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 :