Chapter XLIV: Introduction: To the Chronology of the Egyptians (1)

While the beginnings of Greek and Roman history, by the strict investigations of modern criticism, have lost more and more of their historical character, and while cautious inquirers consider it impossible to obtain a fixed date for separate events, earlier than the seventh and eighth centuries before Christ, the history of Egypt treats of strictly historical facts, and its chronology contains exact numbers of years, months, and days in the third and fourth millennium previous to our era. This appears such a palpable contradiction, that it is not alone worth while on account of the larger circle of readers who are more out of the scope of these investigations, but it must also be important to the inquirers in this field, to answer for themselves the preliminary question, how it is possible to prosecute the history of Egypt so much farther back than the history of the nations of the West and East, without denying the principles of that criticism which has pointed out limits to the history of classical antiquity, and which must justly be considered the most valuable treasure of modern science?

In order to answer this question, we must first call to mind that it has now become a principle, derived from experience, that the real history of a nation, in the strictest sense of the word, never recedes much farther back than its _oldest contemporaneous authorities_, and this once expressed, becomes, from its intrinsic necessity, self-evident. This principle applies both to us—since our certain conclusions in historical investigations do not extend much farther back—and also to the nations themselves; for they only obtain historical consciousness and historical experience when they begin to produce monuments, especially written monuments, to bear witness to posterity of what is occurring. Monuments form the dial-plate of history; until they exist, the present alone belongs to a nation, not the past—it exists without a history. If a nation loses its monuments, either through its own fault or through circumstances, it will be unable to preserve its history, which becomes confused and traditionary, and in place of the purely historical account which it has lost, it obtains, at the best, another principle of internal order; a poetic-mythological, as with the Greeks; a philosophic-mythological, as with the Indians; or a religious one, as with the Israelites; but it always loses its original value as a reproduction of a series of real facts.

Now if we start from this axiom, that the commencement of every true history and chronology, as it is scientifically understood at the present day, cannot be carried much farther back than their _oldest contemporaneous authorities_, and that we find this confirmed in the nations of Europe and Asia to the prejudice of their earliest histories, then it is here precisely that exists the marked _superiority_ of the history of Egypt above all other histories. It is because we have here _such very early contemporaneous authorities_—not only _literary_, but the most direct which exist, namely, _monumental authorities_—that we possess the means of obtaining so early a history of the Egyptians.

If, with reference to this, we first observe the local and climatal conditions of Egypt, we shall at once perceive that they aid in a wonderful manner in preserving all kinds of monuments and other relics of the earliest antiquity. A damp climate generally prevails in the more elevated and northern parts of Asia; and in the more favoured regions, owing to a periodical rainy season, the extensive plains are covered with a fertile soil and luxuriant vegetation (the barren and stony deserts being always deprived of any high cultivation), consequently all, even the most solid, monuments of art, where we might have hoped to find them in considerable numbers, are overpowered and destroyed by the predominating vital power of nature, ever inimical to the works of man; whereas the fertility of Egypt, as is well known, is almost entirely independent of rain. This certainly applies less to the damp air, often pregnant with rain, along the sea-coast, or to the well-watered and marshy low district of the Delta. But it is principally for that reason that there are so few remains of the numerous large and flourishing towns of the Delta, and that these are hardly worth mentioning. Irregular heaps of ruins alone exist now of Memphis, the rich metropolis of Lower Egypt, renowned in the earliest and latest periods of the Monarchy, and of Heliopolis, Sais, Bubastis, and other important towns. The granite obelisks in Alexandria are so corroded by the weather that their inscriptions are hardly recognisable.

In Upper Egypt, where it _scarcely ever_ rains, it is totally different, especially with respect to all the monuments which are situated on the borders of the desert, out of reach of the annual inundation, and this is uniformly the case with the _tombs_, the richest store-houses for our knowledge of ancient Egyptian life, which in this country alone really fulfil their true destination, by serving as an asylum against destruction and decay. The narrow district of the Nile, annually recreated, borders in its whole length on the wide, rocky, and petrifying desert. The towns and temples were therefore chiefly built on the boundary between the two, partly not to intrench upon the fertile ground, partly in order that the buildings should be upon a drier and more secure foundation. And thus, in fact, we find the numerous temples and palaces in wonderful preservation, so far as they are not mutilated by the hand of man.

Even the black bricks made of Nile mud, and dried in the sun, apparently the most perishable material, have not unfrequently been preserved in the open air for thousands of years, in the form in which they were built up, and with their coating of plaster. A row of great vaulted halls, built entirely of black Nile bricks, and partly covered in the inside with stucco, stands about the celebrated temple of the great Ramses, in Thebes. They date from the same period as the temple itself, the beginning of the thirteenth century before Christ. This is not alone testified by the architectonic plan of the building, but most irrefutably by the bricks themselves, which bear the name of Ramses-Miamun stamped upon them, as a mark of the royal manufacture. At that time, and earlier, during the whole of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, it was a very common practice to line the excavated rock-tombs with Nile bricks, and afterwards to paint upon the stucco, especially wherever the rock was friable, and was therefore hewn into a vaulted roof. But the same custom is sometimes found even in the earliest period of the Pyramids of Memphis. In enclosed places, not only the building material, but the colours, both upon the stone and upon the plaster covering, have almost without exception retained their original freshness and perfection, and also, very frequently, where they have been exposed to the open air.

The peculiar incorruptibility of vegetable and even of animal matter is, however, still more astonishing. Our museums are filled with such remains. In the most ancient tombs of Memphis, a multitude of objects are found made of wood, such as sarcophagi, chests, and boxes of all kinds, chairs, instruments, small ships, likewise grains of corn, and dried fruits, such as pomegranates, dates, the fruit of the Doum Palm, nuts, almonds, beans, grapes; also bread and other food, besides cloth made of bast, a texture of reeds, papyrus, and an incredible quantity of linen. The countless number of mummies, also, are well known, which, though taken out of their tombs, still last for centuries with their skin and hair; also all mummified bodies of animals, with their furs and feathers; even the internal parts of the human body could there be embalmed for ever, and are still found in vases expressly designed for that purpose.

This wonderful conservative property belonging to all ancient Egyptian objects, depends therefore chiefly upon the sky being without rain, and the dry soil of the non-irrigated desert. But the country offered another marked advantage above other lands, namely, the greatest abundance of _materials especially adapted for all kinds of monuments_.

Chief among these, is an admirable stone of the most varied quality, suited as well to building of all kinds, as to the most delicate sculpture. The mountain range which flanks the valley, and follows the course of the river from the Delta to beyond Thebes, is composed of limestone; in the neighbourhood of ancient Memphis, upon the Lybian side, where the Pyramids stand, it is a solid nummulitic limestone, more adapted for excavations in the rock, and for building stone, than for sculpture; on the opposite side, among the Arabian mountains, it has the finest grain, and is of a uniform density, approaching almost to marble; it is capable of being worked in any manner, and on account of the beautiful polish it takes, was used, among other purposes, for the external covering of the Pyramids, while the interior was made of the Lybian stone off the ground, upon which they were erected. The Theban range of mountains is almost everywhere composed of rock, of such an extremely fine quality, that the sepulchral passages and chambers of the dead, hewn out in the living rock, most of them several hundred feet deep, running in various directions, were capable of receiving everywhere the richest sculptures, in the most delicate bas-reliefs, directly upon the polished surface of the rock. Beyond Thebes there are ranges of sandstone mountains, from Gebel-Selseleh to Assuan. From these, and especially from the enormous stone-quarries of Selseleh, the architects as well as the sculptors of the New Monarchy obtained their chief supply of the most excellent and durable fine-grained sandstone. Finally, the syenite and granite of Assuan are still considered the most beautiful and valuable of their kind, and were also used by the ancient Egyptians not only for their monolithic colossi, obelisks, sarcophagi, statues for entire small temples, &c., but were employed as a building stone, at all periods. In the Pyramid of Chufu, the high walls, the ceiling, and floor of the greatest sarcophagus chamber, are entirely made of polished granite, and the third Pyramid of Mencheres was cased with it up to a certain height.

I shall here pass over all the other more valuable kinds of stone, particularly those of the higher Arabian mountains, abundantly used in ancient Egypt, each in its own way, especially the beautiful yellow alabaster, several very valuable breccias, greenstone, serpentine, and the bluish-red porphyry of Gebel-Dochân, which was much employed at a later period, as they were all reserved rather for purposes of luxury. But we must not omit to mention here, that the abundance of building stone in this country was doubled by the _ease of transport_ from one end of Egypt to the other, upon the great water road of the Nile; therefore, sandstone and granite were used nearly as much at Thebes, and in all that part of the country where limestone rock alone was to be found near at hand, as in Upper Egypt, where it was hewn.

Limestone or sandstone have been always, and in all countries, the most important material for monumental productions. Where this was wanting, or was obtained with difficulty, as in Babylon, or on the Indus, or in the north of Germany, earthen bricks were used as the best substitute, at least for building purposes. But in Egypt also they could be replaced by bricks of the best quality, since the soft, clayey Nile mud was especially adapted for the latter. Thus the wary Egyptians not only did not neglect this expedient, but made the utmost use of it, and with greater results than anywhere else, because here it was not required to take the place of some better material, but only preferred in those cases where the object itself made it appear best adapted. This more especially applies to great dykes, town walls, and those temple enclosures which were to contain no covered rooms, and no delicately constructed parts; therefore, even in the earliest times, Pyramids were also built of bricks. They were employed to fill up the ground and to make elevations, but were more especially everywhere used where large spaces had to be covered in, without incurring the great expense of huge slabs of stone, before the useful principle of concentric stone-cutting was known. This occasioned the remarkably early use of brick-vaulted roofs, along with the imperfect stone arch, which was, as it were, only cut out of horizontal layers of stone. Hence arose the custom connected with this, which we have already mentioned, of lining rock-chambers of crumbling stone with arches of Nile bricks. The external layers of the brick buildings in Babylon and Nineveh were generally made of burnt bricks, and yet they could not resist the climate and time. In Egypt, dried bricks alone were everywhere used; owing to their natural solidity, and to the climate, they answered better for their monumental purpose than the burnt bricks of Babylon, which is still proved by the numerous extant brick buildings, with their stucco and their pictures.

But in the history of a nation, a substance favourable to its book literature is of no less importance than the material for building and sculpture. Egypt possessed also for this purpose an invaluable product of the country, the _papyrus plant_, from which they were able to obtain a perfect material for writing upon, unsurpassed throughout antiquity. Neither the skins of the Ionians, nor the linen of the ancient Romans, nor the cotton stuff and palm leaves of the Indian, nor the parchment of Mysia, are to be compared with the Egyptian papyrus in pliability, or in the power of extension, in durability and cheapness; therefore its use became gradually more widely spread, and was preserved far down into the middle ages. Even the later discovered paper of our own time has not only retained the name of the ancient plant, but, with regard to its material, can only be looked upon as a continuation and perfecting of the Egyptian paper, since pressed fibres of plants (particularly of flax and hemp) have proved to be the most suitable material, even up to the present day. In ancient times the papyrus plant grew more especially in the marshy ground of the Nile Delta, and is only elsewhere mentioned by Pliny as growing near Syracuse, where to this day it is found in great abundance. Why, on the other hand, it has become almost entirely extinct in Egypt, may be explained by the circumstance that it was artificially cultivated to an extent far beyond its natural powers of growth, and became therefore, like other plants, exhausted. Its use may be traced back to the most ancient times of Egypt; the papyrus roll and the writing apparatus are found upon monuments as early as the 4th and 5th Dynasties, therefore between three and four thousand years before Christ. But this discovery of very ancient Egypt, which may perhaps be considered as the most important, next to the invention of writing, only obtains its full significance in history by the unaltered preservation of those very rolls of writing for thousands of years. For they not only afforded the Egyptian priests the benefit of primeval uninjured archives, but we still obtain from them the instructive contemplation of a multitude of such original documents, written on papyrus, from the prosperous times of the Monarchy.

In addition, however, to the external aid afforded by the climate and productions of Egypt, for the preservation of its history, is to be mentioned the internal and more efficient influence derived from the original direction of the national character—its _historical sense_. This can by no means be explained solely by the reaction which the facility of immortalising the present, and the peculiarly conservative nature of the neighbouring desert, might produce upon the original tendency of the national mind; as little as we can interpret the striking want of a sense for history, among the Indian people, by the less favourable locality of their country. The ultimate foundation for such national individualities can always alone be sought, in the particular part they are called to play in the general history of the world. But, on a nearer examination, we can have no doubt that such an historical sense existed among the Egyptian people in an unusually high degree, and was cultivated by them in all its stages.

It is first of all demonstrated by the incredible multitude of monuments of every kind, which were at all periods erected by kings, and persons of private fortune. All the chief cities of Egypt were adorned with temples and palaces, and the other towns, frequently indeed more insignificant places, with at least one, often with several sanctuaries; these were filled with statues of the gods and kings of all sizes, composed of the most valuable stone, and the walls externally and internally were covered with coloured sculptures. To erect these public buildings, and to endow them splendidly, was the exclusive privilege and pride of kings. In their turn the richer portion of the people vied with them in their concern for the dead, by erecting monumental tombs. Whilst with reference to public buildings, the passion for building among the Greeks and Romans, in their most prosperous days, can alone be placed beside that of the Pharaonic time, the Egyptian necropoli far surpass those of Greece and Rome, both in extent and in the number of the monuments, as well as in the richness of their execution, especially in their endowment of pictures and inscriptions.

But next to the multitude and splendour of these works, the unsurpassed attention paid to their durability, especially proves the innate historical sense of the Egyptians. That they laid due stress on the great age of their buildings, follows from the annalistic account of Manetho, which is in no respect liable to suspicion, by which we learn that even TOSORTHROS, the second king of the 2nd Dynasty, and the cotemporary of Menes, commenced building with _hewn stones_ διὰ ξεστῶν λίθων.

And it is hardly necessary to mention the great Pyramids of Memphis, those colossal massive structures, which, solid throughout, and built of strong nicely joined hewn stones, are piled up above the sepulchral chambers, cut out of the living rock, generally without leaving any vacant space, like artificial rocks in the simplest form, as if he who built them had been aware that, in them he laid the foundation of the future gigantic building—the _History of Man_. This may equally refer to all the other buildings, whether they are destined for the living or the dead; the desire to labour for eternity is imprinted upon all of them.

The belief which was early formed of a life after death, and of a relation continuing to subsist between the soul and the body, was closely connected with this; and along with it the exaggerated care that was bestowed upon the bodies of the dead, embalming them, and swathing them, and shutting them up in double and triple sarcophagi, made of the strongest wood, and the hardest stone, which were buried in deep pits, and in laboriously excavated rock-chambers. Even in the most peaceful times this nation appears always to have anticipated the possibility of future hostile invasions, and of barbarous and rapacious races; for that reason they so ingeniously closed the large granite sarcophagi by means of metal rods, which only fell down into the holes prepared for them in the sides, at the last thrust of the cover, which was driven drawer-like in, so that the sarcophagi could only be opened by the destruction of the colossal masses of stone. They also endeavoured to guard even the passage which led to the sarcophagi chambers by heavy stone trap-doors, and by ingeniously building up the walls, so as to divert the attention, and to protect them in every other possible way from inroad and desecration. For that reason many subterranean tombs are undoubtedly still hidden from us; only a few tombs of kings are known, and many important monuments will still be discovered in the inexhaustible necropoli of Memphis, Abydos, and Thebes.

However, we already possess such an abundant supply of works of art, and other things belonging to daily life, from the earliest, down to the latest times of the Pharaonic Monarchy, that these in themselves alone, considered only objectively, would form an extremely important source of knowledge concerning the mode of life in ancient Egypt. The great work of Napoleon, the “_Description de l’Egypte_,” has splendidly demonstrated how much in fact may be gained by such an objective examination of the monuments; it contains matter that will always deserve praise, and a rich treasure was collected for the cause of science, although the key to the hieroglyphics had not yet been discovered, and consequently all the monuments being chronologically uncomprehended, or wrongly comprehended, stood beside each other, as in a picture without perspective, on one plane surface.

This very work, however, is an evident proof of what could _not_ be done, even with the greatest expenditure of means and learning, without aid obtained from the inscriptions. The _history_ of the people in all its varied development remained dark and fabulous as before. It is the same with the monuments of all nations, which have come down to us either without any written character, or with it undeciphered, like those of our own heathen ancestors, or of the aborigines of South America, or even of the Babylonians. History profits very little by them.

The Egyptians, however, from the beginning, exhibit, even on this higher stage, their historical sense and vocation. According to the Egyptian annals, it was the same King Tosorthros who gained the highest reputation relative to the perpetuity of the history of Egypt since his time, not only by the introduction of hewn building stones, but still more by the care he bestowed upon the development of the written character; and we see upon the monuments, at least since the time of Cheops, between three and four thousand years before Christ, a perfectly-formed system of writing, and a universal habit of writing, by no means confined to the priesthood. Even at that time the writing was no longer merely monumental; the signs, indeed, when they were rapidly used, sometimes approached the hieratical short-hand. It therefore appears to me undoubted that, even in the time of Menes, in the very commencement of our Egyptian history, the hieroglyphic writing had been long invented, established, and practised, which we must of course presuppose since we hold Menes to be historical; for there can be no history without writing. From the choice of the pictures in hieroglyphics, and from other reasons, it appears indeed justifiable to suppose, that this wonderful picture-writing of the Egyptians was formed, with reference to its peculiar character in Egypt itself, without any other influence from abroad, although they may have brought the first beginning of it with them from their original home in Asia. But that a people should produce anything so perfect as this system of writing, which embraces at once all the stages of human writing, from the most direct ideographical symbolic writing through syllables, to the equally direct notification of sound by means of vowels and consonants, certainly indicates a long previous development.

The application, however, which the Egyptians made of this early invention, from which so much resulted, is of still more importance. For they not only employed it, as often happens among nations of much higher civilisation, in the most necessitous cases, and where it was most immediately advantageous, but to an extent which surpasses everything that we have heard of elsewhere, and which must still astonish any one who considers the matter for the first time. While the Greeks and Romans, at the period when they were most lavish of their writing, only placed a short inscription of a few words on the front of their largest temples and most splendid buildings, for which reason the monumental style still denotes among us a short laconic style, as seems most suitable to the speaking stone; among the Egyptians the temples were almost covered with inscriptions. All buildings, which were erected to the gods, to the kings, and to the dead, had generally representations or inscriptions upon all the walls, ceilings, pillars, architraves, friezes, and posts—inside as well as outside. In place of only giving the most necessary information, the writing here forms in itself at the same time an essential ornament of the architecture, as is the case also with representations on a larger scale. The variegated written columns on the white or grey surfaces, not only express a feeling for ornamental drawing, by the great variety in their lines, which run backward and forward with the utmost regularity, and satisfy the painter’s eye by the brilliancy of the varied colours, but they also excite the observation of the unlearned by the figurative and direct meaning of the written objects, taken from all the natural kingdom, and, lastly, the intelligent curiosity of the inquirer, especially of every cultivated man, by the peculiar signification of their religious or historical purport. Thus hieroglyphics becomes a _monumental writing_, in a sense and to a degree of perfection, beyond any other written character on earth.

They had also so far overcome the technical difficulty of engraving these signs, both in the most fragile and the hardest kinds of stone, that it seems hardly to have been considered at all, though these signs were not composed of simple mathematical strokes, like the Roman or Greek monumental writing, or the cuneiform writing of the Asiatics, but were at the same time writing and artistic drawing.

Among the Egyptians the written character was not alone the constant and indispensable accompaniment of architecture, and of the larger representations upon the walls of the temples, but was placed with an equal predilection upon all, even the smallest objects of art and of daily life. How precious among other nations of antiquity are those statues, vases, gems, or other objects, which bear upon them inscriptions with respect to their origin, their owners, or their intended use! This is the universal practice in Egypt. There, no Colossus was so great, and no amulet so small, that it should not itself express for what it was designed by means of an inscription; no piece of furniture that did not bear the name of its owner. Not only the temples had their dedications, in which the builder was named, and the god to whom it was consecrated by him, but they were considered of such importance that a particular class of independent monuments were especially devoted to them, viz., the obelisks at the entrance of the gates; and besides this, every fresh addition to the temple, every newly-erected pillar, actually even the restoration of separate representations, which had been accidentally injured upon the old walls, had a written information respecting which of the kings built it, and what he had done for the enlargement, embellishment, and restoration of the temple. We sometimes find the name of the reigning king recorded upon the separate building stones, as the stone-cutter’s mark, and it was usually stamped upon the bricks of royal manufacture.

Finally, however, writing was employed among the Egyptians in its last and highest destination, as _book-writing for literary purposes_; and, indeed, as we have already mentioned, from the earliest times, for the use of the papyrus goes thus far back, and we frequently see upon the representations from the time of the great Pyramids of Memphis, one or more scribes occupied in registering upon sheets their master’s possessions in flocks, corn, and other treasures. We learn from the historical accounts relative to the first Dynasties, which are still preserved, that even at that time they possessed _Annals of the Monarchy_.

If we now reflect upon the period from which the original fragments of such annals have come down to us, namely, the beginning of the New Monarchy, we find that this extends one thousand five hundred years farther back than the oldest remains of book literature in the whole of antiquity put together. For it is known that the greater proportion of our manuscripts only go back about as far as the tenth century of our era; previous to this their number rapidly diminishes, and the small fragment of a manuscript of Livy, which was lately brought to Berlin, and was there recognised as probably belonging to the first century after Christ, may be viewed as the earliest remains of a book which can be referred to out of Egypt; even the rolls—which were reduced to coal at Herculaneum—do not go farther back; whereas in Egypt not alone numerous papyri have been preserved from the time of Ptolemy, but a much greater number from the centuries previous to that time, namely from the sixteenth to the thirteenth century, some of them of extraordinary length[121]. The greatest proportion of them were deposited with the mummies, and therefore only contain what relates to death and a future life; but other rolls were interred in the tombs as the most secure places, carefully packed in particular vases or baskets, and they contain laudatory songs upon kings or gods, historical annals, the accounts of the temple, that which relates to the calendar, and many other things with reference to this life, frequently contracts, law-suits, and similar documents from the time of the Greeks, sometimes also with Greek translations or additions.

The large number still in preservation leave therefore no doubt concerning the remarkable fact communicated by Diodorus I. 49, on good authority, that King Osymandyas, _i. e._ Ramses-Miamun, built a library in his temple at Thebes, as early as the fourteenth century before Christ. The description which he gives us of this splendid building may still be traced from one chamber to the other among its ruins, and at the entrance—behind which, according to Diodorus, the library was situated—Champollion perceived on both sides the representations of Thoth, the God of Wisdom, and of Saf, the Goddess of History; then, behind the former, the God of Hearing, and, behind the latter, the God of Seeing, which significantly reminded the person who was entering of the locality. Several hieratical papyri, which we still possess, are dated from the Rameseion, 𓉐𓐱𓏤𓐰𓈖𓍹𓐼𓇳𓄠𓋴𓇓𓌹𓇋𓏠𓐰𓈖𓐽𓍺 and it is also frequently mentioned in the so-called Historical Papyri. I found in Thebes the tombs of two _Librarians_ of the time of Ramses-Miamun, therefore probably belonging to the library described by Diodorus; they are situated to the south-west of the palace of Ramses, behind Der el Medînet. The occupants were father and son, since this office was hereditary, as most of them were. The father was called Neb-nufre, the son Nufre-hetep, and they bore the titles of 𓇯𓇩𓏏𓐰𓏺𓐰𓏼 _her scha· tu_, “Superior over the Books,” and 𓉻𓐰𓈖𓇩𓏏𓐰𓏺𓐰𓏼 _naa en scha· tu_, “Chief over the Books.” In the tomb of the son, Ramses sacrifices to Amen-Ra, and portions of two statues of the deceased are still scattered about. We have good reason to suppose that this library, of which we have incidentally received still further information, was neither the first, nor the only one, and this is inferred, among other things, because the two gods above mentioned bear as one of their fixed titles, not only here, but upon other monuments of all classes, the one the _Master_ and the other the _Mistress_ of the _Hall of Books_, and that, consequently, the idea of gods of libraries must have been very familiar to the Egyptians.

This also explains how, in the earliest times of the Greek dominion, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, it was possible to fill the library founded in Alexandria in the space of a few years with 400,000[122] rolls, at a time when there was no precedent in the Grecian motherland except the private collection of Aristotle. It is explained, when we remember that Philadelphus found such an abundant store already existing in the Egyptian archives and libraries. It no longer seems anything remarkable when Iamblichus[123], referring to a Seleucus, tells us of 20,000 hermetic books, which we must understand to be a rough computation of all Egyptian literature; the notice does not obtain a mythological character until the introduction into it of the cyclical number 36,525, which Iamblichus quotes from Manetho—of course from the false one.

The fame of Egyptian wisdom[124], which was universally diffused throughout the ancient world, was grounded upon an abundant literature, and the stock of knowledge deposited therein, which increased from year to year like a well-invested capital. This fame was never disputed even by the Greeks themselves; possessing so much higher natural endowments than others, they were more just in this point than many of our modern critics, who would rather consider the genius of the Greeks as auto-didactic, grown up in a barbarous wilderness. Herodotus calls the Egyptians “by far the best instructed people with whom he has become acquainted, since they, of all men, _store up most, for recollection_.” When the Eleians wished to establish their Olympian games, they sent an embassy to the Egyptians, they being the wisest people of all the earth, to obtain their judgment and their good advice upon this great project[125].

The distinguished series of celebrated men[126] who are said to have carried Egyptian wisdom to the Greeks, begins as early as the mythical times. Danaus brought the first germ of higher civilisation from Egypt to Argos[127], and Erectheus, King of Athens, was considered by some an Egyptian[128], and taught the Eleusinian mysteries according to the manner of the Egyptians. The holy singers of antiquity, Orpheus[129], Musaeus[130], Melampus[131], and Eumolpus[132], thence acquired their theological wisdom; and even to Homer[133] himself Egypt may not have been unknown. The most ancient artists of Greece, Daedalus[134], Telecles[135], and Theodoras[136], are said to have educated themselves in this land of primeval art, and have employed the Egyptian canon of proportions. Lycurgus[137] and Solon[138] introduced into their fatherland all the wise regulations they there became acquainted with; and Herodotus[139] especially tells us that the Egyptian laws relating to the surveying of the land, by which every one was obliged to declare to the monarch his annual revenue, were transferred to Athens by Solon, and were in use even in his time. Cleobulus, the sage of Lindus, is said also to have visited Egypt[140]. It signifies little how much historical foundation there is for these accounts. The general direction taken by tradition, with reference to it, proves even more than separate facts could do, the early and late general universal recognition of Egyptian wisdom. It was considered a glory to participate in it.

But Egypt was especially regarded as a university for philosophy, and for all that could be gained through science and learning. We therefore see philosophers, mathematicians, physicians, historians, resorting to Egypt, each emulating with the other, and studying for many years under Egyptian teachers. The houses in Heliopolis in which Plato and the mathematician Eudoxus had lived for thirteen years, were still shown to Strabo[141]. The observatory of Eudoxus, in which he is said to have made certain observations of the stars, and on Canobus, in particular, bore his name[142] in the time of Strabo. Even Thales[143] was instructed by the Egyptian priests, and as it is expressly said, had besides them, no other teachers. Here he became acquainted with the division of the year into seasons, and into 365 days; and here also he learnt how to take the measurement of high objects, such as the Pyramids by their shadow, at a particular hour of the day[144]. Archimedes[145] invented his celebrated water screw in Egypt, and there applied it, in the establishments which were devoted to the irrigation of the land. Pythagoras[146] was a long time in Egypt, and all that we know concerning the dogmas of this influential man agrees with this account[147]. His doctrine of the immortality of the soul, especially, is very decidedly referred, by Herodotus, to Egypt. He says, “_This doctrine is wrongly pronounced by certain Greeks, whom he will not mention, as belonging peculiarly to them_[148],” by which he evidently has Pythagoras and his master Pherecydes in view, for it is also related of the latter that he was in Egypt[149]. And it is in fact now sufficiently known, from the monuments, that the Egyptians possessed from the earliest times very distinct ideas about the transmigration of souls, and of judgment after death[150]. The philosophers _Anaxagorus_[151], _Democritus_[152], _Sphaerus_[153], the mathematician _Oinopides_[154], the physician _Chrysippus_[155], also _Alcaeus_[156] and _Euripedes_[157], are enumerated among the visitors to Egypt. Finally, the same is known of _Hecataeus_[158], _Herodotus_, _Diodorus_[159], _Strabo_, and many less celebrated Greeks.

All these men did not merely desire to acquire a knowledge of Egypt as eye-witnesses, but went there principally to gain instruction from the learned priests on particular branches of knowledge. This is the light in which those historians regarded it, who give us more detailed accounts of these wanderings of the Greek scholars to Egypt[160]. The Egyptians themselves indeed valued it so highly that the priests, as Diodorus, i. 96, expressly recounts, recorded in their annals the visits of celebrated Greeks. It thence arose that the most distinguished among them, even the individual teachers, remained known by name and descent, and were handed down to us[161]. These names bear upon them a genuine Egyptian stamp, and therefore offer no grounds for any material doubt from this side. Plutarch calls the teacher of Solon, _Sonchis_, from Sais; of Pythagoras, _Onnuphis_, from Heliopolis; and of Eudoxus, _Chonuphis_, from Memphis. Clemens adds to these the teacher of Plato, _Sechnuphis_; all of them names whose Egyptian form may be easily restored.

It is evident that this instruction must have contained more than an unintelligible knowledge of symbols, a petrified mysticism, and empty dreams, as people have been hitherto frequently inclined to believe. Real knowledge and scientific experiences could only be founded upon a copious _literature_, carefully fostered for many ages. Its great treasures had indeed been long known and envied before the time of the Ptolemies; the Persians, under Artaxerxes, carried off a portion of them, together with other treasures, from the ancient archives of the temples, and only restored them for a high ransom[162]. But their contents began for the first time to be better known, and more perfectly understood, when the translations appeared, which were extensively made for the Greeks[163] after the time of the first Ptolemies. Strabo, among others, affords us a valuable proof of this, where he speaks of the thirteen years’ residence of Plato and Eudoxus in Egypt[164]. “These priests (he says) were versed in astronomy, but, mysterious and far from communicative, it was only after the lapse of time and by polite attentions that they allowed themselves to be induced to communicate some of their doctrines; but still the most part was kept concealed by these barbarians. For instance, to complete the perfect year, they added that portion of the day and night which goes beyond the 365 days; _nevertheless, the perfect year remained unknown to the Greeks, as well as many other things, until the later astronomers learnt it from the treatises of the priests, which were translated into Greek; and they still refer to the writings of the Egyptians, as well as to those of the Chaldeans_”[165].

But, in order to view more distinctly the multiplicity of the Egyptian branches of learning, I shall mention the forty-two Hermetic books, probably chiefly _sacred_, described to us by Clemens of Alexandria, from a genuine ancient authority[166]. We learn from it that the ten first and principal books, those of the _Prophets_, called the Hieratical, or Priest Books, treated of the laws and the gods, namely, of the highest theological education, which embraced at once divine and human laws[167], and philosophy[168]. To this was appended, as an immediate and necessary complement, the ten books of the _Stolistes_—liturgical in their contents—containing ordinances about the sacrifice, and the offering of the first-fruits, of hymns, prayers, processions, feasts, &c.

To these twenty writings, which were in a stricter sense sacerdotal, succeeded fourteen others, treating of more secular learning, what we should call the _exact_ sciences, which were indeed indispensable to the priests, but in themselves bore no theological character. These also were again divided into two divisions; of which the first, consisting of ten books, belonged to the hierogrammatist[169], and not alone embraced the wide field of hieroglyphics, _i. e._ writing and drawing; but also all that fell within the department of the measurement of space and of geometry, commencing with the more general, _cosmography_, universal _geography_, the _chorography_ of Egypt, and the course of the Nile; then, also consequent upon that, the _topography_ of the temple-sites; and lastly, the most local arrangements of the furniture of the temple, as it were, or _naography_. The remaining four books, the _astrological_, more properly called by us the _astronomical_, were committed to a particular class of scholars—the horoscopi, or time seers. This portion of their science, so peculiarly important to the Egyptians, and therefore kept distinct from the rest, entered into everything that it was necessary to be acquainted with for the calculation of time, both in detail and on a large scale, therefore more especially with the heavenly chronometers, the stars, and indeed, above all, the position of the fixed stars (and the constellations); then the arrangement of the planets (and their revolutions), the conjunctions and phases of the sun and moon; lastly, the rising of the stars. The practical purpose was indicated by the symbols of the horoscopes, the horologium, and the palm-branch of the years and periods.

After the strict sciences, there followed the two books of the _Chanter_. He represented the only _art_—at least, the only one which was recognised as such, by its separate position—that of _music_. Architecture and the art of drawing were practised, and even with a feeling for art, but they had not emancipated themselves as independent arts, from the rule and line condition of the hierogrammatist. Even music, which was apprehended, and came into the world for the first time through the Greeks, was not considered by the Egyptians as an independent art, in our sense of the word, neither could it be regarded a science like drawing, as if it were equally an efflux of the horoscopical chronology, to which it was externally attached. It was on that account necessary to keep them apart. We must, therefore, look upon the chanter only as a precentor—a practical leader of the religious and festive songs. His two books contained hymns to the gods, and (encomiastic-poetical) observations upon the _royal life_, but only as the subject-matter of the religious chorus. It cannot be known how far real music was here brought into consideration; but certainly the ᾠδός had nothing to do with the theological purport of his hymns—information concerning this must be derived from the prophets and the Stolist.

The contents of the last six books were medicinal, and treated of the structure of the body, of diseases, the organs, curatives, for the eyes especially, and of female cases. They are assigned by Clemens, probably from a misunderstanding, to the _Pastophori_, _i. e._ the watchers of the temples[170].

This survey of the forty-two ancient sacred books deserves here especially, our full consideration, because it brings clearly to light an intelligent, thoughtful, general view of the universe, straining after inward perfection and conscious arrangement, and also the necessity of giving this a prominent form by _literature_, and of introducing it practically into life. Proceeding from the general to the individual, from the spiritual to the external, from the theoretical to the practical, as well in the succession of the general sections as in the arrangement of the separate books, this code forms a defined whole, which we nowhere find repeated among any of the nations of antiquity, not even among the Indians. Unfortunately, the ten first and most important books, which contained their fundamental ideas on religion, philosophy, and law, and therefore the highest and most spiritual department of their contemplation, are not so fully described as the following sections, as regards the detail of their contents; therefore the enumeration of the separate branches of knowledge with which the hierogrammatists, the real scholars, and the horoscopi, next to them, occupied themselves, and which comprehended the whole visible and measurable world, is so much the more worthy of our notice.

At the same time we must remember that in the construction of this canon there was no intention of giving the chief features of an encyclopædia of their sciences. Every scientific purpose was necessarily laid aside, only the thoroughly practical aim of a sacerdotal compendium was contemplated, in which learning only formed part of the education of a priest, and merely occupied a third place after theology and the liturgical forms, and was only represented so far as a direct practical use could be obtained from it. Philosophy was therefore not at all separated from theology; human law was only an efflux of divine law. The knowledge of geometry was necessary for the surveying of the land, the division of the produce, the building and decoration of the temples; the knowledge of astronomy for the calendar of festivals, and the civil calculation of time; singing formed a part of the Liturgy. Nor is proof wanting that the knowledge and literature of Egypt far surpassed what was required by the hierarchy, that the thirty-six or forty-two books were also the earliest and original centre, to which later progressive improvements might everywhere attach themselves.

We frequently read in other authors about the “_Sacred Writings_[171]” of the Egyptians, or of their _Hermetic books_, but it would be wrong to refer all these notices to the forty-two books named by Clemens. It seems to me by no means improbable that the above-mentioned precepts on the life of the king, in Diodorus, which for Egypt bear a thoroughly classical stamp on them, formed a portion of the sacred law-books of the prophets, and that the laudatory song upon the deceased king, mentioned at the end of that passage, might have been composed in imitation of the ἐκλογισμὸς βασιλικοῦ βίου, in the last of the thirty-six books, and have only been employed in the last case. But it is not to be supposed the forty-two books themselves contained separate laudatory songs on particular kings, although such songs, understood in a wider sense, certainly belonged to the sacred books.

We read in the same passage of Diodorus, that wise sayings and actions of the most distinguished men were read aloud to the king after the sacrifice by the hierogrammatist from the “Sacred Books,” ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν βίβλων. We still possess ancient papyri which contain proverbs of a similar kind, some of them even put into the mouths of certain celebrated kings belonging to the Old Monarchy, such as Amenemha I., the head of the 12th Dynasty[172], resembling somewhat in their form the proverbs of Solomon. For the sake of the reader, and the one who reads out loud, they are divided by red points recurring at nearly stated intervals into short verses, according to the sentences, like the Hebrew scriptures. But these could not have belonged to the ten rolls of the hierogrammatists, nor to the priests’ canon in general.

It were more easy to suppose that the first book of the singer may have consisted of single hymns and prayers addressed to particular divinities, such as we still possess several instances of, _e. g._ to Ra, Amen Ra, Mut[173], to Thoth[174], to Osiris[175], Atmu[175], &c., yet probably it likewise only contained the daily litanies, which belonged to every temple service, and which were also expressly mentioned[176]. I can as little agree with the opinion[177] that the great Book of the Dead of the Egyptians was one of the ten books of the Stolistes, although I consider it to be also[178] a sacred book ascribed to Hermes. Even its extent forbids the former supposition. And, moreover, it is by no means a liturgical book, which one belonging to the Stolistes must have been, nor a book of Rituals, as Champollion appears to have regarded it, but essentially a history of the soul after death, therefore it was placed in the tomb with the deceased. The theological basis of this work, however, was undoubtedly included in the hieratical books of the prophets.

Bunsen[179] justly makes a distinction between the civil law-book, and the sacred law-books of the prophets. It was impossible that the regulations and precepts of the six law-givers, who are mentioned by Diodorus[180], could have been received into the canon, this can only be supposed of the most ancient portion of them—the laws of Menes, which were ascribed to Hermes by himself, and probably were the foundation both of the religious and of the civil law.

We shall now more easily understand why still less space was afforded in the canon of Clemens for the _historical_ literature. It presented neither a speculative nor a practical side to the object which Egyptian theology had in view, and regarded in this light, therefore, it must appear subordinate. But on that account it no less existed. This is proved as well by the authors[181] themselves as by the original remains, which we still possess. Historical facts of all kinds, related both by means of pictures and writings, covered the walls of the temples in the principal towns; single battles and whole wars were described, with their exact dates, and with all the living details of an eye-witness, upon the stone surfaces of the pylons and the surrounding walls. As long as these lasted, the remembrance of those actions must have remained living and true in the mind of every cultivated Egyptian. And, in fact, we find these representations at a late period used as a direct authority in history.

Tacitus[182] recounts to us the visit of Germanicus to the “_great remains of ancient Thebes. And Egyptian inscriptions were still extant upon the enormous buildings which declared the former riches. One of the most distinguished of the priests, who was required to explain the language of the country, related, that at one time 700,000 men, capable of bearing arms, dwelt here, and that King Ramses with this army had conquered Libya, Ethiopia, the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians, and Scythians, and that he held under his dominions the countries of the Syrians, the Armenians, and the neighbouring Cappadocians, and thence to the Bithynian and the Lycian Sea; the tribute laid upon the people was also read aloud, the weight of the silver and gold, the number of the weapons and horses, and the presents to the temple, of ivory and frankincense, and how much corn and other objects had been remitted by each nation, which was not less than what is now imposed upon the people by the might of the Parthians, or the power of the Romans._”

This is as strictly an historical notice from the reign of Ramses II., in the fourteenth century before Christ, as was ever related to us by the Greeks from the life of Xerxes or Alexander: for we read this statement now in the present day upon the same walls, before which Germanicus stood with wondering eyes. The Greeks and Romans seldom derived their knowledge from such a direct source as Germanicus did here, and Tacitus was quite unconscious that he was speaking of the same King Ramses, when shortly before he related of King _Sesostris_, that the bird called the Phœnix appeared for the first time in his reign. We still read the name Ramses upon the monuments, as the priest read it to Germanicus; Sesostris was the name of Sethôs I., who was so often confused with his son Ramses, and was carried down by a Greek mistake, since the time of Herodotus (ⲥⲉⲑⲱⲥⲓⲥ, ⲥⲉⲥⲟⲱⲥⲓⲥ, ⲥⲉⲥⲱⲥⲧⲣⲓⲥ).

Who can well doubt that along with such a historical literature engraven in stone, which to this day fills the whole of Egypt from Alexandria to Mount Barkal, far in Ethiopia, a corresponding _historical book literature_ must have existed, of course much richer and more complete, even though we may not be able at present to point out the remains of it. But in fact we still possess papyrus rolls, one of which accidentally refers to the identical warlike deeds represented, with their annotations, upon the walls of the Theban temple. This is one of the important documents which the British Museum purchased in the year 1839 from M. Sallier, in Aix, after Champollion had already, in the year 1828, recognised and communicated several passages in it which related to the war of the great Ramses against the people of Cheta[183]. In 1838 I found at Leghorn, in a collection of Egyptian antiquities belonging to M. D’Anastasi, a series of papyri very similar to this, which mention other warlike features of that glorious period. They appear to come originally from the same tomb as those of Sallier, since they proceed, partly, indeed, from the same scribe. Other similar pieces are found in the Egyptian collections at Turin, Leyden, and Berlin.

It is evident, partly from the express date of the author or scribe, partly from the kings mentioned in the text, that the largest proportion of them belong to the 19th Dynasty. The most ancient date in the London papyrus is from the ninth year of the Great RAMSES II.; the latest is from the first year of King SET-NECHT, the third successor of the former. The Turin Royal Annals also belong to this or the next Dynasty. Other papyri are certainly not older than the 20th; _e. g._ one of those which I obtained in Thebes repeatedly mentions the name of RAMSES IX., and is dated, upon the reverse side, from the 13th of Pachon—the sixteenth year, probably, of this king.