residence in Egypt, some records or tradition of that great event would be found in that country. But the author observes that the posterity of Cham soon lapsed into the errors of Tsabaism; this apostacy totally corrupted the stream of history, as well as diverted the attention of mankind from the truths of pure religion.

The doctrines of the Tsabeans were plausible and even fascinating. Their system was formed to unite the interests of the priesthood with those of the monarch, and to give stability both to the altar and to the throne. They represented the universe as governed by an innumerable host of spiritual agents of different ranks, who all acted under the guidance and by the authority of one supreme and infinite being, who was the primary cause of all things, and who is the eternal ruler of the world. They considered nature as nothing else than as the manifestation of the Deity in his works; and all the powers of nature they held to be produced by the direct agency of beings that emanate from the Divine essence. But this theory, which supposes the universe to be governed by a being, who can only be defined by abstractions, as infinite, immaterial, invisible, and immortal; and who guides Nature in all her ways by the intervention of spiritual effluences, and divine emanations, as difficult to be comprehended by human understanding, as the source whence they spring; this theory was not easily intelligible to the people, and was not perhaps, as it stood alone, entirely suited to the views of their rulers. Symbols were soon sought and found, which, it was thought, might help to explain to the vulgar and illiterate the abstruse language, and the metaphysical doctrines, of the wise and the learned. The Sun, the most glorious object which the material world presents to our admiration; as the source of heat and light; and as the apparent cause of many of the blessings which this earth enjoys; was considered as the visible type of the invisible God. The Moon became the symbol of the passive priuciple; and represented material Nature acted upon by the Divine Mind. Matter being considered as inert in itself, and in its original state as void of form and of motion, was supposed to have received its primary as well as its present impulses, with all its qualities, forms and organizations, from energies communicated to it by the spiritual demiourgos. This doctrine was illustrated by a reference to the lunar orb, which shines only by the light which it receives from the sun. The five great planets were selected to represent the principal and most brilliant of the etherial spirits that stand in the presence of the Deity. The multitude of fixed stars was compared to a mighty host; and according to their different magnitudes, degrees of rank were assigned to these celestial bodies, which were considered as the types of the immaterial agents, who in countless inyriads perform the will and execute the mandates of the supreme Governor of the universe.-II. 82-84.

Hence Sir W. D. supposes their historical facts to have been mixed with fictions; and maintains, though apparently with some degree of hesitation, that "the fables fabricated concerning the gods were originally and partly founded on some obscure traditions concerning the Patriarchs." The practice of placing the image of Osiris in a chest, and leaving it to float on the waves, as well as a ceremony somewhat analogous in the deification of Apis, is an evidence, in our author's opinion, that some traditions of the deluge existed amongst the Egyptians. Apis was worshipped under the figure of a bull; and Sir William remarks that Taurus was the leading constellation when the deluge happened; but Taurus rose achronically when Noah entered the ark. These circumstances are of weight, considering the supposed skill of the Egyptians in astronomy. A further argument (useful as an auxiliary, though perhaps of little value per se), is extracted from the number of great gods in Egypt, which was eight, corresponding with that of the persons saved in the ark. The most ancient of these gods, Herodotus tells us, was Pan, whose name Sir W.

D.,

D., by successive transmutations, converts into Chemmis, or Chem, and suggests the question, whether he might not have been the patriarch Cham?

The title of the ensuing chapter, "Of the ancient Egyptians considered as a maritime people," certainly surprised us, since we have always believed it to be admitted that Egyptian prejudice, as well as policy, withheld this people from attention to external commerce and maritime affairs. Such is the distinct idea given us by Plutarch; but Sir Wm. Drummond asserts that the Greeks collected their knowledge of Egyptian history from very doubtful authorities, and that they had little commercial intercourse with Egypt before the reign of Psammetichus. He observes, that the Egyptians could not have sent out colonies or expeditions, as they really did, if they had neither ships nor mariners; and, assuming, as an incontestable fact," that the worship of Isis was introduced, at a very early period, into Germany, Gaul and Britain, he contends that the ancient Egyptians must have been less hostile to strangers, and more accustomed to navigation, than writers are disposed to allow.

The disquisition on the Origin of Animal Worship amongst the Egyptians, is prefaced by an examination of the opinion entertained by ancient sceptics, that religion, or a belief that the moral world was under the supervision of a deity, was a mere contrivance of some politic legislator to correct the manners of mankind.

"But this reasoning," observes Sir Wm. Drummond, "whether employed by poets or by philosophers, is founded in error. The evidence of final causes in favour of the existence of a deity is so clear and obvious, that the history of the world exhibits no example, at any period, or in any country, of its not having been always admitted by the great majority of mankind. Man has never existed as a social being, and has never instituted laws, without having any notion of religion. Neither is the reasoning obscure or intricate, which leads him to conclude, that mind is distinct from body, that intellect could only proceed from intellect, that matter was organized by something else than matter, and that life must have originally sprung from an eternally living source. The arguments are equally clear, by which the unity of the Deity may be proved from the laws of nature. In those laws intention is always manifest; and where there is intention there is intelligence. But one sole intelligence gave laws to the universe, because the universe is infinite, and therefore we must admit the infinity, and consequently the unity, of its divine legislator. Again, in arguing from effect to cause, we can acknowledge but one primary cause. There cannot be more than one first principle of existence. The monad necessarily precedes the duad and the triad; and as all numbers, though the series may be infinitely extended, flow from the unit, so all causes, though the chain be immeasurable, have originated in one. This reasoning is plain and evident, and has only to be stated to receive assent from every unsophisticated mind."-II. 148, 149.

The error is obvious; but whether the propositions here advanced to overthrow it do not admit of inferences too large to receive universal assent, may be questioned.

That the doctrine of emanation, and the symbolical system, introduced by the Tsabaists, led to polytheism, may be readily granted; and from the correspondence between the symbols adopted by different Pagan nations, Sir Wm. Drummond's conjecture that the various systems of mythology" dated their existence from a period when the solstitial and equinoctial colures passed through the signs of Leo and Taurus," is extremely probable. Still, however, there is a wide distance between the worship of idols in the similitude of

animals,

animals, and the adoration of living objects, many of which had, besides, no apparent connexion with zodiacal signs, or celestial bodies. Various attempts have been made to account for this peculiar aberration of the human intellect: one writer resolves it into a principle of gratitude for services rendered by the animals to man; another refers it to a belief in the transmigration of human souls, or the incarnations of the deities; others attribute it to a notion that the divine essence permeates the universe, and conceive, therefore, that animal-worship was more rational than that paid to inanimate symbols. The opinion of our author is thus expressed:

I am inclined to consider the worship of animals as a superstition which is to be traced to Tsabaism, and which, owing to particular circumstances, took root and flourished in Egypt. There can be little doubt, I think, and as I have already stated, that the worshippers of the hosts of heaven had represented the asterisms by symbols, and that these symbols were chiefly taken from the figures of animals. Thus the first sacred sculptures, graven images, and hieroglyphs, became objects of veneration among the people; but in most of the countries of Asia the introduction of alphabetical characters brought hieroglyphs into disuse at a very early period. It consequently happened, that the association, which might have once existed in the minds of men, between the deities and the signs by which they had been represented in those countries, was gradually diminished, or perhaps entirely destroyed. In Egypt the case was reversed. There the use of hieroglyphs was continued. The people were still accustomed to see their gods represented by hieroglyphical symbols, most of which were nothing else than the figures of animals. It can be no matter of surprise, then, that the veneration of the ignorant and superstitious multitude was extended from the painted and sculptured figures to the animals themselves. Various circumstances might no doubt have contributed to establish this superstition. It was the interest of the priests to encourage it, because the power of the teachers of a false religion is always great in proportion to the credulity and fanaticism of their followers. Neither might the worship of animals have appeared incapable of vindication to those who admitted the doctrine of emanation, and who believed that portions of the divine essence might for The error particular purposes have become incarnate in the bodies of living creatures. began with the doctrine of emanation, and with the symbols by which the Tsabaists represented the leaders of the celestial hosts.-II. pp. 170-172.

Sir William's next chapter (c. vi.) is dedicated to a discussion of the question which divides philosophers, as to the astronomical knowledge of the Egyptians; and for the sake of convenience, he has thrown this part of his work into the form of a dialogue, which displays a copiousness of antiquarian and scientific research. The result proves that our author's opinion as to the skill of Egyptian (as well as Hindoo) astronomers, is more favourable than is usually entertained by modern philosophers. The same observation applies to the remarks of our author on the knowledge possessed by the ancient Egyptians in medicine and anatomy, chemistry and metallurgy.

On the subject of hieroglyphics, which is treated of at considerable length (cc. ix.—xi.), Sir Wm. Drummond displays a fund of learning. He traces the art of writing from the representation of mimetic images to graphic symbols, and finally to characters and letters. He expresses the different kinds of Egyptian writing by a scheme or diagram, wherein epistolographic (or demotic) writing is divided into hieratic and hieroglyphic, and the latter is subdivided into two kinds, kuriologic and symbolic, the last of which branches into three species; namely, kuriologic by imitation, tropic and anaglyphic, and enigmatic. The variation which this arrangement (founded chiefly on ancient authorities) exhibits from the system of M. Champollion, naturally leads our

author to an examination of the latter, which he thinks by no means satisyilik ta'siɔozer 99* factory.

It is impossible to analyze, within any reasonable compass, the contents of these three chapters, in which, not only M. Champollion's discoveries are examined, but various opinions of Jablonski, the learned Polish scholar, remarkable for his proficiency in the Coptic language. Sir William seems to cherish a belief that the ancient languages and hieroglyphics, including the Chaldean, the Phoenician, and the Egyptian, as well as the Arabie, ancient Greek, and Etruscan, may be traced to one common origin; to facilitate which object, he has inserted two engraved comparative tables, whereby the analogies of form may be more readily perceived.

The succeeding subject of our author's inquiry is, if possible, more recondite and embarrassing than any which has preceded it; and therefore probably more congenial to the taste and pursuits of Sir Wm. Drummond. It is entitled "Chronological Remarks concerning the Origin and Duration of the Egyptian Monarchy;" and occupies a large portion of the volume. The difficulties which beset the undertaking are plainly stated; and the comparative value of the few authorities which must guide a writer, who gropes in the dark passages of Egyptian chronology, is fairly measured. Herodotus abounds with fables and improbabilities; Diodorus Siculus furnishes a corrupted text, deformed with chronological chasms; Syncellus stands self-convicted of absurdity; and Manetho gives varying accounts of the dynasties of Egypt, in the various ancient texts wherein his fragments are preserved. Eratosthenes, who was an Egyptian chronologer in the time of Ptolemy Evergetes, is another authority; and Sir William devotes a large share of his inquiry to the critical examination of the names contained in a table of Theban kings, said to be compiled from Egyptian monuments, and periphrased by that author out of the Egyptian into the Greek language.

In his remarks upon Mines, the first in the catalogue, Sir W. D. has very satisfactorily shown that, in remote antiquity, a name or term of analogous sound was common to various nations; and the conclusion seems to be that it originally applied to some heavenly body. He observes that man, men, min and mon, appear to have been very ancient appellations of the sun; and that the moon and stars bore similar titles. With regard to proper names, we have the Mines of Eratosthenes, the Men of Herodotus, the Menes of Manetho, the Esh-mon of the Phoenicians, the Minos of the Greeks, the Menu of the Hindoos, the Manes of the Romans, the Mannus of the Germans, the Mona of the Celts, and lastly (but which has escaped Sir Wm. Drummond), the Man mentioned in the Upanishad, a Sanscrit sacred work, as being the first created human being. The word may be traced in a multitude of examples, which must convince us that it is a relic of the primitive tongue, preserved by its consecration to an individual or object of exalted character.

3

Each of the other kings of Eratosthenes furnishes a separate subject of inquiry to our author, and a fresh occasion for the display of his skill in etymological criticism. He contrives, by collating their names with Egyptian words, to educe some light to guide the historian and the chronologer; but he candidly acknowledges, at the conclusion of his laborious inquiries, that all is doubt and obscurity:

Upon the whole, I see nothing which even approaches to certainty in the chronology of Egypt, previous to the reign of Psammetichus the first. Here and there a ray of light is cast upon our path by the Hebrew historians; but for the rest of our way we meet with nothing but intricacy, confusion, and darkness.—p. 479.

We

We are introduced, in the concluding chapter, to the history of Sesostris, a name associated with whatsoever is great and magnificent; a name which conveys to our imaginations the complex idea of a mighty hero, a potent monarch, a profound politician, a wise legislator. In his first volume, Sir Wm. Drummond speaks somewhat hesitatingly of the personage referred to; but here he distinctly states that we cannot reasonably doubt the existence of the monarch, however we may be inclined to question the exploits of the hero; and that history may claim Sesostris as a real personage.

This extraordinary prince was educated by his father in a manner calculated to adapt him for military enterprizes, and to attach to him a faithful band of adherents. He assembled all the male children born on the same day with his son, instructed them alike in the use of arms, employed them in the same studies, trained them to the same exercises, and inured them to the same hardships. When Sesostris mounted the throne, therefore, he had not only established his military fame, by foreign conquests, but he possessed chieftains like himself, and soon acquired the affections of his subjects. He then entered upon his vast career of conquest; and after traversing, with the triumphant march of a resistless conqueror, distant and extensive regions, extinguishing by the lustre of his exploits all antecedent renown; after being saluted by the world as king of kings, and lord of lords, decorated with trophies, and enriched with spoils; Sesostris, on his return, found his kingdom usurped and his domestic happiness invaded by the treachery of his brother. The subsequent employment of this great prince is thus detailed in the work before us:

Sesostris caused a temple to be built in every city, in honour of the deity who was the object of its peculiar veneration. The captives taken in war were alone employed in constructing these edifices: and it was the proud boast of the monarch, that no native Egyptian was engaged in this hard and laborious service. (Diodor. L. 1. S. 56.) By the command of the same prince the cities of the Delta were surrounded with mounds, to preserve them against the effects of the annual inundation of the Nile; and canals were cut in every direction from Memphis to the sea, in order to facilitate commerce, and to carry off the superabundant waters. Thus also was the country secured against the invasion of foreign foes. Not only was the march of troops rendered difficult, but the use of horses and chariots was necessarily abandoned in a country every where intersected with canals. (Herodot. L. 2. c. 108.) The eastern side of Egypt was further protected against the attacks of the Arabians and the Syrians by a wall 1,500 stadia in length, which extended from Pelusium to Heliopolis. (Diodor. L. 1. S. 57.) Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus have mentioned other monuments of the power and opulence of Sesostris, more remarkable indeed for their magnificence, than for their utility. Among these we may reckon the ship which he dedicated to the deity principally adored at Thebes. This ship was 280 cubits in length, was built of cedar, was coated without with gold, and within with silver. On two lofty obelisks, each 120 cubits in height, he caused an account to be inscribed of the greatness of his power, of the amount of his revenues, and of the number of nations subdued by his arms. Statues of himself and of his queen, each 30 cubits in height, and of his children, each 20 cubits in height, and all single stones, were placed in the temple of Phthah at Memphis. (Diodor. ibid.) These may be considered as proofs of vanity unworthy of the conqueror of the world; but vanity is a weakness from which the greatest minds are not always exempt, and which in them, at least, may be easily forgiven.—Pp. 496-7. The various names borne by the individual who is here called Sesostris, give birth to many difficulties in assigning the period of his reign, as well as in verifying the events of his history. Sir Wm. Drummond has attempted to derive Sesostris from the Egyptian Se-sios-t-re, signifying filius domini, donum solis; and Rameses, from re, sol, and mes, gignere. The identity of Sesostris VOL, XX. Asiatic Journ, No. 115. with