will be but empty sounds. We will therefore give an explanation of them,
in accordance with our promise to be intelligible even to the general
reader. Let us adhere as closely as possible to the statement of Lepsius
himself!--In the Egyptian heavens was visible a sidereal phenomenon
which in a very remarkable manner corresponded perfectly, except for a
mere trifle, to the Julian year of three hundred and sixty-five and a
quarter days. It continued for more than three thousand years, and in
fact was precisely coeval with the duration of the Egyptian empire. This
was the heliacal rising of Sirius; that is, the reappearance of Sirius,
the brightest fixed star, before sunrise. For a time this star was
invisible, on account of its rising simultaneously with the sun. The
early rise of which we speak occurred regularly one day later at the
expiration of every four (civil) years of three hundred and sixty-five
days, which was the simple basis on which the Egyptian calendar had been
established at an early period. Thus when the New Year’s day of the
fixed year of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days fell upon
the first of the New Year’s month (Thot) of the civil year of three
hundred and sixty-five days, then, after four fixed years, it fell upon
the second of the New Year’s month, Thot, after 2 × 4 upon the third,
after 3 × 4 upon the fourth of Thot, and so on. After 365 × 4, that is,
when, after one thousand four hundred and sixty fixed years, it had run
through all the days of the civil year, the next New Year’s day of the
fixed year fell once more upon the first of the New Year’s month Thot,
and the two forms of the year had thus readjusted themselves, so that
one thousand, four hundred and sixty fixed years of three hundred and
sixty-five and a quarter days were exactly equivalent to one thousand,
four hundred and sixty-one civil years of three hundred and sixty-five
days. We cannot here take cognizance of the slight error which resulted
from the fact that the true solar year does not exactly amount to three
hundred and sixty-five days and six hours, but only to three hundred and
sixty-five days, five hours, forty-eight minutes and forty-eight
seconds; nor can we now speak of the compensation therefor. In any case,
it follows from what has been said that the Egyptians, during their
whole history, had in their year of Sirius, computed according to the
heliacal or early ascension of that star, the most perfect sidereal
model ever possessed by any nation for their simple annual reckoning of
the year of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days. Therefore
Lepsius is right when he maintains that the Egyptians had a perfectly
exact astronomical period in the Sothiac cycle of 4 × 365; that is, in
the one thousand, four hundred and sixty years of Sirius, during which
the civil year, shorter by a quarter of a day, readjusted itself by
being renewed one thousand four hundred and sixty-one times.
Thus closes, on page 240, this full and noble introduction. The review
of the authorities then begins. After a preliminary survey of these,
Herodotus and Diodorus undergo a searching criticism, which proves the
uselessness of these authors for chronological purposes. In the
subsequent chapters Lepsius exerts himself to show the relation of the
Egyptian to the ancient Hebrew chronology, and he rightly applies to the
Biblical reckoning the same rules of criticism which he has employed in
regard to that contained in secular writings. In so doing he proceeds on
the sole tenable principle that the truth discovered in the course of
the healthy development of any science cannot be opposed to Christian
truth, but must rather promote it. “For all the truths in the world,” he
says, “have from the very beginning presented a union and solidarity
against all untruth and error. But in order scientifically to separate
truth from error in any department, theology possesses no other method
than that which belongs to every other science; namely, rational and
cautious criticism. Whatever this may affirm, it is only possible to
amend or refute by a criticism which is still better and more cautious.”
To him, as to us, the practical religious significance which the Old
Testament must have for every Christian reader, seems to have no
connection with the recorded dates regarding early periods of time of
which the authors and compilers of those Scriptures could have had no
exact knowledge, except by means of a purposeless inspiration.
“Science must be pursued with reverence and freedom.” With these
beautiful words of Bunsen, Lepsius agreed, and he demanded reverence for
all that was venerable, holy, noble, great and well-proved, and claimed
freedom wherever it was a question of attaining and declaring the truth
and his own conviction thereof. This noble principle he also impressed
upon his disciples, and we would like to recall it to the memory of
those younger men who, in our day, so readily absolve themselves from
all that goes by the name of “reverence,” and hold themselves so much
the greater and stronger if they can succeed in shaking that which is
established, in detecting a blemish upon greatness, or discerning a spot
upon the source of light. They have received criticism as an
inheritance; but there is only too good foundation for the complaint
often repeated by Lepsius, that by them the noblest of all weapons is
wielded sacrilegiously, and with special delight for the purposes of
destruction. They can learn from the Master, who prescribed the method
for a whole science, and aided to erect its mighty edifice, that it is
possible to practise reverence and gratitude, and yet maintain one’s own
opinion with manly independence, and attack error with the sharpest
criticism.
The last and perhaps the most important portion of the “Chronology” is
occupied with Manetho and the authorities which can be traced back to
him, and also with the relation of these authorities to each other. A
special chapter is also devoted to Eratosthenes and Apollodorus.
This work embraces the whole foundation of Egyptian chronology, and
indicates the methods according to which all chronological
investigations, no matter in what direction, should be conducted. The
detached historical-chronological researches on special subjects[70]
which followed the “Chronology” are so many model specimens of the
consistent application of this method.
In the “Chronology” itself the fine and thorough humanistic training of
its author is manifested in a specially happy manner. There are modern
scholars who, as students, confine themselves to their special
provinces, and, peasant-like, do not look beyond the space where they
plow and sow and reap. These may learn from Lepsius how, without
straying too far afield, it may yet be possible to establish a
connection between that which they themselves have gained, and the
acquisitions which have been made in other and kindred departments of
science. They may observe how details can be treated in the most
thorough and fundamental manner, without losing cognizance of the whole.
Lepsius was an able philologist, linguist, archaeologist and historian,
before he became an Egyptologist. From an acquaintance with the main
principles of science, and from broad generalities, he descended
gradually and without a break to a knowledge of the separate parts.
Vulgar learning amasses the material of knowledge, and leaves all that
has been thus acquired heaped together in confusion; genuine learning
proceeds from the general to the special, connects the details with the
whole, and always subjects the former to the latter. It was thus that
the scientific activity of Lepsius was exercised, and if we inquire what
it was that elevated him above even the most industrious and ingenious
of his fellow workers, we find that he owed his lofty position to his
truly scientific method of development, research and work. This makes
his productions a true system of learning, in contrast with the
knowledge amassed by so many others who have labored without regard to
the general principles animating the whole.
Thence, too, it results that his “Chronology” is available for every
purpose, and is employed as a guide and source of instruction, not only
by the Egyptologist, but also by every historian who wishes to devote
himself to the study, either of the chronology of all nations, or of any
special people. Although many of the details of this work may have
become disputable and untenable in consequence of the latest advances
of science, yet for all time to come it must remain the starting point
whence all investigations in this domain are forced to proceed.
In spite of the manifold and profound researches on which this work was
based, and in spite of the time and strength demanded by the editing of
the “Monuments,” Lepsius, during the years following his return to his
native land, himself superintended the embellishment of those rooms in
the new museum at Berlin which were destined to hold the Egyptian
collection. He also attended personally to the arrangement and
cataloguing of the collection. He took peculiar pleasure in this work,
and pursued it with indefatigable zeal.
The aged Passalacqua, a man eager for knowledge, had gone to Egypt in
the capacity of a merchant, and had afterwards made himself acquainted,
as a dillettante, with the discoveries and works of Champollion. He now
filled, “conscientiously and with pleasure to himself,” the post of
superintendent of the collection of monuments and relics which he had
brought from the Nile. Frederick William IV. in buying his collection
had taken him with it into the bargain; no one wished to remove him from
his position, and thus it came to pass that Lepsius could only be
appointed co-director in 1855, and it was not until 1865, that he was
appointed chief superintendent.
The Berlin collection of Egyptian antiquities consisted of the
collections of v. Minutoli, Passalacqua, v. Koller and Bartholdy. Prior
to its removal to the new museum it had been lodged in the palace of
Monbijou, and while there had received many additions, especially by the
purchase of the third collection of Drovetti. This man, who had been
French consul-general at Alexandria under Napoleon I., had some time
before collected the rich stores which now form the Egyptian museum at
Turin. (See pages 93 and 132.) He had already sold another smaller
collection, (See page 97), to King William IV., upon the solicitation of
Lepsius and in consequence of his intervention. Bunsen only concluded
the purchase in 1837, as the authorized agent of that prince. In 1839,
there was added to the Berlin collection that of the state-counsellor
Saulnier at Paris, and in 1843, that of d’Athanasi at London. From the
pamphlet published in 1880, entitled “History of the Royal Museum at
Berlin,”[71] and from the portion of the same dedicated to Dr. S. Stern
of the Egyptian department, we learn that there were already five
thousand numbers in that department in the year 1849, that is, previous
to the incorporation of the treasures which Lepsius sent home from
Egypt.
The expedition whose travels and labors we have recorded had sent home
not less than fifteen thousand Egyptian antiquities and plaster casts.
Especially valuable among these were the three tombs already mentioned
from the necropolis of ancient Memphis on the plain of the pyramids at
el-Gizeh, as well as many sculptures and inscriptions from other tombs
of the Old Kingdom. The colored portraits of Amenophis I. and his
celebrated mother Nefertari, long worshipped as divine, are also of
great importance. These the expedition took, together with the fragment
upon which they were painted, from a tomb. They also took a pillar from
the tomb of Seti I. Both of these monuments came from Thebes. With them
and with a column taken from the temple of Philae was connected the
reproach brought against the expedition of having destroyed venerable
monuments to further their own special purposes. Against this accusation
we have hitherto defended the expedition in perfectly good faith, but
unfortunately, as far as the pillar from the splendid tomb of Seti was
concerned, there was some foundation for the charge. Of the other
acquisitions of Lepsius we will also name an obelisk and many columns
from tombs, a portrait in relief of Thothmes III., a colossal bust of
King Horus, the naophore statue of Prince Setau-an, an altar from
Ben-Naga, and, in addition, the ram sphinx from Mount Boreal mentioned
on page 156. Together with these were numerous monuments from Meroë,
many of which were covered with those Ethiopian-demotic inscriptions,
the key to which is still wanting. He also sent home several beautiful
sarcophagi of stone and wood, the tablet of Moschion, with a
Greek-demotic inscription, many bricks with the stamp of the Pharaohs of
the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, and finally, in addition to
numerous lesser relics, valuable papyri.
The casts taken by the expedition while on the Nile were intended to
complete the collection of casts begun by the advice of Lepsius. Large
and fortunate additions were afterwards made to this collection, and its
founder always, and with justice, attributed great importance to it. By
means of these casts it was possible to supply in an available and
desirable manner the inevitable deficiencies with respect to an
historical sequence of the original monuments. Other museums imitated
that of Berlin in instituting collections of casts. The finishing and
painting of the halls which had been renovated for the Egyptian
collection were begun and completed under the superintendence of
Lepsius, who had entire liberty in the matter. In every respect it was
done to correspond with those ideas and wishes which he had already
expressed in Cairo. All the demands of the Egyptian style were observed
in the three halls at his disposal, and the walls, pillars and ceilings
received that decorative and highly-colored pictorial ornament with
which the temples and tombs of the time of the Pharaohs are adorned. The
most interesting pictures from the tombs and sanctuaries on the Nile
were reproduced here, and Ernest Weidenbach, upon whom devolved the
execution of the multitude of paintings selected and arranged by
Lepsius, performed the task with that delicate feeling for the
characteristics of Egyptian style which was peculiar to himself. They
had at their disposal the rooms situated in the northern half of the
ground floor of the new museum. The entrance leads immediately into the
anteroom, where a column from Philae with a palm capital is stationed.
If one turns thence towards the hall adjoining on the right, one has
before him a series of rooms which can in some measure represent the
chief divisions of an Egyptian temple; vestibule, hypostyle and
sanctuary. In an Egyptian temple the court was usually surrounded by
colonnades, whose architraves contained the dedication of the building.
In the midst stood an altar. Behind these sacred halls there were
smaller rooms, the last of which, in the axis of the building, was the
sanctuary containing the statue of the god of the temple. In a general
way the rooms of the Berlin Egyptian collection correspond to this
customary arrangement. They contain the court, covered with glass and
surrounded by columns, the hypostyle adjoining, and the cella in the
background. At the side of this central temple lie three main rooms; to
the right are the mythological hall and the hall of tombs, while the
historical hall extends along the whole length of the left side.
Let us turn first to those rooms situated on the right and towards the
east; these are the mythological hall and the hall of tombs. In the
former are arranged the sarcophagi and coffins, and the spectator is
there impressed by that serious mood so easily awakened in our souls by
objects which remind us solely of death. There he finds himself in the
company of the gods, and every picture on the walls relates to them, and
is connected with the mythological tenets of the most religious of all
peoples. The divine constellations of the Egyptian heavens look down
upon the visitor from the ceiling, as in the great passages of the rock
tombs and the consecrated halls of the temples. Every picture has its
astronomical and mythological significance. In the rear portion of this
space, which is partitioned off, is the hall of tombs, and here are the
tomb chambers from Memphis, and the other monuments of the Old Kingdom.
The middle hall is divided into the portico, the hypostylic hall, and
the sanctuary of an Egyptian temple. The portico, which lies to the
south, and which in Egypt is covered only by the bright blue arch of
heaven, is intended to arouse in the spectator the sensation of being
still in the open air. Therefore the beautiful landscapes with which
modern artists have adorned the walls, and which remind us of the most
remarkable localities and the sites of the most venerable monuments of
Egypt, are extremely appropriate here, where are also grouped the
colossal statues and sepulchral stele. In the hypostylic portion of this
hall the paintings transport us among the subjects of the Pharaohs, and
numerous illustrations of the private life of the old Egyptians make us
familiar with the high and peculiar culture which took root and
blossomed in the valley of the Nile much earlier than in any other spot
on earth. Carefully-selected papyri are hung on the walls of this room.
In the sanctuary, which lies altogether to the north, stands the statue
of King Horus.
The third or historic hall, (to the left or west,) is adorned with
pictures connected with the history of the kingdom of the Pharaohs, and
also with representations of battles by land and water. The long series
of ovals inscribed with the names of the old royal rulers of the Nile
valley in hieroglyphics, form a suitable decoration, and attract the eye
of all who are desirous of knowledge. Those monuments which are
distinguished for their historical importance are arranged here in order
according to the time of their origin. The plaster casts are in a
special room beside the vestibule, and are beginning more and more to
overflow it.
If the Egyptian museum in Berlin has long been among the most famous in
the world, on account of the wealth of treasures there preserved, it has
also gained a value peculiar to itself from the historical ideas
introduced and carried out by Lepsius. There we see exhibited the
artistic epochs of Egyptian history arranged in groups according to
their chronological succession. Yet at the same time the effort to keep
together objects which are mutually connected, such as sarcophagi and
coffins, has been successful. Also, where it was necessary to form
distinct divisions, the historical method has been applied within the
limits of each separate group.
There can be but one opinion as to the propriety and the scientific
advantages of Lepsius’ historical method of classification; but the
decoration of the rooms in the Berlin museum by no means meets with such
universal approbation. It is indeed conceded that it is in the best
possible taste, and is both beautiful and attractive, but it is
maintained by many people that the pictorial representation on the
walls, that is, the accessories, draw the attention of the visitor too
strongly and distract him from the contemplation of the monuments, which
are certainly the real objects of importance.
There is some reason for this objection; but yet these pictures serve
the immediate purpose of bringing visitors to the collection and it is
this very decoration of the Berlin-Egyptian museum which renders it
peculiarly attractive.
Whoever goes there with any knowledge of the monuments will pay
attention to them, and not to the decorations of the hall. But the
layman will there become interested in the culture and artistic ability
of the old Egyptians, as he would not do in a museum where the monuments
stand in bare halls, and have to speak entirely for themselves. The
pictures attract him, and at the same time introduce him to Egyptian
antiquity. They make him familiar, in a trustworthy manner, with the
Egyptian civilization from whose soil have sprung the works of art there
assembled. They teach him to understand the connection between these and
the organic whole of which they are the separate parts, and, in many
cases, the most beautiful blossoms. In one place there are pictorial
representations, and in another monuments, to direct and instruct the
visitor so that he may comprehend every stage of the development of this
great whole. Whoever enters these rooms with a mind open and alert will
soon perceive the relation between the decorative pictures and the
monuments, and will easily succeed in connecting them with the
departments of Egyptian life and activity to which they belong. He will
transport the coffin, upon which he can lay his hands, into the funeral
procession shown him in the painting; when he gazes up at a colossus he
will place it mentally in that spot at the temple gate where it really
belongs, according to the picture on the wall. Indeed, the decorative
paintings will show him the Egyptian artist at his work, and the prince
whose monument stands before him upon his war chariot in the tumult of
battle. They will make him familiar with the gods who are mentioned in
the hieroglyphic texts of coffins, stele and papyri. Thus these
paintings possess great value for instructive and illustrative purposes,
apart from the attraction which they present to the eye, and the
appearance, as peculiar as it is pleasing, which they lend to the halls
of the museum. Therefore we would not willingly be without them. He, who
permits himself to be distracted from the monuments by them, will yet
not have visited the museum in vain, but will have learned something
authentic and interesting concerning Egyptian antiquity.
By the beginning of the year 1850 the arrangement of the Egyptian relics
in the new museum was completed, and after Passalacqua’s death, when
Lepsius had officially assumed the management of the collection, he
caused Ernest Weidenbach to be employed as assistant in the Egyptian
department. He also immediately drew up a full description of the
pictures on the walls,[72] for the use of visitors to the museum, and
afterwards prepared a little catalogue.[73] In 1878, he had the larger
monuments furnished with short explanatory labels. After his appointment
as chief librarian he nominated Dr. L. Stern as first assistant
superintendent. Dr. Stern aided him in all his labors concerning the
museum with diligence, judgment and technical knowledge; he was an able
Egyptologist and had a thorough knowledge of the Coptic language. The
Egyptian collection received continual additions under the direction of
Lepsius, and the complaisance with which he placed its treasures at the
service of foreign scholars was universally recognized.
As an academical instructor Lepsius also manifested the high
intellectual qualities and admirable ability peculiar to himself. His
first lecture was delivered on the twenty-ninth of October, 1846, and
related to the condition of Egyptological science in France and Italy,
compared with what had been accomplished on the same field in Germany.
It went off excellently, and amongst his hundred auditors appeared
officials of high rank and military men. As his lectures proceeded he
took advantage on their account of the collection intrusted to his care,
and we remember with pleasure the weekly lectures which he read amongst
the monuments in the halls of the museum. The special discourses
delivered in the directors room were usually succeeded by rambles
through the museum, as instructive as they were interesting.