CHAPTER XII. CONCLUDING SUMMARY OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY

In thus following the course of Egyptian history as outlined in the

pages of such ancient authorities as Herodotus, Manetho, and Diodorus,

and such recent students as Brugsch Pasha, Mariette Pasha, and

Professors Erman, Maspero, and Petrie, we have been enabled to gain a

tolerably clear picture of the life of the most celebrated nation of

antiquity.

There is one feature of that life, however, which this story leaves

quite in the dark; namely, its beginnings. The ancients, beyond vaguely

hinting at an Ethiopian origin of the Egyptians, confessed themselves

in the main totally ignorant of the subject. And it must be confessed

that the patient researches of modern workers have not sufficed fully

to lift the veil of this ignorance. Theories have been propounded, to

be sure. It was broadly suggested by Heeren that one might probably

look to India as the original cradle of the Egyptian race. Hebrew

scholars, however, naturally were disposed to find that cradle in

Mesopotamia, and some later archæologists, among them so great an

authority as Maspero, believe that the real beginnings of Egyptian

history should be traced to equatorial Africa. But there are no sure

data at hand to enable one to judge with any degree of certainty as to

which of these hypotheses, if any one of them, is true.

The whole point of view of modern thought regarding this subject has

been strangely shifted during the last half century. Up to that time

it was the firm conviction of the greater number of scholars that,

in dealing with the races of antiquity, we had but to cover a period

of some four thousand years before the Christian era. Any hypothesis

that could hope to gain credence in that day must be consistent with

this supposition. But the anthropologists of the past two generations

have quite dispelled that long current illusion, and we now think of

the history of man as stretching back tens, or perhaps hundreds, of

thousands of years into the past.

Applying a common-sense view to the history of ancient nations from

this modified standpoint, it becomes at once apparent how very easy

it may be to follow up false clews and arrive at false conclusions.

Let us suppose, for example, that, as Heeren believed and as some more

modern investigators have contended, the skulls of the Egyptians and

those of the Indian races of antiquity, as preserved in the tombs of

the respective countries, bear a close resemblance to one another.

What, after all, does this prove? Presumably it implies that these

two widely separated nations have perhaps had a common origin. But

it might mean that the Egyptians had one day been emigrants from

India, or conversely, that the Indians had migrated from Egypt, or

yet again, that the forbears of both nations had, at a remoter epoch,

occupied some other region, perhaps in an utterly different part of

the globe from either India or Egypt. And even such a conclusion as

this would have to be accepted with a large element of doubt. For, up

to the present, it must freely be admitted that the studies of the

anthropologists have by no means fixed the physical characters of the

different races with sufficient clearness to enable us to predicate

actual unity of race or unity of origin from a seeming similarity of

skulls alone, or even through more comprehensive comparison of physical

traits, were these available.

More than this, any such comparison as that which attempts to link the

Egyptians with Indians or Hebrews or Ethiopians is, after all, only

a narrow view of the subject extending over a comparatively limited

period of time. If it were shown that the first members of that race

which came to be known as the Egyptians came to the valley of the Nile

from India or Mesopotamia or Ethiopia, the fact would have undoubted

historic interest, but it would after all only take us one step farther

back along the course of the evolution of that ancient civilisation,

and the question would still remain an open one as to what was the

real cradle of the race. For in the modern view, as has just been

said, when one speaks of the evolution of civilisation, his mind must

grasp the idea of tens of thousands of years, during which, the most

casual reflection will make it clear, races may have migrated this

way and that, northward, eastward, westward, southward, and may have

reversed their course of migration over and over again, leaving few

traces through which the historian of a later time could follow them in

imagination.

There is indeed a tradition, which Diodorus has preserved to us, that

the Egyptian of an early day made a great conquering tour through

Greece and all of western Asia to India, and back again to the region

of the Nile. We have already pointed out that such vague traditions as

this probably represent a racial memory of actual historical events,

distorted of course as to all details. But all this, it must be

repeated over and over again, is only conjecture.

Anthropology is the newest of sciences, and it will scarcely in our day

attain a knowledge that will enable the historian to solve the problem

of the origin of any one of the remoter races of antiquity. The history

of such relatively newer races as the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the

Romans may indeed be, at least conjecturally, made out at no distant

day; but we must expect that the probably far remoter civilisation of

China, India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt will long continue to baffle the

investigator.

But even present knowledge suffices to change utterly the point of

view with which the modern historian regards these so-called ancient

races. So long as one regarded the history of the world as comprising

only some four thousand years before the Christian era, it was quite

clear that in speaking of the earliest historical ages of Egypt, one

was dealing with time that might properly be called the childhood of

our race. One came to speak trippingly of the “Dawn of Civilisation” as

illustrated by the events of the time of the Pyramid Builders. But now

all that has changed, and it has become clear that we know nothing of

the dawn of civilisation.

The earliest records of Egypt that have come down to us, as

illustrated, for example, in the document known as the Prisse papyrus,

which is sometimes spoken of as the oldest book in the world, show

that, at a time which probably preceded the building of the Pyramids,

namely, as early as the IInd Dynasty, the Egyptians regarded the

civilisation of their day as already past its prime. Men of that time

were already tiring of the degenerate epoch in which they lived, and

looking back to the good old days when, as it seemed to them, the

Egyptians were a great people. As Dr. Taylor has remarked, it was a

curious irony of fate that should have preserved to us such thoughts

as these in the oldest written document which has been spared for our

inspection. But the moral is quite clear. Professor Mahaffy has well

outlined it when he says that one is perhaps justified in feeling

that, in point of fact, the old Egyptian who traced the words of the

Prisse papyrus was right, and that that ancient time was really not

the spring-time of humanity, but the veritable autumn of civilisation.

Such a thought as this would have been incomprehensible to the student

of any generation before our own, but the long vistas of time that

have been opened up to our eyes through the investigations of the last

half century make such a strange estimate seem more than plausible.

For, after all, what is the sweep of, say, six or eight thousand years

which is opened to us as the truly historic period of man’s existence,

compared to the tens of thousands of years that preceded?

Almost at the beginning of Egyptian history, as we have seen, a race

was in the field which constructed the most gigantic monuments that

human ingenuity has even yet conceived. Surely it was no dawn of

civilisation that could achieve such works as these. In the broadest

view, then, there is no such thing as ancient history open to the

observation of the modern historian. All history that we can know

from the time of the Pyramid Builders to our own day is in this view

properly but recent history, and, as has just been suggested, perhaps

only the history of an oscillating decline through the period of the

senility of our race. But, however fascinating such a view as this may

be, for practical purposes one must look a little more narrowly. Still,

the broad view which regards the ancient Egyptian as a brother in blood

to the modern European will be the surest ground on which to build a

record of universal history.

Professor Mahaffy has pointed out, in the same connection just quoted,

that, not merely in practical civilisation, but in the appreciation

of all the moral bearings of an advanced life, the Egyptian of two or

three, or perhaps five, thousand years before the Christian era, was on

a plane differing in no essential from the plane of modern Christendom;

and this thought is the one that should perhaps be the most prominently

borne in mind by any one who will gain the truest lesson from the study

of the sweep of universal history.

So long as the ancient Egyptian is regarded as playing the part

of a weird strange member of a civilisation utterly alien to the

modern, so long the modern is shut out from the best lessons of that

ancient history. But when, on the other hand, one considers the

ancient resident of the valley of the Nile as a human being, with

desires, emotions, and aspirations almost precisely like our own;

a man struggling to solve the same problems of practical socialism

that we are struggling for to-day,--then, and then only, can the

lessons of ancient Egyptian history be brought home to us in their

true meaning and with their true significance. And clearest of all

will this significance be, perhaps, if we constantly bear in mind the

possibility that the whole sweep of Egyptian history, during the three

or four thousand years that separated the Pyramid Builders from the

contemporaries of Alexander, was a time of national decay--a dark age,

if you will, in Egyptian history.

It is probably because such a view as this is justified that the

current conception has arisen which regards the Egyptian as a mystic,

a religion-haunted person; for, in point of fact, it is true that,

during the greater part of the period of this Egyptian history,

their race was a priest-ridden one. To turn once more to a phrase of

Professor Mahaffy’s, “The priesthood of Egypt perhaps embalmed the

civilisation of the Nile, but they surely killed it.” Yet there must

have been a time when the nation was young and aspiring, when its

mixed population--no matter whence derived--had that vigour which

is only known to mixed races. There were giants in these days, not

in stature, but in ideas; the great Pyramids, the mighty Sphinx,

attest their existence. Then there came that development of culture,

accompanied of course by a degree of weakened virility, which made the

great literature of the XIIth Dynasty possible, and then priestcraft

throttled the nation with a grip which, despite severe and heroic

struggles, was never altogether shaken off. Just what it means when the

clammy hand of a fixed theology clutches at the throat of progressive

civilisation, we have a near-at-hand illustration in the European Dark

Ages, out of which we, at the beginning of the twentieth century, are

only just striving to emerge, after some fourteen or fifteen centuries

of combat. Our own experience, then, prepares us well to understand the

Egyptian history.

It will doubtless be at least another century, perhaps two or three

centuries, before the inhabitants of Christendom can look out upon the

world with as rational a view as that which Plato attained in the fifth

century B.C., or Cicero in the first, or Marcus Aurelius some two or

three centuries later, just as the storm-cloud of Oriental superstition

was thickening. So it need not surprise us that Egypt should have

suffered in a like manner for a like period.

In the last analysis, then, it would seem that it is the likeness

of Egyptian history to our own history, rather than its mysterious

differences, that gives it the greatest charm. The differences are the

surface details; the resemblances are as deep as human nature itself.

In obtaining this conviction, we curiously reversed the old estimate

of the strange weird people of the Nile, but in so doing we prepare

ourselves far better than we otherwise could to grasp the import of

universal history.[a]

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS

Time dissipates to shining ether the solid angularity of facts. No

anchor, no cable, no fences, avail to keep a fact. Babylon, Troy,

Tyre, Palestine, and even early Rome are passing already into

fiction. The Garden of Eden, the sun standing still in Gibeon,

is poetry thenceforward to all nations. Who cares what the fact

was, when we have made a constellation of it to hang in heaven an

immortal sign?--EMERSON.

Such is the land which, viewed with the eyes of later epochs, seems a

theatre of marvels; such the people whose fortune it was to step first,

or among the first, from the ranks of barbarians into the phalanx of

civilisation. How and when and where they took this step--or rather

made this long slow climb--we do not know. But they themselves had

traditions regarding their origin and early history, some of which have

come down to us, chiefly through the medium of Greek historians.

These traditions are not, of course, to be weighed in the same scale

with the concrete findings of the modern historical investigators. But

neither, on the other hand, should they be altogether set aside. We

live in a world curiously woven full of paradox and illusion. Often

it chances that the records, even of recent times, which bear the

fullest stamp of authenticity, are really nothing more than fables--a

mixture of prejudice, and falsehood, and myth, and fetich. And, on the

other hand, it may chance that a purely fabulous record contains the

very essence of history. Indeed, always, where the tradition is of

long standing and widely accepted among a people at some stage of its

evolution, such tradition must be redolent of the _Zeitgeist_ of its

epoch.

It may be, as such fables commonly are, an impossible tale of gods and

godlike heroes, of superhuman feats and supernatural revelations; yet

none the less it is in one sense historically true. If nothing more, it

is the epitomised history of the psychology of an epoch. But generally

it is more than that: it is the idealised expression of a racial memory

of actual events--idealised, glorified, transfigured, yet perhaps never

actually created save upon a substratum of facts. And how infinitely

expressive this idealised record becomes. It condenses the events of

centuries, sometimes into a phrase; it embodies the essence of the

civilisation of an epoch in a parable.

Who would give up the Homeric legends, with their records of gods and

supernatural heroes, for the realistic recitals of a Thucydides? Who

would give up the myths of Greece for a record of actual wars and

conquests? Fortunately we have not to make the choice; we may retain

the one record to supplement and complete the other. So the historian

should do with the early records of every people, wherever accessible.

Apart from the monuments of the Egyptians themselves, the oldest

account of this people which has come down to us in profane literature

is that given by Herodotus. This account has peculiar interest because

it is given by an eye-witness. Herodotus travelled in Egypt some time

about the beginning of the fifth century B.C., when Egypt was just

being opened up to the foreigner. It does not appear that Herodotus

knew the language of the country, and he was, therefore, necessarily

debarred from attaining as intimate a knowledge of the people as might

otherwise have been possible. It has been suspected also that the

Egyptian priests amused themselves not a little in filling the mind of

Herodotus with tales of very doubtful authenticity. But be that as it

may, Herodotus had a keen eye, and he has left us vivid and interesting

descriptions of the many marvels that he saw, some of which are here

presented. In making these citations we shall not for the moment

attempt the rôle of the critic, accepting rather the entertaining

narrative just as it is given.

It will be obvious that in many points this narrative partakes of

the ludicrous; yet even these portions of the tale have their value.

What Herodotus tells us of the causes of the rises of the Nile, for

example, is important as showing the attitude of Greek thought towards

this singular phenomenon. The naïve recital in which Herodotus tells

how the wind blows the sun from his course, serves in itself to give

a clew, not to the mind of Herodotus alone, but to the minds of his

contemporaries,--a clew which will be of the utmost value in aiding one

to estimate the status of various historical reports that come to us

from antiquity. But, on the other hand, what Herodotus has to tell us

of his actual observations as to the land and the manners and customs

of its people, is of the utmost importance as the contemporary record

of a keen observer, and may be accepted, so far as it relates to the

actual observations of the author, as historically accurate in the

fullest modern sense of the word.

Next to the works of Herodotus, the amplest description of Egypt that

has come down to us from antiquity is that of Diodorus the Sicilian.

This author was a contemporary of Cæsar and Augustus. He wrote a

very famous history of the world under the title of _The Historical

Library_, in forty books, of which only about eleven have reached us

intact.

It is not clear whether Diodorus, like Herodotus, visited Egypt in

person, but he at least was familiar with all the knowledge and

tradition of his time relating to that country. He lived several

centuries later than Herodotus, when Egypt had long been the field

of foreign invasion. Whatever the Greek and the Roman had been

able to learn of Egyptian history was therefore accessible to him,

and what he has to tell us of Egypt has the peculiar merit of

epitomising practically all classical knowledge of the people of the

Nile. Practically nothing more was added to the stock of Western

knowledge regarding Egyptian history from his day till the nineteenth

century. Certain statements which Diodorus accepted were indeed

such as latter-day scepticism would instinctively reject, but, that

qualification aside, the history of Egypt as Diodorus relates it was

practically her history as known to the Western world until nineteenth

century enterprise found the key to the Egyptian monuments. For this

reason, if for no other, the story of Diodorus will have peculiar and

lasting interest; but in addition to this, the narrative has intrinsic

merits that render it well worthy of preservation.

It will be of the utmost interest here, at the very beginning, to

compare and contrast his account of Egypt with that of Herodotus. If we

shall find in it certain things, such as his account of the spontaneous

generation of mice from the mud of the Nile, which seem to justify what

has been quoted from the critics as to his credulity, we shall find, on

the other hand, in his critical analysis of the different stories as to

the origin of the Nile, and, in his finally correct choosing of a true

explanation of the annual rise of that river, clear proof that he did

possess and did sometimes utilise a keen critical judgment. Meantime it

will be equally clear that he possessed, in no small degree, a capacity

to write interesting history very different from the more arid records

which make up some of his later annals.[a]

Let us turn, then, to the pages of Herodotus and listen to a classical

account of the Nile.

In its more extensive inundations, the Nile does not overflow the

Delta only, but part of that territory which is called Libyan, and

sometimes the Arabian frontier, and extends about the space of two

days’ journey on each side, speaking on an average. Of the nature of

this river I could obtain no certain information, from the priests or

from others. It was nevertheless my particular desire to know why the

Nile, beginning at the summer solstice, continues gradually to rise for

the space of one hundred days, after which for the same space it as

gradually recedes, remaining throughout the winter, and till the return

of the summer solstice, in its former low and quiescent state: but all

my inquiries of the inhabitants proved ineffectual, and I was unable to

learn why the Nile was thus distinguished in its properties from other

streams. I was equally unsuccessful in my wishes to be informed why

this river alone wafted no breeze from its surface.

[Illustration: HEAD-DRESS OF A QUEEN OF ANCIENT EGYPT]

From a desire of gaining a reputation for sagacity, this subject has

employed the attention of many among the Greeks. There have been

three different modes of explaining it, two of which merit no further

attention than barely to be mentioned; one of them affirms the increase

of the Nile to be owing to the Etesian winds, which by blowing in an

opposite direction, impede the river’s entrance to the sea. But it

has often happened that no winds have blown from this quarter, and

the phenomenon of the Nile has still been the same. It may also be

remarked, that were this the real cause, the same events would happen

to other rivers, whose currents are opposed to the Etesian winds,

which, indeed, as having a less body of waters, and a weaker current,

would be capable of still less resistance: but there are many streams,

both in Syria and Libya, none of which exhibit the same appearances

with the Nile.

The second opinion is still less agreeable to reason, though more

calculated to excite wonder. This affirms, that the Nile has these

qualities, as flowing from the Ocean, which entirely surrounds the

earth.

The third opinion, though more plausible in appearance, is still more

false in reality. It simply intimates that the body of the Nile is

formed from the dissolution of snow, which coming from Libya through

the regions of Ethiopia, discharges itself upon Egypt. But how can

this river, descending from a very warm to a much colder climate,

be possibly composed of melted snow? There are many other reasons

concurring to satisfy any person of good understanding, that this

opinion is contrary to fact. The first and the strongest argument may

be drawn from the winds, which are in these regions invariably hot: it

may also be observed that rain and ice are here entirely unknown. Now

if in five days after a fall of snow it must necessarily rain, which

is indisputably the case, it follows that if there were snow in those

countries, there would certainly be rain. The third proof is taken from

the colour of the natives, who from excessive heat are universally

black; moreover, the kites and the swallows are never known to migrate

from this country: the cranes also, flying from the severity of a

Scythian winter, pass that cold season here. If, therefore, it snowed

although but little in those places through which the Nile passes, or

in those where it takes its rise, reason demonstrates that none of the

above-mentioned circumstances could possibly happen.

The argument which attributes to the ocean these phenomena of the

Nile, seems rather to partake of fable than of truth or sense. For my

own part, I know no river of the name of Oceanus; and am inclined to

believe that Homer, or some other poet of former times, first invented

and afterwards introduced it in his compositions.

But as I have mentioned the preceding opinions only to censure and

confute them, I may be expected perhaps to give my own sentiments on

this subject. It is my opinion that the Nile overflows in the summer

season, because in the winter the sun, driven by the storms from his

usual course, ascends into the higher regions of the air above Libya.

My reason may be explained without difficulty; for it may be easily

supposed, that to whatever region this power more nearly approaches,

the rivers and streams of that country will be proportionably dried up

and diminished.

If I were to go more at length into the argument, I should say that

the whole is occasioned by the sun’s passage through the higher parts

of Libya. For as the air is invariably serene, and the heat always

tempered by cooling breezes, the sun acts there as it does in the

summer season, when his place is in the centre of the heavens. The

solar rays absorb the aqueous particles, which their influence forcibly

elevates into the higher regions; here they are received, separated,

and dispersed by the winds. And it may be observed, that the south and

southwest, which are the most common winds in this quarter, are of all

others most frequently attended with rain: it does not, however, appear

to me that the sun remits all the water which he every year absorbs

from the Nile; some is probably withheld. As winter disappears, he

returns to the middle place of the heavens, and again by evaporation

draws to him the waters of the rivers, all of which are then found

considerably increased by the rains, and rising to their extreme

heights. But in summer, from the want of rain, and from the attractive

power of the sun, they are again reduced; but the Nile is differently

circumstanced, it never has the benefit of rains, whilst it is

constantly acted upon by the sun,--a sufficient reason why it should in

the winter season be proportionably lower than in summer. In winter the

Nile alone is diminished by the influence of the sun, which in summer

attracts the water of the rivers indiscriminately; I impute, therefore,

to the sun the remarkable properties of the Nile.

To the same cause is to be ascribed, as I suppose, the state of the air

in that country, which from the effect of the sun is always extremely

rarefied, so that in the higher parts of Libya there prevails an

eternal summer. If it were possible to produce a change in the seasons,

and to place the regions of the north in those of the south, and those

of the south in the north, the sun, driven from his place by the storms

of the north, would doubtless affect the higher parts of Europe, as it

now does those of Libya. It would also, I imagine, then act upon the

waters of the Ister, as it now does on those of the Nile.

That no breeze blows from the surface of the river, may, I think, be

thus accounted for: Where the air is in a very warm and rarefied state,

wind can hardly be expected, this generally rising in places which are

cold. Upon this subject I shall attempt no further illustration, but

leave it in the state in which it has so long remained.

[Illustration: A WATER-CARRIER ON THE NILE]

In all my intercourse with Egyptians, Libyans, and Greeks, I have

only met with one person who pretended to have any knowledge of the

sources of the Nile. This was the priest who had the care of the sacred

treasures in the temple of Minerva, at Saïs. He assured me, that on

this subject he possessed the most unquestionable intelligence, though

his assertions never obtained my serious confidence. He informed me,

that betwixt Syene, a city of the Thebaïd, and Elephantine, there

were two mountains, respectively terminating in an acute summit: the

name of the one was Crophi, of the other Mophi. He affirmed, that

the sources of the Nile, which were fountains of unfathomable depth,

flowed from the centres of these mountains; that one of these streams

divided Egypt, and directed its course to the north; the other in

like manner flowed towards the south, through Ethiopia. To confirm

his assertion, that those springs were unfathomable, he told me, that

Psammetichus [Psamthek I], sovereign of the country, had ascertained

it by experiment; he let down a rope of the length of several thousand

orgyiæ, but could find no bottom. This was the priest’s information, on

the truth of which I presume not to determine. If such an experiment

was really made, there might perhaps in these springs be certain

vortices, occasioned by the reverberation of the water from the

mountains, of force sufficient to buoy up the sounding line, and

prevent its reaching the bottom.

I was not able to procure any other intelligence than the above, though

I so far carried my enquiry, that, with the view of making observation,

I proceeded myself to Elephantine: of the parts which lie beyond

that city, I can only speak from the information of others. Beyond

Elephantine this country becomes rugged; in advancing up the stream it

will be necessary to hale the vessel on each side by a rope, such as is

used for oxen. If this should give way, the impetuosity of the stream

forces the vessel violently back again. To this place from Elephantine

is a four days’ voyage.

Thus, without computing that part of it which flows through Egypt, the

course of the Nile is known to the extent of four months’ journey,

partly by land and partly by water; for it will be found on experience,

that no one can go in a less time from Elephantine to the Automoli. It

is certain that the Nile rises in the west, but beyond the Automoli

all is uncertainty, this part of the country being, from the excessive

heat, a rude and uncultivated desert.

It may not be improper to relate an account which I received from

certain Cyrenæans. On an expedition which they made to the oracle

of Ammon, they said they had an opportunity of conversing with

Etearchus, the sovereign of the country: among other topics the Nile

was mentioned, and it was observed, that the particulars of its source

were hitherto entirely unknown. Etearchus informed them, that some

Nassamonians once visited his court; (these are a people of Africa

who inhabit the Syrtes, and a tract of land which from thence extends

towards the east) on his making enquiry of them concerning the deserts

of Libya, they related the following incident: some young men, who were

sons of persons of distinction, had on their coming to man’s estate

signalised themselves by some extravagance of conduct. Among other

things, they deputed by lot five of their companions to explore the

solitudes of Libya, and to endeavour at extending their discoveries

beyond all preceding adventurers.

All that part of Libya towards the Northern Ocean, from Egypt to the

promontory of Soloëis, which terminates the third division of the

earth, is inhabited by the different nations of the Libyans, that

district alone excepted, in possession of the Greeks and Phœnicians.

The remoter parts of Libya beyond the seacoast, and the people who

inhabit its borders, are infested by various beasts of prey; the

country yet more distant is a parched and immeasurable desert. The

young men left their companions, being well provided with water and

with food, and first proceeded through the region which was inhabited;

they next came to that which was infested by wild beasts, leaving

which, they directed their course westward, through the desert.

After a journey of many days, over a barren and sandy soil, they at

length discerned some trees growing in a plain; these they approached,

and seeing fruit upon them, they gathered it. Whilst they were thus

employed, some men of dwarfish stature came where they were, seized

their persons, and carried them away. They were mutually ignorant of

each other’s language, but the Nassamonians were conducted over many

marshy grounds to a city, in which all the inhabitants were of the same

diminutive appearance, and of a black colour. This city was washed by a

great river, which flowed from west to east, and abounded in crocodiles.

Such was the conversation of Etearchus, as it was related to me; he

added, as the Cyrenæans further told me, that the Nassamonians returned

to their own country, and reported the men whom they had met to be

all of them magicians. The river which washed their city, according

to the conjecture of Etearchus, which probability confirms, was the

Nile. The Nile certainly rises in Libya, which it divides; and if it

be allowable to draw conclusions from things which are well known,

concerning those which are uncertain and obscure, it takes a similar

course with the Ister. This river, commencing at the city of Pyrene,

among the Celtæ, flows through the centre of Europe. These Celtæ are

found beyond the Columns of Hercules; they border on the Cynesians, the

most remote of all the nations who inhabit the western parts of Europe.

At that point which is possessed by the Istrians, a Milesian colony,

the Ister empties itself into the Euxine.

The sources of the Ister, as it passes through countries well

inhabited, are sufficiently notorious; but of the fountains of the

Nile, washing as it does the rude and uninhabitable deserts of Libya,

no one can speak with precision. All the knowledge which I have been

able to procure from the most diligent and extensive enquiries, I

have before communicated. Through Egypt it directs its course towards

the sea. Opposite to Egypt are the mountains of Cilicia, from whence

to Sinope, on the Euxine, a good traveller may pass in five days: on

the side immediately opposite to Sinope, the Ister is poured into the

sea. Thus the Nile, as it traverses Libya, may properly enough be

compared to the Ister. But on this subject I have said all that I think

necessary.[b]

ANOTHER ANCIENT ACCOUNT OF THE NILE

The River Nile, says Diodorus, breeds many Creatures of several Forms

and Shapes, amongst which, Two are especially remarkable, the Crocodile

and the Horse as it’s call’d: Amongst these the Crocodile of the least

Creature becomes the greatest; for it lays an Egg much of the bigness

of that of a Goose, and after the young is hatcht, it grows to the

length of Sixteen Cubits, and lives to the Age of a Man: It wants a

Tongue, but has a Body naturally arm’d in a wonderful manner. For its

Skin is cover’d all over with Scales of an extraordinary hardness;

many sharp Teeth are rang’d on both sides its Jaws, and Two of them

are much bigger than the rest. This Monster does not only devour Men,

but other Creatures that come near the River. His Bites are sharp and

destructive, and with his Claws he tears his Prey cruelly in Pieces,

and what Wounds he makes, no Medicine or Application can heal. The

Egyptians formerly catcht these Monsters with Hooks, baited with raw

Flesh; but of later times, they have us’d to take ’em with strong

Nets like Fishes; sometimes they strike them on the Head with Forks

of Iron, and so kill them. There’s an infinite Multitude of these

Creatures in the River and the Neighbouring Pools, in regard they are

great Breeders, and are seldom kill’d. For the Crocodile is ador’d as a

God by some of the Inhabitants; and for Strangers to hunt and destroy

them is to no purpose, for their Flesh is not eatable. But Nature has

provided relief against the increase of this destructive Monster; for

the Ichneumon, as it’s call’d (of the Bigness of a little Dog) running

up and down near the Waterside, breaks all the Eggs laid by this Beast,

wherever he finds them; and that which is most to be admir’d, is, that

he does this not for Food or any other Advantage, but out of a natural

Instinct for the meer Benefit of Mankind.

The Beast call’d the River Horse, is Five Cubits long, Four Footed, and

cloven Hoof’d like to an Ox. He has Three Teeth or Tushes on either

side his Jaw, appearing outwards larger than those of a Wild-Boar; as

to his Ears, Tayl and his Neighing, he’s like to a Horse. The whole

Bulk of his Body is not much unlike an Elephant; his Skin is firmer and

thicker almost than any other beast. He lives both on Land and Water;

in the Day time he lies at the Bottom of the River, and in the Night

time comes forth to Land, and feeds upon the Grass and Corn. If this

Beast were so fruitful as to bring forth Young every Year, he would

undo the Husbandman, and destroy a great part of the Corn of Egypt.

He’s likewise by the help of many Hands often caught, being struck

with Instruments of Iron; for when he is found, they hem him round

with their Boats, and those on Board wound him with forked Instruments

of Iron, cast at him as so many Darts; and having strong Ropes to the

Irons, they fix in him, they let him go till he loses his Blood, and so

dies: His Flesh is extraordinary hard, and of ill digestion. There’s

nothing in his inner Parts that can be eaten, neither his Bowels, nor

any other of his Intrails.

Besides these before mention’d, Nile abounds with multitudes of

all sorts of Fish; not only such as are fresh taken to supply the

Inhabitants at hand, but an innumerable Number likewise which they

salt up to send Abroad. To conclude, no River in the World is more

Beneficial and Serviceable to Mankind, than Nile.

[Illustration: ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BOAT, SHOWING THE METHOD OF USING

RUDDER, SAIL, AND OARS]

Its Inundation begins at the Summer Solstice, and increases till the

Equinoctial in Autumn; during which time he brings in along with him

new Soyl, and waters as well the Till’d and Improv’d Ground as that

which lies waste and untill’d, as long as it pleases the Husbandman;

for the Water flowing gently and by degrees, they easily divert its

Course, by casting up small Banks of Earth; and then by opening a

Passage for it, as easily turn it over their Land again, if they see

it needful. It’s so very advantageous to the Inhabitants, and done

with so little pains, that most of the Country People turn in their

Cattel into the sow’d Ground to eat, and tread down the Corn, and Four

or Five Months after they reap it. Some lightly run over the Surface

of the Earth with a Plow, after the Water is fallen, and gain a mighty

Crop without any great Cost or Pains: But Husbandry amongst all other

Nations is very laborious and chargable, only the Egyptians gather

their Fruits with little Cost or Labour. That part of the Country

likewise where Vines are planted after this watering by the Nile,

yields a most plentiful Vintage. The Fields that after the Inundation

are pastur’d by their Flocks, yield them this advantage, that the Sheep

Yean twice in a Year, and are shorn as often. This Increase of the

Nile is wonderful to Beholders, and altogether incredible to them that

only hear the Report; for when other Rivers about the Solstice fall

and grow lower all Summer long, this begins to increase, and continues

to rise every day, till it comes to that height that it overflows

almost all Egypt; and on the contrary in the same manner in the Winter

Solstice, it falls by degrees till it wholly returns into its proper

Channel. And in regard the Land of Egypt lies low and Champain, the

Towns, Cities and Country Villages that are built upon rising-ground

(cast up by Art) look like the Islands of the Cyclades: Many of the

Cattel sometimes are by the River intercepted, and so are drown’d; but

those that fly to the higher Grounds are preserv’d. During the time

of the Inundation, the Cattel are kept in the Country Towns and small

Cottages, where they have Food and Fodder before laid up and prepar’d

for them. But the common People now at liberty from all Imployments

in the Field, indulge themselves in Idleness, feasting every day, and

giving themselves up to all sorts of Sports and Pleasures. Yet out of

fear of the Inundation, a Watch Tower is built in Memphis, by the Kings

of Egypt, where those that are imploy’d to take care of this concern,

observing to what height the River rises, send Letters from one City to

another, acquainting them how many Cubits and Fingers the River rises,

and when it begins to decrease; and so the People coming to understand

the Fall of the Waters, are freed from their fears, and all presently

have a foresight what plenty of Corn they are like to have; and this

Observation has been Registred from time to time by the Egyptians for

many Generations.

There are great Controversies concerning the Reasons of the overflowing

of Nile, and many both Philosophers and Historians have endeavour’d

to declare the Causes of it. Some who have attempted to give their

Reasons, have been very wide from the Mark. For as for Hellanicus,

Cadmus, Hecatæus, and such like ancient Authors, they have told little

but frothy Stories, and meer Fables. Herodotus, above all other Writers

very industrious, and well acquainted with General History, made it his

Business to find out the Causes of these things, but what he says is

notwithstanding very doubtful, and some things seem to be repugnant and

contradictory one to another.

No Writer hitherto has pretended that he himself ever saw or heard of

any one else that affirm’d he had seen the Spring-heads of Nile: All

therefore amounting to no more but Opinion and Conjecture, the Priests

of Egypt affirm that it comes from the Ocean, which flows round the

whole Earth: But nothing that they say is upon any solid grounds, and

they resolve Doubts by things that are more doubtful; and to prove what

they say, they bring Arguments that have need to be proved themselves.

Thales, who is reckon’d one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece, is of

Opinion that the Etesean Winds that beat fiercely upon the Mouth of

the River, give a check and stop to the Current, and so hinder it from

falling into the Sea, upon which the River swelling, and its Channel

fill’d with Water, at length overflows the Country of Egypt, which

lies flat and low. Though this seem a plausible Reason, yet it may be

easily disprov’d. For if it were true what he says, then all the Rivers

which run into the Sea against the Etesean Winds would overflow in like

manner; which being never known in any other part of the World, some

other reason and more agreeable to Truth must of necessity be sought

for. Anaxagoras the Philosopher ascribes the Cause to the melting of

the Snow in Ethiopia, whom the Poet Euripides (who was his Scholar)

follows.

Neither is it any hard Task to confute this Opinion, since it’s

apparent to all, that by reason of the parching Heats, there’s no Snow

in Ethiopia at that time of the Year. For in these Countries there’s

not the least Sign either of Frost, Cold or any other effects of

Winter, especially at the time of the overflowing of Nile. And suppose

there be abundance of Snow in the higher Parts of Ethiopia, yet what

is affirm’d is certainly false: For every River that is swell’d with

Snow, fumes up in cold Fogs, and thickens the Air; but about Nile, only

above all other Rivers, neither mists gather, nor are there any cold

Breezes, nor is the Air gross and thick. Herodotus says that Nile is

such in its own nature, as it seems to be in the time of its increase;

for that in Winter, when the Sun moves to the South, and runs its daily

course directly over Africa, it exhales so much Water out of Nile, that

it decreases against Nature; and in Summer when the Sun returns to

the North, the Rivers of Greece, and the Rivers of all other Northern

Countries, fall and decrease; and therefore that it is not so strange

for Nile about Summer time to increase, and in Winter to fall and grow

lower. But to this it may be answer’d, that if the Sun exhale so much

moisture out of Nile in Winter time, it would do the like in other

Rivers in Africa, and so they must fall as well as Nile, which no where

happens throughout all Africa, and therefore this Author’s Reason is

frivolous; for the Rivers of Greece rise not in the Winter, by reason

of the remoteness of the Sun, but by reason of the great Rains that

fall at that time. Ephorus, who gives the last account of the thing,

endeavours to ascertain the Reason, but seems not to find out the Truth.

[Illustration: COLOSSAL SEATED FIGURES OF GODS]

The whole Land of Egypt (says he) is cast up from the River, and

the Soyl is of a loose and spungy nature, and has in it many large

Clifts and hollow Places, wherein are abundance of Water, which in the

Winter-time is frozen up, and in the Summer issues out on every side,

like Sweat from the Pores, which occasions the River Nile to rise. This

Writer does not only betray his own Ignorance of the nature of Places

in Egypt, that he never saw them himself, but likewise that he never

was rightly inform’d by any that was acquainted with them. And indeed

no Man is to expect any certainty from Ephorus, who may be palpably

discern’d not to make it his business in many things to declare the

Truth.

The Philosophers indeed in Memphis have urg’d strong Reasons of the

Increase of Nile, which are hard to be confuted; and though they are

improbable, yet many agree to them. For they divide the Earth into

Three Parts, one of which is that wherein we inhabit; another quite

contrary to these Places in the Seasons of the Year; the Third lying

between these Two, which they say is uninhabitable by reason of the

scorching heat of the Sun; and therefore if Nile should overflow in

the Winter-time, it would be clear and evident that its Source would

arise out of our Zone, because then we have the most Rain: But on the

contrary being that it rises in Summer, it’s very probable that in

the Country opposite to us it’s Winter-time, where then there’s much

Rain, and that those Floods of Water are brought down thence to us:

And therefore that none can ever find out the Head-Springs of Nile,

because the River has its Course through the opposite Zone; which is

uninhabited. And the exceeding sweetness of the Water, they say, is the

Confirmation of this Opinion; for passing through the Torrid Zone, the

Water is boil’d, and therefore this River is sweeter than any other in

the World; for Heat does naturally dulcorate Water. But this reason is

easily refuted; for it’s plainly impossible that the River should rise

to that height, and come down to us from the opposite Zone; especially

if it be granted that the Earth is round. But if any yet shall be so

obstinate as to affirm it is so as the philosophers have said, I must

in short say it’s against and contrary to the Laws of Nature.

For being they hold Opinions that in the nature of the things can

hardly be disprov’d, and place an inhabitable part of the World between

us and them that are opposite to us; they conclude, that by this

device, they have made it impossible, and out of the reach of the Wit

of Man to confute them. But it is but just and equal, that those who

affirm any thing positively, should prove what they say, either by

good Authority or strength of Reason. How comes it about that only the

River Nile should come down to us from the other opposite Zone? Have we

not other Rivers that this may be as well apply’d to? As to the Causes

alledg’d for the sweetness of the Water, they are absurd: For if the

Water be boyl’d with the parching Heat, and thereupon becomes sweet,

it would have no productive quality, either of Fish or other Kinds of

Creatures and Beasts; for all Water whose Nature is chang’d by Fire,

is altogether incapable to breed any living thing, and therefore being

that the Nature of Nile contradicts this decoction and boyling of the

Water, we conclude that the Causes alledg’d of its increase are false.

But to the true cause, Agartharchides of Cnidus comes nearest. For

he says, that in the Mountainous parts of Ethiopia, there are Yearly

continual Rains from the Summer Solstice to the Equinox in Autumn, and

therefore there’s just cause for Nile to be low in the Winter, which

then flows only from its own natural Spring-heads, and to overflow

in Summer through the abundance of Rains. And though none hitherto

have been able to give a Reason of these Inundations, yet he says his

Opinion is not altogether to be rejected; for there are many things

that are contrary to the Rules of Nature, for which none are able to

give any substantial Reason. That which happens in some parts of Asia,

he says, gives some confirmation to his Opinion. For in the Confines of

Scythia, near Mount Caucasus, after the Winter is over, he affirms that

abundance of Snow falls every Year for many Days together: And that in

the Northern Parts of India, at certain Times, there falls abundance of

Hail, and of an incredible Bigness: And that near the River Hydaspis,

in Summer-time, it rains continually; and the same happens in Ethiopia

for many Days together; and that this disorder of the Air whirling

about, occasions many Storms of Rain in Places near adjoyning; and that

therefore it’s no wonder if the Mountainous Parts of Ethiopia, which

lies much higher than Egypt, are soakt with continual Rains, wherewith

the River being fill’d, overflows; especially since the natural

Inhabitants of the Place affirm, that thus it is in their Country.

And though these things now related, are in their nature contrary to

those in our own Climates, yet we are not for that Reason to disbelieve

them. For with us the South Wind is cloudy and boysterous, whereas in

Ethiopia it’s calm and clear; and that the North Winds in Europe are

fierce and violent, but in those Regions low and almost insensible.

But however (after all) though we could heap up variety of Arguments

against all these Authors concerning the Inundation of Nile, yet those

which we have before alledg’d shall suffice, lest we should transgress

those bounds of Brevity which at the first we propos’d to our selves.

A GREEK VIEW OF THE ORIGINS OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY

The Egyptians report, says Diodorus, that at the beginning of the

World, the first Men were created in Egypt, both by reason of the happy

Climate of the Country, and the nature of the River Nile. For this

River being very Fruitful, and apt to bring forth many animals, yields

of it self likewise Food and Nourishment for the things produc’d. For

it yields the Roots of Canes, the Fruit of the Lote-Tree, the Egyptian

Bean, that which they call Corseon, and such like Rarities, always

ready at hand.

[Illustration: WALL INSCRIPTION WITH FIGURES IN RED

(Now in the British Museum)]

And that all living Creatures were first produc’d among them, they use

this Argument, that even at this day, about Thebes at certain Times,

such vast Mice are bred, that it causes admiration to the Beholders;

some of which to the Breast and Fore-feet are animated and begin to

move, and the rest of the Body (which yet retains the nature of the

Soyl) appears without form.

Whence it’s manifest, that in the beginning of the World, through the

Fertileness of the Soyl the first Men were form’d in Egypt, being that

in no other parts of the World any of these Creatures are produc’d;

only in Egypt these supernatural Births may be seen.

The first Generation of Men in Egypt, therefore contemplating the

Beauty of the Superior World, and admiring with astonishment the frame

and order of the Universe, judg’d there were Two chief Gods that were

Eternal, that is to say, The Sun and the Moon, the first of which

they call’d Osiris, and the other Isis, both Names having proper

Etymologies; for Osiris in the Greek Language, signifies a Thing with

many Eyes, which may be very properly apply’d to the Sun darting his

Rays into every Corner, and as it were with so many Eyes viewing and

surveying the whole Land and Sea.

Some also of the antient Greek Mythologists call Osiris Dionysus, and

sirname him Sirius. Some likewise set him forth cloath’d with the

spotted Skin of a Fawn (call’d Nebris) from the variety of Stars that

surround him.

Isis likewise being interpreted, signifies Antient, that Name being

ascrib’d to the Moon from Eternal Generations. They add likewise to

her, Horns, because her Aspect is such in her Increase and in her

Decrease, representing a Sickle; and because an Ox among the Egyptians

is offer’d to her in Sacrifice. They hold that these Gods govern the

whole World, cherishing and increasing all things; and divide the Year

into Three Parts (that is to say, Spring, Summer, and Autumn) by an

invisible Motion perfecting their constant course in that time: And

though they are in their Natures very differing one from another, yet

they compleat the whole Year with a most excellent Harmony and Consent.

They say that these Gods in their Natures do contribute much to the

Generation of all things, the one being of a hot and active Nature, the

other moist and cold, but both having something of the Air; and that

by these, all things are brought forth and nourish’d: And therefore

that every particular Being in the Universe is perfected and compleated

by the Sun and Moon, whose Qualities, as before declar’d, are Five; A

Spirit or quickning Efficacy, Heat or Fire, Dryness or Earth, Moisture

or Water, and Air, of which the World does consist, as a Man made up of

Head, Hands, Feet, and other parts. These Five they reputed for Gods,

and the People of Egypt who were the first that spoke articulately,

gave Names proper to their several Natures, according to the Language

they then spake. And therefore they call’d the Spirit Jupiter, which is

such by Interpretation, because a quickning Influence is deriv’d from

this into all Living Creatures, as from the original Principle; and

upon that account he is esteem’d the common Parent of all things.

Fire they call’d by Interpretation Vulcan, and him they had in

Veneration as a Great God, as he that greatly contributed to the

Generation and Perfection of all Beings whatsoever.

The Earth, as the Common Womb of all Productions, they call’d Metera,

as the Greeks in process of time, by a small alteration of one Letter,

and an omission of Two Letters, call’d the Earth Demetra, which was

antiently call’d Gen Metera, or the Mother Earth.

Water or Moisture, the Antients call’d Oceanus; which by Interpretation

is a nourishing Mother, and so taken by some of the Grecians.

But the Egyptians account their Nile to be Oceanus, at which all the

Gods were Born. For in Egypt only among all the Countries in the World,

are many Cities built by the ancient Gods, as by Jupiter, Sol, Mercury,

Apollo, Pan, Elithia, and many others.

To the Air they gave the Name of Minerva, signifying something proper

to the nature thereof, and call’d her the Daughter of Jupiter,

and counted a Virgin, because the Air naturally is not subject to

Corruption, and is in the highest part of the Universe; whence rises

the Fable, that she was the issue of Jupiter’s Brain: They say she’s

call’d also Tritogeneia, or Thrice Begotten, because she changes her

natural Qualities thrice in the Year, the Spring, Summer, and Winter;

and that she was call’d Glaucopis, not that she hath Grey Eyes (as some

of the Greeks have suppos’d, for that’s a weak Conceit) but because the

Air seems to be of a Grey Colour, to the view. They report likewise,

that these Five Gods travel through the whole World, representing

themselves to Men sometimes in the shapes of Sacred living Creatures,

and sometimes in the Form of Men, or some other Representation. And

this is not a Fable, but very possible, if it be true, that these

generate all things; and the Poet [Homer] who travell’d into Egypt, in

some part of his Works, affirms this Appearance, as he learnt it from

their Priests,

The Gods also like Strangers come from far

In divers Shapes within the Towns appear,

Viewing Men’s good and wicked Acts.

And these are the Stories told by the Egyptians of the Heavenly and

Immortal Gods. And besides these, they say there are others that

are Terrestrial, which were begotten of these former Gods, and were

Originally Mortal men, but by reason of their Wisdom and Beneficence to

all Mankind, have obtain’d Immortality, of which some have been Kings

of Egypt. Some of whom by interpretation, have had the same Names with

the Celestial Gods, others have kept their own proper Names. For they

report that Sol, Saturn, Rhea, Jupiter (surnam’d by some Ammon), Juno,

Vulcan, Vesta, and lastly, Mercury, reign’d in Egypt; and that Sol was

the first King of Egypt, whose Name was the same with the Celestial

Planet call’d Sol.

But there are some of the Priests who affirm Vulcan to be the first of

Kings, and that he was advanc’d to that Dignity upon the account of

being the first that found out the use of Fire, which was so beneficial

to all Mankind. For a Tree in the Mountains hapning to be set on Fire

by Lightning, the Wood next adjoyning was presently all in a Flame; and

Vulcan thereupon coming to the Place, was mightily refresht by the heat

of it, being then Winter Season; and when the Fire began to fail, he

added more combustible Matter to it, and by that means preserving it,

call’d in other Men to enjoy the Benefit of that which he himself was

the first Inventer, as he gave out.

Afterwards they say Saturn reign’d, and marry’d his Sister Rhea, and

that he begat of her Osiris and Isis; but others say, Jupiter and Juno,

who for their great Virtues, rul’d over all the World. That of Jupiter

and Juno were born Five Gods, one upon every day of the Five Egyptian

intercalary Days. The Names of these Gods are Osiris, Isis, Typhon,

Apollo and Venus. That Osiris was interpreted Bacchus, and Isis plainly

Ceres. That Osiris marry’d Isis, and after he came to the Kingdom, did

much, and perform’d many things for the common Benefit and Advantage of

Mankind. For he was the first that forbad Men eating one another; and

at the same time Isis found out the way of making of Bread of Wheat and

Barley, which before grew here and there in the Fields amongst other

common Herbs and Grass, and the use of it unknown: And Osiris teaching

the way and manner of Tillage, and well management of the Fruits of

the Earth, this change of Food became grateful; both because it was

naturally sweet and delicious, and Men were thereby restrain’d from the

mutual Butcheries of one another: For an evidence of this first finding

out the use of these Fruits, they alledge an antient Custom amongst

them: For even at this day, in the time of Harvest, the Inhabitants

offer the first Fruits of the Ears of Corn, howling and wailing about

the Handfuls they offer, and invoking this Goddess Isis: And this they

do in return of due Honour to her for that Invention at the first. In

some Cities also, when they celebrate the Feast of Isis in a Pompous

Procession, they carry about Vessels of Wheat and Barley, in memory of

the first Invention, by the care and industry of this Goddess. They

say likewise, that Isis made many Laws for the good of Human Society,

whereby Men were restrain’d from lawless Force and Violence one upon

another, out of fear of Punishment. And therefore Ceres was call’d by

the ancient Greeks, Themophorus (that is) Lawgiver, being the Princess

that first constituted Laws for the better Government of her People.

Osiris moreover built Thebes in Egypt, with an Hundred Gates, and

call’d it after his Mother’s Name: But in following Times, it was

call’d Diospolis, and Thebes; of whose first Founder not only

Historians, but the Priests of Egypt themselves, are much in doubt. For

some say that it was not built by Osiris, but many Years after by a

King of Egypt, whose History we shall treat of hereafter in its proper

place. They report likewise, that he built Two magnificent Temples,

and Dedicated them to his Parents, Jupiter and Juno; and likewise Two

Golden Altars, the greater to the great God Jupiter; the other to his

Father Jupiter, who had formerly reign’d there, whom they call Ammon.

That he also erected Golden Altars to other Gods, and instituted their

several Rites of Worship, and appointed Priests to have the Oversight

and Care of the Holy things. In the time of Osiris and Isis, Projectors

and ingenious Artists were in great honour and Esteem; and therefore

in Thebes there were then Goldsmiths and Braziers, who made Arms and

Weapons for the Killing of Wild Beasts, and other Instruments for the

husbanding of the Ground, and improvement of Tillage; besides Images of

the Gods, and Altars in Gold. They say that Osiris was much given to

Husbandry, that he was the Son of Jupiter, brought up in Nysa, a Town

of Arabia the Happy, near to Egypt, call’d by the Greeks Dionysus, from

his Father, and the Place of his Education.

Here near unto Nysa (they say) he found out the use of the Vine, and

there planting it, was the first that drank Wine; and taught others how

to plant it and use it, and to gather in their Vintage, and to keep

and preserve it. Above all others, he most honoured Hermes, one of an

admirable Ingenuity, and quick Invention, in finding out what might

be useful to Mankind. This Hermes was the first (as they report) that

taught how to speak distinctly and articulately, and gave Names to many

things that had none before. He found out Letters, and instituted the

Worship of the Gods; and was the first that observ’d the Motion of the

Stars, and invented Musick; and taught the manner of Wrestling; and

invented Arithmetick, and the Art of curious Graving and Cutting of

Statues. He first found out the Harp with Three Strings, in resemblance

of the Three Seasons of the Year, causing Three several Sounds, the

Treble, Base and Mean. The Treble, to represent the Summer; The Base,

the Winter; and the Mean, the Spring. He was the first that taught the

Greeks Eloquence; thence he’s call’d Hermes, a Speaker or Interpreter.

To conclude, he was Osiris’s Sacred Scribe, to whom he communicated

all his Secrets, and was chiefly steer’d by his Advice in every thing.

He (not Minerva, as the Greeks affirm) found out the use of the

Olive-tree, for the making of Oyl.

It’s moreover reported, that Osiris being a Prince of a publick

Spirit, and very ambitious of Glory, rais’d a great Army, with which

he resolv’d to go through all parts of the World that were inhabited,

and to teach Men how to plant Vines, and to sow Wheat and Barly. For he

hop’d that if he could civilize Men, and take them off from their rude

and Beast-like Course of Lives, by such a publick good and advantage,

he should raise a Foundation amongst all Mankind, for his immortal

Praise and Honour, which happen’d accordingly. For not only that Age,

but Posterity ever after honour’d those among the chiefest of their

Gods, that first found out their proper and ordinary Food. Having

therefore settl’d his Affairs in Egypt, and committed the Government

of his whole Kingdom to his Wife Isis, he join’d with her Mercury, as

her chief Councellor of State, because he far excell’d all others in

Wisdom and Prudence. But Hercules his near Kinsman, he left General

of all his Forces within his Dominions, a Man admir’d by all for his

Valour and Strength of Body. As to those parts which lay near Phœnicia,

and upon the Sea-Coasts of them, he made Busiris Lord Lieutenant, and

of Ethiopia and Lybia, Anteus.

Then marching out of Egypt, he began his Expedition, taking along with

him his Brother, whom the Greeks call’d Apollo. This Apollo is reported

to have discover’d the Laurel-Tree, which all Dedicate especially to

this God. To Osiris they attribute the finding out of the Ivy-Tree, and

dedicate it to him, as the Greeks do to Bacchus: And therefore in the

Egyptian Tongue, they call Ivy Osiris’s Plant, which they prefer before

the Vine in all their Sacrifices, because this loses its Leaves, and

the other always continues fresh and green: Which Rule the Ancients

have observ’d in other Plants, that are always green, dedicating Mirtle

to Venus, Laurel to Apollo, and the Olive-Tree to Pallas.

It’s said, that Two of his Sons accompany’d their Father Osiris in this

Expedition, one call’d Anubis, and the other Macedo, both valiant Men:

Both of them wore Coats of Mail, that were extraordinary remarkable,

cover’d with the Skins of such Creatures as resembled them in Stoutness

and Valour. Anubis was cover’d with a Dog’s, and Macedon with the Skin

of a Wolf; and for this reason these Beasts are religiously ador’d

by the Egyptians. He had likewise for his Companion, Pan, whom the

Egyptians have in great Veneration; for they not only set up Images and

Statues up and down in every Temple, but built a City in Thebides after

his Name, call’d by the Inhabitants Chemmin, which by interpretation is

Pan’s City. There went along with them likewise those that were skilful

in Husbandry, as Maro in the planting of Vines, and Triptolemus in

sowing of Corn, and gathering in the Harvest.

All things being now prepar’d, Osiris having vow’d to the Gods to

let his Hair grow till he return’d into Egypt, marcht away through

Æthiopia; and for that very Reason it’s a piece of Religion, and

practis’d among the Egyptians at this Day, that those that travel

Abroad, suffer their Hair to grow, till they return Home. As he pass’d

through Æthiopia, a Company of Satyrs were presented to him, who (as

it’s reported) were all Hairy down to their Loyns: For Osiris was a

Man given to Mirth and Jollity, and took great pleasure in Musick and

Dancing; and therefore carry’d along with him a Train of Musicians,

of whom Nine were Virgins, most Excellent Singers, and expert in

many other things (whom the Greeks call Muses) of whom Apollo was

the Captain; and thence call’d the Leader of the Muses: Upon this

account the Satyrs, who are naturally inclin’d to skipping, dancing

and singing, and all other sorts of Mirth, were taken in as part of

the Army: For Osiris was not for War, nor came to fight Battels, and

to decide Controversies by the Sword, every Country receiving him

for his Merits and Virtues, as a God. In Ethiopia having instructed

the Inhabitants in Husbandry, and Tillage of the Ground, and built

several stately Cities among them, he left there behind him some to be

Governors of the Country, and others to be Gatherers of his Tribute.

While they were thus imploy’d, ’tis said that the River Nile, about the

Dogdays (at which time it uses to be the highest) broke down its Banks,

and overflow’d the greatest part of Egypt, and that part especially

where Prometheus govern’d, insomuch as almost all the Inhabitants were

drown’d; so that Prometheus was near unto Killing of himself for very

grief of heart; and from the sudden and violent Eruption of the Waters,

the River was call’d Eagle.

Hercules, who was always for high and difficult enterprizes, and ever

of a stout Spirit, presently made up the Breaches, and turn’d the

River into its Channel, and kept it within its ancient Banks; and

therefore some of the Greek Poets from this fact have forg’d a Fable,

That Hercules kill’d the Eagle that fed upon Prometheus his Heart.

The most ancient Name of this river was Oceames, which in the Greek

pronunciation is Oceanus; afterwards call’d Eagle, upon the violent

Eruption. Lastly it was call’d Egyptus, from the Name of a King that

there reign’d. The last Name which it still retains, it derives from

Nileus, a King of those Parts.

Osiris being come to the Borders of Ethiopia, rais’d high Banks on

either side of the River, lest in the time of its Inundation it should

overflow the Country more than was convenient, and make it marish and

boggy; and made Floodgates to let in the Water by degrees, as far as

was necessary. Thence he pass’d through Arabia, bordering upon the Red

Sea as far as to India, and the utmost Coasts that were inhabited:

He built likewise many Cities in India, one of which he call’d Nysa,

willing to have a remembrance of that in Egypt where he was brought

up. At this Nysa in India, he planted Ivy, which grows and remains

here only of all other Places in India, or the Parts adjacent. He left

likewise many other Marks of his being in those Parts, by which the

latter Inhabitants are induc’d to believe, and do affirm that this God

was born in India.

He likewise addicted himself much to hunting of Elephants; and took

care to have Statues of himself in every place, as lasting Monuments

of his Expedition. Thence passing to the rest of Asia, he transported

his Army through the Hellespont into Europe; and in Thrace he kill’d

Lycurgus King of the Barbarians, who oppos’d him in his Designs. Then

he order’d Maro (at that time an Old Man) to take care of the Planters

in that Country, and to build a City, and call it Maroneo, after his

own Name. Macedon his Son he made King of Macedonia, so calling it

after him. To Triptolemus he appointed the Culture and Tillage of the

Land in Attica. To conclude, Osiris having travell’d through the whole

World, by finding out Food fit and convenient for Man’s Body, was a

Benefactor to all Mankind. Where Vines would not grow and be fruitful,

he taught the Inhabitants to make Drink of Barley, little inferiour in

strength and pleasant Flavour to Wine it self. He brought back with

him into Egypt the most pretious and richest things that ever place

did afford; and for the many Benefits and Advantages that he was the

Author of, by the common Consent of all Men, he gain’d the Reward of

Immortality and Honour equal to the Heavenly Deities.

After his Death, Isis and Mercury celebrated his Funeral with

Sacrifices and other Divine Honours, as to one of the Gods, and

instituted many Sacred Rites mystical Ceremonies in Memory of the

mighty Works wrought by this Hero, now Deify’d. Antiently the Egyptian

Priests kept the manner of the Death of Osiris secret in their own

Registers among themselves; but in after-times it fell out, that

some that could not hold, blurted it out, and so it came Abroad. For

they say that Osiris, while he govern’d in Egypt with all Justice

imaginable, was Murder’d by his wicked Brother Typhon; and that he

mangled his dead Body into Six and Twenty Pieces, and gave to each of

his Confederates in the Treason a Piece, by that means to bring them

all within the same horrid Guilt, and thereby the more to ingage them

to advance him to the Throne, and to defend and preserve him in the

Possession.

But Isis, the Sister and Wife likewise of Osiris, with the assistance

of her Son Orus, reveng’d his Death upon Typhon and his Complices, and

possess’d her self of the Kingdom of Egypt. It’s said the Battel was

fought near a River not far off a Town now call’d Antæa in Arabia, so

call’d from Anteus, whom Hercules slew in the time of Osiris. She found

all the Pieces of his Body, save his Privy Members; and having a desire

to conceal her Husband’s Burial, yet to have him honour’d as a God by

all the Egyptians, she thus contriv’d it. She clos’d all the Pieces

together, cementing them with Wax and Aromatick Spices, and so brought

it to the shape of a Man of the bigness of Osiris; then she sent for

the Priests to her, one by one, and swore them all that they should not

discover what she should then intrust them with. Then she told them

privately that they only should have the Burial of the King’s Body;

and recounting the many good Works he had done, charg’d them to bury

the Body in a proper place among themselves, and to pay unto him all

Divine Honour, as to a God. That they should Dedicate to him one of the

Beasts bred among them, which of them they pleas’d, and that while it

was alive, they should pay it the same Veneration as they did before to

Osiris himself; and when it was dead, that they should Worship it with

the same Adoration and Worship given to Osiris. But being willing to

incourage the Priests to these Divine Offices by Profit and Advantage,

she gave them the Third part of the Country for the Maintenance of the

Service of the Gods and their Attendance at the Altars.

[Illustration: AN EGYPTIAN HUNTSMAN]

In memory, therefore, of Osiris’s good Deeds, being incited thereunto

by the Commands of the Queen, and in expectation of their own Profit

and Advantage, the Priests exactly perform’d every thing that Isis

injoin’d them; and therefore every Order of the Priests at this Day

are of opinion that Osiris is bury’d among them. And they have those

Beasts in great Veneration, that were so long since thus consecrated;

and renew their Mournings for Osiris over the Graves of those Beasts.

There are Two sacred Bulls especially, the one call’d Apis, and the

other Mnevis, that are Consecrated to Osiris, and reputed as Gods

generally by all the Egyptians. For this Creature of all others was

extraordinarily serviceable to the first Inventers of Husbandry, both

as to the sowing Corn, and other Advantages concerning Tillage, of

which all reapt the Benefit. Lastly, they say, that after the Death

of Osiris, Isis made a Vow never to Marry any other Man, and spent

the rest of her Days in an exact Administration of Justice among her

Subjects, excelling all other Princes in her Acts of Grace and Bounty

towards her own People; and therefore after her Death, she was numbred

among the Gods, and as such had Divine Honour and Veneration, and was

buri’d at Memphis, where they shew her Sepulchre at this day in the

Grove of Vulcan.

Yet there are some that deny that these Gods are Buri’d at Memphis;

but near the Mountains of Ethiopia and Egypt, in the Isle of Nile,

lying near to a place call’d Philas, and upon that account also nam’d

the Holy Field. They confirm this by undoubted Signs and Marks left in

this Island, as by a Sepulchre built and erected to Osiris, religiously

Reverenc’d by all the Priests of Egypt, wherein are laid up Three

Hundred and Threescore Bowls, which certain Priests, appointed for that

purpose, fill every Day with Milk, and call upon the Gods by Name, with

Mourning and Lamentation.

The several parts therefore of Osiris being found, they report were

bury’d in this manner before related; but his Privy-members (they say)

were thrown into the River by Typhon, because none of his Partners

would receive them; and yet that they were divinely honour’d by Isis;

for she commanded an Image of this very part to be set up in the

Temples, and to be religiously ador’d; and in all their Ceremonies and

Sacrifices to this God, she ordered that part to be held in divine

Veneration and Honour. And therefore the Grecians, after they had

learn’d the Rites of the Feasts of Bacchus, and the Orgian Solemnities

from the Egyptians in all their Mysteries and Sacrifices to this God,

they ador’d that Member by the Name of Phallus.

From Osiris and Isis, to the Reign of Alexander the Great, who built a

City after his own Name, the Egyptian Priests reckon above Ten Thousand

Years, or (as some write) little less than Three and Twenty Thousand

Years. They affirm, that those that say this God Osiris was born at

Thebes in Boetia of Jupiter and Semele, relate that which is false. For

they say that Orpheus after he came into Egypt, was initiated into the

Sacred Mysteries of Bacchus or Dionysus, and being a special Friend to

the Thebans in Boetia, and of great esteem among them, to manifest his

Gratitude, transferr’d the Birth of Bacchus or Osiris over into Greece.

And that the Common People, partly out of Ignorance, and partly out of

a desire they had that this God should be a Grecian, readily receiv’d

these Mysteries and Sacred Rites among them; and that Orpheus took

the occasion following to fix the Birth of the God and his Rites and

Ceremonies among the Greeks: As thus, Cadmus (they say) was born at

Thebes in Egypt, and amongst other Children begat Semele: That she was

got with Child by one unknown, and was deliver’d at Seven Months end of

a Child very like to Osiris, as the Egyptians describe him. But such

Births are not us’d to live, either because it is not the pleasure of

the Gods it should be so, or that the Law of Nature will not admit it.

The Matter coming to Cadmus his Ear, being before warn’d by the Oracle

to protect the Laws of his Country, he wrapt the Infant in Gold, and

instituted Sacrifices to be offer’d to him, as if Osiris had appear’d

again in this shape; and caus’d it to be spread abroad, that it was

begotten of Jupiter, thereby both to honour Osiris, and to cover his

Daughter’s Shame.

The Priests say that the Grecians have arrogated to themselves both

their Gods and Demy-Gods (or Heroes), and say that divers Colonies were

transported over to them out of Egypt: For Hercules was an Egyptian,

and by his Valour made his way into most parts of the World, and set up

a Pillar in Africa; and of this they endeavour to make proof from the

Grecians themselves.[c]

APPENDIX B. THE PROBLEM OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

The Egyptians that pretended so great antiquity, three hundred

kings before Amasis: and as Mela writes, 13,000 years from the

beginning of their chronicles, that bragged so much of their

knowledge of old, for they invented arithmetic, astronomy,

geometry; of their wealth and power, that vaunted of 20,000 cities;

yet at the same time their idolatry and superstition was most

gross; they worshipped, so Diodorus Siculus records, sun and moon

under the name of Isis and Osiris, and after, such men as were

beneficial to them, or any creature that did them good. In the city

of Bubasti they adored a cat, saith Herodotus, ibis and storks, an

ox (saith Pliny), leaks and onions, Manobius.

Porrum et cæpe deos imponere nubibus ausi,

Hos tu Nile deos colis.--BURTON’S _Anatomy of Melancholy_.

Notwithstanding the light thrown upon Egyptian history by the records

from the monuments, the lists of the priest Manetho still form the

basis of all computations of Egyptian chronology of the earlier

periods. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, the

records themselves, though in the aggregate wonderfully voluminous,

yet, so far as deciphered, cover, after all, only scattered bits of

the long periods of time involved. Mostly the individual records are

the glorifications of the deeds of a single king. Some kings left

scanty records, and often even these were wilfully destroyed by some

subsequent ruler of another dynasty. Or, a king might leave the record

of his predecessor, but substitute his own name for the rightful one

in the chronicle. Even the great Ramses II was guilty of such an act

as this. The fact of such tampering with the record would generally

be perceptible, but it may not be so easy to determine whose was the

rightful name which the falsifier erased.

Much more important than this, however, is the obstacle that arises

from the fact that the Egyptians, like all other nations of antiquity,

lacked a fixed era from which to reckon. They computed years with

reasonable accuracy, but they never reckoned long periods consecutively

from any single date. Hence the record of any particular king stands

more or less by itself, or associated at most with recent predecessors.

If the records of some of these predecessors have been lost, the gap

may be of such a doubtful character as to throw uncertainty upon the

chronology of long periods, or, indeed, of the entire remoter history.

Thus it is that the records from the monuments, despite their great

historic value and absorbing personal interest, do not in themselves,

as yet, suffice to reveal in its entirety the history of the long

succession of Egyptian dynasties. But fortunately these contemporary

records have been found in many cases to accord marvellously with

Manetho’s lists. Hence the faith in these lists as a whole has been

greatly strengthened, and the historian of to-day, in basing his

Egyptian chronology upon Manetho for the periods not covered by

known monuments, is by no means working altogether in the dark. It is

true that there have been two schools of opinion as to how far this

reliance should be carried: one school contending very warmly that

Manetho’s lists are probably in places the records of contemporaneous

dynasties,--it being known that the government was in many periods

divided,--and hence that the entire period of time required for the

dynasties as listed must be materially shortened; the other school

maintaining that Manetho himself took note of such contemporaneous

dynasties and eliminated them from his list, retaining only a single

line of what he regarded as legitimate succession.

For the general student, it really does not matter greatly which of

these views is correct. The general accuracy of Manetho is admitted on

all hands, and the monuments sustain him to the extent of making sure

a long list of dynasties, whether or not his exact number be admitted.

When we recall that Manetho himself was, relatively speaking, a modern,

living in the third century B.C., and hence writing about periods that

were, even according to minimum estimates, farther separated from his

age than he is from our own, it would not seem strange if he should

have made some mistakes. But it is well enough also to remember that

his lists would probably not have been challenged with so much fervour

in our time, had it not been for certain ulterior bearings of this

question of chronology. The clew will be evident to whoever notices

that in the different estimates of Egyptian chronology the older

historians--those of the earlier decades of the nineteenth century--are

pretty generally the ardent advocates of a lower or more recent date

for the beginning of the first dynasty.

In a word, during the period when the question of the antiquity of

man was still matter of ardent controversy, even the most fair-minded

historian could not help letting his prejudice on that subject

influence his judgment regarding Egyptian chronology. The year 2349

B.C., which his Bible margin had taught him to recall as a date when

the history of mankind began anew after an all-devastating flood,

stood out in his mind as a danger mark that he must not let himself

be carried past if he could possibly avoid it. If he preferred the

Septuagint reckoning, he gained a few centuries more of leeway, say

till 3250 B.C., but this was the ultimate limit, behind which no

evidence could carry him.

Meantime historians who had not this bias were unequivocally fixing

the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties a thousand years or so

farther back. But their reckoning could count for nothing in the

general verdict so long as the old estimate of man’s antiquity was

held. No sooner, however, had it come to be generally conceded that

the long-authoritative dates were incorrect, than a reaction set in

among the Egyptologists. Once it was conceded that man had been an

inhabitant of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, and that

the years of his early civilisation must reach back into the tens of

thousands, the form of the bias of the average searcher into ancient

history was changed. That very human tendency which makes one like to

excel his neighbour, caused the Egyptologists now to vie with their

only competitors, the Assyriologists, in lengthening out their records,

instead of shortening them. We do not mean that a bias was consciously

admitted in one case or the other; but historians are human, and their

judgments, like those of other mortals, are never altogether free from

human prejudice.

The clear and simple fact seems to be, that no knowledge is at hand

that enables the historian to fix with certainty the remoter dates

of Egyptian history. The very most that can be done, at present,

is to determine minimum dates, as is done by the most recent German

writers of authority, and to content ourselves with stating these,

understanding that they make no pretence to absolute accuracy. When

Professor Meyer, for example, says that the minimum date for the

founding of the Old Memphis Kingdom by King Menes is 3180 B.C., he does

not at all imply that Mariette is wrong in fixing the same event at

5004 B.C., or about two thousand years earlier. He simply means that in

the present state of knowledge he does not feel justified in choosing

a definite date; he is certain, however, that the true date cannot be

placed later than 3180 B.C.

Some such latitude as this we must admit, then, in dealing with ancient

Egyptian chronology. Of course the amount of possible variation

progressively decreases as we come down the ages; but the chronology

does not become absolutely fixed until we reach the comparatively

recent period of King Psamthek I, who reigned from near the middle of

the seventh century before our era.

Fortunately, however, these uncertainties of exact chronology need

interfere but little with our interest and enjoyment in considering

Egyptian history. Chronology is, indeed, as Professor Petrie has

phrased it, “the backbone of history.” But this applies rather to

the general sequence of events than to the exact citation of years;

and fortunately there is no uncertainty at all about the sequence of

important events in Egyptian history, even from the remotest times.

We may not know the exact year in which the great Pyramid was built;

but we do know exactly who built it, and the names and deeds of his

predecessors and successors, as well as the general epoch in which the

events took place. For the purpose of any one but the specialist, we

could scarcely ask more than this. And a like certainty attaches to

all other of the really great epochs of Egyptian history. The general

student may feel quite content with the degree of precision of the

attainable records; and, paying but slight attention to the less

important dynasties, may well fix his attention upon those culminating

periods when the great deeds were accomplished which render the history

of Egypt memorable for all generations of men. The first of these

periods, and the one which now claims our attention, was the epoch of

the so-called Old Kingdom of Memphis--the epoch of the ushering in of

Egyptian history, as known to succeeding generations; yet also the

epoch of the building of the Pyramids--the most gigantic and permanent

structures ever created by human minds and human hands.

Apart from questions of chronology, the sequence of chief events in

Egyptian history is now fairly established and accepted by all schools

of Egyptologists. This course of history proper we have followed under

guidance of specialists who have devoted their lives to the elucidation

of this subject. It may be well, however, to repeat a word of warning

that has already been said as to the incompleteness of the records

on which this narrative is based. It is one thing to assert that the

main events of Egyptian history are known in proper sequence, and it

is quite another to assume that a knowledge of all the events of that

history is accessible. In point of fact, it must be freely admitted

that our knowledge of Egyptian history as a whole is meagre indeed.

Here and there a great event or a great name stands out prominently,

but there are long stretches of time between, when not so much as the

name of a single man is known in many generations.

Generally speaking, however, the periods marked by dearth of records

may be presumed to be periods equally marked by dearth of great

events; and in one sense our history of these distant times assumes

truer relation of perspective than can possibly be given to the

chronicle of later periods which are replete with insignificant and

bewildering details of minor events. Without scruple or regret,

therefore, we may here and there condense the narrative of many

generations of Egyptian history into a line or paragraph, while giving

extended treatment to the deeds and accomplishments of a few great

heroes who make Egyptian history illustrious.

But before turning to the history proper, it will be well to make a

more detailed examination of the chronological foundations on which our

knowledge rests. Eduard Meyer has outlined them succinctly.[a] From

our sources of information, he says, it is evident that we can place

ourselves on certain chronological ground for Egyptian history.

Manetho has rightly retained its general outline. He divides the kings,

from the foundation of the kingdom by Menes until the fall of the last

Darius, into thirty-one ruling houses, or dynasties. His division does

not seem to be always correct; for instance, the Turin papyrus makes

several more divisions out of the Ist Dynasty. Nevertheless, Manetho’s

order has long been commonly accepted, and for many reasons its further

retention commends itself.

The Turin papyrus just mentioned seems to have been written under

Ramses III, as the name of this king appears in the accounts on the

back. It contains a record of the Egyptian kings (the dynasties of the

gods precede them), with a statement of the years of their reigns,

and to some degree of their ages. Unfortunately the papyrus is much

mutilated, and amidst numerous small fragments there exist only a

few large pieces. But it is possible to obtain a general view of the

papyrus by putting the most important fragments into their right

places. It contains (if pages have not been torn off at the end) ten

columns of from twenty-seven to twenty-eight lines, and it mentions

about two hundred and twenty kings’ names, from Menes until before, or

during, the Hyksos period.

These are divided into dynasties, which are sometimes specified only by

a title, and sometimes by the word “reigned” being repeated after the

king’s name. Under the longer lists totals are given. In the few cases

where the figures of the papyrus have been verified by the help of the

memorials, they have been found to be correct. However, the author is

guilty of a great error in the total of the XIIth Dynasty.

The gaps in the papyrus are partially filled by the royal monumental

tablets, which are altogether of a funereal character--a later king or

citizen is shown offering sacrifice to the old rulers.

Three lists carry historical weight:

(1) The tablet of Seti I in Abydos, discovered in 1864 and quite

complete, contains seventy-six names. The tablet of Ramses II, now in

London, is a copy of this.

(2) The tablet of Tehutimes III from Karnak, now in the Louvre, very

much injured and promiscuously put together, contains sixty-one names.

(3) The tablet from the tomb of Tunrei at Saqqarah (under Ramses II,

discovered in 1860), contains fifty-one names, of which forty-seven

remain.

Manetho’s list in its different editions comes next to these accounts.

It was long thought that by putting it in its original form, we

should arrive at a safe basis of Egyptian chronology. A more careful

examination, however, shows us that Manetho is not to be trusted.

Where we can verify his figures in the more ancient periods they

are almost without exception wrong, and this from no fault of the

copyists and makers or extractors; there are constant confusion and

gaps in the succession of names. Numerous examples of such errors

may be seen in the comparison of Manetho’s list with the monuments.

It is only about the XXth Dynasty that his figures seem to be

reliable. Another circumstance must be added. According to Manetho’s

arrangement, the dynasties follow each other, so that he includes a

Theban and a contemporaneous Hyksos family in the XVIIth Dynasty, and

does not reckon each one as a separate ruling house. In truth, such

contemporaneous governments did repeatedly take place, and consequently

they must reduce the dates of Manetho, even if the numbers be correct.

King Menes would not, according to Manetho (under Unger’s calculation),

be placed in the year 5613 B.C., but considerably later.

So we must give up the search for absolute dates as hopeless, and limit

ourselves to an approximate computation of the periods of Egyptian

history. The genealogies of the ruling houses, as well as those of

private people, are of great service, for where we can trace a pedigree

through long periods, we are able to give an approximate estimate of

the number of generations. Thus we arrive at the “minimum” dates, with

which we must content ourselves for the present.

For the long periods from the VIIth to the XIth Dynasties and from

the XIVth to the XVIIth, which are almost completely destitute of

monuments, the dates are extremely problematic. The dates therefore

given for the XIIth Dynasty, for the Pyramid period and for Menes, only

prove that they cannot well be put later, whilst they leave the way

open for any one to put them farther back.[b]

The lists of Manetho, above referred to, are so important as to require

fuller notice.

MANETHO’S TABLE OF THE EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES

=======+=============+===================+=========+=======+======+======

Dynasty| Name | Capital | Province| Length|Years |Years

| of Dynasty | | | of |before|before

| | | | Years |Hegira|Christ

-------+-------------+-------------------+---------+-------+------+------

I |Thinis |Harabat-el-Madfuneh|Girgeh | 253 | 5626 | 5004

II |Thinis |Harabat-el-Madfuneh|Girgeh | 302 | 5373 | 4751

III |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 214 | 5071 | 4449

IV |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 284 | 4857 | 4235

V |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 248 | 4573 | 3951

VI |Elephantine |Gezireh-Assuan |Esneh | 203 | 4325 | 3703

VII |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh |70 days| 4122 | 3500

VIII |Memphis |Mitrahineh |Gizeh | 142 | 4122 | 3500

IX |Heracleopolis|Ahnas-el-Medineh |Beni Suef| 109 | 3980 | 3358

X |Heracleopolis|Ahnas-el-Medineh |Beni Suef| 185 | 3871 | 3249

XI |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh } | 213 | 3686 | 3064

XII |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh } | | |

XIII |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 453 | 3173 | 2851

XIV |Xoïs |Sakha |Menufieh | 184 | 3020 | 2398

XV |Hyksos |San |Sharkieh}| | |

XVI |Hyksos |San |Sharkieh}| 511 | 2836 | 2214

XVII |Hyksos |San |Sharkieh}| | |

XVIII |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 241 | 2325 | 1703

XIX |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 174 | 2084 | 1462

XX |Thebes |Medinet Habu |Keneh | 178 | 1910 | 1288

XXI |Tanis |San |Sharkieh | 130 | 1732 | 1110

XXII |Bubastis |Tel-Basta |Sharkieh | 170 | 1602 | 980

XXIII |Tanis |San |Sharkieh | 89 | 1432 | 810

XXIV |Saïs |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 6 | 1343 | 721

XXV |Ethiopian |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 50 | 1337 | 715

XXVI |Saïs |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 138 | 1287 | 665

XXVII |Persian |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 121 | 1149 | 527

XXVIII |Saïs |Sa-el-Hagar |Gharbieh | 7 | 1028 | 406

XXIX |Mendes |Ashmun-el-Ruman |Dakalieh | 21 | 1021 | 399

XXX |Sebennytes |Samanudi |Gharbieh | 38 | 1000 | 378

XXXI |Persian |Samanudi |Gharbieh | 8 | 962 | 340

End of list according to Manetho

XXXII |Macedonian | | | 27 | 954 | 332

XXXIII |Greek | | | 275 | 927 | 305

XXXIV |Roman | | | 411 | 652 | 30

| | | | | | A.D.

| |Edict of Theodosius| | | 241 | 381

-------+-------------+-------------------+---------+-------+------+------

No one can help being struck by the enormous total to which Manetho’s

summing up of the dynasties brings us. By means of the Egyptian

priest’s lists we are in truth carried back to the times that for all

other peoples are purely mythical, but for Egypt are certainly historic.

Embarrassed by this fact and finding no other means of discrediting

Manetho’s authenticity and veracity, some modern writers have supposed

that Egypt has been at various periods of its history divided into

several kingdoms, and that Manetho gives us as successive some royal

families whose reigns were in fact simultaneous.

According to these authorities the Vth Dynasty, for example, would

have reigned at Memphis at the same time that the VIth governed at

Elephantine. It is not necessary to demonstrate the advantages of

such an arrangement. By bringing certain dates closer together and by

correcting others it is possible by an ingenious and clever arrangement

of the dynasties to shorten almost at will the space of time covered by

Manetho’s lists; thus while, in the table, we have the date 5626 A.H.,

that is, before the Hegira, [5004 B.C.] as that of the foundation of

the Egyptian monarchy, other writers like Bunsen do not go farther back

than 4245 A.H. or 3623 B.C.

On whose side does the truth lie? The more one studies the question,

the more it is seen how difficult it is to reply. The greatest of

all obstacles to the establishment of a definite Egyptian chronology

is that the Egyptians never had a chronology proper. The employment

of an era, properly so called, was unknown to them, and up to the

present time it has never been proved that they reckoned otherwise

than by the years of the reign. And moreover these years were far

from having a fixed point of beginning, since sometimes they began at

the commencement of the year in which the preceding king died, and

sometimes with the coronation of the new king. Whatever may be the

apparent precision of its calculations, modern science will always

be baffled in its attempts to establish that which the Egyptians

themselves did not possess.[c]

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter]

CHAPTER I. THE EGYPTIAN RACE AND ITS ORIGIN

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte der Alten Aegyptens_.

[d] W.M. FLINDERS PETRIE, from the article “Egyptology” in the New

Volumes of the Ninth Edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[g] ADOLF ERMAN, _Aegypten und Aegyptisches Leben im Alterthum_.

CHAPTER II. THE OLD MEMPHIS KINGDOM

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[d] A. WIEDEMANN, _Aegyptische Geschichte_.

[e] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

[f] G.C.C. MASPERO, _The Dawn of Civilisation_ (translated from the

French by M. L. McClure).

[g] SAMUEL BIRCH, translation of the Inscription of Una in _Records of

the Past_.

[h] H.C. BRUGSCH, _Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen_.

CHAPTER III. THE OLD THEBAN KINGDOM

[b] H. C. BRUGSCH, _Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen_.

[c] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[d] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[e] WILLIAM BELOE, Translator of the History of Herodotus.

[f] K.R. LEPSIUS, _Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Peninsula of

Sinai_ (translated from the German by Leonora and Joanna B. Horner).

[g] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[h] W.N. FLINDERS PETRIE, _A History of Egypt_.

[i] FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, _The Works of Josephus_ (translated from the

Greek by William Whiston).

[j] MANETHO, cited by Josephus.

CHAPTER IV. THE RESTORATION

[b] SAMUEL BIRCH, _Records of the Past_.

[c] G.C.C. MASPERO, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (translated from the

French by M.L. McClure).

[d] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

CHAPTER V. THE NINETEENTH DYNASTY

[b] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[c] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[d] H.C. BRUGSCH, _Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen_.

CHAPTER VI. THE FINDING OF THE ROYAL MUMMIES

[b] G.C.C. MASPERO, _La Trouvaille de Deir-el-Bahari_.

CHAPTER VII. THE PERIOD OF DECAY

[b] G.C.C. MASPERO, _The Struggle of the Nations_ (translated from the

French by M.L. McClure).

[c] G.C.C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[d] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

CHAPTER VIII. THE CLOSING SCENES

[b] L. MÉNARD, _Histoire des anciens peuples de l’Orient_.

[c] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

[d] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

CHAPTER IX. MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF THE EGYPTIANS

[b] J. GARDNER WILKINSON, _A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians_.

[c] J. F. C. CHAMPOLLION, _Descriptions de l’Égypte_; _l’Égypte sous

les Pharaohs_; _etc._

[d] P. LE PAGE RENOUF, in Birch’s _Records of the Past_.

[e] AMELIA B. EDWARDS, _A Thousand Miles Up the Nile_.

[f] FRANÇOIS CHABAS, in Birch’s _Records of the Past_.

[g] E. A. T. W. BUDGE, _The Book of the Dead_.

[h] K. R. LEPSIUS, _Denkmäler_.

[i] SAMUEL BIRCH, _Records of the Past_.

[j] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[k] GEORG EBERS, _An Egyptian Princess_; _A History of Egypt_; _etc._

[m] G. C. C. MASPERO, _Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient_.

[n] AUGUSTE MARIETTE, _Aperçu de l’histoire d’Égypte_.

[o] W. N. FLINDERS PETRIE, Numerous Works; see _Bibliography_, p. 302.

CHAPTER X. THE EGYPTIAN RELIGION

[b] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[c] ADOLF ERMAN, _Aegypten und Aegyptisches Leben im Alterthum_.

[d] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

[e] J. GARDNER WILKINSON, _A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians_.

[f] STRABO, _The Geography of Strabo_ (translated from the Greek by J.

Falconer and H. C. Hamilton).

CHAPTER XI. EGYPTIAN CULTURE

[b] J. GARDNER WILKINSON, _A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians_.

[c] G. C. C. MASPERO, rendering in _Les Contes Populaires de l’Égypte

Ancienne_ of M. Golenischeff’s translation of the original papyrus in

the Imperial Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

[d] HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS, _The History of the Art of Writing_.

[e] CLAUDIUS ÆLIANUS, _The Variable History of Ælianus_ (translated

from the Greek by A. Fleming).

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS

[b] HERODOTUS, _History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[c] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

APPENDIX B. THE PROBLEM OF EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY

[b] EDUARD MEYER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[c] A. MARIETTE, _Aperçu de l’histoire d’Égypte_.

A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY

BASED ON THE WORKS QUOTED, CITED, OR EDITORIALLY CONSULTED IN THE

PREPARATION OF THE PRESENT HISTORY, WITH CRITICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

In the preparation of the present work the editors have had occasion

to consult a very large number of books, in addition to those actually

quoted. Not all of these are here listed; neither is any effort made

to have the present bibliography complete in other respects. Many

names of recent works that might easily be added are purposely omitted

because of the facility with which the student will come upon them.

On the other hand, a good many works are included because their very

obscurity would lead to their being overlooked. Some of these had

great importance in their day, and must be looked to by any one who

would appreciate the history of development and research in this

field. Others had at best only incidental importance, yet should not

be quite forgotten. Brief critical estimates are in many cases added

to orientate the would-be investigator; and in the case of the more

important authorities, biographical notes are also appended.

* * * * *

=Adams=, W. M., The Mystery of Ancient Egypt. The New Review, 1893; The

House of the Hidden Places. London, 1895.--=Ælianus=, Claudius, The

Variable History of Ælianus. London, 1576.

_Claudius Ælianus_ was a Roman citizen who lived in the second

century A.D., the exact date being uncertain. Though a Roman, he

preferred Greek to Latin, and wrote all his works in the former

language. He has been denominated the “honey-tongued,” from the

character of his style, and the “sophist,” from his teaching

rhetoric. Two of his works are still extant: the _Varia Historia_,

from which our excerpts are taken, and a book on natural history,

which enjoyed great repute in later classical and mediæval times.

Both of these works are written apparently without system, though

the author himself declared that it was his intention to shift from

one topic to another to keep up the reader’s interest. The work

on natural history, having of course no other than an antiquarian

interest in modern times, has never been translated; but the

_Varia Historia_ has been rendered into English twice; the quaint

old translation of Fleming, made in 1576, being the one which we

select for our excerpts. The value of this work depends largely

upon the fact that it is made up from the writings of still more

ancient historians whose works are mainly lost.

=Amélineau=, E., La Géographie de l’Égypte à l’époque copte. Paris,

1893; Résumé de l’histoire de l’Égypte. Paris, 1894; Les nouvelles

fouilles d’Abydos, Angero; Les Moines égyptiens. Paris, 1890; La morale

égyptienne. Paris, 1892; Les idées morales dans l’Égypte ancienne.

Paris, 1895; Essai sur l’évolution historique et philosophique

des idées morales dans l’Égypte ancienne. Paris, 1896; Histoire

de la sépulture et des funérailles dans l’ancienne Égypte. Paris,

1896.--=Anonymous=, Ausführliches Verzeichniss der aegyptischen

Altertümer, Gipsabgüsse und Papyrus der Berl. Samml. Berlin, 1894.

* * * * *

=Batten=, S. H., Pharaoh of the Exodus. Melbourne, 1880.--=Bénédite=,

G., Le temple de Philæ. Paris, 1895.--=Berkley=, E., Pharaohs and

their People. London, 1884.--=Birch=, S., Records of the Past. London,

18 vols., 1873; Egypt to 300 B.C. London, 1875; Two Tablets of the

Ptolemaic Period (Archeologia, vol. 39). London, 1863.

_Dr. Samuel Birch_ was born in London, 3rd November, 1813;

died there 27th December, 1885. He was a scholar of recognised

profundity and also of remarkable versatility. He went early to the

British Museum in the department of antiquities, his specialty at

that time being Chinese. Later on he became chief of the department

of antiquities, including oriental, classical, mediæval, and early

British archæology. He became recognised as an expert in all these

departments, and his publications cover almost the entire range of

archæology. He was an innovator in both Assyriology and Egyptology.

In the latter field his publications are many and varied, one of

the most important being his Grammar of the Egyptian Language,

which was incorporated with the great work on Egyptian history by

Baron Bunsen. As the science of Egyptology was then in a transition

state, this and the other works of Dr. Birch are of course now

superseded, though by no means rendered valueless. One of the

most important editorial tasks of Dr. Birch was the bringing out

of a series known as _The Records of the Past_, which consisted

of translations from Egyptian and Assyrio-Babylonian records.

Dr. Birch himself contributed several of these. He also had the

distinction of being the first translator of the Egyptian Book of

the Dead. To some extent Dr. Birch suffered from his versatility;

being known in so many fields, he is not thought of pre-eminently

in connection with any one of them, but he will always be

remembered as an innovator in the field of Egyptology.

=Bokh=, A., Manetho und die Hundstern-Periode. Berlin,

1845.--=Borchardt=, Zur Geschichte der Pyramiden, Ztschr. für Aegypt.

Spr., 1894.--=Boudier=, E., Vers égyptiens, métrique démotique. Paris,

1897.--=Breasted=, I. H., De hymnis in solem sub rege Amenophide

IV conceptis. Berlin, 1894.--=Brimmer=, M., Egypt. Three Essays on

the History, Religion, and Art of Egypt. Boston, 1891.--=Brugsch=,

H. C., Geschichte Aegyptens unter den Pharaonen. Leipsic, 1877, 2

vols. Genesis of the Earth and of Man. London, 1880. Die aegyptischen

Altertümer in Berlin. Berlin, 1857. Recueil des monuments égyptiens.

Leipsic, 1862-1863. Dictionnaire géographique de l’ancienne Égypte.

Leipsic, 1877-1880. Thesaurus inscriptionum ægyptiarum. Leipsic,

1883-1891. Religion und Mythologie der alten aegypter. Leipsic, 1890.

Die aegyptologie, Abriss der Entzifferungen und Forschungen. Leipsic,

1891.

_Heinrich Carl Brugsch_ was born at Berlin, 1827; died there, 1894.

He belonged to that rather large company of German investigators,

who are at once scholars and diplomatists. His residence in Egypt

was not as an ordinary tourist or investigator, but as an officer

of the Egyptian Government, with the title of Bey and later of

Pasha. Like his famous countrymen, Niebuhr and Bunsen, before him,

he found time in the midst of official duties for a wide range of

scholarly activities, and he soon became known, not only as one

of the foremost Egyptologists, but as incomparably the highest

authority on one form of the Egyptian writing, namely, the demotic.

His _History of Egypt under the Pharaohs_, derived entirely from

the monuments, is a work of the most standard authority. It is,

in the main, a work rather for the scholar than for the general

public; but it is by no means without popular interest, and,

notwithstanding its bulk, it has been translated into English.

The reader will recall that we have based our chronology upon the

system of Dr. Brugsch,--a system confessedly artificial, which,

however, meets the difficulties of the subject perhaps better than

any other yet devised.

=Budge=, E. A. W., The Book of the Dead. London, 1895; Egyptian Ideas

of the Future Life. London, 1899; Egyptian Magic. London, 1899; The

Mummy: Chapters on Egyptian Funeral Archæology. Cambridge, 1893; Egypt

in the Neolithic and Archaic Periods. London and New York, 1902.

_Ernest A. Wallis Budge_, M.A., Litt.D., D.Lit., F.S.A., Keeper of

Assyrian and Egyptian Antiquities, British Museum. Dr. Budge has at

once the profundity and the versatility of his famous predecessor

at the British Museum, Dr. Birch. The list of his writings on

oriental archæology is much too long to be cited in full here.

Among other things he has put would-be students of the subject

under lasting obligations by preparing an elementary treatise on

the Egyptian language, and following it up with a more advanced

work for the use of the student, He has also made an elaborate

translation of the Book of the Dead, utilising the recent advances

in the knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphics to improve upon the

former translations. His latest work in this field is a popular

history of Egypt, in eight volumes, published at London, 1902. In

addition to his recognised profound scholarship, Dr. Budge has in

a high degree the capacity for literary presentation, and he has

not felt himself above considering the needs of the unscholarly

public and of the beginner in oriental studies. Thus his catalogue

of Egyptian antiquities at the British Museum, which is ostensibly

only a guide-book to the collection there, is in itself a work of

real literary merit, which would serve as a valuable introduction

to the study of archæology even if placed in the hands of students

who have not access to the collection which it specifically

describes.

=Bunsen=, C. K. J., Egypt’s Place in Universal History. London,

1848-1867.

_Baron Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen_ was born at Korbach,

Germany, 25th August, 1791, and died at Bonn, 28th November,

1860. Baron Bunsen had the original instincts of the scholar,

as proved by his numerous writings; but it was his fate to be

shifted early in life from the field of professional scholarship

to that of the diplomatist, and his researches were carried

on under somewhat disadvantageous circumstances. He had come

early under the influence of Niebuhr, and had planned a life of

scholarship; but becoming the tutor of Frederick William III, and

being advanced through royal influence to a diplomatic post in

Rome, and afterwards in London, he came to be more widely known

as a diplomatist and statesman than as a scholar. Nevertheless,

he contributed much to a popular knowledge of history, through

his _Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte_, and its English

translation as above. It had a wide circulation, and did perhaps

more than almost any other single work to popularise the relatively

new subject of Egyptology. His _Gott in der Geschichte_ (God in

History) also had great popularity. The eminently philosophical

character of these writings is valued even at the present day,

though it must be conceded that the point of view regarding many

of the subjects treated has quite radically changed in the past

half century. It follows that the interest in Baron Bunsen’s books

must to a large extent be antiquarian rather than historical at the

present day, though they cannot be ignored by any one who wishes

to have a full comprehension of the growth and development of the

science of Egyptology.

* * * * *

=Cailliaud=, F., Travels in the Oases of Thebes. London,

1829.--=Casanova=, Memoirs on the History and Archæology of

Egypt.--=Chabas=, J. F., in Birch’s _Records of the Past_. London,

1873, 12 vols.; Étude sur l’antiquité historique. Paris, 1873; Mélanges

Égyptologiques. Châlons, 1863-1873.

_Joseph François Chabas_ was born 2nd January, 1817, in Briançon;

died 17th May, 1882, at Versailles. He was a specialist in

Egyptology, who wrote widely and was recognised as an authority

of importance. He is best known to the English reader through

certain translations, notably of the inscriptions on the obelisks,

published in Birch’s _Records of the Past_. He produced no general

historical work, such as would have brought his name before the

public at large, and hence he is less familiarly known than many

other Egyptologists of less worth.

=Chaillé-Long=, C., L’Égypte et ses provinces perdues. Paris,

1892.--=Champollion=, J. F., L’Égypte sous les Pharaohs. Paris, 1814;

Descriptions de l’Égypte, etc.; De l’écriture hiératiques des anciens

Égyptiens. Paris, 1824; Précis du Système Hiéroglyphique des anciens

Égyptiens. Paris, 1824, 2 vols.; Monuments de l’Égypte et de la Nubie.

Paris, 1835-1845, 4 vols.

_Jean François Champollion_ was born at Figéac, Lot, France, 23rd

December, 1790; died at Paris, 4th March, 1832. Champollion’s

work has received comprehensive attention in our text (see

Egypt, Chapter XI) in connection with the interpretation of the

hieroglyphics, in which work Champollion was an innovator of the

first rank. His fame rests chiefly upon this accomplishment, but

his entire life was devoted to Egyptology, and he would have been

remembered always as one of the fathers of the science, even

had he not been the chief originator in the particular work of

interpreting the hieroglyphics. Naturally much of his work has been

superseded by more recent investigations. This must be true, in the

nature of things, of the work of any innovator in science; but, as

we have seen, the whole modern science of Egyptology rests securely

on the foundation which Champollion laid.

=Charmes=, G., L’Égypte archéol. hist. lit. Paris, 1891.--=Chesney=,

I., The Land of the Pyramids. London, 1884.--=Clot-Beg=, A. B., Aperçu

général sur l’Égypte. Paris, 1840; De la peste observée en Égypte.

Paris, 1840; Description de l’Égypte; Coup d’œil sur la peste et les

quarantaines. Paris, 1851.--=Cook=, F. C., Records of the Past. London,

1873, 18 vols.--=Cooper=, W. A., Short History of Egyptian Monuments.

London, 1876.--=Cory=, I. P., Ancient Fragments of Phœnician, Chaldean,

Egyptian, and other writers. London, 1826, second edition, 1832.

This work has been revised by E. Richmond Hodges in an edition

published in 1876, containing some improvements but lacking the

original Greek and Latin texts. The work is purely a compilation

consisting solely of fragmentary remains of various classical

authors. It gathers into a single work a great variety of matter,

much of which was hitherto inaccessible to the average scholar;

fragments, many of which give us an interesting view of various

historical characters. We shall have occasion to quote some of

these excerpts in other connections. The original work contained

certain Neo-Platonic forgeries known as the Oracles of Zoroaster,

the Hermetic Creed, and the Orphic and Pythagorean fragments

which are discarded by the editor of the new edition as being of

doubtful authenticity and little value. Even these, however, have

an antiquarian interest, and the fact that the excerpts are given

in the original languages as well as in the translation, makes the

earlier edition of the work, as published by Cory himself, still

particularly valuable.

=Cougny=, G., L’art antique (L’Égypte, etc.) Paris, 1891.--=Cusieri=,

Storia fisica e politicia dell’ Egitto delle prime memorie de suoi

abitanti al 1842. Florence, 1862, 2 vols.

* * * * *

=Daressy=, I., Contribution a l’étude de la 21ème dynastie égyptienne

in Rev. Archéol. 3e serie 27.--=Davis=, Ch. H. S., The Book of the

Dead. New York; Egyptian Mythology. In Biblia, VI, 9.--=Daunou=, P.

C. F., Cours d’études historiques. Paris, 1842, 20 vols.--=Diodorus

Siculus=, The Historical Library. London, 1700.