Egypt; but in the chronological canon of Manetho there is no Egyptian sovereign who bore this name. In the catalogue however, of the kings of Thebes, preserved by Eratosthenes, we find that the thirtysixth Theban king was called Phruron, or Nilus. The custom of the Egyptian kings to have several names, was no doubt very common, and very ancient; but as Eratosthenes does not mention that this monarch gave his name to the Nile, I know not whether the simple authority of Diodorus be sufficient to establish the fact. To derive it from the Hebrew language, as some of our modern writers have pretended, appears to me an ingenious dream; and between modern and ancient speculations, I rather prefer the report of Diodorus.

It seems however most certain, as M. Champollion has properly observed, that the ancient Egyptians gave to the Nile the name of 1&po, (iaro,) which means river. It is also certain that the Jews adopted this name of river, as it is found in chap. xxvii. 12. of Isaiah, and in chap. xxix. 3. of Ezekiel. And it also appears that up to the thirteenth century of our era, the Copts still distinguished the Nile by the appellation of iaro, or phiaro.

Under the Greeks and Romans, Egypt was divided into three different parts, the Delta, or Lower Egypt; the Heptanomides, or Middle Egypt; and the Thebaide, or Higher Egypt. It is reasonable to suppose that this division is not to be dated from the time of the Pharaohs, as it is not mentioned by

Herodotus. But it seems certain, that, even during the reign of these princes, the country was divided into a great number of small provinces, each of which the Greeks called Nouoi, and the Egyptians Пео, Рthosch. Diodorus asserts, that it was Sethosis Ramesses, son of Amenophis III. who divided Egypt into Nome, at the time that he meditated the conquests of Asia and Africa. Being aware that the execution of these vast projects required a long absence, and wishing that his people should enjoy the benefit of a wise and well directed administration of justice, he divided his kingdom, or rather the whole of Egypt, into thirty-six small provinces, in order that the governors of each of these provinces might more easily attend to the execution of the laws.

According to this account of Diodorus, it seems that Sethosis Ramesses was the author of the first division of Egypt into provinces. But this is evidently a mistake. For it would be difficult to suppose that the primitive Pharaohs could have carried on the administration of justice, and the affairs of government, without the appointment of officers and ministers who could see the orders of the monarch executed in the different departments of the state, and in the various cities and villages of the kingdom. The necessity of appointing these ministers or governors evidently proves a division of land, to prevent the authority of each of them from encroaching on the authority of the other; and there is even reason to suppose that

such was the case, and that these governments or provinces were, in fact, six and thirty. We learn from Strabo, that this division was made in the primitive times of the monarchy, perhaps the period of the hieratic government. In speaking of the Labyrinth, he says, "This extraordinary building contained as many courts as there were nomes; and a little after he mentions the number of these nomes to have been exactly thirty-six." And indeed, if we were to adopt the opinion of the ancient writers who have spoken of the Labyrinth, we might be led to suppose that this superb building had been raised to serve as a point of union to all the governors of the thirty-six nomes, whenever the importance of affairs required that they should assemble together. It was, in fact, situated in the very centre of these nomes, eighteen of which lay on its northern, and eighteen on its southern side. Manetho relates, that it had been raised by order of the Pharaoh Lamaris, or Labaris, who gave to this monument his own name, and who lived 1900 years before Sethosis, that is, more than 3000 years before Christ.

Be this as it may, one certain conclusion we may draw from these accounts of Strabo and Manetho, that the division of Egypt into thirty-six nomes, or Pthosch, was looked upon by the Egyptians as an institution of their first monarchs, much anterior to the time of Sethosis Ramesses, as is asserted by Diodorus.

Such is the short account of this extraordinary

country, in regard to its topography: and I must now proceed to consider the alterations which the Greeks made in the ancient terms, and the mode by which the old nomenclature has been recovered; but before I do so, it is necessary that I should make some preliminary observations.

The name of this country awakens in the mind of the scholar recollections of a peculiar nature, as it belongs to the most memorable epochs recorded by history. It has been the cradle of all the arts and all the sciences; and whilst many of the Oriental, and almost all the European nations, were plunged into ignorance and barbarism, Egypt, having reached the height of civilization, splendour, and glory, boasted of possessing the benefit of a wise system of legislation, and numerous colleges of priests, whose duty it was to watch over the improvement of knowledge, and the happiness of the people. Their institution, it may be said, must have been coeval with the establishment of the monarchy, and their progress so rapid and so extensive, as to have surpassed most, if not all the other nations of the globe. In fact, when under the reign of Psammeitus, the Egyptian empire, which many centuries before had been shaken and harassed by the repeated incursions of the Arabians and the Ethiopians, was at last overturned by Cambyses, the whole of Europe could scarcely exhibit the first fruit of an incipient civilization. Up to that period, that celebrated country was, and from time immemorial had been, governed by

several dynasties of Pharaohs, who, by the wisdom of their laws, and the brilliancy of their conquests, had rendered the people familiar with every species of glory. But at this period, overcome by a conqueror who, by destroying its religious and political institutions, took from the nation every possible superiority; subdued afterwards by Alexander; but arising after his death to a new life under the Ptolemies; bending under the weight of the Roman power; in succeeding time conquered by the Arabians, and at last, fallen under the yoke of the ignorant nation which still keeps them in chains; this country of Egypt has, at different periods, been the theatre on which knowledge and ignorance, happiness and misery, civilization and barbarism, have alternately made their appearance.

Nothing therefore, can be more interesting than the full investigation of the history of this extraordinary nation; of their customs and their laws; of their religious as well as political institutions, during the ages of their prosperity. These ages have long since passed by, and are now lost in the obscurity of time; but this very antiquity seems to attach something so wonderful and extraordinary to the very existence of this people, as to lessen in some respect, the admiration and interest which they ought to excite. But the gigantic remains which still exist at Karnac, at Louqsor, at Esné, at Dendera, in short all over the land of Egypt, and the less bulky, though perhaps not less striking monuments which the greedy hand