Turanian, and the later Semitic. But the history of our Iranian languages carries us back to the remotest periods. When the Aryans separated, they already possessed an orderly system of family life. They tended their flocks, practised husbandry, and their language teemed with philosophic germs, with suggestions of mythology. The whole grammatical structure, the terms for designating all family relations, are common to Bactrians, Indians, Greeks, Sclaves, Germans, and Latins. The latest of the grand emigrations was probably that of the Aryans into the Punjaub. Their oldest hymns date from 3000 B.C.; but at that time they had a national existence. Between 10,000 and 4000 B.C., a Semitic development was attained, separate from the Egyptian; an Iranian, separate from the Semitic. That is to say, as the Aryan stream moved westward, it deposited itself first as Iranian, then as Semitic, then as Egyptian; but the crystallization of this deposit into prior forms of life and government may have been in the inverse order.

Between the Tigris In Palestine was a Egypt was the granary

The "Ethiops" of the classics lived beyond Syene, where the Nubians now live. They did not speak the Egyptian language, and were governed by kings controlled by priests, kings who were the tools of that caste. and Euphrates lived peaceable Semites. medley of tribes, nomadic and bandit. of the world, and the caravan trade still greater than it is now. The influence of Ethiopia upon her in the middle empire was very great. The wife of Amosis, the founder of the new empire, was an Ethiopian heiress; and, although nothing would seem more certain than that Pharaoh was swallowed up with his hosts, what he really did was to flee to Ethiopia, with his son and his gods, in the panic of the Exodus. The civilizing power came into Egypt from Asia. It went first to Upper Egypt, and thence descended to the Delta. The first emperors were Thinites, who came from Abydos to found Memphis. Theban kings were on the throne at the close of the old empire, and during the whole of the middle empire, or Hyksos usurpation. They form the most brilliant element of the new empire which came after;

and we find it reflected in the poems of Homer. Memphis was the focus of the old empire. From the twenty-first dynasty, it was the cradle of royal races. The nations of the old world turned towards the Mediterranean, as plants turn towards the light. Alexandria and the great cities of the Delta began to draw vitality from Asia; and Upper Egypt sank into the shade. Egypt was always the child of both Asia and Africa. In Ethiopia, the priest had the upper hand; in Egypt, the warrior. The king the Theban once chose on the Libyan mountain, as Synesius tells, must have been a priest.

All this was over when Menes came to the throne. Sacerdotal government was the ultimatum of Ethiopia. In Egypt, it was only transitional. Only a generation after Joseph made over to the crown the whole fee simple of the country, we find a second Sesortosis building the Labyrinth. When Strabo says that the representatives of each nome, or province, assembled there, at the great festival of the Panegyrics, he transmits its history. At Thebes, every vestige of the early freedom was now destroyed. The independence of the nomes was lost in the gigantic building, the monster of imperial power, that devoured freedom.

The following tables will give a bird's-eye view of the development of Egypt:

PRIOR TO MENES.

I. Rule of sacerdotal kings in the Thebaid, Bytis.

II. Elected kings in the Thebaid. Last Ethiopic constitution. III. Hereditary princes. Confederation in two groups. influence prevailing.

IV. Double empire. National civilization.

V. Predominance of Lower-Egypt and Asiatic ideas.

FROM MENES TO THE LOSS OF INDEPENDENCE.

I. Unity of empire under the first dynasty.

Asiatic

II. Decline of the Thinite line, re-action towards Ethiopia, worship of animals becoming national, under the 2d, 3d, and 4th dynasties.

III. Separation. The 5th (Theban) dynasty gives way to the 6th (Memphite).

IV. Separation into two governments. Conquered Memphites disappear in the 8th dynasty. The North revolts. At Pelusium, a way is opened for Asia to prevail, when the Sesostridæ at Thebes become extinct.

V. The power of the Pharaohs becomes restricted to the Thebaid. They form marriage connections in Ethiopia. In dynasties 13, 14, and 17, the Ethiopian element becomes fixed.

VI. The Thebans restore the empire. Theban kings reign down to the 20th dynasty.

VII. A Re-action. The Thebans die out. Princely houses of the Delta, especially the Saite, furnish the kings for the 21st and the 26th dynasty.

VIII. The Ethiopians dethrone Bochoris the Reformer, and reign fifty years as the 25th dynasty.

IX. Supremacy of the Asiatic element shows itself throughout the reign of Psammetichus of Sais. Egypt is in friendly rela tions with Greece. Its great bodies of feudal soldiery are breaking up.

X. It is subjugated by Persia, and later by Macedonia.

At the risk of seeming repetition, we must give one more tabular view, to indicate the position of Egypt as regards the development of civilization and government. The last table showed what races swayed her, what divisions of races occurred within her own limits. We divide the story now into five epochs, indicated in outline below. Our object is to show, that a very much longer period of time was needed for her development than has been hitherto accorded.

First Epoch, 1,500 years. - Egypt's primeval time; the formation of language; the development of the Khamitic character, language, and picture-writing. Latest point,

9500 B.C.

Second Epoch, 2,000 years. - Transition period; formation of mythology; age of Egyptian idiographic characters, up to syllableism; development of the worship of Osiris. Latest point, 8000 B.C.

Third Epoch, 1,100 years. - Political commencement; for

mation of the nomes; constitution of districts; formation of a system of phonetics; hieroglyphs, with syllables up to the alphabet. Latest point, 7000 B.c.

Fourth Epoch, 1,500 years. Double government, Upper and Lower Egypt; formation of a constitution and an alphabet. Latest point, 5500 B.C.

Fifth Epoch.-This begins with the reign of Menes, in historic order, at 3400 B.C., which gives us a chronology like this:

This gives us 6,000 years before Menes. It can be proved,. that, at his accession, language, manners, and religion had already become rigid. There were, before his time, we are told, 180 generations, which gives us 5,400 years; and we must throw the emigration back of the Flood, of which it preserved no tradition. That it is not an extravagant estimate, we shall see; for Manetho gives 5,212 human princes before Menes. If we throw out the usual proportion of contemporaneous kings, still this period is not too long.

This paper will indicate in what manner, in Bunsen's view, the existence and antiquity of all other Asiatic nations are involved in that of Egypt. It has been impossible to pause to prove the positions taken. The proof is found in following the two subordinate branches of the main inquiry, the Hebrew chronology, and the history of the Egyptian literature and monuments, in which we have found the chief interest of these volumes. The scheme of the 21,000-years' cycle is illustrated by careful plates, drawn, in accordance with ancient and modern observation, under the direction of a skilful astronomer. The Sothiac festive year, it will be readily acknowledged, was of such importance, that its celebration would always be remembered in connection with

the king reigning at the time of its celebration. If we celebrated the fourth of July only once in a hundred years, of course the President in office at the time would become prominent. There must be 1,461 years between any two reigns in which such an event occurred: so we have a regulator for the internal chronology. A careless reader might find no proof of the assertion, that Nimrod was a Kossite, or mountaineer of the Caucasus. The proof is mixed in with the philological investigations, and is to be found in the enumerations of the Zend.

The reader who has attempted Bunsen, and given up its perusal in despair, may doubt the fairness of any exposition of his work which seems to run smoothly. It seems proper, then, to indicate in what manner this paper has been prepared. It is based upon the conclusions of the first four volumes of Egypt's Place in History," carefully studied out and compared. Whatever changes are suggested (if any) in the fifth volume are to be further treated by themselves; for that part of it which does not consist of Egyptian remains is merely a summing-up of results. In this reduction, we have thrown out all technical learning not essential to the reader's comprehension of the subject. Learning, necessary to Bunsen's own preparation for his work, is frequently bewildering to the student, who looks chiefly for results. We have also suppressed all variations in the spelling, which grow out of philological habits. Common readers are puzzled when Ham suddenly becomes Chem; or Iranian, Aryan. As Bunsen's work was gradual, and his inquiry progressive, dates are assumed in his first volume, which are slightly changed in the fourth. He has a way, too, of mentioning dates, sometimes in a specific and sometimes in an approximate way, which is puzzling. Thus he sometimes speaks of the culmination of favorable influences, in the thirteenth century of our era, as having occurred in 1240, sometimes as in 1248. Such variations as arise from the development of his work have a real value in the book itself, because they show when and how his conclusions are affected; but they have no such value to the general reader. They only confuse him with