reader. There were consequently few persons sufficiently interested to inquire whether the unknown names and renownless annals of the Chinese really did reach back to the commencement of the 3rd, or even to the close of the 4th millennium before our era. European enthusiasm for Chinese literature limited itself to the study of Confucius, the sage of the 6th century B. C., and the computations as to the flood remained as they had been fixed in the 17th century, contrary to the wish of Scaliger, partly by accident, and in all cases without any tenable grounds, in the schools and heads of theologians. The chronology and monumental remains of India seemed to hold out brighter hopes to the one party, and more serious cause of apprehension to the other. This was especially the case from the period when the brilliant genius of Frederic Schlegel took up the series of Sanscrit researches already long pursued in Calcutta by Jones and Wilford, and tested their results by the standard of universal history and by the new light of German philosophical criticism, enlivening his labours with the charm of elegant style, and with versions of popular passages from the Indian poets. Here a nation was brought to light, speaking the language of the race who conquered and civilised the world, a race which, as Indians, Medes and Persians, as Hellenes and Romans, as Germans and Sclavonians, had during thousands of years rolled down the great channel of the stream of human migration; a nation distinguished for primitive wisdom, a profound code of laws, and possessing equally primitive monuments, and records of their influence on the other great nations of antiquity. Their historical period began coeval almost with that of the Chinese, towards the 30th century before our era. The Egyptian problem seemed at last to be solved. The civilisation of Egypt was derived from Meroe, that of Meroe incontestably from India. Still indeed an old even now nation, as compared with the modern Hellenes, the empire of Egypt was of course younger than that of India. So at least Van Bohlen (in 1830!) still represents the matter. If proof be required, but a poor case can be made out. The Brahmin and Hindù party at this hour leave the Egyptian language entirely out of the question, as an impracticable subject that Champollion's grammar has demonstrated to the satisfaction of every competent scholar the grammatical identity of the Egyptian and Coptic languages. Their own system of philology would indeed soon lead this party to admit the higher antiquity of the Egyptian. As to the boasted primeval antiquity of the Indian buildings they have begun to lower their tone, and that assigned to the written records of the nation fluctuates to the extent of a thousand years. But the weakest part of the whole case is the Indian historical chronology. Whether from a want of historical judgment in the Hindus themselves, or the faults of those by whom the course of Indian research has hitherto been directed, the fact is, that a critical examination of their Lists of Kings, although in themselves to all appearance quite authentic, barely carries us back with certainty to the Augustan age. An interesting discovery, lately made by Prinsep, seems indeed still further to extend our knowledge to the age of the Seleucida and Lagida; but that we should ever be able to reach the Olympic era, still less to the fountain-head of authentic Hebrew chronology, but little hope can, at least from present appearance, be entertained; while the chasm which lies between Menu and the commencement of the Kali-jug is such as to exclude all reasonable expectation of its being ever filled up. One fact at least is certain, that the primeval history of Egypt finds neither elucidation nor point of contact in the Annals, Lists, or Monuments of India. Simultaneously with the first steps in the progress of modern hieroglyphical discovery (in 1823), Dr. Prichard, one of the most acute and learned investigators of his time, had once more vindicated the claims of Egypt to a primeval chronology, and suggested a collation of the Lists of Eratosthenes and Manetho, as the true method of elucidating the earliest period. In his work on Egyptian chronology and mythology he shows that the continually recurring coincidences which they offer cannot be accidental, and that the Lists of the former must represent a chronological canon. These suggestions, promulgated on the very eve of hieroglyphical discovery, far surpass in practical value the similar attempt on the part of Rask 171, who, though an acute critic, was little versed in historical inquiry, and was still ignorant of the hieroglyphic system, when, eleven years later, he undertook to reconcile the same two authorities. Egypt remained as before, a sealed book, and her chronology altogether unserviceable. Such was the state of Egyptian chronological science at the period when Champollion presented himself before the monuments of the nation with his Hieroglyphical Alphabet in his hand and deciphered the names of her Kings. II. THE RESEARCHES OF THE EGYPTOLOGERS: CHAMPOLLION AND THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN SCHOOL ROSELLINI-THE ENGLISH - SCHOOL, SALT, BURTON, FELIX (LORD PRUDHOE), WILKINSON. THE chronological views of Champollion have been so often and so variously attacked, and almost every one of them must be so decidedly combated in the course of this work, that it becomes the more necessary to explain the ground on which we feel justified, nevertheless, in pronouncing him in history as well as philology the father of the new critical school of 171 Rask. The ancient Egypt. Chronology, translated into German. Altona, 1830. Egyptian research. Between his system of chronology and his character as a man of science, an interesting parallel may be traced. In each the faults of detail lie on the surface- in each the internal excellence and greatness of the whole are concealed from the eye of the superficial observer. Many of his opponents have attacked him without possessing any acquaintance with the subject; many with the weapon of presumptuous knowledge or false learning. Their names will never reach posterity. The errors and faults of Champollion will be ascribed to the decline of the French school of classical philology, after the death or banishment of Scaliger and its other great masters; while his own comprehensive views and discoveries will be attributed to the superiority of his genius, and the unaided efforts of his noble intellect. These remarks are dictated by a no less powerful sense of conviction than of heartfelt gratitude; for we enjoyed the happiness of his personal acquaintance, and of learning from him the first rudiments of hieroglyphic lore at the foot of the obelisks at Rome. Especial credit is due to Champollion for his efforts to apply his discoveries at once to the purpose of historical research, instead of wasting his time in mere verbal quibbles or visionary speculations. And what he effected was no trifling matter, if we consider the low state in which he found ancient chronology generally, more especially as regards the history of Egypt. Zoega had already clearly proved that previous researches had done nothing for the times anterior to Solomon; that a wide chasm intervened before the latter chronology again assumed a coherent shape in the time of Psammetichus, and that it was not till the age of Cambyses that it began to acquire consistency and certainty by the establishment of synchronistic epochs. As regards the primeval period, we have seen already how the different props of the old system, one after another, were broken down, involving in the same ruin a considerable portion of the later history of the world, which they were then supposed firmly to support. Champollion with the Royal Rings in one hand, transmitted to him in great numbers from both Europe and Egypt on the first announcement of his discovery, and with the hieroglyphical alphabet which he was forming in the other, boldly grappled with the-then almost exploded-Lists of Manetho, and with the names of the Pharaohs in the Bible and the Greek writers. Here his system was to be established or annihilated, together with all his hopes of restoring the chronology of Egypt. But not only in the zeal of his historical research did Champollion surpass Dr. Young, who had outstripped him in the discovery of the Phonetic signs, but also in its results. In the first edition of his Précis (1824) he demonstrated that the Monuments as well as Lists reach back to the contemporaries of Solomon, and that the combination of the two supplied a basis for the eriticism of the latter. He also shed a ray of light on the glorious epoch of the primeval empire, by reading on the obelisks at Rome the Royal Rings of Ramses, Tuthmōsis and others. It would be ungenerous to taunt him, immersed as he then was in his hieroglyphical discoveries, with having declined to undertake a task which had long been treated by other celebrated investigators with a degree of neglect amounting to an entire abandonment. He accepted therefore this important element of research as it was offered to him. His brother ChampollionFigeac, however, whose studies had previously been devoted to other departments of Egyptian chronology, undertook this portion of the work; but fell, unhappily, at the outset, as we have already intimated, into an error pregnant with the most fatal results to Egyptian chronology. The point, indeed, is one of such importance as to demand a few words of special remark. |