in advance of the stage at which not only Young, but also Champollion and Rossellini, left it Such even has been the progress made within the last ten years by the labours especially of Wilkinson, Lepsius (a friend of the author), and Schwartze (professor of the Coptic language and literature at Berlin), that Bunsen has been obliged to recast those portions of the volumes before us, which were originally composed about the commencement of the period referred to.* The time, therefore, in which the author lives, may justly be regarded as conspiring, in a remarkable manner, with his own personal gifts, opportunities, and acquirements, to ensure his success-if, indeed, success such as the author aims at be actually attainable.

But we are far from being persuaded that it is; and nothing, we believe, but the enthusiasm which the author shares with so many ardent labourers in this field, could have led him to look to it for results which, to the extent at least that he represents them, it does not seem calculated to yield. We need not be greatly surprised at this failure, as the results he supposes himself to have obtained do not harmonize with some of the plainest statements in Scripture, and consequently cannot stand with its being all given by inspiration of God. This may sound strange to those who have read the high commendations which have appeared of Bunsen's standing and character as a Christian. We certainly felt ourselves not a little disappointed, after seeing some of these, when we found him proceeding with his great enquiry so much in the spirit of German neology. His views of Old Testament Scripture have manifestly been formed in that school, nor will any other, we should suppose, hail with satisfaction the bearing which his investigations promise to exercise on the books of Moses. But lest we should be thought to do our author an injustice in pronouncing this estimate of his perform

66

66

ance in its theological aspect, we shall present our readers with one or two quotations, which may enable them to judge for themselves. In the introduction to the third section of the first book, he contends, that Scripture cannot be supposed to have set any bounds to historical investigations; and that we must, therefore, by a comparison of sacred history with profane, on the one hand, and with the laws of thought, on the other, obtain a formula, which will place its belief in harmony with the world and science." (i. p. 203.) He insists on chronology being an open field," so that " no one should give way to doubts, which may force themselves upon him in the course of his inquiries, because he would be constrained to abandon his confidence generally in revelation." And "the surest method," he adds, "will always be that which, convinced of the historical character of the kernel and centre of revelation, is inclined to suppose all the facts therewith connected in the external history of the Jewish people as essentially and historically true, until one has become convinced of the contrary." (P. 204, 5.) This, we need scarcely say, is just the old rationalistic principle, that respect is to be had mainly to the spirit and substance, not to the letter of revelation, leaving every one, of course, at liberty to take as much from the letter, and expand or contract the spirit and substance, as his own temperament or his scientific predilections may render expedient. Indeed, the learned author seems disposed to make somewhat more free with the testimony of Scripture, as connected with his own peculiar field of investigations, than we suspect the more distinguished divines, who still substantially belong to that school, would be inclined to do. As an indication of this, we observe he takes occasion to notice (in the note to p. 221), the statement of a recent commentator on the Pentateuch (Baumgarten), that

215 years was a sufficient period for the Children of Israel being in Egypt to admit of their having grown into such a large host at the time of their leaving it. Bunsen holds this to be as absurd as any thing that could be found in the Rabbins, and, concerned for the credit of theology, he breathes a wish, that "Ewald would yet direct his earnest and searching eye into the historical traditions, as he had already done into the prophecies" of Scripture. The wish was fulfilled sooner than the learned author expected; for he finds, and a little farther on states (pp. 226, 7), that the first part of Ewald's history of the Jewish people was already published, and that an opinion is there expressed regarding the period of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, different, indeed, from that of Baumgarten, but far too close in its adherence to the literal record to harmonise with the theory of Bunsen. Yet with this incredulity regarding the least approach to the marvellous in Scripture, he has no difficulty in swallowing the statement of his two favourite authors (Manetho and Eratosthenes), that a certain king of the sixth dynasty reigned one hundred years (ii. p. 195), although the average duration of the nine reigns of the preceding dynasty only amounted to twenty-four years.*

It will readily be perceived from these indications of sentiment, that the chronological system of our author is in ill accordance with that of Scripture; and as he conceive the former to be supported by conclusive evidence, the latter must, of course, give way. We regret, as well for the author's

sake as our own, that we can as yet give but an imperfect outline of his views, and the grounds on which he rests them; as the three books, which are all that the two volumes before us contain, comprise the whole that has yet appeared; and the more general results of the investigation, with much of the proof by which these are to be supported, belong to the two remaining and still unpublished books. The heart and centre of his whole inquiry is the chronology of Egypt; but that not as a separate and independent problem to be wrought out merely for its own sake; rather as a vantage ground to be gained for the purpose of determining, by means of it, the great questions, which so naturally press upon us respecting such points in the early history of the world, as the time and universality of the Deluge, the distinction of races in the human family, the rise of nations, the beginning and progress in different regions of civilisation, the formation of religious beliefs and philosophical systems. Hence, while the chronology of Egypt may be said to be the immediate object of his inquiry, he is forced, as he himself says, "beyond the merely chronological history, and is drawn, not only into the river of Egyptian history, but also into the boundless ocean of the world's history" (i. p. 7).

The first book, which occupies the whole of the first volume, gives an account of the existing sources of information regarding ancient Egypt, with a critical review of their respective values, and of the investigations of preceding inquirers. It is divided in

to six sections. The first of these unfolds the strictly Egyptian sourcestheir chronological registers, songs, and sacred books-their papyrus and monumental remains-Manetho and his dynasties of kings. The second details the views and inquiries of the Greeks respecting the antiquities of Egypt, especially those of Herodotus, Eratosthenes (who, though born in Africa, yet wrote in the Greek language, and is considered as a Greek), and Diodorus. The third section treats of the Jewish chronology, particularly as connected with Egypt. Then, in the next three sections, we have a full, and, in the main, impartial as well as able survey of the views and labours of Christian writers from the earliest to the present times-of the language of the Egyptians of their several kinds of writing-and of their mythology. The volume also contains two large and valuable appendixes, the first of which is intended to exhibit the connection between the Coptic and the old Egytian languages (chiefly taken from the great work of Schwartze, Des Alte Ægypten); and the second presents tables of hieroglyphics, with accompanying explanations.

The second and third books of the second volume take up the purely chronological ground, and are devoted to the great object of proving, by a comparison of Manetho and Eratosthenes, with the notices of other ancient authors, and especially with the light afforded by the monumental remains, the substantial correctness of Manetho's dynasties. These books are no farther different than that they relate to different periods of Egyptian history, the former bringing down the discussion to the close of what is called the old kingdom (comprising Manetho's first thirteen dynasties), and the latter continuing it through the middle, which chiefly relates to the hycsos or shepherd kings, and the modern to the death of Nectanebus, which took place about nine years before the commencement

of Alexander's reign, occupying the last 18-30 dynasties.

It will be understood, even from this meagre outline, that the author has not yet applied his materials to any other purpose than to the settlement of the chronology. He proposes, in the fourth book, to give a connected view of the conclusions he has arrived at in this department, as also to confirm them by certain astronomical epochs and contemporaneous events in history. Then, the last book is to be appropriated to the development of what is of universal moment in the history of Egypt, first unfolding the earliest advances of Egypt in language, religion, and society, as compared with those of mankind generally, and then tracing the influence which the development of Egyptian history had on the general history of the world.

We cannot withhold from the learned author the commendation of having arranged his plan judiciously, and chosen well the standing-point from which he surveys the wide and important field of ancient history. For, as Heeren has justly said, a mere glance at the sublime and majestic monuments contained within the narrow valley of the Nile-monuments, the number of which cannot yet be told, and which have not only themselves withstood the ravages of thousands of years, but have also preserved their very paintings as fresh and uninjured as though they had received the last stroke of the pencil but yesterday—a mere glance at these monuments must produce the conviction that there did exist a time when this classic ground was the central point of the civilisation of the world, and when its inhabitants must have possessed all that constitutes an opulent and mighty, a refined and cultivated nation.* But the chief point for present consideration is, whether our author has succeeded in establishing for his future investigations a solid chronological basis. We have said his object is to prove the substantial

correctness of Manetho's thirty dynasties of kings, with this exception, however, that he does not consider them throughout strictly chronological. He regards the list of thirty-eight kings given by Eratosthenes as presenting the exact chronological succession of the old kingdom, making an aggregate of 1076 years, while the sum of those in Manetho, for the same division, extends to fourteen centuries. But after abbreviating the lists in Manetho thus far, cutting off various other portions, and making almost infinite adjustments, he gives us as the entire time between Moses and Christ 3643 years.* But, then, before Moses "there was a royal dynasty in lower Egypt, and one, if not two, in upper Egypt, reaching through a space of from two to four thousand years" (i. p. 106). So that by this system of chronology, we have a succession of Egyptian governments ascending to at least 6000 years before the Christian era. In this case, the 341 wooden images of successive pontiffs, which the priests showed Herodotus, and which could hardly represent a sum of less than 6000 or 7000 years, may, after all, have been something better than the general run of images, and possessed a degree of truth about them; as also the 330 kings, whose names the priests read to him from a papyrus roll, and of whom they professed themselves unable to tell him any thing more, since they had left no monuments behind them, may not have been the shadowy creatures they have usually been regarded. But what then becomes of the Mosaic chronology, which does not make the world itself as now inhabited nearly so old? It must evidently be abandoned as untrue.

Our author thinks he has discovered the key for reconciling the lists of Manetho and Eratosthenes, in the supposition that Eratosthenes gave the names only of the Memphi-Thebaic dynasties, or the kings who bore sway

over all Egypt, while Manetho included several,-brothers, perhaps, or sons who held dominion over particular provinces. This supposition, however, is a purely conjectural one, not the slightest hint being found in Manetho himself, to warrant any distinction being made in his kings, and in fact is just a modification of the view propounded long ago by Sir John Marsham, that some of Manetho's dynasties were contemporaneous. Dropping out the names of those kings, which our author conceives to have been merely provincial, and not Memphi-Thebaie sovereigns, our author tries, by plying the usual devices of antiquarians, here substituting one letter for another, there curtailing or enlarging their number, now regarding the name given as the original, again taking it as a translation, and such like, to identify the names in Manetho with those of Eratosthenes. Оссаsionally this is done with some appearance of success, but sometimes, also, with so little probability, that we are suprised the author should expect his readers to concur with him. And the key itself lies open to this further, and, as we conceive, fatal objection, that the contemporaneous or provincial sovereigns supposed to exist in Manetho's lists, stand opposed to the whole stream of Egyptian tradition, and the evidence of the monuments. For from Menes, who occupies the first place equally in Manetho and Eratosthenes, the kings of Egypt were universally represented as sovereigns of the whole land. titles they assumed were, Kings of the world, Lords of the upper and lower Egypt.

The

But there is no need to dwell on this point, as it does not, in our view, materially affect the general argument. We only notice it as a proof how elastic a conscience the Egyptologists exhibit in reconciling the accounts of their favourite authorities, and how complacently in this field they can rest in the most

arbitrary suppositions and extravagant assumptions. The accounts preserved in Manetho, Eratosthenes, Herodotus, Diodorus, and the table of Abydos, seem all in some points irreconcileably at variance with each other; and if one tithe of the devices resorted to by our author and others, to bring them into harmony, were practised on the field of Bible antiquities, we should doubtless soon enough be met with the reproach, if not of Rabbinical dreams, at least of the arts and manœuvres of priestcraft. But what if these ancient accounts, which all profess to be drawn from substantially the same sources, the archives of the priesthood, were capable of being satisfactorily and perfectly reconciled? Have we no ground for suspecting corruption in these sources themselves? Were Egyptian priests all honest and veritable men? And may we not suppose them, like the Indian pundits, to have falsified their records, with the view of supporting the inordinate vanity and lofty pretensions of their country? Even our author is forced to admit, when seeking to reduce Manetho's list somewhat within the bounds of probability, that as the Egyptians were proud of the long roll of their kings, they probably increased both the number and length of their reigns by dignifying with the title of Pharaoh, princes who had only a share in the government, and that but for a limited period (ii. p. 3). But what assurance can he or any other Egyptologist give us, that this wretched and childish vanity did not show itself in many other devices equally fitted to mislead inquirers from the path of sober reality? Surely the scandalous frauds proved to have been practised in the field of Indian antiquities on such eminent orientalists as Sir William Jones, and so cunningly devised as to overreach the philosophy even of such men as Bailly and Playfair, should teach a little sobriety and caution in receiving the accounts of the Egyptian priesthood, who had equal temptations and opportunities

to deceive, in the same direction, especially since these accounts are in some respects manifestly intermingled with incredible absurdities and palpable falsehoods.

Bunsen has endeavoured, in his first volume, to vindicate the memory of Manetho, and to support his claim to be regarded as one of the wisest of the ancients. Let it be granted that he was so, and that we may therefore take his representation of Egyptian governments for what they profess to be faithful extracts from the records in the possession of the priests. But the question is, not whether Manetho gave a faithful copy of what he found there, but whether these records theinselves were deserving of credit? Were they, as chronological tables, true or false records? The first book of Manetho begins first with the rule of the gods, then of the demi-gods, then of a sort of nondescript beings somewhere between demi-gods and men, the whole stretching through so long a period, that the merely human history did not begin till full 20,000 years; and very nearly 25,000 had elapsed before the entire country became united in the hands of Menes, the first of the famous thirty dynasties of kings (i. p. 105). Can anything be more just than the inference of Hengstenberg, that "after such a beginning, it is improbable, from the very nature of the case, that as soon as he brings the human kings upon the stage, he should forthwith change from a writer of fiction or romance to a historian."* Manetho may have been the most faithful and exact of all copyists, but what dependence can be placed in the sources from which he copied, when, at the very outset, they bore upon them the stamp of forgeries and lies?

There are, however, important considerations for entertaining a less favourable view of Manetho himself, and which are ably pressed by Hengstenberg in the work already referred to. No doubt one of the arguments there used against the credibility of his dynasties, viz. that the monuments had