Ezechiel-Studien. Von Dr Dav. Heinr. Müller, Ord. Öff. Professor an der k. k. Universität Wien. Berlin Reuther u. Reichard, 1895. THE author of this work has long been known as one of the principal authorities on Semitic philology in general, and on ancient Semitic inscriptions in particular. A treatise from his pen relating to the Old Testament has therefore peculiar claims to the attention of theologians; for whether they are able to accept his conclusions or no, they cannot fail to derive from him much important information which will vainly be sought in the ordinary commentaries. Professor Müller here gives us five short papers, dealing with a number of separate details in the Book of Ezekiel. The subjects are: (1) The Vision of the Chariot, Ezek. i.-xi.; (2) The Sending of the Prophet, Ezek. ii., iii.; (3) Sketches and the finished Work, Ezek. iii., xviii., xxxiii.; (4) The Frame-work of certain Prophecies, Ezek. vi., xxxii., XXXV., xxxvi.; (5) Parallel Passages from the Cuneiform Inscriptions. That Ezekiel was influenced to a large extent by earlier writings is now generally acknowledged. Professor Müller devotes special attention to this question of the prophet's literary dependence, and points out, for example, that the introductory vision, as well as that in Isaiah vi., is ultimately based upon the vision of Micaiah in 1 Kings xxii. 19-22. In like manner, the sending of the prophet is modelled upon the sending of Moses (Exodus iii., iv.) and the sending of Gideon (Judges vi.). Professor Müller goes so far as to maintain that Ezekiel probably borrowed certain ideas and phrases from the Assyrio-Babylonian literature. The parallels given are certainly remarkable; but whether they suffice to prove any kind of literary dependence may perhaps be doubted. In his treatment of the text, Professor Müller will be thought extremely conservative. Not only does he reject the bolder changes proposed by Cornill, but even in such a passage as Ezek. iii. 12, he is inclined to defend the Massoretic reading, in spite of the very serious difficulties which it offers. The apparent contradictions between chaps. i. and x. have long perplexed commentators, and it has therefore been suggested that a great part of the latter chapter is spurious. Professor Müller, on the contrary, thinks that here the prophet gives a second description, in order to overcome the objections which the former one had raised both in his own mind and in the minds of his hearers. A. A. BEVAN. A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Dynasty. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, D.C.L., Edwards Professor of Egyptology in University College, London. Methuen & Co. Cr. 8vo, pp. 254. Price, 68. THE peculiar relation in which the British nation stands towards Egypt would naturally lead one to expect that the study of all that pertained to the ancient inhabitants of that land should be actively pursued in this country. Hitherto, to our disgrace be it said, this has not been the case, despite the fact that we possess in our museums abundant and priceless material for the study; and we have been, up to the present, dependent on the works of Continental scholars for our best text-books on Egyptian History, Philology, and Lexicography. It is therefore with peculiar pleasure that we welcome this work from the pen of an English Professor of Egyptology, and the more so as its author has done more than any living man in the discovery of those monumental materials upon which the history of the earlier periods of the Egyptian nation can alone be satisfactorily based. The book is especially designed for the student, rather than for the general reader, and the subject is treated with a fulness of detail which would scarcely be appreciated by the latter class; and the author naturally assumes that the students for whom he writes have acquired such an elementary knowledge of the subject as to be able to follow his critical expositions of the records and memorials from which his history is drawn. The style is simple, condensed, and suggestive; and the subject is treated with the thoroughness that arises from a first-hand acquaintance with the material on which the author has worked. On the whole, Professor Petrie's work may be classed as one of the most important of the recent contributions to our knowledge of Egyptian history; and if in some respects it is not as exhaustive as the work of Wiedemann or Meyer, it has the advantage of being brought up to date in almost every respect. This volume of the history treats of the earliest periods, ending at the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty with the fall of the Shepherd Kingdom. Professor Petrie prefaces his historical study with a short sketch of the physical geology of Egypt and a notice of the traces of its prehistoric inhabitants. We have now abundant evidence of the existence of Paleolithic man in Egypt at a date which must have been long anterior to the advent of the historic race, —that is, at least more than 7000 years ago. Professor Petrie adopts De Rougé's theory as to the ethnic affinities of the historic race. He believes them to have been of Asiatic origin, and, in accordance with the ethnic tradition embodied in the Genesis narrative, he supposes them to have been related to the people of Punt, or Southern Arabia. They probably crossed the Red Sea, and making their way to the river, probably by the Kosseir Road, descended northward to the Mediterranean. They found the country inhabited by one, if not by two, pre-existing races, with whom they subsequently amalgamated; but the two modes of sepulture which Professor Petrie found at Medum show that at least as late as the date of the fourth dynasty these elements had not completely fused. In tombs of the twenty-second dynasty at Qurnah some mummies have been found, which, in osteological characters, closely resemble the more archaic of the Medum races. The early mythical history is passed in rapid review, and Professor Petrie is evidently inclined to regard the traditions, not only of the god and hero dynasties, but also of the first three of the human dynasties, from Menes to Seneferu (whom he places about 3998 B.C.), as being rather of the nature of legend than of trustworthy history. As the extant lists of the kings ascribed to this period were not compiled at a date further back than the period of Seti I., it is probable that they are variants of one collected tradition, and not of the value of independent witnesses. It can scarcely be imagined that the Menite monarchy started fully organised in the time of its founder. From the analogy of other histories it is much more probable that this was the historic emergence of the dominant race, who had, in all likelihood, many and sore struggles before they became supreme masters of the land. This would account for the absence of permanent memorials; indeed, it is commemorated in the traditions that Tosorthros, who is supposed to have preceded Seneferu by 180 years, was the first recorded builder of a house of hewn stone. The argument from the absence of dated monuments of this period can only be taken as suggestive, not as conclusive. We know that at a much later date there is a period of at least 500 years of which the monumental evidence is extremely scanty. It is likely also that, as Professor Petrie suggests, the use of metal tools came in with the fourth dynasty, and thus enabled them to produce the wonderful works which characterised that first great outburst of Egyptian constructive art. In the fourth dynasty we reach the solid ground of monumental evidence. Man then set himself to erect buildings on a colossal scale, and probably at no epoch in the history of any country were his efforts more successful and skilful. Whether or not the Sphinx was carved at this period Professor Petrie does not finally decide; but he is evidently of opinion that it is a work of later date, in accordance with the thesis which he has maintained in an earlier work, that the conception of the sphinx is of foreign origin, imported probably from Asia by some of the immigrant rulers of later times, perhaps those of the race of Khyan, in the ninth dynasty. It is certainly with reluctance that one feels constrained to give a provisional assent to Professor Petrie's arguments in this matter, but assuredly the tablet of Khufu cannot be regarded as settling the question, for, as is now generally admitted, it is of much later date, probably of the twenty-first dynasty, or even later. It is a still greater wrench to have our faith in the antiquity of the coffin lid of Mycerinus weakened; but, in the face of the arguments recently adduced by the German critics, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, to which Professor Petrie assents, that this relic, with its "schwanenlied" is a late reconstruction, possibly of the twenty-sixth dynasty. There are certain difficulties in determining the chronology of this early period. Queen Mertitefs, on her tomb at Gizeh, says of herself that she was ur am-t (great favourite) of Seneferu, ur am-t of Khufu, and makh kher (devoted to Khafra). If, as we are told, Seneferu reigned twenty-nine years, Khufu sixty-three, and Khafra sixty-six, even supposing that Mertitefs was in her teens when she became wife of Seneferu, she must have been advanced in years when Khafra came to the throne; but perhaps this is indicated in the change of expression used by this ancient predecessor of Ninon de l'Enclos to express the sentiments of the last king. In any case, her evidence proves that no other reign was interposed, and that Radadef, whom Tunari and Seti have interposed between Khufu and Khafra, must have come later, possibly after Menkara, as stated in the list of Manetho, if indeed he be the same as Rhatoises. In general, Professor Petrie has made the Turin papyrus the basis of his chronology, but he suggests emendations where other information is available. It is interesting to note, however, that on the whole the result runs approximately parallel with those of the artificial chronology of Brugsch, based upon the assumption that each generation lasted thirty-three years. At the start, Brugsch is more than 200 years behind Petrie, the former putting Seneferu about 3776 B.C., the latter at 3998. The end of the sixth dynasty is referred by Brugsch to 3000, by Petrie to 3290, and the end of the twelfth dynasty is placed by them respectively at 2236 and 2565. The very judicious remarks with which Professor Petrie ends his concluding chapter on chronology cannot be too strongly emphasised in this connection. In dealing with the dates of the dark ages which follow the reign of Queen Sebekheferu, Professor Petrie is more liberal in his allotment of time than was Brugsch, as he allows 965 years between the end of her reign and the accession of Aahmes, while Brugsch puts the interval at 536 years. In treating this, the most obscure period of the history, Professor Petrie has adopted Brugsch's method of regarding the names in the Turin list as successive, but if there be any force in the argument used by him against the duration of the early dynasties from the paucity of monuments, it might be used with much greater cogency here, where the monuments of this period are so few; but while we cannot but regard Lieblein's method of grouping as purely artificial, it is not improbable that some errors may have crept into the numbers in the list, and that some degree at least of overlap may have taken place. The monumental traces of foreign influence before the Hyksos rule are most interesting, and Professor Petrie has shown with great clearness that it is probable that some of the kings of the eleventh dynasty, such as Khyan, may have been successful members of an early Semitic immigration, and, may, like Joseph in much later times, have been persons who rose to be not only second, but supreme rulers in the land. Here the study of the linguistic changes which took place in the Egyptian language, and which differentiate the speech of the early days of the new Empire from the language of the pyramid texts, confirms the monumental evidence of foreign influence. Professor Petrie gives in connection with each king a list of the known monuments of his reign, and the most important of these are very clearly illustrated. It would be an advantage if in subsequent additions a map were also given of the places mentioned. It is necessary for the student of Egyptian history to keep constantly in his mind the exact geographical details of the long narrow valley which was the theatre wherein the events of the history were transacted. The index is full and good, and the work as a whole is one for which all students of Egyptology have reason to be deeply grateful to Professor Petrie; and we look forward with interest and expectancy to the two other volumes in continuation that are promised from his pen. ALEX. MACALISTER. Religionsphilosophie im Umriss. Mit historisch-kritischer Einleitung über die Religionsphilosophic seit Kant. Von Dr Rudolph Seydel. Nach des Verfassers Tode herausgegeben von Professor D. Paul Wilh. Schmiedel. Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1893. Large 8vo, pp. xix. 396. Price, M. 9. FROM 1860 to 1892 Rudolph Seydel taught in the University of Leipzig, and for an even longer period, as we learn from the carefully prepared Verzeichniss appended to the work before us, he |