"There must be some mistake."

"There is, there is!

That half-wit boy his charity supports,
Whom many a time I've urged him to dismiss,
Has all mistook his errand. That address
Tied to the blossoms, should have borne them
winged

With love-to Miss Latour!"

""Tis strange; unlike The man I've known so many a noble year."

"You knew him ne'er till now."

"Judge him not yet, And on such evidence-so slight, so weak To weigh against the verdict of a world That honors him as one in whom no faultEven such as in that world is lightly heldHas ever marred the whiteness of his life. What if I judged you as you judge of him? What if I said you lacked in charity In begging him dismiss that half-wit boy Who earns the crust his bedrid mother needs? Why now you flush with anger. Did he so, When you bore hard upon the orphan?-Anne! I do believe in my most hopeful heart

No thought of his has wronged you. I have known

This poor Emile Latour. The girl is one
Devoted to a crippled father's care;
Of life most spotless; beautiful as day.
Why start? If true there's beauty in her face,
The more unwise to mar your own with frowns.
The flowers, if meant for her-but 'tis not sure-
Must have been sent to cheer the cripple's room.
Or, say they were for her; well, what of that ?—
Quick! pluck the thorn of doubt from off your
cheek;

See, here he comes."

"What! you here, Bell.-So, Anne, You got your flowers, I see. Why here's the card I sent to Miss Latour!-That idiot boy! Well: 'tis no matter: she has learnt ere this By other signs agreed on, that the coast Is clear for flight. By this time she's on boardYou stare. The secret's out. Sweet cousin Bell, And you, my little wife, draw nearer :-so. Now listen while I tell a pleasant tale Of Lear's poor Fool.

"You've heard of Miss Latour? You knew her the best daughter in the world. Few knew she was a wife. Half for the sake Of her old crippled father; half in fear Of such temptations as her calling threw Still ever in her way; she gave her hand To a mere shifter of the playhouse scenes. The man turned out a drunkard and a brute, And was dismissed for wardrobe pilfering. Haunting the theatre but to seize her gains, He beat and bruised her in her humble home. She bore up bravely-till a child was born. Then would this shame of manhood take the child From out the mother's arms, and swear to part The treasure from her breast, unless-unlessIn short, unless she found him larger sums To satisfy his vicious drunken greed.

So bought the mother back her bosom's child!
This could not last. The actors took it up.
And one-all honor to his noble name !-
Poor fellow he went down amid the seas

Before his cup of sweet humanity
Was full. Well, I must close my tale in haste,
Her father's dead; and she is safe beyond
The wretch's power: sails for America

With the first breeze to-morrow. There she owns
A brother will be guardian to her child
And her.-My Anne, you're weeping."

"Good cousin Herbert, search us not too closely.
Our thoughts are sometimes contraband of war:-
A little smuggling, too, we do besides.
Yet 'tis not in your Articles of War,
Nor in your Customs' duties noted down,
That you should cry, with every change of mood,
'Stand and deliver!' like a highwayman.
Our women's hearts are riddles to you gods.
We've been a little foolish, both of us.-
Our errors lie in our poor fledgeless souls
That shiver in their nests before their wings
Have cast the down.-Aye, take her to your
breast.-

I leave you to your golden wedding, Anne:
For golden breaks the sun your passing cloud.
Be sure he'll give you work enough to do.
She wants to meddle, Herbert, with your books.
But now farewell: one waits for me at home.
To-morrow I shall be my Harry's bride.
Till then, to-morrow, farewell to you both!"
ELEANORA L. HERVEY.

The London Review.

EGYPT'S PLACE IN UNIVERSAL HISTORY.*

THERE is something heroic in a magnificent failure. It can only be made by a man of large ideas and of daring enough to attempt their execution; one of those men who go through with enterprises that to vulgar minds seem mere impossibilities. Even if wholly unsuccessful, not only a general failure, but a

by day

Egypt's Place in Universal History. By C. C. 1848-1867, and Vol. I., Second Edition, 1867.

failure in all its details, still it is a lesson to others to aim above the common level. And thus it becomes criticism to deal leniently with scholar-like books of wide compass, however little they may satisfy its judgment, rather praising the authors for having been overbold then blaming them for having passed the bounds of ordinary ambition. Bunsen, taught by Niebuhr, and selftrained by a study of the antiquities of Italy, turned his mature attention to ancient Egypt, that he might bring German criticism to the explanation of its newly-understood monuments, for it must be remembered that the work only now posthumously completed was begun to be written nearly thirty years ago. With the far sight of an historical critic he did not wish to confine his researches to Egypt alone. Monuments reaching back, with but few considerable gaps, from the third century after Christ to at least the twenty-fourth before Christ, to at least four thousand years ago, and beyond the monuments of all other nations full of historical information, could scarcely fail to tell as much directly and indirectly of those countries which were foreign to Egypt, as of Egypt itself. The language of their inscriptions, with its hold, on the one hand, on the rudest forms of human speech, the monosyllabic Nigritian and Chinese, on the other, on the elaborate family to which Hebrew belongs, might bridge over the seemingly impassable chasm between the speech of barbarous and of civilized races. The arts and sciences of Egypt might be found to hold the germ of what afterward Greece knew and taught the ancient and the modern world. The historical information as to Egypt and its neighbors might even afford new materials for primeval history. The inquiries which might be made with the aid of these new data were, in Bunsen's opinion, these:-The restoration of Egyptian chronology, the determination by means of the study of their language of the place of the Egyptians in primeval history, especially with reference to the Shemites and the Indo-Europeans, and, as a result of the latter, the acquisition of more certain bases for the history of mankind.

There is, perhaps, no subject of crit

ical inquiry upon which scholars have so widely differed as Egyptian chronology. The interval from Menes, the first king, to the Christian era has been so variously computed, that the longest system is double the length of the shortest, and, even now, when a better knowledge of the monuments has led to greater moderation, the current schemes differ more than a thousand years, a circumstance affording convincing proof that the materials give no obvious solution of the difficulties of the case. Bunsen started with his first problem in this form:-"Is the chronology of Egypt, as embodied in the dynasties of Manetho, capable of restoration, wholly or in part, by means of the monuments and the names of its kings?" Here are the two elements, the Egyptian historian and the Egyptian monuments. Manetho, had we his work in a complete state, or even the list of dynasties with the original numbers, might furnish a framework in which to set the monumental data. He was an Egyptian priest under the rule of the Ptolemies, whose work, even in its present state, shows he had access to, and understood his native documents. The evidence of the monuments, though without a general era, and affording but few connected chronological periods, and these only approximately determined, would be far more available for the solution of the problem could we ascertain from Manetho even the duration of the whole period of his dynasties. The great effort of those who have endeavored to reconstruct Egyptian chronology has been to determine this interval. For this purpose the remains attributed to Manetho afford two methods. Either we may take his numbers for the dynasties, and endeavor to ascertain the chronological interval, or we may accept, as drowning men catch at straws, a very doubtful statement of the length of that interval given on his authority. The former plan affords great scope for ingenuity. Some, indeed, may still follow Bockh, and make the thirty or thirty-one dynasties successive, with a vast duration of five thousand years, with perhaps a few hundreds more, but the time is past when that great scholar's method can be admitted to be critical: the Egyptian

monuments themselves will not allow it. Others, admitting with Bunsen and Lepsius and all English scholars who have written on the subject, that some of the dynasties must have been contemporary, attempt to arrange them in such an order as that those proved by their monuments to have been the most important should form a succession, and afford in their sums a solution to the chronological question. Bunsen, however, while admitting this method, preferred to make the result secure by accepting the doubt ful statement of the length of the whole period, into which, of course, there could be no difficulty in fitting the dynasties, as it reduced the period of their total by about two thousand years, and so brought their duration within the limits that historical critics thought probable, though the monuments were not precise enough to render certain anything more than a considerable reduction. The doubtful statement allows the thirty dynasties (the thirty-first, which perhaps is not Manethonian, being omitted) a duration in the whole of 3,555 years. It is not necessary here to go into the question of his authenticity, for Bunsen repudiates it, as a whole, as a chronological reckoning, though strangely enough admitting one of its divisions, according to its explanation of it, to be essentially chronological. He does not, however, like to go back into the remote beginnings the so-called Manethonian statement would assign to the Egyptian kingdom with but a single support. He looks about and finds in the Canon of Eratosthenes a second chronological system by which to confirm generally, and specially to adjust the numbers of Manetho. The main chronological facts of this Canon are the following. According to Syncellus, the Byzantine chronographer, Eratosthenes gave a list of thirty-eight kings, from Menes downward, who ruled ruled 1,076 years, and Apollodorus, who handed down this Canon, added to it, on what authority is not said, a further list of fifty-three kings. Of the list of Eratosthenes we have the names and the lengths of the individual reigns, of that of Apollodorus nothing but the number of kings. Bunsen having divided the dynasties of Manetho into those of the Ŏld, Middle, and New Em

pire, the commencements of which are marked by the accession of Menes, the invasion and conquest of Egypt by the Hycsos, and the last Persian conquest, finds there is some reason for thinking the Canon of Eratosthenes to represent the part of Manetho's list containing the Old Empire. We say some reason, for we do not think the case conclusively made out. Bunsen, however, assuming the identity in question, and finding the sum of Eratosthenes to be much lower than that of Manetho, and moreover finding the individual reigns very different, adopts the former sum, and concludes the latter not to be strictly chronological. Yet for the period of the New Empire he adopts the Manethonian sum, with some correction. There remains the Middle Empire. If the sums of the Manethonian dynasties of the Old Empire, which correspond in Bunsen's opin ion to the Canon of Eratosthenes, be added to those of the New Empire thus corrected-observe a non-chronological and an essentially chronological period being added together-and these be subtracted from the non-chronological total of 3,555 years, we obtain a non-chronological period, the Manethonian reckoning of 922 years for the Middle Empire. This method of computation, adopted by Bunsen in vol. ii. (pp. 452 et seq.), seems by far the most reasonable method of discovering how much of the 3,555 years Manetho allowed to the Middle Empire, if only we suppose the Old and New Empire to be equally chronological. This sum, 922 years, he at first unhesitatingly adopted as the true chronological measure of this obscure period, but ultimately, with his customary and admirable readiness to abandon an untenable position, and with great critical sagacity, he abandoned it and took in its stead a sum of 350 years. The first reckoning makes the accession of Menes B.C. 3643 (vol. ii. p. 579), a date afterward modified to B.c. 3623 (iv. p. 502), and thus makes the 3,555 years equivalent to a chronological pe riod of 3,303 or 3,283 years, if with Bunsen we make it end B.C. 340, the second reckoning makes this leading era B.C. 3059 (v. p. 62), and thus reduces the chronological period to 2,719 years. So great a reduction, however probable, were it proved that the sup

the sums of

posed Manethonian period was not chronological, but made up of the full reigns of a succession of kings, with no allowance for co-regency or overlapping of reigns, undoubtedly deprives that period of any value whatever. There can be no reason why it should not be reduced by a thousand years or more.

In endeavoring to explain Bunsen's attempt to obtain a fixed Egyptian chronology, we have sufficiently shown its unsoundness. An examination of the details will not put it in a more favorable position. The idea that the Canon of Eratosthenes and the fragments of Manetho can be moulded into one system has been abandoned by every other scholar. Of the thirty-eight reigns of the former document, Bunsen compares twenty-six with twenty-five of Manetho's reigns, the other reigns being assigned to Manethonian dynasties of which the individual names and reigns are not stated. In these twenty-six and twentyfive reigns there are but four actual and four closely approximative agreements in duration. The latter may be also actual correspondences, as the difference may arise from a different manner of allowing for the excess of months over the complete years reigned. Such an agreement is obviously no agreement at all, and we are forced to conclude that, by some strange accident, the list of names mainly in right chronological order given by Eratosthenes is accompanied by numbers generally erroneous; for if one of the two authorities must be given up, it is clear that Eratosthenes is that one, as when direct monumental data are at hand, they show the majority of Manetho's numbers to be correct. The 350 years, Bunsen's last reckoning for the Middle Empire, appears to be obtained, by some computation of average reigns, from the number of kings, fifty-three, stated by Apollodorus, in continuation of the Canon of Eratosthenes, for Syncellus says nothing of any chronological interval assigned to them; and in vol. ii. (p. 461) it is admitted that the period of these kings can only be obtained from Manetho. Yet in vol. iv. (p. 513) and vol. v. (p. 57) the short sum of 350 years is actually given as on the authority of Apollodorus, with no explanation whatever. We have entirely failed to discover any ground for this

a

positive statement, probable as it would be, were it certain that the fifty-three kings of Apollodorus represent those of the Middle Empire. Bunsen's Egyptian chronology is, in fact, founded on series of arbitrary conjectures. It is, however, perhaps worthy of remark, that he should have ended by moderating his reckoning of the duration of the Egyptian dynasties, thus parting company with Lepsius and Brugsch, and approaching the systems of English students, which he always disliked.

These chronological speculations of Bunsen's have very little direct value. Their indirect value is, however, considerable, for they led him to a close study of Egyptian history, to which it is unfortunate he did not give a more undivided attention, as through it ultimately his first problem will, in all probability, be mainly solved. Perhaps, indeed, fixed dates may be obtained from the records of astronomical observations; but the general duration of Egyptian chronology and many of its details will, we may reasonably suppose, be ultimately fixed, approximatively but so far surely, by a knowledge of the history of each dynasty, perhaps of each reign, and by pedigrees whether of kings or of subjects.

The first problem is thus left unsolved by Bunsen. All his careful labor, his successive reconsiderations of the subject, tend mainly to show nothing but that he has approached the problem on a basis of false axioms, and by an inaccurate method. The considerable part of this great work which treats of Egyytian chronology is but a monument, noble, indeed, and in some sense lasting, of misdirected learning; yet the very fact of its failure is an evidence of the large idea of the author, who was not contented without a thorough solution, and one that should result from the consideration of all the available data. Thus he has proved the impossibility of an agreement between Manetho and Eratosthenes by the very pains he has taken to produce that agreement. And where all others have failed, it is no disgrace that even Bunsen should have been unable to achieve that for which perhaps we have as yet no sufficient evidence. Of him at least it can be said, that he spared no pains and ne

glected no information. The faults of his mind, his hasty reasoning, his general blindness to the objections to a favorite theory, even where they amount to absolute disproof, certainly did not qualify him for the delicate task of dealing with data that only a Fynes-Clinton could have handled without falling into absurdities; yet it must be remembered that the solid learning of Lepsius, and the brilliant acuteness of Brugsch, have done nothing better, while the cold judgment of De Rougé and the timidity of Birch have refused the problem altogether. He compensated for the faults of his method by his earnestness of purpose and untiring energy, for, at the very last, by a happy instinct, he arrived nearer a correct solution, if we may venture to say so, than those two rivals who have divided with him the honor of encountering the Sphinx, determined at all hazards to find the answer of her enigma.

Bunsen's second and more daring enterprise, the determination, by means of the examination of their language, of the place of the Egyptians in primeval history, especially with reference to the Shemites and the Indo-Europeans, is far more difficult than his first. The materials, indeed, are more abundant and better defined, but they require more delicate handling, and the problem to be solved is one of far greater difficulty. The comparison of languages is the main method of its solution; Bunsen has, however, thought it desirable to support or check it by a similar examination of historical, traditional, and mythical data, bearing or supposed to bear on the primeval history of man. To the principal comparison we shall mainly confine ourselves, as it claims the chief attention and cannot be considered except at some length.

Comparative philology, like most new sciences, is apt to be misused. Now that it has been discovered that languages can be classed in great groups, and that their relation within these groups is marked by certain phonetic laws, it is natural that comparative philologers should hope to gain some clue to the period occupied by the growth of each member of the families, and then of the families themselves; but it is a question whether this hope is not wholly illusory. We know that the circumstances of a nation, its

habits, and geographical position, affect the rapidity with which divergence is developed, and it becomes very doubtful whether we can even speculate on the time needed for the growth of the languages of nations, the civilization and even position of which during this period we do not accurately know or indeed in some cases know at all. Yet the more obscure the subject, the more daring the theorist, and to this rule Bunsen forms no exception. Had he confined himself to endeavoring to establish the relation of Egyptian to other languages or families of language he would have been contented with a legitimate problem: instead of this, he has insisted on discovering the place of Egyptian and of every marked family or development, as he would call it, of speech in a vast chronological scale, with which it is hard to think he himself was satisfied. We shall endeavor in our remarks to separate the legitimate problem from the extension of it we condemn, and with this object shall first speak of the philological place of Egyptian.

Bunsen deserves the credit of having brought together the best materials hitherto published for the study of ancient Egyptian. In the portions written by himself he has shown a competent acquaintance with the results of Champollion's system, and a thoroughly scientific method of handling them, so far as simple, not comparative, philology is concerned. In the contributions of Dr. Birch he has had the aid of one of the best Egyptologists, who has labored for years on the Dictionary and Grammar and Translation of the Book of the Dead given in vol. v., and is thus the author of one of the most important philological portions of the work. We could wish that this labor had been executed by more methodical hands. Here we have the fullest and the most concise apparatus for the study of ancient Egyptian, and yet the want of clearness and arrangement is so great that we fear beginners will fly to Brugsch or De Rougé, and forgive them their unreasonable diffuseness because they are lucid and methodical. In the Dictionary clearness would have been gained by grouping together different hieroglyphic forms of the same root, instead of placing them separately, each with the meaning proved in the case of that particular form. Thus we