greater reason, be repeated by me. I must, therefore, request you will acquit me of presumption, if I venture to state some circumstances connected with this extraordinary mutilation of the name of Mandou, by which, perhaps, it may appear not unreasonable to suppose, that this mutilation was the effect of national indignation against the Pharaoh himself, not entirely unconnected with the Exodus of the Israelites.

In the first place, I ought to observe, that amongst the Pharaohs of the different dynasties, we find only three whose names were either entirely or in part made by that of the god Mandou. The first is the Pharaoh Mandou-ei, or Osymandias I. [fig. 3.] which I have just mentioned. He was the chief of the sixteenth dynasty. His historical name and mystic titles we have already explained, and therefore I pass on to the second Pharaoh, who bore the name of Mandou-ei. He is the Achencheres of Manetho. He was the thirteenth sovereign of the eighteenth dynasty, as we saw in a former Lecture, page 424, and lived, in round numbers, nearly seven centuturies after the first. His historical name and mystic titles are exhibited in Table 11. fig. 2. a and b. The external hieroglyphics at the top of each oval are the same with those in fig. 3. exhibiting the legend of Mandou-ei I.; therefore, their meaning is," King of the obedient people, and son of the sun." Equally the same are the characters in the oval b, which mean, " beloved by Phtha Mandou-ei." But those in the first ovala are different,

for they exhibit the symbol of the god Phré, and the figure of the goddess Smé, joined to the parallelogram, which is an abbreviation of Mei, and therefore means, "beloved by Phré and Smé." It is by this difference in the mystic titles that we discover, that though these two Pharaohs bore the same name of Mandou-ei, yet they are two distinct sovereigns, belonging to different dynasties.

The third Pharaoh, whose name composed that of the god Mandou, is Mandouftep. He was the chief of the twenty-first dynasty, and lived four centuries after Mandou-ei II.; and his name appears on a very interesting monument, which M. Champollion, in his second letter to the Duc de Blacas, styles "un precieux modèle de sculpture Egyptienne." On this monument there is a long inscription in hieroglyphics, consisting of fifteen long lines; the first and second of which exhibit, among other characters, the oval, containing some of his titles, and his historical name. [Table 11. fig. 4.]

Of the four external characters you have the regular import; "King of the obedient people." The first two pictures in the oval, the goose and the circle, are phonetic characters, and mean," son of the sun;" and of the remaining signs the parallelogram is an M, the undulating line an N, the tongs a D, the bird an O, or U, the next sign an F, the half-circle a T, and the square a P; spelling all together Mandouftep, which is a compound of Mandou, the name of the god, and tep, or tef,

which means sacred, or devoted; so that the whole means, "sacred to the god Mandou."

From these facts, therefore, it appears to me, that the mutilation of the hieroglyphics, whether figurative, symbolical, or phonetic, expressing the name of Mandou, cannot be applied to the god himself, nor to the Pharaoh Mandouftep, because, if this had been the case, we should have found the same mutilation on the monument I have just described, which, being of an important and religious character, was very proper to be selected as a fit object for this national animadversion. Upon these considerations, we may reasonably conclude that this mark of reproach was directed against one of the predecessors of Mandouftep; and we must therefore endeavour, if possible, to ascertain whether it was against Mandou-ei I. or Mandou-ei II.

According to my view of the subject, I should suppose him to have been Mandou-ei II. Because, if public indignation had been roused against the first Mandou-ei, it would have been expressed against him, and him only, and not extended to his innocent successor; and therefore we should expect to find the name of this latter respected and intact on those monuments which were either raised by his order, or to his memory, just as we have seen the monument of the Pharaoh Mandouftep. Because it is not likely that national hatred would have continued unabated for the space of seven centuries, and been shewn against

Mandou-ei the Second, merely because he happened to bear the name of his detested predecessor. But this is not the case; for we find even the name of this second Mandou-ei to have undergone the same mutilation. In the obelisk which some of the Cæsars had removed to Rome, and Pope Sixtus V. had caused to be placed before the Porta del Popolo, the figurative character of Mandou has been equally cancelled in the name of this prince, and the inscriptions of the Sallustian obelisk, which are but an indifferent copy, made by a Roman artist, of the beautiful sacred inscriptions engraved on the Flammian, exhibit the hieroglyphical character of Mandou, disfigured, and almost erased; and in fact where this character was, there is a hollow more strongly marked than for any of the remaining signs.

This is a very curious and important fact, which, according to my opinion, proves that the disfiguring and mutilation of the figurative signs of Mandou, must have been posterior to the reign of Mandou-ei I., and anterior to that of Mandouftep.

But it may be objected, if Mandou-ei II. had been the Pharaoh who had excited the indignation of his subjects, why should they have exhibited the same feeling of indignation, and mutilated the hieroglyphical inscriptions bearing the name of his predecessor Mandou-ei I., who had been dead seven centuries before? To this objection it may be answered, that popular fury and popular resentment is blind and uncontrolable; and we have no

reason to suppose the Egyptians to have been more reasonable and more scrutinizing than the rest of mankind. If the Pharaoh Mandou-ei II. had really given to his people a sufficient cause to detest his memory, and to erase even his name from the monuments on which it had been engraved, it is by no means improbable, nor indeed contrary to our nature, to suppose, that in consequence of their resentment and vengeance, the Egyptians had wished to expunge from their annals, and in fact totally annihilated, the very name of the detested Pharaoh, so that on no public monument should be found the figurative signs which might renew the memory of his name. This very violence of popular fury may lead us to suspect that the cause which produced it must have been very great; and as we know nothing so remarkable that happened during the reign of this prince as the Exodus of the Israelites, and the expulsion of the Hyk-shos, it is not improbable that this cause had been furnished by the Israelites themselves.

Against this supposition it may be urged, that if, according to the hypothesis of Mr. Faber, the Shepherds had been the oppressors of the Egyptians, as well as of the Israelites, why should these latter share with their oppressors the hatred of the people? Under these circumstances, it seems that both the Egyptians and the Israelites would have made common cause, and joined heart and hand against their tyrants; but they never would have thought of turning their strength against one