more venturous Précis, first given to the world in 1824, he suf fered himself to make a larger and less guarded application of the same principles. His "Egyptian Pantheon," of which the periodical publication commenced in the same year, was marked by a frequent reliance on the monuments, which, as is justly objected by Klaproth, could be admissible only in the event of a full demonstration that the graphic remains of Egypt had been completely explained.' A journey to Italy led to a long examination of the archæological treasures collected in the Museum of Turin, and exhibiting an extensive series of inscriptions and papyri. In this visit originated the Letters to the Duke de Blacas, full of hazarded and unsupported explanations.

6

In these later works of M. Champollion, all traces of conscientious discussion disappear. In the "Letters to the Duke of Blacas,” and in the "6 Egyptian Pantheon," he accumulates conjecture on conjecture, and contradiction on contradiction. These last shew themselves chiefly in the second edition of the Précis, which destroys in part what had been given as demonstrated in the first. To render his hypotheses more plausible, M. Champollion has been compelled to construct for himself a new Egyptian mythology, which is itself hypothetical, and founded on nothing.'

Our readers would not thank us for entering in detail on the skilful, but severe course of examination and comparison, by which M. Klaproth has, as it appears to us, sent back nearly the entire system for reconstruction. Admitting the accuracy of a certain class of inductions, and the validity of some of the principles on which the inquiry has been conducted, he throws aside, with the smallest possible ceremony, all that is supposititious, and all that has no claim to reception, beyond that of ingenious but unsound theory, or of happy but accidental application. In fact, unless the statements and inferences of this masterly critique can be satisfactorily repelled or avoided, nearly all the steps of the investigation must be retrodden, and a fresh process begun, on a more comprehensive plan, and in a more cautious and sceptical spirit. Nothing, in an inquiry like the present, can have a more mischievous influence, than a disposition to close with first appearances, to be dazzled by happy coincidences, or, worse than all, to let personal vanity direct the judgement; yet, we fear that all these injurious agencies have been at work, and that it will cost much labour before their traces can be effaced. The very first point, the fact which lies at the foundation of the whole, i. e. the broad line of distinction, if there be such a thing, between the hieroglyphic and phonetic characters, is still unascertained; yet, we are promised a Grammar, of course with the whole attirail of verbs and nouns and articles, of this mysterious and unsettled language! Nous verrons-but our doubts are stronger than our hopes; and we suspect that the Editors too may have

their misgivings, for it was advertised as sous presse, in 1833, and the first Number has not, that we are aware, yet made its ap

pearance.

Supposing, even, that this first difficulty were removed, and that the power and arrangement of the letters were unequivocally established, still, observes M. Klaproth, there would remain to be ascertained, the meaning of all such words as might be lost to tradition, forming, of course, the incomparably greater portion of the language. Unfortunately, the only medium of interpretation, the Coptic tongue, is come down to us in a mutilated and very imperfect state, as the representative of the ancient Egyptian dialects. The Coptic has long ceased to be a spoken language, and its literary remains, few and limited to subjects connected with Christian theology, lend small assistance to the exploration of the habits and opinions of idolatrous ages. The monks of the Thebaïd carefully avoided the peculiar phraseology of paganism, as a tainted and unsanctified thing, and were prone to substitute Greek terms for native expressions, filling their lexicons and vocabularies, moreover, with Arabic words, in place of such Coptic forms as might have been forgotten or disused. And then we have to take into account the changes of the language itself. Did the courtiers of the Ptolemies speak in the idiom of Sesostris? Had, asks M. K. the invasions of the shepherd-chiefs, of the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Saracens, no influence on the old and sacred tongue? What a sweeping alteration must the introduction of Christianity have made in the hieratic vocabulary!

If all these causes of change, of alteration, and of discord, be duly considered, we shall be astonished at the confidence with which certain persons are prompt to apply Coptic dictionaries to the interpretation of the most ancient Egyptian inscriptions. They could not act with greater security, if they possessed a glossary composed in the very reign of Sesostris. It is impossible that M. Champollion can have shared in this exaggerated confidence; he knew too well that, in the lapse of two or three thousand years, the orthography and the very form of the words must have undergone more than one considerable alteration; and, accordingly, in his transcription of Egyptian phrases, supposed to have been written phonetically, he found a great number of words no longer existing in the same form in either the Coptic Bible, legends, or lexicons. Such a result was inevitable; and similar words must infallibly present themselves at every line of the ancient inscriptions; but then how is the sense of these words to be recovered, and what faith can the critical inquirer have in the effects of such hazardous divination?'

We close this attempt to render the state of an abstruse and complicated question accessible to general readers, with the follow

ing extract, where M. Klaproth employs the Basque or Biscayan language in an ingenious illustration of the subject under discus

sion.

The fact stands thus:—we can read a part of the proper names; we can estimate the effect of a few grammatical signs; we may succeed in finding out the signification of a few words dispersed in the various texts; the numerical marks are known; and some of the divinities are distinguished by their figures, employed as symbolical characters, and also by their names phonetically written. Those who occupy themselves in the study of Egyptian antiquities, are then in a condition to read and understand the hieroglyphical inscriptions, much to the same extent as a person, not understanding the Basque, might succeed in deciphering the following title of a catechism in that language, printed at Bayonne in 1814.

"Guiristinoen DOCTRINA laburra, haur-gaztei irakhasteco, Piarres de da VieuxvillLE, BAYONACO Yaun aphezpicuaren manuz IMPRIMATUA, han choilqui irakhatsia içaiteco BAYONACO DIOCESAN."

Here we may readily recognise the words doctrine, diocese, and imprinted (imprimé); we may perhaps guess, that aphezpicua means bishop (évêque), and guiristinoen, christian; but we shall never be able to seize the complete sense of this title, unless assisted by one understanding the language, or by a Basque dictionary. We possess works of this kind, and the Basque is still spoken by an entire population ; but it is to be feared that the mummies of Egypt may resist all temptation to answer our questions, and that to us they may be for ever dumb.'

"

In the note appended to a preceding page, we have referred to Mr. Tattam's Compendious Grammar of the Egyptian language, as contained in the Coptic and Sahidic dialects; with observations on the Bashmuric," 1830. It may save us the trouble, and our readers the infliction, of an elaborate article, if we cite the single, but expressive term applied to it by Klaproth: it is, he says, and says justly, 'excellent.'

Art. III.-The Old and New Testament, arranged in Historical and Chronological Order, (on the basis of Lightfoot's Chronicle,) &c., &c., &c. By the Rev. G. Townshend, M.A., Prebendary of Durham.

IN

(Concluded from page 398.)

N the former part of this Article, we proposed to offer some general remarks upon the study and interpretation of the Bible, with a view to suggest hints of direction to inquiring minds in the examination of Scripture, and to guard against the more common sources of popular error. Having referred to the Book of Job, the Pentateuch, and the Psalms, we proceed to some

brief notices respecting the Prophecies, upon which so many fanciful and mistaken theories, founded evidently in ignorance of the true character of those sacred productions, have been presented to the world.

Mr. Townsend's Chronological Arrangement appears well adapted to the historical and PROPHETIC parts of Scripture; and the method which he has suggested, would be productive of various advantages to a duly qualified commentator. To the majority of readers, the writings of the Prophets appear exceedingly perplexed and obscure. This arises, in part, from the circumstance, that these holy men were the public teachers of the Jewish Church, as well as the foretellers of future events, and that their discourses are occasionally mixed up and implicated with the politics of the great monarchies around them; with the occurrences of the passing day; with the idolatries and corruptions of princes, priests, and people; and also with the frequent contests between the rival kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which were not less vexatious and disastrous than our wars between the Red Roses and the White, the houses of York and Lancaster. The Minor Prophets are almost a sealed book to plain Christians, who cannot, without a world of pains, form a precise idea when, and where, these good men lived, and which of them taught or prophesied before the captivity, or during the captivity, or after the return from Babylon. Neither have the unlearned any just conception, though this is often essential to the proper apprehension of the drift of the argument, which of the prophets addressed themselves to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, comprehending the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin; and which to the more corrupt and idolatrous inhabitants of the rival city of Samaria, and those ten tribes that had revolted from the house of David, usually designated by the periphrasis of the house of Israel, of Ephraim, or of Joseph. And, as to the kings of these two hostile states, (factions we might almost call them,) with their fathers, mothers, sons, collateral kindred and pedigree, these exhibit confusion worse confounded,'-a chaos of distractions. Mr. Townsend's labours have not been thrown away upon these points. His plan will be seen by the following statement, which we give in his own words.

6

The Sixth Period comprises the time from the accession of Rehoboam to the commencement of the Babylonish captivity. It includes the greater part of the books of Chronicles and Kings, which are harmonized throughout, with some of the Psalms, and the prophecies of Joel, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, part of Jeremiah, and part of the first chapter of Daniel. The difficulties of arranging this period were very great. The intricacies of the chronology, the double line of the kings of Judah and Israel, with the differences of explanation among the

VOL. XIII.-N.S.

3 E

authors who were consulted, presented obstacles which at first sight appeared insuperable. Various modes presented themselves of dividing the double line of kings: one by placing them in two columns, and attaching the common date in the margin; another of placing the kings of Israel after those of Judah, as a separate chapter; and, that which has been adopted, to divide the history of the kings of Judah into parts, each part containing two portions; the first giving a history of a king of Judah; the second appropriated to the reign of the contemporary king, or kings, of the sister kingdom. The Seventh Period comprises the history of the Babylonish captivity. No historical book in the Old Testament contains a complete narrative of the transactions of the seventy years; they are related in various parts of the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and in the latter passages of the books of Kings and Chronicles. Much difficulty arose in arranging the several events referred to in this Seventh Period, from the circumstance that the prophecies of Ezekiel were delivered to the Jews in the captivity at Babylon, at the same time that Jeremiah was prophesying at Jerusalem and in Egypt. To prevent any confusion in rightly apprehending this part of the Sacred history, the events which took place, and the prophecies which were delivered at Jerusalem, are placed in a different part from those at Babylon. The transactions in Egypt, when the Jews who escaped from the captivity fled into that country, after the murder of Gedaliah, and took with them Jeremiah the prophet, are given in a separate part. The reader will thus be enabled to peruse the accounts of the affairs of the Jews at Jerusalem, Babylon, and Egypt, without confounding either places or dates.'

The Minor Prophets cannot be understood without a careful attention to the relative position in which the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel stood to each other, and the extent to which the idolatry of the calves was carried in the latter kingdom. The separation of the tribes after the death of Solomon, which was the punishment of his own sins and those of his people, was the beginning of sorrows to the Jewish nation. United, they might have withstood for ages the hostile attacks of their proudest enemies; but divided, they both fell under the dominion of Babylon. Nor was this all. To prevent the ten tribes from going up to Jerusalem, which might have weakened his authority, and formed a bond of union between the now separated states, Jeroboam determined to set up the two calves for worship in Bethel and Dan; the one at the northern, the other at the southern extremity of his kingdom. But this masterpiece of state policy, as he no doubt deemed it, failed throughout; for the more pious of the people and the priests, abhorring the new idolatry, fled from Israel to Judah, and materially strengthened the two tribes which clung to the House of David. 2 Chron. xi. 13-17. The prophets were especially raised up to rebuke this idolatry; and most of them were sent to the ten tribes, though