« PreviousContinue »
linen cloth, bound round the waist, and satisfy its readers as any that we descending nearly to the ankles. The know. It abounds in confident state. mantle and tunic were of wool, as their
ments, but is deficient in proofs. The stiff, heavy folds sufficiently indicate;
author promises to do much, but, in and must have been of fine texture, as the contour of the arms and chest is re
the present volume, he actually does presented as visible beneath the mantle.
very little. What he professes to do Their colours seem to set at rest the
in it is, indeed, almost exclusively, to difficult question as to the tint denoted lay down his method of action, to by the Tyrian dye. They are both pur
criticise bis authorities, and review ple and scarlet, and are so made ibat the labours of his predecessors, and to one half the person is clothed in the one collect a number of detached facts, to colour, and the other half in the other.* be compared together, and reasoned Both colours are extremely vivid, as the upon hereafter. All this is, we admit, Greek and Latin authors uniformly re- very necessary in such a work as present them to have been. The scarlet
M. Bunsen has undertaken ; but it is part of the mantle has a pattern of large purple spots upon it, which appear to
most unsatisfactory to his readers that have been formed during the process of he can form an opinion as to whether
he should have stopped here. Before dying, either by sewing on patches of cloth of the shape of the spots, or by
even the first stages of his journey be applying some earthy ground, to pro
in the right direction, the English tect the purple in these places from the
reader is asked to wait for the second reagent, which turned the rest scarlet. volume of the work, which will proThis agrees remarkably well with the bably not be published for several account given by the elder Plinyt of the years; and as to the remaining volume, mode in which woollen cloth was dyed to which even this is but the preof the Tyrian hue. The cloth was first lude looking merely to the numerous steeped twice, for five hours each time, in the preparation from the shell-fish, called
engagements of the author, and not purpura ; this process dyed it of a rich
taking into account the difficulties it deep purple (purpura nigricans). After- presents--we may reasonably doubt wards it was again immersed in a prepa
whether it will ever be finished. ration from another shell-fish, called mu- This piecemeal mode of publication Tez or buccinium, whereby an intensely may have some advantage. It has bright scarlet was produced. I The stop been suggested that there may be peror ground must have been applied after sons who would undertake the perusal the first of these processes, while the of a single volume like the present, cloth was purple. The mantle and tunic
but who would shrink from the task were both edged with a deep gold lace." of going through three such volumes -Pp. 115, 116.
Such persons, however, will
have forgotten what they now read, Will none of our naturalists find
second portion can be out what the two shell-fish were, of prepared for them; nor are they the which Pliny speaks in the above pas- class of readers that would be likely sage? The re-discovery of the Tyrian to feel an interest in the work, or dye, would possibly make the fortune that would be qualified to pass judgof whoever should achieve it.
upon it. There may be others, We are now come to the more im. again, it is alleged, who may be so portant work of the Chevalier Bun. much interested in the present volume, sen—a work of greater pretension as to engage in the study of the hierothan any which has appeared for many glyphic legends, with a view to preyears; but one which, so far as it has pare themselves for forming a correct yet appeared, is as little likely to opinion of the remainder of the work.
*" A similar party-coloured dress prevailed in Europe about the time of the Cru. sades ; not improbably the fashion was imported from Syria, where it had remained from those remote periods. The cloth of which they were made was called Tartan; in French, Tyre-teint, i.e., the tint colour of Tyre.” See “Planche’s British Costume," p. 118.
“ Historia Naturalis,” Lib, ix. c. 38.
“Coccineum, that is, the colour of a scarlet berry. It has generally been sup, posed that the Hebrew word shani, which signifies scarlet,' and also 'twice, takes its former meaning from the double process in dying scarlet.” (See Gesenius.)
We rather wish that this may be a ment of what is proposed, nor is the numerous class, than expect that it following more intelligible :will be so. On the whole, we are quite satisfied that the disadvantages “ If the place of Egypt can be fixed of this mode of publication greatly
at all, it must first be done according preponderate ; and the only excuse
to time, by settling the chronology; for it, that we can admit to be valid,
and, secondly, according to its own inis necessity. The author not having
trinsic importance to general history.
These two points, each of which is definished, nor being likely to finish, what he has undertaken, he must
pendent on the other, will form the main
divisions of the whole work, as well as either publish in parts, or keep back
of this introductory volume. The proof the entire for an uncertain, and, of the latter rests upon the adjustment probably, a very considerable time. of the former, although itself the prize,
When the work shall be completed, for the sake of which the preliminary if it ever be so, it will consist of five researches have been made.”—p. xxiii. books. The present volume contains the first of these. It was published The first sentence in this paragraph in German about four years ago, along appeared to us, when we read it
, so with the second, and part of the third very obscure, that we were induced books; and we were then led to ex- to turn to the German original ; and pect that the remainder of the third this suggested a preliminary inquiry and the fourth books would follow into the merits and authority of this these very speedily. The end of 1845 translation. Before we proceed furwas mentioned. Nearly three years ther, we will lay before our readers have elapsed since this period, and as the result of this inquiry. yet there has been no additional mat- We had been led to expect, before ter published in German; nor, we the translation was published, that it believe, any announcement that such would be a perfect representation of is about to be published. The pre- the original, as corrected and enlarged paration of this English translation of by the author ; that it would be, in the first book, in which some material short, a second edition of the work, improvements have been introduced
considerably improved—in English, by the author and his friends, has, of instead of 'in German, through Mr. course, been partly the cause of this Cottrell's assistance ; but still, to all delay; but other causes have, no intents and purposes, Chevalier Bun. doubt, combined with this, some of sen's own. This expectation appeared, which may be easily imagined. from the author's postscript to his
The first book is, as we have already preface, to have been too high ; but intimated, a mere opening statement, we still looked for general accuracy in which lets us know what the author a translation, which he states to have expects to be able to do, and explains been “most carefully revised," he his intended method of proceeding; himself “sparing no trouble to give but which does not exhibit his proofs, his assistance in the revision." and is, consequently, not intended to Now, what is the actual state of the enable us to judge how far he may be case? deceiving himself. The task which
1. There appear to be some pashe has undertaken is, he tells us, “that
sages in the translation, which have of establishing the exact position of been revised by the author, and may Egypt, in relation to general history.” be depended on as English originals
. In accomplishing this task, he says We are inclined to think, however, that "there are many and serious dif- that such passages are very few. They ficulties to encounter before the goal are chiefly to be looked for among is reached ;” and in the present those in which Divine revelation, or volume he will “endeavour to point what is commonly regarded as such, out wherein these difficulties consist, is treated of, or in which mention is the means and conditions requisite for made of living individuals. overcoming them, as well as the para- 2. There are other passages, in mount importance of the object pro- which additions or corrections of the posed, which can only be attained by author are introduced into the English the laborious process adopted in its
text. In these cases, the translator pursuit."
may have had the benefit of an interThis is not a very definite state- leaved copy of the work, containing the author's notes. Great careless- und Proteus.” The English of this is ness is, however, sometimes shown in “ The most ancient tradition. The working them into the translation of Thon (Thonis) and Proteus of Homer the German edition. Thus, in pp.
and of later writers.” Bunsen con.. 46-48, the description of the celebrated trasts the tradition respecting Proteus Tablet of Abydos is sadly confused. and Thon, which is found in the OdysIn the German edition, the author sey, with the accounts of the same had explained it on the supposition personages given by Herodotus and that the seated figure, of which a frag- other later writers. English Egyptoment remains, represented the king logists have generally used the term who constructed the Tablet. He men- prænomen for the first of the two rings tioned in a note that Mr. Birch ex- or cartouches used by Egyptian kings. plained it in a different manner, sup- Bunsen calls these rings « Vornamen;" posing the figure to have been Osiris ; and this is rendered, p. 43, et pass., but gave reasons for thinking this view "surnames,” which conveys to an Engto be erroneous. Having afterwards lish reader the very opposite idea to discovered that Lepsius agreed with what is intended. In return for this Birch, he determined to adopt their rejection of a good Latin word, Mr. views in the English translation, and Cottrell introduces on all occasions the accordingly made some additions and misapplied expression "data"-meanchanges. He left, however, a large ing sometimes the "results" of an inpart of the description uncorrected ; vestigation (Ergebniss), and someand the consequence is that the English times the “statements” of an author reader finds that in the first part of it (Angaben).* the figure is Osiris, and in the last it In p. 19, we have “usually" for is the king, and is thus involved in the "in some rare instances” (ausnahmgreatest confusion.
weise); in p. 25, “mentioned" for 3. In the greater part of the work, "published" in p. 53, "volume" for the translation has not been carefully “column,” and “decimals” for “s
“tens;" revised by either the translator him- in p. 159, “ a century and a-half” for self or the author. It is generally “two centuries and a half” (dritthalb inelegant, often unintelligible, and Jahrhunderte). The “Glieder” of abounds in mistakes, the result of haste a genealogy are not “ branches," as in and inattention. Of its inelegance p. 174 and elsewhere, but “generaand actual obscurity, our readers have tions;” and the “Urzeit" of our plaseen one instance in the passage which net is not its “ material stratum," as we have quoted; and they will soon in p. 36, but “the most remote periods see others. It is quite unnecessary, in its history." therefore, for us to produce any ex- Our attention was caught by the amples of it here ; but we will quote a above gross blunders in reading over few instances in which the translator a few sections in different parts of the has been guilty of great carelessness- work-less than a tenth of that part in some cases completely misrepresents of the volume for which Mr. Cottrell ing his author's meaning.
is responsible. We noticed many other We shall begin with some blunders mistakes of a minor character, and we respecting proper names. In p. 69, have no doubt that there are many we find Eusebius, the Armenian," others, great and small, which escaped meaning “the Armenian translation of our observation. In general, indeed, Eusebius." In pp. 175, 176, Uzziah, we did not refer to the German, unless king of Judah, is thrice called “Uzzi,” where the English appeared, on the and thus confounded with a priest of face of it, to be erroneous. this last name, who is mentioned in But, apart from positive misreprethe same passage. In p. 100 we have sentations of the author's meaning, this heading_* The more ancient tra- such as we have been pointing out, a dition—that of Homer and the later translation may be faulty by its looseThon (Thonis) and Proteus.” The ness of expression, when words of deGerman isDie alteste Ueberlieferung. finite meaning occur. The words Homer's und der Später Thon (Thonis) “Forscher” and “Forschung" occur
In page 246, the word "data" is properly used. Here, the German, has “ feste Haltpunkte."
very commonly, and have a precise would read :-" If the place of Egypt signification attached to them. A in general history can be fixed at all, translator should choose the best words it must evidently be capable of being to represent them, and adhere to them discovered, in the first instance with constantly. “ Forschung" is rendered reference to time, and afterwards with by “research" more frequently than reference to intrinsic importance (der by anything else ; and to that there inneren Bedeutung nach).” We un. could be no objection, if our language derstand this to mean, that it should possessed kindred words for the verb be first ascertained, what events in and the agent. As this, however, is Egyptian history synchronised with not the case, “investigation” or “in- events in the history of other nations; quiry” is preferable. Both these words and secondly, what influences the are occasionally used by Mr. Cottrell; changes which took place in Egypt and along with them he has used at had on the changes which took place least six others-study," "adjust- in other countries. ment,” “systematic pursuit," "com- Of these two problems, the solution ments," “ critical research,” and “cri. of the first will occupy the second, ticism.” For the agent, we have again third, and fourth books, to which the " inquirers,". expositors,"
first portion of the present volume is dents," “critics," "commentators," introductory. We here see our au. &c. Some of these expressions con- thor's method clearly enough. In the vey erroneous ideas, especially the second and third books, he undertakes two last. “ Kritik," again, to the to settle the chronology of Egypt from presentation of which the word “cri. Menes to Alexander from Egyptian ticism” should be restricted, is in one sources; partly from statements of place translated by “illustration,” ancient authors derived, or purportand in another by “ critical study.” ing to be derived, from Egyptian Neither of these expressions is any- priests, and handed down to us in thing like an equivalent to it.
Greek, Latin, or Armenian-stateNow, the character of this transla- ments which have been long in postion being such as we have described, session of the learned, and have been it is evident that no confidence can be carefully studied by many, but which, felt in its giving the author's meaning as he flatters himself, have been for correctly, except in passages where it the first time properly understood by is reasonable to suppose that it has him ; and partly from hieroglyphical been subjected to his revision. We
inscriptions and papyri of an historical think, however, that all passages which character, the knowledge of which has describe the author's method, or set been only recently acquired. In the forth his intentions, come under this fourth book, he will verify the chronoclass; more especially, when obscure logy, which he deduced in the second expressions or words of dubious mean- and third from purely Egyptian ing occur in the original. The author sources, by means of data furnished should have attended to these, and by astronomy, and of the chronology seen that they were properly trans- of other countries. We have no exlated ; and it is probable that he did pectation that he will be able to do so. At any rate, he is fairly respon- what he promises. We anticipate sible for such passages, as they stand. failure; but we must admit that in We cannot pretend to put our inter. this part of his work he has a definite pretation of the German original in object, and one which is clearly within competition with that of a person, who the limits of human capacity. We behas had opportunities of conferring lieve that his system of chronology is with the author, and has had, to a cer- completely erroneous; but we have tain extent, the benefit of his revision. reason to hope that, by means of the We say
this once for all ; and yet, inscriptions and papyri already found, even in the cases which we have sup- when they are more perfectly underposed, if we see a manifest discrepancy stood than they are now, and by means between the original and what appears of others which may hereafter be as its translation, we may feel it right brought to light, a system of Egyptian to suggest a more correct translation, chronology may be at length discoby way of a various reading. Thus, vered, which will stand these tests, in the passage before us, from which which our author mentions as what he we have made so long a digression, we will apply in his fourth book.
We should here observe that, al. the work of Manetho, if we possessed though inscriptions and papyri in the it in its genuine form, would convey to ancient Egyptian character are men. us authentic information. The lists, tioned by our author, as what he will however, which have come down to use in the second and third books, his
us, may have been, through carelesschronological system is not in any de- ness, or design, or both, corrupted to gree founded upon them. He derives such an extent, that little or no deibat exclusively from the lists of kings pendance can be placed on them. M. attributed to Eratosthenes and Ma- Bunsen considers the list of Theban netho, and from a statement which kings, which Syncellus gives as that of Georgius Syncellus professes to have Eratosthenes, to be still more valuable derived from the latter as to the dura. than those of Manetho. In fact, he tion of his thirty dynasties. This
determines the period of “the Constatement is, indeed, his sole authority quest of the Shepherds” by this list. for his epoch of the foundation of the His scheme is very simple. Syncellus monarchy ; but, as Syncellus does not
says that the thirty dynasties lasted say where he obtained it, and says 3,555 years ; they ended 340, B.C. ; nothing else which would lead us to and they therefore began 3,895, B. C. suppose that he knew anything more This was the era of the accession of of the historical work of Manetho than Menes. The 1,076 years of Eratos. what he learned from Africanus and thenes were those of the Old Empire. Eusebius, we must be excused if we They ended with the Conquest of the consider it as unworthy of the slightest Shepherds, the date of which was, attention. The most probable suppo, therefore, 2,819, B. c.f Now, a quessition appears to be, that he obtained tion here arises-is the list of Eratosthe number of years, which he says the thenes accredited by the monuments thirty dynasties occupied, by adding in the same manner as those of Maneup the numbers given by Eusebius for tho ? This list resembles, except in their several lengths. To be sure, the one particular, “ the list of the Anoactual sum of these lengths is very nymous,” parallel to which it is placed different ; but this only proves that by Syncellus. Like it, it contains a the worthy monk, in addition to all
number of kings taken from the lists of his other literary demerits, was Manetho, mixed up with other kings, wretchedly bad arithmetician. There not elsewhere to be found. There is is a bare possibility, but, we contend, placed after each a number of
years, nothing more, that this statement is which he is said to have reigned, and authentic; and if M. Bunsen should the year of the world, according to be able to prove from any other data Syncellus's computation, in which his that his era of Menes is approximately reign began. So far the lists agree; true, we will admit this as evidence but that of the Theban kings contains, that is exactly so. As yet, however, after most of the names, alleged interno such proof has been adduced ; pretations of them in Greek. As the nor do we expect that it ever will. names and their interpretations stand With respect to the hieroglyphical do- in the MSS. of Syncellus, nobody precuments, the only use which is made tends to reconcile them; nor is there of them is to accredit the lists. The any trace of any name in the monucelebrated Turin papyrus, called “the ments, save such as are taken from Book of the Kings," resembles in its Manetho. On these names and interform the lists of Manetho, and con- pretations, however, our author has tains in its fragments some names exercised his critical powers; and we equivalent, or nearly so, to names think he possesses the merit of having in the lists. Many others of these gone beyond all his predecessors in the names can also be distinctly recog- field of conjectural criticism. For nised in hieroglyphical inscriptions, Πεμφώς he tells us to read Σιμψώς; for From this, it is a fair inference that Μομχειρί, Σεσοχερής ; for Στούχος, ό εστιν
In the German text of his third book, our author places the accession of Menes in 3643 B. C. The 3555 years of Syncellus, on which he seems to rely in his introductory volume, have here dwindled down to 3303. We cannot undertake to explain this inconsistency.
7 In Book III., 2567 B. C.