very commonly, and have a precise signification attached to them. A translator should choose the best words to represent them, and adhere to them constantly. "Forschung" is rendered by "research" more frequently than by anything else; and to that there could be no objection, if our language possessed kindred words for the verb and the agent. As this, however, is not the case, "investigation" or "inquiry" is preferable. Both these words are occasionally used by Mr. Cottrell; and along with them he has used at least six others "study," "adjustment," "systematic pursuit," "comments," "critical research," and "criticism." For the agent, we have again "inquirers," "expositors,"

"stu

dents," "critics," "commentators," &c. Some of these expressions convey erroneous ideas, especially the two last. "Kritik," again, to the representation of which the word "criticism" should be restricted, is in one place translated by "illustration," and in another by "critical study." Neither of these expressions is anything like an equivalent to it.

Now, the character of this translation being such as we have described, it is evident that no confidence can be felt in its giving the author's meaning correctly, except in passages where it is reasonable to suppose that it has been subjected to his revision. We think, however, that all passages which describe the author's method, or set forth his intentions, come under this class; more especially, when obscure expressions or words of dubious meaning occur in the original. The author should have attended to these, and seen that they were properly translated; and it is probable that he did So. At any rate, he is fairly responsible for such passages, as they stand. We cannot pretend to put our inter pretation of the German original in competition with that of a person, who has had opportunities of conferring with the author, and has had, to a certain extent, the benefit of his revision.

We say this once for all; and yet, even in the cases which we have supposed, if we see a manifest discrepancy between the original and what appears as its translation, we may feel it right to suggest a more correct translation, by way of a various reading. Thus, in the passage before us, from which we have made so long a digression, we

would read:-" If the place of Egypt in general history can be fixed at all, it must evidently be capable of being discovered, in the first instance with reference to time, and afterwards with reference to intrinsic importance (der inneren Bedeutung nach)." We understand this to mean, that it should be first ascertained, what events in Egyptian history synchronised with events in the history of other nations; and secondly, what influences the changes which took place in Egypt had on the changes which took place in other countries.

Of these two problems, the solution of the first will occupy the second, third, and fourth books, to which the first portion of the present volume is introductory. We here see our author's method clearly enough. In the second and third books, he undertakes to settle the chronology of Egypt from Menes to Alexander from Egyptian sources; partly from statements of ancient authors derived, or purporting to be derived, from Egyptian priests, and handed down to us in Greek, Latin, or Armenian-statements which have been long in possession of the learned, and have been carefully studied by many, but which, as he flatters himself, have been for the first time properly understood by him; and partly from hieroglyphical inscriptions and papyri of an historical character, the knowledge of which has been only recently acquired. In the fourth book, he will verify the chronology, which he deduced in the second and third from purely Egyptian sources, by means of data furnished by astronomy, and of the chronology of other countries. We have no expectation that he will be able to do what he promises. We anticipate failure; but we must admit that in this part of his work he has a definite object, and one which is clearly within the limits of human capacity. We be lieve that his system of chronology is completely erroneous; but we have reason to hope that, by means of the inscriptions and papyri already found, when they are more perfectly understood than they are now, and by means of others which may hereafter be brought to light, a system of Egyptian chronology may be at length discovered, which will stand these tests, which our author mentions as what he will apply in his fourth book.

We should here observe that, although inscriptions and papyri in the ancient Egyptian character are mentioned by our author, as what he will use in the second and third books, his chronological system is not in any degree founded upon them. He derives that exclusively from the lists of kings attributed to Eratosthenes and Manetho, and from a statement which Georgius Syncellus professes to have derived from the latter as to the duration of his thirty dynasties. This statement is, indeed, his sole authority for his epoch of the foundation of the monarchy; but, as Syncellus does not say where he obtained it, and says nothing else which would lead us to suppose that he knew anything more of the historical work of Manetho than what he learned from Africanus and Eusebius, we must be excused if we consider it as unworthy of the slightest attention. The most probable supposition appears to be, that he obtained the number of years, which he says the thirty dynasties occupied, by adding up the numbers given by Eusebius for their several lengths. To be sure, the actual sum of these lengths is very different; but this only proves that the worthy monk, in addition to all his other literary demerits, was wretchedly bad arithmetician. There is a bare possibility, but, we contend, nothing more, that this statement is authentic; and if M. Bunsen should be able to prove from any other data that his era of Menes is approximately true, we will admit this as evidence that is exactly so. As yet, however, no such proof has been adduced; nor do we expect that it ever will. With respect to the hieroglyphical documents, the only use which is made of them is to accredit the lists.

a

The celebrated Turin papyrus, called "the Book of the Kings," resembles in its form the lists of Manetho, and contains in its fragments some names equivalent, or nearly so, to names in the lists. Many others of these names can also be distinctly recognised in hieroglyphical inscriptions, From this, it is a fair inference that

the work of Manetho, if we possessed it in its genuine form, would convey to us authentic information. The lists, however, which have come down to us, may have been, through carelessness, or design, or both, corrupted to such an extent, that little or no dependance can be placed on them. M. Bunsen considers the list of Theban kings, which Syncellus gives as that of Eratosthenes, to be still more valuable than those of Manetho. In fact, he determines the period of "the Conquest of the Shepherds" by this list. His scheme is very simple. Syncellus says that the thirty dynasties lasted 3,555 years; they ended 340, B. C.; and they therefore began 3,895, B. C.' This was the era of the accession of Menes. The 1,076 years of Eratosthenes were those of the Old Empire. They ended with the Conquest of the Shepherds, the date of which was, therefore, 2,819, B. c.† Now, a question here arises-is the list of Eratosthenes accredited by the monuments in the same manner as those of Manetho? This list resembles, except in one particular, "the list of the Anonymous," parallel to which it is placed by Syncellus. Like it, it contains a number of kings taken from the lists of Manetho, mixed up with other kings, not elsewhere to be found, There is placed after each a number of years, which he is said to have reigned, and the year of the world, according to Syncellus's computation, in which his reign began. So far the lists agree; but that of the Theban kings contains, after most of the names, alleged interpretations of them in Greek.

As the names and their interpretations stand in the MSS. of Syncellus, nobody pretends to reconcile them; nor is there any trace of any name in the monuments, save such as are taken from Manetho. On these names and interpretations, however, our author has exercised his critical powers; and we think he possesses the merit of having gone beyond all his predecessors in the field of conjectural criticism. For Isus he tells us to read 2s; for Μομχειρί, Σεσοςχερῆς ; for Στοίχος, ὅ ἐστιν

† In Book III., 2567 B. c.

*Αρης ἀναίσθητος, he gives us Τοχάρης, ὅ εστιν Ηλιόθετος, &c. Having, by means of this sort, identified, to his own satisfaction, but we believe to that of nobody else, the names of several ancient kings which are found in hieroglyphics with kings in this list, he assumed that these monumental kings reigned in the order indicated by the list, though the monuments themselves, in some instances, indicated a different order; and that they reigned for the precise number of years mentioned in the list. The genuineness of all these numbers he assumed as certain, though experience proves that numbers are far more likely to be corrupted than names, and though he admitted that the names were in the most deplorable state of corruption. It is quite ridiculous to try to bolster up this list, by panegyrizing its alleged author, who is said to have been "no Wilford;"-alluding to the unfortunate Germano-Indian who brought such discredit on the Asiatic Society, by the readiness with which he believed and published the pretended extracts from the Puranas, with which his pundits furnished him, about Egypt, and about England and Ireland, those "sacred Isles of the West." M. Bunsen might, we think, have spared this cut at his countryman. Eratosthenes was "no Wilford"-_far from it. He was so much of an esprit fort as to have said, "That he would believe the Homeric legends, when he should be shown the currier who made the wind-bags which Ulysses, on his voyage home, received from Eolus." After this, who would hesitate to believe in the authenticity of any list of kings which may have been put forward under his name, a thousand years after his death?

To say more on this subject would, we believe, be a work of supereroga tion. M. Bunsen's chronology of the Old Empire, with all its monumental illustrations, has been three years before the world, and we have never heard a single person profess to believe it correct. This is but little to say, but we can go much further. We have made careful inquiries, and we have never been able to hear of a single individual in this country, on the Continent, or in America, who professes to believe it correct-always excepting the immediate connexions of M. Bun

sen.

The name of Manetho carries much

more weight. And here we will readily admit that the actual work of Manetho would be entitled to much credit, and that it probably contained an authentic history of Egypt from the time of Amenemhe I., if not from that of Menes. This work, however, has perished: and we shall do well to remember how far removed from it are the lists which now pass under the name of the Sabennyte priest. It is generally said that the copies of these lists which we have, taken by Africanus and Eusebius respectively, are independent of one another; and that we have thus two witnesses to their correctness, and may, consequently, be satisfied of this, wherever the witnesses agree. This, however, is by no means a fair statement. Julius Africanus and Eusebius both lived in Cæsarea, both used the same library in that city, of which the former was the founder, and consequently, both derived their information respecting Manetho from the same channel. It does not appear that they had access to his work itself. They had only a MS., containing lists of kings extracted from it. Now it appears that this MS. differed from the original in some important particulars. In the first place, it gave the several dynasties as following one another, while there is every reason to suppose that, in Manetho's own work, many of them were represented as reigning at the same time in different parts of Egypt. Secondly, from comparing the lists which we now have with the Turin Book of Kings (with which the genuine work of Manetho must, doubtless, have harmonised), it is plain that the author of the Cæsarean lists omitted many names of kings who reigned but a short time, adding the periods of their reigns to those of other kings; and that he frequently committed other errors in the figures, so that his sums were incorrect. The sixth dynasty, according to the Turin Papyrus, consisted of thirteen reigns, lasting 181 years. According to Africanus, who probably agreed with the Cæsarean MS., it consisted of only six reigns, but lasted 203 years. From this it is plain that, if we could be sure that we had the lengths of the different dynasties, exactly as they stood in this MS., we could not be at all sure that we had them as Manetho's own work exhibited them. It is, however, quite certain, that both Africanus and Eusebius falsified the

lists, with a view to make them harmonise with their respective chronological systems. That Eusebius did so, all are agreed; but M. Bunsen would have us consider Africanus as worthy of credit. The fact is, however, that he was just as unscrupulous as his successor; and it is not much to our author's credit that he should have suppressed facts which prove him to have been so.

It was the settled opinion of all Christian chronologers of the age of Africanus, grounded on an alleged apostolical tradition, that the incarnation of our Lord took place exactly 5,500 years after the Creation. From this they deduced the epoch of the Exodus by the Septuagint chronology of the period between it and the Creation. In general they placed it in 1666, B. C., allowing 130 years for the generation of the second Cainan; but Africanus omitted this generation, placing the Exodus in 1796, B. c., and adding the 130 years here omitted, to the times of the Judges. Assuming, as he did, that the Exodus synchronised with the commencement of the eighteenth dynasty, he so doctored the periods of the different dynasties between the seventeenth and twenty-seventh, or Persian dynasty, that their sum was exactly equal to the interval between the assumed date of the Exodus and the known time of the Persian conquest. In fact, he greatly increased the length of some of these dynasties. But, as there were two dates of the Exodus, he thought proper to give two editions of his tables. In one, he made the duration of the eighteenth dynasty 393 years, which was, unquestionably, the sum of the reigns mentioned by Manetho (as appears from Josephus, who had seen Manetho's own work, and gives this number as derived from it.) In the other, he reduces this duration to 263 years, striking off without ceremony the 130 years in dispute. We do not yet know what theory Africanus had respecting the dynasties immediately preceding the eighteenthwhat biblical synchronism he doctored them in order to produce; but there is every reason, from analogy, to infer, that he altered them in order to make them suit some silly system of his own. As to the earliest dynasties of Manetho, his lists, as well as those of Eusebius, are less liable to suspicion; because, as they both regarded these dynasties as

altogether fictitious, they had no temptation to alter the numbers that they found. It is only, however, as to these earliest dynasties, that M. Bunsen rejects their authority, There he treats them with neglect, taking his favourite Eratosthenes as a guide.

Our readers will be able to form a pretty correct judgment for themselves, from what we have said, as to the value of that evidence, on the strength of which M. Bunsen affects to consider the era of Menes, 3,643 B. C., as well established as that of the Olympiads! We must now ask them to accompany us to the consideration of the second part of the work which he has undertaken; in which he intends to consider the influence of Egypt on the general history of the world, not only in this historical period, but in the many thousands of years which, according to his notions, must have preceded it. Before the time of Menes, he affirms that there was a period of unknown length, during which Egypt existed as a settled and civilized nation; but without any regular chronology, such as originated with Menes. He estimates this ante-chronological period, in one place, as a thousand or two thousand years. In another he speaks of it as beginning six or seven thousand years ago, which is something more moderate. Before this is the period which he calls "the Origines of Egypt." "It is still (he says) historical, belonging, therefore, to time and space, though wholly different from" the period last spoken of. During this period the language and mythology of Egypt were formed-a mighty tree which slowly grew in the valley of the Nile, but from a germ which was not indigenous in that country.

"No historical investigator will consider the Egyptians as the most ancient nation of the earth, even before he has called to his assistance the science of the philologer and mythologist. Their very history shows them to belong to the great middle ages of mankind."— p. 32.

In addition, then, to the many thousands of years required for the Origines of Egypt, we have a demand

made upon us here for many thousands of years more, which we must suppose that the ancestors of the Egyptians spent in Armenia and the Caucasus,

while the human intellect was developed, and language and religion were brought to perfection. Language and religion! Even so.

"For even those who believe that language and religion were not human inventions, but, like Prometheus' fire, given to men from heaven, cannot but admit, without rejecting all the evidence of research, that they were not communicated in a state of completeness. The reverse is, indeed, obvious, viz., that man has never received more than the germ, which he has been left to mould and modify according to his own will and capabilities."-p. 32.

We may here remark, by the way, that this writer is in the habit of pronouncing any peculiarly bold assumption which he makes to be quite obvious, or, at least, what no well-informed person will deny. The last remark in the above quotation is of peculiar interest, as showing the views with which our author undertook the construction of "the Church of the Future."

Now the fifth book, or second part, of this work, is to treat of the Origines, Egyptian, and extra-Egyptian. It might be thought that these were beyond the reach of human knowledge; but our author infers the contrary from two facts. First, we possess monuments of these periods, even the most remote of them; for, to say nothing of mythology, we have language, "the earliest, as well as the grandest, monument of man." And, secondly, these laws exhibit development, and the laws of development are capable of being discovered. By the arrangement and classification of isolated facts, M. Bunsen thinks it possible to ascend to general formulas like those of Kepler. Whether it be possible also to prove the necessity of such a development from the nature of the Supreme Being, and thus to demonstrate laws like those of Newton, is a question with which he tells us that he does not meddle. According to this view, therefore, general history differs, in respect to the mode by which it is to be investigated, from physical astronomy and similar sciences, and agrees with geology. M. Bunsen thinks, however, that it possesses a decided advantage over this last, which we will state in the words of his translator:

"For in the evolution of nature the law of matter and combination predominates; it is difficult even to establish succession, impossible to discover more than an external law of development. In history, on the contrary, which is the world of mind, the development proceeds successively in time; and the thing developed is the human mind itself. As far, therefore, as the laws of development are intelligible, the history of the human mind possesses this advantage, that the laws of the investigated object coincide with those of the investigating subject."-p. 37.

We will not waste our time in replying to this strange reasoning. Our geological friends seem to be all of opinion that it needs no other answer than Mr. Burchell's significant monosyllable. We quite agree, however, with M. Bunsen, that there is a striking analogy between the subjects which he undertakes to discuss and those of which geology treats, and that analogous methods ought to be pursued in both. We believe, too, that M. Bunsen has made some important observations as to the laws under which languages are developed; and we hope to derive much valuable information from him on that subject. But we think he has fallen into a great error, and we will illustrate it by means of the "sister science." M. Bunsen holds views analogous to those of Mr. Lyell and his school. As the latter attribute all changes that have ever taken place in the crust of the earth to causes now in operation, rejecting catastrophes and critical periods as unphilosophical, so the former assumes it as an incontrovertible truth that the progress of man has in all past ages been gradual, and regulated by the same laws as we see it to be now, and as we know it to have been within the limits of recent history.

But is this the case with man himself? The investigations of the geologist into the fossils of even the uppermost strata, show that the appearance of man in this globe which we inhabit is quite recent. Yet every one of our species that now lives, or that has lived for many generations, had parents, and bore the marks of birth. Assume that in all past ages the same laws prevail. ed as in the present, and it follows, as a necessary consequence, that every man that ever lived was born into the world, and, of course, that the human