The Press. — London, England, 1854-10-21 00:00:00

1 QTOBER 21, 1854. F • live, and whether he may not have yielded to the nioderu prejudice for too rapid systema- tieing We admit, at once, that Egyptology is a branch of knowledge so singularly peculiar and demanding attainments of so exclusive a character as to justify the assignment of a niche to itself in the temple of philosophy. It undertakes the elucidation of the most an tique department in archmology. Its want of a literature increases rather than detracts from the mnterions interest with which we argue upon its hieroglyphica or pore over the histori cal papyri. Its mighty monuments awe us with their massive grandeur ; and their exhi bition of a school of art that derived its ;esthetics from an inspiration entirely differ ent from the aspiring grace and idealised proportions of the Parthenon and Coliseum. There are, also, the important considerations arising from Egyptian chronology and its re ference to the calendar of scripture, and the enigmas of some of its still unread inscrip tions, to increase the interest of the Egyptian antiquities. Amongst the most eminent of our modern Egyptologers the Chevalier Bunsen ranks high. We may differ from his conclusions, and disapprove (as we do) of his method of philosophising, but we cannot demur to the extent of his attainments; and his enthusiasm for his subject is visible even where his matter is overlaid with irrelevant details. It is now six years since the publication of the first vo lume of this profound work, which contains a variety of materials throwing light on the primitive history of mankind. We gladly add the work to those on our shelves illustrating Egyptology, and we recommend others to do the same ; but, having said thus much, we must frankly add that the chevalier's view of his great theme must be received throughout with great caution, and there are some special portions of his arguments which we cannot accept at all. Like all minds addicted to a favourite pursuit, the intellect of Chevalier Bunsen has acquired an intense confidence in its own conclusions. The mere title of the work is not a little suggestive of that German philosophic audacity which aims too high for conclusive results. Many of the most pro found thinkers and deepest scholars deny that it is now possible for us to ascertain with exactness the ' place " of Egypt in universal history. Even some of the most illustrious his torical professors in Chevalier Bunsen's country have affirmed that from monuments alone it is impossible to infer the history of any nation, and yet we find Egyptologers pronouncing as dogmatically on the Egyptian dynasties as if they were criticising the eras of the Tudors and Plantagenets. What could be thought of the archteologist who from a consideration of the Layard excavations would attempt to fix " the place in universal history " of Nineveh? That we must be most cautious in accepting historical conclusions of some Egyptologers as to dates in " universal history" is evident from the anti-scriptural tone assumed by many of them. For ourselves we are not in the least afraid of any possible revelations from extinct literature or undiscovered prin ciples in physics. Various of our modern ologists have foolishly attempted to increase their consequence by their audacious asser tions, but, as we have said before in these columns, Holy Writ wits given to man for the revelation of spiritual truth, and the record of certain special and entirely miraculous conde scensions of Infinite Wisdom to its creatures, and not for instructing human nature in ma thematics or geography, or " the place in uni versal history" of any nation. So that we may look with comparative indifference on any in ferences drawn by Egyptologers upon the chronology of the Old Testament. With merely monumental evidences, aided by the ambiguities of hieroglyphics, we must distrust the offer to restore several centuries to Egyptian chronology. For doing so it is possible that Chevalier Bunsen may class us with those " dogmatic sceptics " at whom he tilts in the following characteristic extract, and we, upon the other band, may smile upon his archteolo gical credulity. As representative of the spirit of this volume, it is our simple duty as re • viewers to `cite ix eaten° these remarks : THE PRESS. _ . The introductory observations in the former volume must have made us sensible of the invaluable guide posterity has lost in the work of Eratosthenes. He alone taught us how Manetho is to be understood—he enabled us even to point out, when we were obliged to correct him, the superiority of his method in treating Egyptian research. Had Manetho's lists even come down to us wholly free from blunders, we should never have been able to have divined, from the epilogi of his dynasties, the historical sum total of the years of reign, the only years which Eratosthenes, with his superior method, com puted in his list. There, on the contrary, we found the genuine Manethonian computation so clogged with ex traneous matter, and his entries so mixed up with blunders, that we were driven to conjectures alone in attempting any chronology whatever—conjectures which deviated widely from each other. Difficulties, however, of a far more serious nature, and considerations of a far more im portant order, sprung up in opposition to the arguments in favour of the assumption of there being a period of at all events five full centuries. perhaps nine, interveningbetween the Old and New Empire. There we had an almost unbroken series of names and dates of reign, the coin cidence of which in Eratosthenes and Manetho could not be denied from the moment we found the key to the connection between them. Wherever there was an hiatus or confusion in these lists, the monuments, so providen tially preserved, especially the two invaluable royal tablets. supplied and restored what was omitted. It merely re quired an impartial eye, and a system of historical criti cism, consistently carried out after the model left us by the restorers of Greek and Roman history, to see at once that this agreement could not possibly be the result of accident. Here, on the contrary, we seem to assume as historical fifty and odd kings, upon the mere entry of lists which do not give us one single name, one single date of reign. Wa demand a place in general history for kings whose very existence has hitherto not been even believed by those who admit the Hyksos period in general to be historical. These latter persons still thought themselves obliged to limit it to a century, or some such like short period, either because they were blinded by Jewish prejudices, or because they stood aghast before en array of centuries about which they had nothing to relate. although obliged to compute them in the chronology. If they could not ven ture here to rely upon those whom they declared to be trustworthy, on the whole, in the Old Empire—namely, the Egyptians and their monuments—they took courage from their prejudices, and exercised the right of talking about things which they did not understand. Most modern writers of this turn, however, presuming ou the prescription of long-repeated absurdities, and calculating on the credulity of mankind, mutilate ancient history to a much greater extent than the ecclesiss'ical writers, who so anxiously and honestly limited their computations of the earliest epochs. They think to facilitate the restora tion of the old chronology by denying the Hyksos period altogether. • • • • • • Yet these are the fairest opponents amongst those who doubt the correctness of Egyptian archeology. They enter upon the inquiry with seeming impartiality. Their Bedouins, at least, are taken from fact. But the dogmatic geodes condescend to entertain apprehensions of a very different character. What will become (they auk first of all) of the Bible dates? And what becomes of the flood ? exclaim the zealots. Two thousand years' history and chronology before Moses! and that from one for whom the Bible chronology prior to Solomon is not good enough! And here a wide door is opened for sarcasm and scoffing; for there are many zealous souls who desire nothing better than to prove that the " scoffer," " the God despiser," " the infidel critic," himself deals uncritically. In such persons' eyes, however, every man is naturally a scoffer who declares he does not believe anything they assert, however devoid it may be of any sound fotmdstion, and however insignificant in itself. It would be, therefore, fir more advisable, in a worldly view of the case, to abandon the point at once. There is scarcely a position in the first part of this passage which does not challenge cri ticism. It illustrates most pointedly our intro ductory observations on the duty of applying stringent logic to the speculative school of archEeologists. Let us observe, for example, how the Chevalier Bunsen laments the loss of the works of Eratosthenes, and quietly asserts, " He alone taught us how the works of Manetho " are to be understood." When archaeological theories are brought before us, it is an inva luable rule to attend closely even to grammar. What a vast deal of difference there is between asserting " lie alone taught us," and conjecturing "he alone might hare taught us" ! Surely one with the learning of Isl. Bunsen must admit that, even if we have had before us the compi lations of Erastothenes, a great mass of his statements could only be accepted as conjectural. But thus it is with -many of the works that make up the Egyptologer's library. Manetho (or Manethos, as we more commonly write it in English) pretended to take all his accounts from inscriptions on the pillars of Hermes Trismegistus ! He conde scended to compute for us a period of 63,535 years ! When we know that these dynasties were epitomised by Julius Afiieanus, ind from him transcribed by Eusebius, and inserted in the latter's " Chronie,a;" from Eusebius, by peor g ius Syncellus, an 4 lastly by Joseph Sealiger, in his " Canonei Isagogici, we may 1001 -- see how warily the philosophic archreolop, should proceed. The contemptuous refereric to Manetho by Stillingtleet, in his " Orighie, Sacrie," is present to our memory while W 6 observe that M. Bunsen has prefaced the fore going passage with recording his opinion on " the futility qf the lucubration. (t) of the Jewish " Christian theologians." Turning, however, from these considerations, we may indicate the substantial contents of this volume in the chevalier's owu words. Here is a summary of his leading views : First. That the list of Eratosthenes gig kings who, from Menes down to the end of reigned in unbroken succession at Thebes. we obtain a connected chronology of the 1070 years. Secondly. That Manetho's historical upon authentic dates, as were the labours it was less critical, however, and made the old empire somewhat longer in consequen' standings, which we can even now partially we possess, however, with the exception of i are dynastic lists, into which some scanty the historical works have been interpolated. tented, in the old and middle empires, a registration different royal families that had reigned in ] by right or usurpation. Tho dynasties and introduced in the order in which they were royal titles. There are, consequently, no' temporaneous dynasties, but we tind, besides, the royal families contemporaneous reigns, owing regencies and co-regencies. This was the original form of the lists, but there are in addition misunderstandings and even perhaps wilful corruptions on the part of the epito mists. The lists, therefore, though they contain invaluable remains of historical tradition, require the light of Era tosthenes' register to furnish the histericirchrunological key and guarantee their authenticity. Thirdly. That half of the tablet of Karnak which belongs to the old empire, and the tablet of Abydos from the 18th dynasty upwards, are of a genealogical not a chronological character : that they represent, not all the royal names, but only the generations of royal families from father to son, perhaps with the exclusion of kings condemned after their death. The tablets representing sacrifices to the dead and the dynastic lists mutually illus trate and complete each other, and equally confirm the sys tem which I have adopted. Fourthly. That the pyramids are the tombs of the kings of the old empire; the royal names discovered in them are all those of Eratosthenes. The number even indeed of the great pyramids accords well with that of the kings in Eratosthenes. Fifthly. That the lake of Morris and the labyrinth are works of the old empire. Sixthly. That the tradition of the old empire, when sub mitted to criticism, is found to be historico-chronologieal, although in a state of great obscurity and confusion during the long Ilyksos period. From the 4th century of the eels of Menes there are contemporary monuments, with the names of the kings to whose reigns they belong, to confirm the lists : there are also statements of regnal years from the 12th dynasty. It is too much for M. Bunsen to assume, as he does, that " the first five of these point " are based upon philological and historical " research . . . which in essential points " can never be invalidated." In the very next page (Preface, p. xix.) we read his acknow ledgment, alluding to Lepsius : In it he discovered the name of the third Amenemha, the same king with whose seutcheons all the fragments of the labyrinth itself are ornamented. I had connected that pyramid with the last king of the first dynasty. In like manner Linant's views as to the site of the lake of kJ - which 1 had combated, have been so materially expl and corroborated to me by Lepsius, that the difficul had encountered seem in all important points to be over come. I agree with Linant and Lepsius that the lake of Morris, the vo,rk of the glorious 12th dynasty, has die. appeared, with the exception of some remaii.s of dykes an canals. 1 admit the site proposed for it by Linant, but. do not believe it to have been formed by excavation, an consider the lake as a natural one, which was simpl cleansed and increased by introdneing into it an arm the Nile, after its banks had been strengthened by dykes. I have, therefore, in the present revision entirely abane Boned my original assumption that Apappus, the chief 4 the oth dynasty, is the Morris of the Greeks. Contemporary monuments are still wanting for Gig whole of the first dynasty ; although its chief and f.ptindef ' maintains so great a name in Egyptian tradition that we meet with frequent mention of trim even among thir Greeks. This is candid and honourably said, but it is also conclusive that on important points the chevalier may be seriously mistaken. General readers will not find this work abounding in passages that can attract the popular taste. To peruse its pages they would require an interpreter constantly at their elbow ; but all who study sacred antiquities, and are specially interested in Egyptology, will find the work valuable for its richness in illustrative details and the vigour of the author's honest (anti, in some respecte, credu lous) enthusiasm. auportant considerations on the results of the labours of Lepsius are not the least meritorious parts of its fpntents, ftn4. J vogfht:lii Rives thisa old se e m i m i e e p t h l ie old empire of work was based s of Erstostbenes ie duration of the{ once of misunder ally clear up. AU of a few extracts, ity remarks from ated. These con- registration of the in Egypt, either and princes were were invested with not merely con- mides, in some of reigns, owing to