of the primitive writers, were still found to regulate the age of the world. In the warmth of controversy, the more rigid Protestants, in condemning the chronology of the Samaritan text, condemned also the computation of the Septuagint, and, without examining the grounds of their opinion, decided that the numbers of the original text were to be preferred to those of any version. Influenced by this opinion, they bestowed the weight of their authority upon the Jewish side of the question, and opposed that which the Christians had maintained from the days of the Apostles, which corresponds also with the computation of profane writers, who had used it before Christ.

As this question will form the subject of a future Lecture, I think it proper to make here but one observation, and that is, that the alteration in the chronology of the Hebrew text did not take place before the beginning of the second century of our æra. For a long time this alteration remained, if not unnoticed, at least disregarded; because the translation of the Septuagint was generally used by all the Christian writers, as well as by all the Pagans who had lived long before and after Christ. From these facts, then, it follows, that without again adopting the chronology of the Septuagint, it is impossible to account for historical facts, to which not the least shadow of doubt can possibly be attached.

Mira sed et scenâ testificata loquor.

To those of my hearers who wish to make themselves acquainted with this subject, I beg to recommend the introduction to "A Connection of Sacred and Profane History," by Dr. Russell; a work in which the reader will find exhibited, in a short, but luminous manner, what has been written, and what is worth knowing, upon this important subject.

But to return; it is to the chronological table of Abydos, that I must now call your attention.

You remember, I hope, that this table consists of forty ovals, or rings, arranged in three horizontal lines; the two first lines contain the prænomen only, that is, the mystic titles of the Pharaohs who lived before Ramesses; and the third line is merely made by the repetition of the name and prænomen of this last Pharaoh, both of which are exhibited throughout the line in two distinct ovals, one containing his name, the other the prænomen. Now as every one, and all these mystic titles, or prænomina of the two first lines differ from one another, it is evident that they belonged to different individuals. But as the prænomen was not sufficient by itself to enable our antiquarians to ascertain to which of the Pharaohs each of them belonged, this monument, valuable as it is, would have been of no use, unless, by other means, we could have found also their historical

name.

Now this has been done by Champollion. This indefatigable scholar, by dint of immense labour,

by comparing the prænomina of the table of Abydos with the same prænomina engraved on other inscriptions, and other monuments, to which the historical name was also attached, has succeeded in finding out and explaining the whole of the middle line; and has ascertained that these prænomina belonged to the Pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty, beginning from the Pharaoh Thoutmosis, and ending at Amenophis III., perfectly corresponding in regard to the order of the succession and the length of their reign, with those mentioned by Manetho.

This is very satisfactory; but a second discovery made by M. Champollion, which though not less important is unfortunately less gratifying, is this: that the existing monuments of Egypt, with few exceptions, do not ascend higher than the reign of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth century, the rest having been destroyed during the usurpation of the shepherd kings of the seventeenth dynasty. Some remains, however, of more ancient monuments are still to be found intermixed with those which the magnificence of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty caused again to be both raised and restored, after the expulsion of those barbarians. Such, for instance, are the remains of a still more considerable edifice, built by the order of the Pharaoh Ousi-mandouei, which were religiously introduced into the plan of the palace of Karnac, which was raised by the order of Amenophis III. On these old remains, the name and prænomen of

Ousi-mandouei are to be seen engraved in relievo. Of this Ousi-mandouei the Greeks have made a second Ismandes, or Osymandias; for you remember they had given the same name of Ismandes to the Pharaoh Osymandias, who had built the palace at Abydos. Of the Pharaoh Ousi-mandouei of Karnac, Diodorus relates the wonderful achievements upon the authority of the Egyptian annals. He lived 2272 years before Christ, nearly two centuries before the invasion of the shepherds; and this seems the most ancient date of the authentic monuments still existing in Egypt, according to M. Champollion. I call them authentic, because their date is ascertained.

This striking fact certainly confirms the history of Manetho, for it proves that the chronological table of Abydos corresponds with the legends engraved on the monuments of Nubia and Egypt; and both together they produce the series of kings mentioned by the Egyptian historian, placed genealogically, as the sovereigns of the eighteenth dynasty, just as the ovals of their prænomina are situated in the middle line of the table of Abydos.

From this fact, we have every possible reason to suppose, that the ovals still undecyphered of the first line of that interesting table, belong to princes who reigned during an earlier period. Admitting, therefore, the truth of the assertion, that the Hyk-shos destroyed most, if not all the monuments existing in Egypt at the time of their invasion, we must not be surprised at the hatred which

the Egyptians felt at the very name of these shepherds. This hatred seems to have pervaded the whole nation, and to have been transmitted unabated to their posterity. The Egyptian monuments are to this day covered with pictures and relievos, exhibiting these barbarians in a kneeling and submissive posture, loaded with chains, and in the act of imploring mercy; and it is by no means a rare circumstance to observe, that the shoes found in and out of the sepulchres are stamped outside the sole, with the figure of one of these strangers in the posture I have just described. This must have been a necessary consequence of their ferocious conduct, and of the desolation they brought on the land of Egypt; for in the fragments of Manetho, whenever this historian speaks of these barbarians, he represents them under the most hateful colours that can be imagined. He exhibits them as the destroyers of every public institution, barbarous, lawless, intent only on rapine and murder, reducing women and children to slavery, murdering all men capable of bearing arms, and carrying fire and sword wherever they went. But such are the scourges of mankind, whom human folly has misnamed conquerors!

The irruption of the Hyk-shos seems to have taken place about 2082 years before Christ, in the sixth year of the reign of Timaus Concharis, the last prince of the sixteenth dynasty, which had been founded 190 years before that event, by the Pharaoh Ousi-mandouei. It also seems, that the