Chapter XV: Section I

_Identity of the ancient Indian and Egyptian Mythology, &c. Names
of the Egyptian Gods, significant in the Hebrew and Indo-European
Tongues. Dr. Lepsius’s comments on Champollion’s opinion that the
Modern Egyptian does not differ from the Egyptian of the oldest
Monuments. Proofs of changes. Proofs from Language that the origin
of the Egyptians cannot be referred to the very remote date fixed
by some writers. Causes of the primitive features of the Hebrew
and the Sanscrit. Identity of Sanscrit and Scriptural account of
the Creation and of the Origin of the Human Race. Sir William
Jones’s explanation of this coincidence. High antiquity of the
Indian Vedas._

We are indebted to Dr. Prichard(104) for a comprehensive and satisfactory demonstration of the resemblance in manners, mythology, and in social and political institutions of the ancient Egyptians and Indians. These Nations agreed in religious and philosophical dogmas, in a superstitious veneration of animals and of the most conspicuous objects of nature, in the system of Castes, and in other features. Dr. Prichard’s German translator, the celebrated A. W. Schlegel, has attempted to account for these points of coincidence by the ordinary tendencies of human nature under similar circumstances, a theory which, though maintained with distinguished ability, must be felt to be essentially paradoxical. As Dr. Prichard observes: “No person who fully considers the intimate relation and almost exact parallelism that has been traced between the Egyptians and the Hindoos, will be perfectly satisfied with such a solution in that particular example.”(105)

Dr. Prichard concludes that these features of resemblance must be ascribed to a common origin. But in the adoption of this conclusion he encounters a formidable difficulty, arising from the consideration that the Egyptian Tongue cannot, according to his views, be identified with the other languages of mankind.

This difficulty, like many others of the same nature, will be found to receive a satisfactory solution from the comparison contained in Appendix A, in which are embodied a greater number of words from the Egyptian than from any other language of the African continent. It will thence be evident that the failure which has attended the attempts of the writers noticed by Dr. Prichard to identify the Egyptian with the Asiatic languages, has arisen from the predominant error of Philological writers,—viz. the expectation of finding in every respect a close and peculiar affinity between the languages of nations, who, though contiguous, must in all probability have been separated in the earliest ages of the world. Hence the unsuccessful issue of those researches of which the object has been to show that the Egyptian is a dialect of the Hebrew. But, notwithstanding the unfavorable result which has necessarily attended investigations conducted on a false basis, it will be seen, nevertheless, that the adoption of a wider range of comparison, agreeably to the principles explained at p. 16 and p. 87, and carried out in Appendix A, serves to render unequivocally manifest the original unity of the Egyptians not only with the Jews and other nations of Asia, but also with those of all the four continents. In this place I shall introduce, in illustration of this proposition, some additional examples, which possess an independent interest in connexion with Dr. Prichard’s inquiry into the mythology of the Egyptians, and with the analogous inquiries pursued in the last Chapter of this work.

The Names of most, if not all, of the Egyptian Gods are susceptible of a perfectly unequivocal explanation by means of the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages.(106) This will be evident from the following analysis, in which I have availed myself of the account of their names and attributes given by a high authority—Mr. Wilkinson.(107)

“Neph, Phtah, and Khem,” the first three of the Egyptian Gods noticed below, represent attributes of the Deity.

KNEPH, or, more properly, NEPH or NEF, “The Spirit of God which moved on the face of the Waters.”(108) Nouf, “Spirit.” Nife, “To breathe, to blow.” Nifi, “Inspiration,” (_Egypt._) This word, Neph, has been shown to exist in the same and in analogous senses in the Hebrew and Indo-European tongues. It has also been pointed out as occurring in a remarkable instance as a word for a “Spirit,” and also as a name of the “Supreme Being,” among the North American Indians. (See p. 24.(109))

PTHAH, “The Creative Power that made the World,” styled “The Father of the Gods.”(110)

Pita, Pitre (_Sanscrit_,) “A Father.” Phu-o, “Gĭgnō, Produco.” Phu teuō, “Machinor Semĭno.” Pat-er, “A Father,” (_Greek._)

KHEM, “The Sun.” (See p. 21.)

RAH, “Sun,” “The Material and Visible Orb.” (See App. pp. 2 and 3.)

_Ph-Rah_, “Ph,” “The,” and Rah, “Sun.” Hence the name “Pharaoh,” applied to the Kings of Egypt.

AMUN-RA, “The splendour and beneficent property of the Sun,” “Jupiter-Ammon” of the classical nations.

The word A.m.n, in Hebrew, implies “nurturing or fostering care, to support, to sustain,” In Egypt there is a verb Amoni “To hold,” and Āmoni “To feed.” Amoun in Hebrew, and Mone in Egypt, mean “A Nurse,” and in Egypt “A Shepherd.”

Amoni, “Patience,” (_Egypt._) Amyn-edd “Patience,” Amoun “To defend,” M-ou yn, “Kind,” (_Welsh._)

NEITH or MAUT, “Minerva, called the Mother of the Gods.” Mata (_Sanscrit._) Mat-er (_Latin._) Maau (_Egypt._) A.m.a (_Heb._) “A Mother.”

The names of Osiris and Serapis have been explained at p. 20; that of Hor (“Horus,”) in Appendix A, p. 2; that of Io, “The Visible Body of the Moon,”(111) in Appendix A, pp. 24-25.

It will be observed that the Egyptian mythology, like that of the Indo-European nations, as noticed in the last section, distinctly combines with Personifications of the powers of nature, views of the attributes and agencies of the Supreme Being which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in the instance of “Neph.” It is remarkable that the same allusion as this name presents, occurs in the Hindoo mythology in Náráyana, one of the names given to Vishnu, the Deity viewed as a preserver or Saviour. Sir William Jones thus explains this term in a quotation from a passage in which Menu, the son of Brahma, begins his address to the Sages who consulted him on the formation of the Universe. “The waters are called _nárà_, since they are the offspring of NERA, (or I’SWARA;) and thence was Náráyana named, because his first _ayana_ or _moving_, was on them!”(112)

N-Eerooue means “Waters” in Egyptian, from Eiero, “Water,” the plural being formed by N prefix.

Thus it is evident that a comparison of languages in those very instances which are connected with the subject, so far from impugning the conclusion that the mythology of the Hindoos and Egyptians had a common origin, affords irresistible corroborative proofs of the correctness of that opinion. Further, it is apparent in the instance of the Egyptian as of the Indo-European race, that their religious system embodied, in combination with an idolatrous superstructure, the same views of the Supreme Being as are developed in the Pentateuch.

In some of the foregoing instances, the words of which the names of the Egyptian gods are composed have been preserved in the Egyptian itself conjointly with the Hebrew and other languages. But there are also several instances in which these terms have been lost in the Egyptian, though preserved in other tongues. This is a distinct proof that the origin of the Egyptian language is mainly ascribable to the same cause, which has been previously pointed out as the principal source of the gradual divergence of the different dialects of the Celtic and Scandinavian, &c. The Egyptian cannot be said to differ from the Hebrew or the Sanscrit more widely than the Celtic and Gothic differ, though the common origin of the two last may be shown indisputably. At what precise periods the different changes in the Egyptian language took place, we have not as yet the means of fully deciding. But we are not altogether without historical evidence that this language has undergone mutations, analogous to those which have occurred in other tongues. Champollion, to whose genius we are principally indebted for a solution of the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics, was of opinion that the Coptic or modern Egyptian is perfectly identical with the language of the most ancient monuments. But this opinion has been combated with ability and success by Dr. Lepsius, to whom we owe much information with regard to the ancient Egyptian remains, especially the brilliant discovery that the alphabet of Egyptian hieroglyphics, supposed by Champollion to consist of 300, is reducible to thirty letters.(113) Dr. Lepsius points out many striking instances of deviation. Thus he notices that Plutarch, in explaining the name of Osiris, whose symbol was The Eye, informs us that the Egyptians called the Eye “Iri,” a word not found in the Coptic, in which “Bal” is the only term used for that organ.

Dr. Lepsius has also produced in illustration of his views several examples, in which he infers from the mode of spelling, that the same terms must have been pronounced in the age of hieroglyphics in a different manner from what they were in the Coptic. The following are instances:

English. Ancient Egyptian Of Modern Egyptian Or The Age Of Coptic. Hieroglyphics. The Sun R.ha. Ra. Day H.rou. Hour. The Sea Imo. Iom. A Swine R.ri. Rir.

It has been previously shown by a comparison of tongues of which the history can be traced, that language in its infancy appears to have abounded in full and harsh tones and in rough aspirates, which were gradually exchanged for softer and more abbreviated forms during more advanced stages of society. The conformity of these examples to this principle will be obvious, especially when they are compared with the instances of similar changes in the Manx and Irish, &c. noticed at page 108, a comparison which must tend very strongly to confirm the soundness of Dr. Lepsius’s conclusions. Since the recent origin of the Hebrew and Sanscrit languages and of the Hebrew and Indian nations have been shown on the one hand, while on the other the identity of the Egyptian with those tongues has also been established, it follows that the origin of the Egyptian nation cannot be referred to a period anterior to that which our received systems of chronology would lead us to adopt as the era of the separation of nations. The harsh and full pronunciation which seems to have characterized the most ancient specimens of the Egyptian language tends strongly to support the same conclusion.

In the previous pages a peculiarly primitive character has been attributed to two ancient languages just adverted to, viz. the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. Both these tongues, it has been observed, display in a higher degree than any other the characteristic features of language near its source. As regards the former of these tongues, the Hebrew, there is an obvious reason for the primitive forms of language it involves in the high antiquity of a portion of its remains, viz. the first Books of Scripture, which are more ancient by many centuries than the poems of Homer, the most venerable literary remains of Europe. It is a remarkable fact that there is every reason to believe that the same explanation will be found to apply in an equal degree to the Sanscrit. According to the opinions of many of the most distinguished Orientalists, it would appear that the earliest Vedas, the oldest mythological books of the Indians, are not less ancient than the Pentateuch. Sir William Jones, whose candour and love of truth were not inferior to his accomplishments, concluded the Vedas to have been written about 1500 years B.C. The soundness of this opinion was at one time much questioned; but it has been confirmed by the sanction of some of the ablest of those who,—with the advantage of more recently accumulated information, have in our time pursued the same path of inquiry—in a manner that serves to place in a striking point of view the vast knowledge and the bold and sagacious judgment of its great author. Ritter, a distinguished German Orientalist, concludes the Vedas to have been collected during the period from 1400 to 1600, B.C.; and Mr. Colebrooke, whose researches are of the highest value, appears to have shown finally that the earliest Vedas were probably written about 1400 years B.C.(114) It is highly deserving of notice that these various dates all fall about the time of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, 1490 B.C.

The account given in the Vedas of the early history of the world coincides in its most important features with the Scriptural relation in a manner not to be mistaken. Sir William Jones, struck with these features of resemblance, has intimated an opinion that the Indian account of the Creation, of the Deluge,(115) and other events may have been borrowed from the Jewish nation.(116) It is remarkable that this opinion will be found to involve a singular anachronism, if we adopt Sir William Jones’s own views with respect to the date of the Vedas, viz. that they were written 1500 years B.C. This date is ten years prior to the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, an event from which their national existence and the composition of their earliest scriptures may be said to have commenced.

It is highly improbable in every point of view that the Indians could have borrowed from the Jews some of the most important doctrines of their religious belief. But the coincidences noticed by Sir William Jones and other writers, and the peculiarly vivid and distinct nature of the accounts contained in the Vedas, admit of a more simple and consistent explanation. If, agreeably to the opinions of Mr. Colebrooke, we assume these books to have been compiled about 1400 years B.C., it would follow that they embody a narrative much nearer in point of date to the events they record than any other, with the exception of the Pentateuch.

From the Deluge to 1400 B.C. there was a lapse of 948 years only. Now we have satisfactory evidence that traditions far less calculated to leave a lasting impression have been preserved in many instances among separate tribes with considerable uniformity for a much longer period. Thus we know that the Fairy Tales of the English and Germans, and of the Welsh and Armoricans, agree in their main features, though in both instances there has been a separation for an interval of much greater duration.

Traditions similar to those embodied in the Vedas occur in the classical fable of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in the remains of the Chaldeans, and of other primitive nations. It is only in the Scriptural narrative that we meet with a relation of the first incidents in the history of man unmingled with fables derogatory to the attributes of his Creator. But though clouded with mythological fictions, the remains of many ancient nations impressively display a fresh and vivid reminiscence of the sublime events they record.