fallen into disuse, it happened, at length, that the signification
of the characters, and even the nature of the system of writing
which they formed, became entirely lost; such notices on the subject
as existed in the early historians being either too imperfect,
or appearing too vague, to furnish a clue, although frequently
and carefully studied for the purpose. The repossession of this
knowledge will form, in literary history, one of the most remarkable
distinctions, if not the principal, of the age in which we live.
It is due primarily to the discovery by the French, during their
possession of Egypt, of the since well-known monument called the
Rosetta Stone, which, on their defeat and expulsion by the British
troops, remained in the hands of the victors, was conveyed to
England, and deposited in the British Museum. On this monument
the same inscription is repeated in the Greek and in the Egyptian
language, being written in the latter both in hieroglyphics and
in the demotic or enchorial character. The words Ptolemy and
Cleopatra, written in hieroglyphics, and recognized by means of
the corresponding Greek of the Rosetta inscription, and by a Greek
inscription on the base of an obelisk at Philæ, gave the phonetic
characters of the letters which form those words: by their means the
names were discovered, in hieroglyphic writing, on other monuments of
all the Grecian kings and Grecian queens of Egypt, and of fourteen
of the Roman emperors ending with Commodus; and by the comparison
of these names one with another, the value of all the phonetic
characters was finally ascertained.
The hieroglyphic alphabet thus made out has been subsequently
applied to the elucidation of the earlier periods of Egyptian
history, particularly in tracing the reigns and the succession of
the Pharaohs, those native princes who governed Egypt at the period
of its splendour; when its monarchy was the most powerful among the
nations of the earth; its people the most advanced in learning, and
in the cultivation of the arts and sciences; and which has left, as
its memorials, constructions more nearly approaching to imperishable,
than any other of the works of man, which have been the wonder of
every succeeding people, and which are now serving to re-establish,
at the expiration of above 3000 years, the details of [p179] its
long-forgotten history. To trace these stupendous monuments of art
to their respective founders, and thus to fix, approximatively, at
least, the epoch of their first existence, is a consequence of the
restoration of the knowledge of the alphabet and the language of the
inscriptions engraven on them. We propose to review, briefly as our
limits require, the principal and most important facts that have thus
recently been made known in regard to those early times; and shall
deem ourselves most fortunate if we can impart to our readers but
a small portion of the interest which we have ourselves derived in
watching their progressive discovery.
The following are the authors to whom we are chiefly indebted for
the few particulars we know of early Egyptian history. Herodotus
and Diodorus Siculus, Grecians, and foreigners in Egypt. Manetho, a
native; and Eratosthenes, by birth a Cyrenean, a province bordering
on Egypt, both residents. Josephus, a Jew, and Africanus, Eusebius,
and Syncellus, Christians, Greek authors. Herodotus visited Egypt
four centuries and a half before Christ, and within a century after
its conquest by the Persians. In his relation of the affairs of
the Greeks and Persians, he has introduced incidentally a sketch
of the early history of Egypt, such as he learnt it from popular
tradition, and from information obtained from the priests. It is,
however, merely a sketch, particularly of the earlier times; and
is further recorded by Josephus to have been censured by Manetho
for its incorrectness. Diodorus is also understood to have visited
Egypt about half a century before Christ; and from him we have a
similar sketch to that of Herodotus; a record of the names of the
most distinguished kings, and for what they were distinguished;
but with intervals, of many generations and of uncertain duration,
passed without notice. Manetho was a priest of Heliopolis in Lower
Egypt, a city of the first rank amongst the sacred cities of ancient
Egypt, and long the resort of foreigners as the seat of learning
and knowledge. He lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, two
centuries and a half before Christ, and wrote, by order of that
prince, the history of his own country in the Greek language,
translating it, as he states himself, out of the sacred records.
His work is, most unfortunately, lost; but the fragments which have
been preserved to us, by the writings [p180] of Josephus in the
first century of the Christian æra, and by the Greek authors above
named of the third and fourth centuries, contain matter, which, if
entitled to confidence, is of the highest historical value, _viz._,
a chronological list of the successive rulers of Egypt, from the
first foundation of monarchy, to Alexander of Macedon, who succeeded
the Persians. This list is divided into thirty dynasties, not all of
separate families; a memorable reign appearing in some instances to
commence a new dynasty, although happening in the regular succession.
It originally contained the length of reign as well as the name
of every king; but in consequence of successive transcriptions,
variations have crept in, and some few omissions also occur in
the record, as it has reached us through the medium of different
authors. The chronology of Manetho, adopted with confidence by some,
and rejected with equal confidence by others,—his name and his
information not being even noticed by some of the modern systematic
writers on Egyptian history,—has received the most unquestionable
and decisive testimony of its general fidelity by the interpretation
of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the existing monuments: so much
so, that by the accordance of the facts attested by these monuments
with the record of the historian, we have reason to expect the entire
restoration of the annals of the Egyptian monarchy antecedent to the
Persian conquest, and which, indeed, is already accomplished in part.
Before we pursue this part of our subject, we must conclude our
brief review of the original authorities in early Egyptian history,
by a notice of Eratosthenes. He was keeper of the Alexandrian
library in the reign of Ptolemy Evergetes, the successor to Ptolemy
Philadelphus, under whose reign Manetho wrote. Amongst the few
fragments of his works, which have reached us transmitted through
the Greek historians, is a catalogue of thirty-eight kings of
Thebes, commencing with Menes, (who is mentioned by the other
authorities also as the first monarch of Egypt,) and occupying by
their successive reigns 1055 years. These names are stated to have
been compiled from original records existing at Thebes, which city
Eratosthenes visited expressly to consult them. The names of the two
first kings in his catalogue are the same with the names of the two
first kings of the first dynasty of Manetho; but the [p181] remainder
of the catalogue presents no further accordance, either in the names
or in the duration of the reigns.
To return to Manetho:—amongst the monarchs of the original Egyptian
race there was one named by him Amenophis, (the eighth king of the
eighteenth dynasty,) of whom it is stated, in a note of Manetho’s
preserved by Syncellus, that he was the Egyptian king whom the Greeks
called Memnon. The statue of Memnon at Thebes, celebrated through
all antiquity for the melodious sounds which it was said to render
at sunrise, is identified in the present day by a multitude of Greek
inscriptions; one of which, in particular, records the attestation of
Publius Balbinus, who visited the ruins of Thebes in the suite of the
empress the wife of Adrian, to his having himself heard the “divine
sounds of Memnon or Phamenoph;” which latter name is Amenophis, with
the Egyptian masculine article φ prefixed, and omitting the Greek
termination. The hieroglyphics carved on the statue, and coeval
with its date, had been very carefully copied by the French whilst
in possession of Egypt, and were engraved in the splendid work, the
_Description de l’Egypte_, to which their researches had given rise.
These hieroglyphics contain the alphabetic characters Amnf (being the
initial vowel and all the consonants of the name Amenof) inclosed
within a ring; a distinction which had been previously observed to
take place with the names of the Roman emperors, and of the Grecian
kings and queens; and as the rings have hitherto been found to occur
in no other instance whatsoever than when containing the names and
titles of sovereigns, they are regarded as characteristic signs.
It should be remarked, that in the hieroglyphic writing, as in the
languages of other eastern nations most nearly connected with Egypt,
the vowels are often omitted, and when expressed, have not always a
fixed sound. The coincidence of the reading of the hieroglyphic name
with that recorded by Manetho, and with the Greek inscription on
the statue itself, was so far confirmatory of Manetho’s authority;
it was also highly interesting in the evidence it afforded of the
employment of the same hieroglyphic alphabet, that was in after
use in the times of the Ptolemies and the Cæsars, even in the very
early periods of the Egyptian monarchy; for the reign of Amenophis
was in the dynasty preceding that of Sesostris: it also indicated
the further [p182] advantage to be gained by the application of
the alphabet in decyphering other proper names, distinguished by
being inclosed in rings, existing on other statues, and in the more
ancient temples generally. Considerable progress had been made
in reading these, which in several instances had been found to
correspond with the names of the kings of the same and of subsequent
dynasties to Amenophis, as given by Manetho, when a most important
discovery was made of the existence of a genealogical record, in
hieroglyphics, of the titles of thirty-nine kings anterior to
Sesostris, chronologically arranged. We have already noticed that the
names and _titles_ of kings were distinguished by being inclosed in
rings; the ring containing the proper name being accompanied usually
by a second, inclosing certain other hieroglyphics, expressing the
title by which that particular king was designated; and it appears
probable that the kings of Egypt were distinguished by their titles
rather than by their names, since the same name recurs frequently
in different individuals, but the titles are all dissimilar; with
a single exception amongst the very many that have come under
observation, and in which the same title is common to two brothers.
The signification of the titles is yet obscure, except that they are
of the same general nature as is frequent in the East, such as “Sun
of the Universe,” &c.; but for the purpose of individualizing, the
sign is to us of the same value as the thing signified; and as other
monuments furnish the _names_ in connexion with the _titles_, we are
enabled to compare the succession evidenced by the titles with the
record of the historian, and thus to test the fidelity of the record.
The discovery of this hieroglyphic table was made by Mr. William
Banks in 1818, in excavating for the purpose of obtaining an accurate
ground-plan of the ruins of Abydus, near Thebes. On a side wall
of one of the innermost apartments, hieroglyphics were sculptured
inclosed in rings, ranged symmetrically in three horizontal rows,
each row having originally contained twenty rings, of which twelve
of the upper row, eighteen of the middle, and fourteen of the lower
row were still remaining, the others having been destroyed by the
breaking down of the wall. The hieroglyphics having been copied
and lithographed, it was speedily recognised that the rings in the
two upper rows consisted of titles only; with the exception of one
[p183] proper name, the last of the second row, since known to be
the name of the king whose title is the last in the succession, and
who was the fourth in reign and generation before Sesostris. The
third row was recognised to consist of one proper name and one title,
each repeated ten times, and alternating with each other: these are
since known to be the name and title of Sesostris, to whose reign
the construction of the table is with much probability ascribed. The
titles in the same row with that of the ancestor of Sesostris and
preceding it, have been identified on other monuments, coupled with
names which are those of the predecessors of the same king in the
list of Manetho.
It would exceed our limits, and it is not our purpose, to trace
in detail the successive steps by which the existence of each of
the kings of Manetho’s list, from the expulsion of the Phœnician
shepherds from Lower Egypt, and the consequent union of Upper and
Lower Egypt in a single monarchy, to the reign of Sesostris, has been
attested by the monuments. Suffice it to say, that the same number of
individuals as stated by Manetho, namely, eighteen, filling a space
of four centuries, are shown, by the monuments, to have reigned in
that interval, and to have borne the same relationship, as well as
succession, to each other, as is expressed by the historian: that,
of the eighteen names, eight in different parts of the list are read
on the monuments identically as in the historical record; and that
in regard to the names that are not identical, we have the testimony
of Manetho that some amongst the kings, Sesostris, for example, were
known by two and even by more names. The table of Abydus appears to
have been strictly a genealogical record; a record of generations, in
which view it is strictly accordant with the historian.
The period of the Egyptian annals on which this light has been
thrown, is precisely that which might have been selected in the
whole history of Egypt as the most desirable for such purpose.
Independently of its very high antiquity, it was the period of the
greatest splendour and power of the native Egyptian monarchy, and
of the highest (Egyptian) cultivation of the arts. The greater part
of the more ancient, and by far the most admirable in execution,
of the temples, palaces, and statues, which still attest by their
ruins their former magnificence, are the work of that age; and
the hieroglyphic inscriptions still [p184] extant on them, and
which, when not defaced by wanton injury, are almost as perfect
as when first executed, make known the reigns in which they were
respectively constructed, and frequently the purposes for which
they were designed. This is in itself no small achievement, when we
reflect that these extraordinary remains of ancient art were equally
the objects of vague wonderment in the times of the Roman emperors,
as they were in those of the generation preceding ourselves; but
that they are become to us objects of a more enlightened curiosity,
which they promise amply to repay, when the study that has already
made known their founders, shall reveal the signification of the
hieroglyphic histories, with which the walls of the palaces and
temples are covered. Already have we gained some very important
facts in regard to the condition, political and otherwise, of the
countries adjoining to Egypt at that early period. The monuments
of Nubia are covered with hieroglyphics, perfectly similar both in
form and disposition to those on the edifices at Thebes; the same
elements, the same formulæ, the same language; and the names of the
kings who elevated the most ancient amongst them, are those of the
princes who constructed the most ancient parts of the palace of
Karnac at Thebes. As far as Soleb on the Nile, 100 leagues to the
south of Philæ the extreme frontier of Egypt, are found constructions
bearing the inscriptions of an Egyptian king; evidencing that, during
the period of which we have been treating, Nubia was inhabited by
a people having the same language, the same belief, and the same
kings as Egypt. To the south of Soleb, and for more than 100 leagues
in ascending the Nile, in ancient Ethiopia, very recent travellers
have discovered the remains of temples, of the same general style
of architecture as those of Nubia and Egypt, decorated in the
same manner with hieroglyphics representing the same mythology,
and analogous to those of Egypt in the titles, and in the mode
of representing the names and titles, of the sovereigns. But the
proper names of the kings inscribed on the edifices of Ethiopia in
phonetic characters, have nothing in common with the proper names of
the Egyptian kings in the dynasties of Manetho; nor is one of the
Ethiopian names found either on the monuments of Nubia or of Egypt.
Thus there was a time when the civilized part of Ethiopia,—Meroe,
and the banks [p185] of the Nile between Dongola and Meroe,—were
inhabited by a people having language, writing, religion, and arts
similar to Egypt; but, in political dominion, independent of that
country, and ruled by kings of whom it does not appear that any
historical record whatsoever has come down to us.
The dates of the expulsion of the Phœnican shepherds from Egypt, and
of the reign of Sesostris, in years of the æra of our computation,
have been favourite subjects of discussion with chronologists:
Archbishop Usher fixed the former of these events in the year B. C.
1825; which would make the commencement of the reign of Sesostris
about B. C. 1483. The reign of Sesostris is connected with the
early Grecian chronology by the migration of Danaus, brother of
Sesostris, who, according to the Parian marbles, arrived in Greece
in 1485, which is a very few years earlier than the dates of Usher
would assign to that event. M. Champollion Figeac, brother of the M.
Champollion to whom the greater part of the discoveries made by the
interpretation of hieroglyphics are owing, himself a distinguished
chronologist, has assigned the year B.C. 1822 to the expulsion
of the Phœnicians, which Usher had placed in 1825: the date of
M. Champollion being derived from Manetho’s statement, that the
Phœnician invasion took place in the 700th year of the Sothiacal
period, _viz._, B.C. 2082, and that their dominion in Egypt continued
260 years. Historical accuracy may make it desirable, that the exact
year of the most ancient as well as of more modern events should be
determined, if it be possible: but for purposes of general interest,
and especially for comparison with the chronology of cotemporary
nations, which at that early period is in every case more unsettled
than the Egyptian, the period seems sufficiently determined. The
date before Christ 1822, pursued downwards through the dynasties
of Manetho, conducts with very close approximation to the known
period B.C. 525 of the conquest of Egypt by the Persians; and
intermediately, accords very satisfactorily with the dates, according
to the Bible chronology, of the conquest of Jerusalem in the reign of
Jeroboam by Shishak, king of Egypt, and of Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia
and Egypt, who made war against Sennacherib; these are the Sesonchis
of Manetho, and Sh.sh.n.k of hieroglyphic inscriptions on a temple at
Bubaste, and on one of the courts of the [p186] palace at Karnac,—and
the Taracus of Manetho, and T.h.r.k of hieroglyphic inscriptions
existing in Ethiopia and in Egypt[33].
In respect to the connexion of the events of the Jewish and Egyptian
histories, the period between the expulsion of the Phœnicians and the
reign of Sesostris possesses a peculiar interest, as being that of
the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, and of the Exodus. In the
history of Josephus, we have an extract from Manetho, in which this
latter event is expressly stated to have taken place under the father
of Sesostris, a king whose name, in Manetho’s list, is Amenophis,
(the third of that name,) and on the monuments Ramses. The date which
chronologists are generally agreed in assigning to the Exodus is
1491; that of the termination of the reign of Amenophis, according
to Champollion, is 1473, or, if the correction of his chronology
which we have suggested in a note be just, 1478: it is singular that
the difference of thirteen years (between 1491 and 1478) should be
precisely the duration of a very suspicious interval which Manetho
states to have taken place, after Amenophis had gone with his army
in pursuit of the Israelites; and during which interval neither the
king nor his army returned to [p187] Egypt, but are stated to have
been absent in Ethiopia. If the Exodus occurred during the reign of
any of the kings of the eighteenth dynasty, it could only have been
in the reign of the immediate predecessor of Sesostris; since his
conquests in Phœnicia, and his expeditions against the Assyrians and
Medes, must have brought him in contact with the Israelites, had they
been then residing in the Holy Land, so as at least to have caused
some mention to have been made in their history of the passages of so
great a conqueror. But presuming Amenophis, father and predecessor
of Sesostris, to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the wandering
of the Israelites in the desert for forty of the fifty-five years
ascribed to the reign of Sesostris, is a sufficient explanation
of his being unnoticed in the Jewish history; whilst the fact of
that nation having been subject to the Egyptians during the reign
of Ousirei, commencing 124 years before the death of Amenophis, is
attested by the paintings on the wall of one of the chambers of the
tomb of that king, discovered by Belzoni, and with which we are so
well acquainted by means of the model exhibited in England.
Whilst recalling to recollection the peculiar physiognomy of the Jews
pourtrayed in that tomb,—and which is as characteristic of their
present physiognomy as if it had been painted in the present age,
instead of above 3000 years ago,—the equally well characterized, but
very different physiognomy of the Phœnician shepherds, represented
on the monuments of the same period, is decisive of the error of
Josephus, who imagined the Jews and the Shepherds to be the same
people. The Phœnician shepherds, long the inveterate enemy of the
Egyptians, form a leading feature as captives, in the representations
of the exploits of the monarchs who conducted the warfare against
them. These people are always painted with blue eyes and light
hair; and it is not a little curious to see assembled on the wall
of the same apartment, different races, so distinctly characterised
as the Jew, the Phœnician, the Egyptian, and the Negro; the latter
in colour, and in the outline of the features, in painting and in
sculpture, precisely as at present; all, moreover, inhabitants of
countries not very distant from each other, and at a period when not
more than twelve or thirteen centuries had passed since all these
races had descended from a single parent. In the writings which
attempt to explain from natural causes [p188] the diversity of race
amongst mankind, much power has been ascribed to the effects of time
and climate: but the facts with which we are now becoming better
acquainted than before, do not appear to admit of explanation from
those circumstances. It is worthy of notice that the negro, and the
light-haired and blue-eyed people, the two races who might be deemed
at the greatest distance apart amongst the varieties of man, are,
equally with the intermediate Egyptians, the descendants of Ham.
Of the succession of kings in Manetho’s chronology, from Sesostris to
the Persian conquest, a space of nine centuries and a half, about one
half the names have been already identified on different monuments:
four of the Persian monarchs, subsequent to the conquest, have also
been traced in inscriptions in phonetic characters; their names
are written, as nearly as can be spelt with our letters, Kamboth,
(Cambyses); Ntariousch, (Darius); Khschearscha, (Xerxes); and
Artakschessch, (Artaxerxes.)