of travellers or despotism has caused to be removed to Europe, will attest to future ages, that the Greek and Latin authors, who have given so alluring a description of the knowledge, civilization, and power of the old Egyptians, far from exhibiting an exaggerated account, have in fact told us much less than the truth.

This assertion will require no other proof than the simple statement of a few historical facts, which the Greeks themselves have transmitted to us.

By Strabo we are informed, that the ancient kings of Egypt took every precaution to prevent foreigners and strangers from visiting the interior of their empire; because, as he says, they were satisfied with their own opulence. It was the rigorous execution of this political measure which threw into the hands of the Phoenicians the greatest part of the maritime commerce of Egypt. This same account is confirmed by Diodorus. "The priests," says he, "who held the first rank, and exercised the first employments of the state, being persuaded that the happiness and prosperity of Egypt depended on the preservation of these customs, which perhaps, they themselves had established, endeavoured, with all their might, to prevent the people from having any communication with foreigners." This fundamental maxim of the Egyptian policy seems, at one time, to have been generally adopted by all the Orientals, and is still most carefully enforced in China and Japan.

Much has been said, and much still may be said, against such a regulation. A free intercourse with foreigners and strangers may, and does, no doubt, produce a greater degree of civilization, and encourages the progress of commerce. It may also be of use to eradicate from amongst the people some of the prejudices arising from a selfish notion of an exclusive superiority, and of which no nation is free; but, on the other hand, if we consider that these foreigners, while they communicate some portion of knowledge, communicate also many of their vices; and that commerce, if it produces riches, produces also luxury, and this at a long run, must enervate the courage, and destroy the moral principle of the nation; then perhaps, we might be inclined to justify, to excuse, at least, the Egyptian government and the Egyptian priesthood, for the measures they had employed to prevent foreigners from having any intercourse with their people. And indeed, the unfortunate events which, not long after the abolition of this maxim, put an end to the splendour and liberty of Egypt, seems to have fully justified both the Pharaohs and the priests.

The fall in fact, of the Egyptian empire might have been foretold by the relaxed manner in which the people and the government enforced the execution of the ancient laws; and it became unavoidable, as soon as the Pharaoh Psammouthis I. and his successor Amasis, had given permission to foreigners to multiply at pleasure their relations

and intercourse with Egypt. Under the reign of the Pharaohs who had preceded them, the priesthood, being both powerful and numerous, employed all their influence to keep up this exclusion of strangers; and as the priests were the depositaries of knowledge, as well as religion, they kept the Pharaohs themselves in a species of tutelage or subjection, and rendered the government of Egypt in a manner theocratical, or more properly, hieratical.

To preserve their power untouched, and their doctrine unpolluted, they had even been able to excite among the people a general dislike, and, indeed, more than a dislike, for every thing connected with navigation; so that if by law and custom strangers were kept away from their land, custom and prejudice prevented even the natives from wishing to leave their own country. But after Amasis, things began to assume quite a different appearance, and paved the way to the invasion of Cambyses. For this assertion we have the authority of Manetho and of Syncellus, who says, "Egyptum autem Amasis tempore a debito regis obsequio secedentem, armisque et continuis tumultibus agitatam Cambyses subjecit." It was then that this ferocious conqueror, having put an end to the dominion of the Pharaohs, ravaged the country, pillaged the cities, burnt the temples, and almost annihilated the priesthood; and then the whole of this land, which formerly had been the

abode of the arts and of the sciences, lost its splendour, its glory, and its knowledge, without however losing its celebrity.

From Cambyses to Alexander this country exhibits a regular succession of the bitterest civil wars, that ever raged amongst mankind. The perpetual efforts of the several chiefs to deliver their country from the yoke of the Persians, drew upon this unfortunate land the misfortunes and the ruin that are the inevitable consequences of revolutions produced by the stubborn resistance of a people, who still preserved the memory of their glory and of their lost independence. But the unfortunate success of these efforts, by increasing the power of their oppressors, rendered them still more tyrannical and cruel, and produced the greatest possible evil that could befal them as a nation, the oblivion of their ancient institutions and their ancient customs.

It was at this time that Herodotus visited Memphis. He saw this people, so renowned for their wisdom and their knowledge, in the utmost dejection, their temples ruined, their cities destroyed; and the high idea which even then he conceived of Egypt, allows us to imagine what his impression would have been, if he had been permitted to visit this celebrated country during the period of its highest splendour.

From this time the Greeks never failed to go to Egypt for the sake of instruction; and it was in the

schools of the Egyptian priests that the philosophers, the legislators, and the wise men of Greece acquired a great portion of their knowledge; and yet what a difference between the priests of this period, and those who lived under the Pharaohs! The priests of the Pharaonic ages were well versed in astronomy, physics, geometry, mechanics, and chemistry, in short, in most of the sciences; while their successors, the teachers of Herodotus and Plato, were but the passive echoes of their predecessors, and scarcely could be said to have preserved the first rudiments and the general outlines of so much learning.

Among the Greek scholars, there were a few, who after returning to their country, attempted to communicate to their contemporaries, and to transmit to posterity, what they had seen and heard during their travels in Egypt; and Herodotus seems to have been the first who attempted to give a short description of that country. But as the Greek alphabet had not a sufficient number of letters fitted to express all the sounds and inflexions of the Egyptian language, Herodotus, first, and all the Greek historians after him, were compelled to use those letters of their own alphabet which came nearer to the sounds of the Egyptian. The alteration which this mode of spelling, necessarily produced, is one of the causes why the Egyptian names are scarcely recognisable in the writings of the Greeks; and this difference becomes more striking, and infinitely more diffi