"What poor things are kings!What poorer things are nations to obeyHim, whom a petty passion does command!"
These considerations, we repeat, are well adapted to promote the important object to which we have alluded, of causing our institutions to be properly appreciated and loved by ourselves. This is the great desideratum with respect to them—the chief thing necessary for their preservation. Our situation now is more enviable than that of any country of the earth; and all which is requisite is, that we should be aware of our own happiness, and rightly understand the source from which it springs—the republican form of government. Let us be thoroughly impressed with the conviction of the superior efficacy of this system over every other, in promoting the end for which political societies were instituted, and we are safe. We will then be furnished with the best defence against the principal enemy from which danger need be dreaded,—we mean that propensity to change, which is one of the common infirmities of the human breast,—that restlessness which renders the life of man a scene of constant struggle, tends to prevent him from estimating and enjoying the blessings he possesses, and often causes him to dash away with his own rash hand, the cup of happiness from his lips. "Our complexion," says Burke, "is such, that we are palled with enjoyment, and stimulated with hope,—that we become less sensible to a long-possessed benefit, from the very circumstance that it is become habitual. Specious, untried, ambiguous prospects of new advantage, recommend themselvesto the spirit of adventure, which more or less prevails in every mind. From this temper, men and factions, and nations too, have sacrificed the good of which they had been in assured possession, in favour of wild and irrational expectations." To be satisfied, is, indeed, we fear, difficult for human nature, even where there is no good to be reached beyond what we already have obtained. A great object, in such case, is to be convinced that there is no such good to be acquired—to suppose that we have arrived at the utmost boundaries of mortal felicity.
Nothing, however, that we have advanced as fitted to aid that object, inasmuch as it respects our political condition, is of such influence for its accomplishment, as the contemplation of the actual state of the European world. When the tempest howls without, the domestic hearth is invested with a doubly inviting aspect; we gather round it with eagerness, in proportion to the dismal appearance of external nature, and bless it for the security which it affords from the rage of the heavens. Should we not, in like manner, embrace with redoubled fondness, the institutions which maintain us in prosperity and peace, now, especially, whilst we are enabled to behold the fearful operation of the consequences of monarchical rule—the horrors in which they are involving the fairest and most civilized portions of the globe; and when we know, too, that the motive which inspired the inhabitants of those countries with courage to encounter the storm, by which they are tossed about on the sea of revolution, was the hope of being driven by it into some haven like that which shelters us from the fury of winds and waves? When, if ever, they will attain to the possession of the blessings which we enjoy,—how all the troubles by which they are agitated will end, is what no human ken is competent to discern; but the philanthropist and the Christian need never despair. Out of chaos came this beautiful world; and the same Being who called it into existence, still watches over its concerns,—is still as potent to convert obscurity into brightness, as when He first said, "Let there be light," and there was light!
Art. III.—Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, Jr. and the advantages which it offers to sacred criticism.ByJ. G. H. Greppo,Vicar-General of Belley. Translated from the French byIsaac Stuart,with notes and illustrations.Boston: pp. 276.
In former numbers of this journal, there are several articles devoted to the subject of Egyptian hieroglyphics, particularly as connected with the labours of Mons. Champollion. Every day seems to give opportunity of additional observation, by furnishing new and interesting facts. How much further the investigations may be carried, it would be unsafe even to conjecture; but, in the present state of things, we are fully authorized to consider the problem of hieroglyphics as at last solved, and such general principles established, as must render subsequent investigations comparatively easy. Every age seems to be productive of some great genius peculiarly adapted to the accomplishment of some great design, connected either with the advancement of learning, or the melioration of the moral condition of mankind. The present appears fruitful of great men, and France, particularly favoured, whether we regard the great political events which have called out the most gigantic exhibitions of practical wisdom, or look at the onward march of science, which seems in no wise impeded, by convulsions which scatter every thing but science, like the yellow leaves of autumn. Let us not, however, be diverted from our object,—the sober investigation of a sober subject, alike deeply interesting to the philologer, the student of history, and the inquirer into the sacred truths connected with divine revelation.
The work which stands at the head of this article, purports to be an investigation of the hieroglyphic system developed in the published works of Mons. Champollion, Jr. and the advantage which it offers to sacred criticism. It is the performance of a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, J. G. H. Greppo, Vicar-General of Belley. The original work, however, is not before us. We examine it through the medium of a translation made by Mr. Isaac Stuart, son of the Rev. Moses Stuart, one of the most eminent scholars of our country, who vouches for the accuracy of the translation, having inspected the whole, and compared it with the original. Dr. Stuart has added some notes, where he has seen occasion to differ from Mr. Greppo, on some points of Hebrew philology and criticism. The reasons for his difference of opinion are given with that candour for which the writer is distinguished, and the intelligent reader is left to judge as to the merits of the question.
It is well known to the learned, that Mons. Champollion, theyounger, has been spending several years in the uninterrupted study of the Egyptian hieroglyphics. In his capacity of Professor of History at Grenoble, he found his labours embarrassed by the immense hiatus which occurs in Egyptian history, and, to the filling up of this, he set himself to work with all the zeal and energy which genius could inspire. In this work, he had the advantage of youth, and a very superior education in the Coptic and other oriental languages, connected with a patience of investigation, which appears almost miraculous. He had the advantage of knowing, moreover, that, if ever any just conclusion was to be gained, he must seek it by getting some starting point, different from that whence all his predecessors had set out. There had been a variety of learned men whose investigations were directed to this point, such as Father Kircher the Jesuit, whose different works on Egyptian antiquities had been successively published in Rome, from 1636 to 1652—Warburton, the highly gifted author of the Divine Legation of Moses, the learned Count de Gebelin, and others of equal and less name. But these had all confessedly failed, and the learned almost gave up the subject in despair, so much so, that Champollion himself, states it as the only opinion which appeared to be well established among them, viz. "that it was impossible ever to acquire that knowledge which had hitherto been sought with great labour, and in vain."
In the midst of these discouragements, a circumstance occurred, familiar probably to our readers, but to which we allude merely to observe, that it seemed at once to open a new era of investigation, and is among the many evidences of the fact, that events of apparently the most inconsiderable description, are connected with results whose magnitude cannot be estimated. At the close of the last century, while the French troops were engaged in the prosecution of the war in Egypt, it is well known, that a number of learned men were associated with the expedition, for the prosecution of purposes far more honourable than those of human conquest,—we mean the exploration of a hitherto sealed country, with the express design of advancing the arts and sciences. One division of the army occupied the village ofRaschid, otherwise calledRosetta; and, while they were employed in digging the foundation for a fort, they found a block of black basalt, in a mutilated condition, bearing a portion of three inscriptions, one of which was in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. The fate of the military expedition, lost to the French the possession of this stone, as it fell into the hands of the British, by the capitulation of Alexandria; it was afterward conveyed to London, and placed in the British museum. Previously to the termination of the war, however, the stone and its characters had been correctly delineated by the artists connected with the commission,and then, through the medium of an engraving, placed in possession of the learned. This is a brief history of the Rosetta stone, as it is called, but still it baffled the investigations of the learned. They had gone upon the supposition, that the hieroglyphic method of writing must, of necessity, beideographic, i. e. figurative or symbolical, and that each of these signs was the expression of an idea. Here appears to have been the great root of all their mistakes on the subject, mistakes naturally fallen into by the moderns, inasmuch as the few incidental passages left on the subject in the writings of the ancients, all recognized this as a fact. Except Clement of Alexandria, one of the fathers of the church, not a solitary writer had left on record any other opinion; and the passage of Clement has itself never been understood, until since the discoveries of Champollion. It seems to be one of those curious facts connected with the history of the human mind, that it requires a great intellect to seize on the simplest element of truth. It is easy to speculate on data, which are assumed without a rigorous examination, and then to make an exhibition of learning which may astonish the world; but, it is the province of the greatest genius to lay hold of simple truth, and establish a foundation utterly immoveable, before there is any attempt at a superstructure. This was the business, and this the achievement of Champollion. Now that the discovery is made, we are amazed at the want of previous penetration. It struck the mind of Champollion, that, if the Egyptian hieroglyphics wereideographic, there must beexceptions, for two substantial reasons: first, becauseproper names, or names of persons, do not always admit of being expressed by any sign, that is, proper names have not in all cases a meaning; and, second, becauseforeign names, or those which have no relation to any particular spoken language, could not be represented by conventional signs. These principles appear now to be self-evident, and this is the basis of Champollion's discovery. On this he built the idea, that there must exist among the Egyptiansalphabetic characters, which should express thesoundsof the spoken language; and, in order to test this principle, he set about the investigation of the celebrated Rosetta stone. This stone, let it be remembered, had on itthree inscriptions in different characters. One of these inscriptions was written in Greek, and of course easily decyphered; of the other two, one was written in hieroglyphics, and the other in the common character of the country. The course pursued by Champollion, was exceedingly simple, and, on that account, may be considered masterly. In the Greek text, the name of Ptolemy occurred, together with some names which were foreign to the Egyptian language. In the hieroglyphic inscription, there were certain signs grouped together and frequently repeated; and, what rendered them remarkablewas, that they were enclosed in a kind of oval or ring, called a cartouche, and maintained a relative position which seemed to correspond with the Greek word Ptolemy. Champollion conjectured, that there must be some connection between the signs clustered in these rings, and the name of Ptolemy expressed by signs, which wouldsoundlike that word; and this led him to expect, that he would get at what he was persuaded was the truth, viz. that the hieroglyphic writing wasalphabetic,rather than exclusivelyideographic. With the view of testing this, he went into a close analysis of the group of signs which he supposed designated the name of Ptolemy; and, as the result of this analysis, obtained what he considered the equivalents to the letters in the name of this prince.
In order to give our readers an idea of his process of investigation, we will state the signs which he found in the group surrounded by a ring on the Rosetta stone. These are the following: a square—half circle—a flower with the stem bent—a lion in repose—the three sides of a parallelogram—two feathers, and a crooked line. The square, Champollion considered the equivalent of the Greek letter Π—the half circle, Τ—the flower with the stem bent, Ο—the lion in repose, Λ—the three sides of the parallelogram, Μ—the feathers, Η,—and the crooked line, Σ. This gave the name Ptolmês. At this stage of his investigations, Champollion supposed that he had obtained seven signs of an alphabet; but, could he have gone no further, he would have established nothing, and his researches would have passed off with the labours of the learned who had preceded him. To test his principle further, it was necessary, therefore, that he should be able to get at some other monument, on which there should be recognized some name also known by some Greek or other connected inscription. Such a monument was found in an obelisk discovered in the island of Philæ, and transported to London. On this was discovered a group of characters also enclosed in a ring, and containing more signs than the former, some of them similar. On a part of the base which originally supported the obelisk, there was an inscription in Greek, addressed toPtolemyandCleopatra. Now, if the basis of Champollion was correct, there ought to be found in the name Cleopatra, such signs as were common to both, and they must perform the same functions which had been previously assigned them; and this was precisely the result. We have this strikingly set forth in a note of the translator, which is here presented.
"To prove that the conjectures of Champollion were true, the first sign in the name of Cleopatra should not be found in the name of Ptolemy, because the letterΚdoes not occur in ΠΤΟΛΜΕΣ. This was found to be the fact. The letterΚrepresented bya quadrant."The second sign (a lion in reposewhich represents theΛ), is exactly similar tothe fourth sign in the name of Ptolemy, which, as we have already seen, representsaΛ."The third sign in the name of Cleopatra isa feather; which should represent thesinglevowelΕ, because thetwo feathersin the name of Ptolemy representdouble Epsilon, which is equivalent to the GreekΗ. Such is its import. As Greppo remarks in a note, and as has been fully proved by subsequent investigations of Champollion, the sign which resembles two feathers, corresponds also with the vowelsΕ,Ι, and with the diphthongsΑΙ,ΕΙ."The fourth character in the hieroglyphic cartouche of Cleopatra, representinga flower with a stalk bent back(or a knop), corresponds to theΟin the Greek name of this queen. This sign is the very same with the third character in the hieroglyphic name of Ptolemy, which there representsΟ."The fifth sign is in the form ofa square. It here represents theΠ, and is the same with the first sign in the hieroglyphic name of Ptolemy."The sixth sign, corresponding to the Greek vowelΑin Cleopatra, isa hawk; which of course ought not to be found in the name of Ptolemy (as it has no letterΑ), and it is not."The seventh character is anopen hand, representing theΤ; but this hand is not found in the hieroglyphic name of Ptolemy, whereΤ, the second letter in that name, is represented by a half circle. The reader will see in Note G, why these two signs stand for the same letter and sound."The eighth character in the name of Cleopatra, which isa mouth, and which here represents the GreekΡ, should not be found in the name of Ptolemy, and it is not."The ninth and last sign in the name of the queen, which represents the vowelΑ, isthe hawk, the very same sign which represents this vowel in the third syllable of the same name."The name of Cleopatra is terminated by two hieroglyphic symbolical signs,the egg and the half circle, which, according to Champollion, are always usedtodenote the feminine gender."
"To prove that the conjectures of Champollion were true, the first sign in the name of Cleopatra should not be found in the name of Ptolemy, because the letterΚdoes not occur in ΠΤΟΛΜΕΣ. This was found to be the fact. The letterΚrepresented bya quadrant.
"The second sign (a lion in reposewhich represents theΛ), is exactly similar tothe fourth sign in the name of Ptolemy, which, as we have already seen, representsaΛ.
"The third sign in the name of Cleopatra isa feather; which should represent thesinglevowelΕ, because thetwo feathersin the name of Ptolemy representdouble Epsilon, which is equivalent to the GreekΗ. Such is its import. As Greppo remarks in a note, and as has been fully proved by subsequent investigations of Champollion, the sign which resembles two feathers, corresponds also with the vowelsΕ,Ι, and with the diphthongsΑΙ,ΕΙ.
"The fourth character in the hieroglyphic cartouche of Cleopatra, representinga flower with a stalk bent back(or a knop), corresponds to theΟin the Greek name of this queen. This sign is the very same with the third character in the hieroglyphic name of Ptolemy, which there representsΟ.
"The fifth sign is in the form ofa square. It here represents theΠ, and is the same with the first sign in the hieroglyphic name of Ptolemy.
"The sixth sign, corresponding to the Greek vowelΑin Cleopatra, isa hawk; which of course ought not to be found in the name of Ptolemy (as it has no letterΑ), and it is not.
"The seventh character is anopen hand, representing theΤ; but this hand is not found in the hieroglyphic name of Ptolemy, whereΤ, the second letter in that name, is represented by a half circle. The reader will see in Note G, why these two signs stand for the same letter and sound.
"The eighth character in the name of Cleopatra, which isa mouth, and which here represents the GreekΡ, should not be found in the name of Ptolemy, and it is not.
"The ninth and last sign in the name of the queen, which represents the vowelΑ, isthe hawk, the very same sign which represents this vowel in the third syllable of the same name.
"The name of Cleopatra is terminated by two hieroglyphic symbolical signs,the egg and the half circle, which, according to Champollion, are always usedtodenote the feminine gender."
These were great advances, and our readers will now easily understand the process by which the distinguished discoverer arrived at his results. Step by step, he has thus been able to form hisphonetic alphabet. In September, 1822, he gave an account of his discovery, and of the principles of his system, in a letter to Mons. Dacier, perpetual Secretary of the Academy of Inscriptions, and of Belles Lettres. In 1824, Champollion published the first edition of his work, "Précis du système hièroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, ou recherches sur les elémens premiers de cette ecriture sacrée, &c." This is the work which is reviewed in the number of this journal for June, 1827, p. 438. In the year 1828, a second edition of this work was called for, and this second edition is rendered more valuable, by having appended to it the letter to Mons. Dacier.
It is not the purpose of the present article, to go into an account of the results of Champollion's labours;—this has been amply done in preceding pages of this journal. The essay of Mons. Greppo, gave us a favourable opportunity, following the course of the author, of stating in brief, the process by which Champollion arrived at his most valuable and interesting conclusions. The object of the essay is to show the advantages which this discovery gives to the study of sacred criticism.This is the special aim of the work; and, in relation to this, the author has observed:;—
"Some of the numerous facts, which the study of Egyptian monuments with the aid of the hieroglyphic system has developed, will be applied to the Holy Scriptures in some of those portions which relate to Egypt, and they will shed much light upon these passages of the sacred annals. We shall endeavour to accomplish this work with all the precision and simplicity possible in researches which are necessarily scientific, but which are of high interest on account of their tendency; and it is on this account only, that we present them with such confidence."A religion whose origin is from above, is without doubt safe from the vain attacks of a few blinded men; and, while it has been defended for so many centuries by the most powerful minds that have shed a lustre upon the sciences and upon literature, it scarcely needs our weak defence. Yet it is consoling to a Christian, to witness the amazing progress of human knowledge. The mind is ever attaining to new truths, and is confirming the remark so often quoted from a celebrated English Chancellor, (Bacon) a remark which applies as well to revealed as to natural religion, of which Christianity is but the development;Leves gustus in philosophia movere fortasse ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad religionem reducere: i. e.superficial knowledge in philosophy may perhaps lead to atheism, but a fundamental knowledge will lead to religion."
"Some of the numerous facts, which the study of Egyptian monuments with the aid of the hieroglyphic system has developed, will be applied to the Holy Scriptures in some of those portions which relate to Egypt, and they will shed much light upon these passages of the sacred annals. We shall endeavour to accomplish this work with all the precision and simplicity possible in researches which are necessarily scientific, but which are of high interest on account of their tendency; and it is on this account only, that we present them with such confidence.
"A religion whose origin is from above, is without doubt safe from the vain attacks of a few blinded men; and, while it has been defended for so many centuries by the most powerful minds that have shed a lustre upon the sciences and upon literature, it scarcely needs our weak defence. Yet it is consoling to a Christian, to witness the amazing progress of human knowledge. The mind is ever attaining to new truths, and is confirming the remark so often quoted from a celebrated English Chancellor, (Bacon) a remark which applies as well to revealed as to natural religion, of which Christianity is but the development;Leves gustus in philosophia movere fortasse ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad religionem reducere: i. e.superficial knowledge in philosophy may perhaps lead to atheism, but a fundamental knowledge will lead to religion."
The Essay of Mons. Greppo is composed of two parts, the first of which is an explanation of the hieroglyphic system of Champollion; and the second, the application of the hieroglyphic system to the elucidation of the sacred writings. The relations of the Hebrews with the Egyptians were such, that the history of the latter cannot be otherwise than most intimately connected with the religion of the Bible. In fact, there was no country in the world, foreign to Judea, whose name is so conspicuous in the Bible, as that of Egypt; beginning at the time of Abraham, and going down to the very Apostolic age; and it hence follows, that he who would study in detail, the historic annals of the Hebrews, ought to be as fully acquainted with those of ancient Egypt, as the largest means will allow. In carrying out his intention, M. Greppo has gone deeply into philological, historical, chronological, and geographical considerations. By making the "précis" of Champollion the basis of his argument, and bringing in to his assistance the labours of the elder Champollion, called by way of distinction Champollion Figeac, from the place of his residence; he has investigated the history of the Pharaohs, as connected with the accounts given in the books of Genesis and Exodus, and the later historical writings.
In the fourth chapter of the second part, there is an interesting discussion relative to the difficulty of reconciling the position taken in Exodus, as to the perishing of Pharaoh, with the conclusions drawn from the investigations of Champollion. The last Pharaoh of the Exodus, is ascertained to be the KingAmenophis Ramses. According to Manetho, he reigned twenty years; viz. from 1493 B. C., to 1473 B. C., so calculated also by Champollion Figeac. But the departure of the children ofIsrael took place about the year 1491 B. C., consequently in the second or third year of this Prince. If this Prince perished in the Red Sea, how can this be reconciled with the fact, that Manetho states him to have reigned twenty years, and this is confirmed by the calculations of the elder Champollion. M. Greppo goes into an interesting discussion, to prove that the text of the Book of Exodus does not state that Pharaoh perished in the Red Sea. His examination of the sacred text will be interesting to many of our readers:
"Scripture does not compel us to believe that the Pharaoh with whom we now are concerned, participated in the fatal calamity of his army. And first, Moses says not a word to this effect, when he relates the miracle performed by the Lord in favour of his people. He informs us, it is true, that Pharaoh marched in pursuit of the children of Israel;And he made ready his chariot and took his people with him. And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel(Exod. xiv. 6-8.). A little further on he says;And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them, into the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots and his horsemen(v. 23.). Finally he adds;And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them(v. 28). Such are the principal features of the narrative which Moses gives of this Egyptian expedition, and of the terrible event in which it resulted. But in the circumstantial account of this disaster, he does not name Pharaoh personally except when he speaks of his departure. Now if the persecutor of Israel entered the Red Sea with his army, and was swallowed up with it, is it probable that the chief and legislator of the Hebrews would have been silent about such a circumstance as the tragical death of this prince? an event more important, perhaps, than even the destruction of his army, and surely very proper as a striking illustration both of the protection which God extended to his people, and of the chastisements his justice inflicted upon the impious. And further; to strengthen the faith of this people when in a state of distrust and murmuring, Moses often recounts to them their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, their passage through the Red Sea, and the other miracles which God had wrought for them; and on all these occasions, when the allusion to the death of an oppressive prince would have been so natural, he conveys no such idea."The circumstance related by Moses, that no one escaped,there remained not so much as one of them, proves nothing relative to the supposed disaster of Pharaoh. It refers to those who followed the Hebrews into the sea, among whom Moses does not enumerate this prince. We remark also, that the sacred historian seems designedly to leave room for making exceptions to the general disaster, by the precise manner in which he announces,that the waters covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; this literally signifies that the waters covered only the chariots and horsemen which entered into the sea, and leaves us to infer that all did not enter. The incidental expression in verse 28,that came into the sea after them, seems then to modify the more general expression in verse 23,even all, and authorizes us to understand it with some latitude, rather than to restrain it to its rigorous sense. All these circumstances of the narrative accord with the presumption, not only that Pharaoh did not enter into the Red Sea, but perhaps even that some of his infantry, if he possessed any, did not enter; and at least, that this is true of some principal chiefs who surrounded him, and who formed what we now call a body ofstaff-officers."In relating the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, the book ofWisdom, which describes so often and in such an admirable manner, the wonders of the Lord in conducting his people, and which celebrates the illustrious men whom he made his instruments, makes no mention either of Pharaoh or of his tragicaldeath. It is limited to the remark, that in his wisdom he precipitated the enemies of Israel into the sea (Wisdom of Solomon, x. 19)."
"Scripture does not compel us to believe that the Pharaoh with whom we now are concerned, participated in the fatal calamity of his army. And first, Moses says not a word to this effect, when he relates the miracle performed by the Lord in favour of his people. He informs us, it is true, that Pharaoh marched in pursuit of the children of Israel;And he made ready his chariot and took his people with him. And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel(Exod. xiv. 6-8.). A little further on he says;And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them, into the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots and his horsemen(v. 23.). Finally he adds;And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them(v. 28). Such are the principal features of the narrative which Moses gives of this Egyptian expedition, and of the terrible event in which it resulted. But in the circumstantial account of this disaster, he does not name Pharaoh personally except when he speaks of his departure. Now if the persecutor of Israel entered the Red Sea with his army, and was swallowed up with it, is it probable that the chief and legislator of the Hebrews would have been silent about such a circumstance as the tragical death of this prince? an event more important, perhaps, than even the destruction of his army, and surely very proper as a striking illustration both of the protection which God extended to his people, and of the chastisements his justice inflicted upon the impious. And further; to strengthen the faith of this people when in a state of distrust and murmuring, Moses often recounts to them their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, their passage through the Red Sea, and the other miracles which God had wrought for them; and on all these occasions, when the allusion to the death of an oppressive prince would have been so natural, he conveys no such idea.
"The circumstance related by Moses, that no one escaped,there remained not so much as one of them, proves nothing relative to the supposed disaster of Pharaoh. It refers to those who followed the Hebrews into the sea, among whom Moses does not enumerate this prince. We remark also, that the sacred historian seems designedly to leave room for making exceptions to the general disaster, by the precise manner in which he announces,that the waters covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; this literally signifies that the waters covered only the chariots and horsemen which entered into the sea, and leaves us to infer that all did not enter. The incidental expression in verse 28,that came into the sea after them, seems then to modify the more general expression in verse 23,even all, and authorizes us to understand it with some latitude, rather than to restrain it to its rigorous sense. All these circumstances of the narrative accord with the presumption, not only that Pharaoh did not enter into the Red Sea, but perhaps even that some of his infantry, if he possessed any, did not enter; and at least, that this is true of some principal chiefs who surrounded him, and who formed what we now call a body ofstaff-officers.
"In relating the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, the book ofWisdom, which describes so often and in such an admirable manner, the wonders of the Lord in conducting his people, and which celebrates the illustrious men whom he made his instruments, makes no mention either of Pharaoh or of his tragicaldeath. It is limited to the remark, that in his wisdom he precipitated the enemies of Israel into the sea (Wisdom of Solomon, x. 19)."
Mons. Greppo appears to be aware, that there are difficulties attending his interpretation, arising out of the apparent positive declarations contained in other parts of the sacred volume: for instance, in Ex. ch. xv. 19th v., as also Ps. cxxxvi. 15th v. His answer to these objections, and some collateral arguments by which he endeavours to support his theory, are too long to be here introduced. Professor Stuart, in a learned note, part of which we feel compelled to quote, dissents from the reasoning of Mons. Greppo, and takes the safer course of leaving to further discoveries, what, in the present state of the researches, may not yet be considered as definitely settled.
"The modesty and ingenuity which M. Greppo has exhibited, in the discussion which gives occasion to the present note, certainly entitle him to much credit and approbation. Still it seems to me very doubtful, whether the exegesis in question can be supported. When God says, in Exod. xiv. 17, 'I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen;" and when he repeats the same sentiment in Exod. xiv. 18; the natural inference seems to be, that the fate of Pharaoh would be the same as that of his host, his chariots and his horsemen. Accordingly, in Exod. xiv. 23, it is said, 'The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them [the Hebrews] into the midst of the sea,every horse of Pharaoh and his chariot, and his horsemen, into the midst of the sea.' It is true, indeed, thatכל סוס פרעה ורכבוmay mean,all the horses of Pharaoh and all his chariots, viz. all those which belonged to his army. But is it not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh was at the head of his army, and led them on? And when in Exod. xiv. 28 it is said, that of all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after the Israelites,there remained not so much as one of them, is not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh at the head of his army went into the sea, and perished along with them?"In the triumphal song of Moses and the Hebrews, recorded in Exod. xv., the implication in verses 4, 19, seems most naturally to be, that Pharaoh was joined with his army in the destruction to which they were subjected."But still more does this appear, in Ps. cvi. 11, where it is said, 'The waters covered their enemies [the Egyptians];there was not one of them left.' How could this well be said, if Pharaoh himself, the most powerful, unrelenting, and bitter enemy which they had, was still preserved alive, and permitted afterwards to make new conquests over his southern neighbours? This passage M. Greppo has entirely overlooked."In regard to Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the exegesis of our author is ingenious; but it will not bear the test of criticism. For example; in Exod. xiv. 27, it is said, 'And the LordoverthrewtheEgyptians, in the midst of the sea; where the Hebrew word answering tooverthrewisוינערfromנער. But in Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the very same word is applied to Pharaoh and his host; 'And he overthrew(ונער)Pharaoh and his host. In both cases (which are exactly the same), the wordנערproperly means,he drave into(hineintreiben, Gesenius.) Now if the Lorddravethe Egyptiansintothe midst of the sea, and alsodravePharaoh and his hostintothe midst of the sea, we cannot well see how Pharaoh escaped drowning. Accordingly, we find that such an occurrence is plainly recognized by Nehemiah ix. 10, 11, when, after mentioning Pharaoh, his servants, and his people, this distinguished man speaks of the 'persecutors of the Hebrews as thrown into the deep, as a stone in the mighty waters.'"As to any difficulties respectingchronologyin this case, about which M. Greppo seems to be principally solicitous, it may be remarked, that the subject of ancient Egyptian chronology is yet very far from being so much cleared up, as to throw any real embarrassments in the way of Scripture facts. More lightwill give more satisfaction—as in the famous case of the zodiacs, so finely described in the last chapter of M. Greppo's book."
"The modesty and ingenuity which M. Greppo has exhibited, in the discussion which gives occasion to the present note, certainly entitle him to much credit and approbation. Still it seems to me very doubtful, whether the exegesis in question can be supported. When God says, in Exod. xiv. 17, 'I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen;" and when he repeats the same sentiment in Exod. xiv. 18; the natural inference seems to be, that the fate of Pharaoh would be the same as that of his host, his chariots and his horsemen. Accordingly, in Exod. xiv. 23, it is said, 'The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them [the Hebrews] into the midst of the sea,every horse of Pharaoh and his chariot, and his horsemen, into the midst of the sea.' It is true, indeed, thatכל סוס פרעה ורכבוmay mean,all the horses of Pharaoh and all his chariots, viz. all those which belonged to his army. But is it not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh was at the head of his army, and led them on? And when in Exod. xiv. 28 it is said, that of all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after the Israelites,there remained not so much as one of them, is not the natural implication here, that Pharaoh at the head of his army went into the sea, and perished along with them?
"In the triumphal song of Moses and the Hebrews, recorded in Exod. xv., the implication in verses 4, 19, seems most naturally to be, that Pharaoh was joined with his army in the destruction to which they were subjected.
"But still more does this appear, in Ps. cvi. 11, where it is said, 'The waters covered their enemies [the Egyptians];there was not one of them left.' How could this well be said, if Pharaoh himself, the most powerful, unrelenting, and bitter enemy which they had, was still preserved alive, and permitted afterwards to make new conquests over his southern neighbours? This passage M. Greppo has entirely overlooked.
"In regard to Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the exegesis of our author is ingenious; but it will not bear the test of criticism. For example; in Exod. xiv. 27, it is said, 'And the LordoverthrewtheEgyptians, in the midst of the sea; where the Hebrew word answering tooverthrewisוינערfromנער. But in Ps. cxxxvi. 15, the very same word is applied to Pharaoh and his host; 'And he overthrew(ונער)Pharaoh and his host. In both cases (which are exactly the same), the wordנערproperly means,he drave into(hineintreiben, Gesenius.) Now if the Lorddravethe Egyptiansintothe midst of the sea, and alsodravePharaoh and his hostintothe midst of the sea, we cannot well see how Pharaoh escaped drowning. Accordingly, we find that such an occurrence is plainly recognized by Nehemiah ix. 10, 11, when, after mentioning Pharaoh, his servants, and his people, this distinguished man speaks of the 'persecutors of the Hebrews as thrown into the deep, as a stone in the mighty waters.'
"As to any difficulties respectingchronologyin this case, about which M. Greppo seems to be principally solicitous, it may be remarked, that the subject of ancient Egyptian chronology is yet very far from being so much cleared up, as to throw any real embarrassments in the way of Scripture facts. More lightwill give more satisfaction—as in the famous case of the zodiacs, so finely described in the last chapter of M. Greppo's book."
The fifth and sixth chapters of the work of Mons. Greppo, are devoted to the examination of the history of the Pharaohs mentioned in the sacred writings, down to the time of Solomon, and of the other kings of Egypt, who are distinguished by proper names.
The seventh chapter is devoted to the chronology of Manetho, the official historiographer of Egypt; and several questions are discussed, which relate to the difference between him, and the scripture chronologers. In the close of the chapter, the author draws two conclusions, which we are disposed to think entirely justified by the present state of the investigations—these conclusions will be better stated in the author's own words:—
"From the remarks which we have communicated to our readers, we infer that there is no foundation for that fear about the advance of Egyptian studies, which the religious zeal of some estimable men has led them to cherish; neither is there any occasion to distrust thedatatransmitted by the historian of the Pharaohs. Nothing can authorize such a distrust. On the other hand, every thing conspires to prove, at the present time, that the new discoveries and their application to chronology, will disclose more and more the truth and exactness of the historic facts in Scripture. We believe that men are too apt to form a judgment of systems when they hardly understand them; and perhaps they are too prone to forget that if true faith is timorous, it is not distrustful, like the pride which is connected with the vain theories of men; because it views the basis, upon which the august edifice of divine revelation reposes, as immoveable. Inspired with this thought, we have adopted, from entire conviction, all the satisfactory results elicited by the labours of the Champollions; and we wait, with impatience and with confidence, the new developments which they promise, persuaded beforehand that revealed religion cannot but gain from them."
"From the remarks which we have communicated to our readers, we infer that there is no foundation for that fear about the advance of Egyptian studies, which the religious zeal of some estimable men has led them to cherish; neither is there any occasion to distrust thedatatransmitted by the historian of the Pharaohs. Nothing can authorize such a distrust. On the other hand, every thing conspires to prove, at the present time, that the new discoveries and their application to chronology, will disclose more and more the truth and exactness of the historic facts in Scripture. We believe that men are too apt to form a judgment of systems when they hardly understand them; and perhaps they are too prone to forget that if true faith is timorous, it is not distrustful, like the pride which is connected with the vain theories of men; because it views the basis, upon which the august edifice of divine revelation reposes, as immoveable. Inspired with this thought, we have adopted, from entire conviction, all the satisfactory results elicited by the labours of the Champollions; and we wait, with impatience and with confidence, the new developments which they promise, persuaded beforehand that revealed religion cannot but gain from them."
In the eighth chapter of his essay, Mons. Greppo applies the discoveries of Champollion to the Egyptian geography, so far as the scriptures are concerned. If it be true, as he conceives, that the city of Rameses occupied the site of the Arabian city, now called Ramsis, there seems to be an irreconcilable difference with some of the scripture relations; for this city,Ramsis, is on the western side of the river Nile, and not less than one hundred and fifty miles from that position on the Red Sea, where it is believed that the passage of the Israelites was made. However the question may eventually be settled, it appears to us, that this location can in no sense consist with the text of the sacred writings; for, in the first place, it would have required that the Israelites should have crossed the Nile, on their journey towards Palestine. Of this there is no account; neither had they any means; and it would have required a miraculous interposition to enable them so to do. But, second, the sacred text informs us, that, at the close of the second day after the departure of the Israelites from Rameses, they reached the bordersof the Red Sea. It is utterly impossible that they could have crossed the Nile, and travelled one hundred and fifty miles in two days. It is beyond all rational calculation to suppose that they could have travelled at the rate of more than twenty miles per day, and, consequently, we must look for the situation of Rameses at a distance not greater certainly than forty miles from the Red Sea, and on the eastern side of the Nile. If the integrity of the sacred writings is to be preserved, the idea that the Rameses of the Bible, and the Ramsis of the Arabians are identical, must be abandoned, or, at any rate, not adopted until something far more conclusive shall be found, than has yet been given. Professor Stuart, in a note which we have above condensed, refers to a previous work of his, where this subject is more largely discussed, and which, as it may not be familiar to the mass of our readers, being a work distinctly connected with theological studies, will be referred to for a moment. In this work, the Professor enters largely into the examination of the location of Rameses, which stands also for Goshen. He considers, and with vast power of argument and illustration, that the royal residence of the Pharaohs at the time of Joseph and Moses, was at Zoan, and not Memphis, as has been generally supposed. There can be no question, that Zoan was one of the oldest cities of Lower Egypt, and situated on the eastern shore of the second or Tanitic mouth of the Nile, and this was but a little distance from the Pelusiac or eastern branch, on which the residence of the Israelites has generally been supposed to have been. It was an extensive city, and its ruins in the time of the French expedition, occupied an extensive country. Champollion has remarked that the word signifies, "mollis, delicatus, jucundus," which would make Zoan to mean Pleasant town. The reader will be interested to observe, that, in Ps. lxxviii, the writer alludes to Zoan, as the scenes of the miracles of Moses: also Ps. v. verse 12, and also lxxii. verse 43. In the time of Isaiah, it is quite clear, that Zoan was the place where the Egyptian court resided, at least for a time. See ch. xix. verse 11. There are objections to this view of Professor Stuart, but not stronger, than to others; and the most probable is, that the kings of Egypt had different places of royal residence, as is still customary. We know that Cyrus, after conquering Babylon, spent part of his time there, and part at the capital of his native country.
Contrary, therefore, to the opinion of Mons. Greppo, Professor Stuart considers Rameses or Goshen, to be decidedly on the eastern side of the Nile, and this is rendered more certain, if, as the Professor has attempted to prove,Zoanwas frequently a royal residence of the Pharaohs. The opinion taken by Mons. Greppo, that Rameses was on the western side of theNile, in what may be called Lower Eastern Egypt, without the delta, is refuted in MichaelisSupp. ad Lex.Hebraica, p. 397. We make no pretentions to the ability of settling these disputed points, and consider it perfectly safe to abide by the present general idea, as to the location of Rameses, especially as there is nothing yet in the shape of positive testimony against it. The reader who is particularly interested in BiblicalArchæology, will be highly gratified by consulting the work of Dr. Stuart, entitled—"Course of Hebrew Study." In the ninth chapter of his Essay, the author has made use of the discoveries of Champollion, to defeat certain objections to the genuineness and authenticity of the Books of Moses, which were started by Voltaire and others of his time. The high antiquity of the Pentateuch was doubted, on the ground that writing in the common language could not then have been known. Champollion has decyphered a manuscript, which contains an act of the fifth year of the reign of Thouthmosis III. This prince governed Egypt at a time when Joseph was carried there as a slave, and this was at least two hundred years previous to the time in which Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
An objection to the truth of the history of the Pentateuch, also, arose out of the circumstance, that the magnificence and excellence of the work said there to have been put upon the ark and its furniture in the wilderness, was utterly beyond the state of the arts at the time challenged in the relation. The discoveries of Champollion have overthrown a supposition which had been held almost indisputable, viz:—that the arts of Egypt had been indebted for their progress, to the influence of those from Greece under the domination of the Lagidæ kings. He has established the contrary, beyond doubt, and has proved that the most brilliant epoch of the arts in Egypt, was under a dynasty contemporary with the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt.
The only remaining objection which is noticed by the author, is one which he considers as capable of receiving the same satisfactory solution.
It is objected that the name ofSesostrisis not mentioned in Scripture, nor any feature of his history recognised. To this, the investigations made by Champollion and the calculations of Champollion Figeac are made to answer. The commencement of the reign of Sesostris is fixed by these, in the year 1473, B. C.; consequently, this was seventeen or eighteen years after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. While they were wandering in the wilderness, Sesostris overran Palestine, which was then in possession of its primitive inhabitants, and before the Israelites reached that land, the expedition of Sesostris had long passed, for Diodorus tells us, that it terminated in the ninth year of his reign. The silence of Scripture, therefore, as to Sesostris,is in no wise remarkable, as the people of Israel had no connexion with him, either as friend or foe.
The tenth chapter of the Essay, relates to the Egyptian Zodiacs. To our readers who have examined the subject at all, the history of these is now familiar,—the curious may turn to the Number of this Journal for December, 1827, p. 520, where will be found an ample description.
We have thus given a detailed description of the Essay of Mons. Greppo, and we cannot resist the pleasure before we close, of presenting the few remarks with which he concludes his discussion.
"We come now to the conclusion of our undertaking. With the aid of the new discoveries in Egypt, we think that we have shed some light upon various passages of the sacred annals, and that we have resolved, in a more satisfactory manner, certain difficulties which were opposed to their veracity. We have attentively examined the resources which the writings and monuments of Egypt afford, in the interpretation and defence of a religion, whose lot has been, in all ages, to meet with enemies, when it should have found only admirers and disciples. But the researches to which we have been attending very naturally, as we think, give rise to a thought consoling to the Christian."Providence, whose operations are so sensibly exhibited in the whole physical constitution of the world, has not abandoned to chance the government of the moral or intellectual world. By means often imperceptible even to the eye of the man ofobservation, and which seem reserved for his own secret counsel, God directs second causes, gives them efficiency according to his will, and makes them serve, sometimes even contrary to their natural tendency, to accomplish his own immutable decrees, and to propagate and support that religion which he has revealed to us. It is in this way that, consistently with his own will, he delays or accelerates the march of human intellect; that he gives it a direction such as he pleases; that he causes discoveries to spring up in their time, as fruits ripen in their season; and that the revolutions which renew the sciences, like those which change the face of empires, enter into the plan which he traced out for himself from all eternity."Does not this sublime truth, which affords an inexhaustible subject of meditation to the well instructed and reflecting man, but which needs for its development the pen of a Bossuet,—does it not apply with great force to the subject that we have been considering?"Since the studies of our age have been principally directed to the natural sciences, which the irreligious levity of the last age had so strangely abused to the prejudice of religion, we have seen the most admirable discoveries confirming the physical history of the primitive world, as it is given by Moses. It is sufficient to cite in proof of this fact, the geological labours of our celebrated Cuvier. Now that historic researches are pursued with a greater activity than ever before, and the monuments of antiquity illustrated by a judicious and promising criticism, Providence has also ordered, that the writings of ancient Egypt should in turn confirm the historic facts of the holy books: facts against which asystematicerudition had furnished infidelity with so many objections that were unceasingly repeated, though they had been a thousand times refuted. We cannot doubt that human knowledge, as it becomes more and more disengaged from the spirit of system, and pursues truth as its only aim, will still attain, as it advances, to other analogous results."Thus, as has been often said, revealed religion has no greater foe than ignorance. Far from making ither ally, as men who deny the testimony of all ages have not blushed to assert, she cannot but glory in the advance of the sciences. She has always favoured them, and it is chiefly owing to her influence, that they have been preserved in the midst of the barbarism from which she has rescued us. Thus the progress of true science,the progress of light(to use a legitimatethough often abused expression,) far from being at variance with revealed religion, as its enemies have represented,—far from being dangerous to it, as some of its disciples have appeared to fear, tends, on the contrary, each day to strengthen its claims upon all enlightened minds, and to prove, in opposition to the pride of false science, that this divine religion, confirmed as it is by all the truths to which the human mind attains,is the truth of the Lord which endureth forever."
"We come now to the conclusion of our undertaking. With the aid of the new discoveries in Egypt, we think that we have shed some light upon various passages of the sacred annals, and that we have resolved, in a more satisfactory manner, certain difficulties which were opposed to their veracity. We have attentively examined the resources which the writings and monuments of Egypt afford, in the interpretation and defence of a religion, whose lot has been, in all ages, to meet with enemies, when it should have found only admirers and disciples. But the researches to which we have been attending very naturally, as we think, give rise to a thought consoling to the Christian.
"Providence, whose operations are so sensibly exhibited in the whole physical constitution of the world, has not abandoned to chance the government of the moral or intellectual world. By means often imperceptible even to the eye of the man ofobservation, and which seem reserved for his own secret counsel, God directs second causes, gives them efficiency according to his will, and makes them serve, sometimes even contrary to their natural tendency, to accomplish his own immutable decrees, and to propagate and support that religion which he has revealed to us. It is in this way that, consistently with his own will, he delays or accelerates the march of human intellect; that he gives it a direction such as he pleases; that he causes discoveries to spring up in their time, as fruits ripen in their season; and that the revolutions which renew the sciences, like those which change the face of empires, enter into the plan which he traced out for himself from all eternity.
"Does not this sublime truth, which affords an inexhaustible subject of meditation to the well instructed and reflecting man, but which needs for its development the pen of a Bossuet,—does it not apply with great force to the subject that we have been considering?
"Since the studies of our age have been principally directed to the natural sciences, which the irreligious levity of the last age had so strangely abused to the prejudice of religion, we have seen the most admirable discoveries confirming the physical history of the primitive world, as it is given by Moses. It is sufficient to cite in proof of this fact, the geological labours of our celebrated Cuvier. Now that historic researches are pursued with a greater activity than ever before, and the monuments of antiquity illustrated by a judicious and promising criticism, Providence has also ordered, that the writings of ancient Egypt should in turn confirm the historic facts of the holy books: facts against which asystematicerudition had furnished infidelity with so many objections that were unceasingly repeated, though they had been a thousand times refuted. We cannot doubt that human knowledge, as it becomes more and more disengaged from the spirit of system, and pursues truth as its only aim, will still attain, as it advances, to other analogous results.
"Thus, as has been often said, revealed religion has no greater foe than ignorance. Far from making ither ally, as men who deny the testimony of all ages have not blushed to assert, she cannot but glory in the advance of the sciences. She has always favoured them, and it is chiefly owing to her influence, that they have been preserved in the midst of the barbarism from which she has rescued us. Thus the progress of true science,the progress of light(to use a legitimatethough often abused expression,) far from being at variance with revealed religion, as its enemies have represented,—far from being dangerous to it, as some of its disciples have appeared to fear, tends, on the contrary, each day to strengthen its claims upon all enlightened minds, and to prove, in opposition to the pride of false science, that this divine religion, confirmed as it is by all the truths to which the human mind attains,is the truth of the Lord which endureth forever."
We have ventured upon this protracted notice of the Essay of Mons. Greppo, because the subject itself is one of gratifying pursuit even to the mere scholar, but still more because it is vitally connected with the evidences of revealed religion in which we hope that none of our readers are altogether uninterested. There is in the Essay, no question as to any of the minor points of the Christian faith,—there is here nothing but what all may peruse with satisfaction. The question is one entirely connected with evidence; and science and literature are pressed fairly into the service of truth. The work is peculiarly valuable, because it is the only work connected with the labours of Champollion which has been made to wear an English dress. The works of both the Champollions are locked up in a foreign language from most of our readers; and we fear that the time will not soon come when there will be sufficient encouragement either to translate or publish in this country the splendid volumes of these brothers, who are, by their discoveries, raising up for France the gratitude of the world. Until there shall be liberality enough in our republic of letters, to enable us to possess these works, with all their riches of illustration, and thus have ancient Egypt brought to the inspection of American eyes, we would recommend the work of Mons. Greppo, as the best, and indeed only substitute at present known, always excepting the pages of our own journal.
It is needless to say, that the merits of the translation cannot be questioned, after the testimonials furnished by the learned Dr. Stuart; without the advantage of comparing it with the original, we can speak of its excellence relatively, for the style is clear, concise, and classical.
Art. IV.—IRON.
1.—Memorial of the workers in iron of Philadelphia, praying that the present duty on imported iron may be repealed, &c.2.—Report of the Select Committee (of the Senate of the United States,) to whom was referred "the petition of upwards of three hundred mechanics, Citizens of the City and County of Philadelphia, employed in the various branches of the manufacture of iron," and also, the petition of the "Journeymen blacksmiths of the City and County of Philadelphia, employed in manufacturing anchors and chain cables."3.—Report of the minority of the Select Committee on certain memorials to reduce the duty on imported iron.4.—Remarks of the majority of the Select Committee on the blacksmiths' petition in reply to the arguments of the minority.5.—Manuel de la Metallurgie de fer parC. I. B. Karsten,traduit de l'Allemand, parF. I. Culman,seconde edition, entierement refondue, &c.3 vols. 8vo. pp. 504, 496, & 488. Mme. Thirl: 1830: Metz.6.—Voyage Metallurgique en Angleterre, parMM. DufrenoyetElie de Beaumont. 1 vol. 8vo. pp. 572. Bachelier: Paris: 1827.
1.—Memorial of the workers in iron of Philadelphia, praying that the present duty on imported iron may be repealed, &c.
2.—Report of the Select Committee (of the Senate of the United States,) to whom was referred "the petition of upwards of three hundred mechanics, Citizens of the City and County of Philadelphia, employed in the various branches of the manufacture of iron," and also, the petition of the "Journeymen blacksmiths of the City and County of Philadelphia, employed in manufacturing anchors and chain cables."
3.—Report of the minority of the Select Committee on certain memorials to reduce the duty on imported iron.
4.—Remarks of the majority of the Select Committee on the blacksmiths' petition in reply to the arguments of the minority.
5.—Manuel de la Metallurgie de fer parC. I. B. Karsten,traduit de l'Allemand, parF. I. Culman,seconde edition, entierement refondue, &c.3 vols. 8vo. pp. 504, 496, & 488. Mme. Thirl: 1830: Metz.
6.—Voyage Metallurgique en Angleterre, parMM. DufrenoyetElie de Beaumont. 1 vol. 8vo. pp. 572. Bachelier: Paris: 1827.
The discussion contained in the petitions and legislative reports which we have prefixed to this article, is one of the most powerful interest, not merely to those concerned in the manufacture of iron, and the articles of commerce of which it is the material, but to the whole community. Iron, if the cheapest and most abundant, is intrinsically the most valuable of the metals. It may supersede, and gradually has, in its applications, superseded the greater part of the rest, and has taken the place of wood and stone in a great variety of mechanical structures; it is indispensable in the modern arts of the attack and defence of nations; and its possession is the distinctive difference between civilized man and the savage. Well was it said to Crœsus exhibiting his golden treasures, that he who possessed more iron, would speedily make himself master of them, and the truth of the maxim was even more powerfully verified, when the accumulated riches of the Aztecs and Incas were acquired at the cost of a few pounds of Toledo steel.
When we compare the state of manners and arts of the Mexicans and Peruvians with that of their Spanish conquerors, we are almost compelled to admit, that the possession of iron wasperhaps the only real superiority in civilization which the latter possessed. Gunpowder played but a small part in the contests where handfuls of men routed myriads; the courage of the Indian warrior is not less firm than that of the descendant of the Goths.
The sciences and arts which are now the boast of European civilization, were then but awakening from a slumber of ages; in the latter, the workmanship of Europe was in many instances inferior to that of the new world, and in the former, to take as an instance that which occupies the highest place, astronomy, the civil year of the Mexicans was intercalated and restored to the solar, by a process more perfect than that we even now employ; and the latter was not introduced into Europe until half a century after the throne of Montezuma fell. The bloody human sacrifices which excited to such a degree the abhorrence of the conquerors, were not greater marks of savage cruelty, than were their ownauto da fes, and the tortures inflicted on Guatemozin. Yet if not superior in bravery, in the arts, the sciences, and the more distinctive attribute of civilization, humanity, the possession of iron was sufficient to ensure the triumph of the Spaniards.
Of all the metallurgic arts, that by which iron is prepared from its ores, demands the greatest degree of practical skill, and is the most difficult to bring to perfection. Although ages have elapsed since it first became an object of human industry, its manipulation and preparation are yet receiving improvements, while those of the other ancient metals appear hardly susceptible of modification or advancement. Copper and its alloys, tin, lead, and mercury, were as well and as cheaply prepared by the ancients as by the moderns; and the reduction of the precious metals has received no important change, since the process of amalgamation was first applied to them,—while the preparation of iron is daily improving under our eyes, and its cost diminishing. It may even be doubted whether the iron we first find mentioned in history, was an artificial product, and not obtained from the rare masses in which it is found existing in the native state, and which are supposed to be of meteoric origin.
The original use of iron is ascribed in the sacred writings to Tubal Cain, who lived before the flood;—but we have no proof that he did not employ a native iron of this description. Be this as it may, the united testimony of antiquity exhibits to us an alloy of copper used for the purposes to which we apply iron, and the latter metal as comparatively scarce, and of high value. The qualities of iron were known and appreciated, but the art of preparing it was not understood. The reason is obvious; those ores of iron which have an external metallic aspect, are difficult of fusion and reduction, those which are more readily converted, are dull, earthy in their appearance, and unlikely toattract attention,—while gold and silver manifest in their native state their brilliant characters, and the ores of copper and lead exhibit a higher degree of lustre than the metals themselves.
If, then, history does not show us the ancient nations employing iron for their arms and instruments, it is because they were unable to prepare it. Even in the middle ages, we find copper in use for arms, because the nations that employed it, could not conquer the difficulties that attend the preparation of iron.
The books of Moses, however, show that iron was known at that era to the Egyptians, and the distinction he draws between it and brass, seems in favour of our view of the origin of that which was then employed. The stones of the promised land were to be iron, but brass was to be dug from the hills. Twelve hundred years before Christ, if we receive the testimony of Homer, who, if he be rejected as an historian, must still be admitted as a faithful painter of manners. The Greeks used an alloy of copper for their arms, but were unacquainted with iron, which they estimated of much higher value.