_From the earliest times down to the Sesostridae, about B. C. 1500._

Sources: 1. Jewish writers. _Moses._ His records contain, no doubt, a faithful picture of the Egyptian state in his day; but no continuous history can be deduced from them.--From Moses down to Solomon (B.C. 1500-1000.) total silence, with respect to Egypt, of the Hebrew writers. From Solomon down to Cyrus, (B.C. 1000-550.) a few scanty fragments.--Importance and superiority of the Jewish accounts, so far as they are _purely historical_. 2. Greek writers.

(_a_) _Herodotus._ The first who published a History of the Egyptians. About seventy years after the destruction of the throne of the Pharaohs by the Persian conquerors, this author collected, in Egypt itself, the earliest accounts of the history of the country; he received his information from the most capable persons, the priests; and wrote down faithfully that information, such as he heard it. If, therefore, we would estimate at their proper worth the accounts given by Herodotus, it is necessary to enquire, what did the priests themselves know of their earlier national history?

And this question cannot be answered until we have ascertained in what manner the historical records of the earlier periods were preserved among the Egyptians.

The earliest history of the Egyptians, like that of all other nations, was traditional. They adopted, however, before any other nations, a sort of writing, hieroglyphics, or allegorical picture writing; in which the signs borrowed from natural objects served, as modern discoveries have proved, partly to represent sounds, (_hieroglyphes phonetiques_,) and partly to express ideas; in the latter case they were either representative or allegorical. This mode of writing, by its nature, is not so complete as the purely alphabetical; since, 1. It can express only a narrow circle of ideas, and these separately, without connection or grammatical inflection, at least with very few exceptions. 2. As it is not so well adapted to writing as to painting or engraving, it is not so useful for books as for public monuments. 3. Being emblematic, it is not intelligible without the help of a key, which could only be preserved in some tradition connected with the monument, and which was exclusively possessed by the priests; this key, therefore, could hardly be preserved many centuries without falsification. 4.

The same image seems frequently to have been used to express very different objects.--It follows, that the Egyptian history, as deduced from the lips of the priests, can hardly have been any thing more than records connected with, and depending upon, public monuments: consisting, therefore, of mere fragments, and reducible to no consistent chronology, it ultimately admitted only of allegorical translation, and consequently was very liable to be misinterpreted. Besides their hieroglyphics, the Egyptians certainly had two other species of writing: the _hieratic_, confined to the priests, and the _demotic_, used in common life.

Both, however, seem to have been nothing more than running hands derived from the hieroglyphic system; and we have no instance of the employment of either the one or the other in public monuments of the time of the Pharaohs. That the use of papyrus, a material on which all the above kinds of writing were employed, had its origin in the highest antiquity, or at least in the more brilliant period of the Pharaohs, we now know for certain, written doc.u.ments belonging to those times having been obtained from the tombs.

CHAMPOLLION LE JEUNE, _Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens_. Paris, 1824. The main work on this subject, of which the _Lettre a M. Dacier_, 1822, is but the precursor, and the two _Lettres a M. le duc de Blacas_ the continuation. The new method of deciphering has received its princ.i.p.al confirmation from the work of the British consul in Egypt, SALT, _Essay on the Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics_, 1825, on the authority of a comparison with the Egyptian monuments themselves. Hitherto, however, little more has been made out than the names and t.i.tles of the kings, distinguished by being always enclosed within a border.

These preliminary remarks on the earlier Egyptian history, will derive abundant support from a perusal of the account given by Herodotus (ii, 99-150), of the Egyptian kings previous to Psammetichus. The study of that author proves beyond all doubt, that: I. The whole history is throughout founded on public monuments, and on monuments too, either in or near _Memphis_. We may even restrict ourselves to one single monument at Memphis, to the temple of Vulcan, or Phtha, the chief temple of that city. The history commences with Menes, the founder of that edifice, (c.

99.), and we are informed, respecting each of his successors, what was done towards the augmentation and embellishment of the building: those who made no addition to that temple, but left other monuments, (as the builders of the pyramids,) are denominated oppressors of the people, and contemners of the G.o.ds: of those princes who left no monuments at all, the priests could give no other information than a catalogue of names. II. Hence this line of kings, although the priests gave it to Herodotus as such, is not without interruptions, but, as is clearly proved by a comparison with Diodorus, contains many wide chasms: therefore no chronological system can be erected upon such a basis. III. The whole history is interwoven with narrations derived from hieroglyphic representations, and for that very reason allegorical, the meaning of which it is no longer possible to unravel, the priests themselves being either unable or unwilling to explain it, and even inclining, it appears, to introduce false interpretations.

To this cla.s.s of narrations belongs, for instance, that of the robbery of Rhampsinitus's treasury; that of his journey into h.e.l.l, where he played at dice with Ceres, (c. 121, 122); that concerning the daughter of Cheops, (c. 127.); concerning the blindness of Pheron, and the manner in which he was cured, etc. (c. 111.) To prove that this charge is not without foundation, it will suffice to adduce two examples; one from c. 131, where Herodotus himself observes that such was the case; the other from c. 141, the true meaning of which we gather from other sources. Even in the time of Herodotus, it was customary with the priests to endeavour to conciliate the Greek and Egyptian authorities; a fact in proof of which there are many arguments which cannot escape the critic: such, for instance, as the completely _Graecised_ history of king Proteus, c. 112-115.--The general result of the above observations on Herodotus's Egyptian history is, that it is nothing more than a narration connected with public monuments. To this inference but one objection can possibly be made, namely, that the Egyptian priests possessed, besides their hieroglyphics, an alphabetical mode of writing; consequently, that, over and above the public monuments, they might likewise refer to written annals; but this objection is overthrown by Herodotus himself. All the information the priests could give him beyond what has been above alluded to, consisted in the names of 330 kings subsequent to Menes; these they read from a papyrus roll, but knew nothing more of the kings who bore them, because _those sovereigns had left no monuments behind them_, (c. 100.)

(_b_) Besides Herodotus, _Diodorus_ (lib. i.) likewise furnishes us with the names of some Egyptian kings. This author, who wrote 400 years subsequently to Herodotus, visited Egypt, and collected his history, partly from the oral and written doc.u.ments of the priests of _Thebes_, partly from the more ancient Greek writers, and particularly Hecataeus. If we consider Herodotus's line of kings as not continuous or uninterrupted, all appearance of contradiction between the two historians vanishes. Diodorus, like Herodotus, did not intend to give a complete enumeration of the Egyptian kings; but only of the most remarkable; indicating the interruptions by the number of generations which they contained.

(_c_) Finally, different from both the above is the Egyptian _Manetho_, high priest at _Heliopolis_, who flourished under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 260. He wrote the _aegyptiaca_, of which, besides several fragments in Josephus, the enumeration of the kings has been preserved in the chronicles of Eusebius and Syncellus. This catalogue is divided into three sections, (tomos,) each of which contains several dynasties, in all 31, enumerated according to the different cities of Egypt. In each dynasty the number of kings belonging to it and the years of their reigns are marked. The authenticity of Manetho is now completely established; since the names of the Pharaohs mentioned by him have been deciphered on the Egyptian monuments. To this period belong the first seventeen dynasties; in the eighteenth begins the second and brilliant period, to which the yet remaining monuments of Upper Egypt, bearing the names of the founders, are to be ascribed. It is worthy of observation, that in Herodotus we have the doc.u.ments of the priests of Memphis, in Diodorus those of the priests of Thebes, in Manetho those of the priests of Heliopolis--the three princ.i.p.al seats of sacerdotal learning:--perfect consistency cannot, therefore, be expected in the accounts of those historians.

The modern writers on Egyptian antiquities, from KIRCHER, _Oedipus aegyptiacus_, 1670, to DE PAUW, _Recherches sur les Egyptiens et sur les Chinois_, 1772, have too often subst.i.tuted their own dreams and hypotheses for truth. The princ.i.p.al attempts at a chronological arrangement of the dynasties have been made by MARSHAM, in his _Canon Chronicus_; and by GATTERER, in his # _Synchronistic History of the World_.--Among the princ.i.p.al works on this subject may be reckoned:

JABLONSKI _Pantheon Mythic.u.m aegyptiac.u.m_, 1750, 8vo.

GATTERER, _Commentationes de Theogonia aegypt_. in _Commentat.

Societ. Gotting._ t. vii.

_De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, auctore_ G. ZOEGA; Romae, 1797.

_L'Egypte sous les Pharaons, ou Recherches sur la Geographie, la Religion, la Langue, les Ecritures, et l'Histoire de l'Egypte avant l'invasion de Cambyse, par_ CHAMPOLLION LE JEUNE, t. i, ii. 1814.

These two volumes, dedicated to the geography, contain the restoration of the ancient Egyptian names of provinces and cities deduced from Coptic authorities.

_Commentationes Herodoteae, scribebat_ FRID. CREUZER. _aegyptica et h.e.l.lenica, pars 1._ Lips. 1819. A series of most acute and learned ill.u.s.trations of different points in Egyptian antiquity, introduced by different pa.s.sages of Herodotus.

The volume in HEEREN'S _Historical Researches_, etc. 1831, vol. ii, concerning the Egyptians; and particularly the introduction on hieroglyphic writing. For the best representations of the Egyptian monuments, we are indebted to the French expedition. Those of Denon in his _Voyage en Egypte_, are far superior to those of Poc.o.c.ke and Norden; but Denon's, in their turn, have been greatly surpa.s.sed in the magnificent work:

_Description de l'Egypte, Antiquites_, P. i, ii, iii. P. i, contains the monuments of Upper Egypt, from the frontiers of Nubia to Thebes; P. ii, iii, contain the monuments of Thebes alone.

BELZONI, _Researches in Egypt_, London, 1824, with an atlas.

# MINUTOLI, _Journey to the Temple of Jupiter Ammon, and Egypt_, 1824.

L. BURCKHARDT, _Travels in Nubia_, London, 1819.

F. C. GAU, _Antiquites de la Nubie_, Paris, 1824. A worthy continuation of the great French work on Egypt.

FR. CAILLAUD, _Voyage a Meroe et au Fleuve Blanc_, Paris, 1825, contains the description of the monuments of Meroe.

1. Political civilization commenced in Egypt at a much earlier period than that to which history reaches; for even in the days of Abraham, and still more so in those of Moses, the government seems to have been so well organized, that a long period must necessarily have elapsed in order to raise the nation to that degree of civilization which we see it had then attained. It may, therefore, be safely a.s.serted, that Egypt ranks among the most ancient countries of our globe in which political a.s.sociations existed; although we cannot determine with equal certainty whether they did not exist still earlier in India.

2. The causes which contributed to render Egypt thus early a civilized state, may be found in the natural features of the country, and its favourable situation, when compared with the rest of Africa. It is the only tract in all northern Africa situated on a large uninterrupted navigable stream: had it not been for this, it would, like the other parts of Africa under the same parallel, have been a mere desert. To this must be added two extraordinary circ.u.mstances: on the one hand, the overflowing of the river so perfectly prepares the soil, that to scatter the seed is almost the only labour of the husbandman; and yet, on the other hand, so many obstacles impede the progress of agriculture, (by the necessity of ca.n.a.ls, dams, etc.) that the invention of man must necessarily have been awakened. When agriculture, and the kind of knowledge requisite for its ulterior development had introduced a certain degree of civilization into Egypt, the situation of that country, between Asia and Africa, and in the neighbourhood of the rich land of gold and spices, must have been highly favourable to the purposes of international commerce; hence Egypt appears in all ages to have been one of the chief seats of the inland or caravan trade.

3. It is obvious, therefore, that in the fertile valley of the Nile, the course of things must have been very different from what it was in the desert of Libya. Several small states appear to have been formed in this valley long before the existence of any great Egyptian kingdom. Their origin, as might naturally be supposed, is enveloped in an obscurity, which history can no longer entirely penetrate. It may still, however, be gathered from monuments and records, that Upper Egypt was first the seat of civilization; which, originating in the south, spread by the settlement of colonies towards the north. It is probable that this took place in consequence of the migration of some tribe, differing from the negroes, as is proved by the representations, both in sculpture and in painting, found on the yet remaining monuments of Egypt.

4. The records of the high antiquity of political civilization, not only in India, but likewise in Arabia Felix and Ethiopia, particularly in Meroe, and the evident vestiges of ancient intercourse between the southern nations of our globe, prove with sufficient evidence the truth of such migrations, although they cannot be chronologically determined.

It is certain, however, that religion had no small share in producing them. The national bond of union in Egypt not only continued in later times, entirely dependent upon religion, but was originally grounded upon it. Thus every step in political civilization must have depended, if not solely, at least princ.i.p.ally, on the caste of priests and on their extension.

General development of the idea of division into castes. Originating at first in the variety of tribes settled in one and the same country, and their different modes of life.--Its further progress in despotic and in theocratic kingdoms.--Application to Egypt and to the Egyptian caste of priests, as an original, civilized tribe.

5. The peculiarity of this caste was the worship of certain deities, the princ.i.p.al of which were Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha, confounded by the Greeks with their Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan. The spread of this worship, which was always connected with temples, affords, therefore, the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those vestiges combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to conclude that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, from beyond Meroe in Ethiopia, and by the establishment of inland colonies around the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of their G.o.ds the dominant religion in Egypt.

Proof of the accuracy of the above theory deduced from monuments and express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from Meroe; it might have been inferred from the preservation of the worship of Ammon in the latter place. Memphis, again, and other cities in the valley of the Nile, are commonly supposed to have been founded by detachments from Thebes.

6. This conjecture, which agrees with the usual progress of population, is corroborated by the very ancient division of the country into districts, or nomes. This division was intimately connected with the chief temples, each of which represented a separate colony of the caste of priests; so that the inhabitants of every home belonged to the chief temple, and joined in the religious worship there performed.

7. To the gradual extension of this civilized tribe, which comprised, not only the caste of the priests, but certainly also that of the warriors, and perhaps some others, may be attributed the formation of several small states along the banks of the Nile; the central point of each being always such a colony as we have just now described; although each state consisted both of the aboriginal tribes of the neighbourhood, and of those that had migrated into the country. The bond which united every separate state was, therefore, as in most of those formed in the infancy of mankind, a common worship, in which all the members partic.i.p.ated. But what, by reason of the peculiarities of soil and climate, could not take place in southern Africa, took place in Egypt: agriculture, and its progressive improvement, became the great support of civilization; and, as being the true foundation of states, formed the princ.i.p.al political object of the ruling caste.

Refutation of the idea, that the Egyptian priests were in possession of great speculative knowledge; since their knowledge rather had constant reference to practical life, and, therefore, was in their hands the _instrumentum dominationis_ over the people, by which they rendered themselves indispensable, and kept the former in a state of dependence.--Explanation of the close reference which their G.o.ds, their astronomical and mathematical sciences bore to agriculture.

8. According to Manetho's catalogues, these separate Egyptian states existed first in Upper and Middle Egypt; in the former were Thebes, Elephantine, This, and Heraclea; in the latter, Memphis. It is only in the last division of his work that we meet with states in Lower Egypt, such as Tanis, Mendes, Bubastis, and Sebennytus.

To these states, therefore, no doubt, belong the 330 kings after Menes, whose names the priests read to Herodotus; as also those whom Diodorus mentions as reigning previous to Sesostris, among whom are remarked Busiris II. founder of Thebes, and Uch.o.r.eus, the founder of Memphis. Eusebius and Syncellus have preserved from Manetho the names of several of those kings, which Marsham has endeavoured to compare and arrange.

9. In the absence of a certain and continuous chronology, it is impossible to determine accurately which of these states were contemporary, and which succeeded the others. There can be no question that Thebes was one of the earliest, if not indeed the most ancient of them all; certainly prior to Memphis, which was founded by it. According to the natural order of things, some of these states became wealthy and mighty, and swallowed up the others. Even at this early period, Thebes and Memphis had obtained a superiority over the rest.

This and Elephantine appear to have been united to Thebes; as were the states of Lower Egypt to Memphis.

10. The Mosaic records prove, that even in Joseph's time the state of Memphis (the real place, it appears, of his residence, not On, or Heliopolis,) comprised Middle and Lower Egypt. It possessed a numerous and brilliant court; castes of priests and warriors. Its agriculture flourished, and several of its inst.i.tutions indicated a deeply-rooted civilization. But after the establishment of va.s.salage in this state by Joseph, when the cla.s.s of free proprietors was destroyed, by making the king the only landholder except the priests, the troubles which already threatened the kingdom must have a.s.sumed a more dangerous and alarming aspect.

11. These troubles came from abroad. Egypt, surrounded on all sides by nomad tribes, had often suffered from their irruptions, which sometimes poured in from the south, sometimes from the east. But never were these invasions so frequent and durable as in the period which immediately followed the administration of Joseph. Lower Egypt was overrun by the Bedouin Arabs, whose chieftains, called by the Egyptians _Hyksos_, settled in the country, fortified Avaris, or Pelusium, and extended their dominion to Memphis, which they made probably the seat of their government. They are depicted as the oppressors of religion, and of the caste of priests; but when we consider that Moses flourished in their time, we are led to infer that, like the Mongols in China, they must have gradually adopted Egyptian manners and civilization. They do not appear to have gained possession of Thebes in Upper Egypt; and it seems highly probable, that the long struggle against them was never, or at least but for a short time, suspended.

The dominion of the Arabian Hyksos falls between B. C. 1800-1600; and consequently was contemporary with Moses and the exodus of the Jews.

Josephus gives 500 years to their dominion, in which he probably comprises the long periods of earlier wars.

12. Defeat, and final expulsion of the Hyksos from Upper Egypt by Thutmosis king of Thebes. The consequence of this event was not only the restoration of freedom and independence to Egypt, but also the union of the different states into one kingdom; as the rulers of Thebes now became monarchs over all Egypt. This expulsion of the Hyksos, which in itself cannot be considered otherwise than as a vast national effort, must have been the more deeply impressed on the memory of the people, as it laid the foundation of the splendid period which immediately followed.

The expulsion of the Hyksos appears to have been one of the chief subjects on which the Egyptian artists exercised their talents: it is supposed to have been represented upon one of the large temples in Thebes. Denon, plate cx.x.xiii.

SECOND PERIOD.

_From the Sesostridae until the sole dominion of Psammetichus.

B. C. 1500-650._

The sources for this period are the same as for the foregoing; and the history still preserves the character of records handed down by hieroglyphics. To this period belongs the line of kings subsequent to Sesostris, given both by Herodotus and Diodorus. Those two historians nearly agree, if we regard Herodotus's line of kings, not as uninterrupted, but as the fragments of a series deduced solely from public monuments: this will be demonstrated by the following table, in which the predecessors of Sesostris have likewise been indicated.

HERODOTUS. DIODORUS.

_Menes._ _Menes._