The case of the Papyri is certainly different. Written history, such as the historical books of the Old Testament, was, as far as our knowledge of their writings goes, as certainly unknown to the Old Egyptians, as it is certain that the world-renowned muse of Herodotus never inspired them. We have stated this clearly and deliberately at the very outset of the inquiry into the sources of Egyptian history. We have certainly still much to learn before we can interpret to our satisfaction the Papyri, indeed before we are in a position thoroughly to explain the monumental inscriptions, which are much easier to decipher on account of the recurrence of the same phrases. Lastly, there may be discovered in the tombs materials of which we have at present no idea, and of a still more valuable character. But we know already too much of those which are preserved, to venture to hope that we shall ever find anything different in kind; we should then recover Manetho's work which was so early mutilated and adulterated. For the more we examine, and the greater numbers of monuments we have access to, the more we learn to know and to venerate his greatness and worth. Concurrent with these stately monuments of the earliest times, there must have been chronicles of the priests, from which Manetho avowedly and ostensibly derived his information. It seems, however, equally certain that no one before him collected, sifted, and arranged the scattered materials, by collating monumental lore, the contents of chronicles, popular songs, and living legends. Had Josephus and the Christian Fathers possessed half as much affection for historical truth as they had zeal for defending their own traditions and doctrine, they would not have allowed Manetho to perish. Africanus probably, and Eusebius certainly, never saw the entire historical work; Josephus saw merely extracts, and those already tampered with and mutilated. The Roman writers, however, in Christian times, had still

less feeling for history generally, less sympathy for the antiquities of the barbarians; Varro even, the most learned among them, and Tacitus, the greatest genius, being no exceptions, any more than Pliny.

In an Egyptological treatise on the historical records of the New Empire, all monuments which give any sort of historical information must be quoted, and, as far as that is concerned, explained. Wilkinson originated this mode of dealing with them; Rosellini continued it more systematically and thoroughly. Lepsius' great work, however, is the first which gives the authorities, and is executed with thorough criticism and precision. His text (which is so anxiously expected) will fill up many lacunæ in the historical exposition the bases of which are here laid down, will correct many errors, and clear up many difficulties. It seems the more imperative upon us only to offer in this place sketches and fragments of the various features in Egyptian history, and to hint at the principal points for future research, in so far as we have gained an insight into them. We always refer, therefore, to the monuments themselves, according to Lepsius' plates; and on other points to Rosellini, whose labours have been our guide in this exposition (Monumenti Storici), no other work being accompanied by a classical text. Such of our readers as have access to it will not, probably, be less thankful to us for omitting everything that is uncertain, or which does not contribute any historical result, than they will be for what we have communicated, with additions by Birch, De Rougé, and others. The Egyptians possessed, therefore, a history; but it was not in their monuments. The historical matter we glean from them is not of more value than the meagre remains of historical tradition which the epitomists have rescued from Manetho. It corroborates them, however, and proves the traditions to be really historical. This is the main point for the student of history. It must, therefore, be our first object, in this cursory

historical treatise, to introduce light and shade into the seemingly uniform and lifeless mass of events. Our primary aim will be, to obtain genuine historical sections, independent of changes of dynasty. The capability of distinguishing the flourishing periods of their history, the seasons of stagnation, and the decline of a dynasty and of the empire, and then of art, which is evinced by its monuments, supplies, to a certain extent, the lamentable want of individualities which we cannot conceal, and the meagreness and imperfection of the internal history of the people and state. Such sections and epochs are sometimes larger, comprising several dynasties; sometimes smaller subdivisions, which are easily surveyed. By this means, at all events, I think I shall have the effect of forcing my readers to the conclusion that the centuries prior to Psammetichus are not lost to history, even irrespective of the history of art.

We must not, at the same time, be blind to the fact that the element of progress was very scanty in Egypt, and that the nation had outlived itself; so that the New Empire was an abortive attempt at a real restoration of national life. Even an important power in the then circumstances of the world appears only by fits and starts, and the most brilliant conquests are frequently immediately succeeded by the lowest state of debasement. We feel that everything depends on the reigning individual : popular life is only exhibited in a state of suffering or in mockery, and simply as a negation.

In order fully to appreciate the higher import of the history of Egypt, we must first rise to the point of view of universal history. Here Egypt appears as the connecting link between Asia and Africa, and as the instrument of Providence for furthering its eternal purpose, as forming the background and contrast to that free spiritual and moral element which was to arise out of Israel and of Hellas and spread over the whole world.

II.

SURVEY OF THE REIGNS OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH DYNASTIES.42

ACCORDING to the monuments, AMŌSIS (Aahmes), chief of the 18th Dynasty, left behind him one son and two daughters. The son succeeded as AMENŌPHIS (Amenhept) I. He had no children. After him, as third and fourth reigns, we find

In the Lists (3.) AMESSIS (Aahmes), a daughter of Amōsis, and (4.) Mesphres or MEPHIRES (Ma-ke-phra, or Mes.t.phra, daughter of Pharaoh ?), her daughter. On the Monuments: (3.) TUTHMŌSIS I., cousin and husband of the heiress Aahmes, and (4.) TUTIMŌSIS II., the son of him and Amessis.

According to the tables and monuments, however, these two series of reigns did not proceed harmoniously together; for the Lists of Kings of this time mention only the two male reigns, and the scutcheons of Amessis are found but seldom on the public monuments. The fifth reign is called

In the Lists Mesphratuthmosis;

On the Monuments: Tuthmosis III. (Ra-men-kheper), younger son of Tuthmosis I., consequently, the brother of his predecessor, Tuthmōsis II. The sixth reign (which is omitted in the Lists, owing to some confusion which has crept in) is that of AMENŌPHIS II., son of Tuthmōsis III.

He was succeeded by his son TUTHMŌSIS IV., and he again by his son AMENŌPHIS III., eighth king of the race. After his death, however, a schism took place; the

42 Comp. Genealogy of the 18th Dynasty, Book III. p. 510. The restoration of it, pp. 526–536.

consequence of which is, that the reigns of his son Amenōphis IV. (Akhenaten), and of two successors, Ai and Amenankhut, are not recorded in the dynastic series. Amenōphis IV. took the name of Akhenaten after he became a heretic disk-worshipper. He had no male issue. This schism would seem to have ended with the latter reign, as this king's name contains that of the God Ammon.43 He was succeeded by Horus, after whose death we find a queen (probably a sister) with her husband holding the reins of government, but we must suppose only in the name of her son.

This son, probably the grandson of Horus through his mother, was the founder of the 19th Dynasty, as the first Ramesses. Lepsius' Book of Kings, now published, shows how far the relationship between the house of the Ramessides and the Tuthmōses can be restored from the extant monuments, with reference to the Lists, which, though corrupted by the introduction and repetition of historical names which were misunderstood, are not falsified. In the mean time, the restoration of the two dynasties, proposed by us in 1834 and carried out in detail in 1845, as well as that of the 20th and 21st, is unimpeached. So, likewise, is the separation between the 18th and 19th. Down to Horus, it can be shown that there is no break in the male line: with him it clearly became extinct, he having no son. Here, therefore, and here only, can the 19th Dynasty commence. From the first Ramesses downwards we have again an unbroken succession in the male line as far as Sethos II. From the first Ramesses the sovereignty passed to his son, the Great SETHOS (Seti) I., who, with his son and successor, the renowned RAMESSES MIAMUN,

43 This is the result of the researches of Lepsius, contained in his "Gods of the First Order," to the detailed account of which the reader is referred. The result, the first idea of which was suggested by Dr. Hincks, is generally admitted.