age, especially in those of Karnac, and which evidently bear marks of the ancient Egyptian style. But the small number of these precious remains, and their state of mutilation, forbid the hope of finding upon them any important historic information; and there is reason to believe that the chronology of Manetho, deprived of support from the most ancient monuments, will always remain very uncertain in regard to whatever concerns the origin and early periods of the Egyptian monarchy.

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 the data transmitted 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 labors 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.

We here terminate this digression. Perhaps it has been tedious; but it seemed to us a necessary appendix to

our chronological observations. We shall now renew our former labor, and attempt new applications of Egyptian writings to the defence and interpretation of the sacred books.

CHAPTER VIII.

GEOGRAPHICAL OBSERVATIONS.

Egyptian name of the city of Heliopolis. City of Rameses. Land of Rameses. Advantages to sacred learning from researches in the country of Goshen. City of Taphnis. City called in the Hebrew text NoAmon, etc.

The intimate connection of the history, of the people of God with that of Egypt, renders the geography of the ancient land of Mizraïm* very important to sacred criticism. No one can doubt, but that the multiplied and daily increasing means for the study of ancient Egypt, must exert much influence upon this part of historic science, and add to the fruits of geographical labor. Already even, many facts which have been brought to light by the new discoveries, when connected with certain passages of the Bible, furnish new data on some parts of

* It is by this name that Egypt is usually designated in the text of the Old Testament (). Its probable derivation is from the son of Ham, who is called in the Vulgate Mesraim, the Hebrew name of which is written like that of Egypt. In the Coptic language this country is usually called XH (Hemi), and this name in

which may be found that of the second son of Noah, relates to the expression land of Ham, which is applied sometimes in Scripture to Egypt (Psalms civ. 23, 27; cv. 22, et alibi).

the biblical geography of Egypt, or afford new support to certain opinions of critics, which heretofore could only be regarded in the light of simple conjectures. It will be our object to make applications of this kind in the present chapter.

1. In the narrative of the marriage of Joseph, and of the priesthood of his father-in-law (Gen. xli. 45), mention is made of an Egyptian city, which is called in the Vulgate, Heliopolis. The Septuagint in this passage uses the same denomination, Hhiov nós, which signifies city of the Sun; a name given to it likewise by the profane writers of antiquity. There is reason to believe that this name, which is entirely Grecian, passed from the Alexandrine version into the Vulgate. But it could not be found in the original text, because it was not until many centuries after Moses, under the domination of the Grecian kings who were the successors of Alexander, that Egypt beheld the primitive names of all its cities exchanged for new names given them, which were borrowed from the language of the conquerors. The Hebrew gives to the city of Heliopolis the name of On, which is written in two different ways, 78 or jis. The same name ", is adopted in another passage of the Septuagint Version (Exodus i. 11), where it is enumerated among the treasure-cities built by the children of Israel. But this is an addition to the Hebrew text which is not found in the Vulgate, but which the Coptic version adopts in preserving the name Wrt

We can very easily perceive in this name as preserved by Moses, and of which the Hebrew does not indicate the signification, the old Egyptian name of the city now in question; and we may suppose with much probability that the name city of the Sun, which was afterwards given it by the Greeks, was but a literal translation

of this primitive denomination. It was substituted with a knowledge of its meaning, in a version which (having been executed according to the orders of the king, and by men who possessed so extensive means of being acquainted with Egypt), seemed to promise much correctness in this kind of details. Such a conjecture is supported by the Hebrew text of the prophet Jeremiah. In a passage which has been generally understood as relating to the city of Heliopolis (xliii. 13), he calls it in, an expression which the Vulgate renders literally by domus solis, house of the sun, thus proving in our view, the antiquity of this significant name. Champollion says concerning the city of Heliopolis; "It is always designated in Coptic writings by the word W On, which the Hebrew texts write is. In the Coptic version of the Old Testament, Heliopolis is constantly called Wst or WN BAKI, the city of On, or sometimes, On which is the city of the Sun. This last passage seems to indicate, that in the Egyptian language UN signifies sun; and St. Cyrill, in his commentary upon Hosea, assures us that “Ων δέ εστι κατ' αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος, On signi fies the sun among the Egyptians. There is in fact no doubt that the word Ut has close and striking relations with the Egyptian roots or to open, to make clear, Orue light, and OruNZ, to appear, to show itself, to manifest itself.*

These conjectures (if so they must still be called), which originated chiefly with the learned Jablonski,†

* See L'Égypte sous les Pharaons (tom. 11. p. 41); a work which we shall have frequent occasion to cite.

† See his Pantheon Egyptiacum (part 1. p. 137), and his Opuscula (tom. 1. p. 184), a treasure of learning, which is very important on many accounts in the study of ancient Egypt.

are now confirmed by a fact we have already related, viz. the discovery of the Egyptian name

(Petephre), which Champollion found upon a funereal manuscript belonging to M. Calliaud. Whoever may be the personage of ancient Egypt to whom this monument is consecrated, it is certain that it exhibits the well known name of the Egyptian father of Asenath and the fatherin-law of the patriarch Joseph, who is called in the Sep

tuagint and Coptic versions Πετεφρή, Πετεφρή,

the orthography of each of these translations being strictly identical with that of the papyrus. We are informed in Gen. xli. 45, that this Petephre or Putiphare as he is called in the Vulgate [i. e. Potiphar], was the priest of On, Heliopolis, or the city of the Sun. Now the elements of this Egyptian name, formed by a grammatical analysis, signify literally, he who is, or who belongs to Phre or Re, i. e. the sun. No more appropriate name, then, could be assigned to a man who was clothed with the priesthood of this divinity; and we may suppose it was given him as indicative of his functions, or at least of his special devotedness to the deified sun. At all events, the striking analogy between the name of the priest and of the god, must convince us that the name of is, given by the Hebrew text to the city where Potiphar exercised his priesthood, is truly the primitive name of this ancient Egyptian city, and that the authors of the Greek and Latin versions have rendered correctly in adopting the more modern Greek name Ηλίου πόλις, i. e. city of the Sun.*

2. Among the labors to which the Hebrews were sub

* Jablonski reasons in a very similar manner (Opusc. tom. I. p. 203); but Champollion has fortified his opinion by the authority of a

monument.