Martin, Rask, Burnouf, Lassen, and Westergaard; the possession of the major portion
of the folio plates and texts of Botta, Flandin and Coste, Layard, Texier, &c.; a d the
inspection of what of Assyrian sculptures were in London and Paris during 1849 j (221)
~ our views uPon Assy™-Babylonian writings take their departure and are derived from
the series at foot, appended in the order of our studies. (222)
Egyptian hieroglyphical discoveries had long ago revealed the fact that, as early at least
as Thotmes I I I, of the XVIIIth dynasty, about the sixteenth century b. g., the Pharaohs
had overrun “ Naharina,” or Mesopotamia, with their armies. Accepted, like all
new truths, with hesitation, since Rosellini’s promulgation of the data in 1832; or at first
entirely denied by cuneatic discoverers, who claimed a primeval epoch for the sculptures
of Nineveh and Babylon; nothing at tips day is more positively .fixed in historical science
than these Egyptian conquests over “ Nineveh” and “ Babel,” at least three centuries before
Derceto (the earliest monarch recorded in cuneiform inscriptions) lived; assuming Layard’s
last view to be correct, (223) that he flourished about b*. c . 1250. At foot we present the
order in which an inquirer may investigate the discoveries that have finally set these questions
atrest; (224) while the following extracts from Rawlinson will render further douhts
irrelevant: —
“ That the employment of the Cuneiform character originated in Assyria, while the system,
of writing to which it was adapted was borrowed from Egypt, will hardly admit of question:
. . . the whole structure of the Assyrian graphic system evidently betrays an Egyptian
origin. . . . The whole system, indeed, of homophones is essentially Egyptian.” (225)
It is upon such data that, without adducing other reasons derived from personal studies,
we have made the earliest Semitic stream of our Table flow outwards from Egypt into
ancient Mesopotamia — assigning the period of its Eastward flux, according to well-known
conditions in Egyptian history, as bounded by the Xllth and XVIIIth dynasties: that
is, between the twenty-second and sixteenth century b . o. ; — which age, placed parallel
with Archbishop Usher’s scheme of biblical chronology, implies from a little before Abraham
down to the birth of Moses. No Egyptologist will contest this view: the opinions of those
who deny, without acquaintance with the works submitted, are “ vox et praeterea nihil.”
(221) Three Archaeological Lectures, on “ Babylon, Nineveh, and Persepolis,” delivered before the Lyceum of
the, 2d Municipality at New Orleans; 6th, 9th, 13th April, 1852; by G. R. G.
(222) Botta: Lettres à M.Mohl; Paris, 1845 ; - f De Longpérier and De Saulcy, in Rev. Archéol. ; 1844-1852;—
Lowenstern; Essai te Déchiffrement te V Écriture Assyrienne; Paris, 1845; — Botta: Sur VÉcriture Cunéiforme;
1849 ;— Rawlinson: Tablet o f Béhistwn; 1846; — and Commentary on Cuneiform, Inscriptions; 1850; — Hincks:
On the Three kinds ofPersepolitan Writing ; Trans. R. Irish Acad., 1847 ; — N o r r i s : Memoir on the Scythic Version
of the Behistun Inscription; and Rawlinson’s communications; in Jour. R. Asiat. Soc., 1853; xv. part 1. Many
other works upon this speciality, no less than upon the writings of every historical nation of antiquity, are
cited in the manuscripts, we suppress for lack of space. But, by anticipation of their future appearance, it
would be injustice to an author “ qui a puisé à des bonnes sources,” not to recommend earnestly to the sincere
inquirer after truth, a perusal of the first and only work in the English language which has grasped this vast
subject in a manner commensurate with the progress of science. • It arrived at the Philadelphia Library, and
was kindly pointed out to us by our accomplished friend Mr. Lloyd P. Smith, after our own “ Table ” was already
stereotyped. We have read it with admiration; and although upon three points, the hieroglyphical, the cuneiform,
and especially the Hebrew, we might .suggest, a. few..critical — that is to say, more rigidly chronological—sub-
stitutions; yet, upon the whole performance we are happy to offer the warm commendations of a fellow-student.
The reader will find it, in the meanwhile, an excellent adjunct to our “ Table” ; and the following extracts,
with an interlineary commentary, suffice to indicate that Mr. Humphrey’s views and our own differ upon but
a single point: — “ The world has now possessed a purely alphabetic system of writing for 3000 years or more
[say rather, about 300 years less], and iconographie systems for more than 3000 years longer [say, considerably
more}.. . . . There can be little doubt that the art of writing grew up independently in many countries having
no communication with each other [entirely agreed]” : (vide H e n r y N o e l H um p h r e y s : The Origin and Progress
o f Che Art o f Writing; London, 1853; pp. 1, 3'
(223) Babylon; 2d Ex.; 1853; p. 623.
(224) Letrohhe: La Oimlisalim Égyptienne ; pp. 1-55; Extrait de la Bevuo dos Doux Mondes; Eel), April,
1845;— B ir c h ; Statistical Tablet o f Karnac ; - Olelisk o f Thotmes HI.; and on Two Cartouches found at Nim-
road; Trans. E. Soc. l i t , 1846-’48; — Guddon: Otia; p. 103;'—L a y a rd : Nineveh; 1848; ii. pp. 153-235; —
Sharpe, in Bmomis Nineveh; pp. ; — Layard: Babylon; 1853; pp. 163-169, 186-190, 280-282, 630; —
and, particularly, Birch : Annals o f Thotmes III. ; London Archceologia, x x x y , 1853 ; p. 160, &c.
(225) Commentary ; 1850; pp. 4-6.
Scholars, guided by the hooks cited for. justificatory details, will find little to alter in the
general features of these several alphabetical streams as their respective monumental rooks
first pierce through the mists of traditionary history : except’ in one direction ; viz. :
where we have made & Semitic rivulet (probably through-Chaldtean channels) commingle
with “ Abian elements” in Hindostán.’ “ Indology” will protest against profaning the
sanctified soil of Indra and Brahma with the mere “ tail-race ” of a Semitic pond, originally
filled by the Nile ! Shades of Wilford, Faber, Hales, and spirit of Edgar Quinet ! In Germany,
appeal will at once he made to’Von Bohlen ! In Wales, to Arthur James Johnes,
Esq. 1 (226) Does not every body know, it will be said, that primordial civilization (unceremoniously
kicked out of Ethiopic,Meroe.by Lepsius,) first dawned upon the Ganges ? that
Memphis, (if not also Palenque, and Copan,) received her holiest Penates at the hands of
Siva, Vishnu, Bhairava, Cfishna, or any other Indian Deity a pundit may invent ? (227)
With all deference, after the first horrors excited by onr outrage shall have calmed
down into philosophical contempt, we beg to offer a quotation : —
“ The people of Hindostán and the ancient nations of Europe came in contact at a single
point. The. expedition of Alexander the Great begins, and in some sort ends, their con-
nexion. Even of this event, so recent and remarkable, the Hindus have no record; they
have not even a tradition that can with certainty be traced to it.” (228)
Our author, who stands out in bold relief among th e Sanscrit scholars of England, wonders
at the credulity of those who reject Chaldman and Egyptian antiquity to worship Hin-
dostanie ; administering stern rebukes to writers who trust in the “ absurdity of Hindu statements,”—
a people utterly “ destitute of historical records.”
The same historian, in Notes on the Mudra Ráhshaná, says ■ •
“ It may not here be out of place to offer a few observations on the identification of
Chandragupta and Sandracottus. It is the only point on which we can rest with anything lilte
Confidence in the history of the Hindus, and is therefore of vital importance in all our attempts
to reduce the reigns of their kings to a rational and consistent chronology.”
Tumour, (229) sums up his review of Hindoo literature with saying, —
“ That there does not now exist an authentic, connected, and chronologically-oorrect Hindoo
history; and that the absence of that history proceeds, not from original deficiency of
historical data, hut from the systematic perversion of those data adopted to work out the
monstrous scheme upon which Hindoo faith is based.”
The'preoeding extracts, we hope, may serve to break the fall of huge Indianist edifices
from the highest peak of the Himalaya to a level hut lit'tle expected by general readers.
That we are not altogether freshmen in these Hindoo demolitions may he inferred from a
passage, printed five years ago, which we now take the liberty of repeating, with its Italian
preface : —
“ Cadono le città, cadono i regni,
E Tuoni d’esser mortai par che si sdegni ! ” (230)
“ That the peninsula of Hindostán, thronged with varied populations, possessed great
Empires and a high state of culture, in ages parallel with the earliest monuments of Egypt
and China, upon whose civilizations India exerted, and from which she experienced influences,
in the flux and reflux of Humanity’s progressive development, no one, nisi imperitas,
(226) Philological Proofs o f the Original Unity and Recent Origin o f the Human Pace; London, 1846; pp. 131-
183. Tor “Golto-mania,” this work out-Herods Beihaji’s! We can only observe with Chajipoiiiom (L’Ugypte
sous les Phmrams, 1814), of a philologist who derived the Greek name of Egypt from the Gaelic dialects of Lower
Brittany — “ Certainly, even admitting that the Greeks spoke Bas-hriton, there is some distance from Aigupios
to Ecou^rveip
(227) P r ic h a r d : Egyptian Mythohgy; 1819; p. 35, 'seq.; — H e e r e n : Hist. Res., Indian Nations. '
(228) W i l s o n : History o f British India; 1840; “ Chronology and History of the Hindus;” i., book 2, ch 1
pp. 163-169.
(229) Author of the “ Buddhist Pali Historical Annals of Ceylon,” called Mdhawanso, “Royal Chronicles” ;
compiled f r om earlier sources in a . d. 302: if not later.
(230) M e t a s t a s io : paraphrase of S. Sulpicius’s Letter to Cicero; epist. v. lib. 4. The second line has been
atterly rhymed — “E nel cader un c*****n par che si sdegni.” The English is — “ Cities fall, kingdoms fall •
an<^ (y°t) man seems to scorn that he is mortal 1 ”