historical fragments of the Assyrian or Baby Ionian history
belonging to the Semitic race, the Hindoo fable has a close
parallel in the story Of Xisuthrus and his floods and the fish*-
god Oàniies. I am aware that some critics, and particularly
Eichhorn, have considered the fragments of Berosus preserved
by Josephus, Abÿdènu's and Alexander Polyhistbr to
be spurious)# but it is highly improbable that such a coincidence
should arise from chance, and the Purana gives strong
testimony to the genuineness of the Chaldean story, which
approaches somewhat more nearly to theScriptural account
of the Noachian deluge. This agreement is sufficient to con-
nect without the least mixture of doubt the history of the
Semitic and Indian races, both of which commence or rather
recommence with these remarkable accounts of the same
event. Both of these nations deduce their origin* according
to ancient historical accounts preserved separately among
themr and handed down through totally different channels of
tradition, from parents who are said to have survived an otherwise
universal destruction.
The circumstance that the Semitic nations, as well as the
most anciently civilized of the Indo-European racé, commence
their history or genealogy with this narrative eOmmOri to both
in its leading facts as well as in its fabulotis embellishments,
is the mere important as the languages of the two racés me
distinct and belong to two great branches of human idioms.
To this consideration I shall again hâve occasion to. advert.
S e c t io n III.—Of the Antiquity of the Egyptians.
The records of the Egyptians carry us back nearly to the
same period as do those of the Hindoos when reduced to their
original state, for the commencement of monarchy and the
origin; of historical documents. Previously to the reigns of
kings, as recorded in the beginning of the Egyptian annals, we
find the reigns of Vulcan and the Sun, and other elements of
material nature personified. To these succeeded heroes and
* Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Theil. i.
dejmigods,;whri?U5e|c:|:i'their offspring, as among the Hindoos,
and ,tjiey. are followed vjtty kings of mortal birth, the reign
of the first;kings being evidently tffe initial period of all history.
But this/.era, has bfeut variously stated, The Egyptian
annals of Manetho appear ed assume ,a< period of prodigious
antiqpi^^ifor the commencement q£ his series bf thirty dy»
nasties. The: hypotheses that -Egypt. Contained many independent
kingdoms-, and that seyeral-pfftffese.-dynasties ruled
Ipnioltaneou^ly over different hypothetically
Hy Marsham and others for i the sake of; toduel&grfthej^ura-
tion of the Egyptian state, is contrary to "all historical tradition
respecting, thisfoountry; but I hafbiendeavopred to-show
that Manetho’s Chronicle was1 constructed,.^perhaps ■ by mistake,
from the Combination into one whole of many; different
records or tables- of kings, ‘which, though apparently succes-
gbp, nan be s|rowm by internal eyidencerto contain repetitions
of the same serie§s^| By a comparison of ;Manetho’s work
with the Theban table Of Eratosthenes, we find satisfactory
data for fixing the origin of the Egyptian monarchyas.de-,
duced from. these documents in the twenty-fourth century
before our era. It would be too far from my -present -subject,
of inquiry to recapitulate the arguments from which this conclusion
has been deduced, and I must refer my readers, >if any
of them should wish to examine it, to my'analysis-of the
remains of Egyptian chronology.
We thus trace, nearly to the same period, the. existence of
two nations, bearing in their moral characteristics, and in the
fact that they have similar religions and civil- institutions,
marks of an ancient relationship whiqfo can hardlyibe mistaken.
Many circumstances would lead us to presume that
an early affinity or connexion in origin and -descent existed
between the Egyptians and the Indians. Before we can proceed
further into this inquiry, it will be necessary to advert
to the history of the Egyptian language.