Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Ptolemies, and not as the production of more powerful and more ancient sovereigns, the primitive Pharaohs.

To apply therefore to the Greek writers for a knowledge of the language, religion, laws, and customs of the ancient Egyptians, is to apply to a vitiated and prejudiced source, which exhibits only the darkest and most faithless side of the picture. The account however, which they have given may be of use; it may direct us to consult higher and more faithful authorities; and even their own narration, by the assistance of a proper and well-directed criticism, may serve to impart valuable notions. Hard and difficult as this criticism may be, it is of absolute necessity. Without it we shall add the erroneous opinions of our own mind to those which they have left us; and our errors in the language of your poet may be compared to

Alps on Alps arise.

Upon this statement, it may be asked, how then the old Egyptian names have reached us; or in other words, how have we been able to discover the old Egyptian names, which the Greeks had so altered as to render it quite impossible to recognise them? I answer, through the means of the Arabians, and the Coptic manuscripts. I shall endeavour to establish this fact by the following considerations.

Notwithstanding the irruptions, and the conquest which the Persians, the Greeks, and the

Romans made of Egypt, the feeble remainder of the nation still preserved in their common language the names which their ancestors had given to their deities, to their animals, and their cities. In this they followed the example of the Orientals, who at all times have been considered as preserving, better than any other nation, their names and their customs; so that, even at this moment, many of the most ancient cities in Asia, and indeed all over the East, are known by the names they received from the earliest time; and although subdued by foreign conquerors, they have preserved their native language, and local denominations. This is an observation of Iamblicus, who had paid a great deal of attention to this subject; and I think it perfectly correct. It is in fact confirmed by history; and perhaps, more so in regard to Egypt than any other people upon earth. For although the Greeks altered the ancient Egyptian names, yet these denominations were used by their own nation only, and adopted even by their countrymen residing in Europe; but never by the native Egyptians. These latter continued to use their ancient names, and either disregarded or despised the alterations introduced by their conquerors.

The Romans, when they subdued Egypt, being entirely ignorant of the language of the natives, but well acquainted with the Greek language, adopted all the terms and denominations which they had introduced; and the old Egyptian names, and perhaps the Egyptian language itself, would

have been lost for ever, had not the Arabians by their conquest, put an end to the jargon introduced by the Greeks, and protected and encouraged the vernacular language of their new subjects. Having at that time very little connexion with the Greeks and the Romans, feeling a sort of gratitude towards the Egyptians, who had assisted them in the conquest of their country, trusting to them the care of collecting the tributes which were to be levied on the different cities, and finding a great analogy between the pronunciation of the Egyptians and their own, the Arabs gave the preference to the Coptic denominations and names, and thus the changes introduced by the Greeks were for ever abolished. In this way the ancient names, being generally revived, were adopted even by the Arabians themselves, who have transmitted them to us with some slight modifications.

What these alterations are, I do not think it necessary to mention. The account of them belongs more properly to the analysis of the Coptic and Arabian languages, with which we have nothing to do; our object is merely to ascertain the mode by which the ancient Egyptian names, and Egyptian language, have been preserved.

[ocr errors]

LECTURE XI.

Statement of the subject-Difference in the chronology of the Hebrew text, and the Samaritan and Greek version of the Bible-Inadmissibility of the Hebrew computation, proved by facts mentioned by sacred as well as profane historyAges of Nimrod, of Ninus, and of Abraham, ascertained— Foundation of the Egyptian monarchy by Misraim-Multiplication of mankind-Opinion of Bishop Cumberland confuted-Alteration of the Hebrew chronology-Objections stated and resolved-Reasons why the genealogical tables recorded by the ancient historians are entitled to creditCauses which produced the discrepancy in the names and number of the different sovereigns-Attempt at reducing to a reasonable computation the fabulous reckonings of the Oriental historians-System of M. Gibert-Explained—Exemplified-Babylonian, Egyptian, and Chinese chronology.

IN one of my Lectures, speaking of the origin of the city of Abydos, and indeed in most of the Lectures that I have given on the subject of hieroglyphics, I have mentioned so repeatedly the high antiquity of some of the Egyptian monuments, that I think it necessary, before I proceed any further, to prove to you that this antiquity is by no means improbable, nor does it contradict in the least the commanding authority of our holy Scrip

tures. On one occasion particularly, (page 203,) alluding to this antiquity, I made this same observation, and mentioned, that however startling the antiquity of some of the Egyptian monuments may appear at first sight, it is entitled to our belief, provided we adopt the chronology of the Seventy, that is, of the version which was made of our holy Scriptures from the Hebrew into the Greek language, at the desire as it is said, of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about three centuries before Christ.

To make you understand this point, I will, in the best manner I can, call your attention to some facts which will render what I have to state, in regard to Egypt, more intelligible.

You know we have three different texts of the Scriptures the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Greek; or as it is commonly called, the Septuagint. As they inculcate the same doctrine, exhibit the same facts, record the same events, give the same history; in short as they agree together on all points, they are either three texts, or copies of the same original. Their authenticity therefore is indisputable. The only thing they differ upon, is the chronology of the primitive ages of the world. The Hebrew text shortens its period, and reckons about 4000 years from the Creation to the birth of our Saviour. The Septuagint carries the calculation between Adam and Christ to above 6000 years; and the Samaritan text adopts a third computation, which differs from the Hebrew and Septuagint.

To give you a specimen of these different modes

« ZurückWeiter »