 
 within half a century of the preceding events, that so strongly mark 
 the period of the 15th century B. C. ; the Augustan age of Pharaonic 
 renown. 
 
 Palamedes, king of Euboea, gave to the Greeks 4 additional letters, 
 O, S, <t>, X, to supply deficiencies in the Cadmean alphabet; and 
 Simonides subsequently furnished the 4 other signs, Z, H, T, fl, 
 which completed the 24 letters of the ancient Greek alphabet. 
 
 Now, the distinct articulations of phonetic hieroglyphics may be 
 resolved into 16 sounds, represented by 16 Egyptian letters (with 
 their homophones) which are identical, in value, with the 16 primi- 
 tive Cadmean characters! and these 16 primitive signs represent the 
 16 distinct simple or elementary sounds of the human voice; because, 
 all the other alphabetic sounds are more or less compound, and are 
 ,rediicihle into their respective primitive elements ! 
 
 Thiits the fact, that the Greek and Phoenician alphabets contained, 
 at first, .only 16 distinct letters, is not only established by analogy 
 and historical testimony, but is comformable to nature itself. 
 
 The Greeks and other nations, completed the powers of their 
 alphabets, by .adding other letters to represent compound sounds. 
 The Egyptians, without extending their phonetic system, in number 
 
 of letters, appear to have arrived at the same result, by giving to 
 each original sign a double or a triple power, as for instance ; 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 f 
 
 J/ in hieroglyphics stands in Arabic and in Coptic, 
 
 6 = 1 , 
 
 Khei — our Kh 
 
 I 
 
 ^ _ yi_ m - our 11 l 3 distinct sounds. 
 
 • | 
 
 1^=UJ Shei — our Sh j 
 
 the first of which we have not the power of expressing, but conven- 
 tionally, in our letters ; nor can many Europeans pronounce it dis- 
 tinctly. It exists in Arabic — as in “ Khiiss ” lettuce — or “ Khitm ” 
 a seal ; distinct from II, as in “ Hhris,” a guard — or “ Hitlee,” my soul. 
 
 And when, in Roman times, the hieroglyphic, hieratic and de- 
 motic forms of writing were abolished ; it was found necessary to 
 add to the 24 Greek letters, 7 others, purely Egyptian, to enable the 
 denizens of Egypt to represent in writing the sounds of their tongue, 
 and thus the present Coptic alphabet of 31 letters was formed. The 
 seven Egyptian letters of the Coptic alphabet, are taken from the 
 demotic texts ; viz. 
 
 — Shei — equivalent to our Sh 
 
 q-re 
 
 “ rh 
 
 — Khei “ 
 
 <1 
 
 Kh 
 
 <5 —Hori 
 
 it 
 
 n 
 
 — Sjansja “ 
 
 It 
 
 Sj 
 
 — Sseema “ 
 
 M 
 
 Ss 
 
 ‘i'-n.i 
 
 <( 
 
 T 
 
 I regret, that my limits do not permit my going further into the 
 interesting subject of the ancient use and modes of writing. Enough 
 has been said to show, that early analogies point to the valley of the 
 Nile, as the cradle, if not the birthplace, of this, no less than of all 
 other arts. 
 
 A small, though excellent work,* published in 1841 in London, 
 (from which I have gleaned several points of the present discourse, 
 and in the next chapter have extracted some ancient texts,) seems to 
 infer, that alphabetic signs were exclusively preserved by the descend, 
 ants of Shem, among other advantages accruing to them from Noah’s 
 prophetic blessing ; and then expatiates upon the “ unhappy sons if 
 Mizraim, the son of Ham,” who lost their primitive language, and 
 with it the alphabet! 
 
 This may be a mode of speaking, but it is inconsistent with the 
 Bible, and is utterly overthrown by history; for, if these unhajyjjy 
 descendants of Ham were under a curse, how was it, if Ham be the 
 parent of the Egyptians, that these unfortunate people were the most 
 civilized of antiquity ? how was it, that this accursed race enjoyed, 
 for 2500 years, the fairest portion of the earth ? how came it that 
 these unhappy people held the descendants of Shem in bondage, or 
 in tribute, during 1000 years before Cambyse3, B. C. 525 ? 
 
 This is another popular fallacy. The curse was not on Ham. It 
 passed over him, and fell upon Canaan. But, as I shall hereinafter 
 demonstrate, there was no ban on the Mizraimites, or Egyptians, till 
 after times. 
 
 CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 The reader will not forget, that Oriental languages of ancient days, 
 in sound, as well as in character, are not far removed from the mod- 
 ern ; although, to an uninitiated ear, their irttonations and articula- 
 tions may appear extravagant or harsh. 
 
 We have all of us seen vocabularies, wherein, by means of our 
 alphabetic letters, the words of eastern languages are presented to 
 our eye, but never to our ear. No dependence can be placed on the 
 accuracy of any one of them, however, unless we are previously 
 assured of the knowledge of the European writer ; who in most 
 cases is lamentably deficient. “ Guide Books,” for travellers to the 
 Levant, are for sale everywhere ; yet, it is curious to test the accu- 
 racy of the so-called Arabic vocabularies attached to some of them. 
 “Usborne’s Guide to Egypt,” London, 1840; price 9 shillings ster- 
 ling ; among its other absurdities, contains one of these puerile and 
 valueless “ word-books.” But, for “ true Corinthian brass,” com. 
 
 * The “Antiquities of Egypt,” 1 vol. 8vo. London, 1841, published by the " Religious 
 Tract Society.” This, ns well as the “ Illustrations of the Bible from the Monuments 
 of Egypt.” by the Rev. Dr. VV.C. Taylor. London 1838—1 vol. 12mo., I warmly recnm 
 mend to tlie reader's perusal. 
 
ANCIENT EG VPT. 
 
 19 
 
 mend me to that pompous “ English and Arabic (?) vocabulary,” 
 obtainable at the enormous price of 12 shillings, in a quarto, styled 
 “ Hand-book to India and Egypt,” London, 1841 ; wherein, not only 
 ore all the exploded errors, regarding Egyptian subjects, perpetuated 
 with marvellous fidelity; but, under the name of Arabic, is palmed 
 off an aggregation of trash, one third of which is obsolete Arabic, 
 incorrectly spelled ; another third may be Hindostanee, Bengalee, or 
 other Indian idiom ; and the remainder is literally gibberish. 
 
 The only “ Arabic and English” vocabulary, that can be scrupu- 
 lously relied on, is the one appended to Sir J. G. Wilkinson’s “ Topo- 
 graphy of Thebes,” 1835 ; an invaluable work, now out of print. 
 
 Unless we know, by ear, the foreign sounds expressed by our con- 
 ventional combinations of letters, it is vain to think of tracing correct 
 philological affinities. A most amusing catalogue could be made, 
 in selections from modern European literature, of the ludicrous fail- 
 ures of travellers in Arabic alone. Errors are perfectly excusable in 
 those who make no pretensions ; but, for a man to have the puerile 
 vanity to write in English the words of an Eastern language, when, 
 by 30 doing, he proves that he knows nothing about it, is suicidal to 
 say the least, while his folly misleads his successors ; whence, to- 
 gether with carelessness' of observation, in great measure, is deri- 
 ved that general misinformation about Egypt, ancient and modern, 
 which prevails everywhere at the present day. 
 
 In our alphabet, we have not the power to express a ♦ “ Kh,” 
 ora ' “Gh,” still less an “Ain,” nor can many Eur opeans 
 
 eve -S'" r acquire their true pronunciation. ( ] | 
 
 M^w».r. Lane, the most eminent Arabic savan of the day, and the 
 estimable author of the “ Modern Egyptians” (the most learned and 
 accurate of all works on the present inhabitants of Cairo and of 
 Egypt in general) has been the first to establish a system whereby 
 Arabic can be written in our letters ; but, unless the reader hears 
 the sound, he can never acquire its phonetic value. Our alphabet 
 will not express all the Oriental intonations ; nor can their alphabets 
 express all of ours. 
 
 It is much the same in music. We cannot approach Arabian 
 intonations, whether in instrumental, or vocal melody ; and, be it 
 observed, unless a man has an ear for music, he can no more learn, 
 or duly perceive the niceties of foreign, and particularly of Eastern 
 languages, than he could sing correctly without a voice. 
 
 I have said, that we cannot express in our letters many Oriental 
 articulations, without a conventional system ; as kh for “ Khey 
 and gh for “ Ghain the sound to be qpnveyed by mouth. No 
 combination of ours can express the “ ll” of that extraordinary lan- 
 guage, discovered as still extant in Hadramaut, by the profound 
 Orientalist, Mons. F. Fresnel, French Consul at Djedda ; which, 
 while it somewhat resembles the “ ll” of the Welsh, can be articu- 
 lated only on the right side of the mouth — being something between 
 “ llw a whistle, and a spit ! 
 
 I will endeavor to illustrate, how impossible it is for Orientals to 
 express our European intonations by their letters. 
 
 An English friend of mine, in the Levant, who is a profound Turk- 
 ish scholar, had two native Ottoman secretaries. Being desirous of 
 testing the capabilities of the Turkish character, for the rendering of 
 an English phrase, he sent one of them out of his bureau one morn- 
 ing; and dictating to the other the following line, desired him to 
 write i' in his national letters, so as to produce the English sound, as 
 correctly as possible. The sentence was, 
 
 “ Drag the swindling scoundrel to the pump.” I 
 
 This digression will serve to show how difficult it is, in European 
 or Eastern alphabets, to express each other’s respective languages ; 
 and to preface the remark, that we know not the precise articulations 
 of the ancient Coptic, or Egyptian tongue, as we are ignorant of the 
 sound; for the speakers^ with the language, perished in by-gone ages. 
 
 I now proceed to the general principles of the Ancient Egyptian 
 Language, as determined by the best hieroglyphical authorities up. to 
 the close of 1841. I shall pass rapidly over the subjects, explaining 
 each “ with as much brevity as is consistent with perspicuity.” 
 It would be tedious, as before stated, to go back to the doubts and 
 disputes of 1825 ; and my object is to give a generally-correct, rather 
 than a detailed view of Egyptian studies at the present day. The 
 difficulty of the task assumed lies in the appropriate condensation ; 
 and if this particular chapter be found less amusing to the general 
 reader than the others, it will not be the less instructive ; while its 
 insertion is absolutely indispensable to the clear apprehension of the 
 sequel. In the words of Champollion — “ the subject banishes all 
 ornament : in the absence of this advantage, which would doubtless 
 contribute to sustain your attention, I would invoke the high im- 
 portance of our inquiries,” no less than the reader’s indulgent pa- 
 tience. 
 
 The Language of the ancient Egyptians in '.he ancient Cop.ic, 
 prior to the introduction of foreign engraftments ; which may have 
 been imported in part, as early as PstMETicus the 1st, about B.C. 
 650. Before that time, it was an autocthon, or indigenous tongue ; 
 and the same idioms were orally in use from the unnumbered ages 
 anterior to the pyramids, down to the above-named monarch of the 
 26th Saitic dynasty. It ceased to be orally preserved among the 
 Copts, the present mongrel descendants of a high-caste ancestry, 
 about a hundred years ago. They still read it, with Arabic trans- 
 lations in the context, in the churches of the Coptic community in 
 Egypt. 
 
 In construction, it is monosyllabic in all its primitive words. Its 
 polysyllabic words are compounded of one or more linguistical roots; 
 and these can generally be resolved into distinct monosyllables. Its 
 syntax is in the logical order of the French language. It contains a 
 certain number of Semitic words, due to early intercourse with 
 Arabian nations, as well as to its primitive Asiatic origin.* 
 
 Dr. Leipsius, in his “Paldographia,” 1834, established very curious 
 relations between Sanscrit and Hebrew, such as to leave no doubt 
 of the existence of a common though undeveloped germ in both. 
 But still more valuable were the results of this erudite German eth- 
 nologist in Coptic ; for, in his letter to the Chevr. Baron Bunsen, Jan 
 1835, he established, that the ancient Coptic is no longer placed in 
 linguistical solitude ; but that it enters into the vast circumference of 
 Semitic and Indo-Germanic languages ; and that it is linked with 
 each by points of actual contact, grounded on the essential structure 
 and most necessary forms of all three. He considers that, in the 
 numerals especially, so strong a similarity exists between the Indo- 
 Germanic and Semitic languages with the more ancient Egyptian 
 system, that he deems the numeral figures of the Egyptians to havo 
 been originally transported from Egypt to India, and thence, being 
 carried into Arabia by early commercial intercourse, were by tho 
 Arabs transmitted to us, and as such are by us termed Arabic ; al, 
 though, by the Arabs this system of numeration is still called Hindee, 
 Indian. 
 
 The man wrote it and having heard the sound, read it correctly in 
 English. 
 
 He was then sent out of the room ; and the other secretary who 
 had not heard the sound, was summoned, and desired to read it. 
 This he did freely, 
 
 “ Direk zee Asevinedelink Asekoneoerel tev zee Pomep 1” 
 and this was the nearest approximation to the English that the 
 Turkish alphabet would admit of. 
 
 “ In sober sadness,” I can assure the reader, that it is precisely as 
 ludicrous to an Eastern ear, to hear a foreigner read what is called 
 Arabic, from an “ English and Arabic vocabulary” written with our 
 alphabet. 
 
 Some curious exemplifications of the real mode of sounding some 
 ancient Greek articulations, may be afforded by hieroglyphical com- 
 parisons, which would show that, in sound, the modern language as 
 spoken at this day has not varied much from the ancient. And, 
 what can be more uncouth to hellenic auricular nerves, than to hear 
 an English Demosthenes begin his oration, with “ Oi andres Atlie. 
 tutioi Yemen of Athens! Or to hear poor Homer’s hexameter 
 twisted into the sentence, (so often quoted to exemplify the propriety 
 of Greek linguistical adaptations !) “ Polu floisboio thaldsees." 
 
 Equally absurd is the English mode of reading Latin ; and equally 
 unnatural to an Italian ear are our intonations of this language, when 
 in lieu of the open, manly, and sonorous cadences of “ Pater noster, 
 qui es in coelo,” we shut our teeth, and pronounce it, “ Payta nosta 
 qui eez in setlo !'■ 
 
 Like all primitive tongues, the Egyptian proceeded by 
 imitation; or by giving a sound in imitation of the ob- 
 ject, or idea, intended. Thus, the name of an 
 Yd, from his bray ; 
 
 Modce, from his roar ; 
 
 E’he, from her low ; 
 
 Croor, from his croak; 
 
 Chdoo, from her mew ; 
 
 Purr, from his grunt ; 
 
 Petepep, from its peculiar cry ; Arabice, “ Iled- 
 hed,” (like our Whip-poor- Will;) 
 
 Serpent “ Hoff, from its hiss. 
 
 Mr. Lane’s exquisite translation of the “ Thousand and one 
 Nights,” gives some beautiful instances, in Arabic, of the words 
 attributed to the cries of birds. As, the “ Umree Hegdzee,” or Ara- 
 bian turtle dove, in its sweet coo, repeats “Yd kerdem, yit Alldh,” 
 O most merciful God ! 
 
 In ancient Coptic, the same echoing principle is recognizable in 
 verbs; thus, 
 
 Sensen, to sound ; 
 
 Thophtheph, to spit; 
 
 Owodjwedj, to masticate ; 
 
 * While delivering my first course of Lectures at Boston, a circumstance occurred in 
 regard to the dispersion of Languages, which I deem worth mentioning, as it may 
 serve for a clue in philological connections. 1 was explaining the pictorial scene, well- 
 known as that of the“ brickmakcrs ,” and mentioned that the hieroglyphic word lor 
 bricks, is the Coptic tobi, preserved in Egypt, by the Arabs. in their name took. Alter 
 the lecture was finished, a gentleman, who said he had resitted many years at the band- 
 wich Islands, stepped up and told me, that in Polynesia the native name for bricks a 
 tobc. 
 
 
 IL>>' 
 
 LO 
 
 Ass was 
 Lion “ 
 Cow “ 
 Frog “ 
 Cat “ 
 Pig “ 
 Hoopoo “ 
 
20 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Teltel, to let water fall drop by drop. The same word is still 
 used in Arabic. 
 
 Krapjkradj, to grind one's teeth. 
 
 Ropjf.edj, to rub. 
 
 Omk, to swallow; so that, in swallowing, all -nations speak Coptic ! 
 
 Also by assimilation, as 
 
 Bridj, lightning. 
 
 Lalt, to rejoice. ; as in the Arab song of “ Doos’.ya -lel-lee.' 
 
 See Modern Egyptians, Vol. II. p. 83. 
 
 Abstract ideas were expressed often by compounded roots ; as for 
 example, the word “ Het,” heart, became 
 Het-chf.m, little heart, L e. timorous. 
 
 Har jhi-Het, slow heart, 
 
 Ssaci Het, high heart, 
 Het-nasht, hard heart, 
 Ouom-Het, eating one's heart, 
 Thot-Het, mixing one's heart, 
 Meh-Het , filling one's heart, 
 
 patient. 
 
 proud. 
 
 inclement. 
 
 repenting. 
 
 persuasive. 
 
 satiating. 
 
 Although possessed of three colloquial dialects, the writing chosen 
 to express the language (being adapted to all these verbal inflec- 
 tions) is another evidence of the laborious intelligence that presided 
 over every Egyptian institution. It was indeed a country of wisdom, 
 rule, and systematic order, wherein nothing was left to chance. 
 
 The system of writing may be divided into primitive and second, 
 ary — the one being purely hieroglypiiical, with its two derivatives, 
 which wjs the most ancient method — the other the modern, or the 
 Coptic. It is only of the former we are treating. 
 
 The learned Leipsius, in the “ Annals of Archaeological Corres- 
 pondence” — Rome, 1837 : maintains that the Egyptians had two 
 colloquial dialects in use, which were very distinct — 
 
 1st — the i epa y\woaa, or upa SiaXteroo, which is the classical or 
 sacerdotal — 
 
 2d — the ko in hiaXeKvoo, which is the popular dialect. 
 
 The sacred, or hieroglyphical writing, as well as the hieratic, of all 
 ages, presents to our view the sacerdotal or classical dialect; but the 
 demotic, or popular writing, as well as the Coptic literature, presents 
 the pojiular dialect. 
 
 This is the main reason why the modem Coptic, which preserves 
 the ancient popular dialect, will not always translate words written 
 in the classical idiom, and in the anterior hieroglyphic and hieratic 
 character. 
 
 lnueed, St. Clement, of Alexandria, A. D. 194, is the only 
 
 one* of the early Greek writers, who deigned to take notice of 
 
 Huodutas nnd Diudoru* pidtad up a few rumors of the mod: of writm*, maunder- 
 standings as usual 
 
 Egyptian writings ; and the good sense of his short description con- 
 cerning them is confirmed by modern research. In his “ Stromatee” 
 
 he says, 
 
 “ Those who, among the Egyptians, receive instruction, leam first 
 that species of Egyptian writing which is termed epistolographic — 
 i. e. our demotic ; they next learn the hieratic, or sacerdotal ; and 
 lastly, the hieroglyphic, or sacred.” 
 
 So that an Egyptian, in St. Clement’s day, might have been able to 
 read and write the demotic, without its necessarily following that he 
 should be versed in the other two ; in the same manner, that Orientals 
 may be familiar with the Sulus or Reihhni characters of the Turkish, 
 without being able to write, or even read, a document written in the 
 Diviini or Kyrma styles. This observation, however, will better apply 
 to the Egyptian scribes, in the days succeeding “ Haphre" — (“Ap. 
 ries” — Pharaoh Hophra, of Jeremiah xxvii. to xliv.: 2nd Kings xx. : 
 and 2nd Chronicles xxxvi. : whose name, in hieroglyphics, is also 
 “ Remesto” — the abominable Pharaoh) — B. C. 569 : when the demotic 
 writing may have been first introduced ; because, before that period, 
 the graphical styles appear to have been limited to the hieratic and 
 the hieroglyphic, until the eighteenth dynasty, or B. C. 1800 — pre. 
 viously to which time, it is uncertain if the hieratic existed; so far as 
 I, who am now far away from the vortex of discovery, have been 
 able to learn. Monsieur E. Prisse, however, a learned hieroglyphs 
 cal pioneer, informs me, in a recent private letter, that he has found 
 a hieratic papyrus of a new king of the 1st. Memphite dynasty! 
 If the king can be clearly identified, which I confess my present 
 inability to comprehend, this fact will carry back hieratic writing, 
 no less than chronology, unnumbered centuries before the Memphite 
 Pyramids ! Rumors have since reached me that Dr. Leipsius’ pre. 
 sent pyramidal researches will confirm Manetho’s early arrangement, 
 and produce a vast accession of interesting historical facts, concern- 
 ing the regal builders of these mausolea, as well as their house, 
 holds. 
 
 The ancient writing of the Egyptians was therefore divided into 
 three distinct classes — viz : the hieroglyphic or “ sacred sculptured 
 characters,” which was the original, and is the monumental method — 
 the hieratic or “ sacerdotal,” which is an abbreviative method, used 
 by the scribes and priests in literary pursuits, in current use prior to 
 1500 B. C. ; and which, written from right to left, is a tachygraphy 
 or shorthand of the preceding — and the demotic, styled in the 
 Greek translation on the Rosetta Stone enchorial; which, coining 
 probably into general use after the Persian conquest, B. C. 525, is a 
 still more expeditious style of writing. It is written from right to 
 left. The modern Coptic is, however, traced from left to right, a a 
 the Christianized Egyptians followed the Greeks in alphabet aad . 
 graphical system. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 21 
 
 The following alphabet will furnish a general idea of the hiero- 
 glyphical homophones, as well as of the phonetic value of each sym 
 
 COPTIC ALPHABET. 
 
 tk. 6. 
 
 Alpha 
 
 A 
 
 
 B I 
 
 Vida 
 
 B 
 
 
 r ? 
 
 Gamma 
 
 Gh 
 
 A, E, I, 0, U, • 
 
 21 Dalda 
 
 D 
 
 
 e e 
 
 Ei 
 
 E 
 
 
 V, z. 
 
 Zida 
 
 Z 
 
 B 
 
 H H 
 
 Hida 
 
 Eb 
 
 
 © ■©■ 
 
 Thida 
 
 Th 
 
 K- 
 
 I r 
 
 Iauda 
 
 1 
 
 
 K k 
 
 Kabba 
 
 K 
 
 
 Sx * 
 
 Laulu 
 
 L 
 
 T, Th, D ■ 
 
 U xx 
 
 Mi 
 
 M 
 
 
 K if 
 
 Ni 
 
 N 
 
 L, R 
 
 g E 
 
 Ext 
 
 X 
 
 
 0 o 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 M. 
 
 n n 
 
 Pi 
 
 p 
 
 
 P P 
 
 Ro 
 
 R 
 
 
 C C 
 
 Sima 
 
 S 
 
 N" 
 
 Tt 
 
 Dau 
 
 D.T. 
 
 
 T T 
 
 Ue 
 
 U.V 
 
 F, Ph, P, 
 
 
 Phi 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 X x 
 
 Chi 
 
 Hh 
 
 
 w v 
 
 Epsi 
 
 Ps 
 
 S 
 
 UJO) 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 ujp 
 
 Shei 
 
 Sh 
 
 Sr, Ss 
 
 <4 
 
 Fei 
 
 F 
 
 PH, V, Uo 
 
 h b 
 
 Khei 
 
 Kh 
 
 
 Z> a 
 
 Hori 
 
 H 
 
 Kh, Sh, X 
 
 % * 
 
 Sjansja 
 
 Sr 
 
 
 (T 
 
 Ssima 
 
 8s 
 
 Sh 
 
 1* + 
 
 Dei 
 
 T 
 
 Hh, H 
 
 bol. I append to this table a Coptic alphabet also. 
 HIEROGLYPHIC ALPHABET. 
 
 X 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 -.I.A 
 
 — r 
 
 . t 
 
 .T • 
 
 «..X. 
 
 .T.V. 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 .yf. t . 
 
 Y • 
 
 • 
 
 VI- 
 
 ^ A A. t=> 
 
 • Jik • • 1 n » • • • 
 
 I . — .^5^ . \ ^ i, . 
 
 
 T- 1 ! 
 
 * + 
 
 • • B • 
 
 f 3BE 
 
 • • • 
 
 cd.£ .S— * 
 
 ✓WWN (- 
 
 V" 
 
 n?- n 
 
 »\T. 
 
 .A 
 
 
 
 fh . 
 
 —■[ 
 
 W- 
 
 « 
 
 ■a 3 . V *"V . J 'Sf 
 
 K 
 
 1 
 
 A % 
 
 • • 
 
 >v.«c.S 
 
 
 .. t .t 
 
 
 
 © • 1 .-”5- 
 
 TlflT. EJBOi .man 
 
 — ./HK. 
 
 fe-. m. - -444- * = 
 
 l 
 
 J.ra.ra., • v ■ a 
 
 **JT. «.!.«-» .^./h 
 
 • 
 
 9 
 
 Of the hieratic and demotic I have made no study, but the sue- 1 British Museum, commemorating the campaigns of Ramses 3d — 
 cceding inscriptions will indicate their appearance. It is the first line gesostris — and his victories over several Asiatic nations, far remote 
 of a poem in the hieratic character, *rom a papyrus now in the J from Egypt. Its date may be about 1550 B. C. 
 
29 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 HIERATIC. 
 
 ftr&f. 
 
 *£> ri|^3 
 
 *f£u^ ^ 'J/5l)*z8J 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 “The wicked race of the country of Scythia * ** * with many king- 
 doms * * * * ihe soldiers of the country of Ireto, of the country of Maono, 
 of the country of Toni, of the country of ICeshkush, &c. 
 
 It proceeds with the names of countries, the geography of which 
 Is unknown. 
 
 DEMOTIC or ENCHORIAL. 
 
 f'c-tl 
 
 vf/b-it/** vj.fP 
 
 vA]/ X Off / 6>\f M 
 
 This is from a papyrus in the Museum of Turin. 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 “ In the 38th year, on the 18th of the month of Athyr, of the rei?n of the 
 sovereigns Ptolemy and Cleopatra his sister; the children of Ptolemy and 
 Cleopatra, gods Epiphanes.” 
 
 J — Articles of dress or costume — as helmets, collars, shoes, 6c c. 
 K — Furniture, arms, and ensigns — as thrones, bows, sceptres, &c. 
 L — Household utensils — as vases, bowls, knives, &c. 
 
 M — Instruments relating to arts and trades — as a saw, 
 . hatchet, blowpipe, &c. 
 
 N — Edifices and buildings — as temples, obelisks, houses, 
 boats, See. 
 
 O — Various geometrical forms — as squares, ovals, angles, 
 circles, segments, &c. 
 
 P — Monstrous orfabulous Images — as a Hawk with a human 
 head. Sphinx — a lion's body with a man's, a ram’s, or 
 hawk’s head — men, with the heads of animals — and 
 other unnatural combinations ; all conveying however, 
 some metaphorical, allegorical, or mystical signification. 
 The exact number of the hieroglyphical figures not being yet 
 ascertained, the complete amount of varieties used by the Egyptians 
 cannot be positively defined. Approximately, their number may be 
 set down at 900, and time will develop a very few more. 
 
 Sculptured hieroglyp’hics were executed in “Intaglio,” in “Rilievo,” 
 or in “ Intaglio rilevato.” They were frequently painted, in minor 
 structures, without being sculptured ; but were rarely sculptured on 
 public monuments (save perhaps on obelisks) without being also 
 painted. In writing they were sometimes colored or illuminated, 
 but usually only in black or red. The colors given to each symbol 
 were not arbitrary on the part of the artist, but were applied 
 according to sys'ematic rules, more or less consistent with 
 the nature of the object — thus, the Heavens were painted 
 blue — the Earth red — Man as follows ; Egyptian males in red 
 as the most honorable color — meaning symbolically, the “heat 
 of fire,” and the “ male principle” — Egyptian females, in yel- 
 low, symbolizing the “ lightof fire,” and the “ female principle” 
 — Other nations were depicted as nearly as the artist could 
 approach their true color — as Asiatics in various shades of flesh 
 color; Berbers in brown of divers hues — Negros in black. 
 
 Quadrupeds, birds, insects, fishes, plants, in the colors most 
 appropriate to their natural aspect. Woods, in yellow — cop- 
 per, in green — edifices, in blue — and so on. To these rules 
 there are some exceptions, not however, produced by caprice. 
 
 Disposal of the hieroglyphics — in vertical column from top to 
 bottom — in horizontal lines. Read from left to right, or from right 
 to left ; beginning from that direction toward which the heads of the 
 animals are pointed. There are exceptions, I admit, but this is the 
 general order. 
 
 Different species of signs and symbols — in the hieroglyphic char- 
 acter are thus classed : 
 
 0 
 
 This papyrus is a civil contract for the sale of the profits of the 
 offerings in certain tombs. Even in Ptolemaic times, Egyptian law 
 did not recognize as legal any documents not written in the native 
 characters and language. It is of the last year of Philometor, about 
 B. C. 146. 
 
 Hieroglyphics, or monumental writing, are the primitive and 
 sacred style ; the most ancient monuments and papyri being in this 
 character. It is divided into two classes — the pure and the linear — 
 the latter being, as is explained by the following instances, a reduc- 
 tion of the former. 
 
 Pure. Lmear. 
 
 A reed, phonetically, A. 
 
 A jackal, symbolically, a Priest 
 
 A goose, phonetically, S., Figuratively 
 the bird goose — symbolically offspring. 
 
 The pure class was always sculptured or painted, and, in general, 
 both sculptured and painted were employed on public edifices. The 
 linear was preferred in ordinary life and literature of the earlier 
 periods. 
 
 The figures of things chosen as hieroglyphics are ranged into the 
 folk wing sixteen categories. 
 
 A — Celestial objects — as sun, moon, stars, &c. 
 
 B — Man, of all ages, sexes and ranks, in all positions of the body. 
 C — Parts of the human body — as an eye, hand, 6cc. 
 
 D — Quadrupeds — domestic and savage — as a bull, giraffe, mon- 
 key, &c. 
 
 E — Birds of divers species — as a vulture, hawk, duck, ibis, owl, 6cc. 
 F— Reptiles of various kinds — as a crocodile, frog, snake, & c. 
 
 G — Fish, of a few varieties. 
 
 TT T ,t! a beetle, scorpion, wasp, &c. 
 
 Mimic — or figurative. 
 
 Tropic — or symbolic. 
 
 Phonetic — or “signs of sound ” — i. e. alphabetic. 
 
 Each of these expressed ideas by diffent methods. 
 
 Figuratively — viz; KvpioXoynfi Kara Mipyaiv - — method explain- 
 ing itself by imitation. 
 
 These expressed precisely the object of which, with more or less 
 fidelity of design, they presented the image to the eye — as a disk, 
 for the sun ; a crescent, for the moon ; a crocodile, for that reptile. 
 
 Symbolically — Subdivided into four principal methods, under the 
 following rhetorical rules, viz ; 
 
 1st. By Synecdoche — the part placed for the whole — as the head of 
 an ox, to designate an ox — the head of a goose, to represent a goose. 
 
 2nd. By Metonymy — the cause for the effect ; the effect for the 
 cause; the instrument, for the labor produced — as “ a month” by a 
 crescent, with its horns turned downward, to designate the end of a 
 lunation ; fire, by a column of smoke from a stove : writing, by the 
 combination of emblems given in the preceding chapter. 
 
 3rd. By Metaphor — as a mother, by a vulture, because this bird 
 was said to nourish its young with its own blood : a king, by a bee, 
 as this insect is subject to a monarchial government : a priest, by a 
 jackal, to indicate his watchfulness over sacred things : a physician, 
 by a species of duck, the name of which was cein, while the pho- 
 netic name of a doctor was ceini — as, even in our day, a duck is an 
 excellent hieroglyphic for medical empiricism, because its phonetic 
 cry is “ quack, quack.” 
 
 4th. By Enigma — thus, an ibis stood for the god Tiiotii Hermes, 
 owing to a supposed mystical connection between the bird and the 
 deity : a branch of lotus, or other parts of this flower, indicated the 
 Upper Region, or Upper Egypt — while a tuft of papyrus, symbolized 
 the Lower Region, or Lower Egypt: a sphinx, (always male in 
 Egypt) with a lion’s body and a man’s head, represented royalty — or * 
 intellectual power combined with physical strength. 
 
 These ideographic signs abound in Egyptian legends ; but can be, 
 and often are, expressed by alphabetic “homonymia” and syno- 
 nymes. 
 
 Phonetically — (from the Greek <j>ovri, sound.) These signs are let- 
 ters, expressive, not of ideas, but of sounds, like our A, B, C, D. 
 
 They are, by far, the most numerous emblems in hieroglyphic 
 
 writing ; and are alphabetic, and not syllabic. 
 
 The fundamental principle of the phonetic system consists, in rep- 
 - ’ the pictorial image of a physical object, of 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 
 which the name, in the colloquial idiom of the Egyptians, had ior 
 initial articulation, or beginning letter, the sound which this sign, or 
 image, was intended to express — thus : 
 
 the tuft of a Reed, called Ake, stood for A. 
 
 i Eagle, 
 
 Akhom, 
 
 tt 
 
 A. 
 
 Field, 
 
 Koi, 
 
 it 
 
 K. 
 
 Cap, 
 
 Klapht, 
 
 tt 
 
 K. 
 
 i Owl, 
 
 Moolddj, 
 
 <1 
 
 M. 
 
 Mouth, 
 
 Ro, 
 
 u 
 
 R. 
 
 Beetle — scarabceus, “ 
 
 There, 
 
 (( 
 
 TH. 
 
 E<r<r, “ 
 
 • LJ C5a>> 
 
 Soohe, 
 
 tt 
 
 S. 
 
 Hand, 
 
 Tot, 
 
 tt 
 
 T. 
 
 Lion, 
 
 Labo, 
 
 tt 
 
 L. 
 
 Water- tank, 
 
 Sheei, 
 
 it 
 
 SH. 
 
 In teaching little children our own alphabet, we often adopt a 
 system precisely similar ; as, 
 
 « A, was an Archer, , •, 
 
 B, was a Butcher, , , 
 
 C, was a Crier, , 
 
 D, was a Doctor, , > 
 
 or otherwise, 
 
 “ A, was an Apple-pie ; 
 
 B, bit it ; 
 
 C, cried for it ; 
 
 D, danced for it ; 
 
 E, eyed it.” 
 
 The copiousness of this principle, in the variety of words com- 
 mencing with the same initial, permitted to the scribe a choice of 
 “ homophones,” or “ similars in sound,” to express the same letter ; 
 thus, the letter R could be expressed by a mouth, ro ; or by a pome- 
 granate flower, roman ; or by a tear, rime : T by a hand, tot ; by a 
 wing, tenh ; or by a hoopoo, tepeep : S by an egg, soohe ; or by a 
 goose, sar; and so on; as I have exemplified in the word America. 
 
 The number of homophones allowed to each letter was, after all, 
 not very considerable ; norwas their choice, in the Pharaonic period, 
 dependent on individual caprice. In later times, the degradation oi 
 art in Egypt, by the Ptolemies and Romans, corrupted the simplicity 
 of pristine orthography, by the addition of signs unknown before ; 
 and the scribe sought, by the profusion of his fantastic homophones, 
 to disguise his ignorance and his inability to equal his glorious pre- 
 cedents. 
 
 Yet, in the wise laws which regulated his primeval art, the scribe 
 of ancient days had an abundant selection at his disposal, not only 
 cf varied phonetic signs, symbolically expressive of meanings corres- 
 ponding to the dignity of his theme, but adapted to horizontal or 
 vertical inscriptions. For instance ; the Coptic word C1AG’ sems > 
 could be written as follows : 
 
 In vertical columns. In horizontal lines. 
 
 As in the Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, and other Semitic lan- 
 guages, the vowels in ancient Coptic were vague, and habitually 
 omitted. The consonants indicated the word ; as, at the present 
 day, is customary in writing short-hand. In this manner, Domitia. 
 Nos became Dmtns ; Berenice is written Brnk ; Philippos is some. 
 iiiw« Pheeoleeoupos, and, in some cases, Pips. 
 
 One great advantage accrued from this power of vocalic suppres- 
 
 23 
 
 sion, and the admissible transmutation of L for R ; because thereby 
 the differences of dialects in speech disappeared from the graphical 
 texts. There were three colloquial idioms of the same language 
 among the denizens of the Nile in Coptic times ; and we may infer 
 that it was the same in ancient days ; especially now, that Dr. Mor- 
 ton’s triple classification of Ancient Egyptian Crania, indicates tho 
 primitive existence of three varieties of the Caucasian in Egypt. 
 Among the Fellahs of the present day, three idioms of Arabic are, 
 to a practised ear, discernible ; the Saeedee, or Upper Egyptian pro. 
 vincialisms ; the Ghdrbee, or Western ; and the Sherkawee, or East, 
 ern, refcrrible to the lower provinces. It was anciently somewhat 
 the same ; for, 
 
 in Lower Egypt, the people spoke the Memphiiic, > 
 
 “ Middle “ “ “ “ Bashmuric, > dialects. 
 
 “ Upper “ “ “ “ Sahidic, ) 
 
 But, by the suppression of the vowels, and the transmutability of cer. 
 tain consonants, the same combination of hieroglyphics could be 
 vocally enunciated, by each provincial reader, according to his own 
 peculiar idiom. The verb Kel, to fold; might be read 
 
 kal, kel, kol, or kul ; or ka r, her, kor, or kur. 
 
 It must be observed, < I > when the introduction of 
 Christianity caused the hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic charac- 
 ters to lie abandoned, (as savoring too much of heathenism for the 
 delicate fingers of those, in whose eyes every legend was an inven. 
 tion of the foul fiend, simply because they were too stultified to com. 
 prehend, too fanatical to inquire) the Greco-Coptic alphabet was 
 substituted in lieu of the ancient system ; but the language, beyond a 
 few hellenic engraftments, and a few idioms introduced by Jew's, 
 Romans and Arabs, remained nearly the same, till the invasion of 
 Admer-ebn-el-As, and the establishment of the Saracenic Caliphate 
 in A. D. 540. Arabic gradually superseded it; and I w T as told, that 
 the last speaker of Coptic died some seventy years ago. 
 
 The process adopted by modern hierologists, in translating ancient 
 Egyptian legends, is to transpose the hieroglyphics, according to 
 their corresponding values in Coptic letters ; the roots are then in 
 general traceable in Coptic lexicons ; but it requires vast erudition, 
 intense study, and long practice, to become a translator. In ancient 
 days, a hieroglyphical text could be read as currently, as, in our day, 
 a page can be read in the Chinese language, or a treatise on Algebra 
 in any of our tongues ; both of which, like an Egyptian legend, offer 
 a continual intermixture of phonetic and ideographical signs. 
 
 ■ The three component principles of the sacred w'riting — that is to 
 say ; the fgurative, by imitation ; the symbolic, by assimilation ; and 
 the phonetic, by alphabetical arrangement; were applied to all the 
 parts of speech. A noun could be often written in each method 
 alone, or expressed by the union of tw o ; and, not unfrequently, by 
 an intermixture of all three, in the same word. It became necessary 
 to indicate to the reader, through which of these principles he should 
 understand a given combination of symbols. To effect this deside, 
 ratum, the Egyptians introduced certain arbitrary signs, as detennin. 
 atives. For example: two eyes, drawn in an inscription, might 
 mean A A ; or represent simply two eyes; or imply the act of vision. 
 In the first case, the w'riter merely drew two eyes ; in the second, he 
 would add one arbitrary sign ; and in the third, he used another 
 arbitrary sign, to denote that he meant a verb, or the act of seeing. 
 
 With these rules, and their application, the only w'ay to gain an 
 adequate acquaintance with the subject, is to consult Champollion’s 
 grammar. I merely attempt to give a superficial view of its won. 
 derful results. The following will explain some of these determin- 
 atives of nouns. 
 
 an ox, 
 
 a pig, 
 a king, 
 
 perfumes, 
 
 a flower, 
 
 & 
 
 tc 
 
 an ox, 
 
 an animal’s hide, 
 a king, 
 
 a jar 
 
 a flower, 
 
 a serpent, 
 
 a serpent 
 
 and so on ; each determinative being appropriate to the nature of the 
 object determined : the names of deities by the image of the pecu. 
 liar god intended ; the proper names of men and women by the figure 
 of a male or a female, as 
 
 from a papyrus 
 
 Pet-Hor-Piire — “ he who belongs to 
 . Horns and to Phrd ” (the sun) being the 
 A/ hie rriglyphicnl mode of spelling Potiphar, 
 
 Lord Mountnorris. 
 
24 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Names oi Egyptian localities were determined by the sign 
 " consecrated bread,” betokening civilization, 
 
 Torn or Nora — 
 
 “ the abode of Amun ” 
 Amunei. 
 
 o 
 
 or by a square k “ the abode of Amun ” Thebes. 
 
 inclosure, 
 meaning an 
 edifice. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Foreign countries were indicated by the sign “ Kah ” 
 
 country; generally, however, with the addition of the barbarian 
 mace, (termed “ Liss&n ” and “Aboo-sdlem ” and in use in Nubia to 
 this day) above it, as \ For example, 
 
 1 
 
 BARBARIAN COUNTRY. 
 
 KLEOPATRA 
 “ Cleopatra ” — B. C. 52, 
 
 To distinguish among so many sovereigns, the Egyptians, from 
 some period prior to the 16th dynasty, B. C. 2272, gave to each 
 Pharaoh two cartouches — the first of which is called the prenomen, 
 and is generally symbolic, containing titles : while it is always the 
 designatory oval by which the individual Pharaoh is known — the 
 aecond is called his nomen, and is generally altogether phonetic, 
 containing his proper name : like our Surnames and Christian names. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Title — Pharaoh. 
 
 Prenomen — Sun Lord of justice. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Title — Son of the Sun. 
 
 Nomen — AMuNoPH, Moderator of the land 
 of purity and justice — i. e. Egypt. 
 
 Cartouches of Amunoph the 3rd, B. C. 
 1692. It is his statue, which is called that 
 of Memnon .' who did not exist in Pharaonic 
 days in Egypt ! and whose vocality was a 
 priestly humbug. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Title — Pharaoh. 
 
 Prenomen — Sun, guardian of Truth, ap. 
 proved of the Sun. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Title — Son of the Sun. 
 
 Nomen — Beloved of Amun, Ramses. 
 Cartouches of Ramses III. — the great Se- 
 sostris — B. C. 1565. 
 
 “Kanana — barbarian country” — i. e. 
 Canaan — conquests of 18th Dynasty, 
 to B. C. 1500. 
 
 “Kush, barbarian country, perverse race,” being the 
 Egyptian designalory name and title of Negroes, prior to 
 B. C. 1600. 
 
 names of kings were de'ermined by the oval 
 termed, by the Champollionists, “ cartouche ,” 
 which incloses the names of Egyptian monarchs 
 during a period of 3000 years. Thus, besides 
 the many other instances in these chapters, we 
 have now before us, 
 
 PTOLeMAIS 
 “ Ptolemy-Soter ” — B. C. 304. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Title — Sun, Lord of the two regions, i. e. of 
 Upper and Lower Egypt. 
 
 Prenomen — Autohrator Kaiseros. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 < Son of the Sun. 
 
 Titles Lord of the Rulers — i. e. King of 
 ( Kings. 
 
 Nomen — Antoninus Sebastos. 
 
 Cartouches of the Roman emperor, Ca;sur 
 Antoninus Augustus ; better known as the 
 infamous Caracalla, A. D. 211 — being the 
 last royal name found in hieroglyphics, anfi 
 probably the last recorded in that character. 
 
 Ancient Egyptian System of Numeration. 
 
 Modem civilization, springing from the ashes of the past and 
 following, often without acknowledgment, the hoary precedents of 
 Asiatic and Egyptian antiquity, has adopted for the arithmetical no. 
 tation of a certain series of ideas in relation to number and quantity, 
 signs which have no similarity to the system used for the exposition 
 of other ideas, expressed by words in colloquial language. 
 
 Our signs for numbers, or ciphers, are ideographic ; have no rela. 
 tion to the sound of the same numbers ; are totally removed in nature 
 from our alphabetic system ; and are independent of the diversities 
 of language ; for, whether read in German, Spanish, English, or other 
 tongue, the ciphers 1843 express that number to the mind of every 
 European nation. 
 
 The Egyptian primitive ciphers, on the contrary, are consistent in 
 nature with the Nilotic system of writing, and enter, without effort, into 
 one of the three methods by which their scribes represented ideas. 
 
 Egyptian numerative signs are divisible into ordinal and cardinal; 
 the former determining the relation of an object in regard to other 
 objects of the same species — as, the tenth year, the hundredth psalm ; 
 the latter designating the quantity or number of these objects — as, 
 one, two, three, &c. 
 
 Cardinal numbers could, in writing, be expressed in three methods: 
 1st. By the repetition of the object itself ; thus a hatchet, symbolical 
 
 of a god, 
 2nd. Bywri 
 by marks 
 3rd. By wri 
 
 when repeated nine times, meant 9 gods, 
 ting the above symbol of a god, and following it 
 of units, as, they expressed three gods. 
 
 i i 
 
 ting the num 
 
 1 
 
 ber phone- 
 
 m tically, as, 
 Phtoou — 
 four. 
 
 Mil 
 
 Ordinal numbers were , below which the cardinal num. 
 
 determined by the sign ' — ' \ ber was written ; as, O g~y 
 
 * Mehshoment — the . . , \ 
 
 third. I I » ' 
 
 Of these methods there are some varieties. I give the element* 
 of the hieroglyphic numerical table : 
 
 | — sign for units — repeated in groups up to 9 
 
 n 
 
 9 
 
 tens “ 
 
 hundreds “ 
 
 90 
 
 900 
 
 X 
 
 ( 
 
 thousands “ 
 
 9,000 
 
 myriads, or tens of thousands “ 90,000 
 
 Beyond this number, they proceeded with a combination of then# 
 signs, resembling 10,000x2000=20,000,000. 
 
 The Hieratic affords some reductions of the same system. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 85 
 
 Nifaiat-Kah, the “ country of the nine bows” — Lybia ; so 
 — termed as early as Osortasen I., prior to B. C. 2000. 
 
 B 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 L, 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 KAH, 
 
 Country, 
 
 / Twelve thousand, or 10,000 and 2,000 ; as in the record of 
 I the enemies slain, after a battle between Ramses-Maiamun 
 TtI IV. — B. C. 1470 — and the Asiatic nation of Mashoash. 
 
 nnni that is > 12535 
 
 ill if hands cutoff from 
 * ' I I I i the dead of the 
 
 Cut, hands, § o o o m ' f Mashoash, to 
 
 off. == ®. 10 I show their num- 
 
 2 1-1 1-1 J ber ; as it is still 
 
 the fashion among the Turks to cut off the ears of the enemy’s dead, 
 string them on sticks in sets of a hundred, pickle them, and send 
 them to Constantinople in proof of victory. During the Greek revo- 
 lution, it was customary, on both sides, to resort to the same primitive 
 method of counting the dead ; though, to increase the number of such 
 trophies, both Greeks and Turks generally cut off the ears of their 
 own dead as well, to swell the bulletins of triumph, claimed, of course, 
 by each party. In the last war with Russia, when the Turks fled 
 (as they invariably will, on encountering the European bayonet,) it 
 was observed, that the cavalry always made off first, lest they should 
 be fired at by their own infantry, who were anxious 6 
 to have the benefit of their horses ! The most 
 daring of the Turkish troopers are called Delhi 
 (madmen,) from their recklessness of human life. 
 
 Their motto is, to conquer or die ; and, as Baron 
 de Tott remarks, “ ils ne font ni l’un, ni l’autre.” 
 
 The ancient Egyptians understood decimels and 
 fractions ; and, in short, the papyri, existing in va- 
 rious museums of Europe, containing long inven- 
 tories and accounts, show that the priests were 
 masters of arithmetical book-keeping also ; a sci- /WW\ 
 ence developed 3000 years later by the Italian 
 merchants. ^ 
 
 In their notation of time (besides the astronom. 
 ical cycles, and perpetual calendar,) the Egyptians 
 regulated their ordinary dates by the reign of each 
 Pharaoh ; reckoning from the date of his acces- 
 sion to the throne to the day of his death. As in 
 England, the 5th year of Victoria, or in France, the 12th of Louis 
 Philippe ; so in Egypt, an act was chronicled, “ In the fourth year of 
 the Pharaoh, Sheshonk, the 10th day of the month Paopi.” 
 
 This chronological system has been of immense advantage to the 
 modern hierologists, by enabling them to ascertain the length of each 
 king’s individual reign, and also by assisting them in other computa- 
 tions of relative eras for events ; while, from the multitude of tablets 
 bearing dates, and still existing, we can correct and confirm history. 
 
 I give further on, in a note, some facts relating to Persian monarchs, 
 and will add two other instances. 
 
 Manetho tells us, that Sesostris (who is our Ramses 3rd — B. C. 
 15G5) reigned 66 years, 2 months. A few years ago it was pretended 
 (even with the example of George III. before our eyes,) that such a 
 reign was extremely improbable. We now have Stelie bearing dates, 
 of the 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th, 14th, 30th, 34th, 35th, 37th, 38th, 40th, 44th, 
 and 62nd years of his reign. Nor need longevity be claimed for the 
 ancient Egyptians ; because, while the Almighty vouchsafed to the 
 Hebrew patriarchs an especial duration Of life, we have positive evi- 
 dences that, in Egypt and among Egyptians, the average life of man, in 
 ages before Abraham, was precisely what it is at present. 
 
 Again, TnoTMES the 4th (Mceris) is said, by historians, to have 
 reigned only 12 years 9 months. 
 
 When, in 1839, my much-honored friend, A. C. Harris, Esq., of 
 Alexandria, and myself, wandered one day in quest of “ hieroglyph- 
 ical adventures,” along the craggy ledges, caverns, tombs and quar- 
 ries of the hills behind Zebayda (middle Egypt,) we stumbled on a 
 tablet apparently of the forty-second year of this king, which seemed 
 to record that, in this year of his reign, stone had been quarried at 
 this place for the temple of Thoth at Hermapolis Magna — Aishmoo- 
 nbyn — on the opposite side of the Nile. If this should prove authen. 1 
 tic, we should be enabled to correct history from a hiero- 
 glyphical date. Sir J. G. Wilkinson had already found dates 
 of the 27th (see Materia Hieroglyphics ;) and this fact de- 
 mands a more critical investigation of the tablet alluded to, 
 than in our hurried ramble we were able to compass ; as it 
 would amend Rosellini’s and Champollion Figeac’s arrange- 
 ment of the later reigns of the 18 th dynasty. The vast relics 
 leit by Mceris, seem to demand an extension of his reign be- 
 yond 12 years and 9 months. 
 
 From the summit of the hill, I directed my telescope with 
 vain regrets toward the mounds of Aishmoondyn ; where, up to 1825, 
 a noble portico, (added by Ptolemy-Lagus, in the name of Philip 
 Arrid^us, about B. C. 320, to the temple, which had then existed for 
 1600 years,) had stood, in majesty, and in safety, at which time 
 Mohammed Ali caused it to be destroyed, to supply building ma- 
 terials for his regenerating and civilizing ru;n-distillery at Mellawee. 
 
 In hieroglyphics, the sign for tear was \ , figurative of a palm 
 branch, and symbolic of a year, because, L according to Horus. 
 Apollo, “of all others this tree (the date, f palm) alone, at each 
 renovation of the moon, produces one additional branch, so that in twelve 
 branches the year is completed.” The plausible reason is, that, in Egypt, 
 the lower branches of the date-palm are cut close to the trunk once a year. 
 
 Month was , “ the moon inverted ,” (Horus-Apollo) 
 
 symbolic of lunar f t ' motion. 
 
 Day was , 7C symbolic -of the sun's diurnal course. 
 And thus the 15th of March, 1843, in hieroglyphics would be, 
 
 n 
 
 lx S 
 
 I 
 
 9 99 9 
 
 r\r\r\c\ 
 i 1 1 
 
 ii o nil 
 i i in 
 
 Q 
 
 3 0 
 
 o m & 
 
 I will now proceed to the analysis of one hieroglyphical text, and 
 the production of a few others ; by which the reader will be con- 
 vinced, that these things are no longer, thanks to the Champollionists, 
 “ unintelligible mysteries.” 
 
 “ Grammaire Egyptienne,” p. 398 — and Champollion Figeac, p. 
 225. Read from right to left. 
 
 £V 
 
 to go. 
 
 1% 
 
 SHE-ff; KIIONS, EITI, 
 
 Khons, I accord 
 
 NWV\ 
 
 
 NOHEM, 
 to rescue, 
 
 No. 1 — is composed of two signs, the figure of the god Khons, re- 
 cognizable by his emblems — he is the subject of the proposition, 
 and signifies, “ I the god Khons the other sign above him is 
 phonetic, and is the root of the verb eiti — to give, or accord. 
 
 No. 2 — is phonetic — it reads she-m, and signifies, to go. 
 
 No. 3 — the pronoun is phonetic — the figure that of a king — the group 
 reads pephhont, his majesty. 
 
 No. 4 — is L, the preposition to. 
 
 No. 5 — the first four signs are phonetic — Bashtan — the other two, 
 one figurative of a country, the other symbolic of civilization — 
 meaning a civilized country. 
 
 No. 6 — is L, the preposition to. 
 
 No. 7 — is phonetic — reading nohem, to rescue, deliver. 
 
 No. 8 — is phonetic and symbolic — si-t, daughter. 
 
 No. 9 — is phonetic — N, the preposition of. 
 
 No. 10 — is figurative of the idea, chief. 
 
 No. 11 — is N, of. 
 
 No. 12 — aa above, No. 5. 
 
 The current translation is, “ I, the god Khons, consent that his 
 majesty (the king of Egypt) should go to the civilized country of 
 Bashtan, to rescue (probably to marry) the daughter of the chief of 
 the country of Bashtan.” 
 
 This extract is from the 15th line of an historical tablet, existing 
 in the ruins, southeast of Karnac, Thebes. Epoch uncertain. 
 
 The following are facsimile texts, culled from Champollion’s 
 grammar, to illustrate the method introduced by that immortal 
 scholar, for translating hieroglyphical legends into Coptic, and thence 
 into French 
 
 A — Page 409. 
 
 Jfi . 
 
 Xtfp/rrqi&i £ 
 
 deux obelisques. 
 
 
 
 i — C /vwwv 
 
 rr&i-eipe 
 
 
 jV fait 
 (eriger 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 ^fLorp 
 
 la gauche. 
 
 I 
 
 ft 
 
 “ On the left hand, (or western bank of the Nile,) I have caused 
 two obelisks to be erected.” 
 
 Speech of Amunoph the 3rd. — on a stela dedicatory of his palace, 
 the Amunophiuni, Thebes — B. C. 1690. 
 
M 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 B — Page 408. 
 
 e*a(\ 
 
 /vw* Y 
 
 
 y ? 
 
 1 1 I 
 
 AV\M 
 
 ' ' if. | 
 
 e<- 
 
 7Td.GTCj 
 
 Amon. 
 
 rr 
 
 de 
 
 nexiv 
 
 le» ordres 
 
 /tdr-eipe 
 
 J’ejdcutfli 
 
 “ I have executed the orders of my father, Amun.” 
 
 C — Page 184. 
 
 s © y t rrr 
 
 /wvw ZZ>Z> Ml TbS^ 'mit I m ^ V 111 
 
 TT£T -ixrf Teimero iid-er ©Jpw &p*.i£HT rremp 
 
 cet, edifice, eontemplez, venez, Derry, qui residez, grands, Odieux* 
 
 dans 
 
 “ O great gods, who reside in Derry, come and contemplate this edifice !” 
 
 Dedications of the temple of Amada, in Nubia, epoch about 1700, B. C. At this very day, there is an adjacent town named Derr 
 while its ancient name was The-Ee, the abode of Rha, the Sun — a Heliopolis, in Nubia 1 
 
 D — Page 405-6. 
 
 C=^ 
 
 © o 
 
 AWa 
 
 K>f*Ae 
 
 Egypte ! 
 
 -Ooo£j 
 
 
 n ncoTTrr uu crr»XT 
 
 d* roi O disent. 
 
 I’Ethiopie, 
 
 75 
 
 I 
 
 XL- 
 
 da 
 
 = 
 
 
 des peuples Strangers 
 
 m 
 
 UJHpl 
 
 les chefs, 
 
 1 Q-c/ 
 
 (UJ)IlpH 
 
 O soleil 
 
 1 The chiefs of Kush-countries (i. e. Negro countries, lying above lat. 15.) say, O King of Egypt 1 O Sun of foreign nations ! 
 
 From the tomb of an African prince, at Thebes. 
 
 iriiL 
 
 entiere, 
 
 E — page 500. 
 
 / /^i 
 
 r< ndd. TiaiHpi n eipe 
 
 AVW\ 
 
 rf ttithJL 
 
 la terre, de. lelgneur. 
 
 AAAM 
 
 e nojt i 
 
 avec lui. 
 
 entidre. 
 
 » 75 
 
 ff&TTKA, 
 
 de la terrw 
 
 du, grand. 
 
 ts±=3 
 
 fcCrj 
 
 JteKA£ 
 
 les contr6es. 
 
 chef, 
 
 
 G(C 
 
 du, etant, 
 
 © o 
 
 KHlStG 
 
 l’Egypte, 
 
 r 
 
 <A 
 
 \ 
 
 €f 
 
 la venue, 
 
 £ 
 
 H 
 
 fcCukoe 
 
 Caimbyse, 
 
 H On the coming of the great chief, lord of the whole earth, Cambyses, to Egypt, behold ! all the nations marched with him” — alluding tc 
 the vast army of the Persians. From an inscription on the statue of the priest, “ Outohem Pisotan,” in the Vatican Museum, Rome 
 
 F — page 500-1. 
 
 + 
 
 vivant, toujour*, 
 
 Ss/ 
 
 Darius, 
 
 '{ 
 
 yWVVA 
 
 k 
 
 T ^ 
 
 n 
 
 TTCTrr rr TMrtT OYi<S-a. 
 
 nd. r 
 
 XU) <S.T03 
 
 roi du, la mnjestd, 
 
 k mol, 
 
 ordonna, ' et 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 2 > 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 vi ■ x 
 
 gw. GCjUffT 0Y&(L£. gig 
 
 Arma-pays, 
 
 dam. 
 
 sa majesty. 
 
 ©^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 Khug 
 
 P 
 
 'j-JGJ 
 
 •Egypte. 
 
 cn. 
 
 qua j’allaiw 
 
 majesty was 
 
 in Aram ;” i. 
 
 e. Assyria — now 
 
 Bourn, the root of Armenia. Same statue — epoch between B. C. 525 and 485 — 
 
 Idem — page 183. 
 
 The subjoined example will afford a good idea of the transition from the linear hieroglyphical character into the hieratic. It is from 
 the grand “ Ritual for the Dead.” 
 
 (3 
 
 "21 3 ■ ft 
 
 r» 
 
 
 aaaa\ L^*k| 
 
 /wva . _ ~r — ■* 
 
 n A 
 
 aji.pOK itcS.foT0g <5&HTrrrermooT gu TnuirifTp <*> 
 
 vers toi. 
 
 je suit arrive. 
 
 la demeure, de. 
 
 l’eau. 
 
 dans, oeluu diou. 
 
 O, 
 
 “ O god, who residest in the habitation of waters, I have arrived as far as thee !” 
 
 The following are extracted from the “Antiquities of Egypt,” be- 
 fore referred to, with some additional notes. 
 
 G. 
 
 1 
 
 O 
 
 1 1 r 
 
 la- 
 
 under 
 
 thy sandals 
 (is) 
 
 Kol, the barbarian land 
 
 Kush, (Nigritia) 
 
 (is) 
 
 thy grasp. 
 
 “ Kol, the barbarian land, is beneath thy sandals ; Kush (Nigritia) 
 Is within thy grasp.” 
 
 Conquests of Ramses 2nd ; depicted in the Hemispeos of Beyt-el. 
 Walee, Nubia — B. C. 1570. 
 
 Kol, or Kor, was an Asiatic country. The phraseology is identi- 
 cal with Romans xvi., 20 — 1 Cor. xv., 25-7. The same analogy to 
 the measured phrases or parallelisms of the Hebrew poetry is equally 
 discernible in tho succeeding H and I ; as well as in most Egyptian 
 legends : strongly confirmatory of the common Asiatic origin of both 
 nations. 
 
 H. 
 
 Thy 
 name 
 (is) 
 firm 
 as 
 
 heaven ; 
 
 10$ the duration of thy days (is as) 
 
 f 
 
 /vvw\ 
 
 KUD 
 
 Liam 
 
 A/VNA 
 
 •I 
 
 Western face of the Obelisk of Luqsor — Place de la Concorde, 
 Paris — sculptures of Ramses 3rd — Sesostris — B. C. 1550. 
 
 <vw\ 
 
 0 
 
 the disc of the Sun. 
 
 O thou 
 
 ruler 
 
 n 
 
 AVW\ 
 
 ^ ^ Egypt, 
 
 ® (thou) 
 
 of 
 
 I 0 Sun 
 
 AW\ 
 
 “ Nifaiat ” — Lybia — (literally, the nine bowB) 
 
 shall not be (stand) 
 
 HD before thee 
 
 “ O thou ruler of Egypt, thou sun of Lybia, the impure shall not 
 stand before thee.” “ Nifaiat ” is the plural of phet, Coptice, a bow ; 
 singularly associated with Phut, the son of Ham, whose descendants 
 colonized the “ Belad-ed-djereed” — countries of the date-palm — or 
 Barbary. The bow reminds us of the Numidiau archers. 
 
 From a tablet at Aboosimbel, Nubia, addressed to Ramses 3rd by 
 an African prince — B. C. 1550. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 His hand 
 is 
 
 firm 
 
 on 
 
 his 
 
 chariot 
 
 like 
 
 Monthou, Mare, 
 
 Lord 
 
 of the land of purity and justice — Egypt. 
 
 Conquests of Ramses 2nd — defeat of African nations, at Beyt.el- 
 ll'alf.e— B. C. 1570. 
 
 Tread ye out for yourselves. 
 
 Tread ye out for yourselves, 
 
 the straw ; 
 
 For men, who are your masters, 
 
 the grain. 
 
 Or paraphrased. 
 
 Hie along, oxen ! tread the corn faster ; 
 
 The straw for yourselves, the grain for your master. 
 
 Discovered by Champollion le Jeune, in 1828, in a legend over 
 peasants, pictured in the act of threshing corn. Date prior to B. C. 
 1500 — probably much more remote. 
 
 The Fellhhs of the present day sing in all their agricultural occu. 
 pations ; and the words of their simple melodies are often identical 
 in nature to the above ; while I have no doubt, that the air of the 
 ancient chant of “ Maneros ” is still preserved in the plaintive 
 (third-minor) notes of modern Egyptians. 
 
 Many a time, in my long rambles in Lower Egypt, have I paused 
 to catch the wild, but exquisitely sweet songs of the peasant and the 
 boatman — blended with the incessant notes of the “ Ciclade,” the 
 hum of the wild bee, and the monotonous drone of the distant sakia 
 (water-wheel.) 
 
 In Egypt, the grain is separated from the stalk by a bullock-ma- 
 chine, called the noreg. There the “ ox is not muzzled as he treads 
 the grain,” though man is muzzled by Mohammed Ali. 
 
 K. 
 
 /VWV\ 
 
 I I ■ 
 
 VWA 
 
 vww 
 
 A Threshing Song. 
 
 Tread ye out 
 
 for yourselves 
 
 twice (i.e. bis, meaning, this sentence to be sung tieiea) 
 O oxen 
 
 Tread ye out 
 
 for yourselves 
 
 Tread ye out 
 
 for yourselves 
 
 1st Column — “ The Osiriana — (i. e. taken unto Osiris, 
 meaning, the deceased) goddess, queen Onknas, 
 sun with a good heart, the truth-teller. The royal 
 daughter of King Psametik, (Psameticus 1st, B. 
 C. 650,) the truth-teller.” 
 
 2nd Column — “ The Osiriana, goddess, queen, Onk- 
 nas, sun with a good heart, the truth-teller. Her 
 mother was the divine queen Nitocrit (Nitocris, 
 wife of the above Psameticus) the truth-teller.” 
 
 From the Sarcophagus of queen Onknas, the sister 
 of Haphre (Apries, Pharaoh Hophra of Scripture) and 
 the wife of Aahmes, Amasis, B. C. 569. It is re- 
 markable, that Herodotus says, that the tombs of this 
 Amasis and his wife, were violated by the insane 
 Cambyses, B. C. 525. 
 
 Now this sarcophagus was discovered by the 
 French officers of the Luqsor,(the vessel sent to Thebes 
 for the Obelisk, in 1831,) in a pit 125 feet deep, be. 
 hind the palace of Luqsor. It was found broken open, 
 the mummy burnt, and the scorched remains of the 
 desecrated queen, lying around the sarcophagus. It 
 is now safe in the British Museum. 
 
 M. 
 
 straw 
 
 the grain (a bashol pouring out grain) 
 
 l*H 
 
 AVAN who ( are ) 
 
 your masters. 
 
 Anna* 
 
 I II 
 
 Construction rhythmical. 
 
 Tread ye out for yourselves, 
 Tread yo out for yourselves, 
 
 O oxen 1 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 “ Knum, the Crealor, on hie 
 wheel moulds the divine members 
 of Osiris (the type of man) in 
 the shining house of life” — that 
 is, in the solar disc. 
 
 The god Amun-Kneph, tur- 
 ning a potter’s wheel, mould- 
 ing the mortal part of Osiris, 
 the Father of men, out of a 
 lump of clay. The clay is 
 placed on the potter’s-wheel, 
 which he turns with his foot, 
 while he fashions it with his 
 hands. It is a subject from 
 the mystic chamber of the 
 Temple of Philae — 1st Cata- 
 ract. 
 
 Amun-Knepii, or Neph, 
 Kneph, Chnouphis, Noub — 
 represents the “creative pow. 
 er of Amun” — that is, “ the 
 spirit of God” — the breath 
 of life poured into our nos. 
 trils. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 39 
 
 He moulds man; in Hebrew, Adam,| 
 the first man, meaning both man, and 
 red earth, or clay. Now consult Isaiah 
 lxiv, 8. “ But now, O Lord, thou art 
 our Father : We are the clay, (in Hebrew Adme, red earth) and 
 thou our potter ; and we are all the work of thy handy 
 
 N 
 
 jD 
 
 aama 
 
 May 
 
 thy soul 
 attain (come) 
 
 Khnum, (one of the forms of Amon, the creator) 
 
 the creator, (the idea denoted by a man building the 
 walls of a city) 
 
 of all 
 
 Mankind, (literally men and women.} 
 
 “ May thy soul attain to Khnum, the Creator of all mankind.” 
 
 This alone is a proof of the primitive Egyptian creed of one God, 
 the Creator, (whose divine attributes were classed in triads) of man’s 
 possession of a soul, and of its immortality ; of a resurrection, and 
 of the hope of such. 
 
 Let it stand, for the present, as an insight into the pristine purity 
 of Egyptian belief, in ages prior to Abraham’s visit ; and let the con- 
 stant expression of “ beloved of a god,” “ loving the gods,” like the 
 Hebrew, “ dilectus a domine suo, Samuel,” (in the Vulgate,) “ be- 
 loved of his Lord, Samuel attest the primeval piety of the Nilotic 
 family over all contemporary nations, whom we are pleased to con- 
 demn as Pagans. 
 
 NOTES ON EGYPTIAN OBELISKS. 
 
 The term Obelisk is derived from the Latin oleliscus, a diminutive 
 of the Greek word obelos, meaning literally a spit, to indicate the pe- 
 culiar form of this species of monument ; on the same classical prin- 
 ciple, that in our day, we facetiously designate them needles. 
 
 With more propriety, though with equal foundation, they have been 
 termed “ rays of the sun ;” but, us the Egyptians had apparently no 
 such idea, when they placed them before their gigantic edifices, we 
 need not pause to inquire into the reason of the appellation. 
 
 They are purely historical monoliths, generally of syenite, 
 cut by order of a Pharaoh, and placed originally in pairs, in front of 
 large royal or religious buildings, to record in their inscriptions, the 
 name, titles, and dedicatory offerings of the monarch, whose munifi- 
 cence and piety had built, repaired, or otherwise embellished the 
 edifices which these obelisks adorned. 
 
 The obelisk, on the cover of this essay, is a copy (with one or two 
 slight inaccuracies) of the one still erect at Heliopolis. It is the most an. 
 cient, as well as one of the most beautiful extant, dating about 2070, 
 II. C., in the reign of Osortasen the 1st— of the 16th Diospolitan Dy- 
 nasty. 
 
 It is the sole remaining one of a pair that stood together on the 
 same spot (perhaps the other is there still, under the alluvium,) about 
 647 years ago, in the time of the Arab historian, Abd-el-Lateef ; 
 and confirms the rumors handed down to us by Herodotus and Pliny 
 of the former existence of an obelisk there. 
 
 Its height is about sixty-one feet, and its base six and a half. It 
 is a beautiful shaft of red granite from the quarries of Syene, distant 
 fix hundred and forty miles from its present site to which it was 
 conveyed by Osortasen. 
 
 I subjoin Rosellini’s translation. 
 
 The Ilorus, 
 
 [Living of men,] 
 
 Pharaoh, 
 
 SUN OFFERED TO THE 
 WORLD, 
 
 Lord of upper and tower Egypt, 
 
 the living of men, 
 
 Son of the sun,. 
 
 OSORTASEN, 
 
 a 
 
 tr 
 
 beloved of the spirits In the region 
 of Pone, 
 
 ever living, 
 
 life of mankind, 
 resplendent Horus. 
 
 beneficent deity, 
 
 SUN OFFERED TO THE 
 WORLD, 
 
 <$vho has begun the celebration of 
 his two panegyries (i. e. general 
 assemblies) to him who makes 
 him, 
 
 Vivifierfor ever. 
 
 That is, dedicated to Phrfe, the god sun, to whom was dedicated 
 the eity, on the ruins of which this obelisk now stands — termed in 
 hieroglyphics, the city of Phrb; in Greek, Heliopolis, the city of the 
 Sun ; in Hebrew, On and Beth-Shemmim, the “ House of the Sun 
 in Samcenic Arabic, Ain-es-shems, fountain of the Sun ; and in the 
 Darig, er colloquial Arabic of the present day, JSIatarceych, fresh 
 water, from the purity of its springs. 
 
 As an instance of the misconceptions, still prevailing all over the 
 
 
30 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 world on Egyptian subjects, attributable to indifference or to care- 
 lessness of observation ; for which, in 1843, there is but little excuse, 
 correct information being now accessible to all ; and as an evidence 
 that, in 1843, a man who knows nothing of a subject, should at least 
 abstain from writing about it ; I extract the following paragraphs 
 from “The American in Paris,” or Heath’s Picturesque Annual for 
 1843 — by Monsieur Jules Janin — pages 22 and 23 — on the obelisk 
 of Luqsor, now standing in the Place de la Concorde, Paris. 
 
 “ Picture to yourself a single block of stone twenty.four feet high ; 
 its color a beautiful red. You would say this exquisite stone was 
 transparent, it so dazzles you with its beauty : it is slender and deli- 
 cate, and is covered with a thousand hieroglyphical characters, which 
 will for a long time, torment the Champollions present and to come. 
 They were obliged to seek this long stone in ihe.desert ; to take it 
 down from its almost eternal foundation, where It had stood erect 
 for three thousand years.” 
 
 “ To come from so great a distance, to tear Cleopatra's needle 
 from its base, to bring it to this hole, and to die in this muddy and un- 
 wholesome puddle 1” 
 
 •• X have seen the foolish taking root : but suddenly I cursed his habitation.”— J od, v. 3. 
 
 Had the volatile French author, or his equally careless English 
 Iranslator, taken the least pains to inquire (as Mr. Aldrich has done 
 in his excellent letter from Paris — vide “New World” — 25th Feb- 
 ruary, 1843) before they wrote the sbove, the purchaser of Heath’s 
 Picturesque Annual need not have regretted a portion of his extrava- 
 gant outlay. 
 
 Monsieur Janin’s organs of vision must be strangely defective, 
 and must disqualify him altogether forjudging of the sizes and heights 
 of anything in Paris ; when an obelisk, whose shaft measures above 
 seventy. five feet English, should dwindle in his view to twenty-four. 
 A schoolboy could have given him better information at a glance ; 
 nor would his enlightened Government have expended two millions 
 of francs, to transfer the obelisk, termed by Monsieur Janin, a needle 
 of Cleopatra, from the temple of Luqsor at Thebes ; which stands 
 on the very bank of the Nile, and on the fertile alluvium, bounded 
 on three sides bv verdant fields — a long walk from Monsieur Janin’s 
 desert. The chronological era indicated for Cleopatra, B. C. 1157, 
 is certainly novel, and is Monsieur Janin’s copyright. Nor is the 
 sentimental lament about the demise “ of this long stone” calculated 
 to elevate “ la Place de la Concorde” in the opinion of those, whose 
 knowledge of Paris is derived from Monsieur Janin’s account. 
 
 If the English translator had sought to correct his original’s pue- 
 rilities, he might have selected the following exquisite description of 
 the two obelisks of Luqsor, from the Appendix to the second volume 
 of the “ Egyptian Antiquities,” published under the superintendence 
 of the Society for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge, in the Library 
 of entertaining Knowledge — London 183G — page 375. 
 
 “ Both the obelisks are in a state of perfect preservation ; the 
 larger is about eighty-two English feet high, and the other about 
 three hundred and thirty-six feet shorter.” 
 
 Monsieur Jules Janin informs the world in general, that the inscrip- 
 •ions on the Parisian obelisk will, “for along time torment the 
 Champollions present and to come.” He writes this at Paris, as his 
 private opinion, in the autumn of 1842. 
 
 If he had seen fit to ask in any Parisian bookstore, he might have 
 found a neat pamphlet, entitled “ Salvolini’s Translation,” of this 
 identical obelisk, published in French, about 1837. Or he might, at 
 any bookseller’s, or in a decent library public or private, have read 
 in “ L’Univers Pittoresque”, Ancient Egypt, by Champollion Figeac, 
 published in 1840, pages 78 to 84, and therefrom have gleaned a 
 complete refutation of his silly assertion. I will suppose that Mon- 
 sieur Janin never heard of Champollion le Jeune’s “Lettres ecrites 
 de l’Egypte et de la Nubie;” published at Paris in 1830, because it 
 is fashionable to make use of Chanipollion’s name, and to write 
 about his “mighty discoveries,” among authors who have not the 
 remotest idea of what those discoveries really are. 
 
 If Monsieur Janin can read Italian, he might have consulted, in 
 nnv Parisian library, Rosellini’s “ Monumenti dell’ Esritto e della 
 Nubia;” vol. 3rd; Monti Storici ; part 2nd; page 199, et seq. ; 
 published in 1839; wherein he would have found a translation of this 
 identical obelisk verbatim et literatim. Or if he can read English, 
 our author, before he issued his “ fadaises,” might have looked into 
 Sir J. G. Wilkinson’s, “ Topography of Thebes,” pages 167-8 ; pub- 
 lished in London, 1835; or finally, Monsieur Janin could have re- 
 moved his doubts, had he deemed it expedient to peruse the “ Man- 
 ners and Customs of the ancient Egyptians ;” London, first series 
 1837 — second series 1841. 
 
 In reviews, pamphlets, periodicals, travels, &c., of all dates since 
 1836, and in all European languages, Monsieur Janin could have 
 been edified on the obelisk of Luqsor. Nay, had he inquired of a 
 policeman in Paris, the fountain source of hierological science, he 
 might have enlightened himself on this twenty-four feet obelisk in 
 the “ Place de la Concorde the hieroglyphical names on which, 
 for the last six years, have been transferred to the French govern- 
 ment steamboats, under the familiar designations of “ Le Rham- 
 ses,” “Le Sesostris,” plough the waters of the Mediterranean and 
 Archipelago ! 
 
 Under the letter!!,! have given an extract of the address to Ram- 
 
 ses — Sesostris — from the obelisk of Luqsor, viz. ; “ Thy name is firm 
 as heaven ; the duration of thy days is as the disc of the sun.” 
 
 Its total height is, French feet 70, inches 3, lines 5. Its total 
 weight is estimated at “ 220,528 kilogrammes,” equivalent to 4457 
 quintals ; or, about 246 of our tons. 
 
 It was cut at the granite quarries of Syene, at the 1st Cataract, by 
 order of Ramses 2nd, about B. C. 1570, and transported to Luqsor, 
 distant 138 miles ; when the medial inscriptions on three of its four 
 faces, were engraven in honor of this Pharaoh. It was erected, with 
 its fellow, on the northern front of the Palace of this Monarch : whoso 
 demise occurring before the fourth central column of inscriptions 
 was completed, his brother and successor, Ramses 3rd — Sesostris — 
 added his own names, titles, and dedications, in the fourth medial 
 line and in two lateral columns on each face — about B. C. 1550. 
 
 And in substance, these later inscriptions attest, that “ Ramses 
 Amunmai, Lord of Upper and Lower Egypt, son of the male and 
 female deities, Lord of the World, Sun Guardian of Truth, approved 
 of the Sun, has made these works,* for his father, Amun-Rha,t and 
 that he has erected these two great Obelisks in hard stone before the 
 Ramsessiuml of the city§ of Amun.” 
 
 In conclusion, every Egyptian obelisk, existing in any part of tho 
 world, is now well-known ; and the entire inscriptions, on each one, 
 are translated and published. 
 
 Those now at Alexandria were cut at Syene, by Thotmes 4th — ■ 
 Meeris — 750 miles from their present site, as far back as 1720 B. C. 
 He caused the central inscriptions on the four faces to be sculptured, 
 and transferred them to Thebes or Memphis. Ramses 3rd, about 
 B. C., 1550, added the lateral inscriptions ; and, in later times, an. 
 other Pharaoh engraved his own names and titles. Subsequently to 
 B. C. 300, the Ptolemies, to embellish their Greco-Egyptian capital, 
 transferred them to Alexandria, w'here they were placed in front of 
 some great public edifice (probably before the sea-ward gate of the 
 palace) and where they are still supposed, by ninety-nine out oi a 
 hundred, to have served Cleopatra as darning needles. 
 
 The obelisk in the Hippodrome at Constantinople, is also a work 
 of Thotmes 4th. Those at Rome bear inscriptions of various Pha- 
 raohs, and Roman Emperors. Of all the obelisks, the largest and 
 most beautiful is that of Karnac, at Thebes ; cut by Queen Amense, 
 about B. C., 1760 ; it is a single shaft of the purest and most ex- 
 quisitely polished syenite, in height about 90 feet, and in weight 
 about 400 tons. 
 
 In elucidating the numerous pictorial illustrations of my subsequent 
 lectures, in addition to the various hieroglyphical texts already sub- 
 mitted to the reader, I shall have occasion to apply all the grammat- 
 ical rules and syntactical inflections, which might have been ex- 
 pounded in the course of this chapter. I purposely abstain from the 
 dry exposition of the parts of speech ; as tew would relish the sub- 
 ject of hieroglyphical articles ; declension of substantives ; pronouns 
 isolated, affixed, prefixed, possessive, conjunctive, demonstrative, or 
 vague ; verbs of every variety, with their regular or irregular conju- 
 gations, in persons, cases, moods, and tenses ; participles, and 
 gerunds ; prepositions ; adverbs ; adjectives ; conjunctions ; or inter- 
 jections. The curious in these matters are referred to that sublime 
 mental achievement — Champollion’s Grammar of Egyptian Hiero- 
 glyphics — whence I have selected the more prominent subjects of 
 this chapter. 
 
 I have a copy of this grammar ; but a more recent and better 
 digested condensation of grammatical hierology. is “ Dr. Leipsius’s 
 Letter to Prof. Roseliini”— Rome, 1836. I read it in Egypt ; and it 
 is one of more than a hundred volumes, published in Europe within the 
 last twenty years, which, so far as I have been able to learn, are not 
 to be found in any public library in this country. || 
 
 * Works — meaning the Palace of Luqsor. The word Luqsor is Arabic, and means 
 “ the -palaces." 
 
 t Jhnun~Rha—\h(t supreme God of Egypt. 
 
 t Ramsessium — the modern hierological name for edifices onhe Ramses— since tlie 
 hieroglyphical name of them is “ the habitation of the Ramses. 1 he so called Mem- 
 iionium is also a Ramsessium. . . ,, . 
 
 § City of Amun — the ancient name of Thebes — Liospolis in Greek the city of Jovo 
 The hieroglyphics of tins name will he found hereinafter. 
 
 I! As an evidence that I am not talking idly, 1 subjoin a Catalogue sent me, from 
 E.vpt by the erudite Dr. Leipsius, of the works he has published on Archeology since 
 1833 Four only of these have I had the advantage of consulting. I have seen extracts 
 andreviews of some of the others ; hut, not having been aide to meet with a single volume 
 of them since I crossed the Atlantic, there are many with which I ain unacquainted. 
 
 " In Latin — De Tabulis Eugubiuis ; Berolini, 8vo„ 1833. In German— Paleography, 
 as a means of linguistical researches, demonstrated in the Sanscrit; Berlin, 8vo., 183o. 
 1842 Comparisons of the names of number, in the Indo-Germamr, Semitic, and Egyp- 
 tian" languages, 1835. Oil the origin and order of Alphabets among the Greeks, He- 
 brews nncient Persians, Indians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians, 8vo., 1836. In french— 
 Letter on the Hieroglyphical Alphabet, Rome, 1836 On the order of “Culonnes- 
 niliers” in Egypt ; Rome, 1838. In Aatrn-Inscriptiones Umhricie etOsoie ; Leipsra;, 1841. 
 In German — On the Architecture of the Normans in Sicily, Normandy, and England, 
 1 vol with 23 plates ; Leipsic, 1841. The Funereal Ritual. of the Egyptians, translation, 
 with 79 nlntes * 1811 On the Pelasgians. On the Monetary System of the Etruscans. 
 Selection of tlie most important documents of the Ancient Egyptians, in progress o 
 Dublication- 1842. Dissertations in the “Annals of the Archeological Institute. 
 Rome- 1835 to 1839 On a Vase, with inscriptions. Observations on anEtruscan Vase, 
 with two Greek, and one Pelasgic inscriptions. On the value of an Etruscan letter. 
 Notice of two Egyptian Statutes; Analysis of their inscriptions. Notice of the Lau- 
 rel efi at Beyroot. Dissertations, in the “ Bulletins ol the Arclueological Institute:’ 
 Ji(S t i 1838. On an Etruscan Sarcophagus. On a Su.tue at Tad, On two Egypt, a. 
 
 I OMovsi at Berlin. In the “ Literary Gazette 1839, on the Obehsk of Phil®, m Eng 
 I |;° d La’ter to Mons. Lenomutot, on the Inscriptions in the great Pyramid; Pans 
 
 1S3S>. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 SI 
 
 That great work, Chamfollion’s Monuments of Egypt and of 
 Nubia, exists only in the private libraries of Francis C. Gray, Esq., 
 and the Hon. John Pickering, of Boston, besides a portion in my 
 own possession. Prof. Rosellini’s “ Monumenti dell ’Egitto e della 
 Nubia,” is to be found only in the library of R. K. Haight, Esq., of 
 this city, although ten years have elapsed since the 1st volume of text 
 end the 1st livraison of plates appeared. 
 
 I have heard, on undoubted authority, that about six years ago, a 
 copy of these first portions of Rosellini was sent to the United 
 States, and shown to many of the leading publishers and librarians 
 from Boston to Washington ; but as not even the Congressional Li- 
 brary deemed its acquisition worth the expense (1000 francs at Paris, 
 or less than two hundred dollars,) it was returned to Europe. I am 
 nware, that from Boston, and from Philadelphia orders for the most 
 important hierological works have been since sent to the Continent 
 and to England. 
 
 If, therefore, I have now the gratification of laying, before an 
 American public, views upon Egypt, as novel in nature as in results 
 surprising, the advantage does not accrue to me from my own capa- 
 city or acquirements, but from the fact, that in this country, the labors 
 of the Champollionists have, by the mass, been disregarded. 
 
 And yet, monthly, there issue from the press of this country, as in 
 England, and even on the Continent, works on every subject bearing 
 upon Nilotic paleography. Travels, biblical commentaries, histories 
 of primi.ive times, Encyclopedias, learned and unlearned disquisi- 
 tions affecting ancient Egyptian questions. Whenever they are not 
 penned with a knowledge of what, in the last fifteen years, has been 
 accomplished by the Champollion school, they are, in 1843, valueless 
 on Ancient Egypt. 
 
 Arc not, however, Egyptian studies, and the mythology, philoso. 
 phy, and doctrines of that misrepresented race, interesting to the 
 divine who attests the unity of the Godhead and the holy Trinity? 
 Can the theologian derive no light from the pure primeval faith, that 
 glimmers from Egyptian hieroglyphics, to illustrate the immortality 
 of the soul and a final resurrection?* Will not the historian deign 
 to notice the prior origin of every art and science in Egypt, a thou- 
 sand years before the Pelasgians studded the isles and capes of the 
 Archipelago with their forts and temples? long before Etruscan civili- 
 zation had smiled under Italian skies ? And shall not the ethnogra- 
 pher, versed in Egyptian lore, proclaim the fact, that the physiological, 
 craniological, capillary and cuticular distinctions of the human race 
 existed, on the first distribution of mankind throughout the earth ? 
 
 Philologists, astronomers, chemists, painters, architects, physicians, 
 must return to Egypt, to learn the origin of language and writing — 
 of the calendar and solar motion — of the art of cutting granite with a 
 copper chisel and of giving elasticity to a copper sword — of making 
 glass with the variegated hues of the rainbow — of moving single 
 blocks of polished syenite, 900 tons in weight, for any distance, by 
 land and wa'er — of building arches, round and pointed, with masonic 
 precision unsurpassed at the present day and antecedent, by 2000 
 years, to the “ Cloaca Magna ” of Rome — of sculpturing a Doric 
 column, 1000 years before the Dorians are known in history — of 
 fresco painting in imperishable colors — und of practical knowledge 
 in anatomy. 
 
 Every craftsman can behold, in Egyptian monuments, the progress 
 of his art 4000 years ago ; and, whether it be a wheelwright building 
 a chariot — a shoemaker drawing his twine — a leather-cutter using 
 the self-same form of knife of old, as is considered the best form 
 now — a weaver throwing the same hand-shuttle — a whitesmith using 
 that identical form of blowpipe, but lately recognized to be the most 
 efficient — the seal-engraver cutting, in hieroglyphics, such names as 
 Shoopiio’s, above 4300 years ago — or even the poulterer removing 
 the pip from geese — all these, and many more astounding evidences 
 of Egyptian priority, now require but a glance at the plates of 
 Rosellini. 
 
 * It is vain, in the present enlightened age, to shrink from the astounding evidences 
 of a pure revealed religion, in existence among the Gentiles, in nges anterior to Ahra- 
 bnnt and Moses; or, with Tr.rluliiun, To anathematize these important inquiries; or, 
 with him, to attribute the pure doctrines of remote antiquity, to the forethought and 
 machinations ot the spirit of darkness. 
 
 ” What though Moses did write when the world had grown old ! 
 
 The ‘‘wisdom of Egypt had then ever long told, 
 
 That *' in the beginning God created ’’ this world. 
 
 And that every swift star from his own hand was hurl’d. 
 
 We will once more repeat, what though Moses did write, 
 
 That in the beginning ‘‘God said. Let there he light;” 
 
 ‘‘All the wisdom ” he spake was hut. Egypt’s oltl lore. 
 
 Thence he learned all he knew, there ‘tvvas taught long before. 
 
 Though Moses ** was leartt’d in all the wisdom” of yore, 
 
 Diospolitan cruft, arid Heltopolite lore ; 
 
 Vet in those latter days, the blind “ wisdom ” of man. 
 
 No more saw the spirit of Jehovah’s great plan. 
 
 The myst’ries of Heaven, through hold divination. 
 
 Profanely were grnsped at, and called revelation : 
 
 When Moses sojourned with the Arabian sage. 
 
 His ** wisdom ” was worldly, like the lore of that age. 
 
 But when Inspiration was vouchsafed him at last, 
 
 Then the bright light of Truth dashed full o’er the past ; 
 
 Then mystic Traditions received explanation. 
 
 The Symbolical page became Revelation ” 
 
 '* The Hierojihant.*.” 
 
 These views of R. K. H. are perfectly in accordance with present high-church ortho- 
 doxy. Independently of the numerous theological and other references, contained in 
 the previous clmpter, I again quote the authority of Hales, Lamb, Faber and Allix. 
 
 Can the enthusiasm of a hierologist be doubted ? or is it to be 
 supposed that such lights are to continue under the shadows of 
 indifference, or be extinguished by the doubts of self-complacent scep- 
 ticism ? that the oil which feeds the paleographer’s lamp shall freeze 
 in a gelid shade ? that the stupified ban of heterodoxy shall thwart 
 an archteologist’s labors ? It cannot be. It will not be. It is but 
 to place the facts before the American public, and we shall soon 
 exclaim with Galileo, “ma pur si muove,” but yet it moves. 
 
 A very few of these facts are herein submitted to the reader. 
 Cheerfully do I contribute my mite to advance the cause of literature 
 and science, by furnishing the key to the profound labors of others. 
 As of erst a free-trader in commerce, so now in the capacity of a 
 free-trader in literature, the writer tenders to the public through the 
 cheapest mode of diffusion, such information as he may possess on 
 ancient Egyptian subjects ; which he has derived from the works of 
 others, as they, in general, obtained their knowledge from the con- 
 templation of antiquity through the medium of their predecessors. 
 We all of us are merely passing on, from hand to hand, the learning 
 of our forefathers, fashioned according to tonventional models that 
 we can rarely call our own. 
 
 I am unwilling to close this dissertation on the language and wri- 
 ting of the ancient Egyptians, without adverting to two points, upon 
 which much interesting investigation can be pursued. 
 
 The first regards the numerous affinities traceable between the 
 Hebrew on the one hand, and the Nilotic sacred, or classical lan- 
 guage on the other. Critical analysis and comparative chronological 
 collations may serve to establish, by logical deduction, the relative 
 antiquity of both tongues. My own impression is, that the result 
 would establish a common primeval origin for this, as in other ques- 
 tions ; or compel an acknowledgment of the priority of the Egyptian 
 tongue. We have now, however, indisputable evidence of the 
 Asiatic origin and Caucasian race of the earliest denizens of the Nile ; 
 and can smile at the long-asserted descent of civilization from Ethi- 
 opia, (that unknown land of fable) or, at the idea of its origin among 
 any African tribe. This will be made clear in the sequel ; and this 
 fact will remove a host of dilemmas, by tracing Hebrews and Egyp- 
 tians to a probably-simultaneous departure from their common Asiatic 
 hive. 
 
 In the first chapter, I maintained, that it has been too customary 
 to seek in trifles for confirmations of scriptural authority, where none 
 exist ; and it has often happened, that, while making parade of little 
 circumstances, which have a very small bearing on the truths of the 
 Bible, the more important confirmations are overlooked. 
 
 Modern hierology, however, begins to throw light on the Penta- 
 teuch; and I will give the following example (one of many similar) 
 in confirmation of Acts vii. 22, that “ Moses* was learned in all 
 the wisdom of the Egyptians and in corroboration of the assurance 
 
 of St. Clement ( of Alexandria, A. D. 194,) that “ the symbols 
 
 of the Egyptians are similar to those of the Hebrews.” Stromates V.t 
 
 From the earliest times, in ages long anterior to Abraham’s visit, 
 among the Egyptians, the asp was an emb'ein of royalty ; us 
 
 its Greek name basilisk implie s. The asp was typical of, and 
 sacred to, the god Neph, wliic h deity was an incarnation of 
 the “ spirit of God.” It had 1 ^✓^ikewise other significations con- 
 nected with mythology. Every Pharaoh bears the asp on his crown. 
 In the Egyptian language, a king was called Ouro, which, with the 
 article Pi prefixed (Coptice ; “ the”) becomes Pi-ouro “ the king,” 
 to which has been traced the origin of the word Pharaoh : but I 
 prefer the derivation indicated first by Wilkinson and perfected by 
 Rosellini, whereby Pharaoh is derived from Phre, or Phra, the 
 god Sun. This deity was symbolized by the Hawk-headed 
 
 god, surmounted by the solar disc, and sac ^^*red asp, holding 
 the emblem of eternal life. The hawk w'x ffii as sacred to, and 
 typical of the god Sun. Phre was also sy CvJ I tnbolized by the 
 image of the sun itself, as in the prenomen — * ovals of Egyptian 
 royal names, / N. the solar orb. Josephus tells us, that the word 
 Pharaoh mef • )ant king ; and as the image of the Sun on earth ; 
 an incarnatio n of solar dominion and benevolence; the king 
 
 of Egypt was symbolized, in the sacred character, by the “ solar 
 
 * By the way, the name of Moses \t/ A aMSS, or Mcs, was strictly Egyptian. 
 In signification, it means rebegotten , ^T\ 1 1 11 regenerated, initiated in the myste- 
 ries. It is recognizable in other com J I 1 'I ■ lpotind proper names, ns Thotmts , 
 or Thothmoses, begotten of the god, I 1 I ■ Thoth ; or in Humeses, begotten of 
 
 the god, Ra. The first sign of the three symbols above, M. is figurative ot the dew and 
 symbolic of baptism, in hieroglyphics : ns the word Muses signifies in the Hebrew roots, 
 MSCHE meaning saved, and MSCHHE anointed. Baptism, by fire and water, was 
 one of the ceremonies that initiated the neophyte into the Egyptian mysteries. I he 
 Hebrew of Exodus ii. 10, means “ saved by wuter,” as well ‘saved front wuter. 
 Artapanus, in his work concerning the Jews, says, that a queen of Egypt, having no 
 children, adopted and brought up a child of the Jews, and named it Moyscs. Ma- 
 netho, according to Josephus, speaking of the Exodus of the Israelites, states, thnt 
 the priest, who ordained their polity and laws, was of Heliopolis by birth, and h.s name 
 was Osarsiph, from Osiris the god of Heliopolis: but that when he went over to these 
 people, his name was changed, and he was called Moyscs. Cb$remon records, that 
 the leaders of the Jews, when, (according to his statement) they were expelled from 
 Egypt, ‘‘were two scribes called Moyses and Josephus, the latter of whom was a 
 sacred’seribe”— alluding probably to Aaron. Diodorus, Lysimachus, and Polkmon 
 confirm the name and the deeds of Moyses. 
 
 1 1 have compiled this portion of my essay, chiefly from Sir J. G. Wilkinson’s ** Man 
 ners and Customs;” Portal “ Symbolesdes Egyptiens;” and “ Conleurs Symboliques; 
 Dr. Lamb “on the Hebrew alphabet;” Cury's “ Horug-apollo and “Ancient 
 Fragments.” 
 
32 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 orb.” In the Bible, this name of the kings of Egypt is, in the orig- 
 inal Hebrew letters, spelt Plirah ; rendered Pharaoh in our version, 
 and corrupted into the sound of Fayray-o. So strangely has this 
 appropriate title of the monarch of Egypt deviated from its natural 
 sound, and simple application, that at the present day, in Arabic, 
 when one man calls another “Yii Phara,don, ebn -Pharaoon,” 
 “thou Pharaoh, son of a Pharaoh,” he fancies that he has heaped 
 upon his head the ne-plus-ultra of opprobrium ! 
 
 Every Pharaoh was the sun of Egypt; and over his name bore 
 “ Son of the Sun ;” and as the sun was Phra, so each king 
 was called Phra in common parlance, as we say king. 
 - ffTt j Eig ijE' ac h monarch by law inherited his father’s throne in lineal 
 ifir succession; so that the incumbent was Phra, son of Phra, 
 
 literally “ Sun, son of the Sun ;” as in the East, at present, 
 the Ottoman Emperor is termed by the Arabs, Sooltdn, ebn Sooltdn, 
 emperor, son of an emperor. 
 
 It is essential to observe, that the sun, or god Phra, or Phre, was 
 also more frequently written Re, or Rd. And, as Wilkinson re- 
 marks, Phre is merely lie, with the article Pi prefixed, pronounced 
 Pire, the Sun, in the Theban dialect, and Phre in the Memphitic. 
 
 To the root Ra, Sun (the designatory title of a Pharaoh,) we may 
 readily trace Onto — royalty ; typified by the asp with his tail coiled 
 under him. This symbol was, by the Greeks, termed Ouraios — 
 OvpaToa — j3a<rt\!eKoc — royal ; and is our Urseus. Thus Ra and 
 Ouro are embraced in the idea of the sun (the deity of the solar orb) 
 and, in Hebrew, the name of the sun was (g> k a /J 
 from the same original root of Ra, Ouro, J j 4+ 1 1 fY^ 
 
 Aur. 
 
 In Egyptian mythology, Thme was the goddess of Truth and 
 Justice. To indicate her strict impartiality, she is often represented, 
 in her judicial capacity, with her eyes covered — thus : 
 
 Thme — holding in her hand “eternal 
 life ;” the feather of truth (an ostrich 
 feather,) surmounts her cap ; her eyes 
 are covered by a species of blinkers. 
 
 Just as we copy the original Egyptian 
 idea, when we paint Justice with her 
 eyes bandaged. 
 
 The judges in Egypt, wore golden 
 chains around their necks, to which was 
 suspended a small figure of Thme, orna- 
 mented with jewels; being Thme in her 
 double capacity of Justice and Truth. 
 For, owing to the wise administration of 
 their laws, the denizens of the Nile could, 
 with propriety, call their native land “ the region of justice and 
 truth,” and “ the country of purity and justice,” in contradistinction 
 to the irregular nomadic habits of the less civilized and barbarian 
 nations of Africa and Asia, to them adjacent. 
 
 Some of these judicial breastplates are extant in European mu- 
 seums ; others are to be seen on the monuments, as 
 
 containing the figures of two deities ; 
 Ra, the sun ; and Thme. These, herein, 
 represent the Ra, or the sun in a double 
 capacity ; physical and intellectual light, 
 and Thme, in a double capacity — justice 
 and truth. 
 
 I have shown that, in Hebrew, the 
 
 sun was called Aur ; and, in the same language, truth is the word 
 THME, integritas, aMidc ta. Again, in Hebrew, the double capacity 
 of anything is expressed by the dual number ; thus, the word 
 Aur, becomes in the dual, Aurim. 
 
 Thme, becomes in the dual, Thmim. 
 
 Now turn to Exodus xxviii., II — speaking of the Ephod : “ with 
 the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet 
 (that is, in symbolic, and not in alphabetic characters) shalt thou 
 engrave the two stones,” Idem xxviii. — “ and they shall bind the 
 breastplate by the rings (which, in verses 22 and 24, are said to be 
 “ wreathen chains of gold,”) thereof unto the rings of the ephod with 
 a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and 
 that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod.” Idem xxix. — Aaron 
 the high priest, is to wear the “ breastplate of judgment upon his 
 heart” — in the same manner as the Egyptian judges, who were all 
 high priests, wore their breastplates — verse 30 — “and thou shalt put 
 in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim ;” that is, 
 as the commentator e*xp!ains in the margin, “ the lights and perfec- 
 tions ” — equivalent to the Egyptian double symbolic capacity of R a, 
 the sun or light ; and the double symbolical character of Thmb or 
 perfections. 
 
 Are not the “ symbols of the Egyptians similar to those of the 
 Hebrews ?” Did not Moses, “ learned in all the wisdom of the 
 Egyptians,” follow in the Aurim and Thmim of the Hebrew judicial 
 breastplates, the symbolical method and long anterior types used by 
 the Egyptian high priests ? Can we suppose this similarity to be 
 the effect of chance ? Must we not attribute the identity to a com- 
 mon primeval and sacred source, more remote than the establish- 
 ment of either nation ? In both nations, none but the Arch Judges, 
 and high priests, could wear the breastplate of lights and perfections. 
 
 
 But, by the application of symbolic colors, we can go deeper into 
 the analogy ; which brings me to the second point of my closing 
 passages. 
 
 Blue, as may be seen throughout the xxviii chapter of Exodus, was 
 a component principle in the mystical decorations of the Ephod. 
 Blue, in Hebrew, was typified by a sapphire, a precious stone of a 
 blue color, called S P H I R. This word comes from 
 the root S P H R, which signifies, 
 in Hebrew, to write, to speak, to 
 celebrate, as likewise a scribe, a 
 writing, a book. 
 
 The Old Testament is termed Sepher, the book, “par excellence ;” 
 as the Muslim terms his Koran, the book, “ El-Ketab ;” or as we 
 say, the Scripture, for holy writ.* 
 
 Blue the color, sapphire the stone, and all the varied meanings of 
 the root S P H R, combine in the Book, as the Word of God, the 
 wisdom of the Almighty, inclosed in the sacred Sepher of the Jews, 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 In Egypt, the god Amun, called by the Greeks and Romans, Jove, 
 as a deified derivative of the mystic Jehovah — is lord of the gods of 
 Egyptian mythology — and one of a Triad, (Amun, the male ; Maut, 
 the female, and Khonso, the offspring,) whose combination ex- 
 presses, “demiurge intellect, mother, and created things” — attri- 
 butes of the true God. 
 
 A MuN, in his usual form. On 
 Egyptian monuments Amun is always 
 painted (where in this cut he is repre- 
 sented black) of a blue color. Ilia 
 place in the scale of divine attributes is 
 ✓vVV'Aiudicated above. 
 
 In Hebrew the word A M N 
 
 Jt/mum, 
 
 identical with the hieroglyphical name, 
 meaning truth, wisdom ; and typified by 
 the sapphire, the blue jewel, is the Word 
 of God, inclosed in the Sepher, the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 The Egyptian hierogrammates wore 
 on their breasts a sapphire, a blue stone, 
 on which was engraven symbolically, 
 like “ a signet,” the image of Thmd in 
 her double character, symbolical of 
 Justice and Truth, identical in sound 
 and meaning with the Hebrew word 
 for justice and truth. The high priest 
 of the Hebrews wore on his breast a 
 blue stone, on which were symbolically 
 (like “a signet”) engraven words, 
 identical with the Egyptian in signifi- 
 cation, called Thmim or Thummim, 
 
 the Two Truths ! 
 
 This is a specimen of the application of symbolic colors to the 
 elucidation of early mythes. It is proved beyond doubt, by Portal, 
 that, from the remotest times, colors had a symbolical meaning ; and 
 that remarkable analogies exist in regard to the mystical acceptation 
 of every color, among the Persians, Indians, Chinese, Hebrews, 
 Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, preserved during the middle ages 
 of Christianity — the last relics of which remain to our day in 
 Heraldry. 
 
 The study of primitive arts and doctrines, whether in respect to 
 the origin of writing, or to the sources of the Unity in Trinity, 
 identical with the fountain springs of our sublimest conceptions, 
 leads, by different roads, invariably to the same point, the common 
 primeval origin of all things ; and attests that the God of Israel was 
 the God of the Brahmans ; the God of the Chaldeans : as Champol- 
 lion’s discoveries enable us to hope, that, shrouded under the veil of 
 the sanctuary, he was likewise the Deity of those who were initiated 
 in the mysteries of the early Egyptians. 
 
 CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 The first of my three previous discourses contained a sketch of the 
 rise and progress of hieroglyphical discovery — with bibliographical 
 notices, and biographical digressions — whereby we have been able to 
 form an idea of what has been published in Egyptian archaeology up 
 to the close of 1841. The second was a brief inquiry into the origin 
 of the art of writing. The third explained the construction of the an- 
 cient language of the Egyptians — their mode of writing, and varied 
 
 * Our word Bible itself originates in the same manner, from bi/blus, the Greek nnme 
 for papyrus. the material out of which the first paper was made: as in papyrus we find 
 the root paper. The Latin name for a hook was liber, derived from the name of the 
 inner bark of trees, from which the Romans manufactured paper. Byblus, the plant, 
 gave to the Greeks their name for paper, and paper their name for a book in T0 /Ji/SXtiov. 
 The Scriptures were termed, by the early Greek Christians, “ the Book, "or To Bibtcion; 
 whence we obtain the name of Bible, which is exclusively applied to the Old and .New 
 Testaments, The root sepher, associated with learning and knowledge, may be traced 
 Into a great number of languages. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 33 
 
 methods of expressing ideas ; with some translations of hieroglyph! 
 cal legends of all ages, and various kinds, from the remotest discerni- 
 ble post-diluvian period, down to the third century of the Christian 
 era. 
 
 I could wish that this my 4th discourse, should treat at once on the 
 History of Egypt and of its venerable monarchs, as the numerous 
 Illustrations drawn from the monuments would have secured your 
 attention ; while the application of hieroglyphical explanation to 
 events coeval with, anterior, or subsequent to Abraham, Joseph and 
 Moses, would have excited your curiosity and your interest. 
 
 But reflection has convinced me, that before venturing to speak of 
 times prior to the Pyramids, or contemporary with them : before 
 launching into ages and occurrences attested by monumental chron- 
 icles, belonging to periods positively (though in remoteness scarce 
 definably) dating previously to the year 2000, B. C., it is better to 
 examine some chronological questions. It will be conceded, were 
 not such my course, that when I speak with all the certainty of con- 
 scientious conviction of Egyptian events, dating, say between the 
 years 2500 and 3000, B. C., or above 4000 years ago, some of my 
 readers might reasonably imagine that I am thereby setting my face 
 in direct opposition to the authority of Scripture. They would be 
 startled, perhaps shocked, at my indiscretion ; and the writer would 
 fall in public estimation, in proportion as the novelty of the doctrines 
 advocated might clash with the individual preconception of the reader. 
 Some would consult the chronological dates, appended generally to 
 our version of the Bible ; and seeing it therein laid down, that the 
 Deluge took place in the year 2348, B. C., they might, with apparent 
 reason, consider that my assertions were false in basis, subversive of 
 true belief, or injurious in tendency; were I not at the very outset of 
 my discourse to show to them, that the chronology of Scripture is 
 not a matter of indisputable accuracy, and particularly that the dates 
 appended to our Bible, which are founded on the authority of Arch- 
 bishop Usher, do not demand our implicit credence. 
 
 There is nothing in my essays or lectures which militates with the 
 most orthodox views of Holy Writ, and there is nothing further from 
 my purpose than to give umbrage to any one, in free, but temperate 
 and deferential inquiries. My observations will tend, on the contrary, 
 to confirm Biblical authority; and, if at first sight my still-apprenticed 
 method of introducing a subject, causes a momentary apprehension 
 that I am departing from legitimate views, I am desirous that the 
 results should be found conclusive and satisfactory. Consequently, 
 if I do not take the Deluge at 2348, B. C., I am not differing from the 
 Bible, but simply from Archbishop Usher. These are the reasons 
 which induce me to preface Egyptian History by a brief chronologi- 
 cal inquiry. 
 
 When, some years ago, I amused my vacant hours by reading the 
 different works that treated on Egyptian studies, I remember being 
 struck with the incomprehensible discrepancy existing between the 
 result of some of the new discoveries, and those systems which 1 had 
 been taught at school. Believing at that time, that the dates appended 
 to our Bible were certainties immutable as Scripture itself, I could 
 not but feel apprehensive, that the existence of the pyramids looming 
 like mountains in the distance from my window-seat, and the anti- 
 quity insisted upon for them, might affect the truth of the Bible, and 
 the veneration with which I had been taught to regard it. In the 
 end, I was driven to examine and inquire for myself ; and great was 
 my surprise to find, that the date chosen by Usher for the Deluge, 
 2348, B. C., was only one among some 300 opinions, all varying from 
 each other in biblical chronology; and it was highly satisfactory to 
 learn, that no point of Christian faith or doctrine would be prejudiced 
 whether the creation of the world be taken at B. C. 558G, (which is 
 the Septuagint computation) or at B. C. 3616, which is that of the 
 Rabbi Lipman, upon the vulgar Jewish system. This fact to me 
 being clear, I am desirous that those who may not have paid critical 
 attention to these subjects, should arrive at the same conclusion. I 
 have caused an abstract to be made of the table furnished by the 
 learned Hales ; while for confirmation of what I am about to state, I 
 refer to the erudite and conclusive work of that excellent and pious 
 churchman. 
 
 TABLE OF 
 
 DIVERSITY OF CHRONOLOGICAL COMPUTATIONS. 
 CREATION OF THE WORLD. 
 
 Jewish Computation, 
 
 before Christ, 
 
 4220 
 
 Idem. 
 
 “ 
 
 ft 
 
 4184 
 
 Chinese Jews, 
 
 tt 
 
 t' 
 
 4079 
 
 Some Talmudists, 
 
 
 a 
 
 3761 
 
 Vulgar Jewish computation, 
 
 14 
 
 (< 
 
 3760 
 
 Seder Olam Rabba, great chronicle of the 
 
 
 
 world, A. D. 130, 
 
 4! 
 
 tt 
 
 3751 
 
 Rabbi Lipman, 
 
 
 a 
 
 3616 
 
 CHRISTIAN DIVINES. 
 
 
 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 194, 
 
 it 
 
 ft 
 
 5624 
 
 Hales, Rev. Dr. 
 
 14 
 
 
 5411 
 
 Origen, A.D. 230, 
 
 M 
 
 «< 
 
 4830 
 
 Kennedy, Bedford, Ferguson, 
 
 ft 
 
 a 
 
 4007 
 
 Usher, Lloyd, Calmet, 
 
 « 
 
 ct 
 
 4004 
 
 Helvetius, Marsham, 
 
 ft 
 
 tt 
 
 4000 
 
 Melancthon, 
 
 if 
 
 a 
 
 3964 
 
 Luther, 
 
 U 
 
 tt 
 
 3961 
 
 Scaliger, 
 
 (4 
 
 tt 
 
 3950 
 
 DELUGE. 
 
 
 
 
 Septuagint version, 
 
 H 
 
 tt 
 
 3246 
 
 Samaritan Text, 
 
 (« 
 
 a 
 
 2993 
 
 English Bible, 
 
 «4 
 
 t. 
 
 2348 
 
 Hebrew text. 
 
 “ 
 
 H 
 
 2238 
 
 Josephus, 
 
 it 
 
 a 
 
 3146 
 
 Vulgar Jewish computation, 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 2104 
 
 Hales, 
 
 Usher, 
 
 it 
 
 tt 
 
 3155 
 
 
 tt 
 
 2348 
 
 Calmet, 
 
 « 
 
 tt 
 
 2344 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 
 
 
 Josephus, and Hales, 
 
 Usher, and English Bible, 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 1648 
 
 « 
 
 a 
 
 1491 
 
 Calmet, 
 
 it 
 
 a 
 
 1487 
 
 Vulgar Jewish chronology, 
 
 it 
 
 ft 
 
 1312 
 
 i. 
 
 BIBLICAL TEXTS AND VERSIONS. 
 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Septuagint computation, 
 
 before Christ, 
 
 5586 
 
 Septuagint Alexandrinus, 
 
 ft 
 
 it 
 
 5508 
 
 Septuagint Vatican, 
 
 tt 
 
 tt 
 
 5270 
 
 Samaritan computation, 
 
 tt 
 
 tt 
 
 4427 
 
 Samaritan Text, 
 
 it 
 
 (( 
 
 4305 
 
 Hebrew Text, 
 
 tt 
 
 tt 
 
 4161 
 
 English Bible, 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 4004 
 
 JEWISH COMPUTATIONS. 
 
 
 
 
 "I Playfair, 
 
 tt 
 
 it 
 
 5555 
 
 Josephs, i J a t S s ° n > 
 
 tt 
 
 tt 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 5481 
 
 5402 
 
 j Universal History 
 
 (( 
 
 tt 
 
 4698 
 
 Talmudists, 
 
 (( 
 
 ft 
 
 5344 
 
 Seder Olam Sutha, 
 
 it 
 
 ft 
 
 4359 
 
 Joining with the Rev. Doctor in his lament on the variety, dis- 
 cordance and imperfection of chronological systems, I must not 
 omit observing that the above is but an abstract of 120 different 
 opinions on the epoch of the Creation, dating backward from the 
 birth of Christ, to be found in his first volume, page 212. This list 
 might be swelled to 300 distinct opinions on the same era. Between 
 the highest epoch, B. C. 6984 years, (the Alphonsine tables,) and the 
 lowest, B. C. 3616, (Rabbi Lipman,) there is a difference of 3268 
 years ! 
 
 For the epoch of the Deluge, he cites 16 opinions — Maximum 
 B. C. 3246 — minimum B. C. 2104 — difference years, 1142. 
 
 Out of 15 authorities quoted for the epoch of the Exodus of the 
 Israelites from Egypt, the highest in chronological length makes it 
 B. C. 1648 — the lowest B. C. 1312 — difference 336 years. 
 
 Thus, for the three most important events recorded in the Old Tes- 
 tament, i. e. the Creation, the Deluge and the Exodus, the inquirer 
 after truth is lost in a chaos of 300 different, published human opin- 
 ions on the eras of the same events; opinions conflicting with each 
 other ! But so uncertain is biblical chronology, that among 36 Chris- 
 tian authorities, who have computed the epoch of the nativity of our 
 Saviour, the year itself is a disputed point, and cannot be defined 
 within 10 years ; so that, while all our present dates are dependent 
 upon the birth of Christ for accuracy, we cannot say positively, whe- 
 ther this year, which we term 1842, be 1837 or 1847. If the year 
 be liable to doubt, how much more so must the day of the nativity? 
 Our present Christmas day was not determined till the year 325 after 
 our Saviour’s birth, and then erroneously. Hales quotes Scaliger to 
 the effect, that “ to determine the day of Christ’s birth belongs to 
 God alone, not to man.” All that can be positively averred is, that 
 Christ was born about Autumn ; and most probably between 749 and 
 750 years after the building of Rome. Yet we are not much bene- 
 fitted by this definition ; for, 34 chronologists assign six dates for the 
 building of the Imperial city — maximum B. C. 753, minimum B. C. 
 627 — giving a difference of 126 years for an event, which is here 
 dependent on the implied accuracy of a date, that cannot itself be 
 determined within 10 years. 
 
 The date of the Jewish Exodus has to be computed backward 
 from the building of Solomon’s temple. If this were certain, many 
 difficulties would be removed ; but, out of 19 dates for Solomon’s 
 temple, the longest is B. C. 741, the shortest B. C. 479 ; so that we 
 cannot arrive at the truth within 262 years. In consequence of 
 which enormous discrepancy, we cannot define the precise epoch of 
 Moses ; nor determine in Egyptian history under what particular 
 Pharaoh the Israelites entered the wilderness ; although, within this 
 space of 262 years, we know every Pharaoh who sat on the throne 
 of Egypt. Could we find, in hieroglyphics, a record of the Jews, ws 
 should be able to determine this point ; but, although every known 
 legend is at this day translated, no light has yet been gained on this 
 point, notwithstanding the most rigid examination. I shall take up 
 this question in its proper place. 
 
 The same discrepancies are infinitely more conspicuous in profane 
 chronology. The epoch of Sesostris, the greatest king of Egypt, 
 was a dilemma in history. We had eight probable computations, 
 B. C. 1555 to B. C. 967, differing 588 years ; but the recent discoy 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 U 
 
 erics in hieroglyphics have enabled us to define his epoch within a 
 hundred years with certainty; and, probably, within ten: of which, 
 in due course. 
 
 Siege of Troy : 2G dates — B. C. 1270 to B. C. 964 — differing 
 306 years; besides some doubts, arising in part from other circum- 
 stances, and in part from hieroglyphical facts, as to the occurrence 
 of the etent, or, at any rate, as to its historical importance. 
 
 Nor for the overthrow of the mighty Nineveh, can we extricate our- 
 selves from the confusion proceeding from 17 computations — B. C. 
 B9G, and B. C. 59G — a difference of 300 years. 
 
 Finding it impossible to adjust, on any former systems of chrono- 
 logy, the leading dates of sacred and profane history, the Rev. Ur. 
 11 ales undertook the herculean labor of erecting a chronological edi- 
 fice, built upon more solid and more liberal ground. He investigated 
 the evidences for and against the longer and shorter computations 
 of the patriarchal generations from Adam to Abraham, founded on 
 the Masorete Hebrew text, the Samaritan, the Septuagint, and on 
 the Jewish chronicler Josephus ; and the result was, a conviction of 
 the untenableness of the shortest or Hebrew computation. 
 
 He discovered, that this discrepancy between the older translation 
 of the Bible — the Greek, made about B. C. 250 — and the Hebrew 
 copy of the Old Testament, proceeded from a manifest corruption of 
 the text, by the Jews themselves, about the time of the Seder Olam 
 Rabba, their great system of chronology in A. D. 130. The Hebrew 
 .biule was corrupted by the Jews, to throw the early prophecies con- 
 cerning the Messiah out of date. Yet it is the computation followed 
 by Archbishop Usher, and has been attached to the English copy of 
 the Scriptures by Act of Parliament. However, “ Usher’s date, at- 
 tached to our English Bible, has been relinquished by the ablest 
 chronologists of the present time, from its irreconcileableness with 
 the rise of the primitive empires ; the Assyrian, Egyptian, Indian 
 and Chinese, all suggesting earlier dates for the Deluge.” And now 
 that we can bring Egyptian positive annals, derived from writings on 
 existing monuments, the chronology of the Hebrew version of the 
 Bible is, in the opinion of the learned, altogether exploded. 
 
 All these subjects have formed my studies, but 1 limit myself at 
 present to generalities. I now proceed with my own special depart- 
 ment of history, requesting the reader to keep in view the chronolo- 
 gical tabie just cited, as an evidence that the impartial inquirer after 
 truth cannot justly be blamed for errors on subjects wherein the texts 
 of Scripture and the opinions of the learned theologists and pious 
 Christian divines so widely differ. 
 
 Till within the last few years, when, through the labors of the 
 Hieroglyphists, we have been enabled to obtain not only faithful and 
 authentic copies of most of Egypt’s no longer mysterious legends, 
 but translations of their import, we were left entirely dependent upon 
 an incidental mention of Egypt in the Scriptures, or thrown upon 
 facts, meagre in themselves, or dubious from their ambiguity, handed 
 down to us by profane authors. 
 
 The ignorance, as concerns Egypt, of the Greek and Roman wri- 
 ters, was exceeded only by their love of the marvellous, or their often 
 wilful disregard of truth. 
 
 Floundering in doubts and among uncertainties, we had frequent 
 assurance of their fallacies or misrepresentations, without, however, 
 possessing any criterion by which to test their accuracy, or to dis- 
 prove their assertions ; and, in our speculations into the early pro- 
 gress of mankind, so wrapped in fables or shadowed with absurdity, 
 were the pale rays of light discernible, that we were then reluctantly 
 inclined to subscribe to the doctrine — “ There is no evidence, but 
 traditionary, of any fact whatever (the author probably means date) 
 of profane history anterior to 600 years before the Christian era.” 
 
 On no country have so many pens been employed, as on Egypt. 
 All mankind agreed, from the most ancient to the latest times, that 
 no nation’s history equalled in importance the Egyptian. And yet, 
 so faint and partial was the amount of information to be collected 
 from the records of ancient writers, and (until the promulgation of re- 
 cent discoveries, since Champollion illumined the circumambient 
 darkness) so unsatisfactory seemed the instruction derivable from at. 
 tempts to lift the “ veil of Isis ;” that Egypt was still a land of enig- 
 mas, of impenetrable mysteries, where the lamp of inquiry shed no 
 light to rescue her annals from accumu ! ated gloom. 
 
 My bibliographical sketch has shown, that on modem writers, with 
 exceptions comparatively few, when we consider the ponderous tomes 
 that fill the libraries of every nation of present times, we can pass 
 but little encomium. Often servile copyists of errors perpetuated by 
 time and repetition, without being thereby divested of erroneousness, 
 we might apply to many of those learned investigators, who thought 
 their labors had enlightened us, the verse that was once made upon 
 the charge of a celebrated judge to a jury in England : 
 
 “ Chief Justice Parker, 
 
 He made that darker. 
 
 Which was dark enough before !” 
 
 The most authentic annals of Egyptian history, and the only cer- 
 tain accounts w'e had of early Egyptian manners and customs, in- 
 stitutions and systems, were derived from the Old Testament. But, 
 excepting the period of the Exodus and the previous visit of Abraham, 
 with the interesting events transpiring during the interval, we cannot, 
 in the Bible, expect to gather more than incidental and transitory refer- 
 
 ences to subjects, on which we seek for information; because the 
 Pentateuch is a history of the early Hebrews, and touches on the 
 Gentile nations, with whom they were brought into contact, only 
 incidentally. 
 
 The events dwelt upon by the Israelitish historian, may have been 
 sometimes exceedingly important to the interests and welfare of the 
 Jews, without always thereby requiring that they should be of equal 
 consequence to the Egyptians. Nor must prejudice, or preconceived 
 opinion continue to be flattered by deception, as to the relations be- 
 tween the early Hebrews and a mighty and powerful monarchy like 
 that of Egypt — whose conquests, prior to the Exodus as well as for 
 many centuries subsequently to that period, had extended into Africa, 
 further than a xchite man can penetrate at the present day ; whose 
 garrisons held Palestine, Syria, Arabia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Asia 
 Minor and other remote Asiatic nations in tribute, or in bondage ; 
 and whose powerful sway had already been felt in Lybia and Barbary. 
 
 From the Old Testament, as from Profane History, wc could de- 
 rive only a limited or partial view of the true greatness of the Pha- 
 raohs ; and we had heard nothing from the Egyptians themselves, on 
 events to them so momentous. 
 
 But when, through the inestimable discoveries of hieroglyphical 
 science we can read, translate, and understand the legends still 
 sculptured, or delineated on Egypt’s vast monuments, and decipher 
 the written pages of her crumbling papyri, we are enabled to bring 
 forward her history, a speaking and irrefragable witness of her glory. 
 
 It is to vindicate the early fame of the Egyptians — to attest their 
 wisdom, their power, and their boundless superiority to any of their 
 contemporaries, that I venture now to present a brief, but, I believe, 
 an approximatively-correct summary of Egyptian resuscitated annals. 
 
 The records of Egypt, such as time and barbarism have spared, are 
 of more positive antiquity, and of more positive authenticity, than 
 any uninspired histories with which we are acquainted ; because, 
 they were chiselled, painted, or written, at the time of the events to 
 them contemporaneous. We can row behold, and, if we choose to 
 study we can read for ourselves, those pages of history, that to the 
 Greeks and Romans were dead-letters and incomprehensible mys- 
 teries. ■ 
 
 Apart from the lamentably imperfect state,in which the monu- 
 mental legends of Egypt have come down to us (mutilated by man, 
 rather than Time,) the only doubts remaining in the minds of the 
 hieroglyphical students, proceed rather from incidental vacuums in 
 their own translation. Hence, errors have been frequently, and for 
 some time will be committed ; but, as I shall explain, these, from 
 their very nature, are of comparatively trifling moment. 
 
 Already are we possessed of sufficient knowledge to ascertain with 
 exactitude (so far as the translation is concerned,) the more important 
 facts, or meaning of hieroglyphical legends; and already may the hiero- 
 glyphical student, like Alexander when the Indian Ocean presented an 
 insurmountable barrier to his dreams of conquest, weep at the approach- 
 ing want of materials, whereon to prosecute his researches. It is a 
 sad, but too-excruciatingly accurate conviction in the minds of Cham- 
 pollion’s disciples, that, had all the hieroglyphic legends of ancient 
 Egypt been proserved to us, we should now possess a complete, un- 
 broken and authentic series of annals back to the remotest periods of 
 conceivable post-diluvian time ; when the ancestors of the Hebrews 
 were mere nomads in Aramanea ; when the Pelasgians were yet 
 unborn ; the Greeks, the Persians, and perhaps the Phoenicians, had 
 not been dreamc-d of; more than 15 centuries before Troy fell, and 
 much “ more than 1300 years before Solomon” founded the Temple 
 of Jerusalem, till we should approach the early hour, when mankind 
 dwelt together on the plains of Shinar. 
 
 Even with the paucity of unimpaired records which have come 
 down to us, it is not too much to assert, that, at the present moment, 
 Egyptian archamlogists possess more positive knowledge of events 
 and data, ages antecedent to Moses, than we can glean upon some 
 most important questions, from histories of England, about circum- 
 stances precedent to Alfred the Great or of France before Charle- 
 magne ! 
 
 With such astounding results, achieved, as I explained in my first 
 chapter, through the Rosetta Stone ; a mutilated but invaluable 
 triglyphic and bilinguar fragment in the British Museum ; when we 
 recognize the thrilling interest that now invests the monuments of 
 Egypt, and the enthusiastic ardor of Chantpollion’s disciples, “ our 
 indignation must then be cast on those barbarian efforts, which convert 
 the Monuments of Egypt, those sacred records of art and of anti- 
 quity, into quarries, and destroy what they cannot equal. Day after 
 day, plunder and mutilation are rooting up all that remains — another 
 century, and what Egypt was will be a tale — wo to Egypt ! The 
 “impure foreigner” (the descendant of the Scythian — the race termed 
 on the monuments, the sore of Sheto,) whom she bound to her char- 
 iots— trod beneath her sandals — and forced to excavate the temples 
 of her gods — recklessly mocks and defaces the palaces of her kings 
 and the tombs of her dead 1” 
 
 The monuments of Egypt, whereon are chiselled the glowing 
 chapters of her history, presenting to us the records of events coeval 
 with their erection, are, apart from the reverence due to inspiration, 
 and the undoubted collateral testimony that demands our belief in 
 Holy Writ, of interest next to the Bible in importance ; while, in 
 authenticity of record (due allowance made for possible exaggera 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 35 
 
 lion and a national vanity, with the evils of which eve r history, of 
 every age on earth, is more or less pervaded,) these legends are as 
 satisfactory as the Old Testament itself: because, the Pentateuch, 
 though preserved by the hand of Providence, has not reached us in 
 one single original copy, written at the time of the events’ occur, 
 rence ; and the text we make use of is acknowledged to be the result 
 of varied and laborious comparisons, made and collated by learned 
 divines of all nations and ages, from the most perfect editions ob- 
 tainable at the several periods of their respective examinations, of 
 the Masorete Hebrew, the Greek, Samaritan and other versions. 
 The union in council of the highest Christian prelates, since the days 
 of Constantine, has been at divers intervals required, to place tbe 
 seal of confirmatory authenticity upon the originals, of which we 
 possess only copies or translations. And that these last are not free 
 from interpolations, misconstruction, or doubts, proceeding from am- 
 biguities, or differences in their several originals, or trom the errors 
 and opinions of translators and commentators, cannot be denied. In 
 fact, “sacred classics are no more exempt from various readings than 
 profane.” The differences, on comparing the masorete and Sama- 
 ritan Hebrew texts, with that of the Septuagint, and the annals of 
 Josephus, amount, in the generations of the antediluvian patriarchs 
 to 600 years, and in the postdiluvian to 700 : that is, to a discrepancy 
 of 1300 years, solely between the era of the creation and the life 
 of Abraham! These differences, moreover, have not arisen from 
 accident, but from premeditated design — and it is a superstition to 
 suppose, that the Almighty is continuing a miracle, to prevent inter- 
 polations or misconstruction in books, which, however sacred, are 
 subject to the same casualties as others. These assertions are very 
 easily supported ; and, in chronology, this is no mischievous innova- 
 tion ; for I can produce the whole fabric of Church History in proof 
 of the disagreement, among those most qualified to judge, Christian 
 
 divines of all ages, from Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, 
 
 down to Dr. Hales ; nor am I, in chronology, inclined to cry out with 
 the Jew, “we wi 1 not recede from the usage of our forefathers.” 
 
 The legends of Egypt are exposed to the same errors of transla- 
 tion ; and, in their present mutilated condition, are moro liable to 
 the same misinterpretations than are the Scriptures ; but, with this 
 difference, that we are enabled to verify the Egyptian records in 
 the original for ourselves, supposing we choose to consult them in the 
 valley of the Nile, or in European collections, and that we acquire 
 the necessary qualifications to forming a valid opinion. 
 
 It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the mon- 
 umental evidences of remote antiquity in Egypt — the pyramids for 
 instance — with the chronology of Archbishop Usher — which is the 
 one, generally received in Protestant communities — and is based 
 upon the Masorete Hebrew version of the Old Testament; and all 
 attempts (and their name is Legion) to confine the chronology of 
 Egypt to this unnecessary and spurious limit, must end in failure. 
 
 The Hebrew Oed Testament — termed the Masorete Text from 
 “ Masora,” tradition — or, in common parlance, the Hcbrcio verity — 
 was verified by the Hebrew rabbis, at some period between 840 and 
 1030 after Christ. This copy is, by great theologians, maintained, 
 not to be an exact transcript of the same original Law, from which the 
 Septuagint was translated, B. C. 240. It is indisputable, that the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, from which our translation of the Bible was made ; 
 and, on the authority of which, Usher fixed the deluge at 2348 B.C. 
 were altered curtailed, interpolated and mutilated by the Jews them- 
 selves, about the beginning of the 2nd century after Christ: because, 
 they then found “ their own Scriptures” turned, by the Christians, into 
 arms against themselves; and were confounded by the proofs, drawn 
 from their own archives, that the Saviour’s advent at the exact time 
 he appeared, was prophesied from patriarchal times in the ancient 
 Hebrew text. The Rabbins cursed the day of the Septuagint trans- 
 lation, and compared it to that “ unhappy day for Israel,” when the 
 “ Golden Calf was made.” That triple-apostate, Aquila , was prob- 
 ably the instrument of the atrocious corruption of the sacred records, 
 about A. C. 128. This controversy is to be found in all the Fathers ; 
 and by all, save by Origen and Jerome, who acted under Judaic influ- 
 ence, the interpolations were denounced. The computation of the 
 Hebrew text, therefore, was rejected by the early Christians at its 
 outset— revived, in the middle ages, by some Roman Catholic author- 
 ities- — adopted by Usher, and affixed to our Bible by act of Parlia. 
 ment — analyzed and overthrown by Hales and other orthodox Pro- 
 testant churchmen, and now placed beyond further question, by the 
 unanswerable evidence of Egyptian hieroglyphical annals. 
 
 Note I. To show the incongruity of the Hebrew computation in early 
 patriarchal genealogies, I extract two out of the many remarkable dilemmas, 
 in which the supporters of that chronology, such as Usher, are placed. 
 
 . ANTEDILUVIAN GENEALOGIES. 
 
 In Genesis, we are told that Methuselah lived 969 years, that he was 187 
 years old when he begat Lamech, and that Lamech at the age of 182 years 
 begat Noah, lherefore if we sum up together the age of Lamech, when he 
 
 begat Noah, . years 182 
 
 and the age of Methuselah when he begat Lamech, , , . .187 
 
 find that Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born. 
 
 Now, as Methuselah lived 969 years, ...... 969 
 
 if we deduct his age at the period of Noah’s birth, *. *. *. 369 
 
 years 600 
 
 it follows that Methuselah lived 600 years after this event. We are also 
 told that Noah entered the ark at the six hundredth year of his age. 
 
 44 It follows then, that when Noah entered the ark, Methuselah was still 
 alive ; and as there is no mention of his having accompanied his grandson into 
 the ark, Methuselah must have been drowned in the universal Hood.” 
 
 Let the defenders of the chronology of the Hebrew text explain this cir- 
 cumstance as well as they can, and reconcile it with the account which 
 Moses thus gives in Genesis — Meihuselah is thus drowned by act of Par- 
 liament ! I am aware that this dilemma is supposed to be avoided by his 
 conjectural decease in the last year before the Hood. 
 
 POSTDILUVIAN GENEALOGIES. 
 
 If we are wedded to the Hebrew computation, 44 we must admit, that Abra- 
 ham, the Father of the Faithful, who is described as dying,” 44 in a good old 
 age, and an old man full of years,” expired thirty-five years before Shem, 
 who was born nearly a hundred years before the deluge, arid nine generations 
 before the son of Terah. 
 
 We must believe Abraham contemporary with Noah for more than half a 
 century, and with Shem during his whole life. 
 
 We must believe, that Isaac was born only forty-two years after the death 
 of Noah, and that he was contemporary with Shem for the period of 1 10 years ; 
 and, as not the slightest mention is made of any intercourse between Abra- 
 ham and those venerable patriarchs who survived the deluge (Noah, Shem 
 and others, who were miraculously preserved as the second progenitors of 
 the human race,) we are forced to conclude that Abraham, the great refor- 
 mer of religion, wandered about from country to country, “either ianoranl of 
 their existence, or regardless of their authority while, as Mizraim, the sou 
 of Ham, had not necessarily, or scripturally, departed from the pure prime- 
 val religion of his father and grand ather, and as he colonized Egypt, per- 
 haps sixty (if not more) years before the confusion of Babel, (on the primitive 
 distribution of man in the days of Peleg) we must concede that the primitive 
 Egyptians, children of Mizraim, were worshipping the pure God in Egypt, 
 while Abraham’s father, Terah, deified the log he had hewn into a Pagan 
 idol ! 
 
 When, however, by the authority of the Septuagint, we place the birth of 
 Abraham at 1070 years after the Hood, we are saved from these incongrui- 
 ties; and have a longer time for intervening Egyptian history, between the 
 deluge and the visit of Abraham. 
 
 The following legend of the Hebrews, which I extract from the 44 New 
 World” of 1 1th of March, 1843, will show that Torah’s idolatry is recognized 
 at the present day by his descendants. It is tbe translation of a paragraph, 
 in a work just published at Paris, forihe use of the lsraelitish youth, entitled 
 44 Les Matinees du Sainedi,” by G. Ben. Levi. The tradition is current 
 among the Cairo Jews to this day. 
 
 Abraham and the Idols. — At the period, when the first of onr holy pa- 
 triarchs lived, worship was offered to the images of men, of animals, of 
 plants, and fantastical beings, carved of wood, sculptured of stone, or cast in 
 metal, to which divine power was ascribed by ignorance and superstition. 
 
 Terah, the father of Abraham, was himself a maker of Idols, and never- 
 theless adored them, which was repugnant to the good sense of his son. One 
 day, when Abraham was at home alone, an old man presented himself in the 
 idol-warehouse of Terah, to buy one of them. 44 How old are you ?” asked 
 Abraham, of the old man. 44 Eighty years.” “Plow! what '• you, who are 
 so old, do you wish to worship an image that my father's workmen made 
 yesterday ?” The old inan understood him, and retired ashamed. 
 
 A young woman succeeded him. She came to bring a dish of victuals as 
 an offering to the idols of Terah. 44 They do not eat alone, (said Abraham 
 to her,) try to make them take this food from your hands,” and the young 
 woman, having made the attempt without success, went away undeceived. 
 
 Then Abraham broke all his father’s idols, except one only, the largest, 
 in whose hands he placed a hammer. When Terah, on returning, saw this 
 havoc, he Hew into a violent rage ; but his son said to him, 44 It is ihe large 
 idol that has done this; a good woman having come to bring your divinities 
 something to eat, they fell greedily upon this offering, without asking leave 
 of the largest and oldest of them. He was angiy, and has avenged himself 
 by treating them in this manner.” 
 
 44 You wish to deceive your father,” replied Terah, full of wrath ; 44 do you 
 not know that these images can neither speak nor eat, nor move in the least V* 
 
 44 If it be so,” cried Abraham, 44 why do you consider them as gods, and 
 why do you compel me to worship them ?” 
 
 Note 2. — To show the carelessness, with which some chronologies are 
 appended to our English Bible, 1 will refer to 44 Alexander’s Stereotype Edi- 
 tion” of the Old and New Testament. Philadelphia, 1839. See Index of 
 that Bible, at the end, page 8. 
 
 44 Jn the beginning of the reign of A rtaxerxes (called in profane history 
 Cambyses) the Samaritans,” &c. &rc. 
 
 This confusion of personages well known in history, is inexcusable. Cam- 
 byses reigned 8 years, beginning B. C. 530. In the “Shah Nameh,” he is 
 probably “Lohrasp,” his name in hieroglyphics, is “Lambeth,” and we have 
 hieroglyphical tablets of the Gth year of his reign. After the Magians, who 
 
 ruled 7 months, Darius Hytaspes, succeeded him r and reigned 36 
 
 years, of which we have dates of the 36th. This name, in hieroglyphics, is 
 44 Ntariush as likewise in the cuneiform character ; in the Shah Narn-eh, he 
 is Gustasp, or Gushtap. Then followed Xerxes, son of Darius; in the arrow- 
 headed (ancient Persian) form, thus written : 
 
 >/•»!?> 
 
 a ch r a e 
 
 “ IChchearcha,” 
 
 in Hierogyphics, 
 
 ch Kh 
 
 He reigned 21 years — we possess a date, 12th year of his reign in Egypt. 
 In Persian tradition, “Isfendiar.” Then tame Axtaxerxes Longimanus ■ 
 in hieroglyphics, “ Artaksheersh in Persian, “ Ardisheei Dirasdost;” he 
 reigned 40 years. We have hieroglyphical dales of 16th ol his reign. 
 
 Thus, then, instead of the nonsense, that Cambyses and Artaxerxes are 
 one and the same personage (!) they are separated by a period of .vnarchy, 
 and two intervening reigns ; and, from the beginning of the rule of tko former 
 
36 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 In the end of the reign of the latter, the hierologisls account 100 years and 
 
 7 months. 
 
 I quote this merely as a proof of the advantage that chronologists may de- 
 rive from Egyptian history and hieroglyphical studies. 
 
 The Samaritan Pentateuch — is also a corrupt text, in regard to 
 the antediluvian generations ; nnd its first mutilations may have ex. 
 isted before A. D. 230 : but, after that, it was subjected to greater cor. 
 ruption, for then, the post-diluvian generations were curtailed. It 
 was undoubtedly, at first, an exact transcript of the original law — 
 a copy of the archives having been furnished by the Jews to the Sa- 
 maritans, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, in A. D. 70, when it 
 would necessarily have agreed with the Septuagint. Its manifest 
 anachronisms were introduced subsequently, from the same motives 
 which prompted the Rabbies to alter the text of that volume, which 
 was hypocritically termed so sacred, that “ every letterwas counted!” 
 It was counted, however, after the interpolations had been made. 
 
 The Septuagint, or translation by seventy learned men, who, 
 in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 240, rendered the He- 
 brew Scriptures (at the time not mutilated) into Greek, at the Isle 
 of Pharos, Alexandria. 
 
 It was recognized as orthodox by the Jews, for 300 years ; and all 
 its parts were publicly verified, and collated by Jews and Greeks. 
 It was a faithful translation, of the copy of the Law, sent by the 
 High Priest of Israel to Philadelphus, at the latter’s solicitation, in 
 return for his liberation of 100,000 Jews from bondage. This He- 
 brew copy came from Jerusalem to Alexandria, written on parch- 
 ment, in ietters of gold. 
 
 The Rabbies disputed its authority, about 100 years after the birth 
 of Christ. “ Wherefore,” we may say with Syncellus, “ it is with 
 reason, that, in our chronology, we follow the version of the Septua- 
 gint, which was made, as it appears, from, an ancient and uncor- 
 rupted Hebrew copy.” The Septuagint is not free from interpolation 
 being subject to the same casualties to which all books are liable ; 
 nnd the most remarkable is that of the second Cainan, between Ar- 
 phaxad and Salah, of 130 years. This spurious personage was in- 
 troduced into the Septuagint, about the time of Demetrius, 220, B. 
 C., or about 20 years after the first publication of the pure uncor- 
 rupted Greek translation of the Old Testament. 
 
 Next in authority to the Septuagint, on chronological points, ranks 
 the Jewish chronologist, Josephus ; and the one confirms the other. 
 
 Let us rejoice, therefore, that the Septuagint version allows of 
 more enlarged, liberal and equally orthodox constructions, confirmed 
 by the authority of Josephus, and by the traditionary fragments of 
 the Persians, Hindoos, Chinese and Phoenicians, independent of the 
 absolute necessity of receiving, in addition to all these, the positive 
 confirmations now elicited from Egyptian legends. 
 
 The chronology of the Bible, being a human computation, is not 
 an article of indispensable faith ; for it should be borne in mind, that 
 no two persons, who have entered upon a chronological inquiry, 
 founded on an examination of the sacred Scriptures, agree in compu- 
 tation, or (not unfrequently,) as to the meaning of the texts they con- 
 sult ; whence endless discrepancies in their conclusions. The con- 
 sequence of these controversies is made apparent, by the Table refer- 
 red to ; and we must remember, that, by different chronologists, of all 
 ages, religions and nations, and, among them, many of the most eru- 
 dite and pious divines, or Christian philosophers (such as Sir Isaac 
 Newton,) there have been put forth some 300 systems of chro- 
 nology chiefly founded on biblical records, all differing in the dates 
 assigned to the Creation, the Deluge, the Exodus, and other events, of 
 which the occurrence is indisputable ; though the period of the oc- 
 currence of each may perhaps for ever remain an open question. 
 
 If therefore, in arriving reluctantly at the inference, that the Holy 
 Records themselves are, in chronology, deficient in precision and 
 perspicuity, we are forced to select for ourselves, that view of the 
 subject which best accords with our peculiar opinions : so long as 
 we demand no extension that is not sanctioned by some high bib- 
 lical authority, we are not obnoxious to the charge of heresy (though 
 heresy may be obnoxious to us,) because, it is not with the Scrip- 
 tures, but with the commentators on the Scriptures (men like our- 
 selves, liable to err) that we differ. 
 
 So far as the epoch of the Deluge is concerned, it is speculative, 
 and not achievable by any process hitherto attempted, within 1300 
 years. But, the most critical examination establishes for the pyra- 
 mids of Egypt, and for “ Shoopho,” builder of the largest, an an- 
 tiquity, totally incompatible with the short chronology of Usher, 
 founded on ths Masorete Hebrew text, and demands for them the 
 more extended, and equally if not more orthodox readings of the 
 Septuagint version. These pyramids were built, and “ Shoopho” 
 ruled, before Usher’s date of the Deluge, the year 2348, B. C. ; and 
 this fact once admitted, it is not inconsistent with the deference due 
 to Holy Writ, to seek for an explanation, and thereby to silence 
 scepticism. 
 
 It is satisfactory to be able to prove, that there is nothing required 
 by Egyptian antiquities, that can affect the truth of Scripture, or that 
 is so boundless, as to subvert the text of the Bible. 
 
 If, through the errors of man, his misconceptions and perversions, 
 we differ in opinion with an individual on the period of the Deluge, 
 that difference will not affect the fact of its occurrence. 
 
 If we show positively that Usher was wrong, as others have don# 
 
 1 by different arguments, when he chose the Hebrew text, instead of 
 older, purer and more orthodox versions of the Old Testament, our 
 difference is not with Scripture, but with Archbishop Usher, on a 
 subject whereon his is only one of 300 opinions, and on which it is 
 a sacred right of every human being to have an opinion, and in that 
 to be guided, after adequate examination, by his conscientious 
 belief. When we point out that Usher was wrong in fixing the Del- 
 uge at B. C. 2348 ; that he was in an error in not giving due weight 
 to the other versions of the Scripture, as other equally pious divines, 
 and equally erudite scholars have done, we are entitled to entertain, 
 and to express our opinion, just as freely as he was authorized to pub. 
 lish his. Nor can an act of Parliament, or of Congress, render one 
 opinion more reasonable than another. 
 
 Our proving that the Pyramids were built before Usher’s era of the 
 Deluge, will establish nothing beyond the fact that he was mistaken , 
 nor can the opinion of either of us affect the true epoch of tbo 
 event, or the fact of its occurrence. It would be ridiculous to sup. 
 pose the pyramids to have actually been erected before the Deluge ; 
 and as we find they positively exisited in B. C. 2348, it stands to 
 reason, that the Deluge must have occurred many centuries before 
 them. 
 
 When, however, we are compelled to overstep, even by one day, 
 the year in which Usher fixes the era of the Deluge, we may as well 
 go back to any epoch, that we can show to be admissible by two of 
 the three versions of the Old Testament, of which he only adopted 
 one ; and it is a source of peculiar gratification to find, that the Del. 
 uge, upon the authority of Christian churchmen, can be carried buck 
 to a date, that causes no doubt as to the validity of the uncorrupted 
 Mosaic record ; and that if it be placed anywhere, beyond 3000, B. 
 C. (for Providence seems to have designed that man should not be 
 able to discover the precise period of the event,) there is nothing in 
 Egyptian monumental history, that will not corroborate the sacred 
 word, though some facts may trench on mere human opinions in re. 
 lation thereto. 
 
 Taking the Deluge at any given point within the chronology of 
 the Septuagint — say B. C. 3200, and “ Menei,” the first Pharoah of 
 Egypt, about 2700, we allow 500 years for the migration of man 
 into Egypt and his progress toward civilization, till he could build 
 one pyramid. In allowing 500 years more for the erection of all 
 those pyramids at Meroe, in Ethiopia, and in Egypt, we have sufficient 
 time for their possible construction ; and then, taking up the acces. 
 sion of the 16th dynasty at about B. C. 2272, we adopt Rosellini’s 
 chronological series, and have time for all subsequent events in 
 Egypt. This is but approximative of the truth. My department is 
 Egyptian history ; and, in rejecting Usher’s chronological system 
 in toto, I accept the Septuagint date for the Deluge only — because, 
 for all subsequent epochs, I consider myself free to choose (from 
 among three hundred systems of chronology) that arrangement 
 best adapted to Egyptian monumental, and other records. I com. 
 mit myself therefore only to the Septuagint date of the Deluge, 
 as the shortest limit allowable for Egyptian history, independently 
 of all other nations ; while I reserve the right of adopting any ex- 
 tension, that future discoveries may make orthodox, or indispensable. 
 As it is, wc have not a year to throw away — and if 1000 more 
 years could be shown admissible by Scripture, there is nothing in 
 Egypt, that would not be found to agree with the extension. 
 
 The Septuagint era of the Flood is equally necessary for the his- 
 tory of mankind in other countries. The events and histories of 
 other nations demand an equal chronological extension — all require, 
 that time should be allowed for human multiplication and distribu- 
 tion. We will not speculate on the possible time required, if we 
 are to trace the progress of civilization, from a hunter to a shepherd, 
 from a shepherd to an agriculturalist, and a manufacturer, till man 
 could build a pyramid, such as any of those at Memphis, or in- 
 scribe in the largest the name of “ Shoopho.” I have already ex- 
 pressed my conviction, that the art of writing is a divine revelation, 
 in antediluvian periods ; and I incline to the belief, that man was not 
 turned upon the earth an uncivilized savage, but that his Creator en- 
 dowed him with a certain intuitive knowledge in arts and sciences, 
 which practice could improve, or negligence deteriorate. But still, 
 ages must have elapsed before the conception of such an enterprise 
 as a pyramid, could have entered the human brain ; and both abund- 
 ant population and long practical experience, in an infinitude of arts 
 and sciences, must have been for centuries in operation, before 
 Shoopho, who is Cheops and Suphis, could erect the largest of these 
 monuments in Egypt — before, in Chaldea, a knowledge of astronomy 
 could be acquired, to record calculations as far back as 2232 B. C. — 
 before, in China, Yao could rectify the year in B. C. 2269 — before, 
 in Greece, JEgialus could found the city of Sicyon, in B. C. 2089 — 
 before Nimrod could found Babylon, in B. C. 2554— or Ashur’s sons 
 have settled at Nineveh — or before, in Indian records, a Sanscrit his. 
 tory should evince high civilization 2000 years B. C. ! I will say 
 nothing, at present, about the incongruity of these statistical calcu. 
 lations, that would people the world, like Dr. Cumberland, Bishop 
 of Petersborough, with 30,000 human beings, in the 140th year after 
 the flood (!) whereby, in the 3rd century, there would have beer 
 6,666,666,660 married people ! We have only to add the moderate 
 average of 2 children to each marriage, and, in the year 340 aftex 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 37 
 
 the Deluge, according to this absurd doctrine, the world must have 
 contained twenty thousand millions of human beings! whereas, after 
 more than 5000 years, we only reckon, at the present day, between 
 900 and 1000 millions of inhabitants on the earth. Noah left the 
 ark with his family — in all 8 individuals — and, making every allow, 
 ance, it must have taken 130 years to increase that community to 
 about 1000 persons. How many centuries must have passed away 
 ere the world could have been sufficiently populated (to sajrnothing 
 of its civilization) to bring about any of the great events above re- 
 ferred to in Egypt, Chaldea, China, Greece, Assyria and India ? 
 
 If we now know more of Egyptian history, than we do of that of 
 any contemporary nation in those remote epochs, it is not that other 
 nations were not in existence, but because their records have per- 
 ished in the lapse of time — for which loss, the wisdom and the fore- 
 thought of the superior Egyptian civilization, have, in some degree, 
 given us a compensation. I have, in a previous discourse, sketched 
 the modes in which the venerable annals of other nations have been 
 swept away, leaving us to mourn over their irrecoverable loss. 
 
 Finally, Sir Walter Raleigh, nearly 300 years ago, (after instancing 
 the nations that had already attained to greatness in the days of Abra- 
 ham, and little foreseeing the remote antiquity, that, in the year 1843, 
 can be insisted upon for Egypt, which places “ Menei ” at least 800 
 years before Abraham’s visit to Egypt — according to the Hebrew text 
 computation,) remarked, “If we advisedly consider the state and 
 countenance of the world, such as it was in Abraham’s time, yea, 
 before his birth, we shall find, that it were very ill done, by following 
 opinion, without the guide of reason, to pare the times over deeply 
 between the flood and Abraham ! because, in cutting them too near 
 the quick, the reputation of the whole story might perchance bleed,.’’’ 
 In that which such a man, as the ill-fated Raleigh had penned, and 
 which so excellent a divine as Dr. Hales had endorsed, before the 
 hieroglyphic chronicles of Egypt were deciphered, I may safely con- 
 cur — acquainted, as I consider myself to be, with Egyptian subjects. 
 Truly did the poet Campbell, in his beautiful address to a mummy, 
 in Belzoni’s collection, thus apostrophize the fragile relic of a once 
 noble being : 
 
 “Antiquity appears to have begun, 
 
 Long after thy primeval race was run.” 
 
 In order, therefore, that I may convey no erroneous impressions, 
 I have prefaced Egyptian history by this chronological disquisition ; 
 and it may be fearlessly maintained, without deserving the charge of 
 heterodoxy, that, in rejecting the short chronology of the Hebrew 
 texts of the Pentateuch (wherein by Archbishop Usher’s computation 
 the creation of the world is fixed at 4004 B. C. and the deluge at 
 2348, ) as inapplicable to, and overthrown by, the positive facts of 
 hieroglyphicat researches, we do not affect the validity of scriptural 
 record ; because, the Septuagint version and the venerable array of 
 orthodox churchmen, who support the latter’s computation, permit 
 us to place the deluge somewhere about 3200 B. C. — by which ar- 
 rangement we attain a period of 32 centuries, and one that gives us 
 “ample room and verge enough ” to reconstruct the history of ancient 
 Egypt, founded upon the results of hieroglyphical interpretations, and 
 corroborated by authorities, sacred and profane. 
 
 It is on this basis, that the annals of Egypt will be herein consid- 
 ered — one that allows abundance of room for the events which occu- 
 pied the several branches of the human family, between the Deluge 
 of Noah, the primitive migration of man in the days of Peleg, with 
 the subsequent dispersion of mankind from the plains of Shinar, and 
 the accession of the first Caucasian monarch to the undivided throne 
 
 Egypt, Mencs of History, and Menei, “ who walks with Antun,” 
 of the sculptures; and although unable, with satisfac- 
 tory precision, to define within a period of five hundred 
 years, the date of his assuming the exclusive sway of 
 Upper and Lower Egypt, the countries typified by the 
 Lotus, and the Papyrus, the “ region of justice and 
 purity” the “ land of the Sycamore,” yet various cor- 
 roborative circumstances will justify the hypothesis, 
 that his reign began at some period between the years 
 2900 and 2400 B. C. 
 
 Having stated the scriptural grounds upon which the antiquity I 
 shall unfold for Egypt is based, it becomes necessary, before com- 
 mencing the history of that country, on a scale so generally novel as 
 will by me be adopted, to give a succint enumeration of the principal 
 profane chroniclers, upon which the historical portion of the edifice 
 is reconstructed. To omit doing so, would defeat the object of these 
 discourses, which is to give a popular view of subjects, hitherto han- 
 dled only by the most erudite scholars. I shall therefore name Manetho, 
 Eratosthenes, Josephus, Herodotus, and Diodorus, as the most ancient 
 writers on Egyptian History. I have placed them in the order in 
 which hieroglyphical discoveries, and with me, long practical Egyp- 
 tian associations have combined to give them authenticity and value. 
 To these, the other and later Greek and Roman writers, such as 
 Strabo, Tacitus, Plutarch, Pausanias, Pliny, &c., are subordinate, 
 though frequently of eminent value and assistance. The later works 
 of Christian chronologists, such as Syncellus, Eusebius, with a host of 
 others, are often important ; and it may be presumed I have not 
 omitted to consult them and others, either when the originals were 
 within my attainment, or far moee frequently, when in tho course of 
 
 
 U ire r 
 
 reading the works of the Champoliion school, I have met with pas- 
 sages extracted by modern classics, which their superior learning 
 enabled them to produce. It is only on the previous five, however, 
 that I deem it necessary to make some remarks. The translations of 
 these are accessible in every library; but for the few precious relics 
 preserved to our day of Manetho and Eratosthenes, I refer to “Cory’s 
 Ancient Fragments,” as the hieroglyphist’s historical text-book. To 
 proceed further would be to write on bibliography, which, though a 
 most interesting subject is one above my present attainment; and I 
 will conclude with this general observation, that the authors through 
 whose imperfect records we have been able to glean historical frag- 
 ments of remote Egyptian ages, and to whom 20 years ago, we were 
 indebted for all we then knew on these abstruse questions, are various 
 in nation, in epoch, in merit, and in importance. Apart from the 
 Scriptures, which do not touch on Egyptian internal events before 
 Abraham, (a period long subsequent to the occurrences on which we 
 shall have first to treat) we had so many contradictory annals, that it 
 seemed hopeless to arrive at any reasonable conclusion, from mere 
 historical narratives. The discovery of the key to hieroglyphics has 
 enabled us to discriminate ; and our first authority in Egyptian chron 
 icles after the monuments, is Manetho. 
 
 Among the manifold advantages, since 1820, accruing to general 
 knowledge through the impetus given to all studies, and antiquarian 
 researches, by Champoliion and his school, may be enumerated the 
 resuscitation of historical fragments, and the collection and re-trans 
 lation of early authors, whose boots till within the last 20 years were 
 looked upon with distrust, and wdiose accounts w'ere treated as fables. 
 And besides the excessive value in Egyptian Archaeology that now ac 
 companies fragments, such as Horus-Apollo, Hermapion, Poemander, 
 Apulcius, and other obsolete waiters too numerous for specification ; 
 the intense interest excited by hieroglyphical discoveries has caused 
 new and more faithful transcriptions of the remains of such early 
 chroniclers as Sanconiathon, Manetho, Berosus, &c. to be made and 
 republished. These, and similar sacred historical relics are now 
 within the attainment of the general reader, which, before hieroglyphi- 
 cal researches had demonstrated their utility, were to those as un- 
 learned as myself, so many sealed books. 
 
 One of the most gifted men and celebrated scholars of the present 
 age, with whom I was for a long period on terms of social intimacy, 
 told me, while we were one day repining at the errors and misdirec- 
 tions of my school-boy, and his collegiate education, that on leaving 
 the University of Oxford, he was immediately thrown into literary 
 and scientific society in London. He was there struck with amaze- 
 ment and chagrin, at the constant recurrence of topics of conversation, 
 on the most interesting and important subjects, but which to him, 
 who had won the first honors of Oxford, were mysteries he could not 
 comprehend ; and so ill-provided was he at the age of 22, with general 
 information, that on hearing the name of Linnaeus, { the well-known 
 naturalist) he thought he was some mythological personage, whose 
 name had escaped him, and actually looked into “ Lempriere’s Clas- 
 sical Dictionary” to ascertain who he was ! 
 
 In the same manner, I can well remember the period, long after 
 I had left a classical school, and had for years been engaged in active 
 life, when the only knowledge I possessed of Manetho, was derived 
 from the “Vicar of Wakefield,” wherein Mr. Jenkinson, in treating 
 on the cosmogony of the world, mentions Sanconiathon, Manetho and 
 Berosus. I may therefore be allowed to inform others who the author 
 is, on whom so much stress is laid, and whose authority in Egyptian 
 history is now considered of such importance, referring them, at the 
 same time, to “ Cory’s Ancient Fragments,” for all that we possess of 
 his once voluminous works, bearing on the points under consideration. 
 
 Manetho, was a learned Egyptian — a native of the Sebennitic 
 Nome in the Eastern Delta, Lower Egypt — high priest, and sacred 
 scribe of Heliopolis, who flourished about the year 2G0, B. C., and who 
 at the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, composed a history of the 
 kings of Egypt, in the Greek language, from the earliest times down 
 to Alexander’s invasion, B. C. 332. This work he dedicated to Phila- 
 delphus, with the following letter : 
 
 “ The Epistle of Manetho, the Sebennyte, to Ptolemaeus Phila- 
 delphus : 
 
 “To the great and august king Ptolemseus, Manetho, the high priest 
 and scribe of the sacred Adyta in Egypt, being by birth a Sebennyte, 
 and a citizen of Heliopolis, to his sovereign Ptolemseus, humbly 
 greeting : 
 
 “ It is right for us, most mighty king, to pay attention to all things 
 which it is your pleasure we should take into consideration. In 
 answer, therefore, to your inquiries, concerning the things which shall 
 come to pass in the world, I shall, according to your commands, lay 
 before you what I have gathered from the sacred books written by 
 Hermes Trismegistus, our forefather. Farewell, my prince and sove- 
 reign.” 
 
 It is very curious, that Manetho, besides giving a compendious 
 history of the past, appears to have also furnished to Ptolemy some 
 extracts of early prophecies concerning the future. These last, 
 however, are lost to us, and it is of no use to speculate about them. 
 
 The history was compiled from the most ancient and authentic 
 sources, by an Egyptian, whose position and learning, aided by the 
 influence of the government, enabled him to obtain accurate inform- 
 ation. The sacred incrlptions on the columns of Hermes, and the 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 38 
 
 books of Thoth-trismegistus, seem to have been his sources ; while 
 we may infer, that the celebrated Library of Alexandria, the papyri 
 of the sacerdotal order, the sculptures on the temples and the genea- 
 logical tablets (some of which have come down to us,) were con- 
 sulted by him, and afforded him abundance of materials. 
 
 This great work has been lost ; and the rediscovery of one copy of 
 Manetho would be the most desirable and satisfactory event that could 
 be conceived in Egyptian, and we may add, in universal history and 
 chronology. As the work of an Egyptian, testifying the glory of his 
 nation, it was probably conscientiously prepared ; although he may 
 have allowed national pride to give a too partial coloring to his nar- 
 ration, and possibly an exaggerated view of his country’s antiquity. 
 But we can no longer be harsh in our criticisms; seeing, that to his 
 16th Dvn. he is confirmed by the sculptures, while every new step 
 of discovery that is made in hieroglyphics, gives some new confirm- 
 atory light in support of Manetho’s earlier arrangement. Again, 
 because we have only mutilated extracts of his original ; one, a 
 fragment preseved by Josephffs, which seems to have been copied 
 verbatim from Manetho’s work ; another is an abstract in the chro- 
 nology of Syncellus, who did not even see the original book himself, 
 but embodied in his compilation the extracts he found in Julius Afri- 
 canus and Eusebius. Within the last few years, the discovery of an 
 Armenian version of Eusebius, has added some better readings to 
 those we formerly possessed. 
 
 These writers, Josephus, Eusebius and Julius Africanus, differ so 
 much from each other in the several portions of Manetho’s history 
 of which they present the extracts, that, in their time, either great 
 errors had crept into the then-existing copies of Manetho, or one or 
 more of them were corrupted by design ; especially in the instance 
 of Eusebius, who evidently suppressed some parts, and mutilated 
 others, to make Manetho, by a pious fraud, conform to his own 
 peculiar and contracted system of cosmogony. 
 
 It will be seen how the hieroglyphics enable us to discriminate error 
 from truth, and to recompose and correct Manetho. The indefati- 
 gable Cory has rendered Manetho easy of access ; and it is due to the 
 learned Prichard, to point him out as the one who vindicated Mane- 
 tho’s claim to our credence in 1819, before Champollion’s discoveries, 
 no less than as one who proved that many ancient authors, whom 
 modern scepticism had rejected, were, in their annals, not undeserv- 
 ing of belief. It is to be regretted, that Prichard in his more recent 
 work on ethnology and the human species, does not give due weight 
 to the discoveries of the Champollion school on ancient Egyptian 
 subjects ; nor is he by any means correctly informed on modern ones : 
 but this vacuum is now about to be filled up with a mass of anatom- 
 ical, geographical, historical and monumental evidences in the “Cra- 
 nia rEgyptiaca ” of Dr. Morton, of Philadelphia. 
 
 Manetho is herein regarded as the authority, par excellence ; with- 
 out, however, pretending to claim for the length of his reigns undue 
 credence, or to tax him with errors that proceed from his copyists 
 rather than from himself ; especially, when the “ Old Chronicle ” 
 preserved by Syncellus was evidently known to and consulted by 
 him. In a subsequent chapter I present a table of his Egyptian Dy- 
 nasties, which I shall explain in due course ; and would only observe, 
 that those figures in smaller type are doubtful, and that there are 
 plausible reasons to reduce the period from the 1st to the end of the 
 15th Dynasty to 443 years, as I have noted in the relative column. 
 
 Eratosthenes of Cyrene, the grammarian, mathematician, astro- 
 nomer and geographer, was superintendent of the Alexandria Library 
 in the reign of Ptolemy Evergetes, and lived about 200 B. C., or 60 
 years after Manetho. It appears he constructed his Laterculus, or 
 catalogue of Egyptian kings, by order of Ptolemy, from Egyptian 
 records and from information communicated to him by the sacred 
 scribes of Diospolis — Thebes. 
 
 The original work has perished ; and the only portion extant is a 
 fragment preserved by the diligent compiler Syncellus, from an ex- 
 tract he found in the chronography of Apollodorus, whose work no 
 longer exists. As his Laterculus gives tire translations of some of 
 the Egyptian names of kings, it has been found useful : but inasmuch 
 as it appears he wrote with a predetermination to cast the labors of 
 his predecessor Manetho into disrepute, and as the latter is infinitely 
 more conformable to the sculptures, the catalogue of Eratosthenes 
 holds but a subordinate station; while we cannot forget the witty 
 remark of Hipparchus, that Eratosthenes “ wrote mathematically 
 about geography, and geographically about mathematics.” 
 
 With the fact staring us in the face, that Manetho, in names, in 
 rimes and in number of kings, has been so remarkably confirmed 
 up to the 16th Dynasty by the mon-aments, we need not lay much 
 stress on the discrepancies of Eratosthenes. It may well be con- 
 ceded, that a learned Egyptian, who composed, by order of his king, 
 a record of his own nation in the Greek language, from the most 
 authentic sources, was less liable to err, as well as more likely to 
 obtain correct information, than a foreigner, who may have spoken, 
 read and wrote (but probably did not) in the Egyptian language. 
 And, with the constant evidence of Greek mendacity and utter igno- 
 rance in Egyptian matters before our eyes, we may make due allow- 
 ance for the envy and jealousy of a Hellene, at the antiquity of a 
 country, which was already ancient long ere the fathers of the Greeks 
 were known in history. 
 
 Josephus is the well known Jewish historian, who wrote at Rome, 
 Boon after the full of Jerusalem. As before stated, his chronology, 
 
 according with the Septuagint, renders him valuable for daus ; while 
 we are indebted to his defence against Apion, for some fragments 
 of Manetho’s history, that are of the utmost importance. 
 
 The works of Herodotus and Diodorus are too familiar to general 
 readers, to require much more than designation. The former was 
 in Egypt about 430 years B. C., during the dominion of the Persians, 
 and after Egypt had fallen entirely from her pristine greatness. The 
 latter was in Egypt in 40 B. C., toward the close of the Ptolemaic 
 Dynasty, at a still lower period of degradation. 
 
 Valuable, as are the works of these two Greek authors, they have 
 fallen very considerably in our estimation, since Egypt as a country, 
 and the ancient Egyptians as a people have become better known to < , 
 us ; and the inconsistencies, misstatements, misrepresentations, mis- ' 
 conceptions and absurdities, that are hourly exposed in their accounts 
 of Egypt, more than compensate for the information, in which, by 
 accident, they are correct. This assertion may seem audacious ; 
 but will be substantiated in the sequel, when a comparison is insti- 
 tuted between Egyptian history, as developed in these chapters and 
 future lectures, and the accounts of Herodotus or Diodorus. 
 
 It would require a volume to elucidate the discrepancies, now de- 
 monstrable, between many, nay most of the assertions of Herodotus 
 and Diodorus, in regard to almost every subject relating to ancient 
 Egypt ; and the facts, with which we are made acquainted, in the 
 works of the whole Champollion school. Nor, in common fairness, 
 must my assertions be doubted, until an antagonist shall have actually 
 verified in Champollion, Rosellini and Wilkinson, some of the points 
 in which Greek authors are shown to be so lamentably ignorant. I 
 will, however, add the following reasons, gleaned chiefly from loni* 
 personal acquaintance with Egypt, to show that it was not in the ntT 
 ture of things that Herodotus or Diodorus could be often correct. 
 
 In the first place, Herodotus, though a learned and highly respect, 
 able Greek, and who, as the greatest of their ancient travellers and 
 universal historians, deserves our respect and gratitude, was in Egypt, 
 a stranger. He was certainly not in literary, or scientific, or fash- 
 ionable, or aristocratic society in that country ; which he visited, after 
 intercourse with the Greeks, and the Persian conquest had ruined 
 the former greatness of the higher castes, and had corrupted the in. 
 habitants of Lower Egypt, with whom Herodotus chiefly mixed. 
 For his own sake, we must hope he did not (although he says he did, 
 as far as the first cataract) visit Upper Egypt, else he would not have 
 left Thebes undescribed; or have listened to the idle tale, that the 
 sources of the Nile were at Elephantine ! 
 
 In his day, 500 years of decline had deteriorated the Priest-caste, 
 the only depositaries of history in Egypt. As a foreigner, Herodotus 
 was looked upon by the sinking aristocracy of Egypt in the light of 
 an “ impure gentile and utterly ignorant of the language, he must 
 have gleaned all his information through an interpreter. If, as we 
 have a full right to do, we judge of Herodotus’s interpreter by those 
 of travellers in modern times, the result with respect to the sort of 
 information he could receive through such a medium, may well be 
 imagined. Nay, it is proved, by his mistakes upon almost every 
 Egyptian subject which he handles in Euterpe. 
 
 Like some English and other modern writers, who compose vol- 
 umes on that misrepresented country, that are like Hodges’ razors, 
 only made to sell, Herodotus prepared his work to read at the Olym- 
 pic games to a Grecian audience, more ignorant in those days on 
 Egyptian affairs, than even Europeans of modern times are generally ; 
 and it was necessary to interlard his discourse with occasional fabri- 
 cations, some of which will scarcely bear the dubious praise of “ So 
 non d vero, d ben trovato.” 
 
 Diodorus was in Egypt just before the downfall of the house of 
 Lagus, in B. C. 40, when the decline of Egyptian learning had been 
 going on for 700 years — 400 of which had been spent under the yoke 
 of foreign masters. Diodorus copied Herodotus, and Hecataeus ol 
 Miletus, who had visited and written on Egypt, in the reign of Da- 
 rius ; and, perhaps the later work of Hecataeus of Abdera, who was 
 in Egypt after Alexander ; and who, from the little we know of him, 
 appears to have been an intelligent man, although, to the Egyptians, 
 all of them were naught but “impure foreigners” — so termed in hie- 
 roglyphical legends by the Egyptians ; in the same manner, that for- 
 eign nations are, to this day, in China, termed “outside barbarians.” 
 Other information was imbibed by Diodorus, from Greeks in Lower 
 Egypt; whose profound ignorance of Egyptian learning is only ex- 
 ceeded by their indifference, their stupid self-complacency and egre- 
 gious impudence. It will not be pretended that Diodorus could 
 speak Egyptian. 
 
 There is so little dependence to be placed on the accounts of He- 
 rodotus or Diodorus, excepting on what they actually saw with their 
 own eyes, or could comprehend from its nature when they saw it, 
 that, by hieroglyphists their narratives are followed only in the ab- 
 sence of better guides ; or, when their accounts are confirmed by 
 other testimony. They could not discriminate between the truth or 
 falsehood of the things that were told them ; and the only way of 
 accounting for the nonsense they often record, is to suppose, that the 
 humorous Egyptians purposely misled them. We have to thank 
 them however for putting all down ; leaving us the task of culling 
 the pearls from the rubbish ; for there is no doctrine, however incon- 
 sistent or improbable, that cannot be supported by quotations from 
 Herodotus or Diodorus. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 39 
 
 Let any stranger at the present day, through the medium of an 
 interpreter ask. the most intelligent native in the Delta, a question 
 about modern Nubia, and its present relations with Egypt : and the 
 answer will be a fable, modelled into the form the Felldh deems 
 most likely to be pleasing to the stranger, if he does not con- 
 fess his utter ignorance thereon ; a candor rare in the valley of the 
 Nile, and possibly elsewhere. 
 
 We must not merely look at the authority, but at the authority’s 
 resources and qualifications for information, no less than at the na- 
 ture of the sources whence he could acquire that information. It 
 would surprise any one to read descriptions of Egypt in some mod- 
 ern works (published since Champollion’s discoveries,) and then go 
 to Cairo and ask old residents their opinions thereon. 
 
 The authority of Herodotus and Diodorus on ancient Egyptian, 
 and still more on ancient Ethiopian questions, distant 1000 miles 
 from the provinces they visited (the epochs of the occurrence of 
 which, date from 2000 to 3000 years before they were in Egypt,) is 
 of about the same value, as would be the authority of some modern 
 travellers of the last half century, whose puerile information about 
 even modern Cairo would be derived during a fortnight’s residence, 
 from an Arab Rais, or captain, a donkey-driver, or a European hotel- 
 keeper ! Ask any of these last, about events which took place in 
 Egypt only 500 years ago ! 
 
 Travellers, therefore, who go beyond the first impressions they 
 receive, are liable to err, if they attempt, without time and adequate 
 study, to explain even what they behold. 
 
 That information must be incorrect which is solely derived from a 
 village Arab Sheykh, or Turkish Ntizir, on events whereon it is im- 
 possible these can possess any information — and which, in either 
 case, is given to the traveller, ignorant of Arabic, through the medium 
 of a stupid rascal, who, because he can jabber a few words of Eng- 
 lish, waits at table and cleans your shoes, is dignified by the inappli- 
 cable and inappropriate title of “ dragoman” or interpreter. Let 
 me ask, have not Americans just reason to complain of the cursory 
 notes of English travellers, taken, during a railroad and steamboat 
 trip, through the United States? Yet, in this case the traveller 
 speaks the same language as the nation, through whose country he 
 whirls like an “ ignis-fatuus.” 
 
 Judge then how incompetent must that traveller be, in a foreign 
 land, unacquainted with the language of the natives, when he inquires 
 of unlettered Felldhs, or of European freshmen, about events that 
 transpired thousands of years before his visit ; and yet, such was 
 precisely the position of Herodotus and Diodorus, in Egypt. 
 
 If, therefore, my own assertions differ front those met with in 
 works of any epoch, not written by disciples of the Champollion 
 school, the reader will be so indulgent as to make some allowance 
 for diversities of opinion, between one who knows a country from 
 23 years of domicile and many years of critical investigation, and 
 others, whose sojourn therein rarely equalled the same number of 
 months, generally fell within the same number of weeks, and often 
 did not exceed the same number of days. 
 
 When Herodotus or Diodorus are quoted upon subjects, which we 
 can prove they could learn little or nothing about, it is of no great 
 consequence what inference may be derived from their conclusions ; 
 because the well informed hierologists have better sources of inform- 
 ation ; and may draw inferences from existing monuments and 
 Egyptian autocthon chronicles, which give them, in 1843, an infi- 
 nitely superior knowledge of early Egypt (dating 2000 years before 
 the earliest Greek historian) than could be acquired by, or was 
 known to, the Greeks, or the Romans ; whose testimony may be 
 very often useful, but it is not evidence. 
 
 All authors who wrote on Egypt and Ethiopia, before the discov- 
 eries of Champollion, or without a thorough perusal of the works of 
 his school, are liable to error on subjects now perfectly understood ; 
 and, in the present year, 1843, for a man to write on ancient Egypt, 
 without first making himself really acquainted with what in the last 
 20 years has been done by the Champollions, by Rosellini, by Wil- 
 kinson and all the hicroglyphical students, is to act “ the play of 
 Hamlet, the part of Hamlet being left out by particular desire.” 
 Suppose an Egyptian were to write a history of the United States ; 
 and to make a rule of never consulting one American author, while 
 treating on American institutions, systems of government, manners 
 and customs, annals or personages ; what sort of a book would he 
 write ? and what opinion would the citizens of the United States 
 have of his one-sided and narrow-minded production, teeming, as it 
 necessarily would, with nonsense, errors and misrepresentation ! 
 And yet, it is a deed in absurdity precisely parallel for any one, in 
 1843, to write on ancient Egypt, without ascertaining first what its 
 ancient inhabitants record of themselves. 
 
 It is the special object of these discourses to show what Egyptian 
 history really is, at the present day ; and not to omit the facts, now 
 elicited by the interpretation of hieroglyphical chronicles. 
 
 At last, therefore, we can spread our canvas to the breeze, and 
 begin our voyage down the stream of time. Fogs and mists preclude 
 a very distinct sight of the course. We have many shoals to avoid ; 
 and there are many long and gloomy portages, over which we must 
 carry our imaginary bark, without knowing precisely the len<rih or 
 the course of the river. As we descend, we shall find enormous 
 land-marks, attesting the greatness of their builders, without always 
 telling the age of their erection. We shall steer by them all; no- 
 
 ting the relative bearings of each; till, having reached the obelisk of 
 Heliopolis, B. C. 2088, the mists will gradually dissipate as we pro- 
 ceed ; but the shoals are still numerous, and the current still swift. 
 Soon, however, we arrive at the stupendous Hypostyle Halls of Kar- 
 nac, at the temples and palaces of Thebes, the hoary “ Amunei,” or 
 abode of Amun, about the year 1800 B. C. ; from which time, the 
 voyage will be easy and the scenery interesting, for a period of 2000 
 years, when the hieroglyphical annals cease, and subsequent events 
 are chronicled in universal history. 
 
 CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 It is unnecessary to preface this portion of my subject with a 
 lengthened description of Egypt, as a country ; for its geographical 
 position “ in immiti solo the general features of its soil, climate 
 and fertility, and its semi-Asiatic, semi-African aspect, are familiar 
 to the reader ; or, in any case, may be readily gleaned from popular 
 works everywhere accessible. 
 
 In my lecture room, a large Map, colored with due reference to its 
 three leading features, the Nile, the Alluvium, and the Rocky Desert, 
 conveys, at a glance, a more correct idea of Egypt than can be oth- 
 erwise acquired ; and my familiarity with the whole ground will 
 enable me, as occasion offers, to explain them by oral elucidations. 
 
 I subjoin a skeleton map of the entire Valley of the Nile, which 
 will serve to make the sequel sufficiently intelligible. 
 
 MAP OF THE NILE. 
 
 Lonpitnrle. Meridian of Paris. 
 
 XXXV. XXX. 
 
40 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Note. — The faint lines on each side of the Nile will give a fair idea of 
 the alluvial soil, and its decrease, as we ascend the river front the sea. 
 
 To the East and IVest of the Nile, beyond [he frill t line, is Rocky Desert. 
 Prom Memphis to Hadjar Silsilis, the hills are limestone. At Hadjar Sib 
 silis, sandstone. At Syene, or Asswan, granite. Above the 1st Cataract, 
 sandstone predominates. At Mount Sinai, granite. 
 
 The sand is chiefly at the northern terminus of the hills below Memphis, 
 on the Suez desert, and on the sea coast. A narrow strip generally occurs 
 between the alluvial soil on each side of the Nile, and the hills. These last 
 begin at Cairo. 
 
 Moreover, in treating on Temples, Tombs, Pyramids, and other 
 monuments, I shall refrain from a description, or detailed specifica- 
 tion of their relative sizes, plans, elevations, or dimensions, in ancient 
 times, or at the present hour, beyond what may have a direct bear- 
 ing on the point under discussion; because, these may also be gath- 
 ered by the reader from works of travel, popular geographies, and 
 similar well-known authorities. 
 
 Whether the great pyramid be 454 feet high, or 474, is to us a 
 matter of indifference. Whether the statue called Memnon, be 
 vocal, or not, we claim to be scarcely worth inquiry ; and what may, 
 peradventure, be the precise length of the tail of the Great Sphinx, 
 can be better decided by others more learned than the -writer. 
 In these interesting and important matters, we shall endeavor to be 
 very superficial ; for these chapters, and my subsequent oral lectures, 
 will only show who were the builders of these edifices; when they 
 were erected ; and what purposes they were intended to serve ; with 
 such elucidations as may be afforded by the hieroglyphics. 
 
 The Septuagint computation for the era of the Flood, being taken 
 as our extreme point of vision, the remote antiquity required for 
 Egypt sends us to the Bible, for the account of the earliest migrations 
 of the human race. 
 
 Genesis ix. 18th. — “ And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the 
 ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of 
 Canaan.” 19th. — “ These are the three sons of Noah : and of them 
 was the whole earth overspread.” Ch. x. 6th. — “And the sons of Ham, 
 Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.” 13th. — “ And Miz- 
 raim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabiin, and Naphtuhim.” 
 14th. — “And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philis- 
 tim) and Caphtorim.” After indicating the children of Canaan, the 
 20th verse declares, “ These are the sons of Ham, after their 
 tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.” In 1st Chronicles, 
 I., verses 4, 8, 11, 12, we obtain the same account verbatim. 
 
 In the general allotment of territories to the offspring of Noah, 
 Egypt, (by the concurrent testimony of all biblical commentators) 
 was assigned to Mizraim, son of Ham, as a domain and for an 
 inheritance. Thither he must have proceeded from the banks of the 
 Euphrates in Asia, accompanied probably by Ham, his father: an 
 inference not inconsistent with patriarchal longevity and the silence 
 of Scripture, when we know that Egypt was termed Ham, or Kheme, 
 by the Egyptians, from the earliest period of hieroglyphical writing ; 
 
 KHeM, Kah, the Land of Ham. 
 
 A question arises, whether the migration of Mizraim may not 
 have been antecedent to the dispersion of the rest of mankind from 
 Shinar ; that is, whether it may not have been anterior to the 
 confusion of tongues, on the destruction of Babel. We learn 
 from Genesis x., 25, that the great grandson of Noah “ was Peleg ; 
 for in his day was the earth divided.” Now, in Hebrew, Peleg 
 means to sever, to separate : and, between the apparently peaceful 
 migration (in Peleg’s time) of the patriarchal grandchildren, when 
 “ the whole earth was of one language and one speech,” while “ they 
 journeyed from the east toward the west,” and the forcible disper- 
 sion ( after mankind had dwelt “ in a plain in the land of Shinar”) 
 of man subsequently to the confusion of tongues at Babel, there is, 
 chronologically, an intervening interval of sixty years, or, probably, 
 of a longer period. 
 
 It has been claimed, by Bryant and others, that the confusion of 
 tongues was a labial failure — that the wrath of the Almighty fell solely 
 on the Cushites as a people, with a few rebel associates of the tribes 
 of Shem and Japheth ; and need not have included all mankind, 
 as the virtuous portion of Noah’s immediate family (with the arch- 
 patriarch Noah himself, “ who lived after the flood three hundred and 
 fifty years,” and who was alive somewhere on the earth during the 
 events of Babel,) may, in ©bedience to the Almighty’s mandate, have 
 departed in the days of Peleg — the time of the peaceful separation — 
 to the countries allotted to them. 
 
 This speculative view is so far applicable to Egypt, that, in this 
 case, Mizraim, who may have acquired the most fertile soil of the 
 earth as a grant from Providence, was not an outcast from the patri- 
 archal family : while, being of the same blood with Noah himself, 
 he was in physical conformation a Caucasian, and in geographical 
 origin an Asiatic. 
 
 Hebraical scholars afford us the following explanation of “ Shem, 
 Ham, and Japheth.” 
 
 We learn from Genesis x., 21 — that Japheth was the elder of 
 Noah’s children. The exact meaning of Japheth, according to Dr. 
 Lamb, is “ the man of the opening of the tent.” Now in ch. ix., the 
 
 27th verse, we read, “ God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell 
 in the tents of Shem.” But a more appropriate translation of the 
 Hebrew text is, “ God shall open wide the door of the tabernacle 
 to the descendants of Japheth, and they shall dwell in the taberna- 
 cles of the children of Shem.” Whereby we perceive a remarkable 
 prophecy, of the call of the Gentiles to the rights and privileges of the 
 Jewish church, many ages prior to the birth of Abraham ; and one 
 that is rapidly drawing to fulfilment throughout the East, in a po- 
 litical point of view, if “ coming events cast their shadows before.” 
 Those who are really acquainted with what the East is, are persuaded, 
 with respect to the Holy Land itself, that the Jews, as a nation, have 
 forfeited all right to the possession of it ; that God has totally, per- 
 haps finally, deprived them of it ; and physically disqualified them, as jjj 
 a nation, from its future independent occupation. “ It has for cen- 
 turies been trodden of the Gentiles. No people have been able to 
 establish themselves securely for any length time within its pre- 
 cincts, nor will any, until it may please God to grant it to that na- 
 tion, or to that family, whom he may choose” — which, if organic 
 laws have any effect on our social constitution, will be to the con- 
 quering hand of the “ Andax genus Japethi” — the bold race of 
 Japheth. Many pious Christians, and orthodox divines, consider the 
 promises of the restoration of the Jews to be of a spiritual, and not 
 of a temporal nature. 
 
 Again, according to a rigid analysis of the Hebrew text, it is clear 
 that Shem and Ham were twin brothers. 
 
 Shem signifies “ the white or fair twin ” — Ham, “ the dark or 
 swarthy twin;” and this is physiologically correct ; because the twin 
 offspring of the same parents cannot vary much in cuticular appear- 
 ance. 
 
 The fact, that these brothers were twins, explains the reason why 
 we find them always placed in this order, Shem, Ham, and then 
 Japheth. As the ancestor of the Jews themselves, and of the prom- 
 ised seed, we can understand why precedence should be given to 
 Shem ; and then Japheth (who was senior to Shem) ought to follow 
 before Ham ; but as the brothers, Shem and Ham, were the produce 
 of one birth, they were not separated. Ham, therefore, although 
 the “ younger son” of Noah — Genesis ix., 24 — always takes prece- 
 dence of the eldest of the three brothers. 
 
 I dwell rather upon the fact, that Shem and Ham were, according 
 to the Hebrew text, twin brothers, to show that, physiologically, they 
 were identical in race; with the trifling distinction (frequently ob- 
 servable between twins, as they advance in age, at the present day,) 
 that Ham was a shade or two more swarthy than his brother Shem ; 
 who, as the father of the Jews, -was a pure white man. 
 
 The name of Ham was, by the Egyptians, preserved in the name of 
 their country. The meaning of the Hebrew root, Ham, is “ dark — 
 brown of color ;” no less than “ heat,” and especially “ solar heat.” 
 
 In Coptic it has precisely the same signification. And in Arabic it 
 likewise means “ swarthy of color,” as, for instance, unbleached linen 
 is called “goomksh -kham” — also, heat, &c. : but in no Semitic lan- 
 guage does Ham, as a color, strictly mean black. 
 
 Another popular fallacy, and one which, being very prevalent, 
 produces many erroneous deductions, is the supposition that any 
 curse attached itself to Ham : who, as the father of the Egyptians, 
 has been therefore made the parent of other so-called African nations. 
 
 This anomaly, which originates in the misconceptions of the early 
 Fathers, falls to the ground, when we read with attention from the 
 20th to the 27th verses of ix. Genesis. It is there expressly recorded 
 as Noah’s prophetic denunciation, not of Ham, nor of Cush, nor of 
 Mizraim, nor of Phut, “ cursed be Canaan” — the fourth and youngest 
 son of Ham. 
 
 Now Canaan, in direct contravention of the will of God, took 
 possession of Palestine — the land destined for the posterity of Abra- 
 ham ; and it was with a foreknowledge of his evil deeds, that Noah 
 was permitted to curse him. Some fifteen centuries after this event, 
 the Canaanites were ejected from Palestine, slaughtered, or subju- 
 gated by the hosts of Joshua; who politically fulfilled the extinction 
 of a doomed race, and took possession of Abraham’s inheritance. No 
 doubt need be entertained that Canaan was accursed — and deservedly 
 so, when we consider the abominations of the heathen rites origin- 
 ated and practiced by his descendants — their human sacrifices- 
 their altars reeking with the blood of men : yet, even in the moral 
 wilderness of Canaan we meet with oases ; for — Genesis xiv., 18 — 
 Melchisedek, king of Salem, “ was a priest of the most high God” — 
 a proof, that, in Abraham’s day, the worst Gentile nation had one 
 man who followed the pure primeval creed ; nor did the Almighty 
 disregard the expostulating prayer of Abimelech, king of Gerar — • 
 Gen. xx., 4 — “ Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation ?” 
 
 Other exceptions to the curse on Canaan and his descendants, are 
 producible ; but, as a general rule, the Phoenicians and their Car- 
 thaginian colony, with other Canaanites, were, in their paganism, 
 atrociously inhuman. 
 
 Canaan, however, was not physically changed in consequence of 
 the curse. He ever remained a while man, as did, and do, all his 
 many descendants. No scriptural production can be found, that 
 would support an hypothesis so absurd, as that, in consequence of the 
 curse, Canaan was transmuted into a negro, or into any, the very 
 slightest affinities to the varied races we now designate as Africans ; 
 while equally untenable is that opinion which would, in consequence 
 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 4i 
 
 of their undeniable inferiority of race, account the Negroes to be 
 by Providence accursed. 
 
 What the Canaanites were, prior to B. C. 1500, I shall illustrate in 
 my lectures by the portrait of a Canaanite (coexistent with every 
 variety of Negro, also illustrated,) from the Theban sculptures, cut 
 about the period of the Jewish Exodus ; over whose head is read 
 in hieroglyphics, aa/Wv x # “ Kanana, barbarian 
 
 country;” given I among proper names 
 
 in the preceding Sk&rfS chapter ; and, it is 
 
 well worthy of remark, that on three different occasions (two of 
 them recorded prior to the Exode, and one while the Jews were 
 probably at Mount Sinai,) we find the Pharaonic armies conquering 
 places in Canaan — “ Kanana This is perfectly confirmatory of 
 the chronological arrangement herein followed; because, as Joshua 
 overthrew the land of Canaan subsequently to these Egyptian victo- 
 ries, it is quite natural that, during events preceding Joshua, “ the 
 Canaanite should still be in the land” as he was in the days of Abra- 
 ham. In later times, among the hieroglyphical records of Egyptian 
 conquests in Palestine, Kanana disappears, 10 be replaced by the 
 “King of Judah.” 
 
 If then with the curse branded on Canaan, and on his whole pos- 
 terity, the Almighty did not see fit to change his skin, his hair, bones, 
 or any portion of his physical structure, how unjust, how baseless is 
 that theory (unsupported by a line in Scripture, and in diametrical 
 opposition to monumental and historical testimony,) which would 
 make Canaan’s immediate progenitor, Ham, the father of the Ne- 
 groes! or his apparently blameless brother, Mizraim, an Ethiopian ! 
 
 Ham , indeed, is omitted after the prophetic execration of Canaan. 
 And, while Shem is peculiarly blessed, and Japheth is told that “ God 
 shall enlarge” him, and that he shall dwell (as he does) “ in the tents 
 of Shem,” neither Ham, nor his other three sons, Cush, Mizraim and 
 Phut, are doomed to be fellow-seruants with the “servant of servants,” 
 Canaan. 
 
 In fact, Ham and his three sons partook of all earthly blessings ; 
 and whether he accompanied Mizraim into Egypt or not, we find the 
 earliest Egyptian records (written not many centuries after his death,) 
 give his name to the Valley of the Nile — that in Psalm Ixxviii., 51, 
 and elsewhere, Egypt is designated as “ the tabernacles of Ham” — 
 and that a variety of other testimony associates Ham with the rich- 
 est, most fertile, and most ancient country of the earth ; and makes 
 him the progenitor of the most civilized and powerful nation of an- 
 tiquity. 
 
 It would not be at all consistent with the authority that enjoins on 
 the Hebrews the observance of the following Law, to suppose any 
 curse hung over Ham or his descendants, until, in long posterior times, 
 these had morally fallen from the character of their high-caste an- 
 cestry. No nations but Egypt and Edom enjoyed this privilege. 
 
 Deut. xxiii., 7, 8 — “ Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is 
 thy brother : thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a 
 stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall 
 enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.” 
 
 It is a curious philological coincidence, that in Egyptian hieroglyph- 
 ics, as in Coptic, the word for stranger was “ shemmo.” The Is- 
 raelite was a stranger in Egypt, and a descendant of Shem — he was 
 therefore shemmo.* 
 
 In one word, from the earliest times, the children of Ham, or Egyp- 
 tians, and the children of Shem, or Israelites, bore each other no he- 
 reditary ill-will. Why should they, being of the same Caucasian 
 stock, the descendants of twin brothers 7 This constant attachment 
 to Egypt, on the part of the Hebrews, continued ever intact, and 
 even excited the Divine anger ; while, finally, no curse did or could 
 separate Ham from the temporal blessings allotted to his family, or 
 from union spiritually with his twin brother Shem ; because a portion 
 of Ham’s blood flowed in the line of the promised seed, through Ra- 
 hab of Jericho, a Canaanitish woman, who married Salmon, and be- 
 came the mother of Boaz, the grandfather of Jesse, the father of David. 
 
 According to the Bible, therefore, Egypt was colonized by Ham’s 
 children ; and it has been shown, that, in hieroglyphics, the ancient 
 name of that country was “ the land of Ham.” It has likewise 
 been seen how in Hebrew, in Arabic, and in Coptic, Ham means 
 dark, swarthy in color ; and this application of the name to Egypt 
 proceeds from the dark-colored loam, or Nilotic alluvium, of its pro. 
 lific soil ; for Plutarch tells us, that “ Egypt was called Chemmia 
 from the blackness of its soil.” As the root of Chemmia is the Se- 
 mitic word Ham, which only means dark, it is an error of Plutarch 
 to render it black. The ancient city of Panopolis, in the Thebaid, ' 
 was termed Kemmis by Greek writers, as its native Egyptian name ; 
 and its site still preserves its ancient designation in the modern 
 E’khmim. 
 
 In the mythological system of the Egyptians, Khem was a deity 
 of the first order, representing, as an attribute of the Almighty, the 
 generative principle extending over procreation in the animal and 
 vegetable world — a doctrine singularly in accordance with the mys- 
 tic attributes of the father of the Egyptians— Ham, the son of Noah 
 
 * A name preserved still in Syria, the land of Shem, which is called Shim by Semitic 
 nations— the city of Damascus is still called— es-SImm. 
 
 — and possibly connected, in some mysterious manner, with his 
 memory and their origin. 
 
 Amun-KHEM. 
 
 On the altar behind him 
 are two trees. Khem is in 
 some way connected with 
 the tree, a sycamore, still in- 
 digenous to Egypt — and in 
 hieroglyphical legends Egypt 
 is often termed “ the land of 
 the sycamore.” 
 
 The far-famed god Osiris, 
 among his various attribu- 
 tions (as the Nile, or the 
 “Judge of Amend,” the fu- 
 ture state,) is mystically a 
 form of Khem, who corres- 
 ponds also to the Hindoo 
 Siva, and from whom the 
 Greeks derived their Pluto. 
 
 Mizraim (in Hebrew, also 
 Mitzar) son of Ham, came 
 from Asia into Egypt, and 
 colonized that luxurious val- 
 ley. Although, in hiero- 
 glyphics, this name has not 
 been found, we have scriptu- 
 ral authority in abundance, 
 that the country was called 
 Mizraim, and Mitzar, by the 
 
 ughout the east, Egypt and 
 
 Cairo are universally known by the cognate appellation of Muss’r. 
 
 According to Sanconiathon, Misor (who may be Mizraim ?) was 
 the ancestor of Taautus — our Thoth — Hermes-trismegistus — who 
 invented the writing of the first letters: so that Phoenician annals 
 agreed with Egyptian, in attributing letters to the same personage ; 
 while it coincides with our view of scriptural chronology, and the 
 Asiatic origin of the Egyptians, that, if by Misor, Sanconiathon 
 meant Mizraim, that Thoth — Hermes should be bis descendant. 
 
 Egypt was called Mizraim by the Hebrews — and the little “ Sey- 
 dleh,” or Desert-water-course, of Rhinocolura, near El-Areesh on the 
 isthmus of Suez, as the boundary line between Egypt and Palestine, 
 was termed “ Nachal-Mizraim,” the torrent of Egypt. It never 
 means the Nile, which, in Hebrew, is “ Jear” or “ Jeor.” 
 
 The roots of the word Mizraim are, by Hebraical philologists, 
 shown to be Tzur — a rock, a narrow place — whence Matzur, a for- 
 tress. Mizraim is the dual number — signifying “ the two rocks” — 
 “ the two fortresses” — “ the two barriers.” This may be explained 
 either by the peculiar topographical formation of the valley itself, 
 on each side of which a rock, the Lybian and the Eastern hills, con. 
 fines the river Nile ; or by regarding these two chains, as two natu- 
 ral fortresses, acting as barriers to the nomads of the eastern deser, 
 on the one hand, and of the western on the other. It may likewise 
 apply to Upper and Lower Egypt, designated in hieroglyphics as 
 “ the two regions.” 
 
 As we are on comparisons of early biblical nomenclatures and 
 hieroglyphical territorial appellatives, I will indicate a curious con- 
 firmation of our theory in another son of Ham, who appears to have 
 crossed through Egypt, and settled in Lybia to the west.^ Lybia was 
 termed by the Egyptians, prior to 2000 B. C.. “The 
 country of the nine bows” — a designation extremely 
 ZZ appropriate to the wild nomads of the “ Beladed-dje- 
 
 reed” (as the Arab writers designate “ Fezzan”) the 
 
 countries of the date-palm : for Lybian archers and 
 Numidian cavalry are celebrated in history ; nor have the “ Moghiir- 
 ba” Arabs, under Abd-el-K&der, lost caste in military prowess. 1 he 
 number nine may be vague, as representative of “ a great many ;” 
 or specific, as to the tribes of Lybia (!) 
 
 Now phonetically, these characters readinCoptic, Niphaiat; whence 
 cutting off 7 ii, the plural, and suppressing the vowels, we obtain 
 Ph-t, or Phut, as the name whereby the children of Phut (son o ( 
 Ham) are known in history ! A bow, in Coptic, is likewise Phet. 
 In Jeremiah, Cush and Phut represent Africa. I can find no hiero- 
 glyphical instance, that the Phut are termed barbarians, which would 
 be natural, if they be the descendants of Mizraim’s brother; but I 
 
 am not positive on this head. 
 
 To avoid misconception, it behoves me to remark, that the hiero 
 glyphical name for Negroes, which is Kush, has no apparent relation 
 to Cush, the son of Ham. I shall expound, in my lectures, why 
 they are distinct, and how they have been confounded. The Cusn 
 of the Hebrews, as well as the Ethiopia, of our version, and of 
 Greek writers, is Antediluvian in date ; and is applied, with marvel- 
 lous indistinctness, to Egypt, Arabia Petraea, Nubia, Nigritia, Abys 
 sinia, Arabia Proper, Persia, Chusistan, Scythia, Bactria, Assyria, 
 India, and almost to every country of the Eastern-African, and Asi- 
 
42 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 ntic Continents. In hieroglyphics, Kush means exclusively African 
 races in general, and negroes in particular; as 
 
 “ Kush, barbarian country, perverse race.” 
 
 inscribed over Negro captives. 
 
 On the geographical distribution of the seven sons of Mizraim, 
 the liieroglyphical names of Egyptian localities have as yet shed no 
 light. Biblical commentators are not agreed, as to the precise terri. 
 tories of the Ludim, and the Lehabim ; but the latter are placed in 
 Lybia westward of Lower Egypt— possibly in the Cyrenaica ; and 
 the former are conjectured to have colonized the province of Mari- 
 otis. The Anamim are supposed to have occupied the Oases. The 
 Naphtuhim possessed the sea-coast of the Delta ; and were nautical 
 in their habits, if it be fair to derive the Greek ravdija (pronounced 
 NAphthys) and the Arabic “ Nobtee,” — sailor, from the Hebrew root. 
 
 As from the Casluhim proceeded the Philistim, they have been 
 placed, by some, on the eastern side of the Nile, near Lake Menza- 
 leh. To the Pathrusim has been assigned the Thebaid. 
 
 In hieroglyphics, the Lotus typified Upper, and the Papyrus, Lower 
 Egypt. 
 
 In Hebrew, the name of Upper Egypt was Pthrus, whence our 
 Pathros, from the root PTHR — “ to interpret dreams.” Now Up- 
 per Egypt, or the Thebaid, was the birth-place of mystic science, 
 and of initiation in occult mysteries — symbolized by the Lotus, typi- 
 cal of “celestial light,” as well as of the Thebaid, where science 
 originated. Again, in Hebrew, Lower Egypt was called Mtsur — 
 Egypt and Cairo are now termed Mussr — while the papyrus plant 
 furnished food to man, and may in consequence have indicated 
 “ the region of primitive agriculture such as must have been that 
 portion of the Nilotic valley to its first settlers. We have the au- 
 thority of Herodotus, that the papyrus was the first food, the primi- 
 tive aliment of the Egyptians; as likewise of Horus-Apollo, that 
 the papyrus meant, in hieroglyphics, “ the first nutriment of man,” 
 and “ the ancient origin of things.” Now the papyrus grew only in 
 Lower Egypt ; was the cheapest food of its former population, and 
 agriculture, with primitive social organization, began in Lower Egypt. 
 
 Thus does Hebrew confirm the symbols of the Egyptians. Be- 
 sides tracing in the word Mizraim, and explaining it by the transla- 
 tion of “ the two fortresses,” we reach other curious coincidences. 
 The singular number of Misraim, is Mlzur — embracing two roots, 
 mtse, meaning “ unleavened bread ;” and tsrr, signifying “ a bun- 
 dle,” or “ a roll of papyrus,” as used by scribes, symboiizing the 
 first food, and the ancient origin of things. 
 
 Now, unleavened bread — mtse — existed in the days of Moses, 
 Exodus xxii. 8, and other verses — no less than leavened bread, xiii. 
 3, 7. The Jews were an Arabian, and essentially a pastoral people, 
 before they settled in Canaan. Unleavened bread was the primitive 
 food of man, in the early stages of civilization, and before he learned 
 to leaven it. It was adopted by the Jews, on their departure 
 across the desert from Goshen, as the simplest mode of preparing 
 bread in the wilderness; and has ever been the daily food of the 
 Arabian nomad, the present Bddawee, who prepares a cake of flour 
 and water, bakes it with dried camel’s dung, and calls it “ Gobra- 
 8a.” The Hebrew lawgiver, when the Almighty ordained the Pass- 
 over, adopted the unleavened cake for his nomadic tribe. The 
 agricultural and civic institutions of the Egyptians, had previously 
 induced them to adopt as a symbol of civilization, (in contradistinc- 
 tion to the coarse unfermented aliment of the nomad,) the leavened 
 bread, expressed in hieroglyphics by /T\ the consecrated loaf ; 
 identical in shape with the consecrated cake of the Roman 
 
 and Eastern Churches ; and preserved, among us, in the hot. 
 
 cross-buns, sold on Good-Fridays, and on the Continent during 
 other festivals. Thus a clear distinction was permanently estab- 
 lished between Egyptian and Hebrew rites, between leavened and 
 unleavened bread. 
 
 The location of the Caphtorim is uncertain. It has been conjec- 
 tured that they were placed in the Delta, or near Pelusium, or in 
 Crete, or in Western Palestine- 
 
 Caphtor, has been ingeniously traced to Ai-Caphtor, or covered 
 land — possibly referring to the annual covering of Egypt by the wa- 
 ters of the Nilotic inundation. Hence, by elision, we obtain Ai- 
 capht, or Ai-copht; and, by transmution with Greek, “ AIyiirr”-o{, 
 Egypt; which may derive some confirmation from the Arabic, “Gypt” 
 or “ Gupt,” or “ Qooft,” in relation to our word Copt, the present na- 
 tive Christian population of that country. It is curious, that in San- 
 scrit, Egypt is termed Gupta.shan, covered land wherein we trace 
 the same root Gvpt ; no less than Cardama.shan, meaning mud 
 and. In Greek, Aigyptos, often means the Nile itself. 
 
 The ancient classical name, Aeria, which is traceable to dfip, de. 
 noting obscurity and darkness, in reference to the color of Egyptian 
 alluvium (as in Scripture, “ the darkness of Egypt”) has not been 
 found in hieroglyphics ; but I tnink it derivable Aom the roots of Ra, 
 Ouro, Aur; explained in the previous chapter, as referring to Phre, 
 the sun, the solar deity of Egypt. 
 
 Much of the above, in regard to the original geographical distri- 
 bution of the sons of Mizraim, is problematical. I should not have 
 alluded to the children of Mizram, were it not essential to prove by 
 negatives (when the absolute silence of Scripture leaves no better 
 argument,) that there is nothing in the Bible, which compels us to 
 carry the first settlers in Egypt very far up the Nile : but, on the con 
 trary, that in the opinion of the best biblical commentators, only one 
 son of Mizraim (head of the Pathrusim) is supposed to have ascended 
 the river as far as the Thebaid ; while all the other brethren set- 
 tled in Lower Egypt, Lower Lybia, the Delta, and the land of Go- 
 shen toward Palestine. 
 
 There is then no biblical ground for supposing that Ham’s imme- 
 diate family ascended the banks of the Nile, even as far as the first 
 Cataract ; and this is but reasonable, when we reflect, that the mid- 
 dle and the lower provinces offered inducements to agricultural tribes, 
 incomparably superior to any that could be found above the The- 
 baid, in Nubia, or in Ethiopia, as far as Nigritia in the 15th parallel 
 of latitude. There is every scriptural reason to suppose Lower 
 Egypt the territory first colonized by the family of Ham, on their pri- 
 meval migration from Assyria to the Nilotic valley, which will be 
 found in strict accordance with monumental evidence. 
 
 It has been shown, that there was no curse on Ham, or on Miz- 
 raim. We know, that the curse on Canaan affected him morally, 
 and not physically. We have seen, that Shent, Ham and Japheth, 
 were of one blood as brothers. We have learned that Shem and 
 Ham were twin brothers. We know, that Shem, the parent of Sem- 
 itic nations, and Japheth, the parent of Circassian tribes, were 
 Caucasians. It follows therefore, that Ham was a Caucasian also, 
 and so were all his children, and Mizraim in particular, when hn> 
 entered Egypt. 
 
 It is our part now to prove, that not time, nor circumstance, nor 
 climate, effected any palpable change, or physical alteration, in their 
 progeny; and that Ham’s lineal descendants, the Egyptians, were all 
 pure blooded Caucasians, from the earliest to the latest Pharaonic 
 epoch — modified in the Upper Nilotic provinces by the admixture of 
 exotic Austro-Egyptian (that is, as Dr. Morton explains, by com- 
 pound Semitico-Hindoo and equally Caucasian) blood ; and this was 
 strictly the fact, except in incidental and individual intermixture with 
 the African races of Berbers and Negroes in those provinces to Ethi- 
 opia adjacent. This latter commingling, however, appears to have 
 but partially affected the gross of Egyptian population of Asiatic ori 
 gin ; and to have been no more visible, (probably still less so) among 
 the Pharaonic Egypto-Caucasian family, than it is now discern- 
 ible among the Felldhs, of the lower and middle provinces of the 
 present day. 
 
 On the dubious authority of the Greeks, and their pupils the Ro- 
 mans, it has been and is still asserted, that at the early period of 
 which we are treating — that of primeval migrations — Lower Egypt 
 was an “uninhabitable marsh;” and, therefore, that Upper Egypt 
 must have been settled first. Nay, Herodotus and Diodorus main- 
 tain, that Ethiopia, above the cataracts, was the cradle of the ancient 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Bryant, who, by the way, frequently breathes “ the word of promise 
 to the ear, and breaks it to the hope,” has judiciously remarked, that 
 “ among many learned men, who have betaken themselves to these 
 researches, I have hardly met with one that has duly considered the 
 situation, distance, and natural history of the places about which they 
 treat and, on applying his observation to the points at issue, it will 
 be found wonderfully pertinent. 
 
 From the poetic era of Homer, down to the sentimentalism of the 
 present age, it has been fashionable, to take much for granted on 
 Egyptian subjects, of which a sober and practical investigation of the 
 facts would at once have exposed the fallacy. These chapters and 
 my future lectures are specially directed to the removal of the more 
 prominent instances of ancient or modern misconception. My opin- 
 ions are the result of some study, and comparison of the most distin- 
 guished authorities. I have had opportunities of which I have gladly 
 availed myself, for hearing many of these questions canvassed in Egypt, 
 by some of the most critical observers of the day, often standing on the 
 very spots under discussion. Much have I verified in personal trav- 
 els, and through favorite occupations, during a sojourn prolonged in 
 that country for the greater part of twenty-three years. When, 
 therefore, I make a confident assertion, it isnotdone rashly, nor with 
 some acquaintance with the matter, nor without abundance of evi- 
 dence in reserve for its support. 
 
 Among the illusions consecrated by the halo of ages, there is none 
 so singular, and that strikes any one who has traversed the Nomes 
 or Provinces of Egypt, in their length and breadth, as more unac- 
 countable and inconceivable with the array of natural facts presented 
 to hint, than the statement, that the Delta of Egypt is of recent date ; 
 or otherwise, that its formation has taken place within any period, to 
 which even tradition may carry us. To adopt the language of Sir 
 J. G. Wilkinson, whose critical investigation of every subject and 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 
 locality of that country during some twelve years of actual sojourn, 
 has led him to the most accurate conclusions, “ we are led to the 
 necessity of allowing an immeasurable time for the total formation of 
 that space, which to judge from the very little accumulation of its 
 soil, and the small distance it has encroached on the sea, since the 
 erection of the ancient cities within it, would require ages, and throw 
 back its origin far beyond the deluge, or even the Mosaic era of the 
 Creation.” 
 
 So thoroughly, indeed, has Sir J. G. Wilkinson demonstrated this , 
 fact, that, were it desirable to enter into details, the most convincing 
 method would be to extract from pages 5 to 11 of his first, and from 
 pages 105 to 121 of his fourth volume, of “ Manners and Customs 
 of the Ancient Egyptians.” But, since the curious can readily peruse 
 this eminent work for themselves, I perform an agreeable duty in 
 referring to his statement, adding at the same time an expression of 
 my admiration of its accuracy. The following axioms will then be 
 arrived at : 
 
 1st. That the Delta is as old as the flood, and was as inhabitable 
 when Ham’s children entered Egypt, as it is in those parts which 
 are peopled at the present hour. In fact, owing to the constant rise 
 of the bed of the river being more rapid than that of the soil on its 
 banks, the Delta and Lower Egypt arc probably more marshy now, 
 than at any previous period. 
 
 2nd. That, to the south of the Delta, the perpendicular rise of the 
 bed of the Nile extends the inundation and alluvial deposit much 
 farther, in a horizontal and lateral direction, East and West, at the 
 present day, than was the case at any anterior period — that this pro. 
 cess has always been in operation — and that there is now a wider 
 extent of superficies overflowed and irrigated by the inundation than 
 at any former time. 
 
 3d. That the exaggerated andridiculous stories, about the encroach- 
 ment of sand on the arable soil of Egypt, deserve no attention; for, on 
 the contrary, whatever injury the sand may have here and there effected 
 (that is, at Rosetta, Beni-saltime, the pyramids, Behnesa, and Aboo- 
 eimbel) the number of square miles of inundated alluvium has always 
 been, and will ever be, on the increase, so long as similar causes operate 
 to produce similar effects. 
 
 4th. That the celebrated Oases, to the westward of Egypt, are not 
 "fertile spots in the midst of a sandy plain;” but depressions in the 
 lofty table-land of Africa, where, in the absence of the superincum- 
 bent limestone strata, the water has the power of rising to the surface. 
 
 5th. That the desert is not a dreary plain of sand, which has over- 
 whelmed a once fertile country, whose only vestiges are the “iso- 
 lated gardens of the Oases,” but a high table-land of limestone, sand- 
 stone, granite and other rocks, according to locality; broken and in- 
 terrupted by alternate elevations and depressions: where, when not 
 on the top of the table-rock itself, you travel in ravines, defiles, and 
 spaces, on hard gravel, upon which your tread often leaves no trail ; 
 and where frequently you are truly delighted, as the shades of even- 
 ing warn you to search for a bivouack, if you can find as much sand 
 as will make under your carpet a Bddawee’s mattress. The Isthmus 
 of Suez, and those already-named places, which the casual Anglo- 
 Indian hurries over in his explorative transit, are exceptions to the 
 above rule, for very simple reasons. 
 
 The fanciful accounts of caravans’ being overwhelmed by sands 
 in the desert, would be too puerile to deserve attention, did not those 
 paragons of observers, Herodotus and Strabo, Paul Lucas and Mr. 
 St. John (who confine their knowledge to the half-mile strip of sand 
 between the cultivated soil and the desert, or “Hdgar,” stone) per- 
 petuate the delusion. Strabo, like some later travellers, must have 
 braved great dangers during his voyage 1 and, even now, we read 
 about wonderful escapes and miraculous preservations from a Si- 
 mod m ! The army of Cambyses is said to have been swallowed up 
 by waves of sand. It would be a phenomenon in physics to see one 
 of such waves. Others, besides the writer, who are still alive to tell 
 the tale, have been out in the wilderness during the worst Si- 
 mooms that ever blew, and found them disagreeable enough ; but, 
 having abundance of water at hand, they sat down under the lee of 
 anything they could find — (camels kneeling down afford as much 
 shelter as ri necessary) and, without a shadow of apprehension, suf- 
 fered the blast to blow over with its cloud, not of sand, but of hot, 
 impalpable, though penetrating dust. 
 
 No aerial force having the power of raising waves of sand, there 
 never was, during a Simoom or Khdmeseen, the slightest danger 
 from anv motion ot the sands of the desert. If a man, during these 
 hot winds, be remote from pools or springs, and the skins which con- 
 tain water for his beverage break, or are dried up, then he will per- 
 ish from thirst, his drought being aggravated by the parching heat ot 
 a lurid atmosphere. Consequently, where caravans have perished in 
 the desert, from causes not originating in man himself, they have 
 died, after losing their way, from hunger and thirst; as did the army 
 of Cambyses, after encountering the arrows of the “ nine bows” of 
 Lybia. As the animals fall, the light particles of dust or fine sand- 
 drift accumulate with the obstruction, and may sometimes bury the 
 carcass ; but this is so rare, that, when occasionally in journeying 
 over the desert, you pass the skeleton of a camel, you often regret, 
 that there was not sand enough to screen the unpleasing relic from 
 your view. 
 
 The desert, the sand, the Simoom, the Khtimeseen, with all their 
 
 fabulous horrors, alarm not the Arab who has plenty of water: and 
 to a hale European, are infinitely more appalling in a book of 
 travels, than when encountering the acme of their disagreeables m the 
 Sahara itself. To those who love clear skies, pure air, often beau, 
 tiful, ever romantic scenery, there is a charm in desert- life, that can 
 be felt, but not described. 
 
 Finally, there is no danger in the deseit at any time, (save now 
 and then, from man, who, even there is much belied) provided the 
 wayfarer has food and water (without which he could not exist in 
 Eden,) and, as for the dangers of a Simoom, in comparison with those 
 of a snow-storm in the Highlands of Scotland, among the Alpine 
 crags of Switzerland, or on the northwestern prairies of America, 
 they are not to be mentioned in the same breath. 
 
 These subjects afford ample room for prolixity, but being at present 
 irrelevant, I apologize for the digression. Let us return to Lower 
 Egypt, the pristine seat of Ham’s descendants. 
 
 Positive levels demonstrate to us, that when the Delta was an “arm 
 of the sea,” or even “an uninhabitable marsh,” Asia and Africa were 
 separate Continents, and the Red Sea flowed into the Mediterranean 
 In those days the Mokattam hills behind Cairo, and the opposite Ly- 
 bian chain, whereon now stand the eternal pyramids, (if those hills 
 were then in existence) stood out, into the sea, bold capes and prom, 
 ontories. The nearest points of either Continent would have been 
 Gcbel Attaka on the African, to Gebel Ein Mbosa on the Asiatic side, 
 at the present apex of the Red Sea, distant from each other about 
 thirty miles. While, on each Continent, sterile rocks were all, that 
 for hundreds of miles, were out of the water. 
 
 The same geological transitions that caused the recession of the 
 waters, and upheaved the narrow slip which now connects Africa 
 with Asia, burst asunder the basaltic barriers of W&dee Haifa, rifted 
 the granite portals of Syene, opened the sandstone gateways of Had- 
 jar Silsilis, separated the limestone ranges of the eastern and western 
 hills, and by forming the Valley of the Nile, allowed the “sacred 
 river” to pour along the narrow channel its ever fertilizing stream. 
 Then was the alluvial soil of Upper Egypt begun, and eventually 
 formed, simultaneously with the Delta — one did not exist without the 
 other : and until the alluvial deposite had been made, there was no 
 soil throughout the land of Egypt, or in Ethiopian latitudes, but all 
 was hard rock, unfit for man’s abode. 
 
 The periods of these events are geological, their latest epoch is 
 diluvian; but the alluvium had to be formed, before man could inhabit 
 the “ land of the Sycamore.” 
 
 The geology of the Isthmus of Suez and of the adjacent deserts, 
 with their oyster beds, and petrified forests; their vitrified rocks of 
 sandstone upon limestone, and their porphyry upheavings; their erratic 
 blocks, and argillaceous strata; presents a mass of conflicting irregu- 
 larities, from the dilemmas of which it would require the analyzing 
 hand of a Lyell to extricate us ; but, amid the chaos, one point is 
 certain, which is, that when Ham’s children came from Asia into 
 Egypt, their journey was by land from Assyria through Palestine, and 
 across the Suez desert — that they found Lower Egyp , and the Delta 
 as inhabitable then, and as suited to agriculture, in proportion to tho 
 alluvium then existing in the upper country, as they are now — that if 
 the Delta had little soil, there was then still less above — and that all 
 scriptural commentators agree in distributing the sons of Mizraim 
 over this lower tract ; whence, as population increased, their progeny 
 spread themselves in suitable directions, according to circumstances 
 by us unknown, but actuated by motives probably to them expedient. 
 
 “ Dato il caso, e non concesso;” let us for a moment suppose, that 
 Lower Egypt, on the immigration of Mizraim, was a marsh. Let us 
 concede, that there was a macadamized road from Palestine to the 
 Mokattam at Cairo: and let it be, fora moment allowed, that Miz- 
 raim, his wife and children ascended at once to the first Cataract. 
 Where shall we place them ? where shall we find alluvial soil and 
 vegetation, in a land in which these primary principles were entirely 
 wanting ? that is ; for all pastoral, and still more for agricultural pur- 
 poses? For when the Delta was a marsh, there was not six feet 
 breadth of soil above Hadjar Silsilis ; but all was barren rock. 
 
 However, we will suppose that onward they plod their weary way, 
 (as did those Cushites 1 who, by some are said to have come from 
 Babel, through Asia, across Behring’s Straits, into North America, 
 as far as Mexico, and onward to Peru,) taking their provisions with 
 them. Mizraim had to bring from Palestine to the Mokattam, a dis- 
 tance of at least 300 miles, sufficient for his family and his flocks, and 
 thence to convey his commissariat CIO miles farther to Syene. It 
 being useless to remain amid granite rocks, they are hence carried 
 onward into Nubia. Now, in Lower Nubia, eve.n at the present day, 
 there is not soil enough to support its sparse and frugal population of 
 “ Barabera.” Yet, their provisions being abundant (probably her- 
 metically sealed,) after a march of 220 miles more to the second Cata 
 ract, and not discouraged in the least, by the howling wilderness 
 they “go ahead;” and after a couple of hundred miles, thev find wha’ 
 are now the plains of Dongola, but which were then rather more 
 rocky than alluvial. “ Rebus angustis animosus” &,c., Mizraim, 
 nothing daunted, after a march of 200 miles (for he had to follow the 
 river to obtain water) finally reaches the far-famed “ Isle of Meroc in 
 Ethiopia.” We will suppose this spot to have been a terrestrial para- 
 dise at that time, whatever it be now, and it is about as fertile as Lower 
 Nubia. Here, after a weary tramp from Palestine of above 1500 
 
44 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 
 miles (performed with as much rapidity as the children and flocks 
 allowed,) Mizraim and his family settle and here they multiply. 
 
 As Mizraim and his children were all Caucasians at first start, in 
 order to change their skins from white to black, their hair to wool, 
 and to alter their osteology, “ through the effects of climate,” time at 
 least must be allowed. Who will define the necessary period for 
 these radical changes ? Never mind — we grant every facility. Let 
 countless generations transpire. Let them become Negroes, or Ber- 
 bers, in race. Let them reach the acme of civilization. Let them 
 surpass Dahomey ; outrival Ashantee ; become as intellectual as 
 Hottentots — as philanthropical as Tuarieks — as constructive as Tib- 
 boos. Let them build the pyramids of Meroe, Gebel Birkal, and 
 Noori — which done, let them come down the Nile again, to build 
 the pyramids of Memphis and cover Egypt with stupendous struc- 
 tures ; a perfect, and essentially a civilized community ; to confirm 
 Herodotus, and his Egyptian applications, of /j£\ayxpni; sal oi\6rpixci 
 “ black in complexion, and wooly-haired”* to be called also M:X«^ird- 
 iav — “the black-footed;” or more appropriately, “ the long-heeled 
 race.” On their arrival in Lower Egypt, the Delta, of course, is no 
 longer a marsh; and having waited for its formation, they cover it 
 with cities. 
 
 Let them, I repeat, perform all of these impossibilities, and then 
 they are no longer Africans in Egypt. A miracle (of which we have 
 no record) has metamorphosed them again into Caucasians. 
 
 It does seem odd, if not unnecessary, to make the Asiatic and Cau- 
 casian Mizraimites at once proceed up the Nile, 1500 miles to Meroe; 
 there to study and improve and sojourn, until the wonderful eftects 
 of climate should transmute them into Africans ; and then, after 
 countless generations, to lead them back into Egypt, and there wit- 
 ness their transition into pure white men, in a climate where no 
 Ethiopian ever changed his skin ! 
 
 And we must make all these changes in far less than one thousand 
 years : that is, we start with Ham and Mizraim as Caucasians ; we 
 transport them from Assyria into Ethiopia, and watch their transition 
 into Negroes, or Berbers, by the effects of climate, and under the 
 vaguest extent of time : we perfect them as such, and doat upon the 
 sable or dusky philosophers, who are to instruct Moses, and civilize 
 the Greeks. We then bring them back into Egypt, and by magic as 
 it were, transmute these Negroes or Berbers, again into pure white 
 men, or Caucasians, such as every Egyptian was. We must accom- 
 plish all this between Mizraim and Abraham — in a space of about 
 100 years, by the Hebrew version; of about 500 by the Septuagint. 
 On Egyptian monuments (as I shall prove by facsimile copies) we 
 find the Negro and the Berber, painted prior to 1500, B. C., as per- 
 fectly distinct from the Egyptian natives, as an Anglo-Saxon is from 
 a Chimpansee. If four thousand years have not had the slightest 
 effect in whitening Negroes, how much change of color could have 
 been accomplished in one-eighth of the time ? 
 
 What should we say, if such a doctrine were maintained in defi- 
 ance of Scripture, of nature, and of fact ? We should disdain to regard 
 such nonsense ; and yet such is precisely the course we must pur- 
 sue, if Ham be the father of the Egyptians, and the Egyptians de- 
 scended the Nile from Ethiopia into Egypt. Such is precisely what 
 must have occurred, if we believe Herodotus, Diodorus, and their 
 Roman plagiarists ; and such is, in fine, the analysis of the Ethiopian 
 origin of the Egyptians, if we pretend to believe the Bible. I will 
 cast ethnography to the winds ; I will discard chronology as a dream ; 
 but even then, I confess my inability to comprehend, or to accept, 
 such a tissue of absurdities, if not profanations. 
 
 However, with Genesis for our guide in human primeval migra- 
 tions, with the Septuagint chronology as our limit, and the Delta an 
 inhabitable province, at the time of Mizraim’s arrival from the plain=’ 
 of Shinar ; it will be seen, that Egyptian monumental history coin- 
 cides — that, where Scripture is silent, other lights are now obtain- 
 able — and that, if a blank intervenes between Mizraim and Abra- 
 ham’s visit, the Septuagint gives a period of about 550 years : to fill 
 which, we have a mass of materials. Turn now to Archbishop 
 Usher’s chronology, and take note, that between Mizraim and Abra- 
 ham, we have to condense all the events into a space not exceeding 
 200 years ; when there could not have been 100,000 inhabitants on all 
 the earth, according to any reasonable statistical calculation ; where- 
 as, if Abraham’s birth be placed at more than 1000 years after the 
 Flood, a period has been allowed for the propagation of mankind, 
 which, at least, is more reasonable, no less than more orthodox. 
 However, it is sufficient for me to acknowledge Ham and Mizraim 
 to be the progenitors of the Egyptians. On the epoch of the latter’s 
 immigration, I have not the presumption to decide. It is enough 
 that it took effect, at an adequate lapse of time after the Deluge, and 
 yet sufficiently remote from Menes, the first Pharaoh of Egypt, to 
 admit all relative preparatory events : and as, on Egypt, the Bible 
 is silent for many centuries, we may legitimately look to other sources 
 for information. 
 
 The authority of Sir J. G. Wilkinson, on the antiquity of the 
 Delta, is supported by that of all scientific gentlemen of present 
 times in Egypt, whose occupations, as surveyors and engineers, enable 
 them to corroborate this view by mathematical demonstration. By 
 
 * l give the generally accepted translation, though aware that it will bear some modi- 
 fication, by going back to the Greek roots. Melamoodon probablv refers to leet black- 
 ened by the Nilotic alluvium. 
 
 casual observers, like the writer and other old residents whose mi. 
 gratory and sporting habits take them into places where the mere 
 traveller never dreams of going, this doctrine is implicitly believed, 
 as agreeing with all their personal experience. We shall have occa- 
 sion to return to the inundation of the river, and its prolific alluvium ; 
 but, at present, attention is expressly solicited to the following asser- 
 tion, viz : that the Delta and Lower Egypt, having existed almost in 
 their present physical state, since the remotest limit of known time, 
 there was no obstacle of an aquatic or marshy nature, to preclude 
 the immediate settlement of the first immigrants from Asia, in any 
 portion thereof, that is by man inhabitable at the present hour. 
 
 Lower Egypt and the Delta, the western province of Bohbyreh, 
 and the “ land of Goshen” — now the Sharkeeyeh, or eastern prov- 
 ince — of yore the Tamtic and Bubastite nomes — containing the rich- 
 est portions of the alluvium, and blessed by the finest climate of the 
 Valley, would present to any new colony, agricultural or pastoral, 
 inducements to sojourn wathin their area, superior to any that could 
 be met with after passing Middle Egypt, or the Heptanomide. 
 
 As from the Thebaid, you proceed upward along the Nile about 
 Hadjar Silsilis, the features of the country on either bank undergo a 
 change, from fertility to unfruitfulness, from alluvial to hard rock, 
 from cultivation to sterility : nor can it be said that any incitements 
 to agriculturists, or any resources for abundant population, exist be- 
 tween Hadjar Silsilis in lat. 25, and Khart ohm about lat. 15, com- 
 parable in value to those infinitely superior advantages to be found 
 below the Thebaid ; and which increase in the exact ratio of your 
 descent from Ethiopia to the Mediterranean. 
 
 Between Hadjar Silsilis, where the sandstone formations rise per- 
 pendicularly from the very edge of the river, and where the Nile is 
 compressed into its narrowest Egyptian channel, and Khartobm — the 
 juncture of the Bithr-el-kbiad, or White Nile, with the Bkhr-el-kz- 
 rek, or Blue Nile — there is a length of some 600 miles, as the crow 
 flies, and probably 1000 by the windings of the river. 
 
 In this space, population is now, and ever has been, sparse ; with 
 propensities more or less nomadic, and driven by natural causes to he 
 rather pastoral than agricultural. If all communication of the in- 
 habitants of this line, with the Egyptians on the north, and with the 
 Nigritian nations on the south, were cut off ; the mass of an abund- 
 ant population would perish from starvation, as it would be impos. 
 sible for them to raise a sufficiency of food for their sustenance. 
 Certain spots, of no great extent, are, however, fertile, and may sup- 
 port a population in direct proportion to their alluvial superficies. 
 Such a spot was the Isle of Meroe in ancient days. But to suppose 
 that, even thereon, the alluvial soil was ever so extensive as to fur- 
 nish food for one million of inhabitants, would be contrary to geo. 
 logical evidences, as well as to statistical facts. 
 
 About Khartobm, and upward through Sennkar, the country could 
 be rendered extremely prolific, if a radical change were effected in 
 the governing power ; but, within a few decades of miles to the 
 southward, commence the dense forests and rank vegetation of cen- 
 tral Africa, with its inland seas, its annual rains — territories that are, 
 and for more than four thousand years have been, inhabited solely 
 by Negro races ; where no living White man has ever penetrated 
 500 miles ; and whence the White Nile transmits, from unknown 
 sources, its ever-bountiful, ever-welcome floods. On these latitudes, 
 all we can say is, that we literally know nothing ; but, we may rea- 
 sonably infer much ; and conjecture anything we please. No hierolo. 
 gist doubts, that the Pharaonic governments of Egypt were better 
 acquainted with Nigritia 3,500 years ago, than any geographers of 
 modern times, who have gone little beyond the legendary fragments 
 bequeathed to us, 2000 years ago, by Eratosthenes. 
 
 Now Meroe, we are well aware, was a powerful state ; and,atonetime, 
 gave a dynasty of kings to Egypt ; but this was an accidental occur- 
 rence, of brief duration, and in ages long posterior to primeval epochs 
 
 Here pyramids attest remote antiquity. Temples bear witness of 
 later grandeur. But the Isle of Meroe itself was no “ officina gen- 
 tium” — no laboratory of nations. It held a small community. Its 
 alluvial soil could merely support a population commensurate with 
 its area, and both were small. Immigration created its social struc- 
 ture — Commerce supported its vitality and protracted its duration — • 
 Religion sanctified its inhabitants, and protected their trade. Yet, 
 notwithstanding all these attributes, Meroe bore no more relation in 
 military strength, mass of population, or physical power, to Egypt ; 
 than to the latter country was borne by the Oasis of Sekwah, the 
 templed sanctuary of Jupiter Ammon. 
 
 In fact, between Meroe and the Oasis the case is parallel. Both 
 were fertile spots, of limited area, in the midst of deserts — wilder- 
 nesses, affording secure retreats to wild and varied tribes of nomads. 
 Both were equally exposed to their inroads : with this immense ad- 
 vantage in favor of Meroe, that she possessed water-communication 
 southward and northward ; and that, from her geographical position 
 in relation to Abyssinia, whence journeyed Hindostanic and Arabian 
 commerce ; to Nigritia, whence gold, and slaves, and African pio. 
 ductions swelled her marts ; to Lybia, whither flowed the commercial 
 stream toward Carthage and Europe ; and to Egypt, as her presiding 
 genius, and “ministering angel,” she had resources, of which the 
 Oasis could only partially partake. 
 
 Geographical position rendered both of them the concentrating 
 points for the divergences of commerce, and the transit of free trade 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 45 
 
 — made them the connecting links of vast countries, which were 
 separated from each other by wildernesses of great extent. The 
 political foresight of the ruling powers of Meroe and of the Oasis, 
 made Religion the instrument of that control and dominion, which 
 were denied to them by the limited number of their inhabitants, and 
 the paucity of their respective inherent resources. And the roving 
 Bisharree, the single-minded* Berber, the predatory Arab, and the 
 Lybian archer, acknowledged the moral sway of the wise and sacred 
 hierophants — flew to arms at their bidding to defend the temples, or 
 to harry a foe — spared the caravans, traversing their native wastes, 
 out of pious respect, and superstitious fear, of the sacerdotal guardi- 
 ans of commerce — and spell-bound, as it were, by the moral domin- 
 ion of superior wisdom, cringed beneath the dictates of the “ high 
 priests of Amitn-Ra.” 
 
 It was not from their fertility, which was partial ; it was not from 
 their military force, which was insignificant ; it was not from their 
 population, which on their cultivable area was unimportant ; it was 
 not from the inherent resources of their territory, which were inade- 
 quate — that Meroe and the Oasis, rose supreme over the wilderness, 
 and ruled with despotic sway over the tribes of men to each respec- 
 tively adjacent; but, from the political wisdom of their respective 
 governments. And, of what race were these sages, these deep- 
 thinking politicians ? I answer, they were Caucasians ; they were 
 white men ; they were Egyptians — the high-caste descendants of 
 Ham, the Asiatic ! and their dominion over the varied nations, by 
 whom they were surrounded, proceeded from the mental and physical 
 superiority of the Caucasian over ail African aborigines. 
 
 These Caucasians founded a pontificate at Meroe, and at the Oasis, 
 originating in the same hierarchal doctrine, and supported by its ties 
 with, and affiliations proceeding from, the founders of Thebes and 
 of Memphis. Its sway was based upon the same political principles 
 which have, through so many centuries, preserved Christian Rome, 
 and not upon physical importance. The sources were political fore- 
 thought, and intellectual discrimination ; its duration proceeded from 
 their utility to the happiness of man, and was consecrated by their 
 judicious and salutary protection of man’s material interests. By a 
 silken web confining his physical powers of resistance, while by a 
 moral influence it secured his obedience. 
 
 When, therefore, Meroe and the Oasis arose, it became the inte- 
 rest of every neighboring tribe and individual, to preserve institu- 
 tions so beneficial to the prosperity of commerce, so conducive to 
 the interchange of social relations : nor did Meroe expire, till the 
 doctrine changed, after a duration of 3000 years. 
 
 I am perfectly aware of all the views that have been put forth by 
 the learned Von Heeren, on these subjects; and owe many of my 
 conclusions to the light derived from him, and others ; but hiero- 
 glyphical and craniological discoveries have served to dissipate some 
 of their positions. That beautiful fabric of Professor Heeren, so 
 astoundingly constructed from such crude materials, is correct in 
 system ; but, in regard to Meroe, its application is now reversed ; for, 
 instead of appertaining to primeval periods, it was not consolidated 
 till some TOO B. C. ; and we are discussing subjects anteceding this 
 date by twenty centuries. 
 
 It is said by Diodorus, that Egypt held about eight millions of 
 population, from the 1st Cataract to the sea. At present, owing to 
 the benign rule of Mohammed Ali, there are less than two millions. 
 In Nubia, Dongola, Meroe, as far as Khartobm, it seems questionable, 
 if, including the nomads of the adjacent deserts, there ever were as 
 ma.,y as one million of inhabitants. At present, there are less. 
 Even these must look to Egypt, or Nigritia, for the bulk of aliment ; 
 for there is not alluvium enough in these regions now, whereon to 
 raise a sufficiency of substance, from Asswhn to Khartobm. And 
 yet, every year the Nile has brought down additional soil, so that the 
 alluvium is greater now than formerly. Meroe was a' province of 
 Egypt for 2000 years ; for, how could the Pharaonic armies have 
 conquered Negro nations without passing by Meroe? Armies in 
 Ethiopia must follow the river ; else they can find no sufficiency of 
 water ; and following the river, to reach Negro nations, not nearer 
 to Egypt than lat. 15, they must unavoidably have passed by Meroe. 
 Negros are not a migratory race in Ethiopic latitudes, and only come 
 northward by compulsion. 
 
 We have gone as deeply as was necessary into the subject before 
 us to show, that the case of Meroe is parallel with that of the Oasis. 
 No one, I presume, will think it possible that the original source of 
 the Egyptians was at the Oasis of Seewah. Scripturally, ethno. 
 graphically, geologically, philologically, geographically, historically, 
 and monumentally, it is as unreasonable to make Meroe in Ethiopia 
 the birth-place of the Egyptians. It is vain to quote Herodotus or Dio- 
 dorus, Eiatosthenes or Strabo, on questions whereon they could learn 
 but little, inasmuch as the events precede them by 2000 years. With 
 these classical writers, as with some others in modern times, it has 
 been customary to take “ omne ignotum pro magnifico. ” 
 
 Sufficient has been said, to evince the stand we take in early Egyp- 
 tian history, in order that we may not find ourselves behind the age in 
 the continual progress of discovery ; and, in the same mode that we as- 
 serted that the Delta was inhabitable at the time of Mizraim’s arrival 
 so now we still maintain, that Mero e and Ethiopia were unqualified’ 
 
 * Terme<| , derision, by the Arabs, “ Aboo-*hu K le-wahe ; )”-fatl,ers of one job-in 
 consequence of their national stolidity, and their inability to entertain more than one 
 idea at a time. 
 
 geographically and geologically, to nurture the primeval parents of the 
 noble race, whom we now know to have been high-caste Caucasians. 
 
 A point has been reached in this exposition, where, before pro- 
 ceeding further, it is imperative on me to acknowledge the source, 
 whence I derive these views of primeval Nilotic history ; and it is 
 with cheerful readiness that I indicate my valued friend, Dr Samuel 
 Geo. Morton, of Philadelphia, as my authority for the positive de- 
 monstration of the Caucasian race, and Asiatic origin of the ancient 
 Egyptians. 
 
 Under the title of “ Crania iEgyptiaca,’ has appeared from Dr. Mor- 
 ton’s pen, a memoir, wherein the Caucasian race of the early Pha- 
 raonic Egyptians is, for the first time, demonstrated, by a mass of 
 craniological, anatomical, historical and monumental evidence. 1 
 have had the full advantage of Dr. Morton’s revision of whatever on 
 this subject is herein advanced ; while, so far as my name may be 
 associated with the “Crania EEgyptiaca,” it need only be said that 1 
 derive the original idea, all the craniological facts in its support, and 
 by far the greater portion of the argument herein put forward, from 
 
 the perusal of this work no less than from these sub 
 
 jects having, for six years, formed the substance of much epistolary 
 intercourse, and for many months, the constant theme of conversa- 
 tions between its author and myself. 
 
 Were it not for the conviction, thus acquired from the incontro- 
 vertible array of facts set forth in the “ Crania iEgyptiaca,” (fact3 
 hitherto unpublished by any writer in the world ; and, with the ex- 
 ception of Sir. J. G. Wilkinson and one or two others, heretofore 
 contested by all hieroglyphical authorities,) I should not have ven- 
 tured to take up against the opinions of learned and unlearned, the 
 subject of the Caucasian race of the Egyptians; but reposing in con- 
 fidence upon the labors of one so eminently qualified to decide, I am 
 not apprehensive of the consequences in the minds of those who 
 will peruse the work thu3 announced. Furthermore, its author is 
 not responsible for any deviations from his views I may, perhaps 
 erroneously, have adopted. 
 
 To show, however, that an adequate foundation exists for the novel 
 assertions 1 have made, I extract from the ’’Crania /Egyptian a, a few 
 paragraphs which may serve to illustrate the views of the author of 
 that work ; merely premising that the heads employed in Dr. Mor- 
 ton’s researches, were obtained by me from seven sepulchral local- 
 ities in Egypt and Nubia. 
 
 Dr. Morton remarks, that the entire series of one hundred crania 
 “ may be referred to two of the great races of men, the Caucasian 
 and the Negro, although there is a remarkable disparity in the 
 number of each. The Caucasian heads also vary so much among 
 themselves as to present several different types of this race, which 
 rqay, perhaps, be appropriately grouped under the following desig- 
 nations : — 
 
 CAUCASIAN RACE. 
 
 “ 1. The fPe/asgic Type. In this division I place those heads 
 which present the finest conformation, as seen in the Caucasian na- 
 tions of western Asia, and middle and southern Europe. The 
 Pelasgic lineaments are familiar to us in the beautiful models of 
 Grecian art, which are remarkable for the volume of the head in 
 comparison with that of the face, the large facial angle, and the 
 symmetry and delicacy of the whole osteological structure. 
 
 “2. The Semitic Type, as seen in the Hebrew communities, is 
 marked by a comparatively receding forehead, long, arched and 
 very prominent nose, a marked distance between the eyes, a low, 
 heavy’, broad and strong and often harsh development of the whole 
 facial structure. 
 
 “3. The Egyptian form differs from the Pelasgic in having a nar- 
 rower and more receding forehead, while the lace being more prom- 
 inent, the facial angle is consequently less. The nose is straight 
 or aquiline, the face angular, the features often sharp, and the hair 
 uniformly long, soft, and curling. 
 
 NEGRO RACE. 
 
 “ The true Negro conformation requires no comment; but it is 
 necessary to observe that a practised eye readily detects a few heads 
 with decidedly mixed characters, in which those of the Negro pre- 
 dominate. For these I propose the names of Negroid crania; for 
 while the osteological development is more or less that of the Negro, 
 the hair is long, but sometimes harsh, thus indicating that combina- 
 tion of features which is familiar in the mulatto grades of the pres- 
 ent day. 
 
 “ The following is a Tabular View of the whole series of crania, 
 arranged, in the first place, according to their sepulchral localities, 
 and in the second, in reference to their national affinities.” The 
 Table speaks for itself. “It shows that mote than eight tenths of 
 the crania pertain to the unmixed Caucasian race ; that the Pelas- 
 gic form is as one to one and two thirds, and the Semitic form one 
 to eight, compared to the Egyptian : that one twentieth of the whole 
 is composed of heads in which there is a trace of Negro and other 
 exotic lineage; that the Negroid conformation exists in eight in- 
 
 *Crania /Egyptiaca, or Observations on Egyptian Ethnography, 
 derived from Anatomy, History and the Monuments. By Samuel 
 George Morton, M 1). 4to Philadelphia, 1844, J. Penington. 
 
 “ fl do not use this term with ethnographic precision; but mere- 
 ly to indicate the most perfect type of cranio-fucial outline.” 
 
46 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 ttances, thus constituting about one twentieth part of the whole ; 
 and finally, that the series contains a single unmixed N egro.” 
 
 “Ethnographic Table of one hundred ancient Egyptian Crania. 
 
 Sepulchral 
 
 Localities. 
 
 No. 
 
 Egyp- 
 
 tian. 
 
 Pelasgic. 
 
 Semitic. 
 
 M i xed 
 
 fegroid. 
 
 5; 
 
 CD 
 
 jq 
 
 o 
 
 C- 
 
 C 
 
 Memphis, 
 
 26 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Maabdeh, 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 Abydos, 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Thebes, 
 
 55 
 
 30 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 2 
 
 Omhos, 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Phihe, 
 
 4 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 Debod, 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 101) 
 
 49 
 
 29 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 From these and an infinity of other details embraced in Dr. Mor- 
 ton’s work, he lias drawn the following among other conclusions: — 
 
 “ The valley of the Nile, both in Egypt and Nubia, was original- 
 ly peopled by a branch of the Caucasian race. 
 
 “ These primeval people, since called the Egyptians, were the 
 Mizraimites of Scripture, the posterity of Ilam, and directly affilia- 
 ted with the Libyan family of nations. 
 
 “ The Austrai-Egyptian or Meroite communities were an Indo- 
 Arab'an stock engrafted on the primitive Libyan inhabitants. 
 
 “ Besides these exotic sources of population, the Egyptian race 
 was at different periods modified by the influx of the < aucasian na- 
 tions of Asia and Europe, — Pelasgi, or Hellenes, Scythians and 
 Pheriicians. 
 
 “ 'I’he Copts, in part at least, are a mixture of the Caucasian and 
 the Negro, in extremely variable proportions. 
 
 “ Negroes were numerous in Egypt, but their social position in 
 ancient times was the same as it now is, that of servants and slaves. 
 
 “ The present Fellahs are the lineal and least mixed descendants 
 of the ancient Egyptians ; and the latter are collaterally represented 
 by the Tuariks, Kabyles, Sivvahs, and other remains of the Libyan 
 family of nations. 
 
 “ The modern Nubians, with a few exceptions, are not the descen- 
 dants of the monumental Ethiopians, but a variously mixed race of 
 Arabs and Negroes. 
 
 “ The physical or organic characters which distinguish the several 
 races of men, are as old as the oldest records of our species.” 
 
 The Scriptures inform us, that Mizraim came from the banks of 
 the Euphrates into Africa, and that his descendants colonized Lower 
 Egypt. 
 
 To bring the ancestors of the Egyptians from Ethiopia, leads to 
 consequences irreconcilable with primeval biblical migrations. Ham 
 and his son were indisputably Caucasians — to find, therefore, that 
 their Egyptian descendants were Caucasians also, is perfectly in ac- 
 cordance with nature, and with Scripture. 
 
 Lower Egypt and the Delta-, would naturally be the region most 
 suited to agriculture ; and contrary again to the general current of 
 opinion, it was here that the earliest Egyptians settled — it was here, 
 that the most ancient cities arose — and here, that the most ancient 
 monumental piles still remain, to attest the correctness of the asser- 
 tion, 
 
 The erection, in Lower Egypt, of the most ancient monuments 
 we encounter, does not at all impede the migration of the Caucasian 
 race, at a very early period into the Thebaid, or even as far as Meroe ; 
 nor is the inferior relative antiquity of those vast edifices, that proud- 
 ly demand, for Thebes, and the Thebaid, an age nearly parallel to 
 those of Lower Egypt, devoid of explanation on other grounds ; but, 
 t is an indisputable fact, since the application of the Champollion 
 jests to any of the ruins in the Nilotic valley, that the most ancient 
 restiges preserved to us lie north; and the earliest extant are the 
 Memphite pyramids; while those found to the southward, are com- 
 paratively more recent ; with the doubtful exception of the pyramids 
 of Meroe in Ethiopia, which will be attended to in due course. 
 
 In the interval previous to the accession of Menes, and subsequent 
 to the dispersion of mankind from Shinar, must that wandering tribe 
 of Caucasians, who settled permanentlv in the valley of the Nile, 
 nave entered Egypt from Asia ; and although we possess not the 
 slightest account of the time, beyond that of its occurrence between 
 Noah and Abraham, and none of the mode in which this march 
 must have taken place, from Assyria into Egypt ; yet, the fact of the 
 Asiatic origin, and Caucasian race of the early Egyptians being de- 
 clared in the Bible, and proved by anatomy, with monumental and 
 historical corroborations; it maybe desirable to inquire how far geo- 
 graphical facilities smoothed their path, and whether topographical 
 circumstances, in connection with localities in Egypt, admit of and 
 confirm their introduction. 
 
 According to the facts, set forth in Morton’s “ Crania jEgyptiaca,” 
 we find the Caucasians occupying Egypt, at the remotest time we 
 can descry; and any errors unintentionally committed in speculating 
 upon the road they took from the Asiatic continent to Egypt, will 
 not affect the fact of their journey. 
 
 Whether their progress was slow, such as a pastoral people (we 
 
 may infer they were at that primeval time) encumbered with families 
 and flocks, would necessarily adopt ; or whether it was the rapid 
 march of men driven by political convulsions, or family feuds to seek 
 safety in countries remote from their first origin, are questions in 
 themselves hypothetical, though the former speculation has most ot 
 probability. Whether their migration, from east to west, was ante- 
 rior or posterior to the dispersion of Babel, I leave others to deter- 
 mine ; in either case, we may recognize the all-wise hand of Provi- 
 dence, accomplishing by natural instruments, and according to im- 
 mutable organic laws, the object of man’s creation. Whether, prior 
 to their entry, they possessed any information concerning the fertility 
 and salubrity of that smiling valley-land, whereon the “ sacred Nile” 
 by its periodical inundations, spreads its rich alluvium, must ever 
 remain doubtful. 
 
 That they had their women with them is certain ; as they preserved 
 their blood, pure and intact, from amalgamation with African abo- 
 rigines ; excepting, in partial instances, of much later times, proceed- 
 ing from very natural causes, and affecting mainly those provinces 
 which were adjacent to these Africans ; but no more influencing the 
 mass of population in Lower and Middle Egypt, at any period, than 
 is apparent, or usual, as I have before remarked, with the present 
 Fellah and Arab inhabitants of these districts at this day. 
 
 The simplest view of the case would lead one to infer, that, in 
 proportion as the increase of human and animal population rendered 
 the area of Assyria too limited for the peaceful attainment of a 
 sufficiency of food, small parties, offsets from the patriarchal tree, 
 wandered, like the Bedawees of the present day, pasturing their cat- 
 tle in search of forage, along the valleys of Palestine. The van- 
 guard of these nomads, pushed forward constantly by the advance 
 of later separations from the main body, or induced by other eontin- 
 gences, which we may conjecture, but cannot define, crossed the 
 small desert, which even at the present day, in winter, offers every 
 facility for similar migrations, and reached the valley of the Nile, 
 somewhere in the vicinity of Pelusium. 
 
 Once in the land of Goshen, it may be readily imagined, whoever 
 came the first would not be long in inviting his friends and relations 
 to join him (and to sojourn permanently) in, what must have been 
 to a herdsman, as it is the present day to the agriculturist, a terres- 
 trial paradise. Similar causes always produce similar effects. Po- 
 pulation increased, and migration continued, until every atom of the 
 then alluvial soil between the deserts of Suez and of Lybia, and 
 from the sea beach to that extreme point, where an African climate 
 becomes mortiferous to the white man (which region commences 
 about the 16th degree of latitude in Ethiopia above Egypt,) was 
 colonized by the Asiatic Caucasians ; and, in those remote countries, 
 by their intermixed descendants. As population increased, the 
 herdsman was forced, by interest, and want of pasture room, to be- 
 come a farmer; and the first spade struck into the yielding black mud 
 of the receding Nile, was the first step toward that civilization and 
 power which, for 2000 years, made Egypt the greatest country of the 
 earth. 
 
 I deem it requisite only to allude to the prevalent, but erroneous 
 notion of the African origin of the ancient Egyptians, in so far as to 
 express my disbelief of the possibility, that the Caucasian route from 
 Asia to Egypt, could have lain, in those primeval times, across the 
 Red Sea, at the straits of Bhb-el-Mandeb, or higher up. Eet any one 
 look at the map, and measure the distance from Assyria to Meroe, 
 by that road — let him pause and consider the vast geographical ob- 
 structions to be encountered in Arabia : the time it would take to 
 overcome them; and then let him consider the little chronological 
 space we have for the events that occurred in Egypt between Miz- 
 raim and Abraham ; and allow, that without overthrowing Scripture, 
 this doctrine cannot be maintained. 
 
 From Assyria and the plains of Shinar, even at this day (aside 
 from human insurmountable difficulties) the journey through Arabia 
 across the Red Sea, into Abyssinia, over the deserts of Catareff, to 
 Meroe, and thence down the Nile, 1600 miles, to Lower Egypt and 
 the sea-board, would be almost impossible to a family accompanied 
 by children and by flocks. It may be objected, that this migration 
 was not immediate, but may have occupied ages. In that case, my 
 reply is, that their journey must have been rapid, and accomplished 
 within a few years ; or we must reject even the Septuagint chro- 
 nology as insufficient. To pass over the Red Sea with flocks and 
 large family incumbrances, implies vessels; whence could they ob- 
 tain timber on the western Arabian coast? how procure materials 
 for naval construction and outfit, in those primeval times ? 
 
 A mere glance at the map of Abyssinia will present obstacles, 
 after their supposititious arrival on the western shore of the Red 
 Sea, to render their progress toward Meroe and Ethiopia, anything 
 but desirable ; nor is there any point, whereon the advocates of the 
 African theory can hang a reasonable hypothesis, since the results 
 obtained by Dr. Morton, and detailed in his “ Crania jEgyptiaca.” 
 
 Asiatic in their origin, springing from the same stock as Shem 
 and Japheth, and Caucasian in their osteological conformation, the 
 Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a 
 Jew, or a Phoenician ; and it is auite as justifiable, and equally rea- 
 sonable, to draw the dusky and the sable inhabitants of Africa from 
 Shem, the type of the Hebrews and the Arabs ; or from Japheth, the 
 type of the Europeans, as to derive the Berbers and the Negroes from 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 47 
 
 Ham, whom Scripture tells us was the parent of the Egyptians ; and 
 as such, Ham must have been an Asiatic and Caucasian, since we 
 know positively, that his Egyptian descendants were Caucasians, as 
 pure-blooded in origin as ourselves. 
 
 The climate of Egypt will never change a Caucasian into a Negro, 
 a black into a white man ; and we have yet to learn what effect cli- 
 mate may have had, in every other latitude, on the physical organi- 
 zation of man, on the material variation of his hair and skin, or on 
 his osteological and craniological conformation. 
 
 How the real African aborigines — the Berbers and the Negroes, 
 were disseminated over Ethiopia and Nigritia, is foreign to my dis- 
 course, nor do 1 presume to offer an hypothesis. 
 
 It does not seem possible (although the men are excellent swim- 
 mers) that they, and still less their females and children, swam across 
 the Red Sea ! and, if it be necessary to import these African races 
 from the Asiatic hive, the same reasons which render the Isthmus of 
 Suez the route the most natural to the Caucasian children of Ham, 
 may likewise have served for the ancestors of the Berbers and the 
 Negroes. 
 
 Equally unnecessary does it seem, to speculate whether Egypt was 
 inhabited by any or by what tribe of man, at the period of Mizraim’s 
 immigration; because such a speculation would imply the possibility 
 of the existence of other people at the time of Noah’s descent from 
 the ark — a supposition hitherto irreconcilable with all we learn from 
 Scripture. These are problems still insoluble by human reason — 
 their results, such as are developed to us, point out the miraculous 
 ordinations of the Creator without unfolding his inscrutable ways — 
 and I again repeat, there is no more biblical reason or authority to 
 derive the Negroes from Ham, than from Shem or Japheth; and if 
 climate is to have effected the change, the same causes must have 
 produced the same effects, operating on the same physical principles; 
 so that it is just as probable that the Caucasian Shem or the Cauca 
 sian Japheth was the parent of African races, as the Caucasian Ham, 
 whose children, the Egyptians, were like their father and his blood- 
 brothers, Asiatics and Caucasians. 
 
 Finally, it seems more natural, that a tribe, coming from Asia and 
 adopting Egypt as its resting place, should have entered that country 
 by the route which, from the earliest times, has been the high road 
 of nations between the Asiatic and African continents. It was by 
 the Isthmus of Suez that the Hykshos, the Scythian shepherd kings 
 of remote antiquity, came and were expelled ; this Isthmus was like- 
 wise the beaten road of the Hebrews from Abraham to the Exodus, 
 as it is at the present day between Jerusalem and Egypt. It served 
 the Egyptians under the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies, as the route 
 for their military expeditions and for all commercial intercourse with 
 Asia. 
 
 The Persians, under Cambyses and Artaxerxes Ochus, Alexander 
 with his Macedonian phalanx, the Saracens under Atuner, and the 
 Ottomans under Soolttm Selebtn, used it as their undeviating highway 
 into and out of Egypt; while from the most ancient postdiluvian 
 period to the present hour, it has afforded and will continue to afford, 
 the same facilities between Asia and Africa, that induced me to select 
 it as the route of the Caucasian family of Mizraim. 
 
 An important confirmation of the Asiatic origin of the Egyptians, 
 and, indeed, of all the views herein put forward, is to be derived 
 from the results established by the learned ethnographer, philologist, 
 and critical hierologist, Dr. Leipsius ; who has proved the affinities 
 between the Indo-Germanic, Semitic and Coptic languages, to be 
 identical, proceeding from their common origin in one primeval 
 source. This discovery puts the seal of authenticity even as to lan - 
 guage upon the Asiatic origin of the early Egyptians; while it goes 
 iar to explain all Coptic linguistical affinities with Hebrew, Arabic, 
 Sanscrit, and other Asiatic tongues. 
 
 We have brought the children of Ham, under Mizraim, into Lower 
 Egypt: here they settle; here they multiply ; and hence they spread 
 all over the alluvial soil of Egypt, from the Mediterranean to Meroe, 
 following the Nile, in a natural course of migration and settlement. 
 Agriculture supersedes all pastoral habits; cities and orderly commu- 
 nities take the place of the tents and the roving irregularities of the 
 Nomad. The progress of civilization must have been so amazingly 
 rapid, that to preserve our confidence in Scriptural chronology, we 
 are forced to conclude (as stated in a previous chapter) that the chil- 
 dren of Ham brought along with them all the knowledge and experi- 
 ence accumulated during antediluvian periods from Adam to Noah, 
 and by this second father of the human race, transmitted to the Egyp- 
 tians. We can form but little idea of its original amount; but, within 
 a few generations from the immigration of Mizraim, we find monu- 
 ments that attest a skill in the arts, an acquaintance with practical 
 sciences, a profound knowledge of political economy and principles 
 of government, an extent of civilization of every kind, equal (save in 
 the luxury and refinements superfluous to the necessities of human 
 life) to the extreme civilization and well-regulated social system ex- 
 isting in Egypt at any future peiiod. There are very few arts or 
 sciences, the early antiquity of which astounds us on the monuments 
 of Egypt, but must have been familiar to the Egyptians prior to the 
 erection of the pyramids. As we proceed, we shall mention some 
 of the most prominent. 
 
 The time and the increasing ratio of population, are equal!)' unde- 
 finable ;with this exception, that, taking the Deluge somewhere about 
 
 3200 B. C., on the authority of the Septuagint, and the immigration 
 of Mizraim into Egypt in the third generation after the Flood, we 
 have a vacuum of about four hundred years ; which we may legiti- 
 mately fill with all these preparatory labors. The reason I pretend 
 even to guess at the interval (which is purely conjectural, and merely 
 possible) is, that the events which I shall soon show to have occurred 
 subsequently, occupy all the space left, from about 2700 B. C. to the 
 present year. It is with extreme difficulty that, even then, Egyptian 
 chronological facts can be circumscribed within this limited area. 
 
 Traditionary legends, floating in the works of Greek writers on 
 Egypt, inferences gleaned from the mythological doctrines that wrap 
 truth in the garb of fable, and deductions legitimately drawn from 
 the monuments, enable us to consider it probable, that a priestly aris 
 tocracy was the first form of general government n Egypt ; createc 
 gradually out of the union of those patriarchal heads of villages, who 
 probably governed, each his own family, in the same manner that 
 an Arab tribe of the present day is ruled by its own Shdykh and the 
 elders of the community. This would be perfectly in accordance 
 with Oriental and Asiatic customs, that have varied but little since 
 the patriarchal ages in Lower Asia and Arabia. 
 
 A hierarchy appears to have been the first form of general govern- 
 ment adopted by the Egyptians of that primeval period ; which we 
 feel persuaded preceded the establishment of a monarchy. This 
 hierarchy, we presume to have commenced within a few generations 
 of Mizraim’s immediate descendants ; to have increased in power 
 until the accession of Menes, the first Pharaoh ; and to have ruled 
 Egypt during the conjectural period of about 400 years. 
 
 It is here necessary to explain, that, from the earliest times, the 
 Caucasian inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile regulated their social 
 system by the division of castes ; which, however, must not be judged 
 of by the notions we derive from India; for the Egyptian system ol 
 caste was merely a division of classes, without any of those rigidities 
 to this day practiced in Ilindostan. 
 
 From the primitive simplicity of a patriarchal government, wherein 
 the eldest of the tribe governs by general consent, as a father controls 
 the domestic welfare of his family, the gradual increase of the num- 
 bers of these elders, in proportion to the increase of their respective, 
 families, probably suggested to them the propriety of union ; and ti.u 
 Egyptians, essentially a religious community, bowed beneath the 
 mild rule of a theocracy. This theocracy, formed 1 y the union of 
 the elders, was the first form of general government, in which secula- 
 and ecclesiastical interests, at first submitted to the control of tuc 
 aged, become in a short time a hereditary right in certain families, 
 where the character of priest gave power, independently of the age 
 of the individual. 
 
 Champollion Figeac has so clearly expressed the most accurate 
 views on this particular head, that I will adopt his language. 
 
 “A theocracy, or a government of priests, was the first known to 
 the Egyptians ; and it is necessary to give this word priests, the ac. 
 ceptation that it bore in remote times, when the ministers of reli- 
 gion were also the ministers of science (and knowledge ;) so that 
 they united in their own persons two of the noblest missions with 
 which man can be invested, the worship of the Deity, and the cul- 
 tivation of intelligence. 
 
 “This theocracy was necessarily despotic. On the other hand, 
 with regard to despotism, (we add these reflections, to reassure the 
 readers too ready to take alarm at the social condition of the early 
 Egyptians,) there are so many different kinds of despotism, that the 
 Egyptians had to accept one of them, as an unavoidable condition. 
 In fact, there is in a theocratic government the chance of religious 
 despotism ; in a monarchy, the chance of a military despotism ; in 
 an aristocracy, or oligarchy, the chance of a feudal despotism ; in a 
 republic, the chance of a democratic despotism — everywhere a chanco 
 of oppression. The relative good will be where these several chances 
 are most limited.” And, with respect to the form of government 
 best adapted to the social happiness of man, opinions are as varied 
 as are the countries, and human races on the earth. That institu- 
 tion which is admirably suited to Europeans, may be odious and de- 
 leterious to Orientals. 
 
 In Egypt, under the primitive theocratic government, the nation was 
 divided into three distinct classes — the priests, the military, and the 
 people ; an arrangement whereby the first two, the privileged classes, 
 conspired to hold the third, and most numerous, in subjection. 
 
 “ Time and the hour run through the roughest day and when a 
 political evil becomes insupportable, nature has provided that it shall 
 work its own cure. 
 
 The progress which time inevitably realizes everywhere, effected 
 in Egypt a notable alteration in this state of things. 
 
 A rivalry sprang up between the two ruling classes. The military 
 grew tired of blindly submitting to ecclesiastical sway, without par- 
 taking of their full share of control. The physical power being in 
 the hands of the military chiefs, a revolution was the consequence 
 of these jealousies. 
 
 A military chieftain seized the sceptre of dominion ; established 
 a royal government, and made the throne hereditary, through his 
 line of descendants. A soidier of fortune, but a statesman in mind, 
 changed and ameliorated the social condition of Egypt ; and con- 
 secrating the progress the nation had already made, perpetuated it 
 through a long succession of after centuries. 
 
48 
 
 ANCIENt EGYPT. 
 
 This chief was Menes of History — Menei, 
 “ who walks with Amun,” of the sculptures ; 
 M who, from the days of Syncellus, has been con- 
 founded with Mizraim, or rather, according to 
 Syncellus, with Mestraim. 
 
 y I would here observe, that if ancient Egypt 
 
 was ever called Mestraea, we have no evidence 
 T T kt c r ei ' ° f tlle name in hiero g ; yP h ics : although it may 
 
 M c 1 be derived from two Egyptian roots, and com- 
 
 pounded of Mes, begotten, and Be, the Sun. If Mizraim be Mes- 
 traim he was certainly not Menes ; and if Menes be Mestraim, he 
 was certainly not Mizraim, who preceded Menes, by at least 400 
 years. We fall into palpable anachronisms in endeavoring to make 
 one man out of two personages, distinct in time, in name, in attri- 
 butes, and in everything else. Brevity requires that I should limit 
 my arguments simply to the exposition of this fact ; by not observing 
 which, ancient and modern writers, (with a few exceptions among 
 the hieroglyphists, including the learned chronologist, Dr. Hales,) 
 have rendered early Egyptian history a chaos of anachronisms. 
 
 This grand political revolution had, over the social welfare of the 
 nation, an influence most salutary and durable. From a sacerdotal 
 despotism, that in the name of Heaven exacted implicit obedience to 
 the privileged members of the hierarchy, the Egyptians passed under 
 the authority of a tempered civil monarchy, and acquired a constitu- 
 tion that rendered them free as well as happy. 
 
 The chief of the state was king, or Pharaoh ; and his power was 
 transmitted, in the order of primogenitureship to his male children ; 
 to his daughters, if he had no sons ; or to his brothers or sisters, if 
 his direct line should, by absence of offspring, be broken. There 
 was no Salic law in Egypt; and in a country where females were 
 admitted to a full participation in all legitimate privileges with man — 
 where women were queens in theirown right — royal priestesses from 
 their birth; and otherwise treated as females are, in all civilized and 
 Christian countries ; there were none of these social restrictions 
 that elsewhere enslaved the minds, or constrained the persons of the 
 gentler sex. 
 
 We have the most positive and incontrovertible evidence, in a 
 series of monuments coeval with Egyptian events for 2500 years, to 
 prove that the female sex in Egypt was honored, civilized, educated, 
 and as free as among ourselves ; and this is the most unanswerable 
 proof of the high civilization of that ancient people. This is the 
 strongest point of distinction between the Egyptian social system of 
 ancient times, and that of any other eastern nation. Even among 
 the Hebrews, the Jewish female was never placed in relation to man, 
 in the same high position as her more happy and privileged sister en- 
 joyed in Egypt. And if, at the present day, Mahommedanism has 
 overthrown all the rights of the female sex in the valley of the Nile ; 
 or if, in any ancient or modern nation, females were or are oppressed, 
 it was certainly not from the early children of Ham that they took 
 their precedent ; not from the primitive Caucasian inhabitants of 
 Egypt, that the enslavers of the gentler sex received their lesson. 
 Some of the evidence for this assertion will appear as we proceed ; 
 but, in the mean time, let us render to the ancient Egyptians the 
 proud honor of being the first nation who appreciated the moral ca- 
 pabilities, social virtues, intellectual attributes, and civil rights of 
 woman. 
 
 In the procession, Tomb of Gurnah, the gallantry of the Egyp- 
 tians is proved, by two queens — Aahopht and Aahmes-Nofreari 
 (queens of Amunoph 1st.) taking precedence of the kings ; and this 
 in a private tomb ! 
 
 The royal authority was not absolute. The sacerdotal order pre- 
 served in the councils, their rightful positions — the military were 
 there to maintain order and to strengthen the monarchy, but were 
 citizen- soldiers ; and in the great assemblies, termed pancgyries, 
 wherein all religious, warlike, civil, administrative, commercial, poli- 
 tical, statistical, internal and external affairs were periodically 
 .reated ; the priests, the military, the corporations, and the people 
 were represented, and the interests of all were protected, according 
 1 '■ the wise institutions of the Egyptians. The classes of Egypt may 
 be divided into Jour great castes ; but not, as before said, on the 
 rigid system of the Hindoos. These were the priests, the soldiers* 
 the agriculturalists, and the tradesmen of all denominations ; each 
 subdivided into more or less categories — but no Egyptian was an 
 outcast from civil rights in this world, or debarred from eternal hap- 
 piness in the world to come, save by his own misconduct ; and in 
 the latter respect, the king and the peasant were equally amenable 
 to the inexorable judgment of Amenti — “ the future state,” and 
 ultimate tribunal. 
 
 With the accession of Menes, dates the consolidation of the inter- 
 nal polity, and of those wise and well-regulated institutions, that 
 astonish us by their perfection and practical utility, as much as by 
 the remoteness of their antiquity. I do not, at present, deem it ne- 
 
 cessary to enumerate or detail them ; because an acquaintance with 
 the greater portion will be rather a consequence of the history of 
 Egypt, as I am about to unfold it; while I prefer leaving whatover 
 may now be omitted to a future summary. It is necessary f/rst to 
 establish the chronological scale of hieroglyphic developments, 
 before discussing points, which in date are dependent on monu- 
 mental evidence. 
 
 The fragments we possess of ancient Egyptian history, in the 
 writings of early travellers and chroniclers, .permit our dividing the 
 dynasties, of Egypt into three categories, viz: 
 
 1st— The rule of the Gods — or Auritae ; 
 
 2n3— The rule of the Demigods — or Mestraeans ; 
 
 3rd — The rule of thirty-one successive human dynasties — or 
 Egyptians. 
 
 I. The Gods. Under this designation it may be plausibly con- 
 jectured, that the ancient Egyptians, in their legendary tales to the 
 Greeks, classed those primeval events, which are known to us as 
 an‘ediluvian. It is also curious, that “ Cronus, and the other twelve 
 divinities,” who are said to have reigned during 3984 years, do not 
 very widely differ in number from the patriarchal generations from 
 Adam to Noah. The sun, in hieroglyphics, being a type of Horus, 
 which is of the same root as Rii, Ouro, Aur, gave probably the name 
 of Auritse to the Egyptians, as the “ children of the sun.” The word 
 Auritee has been referred to the “ Golden age,” of heathen mytho- 
 logy, but the term aurum itself is derived from that universal root 
 aur, the sun, which reverses the current derivation. 
 
 II. The Demigods — or Mestraeans, may be explained hypotheti- 
 cally, as referring to those pristine postdiluvian times, which em- 
 brace the dark period from Noah to the accession of Menos : a period, 
 according to my view, of some 500 years ; in the first century of 
 which Mizraim may have colonized Egypt. The term Mestraean, 
 viewed, as above stated, in its meaning of “ begotten of the sun,” 
 again sends us back to the primitive aur. 
 
 III. The Men, or Egyptians, commence their rule with Menes, 
 the first Pharaoh, and continue through 31 successive dynasties, to 
 the invasion of Alexander the Great, in B. C. 332. From this era, 
 history and the monuments enable us to define the period of the 
 Lagidi, or Ptolemies, down to 29 B. C. The hieroglyphics thence 
 bring us down to Caracalla, the Roman Emperor, when this mode 
 of writing ceased, about 215 after the Christian era, and when the 
 race of Ham ceased to be politically recognizable. 
 
 In regard to the reign of the gods, and the demigods, however, 
 one point is very clearly established by Sir J. G. Wilkinson; which 
 is, that the Egyptians never had the folly or impiety to trace their 
 own origin to deities. On the contrary, they ridiculed the Greeks, 
 for supposing themselves to be a heaven-descended race, in a right 
 line of succession ; for the Egyptians were a practical people, and a 
 sensible. 
 
 When the priests showed to Herodotus a series of 345 images of 
 men, who had successively filled the office of high priest ; as, at a 
 former period, they had exhibited a similar set of portraits to Heca- 
 taeus — they laughed at Hecatffius, who claimed a deity for his ICth 
 ancestor ; and told Herodotus, that “ each was a Piromis, son of a 
 Piromis.” Piromis being the Greek corruption of the Coptic Pi-romi, 
 the man ; and the strict meaning of the sentence being “ a man, son 
 of a man ;” we have herein an indisputable proof of Herodotus’s 
 ignorance of the commonest words of the native language of a 
 country, concerning which he wrote so largely, and so very learn- 
 edly. His ignorance was natural enough, but his presumption may 
 be dqyided by us, as much as his credulity was the sport of the 
 humorous Egyptians. 
 
 When, therefore, in a document, called by Syncellus “ the Old 
 Egyptian Chronicle,” the rule of gods and demigods on earth, pre- 
 cedes the reign of human monarchs ; we must make full allowance 
 for the errors of Greek translators, rendering into their own tongue, 
 and adapting to Hellenic comprehension, the lofty ideas, and mystic 
 designations of the Egyptians. Nor must we accuse the dead, whose 
 monuments present a mute refutation of Grecian fallacies, of en- 
 tertaining fantasies, such as are handed down to us by Herodotus. 
 Under the guise of mystic attributes, and through the medium of 
 symbols, the veiled truths of which were not divulged to the “ impure 
 foreigner,” the Egyptian gods and demigods, of the Old Chronicle, 
 probably, ore nothing more than our patriarchal antediluvian and 
 postdiluvian generations. Bigotry and fanaticism, among the early 
 Christians, prevented their perceiving that every stigma cast on tho 
 pure doctrines of primeval antiquity would detract from the au 
 thority of Moses ; who, as before stated, was undoubtedly “ learned 
 in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” 
 
 I now proceed to lay before the reader, two tables of Egyptian 
 history — one the Old Chronicle ; and the other compiled from 
 Manetho by Rosellini and ChampolLion Figeac, v*ith a few addi- 
 tions of my own. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 49 
 
 EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES. 
 
 THE OLD EGYPTIAN CHRONICLE. 
 
 1st. — R eign of the Gods — or Auritje — Antedii.uvian period ? 
 
 Barharismus ? Years. 
 
 To Hephaestus — Vulcan — Pthah, the Creator — is assigned 
 
 no time, as he is apparent both by day and night, 00,000 
 Helios — the Sun — the son of Hephajstus — reigned three 
 
 myriads of years, equivalent to 30,000 
 
 Cronus, and the other twelve Divinities reigned together, 3,984 
 
 Gods reigned — years, 33,984 
 
 2nd. — Reign of the Demi-Gods — or Mestrelans — Y ears. 
 
 Postdiluvian period — Scythismus ? 
 
 The eight kings — Demi-Gods — (or Mizraimites ?) reigned 
 
 together, 217 
 
 3rd. — Reign of Men — or Egyptians — Ilcllenismus ? 
 
 The 15 -generations (families, dynasties, or royal houses'?') 
 comprised in the Cynic Cycle — or Sothic period — 
 reigned, 443 
 
 The remaining 15 dynasties of kings — commen- 
 cing with the 16th dynasty and ending with 
 the 30th dynasty — reigned together, 1881 
 
 Egyptians reigned, 2324 
 
 Years, 36,525 
 
 These years 36,525 — end before Christ, 359. 
 
 MANETHO’S EGYPTIAN CONSECUTIVE DYNASTIES.. 
 
 ORDER OF 
 
 THEIR ORIGIN. 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 FOUND IN 
 
 NAMES 
 
 HIEKO- 
 
 LENGTH op 
 
 BEGAN 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 POSSIBLE 
 
 MONUMENTAL 
 
 MISCELLANEA. 
 
 DYNASTIES. 
 
 KINGS. 
 
 GLYPHICS 
 
 1841. 
 
 UP TO 
 
 THEIR 
 
 REIGNS. 
 
 CHRIST. 
 
 REDUCTION. 
 
 PARALLELS. 
 
 
 1st. 
 
 Thinite, 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Years, 
 
 252 
 
 Years, 
 
 5867 
 
 B.C.2715? 
 
 
 After Flood 439 
 
 2nd. 
 
 Tanite, 
 
 9 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 ” 
 
 297 
 
 11 
 
 5615 
 
 
 
 
 [years 7 
 
 3rd. 
 
 Memphite, 
 
 8 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 197 
 
 11 
 
 5318 
 
 
 
 ■ Pyra’idsffcl ite 
 
 4th. 
 
 Memphite, 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 448 
 
 11 
 
 5121 
 
 
 
 
 5th. 
 
 Elephantinite, 
 
 9 
 
 * 
 
 e > 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 248 
 
 11 
 
 4673 
 
 
 
 Tombs. 
 
 
 6th. 
 
 Memphite, 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 203 
 
 11 
 
 4425 
 
 
 
 Copper Mines, 
 
 Names unknown 
 
 7th. 
 
 Memphite, 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 75 
 
 11 
 
 4222 
 
 
 
 Quarries, 
 
 8th. 
 
 Memphite, 
 
 5 
 
 
 bo y. « 
 a 2 2 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 100 
 
 11 
 
 4147 
 
 
 •Years 443 
 
 Relics and Papyri. 
 
 Idem 
 
 9th. 
 
 Ileliopolite, 
 
 4 
 
 
 O C J* 
 
 s g a 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 100 
 
 11 
 
 4047 
 
 
 Great 
 
 Idem 
 
 10th. 
 
 Hcliopolite, 
 
 19 
 
 
 r- b .5d 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 185 
 
 11 
 
 3947 
 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Idem 
 
 11th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 17 
 
 
 _c : 
 
 
 
 l> 
 
 59 
 
 11 
 
 3762 
 
 
 
 Unplaced kings. 
 
 Idem 
 
 12th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 7 
 
 
 -C o 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 245 
 
 
 3703 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 Uncertain 
 
 13th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 60 
 
 
 = c J3 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 453 
 
 11 
 
 3417 
 
 
 
 »* 
 
 Idem 
 
 • 14th. 
 
 Xoite, 
 
 76 
 
 
 ^ to 
 
 © •= e 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 484 
 
 11 
 
 3004 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 Idem 
 
 15th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 — 
 
 
 ^o- 2 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 250 
 
 11 
 
 2520 
 
 
 
 ” [lis. 
 
 Idem 
 
 16th. 
 
 17th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 J Theban, 
 
 5 
 
 r \ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 G 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 190 
 
 260 
 
 » 
 
 11 
 
 2272 
 
 2082 
 
 
 Obelisk of Heliopo- 
 Karnac. 
 
 Tablet of Abydos 
 Abraham’s visit 
 
 ) Hykshos, 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Temples, Tombs, 
 
 
 18th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 348 
 
 11 
 
 1822 
 
 
 Palaces, Tablets, 
 
 [1920 
 Moses B.C. 1491 
 
 19th. 
 
 20 th. 
 
 Theban, 
 
 Theban, 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 194 
 
 178 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 1473 
 
 1279 
 
 
 Papyri, Relics, 
 
 <fcc. &c. &c. 
 
 21st. 
 
 Tanite, 
 
 7 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 11 
 
 130 
 
 11 
 
 1101 
 
 
 all over 
 
 
 22nd. 
 
 23rd. 
 
 Bubastite, 
 
 Tanite, 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 120 
 
 89 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 971 
 
 851 
 
 
 Egypt and 
 
 Nubia. 
 
 Rehoboam 
 
 B. C. 971 
 
 24th. 
 
 Saitic, 
 
 1 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 11 
 
 44 
 
 11 
 
 762 
 
 
 
 25th. 
 
 Ethiopian, 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 44 
 
 11 
 
 718 
 
 
 
 
 26th. 
 
 Saitic, 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 11 
 
 150 
 
 11 
 
 674 
 
 
 
 
 27th. 
 
 Persian, 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 120 
 
 11 
 
 524 
 
 
 
 
 28th. 
 
 Saitic, 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 404 
 
 
 
 
 29 th 
 
 Mendesian, 
 
 Sebennitic, 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 21 
 
 M 
 
 398 
 
 
 
 
 30th. 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 38 
 
 11 
 
 377 
 
 
 
 
 31st. 
 
 Persian, 
 
 3 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 339 
 
 
 
 
 31 dynasties 
 
 
 378 kings. 
 
 
 
 End, B. C. 331 
 
 
 
 
 Conquest of Egypt by Alexander, B. C. 332. Luqsor. Roman Dominion in Egypt, B. C. 30. Dendera. 
 
 Accession of Ptolemy Soter, B. C. 304. Philae. . Last monumental hieroglyphical date, A. D. 215. Esne. 
 
 Fall of the Lagidi, B. C. 30. Ombos,Edfoo. 
 
 The upper table is a reduction of the “ Old Egyptian Chronicle,” 
 preserved to us by Syncellus. This appears to be a succinct compi- 
 lation, made in Egypt about the reign of Nashtcnebf, o f the 30th 
 dynasty, say B. C. 359. I have already explained, that the “ reign 
 of the gods” refers possibly to our antediluvian period, when those 
 heresies, termed by the fathers of the church, barharismus, seem to 
 have been first introduced. This heterodoxy they explained, as 
 evinced by the fact, “ that then men had no rulers and that their im- 
 piety and insubordination, brought down upon them the vengeance of 
 the Most High, and the obliteration of all mankind save Noah’s fam- 
 ily. It is conjectured, that the first two reigns refer to those events 
 anteceding the creation of man, which enter into the category of 
 geological periods, of which it seems the Hierophants had some 
 knowledge; in confirmation of which, the names of the gods them- 
 selves lend some feeble glimmer; for Cronus is “time immeasura- 
 ble;” and Vulcan, who is our Pthilh, typifies “ the creative power” 
 of the Almighty. When Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, discoursed 
 with the Egyptian sages about those events which had happened to 
 the Pelasgic Greeks, such as the traditions concerning the first Pho- 
 roneus, and Niobe, and the deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha, one of 
 the most venerable of the sacerdotal ancients exclaimed, “ O Solon, 
 Solon ! you Greeks are always children; nor is there such a thing as 
 an aged Grecian among you. All your souls are juvenile ; neither 
 containing any ancient opinion derived from remote tradition, nor 
 any discipline hoary from its existence in former periods of time. 
 Y ou mention one Deluge only ; whereas irihny happened 1” The 
 
 remaining 12 divinities relate, probably, to the line from Adam to 
 Noah. 
 
 The “ reign of the demigods” is probably the period from Noah 
 to the accession of Menes ; including the primitive colonization of 
 Egypt, and the theocraticalgovernment, termed by the fathers, Scyt/iis. 
 mus, in reference to the apostacy of man, the confusion of Babel, &c. 
 
 The “ reign of Men” begins with Menes, and the Pharaonic mo- 
 narchy — termed also by the fathers, hellenismus, on account of 
 the spread of idolatrous paganism, in which Terah, the father of 
 Abraham, seems to have participated with the rest. Yet, if exeep. 
 tions to such idolatry existed in those primeval days, they will be 
 found in “ the order of Melchisedek,” and among the initiated in 
 Egyptian mysteries. 
 
 Then follows Manetho’s list. Those ciphers preceding the acces- 
 sion of the 16th dynasty are doubtful, and the chronology is reduci- 
 ble upon the arrangement of Syncellus into 443 years. The monu- 
 mental parallels are positive in point of relative position, without 
 requiring anything like Manetho’s intervening intervals of time be- 
 tween the pyramids and the obelisk of Heliopolis. I have added a 
 list of the hieroglyphical names already identified, which in 1841 
 was deemed to be correct. 
 
 Taking the era of the Deluge, according to the Septuagint (after 
 the rejection of the 2nd Cainan) at B. C., 3154, we obtain some cu- 
 rious coincidences to strengthen our belief in the correctness of the 
 record; while, at the same time, they indicate the possible epoch of 
 Menes. 
 
60 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 In the first place, by the Old Chronicle : 
 
 From the birth of Christ, to the 2nd king of 
 
 •10th dynasty, there intervened Years 35'J 
 
 From 30th dyn., to 15th 1881 
 
 From 15th to 1st — or the accession of Mcncs 443 
 
 From 1st dyn., back to commencement of the 
 demigods (or possibly only to Mizraim’s 
 arrival) 
 
 Postdiluvian interval 
 
 Years 
 
 2683 
 
 217 
 
 2000 
 
 254 
 
 Septuagint era of Flood, B. C. 3154 
 
 This would give us 254 years between Noah and Mizrann’s arri- 
 val in Egypt — notan unreasonable interval. Then 217 more from 
 Mizraim, during the theocratic period to Mencs, who would thus have 
 ascended the throne about B. C., 268^ or 471 years after the Deluge. 
 In the second place, by Manetho : 
 
 Years. 
 
 From the birth of Christ, to Alexander’s conquest, 332 
 
 From the 3lst dynasty back to the 16th dyn., Years 2272 
 Less the interval from Alexander to our Saviour, 332 
 
 Gives us for interval, between Alexander and 
 the 16th dyn., 
 
 From 16th dynasty back to 1st, 
 
 Accession of Menes, B. C., 2715 
 
 interval between Menes and the Flood, 439 
 
 Deluge, B. U., 3154 
 
 We thus obtain the accession of Mencs, by Ma. 
 
 netho, at B. C., 2715 
 
 By the Old Chronicle at 2683 
 
 Difference only— years 32 
 between the two records, after Manetho has been reduced on the 
 system of Syncellus ; which, in subjects so remote, is of no import- 
 ance ; and, in either case, leaves us an interval of about 400 years 
 between Menes and the Flood. Of course, this view is purely hy- 
 pothetical; but it will serve to show, that there is nothing appalling 
 in the chronological extension here contended for. This will satisfy 
 the reader, that Egyptian hierology can be reconciled, in chrono- 
 logical matters, with an orthodox biblical record, no less than, as I 
 have shown, with other scriptural subjects. 
 
 But there are other coincidences, equally confirmatory. Syncel- 
 lus has recorded, that, in the Old Chronicle, this number of years, 
 36,525, divided by 1461, gives exactly 25 sothic periods ; this period 
 being composed of 1461 vague or civil years of 365 days. The 
 singularity of this coincidence may, at first sight, appear to invali- 
 date the record ; but on examination we may derive from it some 
 precious chronological indications — to explain which, I must digress. 
 
 There is no point ascertained with more precision, than the almost 
 inconceivatde remoteness of astronomical calculations and observa- 
 tions among the earliest Egyptians, who appear to have perfected 
 •heir calendar, for all practical purposes, at a peri«d so distant, that 
 even the Deluge epoch of the Septuagint appears irreconcilable with 
 ne deductions thereon consequent. Indeed Champollion declares, 
 what the great mathematician Biot confirms, that the astronomical 
 dates, procured from the tombs of the kings at Thebes, would carry 
 back »he use of a national calendar in Egypt to the year 3235 B. C., 
 wnichis 39 years beyond the Septuagint flood; even without the de- 
 j’iotion of the interpolated Cainan ! I do not pretend to be compe- 
 •o.it or. this point to form any opinion ; and the fact is merely ad- 
 duced, in proof of the priority of astronomical knowledge among 
 the children of Tlam ; who, as I said before, must have brought into 
 Egypt all the learning of antediluvian gerrerations as an inherit- 
 ance from Noah. 
 
 It would seem, that the primitive division of the year, in Egypt, 
 was into 12 lunar months — i. e., that the time occupied by the 
 moon’s revolution round the earth, gave origin to the month of 28 
 days. 
 
 The first change in the Egyptian year, was the substitution of 
 Solar for Lunar months ; and then the year consisted of 12 months 
 of 30 days each, or 360 days ; but, it being very soon perceived that 
 the seasons were disturbed, and that they no longer corresponded 
 to the same month ; five additional days were added to the end of 
 the last Egyptian month, Mesore, to remedy the defect in the cal- 
 endar, and to insure the return of the seasons at fixed periods. To 
 those accustomed to our present calendar, and to the division of the 
 seasons, Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter, it maybe worth ob- 
 serving, that in Egypt, from the most ancient days to the present 
 hour, the agriculturalist recognizes only three seasons in the year. 
 The Arab of the present day, who, in his chronological division of 
 time, adopts the Mahommedan system of Lunar months in all his 
 other pursuits ; follows for agricultural purposes, the Coptic months, 
 
 which are simply the ancient Egyptian ; while both Copts and Arabs 
 call these months by their ancient names to this day. Each third 
 part of their year consists of 4 months, and is regulated in perfect 
 accordance with the seasons in Egypt, and the periodical overflow ot 
 the Nile. Thus, the first season in Egypt begins about a month 
 before the end of our autumn. Itis called by the Arabs “ es-Shitteh,” 
 or winter. It is the season of sowing and vegetation — and anciently 
 was termed the season of the “ water plants.” It lasts 4 months, 
 beginning about November, and ending with the close of February : 
 duration 120 days. The second season begins about the end of 
 our winter: the Arabs call it “ es-Sbyf,” or summer. It is the sea- 
 son of harvest and reaping, and was anciently styled the “ season of 
 ploughing,” for then, as at present, they prepared their lands for the 
 summer crops: it lasts 4 months, or 120 days. The third season com- 
 mences about July, and is called by the Arabs “el-Harefef,” or autumn, 
 or more usually “ Neel,” as the period of the inundation of the Nile. 
 It is the time, when the river overflows its banks, and saturates all 
 the alluvial with its fertilizing moisture, either by inundation or by 
 filtration. Anciently, it bore the appropriate name of “ the season of 
 the waters.” Its duration is 120 days. 
 
 I would remark, that this adaptation of the three Egyptian seasons 
 to our months will be found most correct, as leaving the Delta, you 
 approach the Thebaid ; because on the line of the Mediterranean, at 
 Alexandria for instance, the seasons, like almost everything else, are 
 more European in their appearance ; nor is it fair to judge of Middle 
 or Upper Egypt by the sea-coast. 
 
 The intercalation of the 5 complementary days, at the end of the 
 year of 12 solar months, brought the calendar to practical utility. It 
 was then termed the vague or civil year, consisting of 365 days ; and 
 the Pharaohs were obliged to swear, that they would preserve it in 
 tact from any intercalation. This was the only year known to Hero 
 dotus, to Plato and to Eudoxus ! 
 
 This vague, or civil year of 365 days, was soon discovered to be 
 actually shorter than the duration of the true solar year, by about a 
 quarter of a day, say six hours — for each day of the civil year retro- 
 graded from the true solar revolution about one day in every four 
 years ; about one month in every 120 years; and about one year of 
 365 days in 1460 years. By preserving, however, in ordinary uses, 
 the civil year of 365 days ; there were many advantages accruing to 
 the religious system of the ancient Egyptians. The name of each 
 month bore the name of one of twelve divinities, and was under its 
 especial protection ; while each day was under the blessing of a 
 deity, as by the Roman Catholics, it is now under the protection of a 
 saint. There is but little “ new beneath the sun ;” and wherever we 
 turn, we find that we are only perpetuating the notions and systems 
 of our forefathers, whom we stigmatize as Pagans, while we adopt 
 many of their customs. Thus, the Mahommedans, at present in 
 Egypt, who go piously to pray in the mosque, on a day, supposed by 
 them, to be the birth-day of a Muslim saint, whose tomb lies in the 
 sanctuary ; or who assemble at the periodical festivals and fairs of a 
 “ Seyd-el-Bddawee,” and a “ Seyd Brahefem-ed-Desodqee,” are little 
 aware, that they are only doing that which was done on the same 
 spots, at the same seasons, 3000 years before the Muslim saint, or 
 even Mohammed himself existed! yet, nevertheless it is a fact, and 
 the Mahommedan clergy are prudent enough to regulate the annual 
 return of some of these festivals — not by the Mahommedan, but by 
 the Coptic calendar — not by the lunar, but by the solar months. 
 
 By adhering, therefore, to the civil year of 365 days, the priest* 
 were enabled, in consequence of its annual recession, to carry the 
 periodical festivals through all the different seasons of the year, within 
 a known period ; that is, the same festivals would sometimes occur 
 in summer, sometimes in winter, in regular undeviating succession. 
 
 The same custom has been adopted by the Mahommedans, for 
 their fast of the Ramaditn ; which, within my recollection, has passed 
 from midsummer, through spring and winter, and is now in autumn 
 
 The Egyptian astronomers, while they thought it expedient to keep 
 the practical and popular calendar to the civil year of 365 days ; 
 were, however, perfectly aware of the necessity of a further interca- 
 lation, to equalize the annual rotation. They therefore created a 
 period, well known to astronomers and chronologists, as the Sothic 
 period, from Sirius, the dog-star, termed Sothis by the Egyptians. 
 This period was styled by the Greeks, the Cynic Cycle, from Cynos, 
 a dog. When, therefore, we use the terms Sothic period, or Cynic 
 Cycle, we mean one and the same thing — end when we say the 
 Sothic year, the Sidereal year, the Cynic year, the Canicular year, 
 we refer to the year whose commencement was regulated by the pe- 
 riodical and heliacal rising of the dog-star, or Sirius, called Sothis — 
 the star of Isis, and Isis-Thoth ; or perhaps Thoth- Isis, (?) which, 
 by transmutation into Greek, has become Sothis. This year con 
 sisted of 365$ days, whereas the civil year remained 365. 
 
 It is certain, that the first morning apparition of the dog-star, be- 
 fore sunrise, was religiously associated in Egypt, with the 1st day of 
 the month of Thoth, called by the Arabs and Copts, “ Toot ” And 
 thus, the 1st day of Thoth was the first day of the first month of each 
 year. But there was another and a local cause, that connected the 
 heliacal rising of the dog-star with the rising of the “ sacred river ;’* 
 the grandest natural phenomenon in the valley of the Nile ; and one, 
 as intimately hallowed by the vast utility of its benefits, as mythically 
 interwoven with the religious doctrines of the Egyptians, and sacred 
 to the memories of Osiris»and Isis. 
 
 1940 
 
 443 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 51 
 
 In Egypt, the dog-star — Sirius or Sothia — for about 3000 years 
 B. C., and for some centuries after, rose on the same fixed day (mean 
 parallel,) a little before the sun (heliacal rising ;) and thisday was once 
 the 20th day of July, Julian calendar. This star in the course of each 
 year ceased to be visible on the horizon in Egypt for about a month 
 mnd a half, because it rose and set during the day-time : soon after, 
 it began to be perceived in the eastern sky, a little before sunrise ; 
 and on the following days it showed itself more and more above the 
 horizon, before the end of night. The first appearance of the star 
 •f Isis occurred some days after the summer solstice, and corre- 
 sponded exactly to the first rising of the waters of the Nile. It was, 
 therefore, all important to observe its movements ; and these obser- 
 vations soon proved, that the rise of the dog-star, which occurred on 
 the first day of the month of Thoth on one year, was not visible four 
 years subsequently till the second day of the same month ; and four 
 years later, not till the third, and so on ; till, after 120 years, this same 
 rising of the dog-star would not be visible till the first of the second 
 month of the year, or Paopi. 
 
 The cause of this change was immediately explained, so soon as 
 the priests remarked, that the civil year contained only 365 days ; 
 whereas, the heliacal rising of the dog-star took place after an in- 
 terval of 365 days and a quarter. The priests, therefore, created an 
 astronomical or fixed year, by the addition of one quarter of a day, 
 or six hours, to the original civil year; which fixed year, being regu- 
 lated by the dog-star, was termed the sotliic year of 365^ days, which 
 modern astronomers consider may have been the true length of the 
 year in that latitude. 
 
 It was thus ascertained that, as the vague or civil year of 365 days 
 was a moveable year, and as the sothic year of 365J days was a fixed 
 year; that, if at any time these two years began on the same day, 
 1461 civil years, or 1460 sothic years must transpire before the same 
 circumstance could occur again ; thus, 
 
 365 X4 gave the civil year every 1460 sothic years 
 365$ X4 “ sothic “ “ 1461 civil “ 
 
 keing a difference of one entire year between the sum of years de- 
 pendent on the solar months with five days’ intercalation, and the 
 sum of years dependent on the annual heliacal rising of the dog-star, 
 in 1460 sothic years. Tho heliacal rising of Sirius being, then, the 
 initial point of the true year, the priests designated as the sothic 
 period the series of 1460 fixed years, and of 1461 vague years, by 
 which these two should recommence on the same instant ; because 
 1460 years of 365J days, inclose exactly the same number of days 
 that are contained in the 1461 years of 365 days ; there being 533,265 
 days in each of these series. 
 
 Such was the calendar of the ancient Egyptians. It is probable, 
 that to the generality of readers this explanation is supererogatory, 
 because it is so familiar. However, at the risk of tedium, 1 have 
 inserted it ; and now proceed to draw some deductions from the facts 
 kid down. 
 
 The coincidence, on the same day, of the two initial days of these 
 respective periods — that is, when the first day of the fixed year was 
 the first day of the vague year — a coincidence which could only occur 
 every 1461 vague years, was in Egyptian chronology a memorable 
 epoch. We are told by Censorinus, who wrote in the third century 
 after Christ, that the last time the coincidence occurred, was on the 
 20th July, 139 years after Christ; by which we know, that it oc- 
 curred 1322 B. C., and again in the year 2782 B. C. : whence the 
 knowledge we possess of the learning of the Egyptian hierarchy, 
 legitimately allows our inferring, that it was by them observed. 
 
 The Greek astronomers of early times appear to have been quite 
 ■naware of the introduction, by the Egyptians, of one year in 1461 
 vague years, or of six hours at the end of each year. We have the 
 authority of Strabo, that the intercalation was unknown to Plato and 
 to Eudoxus, although they are said to have studied at Heliopolis ; 
 while Herodotus’s ignorance on this matter is fully proved, by his 
 speaking of the Egyptian year of 365 days having the effect of keep- 
 ing the seasons in their proper places ; although, in another passage, 
 he gives the most conclusive proof of the existence of the intercalary 
 quarter of a day in his time. 
 
 He says, the priests reckoned from Menes, 341 kings, or genera- 
 tions ; whence Herodotus calculates an interval of 11,340 years : yet 
 he adds, “During this time, they (the priests) said the sun had four 
 times risen out of his customary places ; that, both where he now sets 
 he had twice there risen ; and where he now rises, he had there 
 twice set.”* By explaining this passage in relation to the sothic 
 period, modern astronomers see that,, under an apparent fable, the 
 priests mystically told him the truth, although he did not understand 
 it. For, in the interval of at least 2250 years between Menes and 
 Herodotus, embracing as it does much more than one sothic period, 
 the sun rose twice and set twice (at least) in the same degree of the 
 ecliptic. The allegory was beautiful. 
 
 It follows therefore, that the later Greek astronomers, such as Hip- 
 parchus and Eratosthenes (although they do not acknowledge the 
 soutces of their learning,) derived most of their astronomical know- 
 ledge from the calculations of ancient Egyptians. 
 
 * 1 have borrowed this explanation of Herodotus, as well as some chronological data 
 Bi a previous chapter, from the “American Quarterly Review,” for December, 1827; 
 which is from the pen of Professor Renwick of Columbia College. 1 hs it not met else- 
 where with so luminous an explanation of the subject. 
 
 The well known fable of the Phoenix seems to be mystically con- 
 nected with the astronomical revolution of the sofliic period — 
 although it would seem that the story of its rising from its ashes v>is 
 unknown in the time of Herodotus, but was invented in after times, 
 and was adopted by the early Christian fathers. There is great con- 
 fusion in the intervals between each Phoenix ; some reducing them to 
 340 years, others extending them to 1461 years. It seems, however, 
 to have symbolized, in whole or in part, the Sothic Period, or great 
 astronomical year of the Egyptians ; being found on Egyptian monu- 
 ments, dating as far back as the commencement of the 18th Dyn., or 
 B. C. 1800. In the Coptic Pheneh, meaning age or period, we trace 
 the root of Phcenix, and its ealendrical utilities. 
 
 According to Horus-Apollo, the Phcenix symbolized the soul of 
 man — an expiring cycle of time — and also, the inundation of the 
 Nile. 
 
 We have the authority ofChaeremon and Porphyry for the antiquity 
 of the word almanack in Greek, long prior to the Saracens ; and for 
 the statement that almanacs are mentioned in the Books of Hermes. 
 Some English and Arabic vocabulists assert, that almanac is an 
 Arabic word !” I concede the article “ al,” or rather el, to be an 
 Arabian prefix. Bnt I should be edified to learn, to what Arabic 
 root they trace the word manac. It is probably of ancient Coptic 
 origin ; and if ever used by Arab historians (for it is unknown in 
 the Darig,) it is a compound, like the word almagcst — the Arabic, 
 cl — the, and the Greek, megistos — greatest; used by Ptolemy in 
 astronomy, and by the Grenada Moors in alchemy. 
 
 Now, by the authority of Syncellus, in the table of the Old Chron- 
 icle, the first dynasties embrace 443 years of the sothic period ; 
 whence it follows, that the first king of the 1st Dyn., Menes, ascended 
 the throne about the year 2782 Julian B.C. ; and it may bo inferred, 
 that he was the first Pharaoh who pledged himself not to alter the 
 calendar. 
 
 The 36,525 years of time, which the Old Chronicle gives for the 
 entire reign of gods, demigods, and Egyptians, divided by 1461, 
 gives us exactly 25 sothic periods ; and instead of being taken by us 
 literally, and therefore rejected by us as fabulous, must be regarded 
 as a vast astronomical cycle, by which the Hierophants regulated 
 their calendar; and their astronomical skill is nowhete more appa- 
 rent than in their cycle of 25 years, for adjusting the lunar with the 
 solar motions ; whereby they possessed a system more rigorously 
 correct than the Julian method in similar reductions. 
 
 The whole of this digression is merely to precede a few deductions, 
 to enlighten us on the probable epoch of the accession of Menes ; a 
 fundamental point in all subsequent Egyptian history ; and without 
 deeming it absolutely necessary to continue in prefatory explanations, 
 I present the several results. 
 
 1st — By the astronomical reduction of Herodotus, according 
 to Professor Renwick, we obtain the accession of Me- 
 nes about B. C. 2890 
 
 2nd — By Syncellus — Manetho agrees with general — (or 
 Septuagint) chronology, if we cut off' 656 years before 
 the flood, and 534 afterwards — the true period of 
 Egyptian history, according to him, would place the 
 accession of Menes — Renwick’s calculation, B.C. 2712 
 3rd — By Rosellini’s reduction of Syncellus, page 15, vol. 1st, 
 
 Menes would fall about B. C. 2776 
 
 4th — By Champollion Figeac, page 267, the epoch of Menes 
 
 would be — Freret’s calculation, B. C. 2782 
 
 5th — By Doct. Hales’ calculation, ” 24)2 
 
 6th — By my reduction of the “ Old Chronicle,” ” 2683 
 
 7th — By my reduction of “ Manetho,”’ ” 2715 
 
 I have before stated, that we could not define with precision the 
 epoch of Menes within 500 years — but all differences considered, 
 between the extreme of 2890 B. C. for remoteness, and 2412 B. C. 
 for proximity, which added to Rosellini’s and Champollion’s esti- 
 mates of the accession of the 16th dynasty - B. C. 2272 
 Addition, ------- 478 
 
 Would place Menes about the year - 2750 B.C.; 
 
 which I am inclined to adopt, as within a hundred year's approxima- 
 tion of the truth : thus affording abundance of interval, between the 
 Flood and Menes on the one hand ; and possibly sufficient for the 
 erection of the works now existing at Memphis — the pyramids — be 
 tween Menes and the accession of the 16th Dyn., on the other. 
 
 Perfectly aware of the extreme uncertainty of these calculations, 
 
 I would observe, as an excuse for the digression, that the epoch of 
 Menes is all-important in history — that I have endeavored to recon 
 cile it with the Septuagint as nearly as possible within reason and 
 probability — and that I lean rather in favor of an extension of the 
 interval between Menes and our Saviour ; for which I could easily 
 bring forward a mass of arguments and explanations, founded on 
 facts ; among which are the vast number of “ unplaced kings” we 
 possess, who must have lived between Menes and the 16th Dyn. I 
 repeat, however, to the best of my present belief, the epoch of Menes 
 taken at B. C. 2750, will reconcile monumental evidences with tho 
 Scriptural chronology of the Septuagint version. 
 
 It is, however, necessary for me to explain, why I hav» presumed 
 to differ in chronology with so learned a hicrologist as Sir J. G 
 
52 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Wilkinson ; because, as his works are most familiar to my readers, 
 acme might be struck with the discrepancy. 
 
 In his “ Topography of Thebes” (London, 1835, page 506,) after 
 \ preferring the list of Eratosthenes to that of Manetho, for his earlier 
 series of kings, Sir J. G. W. says : 
 
 “ I am aware, the era of Menes might be carried back to a much 
 more remote period than the date I have assigned it ; but as we have 
 as yet no authority further than the uncertain accounts of Manetho’s 
 copyist, to enable us to fix the time and the number of reigns inter- 
 vening between his accession and that of Apappus, I have not placed 
 him earlier, for fear of interfering with the date of the deluge of 
 Noah, which is 2348 B. C.” 
 
 The lis f of Eratosthenes being now of less authority than Mane- 
 tho, and it being impossible .o cramp and crowd Egyptian annals 
 into Archbishop Usher’s limit of 2348 years, I would remark, that 
 at the time of the construction of Sir J. G. W.’s table, I was at 
 Cairo in gratifying relations with him, and therefore know that this 
 table dates about 1832-33. The works from which I derive the 
 basis of my discourse, have mostly been published in France and in 
 Italy since 1832 : and Sir J. G. W.’s table is now behind the age, and 
 the progress since made in Egyptian developments; while Col. Vyse’s 
 researches at the pyramids have made the 4th Dyn. of Manetho loom 
 like a meteor in the night of time. 
 
 The chronology of Wilkinson is inconsistent with itself. lie takes 
 the Deluge according to Usher, at - * - - B. C. 2348 
 
 and he is compelled to place Menes at least - - - ” 2201 
 
 as the lowest limit — leaving between the Flood and Me- 
 
 nes an interval of years 147 
 
 at which time it is extremely doubtful, if the Caucasian children of 
 Noah, had around them a sufficiency of population to impel them to 
 quit Asia, and to colonize Egypt. But, on referring to page 41, 1st 
 Vol. of his invaluable later work, on the “ Manners and Customs of 
 the ancient Egyptians,” London, 1837, (uncontradicted in his second 
 series of 1841) it will be seen that the learned author, on the author- 
 ity of Josephus, (who says “ Menes lived upward of 1300 years be- 
 fore Solomon,” which last king ascended the throne of Israel, B. C. 
 1015;) extends the date of Menes from 2201 B. C. of his former 
 table to 2320 B. C., without any intimation that he, Sir J. G. W., re- 
 cognizes a correspondent precession of the era of the Flood, which he 
 still leaves at B. C. 2348. 
 
 If, as before stated, 147 years are totally insufficient, as an interval 
 between Noah and Menes, how much more so must be twenty-eight 
 years ? These 28 years are altogether absurd, for Egyptian local 
 events alone between the Flood and Menes ; still more so, when we 
 reflect on the geographical distance from Mount Ararat to Lower 
 Egypt, and on the necessary prior multiplication of the human race 
 on the plains of Shinar. 
 
 That one so erudite and critical as Sir J. G. Wilkinson, should 
 have committed any inadvertency in such arrangement, is an impos- 
 sibility, On the contrary, it displays a design ; which may perhaps 
 be explained, by supposing, that amid the conflictions of 300 systems 
 of chronology, on the epoch of the Deluge, the learned author may 
 have deemed one view about as well founded as any other ; while, 
 by placing so obvious an anachronism on the “ head and front” of 
 his tables, he desired to show the absurdity of attempting to recon- 
 cile Egyptian monumental annals with Archbishop Usher’s Deluge ; 
 and I feel extremely obliged for the argument I am thus enabled to 
 draw, in favor of my more extended hypothesis. 
 
 Finally, whether we confine Egyptian history to the contracted 
 limits of Usher’s chronology, and the Hebrew verity ; or take “in ex- 
 tenso” the widest range legitimately admissible on the authority of 
 the Septuagint version, it will be found, that the time-honored chron- 
 icles of Egypt carry us back to the remotest era of early periods ; 
 and even then display to us the wonderful and almost inconceivable 
 evidences, of a government organized under the rule of one monarch ; 
 of a mighty and numerous people skilled in the arts of war and 
 peace ; in multifarious abstract and practical sciences ; with well 
 framed laws, and the social lyibits of highly civilized life, wherein 
 the female sex was .free, educated and honored ; of a priesthood 
 possessing a religion, in which the Unity of the Godhead and his 
 attributes in trinities or triads, with a belief in the immortality of 
 the soul, a certainty of ultimate judgment, and a hope of a resurrec- 
 tion, are discoverable ; concealed though they be by the mysticisms 
 of awise but despotic hierarchy, and loaded by the vulgar castes and 
 the uninitiated, with the impurities of the grossest superstition. 
 
 It will then be seen, that, apart from those changes of style and 
 fashion, which the conservative principles of the priesthood could 
 not altogether prevent in tjie lapse of so many ages, the Caucasian 
 inhabitants of the Nilotic valley were in possession of hieroglyphical 
 writing, at the farthest point of time we can descry. And we shall 
 find the Egyptian children of Ham, the Asiatic, as great and as 
 learned, if not much more virtuous in those primeval days, as they 
 were at the invasion of the Persians, in the year 525 B. C., when 
 their monarchy had existed from 1500 to 2000 years. 
 
 Of what nation, obliterated from the face of the earth at the pres- 
 ent hour, or providentially surviving to defend its pretensions to prior 
 existence, can the contemporary annals boast a similar antiquity ? 
 To whom, but to the Egyptians, are we indebted for the origin of 
 many of our most important arts, and sciences, and institutions? 
 
 And why should prejudices and preconceived notions, gathered in 
 our infancy we can scarcely tell how, and maintained by narrow, 
 mindedness and ignorance, still prevent our recognizing in the pure 
 blooded Caucasian inhabitants of early Egypt, the sources of many 
 of those benefits, that we, who recognize in Noah a common 
 ancestor, at present enjoy ? 
 
 There remains still one final point, upon which it is necessary for 
 me to dwell, before commencing the monarchical history of Egypt; 
 and this refers to the long-prevailing, but erroneous opinion, that 
 the kings or dynasties of Egypt were contemporaneous ; that is, that 
 one king may have ruled over the Upper, while another may have 
 reigned over the Lower country at the same moment ; than which, 
 (however it may be deemed expedient thereby to reconcile the anti 
 quity of Egypt with the short chronology) there is no more untenable 
 doctrine, or one more unanimously rejected by the Champollions, by 
 Rosellini, by Wilkinson, and by all who, as hieroglyphists, have 
 examined the monuments and the country itself. The arguments 
 that would remove all doubts, would probably be too long to com- 
 mand attention ; but I crave indulgence while I define and establish 
 my own position, lest I should be found hereafter behind the age. 
 
 It is herein, therefore, maintained, that, with very few and con- 
 jectural exceptions, (on which the arguments for, or against, are in 
 each instance either equally balanced, or destructive of the contem- 
 porary application,) the result of hieroglyphical researches during the 
 whole period of history from Menes downward, overthrows such 
 an hypothesis, as contemporaneousness. The only contemporary 
 dynasty, by the best authorities recognized, is the rule of the Hyk. 
 shos, or Scythian Shepherd-kings in Lower Egypt, during a period, 
 probably of 260 years ; while the 17th Theban dynasty, of native 
 Egyptian Pharaohs, reigned over Upper Egypt, till these last suc- 
 ceeded in expelling the alien race. 
 
 To this solitary instance of two contemporary dynasties, ruling in 
 different parts of Egypt at the same moment, may be added that 
 period of anarchy, which preceded Psamettichus of the 26th Saitic 
 Dyn. ; wherein Herodotus places the rule of the Dodecarchia, or rule 
 of 12 kings ; but this last case is extremely doubtful, and has derived 
 no confirmation from the hieroglyphics. As we proceed, we shall 
 touch in their places on points that confirm the above view, while 
 we can confidently assert, that there were no contemporary Egyptian 
 Pharaohs. 
 
 The only correct view of the classification, by Manetho, of dynas- 
 ties named Thinite, Tanite, Memphite, Elephantinite, Heliopolite, 
 Diospolite, Xoite, Bubastite, Saitic, Mendesian, and Sebennite, is to 
 consider them not territorial, but family distinctions ; not separate 
 governments, but the localities, cities, or provinces, whence the 
 reigning Pharaoh, or his ancestors were derived by birth, or were in 
 name associated through some other unknown bond of connection. 
 
 The monuments, and sacred and profane history, will be found to 
 confirm and justify this straight-forward view of an often “ vexata 
 qutestio.” 
 
 We can afford to smile at the creation of an independent state and 
 contemporaneous monarchy, on a miserable little rocky island, not 
 more than twice the size of the New York Battery, and not so large 
 as the Common at Boston, and allow Elephantine and its independ- 
 ent and contemporary sovereignty to sleep with the fabled and fabu- 
 lous Memnon — the vocal Statue — the negro features of the Sphinx 
 — Cleopatra’s Needle — Pompey’s Pillar — the antiquity of the Zodiacs 
 of Dendera and Esnb — the African or Ethiopian origin of the ancient 
 Egyptians, and other odd fancies of an expiring age. 
 
 CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 In the previous portion of this discourse, I gave the calculations 
 and arguments, whereby the accession to the throne of Menes, was 
 considered by me, to have taken place within a century of the year 
 2750., B. C. 
 
 To give an idea of the process adopted by the hieroglyphical 
 school in re-constructing Egyptian history, no less than to establish 
 the fact that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasian in race, and Asia- 
 tic in origin, I will dwell rather longer on this monarch, his deeds and 
 times, than at first sight may appear necessary, or has been generally 
 thought requisite by my predscessors of the Champollion school. 
 
 The fragments of Manetho give, as the 1st king of the 1st dynasty 
 “ Menes, the Thinite ; who carried the arms of Egypt into foreign 
 countries, and rendered his name illustrious. He died of a wound 
 received from a hippopotamus, about the 62nd year of his reign.” 
 Besides the authority of Manetho, we possess the testimony of other 
 ancient authors, Herodotus, Eratosthenes, Diodorus, Josephus, the old 
 Egyptian Chronicle of Castor, the Canon of Syncellus, all agreeing 
 that Menes was the first of the kings of Egypt ; which is corrobo. 
 rated by our finding his royal oval, in hieroglyphics, as the earliest an- 
 cestor of Ramses 3rd — Sesostris — in the procession sculpturedon the 
 walls of the Theban Palace, now known as the “ Ramsessium,” but 
 formerly, and erroneously called, the Memnonium. 
 
 See tablet, in my lecture room- This Succession was cut in th* 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 53 
 
 roitr 11 of Ramses — Sesostris, between the years 1565, B. C., and 1490, 
 R C.: and us Mencs 
 
 U.UJJJ 
 
 Gfg£2Sg 
 
 U 
 
 Me r 
 
 M or “ Menei,” is here the first ancestor of Sesostris, 
 
 N we find the sculptures at once confirming history. 
 Eratosthenes says, his name “Menes,” means “Dio- 
 nios,” rendered “ Jovialis,” of or belonging to Jove. 
 
 IE Jove is the Egyptian God, “ Amun,”and in Cop- 
 tic, “ Menei” is an abreviation of “ Amun-ei,” sig- 
 nifying, “ who walks with Amun.” Josephus tells 
 
 us that Menes ruled “ more than 1300 years before Solomon,” who 
 was born in 1032, B. C., 
 
 To the above-mentioned genealogical procession may be added the 
 celebrated chronological canon of the dynasties of Egypt, written on 
 papy-us, in the hieratic character, composed in the 15th century, B. 
 C.. and now existing in the Museum of Turin. This venerable relic 
 is "in such a deplorable state of dilapidation, that but little can be made 
 out, beyond a few simple facts, that excite at once curiosity and un- 
 availing regrets. But the first page opens with these words : “ The 
 king, Menei, exercised royal attributions years ’ 
 
 By some ancient writers, Menes is stated to have been a Theban ; 
 by others it is said that he was born at the city of Phis, near Aby- 
 dos, whence his dynasty is termed 1 hinite. 
 
 We are told he founded Thebes, which is likewise attributed to a 
 later king, Busiris ; but the concurrent testimony of Herodotus and 
 Josephus ascribes to the first king, Menes, the glory of founding 
 Memphis ; which achievement i3 by Diodorus likewise attributed to 
 another very early monarch, (though subsequent to Menes) Ucho- 
 reus. There seems to be no reason why Menes should not have 
 founded, or perhaps only extended, (?) either or both of these cities ; 
 but it is particularly to be remarked, 
 
 1st. That Manetho speaks of Atuotiiis, son of Menes, building a 
 palace at Memphis, whence we may legitimately infer, that the city 
 was already in existence, and therefore was probably founded by his 
 
 father; 
 
 2nd. That, as Josephus had access to copies of Manctho’s original 
 history, of which we possess only fragments, and seeing that by his 
 numerous quotations therefrom in his defence of the Jews against 
 Apion, Josephus shows that he, and the world in his day, placed 
 implicit confidence in the then indisputable authority of the learned 
 Priest of Sebennitus ; we may infer, that when Josephus assigns to 
 Menes the foundation of Memphis, upward “ of 1300 years before 
 Solomon,” and “ many years prior to Abraham,” the Hebrew chron 
 icier was not at variance with Manetho’s record of Egypto-anti- 
 quarian lore ; while the view of relative chronology taken by Jose- 
 phus could not have been contrary to the Jewish historical archives, 
 such as they were in his time, previously to the corruption of the 
 Hebrew Biblical text. 
 
 Herodotus, likewise, in attributing to Menes the building of Mem- 
 phis, adds, also, that Menes founded therein a“ Temple to Vulcan.” 
 Now the Vulcan, or Hephaestus of the Greek mythology, who was 
 degraded by them into a limping blacksmith, is only a Greek mis- 
 conception and perversion of that beautiful Egyptian mythical idea, 
 whereby Vulcan or “ Pthah” of the Egyptians, was but a form of or 
 emanation from the Godhead, symbolizing the “ creative power” of 
 the Almighty. We know that Memphis was the city of “Pthah,” who, 
 from time immemorial was here peculiarly worshipped. Memphis 
 is Biblically “ Noph.” A telDh milage on its site is termed Memf, 
 or Menoph, thus confirming history, sacred and profane. In hiero- 
 glyphics Memphis is known by several titles. 
 
 The Abode of Good, land 
 
 Menofre. " ~ S the Pyramid.” 
 
 AAAAA (J) 
 
 “The habitation of Pthih.” 
 
 One form of the god Pthah was termed Pthah-Sokar-Osiris, and 
 was peculiarly venerated at Memphis. This deity was often called 
 only Sokaris, or rather “ Sokar,” whence the present name of the 
 village, which lies on the Necropolis of Memphis, has been inge- 
 niously traced, being now called “ Zacc&ra.” 
 
 Pthah, or Vulcan, we know was worshipped in a magnificent tem- 
 ple at Memphis, until Christianity destroyed the doctrine, and Ma- 
 hommedanism obliterated the edifice, save a few scattered blocks 
 that still mark its site amid the date groves of Metraheni. The 
 frequent hieroglyphical references to this temple, existing in the time 
 of Herodotus, though not in its ancient splendor, (as it had then been 
 plundered by Cambyses,) sheds a confirmatory glimmer of light on 
 the accuracy of the Greek historian in this instance ; because a 
 hieroglyphical tablet in the quarries of “ Toora,” opposite Memphis, 
 of the time of Amosis-Thetmose's, vanquisher of the Hykshos, and 
 last of the 17th Dynasty, B. C. 1822, records that, he, “ Aahmes took 
 good materials from these quarries to repair? restore? or build ? the 
 temple of Pthah, at Memphis” — a proof that the temple of Pthah 
 existed at Memphis, prior to B. C. 1822, or the reign of Amosis, 
 
 PTIIAn-EI. 
 
 Whence, even if we had no other evidence to bring forward, we 
 may already draw satisfactory inferences that Herodotus was correct 
 in his account of early Memphis — that Memphis was a city when 
 Athothis, or Menes his father, founded therein a temple to Pthah — 
 and that this temple of Pthah existed before the end of the 17th 
 Dynasty, B. C. 1822. 
 
 Again, Herodotus speaks of the “ turning off of the Nile into a 
 new channel by Menes,” who raised a dike to prevent its overflow 
 from flooding the city — a work corroborated by the topographical 
 nature of the localities, and by the present aspect of the Nile, near 
 the spot where the river was diked-off, about fourteen miles above 
 the mounds of Metraheni, the site of Memphis : and a precaution 
 still retained by the Fellahs of that district, to preserve their villages 
 from inundation, as well as to control the irrigating utilities of the 
 “ Sacred River.” 
 
 This diking-off of the Ni'e is a process, which (as there is every 
 reason to suppose it was performed by Menes) is a strong argument 
 to show, that, in his day, the children of Ham had already arrived, 
 not only at abundant population, which rendered necessary the found- 
 ation of a metropolis, and the economical preservation of the allu- 
 vial soil above Memphis (the finest tract of land in all Egypt,) but, 
 that they had also arrived at considerable knowledge in hydraulics, 
 as well as other branches of science. Moreover, as these were works 
 not likely to be attempted without necessity, or without long previous 
 experience of the habits of the river, it must be allowed they imply 
 a long prior residence in Lower Egypt. 
 
 History thus enables us to carry back the foundation of Memphis 
 to the accession of the first king Menes ; and it is in her Necropolis 
 or burial-ground, we find those monuments, which, in size, as in an- 
 tiquity, exceed all others in the world, viz., the pyramids of Gheb- 
 zeh, Abobsecr, Zacciira, and Dashobr, with some tombs, coeval with, 
 if not antecedent to, the erection of the earliest ! 
 
 We are therefore enabled to establish, 
 
 1st. Historically, and monumentally, that Menes or Menei, was tho 
 first king of Egypt. 
 
 2nd. Historically and monumentally, that, being founded by Menes, 
 Memphis is the oldest city. 
 
 3rd. Geographically, that Memphis is in Lower Egypt ; and thus, 
 that the children of Ham, coming from Asia and spreading over the 
 Nilotic valley, considered Lower Egypt the most eligible point (as 
 it unquestionably is) for a metropolis — for great works — and made it 
 the chief seat of primitive monarchial government. 
 
 Upon the authority of Josephus, whose chronology is in accord, 
 ancc with the Septuagint, and not with the corrupted Hebrew ver- 
 sion (independently of the absolute necessity for placing the acces- 
 sion of Menes as far back as possible, to make room for the kings who 
 reigned after him,) we establish the foundation of Memphis by Me 
 nes, and its existence as a Templed city ; protected by great artificial 
 water-defences, at some period anterior to 1300 years before Solo- 
 mon, or prior to 2320 years, B.C. ; and we can therefore with pro- 
 priety contend, that the view herein taken of chronology, based on 
 tho Septuagint version of the Bible, is neither extravagant, nor merely 
 hypothetical ; because the interval of 28 years between the founda- 
 tion of Memphis by Menes, and the Deluge, according to Archbishop 
 Usher’s chronology, B. C. 2348, is wholly insufficient for the num- 
 berless preparatory events that must have employed the human race, 
 between the multiplication and progress of Noah’s family down tho 
 Euphrates, till they separated at Shinar, and the foundation oi Mem- 
 phis, in Egypt, by a Caucasian colony. By allowing, on the chro- 
 nology of the Septuagint, an interval of about 400 to 500 years before 
 wc seat Menes on the throne of Egypt-- somewhere about the year 
 2750, B. C. — we are not subjected to such absurd anachronisms and 
 physical impossibilities. 
 
 Menes, chief of the military caste, happily accomplished the revo- 
 lution which substituted a civil government for the theocracy. He 
 was the first invested with the title of Pharaoh (in Hebrew, Phrah) 
 or king; and, from this new order of things was created a royal he- 
 reditary government. It would appear, that Menes was occupied 
 with foreign wars, though upon what nation we have no information. 
 It may be presumed, that these military movements were chiefly di- 
 rected to the protection of the frontiers of Egypt from the incursions 
 of adjacent nomadic and barbarous tribes, by which Egypt was, and 
 is still surrounded in every direction. To the south, there were the 
 Berber and Negro races; to the west, the Lybians, along the whole 
 length of the river from Nubia to the sea ; to the east, lay the Eastern 
 Desert, probably occupied, as at present, by mixed races of Arabs 
 and Berbers ; while the Isthmus of Suez required particular a ten- 
 tion, as this line of frontier was exposed to constant incursions of 
 Asiatic tribes, eager to obtain their share of the “ flesh pots of Egypt.” 
 Of these defences we have abundant vestiges to this day, although 
 we cannot say by what king, or at what time, they were erected. 
 
 I have already spoken of Egypt, as a valley, between two high 
 chains of hills— the Lybian and the Eastern ranges. The face? of 
 these, especially along the eastern bank, are often quite perpendicu- 
 lar ; so that they act as walls to keep the nomad from the cultivated 
 ground ; but, at various distances, these are intersected by deep ra. 
 vines, along which journeys are performed, and intercourse isrnain- 
 tained between the Nile and the Red Sea. Now, there is not one 
 of these ravines, but at its mouth, nearest the river, there are re- 
 
54 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 mains of walls, that once blocked up the passage; and, from the ru- 
 ins in the vicinity of some, we may conjecture these were forts, 
 gates and military stations. Wherever, as you ascend the liver, you 
 find the inclination of the hills, on the eastern side, such as would 
 admit of communication between the cultivated soil and the desert, 
 you will find traces thereon, more or less apparent, of a long brick 
 wall, stretching from north to south, and terminating only where na- 
 tural impediments render this wall unnecessary — taken up again a 
 few miles beyond; and so on, all the way to Nubia. This wall is 
 .ermed by the Arabs, Gisr-el-Agbbs, or the “Old Man’s Dike,” in 
 memory of its antiquity. 
 
 The subject of the relations of the desert-tribes with Egypt, from 
 the earliest times to the present day, is one that has much interested 
 me, and might be extended to long and curious exposition, that would 
 remove many erroneous impressions concerning the “ Bbdawees” in 
 the deserts adjacent to the Nile. 
 
 It cannot be supposed that, by the construction of this wall, the 
 Egyptians intended to cut off all intercourse with the desert ; on the 
 contrary, this intercourse was to both parties essential ; for the nomad 
 would starve if he could not obtain grain from the farmer ; while the 
 latter, with the manufacturer, requires the camel’s hair, the long reeds 
 for matting, and a number of productions, whose attainment requires 
 the skill of the son of the desert, as much as grain that of the far- 
 mer, or as useful manufactures that of the craftsman. 
 
 The object of the walls was to bring the nomad under the control 
 of a well-regulated police ; to prevent him from pasturing his flocks, 
 without paying for the permission of the proprietor of the soil ; or 
 from stealing the grain and forage he was thus compelled to purchase ; 
 with an infinitude of other wise and excellent regulations, conducive 
 to social good order, and agricultural economy ; but by no means de- 
 structive of friendly intercourse between the Ishmaelite and the 
 peasa-nt. Indeed, the Almighty’s hand is nowhere more apparent 
 in adapting man to the nature of the soil on which he is to reside, 
 than in peopling the deserts around Egypt with a hardy race, as use- 
 ful in their vocation as the citizen, the farmer and the sailor. Euro, 
 pean civilization will work no material changes in the habits of the 
 “ Bhdawee.” 
 
 But, though employed in wars, Menes distinguished his era by the 
 arts of peace. He founded Memphis: it is said he built Thebes. 
 He commenced, on a large scale, the diking and “canalization,” so 
 essential to the prosperity of Egypt. He founded the great temple 
 of Pthah; and introduced into social life those comforts and luxuries 
 of civilization, which, notwithstanding the curse of Tnephachthus, 
 conduce to the terrestrial happiness of man ; while by his protection 
 of religion and the priesthood, he insured the education of the peo- 
 ple, and the preservation of a religious system, that Christianity alone 
 ufter a lapse of nearly 3000 years could overthrow. We cannot 
 wonder, therefore, that the memory of so great a man should have 
 been dear to his successors, or that the monuments should attest the 
 veneration of a name handed down to us by all early writers. 
 
 These chapters being confined to the exemplification of Egyptian 
 History by the hieroglyphics, I refer to Manetho for the names of the 
 kings of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dynasties, who followed Menes on the 
 Pharaonic throne ; because, as yet, it has been impossible to identify 
 the names of any one of these in the hieroglyphics ; owing rather to 
 uncouth changes, made through ignorance of transcribers, of the 
 names left by Manetho, than to the absence of royal ovals, as I shall 
 soon explain. 
 
 We glean from Manetho, that during these three dynasties, pala- 
 ces were built, pyramids were erected ; that Egypt was visited twice 
 by the plague, whence the antiquity of this disease in Egypt may be 
 inferred. In fact, it is an illusion to suppose that the same natural 
 causes should not operate, in early times, to produce the same effects 
 as at present : and it has been demonstrated by Clot Bey, that the 
 plague is indigenous, not only to Egypt, but to the East in general, 
 ulong the northern coast of Asia and Africa ; that its causes are un. 
 known, but that its developments are spontaneous ; that it is an error 
 to suppose that mummification (begun in primeval epochs and con- 
 tinued above 3000 years down to the days of St. Augustine,) was 
 adopted as a preventive (!) because, during the periods of mummifi- 
 cation, we have abundance of sacred and profane history to prove the 
 occasional desolating effects of the Oriental pestilence ; and finally, as 
 these two occurrences of the plague are antecedent to Abraham, the 
 pestilence with which the Almighty visited the Egyptians in the time 
 of Moses, was not the first instance of the plague in Egypt, as we are 
 well assured it was not by many hundreds the iast. We also learn, 
 that women were, in the second dynasty, permitted to hold the impe- 
 rial government; an institution that continued intact till the extinction 
 of the Ptolemies in the far-famed Cleopatra ; as is attested all through 
 this long line of centuries by hieroglyphical evidence. 
 
 The Lybians, at that day, were tributary to Egypt; and we are in- 
 formed, that an eclipse of the moon was observed. Works oil anat- 
 omy and medicine were written by two kings of these dynasties. 
 It may be inferred, that the use of the saw in cutting large stones, 
 was discovered in this period — while all the arts and sciences of the 
 ancients appear to have been in full development and use — but oth- 
 erwise, these kings gained no celebrity; whence we may infer, that 
 Egypt was peaceful, happy, and prosperous, during the dominion of 
 unambitious kings. 
 
 A long, but undefinable interval, from Menes to tne end of the 3rd 
 Memphite dynasty, brings us to the 4th, and (to us) tlie most im- 
 portant of all ; because recent discoveries have enabled us to verify 
 history by extraordinary monumental confirniatioi.6. 
 
 We are all well acquainted with the wonder of the world — the 
 eternal pyramids, whose existence astounds ourc cdence — whose anti- 
 quity has been a dream — whose epoch is a uystery. What monu- 
 ments on earth have given rise to more fabies, speculations, errors, 
 illusions and misconceptions ? 
 
 The subject of the pyramids is so vast, as not to be condensible 
 into this series of lectures; but those who feel curious to know the pos- 
 itive height, length, breadth, areas, cubic contents, &c., &c. of each 
 of these lofty monuments, are referred to the great work of Col. H. 
 Vyse, who expended during the years 1837-38, many thousands of 
 pounds, in excavations and other labors in these edifices. It is my 
 intention to construct a table, which, at one view, shall give all re- 
 quisite details ; and then it will afford me pleasure to devote a special 
 lecture to the pyramids; but I am prevented, at present, from so 
 doing, by the absence of the most important vol. of Col. Vyse’s 
 work — the 3rd, which has not yet reached this country ; and although 
 I am generally acquainted with the substance of its contents, hav- 
 ing seen many of the calculations in manuscript, and witnessed 
 the labors of Mr. Perring, on the spot, in 1839, it would be contrary 
 to the principles I have laid down, (of not hazarding statistical asser- 
 tions, without being able to produce competent authority,) were I 
 now to enter into details. 
 
 It will be conceded, that a person who, like myself, has resided for 
 years in constant sight of these Mausolea ; who has spent at different 
 intervals, many months in exploring them, and their vicinities — who 
 has ascended the great pyramid a score of time:-, and entered fre. 
 quently into all the chambers, passages, &c., of the others; has at 
 least had an opportunity of gleaning some knowledge about them. 
 Since therefore, with all these advantages, I postpone lecturing on the 
 pyramids, till I possess the most important work ever published on 
 the subject; my readers will appreciate the difficulty of the appre 
 hended task, when even I, who know all that has been done, fear to 
 mislead others by premature expositions. On every subject touched 
 in these chapters or lectures, the latest and best information will be 
 produced ; and I would rather encounter the charge of ignorance on 
 the pyramids, than that of abusing the confidence with which my 
 communications are so indulgently listened to.* 
 
 But, if I abstain from statistical details on this head, there are some 
 generalities, proceeding from recent discoveries of hieroglyphical 
 names &c, in the pyramids, that are invaluable to history ; and these 
 I will now consider. 
 
 It is sufficient to sweep one’s eye along themap, suspended above 
 me (a rough outline of which I present in this treatise) from Mem- 
 phis to Meroe — a distance of 1500 miles — to perceive that there was 
 a time (and that prolonged for unnumbered ages, during a remote 
 period,) when pyramidal constructions were in vogue in the valley 
 of the Nile; and that in Egypt, the Memphite pyramids were the 
 sepulchres of kings, does not any longer admit of a doubt. 
 
 At Memphis, on a line extending about 25 miles from the most 
 northern to the most southern pyramid, we have scattered in clus- 
 ters, near the villages Aboo-roo&sh, Gheezeh,Abobseer, Zaccdra, and 
 Dashobr, about 25 pyramids, or pyramidal tombs of various con- 
 struction, elevation and dimensions ; of which, some 18 may be 
 termed large, and the rest small. They are all surrounded with count- 
 less tombs, pits, excavations, passages, subterranean works and 
 superficial structures — all exclusively dedicated to the dead — and, if 
 millions of mummies have, in the last 1500 years, been removed and 
 destroyed, there axe millions still unmolested in that burial ground, 
 to attest tlie vast population of ancient Memphis. Along this line 
 is the Necropolis of a city, that ceased to exist after flourishing for 
 3000 years. 
 
 The pyramids of Ghebzeh are of all sizes, from the largest to the 
 smallest. The largest, that of Shoopho, is 
 
 Feet— l»eiuht. S$q. ft.— base. Cubic ft.— masonry. Tons— weight. 
 
 450-9 746 89,028,000 6,848,000 
 
 of good limestone ; cut into blocks, varying from 2 to 5 ft. square 
 — from which estimate of limestone, however, must be deducted a 
 large mass of granite blocks, used in lining the interior — while the 
 amount of space occupied inside by chambers and passages, is only 
 56,000 cubic feet, or 7 ^ of the whole mass. 
 
 The smallest of the 9 at Ghedzeh, is some 70 feet high, by a square 
 base of about 102 feet. 
 
 The remaining pyramids at the southward, those of Aboosefer, 
 Zaccitra and Dashobr, may be roughly estimated — the smallest about 
 150, and the largest, about 350 feet high — two are of crude brick. 
 
 There are pyramids at other places in Egypt. Two small ones at 
 Lisht, about 20 miles beyond Dashobr ; and, about 20 miles further 
 on, that of Meymoon — called “ the false pyramid” — two of crude 
 brick, and the vestiges of two more of stone, on the site of Lake 
 Mceris in the Fayobm — and one at El-Qenitn, above Esnd. The 
 latter are all small. 
 
 * Even since this lecture was delivered at Boston, letters from Egypt inform me that 
 the Prussian scientific mission, under the enthusiastic Leipsius, hail, in December, mad* 
 several valuable discoveries umong these stupendous ruins ; all confirmatory ot ties 
 views herein set forth. As soon as the details arrive, my oral lectures will contain alt 
 relative information. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 55 
 
 In Ethiopia there are 
 
 80 pyramids at “ Meroe” — sandstone, 
 42 do. at“Noori,” “ 
 
 17 do. at Gebel-Birka', “ 
 
 [square base.] 
 
 Maximum. Minimum. 
 
 60 feet. 20 feet. 
 
 100 “ 20 “ 
 
 88 “ 23 “ 
 
 139 Pyramids above the Nile at lat. 18. 
 
 The arch, both round and pointed, is coeval with the era of these 
 last pyramids. 
 
 For all that is hitherto known of the pyramids of Meroe, I refer 
 .o that valuable work, “ Travels in Ethiopia, by Hoskins — London, 
 1835.” The facts of the author are indisputable ; but some of his 
 deductions from those facts are often erroneous, especially those 
 whereby he would prove the priority of Meroe. Without a special 
 argument on the subject, it would be impossible to establish the fal- 
 lacy of these deductions — but as the work of a gentleman, a hierolo- 
 gist and a scholar, Mr. Hoskins’s book is full of merit. I shall touch 
 on some of the deductions I draw from the same data, anon. 
 
 It would be vain to detail all the nonsense, that, from time immemorial, 
 has been written on the pyramids of Memphis, which, by some, have 
 been considered antediluvian ; although two of the most ancient being 
 built of sunburnt brick, could not have endured the waves of the 
 Deluge for a single month. Others have ascribed their erection to 
 giants or genii : they were said to inclose the impenetrable secrets 
 of mystic demonomania, or to have been built for the mysteries of 
 initiation. Again, they were supposed to have been erected for as- 
 tronomical purposes. Then, it has been mathematically demonstrated, 
 that they were built to “ square the circle they are said to have 
 stood over reservoirs to purify the muddy waters of the inundation; 
 to have served as the sepulchres of entire royal families, or for 
 masses of population. In short, each speculation has exceeded its 
 predecessor in absurdity, excepting when confined to the objects of 
 ustronomy and sepulture. With respect to their having served astro- 
 nomical purposes, (though no harm can proceed from such an hypo- 
 thesis,) it is refuted, 1st. By their extraordinary variety and number ; 
 and 2ud, in Ethiopia, by their fronts facing all points of the compass, 
 from N.E. to S.E. 3rd. In Egypt, from the measurements made in 
 1839, by Mr. Perring, which demonstrate that the inclinations of the 
 passages, as well as the relative position of each pyramid, vary so as 
 to destroy all conformity to mathematical or astronomical purposes. 
 These proofs against their astronomical utility, are independent of the 
 voluminous evidences to be gleaned from history, and from a glance 
 at the monuments themselves — their localities, and associations, 
 which declare their sepulchral design. If, as Sir John Herschell 
 observes, the inclined passage into the largest pyramid of Ghedzeh, 
 (which could never, at the time of its building, have been pointed at 
 the Polar star, that is, at a Ursae Minoris) was made at an angle to 
 correspond to a Draconis ; this pyramid must have been built about 
 the year B. C. 2123, which alone would suffice to upset Usher’s 
 epoch of the Deluge, 2348 B. C. — because, 225 years would be too 
 brief a period for the Caucasian children of Ham, to migrate from 
 Asia into Egypt, there to acquire arts, sciences, and writing ; to 
 erect first several pyramids, and then build the one which is now the 
 largest. Their knowledge of astronomy must have been great in- 
 deed, and the study of the heavens a primary object in life, to have 
 caused them to conceive, and then to execute works (one of which 
 consumed 6,848,000 tons of cut stone, brought 15 miles from the 
 quarry,) the object of which would have been to point a passage 63 
 feet long, to such an insignificant little star as a draconis. And, 
 why did they build some 25 pyramids ? or erect at least two after 
 the construction of the largest? 
 
 The greatest astronomer of the age, Sir John Herschell, after in- 
 specting the tables, (accurately determined for the first time by Col. 
 Vyse, and his cooperaiors in 1838) declares — Vyse, 2nd — 108: “No 
 other astronomical relation can be drawn from the tables containing 
 the angles and dimensions of the passages ; for although they all 
 point within 5 degrees of the pole of the heavens, they differ too 
 much and too irregularly to admit of any conclusions.” 
 
 “ The exterior angles of the buildings are remarkably uniform ; 
 but the angle 52° is not connected with any astronomical fact, and 
 was probably adopted for architectural reasons.” 
 
 The opinion of their astronomical utility may be set down as now 
 exploded in Europe ; while, in Egypt, the idea causes a smile of 
 surprise, that any one should have taken the trouble seriously to in- 
 quire into the subject. I am very far from questioning the antiquity 
 of astronomy, or doubting the knowledge of that science in Egypt : 
 for Diodorus, i., 28, expressly says : “ It is indeed supposed, that the 
 Chaldeans of Babylon, being an Egyptian colony, arrived at their 
 celebrity in astrology, in consequence of what they derived from the 
 priests of Egypt.” The Babylonish method of dividing the year 
 was the same as the Egyptian, and can be traced positively back to 
 B. C. 720 — but, although we know from Chron., ii., 31, 32, and Kings, 
 ii., 20, 12, that, about the year 700 B. C., Babylonian astronomers 
 visited Jerusalem ; yet, it is allowed by the best mathematicians, 
 that the epoch of the Chaldean tables ascends to the year 2234, 
 wnich is only 114 years after Usher s Deluge '. 
 
 If the Chaldeans derived astronomy from Egypt, the fact would 
 prove that this science was known at the time of Menes, if not 
 befoic, ur.d confirm al! I have said of the antiquity of the sothic 
 
 period. Astronomy was, without question, an auvanced science to 
 the people, who could erect pyramids on the scale of those at Mem- 
 phis ; but it does seem ridiculous and supererogatory, after the uses 
 we know the Egyptians made of these edifices, to speculate upon the 
 relations these kingly tombs may have had to the stars. They are all 
 tombs, and nothing else. Kings were buried in them, and perhaps 
 queens. In some (the pyramid of five steps, at Zacchra, for instance) 
 other persons have also been buried besides the rnonarcli ; probably 
 members of the royal family, or of the royal household. 
 
 If much labor has been wasted in guessing at the objects of the 
 pyramids, still more has been thrown away in crude fancies as to 
 their epoch, or their builders. Poor Herodotus, and his copyist Dio- 
 dorus, themselves misunderstanding the accounts received from the 
 priests, have been the cause of the greatest misconception on the 
 part of their successors. The Greeks, who were correct in the names, 
 lost themselves completely in anachronisms, when they pretended 
 to define the epoch. While, although the learned Calmet and other 
 Hebraists and travellers, have traced their origin to Moses and Aaron, 
 and have wept over the supposed aggravation of the labors of the 
 Jews, employed as forced laborers in erecting some of these pyra- 
 mids ; it is satisfactory to be able to deduce from the unerring hiero- 
 glyphics, that every Memphite pyramid was erected at least four 
 centuries before Abraham, and that the Hebrews had nothing to do 
 with them, except to look at them from the opposite shore of the 
 Nile. The erection of the pyramids at Memphis alone, w'ould take 
 a longer time than the entire sojourn of the Jews in Egypt ; and even 
 supposing it were proved that the Hebrews had assisted in the erection 
 of some of those at Memphis, how did the Egyptians dispense with 
 their services, or whom did they employ, in erecting those in the 
 Fayoom ? or in Upper Egypt? or those one hundred and thirty-nine 
 pyramids 1500 miles up the Nile, on the plains of Meroe, in Ethiopia ? 
 
 The Jewish theory in connection with the pyramids is also ex 
 ploded, and we now proceed to show that, as the whole of those of 
 Memphis were built between Menes and the accession of the lGth 
 dyn., in B. C. 2272, these monuments antedate the era of Moses by 
 at least 800 to 1000 years. 
 
 Our text-book, Manetho, informs us that Venephes, the third king 
 from Menes (whom we may conjecture occupied the throne within 
 a hundred years from that monarch,) erected the pyramids near Cn- 
 chome, or Choe, or Cochoma. This shows, historically, the antiquity 
 of pyramidal constructions. 
 
 1 would casually remark, that the Great Sphinx, whose mutilated 
 features have given rise to so many discussions, although situated 
 amid the pyramids of Ghedzeh, has nothing to do with the epoch of 
 the pyramids ; for, as I shall show hereafter, that great work belongs 
 to a much later period — to the 18th Theban dynasty, not earlier than 
 B. C. 1800, or several centuries after the cessation of pyramidal con 
 structions. In due course, we shall arrive at this subject. 
 
 We pass over the 2nd and 3rd dynasties, and begin with the 4th 
 Memphite dynasty of 8, or according to another reading, of 17 kings. 
 
 MANETHO’S FOURTH DYNASTY 
 of eight (or seventeen) Memphite kings of a different race. 
 
 1 — Soris reigned 29 years. 
 
 2 — Suphis reigned 63 years. He built the largest pyramid, which 
 
 Herodotus says was constructed by Cheops. He was 
 arrogant* toward the gods, and wrote the sacred book, 
 which is regarded by the Egyptians as a work of great 
 importance. 
 
 3 — Suphis reigned 66 years. 
 
 4 — Mcncheres “ 63 “ 
 
 5 — Rhatoeses “ 25 “ 
 
 6 — Bicheris “ 22 “ 
 
 7 — Sebercheres“ 7 “ 
 
 8 — Thampthis “ 9 “ 
 
 Altogether, 284 years. 
 
 The first king of this 4th dynasty is termed by Manetho, Sor s. 
 
 In one of the innumerable ancient tombs that are in the Necropolis 
 of Memphis (fragments of which are now in the British Museum,) 
 the following name occurs ; the first of a succession of four kings, 
 whose names, it will be seen in the sequel, correspond to the his- 
 torical lists. 
 
 This name reads, as it stands, Re-sh-o. By meta- 
 thesis, we are allowed to transpose the disk of the sun 
 from the top, where it was placed out oi respect to the 
 deity, to the bottom, and then it reads Sh-o-re. The 
 Greeks could not, by any combination of their alpha, 
 bet, express the articulation sh; so they were obliged 
 to write the name with an S, while the tcimination S 
 is a Greek addition to euphonize those Eastern names 
 they were pleased to term barbarian : so that Soris in 
 Greek, was Shore in Egyptian, designating one and the same peison. 
 
 * The obvious inconsistency in this passiee. proceeds Drobaldv from some 
 error of transcription in Manetho s test. Heroaotus aiso speaas disparagingly of Cheops 
 I advert to this point, to express my conviction, that in the construction of tins and ot 
 all the other pyramids, there was neither cruelty to the laborers employed ; nor, beyond 
 tit ■ n agnltude of the undertaking, is there any reason to deem the erection of these 
 mu oleums to have been productive of inconvenience to the country, or contrary to 
 the institution* of that ancient, though peculiar nation. 
 
56 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 The meaning of Suo-Re is, “ Pharaoh dominator,” or the “ presiding 
 6un.” 
 
 In the list of Eratosthenes, the 13th Theban king is Rauosis, 
 translated by him arehicrator, or “chief of the mighty,” which cor- 
 responds to the meaning of Shore ; now, if we read the name Shore, 
 it corresponds in sound, in construction, and in signification, to Ma- 
 netho’s Soris ; or, if we read it Reslio, it corresponds in sound, in 
 construction, and in signification, to the Rauosis of Eratosthenes. 
 In both historians, Shore or Reslio precedes the names of kings who 
 immediately follow him in the hieroglyphical succession found in 
 the tombs about the pyramids ; while, from the name having been 
 found in it, there is every probability that he built the north pyramid 
 of Abooseer. That which, however, is at this moment speculative, 
 derives infinite corroboration from what follows ; as all the circum- 
 stances that justify the antiquity of the one, attend on the position 
 of the others. 
 
 The second king, according to Manetho, of the 4th Memphite 
 dynasty, was Suphis, who built the largest pyramid, which by Hero- 
 dotus was said to have been constructed by Cheops. These are 
 Manetho’s words. In the succession found, as said before, among 
 the tombs at Memphis, the next king who follows is — 
 
 Siioopho, whom the Greeks called Suphis the 1st. 
 Eratosthenes gives as 1 5th Theban king, Saophis 1st. 
 He translates Saophis by comatus, meaning “ many- 
 haired.” Now, in Coptic, Shoo means many, and 
 tho, hair. It was conjectured, fourteen years ago, 
 that this cartouche must represent the name of the 
 builder of the great pyramid ; having been found in 
 so many places, and most numerously in the ancient 
 tombs about the Memphite pyramids at Gheezeh, &c. 
 We had the authority of Manetho, that his king, Suphis 1st, was the 
 same as the Cheops of Herodotus, who built the great pyramid ; 
 and, philologically, in meaning and in sound, we identified this car- 
 touche with the Saophis of Eratosthenes; but it is curious to see 
 the beautiful chain of connection that reconciles ail differences, and 
 it will give a distinct idea of the analectical process by which hier- 
 ologists demonstrate their theorems, to expound it. 
 
 The sign in hieroglyphics, may be read in two ways — 1st, 
 
 it is equiva§^\§$3 lent to the Coptic letter jtt — Slid — which is 
 our SH ; 2nd. it is equivalent to the Coptic letter T 
 
 Khei, — which, is our KH., hard and guttur al. The hiero- 
 
 glyphical letter s therefore either Sh, or Kh. f”' 
 
 The Greeks had not in their alphabet of 24 letters, the power of 
 expressing the Sh of foreign languages, and were therefore obliged 
 to transmute the sound as nearly, as to the car of the writer this urti- 
 culation could be conveyed — that is, sometimes by — a 
 
 S — Xi — as in — Xerxes, whose name in the arrowhead, or 
 
 Cuneiform (ancient Persian) character, as well as in hieroglyphics, 
 
 was“KHSHEERSH.” Or by a 
 X — Sigma — as in Manetho’s Eoi^io Suphis. Or by a 
 X — Chi — as in Herodotus’ Xioiroa, pronounced in Greek Hheeopos, 
 
 but by us — Cheops. 
 
 We are thus enabled etymologically to reduce, Suphis, Saophis, 
 Cheops, to one and the same name, spelt differently, and thus recon- 
 cile Manetho, Eratosthenes, and Herodotus. 
 
 We now cut off the Greek termination of S, or is, with which they 
 endeavored to soften down to a Grecian ear the rigidities of foreign 
 names ; 
 
 “ Like our harsh noi 'hern, whistling, grunting, guttural. 
 
 Which we’re obliged to hiss and spit and sputter all.” 
 
 The result of our reduction is to obtain in Greek, in Coptic, and 
 in hieroglyphics, the name of Sooph, Shooph, or Khooph, as the name 
 of the king who built the great pyramid — corroborated by Murtady, 
 an Arab author— who says that in his day, tradition in Egypt still 
 ascribed the erection of that pyramid to “ Soyoof.” 
 
 Thus much was known up to 1837 — but the anti-Champollionists 
 looked with disdain upon a science, which could not produce from 
 the pyramid itself, confirmation of its unerring value ; and confidently 
 declaring, that there were “no hieroglyphics in the pyramids,” (al- 
 though all antiquity asserts the contrary,) they vauntingly challenged 
 the hierologists to prove, that hieroglyphical writing was known at 
 the date of the pyramids — these gentlemen, forsooth, having already 
 decreed, that “ hieroglyphic writing was a subsequent invention,” 
 and that letters were derived from the Hebrews, or from the Greeks, 
 or, at least, from the Phoenicians. 
 
 But some things were written before Moses wrote ; and some 
 heroes lived before Agamemnon : 
 
 Vixere fortes ante Agamemnon.— Horace. 
 
 In the year 1837, the munificent Col. Howard Vyse set all doubts 
 nt rest, by finding Shoopho (and his variation) in the quarrier’s 
 marks, in the new chamber of the great pyramid, scored in red ochre 
 in hieroglyphics on the rough stones ; and thus, by confirming history 
 and the sculptures, he has immortalized his own labors, and silenced 
 the cavillers. 
 
 It will now be seen that my diffidence, when declining to enter 
 copiouslv into so vast a subject as the pyramids, without possessing 
 
 the 3rd vol. of Vyse’s work, is not uncalled for; suffice it at present 
 to observe, that with the era of the great pyramid, (whenever that re- 
 mote epoch was,) long before the year 2272, B.C. — long before Usher’s 
 date of the Deluge 2348 B. C. — ages previous to Abraham — centu- 
 ries prior to the Jews — and many generations anterior to the Hvk- 
 shos ; every hieroglyphical legend, or genealogical table, as well as 
 all Egyptian local circumstances will be found to correspond, and 
 harmonize — and yet, in that day, Egypt was not a new country, or 
 its inhabitants a nexo people 
 
 A papyrus now in Europe, of the date of Shoopho, establishes the 
 early use of written documents, and the antiquity of paper, made of 
 the byblus. 
 
 The tombs around the pyramids afford us abundance of sculptural $ 
 and pictorial illustrafmn of manners and customs, and attest the 
 height to which civilization had attained in his day. While, in one 
 of them, a hieroglyphical legend* tells us, that this is “ the sepulchre 
 of Eimei — great priest of the habitations of King Shoopho.” This is 
 probably that of the architect, according to whose plans and direc- 
 tions, the mighty edifice — near the foot of which he once reposed — 
 the largest, best constructed, most ancient, and most durable of 
 Mausolea in the world, was built ; and which, from 4000 to 5000 
 years after his decease, still stands an imperishable record of his skill. 
 
 Shoopho’s name is also found in the Thebaid, as the date of a 
 tomb at Chenoboscion. In the peninsula of Mount Sinai, his name 
 and tablets show, that the copper mines of that Arabian district were 
 worked for him. Above his name the titles “ pure King and sacred 
 Priest” are in strict accordance with Asiatic institutions, wherein 
 the chief generally combines in his own person the attributes of 
 temporal and spiritual dominion. His royal golden signet has been 
 discovered since I left Egypt, and is now in the collection of my 
 friend Doct. Abbott, of Cairo. The sculptures of the Memphito 
 Necropolis inform us, that Memphis once held a palace called “the 
 abode of Shoopho.” 
 
 If these facts be not sufficient — if it be still maintained, that Shoo, 
 pho, who employed 100,000 men for 20 years, in erecting a monu- 
 ment, for which 10 preceding years were requisite merely to prepare 
 the materials, and the causeway whereon the stone was to be carried 
 — a pyramid of limestone blocks, quarried on the eastern side of the 
 Nile, while the edifice was raised some 20 mile3 off, on the western 
 side of the river — the former base of which was once 7G4 feet each 
 face — the original height 480 feet — containing 89,028,000 cubic feet 
 of solid masonry, and 6,848,000 tons of stone — if Shoopho performed 
 all these works, is it in common sense, I ask, to doubt his power, or 
 that he ruled all over Egypt ? 
 
 But if, rejecting all these evidences, and the testimony of Eratos- 
 thenes that he was likewise a Theban king — the impracticability of 
 his being contemporary with any other Egyptian king be not suffi- 
 ciently proven ; and that Shoopho was merely a petty king of Mem- 
 phis be still asserted, let me propound the following query : 
 
 How is it, that the great pyramid is lined with the most beautiful 
 and massive blocks of syenite — of red granite, not one particle of 
 which exists 25 miles below the 1st Cataract of the Nile at Aswin, 
 distant 640 miles up the river from the pyramid ? that blocks of this 
 syenite are found in this pyramid’s chambers and passages of such 
 dimensions and built into such portions of the masonry, that they 
 must evidently have been placed there, before the upper limestone 
 masonry was laid above the granite ? and, that the name of Shoopho, 
 in hieroglyphics, is found in that central interior, written on the super- 
 jacent limestone blocks ; where the latter layers must, in the order of 
 building, have been placed after the granite had been covered up 
 below ? 
 
 There not being in its native state a speck of granite to be found in 
 Egypt, 25 miles below the 1st Cataract, its existence in the pyramid 
 distant 640 miles from the quarries, is a final proof, that Shoopho 
 ruled from Memphis to Aswhn — from “ Migdol to the tower of 
 Syene.” 
 
 For my own part, I see no plausible doubts why his dominion 
 may not have been, like that of his successors, much more extensive 
 than over Egypt proper — especially toward Lybia and Nigritia. 
 
 The 3rd King of the 4th Dynasty is — 
 
 Suphis 2rd — 3d King of the 4th Memphite Dynasty — Manetho. 
 
 Saophis 2nd, or Sensaophis+-16th King of Thebes — Eratosthenes ; 
 corresponding to the Chephren, brother of Cheops, who, according 
 to Herodotus and Diodorus, built a pyramid ; which, we may infer, 
 was the second pyramid of Gheezeh, seeing that we know histori- 
 cally and monumentally the builders of the first and third. We also 
 know he washing both of Thebes and Memphis. Of this king Che- 
 phren, nothing has yet been gleaned from the pyramid attributed to 
 him — but, philological analogies can reduce all these names into one. 
 
 I will not detain the reader with some doubts arising from hierogly- 
 phical variations in one or two cartouches of these times ; although 
 they are curious, and I can explain them, at least to my own satis- 
 faction ; but pass on to say, that in the absence of positive pyramidal 
 data, I feel inclined to adopt the following oval, as probably contain- 
 ing the name of Chephren : 
 
 * See L’Hotes letters— Paris, 1833. 
 
 1 t Seu-suuums is an error m Hour's Synrelius. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Re Reshaph — Reshef — Reshoof or Rekhooph, 
 or 
 
 sh Shafre — Shephre — Shoophre or Khephre, 
 ph now 
 
 Shephre — corresponds to Chephre-n, 
 
 Khephre “ “ K-t<f>pri-v. 
 
 Besides being found in the Necropolis of Memphis and in a genea- 
 logical series, that places him as a Memphite king of the same epoch 
 ns = Shoopho, this oval is always accompanied by titles, that contain, 
 among other signs, that of a pyramid. 
 
 But no doubt hangs around the name of the following monarch, 
 and nothing can any longer render his identity with the builder of 
 the 3rd pyramid, a subject of controversy : 
 
 Manetho 4th King of “ Memphite Dynasty” — Mencheres, 
 
 Eratosthenes — 17th King of Thebes — “ Heliodotus” — Moscheres, 
 
 Diodorus — as commencer of a “third pyramid” — Mykerincs, 
 
 Herodotus — a£ erector of a “ smaller pyramid” — Mykerinus. 
 
 The fragment of the royal Mummy-Case (now in the British mu- 
 seum) which the Arabs, on forcing a passage into the 3rd pyramid, 
 (at the time of the Caliphate, COO Hegira, or about 650 years ago, 
 according to Edrisi,) had thrown aside on a heap of rubbish, after 
 destroying the mummy : presented to the researches of Col. Vyse, 
 in 1837, The following oval as the glorious reward of his labors : 
 
 MENKARE ; 
 
 Re j men And thus again is history authenticated by 
 i the monuments even in the meaning of Era- 
 
 men | Ka tosthenes, who translates Mencheres by Helio- 
 
 i dotus — for the oval of Menkare will bear the 
 
 Ka j Re acceptation of “ offerings beloved by or dedi- 
 cated to the sun.” The same arguments, even 
 to the granite, will apply to Menkare that have 
 £^biHd7ed Shoopho’s dominion all over Egypt. This oval is well 
 known at the copper mines of Wadde-Magkra, and has been found 
 in other places in the vicinity of Memphis. 
 
 Out of eight kings, of the fourth Memphite Dynasty, whose names 
 have been preserved by Manctho, and corroborated by other histo- 
 rians, (three Pharaohs, who were connected with the building of the 
 three’ largest pyramids of Gheezeh, being among them) the hiero. 
 glyphics enable us to indicate, four with precision, and two with in- 
 controvertible evidence, viz : 
 
 Shore — S oris. 
 
 Shoopho— Cheops, or Suphis 1st, found in the pyramid. 
 
 Shephre — C hephren. ( j Q> 
 
 Menkare — M encheres. 
 
 Who twenty-five years ago, could have expected such wonderful 
 confirmations of the unerring application of Champollion s discove- 
 ries ? Who will now assert, that hieroglyphic writing was not known 
 in the time of the pyramids ? 
 
 Here for the present may rest our verification of ancient history, 
 and our application of hieroglyphical tests in connection with the 
 pyramids. There are many ovals of kings, (whom we term “ un- 
 placed,” because we do not know where exactly to insert them in 
 our chronological list) who belong to the time of Shoopho, as his 
 predecessors or successors — some found at the Necropolis of Mem- 
 phis— others elsewhere ; and, although we cannot identify them 
 with historical names, or say which pyramid is the tomb of any of 
 them, yet there seems every probability, arguing from that which has 
 been done already, what may be eventually accomplished, that 
 much new light will be thrown on them to add more confirmatory 
 facts to the view herein taken. Those who have made a study of 
 hieroglyphics, are perfectly certain that future discoveries can but 
 confirm the past, and extend the present boundaries of our knowledge. 
 
 In chronological order, and in number of kings, these “ unplaced 
 Pharaohs,” go wonderfully to confirm Manetho. Besides finding 
 the names of the builders of the pyramids of Gheezeh, it must be 
 considered that there are, between large and small, some twenty-five 
 pyramids and pyramidal tombs in the cemetery of Memphis. Sup- 
 pose each of them to have contained the sepulchre of one monarch, 
 (and all proofs confirm this view) the number of kings’ tombs, when 
 we make allowance for some nionarchs who may not have thought 
 it incumbent on themselves to erect such a mausoleum, strangely 
 corroborates the number of sovereigns comprised in the early Mem- 
 phite dynasties of Manetho ; for he gives about thirty-two kings, and 
 here we find some twenty-five pyramidal resting places for them. 
 
 It is recorded, that it took 30 years to build the largest — the tomb 
 of Shoopho ; which is not at all an exaggerated view of the necessary 
 time. There are about 10 others, none of which could well have 
 been built in less than 20 years. The remainder may have occnpied 
 from 3 to 10 years each. 
 
 Then - 1 X 30 - - - 30 
 
 » . . 10 X 20 - - 200 
 
 ” . . 13 X say average 5 years, 65 
 
 295, or about 300 years, 
 supposing they were built consecutively (and such must have been 
 the method, since they are the sepulchres or consecutive kings,) for 
 
 
 the actual time required merely for their erection. Now, suppos- 
 ing that of Manetho’s 32 Memphite monarehs, only 20 erected 
 pyramids, and allow the average of 22J yeafs as the mean length of 
 reigns, or kingly generations, we obtain at once 450 years ; when, 
 if we consider, that a few years may have intervened before each 
 individual king decided on building a pyramid ; and that, in some 
 cases, the tomb may have been finished before the monarch’s demise 
 — for, in Egypt, people built their sepulchres during their own life, 
 time — we shall find that between Menes and the 16th dynasty, 443 
 years are not too much time to allow for edifices, the mere building 
 of which must have occupied some 300 years. 
 
 Now, all these works had been completed, and pyramidal con- 
 structions had ceased to be fashionable, in Egypt, long prior to the 
 accession of the 16th dynasty, or B. C. 2272 ; and yet they were all 
 built after Menes. When, therefore, we allow only 443 years’ in- 
 terval for all the events between Menes and the 16th dynasty, it will 
 be conceded that we are within the mark, possibly by several cen- 
 turies ; but, in the absence of positive data, I prefer not to disturb 
 the view of chronology herein taken — which places Menes about 
 equidistant between the Flood on the Septuagint version, and the 
 accession of the 16th dynasty. Yet, I will confess my inability to 
 adopt this arrangement as a permanent one ; for if any adequate 
 authority were to add 1000 years to the Septuagint, there are ma- 
 terials to fill the space. As for reduction of my system to a narrower 
 limit, it cannot be done, without abandoning facts, reason, logical 
 deduction, and truth itself. To bring the case home : how many 
 years has it taken to construct the “ Monument at Bunker Hill,” 
 Boston; the “ Merchants’ Exchange,” or the “ Custom-House,” at 
 New York? It may be objected, that unforeseen impediments re- 
 tarded the progress of the work, in one or all of these instances. 
 It may well be supposed, therefore, that similar delays took place in 
 the construction of the 25 Memphite pyramids, which will equalize 
 the comparison. In point of perfection of masonry, these American 
 edifices are not superior to the work in the pyramids — while, in point 
 of cubic feet of stone, if the materials of all these were put together, 
 they would not construct the least of the largest ten pyramids in the 
 Necropolis of Memphis ! We can thus form an estimate of the 
 time it must have taken to erect them ; and may be prepared for 
 the assertion that a period of 300 years is within the mark for the 
 pyramidal works existing, at the present day, to attest the antiquity 
 of Memphis ; the territorial dominion, and consequent power — and 
 uncontemporaneousness — of her early Pharaohs ; and the wealth, 
 the population and the wonderful progress, at that remote era, 
 already made in all arts and sciences by the Egypto-Caucasians ; aa 
 well as the imperious necessity for a more extended chronology than 
 the Hebrew version. It may be remarked, that some pyramids at 
 Memphis — those of Aboorooksh, Aboosebr, Zacckra, and Dashobr — 
 appear to be much older than even the Great Pyramid of Shoopho. 
 This circumstance corroborates Manetho, wherein he says, that 
 Venephes, 4th king of 1st dynasty, “ raised pyramids at Cochome 
 whereby we learn from history that pyramidal constructions were in 
 use many generations before Suphis-Cheops, or Shoopho. Nor does 
 it seem probable, that Shoopho would have erected such an enormous 
 pile as the largest, if he had not wished to outdo all his predecessors. 
 We know, that two pyramids — the second and third — were con. 
 structed after that of Shoopho ; and if they did not equal his in 
 gigantic dimensions, both of them hud peculiar merits of their own, 
 to equalize the apparent difference, in the grandeur of the concep- 
 tion, and the relative ,aoor oi execution — one having been coated 
 with stucco, the other cased with gramte brought from Syene. 
 
 Memphis is, therefore, historically and monumentally, the oldest 
 city, and it lies in Lower Egypt. I will hereafter explain, why 
 Thebes is historically coeval with, perhaps anterior to Memphis, 
 though, monumentally speaking, it is inferior in antiquity. It would 
 be tedious to proffer a special argument, whereby we can prove that, 
 
 Tanis — the “ Tzolian" of Scripture, 
 Pelusium, 
 
 Tahapenes, 
 
 Bubastis — “ Pibeseth” of Scripture, 
 Heliopolis — “Beth-Shemmitn'’ and “On,” 
 Buto, Taposiris, Sais, &c. &c., 
 ably long prior to the foundation of a 
 Memphis. 
 
 All cities of Lower 
 Egypt, are historically 
 as ancient as Memphis; 
 and that the Delta was 
 studded with towns at 
 the earliest epoch, prob- 
 metropolis like that of 
 
 I do not know whether the observation has ever been made by 
 others, but it has often struck me, in my reflections on Egyptian 
 history, as a singular fact; that, although Eratosthenes makes all his 
 early kings Thebans, other authors, especially Manetho, invariably 
 keep us in the lower country, and about Memphis, in the classifica- 
 tion of ear'y monarehs. The superior antiquity of the names of 
 placed and unplaced kings found in the lower country, and the un- 
 controvertab'e prioritj of the monuments existing at Memphis, bear 
 witness to the truth of the record.* Moreover, the oniy royal names 
 we can perfectly identify in the respective catalogues of Manetho 
 and Eratosthenes, after Menes — are Soris or R auosis, Suphis or 
 
 * It is a striking fact, that the more ancient monuments of Egypt, instead of being 
 found high up the river, uctually lie JVbrf/t— the primitive edifices being the pyramids of 
 Jjuwer Egypt— the n ost ancient tombs and excavations being at Memphis at Wadee- 
 Magara, and, generally speaking, a bout the Hep-ttnomide. I owe this remark to Samuel 
 Birch, Esq., of the British Museum. 
 
58 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Saop/iis, 1st and 2nd, together with Meneheres or Moschercs, (all names 
 of Pharaohs, which I have produced in hieroglyphics,) and these are 
 every one of them placed by Manetho in his 4th Memphite dynasty, 
 and by Eratosthenes in his Theban list, not later than the 17th 
 monarch from Menes. 
 
 Now, if the kings recognized in the copy of the archives of the 
 Diospolitan priests as Theban sovereigns, are the same persons as 
 those we find attributed by Manetho to Memphite families ; may we 
 not draw a reasonable inference, that these, at least, ruled, like Me- 
 nes. all over Egypt ? holding, as each of them evidently did, supreme 
 power in loth of the great cities of the Nilotic valley. Cities, sepa- 
 rated by a distance of 480 miles ; and when to embrace Egypt, 
 throughout its entire length, and narrow breadth, under one undivided 
 sway, it was necessary only to subjugate the 120 miles between 
 Memphis and the sea, and the 138 miles between Thebes and the 
 1st Cataract of Syene. If they held, as monumentally and historic- 
 ally we prove they did, Thebes and Memphis, what could prevent 
 their holding the remainder 7 
 
 Indeed, setting aside indisputable monumental facts and limiting 
 our regard to history alone, sacred history will permit us to infer, 
 and profane history will allow us to assert, that the sceptre of Menes 
 was held by each of his successors, alone and indivisible, down to 
 the invasion of the Hykshos, several centuries after the days of the 
 pyramids, to which we are confining our present inquiries : while, 
 from Manetho, from the old Chronicle, and from Herodotus, we learn 
 that the families, or monarehs, who successively held that sceptre, 
 either were from Lower Egypt, or were, in some mode or other, 
 therewith connected by buildings, or great works, though their sway 
 stretched from the Mediterranean at least as far as the 1st Cataract. 
 On reference to the subjoined table of Manetho’s dynasties, it will be 
 seen that the first Dyn. was Thinite, or of This, near Abydos, 
 whence sprung Menes, or Menei, and he built Memphis, the oldest 
 city and the first metropolis of Egypt. The 2nd was Tanite. The 
 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th, are all Memphite. I do not omit the 
 introduction of the family from Elephantine, or the absurdity of lim- 
 iting their suppositious sway to that ridiculous little rock, not so 
 large or fertile as Governor’s Island, in the harbor of New York. 
 If they were kings at all, they ruled over all Egypt ; and were termed 
 Elcphantinite, merely, perhaps, because the first of this family hap- 
 pened to be born there ; or from some other equally insignificant 
 reason. The 9th and 10th are Heliopolite ; while it cannot escape 
 attention, that of the few early events noted by Manetho, and (with 
 exceptions, proceeding mainly from their erroneous classification of 
 monarehs) by Herodotus, and Diodorus, the greater number of events 
 make Lower and Middle Egypt the scene of their occurrence ! 
 
 The importance of confining history to its legitimate place — to 
 Lower Egypt, is evident: 
 
 1st. Because it was in Lower Egypt that the Caucasian children 
 of Ham must have first settled, on their arrival from Asia. 
 
 2nd. Because the advocates of the theory, which would assert the 
 African origin of the Egyptians, say they rely chiefly on history for 
 their African, or Ethiopian predilections. 
 
 3rd. Because the same theorists* assume, that we must begin 
 
 *1 have already stated, that Sir. J. Gardner Wilkinson's critical observations, during 
 his long residence in Egypt ; and his comparisons between the present Egyptians and 
 the ancient race, ns depicted on the monuments, have led him to assert the Asiatic ori- 
 gin of the early inhabitants of the Nilotic valley. Tire learned hierologist, Samuel 
 Birch, Esq., of the British museum, informed me in London that he hud arrived attire 
 •ante conclusions; while to his suggestion am I indebted for the first idea, “that the 
 most ancient Egyptian monuments lie JVorlA." The great naturalists, Blurnenbach 
 and Cuvier, declared that all the mummies they bad opportunities of examining, pre- 
 sented the Caucasian type. Monsieur Jomard, theemineut hydrographer and profound 
 Orientalist, in a paper on Egyptian ethnology, appended to the 3rd volume of “ Men- 
 gins Histoirede 1'Egypte,” Paris, 1839, sustains the Jlrabian (and consequently Asiatic 
 and Caucasian) origin of the early Egyptians ; and his opinions are the more valuable, 
 as he draws his conclusions independently of hieroglyphical discoveries. On the other 
 hand, Protessor Rosellini, throughout his “ Monumenti" accepts and continues the 
 doctrine, of the descent of civilization from Ethiopia, and the African origin of the 
 Egyptians. Champollion Figeac, in his “ Egypte Aucienne,” Paris, 1810, p. 28, 34, 417, 
 supports the same theory, which his illustrious brother set forth in the sketch of Egyp- 
 tian history presented by him to Mohammed Ali, in 1829, (published in his letters from 
 Egypt and Nubia,) wherein, he derives the ancient Egyptians, according to the Grecian 
 authorities, from Ethiopia ; and considers them to belong to “ la Race Barabra the 
 Berbers or Nubians. Deeming the original Barabra to have been an African race, 
 ingrafted at the present day with Caucasian as well as Negro blood, I reject rAcir simili- 
 tude to the monumental Egyptians in toto; and am fain to believe, that Champollion 
 le Jeuue himself hnd either modified his previous hastily-formed opinion, or. at any 
 rule, had not taken a decided stand on this important point, from the following extract 
 of Ills eloquent nddress from the academic chair, delivered 10th May, 1831. 
 
 " Grammaire Egyptiennc, p. xix.— C’est par Panalyse raisonnee de la langue des 
 Plmraons, que Pethnogruphie decidera si la vieille population egyptienue fut d’origine 
 Asiatique, on liien siellc descendit, avec le fleuve divinise, des plateaux de l'Afrique 
 centrule. On ddcidera en meme temps si les Egyptiens n’appartenaient point k une 
 nice d'stincte; car, il faut le declarer ici, (in which I entirely agree with him) centre 
 I’opiuion commune, les Coetks de 1’Egypte inoderne. regardes comme les derniers 
 rejetons des anciens Egyptienes, n’ont offert k mes yeux ni la couleur ni uucun des traits 
 caracteristiques, duns les lineaments du visage ou dans les formes du corps, qui putcon- 
 etater une aussi noble descendance." 
 
 It may be added, that the linguistic desideratum looked for by Champollion, has, since 
 his demise, been fully supplied by the profound paleographer. Dr. Leipsius, of Berlin, 
 who has established the Asiatic affinities of the Coptic tonge, while the prospective 
 journey of the Prussian Scientific Mission to Meroe, in the ensuing winter, will probably 
 aet all Ethiopia questions at rest. 
 
 The “Crania vEgyptiaca,” erected on a foundation hitherto unanticipated by any 
 ethnological inquirer, and combining every view of the subject, will create a new era in 
 the history of man, as honornble to its author, as importaut to the savan, and eminently 
 advantageous to the scientific reputation of his aountry. 
 
 with Africans nt the top of the Nile, and come downward with 
 civilization, instead of commencing with Asiatics and white men nt 
 the bottom, and carrying it up. 
 
 I have not as yet touched on ethnography ; the effects of climate , 
 and the antiquity of the different races of the human family ; but I 
 shall come to those subjects, after establishing a chronological stand- 
 ard, by defining the history of Egypt according to the hieroglyphics. 
 At present, I intend merely to sketch the events connected with the 
 Caucasian children of Ham, the Asiatic, on the first establishment 
 of their Egyptian monarchy, and the foundation of their first and 
 greatest metropolis in Lower Egypt. 
 
 The African theories are based upon no critical examination of 
 early history ; are founded on no Scriptural authority for early migra- 
 tions ; are supported by no monumental evidence, or hieroglyphical 
 data ; and cannot be borne out, or admitted, by practical common 
 sense. For civilization, that never came northward out of benighted 
 Africa, (but from the Deluge to the present moment has been carried 
 but partially into it ; to sink into utter oblivion among the barbarous 
 races whom Providence created to inhabit the Ethiopian and Nigri- 
 tian territories of that vast continent) could not spring from Negroes, 
 or from Berbers, and never did. ' 
 
 So far then, as the record, scriptural, historical and monumental, 
 will afford us an insight into the early progress of the human race in 
 Egypt, (the most ancient of all civilized countries) we may safely 
 assert, that history when analyzed by common sense ; when scruti. 
 nized by the application of the experience bequeathed to us by our 
 forefathers ; when subjected to a strictly impartial examination into, 
 and comparison of the physical and mental capabilities of nations ; 
 when distilled in the alembic of chronology ; and submitted to the 
 touchstone of hieroglyphical tests, will not support that superan. 
 nuated, but untenable doctrine, that civilization originated in Ethi- 
 opia, and consequently among an African people, and was by them 
 brought down the Nile to enlighten the less-polished, and therefore 
 inferior, Caucasian children of Noah — the white Asiatics ; or that 
 we, who trace back to Egypt the origin of every art and science 
 known in antiquity, have to thank the sable Negro, or the dusky 
 Berber, for the first gleams of knowledge and invention. 
 
 We may therefore conclude with the observation, that if civiliza. 
 tion, instead of going from North to South, came — contrary, as 
 shown before, to the annals of the earliest historians, and all monu- 
 mental facts — down the “ Sacred Nile” to illumine our darkness ; 
 and if the Ethiopic origin of arts and sciences, with social, moral, 
 and religious institutions, were in other respects possible ; these Afri- 
 can theoretic conclusions would form a most astounding exception 
 to the ordinations of Providence, and the organic laws of nature, 
 otherwise so undeviating throughout all the generations of man’s 
 history since the Flood. 
 
 Having indicated the lowest boundary of our chronological limit 
 for the pyramids of Memphis ; and shown that they could not well 
 have been built at a later date than Usher’s era of the Deluge, B. C., 
 2348; I proceed to a few generalities on those 139 pyramids found 
 at Gebel-Birkel, Noori, and Merawe, in Ethiopia. The largest of all 
 these has a base of only 100 feet square, and the smallest not more 
 than 20 ; so that in dimensions, they are inferior to the smallest of 
 the Memphite pyramids. According to the opinion of Mr. Hoskins, 
 they are all more ancient than those of Memphis ; but the reasons he 
 adduces, are not by any means conclusive. I have examined the 
 subject with a good deal of attention, and am of opinion that they 
 may be coeval with those of Memphis, but probably in many instan. 
 ces, are posterior. 
 
 Many of these pyramids contain hieroglyphical tablets, and sculp- 
 tures that are indisputably Egyptian in form, style, coloring, and sub. 
 jects, whence we may derive two conclusions. One, that hierogly. 
 phical writing was known and practised, at whatever period these 
 pyramids were erected ; the other, that they were built by the same 
 Caucasian race of men who erected those mightier edifices at Mem. 
 phis. We are also assured, that in purpose they were identical with 
 the sepulchral uses of those of Egypt, and contained, like these last, 
 the tombs of monarehs or royal families. 
 
 With regard to the epoch of the construction of the Ethiopian 
 pyramids, we have as yet no data beyond the evidences of remote, 
 though indefinable antiquity ; but that they were built by the same 
 race of men,* who founded those at Memphis, is established beyond 
 dispute, by Mr. Hoskins. This accurate draughtsman and faithful 
 narrator has, with strict impartiality, furnished facts whence he would 
 deduce — 
 
 1st. The priority of the Merod pyramids over those of Memphis — 
 and secondly, that being built by the same people in both cases, he 
 would establish the origin of civilization in Ethiopia, and its descent 
 (down the Nile) into Egypt, where the descendants of these builders 
 of Ethiopian pyramids erected all the monuments of every age, now 
 existing below the first Cataract. 
 
 With precisely the same facts, and grounding all my arguments on 
 
 * pr. Morton, in ms cramoiogicai ooservatione, nas oeciarea *- tnat tne Austrm- 
 Egyptian, or Meroite communities, were in great measure derived from the Indo-Arabian 
 stock • thus pointing to a triple-Caucasian source for the origin of the Egyptians, when 
 regarded as one people extending from Meroe to the Delta.” The arguments for this 
 opinion, which is by me implicitly adopted, will be found in the “ Cronia iEgyptiaca,” 
 and I need only at present mention, that this Indo-Arabian intermixture with the chil 
 dren of Ham, can be readily accounted for. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 59 
 
 the plates and descriptions of Mr. Hoskins, I arrive at results dia- 
 metrically opposite. 
 
 It is indeed sufficient to glance one’s eye at the plates of the sculp, 
 tures from the Ethiopian pyramids, to see that there is nothing Afri- 
 can in the character of the human faces ; and that, be they who they 
 may, these people were not, and did not desire to be considered Afri- 
 cans, whether of the Berber or the Negro branches. Whence, already 
 we begin to infer, that the builders of these Ethiopian pyramids were 
 not aborigines of that country, but of a race foreign to Africa, and 
 generally speaking, at that remote period unmixed with African 
 blood. Unless born in Ethiopia, they must have come originally 
 from some other region. Who can they be ? 
 
 Now it is but reasonable to claim, that if in arts, sciences, customs, 
 religion, color and physiological conformation, these people of Meroe 
 are the same people as the Egyptians, and we prove the Egyptians to 
 have been Asiatic in origin — Caucasian in race, and white men in 
 color : the people of Meroe must have been Asiatics, Caucasians and 
 white men also. This was precisely the case, and for the Egyptian 
 side of the question, I need not recapitulate the account of Mizraim’s 
 migration into the valley of the Nile, but refer to Morton’s “Crania 
 ACgyptiaca” for incontrovertible evidence. 
 
 The question, in regard to the priority of erection between the pyra- 
 mids of Meroe, and those of Memphis, merges into the still more 
 interesting fact of their having been built by the same race of men, 
 who were not Africans, but Caucasians. 
 
 This will a / once explain the cause of the superiority of the inhab- 
 itants of Meroe, over all African aborigines, and the reason why the 
 Egyptians looked upon them as brethren and friends — never stigma- 
 tizing them by the contemptuous title of “Gentiles,” or “impure 
 foreigners,” as they designated Asiatic and European nations ; and 
 never applying to the people of Meroe, the reproach of belonging to 
 the “perverse race of Kush,” (not Cush, the son of Ham) by which 
 name the Egyptians exclusively designated the Negro and the Berber 
 races in hieroglyphics. Wc shall come to these facts in due course. 
 This view can be sustained by the whole chain of monumental and 
 other history. It will account for all the conflicting traditionary 
 legends, that would make Meroe the parent of Egyptian civilization, 
 or Ethiopia the cradle of the Egyptian people — will explain the inti- 
 macy and alliance subsisting at every period between Egypt and Me. 
 roe ; the parity in religion ; identity in usages and institutions ; 
 similarity in language, writing, buildings, &c. 
 
 I would therefore offer, as an improved hypothesis, that the chil- 
 dren of Ham, on leaving Asia and settling in the valley of the Nile, 
 colonized first Lower Egypt, and then all the alluvial soil from the 
 Delta, to the confines of Nigritia, wherein they did not penetrate for 
 permanent establishment, for the identical reason, that white men 
 cannot do so at the present time — the climate ; which, in Central Africa, 
 is mortiferous to the Caucasian. It does not change his skin, hair, 
 facial angle, or his osteology; it kills him outright, if he crosses a cer- 
 tain latitude. Of course, here and there, an exception may be instanced 
 where white men have crossed the (to their race) deadly miasmata 
 of Central Africa ; but these exceptions are so rare, that they fortify 
 the rule. Witness the late Niger expedition ; witness the grave-yard 
 that Africa has been to the most enterprising travellers ; witness the 
 fruitless attempts of Mohammed Ali to send expeditions, but a few 
 hundred miles beyond Khitrtoom. 
 
 The Caucasian children of Ham proceeded up the Nile in a nat- 
 ural course of migration and settlement, from Lower Egypt as far as 
 Meroe — and probably there (although it would seem likely in later 
 times) met Indo-Arabian Caucasians, with whom they mixed, and 
 formed one people. 
 
 All we can say of this epoch is, that these circumstances must 
 have occurred before Menes ; before the pyramids of Memphis rose 
 in Egypt ; before the pyramids of Meroe could have been built in 
 Ethiopia. 
 
 That civilization advanced northward from the Thebaid (which 
 appears to have been the parental seat of the theocratic government) 
 before Menei, is not improbable. That the Caucasians who settled 
 at Meroe may have somewhat preceded in civilization their brethren 
 in Egypt, is possible ; though, from monumental and other reasons, I 
 deom it unlikely. But it does seem unnecessary, that the children 
 of Ham, (the Caucasian,) the highest caste of that triple Caucasian 
 stock, should have come from Asia into Egypt, and have directly 
 ascended the Nile, leaving the most eligible provinces and heavenly 
 climate behind them, and have proceeded 1600 miles to an almost 
 barren spot, to Meroe, between the tropics, for the objects of study 
 and improvement, and then have returned into Egypt to colonize 
 that country, or in other words to civilize their own relations. How 
 much more reasonable is it to attribute the rise of civilization to the 
 people, occupying the best land under the pure skies of Egypt, or to 
 suppose that its development was simultaneous among the same 
 people, along the whole alluvial line from Lower Egypt to Meroe ? 
 
 There are no positive data by which the antiquity of the pyramids 
 of Meroe is shown to be more remote than that of Memphis ; and I 
 am inclined to regard both as dating about the same period, when 
 pyramidal constructions were preferred to all others, for the last 
 habitation of the royal dignitaries of Egypt and Meroe. It may be 
 conjectured, that if in Ethiopia these are tombs of individual kings, 
 they continued there to erect pyramids long after this species of 
 
 sepulchre was abandoned in Egypt ; because this would in some 
 degree explain their number. They were all built, and were ancient, 
 in the days of Tirhaka, B. C. 700. 139 pyramids, at 22$ years for a 
 
 kingly generation, would be 3027$ years; which is incompatible 
 with all scriptural chronology. I am, therefore, inclined to consider 
 the pyramids of Meroe to be tombs of kings, queens and princes. 
 We have no sure basis for calculating their antiquity, excepting tha* 
 they belong to a period more ancient than 700 B. C. ; but we know, 
 that whenever they were erected, it was by the same race whiclt 
 built those of Memphis, the children of Ham — the Caucasian settlers 
 in the Nilotic valley, and not by African aborigines of any race, or 
 of any period. The most critical examination establishes for the 
 pyramids of Egypt, and for Shoopho, builder of the largest, an anti- 
 quity that cannot certainly be later than B.C. 2348 — though probably 
 dating some centuries earlier; but that they were erected by Cauca. 
 sians is indisputable. That the pyramids of Meroe belong to the 
 same epoch is probable, and that they were likewise built by Cauca- 
 sians is positive. 
 
 If the pyramids of Meroe are older than those of Memphis, their 
 epoch must necessarily surpass the Septuagint era of the Flood, if 
 not that of the Creation. 
 
 If, from a rigid examination of their present appearance, the priority 
 of those at Meroe is proved, (as Mr. Hoskins considers,) and this 
 aged appearance cannot be explained by the effects of tropical rains 
 and solar heat, acting with the hand of the spoiler on a friable mate, 
 rial like a soft sandstone ; when we reflect how little, in an Egyptian 
 climate, time affects the appearance of monuments ; and then, (though 
 erroneously,) recognize in Ethiopia a better climate than that of 
 Egypt — if, I say, we consider that notwithstanding so long a period, 
 (above 4000 years,) as we know the Memphite pyramids to have 
 stood — time has had such a trifling effect on their massive structures ; 
 and we are to allow a still slighter effect to be produced by time on 
 those edifices at Meroe — why, we must carry the pyramids of Meroe 
 beyond all chronological, and measure their antiquity by geological 
 periods ; 1st, as regards the epoch of the building of these Meroe 
 pyramids ; which is one fact ; and 2nd, as concerns the national 
 traits of the builders, who were not Africans, but Asiatics, the utter 
 destruction of all biblical chronology by this process would be 
 another. 
 
 Now, “ things which are equal to the same are equal to one 
 another.” If they are anterior to Shoopho’s pyramid in Egypt, then 
 Meroe must have been occupied in the earliest ages — many centuries 
 before B. C. 2348 — by Caucasians, who must have migrated up the 
 valley of the Nile, and have been settled many ages at Meroe before 
 they erected one pyramid. If posterior to Shoopho’s pyramid, Meroe 
 was a colony of Egypto-Caucasians, at any intervening period prior 
 to the 16th dynasty, B.C. 2272 — for we know from positive con. 
 quests of Egyptian Pharaohs in Nigritia and Ethiopia, that Meroe 
 was an Egyptian province from about that time, down to a few years 
 prior to B. C. 700 — say for a thousand years. 
 
 But, if each of these pyramids of Ethiopia, like those of Memphis, 
 be the sepulchre of a king, and if all of these Meroe edifices, (ac- 
 cording to Mr. Hoskins) were erected before Shoophos’ time, as there 
 are 139 pyramids in Ethiopia, we should have 139 generations of 
 Caucasian kings at Meroe before the pyramids of Memphis were 
 thought of. 
 
 Lastly, if the advocates qf the African origin of the Egyptians 
 cling to the superior antiquity of the pyramids at Meroe, as a proof 
 of the origin of civilization in Ethiopia, and its consequent descent 
 into Egypt, they are easily placed in a series of dilemmas. If they 
 deny all Caucasian introduction at Meroe, in the hope of vindicating 
 the ancient mental and physical capabilities of Negro or Berber 
 races ; as I have proved the immense and almost biblically-irrecon- 
 cilable antiquity of the Memphite pyramids, the advocates of the 
 African origin of civilization must reject Scripture altogether, both 
 for chronology and primitive migrations. If, on the other hand, they 
 al ow, that, according to the Bible, Ham was the parent of the Egyp- 
 tians, as we prove these Egyptians to have been pure-blooded white 
 men, they must allow that civilization, proceeding from the Cauca- 
 sians, took its rise in Egypt; and that Ethiopian civilization is a con. 
 sequence; while, in no case, can they make it appear that the African 
 races above Egypt were one iota more civilized in ancient times titan 
 at the present day, for the civilization of Meroe originated with the 
 Caucasians, and expired on the extinction, or on the deteriorating 
 amalgamation, of their high-caste race. 
 
 Such are the results of my reflections on the subject of the pyra. 
 mids. They are not rashly advanced ; nor devoid of infinite corro- 
 boration. They might be greatly extended, and a variety of inte- 
 resting comparisons might be instituted between the pyramids of 
 Ethiopia and Egypt, and those found on the Euphrates by Colonei 
 Chesney, that one supposed to be the ruins of the tower of Babel, 
 and those in Central America. 
 
 My province, however, is solely Egyptian history ; and I will con- 
 fidently assert, tnat any one who will read and study the works of 
 the hieroglyphical school — the volumes of the Champollions, of Ro. 
 sellini, and of Wilkinson — who will weigh the demonstrations in 
 Morton’s “Crania ASgyptiaca,” and who, to remove the last atom* 
 of scepticism, will pay a visit to Egypt’s time-honored monuments, 
 and verify for himself the truth of the descriptions given by the hiero- 
 
 S 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 bO 
 
 logists — any one. 1 repeat, who will do all this, (which I have done) 
 and then deny these evidences, would, I really believe, dispute the 
 truth of Euclid’s axiom, and maintain that “ a straight line is not the 
 shortest distance from one given point to another.” 
 
 I<et me recapitulate, in a summary mode, what these results are : 
 1st. Geologically — that the Delta is as ancient as any portion of 
 the alluvial soil of the Nile, and that it was inhabited at the earliest 
 postdiluvian period. 
 
 2nd. Geographically — that Lower Egypt was by climate, soil, and 
 every circumstance, most favorable to early settlement ; and as the 
 most contiguous to Asia, was the region best adapted to primitive 
 colonization, and the earliest civilization. 
 
 3rd. Scripturally — that the children of Ham came from the banks 
 of the Euphrates into Egypt, through Syria, Palestine, and the Isth- 
 mus of Suez — that they inhabited the lower provinces of the Nilotic 
 valley in the first instance, whence they eventually spread them- 
 selves over the alluvial soil of that valley, in a natural order of mi- 
 gration and settlement. 
 
 4th. Physiologically — which, for the first time is clearly demon- 
 strated by Morton’s “Crania HUgyptiaca,” the keystone of the sys- 
 tem : that the ancient inhabitants of Egypt were Asiatic in origin, 
 and Caucasian in race, from the earliest period to the extinction of 
 Pharaonic dominion, which is in perfect accordance with Scriptural 
 migrations, and their Caucasian origin as descendants of Noah. 
 
 5th. Ethnographically — according to Dr. Leipsius, that, as the 
 affinities of the Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages with the Cop- 
 tic, establish the Asiatic and common primeval origin of all three, 
 the remaining link of language is supplied to show the Caucasian 
 attributes of the Egyptian tongue. 
 
 6th. Historically — from the collation of the most ancient records 
 with eacli other, corrected by the application of hieroglyphical tes- 
 timony, coeval with the earliest events of which history has left us 
 the annals — 
 
 7th, and Monumentally — from the edifices still erect in Lower 
 Egypt, which are more ancient than any others in the world, and 
 from the vestiges in Lower Egypt of early cities, which history at- 
 tests were equal to any others in antiquity — 
 
 We are fully justified in concluding that civilization, springing 
 from Asia, introduced by Caucasians into Lower Egypt, obtained its 
 earliest known developments in the lower provinces, and therefore 
 accompanied a white race up the Nile, from north to south, as these 
 people, the primitive Egyptians, must have ascended, and not de- 
 scended that river. 
 
 Let us now return to the chain of history. We have brought the 
 children of Ham from Asia into Egypt; we have settled their des- 
 cendants along the whole Nilotic valley ; we have watched the rise 
 of civilization, and the formation of a general theocratic govern- 
 ment ; we have seen a military chieftain seize the sceptre, and found 
 a powerful dynasty of hereditary sovereigns ; we have seen his suc- 
 cessors improve cities for their residences, build pyramids for their 
 tombs ; and where are we in chronological epochs ? still in very re- 
 mote periods. We are only at the close of Manetho’s 4th Memphite 
 Dynasty, so far as hieroglyphical confirmations enable us to deduce 
 plausible conjectures. 
 
 We have now reached a point of darkness so dense, that a few 
 observations will suffice to explain the difficulties of our position : 
 on the one hand stands Scriptural chronology, limiting us to a given 
 period, between the Flood and Abraham ; on the other, we have the 
 very doubtful number of Manetho’s kings and reigns. A few years 
 ago no one pretended to consider Manetho’s first fifteen dynasties as 
 worthy of notice ; and even at the present day, there is no reason for 
 accepting the number of his kings ; or the length of their reigns, 
 auch as have been transmitted to us by his copyists. Therefore, 
 Manetho’s period, from the fourth to the end of the fifteenth dynasty, 
 is considered improbable by me, although on the Continent there 
 are some hierologists who accept the whole of Manetho as he s'ands 
 in the table already presented, by which the accession of Menes 
 would have occurred, B. C. 5867. 
 
 It is singular, that the monuments confirm Manetho, as will be 
 seen, in a most extraordinary manner up to the 16th dynasty ; that 
 the pyramids confirm his 4th dynasty ; and that the 1st king of the 
 1st dynasty, Menei, is now confirmed by tablets and papyri. In 
 fact, it may be contended, that, dating back from the 31st dynasty, 
 as Manetho has been corroborated by the hieroglyphics on the monu- 
 ments of Egypt up to the 16th dynasty ; say B. C., 2272— his autho- 
 rity must not be altogether rejected upon preceding epochs; espe- 
 cially now, that his 4th Memphite dynasty stands forth a brilliant 
 constellation in the firmament of historical gloom. 
 
 But unhappily the tomes of the high priest of On — the far-famed 
 Heliopolis — have reached us in scattered fragments, which bear in- 
 terna' evidence of having been mutilated by his copyists, to suit their 
 own peculiar systems of cosmogony ; and while we may refuse our 
 belief to the immeasurable, as well as inconsistent periods, and ex- 
 traordinary number of kings for his first 15 dynasties ; yet, not ha- 
 ving, in the fragments bequeathed us by Manetho’s transcribers, the 
 names of the kings who figured in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 
 13th, 14th and 15th dynasties, we are not able to identify with Ma- 
 netho’s list, the long hieTiglyohical catalogue called “U nplaced 
 Kings,” most oi whom however, are attended with circumstanced 
 
 evidence proving their appertaining to some period before the lfth 
 dynasty ; say prior to B. C., 2272 — and between that period and the 
 accession of Menes. 
 
 By “ unplaced kings” are meant the great number of royal ovals 
 or cartouches, containing the names of Pharaohs, the greater part of 
 whom lived before the 16th dynasty ; because, from the 16th dynasty 
 downward, we can adjust the monuments with Manetho’s histo- 
 ry, and therefore these unplaced kings must have lived beforj that 
 period ; independently of a variety of circumstances which send each 
 of them back to a previous epoch. 
 
 We know that each of these unplaced kings “Wed, moved, 
 and had a being ;” and from historical and hieroglyphic testimony 
 we can prove, that so many of them ruled over all Egypt, as to de- 
 stroy the supposition of their being coetaneous. For instance, let ua 
 take the following. 
 
 Remeran — Sun — beloved name. He is a most an- 
 cient king. He is found in Karnac ; at Chenoboscion, 
 on the Cosseir road — and as his titles are “ Lord of 
 Upper and Lower Egypt,” he ruled over the whole 
 country. 
 
 Let us take another. 
 
 Pharaoh — or, Lord of an obedient people. 
 
 Remat — “ The beloved of Phre.” His titles arc also 
 Re “Lord of Upper and Lower Egypt” — but, as his name 
 is found at Eilethyas, at Silsilis, on the Cosseir road, at 
 m Chenoboscion, at Karnac, and at the copper mines of 
 Mount Sinai, he must have ruled over all Egypt. 
 
 These Unplaced Kings may amount in number at present (for 
 one or more new kings are yearly discovered,) to about 180 car- 
 touches as an approximative extreme. But, making due allowance 
 for possible repetition of the same kings’ names in variations of car- 
 touches, or otherwise ; and rejecting, as doubtful cases, many others, 
 we have in hieroglyphics more than sixty unplaced kings, who 
 must have lived and reigned between Menes and the 16th dynastv, 
 or between Mizraim and Abraham, wherewith to fill up some por- 
 tion of the blanks of history. Others will be discovered — circum 
 stances will add to our knowledge of many of them ; but it is scarcely 
 possible to be hoped, by the most sanguine, that we shall ever be 
 able to possess the hieroglyphical names of all “ the children of the 
 sun,” who swayed the sceptre of Menes, owing to the destruction 
 of monuments in Egypt by the Hykshos, the Persians, the Greeks, 
 the Romans, the Christians, the Saracens, the Turks, and the Herod 
 of all destroyers, the present Mohammed Ali. 
 
 An adequate number of Egyptian royal ovals has been found, 
 however, to satisfy the impartial, that the number of 350 kings, who, 
 according to profane authors, ruled over Egypt from Menes to the 
 31st dynasty, B. C., 332 — is far from being a mere fable, without 
 some foundation in fact ; and that it is positively not an exaggeration 
 in toto. I can, from my own notes and compilations, produce all 
 that to the best of my belief were known up to 1842. 
 
 There is every reasonable conjecture that the effaced 29 kings, of 
 the tablet of Abydos, would, if we possessed all Manetho, be found 
 to correspond to his 15th dynasty ; of which kings, neither the num- 
 ber, nor the names are extant in the fragments of the sacerdotal 
 chronicler. The mutilated condition of the tablet itself adds to our 
 difficulties. I merely note the circumstance, while the uncertainty 
 compels us to throw these 29 kings among the unplaced Pharaohs 
 preceding the 16th dynasty. 
 
 We are therefore compelled to drop the veil over the Egyytian 
 history from the pyramids, during an uncertain, but a long period, 
 to the 16th dynasty, B. C., 2272. In this interval, temples were 
 built, as we possess their remains ; tombs were prepared for millions 
 of departed ; quarries were worked; mines were opened and ex- 
 plored; all the arts and sciences were practiced ; religion was fos- 
 tered. Egypt would seem to have been peaceful, prosperous, civil- 
 ized, and happy, under a long chain of unambitious monarchs ; but 
 more than this we do not know — perhaps never may. Yet the dis. 
 covery of a single tablet of kings — a genealogical papyrus — a copy 
 of Manetho — or the same wonderful chain of successful labors and 
 extraordinary coincidences, that have hitherto attended the Cham- 
 pollion school, may enable some fortunate explorer to find, and to 
 open the sealed, the lost books of Hermes. 
 
 CHAPTER SEVENTH. 
 
 The first of my two preceding discourses was intended as a sketch 
 of the conjectural and probable commencement of Egyptian colo- 
 nization by the Caucasian children of Ham, the Asiatic — their pro- 
 gress up the Nile, the rise of the theocracy or hierarchical government, 
 down to it3 modification on the accession of Menei, the 1st Pharaoh 
 in Egypt. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 61 
 
 The object of the second discourse was to define the possible pe. 
 riod of Menes’s foundation of the Pharaonic monarchy, taking the 
 year 2750 B. C., as within a few generations approximative of the 
 truth. 
 
 We then descended through the pyramidal period of Egyptian 
 monuments. Wo touched on the difficulties of classing ourW-'un. 
 placed kings;” and, while we allewed the doubts and conflicting 
 statements of profane history, we endeavored, at the same time, to 
 vindicate Manetho’s claims upon our notice. 
 
 We have seen, that some events of this period are positive, as we 
 possess monuments to attest them, no less than the greatness of 
 Egypt in those days : nor can we any longer tolerate the objection, 
 that all is fable in history before Abraham’s birth. 
 
 We have proved, that, in the wilderness of antiquity, before the 
 birth of Abraham, there are many oases, such as the pyramids of 
 Egypt and Ethiopia, with offer Pharaonic remains ; and, if we can- 
 not trace in every case the ^mnection between these verdant spots, 
 we have established, that they are all embraced within a chronolo- 
 gical circle, the lower circumference of which strikes the 16th Dy- 
 nasty, while the upper rim of its imaginary orbit recedes from our 
 view into the gloom of primeval epochs. 
 
 Who, 30 years ago, could have foreseen that we should be enabled 
 to do a thousandth part as much ? and who can now doubt, that every 
 future year will present some new planet in the historical firmament? 
 
 On turning to the table of dynasties, it will be observed that Ma- 
 netho is met by the tablet of Abydos, at the 16th dynasty. 
 
 Reserving the more copious elucidation of this monument to my 
 future oral lectures, in the course of which I shall exhibit a large 
 copy of the tablet, it is necessary at present to explain that this is a 
 hieroglyphical genealogical record, wherein Ramses the 3rd — Sesos- 
 tris — about B. C. 1550, has chronicled fifty-one Pharaohs, who pre- 
 ceded him on the throne of Egypt. The original of this precious 
 sculpture is now in the British Museum, but in a very mutilated 
 condition, compared with its state 25 years ago, when it stood in the 
 temple at Abydos. 
 
 Tbe 16th Theban dynasty of five kings is recorded in this tablet ; 
 and from this dynasty downward, Egyptian history is now clearly 
 defined. 
 
 I would next solicit attention to the reduction of the “ Old Chron- 
 icle whereby the first fifteen dynasties are comprised in the first 443 
 years of uSothic, or canicular period or cynic cycle : (I explained this 
 subject in a former chapter.) Now, it is tolerably well established by the 
 calculations of Champollion Figeac, that this cycle began in the Julian 
 year 2782 B. C.; whence, if the 16th dynasty began in the year 444th 
 of this cycle, its accession would correspond to the year 2339 B. C. 
 
 Again, as Champollion Figeac remarks, “if we add to the year 
 443 of this cycle, which was the last year of the 15th dynasty — 1st, 
 190 years for the duration of the reigns of the 16th dynasty; and 2nd, 
 the 178 years that, with the 6 years of the 28th dynasty, are wanting 
 in the numerical details of the Old Chronicle (see Cory’s Ancient 
 Fragments,) to reach the sum total of 36,525 years, which the Chron- 
 icle gives as the amount of years reigned, we shall attain, at an 
 approximation of eleven years, the same results” that our author 
 draws from other documents, to fix the invasion of the Hykshos with 
 the commencement of the 17th dynasty, at the year B. C. 2082 ; and 
 to establish the commencement of the 18th dynasty, at 1822 B. C. 
 Considering the remoteness of the epoch, such a trifling difference as 
 eleven years “ needs neither defence nor attack.” 
 
 It is probable that the accession of Menes — the annual rising of 
 the sacred Nile — and the astronomical relation of the Sothic Cycle 
 to the same — are three events of coetaneous occurrence about the year 
 2782 B. C. ; for this I refer particularly to the masterly calcula- 
 tions of Champollion Figeac. 
 
 The method by which the rise of the 16th dynasty is determined 
 by Rosellini and by Champollion, is based however on a more simple 
 calculation. Their several estimates for this event differ but two 
 years from each other. 
 
 At the end of each of Manetho’s dynasties we have — as in the ta- 
 ble — the sum total of the years reigned. 
 
 Two eras, upon which chronologists coincide, are selected. One, 
 the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, in the year 525 B. C. : the other, 
 the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, B. C. 332. With 
 each of these well known dates, the sum total of the years reigned 
 by the last 16 dynasties, preceding and down to the Macedonian, must 
 agree — that is, in the year 525 B. C., the 26th Saitic dynasty must 
 end ; and in the year 332 the rule of the Persians must cease. 
 
 If then, we count the years given by Manetho — as corrected by 
 the monuments — for those who reigned from the beginning of the 
 16th dynasty, to the end of the 31st dynasty, 
 
 Years. 
 
 wo obtain, 1940 
 
 To which add the years between Alexander’s con- 
 
 quest and the birth of Christ, 339 
 
 The 16£h dynasty began B. C. 2272 
 
 Or, counting the years from the beginning of the 16th dynasty, to 
 the end of the 26th dynasty, when Cambyses conquered Egypt, 
 
 Years. 
 
 we obtain 1747 
 
 To which add the years between Cambyses and our 
 
 Saviour, 525 
 
 We obtain, again, for the 16th dynasty, B. C. 2272 
 
 It will be seen, as we proceed, how admirably the monuments and 
 history corroborate this date : and how perfectly it dove-tails with 
 the chronology of the Bible, from Abraham downward, when we take 
 up the Hebrew chronology for times succeeding Moses. And not to 
 expose myself to the charge of inconsistency, I would beg leave to 
 remark, that for the time between Moses and the Deluge, I follow 
 the Septuagint version, as the only scale reconcilable with Egyptian 
 history; because it was in the lives and generations prior to Abra- 
 ham, that the Hebrew texts of Scripture were altered, corrupted and 
 curtailed by the Jews, after the advent of Christianity: whereas, for 
 the period subsequent to Moses, the Hebrew text would seem to be 
 more accurate than for anterior times ; and from Moses downward, 
 Archbishop Usher’s system of chronology will probably be found best 
 adapted to Jewish history. 
 
 On the other hand, I am not treating on Jewish, but on Egyptian 
 history ; and the Egyptian chronological edifice from the 16th dynasty 
 downward, in general principles, is built upon a rock. 
 
 The monuments are silent about the Hebrews; and it is highly 
 satisfactory to be able to show, that this silence does not affect the 
 authority of Scripture. It has been seen that, although the Bible is 
 silent on Egypt in the times before Abraham, we have positive au- 
 tocthon monumental history in that country to fill up much of the 
 vacuum, and to confirm the Septuagint era of the Flood. It will by. 
 and-by become evident, that, although the Egyptian records are alto- 
 gether silent about the Jewish sojourn in Egypt, circumstances will 
 enable us to account for this silence ; while we meet with some ex- 
 traordinary coincidences confirmatory of Biblical chronology and 
 history after the times of Moses, and corroborative of the computations 
 of the Hebrew version from him downward. 
 
 The reader will indulgently observe that, owing mainly to the na- 
 ture of our education in America and in England, we cannot divest 
 ourselves of certain associations, whenever the word Egypt is used. 
 We instantly connect Egypt with Scripture and with the Hebrews ; 
 and no foreign country certainly is, to the inspired writers, of such 
 vast consequence as Egypt, from the time of Abraham to the fall of 
 Jerusalem. But, if any of my readers had resided in Egypt as long 
 as I have, they would readily perceive, that although some may not 
 choose to disconnect the Jews from the Egyptians, we can certainly 
 detach the Egyptians from the Jews. Egyptian local and internal 
 history is as independent of Jewish history, prior to the days of Solo- 
 mon — except so far as it may concern the Hebrew Exode — as is the 
 history of China. America has her annals independently of England. 
 Assyria rose and fell from causes known to, and predicted by, but inde- 
 pendently of the Hebrew prophets ; and, in the same manner, Egypt 
 has her own chronicles, her own events and her own annalists, inde- 
 pendently of all connection with the Jews, whom she preceded in 
 antiquity by at least ten centuries. 
 
 As an Egyptian annalist, therefore, I shall, in my future oral lec- 
 tures, unfold Egyptian history from the hieroglyphics. I shall touch 
 on every event and on every nation, that concern my subject, but I 
 shall treat of the Jews, as I do of any other nation with whom the 
 Egyptians were brought into contact ; without twisting confirmations 
 from data where none exist ; or withholding the smallest of those 
 that confirm or elucidate an historical text of Scripture. 
 
 We begin then with the 16th Theban dynasty, at B. C. 2272, on 
 positive monumental data, and historical evidences ; leaving out all 
 those observations which have been so often promulgated, though in 
 the year 1843 they do not bear upon Egyptian history at this point. 
 It has been accurately observed by Champollion Figeac, that his (and 
 Rosellini’s) computation of the 16th dynasty, at B. C. 2272, is rather 
 more conclusive, than the feeble strictures of Syncellus upon Mane 
 tho, or the explanations of Eusebius, in regard to the number of years 
 — 3G,525 — of the “ old chronicle,” which concern neither the Deluge, 
 nor Abraham, nor history, nor positive chronology, since they are the 
 arbitrary product of purely mythological or astronomical speculations. 
 
 We shall find ourselves constantly bringing the dates on Egyptian 
 monuments to correct or to aid history in the number of years reigned 
 by the kings of Egypt; for, as I remarked in a former chapter, it 
 was customary in all documents to date the current year from the 
 king’s accession to the throne. 
 
 With respect to the number of kings who ruled from the 1st mo- 
 narch of the 16th dynasty, B. C. 2272, to the close of the 31st Per 
 sian dynasty, B. C. 332 — I instituted a comparison between the 
 several historical lists, and find that the, 
 
 Old Chronicle for this period, gives Kings 95 
 
 Manetho, according to Eusebius, “ “ 94 
 
 do do Africanus, “ “ 100 
 
 Canon of Syncellus, adjusted by Hales, 
 
 and extended by myself, “ “ 91 
 
 The mean between these records furnishes about 97 kings. On 
 applying this to Rosellini’s and Champollion’s era of the 16lh dynasty, 
 wc again obtain satisfactory results; for 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT 
 
 62 
 
 The 16th dynasty is given by them at B . C. 2272 
 
 Take away the years between the 31st dynasty and our 
 
 Saviour’s birth, 332 
 
 there remain 1940 
 
 which divided by 97, gives us 20 years for the average reign of each 
 king; an average less by 2J years, than by Doctor Hales and other 
 eminent mathematicians is taken for the mean length of a kingly 
 generation. By another comparative reduction I made of the “ Old 
 Chronicle,” Manetho, Eratosthenes, and Syncellus’s Canon, I obtained 
 the accession of the 16th dynasty, at a mean within 54 years of Ro- 
 £ sellini’s calculation — so that in following the learned French or Ita- 
 lian authorities, I am not only in accordance with the mass of hie- 
 rologists, but acting also upon my own conviction of their accuracy, 
 derived from actual investigation. 
 
 Of^these ninety-seven kings, the monuments will enable us to pro- 
 duce about seventy.five in hieroglyphics ; while, for the absence of 
 the rest, we have to accuse the spoiler ; and each unfound king will 
 in his place be readily accounted for. Their non-appearance in hie- 
 roglyphics, however, does not in the least affect the mode or the accu- 
 racy of these computations for the 10th dynasty. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary, after my former remarks on Herodotus 
 and Diodorus, to repeat, that in matters of Egyptian chronology, it is 
 but lost time to consult them. Their details of an individual king’s 
 acts are sometimes correct and often useful, but their lists are tissues 
 of anachronisms irreconcilable with the monuments, with other 
 chronicles, or with themselves. Most of the confusion in Egyptian 
 history has arisen from the misconceptions and misrepresentations of 
 these two Greeks, who wrote on subjects they neither did nor could 
 know much about. 
 
 THE 16th DYNASTY OF THEBANS, 
 
 Consisting of five Pharaohs, who reigned together 190 years, com- 
 menced B. C. 2272, and ended B. C. 2082. 
 
 See tablet of Abydos, in my lecture room, Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 
 It will be observed that these ovals are in the tablet obliterated, but 
 Nos. 33 and 34 are supplied by the genealogical succession of Beni- 
 hassan. 
 
 In a former chapter I explained, that each Pharaoh, after those of 
 the earlier dynasties, had two ovals or cartouches inclosing his names ; 
 one of which, called the prenomen, contained his distinguishing title, 
 snd is generally symbolic — the other, called his nomen, contained 
 his proper name, which in most cases is altogether phonetic. It is 
 by h is prenomen that the Pharaoh is generally determined on a tablet. 
 
 When once the position of a prenomen in relation to other pre- 
 nomina, is established by a genealogical tablet, it is generally easy 
 to find oti some other monument a hieroglyphical legend, wherein 
 the prenomen is connected with its nomen or proper name. For 
 instance, we find No. 33 in the tablet of Abydos effaced; but still, 
 the former existence of an owner for it, is indisputable ; and we 
 count him for a Pharaoh, even without knowing his names. 
 
 The genealogical succession of Beni-hassan (which is another 
 record! gives us 
 
 . Pharaoh 
 
 Sun offered tq the world. 
 
 as the title or prcnoTnen of a king — but we are still ignorant of this 
 king’s proper name. Let us seek for a monument, whereon we can 
 find this prenomen associated with its corresponding nomen. We 
 take the granite obelisk (vide obelisk in chapter third,) that still 
 , marks the site of Heliopolis. Here we find this prenomen (No. 33 
 of tablets Abydos and Beni-hassan) coupled with this nomen, 
 
 
 Son of the Sun. 
 
 OSoRTaSeN. 
 
 Sun offered to the world — Osortasen — 
 mva and he is our Osortasen the 1st — 4th king 
 V J of 16th dynasty. 
 
 He was, up to 1837, the earliest king identified on the tablet of 
 Abydos ; but an accident happily acquainted us with his predecessor, 
 No. 32, who is also an obliterated Pharaoh. A broken statue of a 
 sitting human figure of dark red granite, was in the possession of a 
 gentleman at Rome. Of this statue, the lower portion, consisting 
 only of the legs and the chair, was preserved. It was known to be 
 
 Egyptian, but was not considered of any importance by its proprietor 
 Chance brought the learned hierologists, Dr. Lepsius and Chcvaiier 
 Baron Bunsen, in the way of this block ; and on a hieroglyphical 
 legend down its side, they read “ The King, Sun offered to thb 
 World (the prenomen oval of Osortasen 1st) giver of eternal life, 
 has made a durable construction for his father, Pharaoh, Sun of 
 Guardianship; has made a statue in red granite, to him, who rendered 
 him vivifier for ever.” 
 
 On the other side of the statue, a legend the same in substance is 
 repeated ; but in this legend the nomen oval is given ; and thus we 
 know that the father of (No. 33 of tablet of Abydos, or Osortasen 1st,) 
 was “ the sun of guardianship,” Aian or Oan. One might be tempted 
 to consider him a Johannes, a Ilanna, or a John, so nearly does the 
 phonetic value approach the eastern sound of this familiar name. 
 
 Thus, then, we have gone back one king more, and have only 
 two blanks to fill in the 16th dynasty; for No. 34, though obliterated 
 on the tablet of Abydos, is supplie^Jfrom Beni-hassan ; prenomen, 
 Sun perfect in justice ; and nomen Amenemhe ; whom we call 
 Amenemhe 1st. 
 
 I have thought it would be satisfactory to the reader, to expound 
 the curious but practical process by which Egyptian hieroglyphics 
 are read, and the chronology determined. Henceforward we shall 
 find the successions regular through the tablets, and where they end, 
 we can, in most cases, produce other equally positive proofs from 
 other sources. 
 
 Of the first Osortasen we possess many very interesting records, 
 enlightening us on events unknown to, and unchroniclcd by any 
 ancient writers ; and it is the pride of modern hierology of the last 
 fifteen years, to have brought to light some annals of a monarch, 
 whose existence and name were omitted by all historians ; and yet, 
 whose deeds place him among the greatest of kings. It is from le 
 gends coeval with him that we glean this information ; and when 
 we reflect that, in his day, B.C. 2088, Abraham, by the Hebrew ver- 
 sion, was not born ; it will be seen how intensely interesting are 
 these resuscitations. 
 
 The monuments of Osortasen first begin in Nubia, near the se- 
 cond Cataract, where he erected a temple ; and a tablet, exhumed 
 from this spot by the French and Tuscan commissions, and now at 
 Florence, records his victories over the Lybians, and over ten Afr* 
 can nations, some of whom must be sought for toward the now-myo 
 terious sources of the Nile. Another edifice was left by him at Ili 
 eraconpolis above ‘Eilethyas, the last stone of which was carried oft 
 for lime about 1836. He built the sanctuary of the temple at Kar- 
 nac, where an enormous statue once stood representing this king, 
 cut out of crystallized sulphate of lime ! One of his generals lay 
 buried in a tomb at Beni-has6nn. An obelisk in the Fayoom, and 
 the well known obelisk still erect at Heliopolis, record his name and 
 titles. Scattered fragments bearing his legend are found in the win- 
 dow-sills of mosques and thresholds of doors at Cairo, which Ma- 
 hommedan desecration has taken from Memphis and Heliopolis. 
 
 Excavations at Memphis and Abydos have brought to light Stel® 
 with his names ; and in the museums of Europe there are many 
 relics of Osortasen. We possess monuments which bear the several 
 dates of the 9th, 13th, 17th, 25th, 42nd, 43rd, and 44<h years of his 
 reign. 
 
 The summary of deductions to be drawn from these facts is, that 
 Osortasen was a great and wise monarch, who ruled the land of 
 Egypt with much regard to the welfare of his subjects ; by whom 
 his memory was revered in all after times. His dominion extended 
 into Ethiopia and Nigritia. He repressed the nomads of the Lybian 
 desert. It may be presumed that, toward the eastward, his Asiatic 
 frontier was limited to the Suez Isthmus, and Mount Sinai peninsula. 
 In his reign religion was carefully protected ; and the arts of paint- 
 ing and sculpture reached a bold purity of style, unsurpassed in exe. 
 cution even by the more florid characteristics of later times. Every 
 art and every science known to the Egyptians were fully developed 
 in his day. 
 
 The style of architecture was grand and chaste ; while the columns 
 now termed Doric, and attributed to the Greeks, were in common 
 use in this reign, which precedes the Dorians by a thousand years. 
 The arch, both round and pointed, with its perfect keystone, in brick 
 and in stone, was well known to the Egyptians long before this 
 period ; so that the untenable assertion, that the most ancient arch is 
 that of the Cloaca Magna at Rome, falls to the ground. 
 
 In architecture, as in everything else, the Greeks and the Romans 
 obtained their Knowledge from their original sources in Egypt, where 
 still existing ruins attest priority of invention 1000 years before 
 Greece, and 1500 years before Rome. These topics are now beyond 
 dispute, and may be found in the pages of the Champollion school. 
 Until the last few years they were utterly unknown in history. 
 
 It seems possible, however, that the habits of good order, agricul- 
 tural welfare, civilization, and social refinement, had rendered the 
 then peaceful inhabitants of the valley of the Nile unambitious of 
 foreign extension. It would appear, as if content with repressing the 
 inroads of the southern and western nations, they thought more of 
 preserving and improving the goods accruing to them from peaceful 
 institutions, than of increasing their wealth by military prowess or 
 territorial extension. 
 
 This is to be inferred from the fierce visitation, which Providence 
 had then in store for Egypt, that befel in the next reign. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 6 * 
 
 Although, of course, not the slightest record of the event is to be 
 found in the hieroglyphics, modern chronologists consider the visit of 
 Abraham to have taken place in this or the preceding reign. All 
 seem to agree that the patriarch sought refuge from the famine, at 
 that time in Canaan, amid the well-stored granaries of Egypt, during the 
 16th dynasty. I confess, that there are many objections to this view 
 arising from an infinitude of circumstances. The main difficulties 
 proceed from the diversity of computation of Scriptural chronology ; 
 and the doubt as to the epoch of Abraham within 500 years. For 
 Egyptian chronology, we have so many land-marks, that now-a-days 
 the hierologist can err but little in his date for the 16th dynasty ; and 
 therefore we are compelled to adapt the Biblical chronology to the 
 monuments. This can be done satisfactorily, when we select those 
 Biblical authorities that best accord with hieroglyphic history. 
 
 My oral lectures will touch on the several computations of Cham- 
 nollion, Rosellini and Wilkinson. 
 
 In any case, if Abraham visited Egypt during this dynasty, he was 
 received with hospitality and kindness ; although he made use of 
 a subterfuge, that, to say the least, was reprehensible. 
 
 The Pharaoh of Egypt behaved to him with manly generosity, and 
 dismissed him and all his people “ rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.” 
 This says volumes for the land etyled the “region of purity and just, 
 ice” in those most remote periods. Not only did Abraham retain all 
 his wealth, but he was allowed to take it, and to go his way across 
 the desert toward Mamre near Hebron, unmolested, and enriched 
 with presents. We may infer that Egypt was great and wealthy, 
 when cattle, silver, and gold did not tempt the inhabitants to violate 
 the rights of hospitality. Nor can Egyptian forbearance be attri- 
 buted to any other feeling than that of justice to the stranger ; as 
 Abraham’s armed force [his “ trained servants”] many years after, 
 did not exceed 318 men ; whereas, the Egyptians possessed regular 
 nrmies, vast cities ; and some centuries previously, had devoted 
 100,000 men solely to erect one pyramidal tomb. 
 
 Abraham doubtless increased his stock in Egypt, and likewise 
 hired Egyptian attendants ; for his handmaid Hagar was an Egyptian 
 female : their son Ishmael,* was therefore half Egyptian in blood ; 
 and to evince his attachment to his maternal origin, this son also 
 espoused an Egyptian, when he settled in the wilderness of Paran. 
 
 These circumstances, though in themselves trifling, go far in sup- 
 port of the Asiatic origin and Caucasian race of the early Egyptians; 
 who, while they do not appear to have looked upon Abraham as a 
 Gentile, were by him considered worthy of his family. This would 
 probably not have been the case, had the Egyptians been Africans. 
 There is in fact, every Scriptural reason to believe, that the early 
 Egyptians and Abraham’s family were on the most friendly footing. 
 
 The relation between Abraham and the Pharaoh of Egypt, was 
 6uch as between a Bddawee Sheykh and Mahommed Ali of the 
 present times. The obligation was exclusively on the side of the 
 Hebrew patriarch ; who, apart from his personal merits, as a vene- 
 rable and pious man — a distinguished guest of the Egyptians — must, 
 in other points of comparison to the monarch, whose sway extended 
 1500 miles along the Nile, have been quite insignificant. 
 
 It is on these grounds, that the silence of Egyptian Annals in re- 
 spect to Abraham is readily explained. 
 
 To proceed with Egyptian history — the successor to Osortasen the 
 1st, was Amencmhe 1st ; but few of his remains have come down 
 to us, owing to the catastrophe that put an end to his life and reign ; 
 no less than to the happiness of Egypt for a period of 260 years. 
 Let us take up Manetho preserved to us by the Jewish historian Jose- 
 phus, after observing that “ Amencmhe 1st,” agrees chronologically 
 with Timaus — Choncharis. 
 
 Fragments of Manetho’s history; preserved by Josephus in his 
 defence of the Jews against Apion, (extracted rom Cory’s “ Ancient 
 Fragments.”) 
 
 M ANETHO 
 
 OF THE SHEPHERD imNGS. 
 
 We had formerly a king whose name wi Timaus. In his time it came 
 to pass, I know not how, that God was disn.eased with us : and there came 
 up from the East in a strange manner nr;n of an ignoble race, who had the 
 confidence to invade our country, and eas ,y subdued it hy their power with- 
 out a battle. And when they had our rulers in their hands, thej’ burnt our 
 cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and inflicted every kind of 
 harbari'.y upon the inhabitants, slay ing some, and reducing the wives and 
 children of others to a state of slavery. At length they made one of them- 
 selves king, whose name was Salatis : he lived at Memphis, and rendered 
 both the upper and lower regions of Egypt tributary, and stationed garrisons 
 in places which were best adapted for that purpose. But he directed his 
 attention principally to the security of the eastern frontier; for he regarded 
 with suspicion the increasing power of the Assyrians, who he foresaw would 
 one day undertake an invasion of the kingdom. And observing in the Saite 
 nome, upon the east of the Bubastite channel, a city which from some an- 
 cient theological reference was called Avaris : and finding it admirably 
 adapted to his purpose, he rebuilt it, and strongly fortified it with walls, and 
 garrisoned it with a force of two hundred and fifty thousand men completely 
 armed. To this city Salatis repaired in summer time, to collect his tribute, 
 and pay his troops, and to exercise his soldiers in order to strike terror into 
 foreigners. 
 
 * Isiimakl is undoubtedly the father of a large proportion of the Arabs ; but the 
 Arabian peninsula must have been numerously inhabited even in his day, by the do 
 ■"endants of Joxtan &c.. Every circumstance confirms the intimate relations that in 
 the remotest times exlswd between JUgypt and Arabia. 
 
 And Salatis died after a reign of nineteen years : after him reigned another 
 king, who was called Beon, forty-four years : and he was succeeded by 
 Apachnaswho reigne I thirty-six years ar.d seven months : after him reigned 
 Apophis sixty-one years, and lanias fifty years and one month. After all 
 these reigned Assis forty-nine years and two months. These six were the 
 first rulers among them, and during the whole period of tlie.r dynasty, they 
 made war upon the Egyptians with the hope of exterminating the whole race. 
 
 All this nation was styled Hycsos, that is the Shepherd Kings ; fur the first 
 syllable, Hyc, in the sacred dialect, denotes a king, and Sos signifies » 
 shepherd, but this only according to the vulgar tongue ; and of these is com- 
 pounded the term Hycsos : sottte say they were Arabians. This people 
 who were thus denominated Shepherd Kings, and their descendants retained 
 possession of Egypt during the period of five hundred and eleven years. 
 
 After these things he relates that the kings of Thehais and of the other pro 
 vinces of Egypt, made an insurrection against the f-hepherds, and that a 
 long and mighty war was carried on between them, till the Shepherds were 
 overcome by a king whose name, was Alisphragmuthosis, and they were by 
 him driven out of the other parts of Egypt, and hemmed up in a place con- 
 taining about ten thousand acres, which was called Avaris. All this tract 
 (says Manetho) the Shepherds surrounded with a vast and strong wall, that 
 they might retain all their property and their prey within a bold or strength. 
 
 And Thummosis, the son of Alisphragmuthosis, endeavored to force them 
 hy a siege, and beleagured the place with a body of four hundred and eighty 
 thousand men ; but at the moment he despaired of reducing them by siege, 
 they agreed to a capitulation, that they would leave Egypt, and should be 
 permitied to go out without molestation wheresoever they pleased. And, 
 according to this stipulation, they departed from Egypt with all their fami- 
 lies and effects, in number not less than two hundred and forty thousand, and 
 bent their way through the desert toward Syria. But as they stood in fear 
 of the Assyrians, who had then dominion over Asia, they built a city in that 
 country which is now called Judaea, of sufficient size to contain this multi- 
 tude of men, and named it Jerusalem. 
 
 (In another book of the Egyptian histories Manetho says) That this 
 people, who are here called Shepherds, in their sacred books were also styled 
 Captives. t 
 
 After the departure of this nation of Shepherds to Jerusalem, Tethmosis, 
 the king of Egypt who drove them out, reigned twenty-five years and fi ur 
 months, and then died : after him his son Chehron took the government into 
 his hands for thirteen years : after him reigned Atnenophis for twenty years 
 and seven months: then his sister Amesses twenty-one years and nine 
 mouths: she was succeeded by Mephres, who reigned twelve years and nine 
 months: after him Mephramulhosis twenty-five years and ten months : then 
 Thmosts reigned nine years and eight months ; after whom Amenophis 
 thirty years and ten months; then Orus thirty-six years and five months : 
 then his daughter Acenchres twelve years and one month ; afterwards her 
 brother Rathotis nine; then Accncheres twelve years and five months; 
 another Acencheres twelve years and three months ; after him Armais four 
 years and one month ; after him reigned R amesses one year and four months ; 
 then Armesses the son of Miammous sixty-six years and two months ; after 
 him Amenophis nineteen years and six months ; and he was succeeded by 
 Sethosis and Ramesses. he maintained an army of cavalry and a naval force. 
 
 This king (Sethosis) appointed his brother Armais his viceroy ovei 
 Egypt : he also invested him with all the authority of a king, with only three 
 restrictions; that he should not wear the diadem, nor interfere with the queen, 
 the mother of his children, nor abuse the royal concubines. Sethosis then 
 made an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia, and waged war with the f 
 Assyrians and Medes ; and he subdued them all, some by force of arms, and 
 others without a battle, by the mere terror of his power. And being elated 
 with his success, he advanced still more confidently, and overthrew the 
 cities, and subdued the countries of the East. 
 
 But Armais, who was left in Egypt, took advantage of the opportunity, and 
 fearlessly perpetrated all those acts which his brother had enjoined him not 
 to commit : he violated the queen, and continued an unrestrained intercourse 
 with the concubines; and at the persuasion of his friends he assumed the 
 diadem, and openly opposed his brother. 
 
 But the ruler over the priests of Egypt by letters sent an account to 
 Sethosis, and informed him of w hat had happened, and how his brother had 
 set himielf up in opposition to his power. Upon this Sethosis immediately 
 returned to Pelusiutn, and recovered his kingdom. The country of Egypt 
 took its name from Sethosis, who was called also TFgyptus, as was his 
 brother Armais known by the name of Danaus. — Joseph, contr. App, lib. 1. 
 c. 14, 15. 
 
 OF THE ISRAELITES. 
 
 This king (Amenophis) was desirous of beholding the gods, as Orris, one 
 of his predecessors in the kingdom, had seen them. And he communicated 
 his desire to a priest of the same name with himself, Amenophis, the son of 
 Papis, who seemed to partake of the divine nature, both in his wisdom and 
 knowledge of futurity; and Amenophis returned him answer, that it was in 
 his power to behold the gods, if he would cleanse the w hole country of the 
 lepers and other unclean persons that abounded in it. 
 
 Well pleased with this information, the king gathered together out of 
 Egypt all that labored under any defect in body, to the amount of eighty 
 thousand, and sent them to the quarries, which are situated on the east side 
 of the Nile, that they might work in them and be separated from the rest of 
 the Egyptians. And (he says) there were among them some learned priests 
 who were affected with leprosy. And Amenophis the wise man and prophet, 
 fearful least the vengeance of the gods should fall both on himself and on the 
 king, if it should appear that violence had been offered them, added this also 
 in a prophetic spirit — that certain people would come to the assistance of 
 these unclean persons, and would subdue Egypt, and hold it in possession 
 for thirteen years. These tidings however he dared not to communicate to 
 the king, but left in writing what should come to pass, and destroyed himself, 
 at which the king was fearfully distressed. 
 
 (Afler which he writes thus, word for word :) When those that were sent 
 to work in the quarries had continued for some time in that miserable state, 
 the king was petitioned to set apart for their habitation and prelection the city 
 
 * Bryant— vol. iv., p. 4G1— gives a curious note about this Been ; which rending, he 
 says, is a blunder of ancient transcription. There was- a second king afler Salatis * 
 but, as the chroniclers could not make out his name, they wrote him dowm a - I) . u osy 
 — “ the second king is anonymous !” 
 
 t The names of the Hykshos kings have not been found in hieroglyphic* There ar« 
 two or three ovals, among the “ unplaced kings,” which present son<e similarities ; such 
 as A sis, Assa, which have been taken for Jlselh— I’xpi for popKs ; bn 1 rej-en* the 
 resemblance. Champollion Figeac. mentions a hieratic papyrus, of die Sesumv-d# 
 period, which lie considers to contain the name of Apopkis. 
 
M 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 of Avaris, which had been left vacant by the Shepherds ; and he granted 
 them their desire: now this city, according to the theology above, i* a 
 Typiionian city. 
 
 But when they had taken possession of the city, and found it well adapted 
 for a revolt, they appointed for themselves a ruler from among the priests of 
 Heliopolis, one whose name was Osarsiph, and they bound themselves by 
 oath that they would be obedient. Osarsiph then, in the first place enacted t 
 law, that they should neither worship the gods, nor abstain from any of those 
 sacred animals which the Egyptians hold in veneration, but sacrifice arid 
 slay them all ; and that they should connect themselves with none but such 
 as were of that confederacy. When he had made such laws as these, and 
 many others of a tendency directly in opposition to the customs of the 
 Egyptians, he gave orders that they should employ the multitude of hands in 
 rebuilding the walls about the city, and hold themselves iH readiness for war 
 with Amenophis the king. He then took into his counsels some others of 
 the priests and unclean persons : and sent embassadors to the cily called 
 Jerusalem, to those Shepherds who had been expelled by Telhmosis; and 
 he informed them of the position of their alFairs, and requested them to 
 come up unanimously to his assistance in this war with Egypt. He also 
 promised in the first place to reinstate them in their ancient city and country 
 Avaris, and provide a plentiful maintenance for their host, and fight for them 
 as occasion might require; and assured them that he would easily reduce 
 the country under their dominion. The Shepherds received this message 
 with the greatest joy, and quickly mustered to the number of two hundred 
 thousand men, and came up lo Avaris. 
 
 Now Amenophis the king of Egypt, when he was informed of their inva- 
 sion, was in great consternation, remembering the prophecy of Amenophis, 
 the son of Papis. And he assembled the armies of the Egyptians, and hav- 
 ing consulted with the leaders, he commanded the sacred animals to be 
 brought to him, especially those which were held in more particular venera- 
 tion in the temples, and he forthwith charged the priests to conceal the images 
 of their gods with the utmost care. Moreover he placed his son Sethos, w ho 
 was also called Harnesses from his father Rampscs, being then but five years 
 old, under the protection of a faithful adherent ; and marched with the rest 
 of the Egyptians being three hundred thousand warriors, against the enemy, 
 who advanced to meet him ; but he did not attack them, thinking it would be 
 to wage war against the gods, but reiurned, and came again to Memphis, 
 where he took Apis and the other sacred animals he had sent for, and re- 
 treated immediately into Ethiopia together with all his army, and all the 
 multitude of the Egyptians ; for the king of Ethiopia was under obligations 
 to him. He wss therefore kindly received bv the king, who took care of all 
 the inultitud •. that was wilh him, while the country supplied what was ne- 
 cessary for their subsistence. He also allotted to him cities and villages 
 during his exile, which was to continue from its beginning during the pre- 
 destined thirteen years. Moreover he pitched a camp for an Ethiopian 
 army upon the borders of Egypt, as a protection to king Amenophis. 
 
 In the meantime, while such was the state of things in Ethiopia, the 
 people of Jerusalem, who had come down with the unclean of the Egyptians, 
 treated the inhabitants with sue! barbarity, that those who witnessed their 
 impieties believed that their joint sway was more execrable than that which 
 the Shepherds had formerly exercised alone. For they not only set fire to 
 the cities and villages, but committed every kind of sacrilege, and destroyed 
 the images of the gods, and roasted and fed upon those sacred animals that 
 were worshipped ; and having compelled the priests and prophets to kill and 
 sacrifice them, they cast them naked crut of the country. It is said also that 
 the priest, who ordained their polity and laws, was by birth of Heliopolis, 
 and his name Osarsiph, from Osiris the god of Heliopolis ; but that when he 
 went over to these people his name was changed, and he was called Moyses. 
 — Joseph. contr. App. lib. I. c. 26. 
 
 OF THE SHEPHERDS AND ISRAELITES. 
 
 (Manetho again says:) After this Amenophis returned from Ethiopia 
 with a great, force, and Rampses also, his son, with other forces, and en- 
 countering the Shepherus and the unclean people, they defeated them and 
 slew multitudes of them, and pursued them lo the bounds of Syria. — Joseph, 
 eonlr. App. lib. I. c. 27. 
 
 Having now laid before the reader all the preliminary matter, ne- 
 cessary to the clear comprehension of Egyptian paleography, from the 
 remotest times to the accession of the 16th dynasty of Diospolitans, 
 I have reached the boundary proposed in the publication of the pre- 
 sent chapters. 
 
 In my future oral Lectures all remaining subjects, that experience 
 may prove to be interesting to the public, will be progressively de- 
 veloped : and to render the chronological portion intelligible, I 
 subjoin a 
 
 GENERAL TABLE 
 
 OF THE LAST SIXTEEN DYNASTIES OF THE KINGS OF EGYPT, 
 
 ACCORDING TO THE HIEROGLYPHICS t 
 
 Being an Abstract of Professor Rosklmni’s Chronology, with some later emenda- 
 tions of Dr. Lkkmans, and others. 
 
 XVI. DYNASTY OF FIVE THEBAN KINGS. 
 
 bt X 
 c £ • 
 
 5-gl 
 
 «> 4> £ 
 C - n S 
 
 ill 
 
 " =3 o 
 
 EcJ 
 
 £ 
 
 Older of the Kings in 
 their respective 
 Dynasties. 
 
 Names of the Kings ac- 
 cording to the original 
 Monuments. 
 
 Names of the Kings ac' 
 cording to Ancient 
 Writers. 
 
 Years reigned by 
 each King. 
 
 Years 
 
 before 
 
 Christ. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 1 
 
 I. 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 2272 
 
 2 
 
 II. 
 
 
 
 >140 
 
 
 3 
 
 III. 
 
 Aian. 
 
 ....... 
 
 ) 
 
 2132 
 
 4 
 
 IV. 
 
 OSORTASEN I. 
 
 Amesses, Amosis. 
 
 44 
 
 2186 
 
 5 
 
 V. 
 
 A. MENEM HE I. 
 
 Timaus, Concharis. 
 
 6 
 
 2082 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 190 
 
 XVII. DYNASTY OF SIX SHEPHERD KINGS, 
 
 Or Hylcs/ios in Lower Egypt. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 
 Salatis. 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 II. 
 
 
 
 B. Anon ? 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 III. 
 
 
 Apachnas. 
 
 36M7 
 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 
 Apophis. 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 
 Ianias. 
 
 50 I 
 
 
 
 VI. 
 
 
 Aseth. 
 
 49 2 
 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 259 ” 10 
 
 LEGITIMATE XVII. DYNASTY OF SIX THEBAN KINGS, 
 
 Who ruled over the Upper Provinces ofEgypt, contemporarily with the Hi'/cshvs, who 
 possessed the Lower. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 6 
 
 I. 
 
 Amenemhe II.* 
 
 
 28 
 
 2082 
 
 7 
 
 II. 
 
 OSORTASEN II. 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 III. 
 
 OSORTASEN III. 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 9 
 
 IV. 
 
 Amenemhe III. 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 10 
 
 V. 
 
 “ Sol vocatus in justi- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tia.” 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 VI. 
 
 Aahmes, Thotlimosis. 
 
 Misphragmuthosis. 
 
 22 
 
 1822 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 260 
 
 THE XVIIIth DYNASTY OF 17 THEBAN KINGS, 
 Occupied the Pharaonic throne during the most brilliant and impor 
 tant period of Egyptian history. The reestablishment of supreme 
 power on the expulsion of the Hykshos ; the erection of the most 
 magnificent edifices; the conquests in Africa far into Nigritia, in 
 Asia Minor to Cholcis on the Euxine, and through Central Asia into 
 Hindostan ; with the sojourn and Exodus of the Israelites, combine 
 to render this portion of the page of Nilotic history teeming with 
 interest. Four parallel hieroglyphical lists exist to confirm and cor- 
 rect the fragments of Manetho, viz.: the Tablet of Ahydos, the Pro- 
 cession of the Samsessium, the Procession of Medeenet-Iiaboo, and 
 the Tomb of Gurnah. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 12 
 
 I. 
 
 Amunoph I. 
 
 Amosis, Thetmosis. 
 
 26M4 
 
 1822 
 
 13 
 
 II. 
 
 Thothmes I. 
 
 Chebron. 
 
 13 
 
 
 1796 
 
 14 
 
 III. 
 
 Thothmes II. 
 
 Amenophis. 
 
 20 
 
 
 1783 
 
 15 
 
 IV. 
 
 Amense, queen, 
 
 Amenses. 1 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 
 Thothmes III. 
 Amenemhe IV. 
 
 ) successive hus. 1 
 > bands of queen j 
 
 S Amense. J 
 
 21 
 
 9 
 
 1762 
 
 18 
 
 V. 
 
 Thothmes IV. + 
 
 Mephres, Mceris. 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 1740 
 
 19 
 
 VI. 
 
 Amunoph II. 
 
 Mephrathutmosis. 
 
 Tmosis. 
 
 25 
 
 10 
 
 1727 
 
 20 
 
 VII. 
 
 Thothmes V. 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 1702 
 
 21 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Amunoph III. 
 
 Amenophis, Memnon 
 
 30 
 
 10 
 
 1692 
 
 22 
 
 IX. 
 
 H6r, 
 
 Ilorus. 
 
 36 
 
 5 
 
 1661 
 
 23 
 
 X. 
 
 Tmauiiot, queen, 
 
 Achenkeres. 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 1625 
 
 24 
 
 XI. 
 
 Ramses I. 
 
 Rathotis, Athoris. 
 
 9 
 
 
 1613 
 
 25 
 
 XII. 
 
 Menephtiia I. 
 
 two Akencheres. 
 
 24 
 
 8 
 
 1604 
 
 26 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Ramses II. 
 
 Armais, Armesses. 
 
 C Ramses, Sesos- 1 
 
 J4 
 
 
 1579 
 
 27 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Ramses III. 
 
 J tris, Sesoosis, > 
 ( Osymandias. ) 
 
 66 
 
 2 
 
 1565 
 
 1499 
 
 28 
 
 XV. 
 
 Menephtiia II. 
 
 Armessis, Miammun. 
 
 3 
 
 
 29 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Menephtha III. 
 Siphthah and 
 
 Amenophis. ) 
 
 19 
 
 6 
 
 1496 
 
 30 
 
 
 Taosra. 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 1476 
 
 31 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Remerri, Uerri. 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 348 
 
 XIX. DYNASTY OF SIX THEBAN KINGS. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 32 
 
 I. 
 
 Ramses IV. 
 
 Sethos- ASgyptus. 
 
 55 
 
 1474 
 
 33 
 
 II. 
 
 Ramses V. 
 
 Rapsaches, Rampses. 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 III. 
 
 Ramses VI. 
 
 Ammenephthes. 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 IV. 
 
 Ramses VII. 
 
 Rameses. 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 V. 
 
 Ramses VIII. 
 
 Ammenemes. [teus. 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 VI. 
 
 Ramses IX. 
 
 Thuoris, Polibius, Pro- 
 
 
 1280 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 194 
 
 * The objection to Roskllini’s and Champollion Fiokac’s arrangement of the 
 Shepherd Kings, propounded by the erudite Sir J. G. Wilkinson (in “Manners and 
 Customs ” vol.lst. page 45) which is bused on the “ Tnhlet of Victories” oHlns king, 
 brought by Mr. Burton from Wndee Gasobs, does not appear to be conclusive: for 
 apart from the reading of the name of Fount, as the territorial designation ol this con- 
 quered nation, in which I cannot agree ; there is not only no absolute necessity to con- 
 sider these Pount to be a tribe at that moment inhabiting Asia : hut, associated as they 
 are in Sir J G Wilkinson’s copy of the procession of nations tributary to Tliotines4th 
 (W.— ■ vol.l, pi. 62. fig. 5, and pi. IV., 1st line) no less than in Mr. Hoskins’s colored coy. 
 of the same subject, with tribes and productions exclusively African, they ore evident.y 
 a Caucasian family settled in some part of northeastern Africa. 1 hey may be Upper 
 Lyhians, especially if their name will bear the reading of Pone -t-Kah.0) Nor do Ro- 
 sellini orClmmpollion refer to the objection ; perhaps, however, in consequence ot tha 
 absence oftliis entire subject in the French and Tuscan works. 
 
 t In a preceding chapter, I explained, that this arrangement is liable to modification 
 if the tablet referred to he of the 42nd year of Thothmes 4th Morris. 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 65 
 
 XX. DYNASTY OF TWELVE THEBAN KINGS. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 "38 
 
 i. 
 
 Ramses X. 
 
 at least. 
 
 4 
 
 1280 
 
 39 
 
 ii. 
 
 Ramses XL 
 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 hi. 
 
 Ramses XII. 
 
 
 
 
 41 
 
 IV. 
 
 Amenemes 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 V. 
 
 Ramses XIII. 
 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 VI. 
 
 Ramses XIV. 
 
 at least. 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 VI. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 VIII. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IX. 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 X. 
 
 Ramses XV. 
 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 XI. 
 
 Amensi-Hrai.H6r. 
 
 • • > • • t 
 
 
 
 46 
 
 XII. 
 
 Phisham. 
 
 
 
 1102 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 178 
 
 XXI. DYNASTY OF SEVEN TANITE KINGS. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 47 
 
 I. 
 
 Manduftep ? 
 
 Smendis. 
 
 26 
 
 1102 
 
 48 
 
 II. 
 
 Aasen ?* 
 
 Psusennes I. 
 
 46 
 
 1076 
 
 
 III. 
 
 
 Nophercheres. 
 
 4 
 
 1030 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 
 Amenophthis. 
 
 9 
 
 1026 
 
 
 V. 
 
 
 Osorchor. 
 
 6 
 
 1017 
 
 
 VI. 
 
 
 Psinaches. 
 
 9 
 
 1011 
 
 
 VII. 
 
 
 Psusennes II. 
 
 30 
 
 1002 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 130 
 
 XXII. DYNASTY OF NINE BUBASTITE KINGS. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 49 
 
 1 . 
 
 Shesiionk I. 
 
 Shishak, Sesonchis 
 
 21 
 
 972 
 
 50 
 
 II. 
 
 OSORKON I. 
 
 Osoroth, Osorthon. 
 
 15 
 
 951 
 
 51 
 
 III. 
 
 SllESHONK II. 
 
 . . . • • . 
 
 29 
 
 936 
 
 52 
 
 IV. 
 
 OSORKON II 
 
 
 
 
 
 53 
 
 V. 
 
 SllESHONK III. 
 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 VI. 
 
 Takelloth I. 
 
 Takellothis. 
 
 25 
 
 
 55 
 
 VII. 
 
 OsORKON III. 
 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Takellotii II. 
 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 IX. 
 
 Osorkon IV. 
 
 
 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 120 
 
 XXIII. DYNASTY OF FOUR TANITE KINGS. 
 
 l 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 
 Petubastes. 
 
 40 
 
 852 
 
 
 II. 
 
 
 Osorcho. 
 
 8 
 
 812 
 
 
 III. 
 
 
 Psammus. 
 
 10 
 
 804 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 
 Zet. 
 
 31 
 
 794 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 89 
 
 XXIV. DYNASTY OF ONE SAITIC KING. 
 
 B. C 
 
 Bonchoris,Bocchoris,| 44 | 761 
 
 XXV. DYNASTY OF THREE ETHIOPIAN KINGS. 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 44 
 
 XXVI. DYNASTY OF NINE SAITIC KINGS. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 66 
 
 I. 
 
 Kambeth. 
 
 Cambyses. 
 
 3 
 
 525 
 
 
 11. 
 
 
 The Magians. 
 
 M. 7 
 
 522 
 
 67 
 
 III. 
 
 Ntakiush. 
 
 Darius, Hytaspes. 
 
 36 
 
 
 68 
 
 IV. 
 
 Khsheersha. 
 
 Xerxes, I. 
 
 21 
 
 485 
 
 69 
 
 V. 
 
 Artksheersha. 
 
 Artaxerxes, Longi- 
 
 40 
 
 464 
 
 
 
 
 manus. 
 
 
 
 
 VI. 
 
 
 Xerxes, II. 
 
 2 
 
 424 
 
 
 VII. 
 
 
 Sogdianus. 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 VIII. 
 
 
 
 Darius.Nothus. 
 
 19 
 
 
 * I consider Manduftep, and Aasen to bo “unplaced kings", belonging to Dynasties 
 ►nor to the 16 th. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B.C. 
 
 70 
 
 I. 
 
 Hor,-nasht-Hbai 
 
 Amyirtheus 
 
 6 
 
 404 
 
 XXIX. DYNASTY OF FIVE MENDESIAN KINGS. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B.C. 
 
 71 
 
 I. 
 
 Nophrophth. 
 
 Nepherites. 
 
 6 
 
 398 
 
 72 
 
 II. 
 
 Haxor. 
 
 Achoris. 
 
 13 
 
 392 
 
 73 
 
 III. 
 
 Psimaut. 
 
 Psammuthis. 
 
 1 
 
 379 
 
 74 
 
 IV. 
 
 Naifnui ? 
 
 Anapherites. 
 
 M. 4 
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 
 Muthin. 
 
 1 
 
 378 
 
 XXVII. DYNASTY OF EIGHT PERSIAN KINGS. 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 120 4 
 
 XXVIII. DYNASTY OF ONE SAITIC KING. 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 21 4 
 
 XXX. DYNASTY OF THREE SEBENNITIC KINGS. 
 
 75 
 
 I. 
 
 II 
 
 III 
 
 Nashtanebf. 
 
 Nectanebo I. 
 Theos Taciios. 
 Nectanebo II. 
 The entire Dynasty reigned, years, 
 
 B.C. 
 
 377 
 
 359 
 
 357 
 
 38 
 
 XXXI. DYNASTY OF THREE PERSIAN KINGS. 
 
 B. C 
 ~339 
 337 
 
 I Artaxerxes, Ochus. 12 
 
 II Arses, Arsos. 3? 
 
 Ill Darius III.Codornanus|3 ? | 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years 8 7 332 
 
 Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great. B. C. 332. 
 
 List of the Ptolemaic Kings of Egypt, successors to Alexander 
 the Great, whose names have been inscribed in Hieroglyphics on 
 Egyptian monuments. 
 
 No. 
 
 1 
 
 2 | 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B.C. 
 
 57 
 
 I.j SlIABAK. 
 
 Sabbacon, Sabnco. 
 
 12 
 
 719 
 
 58 
 
 II.' Shabatok 
 
 Sevechus, Sethon, Sua 
 
 12 
 
 707 
 
 59 
 
 III.| Tahraka. 
 
 Tarakus, Tarhaka. 
 
 20 
 
 695 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 B. C. 
 
 
 I. 
 
 
 Stephinates. 
 
 7 
 
 675 
 
 
 II. 
 
 
 Nerepsus. 
 
 6 
 
 668 
 
 
 111. 
 
 
 Nechao, 1 
 
 8 
 
 662 
 
 60 
 
 IV. 
 
 PSAMETIK I. 
 
 Psaim™ etichus. 
 
 45 
 
 654 
 
 61 
 
 V. 
 
 Neko II. 
 
 Netno. 
 
 6 
 
 609 
 
 62 
 
 VI. 
 
 Psametik II. 
 
 Psammuthis, Psan- 
 
 15 
 
 603 
 
 
 
 
 mus. 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 VII. 
 
 Hophra Remesto. 
 
 Vaphres, Apries, Ho - 
 
 19 
 
 588 
 
 
 
 
 phra. 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Aaiimes. 
 
 Amosis, Amasis. 
 
 44 
 
 569 
 
 65 
 
 X 
 
 1 Psametk III. 
 
 Psammenitus. 
 
 M. 6 
 
 
 
 
 The entire Dynasty reigned — years, 
 
 150 6 
 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 IV. 
 V 
 VI 
 
 VII 
 
 VIII 
 
 IX 
 
 XI. 
 
 XII. 
 
 NAMES OF PTOLEMIES. 
 
 Philip Arrid^-js, brother of Alexander, 
 
 Alexander, son of Alexander, 
 
 Ptolemy, son of Lagus, Soter, 
 
 Berenice, his 4th wife, reckoned 
 in Ptolemy’s reign, 
 Ptolemy Philadelphds, his son, 
 
 Arsinoe, daughter of Lysimnchus, 
 Arsinoe, widow of Lysimachus, 
 Ptolemy-Evergetes I 
 
 Berenice, of Cyrene, 
 Ptolemy-Philopator, 
 
 Arsinoe, his sister, 
 Ptolemy-Epiphanes, 
 
 Cleopatra, of Syria, 
 Ptolemy-Philometor, 
 
 Cleopatra, his sister, 
 
 Ptolemy-Evergetes II. Physcon, Cach- 
 ergetes. 
 
 Cleopatra, widow of Philometor, 
 Cleopatra, Cocce, 
 
 Ptolemy Soter II, Lathyrus, 
 
 Ptolemy Alexander I, Parisactus, 
 
 Berenice or Cleopatra, Ins 
 
 daughter, 
 
 Ptolemy Alexander II., 
 
 Ptolemy — New Dionisius, Aulctes, 
 Berenice, his daughter, 
 again PTOLEMY-yln/etes, 
 Cleopatra, daughter of Auletes, 
 Cleopatra, and her son C.*;sarion, 
 
 The House of Lagus reigned years 
 
 Years 
 
 of 
 
 each 
 
 Reign. 
 
 Years 
 
 before 
 
 Christ. 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 39 
 
 38 
 
 25 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 35 
 
 29 
 
 18 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 1G 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 323 
 
 316 
 
 304 
 
 284 
 
 246 
 
 221 
 
 204 
 
 180 
 
 146 
 
 117 
 
 81 
 
 73 
 
 57 
 
 55 
 
 49 
 
 44 
 
 294 
 
 And the Ptolemaic dynasty ceased — years B. C. 30, when Egyp* 
 became a province of the Roman Empire. 
 
63 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 Names of Roman Emperors found in hieroglyphics on the monu- 
 ments of Egypt. 
 
 I. Emperor Cajsar Augustus, B. C. 27. 
 
 
 
 
 A. D, 
 
 11 . 
 
 K 
 
 Tiberius Cjesar, 
 
 14 
 
 III. 
 
 
 Caius — Caligula — 
 
 36 
 
 IV. 
 
 it 
 
 Tiberius Claudius Cjbsak Augustus 
 
 
 
 
 Germanicus, 
 
 40 
 
 V. 
 
 61 
 
 Nero Claudius Cjesar Augustus 
 
 
 
 
 Germanicus, 
 
 54 
 
 VI. 
 
 (( 
 
 Marcus Otiio Caesar Augustus, 
 
 
 VII. 
 
 (6 
 
 Cjesar Vespasian Augustus, 
 
 68 
 
 VIII. 
 
 «< 
 
 Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus, 
 
 78 
 
 IX. 
 
 (C 
 
 Cjesar Domitian Augustus, 
 
 81 
 
 X. 
 
 46 
 
 Ca-.sar Nerva Trajan Augustus, 
 
 97 
 
 XI. 
 
 it 
 
 Cjesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, 
 
 116 
 
 XII. 
 
 it 
 
 Cjesar Titus Elius Adrian 
 
 
 
 
 Antoninus Augustus Pius, 
 
 137 
 
 xin. 
 
 t% 
 
 Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, 
 
 161 
 
 XIV. 
 
 a 
 
 Lucius Verus Cjesar, 
 
 
 XV. 
 
 a 
 
 Commoeus, 
 
 180 
 
 XVI. 
 
 « 
 
 Cjesar Severus Augustus, 
 
 194 
 
 XVII. 
 
 a 
 
 Cjesar Geta Augustus, 
 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 " 
 
 Cjesar Antoninus Augustus, (Caracalla,) 211 
 
 Note. Of the Roman Emperors, who ruled between Augustus and Cara, 
 calls, the only names unfound in hieroglyphics, are Galba, Vitellius and 
 Nerva. 
 
 Thus from an indefinite period, prior to the year B. C. 2272, down 
 to about 215 years after the Christian era, the hieroglyphical char- 
 acter is proved to have been in use ; while, from the year 2272, B. 
 C., modem hierology has determined the chronological series of 
 Egyptian monarchs, by the translation of hieroglyphical annals. 
 
 The Romans held Egypt from the 27th year B. C. till 395 A. D. ; 
 when the sons of Theodosius the Great divided the empire ; and 
 Egypt lingered under the sovereignty of the Eastern Emperors ; till, 
 conquered by Aiuner-ebn-el-As, the Valley of the Nile became a 
 province of Omar’s Saracenic Caliphate, in A. D. 540. In the year 
 A. D. 1517 — Hegira 923 — Egypt was overrun by the Ottoman hordes 
 of Sooltin Selefem, and has ever since been the spoil of the Turk : 
 but, in the prophetic “ Books of Hermes” it is written, 
 
 “ Et inhabitabit ACgyptum Scythus, aut Indus, aut aliqma tali*.” 
 
 END or ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 
 
 28. 
 
 2nd Column, 
 
 14 lines from top, for to the above, read with the above. 
 
 <1 
 
 30. 
 
 1st. 
 
 44 
 
 18 “ 
 
 “ “ “ bring to this hole, read bring it to this hole. 
 
 •4 
 
 30. 
 
 1st. 
 
 46 
 
 4 « 
 
 “ bottom for, steamboats, under, read steamboats, that under. 
 
 4 
 
 31. 
 
 2nd. 
 
 64 
 
 15 “ 
 
 “ “ “ as well, read as well as 
 
 4 
 
 42. 
 
 2nd. 
 
 44 
 
 11 “ 
 
 “ “ “ with, read without. 
 
 44 
 
 43. 
 
 lsi. 
 
 46 
 
 38 “ 
 
 “ top “ it, read they. 
 
 A gentleman, erudite in Hebrew and other Oriental languages, has kindly suggested the following emendations to the Author. 
 
 Note, page 31 — that the name of Moses — Moshih — being derived from the Hebrew root “ to draw out,” has no reference to the root “ to 
 anoint.” 
 
 Page 32 — that the Hebrew root Aur does not mean the Sun, bu light, and Ur, or Oor, signifies flame, splendor; that Urim and Thummim, 
 are not duals but plurals, and should be rendered “ splendors and perfections.” 
 
 Page 42 — that the name of the Thebaid — Patheos — is not derivable from the rootPATHAR, to interpret; but probably represente the Coptic 
 Pethouris, Terra Australis, the Southern land. 
 
 Page 43 — that the word Matz-za, unleavened bread, is derived from the root to squeeze, to compress. 
 
 Not to enter into an argument, I refer the optical reader to Portal, “ Les Syjnboles des Egyptiene compart tt ceux des Hebreus ' 
 Paris 1840 — and Dr. Dams on the Hebrew Alphabet. London, 1835. 
 
 * 
 
ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 67 
 
 COPIES OF TESTIMONIALS, AND EXTRACTS OF 
 CORRESPOND ENCE. 
 
 To George R. Gliddon, Esq. 
 
 Boston, February, 4, 1843. 
 
 Sir , — Having attended your course of thirteen Lectures (some of 
 us the whole, and others, parts of the course,) delivered in this city, 
 on “ Eari.v Egyptian History, Archaeology, and other sub- 
 jects CONNECTED WITH HlEROGLYPHICAL LITERATURE,” We take 
 this occasion to express the high satisfaction we ha ve experienced — 
 in ccmmon with your other auditors — in following you through the 
 ir.ts’tsting developments made of your noble and inexhaustible sub- 
 ject. 
 
 It need not be remarked, that, until the present age, the extraor- 
 dinary history and antiquities of that ever memorable country, in its 
 earliest periods, have been, comparatively speaking, a tissue of fa- 
 bles ; and, almost literally, enveloped in that impenetrable darkness, 
 ■which has long been associated witli the name of that people in a 
 familiar proverb ; for, although the Egyptians from the earliest ages, 
 like other nations, had recorded their great public events on their 
 public monuments, which are still extant, yet all knowledge of the 
 sanguageef those monuments — the Hieroglyphic ai. Language of 
 Egypt, — had long been lost to the world, and has but recently been 
 recovered by the profound researches, which were instituted in Eng- 
 land by Young — alike eminent in Science and Literature — and, in 
 France, successfully prosecuted to their full development by Cham- 
 pollion ; a result, which will shed a lustre upon the literary fame of 
 the present age, of no lass brilliancy than the most celebrated dis- 
 coveries made in any of the fields of science. 
 
 We cannot, therefore, permit the present occasion to pass, without 
 testifying our gratification at having bad this opportunity of hearing 
 the first course of Lectures, delivered in this country, upon the re- 
 sults of those profound and interesting researches. These results 
 ehed new light upon the ea.rly history of man, by unfolding to our 
 view, in addition to the knowledge we before possessed from the 
 Scriptures, the authentic records of a great nation, and of a more 
 remote epoch, than the earliest records of any people which the 
 learned have hitherto made a subject of thorough and exact investi- 
 gation. The impulse now given to these studies, will, we have no 
 doubt, stimulate many of our intelligent and persevering scholars, 
 to emulate their illustrious European predecessors in this department 
 of knowledge ; and, while they extend their own fame, to add to the 
 reputation of their country. 
 
 With our cordial wishes for your success in making known, in other 
 parts of the United States, the valuable and interesting results of 
 Egyptian researches, and with the assurances of our personal regard, 
 We are, Sir, 
 
 Y'oui obedient servants, 
 
 Jno. Bickering, 
 John Davis, 
 
 Win. Jenks, 
 Charles P. Curtis, 
 S. K. Lothrop, 
 Asa Eaton, 
 
 Jas. Savage, 
 
 I. P. Davis, 
 
 Charles Sumner, 
 
 F. C. Gray, 
 
 Jos. W. Ingraham, 
 Alex. Young, 
 
 G. S. Hillard, 
 Geo. Hayward, 
 Charles Lowell. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 20th, 1844. 
 To George R. Gliddon, Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir , — As members of your recent class in this city, we can- 
 not deny ourselves the gratification of returning you our warmest 
 thanks for the pleasure and profit derived from your discourses. We 
 presume, however, that a just appreciation of the importance of your 
 theme, will prove far more agreeable to your feelings, than even the 
 richly-merited acknowledgment due to the unvarying urbanity and 
 kindness of manner, whicli distinguished your personal intercourse 
 with your hearers. 
 
 Permit us, then, to thank you most sincerely — rather as citizens of 
 rii extensive community than as mere individuals — for the efforts 
 you have made to arouse the attention of the American public to 
 the deeply interesting- subject of Egyptian Archaeology. 
 
 To paraphrase a familiar Eastern ejaculation, “ There is no Truth 
 hut Truth ," — and it is equally true, that scepticism is deprived of all 
 its weapons when truth appears, divested of the errors, witli which 
 it has been veiled through honest misconceptions. 
 
 As Christians, we feel that the public is deeply indebted to you, 
 for assuming the critical post of a pioneer, in the task of rendering 
 popular the constantly accumulating facts by which Egyptian hiero- 
 glyphic history corroborates the record of the sacred writers, and 
 casts bright sunshine upon ages, institutions, men and motives, hith- 
 erto but vaguely traced in the dim, deceptive moonlight of Grecian 
 and Roman philosophy. 
 
 As men, we have listened with high interest to your expose of the 
 state of learning and the arts, among a people antedating all other 
 extant history, and the pure, though seemingly enigmatical moral- 
 ity, which vindicates the dignity of human nature, even in its in- 
 fancy. 
 
 We will not pause to make a single con ment upon the thousand 
 interesting questions in statesmanship and public polity — in the in- 
 fluence oi governmental systems upon the destiny of nations — which 
 start up in the minds ot your hearers, as you proceed, apparently 
 without effort or intention ot y o u r own, and render every lecture 
 the subject of enduring thought. 
 
 These things are far too grand and vast for mere epistolary no* 
 tice; and we will, therefoie, close with the assurance, that public 
 considerations, not less than private gratification, induce us most 
 heartily to wish you a prosperous career elsewhere, and a speeBy re- 
 turn to Philadelphia, wheie we trust the intelligence and virtue of 
 the community will ever be ready to welcome you. 
 
 We are, veiy respectfully, 
 
 James Mease, 
 
 Henry W. Ducachet, 
 Peter Vanpelt, 
 
 C. G. Childs, 
 
 David S. Brown, 
 
 J. Fisher Learning, 
 
 A. D. Chaloner, 
 
 A. D. Gillette, 
 
 Joseph Montgomery, 
 Charles Rvan, 
 
 Thomas Ryan, 
 
 John S. Miller, 
 
 B. Henry, 
 
 Josiah Randall, 
 Samuel Jackson, 
 
 S. E. Smith, 
 
 R. D. Wood, 
 Lawrence Lewis, 
 Richard C. Taylor, 
 John J. Smith, Jr., 
 Isaiah Hacker, 
 William Peter, 
 
 John G. Watmough, 
 Thomas Gilpin, 
 
 A. M. Prevost, 
 Thomas Firth, 
 William Morrison, 
 
 J. S. Phillips, 
 
 George W. Aspinwall, 
 
 G . Emerson, 
 
 Gavin Watson, 
 
 Robert Kilvington, 
 James Arrott, 
 
 Colin Arrott, 
 
 Joseph Lea, Jr., 
 
 B. H. Coates, 
 
 R. M. Lewis, 
 
 Judah Dobson, 
 
 W. J. Walter, 
 
 H. B. Wallace, 
 
 Thomas T. Lea, 
 
 Thomas Sergeant, 
 
 M. D. Lewis, 
 
 S. W. Roberts, 
 
 William Ashbridge, 
 William S. Vaux, 
 Richard Randolph, 
 Samuel George Morton, 
 Charles F. Becke, 
 George Zantzingor, 
 Edward King, 
 
 William Zantzinger, 
 
 W. A. Dobbyn, 
 
 Joseph S. Lyon, 
 Leonard R. Koecker, 
 
 J. H. Markland, 
 
 John T. Sharpless, 
 Reynell Coates. 
 
 EXTRACTS OF CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Perring, London, 1st Sept., 1843. 
 
 “ Some few days ago, on the table of IL E. the Chevalier Bun- 
 sen, 1 met with your Lectures, and confess with some little surprise 
 at your new vocation. I immediately sent down to Wiley & Put- 
 nam's, and was fortunate enough to obtain a copy, which 1 have 
 gone over ; and as it contains your address, I cannot withhold my 
 humble tribute of applause. It is the first attempt, that I am aware 
 of, to popularize the subject of hieroglvphical literature and history 
 in all its details and branches; and the thoroughly masterly manner 
 in which you have executed your task, (con amore) will be appre- 
 ciated by all, and yet more especially by those who have labored in 
 the same field. — for the mass of valuable information brought to- 
 gether from a thousand discordant sources, is truly astonishing.” 
 
 “ I have recommended your work to several 
 
 friends, who wish to know a little truth on Ancient Egypt and its 
 Archaeology; and shall advise all who visit that country to make it 
 their study on the voyage,” &c. 
 
 Madden,* London, 10th Nov., 1843. 
 
 “I am very much pleased with the work, (Ancient Egypt,) for ,t 
 conveys in a simple and eloquent style, information which is not to 
 he procured in any other way. It gave me great pleasure to find 
 that tire American public appreciated your exertions,” &c. 
 
 Harris, Alexandria, 25th Nov., 1843. 
 
 “Our friend Mr. A. Tod.f presented me with your ‘Ancient 
 Egypt; her Monuments, Hieroglyphics, &c.,’ and 1 thought you 
 would not be displeased to receive my congratulations on the fruit 
 of your industry and application, which must have been very great 
 to have produced a work of so much merit. I have no doubt you 
 will make yourself a name, if you pursue the path you have marked 
 out for yourself 1 sincerely wish you success,” &c., 
 
 Bono mi, Pyramids of Gheezeh, 17th Jan’ry., 1844. 
 
 “ We are all very much pleased with the efforts you have been 
 making in the cause. It is, indeed, highly creditable to you to nave 
 produced such a complete and highly interesting volume on the sub- 
 ject. I do not know any treatise on the subject that is likely to ad- 
 vance the study of Egypt so much as yours. Yfou have shown the 
 process by which what knowledge we have has been acquired ; and 
 on what clear and solid foundation it rests. You have carried youf 
 
 "Madden & Co. — Oriental Publishers. 
 
 \ Consul for the U. S. in Egypt. 
 
«8 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. 
 
 reader to the very margin of our knowledge ; having shown him in 
 the course several alleys and branches of the great Labyrinth that 
 are still unexplored, and stimulated him to pursue the study by pi- 
 quant suggestions. In short, your book has done more to render the 
 •ubject popular, than any work in existence,” &c. 
 
 Lcriius, Kartoum, le 29 Mars, 1844. 
 
 (Junction of the VVhite and Blue Nilo.) 
 
 " Monsieur et Collogue, 
 
 M Je me hate de vous accuser reception du bulletin* de la Socidte 
 des Sciences Naturelles de Philadelphie, que vous avez bien voulu 
 m’ envoyer par l’entremise de Monsieur votre pere Je vois par cela 
 que cette honorable Societe m’ a fait l’honneur de mettre mon nom 
 parmi ses membres correspondants. Bien sensible a cette distinction, 
 que je ne saurais expliquer que par l’interet bien vif que vous prcn- 
 nez aux memes etudes auxquelles je me suis livre de preference, et 
 dont vous etes le reprosentant aussi zele que savant dans le nouveau 
 Monde, je vous prie de vouloir presenter mes humbles remerciemens 
 a. ^honorable Societe, et d’ agreer en meme temps l’expression de 
 ma reconnaisance envers vous meme, qui avez bien voulu transferer 
 l’interet pour les etudes Egyptiennes sur celui qui voudrait les fairo 
 
 avancer autant qu’il est en son pouvoir.” “J’ai 
 
 vu par la meme feuille que vous avez fait un rapport a la Societe 
 eur notre Expedition scientifique. Je vous remercie pour l’interet 
 quo voua y portez,” &c. 
 
 Lkpsius, Island of Philce, 15th Sept., 1844. 
 
 “ J’ai lu avec le plus grand interet les sept, premiers chapitres de 
 ▼otre cours sur l’ancienne Egypte, et je suis convaincu que vous avez 
 gagne un applause general et merite de tous ceux qui ont eu l’avan- 
 tage de pouvoir suivre votre cours. J’espere vivement que vous 
 trouverez le temps pour continuer vos utiles recherches dans ce 
 genre d’etudes ; qui, malgre la riche moisson qu’ elles promettent, ont 
 pourtant trouve jusqu’ a present beaucoup plus d’amateurs que de 
 travailleurs serieux, faute, il est vrai, en grande partie, de la difficulty 
 a rcmonter aux vraies sources de cette science,” &c. 
 
 Walsh,* Paris, May 7th, 1844. 
 
 “ Monsieur J omard, of the Royal Library, the highest authority 
 on Egyptian topics” — “ rejoices in the recovery of Mr. Gliddon’s 
 work, which he accidentally left in Italy in the autumn, and means 
 read attentively without delay .” — National Intelligencer. Wash- 
 ington, 20th June, 1844. 
 
 •Vide Proceedings of the Academy ef Natural S'.ences, July and 
 August, 1843. 
 
 •tJ. 9 Consul, Paris. 
 
 Birch, British Museum, London, 12th May, 1844. 
 
 “ 1 have read with much pleasure your interesting Lectures os 
 Egyptian Antiquities, in the United States, which ought to have the 
 effect of awakening the public attention there to the researches go- 
 ing on in the Old World. They have been very popular here, as I 
 dare say your publishers (Madden & Co.) can inform you ; and de- 
 servedly so, since they place the matter in a clear and distinct point 
 of view in all its bearings,” &c. 
 
 Lane, Cairo, 15th July, 1844. 
 
 “ I congratulate you most sincerely on the success which has at- 
 tended you in America, and join with many others in thanking you 
 for much very valuable information,” &c. 
 
 Fresnel,* Juddah, {Arabia,) 4th Aug., 1844. 
 
 “ I am indebted to your “ Ancient Egypt” for the little positive 
 knowledge I now possess on the subject which you have treated with 
 so much perspicuity, “ verve,” ana “ disinvoltura.” .... 
 
 “ I must now acknowledge, that you have given me a real treat in 
 nay desert, and have inspired me with a lively interest for a branch 
 ot science, which 1 had neglected for no other reason, than that it 
 was not my own branch, my own department ; and “ qu’ a moins 
 d’etre de for, (which, you know, is not my case,) on ne peut pas 
 
 suffire a tout ” Go on, my dear Sir, and “ agreez 
 
 mes sinceres felicitations,” &c. 
 
 Extracts from the Correspondence of my Father, A'w late John Gliddon, 
 U. S. Consul for Egypt. 
 
 “ Cairo, 12th October, 1843. — “ The book n characterized here as 
 learned, modest, and most useful.” 18th November — “Among 
 the Elite of Cairo you have passed the ordeal. Your work is con- 
 sidered a most opportune compendium, and a most acceptable vade- 
 mecum.'" 14th February, 1844. — “ Soon afterwards 1 exchanged 
 visits with Sir J. G. Wilkinson, and you will be gratified to hear, 
 that he confirmed all that had reached me from Judge Jay and Mr. 
 Harris concerning your labors ; and when I took leave, he expressly 
 charged me with his congratulations and kind regards.” . . . 
 
 . . . “ Messrs. Wilkinson, Briggs, Walne, Bonomi, Lane, 
 
 Traill, Lieder, &c., indicate your work to all travellers in search of 
 hieroglyphical information, and the consequence is, that our 
 ‘ Chapters' are taken off the table of the ‘ Egyptian Society,’ M it 
 were, by the dozen,” &c. 
 
 George R. Gliddon. 
 
 Baltimore, 15th March, 1845. 
 
 •French Consul at Juddah — Red Sea. 
 
NEW SERIES 
 
 OF 
 
 ARCH/EOLOGICAL LECTURES ON ANCIENT EGYPT, 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY 
 
 COPIOUS AND SPLENDID PICTORIAL DIAGRAMS, 
 
 AND 
 
 GENUINE ANTIQUITIES, 
 
 COMPRISING 
 
 THE LATEST HIEROGLYPHICAL, AND COGNATE MONUMENTAL DISCOVERIES, 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE R. GLIDDON, 
 
 Member of the “Egyptian Society” of Cairo — Corresponding Member of the “United States Naval 
 Lyceum,” Brooklyn, New York — Correspondent of the “Academy of Natural Sciences,” Phila- 
 delphia — Corresponding Member of the “National Institute,” Washington — Member of 
 the “ American Oriental Society,” Boston — Honorary Member of the “ His- 
 torical Society of Pennsylvania” — Cqrresponding Member of the “ Syro- 
 Egyptian Society” of London — Corresponding Member of the 
 “Societe Orientale de France” — Corresponding Mem- 
 ber of the “ Institute of Archeological 
 Correspondence of Rome,” 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 “A Memoir on the Cotton of Egypt” — “An Appeal to the Antiquaries of Europe on the destruction 
 of the Monuments of Egypt,” London, 1841 — “A Series of Chapters on Early 
 Egyptian History, Archeology, and other subjects connected with 
 Hieroglyphical Literature,” New York, 1843, 
 
 AND FORMERLY 
 
 UNITED STATES CONSUL FOR CAIRO, IN EGYPT. 
 
 «• Plurimas terras peragravi , disjunctissima quceque lustrans; coeli solique genera plurima vidi , eruditos homines 
 
 permultos audivi; JEgypliorum , qui Harpedonapte {a^mbovattrai — Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 
 
 »*ynan — |1N — nmn=HRPD— AUN— HPTE=“ Colui che largisce la veritu della luce;" i. e. the Illumi- 
 nati — Michelangelo Land , Paris, 1846.) nominantur, apud hos autem postremo multos per annos pert - 
 grinatus sum." 
 
 Democriti Abderite Operum fragments— p. 228. Ed. Mullachius, Berlin, 1843. 
 
 Philadelphia, October, 1846. 
 
 In announcing his return to Philadelphia, after a twelvemonth’s sojourn in Europe, with the intention of resuming 
 his Lectureship throughout the United States, Mr. Gliddon begs leave to preface his new Courses with the following 
 remarks : 
 
 Four winter* have elapsed since the writer, whose twenty-three 
 year’s residence in the Valley of the Nile naturally led him to take 
 interest in the progress of local researches, commenced (at Boston, 
 1842-3,) in the novel form of illustrated and popular Lectures, the 
 exposition of those discoveries in hieroglyphical literature, consequent 
 upon the memorable French and English Expeditions to Egypt in 
 1798 — 1802, which, impressed by Napoleon’s genius, and fore- 
 shadowed in the noble folios “ Description de I’Egypte,” have called 
 forth in this second quarter of the XIXth century the lavish expen- 
 ditures of enlightened Governments, Societies, and individuals, the 
 enthusiastic investigation of the most illustrious Savans of the age, 
 and the intellectual admiration of all civilized communities, 
 i The experiment attempted by the writer, that of popularizing, 
 
 through direct and oral address, independently of the patronage or 
 aid of Governments or Academies, to the comprehension of the edu- 
 cated masses, themes so fraught with interest to the past history and 
 future development of humanity, does not appear to have been tried, in 
 any country, since the Olympic era of the Halicamassinn. To this 
 day the oral exposition of hierogrammatical science is confined in 
 Europe to regal collegiate precincts ; and it is at Paris, Florence, and 
 Berlin alone where the student or general hearer has hitherto gathered 
 Egyptian instruction from the incomparable discourses of a Chaw- 
 polliox le Jbune, a Rosellini, a Letronne, a Raoul-Rochitt*, 
 or a Richard Lepsius. In England, to this very hour, there are 
 no public lectures whatever on Egyptian Archaeology : and the fact 
 that many thousands of America’s citizens have spontaneously attended 
 
2 
 
 Discourses upon Hieroglyphics, in some European circles is yet un- 
 believed, in others it is a topic of mingled wonder and applause.* 
 
 It was upon the diffusion of education among the people of the 
 United States and their thirst for knowledge, fostered by Institutional 
 freedom in this vast Republic, that the writer, stimulated by the 
 advice and the effective aid of a few personal friends, among whom 
 the name of Richaiid K. Haight, f of New York, must always 
 stand preeminent, grounded his hopes and calculations ; nor, whilst he 
 merely claimed to be the popular expositor of the profound researches 
 of others, without the slightest pretension to aught but as much 
 fidelity of narrative as lay within the compass of his reach or abili- 
 ties, has he ever doubted, that the inquiring intelligence of the New 
 World would be found fully equal to the appreciation of discoveries 
 that for half a century have constituted the unceasing study, the in- 
 creasing attention, and the herculean labors of the greatest men and 
 nations of the Old. 
 
 Such was the wri er’s conception when he lauded in America in 
 January, 1842. Three successive winters, 1842-3, 1843-4,1844-5, 
 of practical experience have demonstrated, that, so far as the broad 
 principle of American intellectual cultivation be concerned, he has not 
 in his anticipations been mistaken. His Lectures upon Egyptian 
 Hierology have been consecutively listened to by audiences embracing 
 many thousands of the population, from Portsmouth, N. H., to Sa- 
 vannah, Goo., including repeatedly the larger Atlantic Cities, Boston, 
 New York, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Rich- 
 mond and Charleston ; while, at Boston, his course of 12 Lectures 
 on Egyptian Archaeology, repeated, before the “ Lowell Institute” in 
 1843-4, was attended by above five thousand persons. The sale, in 
 less than three years, of 18,000 copies of the Chapters, presented 
 gratuitously by the Author to the American Public, and the una- 
 bated demand for new impressions of this Introduction to the study 
 of Hieroglyphics,}: are sterling facts in proof of the popular desire 
 manifested by the public of the United States, to become familiar 
 with those splendid results and triumphant discoveries that insure 
 immortality to the School founded by Champollion. 
 
 Taking our departure from the “ Precis du Systeme Hierogly- 
 phique des Anciens Egyptiens,” put forth by Champollion le 
 Jeune, at Paris in 1824, we can now realize, after the toils of twenty- 
 two years, the resuscitation, from the tomb of fifteen centuries, of the 
 language of the long-buried denizens of Egypt, and witness in the 
 year 1846 the facile translation, by living French, English, German, 
 and Italian Hierologists, of any and all monumental legends, Paint- 
 ings, Sculptures and Papyri, scattered along the “ Sacred River,” 
 from the shores of the Mediterranean to the confluence of the White 
 and Blue Niles beyond the far-famed, if modern Meroe, on the torrid 
 confines of Nigritia. And beholding, as we now do with our own 
 eyes, the progressive reconstruction of the time-honored edifice of 
 Pharaonic antiquity, from autochthonous records with the events 
 themselves coetaneous, our minds have awakened to the comprehen- 
 sion of the reason why the advancement of a given country in 
 Egyptian learning has become, as it were, the standard measure of 
 its literary reputation in archaeological and cognate sciences. 
 
 Spurred to emulation, under the penalty of being distanced in the 
 race, by the glorious example of France, the Governments of Tus- 
 cany, Prussia and England, and many of the less affluent states of 
 Italy and Germany, have latterly been sending Commission after 
 Commission to explore and re-explore the venerable Ruins of 
 “ Afitzraim ,” or are collecting and depositing under the ffigis of Euro- 
 pean security, in gigantic national Museums, the hoary vestiges of 
 primeval Nilotic civilization. Lkp-ius and the Prussians have but just 
 returned from Egypt and Ethiopia, laden with treasures gathered du- 
 ring three years of unequalled and most successful laboriousness — and 
 yet, Piiisse, chief of a new Scientific Mission, is on the point of re- 
 turning from Paris to the same inexhaustible regions, in order that 
 French science may still maintain its preeminence in the march of 
 hieroglyphical discovery. 
 
 Paris, London, Berlin, St. Petersburgh, Leyden, Amsterdam, Stock 
 holm, Copenhagen, Munich, Vienna, Turin, Milan, Florence, Rome, 
 and Naples, independently of minor cities and of countless private 
 cabinets in Europe and Egypt, boa6t at the present day of Egyptian 
 antiquarian possessions, to obtain and to preserve some of which mil- 
 lions of dollars have been expended, and each city rejoices in tho 
 noble rivalry of its respective hieroglyphical students to decipher 
 and expound fragments, whose no-longer recondite meaning serves 
 to illumine every department of human knowledge. “As regards 
 those eminent men who have won a brilliant place in the career of 
 Egyptian studies, it is out of the question here to analyze their books ; 
 it suffices that it should be known that all have marched boldly 
 along the road opened by Champollion, and that the science which 
 owed its first illustration to Young, to the Champollions, to the 
 Humboldts, to Salvolini, to Rosellini, to Nestor L’hote, and of which 
 the reality has been proclaimed without reservation by Sylvestre de 
 Sacy and by Arago, counts at this day as adepts fervent and convinced 
 men* such as Messrs. Letronne, Ampere, Biot, Merimee, Prisse, E. 
 Burnouf, Lepsius, Bunsen, Peyron, Gazzera.Baruechi, ****•», 
 Leemans,” Pauthier, Lanci, Birch, Wilkinson, Harris, Cullimore’ 
 Sharpe, Hincks, Osburn, Bonomi, &c., &c. “ The friends and the 
 
 enemies of Champollion’s system are now well known.”| “ Tant pis 
 pour qui ne se rangera pas avec ces hommes celebres du cote de 
 l’evidence et de la justice.”} 
 
 The specification of the works, national and individual, published 
 and forthcoming from the press of Europe on Hierological Literature, 
 Chronology, History, ArU, Sciences, and Philosophy, would alone’ 
 swe ll a quarto volume, as may be inferred from the subjoined list of 
 Authors, whose researches have been consulted in the preparation of 
 Mr. Gliddon’s Lectures, and whose works are to be found, on this 
 side of the water, in the private library of Mr. Haight at New 
 York, to the munificence and friendship of whom the writer owes the 
 advantage of access to this unique archaeological collection. And yet, 
 withal, if in transatlantic America, space, time, and the nature of 
 things, have hitherto precluded similar pecuniary efforts to keep pace 
 with the antiquarian ambition of European communities, it is a 
 fact, as remarkable in itself as easy of demonstration, that there is a 
 more widely-diffused and general knowledge of the progress of Egyp- 
 tian discovery, and a more popular desire manifested to possess 
 correct ideas upon the results of Egyptological inquiry, than in many 
 parts of Europe, where the public mind still lies torpid in the very 
 midst of the discoveries and the discoverers: and it was to quality him- 
 self for the better development ot these subjects, in the endeavor to do 
 justice to this growing desire, that the writer, suspending his Lectures 
 during the last winter, proceeded to Europe to collect, by personal 
 application at the fountain sources of Paris and London, the most 
 authentic materials, and the latest hieroglyphical discoveries. 
 
 During five month’s residence at the French metropolis with Mn. 
 Haight, whose intimacy with many of the most distinguished Savans 
 and Societies of France afforded to the writer an infinitude of plea- 
 surable advantages; availing himself of the influential kindness of his 
 accomplished friend Mr. Robert Walsh, U. States Consul, to whom 
 he is indebted for manifold facilities ; and happy in the auspicious 
 rencontre with his old Cairo-colleagues and Eastern fellow-travel- 
 lers, Prisse, § the rescuer (from otherwise inevitable perdition had it 
 remained at Thebes) of the “Ancestral Hall of Karnac,” Fresnel ,1 
 the decipherer of the Himyaritic Inscriptions of Southern Arabia, 
 and Botta, 1 the resuscitator of time-interred Nineveh, who took 
 pleasure in explaining their several discoveries, and in introducing 
 him to their respective scientific friends,, the writer has enjoyed from 
 the liberal and frank complaisance of the Savans of France so many 
 favours, that in his present inability to express to each his 
 grateful obligations, he must content himself by italicizing among 
 the following authorities quoted in his lectures, the names of those 
 to whose personal kindness he is most indebted, as well in London 
 as at Paris. 
 
 Abeken, Ampere, Barucchi, Biot, Birch, Biickh, Bonomi, Botta, Boudin, Bunsen, Burton, Cahen, Cailleaud, Champollion - 
 Figeac, Cherubini, Cottrell , Cullimore, D' Avczac, D’ Eichthal, Dc Saulcy, Felix, Flandin , Fresnel, Gazzera, Goury, Hamilton, 
 Harris, Hengstenberg, Henry, Hincks, Hodgson, Horeau , Hoskins, Jomard, Jones, Lanci, Lane, Leemans, Lenormant, Lcpsius , 
 Lcsueur, Letronne, L : Hote, Linant, Matter, Migliarini, Morton, Munke, Osburn, Parthey, Pauthier, Perring, Pettigrew, Peyron, 
 Portal, Prichard, Prisse, Prudhoe, Quatremere, Raoul-Rochette, Rosellini, Salt, Salvolini, Schwarze, Sharpe, Tattam, Taylor, 
 Ungarelli, Vcncl, Vyse, Wilkinson, Young, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 A constant attendant during the winter at the invaluable “ Cours 
 d’Archeologie Egyptienne” of Letronne at the College de France, 
 and of Raoul-Rochette at the Bibliotheque Royale, and a frequent 
 
 ♦Vide — Revue rfc* Deux mondes , June 15, 1846 ; De Satjlcy, “ De 1’Etude 
 des Hieroglyphes — and August 1, 1816, Ampere, “ Rrcherches en Egjpte et 
 en Nubie.” Conferre likewise. Southern Literary Messenger, Richmond, 
 Virginia, July, 1815, — “ A Sketch of the progress of Archeological Science in 
 America;” and the Reports aud Notices of Mr. Gliddon’s Lectures in the Ame- 
 rican Press for the last four years, particularly in the Boston Transcript , Phi- 
 ladelphia Ledger , and Baltimoie Sun. 
 
 t See De Saulcifs article above quoted — page 989. Gliddon’s Chapters , 
 New York, 1843; Morton’s Crania JEgyptiact l, Philadelphia, 1844; and Jar- 
 vis’ Introduction to the History of the Chur ch, New York, 1845. 
 
 }The present Proprietors of ‘‘Ancient Egypt, her Monuments , Hierogly • 
 phlcs, History and Archdeols^y, }} arc Taylor 8c Co., No. 2, Astor House, r*ew 
 York— Price 25cts. 
 
 ♦Aside from heartfelt gratitude for kindnesses innumerable with which du* 
 ring the last four years, this amiable and erudite gentleman honored the Wri- 
 ter, justice to the illustrious departed demands, that the revered name of an 
 American Suvan, the late John Pickering of Boston, should not*be omitted in 
 designating the earliest and most qualified appreciators of the deeds of Young 
 and Champollion. See, besides many anterior papers, “Journo! of the American 
 Oriental Society” — No. 1, Boston, 1843. Nor, among living occidental students 
 who are successfully applying hieroglyphical discoveries to the enlargement of 
 science, must we forget Messrs. Samuel George Morton of Philadelphia, 
 Coiien and McCulloh of Baltimore, Hodgson of Savannah, Charles Picker 
 ING of Boston, and Nott of Mobile. 
 
 t De Saulcy, the decipherer of the Phcenician Monument of Thr/gga, and <>. 
 the Egyptian Demotic Texts — Revue des deux mondes, June, 1846- p.’ 383. 
 t Ampere— ut supra— p. 392. 
 
 $ Conferre Revue Archtologique — Paris, Avril, 1845; 
 fl “ Journal Asiatique — Paris. 1846. 
 
 ..5, *' Lettres de M. Botta stir ses D6couvcrtcs d Khorsabad, pre* de 
 Ninive D^ns, 1845. M. Botta is the son of the celebrated Italian author vi 
 “Stona dell’ Independeaza dell’ America.” 
 
3 
 
 ■visiter of the several Museums and Libraries that adorn the “World’s 
 centre of science,” the writer has received instruction on subjects that 
 heretofore lay beyond his attainment, and which he will endeavour 
 to embody in his future American discourses. The summer of his 
 absence was spent in studies in London, where, guided by the generous 
 and inestimable counsel of Birch, the English hierologist “par 
 excellence,” the writer prepared those essays with which he pro- 
 poses to commence his present Courses in this country; whilst the 
 encouraging countenance of H. E. Ohev. Bunsen, who graciously 
 permitted his perusal of the English MS. translation of the “iE gyp- 
 tens stelle in der Weltgeschichte,” forthcoming from the accomplished 
 pen of Mn. Cottrell ; and more than all, the personal rencontre with 
 Un. Lepsius, fresh from the regions of his stupendous Nilotic discove- 
 ries, are episodes in the writer’s wanderings as grateful to his indivi- 
 dual feelings, as of durable value to the accuracy of the scientific facts 
 that will be promulgated through his public lectures. 
 
 To sum up in a few words. He has had free access in London 
 and Paris to MSS., documents, books and portfolios, and has received 
 verbal and epistolary communication of various archaeological mate- 
 rials, many far in advance of European publication, and of some that 
 will not be forthcoming ritr years. He has brought with him the 
 
 most recent works, plates, &c., bearing upon Egyptology — more 
 than half of which have not before been introduced into the 
 United States. He has established relations with London, Paris 
 and Berlin, that will insure him the most rapid intimation of all 
 future Egyptian “Nouveautes Archeologiques,” while by correspon- 
 dence with the several students of hierology throughout Egypt ar.d 
 Europe, he is promised permanent support and prompt communi- 
 cation of the freshest intelligence. Through the considerate friend- 
 ship of the learned hierologist, Mn. A. C. Harris, of Alexandria, 
 he already possesses the nucleus of such a collection of Egyptian 
 Antiquities as will serve to illustrate his oral Lectures with genuine 
 specimens of Ancient Art. Part of this collection, bearing chiefly 
 upon the mummification and funereal ceremonies of Egypt, has 
 already arrived, and the remainder is in process of collection and 
 shipment to the United States. These curious Telics will lend a 
 more popular interest to the discourses which he contemplates deliver- 
 ing in the larger cities of the United States, and the following sum- 
 mary catalogue will afford an idea of the number, variety, and cost- 
 liness of tho Pictorial Illustrations that will embellish the writer’s 
 Lecture-rooms, and elucidate each question as it occurs — 
 
 
 BRILLIANTLY COLORED, AND COVERING MANY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE. 
 
 Hievoglyphical, Hieratic, Enchorial, Greek and Roman Texts, Tablets, Steles, Inscriptions, &c., from the Sculptures, Paintings 
 and Papyri, including the Rosetta Stone, the Funereal Ritual, the Turin Genealogical Papyrus, the Tablet of Abydns, the Anceslru. 
 Chamber of Karnac, the Zodiac of Dendera, and all important historical documents of the Egyptians from the earliest times to the 
 Christian era. A complete series of all the Pyramids, aud pyramidal monuments of Memphis, &c. Panoramic views of the 
 Temples, Palaces, and remarkable Tombs, in Egypt and Nubia — Tableaux embracing the entire series of documents and paintings 
 illustrating the arts, sciences, manners, customs and civilization of the Ancient Egyptians — Plates illustrative of the art of 
 embalmment, human and animal, Sarcophagi, Mummies, funeral cerements, ornaments, and doctrinal features of Nilotic Sepulture — 
 besides genuine specimens of a great variety of the Antiquarian Relics themselves — Fac-simile copies of themost splendid Tableaux found 
 in the Temples and Tombs along the Nile — Portraits of the Pharaohs in their chariots, and royal robes— Queens of Egypt in their 
 varied and elegant costumes — Likenesses of 48 Sovereigns of Egypt, from Amunoph the 1st, about B. C. 1800, down to the Ptolemies, 
 and ending with Cleopatra, B. C. 29, taken from the Sculptures — Priests and Priestesses offering to all the Deities of Egyptian 
 
 Mythology Battle scenes on the Monuments of every epoch— Egyptian, Asiatic and African Ethnology, elucidating the conquests, 
 
 maritime and caravan intercourse, commerce and political relations of the Egyptians with Nigritia, Abyssinia, Libya, Canaan, 
 Palestine, Phoenicia, Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Persia, Central Asia, &c. &c. — Crania jEgyptiaca — Negros and other 
 African families, of every epoch — Scenes supposed to relate to the Hebrew captivity, &c. — Processions of Foreign Nations tributary to the 
 
 Pharaohs Plans, geographical maps, topographical charts and paintings, exhibiting the Country and the Architecture of Egypt. In 
 
 short, Diagrams of every kind, illustrating every variety of Egyptian subjects, during a period of human history far exceeding 3000 
 years, and terminating with the Romans in the Hid century A. D. — Tothese will be added each and every newly-discovered subject 
 of interest as it presents itself in future explorations; together with all the most valuable hierogrammatical Books which are or may 
 be published in elucidation of the philology, &c. &c., of Egypt, so that in no department of Egyptian science will the critical or 
 cursory attendant on Air. Gliddon’s Lectures find any desideratum wanting. 
 
 For the subjects chosen as the themes of the writer’s future discourses, | 
 and for relative specifications of time, place, terms, &c. reference is 
 made lo the Daily Papers, no less than to the Programmes, which 
 will announce with all details, in each city, the several Courses of 
 Egyptian archeological lectures Mr. Gliddon is preparing to deliver 
 in due order and season. 
 
 And finally, Mr. Gliddon must ever refer the curious who desire 
 more critical information on Egyptian literature than can be embo- 
 died in desultory and popular lectures, to the little pamphlet, “ An- 
 cient Egypt,” (with the sale of which the author, having presented 
 it to the public, never had any pecuniary connexion,) wherein, for 
 the insignificant cost of 25 cents, the general reader can glean the 
 history of hieroglvphical studies, together with the works to be con- 
 sulted, up to the close of 1842. Since that year, as Mr. Gliddon 
 will explain in his oral lectures, discovery has been proceeding with 
 giant strides. During the last four years the aspect of primeval his- 
 tory, owing mainly to Lepsius, has undergone great changes. The 
 advance made in monumental Chronology, has superseded much, 
 and has greatly extended portions of those views of antiquity here- 
 tofore followed by the Champollion-School, based upon the arrange- 
 ment of Rosellini for dates prior to the commencement of the 18th 
 Dyn.of Diospolitans, taken by modem hierologists at the 16th to 
 18th centuries before our Christian era. These points have formed 
 the critical study of the writer, and their consideration will not be 
 omitted in his contemplated lectures, which will be found to keep 
 
 pace with the continual development of hicroglyphical researches. 
 The era of Menes, the first Pharaoh of Egypt, that in Mr. Gliddon’s 
 Chapters of 1842, was estimated approximately at B. C. 2750, a date 
 which the writer’s subsequent lectures on the Pyramids showed to 
 be no longer tenable, has receded into the gloom of primordial time : 
 nor until Lepsics publishes at Berlin in the ensuing winter the 
 results of his discoveries fin Das Buell der Hilgyptischen Konige, cine 
 chronologische Zusammenstellung aller Namen der HJgyptisehen 
 Konige und ihrer Verwandtschaft, von der Gotterdynastie und 
 Menes an bis Caracalla,) is it possible to do more than treat in gene- 
 ral terms of the remote epochs of the first XII Dynastic* of Manetho 
 (See Table of Dynasties, Chapters, p. 49.) This important question 
 of the Manethonian Dynasties was made the subject of a Concours 
 by the “Academie dcs Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.”* Monsieur 
 Lesuf/ur in the present summer has had the distinguished honor ol 
 winning the prize, but as his work had not appeared last August, 
 the writer is enabled only to mention that M. L. informed him ver- 
 bally that his results for the era of Menes reach the 58th cen- 
 tury B. C. 
 
 ■Similar erudite opinions on the involved question of the first 
 Egyptian Pharaoh have long been familiar to the readers of Cham- 
 pollion-Figeac, Lexormant, and other continental hierologists. 
 The following new works of the day point out the pending state 
 of hierological inquiry into the primeval ages of humanity, viz : 
 
 Date of Menes. 
 
 Bockh — Berlin, 1845,” — Manetho und die Hundssternperiode,” 
 
 Henry — Paris, 1846, — L’Egypte Pharaonique,” 
 
 Barucchi, — Turin, 1845, — “Discorsi critici sopra la Chronologia Egizia,” 
 Bunsen, — Hamburg, 1845, — “ iEgyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte,” 
 
 Years B. C. 5702 
 “ “ 5303 
 
 “ “ 4890 
 
 “ “ 3643 
 
 • “ paire 1’ examen critique de la succession del dynasties 6gyptlennes, d’ aprds les (elites historiques et lee monmnens nationaux.”— Paris, lf44 
 
4 
 
 ' The discussion of the relative nature and claims of the above and 
 other works is reserved for the proposed Lectures, with the sole re- 
 mark, that while he will adopt for common chronological purposes 
 the minimum system of Chev. Bunsen, the writer is aware, owing 
 to the hints generously supplied him by Dr. Lepsius, that the extra- 
 ordinary facts and unexpected discoveries resulting from the recent 
 Prussian explorations around the Pyramids of Memphis (effected by 
 Dr. Lepsius since Chev. Bunsen’s “ Egypt’s place in the World’s 
 History,” went to press,) will carry the age of Mf.nes some centuries 
 beyond B. C. 3643, backed by the incontrovertible testimony of the 
 Pyramidal monuments. 
 
 Awaiting, in common with the universal public, the forthcoming 
 historical revelations of the Prussian Scientific Mission, the critical 
 investigations of Mr. Birch in England, and the future discoveries 
 of M. Prisse in Egypt, the writer takes this opportunity to an- 
 nounce for publication, next year, the following work, wherein the 
 whole of these Egyptian data, being the most authentic and ancient 
 portion of the history of Thirty-Three Nations, from China to Iceland 
 inclusive, will receive embodiment : 
 
 CHKONOS. 
 
 OUTLINE 
 
 OF 
 
 A GRAND CHRONOLOGICAL ATLAS, 
 
 PRESENTING 
 
 THE PARALLEL HISTORIES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EAST AND THE WEST, 
 
 OR 
 
 A SYNOPTICAL AND SYNCHRONOUS 
 TABULATION 
 
 OF 
 
 ORIENTAL and OCCIDENTAL 
 
 EVENTS, 
 
 FROM THE EARLIEST HIES TO THE DEATH OF NAPOLEON. 
 
 (Based upon the latest Geological, Geographical, Ethnological, Archaeological, Monumental, 
 Biblical, and other researches, and covering above 400 Pages, folio. 
 
 OFFERED 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY YENEL, 
 
 (CITIZEN OF SWITZERLAND,) 
 
 AS A TRIBUTE OF ADMIRATION AND RESPECT. 
 
 Translated from the Author’s original and unpublished French Manuscript, and 
 
 Edited, with annotations, by 
 
 GEORGE R. GLIDDON 
 
 •*++++*00000000 f 
 
 Prospet iuses with all explanatory details will be issued as soon as the arrangements for publication are 
 adequately matured.