from the French missionaries and inen of science, with China as their stronghold. Great credit is indeed due to them for having called attention to the existence of the Chinese books of history, and the incontrovertible proof of the antiquity of civilisation among that extraordinary people. Their historical books were translated, and exhibited a regular chronology, extending back three thousand years B.C., without any trace of the fabulous dates proper to astronomical cycles. Theologians scarcely knew whether they had most reason to be gratified or shocked at this discovery. They were well satisfied that what the world would no longer credit from them should be established by records; namely, that chronology, civilisation, writing, and science do not date from yesterday, as the rigidly Hellenistic school had at all times a strong inclination to assume and inculcate. But when an attempt was made to go considerably beyond the epoch of Abraham, which the theologians fancied they knew for certain, they became alarmed at the waters of the deluge, to which they found themselves so much nearer than their brethren of the Eastern church. Much useless controversy ensued on the subject, till the sneers of Voltaire put an end to the dispute, or at least till it lost its scientific interest. This could hardly fail soon to be the case; for it could not be concealed that China was signally deficient in authentic contemporaneous monuments of any period prior to the historical commencement of connected. Hebrew chronology, the standard era of Scripture history. But besides this, the country, the name, the actions and character of the Chinese were wholly unconnected with the rest of the world, and consequently failed to create any sympathy in the European mind. The chasm which separates China from the origin or history of the nations, whose advancement in civilisation is traced on the page of universal history, yawned darkly and dismally before the investigator and the reader. There were consequently few persons sufficiently interested to inquire whether the unknown names and renownless annals of the Chinese really did reach back to the commencement of the 3rd, or even to the close of the 4th millennium before our era. European enthusiasm for Chinese literature limited itself to the study of Confucius, the sage of the 6th century, B. C., and the computations as to the flood remained as they had been fixed in the 17th century, contrary to the wish of Scaliger, partly by accident, and in all cases without any tenable grounds, in the schools and heads of theologians. The chronology and monumental remains of India seemed to hold out brighter hopes to the one party, and more serious cause of apprehension to the other. This was especially the case from the period when the brilliant genius of Frederic Schlegel took up the series of Sanscrit researches, already long pursued in Calcutta by Jones and Wilford, and tested their results by the standard of universal history and by the new light of German philosophical criticism, enlivening his labours with the charm of elegant style, and with versions of popular passages from the Indian poets. Here a nation was brought to light, speaking the language of the race who conquered and civilised the world, a race which, as Indians, Medes and Persians, as Hellenes and Romans, as Germans and Sclavonians, had during thousands of years rolled down the great channel of the stream of human migration; a nation distinguished for primitive wisdom, a profound code of laws, and possessing equally primitive monuments, and records of their influence on the other great nations of antiquity. Their historical period began coeval almost with that of the Chinese, towards the 30th century before our era. The Egyptian problem seemed at last to be solved. The civilisation of Egypt was derived from Meroe, that of Meroe incontestably from India. Still indeed an old even now nation, as compared with the modern Hellenes, the empire of Egypt was of course younger than that of India. So at least Van Bohlen (in 1830!) still represents the matter. If proof be required, but a poor case can be made out. The Brahmin and Hindù party at this hour leave the Egyptian language entirely out of the question, as an impracticable subject that Champollion's grammar has demonstrated to the satisfaction of every competent scholar the grammatical identity of the Egyptian and Coptic languages. Their own system of philology would indeed soon lead this party to admit the higher antiquity of the Egyptian. As to the boasted primeval antiquity of the Indian buildings they have begun to lower their tone, and that assigned to the written records of the nation fluctuates to the extent of a thousand years. But the weakest part of the whole case is the Indian historical chronology. Whether from a want of historical judgment in the Hindus themselves, or the faults of those by whom the course of Indian research has hitherto been directed, the fact is, that a critical examination of their Lists of Kings, although in themselves to all appearance quite authentic, barely carries us back with certainty to the Augustan age. An interesting discovery, lately made by Prinsep, seems indeed still further to extend our knowledge to the age of the Seleucidæ and Lagida; but that we should ever be able to reach the Olympic era, still less to the fountain-head of authentic Hebrew chronology, but little hope can, at least from present appearance, be entertained; while the chasm which lies between Menu and the commencement of the Kali-jug is such as to exclude all reasonable expectation of its being ever filled up. One fact at least is certain, that the primeval history of Egypt finds neither elucidation nor point of contact in the Annals, Lists, or Monuments of India. Simultaneously with the first steps in the progress of modern hieroglyphical discovery (in 1823), Dr. Prichard, one of the most acute and learned investigators of his time, had once more vindicated the claims of Egypt to a primeval chronology, and suggested a collation of the Lists of Eratosthenes and Manetho, as the true method of elucidating the earliest period. In his work on Egyptian chronology and mythology he shows that the continually recurring coincidences which they offer cannot be accidental, and that the Lists of the former must represent a chronological canon. These suggestions, promulgated on the very eve of hieroglyphical discovery, far surpass in practical value the similar attempt on the part of Rask 185, who, though an acute critic, was little versed in historical inquiry, and was still ignorant of the hieroglyphic system, when, eleven years later, he undertook to reconcile the same two authorities. Egypt remained as before, a sealed book, and her chronology altogether unserviceable. Such was the state of Egyptian chronological science at the period when Champollion presented himself before the monuments of the nation with his Hieroglyphical Alphabet in his hand and deciphered the names of her Kings. - AND II. THE RESEARCHES OF THE EGYPTOLOGERS: CHAMPOLLION THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN SCHOOL ROSELLINI THE ENGLISH SCHOOL, SALT, BURTON, FELIX (LORD PRUDHOE), WILKINSON. THE chronological views of Champollion have been so often and so variously attacked, and almost every one of them must be so decidedly combated in the course of this work, that it becomes the more necessary to explain the ground on which we feel justified, nevertheless, in pronouncing him in history as well as philology the father of the new critical school of 185 Rask. The ancient Egypt. Chronology, translated into German. Altona, 1830. Egyptian research. Between his system of chronology and his character as a man of science, an interesting parallel may be traced. In each the faults of detail lie on the surface-in each the internal excellence and greatness of the whole are concealed from the eye of the superficial observer. Many of his opponents have attacked him without possessing any acquaintance with the subject; many with the weapon of presumptuous knowledge or false learning. Their names will never reach posterity. The errors and faults of Champollion will be ascribed to the decline of the French school of classical philology, after the death or banishment of Scaliger and its other great masters; while his own comprehensive views and discoveries will be attributed to the superiority of his genius, and the unaided efforts of his noble intellect. These remarks are dictated by a no less powerful sense of conviction than of heartfelt gratitude; for we enjoyed the happiness of his personal acquaintance, and of learning from him the first rudiments of hieroglyphic lore at the foot of the obelisks at Rome. Especial credit is due to Champollion for his efforts to apply his discoveries at once to the purpose of historical research, instead of wasting his time in mere verbal quibbles or visionary speculations. And what he effected was no trifling matter, if we consider the low state in which he found ancient chronology generally, more especially as regards the history of Egypt. Zoega had already clearly proved that previous researches had done nothing for the times anterior to Solomon; that a wide chasm intervened before the latter chronology again assumed a coherent shape in the time of Psammetichus, and that it was not till the age of Cambyses that it began to acquire consistency and certainty by the establishment of synchronistic epochs. As regards the primeval period, we have seen already how the different props of the old system, one after |