of Moses, like that of Joseph, has exercised the acuteness of the learned to no purpose. Jablonski, whom we have cited and shall often have occasion to cite, derives the name of Moses from the Egyptian words u Orxe, the first of which signifies water, and the second has the meaning, to save (Opusc. tom. 1. p. 52). Josephus also says that μov, in the Egyptian language, signifies water (Cont. App. 1. 31). It is to be regretted that the new discoveries afford us no positive information about these two important names; but we may hope that fresh researches, and analogies observed with caution, will one day enable men more capable than ourselves to illustrate these and other details, in a satisfactory and lucid manner. Limiting our literary ambition to a simple Essay, we terminate here what we have to say upon this (in our opinion the most obscure) part of Egyptian antiquities that relate to the Bible.

CHAPTER III.

HISTORICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

Name of Pharaoh given to the kings of Egypt. Utility of the labors of Champollion Figeac. Pharaohs cotemporary with Abraham,-with Joseph. Pharaoh the oppressor of the Hebrews. Pharaoh the enemy of Moses.

THE various relations which for a long period placed the Hebrews in contact with Egypt, have occasioned many names of its kings to be mentioned in the Old Testament, and the history of these monarchs is closely connected

with that of the people of God. This subject will now occupy us; and we shall attempt to illustrate the sacred annals, by means of historical and chronological data which we owe chiefly to the discoveries of the Champollions.

1. Some of the kings in Scripture, are designated by names very analogous to those given them by the Greek historians of Egypt, though still in certain respects very different. But others have no proper name to distinguish them. The title of Pharaoh simply is given in the Scriptures,

, ago. This generic denomination is not found among ancient authors, and it is peculiar to the sacred books. But all writers now admit that it was employed to designate the sovereigns of Egypt anterior to the Lagidæ, who were called the Ptolemies. It would be interesting, doubtless, to know the just origin and signification of this name adopted by the sacred writers; but all examination here has proved fruitless.

Evidently we cannot find any source of this word in profane antiquity, because the biblical name Pharaoh appears not to have been known to the Greek and Roman writers, if we judge from those of their works which have come down to us. The ancient ecclesiastical authors, among whom this Scripture word frequently occurs, furnish hardly any useful data with regard to it. The most positive testimony concerning it, is in the works of Josephus, the Jewish historian, and of Julius Africanus. Josephus assures us (viii. Antiq. vi. 2)* that during an

* Josephus seems to believe, that the denomination Pharaoh ceased to be used in Egypt after the father in law of Solomon. The ground of this belief, doubtless, was the fact that the Scripture gives proper names to the kings of that country which it describes after this epoch. But it is a great mistake, to conclude from this fact that they did not also bear the name of Pharaoh. The historical books give it to Necho and to Hophra, and the prophets make use of it in many places.

interval of more than thirteen centuries, this name was borne by all the sovereigns of Egypt, who took it when they mounted the throne, even though they were in their minority; he adds that this name is Egyptian, and that it signifes king; ὁ Φαραὼν κατ' Αίγυπτίους βασιλέα σημαίνει. Africanus, cited by Eusebius in his Greek Chronicon (ed. Scaliger, 1658, p. 20), expresses a similar opinion about the word Φαραώ· Οὕτω γὰρ Αἰγύπτιοι τοὺς βασιλεις équnvεvovoi. He gives, like Josephus, no farther account. Many Latin Fathers also have investigated this word, among whom is Isidorus of Seville (Origin. vii. 6). They repeat the same observations which we have noted, and add nothing new.

In the absence of all positive documents, modern writers could only conjecture more or less ingeniously. Some have pretended that the name of the Pharaohs related to a place well known in Egypt, Dagos, i. e. the island of Pharos. Bochart believes that Pharaoh signifies a crocodile, and he explains it by the celebrated passage in Ezekiel (xxix. 3); Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, etc. Others have believed it to be derived from the Hebrew verb, which, used also in the Chaldee, has there the meaning to avenge. According to this analogy, which appears to us altogether fortuitous, the name will signify the avenger, a title which to a certain extent applies to a king. But it would be more natural, in our estimation, to trace back the origin of an Egyptian term in the Coptic idiom, the only idiom which preserves a part of the ancient Egyptian language. Unfortunately but little progress has been made here. Masoudy, an Arabian historian quoted by Quatremère,* relates that he consulted many well instructed Copts, in

* Recherches sur la langue et la littérature de l Égypte, p. 35.

Said and in other parts of Egypt, about the signification of the word Pharaoh; but they could not explain its sense, and he sought for it in vain in their language. Masoudy flourished about the fourth century of the Mahommedan epoch, which corresponds to the tenth of our own; and from this period, sources of information on this subject have diminished and difficulties have increased. Jablonski however was not retarded in his examination by the authority of the Arabian writer. He pretends to find the origin of the title given by Scripture to the monarchs of Egypt, in the Egyptian root orpo, king, and with the masculine article П, Поро, the king; from which by contraction is made Пoро or oрo; and in the Theban dialect, Пррo and oppo, or eppo.*

The Abbe Renaudot adopted, after him, the same opinion.† Champollion has found that the word orpo, and with the article oро, is the Egyptian name of the serpent Urous, which is pointed out on all the monuments as a characteristic sign of Egyptian sovereigns. This is a singular congruity; and it seems to explain the true signification of the title Pharaoh, and the reason why this symbol is placed upon the royal head-dresses.

2. Whatever is the solution of this philological problem (which may receive fuller explanation when Egyptian studies are more advanced), it is nevertheless certain, that the union of Egyptian kings under a common name has occasioned much obscurity in that portion of Scripture relating to Egyptian history; and thus it has become very difficult to recognize among the various Pharaohs men

* Jablonskii Opusc., word agaó, tom. 1. pp. 374-376.

† Dissertatio de linguâ Copticâ, tom. 1.; Liturgiarum orientialium, p. 127.

tioned in the Bible, those princes whose names have been preserved by Greek or Roman historians. It is chiefly in clearing up these weighty difficulties, that the discoveries and chronological labors of the Champollions will be of great assistance.

It is known that Champollion Figeac, who is collecting in a work the materials daily furnished from the rich mine explored by his brother, has succeeded in restoring nearly all the vast edifice of Egyptian dynasties. This he has effected by means of royal names inscribed upon the monuments; and his result corresponding with the lists of Manetho, has reëstablished their authority, which had before been very questionable among the moderns. His labors and the hieroglyphic legends upon which they have been employed, lead us to notice that part of the history and chronology of the Pharaohs which relates to the Scriptures, and afford us, at the same time, new truths on the subject. But it was not sufficient to have found upon the monuments the lists of Manetho as they were preserved by his abbreviators, and to learn the official names (so to speak) of the Pharaohs; it was necessary also to determine the epochs of their reigns, of which historians have only related the duration. Without this new result, the former results would have been insufficient, and existing simply as objects of curiosity, they would have had no real application to history. Champollion Figeac has executed this important service. By the portions he has selected from two writers of antiquity, he has placed in our hands a thread which will guide us in the labyrinths of Egyptian chronology; he has determined with certainty the date of the reign of Menophres, the third king of the nineteenth dynasty. To make this more satisfactory, we must enter into a few details; and without attempting to follow all his calculations (for which we refer the reader