ting and unsafe as an authority. That the Prussian diplomatist is a man of too much nerve to be enslaved by great names or specious prescriptions, his work shows distinctly enough, but it also exhibits the occasional signs of a foregone conclusion, a swerve at the starting-point, and we would fain have the whole case in hand, before venturing on direct discussion.

The chevalier refers to the time, with a receding interval of nearly twenty years, when he was in oral intercourse with the brilliant and enthusiastic Frenchman, and he makes no attempt to conceal the veneration and affection with which he cherishes his memory. It is amusing to contrast the cold, stern criticism which sifts the claims of Young to hieroglyphic discovery, with the shout of admiration that hails the advent of Jean François Champollion.... der stolz Grenoble's. His own workmanship, however, is rather of the German than the Gallic school; the learning, the speculation, the illustration, have all an ultra-Rhenish flavour. The treatment throughout is distinguished rather by the breadth and fulness of the first, than by the sharp outline of the second; and though we cannot think that the inquiry has hitherto fixed, or is likely to fix, the position of Egypt in the world-history, we are glad to give it a cordial and deferential reception, as an excellent example of historical investigation, in a direction beset by difficulties of a peculiar and most embarrassing kind; where the pathway is obscurely marked, and the guiding signs feeble and uncertain.*

There are circumstances connected with this subject, which, on some accounts, it might be desirable to forget; but, for other and very important reasons, it is expedient to keep in memory. We refer mainly to the spirit of jealousy and exclusiveness, which seems to have mastered the temper of men, otherwise amiable and high-minded, while engaged in this perplexing quest. We have not yet forgotten the impression made by the severe and searching Examen Critique of Julius Klaproth; nor, though a recent inspection may have somewhat modified our views of its finality,' can we even now say otherwise, than that its two-edged criticism retains much of its weight and force. The reference to the Basque catechism is excellent, both as

*Another German work on Egyptian history-'August Boekh. Manetho und die Hundssternperiode has recently come into our hands, but we have not as yet been able to give it a close and leisurely reading. It is published in a most inconvenient form for reviewers, or, indeed for any students whose application is at all liable to interruptions. This essay, on the History of the Pharoahs,' has neither table of contents nor index; and the loose division into four irregular chapters or sections, gives no help nor guidance to the memory. A general notion of its object may be readily and pleasantly obtained from a long explanatory note, in the third volume of Mr. Grote's History of Greece.

burlesque and illustration. The most impressive part of the pamphlet, however, relates to Champollion's Grenoble essay on the hieratic writing, published in 1821, and we have never yet seen any satisfactory reply to the charges founded on that special work and date. M. Bunsen affirms, that the French writer, 'frankly and candidly admits his mistake of the year 1821, and the merit of Young.' There must be some error here, possibly our own; but we have no recollection of any such 'candid' admission; and, on a slight actual search, we cannot now detect it. On the contrary, we can find nothing to the point in the second edition of the Precis, beyond a qualified concession, that Young had discovered by methods merely mechanical (materielles), the true value of a certain number of hieroglyphic signs and groupes.' Of M. Bunsen's observations. on this subject, we must say, that they have not left a pleasant impression on our mind. His inferences appear to contradict each other; and his final award seems to be, not that the researches of Young terminated in the actual discovery, but that they led,' by the impression made upon Champollion, to the greatest discovery of the century.' Champollion Figeac, elder brother of Jean François, went more roundly to work when, after having rather minutely traced the successive steps of the discovery, without reference to any individual as at all assisting in it, he finishes in the most peremptory style of affirmation: The alphabet was, without difficulty, completed; and the most desired and unexpected discovery since the revival of letters, was at last accomplished. Such was the result of the researches of the younger Champollion.' ('L'Univers Pittoresque-Egypte.')

On the early decease of this eminent man, it was, we believe, the general expectation that his views would be diligently and ably carried out by his pupil Salvolini, whose name was subsequently attached to successive publications, on some of the most important objects of Egyptian research. Salvolini, however, did not long survive, and, after his decease, it was clearly ascertained that he had made an extensive appropriation of his master's manuscripts. It has been with us a matter of surprise, that suspicion was not sooner awakened. He published, in 1832, close upon the decease of Champollion, two letters to the Abate Costanzo Gazzera, concerning the 'notation of dates on the monuments of ancient Egypt.' As a kind of introduction to these dissertations, he put forward a statement which ought, we think, to have suggested the expediency of immediate and stringent inquiry. Referring to a paper on the Astronomical Year of the Egyptians,' which had been read, in 1831, at a sitting of the Institute, by Champollion, Salvolini goes on as

follows: Was it not enough that death had arrested the course of his useful labours? Fate has deprived us, perhaps for ever, of this last work, his intended legacy to science! Champollion pronounced, some days before his death, the name of an individual to whom, always in consistency with his fine character, he had not been able to refuse his manuscript; this name, nearly unknown to the friends who surrounded his bed, was forgotten during the terrible catastrophe which, a few days after, terminated a life so precious; and thus, by an act which it is, as yet, too early to characterise, science is, until now, deprived of a masterpiece. I was fortunate enough, sir, to have been favoured with the sight of this remarkable work, and you will permit me to avail myself of the opportunity now afforded, and to set down the principal results that my memory may have enabled me to retain.' This is ingenious enough. The apparent frankness and sensitiveness, as well as the eagerness to put those interested in the matter, on the fair track for detecting the perpetrator of a mean and selfish fraud, are well conceived, and adapted to the trick of the scene; but we question if any one accustomed to forensic evasion, could have been imposed on by its shallow sensibility and vague circumstantials. The dying man, the grieving but unnamed friends, the mysterious and forgotten name, the terrible catastrophe,' are artist-like touches; but we very much suspect that, if this statement had been put into the hands of a London Detective,' it would have led him, by the shortest possible road, to M. Salvolini's study.

In four successive numbers of the Echo du monde savant for March, 1836, there appeared a series of articles, at first anonymous, but afterwards avowed by a Dr. Dujardin, in which part of Champollion's Egyptian Grammar was subjected to a severe and sarcastic criticism. The sarcasm was in bad taste, and the severity might have been spared, for he at whom they were aimed, was no longer here to reply. Dujardin was eminent as a Coptic scholar, and seems to have been equally so as a writer and man of letters. The discussion was probably carried farther, but he is said to have subsequently changed his view of the subject. In 1838, he visited Egypt at the cost of the French government, for the purpose of collecting Coptic MSS., almost on his first arrival at Cairo, he was seized with dysentery; he rallied, but relapsed, and in that fierce malady, a second attack is fatal.

While engaged with the later portion of the preceding details, the first volume of a translation from the Chevalier Bunsen's 'Historical Investigation' has reached our hands; and, although we have declined a sectionary criticism, in the instance of the

German edition, we do not feel ourselves justified in passing by so important a production, when presenting itself in our own language. To a close and searching analysis, however, the same objections apply, and with still greater force, since the volume contains little more than half the matter of the foreign publication, which is itself, as we have already stated, but an instalment of the promised work. Until, therefore, we have the whole case in hand, with its evidence and illustration complete, we shall both consult our own convenience, and gain a more advantageous position for securing historic certainty, by deferring all considerations that may involve controversy or anticipate definitive results. Our readers are, however, entitled to expect from us something like a fair summary of this important and comprehensive discussion, so far as it has procceded, and we shall endeavour to give them, in addition to what has been previously mentioned, a rapid but sufficient estimate of its range and value. The exordium and text are brief and pithy :

:

Twenty years have now elapsed since I became convinced by Champollion's lectures and writings, as well as by my own examination of the Egyptian monuments at Rome, and particularly the obelisks, that the great discovery of the hieroglyphical system would prove to be of the highest importance for the ancient history of mankind. In analysing its bearing upon the course of historical research pursued in Germany, and upon my own studies, three questions presented themselves. 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? Will the Egyptian language enable us to establish the position of the Egyptians, as a nation, in primeval history, and especially their connexion with the tribes of the Aramaic and Indo-Germanic stock? Lastly, may we hope by persevering in a course of Egyptian research, based in the strictest sense of the word, on historical principles, to obtain for the history of mankind a more sure and unfailing foundation than we at present possess.'-Preface p. vii.

This might, we think, have been given in simpler phrase and in a single question.-If we were better acquainted with the Egyptian language and annals, should we not gain a wider scope for our inquiries into the history of man and his migrations? A proposition, of which there can be no risk in accepting the affirmative; neither can there be any hesitation in admitting, that something has been already done in this way, were it only in the correction of long-standing errors, and the removing of old and obstinate prejudices. We feel, however, great uncertainty concerning both the extent and value of much that seems to be assumed as clear and conspicuous gain. We suspect all indirect history; and we require strong corroboratives for the sort of evidence which seems so much in favour

with the learned men of Germany;-the illustration that is derived from the structure and filiation of language. Fully admitting the great value of these researches, when applied to the clearing-up and confirmation of imperfectly ascertained facts, we can never accept them as substitutes for what students of subtler genius may deem the common-places of historical tradition. The course of language is plainly enough traceable along the greater lines of history, not so its anomalous interruptions and accidental modifications. Cross currents, the influx of tributary streams, violent diversions of the channel, may be altogether inexplicable without the presence of the historic test; in other words, without the distinct knowledge of facts which cannot be assumed as present in the chart of human speech. Not, however, to lengthen out a discussion which requires more time and thought than we can now afford, to say nothing of the very partial interest it is likely to awaken among our readers, we shall take the easier and safer course of giving M. Bunsen's views in his own words :

'German philology to any one who has cultivated it since Frederic Schlegel, must necessarily present the great truth that a method has been found of restoring the genealogy of mankind, through the medium of language; not by the means of forced, isolated etymologies, but by taking a large and comprehensive view of the organic and indestructible fabric of individual tongues, according to the family to which they belong. Viewing the question upon the principles established by these researches, I found a comparison of the Coptic language with such roots and forms of the old Egyptian as were then discovered, sufficient to remove from my mind all doubt as to the Asiatic origin of the Egyptians, and their affinity with the Semitic or Aramaic stock. But I had, moreover, long arrived at the conclusion, from a more general study of language, that the civilization 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.'-Preface pp. viii., ix.

'We may, therefore, at this stage of the inquiry, say thus much, that the facts we have established on an equally solid and substantial basis, respecting language and mythology, give us the same result. Both carry us historically back to Asia. The cradle of the mythology and language of the Egyptians is Asia. We shall show, in the fifth book, that the primeval seat of our race is Armenia and the Caucasus, but that