Chapter V. Identity Of The Egyptians With The Indians, Jews, And Other Branches Of The Human Race.

Section I.

Identity of the ancient Indian and Egyptian Mythology, &c. Names of the Egyptian Gods, significant in the Hebrew and Indo-European Tongues. Dr. Lepsius's comments on Champollion's opinion that the Modern Egyptian does not differ from the Egyptian of the oldest Monuments. Proofs of changes. Proofs from Language that the origin of the Egyptians cannot be referred to the very remote date fixed by some writers. Causes of the primitive features of the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. Identity of Sanscrit and Scriptural account of the Creation and of the Origin of the Human Race. Sir William Jones's explanation of this coincidence. High antiquity of the Indian Vedas.

We are indebted to Dr. Prichard[104] for a comprehensive and satisfactory demonstration of the resemblance in manners, mythology, and in social and political institutions of the ancient Egyptians and Indians. These Nations agreed in religious and philosophical dogmas, in a superstitious veneration of animals and of the most conspicuous objects of nature, in [pg 126] the system of Castes, and in other features. Dr. Prichard's German translator, the celebrated A. W. Schlegel, has attempted to account for these points of coincidence by the ordinary tendencies of human nature under similar circumstances, a theory which, though maintained with distinguished ability, must be felt to be essentially paradoxical. As Dr. Prichard observes: “No person who fully considers the intimate relation and almost exact parallelism that has been traced between the Egyptians and the Hindoos, will be perfectly satisfied with such a solution in that particular example.”[105]

Dr. Prichard concludes that these features of resemblance must be ascribed to a common origin. But in the adoption of this conclusion he encounters a formidable difficulty, arising from the consideration that the Egyptian Tongue cannot, according to his views, be identified with the other languages of mankind.

This difficulty, like many others of the same nature, will be found to receive a satisfactory solution from the comparison contained in Appendix A, in which are embodied a greater number of words from the Egyptian than from any other language of the African continent. It will thence be evident that the failure which has attended the attempts of the writers noticed by Dr. Prichard to identify the Egyptian with the Asiatic languages, has arisen from the predominant error of Philological writers,—viz. the expectation of finding in every respect a close and peculiar affinity between the languages of nations, who, though contiguous, must in all probability have been separated in the earliest ages of the world. Hence the unsuccessful issue of those researches of which the object has been to show that the Egyptian is a dialect of the Hebrew. But, notwithstanding the unfavorable [pg 127] result which has necessarily attended investigations conducted on a false basis, it will be seen, nevertheless, that the adoption of a wider range of comparison, agreeably to the principles explained at p. [16] and p. [87], and carried out in [Appendix A], serves to render unequivocally manifest the original unity of the Egyptians not only with the Jews and other nations of Asia, but also with those of all the four continents. In this place I shall introduce, in illustration of this proposition, some additional examples, which possess an independent interest in connexion with Dr. Prichard's inquiry into the mythology of the Egyptians, and with the analogous inquiries pursued in the last Chapter of this work.

The Names of most, if not all, of the Egyptian Gods are susceptible of a perfectly unequivocal explanation by means of the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages.[106] This will be evident from the following analysis, in which I have availed myself of the account of their names and attributes given by a high authority—Mr. Wilkinson.[107]

“Neph, Phtah, and Khem,” the first three of the Egyptian Gods noticed below, represent attributes of the Deity.

Kneph, or, more properly, Neph or Nef, “The Spirit of God which moved on the face of the Waters.”[108] Nouf, “Spirit.” Nife, “To breathe, to blow.” Nifi, “Inspiration,” (Egypt.) This word, Neph, has been shown to exist in the same and in analogous senses in the Hebrew and Indo-European tongues. It has also been pointed out as occurring in a remarkable instance as a word for a “Spirit,” and also as [pg 128] a name of the “Supreme Being,” among the North American Indians. (See p. [24].[109])

Pthah, “The Creative Power that made the World,” styled “The Father of the Gods.”[110]

Pita, Pitre (Sanscrit,) “A Father.” Phu-o, “Gĭgnō, Produco.” Phu teuō, “Machinor Semĭno.” Pat-er, “A Father,” (Greek.)

Khem, “The Sun.” (See p. [21].)

Rah, “Sun,” “The Material and Visible Orb.” (See App. pp. 2 and 3.)

Ph-Rah, “Ph,” “The,” and Rah, “Sun.” Hence the name “Pharaoh,” applied to the Kings of Egypt.

Amun-Ra, “The splendour and beneficent property of the Sun,” “Jupiter-Ammon” of the classical nations.

The word A.m.n, in Hebrew, implies “nurturing or fostering care, to support, to sustain,” In Egypt there is a verb Amoni “To hold,” and Āmoni “To feed.” Amoun in Hebrew, and Mone in Egypt, mean “A Nurse,” and in Egypt “A Shepherd.”

Amoni, “Patience,” (Egypt.) Amyn-edd “Patience,” Amoun “To defend,” M-ou yn, “Kind,” (Welsh.)

Neith or Maut, “Minerva, called the Mother of the Gods.” Mata (Sanscrit.) Mat-er (Latin.) Maau (Egypt.) A.m.a (Heb.) “A Mother.”

The names of Osiris and Serapis have been explained at p. [20]; that of Hor (“Horus,”) in Appendix A, p. [2]; that of Io, “The Visible Body of the Moon,”[111] in Appendix A, pp. [24-25].

It will be observed that the Egyptian mythology, like that of the Indo-European nations, as noticed in the last section, distinctly combines with Personifications of the powers of nature, views of the attributes and agencies of the Supreme Being which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in the instance of “Neph.” It is remarkable that the same allusion as this name presents, occurs in the Hindoo mythology in Náráyana, one of the names given to Vishnu, the Deity viewed as a preserver or Saviour. Sir William Jones thus explains this term in a quotation from a passage in which Menu, the son of Brahma, begins his address to the Sages who consulted him on the formation of the Universe. “The waters are called nárà, since they are the offspring of Nera, (or I'swara;) and thence was Náráyana named, because his first ayana or moving, was on them!”[112]

N-Eerooue means “Waters” in Egyptian, from Eiero, “Water,” the plural being formed by N prefix.

Thus it is evident that a comparison of languages in those very instances which are connected with the subject, so far from impugning the conclusion that the mythology of the Hindoos and Egyptians had a common origin, affords irresistible corroborative proofs of the correctness of that opinion. Further, it is apparent in the instance of the Egyptian as of the Indo-European race, that their religious system embodied, in combination with an idolatrous superstructure, the same views of the Supreme Being as are developed in the Pentateuch.

In some of the foregoing instances, the words of which the names of the Egyptian gods are composed have been preserved in the Egyptian itself conjointly with the Hebrew and other languages. But there are also several instances in which these terms have been lost in the Egyptian, though preserved in [pg 130] other tongues. This is a distinct proof that the origin of the Egyptian language is mainly ascribable to the same cause, which has been previously pointed out as the principal source of the gradual divergence of the different dialects of the Celtic and Scandinavian, &c. The Egyptian cannot be said to differ from the Hebrew or the Sanscrit more widely than the Celtic and Gothic differ, though the common origin of the two last may be shown indisputably. At what precise periods the different changes in the Egyptian language took place, we have not as yet the means of fully deciding. But we are not altogether without historical evidence that this language has undergone mutations, analogous to those which have occurred in other tongues. Champollion, to whose genius we are principally indebted for a solution of the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics, was of opinion that the Coptic or modern Egyptian is perfectly identical with the language of the most ancient monuments. But this opinion has been combated with ability and success by Dr. Lepsius, to whom we owe much information with regard to the ancient Egyptian remains, especially the brilliant discovery that the alphabet of Egyptian hieroglyphics, supposed by Champollion to consist of 300, is reducible to thirty letters.[113] Dr. Lepsius points out many striking instances of deviation. Thus he notices that Plutarch, in explaining the name of Osiris, whose symbol was The Eye, informs us that the Egyptians called the Eye “Iri,” a word not found in the Coptic, in which “Bal” is the only term used for that organ.

Dr. Lepsius has also produced in illustration of his views several examples, in which he infers from the mode of spelling, that the same terms must have been pronounced in the age of hieroglyphics in a different manner from what they were in the Coptic. The following are instances:

English.Ancient Egyptian Of The Age Of Hieroglyphics.Modern Egyptian Or Coptic.
The SunR.ha.Ra.
DayH.rou.Hour.
The SeaImo.Iom.
A SwineR.ri.Rir.

It has been previously shown by a comparison of tongues of which the history can be traced, that language in its infancy appears to have abounded in full and harsh tones and in rough aspirates, which were gradually exchanged for softer and more abbreviated forms during more advanced stages of society. The conformity of these examples to this principle will be obvious, especially when they are compared with the instances of similar changes in the Manx and Irish, &c. noticed at page 108, a comparison which must tend very strongly to confirm the soundness of Dr. Lepsius's conclusions. Since the recent origin of the Hebrew and Sanscrit languages and of the Hebrew and Indian nations have been shown on the one hand, while on the other the identity of the Egyptian with those tongues has also been established, it follows that the origin of the Egyptian nation cannot be referred to a period anterior to that which our received systems of chronology would lead us to adopt as the era of the separation of nations. The harsh and full pronunciation which seems to have characterized the most ancient specimens of the Egyptian language tends strongly to support the same conclusion.

In the previous pages a peculiarly primitive character has been attributed to two ancient languages just adverted to, viz. the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. Both these tongues, it has been observed, display in a higher degree than any other the characteristic features of language near its source. As regards the [pg 132] former of these tongues, the Hebrew, there is an obvious reason for the primitive forms of language it involves in the high antiquity of a portion of its remains, viz. the first Books of Scripture, which are more ancient by many centuries than the poems of Homer, the most venerable literary remains of Europe. It is a remarkable fact that there is every reason to believe that the same explanation will be found to apply in an equal degree to the Sanscrit. According to the opinions of many of the most distinguished Orientalists, it would appear that the earliest Vedas, the oldest mythological books of the Indians, are not less ancient than the Pentateuch. Sir William Jones, whose candour and love of truth were not inferior to his accomplishments, concluded the Vedas to have been written about 1500 years b.c. The soundness of this opinion was at one time much questioned; but it has been confirmed by the sanction of some of the ablest of those who,—with the advantage of more recently accumulated information, have in our time pursued the same path of inquiry—in a manner that serves to place in a striking point of view the vast knowledge and the bold and sagacious judgment of its great author. Ritter, a distinguished German Orientalist, concludes the Vedas to have been collected during the period from 1400 to 1600, b.c.; and Mr. Colebrooke, whose researches are of the highest value, appears to have shown finally that the earliest Vedas were probably written about 1400 years b.c.[114] It is highly deserving of notice that these various dates all fall about the time of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, 1490 b.c.

The account given in the Vedas of the early history of the world coincides in its most important features with the Scriptural relation in a manner not to be mistaken. Sir William [pg 133] Jones, struck with these features of resemblance, has intimated an opinion that the Indian account of the Creation, of the Deluge,[115] and other events may have been borrowed from the Jewish nation.[116] It is remarkable that this opinion will be found to involve a singular anachronism, if we adopt Sir William Jones's own views with respect to the date of the Vedas, viz. that they were written 1500 years b.c. This date is ten years prior to the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, an event from which their national existence and the composition of their earliest scriptures may be said to have commenced.

It is highly improbable in every point of view that the Indians could have borrowed from the Jews some of the most important doctrines of their religious belief. But the coincidences noticed by Sir William Jones and other writers, and the peculiarly vivid and distinct nature of the accounts contained in the Vedas, admit of a more simple and consistent explanation. If, agreeably to the opinions of Mr. Colebrooke, we assume these books to have been compiled about 1400 years b.c., it would follow that they embody a narrative much nearer in point of date to the events they record than any other, with the exception of the Pentateuch.

From the Deluge to 1400 b.c. there was a lapse of 948 years only. Now we have satisfactory evidence that traditions far less calculated to leave a lasting impression have been preserved in many instances among separate tribes with considerable uniformity for a much longer period. Thus we know that the Fairy Tales of the English and Germans, and of the Welsh and Armoricans, agree in their main features, though in both instances there has been a separation for an interval of much greater duration.

Traditions similar to those embodied in the Vedas occur in the classical fable of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in the remains of the Chaldeans, and of other primitive nations. It is only in the Scriptural narrative that we meet with a relation of the first incidents in the history of man unmingled with fables derogatory to the attributes of his Creator. But though clouded with mythological fictions, the remains of many ancient nations impressively display a fresh and vivid reminiscence of the sublime events they record.

Section II.

High Antiquity of the Egyptian Nation. Interesting Character of Egyptian Remains. Extent of Egyptian Conquests. Tartars, Parthians, Turks, &c. Figures of Jews on Egyptian Monuments. Egyptian and Semetic Languages and Races connecting links between the Asiatic and African Languages and Races.

The Egyptian annals of Manetho seem to convey the inference that there must have been in Egypt a series of thirty dynasties, whose reigns occupied a period of time reaching far beyond the commencement of our received chronology. It appears, however, that in the present age the most eminent writers on the antiquities of Egypt are agreed in rejecting this conclusion. The long dynasties of these chronicles are referred by some writers to repetition, by others to the coexistence of distinct dynasties in different parts of Egypt.

But the same eminent writers who have agreed in repudiating the conclusion that seems to be conveyed by Manetho may be said to be equally unanimous in referring the origin of the Egyptians to a date which, tried by the standard of received chronology, will be found to coincide with the very first age in the history of nations.

“By a comparison of Manetho's work with the Theban table of Eratosthenes,” observes Dr. Prichard,[117] “we find satisfactory data for fixing the origin of the Egyptian monarchy as deduced from these documents in the 24th century before our era.”

Other eminent writers on this subject do not perfectly coincide with Dr. Prichard in adopting this precise date. But [pg 136] they all fix on pretty nearly the same time, which, it will be observed, is about the era of the Flood of Scripture, which immediately preceded the diffusion of the human race. In the annexed Table I have introduced a compendious statement of the views of these writers, more especially of the author of a work entitled “A Monumental History of Egypt,” in a form that will exhibit concurrently the principal Chronological facts and the progress of Writing in Egypt. I may observe that Dr. Lepsius is of opinion that Hieroglyphics, which is a mode of conveying ideas by representations of objects without reference to their names, was the source,—(by means of a gradual transition,)—of phonetic characters, which represented their names or words.

Egyptian Chronology.Progress Of HieroglyphicsAnd Writing.
Doubtful Period.
The accession of Menai or Menes, and earlier EgyptianKings.[118]
First Pyramid built, it is supposed, b.c.2123No hieroglyphics on this Pyramid.
Historical.
Abraham visits Egypt. 1920Hieroglyphics invented,and gave rise to Phoneticwriting, between 2123 and1740.
Osirtasen united Egypt into one Monarchy. 1740The name of Osirtasen, in this reign the first knownspecimen of Phonetic characters.(Monumental Hist.)
Joseph in Egypt. 1706
18th Dynasty. 1576Age of MSS. (Dr. Lepsius.)

According to the author of the Monumental History, previously to the year 1740 b.c., the commencement of the reign of Osirtasen, who is believed to have been the contemporary and patron of Joseph, “we have little to guide us on the Monuments of ancient Egypt.” According to the same writer, he was the first who united Egypt into one kingdom, that country, he maintains, having previously been divided into little unimportant kingdoms.

The arguments of this able writer, however, do not impugn the conclusion, that though the precise date may be uncertain, the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to the first ages of the human race. The condition of the Egyptians in 1740 b.c. implies a prior existence for many ages, of which we have a distinct proof in the visit of (the Patriarch) Abraham two centuries previously.

The marvellous discoveries made in our day by Champollion, Belzoni, and others, may be said to have thrown a new light on the early history not only of Egypt but of the world! Proofs the most startling have been brought to light of the vast political power and high civilization of the Egyptian nation, combined with a knowledge of science in many branches scarcely surpassed in the present and not equalled in the last generation of European nations! In the Egyptian paintings we have the most distinct portraits, representing not only Negroes, Jews, and other neighbouring races, but also of nations whose light complexions, peculiar physiognomy, and equipments, combined as they sometimes are with delineations of the costumes or natural productions of the countries of which they were natives, betoken the inhabitants of more northern latitudes, confirming the account of Tacitus, who states “The Egyptians overran all Libya and Ethiopia, and subdued the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians and Scythians, with the extensive regions inhabited by the [pg 138] Syrians, the Armenians, and the Cappadocians; and by this conquest a tract of country extending from Bithynia on the Pontic Sea to the coast of Syria on the Mediterranean was reduced to subjection.”

The evidence seems to be clear that some of the nations with whom the Egyptian armies fought, may be identified with the principal Asiatic nations still inhabiting the borders of the Caspian.

“On six of the Phonetic Ovals (published by Champollion) are the names of the heads of the various countries conquered by Sesostris. On one appears the generic name of the Scheti (spelt Sh.e.d.te); on the second, the generic name of the sons of Mosech or the Muscovites, spelt precisely as in the Hebrew (M.s.ek); thirdly, the people of Arakan, spelt very nearly as that name is sounded (as, for example, Ar-rk-k-a-n); fourthly, the people of Casan (spelt C-a-s-n); the fifth is probably Susa, but the middle vowel is omitted, and it stands S-se.”[119]

Casan is a Tartar province, conquered by Russia in the 16th century.

The Scheti, according to Champollion's opinion, were the Scythians of the classical nations, the modern Tartars.[120]

A conflict between the Egyptians and the Scheti or Scheta forms the subject of one of the most interesting Egyptian battle-pieces, which displays in a striking point of view the high military discipline of the Egyptians. Mr. Wilkinson describes the Scheti “as a nation who had made considerable progress in military tactics, both with respect to manœuvres in the field and the art of fortifying towns, some of which [pg 139] they surrounded with a double fosse. It is worthy of remark, that in these cases the approach to the place led over a bridge; and the sculptures acquainting us with the fact are highly interesting, as they offer us the earliest indication of its use, having been executed in the reign of the great Ramesis, about 1350 years before our era.”

“Their arms were the bow, sword, and spear, and a wicker shield.”

“They had some cavalry, but large masses of infantry with a formidable body of chariots, constituted the principal force of their numerous and well-appointed army; and if from the manner in which they posted their corps-de-reserve we may infer them to have been a people skilled in war, some idea may also be formed of the strength of their army from the numbers composing that division, which amounted to 24,000 men, drawn up in three close phalanxes, consisting each of 8,000.”

Mr. Wilkinson notices three other nations among those who were connected with the Egyptians either as enemies or allies, viz. “The Rebo,” “The Shairetana,” and “The Tok-kari.”

The Rebo were among the most formidable enemies of the Egyptians. They were distinguished by a light complexion, blue eyes, an aquiline nose, and a costume very like that of Persia or Parthia, indicating a northern as well as an Asiatic country; they wore earrings, and their chiefs sometimes tattoed their arms and legs; they appear as the type of Asia in some of the Egyptian drawings. Their chief weapons were a long straight sword, with a sharp point, and a bow. Champollion concluded the Rebo to have been the Parthians.

Mr. Wilkinson expresses himself unable to trace the Shairetana and the Tok-kari; I conceive, however, that their names and other circumstances serve to identify them with the Sogdians or Bucharians and the Turks, whose territories are intermingled. The name of the Tok-kari obviously resembles that of the Turks, and, according to Adelung, the Bucharians, from their dwelling in Towns, &c., are called Sarti, a name resembling that of the Shairetana. The Shairetana and Tok-kari revolted together against the Egyptians, and were again subdued. The Tok-kari used waggons with two solid wheels, and drawn by two oxen, which appear to have been placed in the rear as in the Scythian or Tartar armies. Their women are seen carrying off their children by drawing them into these waggons at the moment of defeat. These are traits characteristic of the Tartar race, of which the Turks are a branch. These nations were occasionally allied with the Egyptians both against the Scheti and the Rebo, which implies that their country was intermediate between that of the Parthians and the Tartars.

The Egyptian illustrations of Scriptural incidents and localities are of the highest interest:

Champollion found a portrait of a Hebrew, with all the features of the race, in a group consisting of the chiefs of thirty conquered nations, whom an Egyptian King is depicted dragging to the feet of the Theban Trinity. The name of the Egyptian King was phonetically written “Shishak,” the name of the Jewish captive was written “Joudaha Melek,” King of Judea or the Jews. (See I. Kings, 14 chap. 25 and 26 v.) This picture, as Mr. Tattam[121] observes, may be considered as a commentary on this chapter!

Portraits of Jews are frequent amongst the Egyptian remains. [pg 141] “The costume of these Jews is always the same. They wear their black bushy hair occasionally bound by a red fillet; but sometimes they wear hats not unlike the hats dramatically assigned to the Jews of the dark ages. They wear sandals, the military petticoat or philibeg, a baldric crossing one shoulder, a girdle, to which is attached a short sword or dagger, and when engaged in warlike operations, having the upper part of the body covered with a defensive coat, either of leather or armour, and wearing above the whole a tippet like the cape of a great coat. Independent of Phonetic language a mere glance at their lineaments shows that they are Jews!”[122]

The early development of the vast political power and high civilization of this extraordinary people corroborates the conclusion, that the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to a period sufficiently remote to render it extremely improbable that a close specific resemblance should have continued to exist between their language and those of the countries from which the first population of Egypt may have emigrated. This inference does not militate against the supposition that Egypt may have been first colonized from the contiguous Semetic or Syro-Phœnician regions of Judæa and Arabia.[123]

The literature of ancient Egypt forms a treasure as yet but imperfectly explored. “We possess,” says Dr. Lepsius, Hieratic MSS. as far back as the flourishing epoch of the eighteenth dynasty, (which began to reign B.C. 1575, i.e. eighty years before the departure of the Israelites,) and it is probable that this style was in use even earlier. We [pg 142] have MSS. on History, Astrology, Magic, “Registres de Comptabilities,” and especially a great quantity of MSS. on Funeral matters.

These remains are probably pregnant with information of the profoundest interest with regard to the early history of mankind! Further inquiries similar to those conducted by Dr. Lepsius with respect to the phases through which the Egyptian Tongue has passed, will probably bring to light numerous proofs of an increasing approximation in its most ancient specimens to the languages of Asia and also to those of the other regions of the continent of Africa. Even in the present state of our knowledge, I may point out that indications are not altogether wanting that the Hebrew and other Semetic Tongues in some respects appear to form a connecting link between the Egyptian and other African languages, on the one hand, and the Sanscrit and other languages, termed Indo-European, on the other. These indications occur not in the words but in the structure of the Semetic Tongues.

In explaining the origin of language, I have noticed that the basis or Root of the Noun and Verb is the same, while the requisite distinction between the different parts of speech is made by appropriate additions, as in the instance of the syllable Er, in Build-er.

It may be inferred that all additions now employed grammatically as prefixes or suffixes were in the first instance used indifferently either before or after the Root. But we find, in this respect, a marked difference between the Indo-European and the Egyptian Tongues. In the former, these grammatical agents are almost invariably placed after, while in the Egyptian they in some instances follow, and in others precede the Root. It will be evident, however, that these grammatical forms themselves are, in numerous important [pg 143] instances, the same in these two Classes of Tongues, and that it is only the order in which they are placed that is different. Thus, in forming the feminine from the masculine, the Egyptians used a prefix, Th, which forms a suffix in the Welsh, as in Son,[124] “A Brother,” Th-son, “A Sister,” (Egypt.) Gen-eth, “A Girl,” (Welsh.) Again, the Egyptian plural is formed by prefixing N, as in Phe, Heaven, singular; N Pheou, Heavens, plural, (Egypt.,) while in many of the Indo-European tongues plurals are often formed by subjoining N, as in Ox, Ox-en (Eng.), Ych, Ych-en (Welsh.), &c.

Now in the Hebrew, Chaldee, &c., though suffixes are employed in numerous instances, formative prefixes are also used, though not so generally as in the Egyptian, between which language and the Indo-European tongues the Semetic languages therefore occupy, in this respect, an intermediate place.

There is, I conceive, pretty distinct evidence that these characteristic peculiarities of the three classes of Tongues just adverted to are results of comparatively recent conventional changes. For a proof that the above noticed formative of the plural was at one time prefixed, as well as affixed, in the Indo-European Tongues,—see, as regards the Sanscrit, the word Nara, corresponding with the Egyptian, p. 129;—as regards the Welsh, see Appendix A, p. 38. On the other hand, Dr. Lepsius's researches have furnished me with a decisive example of an approximation in the ancient Egyptian to the Indo-European method. “In the age of Hieroglyphics,” he observes, “the feminine termination Th,” above noticed, “always follows, while in Coptic it always precedes the Noun.”

Changes of this nature may be considered trifling in themselves; [pg 144] but they will be found to afford an explanation, at once simple and comprehensive, of the most striking of those features which separate, by differences supposed to be fundamental, the languages of the Egyptian and Syro-Phœnician races from those of the other families of mankind. In grammatical arrangement the African languages are supposed for the most part to agree with the Egyptian.[125]

In physiological characteristics it has been very distinctly established, by the interesting researches of Dr. Prichard, that the Egyptian or Coptic race forms a connecting link between the contiguous Asiatic nations and the Negroes of the interior of Africa. It is worthy of remark, that Vater[126] notices the projection of the nether jaw, “Unterkiefer,” as a characteristic trait of the Jewish nation! It is observable that this is a point of approximation to the African nations!

“If we may form an idea,” says Dr. Prichard, “of the complexion of the Egyptians from the numerous paintings found in their temples, and in splendidly decorated tombs, in some of which the colours are known to be preserved in a very fresh state, we must conclude that this people were of a red-copper, or light chocolate colour, and that they resembled the reddest of the Fúlah and Kafir tribes now existing in Africa. This colour may be seen in the numerous plates in the ‘Description de l'Egypte,’ and in the coloured figures given by Belzoni. A similar complexion is represented on the heads of the cases made of the sycamore-wood, which answer the purpose of sarcophagi, and in almost all Egyptian figures. This red colour is evidently intended to represent the complexion of the people, and is not put on in the want of a lighter paint, or flesh-colour, for when the limbs or bodies are represented [pg 145] as seen through a thin veil, the tint used resembles the complexion of Europeans. The same shade might have been generally adopted if a darker one had not been preferred, as more truly representing the national complexion of the Egyptian race.[127] Female figures are sometimes distinguished by a yellow or tawny colour.”

“Speaking of the Copts, Volney says that they have a yellowish, dusky complexion, neither resembling the Grecian nor Arabian. He adds, that they have a puffed visage, swoln eyes, flat nose, and thick lips, and bear much resemblance to Mulattoes.” I have already cited Baron Larrey's description of the Copts, the principal traits of which are, “a full countenance, a long aperture of the eyelids—‘coupés en amand,’—projecting cheek-bones, dilated nostrils, thick lips, and hair and beard black and crisp. M. Pugnet, an intelligent physician and an ingenious and discriminating writer, has made an attempt to distinguish the Copts, or Qoubtes, as he terms them, into two divisions, those whose ancestry has been intermixed, and partly of Greek and Latin descent, and a class of purely Egyptian origin. He says that nothing is more striking than the contrast between the small and meagre Arabs and the large and fine stature of the Qoubtes. ‘A l'extérieur chêtif et misérable des premières, ceux-ci opposent un air de majesté et de puissance; à la rudesse de leurs traits, une affabilité soutenue; à leur abord inquiet et soucieux, une figure très épanouie.’ ”[128]

A few further examples of the connexion of the Egyptian with other languages are subjoined. O n h, “A Dwelling,” (Egypt.,) Wohn-ung, Wohn-en (German), Onh, “To live,” (Eg.,) Ōn (Greek.)—Shage, “A Word, a Discourse,” (Eg.,) [pg 146] Sage, Sag-en (German), Say (English). The “Sagas” of the Gothic nations are venerable Oral traditions!—Hinim, “Sleep,” (Eg.,) Heen (Welsh.)—Eshau, “A Sow, or Swine,” (Eg.,) Hus (Greek), Sow (Eng.)—Iri, “To do,” (Eg.,) a formative expressive of Action; Aud-ire, “To hear,” Ire, “To go,” (Lat.)—Ra.ma, “Lofty,” (Eg.,) R.ou.m (Hebrew.)—Phath, “Foot,” (Eg.,) Pes, Ped-is (Lat.), Path (Eng.)—E h e, “An Ox,” Ehēou, “Oxen,” (Eg.,) Ych, Ych-en (Welsh.)—Ma, “A Place,” (Eg.,) Ma (Welsh.)