cult to unravel, according to the facility which they had in visiting the interior, and taking their abode in Egypt.

This was the case at the time of Alexander. Having conquered the Persians, he transferred the sceptre of that country into the hands of his countrymen; and under the empire of the Ptolemies, by little and little disappeared the last traces of the government of the Pharaohs, and of the ancient customs and usages of the primitive Egyptians. Every thing then assumed a Grecian appearance, and a Grecian tint; the Egyptian blood became degenerated by being mixed with the Macedonian; the ancient love for knowledge and improvement was lost amongst the natives; the priests themselves confined their cares and their business to sacred ceremonies, and, neglecting altogether the scientific pursuits which had engrossed the attention of their predecessors, they lost sight of one of the most important objects of their institution.

During this last period of the Egyptian empire, that is, from Ptolemy Lagus to Cleopatra, the Greeks made immense changes in every thing with which they meddled in Egypt. By translating into their language the names of most of the Egyptian towns and Egyptian kings, they took from posterity the power of recognising them under their ancient form, or even under the form which had been used by their primitive writers. This last circumstance indeed is very striking in the writings of Strabo, and much more of Diodorus, when com

In the account

pared with those of Herodotus. which this latter historian gives of Egypt, we find but few Egyptian names translated into Greek; but the case is very different with his successors. Strabo in fact, made considerable alteration in the nomenclature used by Herodotus; and Diodorus, following his example, made some change even in that which Strabo had adopted.

One of the principal causes however, for so unpardonable a liberty is to be sought for in that national vanity which formed the characteristic feature of the Greeks. Wishing to appropriate to themselves the discoveries of the great men of other nations, they tried to establish a similarity of origin, andI might say, of theogony, between their own gods and those of Egypt, as they had done with those of Babylon, Persia, and India. But ignorant of the Egyptian language, and mistaking the very essence of the Egyptian theology, they enveloped the whole under the veil of fable, and transmitted to posterity, not the real creed of the primitive Egyptians, but the corrupt notions of their debased successors, still more vitiated and altered by their own. Misled therefore, by their ignorance and their vanity, they erroneously conceived, that the Egyptian Athos was their Aphrodite; Ammon, their Zeus; Phtha, their Hephaistos; Neith, their Minerva; Horus, their Apollo; Thoth, their Hermes; Smé, their Themis; Saté, their Juno; and, Isis and Osiris, mere names to signify the moon and the sun.

This mistake of the Greeks is so much the more to be lamented, as the Egyptians had the custom of giving to many of their towns the names of their deities, and even of the animals that were sacred to them. The errors therefore, which the Greeks made in the names of the Egyptian gods and goddesses, are repeated also in the nomenclature of the natural history, as well as of the geography of Egypt.

But this is not all. The scholar has another and more serious charge to bring, not indeed against the Greek writers, but against the Greek sovereigns who ruled over Egypt, the vain and silly Ptolemies. These princes, wishing to transmit their names and their deeds to posterity, endeavoured to imitate the example of their predecessors; but unable to perform the stupendous works executed by the Pharaohs, they only betrayed their weakness and their arrogance, by the wicked attempt at erasing from the old monuments the names of their founders, for the sake of substituting their own. In spite of all their efforts, the deep and bold engravings of the primitive workmen still appear, under the feeble strokes of their puny successors; and the names of the great Pharaohs, by whose order these monuments were raised, may still be traced under the comparatively superficial lines which were intended to consign them to oblivion. Hence it happens, that the description which the Greeks give of these monuments mislead the reader, inasmuch as they speak of them as the original performance of the

Ptolemies, and not as the production of more powerful and more ancient sovereigns, the primitive Pharaohs.

To apply therefore to the Greek writers for a knowledge of the language, religion, laws, and customs of the ancient Egyptians, is to apply to a vitiated and prejudiced source, which exhibits only the darkest and most faithless side of the picture. The account however, which they have given may be of use; it may direct us to consult higher and more faithful authorities; and even their own narration, by the assistance of a proper and well-directed criticism, may serve to impart valuable notions. Hard and difficult as this criticism may be, it is of absolute necessity. Without it we shall add the erroneous opinions of our own mind to those which they have left us; and our errors in the language of your poet may be compared to

Alps on Alps arise.

Upon this statement, it may be asked, how then the old Egyptian names have reached us; or in other words, how have we been able to discover the old Egyptian names, which the Greeks had so altered as to render it quite impossible to recognise them? I answer, through the means of the Arabians, and the Coptic manuscripts. I shall endeavour to establish this fact by the following considerations.

Notwithstanding the irruptions, and the conquest which the Persians, the Greeks, and the

Romans made of Egypt, the feeble remainder of the nation still preserved in their common language the names which their ancestors had given to their deities, to their animals, and their cities. In this they followed the example of the Orientals, who at all times have been considered as preserving, better than any other nation, their names and their customs; so that, even at this moment, many of the most ancient cities in Asia, and indeed all over the East, are known by the names they received from the earliest time; and although subdued by foreign conquerors, they have preserved their native language, and local denominations. This is an observation of Iamblicus, who had paid a great deal of attention to this subject; and I think it perfectly correct. It is in fact confirmed by history; and perhaps, more so in regard to Egypt than any other people upon earth. For although the Greeks altered the ancient Egyptian names, yet these denominations were used by their own nation only, and adopted even by their countrymen residing in Europe; but never by the native Egyptians. These latter continued to use their ancient names, and either disregarded or despised the alterations introduced by their conquerors.

The Romans, when they subdued Egypt, being entirely ignorant of the language of the natives, but well acquainted with the Greek language, adopted all the terms and denominations which they had introduced; and the old Egyptian names, and perhaps the Egyptian language itself, would