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 Sun | R.ha. | Ra. |
| Day | H.rou. | Hour. |
| The Sea | Imo. | Iom. |
| A Swine | R.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.