« PreviousContinue »
denoting the mutual relation of persons and things; finally, of complete parts of speech.
“Deposit of this stage of formation in Thibet (Botya language).
“Germ of mythology in substantiation of inanimate things and of properties.
- THIRD PERIOD (III.). - Formation and Deposit of Khamism and the Flood: Western polarization of Sinism (14,000-11,000 B. C.).
“Formation of stems into roots producing derivative words;' complete parts of speech beyond the distinction between full words (nouns, verbs, and adjectives) and formative words (14,000).
“Declensions and conjugations with affixes and endings; stage of the Egyptian (13,000).
“ Commencement of symbolical Hieroglyphics, i. e., picture writing; but without the introduction of the phonetic element or designation of sound (12,000).
" Deposit of this language in Egypt, owing to the earliest immigration of West Asiatic primitive Semites. Invention of, or advancement in, hieroglyphic signs: primitive syllabarium (11,000). . “THE FLOOD. — Convulsion in Northern Asia. Emigration of the Aryans out of the country of the sources of the Oxus (Gihon) and Jaxartes, and of the Semites out of the country of the sources. of the Euphrates and Tigris (11,000-10,000).
“ SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.
" Ancient Postdiluvian History - from the Emigration after the Flood down to Abraham in Mesopotamia. Formation of the historical tribes and empires of Asia (10,000–2878 B. C.),” *
We will not occupy space with the details of this
* Egypt's Place in Universal History, vol. iv. pp. 485-497.
*gge. Semice it to say, the author exhibits the same woodertil knowledge in regard to the history of the - Egyptian deposit from 10.000 down to 3000 B. C., as in reference to the preceding age. He gires definite dates for numerous events in the civil and religious history, e. g. :
The formation of Osirise .
1855 years; ead of the sacerdotal kings . Beginning of hereditary kings in Lower Egypt. . Deration of them according to Vasetha, 1790 years;
end. . . . . . . .
3.024 4.000 3,633 2.875 1.320
It is safe to say, in general, that such a mass of pure assumption as our author has here put forth is nowhere else to be found in any professedly historical or chronological work. He frequently says. ** According to Manetho," while Manetho affords not the least suppon for the declaration put forth on his authority.
The following sentences are valuable, as showing our author's manner of assuming his premises and drawing
Sons, as well as exhibiting a cardinal principle of his work:
-- But if we find, almost four thousand years bes mighty empir possessing organic members of a very type, a peculiar written character and national art and
was four thousand years before our era, a
s organic members of a very ancient
we must admit that it required thousands of years to bring them to maturity in the valley of the Nile. If, again, its language be shown to be a deposit of Asiatic, and by no means the oldest formation, it will be admitted upon reflection to be a sober conclusion that we require some twenty thousand years to explain the beginnings of the development of man, which have been only once violently interrupted in its primeval birthplace.” (Vol. iv. p. 21.)
“The question as to the place of Egypt, in historical chronology, is thus at once changed to that of its place in the whole development of man. We pass out of the domains of chronology and history into that of pure philosophy.” (Vol. iv. p. 22.)
We have here a statement of a fundamental principle of the author — a principle by which he is guided, and which underlies his whole work. It is the founding of a system of chronology on the principles of philosophy. . We are fond of philosophy when it is sound and in its place; and we do not assert that it has no connection with chronology. When the materials for a strict historical chronology do not exist, we have no objections to philosophy doing her utmost to elucidate and present probable truth. But the danger is, that she will transcend the limits of her just domain. This we think she has done under the guidance of Bunsen. She magnifies the difficulties arising from the received chronology of Bible history, and then resorts to expedients that destroy the truthfulness of that history. Certainly in such a work as this she should be watched, and her supposed facts and her expedients be severely scrutinized. If our faith in Bible history is to be undermined by philosophy, let us know what is proposed in its place.
The principal facts on which the author rests his system, and the mode of argumentation, are foreshadowed in the following extracts : –
“Philosophy has discovered the existence of two vast branches of cognate organic languages, the Semitic and Iranian. The stage anterior to Semism is Khamism. This antecedent stage is antediluvian. People history is postdiluvian. We find in it, thousands of years before Menes, first of all a world-wide empire - the realm of Nimrod, the Kushite, ... which probably embraced Egypt as well as Western Asia, the district of the Euphrates and Tigris.
“ If we connect these views with the historical development before us, we shall find, in the first place, ancient history divided into antediluvian and postdiluvian. For the former we require ten thousand years, which we can prove proximately to be the extent of the latter period before Christ.” (Vol. iv. p. 24.)
“The legends of the classics about colonies from Egypt, in so far as they have any historical foundation, are explainable, just as are the expressions in the Bible that Kanaan, who was driven back out of Lower Egypt, was the son of Kham.”* (Vol. iv. p. 30.)
“I must, on the other hand, repudiate all historical connection between the Helleno-Italic mythology and the Indians, or even their patriarchs, the Iranians and Bactrians.” (Vol. iv. p. 31.)
“ We start, therefore, with this premise, that in the Egyptian we have obtained a fixed chronological point, and, in fact, the highest in general history. In it we find a perfectly formed language which we can prove to have been in existence about the middle of the fourth millennium B. C. We have, moreover, the means of determining approximately the epoch of the beginnings of regal government immediately before Menes. We therefore
* A reference to the expulsion of the Shepherds from Egypt.
arrive at the very threshold of the foundation of language.” (Vol. iv. p. 45.)
With regard to the premise” here named, with which the author starts, we simply remark here, that we do not admit it. Nor do we admit the existence of the " perfectly formed language” which he says he “can prove to have existed in the middle of the fourth millennium B. C.” See remarks on this point below.
“The result of criticism goes to prove, however, that we can not compute, by the ordinarily received chronology, the interval between the above starting point of the present life of man and the oldest conquests in Asia, — those of Nimrod, - or the interval between them both and Abraham, the first historical personage in the Semitic reminiscences.
“On the other hand, the period of twenty-one thousand years, which has been adopted by all the great astronomers of the day, for the deviation of the earth's axis, brings us to two restingplaces. The consequence of the deviation is a change of the proportion of the cold and heat at the poles, the greatest of which gives eight days more cold or heat.
“At the present time, in the northern temperate zone, spring and summer are seven days longer than autumn and winter; in the southern hemisphere, consequently, the proportion is reversed.
“In the year 1248 this favorable change in our hemisphere had reached its maximum, namely, eight days more warmth, and therefore the same number of days less cold. Consequently, after a gradual decrease during five thousand two hundred and fifty years, in the year 6498, the two seasons will be in equilibrio, but in the year 11,748 (five thousand two hundred and fifty years. more) the hot period will have reached its lowest point.
“Now, if we calculate backward five thousand two hundred and fifty years from 1248, we shall find that in the year 4002