at the conclusion, from a more general study of language, that the civilisation of the human race is principally due to two great families of nations, whose connexion is a fact as much beyond the possibility of mistake, as is their early separation. What we call universal history necessarily therefore appeared to me, from this point of view, as the history of two races, who, under a variety of names, represent the development of the human mind. Of these, the Indo-Germanic seemed to me the one which carried on the main stream of history; the Aramaic, that which crossed it, and formed the episodes in the divine drama. It had struck me, therefore, as a convenient course, and in our time in particular a most appropriate one, to make the structure of the language of these two parent stocks the basis of all research into the origin of the human race, and the laws of its development.

Proceeding upon these views, I had endeavoured, between the years 1812 and 1815, to strike out a plan for discovering the strictly historical principle in philology, that is to say, the principle which explains the gradual development of the phenomena. The result was a full conviction that this principle was discoverable. In order to test my views on the subject in a field where the facts are incontrovertible, I first undertook to analyse the formation of the Romanic languages. Here the main point was to discover the general law by which new languages are formed out of a declining one, through a change in the ideas of the people, and usually also by the introduction of new materials. I then turned my attention to the history of the Scandinavian languages. There my principal object was to find a universal formula for the relation which a colonial language (like the Icelandic) bears, on the one side, to the old tongue of the mother-country, and on the other to

the modern idioms which there may have entirely superseded it. The old form of the language may thus be preserved in the colony, owing to the interruption of its progressive natural development, whilst in the mother-country, in the course of national vicissitudes, new formations took place, by a gradual wearing out of flexions, and generalisation of the meaning of the old roots, according to the ordinary rules of the development of language. Now the Icelandic appeared to me to possess immense importance for the solution of the general problem, as being identical with the Old Norse, and as forming the point of departure for the Swedish and Danish, which in Scandinavia have succeeded that old idiom. In order to make a practical use of this method and the formulas discovered by means of it, I had likewise sought at an early stage of my inquiries for a lever applicable to universal history; for what is true in a small circle must also be so in a larger and the largest. In consequence of the unexpected light thrown on history by the discoveries in hieroglyphics, the Egyptian language at last appeared to me to offer such a lever. It clearly stands between the Semitic and Indo-Germanic; for its forms and roots cannot be explained by either of them singly, but are evidently a combination of the two. If, then, it be of Asiatic origin, and consequently introduced by colonisation into the valley of the Nile, where it became naturalised, it will enable us to pronounce upon the state of the Asiatic language from which it sprang, and consequently upon an unknown period of mental development in primeval Asia. Thus much as to the assumptions from which I started upon the second of the three questions.

It is manifestly useless to attempt a satisfactory restoration of the oldest national histories, or to establish the true philosophy of primeval history on a solid

basis, before the chronology of the historic ages is settled, and the laws of language in the ante-historical are defined. Will not Egyptian Chronology and Philology, however, impart a new element of vitality to both these departments, and do they not offer very important points of contact with the ancient and most ancient national history of Asia?

Again, do not the Egyptian Monuments possess this paramount superiority over all others, that their inscriptions and dates remove all doubt as to the course of the development of art; the epochs of which it is so important to determine, and which nevertheless, as regards individual monuments, are everywhere else mere matters of conjecture, not excepting even those of Greece? Egyptian art is clearly as old as the history of the nation, and a highly important phenomenon in general history. The chronology being settled, will not vestiges of the Egyptian Mythology enable us to draw new and valuable conclusions as to the history of religious traditions and speculations, not only in Egypt, but in the world in general?

Lastly, and above all, can it not be demonstrated, mainly through the instrumentality of Egypt, that Language, the immediate type and organ of the mind, ranks as the oldest authentic record of mental development in the primordial epochs of the human race? At the very outset of my historical aspirations, I had as strong a conviction of the existence of laws by which the development of the human mind is governed in all its branches, as of the impossibility of discovering them by research without theory, or by theory without research. Winckelmann assumed the existence of such laws in the history of art, and he discovered them. Herder, in like manner, had a forecast of their existence. in the universal history of mankind. Since the days of

those philosophers and Kant, German science, consciously and unconsciously, has had a manifest tendency to enlarge the sphere of observation as regards the objects both of religious and natural knowledge. This it has done by the joint aid of philology, history, and philosophy; from the want of which combination endless misunderstandings and confusion occurred in the last two centuries. We may hope, therefore, to attain at least to an approximate solution of the problem we propose, now that the sphere of history has been so considerably extended beyond the limits assigned to it in those early days of Egyptian research.

Starting with these views and assumptions, I resolved to pursue the Egyptian inquiry independently. My attention was necessarily directed, in the first place, to the Chronology, the key to all further advancement. Here, however, I could not but be aware that success must depend in a great measure upon the method adopted. The point at issue was, the application of the principles of criticism, by which a scientific study of history is guided, to the philological sources of Egyptian chronology. This, for reasons not difficult to explain, had never been hitherto attempted; as indeed it never has been, thoroughly, to the present hour. I very soon saw that the systems of chronology invented, or adopted, at the moment of the discovery of the great historical names of Psammetichus, Sesak, and Ramesses, were utterly untenable. The tablet of Abydos stimulated and encouraged me to attempt a solution of the contradictions between the monuments and Manetho. It was in December, 1832, that I first succeeded in finding the key to the restoration of the 18th and 19th Dynasties, which produced such immediate satisfactory results as increased my ardour in pursuing the same The following years completed the restoration

course.

of the chronology of the New Empire from the 18th to the 30th Dynasty. In 1834 I discovered in the list. of Eratosthenes the key to the restoration of the first 12 Dynasties of Manetho, and was thereby enabled to fix the length of the Old Empire. These two points being settled, the next step obviously was, to fill up the chasm between the Old and New Empires, which is commonly called the Hyksos Period; and, after the preliminary steps had been taken by a critical examination of the dif ferent authorities, I commenced in the year 1835 the chronological portion of my inquiry, proceeding from the earlier down to later times, whereas the inquiry itself was necessarily conducted in the reverse direction. In all main points the chronological result of my labours was the same as is now presented to the public in the first three books of this work, after it has been tested nearly twelve years.

During this process, however, I found so many chasms in the monuments, that I should never have had the resolution to enter systematically into all the details, had not my acquaintance with Lepsius, in the spring of 1836, been the means of introducing me to a variety of hitherto unknown treasures. These consisted of Egyptian monuments hidden in various European collections, numerically very considerable, and of the highest importance as furnishing corrections of, as well as additions to, our previous knowledge. The most invaluable of all was the friendly and zealous assistance I received from himself. My connexion with him I consider as the most fortunate of the many favourable circumstances which have attended me during the course of my Egyptian studies. From that time forward, I thought seriously of investigating thoroughly all the three questions above alluded to; and determined to run the risk of having my discoveries anticipated by others, rather