Christianity, now long since exploded by the light of Universal History; and his "Germany" is distinguished in every other respect but that of archæological penetration. It is precisely that Hellenic sentiment of humanity, which in the midst of all his weaknesses, fascinates us in Cicero, and imparts so incomparable a charm to his writings, as to render even those on philosophy entertaining. He was a believer in truth, and loved it for his own sake-he honoured mankind, and derived enjoyment from everything relating to

man.

The Elder Pliny, on the other hand, must be judged by the genuine Roman standard. His 36th Book, in treating of mineral substances, contains a digression on the Obelisks, the Great Pyramid, and the Labyrintha remarkable treatise, which, we trust, has been given in a somewhat more intelligible form than hitherto in our "Appendix of Authorities." As we shall have frequent occasion to refer to it in the course of this inquiry, we here subjoin a few illustrations of its general character. Pliny had consulted a dozen Greek writers on the Pyramids alone, and all he learned from them was that nothing positive was known as to the construction of these monuments. He consoles himself, as usual, for this self-condemnatory result of his reading, with a cold sarcasm which he attempted to season with sentiment. It is a just retribution, he observes, that the names of those who erected such useless piles, merely to gratify their vanity, should be consigned to eternal oblivion. The names, however, of the Pyramid-Kings are, in all probability, not lost yet, although (with the exception of Herodotus) all the authorities quoted by Pliny-among whom, of course, neither Manetho nor even Eratosthenes are mentioned-have long ago been committed to the flames in Alexandria or Byzantium, by Romans and Latins, by Arabs and by Turks. Had Pliny really been alive to the value of historical truth,

he might have derived some little light even from the books which he has quoted. The Roman Admiral, too, must undoubtedly have had many Greek retainers in his princely establishment, whom he might have commissioned to institute further researches. But it was here a matter of no real moment with him to ascertain the historical fact, or, when ascertained, to relate it. "The main question of all," he remarks, in his speculations concerning the Pyramids, "is how they contrived to raise such immense masses of stone to such an enormous height." This question Herodotus had already treated with great good sense, and upon the whole satisfactorily answered. Pliny, however, merely quotes two preposterous conjectures of later writers. The first was, that the Nile had been raised by dams of salt and nitre, which were afterwards washed away by the water. So absurd was the story, that even Diodorus had ridiculed it as fabulous. Pliny's critical remark on it that the Nile could hardly be raised high enough for such a purpose is followed up by the other explanation, -emanating, doubtless, from some frivolous Greek sophist "that the dam was made of bricks, which the people were afterwards allowed to carry off for the purpose of building their houses." Pliny certainly does not cite these opinions because they seemed to him the most probable, but, on the contrary, because of their absurdity. What did it matter to his Emperor, and his lordly and luxurious readers, how the Pyramids were built, which-beyond, perhaps, a certain complacent recollection of the trouble of clambering to their summit-were objects of no sort of interest? But the citation of some gross absurdity, and a bitter sneer at Greeks and men of science, as the inventors of such frivolities, would, it was hoped, possess a certain charm for their morbid and limited intellects. It was somewhat different in regard to practical matters. In treating of the Obelisks, Pliny does not fail to collect

accurate information as to the machines and contrivances employed in erecting and transporting them to Rome. But on the questions, who built them? when? for what purpose?-he barely touches, unless when they suggest some strange or laughable anecdote; just as, in speaking of the Labyrinth, he clings to the nonsensical story of some nameless Greeks, that it was a building dedicated to the Sun-God. Hence he further characterises that really practical and beneficial work of Moris, the lake of Fayoom, in dry, contemptuous terms, as "a vast ditch of which the Egyptians make as much parade as if it were one of the wonders of the world." The proud Roman was thinking of the Cloaca Maxima, the draining of the Alban lake, and the numerous aqueducts both above and below his native soil. Why should the Egyptians make so mighty a matter of their lake Maris, or the Greeks so diligently re-echo its praises? This summary mode of settling such questions, seasoned with the speculations of Greek Polyhistors and antiquaries, might still, it was hoped, find sympathising readers in Rome. A straining after marvellous facts and curious anecdotes, screwed up into the smallest possible compass of quaint sententious narrative, might pass for originality, and perhaps, not stamp a man among his fellows as either a blockhead or a hypocrite, should he venture, himself a Cisalpine provincial, when describing the different species of stones, to dress up once more the old story of the lake of Moris for the benefit of the public of Rome.

This is a faithful picture of Roman research into the antiquities and chronology of Egypt. To the false relation in which, as Romans, they stood to the human race, and to truth-with them inseparable from law— it is to be attributed, that, in spite of all their efforts after utility, in which they confounded the utilitarian with the useful, and in spite of all their power and civilisation, they still remained, in the field of intellectual

pursuits, useless to the world, and not only did nothing for research themselves, but never once as rulers exerted themselves to promote it. The evil fruits of this selfish obduracy, this narrow exclusiveness of Seven-hill existence, recoiled, as is the case with all wrong, on their own heads. They were lost from the moment when they first began to mistrust and to misunderstand the letter of their own institutions, civil and religious; and this was itself a necessary consequence of their intercourse with the Greeks. The scepticism, as well as superstition of Rome is more contemptible than that of Greece, her immorality more flagrant and more per

nicious.

Soon after the time of Diodorus, however, and in the days of Pliny himself, when the spirit of Greek historical research, whether as regards Egypt or the ancient world at large, had become extinct, new life was imparted to it by the inspiring sentiment of the unity of human nature, shed abroad by the Christian religion. In order to appreciate the influence of this new element upon the efforts of inquirers among Christian nations, our attention must first be directed to the tradition and chronology of the Bible, whence the materials for their labours are chiefly derived.

SECTION III.

EGYPTIAN TRADITION AMONG THE JEWS.-JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INTO THE CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT.

INTRODUCTION.

THE CONNECTION RETWEEN REVELATION AND CHRONOLOGY,

Ir the earliest extant remains of the tradition of the Jews relative to contemporaneous events, or of their researches into the history of the past, be dated from Moses and his times—a conclusion amply borne out by a critical study of the Old Testament-we shall find this second stream of Egyptian chronology beginning to flow simultaneously with our earliest distinct notices of systematic historical pursuit among the Egyptains themselves. It carries us through the whole Jewish history to the downfal of the empire, past many of the most important points of Egyptian chronology. But Jewish research does not end there; on the contrary, it is more especially active during the dominion of the Persians. Under the Ptolemies, it made rapid strides in Alexandria, not without evident traces of Egyptian influence, especially in everything relating to that country. In Josephus it even outlives the downfal of the nation itself.

The apostle Paul is at once the originator and model of Christian research. In the East we discover the first epoch of strictly Christian Chronology. The extinction of Oriental research on its native soil long preceded that of Oriental empire. It revived again in the West with the 16th century, and advanced a century and a half